https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/156606/how-do-electromagnetic-waves-travel-in-a-vacuum

Dear Jinfeng Li , Saeed Mojtabazadeh . Thanks for answering. However, the propagation velocity of EM waves depends on quality of wave guide and thier physical properties (for example, it depends on the permeability and permitivity of cable, etc.) and less than light C velocity. This may be mean that EM magnetic propagation need to "medium" to propagate". I still not well understood wave propagation phenomena. Is the cable a kind of resistance for wave propagation compared to the EM propagation in Vacuum space ? Is exist space more efficient, better than Vacuum space...

Effectively, according to the Maxwell's equations describing the electromagnetic wave propagation, the wave needs some physical medium to be propagated (see link below) with a specific velocity less than or equal C. The question, is how a wave can propagate in Vacuum Space (space without matter with specific permeability and permitivity). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_wave_equation

Dear P. Contreras . Perhaps I have misunderstood the question. The mathematical description of the wave propagation phenomenon requires the presence of a propagation speed. This speed depends on the physical properties of the space. Is there an equation that describes wave propagation without taking into account the physical properties of space?

Hello,

Your question is quite interesting. As we are from Microwave Tubes field. where we have vacuum inside the cavity, but we get beam wave interaction that is the main part of any vacuum tubes. Sound wave or light wave or any other all are electromagnetic waves, some requires medium to travel and some do not. Similarly, like PBG and EBG structure, where we get EM wave in stop band and use it for our purposes. Depending upon wavelength, structure, mue and epsilon, as well as phase velocity; also dispersion diagram give the way how EM wave travels through vacuum. Lots of literatures are available on this topic.

Thanks,

Quantum physics

Dear Mr Houssain

Please take into account that EM wave is generated primarily from accelerating charges (electrons) which gives rise to changing electric field which in turn generates changing magnetic field (Maxwell Equations, Faraday's and Ampere's Law) so it is a self sustaining process, unlike physical waves which need a material medium. The mu and epsilon (naught) values are applicable in vacuum. For Light waves propagation, though that is not my primary specialization, is also described in terms of photon behavior i.e. stream of mass less particles. Though at various frequency bands EM and photon principles are inter-related. Normally this is how I start explaining EM waves to my students hope it was helpful. Regards

Thanks to P. Contreras , Irfan Majid , Eanass Al-Shabkhoon , Smrity Dwivedi and Jinfeng Li for interesting answers.

The nature of electromagnetic fields is such that I call the governing equations as "the Maxwell postulates". These postulates explain observed phenomena very well (classical theory), and that's how they should be treated. You may like to look up a lovely book by E.J. Post: [Formal structure of electromagnetics, Dover Press, New York, 1997.

This question had already been discussed more than 100 years ago and one can find the answer in many good textbooks on the subject...

Following excerpts from above answers make the point clear

The EM waves don't need either the presence of a medium such as sound or elastic waves need in order to propagate.

For an electromagnetic wave in vacuum, group velocity is equal to phase velocity, but in other media rather than vacuum, light speed is not universal & in addition electric fields exists in metalic surfaces, inside metals Eins is zero.

Yea I know the Stratton book and mentioned it also in my lectures on electromagnetic waves from 1975 onwards...

Dear P. Contreras and Fritz Caspers for additional information. As mentioned The nature of electromagnetic fields is about "the Maxwell Postulates" Akhlesh Lakhtakia .On the other hand before 100 years ago, I'm not sure we have materials for doing test in real Vacuum space with zero absolute and gravityless such as space conditions. May be its interesting to measure EM wave velocity by using the accelerometer or alternative measurement techniques in space outside the earth gravity field...

Mainly, it depends upon the wave nature, and there are a big difference between the two wave types according to the wave energy which depends mainly on its frequency (the frequency scale of EM wave around Tera Hertz while the sound wave around Kilo Hertz), and I agreed with all discussion mentioned above.

Dr. Hawas, The answer is that EM waves don't travel in a vacuum. There is a physical medium present. Also, you need to take care to distinguish between wireless EM radiation on the one hand and cable telegraphy signals on the other hand.

Dear Frederick David Tombe . Thank you for answering. If we suppose that EM waves don't travel in a vacuum space. I wonder how we can receive data using EM waves from space, or we don't understand well meaning of vacuum space. In the other hand, Cassini spacecraft and others prove that's works...

There is one speed for all EM wave spectrum in vacuum in spite of the variance in their frequencies or wavelengths which it is considered the maximum speed in the universe (the speed of light 3x108 m/sec in vacuum) but that waves have different speed when transmitting through another optical media which depends on the wavelength of the EM wave and the refractive index of the media.

The EM waves travel in a physical medium. Also, you need to be careful about the wireless EM radiation and cable telegraphy signals.

Yes, electromagnetic propagate according to wave equation in the direction of pointing vector (E×H), studied that in university when it was dealing with solving Maxwell's equation.

Dear Naseer K. Kasim Effectively, the maximum speed of light and particle velocity in the earth cannot be more than 3x10E8 m/Sec. However, we have no evidence or experiment shows that will be similar in the space. The cosmic particles may have speed more than C: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/particles-found-to-travel/

https://earthsky.org/space/jan-14-2019-gamma-ray-burst-brightest-so-far

Thanks a lot Ait Mansour El Houssain for your comments.

Dr. Houssain, The physical medium has to account for both Maxwell's equations and also the inertial forces. This can be done by filling space with tiny aethereal vortices. This was already known in days of old. See in particular references [16], [17], and [18] in this article,

Article The Fine Structure of Four-Dimensional Space-Time

The physical interaction of this medium with matter in motion results in the inertial forces and hence in Newton's first law of motion.

Dr. Abdulhameed, Yes. Although cable telegraph and wireless telegraph may merge at the deepest level, they each require a separate analysis at the laboratory level. Wireless telegraphy is self propagating in space whereas cable telegraphy is driven by an electric current in a conducting wire. See here,

Article Cable Telegraphy and Poynting's Theorem

Dr. Babaei, The physical resistance that you are talking about is manifest as the inertial forces in the case of the medium for the propagation of light. A centrifugal pressure field forms around all moving objects in like manner to how a magnetic field forms around an electric current. See "Straight Line Motion",

Article Straight Line Motion

And "The Centrifugal Force Argument",

Article The Centrifugal Force Argument

With regards the response from Frederick David Tombe, EM waves can travel in a vacuum (or through free-space). As you (Ait Mansour El Houssain) correctly remark, how else can we send and receive radio signals to a distant space probe or indeed see the light from distant cosmic objects such as nebulae, stars, our own sun and even the cosmic background radiation. Indeed, prior to the early part of the 20th century it puzzled scientists as to how EM radiation could propagate and they invented the concept that a "luminiferous aether" filled all space and supported EM radiation. Famously, the Michelson Morley experiment (1887) failed to find earths velocity through this "aether", thereby suggesting that there was no such aether. Einsteins 1905 papers on special relativity dispelled the notion of aether, although some scientists were initially reluctant to drop the idea of an "aether", as it had become so ingrained.

With regards to F. Babaei 's response, the EM force is mediated by photons which have zero rest mass (photons do have a non-zero mass when in motion and this leads to radiation pressure and the deviation of light under the influence of a gravitational field - light cannot escape a black hole), but then again photons are never at rest. The zero rest mass of photons leads to the conclusion that EM forces are extended over infinite range (as is also the case with gravity - mediated by the postulated "graviton", but not for the case of the strong and weak nuclear forces). Thus, EM fields decay exponentially with distance but an exponential decay never actually reaches zero and so the fields remain, albeit very weakly, even over a vast distance. If propagating in a lossy medium, the exponential decay is more rapid but still never reaches zero.

To try to shed some light on the original question as to how EM signals can be propagated in a vacuum, there is nothing in electromagnetic theory that requires a medium; both electric and magnetic fields are supported in a vacuum (free-space). The miracle of the whole story is that even a complete vacuum, total nothingness, has dielectric properties (how can nothing have properties?). As P. Contreras wrote, a vacuum has non-zero permittivity and permeability and this supports EM propagation. Digging deeper into elementary particle physics and quantum physics one encounters ideas such as a short term borrowing of energy from the universe to create a "virtual" particle/anti-particle pair to support EM propagation and then their subsequent mutual annihilation to return the energy owed to the universe. Conservation of energy is violated in the process and so can only persist for a short time; consequently, the particle / anti-particle pair are termed "virtual". The energy borrowed and timescale are related by:

deltaE.deltaT ≈ h (Planck's constant)

and since E = 2mc2 (the energy of a pair of particles) this leads to:

deltaT = h/(2mc2).

The range over which the particle pair can move before being reabsorbed by the universe is:

R ≈ c.deltaT ≈ h/mc (≈ 2.5 x 10-12 m for an electron)

and is known as the Compton Wavelength. A vacuum can spontaneously create short-lived virtual electron / anti-electron pairs and the spontaneous creation and subsequent annihilation goes on continuously such that there are always virtual electrons and anti-electrons present. These virtual electrons and anti-electrons give a vacuum its dielectric properties.

I hope this helps.

Clive

Thank you Clive Alabaster for summarizing the problem. If I understand well, the universe creates a local "virtual" particle/anti-particle pair to support EM propagation and then their subsequent mutual annihilation to return the energy owed to the universe. Hurthermore, we are not yet observe "Graviton" and may be anti-particle too. Also "Pioneer anomaly" is another property of Vacuum Space. More investigation is needed to understand Vacuum properties and it may help to measure effectively distances. May be stars are not much farther!

Dr. Alabaster, You have just embarked on a tautology. We know that EM radiation travels through space, but that doesn't prove that space is empty as you seem to be inferring. The question of whether it is empty or not is the point in contention. On the simplest level of argument, the whole idea of a wave propagating in a vacuum is a contradiction in terms, since a wave is a propagated oscillation through a particulate medium.

