What Medium is Propagating Electromagnetic Waves?

originally posted by: neutronflux
"the photon is predicted to be massless, and to have zero electric charge and integer spin."

Yes, as your source says the photon is modeled with zero electric charge.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
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.

You don't understand the models, or the difference between charge and a field.

I have never seen an experiment which measured any electric charge of a photon, so you're assuming an electric charge is present but there's no evidence for that. As the link neutron flux posted says, the photon is modeled as having zero electric charge.

Also you didn't understand my post if you are calling space-time "nothingness", it has properties even if it has no medium that we've been able to measure so far, though as I said a medium as in the Lorentz aether theory hasn't been ruled out.

It was something. This something is the medium I speak of.

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".

I think the problem here is you are doing what many non-physicists do when they don't understand terminology used by physicists and throwing terms around loosely. You seem to be saying space-time has properties so it must be a medium, and physicists are agreeing that spacetime has properties but they have never been able to devise an experiment that indisputably shows the existence of anything they would call a medium. However again the Lorentz aether posits that a medium could exist (indistinguishable from relativity), but most physicists prefer the simpler view of relativity.

So yes it's semantics but if you want to communicate with the rest of the world then you need to learn how the rest of the world uses language. If you're using a different definition of a word than physicists, then you're not communicating with physicists, who are the ones saying we've seen no evidence of a medium in experiments.

If you want to say spacetime has properties, then say spacetime has properties, and don't call it a medium unless you have some evidence for a material substance supporting the medium claim. This page explains how difficult it is to theorize any material which could be called a medium that would have the properties needed:

The Mysterious Ether

While proponents for the existence of a medium in space, an "ether", still exist, the standard position is that there is no medium in space. One of the reasons for this position is that there was no direct experimental evidence for the existence of the ether - everything can be explained without it, hence the Ockham's razor approach. Another involves the preposterous mechanical properties required of a medium which supports a wave at 3 x 10^8 m/s. The velocity of any medium-dependent wave has the nature of the square root of an elastic property divided by an inertial or density property. To support a wave speed of the speed of light would require an incredibly high "stiffness" for space which has near zero density. A medium so tenuous that it produced no detectable drag on the planets which moved through it must yet have an incredibly high restoring force to bring it back to equilibrium once the planet passed.

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.

You seem very confused by Don Lincoln's video.

He says the photons being absorbed and re-emitted from the atoms as in "wrong model #2" can't be the correct explanation because they could be re-emitted in any direction. You say that is the correct model, but apparently you don't understand what it means for a photon to be absorbed and re-emitted by an atom. I said there are other reasons we know that's not what is happening, the explanation below cites another reason, the frequency of emitted photons would have certain characteristics independent from the incoming light.

Then while you claim the incorrect explanation is the correct one, you then proceed to say the correct explanation is similar to what Dr Lincoln describes which is not the photon being absorbed by an atom and re-emitted, but merely an interaction between the photon and the lattice of atoms. This is not being absorbed and re-emitted. The explanation below is more complicated but it explains more reasons we know the photons aren't absorbed and re-emitted:

Do Photons Move Slower in a Solid Medium?

This question appears often because it has been shown that in a normal, dispersive solid such as glass, the speed of light is slower than it is in vacuum. This FAQ will strictly deal with that scenario only and will not address light transport in anomolous medium, atomic vapor, metals, etc., and will only consider light within the visible range.

The process of describing light transport via the quantum mechanical description isn't trivial. The use of photons to explain such process involves the understanding of not just the properties of photons, but also the quantum mechanical properties of the material itself (something one learns in Solid State Physics). So this explanation will attempt to only provide a very general and rough idea of the process.

A common explanation that has been provided is that a photon moving through the material still moves at the speed of c, but when it encounters the atom of the material, it is absorbed by the atom via an atomic transition. After a very slight delay, a photon is then re-emitted. This explanation is incorrect and inconsistent with empirical observations. If this is what actually occurs, then the absorption spectrum will be discrete because atoms have only discrete energy states. Yet, in glass for example, we see almost the whole visible spectrum being transmitted with no discrete disruption in the measured speed. In fact, the index of refraction (which reflects the speed of light through that medium) varies continuously, rather than abruptly, with the frequency of light.

Secondly, if that assertion is true, then the index of refraction would ONLY depend on the type of atom in the material, and nothing else, since the atom is responsible for the absorption of the photon. Again, if this is true, then we see a problem when we apply this to carbon, let's say. The index of refraction of graphite and diamond are different from each other...

See link for the rest.

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.

Yes its correct. But I also don't think you are following what I am saying closely enough judging by your response. Was I talking about electrons? I don't think so.

originally posted by: neutronflux
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.

It was proven long ago that light is just a wave, and a photon is just the smallest part of the wave we can identify before its not a wave any longer. It's not a particle. It is not a bullet. It is a vibration of the electromagnetic field. It is a wave, and it is propagating.

I believe we are discussing what the wave is made of. You say a photon is "made up of a form of energy", but you are confusing what it is with what its made of. That is like saying ocean waves are made up of a form of energy. Yes, that's true, kinetic energy. However, it is made of water. You see?

Furthermore, light is clearly not what you seem to be describing it as. If you shoot a "photon" across the room, and somehow took a picture of it the moment you shot it, and then again the moment it reached the other side of the room, you'd be taking a picture of two different things. Just like if you took a picture of an ocean wave a hundred feet from shore, and then took another picture of the wave right before it hits the sand, you'd be taking a picture of two different areas of water with completely different water molecules.

What is the ocean of light?

Mind you, many still think light is some bright tiny little particle bullet. Light is not bright. Light is invisible. Light is nothing more than an analog signal. Your eyes just receive the signals, and your brain developed a unique way to display said signals in your visual cortex.

Some theorize there is no medium, there is no field, there is no space and time for a photon to travel through. Your brain simply got a signal, and you can't really prove where it came from, and how it got there. It's only your opinion based on signals.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Why does a electron it’s self have a charge. Because it has the right building blocks. Why does a photon have the property of a electromagnetic wave, because the right building blocks.

Then you really have no proof of an aether, and relativity, quantum physics, and string theory has moved past needing an aether as backed by experimentation. So, there is no need for an aether.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Does quantum entanglement need an aether, based on what proof?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: neutronflux
"the photon is predicted to be massless, and to have zero electric charge and integer spin."

Yes, as your source says the photon is modeled with zero electric charge.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
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.

You don't understand the models, or the difference between charge and a field.

I have never seen an experiment which measured any electric charge of a photon, so you're assuming an electric charge is present but there's no evidence for that. As the link neutron flux posted says, the photon is modeled as having zero electric charge.

I apologize. I know the difference between charge and field very well, I just don't think you understood what I was saying, and I probably wasn't clear enough for you. I never said a photon had charge.

I was discussing a situation where you have a void of nothingness, and you create light within it. So how do you create light without another particle that either has electric charge or magnetic moment? When you create light, what comes first, the magnetic or the electric field? How do you create light without electric charge or an existing magnetic field?

Do you understand what I mean now if you read my quote again? I just decided to start with the electric field, which requires an electric charge to create. Understood?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Also you didn't understand my post if you are calling space-time "nothingness", it has properties even if it has no medium that we've been able to measure so far, though as I said a medium as in the Lorentz aether theory hasn't been ruled out. I think the problem here is you are doing what many non-physicists do when they don't understand terminology used by physicists and throwing terms around loosely. You seem to be saying space-time has properties so it must be a medium, and physicists are agreeing that spacetime has properties but they have never been able to devise an experiment that indisputably shows the existence of anything they would call a medium. However again the Lorentz aether posits that a medium could exist (indistinguishable from relativity), but most physicists prefer the simpler view of relativity. So yes it's semantics but if you want to communicate with the rest of the world then you need to learn how the rest of the world uses language. If you're using a different definition of a word than physicists, then you're not communicating with physicists, who are the ones saying we've seen no evidence of a medium in experiments. If you want to say spacetime has properties, then say spacetime has properties, and don't call it a medium unless you have some evidence for a material substance supporting the medium claim.

