Help me answer EU challenge from professor, please?

[sjw40364]

Expansion of the Universe is only feasible if you discount all of Halton Arp's photographic evidence http://www.haltonarp.com/ of quasars attached to or in front of parent galaxies that according to current red-shift theory says should be billions of light-years more distant. It is this erroneous assumption of red-shift = distance that mostly supports an expanding universe theory.

As for already taking into account the electromagnetic forces in the universe, current theory says the universe is electrically neutral; i.e. the forces are insignificant. We have mapped vast magnetic fields through space, yet only electricity can form magnetic fields. No other way has ever been discovered, despite claims that a iron core whirling at the center of the planet creates the magnetic field. Please, feel free to heat an iron ball to almost melting and spin it as fast as you like, let me know the results. In fact, heat weakens magnets, not strengthens them http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=2744.

[Michael V]

saul, Sparky,

Saul, I confess to having a similar reaction to Sparky with regard to your seemingly entrenched beliefs about light and "electromagnetic waves". In support of Sparky's comments and in the hope of demonstrating what I believe to be a reasonable disbelief of "electromagnetic waves", let me try to describe the basis of my scepticism.

I believe/suspect/theorise that electrons emit photonic light and also that the emissions and operation of, specifically free-electrons, is the basis of electricity. Since "charge" and photons are a phenomena that extends beyond the physical position of the electron, it must in some way involve the quantum aether field.

Maxwell put forward a mathematical idea of a self-perpetuating electromagnetic wave. At the time he was unaware that electromagnetism "emanates" from electrons. Without the action/operation of electrons there can be no electric or magnetic "field". These EM "fields" are not spooky entities in their own right, but merely a "sphere" of influence around electrons. The action/operation of electrons creates the "field", so the field cannot exist without electrons at its origin. The concept of free floating and self-perpetuating EM fields belongs firmly in the realm of superstition.

Light is entirely unaffected by electromagnetic fields. There is no reaction from the light and no influence upon the light from electric or magnetic fields. That EM fields and photonic light share a common velocity is entirely coincident upon a common emission source: electrons. Also, lest we dismiss all logic and science completely and embrace action-at-a-distance, we are compelled to acknowledge that both photonic light and EM fields are aethereal in nature, since neither consist of "matter".

If we are to consider that a "wave equation" defines what a wave is, then perhaps we can say that light is a wave. If, however, we choose to define a wave as a physical concept, with the wave equation merely as a mathematical representation, then the matter is less clear. Light is seems has no amplitude. May be the maths is satisfied, but conceptually the label of "wave" becomes harder to endure. Light sometimes behaves in a manner indicative of a wave and sometimes in a manner indicative of a "particle". So now light is only sometimes a wave, and a wave with no amplitude at that.

Light must consist of three processes: emission, propagation, reception. The emission and reception fall under the auspices of electrons. Electricity is also the responsibility of electrons. A simplistic inference might be that the propagation of light is therefore "electromagnetic". But light IS NOT AFFECTED by electromagnetic fields and electromagnetic fields must centre upon electrons, so light, while in-flight, is not electromagnetic.

If light is not electromagnetic then two possibilities remain: it is a wave in a aethereal medium, it is a particle structure in and of an aethereal medium. Now logic and limited certain knowledge may allow for a set of choices to be made. Perhaps the aethereal field is "multi-layered" allowing for the formation of waves and the many phenomena and objects in the universe are accounted for by a different set of field particles. Simply by defining a plethora of aethereal fields we may explain anything and everything in any way we like. I find the convenience of this conclusion uncomfortable, awkward and dissatisfying

Instead I see no barrier to a full and consistent explanation of the universe without any recourse to convenient unprovables. Mr de Broglie's "matter wave nature" might be further food for thought when considering whether light may or may not be a wave. In fact it might be worth considering the question: what is a wave. And if I might suggest another question worthy of consideration - do you consider an ocean to be: an ocean, a large body of water, or trillions upon trillions of electrons, protons and neutrons in a particular configuration held together by a complex set of forces? You might replay, all three, but that will not do. What is a wave and what is the actual physical mechanism of diffraction?

