|
Photons?
"rickman" wrote in message
... I guess he is picturing the quanta as a pulse of a wave which it *isn't*. Consider a quiet band, and you receive a single dit, the letter E in Morse Code. Before there would have been no signal and neither after the dit. So, if your RF photons do not have a beginning and an end, as they must do as pulsed phenomenon, how come there is only signal during the duration of the dit? |
Photons?
rickman wrote:
On 9/10/2015 3:03 AM, AndyW wrote: On 09/09/2015 18:51, gareth wrote: "gareth" wrote in message ... AIUI, the wave / particle duality of the photon means that it has a beginning and an end, from the particle model. The point of the duality model is that it appears to exist as both, or may exist as something that exhibits the behaviour of both. Don't want to be pedantic, but I think it is more that any given experiment can show one or the other, but *not* both at once. Although someone pointed out in another discussion that some experiment showed both. It was an interference type of display, but the patterns were formed of individual dots from individual photons. But I expect there is another way to explain the results.... but above my pay grade. Therefore, the wave model must exhibit amplitude modulation to have such a beginning and end. Why must it? It could have FM modulation or none at all. It could just start and end (technically with a rectangular envelope but that would effectively be no AM at all) You do you claim it *must* have AM? There is no reason to discuss this with him. He won't get what you are saying. I guess he is picturing the quanta as a pulse of a wave which it *isn't*. There is also little reason for me to point out the futility of discussing this with Gareth. Every so often he starts a discussion and the band starts playing. I don't know who is stupider, Gareth or the band. Exactly, Evans is simply looking for an excuse to hurl his repertoire of abuse. He often recycles old topics which have been explained to him countless times in the past. Sometimes he digs up basic things he should have mastered decades ago, eg the super regen, Or, as here, looks up a few technical terms and launches into a topic he clearly has no knowledge of. |
Photons?
En el artículo 839586079463575279.800972no.sp-
, Brian Reay escribió: He often recycles old topics which have been explained to him countless times in the past. He's just started off again about the "luminiferous aether" in u.r.a. Silly old sod's just spoiling for another fight. He must be desperately starved of attention. -- (\_/) (='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke! (")_(") |
Photons?
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo 839586079463575279.800972no.sp- , Brian Reay escribió: He often recycles old topics which have been explained to him countless times in the past. He's just started off again about the "luminiferous aether" in u.r.a. Silly old sod's just spoiling for another fight. He must be desperately starved of attention. Or off his meds. Again. -- STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur |
Photons?
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo 839586079463575279.800972no.sp- , Brian Reay escribió: He often recycles old topics which have been explained to him countless times in the past. He's just started off again about the "luminiferous aether" in u.r.a. Silly old sod's just spoiling for another fight. He must be desperately starved of attention. Only his chums, who are like him, pretend he isn't out for attention. The usual rejects are all the same, but for the rows they stir up, they have no life and certainly no pleasure. |
Photons?
"gareth" wrote in message
... "rickman" wrote in message ... I guess he is picturing the quanta as a pulse of a wave which it *isn't*. Consider a quiet band, and you receive a single dit, the letter E in Morse Code. Gosh, Beanie, did you use a crib sheet to work that out? -- ;-) .. 73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint. .. http://turner-smith.uk |
Photons?
"FranK Turner-Smith G3VKI" wrote:
"gareth" wrote in message ... "rickman" wrote in message ... I guess he is picturing the quanta as a pulse of a wave which it *isn't*. Consider a quiet band, and you receive a single dit, the letter E in Morse Code. Gosh, Beanie, did you use a crib sheet to work that out? Don't forget, it took him 13 years to learn morse to 12wpm... -- STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur |
Photons?
"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
... It's not like that. The photons and the wave-like effects of their probability distribution functions, exist simultaneously. You cannot separate them, therefore they are generated by a single process that is exactly equivalent in both atoms and antennas. In atoms, theenergu process is from energy transitions of individual elelctrons, but that is not the mechanism in antennae. |
Photons?
"gareth" wrote:
"Brian Morrison" wrote in message ... It's not like that. The photons and the wave-like effects of their probability distribution functions, exist simultaneously. You cannot separate them, therefore they are generated by a single process that is exactly equivalent in both atoms and antennas. In atoms, theenergu process is from energy transitions of individual elelctrons, but that is not the mechanism in antennae. Bit early in the day to be this boozed up, Gareth, isn't it? -- STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur |
Photons?
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
... Exactly, Evans is simply looking for an excuse to hurl his repertoire of abuse. He often recycles old topics which have been explained to him countless times in the past. Sometimes he digs up basic things he should have mastered decades ago, eg the super regen, Or, as here, looks up a few technical terms and launches into a topic he clearly has no knowledge of. Brian, M3OSN Old Chap, just because you are embarrassed that you do not have the answers, that is no reason to let fly with such a gratuitous and somewhat infantile tirade. Shame on you , and you being a proud schoolteacher, and all. Remember that you are better advised to just to be thought a fool than to prove it by typing on your keyboard. But, while you're there, how come that the latest licence that you acquired in Brit, M3OSN, is one that is targetted for the 5-year-old? |
Photons?
On 9/10/2015 6:33 AM, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message ... I guess he is picturing the quanta as a pulse of a wave which it *isn't*. Consider a quiet band, and you receive a single dit, the letter E in Morse Code. Before there would have been no signal and neither after the dit. So, if your RF photons do not have a beginning and an end, as they must do as pulsed phenomenon, how come there is only signal during the duration of the dit? Because the only time you hear the dit is when the radio wave is passing your antenna. The radio wave continues on; someone one light year away with a sufficiently sensitive receiver would hear the dit one year after you. But this has nothing to do with quantum physics. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Photons?
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:11:00 +0000 (UTC), Brian Reay
wrote: The usual rejects are all the same, but for the rows they stir up, they have no life and certainly no pleasure. You're implying therefore that your relentless harassment of another poster suggests that you have no life and certainly no pleasure. Thank you for confirming that which we all already know. |
Photons?
Brian Morrison wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 08:16:17 -0700 Wayne wrote: "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? It's not like that. The photons and the wave-like effects of their probability distribution functions, exist simultaneously. You cannot separate them, therefore they are generated by a single process that is exactly equivalent in both atoms and antennas. He can't grasp the concept Brian, you are wasting your time. He is hung up on the Bohr model and single electron transitions. |
Photons?
On 9/10/2015 7:10 AM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote: En el artÃ*culo 839586079463575279.800972no.sp- , Brian Reay escribió: He often recycles old topics which have been explained to him countless times in the past. He's just started off again about the "luminiferous aether" in u.r.a. Silly old sod's just spoiling for another fight. He must be desperately starved of attention. Or off his meds. Again. Maybe that is really the case. I was thinking just the other day that it was very quiet around here. "I wonder where Gareth is?" Now I know... hangs head I guess everyone has to chime in the same way my pets greet me when I've been away for a day... -- Rick |
Photons?
"Brian Morrison" wrote in message ... On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 08:16:17 -0700 Wayne wrote: "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? It's not like that. The photons and the wave-like effects of their probability distribution functions, exist simultaneously. You cannot separate them, therefore they are generated by a single process that is exactly equivalent in both atoms and antennas. Well, that's exactly what I was getting at, but perhaps not as eloquently :) As frequency is lowered from visible light, there is no reason to believe that photons disappear when the frequency is below visible. |
Photons?
On 9/10/2015 8:25 AM, gareth wrote:
"Brian Morrison" wrote in message ... It's not like that. The photons and the wave-like effects of their probability distribution functions, exist simultaneously. You cannot separate them, therefore they are generated by a single process that is exactly equivalent in both atoms and antennas. In atoms, theenergu process is from energy transitions of individual elelctrons, but that is not the mechanism in antennae. Why not? Don't antenna have atoms and electrons? Isn't the EM wave made by the electrons movement? Electrons generate packets of EM energy called Quanta. I expect you are bright enough to calculate the energy of a single EM quantum at 1 MHz. How much energy is it? What is the size of *any* quantum? -- Rick |
Photons?
On 9/10/2015 8:43 AM, gareth wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message ... Exactly, Evans is simply looking for an excuse to hurl his repertoire of abuse. He often recycles old topics which have been explained to him countless times in the past. Sometimes he digs up basic things he should have mastered decades ago, eg the super regen, Or, as here, looks up a few technical terms and launches into a topic he clearly has no knowledge of. Brian, M3OSN Old Chap, just because you are embarrassed that you do not have the answers, that is no reason to let fly with such a gratuitous and somewhat infantile tirade. Reminds me of the old joke about the Lion in the jungle. One morning he saunters forth and sees a monkey walking, he stops him and asks loudly, "WHO'S THE KING OF THE JUNGLE?" The monkey says, "You are, sir" and the lion goes on his way. Same thing happens with a boar and then a tiger. Finally he comes across an elephant and asks loudly, "WHO'S THE KING OF THE JUNGLE?" The elephant picks him up with his great trunk and slams him against a tree, then against a rock and finally throws him 100 feet crashing to the ground. The lion gets up, dusts himself off and with an annoyed look says, "Just because you don't know the answer, you don't have to get so mad!" -- Rick |
Photons?
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
... He can't grasp the concept Brian, you are wasting your time. He is hung up on the Bohr model and single electron transitions. Yet more infantile abuse from you, OM. If you know the answers, then why not give them? If you don't know the answers, then shut up. |
Photons?
"Wayne" wrote in message
... As frequency is lowered from visible light, there is no reason to believe that photons disappear when the frequency is below visible. There is no reason to believe that they appear in the first place when no mechanism exists for there creation, for all quantisation theory and experimental evidence arises from objects that are themselves quantised and not as multi-electrons in electric currents. How many cycles make up your RF photon, say, at 14MHz? How big is the photon? |
Photons?
"rickman" wrote in message
... On 9/10/2015 8:25 AM, gareth wrote: "Brian Morrison" wrote in message ... It's not like that. The photons and the wave-like effects of their probability distribution functions, exist simultaneously. You cannot separate them, therefore they are generated by a single process that is exactly equivalent in both atoms and antennas. In atoms, theenergu process is from energy transitions of individual elelctrons, but that is not the mechanism in antennae. Why not? Don't antenna have atoms and electrons? irrelevant Isn't the EM wave made by the electrons movement? With voltage pressure giving rise to acceleration, yes, but not by quantised changes of electron orbits. Electrons generate packets of EM energy called Quanta. Irrelevamt. I expect you are bright enough to calculate the energy of a single EM quantum at 1 MHz. How much energy is it? What is the size of *any* quantum? I say that they do not exist. Let those who claim their existence make such a calculation and thereby ridicule themselves. |
Photons?
"rickman" wrote in message
... On 9/10/2015 8:43 AM, gareth wrote: "Brian Reay" wrote in message ... Exactly, Evans is simply looking for an excuse to hurl his repertoire of abuse. He often recycles old topics which have been explained to him countless times in the past. Sometimes he digs up basic things he should have mastered decades ago, eg the super regen, Or, as here, looks up a few technical terms and launches into a topic he clearly has no knowledge of. Brian, M3OSN Old Chap, just because you are embarrassed that you do not have the answers, that is no reason to let fly with such a gratuitous and somewhat infantile tirade. Reminds me of the old joke about the Lion in the jungle. One morning he saunters forth and sees a monkey walking, he stops him and asks loudly, "WHO'S THE KING OF THE JUNGLE?" The monkey says, "You are, sir" and the lion goes on his way. Same thing happens with a boar and then a tiger. Finally he comes across an elephant and asks loudly, "WHO'S THE KING OF THE JUNGLE?" The elephant picks him up with his great trunk and slams him against a tree, then against a rock and finally throws him 100 feet crashing to the ground. The lion gets up, dusts himself off and with an annoyed look says, "Just because you don't know the answer, you don't have to get so mad!" Very droll, but you cannot fail to have noticed that reay, as the organ grinder, never ontributes anything of value, but only ever sneers, which perhaps is what lost him his job as a teacher. The organ grinder needs to change the record. As for the organ grinder's monkey, I am surprised that you lower yourself to his level, for he has no technical acumen whatsoever, and his history since joining this NG 3 years ago is nothign but a litany of attention-seeking anti-social infantile outbursts. Don't believe me? I suggest that you should examine only the last moth's outpourings into uk.radio.amateur by stephen thomas cole. |
Photons?
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:32:53 +0100, Rambo wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:11:00 +0000 (UTC), Brian Reay wrote: The usual rejects are all the same, but for the rows they stir up, they have no life and certainly no pleasure. You're implying therefore that your relentless harassment of another poster suggests that you have no life and certainly no pleasure. Thank you for confirming that which we all already know. "No, you are!" |
Photons?
