light waves?

[fedeykin]

<p>ok, so waves usualy travel on some sort of medium.&nbsp; like waves in water</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>water waves are energy moving through water.</p><p>so the question, what medium do light waves travel on?</p><p>how can light move through a vacuum? &nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[killium]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>ok, so waves usualy travel on some sort of medium.&nbsp; like waves in water&nbsp;water waves are energy moving through water.so the question, what medium do light waves travel on?how can light move through a vacuum? &nbsp; <br />Posted by fedeykin</DIV><br /></p><p>Electromagnetics waves are thier own medium. The electric field generates a perpendicular magnetic field, and the magnetic field generates a perpendicular&nbsp;electrical field, and this repeats indefinatly in a yet again perpendicular direction.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>ok, so waves usualy travel on some sort of medium.&nbsp; like waves in water&nbsp;water waves are energy moving through water.so the question, what medium do light waves travel on?how can light move through a vacuum? &nbsp; <br /> Posted by fedeykin</DIV><br />light used to be waves in ether medium that was said to fill the space</p><p>then it was particles (photons) in vacuum (in empty space) and light was taken to be action of multitude of photon particles which in their aggregate could be taken as quasi waves&nbsp; </p><p>after we got Quantum mechanics and particles were waves or particles depending on how one chose to detect them, light was again thought to be waves - photon particles would be waves when traveling undisturbed and hence we had the true wave behaviour of light again and it happened in empty space</p><p>electric & magnetic fields are understood (I believe) to be the result of multitude of photons - electric forces as such (between charged particles) are taken to be the result of (multitude of) photon exchange... but that is all really obscure if you asked me, it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny and I for one never believed it</p><p>electric (and magnetic) fields or field concept as such is a macroscopic concept of what goes on and as such it should be taken with some poetic licence untill one studdied physics more deeply, it is similar to the concept of heat which looses its meaning when one gets deep enough into physics to particle level &nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>since we know from experiments that virtual particles can be teased out of vacuum of space if enough energetical disturbance happens (how even virtual particles can pop up from empty space is a mirracle - I mean even Jesus needed something (was it stones?) to convert it to bread, he didn't make it out of nothing), one might think of E/M waves as due to photons exchange particles (mediators of electric and magnetic forces) which on their travel tease out of vacuum charged particles which are then responsible for electromagnetic forces of photon waves (since those waves act on real charged particles such as in antena) </p><p>however this last sketchy explanation is rather nebulous and probably it is not the offical physics view, its just what I think what the view might be if somebody bothered to supply such explanation, typically one learns all this from mathematical point of view and no physical picture is really needed or supplied or pushed on students, only troublesome pupils ask questions like that LOL somebody will certainly want to correct or even reject such view, I'd certainly like if somebody presented integrated physical picture of current views regarding elmag waves</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>also I am sure I jumped over the history of physics with very rough boots but it should give one the idea at least, bottom line is that physics is not as accomplished discipline finished in its fundamentals as it may appear to be if one glosses over its physical details like these, when one doesn't gloss over them one sees lots of scope for original work that is badly needed</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jessez13]

First of all space is not empty, it is full of energy (Electromagnetic fields, Gravitational fields, light, ...) and from this energy you can make any known particle (matter or anti-matter).&nbsp; This energy is not just sitting around it is interacting, gravitational, electromagnetic, quantum...&nbsp;&nbsp; If you combine an electron-positron pair you create two photons or two photons can create an electron-positron pair.&nbsp; If the photons do not have enough energy to create a separate electron and a proton, think Colomb Potential, then they will combine again creating two photons.&nbsp; There are nearly an infinite number of such interactions happening at one time.&nbsp; These are what I call virtual particles and virtual photons.&nbsp; Virtual because you never "see" them.&nbsp; Seeing being a more substantial interaction of its own.&nbsp; This sea of energy is what light is traveling through.&nbsp; This is the background on which all interactions (electrical, magnetic, gravitational, quantum...) happen.