Also, your objection to my assertion that the universe can be interpreted by the action and interaction of just three particles is not well thought out. I am inclined to advise you that a reliance on SR, GR and QM will not stand the test of time. I find the sesame street reasoning of quantum mechanics (QED/QCD/OMG/WTF) to be utterly unbelievable. The particle zoo is just a joke. I keep thinking, surely these seemingly intelligent people don't believe this nonsense. And what are all these very very short-lived particles:
Neutron - lifetime 14 minutes - decays into a proton and an electron
Muon - 2.2x10-6 seconds - decays into an electron
Tau - 2.9x10-13 seconds - decays into an electron

So basically, these mysterious particles, that are all created in "high energy" events and very quickly "decay" into some mixture of electrons, protons, "photons" and "neutrinos", or more simply put: electrons, protons and quantum aether particles/events. Modern Physics attempts to reduce all physical reality to mathematical variables so that it can be tweaked are reworked and mixed with unphysical variables to achieve the desired result. In respect of being philosophically and physically untenable, I am minded to view Modern Physics and Quantum Mechanics with the same utter incredulity as astrology, religion and all other superstitions.

I realise my protestations for logical common sense will not suffice to convince believers of counter-intuitiveness. An absence objectivity in itself precludes the likelihood of objectivity.

Michael

[webolife]

Michael, et.al.,
Are we not all just blind mice examining an elephant here? We are blind because of and despite our realization that the essential fundamental elements of the universe are all entirely invisible [or transparent if you prefer] to us. All we have is our interactions with them, and our interactions/observations of them interacting with each other. This "interacting" forms the evidence for any and all of our hypotheses. For me science is that careful practice of observation that allows us to notice patterns in these interactions and develop rules/hypotheses/theories, with the help of mathematics. While it may seem like a contest sometimes, where whoever appeals best to Occam parsimony wins... but one hypothesis cannot be deemed "less scientific" than another unless it is shown to be counter-evidencial. "Illogical" is a matter of agreed upon rules of engagement in the contest, which must be frequently called in to question, provoking deeper, more thorough discussion. "Counter-intuitive" is a matter of personal preference and perspective. "Religious" or "superstititious" are again matters dealing with one's "belief base" or set of presuppositions, and my friends, ALL OF US operate from some such set. So I would say that we all observe "action at a distance" all the time, every day. Perhaps that action is mediated by waves, perhaps by randomly moving aetheric particles, perhaps by speeding photon bullets, perhaps by jiggling subtrons, perhaps by some other field properties or geometry yet to be fully understood, perhaps by emission of material from infinitesmal particles, perhaps by universal pressure caused by an agent that encompasses or extends beyond the universe. If we can write some books, get a bunch of people to agree with us, overwhelm the world with our powers of persuasion, that all makes us feel better about our own fundamental lack of full understanding, but does it really prove anything about fundamental reality? When all is said and done, we are here because we need each other's perspectives, each other's challenges and questions, each other's "intuitions", each other's interest. And I agree with Michael, this is a very interesting discussion.

[saul]

Thanks for your replies michael, my apologies if i offended.

saul, Sparky,

Saul, I confess to having a similar reaction to Sparky with regard to your seemingly entrenched beliefs about light and "electromagnetic waves". In support of Sparky's comments and in the hope of demonstrating what I believe to be a reasonable disbelief of "electromagnetic waves", let me try to describe the basis of my scepticism.

I believe/suspect/theorise that electrons emit photonic light and also that the emissions and operation of, specifically free-electrons, is the basis of electricity.

Since "charge" and photons are a phenomena that extends beyond the physical position of the electron, it must in some way involve the quantum aether field.

Maxwell put forward a mathematical idea of a self-perpetuating electromagnetic wave. At the time he was unaware that electromagnetism "emanates" from electrons. Without the action/operation of electrons there can be no electric or magnetic "field". These EM "fields" are not spooky entities in their own right, but merely a "sphere" of influence around electrons. The action/operation of electrons creates the "field", so the field cannot exist without electrons at its origin. The concept of free floating and self-perpetuating EM fields belongs firmly in the realm of superstition.

OK well I think you are definitely on the right track here, regarding the importance of electrons and their ability to generate electromagnetic radiation (light). As to the relative importance of a charge and the electric field, there is something of a chicken-and-egg problem. What is a charge? It is a divergence of an electric field. What is an electric field? It is that which emanates from a charge. I don't think this represents a problem in our understanding, it just linguistics. Neither one "came first", they are both two sides of the same coin.

