On 9/10/2015 6:33 AM, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...

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

Consider a quiet band, and you receive a single dit, the letter E in Morse
Code.

Before there would have been no signal and neither after the dit.

So, if your RF photons do not have a beginning and an end, as they must do
as pulsed phenomenon, how come there is only signal during the duration of
the dit?





Because the only time you hear the dit is when the radio wave is passing
your antenna. The radio wave continues on; someone one light year away
with a sufficiently sensitive receiver would hear the dit one year after
you.

But this has nothing to do with quantum physics.

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

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

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 11:11:00 +0000 (UTC), Brian Reay
wrote:


The usual rejects are all the same, but for the rows they stir up, they
have no life and certainly no pleasure.

You're implying therefore that your relentless harassment of another
poster suggests that you have no life and certainly no pleasure.

Thank you for confirming that which we all already know.

Brian Morrison wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 08:16:17 -0700
Wayne wrote:



"gareth" wrote in message ...

1. For those who suggest that RF transmissions are made up of
photons, what is the amplitude envelope of each photon, and for how
many cycles does
it exist?

Consider this. Waves and photons exist in visible light at any
frequency. If the frequency is lowered below the visible spectrum all
the way down to say, 1 MHz, at what point do the photons disappear?
Or do they just get weak?


It's not like that. The photons and the wave-like effects of their
probability distribution functions, exist simultaneously. You cannot
separate them, therefore they are generated by a single process that is
exactly equivalent in both atoms and antennas.


He can't grasp the concept Brian, you are wasting your time. He is hung up
on the Bohr model and single electron transitions.

On 9/10/2015 7:10 AM, Stephen Thomas Cole wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo 839586079463575279.800972no.sp-
, Brian Reay escribió:

He often recycles old topics which have been explained to him
countless times in the past.

He's just started off again about the "luminiferous aether" in u.r.a.
Silly old sod's just spoiling for another fight. He must be desperately
starved of attention.

Or off his meds. Again.

Maybe that is really the case. I was thinking just the other day that
it was very quiet around here. "I wonder where Gareth is?" Now I
know... hangs head

I guess everyone has to chime in the same way my pets greet me when I've
been away for a day...

--

Rick

"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 9 Sep 2015 08:16:17 -0700
Wayne wrote:



"gareth" wrote in message ...

1. For those who suggest that RF transmissions are made up of
photons, what is the amplitude envelope of each photon, and for how
many cycles does
it exist?

Consider this. Waves and photons exist in visible light at any
frequency. If the frequency is lowered below the visible spectrum all
the way down to say, 1 MHz, at what point do the photons disappear?
Or do they just get weak?


It's not like that. The photons and the wave-like effects of their
probability distribution functions, exist simultaneously. You cannot
separate them, therefore they are generated by a single process that is
exactly equivalent in both atoms and antennas.

Well, that's exactly what I was getting at, but perhaps not as eloquently

As frequency is lowered from visible light, there is no reason to believe
that photons disappear when the frequency is below visible.

On 9/10/2015 8:25 AM, gareth wrote:
"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
...
It's not like that. The photons and the wave-like effects of their
probability distribution functions, exist simultaneously. You cannot
separate them, therefore they are generated by a single process that is
exactly equivalent in both atoms and antennas.

In atoms, theenergu process is from energy transitions of individual
elelctrons, but that is not the mechanism in antennae.

Why not? Don't antenna have atoms and electrons? Isn't the EM wave
made by the electrons movement? Electrons generate packets of EM energy
called Quanta.

I expect you are bright enough to calculate the energy of a single EM
quantum at 1 MHz. How much energy is it? What is the size of *any*
quantum?

--

Rick

On 9/10/2015 8:43 AM, gareth wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
Exactly, Evans is simply looking for an excuse to hurl his repertoire of
abuse. He often recycles old topics which have been explained to him
countless times in the past. Sometimes he digs up basic things he should
have mastered decades ago, eg the super regen, Or, as here, looks up a few
technical terms and launches into a topic he clearly has no knowledge of.

Brian, M3OSN Old Chap, just because you are embarrassed that you do not
have the answers, that is no reason to let fly with such a gratuitous and
somewhat infantile tirade.

Reminds me of the old joke about the Lion in the jungle. One morning he
saunters forth and sees a monkey walking, he stops him and asks loudly,
"WHO'S THE KING OF THE JUNGLE?" The monkey says, "You are, sir" and the
lion goes on his way. Same thing happens with a boar and then a tiger.
Finally he comes across an elephant and asks loudly, "WHO'S THE KING
OF THE JUNGLE?" The elephant picks him up with his great trunk and
slams him against a tree, then against a rock and finally throws him 100
feet crashing to the ground. The lion gets up, dusts himself off and
with an annoyed look says, "Just because you don't know the answer, you
don't have to get so mad!"

--

Rick

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...

He can't grasp the concept Brian, you are wasting your time. He is hung up
on the Bohr model and single electron transitions.

Yet more infantile abuse from you, OM.

If you know the answers, then why not give them?

If you don't know the answers, then shut up.

"Wayne" wrote in message
...
As frequency is lowered from visible light, there is no reason to believe
that photons disappear when the frequency is below visible.

There is no reason to believe that they appear in the first place when no
mechanism exists for there creation, for all quantisation theory and
experimental evidence arises from objects that are themselves quantised and
not as
multi-electrons in electric currents.

How many cycles make up your RF photon, say, at 14MHz?

How big is the photon?

"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 9/10/2015 8:25 AM, gareth wrote:
"Brian Morrison" wrote in message
...
It's not like that. The photons and the wave-like effects of their
probability distribution functions, exist simultaneously. You cannot
separate them, therefore they are generated by a single process that is
exactly equivalent in both atoms and antennas.
In atoms, theenergu process is from energy transitions of individual
elelctrons, but that is not the mechanism in antennae.

Why not? Don't antenna have atoms and electrons?

irrelevant

Isn't the EM wave made by the electrons movement?

With voltage pressure giving rise to acceleration, yes, but not by quantised
changes of electron orbits.

Electrons generate packets of EM energy called Quanta.

Irrelevamt.

I expect you are bright enough to calculate the energy of a single EM
quantum at 1 MHz. How much energy is it? What is the size of *any*
quantum?

I say that they do not exist. Let those who claim their existence make such
a calculation
and thereby ridicule themselves.