Photons?
 

On 9/17/2015 10:34 PM, rickman wrote:
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?


They are all parts of quantum mechanics - and are poorly understood.
And everything in quantum mechanics is tied together. You can't
separate them.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

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

Photons?
 

On 9/18/2015 6:01 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
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.

The issue isn't thread drift, I'm talking about the point of discussion.
FBMBoomer was excusing the misinformation he was taught in the 60's by
his professor, saying QM wasn't well understood. I am making the point
that the duality of light *was* well understood in the 60's.

Rereading FBM's post I see he was saying perhaps this was not well
understood when his professor was taught. That may be true. I don't
know when his professor was taught and that potentially is a wide window.

But Jerry is saying QM has poorly understood aspects which is not
responsive to the original thoughts about duality of light.

--

Rick

Photons?
 

On 9/18/2015 8:33 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/17/2015 10:34 PM, rickman wrote:
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?


They are all parts of quantum mechanics - and are poorly understood.
And everything in quantum mechanics is tied together. You can't
separate them.

Lol. Ok fine, we don't know everything about everything, much less
about nothing.

--

Rick

Photons?
 

On 9/18/2015 8:41 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/18/2015 8:33 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/17/2015 10:34 PM, rickman wrote:
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?


They are all parts of quantum mechanics - and are poorly understood.
And everything in quantum mechanics is tied together. You can't
separate them.

Lol. Ok fine, we don't know everything about everything, much less
about nothing.


Quite so. For instance, look at the double-slit experiment - a good
explanation can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc.
This talks about electrons - but
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_ce...res/lec13.html
shows how it relates to photons, also.

Scientists know WHAT happens - but they are at a complete loss as to WHY
it happens, because it's all lost in the maze of quantum mechanics.

Math can well describe and predict what happens at the macro level. But
no math so far can describe everything (or even a significant portion of
anything) that happens at the quantum level. Even supersymmetry, the
one that has received the highest level of acceptance (but by no means
is universal) and comes the closest so far, may be falling under the
results of experiments from the Large Hadron Collider.

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

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

Photons?
 

On 9/18/2015 11:23 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/18/2015 8:41 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/18/2015 8:33 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/17/2015 10:34 PM, rickman wrote:
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?


They are all parts of quantum mechanics - and are poorly understood.
And everything in quantum mechanics is tied together. You can't
separate them.

Lol. Ok fine, we don't know everything about everything, much less
about nothing.


Quite so. For instance, look at the double-slit experiment - a good
explanation can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc.
This talks about electrons - but
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_ce...res/lec13.html
shows how it relates to photons, also.

Scientists know WHAT happens - but they are at a complete loss as to WHY
it happens, because it's all lost in the maze of quantum mechanics.

"Why" is not really a science question. You can explain the "why" of
thanks until you get to the basic level. Then it just "is". We don't
know the grand "why" and most really there is no "why". "Why" is a
human issue, not a scientific one.


Math can well describe and predict what happens at the macro level.

But "why" do things happen at the macro level?


But
no math so far can describe everything (or even a significant portion of
anything) that happens at the quantum level. Even supersymmetry, the
one that has received the highest level of acceptance (but by no means
is universal) and comes the closest so far, may be falling under the
results of experiments from the Large Hadron Collider.

All science is only temporary, until the next big measurement that
disagrees with theory, so a new theory must be found.

And as before, none of this applies to the issue of duality which is
well understood.

--

Rick

Photons?
 

On 9/18/2015 12:43 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/18/2015 11:23 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/18/2015 8:41 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/18/2015 8:33 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/17/2015 10:34 PM, rickman wrote:
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?


They are all parts of quantum mechanics - and are poorly understood.
And everything in quantum mechanics is tied together. You can't
separate them.

Lol. Ok fine, we don't know everything about everything, much less
about nothing.


Quite so. For instance, look at the double-slit experiment - a good
explanation can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc.
This talks about electrons - but
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_ce...res/lec13.html
shows how it relates to photons, also.

Scientists know WHAT happens - but they are at a complete loss as to WHY
it happens, because it's all lost in the maze of quantum mechanics.

"Why" is not really a science question. You can explain the "why" of
thanks until you get to the basic level. Then it just "is". We don't
know the grand "why" and most really there is no "why". "Why" is a
human issue, not a scientific one.


No, "why" is the most basic science question. Why do planets orbit the
sun? Why does an object continue on the same path at the same velocity
unless something interacts with it? Why does a rolling stone gather no
moss?


Math can well describe and predict what happens at the macro level.

But "why" do things happen at the macro level?


Gravity. Inertia. Both of which can be explained mathematically and
operate consistently at the macro level.


