What Medium is Propagating Electromagnetic Waves?

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: AntonGonist

Actually, you did claim such a thing.

You said "Gravity is not a force". Quite clearly... multiple times.

What Arbitrageur showed you is that depending on your frame of reference gravity IS a force.

Actually what I meant to show was that depending on your reference frame, centrifugal force can be "real" to one observer and "fictitious" but apparent to another observer, so if both observers are observing the same event, the distinction is a technical one and doesn't mean that the fictitious force but apparent force doesn't have just as much effect.

What Einstein showed is that gravity is indistinguishable from a fictitious but apparent force like centrifugal force, so it can also be considered a fictitious but apparent force. Here's an article from Scientific American which has put more effort into explaining it than I have:

What is a "fictitious force"?

The forces you feel in a moving car—those that push you back into your seat when the driver steps on the gas or throw you side to side when the car makes sharp turns—are everyday examples of fictitious forces. In general, these influences arise for no reason other than that the natural frame of reference for a given situation is itself accelerating.

The term "fictitious force" has a precise meaning within Newtonian mechanics—in fact, it's always proportional to the mass of the object on which it acts.

...

With general relativity, Einstein managed to blur forever the distinction between real and fictitious forces. General relativity is his theory of gravity, and gravity is certainly the paradigmatic example of a "real" force. The cornerstone of Einstein's theory, however, is the proposition that gravity is itself a fictitious force (or, rather, that it is indistinguishable from a fictitious force). Now, some 90 years later, we have innumerable and daily confirmations that his theory appears to be correct.

So instead of saying "gravity isn't a force", I prefer that description by theoretical physicist and 2004 Nobel laureate David Politzer which explains that Einstein's relativity proposes that gravity is indistinguishable from a fictitious but apparent force (like centrifugal force).

Refer to the right side of this diagram:



If an observer is placed in a windowless box like an elevator, you can put that on a spaceship in space, and have the spaceship accelerate at 1G. You can stand on the scale and see your weight at 1G in the space ship. It's an apparent force, which you can measure by standing on the scale, so it seems real because it's measurable, but physicists call it "fictitious" because it arises merely because of an accelerating reference frame.

What Einstein says is that if you move the observer's box from the spaceship accelerating at 1G to be stationary on Earth's surface, you can stand on the same scale and experience the same 1G pulling you down. So the 1G on the accelerating space ship and the 1G stationary on Earth's surface are indistinguishable according to Einstein's model, which is still being tested by the way for this very claim:

Testing Einstein's equivalence principle near a supermassive black hole

The equivalence principle, a crucial part of Einstein's general relativity theory, states that the gravitational force experienced in any small region of space-time is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in an accelerated frame of reference. Testing this principle is of key importance, as it could lead to interesting observations and broaden our current understanding of gravity.

"Einstein's equivalence principle consists of three main principles," Habibi explained. "One of them, called the local position invariance (LPI), states that non-gravitational measurements should be independent of the location in space time (characterized by gravitational potential) where they are carried out. The main part of our study focuses on testing the LPI principle."

So even though Einstein's theory is a great theory which explains a lot, it's still being tested, to see if the equivalence principle holds in extreme cases.

a reply to: AntonGonist

So you have nothing to say in response to the link you asked for nor can you back up your nonsense. Just an irrelevant and incompetent non response. Time for you to hop along too.

What exactly is not understand about electromagnetic waves in which unified fiend theory is needed to explain?

Although electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces have long been explained by a single theory known as the standard model, gravitation does not fit into the equation. The current quest for a unified field theory (sometimes called the holy grail of physicists) is largely focused on superstring theory and, in particular, on an adaptation known as M-theory.

whatis.techtarget.com...

M-theory (the "M" stands for the mother of all theories, magic, mystery, or matrix, depending on the source) is an adaptation of superstring theory developed by Ed Witten of Princeton and Paul Townsend of Cambridge. Townsend and Witten's version could potentially be the unified field theory sought by Einstein for the last 40 years of his life: a simple equation that would reconcile incompatible aspects of his theory of relativity and quantum theory to explain the nature and behavior of all matter and energy. Applications of this knowledge could, through unlocking nature's secrets, enable future technologies that currently are only spoken of within the realm of science fiction: an inexhaustible source of clean energy, and time travel, for example.
whatis.techtarget.com...

I really don’t see where field theory says everything in the universe has to be occupied by mass and or energy.

Wow. Where does it it say that space is a void and that there is no underlying field.

