Dear Prof. Prytz,

Sorry, I had to take off from this discussion. Your explanation of time dilation is still not clear to me. Time can be dilated or contracted if it is a tangible thing with physical attributes and has an ontological existence independent of men. As I have shown in my book, from a philosophical point of view, time and space are abstractions and are have relevance only in the context of matter in motion, and matter is the only thing that is an ontological being. So any manipulation of space or time (bending, dilation etc.) does not make any sense. Minkowski and Einstein’s “spacetime” with tangible physical attribute is a mere mathematical/mental fabrication without any scientific basis and any extrapolation or inference from this abstract entity has no meaning either.

A clock no matter how you fabricate it has to depend on physical/material parts and hence would be affected by surrounding material influences including electromagnetic fields, motion, gravitational force etc. so its rate may change accordingly, but it is impermissible to say that this change in the clock is due to “time” itself (a fictitious and imaginary entity) changing! As I asserted above all the experimental “proofs” claiming “time dilation” are due to confirmation bias and mostly contrived or deliberately conceived. No social/historical practice and experience including GPS has any basis on so-called time dilation, warping of space etc. and hence no scientific validity. Regards, Abdul

Please also see my comments on the role of mathematics in modern physics at: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_universe_inherently_mathematical_or_is_mathematics_a_construct_of_our_brain_that_is_very_efficient_to_describe_the_universe

Hello Ram,

Maybe you will find interesting this model of self-propelling electromanetic photon that was peer-reviewed and found conform to Maxwell's equations. Published in the Journal of Physical Mathematics:

https://www.omicsonline.com/open-access/on-de-broglies-doubleparticle-photon-hypothesis-2090-0902-1000153.pdf

You say .." wave energy is that which vibrates the particle.."  is only valid for sound like mechanical waves, and not electromagnetic  waves (EMW). EMW are vibrations of electric and magnetic fields in spacetime. 

http://missionscience.nasa.gov/ems/02_anatomy.html

Dear Ram Naresh Yadav,

I think, one should distinguish between theories and branches of knowledge. In my opinion, a theory is a logical or mathematical framework devised so as to avoid contradictions, whereas a branch of knowledge attaches to the phenomena under study explanations, that seem reasonable at the moment of explanation.

Of course, when a theory is proposed for the first time, it tends to agree with the common sense at that time. For instance, when describing electromagnetic propagation in the framework of his theory, Maxwell assumes that there is an ether, indeed. Again, when Einstein launches his special relativity theory, he thinks that no ether is needed, since the field itself is a medium, in a sense. Thus, to answer your question, in Maxwell theory ether is considered to be different from matter, whereas in Einstein theory ether is substituted by a vacuum.

Now, when dealing with transmitting and receiving antennas, one may feel that transmission by electromagnetic induction is more akin to a coupling at an “electrotonic” (=resonance) state than to a propagation. However, right now, the explanation by means of  that electromagnetic coupling is not backed by any established theory. In addition, resonance coupling leaps over empty space. Thus, in my opinion, the question would not be so much about propagation as rather about the physical meaning of empty space. 

This picture is wrong because:

“Mass does not bend space”

                                          Adrian Ferent

Dear Ram Naresh Yadav,

Every physical constant with physical dimensions *must* represent a real physical property that characterizes the physical event.

Permittivity and permeability form the speed of light, but much more, are properties of materials.

The gravity constant as well does the same: it *must* represent a physical property of material.

When one looks at the transmission of waves, one sees that *every* description of a velocity propagation of a wave (take a wave in a rope, on the surface of water, in the air) is expressed in terms of the square root of the quotient of the internal tension by the mass density. Instead of "tension" one could say: energy. Re-written in another form, this gives E=mc².

Physics must not be regarded through the eyes of a mathematician, who is a quasi-nihilist by definition. Physics must be regarded through the eyes of a Physicist.

Annexed you will find some thoughts about it, including Planck's constant.

All the best!

Article A Stroll around E=mc² and Planck's Constant

Hi Thierry,

you wrote "When one looks at the transmission of waves, one sees that *every* description of a velocity propagation of a wave (take a wave in a rope, on the surface of water, in the air) is expressed in terms of the square root of the quotient of the internal tension by the mass density. Instead of "tension" one could say: energy."

Absolutely true. To my knowledge, this is how Maxwell infered that light could move only at a universally fixed speed (c) in vacuum, a constant since this showed that it can be defined from only two other constants.

Thank you, André.

Another, strong proof of the existence of a medium for the propagation of waves is the following:

When one shakes a rope up and down, a wave starts to run at a velocity defined by the tension in the rope and its mass. How?

Since we move the rope un and down, that impulse cannot be transmitted in a perpendicular (horizontal) direction (since perpendicular vectors are independent), *unless* the vertical and horizontal directions are *physically* connected by the mass and the elasticity of the rope.

Indeed, the slope of the rope in many points next to the one I am shaking, can be broken down in a vertical and a horizontal component. Hence, the horizontal component is able to produce the momentum, hence, the velocity of propagation, thanks to the physical connection of the horizontal and the vertical parts of the medium.

Hence, without a physical medium, a wave propagation cannot occur.

This was probably never understood by Einstein.

As to the question, “How (does?) light can travel in space where no matter exists?  I must first of all assert that all phenomena and processes in Nature must have a material basis and the propagation of light cannot be any exception. The hypothetical “aether” and particularly the “new ether” (“spacetime” ) of Minkoski  and Einstein, which is the frenzy of modern physics is a purely abstract mathematical construct with no physical or material foundation and hence cannot represent objective reality; that was falsely claimed by Einstein! Please see my RG project: “The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?”

Neither classical materialism nor mathematical idealism of modern causality based physics is capable of giving an adequately rational explanation of the experimentally observed wave/particle duality and other quantum phenomena in Nature; they both have to take resort to mysticism!

I have attempted a materialist dialectical and QED based explanation of wave/particle duality, in my (ready accessible) journal article, “The Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for the Resolution of Wave-Particle Duality and other Anomalies of the Quantum Phenomena”:

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2014/PP-39-03.PDF

“Physics must not be regarded through the eyes of a mathematician, who is a quasi-nihilist by definition. Physics must be regarded through the eyes of a Physicist.”

I completely agree with this statement by Dr. De Mees. The crisis in modern physics can be attributed to this mathematical alienation of physics brought on by Albert Einstein. Mathematics based fantasies and mysticism, and particularly the “consistency of mathematics” now rule official physics, where as materialism was once its strength and great merit.  It is true that in the face of the recognition of evolution in life forms and particularly, the quantum phenomena; causality and determinism based classical materialism is facing a crisis. But this crisis may be adequately dealt with, not by retreating (as Einstein did) to Early Greek mathematical idealism but only by adopting materialist dialectics as a tool of enquiry. Please see my RG Project:   https://www.researchgate.net/project/THE-ROLE-OF-DIALECTICS-IN-NATURAL-SCIENCE  and my books referenced there, specially, “The Einsteinian Universe? A Dialectical Perspective of Modern Theoretical Physics and Cosmology”.

Hi Thierry,

I absolutely agree that Maxwell's wave concept implies by structure that the "wave" cannot propagate without an underlying medium such as some form of ether, which is directly incompatible with the very idea of discrete isolated electromagnetic photons.

However, if the photon structure can be made to incoporate as part of its quantum some unidirectionally directed kinetic energy that could translationally propell it, then you can have self-propelling EM photons moving at c without any need for an underlying medium. This is such a structure, deemed Maxwell equations compliant that is described in the paper I gave a reference to before.

This seemed pertinent to the original poster's question.

There are only two differences between matter traveling through space and light traveling through space. The first is relatively trivial -- light is massless, whereas all known matter particles are massive (though the neutrino mass is very, very, very small). The second is more subtle. Quanta of light -- photons -- are bosons, so they do not obey the Pauli exclusion principle and tend to "cluster together" with other, similar photons. The known "fundamental" matter particles (electrons, quarks, neutrinos) are fermions, so the Pauli exclusion principle applies. That means they don't tend to clump up and form macroscopic waves. However, atoms can be bosonic, and recent experiments have shown matter wave phenomena in Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs). (Of course, wave-like diffraction and interference effects for single electrons were seen 90 years ago)

So the answer to your question is simply, light travels through the vacuum the same way matter does.

André, I don't understand "self-propelling EM photons moving at c without any need for an underlying medium". Could you explain that in a few words without the need of reading the whole paper?

Dear dr. Abdul Malek,

in my opinion, neither Einstein/Minkowski, nor QED will have the last word in the explanation of physical phenomena. One reason is that phenomena don’t have just one explanation, but rather their explanation depends on the addressed goal. And the latter changes inevitably as younger generations grow up.

That said, I don’t think that Einstein really proposed a space-time theory around 1905. Possibly, he just wanted to further develop Lorentz microscopic theory of the electron by connecting it to Boltzmann’s results. In this sense, he was among the first to speak of light quanta (to distinguish them from light particles of Newton’s emission theory of light.) He just took a “top-down” approach, in modern parlance. Space-time is the mathematical scaffold devised by Minkowski to represent the “inertial frames of reference” of Lorentz’ electrodynamics. If you are interested in picking up the problems of representation faced by both, relativity and QED, before they reached the actual mathematical skills, in my opinion you should give a look at the “starting papers”.

“…That said, I don’t think that Einstein really proposed a space-time theory around 1905…”

yes, what now is called “Einstein’s special relativity theory” in the reality was reported in September 1908, and had only one author – H. Minkowski. Just in his famous report Minkowski postulated that Matter’s spacetime not only isn’t absolute, as that claimed Poincare and further Einstein, but, besides, in the spacetime the space and time aren’t absolute also in sense that are really [dependently on each other] transformed in accordance with the Lorentz transformations. That was rather strange claim and possibly Minkowski could change his opinion, but he died after 3 months, when was near 45 years old.

But Einstein not only never objected to those who claimed him as the author of the recent SR, moreover, in the general relativity theory he developed Minkowski idea about real transformations of the spacetime, in this case – in accordance with Einstein equations.

Though in the reality Matter’s spacetime is the absolute [5]4D Euclidian empty container, where 4 dimensions of the 4D sub-spacetime are mutually independent since  correspond to 4 independent main/universal degrees of freedom at changing of material objects states: in the 3D space, and of internal states, what is motion in the fourth ["coordinate time"] dimension. The spacetime cannot be impacted/ transformed by anything inside, i.e. by a material object or a “reference frame”; and it directly doesn’t impact on anything inside as well.

Returning to the thread’s question – there is nothing surprising in that photons move in the 3D space with the speed of light, every other particles, bodies, galaxies, etc. always move in the 4D Matter’s spacetime with 4D speeds that have identical absolute values that are equal to the sped of light.

At that formally there is no necessity for the particles, including photons, to move at that through some 4D [for photons – in 3D dimensions only] medium, as, e.g., on first glance there is no necessity in some medium for motion of, say, Earth in the spacetime. The fact that speeds of Earth and photons are different evidently isn’t essential in this case.

 But seems as rather plausible to suggest that every material object indeed moves through “everythingferous” 4D “Aether” – a dense lattice of 4D  fundamental logical elements that are primary elements from which every particle is built, as some specific disturbance of the Aether.

More – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics

Cheers

Article The Informational Conception and Basic Physics

Maxwell's equations imply that there is a physical medium permeating all of space. Ampere's circuital law in particular tells us that wherever there is an EM wave, there must also be a circulating electric current that is angularly accelerating. The error would therefore appear to lie with those who claim that light propagates in a vacuum. More likely, there will be tiny electric circulations at every point in space. Take a look at this https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313204969_Compressed_Orbits_and_E_mc

Article Compressed Orbits and E = mc²

Hi Thierry,

You wrote:

"I don't understand "self-propelling EM photons moving at c without any need for an underlying medium". Could you explain that in a few words without the need of reading the whole paper?"

This idea was initially formulated in general terms by Louis de Broglie, who incidently was the one who started the ball rolling for the whole Quantum Mechanics concept, when he discovered the relation between discrete quantum states and resonance states that inspired Schrödinger his wave equation, who then introduced the wave function and gave birth to Wave Mechanics, afterward enriched by Heisenberg and Feynman, upgrading it to full fledged Quantum Mechanics.

Since he was so smack on the bull's eye with respect to resonance states, this gave me trust that he might also be right about localized photons.

What he theorized beginning of the 1930's was that a perman­ently localized photon following a least action trajectory can satisfy at the same time the Bose-Einstein's statistic and Planck's Law, perfectly explain the photoelectric effect while obeying Maxwell's equations, while remaining totally conform to the properties of Dirac’s theory of complement­ary corpuscles symmetry, if it involves two particles, or half-photons of spin ½.

