What Medium is Propagating Electromagnetic Waves?

a reply to: MamaJ

Seems to me we live in a reality of energy transfer. Energy is constantly transforming itself. Electromagnetic waves transfer as well.

Yes, as a disturbance propagated through and by a field.

LOL this thread is funny. Circlejerking about words.

The electromagnetic waves are not real either. So there is no need for a real medium.

The waves are a mathematical model describing one of the ways of how matter interacts with other matter.

And that is all we've got, models/descriptions of reality using the language of mathematics. Some of them are pretty useful, others not so much.

originally posted by: AntonGonist
a reply to: neutronflux

I already did. You dismissed it and were seen later stammering about "Uniform field theory" which was not a topic.

I already told you you are incapable of a logical and worthwile discussion because nothing registers and you are constantly of on a tangent. Bye guys.

Why so angry that you have an opinion not supported by science? And only present items out of context? With the concept of Aether that has no support in observable and repeatable experimentation from the last century?

Has the concept of Aether been test for by experimenting? Yes. Would you like to cite a conducted experiment for Aether that shows Aether is a actual fact of this existence?

a reply to: neutronflux

You might as well argue the toss with a Flat Earther. You have your science and common sense, they have a fanatical and delusional "belief". I have come to the conclusion that it would be less unpleasant to put wasps up my bum than continue to engage in any discussion with a poster who is so up him/herself and who is so consistently rude and immature.

Good luck!

originally posted by: AntonGonist
"Ooh yeah, you see, they are not sure you see.....get it?"

The problem is that science doesnt want to draw a conclusion because it would destroy their preconceived notion. The other problem is that followers of said science arent capable of independant thought and connecting the very obvious dots.

Science simply dismissed the Aether at one point because it would stop the Earth from moving.......

Then it was snuck back in under a different name.

"When you ask what the difference is between the Aether and this universal field all people can do is deny the existence of such a field or say that science is not sure about this field.

Do you people understand that without such a field your model literally falls apart in the first place?

What a joke.

And herein is the issue...
1) You accuse science of being something or doing something, which you actually have no evidence for nore position or actual observation of it doing. You are accusing an entire community of something that they are actually not doing.

Followers of science being incapable of independent thought is already a standard issue red flag that typically means the OP THINKs they know something about science... when fact is... they likely have never been anywhere near an actual scientist. Closest they have been is likely via a TV or streaming service... popular science book maybe.

2) Science didn't dismiss the Aether... they did quite a lot of experiments attempting to prove its existence... they unanimously failed, the scientific method works... we, based on the evidence at hand, can conclude that the Aether as modelled back then, doesn't exist.

3) Citation required on the asking the difference between etc etc... why? well because the issue is language. If you say that in space, you have spacetime, and that throughout all spacetime there are fields. They then go "oh but thats Aether! when its not the same. Just the virtue of there being a field, doesn't mean that fields is automatically an awkward addition that there really is an Aether. There seems to be a conscious level of ignorance on what the Aether is, and a very overly simplified connecting of dots which is happening.

Also i find the word Vacuum gets perverted over and over and over. Vacuum is very different to void. The two are NOT interchangeable and even then i don't think they are even the correct terms people want to use.

Vacuum is a indication of how many particles there are in a volume. I am talking here of classical vacuum, so, everything that can interact strongly. This excludes light.

A Void in the same way, would be an absence of everything and that is where being careful with language is important and not using words interchangeable to try and perform a leading question or running assumptions.

Ending with "What a joke" doesn't add any credibility to your argument it also shows you are not willing or want a discussion, it points more at you wanting an echo chamber in which you can be told you are right about everything.... quite the opposite from debate or discussion.

a reply to: ErosA433

Qouting the relevant parts of your post......

2) Science didn't dismiss the Aether... they did quite a lot of experiments attempting to prove its existence... they unanimously failed, the scientific method works... we, based on the evidence at hand, can conclude that the Aether as modelled back then, doesn't exist.

I disagree. Will dedicate a thread to this.

If you say that in space, you have spacetime, and that throughout all spacetime there are fields. They then go "oh but thats Aether! when its not the same.

Lol. So I ask again. What is the difference?

Also i find the word Vacuum gets perverted over and over and over. Vacuum is very different to void. The two are NOT interchangeable and even then i don't think they are even the correct terms people want to use.

You are obviously not talking to me here. Why dont you direct this at the ones who used these terms.

Ending with "What a joke" doesn't add any credibility to your argument

This was the argument,

Do you people understand that without such a field your model literally falls apart in the first place?

It already has credibility. Thats why I said denying this is a joke.

originally posted by: ErosA433
Followers of science being incapable of independent thought is already a standard issue red flag that typically means the OP THINKs they know something about science... when fact is... they likely have never been anywhere near an actual scientist. Closest they have been is likely via a TV or streaming service... popular science book maybe.

