can any of you answer this?

[sm0ky2]

Special Question for Smoky2......

By your comments, I am getting the basic idea that you accept a "Photon" as a
"Quantum fluctuation" of EM?  This is slightly different from what I accept, but as
you qualified the "Nothing" so well, I am hoping that I am reading your words from
my point of view, which means I may not be getting the meaning correctly.  This
area of description is so foreign to many, that I don't discuss it anymore, but I am
curious to get your "Opinion?" on this.  EM, or mesh?  I once accepted that light
was "Purely" EM but it was shown to me to be otherwise.  What level the fields are
at can make a difference, I realize, in how measurements respond, but, again,
to keep it basic.   Pure EM, or "Mesh" as you called it?

Of course, the above question may be ignored, if it's too stupid or boring......

i wouldn't use the definition of "quantum fluxuation" to describe light.  if i had to put it into practicle terms,. i would call it  the visible propegation of a change in a magnetic field(s). the reason it moves at a constant velocity is because of the rate of propegation of that change through the nothing.  when you introduce a mass of molecules for the light to pass through, this increases the strength of  the field(s) that change is propegating through - thus slowing the light down. 


as for the nothing itself, if you can imagine a gillion parallel flux lines criss-crossing on an infinite number of planes, extending infinitely in every direction. creating a 3-d grid in every plane.

it can be distorted only locally, by a magnetic source - creating the effect we call an MF or EMF. as the field strength diminishes [ at distance X]  to less than the cummulative field(s) of the aether-mesh the field just becomes part of it.  It is not directly detectable, because it exists everywhere, permeates everything, and has an equal effect on everything in (almost) every situation.
To interact with it, is an apparent impossibility. to even know it is there, you must remove it .(or rather remove the effect it has on a local space)

[sm0ky2]

"same type of alteration", i have a serious problem with that......

radio waves are nothing the same.. and "light" actually exists far beyond the standard proposed frequency range from infared to visible to UV. there is a much larger spectrum of the light phenomenon.

but radio-waves are a completely different type of disturbance, while both may create an "EM" effect, you can cross each others frequency range, and they are still noticibly different.

radio waves are actually waves - much the same as sound waves.

light creates its own wave, in the same manner that electricity does.

i was taught how to move electricity at faster than light speeds, by a crazy old man, without so much as a full high school education. and HE was using nothing more than old truck parts......
took me years to prove what was actually taking place, as this crazy guy had no concept of FTL, and was simply amused by the fact that the electricity was moving without a WIRE!!

I've learned to welcome everybody's ideas, even if i dont particularly agree with some of it, they still may have information that i previously did not have. (even if its learning from their mistakes).

[sm0ky2]

that last part of my comment was not directed towards YOU being wrong.. it was more towards those persons who might ridicule someone simply because they dont agree with what they say, while completely failing to "learn" from the experience of the conversation.

i place "light" in the same category as electricity (though they are not exactly the same).

the EM is kind of like the splash made by a swimmer when he dives into a pool.
the light/electricity is diving into the pool at  x # of times per second (frequency).

so, in that sense radio waves would be more like the EM propegation, than the actual "light". if that makes any sense....

[zerotensor]

the EM is kind of like the splash made by a swimmer when he dives into a pool.
the light/electricity is diving into the pool at  x # of times per second (frequency).
so, in that sense radio waves would be more like the EM propegation, than the actual "light". if that makes any sense....

Here's a related, but still overly-simple analogy:
Imagine a water-bug moving on the surface of a pond.  When the bug accelerates, ripples form on the surface.  In between these bursts of acceleration, the bug glides along without causing a disturbance.

The bug represents a charged particle.  The surface represents the EM field.  The ripples represent light.  When an electron is moving at a constant velocity, it does not radiate.  When it accelerates, it radiates.

When the acceleration is low, we get radio waves.  When it is greater, we get visible light, x-rays, and gamma radiation.  In the water-bug analogy, when the bug slowly accelerates, the ripples are gentle and far apart.  When it rapidly accelerates, the ripples are closer together (and hence have a higher frequency).

If we want to make an uncooperative water bug move, we can direct some waves at it, and hum some surfer-rock while our insectoid friend hangs six.

I am a firm disbeliever in the idea that
if I were to take a Josephson junction device, or other ultra high speed device (No Names here.)
and broadcast a "Radio Wave" at the "Light" frequency, I am NOT going to output "Photons".
Every person I communicated with here, would NOT accept that as even possible.  From what
they typed, it was obvious, by inferral, that they would see light coming off the "Radio" antenna,
assuming the transmit frequency was in the visible light spectrum.  I will say this much, I
have seem a transmitter operating at that frequency, and never saw light coming off the wire.
For me, this means that, while it is the same type of "alteration" in the background "nothing",
it certainly is NOT a simple "EM" wave.  I realize that Particle/Wave theory is a very hot
topic in some areas and to some people.  I'm actually looking to see if anyone out there
is ready to accept new reality's, when or if they come around.
There was a time, not too long ago, that even talking about Radiant Energy was to be
labeled as "Crazy".  Believe me, the tolerance used to be non-existent.  It's starting to
improve nowadays, but in the 70's to early 80's, you had better not have mentioned it.

You have seen a transmitter operating at 600 THz

In order for it to be a "transmitter", there would, by definition, need to be a "receiver".
What was transmitted?

I, while not being "firm" in my belief, would wager that if you pumped a tuned antenna at 600 THz it WOULD glow a lovely shade of green!  An antenna tuned to this frequency would be 500nm long, so it would make sense to lay down an array of antennae as a printed circuit board.  Now the hard part:  Where do we get the 600THz driver signal?

A sort-of "reverse" of this idea was recently accomplished.  Nanometer-scale antennae were printed onto a plastic substrate.  The resulting array worked as a solar cell, and quite well.  I think they were working in the infrared.

If we could somehow mode-lock the array at its natural frequency, I think we'd have a tuned-array laser on our hands.

That's a REALLY high frequency.  Somebody do the moore's law calculation and figure out when we will have these clocks in our computers.  The processor should literally glow!

Some of the difficulty here may be eliminated if we consider that electromagnetic waves are not purely transverse waves, but that longitudinal oscillations of the electromagnetic field can and do exist.  Standard electrodynamics ignores the longitudinal components.

[sm0ky2]

longitudional oscillations of a "particle" moving at the speed of light, would have to be at a frequency vs. amplitude such that the movement of the oscillations occured faster than light for them to affect the results. They are not ignored, they just are not prevailant in the equations under most situations. 

These actually become somewhat of a limiting factor when the "particle" is moving at FTL speeds.