Energy Wave Theory
By way of introduction, this section of website-3 will attempt to review the ideas within the EWT model, as presented within the linked website, but which was first presented in a 2016 publication entitled ‘Particles of the Universe’, which will be referenced as the POU model. Other references include the following papers:
- Explaining the Mass of Leptons with Wave Structure Matter (2013)
- Particles: Energy and Interaction
- Forces: Explained and Derived
- Key Physics Equations
- Fundamental Physical Constants
Two other references might be made to a 382-page Powerpoint presentation entitled the Energy Wave Theory and an Excel spreadsheet entitled ‘Particle Forces and Constants Calculations ’, which includes a multitude of calculations used to support the EWT model. As cited in the ‘Timelines and Sources’ webpage, Jeff Yee works in telecommunication and, as such, he does not claim to be a professional physicist. This work also references aspects of both the WSM model and MMW model, which suggested that the electron is the fundamental building block of matter with little reference to other particles within the standard model. In contrast, the author of the EWT model forwards the argument that if there is a fundamental particle responsible for wave generation, and for creating all other particles in the standard model, the likeliest candidate would be the smallest and lightest particle. i.e. the neutrino. Across the breadth of the references cited above, the author details the equations, which he claims identifies the mass of the six leptons in the standard model.
The following summary of the EWT model is taken from the Powerpoint presentation cited above:
Executive Summary: This theory summarizes a complex world of energy and forces into a simpler definition of the creation, decay and movement of subatomic particles using only one set of laws - classical mechanics. Mathematically, energy equations and force equations are unified, and logically, strange behaviours of particles and atomic elements can be explained based on wavelets flowing through the universe, transferring or reflecting energy.
It is claimed that the EWT model provides a mathematical derivation of 23 fundamental physical constants, unification of 6 key physics equations, calculation of atomic orbital distances and ionization energies at various orbitals plus an explanation of the electric, gravitational and strong forces along with a logical answer to the following questions:
Why does an electron orbit an atomic nucleus?
How can the electron be both a particle and a wave?
Why do atomic elements follow the periodic sequence?
How can two particles spontaneously appear in space?
Why do so many particles appear in collision experiments?
However, before considering the specific arguments of the EWT model, some initial outline might be useful. Modern research into the fundamental nature of the subatomic domain, which underpins the standard particle model, dates back around 100 years. During this time, science has raised many questions that it has not necessarily been able to answer with certainty, such that much of our current understanding rests on assumptions and speculative models. In many respects, one of the most fundamental question raised in the context of most wave models might be characterised as follows:
What is the fundamental nature of matter?
At a very basic level, there is usually some general consensus, based on Einstein’s equation [E=mc^{2}], that all matter with mass [kg] is a form of energy [E], although we might initially question the significance of the speed of light [c] in this formulation. However, this formulation, as expanded in [1], leads to the idea that energy is defined in terms of 3 MKS units, i.e. kilograms [kg], metres [m] and seconds [s], which can then be abstracted further in terms of the unit of Joules.
[1]
Of course, it has long been understood that energy exists in a form without any direct reference to mass [kg], when describing radiation propagating as an electromagnetic [EM] wave with velocity [c]. This type of energy [E] is often linked to Planck’s energy equation, as shown in [2], where much of the physical description of energy may be lost in the abstraction of Planck’s constant [h] plus a simplified relationship with frequency [f].
[2]
However, what appears to be lacking in both [1] and [2] is any obvious causal mechanism that explains how either form of energy moves in space and time. However, before addressing this issue, we might attempt an outline description, although possibly biased towards a more classical description of particle theory.
Note: Particles in motion have kinetic energy. How these particles acquire kinetic energy might be explained with reference to one of the four fundamental forces or interactions, which can also lead to the description of the strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational fields. Again, as another gross simplification, these field represent potential energy that can affect the motion of particles based on their position within a given type of field.
Today, this simple reference to the particle model is now subject to considerable complexity when described in terms of the quantum field theory (QFT), where the idea of a force is essentially replaced by a description of various quantum field interactions, but which often retain some of the semantics of particles in the form of gauge bosons and force-carriers. However, having outlined this initial framework of concepts, these topics are essentially beyond the scope of this review, see quantum review for more details, such that we shall return to the basic idea of a wave model.
Note: Without being too specific about any of the variant wave models considered in website-3, it might be said that they have one common aspect rooted in the idea that energy [E] is the fundamental ‘substance’ of the universe, which propagates as a wave at the speed of light [c] through a wave media.