It so happens that when you involve these two half-photons as part of a LC system, you can see that you end up with half the photon's energy cyclically alternating between an electric E field state and a magnetic B field state of equal intensity by structure, that determine motion in straight line of the photon, while the other half remains unidirectional as simple normal kinetic energy, propelling the other half, at the speed of light.

In the LC structure, the oscillating half happens to be inert translationally and could not move in space if "something" was not pushing it along. This "pushing" is done by the other half of the photon's energy which is not involved in the EM oscillation.

So no need for any underlying ether since you have self-propulsion and default self-guidance in straight line, and all electromagnetic properties are direct attributes of each individual local electromagnetic quantum (each separate photon).

Dear Dr. Vesely,

Thanks for your response. Being a follower and practitioner of materialist dialectics as a tool of epistemology, I agree with you that there is no absolute truth (the last word). As Frderick Engels said, “Each mental image of the world system is and remains in actual fact limited, objectively through the historical stage and subjectively through the physical and mental constitution of its maker”. Anti-Duhring.

I am not too much concerned here about the history of the development of the concepts of space, time and the theories of modern physics, but the impact these theories are having on the one hand on the enquiry of positive knowledge (as opposed to myths, mysticism etc.) and on the other on the socio-political life of humanity. This is what I said in a recent comment in the Guardian, “The main problem that the scientists do not recognize is that they are the catalysts and an integral part of a social process that has vastly increased social production but ironically intensified the exploitation of man by man to such an extent that it has helped to amass enormous wealth and power in few hands at the cost of the destitution of the overwhelming majority. Not only that; some scientists have replaced the priests of the feudal past as apologists for this great injustice, by replacing discredited God of old theology with one having the veneer of scientific credibility.”

GR is now substituted for theology, even though it has little credibility as a scientific theory. Its credibility is enforced on natural science through contrived “proofs” to the “highest precision” at the behest of monopoly capitalism. The only way to “prove” the validity of any theory (as was the case with Newtonian physics) is through social/historical practice, technology, industry. If not; no matter how much a theory is mathematically consistent, beautiful etc; it is a myth – a fabrication in the mind of men.  

“Spacetime” is a purely geometrical construct that is internally coherent with its premise and axioms (like geometry in general) but has no basis in reality. Spacetime manifold is an axiomatic abstraction (fabrication of mind), but is wilfully endowed with tangible material and physical properties and characteristics without any logical basis.

Einstein himself had doubt about the validity of “spacetime-field” and expressed it (towards the end of his life) in a letter to his friend Besso: “I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., continuous structure. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, (and of) the rest of modern physics” A. Pais, Subtle is the Lord …” The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein”, Oxford University Press, (1982) 467,

“I don’t think that Einstein really proposed a space-time theory around 1905…”

This is true, even though there was implication of it in SR of 1905. As Prof. Shevchenko rightly points out above, the credit for the formulation of the “spcetime” concept belongs to Minkowski (Einstein’s teacher) alone:  “The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality”. Minkowsky, H. “Raum und Zeit”, 1909, Jahresberichte der Deutschen Mathematiker-Vereinigung, 75-88, English tr. M. Saha. “Space and Time” 1920.

 I have attempted a “Negation” of the “spacetime” concept (claimed as a basis) of objective reality, with one based on Hegel’s philosophy of space and time and QED; in my recent book, “The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?” : https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Space-Time-Whence-Cometh-Matter/dp/984041884X

The creation of an electron-positron pair out of a electromagnetic wave shows that electrons and positrons are not essentially different from electromagnetic waves. In order to get a mass and to become local, it is sufficient that the electromagnetic waves become closed loops. (When they get a velocity, as a whole, the loops are almost closed). De Broglie already understood that particles can be expressed in terms of standing waves in a closed loop.

Hence, the propagation of matter necessarily occurs by the grace of the medium as well, exactly the same way as with what we call electromagnetic waves.

Hi André, I agree that the concept of half-photons with an opposite half spin is tempting. However, there is a fundamental difference in the perception of light waves and matter, while they are almost identical, as I explained in my post above.

However, with light waves, the velocity is given by the properties of the medium, and with matter, the velocity is given by the motion of the whole system, even if the waves inside the closed system are spinning at the speed of light.

How can matter be formed by "trapped" light and how can light be "trapped" in closed circuits? My best guess is that the denser the wave, the more physical properties of the medium get modified.

The perception of mass and charge could possibly be caused by the rotation properties of the matter particles.

Hi Thierry,

Indeed, I agree that there is a fundamental difference in the perception of light waves and matter, as you say, but there is not a lot of difference between a localized electromagnetic photon a la de Broglie and matter, since matter is also made of localized particles.

Note also that in both the cases of localized de Broglie photons and massive particles, the velocity does not depend on the medium, but on locally acquired kinetic energy.

This is why I found de Broglie's concept interesting.

In fact, you hit it right on the dot when you write "The perception of mass and charge could possibly be caused by the rotation properties of the matter particles."

That's exactly my conclusion also, and if you ever dig into the 3-spaces model, you will see exactly that.

In a manner of speaking, an electron is only a localized 0.511 MeV photon rotated 90 degrees, that we sort of observe sideways in the 3-spaces spatial geometry, half electromagnetic mass for the photon and full electromagnetic mass for the electron. The exact conversion mechanics is also established in a separate paper.

Hello Everybody,

I agree with the quotation given by Abdul:

"Einstein himself had doubt about the validity of “spacetime-field” and expressed it (towards the end of his life) in a letter to his friend Besso: “I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,"

Actually, the light concept is not needed. I wrote the book 'Electrodynamics: The field-free approach' (see my RG profile) where I show how physics may be described without EM fields and waves. To account for interference, reflection, refraction, antennas and so on, we need only assume that interactions take time, mediated at speed c. This work is to a large extent based on the findings by Moon and Spencer during the 1950's.

Ram, have a look at those references and your question will be illuminated (if not answered).

Dear dr. Abdul Malek,

doing science is a human activity. Thus scientists can become exposed to all the other activities you mention, and can achieve personal power over scientific research, politics, or everything else. Possibly you know the following: ‘Dialectical materialism and modern physics’, an unpublished text by Max Born -->

(http://rsnr.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/64/2/155.)

However, I myself think that it would be advisable to try and preserve a domain of scientific inquiry independent of other interests. While there is such a domain, there is always the possibility to look at GR, QED, etc. also from a scientific viewpoint.