Had you ever studied electromagnetism in detail, you would have realized that Maxwell's displacement current, which is a key component in the EM wave equation, can only be justified in the midst of a dielectric which must also be a sea of tiny aethereal vortices. Have a read at this article on positronium,

Article The Positronium Orbit in the Electron-Positron Sea

Hello Frederick David Tombe. Thanks for your reply. I shall attempt to clarrify. There seems no contention that EM waves can travel through space. Whether space is "nothing" is another argument. I do contend that EM radiation can propagate through a complete vacuum because of its dielectric properties that arise from the mechanism I described. In your paper you write that the propagation of electromagnetic radiation through a sea of rotating electron-positron dipoles which pervades all of space. and this is in perfect accord with the mechanism I described. Perhaps you are suggesting that if virtual rotating electron / positron pairs are present, however briefly, then there isn't a perfect vacuum, indeed there is no such thing as a complete vacuum if we take into consideration the virtual particles. I'm not so worried about the semantics. I understand the apparent difficulty in accepting "waves" travelling through a vacuum but if I invoke the particle / wave duality of light (and any other part of the EM spectrum, or indeed any other matter) then perhaps we can more readily conceptualise the passage of particles through a vacuum.

Yes, I have studied electromagnetics and am aware of the implications of the displacement current density and I have also researched much on dielectrics. None of which contradicts my earlier reply. You seem to disagree with something I wrote but I'm not sure what exactly nor what point you are making here.

Dr. Alabaster, I'm talking about real electron-positron dipoles that are present all the time. I'm not talking about virtual electron-positron dipoles that come in and out of existence. We need a real dielectric medium in order to connect electromagnetism to the speed of light. This was first done in Part III of Maxwell's 1861 paper using a method which followed closely on Faraday's ice pail experiment. See Section II here,

Article Isotropy in the Electromagnetic Field

I'm contradicting where you claim that EM waves can propagate in a pure vacuum.

More details of Maxwell's method are found here,

Presentation Radiation Pressure and E = mc²

Hello again Frederick David Tombe, in that case we do disagree on both the real vs virtual electron/positron pairs in a vacuum and the propagation of EM waves in a vacuum. I contend that free-space is a dielectric by virtue of the virtual electron/positron pairs. I also disagree with your views expressed elsewhere on the need to restore the luminiferous aether, the dependence of the speed of light on the velocity of the emitting platform, your criticism of Einstein's theory of relativity and many other theories you have expressed.

I think other readers should be aware that Frederick's views on physics are highly unconventional and do not accord with mainstream modern understanding of physics.

The experiment is that light and ("electronic") signals arrive to our receivers from what appears to be very distant objects. All the previous remarks seem to ignore this. The "EM wave" is a model founded on the slightly erroneous Maxwell's Equations. The "wave" part is in classical analogy of waves which have some element that has inertial energy such as water molecules. Using this analogy, the problem becomes what is the entity that has inertia. Some suggest the ether is required with a property of inertia distinct from matter. All these have definition and interpretation problems. And people start talking with different definitions and end by saying only the obvious.

The one avenue little explored is that light is photons with electric signal properties and these photons travel in space. What is the electric signal property? The STOE suggests it is magnetism. Photons are magnets that induce electric forces as it travels.

Dear David Tombe and Clive. I think pure Vaccum does not exist. There may be space with special property such as gravity, temperature, volume, acceleration, .... This may explain propagation of EM from space to earth.

Dear Denis Jaisson

Dr. Houssain, Well that's what I've just been saying. Space is densely packed with rotating electron-positron dipoles. That's the physical medium that you are looking for.

Dr. Alabaster, How do your virtual electrons and positrons help to explain the force of attraction between a north pole magnet and a south pole magnet? You need space to be filled with real electrons and positrons in order to explain this from Coulomb's law of electrostatics.

Frederick, We disagree with each other, let's leave it at that. I have added my response to the original question and I stand by that. I'm not bothered whether you or anyone else accepts my response or not and I'm sure that you would not shift your view in response to whatever I write; you have already rejected many mainstream views of modern physics. Likewise, I am happy with my understanding of physics and see no contradictions in what I have expressed here. I do not wish to engage in any further debate as this is not the appropriate forum and, what's more, it is ultimately pointless for both of us.

Have a good day and best regards, Clive

The concept of virtual particle pair of the quantum vacuum, arising from Paul Dirac’s QED and as explained by Clive Alabaster is REAL indeed! It is not only permeability and permittivity, but other physical phenomena of the quantum vacuum such as Lamb Shift, Casimir force etc., can be attributed to the virtual particles. The “creation” of “real” matter particles from the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum, using intense laser beams is now an experimental reality! Higgs boson (if real, which I doubt) could be a virtual particle that was made real through energy input.

Also, the propagation of quantum particle, including wave/particle duality of photons can be explained on the basis of the virtual particles: Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is usually interpreted as only a measurement problem at quantum level against a stable background of an unchanging objective reality aether or whatever - this is a classical concept based on causality. The quantum phenomenon is a revolutionary development in physics and philosophy that overthrows causality based world view of physics from the microcosm to the macrocosm of the universe, including the theories of gravity (Einstein's GR included) and ALL of previous cosmology. Please see:

https://www.amazon.ca/Dialectical-Universe-Some-Reflections-Cosmology/dp/9840414445

There is now both (dialectical) philosophical and experimental basis to show the that previous interpretation of the uncertainty principle is not valid. Objective reality at quantum level itself is uncertain and spontaneous mass/energy coming into “being” and passing out of existence (nothing) as virtual particle is an eternal process of this infinite and ever-changing universe - as the brilliant dialectics of Heraclitus dimly perceived through intuition. This quantum and dialectical necessity and the brilliant dialectics of Heraclitus can now be conceived by Hegel’s ontological triad, “Being-Nothing-Becoming”. The dialectical philosophy of Hegel is in conformity with the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum. Hegel’s dialectics in a highly obscure way and very dimly anticipated the quantum phenomena long before its actual discovery.

