How does the electron make a photon in an antenna?

[raspberrypi]

We know how an electron makes a photon in an LED. It jump from a higher orbital to a lower one emitting a photon. But in an antenna its occupying the same valance just with a different nucleus each hop.  How is the energy transferred to a radio frequency photon?

[switchedmodepsu]

We know how an electron makes a photon in an LED. It jump from a higher orbital to a lower one emitting a photon. But in an antenna its occupying the same valance just with a different nucleus each hop.  How is the energy transferred to a radio frequency photon?

I like that you think deeper than the average person. LIKE!     

[phliar]

In the electron case, it's about energy: if an electron needs to get rid of some energy it makes the appropriate photon.

The antenna case is easier to think about classically -- you're making changing electric and magnetic fields when you send a signal down a conductor, and these changing electric+magnetic fields have this cool self-propagation ability that we call electromagnetic radiation. The QM analysis is left as an exercise for the reader... 

[calexanian]

I was taught, and I just did some google searching because its been so long, is that the actual radio wave propagation (In the common communication ranges) is purely electromagnetic and electrostatic based on Maxwells equations. They propagate independent of photons in a manner dictated by QED. The photons are just an emitted byproduct generated by the intrinsic energy of the signal itself. In other words an antenna is producing the EM field, but any photons that are being released are not the principal emission and nowhere near the frequency of the base band, or in other words the antenna does not emit electrons or photons as a primary mode, only fields. It emits no more photons than any other piece of metal with that amount of energy going on about it. Things get a bit more complicated as you go higher up in frequency though. Via QED more "Loss" of energy is expressed via photons until you have an infrared light source.  Somebody please correct me. Like I said. It has been a very long time.

[Rick Law]

We know how an electron makes a photon in an LED. It jump from a higher orbital to a lower one emitting a photon. But in an antenna its occupying the same valance just with a different nucleus each hop.  How is the energy transferred to a radio frequency photon?

You are thinking too classical.

Photon is a wave.  "radio frequency photon" is just another packet of energy.  EM wave doesn't need to convert itself into a packet of energy called "radio frequency photon" in order to travel.  You can think of EM wave travels by endless induction.  Moving E field induces M field which induces E field which induces...

Don't dig too deep into how EM wave or photon travels.  You can't describe it unless you get into quantum mechanics.  Once you get into quantum mechanics, you are not longer dealing with electronics.   Electronics is largely a macro-science rather than micro-(quantum)-science of traveling photons.

In reality, or rather, in quantum reality, I really don't know what it means even for a particle to travel from point A to point B.  We all just have models that we think describes the world, but no one knows for sure.

[MrOmnos]

We know how an electron makes a photon in an LED. It jump from a higher orbital to a lower one emitting a photon. But in an antenna its occupying the same valance just with a different nucleus each hop.  How is the energy transferred to a radio frequency photon?

Hey, I just took my Antenna and Propagation exam and something similar was asked. The classical explanation is the good old Maxwell's equations. Classical physics gives us a set of rules like Faraday's law and Ampere's law. As the name suggests these are just laws that we know nature obeys but as far as I have read, it doesn't really explain why part of thing? To explain why you need to get into quantum realm which is weird and spooky (literally). 

Here veritasium tries to exaplain EM with Special relativity.

[calexanian]

QED is not spooky. Its actually quite comforting to know that there is not simply magic, or turtles, or magic turtles governing the universe!

[djnz]

The classical explanation is fine, but does anyone have an insightful quantum flavored answer that is more than "because of the math"?

[T3sl4co1l]

Quantum doesn't matter, because there are no quantum corrections necessary.

In the classical domain, the [average] electron flow in the wires, the electromagnetic fields in the transmission lines and in space: all of this is given by waves, or fluctuations over the norm if you prefer.

In QM, precisely the same is true.  If you wish to break it down to the lowest possible level (photon-electron interaction), that's fine, but you won't learn anything about it.  It's not a discrete, free-space, ballistic interaction, but even the faintest signal involves the coherent (or incoherent and noisy!) interaction of billions of photons and sextillions of electrons.  While the underlying mechanism remains true, there is nothing to learn from it -- the only useful knowledge to gain comes from the statistical ensemble, where the large scale QM behavior trends asymptotically towards the classical model; very accurately indeed, as it happens.

Tim

[calexanian]

Perhaps this thought may help. Magnetic fields can exist completely independent of a particle carrier or medium. Particles can interact with the field, but they are not necessary for it to propagate.

[Rick Law]

Quantum doesn't matter, because there are no quantum corrections necessary.

In the classical domain, the [average] electron flow in the wires, the electromagnetic fields in the transmission lines and in space: all of this is given by waves, or fluctuations over the norm if you prefer.

In QM, precisely the same is true.  If you wish to break it down to the lowest possible level (photon-electron interaction), that's fine, but you won't learn anything about it.  It's not a discrete, free-space, ballistic interaction, but even the faintest signal involves the coherent (or incoherent and noisy!) interaction of billions of photons and sextillions of electrons.  While the underlying mechanism remains true, there is nothing to learn from it -- the only useful knowledge to gain comes from the statistical ensemble, where the large scale QM behavior trends asymptotically towards the classical model; very accurately indeed, as it happens.

Tim

Absolutely!  Electronics is a macro concept.  Quantum mechanics in general doesn't come into play.

The only place quantum mechanics will begin to matter is when we continue the miniaturization.  Traces in a die are now down to ~30nm.  At 10nm, you are talking about 100 atoms abreast.  Electronic at that level will begin to get iffy.

[T3sl4co1l]

Perhaps this thought may help. Magnetic fields can exist completely independent of a particle carrier or medium. Particles can interact with the field, but they are not necessary for it to propagate.

In the classical, E&M, "no luminiferous aether" sense, yes.

QED takes a very different view, however.

Tim

[T3sl4co1l]

Absolutely!  Electronics is a macro concept.  Quantum mechanics in general doesn't come into play.

Well... if "electronics" includes transistors, then...

But yes, if you're only doing design on a bulk level, then a transistor looks like a transistor with characteristic curves, and you don't need to look at the quantum behavior directly.

The only place quantum mechanics will begin to matter is when we continue the miniaturization.  Traces in a die are now down to ~30nm.  At 10nm, you are talking about 100 atoms abreast.  Electronic at that level will begin to get iffy.

You think RF is bad enough, where waves don't like to stay in wires?  At small enough scales, not even matter waves (at "DC") want to stay in wires!

Tim

[calexanian]

Absolutely!  Electronics is a macro concept.  Quantum mechanics in general doesn't come into play.

The only place quantum mechanics will begin to matter is when we continue the miniaturization.  Traces in a die are now down to ~30nm.  At 10nm, you are talking about 100 atoms abreast.  Electronic at that level will begin to get iffy.

It's not iffy if you believe in it enough. hahahaha. The electrons know how you feel about them!

[bson]

One of the classic Feynman lectures had a nice discussion of how magnetic fields and induction are required to preserve angular momentum... But I'll be damned if I can find the passage right now.  Anyone who hasn't seem these classic B&W lectures, absolutely should - the guy was a fantastic speaker.  Here's a collection of passages relating to the scientific method from the same talks... just brilliant. 

[raspberrypi]

We know how an electron makes a photon in an LED. It jump from a higher orbital to a lower one emitting a photon. But in an antenna its occupying the same valance just with a different nucleus each hop.  How is the energy transferred to a radio frequency photon?

I like that you think deeper than the average person. LIKE!     

Yea I try to think of EVERYTHING in terms of quantum physics. When I look at plastic I don't see an amorphous blob, I picture the hydrocarbon chain it makes. I ran a business and was good at seeing out of the box solutions that other couldn't. The phrase I hear alot around people is "Just ask Dave he will know." I don't think people have a personality, its just the manifestation of chemical reactions in your brain, ultimately decided down to quantum uncertainty. 

[CatalinaWOW]

There is no one way to look at it.  One thing that may make it a little easier to adjust to is by computing the RF photon energy, in eV or whatever unit works best for you.  You will find that each RF photon carries a tiny, tiny amount of energy.  Comparing that energy to the thermal energy variations in the valence electrons should give some insight into why the processes seem so different.

It is difficult to detect single optical photons, it is thousands to millions of times harder to detect single RF photons.  So you have to observe the bulk effects as described by Maxwell.

[rrinker]

One of the classic Feynman lectures had a nice discussion of how magnetic fields and induction are required to preserve angular momentum... But I'll be damned if I can find the passage right now.  Anyone who hasn't seem these classic B&W lectures, absolutely should - the guy was a fantastic speaker.  Here's a collection of passages relating to the scientific method from the same talks... just brilliant. 

 I didn't hit the one you were referring to yet, but thanks for sending me down THAT rabbit hole    Instead of going to bed I've been playing one after the other - there are 3 or 4 of the older ones like that that come up as related after each one, plus some of the more recent ones. Very easy to get sucked in and just keep hitting play on the next one.

[raspberrypi]

My understanding is this.
EMF is caused by real photons; they flow out of the radiator
Electric fields are caused by virtual photons, hence why things need to be touching (picometers distance) to interact
But magnetic fields are caused by what? In veritasiums video he explains how its special relativity due to perceived motion that causes a magnetic field becuause its just an electric field, but photons are real particles but are not emitted by magnets. If the gauge boson for magnetism is the photon where are the photons in a magnet? Virtual photons don't make sense on a macroscopic scale.

[HP-ILnerd]

A photon is an excitation in the electromagnetic field--just like any other particle is an excitation in its corresponding field.  It may not be a bad analogy to think of virtuals becoming real as similar to a signal going high in a Schmitt Trigger.  Any field can do it's thing without real particles being generated (E.g., the Higgs Field) because the Universe is a jittery place, but it takes energy to make a particle instantiate.  The vacuum, as an interacting set of fields, is sort of a blank canvas that has to be able to become anything that can be in it.

NB: The field notion (unsurprisingly) may seem reminiscent of the Luminiferous Aether concept.  The main (important!) difference is the fields in modern theory are all frameless:  you cannot measure your velocity relative to the fields as they all look the same regardless of your motion through them.

[Rick Law]

Photon and EM wave are the same thing.  To say EM wave make photons is rather like saying H₂O makes water.  Photon is a packet of EM wave energy.  EM wave traveling is a bunch of photons traveling.

U Colorado has a decent presentation on it - any physics department lecture would do as they all study the topic:
_{http://www.colorado.edu/physics/EducationIssues/ModernPhysics/Lecture_Notes/CSMSP11_Lecture11_AtomicSpectra(asgiven).pdf}

When energy is released in an atom, such as when an electron falls from a higher energy state to a lower energy state, it will emit a photon - that is the same as saying it will emit EM wave.  That released EM wave (photon) contains the energy it released.

Mass and energy are the same thing.  Photon (mass-less) carries momentum.

Photon and EM wave relationship is a different concept from wave-particle duality.  Wave-particle duality is the concept that all particles exhibits wave properties and the reverse is also true.  You can pick any subatomic particle, be it photon, electron, alpha particle, or for that matter, any particle.  When you treat it as a particle, you can measure it's particle properties.  When you treat it as a wave, you can measure its wave properties.  You will find alpha particles doing crazy things like being at two places at the same time when you are treating it as a wave.

Back to photon - current theory is, all EM waves travel at c.  However, there are studies pointing to possibly not all photons travel at c.  U.C. Davis study on how gamma ray appears to be slower is pointing at possibly not all photons travel at c.
_{https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/gamma-ray-delay-may-be-sign-new-physics/}

A lot of work are being done.  We don't know all there is to know yet.

[raspberrypi]

Perhaps this thought may help. Magnetic fields can exist completely independent of a particle carrier or medium. Particles can interact with the field, but they are not necessary for it to propagate.

Every force has to have a gauge boson. Strong=gluon Weak= W and Z bosons EM= photon, and gravity = graviton (not seen ...  yet). So the question here is what makes the photons for magnetic fields. Virtual photons are out because the ranges are too long, like 10^20th too long!

[T3sl4co1l]

Who are you to tell a photon how far to travel?

Tim

[raspberrypi]

Photon and EM wave are the same thing.  To say EM wave make photons is rather like saying H₂O makes water.  Photon is a packet of EM wave energy.  EM wave traveling is a bunch of photons traveling.

When energy is released in an atom, such as when an electron falls from a higher energy state to a lower energy state, it will emit a photon - that is the same as saying it will emit EM wave.  That released EM wave (photon) contains the energy it released.

Mass and energy are the same thing.  Photon (mass-less) carries momentum.

Photon and EM wave relationship is a different concept from wave-particle duality.  Wave-particle duality is the concept that all particles exhibits wave properties and the reverse is also true.  You can pick any subatomic particle, be it photon, electron, alpha particle, or for that matter, any particle.  When you treat it as a particle, you can measure it's particle properties.  When you treat it as a wave, you can measure its wave properties.  You will find alpha particles doing crazy things like being at two places at the same time when you are treating it as a wave.
work are being done.  We don't know all there is to know yet.

OK but there must be different mechanism to radiate sub Infrared (longer) photons. When a wire generates a radiowaves no electrons are jumping from a higher orbital to a lower one as is the case to make IR light UV and Xrays (balmer series etc). The longer the jump the higer energy/shorter wave length photon. IR seems to emitted by phonons in matter as way to get rid of thermal energy. But what happens at lower energies?   

[Vtile]

You can create radiotion also by changing the direction of electron rapidly or by driving it faster than the speed of light (sorry for a wrong term here, but I can not get the right "relatively light speed" term to my head) in dielectric. Goes over my understanding/knowledge what you want to call it, but yep.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrotron_radiation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bremsstrahlung
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation (I like that it were predicted by heaviside, would have been interesting to go to get a beer with him.)

Those Feyman lectures, whoa. Spend 3 hours already. 

[HP-ILnerd]

OK but there must be different mechanism to radiate sub Infrared (longer) photons. When a wire generates a radiowaves no electrons are jumping from a higher orbital to a lower one as is the case to make IR light UV and Xrays (balmer series etc). The longer the jump the higer energy/shorter wave length photon. IR seems to emitted by phonons in matter as way to get rid of thermal energy. But what happens at lower energies?   

Ah!  I think I see the problem.  The wavelength of a photon is not its physical length, but a property of how it propagates through space.  Like all particles in the Standard Model, the photon is dimensionless.  Consider the following experiment:
Say you have a hole that you can block in a tiny fraction of a second.  Through this, you try to shoot a photon where the period of it's wavelength is twice the time it takes to close the hole.  Can you close the hole to "slice" the photon in half to catch half a photon?  No.  The photon made it through in its entirety or it did not.  The E=hv equation has to be used in integral amounts, i.e., 1(hv) or 2(hv)...n(hv) but never 1/2(hv) or any other fraction.

I think it's less confusing if you consider fields rather than particles or waves (notions which have their uses).  Certain phenomena seem less magical then.

Fun Sean Carroll lecture on particles and fields: 

[Rick Law]

Photon and EM wave are the same thing.  To say EM wave make photons is rather like saying H₂O makes water.  Photon is a packet of EM wave energy.  EM wave traveling is a bunch of photons traveling.

When energy is released in an atom, such as when an electron falls from a higher energy state to a lower energy state, it will emit a photon - that is the same as saying it will emit EM wave.  That released EM wave (photon) contains the energy it released.

Mass and energy are the same thing.  Photon (mass-less) carries momentum.

Photon and EM wave relationship is a different concept from wave-particle duality.  Wave-particle duality is the concept that all particles exhibits wave properties and the reverse is also true.  You can pick any subatomic particle, be it photon, electron, alpha particle, or for that matter, any particle.  When you treat it as a particle, you can measure it's particle properties.  When you treat it as a wave, you can measure its wave properties.  You will find alpha particles doing crazy things like being at two places at the same time when you are treating it as a wave.
work are being done.  We don't know all there is to know yet.

OK but there must be different mechanism to radiate sub Infrared (longer) photons. When a wire generates a radiowaves no electrons are jumping from a higher orbital to a lower one as is the case to make IR light UV and Xrays (balmer series etc). The longer the jump the higer energy/shorter wave length photon. IR seems to emitted by phonons in matter as way to get rid of thermal energy. But what happens at lower energies?   

Exact same thing - you got a photon with less energy.  That it was less energy doesn't matter, it just turns into a lesser photon.

Eventually, the energy can get so low that uncertainty principal comes into play.  Then you don't know what energy that photon has, or where that photon is - or if that photon even exist.

Now you are into philosophy more than you are in Physics.

Even ignoring inflation and the expansion of the universe, how do you measure a photon with frequency< (1 / (13.7 billion years)), or in other words a photon with wave length>13.7 billion light years?  That photon if created at the birth of the universe has not completed one cycle of oscillation yet.  You have to wait another 0.1 billion years for the first oscillation cycle to complete.

We think that uncertainty principal appears valid.  So below a certain point, it can just vanish perhaps to reappear at a later time in another form.  What happen to that photon for the moment it vanished or does it exist?  That I don't think you can find the answer in Physics yet.

[T3sl4co1l]

Even ignoring inflation and the expansion of the universe, how do you measure a photon with frequency< (1 / (13.7 billion years)), or in other words a photon with wave length>13.7 billion light years?  That photon if created at the birth of the universe has not completed one cycle of oscillation yet.  You have to wait another 0.1 billion years for the first oscillation cycle to complete.

We think that uncertainty principal appears valid.  So below a certain point, it can just vanish perhaps to reappear at a later time in another form.  What happen to that photon for the moment it vanished or does it exist?  That I don't think you can find the answer in Physics yet.

Misapplying Fourier analysis doesn't invalidate what the universe does.

Consider, for example, the case of the Sun-Earth system, as a quantum "atom":

- What is the quantum number of this system?
- If the quantum number were to decrease by one, what is the wavelength of "photon" emitted?  (It's a gravitational rather than electromagnetic system, so it would actually be a graviton, as such.  For the problem, a boson is a boson, so that's fine.)
- Based on what you know about the Earth-Sun system, what is interesting about this wavelength?

(Borrowed from Griffiths' Quantum Mechanics.  My favorite problem in the book.)

Tim

[Rick Law]

Even ignoring inflation and the expansion of the universe, how do you measure a photon with frequency< (1 / (13.7 billion years)), or in other words a photon with wave length>13.7 billion light years?  That photon if created at the birth of the universe has not completed one cycle of oscillation yet.  You have to wait another 0.1 billion years for the first oscillation cycle to complete.

We think that uncertainty principal appears valid.  So below a certain point, it can just vanish perhaps to reappear at a later time in another form.  What happen to that photon for the moment it vanished or does it exist?  That I don't think you can find the answer in Physics yet.

Misapplying Fourier analysis doesn't invalidate what the universe does.

Consider, for example, the case of the Sun-Earth system, as a quantum "atom":

- What is the quantum number of this system?
- If the quantum number were to decrease by one, what is the wavelength of "photon" emitted?  (It's a gravitational rather than electromagnetic system, so it would actually be a graviton, as such.  For the problem, a boson is a boson, so that's fine.)
- Based on what you know about the Earth-Sun system, what is interesting about this wavelength?

(Borrowed from Griffiths' Quantum Mechanics.  My favorite problem in the book.)

Tim

You are thinking along a line that I am not in sync with.  I am unsure how Fourier Analysis comes to play in your line of thinking.   Along the line of energy being a function of wave-length (or frequency, same thing just inverse),  Fourier Analysis doesn't come into play.  So I am having problem following your line of thought here.

I chose very long wave length is to illustrate the point of the philosophical difficulty in scaling mathematics to real-life.  A frequency of 1/13.7 BillionYears is just a number for mathematics, you can plug that into any equation.  But the universe is just 13.6 billion years old.  So can you have an oscillation cycle that lasts 13.7 billion years?  So whether such photon can exist or not is philosophical.  (Again, forgoing the complexity of inflation and universe expansion.)

I am also unsure of your example Earth-Sun system analogy in reference to the very low energy discussion.

Do you scale Planck's constant with it?  The issue is not the absolute size of the quantum, rather, the issue is how close is it to Planck's constant.  The closer to Planck's constant, the bigger the uncertainty.  At the size of the solar system, uncertainty due to the uncertainty principle is not even in the scale of rounding errors.  So even if you are talking about a single particle of graviton, you are talking a huge amount of energy far exceed the scale of uncertainly.  There would be no chance of it hiding within the grey area covered by the uncertainty principle.

That said, much much much bigger "borrowing from uncertainty" came into play before - namely the big bang.

[T3sl4co1l]

You are thinking along a line that I am not in sync with.  I am unsure how Fourier Analysis comes to play in your line of thinking.   Along the line of energy being a function of wave-length (or frequency, same thing just inverse),  Fourier Analysis doesn't come into play.  So I am having problem following your line of thought here.