 

[vandivx]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>sea of energy</p><p>Posted by jessez13</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>all energy is ALWAYS an energy of something, energy reffers to what <strong>something </strong>has (ie., mass has energy), it is not something that can exist on its own as some physical existent but is always just an <strong><font color="#ff0000">attribute </font></strong>of such existents, so your 'sea of energy' begs some physical something - sea of something - which has that energy </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>energy can also only be absorbed by or transfered to something, not by space or to space as such (which is abstract concept), those virtual&nbsp; or real particles 'poping out of space' really cannot be poping out of nothing given that space is <strong>not </strong>something physical as official physics holds it to be - actually it is of two minds so to speak on this issue (it wants to eat the cake and also keep it - meaning that space is sort of physical without really being such when it comes down to it, depending on what one is explaining at the moment (like if one is denying absolute space or an ether, the space becomes vacuum or just an abstract notion, ie., nothing at all whereas if one is talking about the vacuum of space of quantum mechanics, the space suddenly becomes a place very much alive and physical) </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>given that one created particle is as perfect a carbon coppy of any other one of its kind as can be, it would be truly <strong>magic </strong>if they popped out identical like that out of nothing (out of space), simply just because sufficient energy was available, one would really have to start believing in God as guarantor of the uniformity of particles if such would be the case</p><p> on the other hand if there were some definite physical structure in space (or is space were such structure), then it would make sense that if this structure was disturbed in a certain way and a particle popped out of it, virtual or real, that another one just like that would pop out given the same disturbance of that structure at any other later time point (absorption of energy) </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>basically what I am saying is that if one wants to have cookies the same, one needs to have a cookie cutter - space has to have certain structure and structure implies something physical - again one can't have cookies without dough same as one can't have particles made 'just out of energy' (which I said was not a physical thing but an attribute of them)</p><p>energy is what creates them in the sense of supplying the impetus for them to pop up but it can't make them up as such, by analogy if you supply enough energy with some sharp object and rip a stocking so that it develps a 'run', you needed a stocking to exist in the first place so you would have had something to apply the energy to, energy alone is not enough to create particles out of nothing, no more than it can create 'runs' in the absence of stockings, nevermind the e=mc2 equation </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UncertainH]

<p>If the 'sea of energy' is the quantum vacuum then any particle that pops into existence , its counterpart also does and they anhiliate each other. Its that law of conservation of energy thing. The exception apparently is Hawking radiation which proposes that the anti=particle and particle get separated at the event horizon of a black hole one falling in and the other not. I think that is just theory at this point.</p><p>Then of course there is the aether which has fallen out of favour sine the Michelson-Morley experiment.</p><p>One thing that strikes me is that apparently in the frame of reference of a photon is sees no length so it cannot have a wave length in its frame of reference. One way I like to think about it is to look at a light across a body of water, it looks like a point of light. Look at it across the surface of the water (you need a little wind to make ripples) and it looks like a wave. It all depends on how you look at it</p>

 

[vandivx]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>One thing that strikes me is that apparently in the frame of reference of a photon is sees no length so it cannot have a wave length in its frame of reference. One way I like to think about it is to look at a light across a body of water, it looks like a point of light. Look at it across the surface of the water (you need a little wind to make ripples) and it looks like a wave. It all depends on how you look at it <br /> Posted by UncertainH</DIV></p><p>that harks back to another recent thread discussion, I found that topic discussed on another forum and it makes for an interesting read, especially the thread's closing post&nbsp;</p><p>http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-207488.html</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UncertainH]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>that harks back to another recent thread discussion, I found that topic discussed on another forum and it makes for an interesting read, especially the thread's closing post&nbsp;http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-207488.html <br />Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>It was interesting and the last post basically says to take our crazy ideas and post them elsewhere is that what you are trying to tell me ?</p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>,,,by analogy if you supply enough energy with some sharp object and rip a stocking so that it develps a 'run', you needed a stocking to exist in the first place so you would have had something to apply the energy to, energy alone is not enough to create particles out of nothing, no more than it can create 'runs' in the absence of stockings, nevermind the e=mc2 equation <br />Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>Maybe you ought to pay more attention to "the e=mc2 equation".&nbsp; It means what it says.&nbsp; Matter and energy are but two aspects of one thing.&nbsp; You cannot cleary distinguish between the two.</p><p>If anything can be considered to be pure energy it is the photon.&nbsp; And it is indeed possible for two photons of sufficiently high energy to collide and create a pair of particles, one particle and one anti-particle, that have rest mass.&nbsp; By anyone's definition that is a creation of matter from energy.&nbsp; </p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UncertainH]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And it is indeed possible for two photons of sufficiently high energy to collide and create a pair of particles, one particle and one anti-particle, that have rest mass.&nbsp; By anyone's definition that is a creation of matter from energy.&nbsp; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Just to clarify.&nbsp;Pair production requires a nucleus and a single photon. 2 photons colliding doesn't actually do anything other than maybe create an interference pattern. You might want to re-read that definition.</p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Just to clarify.&nbsp;Pair production requires a nucleus and a single photon. 2 photons colliding doesn't actually do anything other than maybe create an interference pattern. You might want to re-read that definition. <br />Posted by UncertainH</DIV></p><p>Your clarification is not correct.&nbsp; The Wiki article showed an example in which a single photon interacting with a nucleus produced an electron-positron pair.&nbsp; The nucleus participates in that scenario in absorbing some of the momentum of the photon.&nbsp; In any pair production both momentum and energy must be conserved.&nbsp; One consequence of this fact is that a particle anti-particle pair cannot be produced by a single photon without the involvement of some other particle.</p><p>But two photons, of sufficiently high energy, can collide and produce a particle pair.&nbsp; That is exactly what is thought to have happened in the early universe.&nbsp; The photons involved must have sufficient energy to account for the rest mass of the particles created, and that requires very energetic photons.&nbsp; But if the energy level is&nbsp;high enough the collision can produce&nbsp;massive particles, without need for a nucleus to be involved.&nbsp; Here is a passage from Steven Weinberg;s book <em>The First Three Minutes</em> talking about that process. </p><p>http://books.google.com/books?id=oxfoF_gasvsC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=particle+antiparticle+pair+from+two+photons&source=web&ots=rhWIOqeGYb&sig=8nIgMS7totyuTpAMatLVMpyzTtw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UncertainH]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your clarification is not correct.&nbsp; The Wiki article showed and example in which a single photon interacting with a nucleus produced an electron-positron pair.&nbsp; The nucleus participates in that scenario in absorbing some of the momentum of the photon.&nbsp; In any pair production both momentum and energy must be conserved.&nbsp; One consequence of this fact is that a particle anti-particle pair cannot be produced by a single photon without the involvement of some other particle.But two photons, of sufficiently high energy, can collide and produce a particle pair.&nbsp; That is exactly what is thought to have happened in the early universe.&nbsp; The photons involved must have sufficient energy to account for the rest mass of the particles created, and that requires very energetic photons.&nbsp; But if the energy level is&nbsp;high enough the collision can produce&nbsp;massive particles, without need for a nucleus to be involved.&nbsp; Here is a passage from Steven Weinberg;s book The First Three Minutes talking about that process. http://books.google.com/books?id=oxfoF_gasvsC&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=particle+antiparticle+pair+from+two+photons&source=web&ots=rhWIOqeGYb&sig=8nIgMS7totyuTpAMatLVMpyzTtw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Thanks, also here:</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-photon_physics&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>

 