True enough.

The publishing space gets filled with many different independent thoughts/theories/hypotheses/ideas every time we see the slightest hint of a deviation from mainstream models in experiments or observations.

Some examples where I recall seeing many different ideas published were ideas about new physics to explain these anomalies:

-Pioneer Anomaly
-Faster than light neutrino report from CERN
-b quark decay anomaly in LHC data

The first two turned out to not present a problem with our models but I think the jury is still out on the third example, and hundreds of papers have proposed possible explanations for this anomaly.

So contrary to the myth that scientists can't stand anything which deviates from their existing models, which people unfamiliar with science like to say, it seems the opposite is true. Scientists love anomalies and a chance to challenge and possibly change existing models, if the evidence supports it. I'm sure that would also be true if a scientist could find any anomaly that would suggest a ponderable medium like a luminiferous aether existed, which might then be proven by some clever experiment nobody ever thought of or conducted before.

So I agree there seems to be a large disconnect between how science is perceived by some non-scientists, and how science actually works.

a reply to: moebius

The electromagnetic waves are not real either. So there is no need for a real medium. The waves are a mathematical model describing one of the ways of how matter interacts with other matter.

What matter and how does it interact? See this is what I mean. Nothing but meaningless drivel. Can you say something.

a reply to: neutronflux

You asked for a source. I posted it and you dismissed it. You are still not touching it. Instead you were rambling about Uniform Field Theory which is not what I posted. When are you going to make a relevant response?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What is spacetime?

Is EM radiation a disturbance of a field or is it not?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

True enough.

I wasnt even refering to scientists. I was refering to followers on an internet forum.

originally posted by: AntonGonist
a reply to: neutronflux

You asked for a source. I posted it and you dismissed it. You are still not touching it. Instead you were rambling about Uniform Field Theory which is not what I posted. When are you going to make a relevant response?

False argument by you. I didn’t dismiss your posts. I read through them, analyzed them, and saw you butchered the context of your cited sources.

The actual post

Again...

I have been going through the items you cited.

Let’s start with

According to the modern discoveries in physics, forces are not transmitted directly between interacting objects, but instead are described and interrupted by intermediary entities called fields.

By the why. Nice random quote with no cited source?

The above is in the context of actual interaction of objects in existence. There is no claim there is a field in existence independent of interacting objects.


You posted

In physics, a unified field theory (UFT) is a type of field theory that allows all that is usually thought of as fundamental forces and elementary particles to be written in terms of a pair of physical and virtual fields. According to the modern discoveries in physics, forces are not transmitted directly between interacting objects, but instead are described and interrupted by intermediary entities called fields.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Again. There is no claim there is a field independent from the interaction of objects.

Then you make like three more quotes totally void of context.

What the cited source goes on to say

Current status

Edit
Theoretical physicists have not yet formulated a widely accepted, consistent theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics to form a theory of everything. Trying to combine the graviton with the strong and electroweak interactions leads to fundamental difficulties and the resulting theory is not renormalizable. The incompatibility of the two theories remains an outstanding problem in the field of physics.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

What you are trying to do is spin Unified field theory as the new “Aether”. Uniform field theory is not making a claim the observable universe is saturated with this always present uniform field independent of objects. The cited source is quite clear in that it is referring to “interacting objects“. Does electromagnetic waves “interact” with objects. Yes. But those fields caused by electromagnetic radiation interacting with objects are gone when the electromagnetic wave is gone for whatever reason.

Again.
Uniform field theory is not making a claim the observable universe is saturated with this always present uniform field independent of objects.

What uniform field theory is trying to do is “attempted to unify general theory of relativity with electromagnetism”

Or

Uniform field theory is

The current quest for a unified field theory (sometimes called the holy grail of physicists) is largely focused on superstring theory and, in particular, on an adaptation known as M-theory.
whatis.techtarget.com...

M-theory

a simple equation that would reconcile incompatible aspects of his theory of relativity and quantum theory to explain the nature and behavior of all matter and energy
whatis.techtarget.com...

Uniform field theory has nothing to do with some magical force, field, or Aether that is always present and uniformly saturates the observable universe independent of interacting objects.

“Uniform” in uniform filed theory comes from the desire to find the “simple equation that would reconcile incompatible aspects of his theory of relativity and quantum theory to explain the nature and behavior of all matter and energy”. Find the magic bullet of physics equations.

And you trying to spin uniform field theory as the new Aether is right out dishonest

originally posted by: ErosA433

originally posted by: AntonGonist
"Ooh yeah, you see, they are not sure you see.....get it?"

The problem is that science doesnt want to draw a conclusion because it would destroy their preconceived notion. The other problem is that followers of said science arent capable of independant thought and connecting the very obvious dots.

