View Poll Results: Do you think electrons could be the medium for electromagnetic waves?

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, that makes perfect sense.

    1 4.17%
  • Possibly, interesting idea.

    0 0%
  • Maybe, not sure.

    0 0%
  • No, does not make sense.

    11 45.83%
  • No, this is crackpot physics.

    15 62.50%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 111

Thread: Can the ether just be electrons?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,406
    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    It is certainly suggestive that photons have particle-like properties. However, it is not conclusive.

    I can make a mechanical device that either releases a certain quantum of energy by making a water wave or absorbs that quantum from water waves and generates electricity. I could then put a bunch of these around the edge of my pool. That each device was releasing or absorbing a particular quantum of energy would not prove that there were no waves in the pool. The waves would be very clear to see.

    Imagine that your mechanical devices are small and sensitive enough to detect a single water molecule hitting them. Imagine that each water molecule hitting one of your mechanical devices would produce a flash from the electricity generated. Imagine you run an experiment in the dark, so that you cannot actually see the water wave. Imagine you used a high-speed camera to film the flashing lights as the wave hits your set of mechanical devices, so that there are only a few flashes per frame.

    If you looked at each frame, you would not recognize a pattern. But if you run the film with the appropriate speed, then you would recognize that the flashes follow a wave pattern. The macroscopic water wave hitting your set of detectors is composed of individual molecules interacting with individual mechanical devices.

    Have a look at this video: Interference pattern built up photon by photon.

    As others have pointed out,your mechanical analogy does not very well for EM waves and photons.
    But your reply shows clearly that you did not actually get my point: it is not the quantized exchange of energy that points towards particle-like properties. It is the fact that the interaction occurs in a point in space.

    In your posts you have shown that you do not understand classical electromagnetism well enough to speculate outside established physics (you still do not seem to grasp that an EM in vacuum is basically self-sustaining, which is actually nicely consistent with the idea that an excitation of the EM field can "fly off" without a source pumping energy into it). You also do not seem to understand that in modern physics, macroscopic EM waves are pictured as composed of many photons, and that the photons are the excitations of the electromagnetic field.

    Now, if you want to continue with this thread, address the other points I made in my posts.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
    An EM wave through a dielectric medium is something completely different, and far away from your original claim.
    How do you mean? Maxwell's "displacement current" in a dielectric was what I was thinking of when saying electrons are the medium.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by papageno View Post
    If you have a detector that is all-or-nothing (quantized) at each detection point then you will make a video like that even if electromagnetic waves are really waves. So I don't see how this is even interesting evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by papageno View Post
    But your reply shows clearly that you did not actually get my point: it is not the quantized exchange of energy that points towards particle-like properties. It is the fact that the interaction occurs in a point in space.
    If an electron is at a point in space, how is the fact that the interaction (possibly with a wave) occurs at a point in space evidence of anything? I don't see your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by papageno View Post
    In your posts you have shown that you do not understand classical electromagnetism well enough to speculate outside established physics (you still do not seem to grasp that an EM in vacuum is basically self-sustaining, [...]
    I understand that the EM wave is self-sustaining. The hypothesis that there was enough stuff to act as a medium still does not seem out of hand for light from stars because of the properties of plane waves. However, for a high power laser shining into a vacuum, I have to grant that might theory is looking rather weak.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    8,539
    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    How do you mean? Maxwell's "displacement current" in a dielectric was what I was thinking of when saying electrons are the medium.
    As EM waves can move through vacuum with no problem at all, where do you let your displacement current flow?
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
    As EM waves can move through vacuum with no problem at all, where do you let your displacement current flow?
    To me this is the most compelling problem with my theory. I had thought that the low density of particles would be ok because light was well spread out when coming from stars and a big plane wave seems able to extend the field in front of the wave for some distance (seems meters would be possible). But as people can do a high power laser burst into a vacuum, my theory does have trouble. I thought there was evidence that lasers shining into a vacuum, like sun shining into space, lost some electrons; however, I was misreading the paper I thought was such evidence.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,406
    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    If you have a detector that is all-or-nothing (quantized) at each detection point then you will make a video like that even if electromagnetic waves are really waves. So I don't see how this is even interesting evidence.
    For a purely classical wave, the interference pattern would not appear dot-by-dot. It would be visible from the beginning, because a purely classical wave would set off most of the dots in the detector array at the same time, not one at a time.

