Mike Coslo wrote:
If RF energy has mass ...

The mass of each photon is:

m = e/c2 = h/c*lambda

where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light,
and lambda is the wavelength.

The reason that your experiment won't work is that
equal amounts of energy are being supplied to and
radiated (or conducted) from a transmitting antenna.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sep 5, 11:36*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:
If RF energy has mass ...

The mass of each photon is:

m = e/c2 = h/c*lambda

where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light,
and lambda is the wavelength.

The reason that your experiment won't work is that
equal amounts of energy are being supplied to and
radiated (or conducted) from a transmitting antenna.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

Where exactly does a photon come from and what does it consist of?
Mass with potential energy or what? This word is bandied around so
much
but its existence has not been verified as yet by it's capture!
This approach has handicapped the advance in physics and radio for
over a century now.
Should we not explore a different avenue to see if answers lay
elsewhere.? Why do we resist change to so called accepted analogies
and theories? Why is this group so confident
that particles are not involved because it is an electrical thing? If
one accepts kinetic and potential energy why do they fight the
presence of mass?
Regards
Art

Art Unwin wrote:
Where exactly does a photon come from and what does it consist of?
... its existence has not been verified as yet by it's capture!

Photons are quantized elementary particles in the standard
model. Every time you see something, like this posting of mine,
you are capturing the photons incident upon your retina.

Double slit experiments with photons have been performed
with a single photon which apparently can go through both
slits at the same time and interfere with itself on the
other side. Those photon detectors indeed can capture
individual photons.

Photons are quite often generated and detected within
particle accelerators.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sep 5, 1:22*pm, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
Where exactly does a photon come from and what does it consist of?
... its existence has not been verified as yet by it's capture!

Photons are quantized elementary particles in the standard
model. Every time you see something, like this posting of mine,
you are capturing the photons incident upon your retina.

Double slit experiments with photons have been performed
with a single photon which apparently can go through both
slits at the same time and interfere with itself on the
other side. Those photon detectors indeed can capture
individual photons.

Photons are quite often generated and detected within
particle accelerators.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

My problem is with how photons fit in with radiation?
It is a nice name but how does it get launched and where did it come
from?
Personaly I can't distinguish it from a particle at rest on a radiator
or how it can possibly get attached to it which apparently you
believe. I just want to see how this proton fits in with what we know.
Waves or particles.

Art Unwin wrote:
My problem is with how photons fit in with radiation?
It is a nice name but how does it get launched and where did it come
from?
Personaly I can't distinguish it from a particle at rest on a radiator
or how it can possibly get attached to it which apparently you
believe. I just want to see how this proton fits in with what we know.
Waves or particles.

EM radiation waves *are* groups of quantized coherent
particles. It's called the wave/particle duality. If
one is expecting a wave, one detects a wave. If one
is expecting particles, one detects particles. In
reality, there is no difference between waves and
particles which existed long before man evolved.

If you will simply conceptually replace whatever particle
that you believe is blasted off the surface of a radiator
with a photon radiated by an energetic electron that
remains on the surface of the radiator, you will
have the presently accepted standard physics model.

For something resembling your concepts, one might say that
the RF source supplies the energy for the bullets fired
by the electron gun located on the surface of the radiator.
The gun didn't have any bullets before the source supplied
the energy for them. Once the electron gun is loaded,
Mother Nature pulls the trigger.

A photon at rest on a radiator is undetectable if it can
exist at all. The theory is that photons are created by
supplying energy to electrons. Photons are the method that
electrons use to shed their excess energy.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sep 6, 8:30*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
My problem is with how photons fit in with radiation?
It is a nice name but how does it get launched and where did it come
from?
Personaly I can't distinguish it from a particle at rest on a radiator
or how it can possibly get attached to it which apparently you
believe. I just want to see how this proton fits in with what we know.
Waves or particles.

EM radiation waves *are* groups of quantized coherent
particles. It's called the wave/particle duality. If
one is expecting a wave, one detects a wave. If one
is expecting particles, one detects particles. In
reality, there is no difference between waves and
particles which existed long before man evolved.

If you will simply conceptually replace whatever particle
that you believe is blasted off the surface of a radiator
with a photon radiated by an energetic electron that
remains on the surface of the radiator, you will
have the presently accepted standard physics model.

For something resembling your concepts, one might say that
the RF source supplies the energy for the bullets fired
by the electron gun located on the surface of the radiator.
The gun didn't have any bullets before the source supplied
the energy for them. Once the electron gun is loaded,
Mother Nature pulls the trigger.

