Waves vs Particles
 

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:40:13 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

Your groupies will once again be sorely disappointed.

Thank heavens for that! You guys would be indistinguishable from
museum pieces if you didn't get dusted off once in a while.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Waves vs Particles
 

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 02:30:46 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:


"Richard Clark" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 18:40:13 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

Your groupies will once again be sorely disappointed.

Thank heavens for that! You guys would be indistinguishable from
museum pieces if you didn't get dusted off once in a while.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Yes, but what is the characteristic impedance of free space?

The value has been established; that I am sorely disappointing you has
been established; and that I am content with those outcomes has been
established. Any further interest for others is how long this groupie
drama of betrayed faith will play out.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Waves vs Particles
 

Peter wrote:
Question: If photons are stable, chargeless, massless elementary particles,
how do they react with anything?

"Stable" doesn't mean they are inert. Photons are
emitted and absorbed all the time while interacting
with other particles. I believe Hecht means that
photons don't decay over time all by themselves
(but there is some debate on that subject).
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Waves vs Particles
 

Peter wrote:
And as
far as I know there is no observations of radio signals changing frequency
due to distance by even the slightest degree.

I think you will find many examples from radio astronomy
where radio signals are red-shifted just like light.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Waves vs Particles
 

On 3 feb, 00:45, "AI4QJ" wrote:
"Wimpie" wrote in message

...



On 1 feb, 20:43, Cecil Moore wrote:
An airplane (particle) traveling at the speed of sound
causes shock waves in the air which, if passed through
double slits, would no doubt cause interference.

How about: A photon (particle) traveling at the speed
of light causes shock waves in the aether which, when
passed through double slits, causes interference?

Impossible for empty space - but we now know that space
is not empty. :-) Quoting "Alpha and Omega", by Seife,
"Empty space is an incredibly complex substance, and
scientists are just beginning to understand its properties."
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Hello Cecil,

I don't believe you can compare the two phenomena.

The photons are created because of an accelerating charge (so the
photon is the wave itself, not the source that created the wave).

Does the wave have energy?

Hint: The correct answer will tell you if the photon has mass.

AI4QJ

Hello,

I am not a specialist in relativity. The EM shock wave generated by
the particle with rest mass (for example electron) entering a medium
with c v(particle) contains energy, but as far as I know, the photon
has no rest mass, it carries momentum. It can therefore exert a force
on an object (radiation pressure in classic electromagnetic theory).

Best regards,

Wim
PA3DJS.

Waves vs Particles
 

John Smith wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:

...
You mean the "creation sciences?" Having your mind programmed with
fairy tales is no education at all.

Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Creation sciences? H*ll man, you know that takes a belief system
surpassing a belief it God! Indeed, if you can believe that, life came
from rock, let me tell you about the bridge I got for sale!
GRINNING-BEYOND-BELIEF-I-HAVE-FOUND-SUCH-AN-EXTRAORDINARY-IDIOT!

But, heck man, you already knew that--and, if not, everyone else did!

:-D

Regards to the IDIOT,
JS

Q.E.D.

Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Waves vs Particles
 

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
et...
Peter wrote:
And as far as I know there is no observations of radio signals changing
frequency due to distance by even the slightest degree.

I think you will find many examples from radio astronomy
where radio signals are red-shifted just like light.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

I understand red-shift in terms of astronomy, but you can never be sure of
all the effect in that situation such as acceleration and gravity. I suggest
that there is no observations of radio signals changing frequency due to
distance under lab conditions, which I still believe would be a relatively
easy test.
--
Peter VK6YSF

http://members.optushome.com.au/vk6ysf/vk6ysf/main.htm

Waves vs Particles
 

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 17:00:34 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

Your groupies will once again be sorely disappointed.

Thank heavens for that! You guys would be indistinguishable from
museum pieces if you didn't get dusted off once in a while.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Yes, but what is the characteristic impedance of free space?

The value has been established; that I am sorely disappointing you has
been established; and that I am content with those outcomes has been
established. Any further interest for others is how long this groupie
drama of betrayed faith will play out.

So you now agree that I was correct in saying that Zo free space = 377 Ohms
and Roy was wrong in saying it was = 1 Ohm?
You still have a chance to recover your cred, bro.

Have you been reading any of this?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Waves vs Particles
 

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 16:57:50 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:

I assume you made a typo when you say cv; you meant vc.

He didn't. It is most common and evident (meaning you can trust your
eyes this time) in cooling water pools for nuclear reactors.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Waves vs Particles
 

On Feb 3, 2:47 pm, Richard Clark wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 17:00:34 -0500, "AI4QJ" wrote:
Your groupies will once again be sorely disappointed.

Thank heavens for that! You guys would be indistinguishable from
museum pieces if you didn't get dusted off once in a while.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Yes, but what is the characteristic impedance of free space?

The value has been established; that I am sorely disappointing you has
been established; and that I am content with those outcomes has been
established. Any further interest for others is how long this groupie
drama of betrayed faith will play out.

So you now agree that I was correct in saying that Zo free space = 377 Ohms
and Roy was wrong in saying it was = 1 Ohm?
You still have a chance to recover your cred, bro.

Have you been reading any of this?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hahahahaha! Thanks, Richard! ;-) I'd been wondering that myself.