|
Photons?
"gareth" wrote in message
... 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 month's outpourings into uk.radio.amateur by stephen thomas cole. The last month's ???? Only the last 24 hours should convince you. If nothing else, there is someone who chose his callsign to commemorate his CBer days. Need I say more? |
Photons?
"gareth" wrote:
"gareth" wrote in message ... 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 month's outpourings into uk.radio.amateur by stephen thomas cole. The last month's ???? Only the last 24 hours should convince you. If nothing else, there is someone who chose his callsign to commemorate his CBer days. Need I say more? Tell us again about your short radiators, Gareth. -- STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur |
Photons?
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
... On 11/09/15 13:04, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote: Tell us again about your short radiators, Gareth. Don't encourage him. His twaddle is all in the archives if you must read it. The sooner he goes back to sulking because he is being ignored the better. Once again, your only contribution is infantile abuse. I do not sulk and your allusion thereto is a further invention, a straw man, of your foetid imagination. Why do you behave that way? And why remove the cross-post to hide from our American cousins your true nature? |
Photons?
On 9/11/2015 8:04 AM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
"gareth" wrote: "gareth" wrote in message ... 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 month's outpourings into uk.radio.amateur by stephen thomas cole. The last month's ???? Only the last 24 hours should convince you. If nothing else, there is someone who chose his callsign to commemorate his CBer days. Need I say more? Tell us again about your short radiators, Gareth. Do you mean his two inch one? -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Photons?
"Stephen Thomas Cole" wrote in message
... 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. Yahoo! This is your medication Yahoo! This is your medication Medicate good times, come on! (Let's medicate) Medicate good times, come on! (Let's medicate) There's a party goin' on right here A medication to last throughout the years So bring Ritalin, and your Prozac too We gonna medicate your party with you Come on now Medication Let's all medicate and have a good time Medication We gonna medicate and have a good time It's time to come together It's up to you, what's your pleasure Everyone around the world Come on! Yahoo! It's a medication Yahoo! (stop here) Medicate good times, come on! It's a medication Medicate good times, come on! Let's medicate We're gonna have a good time tonight Let's medicate, it's all right We're gonna have a good time tonight Let's medicate, it's all right Baby We're gonna have a good time tonight (Medication) Let's medicate, it's all right We're gonna have a good time tonight (Medication) Let's medicate, it's all right Yahoo! Yahoo! Medicate good times, come on! (Let's medicate) Medicate good times, come on! It's a medication! Medicate good times, come on! (Let's medicate) Come on and medicate, good times, tonight (Medicate good times, come on!) 'Cause everything's gonna be all right Let's medicate (Medicate good times, come on) (Let's medicate) -- ;-) .. 73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint. .. http://turner-smith.uk |
Photons?
En el artículo , FranK Turner-Smith
G3VKI escribió: Yahoo! This is your medication Brilliant! Many thanks :) -- (\_/) (='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke! (")_(") |
Photons?
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. |
Photons?
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 |
Photons?
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. :-) |
Photons?
FBMBoomer wrote:
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. :-) Read about quantum computers - way beyond my understanding - but instant communication is probably not totally far-fetched. But anyone who knows is welcom to contradict me on this! -- Roger Hayter |
Photons?
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 |
Photons?
In article ,
FBMBoomer wrote: 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. You're thinking of entangled particles? One of the weird things about entanglement (and what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance") is the following paradox: - Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the other member of the pair. This effect occurs regardless of distance, and isn't affected by lightspeed delay. - You can't use this effect to send information faster than the speed of light. At least, nobody has been able to, and (as I understand it) there are good theoretical reasons to believe that it's just not possible. The reasons are (as I said, weird) that when you interact with particle A, the effect on particle B is one which you can't actually detect independently (that is, by measuring particle B alone). You have to compare the measurement on Particle B, with information that you can only get from the measurement that was taken Particle A, to confirm that the effect actually occurred... .... and in order to do this, you have to transmit that information from the Particle A measurement site, to the particle B measurement site, via some other means of communication... which occurs at the speed of light (or slower). 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. :-) 'Tis a fine mythology, and a great technology to hope for (and try to discover). Unfortunately, all of the tests which have been done on entangled systems keep showing that entanglement is real, but (like "superluminal" phase velocity) can't be used to send information faster than C. It's very frustrating. |
Photons?
