Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:53:25 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

Ok. You might ask me, "Why do you laugh at people discussing antennas
emitting photons?

(You don't close quotes is one larf. Why people laugh is a condition
of creationist-like explanations that attend the topic.)

And, I would answer:

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

The explanation is simple. Because of the pun (intended or otherwise)
too many expect that the experience of "seeing" is sufficient to
understanding "visualization." Nothing could be further from the
truth. The quote that follows provides sufficient evidence to this:

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.

This confuses thinking with visualization now. Unfortunately it
proceeds from a false premise. It is also a false premise if we
simply ignore "photon" and discuss this in the rather more prosaic
term of "fields."

All points of all surfaces are active emitters. Your "perception"
(visualization) is a far field response of the total contributions of
all sources and their phases. This perception creates an "illusion."
Illusions are fun and interesting, but they bear only on cognitive
issues, not Physics.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Unless there is a clear, defined and model-able example of why a "rf
photon" would behave different than a "light photon"--I expect both to
obey current laws/actions/expected-behaviors.

However, everyone enjoys a good fairytale, now and then.

There it is == "

The missing double quote! :-)

Regards,
JS

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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

John

Imagine your ribbon antena flattened to the thickness of a razor blade.
Instead of using RF, heat the antenna with a blow torch until it becomes
white hot.

It is only when looking at the exact edge of the antenna that any
appreciable drop in light out put will be noticed. At all broadside angles
an appreciable amount of light would be seen. The same effects can be
expected to occur at RF but the majority of amateur test equipment would not
have the resolution to measure the dip with the antenna edge on. The width
of the receiving antenna and diffraction effects would tend to hide this in
the far field, and alignment, reflection effects and manufacturing
tolerances in the near field.

An example from nature can be seen when looking at the planet Saturn. The
rings are clearly visible through even a small telescope except for a couple
of weeks when they are aligned exactly edge on to the earth. Even at very
oblique angles, enough light is reflected to make them quite visible.

Mike G0ULI

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

On 29 Aug, 14:57, John Smith wrote:
Richard Clark wrote:

...

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Unless there is a clear, defined and model-able example of why a "rf
photon" would behave different than a "light photon"--I expect both to
obey current laws/actions/expected-behaviors.

However, everyone enjoys a good fairytale, now and then.

There it is == "

The missing double quote! :-)

Regards,
JS

Intersting debating point as to whether it is a fairy tail!
May I point out that a H bomb explosion creats via the velocity of the
explosion
radiation with out the use of a resonant element! In the old days we
used a spark gap to create
radiation again without a resonant element! Tho scientists would say
that it is a consequence
of time varient current and thus settle on the current change of
velocity ie accelleration, They could have easily stated that
radiation is pulsed form after all current does go thru zero and
Newton himself phrased it as "packets"
of radiation in his day. But keeping to the same rules of the Masters
of what creats radiation one could easily see from the explosion
theory that radiation is created by the exchange of energy between
capapaciters and inductance
each of which provides a explosion when shorted at the end of each
cycle which promotes the particulate theorem without conflict with the
Masters. I would remind you that "Gausses theorem" with respect to
equilibrium supports the particulate theorem which to the surprise of
many is supported by Maxwells equations. I read the reply that you got
but I could not determine his position if any or what points he was
trying to make...if any.
A point to ponder on, capacitance and inductance are both capable of
energy storage and shorting the terminals is time varient to eject
particulates at a high velocity thus creatin two pulses per cycle and
where in their absence scientists have only time varient current to
hang their hats on for the wave theorem.
Regards
Art

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Get a copy of Richard Feynman's "QED". It's 4 of his lectures on the
subject.

jk

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

On Aug 29, 4:11 pm, "Mike Kaliski" wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message

...



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

John

Imagine your ribbon antena flattened to the thickness of a razor blade.
Instead of using RF, heat the antenna with a blow torch until it becomes
white hot.

It is only when looking at the exact edge of the antenna that any
appreciable drop in light out put will be noticed. At all broadside angles
an appreciable amount of light would be seen. The same effects can be
expected to occur at RF but the majority of amateur test equipment would not
have the resolution to measure the dip with the antenna edge on. The width
of the receiving antenna and diffraction effects would tend to hide this in
the far field, and alignment, reflection effects and manufacturing
tolerances in the near field.

Or perhaps more appropriately, with visible light being around 500
nanometers wavelength, imagine your antenna wire being about 0.01
nanometers thick and 1 nanometer wide (and 250 nanometers long, if you
wish) ... Now does you intuition tell you anything useful about the
angular distribution of emitted photons? I suppose not.

Cheers,
Tom

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

Mike Kaliski wrote:

...
It is only when looking at the exact edge of the antenna that any
appreciable drop in light out put will be noticed. At all broadside
angles an appreciable amount of light would be seen. The same effects
can be expected to occur at RF but the majority of amateur test
equipment would not have the resolution to measure the dip with the
antenna edge on. The width of the receiving antenna and diffraction
effects would tend to hide this in the far field, and alignment,
reflection effects and manufacturing tolerances in the near field.
...
Mike G0ULI

The eye, like the ear, has defects, in the fact it is not linear.

