How does a radio antenna work quantum mechanically?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: 'Relativistic' "Doppler" shift
Next: Good arguments supporting reality of bp's support of cap&trade "free-er trade" nostrum
From: Darwin123 on 3 Aug 2010 18:39 On Aug 3, 2:45 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > I live in the real world, all your idiot drivel is merely conjecture. Why > don't you learn reality, drosen? From who? You? Just because you wrap wires around a stick doesn't mean you deal with reality. You can't understand coherent messages, let alone coherent light. Just because it isn't visible from your padded cell doesn't mean it isn't real.
From: Androcles on 3 Aug 2010 21:03 "Darwin123" <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:b068b71e-e5ec-4635-ab21-d4728b137c62(a)i24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... On Aug 3, 2:45 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > I live in the real world, all your idiot drivel is merely conjecture. Why > don't you learn reality, drosen? From who? You? ========================= Yes. You could, you know. Just because you wrap wires around a stick doesn't mean you deal with reality. ================================ Wrong. You wouldn't be reading this, otherwise. You can't understand coherent messages, let alone coherent light. ================================= You never write coherent messages, drosen, you write virtual messages describing your real fantasies. Virtual insulin. Virtually definite. Just because it isn't visible from your padded cell doesn't mean it isn't real. ================================== Virtual invisible insulin. Virtually definite.
From: Marvin the Martian on 4 Aug 2010 22:06 On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:01:55 -0700, Darwin123 wrote: > On Jul 30, 8:00 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:42:35 -0700, Excognito wrote: >> > What are the physical processes, from a quantum perspective, involved >> > in receiving/transmitting radio waves? >> >> You don't need QM to understand radio antennas any more than you need >> QM to do planetary orbits. It's just silly. > The internal consistency of a scientific theory is seldom silly. That wasn't what I said. Besides, QM reduces to Newtonian mechanics for large quantum numbers. If you want to ask a stupid question, at least do it properly and ask "How's does a radio antenna work according to the Standard theory?" < snip gibberish > Feel better now that you've showed you're a shameless poser and wannabe? I was impressed (not).
From: Excognito on 5 Aug 2010 04:28
On 5 Aug, 03:06, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:01:55 -0700, Darwin123 wrote: > > On Jul 30, 8:00 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...(a)ontomars.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:42:35 -0700, Excognito wrote: > >> > What are the physical processes, from a quantum perspective, involved > >> > in receiving/transmitting radio waves? > > >> You don't need QM to understand radio antennas any more than you need > >> QM to do planetary orbits. It's just silly. > > The internal consistency of a scientific theory is seldom silly. > > That wasn't what I said. Besides, QM reduces to Newtonian mechanics for > large quantum numbers. If you want to ask a stupid question, at least do > it properly and ask "How's does a radio antenna work according to the > Standard theory?" > > < snip gibberish > > > Feel better now that you've showed you're a shameless poser and wannabe? > I was impressed (not). Classical EM theory explains things in terms of the EM field moving massive charges around. On the odd occasion that I've had to make use of it, I have never had to resort to understanding how a radio-energy photons interact with the electrons in a wire (under the Standard Model (<-- that's 'model' not 'theory'; if you're going to be pedantic, get it right.)). All of the books I have on the subject have the word 'quantum' in their title, including relatively recent ones, such as 'Quantum Physics' by Gasiorowicz and 'Lectures on Quantum Theory' by Isher. It is reasonable, a priori, to suppose that most people versed in these fields would understand what I meant by the term 'quantum perspective'. In a similar way, I've also done 6-dof modelling of submarines by treating water as a continuous fluid rather than as an ensemble of atoms. Nevertheless, there must still be an explanation based on water-as-atoms that predicts the submarine's behaviour. Et sim, antennas - if there isn't, then something is rotten in the state of Danish physics. 'Newtonian mechanics'? I guess you must have missed the relativistic component of the Standard Model ... or are you talking about some other theory? In which case, I would have to question your use of the term 'standard'. Using the apparent etiquette of this forum, I am forced to conclude that your objection is pants. In fact, you know how a baby gabbles meaningless noise when learning to speak? Well, that's you at your most erudite. That's your best ever explanation, that is. That's you at your most Socratic. |