Furthe questions to the RF Photonists amongst you.
 

1. If your RF photons are merely a packet of energy for which it is
meaningless to
talk about frequency, what is the difference between your RF photons when
listening to a signal on 14.1 MHz and those of your RF photons when
listening
to a signal on 472 kHz?

2. If you claim that your RF photons are generated by the same intra-atomic
processes that generate light, then why do we need the so many trillions of
atoms
that make for a half-wave dipole?

3. Also, if your RF photons are generated by that same intra-atomic process,
then
what must be the laser / maser like process that induces all the atoms in a
half-wave dipole
to produce the photons in the appropriate phase relationship?

4. When I listen to a single dit, the E of Morse (Really Vail?) Code, if the
photon has no
beginning, no end, and no am modulation to bring about such a beginning and
end, then
why do I not hear a continuous never-ending dit?

5. Why do some of you blithely quote URLs at me? Is it because you don't
really understand
matters yourselves and are thus incapable of joining in a gentlemanly
discussion, whether you agree, or not,
with what I propose?

6. To circumvent the decline of Usenet, is it not a good idea to foment
discussion, for in the amateur
radio club of my alma mater (G3UOE) it was commonplace to have such
discussions.

Furthe questions to the RF Photonists amongst you.
 

"gareth" wrote in message
...
3. Also, if your RF photons are generated by that same intra-atomic
process, then
what must be the laser / maser like process that induces all the atoms in
a half-wave dipole
to produce the photons in the appropriate phase relationship?

IN particular this question because of the unpredictable statistical nature
of quantum physics, and the dipole radiaition is completely regular and
predictable.

Furthe questions to the RF Photonists amongst you.
 

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:

There is no such word as "Photonists".

1. If your RF photons are merely a packet of energy for which it is
meaningless to
talk about frequency, what is the difference between your RF photons when
listening to a signal on 14.1 MHz and those of your RF photons when
listening
to a signal on 472 kHz?

As the energy is equal to Plancks constant times frequency, you are
starting off with a false premise.


2. If you claim that your RF photons are generated by the same intra-atomic
processes that generate light, then why do we need the so many trillions of
atoms
that make for a half-wave dipole?

Non sequitur.

3. Also, if your RF photons are generated by that same intra-atomic process,
then
what must be the laser / maser like process that induces all the atoms in a
half-wave dipole
to produce the photons in the appropriate phase relationship?

Non sequitur.

4. When I listen to a single dit, the E of Morse (Really Vail?) Code, if the
photon has no
beginning, no end, and no am modulation to bring about such a beginning and
end, then
why do I not hear a continuous never-ending dit?

Because you are stationary and the electromagnetic energy went past
you at the speed of light.

5. Why do some of you blithely quote URLs at me? Is it because you don't
really understand
matters yourselves and are thus incapable of joining in a gentlemanly
discussion, whether you agree, or not,
with what I propose?

Because no one wants to re-type in the pages of text that already exist.

6. To circumvent the decline of Usenet, is it not a good idea to foment
discussion, for in the amateur
radio club of my alma mater (G3UOE) it was commonplace to have such
discussions.

Discussion is great if based on a sound premise.

Discussion is meaningless if based on a false premise.


--
Jim Pennino

Furthe questions to the RF Photonists amongst you.
 

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
"gareth" wrote in message
...
3. Also, if your RF photons are generated by that same intra-atomic
process, then
what must be the laser / maser like process that induces all the atoms in
a half-wave dipole
to produce the photons in the appropriate phase relationship?

IN particular this question because of the unpredictable statistical nature
of quantum physics, and the dipole radiaition is completely regular and
predictable.

The statistical nature of quantum physics makes it predictable at the
macro level.

--
Jim Pennino

Furthe questions to the RF Photonists amongst you.
 

On 9/11/2015 6:50 AM, gareth wrote:
"gareth" wrote in message
...
3. Also, if your RF photons are generated by that same intra-atomic
process, then
what must be the laser / maser like process that induces all the atoms in
a half-wave dipole
to produce the photons in the appropriate phase relationship?

IN particular this question because of the unpredictable statistical nature
of quantum physics, and the dipole radiaition is completely regular and
predictable.

Statistical does not mean "unpredictable". The oceans are full of
individual molecules of water, each moving in a seemingly random manner
from thermal perturbations. But in aggregate they exhibit complex and
beautiful movement of waves breaking on a jetty just as mandated by
quantum mechanics.

--

Rick

Furthe questions to the RF Photonists amongst you.
 

"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 9/11/2015 6:50 AM, gareth wrote:
"gareth" wrote in message
...
3. Also, if your RF photons are generated by that same intra-atomic
process, then
what must be the laser / maser like process that induces all the atoms
in
a half-wave dipole
to produce the photons in the appropriate phase relationship?
IN particular this question because of the unpredictable statistical
nature
of quantum physics, and the dipole radiaition is completely regular and
predictable.
Statistical does not mean "unpredictable". The oceans are full of
individual molecules of water, each moving in a seemingly random manner
from thermal perturbations. But in aggregate they exhibit complex and
beautiful movement of waves breaking on a jetty just as mandated by
quantum mechanics.

So, what is the aggregate mechanism in your dipole that has your RF photons
all
actin in synchronicity?

Furthe questions to the RF Photonists amongst you.
 

On 9/11/2015 6:44 AM, gareth wrote:

2. If you claim that your RF photons are generated by the same intra-atomic
processes that generate light, then why do we need the so many trillions of
atoms
that make for a half-wave dipole?

They aren't needed. We have already given you an example of RF
radiation from an atom in the MRI. You say somehow that is related to
"near-field", but that is meaningless in this context.

--

Rick

Furthe questions to the RF Photonists amongst you.
 

"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 9/11/2015 6:44 AM, gareth wrote:

2. If you claim that your RF photons are generated by the same
intra-atomic
processes that generate light, then why do we need the so many trillions
of
atoms
that make for a half-wave dipole?

They aren't needed.

So we could have antennae that are only one molecule high, do you mean?

Furthe questions to the RF Photonists amongst you.
 

On 9/11/2015 1:19 PM, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 9/11/2015 6:50 AM, gareth wrote:
"gareth" wrote in message
...
3. Also, if your RF photons are generated by that same intra-atomic
process, then
what must be the laser / maser like process that induces all the atoms
in
a half-wave dipole
to produce the photons in the appropriate phase relationship?
IN particular this question because of the unpredictable statistical
nature
of quantum physics, and the dipole radiaition is completely regular and
predictable.
Statistical does not mean "unpredictable". The oceans are full of
individual molecules of water, each moving in a seemingly random manner
from thermal perturbations. But in aggregate they exhibit complex and
beautiful movement of waves breaking on a jetty just as mandated by
quantum mechanics.

So, what is the aggregate mechanism in your dipole that has your RF photons
all
actin in synchronicity?

Where does the "synchronicity" requirement come from? Antenna are not
lasers.

--

Rick

Furthe questions to the RF Photonists amongst you.
 

On 9/11/2015 1:22 PM, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...
On 9/11/2015 6:44 AM, gareth wrote:

2. If you claim that your RF photons are generated by the same
intra-atomic
processes that generate light, then why do we need the so many trillions
of
atoms
that make for a half-wave dipole?

They aren't needed.

So we could have antennae that are only one molecule high, do you mean?

It would be very hard to drive. I think the impedance would be
phenomenally small.

--

Rick