While these models all appear to propose different mechanisms, there is some general consensus about the potential energy associated with an amplitude [A] within a wave media, which then seeks to return to a state of equilibrium by generating a wave that propagates through space as a function of time. Such waves propagate with velocity [c], which is an attribute of the wave media, e.g. space, where frequency [f] and amplitude [A], of oscillation in time depends on energy, where the spatial wavelength [λ=c/f] is simply a resultant factor. We might characterise this description in terms of [3].
[3]
Based on [3], the wave is being modelled as a sine function with amplitude [A] described in terms of both frequency [f] and wavelength [λ], which propagates with velocity [c]. Again, velocity [c] is assumed to be an attribute of the wave media, where frequency [f] defines the rate of oscillation, such that wavelength [λ] is an effect not a cause.
So, could a wave model negate the need for a particle model?
Even if a wave model could be proved to exist at the subatomic level of the universe, the short answer to the question above would probably still be no, because above the subatomic realm, it is simply more convenient to explain interactions between particles rather than waves. In this respect we might highlight an analogy between the descriptions of classical and quantum physics, where the former is still often used in preference to the abstraction of the quantum model. Likewise, the Newtonian concept of a gravitational force is also often preferred to the mathematical abstraction of curved spacetime supported by general relativity.
But are there downsides to having so many different models?
Certainly, multiple models can lead to confusion, although it possibly needs to be recognised that all models are both a simplification and a mathematical abstraction of a physical reality, which is invariably too complex to be described in terms of a single ‘theory of everything’. As such, we might simply recognise that the earlier Bohr model of an atom only provided a useful starting point, which led to other more sophisticated models that helped better explain the periodic table of elements. In this context, it was possibly the chemistry model, underpinning the periodic table, which provided many of the key insights that helped predict many of the properties of undiscovered elements. In addition, the chemistry model also provided useful descriptions of the working of both ionic and covalent bonds, which then helped explain evermore complex molecular structures – see chemical bonds for more details. Of course, it has to be recognised that such models are taking us away from the subatomic domain, where most wave models are assumed to operate. This said, the EWT model appears to be an attempt to explain how wave structures in the subatomic domain might be aggregated to better explain the existence of all the particles in the standard model.
So, how many particles and fields are defined by the standard particle model?
The answer to this question can become a bit convoluted as many explanations can make reference to both the classical concept of a particle model as well as the more abstract concept of Quantum Field Theory (QFT). Basically, the model shown right defines 12 fundamental quantum fields for fermions, i.e. 6 quarks and 6 leptons, and another 12 fundamental fields for bosons, not forgetting the 1 for the Higgs boson not shown. However, even this description can be extended to 12 fermion fields and 12 boson fields plus a graviton and then doubled to include all anti-particles.
So, why does the idea of particles still persist in QFT?
While more of a speculative comment, see Quantum Addendum for more details, it might be argued that the verification of QFT has often been predicated on the results of particle-orientated experiments, such that the retention of particle semantics is simply a convenient link between theory and experiment. Another argument might be forwarded on the basis that particle semantics provide some sort of general explanation as to why electric charge only exists in discrete amounts, which may be more easily visualised in terms of discrete charged particles. Of course, if particles do not actually exist at the most fundamental level of 'reality', as suggested by most wave models, then clearly other causal mechanisms are required.
But why does QFT require so many quantum fields?
As a generalisation, the field model essentially allows more degrees of freedom in terms of its mathematical description. In contrast, a basic particle model might be constrained by a position in spacetime, i.e. xyz(t), having only three degrees of spatial freedom plus time. In this context, the field model allows for more complexity to be linked to the specification of a field value [φ] for each point [xyz] in space, which can change as a function of time [t]. As such, a field is quantified as being time-dependent at all points in any abstraction of space-time, e.g. φ(xyz,t) – see Mathematical Framework for details. So, while the description of all these quantum fields might appear quite abstract, mathematically they can be assigned the attributes of both energy and momentum, even in the absence of any particles.
Note: As outlined, we might immediately recognise the scale of the problems facing any wave model, which is seeking to replace the complexity of numerous mathematical concepts constructed on a multitude of abstracted quantum fields with a wave mechanism associated with a single ‘field’, i.e. the fabric of space.
While the note above highlights a very real problem for any wave model, the law of parsimony expressed by Occum’s Razor might still question whether the universe actually requires the abstracted complexity suggested by QFT. In part, it might be suggested that this problem can be traced back to the idea of a wave-particle duality, originally introduced by quantum mechanics, without necessarily challenging the contradiction of this argument in terms of physical reality. As such, we might table another set of questions originally linked to the POU model and start the review of the ideas contained within the EWT model.
What is the nature of gravity? What is the nature of time? What gives matter its mass? How can electrons be both a wave and a particle? Why do electrons fit into orbitals around the nucleus? Why do we continue to find new subatomic particles? Why does the Periodic Table have its strange sequence?
While the original POU publication is still available, it cannot be directly referenced by this review, such that only a brief outline of some of its ideas will be presented as a precursor to the main discussion of the EWT model.
So, how might the original POU model be characterised?
As with most wave models it starts anchored to the idea that at the most fundamental level of physical reality, the universe is nothing more than energy waves, which interact with other wave structures, which we might initially describe as particles. However, unlike the WSM and MMW models, the original POU model assumed the most fundamental particle-wave structure is the neutrino.
Note: To clarify, in the POU model, the neutrino becomes a wave-centre at which an energy-density is concentrated, such that other waves propagating through the media of space cannot simply pass through the wave-centre, but rather collide and reflect. In addition, the model assumes that this neutrino wave-centre can help explain a structural hierarchy underpinning all matter and forces within the universe.
While this review will not really consider the implications of this wave model on the existing cosmological model, it does question whether all of the energy, inclusive of matter, could have been contain within the abstraction of a cosmological singularity. Of course, it has to be recognised that like most wave models, the EWT model requires a wave propagation media, i.e. the fabric of space, the creation of which may require some discussion of a cosmological model.
Note: While the POU model, and later EWT model, appears to align with the basic assumptions of the WSM and MMW models, there are differences. Therefore, initial reference to the discussion entitled ‘Wave Media’ should only be seen as a general outline of the assumptions being made.
Naturally enough, this model also has to address the issue of the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which suggested that space, as a wave media, had no physical existence. This conclusion was later supported by Relativity, both special and general, although many of Einstein’s later statements concerning the nature of a spacetime aether were often ambiguous, as reflected in the following quote in 1920.
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time.
Further details and analysis related to the Lorentz Transforms, which underpin Einstein’s earlier work of special relativity can be reviewed via the previous link, such that they need not be repeated at this point. However, the previous introduction has suggested that the wave velocity [c] is an attribute of the wave media and generally assumed to be a universal constant through space and time. However, we know that wave propagation velocity is often a function of the energy-density of the media, e.g. the speed of light slows through glass or water. As such, we might need to consider whether the speed of light [c] has always been a constant or changes when attempting to pass through a region of space with a very high energy density, e.g. a wave-centre of a ‘particle’. However, we will not pursue this idea or its implication at this point, but rather return to a fundamental question tabled by the model.
What is energy?
Again, in this section, we are only highlighting issues raised in the POU model, which will be considered in more detail in connection to the later EWT model. However, it is reiterated that a wave model invariably assumes that energy, as a scalar quantity, corresponds to the amplitude [A] offset of a point in space from a position of equilibrium. As such, this amplitude offset represents potential energy, which can be transported by a wave mechanism that seeks to restore the media of space to a position of energy equilibrium. In the context of a moving wave structure associated with a particle, this potential energy in motion may be interpreted as kinetic energy.
Note: It is believed the POU model generally aligns to the WSM model of IN and OUT waves. However, this earlier model describes an electron, without reference to neutrinos, such that they may differ considerably in their underlying causal mechanisms. It is then stated that wave-centres transition from standing waves to travelling waves at the ‘boundary’ of the particle, which appears similar to one of LaFreniere’s simulations, replicated below, taken from ‘The Electron’. However, it should be highlighted that the MMW model differs in its details to both the WSM and POU/EWT models.
Generally, it is assumed that the initial POU and later EWT models forward similar, if not an identical wave model, while still making reference to both the WSM and MMW wave models. However, as indicated in the note above, these latter models actually describe two different wave mechanisms, which can be reviewed under the heading ‘Comparative Wave Models’. In the case of the WSM model, the link ‘Wave Model Assumptions ’ provides additional discussion and links related to the mathematical derivations of various wave functions. Basically, the WSM model is based on the physical superposition of IN and OUT waves that form and maintain the standing wave structure of an electron. However, it is highlighted that there is a key caveat to the wave superposition process in the WSM model, as it assumes the IN wave undergoes a spherical rotation of 720^{o} within the wave-centre to become an OUT wave. Whether the phase alignment of all these IN waves from all other ‘particles in the universe’ can be explained has been questioned and is contradicted by the MMW model. For while LaFreniere produced dozens of 1D and 2D wave simulations to support his MMW model, his own statement suggests that the wave equations do not necessarily represent the actual causal mechanisms at work.
