Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: What is a photon
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 14:23:41 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <102h58d$3d3le$2@dont-email.me>
References: <9af3e95b721801ec23446e0d70f081b3@www.novabbs.org>
 <%5W_P.1199819$lZjd.237071@fx05.ams4> <101hdi1$2104j$1@dont-email.me>
 <3fe4ff53feee25131897dec6bed26616@www.novabbs.com>
 <101mlhj$3v6bs$1@dont-email.me>
 <0d714bd0e415b3b40a0b7510479335ed@www.novabbs.com>
 <101pg8l$qdb4$2@dont-email.me>
 <56584f208e1fd12fd0ab6e61d4700b71@www.novabbs.com>
 <101q6ec$vve5$3@dont-email.me>
 <66adcc7df34d426607bc177bdf5d4a45@www.novabbs.org>
 <101tuio$en7p$1@solani.org> <101uch4$265ra$1@dont-email.me>
 <101uctc$265rb$1@dont-email.me>
 <U9-cnWtaDJyaLdb1nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@giganews.com>
 <102h2t8$3d3le$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 14:23:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="14d7cd1639ebadb2c2719e01a085d203";
	logging-data="3575470"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/bxgr/ykE8u+rjWjdeYueyq1l2b/ORTOk="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ru+gFH25QjlIJD/4csA+zjBcUmY=
In-Reply-To: <102h2t8$3d3le$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB, it

On 13/06/2025 13:43, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> On 13/06/2025 06:58, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> 
>> Photons are electron-worths of light, in energy,
>> in a very small region, for a very small amount of time.
> 
> Ideas without referent or substance: indeed, you could say
> that of any particle, so that's pointless, in fact rather
> missing the point of *a* geometry, not any.
> 
> That said, I do strongly "sympathise" with the it's all fields

OTOH, I do also strongly "sympathise" with *duality*
as fundamental: dialectic/dynamic, as in Yin and Yang.
So, at the moment I just know that I don't know, yet.

Indeed, I need two months, I must preliminarily finish
my study of category theory: there is a formalisation
in terms of arrows only, but then again, I am still
not sure it fully works, the two formulations are not
in fact isomorphic, not on the nose that is:

<https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/category#equivalence_between_the_two_definitions>

> approach, but 1) unless we include the boundary at infinity,
> it's just broken, and 2) does it really and fully work?  And
> I haven't yet found a clear answer to that last one: but, if
> the problem is just "time", that's the bit we have now solved.
> 
> Sometimes I think I am talking to a rubber wall.

-Julio