What Is Light?

reply to post by buddhasystem


reply to post by ImaFungi


will you sometime reply to my post?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by buddhasystem

 

How do you fundamentally envision EM radiation?

Well that's too generic a question. How do you envisage water? It can be a drop of sweat on your forehead, or the Pacific Ocean. Envisage that.

What about all elementary quanta for that matter? Are they all brands of the same "stuff"?

No since in most cases they interact differently. Unification can happen at different energy scales, bu in general no.

if not,, what happened to cause such different fundamental stable quanta to exist?

We don't know yet.

if an electron is fundamental and has no constituents, how can other particles decay and produce electrons? where does those electrons come from?

That's the nature of the electroweak interaction. For example, electrons can be produced by an electromagnetic process (like in e+/e- pair creation), or by a weak interaction decay (like beta), like in neutron decay. Check it out. The reaction is explained there.

Originally posted by buddhasystem


Well that's too generic a question. How do you envisage water? It can be a drop of sweat on your forehead, or the Pacific Ocean. Envisage that.

Its not general at all... Water is composed of H20... 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom.. theses atoms are thought to have components.. I believe EM radiation can be related (but perhaps not limited to) phenomenon of atoms... So it can be said what one thinks water is... can you say what you think EM radiation is?

No since in most cases they interact differently. Unification can happen at different energy scales, bu in general no.

atoms interact differently... but are composed of the same sort of constituents

That's the nature of the electroweak interaction. For example, electrons can be produced by an electromagnetic process (like in e+/e- pair creation), or by a weak interaction decay (like beta), like in neutron decay. Check it out. The reaction is explained there.

I get that is how the model describes it occurring.. I just dont get how it is thought to make sense,, that a fundamental particle like the electron can be created from particles that are not electrons..

then i must ask how do you,, or the most knowledgeable minds of the universe perceive electrons?

if your answer to my question before that last one is 'electrons can be created out of thin air because of energy-mass equivalence, then that means that to another prior question of mine, the answer would be all particles are closely related (all mass/matter is closely related) and all it is, is a big "whiff" of "space-time/vacuum" which created a bunch (bunch^bunchbunchbunchbunch) of "bubbles/ripples/waves/particles" which interact differently and can build a bunch of neat stuff...

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

If an experiment could be designed to prove the wave, or particle, or wave-packet, why are we still arguing about which one is correct?

I think the experiments should be in designing new energy devices. I certainly don't think anything is being gained by smashing things and naming new particles.

Im not so sure I understand your question. Experiments are neither "right" or "wrong," though the subjective interpretation can be. They are simply different methods to extrapolate data and patterns. Thats why when exploring anything scientifically, we tend to do multiple experiments that try to cover many bases. Ideally, a single experiment would be able to unlock all of the secrets of the universe, but thats just not how it works.

Experiments are to learn the mechanics "behind the scenes," so to speak. The information that is extracted is then used to design energy devices, or a multitude of other things, and many more experiments and testing platforms are used.

While you can have your opinion about smashing things and naming new particles, that doesnt change the fact that something very important may come from it. We dont know what that is right now, and that is why we continue to practice science in its many, many different facets. I am starting to think that you might not understand the whole scientific process. While you may think mainstream science is completely wrong about everything it has ever claimed, the process they use is quite sound and would be beneficial and effective to both the scientist and the pseudo-scientist (it is called the scientific method). Granted, the pseudo-scientist would then have to actually do experiments, and practice real science, instead of riding on the coat tails of those who are actually practicing science.

God is light. In Him there is no darkness.

Thats what the bible says...so your science seems to prove this may be true.

Originally posted by Serdgiam
Im not so sure I understand your question.

You have been demanding that Gaede prove his theory with an experiment.

I'm here to point out to you that we've had quite a bit of experimentation and we still have a big argument over the structure of light.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Serdgiam
Im not so sure I understand your question.

You have been demanding that Gaede prove his theory with an experiment.

I'm here to point out to you that we've had quite a bit of experimentation and we still have a big argument over the structure of light.

What an interesting choice of words.. As well as an interesting way to take something out of context.. That is rather telling, IMO.

Obviously, the experiments that have been done have not answered all of the questions we have. At that point, in science, we design new testing platforms based on our hypotheses. We use a testing platform for as long as we are still learning things from the experiments being performed. We dont try to get blood from a turnip. At least, not if one can help it, of course!

Originally posted by Serdgiam
What an interesting choice of words.. As well as an interesting way to take something out of context.. That is rather telling, IMO.

Rather telling, you say?

Telling of what?

Be specific. Quote yourself and then quote me. What did I take out of context?

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by Serdgiam
What an interesting choice of words.. As well as an interesting way to take something out of context.. That is rather telling, IMO.

Rather telling, you say?

Telling of what?

Be specific. Quote yourself and then quote me. What did I take out of context?

First two questions: not relevant to the topic.

It seems you are just reading the first sentence and responding. You are not replying to the meat of the posts, merely the "title page." If you would read a bit further into the posts, you would see why I dont understand your question. I wasnt asking you to explain the question, which would be clear if you even read the sentence directly after the one you quoted.

