Luminiferous Aether Exists!

[Cheezle]

However, in order to understand how this 'aether' works, you have to think of the manner in which energy travels along a line of linked condensors. Condensors store electrical energy. You remember those experiments that Benjamin Franklin did ? A line of condensors are connected together and the energy from the first condensor in the line travels along the linked condensors until it reaches the last condensor in line with its energy intact.

Perhaps I am misreading your post, but I don't think this is correct.

Condensers, what I call capacitors, do not store energy they store charge. Energy in joules is voltage in Volts times coulombs (charge) in Farads. When you connect a charged capacitor inline with a series of capacitors the voltage is transferred to the far end, but the capacitance is drastically lowered. The energy available at the far capacitor is likewise drastically lowered. I think that Franklin must have meant the voltage is transferred to the far capacitor. The energy most certainly was not.

On a circuit board, an electromagnetic wave in a transmission line looks like it is traveling through a network of inductors in series and capacitors in parallel. I am not going to speak to the subject of photons because that is beyond my training. But the fact that free space has a permittivity (capacitance in Farads) and permeability (magnetism in Henries), implies the relationship is the same as on a circuit board. Inductors in series and capacitors in parallel.

If you meant that the capacitors were in parallel, then voltage lowers (v=v/n) (is distributed) and capacitance increases (c=c*n) and the energy is available at the far capacitor. But not without constraints. It is normal to talk about both capacitance and inductance when discussing electromagnetic waves, and Franklin was certainly not doing that. He was not discussing waves, but static charges. The energy is not transferred to the far capacitor, it is still distributed through the chain of capacitors. The model of a chain of series capacitors does not describe the photon.

Please correct any errors in my thinking.

 

[origin]

Hi origin.

You are making opinion based on assumptions from incomplete/biased perspective which unnecessarily limits the definition of the term to what you obviously 'believe' will 'support' your selectively-biased preconceptual conclusions about this aspect.

In the general physics meaning, a medium is anything that will support/transfer a perturbation along some direction away from the origin of that perturbation. Hence, anything that acts as such is a medium for transferring 'energy-matter' features from one location in that 'anything' to another location in that 'anything' .

For the purposes of highlighting the crucial difference between the term 'medium' and the term 'field': a 'field' is an abstract mathematical term/construct; while a 'medium' is a physical term/concept denoting real entities, some of which are observed as aggregations of atoms, molecules, electrons etc all the way down to the most fundamental particle aggregations capable of transferring/propagating a perturbation/energy-matter feature.

As has been stated many times arguing with a crank is useless.

If you want to believe that an electric field, a higgs field or virtual photons are a 'medium' that photons propagate through then you just go right ahead. You have shown that you are impervious to both evidence and logic, so it is really pointless. You really seem to enjoy reveling in your scientific ignorance, so who am I to deny you that joy.

Enjoy!

 

[origin]

Perhaps I am misreading your post, but I don't think this is correct.

On a circuit board, an electromagnetic wave in a transmission line looks like it is traveling through a network of inductors in series and capacitors in parallel. I am not going to speak to the subject of photons because that is beyond my training. But the fact that free space has a permittivity (capacitance in Farads) and permeability (magnetism in Henries), implies the relationship is the same as on a circuit board. Inductors in series and capacitors in parallel.

In the 'land' of pseudoscience actual scientifice terms are coopted and redifined depending on the whim of the individual. They don't even know the actual meaning so they just hapazardly use these terms because it sound 'scientific'.

I know that you know this, I am just pointing this out to others who may miss the humorous way in which you pointed out that quant is clueless.

 

[quant]

Perhaps I am misreading your post, but I don't think this is correct.

Condensers, what I call capacitors, do not store energy they store charge. Energy in joules is voltage in Volts times coulombs (charge) in Farads. When you connect a charged capacitor inline with a series of capacitors the voltage is transferred to the far end, but the capacitance is drastically lowered. The energy available at the far capacitor is likewise drastically lowered. I think that Franklin must have meant the voltage is transferred to the far capacitor. The energy most certainly was not.

It is pleasant to have some constructive thinking and a reasonable dialogue. It is always difficult to use a metaphor or allegory to describe something, especially a physical process, so that while a general similitude might be reached it is impossible to convey an exact description. In this instance I was trying to convey the idea that the energy of the photon is conveyed along a line of aligned 'virtual photons' that make up the medium or aether. From, my point of view although inexact it is an apposite approximation. Because, according to the Gestalt theory while high frequency photons (visible light and higher frequency) are emitted directly by electrons and thus retain their original energies, because they are connected in series, lower frequency EMR such as radio waves , are connected in parallel and so share their energy in much the way that you describe for parallel connnected capacitors. Thus although both high frequency photons and radio waves behave in a similar manner their genesis is different. Another severe limitation in discussions of this kind is the restriction placed on how much can be conveyed through the limited words that are available in a short post like this one. For instance Gestalt Theory calls into question the very concept of charge , hence the use of the term electrical energy. I hope that this explains, in a very abbreviated way some of the questions that you had raised.

 

[Aqueous Id]

In the general physics meaning, a medium is anything that will support/transfer a perturbation along some direction away from the origin of that perturbation.

At present physics ascribes that to a vacuum, which is the absence of a medium.

A field is not understood in physics to be a medium either, yet that idea appears here. The classic textbook problems, like figuring out the field strength at some distance from a static point charge in a vacuum, involve no concept of a medium at all. Field strength is considered in units of, say, V/m, which excludes the field as a medium. The propagation delay is c regardless of intensity, and uniformly so, at all distances from the point charge, whereas the field strength is not uniform over distance at all.

A medium is a material. It has a molecular structure. Open space is obviously not a solid, so there is no lattice present to conduct the wave by phonon excitation. Nor does open space contain any material comparable to a fluid capable of sending waves. That leaves aether to be made out of some material that's purely imaginary. But Michelson-Morley disproved that even an imaginary material could be at play.

That leaves nothing. One of the reasons given for requiring a medium in the first place was to find a substantive cause that c is c and not some other number. Presumably the mystery material has an intrinsic impedance equal to the free space impedance. This is equivalent to saying that rather than declare c an absolute, we are going to declare a whole slew of absolutes, with structure, undetectability, non-interaction with anything but photons, etc., in addition to declaring it to have the intrinsic impedance that imbues c with its value. But that didn't simplify anything at all, it just created more stuff to find a cause for, plus the futile task of showing that the mystery material even exists.

I think this kills the idea of a medium at its point of inception.

 

[OnlyMe]

At present physics ascribes that to a vacuum, which is the absence of a medium.

In physics the "vacuum" is not empty, and physics does not say anything about the existence of a medium, other than if there is a medium it is undetectable, with current technologies.

A medium is a material. It has a molecular structure.

Even in the 1800s this was not true. The luminiferous aether had no definable structure and did not interact with matter at all.

But Michelson-Morley disproved that even an imaginary material could be at play.

Michelson and Morley proved only that their experimental design was unable to detect the motion of the earth through a stationary ether. Their results were "null" results.

We cannot prove that an ether or medium does not exist as a characteristic of space or within space. All we can prove at present is that if such does exists we are unable to detect and measure it.

That said, consistent with the accumulated experience of today, it is a fairly safe bet to say that the luminiferous aether of the 1800s does not exist. On the question of a medium with a more relativistic characterization, all that can be said is that so far no one has come up with a model that is consistent with GR.

As far as a medium composed of EM waves as the carrier or medium??? It does not make sense. It is the propagation of the EM waves that the concept of a medium is intended to explain. Creating the medium from the waves it explains.., again???

 

[Mazulu]

I never said it did, neither did other theoretical physicists.

I asked my question because you're applying some assertion, that all things which exist have a cause for their existence, to light but not to other things you believe, ie god. You're inconsistent and dishonest.

And I told you that you had to meet God and discover God for yourself. How the hell do you expect me to answer a question as profound as "where did God come from"? You accuse me of being intellectually dishonest, but you throw those those words around too much. When anything annoys you, you say: it's being intellectually dishonest. When you stub your toe, you yell at the furniture: "OW! OW! YOU'RE BEING INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST!!"

 

[Mazulu]

if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.

You disgust me.

 

[AlexG]

Not very well read in Eastern Philosophy.

 

[Mazulu]

Not very well read in Eastern Philosophy.

Trolls just make me cranky.

 

[Mazulu]

I asked my question because you're applying some assertion, that all things which exist have a cause for their existence, to light but not to other things you believe, ie god. You're inconsistent and dishonest.

Instead of hurling insults and accusations, maybe we should be defining our words more clearly? Or choosing better words.

Luminiferous aether is a light bearing medium. That should mean that it causes light to exist by having characteristics that include the properties of light. So why do you need to bring God into this discussion as a red herring?

 

[OnlyMe]

"if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."

You disgust me.

As Alex pointed out,

Not very well read in Eastern Philosophy.

A brief interpretation from a quick Google search.., without all the detailed explanations and origins, is..,

If you believe that you have a correct image of what it means to be Enlightened, then you need to throw out (kill) that image and keep meditating.​

Sometimes it is a good thing to step back and think, before taking a statement or "quote" like that literally.

It really just means, if you think you know the answer, it is a good idea to think it over again...

 

[Mazulu]

As Alex pointed out,



A brief interpretation from a quick Google search.., without all the detailed explanations and origins, is..,

If you believe that you have a correct image of what it means to be Enlightened, then you need to throw out (kill) that image and keep meditating.​

Sometimes it is a good thing to step back and think, before taking a statement or "quote" like that literally.

It really just meas, if you think you know the answer, it is a good idea to think it over again...

Onlyme,
I wish others in the forum (land of the trolls) were as wise and well-spoken as you are.

 

[RealityCheck]

Hi again, Cheezle.

First let me say that I can see from your post that you're a good and conscientious fellow/scientist! Kudos.

Answering your post/points....

It is very clear to me that there are many more discoveries to be made and much to understand about the subject. From what little I have read it appears there will be some exciting ideas coming. Unfortunately for Mazulu, his ideas will not be contributing to these advances. If Albert Einstein had announced his ideas on relativity with no more justification than he received them through telepathic communication with space aliens, it would have delayed the the advancement of physics by a considerable amount of time. After such an announcement even a correct fully explained theory would have difficulty being accepted. Whether aether exists is either a true or false proposition. Predicting the correct answer with no justification or reasoning is not a useful theory.

I have always made it a strict policy to work from the observation that it takes all kinds to make a world. Boring otherwise! And 'explorations' into where angels fear to tread is more often than not left to the 'eccentrics' of this world. As history shows, serendipity, against all the odds and ridicule, has often rewarded eccentrics with discoveries which the pedestrian among us never enjoy. Who am I (or anyone else) to say nay to someone who wishes to be (harmless, well meaning) eccentric in exploration of the natural universal phenomena? And actually, Einstein DID present his ideas to his closest contacts by saying how he 'imagined riding on a particle of light/photon'. It did not go down well! For many years his relativity theory was much ridiculed and maligned and resisted by pedant and pedestrian 'scientists' who were the 'keepers of orthodoxy'. It took a long time to get through, even with all the scientific concepts and jargon (some of which Einstein had to INVENT) provided! So it is not fair to use that sort of attitude to dismiss and ridicule Mazulu. Even the most 'qualified' are often ridiculed at first if the ideas a too 'eccentric' for the taste of the pedant/pedestrian.

That is not to say that any old codswallop should be 'believed', but that ridicule does disservice to necessary and DIVERSE explorations where others more ordinary are not inclined to go. Someone has to 'go there at some point, if only to eventually RULE OUT definitively and exhaustively that possibility. Be kind to the (harmless/well meaning) eccentric, for your next advance may depend on such 'unlikely heroes'. Just saying.

When taking examinations in school, the correct answer was often not as important as the work you did to get it. Sometimes, writing down only the correct answer was worth a small percentage of the possible points. Often the explanation is the answer. If you wrote "because space aliens said so" on the paper, I would expect you to get zero points whether your result was correct or not. In fact you would probably have to stand in front of the instructor and explain yourself.

I again remind all of us that this is not 'school'. It is a discussion site to assist everyone to explore their ideas and gain knowledge/understanding in the process. Whether an idea passes or fails by discussion's end, it is important to not be too hard on those who may NOT come from background/opportunities which we ourselves take for granted. Again, it takes all kinds and all trajectories to make a discussion interesting and hopefully enjoyable and fruitful for all concerned. Who knows where a discussion of a 'silly idea' will lead given the synergies of many minds coming together over the internet. Even silly ideas are WELCOMED in many 'official' BRAINSTORMING SESSIONS in both INDUSTRY and SCIENCE GROUPS. Being too timid is not good in some circumstances. Exploration of unknowns and challenges to orthodoxy for the purposes of pushing the envelope to advance the status quo is one of these situations. This is not school, but REAL LIFE and REAL PEOPLE coming together to BRAINSTORM and enjoy the experience and synergy irrespective of the 'background' and 'qualifications' of the participants. There are NO 'exams afterwards'. Just 'outcomes' one way or the other. Enjoy the outcome and the experience for what it is!

