[Moderator: Spammed work-in-progress deleted. See later posts for how work evolves to make no more sense.]
Maybe no such thing as a vacuum, or "empty space" exists at all. Maybe what we think of as space is a function of forces of repulsion and the energy of motion as particles interact. E.g. if the volume and shape of a molecule is due to the repulsion of electrons not shared between the atoms, and air volume is the result of containing force (external pressure) versus energy of expansion (internal molecular kinetic energy), then as the containing force, caused by gravity becomes weaker, the time in between molecular collisions increases.
So, conduction of heat, for example, caused by molecules transferring kinetic energy to others during collisions, is not affected by the distance the molecule travels before its next collision. Thus, no energy is lost into a vacuum, it is only conducted at the moment it reaches another particle, even if it takes a very long time, over a long distance, for it to reach that other particle.
So then maybe light works the same way as kinetic energy between molecules. Maybe it travels instantaneously in a true vacuum, but travels more slowly than that in reality, because it is not actually moving through a vacuum but between a source and objects. This seems counter-intuitive to me, though, because why would it then seem to travel at such a uniform speed in so many experiments and observations?
Still, I don't see how it is possible for wave energy to travel in a true vacuum, with absolutely no medium. And I don't see how it is possible for photons to move at the same speed as the energy-waves they ride on, if they are actual particles - OR how they can be totally devoid of mass. Are photons a reality or a theoretical convenience for explaining certain properties of light?
I tend to think of other particles like elementary particles, atoms, and molecules as actually existing and not just concepts for modeling the behavior of larger events - so are photons as "real" as these others?
So, conduction of heat, for example, caused by molecules transferring kinetic energy to others during collisions, is not affected by the distance the molecule travels before its next collision. Thus, no energy is lost into a vacuum, it is only conducted at the moment it reaches another particle, even if it takes a very long time, over a long distance, for it to reach that other particle.
So then maybe light works the same way as kinetic energy between molecules. Maybe it travels instantaneously in a true vacuum, but travels more slowly than that in reality, because it is not actually moving through a vacuum but between a source and objects. This seems counter-intuitive to me, though, because why would it then seem to travel at such a uniform speed in so many experiments and observations?
Still, I don't see how it is possible for wave energy to travel in a true vacuum, with absolutely no medium. And I don't see how it is possible for photons to move at the same speed as the energy-waves they ride on, if they are actual particles - OR how they can be totally devoid of mass. Are photons a reality or a theoretical convenience for explaining certain properties of light?
I tend to think of other particles like elementary particles, atoms, and molecules as actually existing and not just concepts for modeling the behavior of larger events - so are photons as "real" as these others?
...
QUOTE (benito+Sep 21 2009, 12:01 AM)
"...the ether that forms Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation does not physically exist which is proof that modern theoretical physics is physically invalid. "
Wrong ;
Contrary to many uninformed non-scientific types like yourself...Michelson and Morley experiment didn't prove that the ether didn't exist, only that its existence is unnecessary to predict the behavior of light according to Maxwell's eqns.
No experiment has subsequently ever proven that a Lorentz invariant 'ether' doesn't exist.
Maxwell's equations are valid with or without an ether.
Your conclusions based upon this incorrect statement are therefore invalid.
...
Wrong ;
Contrary to many uninformed non-scientific types like yourself...Michelson and Morley experiment didn't prove that the ether didn't exist, only that its existence is unnecessary to predict the behavior of light according to Maxwell's eqns.
No experiment has subsequently ever proven that a Lorentz invariant 'ether' doesn't exist.
Maxwell's equations are valid with or without an ether.
Your conclusions based upon this incorrect statement are therefore invalid.
...
QUOTE (Lunarlanding+Sep 21 2009, 02:33 AM)
No experiment has subsequently ever proven that a Lorentz invariant 'ether' doesn't exist.
Maxwell's equations are valid with or without an ether.
Your conclusions based upon this incorrect statement are therefore invalid.
...
Is there any evidence to conclusively prove that photons have absolutely no mass, not even very little, i.e. like the size of molecules in comparison to planets, but then relative to molecules?
Intuitively it would make sense to me that photons are the particles that make up "ether." Photons may be everywhere, but are undetectable except when animated by energy waves to generate light. Photons may act like water molecules in an ocean, where light energy is the waves.
I get bullied for saying this, but it seems intuitively logical to me based on other models of energy and matter. I would like to know if there is an empirical basis, or a deductive one, that conclusively rejects the possibility that this is true, on the basis of evidence - i.e. not just because all the brilliant physicists that are smarter than I am have abandoned the notion of ether.
Maxwell's equations are valid with or without an ether.
Your conclusions based upon this incorrect statement are therefore invalid.
...
Is there any evidence to conclusively prove that photons have absolutely no mass, not even very little, i.e. like the size of molecules in comparison to planets, but then relative to molecules?
Intuitively it would make sense to me that photons are the particles that make up "ether." Photons may be everywhere, but are undetectable except when animated by energy waves to generate light. Photons may act like water molecules in an ocean, where light energy is the waves.
I get bullied for saying this, but it seems intuitively logical to me based on other models of energy and matter. I would like to know if there is an empirical basis, or a deductive one, that conclusively rejects the possibility that this is true, on the basis of evidence - i.e. not just because all the brilliant physicists that are smarter than I am have abandoned the notion of ether.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 21 2009, 10:48 AM)
Is there any evidence to conclusively prove that photons have absolutely no mass, not even very little, i.e. like the size of molecules in comparison to planets, but then relative to molecules?
Intuitively it would make sense to me that photons are the particles that make up "ether." Photons may be everywhere, but are undetectable except when animated by energy waves to generate light. Photons may act like water molecules in an ocean, where light energy is the waves.
I get bullied for saying this, but it seems intuitively logical to me based on other models of energy and matter. I would like to know if there is an empirical basis, or a deductive one, that conclusively rejects the possibility that this is true, on the basis of evidence - i.e. not just because all the brilliant physicists that are smarter than I am have abandoned the notion of ether.
You have yet to explain what property of mass it is that you think light has. All you've said so far is that light get's "tired" and turns around. This is not how mass works. Your "light has mass" theory is made of fail.
Intuitively it would make sense to me that photons are the particles that make up "ether." Photons may be everywhere, but are undetectable except when animated by energy waves to generate light. Photons may act like water molecules in an ocean, where light energy is the waves.
I get bullied for saying this, but it seems intuitively logical to me based on other models of energy and matter. I would like to know if there is an empirical basis, or a deductive one, that conclusively rejects the possibility that this is true, on the basis of evidence - i.e. not just because all the brilliant physicists that are smarter than I am have abandoned the notion of ether.
You have yet to explain what property of mass it is that you think light has. All you've said so far is that light get's "tired" and turns around. This is not how mass works. Your "light has mass" theory is made of fail.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 21 2009, 02:48 PM)
Is there any evidence to conclusively prove that photons have absolutely no mass, not even very little, i
No, only an upper limit.
In Quantum Field Theory the Maxwell equations can be generalized into what is called the Proca equations to allow for massive photons, but then there would exists a slight electromagnetic dispersion which could , with sensitive enough equipment, be detectable.
Based upon that anticipated change in EM field dispersion (in free space) there have been astrophysical experiments that have placed the upper limit of photons to be below 10^-50 gm. or possibly as low as 10^-60 gm. (We are talking about real photons here, not virtual).
for example:
[URL=http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v35/i21/p1402_1]
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v35/i21/p1402_1[/URL]
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0038-5670/19/7/R06
BTW, good question.
Lunar
No, only an upper limit.
In Quantum Field Theory the Maxwell equations can be generalized into what is called the Proca equations to allow for massive photons, but then there would exists a slight electromagnetic dispersion which could , with sensitive enough equipment, be detectable.
Based upon that anticipated change in EM field dispersion (in free space) there have been astrophysical experiments that have placed the upper limit of photons to be below 10^-50 gm. or possibly as low as 10^-60 gm. (We are talking about real photons here, not virtual).
for example:
[URL=http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v35/i21/p1402_1]
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v35/i21/p1402_1[/URL]
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0038-5670/19/7/R06
BTW, good question.
Lunar
QUOTE (Lunarlanding+Sep 21 2009, 04:57 PM)
No, only an upper limit.
In Quantum Field Theory the Maxwell equations can be generalized into what is called the Proca equations to allow for massive photons, but then there would exists a slight electromagnetic dispersion which could , with sensitive enough equipment, be detectable.
Based upon that anticipated change in EM field dispersion (in free space) there have been astrophysical experiments that have placed the upper limit of photons to be below 10^-50 gm. or possibly as low as 10^-60 gm. (We are talking about real photons here, not virtual).
for example:
[URL=http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v35/i21/p1402_1]
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v35/i21/p1402_1[/URL]
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0038-5670/19/7/R06
BTW, good question.
Lunar
Very good answer, the Proca formalism is the basis of the experiments that put severe limits on the photon mass.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 21 2009, 03:11 PM)
You have yet to explain what property of mass it is that you think light has. All you've said so far is that light get's "tired" and turns around. This is not how mass works. Your "light has mass" theory is made of fail.
Mine is not so much a theory as it is disbelief that such a thing could exist as a particle without mass. If photons are real and have very slight mass, as the other poster says, then why wouldn't they "get tired and turn around" when reaching a point far enough away from an object they are orbiting.
If you shoot a tennis ball at the moon from Earth at a high enough velocity, it would exit Earth orbit and enter into the moon's orbit, and probably fall to the moon (assuming it didn't burn up by air friction at the speed it would need to be shot/launched). If the tennis ball doesn't reach escape velocity for Earth's mass, it will "get tired and turn around" to fall back toward the ground.
So, if electrons have mass and no charge, then why wouldn't they behave the same way, but over very large distances? If you take space-time curvature as the theoretical way of explaining the gravity-interactions that influence the paths light takes, then this is already accounted for in physics.
However, I have never heard of any theory of space-time curvature that includes areas of space-time where two gravitational fields are not sufficiently close to each other to facilitate the continuous movement of photons between them. So, for example, if you take the example of the tennis ball going from Earth to Moon, there would be a distance between the two where the tennis ball would not be able to escape one orbit and enter the other. Instead it would just slow down to the point where it eventually "gets tired, turns around and fall backward" even if it achieved escape velocity - why? because it has to fall into orbit with some other mass to continue in a progressive path.
All objects in the universe have the tendency to orbit other objects. There is no such thing as a straight line that is not affected by gravitational attraction, correct?
Mine is not so much a theory as it is disbelief that such a thing could exist as a particle without mass. If photons are real and have very slight mass, as the other poster says, then why wouldn't they "get tired and turn around" when reaching a point far enough away from an object they are orbiting.
If you shoot a tennis ball at the moon from Earth at a high enough velocity, it would exit Earth orbit and enter into the moon's orbit, and probably fall to the moon (assuming it didn't burn up by air friction at the speed it would need to be shot/launched). If the tennis ball doesn't reach escape velocity for Earth's mass, it will "get tired and turn around" to fall back toward the ground.
So, if electrons have mass and no charge, then why wouldn't they behave the same way, but over very large distances? If you take space-time curvature as the theoretical way of explaining the gravity-interactions that influence the paths light takes, then this is already accounted for in physics.
However, I have never heard of any theory of space-time curvature that includes areas of space-time where two gravitational fields are not sufficiently close to each other to facilitate the continuous movement of photons between them. So, for example, if you take the example of the tennis ball going from Earth to Moon, there would be a distance between the two where the tennis ball would not be able to escape one orbit and enter the other. Instead it would just slow down to the point where it eventually "gets tired, turns around and fall backward" even if it achieved escape velocity - why? because it has to fall into orbit with some other mass to continue in a progressive path.
All objects in the universe have the tendency to orbit other objects. There is no such thing as a straight line that is not affected by gravitational attraction, correct?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 21 2009, 04:28 PM)
Mine is not so much a theory as it is disbelief that such a thing could exist as a particle without mass. If photons are real and have very slight mass, as the other poster says, then why wouldn't they "get tired and turn around" when reaching a point far enough away from an object they are orbiting.
So in other words, reality doesn't live up to your assumptions, so reality must be wrong.
This is an effect of gravity and mass working in concert. Mass provides inertia, gravity is a force.
This is an effect of gravity and mass working in concert. Mass provides inertia, gravity is a force.
So, if electrons have mass and no charge, then why wouldn't they behave the same way, but over very large distances? If you take space-time curvature as the theoretical way of explaining the gravity-interactions that influence the paths light takes, then this is already accounted for in physics.
Photons and electrons are nothing alike. First of all, they aren't even the same size.
No, all objects in the universe do NOT have that tendency. If by orbit, you meant attract, then you would be correct.
If you are so much more advanced than them, why don't you debate their 10^50 gm (or whatever it was) estimate?
See, I told you it was a subject that is too advanced for your level of knowledge.
Not.
Not.
I don't understand what that means yet, but I guess I'll have to go googling for it to get over the inferiority complex you've given me with your insult.
Google will not help on this subject.
So in other words, reality doesn't live up to your assumptions, so reality must be wrong.
QUOTE
If you shoot a tennis ball at the moon from Earth at a high enough velocity, it would exit Earth orbit and enter into the moon's orbit, and probably fall to the moon (assuming it didn't burn up by air friction at the speed it would need to be shot/launched). If the tennis ball doesn't reach escape velocity for Earth's mass, it will "get tired and turn around" to fall back toward the ground.
This is an effect of gravity and mass working in concert. Mass provides inertia, gravity is a force.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you shoot a tennis ball at the moon from Earth at a high enough velocity, it would exit Earth orbit and enter into the moon's orbit, and probably fall to the moon (assuming it didn't burn up by air friction at the speed it would need to be shot/launched). If the tennis ball doesn't reach escape velocity for Earth's mass, it will "get tired and turn around" to fall back toward the ground. |
This is an effect of gravity and mass working in concert. Mass provides inertia, gravity is a force.
So, if electrons have mass and no charge, then why wouldn't they behave the same way, but over very large distances? If you take space-time curvature as the theoretical way of explaining the gravity-interactions that influence the paths light takes, then this is already accounted for in physics.
Photons and electrons are nothing alike. First of all, they aren't even the same size.
QUOTE
All objects in the universe have the tendency to orbit other objects. There is no such thing as a straight line that is not affected by gravitational attraction, correct?
No, all objects in the universe do NOT have that tendency. If by orbit, you meant attract, then you would be correct.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 21 2009, 08:41 PM)
No, all objects in the universe do NOT have that tendency. If by orbit, you meant attract, then you would be correct.
In what situation would two objects in the universe NOT exert gravitational attraction on one another, if they both have mass? And, as such, aren't there only two possible results of this: 1) collision or 2) orbit. Am I missing something?
In what situation would two objects in the universe NOT exert gravitational attraction on one another, if they both have mass? And, as such, aren't there only two possible results of this: 1) collision or 2) orbit. Am I missing something?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 21 2009, 05:20 PM)
In what situation would two objects in the universe NOT exert gravitational attraction on one another, if they both have mass? And, as such, aren't there only two possible results of this: 1) collision or 2) orbit. Am I missing something?
To orbit is an effect, not the cause.
You still have not given any reason why light should have mass except for your own personal preferences.
To orbit is an effect, not the cause.
You still have not given any reason why light should have mass except for your own personal preferences.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 21 2009, 09:36 PM)
To orbit is an effect, not the cause.
You still have not given any reason why light should have mass except for your own personal preferences.
I was responding to Trout's quote of Lunarlanding in the above posts. If I understood right, they claimed that photons are real and do have a very slight mass:
Is this quote not referring to mass?
You still have not given any reason why light should have mass except for your own personal preferences.
I was responding to Trout's quote of Lunarlanding in the above posts. If I understood right, they claimed that photons are real and do have a very slight mass:
QUOTE
Based upon that anticipated change in EM field dispersion (in free space) there have been astrophysical experiments that have placed the upper limit of photons to be below 10^-50 gm. or possibly as low as 10^-60 gm. (We are talking about real photons here, not virtual).
Is this quote not referring to mass?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 21 2009, 09:44 PM)
I was responding to Trout's quote of Lunarlanding in the above posts. If I understood right, they claimed that photons are real
Yes.
No. But this is a subject far too advanvced for you.
Yes.
QUOTE
and do have a very slight mass
No. But this is a subject far too advanvced for you.
QUOTE (Trout+Sep 21 2009, 10:00 PM)
Yes.
No. But this is a subject far too advanvced for you.
And I should heed your assertion of my inferiority why? And why don't you respond to the above-posted claim of how much mass photons have, instead of attacking me for my level of intelligence?
If you are so much more advanced than them, why don't you debate their 10^50 gm (or whatever it was) estimate?
I suppose your position (the one that is too advanced for the likes of me) has something to do with mass being determined by energy level as velocity approaches c, or something like that. I don't understand what that means yet, but I guess I'll have to go googling for it to get over the inferiority complex you've given me with your insult.
No. But this is a subject far too advanvced for you.
And I should heed your assertion of my inferiority why? And why don't you respond to the above-posted claim of how much mass photons have, instead of attacking me for my level of intelligence?
If you are so much more advanced than them, why don't you debate their 10^50 gm (or whatever it was) estimate?
I suppose your position (the one that is too advanced for the likes of me) has something to do with mass being determined by energy level as velocity approaches c, or something like that. I don't understand what that means yet, but I guess I'll have to go googling for it to get over the inferiority complex you've given me with your insult.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 21 2009, 11:30 PM)
If you are so much more advanced than them, why don't you debate their 10^50 gm (or whatever it was) estimate?
See, I told you it was a subject that is too advanced for your level of knowledge.
QUOTE
I suppose your position (the one that is too advanced for the likes of me) has something to do with mass being determined by energy level as velocity approaches c, or something like that.
Not.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I suppose your position (the one that is too advanced for the likes of me) has something to do with mass being determined by energy level as velocity approaches c, or something like that. |
Not.
I don't understand what that means yet, but I guess I'll have to go googling for it to get over the inferiority complex you've given me with your insult.
Google will not help on this subject.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 21 2009, 07:30 PM)
And I should heed your assertion of my inferiority why? And why don't you respond to the above-posted claim of how much mass photons have, instead of attacking me for my level of intelligence?
Trout knows way more than I do about the subject. If he called me an idiot, I would accept it. You are just showing off your profound arrogance again. There are some things you will never understand unless you devote years of study to learn it.
Trout knows way more than I do about the subject. If he called me an idiot, I would accept it. You are just showing off your profound arrogance again. There are some things you will never understand unless you devote years of study to learn it.
It seems I've gotten so close to the important stuff in physics that it is time to give me the story about the elite group of physicists who are so secretive that the work they're doing is censored from anything googlable and only through years of taking classes will I even be able to think about comprehending the concepts.
Hmmm. Ok, I give up. NOT!
Hmmm. Ok, I give up. NOT!
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 21 2009, 08:23 PM)
It seems I've gotten so close to the important stuff in physics that it is time to give me the story about the elite group of physicists who are so secretive that the work they're doing is censored from anything googlable and only through years of taking classes will I even be able to think about comprehending the concepts.
RATS! You've discovered our master plan! We're trying to hide facts from stupid people!
RATS! You've discovered our master plan! We're trying to hide facts from stupid people!
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 22 2009, 01:19 AM)
RATS! You've discovered our master plan! We're trying to hide facts from stupid people!
Yep!
Yep!
QUOTE (Trout+Sep 22 2009, 01:22 AM)
Yep!
Really! Stupid stupid-people! They should all be kept in the dark. That will teach them!
Really! Stupid stupid-people! They should all be kept in the dark. That will teach them!
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 21 2009, 09:38 PM)
Really! Stupid stupid-people! They should all be kept in the dark. That will teach them!
Stupid people are more comfortable with being lied to than hearing the truth. Case in point: Fox News Channel.
Stupid people are more comfortable with being lied to than hearing the truth. Case in point: Fox News Channel.
I am almost sure there has to be some way to break the light barrier in terms of standard velocity.
Obviously light itself travels at such great speeds, why would there be any reason that something else couldn't?
Obviously light itself travels at such great speeds, why would there be any reason that something else couldn't?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 22 2009, 02:16 AM)
Stupid people are more comfortable with being lied to than hearing the truth. Case in point: Fox News Channel.
And this makes it a good thing to enter into a covenant of ignorance with them?
How does Fox News do this exactly?
And this makes it a good thing to enter into a covenant of ignorance with them?
How does Fox News do this exactly?
QUOTE (Mr Puffy+Sep 22 2009, 12:08 PM)
I am almost sure there has to be some way to break the light barrier in terms of standard velocity.
Obviously light itself travels at such great speeds, why would there be any reason that something else couldn't?
Maybe nothing, including light, can travel faster than C, the absolute speed limit of light. But it is my understanding that light can go slower than C, so in that case it may be possible for something other than light can go faster than light when the light is substantially decelerated.
The reason this is not supposed to be possible, I think, is because physicists model velocity-changes of light as space-time distortion, and assume that light always travels at the same speed within the frame it is measured within. I don't see how this works with material media like water, glass, air, etc. - and honestly I'm not that sure about what I am saying so hopefully one of the more rigorous theorists on this forum will correct me.
Obviously light itself travels at such great speeds, why would there be any reason that something else couldn't?
Maybe nothing, including light, can travel faster than C, the absolute speed limit of light. But it is my understanding that light can go slower than C, so in that case it may be possible for something other than light can go faster than light when the light is substantially decelerated.
The reason this is not supposed to be possible, I think, is because physicists model velocity-changes of light as space-time distortion, and assume that light always travels at the same speed within the frame it is measured within. I don't see how this works with material media like water, glass, air, etc. - and honestly I'm not that sure about what I am saying so hopefully one of the more rigorous theorists on this forum will correct me.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 22 2009, 08:13 AM)
And this makes it a good thing to enter into a covenant of ignorance with them?
It's not my choice. Ignorant people choose to substitute their own false facts for real facts. They choose to believe that Obama is a Muslim despite all the evidence against.
Fox News tells people what they want to hear, and keeps them ignorant through fear. Watch "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism" if you want to know why Fox News is the bane of all journalism.
It's not my choice. Ignorant people choose to substitute their own false facts for real facts. They choose to believe that Obama is a Muslim despite all the evidence against.
QUOTE
How does Fox News do this exactly?
Fox News tells people what they want to hear, and keeps them ignorant through fear. Watch "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism" if you want to know why Fox News is the bane of all journalism.
Tunnel of Love
"Maybe no such thing as a vacuum, or "empty space" exists at all." (tunnel of light : TOL)
Huygens' propagation mechanism is based on a Ethereal matter, and Maxwell's ether is also composed of matter (solid, liquid or gas). The fundamental structure in forming a wave structure is a medium composed of matter. To imply that vacuum is not empty is simply violating common sense which I hope you have.
“Still, I don't see how it is possible for wave energy to travel in a true vacuum, with absolutely no medium.” (TOL).
See, I knew you had common sense.
“I tend to think of other particles like elementary particles, atoms, and molecules as actually existing”
I like that…………you read my paper!
"Maybe no such thing as a vacuum, or "empty space" exists at all." (tunnel of light : TOL)
Huygens' propagation mechanism is based on a Ethereal matter, and Maxwell's ether is also composed of matter (solid, liquid or gas). The fundamental structure in forming a wave structure is a medium composed of matter. To imply that vacuum is not empty is simply violating common sense which I hope you have.
“Still, I don't see how it is possible for wave energy to travel in a true vacuum, with absolutely no medium.” (TOL).
See, I knew you had common sense.
“I tend to think of other particles like elementary particles, atoms, and molecules as actually existing”
I like that…………you read my paper!
Light In tunnel
“Intuitively it would make sense to me that photons are the particles that make up "ether." (Light in Tunnel).
A photon is electromagnetic. Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is formed by the motion of an ether, composed of matter; consequently, the photons cannot make up the ether.
“Intuitively it would make sense to me that photons are the particles that make up "ether." (Light in Tunnel).
A photon is electromagnetic. Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is formed by the motion of an ether, composed of matter; consequently, the photons cannot make up the ether.
Optica!
Ben T. Ito
Sept20,22, 2009
1. Introduction
The ancient Greeks believed the eye sent out feelers that felt the object being observed. The first physical achievement in the study of light occurred in the Middle East; during the middle ages, the theory that light is an external entity rather than an emanation from the eye was introduced and subsequently the hand-held telescope was invented by dissecting the eye and studying the eye’s lens. The Arabian hand-held telescope later became Galileo’s astronomic telescope.
The idea light is formed by the motion of a medium came from the discovery of the diffraction phenomena by Father Grimaldi (1665) but theether wave theory of light could not explain how light travels in a vacuum. The ether theory of vacuum since light is based on waves formed by the motion of a medium (ether) composed of matter yet light propagates, forms the diffraction, reflection, polarization and blackbody radiation effects in vacuum that is void of matter (solid, liquid or gas). The wave (ether) theory of light which is based on a medium experimental proof that does light waves do not physically exist.
2. Huygens
Huygens describes thepropagation, and transmission-reflection mechanisms propagation of light in “Treatise on Light” (1690). According to Huygens, light forms waves produced by the motion of an Ethereal matter (ether).
“Now if one examines what this matter may be in which the movement coming from the luminous body is propagated, which I call Ethereal matter,” (Huygens, p. 11).
The motion of Huygens’ Ethereal matter forms Huygens’ wave structure of light yet light propagates in vacuum that is void of matter (solid, liquid or gas). Huygens’ wave theory of light is based on a ether that does not physically exist.
In Huygens’partial wave propagation mechanism of light (fig 1), the wave front HI emits partial waves from points b,b,b,b. Huygens’ wave front (HI) is generating energy (partial waves). A candle flame, the sun or a light bulb are physical sources that emit light by consuming energy. Huygens’ partial wave propagation mechanism of light uses a wave front (HI), as a physical source that is generating partial waves (energy), which violates the law of conservation of energy.
At every point along the wave front HI (fig 1), a partial wave is formed. The far points of the partial waves are used to construct the wave front DCF yet to form the continuity of the constructed wave front DCF, the partial waveswould have to be are simultaneously emitted which forms a catistrophic represents the creation of an enormous amount of energy (partial waves) which is in violation of the law of conservation of light.violates energy conservation.
Huygens describes a light beam, formed by partial waves (fig 1).
“To come to the properties of Light. We remark first that each portion of a wave ought to spread in such a way that its extremities lie always between the same straight lines drawn from the luminous point. Thus the portion BG of the wave, having the luminous point A as its centre, will spread into the arc CE bounded by the straight lines ABC, AGE.” (Huygens, p. 20).
Huygens’ expanding partial waves cannot form a light beam since the expanding partial waves’ structures would extend outside the lines ABC and AGE (fig 1), and form a light intensity outside the light beam. Huygens arbitrarily ignores (destroys) the partial waves’ structures that are not within “the straight lines ABC, AGE” to form a light beam which violatesthe law of conservation of energy.energy conservation.
Huygens’ propagation mechanism of light is described (fig 1).
“of those comprised within the sphere DCF, will have made its particular or partial wave KCL, which will touch the wave DCF at C at the same moment that the principal wave emanating from the point A has arrived at DCF; and it is clear that it will be only the region C of the wave KCL which will touch the wave DCF” (Huygens, p. 19).
Every point along Huygens' wave front (HI) emitsan expanding partial wave. Only the The far points of the expanding partial waves are used to construct the wave front DCF. The unused partial waves’ structures structures, between K and C, and between C and L, for every partial wave formed along the wave front HI, are ignored (destroyed) after the wave front DCF is constructed. If the unwanted structures of the partial waves are not eliminated, after the wave front DCF is constructed, the unwanted structures of the partial waves would cascade onto the wave front DCF and increase the intensity of light during propagation yet experimentally the intensity of light does not increase during propagation. An enormous amount of energy (partial waves) is created then destroyed in Huygens’ partial wave propagation mechanism of light which violates the law of conservation of energy.energy conservation.
Newton’s prism separates chromatic light into a chromatic spectrum (fig 2). Each band of Newton’s spectrum represents a different frequency (color) of light yetexpanding spherical waves cannot form the discrete bands of Newton’s chromatic spectrum since Newton’s spectrum is a particle effect that cannot be described using Huygens’ expanding spherical waves (fig 1). effect. Newton’s spectrum is experimental proof that Huygens’ wave theory of light is physically invalid.
3. Fresnel
Fresnel’s diffraction mechanism is describe in “Memorie su la Diffraction de la Lumiere” (1818).
“It follows from the principle of the superposition of small motions that the vibrations produced at any point in an elastic fluid by several disturbances are equal to the resultant of all the disturbances reaching this point at the same instant” (Fresnel, translated by Henry Crew, section 43).
Fresnel’s interference mechanism of light is formed by the motion of an elastic fluid yet the diffraction effect of light forms in vacuum that is void of matter (solid, liquid or gas). Fresnel’s diffraction mechanism, is based on an elastic medium (ether), that does not physically exist.
Fresnel uses an integral to describe the aperture diffraction effects of light where a surface integral is applied to the aperture and used to summated the interfering waves’ amplitudes, at a point on the diffraction screen, but a surface integral can only be used to derive an exact area and cannot be used to summate interfering waves’ amplitudes on the diffraction screen. Fresnel is improperly using Newton’s integration. Fresnel’s description of the aperture diffraction effects of light, using Newton’s integration, is mathematically invalid.
Lenard’s photoelectric effect (1899) proves light is composed of particles that energy is dependent on only the frequency which conflicts with Fresnel’s wave interference mechanism of light where, at a point on the diffraction screen, the wave amplitudes form the diffraction pattern’sintensity. The wave amplitudes form the intensity (energy) of the diffraction pattern which forms a light energy that is dependent on the amplitude. In an experiment, a photomultiplier (photoelectric) is placed, at intensity points;points on the diffraction screen; the photomultiplier experiment proves that light energy is dependent on only the frequency which is experimental physical proof that the diffraction effect effects of light is are not formed by Fresnel’s interference.wave interference mechanism of light.
4. Maxwell
In Maxwell’s paper “On Physical Lines of Force” (1862), Maxwell states a charging and discharging capacitor of a circuit forms an electric current displacement in a dielectric.
“it is the commencement of a current, and its variations constitute currents in the positive or negative direction, according as the displacement is increasing or diminishing. The amount of the displacement depends on the nature of the body, and on the electromotive force; so that if h is the displacement, R the electromotive force, and E a coefficient depending on the nature of the dielectric, R =4π E2 4pi(E^2) h; and if r is the value of the electric current due to displacement, r = dh/dt .” (Maxwell, part 3).
The induction effect formed by a charging and discharging capacitor of a circuit does not emit light. Maxwell’s electric current displacement (dh/dt), formed by a charging and discharging capacitor cannot be used to represent the structure of light.
In Maxwell’s paper “Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field” (1864), the motion of an elastic medium composed of matter forms Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation.
“there is matter in motion, by which the observed electromagnetic phenomena are produced.” (Maxwell, intro).
Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory is based on an ether but light propagates in vacuum that is void of matter (solid, liquid or gas). Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory is based on an ether that does not physically exist.
Maxwell states that transverse waves form polarized light.
“the disturbance at any point is transverse to the direction of propagation, and such waves may have all the properties of polarized light.” (Maxwell, part VI).
A transverse wave is a surface wave formed by the motion ofa medium an ether composed of matter. The oscillation of a surface forms a transverse wave but polarized light propagates in vacuum that is void of matter (solid, liquid or gas) which is experimental proof that Maxwell’s transverse wave does not physically exist.
Maxwell describes the propagation of light with the following equation:
“If the equation of propagation of light is
F = A cos [(2π/λ)(2pi/l)(z - Vt)] ” (Maxwell*, part VI)............ 1
Maxwell’s propagation equation of light is invalid since z - Vt = 0. In addition, the ether that forms Maxwell electromagnetic wave structure of light does not physically exist which is experimental proof that Maxwell’s propagation equation (equ 1) is invalid.
Lenard’s photoelectric effect (1899) proves light is composed of particles that energy is dependent on only the frequency which conflicts withthe energy of Maxwell’s electromagnetic wave structure of light that energy is dependent on the frequency and amplitude. In addition, Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is not a particle structure.structure since an electron’s electric field is not composed of particles. Lenard’s photoelectric effect prove proves light is not an electromagnetic phenomenan.phenomenon.
5. Planck
In Planck’s paper “On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum” (1901), an energyelement, and energy distribution law are element is derived using resonators,resonators: molecules of the blackbody cavity wall, (Morrison, p. 21-24) that emit Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation by the radiation. The vibration of a diathermic medium (ether),, produced by the resonators, forms Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation.
“the entropy of a resonator vibrating in an arbitrary diathermic medium depends only on the variable U/v,” (Planck, part 2).
“I plan to derive elsewhere the expressions for the intensity and entropy of radiation progressing in a diathermic medium,” (Planck, part 2).
The blackbody radiation effect forms in vacuum that is void of a diathermic medium (ether) composed of matter (solid, liquid or gas) which is experimental proofthat Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation does not physically exist.
The derivation of Planck’s energy element is described. Planck uses Boltzmann’s thermodynamic entropy equation (Planck, part 1),
S = k logR........................ R…………………….. 2
Combination theory is used to derive,
R = {[N + P]^(N + P)}/[} [N^N P^P]^(-1).............3
Equations 2 and 3 are used with UN = NU and UN =Pε Pe to form Planck’s thermodynamics entropy equation,
S = f(U/e) = k{(1 + U/e) log (1 + U/e) - (U/e) log (U/ε)}.............. e)}............. 4
Equation 4 is an electromagnetic entropy equation that is dependent on U/v.
Planck derives an electromagnetic entropy equation that is dependent on U/v.
“Since we do not have to consider the total radiation, but only the monochromatic radiation, it becomes necessary in order to compare different diathermic media to introduce the frequencyn v instead of the wavelength l. Thus, let us denote by u · • dv the volume density of the radiation energy belonging to the spectral region v to v + dv; then we write: u · • dv instead of E · • dl; c/v instead of l, and c · • dv/v2 v^2 instead of dl. From which we obtain
u = T^5(c/c v^(-2) Y(ct/v)Y ct v(-1)" (Planck, part 2).........................5
Equation 5 is used to derive (Planck, part 1),
T = v • f(U/v).............. 6
and 1/T = dS/dU to form,
dS/dU = 1/v· • f(U/v)................................... ……………………….7
Rearranging equation6 7 then using an integration,
int(dS) = int[ [f(U/v) dU]........................... 8
Equation 8 is used to form Planck’s electromagnetic entropy equation,
“S = f(U/v) ............................... ……………………..9
that is, the entropy of a resonator vibrating in an arbitrary diathermic medium depends only on the variable U/v, containing besides this only universal constants. This is the simplest form of Wien's displacement law known to me. §10. If we apply Wien's displacement law in the latter form to equation (6) for the entropy S, we then find that the energy elementε e must be proportional to the frequency v, thus:” (Planck, part 2).
Using equations 5 and 9, Planck states that “the energy element ε must be proportional to the frequency v”,
e (proprotional to)v............................... ε oc v………………………..10
Planck’s energy elementε e is derived using equation 10,
e =hv. .............................. hv…………………………….11
Planck states that light forms Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation,
“the electromagnetic theory of radiation for the monochromatic vibrations of a resonator” (Planck, part 1).
The frequencyv v, of equation 5 5, and the energy element (equ 11) , represent Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation yet the energy of Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is dependent on the frequency and amplitude which cannot be represented with an energy element that is dependent on only the frequency. In addition, Boltzmann’s thermodynamics entropy equation (equ 2) is used to derive Planck’s energy element but gas molecules do no not oscillate at the frequency of light. Planck’s energy element cannot be used to represent the energy of light. Also, Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is not a particle structure. An electron’s electric field is not composed of particles which is proof that Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is not composed of particles.a particle structure. Planck’s blackbody derivation, based on Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation, is physically invalid.
6. Einstein Energy Quanta
In Einstein’s paper, “On a Heuristic Point of View about the Creation and Conversion of Light” (1905), Einstein derives an electromagnetic entropy equation (Einstein, part 4),
“We call the electrons bound to points in space “resonators”; they emit and
absorb electromagnetic waves with definite periods.” (Einstein, part 1).
“S - S' = [E/(Bf)] ln (v/vo). ........................... v')..................................12
This equation shows that the entropy of a monochromatic radiation of sufficiently small density varies with volume according to the same rules as the entropy of a perfect gas or of a dilute solution.” (Einstein, part 4).
“We call the electrons bound to points in space “resonators”; they emit and
absorb electromagnetic waves with definite periods.” (Einstein, part 1).
Boltzmann’s thermodynamic entropy equation and W Einstein’s probability (W) are used (Einstein, part 5), ,,
“S - S' = (R/N) ln W”....... & ....... “ W = ( v/v')^n".........13
Einstein states:
“Monochromatic radiation of low density behaves--as long as Wien’s radiation formula is valid--in a thermodynamic sense, as if it consisted of mutually independent energy quanta of magnitude RBf/N.” (Einstein, part 6).
