where does light from a torch go?

it is odd, I agree. But let's first agree that photons don't travel across the universe. Waves (whatever they are) do. Before I go any further, I need to know something else from you experts, please. Can a wave release and disperse energy sideways as it is travelling? IMPORTANT NOTE: WITHOUT interacting with something! In other words, can it leak energy?

Also, to correct you slightly with regards to my thinking - I do think the light from the torch emits light which continues across space even after the torch has been switched off, but ONLY if there is a future observer. Where there is no observer, I am challenging if the wave ever existed. I understand it sounds strange but you can't deny that there aren't strange things going on in our undiscovered universe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nonsense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

AlexG - Do you recognise entanglement and instantaneous action at a distance, and do you believe it is a real phenomena of the Universe - a scientific fact?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No.

This would be a clear violation of the conservation of energy. If the light waves do not exist then the energy in the batteries must have just disappeared!

 

Yes, and it has nothing to do with what your talking about.

 

Dav57 maybe this will help as a way to think about your ideas. Let's set up a scenario where we have a piece of red hot steel in outer space. There are 3 ways heat leaves a body; conduction convection and radiation. The red hot piece of steel in outer space will effectively only have one avenue of heat disapation and that is radiation. Radiation will be in the form of EM wave emission from the steel. Since the vast majority of the photons will not hit a body in our lifetime then according to your idea the metal will not cool since the EM radiation will not be emitted. Does that make sense to you? There was an actual accidental experiment of the this type performed - it was called apollo 13. The capsule lost power and the heating and cooling were not functioning and the capsule did in fact radiate the heat and cool just at anticipated. So what do you think? Resist the dark side, Luke!

 

And we recognize which sock puppet you are. Have you no personnel integrity? You should think about getting the space between your ears looked at.

Not you AlexG. I meant MPC Knucklehead.

 

I do not think he is a sock puppet he has been a memeber for almost 10 years, he just rarely posts. He averages 0.16 post a day. He has been on a roll recently though!

 

yeah, ok, I get what you're saying and I guess I'm asking the impossible in that nobody can prove or disprove my farfetched idea in that maybe a predetermined connection is made prior to the release of em wave energy from the source. But where there is absolutely no possible connection, the energy would never have been released - but yes I know we can't prove that very easily. Quantum entanglement allows for instantaneous action at a distance, a distance which can span the entire Universe - I can't get that fact out of my head.

I know I've said it before but it appears that the characteristic behaviour of light has more to do with the observer than the source. It's almost like the observer has more of a key role than the source, which is strange. The observer always measures light at a constant velocity and the observer has the power to instantaneously change the state of an entangled particle. It also appears that waves, despite there being trillions passing each other at every given moment at a particular location, never interfere with each other. But they do interfere at the point of observation. Waves can never be seen as they are - only once they've passed on their energy at the point of interaction/observation. They can't leak energy sideways, which supports the notion that they can only pass energy to a direct observer/receiver linked in a straight line (ignoring gravitation) between source and observer. Also, the slit experiments show that the waves from a single source take all possible routes to one single landing point (observer), but when the observer looks from elsewhere, the rules break down all because of the observer. For some reason the observer is a crucial part of the information exchange.

 

you don't know that for certain. There are lots of things we don't know. Tell me why light is always viewed as a constant.

 

Blah, blah, blah....

 

Wrong. Jeez, you'd do better here if after writing every post you assumed everything you said in it was wrong and rewrote it as the opposite!

It's a free internet - you can speculate whatever you want. But that speculation is wrong.

Much better worded. Answer: no.

Oy, there is all sorts of different wrong in there. "Only theoretical" is as well as anything that isn't directly observed can be known. So your "think" vs "only theoretical" has a clear winner: "only theoretical" is far better established than what you "think".

Anyway, as for why the theory is what it is; you have a lot of reading to do about the standard model of cosmology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

If you have any specific questions about how it works (hint: your problem is a misunderstanding of geometry), feel free to ask.

A journey to Wrong on Route Wrong. It is counterproductive to speculate about what is already known and yes, you most certainly are claiming it is correct when you use it in an argument, like you have.

This one, though, is a simple issue of logic. You are claiming that while in transit, the energy of a photon doesn't exist. This is as obviously nonsensical as claiming that while I'm driving home from work, I don't exist.

Certianly not! Why would we agree to wrong as a starting point for a discussion? You're trying to tear-down existing science in order to make room for your wrong ideas. We would certainly not just let you assume for no reason other than you just would prefer it, that existing science is wrong!

Note, we are specifically talking about light here. Light is photons. It isn't exactly correct to just describe it as a wave and though the distinction is not always important, it is here. The answer to the question, for light, is no.

With this line of discussion you are certainly starting to sound a lot like the recently banned cav57. If you are, it confuses me as to why you would create a sockpuppet to have a (somewhat, at least) reasonable discussion, but have other identities that do nothing but troll. But whatever - we'll find out for sure eventually.

Wow. Wrong wrongness. Untangling the triple negative makes the stament say "there aren't strange things going on in the universe"...but I know what you meant.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But basically, what you are saying is that since we don't know everything, the things we know could literally be anything. Sorry, no, they can't.

 

But my point is that IF the em radiation had nowhere to go then it would remain hot.

Tell you what, let's stick the steel right in the middle of a black hole where the em waves can't escape. With nowhere for the em waves to go, the steel would stay hot because there is nowhere for the emitted waves to transfer energy to. I understand the difference between this scenario and my idea but literally the only difference is distance, which we know nature can overcome instantaneously under certain circumstances. I haven't even brought in my other premise that distance doesn't exist without matter. i think I may kick myself for having just said that.

 

Careful now; you are in danger of suggesting a way of testing your claim and thus proving yourself wrong!

 

Because the permeability of space is a constant.

 

That was a bit of a bullish*t answer if there ever was one!

 

Enlighten me.

 

You're probably right. MPC isn't clever enough to leave the aether out of his sock puppet arguments.

 

OK, here's a good way! When a resupply or personnel exchange ship reaches the space station, it's engine nozzle is VERY HOT!!!! Do you suppose - according to your silly arguments - that it stays that way forever????

 

Can't you develop your own idea into an experiment/prediction?