    The fact that the interaction between detector array and EM wave occurs as a series of well-localized interactions, points to the fact that the EM waves is made of particles.


    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    If an electron is at a point in space, how is the fact that the interaction (possibly with a wave) occurs at a point in space evidence of anything? I don't see your argument.
    We are not talking about one electron, we are talking about a large-scale detector array (in your analogy, mechanical devices all around the pool edge).



    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    I understand that the EM wave is self-sustaining. The hypothesis that there was enough stuff to act as a medium still does not see out of hand for light from stars because of the properties of plane waves.
    What properties?
    You still have not shown why EM waves would need a medium in the first place. It is long overdue that you do it in the appropriate quantitative detail.


    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    However, for a high power laser shining into a vacuum, I have to grant that might theory is looking rather weak.
    You do not have a theory. You have an idea which you have not thought through.

    Now, please address the other points I raised in my posts.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    I thought there was evidence that lasers shining into a vacuum, like sun shining into space, lost some electrons; however, I was misreading the paper I thought was such evidence.
    Light -- laser or otherwise -- has no electrons, and thus no electrons to lose.

    ETA: You seem blissfully unaware of the contradictory properties an aether must possess if it were to exist. It must be stiff enough to support a propagation velocity of c (i.e., it must be very stiff), yet insubstantial enough to allow material objects to traverse through it with no resistance (otherwise, eg., the orbits of planets would have decayed long ago, and we wouldn't be around for this discussion). Simply waving (sorry, no pun intended) your hands and saying "It seems to me that electrons fill the bill" doesn't come close to satisfying the requirements of even a poor theory, let alone a good one. I strongly recommend learning physics before trying to extend it.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    Light -- laser or otherwise -- has no electrons, and thus no electrons to lose.

    ETA: You seem blissfully unaware of the contradictory properties an aether must possess if it were to exist. It must be stiff enough to support a propagation velocity of c (i.e., it must be very stiff), yet insubstantial enough to allow material objects to traverse through it with no resistance (otherwise, eg., the orbits of planets would have decayed long ago, and we wouldn't be around for this discussion). Simply waving (sorry, no pun intended) your hands and saying "It seems to me that electrons fill the bill" doesn't come close to satisfying the requirements of even a poor theory, let alone a good one. I strongly recommend learning physics before trying to extend it.
    The Sun seems to throw off lots of matter when sending light into a vacuum, so I thought maybe a laser had to do the same thing. Not that the light was matter, but that it needed some medium in order to propagate. The idea was if there was not enough matter in the vacuum for the energy to propagate that it would strip off some of the matter where it was coming from. So the laser device would lose some electrons.

    At least some of Maxwell's equations are talking about electrons. Dielectrics do become dipoles when waves go through. Relativity says there can be no magnetism without electricity. I may be wrong, but I doubt this is the most foolish idea this forum has seen. :-)

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,249
    If the laser device did lose electrons to fire then it would build up a charge. Ditto if the Sun had to bleed off electrons. They'd have to lose positive particles too, otherwise eventually they'd be so strongly charged electrons could not escape. So the aether could not just be electrons if this were the case.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    8,539
    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    At least some of Maxwell's equations are talking about electrons. Dielectrics do become dipoles when waves go through. Relativity says there can be no magnetism without electricity.
    Relativity says no such thing!
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,327
    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    I guess what I would really like is to focus mostly on the vacuum propagation objection. My theory predicts that sending lots of energy through a vacuum with very few particles from a high powered laser would be trouble. I had thought that a laser was ejecting electrons sort of like the sun ejects electrons but this seems not to be so. If people know of experiments on this, that is what I am looking for.
    In practice, it's the presence of particles that causes trouble. Really high intensity laser experiments have to be done in vacuum due to interactions with atmosphere. Perhaps the biggest example: https://lasers.llnl.gov/about/nif/ho...et_chamber.php

    And of course, lasers regularly pass through things that are highly effective obstacles to free electrons...like air, or windows into vacuum chambers or laser tubes, or silicon and plastic encapsulation material of a cheap laser diode. Your idea that lasers have anything to do with beams of electrons is just completely disconnected from reality.


