1

What do we really know about the photon?

Nicolino De Pasquale

Prof. Nicolino De Pasquale

Aeronautical engineer and researcher in physical-mathematical topics, he has dedicated himself in

particular to the study of the Inca and Egyptian "abacus" and of mathematical applications in the

civilization of ancient Egypt. His research has revealed the presence of mathematical and physical concepts

in the structure of some ancient Italian portals. He has published the results of his study and research

activities.

2

Photon unknown? According to an ancient tradition “the smallest and finest couple in the

Universe”

In 1905, postulating light speed constancy and insuperability, a brilliant theory was advanced

(improved in 1916) which properly considered all the Michelson-Morley data, available by then and

based on the objective wave nature of the photon; the Lorentz-Fitzgerald transforms for space, time

and mass were used, being the mass:

𝑚 = 𝑚0

1 −𝑣2

𝑐2

with 𝑚0 rest mass, 𝑣 speed, 𝑐 light speed and 𝑚 relativistic mass. The doubts that remain even in a

willing acceptance (wrongly attributable to the evidence) can be summarized in the following way:

when speed equals that of light (the case of the photon) we need to conceive a null rest mass

𝑚0, so as to obtain a finite relativistic mass 𝑚 (in more realistic words, if the photon stops it

loses its massive consistency: it disappears!);

pushing any particle, with non-null rest mass 𝑚0, up to the light speed, the relativistic mass

𝑚 assumes an infinite value negating, in fact, to particles other than photons to equal or,

worse, to exceed light speed;

space and time, by similar formulas, are removed from Aristotelian-Augustinian logic to

contract or to dilate and afterwards to merge in one and only concept of curved space-time

(it is still difficult to verify both the space contraction and the twin paradox that remain what

they really are: non-Galilean thought-experiments!).

In a previous article we indicated that both zero and infinite are simple mathematical ideas, having

no counterpart in creation, what’s more derived from an unambiguous atheistic foundation.

Obtaining from such a postulate non-trifling results, corrupted by these poisonous fanciful fruits,

means to make it subjective, to expose it to serious risks of vulnerability: it would be in fact enough

a little speed difference in two photons (escaping detection even by the most sophisticated

equipment) for throwing it into an irreversible crisis.

The acceptance of this postulate at dawn of 20th

century, even amid some encouraging contrasts,

make us verify a complete renouncing of logic in Philosophy, already pointed towards atheism; this

renouncing was fostering both concerns with favouring some social strata and persuasions to give

man überhuman destinies. Defending such a postulate with enthusiasm, today, makes us risk

explaining, conditionally “in favour of it”, many experimental data with the unavoidable resignation

not to be able to find the explanation for some phenomena (which would remain indomitable to the

whole relativistic theory).

Being this postulate subjective, like the Euclidean 5th

, we seriously risk admiring a flourishing of

relativities (like the various non-Euclidean geometries), a slavish imitation of Riemann-

Lobachevsky methods, with a dangerous gamble on the maximum speed in the universe.

3

How going along then?

Carefully removing weak supports, starting from a passive acceptance of the wave particle duality

of light and all the other particles. Photon is thought to be its antiparticle simply because in a

collision between two photons we obtain the same two photons (like in a simple reflection!). But

photon stands out from all the other elementary (spin ½) particles by its unit spin!

Why not resorting to a new approach giving photon a structure which can explain its wave particle

duality? And, while considering that photon doesn’t break easily (and that we will not shortly have

lab black holes at our disposal), why not renouncing its breaking, surely a Galilean method but

really unworkable in this case? At last being light in all traditions a primary symbol of Divinity,

why not revaluating the photonic model that ancient civilizations precisely defined?

Since remote times photon has been linked together the fourth state of matter, that is important gods

like Hephaestus or Agni; afterwards, with the need to point out both the acting as a star-planet link

and a structure with two firmly joined particles, photon inspired the divine-human couple like

Tethys-Peleus or Urvashi-Pururavas and, only later, Eros-Psyche (absent in Homeric Olympus!); in

relatively more recent times these myths have changed into legends: the stable union between the

constitutive particles of photon, which are the smallest and finest in the universe, is described by a

human-regal couple. It is well worth highlighting that such a couple is present in all traditions: Nala

and Damayanti in India, the protagonists of the Song of Songs in the Jewish sphere, Laila and

Majnun in the whole Arab world and, more, the couple in the love songs in Egypt starting from the

New Kingdom (with Mehi having the role of Eros), the legend of flutes for American Indians, the

first couple from Titicaca for Andean civilizations, …

Let us go along in chronological order! Among the various traits which associate Hephaestus with

Agni, making them clearly identify with the photon, we prefer to dwell upon a particularly

interesting one: Hephaestus “had fallen afar” through the will of his mother (nightly sky!) in “the

hollow cave where Ocean stream flowed” (Iliad XVIII, 394-403), while Agni “slipped away and

passed through many troubles” (Rig Veda X, 52, 4) because “large was that covering and firm of

texture folded where” he entered “the waters” (RV X, 51, 1). By this didactic suggestion we are

induced to consider that some photons hardly enter the solid Hydrogen shell which surrounds the

Universe (to assure a minimum energy supply, because in creation there is no absolute zero stasis);

without any doubt it is the most unexpected solid where tracing the photon, so “no one knew,

neither god nor mortal man” (Iliad XVIII, 403-404).