Please see the links and the references in following RG question: “Are You Certain, Mr. Heisenberg? :

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

Dr. Contreras, What's wrong with using real electrons and positrons with which to fill all of space ? Why do you think that they have to be virtual? And can you explain the difference between a real electron and a virtual electron?

Frederick David Tombe , " What's wrong with using real electrons and positrons with which to fill all of space ?"

This has to assume the creation pf a finite universe in the recent past as in a Big Bang. There is no valid reason for such a willful creation nor for the existence of an omnipotent omniscient entity who could do it! - this is mere faith, not science!

Big Bang is being "proved" through deceptive and contrived experiments for about hundred years and still counting - no end in sight! The Big Bang as a theory of physics was adopted at a Vatican conference that excluded many prominent astrophysicists of the time. This creation theory is the ruling idea enforced on physics and is perpetuated by decadent monopoly capitalism and obscurantist theology. It is not science!

Virtual particle pair (bosons are their own antiparticles) is a spontaneous quantum reality now established through both physical and philosophical underpinning. The virtual particles become "real particle through quantum tunneling and some yet other unknown mechanism; its basis exist dialectical philosophy. Lamb Shift is an experimental evidence with an accuracy that no other experiment in physics could match so far!

Isn't it more rational to think that the creation of an insignificant quantum particle from nothing is infinitely more feasible (energetically) than the creation of the whole universe from nothing? Physics has just to abandon its reliance on theology!

I am confused. At this point people are starting to question the validity of the Big Bang, nobody is questioning the Law of the Conservation of Energy yet. But let me go back to the original question.

As far as I understand formulas for EM waves are just a model, allowing predicting an output based on an input, correct?

Mr. Ait Mansour El Houssain is saying that he does believe in the model (since it does coincide with experiment), he just does not understand how this model works in a true vacuum, right? And explanations of Mr. P. Contreras and Mr. Clive Alabaster are not good enough for him, correct?

At the same time Mr. Frederick David Tombe thinks that the model is wrong, that the predictions would be better based on a different model.

Is this a fair description of this discussion?

Dr. Malek, I don't see what the origins of the universe has got to do with this topic. The question is simply "how can waves propagate in a vacuum? ". The answer is that they can't. A wave by definition is a propagated oscillation in a particulate medium. So the question then is "what particulate medium serves to explain both Maxwell's equations and the inertial forces". An electron-positron sea has been suggested, and in my case this proposition is based on the properties of real electrons and positrons and the manner in which their individual Coulomb fields can assist with explaining magnetic attraction between a north and a south pole magnet. But now we find people talking about virtual electrons and positrons. What exactly is a virtual electron? Is it surrounded by an electrostatic field? If not, how does it assist in explaining Maxwell's equations?

Dr. Contreras, I have never before heard anybody claiming that Feynman proposed an electron-positron sea. If he did, who rejected the idea and why?

And I don't see what this has got to do with the conservation laws. Nobody is challenging the conservation laws.

Frederick David Tombe , "Nobody is challenging the conservation laws".

I am challenging the conservation laws in my comments above and QED also does so! You seem to believe in "ex nihilo nihil fit". Unfortunately, you do not "see" anything if you are blinded by faith of any kind.; and makes it difficult to carry on any scientific discussion! Please see the publications I cited for scientific and (dialectical) philosophical basis of my assertions.

I volunteered to answered your question. "What's is wrong" with my answer? And isn't it more rational to think that the creation of an insignificant quantum particle from nothing is infinitely more feasible (energetically) than the creation of the whole universe from nothing?

Thanks to Boris Aleiner , Abdul Malek , Frederick David Tombe , P. Contreras and all for answering. I think something missing for describing Wave propagation in "vacuum space". EM Maxwell Equations for Wave Propagation and Emission are not sufficient or incomplete to give an explanation of EM traveling in vacuum space according the observations or our interpretations of vacuum are limited:

• Epic cosmic explosion detected via faster-than-light particles
• Pioneer anomaly: Natural Acceleration of spacecraft in space on their trajectories out of the Solar System

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/particles-found-to-travel/

https://earthsky.org/space/jan-14-2019-gamma-ray-burst-brightest-so-far

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly

according to maxwell equations: the speed of light in any material is inversely proportional to the square root of primitivity and permeability of the medium. if we assume that there is no matter (medium) then primitivity and permeability should be equal to zero and speed of light should be infinite. but we attribute some values (however very small i.e.. 4pi*10^-7 & 8.85 *10^-12) of primitivity and permeability to space then there should be something in space: background energy about zero kelvin that is an extension of fields of other mediums in space, or ether ( which is rejected by Michelson-Morely experiment but I think above experiment could not reject ether because ....) anyway there is something in space having background energy a little more than zero Kelvin (2.7 K) that is an extension of a magnetic field and an electric field of matters ( of planets, stars...) or something else. we can not suppose vacuum as anything inside the 3 dimensions) if there is nothing in space (no energy no medium) then the speed of light should be infinite.

