Photons?
 

Roger Hayter wrote:
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?

The observation that Spike has, yet again, waded into a topic on which he
is clearly way out of his depth and that he is, as per, simply trying to
pontificate himself out of trouble is a perfectly valid contribution to the
discussion.

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

Photons?
 

On 16/09/2015 17:38, Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,
Spike wrote:

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.

Thanks for the video link. I wish physics had been presented like that
in my day...but it wasn't. It's interesting to note that in a couple of
places, the presenter said something like "... most scientists agree
that...", which implies that there may well be other qualities of the
particles that are not understood at this time - and which could 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?
 

"gareth" wrote in message
...
"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.


OK, let's hear the bad news: what sort of vehicles have you bodged the
steering software on?
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.uk

Photons?
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
"gareth" wrote in message
...
"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.
Don't worry Frank, it is his usual nonsense. The TRW system defaults to a
'fail safe mode' if there is a Canbus issue, with the pump operating at a
preset speed.
Plus, of course, we can be sure his claims are revenge and reflect on him.
If you look back over his comments re past employers, he has made similar
comments about everyone. I don't recall a single positive comment. Of
course, there is a common factor.

Once again, Brian, M3OSN, Old Chum, your responses have nothing to do with
the gentlemanly traditions of amateur radio and owe everything to your
seeming wish to be abusove at every turn, very much in the
style of a disruptive infant in the kindergarten.

Why do you persist in behaving like that?

And why did you remove the rra.antenna cross post? Was it to hide your true
nature from the Yanks?

And you really ought to check your facts before invoking your desperate wish
to want to insult,
because the system under development had no pump, it was all electrical, but
thankfully
intended for the American market so no danger on Brit roads!

Interesting was the size of the FETs to drive the motor, which were several
orders of magnitude
bigger then the microprocessor driving them. I put this down to the motors
always in a starting
mode and never geting up to a speed at which the back EMF would be
generated.

One other thing that concerned me was that the steering system had no point
of reference to know
when the steering wheel was in the middle position, and waited until it
received a CANBus signal
from the ABS unit that all wheels were now turning at the same speed, a
condition that could easily
come when starting off on an icy road with the steering wheel hard over to
one side, thus resulting
in a steering system that would prevent you completely from being able to
steer to that side; particularly
dangerous on an icy road!

Photons?
 

On 9/17/2015 1:17 AM, rickman wrote:
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?


Quantum entanglement, for instance. Symmetry, for another. In fact,
much of quantum mechanics is not well understood.

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

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

Photons?
 

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna rickman wrote:
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?

Compton, A. (1923). "A Quantum Theory of the Scattering of X-rays by
Light Elements" Physical Review 21 (5): 483-502

Pretty much the end of the discussion as to whether or not the photon
nature was real.



--
Jim Pennino

Photons?
 

On 17/09/2015 08:55, Spike wrote:
On 16/09/2015 17:38, Dave Platt wrote:

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

Thanks for the video link. I wish physics had been presented like that
in my day...but it wasn't. It's interesting to note that in a couple of
places, the presenter said something like "... most scientists agree
that...", which implies that there may well be other qualities of the
particles that are not understood at this time - and which could be
exploited.

Looking through the video a second time, one of the contributors says
something like "...It's almost as if there's someone standing behind it,
playing us a trick". I took this to mean that while the gross,
measurable, properties have been accepted, there is more to this that
has yet to be discovered. It might well happen that a deeper knowledge
will reveal some property that could result in this being the basis of a
communications system or a matter transporter.

I'm struck by the comparison between this and the atomic physics of the
era when the state of knowledge of the latter amounted to that related
to protons, neutrons, and electrons.


--
Spike

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

Photons?
 

"gareth" wrote in message
...

One other thing that concerned me was that the steering system had no
point of reference to know
when the steering wheel was in the middle position, and waited until it
received a CANBus signal
from the ABS unit that all wheels were now turning at the same speed, a
condition that could easily
come when starting off on an icy road with the steering wheel hard over to
one side, thus resulting
in a steering system that would prevent you completely from being able to
steer to that side; particularly dangerous on an icy road!


BULL****
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.uk

Photons?
 

On 9/17/2015 6:47 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/17/2015 1:17 AM, rickman wrote:
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?


Quantum entanglement, for instance. Symmetry, for another. In fact,
much of quantum mechanics is not well understood.

But what does any of that have to do with the duality of EM radiation?

--

Rick

Photons?
 

rickman wrote:

On 9/17/2015 6:47 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
snip


Quantum entanglement, for instance. Symmetry, for another. In fact,
much of quantum mechanics is not well understood.

But what does any of that have to do with the duality of EM radiation?

If we were just in ukra this would be quite permissible thread drift.
Sorry about that.


--
Roger Hayter