[General] superluminal double-helix photon model

richgauthier at gmail.com richgauthier at gmail.com
Thu Apr 5 20:52:10 PDT 2018


Hi Chip, John, Martin, Chandra and all,

    Thanks Chip for your reply and comments on your own photon modeling approach. I am appending here a letter from Oreste Caroppo about his superluminal double-helix photon model (which is essentially the same as mine, but discovered independently) including some of its possible implications, that Oreste contributed at the academia.edu discussion session at https://www.academia.edu/s/0b8807556f/entangled-double-helix-superluminal-photon-model-defined-by-fine-structure-constant-has-inertial-mass-mec-2?source=link . Oreste has explored some of the possible implications of the superluminal double-helix photon model much more deeply than I have, and I recommend anyone with a deep interest in understanding the nature of the photon to go through, first, the two English summaries of his work appended below, and afterwards, some of his original writings in Italian, which are made accessible to non-Italian readers through, for example,  https://translate.google.com/#it/en/.
          Richard

NOW GOING BACK IS IMPOSSIBLE! 

When someone really discovers or understands the Helicoidal double model of the photon (MODEC) along with the correlate Maxwell's error, "the great original sin of Modern Physics", everything changes for him, and he sees the cosmos with a new and above all much fuller logic, no toads to swallow whole, no more dogmas to be accepted uncritically, and from that moment back to the past is impossible, you do not want it right, you do not even remotely think of getting back into the nebulous misunderstanding, or semi-understanding of reality, you understand that it would be foolish to retreat at that point, humanly impossible!

Like those who have been traveling through a dark forest for a long time, when they have lost their way or do not know if there is an end, instead they reach the fullness of light at its edge on a hill, but at the edge of a precipice; at that point behind it has the shadows from which it came out, in front of visible open spaces but with still a cliff to overcome; but now you can see, you breathe deeply, you know that there is that cliff, you understand where you can get there!

The new physics is open, the new world discovered, the cliff certainly has a comfortable road to descend, but must be sought by all, ensembles, with the taste of sharing the new satisfying revealing discovery!

Like Christopher Columbus, who discovered that the Americas existed when no living European knew it, but then many Europeans helped to discover all their many peculiar aspects, and not only the same Colombus first discoverer.

The real question, rhetorical question for those who first see the "light", becomes, “but how could an independent photon be possible without its structure described by the Double helicoidal electron dipole model?”!

See to deepen these two links from my website http://fiatlux.altervista.org/ <http://fiatlux.altervista.org/> :

-)  Letters about Maxwell’s Error and the Double Helicoidal Model of the Photon
http://fiatlux.altervista.org/letters-about-maxwell-s-error-and-the-double-helicoidal-model-of-the-photon.html <http://fiatlux.altervista.org/letters-about-maxwell-s-error-and-the-double-helicoidal-model-of-the-photon.html> 

-) ABSTRACT: MAXWELL’S ERROR, THE GREAT ORIGINAL SIN OF MODERN PHYSICS. With a new Unification the model that explains PHOTON!
http://fiatlux.altervista.org/abstract-maxwell-s-error-the-great-original-sin-of-modern-physics-with-a-new-unification-the-model-explains-photon-.html <http://fiatlux.altervista.org/abstract-maxwell-s-error-the-great-original-sin-of-modern-physics-with-a-new-unification-the-model-explains-photon-.html>



> On Apr 3, 2018, at 10:06 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Richard
>  
> My photon model has some similarities, and some differences.
>  
> When we see the annihilation of and electron and positron which generates two photons, it provides some clues.
> If we assume the underlying properties which create the electron and positron are the same properties which create the photon then we have to consider what that means in the architecture of each of these particles.
>  
> First, we do not measure the electron, positron, or photon, to be two particles, but just one particle for each.
> Next, if the Coulomb force binds two particles which make up a photon, then we are absent a solution to the force which binds the electron, because the force would be repulsive if the electron were made of two particles of like charge, like suggested for the photon model.
>  
> So I do not think the photon is made of two particles, but rather of two circulating oppositely charged fields which emanate from the particle core (a very small region at the center of the photon or electron).  And that the momentum created by these fields is created at the point on the fields which is moving through space at sqrt(2)c.  The fields (and momentum) are bound to the particle core by a pulling force which is hbar*c/r2, but the force of the Coulomb field is α*hbar*c/r2.  In my model the Coulomb force (field) is the mean value of the strong force, and the field regions themselves are “wedges” which are 0.092762137717132 the size of the spin circumference at any distance from the particle.  This provides for the strong force binding the particle and the Coulomb force as the mean value of this binding force. The force in the field of one particle (electron) is sqrt(α*hbar*c/r2) but the force between two particles is α*hbar*c/r2, α*hbar*c/r2 = e2/(4pi()ε0 r2)
>  
> <image007.jpg>
>  
>  
> <image009.png>
>  
> Viewed from a point in the (z) direction of travel of the helix.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> <image010.jpg>
>  
>  
> <image012.png>
>  
>  
> Note: simplified graphic.  The electron has two components of spin (only one component of spin shown in this illustration).
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Note: In every case the “particle core” is α times the momentum radius.
>  
> So my photon model is a superluminal helix built of spinning and forward propagating fields.
> This approach allows the same properties to create photons and electrons, shows the cause for the value of the Coulomb field. Demonstrates the binding force for particles (the strong force), explains the quantization of electric charge… and the list goes on.
>  
> Do you see a problem with such an approach?
>  
> Chip
>  
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of richgauthier at gmail.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 11:05 AM
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> Cc: Oreste Caroppo <orestecaroppo at yahoo.it>; martin Mark van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>
> Subject: Re: [General] superluminal double-helix photon model
>  
> Hi Chip,
>  
>     Does your photon model have any quantitative differences from my photon model (I know you suggest some underlying causes)? If so, could you summarize what they are?
>  
>     Oreste did a simple calculation like what you are asking about the strength of the photon dipole’s electric field. He calculated the electric field value just between the two dipole charges in the double-helix photon model and says he found it to be close to what would be expected for a photon. He can give you the reference to his website page for this.
>  
>      The Coulomb force can be as strong as the strong nuclear force. It is the balance between Coulomb repulsive forces between protons in an atomic nucleus and the attractive strong nuclear forces among the protons and neutrons in the nucleus that keeps an atomic nucleus at its particular size. So the double-helix photon charged dipole generates both electric and magnetic fields as the dipole rotates and moves forward. 
>  
>          Richard
>       
> 
> 
>> On Apr 3, 2018, at 5:57 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>  
>> Hi Richard
>>  
>> Thank you.  I see my mistake.  I get 16.55512 now.
>>  
>> However I find it very unlikely that these charges actually possess this force as a coulomb force.
>> It seems the electric fields of the photon would be much greater than we actually measure if this were a Coulomb force.
>>  
>> Have you calculated the field intensity to compare it with what we observe for the photon in nature?
>> I suspect there is enough information to do that calculation.
>>  
>> Chip
>>  
>>  
>> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 12:01 AM
>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>> Cc: oreste Caroppo <orestecaroppo at yahoo.it <mailto:orestecaroppo at yahoo.it>>; martin Mark van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>
>> Subject: Re: [General] superluminal double-helix photon model
>>  
>> Hi Chip,
>>    I see your mistake. The force on EACH of the 2 circulating charges (each with momentum components  1/2 p= 1/2 E/c both longitudinally and transversely) is 1/2  pc/r as you said. But you shouldn’t add these two forces together to get a total force pc/r , which is not a meaningful force here, since it is the centripetal force 1/2 pc/r on EACH CHARGE that is important and this force is produced by the Coulomb attraction of the other charge. This centripetal force on each charge due to its circular rotation is 1/2  pc/r  as you said. And this force Fcent= 1/2 pc/r is equal to the attractive Coulomb force Fcoul = k Q^2/d^2 between the two charges Q and -Q, across the distance d=2r where r=lambda/2pi  and lambda = h/p .     When this centripetal force on each charge Fcent = 1/2 pc/r  is set equal to Fcoul = k Q^2/d^2 = kQ^2 (2r)^2 and you solve this equation Fcent = Fcoul for Q (and using the relation alpha = k e^2/hbar c ) you get Q = e sqrt(2/alpha) = 16.6 e as I found . That’s what I am doing in my equation 14 in my article.
>>          Richard
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Apr 2, 2018, at 7:54 PM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>  
>>> Hi Richard
>>>  
>>> I saw your math, but thought there might be a problem.
>>>  
>>> Here is my reasoning…
>>>  
