[General] The Entangled Double-Helix Superluminal Photon Model

[Richard Gauthier]

Hello André and all,
   Thanks you for your detailed comments comparing our approaches, which I will come back to. One link to my Schroedinger equation article is https://www.academia.edu/10235164/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_Fits_the_Schrödinger_Equation <https://www.academia.edu/10235164/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_Fits_the_Schr%C3%B6dinger_Equation>. A link to a related article is at https://www.academia.edu/9973842/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength_and_a_New_Interpretation_of_Quantum_Mechanics <https://www.academia.edu/9973842/The_Charged-Photon_Model_of_the_Electron_the_de_Broglie_Wavelength_and_a_New_Interpretation_of_Quantum_Mechanics> . Both articles can also be downloaded from https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research <https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research> .
An article making an analogy between photons in a cavity and electrons in an atom is at https://www.academia.edu/19894441/Photonic_Atoms_Predicted_by_the_Charged_Photon_Model_of_the_Electron <https://www.academia.edu/19894441/Photonic_Atoms_Predicted_by_the_Charged_Photon_Model_of_the_Electron> .
    with warm regards,
        Richard

> On Nov 6, 2017, at 9:22 PM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Richard,
> 
> I will try to explain how I correlate my understanding of the wave-particle duality with what I perceive your understanding is. But it is very difficult to do, because, I understand this in the frame of the expanded trispatial geometry, while you describe it from the perspective of the 4D space geometry.
> 
> Also, from my understanding, there exists only localized elementary charged particles in physical reality, and even after they stabilize in various electromagnetic equilibrium states (nucleons, atoms, molecules, larger bodies), that continue interacting individually. Because of this, to me, there is no discontinuity between the submicroscopic level, the macroscopic level and even with the astronomical level.
> 
> From my perspective, when I look at a baseball in my hand and think of how it interacts, I see only the bunch of electrons, up quarks and down quarks plus their carrying energy that make up its mass that interact with the bunch of electrons, up quarks and down quarks plus their carrying energy that make up the mass of my own body and the Earth.
> 
> When you write: "The question is, what gives the photon its individual particle-like nature and also its statistical wave-like nature. Since the answer is that "nobody knows", "
> 
> I would qualify the last part as " Since the answer is that "nobody knows from the 4D space geometry perspective", ", which is exactly what de Broglie ended up concluding.
> 
> This is what got me to thinking and end up exploding the three ijk orthogonal vectors describing the electromagnetic triply orthogonal relation of any point of the Maxwell continuous EM wavefront into 3 full fledged orthogonal spaces, to see if this could help, and I found that it does.
> 
> But from this perspective, particle-like behavior of localized elementary particles such as the photon amount only to its longitudinal inertia coupled to a frontal cross-section related to the extent of the transverse oscillation of its electromagnetically oscillating half, and its wave-like behavior can only be the full extent of this transverse electromagnetic oscillation.
> 
> This transverse oscillation amounts to a form of resonance of the energy of the photon, and the volume of space visited by this resonance is the only thing that can be described by the wave function in the trispatial geometry,
> metaphorically speaking, like the wave function can describe the volume visited by a resonating (vibrating) guitar string, but here the "guitar string" is the energy half quantum that electromagnetically oscillates.
> 
> What you name its " statistical wave-like nature" to me is the distribution of its energy density within the volume that it resonates in over a given time period.
> 
> When you write: " that the helically-moving charged photon (now I would call it a half-photon) composing an electron produces a quantum wave"
> 
> This is a description that belong to 4D space. In the 3-spaces geometry, this is not possible because the electromagnetic oscillation is a reciprocating swing between both states. The helical motion of the twin charges you describe however in your 4D model is theoretically possible in the trispatial geometry, because both charges are free to swivel freely on the Y-y/Y-z plane within electrostatic space while the photon moves at c in X-space, which is why I think your model is fine even from my 3-space perspective. The only difference is that in the trispatial geometry, the charges symmetrically piston in and out in opposite directions from zero presence to full extent at the frequency of the reciprocating swing.
> 
> But there is no such thing as a "quantum wave" being produced or emitted in the trispatial geometry.
> 
> The only possibility for the wave function to apply (to the trispaces photon model) is to describe the resonance volume of space occupied by the oscillating EM energy while reciprocatingly swinging between electric state and magnetic state. Nothing is emitted while the photon travels.
> 
> Our approaches indeed are not very different as you mention, but you would have to really get into the trispatial geometry to see how close they are. The major difference rests with the integration of the magnetic aspect, a feature that I see no possibility to coherently integrate in the too restricted frame of 4D space geometry.
> 
> Yes I have an electron model based on the trispatial photon model. In fact, there is even a clear and seamless mechanics of decoupling of a single 1.022 MeV or more photon into a pair of electron and positron, but it can make mechanical sense only in the trispatial geometry.
> 
> Here is a link to the paper describing the decoupling mechanics, and also the inner structure of the electron (and positron of course), titled "The Mechanics of Electron-Positron Pair Creation in the 3-Spaces Model":
> 
> http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue10/F06103649.pdf <http://ijerd.com/paper/vol6-issue10/F06103649.pdf>
> There is no such thing in the trispaces geometry as a de Broglie wavelength as you conceive, so I cannot comment or relate anything to it.
> 
> When you write: " A photon can be "bound" in a wave cavity in many possible "resonant states" depending on its wavelength just like an electron can be "bound" in an atom in many possible orbitals or "resonant states" depending on the electron's energy in the atom."
> 
> When I think of a photon interacting, I see it interacting with one or many other elementary particles. To me a photon interacting with a wave cavity such as you consider, is only one photon interacting with a bunch of other individual photons or other charged EM particles such as electrons, positrons, up quarks and down quarks, so I do not know how to correlate this with what you say. In the trispatial geometry, free moving photons cannot stabilize into least action resonance states within atoms, but they can communicate their energy to electrons so captive, which causes them to jump farther away from nuclei or even completely escape.
> 
> When you say: "Maybe the electron gives off one or more photons while adjusting to a relatively stable resonant energy state in the atom."
> 
> When an electron stabilizes in a least action resonance state in an atom, only "one" electromagnetic photon can be emitted, carrying away the momentum related kinetic energy that the electron accumulated while accelerating until stopped in its motion as it was being captured. For example, a 13.6 eV photon is emitted when an electron is captured by a proton to form a hydrogen atom.
> 
> But overall, I think we really are looking at the same thing from different angles, and seeing practically the same thing, but with different color glasses, so to speak.
> 
> I'd have a look at your paper "The Charged-Photon Model of the Electron Fits the Schrödinger Equation" (article 21)." Can you give me a link?
> 
> Best Regards
> ---
> 
> André Michaud
> GSJournal admin
> http://www.gsjournal.net/
> http://www.srpinc.org/
> 
> 
> On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 15:08:43 -0800, Richard Gauthier wrote:
> 
> Hi André,
> Thank you for your very helpful comments and questions. The reason that in 2002 I switched from a two-particle superluminal quantum model of a photon to a one-particle superluminal quantum model was that I thought that the lack of experimental evidence for two particles in a single photon's makeup would decisively defeat this model. Now with a second look it seems that my own rejection at that time of essentially the same model was premature. But I did learn more about electron and photon modeling between then and now.
>  
> Referring to point 6 on the question of wave-particle duality, as you know, the photon acts like a point particle when it is detected individually by a charge-coupled-device (CCD) or other methods. But the statistical distribution of photons when many photons are detected over an area follows a predictable wave-like pattern predicted from the wavelength of the photon (which can actually be measured consistently from such experiments). The question is, what gives the photon its individual particle-like nature and also its statistical wave-like nature. Since the answer is that "nobody knows", I proposed in my electron model article "Electrons are spin-1/2 charged photons generating the de Broglie wavelength" at https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers <https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers> (article #16) that the helically-moving charged photon (now I would call it a half-photon) composing an electron produces a quantum wave, and showed mathematically that this quantum wave predicts the electron's de Broglie wavelength along the longitudinal direction the electron (composed of the helically-moving charged photon) is moving. That gave me confidence that a photon model (composed of 2 spin-1/2 charged photons) would emit similar quantum waves that would have the photon model's helical wavelength and frequency of rotation, but would also have a wave form and frequency and would act like a quantum wave function to provide the necessary statistical predictions about detecting photons.
>  
> You explain wave-particle duality differently in your photon model, as due to transverse electromagnetic oscillations within your photon model. Perhaps these two approaches are not so different. Do you have an electron model based on your tri-space photon model, and if so does your electron model generate the de Broglie wavelength?
>  
> Also, you said you associate the quantum wave of a photon with a resonance volume associated with the photon rather than a "wave-being-emitted" from the photon. Again, our approaches may not be so different. A photon can be "bound" in a wave cavity in many possible "resonant states" depending on its wavelength just like an electron can be "bound" in an atom in many possible orbitals or "resonant states" depending on the electron's energy in the atom. I see the superluminal energy quantum composing an electron as something that seeks out through its quantum waves the possible resonant states in an atom (or positive ion) it meets, based on the electron's energy and wavelength, and then establishes itself in an energy state (with its corresponding wave function) in the atom which is consistent with the electron's energy (and its de Broglie wavelength). Maybe the electron gives off one or more photons while adjusting to a relatively stable resonant energy state in the atom. Something similar could happen when a photon enters a cavity where it can settle into a resonance state if it has the necessary wavelength. This I think is a new way of looking at quantum mechanics and is quite tentative. My work connecting the "spin-1/2 charged photon" electron model with the Schroedinger equation is at "The Charged-Photon Model of the Electron Fits the Schrödinger Equation" (article 21).
>  
> Richard
>> On Nov 3, 2017, at 7:37 AM, André Michaud <srp2 at srpinc.org <mailto: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.gsjournal.net/>
> http://www.srpinc.org/ <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/20171107/f41b379d/attachment.html>