[General] The Entangled Double-Helix Superluminal Photon Model

Fri Nov 3 15:27:24 PDT 2017

Hello André and all,
   Thank you very much for your detailed comments. I have corrected footnote (8) in my article (appended below) to give the reference to Oreste Caroppo’s 2005 double-helix photon article which I just discovered a few days ago. I had inserted a note about his article at the end of my article, including the link to his article, but by mistake it didn’t get into the footnotes also. I also added a note about an earlier published double-heliix photon article of mine from 2002 which found the same numerical results describing the double-helix photon as in my present article (and in Carappo's article).
    More later.
         Richard


> On Nov 3, 2017, at 7:37 AM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Richard,
> 
> I have been reading your last paper:
> 
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320727586_Entangled_Double-Helix_Superluminal_Composite_Photon_Model_Defined_by_Fine_Structure_Constant <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320727586_Entangled_Double-Helix_Superluminal_Composite_Photon_Model_Defined_by_Fine_Structure_Constant>
> Quite interesting and clearly described. Easy to visualize.
> 
> The first point I note is your use of a pair of charges in action within the photon structure, which is something I agree must be the case. Since light can be polarized by magnetic fields, it makes complete sense that charges, which are known to react to magnetic fields, must be involved in a localized photon and that two of them need be present and interacting, since how could a single point-like behaving charge ever be polarized?
> 
> Referring to basic geometry, a point can have no particular orientation in space while two point (charges) physically located some distance apart, however close they may be, and between which a distance (a line) can be measured, can transversally be oriented in any direction on a plane perpendicular to the direction of motion, which light polarisation seems to involve.
> 
> I also agree with your correlating them with the concept of two half spin half-photons, which gives the complete photon a spin of 1, which is in line with de Broglie's hypothesis.
> 
> Since you make them move in a double helical trajectory, they are de facto in mutual transverse alignment with respect to the direction of motion, which makes your photon polarizable in conformity with observation, and is in agreement with the known fact that electromagnetic energy involves transverse oscillation, contrary to sound in a medium which involves longitudinal oscillation of the medium.
> 
> You mention that Caroppo (8) has developed a hypothesis along the same lines without reference to de Broglie, but I couldn't locate it to have a look because no doubt by mishap your (8) refers to the Einstein-Pololsky-Rosen paper that fed initiated the debate with Bohr (if I recall correctly) and in which I couldn't locate Caroppo's name.
> 
>  Since you make them spiral along the trajectory, their slightly internal superluminal spiraling velocities are consistent with the fact the photon proper would move at c.
> 
> You assign fixed values to both charges, which is consistent with the fact that they remain at fixed distances from the axis of motion. This is different from my model, in which their value varies between a maximum and zero at each cycle. In my own model, I see the concept of charge as a form of "recall potential", so to speak, that tends to pull the energy making up the half-photons towards each other.
> 
> As for a quantum wave being generated by the photon, I have an entirely different view of how the wave function applies to elementary particles. In particular, since in my view, the wave function defines a resonance volume first and foremost, I do not understand it as being something like a "wave-being-emitted" only as a resonance volume within which oscillating energy quanta would be contained in resonance state either while in translational motion or when stabilized in some electromagnetic least action state. So I have no comment for this part.
> 
>   I think your model is consistent with splitting into a pair of separately moving electron and positron if it has an energy of 1.022 MeV or more, just like my own model.
> 
> I agree with your idea of the charges of both half-photons being Q and -Q relative to each other, except in mine, their intensity cyclically varies. I think your use of the Coulomb force to hold them is consistent. In my model, I am still fuzzy about what the Coulomb force really is, so I am still in search of how it really applies within the structure of my model, although I am convinced that it applies.
> 
> I have no comment on entanglement.
> 
> To your possible criticism No. 1) regarding the superluminal velocity. I agree that this is a problem.
> 
> You put in the possible criticism list the idea No. 2) the photon may be composite.
> 
> No possible criticism in this case in my view. If the photon was not composite, it simply could not be polarized. If it was not composite, it would behave point-like like the electron, a structure that has no orientation in space. From my perspective, the very fact that it can be polarized by magnetic fields is the proof that it is internally composite.
> 
> Your possible criticism No. 3) is grounded on Larmor's hypothesis, not on physically observed behavior. No new law is required. There is no account on record of electrons accelerating in straight line that radiate energy while accelerating. You need to wiggle them from side to side along the trajectory for them to release synchrotron radiation. Also, the John Blewett experiments with the GE Betatron in the 1940`s showed that electrons on perfectly circular orbits do not radiate. Electrons radiate in cyclotron`s storage rings only because their trajectories are forced into "approximately circular" orbits, not "perfectly circular" orbits.
> 
> Your No. 4) is no criticism indeed, It simply is a possibility that single high enough energy photons could possibly produce muon-antimuon pairs for example. Your photon model is not oversimplified. I think it is ok in this respect.
> 
> Your No. 5) I would reformulate as follows: "Light "beam" (made of individual photos) easily pass through each other. You assume that their internal charges would interact with each other and disturb their photon trajectories.
> 
> If the pair of charges of each photon can be polarized transversally, which is what is observed, then what interaction they may have with each other will be on the transverse plane, mutually affecting only the orientation of their mutual polarities, which would not affect their trajectories, which is what is observed. Besides, since they cross paths each moving at c, the interaction is reduced to a barely measurable moment. We know they interact however, as proved by the McDonald et. all experiments at SLAC in 1997 when they mutually destabilized sufficiently for some 1.022 MeV (or more) photons in one of the beams to convert to electron positron pairs.
> 
