General Relativity "slightly" Wrong?

[viscout aero]

13 billion years ago when that photon was emitted it was then our present as well. As it traveled through space our present remained the present until that photon finally reached us, in our present. It was not emitted in our past, as in our past it was our present. As time moved forward for the photon it also moved forward for us. In effect it has always traveled in our present time. One emitted today will not reach us in our future in 13 billion years, but in our then present time. Confusing I know

That's somewhat untenable a concept; is fantasy-like. But I like it! It requires a paradigm adjustment to the fixed position of only "now." So any future or past tenses are reflected as events happening only right now. So the hypothetical event of 13 b/yrs ago is actually a recent event, happening as we speak. That's pretty mind blowing; would mean, too (if I follow you) that "we" happened 13 b/yrs ago, too, and each thing, the 13b/yr old light from the star and our planet simultaneously ran through time and expansion together, right now.

The fact is if I calculate backward at the speed of light to the beginning, I had to be in almost the same spot as it was when that photon was emitted, so why would it not be in front of me?

That part I understood from previously. Yes, that's awesome. That's something I've never considered until I read your thoughts on that. I would assume that most others, too, have never considered the so-called "BB" or expansion of space with that aspect in mind.

I do not believe space that we con observe is nothing, I do believe it is an aether. But relativists want it to be nothing as they do not want an aether. If, and that is a big "IF" space is expanding then it could only do so by expanding into nothing, a void, an emptiness. Such void or emptiness could never be affected by matter or affect matter in any way, except to allow movement into it. Everything around us must be a diluted (can't think of a word that adds to a void) void, an aether composed of particles.

Yes, it is a tootsie roll wrapped around an enigma. The problem with BB and/or relativists who accept BB is the issue of before the BB, and then what is it expanding into -which is allegedly the "space" that preceded the BB. If it is expanding into nothing, then how can nothing, too, be outer space --which is the product of the BB?

Waves require a medium to propagate, so if they want light to be both wave and particle then there must be a medium for the wave nature of light to propagate through. I do know that our solar system is filled with particles that we can detect. I do not know if it is filled with particles beyond our ability to detect with current technology. I can not exclude the possibility when our technology still can not image an individual electron, so if smaller particles did exist we would never be able to detect them with the technology we currently employ. I see no reason to exclude the possibility at this time until our technology improves. To say there is or isn't an aether is not scientifically verifiable at this point in time, one can only make conclusions based on what affects one observes. I tend to think there is an aether.

Well tell that to MJV who alleges that there are no EM waves, and that EM does not require a medium, and that the aether is the electricity and light itself, not the carrier thereof. I think people have differing ideas and points of view of what the aether is. It seems to vary from person to person. Very confusing!

[viscout aero]

nonsense....this is for the NIMI forum...the internet has a large number of nut jobs preaching one form of nonsense or another.

So plasma is non-thinking stuff? It just does things? How are you able to declare in absolute terms that it has no consciousness?

I posited: If it doesn't need a medium, then it is going through nothingness.

No, you are constructing a logical fallacy. It can go through a vacuum, and it can go through a medium, but it does not need a medium. It does not have to be one or the other.

What do you mean by a vacuum versus "nothing" ..... A vacuum implies non-existence of matter or anything. It is, then, one or the other unless you do not accept a vacuum as being nothingness.

I asked: But are not particles observed to be clustered in waves?

Not that i know of....are you talking about the filamentary structures observed? those are not waves.

.. to clarify.. say there are radio emissions coming from a galaxy. They reach the Earth. They reach the Earth as particles or waves? If not waves, then this implies that radio waves do not exist?

[sjw40364]

I am still deciding what I believe the aether to be, but have been leaning towards the idea that it is the cause of all energy, even light itself. I believe E/M radiation is a byproduct of matter interacting with this medium, which is why we detect it everywhere. As particles move through this aether they build up charge as electrostatics and this charge sustains the magnetic field. As more charge is built up they emit this excess charge in the form of E/M radiation as they attempt to reach equilibrium. I am still trying to think it through and am not clear myself as to the whole process. I have been reading a lot of Tesla's work and he has some interesting views on the subject. Tesla also said of relativity ...[a] magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists ...

[saul]

I enjoy reading your posts in this thread mjv, please forgive me for jumping into the aether..

Electrons were not discovered for another thirty years, after Maxwell's death. He was not aware of their existence or that they emit photons/light or that they are associated with electromagnetic fields. The "knowledge" that light is an electromagnetic wave has persisted ever since.