Simply highlighting a fallacy of analysis -- at the simplest level, wave-particle duality is identical to time-frequency duality, and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is simply the relationship between time-domain bounds and frequency-domain bounds.

That is to say -- the universe is more than happy to allow conditions which, within the scope of a Fourier analysis, should count as a photon (say) with a frequency lower than the age of the universe -- that you consider it as such, is merely your fault of applying an analysis that can only resolve things in terms of frequency, and not in other, more suitable terms.   (What those terms are, is an exercise for the student, naturally...)

Now, I'm not sure under what conditions you could ever observe such a thing -- -- but the takeaway point is, use what analysis is most suitable; Fourier analysis falls apart at "DC", where "DC" is merely however long you wish to look at a signal.

Remember also that Fourier analysis (of our simplest, most favorite functions) is symmetrical: the transform must exist for all time, including all negative time and all positive time.  Neither condition of which can be properly met in a finite-time universe!

Fortunately, Fourier transforms fail softly, so we can dirty up our graphs by bounding them within realistic windows.  We remind ourselves of the extents and limitations of our experiments, and perhaps we choose to exclude that pesky DC term from our subsequent analysis because it's an artifact of the transformation, or measurement.  But remembering, also, that we should contemplate its origin, in case it's really there (the universe has a net charge..?!).

In QM, Fourier isn't quite right, because QM isn't pure signal analysis.  But the duality phenomenon is common to all wave systems, and so we should naturally expect to see similar concerns arise in all wave systems.

Basically, for QM, you might find it's better to use a time-domain analysis than a frequency-domain analysis, in such a case.  The frequency-domain (or momentum, or..) results arise from eigenvalues of the solved equation; the eigenfunctions give their spacial distribution.  This works nicely when the problem is static (like the energy levels of a particle in a box, or the hydrogen atom), for which you expect a frequency analysis to work nicely (because it's not otherwise changing over time!).

The choice of analysis, is a convenience to the solver -- consider solving for the time-domain waveforms of an RLC circuit (analytically, not with SPICE ), versus with Fourier analysis.  Once you've trudged through all the awful integrals and found your series of exponential functions, you still can't do much with it because if you want to change the input signal, you have to integrate the damn thing again (output signal = convolution of input signal with impulse response).

AC steady state analysis is doing the whole thing in the Fourier domain, though they don't often tell you that that's what you're doing (hey, it's only the second course in the average EE curriculum).

If nothing's changing over time, of course the two approaches converge; we don't even bother writing the integrals nor the reactances, and the whole thing reduces to DC resistor networks: EE101.

Conversely, Fourier analysis won't help you much with a switching supply circuit -- it's bad enough if the duty cycle is varying over time, but if the frequency is varying as well, you're pretty much screwed.   Combined with the nonlinear parameters in a real semiconductor circuit, you're better off using energy arguments and events in time. 

I am also unsure of your example Earth-Sun system analogy in reference to the very low energy discussion.

Do you scale Planck's constant with it?

Nope, as stock.  Basically take the already-solved hydrogen atom equations, and plop in the correct potential (gravitational vs. Coulomb) and masses.

The issue is not the absolute size of the quantum, rather, the issue is how close is it to Planck's constant.  The closer to Planck's constant, the bigger the uncertainty.  At the size of the solar system, uncertainty due to the uncertainty principle is not even in the scale of rounding errors.  So even if you are talking about a single particle of graviton, you are talking a huge amount of energy far exceed the scale of uncertainly.  There would be no chance of it hiding within the grey area covered by the uncertainty principle.

That said, much much much bigger "borrowing from uncertainty" came into play before - namely the big bang.

The nice thing about this example is, it illustrates the problem of limited analysis over a much more human time scale than the Big Bang.  Since, as you say, the math doesn't care, you can simply plug in any number -- why not ask the same questions of an atom 2 A.U. across, or 100pm across? 

For the Earth-Sun system, some pertinent questions are:
- It is well studied that the Earth's orbit affects the orbits of its neighbors.  If it radiates so little energy, how can this be?  (Even given the Earth has been in its orbit for 4.5 billion years.)  Surely, so little energy cannot distort space-time enough to do that!
- If radiation is given off at the rate it seems to be given off at (and, well, why wouldn't it?), then how is it that we can seemingly measure its effect on a far shorter time scale?  (The answer to this, on the truly quantum scale, is a field of active development, actually -- the mechanism is analogous to using parametric sensors to measure the presence of a signal, altering the signal slightly in the process but not absorbing it whole.)

If you don't know/remember the QM to work it out by hand (it's a good study to work through, I encourage you to give it a try if you can!), the answer is here.
SPOILER: http://www.physicspages.com/2013/01/15/earth-sun-system-as-a-quantum-atom/

Tim

[Rick Law]

...
That is to say -- the universe is more than happy to allow conditions which, within the scope of a Fourier analysis, should count as a photon (say) with a frequency lower than the age of the universe -- that you consider it as such, is merely your fault of applying an analysis that can only resolve things in terms of frequency, and not in other, more suitable terms.
...

I am also unsure of your example Earth-Sun system analogy in reference to the very low energy discussion.

Do you scale Planck's constant with it?

Nope, as stock.  Basically take the already-solved hydrogen atom equations, and plop in the correct potential (gravitational vs. Coulomb) and masses.

The issue is not the absolute size of the quantum, rather, the issue is how close is it to Planck's constant.  The closer to Planck's constant, the bigger the uncertainty.  At the size of the solar system, uncertainty due to the uncertainty principle is not even in the scale of rounding errors.  So even if you are talking about a single particle of graviton, you are talking a huge amount of energy far exceed the scale of uncertainly.  There would be no chance of it hiding within the grey area covered by the uncertainty principle.

That said, much much much bigger "borrowing from uncertainty" came into play before - namely the big bang.

The nice thing about this example is, it illustrates the problem of limited analysis over a much more human time scale than the Big Bang.  Since, as you say, the math doesn't care, you can simply plug in any number -- why not ask the same questions of an atom 2 A.U. across, or 100pm across? 
...
...
Tim

[This was going to be a quick reply, but to be clear I had to add more and more words.  Hope I don't lose you half way.]

I see where we are out of sync.  You are talking about adopting a different (in your word, "more appropriate") methodology of doing analysis.

Whereas, I am simply describing the inability of scaling math to the limit (not in the mathematical sense of limit but in the practical sense) and consider that as applicable to the physical world.

Let me ask you a question (and it is not a trick question, question just to discern your philosophy): This is similar to but is not the silly question.  Let me dispatch with the silly question first so you know is not this: "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound."   The forest is a known condition, the physical laws that govern are known.  The tree will impact something and air molecule will vibrate.  Such vibration is called sound so as a result, yes a sound will be made.

So however similar sound the question, this is a real non-silly question: If a particle is mathematically evaluated not to decade in 10E40 years, and I am not talking half-life, I am talking non-probabilistic hard number of 10E40 years.  The question is: does it decade?   Based on current rate of acceleration of expansion, in 10E30 years or so our universe is energy-dead.   At 10E40 years, the particle has a life longer than the expected life of the universe.  At 10E30 years, there would be no energy to use, no matter visible, no matter interaction since there is no matter left within reachable distance (rate of expansion>c)...

The universe in 10E40 years is an unknown condition.  We don't know what physical laws will apply.  We also know that the act of measurement itself affects what we are measuring...

I would not consider the question "does it decade" a question of physics but instead it is a philosophical question.  In other words, it is outside the domain I think of as Physics since it is in a domain where I don't know if our physical laws apply.

We can hypothesize that our known physical laws still apply at the extremes, but we don't know.  In fact, we don't know even today how our physical laws apply beyond near our own solar system.  96% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy.  We don't even know what they are let alone form laws that may apply to that extend.  So, I tend to think physics as what we can have a prayer of forming laws that we can describe and perhaps prove directly or indirectly.

So, bottom line (in my view), you can choose whatever way you choose to look at it, all we can say is "well, we think it does, but we really don't know for sure."

If you say the particle WILL decade in 10E40 years, I can accept that too.  You have more faith in the robustness of our physical laws than I do.

[John Heath]

Great thread guys , enjoying it. Especially the old Feynman flicks. Would like to add that there is an advantage to using the photon model vs EM wave model for RF energy leaving an antenna. With a photon you can model the exact energy and shape of each individual photon. For a 100 MHz transmitter the energy of each photon is E=hv or energy in joules = Planck's constant times frequency for each photon. Too small to measure as h = 6.2 * 10^-34 , ouch . However the diameter of the photon is also set by frequency making a 100 MHz RF photon a 3 foot beach ball. This is useful information as it tells one ahead of time the limit of resolution of a 100MHz photon in a intuitive way by just thinking of it as a 3 foot beach ball. You can tell if there is a building by bouncing it off it but the doors and windows would be hard to make out armed only with a 3 foot beach ball. 10 GHz on the other hand is a gulf ball photon so the windows and doors can be resolved. In short the photon is a nice way to think of RF as it paints an intuitive picture of how the RF will act when it reflects of objects.

[RoGeorge]

How does the electron make a photon in an antenna?

The question is misleading. First, because it suggest an answer, as in the electron being the one to be blamed for the produced photons.
AFAIK, an electron does not "make" or "release" photons. What we call a photon is, in fact, a pack of energy with some specific behaviors, or properties.

Let's try to visualize a photon:
- There are fields and particles.
- What we call a particle is just a ripple, a perturbation in a field. A photon would be a ripple in the electromagnetic field.

To picture this, imagine the surface of a still lake. The surface of the lake is "The Field". Now, let's make "A Particle". That would be to make some ripples, or waves, on that perfect mirror of the still lake.

See that group of ripples moving away from the central drop? That whole group of ripples is a pack of energy. Let's call it a Riplon:




Can a drop of water make a Riplon? Apparently it can. Look, it's a fact:




But it's the drop of water who's making the Riplon? Or it's the rain?
Can an insect make a Riplon? Yes, it can:




Now, who's making the Riplon? It's the insect, or it is the surface tension of the water, or it is just the gravity? Causality seems to be an empirical concept and a rabbit whole, so it's hard to say "who's fault" is this or that. I guess the safest one can say is that some energy was transferred to the surface of the lake in the form of a Riplon. We will end here our analogy between photons and water waves. Analogies might help to "visualize" abstract concepts, but this can be dangerous in the long run. A mathematical representation serves better.

In conclusion, electrons "jumping from one energy state to another" (whatever the hell that could mean) it's not the only way to "produce" photons. Ripples in the electromagnetic field (AKA photons) can be made in many ways, and causality (AKA who's making the photons in an antenna) is more of a philosophical concept, because in a mathematical equation, there is no such thing as "variable x is the cause of variable y". It's just an equality, where the x and y terms can be rearranged upon wish, as long as we don't brake the math.

So, who's making a photon in an antenna? One electron jumping from a higher to a lower energy state? No.
I'd rather say it's the "dance of a gazillion of electrons", all moving in the rhythm of the variable electric potential produced by the radio transmitter. That dance produces ripples in the electromagnetic field, and those ripples are what we like to call photons.

[John Heath]

How does the electron make a photon in an antenna?

The question is misleading. First, because it suggest an answer, as in the electron being the one to be blamed for the produced photons.
AFAIK, an electron does not "make" or "release" photons. What we call a photon is, in fact, a pack of energy with some specific behaviors, or properties.

Let's try to visualize a photon:
- There are fields and particles.
- What we call a particle is just a ripple, a perturbation in a field. A photon would be a ripple in the electromagnetic field.


To picture this, imagine the surface of a still lake. The surface of the lake is "The Field". Now, let's make "A Particle". That would be to make some ripples, or waves, on that perfect mirror of the still lake.

See that group of ripples moving away from the central drop? That whole group of ripples is a pack of energy. Let's call it a Riplon:




Can a drop of water make a Riplon? Apparently it can. Look, it's a fact:




But it's the drop of water who's making the Riplon? Or it's the rain?
Can an insect make a Riplon? Yes, it can:




Now, who's making the Riplon? It's the insect, or it is the surface tension of the water, or it is just the gravity? Causality seems to be an empirical concept and a rabbit whole, so it's hard to say "who's fault" is this or that. I guess the safest one can say is that some energy was transferred to the surface of the lake in the form of a Riplon. We will end here our analogy between photons and water waves. Analogies might help to "visualize" abstract concepts, but this can be dangerous in the long run. A mathematical representation serves better.

In conclusion, electrons "jumping from one energy state to another" (whatever the hell that could mean) it's not the only way to "produce" photons. Ripples in the electromagnetic field (AKA photons) can be made in many ways, and causality (AKA who's making the photons in an antenna) is more of a philosophical concept, because in a mathematical equation, there is no such thing as "variable x is the cause of variable y". It's just an equality, where the x and y terms can be rearranged upon wish, as long as we don't brake the math.

So, who's making a photon in an antenna? One electron jumping from a higher to a lower energy state? No.
I'd rather say it's the "dance of a gazillion of electrons", all moving in the rhythm of the variable electric potential produced by the radio transmitter. That dance produces ripples in the electromagnetic field, and those ripples are what we like to call photons.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second picture with blue water shows the drop moving up not down. This is a nice way to demonstrate Heavyside's reflection caused by the degree of impedance difference between falling through air and falling through water. The drop of water experience an impedance difference leading to a reflection as seen with a portion of the water drop being reflected back up. In a RF coaxes cable it is only 1 dimension however with the water drop the reflective action can be seen in full 3 dimensions. A full 3 dimensional demonstration of the dynamics of a sudden change in impedance. That is cool.

I would add that waves leaving of the surface of the water outward become smaller and smaller through distance but photons do not as seen in the photoelectric effect. Green light will force an electron off metal but red light no matter how strong will not. The waves are quantified into energy packets of E=hv for reasons unknown.

[RoGeorge]

...A full 3 dimensional demonstration of the dynamics of a sudden change in impedance. That is cool.

You, Sir, have made my day! 

[T3sl4co1l]

[This was going to be a quick reply, but to be clear I had to add more and more words.  Hope I don't lose you half way.]

I appreciate the long form discussion!  So many lengthy posts go unchallenged, or probably even unread.  Few people seem to appreciate that 140 characters simply cannot communicate the complexity, detail and subtlety that encompasses... most everything!

I see where we are out of sync.  You are talking about adopting a different (in your word, "more appropriate") methodology of doing analysis.

Whereas, I am simply describing the inability of scaling math to the limit (not in the mathematical sense of limit but in the practical sense) and consider that as applicable to the physical world.

So what you're getting at is, not just the simple matter of analysis (which I see more often, hence my focus on that), but more fundamental.

So however similar sound the question, this is a real non-silly question: If a particle is mathematically evaluated not to decade in 10E40 years, and I am not talking half-life, I am talking non-probabilistic hard number of 10E40 years.  The question is: does it decade?   Based on current rate of acceleration of expansion, in 10E30 years or so our universe is energy-dead.   At 10E40 years, the particle has a life longer than the expected life of the universe.  At 10E30 years, there would be no energy to use, no matter visible, no matter interaction since there is no matter left within reachable distance (rate of expansion>c)...

NB: decay?

Some theories suppose the proton will decay, in some unimaginably long time scale; still, for the vast number of them in the universe, perhaps one could stand the chance of observing such an event, within that time scale.

But that's a probabilistic decay; you mean a fixed, known decay time?  There is no mechanism to conceive of such a thing, within the Standard Model as we know it.  This supposed particle is very alien indeed, and making any hard statements about, say, its mass or energy or internal state, is quite undefined!

So, proposing a simple thought experiment about one property, really strains the understanding of many more properties within present theory!  I'm not sure that this was the intended effect...

The universe in 10E40 years is an unknown condition.  We don't know what physical laws will apply.  We also know that the act of measurement itself affects what we are measuring...

I would not consider the question "does it decade" a question of physics but instead it is a philosophical question.  In other words, it is outside the domain I think of as Physics since it is in a domain where I don't know if our physical laws apply.

Yeah, physics is a very practical science: if you can measure it, if it comes out of the math of established (read: measurement-supported) theory, there's something there.  If you can't measure it, maybe it's there, maybe not, it doesn't really matter in that case, does it?

(This is sort of the problem that string theory has: my limited understanding of it is, it's a superset of earlier theory, so it suffers from the problem of being too general -- indeed, that many of the new variables can't be measured.  More of a framework than a physical theory.  When we finally obtain new experimental data, we have plenty of choice of framework to fit them into -- but for now, it's kind of just a plaything.)

So, given that it's unlikely the study of physics (at least, as we know it) will persist for 10^30 years, say -- I would be more than happy to answer "no, it doesn't decay*".  The implication is: *for all intents and purposes.

But if you have reason to believe it decays (such as the theories which suggest proton decay, if proven), then who knows, you might measure it some day, and you can say "yeah sure, why not?" instead.

Or, if you've somehow determined that a particle will go off like a time bomb at exactly 1e40, you probably have a very good reason to believe that, in which case the "Yes!" is as resounding as the strength of the theory behind that result, and the sigmas of its supporting data!

And, since these things always cut both ways -- whatever mechanism you've discovered, that gave rise to this timebomb-ino, as it were -- likely has profound effects on other particles or relationships within the theory!  If this one particle is deterministic, there must be a companion that's also deterministic?  Or is there even less determinism (more chaos, or randomness) in other events?


Besides proton decay, a more practical example might be double-beta decay: it was hypothesized for some time, and expected to be very unlikely, but it has in fact been observed in a number of quite long half-life nuclides.  This is, of course, a probabilistic decay, not a time bomb, which makes it practical to measure, despite the half-life being on the order of (age of universe)^2.

Is it useful to know?  Yes -- it validates our theories about the weak force.  Is it practical, in and of itself?  Probably not; anything with a half-life that long is pretty well "stable" for all intents and purposes, outside maybe a very sensitive detector (don't accidentally get any ¹⁰⁰Mo in your neutrino detector tank!).

We can hypothesize that our known physical laws still apply at the extremes, but we don't know.  In fact, we don't know even today how our physical laws apply beyond near our own solar system.  96% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy.  We don't even know what they are let alone form laws that may apply to that extend.  So, I tend to think physics as what we can have a prayer of forming laws that we can describe and perhaps prove directly or indirectly.

So, bottom line (in my view), you can choose whatever way you choose to look at it, all we can say is "well, we think it does, but we really don't know for sure."

If you say the particle WILL decade in 10E40 years, I can accept that too.  You have more faith in the robustness of our physical laws than I do.

So to sum up, it seems like we're in agreement.  Physics, as a field of study, is only as certain of its results as it can measure.  No need for faith, just soft fuzzy error bars!

Tim

[T3sl4co1l]

So, who's making a photon in an antenna? One electron jumping from a higher to a lower energy state? No.

BTW, note that the antenna is only a guide for the EM field.  The EM field extends from within the cable (or waveguide, or whatever), through the radiating structure, out into space.  If you wish to use photons in your reasoning, then they can be present in all these locations.

Ultimate photon interactions (creation and absorption) -- not just scattering, occurs at sources and sinks.  Really, anything with resistance, or equivalent resistance.

Tim

[T3sl4co1l]

I would add that waves leaving of the surface of the water outward become smaller and smaller through distance but photons do not as seen in the photoelectric effect. Green light will force an electron off metal but red light no matter how strong will not. The waves are quantified into energy packets of E=hv for reasons unknown.

Honestly: the photoelectric effect is far more complex (surface physics, yay!..) than its traditional origin story suggests.  It's remarkable to me that any research on the subject could be eligible for a Nobel prize!  Though to be fair, it's generally been said that Einstein was honored, not so much for that particular paper (On The Photoelectric Effect), but more generally, because, well, Einstein.

Familiar examples are phototubes, with sensitivity curves seemingly much longer in wavelength than the materials used would suggest.  (But, they use compounds, selected for wideband sensitivity, which might not obey the same rules as pure metals.)

But also of note -- EVERYTHING is nonlinear, to some degree.  Some crystals exhibit multi-photon mixing (essentially: upconversion due to a locally-quadratic field response).  Such phenomena are uncommon, both because of material properties (only specialized crystals are chosen for applications), and because of small probabilities (the likelihood of two photons being in the same location, phase and polarization, is small; however, laser light is quite luminous and coherent, so the effect can be usefully applied).

A more banal example: simply heating something, with any radiation source sufficiently intense.  Induction heating achieves up-conversion from 60Hz (~coherent) to ~400THz ("white" noise -- oh, wait, white indeed!), and that's just in ordinary industrial steelmaking!

In the extreme, space itself is nonlinear: the kugelblitz is a black hole, created from a sufficient density of pure light at a point.  The mass of a black hole, summoned purely from energy!  Of course, you need a truly astronomical amount of light, converging on an exact point, which might not be possible given optical limitations; but there's nothing prohibiting it on the lowest physical levels, that we know of.

