Re: Can Light Propagate without Space??

From: jahn (susysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 03/06/05 

Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 14:54:40 -0500

"Lefty" <Ye@h.Right> wrote in message news:SeednUE2jKLx07bfRVn-1w@comcast.com...
>
> "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.

As I recall problem with his sphericl wave is that the magnetic component
can't do that. However there is good reason to believe that the
electric component can. I haven't read his "living papers" lately.
>
>
> > > 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

The two particles... yes

exists in a different dimension,

they are in the same 3 dimensions I live in, and no one is complaing
of crowding.

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.

Indeed nature hides some things from us.

> 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.

Yes attractive combs and paper seem like magic. But artificial
and inaccessable dimensions are created when we want to hide
something, not when we want to expose it.

> 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.

Thus far I'm getting by best with the three spatial dimensions I have
access to. Antimatter might be a reason to add on a room but I
haven't thrown in the towel on that yet.

Sue..

>
>
> > > 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...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>