It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Medium is Propagating Electromagnetic Waves?

page: 17
19
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So to my science fiction soaked brain... that sounds a little like if we could actually describe a singularity (or replace the description with a better one), we may be able to theorize of something like a wormhole.

Or I could just be delusionally hopeful!

Also, it does have a certain romanticism to it... that the theorized aether of antiquity (or a modern version of it) actually may be pivotal to understanding the fabric of reality, and allowing us to explore the stars!
edit on 19-7-2019 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 02:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So to my science fiction soaked brain... that sounds a little like if we could actually describe a singularity (or replace the description with a better one), we may be able to theorize of something like a wormhole.
Yes I also expect one benefit of a unified theory of everything would likely be to improve our wormhole physics. The US taxpayers funded a paper written on wormholes as part of the AAWSA (Advanced Aerospace Weapon Systems Applications) program. The author thinks we're not that far from being able to make traversable wormholes, and the rest of the scientific community thinks he's what you could politely call "overly optimistic". Some people can think of less polite terms to call it, but it's a fun read:

Traversable Wormholes, Stargates, and Negative Energy.

By the way I updated my previous post to include a clarification about whether gravity can be a real force.

edit on 2019719 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So what you're saying is that relativity doesn't "know" if gravity is a real force, but it does "know" that it is indistinguishable from a fictitious force, so assumes it is a fictitious force unless we can show otherwise?

And for the person in the box, gravity/spaceship acts like a real force... (ie. they could hurt themselves if they fall over).

Can we include "knowledge" in our frame of reference?

So if the person in the box doesn't know about relativity, and all of a sudden has a need to start dropping apples... can they treat gravity/apparent gravity as a real force, to calculate their apple dropping requirements?
edit on 19-7-2019 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-7-2019 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Haha... thanks for that... I only gave it a quick scan but looks like a hoot! Good golden throne reading!

I see maybe a couple unanswered questions in there... but geez... he sold me!.. where can I sign up to provide a "... focused, sustained level of long term research support"... lol!

Just "zap" a region of space with a high powered negative energy beam... BAM! Wormhole!... too bad Einstein didn't provide instructions.



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So what you're saying is that relativity doesn't "know" if gravity is a real force, but it does "know" that it is indistinguishable from a fictitious force, so assumes it is a fictitious source unless we can show otherwise?
Not exactly.

Relativity makes an assumption as part of the theory, called the equivalence principle, that gravity is indistinguishable from a fictitious force. So far, measurements have not made any distinction so we can say measurements to date are consistent with the assumption, which is still being tested at higher energies near very massive objects.


And for the person in the box, gravity/spaceship acts like a real force... (ie. they could hurt themselves if they fall over).
Substitute "apparent" for "real". Apparent means you can measure it and get hurt if you fall etc, but "real" has a specific meaning that isn't really met since it has all the hallmarks of a fictitious force. In fact did you ponder how gravity seems to either disappear or be cancelled out if your reference frame is in a free falling elevator? You don't experience gravity in that reference frame, which was a key to Einstein developing his theory. It's the idea on the left side of this graphic.




Can we include "knowledge" in our frame of reference?
The astronauts in the ISS have knowledge that they are in a gravity field of about 0.9G, but their knowledge of that doesn't change their experience, which seems to be either "zero-G" or so close to it that it can be referred to as "microgravity".


So if the person in the box all of a sudden has a need to start dropping apples... can they treat gravity/apparent gravity as a real force, to calculate their apple dropping requirements?
The force doesn't need to be real for that. A fictitious force is an apparent force that can be measured, so calling it fictitious doesn't mean it's not measurable. The graphic above shows Einstein standing on the scale on the right side, so the force is being measured by the scale or by the acceleration of the ball he drops, whether on the accelerating spaceship or on the Earth's surface.

edit on 2019719 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 03:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Yes I do get that about Einstein in the elevator, which is why I brought in the idea of lack of knowledge of relativity, and apologies if I seeming to be obtuse... but if we are still testing relativity at higher energies, then currently we don't know for absolute certain if it is a fictitious force, right?... even if it does very much look that way.

I am asking, because I have read a fair bit and know of the equivalence principal and "gravity being indistinguishable from a fictitious force", yet I thought that currently we do still view gravity as a force generally because it had not been ultimately confirmed.

(Sorry, not my area of expertise... though it interests me... and I do like to know at least basic best current thinking on these things).

So can we say definitively that gravity isn't a force?

Or is the best we can currently say is that gravity is indistinguishable from a fictitious force. (Which feels non-committal to whether gravity is or isn't a force, definitively, even if it is measurable).
edit on 19-7-2019 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 03:51 AM
link   
How refreshing to have a troll free page in this thread. Lots of food for thought here, although it is making my brain hurt a bit.