> Your Number 6). I see wave-particle duality of the photon in the following manner: Longitudinal point-like behaving cross-section during absorption, and transverse electromagnetic oscillation (wave-like behavior) during motion. To me this is the only meaning of wave-particle duality.
> 
> Your Number 7) is interesting. The very structure of the 2 charges model of your photon model and of mine provide the answer. Both charges being rigidly maintained by structure on either side of the axis of motion of the photon, they can freely swivel on the perpendicular plane from the minutest transverse electric or magnetic interaction. This characteristic alone is sufficient in my view for entire beams of photons to be forced into the same polarity orientation by subjecting the beam to any specific electromagnetic constraint configuration.
> 
> I would add two items to your list of possible criticism
> 
> 8) How does the photon maintain its light velocity?
> 
> 9) Since photons are supposed to be electromagnetic, how can the electric and magnetic fields that they are supposed to be associated with be described?
> 
> Quite a biteful to chew on! You seem to have addressed most issues that need to be analyzed about the photon.
> 
> Best Regards
> ---
> 
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
> 
> 
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 19:23:45 -0700, Richard Gauthier wrote:
> 
> Forwarded from Chip
>  
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>  
>> From: "Chip Akins" <chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>>
>> Subject: [General] Relativity
>> Date: October 31, 2017 at 6:46:19 AM PDT
>> To: "'Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion'" <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>> Reply-To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>>  
>> Hi Grahame (and Andre)
>> A while back, we briefly discussed the idea that SR is not “logically self-consistent” even though many conclude that it is mathematically self-consistent.
>> Regarding logical self-consistent issues…
>> In order to address this point I think we would need to take a look at the “landscape” as it relates to “relativity”.
>> While doing this, if we look at causes, which is to say that we use the concept of cause-and-effect as our guiding principle, as you have properly stressed, we can come to logical conclusions which simply do not agree with SR in all details.
>> So we can take a look at many of the known conditions to guide the development of a composite view of the causes for “relativity”.
>> Sound waves travel through a medium. Sound waves exhibit the Doppler Effect simply because they travel at a “fixed” speed through a “homogeneous” medium, regardless of the velocity of the object emitting the waves.
>> Light also exhibits the Doppler Effect in space.
>> So there is an indication that some similarities may exist between the causes of the Doppler Effect in sound and in light.
>> Einstein stated that “light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source”, which is an incomplete statement, logically inconsistent, because thevelocity c in empty spacehas no meaning, unless we use the fixed frame of space, or some other reference, as the logical reference for that velocity. A velocity simply must be stated in reference to something.
>> Einstein also stated that, “Absolute uniform motion cannot be detected by any means.” Which is indicated by experiment as well. So no problem here.
>> And he then followed with the assertion that “This is to say that the concept of absolute rest and the ether have no meaning.” (Paraphrased)
>> This second conclusion isnotfully logically supported by the evidence presented, and is logically inconsistent with the assertion that “light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source”. There are alternate interpretations of this evidence which are more causal and logical than this.
>> First, our inability to measure something does not necessarily make it meaningless. There are a myriad examples we can give of things which we cannot directly measure, but we have come to accept, because of indirect evidence which stipulates their existence.
>> We can however, from the evidence, reconstruct a set of conditions, which is causal, and yields results which match observation.
>> For example, if light is made of “stuff” that propagates through a fixed frame of space at c, and if matter is made of confined versions of the same “stuff” also propagating (in confinement) at c in a fixed frame of space, then we would have exactly this set of circumstances. We would not be able to detect our motion through space by using an apparatus like the Michelson-Morley experiment. Note: This approach does not relegate as meaningless anything which may in fact be quite important.
>> But if “the concept of absolute rest and the ether have no meaning.”Then how do we explain“light is propagated in empty space with a velocity c which is independent of the motion of the source”and the resultant Doppler Effect when a moving object emits light?
>> While I am fully aware of the explanation that EM radiation is represented by vector “fields”, and that they somehow could propagate through an empty space at a fixed velocity justified only by the math. That is a less satisfactory answer logically because it does not presentphysicalcause. This consideration, and the Doppler Effect, coupled with the underlying physical cause mentioned above, for us not being able to detect our own motion through space, yields two logically consistent reasons for looking at space as a sort of medium, with a “fixed” frame.
>> Lorentz transformations are a natural result of the situation mentioned above regarding the constitution of light a matter. These transformations are required under the circumstances where light and matter are made of the same “stuff” and that stuff moves at the fixed speed c in a fixed frame of space. This all occurs in a 3 dimensional Euclidian space.
>> So there is a more logically consistent, causal view, than the one proposed by SR.
>> When we run the math describing the situation where space is a medium in which the propagation of disturbances is a fixed velocity, and light and matter are made of these disturbances, we obtain the set of Lorentz transformations, and cause for “relativity” is shown, precisely and clearly. This is a logically consistent basis, and one which shows cause. In contrast to SR, which is a different interpretation of the same starting information, but does not show cause, and does not appear to be as logically consistent.
>> Are there ways to present this and related information which better illustrates the case from a logical basis?
>> Thoughts?
>> Chip
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List atrichgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>">
>> Click here to unsubscribe
>> </a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171103/59b53cba/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Double helix composite photon article Nov 3.1 2017.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1269007 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171103/59b53cba/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20171103/59b53cba/attachment-0001.html>