Tim

[John Heath]

I would add that waves leaving of the surface of the water outward become smaller and smaller through distance but photons do not as seen in the photoelectric effect. Green light will force an electron off metal but red light no matter how strong will not. The waves are quantified into energy packets of E=hv for reasons unknown.

Honestly: the photoelectric effect is far more complex (surface physics, yay!..) than its traditional origin story suggests.  It's remarkable to me that any research on the subject could be eligible for a Nobel prize!  Though to be fair, it's generally been said that Einstein was honored, not so much for that particular paper (On The Photoelectric Effect), but more generally, because, well, Einstein.

Familiar examples are phototubes, with sensitivity curves seemingly much longer in wavelength than the materials used would suggest.  (But, they use compounds, selected for wideband sensitivity, which might not obey the same rules as pure metals.)

But also of note -- EVERYTHING is nonlinear, to some degree.  Some crystals exhibit multi-photon mixing (essentially: upconversion due to a locally-quadratic field response).  Such phenomena are uncommon, both because of material properties (only specialized crystals are chosen for applications), and because of small probabilities (the likelihood of two photons being in the same location, phase and polarization, is small; however, laser light is quite luminous and coherent, so the effect can be usefully applied).

A more banal example: simply heating something, with any radiation source sufficiently intense.  Induction heating achieves up-conversion from 60Hz (~coherent) to ~400THz ("white" noise -- oh, wait, white indeed!), and that's just in ordinary industrial steelmaking!

In the extreme, space itself is nonlinear: the kugelblitz is a black hole, created from a sufficient density of pure light at a point.  The mass of a black hole, summoned purely from energy!  Of course, you need a truly astronomical amount of light, converging on an exact point, which might not be possible given optical limitations; but there's nothing prohibiting it on the lowest physical levels, that we know of.

Tim

Your response makes you the qualified to do a photoelectric test as you have the understanding that the real world is not the elegant picture painted by arm chair physics. Why would you assume the minds of the men and women 100 years ago to be different. The test was done with care to control third variables.

[aetherist]

I was taught, and I just did some google searching because its been so long, is that the actual radio wave propagation (In the common communication ranges) is purely electromagnetic and electrostatic based on Maxwells equations. They propagate independent of photons in a manner dictated by QED. The photons are just an emitted byproduct generated by the intrinsic energy of the signal itself. In other words an antenna is producing the EM field, but any photons that are being released are not the principal emission and nowhere near the frequency of the base band, or in other words the antenna does not emit electrons or photons as a primary mode, only fields. It emits no more photons than any other piece of metal with that amount of energy going on about it. Things get a bit more complicated as you go higher up in frequency though. Via QED more "Loss" of energy is expressed via photons until you have an infrared light source.  Somebody please correct me. Like I said. It has been a very long time.

Wow - i just then read this -- i thort that this forum (& modern electricity & radio) was populated with idiots -- but calexanian is a breath of fresh air -- yes, radio waves are not photons -- radio waves are em radiation.
And, re the OP....
 ....................We know how an electron makes a photon in an LED. It jump from a higher orbital to a lower one emitting a photon. But in an antenna its occupying the same valance just with a different nucleus each hop.  How is the energy transferred to a radio frequency photon?.................
.... i reckon that electricity aint due to the movement of electrons -- neither in the Cu nor on the Cu.

[CatalinaWOW]

Another example that may make the apparent contradiction less jarring.  Take a simple silicon diode detector.  When a photon  exceeds the band gap energy it can boost an electron across the junction, resulting in current.  The band gap is large enough in silicon to require photons of visible wavelength or shorter to generate these currents.   Other semiconductors, InSb for example allow the lower energy photons of roughly 5 micrometer infrared radiation to boost electrons across the band gap.  But at room temperature thermal electrons also cross this bandgap in copious amounts making it impossible to notice the photon induced current.  So these detectors are cooled to cryogenic temperatures typically 150 K or less to make it possible to detect the photocurrent.  When wavelength is increased to the far infrared further cooling is required, down to a few tens of Kelvin's.  Radio photons have energies 100,000 times smaller than LWIR photons, and even if a material with appropriate band gap existed would require cooling to tiny fractions of a Kelvin to avoid thermal noise.

Both wave descriptions and photon descriptions are tools that work to describe physical phenomenon.  As far as we can tell they work at all wavelengths.  The photon tool just isn't very helpful at radio wavelengths and energies.  The increment of energy from a single radio photon is swamped by other sources of energy. 

[TimFox]

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.

[SiliconWizard]

Since time doesn't exist, neither does acceleration. So accelerated particles are just for the birds.

[aetherist]

Another example that may make the apparent contradiction less jarring.  Take a simple silicon diode detector.  When a photon  exceeds the band gap energy it can boost an electron across the junction, resulting in current.  The band gap is large enough in silicon to require photons of visible wavelength or shorter to generate these currents.   Other semiconductors, InSb for example allow the lower energy photons of roughly 5 micrometer infrared radiation to boost electrons across the band gap.  But at room temperature thermal electrons also cross this bandgap in copious amounts making it impossible to notice the photon induced current.  So these detectors are cooled to cryogenic temperatures typically 150 K or less to make it possible to detect the photocurrent.  When wavelength is increased to the far infrared further cooling is required, down to a few tens of Kelvin's.  Radio photons have energies 100,000 times smaller than LWIR photons (Long-wave infrared or LWIR) , and even if a material with appropriate band gap existed would require cooling to tiny fractions of a Kelvin to avoid thermal noise.

Both wave descriptions and photon descriptions are tools that work to describe physical phenomenon.  As far as we can tell they work at all wavelengths.  The photon tool just isn't very helpful at radio wavelengths and energies.  The increment of energy from a single radio photon is swamped by other sources of energy.

Interesting. That kind of stuff is over my head. But if u are referring to my idea (that radio waves are not photons) then i am not sure how my idea relates to a silicon diode detector.
1. I guess that a silicon diode detector can detect photons. I don’t know whether a silicon diode detector can detect radio waves (radio waves are not photons). Can they?

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 actually elekticity &  is due to photons (what i call elektons) 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 – elektrons orbit the nucleus. In other words an atom is elekticity 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).

[IanB]

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).

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.

That kind of stuff is over my head.

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

[Sal Ammoniac]

Keep in mind that QED describes what happens, not how it happens. There's nothing in the theory, or any other theory, that describes how an electron converts excess energy into a photon, just that it does.

[aetherist]

I was taught, and I just did some google searching because its been so long, is that the actual radio wave propagation (In the common communication ranges) is purely electromagnetic and electrostatic based on Maxwells equations. They propagate independent of photons in a manner dictated by QED. The photons are just an emitted byproduct generated by the intrinsic energy of the signal itself. In other words an antenna is producing the EM field, but any photons that are being released are not the principal emission and nowhere near the frequency of the base band, or in other words the antenna does not emit electrons or photons as a primary mode, only fields. It emits no more photons than any other piece of metal with that amount of energy going on about it. Things get a bit more complicated as you go higher up in frequency though. Via QED more "Loss" of energy is expressed via photons until you have an infrared light source.  Somebody please correct me. Like I said. It has been a very long time.

Wow - i just then read this -- i thort that this forum (& modern electricity & radio) was populated with idiots -- but calexanian is a breath of fresh air -- yes, radio waves are not photons -- radio waves are em radiation.

Radio waves are *made* of photons and those photons *do* have wavelengths that match the wavelength of the bulk RF emission. Bulk RF emission (radio waves) are packets of coherent photons. You can filter them down with attenuators until they're at the single-photon-per-second level, and those photons will mostly have wavelengths around the same wavelength as the bulk RF signal.

To elaborate on the negative: if you want to describe the output of a 2.4 GHz antenna connected to a 2.4 GHz oscillator, it is not "photons with a frequency of 1.3 GHz" or "photons with a frequency of 720 GHz" or something like that. It is photons with a frequency distribution centered around 2.4 GHz.

Otherwise, there would be no point engineering passive nanostructures with length scales around the relevant wavelength as single-photon emitters: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsphotonics.7b00061

Just because you can knock a hammer (or short a charged capacitor) on a bell tuned for 200 Hz (or an antenna tuned for 1 MHz) and make it ring, for the briefest of moments, at 20 Hz (or 100 kHz) does not mean the bell's (antenna's) normal mode of operation is to emit acoustic waves (photons) of random frequencies. If you let the micro-scale (electron-scale) dynamics settle for a bit, the device will ring at whichever frequency it was tuned for.

And, re the OP -- electricity aint due to the movement of electrons -- neither in the Cu nor on the Cu.

A statement this vague yet absolutist qualifies as trolling. One could argue either side because the framing is nonsensical. Are you even talking about RF or just bulk electricity? Are you talking about the electron-scale dynamics that we refer to generally as "electricity," or are you talking about sparks and smoke and magic shows? Any way you pick, electrons are moving!

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 

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 elerton, & the 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?

Veritasium & others have said that electricity on a wire is not due to the movement of electrons -- & i agree (with that simple statement) – but then Veritasium & Co launch into some krapp about the Poynting Vector or Poynting Field being the carryer of the electrical energy (No).
So, u should firstly have a fight with Veritasium & Co -- & if u win that then come & see me (i have truth & facts in my corner).

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 theantenna.
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.

[aetherist]

Uh-oh. Seems I've taken the opinion of someone who thinks electrons are photons seriously! Shame on me.

If I disagree with aetherist, he gets off on people reading and unavoidably amplifying his fantasy takes. If I ignore his posts, readers have to think and judge whether or not his claims are accurate for themselves, possibly without evidence, possibly spreading his fantasies to others. Never would have thought I'd run into Facebook-grade social dynamics on an engineering forum, but here we are.

I'll just take this opportunity to plug Griffiths' QM instead: https://www.fisica.net/mecanica-quantica/Griffiths%20-%20Introduction%20to%20quantum%20mechanics.pdf

Does Griffiths tell us what electricity is, & what radio is?

[aetherist]

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.

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. Elektons 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 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).

[Sal Ammoniac]

Charge radiates all of the time. But, when a charge is at rest then the radiation is impotent.

Please explain what you mean by "impotent" -- this isn't a very descriptive term when applied to charged particles emitting radiation.

[aetherist]

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 

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?

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

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.

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.

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]

Charge radiates all of the time. But, when a charge is at rest then the radiation is impotent.

Please explain what you mean by "impotent" -- this isn't a very descriptive term when applied to charged particles emitting radiation.

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]

Since time doesn't exist, neither does acceleration. So accelerated particles are just for the birds.

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]

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.

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).

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]

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).

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.

That kind of stuff is over my head.

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

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.

That kind of stuff is over my head.

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.

[Sal Ammoniac]

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.

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]

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.

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...

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]

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.

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).

Once again, you strike out:  0 for 3.
[PITCH 1 & 2]  Your "elektons" do not explain anything left unexplained by the standard theory.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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.

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).

[T3sl4co1l]

Yeesh, don't feed the nutters please

[jasonRF]

I don't think the concept of photons is helping anyone here better understand how an antenna actually works.  Does the OP have a solid understanding of radiation as explained by classical electrodynamics?   That is the place to start. There is a reason why physicists typically first learn classical electrodynamics at both the undergraduate and graduate level before learning QED (where they learn about field quantization).   And there is a reason why EEs almost never learn QED, even in graduate school when we often do lots of esoteric stuff (although I did know EEs that took graduate-level quantum mechanics classes, which were prerequisites for QED).   In any case that is even remotely practical, adding corrections/concepts from QED (photons) to a description of radiation from an antenna is probably just as useful as adding quantum corrections/concepts to a description of how a football moves after being kicked. 

And I agree with T3sl4co1l (although apparently not enough to refrain from posting!).  The crackpottery index is high on this thread...

jason

[aetherist]

Keep in mind that QED describes what happens, not how it happens. There's nothing in the theory, or any other theory, that describes how an electron converts excess energy into a photon, just that it does.

There is one theory – my elekton theory – that describes how an elektron electon makes a photon.
Elektons are photons that hug a nucleus & hence orbit the nucleus.
There is no such  thing as an electron (eg a hard little nut) orbiting a nucleus (like the Moon orbiting Earth).
Hence an atom absorbs a photon when the photon becomes an elektron, ie when the photon is captured by the atom.
And an atom emits a photon when an elektron breaks free of a nucleus. This is the valence energy orbital stuff.
In essence -- an elektron (a semi confined photon) becomes a (free) photon when it breaks away from the nucleus (& vice versa). No smoke & mirrors needed.

So, lets look at the OP…….. "We know how an electron makes a photon in an LED. It jump from a higher orbital to a lower one emitting a photon. But in an antenna its occupying the same valence  just with a different nucleus each hop.  How is the energy transferred to a radio frequency photon?" ......

I answered this yesterday – i said that a radio signal is not made of photons.
An electron or elektron hopping along in or on an antenna from atom to atom would i suppose emit a changing em radiation field, a kind of mini radio signal, but all of thems mini signals would tend to cancel, tending to give zero radio signal.
If the hopping was a forced kind of hopping, eg giving a sinusoidal wave of hopping, then i suppose that the nett radio signal would not be zero – but that signal would be an em radiation, not photons.

A number of posters here have said that there is no real difference between  a photon & an em energy packet – but i don’t agree – em radiation is emitted by photons – em radiation is a part of every photon, but a photon is not a part of every em radiation packet.
Actually i can put it another way – a photon is an energy packet, but there is no such thing as an em radiation packet.
[edit][i just realised 2feb2023][if em radiation duznt kum in quantum packets then QED can not help with the math]

[SiliconWizard]

Since time doesn't exist, neither does acceleration. So accelerated particles are just for the birds.

I agree with Einstein that time is an illusion (albeit his illusion is different to mine).

I don't think you have understood what Einstein meant by that.
His main point was about time being relative, not about time not existing. Which was obviously his main topic at the time, and while relativity sounds familiar these days, it certainly didn't when he came up with that.

And, as relative as we have understood "time" to be, we still haven't proven that it could ever go backwards.

QM may elicit some pretty mind-blowing concepts of its own about time too, but as you admitted, you don't understand QM. And to be honest, anyone claiming they do is probably lying anyway.

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.

Time is just a way of expressing changes. Without a concept of time, there is no change. All events would have happened simultaneously, in which case there would be no event to speak of.
And as I said, no time, no acceleration. Pretty much nothing, in fact.

As with most of your other concepts, that are actually not original as they can be read here and there in dodgy books and papers, this is just trying to come up with words that would allegedly be a revolution but are just words.

A "tick" is just the manifestation of time. Use words as you like though, if that makes you feel better. Since time doesn't exist in your head, I just wrote that before you ever posted and I'm not even replying to you.

[aetherist]

Yeesh, don't feed the nutters please

The nutters are the QEDnuts.
Some QEDnuts did admit that QED duznt explain how -- & the OP was about how.
#24 by Vrile was goodish.  He/she said that when an electron changes direction it emits em radiation (but did not say that em radiation was photon).
#32  RoGeorge said much the same -- dancing electrons produce a ripple of em radiation, & these can be called photons.
#36 T35l4co1l is interesting...........
........... "BTW, note that the antenna is only a guide for the EM field.  The EM field extends from within the cable (or waveguide, or whatever), through the radiating structure, out into space.  If you wish to use photons in your reasoning, then they can be present in all these locations. Ultimate photon interactions (creation and absorption) -- not just scattering, occurs at sources and sinks.  Really, anything with resistance, or equivalent resistance. Tim"........

My elektons are photons. So, ït looks to me that u might be agreeing with me (ie my elekton elekticity theory) when u say "then they can be present in all these locations.

[aetherist]

Since time doesn't exist, neither does acceleration. So accelerated particles are just for the birds.

I agree with Einstein that time is an illusion (albeit his illusion is different to mine).

I don't think you have understood what Einstein meant by that.
His main point was about time being relative, not about time not existing. Which was obviously his main topic at the time, and while relativity sounds familiar these days, it certainly didn't when he came up with that.
And, as relative as we have understood "time" to be, we still haven't proven that it could ever go backwards.
QM may elicit some pretty mind-blowing concepts of its own about time too, but as you admitted, you don't understand QM. And to be honest, anyone claiming they do is probably lying anyway.

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.

Time is just a way of expressing changes. Without a concept of time, there is no change. All events would have happened simultaneously, in which case there would be no event to speak of.
And as I said, no time, no acceleration. Pretty much nothing, in fact.

As with most of your other concepts, that are actually not original as they can be read here and there in dodgy books and papers, this is just trying to come up with words that would allegedly be a revolution but are just words.

A "tick" is just the manifestation of time. Use words as you like though, if that makes you feel better. Since time doesn't exist in your head, I just wrote that before you ever posted and I'm not even replying to you.

U have it the wrong way around – u say a tick is just the manifestation of time – but i reckon that time is just the manifestation of ticking.
U say that time doesn’t exist in my head – NO – time exists only in our heads.
What we do have is the present instant -- & this present instant is universal, in our infinite eternal universe – the present instant is the only real time that exists.

My elekton theory of elekticity is certainly original.
My elektron theory of elektrons orbiting an atomic nucleus is certainly original.
My theory that radio signals are not photons is almost certainly original.

[RJSV]

Aerethism, (or whatever, time waster):
   Are you the person, 14 months ago, claiming to be accomplished SAILBOAT operator ?

[aetherist]

Aerethism, (or whatever, time waster):
   Are you the person, 14 months ago, claiming to be accomplished SAILBOAT operator ?

No i joined Jan 2022.
I dont know anything about sailboats -- but that is a great idea -- i will join a sailboat forum & tell them what is what.

[RJSV]

   Yeah, so a quick Google 'Electon' is a made up word by one person,...operating what entity, or University ?
How long pushing this slang-sounding 'electon' ?
If it's 'new' concept, any published journal articles, or elsewhere ?
Ok if you not a physicist, maybe self-taught, but...
Just that you sound like a snappy, VERY DEFENSIVE and quick to respond, when, uh, questions arise.
Note: Try waiting 5 minutes, you won't look as poised to pounce, if someone puts a doubt, or uses phrase:
   TROLL.

   Any colleagues doing the 'electon' research?
Google thinks refers to a 'Texas Election Day', ballots.

[aetherist]

   Yeah, so a quick Google 'Electon' is a made up word by one person,...operating what entity, or University ?
How long pushing this slang-sounding 'electon' ?
If it's 'new' concept, any published journal articles, or elsewhere ?
Ok if you not a physicist, maybe self-taught, but...
Just that you sound like a snappy, VERY DEFENSIVE and quick to respond, when, uh, questions arise.
Note: Try waiting 5 minutes, you won't look as poised to pounce, if someone puts a doubt, or uses phrase:
   TROLL.
   Any colleagues doing the 'electon' research?
Google thinks refers to a 'Texas Election Day', ballots.

Last i looked -- ELECTON is bad news to google -- u get pages of papers etc where someone has misspelled ELECTRON (ie dropped the R)(about 1 error per paper it seems).
I would change the name to something else -- but ELECTON is a wonderful name
[EDIT][I NOW CALL IT AN ELEKTON NOT AN ELECTON][& I CALL IT ELEKTICITY].

Basically we have 5 forms of photon.
Free Photon -- light -- a photon that is confined in 1 dimension (photons go straight ahead, ie kind of confined in 1 dimension).
SemiConfined Photon -- elekton -- a photon that is confined in 2 dimensions (a photon that is hugging a wire, or hugging a nucleus)(propagating straight ahead on an area).
Confined Photon -- elektron -- an elekton that is confined in 3 dimensions (a photon hugging a nucleus)(ie orbiting a nucleus).
Confined Photon -- electron (or proton etc) -- a photon that is confined in 3 dimensions (a photon that has formed a loop by biting its own tail)(however this free electron is not confined at all -- it can sidle or crab or drift anywhere it likes).
Paired Photon -- neutrino -- 2 photons that are locked together, sharing a common axis, but 180 deg out of phase -- confined in 1 dimension (plus locked phase-wise with a mate).

I am a retired Civil Engineer.

[SiliconWizard]

Where's the hugging photon?

[aetherist]

Where's the hugging photon?

Elekticity is the elekton, the hugging photon -- confined in 2 dimensions, ie free to roam (straight ahead at all times) on a surface (eg on a Cu wire).
When the elekton is hugging a nucleus it is still confined in 2 dimensions, ie the surface of a sphere (alltho actually it will be in some kind of fuzzy orbit) -- & here i call it an ELEKTRON.

An elekton duz a U-turn at the end of a wire -- ie it goes straight ahead -- but the surface does a U-turn (u know what i mean).

