Re: Photons was COLLISION 2

[Jim Green <JMGreen@SISNA.COM>]

At 02:23 PM 02-12-99 -0500,  John Denker criticizes as follows:

> At 12:33 PM 11/30/99 -0700, Jim Green wrote:
> >  Now if you understand what a "photon" is please
> >tutor me -- and perhaps a few others on the list.
.....
> The notions of "photon" and "local conservation of energy" are on much
> better footing than classical electrodynamics or classical thermo.

John, if I confess to the list that I don't understand "photons" well
enough to talk about them vis a vis the First Law, why are you berating
me?  I invite you to tutor me and you say that it is just too complicated
for this list.  I agree.

BTW I have never used the phrase  "local conservation of energy"  in my
life -- until now -- and I won't count this time -- just pretend that it
didn't happen.

I repeat that there is no requirement on this list -- or anywhere else for
that matter -- to pay any attention to what I write or to respond to my
queries.

Jim Green
........

> If you think you have caught somebody using such a notion in a situation
> that is clearly outside its domain of applicability, the burden is on *you*
> to show that it has led to an incorrect prediction of some measurable
> quantity.  (Philosophical objections with no measurable consequences don't
> count.)
>
>    c) Perhaps you wish to argue that local conservation of energy, while
> not wrong, is just less convenient than some other techniques you
> know.  Well, then you should explain those other techniques in a positive
> way so that the community may benefit.
...........
Jim Green
mailto:JMGreen@sisna.com
http://users.sisna.com/jmgreen