Dr Who

Are you saying that these decays have never been observed, i.e. they are only theoretically possible? If so, why have they been included in what appears to be an experimental paper?

I am getting the information from "The NUBASE evaluation of nuclear and decay properties" (which was published in Nuclear Physics A and according to google has been cited 602 times). I have also used periodictable.com as it gives the same information, just in a graphical format. In terms of the values being more than 100%, I assumed this was for presentation, since 100% looks significantly better than 99.9997%. Also, I know we are talking very low percentages here, but from this paper, it implied that these radioactive decays do occur and thus I was wondering how come they are able to go through, what is referred to as a stable isotope.

Why is it that some radioactive decay trees go through stable isotopes? For example manganese-54 can beta-negative decay to iron-54 (a stable isotope), which then double beta-positives to chromium-54. The same thing occurs with potassium-40, which beta-negative decays to calcium-40 (a stable isotope), which then double beta-positives to argon-40. Moreover, I would have expected calcium-40 to be very stable since it is doubly magic.

Thanks for your comment Timo, I will have a look around in those areas. However, do you know of any particular experiments that I should look for?

I know there was an experiment done where high energy electrons where fired at protons. From the scattered pattern produced by the electrons, it was found that protons have a non-uniform distribution of mass and charge. This helped to confirm the existence of quarks because they would case the proton to have a non-uniform distribution of mass and charge. However, I was wondering what other experimental evidence is there that quarks exist? Thanks in advance for your comments.

Thanks, you have been very helpful.

I take it from the short answer, that although it is the nuclear structure that creates the magnetic moment, we don't know how yet?

OK, that is a fair argument upon why the magnetic moment of some isotopes is unknown, thank you. Do you think though that the magnetic moment is created by the nuclear structure?

It could be that nobody has measured them, but this argument seems a little flawed to me. Firstly the magnetic moments of a vast number of isotopes (many of which are unstable) have been measured. Plus the isotopes that I have previously mentioned are only 1 or 2 neutrons few or too many from being a stable, so we are not talking extremely exotic isotopes. Secondly, the magnetic moment for a good number of the isotopes are known only when they are in an excited state and thus more than half the work has already been done at some point in the past. Thirdly, some of these isotopes have very long half life, e.g. nickel-59 (which is one of the isotopes where a magnetic moment is known for one of its excited states) which has a half life of 100,000 years. Moreover, we could compare this isotope with isotopes that have a known magnetic moment, but short half lives, e.g. carbon-15 (half life of 2.5 seconds) or boron-8 (half life of 770 milliseconds). Do you think the fact that these isotopes have an unknown magnetic moment, might relate some how to their nuclear structure, e.g. they have two different configurations that produce the same radioactive decay, but each of them has a different magnetic moment?

Thanks Enthalpy for the reference, however it doesn't really answer the question, of why the magnetic moments of some isotopes are unknown? Nickel-59 was given just as an example. In fact your reference does not give a magnetic moment for nickel-59 in its ground state. Other isotopes (close to the stable isotopes for each element) with unknown magnetic moments are: H4 (hydrogen-4), He5, Be7, Be11, B9, N16, F18, Mg27, Al29, Si31, P30, P33, S37, Cl39, Ar41, Ca49, Ti51, V52, V53, Cr55, Mn57, Fe53, Fe55, Co61, Ni59, Ni63, Cu67, Zn69, Zn71, Ga70, Ga73, Ge77, As73, As77, Se81, Se83, Br83, Y88, Zr93, Zr97, Nb91, Nb92, Nb94, Mo91, Mo93, Mo101, Tc97, Tc98, Tc100, Rh101, Rh104, Pd103, Pd107, Pd109, Pd11, Cd117, Te121, I128, La136, La141, Ce135, Pr139, Pr140, Nd151, Pm146, Sm155, Gd161, Ho 167, Yb177, Lu178, Hf173, Hf181, Ta180, W179, W181, W185, Re189, Os185, Ir195, Pt199. Enthalpy's reference, does give the magnetic moment for some of these isotopes, but not in their ground states. It is also interesting to note that some of these isotopes have been missed out in the reference, for example it gives the magnetic moment for Si30 and Si32, but not Si31. I hope this has helped to clarify my question and I'm grateful for any answers or comments. Thanks

I was wondering, how come the magnetic moment of some isotopes are unknown? This cannot be related to the isotope's half life, as nickel-59 has an unknown magnetic moment, but a half life of 100,000 years. Also, I cannot believe that it is the case, that they have not been measured yet. Thanks in advance.

I'm not sure, I totally understand your question, but my theory proposes that all the sub-atomic particles are composed of a fixed frequency of electromagnetic waves. In fact a particles magnetic moment (which can be experimentally measured) is produced by the orientation of the magnetic component in the electromagnetic waves. However these magnetic moments of the different particles can either constructively work together or cancel each other out. This is why some nuclei have magnetic moments, whilst others do not. The same also holds true for the electrons and overall therefore a single atom can have a magnetic field. In magnetic objects, the magnetic field of all the atoms align together, producing an observable magnetic effect. I hope this has answered your question. Also, sorry its taken me a while to answer you but I've been busy.

OK, I understand your point about communication, and this is one of the reasons I came on this site. I understand that you haven't got the time to read it all, but reading http://www.sciencefo...magnetic-waves/ may give you a better understand, of a small part of this work. In terms of how do to calculate the orbit, then assuming that the two masses are uncharged, travelling slowly (with respect to the speed of light), and sufficiently far away from the Schwarzschild radius, then the formulae become the standard Newtonian ones. How do I know whether I have got anything yet? The simple answer is I'm not 100%, but I have got confidence in the idea. This confidence comes from the fact that it is able to explain things that current theories cannot. Examples of these include, why some radioactive decay trees go through stable isotopes, why the magnetic moment of some isotopes (e.g. nickel-59) are unknown and isotopes with the same structures have the same radioactive decay type, which all follow the same decay rate trend (e.g. the heavier the nuclei the faster the decay rate or vice versa). Furthermore, I have not found anything for which the model does not fit, and I have looked at electric flow through crystal layers, superconductivity (and how magnetic fields affect it), quantum mechanical spin, time dilation, length contraction, to name a few. As I have already stated, there is some maths in this, but it is not exhaustive.

The only way for me to answer your questions, is to let you read the work; as your questions are too expansive to answer here. Therefore, my question to you is, are you willing to read the work and find out the answers? However, I will try to give some very brief answers to your questions. Firstly you ask where GR and QT are wrong. One place where I would say QT is wrong is by considering everything as a particle, whereas I deal with everything as a wave. Secondly, you say the abstract needs to give an idea of how I have accomplished this unified theory. However, the abstracts that I have read, give you a taste of the work that is contained and the conclusions/results it gives, which is what I have done. Furthermore, I have surely given you an idea of how I have gone about producing this theory, by explaining how I have grouped the forces together one by one. Thirdly, after stating that I had not done all the maths, you ask two questions relating to maths. Now I understand that the maths will eventually need to be done, assuming the concept is right. However, from your first question, I am assuming that you are leading into the perihelion of Mercury, to which my theory is able to deal with; just as it is able to calculate the deflection angle of an em wave as it passes the Sun. Going back to your question though, my theory would be able to give the orbit of a planet, given all the correct information, like the mass of the star, etc. Also "how does gravity effect the decay rate", is not a straight forward question to answer, as time is not a unique quantity in normal terms. Therefore to start with we would need to define, how to we measure time and then what our frame of reference is. In terms of semantics, I was referring to the comment about atoms being the building blocks of the universe. Here, it comes down to your opinion of where you are going to draw the line. For example, I mentioned atoms, because chemically they cannot be broken down, others might say no, its electrons, quarks and the other QT fundamental particles that are the building blocks. One could go even further and say that the big bang is the fundamental building block of the universe, since without it, the universe would not exist. As I say, it all about where to we draw the line, in this context.

