On 9/9/2015 11:14 AM, gareth wrote:
"Wayne" wrote in message
...
"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?

Photons exist in visible light at MANY frequencies where such frequencies
are generated by the transition of an electron to a lower energy orbit
around an atom.

What is the mechanism by which your photons at 1 MHz are created?



I am not arguing with you Gareth. I think I am agreeing. I am lacking in
theory. I freely admit that. I am going on common sense. Photons, light
move through our atmosphere in a straight line unless reflected by air
temperature layers or mirrors. EM radiation moves through our atmosphere
in a more complex way. It is reflected by our ionosphere or might be
absorbed by something.

My receiving antenna is a shielded loop. The antenna itself is copper
and then it is covered with an aluminium shield that is grounded to stop
the electrical part of the EM transmission. This guarantees that I will
not receive any light/photons from my antenna.

It simply makes no sense to me that I am receiving any information via
light.

I would love to hear a simple explanation that explains to me why my
inverted V on 75 meters is emitting photons/light when I put 1500 watts
of power to it. I remember years ago in physics class that this
discussion came up in my college classroom. The professor told us that
EM transmission was completely different than the transmission of light.
It had occurred to me that if we built a transmitter on a frequency of
visible light that somehow light would be emitted from the antenna. He
said that there would be EM transmission but no light. I accepted his
opinion because he knew far more than myself.

I have accepted that explanation since 1968 when he was teaching that
class. What I hear being said here is that EM transmission is composed
of photons. I always thought of it as a simple electromagnetic wave,
like what we use in transformers and radio communications every day.

Again, what I hear being said here is that radio waves are just lower
frequency light waves. Really?

Not looking for a flame war, just a simple answer to my question.

FBMBoomer wrote:




Again, what I hear being said here is that radio waves are just lower
frequency light waves. Really?

Not looking for a flame war, just a simple answer to my question.

Yes, radio waves are just lower frequency light waves, and light waves
are just higher frequency radio waves. And both have the properties of
photons as well as the properties of waves.

The important thing to realise is that photons don't have to be linked
to light, despite their name, because the light-related name was just a
historical accident of how they were discovered. The photons equivalent
to lower frequency electromagnetic radiation such as radio waves can't
be seen and get to and from antennae even if they are effectively
screened from the light.

--
Roger Hayter

On 9/14/2015 2:15 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
FBMBoomer wrote:




Again, what I hear being said here is that radio waves are just lower
frequency light waves. Really?

Not looking for a flame war, just a simple answer to my question.

Yes, radio waves are just lower frequency light waves, and light waves
are just higher frequency radio waves. And both have the properties of
photons as well as the properties of waves.

The important thing to realise is that photons don't have to be linked
to light, despite their name, because the light-related name was just a
historical accident of how they were discovered. The photons equivalent
to lower frequency electromagnetic radiation such as radio waves can't
be seen and get to and from antennae even if they are effectively
screened from the light.


Thanks for that polite response. I really could not ascertain an answer
through all the static before.

It appears my professor was mistaken, or perhaps he was telling us what
was known at that time.

Now what ham radio needs is a completely new type of communication. I am
thinking of those twin particles that react to one another regardless of
distance and without the delay of distance.

I think this was demonstrated very well on Star Trek. They can talk
across light years instantly. To bad Gene is dead. He could have helped
us all out with just how to do this. It was in all the scripts, it must
be true. It is my mythology so don't be making fun of it.

:-)

FBMBoomer wrote:

On 9/14/2015 2:15 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
FBMBoomer wrote:




Again, what I hear being said here is that radio waves are just lower
frequency light waves. Really?

Not looking for a flame war, just a simple answer to my question.

Yes, radio waves are just lower frequency light waves, and light waves
are just higher frequency radio waves. And both have the properties of
photons as well as the properties of waves.

The important thing to realise is that photons don't have to be linked
to light, despite their name, because the light-related name was just a
historical accident of how they were discovered. The photons equivalent
to lower frequency electromagnetic radiation such as radio waves can't
be seen and get to and from antennae even if they are effectively
screened from the light.


Thanks for that polite response. I really could not ascertain an answer
through all the static before.

It appears my professor was mistaken, or perhaps he was telling us what
was known at that time.

Now what ham radio needs is a completely new type of communication. I am
thinking of those twin particles that react to one another regardless of
distance and without the delay of distance.

I think this was demonstrated very well on Star Trek. They can talk
across light years instantly. To bad Gene is dead. He could have helped
us all out with just how to do this. It was in all the scripts, it must
be true. It is my mythology so don't be making fun of it.

