"Does every wave needs a medium of propagation?"

Dear Thierry,

thanks for trying to make us aware of basic physical phenomena !

What should we understand by "medium" ? According to my understanding the formation of waves simply requires some limited propagation speed that not neccessarily requires the presence of certain particles or substances.

Dear Thierry,

No, there transversal waves which don't involve the medium in its trasport as the electromanetic waves. In fact the electromagnetic waves carry energy and momentum only using the electromagnetic fields and potentials within the spacetime.

Dear Johan,

Could you describe any process of wave propagation in the macroscopic world (with a characteristic propagation speed) that doesn't require the modulation of an underlying medium ? By "medium", I mean indeed some substances, typically much smaller than the size of the wave.

With best regards,

Thierry De Mees

"modulation of an underlying medium"

Dear Thierry,

which "underlying medium" do you imagine in case of electromagnetic wave propagation?

Dear Christian,

Indeed, the sub-microworld may or may not be an analogue of the macroworld.

However, a "propagating device" with a characteristic speed, depending from physical (dimensional) quantities which are quite universal in a large area, and which allow to get a locally constant speed for every "propagating device", whatever the velocity of the "initiating device" for that "propagating device" is, cannot be seen as an medium-independent set of propagating particles.

It must be a wave. This applies for ropes, water, air, and every solid and liquid material, and there is no problem there with relative motion and with traditional kinematical notions.

And when one speaks of waves, which has the above characteristics, one can only fabricate such waves as modulations of an underlaying medium (not just ether, but every medium for every consistent wave), which is composed of numerous much tinier components.

There is almost no difference between the calculus of a continuum and that if extremely tiny particles. Also, the argument of the "absence" of energy loss in the case of light is interesting, but certainly no proof for inventing waves without a medium to propagate it, which is a fundament of physics. Such thinking is also a thinking in terms of the macroscopic world and projecting them in the sub-microscopic world, or the opposite: denying fundamental macroscopic physics in order to "explain" the alleged absence of attenuation. Even if not all is understood, that is no intrinsic problem that would possibly be a proof of the opposite.

Dear Johan,

I don't imagine a specific underlaying medium for electromagnetic waves, but I know that it contains at least the physical constants attributed to mu and epsylon of "vacuum". And I know that the disturbance/influence of atoms in materials slightly alters these two constants.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Yes, it is my firm conviction that every sort of wave propagates in a medium. I will soon add two short papers to my project - one titled "An Otherworldly Proof of the Existence of the Aether" another titled "Lorentz vs Einstein" offering a mathematical proof that an experiment measuring the velocity of the earth through the aether medium is feasible even though the effect is fourth order in (v/c)

"Does every wave needs a medium of propagation?"

Dear all,

electromagnetic induction and wave propagation are well described by retarded interaction of fields. So the above question may induce another one: "Are fields neccessarily made of particles when the latter themselves are just regarded as field vortices?" - P.S. - OR - "Are Fields the basic substance of the universe rather than particles?"

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_formation_of_elementary_particles_confirm_Machs_principle

Dear all,

As far as I could understand the answers, there is only one person who affirms that no medium is needed for the propagation of light.

Let's assume that no medium exists for the transmission of light. How then does it come that all the light from far stars, even those that are moving towards or away from us gat the same speed at the arrival on Earth, if there is no "regulating" process?

Dear Christian,

"why would there be no attenuation?"

Why would there? Of how much?

"If the vacuum would be an ether that obeys known physical principles, then we could not see galaxies thousands of light years away."

How would *you* possibly know?

And...? What about my other questions to you?

Second law of thermodynamics will not allow any directional information to pass through material media without paying to the surroundings. Information has to pay some energy to the surroundings. So, there must be attenuation in wave amplitude.

If the "wave" is defined as obeying the wave equation, yes. But there are many pitfalls. For example, light could be a particle and particles do not need a medium to travel. Second, the medium has to have inertia. Consider a clock pendulum, the inertia of the bob keeps the bob moving when all its potential energy (bottom of the swing) has been converted to kinetic energy. Third, the "gravity wave" may not be a wave. It could be just the changing potential due to changing position. The detected form from rotating bodies may be just the change of position in rotational motion. The required inertia is in the bodies rotation not the ether. If the speed of a suspected wave is limited to the speed of light, the phenomena is caused by a particle. Otherwise the speed could many orders faster than light. Or, so the Scalar Theory of Everything suggests.

