Can antennas be viewed as light sources?
$begingroup$
Clearly antennas are nothing but a device to radiate the electrical energy through electromagnetic waves.
Since visible light is also simply a certain range of frequencies, isn't it more easier to think of antennas as different shapes of "light" sources?
Like directional antenna is a hand held torchlight, high power means flood lights?
Why can't we simply state this in particle nature as it will be much simpler mathematically than the wave theory?
antenna electromagnetism light radiation
edited 59 mins ago
Marcus Müller
33k36197
asked 1 hour ago
user163416user163416
1015
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Clearly antennas are nothing but a device to radiate the electrical energy through electromagnetic waves.
Since visible light is also simply a certain range of frequencies, isn't it more easier to think of antennas as different shapes of "light" sources?
Like directional antenna is a hand held torchlight, high power means flood lights?
Why can't we simply state this in particle nature as it will be much simpler mathematically than the wave theory?
antenna electromagnetism light radiation
edited 59 mins ago
Marcus Müller
33k36197
asked 1 hour ago
user163416user163416
1015
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Clearly antennas are nothing but a device to radiate the electrical energy through electromagnetic waves.
Since visible light is also simply a certain range of frequencies, isn't it more easier to think of antennas as different shapes of "light" sources?
Like directional antenna is a hand held torchlight, high power means flood lights?
Why can't we simply state this in particle nature as it will be much simpler mathematically than the wave theory?
antenna electromagnetism light radiation
edited 59 mins ago
Marcus Müller
33k36197
asked 1 hour ago
user163416user163416
1015
$endgroup$
Clearly antennas are nothing but a device to radiate the electrical energy through electromagnetic waves.
Since visible light is also simply a certain range of frequencies, isn't it more easier to think of antennas as different shapes of "light" sources?
Like directional antenna is a hand held torchlight, high power means flood lights?
Why can't we simply state this in particle nature as it will be much simpler mathematically than the wave theory?
antenna electromagnetism light radiation
antenna electromagnetism light radiation
edited 59 mins ago
Marcus Müller
33k36197
asked 1 hour ago
user163416user163416
1015
edited 59 mins ago
Marcus Müller
33k36197
asked 1 hour ago
user163416user163416
1015
edited 59 mins ago
Marcus Müller
33k36197
edited 59 mins ago
Marcus Müller
33k36197
edited 59 mins ago
Marcus Müller
33k36197
33k36197
asked 1 hour ago
user163416user163416
1015
asked 1 hour ago
user163416user163416
1015
asked 1 hour ago
user163416user163416
1015
1015
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
For some cases, you can: If you have a large directional antenna, it might, from very far away, simply look like a beam-generating "flashlight" for radio waves. That breaks down very quickly if the wavelengths are not much, much smaller than all physical objects interacting with them.
We even use specific terms: If wavelengths are very small compared to all objects they meet and a few simple "macroscopic" formulas can describe their behaviour, we speak of optical (ray) propagation. When dealing with RF, we don't; RF doesn't behave like light, and thus, the usefulness of the analogy doesn't exist. So, no, we can't be "much simpler mathematically", because the easier model of what you know as light propagation simply doesn't work.
For most cases, you can't compare antennas to light sources.
First of all, the analogy with light sources doesn't work out fully: Your flashlight works with DC coming from a battery. Your waves coming out have frequencies beyond 10¹⁵ Hz. In an antenna, the method of generating the wave relies on the current going into the antenna already having the frequency to be emitted, and the antenna just acting as an impedance matching component between wave conductor and free space.
Then, the wave emitted from an antenna has some sort of wave front, which implies coherent phase! Your LED or light bulb doesn't have that, at all.
So, the light beam from a torch is simply physically very different from the beam from an antenna.
answered 51 mins ago
Marcus MüllerMarcus Müller
33k36197
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Firstly, "light" on its own usually means "visible light". Antennas do not emit visible light.
We can more correctly say that light is EM radiation and antennas emit EM radiation.
