[McQueen]

I remember Pierre Trudeau.......

[McQueen]

Sound waves require a medium. Photons do not. In space no one can hear you scream.

Sometimes you exceed all expectations with your brilliantly insightful statements! Yes, of course sound needs a medium  and light must do so too, which is the whole point of this discussion. An electron is a tiny particle about 10^-16m in diameter, it has a limited charge 1.6 x 10^-19 C. Yet here you are happily rounding on everyone else, claiming that the vibration of that tiny electron and that tiny charge can create a self sustaining wave that will travel for millions and billions of kilometres, while all the time  dispersing its energy in accordance with the inverse square rule. AND you see absolutely nothing wrong with this scenario ?

[stacyjones]

Sometimes you exceed all expectations with your brilliantly insightful statements! Yes, of course sound needs a medium  and light must do so too, which is the whole point of this discussion. An electron is a tiny particle about 10^-16m in diameter, it has a limited charge 1.6 x 10^-19 C. Yet here you are happily rounding on everyone else, claiming that the vibration of that tiny electron and that tiny charge can create a self sustaining wave that will travel for millions and billions of kilometres, while all the time  dispersing its energy in accordance with the inverse square rule. AND you see absolutely nothing wrong with this scenario ?

All because, for some strange reason, 'they' can't bring themselves to understand 'empty' space has mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. The wave of wave-particle duality is a wave in the mass which fills 'empty' space.

[Arthur Geddes]

From the perspective of the photon, it CAN'T disperse its energy; "dispersion" has no meaning in a non-temporal construct.

Absolute Relativity.

[Arthur Geddes]

Relative to the photon; seeing as how the photon has no perspective.

[McQueen]

From the perspective of the photon, it CAN'T disperse its energy; "dispersion" has no meaning in a non-temporal construct.
Absolute Relativity.

Forget about the photons perspective for the moment and think about your perspective. Do photons appear to disperse according to the inverse square law or is the wave function responsible for presenting an illusion that it appears to do so ?  Just asking. Further the word 'temporal' is defined as relating to time. This being so how  does a photon exist in a non temporal construct ?  In a more direct sense you are right of course the photon does retain its energy or identity I should have said intensity, not energy. The problem with this is that Quantum Mechanics insists that a single photon can be emitted from an electron and travel for ever or until it meets another electron that requires that particular energy and is absorbed. Take for instance the Voyager Transmissions, how does the radiation spread out so that it is detected at every point in the cone of transmission. To say that it is only present where it is detected is just clever () language in the end.  Would you agree with this ?

[McQueen]

All because, for some strange reason, 'they' can't bring themselves to understand 'empty' space has mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it. The wave of wave-particle duality is a wave in the mass which fills 'empty' space.

Agreed, in fact to take it for granted that such vast spaces are completely void of anything is in itself quite remarkably short-sighted. It is only recently that this perspective is changing with the introduction of theories relating to dark matter and dark energy. Your theory of space having mass might have some merit but like any other theory it will need a lot of work and substantiation before it can win even token acceptance. Look at Newton and the care he took over his theories keeping them hidden and working on them for twenty years or more before finally publishing. Einstein of course was the exception, his ideas catching the public and scientific imagination as soon as he published them.

[stacyjones]

Agreed, in fact to take it for granted that such vast spaces are completely void of anything is in itself quite remarkably short-sighted. It is only recently that this perspective is changing with the introduction of theories relating to dark matter and dark energy. Your theory of space having mass might have some merit but like any other theory it will need a lot of work and substantiation before it can win even token acceptance. Look at Newton and the care he took over his theories keeping them hidden and working on them for twenty years or more before finally publishing. Einstein of course was the exception, his ideas catching the public and scientific imagination as soon as he published them.

[0903.3802] The Milky Way's dark matter halo appears to be lopsided
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3802

"the emerging picture of the dark matter halo of the Milky Way is dominantly lopsided in nature."

The Milky Way's halo is not a clump of dark matter traveling along with the Milky Way. The Milky Way's halo is lopsided due to the matter in the Milky Way moving through and displacing the aether, analogous to a submarine moving through and displacing the water.

