Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 09:33:46 +0000, Ian White GM3SEK
wrote:

Quantum theory describes electromagnetic energy as being divided into a
series of packets called photons, so (total energy in a stream of
photons) = (number of photons/second) x (energy of individual photons).

Energy is not expressed with a time in the denominator. The standard
quantum theory expression for energy is eV - time is wholly absent as
it should be.


Sorry, that was an editing mistake: obviously it's power that includes
the time dimension, energy does not.


This also means that EM energy doesn't exist in pure sine-waves

EM theory does not exclude the classic description of pure sine waves.
This is not a neither/nor situation.

- the
waveform is actually built up in steps, very much like digitized audio.

This appears to be the beginnings of a description about to fall off
the edge. What waveform? This is a conceit of time.

The step size is the energy content of one quantum.

No, the step size as you describe is the potential difference of
quantization, an engineering term, not a quantum mechanics term. It
is quantisizing an amplitude to construct the wave in a time domain.
Quanta is the complete wave in a frequency domain.


Richard is right about that. Please ignore my remarks about quantization
within the waveform itself. The quantization only affects the total
quantity of energy; or the power level if you wish to consider the rate
of energy transfer.

However, that doesn't affect the main point: at normal radio
frequencies, RF energy is composed of unimaginably small packets, in
unimaginably large numbers. This means that quantization effects in
energy or power levels are utterly negligible, and we can always think
of RF energy or power as a continuous stream.

It's rather similar to being aware that electric current is actually
made up of individual electrons - it's interesting information, but
electronic engineering very rarely needs to acknowledge the existence of
individual electrons. Even less does antenna engineering need to
acknowledge the existence of individual RF photons.

As I said in the previous posting, the energy of EM photons is
proportional to the frequency, so quantization effects only begin to be
noticeable at frequencies of hundreds of gigahertz, and still only as a
small correction in measurements of the very lowest power levels we can
detect.

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.



--

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

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.

The origin in fact does change its character - that is the whole point
and it is an elemental point of sub-atomic physics at that. Can you
offer a counter-example or any example of Photon generation that
leaves no trace of change? I can offer one that doesn't, I can offer
one that does leave a trace (already done), and examples where the
photon originates from non-electron interaction.

For this last, they too inhabit wavelengths that are orders of
magnitude below the visible. Phononic-Photonic interactions may not
fill library shelves, but their several volumes that do fill at least
one shelf are quite thick. Beyond their contributions we find those
from Excitons, Polarons, Polaritons, Plasmons and so on down the
energy band into the less than milli-eV range. Such photon generation
is in a continuum of wavelengths that challenges the simple Lyman
series of discrete resonances (much less all the other series) you
alluded to previously. That continuum extends over great swaths of
the RF spectrum. To your credit, you allude to this spectrum but
underplay the consequences:
noticeable at frequencies of hundreds of gigahertz, and still only as a
small correction in measurements of the very lowest power levels we can
detect.
The effects are not marginally detectable and are the basis of a new
industry called Nanotechnology.

As for a torrent of quanta so tiny that their individual existence is
irrelevant, this distinction could be as easily lost on sunshine, much
less HF wavelengths. One can certainly find a power density from an
HF antenna that equals that of sunshine. The scale of comparing the
number of photons would be the difference between drinking out of a
firehose or a tidal wave. Clearly both have long escaped the
magnitudes of a gulp and to a drowning man, the comparison would be
ironically trivial.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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

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

On 12 Mar 2007 08:51:57 -0700, "art" wrote:

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

Hi Art,

Unfortunately John has proven that even (what you assume to be) an MIT
Don can get it wrong. He is not (just a software monkey like a lot of
us.) His references clearly show in exactly the same areas (chapter
and verse) how it is Maxwell's (actually Heavisides') equations that
add time to Gauss. In this case Feynman (the winner of the Nobel
prize in Physics) clearly states the time relationship introduced by
Maxwell two centuries ago.

I am quite sure the very book under your nose says exactly the same
thing, using exactly the same equations.

The long and short of it is exactly the same thing you've been told ad
infinitum, but have spit on those correspondents. The only thing
you've added is shooting sparks (must be related to that spit thing)
and pixie sticks.

Haven't you left yet?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

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

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

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

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

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