Photons?
 

On 9/14/2015 2:59 PM, FBMBoomer wrote:
On 9/9/2015 11:14 AM, gareth wrote:
"Wayne" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote in message ...

1. For those who suggest that RF transmissions are made up of photons,
what is the amplitude envelope of each photon, and for how many cycles
does
it exist?

Consider this. Waves and photons exist in visible light at any
frequency.
If the frequency is lowered below the visible spectrum all the way
down to
say, 1 MHz, at what point do the photons disappear?
Or do they just get weak?

Photons exist in visible light at MANY frequencies where such frequencies
are generated by the transition of an electron to a lower energy orbit
around an atom.

What is the mechanism by which your photons at 1 MHz are created?



I am not arguing with you Gareth. I think I am agreeing. I am lacking in
theory. I freely admit that. I am going on common sense. Photons, light
move through our atmosphere in a straight line unless reflected by air
temperature layers or mirrors. EM radiation moves through our atmosphere
in a more complex way. It is reflected by our ionosphere or might be
absorbed by something.

How is that different between light and other EM radiation? Radio waves
are absorbed, refracted and reflected. Light waves are absorbed,
refracted and reflected.

The mistake (of many) that Gareth is making is in thinking that photons
and waves are created separately and differently. *All* EM radiation
can be viewed as photons or as waves depending on the nature of the
observation or interaction. It does not matter how they were generated,
they are just two ways of viewing the same thing. Consider the view of
a train from along side the railroad tracks. It is long and moving
fast. The same train as viewed from in front is not long at all and
instead of looking like it is moving, is getting larger. This is just
an analogy of course, but it shows that the two views reveal different
perspectives on the same thing. It doesn't matter how the train came to
be there, just how you look at it.


My receiving antenna is a shielded loop. The antenna itself is copper
and then it is covered with an aluminium shield that is grounded to stop
the electrical part of the EM transmission. This guarantees that I will
not receive any light/photons from my antenna.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. I don't know of loop antenna
that *are* sensitive to light???


It simply makes no sense to me that I am receiving any information via
light.

I would love to hear a simple explanation that explains to me why my
inverted V on 75 meters is emitting photons/light when I put 1500 watts
of power to it. I remember years ago in physics class that this
discussion came up in my college classroom. The professor told us that
EM transmission was completely different than the transmission of light.
It had occurred to me that if we built a transmitter on a frequency of
visible light that somehow light would be emitted from the antenna. He
said that there would be EM transmission but no light. I accepted his
opinion because he knew far more than myself.

Tell me how light is emitted in waves? How is that different from
transmissions of radio waves? Is light always particles? If so, how do
you explain diffraction? If light can be waves, how then can it be a
particle? The exact same source of light can be viewed as particles or
as waves.

Your professor was clearly wrong. I'm amazed he was teaching college.


I have accepted that explanation since 1968 when he was teaching that
class. What I hear being said here is that EM transmission is composed
of photons. I always thought of it as a simple electromagnetic wave,
like what we use in transformers and radio communications every day.

The issue is *not* are EM waves composed of photons. The issue is do
you "see" EM waves as photons or as waves? This depends on your method
of observation. Microwave ovens generate radio waves. Yet they are
absorbed as quanta by exciting the water molecules. Emitted as radio
waves, yet absorbed as photons...


Again, what I hear being said here is that radio waves are just lower
frequency light waves. Really?

Not looking for a flame war, just a simple answer to my question.

Yes, radio, microwaves, IR, visible light, UV light, x-rays, gamma rays
are all just one continuous spectrum of the exact same phenomenon,
existing as both waves and photons regardless of frequency or manner of
creation. Anyone who tells you differently does not understand EM
radiation... including your prior professors.

--

Rick

Photons?
 

In article ,
FBMBoomer wrote:

Now what ham radio needs is a completely new type of communication. I am
thinking of those twin particles that react to one another regardless of
distance and without the delay of distance.

You're thinking of entangled particles?

One of the weird things about entanglement (and what Einstein called
"spooky action at a distance") is the following paradox:

- Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of
entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the
other member of the pair. This effect occurs regardless of
distance, and isn't affected by lightspeed delay.

- You can't use this effect to send information faster than the speed
of light. At least, nobody has been able to, and (as I understand
it) there are good theoretical reasons to believe that it's just
not possible.

The reasons are (as I said, weird) that when you interact with
particle A, the effect on particle B is one which you can't actually
detect independently (that is, by measuring particle B alone). You
have to compare the measurement on Particle B, with information that
you can only get from the measurement that was taken Particle A, to
confirm that the effect actually occurred...

.... and in order to do this, you have to transmit that information
from the Particle A measurement site, to the particle B measurement
site, via some other means of communication... which occurs at the
speed of light (or slower).

I think this was demonstrated very well on Star Trek. They can talk
across light years instantly. To bad Gene is dead. He could have helped
us all out with just how to do this. It was in all the scripts, it must
be true. It is my mythology so don't be making fun of it.

:-)

'Tis a fine mythology, and a great technology to hope for (and try to
discover).

Unfortunately, all of the tests which have been done on entangled
systems keep showing that entanglement is real, but (like
"superluminal" phase velocity) can't be used to send information
faster than C.

It's very frustrating.

Photons?
 

On 9/14/2015 5:11 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
FBMBoomer wrote:

On 9/14/2015 2:15 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
FBMBoomer wrote:




Again, what I hear being said here is that radio waves are just lower
frequency light waves. Really?

Not looking for a flame war, just a simple answer to my question.

Yes, radio waves are just lower frequency light waves, and light waves
are just higher frequency radio waves. And both have the properties of
photons as well as the properties of waves.

The important thing to realise is that photons don't have to be linked
to light, despite their name, because the light-related name was just a
historical accident of how they were discovered. The photons equivalent
to lower frequency electromagnetic radiation such as radio waves can't
be seen and get to and from antennae even if they are effectively
screened from the light.


Thanks for that polite response. I really could not ascertain an answer
through all the static before.

It appears my professor was mistaken, or perhaps he was telling us what
was known at that time.

Now what ham radio needs is a completely new type of communication. I am
thinking of those twin particles that react to one another regardless of
distance and without the delay of distance.

I think this was demonstrated very well on Star Trek. They can talk
across light years instantly. To bad Gene is dead. He could have helped
us all out with just how to do this. It was in all the scripts, it must
be true. It is my mythology so don't be making fun of it.

:-)

Read about quantum computers - way beyond my understanding - but instant
communication is probably not totally far-fetched. But anyone who
knows is welcom to contradict me on this!

You are talking about tangled quantum states. So far no one has figured
out how to use this to communicate over distances.

--

Rick

Photons?
 

On 9/14/2015 5:44 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/14/2015 5:11 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
FBMBoomer wrote:

On 9/14/2015 2:15 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
FBMBoomer wrote:




Again, what I hear being said here is that radio waves are just lower
frequency light waves. Really?

Not looking for a flame war, just a simple answer to my question.

Yes, radio waves are just lower frequency light waves, and light waves
are just higher frequency radio waves. And both have the
properties of
photons as well as the properties of waves.

The important thing to realise is that photons don't have to be linked
to light, despite their name, because the light-related name was just a
historical accident of how they were discovered. The photons
equivalent
to lower frequency electromagnetic radiation such as radio waves can't
be seen and get to and from antennae even if they are effectively
screened from the light.


Thanks for that polite response. I really could not ascertain an answer
through all the static before.

It appears my professor was mistaken, or perhaps he was telling us what
was known at that time.

Now what ham radio needs is a completely new type of communication. I am
thinking of those twin particles that react to one another regardless of
distance and without the delay of distance.

I think this was demonstrated very well on Star Trek. They can talk
across light years instantly. To bad Gene is dead. He could have helped
us all out with just how to do this. It was in all the scripts, it must
be true. It is my mythology so don't be making fun of it.