    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    If you have a detector that is all-or-nothing (quantized) at each detection point then you will make a video like that even if electromagnetic waves are really waves. So I don't see how this is even interesting evidence.
    Another point: many detectors are not all-or-nothing, but are capable of measuring photon energy as well. The energy measured is independent of the intensity of illumination, but instead depends on wavelength. Intensity only affects the number of photons counted.


    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    I understand that the EM wave is self-sustaining. The hypothesis that there was enough stuff to act as a medium still does not seem out of hand for light from stars because of the properties of plane waves. However, for a high power laser shining into a vacuum, I have to grant that might theory is looking rather weak.
    I'm still unsure why you keep bringing plane waves up, it's not clear what properties you think plane waves have that would make your idea work. A classical plane wave would not interact with a thin scattering of electrons separated by many wavelengths as though it were a continuous medium.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
    Relativity says no such thing!
    I know you can't blanket trust wikipedia, but they do have references, and it is my understanding that this is correct:

    "As a consequence of Einstein's theory of special relativity, electricity and magnetism are fundamentally interlinked. Both magnetism lacking electricity, and electricity without magnetism, are inconsistent with special relativity, due to such effects as length contraction, time dilation, and the fact that the magnetic force is velocity-dependent. However, when both electricity and magnetism are taken into account, the resulting theory (electromagnetism) is fully consistent with special relativity.[6][10] In particular, a phenomenon that appears purely electric to one observer may be purely magnetic to another, or more generally the relative contributions of electricity and magnetism are dependent on the frame of reference. Thus, special relativity "mixes" electricity and magnetism into a single, inseparable phenomenon called electromagnetism, analogous to how relativity "mixes" space and time into spacetime."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneti...ial_relativity

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    In particular, a phenomenon that appears purely electric to one observer may be purely magnetic to another {snip}
    So, the reference you cite shows that, depending on frame, you can have purely electric fields without any magnetic one. In other words, the reference you yourself supplied confirms what tusenfem said.

    Again, you really need to hit the books.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    So, the reference you cite shows that, depending on frame, you can have purely electric fields without any magnetic one. In other words, the reference you yourself supplied confirms what tusenfem said.

    Again, you really need to hit the books.
    If you have one stationary electron it has an electric field. If it is moving you will get a magnetic field. Depending on their frame of reference, it is possible for two different observers, at the same time, to see the electron as stationary and as moving.

    The interesting thing is that if you need to have electricity to have magnetism, then for electromagnetic fields we need moving electrons. It will be the ultimate in irony if relativity shows that the ether is electrons. :-) No, I am not yet declaring victory, but I do think there is something interesting here. :-)

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,234
    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    ...I do think there is something interesting here. :-)
    Apparently you are alone in that belief.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    If you have one stationary electron it has an electric field. If it is moving you will get a magnetic field. Depending on their frame of reference, it is possible for two different observers, at the same time, to see the electron as stationary and as moving.

    The interesting thing is that if you need to have electricity to have magnetism, then for electromagnetic fields we need moving electrons. It will be the ultimate in irony if relativity shows that the ether is electrons. :-) No, I am not yet declaring victory, but I do think there is something interesting here. :-)
    No, your logic is faulty. Read the reference carefully. In a given frame, it is possible to have a pure magnetic effect. You said you can't have this. You were asserting something wrong about relativity and tusenfem (and the article) corrected you properly.

    As to your second comment, you're making another illogical connection. The existence of a causal agent (eg, charge) in no way implies that the causal agent is also a medium for any effect caused by the agent. You're just asserting random things. No go.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,327
    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    The interesting thing is that if you need to have electricity to have magnetism, then for electromagnetic fields we need moving electrons.
    This is a non sequitur. Electric and magnetic fields being different aspects of the electromagnetic field does not imply anything about electrons being necessary.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    I'm still unsure why you keep bringing plane waves up, it's not clear what properties you think plane waves have that would make your idea work. A classical plane wave would not interact with a thin scattering of electrons separated by many wavelengths as though it were a continuous medium.
    Here was my thinking.