If physicists want to change the definition of "medium" to mean "physical material only" so they can avoid acknowledging they have been wrong for 100s of years, so be it. I will still continue to use the real definition of medium which doesn't place any limitation on whether it be physical or non-physical.

www.merriam-webster.com...

a means of effecting or conveying something

You know what I mean when I say medium. You know that all waves require a medium. You know the only wave considered not to have a medium is an electromagnetic wave because physicists have their own idiotic definition of medium.

I am not here to play this semantic game.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
This page explains how difficult it is to theorize any material which could be called a medium that would have the properties needed:
The Mysterious Ether

Yes, I am well aware of all the failed attempts to discredit the aether. The general idea is to presume some characteristic of the aether and then attempt to discredit that presumed idea. The most popular is saying "it must be magnitudes stronger than steel for it to propagate a wave at the speed of light, but planets can pass through it with ease and no drag". I am not entirely sure how they can say that with a straight face, its a joke.

On that topic, the aether has a different kind of drag, its called inertia. You know inertia as that thing nobody can clearly explain the cause of. Just some property that matter has. The resistance to a change of velocity. A Fictitious Force. I know inertia as proof the aether exists. I know exactly what causes it.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
You seem very confused by Don Lincoln's video.
He says the photons being absorbed and re-emitted from the atoms as in "wrong model #2" can't be the correct explanation because they could be re-emitted in any direction. You say that is the correct model, but apparently you don't understand what it means for a photon to be absorbed and re-emitted by an atom.

I think you and Don Lincoln are both the confused ones here. At 5:30 in the video he says "The problem is that when an atom is absorbed by a photon [sic] it doesn't remember where the photon was coming from. And when it emits a photon it can do so in any direction".

Technically that is two problems, both are wrong. For your information I am fully aware of the current theory of electron energy state changes and how photons are emitted when those energy states change. I am also fully aware of what spectroscopy is and how it's theorized to work. Lets just assume moving forward I am fully aware and up-to-date of current mainstream physics, and I have moved on already to bigger better things.

First, the atom doesn't need to remember where the photon came from. The light vibrated the outer electron of the atom in a very particular direction based on the light's direction. Due to the electron's particular direction of vibration, it emits light in a very particular direction. The light wouldn't be emitted in any random direction, it would be emitted in a very predictable and precise direction based on the direction of incoming light.

This is exactly why a radio receiver with a vertical antenna has a hard time picking up a signal from a radio transmitter with a horizontal antenna. The horizontal antenna will create a horizontal wave of light which will only get absorbed by a small set of electrons on the vertical antenna, and it will only move those electrons horizontally, and it wont create a resonant wave in the antenna. It will however re-emit light horizontally, as if the electrons "remembered" the incoming light was horizontal, but at a much smaller wavelength due to the electrons only having a small area to move (the width of the antenna and not the length).

I know the "issues" that are brought up regarding discrete energy states, index of refraction, and fully aware of phonons. I have answers for all these issues. However, this topic is not about how light passes through a medium, it is about what medium manifests light.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

How can you talk about the nature of the photon and ignore Quantum electrodynamics

Quantum electrodynamics

en.m.wikipedia.org...

In particle physics, quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics. In essence, it describes how light and matter interact and is the first theory where full agreement between quantum mechanics and special relativity is achieved. QED mathematically describes all phenomena involving electrically charged particles interacting by means of exchange of photons and represents the quantum counterpart of classical electromagnetism giving a complete account of matter and light interaction.

Just ordered the below book. I am very excited.

QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter


QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter is an adaptation for the general reader of four lectures on quantum electrodynamics (QED) published in 1985 by American physicist and Nobel laureate Richard Feynman.


en.m.wikipedia.org...:_The_Strange_Theory_of_Light_and_Matter

a reply to: neutronflux

Sorry, who is ignoring it?

Most of my understanding of light is in agreement with it, except for some details which I have evidence of being different.

originally posted by: neutronflux
Why does a electron it’s self have a charge. Because it has the right building blocks. Why does a photon have the property of a electromagnetic wave, because the right building blocks.