:-)

Read about quantum computers - way beyond my understanding - but instant
communication is probably not totally far-fetched. But anyone who
knows is welcom to contradict me on this!

You are talking about tangled quantum states. So far no one has figured
out how to use this to communicate over distances.


Scientists have figured out how to communicate quantum states over
several miles. It's a start, anyway.

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

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

Photons?
 

On 14/09/2015 22:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
FBMBoomer wrote:

Now what ham radio needs is a completely new type of communication. I am
thinking of those twin particles that react to one another regardless of
distance and without the delay of distance.

I think this was demonstrated very well on Star Trek. They can talk
across light years instantly. To bad Gene is dead. He could have helped
us all out with just how to do this. It was in all the scripts, it must
be true. It is my mythology so don't be making fun of it.

:-)

Read about quantum computers - way beyond my understanding - but instant
communication is probably not totally far-fetched. But anyone who
knows is welcom to contradict me on this!

It is known as Quantum entanglement communication. in theory it works
(and doesn't which is very quantum) it is similar to teleportation where
a particle has been teleported in as much as the defining state
information from the particle has been sent to another particle.
It is doubtful whether either can be brought into the macro world so it
could be a long time before anyone gets to say "beam me up Scotty".

The idea behind Quantum entanglement communication is that you create
quantum twin particles that are entangled and manipulate one to create
instant reaction with the other. "Spooky action at a distance"-Einstien.

And as soon as someone suggests it someone says it is not possible.
There is a No-Communication hypothesis that prevents the sending of
information via a quantum entangled state.

My head hurts now.

Andy

Photons?
 

On 14/09/2015 22:32, Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,

One of the weird things about entanglement (and what Einstein called
"spooky action at a distance") is the following paradox:

- Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of
entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the
other member of the pair. This effect occurs regardless of
distance, and isn't affected by lightspeed delay.

If that is so, then the possibility of a communication channel must
exist, the transmission mechanism of which is being used by the particles .

The reasons are (as I said, weird) that when you interact with
particle A, the effect on particle B is one which you can't actually
detect independently (that is, by measuring particle B alone). You
have to compare the measurement on Particle B, with information that
you can only get from the measurement that was taken Particle A, to
confirm that the effect actually occurred...

With a million Particles A in a device called a 'transmitter'' and in a
distant galaxy, a million Particles B in a device called a 'receiver', a
statistical analysis would ensure to a high level of confidence that a
change had occurred. It wouldn't be difficult to arrange this to send
data. But this is mere technology, that exploits the properties inherent
in the entangled particles.

Unfortunately, all of the tests which have been done on entangled
systems keep showing that entanglement is real, but (like
"superluminal" phase velocity) can't be used to send information
faster than C.

If the effect acts instantaneously over large distances, why can it not
be exploited?


--
Spike

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him power" - Abraham Lincoln

Photons?
 

On 9/15/2015 5:10 AM, Spike wrote:
On 14/09/2015 22:32, Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,

One of the weird things about entanglement (and what Einstein called
"spooky action at a distance") is the following paradox:

- Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of
entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the
other member of the pair. This effect occurs regardless of
distance, and isn't affected by lightspeed delay.

If that is so, then the possibility of a communication channel must
exist, the transmission mechanism of which is being used by the particles .

It doesn't "must" exist. Measuring the state of either particle
determines the state of both. So how do you gain any information at the
receiving end by this? That's the problem. There is no way to transfer
info usefully.


The reasons are (as I said, weird) that when you interact with
particle A, the effect on particle B is one which you can't actually
detect independently (that is, by measuring particle B alone). You
have to compare the measurement on Particle B, with information that
you can only get from the measurement that was taken Particle A, to
confirm that the effect actually occurred...

