What Medium is Propagating Electromagnetic Waves?

a reply to: IrisMoonie

It is all about frequency and energy




There are three primary types of radiation:

Alpha - these are fast moving helium atoms. They have high energy, typically in the MeV range, but due to their large mass, they are stopped by just a few inches of air, or a piece of paper.

Beta - these are fast moving electrons. They typically have energies in the range of a few hundred keV to several MeV. Since electrons are might lighter than helium atoms, they are able to penetrate further, through several feet of air, or several millimeters of plastic or less of very light metals.

Gamma - these are photons, just like light, except of much higher energy, typically from several keV to several MeV. X-Rays and gamma rays are really the same thing, the difference is how they were produced. Depending on their energy, they can be stopped by a thin piece of aluminum foil, or they can penetrate several inches of lead. (Courtesy NASA

a reply to: charlyv

Thanks for the explanation of radiation.

But is radiation light, or is radiation what powers light?

For example, the battery powering a flashlight might get hot, and the filament of the light bulb will get hot, but are these elements radiating actually light? In the example of a flashlight, the light shines much further than radiation heats. Similarly, you can block harmful UV radiation with glass. But if you look at the sun through a glass window, it's going to be just about as bright as looking at it without a glass window in front of you.

a reply to: IrisMoonie

The entire electromagnetic spectrum is radiation. Again, it is all about frequency. energy and what is being propagated.

I urge the OP and everyone participating in this thread to watch this

a reply to: charlyv

What you're saying sounds accurate ... an energy at a frequency being propagated... as a definition for electromagnetic radiation...

But what I'm feeling is that such a thing is the means for generating light, but it is not the end product of light.

a reply to: charlyv

So, photon's supposed mass-less

In my model they are charged.

A photon wave would look like -1 0 +1.

The maths makes it zero/mass-less.

-1 +1 = 0.

originally posted by: ErosA433
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.

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.

Nothing I have said was incorrect. Light is a wave, it is not a particle. This is proven long ago. What we consider a "photon" is just the smallest part of a light wave. We know a photon is a wave because its energy is calculated as E = hf. The f is the frequency of the wave. I posted this video earlier in the topic: www.youtube.com...

Here is another good one, wave-particle duality is a myth, they are always waves: www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: ErosA433
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.

I've never said we can't produce a single photon. A single photon is just a very small wave, the smallest possible. I can create one very easily by moving an electron. Not sure what you read.

Not sure I understand your point regarding coherent and incoherent light. Is that a question?

originally posted by: ErosA433
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.

I agree with you, if its spontaneous decay. What if its not spontaneous? Then it would be coherent to a certain extent right?

I don't believe an electron absorbs a photon, goes to a higher energy state, and stays there until it feels like it wants to drop back down spontaneously. I believe the electron drops back down to a lower state almost instantaneously after absorption because the surrounding lower energy electrons dampen the higher energy one.

I can simplify this by talking about vibration. All electrons in a material are vibrating at a small range of frequencies based on its environment by default. When a single wave of light hits one of the electrons, it causes the electron to temporarily vibrate at a higher frequency than the surrounding electrons. This creates a wave of light instantly. However, in that process the higher vibration electron repels the surrounding electrons, and loses some of its vibration energy to them causing an instant dampening affect, and then it returns back to its original vibration frequency which creates another wave of light. This vibration is directional, and dependent on the incoming light orientation. It then repeats this process with the next wave of light or photon, no matter if its coherent or not. What you put in is what you get out, minus the affects that surrounding electrons have on the process.

originally posted by: ErosA433
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.

I think you misunderstood. I've never said single photons are only possible via "decay or degradation" of an original larger wave. Can you quote me where you got that idea?

Light is fundamentally a vibration, a wave of something indescribable. The smallest possible wave is a photon, which funny enough describes part of the indescribable.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

I don't believe an electron absorbs a photon, goes to a higher energy state, and stays there until it feels like it wants to drop back down spontaneously. I believe the electron drops back down to a lower state almost instantaneously after absorption because the surrounding lower energy electrons dampen the higher energy one.

This is not what we observe in nature. These higher energy states have different decay lifetimes due to differences in stability of states and can be theoretically modelled in atomic physics.

Best example I can give is of Argon Excimers, or Dimers. These are produced in ionized ultrapure argon. They are molecules which form due to the ionization. They non-radiatively shuffle the electrons and end up in one of 3 different states, either 1 of 2 singlets or a triplet.

When the molecule decays to give you two single argon atoms, one electron is taken from the other to form a neutral argon while the other takes the free electrons that was kicked during the ionization. Either way, due to having to perform a spin flip of an electron to get back to the ground state from the triplet, the triplet has a characteristic longer lifetime (at least in argon because of its relative simplicity)

It is well understood and measured that upon elevation to a higher energy level, the electrons do not instantly drop down, they do so with characteristic life times and can do so radiatively or non radiatively, transferring energy between the electrons or by emission of photons.

This is very very well understood.

Your model or explanation using vibrations is as problematic as it is incorrect. there is zero observational evidence for what you describe.

scientists get you to believe any thing they like!
"What Medium" ? the vacuum of space!
that's light radio and magnetic waves.

through 100+ light years of nothing but vacuum.
you only get atmosphere around planets and some thing around a star.
so to me that looks like it does not need one!

and they want you to believe you Need a atmosphere to see stars?

you MUST Believe the High Priests of science.
blasphemers will be ridiculed and spammed.

a reply to: buddha

and they want you to believe you Need a atmosphere to see stars?

Where did you get that idea from?

originally posted by: ErosA433
This is not what we observe in nature. These higher energy states have different decay lifetimes due to differences in stability of states and can be theoretically modelled in atomic physics.

Best example I can give is of Argon Excimers, or Dimers. These are produced in ionized ultrapure argon. They are molecules which form due to the ionization. They non-radiatively shuffle the electrons and end up in one of 3 different states, either 1 of 2 singlets or a triplet.

When the molecule decays to give you two single argon atoms, one electron is taken from the other to form a neutral argon while the other takes the free electrons that was kicked during the ionization. Either way, due to having to perform a spin flip of an electron to get back to the ground state from the triplet, the triplet has a characteristic longer lifetime (at least in argon because of its relative simplicity)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. My example in my last post was about light passing through glass only. Different materials exhibit different vibrational symphonies.

originally posted by: ErosA433
It is well understood and measured that upon elevation to a higher energy level, the electrons do not instantly drop down, they do so with characteristic life times and can do so radiatively or non radiatively, transferring energy between the electrons or by emission of photons.

This is very very well understood.

Yes, I agree with you, and basically said the same thing in my last post but for glass. Other materials exhibit other vibration behaviors determined by the surrounding atoms and the structure of the material. I don't see it as "energy states" I see it as "frequencies of vibration". To you, some electrons stay in a "higher energy state", to me some electrons "reverberate".

originally posted by: ErosA433
Your model or explanation using vibrations is as problematic as it is incorrect. there is zero observational evidence for what you describe.

I don't agree with you at all on that. I basically described Normal Mode and Phonons.

In fact, electricity passing through a wire is nothing more than a vibration of electrons. Its like sound, but only the electrons are vibrating instead of the entire atom or molecule. This movement of electrons creates light. This is experimentally proven.

I think the most brilliant part of what I call Luxsonous Theory is that normal radio antennas become some of the best solar energy collectors in existence, however they are AC not DC. It explains all of Tesla's radiant energy patents.

As I explained in my first post that a radio antenna is basically a tuning fork resonating with other antenna of the same resonant frequency.

This understanding also makes possible what I call the Ark. A very specific shape and size antenna which resonates with a celestial transmitter, to produce a vibration like no other.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

I'm not sure why you think light is only a wave...

Just look at your avatar. Light poking through clouds. Only straight lines can be seen. No wavy lines can be seen.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

You know your theory is about as credible as saying tiny spirits push elections to cause electrical flow, and has as much evidence.

If electricity alone produces physical vibrations, you wouldn’t need magnets to drive speakers. To make sound from a speaker, you need the rising and falling electrical field to push / pull a magnet connected to the speaker

www.physics.org...

In order to translate an electrical signal into an audible sound, speakers contain an electromagnet: a metal coil which creates a magnetic field when an electric current flows through it. This coil behaves much like a normal (permanent) magnet, with one particularly handy property: reversing the direction of the current in the coil flips the poles of the magnet.

Inside a speaker, an electromagnet is placed in front of a permanent magnet. The permanent magnet is fixed firmly into position whereas the electromagnet is mobile. As pulses of electricity pass through the coil of the electromagnet, the direction of its magnetic field is rapidly changed. This means that it is in turn attracted to and repelled from the permanent magnet, vibrating back and forth.

Greate theory except it has no bases, no evidence, and not observed in nature.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1

I don't agree with you at all on that. I basically described Normal Mode and Phonons.

In fact, electricity passing through a wire is nothing more than a vibration of electrons. Its like sound, but only the electrons are vibrating instead of the entire atom or molecule. This movement of electrons creates light. This is experimentally proven.

1) Phonons do not equal photons, mechanical vibration as per a phonon is no proof or applicable logic to say that Photons/light must do the same
2) In fact electricity is not simply a vibration of electrons, you are grossly and willfully ignoring the reality of what is happening. Movement of electrons alone doesn't create light, Acceleration creates light. It is different... THAT is experimentally proven. which is not what you claim. sorry you are simply not correct.

a reply to: neutronflux

With all respect neutronflux, I don't think you are reading me correctly, or you are making some assumptions while reading what I am saying. I am talking about the vibration of electrons. I guess I should also disclose that I am a professional in the computer science and engineering field.

With that said, yes, electrons vibrate on their own. In fact, every piece of conductive metal you see on Earth has freely vibrating electrons in it, and those electric vibrations are driven by radio waves and other random electromagnetic radiation that surrounds the metal. Furthermore, even waves from distance stars and galaxies are vibrating those electrons at night, and so too is the sun in the day.