Einstein’s energy quanta (RBf/N) contains Boltzmann’s gas molecule constants N and R yet gas molecules do not oscillate at the frequency of light. Einstein energy quanta cannot be used to represent the energy of light. Boltzmann committed suicide, in 1906.
Einstein’s Einstein states that Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is composed of energy quanta (particles), that energy is dependent on only the frequency. The energy of Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is dependent on the frequency and amplitude which conflict with Lenard’s photoelectric effect that proves light energy is dependent on only the frequency. IN In addition, Einstein’s energy quanta is derived using Boltzmann’s gas molecule entropy equation (equ 37)13a) but Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is not a particle structure since a magnet’s magnetic field is not composed of particles,field, and the magnetic field formed by a current carrying wire, is wire (Ampere’s law), are not composed of particles which is experimental proof that Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is not composed of particles.a particle structure. Also, the ether that forms Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation does not physically exist. The fundamental structure (ether), that forms Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation, does not physically exist. Einstein’s photoelectric (energy quanta) paper is based on an ether that does not physically exist.invalid.
7. Einstein Electrodynamics
In Einstein’s electrodynamics paper, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” (1905), Einstein expands a variation of the electric and magnetic curl equations,
“Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations For Empty Space.
On the Nature of the Electromotive Force Occurring in a Magnetic
Field During Motion
1/c)(dX/dt) = dN/dy - dM/dz................(1/c)(dL/dt) = dY/dz - dZ/dy............14a,b
(1/c)(dY/dt) = dL/dz - dN/dx................(1/c)(dM/dt) = dZ/dx - dX/dz............15a,b
(1/c)(dX/dt) = dM/dx - dL/dy................(1/c)(dN/dt) = dX/dy - dY/dx............16a,b
where (X, Y, Z) denotes the vector of the electric force, and (L, M, N) that of the magnetic force.” (Einstein*, part 6).
The following equations are described,
X’ = X…………………...........……….L’ = L………...........……………….(17a,
Y’ = B (Y – [v/c]N),.............. M’ = B(M – [v/c]Z),............ (17a,18a,
Z’ = B (Z – [v/c]M),............. N’ = B(N – [v/c]Y).”.............. (18a,.”............ (19a,
where (Einstein*, part 6),
B = 1/(1 - v^2/c^2)^˝ . ...................1920
Einstein expands a variation of the electric and The magnetic curl equations (equ 14a,b – 16a, but the magnetic curl equation is derived using Maxwell’s electric current displacement (dE/dt) but light is not formed by a charging and discharging capacitor. Einstein’s electrodynamics is physically invalid.cannot be used to represent the physical structure of light.
In Einstein’s paper “Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity” (1916), Einstein uses the electric and magnetic curl equations,
“§ 20. Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Field Equations for Free Space ………..
- dH/dt = curl E (60b) ….. dE'/dt + j = curl H’...... (63a)”........................ ”.................. 21a,b
(Einstein**, § 20).
The electric and magnetic curl equations (equ 21a, represent Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation but an electron electric field is not composed of particles. In addition, a magnet, and current carrying wire’s magnetic fields are not composed of particles which is proof that Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is not a particle phenomenon. Also, formed by the motion of an ether that forms Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation does not physically exist since light propagates in vacuum that which is void of matter (solid, liquid or gas). experimental proof that Einstein’s relativity is based on an ether that does not physically exist.invalid.
8. Conclusion
Quantum mechanics (QM), quantum electrodynamics (QED), quantum field theory (QFT), string and gauge theories are electromagnetic field theories that use Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation but Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is not a particlestructure,structure. An electron’s electric field and the ether a magnet’s magnetic field are not composed of particles which is proof that forms Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation does not physically exist which is proof not a particle structure and that modern theoretical physics is physically invalid.
The diffraction effect of light cannot be described using electro-magnetic photons since the dark fringes of the diffraction pattern formed by wave interference violates energy conservation, and using the wave amplitudes to form the diffraction effect produces a light energy that is dependent on the amplitude which conflict with Lenard, and Compton effects.
The aperture diffraction effect of light is described using optic particles. During the aperture diffraction effect of light, optic particles propagate close to the aperture edge. The gravitational force of the aperture edge atomsdiffracts directs the optic particles to the intensity areas, of the diffraction pattern and does not diffracted direct the optic particles to the dark areas of the diffraction pattern.
Global Warming.
9. References
Crew, Henry. “The Wave Theory of Light: memoirs by Huygens, Young and Fresnel” Edited by H. Crew. New York: American Book Co. 1900.
Einstein, Albert. “On a Heuristic Point of View about the Creation and Conversion of Light”. Annalen der Physik. 17: 132-148. 1905.
Einstein*, Albert. “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”. Annalen der Physik. 17: 891-921. 1905.
Einstein**, Albert. “Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity”. Annalen der Physik. 47. 1916.
Fresnel, Augustin. "Memorie su la Diffraction de la Lumiere". French Academy of Science. 1818.
Lenard, Philipp. Annalen der Physik. 8: 149 - 198. 1902.
Maxwell*, James. “Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field”. Royal Society Transactions. Vol. CLV. 1864.
Maxwell, James. “On Physical Lines of Force”. Philosophical Magazine, Volume XXI. 1862.
Morrison, Michael A. “Understanding Quantum Physics”. Prentice Hall. 1990.
Niven, W. D. "The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell". Dover Pub. 1994.
Nye, Mary Jo. “The Question of the Atom” Tomash Pub. 1984.
Planck, Max. “On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum”. Annalen der Physik. IV, 4: 553-563. 1901.
JudiBari................. Bari ............................. Koran
Ben T. Ito
Sept
1. Introduction
The ancient Greeks believed the eye sent out feelers that felt the object being observed. The first physical achievement in the study of light occurred in the Middle East; during the middle ages, the theory that light is an external entity rather than an emanation from the eye was introduced and subsequently the hand-held telescope was invented by dissecting the eye and studying the eye’s lens. The Arabian hand-held telescope later became Galileo’s astronomic telescope.
The idea light is formed by the motion of a medium came from the discovery of the diffraction phenomena by Father Grimaldi (1665) but the
2. Huygens
Huygens describes the
“Now if one examines what this matter may be in which the movement coming from the luminous body is propagated, which I call Ethereal matter,” (Huygens, p. 11).
The motion of Huygens’ Ethereal matter forms Huygens’ wave structure of light yet light propagates in vacuum that is void of matter (solid, liquid or gas). Huygens’ wave theory of light is based on a ether that does not physically exist.
In Huygens’
At every point along the wave front HI (fig 1), a partial wave is formed. The far points of the partial waves are used to construct the wave front DCF yet to form the continuity of the constructed wave front DCF, the partial waves
Huygens describes a light beam, formed by partial waves (fig 1).
“To come to the properties of Light. We remark first that each portion of a wave ought to spread in such a way that its extremities lie always between the same straight lines drawn from the luminous point. Thus the portion BG of the wave, having the luminous point A as its centre, will spread into the arc CE bounded by the straight lines ABC, AGE.” (Huygens, p. 20).
Huygens’ expanding partial waves cannot form a light beam since the expanding partial waves’ structures would extend outside the lines ABC and AGE (fig 1), and form a light intensity outside the light beam. Huygens arbitrarily ignores (destroys) the partial waves’ structures that are not within “the straight lines ABC, AGE” to form a light beam which violates
Huygens’ propagation mechanism of light is described (fig 1).
“of those comprised within the sphere DCF, will have made its particular or partial wave KCL, which will touch the wave DCF at C at the same moment that the principal wave emanating from the point A has arrived at DCF; and it is clear that it will be only the region C of the wave KCL which will touch the wave DCF” (Huygens, p. 19).
Every point along Huygens' wave front (HI) emits
Newton’s prism separates chromatic light into a chromatic spectrum (fig 2). Each band of Newton’s spectrum represents a different frequency (color) of light yet
3. Fresnel
Fresnel’s diffraction mechanism is describe in “Memorie su la Diffraction de la Lumiere” (1818).
“It follows from the principle of the superposition of small motions that the vibrations produced at any point in an elastic fluid by several disturbances are equal to the resultant of all the disturbances reaching this point at the same instant” (Fresnel, translated by Henry Crew, section 43).
Fresnel’s interference mechanism of light is formed by the motion of an elastic fluid yet the diffraction effect of light forms in vacuum that is void of matter (solid, liquid or gas). Fresnel’s diffraction mechanism, is based on an elastic medium (ether), that does not physically exist.
Fresnel uses an integral to describe the aperture diffraction effects of light where a surface integral is applied to the aperture and used to summated the interfering waves’ amplitudes, at a point on the diffraction screen, but a surface integral can only be used to derive an exact area and cannot be used to summate interfering waves’ amplitudes on the diffraction screen. Fresnel is improperly using Newton’s integration.
Lenard’s photoelectric effect (1899) proves light is composed of particles that energy is dependent on only the frequency which conflicts with Fresnel’s wave interference mechanism of light where, at a point on the diffraction screen, the wave amplitudes form the diffraction pattern’s
4. Maxwell
In Maxwell’s paper “On Physical Lines of Force” (1862), Maxwell states a charging and discharging capacitor of a circuit forms an electric current displacement in a dielectric.
“it is the commencement of a current, and its variations constitute currents in the positive or negative direction, according as the displacement is increasing or diminishing. The amount of the displacement depends on the nature of the body, and on the electromotive force; so that if h is the displacement, R the electromotive force, and E a coefficient depending on the nature of the dielectric, R =
The induction effect formed by a charging and discharging capacitor of a circuit does not emit light. Maxwell’s electric current displacement (dh/dt), formed by a charging and discharging capacitor cannot be used to represent the structure of light.
In Maxwell’s paper “Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field” (1864), the motion of an elastic medium composed of matter forms Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation.
“there is matter in motion, by which the observed electromagnetic phenomena are produced.” (Maxwell, intro).
Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory is based on an ether but light propagates in vacuum that is void of matter (solid, liquid or gas). Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory is based on an ether that does not physically exist.
Maxwell states that transverse waves form polarized light.
“the disturbance at any point is transverse to the direction of propagation, and such waves may have all the properties of polarized light.” (Maxwell, part VI).
A transverse wave is a surface wave formed by the motion of
Maxwell describes the propagation of light with the following equation:
“If the equation of propagation of light is
F = A cos [(
Maxwell’s propagation equation of light is invalid since z - Vt = 0. In addition, the ether that forms Maxwell electromagnetic wave structure of light does not physically exist which is experimental proof that Maxwell’s propagation equation (equ 1) is invalid.
Lenard’s photoelectric effect (1899) proves light is composed of particles that energy is dependent on only the frequency which conflicts with
5. Planck
In Planck’s paper “On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum” (1901), an energy
“the entropy of a resonator vibrating in an arbitrary diathermic medium depends only on the variable U/v,” (Planck, part 2).
“I plan to derive elsewhere the expressions for the intensity and entropy of radiation progressing in a diathermic medium,” (Planck, part 2).
The blackbody radiation effect forms in vacuum that is void of a diathermic medium (ether) composed of matter (solid, liquid or gas) which is experimental proof
The derivation of Planck’s energy element is described. Planck uses Boltzmann’s thermodynamic entropy equation (Planck, part 1),
S = k log
Combination theory is used to derive,
R = {[N + P]^(N + P)
Equations 2 and 3 are used with UN = NU and UN =
S = f(U/e) = k{(1 + U/e) log (1 + U/e) - (U/e) log (U/
“Since we do not have to consider the total radiation, but only the monochromatic radiation, it becomes necessary in order to compare different diathermic media to introduce the frequency
u = T^5
Equation 5 is used to derive (Planck, part 1),
T = v • f(U/v).............. 6
and 1/T = dS/dU to form,
dS/dU = 1/v
Rearranging equation
int(dS) = int
Equation 8 is used to form Planck’s electromagnetic entropy equation,
“S = f(U/v)
that is, the entropy of a resonator vibrating in an arbitrary diathermic medium depends only on the variable U/v, containing besides this only universal constants. This is the simplest form of Wien's displacement law known to me. §10. If we apply Wien's displacement law in the latter form to equation (6) for the entropy S, we then find that the energy element
Using equations 5 and 9, Planck states that “the energy element ε must be proportional to the frequency v”,
Planck’s energy element
e =
Planck states that light forms Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation,
“the electromagnetic theory of radiation for the monochromatic vibrations of a resonator” (Planck, part 1).
The frequency
6. Einstein Energy Quanta
In Einstein’s paper, “On a Heuristic Point of View about the Creation and Conversion of Light” (1905), Einstein derives an electromagnetic entropy equation (Einstein, part 4),
“We call the electrons bound to points in space “resonators”; they emit and
absorb electromagnetic waves with definite periods.” (Einstein, part 1).
“S - S' = [E/(Bf)] ln (v/
This equation shows that the entropy of a monochromatic radiation of sufficiently small density varies with volume according to the same rules as the entropy of a perfect gas or of a dilute solution.” (Einstein, part 4).
absorb electromagnetic waves with definite periods.” (Einstein, part 1).
“S - S' = (R/N) ln W”....... & ....... “ W = ( v/v')^n".........13
Einstein states:
“Monochromatic radiation of low density behaves--as long as Wien’s radiation formula is valid--in a thermodynamic sense, as if it consisted of mutually independent energy quanta of magnitude RBf/N.” (Einstein, part 6).
Einstein’s energy quanta (RBf/N) contains Boltzmann’s gas molecule constants N and R yet gas molecules do not oscillate at the frequency of light. Einstein energy quanta cannot be used to represent the energy of light. Boltzmann committed suicide, in 1906.
7. Einstein Electrodynamics
In Einstein’s electrodynamics paper, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” (1905), Einstein expands a variation of the electric and magnetic curl equations,
“Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations For Empty Space.
On the Nature of the Electromotive Force Occurring in a Magnetic
Field During Motion
1/c)(dX/dt) = dN/dy - dM/dz................(1/c)(dL/dt) = dY/dz - dZ/dy............14a,b
(1/c)(dY/dt) = dL/dz - dN/dx................(1/c)(dM/dt) = dZ/dx - dX/dz............15a,b
(1/c)(dX/dt) = dM/dx - dL/dy................(1/c)(dN/dt) = dX/dy - dY/dx............16a,b
where (X, Y, Z) denotes the vector of the electric force, and (L, M, N) that of the magnetic force.” (Einstein*, part 6).
The following equations are described,
X’ = X…………………...........……….L’ = L………...........……………….(17a,
Y’ = B (Y – [v/c]N),.............. M’ = B(M – [v/c]Z),............ (
Z’ = B (Z – [v/c]M),............. N’ = B(N – [v/c]Y)
where (Einstein*, part 6),
B = 1/(1 - v^2/c^2)^˝ . ...................
but the magnetic curl In Einstein’s paper “Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity” (1916), Einstein uses the electric and magnetic curl equations,
“§ 20. Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Field Equations for Free Space ………..
- dH/dt = curl E (60b) ….. dE'/dt + j = curl H’...... (63a)
(Einstein**, § 20).
represent 8. Conclusion
Quantum mechanics (QM), quantum electrodynamics (QED), quantum field theory (QFT), string and gauge theories are electromagnetic field theories that use Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation but Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is not a particle
The diffraction effect of light cannot be described using electro-magnetic photons since the dark fringes of the diffraction pattern formed by wave interference violates energy conservation, and using the wave amplitudes to form the diffraction effect produces a light energy that is dependent on the amplitude which conflict with Lenard, and Compton effects.
The aperture diffraction effect of light is described using optic particles. During the aperture diffraction effect of light, optic particles propagate close to the aperture edge. The gravitational force of the aperture edge atoms
Global Warming.
9. References
Crew, Henry. “The Wave Theory of Light: memoirs by Huygens, Young and Fresnel” Edited by H. Crew. New York: American Book Co. 1900.
Einstein, Albert. “On a Heuristic Point of View about the Creation and Conversion of Light”. Annalen der Physik. 17: 132-148. 1905.
Einstein*, Albert. “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”. Annalen der Physik. 17: 891-921. 1905.
Einstein**, Albert. “Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity”. Annalen der Physik. 47. 1916.
Fresnel, Augustin. "Memorie su la Diffraction de la Lumiere". French Academy of Science. 1818.
Lenard, Philipp. Annalen der Physik. 8: 149 - 198. 1902.
Maxwell*, James. “Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field”. Royal Society Transactions. Vol. CLV. 1864.
Maxwell, James. “On Physical Lines of Force”. Philosophical Magazine, Volume XXI. 1862.
Morrison, Michael A. “Understanding Quantum Physics”. Prentice Hall. 1990.
Niven, W. D. "The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell". Dover Pub. 1994.
Nye, Mary Jo. “The Question of the Atom” Tomash Pub. 1984.
Planck, Max. “On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum”. Annalen der Physik. IV, 4: 553-563. 1901.
Judi
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 21 2009, 01:40 AM)
Maybe no such thing as a vacuum, or "empty space" exists at all. ...
Huygens' propagation mechanism is based on an Ethereal matter, and Maxwell's EM radiation is formed by the motion of an ether, composed of matter (solid, liquid or gas). The fundamental structure in forming a wave structure is a medium composed of matter. [Moderator: False. The fundamental structure is that local disturbances propagate. User banned.] To imply that vacuum is not empty is simply violating common sense. [Moderator: Non sequitur. Violating common sense is not an argument agains a physical theory -- a better physical theory is, and better means predicts more with less.]
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 21 2009, 01:40 AM)
... Still, I don't see how it is possible for wave energy to travel in a true vacuum, with absolutely no medium. ...
Ok, but how? That is how does a photon having momentum cause it to be manipulated by gravity?
Ok, but how? That is how does a photon having momentum cause it to be manipulated by gravity?
Nothing to do with light "having mass".
Light travels along geodesics. The presence of gravitational bodies bends those geodesics. As a consequence, the light path is bent as well. See here.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 21 2009, 02:48 PM)
Intuitively it would make sense to me that photons are the particles that make up "ether."
A photon is electromagnetic. Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is formed by the motion of an ether, composed of matter; consequently, the photons cannot make up the ether since to form an EM photon requires an ether. [Moderator: Photons would be the quantisized disturbances of the electromagnetic field, as so they propagate.]
A photon is electromagnetic. Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is formed by the motion of an ether, composed of matter; consequently, the photons cannot make up the ether since to form an EM photon requires an ether. [Moderator: Photons would be the quantisized disturbances of the electromagnetic field, as so they propagate.]
Is there a reason you felt the need to post this junk a second time?
Yes. He is a crank, if he isn't Zephir redux...
Congratulations on post number 1200!
Congratulations on post number 1200!