Dear Denis Jaisson

Denis Jaisson

Dear Denis Jaisson

Dr. Houssain, The EM wave equation follows from Faraday's Law and Ampère’s Circuital Law, providing that we are using the latter in connection with Maxwell's displacement current. In order to correctly justify the existence of displacement current, space needs to be densely packed with a particulate elastic solid. This article here covers the entire argument, including why the textbook derivation of displacement current, without the aether, is wrong,

Article Maxwell's Displacement Current and Capacitors

Dr. Malek, Any of my researches into electromagnetism have commenced on the assumption that the universe has already been created. How, when, or why the universe was created is irrelevant to the understanding electromagnetism on a basic level. A study of the derivation of the EM wave equation from Faraday's Law and Ampère’s Circuital Law leads to the conclusion that space must be dielectric. There's no need to get carried away with cosmology or the origins of the universe. This is nineteenth century laboratory electromagnetism.

if we take a look at the very famous formula of energy E=mc^2, we may recognize a missing term: what happens to the space generated after disappearing of mass then; E= mc^2 + dV. dV is the vacuum that appears after disappearing the mass "m". can we recognize this dV as nothing or vacuum.

1. if vacuum means nothing then we can not feel anything to recognize vacuum as nothing.

2. there are two categories of fundamental particles: fermions and bosons.

an Iranian ancient proverb says " two poor men can sleep in a bed but two kings can not live in a country".

fermions which constitute matter can not occupy the same position in space, for example, two electrons can not occupy one place but two photons can pass through each other. this helps to the meaning of vacuum. the best candidate for filling vacuum (ether) is neutrino which can not interact with any photon (boson) or fermion ( matter) but letting magnetic and electric field penetrate through it. this is my personal idea and does not expect others to agree with it.

Dr. Nejad, You need to understand the wave theory of light before concerning yourself with photons. Photons are only a packaging theory relating to the emission and absorption mechanisms. Photons have no bearing on the deeper underlying wave nature. You need to start with Faraday's Law and Ampère’s Circuital Law . And in order to see where E = mc2 comes into it, you need to study Part III in Maxwell's 1861 paper. The argument is explained here. See the conclusion at equation (10),

Presentation Radiation Pressure and E = mc²

thank you, Dr. Tombe, I will try to have a more comprehensive view to the problem

----------------------------

a correction to the proverb: "two poor men can sleep under a torn blanket but two kings can not live in a country

Frederick David Tombe , “Dr. Malek, Any of my researches into electromagnetism have commenced on the assumption that the universe has already been created. How, when, or why the universe was created is irrelevant to the understanding electromagnetism on a basic level.”

In that case, you are starting your deliberations and toil from a mystery. So, all your “science” and what you are talking about becomes mysteries and metaphysics, because you started with one as your basis. Few of us in this forum are trying to show that there are alternative ways to do science and to demonstrate the fact that “God does play with dice” – the reason for the turmoil in modern physics; because the establishment and official physics (that includes you) do not want to accept this reality!

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that “proving” the “Big Bang” creation of the universe is a major preoccupation of official physics, for the last hundred years! Billions of dollars, trillions of “scientific” writings and publications and the majority of the Nobel Awards in physics were devoted to “prove” the creation of the universe, as a theological imperative (and still counting). As I mentioned earlier, this creation theory has been adopted in a conference at the Vatican, which excluded the prominent astronomers and astrophysicists of the time, like Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp, Victor Ambartsumian and many others. “How, when, or why the universe was created is (NOT) irrelevant” to you as you say, because you accept the stand of the Vatican and of the establishment.

What you (like many others of official physics) are doing with the ruling theories of physics, Sir, is mere rationalization and scholasticism (like medieval decadence), based on outdated theories, which does not take physics even a centimeter forward. Unfortunately, I have no interest in such scholasticism.

what is our perception of the vacuum? we send an electromagnetic into space and time passes and we see no interaction between the wave and other physical entity e.g. a light beam, no reflection, attenuation, diffraction, refraction.... and we say there is nothing but there may be many things but no interaction between our light beam that entity. for example, there would be other electromagnetic waves (or photons). then we shouldn't be worried about formulations and practical results. we accepted the amount of electric and magnetic permittivity and permeability for vacuum without any damage to our speculations of empty space that can not have any of the above two values.

Dr. Malek, The study of civil aviation or railway networks in South America doesn't answer any of the questions about the origins of the universe that you are interested in. So why should the study of electromagnetism have to get embroiled in such questions?

yes. another example is superluminal light that is an optical wave packet that can travel even hundreds of times faster than light and finally the miracle of nature: entangled photons that can communicate with each other at zero time.

i.e. no time elapsed that one sends its information to another. for superluminal light a very strong theoritical formulation based on wave nature of EM waves is developed and for entangled photons, a very special kind of coupled (resonance) theory mediated by neutrinos is under development. if we look at the stellar fusion formula we may conclude that number of neutrinos in the universe should be much more than other stable particles.