With a million Particles A in a device called a 'transmitter'' and in a
distant galaxy, a million Particles B in a device called a 'receiver', a
statistical analysis would ensure to a high level of confidence that a
change had occurred. It wouldn't be difficult to arrange this to send
data. But this is mere technology, that exploits the properties inherent
in the entangled particles.

What change exactly? How do you get *any* information from the million
particles?


Unfortunately, all of the tests which have been done on entangled
systems keep showing that entanglement is real, but (like
"superluminal" phase velocity) can't be used to send information
faster than C.

If the effect acts instantaneously over large distances, why can it not
be exploited?

What "effect" exactly? When the partner is observed, an entangled
particle resolves to a knowable state so that when you look at it, it is
in one state or the other. How do you know which state it will be in
until you observe it which causes the same thing, resolution to a
knowable state?

--

Rick

Photons?
 

On 15/09/2015 15:32, rickman wrote:
On 9/15/2015 5:10 AM, Spike wrote:
On 14/09/2015 22:32, Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,

One of the weird things about entanglement (and what Einstein called
"spooky action at a distance") is the following paradox:

- Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of
entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the
other member of the pair. This effect occurs regardless of
distance, and isn't affected by lightspeed delay.

If that is so, then the possibility of a communication channel must
exist, the transmission mechanism of which is being used by the
particles .

It doesn't "must" exist.

The possibility of a comms system must exist using this effect. That the
engineers haven't found a way to exploit it is a different issue.

Measuring the state of either particle
determines the state of both. So how do you gain any information at the
receiving end by this? That's the problem. There is no way to transfer
info usefully.

One needs to lard in some other factor. Imagine Hertz asking what use
his waves could be, all he could do with them is turn them on and off.

The reasons are (as I said, weird) that when you interact with
particle A, the effect on particle B is one which you can't actually
detect independently (that is, by measuring particle B alone). You
have to compare the measurement on Particle B, with information that
you can only get from the measurement that was taken Particle A, to
confirm that the effect actually occurred...

With a million Particles A in a device called a 'transmitter'' and in a
distant galaxy, a million Particles B in a device called a 'receiver', a
statistical analysis would ensure to a high level of confidence that a
change had occurred. It wouldn't be difficult to arrange this to send
data. But this is mere technology, that exploits the properties inherent
in the entangled particles.

What change exactly? How do you get *any* information from the million
particles?

The use of the words 'change' follows from a quote above, namely
"...Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of
entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the other
member of the pair". So, something has changed, and it is measurable.
Perhaps the PP could expand on this.

A good question to ask here is: what is this change that takes place? It
is clearly measurable.

Unfortunately, all of the tests which have been done on entangled
systems keep showing that entanglement is real, but (like
"superluminal" phase velocity) can't be used to send information
faster than C.

If the effect acts instantaneously over large distances, why can it not
be exploited?

What "effect" exactly?

You'll need to ask that of the PP, as he used the word in his
explanation. I was thinking of a comms system that uses the effect
(whatever it is) to transfer information.

When the partner is observed, an entangled
particle resolves to a knowable state so that when you look at it, it is
in one state or the other. How do you know which state it will be in
until you observe it which causes the same thing, resolution to a
knowable state?

Perhaps it might help if we knew how many states were available.

--
Spike

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him power" - Abraham Lincoln

Photons?
 

In article ,
Spike wrote:

If that is so, then the possibility of a communication channel must
exist, the transmission mechanism of which is being used by the
particles .

It doesn't "must" exist.

The possibility of a comms system must exist using this effect. That the
engineers haven't found a way to exploit it is a different issue.

I think that if you study how entanglement and quantum particles
actually work, you'll understand that this is *not* the case.

A good question to ask here is: what is this change that takes place? It
is clearly measurable.

Here's a good video-and-animations explanation of the entanglement,
how we know it exists, and why it cannot be used to transmit
classical information faster than the speed of light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c

To sum it up: it's clearly measurable, but in order to show that it's
happening at all, you need to *compare* two sets of measurements - one
taken at each end of the experiment.

