Philosophy Discussion Forums

Xris, Yes I think I can. First light waves do not make a clear image on your retina. Our retina is simply a photo sensitive device that transmits electrical impulses of certain wave lengths to the brain. This is how many modern devices work. Photo electric door openers are one such device. The retina has many receptors that respond to different wave lengths. We call them colors. One way to think about this is to consider semiconductors. A semiconductor is a film that has holes in it. When a wave or photon of exactly the right size fill the hole it completes a circuit. If there is no wave then no current can flow. Since the colors that we see are different wave lengths the brain converts them to an image. That is why there is what we call the "visible spectrum". Shorter wave lengths than visible are the Ultraviolet, X-ray, and cosmic ray spectrum. Longer than visible are the Infrared, Microwave, shortwave, radio, and Extra long wave spectrum. Naturally the spectrum can be further divided or expanded as needs warrant. The whole slew is known as the "Electromagnetic" spectrum.

The length of the waves (also translated into "frequencies" is responsible for many different characteristics of the waves. Frequency is defined as the number of times a wave peak passes a point in one second. This relates to the speed of light. Frequency of a wave is called "Hertz" or cycles. Your broadcast radio dial is calibrated in kilohertz. A short wave radio dial is calibrated in meters for some reason.

For instance the portion of the spectrum known as radio short waves are reflected off an ionized layer of our atmosphere thus allowing world wide communications with very little power. The length of those waves are measured in meters.

The portion of the spectrum known as X-rays travel can travel through soft human tissue but are completely blocked by metals and harder substances. The cosmic rays can travel comparatively unimpeded through the Earth. The lengths of the waves are measured generally in tiny fractions of a meter.

The shorter the wave the more information you can transfer in any given time. That is why my fiber optic service to the computer is so much faster than the old copper lines. It's also why submarines surface to receive radio messages. The usual ELF waves that travel through water so well can carry very little information on a given time.

No I can't see fields. We can only observe the effects. We can see the effects of a magnetic field on iron filings and in our electrical systems. We can feel the effects of gravity on our bodies or see the effects in the light paths of stars, in the energies of light subject to the fields, and in the gravitational lenses shown by the Hubble telescope. If we counter the field we call it "orbital" or following a straight path in curved space, or curved space-time.

Hope I didn't talk too much, M

Xris wrote:

DarwinX wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Nobody has ever found space-time, EM ropes, virtual photons or Planck's constant either.

You see light, feel the effects of gravity. So we construct theories to explain them and by logic we should eliminate any that do not fully stand scrutiny. Have you seen the aether?

If you can see light, then, it should be an easy matter for you to draw a picture of a photon then!

While your at it, you can draw me a picture of an atom and an EM rope going to infinity.

I can also feel the effects of the aether too. Its called gravity, magnetism and light.

DarwinX, Since a photon or a light wave must travel in four dimensions but can only be perceived in two it is past my talents to draw one in two dimensions. However my imagination can easily supply the rest. If your imagination is insufficient to the task of drawing a travelling three dimensional packet of energy then perhaps you would benefit from an art appreciation class.

Simple physical limitations prevent us from seeing a photon. No hocus pocus is involved. However we can do quite a bit with the energies released when the field collapses. I thing it fair to make some assumptions based on what it appears to be after the collapse.

Assumptions that I think are fair about a photon prior to the collapse. Afterwards it does not exist except as residual heat. Some of these assumptions are for radio waves. Just different sizes and different tool to handle them with.

It is invisible till the field collapses.

They do not seem to have any effect on each other unless collapsed. The effect is cumulative after collapse.

They are able to travel from point to point.

They travel at "c" which is a constant. This constant may well reflect the speed of space time.

The energies are in discrete amounts called "quanta". Frequency probably accounts for the numbers or energy peaks passing a point during a second. There may be several quanta on a wave.

It is possible to modulate the energy in or attached to a wave. AM radio is a good example.

It is possible to change the color (perceived wave length) of light just by relative motion. Ask your local State Police how his Doppler gun works. It cost me $185.00 US when a Florida State Trooper demonstrated it to me a couple of years ago Something to do with the ratio of 50 in a 35 but math is not my strong point

So here, with all the limitations is a picture of a photon.{ } Hint it's between the brackets

Look up Harvard Tower Experiments on the net. It has some observations as to lights behavior in a field.