    A point, like an electron, the field drops off with 1/R^2
    A line, like magnetic field around a current in a wire, drops off with 1/R
    A plane wave, like light, the field does not drop off for short distances from the surface of the wave.

    So it seemed the low density of space might not be a problem for a plane wave. In particular for waves that have been expanding for light years and are rather wide.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,567
    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    A point, like an electron, the field drops off with 1/R^2
    A line, like magnetic field around a current in a wire, drops off with 1/R
    A plane wave, like light, the field does not drop off for short distances from the surface of the wave.
    Please address the laser-through-vacuum scenario. Do you not understand that the absence of a vacuum-dependent effect falsifies your claim?

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    Please address the laser-through-vacuum scenario. Do you not understand that the absence of a vacuum-dependent effect falsifies your claim?
    I understand. My one last hope is that a laser (or glass interface to vacuum) loses electrons like the sun loses to space. I am told this is not so but have not yet found an experiment checking for this. I agree this looks very bad for my idea (as someone said, "theory" is too generous).

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,575
    Greetings,

    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    I understand. My one last hope is that a laser (or glass interface to vacuum) loses electrons like the sun loses to space. I am told this is not so but have not yet found an experiment checking for this. I agree this looks very bad for my idea (as someone said, "theory" is too generous).
    As a LASER spectroscopist, I can assure you that that LASER beams do not, repeat do not lose electrons as they propagate through a laboratory vacuum. Nor do they do so at the beam-window interface. There are thousands of research papers published that use LASER's within laboratory vacuum chambers--thousands! None of that research would have been possible were your hypothesis correct.

    Search for any paper discussing LASER work within a high vacuum chamber: molecular beam work, photoelectron spectroscopy, semiconductor fabrication, ... on and on.

    Best regards,
    EigenState

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,327
    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    Here was my thinking.

    A point, like an electron, the field drops off with 1/R^2
    A line, like magnetic field around a current in a wire, drops off with 1/R
    A plane wave, like light, the field does not drop off for short distances from the surface of the wave.

    So it seemed the low density of space might not be a problem for a plane wave. In particular for waves that have been expanding for light years and are rather wide.
    Why do you think a plane wave interacting with point particles many wavelengths apart would remain a plane wave?


    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    I understand. My one last hope is that a laser (or glass interface to vacuum) loses electrons like the sun loses to space. I am told this is not so but have not yet found an experiment checking for this. I agree this looks very bad for my idea (as someone said, "theory" is too generous).
    There is no need for such an experiment, other experiments that involve lasers in electric or magnetic fields or those affected by the presence of free electrons would give results far different from those predicted by theory. Photomultiplier tubes, highly refined and extremely well modeled devices at this point, would behave completely differently, being set off by any light that penetrates the bulb rather than that which hits the photocathode. The work function of the photocathode would be essentially irrelevant due to the spray of electrons bouncing through the bulb, which would also make it impossible to count photons. And of course, the first light to hit a vacuum would find no electrons to carry it, so the vacuum would be impenetrable to light until it was filled with electrons...which of course can not travel at c, or very fast at all at typical photoelectric electron energies (more like 0.004c for 4 eV electrons).

    You really want us to believe that we have somehow failed to notice electrons spraying into vacuum whenever light is present or vacuums being opaque until they have been filled with such electrons?

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,406
    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    A point, like an electron, the field drops off with 1/R^2
    That is, a point-like charged object at rest.


    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    A line, like magnetic field around a current in a wire, drops off with 1/R
    That is, a current-carrying wire, with charges moving through it.


    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    A plane wave, like light, the field does not drop off for short distances from the surface of the wave.
    That is, an electromagnetic wave with no charges in sight.

