Is there by any chance that this scientist Correa proposal
about light transverse waves and its photons as only a local
phenomenon and the real propagation occurs as a transfer of
potential is possible?

Is there by any chance that this scientist Correa proposal
about light transverse waves and its photons as only a local
phenomenon and the real propagation occurs as a transfer of
potential is possible? Just like QM Copenhagen Interpretation
vs. the others. EM may also be subject to this as particle
is not an object and a wave is not an object too.

quoting Correa in his web site (for perspective):

"

Einstein said:

"The laws were clear and simple, the mechanical interpretations
clumsy and contradictory. Almost imperceptibly the theoretical
physicists adapted themselves to a situation which, from the
standpoint of their mechanical programme, was very depressing.
They were particularly influenced by the electro-dynamical
investigations of Heinrich Hertz. For whereas they previously had
required of a conclusive theory that it should content itself
with the fundamental concepts which belong exclusively to
mechanics (e.g. densities, velocities, deformations, stresses)
they gradually accustomed themselves to admitting electric and
magnetic force as fundamental concepts side by side with those of
mechanics, without requiring a mechanical interpretation for
them. Thus the purely mechanical view of nature was gradually
abandoned. "

Correa comments:

"Einstein is correct in seeing this abandonment of
the mechanistic viewpoint more as the result of confusion than as
the result of a viable new synthesis of mechanical and
electromagnetic properties. What Einstein fails to mention is
that Hertz inaugurated an era which flattened the problem of the
propagation of Light. Even if one is not to distinguish the local
production of photons from the transmission of the impulse or
stimulus to their production (propagation of Light, tout court),
there remained - in XIXth century Physics - C.F. Gauss' and B.
Riemann's deduction of the transmission of electric potential
('electrostatic') without recourse to a stationary medium; and,
as well, C. Neumann's treatment of this transmission as a
propagation of potential from charge to charge. It was the
failure to take into account this transmission of electric
potential, let alone to fully appreciate its physics, which
precluded the full comprehension of both the propag ation of the
light-producing stimulus and the transfer of energy from the
field to the affected charges. Einstein glosses over this
problem. But it cannot be glossed over (it would return later in
the XXth century in the form of the Cerenkov equations for the
propagation of potential) because Neumann was paradoxically both
right and wrong:

* wrong, in that the propagation of potential is the very basis
for the propagation of the stimulus of Light, and is not merely
or basically an action of massbound charge upon massbound charge;
in fact, as one concludes from Aetherometry, the propagation of
potential is the propagation of an electric field, and the field
is one that acts upon massbound charges to confer upon them
kinetic energy, ie set them into motion;

* right, in that the propagation of potential does not abide by
the speed of light; indeed it doesn't, since the propagation of
potential (1) obeys its own longitudinal electric wave functions,
and (2) must couple to charged Matter (massbound charges) so as
to accelerate its motion. Moreover, the photons locally generated
reflect solely the kinetic states of the moving massbound charges
and only the photons comport transverse wave functions.

Finally, Neumann (and Maxwell) were also right in thinking that
the potential propagated by the field was a function of e2/r
(where r is the distance between the charges), which boils down
to the interaction energy of the superimposing charges.

The paradox is that it is only that field which the massbound
charges generate as Light (local photons) or pass on, by
reabsorption, to other massbound charges as Light, which is
electromagnetic. But this is just a secondary field (tertiary,
really!), not the field associated with the transmission of
electric potential that primarily accelerates those massbound
charges. In fact, the photon or electromagnetic field is only
generated when accelerated charges decelerate, when they shed
their kinetic energy - n ot while they absorb field energy to
move under acceleration. It follows, therefore, that while the
mechanical aspect of the photon was understood as a discharge of
the kinetic states of charged massbound particles, the connection
between it and the primary electric field failed to be made. If
it is the primary electric field that effectively transmits the
stimulus of Light, then the transmission of Light is not
electromagnetic but dark. Only the productio n of Light, locally,
is electromagnetic, and one is therefore constrained to have to
distinguish photon rays from the wave of potential that makes
them possible, indirectly, by accelerating the charged massbound
particles to begin with. But is this a 'disembodied' wave, as
Cerenkov would later pretend, or is this wave part of an electric
energy flux which is the real physical sense of the field? Back
to Einstein:"

Einstein said:

"But this change led to a fundamental dualism which in the
long-run was insupportable. A way of escape was now sought in the
reverse direction, by reducing the principles of mechanics to
those of electricity, and this especially as confidence in the
strict validity of the equations of Newton's mechanics was shaken
by the experiments with beta-rays and rapid cathode rays."

Correa comments:

"The state of confusion that diluted mechanistic
theory led - in Einstein's exposition here - to a new dualism:
that of particle and wave descriptions of nature which did not
appear to be synthesizable, or compatible. The problem, once
more, goes back to the confusion between transmission and
production of Light, and just as well to the physical nature of
both:

1. Is Light transmitted as waves (transverse) - as undulatory
stresses in a stationary medium - as Maxwell thought? 2. Or is
Light transmitted as particles hurled across space, as Newton's
corpuscular theory of Light held?

And again: what is the nature of Light? What does the eye see -
particles impinging on it, or waves of stress deformation that
reach it?

Once more, one needs to appreciate that what threw classical
physics into disarray was the discovery of Planck's constant for
the quantum action of Light. A corpuscular theory of Light would
account for its transmission by invoking mechanical properties,
and would not necessitate the positing of a medium to occupy
space, whereas an undulatory theory of Light would account for
its transmission by the stress electromagnetic properties of a
medium.

It occurred to no one that the medium itself in part consists of
the propagation of potentials, that this propagation is one of
electric energy, and it is this that performs the propagation of
the stimulus of Light if there is Matter present in the field -
Matter that can accelerate and decelerate. The medium itself is
flux and in flux. Moreover, it occurred to no one that the
photon-particle never parts company with its electromagnetic
field wave (the one that complies with c), but that its
electromagnetic field wave is distinct from the electric field
wave that established the primary field. Thus, the
electromagnetic particle is solidary with its electromagnetic
wave, and the particle treatment for the photon is directly
'unified' (integrated) with the wave treatment [2]. And thus,
also, the electric field wave of potential does not remain
disembodied, or separate from its energetic or physical reality -
as a wave looking for a particle. It is shown aetherometrically
to belong to the massfree charges whose flow constitutes the
primary physical reality of the field. The massfree charges are
no less particulate than are the massbound charges of Matter.
Hence, the electric wave of potential is not separable from the
electric charge of massfree energy - from the radiant energy that
constitutes the electric field to begin with.

As it necessarily and historically stood, however, the wave and
particle treatments of Light remained totally confused, both as
to the nature of the primary electric field and its massfree
particle-charges, and the nature of the secondary electromagnetic
field and its particle-photons. Since massfree energy remains
unacknowledged, the primary field is mischaracterized and the
nature of reality is ontologically reduced to Matter and the
electromagnetic field that it bears"