GE,
QUOTE
I do not see any direct evidence implying that the vacuum is a "medium" (as in an Aether type medium as you have stated) ....... The structure and order in the Universe occur in the vacuum and this is independent of an "Aether" as I see it could you show some definitive proof where it can be proven to be a "medium", and what kind of "medium" it is a carrier for... if you mean light, I would have to disagree. This interpretation would be too materialistic and not based on any basic "material". I would agree that empty space is "something" and it contains properties that make our existence possible but light is that something requiring a non-material something and not an Aether. Is there anything here you can identify as your "Aether"??
I think the argument is about the nature of
space.
Vacuum, as I see it, is just a quantification of space as it relates to matter and
is not the issue that we are arguing about.
What do you call the space that exists between the nucleus of an atom, its electron
swarm, and the space between atoms? Isn't it referred to as a vacuum? True,
there is no physical "matter" there but do you agree that there are EM energy
fields that manifest themselves due to charge interactions in that "vacuum" area?
The definition of vacuum implies the absence of matter....it says nothing about the
presence or absence of fields, forces, or energy, and does not exclude them since
they are not considered physical "entities", but neither does it preclude their
existence in the vacuum of space.
Space has energy entropy, this corresponds my energy argument and Zephir's
"foam".
You have stated repeatedly your belief in "trans-dimensional" coupling as the
method of photon propagation in free space... I disagree and say that
space contains a form of energy that allows for the cross coupling of photon EM fields,
which allows them to propagate thru it via that interaction. I will present some
argument to support that contention. Space is the antithesis of matter,
the ying vs. yang, and have complementary, or reciprocal energy, components.
Our disagreement stems from the interpretation of what exactly is the nature and
properties of the vacuum of space. Is the vacuum of space "nothing"? I say
it is merely the absence of matter, but that there is energy contained within
it. To illustrate my contention I will introduce some natural effects that are
"observed" in the vacuum of space. It has been theorized/proven that space and
time can warp in the presence of intense gravitational fields, however the vacuum
component remains constant in that warp area. If the spacetime continuum that
exists in vacuum can be "warped", then it must have some measurable and
characteristic energetic properties that have yet to be fully identified and
quantified.
If gravity can be quantified or defined as "the localized displacement of energy caused by proximity to the potential energy contained in the density of mass",
then what is the nature of the energy that the matter is displacing? It is not
charge related, it is not a "physical" (touchable) entitiy, it is a mutually attractive
force that is proportional to the masses acting on each other. Gravity
"conducts" across the medium of the vacuum of space.
In order for space and time to "warp" or deform, relative to unaffected space,
there must be some energy "corollary" that can describe their relationship and that
can quantify the energetic measurement of the "degree" of warp.
Do you agree that vacuum has dielectric qualities and has permittivity characteristics? I think you must since these are considered "baseline" references
for electrical field theory (along with susceptibility).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I do not see any direct evidence implying that the vacuum is a "medium" (as in an Aether type medium as you have stated) ....... The structure and order in the Universe occur in the vacuum and this is independent of an "Aether" as I see it could you show some definitive proof where it can be proven to be a "medium", and what kind of "medium" it is a carrier for... if you mean light, I would have to disagree. This interpretation would be too materialistic and not based on any basic "material". I would agree that empty space is "something" and it contains properties that make our existence possible but light is that something requiring a non-material something and not an Aether. Is there anything here you can identify as your "Aether"?? |
I think the argument is about the nature of
space.
Vacuum, as I see it, is just a quantification of space as it relates to matter and
is not the issue that we are arguing about.
What do you call the space that exists between the nucleus of an atom, its electron
swarm, and the space between atoms? Isn't it referred to as a vacuum? True,
there is no physical "matter" there but do you agree that there are EM energy
fields that manifest themselves due to charge interactions in that "vacuum" area?
The definition of vacuum implies the absence of matter....it says nothing about the
presence or absence of fields, forces, or energy, and does not exclude them since
they are not considered physical "entities", but neither does it preclude their
existence in the vacuum of space.
Space has energy entropy, this corresponds my energy argument and Zephir's
"foam".
