What Medium is Propagating Electromagnetic Waves?

a reply to: neutronflux

I said this

So you are again claiming that the space between the Sun and the Earth for instance has no underlying structure. Again, not anyone anywhere agrees with you.

Then you said,

Quote where I ever posted such a thing.

You are clearly saying that you did not claim there is no underlying structure.


It seems now that you dont know what "underlying" means.

Yes. Things have to be in the “fabric” of this “reality” to exist in this “reality”.

You are not talking about an underlying structure. You are talking about something that is part of "this reality".

originally posted by: AntonGonist
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If you had explained that on page 1 we could have saved 20 pages, lol, just kidding about saving 20 pages, but yes that's it in a nutshell.

This is not an explanation. Its a laughable inept cop out.

finally. if my more specific definitions are a laughable inept cop out, then your broad generalized definition was a laughable inept cop in to an argument. how can you hold one definition up on a pedestal while saying the other ones don't mean anything? apparently you found the one true definition to end them all

originally posted by: AntonGonist
a reply to: Arbitrageur


it does not need anything other than itself to carry

Why dont you explain how it "carries itself" and what "itself" consists of. Go ahead.

bruhhhh, friggin 8th graders know what em waves consist of... get a life

originally posted by: AntonGonist
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If you had explained that on page 1 we could have saved 20 pages, lol, just kidding about saving 20 pages, but yes that's it in a nutshell.

This is not an explanation. Its a laughable inept cop out.

it does not need anything other than itself to carry

Why dont you explain how it "carries itself" and what "itself" consists of. Go ahead.

After 22 pages... it is obvious that no-one is going to be able to answer your questions adequately enough to satisfy you.

So can you answer your own question for us? Can you offer up the point you are trying to make with this thread succinctly? Can you give us your interpretation of the known facts?

Essentially can you summarize, in a paragraph, your apparent victory over over the modern interpretation of electromagnetism?

a reply to: puzzlesphere

It is clear that noone can answer the questions.

a reply to: AntonGonist

You either apparently...

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Yes apparently.

a reply to: AntonGonist

In my model.

Already linked.

The answer would be that the relationship between the action of the Quarks (which i insist are a function. And the function is direction). And the connections between the pairs of Quarks (according to the table of 9 sets of 2 charges in other link provided also). Result as the medium you refer to as they propagate or generate along their directions.

I know you said you might pop into my thread if you manage to decipher my model.

Hope you can understand this reply.

a reply to: AntonGonist

You are trying to change the topic.

And the question to you was...

What phenomenon is this observable universe can only be explained in the terms of the debunk aether models?

The Eternal Quest for Aether, the Cosmic Stuff That Never Was
Aristotle called it the fifth element. Alchemists thought it was the key to the philosopher’s stone. Scientists believed it was the stuff light moved through. But it never existed at all.

www.popularmechanics.com...

Let’s see how you butcher this article..

Or this

Luminiferous aether

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The negative outcome of the Michelson–Morley experiment (1887) suggested that the aether did not exist, a finding that was confirmed in subsequent experiments through the 1920s. This led to considerable theoretical work to explain the propagation of light without an aether. A major breakthrough was the theory of relativity, which could explain why the experiment failed to see aether, but was more broadly interpreted to suggest that it was not needed. The Michelson-Morley experiment, along with the blackbody radiator and photoelectric effect, was a key experiment in the development of modern physics, which includes both relativity and quantum theory, the latter of which explains the wave-like nature of light.

Just Incase you missed it, “This led to considerable theoretical work to explain the propagation of light without an aether.”

a reply to: AntonGonist

You are not talking about an underlying structure. You are talking about something that is part of "this reality".

No, I am talking about the structure of this observable universe is what creates the reality of this universe. And the reality of this observable universe is:

Luminiferous aether

en.m.wikipedia.org...


“This led to considerable theoretical work to explain the propagation of light without an aether.”

Do you have anything to refute the results of the many runnings of the Michelson–Morley experiment?

I'll just put this here:

Physicists Say They've Manipulated 'Pure Nothingness' And Observed The Fallout
www.sciencealert.com...