According to an ancient oral tradition (certainly subsequent to the Veda) Agni is a kind of Siamese

twins with two heads on one body (fig. 1); this would make us think about two constitutive

particles, perfectly blended in photon; unfortunately in more than two hundreds hymns which the

Rig Veda dedicates to Agni (among these even the first hymn of the first cycle!) there is no explicit

reference to a double head, nor for Hephaestus (neither in Homeric texts nor in iconography);

without such a reference reconstructing the archaic photonic model becomes a mere risk.

4

Figure 1

Figure 2

For the divine-human couple, on the contrary, two photonic bounded particles are very clearly

described. In an Attic cup from V century B.C. (fig. 2) Tethys has a clear “encircling” role, because

literally surrounds Peleus with care, whom we find in an eccentric position. A large number of

pleats on dress reminds us of the wave nature, while the solar attribute is referred by a lion with

thick mane; the state of hibernation, which characterizes the biological rhythm of snakes, refers to

the regency of photon, which is able to wake up in combustions. Urvashi also takes care of

Pururavas (fig. 3), very skilful at horse race like Peleus.

A Hydrogen like model comes out with a manly-internal nuclear particle (Peleus-Pururavas),

because of its bigger mass, and an orbital one (Tethys-Urvashi) that plays an “encircling” female

role, through its divine lightness. The strong couple appeal leads us to two opposite electric charges

(positive for the nuclear one).

According to these myths the orbits of the two particles are to be visually found in the eyes of

Monte Prama statues, Sardinia, (fig. 4) or, better still, in Ezekiel who has “vision of God … in a

whirlwind … and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness about it … with four living creatures …

while a wheel was by each of them … their appearance and their work was, as it were, a wheel in

the middle of a wheel” (Ez 1-16).

These two myths have further merit of being more than clear in referring to the breaking off of the

photonic bound, which is cause of grief for the human element; particularly Pururavas explicitly

mentions “the farthest distance”, full of “rapacious wolves” (RV X, 95, 14), happy poetical

equivalent of black holes.

Figure 3

Figure 4

5

We can see a considerable qualitative leap, in Greco-Roman ambit, by substituting Tethys-Peleus

myth with Eros-Psyche one, with a consequent birth of an abounding iconography in unequivocally

giving two putti the same stature and, from a scientific point of view, giving two constitutive

particles of photon the same light mass; the electric attraction is the reciprocal enchantment, caused

by the deep psychophysical complementarity which characterizes a harmonious couple.

Figure 5

Figure 6

Some marble groups, like those of Ostia (fig. 5) or Musei Capitolini (Rome), add further non-

negligible element: the opposite twisting movements of the bust, that is the spin configuration ↓↑,

known as Pauli principle.

Among the numerous legends on the human-regal couple, presents in all traditions, the Nala-

Damayanti one (Mahabharata, III, 53, 1-79, 5) gives an exact and unmistakable description of the

photon in all details, from forming to the orbital varieties and their intersections, from the loss of

energy in the infrared shifting to the unavoidable presence in the farthest dark skies of the Universe,

from the bound breaking in a black hole to its reformation.

According to this innovative model two particles (fig. 6), with the same mass and opposite electric

charge, Damayanti (negative) and Nala (positive), united in an unbreakable couple, oscillate on

the same orbital S in a Hydrogen like system. The particle has a “virile” role because it imposes

on a revolution which is concordant with its spin and revolution. The Pauli principle states a zero

total spin (Stot = S + S = 0) while the total angular momentum is unit (Ltot = L + L=L = L).

So by attributing spin 1 to the photon we simply misunderstand its angular momentum!

Being neutral, a photon is not subjected to the Lorentz force but something can happen because of

the opposite electric charges of the two particles: while concordant angular momenta (fig. 6) do not

produce any magnetic moment (M + M = 0), two discordant spins generate concordant magnetic

moments (Mtot= M+ M= 2M= 2M) which give photon a clear paramagnetic behaviour; so in

a uniform magnetic field B a photon behaves like a gyroscope, having a typical Larmor precession

(fig. 7).

