Measurement of stellar distances and redshift

[redeye]

And yet, when light is discussed, for some reason it seems to be assumed that waves in general are just some sort of "wave-thingy" devoid of and totally independent of any and all "particles." But this is obviously nonsense. To me, it looks like a very strange "straw-paradox" (for lack of a better word).

Which makes me think of transverse vs longditudinal waves. Is there a fundamental difference or are they two flavours of the same wavicle?

What are the radio wave particles?

And are these waves "dopplershifted" to the same extent as light?

Cheers!

[webolife]

BDW,
"Wavicles" as you described are the medium for water waves, sound waves, seismic waves, etc.
The problem with applying this to light is that there is no obvious "medium" to transmit alleged light waves across the measureless expanse of space. Hence, aether, ropes, chains, etc. are theorized as the conducting particles for wave energy transmission. I'm not entirely against some sort of aether, but I don't need it either, to describe action across a distance.
For others, moving particles interact in such a way as to impart momentum to others, and they view this imparting process as "force"... what traditionally is referred to as "impulse". For me, force is what causes the particles to move in the first place. If that force is universally pervasive, a unified field, working the same at every scale, then it is no problem whatsoever to describe instantaneous light action across astronomical distance. The effects are the same, or I should say the two views describe the same effects, but with entirely different theoretical consequences. My view requires no c-rate for light, while all the other views pretty much are there to try to explain an alleged c-rate.
Redshifting, as shown throughout the EU, is not a Doppler effect, because, simply, light is a force, not waves or particles.

[earls]

"The problem with applying this to light is that there is no obvious "medium" to transmit alleged light waves across the measureless expanse of space."

How about magnetic fields?

[redeye]

"The problem with applying this to light is that there is no obvious "medium" to transmit alleged light waves across the measureless expanse of space."

How about magnetic fields?

I can only think of magnetic fields as interference patterns in an aether (I can't begin to describe an aether any more than I can imagine the Universe without a medium), therefore they are a secondary effect. I am looking at light in the same terms, I would normally add gravity too but Kevin has just blown my mind!

The two "forces" we are most influenced by are Light and gravity. Therefore our scientific theories are based around them, for example:

E=m c2

Is hopelessly anthropomorphic. What does light even do? I'm sure the Great Dog has similar theories regarding the speed of smell.

Cheers!

[bdw000]

What are the radio wave particles?

I am not claiming to know anything at all about electromagnetism.

I am just saying that all fhe fuss about "wave-particle duality" seems VERY odd, since all of the waves that we CAN know about are both waves and particles.

I am not even saying that EM "must" have a medium. All I am saying is that to claim that the "wavicle" nature of light is a quasi-mystical paradox does not add up in the face of sound and water waves being both waves and particles.

The obvious, simple explanation, is that light DOES have some sort of medium, even if we cannot presently detect it, since it appears to be a wavicle just like sound and water waves. This proves nothing of course.

Again, I am assuming that there is a standard reply to this idea, although I have not heard of it. If anyone knows what it is please post.

[Komorikid]

What is Light?

A wave that acts like a particle or a particle that acts like a wave.
Some physicists say it’s a wave that leave and arrives as a particle.
Leaves and arrives where?

All current interpretations of light are mathematical constructs; little more than theoretical hunches.
If light cannot be physically proven to be a wave or a particle IT IS NEITHER.

It is something else.

A Photon does not exist. And by exist I mean the REAL interpretation of EXIST – something that has shape and location.
A photon is a mathematically constructed “entity” that allows physicist (actually mathematicians) to model their theories. It is a concept not a physical object.

And light can’t be a wave because a wave is not what something is but what something does.
Neither wave nor particle can explain all of the experiments done with light. The particle model is need to explain the photoelectric and Compton effects and the wave model is needed to explain interference and polarization.

If it is a wave of particles then what needs to be explained is what causes these particles to wave in the first place?
Just like the ball in the swimming pool someone or something need to push and pull the ball to create the wave in the first place. This push/pull is a torsion and therein lies the answer to what lights is.

Light is a torsion wave interconnecting every atom in the universe. Two spirally entwined Birkeland current strands stretched between every atom; infinitesimally small electromagnetic ropes.