A word of caution: there are many types of light "emission". E.g. the emission of light due to an electron "falling" into a lower energy level "orbit" around a nucleus.. (photo-electric effect) or bremstrahllung, synchrotron, gamma-rays, etc. The generation of this light can be easily visualized by simply considering that a charged particle has an electric field extending out from it to great distances. Accelerating this charged particle therefore changes the associated field as seen from some distant point. The ripple in the field as the change in field moves out from the accelerated particle is called "light". If the acceleration of the charged particle is sudden and of short duration, and quantized (fixed to a certain set of energies) we call the change in field that moves from the location a "photon". If the acceleration is continuous we don't call it a photon but e.g. a radio wave.

... and light is not an electromagnetic wave.

... No, absolutely definitely not. The EM fields are NOT waves. I have suggested above that light is not a wave. The aether is not a wave carrier.

I'm not sure what you could mean by this. It is a mathematical fact that any continuous function can be expressed as a linear combination of waves (Fourier). Therefore we can describe the electromagnetic field everywhere in the universe as a superposition of waves. I can think of no other phenomenon than light that more clearly satisfies the many criteria we use to describe things as waves. Extremely linear over 20+ orders of magnitude, obeying simple wave equations, etc. When an author says he hears a voice "cracking in over the aether" we understand that the voice had been transferred to radio waves and then picked up with a radio receiver.

The question of "what is a wave" has been debated by many philosophers. If interested I recommend the introduction to Whitham's "Linear and non-linear waves" which is available in the "look inside" preview feature at amazon.com. Light seems to be a prime example

PS Electromagnetic fields DO NOT affect photons. Electrons (photon emitters) are affected by electromagnetic fields.

Yes, I think you are referring to the remarkable linearity of the EM field in vacuum. One wave component can pass right over another with no effect on either. However as some others have pointed out in this thread there are some interactions such as the Zeeman effect which do affect light. When other charges are considered such as in prisms or other media the propagation can become more nonlinear. Probing the limits of linearity of light in vacuum are one of the only means we have to diagnose the constiuents of the aether, er, electromagnetic space-time vacuum.

Cheers -

[Sparky]

nonsense....this is for the NIMI forum...the internet has a large number of nut jobs preaching one form of nonsense or another.

So plasma is non-thinking stuff? It just does things? How are you able to declare in absolute terms that it has no consciousness?

If anyone asks such a question they are beyond scientific reasoning. That is metaphysics, not science. There is a pseudo scientific thread, "what is consciousness", where you can find people who will entertain such a concept.

I posited: If it doesn't need a medium, then it is going through nothingness.

No, you are constructing a logical fallacy. It can go through a vacuum, and it can go through a medium, but it does not need a medium. It does not have to be one or the other.

What do you mean by a vacuum versus "nothing" ..... A vacuum implies non-existence of matter or anything. It is, then, one or the other unless you do not accept a vacuum as being nothingness.

You are off on a tangent. You said, in part, "EM radiation travels through something, a medium-" and then, "If it doesn't need a medium, then it is going through nothingness."
I answered, " It can go through a vacuum, and it can go through a medium, but it does not need a medium. It does not have to be one or the other. E/M can travel through very dense matter, through the air, or through a vacuum. It does not need any medium to propagate. I can't state it any more clearly than that. You have set up a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy, which you believe to be a valid, logical argument.

I asked: But are not particles observed to be clustered in waves?

Not that i know of....are you talking about the filamentary structures observed? those are not waves.

.. to clarify.. say there are radio emissions coming from a galaxy. They reach the Earth. They reach the Earth as particles or waves? If not waves, then this implies that radio waves do not exist?

Not that i know of in space. But if you want to believe in radio waves, there are people who will support that, just as there are people who will support any belief one dreams up.

I am somewhat open to the possibility of "waves", but right now i am focused more on physical matter.


****************

saul,

The ripple in the field as the change in field moves out from the accelerated particle is called "light". If the acceleration of the charged particle is sudden and of short duration, and quantized (fixed to a certain set of energies) we call the change in field that moves from the location a "photon". If the acceleration is continuous we don't call it a photon but e.g. a radio wave.

from which cult's intense and prolonged indoctrination did you acquire that?

It is a mathematical fact that any continuous function can be expressed as a linear combination of waves (Fourier).

A mathematical FACT?!..Math should support reality, not to have reality twisted to support the math.

Is Whitham the high guru, THE AUTHORITY, of the wave cult.?

[sjw40364]

So we have actually observed electrons orbiting atoms and falling to lower energy levels and emitting photons? I do not mean in the imagination or in theory, or in a fuzzy blob that one cant distinguish anything, I mean really? I am still waiting for that picture of a lone electron.