Either way, this is starting to get off topic. I had simply wondered if this man had performed any science of his own. Generally, if one comes up with a different interpretation of an experiment, they also try to design a better testing platform to reduce subjectivity to the greatest extent possible. At least in science, maybe not pseudo-science. No demand was made whatsoever (I am also starting to think you arent even reading my whole posts). I just said that it would help lend this man legitimacy if he were to actually perform experiments before claiming it as "Truth."

I have also been attempting to communicate to you how these things work in regards to the scientific method, but for some reason you seem vehemently opposed to it.

reply to post by Serdgiam


Gaede has offered a very thorough, detailed examination of historical findings and offered his interpretation of the experiments that have been done attempting to understand light for decades. His view challenges the mainstream paradigm regarding what has transpired in physics. His view is a scientific, objective model. There's nothing pseudo-science about it.

Yes, I understand the scientific method. There's more to science than doing experiments. There's analysis and dot connecting. The lack of a new experiment does not negate the contribution of a new model based on an alternative interpretation.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

His view is a scientific, objective model. There's nothing pseudo-science about it.

It is impossible for someones view to be objective. You understand why this is, right?

Yes, I understand the scientific method. There's more to science than doing experiments. There's analysis and dot connecting. The lack of a new experiment does not negate the contribution of a new model based on an alternative interpretation.

I agree that there is more to science than just the experiments themselves. That is why I have said that multiple times in this thread alone! It is also very explicitly stated in the scientific method itself that there is more than just experiments. Its roughly 1/7 of the entire process. 1/4 if you consider the last phase of the method (rinse and repeat, essentially). That being said, it is still a critical part of the process.

I also agree that it doesnt outright negate the contribution. Which is why I have said that him giving his alternative view is great!

Perhaps you are seeing battles and attacks when there are none, Mary. Like I said, I fully support what this man and many others are doing. I just wish they would actually make the steps to go from philosophy/pseudo-science to an exploration based in the scientific method. Basically, I would like to see them attempt to move from musings to actual science. I would also like to see it stop being claimed "science." I think if that happened, and more people actually adhered to the scientific method, that the progress that would be made would be downright incredible. With communication and information technology, the advancements made would be the likes of which we have never seen.

But for some reason, excuses are always made as to why such things are not needed.. As I said before, I really and truly find this sad, because I find the exploration of this universe to be so incredibly amazing and awe-inspiring and we have so much to learn. It is very exciting stuff, to me.

Originally posted by Serdgiam
It is impossible for someones view to be objective. You understand why this is, right?

Objective in that he offers a rational model and doesn't just talk in non-specifics.

You're splitting hairs.

Is a person's set-up for an experiment more objective than a model composed by a person's opinion of what experiments show?

It seems you're arguing for the sake of argument.

Originally posted by Serdgiam
But for some reason, excuses are always made as to why such things are not needed.. As I said before, I really and truly find this sad, because I find the exploration of this universe to be so incredibly amazing and awe-inspiring.

Gaede is under no obligation to do an experiment. He is self-taught in physics and he is not associated with a lab or a university. He has made a valuable contribution. And it's not "philosophy." It's a scientific model.

Do you think you're the only person awed by the universe? Give him credit for the time and effort he has devoted instead of making light of it and criticizing it - like it's not enough.

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Gaede is under no obligation to do an experiment. He is self-taught in physics and he is not associated with a lab or a university. He has made a valuable contribution. And it's not "philosophy." It's a scientific model.

Do you think you're the only person awed by the universe? Give him credit for the time and effort he has devoted instead of making light of it and criticizing it - like it's not enough.

Like I said, you are seeing battles where there are none. I have given him credit repeatedly, including in the previous post.

You are pretty obviously not reading my posts. Either that, or you are seeing what you want to see.

And, it isnt enough. Thats why those of us who implement the scientific method come up with an idea in the exact same way Mr. Gaede does. We just happen to take the next steps after that. To be considered actual "science," regardless of if it is alternative or mainstream, it must adhere to the scientific method. Why wouldnt this apply to Mr. Gaede? He is only taking the first few steps and stops at the experiment phase. There is no adherence to the scientific method as a whole, and that is an issue regardless of if it is Mr. Gaede making the claims or Mr. Hawking.

As I have said repeatedly, and in many ways, I applaud this man for his inquisitive nature. I just encourage him (as well as anyone who is interested in real science) to follow through. To actually explore these things beyond the musings, and be willing to prove ourselves wrong. That is science. The scientific method holds everyone to the same standard.

Originally posted by Serdgiam
And, it isnt enough.

Absolute baloney.

Any person who writes a book as he has and produced numerous videos as he has and given presentations and answered questions as he has has done plenty.

I am quite certain others are benefiting from his insight. Every contribution is valuable.

World Science Database - Bill Gaede

reply to post by Mary Rose


Wow...