6

Figure 7

Figure 8

For neutralizing the spin magnetic moment Mtot, photons arrange themselves two by two, like in a

spectacular double cohort dance, clearly described in Song of Songs (Song 7, 1); this phenomenon

is scientifically called entanglement (fig. 8). Couldn’t these couple of couples be divided in a Stern

Gerlach like apparatus? In this way the magnetic moment Mtot, the only measurable physical

quantity which makes us trace back the spins, could be pointed up, validating the Nala-Damayanti

model by a Galilean method. By usual equipment it is inevitably impossible: the time needed for

photon to cross the gap of the electromagnet is so little (10–10

second) as not to notice the deflection

angle (10–13

radiant). Just this enormous difficulty of measuring this trifling deflection made

scientists wrongly state: “No magnetic moment exists for photons in vacuum” (a kind of “added

postulate”!). Two clever solutions could be considered: “slowing down” the light or resorting to

“convenient” magnetic gradients. The first case is that of Karpa and Weitz, maximum experts in

quantum optics.

Their fundamental work A Stern-Gerlach experiment for slow light shows us that lowered (to 300

m/s) light, passing through a Rubidium gas cell (fig. 9), under electromagnetically induced

transparency, is deflected by a magnetic gradient through a measurable angle (10–4

radiant)!

The coming out serious problem is that they inexplicably don’t give photon its tested out magnetic

moment: they prefer a fanciful quasi particle, the “dark polariton” which would be caused, strictly

observing the “added postulate”, by a mysterious light-Rubidium interaction. The second much

more ambiguous case concerns the so-called gravitational lens (fig. 10); here photons would be

undoubtedly bent by gravity (not by a convenient magnetic gradient!).

But if in Quantum Mechanics gravitational forces are never considered, because negligible when

compared with electromagnetic ones, why are they called into question exclusively for photons?

Why must it not be a magnetic lens?

Are we in the presence of an objective interpretation of experimental results?

7

Figure 9

Figure 10

It is still observable an unshakeable faith in relativity when looking for a solution, able to explain

two spectacular natural phenomena like red and blue shifting, is escaped. It is common knowledge

that luminous bodies, going away from the observer, have a red shifted emission spectrum (fig.

11a), easily verifiable phenomenon in an expanding universe; on the contrary luminous bodies,

getting near the observer (fig. 11b), blue shift, allowing us, among other things, to establish which

galaxies are threateningly nearing our Milky Way. The Nala-Damayanti model is excellently fit to

explain such phenomena, because it gives photon a rich set in energy, which derives not only from

the translation but even from the electric dipole and the rotation of its charges. By available data on

red and blue shifting it is even easy to form an idea, not all too vague, about the photonic mass.

Figure 11

Figure 12

While considering that the subtracted/added energy for moving away/close of luminous bodies

predominantly affects the rotation of the two particles by an increase/decrease in wavelength, the

resultant mass has the same order of magnitude of Plank’s constant h, that is 10-34

Kg, very small,

one thousand times smaller than the electron one, but absolutely non-null; moreover it is not

necessary distinguishing rest mass from relativistic mass: mass is always itself!

During the twentieth century we were attending a troubled repairing of the particle model: spins

were added to mass points, membranes took the place of strings. But what does the tradition

propose? Applying the Nala-Damayanti model to the visible light we can see that the orbits

intersect in a rainbow mandorla (fig. 12) which had great importance among ancient civilizations,

till the Gothic one. It is clear that the maximum probability of finding both particles is inside the

mandorla; the large radii of curvature of these orbital branches make us think about speed

slowdown (the total angular momentum is a constant of the motion). In fact when the particles are

nearing each other they have an enlargement of their diameter, as far as the interpenetration; This

8

condition minimizes the effect of the electric charges: it is the meaning of the continuous intimacy

which characterizes the protagonist couples in myths and legends on photon. The photonic particles,

definitively, have to be considered like clouds which can expand and compact again. (For more

details please use the link

https://www.ingenio-web.it/5587-light-polarizing-by-magnetic-fields).

Figure 13

Figure 14

… One seemed to be reflected by the other

rainbow by rainbow, while the third seemed fire

breathed equally from one and from the other.

Does this Dantean tercet (Paradise XXXIII, 118-120) want only to offer us a prodigious synthesis of

the Creed, with an unmistakable reference to the creating breath? …God from God (one …by the

other) …Light from Light (rainbow by rainbow) … one in being with the Father (seemed to be

reflected) … giver of life (fire) … who proceeds from the Father and the Son (equally from one and

from the other) …creating breath (breathed). The Creed solemnly develops from one God.

Why isn’t light in the visible spectrum “one” and “giver of life” only if it has a red ending? That is

why light is a primary symbol of divinity in all traditions, including the primitive ones.

By this tercet Dante shows a conscious respect for tradition, resorting to the photonic mandorla in

the supreme Trinitarian vision. The double rainbow coming to an end in fire in both sides (fig. 13),

having inside our human likeness (Paradise XXXIII, 131), is nothing but the mandorla in Christian

art, frescoed in so many apses like in Santa Trinità di Saccargia (fig. 14).

We want to ask us: “Why did we go away from tradition?” …