But
no math so far can describe everything (or even a significant portion of
anything) that happens at the quantum level. Even supersymmetry, the
one that has received the highest level of acceptance (but by no means
is universal) and comes the closest so far, may be falling under the
results of experiments from the Large Hadron Collider.

All science is only temporary, until the next big measurement that
disagrees with theory, so a new theory must be found.

Very true. But some theories stand the test of time.


And as before, none of this applies to the issue of duality which is
well understood.


The issue of duality is accepted. But it is far from understood.

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

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

Photons?
 

On 9/18/2015 1:03 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/18/2015 12:43 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/18/2015 11:23 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/18/2015 8:41 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/18/2015 8:33 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/17/2015 10:34 PM, rickman wrote:
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?


They are all parts of quantum mechanics - and are poorly understood.
And everything in quantum mechanics is tied together. You can't
separate them.

Lol. Ok fine, we don't know everything about everything, much less
about nothing.


Quite so. For instance, look at the double-slit experiment - a good
explanation can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc.
This talks about electrons - but
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_ce...res/lec13.html
shows how it relates to photons, also.

Scientists know WHAT happens - but they are at a complete loss as to WHY
it happens, because it's all lost in the maze of quantum mechanics.

"Why" is not really a science question. You can explain the "why" of
thanks until you get to the basic level. Then it just "is". We don't
know the grand "why" and most really there is no "why". "Why" is a
human issue, not a scientific one.


No, "why" is the most basic science question. Why do planets orbit the
sun?

Except they always bring you to a "why" you can't answer. Why do the
planets orbit, gravity. Why is there gravity....?


Why does an object continue on the same path at the same velocity
unless something interacts with it? Why does a rolling stone gather no
moss?

Exactly, why? There are no answers to why questions. When we answer
why questions we are really giving "how" answers and at some point the
"how" runs out when we reach the bottom turtle.


Math can well describe and predict what happens at the macro level.

But "why" do things happen at the macro level?


Gravity. Inertia. Both of which can be explained mathematically and
operate consistently at the macro level.

"Explained"??? No, math only describes, it doesn't give an answer to a
"why" question in any form.


But
no math so far can describe everything (or even a significant portion of
anything) that happens at the quantum level. Even supersymmetry, the
one that has received the highest level of acceptance (but by no means
is universal) and comes the closest so far, may be falling under the
results of experiments from the Large Hadron Collider.

All science is only temporary, until the next big measurement that
disagrees with theory, so a new theory must be found.

Very true. But some theories stand the test of time.

Such as? There are theories that have been modified and theories that
have not be tested enough to fail.


And as before, none of this applies to the issue of duality which is
well understood.


The issue of duality is accepted. But it is far from understood.

Silly boy. In the context it was brought up, "understood" means being
able to describe enough that any college professor can understand. The
way you use the term, nothing is understood. Certainly gravity is not
"understood".

--

Rick

Photons?
 

On 9/18/2015 1:18 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/18/2015 1:03 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/18/2015 12:43 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/18/2015 11:23 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/18/2015 8:41 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/18/2015 8:33 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/17/2015 10:34 PM, rickman wrote:
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?


They are all parts of quantum mechanics - and are poorly understood.
And everything in quantum mechanics is tied together. You can't
separate them.

Lol. Ok fine, we don't know everything about everything, much less
about nothing.


Quite so. For instance, look at the double-slit experiment - a good
explanation can be found at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc.
This talks about electrons - but
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_ce...res/lec13.html
shows how it relates to photons, also.

Scientists know WHAT happens - but they are at a complete loss as to
WHY
it happens, because it's all lost in the maze of quantum mechanics.

"Why" is not really a science question. You can explain the "why" of
thanks until you get to the basic level. Then it just "is". We don't
know the grand "why" and most really there is no "why". "Why" is a
human issue, not a scientific one.


No, "why" is the most basic science question. Why do planets orbit the
sun?

Except they always bring you to a "why" you can't answer. Why do the
planets orbit, gravity. Why is there gravity....?


To a certain point, yes. But gravity then becomes part of the unified
field theory, which has yet to be developed.

However, all scientists agree that gravity exists and how it affects the
world around us. That's macro level. Why is there gravity is quantum
level physics.


Why does an object continue on the same path at the same velocity
unless something interacts with it? Why does a rolling stone gather no
moss?

Exactly, why? There are no answers to why questions. When we answer
why questions we are really giving "how" answers and at some point the
"how" runs out when we reach the bottom turtle.


Sure there are, at the macro level. Inertia is well understood and
accepted. What causes it is at the quantum level - and again, is part
of the unified field theory which has yet to be developed.

Don't confuse macro physics with quantum physics. Macro physics is
quite well understood and accepted. Quantum physics is not.


Math can well describe and predict what happens at the macro level.

But "why" do things happen at the macro level?


Gravity. Inertia. Both of which can be explained mathematically and
operate consistently at the macro level.

