What Medium is Propagating Electromagnetic Waves?

a reply to: AntonGonist
We don't have all the answers, just models supported by lots of evidence, and we can say that our models are consistent with the evidence.

As we make more observations, the amount of evidence increases, and that additional evidence either is consistent with existing models or it isn't. If it's consistent we tend to keep using the models that work. If it's not consistent, the models change.

So a bit of a history lesson, back up over 100 years and there was a widespread mainstream science belief that the medium for propagating electromagnetic waves was "luminiferous aether". But scientists don't want to have beliefs, they want to have facts and evidence instead. So, they hypothesized the properties of this supposed luminiferous aether medium and conducted experiments to confirm it's existence, which was widely expected to be confirmed in the experiments as far as I can tell.

However, the experiments from 1902 to 1905 didn't confirm the proposed luminiferous aether, so this was a bit disconcerting for the aether that scientists believed in. Should they keep believing in aether in the absence of evidence for it?

Something else happened in 1905, Einstein's paper on special relativity was published, and neither that nor his 1915 paper on general relativity seemed to require any luminiferous aether to propagate electromagnetic waves. Einstein published another paper in 1905 about the quantum, where he was perhaps one of the first to realize that the electromagnetic energy was quantized into packets called quanta. It wasn't expected but it solved the ultraviolet catastrophe, and modern quantum mechanics eventually evolved after that.

I'm not sure exactly when and how the idea of aether was dropped, but what happened was it seemed like Einstein's relativity made it unnecessary, and no scientifc evidence for it's existence had ever been found, so I get the impression it was just sort of dropped and faded away as a useful idea perhaps starting as far back as 100 years ago. I can't say it's ever been proven not to exist, only that experiments which hypothesize certain properties for such a medium have shown no medium exists with such properties.

There remain a small number of physicists still trying to hypothesize alternate properties for a luminiferous aether, but it has proven to be very difficult to come up with properties which don't contradict observation.

One aether hypothesis which remains is called the Lorentz ether theory. This is the Wikipedia article for it:

Lorentz ether theory

Today LET is often treated as some sort of "Lorentzian" or "neo-Lorentzian" interpretation of special relativity.[1] The introduction of length contraction and time dilation for all phenomena in a "preferred" frame of reference, which plays the role of Lorentz's immobile aether, leads to the complete Lorentz transformation (see the Robertson–Mansouri–Sexl test theory as an example). Because the same mathematical formalism occurs in both, it is not possible to distinguish between LET and SR by experiment. However, in LET the existence of an undetectable aether is assumed and the validity of the relativity principle seems to be only coincidental, which is one reason why SR is commonly preferred over LET.

So in that context the idea of aether is not completely dead, but since it's so far "undetectable", and doesn't seem to be necessary with relativity, that's why the idea has fallen out of favor. Maybe if someone can find a way to actually detect the aether, the idea would regain acceptance, but the current mainstream view is that there just doesn't seem to be any need for it, and since the 1902 to 1905 experiments to find it, subsequent much more sensitive experiments have been conducted to try to find it and all have found that if it exists, it's "undetectable" to any scientific certainty.

A physicist named Delbert Larson posts here sometimes. He has a sort of Lorentzian aether concept but a little different and he has some ideas on how it might be detected, but there doesn't seem to be much incentive to conduct more such experiments since there's no widespread need seen to find something that our current models say isn't really necessary.

Personally I try to remain open to idea's such as Dr. Larsons aether idea, but if we are ever to get mainstream to go back to accepting an aether, we will need to find some way to make it detectable in experiment. Otherwise we are stuck at this impasse that "I think aether exists which is indistinguishable from relativity" with the reply "Where is your evidence for it?".

The next round is "I don't have any evidence" and the reply to that is "get back to me when you do".

Lastly the final and most stunning "confirmation" of general relativity was found in recent years in the detection of gravitational waves. By the way those waves propagate in space-time, so if they can do it, why not electromagnetic waves too? So it's not exactly the nail in the coffin of aether, but this final stunning confirmation of general relativity seems to remove the need for luminiferous aether even more, showing Einstein's model was apparently on the right track.

originally posted by: AntonGonist
a reply to: 35Foxtrot

So what is the medium, mr. Simple?

Seriously?

I see you're new here, so I'm cutting you some slack.

There's no way I'm gonna be able to teach you physics on ATS.

Pick up a book. But, I highly suspect you're trolling in an attempt to confirm some new-agey bias you have.

Good luck with that.

originally posted by: AntonGonist
a reply to: Sanitarium79

Can you say something of substance instead of the "nuh ah you dumb lalalala".

Staunch believers of philosophical materialism are like evangelical Christians. You can't question the dogma!!!!

Waves, particles, mathematical equations, what difference does it make! What is the IT that decides it's time to collapse the waveform in double slit type experiments is not going to be solved anytime soon.