You just don’t get it Dr. Frederick David Tombe! It is not me who is preoccupied with “the questions about the origins of the universe”! It is your establishment and official physics that you represent is preoccupied with the questions of the origin of the universe and spend enormous social, human and natural resources of society to establish the Kingdom of God. At key moments of the history of physics, the scientific representatives of Imperial Britain and later on of Anglo-American led imperialism; starting from Isaac Newton to Arthur Eddington to the present charlatans are “proving” with experiments and cobweb-spinning scholasticism; the “handiwork of God” in the details of Nature; mostly to block the further progress of physics. You are riding this platform and bandwagon to practice your scholasticism but at the same time innocently denying your guilt! Myself and some others in this forum are only trying to counter these axiomatic and idealized mathematics driven Fairy Tales with rational ideas that corresponds to external reality.

The primitive men who got control over fire through practice and thereby forever separated themselves from the animal kingdom, the Sumerians who practiced agriculture, discovered mathematics and astronomy; the Elamites who discovered the wheel; Tycho Brahe and Kepler who gave a correct understanding of the solar system, to later practice of thermodynamics, natural sciences, the discovery and technological use of electricity and magnetism, by Volta, Faraday. Ampere; modern electronics, to modern aviation and space exploration technologies etc., did not depend on your ruling theories of modern times: Maxwell’s theory, theories of relativity, ΛCDM model of official cosmology, "Standard Model" (SM) of quantum physics, Theory of Everything etc. ad nauseum that modern scholasticism and you lot are preoccupied with. All these esoteric and high-sounding theories have led only to scholasticism, but no tangible social practice or technologies. All these technologies mentioned above arose through social/historical practice, which is the only criteria of positive knowledge. Ask any rocket engineers, why they use onboard remote-controlled mechanism and not depend on calculations based on Newton’s and Einstein’s theories of gravity to maneuver their space vehicles. You will find the reason in the following article: Article KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Le...

Modern official physics and apologists like you lot do the same way what medieval decadence did with Ptolemy’s Epicycles and enforce these on physics and humanity. But physics, though hurt in the process always did and will find a way to continue through its indomitable and inexorable path towards wider positive knowledge of the world; the quantum phenomenon and the technologies it ushered in, is the latest example.

Dr. Malek, None of that is relevant to the issue of the medium for the propagation of light. You would need to open up a special question of your own with an appropriate title.

Frederick David Tombe , I don’t think as a participant in this forum you own the prerogative to suggest that only your model and your theory is relevant to the issue of the medium for the propagation of light. Neither you have the prerogative to suggest what other people should do or should not do!

I think as a member of RG I have the right to comment whenever or wherever I wish, as long as I do not violate the RG rules. If you feel uncomfortable to defend your position, maybe it is time for you to review your own position instead of making suggestions to others.

MuchThanks to Abdul Malek , Frederick David Tombe for your interesting points of view and enthusiasm . All suggestions and comments are welcome with respect of others comments.

Dr. Malek, Well then, what is your own answer as to how EM waves propagate in a vacuum?

Dear Ait Mansour El Houssain.

Your question was widely discussed in the Maxwell time.

Accepting the photon interpretation of EM waves you cancel it immediately.

Ait Mansour El Houssain

EM waves in Aether is an (outdated) classical model for the propagation of light. Since the recognition of the quantum phenomena it is now well established that quantum particles like photons, electrons, neutrons etc. show interference and diffraction patterns. There are even claims that larger atoms and organic molecules can show interference patterns: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1263

As for photons, it has been demonstrated that even the emission of a single photon at a time can show interference pattern and in accordance with Paul Dirac’s (the father of QED) assertion: “each photon then interferes only with itself. Interference between different photons never occurs.” P.A.M. Dirac, Quantum Mechanics (Oxford University Press, London, 1958), 4th ed, p. 9.

Many people including our friend John Hodge , who commented earlier in this forum can demonstrate by using simple home-assembled instruments that photons as individual particles can show interference behavior.

The following publication gives a QED based interpretation of wave/particle duality and how quantum particles (including photons) can propagate mediated by the virtual particles of the quantum vacuum. Article Real/Virtual Exchange of Quantum Particles as a Basis for th...

Sorry, this would be my last comment in this forum. Thanks to everybody, who cared to read my comments.

Dear Abdul Malek , you may join our forum https://www.researchgate.net/post/Whats_the_Physical_Meaning_of_Multiplication

Ait Mansour El Houssain , Thanks for your invitation, but unfortunately, I have to decline it.

I have to deal with the ultimate irony of modern physics that revolutionary Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and its philosophical counterpart, namely dialectics, is unfortunately a bitter pill not only for Einstein and his supporters to swallow, but for many of his opponents as well!

You may (if you wish) join the following forum, where I featured some of the comments I made in this forum: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Any_Effective_Refutation_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Possible

Dr. Malek, The particle theory of light is not to the exclusion of the wave theory. The fact that photons exhibit wave behaviour and can pass right through each other means that photons are only a particular manifestation of a more fundamental wave nature, and so we need to have a physical medium of propagation. QED is just a packaging theory. It's like the theory of shipping containers, in that we don't need to know what is inside. You will never be able to apply QED to radio waves.

The fact that electron beams can exhibit wave behaviour will be due to the fact that electrons are closely related to the EM wave propagation medium.