"Explained"??? No, math only describes, it doesn't give an answer to a
"why" question in any form.


Which again gets into quantum physics.


But
no math so far can describe everything (or even a significant
portion of
anything) that happens at the quantum level. Even supersymmetry, the
one that has received the highest level of acceptance (but by no means
is universal) and comes the closest so far, may be falling under the
results of experiments from the Large Hadron Collider.

All science is only temporary, until the next big measurement that
disagrees with theory, so a new theory must be found.

Very true. But some theories stand the test of time.

Such as? There are theories that have been modified and theories that
have not be tested enough to fail.


Theory of thermodynamics, for instance. Inertia. Gravity. All of
these fall into the macro physics world and have stood the test of time.


And as before, none of this applies to the issue of duality which is
well understood.


The issue of duality is accepted. But it is far from understood.

Silly boy. In the context it was brought up, "understood" means being
able to describe enough that any college professor can understand. The
way you use the term, nothing is understood. Certainly gravity is not
"understood".


Now you're starting with the personal attacks - as you always do when
you don't understand something. I should have known better than to try
to carry on an intellectual conversation - it always ends up this way -
no matter who you're discussing it with.

But I'm not going to give you the pleasure of continuing the insults.
I'm done with you.

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

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

Photons?
 

On 9/18/2015 1:38 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/18/2015 1:18 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/18/2015 1:03 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/18/2015 12:43 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/18/2015 11:23 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/18/2015 8:41 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/18/2015 8:33 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/17/2015 10:34 PM, rickman wrote:
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?


They are all parts of quantum mechanics - and are poorly understood.
And everything in quantum mechanics is tied together. You can't
separate them.

Lol. Ok fine, we don't know everything about everything, much less
about nothing.


Quite so. For instance, look at the double-slit experiment - a good
explanation can be found at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc.
This talks about electrons - but
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_ce...res/lec13.html
shows how it relates to photons, also.

Scientists know WHAT happens - but they are at a complete loss as to
WHY
it happens, because it's all lost in the maze of quantum mechanics.

"Why" is not really a science question. You can explain the "why" of
thanks until you get to the basic level. Then it just "is". We don't
know the grand "why" and most really there is no "why". "Why" is a
human issue, not a scientific one.


No, "why" is the most basic science question. Why do planets orbit the
sun?

Except they always bring you to a "why" you can't answer. Why do the
planets orbit, gravity. Why is there gravity....?


To a certain point, yes. But gravity then becomes part of the unified
field theory, which has yet to be developed.

However, all scientists agree that gravity exists and how it affects the
world around us. That's macro level. Why is there gravity is quantum
level physics.


Why does an object continue on the same path at the same velocity
unless something interacts with it? Why does a rolling stone gather no
moss?

Exactly, why? There are no answers to why questions. When we answer
why questions we are really giving "how" answers and at some point the
"how" runs out when we reach the bottom turtle.


Sure there are, at the macro level. Inertia is well understood and
accepted. What causes it is at the quantum level - and again, is part
of the unified field theory which has yet to be developed.

Don't confuse macro physics with quantum physics. Macro physics is
quite well understood and accepted. Quantum physics is not.


Math can well describe and predict what happens at the macro level.

But "why" do things happen at the macro level?


Gravity. Inertia. Both of which can be explained mathematically and
operate consistently at the macro level.

"Explained"??? No, math only describes, it doesn't give an answer to a
"why" question in any form.


Which again gets into quantum physics.


But
no math so far can describe everything (or even a significant
portion of
anything) that happens at the quantum level. Even supersymmetry, the
one that has received the highest level of acceptance (but by no means
is universal) and comes the closest so far, may be falling under the
results of experiments from the Large Hadron Collider.

All science is only temporary, until the next big measurement that
disagrees with theory, so a new theory must be found.

Very true. But some theories stand the test of time.

Such as? There are theories that have been modified and theories that
have not be tested enough to fail.


Theory of thermodynamics, for instance. Inertia. Gravity. All of
these fall into the macro physics world and have stood the test of time.


And as before, none of this applies to the issue of duality which is
well understood.


The issue of duality is accepted. But it is far from understood.

Silly boy. In the context it was brought up, "understood" means being
able to describe enough that any college professor can understand. The
way you use the term, nothing is understood. Certainly gravity is not
"understood".


Now you're starting with the personal attacks - as you always do when
you don't understand something. I should have known better than to try
to carry on an intellectual conversation - it always ends up this way -
no matter who you're discussing it with.

But I'm not going to give you the pleasure of continuing the insults.
I'm done with you.

Lol. "Silly boy" is a personal attack??? Golly.

--

Rick

Photons?
 

At Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:54:54 -0500, FBMBoomer rearranged some electrons to
write:

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.

Pittsfield MA?