A photon at rest on a radiator is undetectable if it can
exist at all. The theory is that photons are created by
supplying energy to electrons. Photons are the method that
electrons use to shed their excess energy.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

What you refer to as a photon I refer to as a particle
I refer to it as a particle because of the Gauss connection.
One can also use same with a capacitor where the particle
is retained between two diamagnetic surfaces and the
charge may transfer. Would you have it that a capacitor retains
protons which is a particle ?
With my analysis it has a trail but yours seem to be just snippets.
Perhaps you should provide a response to the Gauss/Maxwell thread
where only one academic has come out in favour of David, whereas all
others are unsure of the limits of the law on statics. I consider that
the beginning of my trail, so how does yours differ.
The thread is still there!

of a electrostatic field

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 6, 8:30 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
What you refer to as a photon I refer to as a particle
I refer to it as a particle because of the Gauss connection.

photons are and always have ben particles!

One can also use same with a capacitor where the particle
is retained between two diamagnetic surfaces and the
charge may transfer. Would you have it that a capacitor retains
protons which is a particle ?

yes, i would also have it retain electrons. but i would not have it retain
photons.

Art Unwin wrote:
What you refer to as a photon I refer to as a particle

So do I. "The photon is the gauge boson for electro-
magnetism." Particles are easier to understand than fields.
According to quantum (particle) physics, everything that
exists in reality is a particle, i.e. everything that exists
is quantized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_model

Would you have it that a capacitor retains
protons which is a particle?

A capacitor retains electrons which can be collected
on a capacitor plate. (Photons cannot stand still and,
by definition, always travel at the speed of light in
the particular medium. This includes photons in standing
waves.)

"In the Standard Model of particle physics, electrons belong
to the group of subatomic particles called leptons ..."

With my analysis it has a trail but yours seem to be just snippets.

My snippets are sections from the standard model about
which I will choose to stand on the shoulders of giants.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sep 6, 8:30*am, Cecil Moore wrote:
Art Unwin wrote:
My problem is with how photons fit in with radiation?
It is a nice name but how does it get launched and where did it come
from?
Personaly I can't distinguish it from a particle at rest on a radiator
or how it can possibly get attached to it which apparently you
believe. I just want to see how this proton fits in with what we know.
Waves or particles.

EM radiation waves *are* groups of quantized coherent
particles. It's called the wave/particle duality. If
one is expecting a wave, one detects a wave. If one
is expecting particles, one detects particles. In
reality, there is no difference between waves and
particles which existed long before man evolved.

If you will simply conceptually replace whatever particle
that you believe is blasted off the surface of a radiator
with a photon radiated by an energetic electron that
remains on the surface of the radiator, you will
have the presently accepted standard physics model.

For something resembling your concepts, one might say that
the RF source supplies the energy for the bullets fired
by the electron gun located on the surface of the radiator.
The gun didn't have any bullets before the source supplied
the energy for them. Once the electron gun is loaded,
Mother Nature pulls the trigger.

A photon at rest on a radiator is undetectable if it can
exist at all. The theory is that photons are created by
supplying energy to electrons. Photons are the method that
electrons use to shed their excess energy.
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, *http://www.w5dxp.com

So you are saying they are one and the same where a wave is a
adjective describing the action of a spining particle. Interesting you
quote the electron gun. We have an electron
without a spin and certainly not with the speed of light. So we supply
a electrostatic field which intersects a magnetic field. When this
electron ,particle proton or what ever enters the area betwean the
capacitive plates. At that time the article ( not to take sides)
starts to accelerate under the influence of both fields such that it
takes on a parabolic spin.
When it exits this combined field it obviously takes a straight line
projection with spin.
Now without the fields influence we move beyond acceleration where
the speed can be determined. It is proven that it is a certain speed
that was later determined as also the speed of light. So, we have a
beam which is certainly not of a wave but a stream of particles which
operate at the same speed as light. Very interesting. This moves away
from Rutherford wave theory. Along comes the slit experiment which
then sways back thought to the wave theory which is a convenient wy of
saying it is undecided.
Now we have the slit antenna that sways the argument back to particles
which has a connection to light and spin and the acelerration of
charge. No where has the propasition of a photons being around is
stated. Now you state that a photon exists dependent on the rate of
spin to shed light So where did this photon emerge from?
It certainly did not come from mass as that can only happen when the
nucleus of an atom is torn apart as you point out with a atomic
explosion which is the result of what is called the Strong force and
that is not happening. So if you provide an answer to the posted
question posed on Gauss and Maxwell we can then follow on to explore
your reasoning. But you must start from somewhere that is accordance
with accepted laws. I have done that where you have not. So the
question posted is salient to this whole discussion and your education
suggests you are up to the task so what is it that you are uneasy
about?

"Art Unwin" wrote in message
...
On Sep 6, 8:30 am, Cecil Moore wrote:
We have an electron without a spin and certainly not with the speed of
light.

you can't have an electron without spin, it always has the same spin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

snip a bunch of incoherent babbling

So where did this photon emerge from?
It certainly did not come from mass as that can only happen when the
nucleus of an atom is torn apart as you point out with a atomic
explosion which is the result of what is called the Strong force and
that is not happening.

ever hear of electrons changing state and emitting photons? or the
photoelectric effect?? neither require strong force or nuclear reactions.