'Offset between dark matter and ordinary matter: evidence from a sample of 38 lensing clusters of galaxies'
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1004/1004.1475v1.pdf

"Our data strongly support the idea that the gravitational potential in clusters is mainly due to a non-baryonic fluid, and any exotic field in gravitational theory must resemble that of CDM fields very closely."

The offset is due to the galaxy clusters moving through and displacing the aether. The analogy is a submarine moving through the water. You are under water. Two miles away from you are many lights. Moving between you and the lights one mile away is a submarine. The submarine displaces the water. The state of displacement of the water causes the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water to be offset from the center of the submarine itself. The offset between the center of the lensing of the light propagating through the water displaced by the submarine and the center of the submarine itself is going to remain the same as the submarine moves through the water. The submarine continually displaces different regions of the water. The state of the water connected to and neighboring the submarine remains the same as the submarine moves through the water even though it is not the same water the submarine continually displaces. This is what is occurring physically in nature as the galaxy clusters move through and displace the aether.

Galactic Pile-Up May Point to Mysterious New Dark Force in the Universe'
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/01/musket-ball-dark-force/

"The reason this is strange is that dark matter is thought to barely interact with itself. The dark matter should just coast through itself and move at the same speed as the hardly interacting galaxies. Instead, it looks like the dark matter is crashing into something — perhaps itself – and slowing down faster than the galaxies are. But this would require the dark matter to be able to interact with itself in a completely new an unexpected way, a “dark force” that affects only dark matter."

It's not a new force. It's the aether displaced by the galaxies piling up as the galaxies pass by each other, analogous to the bow waves of two boats which pass by each other closely.

[Arthur Geddes]

From the perspective of the photon, it CAN'T disperse its energy; "dispersion" has no meaning in a non-temporal construct.
Absolute Relativity.

Forget about the photons perspective for the moment and think about your perspective.

Forget about neither; they are both valid if both are real *things:* so says A.R..

Do photons appear to disperse according to the inverse square law or is the wave function responsible for presenting an illusion that it appears to do so ?

It is an illusion not a delusion.  The point of "photon" is that it does not disperse; relative to the photon it's easy to see how that could be since there's no temporal dimension relative to the "dispersing E.M. field."  Relative to the photon there is only one "cycle" which presents to the photon as the photon structure.  Assuming a simple H atom's 1s² to 1s¹ "decay," do i see a curl?

Further the word 'temporal' is defined as relating to time. This being so how  does a photon exist in a non temporal construct ?

In spherical coordinates; there is no radius & no time: there's only a shell.  (The Tao!  ha ha, i jest ...?)

  In a more direct sense you are right of course the photon does retain its energy or identity I should have said intensity, not energy. The problem with this is that Quantum Mechanics insists that a single photon can be emitted from an electron and travel for ever or until it meets another electron that requires that particular energy and is absorbed. Take for instance the Voyager Transmissions, how does the radiation spread out so that it is detected at every point in the cone of transmission. To say that it is only present where it is detected is just clever () language in the end.  Would you agree with this ?

Is it any different than saying a particle takes two paths at once?  How to explain entanglement, though ..?  & what about relativity? There is still a quantization to be had; one electron per E.M. field shell.

Articulation is a test of language.

[jeffreyH]

Sound waves require a medium. Photons do not. In space no one can hear you scream.

Sometimes you exceed all expectations with your brilliantly insightful statements! Yes, of course sound needs a medium  and light must do so too, which is the whole point of this discussion. An electron is a tiny particle about 10^-16m in diameter, it has a limited charge 1.6 x 10^-19 C. Yet here you are happily rounding on everyone else, claiming that the vibration of that tiny electron and that tiny charge can create a self sustaining wave that will travel for millions and billions of kilometres, while all the time  dispersing its energy in accordance with the inverse square rule. AND you see
Show
 nothing wrong with this scenario ?

Show me where on planet McQueen that I mentioned electrons. I did mention photons. Or are you trying to deliberately mislead your audience into thinking I said something that I definitely did not. That is not a very honest way to behave and says a lot about your approach to debate.

[McQueen]

Show me where on planet McQueen that I mentioned electrons. I did mention photons. Or are you trying to deliberately mislead your audience into thinking I said something that I definitely did not. That is not a very honest way to behave and says a lot about your approach to debate.

Surely photons originate in or from electrons ? Why is that so completely off-topic that I am misleading the 'audience' ?

[PmbPhy]

Show me where on planet McQueen that I mentioned electrons. I did mention photons. Or are you trying to deliberately mislead your audience into thinking I said something that I definitely did not. That is not a very honest way to behave and says a lot about your approach to debate.

Surely photons originate in or from electrons ? Why is that so completely off-topic that I am misleading the 'audience' ?

The answer to your question is very clear. If indeed you asserted that Jeff said or implied that he said, something that he didn't then that'd be quite misleading. Did you say that Jeff mentioned electrons?

[PmbPhy]

Yes, of course sound needs a medium  and light must do so too, which is the whole point of this discussion.

That is absolutely wrong. In no way does light require a medium to travel. There's noting in EM theory which requires it to do so. Light is a time varying electromagnetic wave which means that an electric and magnetic fields, which require no medium to exist, when varying in time become detached from their sources and propagate in space as an EM wave. That's quite different than the kinds of waves which require a medium. In fact what we refer to as "waves which require a medium" is actually the medium itself varying in time and space, quite unlike and EM wave.

It would be best if you didn't make claims about something when you're not knowledgeable in it. If it's your own theory then you're posting it in the wrong forum.

[stacyjones]

NON-LINEAR WAVE MECHANICS A CAUSAL INTERPRETATION by LOUIS DE BROGLIE

“Since 1954, when this passage was written, I have come to support wholeheartedly an hypothesis proposed by Bohm and Vigier. According to this hypothesis, the random perturbations to which the particle would be constantly subjected, and which would have the probability of presence in terms of [the wave-function wave], arise from the interaction of the particle with a “subquantic medium” which escapes our observation and is entirely chaotic, and which is everywhere present in what we call “empty space”.”

The “subquantic medium” is the aether.

‘Fluid mechanics suggests alternative to quantum orthodoxy’
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/fluid-systems-quantum-mechanics-0912

“The fluidic pilot-wave system is also chaotic. It’s impossible to measure a bouncing droplet’s position accurately enough to predict its trajectory very far into the future. But in a recent series of papers, Bush, MIT professor of applied mathematics Ruben Rosales, and graduate students Anand Oza and Dan Harris applied their pilot-wave theory to show how chaotic pilot-wave dynamics leads to the quantumlike statistics observed in their experiments.”

A “fluidic pilot-wave system” is the aether.

‘When Fluid Dynamics Mimic Quantum Mechanics’
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130729111934.htm

“If you have a system that is deterministic and is what we call in the business ‘chaotic,’ or sensitive to initial conditions, sensitive to perturbations, then it can behave probabilistically,” Milewski continues. “Experiments like this weren’t available to the giants of quantum mechanics. They also didn’t know anything about chaos. Suppose these guys — who were puzzled by why the world behaves in this strange probabilistic way — actually had access to experiments like this and had the knowledge of chaos, would they have come up with an equivalent, deterministic theory of quantum mechanics, which is not the current one? That’s what I find exciting from the quantum perspective.”

What waves in a double slit experiment is the aether.

It is the chaotic nature of the aether which is the It is the vacuum energy. It is the chaotic nature of the aether which causes the Casimir effect. The following is analogous to the chaotic nature of the aether and how it causes the Casimir effect.

[Atomic-S]

What is the Higgs field, what is the Dirac field, what is the electromagnetic field, and how do they relate to all this?  They must relate in some way, because each of these fields is associated with a type of particle.

[stacyjones]

What is the Higgs field, what is the Dirac field, what is the electromagnetic field, and how do they relate to all this?  They must relate in some way, because each of these fields is associated with a type of particle.

