My Own Contributions
By the turn of the twentieth century most physicists accepted the notion that the final irreducible constituent of all physical reality was the electromagnetic field. Lorentz used that construct of nature to organize the thinking of a group of physicists to show the cause of relativity phenomena in flat space-time. The Lorentz Transformations resulted from their work. All seemed well in the world of physics. An understanding of the true nature of the universe seemed close at hand. Then, quantum theory happened, and an era of weird notions exploded upon us.
Irwin Schrodinger and Albert Einstein were among the strong detractors, even though both contributed to the new weird ideas. I found myself agreeing with the detractors and set about to discover a description of nature that would satisfy all observations without abandoning classical notions. Below are some of my contributions to the notion that all of nature behaves exactly as if all of nature is made of Light. I arrived at these notions independently but realized later that other physicists with doctorate degrees also arrived at this understanding of the nature of the universe.
1. Bending a photon's path produces positive feedback.
2. An electron exists as a shell structure.
This positive feedback coupled with front-to-back resonance might trap photons in stable patterns. We observe that only one certain frequency is stable and produces an electron or positron. An electron so comprised exists as a structure such that a negative charge originates at the electron's radius and extends toward the outside and a positive charge originates at the electron's radius and extends toward the inside. The positive inside area of the electron has yet to be discovered. I can predict that it will be discovered.
3. The shell structure of nuclear particles.
Doctor Robert Hofstadter of Stanford University observed spectra from nuclear collisions that suggested that nuclear particles were structured. Some of Hofstadter's results were published in, "Gauge Theories in Particle Physics," by I. J. R. Aitchison and A. J. C. Hey in 1989. Hofstadter's work suggested to me that nuclear particles may exist as shell structures. His work further suggested that protons were composed of three electron-like shells and neutrons were composed of four. These must be sandwiched together with a least massive outside shell and successively more massive inside shells. I found that when the inner shells were exponentially more massive than the outer, the sums of the masses did equate to measured observations of proton and neutron mass.
4. Square of the shells rule.
The Square Of The Shells Rule is: With the mass and the electric charge of the electron taken as unity, the mass and the force of electric charge of the inner particle shells is equal to the square of that of the next shell out. software program
The neutron's outer shell would have to comprise the mass difference between a proton and a neutron so that would be the outer shell. I considered this to be shell one. I knew that a neutron was about 2.5 electron masses more massive than a proton. So, I started with 2.5 for shell one and extended the decimal to obtain the best match. This turned out to be 2.549920405 electrons worth of electron mass and electron charge for shell one.
I wrote a neutron simulator program to simulate the structure. Each shell must complete a circle in a multiple of its wave length to satisfy resonance. I was interested to see how many wave lengths would complete one circle. The program showed me that the same electrical polarity of the field remained on the outside of the circle when one wave length completed the circle.
The electric charges at the surface of the nuclear shells are exponentially greater than one electron charge. But since the force of charge diminishes exponentially with distance, measured charge sensed from a distance always equals one electron charge. This constancy of charge has to do with the fine structure constant.
5. How come the Quantum. Electromagnetic saturation.
Planck's constant shows up in equations at exactly the place where you would expect to see amplitude. Amplitude is strangely absent from the equations. The positive and negative peaks of photons must exist at some amplitude. If that amplitude is a variable, it must be in equations that calculate photon action. Since amplitude is not there, peak amplitude must be a constant.
Then I realized a fact immediately obvious but strangely absent from teachings. Planck's constant must derive from the electromagnetic saturation amplitude of free space. This being so, there is then a value of the maximum possible electric and magnetic amplitude of space.
6. Electromagnetic gravity.
Gravity was the greatest problem. At first I thought of a jumble of electromagnetic remnants as the diminished fields from all photons mingled in space. I thought that these remnants might contribute to the saturation so that it occurred at an offset.
Then, I came across the work of Dr. Albrecht Giese linked by the gold button. I saw immediately that he had nailed it. Electromagnetic gravity was a simple process of refraction. I knew that the presence of electric and magnetic activity determined the value of the two constants of empty space and so determined the impedance of space in the area. Impedance determines the speed of light as in the equation. The path of light bends toward the direction of greater impedance. All electromagnetic activity must therefore gravitate toward greater impedance.
7. Nuclear Dynamics.
It was sometime after the year 2000 that I realized that the mechanism of nuclear dynamics was obvious in the photon particle structure that I hypothesized. The strong nuclear force seems to increase with distance for a very short distance, then disappear when that distance is exceeded.
I knew that electric charge amplitudes equal to the strong force were present in the model, but didn't realize how the dynamic developed. When I pondered this in my later years, I saw that the inner shells of protons must be trapped inside the outer shells. Then I saw that this sandwiched shell structure should extend universally to the Electron. It should engulf protons and neutrons to form a shell outside with the protons and neutrons inside the shell. Energy levels must involve the rotation plane of electrons so that each occupies its own state.
The strong force dynamic develops when the inside shells must force their way through like charges on the inside circumference of the surrounding shells. The sum of the charges on shells 2 and shells 3 equate to the value of the strong nuclear interaction.
Shell 4 charge of 1787.3 electron charges is much too great to participate in normal nuclear binding. Exotic matter might exist in which shell 4 does participate. It is possible that the two shells 4 might punch through shells 3 and find equilibrium. That situation could provide a much more powerful bond. It may even be possible that a neutral particle could consist of shell 4 and shell 3 that excludes shell 2. This would be a strange beast indeed.
8. The Nature of the Electron Orbit.
There is a problem with the classic notion that electrons might orbit atomic nuclei and be held in place by electromagnetic force. Electrons can not exist in that state. Instead they seem to exist in a kind of cloud around the nuclei. In the model that I propose, the electrons engulf the nuclei with the same shell structure pattern as the nucleons themselves. Electrons avoid ever being in the same state by occupying different planes around the nuclei.
The dynamic is that the outward facing positively charged proton shells face off against inward facing positive charges from electron shells. Electrons negative charge begins at the circumference of the electron and face outward. A corresponding positive charge begins at the electron's circumference and faces inward. The massive proton thus captures electron shells by hauling electrons into place.