|
Photons?
Roger Hayter wrote:
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? The observation that Spike has, yet again, waded into a topic on which he is clearly way out of his depth and that he is, as per, simply trying to pontificate himself out of trouble is a perfectly valid contribution to the discussion. -- STC // M0TEY // twitter.com/ukradioamateur |
Photons?
On 16/09/2015 17:38, Dave Platt wrote:
In article , Spike wrote: 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. Thanks for the video link. I wish physics had been presented like that in my day...but it wasn't. It's interesting to note that in a couple of places, the presenter said something like "... most scientists agree that...", which implies that there may well be other qualities of the particles that are not understood at this time - and which could 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?
"gareth" wrote in message
... "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. OK, let's hear the bad news: what sort of vehicles have you bodged the steering software on? -- ;-) .. 73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint. .. http://turner-smith.uk |
Photons?
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
... "gareth" wrote in message ... "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. Don't worry Frank, it is his usual nonsense. The TRW system defaults to a 'fail safe mode' if there is a Canbus issue, with the pump operating at a preset speed. Plus, of course, we can be sure his claims are revenge and reflect on him. If you look back over his comments re past employers, he has made similar comments about everyone. I don't recall a single positive comment. Of course, there is a common factor. Once again, Brian, M3OSN, Old Chum, your responses have nothing to do with the gentlemanly traditions of amateur radio and owe everything to your seeming wish to be abusove at every turn, very much in the style of a disruptive infant in the kindergarten. Why do you persist in behaving like that? And why did you remove the rra.antenna cross post? Was it to hide your true nature from the Yanks? And you really ought to check your facts before invoking your desperate wish to want to insult, because the system under development had no pump, it was all electrical, but thankfully intended for the American market so no danger on Brit roads! Interesting was the size of the FETs to drive the motor, which were several orders of magnitude bigger then the microprocessor driving them. I put this down to the motors always in a starting mode and never geting up to a speed at which the back EMF would be generated. One other thing that concerned me was that the steering system had no point of reference to know when the steering wheel was in the middle position, and waited until it received a CANBus signal from the ABS unit that all wheels were now turning at the same speed, a condition that could easily come when starting off on an icy road with the steering wheel hard over to one side, thus resulting in a steering system that would prevent you completely from being able to steer to that side; particularly dangerous on an icy road! |
Photons?
On 9/17/2015 1:17 AM, rickman wrote:
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? Quantum entanglement, for instance. Symmetry, for another. In fact, much of quantum mechanics is not well understood. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Photons?
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna rickman wrote:
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? Compton, A. (1923). "A Quantum Theory of the Scattering of X-rays by Light Elements" Physical Review 21 (5): 483-502 Pretty much the end of the discussion as to whether or not the photon nature was real. -- Jim Pennino |
Photons?
On 17/09/2015 08:55, Spike wrote:
On 16/09/2015 17:38, Dave Platt wrote: 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 Thanks for the video link. I wish physics had been presented like that in my day...but it wasn't. It's interesting to note that in a couple of places, the presenter said something like "... most scientists agree that...", which implies that there may well be other qualities of the particles that are not understood at this time - and which could be exploited. Looking through the video a second time, one of the contributors says something like "...It's almost as if there's someone standing behind it, playing us a trick". I took this to mean that while the gross, measurable, properties have been accepted, there is more to this that has yet to be discovered. It might well happen that a deeper knowledge will reveal some property that could result in this being the basis of a communications system or a matter transporter. I'm struck by the comparison between this and the atomic physics of the era when the state of knowledge of the latter amounted to that related to protons, neutrons, and electrons. -- Spike "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power" - Abraham Lincoln |
Photons?
"gareth" wrote in message
... One other thing that concerned me was that the steering system had no point of reference to know when the steering wheel was in the middle position, and waited until it received a CANBus signal from the ABS unit that all wheels were now turning at the same speed, a condition that could easily come when starting off on an icy road with the steering wheel hard over to one side, thus resulting in a steering system that would prevent you completely from being able to steer to that side; particularly dangerous on an icy road! BULL**** -- ;-) .. 73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint. .. http://turner-smith.uk |
Photons?
On 9/17/2015 6:47 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/17/2015 1:17 AM, rickman wrote: 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? Quantum entanglement, for instance. Symmetry, for another. In fact, much of quantum mechanics is not well understood. But what does any of that have to do with the duality of EM radiation? -- Rick |
Photons?
rickman wrote:
On 9/17/2015 6:47 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip Quantum entanglement, for instance. Symmetry, for another. In fact, much of quantum mechanics is not well understood. But what does any of that have to do with the duality of EM radiation? If we were just in ukra this would be quite permissible thread drift. Sorry about that. -- Roger Hayter |
Photons?
On 9/17/2015 10:34 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/17/2015 6:47 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 9/17/2015 1:17 AM, rickman wrote: 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? Quantum entanglement, for instance. Symmetry, for another. In fact, much of quantum mechanics is not well understood. But what does any of that have to do with the duality of EM radiation? They are all parts of quantum mechanics - and are poorly understood. And everything in quantum mechanics is tied together. You can't separate them. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle ================== |
Photons?
On 9/18/2015 6:01 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
rickman wrote: On 9/17/2015 6:47 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: snip Quantum entanglement, for instance. Symmetry, for another. In fact, much of quantum mechanics is not well understood. But what does any of that have to do with the duality of EM radiation? If we were just in ukra this would be quite permissible thread drift. Sorry about that. The issue isn't thread drift, I'm talking about the point of discussion. FBMBoomer was excusing the misinformation he was taught in the 60's by his professor, saying QM wasn't well understood. I am making the point that the duality of light *was* well understood in the 60's. Rereading FBM's post I see he was saying perhaps this was not well understood when his professor was taught. That may be true. I don't know when his professor was taught and that potentially is a wide window. But Jerry is saying QM has poorly understood aspects which is not responsive to the original thoughts about duality of light. -- Rick |
Photons?
On 9/18/2015 8:33 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/17/2015 10:34 PM, rickman wrote: On 9/17/2015 6:47 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 9/17/2015 1:17 AM, rickman wrote: 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? Quantum entanglement, for instance. Symmetry, for another. In fact, much of quantum mechanics is not well understood. But what does any of that have to do with the duality of EM radiation? They are all parts of quantum mechanics - and are poorly understood. And everything in quantum mechanics is tied together. You can't separate them. Lol. Ok fine, we don't know everything about everything, much less about nothing. -- Rick |
Photons?
On 9/18/2015 8:41 AM, rickman wrote:
On 9/18/2015 8:33 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 9/17/2015 10:34 PM, rickman wrote: On 9/17/2015 6:47 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 9/17/2015 1:17 AM, rickman wrote: 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? Quantum entanglement, for instance. Symmetry, for another. In fact, much of quantum mechanics is not well understood. But what does any of that have to do with the duality of EM radiation? They are all parts of quantum mechanics - and are poorly understood. And everything in quantum mechanics is tied together. You can't separate them. Lol. Ok fine, we don't know everything about everything, much less about nothing. Quite so. For instance, look at the double-slit experiment - a good explanation can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc. This talks about electrons - but http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_ce...res/lec13.html shows how it relates to photons, also. Scientists know WHAT happens - but they are at a complete loss as to WHY it happens, because it's all lost in the maze of quantum mechanics. Math can well describe and predict what happens at the macro level. But no math so far can describe everything (or even a significant portion of anything) that happens at the quantum level. Even supersymmetry, the one that has received the highest level of acceptance (but by no means is universal) and comes the closest so far, may be falling under the results of experiments from the Large Hadron Collider. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Photons?
On 9/18/2015 11:23 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/18/2015 8:41 AM, rickman wrote: On 9/18/2015 8:33 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 9/17/2015 10:34 PM, rickman wrote: On 9/17/2015 6:47 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 9/17/2015 1:17 AM, rickman wrote: 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? Quantum entanglement, for instance. Symmetry, for another. In fact, much of quantum mechanics is not well understood. But what does any of that have to do with the duality of EM radiation? They are all parts of quantum mechanics - and are poorly understood. And everything in quantum mechanics is tied together. You can't separate them. Lol. Ok fine, we don't know everything about everything, much less about nothing. Quite so. For instance, look at the double-slit experiment - a good explanation can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc. This talks about electrons - but http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_ce...res/lec13.html shows how it relates to photons, also. Scientists know WHAT happens - but they are at a complete loss as to WHY it happens, because it's all lost in the maze of quantum mechanics. "Why" is not really a science question. You can explain the "why" of thanks until you get to the basic level. Then it just "is". We don't know the grand "why" and most really there is no "why". "Why" is a human issue, not a scientific one. Math can well describe and predict what happens at the macro level. But "why" do things happen at the macro level? But no math so far can describe everything (or even a significant portion of anything) that happens at the quantum level. Even supersymmetry, the one that has received the highest level of acceptance (but by no means is universal) and comes the closest so far, may be falling under the results of experiments from the Large Hadron Collider. All science is only temporary, until the next big measurement that disagrees with theory, so a new theory must be found. And as before, none of this applies to the issue of duality which is well understood. -- Rick |
Photons?
