Rotating Wave Theory of the Electron

[William Christie]

I had difficulty accepting relativity and at the same time wondered about wave-particle duality of matter. I thus resolved to find a wave model of matter that would explain relativity. The result was the electron as a rotating wave. It also explained mass, charge, gravity, and quantum mechanics.

http://mypage.direct.ca/c/christie/Wavicle.html

My theory includes graphic illustrations, math and text to illustrate the logic and validity of the model. I have posted the Rotating Wave Theory under TOE because relativity, gravity, and quantum mechanics come right out of the Rotating Wave and are thus inherent.

I tried to get the original paper pertaining to Special Theory of Relativity published in recognized universities in the 1980's, but was turned down because of its counter revolutionary hypothesis. I renewed my interest in undergraduate physics while completing my architectural thesis and learned how to step outside the box and look at things differently. The internet has now afforded many to publish new ideas and I thank TOEQUEST to allow me to reference my article and discussion in this forum.

Even if it is just mimickry, perhaps it will help us pick away until we uncover the diamond.

[labelwench]

Even if it is just mimickry, perhaps it will help us pick away until we uncover the diamond.
Originally posted by William Christie

When we come to the same conclusion or theory as another, having journeyed by a different path, I would not consider that to be mimicry.

In the end, all remains the same.

We but come to view and appreciate same from new perspectives.

[Bogie]

Hi William. It is good to see your work which is quite interesting and creative. My view of the nature of the universe is more general than specific and I leave the math and highly technical sciences to others so don’t consider me someone whose views carry much weight or rigor.

I do think in terms of wave energy and about the nature of waves. Light is propagated by photon emission from electrons at a source and light energy is thus carried by photon waves. The light wave is often depicted as a transverse wave oscillating between an electrical and a magnetic field with 90 degree orientation around a path between the point of origin and the point of observation. I suppose that concept suggests that a photon travels along a path through space as it oscillates between the two perpendicular fields.

I think you are theorizing about how light energy in the form of photon waves can be converted to mass in the form of electrons with a complex stable wave structure as in your wavicle. It looks like you are wrapping the photon path tightly around an axis to give it the wavicle structure.

I'm not qualified to evaluate your efforts or the math and I like to say that even though I have some alternative views of cosmology they are not mathematically or scientifically technical, they are more like scenarios and physical pictures. But when I contemplate a light wave I think of it as spherical and not linear.

When we detect light we detect it from a single perspective and thus we see it as a beam or linear path from the point of origin but I realize that if you change the point of observation to any other point around an in-phase sphere with the point of origin in the center, the same source is observed by a different beam of light. That suggest that light waves are spherical or curved plane waves and each curved plane (complete in-phase sphere of wave energy) is a spherical photon emission from the point of origin. A beam of light then would be a set of parallel curved plane waves passing a point of observation. The same set of curved plane waves will pass all possible points of observation and will appear as a beam or ray of light from every point of observation.

Can you discuss my perspective and compare it to accepted science of light waves and maybe discuss how you would describe light waves that become wavicles?

[AntonioLao]

I had difficulty accepting relativity and at the same time wondered about wave-particle duality of matter.

Are you implying that you understood both physics and math of both special and general relativity but just not able to accept their implications? Speaking for myself, I cannot say I understood completely all the implications, for example 'Twin Paradox' and 'Big Bang Singularity.'
However, FYI, wave-particle duality of matter is not discussed at all in either theory of relativity. Wave-particle duality is the one and only presupposition of quantum mechanics (QM). And if you understood QM you will already know that Dirac solved the rotating electron by giving its quantized spin called the spinors. Although there are similarity between spinors and tensors of relativity, spinors use imaginary complex numbers while tensors use real numbers. Attempts to combine spinors and tensors were accomplished by Roger Penrose. He called the combinations 'Twistors.'

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Hi William, don't let the imcomplete topologies and incomplete maths throw you off course, as I see the more fundamental understandings in your initial work already. Great model...

Not that I agree with all you've written, but you've shown some fundamental areas I have also looked at, and found wanting. Nice start...

