Wave / Particle Structure of Matter

[Aireal]

Wave / Particle Structure of Matter

My theory is in its early stages of development. My approach to this complex problem is simple. I am following the same path of discovery that lead us to where we are. So I started with a model of the electron I felt was close to the truth. Then see if I could explain its orbit, and so on. One step at a time. Some here is my humble attempt so far.

My W/P Theory of the atom.

The Electron.

Any discussion of the atom must start with the electron. I use this description of the electron by Milo Wolff. http://www.quantummatter.com/body_point.html
Milo gives a description of the electron as a Standing Wave Center formed by the intersection of two scalar waves. These are referred to as the In Wave and the Out Wave. The only addition I can make to Milo's electron happens after it's creation, Milo only dealt with how it was created.

As Milo pointed out, the Standing wave center will have a higher energy density which is the observed energy density of the electron. The out wave of the electron starts at the center and will encounter a change in energy density at the boundary of the Standing Wave Center. This will cause partial reflection of wave energy at the boundary, creating its own In Wave. This partly self sustaining action of this process accounts for the electrons more particle like behavior. If not resupplied with energy, a standing wave center will slowly degrade on its own instead of stopping as soon as the waves that made it passes. The waves permeating space insures the the electron will not run out of the energy needed to continue it's existence.

The Obit of the Electron.

Bohr defined the orbit of the electron as a result of the angular momentum of the electron. It can also be described with Mach's equation. http://www.wbabin.net/wahlin/wahlin.htm

This gives us a slightly different picture. The electron is not at rest in its orbit. The electrons orbit matches a wave node so that the energy gained and lost by In and Out Waves equal each other.

Bohr's method can be considered the electrons Out Wave to the universe, describing its current internal state.

Mach's method then is the electrons In Wave from the universe, adjusting its current internal state to match current conditions.

Mach's method shows that as the mass of the atom increases, the angular momentum of the electron will change, affecting its orbit. This is why Bohr's method when used alone, did not work with larger atoms. Mach's method provides a way for the electron to adjust to changes in mass within the atom. Without the In and Out waves of Milo's electron, Mach's method would not work.

The Nucleus.

Protons and Neutrons are composed of quarks. Quarks are sub-harmonics of the electron wave. The electron's wave would have its amplitude changed when entering a denser region of space. Any Standing Wave Centers formed at this time would reflect the change in amplitude. This is why they have 1/2 spin like the electron, and why there are anti versions of every quark. This also accounts for their fractional charge in relation to the electron. Asymptotic freedom and quark confinement are explained also, for details see my paper here. http://www.physics-philosophy-metaph...ach-vt483.html it is a work in progress, but a good start.

More importantly, it shows where all the anti-matter went to. Milo showed how, and experiments confirm pair production, so where are all the positrons? They still exist as the positively charged quarks in their sub-harmonic form.


Well that's the start of my humble theory. What do you think so far?

I think the user blogs is a great idea, it will provide a spot for all my papers and research. Better than sending people all over the web for them, and more convenient for me.

[mkirkpatrick]

Many thanks for the opening new thread,I have an interest in the electron too,what do you think of the golden mean and its phi =1.618033988749895?This to me seems to
indicate the path of returning energy from the subatomic vortex within the electron itself!

Also a useful link I just found might be of some use to you,(Link removed due to spam)
I also found The photon-State of the art,by Lew Paxton Price,and herbert martin Gibson,
maybe these to will be of some use to you .unfortunately there was no web address given.


regards michael.

[Aireal]

Mkirkpatrick
Thanks for the reply. You will have to go slow with me, my formal education is not that great, my degree was in business. Also I think in pictures, so math is a labor for me, a necessary evil if you will.

I remember hearing about the golden mean, but can not recall the details. I will do a search and refresh myself on it. As I remember it is the ratio of a longer line segment to a shorter one.

Back in my college days, my physics professor told me he believed I used the golden ratio to get many of my answers. In math and science courses I often arrived at the correct answer, but not by the approved methods.

Example, when calculating the point in space where the gravity of the earth and moon will cancel out, I could not remember the formula. I could see in my mind that it would be a ratio. Find the ratio of mass between the earth and the moon, than apply that ratio to the distance between their centers. My answer on the test was more accurate than those done by the correct formula. It was years before I could explain to him how I got the answer, at the time it just popped into my head. So I got a zero on the test for that one, even though I got the right answer, I could not explain how. He had already taken steps to ensure I was not cheating at the time.

