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