On 10/9/2014 1:19 AM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/8/2014 9:06 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/8/2014 7:14 PM, wrote:
gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...

All electromagnetic radiation is photons, no matter what generated
the
photons, be it a burning match or current in a conductor.

By just a naming convention, or by detectable individual wave packets?

By over 100 years of research into the nature of electromagnetic
radiation.

Were I to transmit a single unmodulated carrier at 3.6MHZ, how many
of your
photons
per second would be generated, and, as each photon is a packet with
amplitude
rise and fall times, why isn't the extra bandwidth due to that AM
detectable?

Likely because your assumptions and questions are babble.

Start with "each photon is a packet with amplitude rise and fall times".

They are not.

Each photon has an energy E=hf, where f is frequency and h is Planck's
constant.

No packets, no rise and fall times.

That's not perfectly correct. A photon may not be a wave packet, but it
is a particle with mass and size which could be interpreted as having
rise and fall times. However... they are all identical and any one
photon could not be modulated.


Rick,

While agree with your statement, I have another problem with physics as
a whole. Einstein proved that it would take an infinite amount of
energy to accelerate ANY mass to the speed of light. However, photons
seem to have mass and travel at the speed of light. My knowledge of
physics does not allow me to resolve this contradiction.

Start he

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




I've read much more than a simple Wikipedia article. And the only thing
I can come up with is that physicists can't explain the why either -
just that it's the way the math works out.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m166ia$u7a$2@dont-
email.me:

I've read much more than a simple Wikipedia article. And the only thing
I can come up with is that physicists can't explain the why either -
just that it's the way the math works out.


That gets very (and unavoidably) metaphysical because the question becomes
whether the maths is a possibly flawed model, an extrapolation of some
original observation, or whether the maths as information is as fundamental,
if not more so, than mass-energy itself. After trying for some time, I
decided to let that line of inquiry drop.

On 10/9/2014 10:46 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m166ia$u7a$2@dont-
email.me:

I've read much more than a simple Wikipedia article. And the only thing
I can come up with is that physicists can't explain the why either -
just that it's the way the math works out.


That gets very (and unavoidably) metaphysical because the question becomes
whether the maths is a possibly flawed model, an extrapolation of some
original observation, or whether the maths as information is as fundamental,
if not more so, than mass-energy itself. After trying for some time, I
decided to let that line of inquiry drop.


I don't think it's really a metaphysical question, nor that the math is
flawed. I think it's more the inability to explain it to me due to my
lack of understanding of the basics behind it.

Looking back 50 years (back when subatomic particles such as quarks,
muons, etc. were still in an early theoretical stage), I wish I would
have become a theoretical physicist. Not that I would have won a Nobel
Prize or anything (I wouldn't), but I think my life would have been much
more enjoyable. I've always loved math, but at the time I had gotten
hooked on electronics. Not that I regret that decision - I don't. But
the more I see about what physicists are discovering, the more I want to
be involved.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m16b3a$d52$1@dont-
email.me:

I've always loved math, but at the time I had gotten
hooked on electronics. Not that I regret that decision - I don't. But
the more I see about what physicists are discovering, the more I want to
be involved.


I got into electronics too, but it had more to do with the little neon bulbs
than the maths. The things totally fascinated me as a kid. IO was never
good at maths, I only got to grips with logarithms because I needed them to
make a phase mod synth actually happen, with my own code.

Maybe my use of word 'metaphysical' is badly chosen, what I really mean is
that no usefully predictive theory (so far as I know) models information in a
coherently or structured link as mass is to energy. If it did the worth of
maths changes entirely from an explanatory device, to a means of actually
making stuff. The patterns of numbers are as 'out there' as any physical
discovery, so perhaps this is so. The bit that does get tangled with
metaphysics is that if this is so, then our thought (as well as our
observations, a fact already established in quantum theory) shapes our world
in ways more fundamentally direct than we usually imagine. It opens up
questions as to whether the ever present risk of war is due to the human
obsession with it rather than anything else, and perhaps the reason that
physists, despite having created the atomic bomb, tend not to 'do war'
precisely because they're usually too busy thinking deeply about other
things.

