What Medium is Propagating Electromagnetic Waves?

originally posted by: AntonGonist
a reply to: Arbitrageur

From NASA,

A changing magnetic field will induce a changing electric field and vice-versa—the two are linked. These changing fields form electromagnetic waves.

Electromagnetic waves differ from mechanical waves in that they do not require a medium to propagate.

And these fields are not a medium but they simply form a wave, which is a disturbance of a medium.........

You're getting hung up on words. The word "wave" is used to describe some of EM radiation's behaviors and characteristics, just like the term "particle" can be used to describe other behaviors and characteristics.

So the behavior/characteristics of EM radiation/photons can be described as being both wave-like and particle-like, but it is really NEITHER a particle NOR a wave in the classical sense. They are something else. Something that we are trying to understand, but the concepts are difficult for our brains to comprehend.

"Wave" and "Particle" are simple the best classical physics words we have to describe the weird quantum world, but...

The words we use to describe a thing is not necessarily the true nature of a thing

Here are a few excerpts from Physics Forum that might be helpful:

Electrons and photons are neither particles nor waves, as those words are understood in ordinary English usage. Both will display particle-like behavior (such as having a definite position) or wave-like behavior (interference, diffraction) depending on what you do with them, but that doesn't mean that they're either.

and

This "wave-particle duality" idea that collapse turns a wave into a particle was abandoned with the discovery of modern quantum mechanics in 1925 or thereabouts. At the turn of the 20th century physicists knew only classical waves and classical particles, so when they first encountered quantum phenomena around the turn of the 20th century they naturally interpreted these phenomena in those terms: particles have a definite position so If it has a definite position it's a particle; it acquires that position when a position measurement collapses the wave function; therefore it's a particle after collapse.

However, we now know that's not what was going on. Instead we have a quantum object. If we measure its position the wave function will collapse to a state of definite position and indefinite everything (non-commuting) else; if we measure something else the wave function will collapse to a state in which that something else is definite and the position is not. The states of definite position do not mean "it is a particle", they mean that a detector at a given position will trigger. Unfortunately, by then we had gotten in the habit of calling these quantum objects "particles" and the name stuck, even long after it became clear that they aren't anything like what the ordinary English-language word "particle" suggests.

Source: Physics Forum

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
"Wave" and "Particle" are simple the best classical physics words we have to describe the weird quantum world, but...

The words we use to describe a thing is not necessarily the true nature of a thing

Excellent point you made here about words evolving from historical usage which is later found to be inappropriate, but we keep using the terminology because it's difficult to change just because we found out it's not the right terminology.

That certainly applies to the distinction of wave versus particle. One of the physicists who taught me physics said the same thing as you, that we figured out a photon is neither one and he suggested using the term "wavicle", which is neither a particle nor a wave but an entity which has properties of both. I think he had a good idea to call it something else to avoid the "wave versus particle" confusion, but I only see the word used rarely so it didn't catch on in a big way. There is an entry in wiktionary for wavicle though:

"(quantum mechanics) A wave-particle; an entity which simultaneously has the properties of a wave and a particle."

More commonly it's called "wave-particle duality" which unfortunately still clings to the old words and makes people think of mechanical waves and marbles even though that's not the way physicists think of it:

"(physics) The concept applying to all matter and radiation, but most evident in light and particles such as the electron, that properties of waves and of particles are exhibited simultaneously"

Classical waves and particles don't have properties of both simultaneously so the fact that light does gives it a form we are unfamiliar with from prior classical experience.

There are other examples where historical usage of terms remains even though we now know they are incorrect. Sometimes we still refer to electron "orbitals", rooted in the early idea that electrons orbit the nucleus, but we now know the electrons don't orbit the nucleus.

I made a thread about one example which still confuses people, when they find out that what we call the Earth's north magnetic pole is not a north magnetic pole! Again, there are historical reasons for this misnomer.

Is the Earth's North Magnetic pole a North Magnetic Pole?
I had to actually convince some people that the Earth's north magnetic pole is not a north magnetic pole, since from what we call it, they understandably thought that's what it was. Trying to convince someone that "wave-particle duality" doesn't refer to actual classical waves or particles may also be challenging for similar reasons.

However I don't think AntonGonist is really interested in discussion, it seems like he dismisses everything everyone says and just repeats his mantra about waves needing a medium based on his false premise that also applies to electromagnetic waves, which it does not.

originally posted by: AntonGonist
a reply to: oldcarpy

Lol. But I had already eliminated spacetime before anyone responded. Here, once more since you seem to have missed it in my op and several posts after.

What is spacetime?

In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum.

A mathematical concept of space and time is not a medium. At best it is a description of a medium. But ok. You now admit that there is a medium that vibrates, called spacetime.

