How does the electron make a photon in an antenna?

[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.