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

[richgauthier at gmail.com]

Hello all,
The below reply by Oreste is forwarded from the academia.edu discussion on the double-helix photon model in reply to my question about the double-helix model predicting diffraction equations. (Oreste is a co-discoverer of the superluminal double-helix photon model). You can use https://translate.google.com/#it/en/  to translate the below web page he references into English. I strongly recommend it. Enter the link on the left side. Then click the “Translate" button on the right side. “Modec” is Oreste’s acronym for the superluminal double-helix photon model. Oreste’s reply below is also google-translated from Italian to English.

Here I have also collected many other reflections regarding the phenomena of diffraction of the light, read taking into account the Modec:
-) link:  http://fiatlux.altervista.org/il-modec-e-l-esperimento-di-young.html <http://fiatlux.altervista.org/il-modec-e-l-esperimento-di-young.html>

Modec, compared to the punctiform and intrinsically neutral model of the photon that characterizes the Modern Physics, adds the possibility of a modeling of the edge effects, which are fundamental in the diffraction phenomena and which concern the interaction between electromagnetic wave and the edges of the objects of screen or their slits and holes, taking into account now, thanks to Modec, the electronic nature of the structure of photons and therefore more affected by the electrical charges of the atomic components of the objects, that do by screen, and that are in their edges, with consequent inflections of the the direction of the photons when they pass in their proximity taking into account that the electric forces between electric charges grow in intensity as the distance decreases.

Modec and the related discovery of Maxwell's error imply a revolution in Physics, which implies the abandonment of many paradigms and dogmas of Modern Physics; but in reality, while what has been the revolution of Modern Physics has taken a pose of rupture with the past, a bit like certain avant-gardes in contemporary art in the early twentieth century, today we know that strong break, that was deemed necessary, was not and was detrimental to the understanding of Nature, as evident in the disasters of Modern Physics in the stagnation of the mainstream of our days, for which, "de facto", the revolution that the discovery of the Error of Maxwell has, epistemologically, the value of a counter-revolution, of a great restoration we can say! A reconciling restoration and in the direction of reunification that allows the discovery of that fundamental error, the great original sin of Modern Physics: the Error of Maxwell as baptized, without thereby diminishing the greatness of the great physicist, but to well frame the question without ambiguity.

Whoever grasps the power of the double helicoidal model of the photon, and immediately the semantic depth of Maxwell's error, is the one who seeks concreteness in physics, the concreteness of nature, concreteness totally lost in Modern Physics in the direction of a kind of deleterious spiritualism done spread in it, but also this consequence of that background error not seen for about 150 years!

A spiritistic attitude can perhaps also be a guide, as a beautiful suggestion, in the heuristic path of initial research, of evaluating all the various possibilities as in the Galilean scientific method it is suggested to do; suggestions as in alchemical research; but the naturalist physicist must then arrive, as a result of his journey, to the concreteness of Nature, not to limit himself even to the equations alone that seem to describe something well!

Like the greater concreteness that gives the discovery of the Double Helicoidal Model of the photon, against dogmas such as the Copenhagen interpretation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which goes so far as to say indeterminate nature itself, and not just the empirical observation affected by error!

Only those who are driven by the search for this concreteness can really contribute to the growth of physics and to the application of what is here exposed after the discovery. As after the Copernican discovery or rediscovery of heliocentrism, great names, such as Galileo and Newton, were added, drawing the immense physical and mathematical consequences of a very simple discovery simplifying the description of celestial mechanics as the heliocentric principle, in place of the geocentric one, and there the further expansion of the human vision that saw Giordano Bruno well understand the existence of many other worlds, and of many other similar solar systems besides ours in the Universe! The power of simplicity, and rightly, I think, of this simplicity of Nature was a strong supporter Isaac Newton!


> On Mar 4, 2018, at 7:12 PM, richgauthier at gmail.com wrote:
> 
> Hello Oreste (and all),
> 
>     I agree with what you recently wrote at https://www.academia.edu/s/16109ceabf/entangled-double-helix-superluminal-composite-photon-model-defined-by-fine-structure-constant?source=link <https://www.academia.edu/s/16109ceabf/entangled-double-helix-superluminal-composite-photon-model-defined-by-fine-structure-constant?source=link> , and I am a big fan of the double-helix photon model. But what you wrote is not analytical proof that the superluminal double-helix oppositely-charged rotating dipole model of the photon generates the experimentally validated Huygens-Fresnel diffraction equation, which is itself an approximation of more precise wave diffraction equations such as Kirchhoff's diffraction formula and Kirchhoff's integral theorem. See a discussion of these various formulas at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_diffraction_formula <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_diffraction_formula> . I think that derivations of these diffraction laws, which are extensively experimentally confirmed, need to be attempted for the double-helix photon model and be successful if we are to gain greater acceptance of the model. 
> 
>    The results of such attempts will either help to confirm the photon model or  show that the model in its present form is inadequate for predicting known experimental diffraction phenomena. Furthermore, any successful spatio-temporal model of the photon should also make new experimental predictions that go beyond already known and established diffraction formulas, and these new predictions should also be confirmed. For different mathematical models for predicting a physical phenomenon, given enough adjustable parameters and constants in the models, can predict with the same experimental accuracy the same known experimental or observational results. So I think that there's still a little work to do to establish the double-helix photon model.  But I think that an interested theoretical quantum physicist who is an expert in diffraction theory would be able to attempt to derive these diffraction formulas from the double-helix photon model. These mathematical analyses, if confirmed by others, could either help confirm or reject the double-helix photon model as it stands today. Any volunteers?
> 
>      Richard
>> On Feb 22, 2018, at 9:34 AM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra <chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu <mailto:chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu>> wrote:
>> 
>> Good feedback, Richard G.
>> 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: 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 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huygens%E2%80%93Fresnel_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 <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>
>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20180306/706905f2/attachment.html>