Science simply dismissed the Aether at one point because it would stop the Earth from moving.......

Then it was snuck back in under a different name.

"When you ask what the difference is between the Aether and this universal field all people can do is deny the existence of such a field or say that science is not sure about this field.

Do you people understand that without such a field your model literally falls apart in the first place?

What a joke.

And herein is the issue...
1) You accuse science of being something or doing something, which you actually have no evidence for nore position or actual observation of it doing. You are accusing an entire community of something that they are actually not doing.

Followers of science being incapable of independent thought is already a standard issue red flag that typically means the OP THINKs they know something about science... when fact is... they likely have never been anywhere near an actual scientist. Closest they have been is likely via a TV or streaming service... popular science book maybe.

2) Science didn't dismiss the Aether... they did quite a lot of experiments attempting to prove its existence... they unanimously failed, the scientific method works... we, based on the evidence at hand, can conclude that the Aether as modelled back then, doesn't exist.

3) Citation required on the asking the difference between etc etc... why? well because the issue is language. If you say that in space, you have spacetime, and that throughout all spacetime there are fields. They then go "oh but thats Aether! when its not the same. Just the virtue of there being a field, doesn't mean that fields is automatically an awkward addition that there really is an Aether. There seems to be a conscious level of ignorance on what the Aether is, and a very overly simplified connecting of dots which is happening.

Also i find the word Vacuum gets perverted over and over and over. Vacuum is very different to void. The two are NOT interchangeable and even then i don't think they are even the correct terms people want to use.

Vacuum is a indication of how many particles there are in a volume. I am talking here of classical vacuum, so, everything that can interact strongly. This excludes light.

A Void in the same way, would be an absence of everything and that is where being careful with language is important and not using words interchangeable to try and perform a leading question or running assumptions.

Ending with "What a joke" doesn't add any credibility to your argument it also shows you are not willing or want a discussion, it points more at you wanting an echo chamber in which you can be told you are right about everything.... quite the opposite from debate or discussion.

Thank you for the thoughtful post

a reply to: neutronflux

The above is in the context of actual interaction of objects in existence. There is no claim there is a field in existence independent of interacting objects.

Yes objects in existence. Like light from the sun reaching the Earth. The claim is that there are intermediary fields. You seem to acknowledge this. And this helps your argument how?

Again. There is no claim there is a field independent from the interaction of objects.

The claim is that there is an intermediary field. Where does it say this field is a component of the objects?

Uniform field theory

Still oblivious. I did not say anything about Uniform Field Theory......

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What is more logical.

1.A radio transmitter is exciting an existing universal field and a disturbance is propagated by the field.

2. A radio transmitter summons particles that magically pop into existence from nowhere and are fired through space/Unicorn farts.

originally posted by: AntonGonist
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What is spacetime?

Is EM radiation a disturbance of a field or is it not?

With such basic questions you're asking as these, if you don't know the answer or at least enough to ask more intelligent and more informed questions showing that you've made a modicum of effort to understand these concepts, you're in no position to be saying things like "followers of said science arent capable of independant thought and connecting the very obvious dots".

In addition to your simple questions showing no apparent effort to try to find the answers yourself, your communication in this thread suggests that you don't really want the answers if someone took the time to spoon feed them to you. You keep repeating your mantras based on a false premise that electromagnetic radiation can't propagate without a medium, and this is simply not true.

Back to the topic of the thread, even if there's an aether such as in the Lorentz ether theory which is indistinguishable from relativity, there's no advantage to accepting that idea that I can see over relativity, so why would it matter in any meaningful way? At best it's merely a philosophical question with no impact in terms of models matching observation or not.

So I suggest your focus should be on providing the evidence you have of the aether which you insist exists, which evidence I have so far not seen. You essentially saying you don't understand space-time or electromagnetic radiation is not making your case at all.

I will give you this, these are theoretical physicist Matt Strassler's thoughts related to the topic of your thread, I suggest you try to understand what he's saying:

profmattstrassler.com...

a reply to: AntonGonist

Still oblivious. I did not say anything about Uniform Field Theory......

Would you care to cite the title from the source you were citing? And the link?

The claim is that there is an intermediary field. Where does it say this field is a component of the objects?

Care to actually cite the source and the context you are referring to.

Again..

Why so angry that you have an opinion not supported by science? And only present items out of context? With the concept of Aether that has no support in observable and repeatable experimentation from the last century?

Has the concept of Aether been test for by experimenting? Yes. Would you like to cite a conducted experiment for Aether that shows Aether is a actual fact of this existence?

Great reply...

originally posted by: ErosA433

2) Science didn't dismiss the Aether... they did quite a lot of experiments attempting to prove its existence... they unanimously failed, the scientific method works... we, based on the evidence at hand, can conclude that the Aether as modelled back then, doesn't exist.