You have stated repeatedly your belief in "trans-dimensional" coupling as the
method of photon propagation in free space... I disagree and say that
space contains a form of energy that allows for the cross coupling of photon EM fields,
which allows them to propagate thru it via that interaction. I will present some
argument to support that contention. Space is the antithesis of matter,
the ying vs. yang, and have complementary, or reciprocal energy, components.
Our disagreement stems from the interpretation of what exactly is the nature and
properties of the vacuum of space. Is the vacuum of space "nothing"? I say
it is merely the absence of matter, but that there is energy contained within
it. To illustrate my contention I will introduce some natural effects that are
"observed" in the vacuum of space. It has been theorized/proven that space and
time can warp in the presence of intense gravitational fields, however the vacuum
component remains constant in that warp area. If the spacetime continuum that
exists in vacuum can be "warped", then it must have some measurable and
characteristic energetic properties that have yet to be fully identified and
quantified.
If gravity can be quantified or defined as "the localized displacement of energy caused by proximity to the potential energy contained in the density of mass",
then what is the nature of the energy that the matter is displacing? It is not
charge related, it is not a "physical" (touchable) entitiy, it is a mutually attractive
force that is proportional to the masses acting on each other. Gravity
"conducts" across the medium of the vacuum of space.
In order for space and time to "warp" or deform, relative to unaffected space,
there must be some energy "corollary" that can describe their relationship and that
can quantify the energetic measurement of the "degree" of warp.
Do you agree that vacuum has dielectric qualities and has permittivity characteristics? I think you must since these are considered "baseline" references
for electrical field theory (along with susceptibility).
Vacuum permittivity (also called permittivity of free space) is the ratio D/E in vacuum.
where
c is the speed of light
μ0 is the permeability of vacuum.
All three of these constants are exactly defined in SI units.
Vacuum permittivity also appears in Coulomb's law as a part of the Coulomb force constant,
The speed of light c is constant in the vacuum of space, regardless of the frequency
and energy of the type of photon that is propagating across some fixed distance.
There is also a time delay constant associated with c that corresponds to the
speed at which light propagates across that fixed distance. I agree that time is
only relevant to the observer and not to the photon, but this gets back to my
prior post/argument that a photon is merely energy, which can be manifest at
different levels relative to some external frame of reference. Energy exists
across an entire spectrum that we can measure, but can we detect energy that
exists outside of our frame of refereence?
The definition of a "medium" is:QUOTE
2. an intervening thing through which a force acts or an effect is produced.
4. any surrounding or pervading substance in which bodies exist or move.
5. environment
I see nothing that excludes vacuum or space in that general definition. Vacuum is
merely the absence of matter, that does not infer that forces and energy cannot
exist there or propagate thru the space that it encompasses.
Some other observations/discussion to support my argument regarding an energy
component that permeates the background "fabric" of space...
Light and energy dissipate into the vacuum of space over distance, according to
the ISL. That means that photonic energy diffuses into space over distance, and
the energy is exponentially distributed and diminishes over time and distance.
If space is not a medium which conducts light and energy then how does
light and EM energy "couple" to space from some originating source?
Argument 1:According to EM transmission theory there must be impedance matching in order
for EM radiation to transmit (admittance) energy between two different media,
that have different electrical characteristics, without distortion or transfer losses.
So a radiating EM source has to electrically "match" to the medium into which it
will be radiating its output energy.
Argument 2:When thermal or photon energy radiates into space it is eventually absorbed over
some great distance that corresponds to the ISL. At some relative time the
thermal energy (contained in photons) reaches some steady state temperature
ambient level, but it is never totally "destroyed". Space never reaches absolute
zero, as far as we know. According to the first law of thermodynamics, "Energy can not be destroyed, it just changes form. If it can't be destroyed, what happens to it as it
approaches absolute zero, does it stop propagating as the distributed energy
reaches the "potential energy" of space? (Remember my bell analogy!)
ref. Wikipedia
Zeroeth Law of Thermodynamics:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
2. an intervening thing through which a force acts or an effect is produced.
4. any surrounding or pervading substance in which bodies exist or move.
5. environment |
I see nothing that excludes vacuum or space in that general definition. Vacuum is
merely the absence of matter, that does not infer that forces and energy cannot
exist there or propagate thru the space that it encompasses.
