Cecil Moore wrote:
Gene Fuller wrote:
Why do you seem to believe that bringing photons into the discussion
adds any light? (pun intended)

Does the word "photon" sound more hifalutin than "wave"?

Using "photons" instead of "EM waves" makes things a little
more obvious. While "standing EM waves" may imply EM waves
that are standing still, "standing photons" are obviously
impossible. Photons cannot stand still. EM waves cannot
stand still for the same reason. A "standing EM wave" is
a human abstraction that doesn't really exist in reality.

The only people with something to gain by objecting to
the use of "EM waves" and "photons" interchangeably are the
people trying to hoodwink the uninitiated into believing
that photons can stand still. :-)
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com


Cecil,

There seems to be a pretty fundamental disconnect here. Waves don't
create radiation; photons don't create radiation; accelerating charges
do create radiation.

You seem to be placing some sort of restriction on the motion of those
charges. They can move or stand still as they please. Some folks around
here appear to think that standing waves are totally inert, and
therefore totally useless or even fictitious. There are most definitely
accelerating charges in a standing wave, and that accelerated charge
generates the desired radiation. Call it "sloshing" if you wish, but it
still works.

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, and there is not even any insight gained into
the radiation mechanism at HF.

In case there is any doubt, let me say it again;

Adding photons into the discussion of HF radiation adds absolutely
nothing but confusion.

73,
Gene
W4SZ