QUOTE (benito+Sep 22 2009, 06:43 PM)
Tunnel of Love
"Maybe no such thing as a vacuum, or "empty space" exists at all." (tunnel of light : TOL)
Huygens' propagation mechanism is based on a Ethereal matter, and Maxwell's ether is also composed of matter (solid, liquid or gas). The fundamental structure in forming a wave structure is a medium composed of matter. To imply that vacuum is not empty is simply violating common sense which I hope you have.
What I am saying is similar to the Heisenburg principle, but regarding the relationship between empty space and matter. I am saying that empty space always has to exist as distance between particles with no other particle in between. If energy requires contact between particles to transfer, then energy can never exist in empty space, i.e. when particles are at a distance instead of in direct contact. So, if matter has to be present for energy to take place, and distance between particles is a function of kinetic energy being exchanged among them, then empty space would be an empty concept, would it not?
"Maybe no such thing as a vacuum, or "empty space" exists at all." (tunnel of light : TOL)
Huygens' propagation mechanism is based on a Ethereal matter, and Maxwell's ether is also composed of matter (solid, liquid or gas). The fundamental structure in forming a wave structure is a medium composed of matter. To imply that vacuum is not empty is simply violating common sense which I hope you have.
What I am saying is similar to the Heisenburg principle, but regarding the relationship between empty space and matter. I am saying that empty space always has to exist as distance between particles with no other particle in between. If energy requires contact between particles to transfer, then energy can never exist in empty space, i.e. when particles are at a distance instead of in direct contact. So, if matter has to be present for energy to take place, and distance between particles is a function of kinetic energy being exchanged among them, then empty space would be an empty concept, would it not?
QUOTE (benito+Sep 22 2009, 06:55 PM)
Light In tunnel
“Intuitively it would make sense to me that photons are the particles that make up "ether." (Light in Tunnel).
A photon is electromagnetic. Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is formed by the motion of an ether, composed of matter; consequently, the photons cannot make up the ether.
How can photons be pure electromagnetic energy without any medium? Energy is not a substance itself, it is a function of a substance in dynamism. If there is a substance, of which electromagnetic waves are a function, and the substance is composed of discrete particles with mass, this medium could be called "ether" and the particles "photons."
If photons are discreet quantities of pure-energy without a medium, how would they travel through "empty space?"
“Intuitively it would make sense to me that photons are the particles that make up "ether." (Light in Tunnel).
A photon is electromagnetic. Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is formed by the motion of an ether, composed of matter; consequently, the photons cannot make up the ether.
How can photons be pure electromagnetic energy without any medium? Energy is not a substance itself, it is a function of a substance in dynamism. If there is a substance, of which electromagnetic waves are a function, and the substance is composed of discrete particles with mass, this medium could be called "ether" and the particles "photons."
If photons are discreet quantities of pure-energy without a medium, how would they travel through "empty space?"
Good Point.
Space is a tricky subject. It is beyound the infinite and the abyss. It can extend in any direction for any length... Think of 14 billion light years... yep space can extend that far... Now think of 100 trillion light years... yep space can extend that far... While at the same time in one bread box of space you could have things with as much complexity as we think the known universe has now. It is beyound the scope of a mind to grasp in full. But... Knowing the basics is fairly easy.
Light can be viewed if you want as just information. The type of information in the light can be viewed as what makes it what it is. For information to exist there must be some thing that is aware of it. Having a beam of information traveling across the solar system is meaningless and also non existant if some thing is not in some way aware of it. The type of awareness can be different example... you can be aware of the sun light because you are looking at it the sun... Or you can be aware of the sun light because you feel the effect it has thru cause and effect relationships with it and every thing else. My guess is that both types of awareness are needed of this travel to happen.
Believe it. Your awareness of the universe plays a roll in how the universe acts.
Space is a tricky subject. It is beyound the infinite and the abyss. It can extend in any direction for any length... Think of 14 billion light years... yep space can extend that far... Now think of 100 trillion light years... yep space can extend that far... While at the same time in one bread box of space you could have things with as much complexity as we think the known universe has now. It is beyound the scope of a mind to grasp in full. But... Knowing the basics is fairly easy.
Light can be viewed if you want as just information. The type of information in the light can be viewed as what makes it what it is. For information to exist there must be some thing that is aware of it. Having a beam of information traveling across the solar system is meaningless and also non existant if some thing is not in some way aware of it. The type of awareness can be different example... you can be aware of the sun light because you are looking at it the sun... Or you can be aware of the sun light because you feel the effect it has thru cause and effect relationships with it and every thing else. My guess is that both types of awareness are needed of this travel to happen.
Believe it. Your awareness of the universe plays a roll in how the universe acts.
The OP expresses no clear thought, and strives to achieve through repetition what they cannot convey succinctly. The digression on Global Warming is completely off topic and is another sign of unclear thinking. Here are the two posts for your comparison. And while Maxwell's equations might be off-base as to an ether with impossible properties if Newtonian mechanics are assumed, they work well -- a point the author seems incapable of grasping. And QED, the most precisely tested of physical theories, allows one to derive Maxwell's equations without assuming an ether, which means that the issue of an actual ether existing or not is physically meaningless to this paper.
QUOTE (magpies+Sep 22 2009, 09:26 PM)
Good Point.
Space is a tricky subject. It is beyound the infinite and the abyss. It can extend in any direction for any length... Think of 14 billion light years... yep space can extend that far... Now think of 100 trillion light years... yep space can extend that far... While at the same time in one bread box of space you could have things with as much complexity as we think the known universe has now. It is beyound the scope of a mind to grasp in full. But... Knowing the basics is fairly easy.
Light can be viewed if you want as just information. The type of information in the light can be viewed as what makes it what it is. For information to exist there must be some thing that is aware of it. Having a beam of information traveling across the solar system is meaningless and also non existant if some thing is not in some way aware of it. The type of awareness can be different example... you can be aware of the sun light because you are looking at it the sun... Or you can be aware of the sun light because you feel the effect it has thru cause and effect relationships with it and every thing else. My guess is that both types of awareness are needed of this travel to happen.
Believe it. Your awareness of the universe plays a roll in how the universe acts.
So if light shines on a falling tree, and no one sees it then it didn't fall, eh? Sorry, but that topic, however fascinating, is not the relevant one here.
The question is how can energy exist, including light, except as the influence of one physical object on another?
Empty space only exists as the distance between two particles without any other particle between them. So either the entire universe can be described as empty space divided by matter into discreet, changing forms; OR it can be described as physical interactions of matter where empty space is but a function of kinetic energy.
Specifically, take gas as the form of matter with the most empty space. As a particular quantity of gasious molecules are heated, the volume of the gas expands because the kinetic energy of the molecules increase. They move faster and exert more force in collisions due to their increased momentum. Energy (heat) distributes through the gas as a result of momentum-transfer from one molecule to another during collisions. The standard analogy would be a cue ball colliding with another billiard ball and transferring its energy.
So, in the moment between collisions, it could be said that there exists empty space between the molecules. But the energy never passes through that space to reach the next molecule. Each molecule carries its own energy, in the form of momentum, until it collides with the next one to transfer it. So energy never exists in empty space.
Further, you could say that empty space itself doesn't exist, because it is only a function of the average repulsion the molecules exhibit toward one another as a consequence of colliding and sending each other off in other directions. If all energy/heat would be removed from the gas, no distance would exist between the molecules. So empty space can be regarded as the energetic movement of particulate matter, instead of as a container in which matter-energy interactions take place. See the difference?
So what about outer space? Where gravity is low, molecules would tend to attract toward each other or the closest larger mass. But in principle they would still behave the same as in the atmosphere, only with much less gravity to cause them to collide into each other more often. I am wondering if this could be described as an effect of "time dilation" people talk about on this forum, since outer space could be described as atmosphere with expanded volume resulting from lower gravity.
So in outer space, for example, the same amount of energy that propels a molecule a certain distance at sea-level would propel it much further. The velocity and momentum of the molecule would be the same, only it would take it longer to reach and collide with its neighbor. So, if heat describes kinetic molecular energy, then the same amount of heat could be present in a number of molecules in space as at sea-level, yet the heat would be distributed over a larger volume of space-time. It seems like the term, "space-time dilation" would refer to the same amount of energy generating longer and longer-lasting molecular vectors as would be the case with the same amount of energy in a higher-gravity (and therefore higher pressure) environment.
And still I have no answers about what happens to light between source and target, if there's no matter in between to transfer it through contact.
Space is a tricky subject. It is beyound the infinite and the abyss. It can extend in any direction for any length... Think of 14 billion light years... yep space can extend that far... Now think of 100 trillion light years... yep space can extend that far... While at the same time in one bread box of space you could have things with as much complexity as we think the known universe has now. It is beyound the scope of a mind to grasp in full. But... Knowing the basics is fairly easy.
Light can be viewed if you want as just information. The type of information in the light can be viewed as what makes it what it is. For information to exist there must be some thing that is aware of it. Having a beam of information traveling across the solar system is meaningless and also non existant if some thing is not in some way aware of it. The type of awareness can be different example... you can be aware of the sun light because you are looking at it the sun... Or you can be aware of the sun light because you feel the effect it has thru cause and effect relationships with it and every thing else. My guess is that both types of awareness are needed of this travel to happen.
Believe it. Your awareness of the universe plays a roll in how the universe acts.
So if light shines on a falling tree, and no one sees it then it didn't fall, eh? Sorry, but that topic, however fascinating, is not the relevant one here.
The question is how can energy exist, including light, except as the influence of one physical object on another?
Empty space only exists as the distance between two particles without any other particle between them. So either the entire universe can be described as empty space divided by matter into discreet, changing forms; OR it can be described as physical interactions of matter where empty space is but a function of kinetic energy.
Specifically, take gas as the form of matter with the most empty space. As a particular quantity of gasious molecules are heated, the volume of the gas expands because the kinetic energy of the molecules increase. They move faster and exert more force in collisions due to their increased momentum. Energy (heat) distributes through the gas as a result of momentum-transfer from one molecule to another during collisions. The standard analogy would be a cue ball colliding with another billiard ball and transferring its energy.
So, in the moment between collisions, it could be said that there exists empty space between the molecules. But the energy never passes through that space to reach the next molecule. Each molecule carries its own energy, in the form of momentum, until it collides with the next one to transfer it. So energy never exists in empty space.
Further, you could say that empty space itself doesn't exist, because it is only a function of the average repulsion the molecules exhibit toward one another as a consequence of colliding and sending each other off in other directions. If all energy/heat would be removed from the gas, no distance would exist between the molecules. So empty space can be regarded as the energetic movement of particulate matter, instead of as a container in which matter-energy interactions take place. See the difference?
So what about outer space? Where gravity is low, molecules would tend to attract toward each other or the closest larger mass. But in principle they would still behave the same as in the atmosphere, only with much less gravity to cause them to collide into each other more often. I am wondering if this could be described as an effect of "time dilation" people talk about on this forum, since outer space could be described as atmosphere with expanded volume resulting from lower gravity.
So in outer space, for example, the same amount of energy that propels a molecule a certain distance at sea-level would propel it much further. The velocity and momentum of the molecule would be the same, only it would take it longer to reach and collide with its neighbor. So, if heat describes kinetic molecular energy, then the same amount of heat could be present in a number of molecules in space as at sea-level, yet the heat would be distributed over a larger volume of space-time. It seems like the term, "space-time dilation" would refer to the same amount of energy generating longer and longer-lasting molecular vectors as would be the case with the same amount of energy in a higher-gravity (and therefore higher pressure) environment.
And still I have no answers about what happens to light between source and target, if there's no matter in between to transfer it through contact.
Although light has been only given an upper limit for mass there are some (by that I mean scientists) who believe that it also has a lower limit.
What I would like to know is...
1. The equation for calculating relative mass requires a rest mass. Is there any that doesn't require this?
2. Since mass is gravitationally attracted to mass, and light is gravitationally attracted to objects with mass (light will curve around objects of low mass (planet) and get pulled into objects of high mass (black hole)). How is this possible if light has no mass?
What I would like to know is...
1. The equation for calculating relative mass requires a rest mass. Is there any that doesn't require this?
2. Since mass is gravitationally attracted to mass, and light is gravitationally attracted to objects with mass (light will curve around objects of low mass (planet) and get pulled into objects of high mass (black hole)). How is this possible if light has no mass?
QUOTE (H2O+Sep 23 2009, 02:26 PM)
Although light has been only given an upper limit for mass there are some (by that I mean scientists) who believe that it also has a lower limit.
What I would like to know is...
1. The equation for calculating relative mass requires a rest mass. Is there any that doesn't require this?
No, there isn't any.
Photons have energy and momentum.
The calculation of light bending by gravitational bodies does not involve any mass, certainly no photon "mass"
What I would like to know is...
1. The equation for calculating relative mass requires a rest mass. Is there any that doesn't require this?
No, there isn't any.
QUOTE
2. Since mass is gravitationally attracted to mass, and light is gravitationally attracted to objects with mass (light will curve around objects of low mass (planet) and get pulled into objects of high mass (black hole)). How is this possible if light has no mass?
Photons have energy and momentum.
The calculation of light bending by gravitational bodies does not involve any mass, certainly no photon "mass"
QUOTE (Trout+Sep 23 2009, 02:37 PM)
Photons have energy and momentum.
The calculation of light bending by gravitational bodies does not involve any mass, certainly no photon "mass"
How is it possible that physicists can absolutely reject the possibility of a soul existing outside of a body, but they can easily accept and visualize energy existing outside of a material medium?
The calculation of light bending by gravitational bodies does not involve any mass, certainly no photon "mass"
How is it possible that physicists can absolutely reject the possibility of a soul existing outside of a body, but they can easily accept and visualize energy existing outside of a material medium?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 23 2009, 03:33 PM)
How is it possible that physicists can absolutely reject the possibility of a soul existing outside of a body, but they can easily accept and visualize energy existing outside of a material medium?
Magic!
The lights that you see at the end of your dark tunnel...it's a train!
Magic!
The lights that you see at the end of your dark tunnel...it's a train!
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 23 2009, 11:33 AM)
How is it possible that physicists can absolutely reject the possibility of a soul existing outside of a body, but they can easily accept and visualize energy existing outside of a material medium?
WHAT? Do you really think that energy has to exist in a medium? Are you an idiot?
The soul has no reason to exist. WANTING it to exist does not make it so.
WHAT? Do you really think that energy has to exist in a medium? Are you an idiot?
The soul has no reason to exist. WANTING it to exist does not make it so.
QUOTE
Photons have energy and momentum.
Ok, but how? That is how does a photon having momentum cause it to be manipulated by gravity?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 23 2009, 03:44 PM)
WHAT? Do you really think that energy has to exist in a medium? Are you an idiot?
Is that your reason why and how it can?
Have you read as many of my posts as you have responded to and still you have to ask if I am an idiot or not? If so, you are an idiot.
Is that your reason why and how it can?
QUOTE
Are you an idiot?
Have you read as many of my posts as you have responded to and still you have to ask if I am an idiot or not? If so, you are an idiot.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 23 2009, 12:32 PM)
Is that your reason why and how it can?
Light can exist in a vacuum, therefore it can exist without a medium.
If by "medium" you mean "atoms" then you are entirely incorrect; light is absorbed by most types of atoms, only certain atoms (like oxygen) let photons fly by (for the most part).
If by "medium" you mean "spacetime" then why are you misrepresenting physicists?
You're not an idiot, but you're woefully misinformed.
Light can exist in a vacuum, therefore it can exist without a medium.
If by "medium" you mean "atoms" then you are entirely incorrect; light is absorbed by most types of atoms, only certain atoms (like oxygen) let photons fly by (for the most part).
If by "medium" you mean "spacetime" then why are you misrepresenting physicists?
You're not an idiot, but you're woefully misinformed.
QUOTE (H2O+Sep 23 2009, 04:28 PM)
Ok, but how? That is how does a photon having momentum cause it to be manipulated by gravity?
Nothing to do with light "having mass".
Light travels along geodesics. The presence of gravitational bodies bends those geodesics. As a consequence, the light path is bent as well. See here.
Ok so basically it's explained by the theory that gravity isn't a particle but instead a warp in space.
Since these geodesics are spacial grids, much like the longitudinal and latitudinal lines on a map, aren't actually real.
That raises a few more questions....
What is space filled with that can be warped like that? If "nothing" than how can "nothing" be warped?
The thing with the representation of warped space is that it involves a 2d plane that is coned (has a depression) where the massive body is. Space isn't 2d it's 3d so if there is something that fills space and is warped by massive objects then would you have a decrease in density representing the depression or an increase or is it something else entirely?
Since these geodesics are spacial grids, much like the longitudinal and latitudinal lines on a map, aren't actually real.
That raises a few more questions....
What is space filled with that can be warped like that? If "nothing" than how can "nothing" be warped?
The thing with the representation of warped space is that it involves a 2d plane that is coned (has a depression) where the massive body is. Space isn't 2d it's 3d so if there is something that fills space and is warped by massive objects then would you have a decrease in density representing the depression or an increase or is it something else entirely?
QUOTE (H2O+Sep 23 2009, 06:40 PM)
Ok so basically it's explained by the theory that gravity isn't a particle but instead a warp in space.
No, its not explained. But you're welcome to try and unify quantum mechanics and general relativity. No one can say gravity is just the bending of space or that it is a particle. Relativity, however, makes observable predictions which have been tested every second of the day by GPS satellites. You could read a pop science book- one that doesn't suck like a brief history of time- and get a better understanding.
:EDIT: The brief history of time doesn't suck.
Stupid sentences!
No, its not explained. But you're welcome to try and unify quantum mechanics and general relativity. No one can say gravity is just the bending of space or that it is a particle. Relativity, however, makes observable predictions which have been tested every second of the day by GPS satellites. You could read a pop science book- one that doesn't suck like a brief history of time- and get a better understanding.
:EDIT: The brief history of time doesn't suck.
Stupid sentences!
Still in regards to the Original Poster.
Much better essays on these topics are here:
http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2009/..._damnd_spot.php
http://books.google.com/books?id=X9hWEvR-w...PA134&lpg=PA134
http://books.google.com/books?id=dk8S7ki4N...g=PA11&lpg=PA11
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~janss011/pdf%20files/ether.pdf
http://fermi.imss.fi.it/rd/bdv?/bdviewer/bid=300682
Professor Father F. M. Grimaldi seeded the idea that light was analagous to a wave in water. But, and Latin is not my first language, I see no claims from Grimaldi that light is a wave or that it required an ether. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francesco_Maria_Grimaldi In addition, Grimaldi is not known for his studies of blackbodies or polarization. In fact wavelength effects, like diffraction, Newton's rings, gratings, Poisson's spot clearly indicate that monochromatic light has a well-defined wavelength. In relativistic quantum mechanics, a theory which works, non-interacting objects are treated as governed by the same basic relationships:
v˛ = (pc˛/E)˛ = c˛ - (mcł/E)˛ = (c˛/λf)˛
m˛ = (E/c˛)˛ - (p/c)˛ = (hf/c˛)˛ - (h/λc)˛
h = pλ = E/f
And so any concerns or debates of wave versus particle for light or matter and the very notion of a light-bearing ether are antique. Science has moved on from it's antique and discarded scaffolding.
