On 9/18/2015 12:43 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/18/2015 11:23 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/18/2015 8:41 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/18/2015 8:33 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/17/2015 10:34 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/17/2015 6:47 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/17/2015 1:17 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/16/2015 10:30 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/16/2015 5:30 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/16/2015 4:54 PM, FBMBoomer wrote:
On 9/14/2015 4:15 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/14/2015 2:59 PM, FBMBoomer wrote:
On 9/9/2015 11:14 AM, gareth wrote:
"Wayne" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote in message ...

1. For those who suggest that RF transmissions are made
up of
photons,
what is the amplitude envelope of each photon, and for how
many
cycles
does
it exist?

Consider this. Waves and photons exist in visible light
at any
frequency.
If the frequency is lowered below the visible spectrum all
the
way
down to
say, 1 MHz, at what point do the photons disappear?
Or do they just get weak?

Photons exist in visible light at MANY frequencies where such
frequencies
are generated by the transition of an electron to a lower
energy
orbit
around an atom.

What is the mechanism by which your photons at 1 MHz are
created?



I am not arguing with you Gareth. I think I am agreeing. I am
lacking in
theory. I freely admit that. I am going on common sense.
Photons,
light
move through our atmosphere in a straight line unless
reflected by
air
temperature layers or mirrors. EM radiation moves through our
atmosphere
in a more complex way. It is reflected by our ionosphere or
might be
absorbed by something.

How is that different between light and other EM radiation?
Radio
waves
are absorbed, refracted and reflected. Light waves are
absorbed,
refracted and reflected.

The mistake (of many) that Gareth is making is in thinking that
photons
and waves are created separately and differently. *All* EM
radiation
can be viewed as photons or as waves depending on the nature of
the
observation or interaction. It does not matter how they were
generated,
they are just two ways of viewing the same thing. Consider the
view of
a train from along side the railroad tracks. It is long and
moving
fast. The same train as viewed from in front is not long at
all and
instead of looking like it is moving, is getting larger.
This is
just
an analogy of course, but it shows that the two views reveal
different
perspectives on the same thing. It doesn't matter how the train
came to
be there, just how you look at it.


My receiving antenna is a shielded loop. The antenna itself is
copper
and then it is covered with an aluminium shield that is
grounded to
stop
the electrical part of the EM transmission. This guarantees
that I
will
not receive any light/photons from my antenna.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I don't know of loop
antenna
that *are* sensitive to light???


It simply makes no sense to me that I am receiving any
information
via
light.

I would love to hear a simple explanation that explains to me
why my
inverted V on 75 meters is emitting photons/light when I put
1500
watts
of power to it. I remember years ago in physics class that this
discussion came up in my college classroom. The professor
told us
that
EM transmission was completely different than the
transmission of
light.
It had occurred to me that if we built a transmitter on a
frequency of
visible light that somehow light would be emitted from the
antenna. He
said that there would be EM transmission but no light. I
accepted his
opinion because he knew far more than myself.

Tell me how light is emitted in waves? How is that different
from
transmissions of radio waves? Is light always particles? If
so,
how do
you explain diffraction? If light can be waves, how then can it
be a
particle? The exact same source of light can be viewed as
particles or
as waves.

Your professor was clearly wrong. I'm amazed he was teaching
college.


I have accepted that explanation since 1968 when he was
teaching
that
class. What I hear being said here is that EM transmission is
composed
of photons. I always thought of it as a simple electromagnetic
wave,
like what we use in transformers and radio communications every
day.

The issue is *not* are EM waves composed of photons. The issue
is do
you "see" EM waves as photons or as waves? This depends on your
method
of observation. Microwave ovens generate radio waves. Yet
they are
absorbed as quanta by exciting the water molecules. Emitted as
radio
waves, yet absorbed as photons...


Again, what I hear being said here is that radio waves are just
lower
frequency light waves. Really?

Not looking for a flame war, just a simple answer to my
question.

Yes, radio, microwaves, IR, visible light, UV light, x-rays,
gamma
rays
are all just one continuous spectrum of the exact same
phenomenon,
existing as both waves and photons regardless of frequency or
manner of
creation. Anyone who tells you differently does not
understand EM
radiation... including your prior professors.



I believe it now Rickman. I have had two clear explanations
sent my
way.
I cannot fault my college professor. It was 1968 and perhaps
when he
was
educated there was a clear delineation between light and EM
radiation.
He was a good man and taught me a lot about astrophysics. That
was
something he had a good handle on. The rest of us students were
struggling.

I understand what you are saying. However, QM was well
understood in
1968. It is mostly the advancement toward the combination of
QM and
gravity that has been worked on in the intervening years, with not
much
progress really. It's a tough job.


No, QM was NOT well understood in 1968. While we have a better
understanding now, physicists even now don't claim it is "well
understood". There are still way too many unknowns and unproven
theories.

Really? What parts of QM that relate to photons vs. waves are not
well
understood or even not well understood in '68?


Quantum entanglement, for instance. Symmetry, for another. In fact,
much of quantum mechanics is not well understood.

But what does any of that have to do with the duality of EM radiation?


They are all parts of quantum mechanics - and are poorly understood.
And everything in quantum mechanics is tied together. You can't
separate them.

Lol. Ok fine, we don't know everything about everything, much less
about nothing.


Quite so. For instance, look at the double-slit experiment - a good
explanation can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc.
This talks about electrons - but
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_ce...res/lec13.html
shows how it relates to photons, also.

Scientists know WHAT happens - but they are at a complete loss as to WHY
it happens, because it's all lost in the maze of quantum mechanics.

"Why" is not really a science question. You can explain the "why" of
thanks until you get to the basic level. Then it just "is". We don't
know the grand "why" and most really there is no "why". "Why" is a
human issue, not a scientific one.


No, "why" is the most basic science question. Why do planets orbit the
sun? Why does an object continue on the same path at the same velocity
unless something interacts with it? Why does a rolling stone gather no
moss?


Math can well describe and predict what happens at the macro level.

But "why" do things happen at the macro level?


Gravity. Inertia. Both of which can be explained mathematically and
operate consistently at the macro level.


But
no math so far can describe everything (or even a significant portion of
anything) that happens at the quantum level. Even supersymmetry, the
one that has received the highest level of acceptance (but by no means
is universal) and comes the closest so far, may be falling under the
results of experiments from the Large Hadron Collider.

All science is only temporary, until the next big measurement that
disagrees with theory, so a new theory must be found.

Very true. But some theories stand the test of time.


And as before, none of this applies to the issue of duality which is
well understood.


The issue of duality is accepted. But it is far from understood.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================