|
Post by carnyx on Dec 27, 2010 16:09:46 GMT 1
I have always had difficulty in accepting the concept that a medium is not necessary for the generation and propagation of EM waves.
Rather, things would be more understandable if there were an 'aether' of some kind, a field if you like, which would support such waves.
Consequently I think that is is worth speculating on the nature of such a field.
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 27, 2010 19:40:58 GMT 1
Hi Carnyx. Hope you have had a lovely Christmas with lots of singing. Heard Rutter the other day. Lovely with Harry Christopher's Sixteen singing
About your posting
NickCosmoSonde is a medium I believe; whether he is necessary or unnecessary I would not like to say, but he is an honest articulate and eloquent exponent of things physical (and metaphysical), so perhaps he has a view on the aether?
Personally I have difficulty with the 'vacuum' of space, mainly because it is so bloody busy, with one atom of matter occupying every cm2 of space and nearly 100 atoms of anti-matter occupying the same space, never mind the 'seething mass' of energy in the form of quantum fluctuations that is everywhere around (and created the universe according to some). What bloody room is left for emptiness, I arsk you!
Now on top of all this you want a bloody aether so that em waves can propagate through it?
Give them a chance!
How do they propagate in other media such as glass and diamonds?
No-one bloody well knows. that's what!
Now you want something else for them to travel through?
OK
I will wait for Nick
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 27, 2010 20:56:16 GMT 1
I think it is important to always remember that science at present does not have a complete understanding of the nature of time and space, therefore, to assert that no medium is necessary for the propagation of EM radiation is rather premature, in my opinion. There might well be something 'going on' below the surface features that science so far cannot observe, but only be able to theorize about, and so I think it is better to admit that we have more to learn about the deeper aspects of the physical universe; it could be that our current level of observation is simply observing one layer of reality.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Dec 27, 2010 21:14:24 GMT 1
Ah, NM!
Compliments of the season, and I hope you had a good time,too. My season included loads of singing, mice pies, turkeys & co. Virtual Santa (i.e. me) brought a bloody great LED telly, which is brilliant for watching stuff such as the whole of Pride & Prejudice in one go ..
Anyway, my own unease about propagation of EM waves in a 'nothingness' stems from the apparent inability of physics to resolve the wave/particle duality, and to produce a convincing description of a 'photon'.
Just what is a 'photon'? How big are they?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 27, 2010 21:27:07 GMT 1
To be fair to science, any description can only derive from the results of experiments that have been done. I often disagree with STA but here I would tend to defend her position that what can be observed and measured is all we are allowed to really make definite statements about, anything else is just speculative. The real challenge is to construct experiments that might allow science further insights - easy to say but bloody difficult to do!
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Dec 27, 2010 22:02:49 GMT 1
Abacus;
This is a beautiful example of circularity!
How do such experiments come to pass? Could you trace the whole time-line of such experimental projects, and the status of the thought-components at each stage?
For example how do these experimental projects start, without there being an initial speculation? One could say that all is specuation until the experiment is complete AND the conclusion drawn?
If so, what is the 'Q' in Q.E.D., if not a mere speculation?
(Anyway, how big is a photon? )
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 27, 2010 23:11:35 GMT 1
Abacus; This is a beautiful example of circularity! How do such experiments come to pass? Could you trace the whole time-line of such experimental projects, and the status of the thought-components at each stage? For example how do these experimental projects start, without there being an initial speculation? One could say that all is specuation until the experiment is complete AND the conclusion drawn? If so, what is the 'Q' in Q.E.D., if not a mere speculation? (Anyway, how big is a photon? ) Not at all. Science starts with speculation but through trial and error refines itself. What is your problem with this?
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Dec 28, 2010 9:45:05 GMT 1
Abacus, 'my problem' ...(or yours to be more precise)...is that
OTOH you say ".... all we are allowed to really make definite statements about, anything else is just speculative."
OTOH you say "Science starts with speculation but through trial and error refines itself"
I suggest you resolve this apparent confusion by considering the role of the deductive and inductive approaches in the scientific process.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 28, 2010 11:28:51 GMT 1
Abacus, 'my problem' ...(or yours to be more precise)...is that OTOH you say ".... all we are allowed to really make definite statements about, anything else is just speculative." OTOH you say "Science starts with speculation but through trial and error refines itself" I suggest you resolve this apparent confusion by considering the role of the deductive and inductive approaches in the scientific process. Deductive and inductive processes can only have any legitimacy when based upon experimental trials. Without testing hypotheses science would be little better than superstition.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Dec 28, 2010 12:12:30 GMT 1
Abacus ... where do the hypotheses come from? Don't they start as 'mere speculation'? Where do the ideas for the experimental designs come from? Don't they start as 'mere speculations', too?
Isn't speculation common to inductive and deductive processes? In a sense, is it not the very well-spring of the Scientific Method? So, why do you affect to despise it?
Anyway, the concept of the photon seems to me to be a bit dodgy. Could anybody say what a broadcast-frequency photon would be like, and how big would it be?