However, if a ribbon the width and depth of a razor blade is white hot,
a light meter available and rotated around this ribbon--the least energy
would come from the side, the most from the flat. There would be
something of a linear graph in the 90 degree rotation between thinnest
to broadest ... please, don't attempt to kid a kidder.

Regards,
JS

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

John Smith wrote:

...
Regards,
JS

And, oh.

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

JS

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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.....


Ed K7AAT

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
Try the combination of all amplitudes and phases at a distance (pretty
usual stuff already covered).
...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

For you Richard, just remember to stand the broadside of a stove on cold
winter days--wouldn't want 'ya to catch yer death of cold! :-)

Regards,
JS

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:22:30 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

For you Richard, just remember to stand the broadside of a stove on cold
winter days--wouldn't want 'ya to catch yer death of cold! :-)

That has nothing to do with Photons.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
That has nothing to do with Photons.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Your post has nothing to do with my wifes' earlier email!

Well, other than they are both text, both sent over the internet, both
are smtp protocols, both are typed, both required the use of a computer,
both were/are in english--well, 'ya know what I mean ... :-)

Regards,
JS

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:35:10 -0700, John Smith
wrote:

Well, other than they are both text, both sent over the internet, both
are smtp protocols

Even there you remain in error. NNTP. (nothing notably transmitting
photons) protocol.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

Richard Clark wrote:

...
73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Yes, you are in error, NNTP is only a superset of smtp ... :-(

Regards,
JS

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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.

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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! ;-)

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Regards,
JS

My photon emitters a a flashlight, TV, computer monitor
and
my photon receivers are : eyes, cameras, and binoculars
my antenna only reflects incidental photons.
The amount of photons reflected is proportional to the exposed surface area.
amazing.
can you capture a photon and release it at Will?
Would Will need to duck, or would blinking suffice?
Is a photon a particle, or does it conform to the wave theory?
Since light cannot escape a black hole, can we assume light consists of
particles with mass?
Can these particles move slower than the so-called 'speed of light'?
Does high tide affect the speed of a photon?
At what point does a gravity wave affect a photon or light wave?
These questions need answers, gentlemen, so lets get with it.
Let me know when you're done.

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

K7ITM wrote:r
. . .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?
. . .

I know the answer to that one! And I also know who would be making the
majority of the postings.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

Roy Lewallen wrote in news:13dcljlrausna18
@corp.supernews.com:

I know the answer to that one! And I also know who would be making the
majority of the postings.

.... but, more importantly the last posting.

Owen

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

K7ITM wrote:

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


In ancient Sanskrit writings, written on palm leaves, in India,
long-long-ago, they described EVERYTHING only consisting of vibrations
(matter/energy) ... vibrational planes (dimensions), etc.

Perhaps, in the end, we will understand what they described ... or not.

Until then, let's have some fun. grin

Regards,
JS

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

Yes, that is it, strings!
*********************************

JS, you are falling behind, it is now branes, not strings...

Geez, keep up man!

denny / k8do

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

can you capture a photon and release it at Will?
YES, DONE WITH LASERS IN A COLD TRAP

Would Will need to duck, or would blinking suffice?
DEPENDS UPON THE ENERGY OF THE PHOTON - IF IT IS A GAMMA, THEN DUCK!
Is a photon a particle, or does it conform to the wave theory?
YES
Since light cannot escape a black hole, can we assume light consists of
particles with mass?
NO. IT IS ENERGY AND E=MC^2
Can these particles move slower than the so-called 'speed of light'?
YUP.... REMEMBER SPEED IS PROPORTIONAL TO TIME AND TIME IS
PROPORTIONAL TO VELOCITY IT IS ALL RELATIVE
Does high tide affect the speed of a photon?
YUP BUT MY STOPWATCH HAS TROUBLE WITH SUCH SMALL TIME CHANGES
At what point does a gravity wave affect a photon or light wave?
AT ALL POINTS
These questions need answers, gentlemen, so lets get with it.
Let me know when you're done.
DONE

WHAT DO I WIN?

denny / k8do

BTW, while this is done in the spirit of fun all answers are accurate
as best I can make them based on my understanding of physics

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

Denny wrote:
Yes, that is it, strings!
*********************************

JS, you are falling behind, it is now branes, not strings...

Geez, keep up man!

I'm having trouble keepin' up too! Lemme get this straight.... If we
visualize the photons as little burritos or somethin' like that...

Or maybe one of those moose toy things that when you pull the tail it
poops little jellybeans?


ARrgh!

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

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

Photon vs Wave emissions from antennas?
 

John Smith wrote:
Yes, that is it, strings!

String theory does seem to resolve the
wave-particle "duality" problem.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com