Ask any question you want about Physics

i know alternate explanations for casimir force exist but it's irrelevant because even if casimir effect is a negative energy density there is no way possible to assemble a useful amount of it from any type of array of casimir cavities. how can you get a jupiter mass worth from a nearly non existent amount of negative energy density when the mechanism/apparatus to make it out-masses it by billions of times? it's like the rocket equation. even worse.

But yes i would say NASA's text on negative energy is definitely incorrect. negative mass and negative energy exist in the standard model and in QED and classical electrodynamics. you cannot depend the whole of physics on the existence of it and then say it does not exist in the next breath.

i understand the electron thing is confusing even though you appear to have far more formal training in it than i. (I have none.)

Dr Woodward's book however is a wonderful tour of the whole history of it and a formal tour of the math as well.

there is a *summary* of it on page 208. he covered it in excruciating mathematical detail earlier in the book. i mean makes your eyes cross blur and cause you to pass out detail.

books.google.com... 9T_rO0sM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RMscVYnVFMONyASlyoKwCQ&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=negative%20energy%20in%20metamaterials&f=false

go there and check out page 208 for the summary. if you want the PHD level of detail i can find the page where that begins too. but you need a MD to stand by while you read the strong stuff- in case it causes a medical problem. ;P

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
Dr Woodward's book however is a wonderful tour of the whole history of it and a formal tour of the math as well.

there is a *summary* of it on page 208. he covered it in excruciating mathematical detail earlier in the book. i mean makes your eyes cross blur and cause you to pass out detail.

Well if you want to pick out flaws in a divergent theory, the vacuum catastrophe also makes false theoretical predictions.

In cosmology, the vacuum catastrophe is the disagreement of over 100 orders of magnitude between measured values of the vacuum energy density and the theoretical zero-point energy suggested by a naïve application of quantum field theory. This discrepancy has been described as "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics.

His idea that electrons have infinite negative mass might be the second worst prediction if it really is one but his source for that statement is a conversation where some guy mentioned that to him in 1992. I have no way to check the math from that informal conversation claim. Also popular books aren't even always the best source, as they may not undergo as much peer review as a professional journal. For example a peer reviewer for a paper to be published in a journal might suggest he should cite a paper for that claim instead of an informal hearsay reference.

Here is what he wrote in a paper in "Foundations of Physics Letters" which may be a better source:
"Twists of fate: Can we make traversable wormholes in spacetime?"

Exotic matter is matter that violates one, or more of the various energy conditions (null, weak, dominant, strong, and "averaged" [along an appropriate worldline] versions of these) which posit the nonexistence, at least on average, of negative mass-energy.

So this relates to what I was trying to say about the negative energy of the electron in an atom, that the overall mass of the atom is still positive. This statement seems to suggest that exotic matter is not an inevitable outcome of current theory as your prior statement suggested.

The "at least on average" statement is a key too. We can demonstrate violations of the second law of thermodynamics too, but not "on average".

Now look at his definition for REM which is what we're talking about here:

really exotic matter (REM) – matter which is negative for observers with zero relative velocity (that is, matter with negative proper mass-energy density).

Then look at his conclusion about REM:

experiments show that at least one of the transient source terms that appears in the field equation derived in
section 3 exists in fact. There, I think, is the appropriate seriousness criterion: tangible, corroborable, physical evidence. And since such does not yet exist for REM per se, you may not want take all this too seriously. At least until convincing evidence for the production of REM is forthcoming.

So there you have your own source saying not to take REM too seriously until we have convincing evidence that its production is forthcoming.

However I think all this goes to show that physicists aren't stuck in a "box", since we are exploring these alternatives that Woodward admits perhaps shouldn't be taken too seriously yet with no evidence for REM. But that's what Dr. White is looking for...evidence. I wish him luck and think it will be fascinating if he finds it.

it's not an outcome at present. it is a prerequisite. you didn't read the entire thing. he goes from classical electrodynamics, through QED, through SRT and GRT and so on. at each stage there is an assumed negative mass to start with as a component to say- an electron. if that were removed from the equation the rest of the equations would not work. the standard model would not work. the negative mass makes it work. therefore physics as it stands now is dependent upon it being there. Dr Woodward does not just state because of a conversation he had in 92. he shows it in the history and in the math. if it was't there the universe would collapse into a singularity because the mass energy of any given particle would be infinite and the ol' electron would rotate at 100X light speed.



Geez. It's 2015; not 1992. Thats like looking at Einstein's SRT and saying see it doesn't support stuff he said later in GRT.

EDIT: and no. it's not inevitable but that is not what i stated or implied. in fact- a question i have asked about 4 times now in this very thread is there any means to separate the pre-renormalized electron component's (represented in the separate source terms of the math) mass such that they can be accessed in a useful way? is it even possible?

my only point other than that is physics is kind of schizoid on the issue of negative mass/energy. it exists. physics says it does/doesn't. can we do interesting stuff with it? is this a valid way to get some?

Do you think the english language is more, or less, complex than the quantity, quality, and laws which govern the quantity, and quality of the most fundamental foundations of the substance of reality?

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
my only point other than that is physics is kind of schizoid on the issue of negative mass/energy. it exists. physics says it does/doesn't. can we do interesting stuff with it? is this a valid way to get some?

This is the nature of our frontier of ignorance, where we have more questions than answers. Dr. Woodward's criterion for resolving the schism seems quite sound: "tangible, corroborable, physical evidence".

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Do you think the english language is more, or less, complex than the quantity, quality, and laws which govern the quantity, and quality of the most fundamental foundations of the substance of reality?

It's hard to describe physics in English alone. The language of mathematics is commonly used by physicists.

Dr Woodward's life work is proving mach's principle and making use of it. he has strong evidence the first term of the mathematical term of his equation. that is the positive term. he says that if the mach principle equation he is using is at least very nearly correct and his experimental apparatus would not work if the terms in the remaining bits of his equation were incorrect. The thing is the second term is what he calls the wormhole term. it sign is negative. as in it deals with negative mass energy. He has excluded by rigorous proof all known sources of spurious signal in his apparatus and his test rig.

He thinks the solution to getting the requisite exotic energy is to be found in the part he has already proven to his satisfaction is real. it may be a case of when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail. but if he is right he or more likely his successors will find a way to address the physical meaning of the second part of his equation.

Dr Woodard is in his seventies and is fighting two different forms of stage 4 cancer but he is still at it. heck of a guy. and he is directly responsible for Dr White doing what he is doing. thier rigs are virtually identical as is thier protocols. in 2007 though they went separate ways because Dr White is a quantum vacuum guy whereas Woodward is convinced the source of thrust is mach effects. if there is a foam it is below the plank limit. space is not grainy to the present limits of detection.

latest attempts to find grainy foamy space greatly reduced the scale where this is possible: phys.org...

One of the attempts to reconcile the two theories is the idea of "space-time foam." According to this concept, on a microscopic scale space is not continuous, and instead it has a foam-like structure. The size of these foam elements is so tiny that it is difficult to imagine and is at present impossible to measure directly. However light particles that are traveling within this foam will be affected by the foamy structure, and this will cause them to propagate at slightly different speeds depending on their energy.
Yet this experiment shows otherwise. The fact that all the photons with different energies arrived with no time delay relative to each other indicates that such a foamy structure, if it exists at all, has a much smaller size than previously expected.


Read more at: phys.org...

So it's not looking good for Dr White's explanation of how EM thrusters like his own QVPT work.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

It's hard to describe physics in English alone. The language of mathematics is commonly used by physicists.

