Philosophy Discussion Forums

Xris:

So why do we not see problems with EM waves permeating without a medium?

Ah. That's an old discussion which we've had many times before! I'd hesitate to get too side-tracked into it now as there are so many other threads in which we've all growled at each other about it! It goes back to the whole question of why any concepts, like "wave" or "particle" or "energy" or "mass" are used in the first place, and the extent to which they are useful metaphors for explaining observations. etc.

Try constructing a picture of light travelling as waves in 3 dimensional space from several sources and you will soon see the problem.

If you mean a problem of visualization I totally agree. It's impossible to visualize. One of the things that I find endlessly fascinating is the fact that wherever I am there is a constant silent cacophony of radio waves, flying around me in every direction. Every single radio and TV channel. Emissions from stars, planets and distant galaxies. Possibly signals from alien civilizations. All there, all the time, all at once.

Simple logic tells me that they must be there all of the time because of the principle that I could choose to intercept any of them whenever I want. All I need to do is to encourage them to cause a resonant vibration of the electrons in a piece of wire. All I need is a capacitor, an inductor and a resistor - the electronic equivalent of a damped pendulum - tuned (by picking an appropriate capacitance) to resonate with the frequency I want to detect.

And, even for a single signal, the continual pendulum-like to-ing and fro-ing as a varying electric field gives rise to a varying magnetic field and the magnetic field then gives rise to another electric field is fundamentally impossible to visualize in the way that it actually occurs. Of course, we can draw simplistic schematic one-dimensional diagrams of this. But they don't convey the fact that it is happening in 3 dimensions at every point.

Yes, visualizing the unvisualizable is always going to be difficult. All we can do is create many different imperfect reflections, in the form of diagrams, equations and descriptions. A bit like trying to gain an appreciation for the appearance of an object by examining many different images of its shadow.

Back to the subject, a thought..Energy is what matter does.

Sounds promising. But if we visualize energy as an activity carried out by matter, how can we convey the observation that it appears to be possible to transfer energy from one piece of matter to another? (As snooker players often seem to do.)

The relationship of matter is expressed as energy.I have no problem with how EM radiation of varying frequencies from numerous sources can arrive without interference. Because I have not the problem of EM radiation travelling as a complex wave function. I also do not find the need to search for an ether. It may or may not be Gaedes ropes but something very similar has to be the only logical alternative. I can't believe that a universe filled with one point of mass would find the need to express any kind of energy. The standard model wants us to see EM radiated energy as an unrelated to the exchange of energy but simply matter transmitting energy on the chance it might encounter other bits of matter. Space is only created by the relationship of matter.Would that relationship fail if no active EM radiation was seen?

Xris:

I think I do see the point you're making. You're proposing that energy, including EM radiation, only results in any kind of actual observed behaviour when it interacts with matter. And this is why you like the ropes concept (if I can use that word!) because it proposes that all EM radiation is inextricably tied to fundamental pieces of matter (i.e. "atoms" in the greek sense of the word) at both ends. It shares this characteristic with the "properties" of matter, i.e. it makes no sense to talk of a property of matter being unconnected to any actual matter!

So I guess you see the idea of a world of energy with no matter to interact with as an entirely metaphysical concept - having no use for descriptions of observations. And you see the concept of an EM photon being fired off with no guarantee of connecting with another piece of matter at the end of its journey as similarly purely, unconnectedly metaphysical.

This is interesting, because it goes right back to the "concepts" - discussion. Uses and abuses of concepts. But I'm at work now and lunch is over so will think a bit and post again later.

I find it illogical that gravity would push matter apart (or is it ether) since our solar system remains intact with its elliptical orbits. Every time I drop something, it moves in accordance with the inverse law of gravity. The assumed ether push idea fails to explain what would be exerting a push force on the object I were to drop - it should be moving up instead of down on the premise of DarwinX's ether push idea which is never observed.

Therefore I stick with the pull idea of gravity.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:I find it illogical that gravity would push matter apart (or is it ether) since our solar system remains intact with its elliptical orbits. Every time I drop something, it moves in accordance with the inverse law of gravity. The assumed ether push idea fails to explain what would be exerting a push force on the object I were to drop - it should be moving up instead of down on the premise of DarwinX's ether push idea which is never observed.

Therefore I stick with the pull idea of gravity.

Push, pull both appear to be a bit naive. Can you imagine a field of gravity that extends beyond imagination without any relationship to any other object of mass. We are told it travels but there is no observational proof, so why do we imagine it does? I will stick to my belief in a tension between objects of mass, large or small.

Xris wrote:None of your links give the slightest clue to what this proposed ether is made of. It has not been directly observed as you try to claim. There is a problem with the understanding of light permeating as a wave function without a medium but that is problem with the concept.I understand why you believe in an ether when science insists that light travels as a wave function but you and science never accept the consequences. How can light travel like sound waves in 3D space without a medium and also not cause a complex wave pattern? Even with your ether the problem of light travelling as a wave still remains.

I would use the Bill Gaede model to describe how light travels through space. The aether structure must take the form of a double helix which spins. This would occur within the bounds of another dimension, so it is unlikely that anybody will ever discover how it really works. Note - This is just my logical explanation of it, which doesn't contain the contradictions that the standard model has. In this model, action at a distance is rationalized in a mechanical format.

DarwinX wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


I would use the Bill Gaede model to describe how light travels through space. The aether structure must take the form of a double helix which spins. This would occur within the bounds of another dimension, so it is unlikely that anybody will ever discover how it really works. Note - This is just my logical explanation of it, which doesn't contain the contradictions that the standard model has. In this model, action at a distance is rationalized in a mechanical format.

I like nuts a bolts Darwin, I can't be considering alternative dimensions. You said it travels.I don't believe it travels in the conventional sense.That would require us to imagine particles or waves wandering of into the cosmos with no purpose. These ropes may be total nonsense but they can account for gravity and the energetic relationship between objects of mass at the same time. They may have problems but for simple logical reasons they perform so much better than the conventional concepts.

Steve3007 wrote:DarwinX: (Nested quote removed.)

If light travels through flowing water does it alter the direction of the light?

The Fizeau experiment was carried out by Hippolyte Fizeau in 1851 to measure the relative speeds of light in moving water. Fizeau used a special interferometer arrangement to measure the effect of movement of a medium upon the speed of light. According to the theories prevailing at the time, light traveling through a moving medium would be dragged along by the medium, so that the measured speed of the light would be a simple sum of its speed through the medium plus the speed of the medium. Fizeau indeed detected a dragging effect, but the magnitude of the effect that he observed was far lower than expected. His results seemingly supported the partial aether-drag hypothesis of Fresnel, a situation that was disconcerting to most physicists.

DarwinX wrote: (Nested quote removed.)



If light travels through flowing water does it alter the direction of the light?

The Fizeau experiment was carried out by Hippolyte Fizeau in 1851 to measure the relative speeds of light in moving water. Fizeau used a special interferometer arrangement to measure the effect of movement of a medium upon the speed of light. According to the theories prevailing at the time, light traveling through a moving medium would be dragged along by the medium, so that the measured speed of the light would be a simple sum of its speed through the medium plus the speed of the medium. Fizeau indeed detected a dragging effect, but the magnitude of the effect that he observed was far lower than expected. His results seemingly supported the partial aether-drag hypothesis of Fresnel, a situation that was disconcerting to most physicists.

It could equally be explained by the delay in the transfer of energy from atom to atom. If EM radiation is explained as a relationship.I realise it is difficult to accept alternative reasoning when you have so much invested in one particular concept. But I simply can not accept that light permeates as a wave with or without a medium.

Steve3007 wrote: I think one of the classic problems with aether, if it is posited as medium for EM waves, has always been the fact that it would cause all kinds of complex refraction effects as the EM waves propagate between volumes of aether moving in different ways. These effects are simply not observed.

The picture of the universe that we see may not be how the universe really is in fact. The distortion of the aether means that the light that reaches us could be coming from any direction and not from the obvious direction that we presume it comes from. Thus, light could travel through the universe like strands of spaghetti in a bowl of mixed spaghetti. I call it the 'mixed bowl of spaghetti theory of light'. The known lensing effect of light is an example of this occurring.

-- Updated November 14th, 2013, 10:45 am to add the following --

Steve3007 wrote:
It "may" not? So what properties does it exhibit? And what is the mechanism for those properties? I suspect you're going to say that it doesn't need a mechanism and that the properties it exhibits are whatever is needed in order for it to be used as a mechanism for everything else. In other words it is an unfalsifiable, unobservable abstract concept which is the uncaused-cause of everything in the universe. I know another concept like that!

The properties of the aether are relatively unknown. I can only know what the properties of the aether are by observing its reactions it has with matter. These forms of interaction consist of gravity, magnetism and light. Thus, the properties of the aether, are in direct relation to the effects it has when interacting with various mediums. The action of air on an airplane wing creates high and low pressure areas. I would suggest that the aether works in a similar fashion when it comes in contact with matter. This is what creates positive and negative forces of attraction and repulsion. But, don't forget the interdimensional aspects of the aether, which creates barrier zones which we call atoms. Each atom must contain an aether attraction(black hole) which gives it weight, mass and gravity.

Note - Nature can not be illogical. Logic is a product of intellect. Only humans can be illogical, therefore, if nature appears illogical, it is only because humans have failed to find the logic and not because nature is illogical. Human arrogance has created this concept of an illogical nature because they have presumed that they could not be wrong which is a typical behaviour pattern of humans.

Experiments by Fizeau shows that Einstein's special relativity theory to be incorrect -

http://renshaw.teleinc.com/papers/fizeau4b/fizeau4b.stm

http://www.simplegravity.com/

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/23410705/#.UoQjWnBmg6Y

-- Updated November 15th, 2013, 10:22 am to add the following --

Xris wrote: I like nuts a bolts Darwin, I can't be considering alternative dimensions. You said it travels.I don't believe it travels in the conventional sense.That would require us to imagine particles or waves wandering of into the cosmos with no purpose. These ropes may be total nonsense but they can account for gravity and the energetic relationship between objects of mass at the same time. They may have problems but for simple logical reasons they perform so much better than the conventional concepts.