On 9/14/2015 5:11 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
FBMBoomer wrote: 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. :-) Read about quantum computers - way beyond my understanding - but instant communication is probably not totally far-fetched. But anyone who knows is welcom to contradict me on this! You are talking about tangled quantum states. So far no one has figured out how to use this to communicate over distances. -- Rick |
Photons?
On 9/14/2015 5:44 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/14/2015 5:11 PM, Roger Hayter wrote: FBMBoomer wrote: 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. :-) Read about quantum computers - way beyond my understanding - but instant communication is probably not totally far-fetched. But anyone who knows is welcom to contradict me on this! You are talking about tangled quantum states. So far no one has figured out how to use this to communicate over distances. Scientists have figured out how to communicate quantum states over several miles. It's a start, anyway. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Photons?
On 14/09/2015 22:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
FBMBoomer wrote: 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. :-) Read about quantum computers - way beyond my understanding - but instant communication is probably not totally far-fetched. But anyone who knows is welcom to contradict me on this! It is known as Quantum entanglement communication. in theory it works (and doesn't which is very quantum) it is similar to teleportation where a particle has been teleported in as much as the defining state information from the particle has been sent to another particle. It is doubtful whether either can be brought into the macro world so it could be a long time before anyone gets to say "beam me up Scotty". The idea behind Quantum entanglement communication is that you create quantum twin particles that are entangled and manipulate one to create instant reaction with the other. "Spooky action at a distance"-Einstien. And as soon as someone suggests it someone says it is not possible. There is a No-Communication hypothesis that prevents the sending of information via a quantum entangled state. My head hurts now. Andy |
Photons?
On 14/09/2015 22:32, Dave Platt wrote:
In article , One of the weird things about entanglement (and what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance") is the following paradox: - Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the other member of the pair. This effect occurs regardless of distance, and isn't affected by lightspeed delay. If that is so, then the possibility of a communication channel must exist, the transmission mechanism of which is being used by the particles . The reasons are (as I said, weird) that when you interact with particle A, the effect on particle B is one which you can't actually detect independently (that is, by measuring particle B alone). You have to compare the measurement on Particle B, with information that you can only get from the measurement that was taken Particle A, to confirm that the effect actually occurred... With a million Particles A in a device called a 'transmitter'' and in a distant galaxy, a million Particles B in a device called a 'receiver', a statistical analysis would ensure to a high level of confidence that a change had occurred. It wouldn't be difficult to arrange this to send data. But this is mere technology, that exploits the properties inherent in the entangled particles. Unfortunately, all of the tests which have been done on entangled systems keep showing that entanglement is real, but (like "superluminal" phase velocity) can't be used to send information faster than C. If the effect acts instantaneously over large distances, why can it not be exploited? -- Spike "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power" - Abraham Lincoln |
Photons?
On 9/15/2015 5:10 AM, Spike wrote:
On 14/09/2015 22:32, Dave Platt wrote: In article , One of the weird things about entanglement (and what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance") is the following paradox: - Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the other member of the pair. This effect occurs regardless of distance, and isn't affected by lightspeed delay. If that is so, then the possibility of a communication channel must exist, the transmission mechanism of which is being used by the particles . It doesn't "must" exist. Measuring the state of either particle determines the state of both. So how do you gain any information at the receiving end by this? That's the problem. There is no way to transfer info usefully. The reasons are (as I said, weird) that when you interact with particle A, the effect on particle B is one which you can't actually detect independently (that is, by measuring particle B alone). You have to compare the measurement on Particle B, with information that you can only get from the measurement that was taken Particle A, to confirm that the effect actually occurred... With a million Particles A in a device called a 'transmitter'' and in a distant galaxy, a million Particles B in a device called a 'receiver', a statistical analysis would ensure to a high level of confidence that a change had occurred. It wouldn't be difficult to arrange this to send data. But this is mere technology, that exploits the properties inherent in the entangled particles. What change exactly? How do you get *any* information from the million particles? Unfortunately, all of the tests which have been done on entangled systems keep showing that entanglement is real, but (like "superluminal" phase velocity) can't be used to send information faster than C. If the effect acts instantaneously over large distances, why can it not be exploited? What "effect" exactly? When the partner is observed, an entangled particle resolves to a knowable state so that when you look at it, it is in one state or the other. How do you know which state it will be in until you observe it which causes the same thing, resolution to a knowable state? -- Rick |
Photons?