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 04:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Just thinking of this in terms of planetary and galactic scales... If gravity isn't a force, what causes accretion of planets, stars, galaxies, orbits, etc.?

Where is the universal acceleration coming from that makes mass coalesce if not gravity as a force? The aether?

At it's simplest, isn't gravity just the mutual attraction between any two masses? One of the four fundamental forces? (Weak attraction, Strong Attraction, Electromagnetism and Gravity)?
edit on 19-7-2019 by puzzlesphere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 04:37 AM
link   
a reply to: puzzlesphere
a reply to: puzzlesphere
At this point I would recommend reading the "force" section of Feynman's physics lectures which are free online.

You are trying to force a binary distinction and the topic of "what is a force" is not so binary.

At a simplistic level, we teach students of physics many simple concepts, such as that there are four fundamental forces, of which gravity is one. So we still teach that gravity is a force at lower levels. But like many other concepts we teach in high school physics, when you take higher level courses in physics, you hear this a lot: The "physics you learned in high school was using simplified concepts, but now we will explore more complicated views which are not so simple, and which may indicate that what you learned was not exactly correct".

One reason for this approach is that it doesn't help to explain the more esoteric concepts to high school physics students if they don't have the background to understand the more difficult concepts. So I think it's important to understand the underlying concepts.

So first, let's look at what Feynman says about force which is certainly true, and it poses a problem for you in trying to pin down an answer to the question about whether gravity is a force or not.

www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu...

The student may object, “I do not like this imprecision, I should like to have everything defined exactly; in fact, it says in some books that any science is an exact subject, in which everything is defined.” If you insist upon a precise definition of force, you will never get it! First, because Newton’s Second Law is not exact, and second, because in order to understand physical laws you must understand that they are all some kind of approximation.


So when you really get into the details, if it's not possible to precisely define "force", doesn't that make it difficult to say whether something is a force or not?

Here is Feynman's explanation:

One very important feature of pseudo forces is that they are always proportional to the masses; the same is true of gravity. The possibility exists, therefore, that gravity itself is a pseudo force. Is it not possible that perhaps gravitation is due simply to the fact that we do not have the right coordinate system? After all, we can always get a force proportional to the mass if we imagine that a body is accelerating. For instance, a man shut up in a box that is standing still on the earth finds himself held to the floor of the box with a certain force that is proportional to his mass. But if there were no earth at all and the box were standing still, the man inside would float in space. On the other hand, if there were no earth at all and something were pulling the box along with an acceleration g, then the man in the box, analyzing physics, would find a pseudo force which would pull him to the floor, just as gravity does.

Einstein put forward the famous hypothesis that accelerations give an imitation of gravitation, that the forces of acceleration (the pseudo forces) cannot be distinguished from those of gravity; it is not possible to tell how much of a given force is gravity and how much is pseudo force.

It might seem all right to consider gravity to be a pseudo force, to say that we are all held down because we are accelerating upward, but how about the people in Madagascar, on the other side of the earth—are they accelerating too? Einstein found that gravity could be considered a pseudo force only at one point at a time, and was led by his considerations to suggest that the geometry of the world is more complicated than ordinary Euclidean geometry. The present discussion is only qualitative, and does not pretend to convey anything more than the general idea. To give a rough idea of how gravitation could be the result of pseudo forces, we present an illustration which is purely geometrical and does not represent the real situation. Suppose that we all lived in two dimensions, and knew nothing of a third. We think we are on a plane, but suppose we are really on the surface of a sphere. And suppose that we shoot an object along the ground, with no forces on it. Where will it go? It will appear to go in a straight line, but it has to remain on the surface of a sphere, where the shortest distance between two points is along a great circle; so it goes along a great circle. If we shoot another object similarly, but in another direction, it goes along another great circle. Because we think we are on a plane, we expect that these two bodies will continue to diverge linearly with time, but careful observation will show that if they go far enough they move closer together again, as though they were attracting each other. But they are not attracting each other—there is just something “weird” about this geometry. This particular illustration does not describe correctly the way in which Einstein’s geometry is “weird,” but it illustrates that if we distort the geometry sufficiently it is possible that all gravitation is related in some way to pseudo forces; that is the general idea of the Einsteinian theory of gravitation.


edit on 2019719 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 06:12 AM
link   
a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Thank you! Best post of the thread!



originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
AntonGonist my friend,

I really enjoyed reading this thread. I am glad you have not given up, because I traveled the same path as you and discovered things beyond imagination. It takes a solid combination of philosophy, logic, reason, and science to reach the truth. Unfortunately, some only use science.

This thread is a classic example of the hurdles one must go through to discover the truth. You will get people who think they know, but they really don't, but it doesn't stop them from talking down to you, and taking a false position of authority. They even avoid answering your questions and tell you to read a book, meaning, they don't know and they can't admit it.

