General > General Technical Chat
How does the electron make a photon in an antenna?
Sal Ammoniac:
--- Quote from: aetherist on January 31, 2023, 10:50:59 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
You're still using strange terms here--what is radio effect?
Are you implying that static charges emit photons? If so, since photons carry energy, how could that happen? Are electrons converting their rest mass into energy in the form of photons, and wouldn't that result in the decrease in the electron's rest mass? That can't happen in QM...
aetherist:
--- Quote from: Sal Ammoniac on January 31, 2023, 11:02:04 pm ---
--- Quote from: aetherist on January 31, 2023, 10:50:59 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
You're still using strange terms here--what is radio effect?
Are you implying that static charges emit photons? If so, since photons carry energy, how could that happen? Are electrons converting their rest mass into energy in the form of photons, and wouldn't that result in the decrease in the electron's rest mass? That can't happen in QM...
--- End quote ---
I am not familiar with Quantum stuff.
Static charge emits em radiation constantly & continuously & continually – em radiation is not photons (which is where i came in).
I have not invoked any electrons in any of my elekticity stuff or radio stuff here today -- hence i don’t see why electron rest mass or electron energy affects anything here today.
TimFox:
A static charge, such as an electrostatic charge on a stationary insulating ball in elementary electrostatics (from the era of Benjamin Franklin), induces a static, non-oscillating, non-propagating electric field in the surrounding vacuum.
This is not radiation, which oscillates and propagates.
aetherist:
--- Quote from: TimFox on January 31, 2023, 10:57:15 pm ---
--- 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 elektons going upndown the Cu have their own charge, an elekton has a negative charge.
NO. Elekton 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 elektons flying in formation, it aint due to any acceleration of the elektons.
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 elektons, & 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.
[PITCH 1 & 2] Your "elektons" do not explain anything left unexplained by the standard theory.
--- End quote ---
[PITCH 1] My elektons explain why electricity propagates at the speed of light on the Cu.
[PITCH 2] And elektons explain whey insulation slows electricity to say 2c/3 km/s.
--- Quote from: TimFox on January 31, 2023, 10:57:15 pm ---[PITCH 3]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.
--- End quote ---
[PITCH 3] I am happy to agree with u that the current duz depend on the conductivity of the wire. But i don’t agree with your "otherwise". NO. The reason for a certain elekton current in a wire is little different to the (supposed) reason for the (supposed) electron current in a wire. There will of course be differences – current on the surface of a wire must be different to (supposed) current in a wire. But u seem to be in love with "otherwise"—which shows that u don’t understand that there are an infinite number of explanations for electricity & conductivity. "otherwise" indeed – SHHEEEEESSSSHHHHHH.
--- Quote from: TimFox on January 31, 2023, 10:57:15 pm ---[PITCH 4]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
--- End quote ---
[PITCH 4] I don’t understand Pitch 4. I have agreed i think with everything that u have said about synchrotrons. There is no Pitch 4. Praps u dropped the ball – i think that that might count as a Ball not a Strike.
aetherist:
--- Quote from: TimFox on January 31, 2023, 11:16:55 pm ---A static charge, such as an electrostatic charge on a stationary insulating ball in elementary electrostatics (from the era of Benjamin Franklin), induces a static, non-oscillating, non-propagating electric field in the surrounding vacuum.
This is not radiation, which oscillates and propagates.
--- End quote ---
Static (electrostatic) charge (on a ball) is interesting, & complicated (compared to electricity).
I agree that static charge on a static ball induces a static electric field.
But u say that a static field is not radiation, or at least that it duznt propagate. I reckon that it is radiation (static radiation), & i reckon that it radiates & propagates outwards from the charge at the speed of (static)(& non static) em radiation (which is they say equal to the speed of light c).
U infer that radiation has to be an oscillation as well as a propagation. I sort of agree that it has to be a propagation – but i don’t agree that it has to be an oscillation (or excitation or vibration or reverberation or something)(or a bulk change in the bulk quantity or quality of the field).
But of course a static field of some kind (eg electric) will of course be a different animal to a non-static field. But they are both radiation (or for different kinds of non-static, there might be hundreds of different kinds, all of them are radiations).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version