There are a lot of theories based on Milo’s work, here is my humble attempt.

My theory of the atom.

The Electron.

Any discussion of the atom must start with the electron. I use this description of the electron by Milo Wolff. http://www.quantummatter.com/body_point.html

Milo gives a description of the electron as a Standing Wave Center formed by the intersection of two scalar waves. These are referred to as the In Wave and the Out Wave. The only addition I can make to Milo’s electron happens after it’s creation, Milo only dealt with how it was created.

As Milo pointed out, the Standing wave center will have a higher energy density which is the observed energy density of the electron. The out wave of the electron starts at the center and will encounter a change in energy density at the boundary of the Standing Wave Center. This will cause partial reflection of wave energy at the boundary, creating its own In Wave. The partly self sustaining action of this process accounts for the electrons more particle like behavior.

The Obit of the Electron.

Bohr defined the orbit of the electron as a result of the angular momentum of the electron. It can also be described with Mach’s equation. http://www.wbabin.net/wahlin/wahlin.htm

This gives us a slightly different picture. The electron is not at rest in its orbit. The electrons orbit matches a wave node so that the energy gained and lost by In and Out Waves equal each other.

Bohr’s method can be considered the electrons Out Wave to the universe, describing its current internal state.

Mach’s method then is the electrons In Wave from the universe, adjusting its current internal state to match current conditions.

Mach’s method shows that as the mass of the atom increases, the angular momentum of the electron will change, affecting its orbit. This is why Bohr’s method when used alone, did not work with larger atoms. Mach’s method provides a way for the electron to adjust to changes in mass within the atom. Without the In and Out waves of Milo’s electron, Mach’s method would not work.

The Nucleus

Protons and Neutrons are composed of quarks. Quarks are sub-harmonics of the electron wave. The electron’s wave would have its amplitude changed when entering a denser region of space. Any Standing Wave Centers formed at this time would reflect the change in amplitude. This is why they have 1/2 spin like the electron, and why there are anti versions of every quark. This also accounts for their fractional charge in relation to the electron. Asymptotic freedom and quark confinement are explained also, for details see my paper here. http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/forum/what-is-a-proton-quarks-a-w-s-m-approach-vt483.html it is a work in progress, but a good start.

More importantly, it shows where all the anti-matter went to. Milo showed how, and experiments confirm pair production, so where are all the positrons? They still exist as the positively charged quarks in their sub-harmonic form.

Let me know what you think of this work in progress.

clyde:
Um… what?

Any useful theory of this sort requires math, clear(er) language, and pictures help a lot too! Lots of things weren’t clearly defined. Also, experimental evidence supporting such ideas would be useful in convincing others of the hypothesis’ accuracy.

Aireal:
Clyde

I understand your point, this was just a post to generate some interest and not meant to be a scientific paper submitted for review.

Also I did not know if this forum could support the use of high level math within the post.

I gave links for those who wished to explore the math behind it so more.

Also the length of the post is important. My paper that this post was based on runs over 10 pages in length, a little much for a forum posting. If all supporting evidence were to be included, who knows how long it would be.

Sorry I did not put in enough detail, maybe I should rewrite it, add some more detail, but still try to keep down the length.

Ryan:
FYI, I just added a mod to do latex, (which is used for the math in professional papers) here’s a test:

This Website on the Philosophy Physics & Metaphysics of Space and the Wave Structure of Matter is a work in progress. It will not be complete for several years yet (there is a lot of work to do to convince Humanity that there is actually a simple sensible language for describing Physical Reality!).

At the moment this website is mainly used for our phpBB Forum, see:

http://www.physics-philosophy-metaphysics.com/forum/index.php

Before posting at the forum it is recommended that you read on the relevant subjects from the foundation of the Wave Structure of Matter and the history of Philosophy Physics and Metaphysics. Our main website at http://www.spaceandmotion.com has a lot of useful information. See: Philosophy Physics Metaphysics of Space: Wave Structure of Matter

Cheers,
Geoff Haselhurst, June, 2005

PS – Some interesting and important metaphysics quotes below.

(Aristotle, Metaphysics, 340BC) The first philosophy (Metaphysics) is universal and is exclusively concerned with primary substance. … And here we will have the science to study that which is just as that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has.
The entire preoccupation of the physicist is with things that contain within themselves a principle of movement and rest. And to seek for this is to seek for the second kind of principle, that from which comes the beginning of the change.
(Gottfried Leibniz, 1670) It is a good thing to proceed in order and to establish propositions (principles). This is the way to gain ground and to progress with certainty. … I hold that the mark of a genuine idea is that its possibility can be proved, either a priori by conceiving its cause or reason, or a posteriori when experience teaches us that it is a fact in nature.

For metaphysics has to deal only with principles and with the limitations of its own employment as determined by these principles. (Immanuel Kant, 1781)

By his clear critique Hume did not only advance philosophy in a decisive way but also – though through no fault of his – created a danger for philosophy in that, following his critique, a fateful ‘fear of metaphysics’ arose which has come to be a malady of contemporary empiricist philosophising; this malady is the counterpart to that earlier philosophising in the clouds, which thought it could neglect and dispense with what was given by the senses. … It finally turns out that one can, after all, not get along without metaphysics. (Albert Einstein, Remarks on Bertrand Russell’s Theory of Knowledge)

(Bradley, 1846-1924) We may agree, perhaps, to understand by Metaphysics an attempt to know reality as against mere appearance, or the study of first principles or ultimate truths, or again the effort to comprehend the universe, not simply piecemeal or by fragments, but somehow as a whole.

It is common knowledge that the sciences (including physics) are founded on two sources of truth;
i) Logic from principles. i.e. Theories. (a priori knowledge)
ii) Empirical knowledge from our senses. i.e. observation and experiment. (a posteriori knowledge)
The aim is to unite these two sources of truth with the most simple principles. The problem for science / physics is twofold.

Firstly, although logic from principles is necessary and certain, it does not mean that the things we assume to exist (as stated by our principles) actually exist in reality. An example of this is the assumption that light is a ‘particle’ (photon). While it is true that light energy is emitted and absorbed in discrete amounts, it is a further theoretical assumption that light is a ‘particle’. (As the Wave Structure of Matter explains, light is actually caused by standing wave interactions, which cause the discrete standing wave states and thus discrete energy states of matter.)
As Einstein writes;

The skeptic will say: “It may well be true that this system of equations is reasonable from a logical standpoint. But this does not prove that it corresponds to nature.” You are right, dear skeptic. Experience alone can decide on truth. … Pure logical thinking cannot yield us any knowledge of the empirical world: all knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

Secondly, (and frustratingly) our senses also deceive us. Philosophers have known for thousands of years that our mind represents our senses, thus the world we see and taste and touch is different (naive real) to the real world which causes our senses. Our sense of color is an obvious example of how our mind represents a certain frequency of light. Further, if we are to describe Reality then it must be founded on real things which exist and cause our senses, not on the naive real representation of our senses. Thus Science, by being empirically founded, is not well suited to describing Reality itself. As Aristotle wrote;

Rather, they start this, displaying it to the senses, …. and go on to offer more or less rigorous demonstrations of the per se attributes of their proprietary genera. This sort of procedure is inductive (empirical) and it is as plain as a pikestaff that it does not amount to a demonstration of essence or of what it is to be a thing. (Aristotle, Metaphysics)

But also philosophy is not about perceptible substances (they, you see, are prone to destruction) (Aristotle, Metaphysics)

Thus Science / Physics is inclined to be misled because both of its truths are deceptive. Metaphysics aims to overcome this problem by using reason to try and understand what the real world is, which causes both our logic and our senses (and ourselves!). And for many thousands of years the great philosophers / metaphysicists have known that for matter to be interconnected throughout the universe, then there must be one thing that connects the many things (matter) together. That a complete description of reality must be founded on one thing / substance. Leibniz writes this most simply; (though I have many fine quotes on this)

Reality cannot be found except in One single source, because of the interconnection of all things with one another. (Leibniz, 1670)

Thus metaphysics is beyond our senses because it realises that though we don’t see an obvious connection between matter, reason tells us there is (e.g. earth orbiting sun, that we can see stars across the universe). Further, since the time of Kant, it has become increasingly clear that we cannot describe reality correctly (i.e. from one metaphysical foundation), while we have theories founded on many separate / discrete things. Thus Space and Time cannot both exist, nor can particles and forces (the current paradigm). This explains why we now live in a post-modern relative culture of no absolute truths, because our theories are founded on many things, thus at the end of the day these are merely human constructions, ideas approximating reality, but not absolutely true.
So how do we overcome this? By rejecting particles, forces and time, and explaining / connecting these many things from One thing Space. As Aristotle wrote in his Metaphysics;

Metaphysics is universal and is exclusively concerned with primary substance. … And here we will have the science to study that which is just as that which is, both in its essence and in the properties which, just as a thing that is, it has. ….That among entities there must be some cause which moves and combines things. … There must then be a principle of such a kind that its substance is activity. (Aristotle, Metaphysics 340BC)

The Wave Structure of Matter assumes that one thing Space exists as a substance with the Properties of a wave medium. Matter is formed from spherical standing waves in this space (it is this wave motion of space that causes matter’s activity and the phenomena of Time). This then solves the fundamental problem of metaphysics and philosophy, the problem of the one and the many, by connecting matter, time and forces back to the spherical wave motions of space. Matter is large not small, but we only ‘see’ the Wave-Center of the spherical waves and have been deluded into the belief of ‘particles’. Thus we can now understand how Matter interacts with other matter due to interactions of the spherical in-waves which ultimately determine the future location of the wave-center (what we now call forces and action-at-a-distance).

Principles in Physics

All logic depends upon Principles which gives rise to necessary consequences that are absolute and certain (rather than mere opinions). The aim of Science is to demonstrate that these logical deductions from (a priori) Principles exactly correspond with our sense of the real world from (a posteriori) observation and experiment. Albert Einstein explains this Scientific method very clearly;

(Albert Einstein) Physics constitutes a logical system of thought which is in a state of evolution, whose basis (principles) cannot be distilled, as it were, from experience by an inductive method, but can only be arrived at by free invention. The justification (truth content) of the system rests in the verification of the derived propositions (a priori/logical truths) by sense experiences (a posteriori/empirical truths). … Evolution is proceeding in the direction of increasing simplicity of the logical basis (principles). .. We must always be ready to change these notions – that is to say, the axiomatic basis of physics – in order to do justice to perceived facts in the most perfect way logically. (Albert Einstein, Physics and Reality, 1936)
The development during the present century is characterized by two theoretical systems essentially independent of each other: the theory of relativity and the quantum theory. The two systems do not directly contradict each other; but they seem little adapted to fusion into one unified theory. For the time being we have to admit that we do not possess any general theoretical basis for physics which can be regarded as its logical foundation. (Albert Einstein, 1940)
If, then, it is true that the axiomatic basis of theoretical physics cannot be extracted from experience but must be freely invented, can we ever hope to find the right way? I answer without hesitation that there is, in my opinion, a right way, and that we are capable of finding it. I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

To be Completed ….