[RJSV]

Ok, we get it. You poised to spew yet more nonsense blablab blablab blabla...but it's always the techno jargon twisted, (so that, apparently, you'd get a haha NOBEL PRIZE, claim).
  But I've already asked:
   Is there ANY, ANY, organization, or potential business entity, or, ANY entity with the slightest co-involvement ?
Where you going with this, planning a business ?
Physics lab start-up ?  Do you have a working staff, there ? Anything...besides that smarmy word salad gone bad?

[RJSV]

Predictable.
Wait for somebody (else) to ask why not look up accelerating charge (will radiate), but then you can kick-in the WORD SALAD.
   But you've managed to duck the question, (see my prev post):
   WHAT organized use, or publication, entity, or business are you contemplating?  Because, apparent 'Nobel Prize' self-declarations lead one to assume that you aren't a has-been / never willbe.
Comeon man, I taking the effort, in the face of your word-salading this, the effort to ask.
Or is it just passive jerk-TROLLING.
COME ON MAN.

[AVGresponding]

The fact that they describe the nucleus of an atom as "spherical" indicates that they are firmly in the ancient Greek level of understanding of matter. An open admission of not understanding quantum theory is superfluous; it explains everything they are trying to.

QED (in the ancient Latin sense)

[aetherist]

Predictable.
Wait for somebody (else) to ask why not look up accelerating charge (will radiate), but then you can kick-in the WORD SALAD.
   But you've managed to duck the question, (see my prev post):
   WHAT organized use, or publication, entity, or business are you contemplating?  Because, apparent 'Nobel Prize' self-declarations lead one to assume that you aren't a has-been / never willbe.
Comeon man, I taking the effort, in the face of your word-salading this, the effort to ask.
Or is it just passive jerk-TROLLING. COME ON MAN.

My elekton (hugging photon) nature of electricity on a wire (conductor) is definitely worthy of a Nobel [No1] -- i will need to brush up on my Swedish.
My orbiting elektron (non-electron) nature of an atom is worthy of a Nobel [No2] -- u kan get 2 Nobels in the one year if they are in different categories -- that would be a hoot (but more tax).
Nearly forgot -- my em radiation (non-photon) nature of radio waves is worthy of a Nobel [No3] -- probly in a different year (good, less tax)(Swedish tax is a killer).
And all 3 have been mentioned in this one thread.  Without being off topic. And, i have addressed the OP's concerns almost single-handed (ignoring the bad advice of others).

[aetherist]

The fact that they describe the nucleus of an atom as "spherical" indicates that they are firmly in the ancient Greek level of understanding of matter. An open admission of not understanding quantum theory is superfluous; it explains everything they are trying to.
QED (in the ancient Latin sense)

Personally i prefer the molecular (non-circular) nature of the atomic nucleus (rather than an almost circular conglomeration of protons etc).

But, i doubt that a quantum theory (math) model (of anything) has ever explained the nature of anything (quantum theory is i think not about the how & why).
I  daresay that quantum theory is particularly clueless in describing electricity in antennas, & the radio waves between antennas.

How duz quantum theory account for the fact that electricity along an antenna propagates at 2c/3 km/s if the Cu is insulated?

[TimFox]

The fact that they describe the nucleus of an atom as "spherical" indicates that they are firmly in the ancient Greek level of understanding of matter. An open admission of not understanding quantum theory is superfluous; it explains everything they are trying to.
QED (in the ancient Latin sense)

Personally i prefer the molecular (non-circular) nature of the atomic nucleus (rather than an almost circular conglomeration of protons etc).

But, i doubt that a quantum theory (math) model (of anything) has ever explained the nature of anything (quantum theory is i think not about the how & why).
I  daresay that quantum theory is particularly clueless in describing electricity in antennas, & the radio waves between antennas.

How duz quantum theory account for the fact that electricity along an antenna propagates at 2c/3 km/s if the Cu is insulated?

Quantum theory is not necessary to explain simple transmission line theory.  Just look at a catalog from Belden for coaxial cables as a practical example.
How do your electons predict spectroscopy, which was one of the early triumphs of quantum mechanics?
Optical spectroscopy as a measurement technique was well developed before quantum mechanics allowed the wavelengths to be calculated accurately from first principles--not handwaving.

[TimFox]

The fact that they describe the nucleus of an atom as "spherical" indicates that they are firmly in the ancient Greek level of understanding of matter. An open admission of not understanding quantum theory is superfluous; it explains everything they are trying to.

QED (in the ancient Latin sense)

Who are "they" that describe the atomic nucleus as spherical?
Nuclear physics has advanced far from the Classic Comics illustrations.
The nuclear shell model of nuclear structure, for which Maria Goeppert Mayer won the Nobel prize in 1963, was developed way back in 1948, and much work has happened since then.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1963/mayer/facts/

[AVGresponding]

The fact that they describe the nucleus of an atom as "spherical" indicates that they are firmly in the ancient Greek level of understanding of matter. An open admission of not understanding quantum theory is superfluous; it explains everything they are trying to.

QED (in the ancient Latin sense)

Who are "they" that describe the atomic nucleus as spherical?
Nuclear physics has advanced far from the Classic Comics illustrations.
The nuclear shell model of nuclear structure, for which Maria Goeppert Mayer won the Nobel prize in 1963, was developed way back in 1948, and much work has happened since then.
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1963/mayer/facts/

You've been arguing with them for several pages. Now I'm wondering if you actually bothered to read any of the drivel they came out with, but here's the quote, with relevant text bolded and underlined:

Where's the hugging photon?

Electricity is the electon, the hugging photon -- confined in 2 dimensions, ie free to roam (straight ahead at all times) on a surface (eg on a Cu wire) -- & when the electon is hugging a nucleus it is still confined in 2 dimensions, ie the surface of a sphere (alltho actually it will be in some kind of fuzzy orbit).

An electon duz a U-turn at the end of a wire -- ie it goes straight ahead -- but the surface does a U-turn (u know what i mean).

[TimFox]

I misunderstood the pronoun you used and thought you were referring to more than one person.
That person still argues against the archaic model of atoms looking like little solar systems.

[aetherist]

The fact that they describe the nucleus of an atom as "spherical" indicates that they are firmly in the ancient Greek level of understanding of matter. An open admission of not understanding quantum theory is superfluous; it explains everything they are trying to.
QED (in the ancient Latin sense)

Personally i prefer the molecular (non-circular) nature of the atomic nucleus (rather than an almost circular conglomeration of protons etc).

But, i doubt that a quantum theory (math) model (of anything) has ever explained the nature of anything (quantum theory is i think not about the how & why).
I  daresay that quantum theory is particularly clueless in describing electricity in antennas, & the radio waves between antennas.

How duz quantum theory account for the fact that electricity along an antenna propagates at 2c/3 km/s if the Cu is insulated?

Quantum theory is not necessary to explain simple transmission line theory.  Just look at a catalog from Belden for coaxial cables as a practical example.
How do your electons predict spectroscopy, which was one of the early triumphs of quantum mechanics?
Optical spectroscopy as a measurement technique was well developed before quantum mechanics allowed the wavelengths to be calculated accurately from first principles--not handwaving.

I don’t claim that my elekton elekticity is going to change the world (but it might trigger some advances one day).
But apparently according to u (& others) quantum mechanics has changed the world. Rubbish.
Google tells us that we owe lots of certain modern miracles to quantum mechanics. Rubbish.
QEDnuts reckon that the sun shines out of quantum mechanics arse. Rubbish.
Quantum mechanics math is unlikely to have given us anything that could not be or could not have been achieved empirically.
Putting it another way – if quantum mechanics has given us SomeThing that would be impossible to achieve empirically or by some other method then by the same token that there quantum SomeThing is non-provable.

U ask re what prediction(s) follow from my elekton elekticity. Understanding the true nature of electricity must help us one way or another.
The mythology of electron electricity has not much hindered progress. Apparently we simply ignore & work around any problems.
Its difficult to predict what could come out of elekton electricity, even in the electric area -- & any prediction in other areas (eg spectroscopy) are moreso.
Praps elektons will help us at a very micro level one day – eg in electrics in the black box at the rear of a spectrometer.

Elektron elekticity & elektron atoms & photonic radio signals work ok, if u ignore & work around where they dont.
My elekton elekticity & elektron atom & (non-photonic) radio signal will require changes to skoolbooks. 
And quantum mechanics will jump on board & find lots of areas where quantum mechanics can help -- & once again QEDnuts will crow about how the sun shines out of their arse -- & everyone will live happily ever after.

[TimFox]

"Electron electricity & electron atoms & photonic radio signals work ok, if u ignore & work around where they dont."

Where don't they work?
They certainly work for transmission lines, antennas, radioactivity, atomic spectroscopy, charged-particle beam accelerators, chemistry, molecular scattering, and a host of other well-studied and understood practical problems.
How would you pitch your proposed theory to, for example Texas Instruments or Intel, to replace their understanding of charge motion in semiconductors?

There are lots of not fully understood issues in the physical universe such as dark matter:  why not apply your endeavours in that direction?
And yes, quantum mechanics did change our understanding of the world around us in many profound ways, yet some people still think that it is icky.

[RJSV]

   But, yet again, you've ignored the real question, related to your validity, here.  Put aside the techno-crap you spew, and answer, in straight, organizational, entity oriented language:
   What is your direction, then ?  Publish this, in a blog ?
Is this subject published by you, ANYWHERE else ?
Because, as a person, you look like a paranoid, with quick to defend responses, spewing out that mis-spelled techno-sounding crapola...and never really answering, then, a straight question.
   Straight questions get ignored...until some other post brings up the slightest technology subject; then you are back, in the driver's seat, full speed.
   I'm learning, how to operate, as a paranoid ego, watching your infantile performance.
You, are abusing this forum, but tiny harmless fools persist, comparatively.  At least, learn to spell 'SKOOL'.
(OR go to one.)
Thank you

[Zero999]

Photons are emitted in an antenna because charges are accelerating and decelerating, which generates photons. The faster the rate of change in velocity, the higher the energy the photon emitted.

The concept of a photon really only really makes sense at higher frequencies/energies i.e. the shorter infrared wavelengths. At radio frequencies a single photon is such a tiny amount of energy, it's impossible to detect a single photon.

[TimFox]

Photons are emitted in an antenna because charges are accelerating and decelerating, which generates photons. The faster the rate of change in velocity, the higher the energy the photon emitted.

The concept of a photon really only really makes sense at higher frequencies/energies i.e. the shorter infrared wavelengths. At radio frequencies a single photon is such a tiny amount of energy, it's impossible to detect a single photon.

Exactly.  In classical electromagnetism textbooks, one normally starts with an "elementary dipole", which is much shorter than a half wavelength, and applies a sinusoidal current waveform to the terminals.
However, in electron accelerators with approximately circular orbits, the centripetal acceleration that keeps the electrons in the orbit also produces EM radiation.
Towards the end of the EM textbooks, the field from a single charged particle undergoing acceleration is treated.

[aetherist]

"Electron electricity & electron atoms & photonic radio signals work ok, if u ignore & work around where they dont."
Where don't they work?
They certainly work for transmission lines, antennas, radioactivity, atomic spectroscopy, charged-particle beam accelerators, chemistry, molecular scattering, and a host of other well-studied and understood practical problems.
How would you pitch your proposed theory to, for example Texas Instruments or Intel, to replace their understanding of charge motion in semiconductors?

Electron electricity karnt explain why the speed of electricity on a wire is 2c/3 if the wire is insulated – but my ELEKTON  elekticity explains immediately (ie my ELEKTONS propagate on the surface of the Cu, ie in the insulation if there is no air there).

Charge in semiconductors i daresay works ok &  the same whether atoms include my orbiting ELEKTRONS or (silly) orbiting electrons.
Plus if needed (to explain semiconductors or any static charge problem) i am ok with invoking free electrons (photons that have formed a loop) – free electrons can migrate freely-ish (albeit mainly on surfaces) at slowish speeds.
This kind of slow electron electricity (free electrons migrating on surfaces) is i think a valid form of electricity (compared to the silly electron drift inside a wire naïve form of electricity) – but electron electricity is probly only of nuisance value in most cases.

There are lots of not fully understood issues in the physical universe such as dark matter:  why not apply your endeavours in that direction?
And yes, quantum mechanics did change our understanding of the world around us in many profound ways, yet some people still think that it is icky.

I have already spent lots of time on dark matter stuff.
I am ok with QM – it seems that it is a very good model for many applications – but no model is reality – a model is a model.

[aetherist]

   But, yet again, you've ignored the real question, related to your validity, here.  Put aside the techno-crap you spew, and answer, in straight, organizational, entity oriented language:
   What is your direction, then ?  Publish this, in a blog ?
Is this subject published by you, ANYWHERE else ?
Because, as a person, you look like a paranoid, with quick to defend responses, spewing out that mis-spelled techno-sounding crapola...and never really answering, then, a straight question.
   Straight questions get ignored...until some other post brings up the slightest technology subject; then you are back, in the driver's seat, full speed.
   I'm learning, how to operate, as a paranoid ego, watching your infantile performance.
You, are abusing this forum, but tiny harmless fools persist, comparatively.  At least, learn to spell 'SKOOL'.
(OR go to one.)
Thank you

I haven't published re ELEKTONS & i probly wont.
But, ignoring any of my foolish abusive infantile paranoid speeding & spewing, what do u really think about my 3 ideas, in particular my ELEKTON elekticity on a wire.

[aetherist]

Photons are emitted in an antenna because charges are accelerating and decelerating, which generates photons. The faster the rate of change in velocity, the higher the energy the photon emitted.

The concept of a photon really only really makes sense at higher frequencies/energies i.e. the shorter infrared wavelengths. At radio frequencies a single photon is such a tiny amount of energy, it's impossible to detect a single photon.

The OP was as follows…………..

We know how an electron makes a photon in an LED. It jump from a higher orbital to a lower one emitting a photon. But in an antenna its occupying the same valance just with a different nucleus each hop.  How is the energy transferred to a radio frequency photon?

raspberrypi is happy with the standard explanation that an electron jumping from a high energy orbit to a lower energy orbit emits a photon.
raspberrypi asks how does a migrating electron (which jumps from an orbit on one atom to the same orbit on say the adjacent atom) emit a photon.

The answer is always that (in an antenna) an accelerating (migrating) electron emits a photon, & that a decelerating (migrating) electron emits a photon. This puzzles me – i have some questions…….
1.   When an electron migrates (jumps) from an atom to an atom – where (& when)(& what)(& why) is the acceleration & ditto the deceleration?
2.   If most of the migrating electrons in the antenna are inside the antenna – how do the photons get outside?
3.   How is it that acceleration emits a photon, & deceleration emits a photon? – shouldn’t one of these need the capture of a photon?
4.   What causes an electron to migrate? 
4(a).  Is it pressure from other electrons from behind?
5.   If migration is due to pressure from behind – how can that pressure wave propagate at c km/s when electrons have a finite mass?
6.   If an electron is a hard little nut – what sort of process might be involved when the electron captures a photon or when it emits a photon? [This question applies to both the valence case & the migration case]

U might notice that for my ELEKTON elekticity the above questions do not arise or the answer is immediately obvious.

[MathWizard]

As you go up in EM frequency, and the relevant wavelengths get shorter, when on a microchip, or in HF lasers, or microwave, or some device operating in a lab doing QM research, would you start seeing QM effects ?

I have QM books with math, now that I know some more complex numbers and differential equations, someday I'll learn some of it.

[TimFox]

An example of quantum effect in practical systems:  LASERs ("light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation") use stimulated emission from excited atoms stimulated by photons to produce coherent radiation.
Even though Einstein did not like how quantum mechanics ended up, he was the first to suggest this process.
The usual reference:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulated_emission

[aetherist]

An example of quantum effect in practical systems:  LASERs ("light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation") use stimulated emission from excited atoms stimulated by photons to produce coherent radiation.
Even though Einstein did not like how quantum mechanics ended up, he was the first to suggest this process.
The usual reference:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stimulated_emission

Is there any problem with replacing the silly little orbiting electrons in QM with orbiting ELEKTRONS ?
Then u will have a model that is closer to reality.
And, absorption & emission etc in this new model will involve a free photon (eg light) changing to a semi-confined photon (an orbiting ELEKTRON) or viceversa – rather than the present silly kind of smoke & mirror & handwaving pseudo-process (a process which has never been described in any way)(hence it aint even pseudo, it is an absent-process) involving silly orbiting electrons.

[TimFox]

Do your "electons" have mass 511 keV/c², spin-1/2, and -e charge?
If so, they fit the model and can be renamed electrons.

[aetherist]

Do your "elektrons" have mass 511 keV/c², spin-1/2, and -e charge?
If so, they fit the model and can be renamed electrons.

A good question.
All of the tests & measurements made on pseudo-electrons in atoms must obviously now be seen to have been made on ELEKTRONS.
Hence we can simply go back & change the c's in "ELECTRONS".
Pretty painless.
Re renaming ELEKTRONS electrons – that is a good idea. But, the problem is that free electrons do exist (ie electrons that don’t orbit in an atom) – a free electron is formed when a free photon forms a loop by biting its own tail, or is formed when an  ELEKTRON bites its own tail. Hence we still need a separate word "electron".

Free photons have mass & momentum. 
Semi-confined photons (ELEKTONS)(fundamental particles) are more massive.
Fully confined photons (eg elektrons muons quarks protons etc)(ie elementary particles)  are even more massive.

JG  Williamson has tried to explain how mass might behave that way (something to do with the tightness of the loops & figure8s & pretzels formed)(the tighter the loop the more massive)(somehow protons are much smaller than free electrons)(but free electrons are not involved in the make-up of atoms)(but free electrons do exist)(but don’t orbit anything).

[TimFox]

The nice thing about real electrons is that those bound in atoms and those flying through space in an x-ray tube all have the same mass, etc.
Also, real photons, which have zero rest mass, are condemned to fly always at the speed of light in vacuo.

[aetherist]

The nice thing about real electrons is that those bound in atoms and those flying through space in an x-ray tube all have the same mass, etc.
Also, real photons, which have zero rest mass, are condemned to fly always at the speed of light in vacuo.

Mass is difficult.
The free photon is the fundamental particle, & it annihilates aether, therefore it has mass (& momentum, & energy).
That ELEKTRONS have the same charge as (free) electrons (& protons, but opposite) is a mystery.
I don’t think that we know for sure that canal ray electrons have the same mass as ELEKTRONS (praps they do) – if they do then that is a mystery.

I reckon that neutrinos (each being a pair of photons) must have twice the mass of photons – but that would require that every photon has the same mass as every other photon (praps they do)(another mystery).

But i don’t know what to think about rest mass (in general), especially for a photon that is never at rest, a photon is always propagating at the speed of light.

And then we have radio waves (em radiation) – radio waves too must have mass (koz em radiation too annihilates aether)(& em radiation too propagates at the speed of light they say).
But, i already said that em radiation duznt kum in quanta – hence how can em radiation have mass?  A continuum (like Einstein's continuums) can't have mass. Or can it.  It’s a mystery.
Actually there is no such thing as em radiation. What we have is electric radiation, ie the charge field. And the movement or praps the acceleration of that field manifests as a magnetic field. The charge/electric field is primary.
So, i should have said that the charge field has mass – the magnetic field (a secondary field) is unlikely to contribute any extra mass.
But most of that is theory – until one day when we get empirical info.
Mass is difficult.

Just realized. Photons never propagate at the speed of light in vacuo, koz there is no such thing as vacuo.
Einstein said that light is slower when near mass, & everywhere in our infinite eternal universe is near mass.
Hence c km/s is an ideal that is never attained.
So, strictly speaking it is ok to talk of the speed of light, but it is not ok to invoke c anywhere at any time.
What we need to use is c', which is a little slower than c, when near mass (ie all the time, everywhere).
And, when light is inside say air or water or glass, that there c' bekums  c", which is slower than c'.
c & c' & c" are all speeds of light, & c is the impossible speed.
In fact c' & c" are the same thing, the same effect, both are due to being near mass, except that c" is so close that it is actually inside mass (completely surrounded).
And, c & c' & c" are the speed in the aether, ie relative to the aether.
Hence if the observer feels an aetherwind of V then the observer can expect the speed of light to appear to  be say c"+ V or c" – V.
And, the above considerations must apply to the speed of radio between antennas.

[Zero999]

The nice thing about real electrons is that those bound in atoms and those flying through space in an x-ray tube all have the same mass, etc.
Also, real photons, which have zero rest mass, are condemned to fly always at the speed of light in vacuo.

Mass is difficult.
The free photon is the fundamental particle, & it annihilates aether, therefore it has mass (& momentum, & energy).
That ELECTONS have the same charge as (free) electrons (& protons, but opposite) is a mystery.
I don’t think that we know for sure that canal ray electrons have the same mass as ELECTONS (praps they do) – if they do then that is a mystery.

