The Particle - The wrong turn that led physics to a dead end

Engineer Xavier Borg - Blaze Labs

The backbone of a new proposed atom model

3D attempt for De Broglie model by Kenneth Snelson

It was Louis De Broglie, who for the first time in 1923, proposed that all objects have properties of waves. His hypothesis was soon confirmed in 1927 by Davisson and Germer, by the observation of diffraction patterns in the scattering of electrons from crystals, confirming the wave behaviour of electrons. The lighter the object, the more pronounced the wave effect. An object as small as the electron would act very much like a wave, forming stationary waves around the nucleus. Unfortunately, his was the last of the accepted "physical" models, since just 5 years later, Werner Heisenberg derived his "Uncertainty Principle" which states that it is impossible to determine simultaneously the momentum and position of an electron. Such a principle has been widely accepted and to the present day, science gave up the search for a 'physical' model. De Broglie model is correct in principle, but is too simplistic and cannot account for all the experimental observations done on atoms. For this model to be complete, we first need to transform the 2D Broglie diagram into a 3D spatial equivalent, because we know that an atom occupies a volume. Shown above is one such attempt by Kenneth Snelson to render such a model. Also, Milo Wolff's spherical space resonance model introduced in the 80's, shows us the requirement for incoming and outgoing waves for the production of spherical standing waves.

Video interview of Milo Wolff by Geoff Haselhurst about the wave structure of matter

Here is a list of statements that I believe define a much more accurate model of the atom. This model is fully consistent with all experimental evidence (both wave and particle), the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, as well as quantum mechanics (QM). The backbone of this model is based on Louis De Broglie simple model, which is further elaborated and explored in the following pages. In the following pages we will explore together, refine this model and also solve a few enigmas introduced by this model.

Standing wave theory of matter

1. The universe is not made up of matter and vacuum, but instead is comprised of standing and travelling electromagnetic (EM) waves. A standing wave appears to have both momentum and inertia when interacting with another standing wave, thus giving us the impression of 'hard particles' hitting each other. The interaction between living organisms (which consist of cells, atoms, and standing waves) and other standing waves give us the sense of touch - the most misinterpreted sense of all!

2. All experimental attempts to probe the internal structure of the electron have proved futile. For that reason, despite its size, the electron is considered by conventional science to be an elementary particle - a particle with no internal structure!

3. The substantiality of mass (i.e., its hard particle nature) is redundant because it can always be converted to electromagnetic energy, which has no particle properties. This has a serious implication on Newtonian physics, as it would become merely a redundant branch of science.

4. No theory exists in quantum mechanics that can predict the size of an electron, its mass, or its charge. Moreover, there is no theory that quantifies the particle in a meaningful calculation. This implies that QM actually has no need for a particle concept, because all the calculations are the same whether or not you believe in hard particles. It is interesting to note that QM equations still hold true when applied to an electrical entity that can exhibit momentum and inertia.

5. The atomic nucleus, along with its electron cloud teardrop shapes, would be also seen if an electron microscope were used to view a resonant antenna. One would also see different electron wave patterns (or shells) with different types of antennas, within their nearfield region. But what you see is not necessarily real and what is real cannot necessarily be seen. If we define reality, as conventional physics does, as that which is tangible to our senses, many of our observations become mysterious and unexplainable, which is precisely the current situation.

6. A 3D standing electromagnetic wave can be thought of as a structured volume defined by three orthogonal electromagnetic energy vectors, equating to (T/S)x * (T/S)y * (T/S)z = T3/S3, the space-time dimensions of mass.

7. Electromagnetic waves possess the properties of momentum and inertia, whose values can vary in space due to the interference effect of two or more waves. Similarly, a 3D standing EM wave has the same characteristics. Thus momentum or pressure are expected from the interaction of a standing wave with either another standing wave or with an external travelling EM wave. Momentum is given by P = h / l, where l is the wavelength of each element forming the standing wave structure.

8. Spherical resonance is what drives the entire observable universe. Resonance determines the behaviour of the trapped EM waves in the form of atomic particles. Resonance also determines the behaviour of the electrons in a hydrogen atom. The various shells of the electron are simply the result of resonance. Only those orbits that create standing electric waves will be stable. Non-standing wave orbits disintegrate immediately, as they do in short half-life isotopes. It is not a matter of some mysterious "prohibited--permitted" decision; it is a matter of resonance that can easily be calculated without resorting to quantum theory or the like. Quantum mechanics' "prohibited orbits" are merely non-standing wave orbits that cannot exist.

The observed teardrop shape of an electron cloud is exactly what we would expect when seeing a 3D standing wave of vibration. We remember that the hydrogen atom's electron cloud was seen to have a spherical shape, which is the same shape as an isotropic antenna's radiation. So the nucleus is just a 3D structure of oscillating electrical elements, while the electron cloud is the nearfield standing wave of the resulting oscillation, and the point where the teardrop shape of the cloud converges is simply the node of the standing wave. The electron is in fact known to be a Broglie wave (wave of matter) that interferes with itself. The so called 'electron cloud' around the nucleus can only be stable when it meets the condition of a standing wave. As we will see further on, the consequence of all this is that only certain values of radius and energy are permitted.

Mathematical proof that the electron is a spherical electromagnetic standing wave

Let's find the 'mass' of a spherical standing wave having the same diameter and charge of the electron:

Starting from the equation for the capacitance of an isolated spherical charge: C= 4.p.e0.r
The total internal energy stored in an electromagnetic standing wave = Electric field energy + Magnetic field energy, where Electric field energy = Magnetic field energy, hence:
Total internal energy E = 2 * Electric field Energy = 2 * Magnetic field energy ... so it's enough if we solve for one of these to get the total internal energy for an electron.

Total internal energy E = 2 * Electrical Energy = 2* (1/2QV) = QV ... where V=Q/C
Total internal energy E = Q2/C ... substitiuting for C, we get
Total internal energy E = Q2/(4.p.e0.r), Substitiuting for Q=electron charge=1.602E-19 Coulombs, r=classical electron radius= 2.8179E-15 m, and e0 = permittivity of free space = 8.854E-12 F/m
Total internal energy E = 8.18735E-14 Joules
Using E=mc2, we get
Electron standing wave mass = 9.1096E-31kg ... which is the known electron mass.

This clearly shows that what we call electron mass is nothing but the electromagnetic effect of a spherical standing wave.

previous home next