When Mazulu first explained his idea, I was actually very interested in it. Not because I thought it would work, but because I was hoping some one would offer some fundamental principle that I had not heard of explaining why some laws are reversible but others are not. Something other than just citing entropy. I think that most here, and probably even you, do not believe Mazulu's idea will work. There are just too many problems that it would cause. I assume that the energy needed to bend space and time any appreciable amount (without moving mass around) would need to be very large. And yet he thinks he can just plug a signal generator, and amplifier into mains power in his garage and do just that. So there should be ways to get free energy out of his experiment if it were to work. He does not dispute this. In fact he thinks this just adds value to the theory.

Exactly my attitude! Kudos. In fact, my first response was to point out where such 'frequency shifting already may occur, without any 'gravity effects' observed. But it does not mean his proposed further speculations/experiments were a total waste of time (if he had the time to spare). Why not? We all have HOBBIES or INTERESTS which allow us to pass life/time in our own way that assists cogitation/enjoyment of life/nature/science etc. I am of the opinion that Mazulu will come to some point where his hobby/interest in this vein will either produce some unexpected side-insights/results which may be of some use in a way totally different from his intended goal. Who cares whether he calls it 'god' or 'intuition' or 'just a passing thought' which drives him in this interest/idea. He wouldn't be the first scientist/explorer/hobbyist etc to 'accidently' become famous. The results will either prove him right or wrong; but perhaps he will learn more and be prepared for the NEXT BIG THING because his mind has been 'prepared' to recognize that next big idea which would otherwise have passed him by.

It's all grist to the mill. Nothing is ever truly 'wasted' if a mind cogitates on natural phenomena FOR WHATEVER reason or from whatever perspective he comes to it. Synergy is often found in the darnedest collection of unusual things/activities.

I have challenged his perspective. Over and over again I have challenged his assertion that space aliens have transmitted the gravity beam knowledge to him. There is little more to his theory than that. As others have pointed out, no actual frequency shifting of photons ever happens in his experiment. That can't happen. His RF chirp looks nothing like a gravitational field shifting the frequency of light. The idea is flawed on so many levels it has zero chance of working.

Challenges are always good. No-one is immune. As an objectively arrived at atheist from age nine, I have long ago stopped looking for 'gods' and 'monsters'. As a scientist I have also stopped looking for aliens, simply because the evidence so far rules them out as a locally detectable/reachable possibility at this time. For example, our earliest man-made radio waves have been traveling outwards in space for how long, just over a century? So our own 'signal' to other possible aliens is somewhere out in space just over 100-lightyears away STILL!

That's why I do not accept the proposition that 'aliens' are within call/reach. Because their signals (IF said aliens had faster than light spacetravel methods as alleged) should already be picked up by us if they have already 'arrived' in our vicinity within 100 lightyears. WE csn't have it both ways. If they can detect/communicate with us, we can detect/communicate with them. So I take Mazulu's 'claims' there with a pinch of salt, and tacitly attribute them to personal idiosyncrasies and maybe even having a harmless 'jest' at our expense and having a quiet chuckle to himself whenever someone actually believes his 'aliens told me' explanation of his own mind's way of coming to subconscious insights/ideas which the rest of us attribute to just that, subconscious processes of information/synergy in the mind-brain activity/processing. I treat it in that vein and just get on with the discussion (on the subject matter, not the jest) if I have time. Ridicule I leave to others who are so inclined and enjoy that sort of thing.

I think what you are trying to say is that we should all give Mazulu a break. But I disagree. I believe that Mazulu is willfully delusional. It is the worst type of weakness of character. The space aliens are just an excuse to not have to learn the mathematics and physics. He can just claim that the space aliens are so far advanced of us that we can't understand their science. That we should just accept them and and the messenger.

WE are all delusional to some extent, else we would be perfect beings. It is the measure and object of the delusions which will determine the possible outcomes. If they are harmless and directed to useful tasks/goals which do not impinge on others' rights or activities, then it is their business. Mazulu has demonstrated learning in the mathematics as he has gone along in discussions, so any delusion which involves learning mathematics and scientific concepts of any calibre, is much better than most ordinary people ever get to experience the math/science field/knowledge. I treat any such delusion as constructive, not destructive. It is much better than some of the alternatives!