According to quantum mechanics, a vacuum isn't empty at all. It's actually filled with quantum energy and particles that blink in and out of existence for a fleeting moment - strange signals that are known as quantum fluctuations.

originally posted by: neutronflux
Do you have anything to refute the results of the many runnings of the Michelson–Morley experiment?

Yes I have a lot to refute.

When light passes through glass, it slows down, then when it leaves the glass it speeds back up. One theory regarding that is that electrons in the glass absorb the light, then re-emit the light anew, and that new light hits the next electron, and then it absorbs and re-emits anew, and the process is repeated until it passes through the glass. So the light leaving the glass is not the same light, it is new light emitted by the last electron, and its emitted at full speed.

Seeing as though the Michelson-Morley experiment uses 1 50% mirror, and 2 100% mirrors, we know at several points in the experiment the light is absorbed and re-emitted at a different speed. Do you see how this could impact the results of the test?

Furthermore, they did the experiment in air, not in a vacuum. Do you see how light absorbing and emitting from air molecules might hurt the experiment?

Also, nobody ever said the aether had to be fixed in space. So their experiment doesn't disprove aether, it just shows its not fixed in space, or the speed of light is not affected by the movement of the aether.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
If a perfect vacuum is the absence of all matter and energy, and light can propagate through a vacuum according to science, then what does that say of light? What does that say of a vacuum? Light must be a wave of a medium that still exists even in a vacuum. Otherwise, how does the light even exist? What is propagating? What is the wave of light? A small bit of "something" in "nothing"?

Experiments show a changing electric field creates a changing magnetic field which creates a changing electric field which creates a changing magnetic field...and on and on, without any medium. That's how electromagnetic fields propagate, as already explained numerous times in this thread.

So there's no requirement for any medium, and no medium has been detected, though I'm open to the idea of a medium, if anybody can show such a medium exists. As I said, the ether in the Lorentz ether theory hasn't been proven false, so I'm open to that, but it's not required for light to propagate, and I'm also sympathetic to the reasons most physicists prefer relativity as a simpler explanation than the Lorentz ether theory.

What is not required for EM propagation is a medium. What is required is for space to have properties, which according to experiments which have found to be consistent with general relativity's predictions for the properties of space, it does. So if Einstein or anybody else wants to call those properties of space an "ether", I'm fine with that, but to call it a "medium" has no evidence and Einstein specifically said such "ether" does not contain any medium and so far all experiments have been consistent with that and most modern physicists agree that space-time of general relativity is space with properties but it's not a medium. I suppose some people don't like the idea that "empty" space isn't so "empty" and can have properties, but that is the best model we have so far. Maybe someday we will have a better model.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
When light passes through glass, it slows down, then when it leaves the glass it speeds back up. One theory regarding that is that electrons in the glass absorb the light, then re-emit the light anew, and that new light hits the next electron, and then it absorbs and re-emits anew, and the process is repeated until it passes through the glass. So the light leaving the glass is not the same light, it is new light emitted by the last electron, and its emitted at full speed.

Seeing as though the Michelson-Morley experiment uses 1 50% mirror, and 2 100% mirrors, we know at several points in the experiment the light is absorbed and re-emitted at a different speed. Do you see how this could impact the results of the test?

I have read what you call a "theory" but it's not really a theory, it's misinformation spread around the internet which is easily proven false. There are some people who know enough physics to sound like they know what they're talking about but who really don't know it well enough and will tell you things like that which can easily be proven false.

However there are some reliable sources of physics on youtube which are at least right to the extent that they are consistent with modern theory. Whether modern theory is right is of course subject to revision based on new evidence, but what you post as evidence is not that because it is easily shown to be wrong. While physicists are not sure of what's right, which is why it's still called a "theory" meaning our best model to date, they tend to be more sure of what's wrong when experiment proves a particular model cannot possibly be true and that's the case with what you call a "theory" in that post.

Don Lincoln is one of the more reliable sources about modern theory on the internet, and he explains one way we know the "theory" you state is wrong, but actually he just scratched the surface as there are many more ways we know that's wrong, but I suppose he figures just mentioning one of them is enough and doesn't need to explain all the others and make the video too long. If you can't watch the video let me know and I'll look for a written source (I know of at least one, but it's harder to understand than Don Lincoln's explanation).

