Brian Anthony Farrelly wrote:
Isn't the whole question of whether it's a reflection as from a conducting
plate, or radiation from the radials based on misunderstanding what a
reflection is?

There is no contradiction in quantum electrodynamics.
A photon encounters an electron in a radial and is
absorbed. Later, that same electron emits a photon.
The original photon energy could have come from
anywhere. If it came from the vertical element in
the first place, it is a "reflection" but that is
irrelevant. If it came from that same radial in the
first place, it is not a "reflection" but that is also
irrelevant. If it bounced off a flagpole before it
was absorbed by the electron, it is a "reflection" but
no rational person cares. The photon cloud surrounding
a radial contains photons that came from that radial
and from everywhere else. That some photons must be
put in a basket labeled "reflected" and some put in
a basket labeled "not reflected" is simply nonsense.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
That some photons must be
put in a basket labeled "reflected" and some put in
a basket labeled "not reflected" is simply nonsense.

The very concept of arguing whether a photon was
reflected or not seems to violate the uncertainty
principle. There is only a probability that it was
reflected.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:

There is no contradiction in quantum electrodynamics.

There's certainly a paradox.

A photon encounters an electron in a radial and is
absorbed.

We know that electrons are inspired to move in a particular fashion
when they are irradiated. But how does a photon tell the electron
which way it should move? Kinematics would seem to have little to do
with this phenomenon.

Later, that same electron emits a photon.

A photon which, if the direction in which it is emitted is unknown,
can be made to create a diffraction pattern - implying that a wave was
emitted rather than a particle. Putting us right back where we started.

The photon cloud surrounding
a radial contains photons that came from that radial
and from everywhere else.

But what is it about this "cloud" that is actually cloud-like? Isn't
it really more like a wave of photons? :-)

That some photons must be
put in a basket labeled "reflected" and some put in
a basket labeled "not reflected" is simply nonsense.

I think Feynman uses almost that exact analogy, with probabilities
assigned to each, in the first few pages of QED.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
But how does a photon tell the electron which way
it should move?

Energy and momentum must be conserved.

A photon which, if the direction in which it is emitted is unknown, can
be made to create a diffraction pattern - implying that a wave was
emitted rather than a particle. Putting us right back where we started.

Allow me to paraphrase Feynman: Only particles exist.

But what is it about this "cloud" that is actually cloud-like? Isn't it
really more like a wave of photons? :-)

If you prefer liquid analogies to gaseous analogies, feel
free.

I think Feynman uses almost that exact analogy, with probabilities
assigned to each, in the first few pages of QED.

You missed the point. That an individual photon must be
put in a basket labeled "reflected" and some other individual
photon must be put in a basket labeled "not reflected" is simply
nonsense. Talking about exactly where an individual photon
goes is nonsense.
--
73, Cecil, http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:

Jim Kelley wrote:

But how does a photon tell the electron which way it should move?


Energy and momentum must be conserved.

Do you really want to go there? :-) According to QED, you first need
to find some negative energy photons. Then you need to get them to
propagate backward in time and subsequently interact with electrons.
Then, the electrons can then move forward in time and emit positive
energy photons while conserving momentum.

A photon which, if the direction in which it is emitted is unknown,
can be made to create a diffraction pattern - implying that a wave was
emitted rather than a particle. Putting us right back where we started.


Allow me to paraphrase Feynman: Only particles exist.

Dear Merrium Webster,

On behalf of a friend of mine, please consider adding this definition
to your dictionary:

paraphrase - to restate text in different form such that it conveys
unintended meaning

But what is it about this "cloud" that is actually cloud-like? Isn't
it really more like a wave of photons? :-)


If you prefer liquid analogies to gaseous analogies, feel
free.

A wave of photons. It's a physics joke, Cecil. Laugh already.

73, ac6xg

Jim Kelley wrote:
Do you really want to go there? :-) According to QED, you first need to
find some negative energy photons. Then you need to get them to
propagate backward in time and subsequently interact with electrons.
Then, the electrons can then move forward in time and emit positive
energy photons while conserving momentum.

No prediction made by QED has ever been wrong. How's that
for a track record?

A wave of photons. It's a physics joke, Cecil. Laugh already.

I already did, many hours ago.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 21:45:33 -0600, Cecil Moore
wrote:

No prediction made by QED has ever been wrong. How's that
for a track record?

No prediction made by QED has ever been right. Every experiment
destroys some of the knowledge of the system which was obtained by
previous experiments.

73's (±3dB)
Werner Heisenberg

p.s. For the purpose of the original posting of "image theory:" There
is a fundamental error in separating the parts from the whole, the
mistake of atomizing what should not be atomized.

Richard Clark wrote:
p.s. For the purpose of the original posting of "image theory:" There
is a fundamental error in separating the parts from the whole, the
mistake of atomizing what should not be atomized.

That's the point I was trying to make. One cannot correctly
say "the radials are a reflector" or "the radials are non-
radiating". The radials are partially reflecting,
partially absorbing, partially radiating, and partially
non-radiating based on a level of probability for each
of the possible events which are not necessarily limited
to those four events. It's not a 100% either/or situation.

The original mirror Vs radiation "argument" between the
authors is like arguing whether gray is black or white.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jim Kelley wrote:

Do you really want to go there? :-) According to QED, you first need
to find some negative energy photons. Then you need to get them to
propagate backward in time and subsequently interact with electrons.
Then, the electrons can then move forward in time and emit positive
energy photons while conserving momentum.


No prediction made by QED has ever been wrong. How's that
for a track record?

I think QED is a very clever idea and I applaud your effort toward
finding a good use for it. :-)

73, Jim AC6XG

Jim Kelley wrote:
I think QED is a very clever idea and I applaud your effort toward
finding a good use for it. :-)

It is very useful in settling the arguments about
whether gray is black or white. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com