On 9/18/2015 12:43 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/18/2015 11:23 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 9/18/2015 8:41 AM, rickman wrote: On 9/18/2015 8:33 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 9/17/2015 10:34 PM, rickman wrote: On 9/17/2015 6:47 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 9/17/2015 1:17 AM, rickman wrote: 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? Quantum entanglement, for instance. Symmetry, for another. In fact, much of quantum mechanics is not well understood. But what does any of that have to do with the duality of EM radiation? They are all parts of quantum mechanics - and are poorly understood. And everything in quantum mechanics is tied together. You can't separate them. Lol. Ok fine, we don't know everything about everything, much less about nothing. Quite so. For instance, look at the double-slit experiment - a good explanation can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc. This talks about electrons - but http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_ce...res/lec13.html shows how it relates to photons, also. Scientists know WHAT happens - but they are at a complete loss as to WHY it happens, because it's all lost in the maze of quantum mechanics. "Why" is not really a science question. You can explain the "why" of thanks until you get to the basic level. Then it just "is". We don't know the grand "why" and most really there is no "why". "Why" is a human issue, not a scientific one. No, "why" is the most basic science question. Why do planets orbit the sun? Why does an object continue on the same path at the same velocity unless something interacts with it? Why does a rolling stone gather no moss? Math can well describe and predict what happens at the macro level. But "why" do things happen at the macro level? Gravity. Inertia. Both of which can be explained mathematically and operate consistently at the macro level. But no math so far can describe everything (or even a significant portion of anything) that happens at the quantum level. Even supersymmetry, the one that has received the highest level of acceptance (but by no means is universal) and comes the closest so far, may be falling under the results of experiments from the Large Hadron Collider. All science is only temporary, until the next big measurement that disagrees with theory, so a new theory must be found. Very true. But some theories stand the test of time. And as before, none of this applies to the issue of duality which is well understood. The issue of duality is accepted. But it is far from understood. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Photons?
On 9/18/2015 1:03 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/18/2015 12:43 PM, rickman wrote: On 9/18/2015 11:23 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 9/18/2015 8:41 AM, rickman wrote: On 9/18/2015 8:33 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 9/17/2015 10:34 PM, rickman wrote: On 9/17/2015 6:47 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 9/17/2015 1:17 AM, rickman wrote: 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? Quantum entanglement, for instance. Symmetry, for another. In fact, much of quantum mechanics is not well understood. But what does any of that have to do with the duality of EM radiation? They are all parts of quantum mechanics - and are poorly understood. And everything in quantum mechanics is tied together. You can't separate them. Lol. Ok fine, we don't know everything about everything, much less about nothing. Quite so. For instance, look at the double-slit experiment - a good explanation can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc. This talks about electrons - but http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_ce...res/lec13.html shows how it relates to photons, also. Scientists know WHAT happens - but they are at a complete loss as to WHY it happens, because it's all lost in the maze of quantum mechanics. "Why" is not really a science question. You can explain the "why" of thanks until you get to the basic level. Then it just "is". We don't know the grand "why" and most really there is no "why". "Why" is a human issue, not a scientific one. No, "why" is the most basic science question. Why do planets orbit the sun? Except they always bring you to a "why" you can't answer. Why do the planets orbit, gravity. Why is there gravity....? Why does an object continue on the same path at the same velocity unless something interacts with it? Why does a rolling stone gather no moss? Exactly, why? There are no answers to why questions. When we answer why questions we are really giving "how" answers and at some point the "how" runs out when we reach the bottom turtle. Math can well describe and predict what happens at the macro level. But "why" do things happen at the macro level? Gravity. Inertia. Both of which can be explained mathematically and operate consistently at the macro level. "Explained"??? No, math only describes, it doesn't give an answer to a "why" question in any form. But no math so far can describe everything (or even a significant portion of anything) that happens at the quantum level. Even supersymmetry, the one that has received the highest level of acceptance (but by no means is universal) and comes the closest so far, may be falling under the results of experiments from the Large Hadron Collider. All science is only temporary, until the next big measurement that disagrees with theory, so a new theory must be found. Very true. But some theories stand the test of time. Such as? There are theories that have been modified and theories that have not be tested enough to fail. And as before, none of this applies to the issue of duality which is well understood. The issue of duality is accepted. But it is far from understood. Silly boy. In the context it was brought up, "understood" means being able to describe enough that any college professor can understand. The way you use the term, nothing is understood. Certainly gravity is not "understood". -- Rick |
Photons?
On 9/18/2015 1:18 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/18/2015 1:03 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 9/18/2015 12:43 PM, rickman wrote: On 9/18/2015 11:23 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 9/18/2015 8:41 AM, rickman wrote: On 9/18/2015 8:33 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 9/17/2015 10:34 PM, rickman wrote: On 9/17/2015 6:47 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 9/17/2015 1:17 AM, rickman wrote: 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? Quantum entanglement, for instance. Symmetry, for another. In fact, much of quantum mechanics is not well understood. But what does any of that have to do with the duality of EM radiation? They are all parts of quantum mechanics - and are poorly understood. And everything in quantum mechanics is tied together. You can't separate them. Lol. Ok fine, we don't know everything about everything, much less about nothing. Quite so. For instance, look at the double-slit experiment - a good explanation can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc. This talks about electrons - but http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_ce...res/lec13.html shows how it relates to photons, also. Scientists know WHAT happens - but they are at a complete loss as to WHY it happens, because it's all lost in the maze of quantum mechanics. "Why" is not really a science question. You can explain the "why" of thanks until you get to the basic level. Then it just "is". We don't know the grand "why" and most really there is no "why". "Why" is a human issue, not a scientific one. No, "why" is the most basic science question. Why do planets orbit the sun? Except they always bring you to a "why" you can't answer. Why do the planets orbit, gravity. Why is there gravity....? To a certain point, yes. But gravity then becomes part of the unified field theory, which has yet to be developed. However, all scientists agree that gravity exists and how it affects the world around us. That's macro level. Why is there gravity is quantum level physics. Why does an object continue on the same path at the same velocity unless something interacts with it? Why does a rolling stone gather no moss? Exactly, why? There are no answers to why questions. When we answer why questions we are really giving "how" answers and at some point the "how" runs out when we reach the bottom turtle. Sure there are, at the macro level. Inertia is well understood and accepted. What causes it is at the quantum level - and again, is part of the unified field theory which has yet to be developed. Don't confuse macro physics with quantum physics. Macro physics is quite well understood and accepted. Quantum physics is not. Math can well describe and predict what happens at the macro level. But "why" do things happen at the macro level? Gravity. Inertia. Both of which can be explained mathematically and operate consistently at the macro level. "Explained"??? No, math only describes, it doesn't give an answer to a "why" question in any form. Which again gets into quantum physics. But no math so far can describe everything (or even a significant portion of anything) that happens at the quantum level. Even supersymmetry, the one that has received the highest level of acceptance (but by no means is universal) and comes the closest so far, may be falling under the results of experiments from the Large Hadron Collider. All science is only temporary, until the next big measurement that disagrees with theory, so a new theory must be found. Very true. But some theories stand the test of time. Such as? There are theories that have been modified and theories that have not be tested enough to fail. Theory of thermodynamics, for instance. Inertia. Gravity. All of these fall into the macro physics world and have stood the test of time. And as before, none of this applies to the issue of duality which is well understood. The issue of duality is accepted. But it is far from understood. Silly boy. In the context it was brought up, "understood" means being able to describe enough that any college professor can understand. The way you use the term, nothing is understood. Certainly gravity is not "understood". Now you're starting with the personal attacks - as you always do when you don't understand something. I should have known better than to try to carry on an intellectual conversation - it always ends up this way - no matter who you're discussing it with. But I'm not going to give you the pleasure of continuing the insults. I'm done with you. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry, AI0K ================== |
Photons?
On 9/18/2015 1:38 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/18/2015 1:18 PM, rickman wrote: On 9/18/2015 1:03 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 9/18/2015 12:43 PM, rickman wrote: On 9/18/2015 11:23 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 9/18/2015 8:41 AM, rickman wrote: On 9/18/2015 8:33 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 9/17/2015 10:34 PM, rickman wrote: On 9/17/2015 6:47 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: On 9/17/2015 1:17 AM, rickman wrote: 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? Quantum entanglement, for instance. Symmetry, for another. In fact, much of quantum mechanics is not well understood. But what does any of that have to do with the duality of EM radiation? They are all parts of quantum mechanics - and are poorly understood. And everything in quantum mechanics is tied together. You can't separate them. Lol. Ok fine, we don't know everything about everything, much less about nothing. Quite so. For instance, look at the double-slit experiment - a good explanation can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc. This talks about electrons - but http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_ce...res/lec13.html shows how it relates to photons, also. Scientists know WHAT happens - but they are at a complete loss as to WHY it happens, because it's all lost in the maze of quantum mechanics. "Why" is not really a science question. You can explain the "why" of thanks until you get to the basic level. Then it just "is". We don't know the grand "why" and most really there is no "why". "Why" is a human issue, not a scientific one. No, "why" is the most basic science question. Why do planets orbit the sun? Except they always bring you to a "why" you can't answer. Why do the planets orbit, gravity. Why is there gravity....? To a certain point, yes. But gravity then becomes part of the unified field theory, which has yet to be developed. However, all scientists agree that gravity exists and how it affects the world around us. That's macro level. Why is there gravity is quantum level physics. Why does an object continue on the same path at the same velocity unless something interacts with it? Why does a rolling stone gather no moss? Exactly, why? There are no answers to why questions. When we answer why questions we are really giving "how" answers and at some point the "how" runs out when we reach the bottom turtle. Sure there are, at the macro level. Inertia is well understood and accepted. What causes it is at the quantum level - and again, is part of the unified field theory which has yet to be developed. Don't confuse macro physics with quantum physics. Macro physics is quite well understood and accepted. Quantum physics is not. Math can well describe and predict what happens at the macro level. But "why" do things happen at the macro level? Gravity. Inertia. Both of which can be explained mathematically and operate consistently at the macro level. "Explained"??? No, math only describes, it doesn't give an answer to a "why" question in any form. Which again gets into quantum physics. But no math so far can describe everything (or even a significant portion of anything) that happens at the quantum level. Even supersymmetry, the one that has received the highest level of acceptance (but by no means is universal) and comes the closest so far, may be falling under the results of experiments from the Large Hadron Collider. All science is only temporary, until the next big measurement that disagrees with theory, so a new theory must be found. Very true. But some theories stand the test of time. Such as? There are theories that have been modified and theories that have not be tested enough to fail. Theory of thermodynamics, for instance. Inertia. Gravity. All of these fall into the macro physics world and have stood the test of time. And as before, none of this applies to the issue of duality which is well understood. The issue of duality is accepted. But it is far from understood. Silly boy. In the context it was brought up, "understood" means being able to describe enough that any college professor can understand. The way you use the term, nothing is understood. Certainly gravity is not "understood". Now you're starting with the personal attacks - as you always do when you don't understand something. I should have known better than to try to carry on an intellectual conversation - it always ends up this way - no matter who you're discussing it with. But I'm not going to give you the pleasure of continuing the insults. I'm done with you. Lol. "Silly boy" is a personal attack??? Golly. -- Rick |
Photons?
At Wed, 16 Sep 2015 15:54:54 -0500, FBMBoomer rearranged some electrons to
write: 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. Pittsfield MA? |
Photons?
At Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:30:56 -0400, rickman rearranged some electrons to
write: 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. Every single bare circuit board used on AN/UYS-2 was tested using programs that I wrote. Back in the day. |
Photons?
On 9/19/2015 8:09 AM, David wrote:
At Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:30:56 -0400, rickman rearranged some electrons to write: 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. Every single bare circuit board used on AN/UYS-2 was tested using programs that I wrote. Back in the day. Maybe you can help me understand. I was on the program when it first got started. ATT got the contract to develop the hardware and it was all fully custom ICs. The design consisted of processing units with 2 adders and 1 multiplier each, all floating point. ECOS was supposed to be the way it was programmed and was graphical. I left for another job and years later a friend told me the EMSP program got very complicated, ECOS never worked right, potential users of the system started to bail. They ended up having so few potential users that the unit cost rose through the roof. I thought in the end the entire program was canceled. But I find references that say it was the system used in the 90's which is really surprising. Did I hear wrong or was it just exaggerated? Where was this processor actually used? I think it the program was started by the Navy for use on submaries, so I assume they would have been the last user to stay with the program. -- Rick |
Photons?
On 21/09/15 15:40, rickman wrote:
On 9/19/2015 8:09 AM, David wrote: At Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:30:56 -0400, rickman rearranged some electrons to write: 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. Every single bare circuit board used on AN/UYS-2 was tested using programs that I wrote. Back in the day. Maybe you can help me understand. I was on the program when it first got started. ATT got the contract to develop the hardware and it was all fully custom ICs. The design consisted of processing units with 2 adders and 1 multiplier each, all floating point. ECOS was supposed to be the way it was programmed and was graphical. I left for another job and years later a friend told me the EMSP program got very complicated, ECOS never worked right, potential users of the system started to bail. They ended up having so few potential users that the unit cost rose through the roof. I thought in the end the entire program was canceled. But I find references that say it was the system used in the 90's which is really surprising. Did I hear wrong or was it just exaggerated? Where was this processor actually used? I think it the program was started by the Navy for use on submaries, so I assume they would have been the last user to stay with the program. Assuming it was made to work, the 'life span' is not that unusual. The AYK-14 Mission Computer was a mid 70s design and celebrated 30 years in service about a decade back. It was used in a raft of aircraft and is gradually being replaced by a more modern design. |
Photons?
At Mon, 21 Sep 2015 10:40:10 -0400, rickman rearranged some electrons to
write: On 9/19/2015 8:09 AM, David wrote: At Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:30:56 -0400, rickman rearranged some electrons to write: 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. Every single bare circuit board used on AN/UYS-2 was tested using programs that I wrote. Back in the day. Maybe you can help me understand. I was on the program when it first got started. ATT got the contract to develop the hardware and it was all fully custom ICs. Yes. My employer. I thought in the end the entire program was canceled. But I find references that say it was the system used in the 90's which is really surprising. http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/an-uys-2.htm Did I hear wrong or was it just exaggerated? Where was this processor actually used? I think it the program was started by the Navy for use on submaries, so I assume they would have been the last user to stay with the program. The submarine world is now using mostly COTS hardware to perform these functions. http://www.militaryaerospace.com/art...rci-sonar.html |
Photons?
On 10/9/2015 9:01 AM, David wrote:
At Mon, 21 Sep 2015 10:40:10 -0400, rickman rearranged some electrons to write: On 9/19/2015 8:09 AM, David wrote: At Wed, 16 Sep 2015 17:30:56 -0400, rickman rearranged some electrons to write: 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. Every single bare circuit board used on AN/UYS-2 was tested using programs that I wrote. Back in the day. Maybe you can help me understand. I was on the program when it first got started. ATT got the contract to develop the hardware and it was all fully custom ICs. Yes. My employer. I thought in the end the entire program was canceled. But I find references that say it was the system used in the 90's which is really surprising. http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/an-uys-2.htm Did I hear wrong or was it just exaggerated? Where was this processor actually used? I think it the program was started by the Navy for use on submaries, so I assume they would have been the last user to stay with the program. The submarine world is now using mostly COTS hardware to perform these functions. http://www.militaryaerospace.com/art...rci-sonar.html That is clearly the smart thing. I see this in the link above. "AN/UYS-2 COTS Variant (ACV)" So they built a few of the EMSP but scrapped it before building more and switched to COTS hardware. Before I worked for TRW where I learned of the EMSP I worked for Start Technologies where they built a 100 MFLOPS array processor. It would have required a total redesign to meet the environmental requirements, but they could have done the entire EMSP on the ST-100 easily. ST developed a 50 MFLOPS version that fit in a single card cage. It would not have taken too much effort to have made that in a rugged version suitable for mil apps. In the end, all these designs were over taken by commercial designs to meet the demands of the cell phone market. -- Rick |
Photons?
At Sat, 10 Oct 2015 02:35:54 -0400, rickman rearranged some electrons to
write: So they built a few of the EMSP but scrapped it before building more and switched to COTS hardware. Many more than a few. They are probably all sitting in a warehouse somewhere, beside the Ark of the Covenant. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com