    So, you are comparing the electric field of a static charge distribution, to the magnetic field of a moving charge distribution, to the electric field of an electromagnetic wave without charges.

    Basically, apples, oranges, and bananas.



    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    So it seemed the low density of space might not be a problem for a plane wave. In particular for waves that have been expanding for light years and are rather wide.
    Well, an EM has no problem with zero density of matter, it propagates anyway because it does not need a material medium.

    Now, are you going to address my points or not?

    Also, I would like you to write down the four Maxwell's equations and point us to the parts that involve specifically electrons, in support of your repeated claim that those equations imply electrons as medium of EM waves.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    Why do you think a plane wave interacting with point particles many wavelengths apart would remain a plane wave?
    I was thinking of plane waves coming from stars light-years away, so very wide. For a laser with a narrow beam going into a vacuum with particles many wavelengths apart, it does not seem right.

    Quote Originally Posted by cjameshuff View Post
    There is no need for such an experiment, other experiments that involve lasers in electric or magnetic fields or those affected by the presence of free electrons would give results far different from those predicted by theory. Photomultiplier tubes, highly refined and extremely well modeled devices at this point, would behave completely differently, being set off by any light that penetrates the bulb rather than that which hits the photocathode.
    Photomultipliers have dark-count rates that are rather high. It is like they are seeing things that are not there all the time.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by papageno View Post
    That is, an electromagnetic wave with no charges in sight.

    So, you are comparing the electric field of a static charge distribution, to the magnetic field of a moving charge distribution, to the electric field of an electromagnetic wave without charges.

    Basically, apples, oranges, and bananas.
    The hypothesis discussed in this thread is that electromagnetic waves have electrons as the medium. If true, then these would be good comparisons. Just stating that there are no charges in electromagnetic waves (i.e. that my hypothesis is wrong) is not evidence that my hypothesis is wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by papageno View Post
    Well, an EM has no problem with zero density of matter, it propagates anyway because it does not need a material medium.
    Just stating that my hypothesis is wrong does not add much to the discussion, this has already been said many times. :-)

    Quote Originally Posted by papageno View Post
    Now, are you going to address my points or not?
    I think I have been addressing your points. Sometimes with a big net, like "experiments where the quantization can be explained as due to matter don't seem convincing evidence that electromagnetic energy is quantized". If even my big net has missed some please restate the question.


    Quote Originally Posted by papageno View Post
    Also, I would like you to write down the four Maxwell's equations and point us to the parts that involve specifically electrons, in support of your repeated claim that those equations imply electrons as medium of EM waves.
    This seems like a good way to go. I tried to start this earlier with Gauss's law but got no takers.

    First, when protons are moving then whole atoms are moving. When whole atoms are making waves, we have sound waves. So I am hypothesizing that in electromagnetic waves only the electrons really have time to move, not the 2000 times heavier protons. So when the equations talk about "charges" I am thinking the changes that occur as the wave passes are due to electrons moving, not protons.

    1) Gauss's law for electric fields:
    Electric charge produces an electric field, and the flux of that field passing through any closed surface is proportional to the total charge contained within that surface.

    2) Gauss's law for magnetic fields
    The total magnetic flux passing through any closed surface is zero.

    3) Faraday's law
    Changing magnetic flux through a surface induces an emf in any boundary path of that surface, and a changing magnetic field induces a circulating electric field. A wire loop around the edge of such a surface will have a current induced in it.

    4) Ampere Maxwell law
    An electric current or a changing electric flux through a surface produces a circulating magnetic field around any path that bounds that surface.

    So #1 and #4 seem (if we rule out moving protons about in time given) to imply electrons are moving for any change to happen. My understanding of relativity (which has already been contested) is that magnetic fields imply charges moving in some reference frame. Again, these charges must be electrons as protons are just too heavy to move in the time given. So #3 also implies electrons moving.
    Last edited by vincecate; 2011-Jul-12 at 10:52 AM.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    8,539
    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    Just stating that my hypothesis is wrong does not add much to the discussion, this has already been said many times. :-)
    Yes, but you keep on failing to actually make a case for your assumption, see post #84 above, anoter statement that "it does not seem right."