Photons don't travel. They only arrive. With this in mind draw me a picture of light travelling in wave form from various sources? Reflecting off objects and ariving to form an image on your retina.If light travelled in wave form the complexity of the patterns formed would make a desconstruction of the information an impossible task. It's like dropping a thousand pebbles in pond and expecting to get a clear image of each stone from the resulting complex wave formation. This is not even asking how a wave can be transmited without a medium or if a medium exists why we have not found it.

Xris,

You are correct. Light travels as a wave but is "seen as a photon". The photon is simply the collapsed wave. Since the wave collapses with no time passed all we can see is the result.

Reflection is simple. Some objects absorb no light and have no effect on it except for a change in direction. Some absorb all light and is viewed as black. No biggie.

As to the pebbles in a pond analogy. If your waves were small enough, frequent enough, and energetic enough you could get a very good picture. Light seem to answer that criterion at least down to the sizes of wave length. Right now it's all we've got to work with. I does have purely mechanical limitations though. Understanding those limitations are part of observations.

Mechsmith wrote:Xris,

You are correct. Light travels as a wave but is "seen as a photon". The photon is simply the collapsed wave. Since the wave collapses with no time passed all we can see is the result.

Reflection is simple. Some objects absorb no light and have no effect on it except for a change in direction. Some absorb all light and is viewed as black. No biggie.

As to the pebbles in a pond analogy. If your waves were small enough, frequent enough, and energetic enough you could get a very good picture. Light seem to answer that criterion at least down to the sizes of wave length. Right now it's all we've got to work with. I does have purely mechanical limitations though. Understanding those limitations are part of observations.

No I'm not right. I am just repeating the mantra. I am like the atheist refering to bible he has no faith in. I don't believe you can support a concept that believes photons that do not experience time can be particles. I can not believe light travels as a wave but the wave function collapses on arrival, sudenly turning into a particle. That we have waves that do not require a medium. Nothing ever transmits energy by a wave function without the necessity of a medium. The consequences of maintaining this crazy concept is as equal to the belief the world wasthe centre of the universe. I will ask again give me an image a picture that represents light travelling in 3D space. When you consider this is the accepted theory why has an image of this importance been created?

Xris,

I may be able to represent a wave but it is difficult to draw an invisible thing.

In an ocean wave the wave travels in only three dimensions. We are able to see the water, and see the effects of the wave in forming the shapes in the water. What we cannot see is the energies released by the collapse of the wave. The water is unaffected.

In a light wave we can see the energies when the wave collapses but we cannot see it before it collapses. This is probably because the medium through which the light wave travels is a bit more transparent than water. The medium is space time. The effect is light. The space time is unaffected.

If I were to try to represent it I would use a string set of round, flexible balls (a wave in three dimensions) that are a size that would resonate at the desired frequency. The wave length then would be the distance between the largest diameter of the balls and the frequency would be the number of balls that passed a certain point in a second at the speed of light. Then I would smack the first ball with a hammer and the next, and the next, and the next and so on until I got bored with making light that I can't see anyways. Light is only visible to the observer.

Of course you immediately notice that this model is of laser generated light only. Normal white light would need many sizes of balls all ranged in a string with no separations. This is why white light scatters but laser light is much more coherent.

If you can agree that I could shine a flash light in your eyes from some little distance, and if you can agree that I can hammer (by heating on a filament) sufficiently quickly, and if you can agree that someone standing off to the side could not see the light, then we have no problem.

Light is generated by the release of energies from the filament, (quanta) Transmitted by wave theory, Arrives at your eyes (photo receptors) Translated into electrical impulses (photo-electrics), sent to your brain through the optic nerve (electrically conductive wiring) and assembled into and understandable picture by the brain (computer with built in monitor)

Re. your comment about Atheists using the Bible. Sometimes it's necessary to use others observations and mathematics. As far as the Bible goes it's probably the best way to understand the undercurrents of emotion and feelings in the human species. But you don't have to agree with it's conclusions any more than you have to agree with the Big Bang crowd.

Mech smith, thanks for your reply. I am not quite sure you realy have considered the complexity of understanding light travelling as a wave function. I understand your reply but I'm not sure you understand my enquiry. Every image that tries to explain it, uses 2 dimensional explaination. All I can ask of you is to see or find a scientific image that indicates how light permeates 3D space. Considering this is the preferred concept, surely one diagrammatical image would be available?

Xris,

I have never seen a three or four dimension image. This is simply due to the difficulties of a flat screen. Since the light that we can see has an emitter and a receiver and since that we can imagine distance and time it isn't too much of a a stretch to imagine what the connection between might be. This is accomplished through wave theories.

It must remain a theory since whatever it is is invisible. Light (or EMR)acts like a wave would, travels like a wave should, is emitted like a wave is, and is received like a wave, then it may be a wave. It can be represented (~~~~~) as a wave, Can be used as a wave. It just can't be seen as a wave.

If you were blindfolded and I was to throw a bucket of water on you you in turn would be able to determine some information from the incident. Temperature, volume, force, distance, taste, composition, location, permeability, viscosity, etc. In the light of your previous experiences you, as a working hypothesis could think, and probably determine,that somebody threw a bucket of water on you.

You could instantly determine the water wasn't sprayed on you, It isn't raining, and with a high degree of probability assume that an elephant didn't do it. Wild elephants are not found in our parts of the world, nor are monkeys. I think it would be possible at that time to determine than most probably some human did it, had water and a bucket available, Pretty soon you would blame me. Perhaps not admissible in court but surely I would come under serious scrutiny.

But it's only a theory. The system makes it possible to improve on it, or discard it as appropriate with new knowledge. Go to it But the wave theory has been pretty seriously scrutinized.

-- Updated March 24th, 2014, 8:52 pm to add the following --

Xris, I mixed up the replies. The following is in response to your post #15.

I don't know if I can but I'll give it a shot. No I cannot feel a field, only see and feel it's effects. The effect of a gravity field is to convert mass to weight. This seems to act continuously not instantly or discreetly.

The clear image is formed in your brain. Your retina is merely a photo electric detector with different receptors for the various wave lengths.

We know that light travels in an inertial manner. ie. no change except in response to an external force. Simple Newtonian physics.

We know that light, radio signals, and water waves can be reflected, refracted, superimposed, and measured. ie. External forces.

We know that light, radio signals, sound and water waves all can be redirected (turned) by the actions of whatever field they happen to be in.

We know that any moving field will relative to us affect the frequency with which we can count the waves in a duration of time. Also the fields motion will affect the energies observed.

We know that relative motion of observers and emitters calls forth the "Doppler Effect" It does this with light, water waves, sound, and radio signals.

Consider the moving river as a field for energies to play in. Throw a pebble in the river. What happens to the ripples going upstream. This is redshift. The ripples will pass you more slowly and with less energy than the ones going downstream.

Once a water wave runs into shallow water the wave form is broken and breakers begin to form. Sailors and surfers say that "the wave is feeling the bottom".

Once a water wave is broken we call them "breakers". They can also dissipate into the field with the slow conversion of energy toward entropy.

Once a light wave is broken we call it a photon. A light wave does not dissipate if it is travelling at the same rate and direction that the space-time is. That is why light is visible over millions of miles. For it no time elapses. If (assuming a light wave) is broken in any fashion it ceases to exist as light.

For instance for a person on earth shining a flashlight up the light will soon be red-shifted to obscurity. However in an earth satellite you could shine the flashlight down and the light (assume a transparent atmosphere) will get brighter (blue shifted) A little clue may be derived from a satellite picture of nighttime Earth.

I don't believe in gravity waves. Search LIGO for something else to see. They have been looking for gravity waves for more than ten years and haven't found any yet. At least as of a couple of years ago.

If you Google "Harvard Tower Experiments" you will get a little more complete discussion of lights behavior in a gravity field

Also you may want to search "resonant frequencies". This discusses things like photo electrics, and guitar strings. I suspect that the length of a light wave and the size of a photon may be related somehow to the resonant frequency of a wave but I gotta think a bit more

DarwinX wrote:[ Note - If there is no aether, there can't be any tension. Therefore, your logic is unsound again. The ropes need a medium to travel through. In fact, the ropes are just a property of the aether itself. Thus, the ropes don't exist in themselves but are just an easy to understand metaphor for the properties of the aether. Just as space time is a metaphor for aether. Just as virtual photons is a metaphor for the aether etc, etc......

Your assertion is that any physical particle needs a static aether in order to be in motion, an aether which doesn't interact with the particles themselves. So one must ask, if the aether does not interact with the particles, then why must an aether exist?

If the aether DOES interact with the particles, then the aether MUST be in motion, and therefore, there must exist a "superior" aether in which the inferior aether requires to "flow," and they must also interact, and thus there must exist an even higher form of aether --- ad infintum.

That is your logic. And it is flawed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Updated June 8th, 2014, 10:21 pm to add the following --

Mechsmith wrote:Xris,

I may be able to represent a wave but it is difficult to draw an invisible thing.

In an ocean wave the wave travels in only three dimensions. We are able to see the water, and see the effects of the wave in forming the shapes in the water. What we cannot see is the energies released by the collapse of the wave. The water is unaffected.