All. 'EM waves in ether' only had problems from the hidden expectation that it CHANGED propagation speed to local c. I suggest it's time physics moved on and accepted Einsteins ignored '52 rationalisation; That condensed matter boundary zones (as Maxwells) re-scatter fluctuations to local c. The vacuum 'dark energy' condensate just 'carries' them. All problems go, and solutions to a tranche of other questions flood out; Coulomb, Casimir, Action at a Distance etc. Until we hypothesise and test we'll never escape present stupidities!

Dr. Jackson, So no matter what, we then end up in 4D space-time. The argument then reduces to whether we accept Einstein's relativity or the Lorentz aether theory. The latter is by far the more rational because it considers all angles and avoids the paradoxes associated with the vacuum based relativity theories of Einstein.

Finally, the Lorentz aether theory only works with Maxwell's aether.

Frederick David Tombe , You assume " 4D space-time " on inconsistent evidence, so only have Einstein 1905 or Lorentz to chose from. Use just 3D reality with no marriage 'forced' by maths, and Einsteins CHANGED 1952 conception beats them both by sheer consistency. Light changes speed to local c on local interactions!

The Aether wave medium is then simply the 'dark energy' condensate. At all shear planes ('motion') vortex (e+/-) pairs condense to change EM speed to local c.

It's also the simplest option, just hard to first conceive due to all the old embedded nonsense!

Dr. Jackson, It's only since 2020 that I have accepted 4D space-time. I have been in this game since 1978, and when I finally adopted the aether in 1982, I was strictly 3D up until January of this year. So I suggest that you give serious consideration to what caused me to change, bearing in mind that I have spent years on physics discussion threads pouring scorn on the Lorentz transformations and anything to do with 4D space-time.

Let me take you back to 1981, before I adopted aether theory, and was trying in vain to make sense of Michelson-Morley in the vacuum context. I then proposed, what I later considered to be the absurd idea, that a ray of light between a source and a sink always takes a path involving a fourth dimension, such that it always travels at 'c'. But by March 1982, I dropped that idea entirely as being 'ad hoc' absurdity, just as absurd as STR itself.

I still haven't re-adopted it, but what I discovered this past January, makes the idea less far fetched.

What I discovered in January forced me to accept the Lorentz transformations even if I can't quite comprehend the physical implications. I have retained my electron-positron sea, but the sinks and sources that constitute electrons and positrons might just provide some rationale to my discarded 1981 proposal.

Sections I and II in this article retain the strictly 3D approach. But it's the proceeds of Section V which forced me, against all my previous prejudices, to accept the Lorentz transformations,

Article The Fine Structure of Four-Dimensional Space-Time

Dear Frederick David Tombe

you need 4 dimensions but not Lorentz transformation. I would be interested in your opinion about an Euclidean relativity:

Article Electrodynamics in Euclidean Space Time Geometries

This gives equivalent results up to 3000km/s relativ velocity.

Best regards

Jörn

Frederick David Tombe , Ah! You've published a paper, that takes you out of the game (unless you can step back from the 'beliefs' it betrays, which few can). I was at uni way before '78. I've looked, and promise I'm way ahead of you! Indeed my model GIVES the physical process of the 'LT' you're missing! (really Maxwell's near far field TZ) as the "surface last scattered" of nobelist Smoot's work etc. It'll be an epiphany when you understand it. Time is NOT a 'dimension" except as a metaphysical mathematical convenience! Jörn Schliewe you're to deeply buried in 'shut up and calculate' to see it seems, but do give it a try.

Dr. Schliewe, Your alternative transformation involves changing a sign. What are the significant consequences of this change that in your opinion make it superior to the Lorentz Transformation?

Dr. Jackson, If you don't agree with the Lorentz transformations, how do you explain how we can extract the convective term, vxB, in Maxwell's fourth equation from the other two terms in that same equation?

Have a look at Section V again and then explain how you think the result could be possible if the transformation is wrong,

Article The Fine Structure of Four-Dimensional Space-Time

Dear Frederick David Tombe

“Your alternative transformation involves changing a sign. What are the significant consequences of this change that in your opinion make it superior to the Lorentz Transformation?”

The 4d Euclidean transformation is a simple rotation in 4d without loosing Cartesian properties and not needing any imaginary time definition. This gives a more clear visualisation. I have shown in the paper that vxB is valid and Maxwells equations are invariant if we assume the vacuum to be polarisable and magnetisable. This explains how (on which charges) waves can propagate and make a classical aether unnecessary.

The Euclidean wave equation gives a Ray solution which transports in contrast to a plane wave a finite amount of field energy. And it is shown how the detailed field configuration of a propagating ray of light look like.

The upper limit of velocity can be naturally explained by the group velocity of electromagnetic waves:

Preprint On the upper bound of velocity

The ad hoc assumption of constant velocity c is not necessary.

The time dilatation, the doppler shift, the transversal redshift, the gravitational redshift, the rest energy mc^2 and the symmetrical transformation of velocity regarding the direction of relative movement are the same up to 3000km/s relative velocity.

Even for the GR the polarisable vacuum is considered to give equivalent results in flat space.

No singularities.

Black hole masses are not in contradiction.

And a plenty of new possibilities, like a direct link to quantum mechanics, more...