What are those building blocks? That is what we are discussing.

I believe an electron is a self sustaining ring of light. I believe all matter is made of light.

Scientists also think its possible to create matter with light:
www.nature.com...
phys.org...

originally posted by: neutronflux
Then you really have no proof of an aether, and relativity, quantum physics, and string theory has moved past needing an aether as backed by experimentation. So, there is no need for an aether.

No. Relativity, quantum physics, and string theory has not moved past it, they just call it something else. They call it a field and or spacetime. They redefined the word "medium" to mean physical substance only instead of its real meaning as a carrier of information.

Do we need to repeat all this again?

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

No. Relativity, quantum physics, and string theory has not moved past it, they just call it something else. They call it a field and or spacetime. They redefined the word "medium" to mean physical substance only instead of its real meaning as a carrier of information.

Then throw out a few terms from relativity, quantum, and string theories and their definitions. Then explain how it’s really aether in disguise.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

No. Relativity, quantum physics, and string theory has not moved past it, they just call it something else.

Really

Historic Dispute : Is space filled with a medium known as the aether?

www.encyclopedia.com...

Conclusion

Einstein's work on light went beyond classical physics in two respects. He eliminated the need for the aether as the light medium, and he demonstrated that the description of light as a wave was inadequate to explain all the characteristics of light. As in most cases, the publication of Einstein's work in 1905 did not cause a sudden rupture with earlier ideas. The full ramifications were not immediately apparent to all, and many physicists ignored his work and carried on with their own research into the aether. But gradually, the impact began to filter through the profession of physics, and the cutting edge of physics was inquiry based on these new ideas. The aether was firmly tied to the most basic assumptions of nineteenth-century physics. With the death of absolute space, it ceased to be of any interest to most mainstream physicists.

How is relativity, quantum, and string theories a rebranding of aether?

a reply to: neutronflux

The Aether/spacetime/dark energy or whatever you prefer to call it.

Every point of space. Is a point of space.

A neg or pos charge (point).

As for your question on entanglement.

It is the sharing of charges from within 2 sources ("particles" really waves) at distance. Not the sources themselves.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
It was proven long ago that light is just a wave, and a photon is just the smallest part of the wave we can identify before its not a wave any longer. It's not a particle. It is not a bullet. It is a vibration of the electromagnetic field. It is a wave, and it is propagating.

I believe we are discussing what the wave is made of. You say a photon is "made up of a form of energy", but you are confusing what it is with what its made of. That is like saying ocean waves are made up of a form of energy. Yes, that's true, kinetic energy. However, it is made of water. You see?

The first statement here is misleading and at the very least, completely incorrect.

A photon, a single quanta of light does carry information or properties that relate for example, to its wavelength. Stating something in a matter of fact manner doesn't make it true to anyone except yourself.

How I know this? I am by profession a detector scientist, iv worked with detection characterization systems which involve very closely controlling things such as light sources and detectors in order to extract fundamental parameters such as the time distribution of light pulses, the spectral distribution of light sources, spectral response of sensors and quantum efficiency to name just a few.

The way you describe above is either completely incorrect or you are being very ambiguous with language, both not very helpful when discussing the subject at hand. It is ambiguous because you described light as a particle with properties and as a wave, but then state that it is wholly a wave and just you know... forget about the particle part.

This is highly problematic because much of what we actually observe in nature in that light can be coherent and non coherent. It also raises a follow up question in that, you appear to not consider a single photon to be producible and be called light. And yet, we can, and do, produce single photons.

A spontaneous decay of an electron from a higher energy orbit to a lower one will often (depending upon the states) produce a photon, a single and if you do this with lots of atoms in excited state, it will produce many photons, but these wont be in a single wave in a coherent manner, they will be non-coherent unless you can perform a stimulated emission like process.

What your description appears to state is that single photons are only possible via decay or degradation of an original larger wave. Also your description seems to not allow for directionality... of if it does, it seems to do so by ignoring the particle nature of light.

Light, is fundamentally, photons, to state otherwise is to be contrary to about 100 or so years of science.

Maybe iv misunderstood something, though i actually think not.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: neutronflux

The Aether/spacetime/dark energy or whatever you prefer to call it.