So there may be more to this simple formula than first meets the eye. It may also explain how people like me who think in pictures can still do math, of a kind, in their head while forming pictures. Its is a very "visual" equation.

Thank you, you have given me some food for thought. I will have to look into it deeper.

Little Feather

[mkirkpatrick]

Little feather,your physics professor was absolutely right there i think!You were using the
golden mean,it is locked into all of us,sadly though very few can tap in to it,you are most
fortunate little Feather that you can!It is a wonderful thing,use it wisely,it will reveal all
that you ask of it .


regards michael.

[Aireal]

Mkirkpatrick

I have been reading up on the Golden Mean. I never know it had so many applications and was used in so many ways.
My many thanks for pointing it out to me. To think such a simple little equation could have so many uses.

Little Feather.

[mkirkpatrick]

Mkirkpatrick

I have been reading up on the Golden Mean. I never know it had so many applications and was used in so many ways.
My many thanks for pointing it out to me. To think such a simple little equation could have so many uses.

Little Feather.

You are most welcome Little feather,a simple equation like that,balances all universal
phenomena?

keep posting.

warm regards michael.

[dleviwing]

The golden mean is a mathematical phenomena. If you view the universe as having a base 10 numbering system by nature, then I guess you can read mystery into the universe. Unfortunately the universe functions more on a binary natural system and the golden mean becomes mean-ing-less.

Aireal, don’t allow the promoters of metaphysics and religious agendas to distract your quest for science knowledge.

You are off to a great start with Milo’s work, but like Feynman, Milo ignores the fundamental nature and behavior of the wave medium itself and thus ends up with only pure mathematical gauge theory interpretations. Find the interpretive paradigm that make the numbers work and you will realize the real simplicity and symmetry of the universe.

[humanbydefault]

This has been a long theoretical argue among the greatest master of theoretical physics and continue to be the same way. Today physics considers [for the sake of convenience in my own opinion] that a sub-atomic component of an atom [being that an electron or a quark...etc] are wavi-particle. It means that they can be either one depending in the original setting of our experimental measurement... in other words, what actually we want to measure determines if the electron will "behave" as a particle or as a wave.

Everyone that has some basic knowledge in physics knows that there are fundamental differences between something to be consider a wave and something else that is surely nothing but a particle. example of a particle could be an object in the universe, while a wave simplest example is light.

So... How could God create the very internal fabric of our existence and physical reality with that level of confussion?

The subject is non-the-less philosophical and scientifically important at the same time. For quantum mechanics [a highly pragmatic definition of matter, energy, space and time works fairly well] but for people [humans] like myself...the jury is still out.

It's not enough to trick ourselves with some mathematical renormalizations and believe that we had "the devil caught by its bierd..." [an old spanish saying] cause it's not right!

If you go back to some of my early posts in this forum you'll find some few approaches to the question of why standing waves are not collapsing and why protons can't decay.
I believe that the answer lies in the very core of each atom. I don't see why the eather has anything to do with the perpetuation of the wave that brings electrons into existence... but exactly the opposite!

Why matter decays? Think about this for a moment. The answer couldn't be more LOGICAL... It decays because the energy existent at the core of the atoms conforming matter are "using" its energy in the bond between them. According to the way I see it, an energy only see and detected during the birth of a star [inside star nurseries] the source for the phenomenon so-called "Gamma Bursts" comes from high energy speks of energy. Take a simple look at the way sound perpetuates its existence inside a room: If a standing wave is produced then energy stays for as long as the room doesn not absorbe part of it. I believe that the universe have used the same principle to perpetuates its own existence. The question is this:
Is this universal process of energy-confrontation and standing wave production accidentally in origin? or [on the other hand] is the universe forced to do it by other reasons?
I've said in some of my posting here that what some physicists may have seen those standing waves as multi-dimmensional space in the quest to have "M theory" [string theory] considered by them as the final one. If you analyzed the change in eather density as you go deeper into the atom's layers and compute the space-time deviations from the scale we live [as humans] you'll find why we see those waves as particles.

HUMANBYDEFAULT