/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14505399
Predictions predicated on the possibility of aether existing were contradicted by observational findings.
e.g. If light propagated through an actual medium called aether in a way similar to any other physical medium then you would be able to find differences in how fast light is traveling relative to different frames of reference, instead of what's really found which is no difference in how fast light travels between one frame of reference vs. another.

>>14505520

>>14505520
>If light propagated through an actual medium called aether
Light doesn't propagate through the medium, light is the medium

>>14505834
Or...
The "aether" is really a collection of virtual particle pairs that propagate energy from pair to pair like Cooper pairs in a superconductor. This energy transfer manifests itself as photons.

>>14505399
>top pic
>also bottom pic

>>14505834
I was describing why the aether idea died, anon, not my personal take on how light works.
Aether existing predicted differences in the speed of light relative to different frames of reference (since the whole idea was it would be a medium light propagated through similar to waves in water or soundwaves) and that's why the idea stopped being a part of modern physics.

>>14505520
Light is a wave in ather and has some speed C. Now the C is defined as a constant so varying C cannot be measured. We measure by light.

"Fabric of spacetime" is a sign of a poor intuitive understanding of GR. People who say this are at best reifying coordinate systems and at worst regurgitating pop-sci videos.

>>14506060
Light waves are a 4d area of many newton's cradles except there is no end ball to swing up, the end ball swings into an object and the force it swings into that object with is called a photon of a certain frequency, maybe... Or that last part may have to do with the number of balls that have been forced a direction, like those things at the gadget shop at the mall those metal pins you put your hand and face in, the difference between poking your finger In and placing your fist in may be some rough analogous difference of photon energy.

When the newton's cradle is activated, the first ball cannot transfer it's energy into the second ball any faster or slower...maybe, because they are touching.... If you hit the first one with a baseball bat or gently touched it with your finger, it would be imparted with more or less energy, but that more or less energy would be transfered at the same rate

>>14506947
Well frequency may be the rate of time of recieving input.

But I was trying to think how that is different than wave length, so maybe wavelength is the measurement of energy/force not frequency my bad

>>14506809
>Manifold: old english meaning "many times, in multiplied number or quantity"
So I should call it an array of numbers instead of a fabric. Thank you for this enlightening post, anon.

>>14505625
B

>>14507042

>>14505834
There are two main types of light. "New" light, which is freshly emitted from atoms and travels at speed c. "Old" light, on the other hand, travels through interstellar space for millions of years and gradually redshifts due to aetherial drag while maintaining its frequency, eventually reaching highly superluminal speeds to serve as the aether medium for new light. The absorption of these old photons by celestial bodies is also the origin of gravity and the reason for the Earth's expansion.

>>14507175
Does light really move up and down (or 90 degree angles up down)? (Like what is thought of as a wave?

And respond to this please:
>>14506947

>>14507227
>>14507175
Thoughts on all of that, but particulary this part is possibly poignant:
>When the newton's cradle is activated, the first ball cannot transfer it's energy into the second ball any faster or slower...maybe, because they are touching.... If you hit the first one with a baseball bat or gently touched it with your finger, it would be imparted with more or less energy, but that more or less energy would be transfered at the same rate

>>14507227
No, they are just tiny particles (like Newton's corpuscles), but there are a lot of them and they are traveling closely together through an aether while interacting gravitationally, so they form standing wave patterns as they move. Instead of a wave traveling as a traditional perturbation through a medium the way sound travels through air, light particles arrange themselves into a lattice formation as they flow through space. The end result still appears to be a wave, but there is a physical transfer of substance, not just energy.

>>14507227
>>14507233
>>14507256
The deceleration of small objects in free space is given by dc/dt = 1/4c (I can explain the appearance of a mismatch in units if anyone is interested). This is the drag force that Le Sage gravity predicts, as confirmed by the Pioneer anomalous deceleration (anyone can confirm these numbers match). Photons react to drag forces by increasing their wavelengths (as demonstrated by gravitational redshift), so like water flowing through a narrowing pipe, they speed up.

The Pioneer drag force relates to Hubble's constant as follows: H = v/d = v/ct = (1/c)dc/dt = 1/4c^2.

And Newton's gravitational constant G is given by (1/4pi)(1/4c).

>>14507256
>but there are a lot of them and they are traveling closely together through an aether while interacting gravitationally, so they form standing wave patterns as they move. Instead of a wave traveling as a traditional perturbation through a medium the way sound travels through air, light particles arrange themselves into a lattice formation as they flow through space. The end result still appears to be a wave, but there is a physical transfer of substance, not just energy.

>what is single photon interference patterns

>>14507256
Everything I've read on the accepted understood state of the theory of light is that there is no piece that travels from A to Z a million miles, like you are a piece that can travel from A to Z a hundred miles.

Standard theory seems to suggest; charge accleration at point A hits EM field component at point A, which hits EM field component at point B which hits EM field component at point C..... Until EM field component at point Z is disturbed a million miles away

>>14507275
>what is single photon interference patterns
What is the impossibility of gureenteeing you are only ever making 1 single photon

>>14507275
>what is single photon interference patterns
The Veritaseum video where he "demonstrates" single photon interference never fails to crack me up.
>puts head under blanket
>"yep, looks like one photon at a time!"

