Home Page

The Theory Page

Theory Continued Page

Theory Continued page 2

Theory Continued page 3

Theory Continued Page 4

Accelerated Expansion and the ZPF

Terms Page

Resource Links Page

Photo Page

Photo2 Page

The below formula was originally written in a format with sub script and superscript that did not translate to this site.

Picture 10Dspace-time as the following. We have embeded in a 4D Euclidean space-time, with length element dl2=dx12+dx22+dx32+dx42 is a hypersurface represented by the parameters u,v,w,x,y,z which we express by x=x(u,v,w,x,y,z). Introduce an extra coordinate for the six sphere S3 as which restricts x4 as x42=R2-x12-x22-x32-x52-x62. One has now defined that our 4D space-time has embeded within it a Calabi-Yau six fold. Mirror symmetry is a conjecture in string theory that certain "mirror pairs" of Calabi-Yau manifolds give rise to isomorphic physical theories. Calabi-Yau manifolds appear in the theory because in passing from the 10-dimensional space time to a physically realistic description in four dimension, string theory requires that the additional 6-dimensional space is to be a Calabi-Yau manifold. The difference herein in this modification is that the element of mirror symmetry has now been transformed from for instance, a dimension 1 Calabi-Yau variety is an elliptic curve, a dimension 2 Calabi-Yau variety is a K3 surface, and a dimension 3 is a Calabi-Yau threefold which would all inscribe within space-time either a sheet or a tube manifold, to something that inscribes within space-time an actual particle that is no longer subject to the singularity problems the old point particle displayed. This is because the particle remains an extended object simular at its zero energy/wave crest to the tube from regular M-Theory. Only now the tube is not an inscribed element by some 2D object. But rather, the object itself.
The vibration of this tube now has both an inward and and outward component. The outward part is the wave action we normally experience at a quantum level. But as this tube is expanding outwardly and following a wave pattern that is determined by its wavelength the inner element is also vibrating in a direction turned inward. It is this inward portion that causes what we call gravatational curvature of space-time due to mass. The amount of this curvature or compaction is determined by the difference between the negative wave outside's energy level and the possitive wave inside's energy level. In the case of an electron the two have a value that when added together gives us the value of the rest mass of that particle.
The mirror symmetry is found in that the inside element is the supersyymetry partner of the outside element. It is the value of the two together that determines a particle's mass, spin, and charge as well as color value in the case of a gluon. In all cases the outer element is by itself a version of a graviton that has in all cases a spin value of 2. The difference in all cases has to deal with energy. Nothing more. Its the inward element that makes the difference and transforms our basic graviton structure of 4D space-time into the different particles and forces that we have around us in the universe.
If one could picture the below picture as a vibrating tube blending or joining with another vibrating tube one would have the actual world-line of a particle interaction. If you reverse the direction around you have the normal path a particle takes in atomic decay.
Notice that the interaction point occurs at a topological singularity in the diagram. Where as in the above one that singularity is avoided. This is the leading contribution to this process and is called a tree level interaction. To compute quantum mechanical amplitudes using perturbation theory we add contributions from higher order quantum processes. Perturbation theory provides good answers as long as the contributions get smaller and smaller as we go to higher and higher orders.
The nice thing about this is that at each order in perturbation theory there is only one diagram. [In point particle field theories the number of diagrams grows exponentially at higher orders.]
The problem that has plagued normal String Theory and M-Theory is that perturbation is determined by the whole area. In string theory, higher order diagrams correspond to the number of holes (or handles) in the world sheet. The bad news is that extracting answers from diagrams with more than about 2 handles is very difficult due to the complexity of the mathematics involved in dealing with these surfaces. Perturbation theory is a very useful tool for studying the physics at weak coupling, and most of our current understanding of particle physics and string theory is based on it. However it is far from complete. The answers to many of the deepest questions will only be found once we have a complete non-perturbative description of the theory. This theory does away with those normal holes that require perturbation theory. As such, this theory has managed to incororate in a renormalizable theory the sum of normal quantum mechanics and General Relativity within the confines of special relativity in a non-perturbative method. As a whole, this theory has managed to use geometry to explain what GR, QED, and QCD have been telling us in their seperate ways all along. Illustrations of some of this are found on the Photo Page.

