Jump to content

Capiert

Senior Members
  • Posts

    552
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Classical physics
    (no calculus)
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Classical physics

Recent Profile Visitors

9878 profile views

Capiert's Achievements

Molecule

Molecule (6/13)

-70

Reputation

  1. Because we’ve done experiments. A medium has to have properties, and have a measurable effect on light. I think the most significant (=notice_able) affect on light is the medium slows down light (e.g. due to the medium's mass (density). The reverse (logic) would be: light would travel at infinite_speed in NO time(_delay) if there were NO medium. Does light go so fast e.g. at infinite_speed taking NO_time? NO it does NOT. So what is slowing light down? Perhaps a medium? The devil is in the detail(s). That'( i)s what bugs me. Michelson threw a distraction into the project at the very 1st to distract sidetrack & confuse (us), with an uncleared topic=theme, just to divert us. E.g. (To) Waste & exhaust our brainpower. Einstein used a similar method too (early in his career with other themes). Tired we wouldN'T bother further to search. That'( i)s NOT true. Michelson's 1st attempt in 1881 failed as NOT suitable for the search. In that paper he clearly stated Maxwell's recommendation to abandon terrestrial forth & back light experiments on Earth (in favor of astronomical observations of Jupiter's moons). Maxwell stated (=predicted) ONLY a (useless*) tiny wee observation* would be observable with such forth_&_back light experiments (that Michelson intended) on Earth (because he (Maxwell) had done a similar (although NOT identical) experiment, years before (his death). (*E.g. much less than 1% observed, when more than 50% would be needed to decide). But (Maxwell was) talked out of publishing it (by Stokes) because it would have insulted Fizeau. Maxwell mailed the (bidirectional, forth & back) experiment_calculations to Higgens (who eventually published it as a letter). Stokes found a 3 page letter (note) (for the 1_way Jupiter astronomy observation proposal) after Maxwell died & rated it as "important"! Michelson read that 3 page note & rejected it stating any observation could be made no matter how small (& tiny). But he (=Michelson) was NOT prepared for the thermal (noise) motion. His (=Michelson’s) original 1881 experiment flopped. Later in 1887 he (=Michelson) teamed up with the chemist Morley to perform the (Earth's speed v) experiment in (Alexander Graham) Bell's lab(s). The telephone inventor because of his (=Bell’s) sick wife. Granite slab floating on Mercury hindered (=reduced) vibration in the cellar. Michelson managed to synchronize the 2 90° multi_reflected light_beams between 5 cm metal mirrors each about 8 times for the extra_distance needed for increased accuracy. According to the calculations the beams a NOT suppose to meet because of too much (time) delay, but they did. & there is 1 (asymmetric 90°) path with enough tolerance in which both beams are equally delayed, fig 2 (1887) if the bean goes straight up hitting the mirror at 90° (instead of slanted up at an angle) & then diagonally down. The sketch Fig. 2 also demonstrates inconsistency in the input incident (45° mirror) angle, compared to the further reflection (at 90°, above). E.g. More carelessness. 1 footnote 1887 mentions a (confusing) correction to 1881. Michelson was astounded that the results were so small & (thus) questioned whether the medium existed at all. Physicists did NOT want to hear about Michelson’s results expecting an answer (explaination) would be found later. A decade past & Michelson’s WRONG experiment was an eye_sore, even for Lenard. Michelson did NOT get a Nobel prize for his Earth speed experiment 1887 because he proved NOTHING, there. (You do NOT get a Nobel prize for disproving something; you get a prize for finding (=discovering) something.) Einstein also did NOT get a Nobel prize for Relativity. Instead, Michelson received the 1907 Nobel Prize privately for his diffraction_grating Echelon spectroscope experiment(al accuracy) 1898 because the Swedish King died 3 days before. So there was NO party, instead mourning. Michelson continued (WRONGLY) experimenting for the Earth’s speed til his death because he also could NOT believe light had NO medium. But hey, tuff