The journey of light (A Possible Hypothesis)

[Little Bang]

How many times have we pondered the question, “ How does electromagnetic radiation propagate through space? “. We need some sort of medium for electromagnetic radiation to propagate. The electron has a magnetic field and the proton has a magnetic field of opposite polarity. Both of these fields obey the inverse square law which means that they extend to infinity. This should mean that the universe is two magnetic fields of opposite polarity with differing strengths at all points. To illustrate the formation of a photon I will use the simplest structure in the universe and that is the hydrogen atom. If two hydrogen atoms collide, that collision causes them to change direction, this change in direction is an instant acceleration of the two atoms. The electron and proton of each atom are charged particles accelerating in a magnetic field.. Thus they create a positive electric field and a negative electric field that propagates out through the universal electromagnetic field..

 

Post #15 by NEW SCIENCE in his thread A Steady State Universe is what made me wonder about this as a possible way that light could propagate through space.

[Little Bang]

Ok, I can see two possible problems with this idea.

 

First, would the speed of light still be constant with respect to all observers?

 

Second, would gravity still affect the path of light? Possibly, but wouldn't that require that gravity be related to the electromagnetic force?

[Tormod]

Isn't "space" a perfect medium for electromagnetic propulsion? Seeing as all electromagnetism in the universe travels easier through vacuum than anything else?

[Little Bang]

Tor, if you were a very good auto mechanic and I asked you to describe how an internal combustion engine works, you could give me an accurate picture of exactly how it works. I am not anything close to a very good physicist but since no one else has given a description of the mechanics of how light works I thought that I could at least offer a suggestion that we could discuss.

 

Since my original post I have been thinking about this moving of charged particles in the universal magnetic fields and the thought comes to mind that moving a mass of charged particles in these fields might also explain inertia?

 

BTW in my original post I said the universal electromagnetic field and it should have been universal magnetic field because the electromagnetic part is what we call a photon.

[coldcreation]

Isn't "space" a perfect medium for electromagnetic propulsion? Seeing as all electromagnetism in the universe travels easier through vacuum than anything else?

 

I would use the term 'surface' instead of 'medium.'

 

So space is a perfect (pristine) surface for the propagation of radiation. Note that here, the term surface is a 3-dimensional surface, not the usual 2-dimensional kind we're familliar with.

 

Does that make any sense?

 

cc

[Little Bang]

If we look at waves on the surface of a liquid, the medium that the waves propagate in is the liquid. Sound waves in a solid, the medium is the solid. Sound in a gas, the medium is the gas. The point is that we do not have a medium in which light can propagate except mabye the one I suggest.

 

Regarding the idea of the magnetic field of the universe being responsible for inertia. Wouldn't that imply inertia is lower in intergalactic space than here on earth?

[Little Bang]

I am rather surprised that a proposal of the actual mechanisiam by which light works should generate so little interest, even if it is totally wrong.

[coldcreation]

...The electron and proton of each atom are charged particles accelerating in a magnetic field.. Thus they create a positive electric field and a negative electric field that propagates out through the universal electromagnetic field..

 

...

 

It seems you're adding a mechanism that my not even be required, complicating the problem, if you will. Tormod and I seem to think space itself, the vacuum, whether you call it a medium or a surface, is sufficient for explaining the propagation of electromagnetic waves. Certainly this simple mechanism needs to be further elucidated. I would attempt to do so here, but it may be highjacking the thread, since the idea differs from the one quoted above.

 

Question: with your hypothesis, how is light considered particles and waves (neither or both)?

 

CC

[Tormod]

The point is that we do not have a medium in which light can propagate except mabye the one I suggest.

 

My point was that since we know that light propagates in vacuum, we don't need to invoke a different medium (or surface as CC suggests). Our cosmos works perfectly fine for propagating light waves.

 

But your definition of light may be different than the standard one, of course.

[Little Bang]

The Michelson-Morley experiment proved that there is no luminiferous aether for light to propagate because regardless of the direction that the observer moved the speed of light remained the same. My contention is that the magnetic field generated by the observer well always propagate away from the observer at C regardless of his velocity or direction of motion. Hence C would remain the same regardless of the observers motion. The wave particle duality of light requires only that the energy be delivered in discrete packets, which is what my hypothesis describes.

[Little Bang]

Tormod you are right, the cosmos does work just fine for propagating light waves so I guess there is no need for me to try to understand how they do it. When everyone thought the earth was the center of the universe we should have stuck with that idea also?

[Tormod]

Tormod you are right, the cosmos does work just fine for propagating light waves so I guess there is no need for me to try to understand how they do it.

 

No need for mocking. The propagation of electromagnetism is a property of space-time as we understand it. The "how" is what cosmologists study.

 

When everyone thought the earth was the center of the universe we should have stuck with that idea also?

 

Excellent example of a strawman argument. That the Earth is round was easily proven by the Greeks who observed the shade of poles at various latitudes.

 

Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

So, rather than play the condescending card, perhaps you should try to look up sources to find that how electromagnetic waves propagate was understood a long time ago.

 

Electromagnetic Waves

[Little Bang]

Forgive me Tormod, but your argument is totally lost me, sorry.

[Tormod]

Forgive me Tormod, but your argument is totally lost me, sorry.

 

Which part of it? The "how" or the "please don't be condescending" bit?

[CraigD]

We need some sort of medium for electromagnetic radiation to propagate.

Though true of many pure wave effects, such as (longitudinal) sound, or (transverse) ocean waves, require a medium, such as air or a body of water, modern physics (specifically, particle physics and relativity) explicitly reject this assertion for EM radiation, or any other dual-nature (wave/particle) particle.

 

Though a tempting hypothesis, I can see several serious problems with the idea that light propagates through the medium of the collective magnetic fields generated by the universe’s charged particles

• According to the best experimentally supported theory (the standard model of particle physics), magnetic fields and light are due to the same particle: the photon. Like all bosons, photons don’t interact. The hypothesis that photons of one specific range of wavelengths (light, for example) require ones of another (magnetic force, for example) to exist (for their wave function to have a non-zero value) in a particular volume of space doesn’t make sense according to this very well-validated theory.
  
• Setting aside for the moment the standard model, if light interacts with magnetic fields, I’d expect some evidence of a change in its behavior in different magnetic fields. However, good, very precise experimental data show no evidence that light changes speed or direction due to the effects of magnetic fields of many strengths and directions.
  
• In principle (conventional quantum physics, again), it’s possible to arrange matter to build a Faraday cage in which there is no magnetic field. However, light appears to behave normally inside a Faraday cage.
  
• Though practically untestable, there appears to be no theoretical objections to a universe consisting of a single electron and a single positron in which these 2 oposite-charge particles collide and anhilate to produce 2 or more photons in the gamma ray band of the EM spectrum. This universe would then contain no fermions, so could emit no bosons, including magnetic force photons, yet would still contain 2 photons of gamma ray “light”, despite the complete absence of any magnetic fields anywhere.
  

[Uclock]

CraigD

 

Very well explained and it shows a good understanding of physics so I am a little surprised you have no comments on TR.

 

Tony

[Little Bang]

(Like all bosons, photons don’t interact.) Craig your saying that photons don't interact with electrons?