I reckon that neutrinos (each being a pair of photons) must have twice the mass of photons – but that would require that every photon has the same mass as every other photon (praps they do)(another mystery).

But i don’t know what to think about rest mass (in general), especially for a photon that is never at rest, a photon is always propagating at the speed of light.

And then we have radio waves (em radiation) – radio waves too must have mass (koz em radiation too annihilates aether)(& em radiation too propagates at the speed of light they say).
But, i already said that em radiation duznt kum in quanta – hence how can em radiation have mass?  A continuum (like Einstein's continuums) can't have mass. Or can it.  It’s a mystery.
Actually there is no such thing as em radiation. What we have is electric radiation, ie the charge field. And the movement or praps the acceleration of that field manifests as a magnetic field. The charge/electric field is primary.
So, i should have said that the charge field has mass – the magnetic field (a secondary field) is unlikely to contribute any extra mass.
But most of that is theory – until one day when we get empirical info.
Mass is difficult.

Just realized. Photons never propagate at the speed of light in vacuo, koz there is no such thing as vacuo.
Einstein said that light is slower when near mass, & everywhere in our infinite eternal universe is near mass.
Hence c km/s is an ideal that is never attained.
So, strictly speaking it is ok to talk of the speed of light, but it is not ok to invoke c anywhere at any time.
What we need to use is c', which is a little slower than c, when near mass (ie all the time, everywhere).
And, when light is inside say air or water or glass, that there c' bekums  c", which is slower than c'.
c & c' & c" are all speeds of light, & c is the impossible speed.
In fact c' & c" are the same thing, the same effect, both are due to being near mass, except that c" is so close that it is actually inside mass (completely surrounded).
And, c & c' & c" are the speed in the aether, ie relative to the aether.
Hence if the observer feels an aetherwind of V then the observer can expect the speed of light to appear to  be say c"+ V or c" – V.
And, the above considerations must apply to the speed of radio between antennas.

What does that word salad mean? Aether was debunked a couple of centuries ago.

[AVGresponding]

What does that word salad mean? Aether was debunked a couple of centuries ago.

It means they're talking utter pants, and not for the first time. Like all the others with similar fantasy ideas, they are incapable of providing any real equations, or experimental method, for illustrating their delusions.

[TimFox]

Aether, along with ambrosia, nectar, and ichor, were features of classical mythology (the gods breathed aether, ate ambrosia, drank nectar, and bled ichor).
Actually, the usefulness of aether ("luminiferous aether") in physics was discarded just before WW I, slightly more than one century ago, with Einstein's special relativity (among other developments).
(I've been re-reading the long series of novels by Simenon about Inspector Maigret in the new translations published by Penguin:  before WW II, many young louts and ne'er-do-wells breathed ether (a different substance) for intoxication.
This vice led to the successful use of ether in anesthesia.)

[aetherist]

What does that word salad mean? Aether was debunked a couple of centuries ago.

It means they're talking utter pants, and not for the first time. Like all the others with similar fantasy ideas, they are incapable of providing any real equations, or experimental method, for illustrating their delusions.

VV Demjanov in 1968-72 used a twin media version of the traditional MMX & found that the horizontal component of the aetherwind at Obninsk had a speed of 140 km/s to 480 km/s on June 22. Demjanov since about 2005 wrote about 10 papers in English re his MMX & other things. His MMX was 1000 times as sensitive as the oldenday's MMXs, & his error bars are too small to show (about 1 km/s i think). One could argue about the correctness of his calibration, but anyhow his results kill STR. His results are compatible with the well known aetherwind that blows south to north throo Earth at 500 km/s about 20 deg off Earth's axis, RA 4.5 hr.

The aetherwind must affect lots of things (everything actually), eg the speed of electricity along a transmission line (antenna), & the speed of radio (throo the air between antennas).

However, in most cases the aetherwind can be ignored unless dealing with things that are separated by a large distance or time.

Prof Reg Cahill is/was an expert on MMXs – he has lots of papers – but he calls aether "quantum foam" or "dynamic space".

[Zero999]

Are you spamming now? I Googled aetherwind and got loads of pictures of this character.

https://www.google.com/search?q=aetherwind&source=lmns&bih=895&biw=1920&client=firefox-b-d&hl=en-GB&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjItqDp3Pf8AhVmhCcCHa_sBhwQ_AUoAHoECAEQAA

[aetherist]

Are you spamming now? I Googled aetherwind and got loads of pictures of this character.

https://www.google.com/search?q=aetherwind&source=lmns&bih=895&biw=1920&client=firefox-b-d&hl=en-GB&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjItqDp3Pf8AhVmhCcCHa_sBhwQ_AUoAHoECAEQAA

I suspect that that lizard is the gatekeeper for the Einsteinian mafia -- & the mafia control wiki -- the first para when u google wiki aetherwind says that MMXs are all null -- when in fact no proper MMX has ever  been null.

The 1887 MMX found an aetherwind of 8 km/s – hence STR in 1905 was stillborn.
STR is krapp, & GTR is mainly krapp.
We are presently in the Einsteinian Dark Age of science, but the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return, it never left.

[TimFox]

More ad hominem conspiracy blather.

[aetherist]

More ad hominem conspiracy blather.

It duznt need a round-table meeting of Einsteinist goons to bring about a conspiracy.
Wiki is controlled by Einsteinists -- koz everything is controlled by Einsteinists -- the institutions, the universitys, the top journals, funding groups -- the Nobel committee.
Once they took complete control there were no more meetings needed.
However, the internet can/has saved the day -- except for persons that are happy & contented to be fools.

[aetherist]

More ad hominem conspiracy blather.

And now it seems that u dont know the difference between a lizard & a human.

ad hominem
/ˌad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/  adjective  (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"an ad hominem response" adverb
1.  in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"these points come from some of our best information sources, who realize they'll be attacked ad hominem"
2.  in a way that relates to or is associated with a particular person.



Aetherwind Basker ......................Its frill inspired the design of efficient aether collectors.
I have never heard of aether collectors.  Nor aetherwind collectors.

[tszaboo]

Are you spamming now? I Googled aetherwind and got loads of pictures of this character.

https://www.google.com/search?q=aetherwind&source=lmns&bih=895&biw=1920&client=firefox-b-d&hl=en-GB&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjItqDp3Pf8AhVmhCcCHa_sBhwQ_AUoAHoECAEQAA

Wow, 7/7 attack and defense, that is quite a card.
Damn, I  think it has been 20 years since I played magic.

[TimFox]

This argument is much like playing chess with a pigeon.
First, the pigeon knocks over all the pieces.
Then, it craps all over the board.
Finally, it flies back to its nest claiming victory.

Attacking Albert Einstein as a person is ad hominem.

[aetherist]

We know how an electron makes a photon in an LED. It jump from a higher orbital to a lower one emitting a photon. But in an antenna its occupying the same valance just with a different nucleus each hop.  How is the energy transferred to a radio frequency photon?

Further to my earlier answers to your question -- re How does the electron make a photon in an antenna?
Electrons dont make electricity on a wire, nor on an antenna.
Electricity on a wire is made by photons (ELEKTONS) hugging the surface of the Cu.
Hence electricity on (u said in but in is wrong, its on) an antenna means that there is already a photon on the antenna.
Hence your question duznt arise in the first place.
However, u are of course actually referring to the radio signal --  u are asking how are the radio signal photons created (ie in the air between the transmitter & receiver).
However, as i explained earlier, radio signals are not photons, they are em radiation.
Hence your question duznt arise in the 2nd place.

Funny that – when we have the correct model & the correct reality lots of questions evaporate.

[aetherist]

This argument is much like playing chess with a pigeon.
First, the pigeon knocks over all the pieces.
Then, it craps all over the board.
Finally, it flies back to its nest claiming victory.

Attacking Albert Einstein as a person is ad hominem.

1. Attacking Einstein the person is ad hominem -- but i don’t remember ever attacking Einstein as a person.
2. Your pigeon gedanken is as silly & wrong as Einstein's silly gedankens.
3. U said "this argument"—which argument is that?

[AVGresponding]

You should go and write science fiction or fantasy novels. At least there, you aren't required to provide any evidence to back up your ideas.

Here, we do, and you consistently fail to provide any maths for us to examine, or physical experimental set up for us to use to test your ideas. Your ideas, are in fact, self descriptive, in that they are insubstantial and intangible.

[Zero999]

You should go and write science fiction or fantasy novels. At least there, you aren't required to provide any evidence to back up your ideas.

Here, we do, and you consistently fail to provide any maths for us to examine, or physical experimental set up for us to use to test your ideas. Your ideas, are in fact, self descriptive, in that they are insubstantial and intangible.

No one would publish him, because his spelling and grammar are abysmal.

[iMo]

Our entire known Universe consists of electrons and other particles. Any movement of any electron in the Universe is influencing other electrons in the entire Universe (mind the "entire Universe" used here, as all the existing electrons affect each other).
When you move an electron by 1mm all the electrons in our entire Universe will be affected and they move into a new positions where all the forces among them go to a new equilibrium.
The force an electron affects the others drops with the distance, thus an 1mm movement in your smartphone antenna will affect electrons on the Proxima Centauri a very little, but it will affect them and they will move a little bit.
This way electrons moving up and down (a simplification) in your antenna affect all electrons in the entire Universe, such they move up and down (while looking for the new equilibrium in their position in the field of the Universe).
The propagation speed is the speed of light, as we know it today. For simplicity the "quantum" of the "energy" they "emit towards other electrons" while they moving people call a "photon". Thus "emitting a photon" means the electron has somehow affected other electrons in our entire Universe.
The faster the kick into the electron (ie. the stronger "acceleration"), the more energetic kick to all electrons in our entire Universe will be. Thus we have photons with low energies and photons with large energies.
Not sure we know why the electrons affect each other, as of today, though..

[aetherist]

You should go and write science fiction or fantasy novels. At least there, you aren't required to provide any evidence to back up your ideas.
Here, we do, and you consistently fail to provide any maths for us to examine, or physical experimental set up for us to use to test your ideas. Your ideas, are in fact, self descriptive, in that they are insubstantial and intangible.

If my ELEKTONS are true then every experiment has tested my ELEKTONS (ie while experimenters were thinking that they were testing some kind of silly electron).

If the maths works for (silly) electrons then it works for my (true) ELEKTONS.
Mass, charge, spin, angular momentum – my ELEKTONS are ok for all the math.

Self descriptive.
What is wrong with my ELEKTON elekticity theory being self descriptive?  – did Einstein write any self descriptive stuff?
Insubstantial -- lacking substance or material nature. : lacking firmness or solidity : flimsy.
My ELEKTON elekticity idea is physical.
Intangible -- incapable of being touched.
My ELEKTONS elekticity idea is tangible – however the (silly) electron electricity idea, being non-true, must fail any tangibility test.

[aetherist]

You should go and write science fiction or fantasy novels. At least there, you aren't required to provide any evidence to back up your ideas.

Here, we do, and you consistently fail to provide any maths for us to examine, or physical experimental set up for us to use to test your ideas. Your ideas, are in fact, self descriptive, in that they are insubstantial and intangible.

No one would publish him, because his spelling and grammar are abysmal.

I will write proper when u learn to pronounce proper.
My grammar is proper.
I accept that my ideas are very deep.

[aetherist]

Our entire known Universe consists of electrons and other particles. Any movement of any electron in the Universe is influencing other electrons in the entire Universe (mind the "entire Universe" used here, as all the existing electrons affect each other).
When you move an electron by 1mm all the electrons in our entire Universe will be affected and they move into a new positions where all the forces among them go to a new equilibrium.
The force an electron affects the others drops with the distance, thus an 1mm movement in your smartphone antenna will affect electrons on the Proxima Centauri a very little, but it will affect them and they will move a little bit.
This way electrons moving up and down (a simplification) in your antenna affect all electrons in the entire Universe, such they move up and down (while looking for the new equilibrium in their position in the field of the Universe).
The propagation speed is the speed of light, as we know it today. For simplicity the "quantum" of the "energy" they "emit towards other electrons" while they moving people call a "photon". Thus "emitting a photon" means the electron has somehow affected other electrons in our entire Universe.
The faster the kick into the electron (ie. the stronger "acceleration"), the more energetic kick to all electrons in our entire Universe will be. Thus we have photons with low energies and photons with large energies.
Not sure we know why the electrons affect each other, as of today, though..

Yes we dont know what charge etc is, or what magnetism etc is, or what em radiation is, or what a photon is.
But we know that radio involves em radiation.
And we know that electricity on a wire involves ELEKTONS.
And we know that photons & em radiation (in the far field) propagate at the speed of light.
And we know what gravity is -- & we know that it acts at at least 20 billion c.

Electrons exist, but the silly electrons that supposedly orbit in an atom do not exist – these silly electrons are actually my ELEKTRONS orbiting in the atom.
Atoms are elektric – ie bottled elekticity.

However, it’s a bit rich to talk of a 1mm movement of any charge or particle influencing every other charge or particle in our infinite & eternal universe.
Why not just say that it influences everything in our cosmos, ie in out part of the universe.
Or that it influences everything in our solar system.

U say that all existing electrons affect each other.
This raises some interesting questions.
I think that according to the BB theory the light from some stars has not yet reached some other stars – & i think that furthermore BB theory says that the light from some stars will never reach some other stars – hence your statement duznt accord with BB theory.

[Zero999]

You should go and write science fiction or fantasy novels. At least there, you aren't required to provide any evidence to back up your ideas.

Here, we do, and you consistently fail to provide any maths for us to examine, or physical experimental set up for us to use to test your ideas. Your ideas, are in fact, self descriptive, in that they are insubstantial and intangible.

No one would publish him, because his spelling and grammar are abysmal.

I will write proper when u learn to pronounce proper.
My grammar is proper.
I accept that my ideas are very deep.

What is an ELECTON? Is it an initialism?

How does one pronounce ELECTON? I read it as elec tun; is that correct?

[aetherist]

You should go and write science fiction or fantasy novels. At least there, you aren't required to provide any evidence to back up your ideas.

Here, we do, and you consistently fail to provide any maths for us to examine, or physical experimental set up for us to use to test your ideas. Your ideas, are in fact, self descriptive, in that they are insubstantial and intangible.

No one would publish him, because his spelling and grammar are abysmal.

I will write proper when u learn to pronounce proper.
My grammar is proper.
I accept that my ideas are very deep.

What is an ELEKTON? Is it an initialism?
How does one pronounce ELEKTON? I read it as elec tun; is that correct?

I pronounce ELEKTON like electron without the r.
E-LEK-TON.
The name needs to accord with it being a photon -- & might possibly include electric or electricity.
I karnt remember the choices – but ELEKTON looks best – unfortunately there are lots of things in the world that have been called electon – plus we see millions of cases where people have miss spelled electron without the r.

If electricity is named after the electron that is supposed to make electricity – then electricity made by ELEkTONS should be called ELEkTICITY.

Actually – i do believe in electrons – here they are photons or ELEKTRONS that have formed a loop by biting their own tails.
And i believe that the movement of electrons on a surface makes a kind of electricity – ie due to the movement of static charge. Hence this slowish kind of electricity could retain the word electricity, while my ELEKTON elekticity can be called ELEKTICITY.

[PlainName]

(ie while experimenters were thinking that they were testing some kind of silly electron).

If the maths works for (silly) electrons then

Isn't that Trumps play style - giving descriptive derogatory names to things (people, in his case) he doesn't like?

[iMo]

..
U say that all existing electrons affect each other.
This raises some interesting questions.
I think that according to the BB theory the light from some stars has not yet reached some other stars – & i think that furthermore BB theory says that the light from some stars will never reach some other stars – hence your statement duznt accord with BB theory.

There is not such thing like light or a photon. Those are just words people invented to describe some known effects.
When you look at the Sun you will see a bright star. That is not because the photons or light flights off the Sun like small balloons towards the Earth and you can see it. It is because the electrons inside the Sun vibrate/move, while they vibrate they affect the electrons inside your chemical bonds in your eyes (there are electron based receptors in your eyes) which then generate electrical pulses/currents your brain evaluates as the "light".
If you see a green LED blinking it is not because some photons or light are flying off the LED, it is because the electrons inside the semiconductor jumps up and down, while their movement fits the electron's constellation within the chemical bonds inside your eyes (and forcing them to follow in sync).

When in an antenna the electrons jump up and down, they affect other electrons in the entire Universe forcing them to jump up and down (a vertical polarization).
When the electrons jump left-right they force other electrons in the entire Universe to jump left-right (a horizontal polarization).
When they are moving in a circle, for example, all electrons in an entire Universe tend to follow their movement (a circular polarization).
Therefore the signal with a polarization mismatch (transmitting antenna vertical, receiving antenna horizontal) produces low signal compared to a matching polarization.

The electrons exist in a space-time thus their movement is pretty complex, therefore you can "see" (detect) the Universe as we understand it today with all its beauties.
When a star flies away your eyes you see it more "red" as the electrons and their field created inside the star follow a complex space-time trajectory, with an end effect of "red-shift" (a Doppler effect basically).

If there was the Sun and an absolutely empty space around it you would not see it shining, as there would be nothing to follow the vibration (interact with) of those electrons inside the Sun..

[daqq]

Wow, 7/7 attack and defense, that is quite a card.
Damn, I  think it has been 20 years since I played magic.

Pretty costly in terms of mana though. There's a fair amount of cards in the game that have crazy powers but cost so much that by the time you can afford they game will be almost over. One of the philosophies is to not bother with high cost cards at all - I recently looked at some professional decks and I've noticed a few that didn't even have cards with a cost of over 5.

For me, it's been 15 years since I last played, good times.

And yes, at this on topic, or at least just as on topic as the rest of this thread, since the topic seems to be a sort of general insanity.

[iMo]

..
And yes, at this on topic, or at least just as on topic as the rest of this thread, since the topic seems to be a sort of general insanity.

Luckily we all can now use the ChatGPT to generate these scientific dialogues..

[Zero999]

(ie while experimenters were thinking that they were testing some kind of silly electron).

If the maths works for (silly) electrons then

Isn't that Trumps play style - giving descriptive derogatory names to things (people, in his case) he doesn't like?

Oh no, don't make this thread political. It's already bad enough as it is.

..
U say that all existing electrons affect each other.
This raises some interesting questions.
I think that according to the BB theory the light from some stars has not yet reached some other stars – & i think that furthermore BB theory says that the light from some stars will never reach some other stars – hence your statement duznt accord with BB theory.

There is not such thing like light or a photon. Those are just words people invented to describe some known effects.
When you look at the Sun you will see a bright star. That is not because the photons or light flights off the Sun like small balloons towards the Earth and you can see it. It is because the electrons inside the Sun vibrate/move, while they vibrate they affect the electrons inside your chemical bonds in your eyes (there are electron based receptors in your eyes) which then generate electrical pulses/currents your brain evaluates as the "light".
If you see a green LED blinking it is not because some photons or light are flying off the LED, it is because the electrons inside the semiconductor jumps up and down, while their movement fits the electron's constellation within the chemical bonds inside your eyes (and forcing them to follow in sync).

When in an antenna the electrons jump up and down, they affect other electrons in the entire Universe forcing them to jump up and down (a vertical polarization).
When the electrons jump left-right they force other electrons in the entire Universe to jump left-right (a horizontal polarization).
When they are moving in a circle, for example, all electrons in an entire Universe tend to follow their movement (a circular polarization).
Therefore the signal with a polarization mismatch (transmitting antenna vertical, receiving antenna horizontal) produces low signal compared to a matching polarization.

The electrons exist in a space-time thus their movement is pretty complex, therefore you can "see" (detect) the Universe as we understand it today with all its beauties.
When a star flies away your eyes you see it more "red" as the electrons and their field created inside the star follow a complex space-time trajectory, with an end effect of "red-shift" (a Doppler effect basically).

If there was the Sun and an absolutely empty space around it you would not see it shining, as there would be nothing to follow the vibration (interact with) of those electrons inside the Sun..

Don't bother wasting your time with him.

The Doppler effect is interesting, together the way light can exert a physical force on an object. If you take a reflective object, moving away from you and shine a green laser at it. The reflected radiation will be red-shifted, but remember lower frequencies have less energy, so where did the energy go? It gave the object a little push, causing its velocity to increase slightly. The reverse is true for an object travelling towards you. The reflected radiation will be blue shifted and the object will slow down a little, as the extra energy in the blue shifting is robbed from the object's momentum.

[PlainName]

Isn't that Trumps play style - giving descriptive derogatory names to things (people, in his case) he doesn't like?

Oh no, don't make this thread political. It's already bad enough as it is.

Please don't attribute things to me that aren't true. My comment has nothing whatsoever to do with politics - it is about the way a person foes about things. I could equally (but erroneously, of course) had said "Isn't that The Pope's play style" and that wouldn't have made it about religion either. Hey, isn't that Harry's play style - no, that doesn't make it about royalty either.

Get a grip, please.

[aetherist]

U say that all existing electrons affect each other.
This raises some interesting questions.
I think that according to the BB theory the light from some stars has not yet reached some other stars – & i think that furthermore BB theory says that the light from some stars will never reach some other stars – hence your statement duznt accord with BB theory.

There is not such thing like light or a photon. Those are just words people invented to describe some known effects.
When you look at the Sun you will see a bright star. That is not because the photons or light flights off the Sun like small balloons towards the Earth and you can see it. It is because the electrons inside the Sun vibrate/move, while they vibrate they affect the electrons inside your chemical bonds in your eyes (there are electron based receptors in your eyes) which then generate electrical pulses/currents your brain evaluates as the "light".
If you see a green LED blinking it is not because some photons or light are flying off the LED, it is because the electrons inside the semiconductor jumps up and down, while their movement fits the electron's constellation within the chemical bonds inside your eyes (and forcing them to follow in sync).

When in an antenna the electrons jump up and down, they affect other electrons in the entire Universe forcing them to jump up and down (a vertical polarization).
When the electrons jump left-right they force other electrons in the entire Universe to jump left-right (a horizontal polarization).
When they are moving in a circle, for example, all electrons in an entire Universe tend to follow their movement (a circular polarization).
Therefore the signal with a polarization mismatch (transmitting antenna vertical, receiving antenna horizontal) produces low signal compared to a matching polarization.

The electrons exist in a space-time thus their movement is pretty complex, therefore you can "see" (detect) the Universe as we understand it today with all its beauties.
When a star flies away your eyes you see it more "red" as the electrons and their field created inside the star follow a complex space-time trajectory, with an end effect of "red-shift" (a Doppler effect basically).

If there was the Sun and an absolutely empty space around it you would not see it shining, as there would be nothing to follow the vibration (interact with) of those electrons inside the Sun.

I like your first point & your last point. Your last point of course raises the topic of aether -- & whether aether or some such thing is needed to accommodate waves or some such – but a discussion of aether & electricity & radio would better need a new thread.

[aetherist]

The Doppler effect is interesting, together the way light can exert a physical force on an object. If you take a reflective object, moving away from you and shine a green laser at it. The reflected radiation will be red-shifted, but remember lower frequencies have less energy, so where did the energy go? It gave the object a little push, causing its velocity to increase slightly. The reverse is true for an object travelling towards you. The reflected radiation will be blue shifted and the object will slow down a little, as the extra energy in the blue shifting is robbed from the object's momentum.

So, according to your theory(s), a green laser light reflecting between 2 stationary mirrors, will quickly end up red.
If the mirrors are say 1 m apart then there will be say 300,000,000 reflexions per second – how many seconds would u say it would take to turn red? – i don’t remember this sort of computation – but it is interesting – i am thinking that an experiment would not support that the laser quickly turns red.

But what about a radio signal reflecting between 2 mirrors – ie em radiation reflecting between 2 mirrors – would the signal looz frequency? – if radio acted similarly to photons then i suppose that according to me the radio signal would not looz frequency.

[Zero999]

The Doppler effect is interesting, together the way light can exert a physical force on an object. If you take a reflective object, moving away from you and shine a green laser at it. The reflected radiation will be red-shifted, but remember lower frequencies have less energy, so where did the energy go? It gave the object a little push, causing its velocity to increase slightly. The reverse is true for an object travelling towards you. The reflected radiation will be blue shifted and the object will slow down a little, as the extra energy in the blue shifting is robbed from the object's momentum.

So, according to your theory(s), a green laser light reflecting between 2 stationary mirrors, will quickly end up red.
If the mirrors are say 1 m apart then there will be say 300,000,000 reflexions per second – how many seconds would u say it would take to turn red? – i don’t remember this sort of computation – but it is interesting – i am thinking that an experiment would not support that the laser quickly turns red.

But what about a radio signal reflecting between 2 mirrors – ie em radiation reflecting between 2 mirrors – would the signal looz frequency? – if radio acted similarly to photons then i suppose that according to me the radio signal would not looz frequency.

No. There will be no red shift in that example, because the mirrors are stationary.

[IanB]

So, according to your theory(s), a green laser light reflecting between 2 stationary mirrors, will quickly end up red.

Nothing said by Zero999 implied that. Try reading it again.

[aetherist]

The Doppler effect is interesting, together the way light can exert a physical force on an object. If you take a reflective object, moving away from you and shine a green laser at it. The reflected radiation will be red-shifted, but remember lower frequencies have less energy, so where did the energy go? It gave the object a little push, causing its velocity to increase slightly. The reverse is true for an object travelling towards you. The reflected radiation will be blue shifted and the object will slow down a little, as the extra energy in the blue shifting is robbed from the object's momentum.

So, according to your theory(s), a green laser light reflecting between 2 stationary mirrors, will quickly end up red.
If the mirrors are say 1 m apart then there will be say 300,000,000 reflexions per second – how many seconds would u say it would take to turn red? – i don’t remember this sort of computation – but it is interesting – i am thinking that an experiment would not support that the laser quickly turns red.
But what about a radio signal reflecting between 2 mirrors – ie em radiation reflecting between 2 mirrors – would the signal looz frequency? – if radio acted similarly to photons then i suppose that according to me the radio signal would not looz frequency.

No. There will be no red shift in that example, because the mirrors are stationary.

So, u are saying that reflexion off a mirror loozes energy if the mirror is going, & gains energy if the mirror is coming, & is neutral if the mirror is stationary – ok i am ok with that – but i wouldn’t be surprised if empirical evidence said that a little bit of energy was lost with every reflexion (ie unless the mirror had a small coming). And of course no glass would be allowed.
But, as an aetherist, i need to add that there is no such thing as a stationary mirror (nor a stationary antenna) – if an aetherwind blows throo Earth  etc, then everything has an absolute velocity all the time – unless that thing is co-moving exactly with the aetherwind (nigh impossible). But i don’t want to waste time re that.

[Halcyon]

I will write proper when u learn to pronounce proper.

How about you start writing "proper" now? I've gone back through some of your recent posts and they just seem to be complete nonsense.

I don't know if you're just a troll, or whether your medication needs adjusting but you don't make a lot of sense.

[Zero999]

The Doppler effect is interesting, together the way light can exert a physical force on an object. If you take a reflective object, moving away from you and shine a green laser at it. The reflected radiation will be red-shifted, but remember lower frequencies have less energy, so where did the energy go? It gave the object a little push, causing its velocity to increase slightly. The reverse is true for an object travelling towards you. The reflected radiation will be blue shifted and the object will slow down a little, as the extra energy in the blue shifting is robbed from the object's momentum.

So, according to your theory(s), a green laser light reflecting between 2 stationary mirrors, will quickly end up red.
If the mirrors are say 1 m apart then there will be say 300,000,000 reflexions per second – how many seconds would u say it would take to turn red? – i don’t remember this sort of computation – but it is interesting – i am thinking that an experiment would not support that the laser quickly turns red.
But what about a radio signal reflecting between 2 mirrors – ie em radiation reflecting between 2 mirrors – would the signal looz frequency? – if radio acted similarly to photons then i suppose that according to me the radio signal would not looz frequency.

No. There will be no red shift in that example, because the mirrors are stationary.

So, u are saying that reflexion off a mirror loozes energy if the mirror is going, & gains energy if the mirror is coming, & is neutral if the mirror is stationary – ok i am ok with that – but i wouldn’t be surprised if empirical evidence said that a little bit of energy was lost with every reflexion (ie unless the mirror had a small coming). And of course no glass would be allowed.

No energy is lost. If the object is moving away, the energy transferred from the reflected light, to the object's momentum. If the object is moving closer, energy is transferred from the object's momentum to the reflected light. In both cases, some energy will be absorbed by the mirror, which is not perfect, but it will not be lost, it will increase the mirror and object's temperature.

But, as an aetherist, i need to add that there is no such thing as a stationary mirror (nor a stationary antenna) – if an aetherwind blows throo Earth  etc, then everything has an absolute velocity all the time – unless that thing is co-moving exactly with the aetherwind (nigh impossible). But i don’t want to waste time re that.

Everything is moving through space time. I'm talking about the relative velocity between the two mirrors being zero, i.e. they're both the same distance apart. The aetherist/wind stuff is complete rubbish.

[aetherist]

And yes, at this on topic, or at least just as on topic as the rest of this thread, since the topic seems to be a sort of general insanity.

Luckily we all can now use the ChatGPT to generate these scientific dialogues..

Speak of the devil:
The relationship between electrons and photons in an antenna is complex and involves the interaction of electric and magnetic fields.

In an antenna, an alternating current flows through the wire, generating an alternating electric field. This alternating electric field then accelerates the electrons within the antenna, causing them to collide with neighboring atoms and generating a flow of electrons. This flow of electrons can be thought of as an electric current.

The motion of the electrons in the electric current also generates a magnetic field that alternates in synchrony with the electric field. The interaction of the electric and magnetic fields results in the generation of electromagnetic waves, which are photons in the form of radio waves.

In summary, the alternating current in an antenna generates an alternating electric field that accelerates electrons and creates an electric current. The interaction of the electric and magnetic fields generated by this current then results in the emission of electromagnetic waves, or photons, in the form of radio waves.

"In summary, the alternating current in an antenna generates an alternating electric field that accelerates electrons and creates an electric current. "
………….. This says that an AC current creates an AC current – so, nothing gained – so, we can delete this whole line.
"The interaction of the electric and magnetic fields generated by this current then results in the emission of electromagnetic waves, or photons, in the form of radio waves."
………….. This says that electric & magnetic fields create em waves… in the form of radio waves – correct – (but the reference to photons is wrong). So, ChatCPT can appear to be smarter than many of the members of this forum.

[aetherist]

No energy is lost. If the object is moving away, the energy transferred from the reflected light, to the object's momentum. If the object is moving closer, energy is transferred from the object's momentum to the reflected light. In both cases, some energy will be absorbed by the mirror, which is not perfect, but it will not be lost, it will increase the mirror and object's temperature.

In that case then u agree with what i said – ie that a bit of energy is lost from the photon(s) in all 3 kinds of  reflexions (even if that bit of loss is retained by the system).
In which case u agree that multiple reflexions between stationary mirrors must gradually give redshift.

But, as an aetherist, i need to add that there is no such thing as a stationary mirror (nor a stationary antenna) – if an aetherwind blows throo Earth  etc, then everything has an absolute velocity all the time – unless that thing is co-moving exactly with the aetherwind (nigh impossible). But i don’t want to waste time re that.

Everything is moving through space time. I'm talking about the relative velocity between the two mirrors being zero, i.e. they're both the same distance apart. The aetherist/wind stuff is complete rubbish.

Yes – in aether theory the relative velocity of the source of the photons & the mirror sort of trumps the individual absolute velocities in the aether (ie their aetherwinds) – hence in the lab the aetherwind can be ignored for many experiments.

[aetherist]

I will write proper when u learn to pronounce proper.

How about you start writing "proper" now? I've gone back through some of your recent posts and they just seem to be complete nonsense.
I don't know if you're just a troll, or whether your medication needs adjusting but you don't make a lot of sense.

I invite u to show me where my ELEKTON ELEKTICITY fails – one strike & it is out – but i will hit every pitch of yours out of the park.

[Halcyon]

I will write proper when u learn to pronounce proper.

How about you start writing "proper" now? I've gone back through some of your recent posts and they just seem to be complete nonsense.
I don't know if you're just a troll, or whether your medication needs adjusting but you don't make a lot of sense.

I invite u to show me where my ELECTON ELECTICITY fails – one strike & it is out – but i will hit every pitch of yours out of the park.

Or let's just stick with proven, scientific fact and drop the bullshit. Facts are facts, whether you believe in them or not.

[aetherist]

I will write proper when u learn to pronounce proper.

How about you start writing "proper" now? I've gone back through some of your recent posts and they just seem to be complete nonsense.
I don't know if you're just a troll, or whether your medication needs adjusting but you don't make a lot of sense.

I invite u to show me where my ELECTON ELECTICITY fails – one strike & it is out – but i will hit every pitch of yours out of the park.

Or let's just stick with proven, scientific fact and drop the bullshit. Facts are facts, whether you believe in them or not.

Ok --  i will pitch -- u bat – in electron electricity how duz insulation slow the speed of electricity from 3c/3 for bare Cu to 2c/3 for insulated Cu?

[Halcyon]

I will write proper when u learn to pronounce proper.

How about you start writing "proper" now? I've gone back through some of your recent posts and they just seem to be complete nonsense.
I don't know if you're just a troll, or whether your medication needs adjusting but you don't make a lot of sense.

I invite u to show me where my ELECTON ELECTICITY fails – one strike & it is out – but i will hit every pitch of yours out of the park.

Or let's just stick with proven, scientific fact and drop the bullshit. Facts are facts, whether you believe in them or not.

Ok --  i will pitch -- u bat – in electron electricity how duz insulation slow the speed of electricity from 3c/3 for bare Cu to 2c/3 for insulated Cu?

No idea, because this isn't my area of expertise. All I need to do is look up your misspelling of both words to know you are talking made-up bollocks. Not to mention your misspelling of common, everyday words and garbage grammar.

[aetherist]

I will write proper when u learn to pronounce proper.

How about you start writing "proper" now? I've gone back through some of your recent posts and they just seem to be complete nonsense.
I don't know if you're just a troll, or whether your medication needs adjusting but you don't make a lot of sense.

I invite u to show me where my ELEKTON ELEKTICITY fails – one strike & it is out – but i will hit every pitch of yours out of the park.

Or let's just stick with proven, scientific fact and drop the bullshit. Facts are facts, whether you believe in them or not.

Ok --  i will pitch -- u bat – in electron electricity how duz insulation slow the speed of electricity from 3c/3 for bare Cu to 2c/3 for insulated Cu?

Insulation does not slow down the speed of electricity in a conductor. The speed of electricity in a conductor is determined by its electrical conductivity and the density of its electrons. The speed of electricity in a vacuum, which is the speed of light, is approximately 3 x 10^8 m/s (300 million meters per second). The speed of electricity in a conductor is typically slower than this, but the specific speed depends on the conductivity of the material. Insulation, which is a non-conductive material, simply helps to prevent electricity from flowing through it and potentially shorting out the conductor. - ChatGPT

I think its doing pretty good actually considering it grasped what you were saying, fixed your spelling mistakes and then answered the question.

I might ask it to do my laundry too.

Of course there is also the infamous Veritasium video:


Then the update:

Why did u link to Veritasium -- he (& others) says that electric energy is not carried by the electrons in a wire -- hence in that sense he & i agree.
And, i insist that the speed of electricity is 2c/3 when the Cu is insulated.

[aetherist]

William Beaty -- Electrical Engineer 35yrs, electrostatics hobbyist, Amasci siteUpdated Mon

A Veritasium video said that a light bulb with the wires a light second away from the battery will light up in 1/c seconds if the light bulb and the battery were a meter apart. Doesn't the light bulb physically require electrons to pass through it?

Edit: “Z Y” changed his mind, agrees with me, getting the same numbers I did: Aha, Electroboom also agrees, getting the same numbers:
.
So, electrical engineers can figure it out, while physicists believe that signals can travel inside solid copper at approximately c velocity. (Doesn’t happen. Physics actually says that 100% of the electrical energy travels only in empty space outside the wires. Within the copper, the speed of light is roughly ten meters per second, and this low V causes the skin-effect. So, don’t look at Feynman Lectures or at Purcell physics, instead look at JD Kraus’ book “Electromagnetics.”)
Note that Veritasium’s video is COUNTERINTUITIVE, intended to embarrass even some of the experts (the many who never had their grade-school “lies” get debunked later. Some “experts” incorrectly think that electrical energy travels inside wires. Veritasium points this out. )
So, even experts who SHOULD know better, still angrily insist that electrical energy flows *inside* solid copper. Nope. Doesn’t. In physics class, perhaps they were sick that day, and missed it during college coursework? Or, their textbook didn’t get into Maxwell’s equations regarding waveguides (coax cables, etc.)
Note well that anything moving at c through solid copper would generate x-rays at least, or perhaps fusion explosions. In circuits, electrical energy can move at c because it “leapfrogs” between electrons on the surface of wires. The energy travels as EM flows in space, located entirely outside the metal surface, but firmly guided by the moving charges.
Maxwell and Heaviside say that the amount of electrical energy inside any copper wire is zero, and 100% of “wattage” is in the fields.[1] We’ve known this for about 120 years, so it should only surprise people who never had college physics.
What’s the “for dummies” rule of thumb?
Just tell yourself that, inside capacitors, 100% of the energy is in the e-field, not inside the metal plates. And in coils, 100% of the energy is in the b-field, not circulating inside the wires. The same also applies to all circuits, since even a simple circuit is a combination of 1-turn inductor and 2-plate capacitor: a loop of current, plus two adjacent wires with opposite surface-charge.
However, even with the truth being well known, it’s absolutely NOT taught in high school …and even then, only taught to a portion of the physicists and engineers.
The rest of the population, when they first hear about it, will “see red” and start arguing and getting personal …unknowingly attacking Maxwell, and sneeringly rejecting a century of very conventional RF engineering. Their wrong beliefs are painful to watch, embarrassing. They thought they were ridiculing Veritasium, when actually they were ridiculing their own textbooks on Electrodynamics, which apparently they’d since forgotten.
So, Veritasium is correct, and the ones who insist that the energy flows *inside* the copper are trapped in embarrassing childhood misconceptions they should have lost during their undergrad sci/eng courses. (How will they ever live it down? Hee!)
Here’s the key to everything: transmission lines are not RF-only devices. After all, the physics for transmission lines has no lower bound on frequency! The physics/math applies equally well to DC as to GHz waves. 2-wire lines turn out to be a weird type of waveguide, where we can reduce the frequency all the way down to zero, yet the wave-energy is still outside the wires, and guided by the wires.
The key again: coax cables (etc.) employ the same math and physics at GHz as they do at 60Hz, and at DC. Wires are waveguides, ALL wires are waveguides, regardless of frequency. Hint: inside solid copper the speed of light is quite low: roughly tens of M/S. In circuits, the axial-directed EM energy is entirely flowing 100% outside the wires, and also the energy-flow outside the wires is the cause if of skin-effect, and crosstalk, as well as explaining the operation of capacitors and transformers (where the same occurs, and the EM energy is located entirely outside the metal parts.)
Actually, all this answers a question I had as a kid. Microwaves flow through huge damn rectangular hollow waveguides. But they also go right through extremely narrow coaxial cable, less than a hundredth of a wavelength! HOOWWWW?!! It’s because in 2-wire lines, the fields compress themselves down if the lines come together, and there is no lower bound to this process, as long as the two lines don’t touch each other.

[aetherist]

William Beatty (Quora).
Is the speed of electricity in a wire (signal speed) related to the speed of light (a function of the permeability and permittivity of space) or the speed of sound (based on nearest neighbor interactions of electrons)?
 
Signals on wires aren’t a “nearest neighbor” phenomenon. Instead, when electrons move, they create altered EM fields and altered attraction/repulsion forces. These forces are experienced by distant electrons in the wire, not just by the close neighbors in adjacent atoms. Next, those distant electrons are, again, moved by those long-range EM field-forces …which then send out new fields, which affect even more distant electrons in the wire.
In other words, the vibrations of one electron can “leapfrog” across large distances and pass over immense numbers of electrons. If electrons are like a chain, then the “yank” isn’t going from link to link, instead it’s an EM wave which ripples through the space outside the links, yet is guided by the row of links (the column of mobile electrons in the wire surface.)
This effect, plus the extremely low mass of electrons, leads to signal-velocities closely approaching lightspeed. And, since these fields DON’T travel inside the metal of the wires …if we place some ferrite or some plastic insulation just outside the wires, the “leapfrogging fields” must pass through that material, and this has an enormous effect on the speed of the signals

[1] In wires the current usually propagates slightly slower than light in a vacuum, going slower than “c”. This happens whenever the wire is encased in plastic, not in vacuum. The plastic insulation slows down the waves of current …much like the glass in a prism slows down the light waves passing through it.
The electrical waves will propagate at 2/3 of “c,” or even slower, depending on the type of plastic.
 Search for… “velocity factor” in cables

[aetherist]

I don't know the answer.

But I do know that reading your text is extremely painful.

Therefore I am awarding you the Nobel Prize, in Confusion and Pain.

That wordage is William Beatty's.

[Halcyon]

Thanks for providing some very honest and personal insight bigfoot22. I've been fortunate enough to never have suffered from a mental illness in my life, but I have dealt with many patients who have. I'm not going to pretend to understand what's going through the mind of someone who isn't quite OK, but what you're saying makes absolutely perfect sense to me.