>>> As I understand it, the two charged entities circulate at the radius and each have the ½ momentum of the photon. The velocity of circulation is c, and the forward velocity of the photon is c.  The forward momentum of the photon is E/c, so the circulating momentum is also E/c.  In order to confine these entities with this momentum to the radius specified, the force required is pc/r (1/2 pc/r for each).  
>>>  
>>> It seems the value of charge which accomplishes this is 11.706 e
>>>  
>>> Let’s use the example of a photon with the energy of the electron.
>>> E = 8.18710478684506E-14  
>>> P = 2.730924200516430E-22
>>> F=Pc/r = 2.120136589240270E-01
>>>  
>>> The charge Q required to exert this force at this distance is…
>>> Q = 2 r sqrt(pi ε0 F) = 1.875546022656450E-18
>>> Q/e = 11.706
>>>  
>>> Maybe some error in my math, but I have run these calculations many times in the last several years, in many different ways.  Always come up with the same answer.
>>> Do you see some error in my math?
>>>  
>>> Chip
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 3:02 PM
>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>>> Cc: oreste Caroppo <orestecaroppo at yahoo.it <mailto:orestecaroppo at yahoo.it>>; martin Mark van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>
>>> Subject: Re: [General] superluminal double-helix photon model
>>>  
>>> Hi Chip,
>>>    Thanks for your comment.
>>>    The value of the superluminal double-helix photon model’s electric charge magnitude of Q = e sqrt(2/alpha) = 16.6 e is derived clearly in equation set 14 in my article “ Entangled Double-Helix Superluminal Photon Model Defined by Fine Structure Constant Has Inertial Mass M=E/c^2 <http://www.academia.edu/attachments/55785886/download_file?s=portfolio>", which is also available at https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#conferencepresentations <https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#conferencepresentations> (next to last article from bottom). I have checked this calculation many times, and Oreste arrived at the same value independently. Why do you think it should be Q = e sqrt(1/alpha) = 11.706 e? Perhaps your photon model gives a different value that my photon model?
>>>       all the best,
>>>            Richard
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 2, 2018, at 11:34 AM, Chip Akins <chipakins at gmail.com <mailto:chipakins at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>  
>>>> Hi Richard
>>>>  
>>>> The opposite electric charges are calculated to be Q= + and - e sqrt(2/alpha) = 16.6 e and -16.6 e , where alpha is the Fine Structure Constant of quantum electrodynamics (QED).
>>>>  
>>>> Is actually…
>>>>  
>>>> The opposite electric charges are calculated to be Q= + and - e sqrt(1/alpha) = 11.706 e and -11.706 e , where alpha is the Fine Structure Constant of quantum electrodynamics (QED).  
>>>>  
>>>> Please double check.
>>>>  
>>>> Chip
>>>>  
>>>> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>>> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2018 12:23 PM
>>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>>
>>>> Cc: oreste Caroppo <orestecaroppo at yahoo.it <mailto:orestecaroppo at yahoo.it>>; martin Mark van der <martin.van.der.mark at philips.com <mailto:martin.van.der.mark at philips.com>>
>>>> Subject: [General] superluminal double-helix photon model
>>>>  
>>>> Hi John, Martin, Chandra, Chip, Andrew, Andre’, Oreste and all, 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> In preparing for a physics poster session on the superluminal double-helix photon model, I made a summary of its main properties, which are listed below. Your comments and questions are welcome, and you can also see the full article and/or join the discussion session at https://www.academia.edu/s/0b8807556f/entangled-double-helix-superluminal-photon-model-defined-by-fine-structure-constant-has-inertial-mass-mec-2?source=link <https://www.academia.edu/s/0b8807556f/entangled-double-helix-superluminal-photon-model-defined-by-fine-structure-constant-has-inertial-mass-mec-2?source=link>. • The photon model is composed of two oppositely-charged superluminal quantum particles moving in a double-helical trajectory with a forward angle of 45 degrees and helical rotational        
>>>>                 frequency v given by E=hv. • The opposite electric charges are calculated to be Q= + and - e sqrt(2/alpha) = 16.6 e and -16.6 e , where alpha is the Fine Structure Constant of quantum electrodynamics (QED). • The speed of each superluminal quantum particle is c sqrt(2) = 1.414 c . • The two helical trajectories have helical radius R= Lambda/2pi where Lambda is the photon’s wavelength. • The momentum of the composite photon model is p=h/Lambda . • The longitudinal speed of the composite photon model is c. • The spin of the composite photon model is 1 hbar or -1 hbar. • The inertial mass M of the composite photon model is calculated to be M=E/c^2 = hv/c^2 . • The invariant mass m (given by E^2 = p^2 c^2 +m^2 c^4) of the composite photon model is zero. • The superluminal particles of the composite photon model are bound together by a negative electrical potential energy U= -E = -hv due to their Coulomb attractive force. • The two superluminal particles composing the photon model are quantum-mechanically entangled. • The composite photon model seems to be consistent with Maxwell’s equations as supplemented by quantum mechanics.
>>>> • The model suggests a simple explanation for electron-positron pair creation from a single photon near an atomic nucleus.
>>>> • Quantum waves continuously generated by the rotating charged dipole could pass through a double-slit apparatus as waves before the photon model is detected as a particle at a screen on
>>>> the other side.
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The model was independently discovered by Oreste Caroppo in Italy.
>>>> It would be interesting to compare and contrast this photon model with John’s, Chip’s, Andre's and any others’ photon models here.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> all the best,
>>>> Richard 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier 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>
>>> 
>>>  
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier 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>
>> 
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier 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>
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier 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/20180405/c0c272bb/attachment.html>


More information about the General mailing list