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 in message
...

I did a little work on sonar for TRW.

I did a little work on power steering for TRW and was disturbed by their
attempting to
debug their software purely on the CANBus messages that came out; hardly a
professional
approach for such a safety-critical car component.

On 9/16/2015 5:30 PM, rickman wrote:
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.

No, QM was NOT well understood in 1968. While we have a better
understanding now, physicists even now don't claim it is "well
understood". There are still way too many unknowns and unproven theories.

snip

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

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

On 9/16/2015 10:30 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/16/2015 5:30 PM, rickman wrote:
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.

No, QM was NOT well understood in 1968. While we have a better
understanding now, physicists even now don't claim it is "well
understood". There are still way too many unknowns and unproven theories.

Really? What parts of QM that relate to photons vs. waves are not well
understood or even not well understood in '68?

--

Rick