Yes, I understand what you are saying about semantics and to a certain extent it is these semantics that I am trying to learn, from a scientific point of view. In terms of atoms being the building blocks, although I understand that they consist of smaller particles, at least chemically atoms cannot be broken down. Thus from a chemical prospective they are the building blocks of everything. Maybe a better abstract of the work would be: Current theory states that there are four fundamental forces in the universe. However, we propose a qualitative model whereby all the forces can be incorporated into the electromagnetic force. Firstly, we combine the electromagnetic and gravitational forces and in doing so show now electromagnetic waves can form all the different sub-atomic particles. Secondly, we show how these sub-atomic particles fit and stay together, and thus incorporate the strong force. At this point our model is able to describe the nuclear structure of all the elements, including all their isotopes. Finally the weak force is incorporated and in doing so, we are able to explain why radioactivity for a single atom is a random process, as well as why on larger scales a half life can be determined. The model is also able to explain various other atomic features, for example the uncertainly principle, quantum mechanical spin, why the neutron to proton ratio required for stability increases with atomic number, why the number of stable isotopes changes between each element. Furthermore, we show how the model increases our understanding of various physically phenomena. Examples of these include, describing exactly where a unstable nuclear structure will radioactively decay, why some radioactive decay chains go through stable isotopes, what thermal energy is at a nuclear scale and how this would affect electrical conduction. Finally, we discuss several testable experiments that would be able to prove whether some of the models predictions were valid. Do you think that this abstract sounds as if the model has substance and not (as imatfall puts it) just word salad? I would also state that at this stage, although I could spend more time producing all the maths for the model, am I more interested in seeing whether the concept as a whole is correct (or at least going in the right direction). This is one of the reasons, I am more than happy to answer questions on it including pointing out mistakes in the way I am trying to put it forward and "have you considered …" questions. So please ask away. Finally, if you would like to read some of this idea, then let me know and I will upload it and send you a link.

To answer your last question first, the theory does contain some maths, but it is not mathematically dominated (i.e. it has not been expanded to its fullest extent as of yet), which is why I refer to it as a qualitative rather than quantitive theory. However, it does have predictive powers. I do understand though, that physics is highly mathematical these days and to some extent that is what academics expect. In terms of quarks, my theory can deal with them, but is just as complete without them, which is why I left them out in the previous abstract. In terms of experimental evidence of quarks, I thought they had never been seen in isolation and so there existence had been inferred from experimental results. For example, let us discuss the deep inelastic scattering of high energy electrons by protons. From my theory, if a wall of protons were lined up and electrons fired at them, then most of the electrons would pass straight through the wall, with only a tiny deflection. A few of them though will be deflected through a large angle and in rare causes some of the electrons may even be deflected backwards. The reason for this is that my theory does not consider the proton (or the neutron for that matter) to have a uniform distribution of mass or charge. Moreover, it is my understand that it was this result, of protons not having a uniform distribution of mass or charge that helped to confirm the theory of quarks in the first place. The theory also explains the whole raft of other sub-atomic particles currently considered. I also understand that Dirac theory predicts that any fundamental spin-half fermion with charge Q and mass m, should have a magnetic moment of Q*(h bar) / (2m). However, since the magnetic moment of protons and neutrons differ from the values that would be obtained from this equation, then it has been considered that they cannot be fundamental particles. My theory would state though, that the structure of protons and neutrons are significantly different from electrons, that it would have be very surprising, if the same equation for magnetic moments would hold for both types (i.e. electrons and protons/neutrons). If there is other experimental evidence of quarks, then please let me know. I will then see if my theory is able to explain it and then I will post a reply. Finally, thank you for your comments about the abstract, I will re-write it and be more concise and to the point next time. Previously, I was just trying to portray the width of the research, to give people an understanding of what it contained. Anyway, thanks for your comments and I look forward to hearing what you have to say.

Here is further information on my previous comment: An abstract of the work, would be: Atoms are the building blocks of the universe; however they themselves consist of protons, neutrons and electrons. It is these sub-atomic particles though, that are the foundation of matter. Conversely electromagnetic waves are a form of energy and not only give us visible light but everything from radio waves to gamma rays. The electromagnetic force is also one of the four fundamental forces of the universe, the others being gravity, the strong force and the weak force. We propose a qualitative model that shows how electromagnetic waves can form all the different sub-atomic particles. It then goes on to explain how these fit together to form the nucleus of all the different elements and their isotopes, as well as their electron structures. In building up the structure of the atoms, the model naturally explains why the ratio of neutrons to protons required for stability increases, as the elements get heavier. Additionally we are able to explain the variation in the number of stable isotopes each element has, as well as the variations in the abundance of each element. The model also takes into account and/or explains various other atomic features, for example the uncertainty principle. Furthermore, from these nuclear structures, we are able to show how the strong and weak forces can be combined into the electromagnetic force. Once the basic structure of the atom explained, we show how this agrees with and explains various phenomena, which include antimatter, quantum mechanical spin, radioactivity, chemical bonding plus thermal and electrical conduction. So for example the model explains why matter and antimatter would have all the same properties, but be equal and opposite in charges. Also in terms of radioactivity, the model is able to reproduce the radioactive decay tree for all the elements, showing a consistent structure for the nucleus at each step. Furthermore, it is able to explain why a particular nucleus can have multiple decay paths and why sometimes these may go through a stable isotope (for example potassium-40 decaying to calcium-40 and then to argon-40). Additionally the model proposes an answer as to why the radioactive decay of a single atom is a random process. Furthermore, when investigating superconductivity the model is able to explain why external magnetic fields would affect a superconductor's critical temperature. Experiments that would test the idea: One of the predictions is that electromagnetic waves would have mass, dependent upon the speed it was travelling. So, if the wave was travelling at the speed of light, then it would have no mass (which correlates with relativity). Conversely, if the wave stops (i.e. it hits something) then at that moment (before its energy is transferred) it would have its maximum mass. I would note at this point, that the mass of an individual wave would be extremely small and below the currently measured threshold. Thus, one experiment would be to try and measure the mass of the waves and check whether it changes depending upon its speed. Another prediction is that in a perfect body centred cubic crystal structure; electricity can flow independently on the top and bottom of the cube. Thus, there can be the situation where electricity flows in two opposite directions at the same time. With the new nanotechnology we are able to create, I would have thought this prediction could be experimentally tested. These are a couple of the predictions, which I feel could be experimentally tested. What do you think? (Note, although it sounds as if I am treading on quantum mechanics toes, so to speak and to some extent I am, the idea is based upon old quantum mechanics.) I do like you idea imatfaal. Do you think the abstract above, would be something that would grab your attention?

I will answer your questions, one by one, Phil. Also I understand that these are not personal attacks against me, but general questions that need to be asked. Does your hypothesis attempt to overturn an existing principle or theory? I would have to answer yes there, but it is based upon relativity and old quantum mechanics. Can you suggest an experiment that would test your idea? Yes, I can suggest a couple of experiments that would test the idea and I have even written a paper talking about the more major of the two. Is your hypothesis capable of making any predictions that could be tested? Yes, there are several predictions that could be tested, even though the theory currently is qualitative rather than quantitive. Are you using standard scientific terminology, or are you making up phrases that best describe the differences between your idea and accepted science? I am using standard scientific terminology, so that everyone (including me) can understand what it is I’m trying to put forward. Are you trying to "prove" your concept is right, or do you have evidence that supports it? I have lots of evidence that support my concept and it does seem to be able to answer a wide number of questions.

I was just wondering if anybody knew how to get a discussion going on a speculative theory? I have been working on one for a few years now and have been trying to break it, by looking at various experimental data, but everything I find just re-enforces the theory. I am quite happy for anybody to read it, but it is approximately 100 pages, although I have written a few short papers, if that is of help. In fact the reason I wrote the papers in the first place was to try and discuss my idea with lecturers at various universities, as well as seeing whether journals would publish them. However I’m currently having no luck. Therefore any comments and suggestions would be much appreciated. Conversely, if you have any questions, then just let me know, and I will do my best to answer them. Finally, if you are after reading my work or the papers, then I will upload them, and give you the link. Thanks

Again, sorry for not being clear and upfront.

