FBMBoomer wrote:




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 waves are just lower frequency light waves, and light waves
are just higher frequency radio waves. And both have the properties of
photons as well as the properties of waves.

The important thing to realise is that photons don't have to be linked
to light, despite their name, because the light-related name was just a
historical accident of how they were discovered. The photons equivalent
to lower frequency electromagnetic radiation such as radio waves can't
be seen and get to and from antennae even if they are effectively
screened from the light.

--
Roger Hayter

On 9/14/2015 2:15 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
FBMBoomer wrote:




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 waves are just lower frequency light waves, and light waves
are just higher frequency radio waves. And both have the properties of
photons as well as the properties of waves.

The important thing to realise is that photons don't have to be linked
to light, despite their name, because the light-related name was just a
historical accident of how they were discovered. The photons equivalent
to lower frequency electromagnetic radiation such as radio waves can't
be seen and get to and from antennae even if they are effectively
screened from the light.


Thanks for that polite response. I really could not ascertain an answer
through all the static before.

It appears my professor was mistaken, or perhaps he was telling us what
was known at that time.

Now what ham radio needs is a completely new type of communication. I am
thinking of those twin particles that react to one another regardless of
distance and without the delay of distance.

I think this was demonstrated very well on Star Trek. They can talk
across light years instantly. To bad Gene is dead. He could have helped
us all out with just how to do this. It was in all the scripts, it must
be true. It is my mythology so don't be making fun of it.

:-)

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.

--

Rick

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.

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

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.


--
Roger Hayter

"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.

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.

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

"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?

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