>>14507284
>>14507285
https://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/files/science-demonstrations/files/single_photon_paper.pdf

Besides, the numbers are clearly too low even the in the best case scenario for any meaninful statistical mechanics. So that explanation doesn't hold any water.

>>14507281
There are a lot of issues with the classical theory, but if you are going to abandon relativity (which you should) and accept Le Sage gravity (which you should), the only way for the mechanism to work is for individual particles to physically travel from point A to point B. This is because the gravitational forces are caused by radiation pressure during the absorption process. The absorption is required for gravity to work (by creating a region of lower-density aether around celestial bodies) and is also validated by the geological evidence for the Earth's expansion (the Earth can't be gaining mass unless that mass is being transferred from the surrounding space).

>>14507293
I've analyzed entanglement experiments in the past and found that they all invariably rely on dubious or provably incorrect statistical methods. I'm not too bothered by what these optical experiments supposedly show considering that physicists still have yet to properly interpret Michelson-Morley interferometers.

>>14507300
>I've analyzed entanglement experiments in the past and found that they all invariably rely on dubious or provably incorrect statistical methods. I'm not too bothered by what these optical experiments supposedly show considering that physicists still have yet to properly interpret Michelson-Morley interferometers.
Ah, so you're just a crank, nevermind then. I can feel the delusional narcissim together with the delusions of grandeur from that wording alone.

>>14507305
>Ah, so you're just a crank
Well, the argument is simple enough to understand.

>>14507308
You do realize that special relativity isn't a theory of light right?

Either ways it explains the fixation on relativity when discussing the nature of light instead of QM when it has nothing to do with it. So the good old crank magnet is working.

Regardless, if you feel like you have anything you can go ahead and publish in some peer review journal and then post it here after. You can even consult a physics professor
https://backreaction.blogspot.com/p/talk-to-physicist_27.html

>>14507300
>Michelson-Morley interferometers
Quick rundown on what exactly that is, how it works, what it does, and what is the correct interpretation of them, and how are they being misinterpreted?

>>14507323
>You do realize that special relativity isn't a theory of light right?
Relativity evolved from an incorrect emission model for light. I already wrote a paper about this in more detail (attached). I have no interest in submitting it anywhere else at the moment. It's on the first page of Google results for anyone searching for Michelson-Morley and Doppler shift.

I'm also not particularly interested in paying money to talk to Sabine, although that's good to know.

>>14507331
See >>14507308 for the short summary and >>14507333 for the longer version.

>>14507333
>I know it's schizo garbage and everybody will ridicule me for it so I just post it on 4chan instead

>>14507355
Where else should I post it? It's already up on vixra and my blog. I tried posting it to plebbit a while back and got instantly banned. Physicsforums explicitly forbids any posts challenging mainstream theories.

>>14507333
>Relativity evolved from an incorrect emission model for light.
Sure, if you feel that way, but people were asking about the nature of light, which is pretty much just classical QM and EM.

>I have no interest in submitting it anywhere else at the moment.
You can go ahead and try to publish when you feel it's ready. But it can never gain any track otherwise, since no one can really cite it unless it's been double checked.

>I'm also not particularly interested in paying money to talk to Sabine, although that's good to know.
She is an expert on this field specifically, and her team there seems to be of a related area apparently. According to her one of her clients was even close to publishing his first paper after consulting with her. So that is probably the best bet to get it publishing ready. Either that or getting an advisor.

>>14505520
>Predictions predicated on the possibility of aether existing were contradicted by observational findings.
which theory of the aether?

>you would be able to find differences in how fast light is traveling
we have no proof light travels in the first place, let alone "has a speed"

>>14505834
>light is the medium
And yet is only defined by what the medium does. It is not the medium, it's action. As real as a shadow.

>>14506085
>Light is a wave in ather and has some speed C
I don't understand, the aether is everywhere. So "it's already there". Why do you call what it's doing a speed?

>>14506809
Gr is a poor intuitive understanding of how the universe functions through the eyes of assuming dualists.

>People who say this are at best reifying coordinate systems
"Spacetime" is literally a reified coordinate system

>>14507042
It's kind of hilarious, that pop sci manages to explain spacetime to the layman better than Einstein could have imagined.

>>14507175
>light is not this light
It's all "Waves" and a "Wave" is what something does.

>>14507331
Basically you make a null result and then explain it using pure descriptions alone.

>>14507323
>You do realize that special relativity isn't a theory of light right?
You do realize that without the "Speed of light" being constant the whole thing falls on its ass right? That space expansion relative to "the speed of light" is a total misnomer completely? That if light did in fact change its speed due to the medium it passes through, that "light deflection" and "gravitational waves" still go unexplained?

>>14507387
>You do realize that without the "Speed of light" being constant the whole thing falls on its ass right? That space expansion relative to "the speed of light" is a total misnomer completely? That if light did in fact change its speed due to the medium it passes through, that "light deflection" and "gravitational waves" still go unexplained?
Irrelevant. I jumped in when talking specifically about the nature of how light behaves when moving as a wave, it has nothing to do with SR and as far as I'm concerned for that question nothing outside of that exists.

