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 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 111 of 111

Thread: Can the ether just be electrons?

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,575
    Greetings,

    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    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.
    Please explain why the propagation of a photon is dependent upon the source of that photon or the distance that photon has propagated. Mathematics please!

    And also please do finally address my prior question (post #50) regarding the angular distributions of scattered light as a function of frequency.

    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.
    A couple of points on the above quote.

    First, "dark-count" rate means exactly that, the count-rate in the absence of light. What you really want is background count-rate in which light is present but no sample is being probed. With modern photomultiplier tubes, high background count-rates result from radiation scattered off the surfaces of the vacuum chamber or internally mounted optics or detection apparatus. They are therefore an artifact of poor experimental execution.

    Second, you are discussing the detection of electrons, not photons. The detectors used in photoionization spectroscopy are designed specifically to detect electrons. Properly used, their background count-rates are not detectable.

    Thus your assertion is both irrelevant and wrong.

    Best regards,
    EigenState

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,609
    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.
    Note the word "total" (which one should interpret as "net"). You must consider more than just electrons. But if we set that consideration aside for now and continue with your verbal recitation of Maxwell's equations (which most scientists use in its mathematical form -- you know, to do calculations)...

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

    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.
    A bit idiosyncratic in its wording (as noted by others). A succinct summary might be "a changing magnetic field can induce an electric field."

    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.
    Again, a bit idiosyncratic. I'd suggest "a changing electric field can induce a magnetic field."

    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.
    Your logic once again has failed you. Miserably.

    First, while charges can give rise to a field, a field does not depend on a charge. Look again at #3 and #4. A changing field of one type can generate a field of the other type. Perhaps a charge gave rise to one originally (or perhaps not; there's nothing in the wording that precludes pre-existing radiation), but you're confusing sufficiency with necessity.

    My understanding of relativity (which has already been contested)
    Were it that this is your only difficulty...

    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.
    No. On top of jumping to conclusions that do not follow logically from the premises, you are fond of making unsupported assertions. You have not developed the scientific mindset of TESTING your assertions. That's where things that sound good often fall apart (as is the case here). "Just too heavy to move..." is something you just made up. What constitutes "too heavy?" Where in, say, Maxwell's equations does this limitation arise? How far away from "too heavy" is an electron?

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,609
    Let's have a bit more fun with your "electrons are aether" idea: Your theory says that electrons support the propagation of light. Therefore, there must be electrons in a vacuum chamber if light is able to propagate through it. If I place a positively-charged electrode in such a chamber, then, I should measure a current. And if I keep that electrode positively charged, I will eventually remove essentially all of the electrons from the chamber.

    Now, as it happens, a lowly vacuum tube ("valve" in the UK) remains transparent, even when a positive potential is applied to the anode. If the cathode is left unheated, no current flows to the anode. It acts as if there are no electrons in a vacuum (because there aren't, within the limits of vacuum technology). And yet, it remains transparent.

    Finally, if you've ever worked with high-vacuum systems, you will have used vacuum gauges of various types. The ionization type of gauge is essentially a vacuum tube. You measure current as a proxy for hardness of vacuum. You can pump down to atto-fractions of a smidge of microtorr, and no current of consequence flows. As you pump from 1atm down to that skillionth of a gnat's-wart, no change in transparency occurs. How can this be without your electrons? The obvious -- and definitive -- answer is that electrons are not needed to support the propagation of light. Maxwell's equations #3 and #4, as papageno explained to you, tell you what you need to know. Light is self-propagating. The E and H fields are in a perpetual dance of destruction and creation. That's light.