On 15/09/2015 15:32, rickman wrote:
On 9/15/2015 5:10 AM, Spike wrote: On 14/09/2015 22:32, Dave Platt wrote: In article , One of the weird things about entanglement (and what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance") is the following paradox: - Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the other member of the pair. This effect occurs regardless of distance, and isn't affected by lightspeed delay. If that is so, then the possibility of a communication channel must exist, the transmission mechanism of which is being used by the particles . It doesn't "must" exist. The possibility of a comms system must exist using this effect. That the engineers haven't found a way to exploit it is a different issue. Measuring the state of either particle determines the state of both. So how do you gain any information at the receiving end by this? That's the problem. There is no way to transfer info usefully. One needs to lard in some other factor. Imagine Hertz asking what use his waves could be, all he could do with them is turn them on and off. The reasons are (as I said, weird) that when you interact with particle A, the effect on particle B is one which you can't actually detect independently (that is, by measuring particle B alone). You have to compare the measurement on Particle B, with information that you can only get from the measurement that was taken Particle A, to confirm that the effect actually occurred... With a million Particles A in a device called a 'transmitter'' and in a distant galaxy, a million Particles B in a device called a 'receiver', a statistical analysis would ensure to a high level of confidence that a change had occurred. It wouldn't be difficult to arrange this to send data. But this is mere technology, that exploits the properties inherent in the entangled particles. What change exactly? How do you get *any* information from the million particles? The use of the words 'change' follows from a quote above, namely "...Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the other member of the pair". So, something has changed, and it is measurable. Perhaps the PP could expand on this. A good question to ask here is: what is this change that takes place? It is clearly measurable. Unfortunately, all of the tests which have been done on entangled systems keep showing that entanglement is real, but (like "superluminal" phase velocity) can't be used to send information faster than C. If the effect acts instantaneously over large distances, why can it not be exploited? What "effect" exactly? You'll need to ask that of the PP, as he used the word in his explanation. I was thinking of a comms system that uses the effect (whatever it is) to transfer information. When the partner is observed, an entangled particle resolves to a knowable state so that when you look at it, it is in one state or the other. How do you know which state it will be in until you observe it which causes the same thing, resolution to a knowable state? Perhaps it might help if we knew how many states were available. -- Spike "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power" - Abraham Lincoln |
Photons?
In article ,
Spike wrote: If that is so, then the possibility of a communication channel must exist, the transmission mechanism of which is being used by the particles . It doesn't "must" exist. The possibility of a comms system must exist using this effect. That the engineers haven't found a way to exploit it is a different issue. I think that if you study how entanglement and quantum particles actually work, you'll understand that this is *not* the case. A good question to ask here is: what is this change that takes place? It is clearly measurable. Here's a good video-and-animations explanation of the entanglement, how we know it exists, and why it cannot be used to transmit classical information faster than the speed of light. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c To sum it up: it's clearly measurable, but in order to show that it's happening at all, you need to *compare* two sets of measurements - one taken at each end of the experiment. You cannot "see" the effect by looking only at the measurements taken at one end of the experiment. Due to the nature of quantum mechanics, the measurements taken at one end look entirely random. The measurements you take at the other end of the experiment look equally random, at the time that you take them. It's only when you compare the two sets of measurements, that you can see that they're "random, but opposite". And, you can't compare them without sending one set of measurements to the other end of the experiment... and this can't be done faster than lightspeed. If the effect acts instantaneously over large distances, why can it not be exploited? What "effect" exactly? You'll need to ask that of the PP, as he used the word in his explanation. I was thinking of a comms system that uses the effect (whatever it is) to transfer information. See the video I posted, above, for a pretty good explanation of what the effect is, and why it doesn't help us send messages faster than C. |
Photons?
On 9/16/2015 5:18 AM, Spike wrote:
On 15/09/2015 15:32, rickman wrote: On 9/15/2015 5:10 AM, Spike wrote: On 14/09/2015 22:32, Dave Platt wrote: In article , One of the weird things about entanglement (and what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance") is the following paradox: - Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the other member of the pair. This effect occurs regardless of distance, and isn't affected by lightspeed delay. If that is so, then the possibility of a communication channel must exist, the transmission mechanism of which is being used by the particles . It doesn't "must" exist. The possibility of a comms system must exist using this effect. That the engineers haven't found a way to exploit it is a different issue. Stating a fact does not make it true. There is no principle that requires this to make instantaneous comms possible. Just the opposite, although the principle it would break is not inherent in any other set of rules. It is a conclusion drawn on the basis of our present understanding of the universe. Measuring the state of either particle determines the state of both. So how do you gain any information at the receiving end by this? That's the problem. There is no way to transfer info usefully. One needs to lard in some other factor. Imagine Hertz asking what use his waves could be, all he could do with them is turn them on and off. Got any ideas on what the other lard factor would be? No one else can figure it out. Maybe we should reanimate Hertz and ask him. Maybe not. I think QM would blow his mind and he might go zombie on us. The reasons are (as I said, weird) that when you interact with particle A, the effect on particle B is one which you can't actually detect independently (that is, by measuring particle B alone). You have to compare the measurement on Particle B, with information that you can only get from the measurement that was taken Particle A, to confirm that the effect actually occurred... With a million Particles A in a device called a 'transmitter'' and in a distant galaxy, a million Particles B in a device called a 'receiver', a statistical analysis would ensure to a high level of confidence that a change had occurred. It wouldn't be difficult to arrange this to send data. But this is mere technology, that exploits the properties inherent in the entangled particles. What change exactly? How do you get *any* information from the million particles? The use of the words 'change' follows from a quote above, namely "...Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the other member of the pair". So, something has changed, and it is measurable. Perhaps the PP could expand on this. That's the problem, it *isn't* measurable. The change is that the state has resolved, not changed in the sense that a spin flips state from before and after. Try reading up on how the experiments are done and what is going on. It is pretty clear you don't understand. A good question to ask here is: what is this change that takes place? It is clearly measurable. Exactly, what is the change that takes place? Unfortunately, all of the tests which have been done on entangled systems keep showing that entanglement is real, but (like "superluminal" phase velocity) can't be used to send information faster than C. If the effect acts instantaneously over large distances, why can it not be exploited? What "effect" exactly? You'll need to ask that of the PP, as he used the word in his explanation. I was thinking of a comms system that uses the effect (whatever it is) to transfer information. When you find out please continue the discussion. When the partner is observed, an entangled particle resolves to a knowable state so that when you look at it, it is in one state or the other. How do you know which state it will be in until you observe it which causes the same thing, resolution to a knowable state? Perhaps it might help if we knew how many states were available. Uh, yeah... -- Rick |
Photons?
rickman wrote:
On 9/16/2015 5:18 AM, Spike wrote: On 15/09/2015 15:32, rickman wrote: On 9/15/2015 5:10 AM, Spike wrote: On 14/09/2015 22:32, Dave Platt wrote: In article , One of the weird things about entanglement (and what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance") is the following paradox: - Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the other member of the pair. This effect occurs regardless of distance, and isn't affected by lightspeed delay. If that is so, then the possibility of a communication channel must exist, the transmission mechanism of which is being used by the particles . It doesn't "must" exist. The possibility of a comms system must exist using this effect. That the engineers haven't found a way to exploit it is a different issue. Stating a fact does not make it true. There is no principle that requires this to make instantaneous comms possible. Just the opposite, although the principle it would break is not inherent in any other set of rules. It is a conclusion drawn on the basis of our present understanding of the universe. Measuring the state of either particle determines the state of both. So how do you gain any information at the receiving end by this? That's the problem. There is no way to transfer info usefully. One needs to lard in some other factor. Imagine Hertz asking what use his waves could be, all he could do with them is turn them on and off. Got any ideas on what the other lard factor would be? No one else can figure it out. Maybe we should reanimate Hertz and ask him. Maybe not. I think QM would blow his mind and he might go zombie on us. The reasons are (as I said, weird) that when you interact with particle A, the effect on particle B is one which you can't actually detect independently (that is, by measuring particle B alone). You have to compare the measurement on Particle B, with information that you can only get from the measurement that was taken Particle A, to confirm that the effect actually occurred... With a million Particles A in a device called a 'transmitter'' and in a distant galaxy, a million Particles B in a device called a 'receiver', a statistical analysis would ensure to a high level of confidence that a change had occurred. It wouldn't be difficult to arrange this to send data. But this is mere technology, that exploits the properties inherent in the entangled particles. What change exactly? How do you get *any* information from the million particles? The use of the words 'change' follows from a quote above, namely "...Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the other member of the pair". So, something has changed, and it is measurable. Perhaps the PP could expand on this. That's the problem, it *isn't* measurable. The change is that the state has resolved, not changed in the sense that a spin flips state from before and after. Try reading up on how the experiments are done and what is going on. It is pretty clear you don't understand. A good question to ask here is: what is this change that takes place? It is clearly measurable. Exactly, what is the change that takes place? Unfortunately, all of the tests which have been done on entangled systems keep showing that entanglement is real, but (like "superluminal" phase velocity) can't be used to send information faster than C. If the effect acts instantaneously over large distances, why can it not be exploited? What "effect" exactly? You'll need to ask that of the PP, as he used the word in his explanation. I was thinking of a comms system that uses the effect (whatever it is) to transfer information. When you find out please continue the discussion. When the partner is observed, an entangled particle resolves to a knowable state so that when you look at it, it is in one state or the other. How do you know which state it will be in until you observe it which causes the same thing, resolution to a knowable state? Perhaps it might help if we knew how many states were available. Uh, yeah... Spike absolutely owned here, as per. Cue massive tantrum. -- STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur |
Photons?