>>14507333
This is garbage. If you want I can explain why to you over zoom.

>>14507415
>Irrelevant.
The entire theories foundation literally relies on "c" lol.

>I jumped in when talking specifically about the nature of how light behaves when moving as a wave
>moving
>as a wave
"Of what"? Oh like water? Yes when I splash my hand in a pond my hand "emits water". This then "travels" across the surface instead of being a displacement of the water already there in the pond that has to react to the displacement. The water at the edges of the pond were never actually there, I imagined them and then the appeared when the wave "traveled" to the edge.

>it has nothing to do with SR
Light deflection in a "gravitational field" is GR.

>>14507416
You can feel free to explain it here, or send me an email.

>>14507431
I don't think you get what I mean by irrelevant. In the current context I don't care if Relativity is wrong or right.
The replies where I jumped in where about the movement of light as a wave, which is a classical fenomena, Classical EM, the solution to maxwell's equation for light, there is no relativity, I don't care about relativity, it's irrelevant.
Hence the angles being talked about being the E and B fields of the wave. This is the movement being talked, it has nothing to do with the mendium used for propagation, it can be the aether if you want, I don't care, it's irrelevant, it's about the oscillations of the E and B fields.
And the reason it behaves both as a photon and a wave is QM, not relativity, there is no relativity here.

>>14507233
>possibly poignant:
>>When the newton's cradle is activated, the first ball cannot transfer it's energy into the second ball any faster or slower...maybe, because they are touching.... If you hit the first one with a baseball bat or gently touched it with your finger, it would be imparted with more or less energy, but that more or less energy would be transfered at the same rate
Is this true?

Without fully largely deeply understanding the most fundamental fundamentals of the variables and objects and mechanisms relavant to such theories, making complex thoughts and theories on convoluted circumstances levels above fundamentals, is likely shoddy, sketchy, shady, and lacking.

Most of the trouble, the mysteries, the contradictions, the errors, the the theories not working, the absurdities, the shambles;

Is building and speaking about complex convoluted topics and phenomenon, levels above fundamental foundations of realities physics, without closely enough grasping the total existence of the ways and possible ways of the foundations and fundamentals of reality.

>>14507364
According to your theory, how does charge physically work, how does magnetism physically work?

>>14507387
>>light is the medium
>And yet is only defined by what the medium does. It is not the medium, it's action. As real as a shadow.
Water waves are the medium of water, sound waves are the medium of air.
Light waves are the medium of light.

>>14507453
>Hence the angles being talked about being the E and B fields of the wave. This is the movement being talked,

Imagine a cubic box with a bunch of ball bearings in it perfectly packed in. You can touch touch the balls on one open side of the box, and the other sides have detectors and everything;

You take a hammer and eye up a random ball around the middle of the open side.

One time you hit it gently, then medium strength, then full strength, after waiting like 20 seconds in between hits.

The energy wave the ball you hit with the hammer will be different energy levels depending on the force/accleration of your hit, yes?

Will that energy propagate from ball to ball at the same velocity each trial hit?

Will the energy wave be of the same nature traveling the direction of your hammer swing, as opposed to up and down perpendicular to it?

>>14507387
>>14507553
Ok I think I see what you meant.

All other mediums can be relatively stable and still and there is a big noticable difference between the stillish medium and the various types of waves that can be disturbed of it.

Light we cannot measure the still medium, we can only register the disturbances.

I just remembered the thought I came up with months ago maybe I had it years ago to, in solution to this fact, it may be an aha thought, quite sexy and beautiful.

It is partly having to do with earths steady speed! Not just any speed, fast fast fast speed through space!

We are moving with air and water in a gravity well and shared reference frame.

The light field medium is all around and in-between all matter.

So possibly part of lights inability to be stilled is we are always disturbing it while moving at earths rapid speed in reference to it's possibly still reference frame.

Like sticking our hand out a moving cars window trying to measure the stillness of the air.

Is this in the ball park of possibly brilliant validity or am I missing something?

>>14507553
>>14507581
The still medium is "not light". The disturbance of the medium is the phenomena you call light. The waves come and go, but the medium is always present.
Even the pond analogy works in this instance to a degree. From a certain angle you can't see reflections off it. Disturb it and view it from the same angle and you'll see the phenomenal "waves", you'll have the info to conclude there's a pond there.

>So possibly part of lights inability to be stilled is we are always disturbing it while moving at earths rapid speed in reference to it's possibly still reference frame
You're thinking about it too much. When "light" is "stilled", it ceases to exist entirely. The electromagnetic wave, the action of the medium is what you call light. It's induced to exist, in the form of the medium being perturbed at a certain frequency. The speed...it's not really applicable, it's induced to exist when particular conditions make the phenomena present itself. It can even cancel itself out.

>>14507308
>sr_is_doppler_shift
inb4 NOOOOOOOO THAT DOESN'T COUNT BECAUSE REASONS.