Much better essays on these topics are here:
http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2009/..._damnd_spot.php
http://books.google.com/books?id=X9hWEvR-w...PA134&lpg=PA134
http://books.google.com/books?id=dk8S7ki4N...g=PA11&lpg=PA11
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~janss011/pdf%20files/ether.pdf
http://fermi.imss.fi.it/rd/bdv?/bdviewer/bid=300682
Professor Father F. M. Grimaldi seeded the idea that light was analagous to a wave in water. But, and Latin is not my first language, I see no claims from Grimaldi that light is a wave or that it required an ether. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francesco_Maria_Grimaldi In addition, Grimaldi is not known for his studies of blackbodies or polarization. In fact wavelength effects, like diffraction, Newton's rings, gratings, Poisson's spot clearly indicate that monochromatic light has a well-defined wavelength. In relativistic quantum mechanics, a theory which works, non-interacting objects are treated as governed by the same basic relationships:
v˛ = (pc˛/E)˛ = c˛ - (mcł/E)˛ = (c˛/λf)˛
m˛ = (E/c˛)˛ - (p/c)˛ = (hf/c˛)˛ - (h/λc)˛
h = pλ = E/f
And so any concerns or debates of wave versus particle for light or matter and the very notion of a light-bearing ether are antique. Science has moved on from it's antique and discarded scaffolding.
[Moderator: Here are two successive overlong drafts from User who has confused word games with science and this forum with an uncritical vanity press. User banned.]
Optica!
Ben T. Ito
Sept22,23, 2009
1. Introduction
The ancient Greeks believed the eye sent out feelers that felt the object being observed. The first physical achievement in the study of light occurred in the Middle East; during the middle ages, the theory that light is an external entity rather than an emanation from the eye was introduced and subsequently the hand-held telescope was invented by dissecting the eye and studying the eye’s lens. The Arabian hand-held telescope later became Galileo’s astronomic telescope.
The idea light is formed by the motion of a medium came from the discovery of the diffraction phenomena by Father Grimaldi (1665) but the wave theory of light could not explain how light travels in vacuum since light propagates, forms the diffraction, reflection, polarization and blackbody radiation effects in vacuum that is void of matter (solid, liquid or gas) which is experimental proof that light waves do not physically exist. In 1817, the French Academy of Science accepted Fresnel’s diffraction paper as the winning paper of a diffraction contest but the ether that forms Fresnel’s aperture diffraction spherical waves does not physically exist. Fresnel’s wave interference mechanism of light is based on an ether that does not physically exist.
2. Huygens
Huygens describes the propagation of light in “Treatise on Light” (1690). According to Huygens, light forms waves produced by the motion of an Ethereal matter (ether).
“Now if one examines what this matter may be in which the movement coming from the luminous body is propagated, which I call Ethereal matter,” (Huygens, p. 11).
The motion of Huygens’ Ethereal matter forms Huygens’ wave structure of light yet light propagates in vacuum that is void of matter (solid, liquid or gas). Huygens’ wave theory of light which is based on a ether experimental proof that does Huygens’ waves do not physically exist.
Huygens’ propagation mechanism of light is described (fig 1).
“of those comprised within the sphere DCF, will have made its particular or partial wave KCL, which will touch the wave DCF at C at the same moment that the principal wave emanating from the point A has arrived at DCF; and it is clear that it will be only the region C of the wave KCL which will touch the wave DCF” (Huygens, p. 19).
Every point along Huygens' wave front (HI) emits a partial wave. The far points of the partial waves are used to construct the wave front DCF. The unused partial waves’ structures are ignored (destroyed) after the wave front DCF is constructed which violates energy conservation.
In Huygens’ propagation mechanism of light (fig 1), the wave front HI emits partial waves from points b,b,b,b.Huygens’ The wave front (HI) is generating energy (partial waves). A candle flame, the sun or a light bulb are physical sources that emit generate light by consuming energy. Huygens’ partial wave propagation mechanism of light Huygens uses a wave front (HI), as a physical source that is generating partial waves (energy), which violates the law of conservation of energy.
At every point along the wave front HI (fig 1), a partial wave is formed. The far points of the partial waves are used to construct the wave front DCF yet to form the continuity of the constructed wave front DCF, the partial waves are simultaneously emitted which represents the creation of an enormous amount ofenergy (partial waves) which violates energy conservation.
Huygens describes a light beam, formed by partial waves (fig 1).
“To come to the properties of Light. We remark first that each portion of a wave ought to spread in such a way that its extremities lie always between the same straight lines drawn from the luminous point. Thus the portion BG of the wave, having the luminous point A as its centre, will spread into the arc CE bounded by the straight lines ABC, AGE.” (Huygens, p. 20).
Huygens’ expanding partial waves cannot form a light beam since the expanding partial waves’ structures would extend outside the lines ABC and AGE (fig 1), and form a light intensity outside the light beam. Huygens arbitrarily ignores (destroys) the partial waves’ structures that are not within “the straight lines ABC, AGE” to form a light beam which violates energy conservation.
Huygens’ propagation mechanism of light is described (fig 1).
“of those comprised within the sphere DCF, will have made its particular or partial wave KCL, which will touch the wave DCF at C at the same moment that the principal wave emanating from the point A has arrived at DCF; and it is clear that it will be only the region C of the wave KCL which will touch the wave DCF” (Huygens, p. 19).
Every point along Huygens' wave front (HI) emits partial wave. The far points of the partial waves are used to construct the wave front DCF. The unused partial waves’ structures, between K and C, and between C and L, are ignored (destroyed) after the wave front DCF is constructed. If the unwanted structures of the partial waves are not eliminated, the unwanted structures of the partial waves would cascade onto the wave front DCF and increase the intensity of light during propagation yet experimentally the intensity of light does not increase during propagation. An enormous amount of energy (partial waves) is created then destroyed in Huygens’ partial wave propagation mechanism of light which violates energy conservation.
Newton’s prism separates chromatic light into a chromatic spectrum (fig 2). Each band of Newton’s spectrum represents a different frequency (color) of light yet spherical waves cannot form the discrete bands of Newton’s chromatic spectrum since Newton’s spectrum is a particle effect. Newton’s spectrum is experimental proof that Huygens’ wave theory of light is physically invalid.
3. Fresnel
Fresnel’s diffraction mechanism is describe in “Memorie su la Diffraction de la Lumiere” (1818).
“It follows from the principle of the superposition of small motions that the vibrations produced at any point in an elastic fluid by several disturbances are equal to the resultant of all the disturbances reaching this point at the same instant” (Fresnel, translated by Henry Crew, section 43).
Fresnel’s interference mechanism of light is formed by the motion of an elastic fluid yet the diffraction effect of light forms in vacuum that is void of matter (solid, liquid or gas). which is experimental proof Fresnel’s diffraction mechanism, mechanism is based on an elastic medium (ether), that does not physically exist.invalid.
Fresnel uses an integral to describe the aperture diffraction effects of light where a surface integral isapplied to the aperture and used to summated the interfering waves’ amplitudes, at a point on the diffraction screen, but a surface integral can only be used to derive an exact area and cannot be used to summate interfering waves’area. amplitudes on the Fresnel’s diffraction screen. Fresnel paper is improperly using Newton’s integration.mathematically invalid.
Lenard’s photoelectric effect (1899) proves light is composed of particles that energy is dependent on only the frequency which conflicts with Fresnel’s wave interference mechanism of light where, at a point on the diffraction screen, the wave amplitudes form the diffraction pattern’s intensity which forms a light energy that is dependent on the amplitude.In an experiment, a photomultiplier (photoelectric) is placed, at intensity points on the diffraction screen; the photomultiplier experiment Lenard’s photoelectric effect proves that light energy is dependent on only the frequency which is physical proof that the diffraction effects of light are not formed by Fresnel’s wave interference diffraction mechanism of light.is physically invalid.
4. Maxwell
In Maxwell’s paper “On Physical Lines of Force” (1862), Maxwell states a charging and discharging capacitor of a circuit forms an electric current displacement in a dielectric.
“it is the commencement of a current, and its variations constitute currents in the positive or negative direction, according as the displacement is increasing or diminishing. The amount of the displacement depends on the nature of the body, and on the electromotive force; so that if h is the displacement, R the electromotive force, and E a coefficient depending on the nature of the dielectric, R =4pi(E^2) 4piE^2 h; and if r is the value of the electric current due to displacement, r = dh/dt .” (Maxwell, part 3).
The induction effect formed by a charging and discharging capacitor of a circuit does not emitlight.light; Maxwell’s electric current displacement (dh/dt), formed by a charging and discharging capacitor cannot be used to represent the structure of light.
In Maxwell’s paper “Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field” (1864), the motion of an elastic medium composed of matter forms Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation.
“there is matter in motion, by which the observed electromagnetic phenomena are produced.” (Maxwell, intro).
Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory is based on an ether but light propagates in vacuum that is void of matter (solid, liquid or gas). which is experimental proof that Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory is based on an ether that radiation does not physically exist.
Maxwell states that transverse waves form polarized light.
“the disturbance at any point is transverse to the direction of propagation, and such waves may have all the properties of polarized light.” (Maxwell, part VI).
A transverse wave isa surface wave formed by the motion of an ether composed of matter. The oscillation of a surface forms a transverse wave but polarized matter yet light propagates in vacuum that is void of matter (solid, liquid or gas) which is experimental proof that Maxwell’s transverse wave does waves do not physically exist.
Maxwell describes the propagation of light with the following equation:
“If the equation of propagation of light is
F = A cos [(2pi/l)(z - Vt)] ” (Maxwell*, part VI)............ 1
Maxwell’s propagation equation of light is invalid since z - Vt = 0. In addition, the ether that forms Maxwell electromagnetic wave structure of light does not physically exist which is experimental proof that Maxwell’s propagation equation (equ 1) is invalid.
Lenard’s photoelectric effect (1899) proves light is composed of particles that energy is dependent on only the frequency which conflicts with Maxwell’s electromagnetic wave structure of lightthat since the energy of a wave is dependent on the frequency and amplitude. In addition, Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is not a particle structure since an electron’s electric field is and a magnet’s magnetic field are not composed of particles. Lenard’s photoelectric effect proves light is not an electromagnetic phenomenon.
5. Heaviside
Heaviside derives the equations known as Maxwell’s equations. The preceding statement was written by E. T. Whittaker and appears in Heaviside’s introduction,
“The great service Heaviside now rendered to science was to clear away this accumulation of rubbish, and base the theory on what he called the “Duplex” equations
Curl H = 4piT………………………2
Curl E = - H………………………. 3
Div T = 0 ……………………...…...4
Div H = 0…………………….….….5
(where H is magnetic force, T is electric current etc.), which modern writers generally call “Maxwell’s equations” though they are not found in Maxwell’s Treatise, and the modern writers have in fact copied them form Heaviside.” (Heaviside, introduction, p. XVI).
Heaviside uses Maxwell’s electric current displacement (T) in the magnetic curl equation (equ 2) but light is not emitted from a charging and discharging capacitor induction effect which is experimental proof Heaviside’s magnetic curl equation cannot be used to represent the structure of light.
6. Planck
In Planck’s paper “On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum” (1901), an energy element is derived using resonators: molecules of the blackbody cavity wall, (Morrison, p. 21-24) thatemit form Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation. The vibration of a resonators vibrates the diathermic medium (ether), produced by the resonators, which forms Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation.
“the entropy of a resonator vibrating in an arbitrary diathermic medium depends only on the variable U/v,” (Planck, part 2).
“I plan to derive elsewhere the expressions for the intensity and entropy of radiation progressing in a diathermic medium,” (Planck, part 2).
The blackbody radiation effect forms in vacuum that is void of a diathermic medium (ether) composed of matter(solid, liquid or gas) which is experimental proof Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation does not physically exist.
The derivation of Planck’s energy element is described. Planck uses Boltzmann’s thermodynamic entropy equation (Planck, part1)1, s5),
S = k log R……………………..26
Combination theory is used to derive,
R = {[N + P]^(N + P)} [N^N P^P]^(-1).............37
Equations2 6 and 3 7 are used with UN = NU and UN = Pe to form Planck’s thermodynamics entropy equation,equation (Planck, part 1, s5),
S =f(U/e) = k{(1 + U/e) log (1 + U/e) - (U/e) log (U/e)}............. 48
that is represented with:
S = f(U/e)…………………9
Planck derives an electromagnetic entropy equation that is dependent on U/v.
“Since we do not have to consider the total radiation, but only the monochromatic radiation, it becomes necessary in order to compare different diathermic media to introduce the frequencyv n instead of the wavelength l. Thus, let us denote by u • dv the volume density of the radiation energy belonging to the spectral region v to v + dv; then we write: u • dv instead of E • dl; c/v instead of l, and c • dv/v^2 instead of dl. From which we obtain
u = T^5 c v^(-2) Y ct v(-1)" (Planck, part 2).........................510
Equation5 10 is used to derive (Planck, part 1)2, §8),
T = v • f(U/v)..............611
and 1/T = dS/dU to form,
dS/dU = 1/v • f(U/v)……………………….712
Rearranging equation7 12 then using an integration,
int(dS) = int [f(U/v) dU]...........................813
Equation8 13 is used to form Planck’s electromagnetic entropy equation,
“S = f(U/v)……………………..914
that is, the entropy of a resonator vibrating in an arbitrary diathermic medium depends only on the variable U/v, containing besides this only universal constants. This is the simplest form of Wien's displacement law known to me. §10. If we apply Wien's displacement law in the latter form to equation (6) for the entropy S, we then find that the energy elemente ε must be proportional to the frequency v, thus:” (Planck, part 2)2, s9).
Using equations5 9 and 9,14, Planck states that “the energy element ε must be proportional to the frequency v”,
ε e oc v………………………..1015
Planck’s energy elemente ε is derived using equation 10,15 (Planck, part 2, s10),
e = hv…………………………….1116
Planck states that light forms Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation,
“the electromagnetic theory of radiation for the monochromatic vibrations of a resonator” (Planck, part1)1, s7).
Thefrequency v, of equation 5, and the energy element (equ 11), represent Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation yet the energy of Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is dependent on the frequency and amplitude which cannot be represented with an Planck’s energy element (equ 16) that is dependent on only the frequency. In addition, Boltzmann’s thermodynamics entropy equation (equ 2)6) is used to derive Planck’s energy element but gas molecules do not oscillate at the frequency of light. Planck’s energy element cannot be used to represent the energy of light. Also, Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is not a particle structure. An electron’s electric field is and a magnet’s magnetic field are not composed of particles which is proof that Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is not a particle structure. Planck’s blackbody derivation, based on Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation,radiation and Boltzmann’s entropy equation, is physically invalid.
6.7. Einstein Energy Quanta
In Einstein’s paper, “On a Heuristic Point of View about the Creation and Conversion of Light” (1905), Einstein derives an electromagnetic entropy equation (Einstein, part 4),
“We call the electrons bound to points in space “resonators”; they emit and
absorb electromagnetic waves with definite periods.” (Einstein, part 1).
“S - S' = [E/(Bf)] ln (v/v')..................................1217
This equation shows that the entropy of a monochromatic radiation of sufficiently small density varies with volume according to the same rules as the entropy of a perfect gas or of a dilute solution.” (Einstein, part 4).
Boltzmann’s thermodynamic entropy equation and Einstein’s probability (W) are used (Einstein, part 5),
“S - S' = (R/N) ln W”....... & ....... “ W = ( v/v')^n".........13n ".........18a,b
Einstein states:
“Monochromatic radiation of low density behaves--as long as Wien’s radiation formula is valid--in a thermodynamic sense, as if it consisted of mutually independent energy quanta of magnitudeRBf/Rβf/N.” (Einstein, part 6).
Einstein’s energy quanta (RBf/Rβf/N) contains Boltzmann’s gas molecule constants N and R yet gas molecules do not oscillate at the frequency of light. Einstein energy quanta cannot be used to represent the energy of light. Boltzmann committed suicide, in 1906.
Einstein states that Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is not composed of energy quanta (particles), that energy is dependent on only the frequency. The frequency since the energy of Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is dependent on the frequency and amplitude which conflict with Lenard’s photoelectric effect that proves light energy is dependent on only the frequency.amplitude. In addition, Einstein’s energy quanta is derived using Boltzmann’s gas molecule entropy equation (equ 13a)17) but Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is not a particle structure since an electron’s electric field and a magnet’s magnetic field, and the magnetic field formed by a current carrying wire (Ampere’s law), are not composed of particles which is experimental proof that Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is not a particle structure. Also, the ether that forms Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation does not physically exist. The fundamental structure (ether), that forms Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation, does not physically exist. Einstein’s photoelectric paper is physically invalid.
7.8. Einstein Electrodynamics
In Einstein’s electrodynamics paper, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” (1905), Einstein expands a variation of the electric and magnetic curl equations,
“Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations For Empty Space.
On the Nature of the Electromotive Force Occurring in a Magnetic
Field During Motion
1/c)(dX/dt) = dN/dy - dM/dz................(1/c)(dL/dt) = dY/dz - dZ/dy............14a,19a,b
(1/c)(dY/dt) = dL/dz - dN/dx................(1/c)(dM/dt) = dZ/dx - dX/dz............15a,20a,b
(1/c)(dX/dt) = dM/dx - dL/dy................(1/c)(dN/dt) = dX/dy - dY/dx............16a,21a,b
where (X, Y, Z) denotes the vector of the electric force, and (L, M, N) that of the magnetic force.” (Einstein*, part 6).
The following equations are described,
X’ = X…………………...........……….……………………….L’ = L………...........……………….(17a,…………………….(22a,B)
Y’ = B (Y – [v/c]N),.............. M’ = B(M – [v/c]Z),............ (18a,23a,B)
Z’ = B (Z – [v/c]M),............. N’ = B(N – [v/c]Y).”............ (19a,.”.............. (24a,B)
where (Einstein*, part 6),
B = 1/(1 - v^2/c^2)^˝ . ...................2025
The magnetic curl equation is derived using Maxwell’s electric current displacement (dE/dt) but light is not formed by a charging and discharging capacitor. Einstein’s electrodynamics cannot be used to represent the physical structure of light.