luck if he CAN’T take Maxwell’s advice. Maxwell said abandon that kind of (2_way) experiment; use something more effective (a 1_way experiment). Who was right? Maxwell or Michelson? Maxwell was right. Something very tiny was observed (by Michelson 1887). But so small! (<<1%) Michelson was also right he could measure something very small; but (unfortunately) it was useless scientifically; because it was the WRONG kind of experiment. He wanted to challenge the famous Maxwell to disprove him. Absolute egoism. It was NOWHERE near what was needed. (>50%); & verged on randomness! Was Michelson successful? Did he accomplish what he had set out to do? Partly. Qualitatively we would like better results. I mean, Michelson should have found (absolutely NOTHING=) ZERO results (if the medium did NOT exist) but he did NOT. Instead, he (=Michelson) found what Maxwell predicted. E.g. A slight disturbace which could be attributed to the glass_thickness (medium’s speed change) of the 45° half silvered mirror. That leaves us with the speculation, 1. would a large chunk of glass in 1 of the paths help improve that (M&M) experiment’s results, to increase the notice_able delay for a greater time_delay between the 2 light_beams? 2. A simpler 1_way experiment is needed. E.g. A (simple) laser aimed at a wall many meters away & the tiny light spot’s position(al motion) observed (either (far_away) with a telescope or (near) with a microscope). Light falls, but sound does NOT (fall). The difference being their medium.
  2. Diameter has a unit of meters, area has a unit of meters ^ 2. Volume has a unit of meters ^ 3. What is the unit of intensity? Maybe, we could give it (=Intensity) the units for the (average_)momentum squared per area, or per volume so it would be some kind of density, as kilograms_squared meters_squared per second_squared per meters_(squared or else )cubed.? Power's unit is Joule per second. Energy's unit is Joule or kilogram meters_squared per second_squared.
  3. I "guess", statistically, wrt to an average. E.g. The forest; NOT the tree(s). Noise? None a single particle has the shape.. I guess what confuses me there is 2 answers (in 1 sentence). Are you saying: a photon does NOT have a shape. (But) Only a (single) particle has a shape. ? E.g. (It has) None (=NO shape), a single particle has (a) shape ((but) NOT a photon). That'( i)s a good explaination. Good.
  4. Thank you. It meant you(r scientists) were WRONG! Why should things be different now? Mistakes will happen. Nobody is perfect. When experiment and theory disagree, & you modify it (=the theory) then please DON'T expect me to believe it. (You'( ha)ve lost credibility.) You are still learning. (Meaning you DON'T know everything yet (& NEVER will, because NOBODY can know everything, right?)). NOBODY expects my claims to know everything or anything. But everybody expects yours are correct (now) even when they get thrown out 20 years later (in the future). I'm just trying to figure things out; & buffer myself (preventatively) (against) when you change your minds(' opinions). E.g. (Your) Old idea out, new idea in (takes over). I mean that it's impossible to define your speed with respect to a vacuum. Yes perhaps in the infinitive sense. But I still can NOT see a connection. Speed needs to be with respect to a(n other) speed. That means, you need an(other) object, body, mass (momentum). A vacuum is NOTHING=NO mass, object, NOR body. You bet! If the vacuum is filled with quantum foam (a big "if", as I don't understand what that means) You are NOT the ONLY 1 A rose (re)named anything else, smells just a sweet.
  5. That is a mighty tall (=big, =demanding) sentence(=statement). That means an infinite number of points! E.g. Although you (generally) specify specific (limited) numbers of flux lines (per area or per volume). OK. I find that interesting. From NOTHING e.g. a field's virtual (math) point; the mass "grows" around that point to e.g. an atom (or molecule); & thus due to electrostatic (& magnetic) repulsion, excludes further mass in that mass's volume. The atoms are born (in conception); & a (math) continuum is established. Bravo! From virtual((it)ly =NOTHING), to real (matter). When I see that "dimensionless" I think of, NO x,y,z lengths (e.g. differences). Bizzare! I think I will need an example there, why that (photon) wavelength