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    46,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    Finally, if you've ever worked with high-vacuum systems, you will have used vacuum gauges of various types. The ionization type of gauge is essentially a vacuum tube. You measure current as a proxy for hardness of vacuum. You can pump down to atto-fractions of a smidge of microtorr, and no current of consequence flows. As you pump from 1atm down to that skillionth of a gnat's-wart, no change in transparency occurs. How can this be without your electrons? The obvious -- and definitive -- answer is that electrons are not needed to support the propagation of light. Maxwell's equations #3 and #4, as papageno explained to you, tell you what you need to know. Light is self-propagating. The E and H fields are in a perpetual dance of destruction and creation. That's light.
    I have experimentally done both, in the operation of high-vaccum furnaces. We used ionization gauges and we had a very bright light source, a high temperature heater (with a lot of infrared radiation) that transmitted quite well through a 10-6 torr vacuum.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,609
    Quote Originally Posted by Swift View Post
    I have experimentally done both, in the operation of high-vaccum furnaces. We used ionization gauges and we had a very bright light source, a high temperature heater (with a lot of infrared radiation) that transmitted quite well through a 10-6 torr vacuum.
    You mean it didn't suddenly go opaque at some point?

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    46,134
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    You mean it didn't suddenly go opaque at some point?
    Nope. And the proof of this was the heat transfer continued and I could continue to grow my crystals from the melt.

    We also operated some of these furnaces such that parts of the cycle were under vacuum and some were not (argon blanket atmosphere) and the temperature conditions were radically different - not because of differences in radiative heat transfer, because of the introduction of convective heat transfer through the argon.

    Sorry for the side-track.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by papageno View Post
    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.
    I have listed Maxwells equations (though in text and not math and understand that was not what you wanted). I have explained why I think it is the electrons that are moving. You even quote me on this in this very post. My understanding of science is that a hypothesis is not something one is expected to "prove". One can argue for it, explain the reasoning, and try to find experiments that rule it out.

    For the other points I basically agree with you and so did not see a thing to argue with. I see that it would be clearer if at the time I acknowledged which parts I agree with. I will do so in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by papageno View Post
    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...
    Yes, I agree.


    Quote Originally Posted by papageno View Post
    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?
    My hypothesis (ragged as it is) is that EM waves propagate using electrons bound in atoms and also electrons not bound in atoms.

    Quote Originally Posted by papageno View Post
    Why electrons? Why not other charged particles?
    Electrons have a great charge to weight ratio which seems good for propagating waves at high speed. They seems to be just about everywhere. What other charged particles do you think would be contenders for a medium for propagating electromagnetic waves?

    Quote Originally Posted by papageno View Post
    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".
    I you did not buy my argument that Gauss's law for charges seems best satisfied by electrons moving in the short time that a light wave passes an atom, I don't think you would buy it if I wrote the equation and said "q" is the charges. So this does not seem productive.

    Quote Originally Posted by papageno View Post
    A current of 1 A electrons produce the same field as 1 A protons or 1 A alpha particles.
    But which has a better chance of being able to move fast enough to react to a wave traveling at the speed of light?

    Quote Originally Posted by papageno View Post
    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.
    I agree. However, if one had to pick between only protons or electrons could you agree that electrons seem the better candidate for propagating a fast wave?

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by EigenState View Post
    Please explain why the propagation of a photon is dependent upon the source of that photon or the distance that photon has propagated. Mathematics please!
    I do not mean that. I was thinking that a large plane wave does not seem to care about density so much. However, I do not see how the theory can work for a laser in a vacuum (in particular in light of reports on experiments today).

    Quote Originally Posted by papageno View Post
    And also please do finally address my prior question (post #50) regarding the angular distributions of scattered light as a function of frequency.
    I don't know. I don't see single photon energy levels as ideal electromagnetic plane waves for going straight.


    Quote Originally Posted by papageno View Post
    First, "dark-count" rate means exactly that, the count-rate in the absence of light. What you really want is background count-rate in which light is present but no sample is being probed. With modern photomultiplier tubes, high background count-rates result from radiation scattered off the surfaces of the vacuum chamber or internally mounted optics or detection apparatus. They are therefore an artifact of poor experimental execution.
    I thought that random thermal noise could trip "photon detectors". To me this looks like evidence of random waves adding together.

    Quote Originally Posted by papageno View Post
    Second, you are discussing the detection of electrons, not photons. The detectors used in photoionization spectroscopy are designed specifically to detect electrons. Properly used, their background count-rates are not detectable.
    Ok. You are saying that if there were electrons in the vacuum we have good equipment for detecting that.