Hi André,

I think the deBroglie waves you refer to are quite well described in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_theory_of_light

Hi Thierry,

I know well his solution, and also the Buras solution based on chromodynamics, but both do not allow separating the E field from the B field, because they make use of the electromagnetic tensor that does not allow such separation, consequently, they do not  completely integrate the magnetic properties of electromagnetic energy.

“However, I myself think that it would be advisable to try and preserve a domain of scientific inquiry independent of other interests.”

Dear Dr. Vesely, unfortunately, I do not agree with this proposition. For one thing, it isolates you from other aspects of life and the world and impairs your vision, lessens the scope of your intellectual creativity and (what is most harmful socially) leads to eliticism, chauvinism that fuels domination and exploitation in a class society. The strength of all historically mighty thinkers like Aristotle to Da Vinci to encyclopaedic Hegel; lies in the fact that they considered life and the world as a totality and explored as much of it as possible – limited only by their time. On the contrary, this kind of eliticism, expertise, specialization and microscopic division of society and its productive forces is preferred by a regressive, parasitic and decadent ruling class as we see in the world of monopoly capitalism to day. This kind of situation leads to the destruction of individual and social creativity and the regression of humanity in general.

Secondly, your world outlook greatly influences your epistemology, ideas, thought, and ideology. Hegel identified two modes of thought, namely “the view of understanding” (or crudely speaking causality), and “the view of reason” (or dialectics) that existed side by side since the early Greeks.  Causality is a very limited mode of thought; it works in rigid and binary yes/no, good/bad, positive/negative fashion and as Kant showed, leads to contradiction and antimonies on some fundamental questions. Contrary to causality, dialectics puts contradiction as the basis of any existence; "the Unity of the Opposites" - “Being-Nothing together” ; a resolution of this logical contradiction is what gives rise to change, motion, evolution and the ontological manifestation of the universe. Causality has to depend on a “first cause” namely God, Big Bang etc. from without and has to depend on an “impulse” at every step of change, motion and evolution.

 Causality works reasonably well for everyday life, classical mechanics and even Newtonian physics – in relatively simple systems where cause and effect can be clearly identified. But in more complex systems like life processes,, evolution and now as regards  quantum dynamics and cosmology; causality is of no help at all. To save causality in physics Einstein had to fall back on obscurantist Greek mathematical idealism and mysticism with his “field” concept and renouncing materialism altogether – a world outlook that was the foundation and once the shining merit of natural science!

Natural science has now developed to a stage where it cannot proceed further without taking resort to a dialectical world outlook; because causality lies at the very root of the crisis in modern physics. Following the lead of Frederick Engels I use and advocate for a dialectical approach to natural science. I have used this approach in my works in the realm of quantum dynamics, astro (and particle) physics, cosmology and biology. Just very recently I started a ResearchGate project “THE ROLE OF DIALECTICS IN NATURAL SCIENCE” : https://www.researchgate.net/project/THE-ROLE-OF-DIALECTICS-IN-NATURAL-SCIENCE

I knew about the view of Max Born, you refer to. Born did not publish it himself and as far as I know did not speak about dialectical materialism in public; it was published later for propaganda purpose. In any case, Born was biased, misinformed and plain wrong. To rephrase Karl Marx, “The ruling ideas of an epoch are the ideas of its ruling class” – Max Born like most officially recognized scientists of a capitalist society is no exception! Regards.

Hi André, you wrote:

"It so happens that when you involve these two half-photons as part of a LC system, you can see that you end up with half the photon's energy cyclically alternating between an electric E field state and a magnetic B field state of equal intensity by structure, that determine motion in straight line of the photon, while the other half remains unidirectional as simple normal kinetic energy, propelling the other half, at the speed of light."

I totally agree with the first part. It is to me evident that the general thought of E=cB , without retardation and cyclic alternation is false.

However, I think that with the actual knowledge, even an initial push at velocity "c" cannot maintain two real particles move at "c" for a long time, unless being a wave. Several theories, such as SRT and Heaviside's gravitomagnetism give restrictions to that possibility.

Hi Thierry,

It depends on what you include in the "actual knowledge".

First, with the LC photon model, velocity c is permanently maintained simply because the translational energy and the EM oscillating energy are always separated half for the first and half for the second (always half and half). The first half is translational in space, propelling the second half, and the second half is inert (will not move on its own in space).

It so happens that whenever the total amount of energy of the quantum varies, it always redistributes half and half within the quantum, which is what maintains the equilibrium velocity of c.

To understand why this is so, you would need to understand how Newton's kinetic energy equation K=(mv2)/2 can be upgraded to full relativistic status.

This reveals that the "carrying energy" of the inert rest mass of the electron can only have the same LC structure as that of LC photons. This also explains why it is impossible for a massive particle to reach c.

In a few words, it is because the combined electromagnetic half of the carrying energy plus the total electromagnetic energy of the rest mass of the electron (all of its inert rest mass) is always greater than the translational half of the carrying energy quantum, irrespective of the amount of kinetic energy you provide as carrying energy.

But this can't be explained in a conversation like this. If you are interested, you will find the complete explanation in the paper attached. Then, if this makes sense to you, the first paper I referred should begin making sense also.

Article From Classical to Relativistic Mechanics via Maxwell

    Dear Ram,

    Although vacuum is without matter, that doesn't mean that it hasn't electromagnetic properties. In fact vacuum must have electric permeability and magnetic permittivity which are the physical magnitudes associted to the velocity of the light in vacuum. This is one experimental fact corraborated in optics and in classical electrodynamics, we don't need to have other microscopic models to understand that the electromagnetic waves can propagate exchanging electric to magnetic energies in vacuum thanks to Maxwell's equations which transform then without taking into account the matter which surounds them. Notice that this is very different phenomena of what happens for sounds which are mechanical waves which need to move atoms to exist. This confussion has introduced the aether in the past as something forgotten in wrong assumptions made in Physics,

Space is not ''nothing''.  It is empty of matter but it is not empty of electromagnetic waves and these carries energies.  So it is never empty.  According to general relativity, each location of spacetime is curved and these curvature explains how matter and light travel in it.

Light is an electromagnetic wave like for example all the radio wave. From another point of view (quantum mechanics) the light is a particle without mass named photon. The photons they behave in a way similar to projectiles. The bullets have not need a medium to propagate. So electromagnetic waves have not need any medium to propagate. Electromagnetic waves as well as the bullets (photons), they can be stopped or slowed down (attenuated) by any object. Therefore the photons or electromagnetic waves in vacuum can traveling indefinitely as long as they do not interact with another object.

"Therefore the photons or electromagnetic waves in vacuum can traveling indefinitely as long as they do not interact with another object."

Absolute "vacuum" as such does not exist! What we have is "quantum vacuum"; which is a "sea" of virtual particle popping in and out of existence. The presence of the virtual particles can be accurately accounted for, as the "Lamb Shift" in the spectra of atoms; as "Casimir Force" etc.

Any tangible particle like photons passing through this vacuum are most likely affected by the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum! 

   Maxwell equations tell that the electromagnetic waves carry energy and momentum (Poynting vector) without needing matter. All that they need is to have an electromagnetic vacuum with permittivity and permeability different of zero. The quantum concepts are not necessary at all for understanding this question.

   Another different problem is if we want to know how is it possible to have one electromagnetic non zero trivial vacuum with effects as the Casimir's one. That is a very different question which is out of the wave behaviour of the classical electromagntic waves.

All that they need is to have an electromagnetic vacuum with permittivity and permeability different of zero. The quantum concepts are not necessary at all for understanding this question.

They had no knowledge of the quantum vacuum; that is why they needed a fictitious "aether". When none was found, they invented another mathematical fiction - a "new aether" ("spacetime") as a medium for the propagation of light, which is even needed for the "bending", etc., of cosmic light.

This does not necessarily mean that now-known quantum vacuum can be ignored and fictitious classical media with non-zero permittivity and permeability can carry on as usual as valid description of a tangible medium!  

"How does light  travel in space where no matter exists?" is THE fundamental question whose correct answer will likely lead to a unified theory.

For about 100 years, most of academia has emphasized theories without Aether with spectacular failure, evidenced by the number of patches needed that implicitly put something where the Aether was:

• Mass renormalization
• Vacuum polarization
• Dark Matter
• Dark Energy
• Curved-space time.

Even with these patches the theories do not explain such things as faster than light communication between entangled particles, and many other critical details.

For thousands of years prior to academia's 100 year diversion, the need for a fluid to propagate light was a given -- Kelvin, Maxwell, Newton, Descartes, Aristotle, etc.  Michelson-Morley experiments clearly showed that some of the assumptions about that fluid were wrong. With two fixes to the assumptions, the need for all those patches disappears, the Michelson Morley results become compatible with the fluid, and unification becomes a matter finding the right Lagrangian for the fluid.

Einstein's early work provides insight to repair the assumptions regarding the fluid. First, Special Relativity (SR) suggests that the fluid is a hyperfluid -- i.e. a fluid in hyperspace -- 4 spatial dimensions plus time. Second, Einstein's principle of "Wave-particle duality" suggests that both particles and waves are made of fluid -- e.g. particles are vortexes in the fluid, and light is waves in the fluid. Both of these ideas have history individually; the progress comes when I put them both together -- search google for "hypervortex gary warren" to see some of that progress.

   The aether is not necessary for classical electrodynamics which can have propagation without moving anything more that the transformation of its magnetic field in electric and vice verse using Faraday's law. This is very different that the longitudinal waves of mechanics.

   On the other hand QED vacuum only is needed if the frequency is so high that the energy is twice or more times the one associated to one electron at rest.

Daniel Baldomir, Both Faraday's law and Ampere's Circuital law are required for EM radiation. Hence there has to be a tiny electric circulation at every point in space where EM radiation is present.

“The aether is not necessary for classical electrodynamics which can have propagation without moving anything more that the transformation of its magnetic field in electric and vice verse using Faraday's law. This is very different that the longitudinal waves of mechanics...”

here seems would be useful to explain – what are those “electric and magnetic fields” and why Faraday’s law  so differs from “mechanical laws”, which determine propagations of waves in mediums, that propagation of EM waves doesn’t require some medium also…

And, besides, photons aren’t some exotic particles/waves that move in the Matter’s [5]4D Euclidian absolute spacetime with “the speed of light”. Every particle, planet, stars, galaxies are moving in the spacetime with 4D speeds that have absolute values be equal to the speed of light – without Faraday’s law; and all are, at that 4D particles/waves. Photons differ from other particles only in that they propagate in the 3D space only, when having “rest mass” particles move obligatorily in the spacetime’s 4-th [“coordinate time”] direction, and so, as that Pythagoras prescribed, 3D spatial components of their speeds are always lesser then the speed of light.

From what follows rather rational suggestion that every particle is some 4D disturbance in a 4D Aether that fills the spacetime, which [suggestion] don’t contradict with any physical law.

See also SS post on 2-nd page here and the paper linked in the post.

Cheers

   Let us try to be clearer writing some points:

   1. The propagation of the electromagnetic waves in vacuum don't need the concept of photon. Maxwell's equations are more than enough.

   2. The main difficulty is that the velocity of the electromagnetic waves in vacuum depend of the electric (permitivity) and magnetic (permeability) which are constants different than zero.

   3. Vacuum is only a fundamental state being full of particle-antiparticle pairs having mutipolar distributions, which allows its electromagnetic features no to be zero.  

“…The propagation of the electromagnetic waves in vacuum don't need the concept of photon. Maxwell's equations are more than enough…”

- nonetheless electromagnetic waves are beams of coherent photons…

“…The main difficulty is that the velocity of the electromagnetic waves in vacuum depend of the electric (permitivity) and magnetic (permeability) which are constants different than zero…”

-   electric (permitivity) and magnetic (permeability) are some parameters of material mediums that contain  [electrically] charged particles /systems of particles and characterize interaction of EM fields with mediums. For vacuum, which by definition doesn’t contain anything, including charges, these notions are introduced in SI system practically formally, nonetheless they indeed adequately define the speed of light since physical vacuum isn’t some void container, but it is filled by dense regular 4D Aether – rather probably by  4D lattice of 4D fundamental logical elements (FLE), where photons indeed interact with the lattice simply since are some moving disturbance in aether; and the rate of the motion is determined by existent universal rate of FLE states’ changes in the lattice;.

and where, again, every particle moves as a wave  [and these waves don’t differ principally from photon’s waves] with 4D speed of light, photons aren’t some exclusion in Matter.

More see the links in SS posts above

Cheers

"...since physical vacuum isn’t some void container, but it is filled by dense regular 4D Aether – rather probably by  4D lattice of 4D fundamental logical elements (FLE),..." 

