Re: Are Gravitational Waves Electromagnetic waves?

From: PD (pdraper_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 03/04/05 

Date: 4 Mar 2005 07:20:44 -0800

Ben wrote:
> "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<1109792773.253745.312360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
> > Ben wrote:
> > > "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:<1109713787.325673.134000@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
> > > > Ben wrote:
> > > > > "PD" <pdraper@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:<1109620248.760764.88070@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>...
> > > > > > Ben wrote:
> > > > > > > I've been busy, so here is my reply to a discussion a
couple
> > of
> > > > weeks
> > > > > > > old.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ben wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > They are (photons) composed of +/- charge, but in order
for
> > them
> > > > to
> > > > > > > remain massless they cannot exhibit a bias.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > PD wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm sorry, this is making little sense. Do you suppose
they
> > are
> > > > > > > charge dipoles?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now in reply:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, that is exactly what they are. Electric dipoles
acting
> > > > > > transverse
> > > > > > > to the direction of the wave, generating a magnetic
> > component,
> > > > which
> > > > > > > also is transverse to the direction of the wave. This is
why
> > the
> > > > wave
> > > > > > > is a transverse compression wave of space-time.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ben
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since an oscillating electric dipole radiates energy in all
> > > > directions,
> > > > > > this would predict that a traveling photon would radiate
energy
> > in
> > > > all
> > > > > > directions, especially transverse to its path. Moreover,
the
> > photon
> > > > > > would lose energy due to this radiation in transit. Are you
> > SURE
> > > > you
> > > > > > want to make this claim?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PD
> > > > >
> > > > > No, this is not the case. I should re-phrase my earlier
> > statement.
> > > > > The electromagnetic wave is the continued change between +
and -
> > > > > charge, which is the physical contraction and expansion of
> > > > space-time.
> > > > > This is transverse to the direction of travel and is either +
or
> > - at
> > > > > anyone time. Therefore, the electromagnetic wave is able to
> > contain
> > > > > both an electric and magnetic component, without dissipating
> > energy
> > > > > unnecessarily.
> > > > > The wave is an alternating electric monopole (which could be
seen
> > as
> > > > a
> > > > > stretched dipole).
> > > >
> > > > First of all, there is a world of difference between an
alternating
> > > > monopole and an electric dipole. The latter is electrically
neutral
> > > > overall ALL the time. An alternating monopole is electrically
> > neutral a
> > > > vanishingly small fraction of the time.
> > > >
> > > > Secondly, an alternating monopole violates charge conservation.
> > There
> > > > is no process observed where an object or system can change its
> > charge
> > > > from + to -. None. Zip. Nada. Never been seen. Ever. That's why
> > > > conservation of charge has been elevated to the status of
natural
> > law.
> > > >
> > > > Third, if a photon were charged even a remote fraction of the
time,
> > > > this would produce measurable effects that would distinguish it
> > from a
> > > > wholly neutral photon. The fact that *on average* over time it
is
> > > > neutral does not wholly mask out those effects. For example,
the
> > charge
> > > > distribution in a metal (where the electrons are free) would
> > oscillate
> > > > with the passage of an alternating monopole in a detectable
way.
> > Note
> > > > that this oscillation would be *different* in character than
the
> > > > oscillation we expect from an electromagnetic wave -- the
parity of
> > the
> > > > oscillation is distinquishable, which we could easily test by
> > attaching
> > > > probes at opposite ends of the metal and checking the relative
> > phase of
> > > > the oscillation. This is at odds with the operation of that
> > circular
> > > > UHF antenna that you still see on some small, portable TVs.
> > > >
> > > > I'm sorry, this model doesn't look very healthy.
> > > >
> > > > PD
> > >
> > > OK, let me provide a visual description to clarify some
ambiguities.
> > >
> > > Imagine a smooth expanse of water. The surface of which is
completely
> > > flat. Now we drop a smooth, circular pebble into it. This creates
a
> > > perfect sine wave.
> > > Now translate this to a gravitational wave, there are
similarities.
> > > Now translate the above example to an electromagnetic wave, again
> > > there are similarities. Space-time can (as proposed by general
> > > relativity) expand and contract. If we relate this expansion and
> > > contraction to electric charge and electric charge to mass, then
we
> > > form the basis of my theory.
> > > Now an electromagnetic wave possess no net charge or mass. So, if
we
> > > relate my example of a wave on an expanse of water to an
> > > electromagnetic wave, then the peaks and troughs relate to
expansions
> > > and contractions of space-time. There is no net mass or charge,
just
> > a
> > > flow of energy, therefore charge and mass are conserved.
> > > I also believe that the effect generated in an antenna would not
be
> > > distinguishable from an electromagnetic wave, as this is the
effect
> > > already generated. And a circular antenna would still work under
this
> > > model.
> > >
> > > I think the model is still viable.
> > >
> > > Ben
> >
> > The devil is in the details. If you squint and look only at the
> > similarities, then they look the same. If you open your eyes and
start
> > looking at the details, then you begin to see the differences. In
bad
> > light, my grandmother looks like Herbert Hoover, too, but that
doesn't
> > give her top security clearance.
> >
> > There are fundamental differences between gravitational waves and
> > electromagnetic waves. The fact that they are both waves does not
make
> > them the same, and the differences *are* discernible.
> >
> > There are fundamental differences between a chargeless, massless
> > electromagnetic wave (and I mean an *absolutely* chargeless and
> > massless EM wave) and an alternating monopole. The fact that both
are
> > electrically neutral when averaged over time does not mean that
they
> > are indistinguishable; they are very easily distinguishable.
> >
> > You're right, there would be oscillations set up in a circular
antenna
> > for both (traditional) electromagnetic waves and for the
alternating
> > monopole that you propose. However, they would be measurably
different
> > in the phase of the current that would appear at each end of the
> > antenna. In one case, the relative phase would be zero, in the
other
> > case the phase would be 180 degrees. FM receivers *rely* on the
phase
> > being zero (by design) to work properly. Therefore if the phase
were
> > not zero but really 180 degrees, we would know it experimentally.
> >
> > This kind of detailed analysis is *precisely* the kind of thing
that's
> > required to verify or test a theory. Handwaving arguments do not
reveal
> > the details. Unfortunately, the ability to hammer out some of the
> > quantitative details requires some skill-building and quite a bit
of
> > homework.
> >
> > PD
>
> Please show exactly how they would be in antiphase. This will show
> both your skill-building and homework.
>
> Ben

Sure, and let's see if we can do it without any (or much) math.

In a conventional EM plane wave, the electric field (assume plane
polarized for a math-simple case) is E(x,y,z,t) = E_x0*sin(k*z - w*t),
where w/k = c. This is a wave traveling in the direction z towards a
metal surface that lies in the x-y plane at z=z0, and extends from x =
-L to x = +L.
Take an instant in time and "freeze" the wave; we'll choose a t0 such
that w*t0 = n*pi, where n happens to be an even integer, so that there
is no phase angle. Then E(x,y,z,t0) = E_x0*sin(k*z).

What this means is that at the surface of the metal, z=z0, the electric
field all along the surface (any value of x) is oriented the same way,
E(x,y,z0,t0) = E_x0*sin(k*z0). (Let's suppose we've chosen z0 so that
k*z0=pi/2.)
This in turn means that the electrons in the metal all flow in one
direction in response to the applied field, here toward negative x.
Thus if I apply contacts at the positive and negative ends of the metal
(x = +L and x = -L), then I'll see current flowing out of the metal at
+L and into the metal at -L. The current flowing at those probes is
flowing in the same direction (towards +x), and they are in phase.

In a nutshell, because the electric field is pointing in the same
direction all along the surface of the metal, the current read at the
probes is in phase.

On the other hand, in your model, we'll freeze the oscillation in time
so that the alternating monopole at the surface of the metal happens to
be at that moment positively charged. Note that the electrons in the
metal will be *attracted* to the monopole at that instant, which means
that electrons at positive x will flow toward negative x (toward the
monopole) and electrons at negative x will flow toward positive x
(toward the monopole). Thus the current at x = +L will be toward
positive x (out of the metal), and the current at x = -L will be toward
negative x (out of the metal). Because the current at the probes is
flowing in opposite directions, they will be out of phase.

PD

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Are Gravitational Waves Electromagnetic waves?
    ... >> This in turn means that the electrons in the metal all flow in one ... because the electric field is pointing in the same ... >> monopole) and electrons at negative x will flow toward positive x ... index fingers extended forward. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Are Gravitational Waves Electromagnetic waves?
    ... > In a conventional EM plane wave, the electric field (assume plane ... > so that the alternating monopole at the surface of the metal happens to ... Note that the electrons in the ... > that electrons at positive x will flow toward negative x (toward the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Particle theorists win Dirac Medal
    ... > electrons. ... the electric field then playing the same role as the magnetic ... Read Dirac on the monopole. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Aether, light, and mediums ... mmmmkay?
    ... Every kind of wave or pressure here on earth is exerted on us by ... Dual Space theory has it all ... (Our grasp of Espace can only be by electric fields, ... our universe had to be created from electrons taken from Espace. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Aether, light, and mediums ... mmmmkay?
    ... Every kind of wave or pressure here on earth is exerted on us by ... Dual Space theory has it all ... (Our grasp of Espace can only be by electric fields, ... our universe had to be created from electrons taken from Espace. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)