I have to counter this argument by Marco,
Here's what he says:
seems that I differ from Dr. Wolff. I don’t consider the existence
of standing waves in free space. Standing waves require reflective
He has mixed up different
waves. He has in mind electromagnetic waves that are derived from a
vector wave equation. On the other hand, the basic waves of
matter are quantum waves that obey a scalar wave equation.
These are not the same.
Mathematically, he is correct that
there are no solutions of the vector wave equation in free space.
The only possible solutions involve waves in wave guides - this is
the reflective barrier he mentions. The guides or barriers contain
moving charges from which the e-m fields are derived.
question of e-m radiation becomes a puzzle that is usually solved in
textbooks by sweeping it under the rug. The problem is that there
are no solutions of the vector wave equation for radiation in free
space. Instead, the textbook 'assumes' a radiative solution that
yields the needed results. Your friend apparently knows this.
This puzzle is resolved by using the fact that electrons are
actually quantum wave structures and radiation of energy is actually
a quantum wave phenomenon. What we observe as e-m waves are actually
a large super-position of many quantum wave electrons transferring
The scalar wave DOES have solutions in free space -
only two. These are an IN-wave and an OUT-wave. These can be
combined in only two ways. These electron and the positron. Thus we
live in a binary universe.
Refer him to quantumMatter.com
and SpaceAndmotion.com for more info. Also he can find moving plots
of the central waves of an electron on the internet at:
animated plots show the IN and OUT waves and the SUM of both waves
along a radius out from the electron center. He will see that the
farther from the center, the smaller the amplitudes become. This is
like familiar charge forces or sound or light waves or even water
waves which become smaller like 1/r as they move outward.
It seems to me that since you
have proven both the electron and its spin is a scalar, standing
wave then the electron's orbital also must be a scalar, standing
wave as well.
Yes, electrons are always
The actual QM 'orbitals'
are shown at:
. . (atom-in-a-box)
orbital and spin give off and receive energy with a change of
position so they both must be similar scalar, standing waves.
consider all these particles, spins and orbitals to be scalar,
standing waves then might not this reflective barrier or waveguide,
this guy wants, be these other close harmonic scalar, standing wave
You unravel this by
recognizing that e-m waves are the superposition of very many scalar
quantum waves from very many electrons in the metal guide.
I know it's an in and out wave that extends
to the Hubble limit from the center of the electron.
Yes, each electron wave extends to a
mathematical infinity. The Hubble radius is an astronomical
assumption that cannot be measured. Likewise, infinity cannot be
measured. So be careful.
But what forces
the wave to these limits?
involved. The scalar wave equation solutions are out to a math
Isn't the electron like one
key of a grand piano keyboard of the universe?
All electrons are alike. Their waves are alike. If you like,
it is a one-note piano.
other keys also playing a role in keeping the scalar wave of the
electron as such?
Everything grows out
of only two assumptions:
1] quantum space exists and has
waves of the scalar wave equation.
2} The density of space
is proportional to the sum of all the waves at each point. You don't
need anything more.
From these two you can get: 1) Ampere's
laws which are correct. 2) The electron structure. 3) Other particle
structure. 4) All the natural laws. In other words -everything.
Aren't they the reflective barriers?
The metal barriers are atomic structures
(obeying 1] and 2]. The active part is the outer electrons.
I've got to write back to this guy.
Return to amperefitz
All rights reserved
Comments or complaints about
anything on this site???
post to: Daniel P. Fitzpatrick