General > General Technical Chat
How does the electron make a photon in an antenna?
TimFox:
--- Quote from: Smokey on February 07, 2023, 02:35:40 am ---
--- Quote from: Rick Law on February 07, 2017, 09:52:18 pm ---...
Absolutely! Electronics is a macro concept. Quantum mechanics in general doesn't come into play.
...
--- End quote ---
Bandgap reference? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandgap_voltage_reference
--- End quote ---
Related to bandgaps, etc. is the thoroughly-quantum solid-state physics discussion of band structure in solid media, distinguishing between conductors, semiconductors, and insulators, depending on where the "Fermi level" is between the various energy bands of the complete medium: core, valence, and conduction bands.
Also remember that the Hall effect (q.v., a real phenomenon exploited in commercial electronics) allows one to determine if the charge carriers in the medium are positive (holes) or negative (electrons).
aetherist:
--- Quote from: karpouzi9 on February 07, 2023, 09:10:15 pm ---Do you just hate the letter 'r'?
--- End quote ---
I am ok with R.
I hate the Roman C.
I luv K & Z.
My latest worry is that if an enamel coating on Cu was 0.001 mm thick (enamel is usually 0.003 mm – to 0.015 mm), then it would be 4,000 Cu atoms thick.
Also, vizible photons hav a wavelength of 1,600 Cu to 2,800 Cu.
But, i don’t think that anyone has a good idea of how thick a photon is, ie what dia – but praps the dia might be smaller than the wavelength.
And, what is the max wavelength of a photon?
And, what is the length of a photon? – is it shorter than the wavelength? – or is it longer.
So, what is the critical thickness of enamel on Cu, ie the thickness that is nearnuff 100% effective in slowing the speed of light (ie the speed of ELEKTONS) on the surface of a Cu wire down to the speed of light in bulk enamel.
Praps the critical thickness is somewhere between 0.001 mm & 0.015 mm.
I really should buy a good scope – about $1000 i think.
tom66:
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 07, 2023, 11:34:37 pm ---But, i don’t think that anyone has a good idea of how thick a photon is, ie what dia – but praps the dia might be smaller than the wavelength.
And, what is the max wavelength of a photon?
And, what is the length of a photon? – is it shorter than the wavelength? – or is it longer.
--- End quote ---
Photons are not really particles and it isn't really helpful to think of them in dimensional forms. How does your "electon" theory cope with experiments which show that electrons and photons are best represented as waves and not particles? For instance, double slit experiment. You can do that at home!
As far as I know there is no minimum or maximum defined wavelength of a photon. However the higher the wavelength the greater the energy required to produce them. So the probability of them occurring in nature drops considerably once you get beyond gamma rays.
aetherist:
--- Quote from: tom66 on February 07, 2023, 11:52:36 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on February 07, 2023, 11:34:37 pm ---But, i don’t think that anyone has a good idea of how thick a photon is, ie what dia – but praps the dia might be smaller than the wavelength.
And, what is the max wavelength of a photon?
And, what is the length of a photon? – is it shorter than the wavelength? – or is it longer.
--- End quote ---
Photons are not really particles and it isn't really helpful to think of them in dimensional forms. How does your "electon" theory cope with experiments which show that electrons and photons are best represented as waves and not particles? For instance, double slit experiment. You can do that at home!
As far as I know there is no minimum or maximum defined wavelength of a photon. However the higher the wavelength the greater the energy required to produce them. So the probability of them occurring in nature drops considerably once you get beyond gamma rays.
--- End quote ---
I forgot about their being a possible min wavelength of photon – i recall mention of measured cosmic photons a 100 million times as energetic as a common Earthly gamma ray.
If a model represents electrons & photons as waves then that is ok re my ELEKTONS.
Models are never reality. No model has ever been real. That’s why they are called models.
And, according to me, an electron is a photon – hence your wordage becomes "….. which show that electrons photons & photons are best represented as waves……"
Re the double-slit-X – photons go slower near mass – hence we get bending & diffraction & refraction.
That’s why ELEKTONS hug Cu wire – that’s why ELEKTONS hug a nucleus in an atom.
The question then arises – why don’t ELEKTONS hug plastic ?
In other words -- what is the critical difference between a good conductor & a bad conductor?
That took me a lot of thinking – i would be surprized if anyone around here came up with a good explanation.
aetherist:
--- Quote from: karpouzi9 on February 07, 2023, 11:46:26 pm ---Here's some antidote for your affliction, aetherist: http://atomoptics.uoregon.edu/~dsteck/teaching/quantum-optics/quantum-optics-notes.pdf
Blowing some money on a scope won't make you happy.
--- End quote ---
Thanx -- i will have a read.
Re a scope -- anyone here could do the 2 experiments -- would need a say 100 MHz scope -- but i think that at least 300 MHz would be better for the X for the threaded rod.
I could talk anyone throo what is needed.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version