[General] Fwd: Superluminal double-helix photon model and its inertial mass

[richgauthier at gmail.com]

Hello Oreste,
   This is the first reply from my post to the “Nature of Light and Particles” discussion list that I have been a member of for about 3 years. Chandra is the moderator who is a physics professor and an expert on light, and quite open-minded are most of the members. If you like, you can directly reply to him and the group by addressing a reply to   nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org> and I will receive your reply also.
    best wishes,
           Richard


> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: "Roychoudhuri, Chandra" <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>
> Subject: Re: [General] Superluminal double-helix photon model and its inertial mass
> Date: February 21, 2018 at 1:39:56 PM PST
> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> Reply-To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> 
> Richard: 
> We all register, perceive and model the world differently. This is very much like the proverbial bunch of blind men modeling the Cosmic Elephant. My view is as follows, which I have written many many times before on this forum. I have not seen anything yet that would help me to change my mind. However, I am open to change simply because we still do not know the ultimate nature of the EM waves.
>      
>      As a lifelong experimentalist, I view EM waves as diffractively spreading EM waves, not as “indivisible light quanta”. The entire field of optical science and engineering could not be continuing to flourish for several hundred years, without any paradigm shift, without the guidance of the Huygens-Fresnel diffraction integral. QM has not provided us with any rational mathematical equation that can replace this HF integral. Some people have attempted to co-opt this HF integral into the quantum domain by replacing (2”pi”/”Lambda”) by “k-vector” and calling it momentum vector and then assigned quantum properties. The problem with “photon” as indivisible energy quanta is that EM waves can share its energy with various interactants in multiple steps while sharing any amount of energy. Further, the quadratic energy transfer from the EM waves always precedes amplitude-amplitude stimulation. However, quantized atoms and molecules, of course, can absorb and emit “h‘nu’” quantity of energy at any one transition. The emitted packet evolves diffractively. During absorption, the atomic “quantum cup” is filled up out of classical EM waves.
>      In this regard, I am a follower of Planck, the father of “light quanta”.
>  
> Chandra.
>  
> From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org <mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>] On Behalf Of richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 1:36 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 and its inertial mass
>  
> Hi Chandra, John, Martin and all,
>  
>    I just wanted to share (attached below as a PDF file) my latest article on the superluminal double-helix model of the photon and the derivation of its inertial mass:  “Entangled double-helix superluminal photon model defined by fine structure constant has inertial mass M=E/c^2”. It’s also at https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research <https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research> (at the bottom of the page). I originally proposed the superluminal double-helix photon model in 2002 (see Appendix in my article). Comments are of course welcome. It’s interesting that the identical superluminal double-helix photon model was discovered independently by Oreste Caroppo in Italy in 2005. He suggests that the concept of the double-helix photon was overlooked by Maxwell, though consistent with Maxwell’s equations. Electromagnetic waves may carry circulating dipoles of opposite charge, even in a vacuum, that generate these electromagnetic waves. The discovery of the photon would not have been such a surprise if Maxwell had not overlooked this possibility. See Caroppo's “Maxwell’s error, the great original sin of modern physics” at 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> .  Many physics theories of the past 150 years would have to be revisited and perhaps revised in the light of the double-helix photon approach, writes Caroppo.
>    
>  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>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180221/5857f72c/attachment.html>