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend. However the books are free for anybody to read if they wish (I don't make a penny from the site or any downloads).

This is certainly an interesting idea, I don’t know if you have got any further with your theory. However it sounds very similar to another one that I read, not long ago. There they proposed that all the sub-atomic particles are made up from EM waves, which are themselves made up of positive and negative charges (which is where I made the connection). Anyway, you can find information on it at www.baldr-limited.co.uk/books. Let me know what you think, as I found it all very interesting.

You may find the work contained in "Gravity & Electromagnetic Waves" (which can be found www.baldr-limited.co.uk/books) interesting. There they discuss how EM waves and gravity could be unified and under what conditions gravity would be observed. I found the information it contained very interesting and well worth the read. Anyway, if you do give it a read then I would be interested in your thoughts.

I have been thinking recently about electrons and electromagnetic wave and have come up with the following idea. I was just wondering what you good people thought about it. (I know the information is presented in quite a technical way, but I tend to find that helps me to see any problems there maybe with the idea). Introduction ========= Both electrons (or positrons) and electromagnetic waves have always been thought of as separate entities, i.e. as particles and waves respectively. However it has been experimentally shown that both of these entities can display both particle and wave like behaviour. Moreover, electron-positron annihilations produce only electromagnetic waves and conversely electromagnetic waves can produce electron-positron pairs. These facts propose the possibility that there is some sort of connection between electromagnetic waves and electrons. (Note, the same connection would also hold for positrons (anti-matter electrons), but for simplicity, throughout the whole paper, we will only refer to one of them.) It is this connection that we will discuss within this paper. Electrons and Electromagnetic Waves =========================== One of the central concepts of quantum mechanics is that all particles exhibit wave-particle duality, just as electromagnetic waves do. This implies that electrons will exhibit both wave and particle like properties. For example, Schrodinger modelled electrons as waves to produce a model of their structure around the nucleus of an atom. Conversely, we also know that an electron at rest is unable to move without an external force being applied to it, which is a particle like property. This is the opposite of an electromagnetic wave, which will always travel without any external forces acting upon it. However, if we consider an electromagnetic wave then we know that its amplitude must become zero at its front and back. This implies that the total length of any electromagnetic wave must be a harmonic of its wavelength (i.e. its length is either 1/2, 1, 3/2, 2, 5/2, … times its wavelength). Now, if the length of the electromagnetic wave is one or more times its wavelength, then it must consist of at least one full wave. This means that the electromagnetic wave would contain all the ''information'' for it to propagate as a wave. Therefore, it would be able to travel and move as a wave through space. The question then, is what happens if the electromagnetic wave only consisted of half its wavelength? In this situation it would not have all the ''information'' required to propagate as a wave and would, therefore, most likely act in a particle like manner (i.e. if it was at rest, then it would remain in that state until acted on by a force, as defined by Newton. Moreover, by definition electromagnetic waves consist of an oscillating electric and magnetic field. Therefore, if we looked at a single full length wave, then we could consider half the wave to be electrically positive, whilst the other half is electrically negative. This would still correlate with a complete wave being electrically neutral. Hence, in the case of an electromagnetic wave that is only half a wavelength long, then it would only consist of either the electrically positive half or the electrically negative half. These half waves would also each have a magnetic component attached to them, thus creating a magnetic monopole. However, this magnetic monopole would be extremely difficult to detect, since the magnetic field is weaker than the electric. Further adding to this difficultly, is the fact that an accelerating electric charge (e.g. this half wave) would create a secondary dipole magnetic field, which would help to mask the inherent magnetic monopole. Indeed these accelerations could be caused by the entire half wave physically moving up and down in space, due to it interacting with external energy (e.g. full propagating electromagnetic waves) in the local environment. This would imply that these monopoles would only be observed when the half wave was stationary or only moving at constant velocity in a vacuum environment that was close to absolute zero, and whose walls were sufficiently far away as to have no effect. Furthermore, we note that we are not the first to propose the existence of magnetic monopoles as Dirac proposed a general theory of magnetic monopoles back in 1948 and 't Hooft shows that these can exist within a quantum mechanical framework. Additionally, Morris (2009) wrote a paper where they stated that they had seen magnetic monopoles in spin ice Dy_2Ti_2O_7. Also, if a positive and negative half wave were to collide with each other, then at that moment they would both have all the ''information'' required to propagate as a complete wave. Thus, this may be a mechanism whereby the two half waves would convert into two or more full waves, depending upon their momentum and angle of collision. This would imply though, that the two half waves were destroyed in the collision, leaving only full propagating waves behind. In fact this situation where two things collide, destroying each other and only leaving behind electromagnetic waves is every similar to electron, positron annihilations. Furthermore in the case of electron positron pairs, these can be produced from high energy electromagnetic waves. Therefore, we have the following situations: 1. Half electromagnetic waves at rest cannot move without an external force, just like electrons at rest. 2. Half electromagnetic waves would have an electric charge associated with them, just like electrons. 3. When positive and negative half electromagnetic waves collide, they destroy each other, producing only full propagating electromagnetic waves, just as colliding positrons and electrons do. This evidence would appear to imply that electrons consist of half electromagnetic waves! An implication of this connection would be, that since electrons have mass, then so would electromagnetic waves (at least under certain circumstances). In fact from relativity we know that E=m*c^2, where E is the energy, m is the relativistic mass and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. This equation not only links mass and energy together, but implies that mass is just a dense form of energy, since the speed of light squared is huge. Moreover, we know that for any particular electromagnetic wave, its velocity, v, is related to its wavelength, lambda, by v=f*lambda, where f is its frequency. From this equation, we have that the slower the waves travels (i.e. it is located in a non vacuum medium), the shorter its wavelength is. Thus, the slower the wave travels, the smaller the total volume of the wave, i.e. the energy becomes more and more dense. However, from the statement above, this would imply that as the wave slows down, the more mass it would portray! Additionally, the total energy of an electromagnetic wave would be split between mass energy and electromagnetic energy. Plus, these energies would transform from one to the other, dependent upon the wave's speed. Furthermore, relativity states that a particle with mass cannot travel at the speed of light and thus, an electromagnetic wave must be massless. Hence, it could be argued that all the energy within an electromagnetic wave in a vacuum, (i.e. travelling at the speed of light) is in the form of electromagnetic energy and thus has no mass. Indeed, if an electromagnetic wave travelling through a vacuum has no mass, then we can work out the total energy of an electromagnetic wave. This is done by calculating the wave's electromagnetic energy within a vacuum, which is given by E=h*f (i.e. Planck's relation), where h is Planck's constant. Thus, by equating this equation and E=m*c^2, we can find the amount of mass an electromagnetic wave of frequency f can portray is: m = h*f / c^2. (1) This is the relativistic mass though, and therefore if we convert this into rest mass, m_0, we obtain: m_0 = (h*f / c^2) * square root(1 - v^2 / c^2), (2) where v is the velocity of the wave. However, as velocity is only a relative quantity (i.e. it depends upon your reference frame), we will actually refer to the waves mass as m_v, meaning that: m_v = (h*f / c^2) * square root(1 - v^2 / c^2). (3) Therefore, equation (3) agrees that all electromagnetic waves travelling at the speed of light in a vacuum would be massless, since the speed of light is a constant for all observers (independent of their own speed). Also it states, that the maximum mass an electromagnetic wave can have, is proportional to its frequency and occurs when the wave's speed is zero (relative to the reference frame). We note though, that the wave's speed can only become zero when it has hit something and thus, at this point the wave is destroyed (i.e. the wave would cease to exist as all its energy has been transferred into the particle it impacted). This would correlate with the quantum mechanical view that when an electromagnetic wave fully impacts (as opposed to ``bouncing off'' or scattering) any of the sub-atomic particles it is actually destroyed and in doing so its energy has been transferred. Additionally, we can see this mass as the impact force on the object being impacted by the electromagnetic wave. Moreover, we stated previously that the velocity of a wave is directly proportional to its wavelength. Thus, relating this fact with equation (3), shows that as the wave slows down its mass increases and its length decreases (increasing the density of the wave's energy), which again correlates with our statement that mass is just a dense form of energy. Therefore, overall we would have the situation where the mass of the wave would be zero, when it is travelling at the speed of light. Then as the wave slows down its mass increases, at the expense of the electromagnetic energy, until a maximum mass is reacted at the point the wave impacts an object. This idea that electromagnetic waves can have mass when they are travelling slower than the speed of light, may also help to explain their wave-particle duality. Finally, we note that equation (3) shows us that even for an extremely high frequency wave (e.g. a gamma wave), its mass when stopped would only be comparable to an electron's mass. Thus, this may further explain why we have never been able to detect any mass associated with an electromagnetic wave. However, this implication that electromagnetic waves can have mass, would be one way of testing the original idea, of whether electrons can consist of half an electromagnetic wave. In particular, scientists would need to test whether equation (3) actually holds experimentally. Although, we should note that this experiment would be particularly difficult, since the mass of an electromagnetic wave would be extremely small, even for a high frequency, slow moving wave. Part of this experiment though has already been managed, as scientists have been able to slow electromagnetic waves down to several miles an hour. For example the Rowland Institute for Science managed to slow electromagnetic waves down to 38mph in 1999. Furthermore, if electrons and electromagnetic waves are the same thing, then we should be able to calculate the properties of the electromagnetic wave that constitutes an electron. These electromagnetic wave properties would have to be calculated based upon the electron's experimentally known properties, (e.g. its mass). Now we know from relativity that mass and energy are equivalent, such that E=m_0*c^2 for a stationary particle. We also have Planck's relation, which states that the energy of an electromagnetic wave is proportional to its frequency, given by E=h*f. Thus, equating these two equations and rearranging for frequency, we obtain: f= m_0*c^2 / h. (4) This equation states what the frequency of an electromagnetic wave would be, if all the mass of a particle was converted into a single wave. Moreover, equation (4) is the same as de Broglie's or Comptons's equation, i.e. lambda = h / (m_0*c) (5) if we convert it from a description about wavelength to one of frequency, using c=f*lambda. We have the situation though, where it would appear that an electron is only half an electromagnetic wave. Thus, to obtain the correct frequency for the electromagnetic wave, we must double the electron's mass. Hence, the wave's frequency is: f = 2*m_0*c^2 / h = 2.4*10^20 Hz (6) based upon the rest mass of an electron being 9.1093826*10^-31 kg. Hence, it is possible to find a sensible frequency for half an electromagnetic wave that would correlate with the properties of an electron, although clearly more analysis is required. Interestingly however, equation (6) correlates with the (linear) Zitterbewegung frequency found in Dirac's equation, when it is applied to an electron. This further implies that there may be something to this idea. As we have already mentioned, relativity states that the mass of a particle increases with its velocity. In particular this relationship between mass and velocity is given by: m = m_0 / square root(1 - v^2 / c^2), (7) where m_0 is the particle's rest mass. Therefore, since we know that a force is required to accelerate a particle and a force requires energy, then this implies that some of that energy actually goes into increasing the mass. This again appears to be creating another link between energy and mass, in this case the more kinetic energy a particle has the more mass it has. In particular, let us consider a particle accelerator that contains a vacuum and has all of its walls at absolute zero. In this case there would be nothing (no matter or energy) inside the particle accelerator. Now let us assume that we ''place'' an electron inside it, and accelerate this electron close to the speed of light, using an electric field. In this situation, we have from relativity that the mass of the electron would have been greatly increased, since it is travelling close to the speed of light. However, this leaves the question, where did the electron gain its mass or energy from, since there is no mass or energy inside the particle accelerator, apart from the surrounding electric field? The answer comes from the fact that, as the electron is accelerated it generates a back electromagnetic field (similar to the motor), which has the effect of blue shifting the electron's inherent half electromagnetic wave. (Putting that another way, the electron transfers