Why does light slow down in water?


The title says water, but he says in the video it applies to any medium including glass, and it explains one reason why light can't be being absorbed and re-emitted. So there's really no question that the "theory" you cite is false, many experiments and measurements can easily prove the light is not being absorbed and re-emitted as you suggest. Don Lincoln's explanation is the best theory we have and so far nobody has proven it false.

Furthermore, they did the experiment in air, not in a vacuum. Do you see how light absorbing and emitting from air molecules might hurt the experiment?

You're somewhat overly focused on Michelson-Morley experiments, when in fact the experimental evidence is much more broad. See the wikipedia page which lists many other experiments using other techniques:

Michelson-Morley
There are many subsequent experiments, some using different methods, which you may want to familiarize yourself with, so that you're not overly focused on Michelson-Morley. The big picture is much bigger.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

So what you highlighted is not explained by classical physics, relativity, nuclear forces, quantum theory, and string theory?

Why does light slow down in water?

m.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Experiments show a changing electric field creates a changing magnetic field which creates a changing electric field which creates a changing magnetic field...and on and on, without any medium. That's how electromagnetic fields propagate, as already explained numerous times in this thread.

I already know what you speak of. What you are talking about is called induction. A changing electric field induces a magnetic field, and changing magnetic field induces an electric field. This is just like an electromagnetic coil, which when given electric charge to the wire it will create an electromagnet. Also, when applying a changing magnetic field to the coil it will create electric charge in the wire. However, all that requires an inductor. - The aether/medium acts like an inductor in every part of the universe, but without any resistance.

If you think you can induce an electric charge in a void of nothingness, and then a magnetic field will magically be induced and appear out of nothingness when you do so, even though nothing is there to be induced, you have a serious flaw in logic. The flaw is much deeper than you think, and takes us back to philosophy. You think nothingness exists.

If nothingness existed, and we were to reduce matter to is most fundamental part, we would have no choice but to find that the final part exists between the fine line of nothingness and somethingness. Somehow, nothingness became something so this part can exist. This logic is flawed, because if nothingness can become something, then it wasn't nothing. It was something. This something is the medium I speak of.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
What is not required for EM propagation is a medium. What is required is for space to have properties, which according to experiments which have found to be consistent with general relativity's predictions for the properties of space, it does. So if Einstein or anybody else wants to call those properties of space an "ether", I'm fine with that, but to call it a "medium" has no evidence and Einstein specifically said such "ether" does not contain any medium and so far all experiments have been consistent with that and most modern physicists agree that space-time of general relativity is space with properties but it's not a medium. I suppose some people don't like the idea that "empty" space isn't so "empty" and can have properties, but that is the best model we have so far. Maybe someday we will have a better model.

Don't you see we are talking about the same thing? The medium is space and its properties. All you are doing is arguing the name of it, semantics. This is somewhat silly. Therefore the medium does have proof of existence, its everything you call "properties of space".

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Don Lincoln is one of the more reliable sources about modern theory on the internet...
Why does light slow down in water?

The title says water, but he says in the video it applies to any medium including glass, and it explains one reason why light can't be being absorbed and re-emitted. So there's really no question that the "theory" you cite is false, many experiments and measurements can easily prove the light is not being absorbed and re-emitted as you suggest. Don Lincoln's explanation is the best theory we have and so far nobody has proven it false.

I knew that video would be mentioned. That video is incredibly flawed and shortsighted.

That video claims incoming light will move electrons and then keep on going. Then electrons will emit their own light which interferes with the light that kept going. This is a slap to the face of conservation of energy and momentum, and breaks the laws of physics. Light can't just move an electron without losing energy to it. If that explanation was true we could create a perpetual light amplifier and get free energy.

You can consider that video disproved now.

Some or all of the incoming light must be absorbed by the electrons. If its all of the light, then theory 2 mentioned at 4:50 in the video is the only explanation. If only some of the light is absorbed, then the light emitted by the electron is exactly the amount of light that was absorbed from the incoming light, and the light that just keeps going would be the incoming wavelength minus the electrons emitted wavelength. If they destructively interfered with each other at this point, that means the light coming out of the other side of the glass would be a different wavelength then what went in, which we know is not the case.