Yes, but I was wondering if you thought it could be stated; the complexity of the english language, do you agree that the english language is a law abiding system of quantity of quality? Would you agree that fundamental reality is a law abiding system of quantity and quality? Could it be thought about how the complexities of both; being, what exactly they are, and what they have done and what they can do, compare? Or must it be thought that all of reality must be considered not in any way separate from 'the fundamental foundational substance of reality), this is to say; that bottom up and top down and everything in between side the side, is aspect of the most fundamental and foundational substance that is reality, but also can it be said, that the systems which solidify that can be said classically distanced as higher scales of stable substance strata, can 'to a large degree' effect the foundation and fundamental? Which has more control of reality, bottom up, top down, or middle up and down? The english language can be said to be a law abiding system of quantity and quality developed by a conscious intelligence somewhere in the middle of bottom up and top down. Now depending on if there is truly a meaning of there being a bottom, as in the smallest micro scale, the quanta of that substance, is necessarily contained in all that is real and existing. Because what exists where one says 'there is substance, but this substance is lacking any of what we know of as the fundamental subatomic quanta'? Therefore, everything that can possibly exist is a permutation of the fundamental and foundational, so everything is fundamental. Including the english language then. If the fundamental is all, it is all that is complex, you cant compare the parts to the whole, because the whole is everything the parts are and everything else. So it is a faulty question to begin with, but an interest thought not none the less.

Some day someone is going to say "Ahead Full Impulse speed!" and a ship will actually proceed at 25 percent C:

www.technologyreview.com...

its not superluminal warp but is subluminal warp.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
es, but I was wondering if you thought it could be stated; the complexity of the english language, do you agree that the english language is a law abiding system of quantity of quality?

I never thought of it in those terms, and to the extent it has rules I certainly see plenty of violations of those rules here on ATS, some of the probably by me, because it's just an informal forum and not a professional publication where I'd pay more attention to detail.

Would you agree that fundamental reality is a law abiding system of quantity and quality?

Sounds like you're getting into philosophy and I'm neither good at nor that interested in philosophy, as it seems to just go round and round without ever getting anywhere, like a tire spinning in a mud ditch.

Our perceptions of reality evolve along with our knowledge and what we thought were laws of nature yesterday turn out to not be laws of nature based on new evidence in different circumstances. I think Nature has rules that it uses to operate, but we don't know exactly what those are. Our current models are our best approximations of the real laws of nature.

foundational substance of reality

I don't know what that means nor most of the descriptions that follow it.

Because what exists where one says 'there is substance, but this substance is lacking any of what we know of as the fundamental subatomic quanta'? Therefore, everything that can possibly exist is a permutation of the fundamental and foundational, so everything is fundamental. Including the english language then.

You're very focused on language, but I think the problem goes much deeper than language. Our biology evolved in the macro world and this influences how we perceive things. I think this creates challenges for us in understanding the quantum world, and I see it as more of a limitation of the way our brains are wired, than one of language, though language might also play a minor role.

a reply to: stormbringer1701
I hope so, but I doubt we'll live to see it. Maybe our grandkids will see it.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I never thought of it in those terms, and to the extent it has rules I certainly see plenty of violations of those rules here on ATS, some of the probably by me, because it's just an informal forum and not a professional publication where I'd pay more attention to detail.

Yes, well the rules of language can be broken but thats a whole another story. For the most part, language came into existence, and continued to exist, and works, because of the rules of it. A = A, B = B, etc. And then sequences of these symbols, equal different things, and interactions of things etc. A is a quantity and quality, A is the same quantity as B, (1 symbol) but of a different quality. Though intrinsically, geometrically, A can be said to be arranged differently quantitatively than B, and it might say that quality is only a necessary fact of the existence of quantity.




"Would you agree that fundamental reality is a law abiding system of quantity and quality?" - me

Sounds like you're getting into philosophy and I'm neither good at nor that interested in philosophy, as it seems to just go round and round without ever getting anywhere, like a tire spinning in a mud ditch.

