Re: Can Light Propagate without Space??

From: Lefty (Ye_at_h.Right)
Date: 03/06/05 

Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 12:34:46 -0800

"jahn" <susysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:390reuF5tf5rdU1@individual.net...
>
> "Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message
news:o9WdndJXgvPdr7bfRVn-uw@comcast.com...
> >
> > > Hi Lefty,
> > >
> > > A related PoV
> > > http://departments.weber.edu/physics/schroeder/mrr/MRRtalk.html
> > > Remember, EM waves don't propagate like water waves.
> > > They share a few mathematical properties tho.
> > > The buching effect of traffic signals creates waves just
> > > like a klystron but knowing the traffic signals have 100 watt
> > > bulbs isn't much help calculating the energy released
> > > by an automobile collision when a phase error causes
> > > standing waves of traffic.
> > >
> > > Sue...
> > >
> >
> > Amazing stuff.
> >
> > I like to speculate about these things. Obviously - this leads me into
> > territories which may not jive at all with currently accepted models,
but I
> > dont have a career in academia and so I think that I have an advantage
> > because there is no reputation to be ruined by discussing new or strange
> > ideas.
>
> Not quite true... One can earn reputation in short order.
> But the only stupid question is still the one that goes
> unasked.

I'm not a trained physicist, but find that my suspicions regarding spherical
waves coincide exactly with Milo Wolff - on a philosophical level. I suspect
that he may have had mathematical reasons or substantiation for his ideas.

> > I think that it might be possible that light is actually propagating in
a
> > manner which is quite different than what we are capable of observing.
>
> You mean the way a charged comb attracts bits of paper?
> Even in a vacuum... so I hear.

    What I meant by that,..... if a portion of the photon which we are
observing exists in a different dimension, relative to us, then we really
cant observe it properly. Sort of like an iceberg. Just imagine that it is
absolutely impossibly for you to go underwater. There is no scuba tank, no
submarine. You cannot put a camera on a pole and plunge it underwater. You
are stuck with a silly rule which makes it impossible for you to get beneath
the surface regardless of the method.
    You still have the tip of this iceberg sitting there - and you must
explain it somehow. You can conjecture things about buoancy, but cant prove
it because you're ability to observe has been restricted to things above
water. Your physical models would be impacted by this. Man might not even
have the concept of buoancy at all. All you can see is this big chunk of ice
which seems to move around on the surface of the water - as if by magic.
It's movements seem to create patterns, but knowledge of underwater currents
is unavailable to you, and so it remains an enigma.
    One day, a smart guy comes along and describes the whole thing
mathematically and everyone is impressed. He also says that you can know
it's location but not where it's going. This becomes known as the IUP, or,
iceberg uncertainty principle, and nobody can quite figure out why it is
true.

> > If
> > dimensionality of spacetime is relativistic, then many things will be
> > completely hidden away in another dimension. I think this may also have
> > something to do with HUP.
>
> Well... your're over my head there.

Then we're equal.

> I always thought HUP was just the mathematical consequence of
> determining the fundamental components of compound units.

I think that the principle was derived based on observations, and then it
was incorporated into the math. I could be wrong on this -

> > Yeah - I know. It's fantasy. But I cant get this thing out of my head.
It's
> > weird.
>
> BTW... the way we observe light is always the motion of one
> particle causing the motion of a particle at a distance.
>
> Sue...
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Quantcast