Theory 2 at 4:50 really is the correct one. The explanation why its not correct is that "the electron doesn't remember where the photon was coming from, so it couldn't emit it in the right direction". This is very shortsighted and wrong. The electron doesn't need to "remember" anything, the electron is being moved/vibrated by the light, and that movement/vibration is directly related to the orientation of the incoming light. That means the electron will emit light in the same orientation.

Think of it like sound waves vibrating an object small and light weight. If you put a sound speaker to the left of the object, the object will vibrate left and right, because the sound pressure waves are moving left to right. Then the vibrating object creates its own sound waves left and right. The object isn't remembering anything, its just moving based on the vibration it received. Light and electrons act the same way, and can be proven by experiment. It's called radio.

originally posted by: ArbitrageurYou're somewhat overly focused on Michelson-Morley experiments, when in fact the experimental evidence is much more broad. See the wikipedia page which lists many other experiments using other techniques:
Michelson-Morley
There are many subsequent experiments, some using different methods, which you may want to familiarize yourself with, so that you're not overly focused on Michelson-Morley. The big picture is much bigger.

Oh trust me, I am familiar with all of them, and they all are flawed for very similar reasons. I only mention Michelson-Morley in discussion because its easy for others to understand, and that experiment changed the course of history. I can explain all the flaws if you wish.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

However, all that requires an inductor. - The aether/medium acts like an inductor in every part of the universe, but without any resistance.

If you think you can induce an electric charge in a void of nothingness, and then a magnetic field will magically be induced and appear out of nothingness when you do so, even though nothing is there to be induced, you have a serious flaw in logic. The flaw is much deeper than you think, and takes us back to philosophy. You think nothingness exists.

Is that really correct? You can build up a static charge without a conductor. If you can just free up some electrons. For electricity, you just want a flow of a charge. You really don’t care about a conductor. Just using a good conductor in most cases for efficiency.

A bullet doesn’t need a medium. A photon is the bullet of the electromagnetic world that is made up of a form of energy.

The photon is not really a particle of nothingness is it.

Photon

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The photon is the gauge boson for electromagnetism,[21]:29–30 and therefore all other quantum numbers of the photon (such as lepton number, baryon number, and flavour quantum numbers) are zero.[22] Also, the photon does not obey the Pauli exclusion principle,[23]:1221 but instead obeys Bose–Einstein statistics.

Photon

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The photon as a gauge boson

The electromagnetic field can be understood as a gauge field, i.e., as a field that results from requiring that a gauge symmetry holds independently at every position in spacetime.[102] For the electromagnetic field, this gauge symmetry is the Abelian U(1) symmetry of complex numbers of absolute value 1, which reflects the ability to vary the phase of a complex field without affecting observables or real valued functions made from it, such as the energy or the Lagrangian.

The quanta of an Abelian gauge field must be massless, uncharged bosons, as long as the symmetry is not broken; hence, the photon is predicted to be massless, and to have zero electric charge and integer spin. The particular form of the electromagnetic interaction specifies that the photon must have spin ±1; thus, its helicity must be
±
ℏ
pm hbar. These two spin components correspond to the classical concepts of right-handed and left-handed circularly polarized light. However, the transient virtual photons of quantum electrodynamics may also adopt unphysical polarization states.[102]

In the prevailing Standard Model of physics, the photon is one of four gauge bosons in the electroweak interaction; the other three are denoted W+, W− and Z0 and are responsible for the weak interaction. Unlike the photon, these gauge bosons have mass, owing to a mechanism that breaks their SU(2) gauge symmetry. The unification of the photon with W and Z gauge bosons in the electroweak interaction was accomplished by Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam and Steven Weinberg, for which they were awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics.[103][104][105] Physicists continue to hypothesize grand unified theories that connect these four gauge bosons with the eight gluon gauge bosons of quantum chromodynamics; however, key predictions of these theories, such as proton decay, have not been observed experimentally.[106]