On 10/9/2014 10:36 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 1:19 AM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/8/2014 9:06 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/8/2014 7:14 PM, wrote:
gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...

All electromagnetic radiation is photons, no matter what generated
the
photons, be it a burning match or current in a conductor.

By just a naming convention, or by detectable individual wave packets?

By over 100 years of research into the nature of electromagnetic
radiation.

Were I to transmit a single unmodulated carrier at 3.6MHZ, how many
of your
photons
per second would be generated, and, as each photon is a packet with
amplitude
rise and fall times, why isn't the extra bandwidth due to that AM
detectable?

Likely because your assumptions and questions are babble.

Start with "each photon is a packet with amplitude rise and fall times".

They are not.

Each photon has an energy E=hf, where f is frequency and h is Planck's
constant.

No packets, no rise and fall times.

That's not perfectly correct. A photon may not be a wave packet, but it
is a particle with mass and size which could be interpreted as having
rise and fall times. However... they are all identical and any one
photon could not be modulated.


Rick,

While agree with your statement, I have another problem with physics as
a whole. Einstein proved that it would take an infinite amount of
energy to accelerate ANY mass to the speed of light. However, photons
seem to have mass and travel at the speed of light. My knowledge of
physics does not allow me to resolve this contradiction.

Start he

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




I've read much more than a simple Wikipedia article. And the only thing
I can come up with is that physicists can't explain the why either -
just that it's the way the math works out.

You just don't get it. A photon has no rest mass. It only has it's
engergy. If it had rest mass and had to be accelerated to the speed of
light not only could it not accelerate to c, it couldn't accelerate
instantaneously to *any* speed.

The only mass a photon has is that which is equivalent to its energy, E
= mc^2.

--

Rick

On 10/9/2014 11:54 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 10:46 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m166ia$u7a$2@dont-
email.me:

I've read much more than a simple Wikipedia article. And the only thing
I can come up with is that physicists can't explain the why either -
just that it's the way the math works out.


That gets very (and unavoidably) metaphysical because the question becomes
whether the maths is a possibly flawed model, an extrapolation of some
original observation, or whether the maths as information is as fundamental,
if not more so, than mass-energy itself. After trying for some time, I
decided to let that line of inquiry drop.


I don't think it's really a metaphysical question, nor that the math is
flawed. I think it's more the inability to explain it to me due to my
lack of understanding of the basics behind it.

Right now I think your problem is that you are trying to think of
quantum mechanical theory in classical ways. QM doesn't require the
same things as classical mechanics. Often things just happen without an
underlying mechanism. Even in classical mechanics there are things
happening at the lowest level that we have to accept without
explanation, but we are used to that.

Here is an example. Why do like charges repel? There are a zillion
"why" questions that we just have to accept have no answers. But with
QM we get confused because the lack of answers are to questions we
normally can explain by CM hand waving.

--

Rick

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

Looking back 50 years (back when subatomic particles such as quarks,
muons, etc. were still in an early theoretical stage), I wish I would
have become a theoretical physicist. Not that I would have won a Nobel
Prize or anything (I wouldn't), but I think my life would have been much
more enjoyable. I've always loved math, but at the time I had gotten
hooked on electronics. Not that I regret that decision - I don't. But
the more I see about what physicists are discovering, the more I want to
be involved.

FWIW I started out to be a theoretical physicist then read a bunch of
salary surveys comparing pay scales for various science related professions.

I changed my major to engineering the next day.


--
Jim Pennino

On 10/9/2014 1:09 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 11:54 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 10:46 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m166ia$u7a$2@dont-
email.me:

I've read much more than a simple Wikipedia article. And the only
thing
I can come up with is that physicists can't explain the why either -
just that it's the way the math works out.