Our perceptions of reality evolve along with our knowledge and what we thought were laws of nature yesterday turn out to not be laws of nature based on new evidence in different circumstances. I think Nature has rules that it uses to operate, but we don't know exactly what those are. Our current models are our best approximations of the real laws of nature.

Well I said fundamental reality, but I really should have just said reality, though I suppose the nature of mind and its free will is the caveat to absolute law abiding, whereas the fundamentalities of reality (subatomic particles, fields), we presume to not be a mind, so we must presume that the fundamental reality of reality is a law abiding system of quantity and quality. There is only something and nothing, and only something is something. Something is quantity, which as I said just prior, is unavoidably quality. The existence of law, might just be purely another quality of the existence of quantity. A quantity of substance exists, which is termed reality (the total substance that exists), so I should say the substance exists. It may be default, well it seems obviously yes, default, by the virtue of substance existing, by the virtue of the opposite of nothing existing, law exists. Law being, the unavoidably way in which the substance is forced to exist by virtue of its existence.

So really my question should have asked; Do you agree that reality exists, for the rest follow; quality, law.

But yes, this was a silly question of mine.



"foundational substance of reality" -me

I don't know what that means nor most of the descriptions that follow it.

I figured it would be thought that subatomic particles and fields, the most micro quanta known and possible, would be the foundational substance of reality. Considering that the classical world is an aspect of reality, is it not true that the subatomic and field and quanta smaller than quanta in the classical world, can be considered the foundation of the classical world?

I said something like; If you show me an quantity of substance, and you say the substance is not composed of the micro fundamental quanta, subatomic particles etc., then what can it possibly be composed of, and would it by default than, whatever substance and quanta did compose it, have to be referred to as fundamental substance, as how can an area of substance exist, that is composed by something other than fundamental substance, quanta? I suppose this is the big clever trick of reality, in that the distance between micro quanta, to the intricate ways in which molecules can be organized, makes the fundamental quanta 'more than the sum of their parts', and if truly so, is what is made considered classical fundamental quanta and substance?

What I am trying to ask is; is all that exists the most fundamental micro quanta, interacting? What is the reality of classical realm... How is classical stability made. At any point and any space, of substance, if seen for what it truly is, would contain different sub atomic particles, moving in different ways, which create this atom here, this molecule here, which create a cell here, which create organs here, etc. This is what I mean how the control, power struggle, goes from bottom up and top down. How much control do galaxies as systems have over subatomic quanta? how much control do subatomic quanta have over galaxies? And then we are left to ask, what is the meaning of asking how much control do galaxies as systems have over the subatomic quanta of them, when it can be asked; what is a galaxy besides subatomic quanta?

originally posted by: mbkennel


I don't know what you mean by 'pure nothing space',

A thought experiment. If you truly know aspects of reality, and systems there of, it is possible you will know about them, in other situations and circumstances, depending on if you are familiar with some information about the new situations and circumstances.

Pure nothing space is exactly as it sounds. Imagine there was no such thing as something. Imagine no energy or matter. Imagine from a single point of nothingness, infinite nothing in all directions. Actual nothingness. No matter or energy in all directions for infinite distance and eternal time.

This is the perfect theoretical realm to test ones comprehension of how the electron exists as the electron.

It is the perfect theoretical realm, to get to the bottom of my question; of whether the electron as an object, the electron as the electron, is absolutely all that is needed, to propel photons from its body. Or, if something besides the electron is needed, to create photons.

We've already answered that question before. In the current understanding of physics, the EM field exists (as it has since the big bang) at all places at space as does the lepton field. Real electrons are like persistent 'bubbles' in the lepton field like real photons are 'bubbles' in the EM field. So they are separate entities. Consider that there are also quarks which also have charge and interact electromagnetically, these are quite different from leptons. So given the experimental facts that you can have EM radiation propagating without needing charges nearby, and quarks also interact electromagnetically, it makes most sense physically and mathematically to say that EM field is a separate entity from the charges, though they interact intimately.

