What is the difference between the photon and the phonon ?
Photons are quanta (particles) of the electromanetic field; phonons are collective excitations (quasi particles) of lattices in condensed matter.
Photons can be also interpreted as quasi particles resulting from collective excitations. This is specially true in action-at-a-distance theory electrodynamics, where electromagnetic fields do not exist as material systems.
What do you have in mind? In QED photons are elementary particles, whereas phonons always consist of underlying structures.
Do you mean something like a coherent state?
In field-theoretic QED photons are the particles associated to the EM field. IN AAAD QED, there is not EM field and photons are quasiparticles
I do not know what do you mean by coherent state, but I think is unrelated.
What is AAAD QED? Can you provide some explanations or references? How is this related to the original question which can be interpreted as a question regarding mainstream physics?
AAAD = Action-At-A-Distance
Because your answer is only a half of the modern picture...
Sorry, my answer is approximately 99.999% of the modern picture; but what you propose is not 'the modern picture' at but definitly beyond standard (mainstream) physics. That does not mean that it's wrong, but it's definitly irrelevant for this thread and confusing for the OP.
Agree with a systematic error of about a 75% in your number .
Agree again with you, the American Physical Society, and Reviews of Modern Physics are well-known non-mainstream resources .
Yes, it is best to repeat semi-correct clichés, without being aware of modern avenues of research.
I tried to find other (independent) resources referring to or discussing this article - nothing. Let's ask in the 'beyond forum' ;-)
RMP is especially devoted to "recent work of interest to all physicists, especially work at the frontiers of physics" as the APS states. As such it is indeed also aiming at non-mainstream positions. For a RMP, 18 indexed citations in 16 years also mean more or less that the topic is certainly not mainstream.
The stuff by Hoyle and Narlikar follows Wheeler's and Feynman's absorber theory and aims at steady-state cosmology which is in any way far from mainstream. It is somewhat correct physics (although difficulties with the microwave background given by WMAP results arise which might, however, be settled), but definitely not mainstream.
Separate names with a comma.