That gets very (and unavoidably) metaphysical because the question
becomes
whether the maths is a possibly flawed model, an extrapolation of some
original observation, or whether the maths as information is as
fundamental,
if not more so, than mass-energy itself. After trying for some time, I
decided to let that line of inquiry drop.


I don't think it's really a metaphysical question, nor that the math is
flawed. I think it's more the inability to explain it to me due to my
lack of understanding of the basics behind it.

Right now I think your problem is that you are trying to think of
quantum mechanical theory in classical ways. QM doesn't require the
same things as classical mechanics. Often things just happen without an
underlying mechanism. Even in classical mechanics there are things
happening at the lowest level that we have to accept without
explanation, but we are used to that.


Yes and no. I'm also trying to consider it in the QM domain, but there
is just too much unknown about it. And while we may have to accept
things without explanation, that's only because we don't have the
explanation yet. Much like the Curies and Roentgen not being able to
understand radiation and X-rays, respectively, even though they could
observe the results.

Here is an example. Why do like charges repel? There are a zillion
"why" questions that we just have to accept have no answers. But with
QM we get confused because the lack of answers are to questions we
normally can explain by CM hand waving.


That's simple. The last time a guy approached me, I was repelled!
Unlike that cute gal at the bar last night... Too bad I'm married

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

On 10/9/2014 1:04 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/9/2014 10:36 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/9/2014 1:19 AM, wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 10/8/2014 9:06 PM, rickman wrote:
On 10/8/2014 7:14 PM, wrote:
gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...

All electromagnetic radiation is photons, no matter what
generated
the
photons, be it a burning match or current in a conductor.

By just a naming convention, or by detectable individual wave
packets?

By over 100 years of research into the nature of electromagnetic
radiation.

Were I to transmit a single unmodulated carrier at 3.6MHZ, how many
of your
photons
per second would be generated, and, as each photon is a packet with
amplitude
rise and fall times, why isn't the extra bandwidth due to that AM
detectable?

Likely because your assumptions and questions are babble.

Start with "each photon is a packet with amplitude rise and fall
times".

They are not.

Each photon has an energy E=hf, where f is frequency and h is
Planck's
constant.

No packets, no rise and fall times.

That's not perfectly correct. A photon may not be a wave packet,
but it
is a particle with mass and size which could be interpreted as having
rise and fall times. However... they are all identical and any one
photon could not be modulated.


Rick,

While agree with your statement, I have another problem with physics as
a whole. Einstein proved that it would take an infinite amount of
energy to accelerate ANY mass to the speed of light. However, photons
seem to have mass and travel at the speed of light. My knowledge of
physics does not allow me to resolve this contradiction.

Start he

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




I've read much more than a simple Wikipedia article. And the only thing
I can come up with is that physicists can't explain the why either -
just that it's the way the math works out.

You just don't get it. A photon has no rest mass. It only has it's
engergy. If it had rest mass and had to be accelerated to the speed of
light not only could it not accelerate to c, it couldn't accelerate
instantaneously to *any* speed.

The only mass a photon has is that which is equivalent to its energy, E
= mc^2.


I understand it has no rest math. But where does the mass come from?
There has to be mass to exert pressure. Does the mass just appear from
nowhere? I doubt it...

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry, AI0K

==================

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

snip

I understand it has no rest math. But where does the mass come from?
There has to be mass to exert pressure. Does the mass just appear from
nowhere? I doubt it...

This is rather circular, but...

It comes from the energy of the photon and the energy of the photon
comes from whatever created the photon.

Specificially it come from the energy-momnetum relation.

See:

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

Look at the paragraph labled: The relativistic energy-momentum equation.

One way to look at it is that relativistic mass is not a real mass but
an effect that is equivelant to a mass.

If you really want to have something to wonder about, read up on tachyon
fields and imaginary mass:

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


--
Jim Pennino