energy out of the field accelerating it and into its inherent half electromagnetic wave, blue shifting it.) Now since, mass is directly proportional to frequency, any blueshift occurring will also increase the mass by the same amount. Conversely, if the electron is decelerated, then its electromagnetic or gravitational field must do work against the external field that is causing the electron's velocity to change. Thus, this work causes the electron's inherent half electromagnetic wave to redshift and hence, the electron would lose mass. Additionally, as the change in mass is purely related to velocity and energy cannot be destroyed, then the rest mass of the electron would remain constant, independent of how many times it was accelerated and decelerated. Lastly, if the electron moved at a constant velocity, then none of its fields would be working with or against any external fields and thus, it would neither gain nor lose mass. In fact this relationship between mass and frequency may help to explain why mass, length and time (which at first glance all appear independent properties) all change with velocity by the Lorentz factor (or the reciprocal of it) We note however, that this relationship between mass and velocity given by relativity is different from the relationship between mass and velocity of an electromagnetic wave that was discussed above (given by equation (3)). The reason for this is due to the fact that the total energy of the electromagnetic wave remains constant, whereas for the particle, its energy is continuously increasing with its speed. Therefore, the particle will gain more and more mass as its speed increases, but the mass of the electromagnetic wave will increase as the wave slows down, due to the energy transfer from electromagnetic to mass. Furthermore, let us assume that an electron consists of half an electromagnetic wave. If this is indeed the case, then the inherent velocity of the half electromagnetic wave (i.e. the velocity it would travel at, if it was a full wave), must be slower than the speed of light, otherwise the electron would have no mass. Discussion ======== In this paper we have investigated whether there is a connection between electrons and electromagnetic waves. What we have found is that electromagnetic waves whose length is half their wavelength have very similar properties to electrons or positrons. In particular: 1: Half electromagnetic waves at rest cannot move without an external force, just like electrons at rest. 2: Half electromagnetic waves would have an electric charge associated with them, just like electrons. 3: When positive and negative half electromagnetic waves collide, they destroy each other, producing only full propagating electromagnetic waves, just as colliding positrons and electrons do. Furthermore, when investigating what frequency half an electromagnetic wave would be, to give it the same properties as an electron, it correlated with the Zitterbewegung frequency found in Dirac's equation. However, these connections also implied that electromagnetic waves would have (or at least portray) mass under the correct circumstances. In fact E=m*c^2 directly implies that mass is just a dense form of energy and from this came the idea that electromagnetic waves do have mass when they are travelling slower than the speed of light. Indeed the slower they travelled the more mass they had, until the wave speed become zero, at which point they had their maximum amount of mass. This maximum mass was directly related to the frequency of the wave (and the number of waves). Additionally, we noted that at this point the wave would be destroyed, since for its speed to be zero, it must have hit something (i.e. the wave had cease to exist as all its energy has been transferred into the particle it impacted), which correlates with quantum mechanics. Moreover, this implication that electromagnetic waves have mass, would be one way of testing whether electrons can consist of half an electromagnetic wave. Although, an issue with this experiment is that each wave has an extremely small amount of mass, even for high frequency, slow moving waves. Lastly, we explained why the rate of change of mass with velocity for a particle and an electromagnetic wave would be different. This was due to the fact that the total energy of the electromagnetic wave remained constant, whereas the energy of the particle continuously increased. Finally, if these half electromagnetic waves and electrons were found to be equivalent, then it would explain why both electromagnetic waves and electrons have a wave-particle duality to them. The question is though, are they the same? (If you are interested I can give you some of the references where I got this information from. However, I left them out currently, to try and make it easier to read and understand. Also I hope that you can understand the equations that I have used, but if not then let me know, and I will re-write them for you.) Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing what you have got to say.

Hi Everybody, I'm Dr Who (its a nickname of mine) and I'm interested in physics.