<div dir="ltr">Hi Adam,<div><br></div><div>Here's the link:<div><br></div><div><a href="http://nonloco-physics.0catch.com/jmp78.pdf">http://nonloco-physics.0catch.com/jmp78.pdf</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Michael</div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Adam K <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com" target="_blank">afokay@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">What is your website again? I want to see this paper: <div><br></div><div><span style="font-family:verdana;font-size:12px">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). </span><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:25 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="font-family:Verdana;font-size:12.0px"><div>
<div>Albert:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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 ...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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). </div>
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px;padding:10px 0 10px 10px;border-left:2px solid #c3d9e5;word-wrap:break-word">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0"><b>Gesendet:</b> Freitag, 02. September 2016 um 14:29 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Albrecht Giese" <<a href="mailto:phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank">phys@a-giese.de</a>><br>
<b>An:</b> <a href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org" target="_blank">general@lists.natureofligh<wbr>tandparticles.org</a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] photons: particles or?</div>
<div name="quoted-content">
<div style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255)"><div><div>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" size="-2">Al Kracklauer says:<br>
<br>
"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. "</font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" size="-2">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.</font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" size="-2">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?</font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" size="-2">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 </font><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" size="-2"> been </font><font face="Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif" size="-2">particles. If it is not accepted, please give us a usable definition.</font></p>
<p><font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif" size="-2">Albrecht</font><br>
</p>
<div><font face="Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif" size="-2">Am 30.08.2016 um 19:10 schrieb <a href="http://af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a>:</font></div>
<blockquote>
<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>
<fieldset> </fieldset>
<pre>______________________________<wbr>_________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="http://phys@a-giese.de" target="_blank">phys@a-giese.de</a>
<a href=<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank">"http://lists.natureoflig<wbr>htandparticles.org/options.<wbr>cgi/general-natureoflightandpa<wbr>rticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?<wbr>unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<table style="border-top:1.0px solid rgb(211,212,222)">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="width:55.0px;padding-top:18.0px"><a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" target="_blank"><img height="29" src="https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-tick-v1.gif" style="width:46.0px;min-height:29.0px" width="46"></a></td>
<td style="width:470.0px;padding-top:17.0px;color:rgb(65,66,78);font-size:13.0px;font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;line-height:18.0px">Virenfrei. <a href="https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient" style="color:rgb(68,83,234)" target="_blank">www.avast.com</a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table></div></div>
______________________________<wbr>_________________ If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de" target="_blank">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/af.kracklauer%40web.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" target="_blank"> Click here to unsubscribe </a></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:afokay@gmail.com" target="_blank">afokay@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/afokay%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.natureoflig<wbr>htandparticles.org/options.<wbr>cgi/general-natureoflightandpa<wbr>rticles.org/afokay%40gmail.<wbr>com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a href="mailto:michael.b.mercury@gmail.com">michael.b.mercury@gmail.com</a><br>
<a href="<a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/michael.b.mercury%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.<wbr>natureoflightandparticles.org/<wbr>options.cgi/general-<wbr>natureoflightandparticles.org/<wbr>michael.b.mercury%40gmail.com?<wbr>unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1</a>"><br>
Click here to unsubscribe<br>
</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>