    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    This seems like a good way to go. I tried to start this earlier with Gauss's law but got no takers.

    First, when protons are moving then whole atoms are moving. When whole atoms are making waves, we have sound waves. So I am hypothesizing that in electromagnetic waves only the electrons really have time to move, not the 2000 times heavier protons. So when the equations talk about "charges" I am thinking the changes that occur as the wave passes are due to electrons moving, not protons.
    There is absolutely no reason whatsovever to exclude protons from Maxwell's equations, most definitely not from Gauss's law. However, this comes, I think, from your interpretation of Maxwell's equations as only related to lab experiments that are made for students in which the only current carriers are the electrons in the cables of the experimental setup. This is a significant drawback.

    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    1) Gauss's law for electric fields:
    Electric charge produces an electric field, and the flux of that field passing through any closed surface is proportional to the total charge contained within that surface.

    2) Gauss's law for magnetic fields
    The total magnetic flux passing through any closed surface is zero.

    3) Faraday's law
    Changing magnetic flux through a surface induces an emf in any boundary path of that surface, and a changing magnetic field induces a circulating electric field. A wire loop around the edge of such a surface will have a current induced in it.

    4) Ampere Maxwell law
    An electric current or a changing electric flux through a surface produces a circulating magnetic field around any path that bounds that surface.
    Well that is a way of describing the equations, but that is kind of a simplistic approach, the equations would show much more. Circulating electric and magnetic fields is rather strange terminology, but that probably comes from the curl of the field.

    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    So #1 and #4 seem (if we rule out moving protons about in time given) to imply electrons are moving for any change to happen. My understanding of relativity (which has already been contested) is that magnetic fields imply charges moving in some reference frame. Again, these charges must be electrons as protons are just too heavy to move in the time given. So #3 also implies electrons moving.
    #1: But you CANNOT rule out protons from Gauss's law which is written: ε0 div(E) = Σj nj qj, thus the total sum of ALL charge densities, both positive and negative!

    #4: Once more it is clear that your understanding of classical electrodynamics is inadequate. Yes there is a current term in Ampère-Maxwell, HOWEVER a current is defined as J = Σj nj qj vj, again summation over ALL species both positive and negative. It may be that in electrical circuits only the electrons move in the cables, however in a plasma, which you would find in space, this is not the case. In complete for the equation is: curl(B) = μ0 (J + ε0(dE/dt))

    #3: Maxwell-Faraday says absolutely nothing about moving electrons it says that: curl(E) = - dB/dt, nothing more nothing less, there are no electrons in that equation.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
    There is absolutely no reason whatsovever to exclude protons from Maxwell's equations, most definitely not from Gauss's law.
    I do not mean that we exclude protons from the equations. Yes, the positive charges are still important and should not be ignored. I mean that in the incredibly short time that a light wave passes a particular atom only the electron has time to move. So the action is in the electrons.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,406
    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    The hypothesis discussed in this thread is that maybe electromagnetic waves have electrons as the medium. If true, then these would be good comparisons. Just stating that there are no charges moving is not evidence that there are no charges.
    It is not a statement. It is a conclusion drawn from experimental evidence.
    So far, you have not even provided an actual theoretical argument (let alone experimental evidence) in support of your hypothesis.


    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    Just stating that my hypothesis is wrong does not add much to the discussion, this has already been said many times. :-)
    Just re-stating your hypothesis adds even less.


    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    I think I have been addressing your points.
    You have not. You have consistently ignored several, significant points I raised.

    Like my request to prove that Maxwell's equations imply electrons as medium, or that "light can reach out as far as needed to get enough electrons to propagate".
    Like my point that the Sun sends out protons as well as electrons, or that Gauss's law does involve specifically electrons.
    Like my adaption of your own mechanical analogy to the single-photon interference experiment, to explain the picture of macroscopic wave as sum of many particles and the difference between particle-like and wave-like interaction.

    You have not even acknowledged half of these points.



    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    Sometimes with a big net, like "experiments where the quantization can be explained as due to matter don't seem convincing evidence that electromagnetic energy is quantized". If even my big net has missed some please restate the question.
    What in my posts is not clear, that it needs re-stating?



    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by papageno
    Also, I would like you to write down the four Maxwell's equations and point us to the parts that involve specifically electrons, in support of your repeated claim that those equations imply electrons as medium of EM waves.
    This seems like a good way to go. I tried to start this earlier with Gauss's law but got no takers.
    You did not try anything, you just made an unsupported assertion and then dropped it.

    You claimed that your math is Maxwell's equations, then show us how this math imply electrons as medium: write down the four equations and point a finger to the parts that require specifically electrons.


    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    First, when protons are moving then whole atoms are moving.
    Unless the protons are on their own... like in the solar wind, for example. Or when they are alpha particle... positrons... ion beams... charged sub-atomic particles...


    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    When whole atoms are making waves, we have sound waves. So I am hypothesizing that in electromagnetic waves only the electrons really have time to move, not the 2000 times heavier protons.
    Why are you talking about electrons bound in atoms, if your point is that EM waves propagate in interstellar and intergalactic space using electrons that are not bound in atoms?



    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    So when the equations talk about "charges" I am thinking the changes that occur as the wave passes are only in the electrons.
    Why electrons? Why not other charged particles?



    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    1) Gauss's law for electric fields:
    Electric charge produces an electric field, and the flux of that field passing through any closed surface is proportional to the total charge contained within that surface.

    2) Gauss's law for magnetic fields
    The total magnetic flux passing through any closed surface is zero.

    3) Faraday's law
    Changing magnetic flux through a surface induces an emf in any boundary path of that surface, and a changing magnetic field induces a circulating electric field. I wire loop around the edge of such a surface will have a current induced in it.

    4) Ampere Maxwell law
    An electric current or a changing electric flux through a surface produces a circulating magnetic field around any path that bounds that surface.
    Please write down the actual Maxwell's equations, as known in the modern mathematical form, and point the finger to the part that says "electrons".


    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    So #1 and #4 seem (if we rule out moving protons about in time given) to imply electrons are moving for any change to happen.
    My understanding of relativity (which has already been contested) is that magnetic fields imply charges moving in some reference frame. Again, these charges must be electrons as protons are just too heavy to move in the time given. So #3 also implies electrons moving.
    A current of 1 A electrons produce the same field as 1 A protons or 1 A alpha particles.

    The difference in the dynamic response to EM wave between electrons and other particles does not imply that EM waves need material medium, let alone that this medium must be composed of electrons.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,206
    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    Photomultipliers have dark-count rates that are rather high. It is like they are seeing things that are not there all the time.
    What kind of support do you have for THIS statement? How are they high? What experiments show they are high? Do any show they are low? How exactly are the photomultipliers ending up with false count rates? Please explain the process for us.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    8,539
    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    I do not mean that we exclude protons from the equations. Yes, the positive charges are still important and should not be ignored. I mean that in the incredibly short time that a light wave passes a particular atom only the electron has time to move. So the action is in the electrons.
    And how about at EM waves of long wavelengths, e.g. radio waves?
    Indeed, in very rapid processes the motion of the ions wrt the electrons can be neglected sometimes, because of the heavier mass, however, as we see processes where ions are interacting with electromagnetic waves (e.g. Landau damping, where the ions take away energy from the EM wave) it seems quaint to claim that you can just neglect the ions, because you only want to look at very fast processes.

    Again, please come up with a real qualitative and quantitative explanation of your model. So far you are failing badly.
    A good start may be by answering papageno's questions, however better would be if you would actually bring something substansive and show that you understand basic electrodynamics.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

Similar Threads

  1. Ether... i mean, Dark Matter
    By timeless in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 2009-May-31, 04:55 PM
  2. Ether resurgent?
    By Harry Palmer in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 2007-Jun-05, 02:18 PM
  3. The Effects of Gravity’s Ether
    By Hans in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2007-Feb-19, 06:46 AM
  4. Ether
    By peassens in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Dec-08, 10:13 AM
  5. On past and ether
    By Argos in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 2002-Dec-31, 09:14 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •