General > General Technical Chat

How does the electron make a photon in an antenna?

<< < (11/38) > >>

aetherist:

--- Quote from: karpouzi9 on January 31, 2023, 10:18:58 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on January 31, 2023, 10:10:25 pm ---
--- Quote from: karpouzi9 on January 31, 2023, 06:12:47 pm ---Unless you'd like to show us how to create radio emissions and/or "electricity" from nothing but crystalline structures (say, quartz) with "fixed" positive and negative charges without applying any heat, mechanical shock, acoustic waves, photons, or mechanical stress, and without waiting for their atoms to decay. Good luck  :-+
--- End quote ---
I accept your challenge. My answer will take me about 1 second of thinking, & a few minutes of typing. It goes like this.
In a crystal atom elektrons (photons) orbit (hug) the nucleus, ie elekticity orbits the nucleus, ie a shock etc can dislodge an elektron, & the resulting elekton can then propagate along (hug) a conductor (eg a Cu wire), in which case we have elekticity.

What is vague about my saying that elekticity on a wire is due to elektons propagating along (hugging) the surface of the Cu?
What is vague about my saying that an atom is elekticity orbiting a nucleus?

--- End quote ---
You said the opposite. To quote you earlier: "electricity aint due to the movement of electrons -- neither in the Cu nor on the Cu."


--- Quote ---But, back to the main topic re radio not being photons.
I reckon that radio is due to em radiation. U say that radio is due to photons.
Photons have a natural frequency. Em radiation duznt have a natural frequency – in radio it has a forced frequency.
Em radiation is emitted by every photon, ie it is emitted by elektons propagating upndown a transmitting antenna.
The em radiation emitted by elektons will mimic the elektons movement upndown the antenna.
A 1MHz antenna emits a 1 MHz em radiation wave, not a 1MHz photon.

In the receiver the em radiation will excite the elektons already on the Cu -- & will create a mini-version of the elekton current on the transmitter.

--- End quote ---

EM radiation is made of photons in the same way that a cup of distilled water is made of H2O molecules. You've indicated the physics is over your head, so I'll cease bludgeoning you with it--provided you stop posting confident nonsense.

--- End quote ---
The water is the photons -- the water waves are the radio waves.

Re saying the opposite -- i am afraid that u have missread what i wrote -- read again (i think that u missread elekton for electron)(or did i make a spelling error?).

aetherist:

--- Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on January 31, 2023, 10:36:37 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on January 31, 2023, 10:33:23 pm ---Charge radiates all of the time. But, when a charge is at rest then the radiation is impotent.
--- End quote ---
Please explain what you mean by "impotent" -- this isn't a very descriptive term when applied to charged particles emitting radiation.
--- End quote ---
Fair question -- i have never used that description before today (ie the words impotent & potent).
What i meant is that a static charge has a limited action -- ie it produces a force or forces on another charge, but has no radio effect.
A moving charge likewise has no radio effect, ie no em effect (or at least no magnetic effect)(here i mean moving with constant velocity).
But an accelerating charge creates a changing em field (this complex changing field being slightly different to the simple changing field we get from a constant velocity).
And there are only 3 forces in nature -- electric (eg charge) -- magnetic (eg em) -- & gravity -- (& a 4th that i wont go into here)(i am not looking for abuse).

aetherist:

--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 31, 2023, 07:16:38 pm ---Since time doesn't exist, neither does acceleration. So accelerated particles are just for the birds. ;D

--- End quote ---
I agree with Einstein that time is an illusion (albeit his illusion is different to mine).
Time duznt exist.  What exists is ticking. Everything that we see & feel in our world/universe is a process, & all processes have a (natural) ticking.

TimFox:

--- Quote from: aetherist on January 31, 2023, 10:33:23 pm ---
--- Quote from: TimFox on January 31, 2023, 06:59:24 pm ---The fundamental reason is that charge radiates when it is accelerated.
In an antenna, the oscillating current accelerates the conducting charge along the wire.
In a synchrotron, charged particles are accelerated centripetally (by appropriated magnetic fields) to follow an approximately circular orbit.
--- End quote ---
NO. Charge duznt radiate when accelerated. Charge radiates all of the time. But, when a charge is at rest then the radiation is impotent. When charge is accelerated the radiation become potent, ie it can then have effect, ie it can then produce a force in some instances.

NO. In a transmitting antenna there is no conducting charge. In an antenna the oscillating electons going upndown the Cu have their own charge, an electon has a negative charge.

NO. Electons going upndown an antenna do not ever accelerate. They always propagate at the speed of light. They have one speed. The signal going upndown an antenna will have a say sinusoidal form, & this sinusoidal form is due to the numbers of electons flying in formation, it aint due to any acceleration of the electons.

In a synchrotron i suppose that electrons etc are made to follow a circular path at high speed (i say made, made to follow, by em radiation) – that sounds ok to me – here the electrons are electrons, they are not electons, & they are not free photons (they are photons that have formed a loop by biting their own tail).

--- End quote ---

Once again, you strike out:  0 for 3.
Your "electons" do not explain anything left unexplained by the standard theory.
Electrons, on the other hand, do travel up and down in conductive wires.  Otherwise, the current would not depend on the conductivity of the wire.
I have explained synchrotron radiation to  you in other posts, but you haven't bothered to consider it.
This is not a theoretical exercise:  electron synchrotrons are in use all over the world (including Australia).  In the simplest form, the electron beam is bent at stationary magnets into a polygonal path, close to a circle.  Bending a beam therein is an acceleration:  change in velocity over time.  At those stations, where the electrons are accelerated centripetally, EM radiation is produced.  This is all in vacuum.  To improve the output, there are interesting variations done to increase the distance over which the electrons suffer acceleration.  This, along with other forms of electron accelerators, is a practical method for producing EM radiation.
To learn about this important topic, you can go to the website of the main Australian synchrotron, which describes this in detail.  https://www.ansto.gov.au/facilities/australian-synchrotron
 
E

aetherist:

--- Quote from: IanB on January 31, 2023, 09:36:29 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on January 31, 2023, 09:09:09 pm ---2. U mention radio photons. I reckon that radio photons do not exist. I reckon that radio is due to em radiation (not photons), in particular radio is due to a changing em radiation, with a wavelength(s).
Hence if a silicon diode detector can detect radio waves then that detection is due to the action of em radiation not photons.

3. U mention thermal electrons. I reckon that electricity on a wire is due to photons (what i call electons) propagating along the surface of the Cu, not due to any movement of electrons in or on the Cu.
I reckon that electrons do not orbit the nucleus of an atom – electons orbit the nucleus. In other words an atom is electricity orbiting a nucleus.
However, i do believe that electrons exist – but these electrons are photons that have formed a loop by biting their own tails (or in some cases other tails).
In any case i don’t believe that there is any such thing as a thermal electron. But praps u mean an electron that has been created by a thermal photon (i might be ok with that).

--- End quote ---

Why do you reckon all these things? Have you spent the last 200 or 300 years doing careful scientific experiments, evaluating the results and carefully constructing mathematical equations that show how to predict the results of new experiments? Have you been alive the last 200 years to be able to do this?

Otherwise, it would seem you are simply talking through your hat.


--- Quote from: aetherist on January 31, 2023, 09:09:09 pm ---That kind of stuff is over my head.
--- End quote ---

If that kind of stuff is over your head, why to you feel qualified to expound upon it?

--- End quote ---


Why do you reckon all these things? Have you spent the last 200 or 300 years doing careful scientific experiments, evaluating the results and carefully constructing mathematical equations that show how to predict the results of new experiments? Have you been alive the the last 200 years to be able to do this?

Otherwise, it would seem you are simply talking through your hat.


--- Quote from: aetherist on January 31, 2023, 09:09:09 pm ---That kind of stuff is over my head.
--- End quote ---

If that kind of stuff is over your head, why to you feel qualified to expound upon it?[/quote]

I made a small number of simple statements –  why do u disagree with any of them. Each of them if true will stand any test. One strike & i am out. Now – u pitch -- & i will hit it out of the park every time.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod