[General] American Physical Society presentation on superluminal photon/electron models

Wed Apr 17 16:27:40 PDT 2019

Hi Andrew, John W and all,

    The uploaded powerpoint for my APS talk can be seen at https://absuploads.aps.org/presentation.cfm?pid=14755 . I’m hoping to get more questions or comments from this group on my relativistic quantum vortex zitterbewegung electron model described in the powerpoint, starting with slide #10 where the model's parametric equations are shown, for the positron and electron. The electron and positron models’ superluminal energy quantum's speed range changes with relativistic electron speed V (measured by gamma) and are different for the spin-up electron and spin-up positron, allowing a possible experimental test of the electron-positron models. 

   Interestingly, for one of the particles (called the electron in the powerpoint), when gamma = sqrt(2)=1.414 (and Velectron= 0.707c), the range of internal speeds goes from c(sqrt(2)-1) = 0.414c (subluminal) to c(sqrt(2)+1)=2.414 c (superluminal) while for its antiparticle the internal speed range goes from c sqrt(2) = 1.414c to c sqrt (3) = 1.732c (both superluminal). See slide #16. (For the spin-down particle and antiparticle these two speed ranges are reversed.) Also when gamma=sqrt(2), the variation in internal speed (of the superluminal energy quantum) over an internal 360-degrees speed cycle of the particles appears to be a perfect cosine function (this needs to be checked mathematically) for both particles, but not for other values of gamma (as in the resting electron model or the very highly relativistic electron model (gamma -> infinity), where in both of these cases the minimum speed of the superluminal energy quantum is c and the maximum speed is c sqrt(5) = 2.236c (see slide #15).

    all the best,
         Richard

> On Apr 16, 2019, at 8:13 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> 
>     My talk went well. I said most of what I wanted to, but did, as you suggested, have too many slides for the 10 minutes allotted time (plus 2 minutes for questions) and so managed a quick summary. There were 16 persons in attendance including myself and 4 other speakers and the moderator (better than average from my experience of presenting at past APS national meetings in sections devoted to fringe physics topics).
> 
>     The spin +1 hbar and spin -1 hbar internally superluminal photon models may represent a photon when detected. Linearly polarized light is composed (quantum mechanically) of a quantum mix of both spin + 1 hbar and spin -1 hbar photons. But when any photon of linearly polarized light is detected, it is either a spin +1hbar or a spin -1hbar photon with a 50-50 probability of being one or the other.
> 
>     The charge dipoles of two separate double-helix photons probably do interact when close. The charges never overlap because all the charges are point charges. And each double-helix photon is proposed to be quantum-mechanically self-entangled and so would act like a single quantum object. So perhaps the effect of two nearby double-helix photons on each other would be minimal.
> 
>     Again, when a single photon is detected, it has a single energy, not a spread-out range of energies previously described by a possibly continuous range of quantum-mechanical waves function frequencies. The collapse of the quantum wave function for a photon selects a single energy photon from a range of possible energies in the quantum-mechanical description of the not-yet detected photon. At least that’s how I understand quantum experimental measurement.
> 
>    The superluminal speed of the two superluminal energy quanta composing a double-helix photon is not the result of a superluminal phase velocity. You have to have a group velocity of different waves before you can have a phase velocity, don’t you? This is when Vgroup x Vphase = c^2 . 
> 
>        all the best,
>            Richard
> 
>> On Apr 16, 2019, at 9:20 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Richard,
>> 
>> Several comments.
>> 
>> Specifics:
>>  you might want to give a reason for Q values rather than just stating them on slide 7.
>> 
>> <image.png>
>> 
>> in last line of slide 13: "...components remain proportion to c for any value of gamma." should be "... proportional to c ..."
>> You may have too many slides for the time allowed. Slides 15 - 19 could be dropped (maybe an added summary at end of talk is more important).
>> General comments:
>> Experimental evidence discounts possibility of a photon being even a single cycle phenomenon, much less a particulate one, in nature.
>> physical evidence of higher-frequency components of a beam of monochromatic light
>> the major effort required to successfully "shrink" a photon to a single cycle
>> your picture could represent phase points on the helix. Then, exceeding the speed of light is normal for phase velocity.
>> A fixed field configuration can be caused by many charge distributions; but, a fixed charge distribution can produce only a unique field.
>> How does your helical-photon model describe linearly-polarized photons?
>> Why don't the charges of separate photons interact when photons overlap?
>> etc.
>> Andrew
>> 
>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 6:26 PM Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>  I will be presenting my superluminal double-helix photon and superluminal quantum-vortex electron models on Tuesday at the APS April meeting in Denver. Attached is a PDF of the powerpoint, which contains some new and surprising information about the internal superluminal (and sometimes subluminal) speeds of the circulating energy quantum forming the electron and positron spin-up (and spin-down) models. Questions and comments are welcome. 
>>     Richard
>> _______________________________________________
>> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>
>> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1 <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%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/20190417/be06819d/attachment.html>