Some other observations/discussion to support my argument regarding an energy
component that permeates the background "fabric" of space...
Light and energy dissipate into the vacuum of space over distance, according to
the ISL. That means that photonic energy diffuses into space over distance, and
the energy is exponentially distributed and diminishes over time and distance.
If space is not a medium which conducts light and energy then how does
light and EM energy "couple" to space from some originating source?
Argument 1:According to EM transmission theory there must be impedance matching in order
for EM radiation to transmit (admittance) energy between two different media,
that have different electrical characteristics, without distortion or transfer losses.
So a radiating EM source has to electrically "match" to the medium into which it
will be radiating its output energy.
Argument 2:When thermal or photon energy radiates into space it is eventually absorbed over
some great distance that corresponds to the ISL. At some relative time the
thermal energy (contained in photons) reaches some steady state temperature
ambient level, but it is never totally "destroyed". Space never reaches absolute
zero, as far as we know. According to the first law of thermodynamics, "Energy can not be destroyed, it just changes form. If it can't be destroyed, what happens to it as it
approaches absolute zero, does it stop propagating as the distributed energy
reaches the "potential energy" of space? (Remember my bell analogy!)
ref. Wikipedia
Zeroeth Law of Thermodynamics:
If two thermodynamic systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third, they are also in thermal equilibrium with each other.comment:
QUOTE
When two systems are put in contact with each other, there will be a net exchange of energy between them unless or until they are in thermal equilibrium.
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics:QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When two systems are put in contact with each other, there will be a net exchange of energy between them unless or until they are in thermal equilibrium. |
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics:"In any process, the total energy of the universe remains constant."That infers that the universe is a closed set, all energy contained within must
stay within.
The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics:QUOTE
There is no process that, operating in a cycle, produces no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work.
Comment:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is no process that, operating in a cycle, produces no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work. |
Comment:
Since the Big Bang, the entropy of the universe has been on the rise, and so the Second Law states that this process will continue to increase.
Third Law of Thermodynamics:
QUOTE
As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant.
comment:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant. |
comment:
The Third Law says that constant is in fact zero. As the temperature approaches zero, the probability that the system, however complex, sits in its unique quantum ground state approaches one. The entropy of any unique state is zero, so the entropy approaches zero......However, that is the entropy for the whole system, and is negligible on the scale of any macroscopic system. Basically, no system can reach absolute zero.
LL
Laserlight
7th February 2007 - 06:15 AM
Hello GE and All,
I would like to explore the idea of “Zero Point Energy” (ZPE) and how it relates to
vacuum energy and my argument for the idea of a threshold background level that
is present in space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energyQUOTE
In cosmology, the vacuum energy is taken to be the origin of the cosmological constant. Experimentally, the zero-point energy of the vacuum leads directly to the Casimir effect, and is directly observable in nanoscale devices......
Because zero point energy is the lowest possible energy a system can have, this energy cannot be removed from the system......
In quantum physics, it is natural to associate the energy with the expectation value of a certain operator, the Hamiltonian of the system. For almost all quantum-mechanical systems, the lowest possible expectation value that this operator can obtain is not zero; this lowest possible value is called the zero-point energy.
In order to set the stage for my argument I offer the following simplified overview of
the concept of threshold voltage level.
Some electronic circuits use what is called a baseline reference voltage. This voltage is
considered to be “zero” volts and represents floating“ ground”, or a circuit ground.
However, “zero” volts in this configuration is only relative when measured between
elements of the circuit and the power supply of that circuit.
The zero “reference” is not necessarily really zero volts when referenced to earth ground
with a voltmeter and may be floating at some very high level, relative to true earth
ground. If you were to measure between two floating circuit “grounds” that are both not
tied to earth ground, a voltage difference (delta) would be measured between them.
This baseline reference voltage is an operating point, a “bias” voltage level of operation. This bias voltage allows certain kinds of electronic components to rapidly switch or
detect a fast changing or very small signal level quickly, so they are not missed. It can be
considered a sensitivity adjustment where the electronic component is operating just
below the gain threshold of operation, or the point of turning on.
