Well, we have seen that both mathematical evidence and experiments agree with the notion of matter being made up of a standing wave structure of energetic waves in space. The new model offers logical mathematical and common sense explanations for many laws which had previously no origin other than experimental evidence. These include the conservation of energy, quantum theory, special relativity, origin of charge and mass, Newton's law and Feynman diagrams. However, as we have said in the introduction to this section, a new discovery always brings with it a few more enigmas. The positive side of it is, that one enigma is better than many enigmas which is the present situation of modern science. This theory leaves us with a single enigma - Where do in-waves come from and out-waves go to? Let's hear what Milo Wolff has to say about this.
According to Milo Wolff, the inwave of a particle must come from the outwave of another, but the actual origin of the incoming and final destination of outgoing wave is still unknown, the imaginary part of the waves is still a confusing issue and this should hold the key to the whole standing wave model. Personaly, I find Wolff's argument about the ingoing waves generated by the outgoing waves of other particles not particularly convincing though, as it implies that no single particle can exist in the absence of another particle. The standing wave model proves to solve most enigmas in physics, it explains all paradoxes present in today's modern physics, yet it seems to suffer the same problem as the chicken & egg paradox - which came first and from where? I believe, and you shall learn within the following pages, that things are far more different from what we think they are, but we are getting closer to the truth.
Let us start to visualise a simple situation, in which a sphere is slowly immersed in a tray of water.
On the right of the diagram, we see what's 'visible' at the water surface, that is the varying cross sectional area of the sphere being immersed. What we see is the volume of the sphere sliced sequentially into 2D flat disks of varying radii. Now imagine that the original motion consists of immersing the sphere under the water level, and that the part showing it going up again is just a 'reverse playback' of the movie. The time during which the sphere is being immersed is the positive going time, whilst the reversed movie part is the negative going time. If you think about that, you will understand that the cross sectional area at time=t during reverse playback is actually as real as the cross sectional area at time=t during the first playback. There should however be some mathematical way to show which cross sectional area we are refering to. Although they are the same, their motion is opposite to each other, that is during the time the positive time area is expanding the negative time area is contracting and vice versa. We only perceive with our senses the positive time going events, but each negative time going event is there as well since if the negative flat disk slice does not contract back in time, the positive one cannot expand forward in time! It is VERY important you understand this concept. Then you will understand that in such a situation you cannot refer to the positive going part without the knowledge of the negative going counterpart. The whole situation is fully defined only if you describe both the events as happening in both positive and negative time. Whilst the normal playback is showing a cross sectional area coming into existence, the reverse playback is showing the area going out of existence...ingoing, outgoing. At this point you should have guessed what the description of the forward and reverse playback events represent... they do represent the outgoing and incoming waves respectively. Depending whether your mind sees the outgoing wave to represent positive or negative time, will eventually determine which standing wave pattern your mind will select as the REAL and which it selects as IMAGINARY. The imaginary counter part of the standing wave is the virtual particle or antiparticle counterpart of the standing wave and its existence cannot be ignored! For a particle to exist, you need both ingoing and outgoing waves. This implies by logic that you cannot generate an electron without having at the same time generated its imaginary counterpart, the positron. Again this logic deduction is backed by experimental evidence as shown in the bubble chamber photo below.
Part of a bubble chamber picture (Fermilab'15 foot Bubble Chamber', found at the University of Birmingham), showing electron & positron pair generation. The curly line which turns to the left is an electron. Positron looks similar but turns to the right. The magnetic field is perpendicular to the picture plan. Remember, a photograph has the exceptional ability to integrate different events happening at different instances in time over the same picture.
The following animation shows how the superposition of both the area flowing forward in time and the area flowing backward in time, together with their complex (real + imaginary) superposition which creates the standing EM wave. The first two animations are the 'playback' and 'reverse playback' of the same sphere being slowly immersed under the surface of the water.
Concentric spherical standing waves graphics by Gabriel LaFreniere.