    Quote Originally Posted by papageno View Post
    Thus your assertion is both irrelevant and wrong.
    Ok. Thanks.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,609
    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    I have listed Maxwells equations (though in text and not math and understand that was not what you wanted). I have explained why I think it is the electrons that are moving. You even quote me on this in this very post. My understanding of science is that a hypothesis is not something one is expected to "prove". One can argue for it, explain the reasoning, and try to find experiments that rule it out.
    You need to test your hypothesis with experiment. So far, your score is zero. Worse, you're not even self-consistent.

    The mainstream explanation, on the other hand, is supported by all experiments to date. There are zero that falsify it. So, unless your hypothesis at least matches that record, and also makes verifiable (then verified) predictions beyond those of the mainstream, there's zero motivation for accepting yours. That is the scientific method.


    But which has a better chance of being able to move fast enough to react to a wave traveling at the speed of light?

    I agree. However, if one had to pick between only protons or electrons could you agree that electrons seem the better candidate for propagating a fast wave?
    False dichotomy. Why should one choose any one of two wrong selections? You are assuming a priori that one is the basis of the aether. The correct answer is that neither is a candidate.

    You have completely ignored a point made earlier, that an aether must be both nearly infinitely stiff (to support a velocity of c), and yet tenuous enough to allow matter to traverse it. Your hypothesis fails.

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    First, while charges can give rise to a field, a field does not depend on a charge. Look again at #3 and #4. A changing field of one type can generate a field of the other type. Perhaps a charge gave rise to one originally (or perhaps not; there's nothing in the wording that precludes pre-existing radiation), but you're confusing sufficiency with necessity.
    I understand the normal interpretation. I am not sure I buy it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    No. On top of jumping to conclusions that do not follow logically from the premises, you are fond of making unsupported assertions. You have not developed the scientific mindset of TESTING your assertions. That's where things that sound good often fall apart (as is the case here). "Just too heavy to move..." is something you just made up. What constitutes "too heavy?" Where in, say, Maxwell's equations does this limitation arise? How far away from "too heavy" is an electron?
    If a proton has about the same force on it that an electron does but is 2000 times heavier, then can't we agree that it would move far less than the electron?

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    You need to test your hypothesis with experiment. So far, your score is zero. Worse, you're not even self-consistent.
    I have no delusions that I am winning this argument. :-)
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    The mainstream explanation, on the other hand, is supported by all experiments to date. There are zero that falsify it. So, unless your hypothesis at least matches that record, and also makes verifiable (then verified) predictions beyond those of the mainstream, there's zero motivation for accepting yours. That is the scientific method.
    I mostly agree. It could be that a new theory was simpler and so there was a motivation even if the predictions were the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    You have completely ignored a point made earlier, that an aether must be both nearly infinitely stiff (to support a velocity of c), and yet tenuous enough to allow matter to traverse it. Your hypothesis fails.
    Electrons have a good force to weight ratio. A transverse wave can move far faster than the medium moves. Electrons in a wire propagate a signal at the speed of light. It does not seem to require "infinitely stiff".

    You could have all kinds of electrons in space and Jupiter would have no trouble orbiting.

    So I don't agree with this one.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    Let's have a bit more fun with your "electrons are aether" idea: Your theory says that electrons support the propagation of light. Therefore, there must be electrons in a vacuum chamber if light is able to propagate through it. If I place a positively-charged electrode in such a chamber, then, I should measure a current. And if I keep that electrode positively charged, I will eventually remove essentially all of the electrons from the chamber.

    Now, as it happens, a lowly vacuum tube ("valve" in the UK) remains transparent, even when a positive potential is applied to the anode. If the cathode is left unheated, no current flows to the anode. It acts as if there are no electrons in a vacuum (because there aren't, within the limits of vacuum technology). And yet, it remains transparent.