I would say that gravity and light act like a rope but I wouldn't go as far as Bill Gaede and say that this hypothetical rope actually exists in reality. The unfortunate part of this theory is that ropes are mechanisms for pulling, and logic dictates that nature can't pull, it can only push. Pulling requires an intelligence in conjunction with muscles or machines for it to work. The laws of infinity wouldn't allow ropes to exist and its all too messy. All those ropes criss-crossing the universe would make a tangled mess and cause untold mayhem. There must be a simpler explanation. Pushing is a much simpler method of explaining gravity, light and electromagnetism. Its not so messy and there is no waste. Logic and nature tend to favour the most efficient path which has the least amount of waste.

-- Updated November 15th, 2013, 10:29 am to add the following --

Xris wrote: It could equally be explained by the delay in the transfer of energy from atom to atom. If EM radiation is explained as a relationship.I realise it is difficult to accept alternative reasoning when you have so much invested in one particular concept. But I simply can not accept that light permeates as a wave with or without a medium.

If the medium that light is travelling through is moving, then, this delay is increased. Why?

Steve3007 wrote: I think one of the classic problems with aether, if it is posited as medium for EM waves, has always been the fact that it would cause all kinds of complex refraction effects as the EM waves propagate between volumes of aether moving in different ways. These effects are simply not observed.

I don't think you can get away with using the word 'aether' these days. I think changing the word to 'field' or 'dark energy' has far less prejudicial connotations.
Movement or energy flux variations, of the aether or whatever you would like to call it, wouldn't cause refraction otherwise as you infer, we would see rainbow type effects. I think it's a bit like the answer to the question "what falls the faster in a vacuum, a feather or a lump of lead?". I imagine it's the same with light passing through it, the direction of the light is altered but by the same degree for all wavelengths.

Nick

DarwinX:

The action of air on an airplane wing creates high and low pressure areas. I would suggest that the aether works in a similar fashion when it comes in contact with matter. This is what creates positive and negative forces of attraction and repulsion.

But you still haven't explained why you're using the electrostatic concepts of "pressure" and "contact" as a mechanism for the action of aether. You say that aether comes into "contact" with matter. What do you mean by "contact"? Contact is electrostatic repulsion. But you can't be saying that there is electrostatic repulsion between aether and matter. So what, if anything, are you saying about the way that aether works? (i.e. its mechanism - the thing that you've previously claimed it doesn't need.)

And you still haven't said what you mean by "illogical". All you've said is that in your opinion everybody thinks nature is illogical.

And you still haven't addressed the problem of refraction and distortion at boundaries between volumes of aether that are moving at different velocities. You've said that light could be coming to us from lots of different directions, because of distortion by the aether. But if this were true, then as the Earth rotates and moves through its orbit around the Sun constellations would constantly change shape and move. This is not observed.

Steve3007 wrote:
But you still haven't explained why you're using the electrostatic concepts of "pressure" and "contact" as a mechanism for the action of aether. You say that aether comes into "contact" with matter. What do you mean by "contact"? Contact is electrostatic repulsion. But you can't be saying that there is electrostatic repulsion between aether and matter. So what, if anything, are you saying about the way that aether works? (i.e. its mechanism - the thing that you've previously claimed it doesn't need.)

Aether is a subatomic substance which exists at the Planck's constant dimensionality. It doesn't follow the normal rules that apply to air pressure. I don't know what these rules are. We can only know these rules by observing how the aether reacts to matter in the forms of gravity, electromagnetism and light. The properties of aether are thus, self evident when we observe its reaction to matter. I don't know what I mean by "contact". Suggest you read the works of Georges-Louis Le Sage to get a better understanding of the contact aspects of the aether.

And you still haven't said what you mean by "illogical". All you've said is that in your opinion everybody thinks nature is illogical.

Richard Faynman often quotes that "nature is illogical", so I suggest that you go and ask him what he means by this because I don't.

And you still haven't addressed the problem of refraction and distortion at boundaries between volumes of aether that are moving at different velocities. You've said that light could be coming to us from lots of different directions, because of distortion by the aether. But if this were true, then as the Earth rotates and moves through its orbit around the Sun constellations would constantly change shape and move. This is not observed.

I am sure that you accept Einstein's observations that light from the stars bends around the sun. What we see on the Earth is the end product of this process. We don't see the processes by which it occurs. The aether doesn't necessarily flow in one direction like a river. It most likely emanates from black holes and is absorbed by suns and planets.

How does science explain push or pull? Does quantum using particles explain how these effects are created?

Xris wrote:How does science explain push or pull? Does quantum using particles explain how these effects are created?

I'm not sure what you are asking for here? Pull is an intelligence based concept/action. Something like nature, which has no intelligence, can't achieve it by itself. If it appears that nature is pulling, it is only because the observer has been deceived by invisible forces, which they have assumed, are pulling.