A rope is a physical configuration that meets the ‘undulating’ requirement with flying colours in both static as well as dynamic scenarios. ‘Rippled’ is the rope’s natural state. We do not need to torque or move a rope in any way. A rope is intrinsically sinusoidal. But when you do twist a rope, you verify that the outgoing torque signal also 'waves.' A rope embodies two seemingly irreconcilable static properties light is famous for. It is simultaneously wavy and straight. From a dynamic standpoint, a short series of links rotate in place (standing wave). They generate the waviness light is famous for (travelling wave). Yet from a distance, the signal travels rectilinearly along the taut rope. A rope embodies both the standing and the travelling wave features in a single stroke, and explains why researchers have confused it with abstract transverse waves for so long. (B. Gaede)

If we can stop light with our hand to create a shadow then light is three-dimensional and if it is 3D then there is no reason that it cannot be envisaged.

[redeye]

If light is affected by gravity, how can c possibly be a constant? All light emitted by stars would be slowed as it travelled out of the star's gravity well.

How can the light emitted by Antares be travelling at the same speed as light emitted by our sun, for example?

Cheers!

[davesmith_au]

If light is affected by gravity, how can c possibly be a constant?

Sometimes the simplest questions are the best. Well done, Red!

Cheers, Dave.

[bdw000]

If light is affected by gravity, how can c possibly be a constant? All light emitted by stars would be slowed as it travelled out of the star's gravity well.

How can the light emitted by Antares be travelling at the same speed as light emitted by our sun, for example?

Cheers!

I am no physicist. And I am definitey skeptical towards relativity (but cannot claim certain knowledge).

My guess is that the reply would be that even though the standard line is that light is "affected" by gravity, they would say that they never said that the VELOCITY of light is affected: the path of light is deflected, they would say, but the velocity stays the same. Also, the FREQUENCY of light might be altered by gravity, but, again, the velocity is not affected.

I am not arguing with you red, just stating what I think is going to be the standard reply to your question.

[bdw000]

BDW,
The problem with applying this to light is that there is no obvious "medium" to transmit alleged light waves across the measureless expanse of space.

Following the analogy leads to the idea that the medium is the PHOTONS, just as the medium for water waves is water molecules. I may have read that idea somewhere, but I cannot remember where (this forum maybe). This may sound silly, but that is where the analogy leads. Maybe we detect moving photons as light, and stationary ones we cannot "see." Just making guesses here, not saying I know this is how things are.

Also, to say that "there is no obvious medium" is the wrong way to say it. The proper way to state the facts of the matter is that "there is no obvious medium THAT WE ARE AWARE OF." It could well be that formal detection of the light medium is simply beyond our technical ability. Also, the famous Michelson/Morley experiment did NOT get a "null" result (according to the opinion of some). There are definitely (if only a few) physicists out there who think that even though the results were less than expected (by about two thirds, if I remember correctly) there was definitely SOMETHING detected, not "nothing." It could very well be that there is no light medium. However, that has most definitely NOT been "experimentally PROVEN." You cannot logically prove a negative. All you can say is that "gee whiz, we did not find what we were looking for." The possible reasons for that are numerous (the most obvious one being that all those ASSUMPTIONS people made about how the aether behaves are INCORRECT), way beyond the "it must not exist because we cannot find it" option. It is just as likely (logically) that there is a medium, and for whatever reason, we have not detected it (or just hidden it behind a word like "photons").

Also, I think the word medium is often divorced from the word particle, when it should not be. They are one and the same.

"Water" is the medium for water waves, but that is nothing more than water MOLECULES (AKA "particles").

I am not claiming knowledge here, just that I think that all the fuss about the "duality" of light issue is literally nonsense caused, intentionally or unintentionally, by improper use of language.

Anyone please point out any outright logical flaws or false statements (none intended).

[redeye]

." You cannot logically prove a negative. All you can say is that "gee whiz, we did not find what we were looking for."

I agree, but I assume a medium as I can't concieve of things working without one, which is probably just as wrong-headed. I'm fond of bitching about "dark matter and energy" even though my concept of the aether is equally "dark".

the idea that the medium is the PHOTONS, just as the medium for water waves is water molecules.