    Finally, if you've ever worked with high-vacuum systems, you will have used vacuum gauges of various types. The ionization type of gauge is essentially a vacuum tube. You measure current as a proxy for hardness of vacuum. You can pump down to atto-fractions of a smidge of microtorr, and no current of consequence flows. As you pump from 1atm down to that skillionth of a gnat's-wart, no change in transparency occurs. How can this be without your electrons? The obvious -- and definitive -- answer is that electrons are not needed to support the propagation of light. Maxwell's equations #3 and #4, as papageno explained to you, tell you what you need to know. Light is self-propagating. The E and H fields are in a perpetual dance of destruction and creation. That's light.
    This is really good stuff. Thanks.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,609
    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    Electrons have a good force to weight ratio. A transverse wave can move far faster than the medium moves. Electrons in a wire propagate a signal at the speed of light. It does not seem to require "infinitely stiff".
    You miss the point entirely. If there were an aether, it would have to be nearly infinitely stiff. The very fact that electromagnetic waves (NOT electrons in a wire; those actually typically travel at speeds below that of a human on a lazy stroll) do propagate at c is a challenge for aether theory. It's not evidence in favor of it. Somehow you've still not grasped this key point.

    You could have all kinds of electrons in space and Jupiter would have no trouble orbiting.

    So I don't agree with this one.
    I'm not asking you to agree, I'm simply pointing out that you are wrong.
    Here, you're not even logical. If there were an electron aether stiff enough to support a wave at c, it would most definitely impede the orbit of Jupiter. The fact that Jupiter has no trouble is, once again, evidence that your hypothesis is incorrect.

    Without math ability, you will not be able to overcome your wrong prejudices. If you did have the math ability, you would be able to show in a few steps that an aether would have to have a "Hooke's law" constant far beyond what your putative assemblage of electrons could ever evince. And that's only one of several insurmountable problems with your idea. Because you are only capable of literary allusions, rather than actual math and physics, you are limited in what you can show yourself. Sorry to be blunt, but if all you can do is come up with handwaving and tales that sound good to you, that ain't science.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,442
    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    I have listed Maxwells equations (though in text and not math and understand that was not what you wanted). I have explained why I think it is the electrons that are moving. You even quote me on this in this very post. My understanding of science is that a hypothesis is not something one is expected to "prove". One can argue for it, explain the reasoning, and try to find experiments that rule it out.
    Yes, and if even one experiment rules it out, you're then supposed to drop the hypothesis and go on without considering it anymore.

    An experiment is where you use you hypothesis to predict how the world behaves in a specific situation and then you compare your prediction with how the world behaves.

    If this is behavior which has already been tested before, you just compare to how it's already known to behave. This is the initial sanity check any hypothesis should go through, how does it do against experiments that have already been done. A problem in many of these threads is that the proponent of the hypothesis don't know enough (about all the experiments already done in order to establish current scientific knowledge) to make that sanity check, and tends to get too wedded to the idea to drop it once it's pointed out that there are these extra experiments already performed which break the idea.

    People have told you about many ways in which your hypothesis makes predictions that don't fit how the world behaves, essentially making experiments. If you claim to use the scientific method, it is time for you to act as a scientist and accept that your hypothesis doesn't fit how the world behaves.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,575
    Greetings,

    I do hope that papageno forgives you for confusing me with him. Personally, I was flattered.

    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    I do not mean that. I was thinking that a large plane wave does not seem to care about density so much. However, I do not see how the theory can work for a laser in a vacuum (in particular in light of reports on experiments today).
    You keep talking about "large plane waves" which makes no sense at all to me. Ignoring that for the moment, do you believe that the propagation of light depends upon the number of photons in a light beam? That sounds extremely non-physical. But if you do, you need to be able to explain it rather than merely assert it.

    You also need to seriously consider the photon-electron interaction that you are proposing is responsible for the propagation of light. Specifics are needed if you are going to defend your hypothesis, including specifics that define the dependence of propagation over an incredibly wide range of electron densities--from air to intergalactic space-- and that define why there is no dependence on the photon frequency.


    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    I don't know. I don't see single photon energy levels as ideal electromagnetic plane waves for going straight.
    What are the energy levels of a photon? Are you disputing that light travels in straight lines under field-free (no gravitational bending is what I mean) conditions? Are you disputing that free electrons elastically scatter light as per the angular distributions that I posted? That data is well-established theoretically and experimentally. So if your hypothesis is to depend upon free electrons for the propagation of light, exactly why is that light not scattered as per the data shown?