Explain the blow

Biggest void in space is 1 billion light years across

Radio astronomers have found the biggest hole ever seen in the universe. The void, which is nearly a billion light years across, is empty of both normal matter and dark matter. The finding challenges theories of large-scale structure formation in the universe.

Snip

Unexpected size
The team was in for a surprise. They saw little or no radio sources in a volume that is about 280 megaparsecs or nearly a billion light years in diameter. The lack of radio sources means that there are no galaxies or clusters in that volume, and the fact that the CMB is cold there suggests the region lacks dark matter, too.

Snip

But photons going through a void actually lose energy, ending up colder than if they had been flying through a series of superclusters

The void is lacking in mass, dark matter, and radiation, yet photos are able to travel through the void. How would uniform field theory work for a photo traveling through a void of mass, dark matter, other radiation?

a reply to: neutronflux

My friend,
The void they speak of is void of matter, and void of stars and other entities that emit radio waves, and lacking Cosmic Background Radiation (CMB). It doesn't say it is void of all radiation and energy, because that is impossible.

There is nowhere in this universe that is absent of light. Light is emitted from all stars in all directions, and electromagnetism is infinite in range. The universe itself is a bright light shinning in all directions. It has been shinning so long that light has reached distances we will never see in our lifetime. The same is true for gravity, it is infinite in range, and is present everywhere.

A perfect vacuum does not exist.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

"There is nowhere in this universe that is absent of light."

What about black holes?

Their gravitational pull being so powerful that nothing can escape from them, not even light.

"A perfect vacuum does not exist."

Is that not down to the fact that particles jump in and out of existence down to Quantum mechanics?

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Quote where I posted the void was “void of all radiation and energy”


This is my actual state once I corrected the typo photos to photons.
The void is lacking in mass, dark matter, and radiation, yet photons are able to travel through the void. How would uniform field theory work for a photon traveling through a void of mass, dark matter, other radiation?

From the actual cited source

The team was in for a surprise. They saw little or no radio sources in a volume that is about 280 megaparsecs or nearly a billion light years in diameter.

www.newscientist.com...

I apologize that I forgot the link in the original post.

I also apologize that when I referred to “void of mass, dark matter, other radiation” that I didn’t clearly state in the context of the cited source’s statement of “They saw little or no radio sources in a volume“.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

"The void they speak of is void of matter, and void of stars and other entities that emit radio waves, and lacking Cosmic Background Radiation (CMB). It doesn't say it is void of all radiation and energy, because that is impossible."

Could the void, lack of stars, diminished CBR be down to collision with another universe?

double post. see below.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
a reply to: puzzlesphere

They only know light is a wave, and sometimes that wave has particle like interactions. Waves, by definition, are a property of a medium. Science says light is a wave in a field. So the question becomes, what is the medium of light? What is this field?

It is NOT true to say “They know light is a wave.” Light isn’t a wave. It can display traits that can be described as wave-like, but it is not a classical wave.

Light (photons) can also display traits that can be described as particle-like, but they likely are not little balls of stuff, either.

So no — it is inaccurate to say “they know light is a wave.” It may sometimes act something like a wave, and it may sometimes act something like particles, but physicists think it’s true nature is really neither waves nor particles (in the classical sense of those words).

a reply to: AntonGonist

I have been going through the items you cited.

Let’s start with

According to the modern discoveries in physics, forces are not transmitted directly between interacting objects, but instead are described and interrupted by intermediary entities called fields.

By the why. Nice random quote with no cited source?

The above is in the context of actual interaction of objects in existence. There is no claim there is a field in existence independent of interacting objects.


You posted

In physics, a unified field theory (UFT) is a type of field theory that allows all that is usually thought of as fundamental forces and elementary particles to be written in terms of a pair of physical and virtual fields. According to the modern discoveries in physics, forces are not transmitted directly between interacting objects, but instead are described and interrupted by intermediary entities called fields.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Again. There is no claim there is a field independent from the interaction of objects.

Then you make like three more quotes totally void of context.

What the cited source goes on to say

Current status

Edit
Theoretical physicists have not yet formulated a widely accepted, consistent theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics to form a theory of everything. Trying to combine the graviton with the strong and electroweak interactions leads to fundamental difficulties and the resulting theory is not renormalizable. The incompatibility of the two theories remains an outstanding problem in the field of physics.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

What you are trying to do is spin Unified field theory as the new “Aether”. Uniform field theory is not making a claim the observable universe is saturated with this always present uniform field independent of objects. The cited source is quite clear in that it is referring to “interacting objects“. Does electromagnetic waves “interact” with objects. Yes. But those fields caused by electromagnetic radiation interacting with objects are gone when the electromagnetic wave is gone for whatever reason.

