Cecil Moore wrote:
Ed G wrote:

How is it that you guys are comparing the photon, a sub-atomic
particle without mass, to electromagnetic radiation/waves? I don't
see a basis for comparison.....


EM waves are sets of coherent photons.

This is actually a good one. Planck, Newton and Feynman ... and missing
quotations, nuclear emissions and internet arcana. Hello to Richard,
Cecil and the rest and thanks for an enjoyable thread.

John
AB8O

PS, from a non-physicist perspective, "duality" is a concept that is fun
to debate. There might be extra innings.

jawod wrote:

...
This is actually a good one. Planck, Newton and Feynman ... and missing
quotations, nuclear emissions and internet arcana. Hello to Richard,
Cecil and the rest and thanks for an enjoyable thread.

John
AB8O

PS, from a non-physicist perspective, "duality" is a concept that is fun
to debate. There might be extra innings.

evil grin

Regards,
JS

jawod wrote:
PS, from a non-physicist perspective, "duality" is a concept that is fun
to debate.

For some individuals, it is a thorn in the side. :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

EM waves are sets of coherent photons.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

So Cecil , what should I call incoherent photons?
and welcome back

Anyway, back at the ranch, no one has brought up quantum
electrodynamics (Feynman would be unhappy - since all the photons
leaving the surface of the white hot, rotating, razor blade will
occupy all possible paths from there to your eye - including having
all of them emanate only from the razor's edge for an instant)

And, no one has invoked Schroedinger since looking at that photon will
cause it to disappear...

Now, let me discuss Alice - had Alice taken more of the potion and
grown large enough that the lens and retina of her eyes were millions
of 80 meter wavelengths across, she would indeed see your antenna glow
with pulses of 'light' as you key your transmitter, dit dit dit
dahhhhhh...

Speaking of which, I now feel the urge to put Beethoven's Fifth on the
turntable...

denny

Denny wrote:
So Cecil , what should I call incoherent photons?

I'm not sure but I'm pretty sure you cannot
call them a single wave (function).

Speaking of which, I now feel the urge to put Beethoven's Fifth on the
turntable...

I prefer Glenlivet's fifth on my table.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

On Aug 29, 12:53 pm, John Smith wrote:
Ok. You might ask me, "Why do you laugh at people discussing antennas
emitting photons?

And, I would answer:

Photon emissions from an antenna element(s) seems difficult, at best, to
visualize (no pun intended.)

Consider a 1/2 inch dia. single element antenna (monopole?) If the
thing is emitting photons, one would think the photons are being emitted
equally around the elements circumference.

Well, now flatten that 1/2 dia rod into a very thin ribbon--however, the
ribbon still has the same area of cross section, and equal to the cross
section of the round rod. If this conductor is emitting photons, one
would expect them, now, to be off the two flat sides of the element and
relative few off the sides--indeed, one would now expect this element to
be becoming directional in two favored directions--off the flat sides
... to date, I have NOT been able to measure an acceptable difference to
reinforce the "illumination properties" of the element.

The photon/wave properties of rf still remains a mystery ... and proof
hard to come by.

Regards,
JS

You'd have just as much trouble understanding the behaviour of visible-
light photons, given your desire to view them, apparently, as you
would billiard balls or some other macro-size physical object. You
might enjoy reading how Feynmann described the behaviour in his
physics lectures at Cal Tech. It's something along the lines of,
"They behave differently than anything you have any experience with.
Much differently."

On the other hand, there's probably not much utility in discussing
photons of, say, a 14MHz signal, simply because the energy contained
in one quantum at that frequency is so small that you won't be able to
detect it: a little less than 10^-26 joules per photon. At one
photon per second, that's under 10^-26 watts, if you collect all the
energy. At 50 ohms, that's less than a picovolt. Noise in a 1Hz
bandwidth in a 50 ohm resistor at room temperature is about a
thousand times that much. -- Yes, the energy is quantized. But the
quanta are going to be _very_ difficult to distinguish.

Cheers,
Tom

K7ITM wrote:

...
On the other hand, there's probably not much utility in discussing
photons of, say, a 14MHz signal, simply because the energy contained
in one quantum at that frequency is so small that you won't be able to
detect it: a little less than 10^-26 joules per photon. At one
photon per second, that's under 10^-26 watts, if you collect all the
energy. At 50 ohms, that's less than a picovolt. Noise in a 1Hz
bandwidth in a 50 ohm resistor at room temperature is about a
thousand times that much. -- Yes, the energy is quantized. But the
quanta are going to be _very_ difficult to distinguish.

Cheers,
Tom


If there are, indeed, as many photons being emitted by the thin edge of
the ribbon, as by the broad edges, what law/effect/affect is being
demonstrated here?

Or. why are the photons "drawn" to the thin edge with such magnitude of
force?

If this ribbon was white hot (even infrared) a meter would indicate more
energy from the greatest surface area. Occams' razor is wrong, again?

I have never read of the phenomenon you seem to be suggesting here ...

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:

...
I have never read of the phenomenon you seem to be suggesting here ...

Regards,
JS

Actually, that is not quite true as stated. I should have said, "I have
not read of that phenomenon occurring with photons. Electrons? Yes.
Photons? No.

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:

...
Regards,
JS

And, oh.

The missing double quotes, for Richards benefit == " :-)

JS

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:35:40 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

If there are, indeed, as many photons being emitted by the thin edge of
the ribbon, as by the broad edges, what law/effect/affect is being
demonstrated here?

Try the combination of all amplitudes and phases at a distance (pretty
usual stuff already covered).

Or. why are the photons "drawn" to the thin edge with such magnitude of
force?

What force? Give us a number, Tom did.

If this ribbon was white hot (even infrared) a meter would indicate more
energy from the greatest surface area. Occams' razor is wrong, again?

I have never read of the phenomenon you seem to be suggesting here ...

Consult Planck where it (predating the term photon) is summed up in
two variables and one constant.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC