wave-particle duality and TV reception
 

On 11/12/14 19:57, wrote:
some of which bang into the recieving aerial and knock electrons out of their orbits around the atoms

Conduction electrons in metals aren't in localised orbitals, so can't be
knocked out of them.

wave-particle duality and TV reception
 

"Robin" wrote in message
...
Silly? Well if I recall rightly he demonstrated the inverted baked Alaska
on TV in 1969 - and I used to know people who'd had it at his dinner
parties.

Rather pointless as you could just put the ice cream on afterwards.

--
Max Demian

wave-particle duality and TV reception
 

"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
The whole science of RF seems to be based on wave theory. Does particle
theory have any place?

It looked as if he deliberately missed the tin cans with the red ping pong
balls.

--
Max Demian

wave-particle duality and TV reception
 

On 11/12/14 10:09, Jim Lesurf wrote:
So in practice the photon approach only matters much in some specific
fairly extreme cases. e.g. if you're trying to work with ultra low signal
levels at very high frequencies and photon shot noise becomes a limit.

If I interpret http://www.coseti.org/9006-005.htm correctly, and using
an efficiency of 1, rather than 0.5, I get the effective noise
temperature as about 0.6K, for a DBS system. That is a lot less than
the open sky limit of 3K, and much much lower than achievable system
noise temperatures.

wave-particle duality and TV reception
 

That no doubt is his training when he was wit e Atomic energy authority.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Max Demian" wrote in message
...
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
The whole science of RF seems to be based on wave theory. Does particle
theory have any place?

It looked as if he deliberately missed the tin cans with the red ping pong
balls.

--
Max Demian

wave-particle duality and TV reception
 

On 12/12/14 10:00, brightside S9 wrote:
Reflection from a non smooth surface.

What are the particle aspects of that? It is generally easiest to
analyse as a wave phenomenum, especially when the surface and its
roughness are similar to, or less than, the wavelength.

wave-particle duality and TV reception
 

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 14:02:09 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

My life's experience, all the way from childhood, would suggest that
most girls and women avoid involvement in technology because most of
them are simply not interested.

However that still may be a 'conditioned response' which is indoctrinated
long before they approach the end of schooling. The young tend to pick up
their ideas from their peers and the ones who are a year or two older at
school. Hence may be acquired as just one part of a general social set of
fitting in.

So where do their peers get it from? I've got peers too you know, and
have managed with no difficulty to ignore the preferences of most of
them, thus ending up with no interest in football, pop music, fishing,
sports cars, drinking 10 pints in pubs and getting into fights, and
many of the other blokey things that blokey blokes are traditionally
supposed to like. One of my favourite inspirational books is called
"What do you care what other people think?". What I do like to think
is that I have a mind of my own so don't need to copy other people's.
If I can do this, then so can anybody else, but look around you and
see who does, and who doesn't. If what you say is true, and "fitting
in" is more important to some people than following their own paths,
then that's their choice, not anybody else's imposition.

Rod.

wave-particle duality and TV reception
 

Max Demian wrote:
"Bill Wright" wrote in message
...
The whole science of RF seems to be based on wave theory. Does particle
theory have any place?

It looked as if he deliberately missed the tin cans with the red ping pong
balls.


There's been a lot of stories recently about scientists fiddling their
results! Apparently a lot of them admit to it, years later.

Bill

wave-particle duality and TV reception
 

In article , Bill Wright
wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

My life's experience, all the way from childhood, would suggest that
most girls and women avoid involvement in technology because most of
them are simply not interested.

However that still may be a 'conditioned response' which is
indoctrinated long before they approach the end of schooling. The
young tend to pick up their ideas from their peers and the ones who
are a year or two older at school. Hence may be acquired as just one
part of a general social set of fitting in.

I did a lot to avoid sexual stereotyping with my kids. It made no
difference. The girls developed girly interests; the boy developed
masculine interests. Of course, parents are only one influence on a
child, and in any case they probably model themselves on their parents.

They also tend to pick up a lot of assumptions from the other kids at
school about how to behave and what they should 'like'.

That's one reason why the results from single-sex schools tend to differ
from mixed.

Jim


Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

wave-particle duality and TV reception
 

In article ,
wrote:


It was a good program, though. Except I got lost at Bell's inequality.

You're in good company! Most people get baffled by any attempt to explain
it! Including most professional research physicists. 8-]

He may have erred on the side of giving too few details, so omitting some
that may have helped. But giving more details may simply mean more ways to
confuse people. Some things just aren't that easy to explain, alas.

I'd have preferred him to say more about the actual experimental details so
people could chew them and see if that helped. But it would risk losing
people along the way as they got bored by arcane details or lost.

FWIW Personally I'm quite happy with 'spooky action at a distance' as I
*want* there to be mechanisms that 'communicate' relationships 'faster than
the speed of light'. TBH I'm not really convinced by the blanket assertion
that the speed of light is an absolute limit for *every* form of this. I
suspect that the QM tangling is just a hint of this.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html