Standing waves are not made of travelling waves. For calculation purposes, such waves can indeed be considered as two sets of waves travelling in opposite directions. This is a very useful method for computer programs. However, one must observe what is really going on inside the medium substance when standing waves are present. One may need incoming travelling waves in order to establish standing waves, but they are no longer needed once the system is well established.
At this stage, it is not entirely clear whether the POU-EWT model fully aligns to either the WSM or MMW models or supports an entirely different wave mechanism of its own. However, given the differences suggested above, it seems improbable that both can be cited as a causal mechanism. As this seems to be an issue of some importance to the subsequent review of the EWT models, one further LaFreniere quote will be used to highlight the potential difference in the wave models being referenced.
Standing waves are not made of travelling waves. It is a totally different wave system which behaves in accordance with Hooke's law. Electrons must have been created in the past using incoming waves. Such a situation is not likely to happen because ether waves frequency and phase very rarely coincide for a given point, but it is still possible. One chance out of billions and billions. However, once it has been created, the electron can remain stable because its standing waves are constantly amplified by ether waves. Without incoming energy, the electron would still emit spherical outgoing waves and would rapidly fade out. Obviously, it needs replenishment. This is accomplished by powerful and constant ether waves. Travelling waves penetrating through standing wave antinodes are deviated because of a lens effect. A small part of the energy is transferred to the standing waves. This constantly refilled energy allows the electron to exist forever and means that in-phase IN waves are not needed any more. The electron just needs constant and powerful waves incoming from all matter in the universe, whose phase or wavelength may be different. Then it goes on vibrating and pulsating spherical waves eternally.
However, this description also has its own ambiguities, as it is not clear whether the phrase ‘lens effect’ is actually referring to a mechanism of wave refraction or how out-of-phase IN waves would maintain the resonance of the electron standing wave, if considered in terms of natural and forced resonance.
Note: When an electron standing wave, is in resonant oscillation, the frequency of this oscillation might initially be assumed to align to its natural frequency. However, the effect of random IN waves might be better described in terms of a forced resonance, which would not necessarily maintain the natural frequency of the system. Of course, if this frequency was also proportional to energy and energy is proportional to mass, the idea that all electrons must be identical might be questioned.
In the context of an initial outline, the POU-EWT forwards the idea that ‘particles’ are spherical longitudinal waves, where IN and OUT waves combined in superposition to form a standing wave, which is closer to the WSM model. However, the POU-EWT model also provide an analogous description of a spherical, longitudinal wave in terms of a balloon being rapidly inflated and deflated under water, where the inflation phase produces a 3D pressure OUT wave and a deflation phase that produces an IN wave of a matching frequency, which then produces a standing wave. However, this description might be challenged by most 3D wave models, as shown in the link, and represented in the diagram above, if considered in terms of a 3D sound wave.
In this
model, the sound wave source produces an oscillating wave of alternating
pressure, i.e. compression and rarefaction. While this model might also be considered analogous to the balloon
model, there is only an OUT wave being produced. In the model previously
illustrated, we see a time alternating compression and rarefaction of
a pressure, which only exist as localised regions of air molecules within
the wave media, which are not subject to wholesale movement. As highlighted,
it is only potential energy that is being propagated by the wave that
only propagates in one direction, outwards away from the source. However,
in the WSM model, the OUT waves are assumed to aggregate into IN waves
at other wave-centres, although there appears to be no causal explanation
as to why all OUT waves would be in-phase with respect to some arbitrary
positioned wave-centre. However, despite the reservations outlined,
the initial POU model extended the analogy of an inflating-deflating
balloon to one that is also oscillating in a vertical plane, such that
it might also create a transverse wave, which might be analogous to
an oscillating charged electron, which produces a transverse electromagnetic
wave. While these analogies might suggest useful lines of inquiry, it
is unclear that macroscopic models of this nature can really be seen
as a causal mechanism that operate at the subatomic quantum level. However,
having now produced an initial outline, the rest of the review will
be based on the description of the EWT model.