/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11180182
That's cheap, quite cheap... I have some answers, but really, ... Vibration in foam, or how to call that... It is maybe that it actually makes stuff that is soft, solid, and solidness propagates.

Don't you want to get me look at your results in lab, I could do something with it.

>>11180194
Particles of thin gets polarized. Under light...

>>11180182
We can just admit, that matter in our solar system got standardized atoms totally different than somewhere else, because it's properties are affected by nebula they ware created in.

>>11180194
>>11180199
>>11180203

How are these related to OP questions ?

>>11180199
>>11180210
Responding to an obvious bot

>>11180266
Why is this happening? Auto-trolling?

The ratio of electric force to neutrinos can be different in outer universe.

>>11180194
>>11180199
>>11180203
These remind me of gpt-2. Is the end imminent?

>>11180182
>How can EM waves propagate if there is no medium
why do you assumed they need a medium? how do gravitational waves propagate without a medium?

>>11180182
>I can't understand how an antenna or a lamp can emit "photon"/particles, it makes no sense to me.
You don't have lightbulbs in your house? How did you even make this post?

>>11180182
Spacetime itself is the ether.

There, i said it.

>>11180871
I can as well say that light is not composed of particle, it just a EM pertubation of the ether

A lamp create particules out of thin air ? seriously ?
It create matter ... but it is somewhat okay because it has no mass ?

>>11180823
>how do gravitational waves propagate without a medium?
Are we sure that LIGO signals really are gravitational waves and merging black holes ?
How can gravitational wave propagate if there is no medium, it's absurd
Its like saying "why do you assume sound waves need a medium"

>>11181199
>Spacetime itself is the ether.
Saying this as a lot of repercussion, isn't it ?

Isn't the current state of physics an absolute mess with endless layers of useless crap that will be explained more simply in the future ?


I mean, I am a noob myself, I just want someone that demonstrate me with documents why there is no ether and why everything is not just EM pertubations of the ether.

>>11181267
>I can as well say that light is not composed of particle, it just a EM pertubation of the ether
It's a perturbation of the EM field, yes, not the aether. The luminiferous aether, the thing Michelson-Morley disproves, speaks of a moving sea of energy in which light supposedly travels. It also predicted that since it is in motion, light would travel at different speeds relative to it, and so light could travel at c in one direction and for example at 90%c on another, depending on the angle between the light and the aether. Every measurement we have ever made demonstrates that light travels at the same speed isotropically and also that this speed is constant. Thus the luminiferous aether doesn't make sense physically and if it were stationary, it would be indistinguishable from the concept of an EM field, making it obsolete.

>A lamp create particules out of thin air ? seriously ?
What do you mean by out of thin air? The excited electrons passing through an incandescent filament or a pn junction on a LED simply relax into a lower energy state and emit photon(s) with a frequency proportional to the difference in energy levels. All conservation laws are preserved, and one form of energy is simply transmuted to another, like in every single physical process. What's the problem here?

>It create matter ... but it is somewhat okay because it has no mass ?
I don't even understand what you mean by this. What do you mean by somewhat ok? And why is the mass relevant?

>>11181267
>Are we sure that LIGO signals really are gravitational waves and merging black holes ?
We are confident, since the LIGO measurements report that for a brief moment, space became slightly shorter (contracted). With several measurements or several measuring devices, you can plot out from which direction the disturbance came since it first passes in one device, then another, etc. From the period of contraction you get the period of the wave and from the difference in length of the contraction you can estimate the amplitude. Now you have the properties required to point you to the source and how powerful it had to be.

>How can gravitational wave propagate if there is no medium, it's absurd
In the same way light propagates, wave-particles don't need a medium.

>Its like saying "why do you assume sound waves need a medium"
No, because sound waves are actually classical waves. They are the result of tiny particles colliding with each other and imparting their energy to the next particle, dissipating a bit of energy on every collision until the sound wave is silent noise.

The problems you're having stem from the fact that you're thinking about classical waves made of particles and particles behaving like incompressible billiard balls. Actual real life entities like photons and electrons are neither. We don't have a good name for them so we just call them waveparticles or refer to them as a wave or a particle depending on physical context (that is, which behaviour are they exhibiting similarities to).