Since it's an experimental fact that you can have permanently propagating electromagnetic waves without requiring any elementary charges & dipole sources such as electrons, then in principle the EM field has an independent existence. All current physical modeling treats the field as its own entity with elementary particles and their motion being the contributors to its changing.

This is the structure of Maxwellian electrodynamics.

In our universe, only particles with charge will interact with EM field, AND the EM field does not interact with itself.

Ok, so now we are up to; If something besides the electron is needed to create photons; the EM field; does the EM field exist independently of electrons and photons, lets be calm and careful, this is where we get tricky.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
"Would you agree that fundamental reality is a law abiding system of quantity and quality?" - me

I'm pretty sure there are natural laws. We may not know exactly what they are, but they exist. "System of quantity and quality" isn't well defined enough to agree or disagree,

There is only something and nothing, and only something is something.

This statement might have made sense in the 19th century, but today, not so much. We still have a lot to learn about the vacuum but what we do know is that it's not really nothing, so you seem to be trying to put your description of nature into a box that experiment after experiment tells us isn't such a good approach to understanding nature. Just as we discovered that lines between matter and energy are fuzzy when looking at the mass of a proton, we also see the lines between something and nothing are fuzzy when looking at the vacuum.

So really my question should have asked; Do you agree that reality exists, for the rest follow; quality, law.

Sounds philosophical and I already said I'm not good at philosophy. Nature has laws but we don't have a perfect understanding of them yet.

I figured it would be thought that subatomic particles and fields, the most micro quanta known and possible, would be the foundational substance of reality. Considering that the classical world is an aspect of reality, is it not true that the subatomic and field and quanta smaller than quanta in the classical world, can be considered the foundation of the classical world?

Maybe, but not the way some people think. For example we have people who make statements like that who don't seem to realize that Young's double slit experiment won't work on a bowling ball. But for people who understand the science there's no conflict between the fact that experiment works on an electron but not on a bowling ball.

I said something like; If you show me an quantity of substance, and you say the substance is not composed of the micro fundamental quanta, subatomic particles etc., then what can it possibly be composed of, and would it by default than, whatever substance and quanta did compose it, have to be referred to as fundamental substance, as how can an area of substance exist, that is composed by something other than fundamental substance, quanta?

If I knew the solution to the vacuum catastrophe I might get a Nobel prize for publishing that. But I've seen no solution to that,and on a related topic, no great explanation of dark energy and why it appears to make the universe accelerate its expansion at the observed rate.

What I am trying to ask is; is all that exists the most fundamental micro quanta, interacting? What is the reality of classical realm... How is classical stability made.

That gets into the mystery of dark matter and we don't know what it is and why it appears to interact gravitationally but not electromagnetically with the baryonic matter we know about. We know about neutrinos and billions of those passed through your body in the last second. You didn't even notice, right? No interaction with most of those, in fact most neutrinos hitting the earth pass right through it without interacting. We think there might be particles that interact even less than neutrinos, called WIMPs, a leading dark matter candidate.

At any point and any space, of substance, if seen for what it truly is, would contain different sub atomic particles, moving in different ways, which create this atom here, this molecule here, which create a cell here, which create organs here, etc. This is what I mean how the control, power struggle, goes from bottom up and top down. How much control do galaxies as systems have over subatomic quanta? how much control do subatomic quanta have over galaxies? And then we are left to ask, what is the meaning of asking how much control do galaxies as systems have over the subatomic quanta of them, when it can be asked; what is a galaxy besides subatomic quanta?

Still, this gets into the dark matter mystery. Something is affecting galactic rotation curves and we don't know what it is so we call it dark matter. We have lots of ideas about what it might be, and it's probably not just one thing.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Ok, so now we are up to; If something besides the electron is needed to create photons; the EM field; does the EM field exist independently of electrons and photons, lets be calm and careful, this is where we get tricky.

In our universe, yes, EM field exists independently of electrons, but not of photons as it makes no sense to call something a photon without electromagnetism. (Roughly speaking when you expand the quantum wavefunction of the EM field in various useful sums and representations certain elementary basis functions and fields from them can be identified as 'photons'. Think of solving partial differential equations for classical waves when expanding into finite elements, or Fourier series)

You're asking other questions about some kind of 'intrinsic nature' and then the answers depend on what laws of physics you want to assume are active. You can invent many different things and make them mathematically consistent, but they happen to be not a true description of observable reality according to experiment. (There are hundreds of such papers in Physical Review D for instance).

Electrons-in-our-universe interact with EM-field-in-our-universe whose propagating excitations are photons-in-our-unvierse. Since those propagating excitations can be made by electrons, or charged quarks, or charged muons, or charged intermediate vector bosons, and can also propagate in space all on their own without needing any charges to restimulate it, EM-field-in-our-universe has an 'independent existence' of electrons-in-our-universe for a good definition of independent in quantum field theory.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Bottom line is the universe doesn't work the way we would liKe. And we'll often times makes no sense. We developed a model to explain this irrational behavior is it how the universe works probably not. There is alot going on under a plank length I'm sure problem is way to small for us to detect. Is there anywhere in the universe an empty void, No of course not.

What we discovered is even when we thought nothing was there we were wrong. My opinion is what gives mass and even gravity is micro black holes pair them and spin them and we get these strange results, for example warping space or even providing mass. There is of course vibrating strings but it just seems way to complex to me.

Now all this speculation as to what would happen if there was an electron with nothing around it is silly. Since this can't happen anywhere in the universe. As far as fields we have two possible models one electrons constantly absorb and release energy creating fields. The other our electron has virtual particles popping in and out and it's proximity effects this. Both can give is equally valid predictions so for now we have no way to tell unless we can see what's hiding under the Planck scale.

MB, Arbitrageur,

What is your opinion of these patents?

www.google.co.in...

www.google.co.in...

Basically Woodwards initial patent and a follow up patent.

I like Woodwards idea. It seems a little inefficient. The second patent tries to resolve that. But I'm no physicist just some armchair wannabe. Could really use the input of you folks, before I come to a definitive opinion of his stuff.

a reply to: BASSPLYR
Q: What makes speculative ideas become mainstream?
A: Confirmed experimental results.

Woodward says his experiments prove his point but sufficient confirmation is lacking.

The Malcolm Stephens patent application from 2008 is interesting but it's 2015, was he not granted a patent? In any case patents and applications aren't scientific sources of information, but that application gives a historical account of previous ideas and then lists a new twist plus 27 "optionally," claims. So it's saying all the similar concepts didn't pan out but maybe this one or one of the 27 other options will.

Advanced propulsion research is by nature trying new things we haven't tried before, and many ideas are bound to fail. I think if you guessed that at least 9 out of 10 speculative advanced propulsion ideas will fail, you'd probably be right, and it could be 10 out of 10. But all you need is for one of them to succeed, and I don't know how to predict which one that might be in advance. Only confirmed experiments will show that, and when we see NASA launching a spacecraft with the new technology, then we know it works.

Could really use the input of you folks, before I come to a definitive opinion of his stuff.

Here is what seems like some good advice to follow from NASA's website:
www.grc.nasa.gov...

Cautionary note: On a topic this visionary and whose implications are profound, there is a risk of encountering, premature conclusions in the literature, driven by overzealous enthusiasts as well as pedantic pessimists. The most productive path is to seek out and build upon publications that focus on the critical make-break issues and lingering unknowns, both from the innovators' perspective and their skeptical challengers. Avoid works with broad-sweeping and unsubstantiated claims, either supportive or dismissive.