If you have problems understanding how the positive and negative time counterparts can create the above sequence, imagine you are in the front seat of your car driving inside a tunnel. This will create the effect shown in the middle animation. Now imagine that you are looking back either from the rear window or from your mirror, you will see the animation shown on the left. Both are realities, but we tend to term the one from the front seat as the real, and the one from the back seat as the imaginary, one cannot exist if the other ceases to exist, isn't it? If you see the tunnel approaching from the front seat, and you see no tunnel from the rear window, then it would mean that the tunnel is being absorbed into the car!! The animation on the right is just the mathematical addition of both experiences, which therefore contains all the information of the two separate views. It is interesting to note, that if at any point in time, the real & imaginary animations are interchanged, the resultant standing wave will not change at all. So, if we apply this fact to the above mentioned sphere being immersed in and out of the water surface, the final standing wave during the whole oscillation will be unchanged. Also, let's take this one step further, if instead of a moving sphere, you have a moving observation plane, the standing wave will still remain unchanged. This is another important point in understanding the universe, since it is not the ultimate dimension of the universe that is changing but only the observer's point of view.
Now if you are still with me to this point, you must have one important question. "How can we have the 'reverse playback' video before we finish the first playback video, in order to produce the superimposed standing wave?" Good question which will take us to the next interesting topic. In order to be able to costruct the above standing wave animation we cheated a bit. We assumed that both past and future are known already. Does this not usually make sense to us humans, because we only perceive the positive going time direction, and thus our mind is capable only of recording the past. But picture this: if within the next minute you will be reading the next paragraph, then you can say that one minute in the future from now you ARE already there reading it, while at the present you are reading this sentence. Also, it means that if a minute ago you were reading the previous paragraph, then one minute in the past from now you ARE reading the previous paragraph. Notice, we are not saying you WERE and you WILL, but you ARE. I understand this might be puzzling at first, but do not give up. To re assure you that I am right, I will just mention the name of the experimental evidence for this: the EPR experiment, in which it is clearly shown that the particles involved in the experiment know their past and future during their whole journey from source to detector. Here is a very relevant quote from Louis De Brolie, which explains the same effect :'In space-time everything which for us constitutes the past, the present, the future is given in block... Each observer, as his time passes, discovers, so to speak, new slices of space-time which appear to him as successive aspects of the material world, though in reality the ensemble of events constituting space-time exist prior to his knowledge of them.'
As you will see in the following section, this mechanism can be explained in terms of differentiating a higher dimensional space. Don't get confused with the term multidimensional or higher dimensions. Here we are not talking about science fiction parallel worlds existing independently in different dimensions. You will soon see that the existence of higher dimensions will eventually be the key to solving the ultimate enigma and a few others that are not yet very clearly understood using the 3D standing wave idea.
If you correctly understood the above diagram, then the answer to the Enigma; "Where do in/out going waves come from, or go to?" should be quite straight forward, they come from and go to one space dimension higher than our observation 3D point of view. Having understood this, you will now find it much easier to explain how elementary particles are found to pop in and out of the nothingness into nothingness, as experimental evidence shows. Without the existence of higher dimensions, the 3D standing wave model on its own is not enough to explain this hard evidence.
At this point, one can tackle another enigma regarding the origin of the relativistic energy diagram, which states that:
Total energy E2= (Rest mass energy mc2)2 + (Relative motion energy pc)2
The main enigma here is "why should these two energies use the squares of each energy term to give the total true energy?" Looking again at our animated sphere, the answer is quite easy to deduct. The two energies are orthogonal, not in 3D but in 4D. Thus the true energy is calculated using pythagoras theorem from 475BC as in a right angle triangle to find the hypotenuse.
We note that if side 'a' represents the relative motion energy in 3D, whilst side 'b' represents the orthogonal 'mass' energy analogous to the above animated sphere penetrating the 2D dimensional plane from a higher dimension, then side 'c' will represent the true total energy of the moving particle. Also, since the speed of light is a property of space, any point on the circular cross sectional area on the surface will see the inwaves of the sphere approaching down at the same speed, whatever relative speed is involved between the two points on the surface. Since the inwaves are EM waves, the speed is always equal to the speed of light 'c'. Despite other expectations from scientists, the verified experimental facts support this concept since if two experimenters measure the speed of light, they always both get the same value for 'c' independent of their relative speed to the source.