A Universe from Nothing?

[gnostic]

Same sort of pedantic obtuseness as ever, read it and weep......"Visible light, which occupies a middle ground in frequency, can easily be shown in experiments to be describable using either a wave or particle model, or sometimes both." ... Light - Wikipedia

It is funny how you ask someone some questions, and they answer your questions, you insult them or accuse them of being "obtuse" or "pedantic".

You use those same words on polymath.

Why did you even bother to ask people questions that you really don't want to read or hear about? Or did you not want answer?

Now I am getting the feeling that you are nothing but troll at RF.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It is funny how you ask someone some questions, and they answer your questions, you insult them or accuse them of being "obtuse" or "pedantic".

You use those same words on polymath.

Why did you even bother to ask people questions that you really don't want to read or hear about? Or did you not want answer?

Now I am getting the feeling that you are nothing but troll at RF.

Gnostic, I love to have a reasoned debate, not to play games that are not meant to explain the deeper mysteries of reality, physical or other, for I have much better things to do. If a person does not like what I say because it threatens their present level of understanding, and purposely misrepresent what I say, then that is what trollish behavior is. Now in your case, it perhaps is partly because you are a student lacking the field experience, and your English is not always up to it wrt context and nuance, but even so, you should be humble enough to know you only possess monkey knowledge, ie, learning by rote. As I said, I am happy to answer your questions, but they must be relevant to what I said, preferably quoting my words, and refrain from posting any copy and paste on the subject that is not germane to the point as you usually do. Keep it brief, just a line or two, otherwise it won't get read amongst the irrelevant student notes on the subject.

 

[gnostic]

As I said, I am happy to answer your questions, but they must be relevant to what I said, preferably quoting my words, and refrain from posting any copy and paste on the subject that is not germane to the point as you usually do. Keep it brief, just a line or two, otherwise it won't get read.

Ben, of all the people, who have contributed to this thread, I have done very little copy-and-pasting. A lot less than you.

The post with the longest quotes, came from my old physics book (Serway and Jewett) and one Wikipedia fraction of section about EM, as a comparison to the textbook.

The 2nd post with the 2nd biggest copy-and-paste is actually what you quoted, the one with the illustration of EM spectrum. But that's really your source, not mine, so that doesn't really count.

The rest of my replies to you involve to little to no quotes from other sources.

So I altogether, I don't do incessantly much copying and pasting. Between you and me, you are the one who's incessant with copying.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ben, of all the people, who have contributed to this thread, I have done very little copy-and-pasting. A lot less than you.

The post with the longest quotes, came from my old physics book (Serway and Jewett) and one Wikipedia fraction of section about EM, as a comparison to the textbook.

The 2nd post with the 2nd biggest copy-and-paste is actually what you quoted, the one with the illustration of EM spectrum. But that's really your source, not mine, so that doesn't really count.

The rest of my replies to you involve to little to no quotes from other sources.

So I altogether, I don't do incessantly much copying and pasting. Between you and me, you are the one who's incessant with copying.

Gnostic, what I mean is all the basic formula and not so basic physics that is not directly relevant to my point. Keep up your studies by all means, but please don't insistently post stuff that I am familiar with, or I am not familiar with but is not relevant, I really am not pretending that my life's work was in the radio field, though I admit I am now long retired. As you are aware, I am usually trying to show the esoteric underpinnings to the same reality as your purely conceptual approach, and therein lies the reason we disagree, but my understanding garnered in my work life experience in the technical physical science area has been vital to the apprehension of the esoteric side of things, so I do not disrespect academic scientific knowledge 'beyond my pay grade', to the contrary, I admire it greatly when it is free from politics and self interest. Cheers..

 

[Polymath257]

You are now making things up gnostic, quote the exact words you are referring to wrt my saying radiation was the same as energy? Certainly the term em radiation presumes energy because that is the nature of em radiation, it is energy being radiated.

*sigh* Do we have to go through this again? Your terminology is, at best, misleading. Energy is NOT what is radiated. Phoeons (or Electric and Magnetic fields) are what is radiated. The energy propagation is NOT described by the wave equation. The Electric and Magnetic field propagation are.

