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

Roychoudhuri, Chandra chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu
Thu Feb 22 09:34:26 PST 2018


Good feedback, Richard G.
Chandra.

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of richgauthier at gmail.com
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 12:05 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
Cc: Oreste Caroppo <orestecaroppo at yahoo.it>
Subject: Re: [General] Superluminal double-helix photon model and its inertial mass

Hello Chandra and all,

   Thank you for your comments. Just to remind others: "The Huygens–Fresnel principle (named after Dutch<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands> physicist<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicist> Christiaan Huygens<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiaan_Huygens> and French<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France> physicist Augustin-Jean Fresnel<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustin-Jean_Fresnel>) is a method of analysis applied to problems of wave propagation<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_propagation> both in the far-field limit<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-field_diffraction_pattern> and in near-field diffraction<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction>. It states that every point on a wavefront<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefront> is itself the source of spherical wavelets<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelet>.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens–Fresnel_principle .

    This principle has been very reliable for predicting diffraction and scattering patterns both for light and for particles like electrons. As I recall, Max Born (who proposed the probability interpretation of the quantum wave function) showed that the probability of scattering of electrons from an atom could be modeled by combining an incoming plane wave (corresponding to a beam of incoming electrons) with a spherical wave coming from the scattering object. So the Huygens-Fresnel principle applies to electron scattering as well as to light diffraction. All this despite the particle-like properties of both photons and electrons, and despite the fact that the double-slit interference/probability pattern is found even when electrons or photons can pass through the double-slit apparatus  only one at a time, where there is no possibility of interaction/interference between two particles in the apparatus at the same time.

    The superluminal double-helix photon model doesn’t replace electromagnetic waves and their diffraction properties with pure particles. Rotating oppositely-charged dipoles composed of superluminal energy quanta would generate electromagnetic waves which could predict statistically where the dipole photon would be found in the future. And since the generated electromagnetic waves from the dipole photon model would be at the same angular frequency omega as that of the photon model itself, only one photon model (with energy E=hbar omega) could be produced as a result of the electromagnetic probability waves radiated from a particular photon model.

    So I am confident that the Huygens-Fresnel principle, which has strong experimental support, will not be in contradiction with a workable photon model. I am hopeful that the superluminal charged-dipole double helix photon model will be such a model. Time will tell.

         Richard


On Feb 21, 2018, at 1:39 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu<mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>> wrote:

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] 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 (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 .  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">
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20180222/76dfcac7/attachment.html>


More information about the General mailing list