"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.

"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.

Bit early in the day to be this boozed up, Gareth, isn't it?

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

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

"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.

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

Nope, totally relevant and what makes an antenna work.

snip remaining drivel


--
Jim Pennino

On 9/10/2015 2:15 PM, gareth wrote:
"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.

Who said quanta can only be generated by "quantised[sic] changes of
electron orbits"? Oh, why am I being sucked into this idiotic discussion?

It has been stated before that the EM emitted by atoms flipping spin
state in a magnetic field must, by your definition, emit quanta, but you
wave your hands and say, "Foul! NEAR FIELD" whatever that means to you.
I expect you don't really understand what near field and far field are
really about.


Electrons generate packets of EM energy called Quanta.

Irrelevamt.

Yes, you are right. Everything about quanta are irrelevant to a
discussion of 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?

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

Yes, indeed! Let the ridicule begin!

The point being that QM predicts the size and energy of a quanta based
on the frequency. It's not really rocket science.

--

Rick

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna 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.

An antenna is nothing more than a conductor with an impressed AC voltage.


--
Jim Pennino

On 9/10/2015 2:47 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna 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.

An antenna is nothing more than a conductor with an impressed AC voltage.

All this time I thought it was an AC current!

--

Rick

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna rickman wrote:
On 9/10/2015 2:47 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna 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.

An antenna is nothing more than a conductor with an impressed AC voltage.

All this time I thought it was an AC current!

Umm, you do know the vast majority of RF sources are voltage sources
and if one ipresses a voltage upon an impedance a current results?



--
Jim Pennino

On 9/10/2015 5:09 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna rickman wrote:
On 9/10/2015 2:47 PM, wrote:
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna 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.

An antenna is nothing more than a conductor with an impressed AC voltage.

All this time I thought it was an AC current!

Umm, you do know the vast majority of RF sources are voltage sources
and if one ipresses a voltage upon an impedance a current results?

Wow! So what happens if one pushes a current through an impedance?
Inquiring minds want to know!

--

Rick