Well, this has been an interesting conversation Usually though, when speaking with another person, I prefer to have my posts read, or at least have the person I am having a conversation with attempt to understand what I am saying. Again, you are seeing battles where there are none. I only hold Mr. Gaede to the same standard I hold myself, and every one else. I also appreciate his contributions, just wish he would follow through with it all in experiments, like I have said repeatedly. Literally every "real" scientist in the world does this, no one gets a free pass and everyone is held to the same standard. Thats what makes the scientific method so useful, effective, and efficient. Just as I have said.. well.. a ton of times now

This feels like the twilight zone.. Ill take my leave, hahaha.

Originally posted by Serdgiam
Well, this has been an interesting conversation

Usually though, when speaking with another person, I prefer to have my posts read, or at least have the person I am having a conversation with attempt to understand what I am saying.

I understood exactly what you were saying.

I simply disagree with it.

If you have a point to make about his model, do come back.

Or perhaps, you'd like to suggest an experiment and an opinion about who should pay for it and do all the work!!

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by buddhasystem


Well that's too generic a question. How do you envisage water? It can be a drop of sweat on your forehead, or the Pacific Ocean. Envisage that.

Its not general at all...

Yes it is. Read on.

Water is composed of H20... 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom..

That's a fairly minimalistic description. It's true, but it doesn't even start to explain interesting features of water, for example the molecule's dipole moment.

I believe EM radiation can be related (but perhaps not limited to) phenomenon of atoms...

Of course! But again, this is so vague that of course it will be true. For example, the physics of the hydrogen atom in its ground state can be described reasonably well without involving radiation. On the other hand, the excited state will decay while emitting a photon, i.e. radiation is involved. When doing physics, one needs to be very, very specific.

So it can be said what one thinks water is... can you say what you think EM radiation is?

As I hope I demonstrated, it's not that simple. If you want an answer anyhow, Wikipedia is a good start. Have you thought about reading some stuff like that before asking questions?

That's the nature of the electroweak interaction. For example, electrons can be produced by an electromagnetic process (like in e+/e- pair creation), or by a weak interaction decay (like beta), like in neutron decay. Check it out. The reaction is explained there.

I get that is how the model describes it occurring.. I just dont get how it is thought to make sense,, that a fundamental particle like the electron can be created from particles that are not electrons..

If you don't get it, you'll have to.



Physics is not something that's readily intuitive at all times. Some parts are, like basic kinematics. The Potential Barrier is one thing that we can't easily conceptualize in our every day experience, yet it's prominently present in various areas of physics.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I know what you mean, and yes I have looked around (wiki included) about theories and insights on the nature of EM radiation, but I am under the impression that noone adequately comprehends the correct fundamental understandings and interpretations of these probings. Yes we make models and can use the principles we discover to manipulate nature but, as a cat does not know the fundamental nature of the laws of physics it utilizes, man also comes up short in his descriptive capabilities, for we have nothing apriori to compare nature or our descriptions too... nature is exactly as it is, we are exactly as we are, and it is not immediately easy to know and understand all of natures mysteries and mechanics... this is why I am just as skeptical and prodding at any scientific theory or suggestion, as much as you are towards the non mainstream held views. Did you watch the video in the OP? Is there anything you can say to make me think that he is somehow wrong about his hypothesis? He is not offering a theory, mainly an interpretation of data, he believes is mis-envisioned by scientists ( most likely because scientists dont have any blueprints or absolutes or templates to base nature off of, only experiments, data, interpretation, and feelings)

If light is a string..lets call it that rather than a rope, how does this string reduce speed depending upon the medium?

If we instead imagine light as the energy causation that is able to take the quickest quantum route through superfluid space ( based upon size and relativistic mass of the particle in question) we now understand Space (little balls of Plank Length reality) to be the limiting factor, this theory is overly complex.

The path that light takes causes miniscule changes in the supersymetrous manifolds of quantum space which give rise to progressive actions on the space in question...no need for a rope.

Describing light as a rope (or anything with physcial connections) is like calling a wave a rope...it pulls, it pushes, it oscillates but it it is not a linear effect of physical causation.

reply to post by Jukiodone


I checked the e-book looking for something that might address what you're saying; I'm not sure:

4.0 Summary of static and dynamic properties of light

Let’s recap and summarize these qualitative, physical phenomena to have a clear understanding of how poorly Classical and Quantum particles and waves fare. Classical waves and Quantum particles cannot answer ANY fundamental structural or dynamic property of light whereas the rope answers all of them:

Static/structural properties of light

1. why the electric and magnetic fields run anti-parallel to each other and oscillate around an imaginary axis

2. why the electric and magnetic fields run perpendicular to each other

3. why EM waves are sinusoidal (The mechanics must first determine whether their particles comprise standing or traveling waves.)

4. why the velocity of light is a constant (meaning that frequency is inversely proportional to wavelength consistent with the expression c = ƒ * λ)

5. why a beam of light ‘accelerates’ when going from glass to air

6. how waves or a series of particles generate amplitude and for what reason

7. what spin is and what its physical significance is

8. why light travels rectilinearly as required by the Principle of Ray Reversibility

Dynamic/behavioral properties of light

1. why light arrives before it leaves (The Principle of Ray Reversibility)

2. the grand unified theory (GUT) or how to produce push and pull in a single stroke.

3. why light is so fast

4. the EPR experiment

I synthesize some of these attributes in Fig. 4.16.