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:
On 15/09/2015 15:32, rickman wrote: On 9/15/2015 5:10 AM, Spike wrote: On 14/09/2015 22:32, Dave Platt wrote: In article , One of the weird things about entanglement (and what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance") is the following paradox: - Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the other member of the pair. This effect occurs regardless of distance, and isn't affected by lightspeed delay. If that is so, then the possibility of a communication channel must exist, the transmission mechanism of which is being used by the particles . It doesn't "must" exist. The possibility of a comms system must exist using this effect. That the engineers haven't found a way to exploit it is a different issue. Engineering has nothing to do with it, the problem is fundemental physics which says it can not be done. Measuring the state of either particle determines the state of both. So how do you gain any information at the receiving end by this? That's the problem. There is no way to transfer info usefully. One needs to lard in some other factor. Imagine Hertz asking what use his waves could be, all he could do with them is turn them on and off. Go for it. If you succeed your Nobel is guaranteed, your name will be ranked right up there with Einstein, and you will be ushering in a whole new era of quantum physics. -- Jim Pennino |
Photons?
On 9/16/2015 12:38 PM, Dave Platt wrote:
In article , Spike wrote: If that is so, then the possibility of a communication channel must exist, the transmission mechanism of which is being used by the particles . It doesn't "must" exist. The possibility of a comms system must exist using this effect. That the engineers haven't found a way to exploit it is a different issue. I think that if you study how entanglement and quantum particles actually work, you'll understand that this is *not* the case. A good question to ask here is: what is this change that takes place? It is clearly measurable. Here's a good video-and-animations explanation of the entanglement, how we know it exists, and why it cannot be used to transmit classical information faster than the speed of light. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuvK-od647c To sum it up: it's clearly measurable, but in order to show that it's happening at all, you need to *compare* two sets of measurements - one taken at each end of the experiment. You cannot "see" the effect by looking only at the measurements taken at one end of the experiment. Due to the nature of quantum mechanics, the measurements taken at one end look entirely random. The measurements you take at the other end of the experiment look equally random, at the time that you take them. It's only when you compare the two sets of measurements, that you can see that they're "random, but opposite". And, you can't compare them without sending one set of measurements to the other end of the experiment... and this can't be done faster than lightspeed. Good explanation. The point taken away from this is that the principle of "spooky action at a distance" doesn't violate any laws we currently hold to be true, partly because of the simultaneity issue. The speed of light also sets a limit to how well you can establish the precedence of events. The concept of simultaneous becomes "fuzzy" as limited by the distance separating the two events. In some situations it becomes impossible to say which of the two observations were first and so clearly information can not be conveyed since the direction would depend on which event was first. -- Rick |
Photons?
Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
rickman wrote: On 9/16/2015 5:18 AM, Spike wrote: On 15/09/2015 15:32, rickman wrote: snip When the partner is observed, an entangled particle resolves to a knowable state so that when you look at it, it is in one state or the other. How do you know which state it will be in until you observe it which causes the same thing, resolution to a knowable state? Perhaps it might help if we knew how many states were available. Uh, yeah... Spike absolutely owned here, as per. Cue massive tantrum. This is an interesting discussion for some of us; if you can't contribute, could you kindly keep your mouth shut? -- Roger Hayter |
Photons?
|
Photons?
"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
... Stephen Thomas Cole wrote: rickman wrote: On 9/16/2015 5:18 AM, Spike wrote: On 15/09/2015 15:32, rickman wrote: snip When the partner is observed, an entangled particle resolves to a knowable state so that when you look at it, it is in one state or the other. How do you know which state it will be in until you observe it which causes the same thing, resolution to a knowable state? Perhaps it might help if we knew how many states were available. Uh, yeah... Spike absolutely owned here, as per. Cue massive tantrum. This is an interesting discussion for some of us; if you can't contribute, could you kindly keep your mouth shut? +1 |
Photons?
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. |
Photons?
|
Photons?
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. 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. I did a little work on sonar for TRW. I got just enough of a taste to understand how difficult it could be. But most of the difficulty came from the circumstances and restrictions imposed rather than the basic work. I got a little knowledge on the EMSP. I seem to recall it never reached deployment, but I find Internet references to it being the standard acoustic platform at some point. I can't imagine 1980's technology would be used even in 2000, much less now. I guess they did some upgrades before it reached production. -- Rick |
Photons?
On 9/16/2015 5:17 PM, Spike wrote:
On 16/09/2015 18:43, wrote: In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote: One needs to lard in some other factor. Imagine Hertz asking what use his waves could be, all he could do with them is turn them on and off. Go for it. If you succeed your Nobel is guaranteed, your name will be ranked right up there with Einstein, and you will be ushering in a whole new era of quantum physics. There are no such things as stupid questions, but there certainly are stupid answers. Indeed. -- Rick |
Photons?
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote:
On 16/09/2015 18:43, wrote: In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote: One needs to lard in some other factor. Imagine Hertz asking what use his waves could be, all he could do with them is turn them on and off. Go for it. If you succeed your Nobel is guaranteed, your name will be ranked right up there with Einstein, and you will be ushering in a whole new era of quantum physics. There are no such things as stupid questions, but there certainly are stupid answers. The problem is you don't understand why what I wrote is factual. No Nobel for you. -- Jim Pennino |
Photons?
"Spike" wrote in message
... On 16/09/2015 18:43, wrote: In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote: One needs to lard in some other factor. Imagine Hertz asking what use his waves could be, all he could do with them is turn them on and off. Go for it. If you succeed your Nobel is guaranteed, your name will be ranked right up there with Einstein, and you will be ushering in a whole new era of quantum physics. There are no such things as stupid questions, but there certainly are stupid answers. You have Jimmy Pendulumino down to a T, and he is very like the Kentish Duet of Reay and Cole, where both trip over themsleves in their haste to want to be abusive. |
Photons?
On 16/09/2015 22:37, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote: On 16/09/2015 18:43, wrote: In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote: One needs to lard in some other factor. Imagine Hertz asking what use his waves could be, all he could do with them is turn them on and off. Go for it. If you succeed your Nobel is guaranteed, your name will be ranked right up there with Einstein, and you will be ushering in a whole new era of quantum physics. There are no such things as stupid questions, but there certainly are stupid answers. The problem is you don't understand why what I wrote is factual. No Nobel for you. With a subject like this, I'd probably be Rosalind Franklin'd. -- Spike "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power" - Abraham Lincoln |
Photons?
"rickman" wrote in message
... I did a little work on sonar for TRW. I did a little work on power steering for TRW and was disturbed by their attempting to debug their software purely on the CANBus messages that came out; hardly a professional approach for such a safety-critical car component. |
Photons?
On 9/16/2015 5:17 PM, Spike wrote:
On 16/09/2015 18:43, wrote: In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote: One needs to lard in some other factor. Imagine Hertz asking what use his waves could be, all he could do with them is turn them on and off. Go for it. If you succeed your Nobel is guaranteed, your name will be ranked right up there with Einstein, and you will be ushering in a whole new era of quantum physics. There are no such things as stupid questions, but there certainly are stupid answers. I disagree. From years of corporate training, I have found exactly ONE stupid question. That is the one that is never asked. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Photons?
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. snip -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Photons?
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? -- Rick |
Photons?
Spike wrote:
On 16/09/2015 18:43, wrote: In rec.radio.amateur.antenna Spike wrote: One needs to lard in some other factor. Imagine Hertz asking what use his waves could be, all he could do with them is turn them on and off. Go for it. If you succeed your Nobel is guaranteed, your name will be ranked right up there with Einstein, and you will be ushering in a whole new era of quantum physics. There are no such things as stupid questions, but there certainly are stupid answers. I'm not sure that your statement would survive the Gareth Test. -- STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur |
Photons?
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com