0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Why do we still try to ignore this most elemental historical fact?
We know that the empty space has two properties. Maxwell held these to be electric permittivity and magnetic permeability.
Namaan:There is strong evidence to suggest that atomic and sub-atomic particles do exist. However, as far as I am aware, nobody has ever captured a photon. Photons are only detected when they interact with matter. Photons can behave like particles, but they can also behave like waves. All forms of EM radiation, including visible light, are attributed to photons.I think we still have a lot to learn!
If you look up fabric of electromagnetic space you will get an alternative electric view of the universeCliveS
I'd say that everything is on a spectrum (ie, no real absolutes), and it seems that there's approximately ...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN of outer space.
I'm talking about space, the dark empty stuff, itself being some form of exotic structure or otherwise. This is implied from how space next to a mass is able to bend, compress, expand (via relativity) just like air does (via Newtonian physics). Is there a clear difference that would preclude us from treating space as a medium for EM waves as we would air for sound waves?
Hey all,This is something that recently caught my attention. I'm no expert at all so I'm hoping someone can point me in the right direction. I was reading about the velocity of waves for my physics class and what determines it (i.e. how the velocity isn't determined by either the wavelength or frequency, provided there's no shift of medium). Anyway, it piqued my curiosity when I started reading about EM waves. I know space is supposed to be "medium-less", but doesn't it bend and compress via relativity (i.e. being next to a massive object) just like air does (well...for a different reason)? Can space be treated as a medium?If space is thought of as a medium, does it have a density like other mediums? A mass?
Okay. I'm interested in the idea that space is the norm and that matter is the exception that displaces space thereby causing gravitational forces. Has anyone heard of this?
Quote from: Geezer on 20/01/2010 05:11:14Quote from: DiscoverDave on 20/01/2010 03:26:42Okay. I'm interested in the idea that space is the norm and that matter is the exception that displaces space thereby causing gravitational forces. Has anyone heard of this? I'm not sure it's all that different from String Theory, although I confess I gave up trying to understand string theory when it got into more dimensions than I could handle.I'm with you on String Theory. I got as far as 10 dimensions and vibrating strings, and I said to myself, "Okay, that more than I needed to know. Next wacko theory, and a bit fewer dimensions, please, I'm trying to hold onto my sanity." What if, instead of being "nothing", space is "something" ... but a "something" that's incompatible with matter, so matter displaces it, and this displacement causes gravity. It's not the matter that causes gravity, but the displacement of space. We can't measure the "something-ness" of space because you can't measure it with equipment -- maybe because matter and space are incompatible.
Quote from: DiscoverDave on 20/01/2010 03:26:42Okay. I'm interested in the idea that space is the norm and that matter is the exception that displaces space thereby causing gravitational forces. Has anyone heard of this? I'm not sure it's all that different from String Theory, although I confess I gave up trying to understand string theory when it got into more dimensions than I could handle.
Just to make sure that this thread appropriately receives the full attention of the mainstream school of thought, I'll lay out a controversial claim: if one thing is clear from the responses, it seems that there is no good solid reason to rule out space from behaving as a medium. And a related point being, as mentioned in the title, that space may have a density, and thus a 'mass' and 'volume'.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "density." Space certainly isn't like air, for example, which carries sound waves and behaves differently depending on its density. Air is a medium since the air itself is wiggling about to transmit the waves.The current understanding is that space is filled with fields, and these fields can carry energy/matter in the form of waves/particles. Space itself isn't a medium since the space isn't waving. It might distort a little due to concentrations of matter and energy, but it isn't wiggling like the waves passing through it. However, even "empty" space still has these fields in it, and due to quantum mechanics, the fields can never have zero energy (even at the lowest possible energy, they have slightly non-zero energy). In a sense, therefore, empty space does have an energy associated with it.
Since we don't have a clue as to what space is made of,other than the fact that is full of EM, how do we know it is magnetized?
With that said, why couldn't we say that the density of space is the amount of energy in a given volume of space?