It's funny to watch people say light can travel/propagate through a vacuum. They don't realize a perfect vacuum is defined as being void of all matter and energy. That means, as soon as light enters this perfect vacuum, it is no longer a perfect vacuum. That is because light is energy, and a vacuum is supposed to be void of energy. Therefore, light can't exist in a vacuum, because the existence of light defines the opposite of a vacuum. You see? I am sure you do. Congrats, this is the point other minds short circuit and default back to some learned response that takes them in circles. After all, a short circuit is a closed loop, a short one.

The truth is, there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum. There is no such thing as "nothingness". Some energy will always exist in whatever area you claim is a perfect vacuum. In fact, you can't prove an area is a perfect vacuum without measuring it, and the act of measuring it destroys the vacuum. In reality, nothingness does not exist. As soon as you define "nothingness" it becomes "something". However, in mathematics it exists, its defined as zero. There is even debate on what zero really means. But, just because we can define it doesn't mean it exists. It only exists as a concept. This is where the fun starts...

Many believe the fabric of reality started at 0 (nothingness) and then formed into the seemingly vast and infinite space we observe (something). What really happened is the fabric of reality started at 1 (something), and it was divided into infinite parts (a lot of somethings). This paragraph is more important than you can imagine, because you know very well you can't get something from nothing.

Since we can't ignore the illusion of duality - if "something" exists we intuitively assume the opposite exists called "nothingness". That idea of duality stems from math. If we say 1 exists we assume we can subtract 1 to end up with 0. That is not how reality works. Reality started with 1 and was divided infinitely. You can subtract all you want, but there will always be one infinitely small piece left. That small piece must remain because there is nothing else around to subtract it. Think about that a bit longer.

By now you should see the fine line between existing and not existing. Nothing and something. The great paradox of reality. The ultimate question. You might conclude this alludes to the existence of "something" that both "exists" and "not exists" simultaneously. If you made it this far, good. Lets move ahead...

You are right. Light is a wave, and it does require "something" to propagate. Maxwell and other greats like Tesla were capable of so much because they knew this with certainty. Maxwell's equations were based on it really. They had to give it a name, and it was called the aether. However, it had undefinable properties and even conflicting properties, so we don't know what it is or how to define it.

At some point in time a few scientists erroneously attempted to define the properties of the aether, and then went on to create a scientific test to measure those properties. To their surprise their erroneous definitions were wrong, and they couldn't measure the erroneous property they invented. Somehow this translated into meaning the aether doesn't exist. In reality, they set up their own straw-man experiment and disproved it, and then used that to prove the aether doesn't exist - intentionally or not is unknown. Of course, I am talking about the Michelson-Morley experiment.

The Michelson-Morley experiment was a travesty to science, and caused a split in man's understanding of the universe which set them back hundreds of years. Now two groups of people existed, people who know light is a wave in a medium, and those who think light can travel in a vacuum. For example - Tesla was the former, Einstein the latter. If only Michelson and Morley truely understood how light propagated through a medium like glass, and understood how light reflected off of a mirror, two main components of their experiment. Maybe then they would understand how the experiment was flawed. I digress.

Fast forward 100 years to today, and Quantum Field Theory (QFT) suggests light is just a vibration of the electromagnetic field. They don't really tell you what the field is, they don't really know, but "something" is vibrating. Somehow they have come full circle, and instead of calling it an aether they call it a field. They think there are many different fields, instead of combining them together into an aether. Why doesn't the Michelson-Morley disprove QFT? Try to figure that out.

Now, let me tell you about light...

Light is the vibration of "something". It can vibrate at different frequencies. For some reason we split these frequencies into ranges to categorize them. We then named those ranges radiowaves, microwaves, infrared, visible, ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma rays. - We did the same for sound...

Sound is also the vibration of "something". It can vibrate at different frequencies. For some reason we split these frequencies into ranges to categorize them. We then named them notes such as A, B, C, D, E, F, G. - Both light and sound can be categorized by octaves.

Both light and sound also undergo constructive and destructive interference (basic wave phenomena). For example, you can cancel out (destroy) sound waves by playing the same exact sound waves 180 degrees out of phase. You can also amplify sounds by playing the same exact sounds in phase so they add together (construct). You can do the same with light. You can amplify light by adding more light of similar frequency. You can also cancel out light. The best example is radiowave (light) interference. Playing the same radio signal out of two antenna at the same frequency but 180 degrees out of phase will cancel out the radio signal where they overlap and you will not detect the signal.