Transient (temporary) signals “ride” on this baseline reference voltage and can be
detected on a properly set up oscilloscope as moving or stationary voltages, depending upon the circuit design. With this technique micro voltages can be detected down to the
sensitivity of the “noise” generated by atomic collisions and EM field interactions. At
that low “noise” point it becomes impossible to discriminate (separate) lower voltage
signal levels and the signal is considered statically saturated, or in the noise level.
I am proposing that a similar phenomenon of “zero point energy”, the energy threshold
level, permeates the vacuum of space and contributes to EM propagation.
A background noise energy level has been detected by radio telescopes to exist everywhere in space, and is considered to be the residual signature of microwave
radiation that was released according to the theory of the Big Bang. The WMAP satellite
was launched to map this pervasive background energy
According to Wikipedia,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
In cosmology, the vacuum energy is taken to be the origin of the cosmological constant. Experimentally, the zero-point energy of the vacuum leads directly to the Casimir effect, and is directly observable in nanoscale devices......
Because zero point energy is the lowest possible energy a system can have, this energy cannot be removed from the system......
In quantum physics, it is natural to associate the energy with the expectation value of a certain operator, the Hamiltonian of the system. For almost all quantum-mechanical systems, the lowest possible expectation value that this operator can obtain is not zero; this lowest possible value is called the zero-point energy. |
In order to set the stage for my argument I offer the following simplified overview of
the concept of threshold voltage level.
Some electronic circuits use what is called a baseline reference voltage. This voltage is
considered to be “zero” volts and represents floating“ ground”, or a circuit ground.
However, “zero” volts in this configuration is only relative when measured between
elements of the circuit and the power supply of that circuit.
The zero “reference” is not necessarily really zero volts when referenced to earth ground
with a voltmeter and may be floating at some very high level, relative to true earth
ground. If you were to measure between two floating circuit “grounds” that are both not
tied to earth ground, a voltage difference (delta) would be measured between them.
This baseline reference voltage is an operating point, a “bias” voltage level of operation. This bias voltage allows certain kinds of electronic components to rapidly switch or
detect a fast changing or very small signal level quickly, so they are not missed. It can be
considered a sensitivity adjustment where the electronic component is operating just
below the gain threshold of operation, or the point of turning on.
Transient (temporary) signals “ride” on this baseline reference voltage and can be
detected on a properly set up oscilloscope as moving or stationary voltages, depending upon the circuit design. With this technique micro voltages can be detected down to the
sensitivity of the “noise” generated by atomic collisions and EM field interactions. At
that low “noise” point it becomes impossible to discriminate (separate) lower voltage
signal levels and the signal is considered statically saturated, or in the noise level.
I am proposing that a similar phenomenon of “zero point energy”, the energy threshold
level, permeates the vacuum of space and contributes to EM propagation.
A background noise energy level has been detected by radio telescopes to exist everywhere in space, and is considered to be the residual signature of microwave
radiation that was released according to the theory of the Big Bang. The WMAP satellite
was launched to map this pervasive background energy
According to Wikipedia, the goal of the WMAP satellite was to map out minute
temperature differences in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation in order to help test theories of the nature of the universe.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMAPFrom Wikipedia on Zero Point Energy:
QUOTE
In ordinary quantum mechanics, the zero-point energy is the energy associated with the ground state of the system. The most famous such example is the energy
associated with the ground state of the quantum harmonic oscillator. More precisely, the zero-point energy is the expectation value of the Hamiltonian of the system.
In quantum field theory, the fabric of space is visualized as consisting of fields, with the field at every point in space and time being a quantized simple harmonic oscillator, with neighboring oscillators interacting. In this case, one has a contribution of
from every point in space, resulting in a technically infinite zero-point energy. The zero-point energy is again the expectation value of the Hamiltonian; here, however, the phrase vacuum expectation value is more commonly used, and the energy is called the vacuum energy.
This is enough to stimulate further discussion, for now.
LL
Confused2
7th February 2007 - 12:17 PM
A possible way to analyse things..
Imagine you are in an alien spaceship. There are lots of dials and knobs and things to push and pull and none of them are marked in a language that we understand. Unless we are allowed to take the thing to pieces (we aren't) then all we can do is press buttons and turn the knobs until something happens.