Back Research that Supports My Theory.

Further, note that Dirac as shown in this quote from pages 194-195 of Dirac: A Scientific Biography, by Helge Kragh (Cambridge 1990): "... "... It would appear here that we have a contradiction with elementary ideas of causality. The electron seems to know about the pulse before it arrives and to get up an acceleration (as the equations of motion allow it to do), just sufficient to balance the effect of the pulse when it does arrive." Dirac seemed to accept this pre-acceleration as a matter of fact, necessitated by the equations, and did not discuss it further. However, Dirac explained that the strange behavior of electrons in this theory could be understood if the electron was thought of as an extended particle with a nonlocal interior. He suggested that the point electron, embedded in its own radiation field, be interpreted as a sphere of radius a, where a is the distance within which an incoming pulse must arrive before the electron accelerates appreciably. With this interpretation he showed that it was possible for a signal to be propagated faster than light through the interior of the electron. He wrote: "The finite size of the electron now reappears in a new sense, the interior of the electron being a region of failure, not of the field equations of electromagnetic theory, but of some of the elementary properties of space-time." In spite of the appearance of superluminal velocities, Dirac's theory was Lorentz-invariant. ...".
As I mentioned within my Theory the compacted 6D Higgs space which is at the center of all particles, including the electron has a space-time element different from our outside 4D reference. Since the distance between any two points in that space-time is smaller the velocity of propagation inside would be faster than light in relation to the outside reference. Thus, Dirac and men like those who wrote the Compton Radius Vortex model have anticipated key aspects
of this same Theory.

Another backup is found in the Compton Radius Votex Model. For any finite non-zero Spin J, Mass M = 0 implies that a = J / M is infinite, so that the Ring Singularity at z = 0 has infinite radius, at x^2 + y^2 = a^2; the Outer Event Horizon at r = r+ = + sqrt( - a^2 ) is infinite and Complex;the Inner Event Horizon at r = r- = - sqrt( - a^2 ) is also infinite and Complex;
the Ergosphere at r = + sqrt( - a^2 cos^2(T) ) is infinite and Complex, but with a hole at the poles of the z-axis.
From the point of view of a Photon, our entire physical universe is the interior of a Kerr-Newman Blackhole Compton Radius Vortex, so that all massless particles may can be
described by 4D Complex-Dimensional fields and Penrose Twisters. Now, while I agree that the math of both do give a good discription I feel that all massless particles would exist within a universe view like the interior of a Near-Kerr-Newman Blackhole. As such, while part can be discribed by Complex 4D fields. The interior requires a different manifold of a 6D Higgs type to satisfy the requirements of SR, GR, and both QED & QCD.

(1+1)-dimensional Sine Gordon Soliton Pion

The effective (1+1)-dimensionality of the Pion's constituent Quark and AntiQuark is due to the fact that the Quark and AntiQuark are confined to the Pion and therefore interact at the surface boundaries of their Compton Radius Vortices, so that their Ring Singularities are effectively Naked Singularities with only 1 spatial dimension, that of the Blackhole at z=0 and x^2+y^2=a^2. Now within my Theory, while the Quark and Anti-Quark remain true particles, their confinement is due to a more confined radius. Thus, effectively they would have a ring singularity area that satisfys z= to plank radius and x^2+y^2=a^2. As such the two theories would predict a confinement of quarks to vastly finite area. Since the seperation of any quark from its natural state would require an energy that grows with the distance. The Quark remains a confined system in all cases excepting those of energies approaching that of unification itself. In fact, this same effect can be extended to the proton with its three Quark binding system. In both cases the outer 4D space-time field and the inner 6D space-time fields are generated by those inner quark field models. The same holds true for the Compton Radius Vortices models.

