Richard Clark wrote in
:

On 30 Aug 2007 01:04:08 GMT, 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.....

Hi Ed,

Mass as a basis of comparison implied:
How much do your electromagnetic radiation/waves weigh?
How thick is sunlight on your arm while driving?

If they don't compare, then these questions should reveal differences
when light is substituted for waves (and versa-visa).

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC



Sorry, the above just doesn't compute with me. I'll sit aside in
this thread and just watch.....

Ed

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.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Ed G wrote:

...
Sorry, the above just doesn't compute with me. I'll sit aside in
this thread and just watch.....

Ed

Ed:

In a nut shell:

Light displays the qualities of consisting of photons AND waves.
Naturally the question arises, "Is light composed totally of one or the
other--or both?" (and, you can propose all sorts of side questions from
this one ...)

Some argue that this extends to rf also (at the top of the microwaves
there is the infrared, at least enough to gain ones' attention.) And,
some even go as far as to say rf is composed of photons--ONLY, but these
have wave qualities.

This URL should get you well established on the ground floor of this
ongoing debate and "friendly" argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

Regards,
JS

Cecil Moore wrote:

...
EM waves are sets of coherent photons.

Cecil:

I composed this thread with you in mind.

Welcome back from retirement. The level of argument you bring was
sorely missed. :-)

Regards,
JS

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

On Aug 29, 5:35 pm, John Smith wrote:
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?

The 14MHz photons are being emitted by the whole antenna, not by
"broad edges" or "thin edges" as you suggest. You seem to be thinking
of them as little tiny balls, or some such. That mental image just
doesn't hold water. As I posted elsewhere in this thread, photons do
not behave like billiard balls. They don't behave like anything you
have encountered in the macro world we live in.

There are some decent "modern physics for the masses" books that will
explain to you some of the behaviour that you will probably think very
strange, if you are thinking in terms of how the macro particles
you're familiar with behave. Even particles like electrons, neutrons
and protons don't behave like large spheres. They have distinct "wave-
like" behaviour.

As a start, it would probably help if you dropped "wave" and
"photon" (particle) from your vocabulary when dealing with things like
this and realize that the antenna emits a stream of quantized energy,
with characteristics that can be described accurately without
resorting to "particles" or "waves". If you had no idea what a
passenger airplane was, but you were familiar with birds and busses,
would you get into a discussion about the new thing being a bird and
not a bus, or a bus and not a bird? Or would you realize that it has
some characteristics of each, but is neither, and deserves a
description all its own? Quantized radiation is rather like that.
You will NOT describe it accurately as either "waves" or
"particles" (in the macro sense).

Cheers,
Tom

The following of yours is very interesting, very descriptive and sounds
very scientific.

So now, the only question left, which seems implied by you, is, "Do I
get it?"

To which I reply, EUREKA! YES! Indeed, since we got rid of photons and
waves--we are only left with quanta! And, if we now construct a
"quanta-antenna", such as you imply, we can have a "160 meter earth
scorcher" the size of pin head which is just as an efficient radiator as
the MONSTER in my backyard!

Thanks for the explanation--I won't forget you for awhile! grin

Regards,
JS

K7ITM wrote:
On Aug 29, 5:35 pm, John Smith wrote:
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?

The 14MHz photons are being emitted by the whole antenna, not by
"broad edges" or "thin edges" as you suggest. You seem to be thinking
of them as little tiny balls, or some such. That mental image just
doesn't hold water. As I posted elsewhere in this thread, photons do
not behave like billiard balls. They don't behave like anything you
have encountered in the macro world we live in.

There are some decent "modern physics for the masses" books that will
explain to you some of the behaviour that you will probably think very
strange, if you are thinking in terms of how the macro particles
you're familiar with behave. Even particles like electrons, neutrons
and protons don't behave like large spheres. They have distinct "wave-
like" behaviour.

As a start, it would probably help if you dropped "wave" and
"photon" (particle) from your vocabulary when dealing with things like
this and realize that the antenna emits a stream of quantized energy,
with characteristics that can be described accurately without
resorting to "particles" or "waves". If you had no idea what a
passenger airplane was, but you were familiar with birds and busses,
would you get into a discussion about the new thing being a bird and
not a bus, or a bus and not a bird? Or would you realize that it has
some characteristics of each, but is neither, and deserves a
description all its own? Quantized radiation is rather like that.
You will NOT describe it accurately as either "waves" or
"particles" (in the macro sense).

Cheers,
Tom

John Smith wrote:

...

The more I think about this, the clearer it gets.

What was wrong with me? Considering photons as little weightless,
billiard ball shaped "chunks" of energy?

I missed the boat, and early on--thick skulled and as slow as they come.
I now see 'em as cubes, tubes, polygons, irregular, indescribable,
ghostly, luminous, streaming strings ... of chunks of energy!

Yes, that is it, strings! And, it all fits! Dr. Michio Kaku has been
spouting string theory off the tops of high buildings for years--ahhh,
if only I'd had not been so dense--for so long ... :-(

Yes. This is quite better than my slow acceptance of the ether and "our
matter/energy" only existing as an "altered and unnatural form" of this
very same ether ...

I swear, sometimes I just need someone to save me from myself--my new
wife is beginning to, frequently, point this out to me--thank goodness!
Maybe next time, I just might have the good sense to listen. grin

Regards,
JS

On Aug 29, 8:55 pm, John Smith wrote:
The following of yours is very interesting, very descriptive and sounds
very scientific.

So now, the only question left, which seems implied by you, is, "Do I
get it?"

To which I reply, EUREKA! YES! Indeed, since we got rid of photons and
waves--we are only left with quanta! And, if we now construct a
"quanta-antenna", such as you imply, we can have a "160 meter earth
scorcher" the size of pin head which is just as an efficient radiator as
the MONSTER in my backyard!

Thanks for the explanation--I won't forget you for awhile! grin

Regards,
JS

Hey, great job of leaping to confusion, John! ;-)