Every point of space. Is a point of space.

A neg or pos charge (point).

As for your question on entanglement.

It is the sharing of charges from within 2 sources ("particles" really waves) at distance. Not the sources themselves.

What does dark energy have to do with the propagation of electromagnetic waves?

Dark matter vs aether

blogs.discovermagazine.com...

Dark energy is conceptually closer to the aether idea — like the aether, it’s not a particle, it’s a smooth component that fills space. Unlike the aether, it does not have a “frame of rest” (as far as we can tell); the dark energy looks the same no matter how you move through it. (Not to mention that it has nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation — it’s dark!) And of course, it was forced on us by observations, especially the 1998 discovery that the universe is accelerating, which ended up winning the Nobel Prize in 2011.

a reply to: neutronflux

What does dark energy have to do with the propagation of electromagnetic waves?

Look at my model linked on page 5.

It is hard to understand. I realise that.

It is the first energy to show in my model (a table of 9 sets of 2 charges). Made up of neg and pos charges only.

It produces the substance of DE/Aether/spacetime.etc.

A substance which waves can travel through and their paths can cause interference. The interference causes entanglement.

originally posted by: blackcrowe
a reply to: neutronflux

What does dark energy have to do with the propagation of electromagnetic waves?

Look at my model linked on page 5.

It is hard to understand. I realise that.

It is the first energy to show in my model (a table of 9 sets of 2 charges). Made up of neg and pos charges only.

It produces the substance of DE/Aether/spacetime.etc.

A substance which waves can travel through and their paths can cause interference. The interference causes entanglement.

Your model?

I’ll be more specific. What cited sources claims dark energy has anything to do with the propagation of electromagnetic waves? Anything published? What research and experiments show the propagation of electromagnetic waves are dependent on dark energy?

a reply to: neutronflux

I’ll be more specific.

I don't know.

I am concerned with my model. As yet. A work in progress. Needs rewriting and the diagrams tweaking before i submit it.

a reply to: blackcrowe

The question on physics.stackexchange.com

Is dark matter a candidate to fill void left by luminiferous ether as a medium for light travel?

physics.stackexchange.com...

The answer

physics.stackexchange.com...

No.

There is no void left by the lack of an aether. The very notion of aether should serve as a warning as to how catastrophically analogical reasoning can fail. "Water waves are in water, sound waves are in air, therefore there must be something in which light propagates." This is flawed logic, and decades of physics were arguably hindered by adhering to it.

In fact, any material medium for light would contradict the beautiful result of Michelson and Morley, showing that the speed of light does not depend on velocity with respect to some material's frame. This invariance is in fact now at the very heart of modern physics, and is the basis for relativity, which has been verified in innumerable experiments.

Dark matter is, according to the leading theories, some form of matter that is basically normal except that it essentially doesn't interact via the electromagnetic force. As such, it is actually a poor candidate for explaining anything to do with light, even if there were something that needed explaining.

The answer seems to be the consensus concerning dark energy as the “aether” through many scientific sources.

a reply to: neutronflux

As i said. I'm saying what my model says.

I'm off to work now.

Might answer more in the morning.

Worked in a large photo production lab way back when. We used to use high-power xenon strobes to attempt to knock over very closely placed , pieces of paper, crimped on an edge so they were standing balanced. Every once in a while, we would succeed. There was always a noticeable "pop" when the light hit the paper. White paper worked better than black or other colors. So, photon's supposed mass-less, what was the effector? We could knock over tiny balanced pieces of aluminum foil easier, but attributed that to a thermal effect.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

As far as I can observe with my plain eye, a clear glass window doesn't hardly block (slow down) any light at all, if you define light as a technology which causes objects to appear clearly defined within the limits of your eyes vision.

But a clear glass window does block a significant amount of radiation.

I suppose I can understand the scientific definition that light is all kinds of electromagnetic radiation.

But I feel like there is a difference between light, which lets you see, and radiation which is an input for the technology of light...

Would be interested if anybody more specialized in this field than me wants to discuss this difference between radiation and light...