[General] photons: particles or?

[Albrecht Giese]

Al Kracklauer says:

"Photons are a phantasy!  All that is know about photons comes from 
infering what caused a photo-electron (positron) to do what it did.  NO 
experimenter knows anything about a "photon" as it as such is 
unobservable. "

I have described an experiment which I have made for my PhD thesis. How 
can the result of my experiment explained in the view that photons are 
fantasy? I have expected here an answer to this question.

And "a photon is unobservable". Was a quark ever be observed? The 
up-quark and the down-quark cannot even be isolated. But they are 
understood to be particles. Was an electron or a positron ever be 
observed? I have never seen any of them even though in the 
research-centre, which I was working for, electrons have been the main 
focus of observation. No properties of a photon known? A photon has a 
known energy, momentum, frequency, charge (=0), spin. Not enough?

How is the existence of a particle is defined? A definition could be 
that it is an object which carries a clearly defined amount of energy. 
If this is accepted then the objects / photons in my experiment have 
clearly been particles. If it is not accepted, please give us a usable 
definition.

Albrecht

Am 30.08.2016 um 19:10 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>
> Albert Giese wrote:
>
> "Another point in the discussion is the question of how photons can be 
> understood. It is said (at different places of the foregoing 
> discussion) that matter (i.e. leptons and quarks) can be converted 
> into pure energy, which means photons in this context. Why is it 
> denied that a photon is a particle? It has all properties of a 
> particle which the speciality that it permanently moves with c. And 
> with this latter property it is very close to a neutrino for which 
> nobody questions that it is a particle. And a photon has a well 
> defined energy. This fact was indeed questioned by some contributions 
> in this forum. To those who are questioning it I would like to explain 
> the following: ..."
>
> To this one might retort:
>
> Photons are a phantasy!  All that is know about photons comes from 
> infering what caused a photo-electron (positron) to do what it did. 
>  NO experimenter knows anything about a "photon" as it as such is 
> unobservable.  Only photo induced electrons are.  Thus any theory 
> about what has happend behind the veil is just guess-work.  Further, 
> any imaginary concoction that correctly predics the behaviour of 
> photo-electrons is equally valid.  Honesty with one's self requires 
> acknowledging that theories about the unknowable are are also 
> unverifiable.
>
> No matter what "people" do or don't question about nutrinos [a 
> thoretical entity with an even more vague pedigree!], the state of 
> knowledge about these entities is beyond the knowable and in the realm 
> of myth.  It is, therefore, eminently arguabble that, electric 
> interaction should be denoted as just that and limit the theory to 
> what source-electrons do to sink-electrons without imaginay 
> intermediate, artificial constructs.
>
> For what it's worth,  Al Krackauer
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atphys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>



---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160902/6877e854/attachment.htm>