Theos-Talk Archives (February 2002 Message tt00860)

Eldon, 

Unfortunately, the "message" you quoted and your following interpretation, 
are based on the unfounded assumption that the vacuum of space through which 
light and all other (physical) electromagnetic fields travel through, is 
empty. 

Today, however, the leading edge of physical science (11 dimensional 
Superstring/M-brane, quantum gravity theories, etc.) recognizes that such 
vacuum space contains "perturbations" or vibrating fields of sub-quantum 
energy calculated to be in the form of vibrating "strings" (or "rays" as we 
say in theosophy) that fills it completely. 

It follows that, if so, and those vibrations or transcendental fields are 
vibrating at frequencies much higher than that of the electromagnetic 
spectrum -- they must act as "carriers" of the physical light and other 
electromagnetic waves that move through them -- much like the way high 
frequency radio waves "carry" or modulate the lower frequency waves of the 
sound and picture images they transmit to our receivers (which are analogous 
to our eyes and ears, by the way). 

Thus, this property of the vacuum would appear to make such zero-point energy 
(or "fifth force") the supposed "ether" or etheric force that is necessary to 
support or "carry" the entire physical universe, including all its 
electromagnetic forces (including "light") as well as the electro-weak, 
strong, and gravitation forces that hold everything together. 

As an added observation... This etheric force supposedly filling the "vacuum" 
of space, if incorporated across the board in scientific thinking, would 
account for "action-at-a-distance" or the entanglement of fundamental quantum 
particle-pairs noted in recent CERN experiments -- (as well as its static 
"zero-point" root accounting for "Inertia")... While, also accounting for 
many observations or experiences of psi phenomenon, explaining the roots and 
"mechanics" (or coenergetic "field effects") of consciousness, perception, 
mind, memory and will, and possibly negating or modifying the current 
theories of non causal quantum "indeterminacy"... All of which have been and 
still are baffling established physical science... (More or less verifying 
Einstein's observation that "God doesn't play dice"-- while confirming all 
the Cosmogenesis theories and fundamental principles of theosophy.) 

For a more detailed take on the above observations and their relationship to 
theosophical principles, Cosmogenesis, chakras, perception, etc., see:
http://tellworld.com/Astro.Biological.Coenergetics
http://members.aol.com/uniwldarts/uniworld.artisans.guild/chakrafield.html

LHM

In a message dated 02/24/02 7:11:43 PM, eldon@theosophy.com writes:

>I did a quick search on the Internet for a good
>explanation of why there is no need for physical
>ether to explain how electromagnetic waves are propagated. I
>found the following message online at:
>
> <http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2001-06/msg0033705.html>
>
>The message reads:
>
> > For ocean waves, the "particles" of water move in "orbits"
> > (circular in deep water, ellipses in shallow water), in an
> > organized fashion. By that I mean that in one place the water
> > may be moving up, at another place, farther along, the water
> > moves down, and at locations in between the water moves in other
> > directions around the orbits. The wave is the combination of all
> > that, and can be thought of as a disturbance moving through the
> > water.
> >
> > Waves in a string are simpler. At one instant some parts of the
> > string are moving up (assuming the plane of the motion is
> > vertical) some parts are moving down, and a few points are
> > motionless. At another instant this pattern will have moved
> > along the string. Sound waves in air (or water or some other
> > fluid) involve the motion of the air (or whatever) molecules.
> >
> > But there are other types of waves that don't involve the motion
> > of a substance. Electromagnetic waves (light, radio and
> > television, X-rays, etc.) are variations in the STRENGTH of
> > electric and magnetic fields in space. When they were first
> > discovered, in the 19th century, scientists had no experience
> > with any kind of waves except those moving through a medium. So
> > they invented one, "ether" (not the stuff that doctors used to
> > use as an anesthetic), to carry the waves. It had to have some
> > really strange properties, but more to the point no experiment
> > could detect it, or its effects (except for the purely
> > hypothetical effect of being there to carry the electromagnetic
> > waves). Now people understand that there is no experimental
> > justification to assume that ether exists, and it isn't needed to
> > explain how (for instance) light gets from the Sun to the Earth.
> >
> > You could think of waves as an abstract way of describing a
> > certain type of organized motion, where you interpret "motion"
> > loosely.
>
>This does not mean that there might not be nonphysical
>matter that extends beyond the earth, and perhaps at some
>levels embraces all of space. It just means that there is
>no need for a physical version of ether to exist in order
>to explain how something like magnetism is propagated across
>space.
>
>In the quoted explanation above, it's interesting to note
>the two kinds of waves. One is an influence upon a material
>body such as water. The other is an influence upon the
>strength of fields in space.
>
>For something like light, it could be considered as either
>a wave or a stream of particles (photons). As particles, it
>could go shooting across space without needing any medium
>to propagate it. As a wave, though, a form of vibration,
>I'd expect that there would need to be something vibrating,
>something whose movement carries that wave. If you picture
>light as the variation in the strength of a field in space,
>that's saying that there's a field of something in space
>that's there and can be varied. That universal field may not
>be composed of matter as we know it, but it exists and is
>there to "create" light by it's being able to be varied.
>
>If we picture a beam of light shooting through space, with
>it riding on a variation in intensity of universal light
>energy, I'd see an analogy here to picture a wave moving
>across the ocean. In one case, it's a moving disturbance of
>the intensity of a universal light field, and somewhat
>immaterial. In the other case, it's a moving disturbance
>of water, something very material. But in either case, that
>disturbance moves across *something* as it traverses space.
>
>Perhaps if we dwell on this idea, it may yield some new
>insights? (The philosophers among us could offer some
>philosophical insight. The historians could quote 100-year-old
>opinions on the subject. The scientists could tell us additional
>information on what modern science holds true. And the mystics
>could explain things in a way that leads us into deeper
>inner reflection.)
>
>-- Eldon
>