Light is better explained in particle terms. Waves in a medium would not travel billions of light years making it in one piece. A particle can. Water and sound waves can't do what light can. Rope waves and guitar string vibrations also easily break down. There is no medium for light that can be modeled by ropes, strings, mattress springs, cogs & wheels, fluid, or magic. In Richard Feynman's book, QED, light is corpuscles. Most of this book is a transcript of his lecture freely available on YouTube.

"light is corpuscles"

I imagine waves, wheter standing or travelling, may do so without particle interference and associated loss, in particular, electrons bound on atoms or photons travelling through space, respectively. Intergalactic space is not empty but full at least of gravitational potential, see references below.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_it_make_sense_at_all_to_discuss_on_cosmology_without_taking_into_account_the_influence_of_remote_masses

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_speed_of_light_basically_limited_by_local_cumulative_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe

Dear all,

If light were particles, the measured speed of the light coming from stars would have different results, because they are initiated at different speeds wrt us.

If we find the same speed for the light coming from everywhere, it means that there is a regulating medium. Whatever its name is.

This medium would strongly reduce the speed of particles, but not that of waves. It is found with water waves in a channel that only the friction with the borders lead to an attenuation. The wave itself almost wouldn't attenuate.

Best regards,

Thierry

@Thierry Mees "different speed" How would we find such speeds? We assume it. All that is required is the speed of light to be the maximum any particle can travel. Therefore, the speed of light is independent of the emitter's or our speed (the Lorentz assumption). If there is a medium, the transparency of very distant galaxies suggests there is not a medium that inhibits light. My TOE suggest a medium, but the medium exerts no friction force on light. Mediums DO exert friction on waves. The question was/is does a WAVE need a medium. For me, the transparency of the universe is an argument against wave light.

Dear John,

"All that is required is the speed of light to be the maximum any particle can travel."

By what magic would such a thing happen?

" If there is a medium, the transparency of very distant galaxies suggests there is not a medium that inhibits light."

Of course not. A wave on the surface of the ocean will not be inhibited by the water particles. The wave is of another dimension than the medium, particles of the water. If one can only see the wave (as we do with light and matter), and not the underlaying particles, it holds.

Anyway, a wave without medium is physically impossible. It's like holding a glass of water without the glass: impossible.

"the medium exerts no friction force on light. Mediums DO exert friction on waves."

How would we possibly know? Every light is maybe very slightly redshifted? The cosmic temperature may be the answer!

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

I think a generalised wave may propagate by at first creating enough particles, for example at the emitter. There is a motion and energy. Then, if not encapsulated, and the wave motion is not maintained, the particles may disappear or leave elsewhere. If encapsulated in e.g. a channel , the particles can achieve a memory on how to interact with the other particles to transmit a wave. But that is a true medium, and an issue for another discussion.

Thierry de Mees: “it means that there is a regulating medium. Whatever its name is.“

Dear all,

maybe "medium" is preferably understood as something made out of particles. On the other hand we also talk about wave-particle duality when considering physical behaviour of light. Similarly, when regarding localization of propagating “immaterial“ field energy quanta by transformation into a state of rotation we come to reasonable dimensions and further properties of protons, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319525987_Triple-gyro_model_for_deduction_of_proton_radius_and_magnetic_moment.

Why shouldn‘t we regard “space“ and condensed matter as two coresponding states of gravitational energy?

According to some recent consideration, https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_rest_mass_of_a_body_equivalent_to_local_accumulated_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe, local gravitational potential originating from remote masses of the universe is of the same order as the energy required for shooting a mass to outside the universe.

In view of light aberration near the sun‘s surface, Albert Einstein in 1911 (http://myweb.rz.uni-augsburg.de/~eckern/adp/history/einstein-papers/1911_35_898-908.pdf) came to the conclusion, cf. Eq.(3), that speed of light is retarded by local gravitational potential of the sun. When assuming accumulated gravitational potential due to remote masses at any location of the universe to be about 106 times larger than the local contribution of the sun near its surface, limitation of luminal speed at c in intergalactic space may be extrapolated from the retardation effect near the sun which in fact is about six orders of magnitude smaller than c. See also: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_speed_of_light_basically_limited_by_local_cumulative_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe

I had a blood transfusion, recently ( 2.5 months ago). Maybe that is too real an experience to share, but I remember asking myself; how will this work?, thinking, that the heart gives the pulses, but how do the blood know where and how to go, paricularly, how far, and can I eat liver ( because I needed iron) or will it then also break down my own liver.

Utter nonsense, Baumgarten! Is undermining the sound physics and our education system what you do, and what your kind of people do since 1905?

Dear Johan,

Your triple gyro model (a bit "spielerei" to me) would give an equivalent angular momentum L = I ω = 36 ℏ , which is 72 times the electron's. The g-factor is 5.6, so the magnetic moment is nearly 2.8 times the electron's.

I agree with your consideration that the speed of light may be connected to the medium that is formed by all the gravitational fields together, which is not zero at places where the resulting gravity fields would be zero (as in the center of the Earth for example).

On the other hand, you will see that if you try to solve Einstein's eq(3) to c , you will get nonsense.

He is also plain wrong in supposing "time" to be affected. There is no beginning of a proof for that. Every type of clock-construct may give different results. He moreover contradicts his own postulate of a constant c.

Only light waves or fields can be affected by the Doppler effect or by energy balancing. Einstein was messy, inconsistent, and wrong.

Best regards,

Thierry

Dear all,

I do not know if there is so much of a memory in the wave itself, that I often adress. If it bounced from a distant star, and then propagated until the energy was consumed, and after that remembered and copied how it bounced in the beginning, it would look different than observed, (and possess elasticity).

Dear Thierry,

thanks for your critical remarks on my triple-gyro model which in fact started from the idea of two corresponding states of energy, a propagating one and the other being localized by rotation. On playing around ("Spielerei") with physical units, maybe just by chance, some reasonable features came out for the proton by just considering elementary units of angular momentum rather than orbital components. As I'm not well acquainted with particle physics, would you kindly explain how you get to L = Iω = 36ℏ ?

As to Eq.(3) of Einstein's 1911 paper I understand that he expects c0 to slow down due to additional negative local gravitational potential, which I see on top of basic gravitational potential resulting from remote masses of the universe. Indeed, I expect Eq.(3) to hold for small corrections only.

Baumgarten,

Superstition and mysticism are useless, kabbale approches. Altering sound physics by negationism is stupid.

Sometimes, it is useful to think before talking, Baumgarten!

sound

adjective \ˈsau̇nd \

Definition of sound (Entry 3 of 7)

1a : free from injury or disease

of sound mind

b : free from flaw, defect, or decay

sound timber

2a : solid, firm

sound construction

b : stable a sound economy also : secure, reliable

sound investments

3a : free from error, fallacy, or misapprehension sound advice

sound reasoning

b : exhibiting or based on thorough knowledge and experience sound scholarship

c : legally valid

a sound title

d : logically valid and having true premises

a sound estimate

e : agreeing with accepted views : orthodox

sound doctrine

4a : thorough a sound recovery

b : deep and undisturbed

a sound sleep

c : hard, severe

a sound whipping

5 : showing good judgment or sense

a sound advisor

Thierry De Mees ,

so there has been a misunderstanding of words ("sound") in the context of arguing about waves. This can happen. No reason for sarcasm, agression and calling names.

Within classical electrodynamics, what is - in your view - the hindrance for the electromagnetic field being "it", i.e. the thing that moves?

My quick take on it is that anything material that oscillates harmonically is somehow tied to the notion of (a collection of) harmonic oscillators, i.e. resonators. If by any means this is related to a finite q-factor (quality factor) then this will give rise to dispersion. At the same time, this is tied with dissipation. This is, what I understand to be encoded in the Kramers-Kronig relations. It also implies that phase velocity isn't a constant. [edit: i.e. a non-constant function of frequency]

Now what is different to saying "i have a continuous collection of infinite-q resonators" to saying "I have nothing real", I can drop the idea of a medium? To me, frankly, that is not a long way to go.

If I got you right, then further up in the thread you say that something must account for the quantities ε0 and µ0. But you can rewrite Maxwells equations in various forms and unit systems, including forms where ε0 and µ0 do not appear. Couldn't it be that the "fundamental thing" is "simply" the dynamics of electromagnetism, which we can cast in the mathematical shape of "impedance of vacuum" ( Z0 = |E|/|H| for plane waves, which happens to be sqrt(µ0/ε0) in SI units). In my view, this comes back to saying "the e/m field itself is it".

"If by any means this is related to a finite q-factor (quality factor) then this will give rise to dispersion. At the same time, this is tied with dissipation."

Dear Kai,

when light bending at the sun's surface is interpreted as a dispersion effect due to retardation of luminal speed in a region of enhanced gravitational potential, as concluded by A. Einstein in his 1911 paper mentioned above, could you imagin limitation of luminal speed at c to be due to accumulated gravitational potential originating from remote masses of the universe? This idea apparently complies with the local contribution to gravitational potential at the sun's surface which is about six orders of magnitude lower than the universal background potential.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_speed_of_light_basically_limited_by_local_cumulative_gravitational_potential_originating_from_remote_masses_of_the_universe

Dear Johan,

I have never thought about this that way. I have taken some time browsing through the linked discussion and related material. Still I don't feel like having an "informed intuition" about what you ask.

Concerning the use of the word dispersion, I am not entirely sure what you think of. My use of the word in my previous post relates to dispersion relation.

"informed intuition"

Dear Kai,

nice wording, indeed ! Maybe, the idea is not really worth being seriously considered, in particular, as I didn't find similar reasoning elswhere up to now. But, as a matter of fact, only few people, like e.g. Isaac Newton and Ernst Mach, care about possible effects due to the presence of remote masses at all. Physics as we are taught is confined to local.

My reasoning is simply as follows: When some locally enhanced gravitational potential as near to the sun's surface is said to cause retardation of luminal speed why shouldn't accumulated potential from remote masses have a similar retardation effect. When retardation close to the sun is of the order 10-6c, then it appears obvious to ask for the effect of gravitational potential from remote masses of the universe which is just 6 orders of magnitude larger than the local contribution close to the sun. I imagine that without background gravitational potential, luminal speed might be infinite, which in fact means the absence of waves. A universe without condensed matter, of course, wouldn't make sense. So I regard limitation of luminal speed and formation of waves as an intrinsic feature our universe.

My simple understanding of "dispersion" is related to colour separation in optical media which may be explained by wavelength depedent retardation of luminal speed.

Dear Kai Fauth,

Unfortunately, you mix up what pure mathematics can formulate, and what real, sound physics is about, i.e. represent the processes of Nature the best as possible.

Nature cannot make a wave propagate without a medium. That is because of the very nature of waves: they can only occur as a modulation of a medium, and the medium's properties define the speed of propagation. Even if mathematics doesn't show this medium in its equations, by one or the other trick.

Telling otherwise is cabal.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

"Nature cannot make a wave propagate without a medium."

Dear Thierry,

for waves to build up I think what is required in the first place is limited propagation speed. Electrodynamic field propagation apparently occurs in perfect vacuum. Does your introducing question imply the existence of whatever type of particles for wave propagation? I wouldn't hesitate to regard immaterial fields as "media" whenever they induce limitation of field propagation speed along with formation of waves and induction.

Dear Thierry De Mees,

so, what you claim is to (universally) know what is the very nature of waves actually is, and that thinking otherwise is constrained to be unsound. To me that pretty much sounds presumptuous. [Which makes me take it as your (personal) opinion.]

But then, what properties would this medium be required to have in order to produce modulations with the dispersion relation we observe over so many, many orders of magnitude in frequency? (This brings me back to my first post.) I have no conception for that. Do you?

Kai Fauth

Still thinking about your post a day ago. IMO physics starts with postulating basic stuff the influence and is influence by other stuff The ancient Greek idea of being only one thing in the universe means no action - so not 1). The smallest number of components is 2. One of these must be a medium that supports wave action as e experimentally observe oscillation. The models of this category of action include properties of being able to be acted upon by matter (the other component), being able to act upon matter, be infinitely divisible (so its influence may be transmitted), and inertia. That is, it must be a true component of the universe - an ether. If matter has gravitational mass, the ether has inertial mass. The speed of waves of influence in the ether must be much faster than light. The ether is the communicator of action. So, all action is non-local in Bell's sense.

So, the EM field must be either changes in the ether or matter (photons). I've concluded there are 2 types of magnetism. E=mc^2 is not the intuitive equation, it is E= m(inertial-ether)/ \epsolon \mu .

But none of this is "real" and it may not be as nature really is, but it can work to predict experiments and observation which is all we can do.

The question of waves is fundamentally about the characteristics of the universe from which all must follow.

Dear Kai Fauth,

There is nothing presumptuous in confirming what defines waves by ALL the known physics. Calling this a personal opinion is just unlimited idiocy or the intended undermining of education.

Dispersion and dissipation are inventions that you introduced. They are non existent.

The main reason is that light, as a moving wave, will attract each-other, like they attract masses, as clearly explained in gravitomagnetism.

The main cause of cosmic redshift is the interaction with hydrogen in the cosmos, which retards the light and at the same time reduces its energy.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Johan,

We don't exactly know in what the electromagentic fields propagate. Particles may indeed constitute the medium in which EM waves propagate.

Immaterial fields don't exist, because the characteristics of fields are material constants, which have dimensions. There is no hokus-pokus whereby "immaterial" fields would ensure a limited speed propagation.

Best regards,

Thierry

"One of these must be a medium that supports wave action as e experimentally observe oscillation."

Dear John,

is this a necessity (say, within classical physics)? I would say, it conforms to our intuition, because that conforms largely the experience we gain with our senses (plus some analysis).

Imposing any theory to conform to that can be seen as imposing a prejudice which may prove unfounded when concerning "things" that I have not previously been able to gain an intuition for. As we progress in physics [exploring "new stuff" in unprecedented detail], that intuition may badly fail us.

Let me take an example: Do you have an intuition for what indistinguishable fermions are? I don't. And yet I think I have come to understand that this is an important aspect of matter, because I was able to comprehend things would be different if e.g. electrons weren't fermions.

So yes, you make a decision about your prejudices (postulates) and cast them in a shape that allows you to compare the outcome with observation. Among the prejudices most of us apply is that mathematics should provide an adequate abstraction for dealing with measurable (quantifiable) things. Usually, defining the limits of applicability of a theory goes along with the formulation of the postulates, knowingly, or unknowingly. Sometimes this can't be known in advance.

Testing your theory then includes elucidating its consequences when trying to think it through. Here we are concerned with the properties of the medium carrying electromagnetic waves. To very, very good approximation, we observe frequency independent speed of propagation "in vacuum" over many, many orders of magnitude of frequency. So, whatever carrier you postulate, it should produce that behavior when you model it. The observation that electromagnetic radiation travelling through the same spatial location but in different directions does so "without taking notice" suggests (to me) that whatever goes on is probably very well described by a "linear reaction" of the "something", because that provides me with the superposition principle. And so on...

So, yes, take your precudice on the presence of a medium carrying electromagnetic radiation and analyze its necessary properties to warrant frequency independent phase velocities of waves. And then see whether the consequences of that are ontologically more satisfying than saying "the electromagnetic field is the very thing propagating on its own in vacuum and it has certain dynamic properties". [Of course, this is also only scratching the surface of the topic.]

Cheers, Kai

_____________________

A final line of thought, though one where I do not feel resting on firm ground: wouldn't the essence of field theories be that "the field" is "the medium" and "what we observe" are excitations of the field/medium? And in addition there are interactions [e.g. e/m field with matter].

"There is no hokus-pokus whereby "immaterial" fields would ensure a limited speed propagation."

Dear Thierry,

I agree that "immaterial" may be misleading when trying to describe wave propagation in the absence of particles.

Dear Thierry,

thanks for the friendly words and thanks for sharing the less friendly ones, too.

Let me quote from a post of yours further above:

John Hodge:

"the medium exerts no friction force on light. Mediums DO exert friction on waves."

Thierry De Mees:

How would we possibly know? Every light is maybe very slightly redshifted? The cosmic temperature may be the answer!

I conclude from this that "friction" in a wave results in "red shift", i.e. a change of frequency. How does that derivation work? When I consider friction of a wave supported by a medium, I rather get a reduction of amplitude, not a change of frequency.

And from a post addressed to me:

Thierry De Mees:

Dispersion and dissipation are inventions that you introduced. They are non existent.

All I said (by referring to the notion of "q-factor") was that within linear response theory (resulting e.g. in the Kramers Kronig relations) dissipation and dispersion go inseparably together.

You claim they're non-existent. OK. What does this tell you about this medium? Have you figured that out? Do you think it's worth considering? What would be the starting hypotheses when attacking this "problem"?

Dear Kai Fauth,

You wrote: "I rather get a reduction of amplitude, not a change of frequency"

You should know that the frequency is linked to the energy, and that the energy is linked to energy losses.

The medium is not "the problem". The problem is to find relevant information that would bring science forward. And it is not by denying everyday proof of what waves are that one would get that.

One could try to bring science forward by remarking that the Michelson-Morley experiment showed that to the extend of the error range of the experiment, there is either no universal ether, or the Earth is not moving with respect to it, or light is not influenced by it as the experiment supposed it.

That makes quite a lot of possibilities.

Then, one can remark that there is a perfect solution by stating that the ether velocity with respect to the Earth is zero, as it would when the ether is connected to the gravity field.

That situates a number of experiments that could be done at higher altitudes, since when the French Instutute for Standards and Norms wanted to know the speed of light, and asked several laboratories to provide it, the results were very much different, far over the error limits! (Ref. Alexander Chepick)

Another phenomenon is the experimental correspondence of the empirical equation f=GM/(2cR²) for the Sun, in which f is the sun's rotation frequency at its equator, and M and R the values for the Sun.

The question is whether this is a coincidence.

When supposing that gravitons orbit about the Sun circularly at the speed of light c, and are hitting a spinning particle on its way, the Coriolis force becomes active, which is a purely mechanical force, and this force produces the spinning particle to accelerate as in Newton's law a = - GM/R² in which "a" is the acceleration. I find this after analysis in "Is the Differential Rotation of the Sun Caused by a Coriolis Graviton Engine?"

That could mean that gravity can be explained as the effect of orbiting gravitons that mechanically interact with other particles. As you know from Louis de Broglie, elementary particles are in fact self-trapped light.

So, the whole thing might hold, and gravity may be orbiting gravitons (as a degeneration of matter), and as well the medium for light.

This is only an example, and more detailed analysis should find out more. For instance, if this is true, it might be possible that electromagentism is either altering that medium by modulation, or that it also contains "EMons".

All this may open the way to control gravity by deviating the gravitons and the EMons by E-M fields, and to create voids in which spaceships may freely move.

That, and not the precise theory is the objective. However, without a reasonable open mind within the scope of the possibilities in Nature, we will find nothing.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear John,

"The speed of waves of influence in the ether must be much faster than light. The ether is the communicator of action. So, all action is non-local"

Think in terms of ether densities, and the link between the ether densities, ether tension properties and the speed of communication in ether: how can entangled particles communicate so fast? Due to (much) lower densities and/or (much) higher ether tension between them.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Thierry De Mees

What about dark matter regarding to the propagation medium?

Dear Thierry,

well, that energy-frequency-relation is not unknown to me. So we talk about quantum inelastic scattering?! Fine.

But: you get this from which wave equation? Where is the analogy to "what defines waves by ALL the known physics"? (copied from above) I frankly wouldn't be able to tell.

And no: I didn't "know from Louis de Broglie, elementary particles are in fact self-trapped light." Is there a verified theory proving the concept? [Would you pls. share the reference?] What's the working principle of the trapping?

And with reference to:

"That, and not the precise theory is the objective. However, without a reasonable open mind within the scope of the possibilities in Nature, we will find nothing."

Well, I prefer to not fully agree. Not in the sense that the mathematics of the model takes preference over what it is meant to describe or is an end in itself (German: Selbstzweck). But still, yes, taking the math and the meaning of my modelling serious and try to find out what it all means. This can be very fruitful as e.g. in Maxwell's case by combining his first order differential equations to a wave equation.

So, when one finds a new, alternative or seemingly better or more acceptable description of some physical phenomenon, I find it only logical to check whether the model actually makes sense and what is the meaning of "making sense". In the present context, postulating a medium for the propagation of em waves, I find it perfectly justified to reflect about the properties of that medium given the known physics. Here, I would consider as known: Maxwell's equations, superposition principle, constant speed of propagation over many orders of magnitude of frequency.

Btw.: I didn't probably find what you were directing me to in referring me to Alexander Chepick. But analyzing the timing e.g. of radiation from synchrotron radiation sources already provides us with quite a few orders of magnitude in frequencies which can be compared without resorting to measurement by different people (which should, of course, agree with one another...). Is there an aactual "official" account of the situation? And how much is it up to date?

Dear Abdo,

"Dark matter" is a scam. "They" want us to be stupid and invented that because they don't want to abandon the inferior General Relativity of their god Einstein.

They invented that because they stupidly apply Kepler's laws to disc galaxies, while Kepler is only valid for one large mass and one small mass only.

In fact, if you verify what LeVerrier did to find the Newtonian perihelion advance of Mercury, you will see that it is due to the other planets. Mercury has a considerable advance. What occurs with billions of stars? All the orbit speeds will change.

When calculating it, one finds that the velocity curve becomes flat, without the need of the fallacious "dark matter".

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Kai Fauth,

Since you don't seem to know elementary physics of waves, I advise you to study that first. Take Feyman's book of Lectures. Maybe you'll find that one. And read Louis de Broglie's work. That was a real genius.

Exerting physics is more than using terminologies, maths, and dialectics.

Best regards,

Thierry De Mees

Dear Thierry,

be assured that I'm not unacquainted with wave phenomena. I too appreciate the Feynman lectures. But yes, I don't know every paper you happen to know and I would guess that is reciprocal. So let me politely ask you to point out to me

• the work of de Broglie where he proves (or proposes) that elementary particles consist of self-trapped light (bibliographic reference will suffice hopefully, title would be appreciated, nevertheless)
• what it was that you wanted me to read from Alexander Chepick
• an (arbitrary) example of a linear wave equation where the introduction of dissipation (= energy loss) leads to a change of frequency of the solution. Pick any of what figures under your label of "ALL the known physics" above.

Thanks in advance (and I mean it)

> Exerting physics is more than using terminologies, maths, and dialectics.

Couldn't agree more. But getting your math right when required can be an important part of the game. I find that particularly true in a case such as yours, when you insist on the necessity of some medium for the propagation of electromagnetic radiation. I find it natural then to scrutinize what the consequences are for the properties of that medium and whether that is physically more acceptable than the propagation of the electromagnetic radiation "on its own". Simply claiming those who think otherwise to be idiots is pretty cheap in my opinion.

Btw., I am unaware to have entertained dialetics or to have hidden behind terminologies. At least, that was not my intention.

JKF: "I agree that "immaterial" may be misleading when trying to describe wave propagation in the absence of particles."

Dear Thierry,

in case of radio transmission from a high frequency antenna of several meters length, would you denote "emitted" field vortices as "particles"? And what about photons emitted from atomic scale "antennas"? Where would you place the limit between particles and fields?

Dear Johan,

My understanding is the following: if the emitted field vortices are not confined in one direction (dimension), because it propagates at the speed "c", and the two other dimensions are confined in space, it is not a full particle. If the third dimension becomes confined due to self-trapping, it becomes a particle.

The propagation of particles is obeying Newtonian physics, and in extension ghravitomagnetism. Therefore, it will never have a pre-determined speed, but one that is determined by the initial impulsion.

Best regards,

Thierry

Well, Kai Fauth, prove that "the propagation of the electromagnetic radiation "on its own" " is physically possible, and we will talk further.

Well, Thierry De Mees, you want to impose conditions to grant me an audience? It is you who raised a question in this thread, not me. But I'll nevertheless think about it.

Some waves can travel in the vacuum of space, which is without a medium such as air or water.