Press the first button .. nothing happens so move on to the next. The next button vents the atmosphere into space so we make a note not to press that one again. After many tries we find one that starts the engine, we then (quite quickly) need to find out how to steer the thing If a button has no effect on our speed or direction of motion then we ignore it and move on to the next.
Let's look at vacuum energy in the same way. We're told it is something to do with quantum harmonic oscillators .. and quantum harmonic oscillators have something to do with Planck's constant. Good Elf reminds us that the energy and frequency and lots of other stuff about photons is also linked to Planck's constant. Let's fiddle about with the controls until we find the one that sets Planck's constant. Assuming we find the Planck's constant control before we switch either ourselves or the universe off .. try setting it to zero. Does the electromagnetic wave equation change? Does it make photons 'go away'? .. etc.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Good Elf
7th February 2007 - 02:01 PM
Hi Laserlight, Confused2, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Zephir et al,
Hello again to Confused2 and that is an interesting idea you have there. Planck's Constant has native units of Impulse. Maybe you really can make the "photons go away" but I think it is "spin" related as seen from our 'context".
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
I think the argument is about the nature of space. Vacuum, as I see it, is just a quantification of space as it relates to matter and is not the issue that we are arguing about.
What do you call the space that exists between the nucleus of an atom, its electron swarm, and the space between atoms? Isn't it referred to as a vacuum? True, there is no physical "matter" there but do you agree that there are EM energy
fields that manifest themselves due to charge interactions in that "vacuum" area? The definition of vacuum implies the absence of matter....it says nothing about the presence or absence of fields, forces, or energy, and does not exclude them since they are not considered physical "entities", but neither does it preclude their existence in the vacuum of space.[…]
Space is the antithesis of matter, the ying vs. yang, and have complementary, or reciprocal energy, componentsHmm… interesting points. That is "pretty good" but I think, after doing so well, you came to the wrong conclusion.
It is the conclusion I think 99% of everyone should come to but of course I am an "elf" so it just must disagree. This is something you can consider but I realize you may never accept it...
Matter occupies space and so do the waves. Restating this Bosons and Fermions are different ways to occupy "space".. So called “empty space” is not really empty and is actually “bounded” from above and from below by “dimensional limits”. As in WMAP Mission… the space is folded on itself with periodicity depending on the “cavity” it has expanded into. We are unable to "see” any bounds to our space because of our present limited perspective from within our "Universe". It is a very comforting notion to those who are true believers in a particle plus empty space Universe. What we might be able to do is notice some periodic features within our Universe due to this dimensional folding. I have discussed this before...
A Cosmic Hall of Mirrors: Sept 2005 PhysicswebJust for starters just think of four dimensional "curvature" and work in that space. It seems reasonable to me and to those who designed WMAP that
our Universe does have unseen bounds. These "bounds" can never be seen from our internal perspective and they are the most distant parts of our Universe and they are also the closest part of our Universe being unseen but everywhere "near"... and obviously non-local. After a while if you travel in one direction in a straight line long enough, the path will eventually loop back on itself. This is seamless to any visible process inside our Universe which internally appear unbounded. Take light for instance it travels in straight lines and continually expands along the wavefront... right? Even though light may physically be retracing it's path in space (often with a twist along the axis of progress) this path is the straightest path … the "quintessential straight line” within that geometry. The only thing that might give this away would be by traveling this way and automatically returning to our starting point without ever intending to do so.... Oops there goes the Earth past us again...!!
Externally to our Universe this would map as a “loop” or more precisely a "Whispering Gallery Mode" of Propagation along a "flatspace" and any process executing along a geodesic will have a frequency. or period. Internal to the "Universe" this periodicity of such a particle would be potentially noticed. Externally a particle moving along a geodesic will appear to have spin and orbital angular momentum to some external observers without actually internally executing that spin or orbital motion internally. Internally the particle does not exhibit this property since internal frames of reference cannot see this effect from its own point of view. Internally this spreading of waves and this closed space whose "walls" are totally invisible to the movement of our waves or even of other particles is seen as "Spacetime Curvature" due to "mass" caused by the "fermions" yet everything moves along those geodesics be they fermions or bosons... all wrapping and closed curves as defined within their various "domains".
