The following quote does not come from me:

"Alex, your theory that
they come from symmetries is WRONG"

I have always agreed with you with regard to symmetries and natural laws.

But on the other hand your claim that a photon is defined by an accelerating charge is decidely wrong. Accelerating charges produce fields, both electric fields which change with time and from Maxwell's equations, also magnetic fields. I do not need you to tell me what a magnetic field is. But you need me to tell you what a photon is.
I am afraid that your conception of what a photon is is plainly incorrect. Please write down the mathematical relationship between a photon and an electric field for me. In your last post you indicated that photon depended on incoherence. That was you saying that right. So what does incoherence have to do with the electric field. Seems that you suffer from inconsistency as well.

• Coherece length is just a photon length - alexander - November 5, 2001 - 00:13 UTC
  • I agree with all you said - yanniru - November 5, 2001 - 14:56 UTC
    • I disagree... - smartguy - November 5, 2001 - 16:17 UTC
    • To Richard. - alexander - November 5, 2001 - 17:47 UTC
      • Are photons point particles? - yanniru - November 6, 2001 - 14:45 UTC
  • Are you dropping the "particulate" model? - luis_hamburgh - November 5, 2001 - 23:46 UTC
    • I bet he will not admit it - yanniru - November 6, 2001 - 15:04 UTC