Cheezle, I fully understand and appreciate your reaction so far. Your posts do show you are wellmeaning (if frustrated by harmless eccentricity/delusions in others!). Patience and tolerance will make the experience less stressful.

And who knows, when Mazulu finds you were right, he may have also find something else that made the journey worthwhile. Only he can judge; or maybe we will IF he comes up with something completely different from what he started out looking for! Serendipity is alive and well even today!

Cheers, Cheezle, Mazulu, everyone!

 

[RealityCheck]

As has been stated many times arguing with a crank is useless.

If you want to believe that an electric field, a higgs field or virtual photons are a 'medium' that photons propagate through then you just go right ahead. You have shown that you are impervious to both evidence and logic, so it is really pointless. You really seem to enjoy reveling in your scientific ignorance, so who am I to deny you that joy.

Enjoy!

I don't 'believe' in what is still up in the air exploration/discovery wise. I merely discuss possibilities. That is what a scientific mind does that has no preconclusions to bring to the discussion.

And have you ever at all, even in your wildest moments of scientific objective thinking on the discoveries to date, consider the possibility that the list of phenomena/features you list MAY BE RELATED and UNIFIED at a more fundamental level?

That is the problem with 'partial theories', they give the false impression that nature is just a random collection of things having no unifying interconnections. The 'domain' of applicability of one partial theory/phenomena may merely be the 'boundary condition' of a more encompassing theory/phenomena. Until the TOE is completed, all these arbitrary and bounded separations of the phenomena is fraught with incorrect interpretations.

A 'field' is an abstract mathematical construct. A 'medium' is a real physical entity, irrespective of theoretical interpretations input to mathematical models. The 'medium' may be one overall underlying physical entity that is ubiquitous and supports all the separably observable 'overlay' dynamics which you call "...electric field, higgs field or virtual photons..." etc. That is the purpose of further investigation/theory completion. Remember that according to conventional theory, all the forces must have been 'unified' until the big bang processes eventually separated the unified force into separably observable 'domains of applicability' PARTS of the 'distinct' forces beloved of the theories which treat/explain them in their own way.


Enjoy the ride towards TOE completion, origin. Hang on, though; it's a wild ride! Good luck!

 

[Cheezle]

I hope that this explains, in a very abbreviated way some of the questions that you had raised.

I had seen your thread on Gestalt Theory but passed over it because I had (wrongly) assumed it must have been somehow related to Gestalt Psychology. I will have to go back and read through it. Thanks for the reply.

 

[RealityCheck]

Hi Acqueous Id.

Pleased to meet you. Thanks for your response.

At present physics ascribes that to a vacuum, which is the absence of a medium.

A field is not understood in physics to be a medium either, yet that idea appears here. The classic textbook problems, like figuring out the field strength at some distance from a static point charge in a vacuum, involve no concept of a medium at all. Field strength is considered in units of, say, V/m, which excludes the field as a medium. The propagation delay is c regardless of intensity, and uniformly so, at all distances from the point charge, whereas the field strength is not uniform over distance at all.

A medium is a material. It has a molecular structure. Open space is obviously not a solid, so there is no lattice present to conduct the wave by phonon excitation. Nor does open space contain any material comparable to a fluid capable of sending waves. That leaves aether to be made out of some material that's purely imaginary. But Michelson-Morley disproved that even an imaginary material could be at play.

That leaves nothing. One of the reasons given for requiring a medium in the first place was to find a substantive cause that c is c and not some other number. Presumably the mystery material has an intrinsic impedance equal to the free space impedance. This is equivalent to saying that rather than declare c an absolute, we are going to declare a whole slew of absolutes, with structure, undetectability, non-interaction with anything but photons, etc., in addition to declaring it to have the intrinsic impedance that imbues c with its value. But that didn't simplify anything at all, it just created more stuff to find a cause for, plus the futile task of showing that the mystery material even exists.

I think this kills the idea of a medium at its point of inception.

I think OnlyMe (nice post) has just about covered it better than anyone has so far. I would only add a very little reminder to help stress the points OM made. The 'label' is not the 'thing'. What we call 'vacuum' comes with many connotations/baggage. The 'empty vacuum' has increasingly been 'added to' by theory/discovery such that it eventually ends up as being an 'active physical thing' in its own right, ie, something like an 'energy-space' reservoir wherein and wherefrom all observables arise, evolve and subside' according to the dynamics inherent to this energy-space (erstwhile 'empty vacuum/space').

