[General] photons: particles or?

[Adam K]

What is your website again? I want to see this paper:

Mp point is to attract attention to the only closed, self consitent
formulation of Electrodynamcis [all common versions are in fact just
approximations], as described in an old paper of mine (J Math Phys. 19(4),
838 (1978).

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:25 AM, <af.kracklauer at web.de> wrote:

> Albert:
>
> Philosophically you have a point: no one has ever "seen" an electron by
> means of eyeballs. But, it is a matter of degree.  Photons are not
> manipulable.  If it is intended to casue them to do something, then they
> are not engagned, rather the electrons for an electron current are, etc.
> Likewise, if it is itneded to receive a photon, then it is required to
> arrange to have electrons lined up (in an antenna, say) waiting for them.
> The properteies ascribed to "photons" in fact are not measured directly,
> but infered from those of the source/sink electrons (sometimes positrons,
> or whatever is taken to be such in a bubble chamber, etc.).  If the purpose
> is to do FUNDAMENTAL physics, then pedantic points such as these can turn
> out to be critical.  If all that is needed are recipies to enable the
> design of gadgets, then ...
>
> Mp point is to attract attention to the only closed, self consitent
> formulation of Electrodynamcis [all common versions are in fact just
> approximations], as described in an old paper of mine (J Math Phys. 19(4),
> 838 (1978).
>
> *Gesendet:* Freitag, 02. September 2016 um 14:29 Uhr
> *Von:* "Albrecht Giese" <phys at a-giese.de>
> *An:* general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] photons: particles or?
>
> 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 at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virenfrei.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> _______________________________________________ If you no longer wish to
> receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General
> Discussion List at af.kracklauer at web.de Click here to unsubscribe
> <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at afokay at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
> natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20160902/03589007/attachment.htm>