Light is entirely unaffected by electromagnetic fields. There is no reaction from the light and no influence upon the light from electric or magnetic fields.

Yes, this is the linearity of electromagnetic fields that you describe. One electromagnetic field is not affected by another, they superpose linearly. Note also that Gravity is entirely unaffected by Mass.. in that mass doesn't shield or change the gravitational field of another mass.

That EM fields and photonic light share a common velocity is entirely coincident upon a common emission source: electrons.

Any charge that is accelerated produces electromagnetic radiation. It is a lot easier to accelerate electrons than protons (1806 times easier) but electromagnetic radiation is emitted from any accelerated charge.. that's what light is. Take a look at all the energy lost to electromagnetic radiation in the LHC for example, synchrotron radiation emitted by heavy ions.

Light is seems has no amplitude. May be the maths is satisfied, but conceptually the label of "wave" becomes harder to endure. Light sometimes behaves in a manner indicative of a wave and sometimes in a manner indicative of a "particle". So now light is only sometimes a wave, and a wave with no amplitude at that.

No amplitude? Sorry I don't follow you. Maybe you are talking about quantized emission? If you run a current through a wire such that the current I = A sin( wt ) you produce light with an amplitude A. If you increase the current, you increase the amplitude of the radiation.

Light must consist of three processes: emission, propagation, reception. The emission and reception fall under the auspices of electrons. Electricity is also the responsibility of electrons. A simplistic inference might be that the propagation of light is therefore "electromagnetic". But light IS NOT AFFECTED by electromagnetic fields and electromagnetic fields must centre upon electrons, so light, while in-flight, is not electromagnetic.

Yes! it is important to identify these three processes of emission, propagation, and absorption. The quantized aspect or "photonic" relates to the first and the third. Photons are absorption and emission phenomena. Those are the areas when light can behave like a particle.. because the emission and absorption are (often) quantized (photo-electric effect).

Just because light in propagation is not affected by external electromagnetic fields does not mean that it is not itself electromagnetic. For example, the electric field of an electron is not affected by the presence of another electron. Does that mean the an electron is not electromagnetic?

Why is light slower in a lens or in a plasma? Why is light absorbed by a metal? How does light induce current in a charge coupled device? Which portions of the eye are affected by the incoming radiation and how?

Also, your objection to my assertion that the universe can be interpreted by the action and interaction of just three particles is not well thought out. I am inclined to advise you that a reliance on SR, GR and QM will not stand the test of time. I find the sesame street reasoning of quantum mechanics (QED/QCD/OMG/WTF) to be utterly unbelievable. The particle zoo is just a joke. I keep thinking, surely these seemingly intelligent people don't believe this nonsense. And what are all these very very short-lived particles:
Neutron - lifetime 14 minutes - decays into a proton and an electron
Muon - 2.2x10-6 seconds - decays into an electron
Tau - 2.9x10-13 seconds - decays into an electron

So basically, these mysterious particles, that are all created in "high energy" events and very quickly "decay" into some mixture of electrons, protons, "photons" and "neutrinos", or more simply put: electrons, protons and quantum aether particles/events. Modern Physics attempts to reduce all physical reality to mathematical variables so that it can be tweaked are reworked and mixed with unphysical variables to achieve the desired result. In respect of being philosophically and physically untenable, I am minded to view Modern Physics and Quantum Mechanics with the same utter incredulity as astrology, religion and all other superstitions.

I realise my protestations for logical common sense will not suffice to convince believers of counter-intuitiveness. An absence objectivity in itself precludes the likelihood of objectivity.

Michael

OK, well the positron is just as stable as the electron, and the neutrino is needed as well. And how about the galaxy? If you include an aethron on the same level as an electron, why not add a galaxy to your particle zoo?

I agree with your opinion on the dangers of indoctrination and dogma, and political and psychological aspects that often compete with rational approach and lead to stagnation and misunderstanding. I don't think you'll find I'm a bible thumper. However there can be advantages to standing on the shoulders of giants, after confirming for yourself that their backs are indeed strong. In regards to light being a wave or electromagnetic.. didn't we have this discussion before?

Cheers -