The O(3) Model

Rajaraman says "... What would happen if we ... directly generalise the O(3) model to N real scalar fields ... [ PHI_n with the sum over n of PHI_n^2 = 1 ? ] ... the allowed values of the field, subject to [ the sum over n of PHI_n^2 = 1 ] ... , now fall on the surface of a hypersphere S(N-1) imbedded in N dimensions. Consequently the holonomy group of localised solutions would now be PI_2(S(N-1)). ... this group is trivial except when N = 3. Consequently non-trivial instanton sectors for the ... O(N) model will exist only when N = 3. ... Consequently, the O(3) model's results cannot be generalized by going to an O(N) model with N greater than 3. (see Din and Zakrewski, Nucl. Phys. B168 (1980) 173) ... the O(3) model in (1+1) dimensions has several interesting properties, many of them similar to the Yang-Mills theory in (3+1) dimensions. Both systems yield instantons characterised by integer-valued toplogical indices. ... both models [are] scale invariant and [yield] instantons of arbitrary size. (At the quantum level, the similarities persist. ... both the O(3) and Yang-Mills theories are renormalisable and asymtotically free.) At the same time, the O(3) model is comparatively simple. It consists of only three scalar fields in its two dimensions with a simple Lagrangian [L given by L = (1/2) (d_m PHI).(d^m PHI) where ] ... PHI can be considered as a vector in [which is] distinguished from vectors in coordinate space , which are labelled by Lorentz indices, such as [ m in the above equation for L ] ... both the Lagrangian ... and the constraint [ sum over n of PHI_n^2 = 1 ] are invariant under global O(3) rotations in Internal Symmetry Space. Since Spin(3) = SU(2), the 3-real-dimensional Internal Symmetry Space on which O(3) acts in the O(3) Model can be transformed into a 2-complex-dimensional Internal Symmetry Space that is acted upon by SU(2). Since SU(2) acts globally on the symmetric space SU(2) / U(1) = S3 / S1 = S2 = CP1, where CP1 is Complex Projective 1-space the CP1 model is essentially the same as the O(3) model which also follows the same line as this Theory does but with the inclussion of gravity into the same general fold from both a particle and geometric perspective. Thus, this Theory manages to do something that the older CP1 & O(3) models could not do.


Weakons. The nature of weakons can be described in much the same terms that were used to describe the photon above. Weakons are also spin 1 bosons, for they are the gauge particles of the weak force. Given or theory about the nature of quantum matter, we assume that weakons are constituted by cycles of quantum events, and thus, what makes them different from photons is presumably coinciding with space in a different way.
Rest mass. One basic difference between photons and weakons is that weakons have a rest mass, whereas photons are massless. Indeed, weakons have a sizable rest mass, about 80,000 MeV/c2 for the charged weakons and over 90,000 MeV/c2 for the neutral weakon. That is nearly one hundred times the rest mass of the proton.
Rest mass is the property that made it impossible to explain weakons as the gauge particle of the weak field on the model of photons in the electromagnetic field, since gauge bosons are massless, according to Yang-Mills field theory. What makes Yang-Mills field theory so attractive is that particles interact the same way regardless of scale. They are, in other words,“gauge invariant. But if one simply assumes that gauge particles have a rest mass, then the particles are no longer invariant under a gauge transformation. When the relevant particles are described on a much smaller scale, as if we were looking at them through a microscope, their mass decreases to the vanishing point. Mass in not gauge invariant.
In order to give the gauge particle of the weak field a rest mass, therefore, physicists postulate another kind of particle, the Higgs boson, which is the gauge boson of yet another field. Unlike the weakon and the photon, which have a spin of 1, the Higgs boson has a spin of 0, meaning that it does not line up at all in the magnetic field. But it gives weakons a mass, only if Higgs bosons are located everywhere in space. Thus, it is assumed that the Higgs field is in a condition of least energy when there are Higgs particles everywhere. But the Higgs boson is a force with a certain strength (which enables the weakon to resist acceleration so that it tends to stay at rest), and so that is to say that the Higgs field has least energy when its force is strongest everywhere. This is paradoxical, because the energy associated with every other force of nature increases with the strength of the force.
Notice, however, that although this description of what gives the weakon a rest mass is paradoxical only when it is assumed that it is a description of matter. It is not paradoxical at all as a description of space. Space has no energy (it is not matter), but since it is a substance, it can exert a force. If the weakons relationship to space is what gives it a rest mass, it is not surprising that the force is exerted everywhere. Nor is it surprising that that is the condition of least energy, because it does not involve any energy at all. Thus, since we have already postulated the existence of space as a substance for other reasons, we can explain the rest mass of weakons without postulating Higgs bosons. We can take talk of Higgs particles to be a way of referring to space.
The function of the Higgs mechanism can be served by recognizing that quantum cycle have another way of coinciding with space. Instead of being picked up by the inherent motion and laying out their cycles as a certain wavelength in space, the quantum cycles of weakons have a purely rotational motion, and so they can be at rest in space. We assume that when quantum cycles coincide with space at rest, their matter has the form of rest mass, that is, the matter resists acceleration by a force. Weakons can, of course, be accelerated, and their rest mass determines, as we have seen, the scale of the quantum kinetic cycles that move these particles across space as time passes. But that role of rest mass comes from their relationship to space, not to Higgs bosons.
Like photons, weakons are bosons with an intrinsic spin of 1. That means that there are three different ways that a weakon and interact in a magnetic field. That means, as we shall assume, that each and every weakon has all three ways of interacting, and which way they interact depends on how they are oriented in the field. Taken geometrically, each way of interacting in a magnetic field can be pictured as a different face of the particle
To a certain extent, the picture this modification to M-Theory discribes of particles is of a vibrating tube with angular momentum. To the extent that both of these theories discribe a simular item then it can be said that they are different methods of discribing the same thing. With the Weakon Model, the particles spin determines the face or world view of that particle. In this theory, the same particle can be modified into different particles. Thus, there has been a face change. However, in this model there are other reasons for that face change. The Weakon Model was based upon the Spatiomaterialist Theory.


