[General] photons: particles or?

Sun Sep 4 19:41:49 PDT 2016

Hi Adam,

Here's the link:

http://nonloco-physics.0catch.com/jmp78.pdf

Regards,

Michael

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Adam K <afokay at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at michael.b.mercury at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-
> natureoflightandparticles.org/michael.b.mercury%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/20160904/072a1816/attachment.htm>