Can you now explain what the difference is between your vibrating spacetime medium and the Aether.

As you apparently think that something as deeply complicated and not completely understood as the concept of "spacetime" can be encapsulated in one short sentence there is not much point in having a sensible discussion with you.

Go prove that the Aether exists and win yourself a Nobel prize. Trolling your beliefs on an internet forum is probably not the best way to achieve that, though.

a reply to: AntonGonist

It's an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself changes. The universe does not expand into anything.

Over the past 50 years, astronomers have observed many other facts about the universe, that all point to the expansion.

I think i will stick with science over aether and what amounts to pseudoscience electric universe bullcrap.

At best mate, it may be worth a consideration that you are simply wrong, no shame in such.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

He's not running around in circles... he's asking you to "show" that there is an aether, because so far "science" has been unable to do so.

No, he is claiming that "space is void" and that therefore EM waves must be able to propagate without a medium..........we both know this is completely backwards since mainstream science even claims there is an underlying structure.

a reply to: andy06shake

I think i will stick with science over aether and what amounts to pseudoscience electric universe bullcrap.

Electric bullcrap? When your main non force of gravity is basically non existent compared to the dominant electrical force?

How come every explanation sofar has refered to electrical and magnetic fields?

The century old cop out and the excuses. "Ooh you are just hung up on words. You see the words they use are wrong......ooh you see they are not sure....... we'll just say its a particle AND a wave, at the SAME time. A Wavicle.......get it?'




Now is EM radiation a disturbance of a field or is it not?

a reply to: AntonGonist

No, he is claiming that "space is void" and that therefore EM waves must be able to propagate without a medium..........we both know this is completely backwards since mainstream science even claims there is an underlying structure.

Yes. For electromagnetic waves to propagate in this “reality” the waves must be “cut of the fabric of this reality”. Like for you to exist to post in this “reality” you must be “cut of the fabric of this reality”. You must be part of this “space time”.

Yes. The electromagnetic waves must be “real” to exist.

Again...

If I want to broadcast data from Pluto to Earth I can bypass using a data cable as a “medium” by using electromagnetic radiation that doesn’t need a medium to propagate because in this “reality” electromagnetic radiation has the inherent property of self propagation.

a reply to: neutronflux

electromagnetic radiation has the inherent property of self propagation.

According to NASA and your own source its propagated by electrical and magnetic fields. Do you deny that these fields exist in your "void of space" and everywhere else, for that matter? Take it up with NASA.

originally posted by: AntonGonist
a reply to: andy06shake

I think i will stick with science over aether and what amounts to pseudoscience electric universe bullcrap.

Electric bullcrap? When your main non force of gravity is basically non existent compared to the dominant electrical force?

How come every explanation sofar has refered to electrical and magnetic fields?

Are you now claiming that gravity is fake?

a reply to: oldcarpy

I am claiming exactly what I wrote. Go right ahead.

a reply to: AntonGonist

Go right ahead and what?

a reply to: oldcarpy

Post your follow up? Or was that it?

a reply to: AntonGonist

What follow up? You ducked my question.

originally posted by: AntonGonist
a reply to: neutronflux

electromagnetic radiation has the inherent property of self propagation.

According to NASA and your own source its propagated by electrical and magnetic fields. Do you deny that these fields exist in your "void of space" and everywhere else, for that matter? Take it up with NASA.

Your all messed up.

No I don’t. This is what you are referring to. There is an area in space void of all mater. There is no appreciable “ electrical and magnetic fields “. Along comes this self propagating electromagnetic wave modulated for a specific data transmission generating its own “electrical and magnetic fields”. Once this specific modulated electromagnetic wave passes out of our reference area of space, that area of space goes back to having no appreciable “electrical and magnetic fields “.

The self propagating electromagnetic wave is the source of “electrical and magnetic fields “. Hence “electromagnetic” radiation.

a reply to: neutronflux

Sorry but nothing you say is supported by anything. I am not going to discuss your fantasy with you.

a reply to: oldcarpy

You mean you have trouble understanding what I wrote. Are you going to make a point about what I wrote?

originally posted by: AntonGonist
a reply to: neutronflux

Sorry but nothing you say is supported by anything. I am not going to discuss your fantasy with you.

So?

Your in a logic trap with no proof there is any “medium” used to propagate a specific modulated electromagnetic broadcast from a probe around Pluto to earth as an example.

a reply to: AntonGonist
You wrote:

When your main non force of gravity is basically non existent compared to the dominant electrical force?

So, yes, I am having some trouble understanding what you wrote, hence why I asked you to clarify.

Cue some snide comment about written comprehension skills?

a reply to: oldcarpy

Let me explain it to you.

Your main non force of gravity is basically non existent compared to the dominant electrical force.

Do you get it now?