[vandivx]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Replying to:<br /><div class="Discussion_PostQuote">Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>,,,by analogy if you supply enough energy with some sharp object and rip a stocking so that it develps a 'run', you needed a stocking to exist in the first place so you would have had something to apply the energy to, energy alone is not enough to create particles out of nothing, no more than it can create 'runs' in the absence of stockings, nevermind the e=mc2 equation <br />Posted by vandivx </DIV><br /></div><p>Maybe you ought to pay more attention to "the e=mc2 equation".&nbsp; It means what it says.&nbsp; Matter and energy are but two aspects of one thing.&nbsp; You cannot cleary distinguish between the two.</p><p>If anything can be considered to be pure energy it is the photon.&nbsp; And it is indeed possible for two photons of sufficiently high energy to collide and create a pair of particles, one particle and one anti-particle, that have rest mass.&nbsp; <font color="#008000">By anyone's definition that is a creation of matter from energy.&nbsp;</font> </p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>well, not by my definition </p><p>your example (of energy in the form of photons creating matter - particle antiparticle pair) seen from my point of view represents one of the many small indications falling into a large mosaic of a proof that there is such a thing as an absolute space in the physical sense of the word, absolute space meaning the existence of ether medium which in this case is the 'carrier' of the 'photon energy'</p><p>in that view the energy of the colliding photons is spent on liberating the particle antiparticle pair out of the ether medium, somewhat as the energy of some object ripping into a stocking causes (or liberates) the run to appear, one could say those runs are irregularities on the surface of the stocking which we notice (and take for matter), while its plain uniform expanse escapes our view (as all analogies, this one also has far to a perfection but it might give the idea what I have in mind here) &nbsp;</p><p>another analogy would be the example of a rope on which one can tie a knot which then represents the matter and the plain rope the ether, tying a knot means energy expenditure (energy supplied to the rope) to give rise to matter (the knots could be those kinds which one can tie in the middle of a rope without having access to its ends, so called slipknots which can be untied by a simple pull given enough energy</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>--------------------------------------------------&nbsp;</p><p>Dirac also talked in connection with antiparticles of the 'sea with holes in it' or something like that, with the holes representing the antielectrons and nobody laughed at him for such views so far as I can tell and it was in 1930s when supposedly the ether was done with by Michelson and Morley experiment which dates back to late 1880s!!&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_sea</p><p>The <strong>Dirac sea</strong> is a theoretical model of the vacuum as an infinite sea of particles possessing negative energy. It was invented by the British physicist Paul Dirac in 1930 to explain the anomalous negative-energy quantum states predicted by the Dirac equation for relativistic electrons. The positron, the antimatter counterpart of the electron, was originally conceived of as a hole in the Dirac sea, well before its experimental discovery in 1932. <strong><font color="#ff0000">Dirac, Einstein and others recognised that it is related to the 'metaphysical' <font size="2">aether</font></font></strong><em> </em></DIV></p><p>apparently these renowed scientists were much slower to dismiss the ether than some on this forum who don't have any credit of having done some independent work in physics as far as I can tell&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment</p><p>The <strong>Michelson&ndash;Morley experiment</strong>, one of the most important and famous experiments in the history of physics, was performed in 1887 by <span class="mw-redirect">Albert Michelson</span> and Edward Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University. <font color="#ff6600">It is generally considered to be <strong>the first strong evidence against the theory of a luminiferous aether.</strong> </font>The experiment has also been referred to as "the kicking-off point for the theoretical aspects of the Second Scientific Revolution." Primarily for this work, <span class="mw-redirect">Albert Michelson</span> was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1907. </DIV> </p><p>were Einstein and Dirac and others so benighted that they went against experimental work which earned the Nobel Prize 2 years prior to their taking the ether into consideration? I don't think so, such thinking is precisely what made them into what they were</p><p><em>[color, font size and bold emphasis added by me]</em> </p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>energy has always been slippery concept for anybody trying to put his finger on precisely what it might be, energy is&nbsp; essentially the ability to act (I believe that is the established view of physics since the times of Newton perhaps) - more energy means more vigorous action and vice versa, and always there has to be something that has that ability to act, energy itself cannot do anything given that 'action' is an attribute of physical existents which can and do act - with various amount of vigorousness, that is of energy </p><p>photons acting must then really be the ether of space acting via the phenomenon we have come to call the photon - you see in contrast to you I hold firmly to the view about the nature of energy I wrote about in the above post (view based on metaphysical arguments - metaphysics being the foundation of physics) and so I am not taking the photon phenomena at its face value and accept that energy can exist on its own, appart from existents of which it would be the attribute </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I believe one should have some established metaphysical views of the nature of existence and hold to them