In rec.radio.amateur.antenna 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?

As a photons energy is Plancks constant times frequency, the energy gets
smaller as frequency decreases until the limit of zero frequency, where
the photon doesn't exist.


--
Jim Pennino

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...

I don't think he is! He is demonstrating by reductio ad absurdum that
the photons *don't* disappear.

That is wrong, for what I am asserting is that they don't appear in the
first place in RF
radiation from an antenna because the mechanism for their generation is not
present.

Then you are disagreeing with over a hundred years of well established
physics.

IMHO, it is possible for E-M radiation to be present in several amplitude
modulations, the
(Gaussian?) of a photon or the continuous envelope of a carrier wave.

Incoherent, meaningless word salad.


--
Jim Pennino

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
You are making the same error as the village idiot.
All EM radiation is the same in its nature. Terms like light and radio
waves are simply labels we have applied to different parts of the EM
spectrum. In part possibly because we didn't realise they were related, I
can't recall the history.
The village idiot's confusion is added to by him trying to mix simple Bohr
models of the atom with more complex ones.
Basically, he is out of his depth, as usual. He is forever trying to mix
'school book' physics with terms he has picked up but doesn't understand.
When people try to help him, he abuses them, sometimes inventing his own
'whacky' theories when he can't understand how this work.

Wayne left off my second question, which is well illustrated by what is
quoted above ...

2. Are jimp and brian reay one and the same, because both monikers display
the same
incapability of engaging in well-socialised civil conversations, resorting
to infantile abuse,
and both refuse to be drawn whenever challenged on a technical matter?

Are you attempting to say that both disdain incoherent, word salad babble?



--
Jim Pennino

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna 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?


Exactly the same mechanisms as they are created at ANY frequency.



--
Jim Pennino

"gareth" wrote in
:

"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?

Photons are not "created" as such. They (and waves) are merely different
aspects of the same phenomenon. What you look for is what you will
observe. It may well be that, because the photon energy at 1 MHz is
minuscule, there is no practical way of observing them. But that doesn't
mean they don't exist.

"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.

Therefore, the wave model must exhibit amplitude modulation to have such a
beginning and end.

What is the waveshape of such amplitude modulation?

Planck's hv gives a fixed, particular energy for each photon; so how many
complete cycles
does the photon have within its amplitude envelope?

For those who maintain that RF radiation from antennae is composed of
photons, where
does each photon end and the next one begin?

What experimental evidence is there that RF photons exist (it is easy to
show the existence
of continuous waves, of course)

These are pretty fundamental questions raised from the claim of photons and
perhaps the inability
of the photonists to answer them is indicative of their weak and uncertain
knoweldge of the subject area?

En el artículo , Jerry Stuckle
escribió:

What is the IQ of Gareth?

So massively negative, it would have to be measured in bogons.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

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.

Therefore, the wave model must exhibit amplitude modulation to have such a
beginning and end.

What is the waveshape of such amplitude modulation?

Planck's hv gives a fixed, particular energy for each photon; so how many
complete cycles
does the photon have within its amplitude envelope?

For those who maintain that RF radiation from antennae is composed of
photons, where
does each photon end and the next one begin?

What experimental evidence is there that RF photons exist (it is easy to
show the existence
of continuous waves, of course)

These are pretty fundamental questions raised from the claim of photons and
perhaps the inability
of the photonists to answer them is indicative of their weak and uncertain
knoweldge of the subject area?

You can apply all those arguments to a torch (flashlight), and they will
be equally unhelpful.


--
Roger Hayter

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
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.
Therefore, the wave model must exhibit amplitude modulation to have such
a
beginning and end.
What is the waveshape of such amplitude modulation?
Planck's hv gives a fixed, particular energy for each photon; so how many
complete cycles
does the photon have within its amplitude envelope?
For those who maintain that RF radiation from antennae is composed of
photons, where
does each photon end and the next one begin?
What experimental evidence is there that RF photons exist (it is easy to
show the existence
of continuous waves, of course)
These are pretty fundamental questions raised from the claim of photons
and
perhaps the inability
of the photonists to answer them is indicative of their weak and
uncertain
knoweldge of the subject area?
You can apply all those arguments to a torch (flashlight), and they will
be equally unhelpful.

Not so, for in that case the light is produced by the action of individual
atomic particles
and you cannot radiate at 1 MHz (from Wayne's example) with a single atom.

Roger Hayter wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:

"Wayne" wrote:


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?

You are making the same error as the village idiot.

I don't think he is! He is demonstrating by reductio ad absurdum that
the photons *don't* disappear. But thanks for reinforcing what everyone
but Gareth is saying. You didn't really need to insult Gareth in the
course of demonstrating where he is going wrong though, did you?


All EM radiation is the same in its nature. Terms like light and radio
waves are simply labels we have applied to different parts of the EM
spectrum. In part possibly because we didn't realise they were related, I
can't recall the history.

The village idiot's confusion is added to by him trying to mix simple Bohr
models of the atom with more complex ones.

Basically, he is out of his depth, as usual. He is forever trying to mix
'school book' physics with terms he has picked up but doesn't understand.


When people try to help him, he abuses them, sometimes inventing his own
'whacky' theories when he can't understand how this work.



I never mentioned Gareth. If you linked him to the name 'village idiot',
that is down to you.