In Einstein’s paper “Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity” (1916), Einstein uses the electric and magnetic curl equations,
“§ 20. Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Field Equations for Free Space ………..
- dH/dt = curl E (60b) ….. dE'/dt + j = curl H’...... (.... (63a)”.................. 21a,”...........26a,b
(Einstein**, § 20).
Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is formed by the motion of an ether that does not physically exist since light propagates in vacuum that is void of matter. An electron’s electric field and a magnet’s magnetic field are not composed of particles, and the frequency of Maxwell’s electromagnetic wave structure of light is dependent on the wave frequency and amplitude which conflicts with Newton’s spectrum, Lenard’s photoelectric effect and Compton’s effect which is experimental proof that Einstein’s relativity is invalid.
8.9. Conclusion
Quantum mechanics (QM), quantum electrodynamics (QED), quantum field theory (QFT), string and gauge theories are electromagnetic field theories that use Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation but Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is not a particle structure. An electron’s electric field and a magnet’s magnetic field are not composed ofparticles which is proof particles. In addition, the ether that forms Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is does not a particle structure and physically exist which is experimental proof that modern theoretical physics is physically invalid.
The diffraction effect of light cannot be described usingelectro-magnetic electromagnetic photons since the dark fringes of the diffraction pattern formed by wave interference annihilation violates energy conservation, and using the wave amplitudes to form the diffraction effect produces a light energy that is dependent on the amplitude which conflict with Lenard,Lenard’s photoelectric effect, and Compton effects.Compton’s effect.
The aperture diffraction effect of light is described using optic particles. During the aperture diffraction effect of light, optic particles propagate close to the aperture edge. The gravitational force of the aperture edge atoms directs the optic particles to the intensity areas, of the diffraction pattern and does not direct the optic particles to the dark areas of the diffraction pattern.
Global Warming.
9.10. References
Crew, Henry. “The Wave Theory of Light: memoirs by Huygens, Young and Fresnel” Edited by H. Crew. New York: American Book Co. 1900.
Einstein, Albert. “On a Heuristic Point of View about the Creation and Conversion of Light”. Annalen der Physik. 17: 132-148. 1905.
Einstein*, Albert. “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”. Annalen der Physik. 17: 891-921. 1905.
Einstein**, Albert. “Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity”. Annalen der Physik. 47. 1916.
Fresnel, Augustin. "Memorie su la Diffraction de la Lumiere". French Academy of Science. 1818.
Heaviside, Oliver. “Electromagnetic Theory”. Vol I. Chelsea Pub. 1971.
Lenard, Philipp. Annalen der Physik. 8: 149 - 198. 1902.
Maxwell*, James. “Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field”. Royal Society Transactions. Vol. CLV. 1864.
Maxwell, James. “On Physical Lines of Force”. Philosophical Magazine, Volume XXI. 1862.
Morrison, Michael A. “Understanding Quantum Physics”. Prentice Hall. 1990.
Niven, W. D. "The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell". Dover Pub. 1994.
Nye, Mary Jo. “The Question of the Atom” Tomash Pub. 1984.
Planck, Max. “On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum”. Annalen der Physik. IV, 4: 553-563. 1901.
Judi Bari............................. Koran
Optica!
Ben T. Ito
Sept
1. Introduction
The ancient Greeks believed the eye sent out feelers that felt the object being observed. The first physical achievement in the study of light occurred in the Middle East; during the middle ages, the theory that light is an external entity rather than an emanation from the eye was introduced and subsequently the hand-held telescope was invented by dissecting the eye and studying the eye’s lens. The Arabian hand-held telescope later became Galileo’s astronomic telescope.
The idea light is formed by the motion of a medium came from the discovery of the diffraction phenomena by Father Grimaldi (1665) but the wave theory of light could not explain how light travels in vacuum since light propagates, forms the diffraction, reflection, polarization and blackbody radiation effects in vacuum that is void of matter (solid, liquid or gas) which is experimental proof that light waves do not physically exist. In 1817, the French Academy of Science accepted Fresnel’s diffraction paper as the winning paper of a diffraction contest but the ether that forms Fresnel’s aperture diffraction spherical waves does not physically exist. Fresnel’s wave interference mechanism of light is based on an ether that does not physically exist.
2. Huygens
Huygens describes the propagation of light in “Treatise on Light” (1690). According to Huygens, light forms waves produced by the motion of an Ethereal matter (ether).
“Now if one examines what this matter may be in which the movement coming from the luminous body is propagated, which I call Ethereal matter,” (Huygens, p. 11).
The motion of Huygens’ Ethereal matter forms Huygens’ wave structure of light yet light propagates in vacuum that is void of matter (solid, liquid or gas)
Huygens’ propagation mechanism of light is described (fig 1).
“of those comprised within the sphere DCF, will have made its particular or partial wave KCL, which will touch the wave DCF at C at the same moment that the principal wave emanating from the point A has arrived at DCF; and it is clear that it will be only the region C of the wave KCL which will touch the wave DCF” (Huygens, p. 19).
Every point along Huygens' wave front (HI) emits a partial wave. The far points of the partial waves are used to construct the wave front DCF. The unused partial waves’ structures are ignored (destroyed) after the wave front DCF is constructed which violates energy conservation.
In Huygens’ propagation mechanism of light (fig 1), the wave front HI emits partial waves from points b,b,b,b.
At every point along the wave front HI (fig 1), a partial wave is formed. The far points of the partial waves are used to construct the wave front DCF yet to form the continuity of the constructed wave front DCF, the partial waves are simultaneously emitted which represents the creation of an enormous amount of
“To come to the properties of Light. We remark first that each portion of a wave ought to spread in such a way that its extremities lie always between the same straight lines drawn from the luminous point. Thus the portion BG of the wave, having the luminous point A as its centre, will spread into the arc CE bounded by the straight lines ABC, AGE.” (Huygens, p. 20).
Huygens’ expanding partial waves cannot form a light beam since the expanding partial waves’ structures would extend outside the lines ABC and AGE (fig 1), and form a light intensity outside the light beam. Huygens arbitrarily ignores (destroys) the partial waves’ structures that are not within “the straight lines ABC, AGE” to form a light beam which violates energy conservation.
Huygens’ propagation mechanism of light is described (fig 1).
“of those comprised within the sphere DCF, will have made its particular or partial wave KCL, which will touch the wave DCF at C at the same moment that the principal wave emanating from the point A has arrived at DCF; and it is clear that it will be only the region C of the wave KCL which will touch the wave DCF” (Huygens, p. 19).
Every point along Huygens' wave front (HI) emits partial wave. The far points of the partial waves are used to construct the wave front DCF. The unused partial waves’ structures, between K and C, and between C and L, are ignored (destroyed) after the wave front DCF is constructed. If the unwanted structures of the partial waves are not eliminated, the unwanted structures of the partial waves would cascade onto the wave front DCF and increase the intensity of light during propagation yet experimentally the intensity of light does not increase during propagation. An enormous amount of energy (partial waves) is created then destroyed in Huygens’ partial wave propagation mechanism of light which violates energy conservation.
3. Fresnel
Fresnel’s diffraction mechanism is describe in “Memorie su la Diffraction de la Lumiere” (1818).
“It follows from the principle of the superposition of small motions that the vibrations produced at any point in an elastic fluid by several disturbances are equal to the resultant of all the disturbances reaching this point at the same instant” (Fresnel, translated by Henry Crew, section 43).
Fresnel’s interference mechanism of light is formed by the motion of an elastic fluid yet the diffraction effect of light forms in vacuum that is void of matter (solid, liquid or gas)
Fresnel uses an integral to describe the aperture diffraction effects of light where a surface integral is
Lenard’s photoelectric effect (1899) proves light is composed of particles that energy is dependent on only the frequency which conflicts with Fresnel’s wave interference mechanism of light where, at a point on the diffraction screen, the wave amplitudes form the diffraction pattern’s intensity which forms a light energy that is dependent on the amplitude.
4. Maxwell
In Maxwell’s paper “On Physical Lines of Force” (1862), Maxwell states a charging and discharging capacitor of a circuit forms an electric current displacement in a dielectric.
“it is the commencement of a current, and its variations constitute currents in the positive or negative direction, according as the displacement is increasing or diminishing. The amount of the displacement depends on the nature of the body, and on the electromotive force; so that if h is the displacement, R the electromotive force, and E a coefficient depending on the nature of the dielectric, R =
The induction effect formed by a charging and discharging capacitor of a circuit does not emit
In Maxwell’s paper “Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field” (1864), the motion of an elastic medium composed of matter forms Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation.
“there is matter in motion, by which the observed electromagnetic phenomena are produced.” (Maxwell, intro).
Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory is based on an ether but light propagates in vacuum that is void of matter (solid, liquid or gas)
Maxwell states that transverse waves form polarized light.
“the disturbance at any point is transverse to the direction of propagation, and such waves may have all the properties of polarized light.” (Maxwell, part VI).
A transverse wave is
Maxwell describes the propagation of light with the following equation:
“If the equation of propagation of light is
F = A cos [(2pi/l)(z - Vt)] ” (Maxwell*, part VI)............ 1
Maxwell’s propagation equation of light is invalid since z - Vt = 0. In addition, the ether that forms Maxwell electromagnetic wave structure of light does not physically exist which is experimental proof that Maxwell’s propagation equation (equ 1) is invalid.
Lenard’s photoelectric effect (1899) proves light is composed of particles that energy is dependent on only the frequency which conflicts with Maxwell’s electromagnetic wave structure of light
5. Heaviside
Heaviside derives the equations known as Maxwell’s equations. The preceding statement was written by E. T. Whittaker and appears in Heaviside’s introduction,
“The great service Heaviside now rendered to science was to clear away this accumulation of rubbish, and base the theory on what he called the “Duplex” equations
Curl H = 4piT………………………2
Curl E = - H………………………. 3
Div T = 0 ……………………...…...4
Div H = 0…………………….….….5
(where H is magnetic force, T is electric current etc.), which modern writers generally call “Maxwell’s equations” though they are not found in Maxwell’s Treatise, and the modern writers have in fact copied them form Heaviside.” (Heaviside, introduction, p. XVI).
Heaviside uses Maxwell’s electric current displacement (T) in the magnetic curl equation (equ 2) but light is not emitted from a charging and discharging capacitor induction effect which is experimental proof Heaviside’s magnetic curl equation cannot be used to represent the structure of light.
6. Planck
In Planck’s paper “On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum” (1901), an energy element is derived using resonators: molecules of the blackbody cavity wall, (Morrison, p. 21-24) that
“the entropy of a resonator vibrating in an arbitrary diathermic medium depends only on the variable U/v,” (Planck, part 2).
“I plan to derive elsewhere the expressions for the intensity and entropy of radiation progressing in a diathermic medium,” (Planck, part 2).
The blackbody radiation effect forms in vacuum that is void of a diathermic medium (ether) composed of matter
The derivation of Planck’s energy element is described. Planck uses Boltzmann’s thermodynamic entropy equation (Planck, part
S = k log R……………………..
Combination theory is used to derive,
R = {[N + P]^(N + P)} [N^N P^P]^(-1).............
Equations
S =
that is represented with:
S = f(U/e)…………………9
Planck derives an electromagnetic entropy equation that is dependent on U/v.
“Since we do not have to consider the total radiation, but only the monochromatic radiation, it becomes necessary in order to compare different diathermic media to introduce the frequency
u = T^5 c v^(-2) Y ct v(-1)" (Planck, part 2).........................
Equation
T = v • f(U/v)..............
and 1/T = dS/dU to form,
dS/dU = 1/v • f(U/v)……………………….
Rearranging equation
int(dS) = int [f(U/v) dU]...........................
Equation
“S = f(U/v)……………………..
that is, the entropy of a resonator vibrating in an arbitrary diathermic medium depends only on the variable U/v, containing besides this only universal constants. This is the simplest form of Wien's displacement law known to me. §10. If we apply Wien's displacement law in the latter form to equation (6) for the entropy S, we then find that the energy element
Using equations
Planck’s energy element
e = hv…………………………….
Planck states that light forms Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation,
“the electromagnetic theory of radiation for the monochromatic vibrations of a resonator” (Planck, part
The
In Einstein’s paper, “On a Heuristic Point of View about the Creation and Conversion of Light” (1905), Einstein derives an electromagnetic entropy equation (Einstein, part 4),
“We call the electrons bound to points in space “resonators”; they emit and
absorb electromagnetic waves with definite periods.” (Einstein, part 1).
“S - S' = [E/(Bf)] ln (v/v')..................................
This equation shows that the entropy of a monochromatic radiation of sufficiently small density varies with volume according to the same rules as the entropy of a perfect gas or of a dilute solution.” (Einstein, part 4).
Boltzmann’s thermodynamic entropy equation and Einstein’s probability (W) are used (Einstein, part 5),
“S - S' = (R/N) ln W”....... & ....... “ W = ( v/v')^
Einstein states:
“Monochromatic radiation of low density behaves--as long as Wien’s radiation formula is valid--in a thermodynamic sense, as if it consisted of mutually independent energy quanta of magnitude
Einstein’s energy quanta (
In Einstein’s electrodynamics paper, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” (1905), Einstein expands a variation of the electric and magnetic curl equations,
“Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations For Empty Space.
On the Nature of the Electromotive Force Occurring in a Magnetic
Field During Motion
1/c)(dX/dt) = dN/dy - dM/dz................(1/c)(dL/dt) = dY/dz - dZ/dy............
(1/c)(dY/dt) = dL/dz - dN/dx................(1/c)(dM/dt) = dZ/dx - dX/dz............
(1/c)(dX/dt) = dM/dx - dL/dy................(1/c)(dN/dt) = dX/dy - dY/dx............
where (X, Y, Z) denotes the vector of the electric force, and (L, M, N) that of the magnetic force.” (Einstein*, part 6).
The following equations are described,
X’ = X…
Y’ = B (Y – [v/c]N),.............. M’ = B(M – [v/c]Z),............ (
Z’ = B (Z – [v/c]M),............. N’ = B(N – [v/c]Y)
where (Einstein*, part 6),
B = 1/(1 - v^2/c^2)^˝ . ...................
The magnetic curl equation is derived using Maxwell’s electric current displacement (dE/dt) but light is not formed by a charging and discharging capacitor. Einstein’s electrodynamics cannot be used to represent the physical structure of light.
In Einstein’s paper “Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity” (1916), Einstein uses the electric and magnetic curl equations,
“§ 20. Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Field Equations for Free Space ………..
- dH/dt = curl E (60b) ….. dE'/dt + j = curl H’
(Einstein**, § 20).
Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is formed by the motion of an ether that does not physically exist since light propagates in vacuum that is void of matter. An electron’s electric field and a magnet’s magnetic field are not composed of particles, and the frequency of Maxwell’s electromagnetic wave structure of light is dependent on the wave frequency and amplitude which conflicts with Newton’s spectrum, Lenard’s photoelectric effect and Compton’s effect which is experimental proof that Einstein’s relativity is invalid.
Quantum mechanics (QM), quantum electrodynamics (QED), quantum field theory (QFT), string and gauge theories are electromagnetic field theories that use Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation but Maxwell’s electromagnetic radiation is not a particle structure. An electron’s electric field and a magnet’s magnetic field are not composed of
The diffraction effect of light cannot be described using
The aperture diffraction effect of light is described using optic particles. During the aperture diffraction effect of light, optic particles propagate close to the aperture edge. The gravitational force of the aperture edge atoms directs the optic particles to the intensity areas, of the diffraction pattern and does not direct the optic particles to the dark areas of the diffraction pattern.
Global Warming.
Crew, Henry. “The Wave Theory of Light: memoirs by Huygens, Young and Fresnel” Edited by H. Crew. New York: American Book Co. 1900.
Einstein, Albert. “On a Heuristic Point of View about the Creation and Conversion of Light”. Annalen der Physik. 17: 132-148. 1905.
Einstein*, Albert. “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”. Annalen der Physik. 17: 891-921. 1905.
Einstein**, Albert. “Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity”. Annalen der Physik. 47. 1916.
Fresnel, Augustin. "Memorie su la Diffraction de la Lumiere". French Academy of Science. 1818.
Heaviside, Oliver. “Electromagnetic Theory”. Vol I. Chelsea Pub. 1971.
Lenard, Philipp. Annalen der Physik. 8: 149 - 198. 1902.
Maxwell*, James. “Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field”. Royal Society Transactions. Vol. CLV. 1864.
Maxwell, James. “On Physical Lines of Force”. Philosophical Magazine, Volume XXI. 1862.
Morrison, Michael A. “Understanding Quantum Physics”. Prentice Hall. 1990.
Niven, W. D. "The Scientific Papers of James Clerk Maxwell". Dover Pub. 1994.
Nye, Mary Jo. “The Question of the Atom” Tomash Pub. 1984.
Planck, Max. “On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum”. Annalen der Physik. IV, 4: 553-563. 1901.
Judi Bari
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 22 2009, 08:55 PM)
How can photons be pure electromagnetic energy without any medium? Energy is not a substance itself, it is a function of a substance in dynamism. If there is a substance, of which electromagnetic waves are a function, and the substance is composed of discrete particles with mass, this medium could be called "ether" and the particles "photons."
If photons are discreet quantities of pure-energy without a medium, how would they travel through "empty space?"
If photons are discreet quantities of pure-energy without a medium, how would they travel through "empty space?"
My paper proves,[Moderator: FALSE. User asserts certain claims, but fails to prove main point. User banned.] that under the current circumstances: how light propagates through empty space is unknown. Ask Miss know-it-All. [Moderator: UNCLEAR ANTECEEDENT. User banned.]
Your paper proves how people waste paper, dumbass.
You know the equation
mc^2 = U (energy),
I think is also invalid [Moderator: FALSE. User Banned.] since Mass (m) never propagates at the volecity of c. [Moderator: NON SEQUITUR, STRAW MAN. You argue against your own misconceptions, not accepted physical theory backed by millions of experimental demonstrations. User Banned.] Einstein also use the same techique [Moderator: FALSE. User Banned.] in the derivation of the energy quanta, that includes gas molecule constants N and R yet gas molecules do not osicallate at the frequency of light. [Moderator: NON SEQUITUR, STRAW MAN. User Banned.]
[Moderator: Congratulations. You are now banned and all your posts will soon bedeleted moderated, because there is no valid criticism anywhere to be found and this forum is not your vanity publishing service.]
mc^2 = U (energy),
I think is also invalid [Moderator: FALSE. User Banned.] since Mass (m) never propagates at the volecity of c. [Moderator: NON SEQUITUR, STRAW MAN. You argue against your own misconceptions, not accepted physical theory backed by millions of experimental demonstrations. User Banned.] Einstein also use the same techique [Moderator: FALSE. User Banned.] in the derivation of the energy quanta, that includes gas molecule constants N and R yet gas molecules do not osicallate at the frequency of light. [Moderator: NON SEQUITUR, STRAW MAN. User Banned.]
[Moderator: Congratulations. You are now banned and all your posts will soon be
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 22 2009, 10:31 PM)
... Maxwell's equations might be off-base as to an ether with impossible properties if Newtonian mechanics are assumed, they work well -- a point the author seems incapable of grasping. And QED, the most precisely tested of physical theories, allows one to derive Maxwell's equations without assuming an ether, which means that the issue of an actual ether existing or not is physically meaningless to this paper.
Nice post something that I can think about since physics is really boring otherwise.
Yes you are correct in stating that QED derives Maxwell's equations but the derivation uses Faraday's law [Moderator: FALSE. User Banned.] and Maxwell's electric current displacement [Moderator: FALSE. User Banned.] yet light is not formed by induction [Moderator: FALSE. User Banned.]. Also, Maxwell's electromagnetic radiation energy dependence is on the frequency and amplitude. [Moderator: NON SEQUITUR. User Banned.]
Furthermore, the foundation of electromagnetic theory is an electron's electric field and a magnet's magnetic field which are not composed of particles. [Moderator: NON SEQUITUR. Appearantly User incapable of understanding that the fully relativistic and fully quantum QED theory predicts Maxwell's equations and uses a specific definition of the word particle which the User has not internalized. User Banned.]
Heisenberg introduce the theory (assumption)[Moderator: FALSE. User cannot even properly define theory. User Banned.] that an electron forms an electric field [Moderator: FALSE. That would be a combination of Franklin in the 1750's (characterization of electric charge), Coulomb in the 1780's (electrostatic force law), and Thomson circa 1897 (discovery of the electron). User Banned.] which is really strange since an electron is not a physical source [Moderator: FALSE. User Banned.] that is generating and electric field as time increases. [Moderator: NON SEQUITUR. User conflating particles being assocaiated with a gauge field with a violation of the law of conservation of mass-energy. User Banned.]
Please have a nice day and I really applaud your intelligent posting.
Nice post something that I can think about since physics is really boring otherwise.
Yes you are correct in stating that QED derives Maxwell's equations but the derivation uses Faraday's law [Moderator: FALSE. User Banned.] and Maxwell's electric current displacement [Moderator: FALSE. User Banned.] yet light is not formed by induction [Moderator: FALSE. User Banned.]. Also, Maxwell's electromagnetic radiation energy dependence is on the frequency and amplitude. [Moderator: NON SEQUITUR. User Banned.]
Furthermore, the foundation of electromagnetic theory is an electron's electric field and a magnet's magnetic field which are not composed of particles. [Moderator: NON SEQUITUR. Appearantly User incapable of understanding that the fully relativistic and fully quantum QED theory predicts Maxwell's equations and uses a specific definition of the word particle which the User has not internalized. User Banned.]
Heisenberg introduce the theory (assumption)[Moderator: FALSE. User cannot even properly define theory. User Banned.] that an electron forms an electric field [Moderator: FALSE. That would be a combination of Franklin in the 1750's (characterization of electric charge), Coulomb in the 1780's (electrostatic force law), and Thomson circa 1897 (discovery of the electron). User Banned.] which is really strange since an electron is not a physical source [Moderator: FALSE. User Banned.] that is generating and electric field as time increases. [Moderator: NON SEQUITUR. User conflating particles being assocaiated with a gauge field with a violation of the law of conservation of mass-energy. User Banned.]
Please have a nice day and I really applaud your intelligent posting.
Oh, well.
I wanted to tell him that illiteracy really helps his readers judge the profundity of his thoughts, but no matter...
I wanted to tell him that illiteracy really helps his readers judge the profundity of his thoughts, but no matter...
QUOTE (Trout+Sep 23 2009, 05:38 PM)
Nothing to do with light "having mass".
Light travels along geodesics. The presence of gravitational bodies bends those geodesics. As a consequence, the light path is bent as well. See here.
Here's a non-critical question: what is meant by the following sentence from the wikipedia link posted?
This seems to mean that light "falls" into gravitation fields, but what is "the value given by general relativity?" Since light has no mass, how would its tendency to free-fall be measured? As deflection from a straight-line trajectory at the rate of free-fall, i.e. 9m/s^2? Or rather half that (4.5m/s^2) So, for example, does a light-second of radiation deflect 4.5m from the destination it would reach if no gravity was present? I.e. over the course of 300,000 km, light diverts 4.5m from its straight-line course?
So does this mean that the image of the moon seen from Earth is actually @5m off of what its actual position would be given a straight path of light between moon and observer?
Forgive my misapplication if I have this wrong. I am trying to grasp it practically.
Light travels along geodesics. The presence of gravitational bodies bends those geodesics. As a consequence, the light path is bent as well. See here.
Here's a non-critical question: what is meant by the following sentence from the wikipedia link posted?
QUOTE
Alhough the bending of light can also be derived by extending the universality of free fall to light,[60] the angle of deflection resulting from such calculations is only half the value given by general relativity.[61]
This seems to mean that light "falls" into gravitation fields, but what is "the value given by general relativity?" Since light has no mass, how would its tendency to free-fall be measured? As deflection from a straight-line trajectory at the rate of free-fall, i.e. 9m/s^2? Or rather half that (4.5m/s^2) So, for example, does a light-second of radiation deflect 4.5m from the destination it would reach if no gravity was present? I.e. over the course of 300,000 km, light diverts 4.5m from its straight-line course?
So does this mean that the image of the moon seen from Earth is actually @5m off of what its actual position would be given a straight path of light between moon and observer?
Forgive my misapplication if I have this wrong. I am trying to grasp it practically.
QUOTE From Light in Tunnel: [Moderator: Actual quote is excerpt of Wikipedia: General relativity: § Light deflection and gravitational time delay and was supplied by Trout, not Light in Tunnel.]
QUOTE (Wikipedia+)
Although the bending of light can also be derived by extending the universality of free fall to light,[60] the angle of deflection resulting from such calculations is only half the value given by general relativity.[61]
Einstein's general relativity is an electromagnetic theory [Moderator: FALSE. User Banned.] that uses Maxwell's equations [Moderator: FALSE. User Banned.] yet forms problems: The ether, energy (frequency & amplitude) and particle structure; consequently, I would not rely to much on Einstein's general relativity. Have you ever heard of mathematical manipulation and investment banking. [Moderator: Red Herring. User Banned.]
Einstein's general relativity is an electromagnetic theory [Moderator: FALSE. User Banned.] that uses Maxwell's equations [Moderator: FALSE. User Banned.] yet forms problems: The ether, energy (frequency & amplitude) and particle structure; consequently, I would not rely to much on Einstein's general relativity. Have you ever heard of mathematical manipulation and investment banking. [Moderator: Red Herring. User Banned.]
QUOTE (benito+Sep 23 2009, 10:39 PM)
QUOTE From Light in Tunnel: [Moderator: Actual quote is excerpt of Wikipedia: General relativity: § Light deflection and gravitational time delay and was supplied by Trout, not Light in Tunnel.]
Einstein's general relativity is an electromagnetic theory [Moderator: FALSE. User Banned.] that uses Maxwell's equations [Moderator: FALSE. User Banned.] yet forms problems: The ether, energy (frequency & amplitude) and particle structure; consequently, I would not rely to much on Einstein's general relativity. Have you ever heard of mathematical manipulation and investment banking. [Moderator: Red Herring. User Banned.]
Hi Zephir !
Einstein's general relativity is an electromagnetic theory [Moderator: FALSE. User Banned.] that uses Maxwell's equations [Moderator: FALSE. User Banned.] yet forms problems: The ether, energy (frequency & amplitude) and particle structure; consequently, I would not rely to much on Einstein's general relativity. Have you ever heard of mathematical manipulation and investment banking. [Moderator: Red Herring. User Banned.]
Hi Zephir !
Just one more question...
Light is photons and are electromagnetic packets that travel at a constant speed, right? Where the only different between say a radio wave and an ultraviolet light is the difference in energy. Which means the difference in wave length.
Then how is it that x-rays can penetrate materials of low density, visible light can't penetrate any material that isn't "clear"and radio waves can penetrate materials of greater density than x-rays? Within the radio frequency you can get different levels of penetration through the Earth's atmosphere. Then there are magnetic fields that can also penetrate different materials. Also if you pass a wire through a magnetic field or vise versa and induce an electrical current through the wire, why is it none of the "light" (photons) that pass into the atmosphere passing by all the wires we use induce a current?
Light is photons and are electromagnetic packets that travel at a constant speed, right? Where the only different between say a radio wave and an ultraviolet light is the difference in energy. Which means the difference in wave length.
Then how is it that x-rays can penetrate materials of low density, visible light can't penetrate any material that isn't "clear"and radio waves can penetrate materials of greater density than x-rays? Within the radio frequency you can get different levels of penetration through the Earth's atmosphere. Then there are magnetic fields that can also penetrate different materials. Also if you pass a wire through a magnetic field or vise versa and induce an electrical current through the wire, why is it none of the "light" (photons) that pass into the atmosphere passing by all the wires we use induce a current?
QUOTE (H2O+Sep 24 2009, 11:29 AM)
Just one more question...
Light is photons and are electromagnetic packets that travel at a constant speed, right? Where the only different between say a radio wave and an ultraviolet light is the difference in energy. Which means the difference in wave length.
Then how is it that x-rays can penetrate materials of low density, visible light can't penetrate any material that isn't "clear"and radio waves can penetrate materials of greater density than x-rays? Within the radio frequency you can get different levels of penetration through the Earth's atmosphere. Then there are magnetic fields that can also penetrate different materials. Also if you pass a wire through a magnetic field or vise versa and induce an electrical current through the wire, why is it none of the "light" (photons) that pass into the atmosphere passing by all the wires we use induce a current?
Visible light is at the perfect wavelength to interfere with atoms. The reason why visible light is blocked by matter is the same exact reason why it's visible in the first place. INvisible light does not interact with matter in a way that is easily detectable. Only a few species of animals have evolved the ability to see infrared and ultraviolet light, but none can see x-rays or microwaves.
For example, to see x-rays you would need a very dense material in the eye to block/absorb the high frequency photons.
Light is photons and are electromagnetic packets that travel at a constant speed, right? Where the only different between say a radio wave and an ultraviolet light is the difference in energy. Which means the difference in wave length.
Then how is it that x-rays can penetrate materials of low density, visible light can't penetrate any material that isn't "clear"and radio waves can penetrate materials of greater density than x-rays? Within the radio frequency you can get different levels of penetration through the Earth's atmosphere. Then there are magnetic fields that can also penetrate different materials. Also if you pass a wire through a magnetic field or vise versa and induce an electrical current through the wire, why is it none of the "light" (photons) that pass into the atmosphere passing by all the wires we use induce a current?
Visible light is at the perfect wavelength to interfere with atoms. The reason why visible light is blocked by matter is the same exact reason why it's visible in the first place. INvisible light does not interact with matter in a way that is easily detectable. Only a few species of animals have evolved the ability to see infrared and ultraviolet light, but none can see x-rays or microwaves.
For example, to see x-rays you would need a very dense material in the eye to block/absorb the high frequency photons.
QUOTE (H2O+Sep 24 2009, 03:29 PM)
Light is photons and are electromagnetic packets that travel at a constant speed, right? Where the only different between say a radio wave and an ultraviolet light is the difference in energy. Which means the difference in wave length.
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 23 2009, 09:32 PM)
In relativistic quantum mechanics, a theory which works, non-interacting objects are treated as governed by the same basic relationships:
v˛ = (pc˛/E)˛ = c˛ - (mcł/E)˛ = (c˛/λf)˛
m˛ = (E/c˛)˛ - (p/c)˛ = (hf/c˛)˛ - (h/λc)˛
h = pλ = E/f
v˛ = (pc˛/E)˛ = c˛ - (mcł/E)˛ = (c˛/λf)˛
m˛ = (E/c˛)˛ - (p/c)˛ = (hf/c˛)˛ - (h/λc)˛
h = pλ = E/f
So assume m˛ = 0, then we have (E/c˛)˛ =(p/c)˛ and (hf/c˛)˛ = (h/λc)˛ which give us |p| = E/c and λ=c/f. So the top equation becomes v˛ = c˛ = c˛ = c˛. Likewise assume v=c and the top equation gives you |p| = E/c, m = 0 and λ=c/f again. Therefore photons are massless if they travel at c, and if they are massless they travel at constant speed c. And what you are left with is h/λ = |p| = E/c = hf/c (which is true for any massless particle as defined in relativistic quantum mechanics). So if you know one of λ, |p|, E or f, you know them all for a non-interacting photon.
There is a false assumption here that if something is a crystal, it is clear. Crystallization is (simply in my own words) when the molecules arrange themselves in a characteristic pattern that is specific to the matter being crystallized.
So a sulfur crystal has a crystalline structure that (I think) is a different shape than a diamonds or a quartz. However Rock crystal (clear quartz) is transparent. So is a white diamond crystal. A sulfur crystal is not nearly as transparent but may not be completely opaque (can't remember off hand).
QUOTE (H2O+Sep 24 2009, 03:29 PM)
Then how is it that x-rays can penetrate materials of low density, visible light can't penetrate any material that isn't "clear"and radio waves can penetrate materials of greater density than x-rays? Within the radio frequency you can get different levels of penetration through the Earth's atmosphere. Then there are magnetic fields that can also penetrate different materials. Also if you pass a wire through a magnetic field or vise versa and induce an electrical current through the wire, why is it none of the "light" (photons) that pass into the atmosphere passing by all the wires we use induce a current?
For that, Maxwell's equations are silent. What is needed is a theory of the interaction of light and matter. If you have that, Maxwell's equations have places in them where you can insert by hand the matter interaction terms, or you can find those terms by laborious experiment. But QED is a fully relativistic and quantum theory which tells you not just about photons, but how they interact with matter. If just that, it would be a great leap forward over Maxwell's equation, but it also allows you to compute spectra and chemical properties of elements, and model how chlorophyll works, and build sophisticated computers. The way it works it this:
Electrons (and other electrically charged particles) pass momentum between themselves via photons. If there was a change in momentum and energy, then photons were involved.
But atoms have electrons trapped in the central potential of a nucleus. As such they are restricted to well-defined energy states, so typically these materials absorb light only when that light corresponds close enough to a difference in current energy level and a single electron transition to a higher level. In solids and liquids, where the atoms jostle against one another and can fudge the momentum balance sheets between each other, these allowed regions can be broad. In atomic and diatomic gasses, these allowed energy regions can be quite narrow and this is where the dark lines in spectroscopy come from.
Metals (and plasmas) aren't transparent, because in addition to a core of trapped electrons, metals have a fraction of electrons which are free to move about the bulk of the metal. This lets them absorb radio waves that are too low-energy to move any trapped electron to a new trapped energy level as well as light. This is also why astronauts lose radio contact with Earth during reentry.
X-rays and gamma rays are considered penetrating, not because they don't interact with electrons in atoms, but because they frequently knock the electron loose. The loose electron may then crash into other atoms and shed it's excess energy and momentum by emitting a new photon, which is how many forms of detecting x-rays and gamma rays work.
Electrons (and other electrically charged particles) pass momentum between themselves via photons. If there was a change in momentum and energy, then photons were involved.
But atoms have electrons trapped in the central potential of a nucleus. As such they are restricted to well-defined energy states, so typically these materials absorb light only when that light corresponds close enough to a difference in current energy level and a single electron transition to a higher level. In solids and liquids, where the atoms jostle against one another and can fudge the momentum balance sheets between each other, these allowed regions can be broad. In atomic and diatomic gasses, these allowed energy regions can be quite narrow and this is where the dark lines in spectroscopy come from.
Metals (and plasmas) aren't transparent, because in addition to a core of trapped electrons, metals have a fraction of electrons which are free to move about the bulk of the metal. This lets them absorb radio waves that are too low-energy to move any trapped electron to a new trapped energy level as well as light. This is also why astronauts lose radio contact with Earth during reentry.
X-rays and gamma rays are considered penetrating, not because they don't interact with electrons in atoms, but because they frequently knock the electron loose. The loose electron may then crash into other atoms and shed it's excess energy and momentum by emitting a new photon, which is how many forms of detecting x-rays and gamma rays work.
QUOTE (Trout+Sep 24 2009, 05:16 AM)
Hi Zephir !
I think you are very much mistaken. This is the same "paper" that Ben Tsutomu Ito has been working on since2006 at least 2002. While Zephir spells ether as aether and endorses it.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=5730
http://physics-animations.com/engboard/messages/656.html
http://physics-animations.com/engboard/messages/653.html
http://physics-animations.com/engboard/messages/631.html
I think you are very much mistaken. This is the same "paper" that Ben Tsutomu Ito has been working on since
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=5730
http://physics-animations.com/engboard/messages/656.html
http://physics-animations.com/engboard/messages/653.html
http://physics-animations.com/engboard/messages/631.html
QUOTE (rpenner+Sep 24 2009, 09:20 PM)
I think you are very much mistaken. This is the same "paper" that Ben Tsutomu Ito has been working on since 2006 at least 2002. While Zephir spells ether as aether and endorses it.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=5730
http://physics-animations.com/engboard/messages/656.html
http://physics-animations.com/engboard/messages/653.html
http://physics-animations.com/engboard/messages/631.html
Mea culpa, so we are dealing with a brand new idiot. :-)
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=5730
http://physics-animations.com/engboard/messages/656.html
http://physics-animations.com/engboard/messages/653.html
http://physics-animations.com/engboard/messages/631.html
Mea culpa, so we are dealing with a brand new idiot. :-)
QUOTE (Trout+)
so we are dealing with a brand new idiot. :-)
!
!
So there is no complete theory yet. I did much digging (not just wiki) but didn't find an answer which thoroughly explained why different frequencies within the radio range had different penetrating properties.
I did find that there is a grey area when it comes to frequency overlapping. Particularly between the x-ray and gamma ray frequencies. Within early development x-rays and gamma rays were produced by different means (same pretty much applies today as well) which had kept their respective frequencies away from each other.
Gamma rays have been tested to interact differently with atoms than x-rays where gamma rays interacted almost entirely with the nucleus and x-rays seem to split interaction with electrons and nucleus. Part of why it required materials of greater density to block gamma than it did to block x-rays.