    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    I thought that random thermal noise could trip "photon detectors". To me this looks like evidence of random waves adding together.
    What you are talking about is random thermal noise within the electronics of the photomultiplier (PM) tube including its power source. That happens in complete darkness--zero light--and has nothing to do with incident light. You also need to understand that most PM tubes are enclosed in that they have a window that the light must pass through. Electrons don't like those windows.

    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    Ok. You are saying that if there were electrons in the vacuum we have good equipment for detecting that.
    Yes, excellent electron detectors exist. They are very simple devices to the extent that even a positively charged (static charge) bare wire will often suffice in many experiments. Given the choice between detecting photons or electrons, I would almost always choose to detect the electrons. But that choice is not available in all experiments, so you do what needs to be done.


    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    Ok. Thanks.
    You are most welcome.

    Best regards,
    EigenState

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,443
    You may have missed the point with the electrons/protons thing too. Unless these is some way to differentiate between them (from the point of view of a photon) then they will both react to the field. It doesn't matter if one id large and one is not. The larger ones will damp the field or cause other effects which we would see. Unless you have a mechanism where photons ignore protons when travelling and then flip to 'interact mode' when it is time to scatter off them then you can no justification for ignoring them.

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    3,406
    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    I have listed Maxwells equations (though in text and not math and understand that was not what you wanted). I have explained why I think it is the electrons that are moving. You even quote me on this in this very post.
    I asked you to support your assertion that Maxwell's equations imply specifically electrons as material medium for EM waves.

    A whole lot of experimental evidence refutes your assertion, and you are not even able to provide a theoretical argument in support of your idea. You have no good reason why the electromagnetic field would single out electrons as preferred particle to interact with.



    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    My understanding of science is that a hypothesis is not something one is expected to "prove". One can argue for it, explain the reasoning, and try to find experiments that rule it out.
    Spare us the semantic hair-splitting. You basically ignored my request to provide a sound theoretical argument in support of your idea. And you ignored our arguments based on experimental evidence refuting your idea.



    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    For the other points I basically agree with you and so did not see a thing to argue with. I see that it would be clearer if at the time I acknowledged which parts I agree with. I will do so in the future.

    [SNIP]

    Yes, I agree.
    I am not asking you to pay lip-service and say "I agree".
    I am asking you to understand my points and to incorporate this understanding in your arguments. But you utterly failed to do so.

    When I ask you to show us where Maxwell's equations imply electrons, you are supposed to take a long hard look at the equations in search for the terms containing electrons. You would then realize that there is no term that implies specifically electrons, instead of charge or charge density in general, which means that your assertion is unsupported.

    When I ask you to prove that "light can reach out as far as needed to get enough electrons to propagate", you are supposed to look at your claim and realize that you are already assuming that electric fields be present in vacuum. Therefore there is no reason for a material medium for EM waves, because EM waves are oscillating electric and magnetic fields.

    When I point out that the solar wind is composed of both protons and electrons, you are supposed to realize that light from the Sun does not have a preference for electrons.

    The point about Gauss's law, is that the charge is the sum of all charges inside the volume, not just electrons.

    You used a mechanical analogy to explain why you do not believe that photons have particle-like properties. We have explained to you how that analogy is not a good picture, and I adapted your analogy to explain again the arguments in support of particle-like and wave-like properties of photons.
    I explained to you the essential aspects of single-particle interference experiments in terms of the mechanical analogy you introduced. And you completely and utterly ignored it.

    This is not the behaviour of somebody interested in understanding and learning. This is the behaviour of somebody who just wants to push a particular idea.



    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    My hypothesis (ragged as it is) is that EM waves propagate using electrons bound in atoms and also electrons not bound in atoms.
    The dynamic response to EM waves of atoms is different from the one of free electrons.
    The electrons in atoms cannot respond to EM waves like free electrons, exactly because they are bound to the positive nucleus and would be dragging the mass of the whole atom with them.

    There is a very good reason why I directed you to the Feynman's Lectures, but this is yet another point you utterly ignored.