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message ... There is no reason to discuss this with him. He won't get what you are saying. I have an open mind, unlike those who desperately hold onto partial knowledge with an almost religious fervour. Yeah, sure. I guess he is picturing the quanta as a pulse of a wave which it *isn't*. Why not say what it is, then? A quanta of RF energy. There is also little reason for me to point out the futility of discussing this with Gareth. Every so often he starts a discussion and the band starts playing. I don't know who is stupider, Gareth or the band. Such abuse is themark of the ignoramus. Shame on you. Boo hoo. Quanta at radio frequencies will be hard to prove. Indeed. True, but you have no clue why this is true, i.e. the practicallity of building instrumenation to do it at frequencies much lower than light. But as someone pointed out, RF is emitted by individual atoms in an MRI scan. So clearly that would be a quantum effect and not a continuous wave. It is neither, for it is simply near-field induction and not far-field radiation. Wrong again. I believe this is due to the RF energy absorbed by the atoms causing them to flip spin. After a relaxation time (basically a delay) they revert to the ground state and emit quanta of RF energy. Quantised objects emit quantised radiation? Sure, but in the case of RF antenna we are not dealing with radiation from sub-atomic processes. We most certainly are. -- Jim Pennino |
Photons?
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"Brian Morrison" wrote in message ... It's not like that. The photons and the wave-like effects of their probability distribution functions, exist simultaneously. You cannot separate them, therefore they are generated by a single process that is exactly equivalent in both atoms and antennas. In atoms, theenergu process is from energy transitions of individual elelctrons, but that is not the mechanism in antennae. An antenna is nothing more than a conductor with an impressed AC voltage. -- Jim Pennino |
Photons?
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message ... On 9/10/2015 8:25 AM, gareth wrote: "Brian Morrison" wrote in message ... It's not like that. The photons and the wave-like effects of their probability distribution functions, exist simultaneously. You cannot separate them, therefore they are generated by a single process that is exactly equivalent in both atoms and antennas. In atoms, theenergu process is from energy transitions of individual elelctrons, but that is not the mechanism in antennae. Why not? Don't antenna have atoms and electrons? irrelevant Nope, totally relevant and what makes an antenna work. snip remaining drivel -- Jim Pennino |
Photons?
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"Wayne" wrote in message ... As frequency is lowered from visible light, there is no reason to believe that photons disappear when the frequency is below visible. There is no reason to believe that they appear in the first place when no As their existence has repeatedly been verified by expirement, your lack of belief just betrays your ignorance. -- Jim Pennino |
Photons?
"gareth" wrote in
: "Wayne" wrote in message ... As frequency is lowered from visible light, there is no reason to believe that photons disappear when the frequency is below visible. There is no reason to believe that they appear in the first place when no mechanism exists for there creation, Photons are no more created than waves are. They are simply different manifestations of the same phenomenon. for all quantisation theory and experimental evidence arises from objects that are themselves quantised and not as multi-electrons in electric currents. Photon behaviour has been observed at microwave frequencies. Why do you suppose it suddenly stops, and at what frequency? http://arxiv.org/pdf/1102.0461.pdf How many cycles make up your RF photon, say, at 14MHz? Cycles of what? Take your time now. (Hint: the 'wave packet' model refers to particles, not radiation) How big is the photon? GIGO. Have you forgotten already? https://www.rp-photonics.com/spotlight_2008_05_05.html "The trouble with that question is essentially that the photon is a theoretical construction which does not have any straightforward connection either with an entity of physical reality or with anything simple which we can imagine." |
Photons?
On 9/10/2015 2:19 PM, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message ... On 9/10/2015 8:43 AM, gareth wrote: "Brian Reay" wrote in message ... Exactly, Evans is simply looking for an excuse to hurl his repertoire of abuse. He often recycles old topics which have been explained to him countless times in the past. Sometimes he digs up basic things he should have mastered decades ago, eg the super regen, Or, as here, looks up a few technical terms and launches into a topic he clearly has no knowledge of. Brian, M3OSN Old Chap, just because you are embarrassed that you do not have the answers, that is no reason to let fly with such a gratuitous and somewhat infantile tirade. Reminds me of the old joke about the Lion in the jungle. One morning he saunters forth and sees a monkey walking, he stops him and asks loudly, "WHO'S THE KING OF THE JUNGLE?" The monkey says, "You are, sir" and the lion goes on his way. Same thing happens with a boar and then a tiger. Finally he comes across an elephant and asks loudly, "WHO'S THE KING OF THE JUNGLE?" The elephant picks him up with his great trunk and slams him against a tree, then against a rock and finally throws him 100 feet crashing to the ground. The lion gets up, dusts himself off and with an annoyed look says, "Just because you don't know the answer, you don't have to get so mad!" Very droll, but you cannot fail to have noticed that reay, as the organ grinder, never ontributes anything of value, but only ever sneers, which perhaps is what lost him his job as a teacher. The organ grinder needs to change the record. As for the organ grinder's monkey, I am surprised that you lower yourself to his level, for he has no technical acumen whatsoever, and his history since joining this NG 3 years ago is nothign but a litany of attention-seeking anti-social infantile outbursts. Don't believe me? I suggest that you should examine only the last moth's outpourings into uk.radio.amateur by stephen thomas cole. You are sir, you are king of the jungle! -- Rick |
Photons?
On 9/10/2015 2:15 PM, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message ... On 9/10/2015 8:25 AM, gareth wrote: "Brian Morrison" wrote in message ... It's not like that. The photons and the wave-like effects of their probability distribution functions, exist simultaneously. You cannot separate them, therefore they are generated by a single process that is exactly equivalent in both atoms and antennas. In atoms, theenergu process is from energy transitions of individual elelctrons, but that is not the mechanism in antennae. Why not? Don't antenna have atoms and electrons? irrelevant Isn't the EM wave made by the electrons movement? With voltage pressure giving rise to acceleration, yes, but not by quantised changes of electron orbits. Who said quanta can only be generated by "quantised[sic] changes of electron orbits"? Oh, why am I being sucked into this idiotic discussion? It has been stated before that the EM emitted by atoms flipping spin state in a magnetic field must, by your definition, emit quanta, but you wave your hands and say, "Foul! NEAR FIELD" whatever that means to you. I expect you don't really understand what near field and far field are really about. Electrons generate packets of EM energy called Quanta. Irrelevamt. Yes, you are right. Everything about quanta are irrelevant to a discussion of quanta. I expect you are bright enough to calculate the energy of a single EM quantum at 1 MHz. How much energy is it? What is the size of *any* quantum? I say that they do not exist. Let those who claim their existence make such a calculation and thereby ridicule themselves. Yes, indeed! Let the ridicule begin! The point being that QM predicts the size and energy of a quanta based on the frequency. It's not really rocket science. -- Rick |
Photons?
|
Photons?
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 16:50:09 -0400, rickman wrote:
On 9/10/2015 2:19 PM, gareth wrote: "rickman" wrote in message ... Very droll, but you cannot fail to have noticed that reay, as the organ grinder, never ontributes anything of value, but only ever sneers, which perhaps is what lost him his job as a teacher. The organ grinder needs to change the record. As for the organ grinder's monkey, I am surprised that you lower yourself to his level, for he has no technical acumen whatsoever, and his history since joining this NG 3 years ago is nothign but a litany of attention-seeking anti-social infantile outbursts. Don't believe me? I suggest that you should examine only the last moth's outpourings into uk.radio.amateur by stephen thomas cole. You are sir, you are king of the jungle! He's the cesspit's most productive arsehole and our biggest exporter, too. |
Photons?
On 9/10/2015 2:12 PM, gareth wrote:
"Wayne" wrote in message ... As frequency is lowered from visible light, there is no reason to believe that photons disappear when the frequency is below visible. There is no reason to believe that they appear in the first place when no mechanism exists for there creation, for all quantisation theory and experimental evidence arises from objects that are themselves quantised and not as multi-electrons in electric currents. How many cycles make up your RF photon, say, at 14MHz? 14 ± How big is the photon? Bigger than a breadbox. But the probability of it being near your antenna is very low.... no matter where *your* antenna is. -- Rick |
Photons?
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna rickman wrote:
On 9/10/2015 2:47 PM, wrote: In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote: "Brian Morrison" wrote in message ... It's not like that. The photons and the wave-like effects of their probability distribution functions, exist simultaneously. You cannot separate them, therefore they are generated by a single process that is exactly equivalent in both atoms and antennas. In atoms, theenergu process is from energy transitions of individual elelctrons, but that is not the mechanism in antennae. An antenna is nothing more than a conductor with an impressed AC voltage. All this time I thought it was an AC current! Umm, you do know the vast majority of RF sources are voltage sources and if one ipresses a voltage upon an impedance a current results? -- Jim Pennino |
Photons?
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna rickman wrote:
On 9/10/2015 5:09 PM, wrote: In rec.radio.amateur.antenna rickman wrote: On 9/10/2015 2:47 PM, wrote: In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote: "Brian Morrison" wrote in message ... It's not like that. The photons and the wave-like effects of their probability distribution functions, exist simultaneously. You cannot separate them, therefore they are generated by a single process that is exactly equivalent in both atoms and antennas. In atoms, theenergu process is from energy transitions of individual elelctrons, but that is not the mechanism in antennae. An antenna is nothing more than a conductor with an impressed AC voltage. All this time I thought it was an AC current! Umm, you do know the vast majority of RF sources are voltage sources and if one ipresses a voltage upon an impedance a current results? Wow! So what happens if one pushes a current through an impedance? Inquiring minds want to know! For you and Gareth, E=IR. -- Jim Pennino |
Photons?
On 9/10/2015 6:43 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna rickman wrote: On 9/10/2015 5:09 PM, wrote: In rec.radio.amateur.antenna rickman wrote: On 9/10/2015 2:47 PM, wrote: In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote: "Brian Morrison" wrote in message ... It's not like that. The photons and the wave-like effects of their probability distribution functions, exist simultaneously. You cannot separate them, therefore they are generated by a single process that is exactly equivalent in both atoms and antennas. In atoms, theenergu process is from energy transitions of individual elelctrons, but that is not the mechanism in antennae. An antenna is nothing more than a conductor with an impressed AC voltage. All this time I thought it was an AC current! Umm, you do know the vast majority of RF sources are voltage sources and if one ipresses a voltage upon an impedance a current results? Wow! So what happens if one pushes a current through an impedance? Inquiring minds want to know! For you and Gareth, E=IR. Amazing! So current, voltage, it all works out, no? -- Rick |
Photons?
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna rickman wrote:
On 9/10/2015 6:43 PM, wrote: In rec.radio.amateur.antenna rickman wrote: On 9/10/2015 5:09 PM, wrote: In rec.radio.amateur.antenna rickman wrote: On 9/10/2015 2:47 PM, wrote: In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote: "Brian Morrison" wrote in message ... It's not like that. The photons and the wave-like effects of their probability distribution functions, exist simultaneously. You cannot separate them, therefore they are generated by a single process that is exactly equivalent in both atoms and antennas. In atoms, theenergu process is from energy transitions of individual elelctrons, but that is not the mechanism in antennae. An antenna is nothing more than a conductor with an impressed AC voltage. All this time I thought it was an AC current! Umm, you do know the vast majority of RF sources are voltage sources and if one ipresses a voltage upon an impedance a current results? Wow! So what happens if one pushes a current through an impedance? Inquiring minds want to know! For you and Gareth, E=IR. Amazing! So current, voltage, it all works out, no? For most people; for you I'm having my doubts. -- Jim Pennino |
Photons?
On 10/09/2015 13:25, gareth wrote:
"Brian Morrison" wrote in message ... It's not like that. The photons and the wave-like effects of their probability distribution functions, exist simultaneously. You cannot separate them, therefore they are generated by a single process that is exactly equivalent in both atoms and antennas. In atoms, theenergu process is from energy transitions of individual elelctrons, but that is not the mechanism in antennae. Then why not post your hypothesis for how they are produced in antennae? Andy |
Photons?
On 10/09/2015 11:33, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message ... I guess he is picturing the quanta as a pulse of a wave which it *isn't*. Consider a quiet band, and you receive a single dit, the letter E in Morse Code. Before there would have been no signal and neither after the dit. So, if your RF photons do not have a beginning and an end, as they must do as pulsed phenomenon, how come there is only signal during the duration of the dit? Because they carry on forever passing you and going out into space the collective signal getting weaker and weaker according to the inverse square law. If our sun were to vanish suddenly the light it put out would still carry on. We would be in darkness after about 8 minutes but someone near Jupiter would still see it and someone in a different solar system would still see the light after years. Andy |
Photons?
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
... Don't encourage him. I suspect he is gradually steering his position towards the one the CFA 'inventor' tried to us to explain how his Poynting Vector synthesis nonsense worked. This came up some years back and I detect some similarities. Needless to say it was shot down then. It looks like the village idiot has dug up the old thread and is trying to use it was a vehicle to hurl his repertoire of abuse. You need to remember, the village idiot is desperate for some kind of recognition- he even acknowledged this when he made the news for criminal reasons. He has failed in his career and pins his hopes on his hobbies. He is the pseudo Fat Controller of his local toy train club because he hasn't actually built a toy steam train, yet another bit of vapour ware ;-) As for amateur radio, well, his knowledge rather lets him down. Once again, Brian, M3OSN, Old Chap, you post tirades of abuse; abuse about matters that exist only in your own foetid imagination. Why do you behave in such a negative and destructive manner? Why do you feel the need to invent things about which to be abusive, as you do? If you have any of the answers, why not give them, or, if you disagree, then why not say so in the gentlemanly tradition of amateur radio, or else keep you own counsel? I have no "repertoire of abuse" but you do, and it is very apparent in your poisonous rants that pollute these NG on a daily basis. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com