jj:

[snip]
I guess for now I will accept that a radio wave is a force field (or
energy field, if you like), and leave it at that (still seems to imply
action-at-a-distance).
:
:
Thanks for the responses.

JJ
[snip]

There is a phenomena associated with Quantum ElectroDynamics or QED
known as "entaglement" which really does involve instantaneous action at a
distance.

Entanglement was/is the most controversial part of quantum theory and it's
predicted
existence comprised the main "objection" that Einstein had to QED. In
recent years
"entanglement" has been experimentally verified in several ways at several
different
authoratative laboratories by leading Physics researchers around the world.

Entanglement of quantum particles is a facinating part of the whole field
of quantum
mechanics. There is a recent popular book on the subject of entanglement
which outlines
the delightful history of the controversy and the study of how quantum
particles can
become "entangled" and can then exert instantaneous [faster than light]
force at a distance
and helps to clarify the subject for lay folks. The book develops some
basic "understanding"
of QED but it needs a "little" bit of tolerance for maths.

cfr:

Amir D. Aczel, "Entanglement - The Greatest Mystery in Physics", Four Walls
Eight Windows, New York, 2001. ISBN: 1-568-58-232-3 [QC174.12.A29]

Aczel's book is not strictly a Science or Physics book but is more of a
popular
account of the subject. Aczel has personally known many of the famous
protaganists of quantum theory on a personal basis and the book includes
photos
of him together with some of the world famous physicists at their homes,
where
he visited and got their views/contributions on the subject.

Facinating stuff...

--
Peter K1PO
Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL

Yuri:

[snip]
Maybe this will intrigue some of youze guyz and help in sheding some
light on
our neandertal brains?

73 Yuri, K3BU
[snip]

Maxwell's Equations?

No thanks...

Maxwell is soooo pase.

I prefer to use the equations of quantum electrodynamics when computing the
lengths of the wire loops for my twenty meter quad antennas!

I get better accuracy and more gain that way.

:-)

--
Peter K1PO
Indialantic By-by-the-Sea, FL.

Hi,

Here is an excellent website with explanations, full of animations:
http://users.telenet.be/educypedia/e...ics/javarf.htm

My webiste also contain an explanation but it is written in French in
section devoted to quantum physics.

73's

Thierry
ON4SKY, LX3SKY
http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry


"jj" wrote in message
om...
This may at first sound like a stupid question. But after some years
as a radio enthusiast, I don't know what a radio wave is - what it
really is. Supposedly, modern physics does not believe there is such
a thing as "action at a distance". In other words, if you launch a
radio wave and I intercept it, there must be a transfer of "stuff"
between you and me. You can't just say that if I wiggle an electron
at point A, I can cause a wiggle at the same wiggle rate at point B.
I mean you can say it, but it doesn't explain anything.

OK, so the latest science says that electromagnetic energy is really
particle-waves. I guess this means that when I transmit, my antenna
is firing particles in the form of low-energy photons (energy
packets), and that these photons do not really exist anywhere but
exist only as probability waves - until, of course, someone intercepts
the wave. Then, magically, the photons appear at the receiving
antenna, in which they manage to produce oscillating electrons.

So, the best I can ascertain is that radio waves are really
probability waves. I'm not sure that really helps with an intuitive
understanding. Does anyone have a good description for what a radio
wave really is?

- JJ

"W7TI" wrote in message
...
On 28 Oct 2003 16:18:17 -0800, (jj) wrote:

Does anyone have a good description for what a radio
wave really is?

__________________________________________________ _______

The short answer is "no". Many people confuse the measurement of things
with having an understanding of them.

Scientists are very good at measuring things; less good at understanding
what they measure. For example, gravity is measurable down to a gnat's
eyelash, but nobody knows what it really "is".

--
Bill, W7TI


It would be more accurate to say that we can measure gravity's effect, not
that we can measure gravity itself. Same for an electromagnetic field. We
have great models for predicting the effects; some models are so good we
call them Laws.

Beyond that, before you know exactly what a field is, do you really know
what ANYTHING really is? How about a copper wire? What really is copper?
Will you find the answer if you can look smaller & smaller? Will you
eventually disturb the observation just by observing? How do we know
anything?

Questions like this are best treated with beer.

Ed
wb6wsn

Ed:

[snip]
Questions like this are best treated with beer.

Ed
wb6wsn
[snip]

I prefer to treat those questions with Don Julio tequilla "on the rocks".
After a couple of Don Julio's *I* understand everything!

--
Peter K1PO
Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:48:01 +0100, "Thierry" Thierry, see
http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry/ wrote:

Hi,

Here is an excellent website with explanations, full of animations:
http://users.telenet.be/educypedia/e...ics/javarf.htm

My webiste also contain an explanation but it is written in French in
section devoted to quantum physics.

I thought all quantum physics was written in "Greek"

Roger Halstead (K8RI EN73 & ARRL Life Member)
www.rogerhalstead.com
N833R World's oldest Debonair? (S# CD-2)