Unless we are on the "outside looking in" the space we are moving in seems "infinite" but "bounded". On the outside we see "particles" including our Universe as also bounded but not as "infinite".... in fact very confined. What seems to be the difference between the space "inside the shells" of atoms and the "hard space" we think we see inside of those nuclear particles? It has been my thought (and apparently originally by David Bohm) that there is practically no difference other than the external perception of "spin". "Bosons" have integer spin and many can exist in the one space... whereas "Fermions" have half-integer spin and the spaces are "exclusive". Interestingly we can combine Fermions to form Boson States. These seemingly separate "particles" form a kind of pair between the two different "spaces" .... a "soft" space and a "hard" space depending on their different inter-related relative spins but though they are on slightly different "scales" they represent the "one space" in the end.
Each sub-atomic particle in the nucleus has a number of "hard levels" mimicking the bosonic "soft levels" of the electron shells in the outer atomic structure but at a different scale and in a different dimensionally spun space. One proton made up of three "somethings" have internal shell structures and "electron-like" particles which are mirrored "holographically" in the "empty spaces" which is really a boson phenomena which also have "electrons". The spaces are like "oil and water" and are "Whispering Galleries" in a dimensional flatspace attached "resonantly" to each other and are also centered on each other inseparably. It goes without saying all fermions will have a companion boson centered on a common point in both dimensional spaces. Together the "nucleus" and its ghostly "shell space" are a matched pair... super-symmetric "twins" where the shells "Boson States" have "hybrdized" together obeying the Bose-Einstein Statistics as they also have done in the nucleus to form fermionic hybridized states which obey Fermi-Dirac Statistics. Is would be no wonder that "oscillations" of the "electrons" as they change from one stationary state to another are accompanied by equivalent "mirror movements" in the nucleus of the mirror partners. The different frames of reference lead to perceptual differences as well as a superficially separate Physics conformally mapped "inside out".
So the "Empty Universe" we see is a single "Boson State" seen from the "Whispering Gallery" inside (an Anti-de Sitter Space) and all the nuclear material made from smaller atoms are fermion "bits" that have clumped together since the Big Bang to form planets and stars and of course us etc. The rest of this story is pure "information".... lots of it everywhere. If we could move out from within this "shell" of our Universe we may see a much larger "structure" that optically looks identical in many respects other than the individual events that are "seen" as direct "virtualizations" of this external bigger Universe. At the same time out Universe would seem to be a spinning particle with a 1/2 integer spin we were not able to see from within based on reciprocal time and space scales occupying an "incompatible" fermionic space relative to our new "perspective".
So there are no "particles" and "spaces" only "bosons" and "fermions" ... mutual reciprocals holographically mutually dependent and whose "uncertain" boundaries and laws are linked inextricably to each other and whose mutual inter-dependence "escapes us" at this point in our awareness. Neither of these realms are made from anything different from each other... space or solid... but they are different based only on their "interdependent" spins. One group of phenomena appear as "ghostly waves" to us and the other phenomena appear as "solid" to us. The "ghosts" cannot be directly observed without "interactions" and the solid bits are "particles" as we define them and are associated with those same interactions.
Energy permeates both realms but information is stored "recursively" in the environment, each small bit "echoing" as a mirror the larger unseen scales of the Universe without limit or end. A mirror can store many copies as in a Hall of Mirrors provided the "events" within each realm remain "evanescent" but collapse when "observed". Events may occur in many levels of the Universe but the order and interaction depend on arrival of the events within each realm and the sequence of those propagated events defines "lower level "interactions".... What "we" observe as reality are "superpositions" at the next level of the observer. If that observer chooses to interact this modifies the interactions at that level and the superpositions back down at our level.
The fermion chooses "one from many" while "the boson's many are one".I will not require you to believe this but "one geometry" and "one rule" for all is better for me than the present divisions in Physics of "Condensed Matter" and "Optics" and "Cosmology" with "Quantum Physics" only explaining the "hard bits" as "billiard balls" rolling around in the "empty spaces". I just make the prediction that one day this concept will be the dominant philosophy in Science and David Bohm will finally "have his day" with our "Holographic Universe" exhibiting at all levels.
