In rec.radio.amateur.antenna 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.

Nope.

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

Based on a false premise, so a meaningless question.

What is the waveshape of such amplitude modulation?

Based on a false premise, so a meaningless question.

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

Based on a false premise, so a meaningless question.

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

Based on a false premise, so a meaningless question.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

Read the 74 references at the end of the article.

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?

There is no such word as "photonists".


--
Jim Pennino

gareth wrote:

"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.

Had an MRI scan recently?

--
Roger Hayter

Brian Reay wrote:

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.

You wouldn't accept that alibi from an eleven year old; you surely
don't expect us to accept it from you!

--
Roger Hayter

Roger Hayter wrote:

gareth wrote:

"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.

Had an MRI scan recently?

(For the avoidance of doubt, I don't think MRI does much at 1MHz, but it
certainly works at RF rather then light frequencies.)

--
Roger Hayter

On 9/9/2015 3:41 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
gareth wrote:

"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.

Had an MRI scan recently?


What's an MRI of a vacuum look like?

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

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

On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 16:19:20 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:


What's an MRI of a vacuum look like?

http://sweetclipart.com/multisite/sw...um_outline.png

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/9/2015 3:41 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
gareth wrote:

"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.

Had an MRI scan recently?


What's an MRI of a vacuum look like?

Much like the inside of Gareth's head, I expect.

--
STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur

wrote in message ...

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?

I took that to mean that Gareth doesn't believe that two DIFFERENT people
would disagree with him.



--
Jim Pennino

On 09/09/2015 22:40, Wayne wrote:


wrote in message ...

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?

I took that to mean that Gareth doesn't believe that two DIFFERENT
people would disagree with him.




In essence, yes.

He and his chums (the 'usual rejects') frequently claim, if a few people
disagree with them, that they are simply sock puppets- even when there
is no evidence to support this.


Perhaps you will understand why we tend to ignore him, thus far you've
not seen his more disgraceful behaviour.

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...

Had an MRI scan recently?

Near field induction and not far field radiation.