Contra Wave Theory in Electromagnetic Radiation
Sven Gelbhaar
15 October 2008
“A wave is a disturbance that propagates through space and time, usually
with transference of energy. While a mechanical wave exists in a medium
(which on deformation is capable of producing elastic restoring forces),
waves of electromagnetic radiation (and probably gravitational radiation)
can travel through vacuum, that is, without a medium.“ [1]
If waves traditionally (in water) require an elastic medium, then why
should this concept (Wave Theory) apply to radiation that doesn’t have this
core requirement? Perhaps this application of Wave Theory warrants some
further thought, for after all waves in water come into existence only
because water has surface tension, thermal layers, gravity, and so on. It
is presumed that you have already read From Wave Theory to Quantum
Mechanics by the same author, otherwise the ‘Double-Slit Experiment’
objection might arise.
A wave oscillates, fluctuating ‘up’ and ‘down’ but never diverging from its
original over-all vector unless acted upon by another wave or a body of
mass. If this is the case, then why does the inverse square law still
apply in concentrated/’aimed’ EM transmissions without significant
atmospheric and/or interfering radiation, as is the case in space? Doesn’t
it naturally follow that the extremely concentrated waves will simply
continue on their way directly (albeit fluctuating ‘up’ and ‘down’, but
that’s neither here nor there if you account for the sine of the waves)
toward the receiver for all conceivable distances without sheering off in
intensity recursively over distance?
In the above example I have already made mention of what some will consider
the answer to the questions. Some might protest that perhaps it’s just
interference from other sources. This is not the case, as the same holds
true in a vacuum as well. [2]
For those not already familiar with the inverse square law, it can be
succinctly illustrated with the following: “The energy twice as far from
the source is spread over four times the area, hence one-forth the
intensity.” [3] Again, waves keep themselves together and on course, so
unless adequate resistance is provided one shouldn’t notice any degradation
in signal strength, unlike what we’re observing.From experimentation with
phased arrays, we know that a signal can be boosted with a harmonic
transmission shortly following the original transmission. Some people will
immediately see a similarity between this notion and waves traversing
water, however as I’ve demonstrated above this is not the case. Instead we
must assume the default, particle-like nature of quanta to be the case, and
as expected this can be used to adequately describe the empirical data.
[Figure 1 – Phased array]
If we impose the purely-particle-nature of radiation then the very same
principle as harmonic signal augmentation would be expected, because the
augmenting burst of particles would steer the burst of particles comprising
the original transmission into a more compacted/concentrated cone of
radiation, while still maintaining the expectation of signal loss over
distance as we observe in nature. The further away the target is, the
exponentially greater the chances of them missing their target becomes.
At this point it seems meaningless to view the individual quanta as having
wave-like properties, but rather the wave model can be applied to the
transmission as a whole as a sort of short-hand – an intuitive caricature
of a model, if you will, but it is much more accurate to portray radiation
quanta (or photons) as possessing a purely particle nature.
- From previous peer review the objection that I lack mathematical proof came
up. Unfortunately nobody can use mathematical proof one way or another in
regards to this topic at this time, for we can’t deduce how many
quanta/photons are released in EM transmissions unless we enclose the
antenna in a spherical array of photon detectors placed at Plank Length
away. As this currently isn’t feasible with contemporary technology, we
are left with no choice but to rely upon my above arguments to reason away
the previous notions. Hopefully this will change in the foreseeable
future.
References
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_theory , 15 October 2008
- Munowitz, Michael. Knowing: The Nature of Physical Law
- http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Forces/isq.html#c
- http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Forces/isq.html#c4 , 15
October 2008