Photons?
 

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?

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?

Photons?
 

On 9/9/2015 10:41 AM, gareth wrote:
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?

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?



What is the frequency of a 2x4? What is the IQ of Gareth?

Both make as much sense as your questions.

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

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

Photons?
 

"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?

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?


Thank God there's only one Beanie, even one is ten too many.
--
;-)
..
73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint.
..
http://turner-smith.uk

Photons?
 

"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?
 

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/9/2015 10:41 AM, gareth wrote:
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?

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?



What is the frequency of a 2x4?

Applied to Gareth's head? Not frequent enough.

What is the IQ of Gareth?

Both make as much sense as your questions.

Gareth has serious mental issues, he hasn't made any discernible sense for
a long time.

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

Photons?
 

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.


--
Roger Hayter

Photons?
 

"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?

Photons?
 

"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?

Photons?
 

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...

I don't think he is! He is demonstrating by reductio ad absurdum that
the photons *don't* disappear.

That is wrong, for what I am asserting is that they don't appear in the
first place in RF
radiation from an antenna because the mechanism for their generation is not
present.

IMHO, it is possible for E-M radiation to be present in several amplitude
modulations, the
(Gaussian?) of a photon or the continuous envelope of a carrier wave.

Photons?
 

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

A photon has only energy, which is equal to it's frequency times the Planck
constant.

There is no such thing as an "amplitude envelope" for a photon.


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?

Your questions makes no sense.

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

--
Jim Pennino

Photons?
 

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna 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?

As a photons energy is Plancks constant times frequency, the energy gets
smaller as frequency decreases until the limit of zero frequency, where
the photon doesn't exist.


--
Jim Pennino

Photons?
 

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

I don't think he is! He is demonstrating by reductio ad absurdum that
the photons *don't* disappear.

That is wrong, for what I am asserting is that they don't appear in the
first place in RF
radiation from an antenna because the mechanism for their generation is not
present.

Then you are disagreeing with over a hundred years of well established
physics.

IMHO, it is possible for E-M radiation to be present in several amplitude
modulations, the
(Gaussian?) of a photon or the continuous envelope of a carrier wave.

Incoherent, meaningless word salad.


--
Jim Pennino

Photons?
 

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

Photons?
 

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna 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?


Exactly the same mechanisms as they are created at ANY frequency.



--
Jim Pennino

Photons?
 

"gareth" wrote in
:

"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?

Photons are not "created" as such. They (and waves) are merely different
aspects of the same phenomenon. What you look for is what you will
observe. It may well be that, because the photon energy at 1 MHz is
minuscule, there is no practical way of observing them. But that doesn't
mean they don't exist.

Photons?
 

"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.

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

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?

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?

Photons?
 

En el artículo , Jerry Stuckle
escribió:

What is the IQ of Gareth?

So massively negative, it would have to be measured in bogons.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Bunny says: Windows 10? Nein danke!
(")_(")

Photons?
 

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.

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

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?

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?

You can apply all those arguments to a torch (flashlight), and they will
be equally unhelpful.


--
Roger Hayter

Photons?
 

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
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.
Therefore, the wave model must exhibit amplitude modulation to have such
a
beginning and end.
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?
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?
You can apply all those arguments to a torch (flashlight), and they will
be equally unhelpful.

Not so, for in that case the light is produced by the action of individual
atomic particles
and you cannot radiate at 1 MHz (from Wayne's example) with a single atom.

Photons?
 

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.

Photons?
 

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

Photons?
 

gareth wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
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.
Therefore, the wave model must exhibit amplitude modulation to have such
a
beginning and end.
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?
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?
You can apply all those arguments to a torch (flashlight), and they will
be equally unhelpful.

Not so, for in that case the light is produced by the action of individual
atomic particles
and you cannot radiate at 1 MHz (from Wayne's example) with a single atom.

Had an MRI scan recently?

--
Roger Hayter

Photons?
 

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

Photons?
 

Roger Hayter wrote:

gareth wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
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.
Therefore, the wave model must exhibit amplitude modulation to have such
a
beginning and end.
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?
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?
You can apply all those arguments to a torch (flashlight), and they will
be equally unhelpful.

Not so, for in that case the light is produced by the action of individual
atomic particles
and you cannot radiate at 1 MHz (from Wayne's example) with a single atom.

Had an MRI scan recently?

(For the avoidance of doubt, I don't think MRI does much at 1MHz, but it
certainly works at RF rather then light frequencies.)

--
Roger Hayter

Photons?
 

On 9/9/2015 3:41 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
gareth wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
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.
Therefore, the wave model must exhibit amplitude modulation to have such
a
beginning and end.
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?
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?
You can apply all those arguments to a torch (flashlight), and they will
be equally unhelpful.

Not so, for in that case the light is produced by the action of individual
atomic particles
and you cannot radiate at 1 MHz (from Wayne's example) with a single atom.

Had an MRI scan recently?


What's an MRI of a vacuum look like?

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

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

Photons?
 

On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 16:19:20 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:


What's an MRI of a vacuum look like?

http://sweetclipart.com/multisite/sw...um_outline.png

Photons?
 

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
On 9/9/2015 3:41 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
gareth wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
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.
Therefore, the wave model must exhibit amplitude modulation to have such
a
beginning and end.
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?
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?
You can apply all those arguments to a torch (flashlight), and they will
be equally unhelpful.

Not so, for in that case the light is produced by the action of individual
atomic particles
and you cannot radiate at 1 MHz (from Wayne's example) with a single atom.

Had an MRI scan recently?


What's an MRI of a vacuum look like?

Much like the inside of Gareth's head, I expect.

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

Photons?
 

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

Photons?
 

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.

Photons?
 

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...

Had an MRI scan recently?

Near field induction and not far field radiation.

Photons?
 

"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.

Photons?
 

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
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.

Untrue, and a further example of the make-believe world of your foetid
imagination
for which there is no supporting evidence.

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

Do you mean the use of the Internet to assert the right of reply to grossly
offensive
posts on the Internet, such as your statement that my wife was a sheep iin
the bed
next to me, one of 24 such perverted comments made by you when you were
under
training to be a schoolteacher at an all-girls' grammar school at the age of
45 after
you had been sacked from your job in industry?

Such obsessive perversions from you meant that you are totally unsuitable to
be
in any sort of job involving young people.

Photons?
 

gareth wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...

Had an MRI scan recently?

Near field induction and not far field radiation.

What about the "resonance" bit?

--
Roger Hayter

Photons?
 

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

My saying your questions showed an utter lack of understanding of
wave-particle duality was as polite as it could possibly be phrased.

If you want gratuitous abuse, your questions are utter, babbling
nonsense based on total ignorance and are a steaming pile of word
salad idiocy.


--
Jim Pennino

Photons?
 

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
gareth wrote:

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...

Had an MRI scan recently?

Near field induction and not far field radiation.

What about the "resonance" bit?

What about it?

Photons?
 

On 9/9/2015 4:22 PM, Bernie wrote:
On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 16:19:20 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:


What's an MRI of a vacuum look like?

http://sweetclipart.com/multisite/sw...um_outline.png


ROFLMAO! Best I've seen in a long time!

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

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

Photons?
 

wrote:

If you want gratuitous abuse, your questions are utter, babbling
nonsense based on total ignorance and are a steaming pile of word
salad idiocy.


Even that's much, much more polite and restrained than Gareth deserves. He
should think himself lucky here!

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

Photons?
 

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

Photons?
 

On 9/10/2015 3:03 AM, AndyW wrote:
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.

Don't want to be pedantic, but I think it is more that any given
experiment can show one or the other, but *not* both at once. Although
someone pointed out in another discussion that some experiment showed
both. It was an interference type of display, but the patterns were
formed of individual dots from individual photons. But I expect there
is another way to explain the results.... but above my pay grade.


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?

There is no reason to discuss this with him. He won't get what you are
saying. I guess he is picturing the quanta as a pulse of a wave which
it *isn't*.

There is also little reason for me to point out the futility of
discussing this with Gareth. Every so often he starts a discussion and
the band starts playing. I don't know who is stupider, Gareth or the band.

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.

Quanta at radio frequencies will be hard to prove. But as someone
pointed out, RF is emitted by individual atoms in an MRI scan. So
clearly that would be a quantum effect and not a continuous wave. I
believe this is due to the RF energy absorbed by the atoms causing them
to flip spin. After a relaxation time (basically a delay) they revert
to the ground state and emit quanta of RF energy. That is what the
magnet is for, to create a field that makes one orientation of spin the
"ground" state at a lower energy. I expect the frequency of RF will
depend on the strength of the magnet, but I'm not sure of that. I used
to do NMR scans (nuclear magnetic resonance) in chemistry. That was 40
years ago, so I don't recall if the exact frequency depended on the
magnetic field or just the molecular environment. We could tell
something about molecular structure by the frequencies of the resonances
much like other spectroscopy.

They used to call the medical usage NMR, but they wanted to get rid of
the "nuclear" part so it became MRI. "Nuclear" scares people.

--

Rick

Photons?
 

"rickman" wrote in message
...

There is no reason to discuss this with him. He won't get what you are
saying.

I have an open mind, unlike those who desperately hold onto partial
knowledge with an almost religious fervour.

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

Why not say what it is, then?

There is also little reason for me to point out the futility of discussing
this with Gareth. Every so often he starts a discussion and the band
starts playing. I don't know who is stupider, Gareth or the band.

Such abuse is themark of the ignoramus.

Shame on you.

Quanta at radio frequencies will be hard to prove.

Indeed.

But as someone pointed out, RF is emitted by individual atoms in an MRI
scan. So clearly that would be a quantum effect and not a continuous
wave.

It is neither, for it is simply near-field induction and not far-field
radiation.

I
believe this is due to the RF energy absorbed by the atoms causing them to
flip spin. After a relaxation time (basically a delay) they revert to the
ground state and emit quanta of RF energy.

Quantised objects emit quantised radiation? Sure, but in the case of RF
antenna we are not dealing with radiation from sub-atomic processes.