Philosophical materialism is just a fairy tale belief no different than any other fairy tale. The important thing is never question the existence of Jesus!!!

a reply to: 35Foxtrot

Sorry all I am hearing is fart sounds fading away into the distance........you ran on the first question. Bye you served your purpose, thank you.

I shure have no profound knowledge in this field. But aren't some quantum mechanics indicating that the observer has some influence onto the results?

Maybe mass, gravity, "field", will become clearer once there is a model that includes bthe observer as an essential part?

Clueless guess at best

originally posted by: AntonGonist
a reply to: 35Foxtrot

Sorry all I am hearing is fart sounds fading away into the distance........you ran on the first question. Bye you served your purpose, thank you.

You know what? I like you!

Really, I do!

You're really sticking with it; the whole trolling thing.

It makes me happy that some new age idiot actually has the tenacity to stand by their stupidity and double down on it.

Maybe there is hope for us as a species.

On a personal note, Netflix and chill?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Not sure who the history lesson was for.

By the way those waves propagate in space-time, so if they can do it, why not electromagnetic waves too?

What is spacetime?

In physics, spacetime is any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum.

Spacetime is not a thing that vibrates. The mathematical concept of dimensions and time is not a thing that can vibrate. If you are going to claim that EM radiation is a disturbance of a medium, you are saying there is an Aether like medium. If you are going to claim that EM radiation is a disturbance of a medium, you should not claim that sources of EM radiation are emitting particles. Can you perhaps reflect on these main points of my thread.

However, the experiments from 1902 to 1905 didn't confirm the proposed luminiferous aether, so this was a bit disconcerting for the aether that scientists believed in. Should they keep believing in aether in the absence of evidence for it?

Or did they. Seems yet more stuff had to be made up to invalidate the results that pointed at the existence of the Aether. But thats another thread.

a reply to: AntonGonist

Maybe dark energy is the medium and there is no such thing as a vacuum.

Propagation of electromagnetic waves

a reply to: AntonGonist

I'd offer to send you a book on Physics but I fear that you would just colour it in with crayons.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Or you could try to apply your booksmart and say something that actually answers a point I made. Like I said. Good talk.

a reply to: AntonGonist
Nah, I don't feed trolls.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Im pretty sure its because you dont have an answer. Thank you too.

a reply to: AntonGonist

You agree there is an Aether like field.

REPLY




the world/universe/Cosmos in which we exist is not an Aether nor is it a familiar Space-time fabric… it is Known as The Continuum….

for at least the last 100 years in the Metaphysics Community the Continuum is the Name of the physical/volume of Space in which we exist...
The Continuum is also what gets 'disturbed' to let Dowsers/Witchers know what is unseen and hidden in the Earth below (like deep water sources or Ley Lines of energy)


in Star Wars it is called the Force… instead of the 'Continuum'

originally posted by: AntonGonist
Spacetime is not a thing that vibrates. The mathematical concept of dimensions and time is not a thing that can vibrate. If you are going to claim that EM radiation is a disturbance of a medium, you are saying there is an Aether like medium. If you are going to claim that EM radiation is a disturbance of a medium, you should not claim that sources of EM radiation are emitting particles. Can you perhaps reflect on these main points of my thread.

Thousands of scientists have reflected on these issues for many thousands of hours. The bottom line is that your comments seem to boil down to telling nature what it can and can't do.

Nature is under no obligation to obey your dictates. We observe what it does, and then try to explain it. Our current models are our best attempt at doing so. If you've got a better model, get it published and let scientists evaluate it, but I see no evidence you do if you're not giving any alternate explanation of observations.

It's not really helping anything to say "the current models are wrong" unless you have something better to offer.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Its not helping if you post something but say nothing, either. My points are very clear. Noone seems to be able to give an answer.

This should tell you something.

I have something better to offer. I did. The existence of the Aether. Problem is that this would bring the currently popular model to a screeching halt.

a reply to: AntonGonist

We could argue so is mathematics, but it's still the language of our universe, with the constants Phi, Pi, and G waging her tail.

Apparently, it's all 11 dimensional, but we don't perceive the rest even though we may interact with them all the time.

Does the case for the Aether not also imply or support the Electric Universe theory?

a reply to: AntonGonist

I thought that the Michelson-Morley experiment brought the idea of the Aether to a screeching halt?

a reply to: andy06shake

We could argue so is mathematics, but it's still the language of our universe, with the constants Phi, Pi, and G waging her tail.

But mathematics are simply not a medium, so spacetime is not a medium either. It is a mathematical concept of dimension and time.

Does the case for the Aether not also imply or support the Electric Universe theory?

Yes I would say it definately could.

a reply to: AntonGonist

Well is reality real?

If space-time is not a thing then how come it's expanding?

At best, the electric universe is a solution in search of a problem, seeking to explain things we already understand very well through gravity, plasma and nuclear physics, and the like.

a reply to: AntonGonist

Double Post my bad.