"Wayne" wrote in message
...
I took that to mean that Gareth doesn't believe that two DIFFERENT people
would disagree with him.

Not at all, many disagree and do so in a polite and debating format, for
that is what an international
forum should be like, but jimp and reay, from their recent gratuitous abuse
of the past couple of hours
both present themselves as escapees from the kindergarten.

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

Untrue, and a further example of the make-believe world of your foetid
imagination
for which there is no supporting evidence.

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

Do you mean the use of the Internet to assert the right of reply to grossly
offensive
posts on the Internet, such as your statement that my wife was a sheep iin
the bed
next to me, one of 24 such perverted comments made by you when you were
under
training to be a schoolteacher at an all-girls' grammar school at the age of
45 after
you had been sacked from your job in industry?

Such obsessive perversions from you meant that you are totally unsuitable to
be
in any sort of job involving young people.

gareth wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...

Had an MRI scan recently?

Near field induction and not far field radiation.

What about the "resonance" bit?

--
Roger Hayter

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"Wayne" wrote in message
...
I took that to mean that Gareth doesn't believe that two DIFFERENT people
would disagree with him.

Not at all, many disagree and do so in a polite and debating format, for
that is what an international
forum should be like, but jimp and reay, from their recent gratuitous abuse
of the past couple of hours
both present themselves as escapees from the kindergarten.

My saying your questions showed an utter lack of understanding of
wave-particle duality was as polite as it could possibly be phrased.

If you want gratuitous abuse, your questions are utter, babbling
nonsense based on total ignorance and are a steaming pile of word
salad idiocy.


--
Jim Pennino

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...

Had an MRI scan recently?

Near field induction and not far field radiation.

What about the "resonance" bit?

What about it?

On 9/9/2015 4:22 PM, Bernie wrote:
On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 16:19:20 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:


What's an MRI of a vacuum look like?

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


ROFLMAO! Best I've seen in a long time!

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

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

wrote:

If you want gratuitous abuse, your questions are utter, babbling
nonsense based on total ignorance and are a steaming pile of word
salad idiocy.


Even that's much, much more polite and restrained than Gareth deserves. He
should think himself lucky here!

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

On 09/09/2015 18:51, gareth wrote:
"gareth" wrote in message
...

AIUI, the wave / particle duality of the photon means that it has a
beginning
and an end, from the particle model.

The point of the duality model is that it appears to exist as both, or
may exist as something that exhibits the behaviour of both.

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

Why must it?
It could have FM modulation or none at all. It could just start and end
(technically with a rectangular envelope but that would effectively be
no AM at all)
You do you claim it *must* have AM?

What is the waveshape of such amplitude modulation?

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

Can you define what you mean by "Amplitude Envelope" in this context?

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

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

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

We don't know but that is the purpose of physics. We don't know what
causes gravity but we know it exists and we have experimental proof of
gravitation and a model down to a certain level that explains it and we
are banging the rocks together in CERN to get an answer but then that
answer will only reveal more questions.

Bear in mind that my physics degree leans more towards macro physics and
the physics of materials rather then sub atomics and quantum. I'm a
little rusty on this.

Andy

On 9/10/2015 3:03 AM, AndyW wrote:
On 09/09/2015 18:51, gareth wrote:
"gareth" wrote in message
...

AIUI, the wave / particle duality of the photon means that it has a
beginning
and an end, from the particle model.

The point of the duality model is that it appears to exist as both, or
may exist as something that exhibits the behaviour of both.

Don't want to be pedantic, but I think it is more that any given
experiment can show one or the other, but *not* both at once. Although
someone pointed out in another discussion that some experiment showed
both. It was an interference type of display, but the patterns were
formed of individual dots from individual photons. But I expect there
is another way to explain the results.... but above my pay grade.


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

Why must it?
It could have FM modulation or none at all. It could just start and end
(technically with a rectangular envelope but that would effectively be
no AM at all)
You do you claim it *must* have AM?

There is no reason to discuss this with him. He won't get what you are
saying. I guess he is picturing the quanta as a pulse of a wave which
it *isn't*.

There is also little reason for me to point out the futility of
discussing this with Gareth. Every so often he starts a discussion and
the band starts playing. I don't know who is stupider, Gareth or the band.

Bear in mind that my physics degree leans more towards macro physics and
the physics of materials rather then sub atomics and quantum. I'm a
little rusty on this.

Quanta at radio frequencies will be hard to prove. But as someone
pointed out, RF is emitted by individual atoms in an MRI scan. So
clearly that would be a quantum effect and not a continuous wave. I
believe this is due to the RF energy absorbed by the atoms causing them
to flip spin. After a relaxation time (basically a delay) they revert
to the ground state and emit quanta of RF energy. That is what the
magnet is for, to create a field that makes one orientation of spin the
"ground" state at a lower energy. I expect the frequency of RF will
depend on the strength of the magnet, but I'm not sure of that. I used
to do NMR scans (nuclear magnetic resonance) in chemistry. That was 40
years ago, so I don't recall if the exact frequency depended on the
magnetic field or just the molecular environment. We could tell
something about molecular structure by the frequencies of the resonances
much like other spectroscopy.

They used to call the medical usage NMR, but they wanted to get rid of
the "nuclear" part so it became MRI. "Nuclear" scares people.

--

Rick

"rickman" wrote in message
...

There is no reason to discuss this with him. He won't get what you are
saying.

I have an open mind, unlike those who desperately hold onto partial
knowledge with an almost religious fervour.

I guess he is picturing the quanta as a pulse of a wave which it *isn't*.

Why not say what it is, then?

There is also little reason for me to point out the futility of discussing
this with Gareth. Every so often he starts a discussion and the band
starts playing. I don't know who is stupider, Gareth or the band.

Such abuse is themark of the ignoramus.

Shame on you.

Quanta at radio frequencies will be hard to prove.

Indeed.

But as someone pointed out, RF is emitted by individual atoms in an MRI
scan. So clearly that would be a quantum effect and not a continuous
wave.

It is neither, for it is simply near-field induction and not far-field
radiation.

I
believe this is due to the RF energy absorbed by the atoms causing them to
flip spin. After a relaxation time (basically a delay) they revert to the
ground state and emit quanta of RF energy.

Quantised objects emit quantised radiation? Sure, but in the case of RF
antenna we are not dealing with radiation from sub-atomic processes.