Again.
Uniform fiend theory is not making a claim the observable universe is saturated with this always present uniform field independent of objects.

What uniform field theory is trying to do is “attempted to unify general theory of relativity with electromagnetism”

Or

Uniform field theory is

The current quest for a unified field theory (sometimes called the holy grail of physicists) is largely focused on superstring theory and, in particular, on an adaptation known as M-theory.
whatis.techtarget.com...

M-theory

a simple equation that would reconcile incompatible aspects of his theory of relativity and quantum theory to explain the nature and behavior of all matter and energy
whatis.techtarget.com...

Uniform field theory has nothing to do with some magical force, field, or Aether that is always present and uniformly saturates the observable universe independent of interacting objects.

“Uniform” in uniform filed theory comes from the desire to find the “simple equation that would reconcile incompatible aspects of his theory of relativity and quantum theory to explain the nature and behavior of all matter and energy”. Find the magic bullet of physics equations.

And you trying to spin uniform field theory as the new Aether is right out dishonest.

a reply to: andy06shake

"What about black holes?"

A black hole is not a hole. It is a very dense collection of matter which was once dust, rocks, gases, etc. That collection of matter combines to create a very powerful gravitational field that is strong enough to capture light. Also matter itself is made of light. A black hole is just a very heavy object.

The matter in a black hole still has electrons and protons which can vibrate and create light as well. The light just can't escape. Light can enter, but not leave. The light can remain within the black hole passing from atom to atom toward the center. But by the time the light reaches the center, the light vibration is destructively canceled out, but not to absolute zero.

The atoms of the black whole vibrate enough to create heat (thermal light) and have a temperature. Black holes are very cold, but they are not perfectly cold. That is because the light is not canceled out to absolute zero.

"Is that not down to the fact that particles jump in and out of existence down to Quantum mechanics?"

Partly. However, I don't agree they are jumping in and out of existence. They are the result of peaks and valleys of very random electromagnetic waves that collide and constructively interfere with each other in such a way to form a temporary particle that can not sustain itself, because its not formed with the right energy level, nor in the right shape.

A perfect vacuum could only exist if the entire universe and all of its matter and energy were removed. If any matter which has gravity and electromagnetic properties existed anywhere in the universe then the vacuum would be affected by it, because gravity and electromagnetism are two forces that extend infinitely.

You can not create a box with a perfect vacuum in it. The walls of the box itself would have gravity and electromagnetic forces extending into it. There would be various frequencies of electromagnetic radiation passing through the walls of the box too, and can not effectively shield them all. The atoms of the box would also vibrate and create heat (thermal light) which would also extend into the box.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

There is nowhere in this universe that is absent of light.

A cave 300 feet down in the earth’s crust. How many photons make it through the 300 feet of earth’s crust to the cave?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

My friend,
That is not true. We know its a wave.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

There may not be such thing as pure darkness in the universe, as objects at any temperature above absolute zero emit black-body radiation, which is electromagnetic radiation at all frequencies.

But for all intents and purpose black holes, whilst they might not eat light per-say, neither do they allow it to leave.

Obviously, the creation of a perfect vacuum is practically impossible. To do so would require a container with a region of space without any particles......The first problem being that the container itself will radiate photons.

a reply to: neutronflux

What temperature is the cave? Is it absolute zero? No..

The air molecules inside the cave, as they move, collide with other air molecules, and that creates heat. They even collide with the walls of the cave, causing friction, and heat.

Heat is light.

The matter that forms the cave, and the matter that fills the cave (gases) are all emitting light. Radiowaves too (also light).

Try again?

a reply to: andy06shake

Correct.

Also, if a black hole captures light, and creates light, but does not allow it to leave. Then a black hole is made of light, and is ultimately a container full of light.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Well, the short answer is physicists don’t really know whats inside a black hole, as past the event horizon is where our physics goes crazy.

A somewhat longer answer probably depends on who you ask.

4.03am here now in my region of space-time. LoL

Need to get some sleep, I'm back up in a few hours.

a reply to: neutronflux

My friend,
With respect, it's not called "Uniform" Field Theory it is called "Unified" Field Theory. Also, I think you need to fully understand what M-Theory, Superstring Theory, Unified Field Theory, and other string theories are discussing.

