# Wave Structure of a Rotar

While an attempt has been made to provide an initial outline of
some of the assumptions and concepts underpinning the OST model, it
is possible that many may still be struggling to picture the structure
of a dipole wave with quantized angular momentum, which exists in the
*‘sea of vacuum energy’*. Therefore, we shall now consider an initial
‘*depiction*’ of the rotar model as shown below, which is a simplified
composite of Figures 5-1 to 5-4. (5-12, 5-17)

Note: If we assume that the scale of the rotar model shown above is based on wavelength, which unlike amplitude [A] is not confined to the Planck scale, then each dot associated with Lobes A & B might be defined by the granularity of a Planck volume, as shown in equation [2]. However, for the moment, it is assumed that these granules are not in wholesale motion around the centre of rotation, only being distorted from a point if equilibrium by the amplitude [A] of the energy wave in rotation. As such, some further understanding of the attributes of lobes A & B is required in terms of them providing a causal mechanism of rotation.

While the full details of the rotar model are not being addressed
at this point, we might still consider some of the potential issues
with the model associated with figure 5-1, shown top, in terms
of a ‘*rotating rate of time gradient’*, which is also said to
result in a gradient in proper volume between these lobes. Based on
the bottom diagram, lobe-A has a rate of time that is slower than ‘*normal*’
and lobe-B has a rate of time that is faster than* ‘normal’,* although
it is unclear whether this difference in time is simply relative to
each other or some notion of universal time. There is also the implication
that these two lobes occupy different volumes in space. This description
is augmented by the following quote.

Lobe-A as described above produces an effect in spacetime that is similar to the effect on spacetime produced by ordinary mass, i.e. very small slowing in the rate of time and very small increase in volume. Lobe-B on the other hand produces an effect that is similar to the effect of a hypothetical anti‐gravity mass. It produces a very small increase in the rate of time relative to the local norm and a very small decrease in volume. In lobe-B, the very small increase in the rate of time never reaches the rate of time that would occur in a hypothetical empty universe. It will be proposed that the entire universe has a background gravitational (GR) factor [Г], analogous to the Lorentz (SR) factor. This results in the entire universe having a rate of time that is slower than a hypothetical empty universe. It is therefore possible for lobe-B to have a rate of time that is faster than the surrounding spacetime field without having a rate of time faster than a hypothetical empty universe. (5-14)

At this point, the overview is only attempting to provide an outline
of the fundamental assumptions and concepts. Even so, we might still
consider the idea of relative time and volume in terms of the accepted
model of
*relativity*. In this context, the note below provides links
to some additional discussions of relativity within the context of the
*MMW
wave model*.

Note: The idea of time dilation exists in both special and general relativity, which is causally linked to a relative velocity or position within a gravitational field. Within a wave model, the effect on time is considered relative to the reference frame of the wave propagation media, i.e. space. However, the idea of space contraction is considered in terms of length contraction or expansion of a material body in space, i.e. not the contraction or expansion of space itself. Therefore, the assumption that lobe-A has a slower rate of time and expanded volume relative to lobe-B needs further clarification, both in terms of a causal mechanism and its overall relative reference frame, e.g. the space-time of the universe.

By way of an initial example, we might consider the case of the rotar
model for an electron, where the amplitude of the rotar wave would be
constrained within the Planck length [10^{-35}m]. However, it
is assumed that the radius of an electron rotar might be equated to
its Compton frequency, which has been estimated on possibly questionable
assumptions to be in the order of [1.24*10^{20}]. This would
translate into a Compton wavelength [λ=2.43*10^{-12}m].
If so, a unity wavelength circumference of the rotar ‘*orbit*’
might be estimated as [λ/2π=3.86*10^{-13}m]. Whether
this figure is comparable to the* *
*classical radius of the electron* [2.82*10^{-15}m]
is again questionable.

Note: As a somewhat tangential reference to quantum
matter waves, an electron is also described as having a
deBroglie
wavelength [λ_{D}] in addition to a
Compton wavelength
[λ_{C}], as formulated below.

As such, the deBroglie wavelength disappears when [v=0], but which might
suggest an additional wave structure requirement when velocity is non-zero.
At this time, it is unclear whether the rotar supports this requirement,
although the deBroglie wavelength may only be measured in terms of the
media of spacetime through which the rotar is moving with velocity [v].

The slow time of lobe-A is also said to affect the ‘*proper volume’
*in that the fast time of lobe-B might have a smaller proper volume.
Clearly, these properties of the dipole waves appear to be key assumptions
of the OST model, which will need further detail explanation, although
the idea might still be outlined using the following quote.

If fundamental particles are ultimately confined waves in spacetime, it is necessary to look for an explanation that incorporates waves in spacetime with characteristics that can be the basic building block for all matter and forces. Gravitational waves do not have the necessary properties to be both vacuum fluctuations and the basic building block of all particles and forces. We are looking for a wave in spacetime that changes both the rate of time, i.e. distorts the time dimension, and changes the distance between points in a way that changes proper volume. We know from general relativity that mass affects both the rate of time and proper volume, i.e. mass curves spacetime. Therefore, if we are trying to build matter out of waves in spacetime, we must use waves in spacetime that possess the ability to affect both the rate of time and the distance between two points. We must use waves that have the ability to dynamically curve spacetime. The only wave in spacetime that can affect the rate of time and proper volume is a hypothetical dipole wave in spacetime. (4-9)

At this time, no external reference can be found to explain the nature
of a ‘*hypothetical dipole wave’*, which might justify the assumption
that they would affect both time and space. While a mass, i.e. energy-density
per unit volume, does appear to cause time dilation and expand the perception
of length based on general relativity, this does not necessarily imply
space itself actually expands around a gravitational mass, only the
radial length of an object in this gravitational field. However, this
description only covers lobe-A, while the properties of lobe-B require
these effects to be reversed, such that they are likened to an ‘*anti-gravity mass’. *This description also appears to
raise other questions. First, the last sentence must surely be seen
as an assumption of the OST model, rather than a statement of fact.
Likewise, it is far from clear whether the relativistic concepts of
*proper time [τ]*
and *proper
length [σ]* are the actual causal mechanisms in the case
of a rotar. In the context of special (SR) and general (GR) relativity,
i.e. velocity and gravity, the measurement of time and length in a frame
of reference in motion or within a gravitational field is with respect
to another observer, who we might assume is stationary with respect
to the wave propagation media and far from the influence of a large
gravitational mass. Again, while the effects of time dilation with respect
to the observer are consistent in both SR and GR, the effects differ
for length. Therefore, we might table a question:

In what reference frame does a rotar exist?

In terms of the definition of proper volume, which is not often addressed in many texts on relativity, we might assume proper volume to only be a function of spatial length, not time, where SR and GR only affect one spatial direction, in different ways, i.e. along the axis of motion or gravitational radius. However, the next quote raises another issue for further consideration.

General relativity does have its share of predictions not shared by quantum mechanics. For example, the rate of time depends on gravity in GR while quantum mechanics considers the rate of time to be constant. Also, GR predicts that proper volume also is affected by gravity. Quantum mechanics does not recognize a gravitational effect on volume. (4-7)

At this stage, it is unclear whether the ideas of variable time and proper volume within the rotar is being attributed to relativistic effects of SR or GR, or both, in contradiction to quantum theory.

Note: Purely by way of additional reference, GR effects are often explained in terms of the Schwarzschild Metric, which models the gravitational effects surrounding a non-rotating, uncharged blackhole.

A previous description has suggested that the rotar model, if applied
to an electron, would not have the energy-density of a blackhole, as
assumed by a conceptual *Planck particle*.
If so, the more extreme GR effects of time dilation and space contraction
associated with a blackhole might not be apparent, although SR effects
associated with a relativistic velocity of rotation might need to be
considered, although the implied velocity [c] would question any measure
of time within this frame. In this context, velocity [c] of rotation
assumed might have some extreme implications on time dilation and cause
length contraction, not expansion, along the axis of motion. Of course,
within the accepted model of SR, the idea of spacetime as an absolute
reference frame is rejected, although it is assumed that the OST model
is defining the velocity [c] of each lobe [A&B] with respect to
the reference frame of spacetime, which is assume to be the volume of space
without angular momentum. However, the scope of all these issues must
wait on a more detailed understanding of the OST model, although we
will briefly outline one final aspect of the OST model in the next section
which relates to the concept of spacetime being modelled as a superfluid.