If you were to connect any piece of conductive metal in your house to the ground with a diode and a wire, and connect some simple earphones to it, you can hear the electrons vibrating in the form of static noise. It is the worlds most simple radio receiver, but you can't change the radio station. It is not tunable unless you change the size of the piece of metal that acts as the antenna.

Here is the schematic:


D1 = diode
E1 = peizo earphones
Everything else is metal wire / antenna connected to the ground.

Also, no, the earphones will not need to have magnets. You can use a piezoelectric crystal, which physically vibrates when given an electric charge, to drive a diaphragm and convert the electron vibration to sound. Those are called crystal earpieces. However, all of this is besides the point I was making.

What I was talking about is how radio communication is made possible by sympathetic vibration of electrons in a conductor.

The idea of radio is to get a piece of conductive wire, and push the electrons from one end of the wire so that it creates a wave of electric force towards the other end of the wire. Once the wave reaches the end of the wire, it will reflect back down the wire where it started. The time it took the wave to go from one end of the wire to the other and back is the resonant frequency. If you push the wave again right when it returns you start to create electrical resonance in the wire, which is exactly what you want. If you push the wave again too soon, or too late, the new wave you created will interfere with the first wave you created in the wire. So you want to wait for the perfect timing, the resonant frequency. While the electrical wave is moving up and down the wire it creates a light wave. We call those radio waves. In this case the radio wave has a wavelength equal to the length of the wire.

If there is another wire of the exact same length near by, those light waves from the first wire will be absorbed by the electrons in the second wire, and it will move the electrons in the wire, and it will start to create a wave in the second wire with the exact resonant frequency required to keep the wave going back and fourth without interference. You can then connect a diode and earphone to the wire and you will hear the signal transmitted from the other wire. This is the most simple form of radio communication (leaving out the explanation of amplitude modulation vs frequency modulation techniques).

With that said, the sun, stars, and other celestial bodies are all emitting electromagnetic waves too. Some of them at very specific frequencies. Can you create an antenna for those? Sure you can. They can drive some pretty large piezoelectric crystals too, big giant ones, several tons in weight and size.

Side note: Did you know granite is piezoelectric?

originally posted by: ErosA433
1) Phonons do not equal photons, mechanical vibration as per a phonon is no proof or applicable logic to say that Photons/light must do the same

My friend, are you being disingenuous? I've never said phonons equal photons. I was talking about the vibration relationship shared by electrons in a material.

Photons/light are vibrations of the electromagnetic field, and those vibrate electrons.

wtamu.edu...

Electrons in higher-energy atomic states vibrate more quickly. Because an electron is a quantum object with wave-like properties, it must always be vibrating at some frequency.

The same is true for photons, they have a frequency, and their energy can be calculated by E = hf, where f is the frequency.

originally posted by: ErosA433
2) In fact electricity is not simply a vibration of electrons, you are grossly and willfully ignoring the reality of what is happening. Movement of electrons alone doesn't create light, Acceleration creates light. It is different... THAT is experimentally proven. which is not what you claim. sorry you are simply not correct.

Electricity is simply a vibration of electrons... What do you think alternating current (AC) is? It is the vibration of electrons back and fourth. The electrons don't move very far in AC. Same for DC, it can take electrons an hour to go around even a small flashlight circuit. Electricity is where one electron repels another, which repels another, which repels another, and creates a wave in the electrons. The rate of repulsion happens at near the speed of light, yet the electrons don't move very far at all. This wave of electrons is a lot similar to vibrational waves in air to create sound. It is electric force.

Also, I have very clearly stated that electrons need to accelerate or change directions (vibrate) to create light. So implying I didn't say that is the definition of disingenuous.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Your the one talking about..

A very specific shape and size antenna which resonates with a celestial transmitter, to produce a vibration like no other.

You mean like a crystal radio that needs a high impedance speaker?

Piezoelectricity is the ability of some materials (notably crystals and certain ceramics) to generate an electric potential[1] in response to applied mechanical stress. This may take the form of a separation of electric charge across the crystal lattice. If the material is not short-circuited, the applied charge induces a voltage across the material. The word is derived from the Greek piezein, which means to squeeze or press.

www.newworldencyclopedia.org...

What type of “vibrations” are you talking about?

To flow electrons you have to have electrical potential. Not vibration potential.

The crystal earpiece works by converting electrical potential to mechanical stress in the crystal.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Electricity is simply a vibration of electrons... What do you think alternating current (AC) is

It’s a flow of electrons by changes in electrical potential.

macao.communications.museum...

An Electrical Generator is a device that produces an Electromotive Force (e.m.f.) by changing the number of Magnetic Flux Lines (Lines of Force), Φ, passing through a Wire Coil. Figure 1 is one type of Generators. When the Coil is rotated between the Poles of the Magnet by cranking the handle, an AC Voltage Waveform is produced.

Electrons don’t flow because of “vibration”. They flow because of electrical potential. Or they are pushed / pulled by Magnetic Flux Lines.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

If ac current was from just vibrations, then everything should be “piezoelectric”.