<html><head></head><body><div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;"><div>
<p>Albert Giese wrote:</p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" size="-1">"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: ..."</font></p>
<p> </p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" size="-1">To this one might retort:</font></p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>For what it's worth, Al Krackauer</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div></div></body></html>