For me, the main significant difference is the possibility to explain why things happen...

Best regards

Jörn

Dr. Schliewe, You talk about the vacuum being polarisable and magnetisable. That implies a physical structure. Do you have any proposals regarding this structure?

Secondly, you talk about rotations in 4D space. It's not clear what that means. For example, Pythagoras's theorem can't apply in 4D space. This is discussed here,

Article Pythagoras's Theorem in Seven Dimensions

What does angle or rotation mean in 4D?

When I looked at your paper, I saw what was in effect a Lorentz transformation but with the sign reversed in some of the terms. I don't see the rationale behind any of the deductions which you are drawing.

Frederick David Tombe , Was that for me? I agreed the LT. But I also identify the physical process giving the LT (H.A did derive it from Maxwell's Near/Far field TZ). At all 'boundaries' between physical systems with rest frames k/k' we find a '2-fluid plasma' fine surface structure (or 'shock' in space). Just then invoke known absorption /re-emission but with each electron re-emitting a c in it's own LOCAL rest frame. We get Einsteins '52 SR rationale.

The non-linearity nearing c comes from electron density approaching 'OB Mode', 10^23/cm^-3, where their oscillation is constricted and eventually they can't propagate EM (as in the LHC tube and at space shuttle re-entry radio silence).

Lorentz was then correct in; "We can't advance our understanding without some hypothesis that at first looks extraordinary" Feynman said "..first looks wrong.."

The problem is if new truths are just dismissed as they differ from embedded beliefs, rather than studied, they'll always look wrong, and we can't progress!

Dear Frederick David Tombe

“You talk about the vacuum being polarisable and magnetisable. That implies a physical structure. Do you have any proposals regarding this structure?”

You need something like charges for polarisation and magnetisation, no aether, no matter and no structure. The charges can be interpreted as a creation of virtual particles in matter free space.

“You talk about rotations in 4D space. It's not clear what that means. For example, Pythagoras's theorem can't apply in 4D space. What does angle or rotation mean in 4D?”

A rotation in 4d is defined as a rotation of the coordinate system build by the time axis and the propagation direction axis. The angle is the relative velocity of the transformation.

“When I looked at your paper, I saw what was in effect a Lorentz transformation but with the sign reversed in some of the terms.”

The Lorentz transformation is a rotation in 4d Semieuclidean Minkowskispace. The Euclidean relativity is based on a rotation in 4d Euclidean space. The main advantage is that no imaginary time has to be defined.

Best regards

Jörn

Dr. Schliewe,

There is no such thing as a virtual particle. You either have a particle or you don't. A particle has a Coulomb force field around it and that is what is relevant in a dielectric medium. So why not just use a sea of electrons and positrons? That can provide a basis for both polarization and magnetization. Why the need to invent virtual particles that have no force fields around them and hence couldn't get involved in polarization?

As regards your 4D Euclidean space, you are being somewhat ambiguous. I asked you how you define a rotation in 4D and you introduced a time axis. Then later you said that no imaginary time has to be defined. But in the case of the Lorentz transformation, we are dealing with an actual time dimension. It's not imaginary. We use complex number algebra but that doesn't make time imaginary.

But your answer has helped me to understand better what you are trying to do. You are trying to amend the Lorentz transformation in such a way as that we don't use complex number algebra, so I will look at you analysis again.

Dr. Jackson, You need to be clearer on your physical descriptions. Can you begin by just describing how you view the medium for the propagation of light. Forget about boundaries for the meantime. I just want to know what picture you are pushing.

Dear Frederick David Tomb,

“There is no such thing as a virtual particle. You either have a particle or you don't. A particle has a Coulomb force field around it and that is what is relevant in a dielectric medium. So why not just use a sea of electrons and positrons? That can provide a basis for both polarization and magnetization. Why the need to invent virtual particles that have no force fields around them and hence couldn't get involved in polarization?”

A sea of charges sounds nice but there is a significant difference in my theory between charges and virtual charges. The charge is defined by div(D)=rho and the virtual charge has div(D)=0 meaning div(E)=-div(P). By the way: these virtual charges do exist on boundaries of polarisable material also. Please think about, not just reply.

“As regards your 4D Euclidean space, you are being somewhat ambiguous. I asked you how you define a rotation in 4D and you introduced a time axis. Then later you said that no imaginary time has to be defined. But in the case of the Lorentz transformation, we are dealing with an actual time dimension. It's not imaginary. We use complex number algebra but that doesn't make time imaginary.”

Fact is: Cartesian properties between space and time and no complex number algebra in my approach.

“But your answer has helped me to understand better what you are trying to do. You are trying to amend the Lorentz transformation in such a way as that we don't use complex number algebra, so I will look at you analysis again.”

It would be an honour if you really think about the chances in understanding my approach has.

Best regards

Jörn

Dr. Schliewe, OK so we are now examining two separate aspects of your theory. First we'll deal with your sea of virtual charges. You define virtual charge as ∇∙D = 0. That is just Coulomb's law for regions of zero charge density. It doesn't tell us anything about the physical meaning of the concept of 'virtual charge' that is central to your theory.

Can you give a physical description of your virtual dielectric in terms of its components, and how it bonds together, and how it interacts with an externally applied electric field.