will become infinite (with an "exact" energy value). Yes. Einstein, Schroedinger, & Feynmann NEVER liked QM. Simply because nature does NOT make exceptions but people do. & your (photons') "lambda" wavelengths are (ruffly=approx.) "squared" values. Disclaimer: I'( a)m only answering your question. We live in an electromechanical universe. It (=matter) functions elastically with charge (repulsion). Charge always has mass (e.g. e/m ratio); but the opposite is NOT true. It seems we can have mass without charge. But that is probably NOT true e.g. tiny amount (negative) in the neutron. Moving Charge deals with electromagnetism. Quantum calculations have failed in the past for the proton's gyromagnetic ratio although scientist's thought their predictions were (absolutely) dead sure. They were NOT correct. Measurements gave different results.
  6. Then you need some work to do don't you. I guess so, because my question "What is a field?" was NOT answered. Nope not saying that at all. Most anti-science trolls Do you also believe in trolls? I DON'T. Ever consider (then) that I am NOT a Troll? Scientists (as well as any person) do make false assumptions. To error is human. Yes, that is because you have not spent any time to learn anything. Photons can have a wave length of a kilometer, so you must think those photons are 1 km in size? Maybe this will help the wavelength has nothing to do with the 'size' of a photon. On the contrary. I'm fascinated. I NEVER thought of a 1 km concept before. Nature is systematic (=NO exceptions). Well if you can't understand it then we must immediately change all of our theories! Joker! I think I already said that a photon doesn't look like anything. It makes no sense to think a photon looks like something. Sorry, but I will NEVER understand that. I'm too old fashioned. Physical means for me some sort of form when dealing with particles. (Yes) Optically we can NOT see a (single) photon's shape; but I would like to (at least) conceive of 1. -400 years ago, atoms were NOT imagined. Now we have 3D models of them & their nuclei. Because that is nonsense. 100's of years ago, light's_speed was instant; til someone began trying to measure it. Was that "instant" an amount of time; or NO time? (Descartes). What is a water wave without the water? That'( i)s a good question (analogy). An electromagnetic wave is NOTHING without electromagnetism! Thus electromagnetism must be its medium. That includes the electromagnetism's functionality. E.g. The way it behaves. I can NOT see air & I (can) barely sense it (as though it does NOT exist although it does (exist); but it (=air) propagates sound waves.
  7. Not so much. Fundamental particles are point-like. That sounds like you are taking center of mass into account. E.g. Going virtual, math conversion. QM? Mechanics is the study of mass's motion. (y/n)? It'( i)s doubtful anyone would understand that (those interactions). I'( a)m (truly) amazed chemist can make 3D views of (the) atoms. That'( statement) i)s what makes me wonder. How do you know? The rest is ok.
  8. So really your data is about interactions; & NOT particles. But you have the nerve to say "particles", instead; so that people might understand (at least the substitute (name)).(?) That sure sounds like hit & mis(sed). It does leave me doubting a bit. E.g. You assume hitting the atom(s) dead on 0° at their center when measuring their reflected angle? & with thermal motion. How do you know? That is surely bound to fail! It's NO wonder your data does NOT (always) corelate with real sizes. It's a MESS! What is Lepton number? Good! I guess you mean, we can NOT measure a photon's dimensions (yet). We ONLY have theory, e.g. assumptions.
  9. How do you KNOW if they (EM_waves) are NOT a disturbance in a medium? Science can only measure, but its technical ability is limited; & often needs to be invented (in the future). E.g. More accurate measurements. Nature does NOT make exceptions; but people do. What'( i)s that? What is a field? I ONLY use that word intuitively (NON_specifically, generally) the way I am accustomed (traditionally). E.g. For an acre (where the crops grow, also has the Earth's magnetic field in &/or around it; or a playing_field where the magnetism dances around. E.g. A spray (~fog) of magnetism (produced, perhaps from (high_)speed collision (or) distortion against (our) stationary matter (wrt the Earth). In other words, NOT the whole picture, i.e. ONLY part of the picture, e.g. the changes (=differences) that happen (when colliding with (or against) disturbances). Some abstract thing, usually area; (but) it could be volume; or a topic=theme field of knowledge. None a single particle has the shape.. I DON'T understand that sentence. Could you please restate it, differently?
  10. I suspect I need a comparison of a field & a medium. Yes! (So) We (now) have something that looks like NOTHING. But I suspect you are implying that photons are (particles) too small to see. We would need a particle much smaller than a photon; & the vision apparatus for that smaller particle. Basically, (then) I'm asking for (what is) the "shape" of a photon because (you claim) it is (suppose to be) a (real=physical) particle. Otherwise "your" physics is (still) NOT making sense to me. Well if the photon (particle) is NOT round; then what is its shape. I'm NOT satisfied with pseudoscience. Real particles have real dimensions. They are NOT just imagination dreamt up by pseudo scientists. Science is measurement; NOT (always) its theory (ideas). I.e. Opinions from scientists. I have a big gulf (gorge) between talking about a wave_"length" e.g. 21 cm versus something as small as an optical photon. I have difficulty conceiving a real particle with the (conflicting) info (clues, hints given). It does NOT make sense. Thus I am requesting a (more) reasonable example. If that is because it is NOT round then please describe this real particle's shape. I.e. Photon. Naturally I have NOT co_related the photon's intensity to its size. But why NOT?
  11. That looks (a bit) like you are avoiding my question Sensei. We KNOW we are dealing with a wave, thus it has a (pretty obvious) wave_"length". But I did NOT ask that. I asked what was the wave "on".
  12. Hi Sensei This (thread's) question is a real question expecting real answers. I'm trying to figure it out. "Your" questions DON'T answer "my" question. But they can help. You say they hit but Bohr showed us from the very 1st in his younger year that contact is a virtual thing. The atoms do NOT touch each other. They (atoms) interact elastically at a distance with fields. OK. That's a good place to start. If you have a (single) photon with a wavelength of 21 cm, what does it look like? Is it round like a ball? How big is it really? E.g. what is its diameter? How do I co_relate its intensity to its (physical) size? How much momentum does it have? Yes, water waves travel, they are travelling on or in a medium (called water); & the (traveling=propagation) speed of that medium is typically (the symbol) c (in the formula), which in that case (=example) is 2 m/s. Although sound waves travel 1500 m/s in water (compared to 340 m/s in air). So depending on what kind of wave, then c has different values. I'm sorry, but water waves (do) travel at c, & "that" value for c is 2 m/s. Yes, I think so. What is a field?
  13. Hi John That's a good example! What do you mean there, John? I DON'T think a vacuum can tell us anything. We would need a(nother) speed (as) reference which could be either in or out of the vacuum (to compare speeds). DON'T you think?
  14. Thank you, both of you. Why do water_waves need a medium? (elastic, mechanically like a flexible_spring). Why do you exclude with electromagentism? Didn't Maxwell (also) calculate the (mechanical) Young's Modulus (~Flexibility) for electromagnetism (too)? Why only might? Can you please explain that to me? A wave of(=on) what? Good. I thought a slower frequency might be a bit helpful (simpler) to comprehend & understand. At least for me. I assume by mechanical you mean a sort of elasticity.(?) If an ion fluid is vibrated then electromagnetic disturbances (such as waves) are also produced! Or at least expected (by me). E.g. Sea_water. (But that effect does NOT have to be with salt.) E.g. (The) Water (molecule) is polar & has a dipole moment. E.g. The photo_acoustic effect producing soundwaves (ultrasound) from light's interaction. I suspect a similar process in reverse is also possible. Perhaps in a crystal.
  15. As far as I know water_waves travel e.g. at c. How do you deal with low frequency RF? Radio_particles? (Radions?)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.