There is no such thing as an "ocean wave." It's a bunch of water molecules colliding in a uniform fashion, like a domino effect, in accordance with Newton's First Law of Motion. The WAVE is the "metaphor" in order to simplify the event for our puny brains.

An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

So why has science invented space time to replace the aether? I see no difference between them. Both exist simply because they present the only answer to our delusion.

Xris wrote:So why has science invented space time to replace the aether? I see no difference between them. Both exist simply because they present the only answer to our delusion.

Good to see that you've finally come around and now see the aether as a viable concept. I remember the day when you rejected the aether outright as an old redundant theory that only nut cases and crack pots would recommend.

King Solomon wrote:
Your assertion is that any physical particle needs a static aether in order to be in motion, an aether which doesn't interact with the particles themselves. So one must ask, if the aether does not interact with the particles, then why must an aether exist?

If the aether DOES interact with the particles, then the aether MUST be in motion, and therefore, there must exist a "superior" aether in which the inferior aether requires to "flow," and they must also interact, and thus there must exist an even higher form of aether --- ad infintum.

That is your logic. And it is flawed.

You must keep in mind the concept of a fractal universe where infinity exists both outwards and inwards. Thus, an atom can contain a universe within itself. It is separated from us by dimension, space and time. We cannot enter the realm of the atom, nor can we enter the realm of the galaxy. These are two different dimensions which contain elements of aether which exist in another dimension. Thus, light appears to us the be travelling fast, but this is just our dimensional limitation or illusion. Is this what you mean by inferior and superior aether?

The current science community doesn't take into account that there could be anything smaller than an atom, which I find to be a very short sighted and narrow minded view.

Time is the observable sequential separation of events. Space is the measureable distance between events. Since there are other mechanical forces that affect our observations it is simpler to combine the two and call it space-time.

By the same reasoning I think it fair to call an aggregate movement of water molecules a wave. To make it easier to understand we can call any motion that "propagates" a wave. A wave, in this context, is a transferrence of energies that is dependent upon being a series. That is that a wave must have both prior conditions and post conditions to exist. When a wave collapses the energies that made it are dissapated, frequently as other types of waves which also must dissapate.

-- Updated June 9th, 2014, 9:14 am to add the following --

Darwin, The world of quantum mechanics is attempting to deal with things that from our point of view are smaller than humanly visable.

The effects though of QM are probably necessary to build galaxies and probably universes especially using the Big Bang theories.

I dont believe there is an aether nor do I believe the accepted alternative, space time, has any rational reason to be accepted. How can nothing suddenly carry a wave function such as gravity waves? Gravity waves that are purely speculative concepts. But they are dragged out to sustain space time and space time is referred to when attempting to explain gravitational waves., You need to understand that distance it self is void of any substance. There is nothing in empty space and time has no relationship to distance.

Mechsmith wrote:Time is the observable sequential separation of events. Space is the measureable distance between events. Since there are other mechanical forces that affect our observations it is simpler to combine the two and call it space-time.

By the same reasoning I think it fair to call an aggregate movement of water molecules a wave. To make it easier to understand we can call any motion that "propagates" a wave. A wave, in this context, is a transferrence of energies that is dependent upon being a series. That is that a wave must have both prior conditions and post conditions to exist. When a wave collapses the energies that made it are dissapated, frequently as other types of waves which also must dissapate.

-- Updated June 9th, 2014, 9:14 am to add the following --

Darwin, The world of quantum mechanics is attempting to deal with things that from our point of view are smaller than humanly visable.

The effects though of QM are probably necessary to build galaxies and probably universes especially using the Big Bang theories.

Although it's fine to use a METAPHOR (wave) to simplify some calculations, it is not fine to incarnate a METAPHOR (such as a wave). That which is not REAL can never be made manifest in REALity. Thus to build an entire scientific model on "waves" is to build an entire scientific model on a lie from the outset.

There is nothing barring such a model from adopting "waves" for mathematical convenience, so long as it is understood that the "wave" is ultimately NOT REAL, and thus is but a mere accessory/tool to hasten the speed of calculation.

Once someone assumes that a METAPHOR is reality, then they are in a world of delusion.

The difference between the sane and the insane is the ability to discern between FACT and FICTION. As of right now, you are insane.

Among the sane, the difference between the wise and the unwise, is the ability to discern what they do NOT know to be a FACT or an assumption. Thus not only you are insane, but unwise, as you assume many facts upon very little basis.

This is a fact: Gravity is at the very least 2 billion times faster than light. This is a fact: A Wave does NOT exist in REALity.