RadioBanter - Photons?

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Antenna (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/)

- - Photons? (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/219800-re-photons.html)

rickman wrote:
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...

Spike absolutely owned here, as per. Cue massive tantrum.

--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna 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.

Engineering has nothing to do with it, the problem is fundemental
physics which says it can not be done.

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.

Go for it. If you succeed your Nobel is guaranteed, your name will
be ranked right up there with Einstein, and you will be ushering
in a whole new era of quantum physics.

--
Jim Pennino

On 9/16/2015 12:38 PM, Dave Platt wrote:
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.

Good explanation. The point taken away from this is that the principle
of "spooky action at a distance" doesn't violate any laws we currently
hold to be true, partly because of the simultaneity issue. The speed of
light also sets a limit to how well you can establish the precedence of
events. The concept of simultaneous becomes "fuzzy" as limited by the
distance separating the two events. In some situations it becomes
impossible to say which of the two observations were first and so
clearly information can not be conveyed since the direction would depend
on which event was first.

--

Rick

Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:

rickman wrote:
On 9/16/2015 5:18 AM, Spike wrote:
On 15/09/2015 15:32, rickman wrote:
snip

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...

Spike absolutely owned here, as per. Cue massive tantrum.

This is an interesting discussion for some of us; if you can't
contribute, could you kindly keep your mouth shut?

--
Roger Hayter

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
rickman wrote:
On 9/16/2015 5:18 AM, Spike wrote:
On 15/09/2015 15:32, rickman wrote:
snip
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...
Spike absolutely owned here, as per. Cue massive tantrum.
This is an interesting discussion for some of us; if you can't
contribute, could you kindly keep your mouth shut?

+1

On 9/14/2015 4:15 PM, rickman wrote:
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.

I believe it now Rickman. I have had two clear explanations sent my way.
I cannot fault my college professor. It was 1968 and perhaps when he was
educated there was a clear delineation between light and EM radiation.
He was a good man and taught me a lot about astrophysics. That was
something he had a good handle on. The rest of us students were struggling.

The government sent me to college on their dime. The intention was for
me to be a civil service employee for the rest of my life. I never was
able to use all the stuff I learned in physics. I did use a lot of the
math. They put me to work after college programming the fire control
systems for FBM submarines and the targeting program for each warhead.
It was horrible dreary work that had to be done on a strict time line
while a boat was in port. All machine language. It was a nightmare that
I finally left to work for Raytheon. They were not happy about the
investment they made in me. I had signed no contract.

On 9/16/2015 4:54 PM, FBMBoomer wrote:
On 9/14/2015 4:15 PM, rickman wrote:
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.

I believe it now Rickman. I have had two clear explanations sent my way.
I cannot fault my college professor. It was 1968 and perhaps when he was
educated there was a clear delineation between light and EM radiation.
He was a good man and taught me a lot about astrophysics. That was
something he had a good handle on. The rest of us students were struggling.

I understand what you are saying. However, QM was well understood in
1968. It is mostly the advancement toward the combination of QM and
gravity that has been worked on in the intervening years, with not much
progress really. It's a tough job.

The government sent me to college on their dime. The intention was for
me to be a civil service employee for the rest of my life. I never was
able to use all the stuff I learned in physics. I did use a lot of the
math. They put me to work after college programming the fire control
systems for FBM submarines and the targeting program for each warhead.
It was horrible dreary work that had to be done on a strict time line
while a boat was in port. All machine language. It was a nightmare that
I finally left to work for Raytheon. They were not happy about the
investment they made in me. I had signed no contract.

I did a little work on sonar for TRW. I got just enough of a taste to
understand how difficult it could be. But most of the difficulty came
from the circumstances and restrictions imposed rather than the basic work.

I got a little knowledge on the EMSP. I seem to recall it never reached
deployment, but I find Internet references to it being the standard
acoustic platform at some point. I can't imagine 1980's technology
would be used even in 2000, much less now. I guess they did some
upgrades before it reached production.

--

Rick