|
The RF photonists
The RF Photonists in these NG are long on personal abuse but
short on knowledge and explanation; the sure signs of blathering ignorance? Now, whereas it cannot be disputed that quantised objects such as atoms and sub-atominc particles emit quantised radiation, and all the experimental evidence and theories are very much based upon the observance of such atomic and sub-atomic objects and not upon large scale objects such as antennae, the energy that gets radiated from antennae does not come from intra-atomic activity, but the compression of electrons in a current , compressing against their natural mutual repulsion. What is the shape of the supposed RF photon? How many cycles make up the RF photon? Wy cannot the strident infantile abusers of the RF photonists answer such questions? Consider a single spike of static which generates wide-band noise over a large spectrum. As any photon is only at a single frequency, how many of the supposed RF photons (each with a fixed defined energy of hv) have been created by that spike? An infinite number? If so the RF photonists among you must therefore hold that any spike of static, whether from a lightning strike, or an unsuppressed spark plug must contain infinite energy. This alone shows that RF radiation, when nor created by atomic processes, is continuous and not quantised. |
The RF photonists
|
The RF photonists
"John S" wrote in message
... On 9/10/2015 4:43 AM, gareth wrote: Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant You read it, and then come back and contribute to the debate. |
The RF photonists
"John S" wrote in message
... On 9/10/2015 4:43 AM, gareth wrote: Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant No good for Beanie, he's as thicK as at least _TWO_ short planKs. -- ;-) .. 73 de Frank Turner-Smith G3VKI - mine's a pint. .. http://turner-smith.uk |
The RF photonists
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
The RF Photonists in these NG are long on personal abuse but There is no such word as "Photonists". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon All your questions are addressed in the main article and the 110 references at the end of the article. -- Jim Pennino |
The RF photonists
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"John S" wrote in message ... On 9/10/2015 4:43 AM, gareth wrote: Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant You read it, and then come back and contribute to the debate. There is nothing to debate; the science was firmly established long ago. Debating the existance of the photon makes as much sense as debating whether the Earth is round or flat. -- Jim Pennino |
The RF photonists
"gareth" wrote in
: The RF Photonists in these NG are long on personal abuse but short on knowledge and explanation; the sure signs of blathering ignorance? Oh, the irony! Now, whereas it cannot be disputed that quantised objects such as atoms and sub-atominc particles emit quantised radiation, and all the experimental evidence and theories are very much based upon the observance of such atomic and sub-atomic objects and not upon large scale objects such as antennae, the energy that gets radiated from antennae does not come from intra-atomic activity, but the compression of electrons in a current , compressing against their natural mutual repulsion. Nonsense. The radiation in this case is produced when charges are accelerated. It's as simple as that. What is the shape of the supposed RF photon? How many cycles make up the RF photon? Wy cannot the strident infantile abusers of the RF photonists answer such questions? Because they are bogus, meaningless questions arising from a failure to understand the matter at hand. But you've been told this already. So much for your "open mind". Consider a single spike of static which generates wide-band noise over a large spectrum. As any photon is only at a single frequency, Where did you get that ludicrous notion from? A single frequency of what? how many of the supposed RF photons (each with a fixed defined energy of hv) have been created by that spike? An infinite number? Strawman approaching! If so the RF photonists among you must therefore hold that any spike of static, whether from a lightning strike, or an unsuppressed spark plug must contain infinite energy. How many photons are there in a flash of white light? Now scale your answer for the much longer wavelength at RF. This alone shows that RF radiation, when nor created by atomic processes, is continuous and not quantised. It shows nothing of the sort. |
The RF photonists
In rec.radio.amateur.antenna rickman wrote:
On 9/10/2015 2:57 PM, wrote: In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote: "John S" wrote in message ... On 9/10/2015 4:43 AM, gareth wrote: Read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant You read it, and then come back and contribute to the debate. There is nothing to debate; the science was firmly established long ago. Debating the existance of the photon makes as much sense as debating whether the Earth is round or flat. Don't keep us in suspence... For those out of touch for the last half millennia when the debate ended, round. The debate seems to have started with Herodotus in the 5th Century BC. There are always some late to the party... -- Jim Pennino |
The RF photonists
On 10/09/2015 10:43, gareth wrote:
The RF Photonists in these NG are long on personal abuse but short on knowledge and explanation; the sure signs of blathering ignorance? Now, whereas it cannot be disputed that quantised objects such as atoms and sub-atominc particles emit quantised radiation, and all the experimental evidence and theories are very much based upon the observance of such atomic and sub-atomic objects and not upon large scale objects such as antennae, the energy that gets radiated from antennae does not come from intra-atomic activity, but the compression of electrons in a current , compressing against their natural mutual repulsion. What is the shape of the supposed RF photon? It is a packet of energy (or a knot of string or a bubble of quantum foam or any of the other competing theories), it does not have a shape as such. You may as well ask just how wet a single water molecule is. How many cycles make up the RF photon? Define cycle? Is it a wavelength you are referring to? Wy cannot the strident infantile abusers of the RF photonists answer such questions? Why can't you ask questions that are straightforward and free from odd terminology? Consider a single spike of static which generates wide-band noise over a large spectrum. As any photon is only at a single frequency, how many of the supposed RF photons No a photon is a quantised packet of energy created by a single frequency, it is not 'at a single frequency' any more than the speed of rotation of my old electric drill is created and defined by a 50Hz supply. It is not at 50Hz. The frequency bit has been and gone. (each with a fixed defined energy of hv) have been created by that spike? An infinite number? If so the RF photonists among you must therefore hold that any spike of static, whether from a lightning strike, or an unsuppressed spark plug must contain infinite energy. No. Just lots and lots of photons all carrying a different amount of energy. Lots and lots of tiny steps can seem like a smooth surface as the step size decreases - this is a basic tenet of calculus, it also relates to grain size in photography, sample size in music, curve fitting etc. Since photons are so small as to be imperceptible to the human eye as individuals, enough of them together appears to be a continuum. However if you list all the individual frequencies I will calculate how many photons are created. This alone shows that RF radiation, when nor created by atomic processes, is continuous and not quantised. If you are going to overturn decades of accepted physics I propose that you have a stronger arguement than this. You need to work on your maths and you will need to be able to show why Einstein's Nobel-winning work on the photo electic effect is wrong. Andy |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:25 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com