Michael V wrote:
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.
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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest