Gaussian statics law
 

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:23:28 +0000, Ian White GM3SEK
wrote:

Richard cited the following as a claimed exception:

A photon is emitted in the cM band when an electron orbiting a
Hydrogen atom flips its magnetic pole. This event is vastly below the
short wavelengths you describe by a million-fold. A good number of
correspondents here are fully capable of detecting this event with
commercial gear already suitable for the Ham market. They could have
done it 50 years ago too.

That is an example of a quantum effect determining the *frequency* of an
RF emission... but the origin of the RF energy doesn't change its
character. If a signal generator is tuned to that frequency, it will
produce exactly the same kind of RF energy - a torrent of quanta so tiny
that their individual existence is irrelevant.

Hi Ian

Determining the *frequency*? That has to be the most obscure
contribution I've ever seen.

No, it's the simplest. A couple of days ago, I quoted and explained the
most basic equation of quantum mechanics:

E = hf

It means that whenever there is a transition between two energy levels,
a photon is emitted whose frequency is uniquely determined by the
difference between those energy levels.

The case you quoted was the so-called "hydrogen line". A hydrogen atom
can have the spin of its single electron aligned in the same direction
as that of its single proton; or in the opposite direction. The former
state has slightly more energy, and when the spin of one atom flips to
the lower-energy state, one quantum of EM radiation is emitted. The
frequency of that radiation is determined by the difference in energy
levels between the two states, and is 1.42GHz.

The hydrogen line is like any other spectral line, except that the
difference in energy levels is unusually small (optical spectroscopists
would call it "hyperfine splitting") so the energy comes out as
microwaves rather than light.

The point I was making was that 1.42GHz radiation generated in this
particular manner has no special properties other than its frequency. It
is exactly the same kind of RF energy as you'd get from a signal
generator tuned to the same frequency.



--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Gaussian statics law
 

On Mar 12, 8:51 am, "art" wrote:
On 11 Mar, 18:45, Cecil Moore wrote:

Richard Clark wrote:
Determining the *frequency*? That has to be the most obscure
contribution I've ever seen.

Richard, do you understand that free electrons can
emit photons of any frequency? i.e. no orbital change
necessary?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil, you should look up the background of JOHN E DAVIS from MIT that
the group just dissed. He is not just a nobody, he has credentials
that should be respected
Art

Gaussian statics law
 

So we have this group lining up with space Antenna engineering on the
West Coast against M.I.T. space engineering on the East Coast.
The Patent Office may have to invite the IEEE to adjudicate on Art's
patent or else dig up Gauss's grave.
Looks like this could run a bit longer yet.

Derek

Gaussian statics law
 

Richard Clark wrote:

snip

My presumption is that "special properties" and "some kinds of light"
are congruent. Again, it appears to be as tautological as might my
examples of "extraordinary properties."

Where does this lead us?

To the conclusion that a photon is a photon.

All photons propagate the same way.

Electromagnetic radiation is electromagnetic radiation.

All electromagnetic radiation propagates the same way.

The interaction of electromagnetic radiation and matter is a function
of the photon energy, which is a function of the photon frequency.

There is no hard and fast dividing line between antennas and optics.

And probably a few more if I thought about it for a while.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Gaussian statics law
 

On 12 Mar, 17:45, "Derek" wrote:
So we have this group lining up with space Antenna engineering on the
West Coast against M.I.T. space engineering on the East Coast.
The Patent Office may have to invite the IEEE to adjudicate on Art's
patent or else dig up Gauss's grave.
Looks like this could run a bit longer yet.

Derek

NO,NO,NO.
Let us have Fox news on one side with the CB's and NASA (don't
stigmatize ham radio) and CNN with MIT on the other side. NASA starts
of with Maxwells theme and MIT east coast comes back with Maxwell has
nothing to do with it
it was Gauss that started the logic based on equilibrium
and Maxwell didn't evolve anything about equilibrium. Of course IEEE
could still be the science adjudicator only.
Then NASA could come back with La Place and then we go to a commercial
followed by a rebuttal from the CB ers who will then interject
photons.

Heh T.V. or public radio would have a lot of fun doing the background
with segments on Green Gauss, Heaviside, Newton e.t.c. to give the
debate more flavor tho
the verbalising is going to get so fierce that the West coast NASA and
the CB ers may demand that Maxwell be dug up to talk on his own behalf
and offcourse MIT will make similar
demands for Gauss so both Gauss and Maxwell can apply for a visa
beforehand. As for the USPTO they have got the money so the outcome of
the patent rerquest doesn't really matter!
People with colds must not be allowed in as both Gauss and
Maxwell won't want to hear anything to do with coffin!!
Maybe U tube would be a better stage to air the subject so the public
can see a punch up!!!!!
Somebody alert 60 minuits
Art

Gaussian statics law
 

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 23:21:32 +0000, Ian White GM3SEK
wrote:

The point I was making was that 1.42GHz radiation generated in this
particular manner has no special properties other than its frequency. It
is exactly the same kind of RF energy as you'd get from a signal
generator tuned to the same frequency.

Hi Ian,

So, the photon thus emitted is indistinguishable from any signal
generator's output. Neither of us is surprised, granted.