The key takeaway from bigfoot22's post is that if everyone else seems to not understand your views, or are providing contradictory evidence which has a solid scientific (and easily verifiable) backing, then I think you need to reflect on yourself and question what you think you know. If you're not able to do that, then you're no better than the bat shit crazy flat earthers and gravity deniers. As I said before facts are facts and they don't change or stop existing just because you don't believe in them. You can't opt-out of reality because you disagree.

[aetherist]

Thanks for providing some very honest and personal insight bigfoot22. I've been fortunate enough to never have suffered from a mental illness in my life, but I have dealt with many patients who have. I'm not going to pretend to understand what's going through the mind of someone who isn't quite OK, but what you're saying makes absolutely perfect sense to me.

The key takeaway from bigfoot22's post is that if everyone else seems to not understand your views, or are providing contradictory evidence which has a solid scientific (and easily verifiable) backing, then I think you need to reflect on yourself and question what you think you know. If you're not able to do that, then you're no better than the bat shit crazy flat earthers and gravity deniers. As I said before facts are facts and they don't change or stop existing just because you don't believe in them. You can't opt-out of reality because you disagree.

I am still waiting for one fact or factoid that strikes out my ELEKTON ELEKTICITY.

[AVGresponding]

Thanks for providing some very honest and personal insight bigfoot22. I've been fortunate enough to never have suffered from a mental illness in my life, but I have dealt with many patients who have. I'm not going to pretend to understand what's going through the mind of someone who isn't quite OK, but what you're saying makes absolutely perfect sense to me.

The key takeaway from bigfoot22's post is that if everyone else seems to not understand your views, or are providing contradictory evidence which has a solid scientific (and easily verifiable) backing, then I think you need to reflect on yourself and question what you think you know. If you're not able to do that, then you're no better than the bat shit crazy flat earthers and gravity deniers. As I said before facts are facts and they don't change or stop existing just because you don't believe in them. You can't opt-out of reality because you disagree.

I am still waiting for one fact or factoid that strikes out my ELECTON ELECTICITY.

No, in fact we are all waiting for you to produce one piece of evidence to support your claims. The existence of trillions of dollars of industry that uses the accepted model is what contradicts your ideas.

[Halcyon]

Thanks for providing some very honest and personal insight bigfoot22. I've been fortunate enough to never have suffered from a mental illness in my life, but I have dealt with many patients who have. I'm not going to pretend to understand what's going through the mind of someone who isn't quite OK, but what you're saying makes absolutely perfect sense to me.

The key takeaway from bigfoot22's post is that if everyone else seems to not understand your views, or are providing contradictory evidence which has a solid scientific (and easily verifiable) backing, then I think you need to reflect on yourself and question what you think you know. If you're not able to do that, then you're no better than the bat shit crazy flat earthers and gravity deniers. As I said before facts are facts and they don't change or stop existing just because you don't believe in them. You can't opt-out of reality because you disagree.

I am still waiting for one fact or factoid that strikes out my ELECTON ELECTICITY.

I guess the fact that it's not a real thing and doesn't exist should be the major giveaway? A simple Google search will tell you that. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it in red, capital letters, it doesn't make it a thing. Based on this reason alone, I suspect you are just trolling the forum.

[aetherist]

The main evidence is that ELEKTON ELEKTICITY immediately accounts for the speed of ELEKTICITY  on an insulated Cu being 2c/3 km/s, & on a bare wire 3c/3.
William Beatty & Veritasium would i suppose blame the 2c/3 on the insulation affecting the em energy field outside the Cu (albeit in their own 2 different ways).
Veritasium might say that the insulation affects the Poynting em Field which carries the energy. However, how could a thin layer of plastic on the Cu affect the speed of the Poynting field when the field has a volume of over say 1000 times the volume of the plastic.
Funny, clearly from the first Veritasium youtube Veritasium duznt have a clue that insulation on his Cu slows his electricity. He shows us his Cu cables that are clearly insulated, & then he says that the speed of electricity is 3c/3 along the Cu.
William Beatty reckons that the electrons in the Cu carry the energy, & that the electrons produce an em field that jumps out of the Cu & then leapfrogs many atoms ahead, & then dives back into the Cu.  And Beatty might say that the insulation affects the speed of the jumping em field.  Anyhow, Beatty duznt ever invoke the Poynting Field as far  as i know.
Both Veritasium & Beatty are clearly wrong.

[Halcyon]

I'd love to know, what makes you think you're let in on some kind of exclusive secret that no other scientist or physicist on Earth isn't aware of? Doesn't that make you stop and ponder the truth?

[Zero999]

No energy is lost. If the object is moving away, the energy transferred from the reflected light, to the object's momentum. If the object is moving closer, energy is transferred from the object's momentum to the reflected light. In both cases, some energy will be absorbed by the mirror, which is not perfect, but it will not be lost, it will increase the mirror and object's temperature.

In that case then u agree with what i said – ie that a bit of energy is lost from the photon(s) in all 3 kinds of  reflexions (even if that bit of loss is retained by the system).
In which case u agree that multiple reflexions between stationary mirrors must gradually give redshift.

But, as an aetherist, i need to add that there is no such thing as a stationary mirror (nor a stationary antenna) – if an aetherwind blows throo Earth  etc, then everything has an absolute velocity all the time – unless that thing is co-moving exactly with the aetherwind (nigh impossible). But i don’t want to waste time re that.

Everything is moving through space time. I'm talking about the relative velocity between the two mirrors being zero, i.e. they're both the same distance apart. The aetherist/wind stuff is complete rubbish.

Yes – in aether theory the relative velocity of the source of the photons & the mirror sort of trumps the individual absolute velocities in the aether (ie their aetherwinds) – hence in the lab the aetherwind can be ignored for many experiments.

I repeat. No energy is lost, because that would violate the first law of thermodynamics, which is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The tiny bit of radiation absorbed by the mirrors is not lost, but converted into heat. I know full well I'm being pedantic. It's fine to talk about energy losses for practical purposes, but in this case it's important to note that the energy doesn't just disappear.

I don't know the answer.

But I do know that reading your text is extremely painful.

Therefore I am awarding you the Nobel Prize, in Confusion and Pain.

That wordage is William Beatty's.

The fact that you've suddenly jumped to another topic completely out of the scope of the current one under discussion multiple times is because I suspect that you have Hebephrenic schizophrenia and that your subcouncious is trying to make us aware of this fact. I know exactly what you are going through I've been through it myself. Many years ago I was doing it all of the time.

Quite often references and admiration of nautical themes is a symptom of Schitzophrenia. I myself love the works of a well known Captain known as Jean Luc Picard.

I suggest that you try out an antipsychotic medication.

I don't know what your background is, but it's not possible to reliably diagnose someone over the Internet. I suggest he sees a doctor for referral to a psychiatrist, rather than relying on the opinion of some random person on the Internet.

[PlainName]

While I agree that it is highly unreliable to diagnose someone across the internet I don't understand this argument.

Could be seen to be an ad hominem attack. The intention may good, but would you be happy discussing your personal issues with your doctor on a TikTok video (silly question, judging from brief exposure to the medium)?

I think the proper thing to do if you have a real concern is to PM them. I appreciate that being used to public posting one doesn't immediately think of a PM in response to something (fallen foul of this myself), but it's what you should do if you're going to suggest something like this.

Of course, you're perfectly free to point out that his reality is pretty skewed and he should be writing long equations on the padded walls of his cell, but that would be an undisguised attack rather than a diagnosis

[Zero999]

Don't take medical advice from the Internet, is a standard disclaimer. It was not intended as a personal attack.

[PlainName]

I also question the logic of mentioning being timid and talking to him in a PM while also mentioning padded cells.

That was a 'for example'. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

And, of course, I should probably have sent that to you via PM. No-one is perfect 

[Zero999]

Don't take medical advice from the Internet, is a standard disclaimer. It was not intended as a personal attack.

It wasn't intended as a personal attack and I didn't take it as one. However I thought it reasonable and commonplace around on this forum to pick out other peoples mistakes and correct them hence why I corrected your mistake also.

The only issue with doing that that I see is that quite a lot of time can be spent fixing basic grammattical mistakes on a forum that is meant to be catering to electronics/technology problems. It can take up a lot of time.

I'm not dissing the practice but don't you think that atherist also considers it annoying and rude? Much like how he might consider my pointing out his possible psychological problems as annoying and rude.
 
You could go down a very deep rabbit hole pointing out each others mistakes all week if you wanted to.

Which mistake of mind did you correct? I've obviously missed it.

[aetherist]

No energy is lost. If the object is moving away, the energy transferred from the reflected light, to the object's momentum. If the object is moving closer, energy is transferred from the object's momentum to the reflected light. In both cases, some energy will be absorbed by the mirror, which is not perfect, but it will not be lost, it will increase the mirror and object's temperature.

In that case then u agree with what i said – ie that a bit of energy is lost from the photon(s) in all 3 kinds of  reflexions (even if that bit of loss is retained by the system).
In which case u agree that multiple reflexions between stationary mirrors must gradually give redshift.

But, as an aetherist, i need to add that there is no such thing as a stationary mirror (nor a stationary antenna) – if an aetherwind blows throo Earth  etc, then everything has an absolute velocity all the time – unless that thing is co-moving exactly with the aetherwind (nigh impossible). But i don’t want to waste time re that.

Everything is moving through space time. I'm talking about the relative velocity between the two mirrors being zero, i.e. they're both the same distance apart. The aetherist/wind stuff is complete rubbish.

Yes – in aether theory the relative velocity of the source of the photons & the mirror sort of trumps the individual absolute velocities in the aether (ie their aetherwinds) – hence in the lab the aetherwind can be ignored for many experiments.

I repeat. No energy is lost, because that would violate the first law of thermodynamics, which is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The tiny bit of radiation absorbed by the mirrors is not lost, but converted into heat. I know full well I'm being pedantic. It's fine to talk about energy losses for practical purposes, but in this case it's important to note that the energy doesn't just disappear.

But u agreed that a bit of energy is lost from photons in all 3 kinds of reflexions -- In which case u must agree with my previous statement that multiple reflexions between stationary mirrors must gradually give redshift.

[aetherist]

I am still waiting for one fact or factoid that strikes out my ELEKTON ELEKTICITY.

No, in fact we are all waiting for you to produce one piece of evidence to support your claims. The existence of trillions of dollars of industry that uses the accepted model is what contradicts your ideas.

My ELEKTON ELEKTICITY will not necessarily change any present model (alltho i notice that transmission line design models presently wrongly dont account for whether a transmission line etc is insulated)(underground transmission lines are insulated)(but if there is even a microscopic air gap in some parts between plastic & Cu then its much the same as being non-insulated in air).
My ELEKTON ELEKTICITY gives us the benefit of knowing the reality truths facts of ELEKTICITY, & knowing the reality is likely to help progress & invention etc.
But to get good numbers for designs etc  we need good models -- & if ELEKTON ELEKTICITY results in better models then good – if not then ok.
I doubt that ELEKTON ELEKTICITY will help re macro ELEKTICITY – but it might help re micro ELEKTICITY.

[aetherist]

Thanks for providing some very honest and personal insight bigfoot22. I've been fortunate enough to never have suffered from a mental illness in my life, but I have dealt with many patients who have. I'm not going to pretend to understand what's going through the mind of someone who isn't quite OK, but what you're saying makes absolutely perfect sense to me.

The key takeaway from bigfoot22's post is that if everyone else seems to not understand your views, or are providing contradictory evidence which has a solid scientific (and easily verifiable) backing, then I think you need to reflect on yourself and question what you think you know. If you're not able to do that, then you're no better than the bat shit crazy flat earthers and gravity deniers. As I said before facts are facts and they don't change or stop existing just because you don't believe in them. You can't opt-out of reality because you disagree.

I am still waiting for one fact or factoid that strikes out my ELEKTON ELEKTICITY.

I guess the fact that it's not a real thing and doesn't exist should be the major giveaway? A simple Google search will tell you that. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it in red, capital letters, it doesn't make it a thing. Based on this reason alone, I suspect you are just trolling the forum.

My (1) ELEKTONS & my (2)  ELEKTON ELEKTICITY & my (3)  ELEKTRON ATOM (ie my ELEKTRIC ATOM), & my (4) non-photon radio signal (ie my  EM RADIO SIGNAL) are i think novel & unique.

I found a paper by Ohanian from 1984 that said that electrons don’t orbit in an atom – ie that light orbits.
Ohanian  1984  what is spin   electron is light orbiting………
https://physics.mcmaster.ca/phys3mm3/notes/whatisspin.pdf

And i like Gaasenbeek's helical photon.  http://www.heliwave.com/gaasenbeek/index.html#contents
……………In his theory, Helical Particle Waves, [www.heliwave.com], Mr. J. L. Gaasenbeek proposes that all particles such as electrons, protons, and neutrons are made up of billions upon billions of photons orbiting in pairs within their particles and continuously being emitted as electric fields spiralling away along helical paths with three components of energy: forward linear motion, circular helication, and photon spin around itself as shown below: A Helical Particle Wave.  Helical Particle Waves theory explains most, if not all of the observed phenomena naturally without having to resort to artificial arguments such as space-time curvature produces gravity, or magically the mass of a particle changes as a function of its velocity. It even explains that magnetism rises from the continuous spin of electrically charged particles and hence the curling of the linear motion component (the beam direction in the above diagram).


Robert Ashworth         https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Ashworth-2
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260829054_Confirmation_of_Helical_Travel_of_Light_through_Microwave_Waveguide_Analyses

Adams 2009
http://www.heliwave.com/Helical.Particle.Waves.pdf

[TimFox]

Aetherist:  "My ELECTON ELECTICITY will not necessarily change any present model (alltho i notice that transmission line design models presently wrongly dont account for whether a transmission line etc is insulated)(underground transmission lines are insulated)(but if there is even a microscopic air gap in some parts between plastic & Cu then its much the same as being non-insulated in air)."

Have you ever seen RG-62/U coaxial cable?  The original type, with a hollow tube inside the shield braid and the center conductor spaced coaxially inside the tube with an air gap?
https://www.teslacables.com/media/documents/en/rg-62-a-u-coaxial-cable-93-ohm.pdf
(Note:  in recent use, this is often superseded with a foam-dielectric insulation to achieve the same characteristic impedance.)

[aetherist]

Aetherist:  "My ELEKTON ELEKTICITY will not necessarily change any present model (alltho i notice that transmission line design models presently wrongly dont account for whether a transmission line etc is insulated)(underground transmission lines are insulated)(but if there is even a microscopic air gap in some parts between plastic & Cu then its much the same as being non-insulated in air)."

Have you ever seen RG-62/U coaxial cable?  The original type, with a hollow tube inside the shield braid and the center conductor spaced coaxially inside the tube with an air gap?
https://www.teslacables.com/media/documents/en/rg-62-a-u-coaxial-cable-93-ohm.pdf
(Note:  in recent use, this is often superseded with a foam-dielectric insulation to achieve the same characteristic impedance.)

I suppose that the speed of electricity, or i should say the speed of ELEKTICITY, in coax depends on the plastic or air touching the surfaces of the metals on the inside, plus on the outside (of the braid).
Foam would be complicated – it has air – but the main thing is whether air touches any of the surfaces (the speed of light in air is faster than in plastic).

[TimFox]

Aetherist:  "My ELECTON ELECTICITY will not necessarily change any present model (alltho i notice that transmission line design models presently wrongly dont account for whether a transmission line etc is insulated)(underground transmission lines are insulated)(but if there is even a microscopic air gap in some parts between plastic & Cu then its much the same as being non-insulated in air)."

Have you ever seen RG-62/U coaxial cable?  The original type, with a hollow tube inside the shield braid and the center conductor spaced coaxially inside the tube with an air gap?
https://www.teslacables.com/media/documents/en/rg-62-a-u-coaxial-cable-93-ohm.pdf
(Note:  in recent use, this is often superseded with a foam-dielectric insulation to achieve the same characteristic impedance.)

I suppose that the speed of electricity, or i should say the speed of ELECTICITY, in coax depends on the plastic or air touching the surfaces of the metals on the inside, plus on the outside (of the braid).
Foam would be complicated – it has air – but the main thing is whether air touches any of the surfaces (the speed of light in air is faster than in plastic).

Coaxial cable with air, solid, half-air, or foam insulation is a mature technology, roughly a century old.
Heaviside came up with the clever notion of adding series inductances spaced along telegraph wires, and the American Telephone and Telegraph Co. exploited this invention while the British telegraph authorities ignored it, and this led to coaxial-cable transmission lines, patented by AT&T in 1931  https://www.wired.com/2009/12/1208coaxial-cable-patent/
In fact, at frequencies low enough that the diameter of the coaxial cable is much, much less than the wavelength, the speed of propagation along the cable depends only on the effective dielectric constant of the insulation (assuming no magnetic material or helical center conductor).  That effective constant can be calculated by comparing the measured capacitance to the coaxial dimensions (inner and outer diameters).
This falls out from the mathematics of the inductance and capacitance per unit length of concentric cylinders.  Introducing dielectric (solid or layers) into the region between center conductor and coaxial outer conductor increases the capacitance in an easily-calculatable manner.  That, and the geometry allows the interested student to calculate the velocity v = (L' x C')^-1/2, where L' and C' are the inductance and capacitance per unit length (choosing the unit length gives the length in the resulting velocity: feet, meters, etc.).
It does not matter at all whether there be a metal-to-air surface interface internally to the cable for this velocity to be accurately true, as is found everywhere in RF technology.
In the original RG-62/U, there is an annular layer of air outside the center conductor, and an annular layer of solid plastic between that and the coaxial shield.  As can be computed by elementary electrostatics, that decreases the capacitance between center and shield (compared with the same dimensions and solid plastic), which increases the propagation speed.  One could achieve the same result by an appropriate layer of air between two plastic layers, each contacting the closer metal layer.
For more complete algebra, see any of many engineering textbooks.

[aetherist]

Aetherist:  "My ELEKTON ELEKTICITY will not necessarily change any present model (alltho i notice that transmission line design models presently wrongly dont account for whether a transmission line etc is insulated)(underground transmission lines are insulated)(but if there is even a microscopic air gap in some parts between plastic & Cu then its much the same as being non-insulated in air)."

Have you ever seen RG-62/U coaxial cable?  The original type, with a hollow tube inside the shield braid and the center conductor spaced coaxially inside the tube with an air gap?
https://www.teslacables.com/media/documents/en/rg-62-a-u-coaxial-cable-93-ohm.pdf
(Note:  in recent use, this is often superseded with a foam-dielectric insulation to achieve the same characteristic impedance.)

I suppose that the speed of electricity, or i should say the speed of ELEKTICITY, in coax depends on the plastic or air touching the surfaces of the metals on the inside, plus on the outside (of the braid).
Foam would be complicated – it has air – but the main thing is whether air touches any of the surfaces (the speed of light in air is faster than in plastic).

Coaxial cable with air, solid, half-air, or foam insulation is a mature technology, roughly a century old.
Heaviside came up with the clever notion of adding series inductances spaced along telegraph wires, and the American Telephone and Telegraph Co. exploited this invention while the British telegraph authorities ignored it, and this led to coaxial-cable transmission lines, patented by AT&T in 1931  https://www.wired.com/2009/12/1208coaxial-cable-patent/
In fact, at frequencies low enough that the diameter of the coaxial cable is much, much less than the wavelength, the speed of propagation along the cable depends only on the effective dielectric constant of the insulation (assuming no magnetic material or helical center conductor).  That effective constant can be calculated by comparing the measured capacitance to the coaxial dimensions (inner and outer diameters).
This falls out from the mathematics of the inductance and capacitance per unit length of concentric cylinders.  Introducing dielectric (solid or layers) into the region between center conductor and coaxial outer conductor increases the capacitance in an easily-calculatable manner.  That, and the geometry allows the interested student to calculate the velocity v = (L' x C')^-1/2, where L' and C' are the inductance and capacitance per unit length (choosing the unit length gives the length in the resulting velocity: feet, meters, etc.).
It does not matter at all whether there be a metal-to-air surface interface internally to the cable for this velocity to be accurately true, as is found everywhere in RF technology.
For more complete algebra, see any of many engineering textbooks.

That might be so – but i am talking about the speed of a simple signal along a single simple wire.
Introducing other wires or say capacitance or inductance or AC or the effect of nearby earth etc would affect the speed.
But the final speed of a complicated line would always be less than the simple single speed – alltho the leading edge of a signal might always be equal to the simple speed (dunno).
 I notice that explanations for coaxial cable & ordinary wires always talk of electricity in the wire – in the future they will change that to ELEKTICITY "on" the wire.