    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    Electrons have a great charge to weight ratio which seems good for propagating waves at high speed. They seems to be just about everywhere. What other charged particles do you think would be contenders for a medium for propagating electromagnetic waves?
    EM waves do not need a material medium. Therefore there is no reason to make a choice.

    Also, other people have repeatedly explained to you that charged particles cannot provide a medium for EM waves that satisfies the experimental evidence.



    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    I you did not buy my argument that Gauss's law for charges seems best satisfied by electrons moving in the short time that a light wave passes an atom, I don't think you would buy it if I wrote the equation and said "q" is the charges. So this does not seem productive.
    Of course it is not productive, because it is wrong. The q in Maxwell's equations does not refer specifically to electrons, but is just electric charge in general. That is why we can apply the equations to electrons, protons, alpha particles, positrons, negative and positive ions, muons, macroscopic charged objects...



    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by papageno
    A current of 1 A electrons produce the same field as 1 A protons or 1 A alpha particles.
    But which has a better chance of being able to move fast enough to react to a wave traveling at the speed of light?
    You do not understand the point: Maxwell's equations do not single out electrons as special particles. You keep looking at the mass, when in Maxwell's equations you can only find the charge.



    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by papageno
    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.
    I agree. However, if one had to pick between only protons or electrons could you agree that electrons seem the better candidate for propagating a fast wave?
    It has already been explained to you: if you do not show that EM waves need a material medium, then the choice is pointless and irrelevant.


    Quote Originally Posted by vincecate
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan
    First, while charges can give rise to a field, a field does not depend on a charge. Look again at #3 and #4. A changing field of one type can generate a field of the other type. Perhaps a charge gave rise to one originally (or perhaps not; there's nothing in the wording that precludes pre-existing radiation), but you're confusing sufficiency with necessity.
    I understand the normal interpretation. I am not sure I buy it.
    You do not get to pick and choose which parts of Maxwell's equations work or not.
    You cannot appeal to the authority of Maxwell's equations to assert your idea, and then ignore the parts that refute your idea.

    The fact is that Maxwell's equations imply that EM waves do not need a material medium to propagate.

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    8,670

    vincecate, I have to put on my moderator hat now. It is time that you bring some substance (butter to the fish as we say in Holland) here and now. No more anecdotal "physics" but you will either put down your model of how light uses electrons as a medium of propagation and give full fletched answers to papageno's questions/comments or this thread will be closed and you will have no more chance to propose this idea of yours on BAUT.

    Pick your choice.
    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

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post

    vincecate, I have to put on my moderator hat now. It is time that you bring some substance (butter to the fish as we say in Holland) here and now. No more anecdotal "physics" but you will either put down your model of how light uses electrons as a medium of propagation and give full fletched answers to papageno's questions/comments or this thread will be closed and you will have no more chance to propose this idea of yours on BAUT.

    Pick your choice.
    Ok, I yield. My hypothesis can not deal with a laser shining into a vacuum (I had misread a paper). I really liked the vacuum tube draining the electrons but still transparent counter evidence. This was very convincing.

    I do have trouble letting go of the idea but I can not defend it so it does seem time to close the thread.

    I really do appreciate all the time people spent explaining things to me. It is very helpful.

    Thanks very much.

    -- Vince

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,447
    Quote Originally Posted by EigenState View Post
    You keep talking about "large plane waves" which makes no sense at all to me.
    I asked about that before, but didn't really get an answer. vincecate, how would a plane wave propagate through a thin scattering of electrons separated by distances much larger than a wavelength? Interstellar space can have less than a particle per cubic centimeter, coronal gas only has a handful of particles per meter. You've got particles centimeters apart propagating waves down to nanometer scale, and displaying no unusual effects with changes in intensity.

    Your idea just doesn't work at any level. You're claiming electromagnetic waves propagate through a medium of electrons. How do these electrons interact with each other? If electromagnetic fields don't require a medium, why do electromagnetic waves do so?

    edit: Never mind, should have checked for new posts first.

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    8,670

    As vincecate "yielded" I guess the thread is now moot.
    closed
    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
  •