There is no reality behind “spacetime” 4D aether. It is an artificial and abstract geometrical construction based on some axioms without any “proof”. Like all geometrical rules; any deduction that are consistent with the premise is true; but has nothing to do with the REAL world. This is the very reason we see paradoxes starting from Zeno to Einstein. There is imperfectness in Newtonian physics, but there are no paradoxes, because it deals with the real world.

Space and time are abstractions. There is no “time” as such, starting in an infinite past (Newton) or starting in the recent past with a “Big Bang” as in the 4D “spaetime” construct. Nor any space endowed with physical/material attributes. Both space and time are only relational and only has meaning in relation to matter in motion. As Hegel said “It’s essence (matter in motion, A.M.) is to be the immediate unity of space and time; it is time really persisting through space, of space which is made truly distinct through time. …Only in motion have space and time reality”. So, the whole virtual edifice built on the theories of relativity in modern physics has nothing to do with the real world; and everything derived from these theories are also just mathematics based fantasies.

Coming back to the original question, dialectics and quantum dynamics denies the existence of “Absolute vacuum” even in the (impossible) absence of tangible matter particles. “Empty space” – the quantum vacuum, contains virtual particles and mediates the motion of photons and other matter particles including gravitons:

Please see: “The Philosophy of Space-Time: Whence Cometh Matter and Motion?”:

https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Space-Time-Whence-Cometh-Matter/dp/984041884X

Abdul Malek,

I appreciate your answer. It is so correct in every detail, i.e. I agree. Physics has to be based on reality, meaning observations and measurement. Mathematics has to play a second role as describing and summarizing the measurements. This approach I used in my text book given in my profile. It is essential to understand that time is motion and space is distance between objects. Time dilation is a slow down of motion.

Greetings

There is no absolutly empty space.  Space in cosmic void away from filament of concentration of galaxies is extremely more empty than space with a galaxie aways from a star system, or the space within a star system, or the space near a planet, or the space within a planet.  All of these type of space is filled with all kind of matters: neutrinos, photons, dark matter!. darl energy!, proton (not always).

Ref:

Taking the Measure of Nothing in the Universe

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/outthere/2017/01/31/nothing/#.WJtWm_nhCUk

Dear fellows,

We have a highly interesting discussion here. Let me make some summarizing of the ideas mentioned above.

Sara Liyuba Vesely: “I think, one should distinguish between theories and branches of knowledge. In my opinion, a theory is a logical or mathematical framework devised so as to avoid contradictions, whereas a branch of knowledge attaches to the phenomena under study explanations that seem reasonable at the moment of explanation.”

Thierry De Mees: “Physics must not be regarded through the eyes of a mathematician, who is a quasi-nihilist by definition. Physics must be regarded through the eyes of a Physicist. Hence, without a physical medium, a wave propagation cannot occur. This was probably never understood by Einstein.”

Abdul Malek: “I completely agree with this statement by Dr. De Mees. The crisis in modern physics can be attributed to this mathematical alienation of physics brought on by Albert Einstein.

The only way to “prove” the validity of any theory (as was the case with Newtonian physics) is through social/historical practice, technology, industry. If not; no matter how much a theory is mathematically consistent, beautiful etc; it is a myth – a fabrication in the mind of men.”

André Michaud: “I absolutely agree that Maxwell's wave concept implies by structure that the "wave" cannot propagate without an underlying medium such as some form of ether, which is directly incompatible with the very idea of discrete isolated electromagnetic photons.”

Gary Warren: "How does light travel in space where no matter exists?" is THE fundamental question whose correct answer will likely lead to a unified theory.“

Kjell Prytz: “I agree. Physics has to be based on reality, meaning observations and measurement. Mathematics has to play a second role as describing and summarizing the measurements.“

AZ: Why do not we use some experiments which show a different approach to the problem if we agree that physics should use only results of physical observations and experiments?  

Michelson-Morley Experiment and Einstein’s theory based on that experiment show not only one way of thought. There are another approach and explanation of those and many other experiments findings and observations. The most interesting findings are summarized in my paper published recently.

Global Journal of Science Frontier Research: A (Physics and Space Science) has made publication of my research article titled ‘Physics and Philosophy of Wave Reference Frames in a Retrospective of 20-th Century Findings and Illusions.’

The article is accessible at the following path.

 https://globaljournals.org

Recently Published Journals

GJCFR-A Volume 16 Issue 6

(Pages 89-112)

I guess, the article will be interesting for every participant of this discussion because it explains many ideas mentioned by different researchers on this discussion from the same point of view that helps to determine the speed of light regarding the space and the observer-to-space relative speed of motion. Obviously, it becomes possible by a new device mentioned in the article (SMA) and some alternative approach to “well-known” categories used in physics for a long time in the light of new experiments.

Please read sections 'De Witte Findings and Aurora Effect' and 'The Trident Experiment carefully.'  The Trident Experiment shows the operability of SMA in all possible measurements of observer-to-medium relative motion.  Please let me know if you have any problem downloading the article. 

If you like to know more, please read my article ‘Philosophy, physics and mathematics of relative and absolute motion.'   It explains the most controversial experiment conducted by CERN “Faster than Light Neutrino Experiment.” Both articles use the same point of view for explanation of all phenomena.

I have a question to all participants of this discussion. What should we do more to show falsification of Relativity and conduct correct physical experiments based on measurements instead of fantasies? 

https://globaljournals.org

Allan,

When you quoted my mention that the wave concept of Maxwell's theory requires an underlying ether, you forgot to mention the alternate explanation that does not require such an underlying ether while remaining Maxwell's equations compliant:

"However, if the photon structure can be made to incoporate as part of its quantum some unidirectionally directed kinetic energy that could translationally propell it, then you can have self-propelling EM photons moving at c without any need for an underlying medium."

Dear André,

 Every explanation in physics should have some support from experiments as you know. Suppose, I propose you a set of physical experiments which show the same law of propagation of any signals in any signal-medium combinations. 

Can you accept the new physical reality that way and the necessity of a new approach to the old problem of explanation?

Dear Allan,

I certainly do.

But quoting from my post only one of the two possible Maxwell's equations compliant interpretations that I highlighted, is not, it seems to me, conducive to considering all new approaches.

Theories, Maxwell's and mine or any other, are only interpretations. Maxwell's equations are in fact Gauss, Faraday and Ampere experiment based equations plus Maxwell's contribution leading to calculating the speed of light from first principles. Something else entirely, which underlies all possible theories or interpretations.