Particles of matter are condensations of the aether. It is often incorrectly stated that the Higgs gives mass to matter. The Higgs does not give mass to matter. The aether has mass. The Higgs describes the mechanism by which aether condenses into particles of matter.

Maxwell's displacement current is a physical displacement of the aether.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Luminiferous_aether

James Clerk Maxwell said of the aether, "In several parts of this treatise an attempt has been made to explain electromagnetic phenomena by means of mechanical action transmitted from one body to another by means of a medium occupying the space between them. The undulatory theory of light also assumes the existence of a medium. We have now to show that the properties of the electromagnetic medium are identical with those of the luminiferous medium."

[Atomic-S]

Here's another thing that needs to be  explained:  If the waves associated with gravity, with the double-slit experiment, and electron diffraction are all waves in the aether, then there needs to be some explanation as to why the three waves in question behave differently. Specifically, the mathematics of the gravitional wave indicate a quadrupolar character, which, if a linearly polarized beam of such waves were to be scattered at right angles to the direction of propagation by an appropriate target, the scattered energy would vary in intensity with respect to angle in the scattered plane according to cos²(2Θ), Θ being the directional angle. If a beam of linearly polarized electromagnetic waves is scattered at right angles by a suitable target, we find that its intensity varies with angle according to cos²(Θ) .  If a polarized beam of electrons is similarly scattered, the scattered intensity varies as cos²(Θ/2) .  So it appears the vibrations are not alike.  Interestingly, the spins of the associated particles are, theoretically for the gravtion if it exists: 2; for the photon: 1; for the electron: 1/2.  So that in general, we have the situation that the wave associated with a paricle of spin n, will scatter as cos²(nΘ) .   A right understanding of aether must be able to account for this.

[McQueen]

The answer to your question is very clear. If indeed you asserted that Jeff said or implied that he said, something that he didn't then that'd be quite misleading. Did you say that Jeff mentioned electrons?

No, I did not say that electrons were mentioned, what I did say was that electrons were pertinent to the subject and therefore not off topic. How can you talk of electromagnetic radiation OR photons without talking about electrons ? Was a complaint made to you in this regard, or is this investigation something done  on your own initiative  ?

[McQueen]

That is absolutely wrong. In no way does light require a medium to travel. There's noting in EM theory which requires it to do so. Light is a time varying electromagnetic wave which means that an electric and magnetic fields, which require no medium to exist, when varying in time become detached from their sources and propagate in space as an EM wave. That's quite different than the kinds of waves which require a medium. In fact what we refer to as "waves which require a medium" is actually the medium itself varying in time and space, quite unlike and EM wave.

Forgive if I am mistaken but I was under the impression that the idea that it was electrons that created the electric and magnetic fields through which electromagnetic radiation propagates was no longer acceptable, the electric and magnetic fields have a separate existence.
Is this not acceptable to you as a medium

[Atomic-S]

Particles of matter are condensations of the aether.

"Condensations" may not be the correct term. The electromagnetic field is regarded as a quantum field, which means that it can, for a specific propagation mode, take on only discrete amplitudes that are determined by the wavelength. Note that I did not say that it takes on only discrete wavelengths, which is also true if it is confined to a specific region, but that its amplitude takes on only specific values (and when it does, it loses classical properties of definite phase). Such behavior is impossible for a classical wave such as described by Maxwells equations, but requires a different kind of wave equation. We should not regard this as a contradiction to Maxwell's equations, but can regard Maxwell's equations as the macroscopic expression of this quantum situation in the aggregate of probable behavior when dealing with substantial quanties of energy.  But the important point here is that if the electromagnetic field is thus quantized, then it automatically exhibits discrete units of energy, and that this explains what we call photons.  However, it is not a good picture to speak of such discrete energy legvels as condensations.  It would be better to refer to them as differences in energy level. And interestingly enough, one consequence of this view of the photon is that, because it is not a condensation of anything but rather a wave property, it  need not have a definite location. However, being a wavelike phenomenon, it would appear compatible with an aether of some kind, so that we end up with the interpretation that the photon is simply an energy difference between two permissible energy states of the aether.