It's the more recently evolving fundamental discovery/perspective that now makes 'space' and 'vacuum' appear to be more than just passive arena where 'things happen'.

Cheers!

 

[RealityCheck]

HI quant. Pleased to meet you. I haven't much time left today, so I just make a brief observation on the aspect you opoint to in that (my) bolded bit about radio waves....

It is pleasant to have some constructive thinking and a reasonable dialogue. It is always difficult to use a metaphor or allegory to describe something, especially a physical process, so that while a general similitude might be reached it is impossible to convey an exact description. In this instance I was trying to convey the idea that the energy of the photon is conveyed along a line of aligned 'virtual photons' that make up the medium or aether. From, my point of view although inexact it is an apposite approximation. Because, according to the Gestalt theory while high frequency photons (visible light and higher frequency) are emitted directly by electrons and thus retain their original energies, because they are connected in series, lower frequency EMR such as radio waves , are connected in parallel and so share their energy in much the way that you describe for parallel connnected capacitors. Thus although both high frequency photons and radio waves behave in a similar manner their genesis is different. Another severe limitation in discussions of this kind is the restriction placed on how much can be conveyed through the limited words that are available in a short post like this one. For instance Gestalt Theory calls into question the very concept of charge , hence the use of the term electrical energy. I hope that this explains, in a very abbreviated way some of the questions that you had raised.

The imagery of a parallel connection between many 'component photons' is in my mind when I consider that a small aerial 'extracts' a 'small slice' of that radio wave to excite the aerial electrons, while the radiowave's larger parallel-connected 'front' passes by practically undisturbed except for having a segment of its overall 'parallel front' sliced off. Much like a large water wavefront going past a reed and the reed extracts some segment of wave-energy from its overall parallel wave-profile while the main wavefront carries on. Does that 'analogy/imagery' make sense at all?

Gotta go. See ya round. Cheers.

 

[quant]

Perhaps I am misreading your post, but I don't think this is correct.

Condensers, what I call capacitors, do not store energy they store charge. Energy in joules is voltage in Volts times coulombs (charge) in Farads. When you connect a charged capacitor inline with a series of capacitors the voltage is transferred to the far end, but the capacitance is drastically lowered. The energy available at the far capacitor is likewise drastically lowered. I think that Franklin must have meant the voltage is transferred to the far capacitor. The energy most certainly was not.

(Hi, I originally posted this more than 12 hours ago,it has not appeared as yet, I suspect that there was some glitch so I am re-posting it.)


It is pleasant to have some constructive thinking and a reasonable dialogue. It is always difficult to use a metaphor or allegory to describe something, especially a physical process, so that while a general similitude might be reached it is impossible to convey an exact description. In this instance I was trying to convey the idea that the energy of the phton is conveyed along a line of aligned 'virtual photons' that make up the medium or aether. From, my point of view although inexact it is an apposite approximation. Because, according to the Gestalt theory while high frequency photons (visible light and higher frequency) are emitted directly by electrons and thus retain their original energies, because they are connected in series, lower frequency EMR such as radio waves , are connected in parallel and so share their energy in much the way that you describe for parallel connnected capacitors. Thus although both high frequency photons and radio waves behave in a similar manner their genesis is different. Another severe limitation in discussions of this kind is the restriction placed on how much can be conveyed through the limited words that are available in a short post like this one. For instance Gestalt Theory calls into question the very concept of charge , hence the use of the term electrical energy. I hope that this explains, in a very abbreviated way some of the questions that you had raised.

 

[RealityCheck]

Hi quant.

Pleased to meet you. I haven't much time left today, so I just make a brief observation on the aspect you opoint to in that (my) bolded bit about radio waves....

...
...
....radio waves, are connected in parallel and so share their energy in much the way that you describe for parallel connnected capacitors....
...
...

The imagery of a parallel connection between many 'component photons' is in my mind when I consider that a small aerial 'extracts' a 'small slice' of that radio wave to excite the aerial electrons, while the radiowave's larger parallel-connected 'front' passes by practically undisturbed except for having a segment of its overall 'parallel front' sliced off. Much like a large water wavefront going past a reed and the reed extracts some segment of wave-energy from its overall parallel wave-profile while the main wavefront carries on. Does that 'analogy/imagery' make sense at all?

Gotta go. See ya round. Cheers.

PS: I initially tried to quote your whole post in my answer, but the system obviously does not allow me to post the links contained in your post. Still a little hiccup in the software?