:-)

Read about quantum computers - way beyond my understanding - but instant
communication is probably not totally far-fetched. But anyone who
knows is welcom to contradict me on this!


--
Roger Hayter

On 9/14/2015 5:11 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
FBMBoomer wrote:

On 9/14/2015 2:15 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
FBMBoomer wrote:




Again, what I hear being said here is that radio waves are just lower
frequency light waves. Really?

Not looking for a flame war, just a simple answer to my question.

Yes, radio waves are just lower frequency light waves, and light waves
are just higher frequency radio waves. And both have the properties of
photons as well as the properties of waves.

The important thing to realise is that photons don't have to be linked
to light, despite their name, because the light-related name was just a
historical accident of how they were discovered. The photons equivalent
to lower frequency electromagnetic radiation such as radio waves can't
be seen and get to and from antennae even if they are effectively
screened from the light.


Thanks for that polite response. I really could not ascertain an answer
through all the static before.

It appears my professor was mistaken, or perhaps he was telling us what
was known at that time.

Now what ham radio needs is a completely new type of communication. I am
thinking of those twin particles that react to one another regardless of
distance and without the delay of distance.

I think this was demonstrated very well on Star Trek. They can talk
across light years instantly. To bad Gene is dead. He could have helped
us all out with just how to do this. It was in all the scripts, it must
be true. It is my mythology so don't be making fun of it.

:-)

Read about quantum computers - way beyond my understanding - but instant
communication is probably not totally far-fetched. But anyone who
knows is welcom to contradict me on this!

You are talking about tangled quantum states. So far no one has figured
out how to use this to communicate over distances.

--

Rick

On 9/14/2015 5:44 PM, rickman wrote:
On 9/14/2015 5:11 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
FBMBoomer wrote:

On 9/14/2015 2:15 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
FBMBoomer wrote:




Again, what I hear being said here is that radio waves are just lower
frequency light waves. Really?

Not looking for a flame war, just a simple answer to my question.

Yes, radio waves are just lower frequency light waves, and light waves
are just higher frequency radio waves. And both have the
properties of
photons as well as the properties of waves.

The important thing to realise is that photons don't have to be linked
to light, despite their name, because the light-related name was just a
historical accident of how they were discovered. The photons
equivalent
to lower frequency electromagnetic radiation such as radio waves can't
be seen and get to and from antennae even if they are effectively
screened from the light.


Thanks for that polite response. I really could not ascertain an answer
through all the static before.

It appears my professor was mistaken, or perhaps he was telling us what
was known at that time.

Now what ham radio needs is a completely new type of communication. I am
thinking of those twin particles that react to one another regardless of
distance and without the delay of distance.

I think this was demonstrated very well on Star Trek. They can talk
across light years instantly. To bad Gene is dead. He could have helped
us all out with just how to do this. It was in all the scripts, it must
be true. It is my mythology so don't be making fun of it.

:-)

Read about quantum computers - way beyond my understanding - but instant
communication is probably not totally far-fetched. But anyone who
knows is welcom to contradict me on this!

You are talking about tangled quantum states. So far no one has figured
out how to use this to communicate over distances.


Scientists have figured out how to communicate quantum states over
several miles. It's a start, anyway.

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

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

On 14/09/2015 22:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
FBMBoomer wrote:

Now what ham radio needs is a completely new type of communication. I am
thinking of those twin particles that react to one another regardless of
distance and without the delay of distance.

I think this was demonstrated very well on Star Trek. They can talk
across light years instantly. To bad Gene is dead. He could have helped
us all out with just how to do this. It was in all the scripts, it must
be true. It is my mythology so don't be making fun of it.

:-)

Read about quantum computers - way beyond my understanding - but instant
communication is probably not totally far-fetched. But anyone who
knows is welcom to contradict me on this!

It is known as Quantum entanglement communication. in theory it works
(and doesn't which is very quantum) it is similar to teleportation where
a particle has been teleported in as much as the defining state
information from the particle has been sent to another particle.
It is doubtful whether either can be brought into the macro world so it
could be a long time before anyone gets to say "beam me up Scotty".

The idea behind Quantum entanglement communication is that you create
quantum twin particles that are entangled and manipulate one to create
instant reaction with the other. "Spooky action at a distance"-Einstien.

And as soon as someone suggests it someone says it is not possible.
There is a No-Communication hypothesis that prevents the sending of
information via a quantum entangled state.

My head hurts now.