Cheers
Confused2
7th February 2007 - 02:21 PM
Hi
Laserlight, Good Elf, Jal, Neil Farbstein, Zephir et al,
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetaphorQUOTE
Within rhetorical theory metaphor is generally considered to be a direct equation of terms that is more forceful and assertive than an analogy , although the two types of tropes are highly similar and often confused. One distinguishing characteristic is that the assertiveness of a metaphor calls into question the underlying category structure, whereas in a rhetorical analogy the comparative differences between the categories remain salient and acknowledged.
Maxwell's explanation of electromagnetic radiation is no more and no less than a self-consistent set of analogies and assumptions. Analysis of black body radiation (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body_radiation ) showed that
beyond reasonable doubt the assumptions and analogies used by Maxwell are not consistent with reality. Electromagnetic radiation (by definition) is not quantised and strong evidence suggests that reality is quantised.
Best wishes,
-C2.
Good Elf
7th February 2007 - 02:32 PM
Hi Confused2,
While you are right about quantization of electromagnetism you can certainly reduce the wave to impulses and this is the real way to deal with electromagnetism... as a series of "quanta". Also I have added something to my previous post in the first couple of lines.
Absolutely any function can be reduced to impulses (a Dirac Comb) so it is not a theory of "waves" but a theory of "impulses" and a systems response to them. This is the Dirac Function...
Wikipedia: Dirac Delta FunctionThis is the "origin" of Quantum Theory... Of course you all knew that anyway.
Cheers
Laserlight
7th February 2007 - 06:28 PM
Hi GE and All,
GE said:
QUOTE
Take light for instance it travels in straight lines and continually expands along the wavefront... right? Even though light may physically be retracing it's path in space (often with a twist along the axis of progress) this path is the straightest path … the "quintessential straight line” within that geometry. The only thing that might give this away would be by traveling this way and automatically returning to our starting point without ever intending to do so
Hmmm, maybe we are not as close to agreement as I had supposed.
Your model sounds suspiciously like you still regard a photon is a particle.
I thought that we were in agreement that light moved as an expanding curved
wavefront in the x,y,z dimensions traveling thru time, and the energy the
wavefront contained could be divided and discretely detected at points along that
wavefront where coincidental photon EM field impulses harmonically "overlapped" in
superpositions to stimulate a receiving atomic dipole to a "detection" energy level
that causes it to release an electron or emit a photon as a byproducts of
the act of detection.
I might have some additonal responses this evening when time allows.
Regards,
LL
Good Elf
7th February 2007 - 10:06 PM
Hi Laserlight,
QUOTE (Laserlight+)
Hmmm, maybe we are not as close to agreement as I had supposed. Your model sounds suspiciously like you still regard a photon is a particle.
Well particles to me do not really exist as "discrete" entities but you tell me what photons do not have that particles do have and I will tell you why (with references). Of course we have been through this all before and we will probably go through all of this again. I like "evidence" based science, not warm and cuddly "notions".
The division between photons which spread and particles which do not spread and the nature and origin of charge and the laws of conservation especially the Lorentz-CPT symmetry are all mutually linked through their different geometries.
QUOTE (laserlight+)
I thought that we were in agreement that light moved as an expanding curved wavefront in the x,y,z dimensions traveling thru time, and the energy the wavefront contained could be divided and discretely detected at points along that wavefront where coincidental photon EM field impulses harmonically "overlapped" in superpositions to stimulate a receiving atomic dipole to a "detection" energy level that causes it to release an electron or emit a photon as a byproducts of the act of detection.
Spreading of a wavefront does not mean that individual photon energies can be "split". I thought that my point of view was becoming clear too but ... alas!
I hope that text book pictures of expanding spherical shells of light only occur in regions where there is unrestricted opportunity to do so and in regions where the geometry of the space is limited or the frame of reference is separate, we often picture these "events" (which are unseen), far too idealistically. Recall that photon events have a distinct "non-local" nature so a particle interpretation is not strictly possible. Feynman's "Many Paths Interpretation" is still the rule.
Cheers
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.
I am getting myself a tinfoil hat today.
.jpg)
.jpg)