Imo, Minkowski/Einstein's 'spacetime' confused physics' absolute fundamentals of space(emg(electro-magnetic-gravity)-object) and time(volume/distance) with their personal unsubstantiated conjectures of 'spacetime'__being the be-all, of all__Which actually exists within space and time's pure absolute states... When we separate 'spacetime' into__'spacetime' and space and time__we more clearly see the true reference frames of all motions involved, thus seeing how light behaves within its own field of emg-c motions in vacuum, then how absolute c(total motion) behaves of and within more dense fields and spaces, to maintain its shared absolute c, with these other particle/waves__much as you've described...

Lene Hau's light stopping experiments, also clearly show the above stated...

It is well known that in 1887 A.A.Michelson and E.W.Morley could not detect any luminiferous ether by detecting a path length difference between light transmitted in the direction of the earth's travel through the stationary ether and perpendicular to that direction by a fringe shift. In 1889, H.A.Lorentz suggested that the null result of this famous experiment might be due to an actual physical length contraction of the interferometer as measured in the direction of its motion of the earth's orbit. According to Lorentz, the length contraction was merely due to an electrodynamic effect on physical processes within the electron particle make-up. Lorentz also suggested that such physical processes had a cyclical function, or local time, which must slow down or dilate in conjunction with their length contraction. However, the reasons for local time dilation and length contraction as suggested by Lorentz required a complicated and unconvincing model of an electron to be composed of many like charges bound by a nonelectric force infinitely strong at the centre. Ironically, the Lorentz transformation equations of time dilation and length contraction survived to form the basic math of a much more acceptable, although revolutionary, theory put forth by Albert E.Einstein in 1904.

Also in 1904, Albert Einstein demonstrated that light behaved as individual particle - like packages of energy called photons' in order to explain the photo-electric effect. Thus, in a quasi-corpuscular theory akin to that of Sir Isaac Newton, Einstein stated that the nature of light must have a wave-particle duality. However, matter was still considered to be only particle-like until twenty years later when Louis de Broglie suggested that matter as well as light might have a dual, wave-particle nature. Both the Lorentz and Einstein interpretations of the Michelson - Morley experiment required that the interferometer be "particle-like" only. I began to wonder how the Michelson - Morley experiment might have been interpreted had the dual, wave-particle nature of matter been established prior to this famous experiment. Furthermore, I considered that matter might simply be a localized wave and that its particle-like nature is simply a phenomenon derived of its localization.


According to Einstein's definition of simultaneity there is no need for a physical length contraction of the Michelson-Morley interferometer. However, if as Lorentz contended, the length of the interferometer did indeed contract in the direction of its motion, then there could not be any fringe shift detected on the interferometer and real time could remain constant. One could disagree with Einstein's assumption that his operational definition of simultaneity is valid in any inertial reference frame and revert back to the nineteenth century classical view of light which accepts such a definition as "valid only in the rest frame of ether". My alternative conclusion about the experiment, coupled with the fact that matter is localized energy and that energy in the form of electromagnetic waves is indeed transmitted as light, compelled me to find a basic form of matter: a particle equivalent to a localized electromagnetic wave with an innate time cycle that would explain the fact of time dilation and a configuration that would require its own physical length contraction. Most other forms of matter that arise out of the electromagnetic ether would only be variations or further developments in the evolution of this principle form of matter which is from hereon referred to as the "Wavicle". The electromagnetic ether field is here stated as a universal reference frame only to a degree of which our perception is capable. The intent of this work is, therefore, to explain by the electromagnetic ether field, the creation of the principle form of matter and the phenomena of relativity, gravity, and quantum mechanics beginning with two postulates which compare with those of Einstein's theory as rephrased by Casper and Noer in "The Evolution of Physics" on p. 330:

I. The Principle of Relativity According to the Wavicle: No physical measurement can distinguish one inertial reference frame from any other inertial reference frame - because - such distinction is obviated by changes in the actual physical time cycle, length, and mass of a particle with respect to that particle's motion relative to the stationary?, electromagnetic ether. Such changes are illustrated by the Wavicle.


II. Independent of the motion of the light source, only wave fronts of light which proceed in a straight line with respect to a Euclidean universal reference frame (defined by the stationary? electromagnetic ether) always propogate in empty space (the vacuum state of ether) with a definite velocity C relative to that universal reference frame. Other wave fronts which do not proceed in a straight line, propogate with an angular velocity such that all wave fronts remain planar.


From the two postulates above, I can simply state that the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is due to an actual physical length contraction of the interferometer in the direction of its motion. The actual physical time cycle of the whole interferometer apparatus slows down in unison and therefore time is not the culprit.

[William Christie]

Antonio,
I clearly understood that Einstein said that time and space are connected. I thought they were independent and searched for a model of matter that would explain relativity. I first dwelt only on the Special Theory.

The twin paradox works because the one in the rocket simply ages more slowly. However, I am sure you cannot go back in time. The problem with the Big Bang is WHERE did it start?

I knew that spin had already been mathematically assigned to the electron. The question is whether it is a wave or what?

[William Christie]

I'm with you Lloyd.

I note I didn't say much about the aether or what it is composed of. For a quick reference on the old master's remarks see:

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

Is it aether or just clear space which time is somehow connected to? I think the first because our minds are a product of the universe and thus we should be able to comprehend it.

I am aware of others suggesting that aether is composed of helical stress and strain. Depending on what is being tested, I guess one could define mass as a local condition of that aether. Don't know if I am allowed to reference other forums, but you can find " The Electric Rings of Force that cause the Tides" by Frederick David Tombe, Belfast, Northern Ireland, United Kingdom. Whatever, I just know that I can draw the rotating wave in 3d.

Regards,
William

[William Christie]

"But when I contemplate a light wave I think of it as spherical and not linear. ...... Can you discuss my perspective and compare it to accepted science of light waves and maybe discuss how you would describe light waves that become wavicles?"

Thanks, Bogie.
Before I thought of a rotating wave, I was aware of what seemed like a spherical structure of the wave front of light. I gave it some thought, but did not bother to go into that issue of "sphericalness" because I was just into the structure of the rotating wave and how the relativistic effects were simply due to the fact that the electric field, the magnetic field, and the wave motion must all be at right angles to each other. However, it is profound and truly worthy of discussion.

When an antennae radiates energy in all directions, of course the wave fronts are roughly spherical. To be clear, I know you are talking about light being transmitted in only one direction. When light is transmitted through space it appears locally to be planar, but of course by the constant speed of light, must have a curved face radiating from the point of origin.

Then we have the wave-particle duality and the photon interpretation. Frankly, I think that light is truly an electromagnetic wave and its photon or corpuscular image is just due to an interpretation by interaction with a wave form of matter. However, the intensity of energy has certainly been demonstrated to depend on the direction of the light wave in the photo-electric effect. Note how the electric field of the rotating wave radiates out from the center. I suspect that also happens in the planar wave front of transverse light. So what appears locally to be planar wave front of light, might really be a spherical front with greatest energy along the emitted direction. The curvature of the spherical front thus might depend on the field intensities and thus speeds of light further from the central direction of the wave front. This is speculative and it would be great to have a full discussion with a physicist who specializes in that area.

How does this relate to the Rotating Wave? The rotating wave may not be as simple and planar as I have illustrated. Note that according to the rotating wave, velocities of the wave front increase with radius. If you look carefully at various radii and their respective tangential velocities, there will have to be some curvature in the rotating wave front. Essentially, as the wave fronts incline in a moving electron, their radii are distorted by the angle of inclination. In section, I think it forms a bit of stretched out "S" and I will explain it with illustrations and math some day. The relativistic effects are still there and the slight "S" curve just reasserts the fact that light can be bent. For now, I surmise that the planar wave front is not completely flat in both the rotating wave and the transverse light wave. Like I said, it would be good to have a very frank and thorough discussion with a spcialist in this area of EM.

[AntonioLao]

The question is whether it is a wave or what?

Although the term wavicle is not explicitly mentioned in quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, it is understood by physicists that all elementary particles have wavelike and particlelike properties. These are described in de Broglie's thesis that the product of linear momentum and wavelength is equal to Planck's constant of action.

[William Christie]

Although the term wavicle is not explicitly mentioned in quantum mechanics and quantum field theory, it is understood by physicists that all elementary particles have wavelike and particlelike properties. These are described in de Broglie's thesis that the product of linear momentum and wavelength is equal to Planck's constant of action.

Yes, I knew that elementary particles have wavelike properties and that is what partly inspired me to search for a model of matter that had a wave function and would explain relativity.