[sjw40364]

Tell me this isn't an electrical event.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjMkjZSN ... digest_fri

[tayga]

I am still waiting for that picture of a lone electron.

You might want to take a packed lunch with you

[Oracle_911]

SJW (and others).

So we have actually observed electrons orbiting atoms and falling to lower energy levels and emitting photons? I do not mean in the imagination or in theory, or in a fuzzy blob that one cant distinguish anything, I mean really? I am still waiting for that picture of a lone electron.

That is the reason why i`m against calling electrons particle, because if you look closer to the recent atom models, you will see mathematical voodoo to hold it together.
Electron is much more a phenomenon (or at least 2 phenomena 1) asymmetrical EM in vacuum tubes view 2) negative charge carrier in plasma) then a particle.

My second argument is this, if atoms have the structure as textbooks says than this would be impossible.

[Sparky]

oracle,

That is the reason why i`m against calling electrons particle,

well, particle is a convenient term that describes the various properties of the phenomenon. what, other than particle, should we call it? An "asymmetrical EM , negative charge carrier , particle" seems clumsy, though it may be accurate...

It's all EM.

[sjw40364]

IMO an atom would look just like the solar system does, with all electrons orbiting around the plane between the poles. Diagrams of atoms circling in every direction is absurd, nothing visible in nature does that from solar system to galaxy, why would we assume atoms are different? Don't misunderstand me, I have no problems with an electron being a particle but we don't know what it does or how it does it if it does it. It is more likely photons are emitted from the nucleus, just as in our solar system from electrical activity.

[mjv1121]

sjw,

mjv1121 wrote:
Electromagnetic fields DO NOT affect photons. Electrons (photon emitters) are affected by electromagnetic fields.

Then what causes the Faraday effect that causes the polarization of light to rotate according to its propagation in a magnetic field?

You should be aware, I am sure, that electron density of the affected medium is an important element in the calculation of "Rotational Measure".

Photons (particle or wave) are NOT affect by electromagnetic fields. Electrons, the emitters of the photons and of the electromagnetic fields, are affected by the fields.

Michael

[sjw40364]

I for one do not believe that a photon is a virtual particle, that is just a cop out. A photon has mass, has extension and has volume, and can be affected like any other material object, it is simply very small and very fast and is less likely to be subjected to the same forces that affect larger particles.

[saul]

The ripple in the field as the change in field moves out from the accelerated particle is called "light". If the acceleration of the charged particle is sudden and of short duration, and quantized (fixed to a certain set of energies) we call the change in field that moves from the location a "photon". If the acceleration is continuous we don't call it a photon but e.g. a radio wave.

from which cult's intense and prolonged indoctrination did you acquire that?

I'm not sure what you are referring to? This is my personal experience of electromagnetism over many years of study. Which part seems "cultish" to you?

It is a mathematical fact that any continuous function can be expressed as a linear combination of waves (Fourier).

A mathematical FACT?!..Math should support reality, not to have reality twisted to support the math.

Math is only a subset of language. Logic and reason and language are our tools. If you consider the circular functions (sine and cosine) to be "waves", then we can with logical consistency express any continuous function as a collection of such waves. This is the basis of how the TPOD jpeg is rendered on your screen.

Is Whitham the high guru, THE AUTHORITY, of the wave cult.?

I mentioned his introduction because he does a good job answering the question "what is a wave". Indeed the word is largely ambiguous and too general to be of specific use. Most likely your aversion to the word "wave" is due to some specific meaning you associate with it. Perhaps we can identify precisely your objection?

[saul]

IMO an atom would look just like the solar system does, with all electrons orbiting around the plane between the poles. Diagrams of atoms circling in every direction is absurd, nothing visible in nature does that from solar system to galaxy, why would we assume atoms are different? Don't misunderstand me, I have no problems with an electron being a particle but we don't know what it does or how it does it if it does it. It is more likely photons are emitted from the nucleus, just as in our solar system from electrical activity.

All charged particles create light if they are accelerated. That is what light is: the change in field from an accelerated charged particle which propagates outward. Free electrons (without nuclei) also can create light: Synchrotron, free-free emission, Bremstrahlung are some names attached to this kind of radiation but from a physical point of view it is all the same: accelerated charges and the radiation associated with them.

Chemistry is perhaps the field which knows the most about the structure of electrons bound to nuclei. The nature of the orientation and position of the electrons with respect to the nuclei controls chemical bonding and crystal structure. I am no expert in this field but a quick look at s,d,p, and f orbitals shows that the planetary model leaves something to be desired

Cheers-