Why can't we simply state this in particle nature as it will be much simpler mathematically
Is it? You've not cited any of the maths in your post. And for most purposes the wave pattern is what we want; it tells us where the radio waves can be recieved most strongly. For most communication frequencies radio waves aren't a light-like "beam", they diffract a lot.
answered 34 mins ago
pjc50pjc50
33.9k34185
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("schematics", function () {
StackExchange.schematics.init();
});
}, "cicuitlab");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "135"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f420631%2fcan-antennas-be-viewed-as-light-sources%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
For some cases, you can: If you have a large directional antenna, it might, from very far away, simply look like a beam-generating "flashlight" for radio waves. That breaks down very quickly if the wavelengths are not much, much smaller than all physical objects interacting with them.
We even use specific terms: If wavelengths are very small compared to all objects they meet and a few simple "macroscopic" formulas can describe their behaviour, we speak of optical (ray) propagation. When dealing with RF, we don't; RF doesn't behave like light, and thus, the usefulness of the analogy doesn't exist. So, no, we can't be "much simpler mathematically", because the easier model of what you know as light propagation simply doesn't work.
For most cases, you can't compare antennas to light sources.
First of all, the analogy with light sources doesn't work out fully: Your flashlight works with DC coming from a battery. Your waves coming out have frequencies beyond 10¹⁵ Hz. In an antenna, the method of generating the wave relies on the current going into the antenna already having the frequency to be emitted, and the antenna just acting as an impedance matching component between wave conductor and free space.
Then, the wave emitted from an antenna has some sort of wave front, which implies coherent phase! Your LED or light bulb doesn't have that, at all.
So, the light beam from a torch is simply physically very different from the beam from an antenna.
answered 51 mins ago
Marcus MüllerMarcus Müller
33k36197
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For some cases, you can: If you have a large directional antenna, it might, from very far away, simply look like a beam-generating "flashlight" for radio waves. That breaks down very quickly if the wavelengths are not much, much smaller than all physical objects interacting with them.
We even use specific terms: If wavelengths are very small compared to all objects they meet and a few simple "macroscopic" formulas can describe their behaviour, we speak of optical (ray) propagation. When dealing with RF, we don't; RF doesn't behave like light, and thus, the usefulness of the analogy doesn't exist. So, no, we can't be "much simpler mathematically", because the easier model of what you know as light propagation simply doesn't work.
For most cases, you can't compare antennas to light sources.
First of all, the analogy with light sources doesn't work out fully: Your flashlight works with DC coming from a battery. Your waves coming out have frequencies beyond 10¹⁵ Hz. In an antenna, the method of generating the wave relies on the current going into the antenna already having the frequency to be emitted, and the antenna just acting as an impedance matching component between wave conductor and free space.
Then, the wave emitted from an antenna has some sort of wave front, which implies coherent phase! Your LED or light bulb doesn't have that, at all.
So, the light beam from a torch is simply physically very different from the beam from an antenna.
answered 51 mins ago
Marcus MüllerMarcus Müller
33k36197
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For some cases, you can: If you have a large directional antenna, it might, from very far away, simply look like a beam-generating "flashlight" for radio waves. That breaks down very quickly if the wavelengths are not much, much smaller than all physical objects interacting with them.
We even use specific terms: If wavelengths are very small compared to all objects they meet and a few simple "macroscopic" formulas can describe their behaviour, we speak of optical (ray) propagation. When dealing with RF, we don't; RF doesn't behave like light, and thus, the usefulness of the analogy doesn't exist. So, no, we can't be "much simpler mathematically", because the easier model of what you know as light propagation simply doesn't work.
For most cases, you can't compare antennas to light sources.
First of all, the analogy with light sources doesn't work out fully: Your flashlight works with DC coming from a battery. Your waves coming out have frequencies beyond 10¹⁵ Hz. In an antenna, the method of generating the wave relies on the current going into the antenna already having the frequency to be emitted, and the antenna just acting as an impedance matching component between wave conductor and free space.
Then, the wave emitted from an antenna has some sort of wave front, which implies coherent phase! Your LED or light bulb doesn't have that, at all.
So, the light beam from a torch is simply physically very different from the beam from an antenna.
answered 51 mins ago
Marcus MüllerMarcus Müller
33k36197
$endgroup$
For some cases, you can: If you have a large directional antenna, it might, from very far away, simply look like a beam-generating "flashlight" for radio waves. That breaks down very quickly if the wavelengths are not much, much smaller than all physical objects interacting with them.
We even use specific terms: If wavelengths are very small compared to all objects they meet and a few simple "macroscopic" formulas can describe their behaviour, we speak of optical (ray) propagation. When dealing with RF, we don't; RF doesn't behave like light, and thus, the usefulness of the analogy doesn't exist. So, no, we can't be "much simpler mathematically", because the easier model of what you know as light propagation simply doesn't work.
For most cases, you can't compare antennas to light sources.
First of all, the analogy with light sources doesn't work out fully: Your flashlight works with DC coming from a battery. Your waves coming out have frequencies beyond 10¹⁵ Hz. In an antenna, the method of generating the wave relies on the current going into the antenna already having the frequency to be emitted, and the antenna just acting as an impedance matching component between wave conductor and free space.
Then, the wave emitted from an antenna has some sort of wave front, which implies coherent phase! Your LED or light bulb doesn't have that, at all.
So, the light beam from a torch is simply physically very different from the beam from an antenna.
answered 51 mins ago
Marcus MüllerMarcus Müller
33k36197
answered 51 mins ago
Marcus MüllerMarcus Müller
33k36197
answered 51 mins ago
Marcus MüllerMarcus Müller
33k36197
answered 51 mins ago
Marcus MüllerMarcus Müller
33k36197
33k36197
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Firstly, "light" on its own usually means "visible light". Antennas do not emit visible light.
We can more correctly say that light is EM radiation and antennas emit EM radiation.
Why can't we simply state this in particle nature as it will be much simpler mathematically
Is it? You've not cited any of the maths in your post. And for most purposes the wave pattern is what we want; it tells us where the radio waves can be recieved most strongly. For most communication frequencies radio waves aren't a light-like "beam", they diffract a lot.
answered 34 mins ago
pjc50pjc50
33.9k34185
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Firstly, "light" on its own usually means "visible light". Antennas do not emit visible light.
We can more correctly say that light is EM radiation and antennas emit EM radiation.
Why can't we simply state this in particle nature as it will be much simpler mathematically
Is it? You've not cited any of the maths in your post. And for most purposes the wave pattern is what we want; it tells us where the radio waves can be recieved most strongly. For most communication frequencies radio waves aren't a light-like "beam", they diffract a lot.
answered 34 mins ago
pjc50pjc50
33.9k34185
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Firstly, "light" on its own usually means "visible light". Antennas do not emit visible light.
We can more correctly say that light is EM radiation and antennas emit EM radiation.
Why can't we simply state this in particle nature as it will be much simpler mathematically
Is it? You've not cited any of the maths in your post. And for most purposes the wave pattern is what we want; it tells us where the radio waves can be recieved most strongly. For most communication frequencies radio waves aren't a light-like "beam", they diffract a lot.
answered 34 mins ago
pjc50pjc50
33.9k34185
$endgroup$
Firstly, "light" on its own usually means "visible light". Antennas do not emit visible light.
We can more correctly say that light is EM radiation and antennas emit EM radiation.
Why can't we simply state this in particle nature as it will be much simpler mathematically
Is it? You've not cited any of the maths in your post. And for most purposes the wave pattern is what we want; it tells us where the radio waves can be recieved most strongly. For most communication frequencies radio waves aren't a light-like "beam", they diffract a lot.
answered 34 mins ago
pjc50pjc50
33.9k34185
answered 34 mins ago
pjc50pjc50
33.9k34185
answered 34 mins ago
pjc50pjc50
33.9k34185
answered 34 mins ago
pjc50pjc50
33.9k34185
33.9k34185
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f420631%2fcan-antennas-be-viewed-as-light-sources%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