and build his physics according to them or around them, actually everybody has such metaphysical views even if they don't realize they have any or even deny having any, and in that case they are liable to be wrong views more likely than not (and that is a big understatement) </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...well, not by my definition your example (of energy in the form of photons creating matter - particle antiparticle pair) seen from my point of view represents one of the many small indications falling into a large mosaic of a proof that there is such a thing as an absolute space in the physical sense of the word, absolute space meaning the existence of ether medium which in this case is the 'carrier' of the 'photon energy'in that view the energy of the colliding photons is spent on liberating the particle antiparticle pair out of the ether medium,...Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>What PRECISELY is your definition?&nbsp;</p><p>If by ether you mean the quantum vacuum, then that is nothing particularly new.&nbsp; However, it does not provide any reference frame for "absolute motion" or "absolute rest".</p><p>You seem to be melding a quantum notion with some sort of contradiction to general relativity.&nbsp; Since there is currently no established theory that includes both quantum theory and general relativity, it is rather difficult to do that in a meaningful way.</p><p>So if you are going to make sweeping statements, you ought to at least define your terms.&nbsp; And if you claim a meaningful concept of absolute motion, then you ought to produce the reference frame in which that absolute motion is to be measured.&nbsp; If you can't do that you are talking through your hat.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It was interesting and the last post basically says to take our crazy ideas and post them elsewhere is that what you are trying to tell me ? <br />Posted by UncertainH</DIV><br /><br />seen your post just now, had some busy days and couldn't post at all</p><p>nope, I am not sarcastic like that unless&nbsp;people provoke me, what that last post on&nbsp;that other forum&nbsp;means is that some forums like that one&nbsp;are only and only&nbsp;for official physics discussion&nbsp;and their stated&nbsp;rules are not to discuss unofficial, that is so called&nbsp;alternative&nbsp;physics</p><p>in contrast this forum on space.com I believe&nbsp;allows&nbsp;such discussion&nbsp;but some people here try&nbsp;very much&nbsp;to discourage* that&nbsp;and I think they are on the&nbsp;wrong forum if they believe alternative or new physics shouldn't be discussed here&nbsp;(*discourage in the name of protecting the young&nbsp; and students... but&nbsp;such&nbsp;people who want to&nbsp;learn&nbsp;physics&nbsp;should go to that other forum where they would be protected from crazy and&nbsp;cranky&nbsp;and new ideas in general, I understand that&nbsp;things&nbsp;can get confusing on 'freemarket ideas&nbsp;forum' such as this one)</p><p>so if I was trying to say anything by reffering to that forum, it was among other to point out that difference between these two forums, appart from that their discussion&nbsp;of the topic of putting oneself into&nbsp;a frame of reference of a photon is also illuminating and supports my views on that subject</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Maybe you ought to pay more attention to "the e=mc2 equation".&nbsp; It means what it says.&nbsp; Matter and energy are but two aspects of one thing.&nbsp; You cannot cleary distinguish between the two.</p><p>If anything can be considered to be pure energy it is the photon.&nbsp; And it is indeed possible for two photons of sufficiently high energy to collide and create a pair of particles, one particle and one anti-particle, that have rest mass.&nbsp; <font color="#008000">By anyone's definition <strong>that is a creation of matter from energy</strong>.&nbsp;</font> </p><p><font color="#003399">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production</font> <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>yes, on the face of it it looks that way - matter is created from energy but to me that is like claiming that energy one exerts in making a knot&nbsp;made&nbsp;the knot in the&nbsp;absence of a rope</p><p>energy can only be an 'agent of action' so to speak and it can't pull stuff out of nothing, pull something&nbsp;out of nothing, that is out of the&nbsp;vacuum even if that vacuum is called quantum vacuum as you say in&nbsp;your next post</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What PRECISELY is your definition?&nbsp;If by ether you mean the quantum vacuum, then that is nothing particularly new.&nbsp; However, it does not provide any reference frame for "absolute motion" or "absolute rest".You seem to be melding a quantum notion with some sort of contradiction to general relativity.&nbsp; Since there is currently no established theory that includes both quantum theory and general relativity, it is rather difficult to do that in a meaningful way.So if you are going to make sweeping statements, you ought to at least define your terms.&nbsp; And if you claim a meaningful concept of absolute motion, then you ought to produce the reference frame in which that absolute motion is to be measured.&nbsp; If you can't do that you are talking through your hat. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>in return&nbsp;I could ask what precisely is meant by the quantum vacuum,&nbsp;I'd say physics is being forced bit by bit to admit the existence of&nbsp;ether (albeit not quite&nbsp;the ether of the old days) and the quantum vacuum is one of&nbsp;the halting steps on the way to that admission because it begs more questions than it answers</p><p>however the admission of ether's existence would demand the&nbsp;solution of problems to which nobody has any answers and so nobody dares to even&nbsp;consider the possibility of its existence - the problems some of which you mentioned - the absolute motion and rest as well as explanation of the constancy of the speed of light and the relativity of motion which is clearly manifest and can't be denied are the chief ones</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>yes, on the face of it it looks that way - matter is created from energy but to me that is like claiming that energy one exerts in making a knot&nbsp;made&nbsp;the knot in the&nbsp;absence of a ropeenergy can only be an 'agent of action' so to speak and it can't pull stuff out of nothing, pull something&nbsp;out of nothing, that is out of the&nbsp;vacuum even if that vacuum is called quantum vacuum as you say in&nbsp;your next post</DIV></p><p><font size="2">This is precisely what happens with color confinement... you get quark/antiquarks out of the vacuum as you try to pull quarks apart.&nbsp;</font></p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>in return&nbsp;I could ask what precisely is meant by the quantum vacuum,&nbsp;I'd say physics is being forced bit by bit to admit the existence of&nbsp;ether (albeit not quite&nbsp;the ether of the old days) and the quantum vacuum is one of&nbsp;the halting steps on the way to that admission because it begs more questions than it answershowever the admission of ether's existence would demand the&nbsp;solution of problems to which nobody has any answers and so nobody dares to even&nbsp;consider the possibility of its existence - the problems some of which you mentioned - the absolute motion and rest as well as explanation of the constancy of the speed of light and the relativity of motion which is clearly manifest and can't be denied are the chief ones&nbsp; <br /> Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p><font size="2">I think you might be referring to quantum foam that arises in QFT?&nbsp; I believe I have heard this being referred to as an ether, but not one that can provide a preferred direction or absolute space.</font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is precisely what happens with color confinement... <font color="#993300">you get quark/antiquarks out of the vacuum</font> as you try to pull quarks apart.&nbsp;I think you might be referring to quantum foam that arises in QFT?&nbsp; I believe I have heard this being referred to as an ether, but not one that can provide a preferred direction or absolute space. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />ok, out of vacuum but provided that 'vacuum' is really something, ie., it is not a metaphysical&nbsp;void but some stuff that we might as well call ether</p><p>my position on the issue&nbsp;is similar to a circus visitor who sees a magician pull a rabbit out of apparently perfectly empty hat and who while he has&nbsp;no idea how the magician does it still refuses to believe that he can make rabbits out of thin air, in the same way I don't believe particles can arise out of nothing, out of void, simply because enough energy is available to be spent&nbsp;- spent on what, applied to what...</p><p>yes quantum foam is considered sort of ether like something but the idea is half baked and was just thrown into a place by some people who are not quite content with today's purely abstract theories and who try to make some physical picture for them</p><p>as I said, the quantum foam is sort of pushing the reality of how the&nbsp;nature is really&nbsp;made up&nbsp;on physicists and they flirt with it in this way (calling it ether) but it takes a genius to flash the thing out and give it&nbsp;the&nbsp;proper grounding (those things you mention -&nbsp; preferred direction or absolute space and whatever else is needed)</p><p>most work in past&nbsp;science history&nbsp;of so called genius grade was predicted one way or another is many small or not so small predictions by genius' precursors who were able to come with various isolated bits and clues&nbsp;of it but of themselves weren't able to pull their ideas to the proper end and when finally&nbsp;the genius does pull it to the proper end, many people belittle his work claiming in retrospect&nbsp;how this or that scientist had said&nbsp;or published&nbsp;such and such before him&nbsp;and that&nbsp;given time they would have done what the genius had done and if&nbsp; not, still they should get at least some&nbsp;credit for those pieces&nbsp;too... usually the motivation is not to do justice to some would be&nbsp;secondrunners but to take away from the genius, to show him no different from the rest of the crowd</p><p>anybody who knows how the history of science went in past knows what the talk is about and such little hints of ether and possible acknowledment of its existence as in the QFT&nbsp;are precisely&nbsp;such current&nbsp;precusors of the coming ether theory but it is still the early day for that, it is fitting that the&nbsp;ether idea&nbsp;died before&nbsp;the end of the&nbsp;nineteenth&nbsp;century and will only rise again a whole century later,&nbsp;in the&nbsp;twenty first one, having left the whole intervening century