What distinction are you trying to make that is not already obvious?
If a signal generator is tuned to that frequency, it will
produce exactly the same kind of RF energy - a torrent of quanta so tiny
that their individual existence is irrelevant.
This is nothing more than a tautology. No one is going to be
surprised by this event either.

Can you give us an example of "special properties" that differentiates
a photon from an EM wave? On the face of it, that question is absurd,
but I see nothing distinctive about your comments except in this fine
parsing of "special properties" that seem to vanish (no pun) for
longer wavelengths.

It means that whenever there is a transition between two energy levels,
a photon is emitted whose frequency is uniquely determined by the
difference between those energy levels.

If this is the "special property" and hyperfine are not, then I
suppose it could as easily be called "very special property" to no
less acclaim. The production of photons through a myriad of other
interactions that I offered rather makes this "special property"
rather banal, because those interactions also present harmonic
relationships and are not uniquely determined by transitions - and yet
they remain photons none the less. Would I be overstepping to call
them "extraordinary properties?"

I must presume this casts back to your comment:
Quantum
theory was developed to explain observations like some kinds of light
being emitted in a series of sharp spectral lines, which cannot be
explained by a wave-only theory. Instead, it has to be thought of as
being built up of individual photons/quanta which can only have certain
"allowed" energy levels.
My presumption is that "special properties" and "some kinds of light"
are congruent. Again, it appears to be as tautological as might my
examples of "extraordinary properties."

Where does this lead us?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Gaussian statics law
 

On 12 Mar, 18:16, "art" wrote:
On 12 Mar, 17:45, "Derek" wrote:

So we have this group lining up with space Antenna engineering on the
West Coast against M.I.T. space engineering on the East Coast.
The Patent Office may have to invite the IEEE to adjudicate on Art's
patent or else dig up Gauss's grave.
Looks like this could run a bit longer yet.

Derek

NO,NO,NO.
Let us have Fox news on one side with the CB's and NASA (don't
stigmatize ham radio) and CNN with MIT on the other side. NASA starts
of with Maxwells theme and MIT east coast comes back with Maxwell has
nothing to do with it
it was Gauss that started the logic based on equilibrium
and Maxwell didn't evolve anything about equilibrium. Of course IEEE
could still be the science adjudicator only.
Then NASA could come back with La Place and then we go to a commercial
followed by a rebuttal from the CB ers who will then interject
photons.

Heh T.V. or public radio would have a lot of fun doing the background
with segments on Green Gauss, Heaviside, Newton e.t.c. to give the
debate more flavor tho
the verbalising is going to get so fierce that the West coast NASA and
the CB ers may demand that Maxwell be dug up to talk on his own behalf
and offcourse MIT will make similar
demands for Gauss so both Gauss and Maxwell can apply for a visa
beforehand. As for the USPTO they have got the money so the outcome of
the patent rerquest doesn't really matter!
People with colds must not be allowed in as both Gauss and
Maxwell won't want to hear anything to do with coffin!!
Maybe U tube would be a better stage to air the subject so the public
can see a punch up!!!!!
Somebody alert 60 minuits
Art


Re
MIT vs Nasa and the CBersc

Oh forgot to mention, astronaut diapers will be made available for
hams ooooops no, CB ers incase things go against them
Art

Gaussian statics law
 

Now thats more like it..

Who's next?

D

Gaussian statics law
 

wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

snip

My presumption is that "special properties" and "some kinds of light"
are congruent. Again, it appears to be as tautological as might my
examples of "extraordinary properties."

Where does this lead us?

To the conclusion that a photon is a photon.

All photons propagate the same way.

Electromagnetic radiation is electromagnetic radiation.

All electromagnetic radiation propagates the same way.

The interaction of electromagnetic radiation and matter is a function
of the photon energy, which is a function of the photon frequency.


Agreed with all the above, but...

There is no hard and fast dividing line between antennas and optics.

Certainly no hard and fast line, because the same basic physics applies
at all frequencies and wavelengths. But there are HUGE differences in
the size and importance of some effects, for RF and for light.

We cannot tell how big those differences are by just talking about them.
We need to rub a few numbers together, and then see what comes out.

So the very first step into quantum mechanics is to put some numbers
into the E=hf equation. This immediately proves that quantum effects
(although still theoretically present) are too small to be of any
practical importance in antenna engineering. At that point, any sensible
person would realise they had taken a wrong turning, and get straight
back on the road.

For antenna engineering, that road is ENTIRELY built on the classical
physics of the 18th-19th century. It can be a hard road to travel, but
it's a reliably straight one. Any side turnings are NOT going to be
short-cuts to a better understanding.



--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

Gaussian statics law
 

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

[snip]

For antenna engineering, that road is ENTIRELY built on the classical
physics of the 18th-19th century. It can be a hard road to travel, but
it's a reliably straight one. Any side turnings are NOT going to be
short-cuts to a better understanding.

Ian,

For the misunderstood and unappreciated "inventor", hope springs eternal.

It's all for the good, however. RRAA would simply fade away without
fractals, crossed-fields, RoomCaps, unmodelable structures, traveling
waves, one-second long transmission lines, Poynting vectors, etc.

73,
Gene
W4SZ