They are discussing vibrating strings...

What exactly is vibrating? What physical thing? They generalize it as a dynamical object that propagates through spacetime, and its called a brane. However, what is it?

Say you were capable of doing the impossible, and you created a perfect vacuum, an area of complete nothingness. Then suddenly you see a vibrating string in the middle of that area. What is vibrating?

You'd have to say "nothingness" itself is vibrating. Once you say that "nothing" is vibrating you contradict yourself. That "nothing" must be "something" if it can vibrate. That also means you really were not able to create a perfect vacuum of "nothingness". There was "something" there all along, and now its vibrating.

That "something" is the fabric of reality. It is the very real ever pervading medium that AntonGonist is questioning.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Which it is great to question! Oh, and thank you for your detailed response to me earlier... I do understand what the OP is asking... he's just not being very nice about it.

The issue in this thread is that AntonGonist is not just questioning, but being openly hostile, rude and not particularly conversational. His posts are generally a sentence or two at most, extraordinarily dismissive, and when he ends every post with an insult, it makes it hard to conduct a balanced and congenial discussion with him... and his thread devolves in to mud slinging... which is about where you came in.

On the other hand, it is a joy discussing this with you. You are polite, informative and engaging.

What I find interesting is that in our current, practical every day use of these theories, that for what we currently need to achieve (largely electricity), that whether there is an aether or not doesn't seem to matter to us on a practical level.

My question is, what would be the implications of an aether for our day-to-day lives?

Would it help our understanding and use of electricity? Would it potentially open up new physics that could lead to new technologies? Wormholes perhaps? Or a different new force, like electricity, but something we haven't conceived of yet, to power machines we haven't imagined yet?... due to the understanding of the fabric of reality and all that?

Do you have any opinions on what a unified theory may achieve for us, on a practical level?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Thanks for the response... and I do get that I am oversimplifying it a lot, but doesn't it hold true then, that because gravity is indistinguishable from a fictitious force, that from at least one particular frame of reference (like not knowing that gravity is a fictitious force), gravity acts like a real force, so for all intents and purposes is a real force, for that particular frame of reference?

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
My question is, what would be the implications of an aether for our day-to-day lives?

The mainstream view is that since we can't find any evidence for the existence of luminiferous aether, if it exists as in say the Lorentz Aether Theory, the implications are merely philosophical, since there is no real objective, measurable difference between Lorentz Aether Theory and Relativity. If someone figures out how to measure a luminiferous aether and find objective evidence for it, that could change, but it seems unlikely that will happen, given all the experiments that have searched for it and failed to find it.

Do you have any opinions on what a unified theory may achieve for us, on a practical level?

Practical? Not really, our existing models predict what happens in practical matters well as far as we can tell, but there are two things which they fail to address which aren't that practical but they are sort of gaping holes in our current models.

We can't now give a good description of the singularities in black holes or the big bang. Physicists think "singularity" is not a realistic description and a way of saying "we don't know how to describe it accurately". So the two things a unified theory might do for us is give an accurate description replacing the "singularities" in black holes and the big bang, the two places where our existing models of relativity and quantum mechanics don't work well together.

originally posted by: puzzlesphere
a reply to: Arbitrageur
doesn't it hold true then, that because gravity is indistinguishable from a fictitious force, that from at least one particular frame of reference, gravity acts like a real force, so for all intents and purposes is a real force, for that particular frame of reference?

I can see how you might infer that from my post, and for that I apologize if I confused you.

To clarify, what you say is true about centrifugal force, there is a rotating reference frame where the fictitious force becomes a real force. so my intent in explaining this was to emphasize that the distinction between a "real" force and a "fictitious but apparent" force was subtle.

With gravity however I'm not aware of a reference frame where relativity says it's definitely a "real" force. What relativity does in the equivalence principle is say a person standing in a box on the ground and feeling 1G due to gravity and a person standing in a box in a spaceship accelerating at 1G can't tell any difference between the two. Since the latter in the rocket is definitely a fictitious force, that is why we say according to Einstein, the force of gravity is indistinguishable from a fictitious force. But as I said, physicists are still testing Einstein's claim that the two are indistinguishable. So far no difference has been found to distinguish them but it's possible they could find some difference at high energy, where it's thought relativity might break down, since we think the singularity in a black hole is sort of a breakdown of the theory of relativity.