as&nbsp;a chance for physics&nbsp;to make good&nbsp;with its&nbsp;vacuum and&nbsp;or void&nbsp;physics&nbsp;- that it will rise into the whole&nbsp;new millenium because it is the new and major milestone if physics is to progress and new stuff of dreams&nbsp;is to&nbsp;be possible</p><p>as to making good on my claims, I have realized many years ago that it would be impractical to push the idea of ether on its own and that it would be much better to first come up with some worked out applications of it which when accepted would&nbsp;help pave the way&nbsp;for the&nbsp;acceptance of ether, here I try to argue it on some specific and isolated&nbsp;points that should&nbsp;stand on its own regardless of whether the idea of the ether is true or not, the various shortcomings of physics that I point out would be shortcomings even if there were no ether, one would then have to figure out some other way to deal with them</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... return&nbsp;I could ask what precisely is meant by the quantum vacuum,</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;I'd say physics is being forced bit by bit to admit the existence of&nbsp;ether (albeit not quite&nbsp;the ether of the old days) and the quantum vacuum is one of&nbsp;the halting steps on the way to that admission ...Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>Yes, you would say that.&nbsp; But then&nbsp;you would be wrong.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>ok, so waves usualy travel on some sort of medium.&nbsp; like waves in water&nbsp;water waves are energy moving through water.so the question, what medium do light waves travel on?how can light move through a vacuum? &nbsp; <br />Posted by fedeykin</DIV><br /><br />Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec17.html</p><p><font face="new century schoolbook" size="1">The quantum vacuum is the ground state of energy for the Universe, the lowest possible level. Attempts to perceive the vacuum directly only lead to a confrontation with a void, a background that appears to be empty. But, in fact, the quantum vacuum is the source of all potentiality. For example, quantum entities have both wave and particle characteristics. It is the quantum vacuum that such characteristics emerge from, particles `stand-out' from the vacuum, waves `undulate' on the underlying vacuum, and leave their signature on objects in the real Universe.</font></p><p><font face="new century schoolbook" size="4"><font size="1">In this sense, the Universe is not filled by the quantum vacuum, rather it is `written on' it, the substratum of all existence.</font> <font size="1"></DIV></font></font></p><p><font size="1">here's your answer from the&nbsp;University of Oregon lectures to what medium do light waves travel on, if that lecture doesn't say ETHER all over, I don't know&nbsp;what does</font></p><p><font size="1">only difference between myself and them is that I know how to deal with those pesky problems&nbsp;which&nbsp;the existence of the&nbsp;ether implies&nbsp;and they don't, still it is telling isn't it, "the substratum of all existence", I just love it, mmm</font></p><p><font size="1">however&nbsp;today's physicists are masters of evasion and I don't hold much hopes of them admitting to the ether's existence without much screaming and kicking around, they trully give new meaning to that story about the king that had no clothes on</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>here's your answer from the&nbsp;University of Oregon lectures to what medium do light waves travel on, if that lecture doesn't say ETHER all over, I don't know&nbsp;what doesonly difference between myself and them is that I know how to deal with those pesky problems&nbsp;which&nbsp;the existence of the&nbsp;ether implies&nbsp;and they don't, still it is telling isn't it, "the substratum of all existence", I just love it, mmmhowever&nbsp;today's physicists are masters of evasion and I don't hold much hopes of them admitting to the ether's existence without much screaming and kicking around, they trully give new meaning to that story about the king that had no clothes on&nbsp; <br />Posted by vandivx</DIV></p><p>What are you talking about ?&nbsp; There is nothing in that post that would indicate any support for the notion of an ether.&nbsp; There is an example of the direct creation of matter from energy, collision of photons.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<p><br />the phrase describing the quantum foam as "the substratum of all existence" speaks for itself, clearly the writer didn't think the virtual particles and what not were just a momentary existence of a stuff made from energy but that there is something enduring out there appart from its momentary material presence in the form of those virtual or real particles pairs popping out when energy is spent </p><p>but I admit it is in the eye of the beholder and that's why I wouldn't push the idea of ether based just on this quantum foam phenomenon, lets say it is circumstantial evidence sort of proof - "Circumstantial evidence is a collection of facts that, when considered together, can be used to infer a conclusion about something unknown." that is, if one day the idea of ether should become the accepted norm, people would claim that the Nobel prize for establishing the ether wasn't justified because everybody talked about it long before when it was called quantum foam, hypocrites </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>