Andy

In article ,
FBMBoomer wrote:

Now what ham radio needs is a completely new type of communication. I am
thinking of those twin particles that react to one another regardless of
distance and without the delay of distance.

You're thinking of entangled particles?

One of the weird things about entanglement (and what Einstein called
"spooky action at a distance") is the following paradox:

- Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of
entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the
other member of the pair. This effect occurs regardless of
distance, and isn't affected by lightspeed delay.

- You can't use this effect to send information faster than the speed
of light. At least, nobody has been able to, and (as I understand
it) there are good theoretical reasons to believe that it's just
not possible.

The reasons are (as I said, weird) that when you interact with
particle A, the effect on particle B is one which you can't actually
detect independently (that is, by measuring particle B alone). You
have to compare the measurement on Particle B, with information that
you can only get from the measurement that was taken Particle A, to
confirm that the effect actually occurred...

.... and in order to do this, you have to transmit that information
from the Particle A measurement site, to the particle B measurement
site, via some other means of communication... which occurs at the
speed of light (or slower).

I think this was demonstrated very well on Star Trek. They can talk
across light years instantly. To bad Gene is dead. He could have helped
us all out with just how to do this. It was in all the scripts, it must
be true. It is my mythology so don't be making fun of it.

:-)

'Tis a fine mythology, and a great technology to hope for (and try to
discover).

Unfortunately, all of the tests which have been done on entangled
systems keep showing that entanglement is real, but (like
"superluminal" phase velocity) can't be used to send information
faster than C.

It's very frustrating.

On 14/09/2015 22:32, Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,

One of the weird things about entanglement (and what Einstein called
"spooky action at a distance") is the following paradox:

- Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of
entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the
other member of the pair. This effect occurs regardless of
distance, and isn't affected by lightspeed delay.

If that is so, then the possibility of a communication channel must
exist, the transmission mechanism of which is being used by the particles .

The reasons are (as I said, weird) that when you interact with
particle A, the effect on particle B is one which you can't actually
detect independently (that is, by measuring particle B alone). You
have to compare the measurement on Particle B, with information that
you can only get from the measurement that was taken Particle A, to
confirm that the effect actually occurred...

With a million Particles A in a device called a 'transmitter'' and in a
distant galaxy, a million Particles B in a device called a 'receiver', a
statistical analysis would ensure to a high level of confidence that a
change had occurred. It wouldn't be difficult to arrange this to send
data. But this is mere technology, that exploits the properties inherent
in the entangled particles.

Unfortunately, all of the tests which have been done on entangled
systems keep showing that entanglement is real, but (like
"superluminal" phase velocity) can't be used to send information
faster than C.

If the effect acts instantaneously over large distances, why can it not
be exploited?


--
Spike

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's
character, give him power" - Abraham Lincoln

On 9/15/2015 5:10 AM, Spike wrote:
On 14/09/2015 22:32, Dave Platt wrote:
In article ,

One of the weird things about entanglement (and what Einstein called
"spooky action at a distance") is the following paradox:

- Measurements have shown that interacting with one of a pair of
entangled particles, has a definite effect on the state of the
other member of the pair. This effect occurs regardless of
distance, and isn't affected by lightspeed delay.

If that is so, then the possibility of a communication channel must
exist, the transmission mechanism of which is being used by the particles .

It doesn't "must" exist. Measuring the state of either particle
determines the state of both. So how do you gain any information at the
receiving end by this? That's the problem. There is no way to transfer
info usefully.


The reasons are (as I said, weird) that when you interact with
particle A, the effect on particle B is one which you can't actually
detect independently (that is, by measuring particle B alone). You
have to compare the measurement on Particle B, with information that
you can only get from the measurement that was taken Particle A, to
confirm that the effect actually occurred...

With a million Particles A in a device called a 'transmitter'' and in a
distant galaxy, a million Particles B in a device called a 'receiver', a
statistical analysis would ensure to a high level of confidence that a
change had occurred. It wouldn't be difficult to arrange this to send
data. But this is mere technology, that exploits the properties inherent
in the entangled particles.

What change exactly? How do you get *any* information from the million
particles?


Unfortunately, all of the tests which have been done on entangled
systems keep showing that entanglement is real, but (like
"superluminal" phase velocity) can't be used to send information
faster than C.

If the effect acts instantaneously over large distances, why can it not
be exploited?

What "effect" exactly? When the partner is observed, an entangled
particle resolves to a knowable state so that when you look at it, it is
in one state or the other. How do you know which state it will be in
until you observe it which causes the same thing, resolution to a
knowable state?

--

Rick