The grey area arose when there were techniques developed to produce x-rays in the gamma frequency. That is the method used to produce x-rays could produce electromagnetic radiation in the gamma frequencies. The problem was that when these x-rays were tested along side gamma rays of the same frequency they didn't have the same results. The gamma rays still tested an almost entire nucleus interaction while the x-rays still had an almost even mix and it still required a more dense material to block the gamma ray as effectively as the x-ray.
It seems the method of production plays an important role when determining the characteristics of electromagnetic radiation.
I did find that there is a grey area when it comes to frequency overlapping. Particularly between the x-ray and gamma ray frequencies. Within early development x-rays and gamma rays were produced by different means (same pretty much applies today as well) which had kept their respective frequencies away from each other.
Gamma rays have been tested to interact differently with atoms than x-rays where gamma rays interacted almost entirely with the nucleus and x-rays seem to split interaction with electrons and nucleus. Part of why it required materials of greater density to block gamma than it did to block x-rays.
The grey area arose when there were techniques developed to produce x-rays in the gamma frequency. That is the method used to produce x-rays could produce electromagnetic radiation in the gamma frequencies. The problem was that when these x-rays were tested along side gamma rays of the same frequency they didn't have the same results. The gamma rays still tested an almost entire nucleus interaction while the x-rays still had an almost even mix and it still required a more dense material to block the gamma ray as effectively as the x-ray.
It seems the method of production plays an important role when determining the characteristics of electromagnetic radiation.
Please read the above post again. It is clearly indicated that QED is the required theory and is good for radio-waves to gamma rays, and specific examples of where detailed QED calculations can give you numbers.
Such calculations are the subjects of professional papers and very specialized textbooks and are at most of your good university libraries, not the web.
Such calculations are the subjects of professional papers and very specialized textbooks and are at most of your good university libraries, not the web.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 24 2009, 03:41 PM)
Visible light is at the perfect wavelength to interfere with atoms. The reason why visible light is blocked by matter is the same exact reason why it's visible in the first place. INvisible light does not interact with matter in a way that is easily detectable. Only a few species of animals have evolved the ability to see infrared and ultraviolet light, but none can see x-rays or microwaves.
For example, to see x-rays you would need a very dense material in the eye to block/absorb the high frequency photons.
This logic sounds problematic to me. Insofar as there is a linear gradient of wavelengths within the EM spectrum and there is a linear gradient of densities of matter, visible light would not be "perfect" in its ability to be subject to interference. X-ray photography is "perfect" for taking advantage of EM interference caused by flesh-covered bones and weapons in carry-on luggage, whereas visible spectrum photography takes advantage of EM interference caused by flesh covered by air.
I don't understand why some substances are clear. It's not because of their density or hardness because water, glass, and air are all clear. I guess I'll have to look this one up if no expert is going to chime in to demonstrate their vast knowledge.
For example, to see x-rays you would need a very dense material in the eye to block/absorb the high frequency photons.
This logic sounds problematic to me. Insofar as there is a linear gradient of wavelengths within the EM spectrum and there is a linear gradient of densities of matter, visible light would not be "perfect" in its ability to be subject to interference. X-ray photography is "perfect" for taking advantage of EM interference caused by flesh-covered bones and weapons in carry-on luggage, whereas visible spectrum photography takes advantage of EM interference caused by flesh covered by air.
I don't understand why some substances are clear. It's not because of their density or hardness because water, glass, and air are all clear. I guess I'll have to look this one up if no expert is going to chime in to demonstrate their vast knowledge.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 29 2009, 05:08 PM)
This logic sounds problematic to me. Insofar as there is a linear gradient of wavelengths within the EM spectrum and there is a linear gradient of densities of matter, visible light would not be "perfect" in its ability to be subject to interference. X-ray photography is "perfect" for taking advantage of EM interference caused by flesh-covered bones and weapons in carry-on luggage, whereas visible spectrum photography takes advantage of EM interference caused by flesh covered by air.
I don't understand why some substances are clear. It's not because of their density or hardness because water, glass, and air are all clear. I guess I'll have to look this one up if no expert is going to chime in to demonstrate their vast knowledge.
Please reply to rpenner's post, he explained it a lot better than I did.
I don't understand why some substances are clear. It's not because of their density or hardness because water, glass, and air are all clear. I guess I'll have to look this one up if no expert is going to chime in to demonstrate their vast knowledge.
Please reply to rpenner's post, he explained it a lot better than I did.
Substances are probably clear because its easy for light to pass thru them. What makes it easy for light to pass thru them is the fact that they are clear.
QUOTE (magpies+Sep 29 2009, 05:50 PM)
Substances are probably clear because its easy for light to pass thru them. What makes it easy for light to pass thru them is the fact that they are clear.
Thank you for that flawless example of circular logic.
Thank you for that flawless example of circular logic.
Would you have rather I said... What makes them clear is the fact that they have a special crystaline structure to them?
QUOTE (magpies+Sep 29 2009, 06:29 PM)
Would you have rather I said... What makes them clear is the fact that they have a special crystaline structure to them?
No, that's worse.
No, that's worse.
QUOTE (magpies+Sep 29 2009, 09:50 PM)
Substances are probably clear because its easy for light to pass thru them. What makes it easy for light to pass thru them is the fact that they are clear.
I like the "probably." Did you have a little doubt that they might be clear even though it is very difficult and arduous for light to pass through them?
The "crystaline" reasoning was believable to me, since crystal are often clear. Water, glass, and air are not crystaline, though (I think), so that would not explain why they are clear.
I like the "probably." Did you have a little doubt that they might be clear even though it is very difficult and arduous for light to pass through them?
The "crystaline" reasoning was believable to me, since crystal are often clear. Water, glass, and air are not crystaline, though (I think), so that would not explain why they are clear.
QUOTE (magpies+Sep 30 2009, 12:20 AM)
Waters not crystal like??? what is the form of ice? Glass id bet is crystal 2 but honestly I cheated because in actuality every thing has a crystal like form in reality. Its just thouse things are more like the crystals we normaly think of.
I thought crystals had to be solid. Can liquid or gas be crystal? Doesn't crystalization require that there is another state in which the substance is not crystal, and therefore opaque? I guess for glass that could be sand. When is water ever opaque? When it's aerated?
I thought crystals had to be solid. Can liquid or gas be crystal? Doesn't crystalization require that there is another state in which the substance is not crystal, and therefore opaque? I guess for glass that could be sand. When is water ever opaque? When it's aerated?
QUOTE
is another state in which the substance is not crystal, and therefore opaque?
There is a false assumption here that if something is a crystal, it is clear. Crystallization is (simply in my own words) when the molecules arrange themselves in a characteristic pattern that is specific to the matter being crystallized.
So a sulfur crystal has a crystalline structure that (I think) is a different shape than a diamonds or a quartz. However Rock crystal (clear quartz) is transparent. So is a white diamond crystal. A sulfur crystal is not nearly as transparent but may not be completely opaque (can't remember off hand).
Metal crystals are, of course, opaque.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 21 2009, 11:30 PM)
And I should heed your assertion of my inferiority why? And why don't you respond to the above-posted claim of how much mass photons have, instead of attacking me for my level of intelligence?
If you are so much more advanced than them, why don't you debate their 10^50 gm (or whatever it was) estimate?
I suppose your position (the one that is too advanced for the likes of me) has something to do with mass being determined by energy level as velocity approaches c, or something like that. I don't understand what that means yet, but I guess I'll have to go googling for it to get over the inferiority complex you've given me with your insult.
The upper limit isn't an estimate of mass it's an experimental limit. IE the experimental measurement isn't sensitive enough to measure a mass less than the stated upper limit. Any mass less than the upper limit resides in the experiments error bar. Based on experimental evidence supporting quantum theory, general relativity, and special relativity removes any doubt that the photon is massless.
If you are so much more advanced than them, why don't you debate their 10^50 gm (or whatever it was) estimate?
I suppose your position (the one that is too advanced for the likes of me) has something to do with mass being determined by energy level as velocity approaches c, or something like that. I don't understand what that means yet, but I guess I'll have to go googling for it to get over the inferiority complex you've given me with your insult.
The upper limit isn't an estimate of mass it's an experimental limit. IE the experimental measurement isn't sensitive enough to measure a mass less than the stated upper limit. Any mass less than the upper limit resides in the experiments error bar. Based on experimental evidence supporting quantum theory, general relativity, and special relativity removes any doubt that the photon is massless.
The following empirical experiment is designed to measure the mass of ocean waves:
1) Fence off two sections of beach.
2) For one, extend the fence to block waves from hitting the sand.
3) For the other, leave the section open so that waves can crash onto the sand.
note: make sure the fenced sections are big enough that no water splashes beyond the fence as this may invalidate measurements!
4) Count the number of waves crashing onto the unblocked section of sand.
note: the longer you count the better, because ocean wave energy may have very slight mass, which would only be detectable after very VERY many waves.
5) Shovel all the sand from both fenced section onto a scale and compare their (dry) mass.
6)If the amount of sand you started with was equal in both sections, the difference between the end masses should be the amount of mass added by the energy of the waves.
7)Divide your finding by the number of waves you counted to get the average mass-per-wave!
If anyone is actually foolish enough to perform this experiment, they will have a fun day at the beach and get some exercise shoveling sand.
Unfortunately, I don't believe the wave energy has mass - but empiricism could prove me wrong.
If photons are light-waves, then there is no reason to think they would have mass.
It's the medium that would have mass, if there was a medium. But why does no one hypothesize there is such a thing as a medium for light (ether?) anymore?
[Moderator: Banned 15 days for being non-useful, trolling, being deliberately obtuse and obstructionist, and lazy.]
1) Fence off two sections of beach.
2) For one, extend the fence to block waves from hitting the sand.
3) For the other, leave the section open so that waves can crash onto the sand.
note: make sure the fenced sections are big enough that no water splashes beyond the fence as this may invalidate measurements!
4) Count the number of waves crashing onto the unblocked section of sand.
note: the longer you count the better, because ocean wave energy may have very slight mass, which would only be detectable after very VERY many waves.
5) Shovel all the sand from both fenced section onto a scale and compare their (dry) mass.
6)If the amount of sand you started with was equal in both sections, the difference between the end masses should be the amount of mass added by the energy of the waves.
7)Divide your finding by the number of waves you counted to get the average mass-per-wave!
If anyone is actually foolish enough to perform this experiment, they will have a fun day at the beach and get some exercise shoveling sand.
Unfortunately, I don't believe the wave energy has mass - but empiricism could prove me wrong.
If photons are light-waves, then there is no reason to think they would have mass.
It's the medium that would have mass, if there was a medium. But why does no one hypothesize there is such a thing as a medium for light (ether?) anymore?
[Moderator: Banned 15 days for being non-useful, trolling, being deliberately obtuse and obstructionist, and lazy.]
Trout? Why aren't you here making some seminal point about cranks, or doing some ethereal physics? 
QUOTE (Granouille+Oct 3 2009, 02:43 AM)
Trout? Why aren't you here making some seminal point about cranks
Why? you are in your element , where you belong
Why? you are in your element , where you belong
Yep. Here, instead of my Joint. I should be ashamed. 
As should you, poser. Can't you shine a light in a serious forum, or are you here to impress the kids with your prowess?
Published anything lately, or ever?
Arrogant SOB.
As should you, poser. Can't you shine a light in a serious forum, or are you here to impress the kids with your prowess?
Published anything lately, or ever?
Arrogant SOB.
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 1 2009, 06:23 PM)
Metal crystals are, of course, opaque.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 3 2009, 02:35 AM)
The following empirical experiment is designed to measure the mass of ocean waves:
1) Fence off two sections of beach.
2) For one, extend the fence to block waves from hitting the sand.
3) For the other, leave the section open so that waves can crash onto the sand.
note: make sure the fenced sections are big enough that no water splashes beyond the fence as this may invalidate measurements!
4) Count the number of waves crashing onto the unblocked section of sand.
note: the longer you count the better, because ocean wave energy may have very slight mass, which would only be detectable after very VERY many waves.
5) Shovel all the sand from both fenced section onto a scale and compare their (dry) mass.
6)If the amount of sand you started with was equal in both sections, the difference between the end masses should be the amount of mass added by the energy of the waves.
7)Divide your finding by the number of waves you counted to get the average mass-per-wave!
If anyone is actually foolish enough to perform this experiment, they will have a fun day at the beach and get some exercise shoveling sand.
Unfortunately, I don't believe the wave energy has mass - but empiricism could prove me wrong.
If photons are light-waves, then there is no reason to think they would have mass.
It's the medium that would have mass, if there was a medium. But why does no one hypothesize there is such a thing as a medium for light (ether?) anymore?
The empirically verified theoretical model for light, QED, doesn't require light to propagate via some medium. The most useful theoretical models are generally the simplest. The key is empirically verified and useful. The only reason I could think of for having any interest in a medium for light propagation would be finding physical evidence of a medium. Not going to happen.
1) Fence off two sections of beach.
2) For one, extend the fence to block waves from hitting the sand.
3) For the other, leave the section open so that waves can crash onto the sand.
note: make sure the fenced sections are big enough that no water splashes beyond the fence as this may invalidate measurements!
4) Count the number of waves crashing onto the unblocked section of sand.
note: the longer you count the better, because ocean wave energy may have very slight mass, which would only be detectable after very VERY many waves.
5) Shovel all the sand from both fenced section onto a scale and compare their (dry) mass.
6)If the amount of sand you started with was equal in both sections, the difference between the end masses should be the amount of mass added by the energy of the waves.
7)Divide your finding by the number of waves you counted to get the average mass-per-wave!
If anyone is actually foolish enough to perform this experiment, they will have a fun day at the beach and get some exercise shoveling sand.
Unfortunately, I don't believe the wave energy has mass - but empiricism could prove me wrong.
If photons are light-waves, then there is no reason to think they would have mass.
It's the medium that would have mass, if there was a medium. But why does no one hypothesize there is such a thing as a medium for light (ether?) anymore?
The empirically verified theoretical model for light, QED, doesn't require light to propagate via some medium. The most useful theoretical models are generally the simplest. The key is empirically verified and useful. The only reason I could think of for having any interest in a medium for light propagation would be finding physical evidence of a medium. Not going to happen.
QUOTE (brucep+Oct 3 2009, 07:37 AM)
The empirically verified theoretical model for light, QED, doesn't require light to propagate via some medium. The most useful theoretical models are generally the simplest.
Useful, but what about accurate, or thoroughly descriptive of the physical reality?
How could a medium for light be detected visually, since doing so would require using light waves (photons)?
How could a medium for light be detected visually, since doing so would require using light waves (photons)?
The only reason I could think of for having any interest in a medium for light propagation would be finding physical evidence of a medium. Not going to happen.
What about just having a theory that makes sense with regard to energy-transfer. It cannot happen without contact between particles, can it? And if it can, how?
[Moderator: Banned 15 days for being non-useful, trolling, being deliberately obtuse and obstructionist, and lazy.]
It's the medium that would have mass, if there was a medium. But why does no one hypothesize there is such a thing as a medium for light (ether?) anymore?
[Moderator: Banned 15 days for being non-useful, trolling, being deliberately obtuse and obstructionist, and lazy.]
In another thread someone asked about why I was talking about the history of something.
I think this is a clear case of why it is important to know the history of a science subject.
Well a clear case to anyone who knows a little of the history of light theory.
Although to be honest I never really appreciated the importance of science history until after I joined this board.
Useful, but what about accurate, or thoroughly descriptive of the physical reality?
QUOTE
The key is empirically verified and useful.
How could a medium for light be detected visually, since doing so would require using light waves (photons)?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The key is empirically verified and useful. |
How could a medium for light be detected visually, since doing so would require using light waves (photons)?
The only reason I could think of for having any interest in a medium for light propagation would be finding physical evidence of a medium. Not going to happen.
What about just having a theory that makes sense with regard to energy-transfer. It cannot happen without contact between particles, can it? And if it can, how?
[Moderator: Banned 15 days for being non-useful, trolling, being deliberately obtuse and obstructionist, and lazy.]
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 3 2009, 10:23 PM)
Useful, but what about accurate, or thoroughly descriptive of the physical reality?
How could a medium for light be detected visually, since doing so would require using light waves (photons)?
What about just having a theory that makes sense with regard to energy-transfer. It cannot happen without contact between particles, can it? And if it can, how?
[Moderator: Banned 15 days for being non-useful, trolling, being deliberately obtuse and obstructionist, and lazy.]
Would it be useful if the models predictions wrt natural phenomena were inaccurate?
As far as science is concerned the theoretical models I mentioned make sense. To understand this first hand you need to get a working knowledge of the models. Other than doing that you can thank quantum mechanics for the computer you've been using to post in this forum.
How could a medium for light be detected visually, since doing so would require using light waves (photons)?
What about just having a theory that makes sense with regard to energy-transfer. It cannot happen without contact between particles, can it? And if it can, how?
[Moderator: Banned 15 days for being non-useful, trolling, being deliberately obtuse and obstructionist, and lazy.]
Would it be useful if the models predictions wrt natural phenomena were inaccurate?
As far as science is concerned the theoretical models I mentioned make sense. To understand this first hand you need to get a working knowledge of the models. Other than doing that you can thank quantum mechanics for the computer you've been using to post in this forum.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 3 2009, 02:35 AM)
It's the medium that would have mass, if there was a medium. But why does no one hypothesize there is such a thing as a medium for light (ether?) anymore?
[Moderator: Banned 15 days for being non-useful, trolling, being deliberately obtuse and obstructionist, and lazy.]
In another thread someone asked about why I was talking about the history of something.
I think this is a clear case of why it is important to know the history of a science subject.
Well a clear case to anyone who knows a little of the history of light theory.
Although to be honest I never really appreciated the importance of science history until after I joined this board.
QUOTE (Zebdraer+Oct 9 2009, 09:35 PM)
how is this benito idiot
Ben Ito is what's bad about the internet. He spews nonsense with impunity. I know of a site where he's posted his goofball paper at least a thousand times, over about six years, petulantly posting it 'back to back' until all other posts are off the board. It's important to have some moderation which can bring a level of accountability to these sites.
[Moderator: My highly tuned senses sense the taint of Ben Ito upon Zebdraer and I have acted accordingly. So sorry for the momentary disruption of services.]
Ben Ito is what's bad about the internet. He spews nonsense with impunity. I know of a site where he's posted his goofball paper at least a thousand times, over about six years, petulantly posting it 'back to back' until all other posts are off the board. It's important to have some moderation which can bring a level of accountability to these sites.
[Moderator: My highly tuned senses sense the taint of Ben Ito upon Zebdraer and I have acted accordingly. So sorry for the momentary disruption of services.]
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.