On 9/16/2015 5:17 PM, Spike wrote:
On 16/09/2015 18:43, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:

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.

There are no such things as stupid questions, but there certainly are
stupid answers.

Indeed.

--

Rick

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:
On 16/09/2015 18:43, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:

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.

There are no such things as stupid questions, but there certainly are
stupid answers.

The problem is you don't understand why what I wrote is factual.

No Nobel for you.



--
Jim Pennino

"Spike" wrote in message
...
On 16/09/2015 18:43, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:
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.
There are no such things as stupid questions, but there certainly are
stupid answers.

You have Jimmy Pendulumino down to a T, and he is very like the Kentish Duet
of Reay and Cole, where both trip over themsleves in their haste to want to
be abusive.

On 16/09/2015 22:37, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:
On 16/09/2015 18:43, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:

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.

There are no such things as stupid questions, but there certainly are
stupid answers.

The problem is you don't understand why what I wrote is factual.

No Nobel for you.

With a subject like this, I'd probably be Rosalind Franklin'd.


--
Spike

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

"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 5:17 PM, Spike wrote:
On 16/09/2015 18:43, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:

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.

There are no such things as stupid questions, but there certainly are
stupid answers.


I disagree. From years of corporate training, I have found exactly ONE
stupid question. That is the one that is never asked.

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

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

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

Spike wrote:
On 16/09/2015 18:43, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:

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.

There are no such things as stupid questions, but there certainly are stupid answers.

I'm not sure that your statement would survive the Gareth Test.

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

rickman wrote:
On 9/16/2015 1:43 PM, wrote:
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.

Uh, which fundemental[sic] physics would that be? I think the principle
is *not* well established. There looks to be no utility at this time,
but many are still looking into it to see if there is a way to exploit
it. Clearly all the researchers did not flunk undergraduate physics.


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.

In one way he is stating the obvious, while at the same time apparently
not understanding the enormity of the statement. I do like the use of
the technical term, "lard in". I would never have come up with that in a
million years. Let's give him credit for originality.

BTW, maybe you should say his *next* Nobel is guaranteed. Maybe he already has one?

It's on his mantelpiece, alongside his Cycling Proficency certificate and
25 Metre swimming badge.

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