Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
There seems to be a pretty fundamental disconnect here. Waves don't
create radiation; photons don't create radiation; accelerating charges
do create radiation.

Who cares? Photons can form standing waves in free space.
Where are your accelerating charges in a vacuum? Everything
that happens to EM waves in a wire, or a waveguide, also
happen to EM waves in free space.

You want to talk about the ocean and ignore the Tsunami.

What difference does it make if the wave on the antenna and the
radiated wave in space can be defined as photons?

Answer: None whatsoever, ...

That's your agenda and you're sticking to it. Like
I said, some people apparently enjoy hoodwinking the
uninitiated. What else do you have to gain by ignoring
the photonic nature of EM waves?

Accelerating charges do not morph into EM waves.
Accelerating charges release photons that are the
wave. Ignoring the photonic nature of EM waves is
the cause of the present mass confusion about
standing waves. Why on earth would you want that
mass confusion to continue?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com


Cecil,

So sorry. I thought that your 75m Bugcatcher Coil was a real, metallic
object. If it is really nothing but free space, then I will agree with
your assertions. The waves on your free space coil therefore have no
connection to charges on a wire.

I also forgot that all standing waves are identical, whether in free
space or on a wire.

I particularly love the wording you used, "Accelerating charges do not
morph into EM waves. Accelerating charges release photons that are the
wave."

Did you ever hear of wave-particle duality? Did you ever read a serious
treatment of radiation from antennas. Did you find lots of references to
photon release, say, in Kraus or Balanis?

Reversing the question you posed above, what do you gain by including
the photonic nature of EM waves?

I will try harder to follow the change of topic in the future.

8-)

73,
Gene
W4SZ