Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Photons was COLLISION 2



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