In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"gareth" wrote in message
...

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

Nope.

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

Based on a false premise, so a meaningless question.

What is the waveshape of such amplitude modulation?

Based on a false premise, so a meaningless question.

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

Based on a false premise, so a meaningless question.

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

Based on a false premise, so a meaningless question.

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

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

Read the 74 references at the end of the article.

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

There is no such word as "photonists".


--
Jim Pennino

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

Roger Hayter wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:

"Wayne" wrote:


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

You are making the same error as the village idiot.

I don't think he is! He is demonstrating by reductio ad absurdum that
the photons *don't* disappear. But thanks for reinforcing what everyone
but Gareth is saying. You didn't really need to insult Gareth in the
course of demonstrating where he is going wrong though, did you?


All EM radiation is the same in its nature. Terms like light and radio
waves are simply labels we have applied to different parts of the EM
spectrum. In part possibly because we didn't realise they were related, I
can't recall the history.

The village idiot's confusion is added to by him trying to mix simple Bohr
models of the atom with more complex ones.

Basically, he is out of his depth, as usual. He is forever trying to mix
'school book' physics with terms he has picked up but doesn't understand.


When people try to help him, he abuses them, sometimes inventing his own
'whacky' theories when he can't understand how this work.



I never mentioned Gareth. If you linked him to the name 'village idiot',
that is down to you.

Brian Reay wrote:

Roger Hayter wrote:
Brian Reay wrote:

"Wayne" wrote:


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

You are making the same error as the village idiot.

I don't think he is! He is demonstrating by reductio ad absurdum that
the photons *don't* disappear. But thanks for reinforcing what everyone
but Gareth is saying. You didn't really need to insult Gareth in the
course of demonstrating where he is going wrong though, did you?


All EM radiation is the same in its nature. Terms like light and radio
waves are simply labels we have applied to different parts of the EM
spectrum. In part possibly because we didn't realise they were related, I
can't recall the history.

The village idiot's confusion is added to by him trying to mix simple Bohr
models of the atom with more complex ones.

Basically, he is out of his depth, as usual. He is forever trying to mix
'school book' physics with terms he has picked up but doesn't understand.


When people try to help him, he abuses them, sometimes inventing his own
'whacky' theories when he can't understand how this work.



I never mentioned Gareth. If you linked him to the name 'village idiot',
that is down to you.

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

--
Roger Hayter

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
You are making the same error as the village idiot.
All EM radiation is the same in its nature. Terms like light and radio
waves are simply labels we have applied to different parts of the EM
spectrum. In part possibly because we didn't realise they were related, I
can't recall the history.
The village idiot's confusion is added to by him trying to mix simple Bohr
models of the atom with more complex ones.
Basically, he is out of his depth, as usual. He is forever trying to mix
'school book' physics with terms he has picked up but doesn't understand.
When people try to help him, he abuses them, sometimes inventing his own
'whacky' theories when he can't understand how this work.

Wayne left off my second question, which is well illustrated by what is
quoted above ...

2. Are jimp and brian reay one and the same, because both monikers display
the same
incapability of engaging in well-socialised civil conversations, resorting
to infantile abuse,
and both refuse to be drawn whenever challenged on a technical matter?

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
You are making the same error as the village idiot.
All EM radiation is the same in its nature. Terms like light and radio
waves are simply labels we have applied to different parts of the EM
spectrum. In part possibly because we didn't realise they were related, I
can't recall the history.
The village idiot's confusion is added to by him trying to mix simple Bohr
models of the atom with more complex ones.
Basically, he is out of his depth, as usual. He is forever trying to mix
'school book' physics with terms he has picked up but doesn't understand.
When people try to help him, he abuses them, sometimes inventing his own
'whacky' theories when he can't understand how this work.

Wayne left off my second question, which is well illustrated by what is
quoted above ...

2. Are jimp and brian reay one and the same, because both monikers display
the same
incapability of engaging in well-socialised civil conversations, resorting
to infantile abuse,
and both refuse to be drawn whenever challenged on a technical matter?

Are you attempting to say that both disdain incoherent, word salad babble?



--
Jim Pennino

wrote in message ...

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
You are making the same error as the village idiot.
All EM radiation is the same in its nature. Terms like light and radio
waves are simply labels we have applied to different parts of the EM
spectrum. In part possibly because we didn't realise they were related, I
can't recall the history.
The village idiot's confusion is added to by him trying to mix simple
Bohr
models of the atom with more complex ones.
Basically, he is out of his depth, as usual. He is forever trying to mix
'school book' physics with terms he has picked up but doesn't understand.
When people try to help him, he abuses them, sometimes inventing his own
'whacky' theories when he can't understand how this work.

Wayne left off my second question, which is well illustrated by what is
quoted above ...

2. Are jimp and brian reay one and the same, because both monikers display
the same
incapability of engaging in well-socialised civil conversations, resorting
to infantile abuse,
and both refuse to be drawn whenever challenged on a technical matter?

# Are you attempting to say that both disdain incoherent, word salad babble?

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



--
Jim Pennino

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


wrote in message ...

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
You are making the same error as the village idiot.
All EM radiation is the same in its nature. Terms like light and radio
waves are simply labels we have applied to different parts of the EM
spectrum. In part possibly because we didn't realise they were
related, I
can't recall the history.
The village idiot's confusion is added to by him trying to mix simple
Bohr
models of the atom with more complex ones.
Basically, he is out of his depth, as usual. He is forever trying to mix
'school book' physics with terms he has picked up but doesn't
understand.
When people try to help him, he abuses them, sometimes inventing his own
'whacky' theories when he can't understand how this work.

Wayne left off my second question, which is well illustrated by what is
quoted above ...

2. Are jimp and brian reay one and the same, because both monikers
display
the same
incapability of engaging in well-socialised civil conversations,
resorting
to infantile abuse,
and both refuse to be drawn whenever challenged on a technical matter?

# Are you attempting to say that both disdain incoherent, word salad
babble?

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




In essence, yes.

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


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

"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 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.