Complete quote is ok, but partial quote is not.

i have a theory which is really very near to the completion by which i can unified the gravitation and modern physics, i am really working on it from about 9 years by which i can prove so many thing like why the things do like this only, for example why sound can not travel in space where no medium exist(as every body no) and what matters exist in space(explanation about ether) and so many thing. only i want to know that if i will prove these thing by my theory then it will be acceptable or not by the world?

i have read so many researches and physics then i came to know what is really behind it, if required then we will produce the mathematical explanation about it.

Dear Ram,

The theory you have been working on may be the correct one. But note that every one who has come up with a self-consistant theory thinks that his personal theory is the right one. This is why there is so much discussion.

It may well be that each one has understood correctly various parts of the big puzzle, but only experiments that will eventually be carried out will confirm what the real interpretation will be that matches objective reality.

Currently, we are at a stage where  every body is showing his personal theory to the others.

At some point in the future, the suggested experiments, if practicable, will be carried out and will orient our attention to what the results confirm.

Nobody knows yet which direction is the best.

So, your best bet is to complete your theory and describe it as well as you can, so that the possible experiments that could confirm it have a chance to be considered amont the others.

What is important is that your theory does not  contradict any already confirmed experiments.

“Time dilation is a slow down of motion.”

Dear Prof. Prytz

Thanks for your kind words. But I am a little intrigued by your above quote; I wish you would elaborate this point a bit more. Slowdown of motion is conceived in terms of acceleration/deceleration but has nothing to do with time dilation.

Einstein assumed a constant speed of light that forms the basis of SR, 4D “spacetime” formulation by Minkowski, time dilation etc., and is accepted as the basis of objective reality of the universe in modern cosmology as par GR. Time dilation is presumably “proved” indirectly by the broadening of the light curves of Supernova Type 1a; longer half-life of unstable quantum particles etc.; and directly by the slowdown of atomic clocks flown in aeroplanes – all of those results are contested. GPS is vociferously touted at the “proof” of time dilation, but it is not true! GPS clocks are maintained through experimental observation and are affected by many factors. Even if (un-necessary) opposite effects of SR and GR is included, their affect is only minimal compared to other factors.

Moreover, as the references in my comments above shows; 4D “spacetime” manifold with tangible physical attribute (warping, slowdown etc.) has no meaning as both space and time are mere abstractions and have meaning only in relation to matter in motion. Thanks.

Dear Abdul,

to me a clock is just a periodic motion, e.g. the pendulum from which we may define a second.

As I show in the article "Force between electric charges...":

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305659525_Force_between_Electric_Charges_a_New_Approach_to_Relativity_Theory 

time dilation may be derived from the interaction between two identical charges moving in parallel. When in motion the repulsion is weaker due to the magnetic effect. Using the known formulas for electric force and magnetic effect, time dilation follows and from that the rest of SR. No need for Michelson, that is.

Furthermore, speed of light as well as its invariance follow provided we utilize the known formulas for electric and magnetic forces (containing epsilon and mu).

Now, the only peculiar thing with SR is that the observer may generate the magnetic effect solely by putting him/herself in motion. This is the principle of relativity and completes the interpretation of time dilation since now all observed motions will appear slower when the observer is in motion relative to what he/she observes.

Cheers,

Kjell

Article Force between Electric Charges: a New Approach to Relativity Theory

Dear André,

I agree with your comment about quotations. Moreover, you mentioned some interesting aspects of experimental physics.

“At some point in the future, the suggested experiments, if practicable, will be carried out and will orient our attention to what the results confirm. Nobody knows yet which direction is the best.”

Suppose, we have carried out some physical experiments which show a contradiction to well-established theories. In that case, experimental data of all set of experiments remain correct, but a theory becomes wrong because new experiments give us “unusual data.”

For example, Einstein postulated this. The speed of light is constant for every observer regardless observer-to-light speed of relative motion. His postulate explained the so-called null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

However, Norbert Feist (a researcher from Germany) conducted Acoustic Michelson-Morley Experiment with the same null result in 21-th century. Physical measurements show this. In case of the constant speed of observer-to-air relative motion, the full duration of a round-trip experiment with an acoustic signal remains constant despite direction of signal propagation. That exactly match the result of optical Michelson-Morley experiment.

Can you explain that result?

Kjell Prytz: “To me a clock is just a periodic motion”

In that case, you should explain the relationship between a periodic motion and physical interaction between that motion and physical Time.

Can you do it?

RAM NARESH YADAV: “I have a theory which is really very near to the completion by which i can unified the gravitation and modern physics”

Can you tell us the basic theoretical framework of your theory (basic postulates experiments and so on)?

If you explain something that does exist in space and light uses that thing to make propagation through space, you have ether in your theory doesn’t matter how you call it.

Do you use that way of thoughts?

Hi Allan Zade,

do I understand correctly: You ask for the connection between motion and time?

To me Physics is defined by Newton's three laws. Through the second law time is connected to motional change. This is the physical time, i.e. the scientific time. 

Since only motional change is involved in the definition for time there is no absolute time, only relative, just like motion is relative.

Greetings

Dear Kjell Prytz,

“Since only motional change is involved in the definition for time there is no absolute time, only relative, just like motion is relative.”

That is a good observation. What if I show you another step that way with the following statements?

• Physical Time does not exist in the Universe.  
• Human comprehension of Time comes from observation of recurrent physical processes. Therefore, Time in nothing more than a duration of a given recurrent physical process.

 Do you agree that point of view?

Hi Allan!

Well, yes and no. Time is of course an artefact since the proper scientific concept is motion. In that sense time doesn't exist. But in daily language time could mean other things relating to aging as well as evolutionary processes at which physics has no access.

If you by physical process mean a motional change, then I agree with your second point.

Cheers,

Kjell

Dear Kjell Prytz,

You gave me one more interesting answer. Let me make open more step on that way.

Suppose we have two Duration Measurement Device (DMD) which count duration of their internal recurrent physical processes to be not mistaken with “common understanding of so-called Time.”

Each DMD comprises an oscillating device and counting device that counts oscillations of the oscillating device. An indication of each DMD appears as a number of oscillations counted by counting device.

Suppose now this. We put those DMD together, set indications of their counting devices on the same number and put DMD far away from each other. Now we can conduct any measurement of the speed of anything going between those DMD. In case of a car, the situation seems obvious.

Suppose, we send a light beam between those DMD. Can you predict the result of such experiment?