[TimFox]

I was refuting your statement: 
  "I suppose that the speed of electricity, or i should say the speed of ELECTICITY, in coax depends on the plastic or air touching the surfaces of the metals on the inside, plus on the outside (of the braid).
    Foam would be complicated – it has air – but the main thing is whether air touches any of the surfaces (the speed of light in air is faster than in plastic)."

For a single isolated wire, far away from anything else, just let the outer diameter of the coaxial cable go to infinity (mathematically).

Less extreme:  consider a large-diameter air-insulated coaxial cable, with an central conductor outer diameter of, say, 2 mm and an shield inner diameter of 20 mm.
Now, take the bare inner conductor and coat it with a dielectric layer (enamel) of only 0.1 mm thickness.
That will make only a very small change in the capacitance (very roughly 1%, depending on the dielectric constant of the enamel), even though the wire is now "insulated".

[aetherist]

I was refuting your statement: 
  "I suppose that the speed of electricity, or i should say the speed of ELECTICITY, in coax depends on the plastic or air touching the surfaces of the metals on the inside, plus on the outside (of the braid).
    Foam would be complicated – it has air – but the main thing is whether air touches any of the surfaces (the speed of light in air is faster than in plastic)."

For a single isolated wire, far away from anything else, just let the outer diameter of the coaxial cable go to infinity (mathematically).

Less extreme:  consider a large-diameter air-insulated coaxial cable, with a central conductor outer diameter of, say, 2 mm and an shield inner diameter of 20 mm.
Now, take the bare inner conductor and coat it with a dielectric layer (enamel) of only 0.1 mm thickness.
That will make only a very small change in the capacitance (very roughly 1%, depending on the dielectric constant of the enamel), even though the wire is now "insulated".

What is needed is for someone with a scope to measure the time taken for a signal to go along say 10ft of insulated wire, & reflect back --  & then remove the insulation & repeat  -- OR – use bare wire & then paint with a few coats of enamel.
The times should be 20 ns for bare wire & 30 ns for insulated (or enameled) – ie speeds of 3c/3  &  2c/3.
But i think that for some wires the insulation is not sticking properly to the Cu (ie there is air in some of the contact).
And re painting -- i am not sure how thick the enamel has to be to be fully effective (one coat might be less than 0.1 mm, dunno)(3 coats should do the trick).

[TimFox]

My experience with enameled copper wire ("magnet wire") is that the insulating coating is in "intimate contact" with the metal.
How thick a hypothetical air layer do you think would be important, if the enamel is, say, 0.001 in = 0.025 mm thick on an AWG 18 = 1 mm diam. Cu wire?
This is a typical magnet wire spec, and doesn't leave a whole lot of space for air.
If you need a thicker insulation for your experiment, you could strip the shield braid from a length of normal coaxial cable and compare it against an equal length of the same gauge of bare wire (specified in the data sheet for the coax, note that many solid-conductor coax cables use Copperweld^TM copper-coated steel wire for mechanical strength and use at high frequencies where the skin depth in the copper layer is sufficient).

[aetherist]

My experience with enameled copper wire ("magnet wire") is that the insulating coating is in "intimate contact" with the metal.
How thick a hypothetical air layer do you think would be important, if the enamel is, say, 0.001 in = 0.025 mm thick on an AWG 18 = 1 mm diam. Cu wire?
This is a typical magnet wire spec, and doesn't leave a whole lot of space for air.
If you need a thicker insulation for your experiment, you could strip the shield braid from a length of normal coaxial cable and compare it against an equal length of the same gauge of bare wire (specified in the data sheet for the coax, note that many solid-conductor coax cables use Copperweld^TM copper-coated steel wire for mechanical strength and use at high frequencies where the skin depth in the copper layer is sufficient).

If i had a scope i would test bare Cu – then again after one thin coat of enamel – then with one more coat, 2 coats – then with 3 coats etc. – to try to see if there is a critical depth of enamel.
A critical depth relating to the needed insulation in a say magnet or motor might be a different animal & might have no relationship to critical depth for speed of electricity.

Today i measured the speed of electricity in Tony Wakefield's X where he used 18 m of coax shorted at one end, as a capacitor (9V battery) -- & his 350 MHz HP scope showed delays at ¼ points which gave me speeds of 0.98c, 0.95c, 0.96c & 0.96c – for a 75 ohm air-spaced polythylene (probly meant  polyethylene) dielectric.
Alphaphoenix-1 had i think heavy enameled Cu – but he did not mention an accurate length of Cu (hence a speed could not be calculated).
Alphaphoenix-2 (where he measured speed of electricity in water) had an accurate L, & used enameled Cu, but the speed for zero water was reportedly  3c/3 when it should have been 2c/3 – a bit suspicious i reckon.
Howard Long on this forum did a measurement of speed using a  20GHz scope – but he failed to tell us his measured delay (for 4ft of ladder antenna wire)(ie 8ft reflecting).

And, as i have said before, measuring the speed of electricity along a threaded rod would prove or disprove my ELEKTON ELEKTICITY – the delay should be lots slower due to the extra distance upndown over the threads.

[CatalinaWOW]

In the last few responses we see clearly what is wrong with Electon theory.  There is no measured data supporting the conclusions.  And the theory does not allow prediction of the performance of even simple configurations like coaxial cable.

There are several tests of a theory.

1.  Does it qualitatively predict behavior of the world?  Electon theory may do that.  I haven't spent enough time to be sure, but I will tentatively take Aetherist at his word.

2.  Does it make quantitative and correct predictions about behavior of the world?  TimFox, and most of the rest of the world knows that it does not, at least in the form presented.

3.  Does it simplify understanding of the world, particularly in a quantitative way?  Definitely not.  If it did several people here would be saying aha!  But the only thing that has happened along those lines is Aetherist saying that explanations for phenomena based on classical (wave theory & quantum theory) are over his head (or eschatological statements that they are wrong with no supporting evidence).

4.  Does it explain things that are unexplained by other theories?  No, not unless you don't understand the other theories, in which case any explanation is solving the unexplained.


Electon theory does poorly on tests 2 through 4, and may barely pass test 1.  Not a winner when existing theories have passed all four tests.

[Smokey]

...
Absolutely!  Electronics is a macro concept.  Quantum mechanics in general doesn't come into play.
...

Bandgap reference?   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandgap_voltage_reference

[aetherist]

quote CatalinaWOW.....
In the last few responses we see clearly what is wrong with Electon theory.  There is no measured data supporting the conclusions.  And the theory does not allow prediction of the performance of even simple configurations like coaxial cable.
It is well known that the speed of electricity on insulated Cu is 2c/3 – but i have not got a link to any actual tests.

There are several tests of a theory.
1.  Does it qualitatively predict behavior of the world?  Electon theory may do that.  I haven't spent enough time to be sure, but I will tentatively take Aetherist at his word.
...................Measuring the speed of electricity on an insulated wire would do the trick.
And then measuring the speed of electricity on a threaded rod would be the ultimate test.

2.  Does it make quantitative and correct predictions about behavior of the world?  TimFox, and most of the rest of the world knows that it does not, at least in the form presented.
...............There are at least 10 versions of electron electricity – yet i don’t know of any person dissecting each ovem in relation to whether they qualify as according with standard prediction theory & models.
Some versions will accord, some won't. They vary from the energy current being in the space around a wire, to the energy current being in the drifting electrons. We have the Faraday version -- Heaviside version – Maxwell version – Veritasium (Derek) version – William Beatty version – Alphaphoenix (Brian) version – Electroboom (Mehdi) version – EEV (David) version – RSD Academy (Bob) version – The Science Asylum (Nick) version – etc.  They are all slightly or a lot different.
My ELEKTON ELEKTICITY version accords in some ways with all of the "energy is in the field(s) crowd", ie the present standard model.
But CatalinaWOW says that most of the world knows that my version duznt make quantitative & correct predictions.
I have already explained that all of the other versions fail the first test – the speed of electricity/elekticity  on an insulated Cu.

3.  Does it simplify understanding of the world, particularly in a quantitative way?  Definitely not.  If it did several people here would be saying aha!  But the only thing that has happened along those lines is Aetherist saying that explanations for phenomena based on classical (wave theory & quantum theory) are over his head (or eschatological statements that they are wrong with no supporting evidence).
................My ELEKTON ELEKTICITY has a simple explanation for lots of things.
(a) [Elektrons orbit in atoms] Hence for a battery circuit we have  ELEKTRONS jumping off battery chemical atoms onto the surface of the negative terminal [where the ELEKTONS give ELEKTICITY]  -- & then onto the surface of the Cu -- & later jumping off the Cu onto the surface of the positive terminal -- & then (a) onto the battery chemical atoms -- & then the atoms carrying the ELEKTRONS migrate to the negative terminal (in some batterys).

(c ) Re (a). Rubbing some materials physically knocks the ELEKTRONS orbiting in atoms off the atom, at which time the ELEKTRON forms a closed loop (d), which forms what i call a free electron (ie a free charged particle)(on a surface)(static electricity), which when the electron moves gives us true electron electricity (a slow version of my ELEKTON ELEKTICITY.

4.  Does it explain things that are unexplained by other theories?  No, not unless you don't understand the other theories, in which case any explanation is solving the unexplained.
ELEKTRIC ATOMS solve the question of exactly how do atoms absorb photons.

Electon theory does poorly on tests 2 through 4, and may barely pass test 1.  Not a winner when existing theories have passed all four tests.[/quote]
...............ELEKTONS & ELEKTON ELEKTICITY & ELEKTRIC ATOMS & EM RADIO hit every pitch out  of the park.

[TimFox]

...
Absolutely!  Electronics is a macro concept.  Quantum mechanics in general doesn't come into play.
...

Bandgap reference?   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandgap_voltage_reference

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]

Do you just hate the letter 'r'?

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

[CatalinaWOW]

Aetherist.  I will stick to my guns.  All of your responses to the four tests I mentioned are qualitative.  The latter three really require quantitative responses.  The only quantitative prediction you have made with your theory is the speed in a conductor, but you haven't either looked up measurements or performed the experiment yourself.  At least you are now begging others to make the measurements for you. 

At the qualitative level there are a great many theories.  In the beginning of one of Firesign Theater comedy albums (I think We're All Bozos on This Bus) the comic line intones "We know for some reason for some time there were these hot lumps .. "  An explanation that at some level is consistent with what we know.  The Greeks explained the day-night cycle in terms of gods in chariots dragging fires across the sky.  Again qualitatively sound.  Even the flat earthers and creation scientists have theories which at least qualitatively explain the parts of the world they are interested in.  If you want others to use your theory you will have to move beyond the qualitative.

If you are really serious about this I have a 400 MHz scope that I got for a song at a yard sale.  It is yours for what I paid for it ($10) and the cost of shipping.  The low price was because it was thought to be non-functioning.  I was able to repair it using the RTFM process.  You might try the RTFM process on physics and the associated mathematics.

[aetherist]

Aetherist.  I will stick to my guns.  All of your responses to the four tests I mentioned are qualitative.  The latter three really require quantitative responses.  The only quantitative prediction you have made with your theory is the speed in a conductor, but you haven't either looked up measurements or performed the experiment yourself.  At least you are now begging others to make the measurements for you. 

At the qualitative level there are a great many theories.  In the beginning of one of Firesign Theater comedy albums (I think We're All Bozos on This Bus) the comic line intones "We know for some reason for some time there were these hot lumps .. "  An explanation that at some level is consistent with what we know.  The Greeks explained the day-night cycle in terms of gods in chariots dragging fires across the sky.  Again qualitatively sound.  Even the flat earthers and creation scientists have theories which at least qualitatively explain the parts of the world they are interested in.  If you want others to use your theory you will have to move beyond the qualitative.

If you are really serious about this I have a 400 MHz scope that I got for a song at a yard sale.  It is yours for what I paid for it ($10) and the cost of shipping.  The low price was because it was thought to be non-functioning.  I was able to repair it using the RTFM process.  You might try the RTFM process on physics and the associated mathematics.

Interesting – what make scope? – is it 2 channel or 4?  – has it got a monitor? – good probes?
I wonder what the shipping would cost to Australia (240V 50Hz here, not 120V 60Hz).
It might be better to pay u the cost of threaded rod & wire & enamel etc if u do the Xs at home.

[daqq]

I'm getting the feeling that the whole thing was an act, a clever, if prolonged ploy, to get a cheap scope.

[CatalinaWOW]

Aetherist.  I will stick to my guns.  All of your responses to the four tests I mentioned are qualitative.  The latter three really require quantitative responses.  The only quantitative prediction you have made with your theory is the speed in a conductor, but you haven't either looked up measurements or performed the experiment yourself.  At least you are now begging others to make the measurements for you. 

At the qualitative level there are a great many theories.  In the beginning of one of Firesign Theater comedy albums (I think We're All Bozos on This Bus) the comic line intones "We know for some reason for some time there were these hot lumps .. "  An explanation that at some level is consistent with what we know.  The Greeks explained the day-night cycle in terms of gods in chariots dragging fires across the sky.  Again qualitatively sound.  Even the flat earthers and creation scientists have theories which at least qualitatively explain the parts of the world they are interested in.  If you want others to use your theory you will have to move beyond the qualitative.

If you are really serious about this I have a 400 MHz scope that I got for a song at a yard sale.  It is yours for what I paid for it ($10) and the cost of shipping.  The low price was because it was thought to be non-functioning.  I was able to repair it using the RTFM process.  You might try the RTFM process on physics and the associated mathematics.

Interesting – what make scope? – is it 2 channel or 4?  – has it got a monitor? – good probes?
I wonder what the shipping would cost to Australia (240V 50Hz here, not 120V 60Hz).
It might be better to pay u the cost of threaded rod & wire & enamel etc if u do the Xs at home.

It is a LeCroy 4 channel.  No probes. Monitor is built in.  I would have to go look, but most equipment of that time and original selling price is easily convertible to 240/50 operation, usually by sliding a switch and using the appropriate NEMA power cord. (NEMA cord not included).  You are right, shipping to Australia would be expensive, it is large and heavy.  Assume 40 kilograms including the weight of appropriate shipping materials. (I will throw those in for free.)  You would probably have some import duties or taxes to pay also. 

Even with shipping it is an excellent value.  My purpose in offering it is to evaluate whether you are all talk, or are really committed to testing/exploring/expanding your theory.

[AVGresponding]

Could someone please explain the question and most likely answer of the OP of this thread in laymens terms?

The first couple of pages contain some good answers. It's not until the thread gets hijacked by someone completely misunderstanding one persons answer and building a fantasy upon it that things got crazy.

[ebastler]

There are at least 10 versions of electron electricity [...]
We have the Faraday version -- Heaviside version – Maxwell version – Veritasium (Derek) version – William Beatty version – Alphaphoenix (Brian) version – Electroboom (Mehdi) version – EEV (David) version – RSD Academy (Bob) version – The Science Asylum (Nick) version – etc. 

I think this nicely illustrates a core problem here: You are spending too much time on Youtube (and then in your own phantasies).

[aetherist]

Could someone please explain the question and most likely answer of the OP of this thread in laymens terms?

The first couple of pages contain some good answers. It's not until the thread gets hijacked by someone completely misunderstanding one persons answer and building a fantasy upon it that things got crazy.

Answer or Answers -- how can u have good answers? -- duz this mean that there is no good answer?
Ok -- i ask u to provide the answer (ie the classical standard answer) -- or answers if u like (if there are worthy options).
And -- tell us -- what are the good answers in the first couple of pages?
U can take a few lines or a page -- whatever u like.

[IanB]

Could someone please explain the question and most likely answer of the OP of this thread in laymens terms?

It is an example perhaps of a badly posed question. Therefore to provide an answer it is first required to re-pose the question: "How does the electron make a photon in an antenna?"

The question supposes that "an electron" makes "a photon" in antenna. But this is not the case. So the question cannot be answered in those terms.

What happens is that an alternating electric current in a conductor causes the emission of electromagnetic radiation, and the smallest discrete quantum of energy in such radiation is a photon. However, a photon at radio frequencies has such a small amount of energy that it doesn't really make sense to talk about RF in terms of photons. Instead, it makes much more sense to describe antennas and related circuits in terms of electric and magnetic fields using Maxwell's equations.

[aetherist]

Could someone please explain the question and most likely answer of the OP of this thread in laymens terms?

It is an example perhaps of a badly posed question. Therefore to provide an answer it is first required to re-pose the question: "How does the electron make a photon in an antenna?"

The question supposes that "an electron" makes "a photon" in antenna. But this is not the case. So the question cannot be answered in those terms.

What happens is that an alternating electric current in a conductor causes the emission of electromagnetic radiation, and the smallest discrete quantum of energy in such radiation is a photon. However, a photon at radio frequencies has such a small amount of energy that it doesn't really make sense to talk about RF in terms of photons. Instead, it makes much more sense to describe antennas and related circuits in terms of electric and magnetic fields using Maxwell's equations.

Yes or No -- duz an antenna emit photons?

[snarkysparky]

if light can be though of as composed of photons and being also an electromagnetic field then any electromagnetic field can be though of as photons.

light is the same as what comes off an antenna,  only frequency is different.

So Yes

[AVGresponding]

[aetherist]

if light can be though of as composed of photons and being also an electromagnetic field then any electromagnetic field can be though of as photons.  light is the same as what comes off an antenna,  only frequency is different.  So Yes

In a way the classical standard dark age of science electrical mafia gatekeepers karnt answer Yes or No.
Or – they do answer – but their answer(s)  is of little help koz they have umpteen different explanations for what a photon is or isn't.
I think that the Poynting Field explanation for electricity duznt ever mention photons.
Do the Poyntingists reckon that radio is photons?  Dunno.
Anyhow – AVGresponding will gladly solve all of our problems – he/she has seen some good answers.

[AVGresponding]

There is only one problem with this thread.

[aetherist]

So -- u karnt answer the OP question -- & u karnt answer my question.
Answer or Answers -- how can u have good answers? -- duz this mean that there is no good answer?
Ok -- i ask u to provide the answer (ie the classical standard answer) -- or answers if u like (if there are worthy options).
And -- tell us -- what are the good answers in the first couple of pages?
U can take a few lines or a page -- whatever u like.

Whether photons are particles or waves has been a question that confused physicists’ minds for many years. Since the book is concerned about the interaction of light and matter, it is important to know the correct answer. Richard Feynman gives the answer very clearly.

“I want to emphasize that light comes in this form — particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you were probably told something about light behaving like waves. I’m telling you the way it does behave — like particles” (Feynman 15).

If you want proof, there is a thing called photomultiplier. A photomultiplier counts photons. You can’t count waves, but you can count particles.

[ebastler]

So -- u karnt answer the OP question -- & u karnt answer my question.

I am relieved to see that you have found those missing "r"s.

[PlainName]

Or – they do answer – but their answer(s)  is of little help koz they have umpteen different explanations for what a photon is or isn't.

That's because no-one has yet worked out that they are really the FOTONS that's you're about to invent.

[aetherist]

Or – they do answer – but their answer(s)  is of little help koz they have umpteen different explanations for what a photon is or isn't.

That's because no-one has yet worked out that they are really the FOTONS that's you're about to invent.

Most languages use FOTON & ELEKTRON – or variations of these. https://indifferentlanguages.in/word/english/1e7d37f/photon
Few use  PHOTON & ELECTRON.

I like FOTON & ELEKTRON. 
But, for electricity on a wire the free FOTON when it hugs the wire bekums my semi-confined ELEKTON [2].
There are 3 main kinds of PHOTON-FOTON.
[1] The free PHOTON-FOTON – light etc -- let us call this the PHOTON or FOTON.
[2] The semi-confined PHOTON-FOTON (1st kind) – which i have called the ELEKTON – [2] praps this needs a better name.
[2a] The ELEKTON naturally leads to us having to change the word ELECTRICITY to ELEKTICITY.
[3] The fully-confined PHOTON-FOTON – a FOTON orbiting in an atom -- which has wrongly been called an ELECTRON – [3] which i have not yet named.
[4] The semi-confined PHOTON-FOTON  (2nd kind)– a free FOTON that has formed a loop – what i have called an ELECTRON –an ELECTRON is usually sticking to a surface (static electricity) – but it is free to roam (eg on the surface of a balloon)(giving us a slow form of electricity). I am happy with ELECTRON.

So, what to call [2]?  Praps FOTONe (signifying its relationship to electicity.  I think that i prefer ELEKTON.

What to call [3]? Praps FOTONa (signifying its relationship to the atom). I think ELEKTRON.

[AVGresponding]

So -- u karnt answer the OP question -- & u karnt answer my question.

I "kan", I simply choose not to, in the same way that you have chosen not to acknowledge explanations given to you.