And quote me where I said or implied that em radiation did not have any other aspects to it than energy?

When you call it an energy wave, that is what comes across to most people who have read the physics. In this case, *your* use of language is rather off the norm.

There is no just one correct term in use to describe the totality of all the facets involved in em radiation, all these terms are valid. ..em radio frequency, em energy, em fields, em waves, em radio wavelengths, em energy waves, em wave energy, the list could go on. Your lack of English understanding is a real problem.

But what is it that *defines* an E&M wave as opposed to other types of waves? It is NOT energy propagation, which is common to ALL wave phenomena. What distinguishes E&M waves from others is the electric and magnetic fields. Just like what distinguishes sound waves is the pressure.

One does not have to use the term 'wave' in describing em radiation, for 'em radiation' alone is sufficient for those with experience because the wave nature of the em radiation is a given. It is only you as a student, whose English and practical experience in the radio field is less than proficient for the purposes to have a have a reasonable technical exchange in these matters, who balks at common technical terms used in the field but not found in his textbook.

I *am* a native English speaker and have the training in physics to discuss this. You identified E&M waves as *energy* waves. While energy is always associated with any wave, the energy does NOT satisfy the wave equation or anything close to it. So, the energy is technically NOT a wave.

I am happy to explain anything you do not understand, but you must help yourself in the process by not imagining you yet understand clearly what is being said to you. Humility is only present in a disciplined mind.

It helps if you use the technical language correctly. From what I have seen, gnostic has done so, and you have not.

 

[Polymath257]

Gnostic, what I mean is all the basic formula and not so basic physics that is not directly relevant to my point. Keep up your studies by all means, but please don't insistently post stuff that I am familiar with, or I am not familiar with but is not relevant, I really am not pretending that my life's work was in the radio field, though I admit I am now long retired. As you are aware, I am usually trying to show the esoteric underpinnings to the same reality as your purely conceptual approach, and therein lies the reason we disagree, but my understanding garnered in my work life experience in the technical physical science area has been vital to the apprehension of the esoteric side of things, so I do not disrespect academic scientific knowledge 'beyond my pay grade', to the contrary, I admire it greatly when it is free from politics and self interest. Cheers..

And it is quite possible that the problem we are having here is the differences in language between physicists and engineers/technicians. I am from a physics background, and it looks like gnostic is also. From what you have said, you are more from an engineering background. I suspect that cultural differences are the stumbling block here as much as anything else.

A *physicist* would not describe and E&M wave as an 'energy wave'. I guess it is possible that engineers and technicians do so.

 

[Polymath257]

Light doesn't exist as a wave, nor does "em energy" exist as waves, because nothing in modern physics exists as waves and em phenomena (both classically treated and within modern physics) are dealt with field-theoretically. EM "waves" in modern physics are dealt with mostly within QED but also within the electroweak unification. In neither case do we find either waves or wave energy and "light" doesn't exist as em energy waves in any physical theory, including classical electromagnetism. It is true that in classical field theory, electromagnetic waves include lightwaves as among the possible spectra. Still, these are not "energy waves" and in modern physics it would be more accurate to describe light in terms of "probability waves" than "energy waves" (I'm not asserting that they are the former). Second quantization in modern physics yields discrete, localized physicals systems capable of emitting infinitely many virtual and "real" radiative particles including those for light. It doesn't allow or involve "em energy waves."
That said, as for photons:
"The word "photon" is seen as a linguistic device to describe this particle-like character of the excitations of the EM field...
The complete indistinguishability of photons directly follows from this description, since they are not separate entities. Logically, photons hardly deserve the dignity of a noun. When you speak more correctly of different levels of excitation of the modes of the field the question of the identity of the photons becomes meaningless. They are truly faceless."
Mills, R. (1993). Tutorial on Infinities in QED. In L. M. Brown (Ed.). Renormalization: From Lorentz to Landau (and Beyond) (pp.59-85). Springer.

It goes a bit deeper, actually. In QED, for example, the creation and annihilation operators for photons are the coefficients of a Fourier expansion of the quantum field. Usually, the expansion is taken in rectangular coordinates, with one type of description of photons. This description is for plane waves. But it is equally possible and correct to describe spherical wave propagation where the photon creation and annihilation operators are coefficients of outgoing or incoming spherical waves.

In any case, the probabilities are described by a wave equation and Maxwell's equations are still valid for the operator fields. So they are also correctly described as waves.

 

[ChristineM]

double postings and confusion

of course a simple explosion would be a single percussion wave

I believe that expansion is gaining speed
I have heard as much

and it spins...with spirals and orbits....
which would NEED to be in place BEFORE the expansion begins

But who said it was as explosion? Oh you did... right.

No it would not need it be spinning before it was in existence.

In fact the mass was expanding but quite stable until 10e-36 of a second when the 3 forces of the standard model were unified. After that gravitational attraction caused clumping producing stronger gravity in areas, which in turn began to produce spin.

 

[Thief]

But who said it was as explosion? Oh you did... right.

No it would not need it be spinning before it was in existence.

In fact the mass was expanding but quite stable until 10e-36 of a second when the 3 forces of the standard model were unified. After that gravitational attraction caused clumping producing stronger gravity in areas, which in turn began to produce spin.

the void was uniform
the expansion would have been likewise

but there was 'Something' else in play

 

[Ben Dhyan]

*sigh* Do we have to go through this again? Your terminology is, at best, misleading. Energy is NOT what is radiated. Phoeons (or Electric and Magnetic fields) are what is radiated. The energy propagation is NOT described by the wave equation. The Electric and Magnetic field propagation are.


When you call it an energy wave, that is what comes across to most people who have read the physics. In this case, *your* use of language is rather off the norm.


But what is it that *defines* an E&M wave as opposed to other types of waves? It is NOT energy propagation, which is common to ALL wave phenomena. What distinguishes E&M waves from others is the electric and magnetic fields. Just like what distinguishes sound waves is the pressure.


I *am* a native English speaker and have the training in physics to discuss this. You identified E&M waves as *energy* waves. While energy is always associated with any wave, the energy does NOT satisfy the wave equation or anything close to it. So, the energy is technically NOT a wave.



It helps if you use the technical language correctly. From what I have seen, gnostic has done so, and you have not.

I have never said the energy satisfies the wave equation, it is a strawman thet you keep raising, that is why I ask you to stop it, it is both very wrong and dishonest. I have consistently said that there is em energy in the em radiated waves. This...." Electromagnetic (EM) radiation is a form of energy that is all around us and takes many forms, such as radio waves, microwaves, X-rays and gamma rays. Sunlight is also a form of EM energy, but visible light is only a small portion of the EM spectrum, which contains a broad range of electromagnetic wavelengths." What Is Electromagnetic Radiation?

I am using language that is used by people who work with radio in the field, not the language of academia. I can understand the need for standard terminology and associated meaning in academia, but the language in the field field is based on practically dealing with the reality directly, not in a purely theoretical environment.

Again, you are purposely being obtuse, saying there are em energy waves is not implying the energy is the wave, surely your English understanding is good enough to understand that?

If I use the term, em waves, do you also think I mean that em is the wave?

If I use the term, radio wave frequency, do you think I mean the radio wave is the frequency?

 

[Polymath257]

Again, you are purposely being obtuse, saying there are em energy waves is not implying the energy is the wave, surely your English understanding is good enough to understand that?

I understand what you are *trying* to say. But, yes, actually, a correct usage of the English language would say that an 'EM energy wave' is a wave of 'EM energy', and is hence an energy wave. That is even the form you used at first. And it is incorrect.

If I use the term, em waves, do you also think I mean that em is the wave?

Yes. I see 'EM' as modifying the word 'wave'. In this case, it is correct. An E&M wave *is* a wave of electric and magnetic fields.

If I use the term, radio wave frequency, do you think I mean the radio wave is the frequency?

No, I see 'radio wave' as modifying 'frequency'. So, it would be a frequency in the radio part of the spectrum.

 

[Polymath257]

I have never said the energy satisfies the wave equation, it is a strawman thet you keep raising, that is why I ask you to stop it, it is both very wrong and dishonest. I have consistently said that there is em energy in the em radiated waves.

No, you have not. You have consistently used the term 'energy wave'. That may be standard in your usage, but it is technically incorrect.

I am using language that is used by people who work with radio in the field, not the language of academia. I can understand the need for standard terminology and associated meaning in academia, but the language in the field field is based on practically dealing with the reality directly, not in a purely theoretical environment.

First, academics tend to use the reality also. They just are more precise about it.
Second, I mentioned the possibility that this was a difference in the way that physicists and engineers use the language. The physics terminology is more precise because it needs to be for their investigations. I suspect that technicians need less precision in their language, leading to simplified terminology.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

And it is quite possible that the problem we are having here is the differences in language between physicists and engineers/technicians. I am from a physics background, and it looks like gnostic is also. From what you have said, you are more from an engineering background. I suspect that cultural differences are the stumbling block here as much as anything else.

A *physicist* would not describe and E&M wave as an 'energy wave'. I guess it is possible that engineers and technicians do so.

Ah. at last you are seeing the light, and are seeing the reason why I have kept accusing you of pedantry, this is not a physics web site, it is primarily a religious forum and you have been arrogantly wanting non-academics to comply with your academic 'language' on matters that are meant to involve all folk, religious and otherwise in discussion.

 

[Polymath257]

Ah. at last you are seeing the light, and are seeing the reason why I have kept accusing you of pedantry, this is not a physics web site, it is primarily a religious forum and you have been arrogantly wanting non-academics to comply with your academic 'language' on matters that are meant to involve all folk, religious and otherwise in discussion.

In discussions where technical information is relevant, I believe it good to use the correct technical terminology. I am sorry if you consider that arrogant or pedantry.

That said, when the terminology is corrected, to dispute it as the correct terminology is rather arrogant also, yes?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I understand what you are *trying* to say. But, yes, actually, a correct usage of the English language would say that an 'EM energy wave' is a wave of 'EM energy', and is hence an energy wave. That is even the form you used at first. And it is incorrect.

Yes. I see 'EM' as modifying the word 'wave'. In this case, it is correct. An E&M wave *is* a wave of electric and magnetic fields.

No, I see 'radio wave' as modifying 'frequency'. So, it would be a frequency in the radio part of the spectrum.

Out of interest, where is it you claim have used the term 'energy wave'? I would normally have used the term em energy, or em waves, em energy. or em radiated energy.

I presume your proficiency in mathematics is much better than your English. I asked "If I use the term, em waves, do you also think I mean that em is the wave?" and your answer was "Yes". Err..no....em is not the same thing as a wave, they are two different aspects of the phenomenal meaning, Same thing for say 'water wave', water is not a wave, else it would be ok when you are thirsty to have a drink of wave.

Correct, radio in this case is used as an adjective, how could you not see the principle in em wave?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In discussions where technical information is relevant, I believe it good to use the correct technical terminology. I am sorry if you consider that arrogant or pedantry.

That said, when the terminology is corrected, to dispute it as the correct terminology is rather arrogant also, yes?

Well ok, I will be happy to use the terminology of your choice to find common ground when I see reason to, but until I become familiar with the precise terminology you prefer, try and be patient and polite in explaining why such and such a term offends you.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, you have not. You have consistently used the term 'energy wave'. That may be standard in your usage, but it is technically incorrect.

First, academics tend to use the reality also. They just are more precise about it.
Second, I mentioned the possibility that this was a difference in the way that physicists and engineers use the language. The physics terminology is more precise because it needs to be for their investigations. I suspect that technicians need less precision in their language, leading to simplified terminology.

Show me where I have consistently used the term 'energy wave' without either the adjective em in front, or implied? I would not have any reason to use the term energy wave in my working career unless it involved em radio transmission.

Precise as in standardized yes, wheres as technical folk in the field work together and are forever running frequency tests, radiated power levels, rf spectrum analysis, etc., and understand precisely what each other means using all the terms that you find me using, in the context of whatever the task or test is being carried out. Theory is not what we do, we have already a developed intuitive faculty based on the basic theory, and are proficient in the field wrt installing, testing, operating, and maintaining the relevant technology that has been created by engineers based on radio theory.

 

[gnostic]

Well ok, I will be happy to use the terminology of your choice to find common ground when I see reason to, but until I become familiar with the precise terminology you prefer, try and be patient and polite in explaining why such and such a term offends you.

Well, that will be news.

Ben, it is not so much offending people, but if you are going to speak of physics, you should use the correct terminology as used in physics, and not something that you make up for yourself.

You keep telling me that my English spelling and grammar are poor. I am doing as best as I can, but I have never been good at proof-reading, especially with my own writings. I do the best as I can, but I know that it is not good enough for you.

But if you want me to put efforts, why do you think should be exempted for putting some efforts in using the correct physics terminology, whenever physics come up?

I have tried to the same with scriptures. Whenever I am talking to or writing to Christians, I would often use Christian ways of thinking or talking. I do use the words like Old Testament or the Pentateuch, Devil, fallen angels, etc.

But conversing or writing to Jews, I will often recognise that their scriptures are called Tanakh and Torah, and for them there are no such thing as Old Testament. Similarly, they don't believe in the Christian Devil, or fallen angels, etc.

But since topics are universal, keeping the convention of right terminology are made difficult because Christians and Jews used the same "Hebrew Scriptures", which is what I used sometimes, because I interacting with both.

Just as different religion have their own sets of terminology, so does in law, physics, biology, art, architecture, engineering, computers, etc.

Words can have may have several or many, and we all should the right terms for matter of contexts.

So yes, I think you should terms in physics, regardless if you are working as an academician, experimental or theoretical physicist or engineer.

 

[gnostic]

Show me where I have consistently used the term 'energy wave' without either the adjective em in front, or implied?

At first, you were calling it, "em energy", instead of "em wave" or "EM radiation".

Then you began arguing that "radiation" is the same "energy". As polymath have pointed out, the differences between radiation and energy.

Polymath also gave you examples where there radiation that doesn't require EM. Such as alpha and beta radiation, and sound radiating through air pressures.

Then more recently, you have been calling "EM wave energy". That's also not the correct terminology. The correct terms are still "EM radiation" or "EM waves" for any types of EM radiation (eg of types being gamma ray, microwave, x-ray, radio waves, visible light, ultraviolet and infrared).

Astronomers and space agencies (NASA or ESA) also used EM radiation or EM waves, not your "EM energy" or "EM wave energy".

I don't work with radars, but as having studied and worked with computer networks (which include microwave satellite dishes or wi-fi technology), I still used the correct physics terminology, like the physicists used.

 

[YmirGF]

Light doesn't exist as a wave, nor does "em energy" exist as waves, because nothing in modern physics exists as waves and em phenomena (both classically treated and within modern physics) are dealt with field-theoretically. EM "waves" in modern physics are dealt with mostly within QED but also within the electroweak unification. In neither case do we find either waves or wave energy and "light" doesn't exist as em energy waves in any physical theory, including classical electromagnetism. It is true that in classical field theory, electromagnetic waves include lightwaves as among the possible spectra. Still, these are not "energy waves" and in modern physics it would be more accurate to describe light in terms of "probability waves" than "energy waves" (I'm not asserting that they are the former). Second quantization in modern physics yields discrete, localized physicals systems capable of emitting infinitely many virtual and "real" radiative particles including those for light. It doesn't allow or involve "em energy waves."
That said, as for photons:
"The word "photon" is seen as a linguistic device to describe this particle-like character of the excitations of the EM field...
The complete indistinguishability of photons directly follows from this description, since they are not separate entities. Logically, photons hardly deserve the dignity of a noun. When you speak more correctly of different levels of excitation of the modes of the field the question of the identity of the photons becomes meaningless. They are truly faceless."
Mills, R. (1993). Tutorial on Infinities in QED. In L. M. Brown (Ed.). Renormalization: From Lorentz to Landau (and Beyond) (pp.59-85). Springer.

Thank you, @LegionOnomaMoi it's so rare to find people who actually know something about the topic they are discussing. Kudos...