<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:TimesNewRomanPSMT;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Richard: <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> 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.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"> In this regard, I am a follower of Planck, the father of “light quanta”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.0pt">Chandra.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> General [mailto:general-bounces+chandra.roychoudhuri=uconn.edu@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>richgauthier@gmail.com<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, February 21, 2018 1:36 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion <general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org><br>
<b>Cc:</b> Oreste Caroppo <orestecaroppo@yahoo.it>; martin Mark van der <martin.van.der.mark@philips.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [General] Superluminal double-helix photon model and its inertial mass<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt">Hi Chandra, John, Martin and all,</span>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> 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
<a href="https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research">https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research</a> (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 </span><span style="font-size:14.5pt;font-family:"TimesNewRomanPSMT",serif">“Maxwell’s error, the great original sin of modern physics” at</span><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> <a href="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</a>
. 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:14.5pt;font-family:"TimesNewRomanPSMT",serif"> </span><span style="font-size:11.5pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> all the best,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.5pt"> Richard<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>