How can electrons have
more than three wave motions
in only three dimensions?
this paper was written many years before I
diagrammed the nucleus, so it is admittedly incomplete. It
was also written long before I
broke down the Schrodinger Equation itself. However, I don't
remove old papers, since I like to let my readers see how my
theory advanced. And, since what I have written here remains
true, it was not necessary to take it down regardless. It was
only necessary to take it a bit further.
As usual, I
will give the simplest possible explanation, one that anyone can
understand. Of course there are complexities that I will not
address, and by not addressing them I am not implying they do not
exist. I only want to show my reader here that questions about
quanta and dimensions do not need to be difficult or esoteric.
Simple explanations do exist, and they should continue to be
sought. We should never accept that Quantum Mechanics or QED is
mystical, senseless, or fantastic. It is ultimately mechanics,
and as such must resolve to visually comprehensible explanations
and simple math.
In my paper on superposition,
I showed that wave motion was easily explainable as stacked
spins. I will gloss that argument in a moment. The problem is
that, even if this explanation is accepted, it would appear at
first glance that we still only have three possible spins, in the
x, y and z planes. But Schrodinger finds more waves than that.
How is that possible?
It is possible since a fourth wave
motion may be shown to exist, contained in that simple stacking.
And a fifth wave motion can also be shown, one that is not
determined by the spin of the quantum itself.
postulated that since space is now four-dimensional (since
Minkowski), one of the extra wave motions or variables might be a
function or expression of time. This must be false, since time is
not a separate dimension. In studying motion, time is a useful
concept, but it is not a dimension like x, y, or z. In fact, time
is a second measurement of one of the other three dimensions, as
I show in several of my other
papers. Therefore we must throw it out as an explanation of
the number of waves motions in the equations.
No, we have
simpler explanations than that, ones that require no esoteric
expressions of time at all. The first extra dimension comes from
analyzing even more closely the mechanics of spin. We begin with
a simple sphere spinning on its axis. Up to now, theoreticians
have called that spin the x-spin, leaving them y and z. But a
spin about an axis is not a motion in x, y, or z. Just look at
our little sphere, spinning away. It is not moving in x, y, or z
yet. The fact is, we have spin plus
x, y, and z to work with, which is four total motions. We can
call these motions dimensions if we want to, although I am not
sure I would call spin a dimension. Regardless of what we choose
to call spin, it is a basic motion that creates a wave or a
variance. We can have a CW spin or a CCW spin, and then we can
have three spins stacked on top of that.
These outer spins have to be outside the influence of the inner
spins, as I show in my superposition paper, but they are quite
easy to visualize. Start with the CW spin, for example. Due to
gyroscopic rules, you can’t spin that sphere in any other
direction. What I mean is, imagine that sphere is the earth and
you are spinning it about the N/S axis. You can’t also spin it
about the E/W axis. Gyroscopic rules prevent it with any real
body, including the earth and including a quantum.
But you can
spin it E/W if you make the spin end-over-end. If the CW spin
radius is 1, you just make the E/W spin radius 2, so that it is
outside the influence of the inner spin. Then the second spin
does not affect the first.
course the center of this second spin is on the shell of the
sphere, not the center. You might not want to call it a spin. But
whatever you call it, it is another variation that can either be
CW or CCW. And it will act like a wave in equations. It will also
move the entire body in a line, filling or creating the x
direction in space.
we have two more directions to fill in the same way, making sure
that our new end-over-end spins are beyond the influence of all
inner spins. In this way, we fill the y and z directions.
Since we have no other directions, we cannot propose any more
waves in this way. We seem to have topped out at 4, which is
still less than we need.
To continue, we just look to my
paper on the
electron orbit, to find another wave motion. This wave motion
is created by interaction with another body. The quantum cannot
exhibit this wave by itself. There I show that, just as at the
macro-level, the field is a compound of the gravitational and E/M
field. The standard model has long believed that the quantum
field is all E/M and the macro-field is all gravity, but that
model is wrong. At all levels the interaction field of all
particles and bodies is a compound of gravity and E/M. Gravity
causes an apparent attraction, E/M causes a real repulsion, and
the orbit is caused by the balancing of both with the tangential
velocity of the orbiter.
to the mechanics of the orbit, an electron cannot possibly be
captured at a perfect tangent. A perfect capture would only take
place with an infinite velocity. In short, it must be captured in
a less-than perfect landing, which creates a bounce. I show this
in more detail in the other paper. This bounce becomes the wave,
once it settles. This wave would become apparent in a graph of
the main orbital motion. Since it is caused by a bounce and not
by a spin (end-over-end or otherwise), it is not disallowed by
any gyroscopic rules or other rules of dimensionality.
gives us a total of five, without once going beyond a high-school
textbook or beyond simple logic and math. It is possible we could
find more wave or wavelike motions, but I think I have made my
point. We don’t need to look at esoterica to solve problems in
QED. We need to think mechanically and clearly.
shown the mechanical genesis of five separate wave motions,
motions that may be expressed by Schrodinger’s equations. As
you can see, this does not imply that space is now
five-dimensional, in any strange or esoteric sense. We still have
only three directional dimensions here. It is only a complex
stacking of spins and linear motions that gives us the extra
functions or variables (or whatever you want to call them in your
math and equations). I believe it is a mistake to call every new
variable or motion a dimension, since it is not a dimension in
common usage. A dimension implies an independent direction in
space, and we have only six of those, three if positive and
negative are taken as one.
Time is not even a dimension, in this regard, since its direction
is not independent of the other three. If you give time a
direction, as a vector, it must be in the direction of either x,
y, or z, for any given problem, and the velocities and
accelerations always bear this out. You can use Minkowski’s
shortcuts if you like, but his postulates are absurd. Time cannot
"move" in the direction of i,
of course, since "move" happens to have a precise and
unalterable definition. Motion is either a velocity or
acceleration, in which the time variable is necessarily in the
denominator. A denominator that was orthogonal to its own
numerator would not give you a velocity or an acceleration.
Minkowski must ignore vectors and only play with numbers. You can
use that fake symmetry if it appeals to you, but you always have
to push your vectors back into line at the end by main force, a
thing I find to be the opposite of elegant.
Since I have now diagrammed the nucleus, we find further simple
assignments of electron degrees of freedom. I have shown the
electron does not orbit the nucleus, rather orbiting at the pole
of a given proton in the nucleus. Since the nucleus itself is
spinning, each electron will have a different larger motion that
depends on its position in the nucleus. For instance, an
electron paired with a proton in the carousel level will have a
different angular momentum due to that position than an electron
paired with a proton on the pole of the nucleus.
If this paper
was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar
(or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me
to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't
be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many
noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee;
so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they
will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.