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

Furthe questions to the RF Photonists amongst you.
 

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna 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?

Are you attempting to ask "How does an antenna generate an elecromagnetic
field?" in the most arcane way possible?


--
Jim Pennino

Furthe questions to the RF Photonists amongst you.
 

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna 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?

First you would have to be able to understand that electromagnetic energy
can be generated by more than one mechanism.



--
Jim Pennino

Furthe questions to the RF Photonists amongst you.
 

"rickman" wrote in message
...
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.

A nice wave emanates from the dipole, and not a collection of wavelets of
random phase,
and yet individual quantum events seem to be unpredictable

Furthe questions to the RF Photonists amongst you.
 

wrote in message
...
I'll probably regret asking, but WTF is a "photonist"?

The term that I have coined for those who claim that radiation from our
antennae is by photons; a
group of people who are then strangely circumspect when the characteristics
of those photons
are the subject of an enquiry.

Furthe questions to the RF Photonists amongst you.
 

In rec.radio.amateur.antenna gareth wrote:
wrote in message
...
I'll probably regret asking, but WTF is a "photonist"?

The term that I have coined for those who claim that radiation from our
antennae is by photons; a

As has been proven by about a hundred years of established physics.

group of people who are then strangely circumspect when the characteristics
of those photons
are the subject of an enquiry.

If you want to know about photons, read the information at:

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

And no, I am not going to re-type it all in for you, just click on the
link.

When you are finished with that, read the 110 references at the bottom
of the article.

Your local university library may be of help.

Once you have done that, you might get it through your head that the
enquiry and discussion was settled a very long time ago.



--
Jim Pennino

Furthe questions to the RF Photonists amongst you.
 

On 9/11/2015 1:45 PM, gareth wrote:
"rickman" wrote in message
...
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.

A nice wave emanates from the dipole, and not a collection of wavelets of
random phase,
and yet individual quantum events seem to be unpredictable

Quanta are not wavelets. If you understood QM theory you would realize
the two ways of viewing EM waves are not contradictory. Rather they are
two different ways of viewing the same phenomena. The *exact* same
light emitted by a device will show particle or wave like properties
without any difference in how the energy is generated. The only
difference is in how it is viewed.

--

Rick

Furthe questions to the RF Photonists amongst you.
 

On 11/09/2015 11:44, gareth wrote:
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?

Frequency.

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?

To get trillions and trillions of photons to carry the energy in the
same way that a wartime searchlight is bigger than my old pocket torch.

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?

No. A laser/maser produces coherent photons, all at the same frequency
and direction. Normal processes produce incoherent photons of a wide
range of frequencies and direction. There is no "RF laser" operating in
an antenna otherwise the gain would be spectacular.

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?

This has already been explained to you in other threads.

I quote "Because they carry on forever passing you and going out into
space the collective signal getting weaker and weaker according to the
inverse square law.
If our sun were to vanish suddenly the light it put out would still
carry on. We would be in darkness after about 8 minutes but someone near
Jupiter would still see it and someone in a different solar system would
still see the light after years."

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?

Why do you post questions and then ignore the answers and just repeat
the questions on a new thread?

Andy

Furthe questions to the RF Photonists amongst you.
 

On 11/09/2015 11:50, 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.

You misunderstand the difference between the behaviours and prediction
of individuals and populations.
You cannot predict the nature of a photon but you can predict the nature
of a population.
Going back to the double slit experiment, you cannot predict where a
single photon will end up but you can easily predict the spread of photons.

If I roll 2 dice, I cannot predict the outcome of the roll but I can
show the probability density function of a large number of rolls to a
very high accuracy and show it experimentally.

Andy

Furthe questions to the RF Photonists amongst you.
 

En el artículo , AndyW
escribió:

Why do you post questions and then ignore the answers and just repeat
the questions on a new thread?

Because he's a tedious attention-seeking troll that thrives on conflict
and would be best ignored?

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