Is space truly empty or is it filled with unseen forces and fields?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mani74
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light Travel
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the nature of light and the concept of space, specifically addressing whether space is truly empty or filled with unseen forces. The first convincing measurement of light's travel was made by astronomer Ole Rømer in 1675, observing Jupiter's moon. Participants clarify that light can be understood as both a wave and a stream of particles called photons, emphasizing that space is filled with force fields and that spacetime can bend in the presence of mass.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic physics concepts, particularly light and waves.
  • Familiarity with the historical context of light measurement, specifically Ole Rømer's observations.
  • Knowledge of electromagnetic fields and their role in physics.
  • Basic comprehension of spacetime and its interaction with mass.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the historical measurements of light speed, focusing on Ole Rømer's methodology.
  • Explore the dual nature of light as both a wave and a particle, particularly in quantum mechanics.
  • Study the implications of electromagnetism in space and its effects on light propagation.
  • Investigate the concept of spacetime and how it interacts with mass and energy.
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, educators, and anyone interested in the fundamental nature of light and the structure of space will benefit from this discussion.

mani74
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
hi is there any proof that light does actually travel?
 
Science news on Phys.org
mani74 said:
hi is there any proof that light does actually travel?

You mean, experimental proof that light travels at some speed as opposed to be being everywhere all at once?

Yes. The first reasonably convincing measurement of light travel was made in 1675 by an astronomer named Roemer observing the differences between the apparent position of one of Jupiter's moons and the shadow of that moon on the surface of Jupiter.

There have plenty of measurements since then; check out http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html for more history.
 
the easiest way i can explain what i mean is, if you imagine a mexican wave in a stadium, nobody is actually moving but it appears like there is a wave moving if this makes any sense?
 
mani74 said:
the easiest way i can explain what i mean is, if you imagine a mexican wave in a stadium, nobody is actually moving but it appears like there is a wave moving if this makes any sense?

Ah, OK, I think I understand what you're getting at. Two ways you can think about it:

1) Light is the wave, not the medium that's waving. So yes, the light is moving (and this is especially true when the light is traveling through the vacuum of empty space; in empty space there's nothing analogous the stadium audience which is always there even when a wave isn't moving through it).
2) You can think of light as a beam of particles called photons. These move, at the speed of light.
 
Nugatory said:
You mean, experimental proof that light travels at some speed as opposed to be being everywhere all at once?

Yes. The first reasonably convincing measurement of light travel was made in 1675 by an astronomer named Roemer observing the differences between the apparent position of one of Jupiter's moons and the shadow of that moon on the surface of Jupiter.

There have plenty of measurements since then; check out http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html for more history.

Minor correction- he was measuring the times on Earth when the moon popped out from behind Jupiter's shadow. When the Earth swung around its solar orbit by six months, the event was 92x2 million miles further away resulting in a 15 minute delay to the observed event.
 
mani74 said:
the easiest way i can explain what i mean is, if you imagine a mexican wave in a stadium, nobody is actually moving but it appears like there is a wave moving if this makes any sense?
The fact that the particles in a mechanical wave end back up where they started after a wave passes, does not mean the wave isn't moving.
 
russ_watters said:
The fact that the particles in a mechanical wave end back up where they started after a wave passes, does not mean the wave isn't moving.

yeah but in the end doesn't it just depend on what you define as moving... you could also say, the wave is not a thing moving but a series of the compression and stretching of the electric field. I mean trying to define it with human words that are relative seems kind of fuzzy, people can easily disagree with such things
 
mani74 said:
yes i think you more understand what i am trying to say that space is not empty but full of something that is every where and it is not the light that is traveling.man I am even starting to confuse myself.

Space is full of force fields, electromagnetism etc.

Spacetime can also bend and contract, in the presence of mass, so I'd say it is a medium in that way.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
705