So how do we create light? I sometimes like to think of light as "the sound of the medium" and or the "sound from electrons". According to science, every time an electron moves it emits a photon of light. So if you quicky vibrate an electron back and fourth, it will emit a lot of photons. But where do those photons come from? There are many theories where those photons come from, however, they are all silly. Saying an electron emits photons is like saying a loud speaker emits sound particles. It's easier to say an electron creates light waves in a medium when it moves, like a swimmer creates waves in the water when they swim. Since all matter is made of electrons, when any matter moves it will create light, even when you wave your hand.

edit on 19-7-2019 by AntonGonist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 06:17 AM
link   
What is spacetime?

Is there a universal field or not?

Is EM radiation a disturbance of a field or is it not?
edit on 19-7-2019 by AntonGonist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: AntonGonist
What is spacetime?

Is EM radiation a disturbance of a field or is it not.


Cite the scientific definition and go from there.

Is there a classic definition of electromagnetic radiation vs a definition of electromagnetic radiation as defined by relativity vs electromagnetic radiation as defined by quantum theory?

What is unified filed theory trying to rectify, incompatible aspects of relativity and quantum theory? How does that relate to electromagnetic radiation?



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: AntonGonist




What is spacetime?


No one knows for sure but there are several theories.



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: AntonGonist

I think the problem is it is literally all theory with incompatible aspects. Anyone’s educated peer reviewed paper is as good as the next peer reviewed paper.



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: AntonGonist




Is EM radiation a disturbance of a field or is it not?


Here is one explanation for you:

www.physics.usyd.edu.au...




An electromagnetic waves is propagated by the oscillations of the electric and magnetic fields. A changing electric field produces a changing magnetic field and a changing magnetic field produces a changing electric field. Thus, an electromagnetic wave is self propagating and does not need a medium to travel through.


And:



A progressive electromagnetic wave is a self-supporting, energy-carrying disturbance that travels free of its source. The light from the Sun travels through space (no medium) for only 8.3 minutes before arriving at Earth. Each form of electromagnetic radiation (radiowaves, microwaves, infrared, light, ultraviolet, x-rays and g rays) is a web of oscillating electric and magnetic fields inducing one another. A fluctuating electric field (electric charges experience forces) creates a magnetic field (moving charges experience forces) perpendicular too itself, surrounding and extending beyond it. That magnetic field sweeping off to a point further in space is varying there, and so generates a perpendicular electric fields that spreads out. Nothing is actually displaced in space like a water wave where the water oscillates up and down and side-ways.




A progressive electromagnetic wave is a self-supporting, energy-carrying disturbance that travels free of its source. The light from the Sun travels through space (no medium) for only 8.3 minutes before arriving at Earth. Each form of electromagnetic radiation (radiowaves, microwaves, infrared, light, ultraviolet, x-rays and g rays) is a web of oscillating electric and magnetic fields inducing one another. A fluctuating electric field (electric charges experience forces) creates a magnetic field (moving charges experience forces) perpendicular too itself, surrounding and extending beyond it. That magnetic field sweeping off to a point further in space is varying there, and so generates a perpendicular electric fields that spreads out. Nothing is actually displaced in space like a water wave where the water oscillates up and down and side-ways.


No need for Aether, apparently.



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 07:42 AM
link   
"Ooh yeah, you see, they are not sure you see.....get it?"

The problem is that science doesnt want to draw a conclusion because it would destroy their preconceived notion. The other problem is that followers of said science arent capable of independant thought and connecting the very obvious dots.

Science simply dismissed the Aether at one point because it would stop the Earth from moving.......

Then it was snuck back in under a different name.

"When you ask what the difference is between the Aether and this universal field all people can do is deny the existence of such a field or say that science is not sure about this field.

Do you people understand that without such a field your model literally falls apart in the first place?

What a joke.


edit on 19-7-2019 by AntonGonist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy


An electromagnetic waves is propagated by the oscillations of the electric and magnetic fields.


Exactly.



A progressive electromagnetic wave is a self-supporting, energy-carrying disturbance that travels free of its source.


Disturbance of what?
edit on 19-7-2019 by AntonGonist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: AntonGonist


Science does not claim to know everything about everything. Sorry if that disappoints you.

If only you would try to discuss things sensibly without resorting to sneering at other posters you might not make such a fool of yourself.

Do you have anything to bring to this discussion other than attacking other posters and generally getting all arsey?

Like actually discussing the article I linked to for you?

How is your Nobel prize winning post coming along?



posted on Jul, 19 2019 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: AntonGonist
a reply to: oldcarpy


An electromagnetic waves is propagated by the oscillations of the electric and magnetic fields.


Exactly.



A progressive electromagnetic wave is a self-supporting, energy-carrying disturbance that travels free of its source.


Disturbance of what?


Selective quoting does not help matters. Not the Aether, obviously.


(post by AntonGonist removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join