How does the electron make a photon in an antenna?

[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".