The basic particles of physics are described by mathematical theories, which have been accepted as the best efficient-cause explanation of precise, surprising measurements, and they constrain what can be said about basic particles in many subtle ways. What I will present here is, by contrast, a mostly geometrical story about the basic particles, or rather, the beginnings of a geometrical theory. It comes from using spatiomaterialism and its explanation of other parts of physics to constrain further our beliefs about the basic particles. They must be constituted by bits of matter that coincide with space in some way or another, and since space has a three dimensional geometrical structure with an inherent motion connecting all the parts of space in time, these most basic forms of matter must have a spatio-temporal structure of some kind. What is presented here is one way that could be true. There may be other ways it could be true. And the one presented here is merely the model for a set of more specific theories that may be elaborated in different ways. My purpose is to show how adding the ontological constraints of spatiomaterialism to the mathematical constraints of the standard model opens up the possibility of a geometrical model of the basic particles.
It is, once again, an ontological explanation of why current theories about the basic particles are true, and its advantage over purely mathematical theories is that it reduces the number of basic assumptions that need to be made. To be sure, spatiomaterialism makes a big assumption that contemporary physics does not make that space is a substance enduring through time, indeed, one with an inherent motion. But that will enable us to reduce the 37 particles recognized as basic by contemporary physics to, at most, only ten particles. Or even fewer, it might be argued, though that issue can be put off until we discover whether such ontologically based speculation is useful.
The ten basic particles we shall postulate are the photon, the three weakons, W-, W+, and Z0, three neutrinos, electron, muon and tau, and their three antineutrinos. In one way or another, each involves a new assumption about the nature of matter, space and how they are related.
But it is conceivable that the photon can be explained as another form of weakon, and the six neutrinos may be just properties of space, that is, aspects of its relationship to weakon. Hence, a spatiomaterialist world may be made of nothing but space and three kinds of weakons.
This explanation of the nature of the basic particles is based on the assumptions we have already made about the nature of matter in order to explain the truth of the basic laws of classical physics, relativity theory, and quantum mechanics. Quantum matter is ultimately constituted by quantum events, which are basic and can coincide with space in various ways, and since they are cyclic, they constitute bits of matter that endure through time. The total energy or mass of a bit of quantum matter is simply the number of quantum cycles per second that constitute its existence. Since the photon is the simplest and plainest form of quantum event that we considered, let me recall what has been said about it.
An independently existing photon is a complete cycle of electric and magnetic forces. Those forces interact in a way that enables them to be repeated indefinitely. But since each cycle is a quantum event with the size of Plancks constant, h, it either occurs as a whole or not at all. The total energy, or matter, in a photon depends on the number of cycles per second, as required by the physical law, E = hf. But the photon coincides with space in a way that makes it move with the inherent motion in some direction of space. Thus, it also has a wavelength, l, which is inversely proportional to its momentum, as required by the equation, p = h/l.
The photon has an intrinsic spin of 1, which implies that there are three different ways it could be oriented in a magnetic field. Two faces have a magnetic moment, positive or negative, corresponding to the two ways that light can be polarized. (If you follow the photon through space, the electric force rotates around to the right or left in space, which determines it circular polarization, but the difference between these properties is quantum mechanically equivalent to photons being polarized in mutually perpendicular directions as they pass through a filter.) And the third way that a spin 1 boson can interact in a magnetic field involves having no magnetic moment at all, as if there were a face in which the two possible orientations of spin were perfectly balanced. But the photon apparently loses the ability to interact from that “zero face,as I will call it, because it is moving through space with the inherent motion.
Though the photon has energy, it has no rest mass. It might make it seem that its energy must come from its motion across space, like a form of kinetic energy. But that is not quite right, if its motion is due to the inherent motion in space. We are assuming that its energy comes from the cycles of quantum actions that are carried out by the exertion of electric and magnetic forces.
The photon is the gauge boson of the electromagnetic field, and on our ontological interpretation of gauge field theories, that means that electric and magnetic forces arise from space to act on a particle with an electric charge when it moves across space. At rest, the charged particle is a pulsating force in the surrounding space, which is synchronized with the pulsations of particles with the same charge throughout the universe (and 1800 out of phase with the pulsations of particles with the opposite charge). Since a magnetic force is also involved, it is a complex pulsation, perhaps, with internal cycles in two different planes. The electric and magnetic forces that arise from space to keep its pulsations in synch as the charged particle moves across space are the electric and magnetic forces, which were described by Maxwell. They are the same forces that can be coupled and exist independently as photons (for example, as a result of charged objects oscillating back and forth, as in antennas).
The photon introduces most of the properties that basic objects have, and in order to explain the other basic particles, we must postulate the existence of two other varieties of particles, weakons and neutrinos. All the other particles, both charged leptons and quarks, will be explained as combinations of neutrinos and weakons. The interaction between them is the weak force, on this ontological theory.
Now, the Modification to M-Theory does have all particles as a combination. But, it is not of neurtinos and weakons. They are combinations of two basic fields. Thus, while there are simularities within the two. There is also a vast difference between the two.


Recently there was described the results of a search for time variability of the fine structure constant Alpha using absorption systems in the spectra of distant quasars. Three large optical data sets and two 21 cm and mm absorption systems provide four independent samples, spanning ~23% to 87% of the age of the universe. Each sample yields a smaller Alpha in the past and the optical sample shows a 4 deviation: Alpha /Alpha=±0.185 over the redshift range 0.5 Now the experiment was based upon the measurement of radiation emited by distant Quasars. This radiation was absorbed by gas clouds. They found that the radiation emited back by those clouds had its wavelength shifted slightly over time. But, since the above theory has its geometry stretched over time at a varying rate as established by recent observations, the Fine Structure Constant and the Speed of Light would remain constant. The wavelength shift is due to the changes in the structure of space-time itself.
Thus, I feel that the recent observation is actually a proof of this theory and that the theory itself need not be modified.


Theoretical physicists have built up models for the evolution of the universe. The pioneers in this new science were Friedmann and Lematre. In a very simple way, the Einstein's equation exhibit three kinds of evolution :
A stationary universe that stands forever in the same state : such a universe is described by an Euclidean geometry i.e. it is not curved or in other words its curvature is zero. The stationary state is however asymptotic i.e. the universe tends to reach this state. That means that a universe with a zero curvature expands until it reaches a given boundary.
An expanding universe. This kind of universe expands forever (as opposed to a stationary universe the expansion is not asymptotic i.e. there is no limit). Its curvature is negative which implies that it is infinite (more precisely, the geodesics are opened).
A contracting universe. Such a universe is crunching until it collapses into a unique point with an infinite density (physicists call such a point a singularity). Its curvature is positive (such as a sphere) and the geodesics are closed loops.
An oscillating universe which alternates expanding and contracting phases.
Originally, the observed red-shift and the expansion it implies were compatible with a stationary universe, an expanding one or an oscillating one in expansion phase. It did not help astrophysicist determine which kind of universe is ours. But the above mentioned results and those from recent observations that show the expansion rate to accelerate over time better fit a universe that evolves through these stages which is exactly what this modification to M-Theory dictates. Indead, the evolution has been from a closed, to flat, to open type. Now while, we cannot at present prove the end state. If the above theory is correct that end will be a closed system. Again, I feel proof of the above theory has been found.


In the formalism of quantum mechanics the possible states of a system are described by a state vector (SV), a function (usually complex) which depends on position, momentum, time, energy, spin and isospin variables, etc. The SV (which will be represented as |S> in the notation of Dirac) is the most general form of the quantum mechanical wave function. The central problem of the interpretation of the QM formalism is to explain the physical significance of the SV. But, as already established within this Theory, since the particle becomes the smeared out wavefuction. The state vector (SV) must be seen as an exact fuction of the particle in question with the variables of position, momentum, time, energy, spin, etc. As such, if one confines any experiments based upon these factors to a localized frame one has limited that original wavefuction and as such caused it to collapse. This is the actual generator of the The uncertainty principle of Heisenburg.
It may seem surprising that the interpretation of a physical theory can perform the function of avoiding "paradoxes", i.e., internal contradictions and conflicts with other established theories. It is therefore useful to consider some examples. Newton's second law, F=ma, is of no physical significance until the symbol F is identified as a vector representing force, a as a vector representing acceleration, and m as a scalar representing mass. Further, while F and a can have any (real) magnitude and direction, the formalism is interpreted as meaningful only when m>0. This is because zero and negative masses lead to unphysical (or paradoxical) results, e.g., infinite acceleration or acceleration in a direction opposite that of the force vector.
Or consider the Lorentz transformations of special relativity for the case v>c. Until fairly recently physicists had always applied to this case Interpretation A: "The transformations with v>c produce unphysical imaginary values for the transformed variables and are therefore meaningless." But, recent work in M-Theory has shown that Tacyon states can be interpreted within the QM framework without encountering problems. This theory, since derived from M-Theory follows that same line and indead establishes a reason for them from the topology and structure of 6D Higgs space-time. Thus, this theory finds root proof again from QM and from recent observations. The uncertainty principle is just a manifestation of the requirement that a given transaction going to completion can project out only one of a pair of conjugate variables. This being due to the collapse of the wavefunction under the confinement of observation. But at the same time, when viewed as a complete wavefunction and the structure of space-time there is also a more complete answer to the old photon/slit experiments. Indead, the actual photon does only enter one slit. The other pattern is a product of ghost vibrations in the space-time structure. One is real. The other is a shadow image or copy of the real Photon. As such, it must be noted that to a certain extent my theory supports the transactional approach or interpretation of QM. It also helps remove some of the stumbling blocks normal QM has generated.

The Cyclized Photon

A wave frequency cannot exceed the rate of propagation. The limit to the wavelength of a photon, therefore, is 1/c, or 0.3 X 10-10. It is no coincidence that the wavelength of a photon with a relativistic mass equal to the electron's mass is only slightly larger at 2.17 X 10-10 cm.
A photon is a packet of interacting wavelets with a constant internal action value h in which the polarity of the oscillations is distinguished solely by their being isomeric wave actions of opposed orientations. The distinction is geometric. The wavelets are turned or spiraled in their half of the oscillation in a way that is opposite to that of their counter half. But in a pulsating photon, both motions are simultaneous. They expand and contract together. At the threshold of stability, when frequency equals the rate of propagation, the two actions of pulsation interfere. Apparently the photon splits from the stress into two halves of opposite polarities that spiral from each other in opposite directions.
When the photon splits, each half differs from the other only by the geometric twist of its charge oscillation. Because of the spiral, however, each photon half, within a wavelength, spins opposite itself as a half-wave of reversed polarity. In an instant the two halves couple to form a complete but cyclized hemi-photon held together by its own electromagnetism, and with a half-turn in its pulsation.
gg = e- + e+