So let's try to avoid being either "overzealous enthusiasts" or "pedantic pessimists". I don't think any of these breakthrough technologies have been substantiated yet enough to influence the scientific consensus, but that doesn't mean it can't or won't happen with new research and experiments. They do seem like long shots, but nothing ventured, nothing gained so I think at least some small part of NASA's budget should be focused on breakthrough propulsion ideas, such as those Dr. White is exploring. White is also working on advancements to more conventional, less speculative technologies, and some of that research is much more likely to result in improved spacecraft propulsion.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Like the video game "Mass Effect"?!

originally posted by: mbkennel

In our universe, yes, EM field exists independently of electrons, but not of photons as it makes no sense to call something a photon without electromagnetism. (Roughly speaking when you expand the quantum wavefunction of the EM field in various useful sums and representations certain elementary basis functions and fields from them can be identified as 'photons'. Think of solving partial differential equations for classical waves when expanding into finite elements, or Fourier series)

....

Electrons-in-our-universe interact with EM-field-in-our-universe whose propagating excitations are photons-in-our-unvierse. Since those propagating excitations can be made by electrons, or charged quarks, or charged muons, or charged intermediate vector bosons, and can also propagate in space all on their own without needing any charges to restimulate it, EM-field-in-our-universe has an 'independent existence' of electrons-in-our-universe for a good definition of independent in quantum field theory.

on paper I assume ?
I know you guys can write down some symbols and numbers but calling them the Reality ???
Sure, the paper written on is...

How do you know EM field exists without any charges if you can't measure it without them ??

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: mbkennel

In our universe, yes, EM field exists independently of electrons, but not of photons as it makes no sense to call something a photon without electromagnetism. (Roughly speaking when you expand the quantum wavefunction of the EM field in various useful sums and representations certain elementary basis functions and fields from them can be identified as 'photons'. Think of solving partial differential equations for classical waves when expanding into finite elements, or Fourier series)

....

Electrons-in-our-universe interact with EM-field-in-our-universe whose propagating excitations are photons-in-our-unvierse. Since those propagating excitations can be made by electrons, or charged quarks, or charged muons, or charged intermediate vector bosons, and can also propagate in space all on their own without needing any charges to restimulate it, EM-field-in-our-universe has an 'independent existence' of electrons-in-our-universe for a good definition of independent in quantum field theory.

on paper I assume ?
I know you guys can write down some symbols and numbers but calling them the Reality ???
Sure, the paper written on is...

How do you know EM field exists without any charges if you can't measure it without them ??

Depends on how we look at it. In this case your talking about quantum field theory.Quantum mechanics tells us that an electron is both a particle and a wave and you can never be certain It's exact location.To start, let’s think only about electrons since they seem to be popular in this thread. Everywhere in the universe there is a field called the electron field. A physical electron isn’t the field, but rather a localized vibration in the field. In fact, every electron in the universe is a similar localized vibration of that single field. So what we perceive as a particle isn't at all. it's movement of our field which we can than pinpoint to a location. now how do we know it's there this is a bit tougher but what comes to mind is the discovery of the higgs. People think the higgs was discovered because we found a particle at the LHC. Well that's not exaxtly what happened what happened it be more acurate to say they found thehiggs field and it was at the energy level we suspected.

Electrons aren’t the only particles to consist of localized vibrations of a field; all particles do. There is a photon field, an up quark field, a gluon field, a muon field; indeed there is a field for every known particle. Back to how we know its a case of subtraction really. the electric field E at a point
G in empty space is a vector quantity which can be measured by placing a small test charge q at that point, measure the force on q due to all other charges. The electric field at that point is given by the difrence between are charge and our readings.

E= F on Q / Q The electric field is not just an mathematical invention; it is real. We cannot (usually) see it or smell it, but we can feel it. In some situations, you can see an electric field: visible light is a rapidly oscillating electric field. To go in to this further I'd have to give you about 80 hrs in lectures to get you to this point. But if your truly interested they Feynman lectures are free and he does cover exactly how we know these fields are there.

PS one more gravity is a field and even if we don't measure it it's still there.