   Dear Louis,

   I think that your definition of vacuum is very far of the one of Quantum Field Theory or QED, in particular, if we speak on the electromagnetic properties. You wrote:

"There is no absolutly empty space. Space in cosmic void away from filament of concentration of galaxies is extremely more empty than space with a galaxie aways from a star system, or the space within a star system, or the space near a planet, or the space within a planet".

   Casimir effect or Lamb shift can be measured as associated physical effects to the electromagnetic vacuum. Let me only give you only one simple result of physical quantities that can be measured for singularizing it:

          P= e2E/2αhc C.V/m3

where P  is the electric polarization of the vacuum for a given electric charge surrounded by virtual photons, e electric charge, α fine structure constant, h Planck constante and c the velocity of light. In the same form we could calculate the magnetization ,etc...

    Thus the vacuum is not the empty space concept and also is not the aether that Michelson and Morley tried to measure. It is in fact a physical object with electromagnetic properties, although the electromagnetic waves only need Maxwell's equations for propagating within it.

    By the way, time is so real as can be energy, momentum, electric charge, etc...as fundamental physical magnitudes.

Dear Daniel Baldomir,

You told us this. “Time is so real as can be energy, momentum, electric charge, etc... as fundamental physical magnitudes.”

As you know, physical properties can be measured by a proper physical device.

Can you prove your claim by a physical experiment with step-by-step explanation of physical interaction of physical Time and a measurement device?

Dear Allan,

You propose:

"Suppose, we have carried out some physical experiments which show a contradiction to well-established theories. In that case, experimental data of all set of experiments remain correct, but a theory becomes wrong because new experiments give us “unusual data.”

I would express my personal view regarding physical experiments a little differently:

"Suppose that we carry out some physical experiment whose confirmed results are not explainable by well established theories, then how can the newly expanded pool of all accumulated confirmed results from all physically carried out experiments be explained in a single theory that will exclude none of the confirmed results."

From this perspective, the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum and tenuous media such as the atmosphere has long been established and confirmed out of any doubt, and is constantly verified by use of all energy frequencies, radio, microwave, radar, Doppler radar, laser, etc. on top of being also accounted for by Maxwell's second derivative on this issue.

My view is that any experiment that confirms that the speed of light is constant just adds to the overwhelming pool of accumulated evidence, and that any experiment that seems to contradicts this must be thoroughly examined for flaws.

If no flaws are found in the procedure, then this new confimed information has to be taken into account, and an explanation must be found, that also explains why the speed of light is constant in all other cases.

   What is the electric charge? what is the energy?....The important is that I can measure them and to know how they produce new magnitudes. This is what happens with the time since the clocks exist. Without time the energy couldn´t be defined .....and the Physics didn't work at all.

It seems last two pages here a next time contain posts that are written with violating the main rule for any discussion to be fruitful – before, or at least as the first step in, the discussion main notions/terms/phenomena should be properly/substantively defined/understood. In other cases only some scholastic exercises with using bare declarations are possible.

Here these notions are “Space” and “Time”, which are Meta-notions and so can be properly defined only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception; correspondingly they are utmost fundamental Rules/Possibilities that as possibilities are necessary for any informational pattern/system could exist and change. As Rules they establish that between different patterns of fixed information must be “spatial interval” and between different states of a changing pattern/system must be “temporal” interval.

As  the possibilities Space and Time form for a concrete informational patterns “empty containers”, for example – a sheet of paper is a space to place a text,  and, besides, implicit  possibility to change the text, including at writing, are necessary to write a text;

or {5]4D Euclidian spacetime that is necessary for the informational system “Matter” to exist and to evolve. At that the Rules by no means don’t establish – what these intervals’ values are, unique requirement is that either spatial or temporal intervals must not be equal to zero exactly.

Correspondingly if there is only one changing object, it is senseless to say – what is size and how long time it changes However, if there exist more then one changing object it becomes be possible to compare their spatial sizes “one larger/lesser then other” and processes “if processes started simultaneously, then, say, accompanied/ “spent” at end of one process temporal interval is larger/lesser then the other process’s corresponding interval”.

Since Matter is rather simple logical system that is built and changes by basing on/using a rather small number of identical primary fundamental logical elements and a rather small number of logical rules/ “Nature laws”, material objects change their states – internal states and positions in the space, in highly “standardized” manner, and so humans can, using some material objects as standards, compare parameters of processes in the material objects/systems.

Both Rules/Possibilities act [and so exist] implicitly, but quite objectively, at that they are for given closed [i.e. that don’t interact with its environment] informational system “absolute”, i.e. they don’t impact on the systems’ objects [besides the unique Rules’ conditions above] and any object cannot impact on/change the implicit actions of them.

They aren’t “abstractions”. They aren’t some “motions” – in the reality that are material objects [or, say, humans’ thoughts move as well, but in other spacetime]  that move in Matter’s spacetime. If between points A and B there is a spatial interval, say, 50 km; and between B and C an interval 100 km, these intervals exist objectively, universally, i.e. independently on anything, for example they can be intervals between point on solid Earth or between points in a void space, etc. etc., etc.

Time is the Rule/Possibility that is fundamentally connected with the notion/phenomenon “Change” and both are, correspondingly self-inconsistent  notions/phenomena, from what follow two main conditions for any change could happen – (i) to change some fixed pattern is necessary to spent something what in physics is called “Energy”, and (ii) on some scale states of the pattern become be uncertain. But both phenomena exist objectively, at that the notion “Change” is applied in concrete changes of concrete patterns, when the notion “Time”, as “Space” above acts universally, independently on concrete changes, as the Rule that requires non-zero temporal interval at any change and as the Possibility to happen of any change.

Thus in physics letters “t” and , say, “x” are used in two senses – as coordinate axes [realizations as the possibilities] and as temporal and spatial intervals, including, for example (0,t) and (0,x) as coordinates of points in the spacetime.

Though in everyday practice the word “time” often is applied to the time intervals only; moreover, in physics often the [many people call it “Einstein’s definition”] “definition of the time” is applied – “Time is what clock show”. But that isn’t correct – clock are simply some material objects that uniformly change their states and they show not the time, again, the Rule “Time” doesn’t define any concrete absolute measure, they show how their state changes and so – how other material objects change   comparing with this uniform changing.

In the reality the notions/phenomenon “Time” acts in the system “Matter” in more complex way that is given above, in Matter two Rules/Possibilities “Time” act, or, by other words Matter’s time is two-dimensional [when “Space” is 3D]. More about this nuance and some other properties and applications of the notions/phenomena above – again, see  the link in the SS post   on 20-th  page.

Cheers