The electron (and positron), therefore, is a cyclized photon of Compton wavelength h/mc, constricted and stabilized by its own electromagnetism to a radius of e2/mc2, with a permanent twist in its structural wave. It is this turn in the photon wave that creates the electric field. The relativistic mass of the structural photon becomes the rest mass of the electron (positron), the helical orientation gives each particle an electrical field.
Now this modified theory is based on the idea of an internal clock that separates external motion from the internal motion. Even at rest a particle would have motion of a given wavelength at C. Thus, the particles have their own internal clock. It must be stressed that this is not mainline accepted thought at all. But it does bring into line something of the structure I have proposed in this theory. If you remember the gauging from the spin axis mentioned earlier. Then a simular concept is involved in our strings. They do indeed spin or cycle. The only difference then becomes an issue of replacing the graviton as the basic particle.
There would seem to be a mechanism then involved in gravitons that forbids them from performing the same splitting as a photon. That I believe is controlled by a separate field gauging that forbids -2 states. Since the structure of 4D space-time is by creation only filled with spin 2 states. And since the 6D space-time only supplies a zero spin for this particle state. If one compares this to a negative 1 6D space-time state for the photon. Then the difference is that one is a fundamental state, while the other is not. This would seem to imply that only those states derived from a fundamental state could undergo this splitting process.
My theory returns to a proposal that was popular sixty years ago among the pioneers of quantum theory: namely that matter consisted of wave structures in space. Thus, it was proposed that matter substance, mass and charge, did not exist but were properties of the wave structure. Wyle, Schroedinger, Clifford, and Einstein were among those who believed that particles were a wave structure. Their belief was consistent with quantum theory, since the mathematics of quantum theory does not depend on the existence of particle substance or charge substance. In short, they proposed that quantum waves are real and mass/charge were mere appearances; 'Schaumkommen' in the words of Schroedinger. The reality of quantum waves, as suggested by Cramer (1986), supports the original concept of W. K. Clifford (1876) that all matter is simply "undulations in the fabric of space."
Wheeler and Feynman (1945) first modeled the electron as spherical inward and outward electromagnetic waves seeking the response of the universe (from other matter) to explain radiation, but encountered difficulties because there are no spherical solutions of the electromagnetic equations using vector fields. Cramer (1986) discusses the response for real quantum waves. Using a quantum wave equation (scalar fields) and spherical quantum waves, Wolff (1990, '91, '93, '95, '97) found and described a wave structure of matter which successfully predicted the Natural Laws as experimentally measured. It has predicted all of the properties of the electron except one - its spin. Now, this paper completes those predictions with a physical origin of spin that is in accord with quantum theory, the Dirac Equation, and the previous structure of the electron.
Briefly summarizing Wolff, the electron is comprised of two spherical scalar waves, one inward and one outward. These waves are superimposed at the origin with opposite amplitude, to form a single resonant standing wave in space centered at the electron's location. A reversal of the inward wave occurs at the center where r = 0. Spin appears as a required rotation of the inward wave to become the outward wave. The outward wave induces a response of the universe when it encounters other matter in its universe and modulates their outward waves. The tiny Huygens components of those waves return to the center and become the inward wave. This simple structure, termed a space resonance (SR), produces all experimental properties of electrons.
The structure of the electron consists of solutions of a general wave equation (Wolff, 1990). This equation governs the behavior of all particle waves in space, and is:
(grad)2(AMP) - (1/c2) d 2 (AMP)/ dt2= 0
where AMP is a scalar amplitude, c is the velocity of light, and t is the time. These waves are scalar quantum waves, not electromagnetic waves. This wave equation has two spherical solutions for the amplitude of the electron: one of them is an inward wave converging to the center; the other is a diverging outward wave.
{IN-amplitude} = (1/r) {AMP-max} exp(iwt + ikr)
{OUT-amplitude} = (1/r) {AMP-max} exp(iwt - ikr)
w = 2pi mc2/h = the angular frequency
k = 2pi/{wave length} = the wave number.
The inward wave converges to its center and rotates to become a diverging outward wave. The superposition of the continuous inward and outward waves forms the electron, termed resonance space. In my model the outward wave is directed outward as the outer tube pulses or swells at a frequency determined by it wavelength. The inner tube does the same, but in an inward direction. Thus, two opposite going standing waves are established. The difference is that the whole unit spins at a spin determined by the sum of two different spin states with the inward one being the arrow it is measured against. This is in keeping with the normal accepted Higgs field principle.

My Address
Paul Karl Hoiland
RR 1 box 458
Gouldsboro,Me 04607

Online Contact Info
Other Web Site

It has been my purpose with this site to inform and help teach, as well as to establish another modification to M-Theory. But the work on this theory is not only on going. It is here so that others can utilize it.