[General] photons: particles or?

Thu Sep 8 07:42:36 PDT 2016

Al,
true that there are particles which are accessible more easily. But 
photons can be deflected by double slits, also by the Compton effect. 
And they can also interact with other photons under specific conditions. 
There is just a new report published by the university of Vienna/Wien 
(Austria). Published in "Nature Photonics". And on the other hand: If 
one wants to manipulate a neutron and get it into a specific direction, 
is that simple?

Is there in easy access to your paper of 1978?

Albrecht

> Am 02.09.2016 um 19:25 schrieb af.kracklauer at web.de:
>> 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 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>
>>
>> <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 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>
>
>
> <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> 
>
>

---
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/20160908/e7c6301b/attachment.htm>