I like this way of thinking, why invoke invisible entities when we can use the things we do know about. It also seems like it would be compatible with the various hypothesis' held by the likes of web or even Junglelord (sorry if i've misrepresented).

I kind of see the Universe as consisting of magnetic bubbles containing domains of charge. Would this work on a macro scale as a kind of particulate aether?

Cheers!

[bdw000]

but I assume a medium as I can't concieve of things working without one, which is probably just as wrong-headed.

There is nothing wrong with "assuming" such, especially if the only thing the opposition can really say that they have "proven" is that their ASSUMPTIONS about the idea are incorrect. We just have to be willing to accept that (really good, direct) evidence my rule our favorite idea out someday. My opinion is that the problem with science is a fondness for making what I call "false claims to knowledge." Pretending that they have a slam dunk argument when they do not.

I said above:

Following the analogy leads to the idea that the medium is the PHOTONS, just as the medium for water waves is water molecules. I may have read that idea somewhere, but I cannot remember where (this forum maybe). This may sound silly, but that is where the analogy leads. Maybe we detect moving photons as light, and stationary ones we cannot "see." Just making guesses here, not saying I know this is how things are.

I also think that not enough thought is given to how we use our words like "medium" and "particle" and "wave." For water, if you have a calm surface in a pool, what is the difference between a water molecule in that context, and a single water molecule when there are "waves" in the pool? When you are looking at a SINGLE molecule, what is the difference? Can there be any difference? My point is, if we switch over to light, if (and I admit this is a big "if") there is a medium, if you have the technical ability to detect a SINGLE unit of the medium at a time, what is the difference between one single unit of the medium when there is a "wave," and when there is NO wave (when the medium is "calm") ??? Is there any difference?
This is crucial in my mind. I mean, if what we "see" as light is the WAVE, the "ripples," if you take away the ripples, the "wave," what is the medium even going to "look" like? In other words, detecting the medium may not be so simple, and there may be so many circles in logic and language that the experimentalists could just end up chasing their own tails.



I think these sorts of questions are neglected. The scientists are failing to think about the words they are using and the consequences that follow.

[bdw000]

What is Light?

All current interpretations of light are mathematical constructs; little more than theoretical hunches.
If light cannot be physically proven to be a wave or a particle IT IS NEITHER.

It is something else.

A Photon does not exist. And by exist I mean the REAL interpretation of EXIST – something that has shape and location.
A photon is a mathematically constructed “entity” that allows physicist (actually mathematicians) to model their theories. It is a concept not a physical object.

Komorikid:

I am familiar with Gaede's ideas and consider them to be valid proposals, though if there is no experimental "proof" of such ideas, they will probably never take off (although that hasn't stopped string theory ). Gaede's attack (his "negative" arguments) on modern physics I find invaluable.

I think the important argument against Gaede's ideas is what I am talking about here: the way physicists fail (refuse?) to carefully take into account the consequences of the words they use, every single time they use them (words like "wave," "medium," and "particle"). If (and I repeat "if") it can be shown that the so-called "wave/particle duality of light' is just language games (intentional or unintentional), then there will be no need for Gaede's rope theory.

I am not claiming to know anything here. Gaede could well be correct. I just think we need to carefully analyze the language use in physics a bit first.

[omni-tom]

For water, if you have a calm surface in a pool, what is the difference between a water molecule in that context, and a single water molecule when there are "waves" in the pool? When you are looking at a SINGLE molecule, what is the difference? Can there be any difference? My point is, if we switch over to light, if (and I admit this is a big "if") there is a medium, if you have the technical ability to detect a SINGLE unit of the medium at a time, what is the difference between one single unit of the medium when there is a "wave," and when there is NO wave (when the medium is "calm") ??? Is there any difference?

Longitudinal movement? Or maybe it's a rotation, if you have something of say a double helix shape layed out horizontally and spin it, it would appear to be waving on the surface

[omni-tom]

Just as an afterthought, given the recent "advances (and i use the term loosely) in anti-gravity research, has anyone thought that light may consist of 2 counter-rotating oscillations in resonance, be it particle or wave to simulate the "massless" appearance?