You cannot "see" the effect by looking only at the measurements taken
at one end of the experiment. Due to the nature of quantum mechanics,
the measurements taken at one end look entirely random.

The measurements you take at the other end of the experiment look
equally random, at the time that you take them.

It's only when you compare the two sets of measurements, that you can
see that they're "random, but opposite". And, you can't compare them
without sending one set of measurements to the other end of the
experiment... and this can't be done faster than lightspeed.

If the effect acts instantaneously over large distances, why can it not
be exploited?

What "effect" exactly?

You'll need to ask that of the PP, as he used the word in his
explanation. I was thinking of a comms system that uses the effect
(whatever it is) to transfer information.

See the video I posted, above, for a pretty good explanation of what
the effect is, and why it doesn't help us send messages faster than C.

Photons?
 

On 9/16/2015 5:18 AM, Spike wrote:
On 15/09/2015 15:32, rickman wrote:
On 9/15/2015 5:10 AM, Spike wrote:
On 14/09/2015 22:32, Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,

One of the weird things about entanglement (and what Einstein called
"spooky action at a distance") is the following paradox:

- Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of
entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the
other member of the pair. This effect occurs regardless of
distance, and isn't affected by lightspeed delay.

If that is so, then the possibility of a communication channel must
exist, the transmission mechanism of which is being used by the
particles .

It doesn't "must" exist.

The possibility of a comms system must exist using this effect. That the
engineers haven't found a way to exploit it is a different issue.

Stating a fact does not make it true. There is no principle that
requires this to make instantaneous comms possible. Just the opposite,
although the principle it would break is not inherent in any other set
of rules. It is a conclusion drawn on the basis of our present
understanding of the universe.


Measuring the state of either particle
determines the state of both. So how do you gain any information at the
receiving end by this? That's the problem. There is no way to transfer
info usefully.

One needs to lard in some other factor. Imagine Hertz asking what use
his waves could be, all he could do with them is turn them on and off.

Got any ideas on what the other lard factor would be? No one else can
figure it out. Maybe we should reanimate Hertz and ask him. Maybe not.
I think QM would blow his mind and he might go zombie on us.


The reasons are (as I said, weird) that when you interact with
particle A, the effect on particle B is one which you can't actually
detect independently (that is, by measuring particle B alone). You
have to compare the measurement on Particle B, with information that
you can only get from the measurement that was taken Particle A, to
confirm that the effect actually occurred...

With a million Particles A in a device called a 'transmitter'' and in a
distant galaxy, a million Particles B in a device called a 'receiver', a
statistical analysis would ensure to a high level of confidence that a
change had occurred. It wouldn't be difficult to arrange this to send
data. But this is mere technology, that exploits the properties inherent
in the entangled particles.

What change exactly? How do you get *any* information from the million
particles?

The use of the words 'change' follows from a quote above, namely
"...Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of
entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the other
member of the pair". So, something has changed, and it is measurable.
Perhaps the PP could expand on this.

That's the problem, it *isn't* measurable. The change is that the state
has resolved, not changed in the sense that a spin flips state from
before and after.

Try reading up on how the experiments are done and what is going on. It
is pretty clear you don't understand.


A good question to ask here is: what is this change that takes place? It
is clearly measurable.

Exactly, what is the change that takes place?


Unfortunately, all of the tests which have been done on entangled
systems keep showing that entanglement is real, but (like
"superluminal" phase velocity) can't be used to send information
faster than C.

If the effect acts instantaneously over large distances, why can it not
be exploited?

What "effect" exactly?

You'll need to ask that of the PP, as he used the word in his
explanation. I was thinking of a comms system that uses the effect
(whatever it is) to transfer information.

When you find out please continue the discussion.


When the partner is observed, an entangled
particle resolves to a knowable state so that when you look at it, it is
in one state or the other. How do you know which state it will be in
until you observe it which causes the same thing, resolution to a
knowable state?

Perhaps it might help if we knew how many states were available.

Uh, yeah...

--

Rick