For example, could the two-slit experiment be done with BBC radio transmissions?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 28, 2010 13:25:55 GMT 1
Abacus ... where do the hypotheses come from? Don't they start as 'mere speculation'? Where do the ideas for the experimental designs come from? Don't they start as 'mere speculations', too? Isn't speculation common to inductive and deductive processes? In a sense, is it not the very well-spring of the Scientific Method? So, why do you affect to despise it? Anyway, the concept of the photon seems to me to be a bit dodgy. Could anybody say what a broadcast-frequency photon would be like, and how big would it be? For example, could the two-slit experiment be done with BBC radio transmissions? Hypotheses come from a combination of observation, experience, logic and commonsense. Having said that, it is often the case that things are not always what they appear to be, which is why tests have to be introduced to ensure theories are consistent. The hallmark of good scientific theories is repeatability, otherwise they are worthless and in the context of a photon, for example, the framework currently in place to account for what they are and how they behave has been thoroughly tested time and again and must remain the best description we have to date. Anything else is merely 'woolgathering.'
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Dec 28, 2010 14:27:58 GMT 1
Abacus, I suspect you are turning into STA!
What is YOUR understanding of a photon? You do know that it is an invention, don't you?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Dec 28, 2010 15:16:17 GMT 1
Here is an interesting view on the subject gathered from the Guardian:
Mr Jones claims that photons can travel at the speed of light because they have no rest mass. I claim that anything with no rest mass is self-evidently not a physical body, hence has no comprehensible size. The argument that a photon's physical size is indeterminate (no lower or upper bound) shows clearly that existing measurements are in flagrant discord, allowing the possibility (in theory) of a photon the size of the universe, or of no size whatsoever. Science often pours scorn on the religious; I cannot think of a better example of blind faith than to believe - on inference alone - in the objective reality of a tiny/huge speck/ripple of nothing/something. The truth of the matter is not that photons have wave/particle duality, but simply that instruments designed to measure the behaviour of waves and instruments designed to measure the properties of particles have each responded in different ways to the same phenomenon. This is an important difference, which would tend to suggest that the phenomenon under observation is neither particle nor wave. A biologist who classified crocodiles as exhibiting 'fish/mammal duality' (has four legs; also scales and lays eggs) would be laughed out of his/her profession, expecially if his/her fall-back position was to classify it simply in terms of itself. One day, the whole 'wavicle' idea is going to look as quaint as the old entries in bestiaries that believed the giraffe to be a hybrid 'Camel-leopard'. Wave/particle duality is voodoo physics.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 28, 2010 17:16:23 GMT 1
Abacus, I suspect you are turning into STA! What is YOUR understanding of a photon? You do know that it is an invention, don't you? Well, I suppose that in a way, one could say that as a photon is measured by scientific apparatus, which itself is invented, then it's all an invention. However, one might generalise this approach even more by pointing out that anything the human organism experiences is a kind of invention, but this kind of philosophical view does not yield anything useful. The fact is (as I have argued myself quite vehemently) we can only 'construct' reality through the sensory apparatus nature has endowed us with so to that extent we are compelled to 'invent' everything because we may never experience anything directly.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Dec 28, 2010 17:32:43 GMT 1
Here is an interesting view on the subject gathered from the Guardian: Mr Jones claims that photons can travel at the speed of light because they have no rest mass. I claim that anything with no rest mass is self-evidently not a physical body, hence has no comprehensible size. The argument that a photon's physical size is indeterminate (no lower or upper bound) shows clearly that existing measurements are in flagrant discord, allowing the possibility (in theory) of a photon the size of the universe, or of no size whatsoever. Science often pours scorn on the religious; I cannot think of a better example of blind faith than to believe - on inference alone - in the objective reality of a tiny/huge speck/ripple of nothing/something. The truth of the matter is not that photons have wave/particle duality, but simply that instruments designed to measure the behaviour of waves and instruments designed to measure the properties of particles have each responded in different ways to the same phenomenon. This is an important difference, which would tend to suggest that the phenomenon under observation is neither particle nor wave. A biologist who classified crocodiles as exhibiting 'fish/mammal duality' (has four legs; also scales and lays eggs) would be laughed out of his/her profession, especially if his/her fall-back position was to classify it simply in terms of itself. One day, the whole 'wavicle' idea is going to look as quaint as the old entries in bestiaries that believed the giraffe to be a hybrid 'Camel-leopard'. Wave/particle duality is voodoo physics. This is basically true, but then one way to look at it is that, like a blind man using a stick to probe his surroundings, scientists similarly use scientific apparatus as 'probes' to investigate the nature of matter. Obviously, it is not possibly to use our normal senses in achieving this so we have to construct artificial 'eyes' and 'ears', so to speak, with which to do the job. Of course, this inevitably means whatever data is extracted from such artificial means determines how we describe the fundamentals of matter. The only goal science can achieve in accomplishing this is to at least point to the fact that its models do appear to be consistent over time and therefore predictable, which is a necessary requirement of any useful theory. I think, to be fair to scientists, they would not claim to know about 'truth' but only about what can be demonstrated. Perhaps the pursuit of truth is best left to philosophical discussions. This is where fields such as particle physics, for example, are not in the same category as, say, archaeology since the latter relies on clearly defined objects that are artifacts of a past time and can be understood quite readily in terms of everyday 'macro' objects easily amenable to our normal senses (although forensic techniques come in here, naturally).
|
|