Essay Abstract

In this paper, we take the ideas surrounding electromagnetic waves having a wave-particle duality, matter, antimatter collisions and mass-energy equivalence to bring electromagnetic waves into the 21st century.

Author Bio

Both of the authors have always had a love of Physics. They have always been interested in deepening their physics knowledge and asking the tough questions in it, as well as proposing a few of their own ideas. Dr Mark Andrew Newstead graduated in 2010 with a Doctor of Philosophy, in Mathematical Biology. Stephen Charles Newstead has studied several Open University modules during his life, in general mathematics and science, as well as calculus, astronomy and geology.

Download Essay PDF File

  • [deleted]

  • Post #2

Mark, Stephen,

There is a strange text in your essay: "We have already mentioned that the speed of an electromagnetic wave is dependent upon the medium it is passing through [1]. Therefore unlike particles [11], waves are unable to speed up or slow down as they are entering or leaving a gravitational field. However this does not mean that they are unable to gain or lose energy, it is just that the energy is in a different form, frequency."

The variability/constancy of the speed of light in a gravitational field has nothing to do with the variation in a medium so the "therefore" above is unjustified. Moreover, the speed of light does vary in a gravitational field. According to Newton's emission theory of light, it varies with phi, the gravitational potential, in the following way:

c' = c(1 phi/c^2)

General relativity predicts an even greater variation:

c' = c(1 2phi/c^2)

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

    • [deleted]

    • Post #3

    Mark:

    Your notions are extremely interesting. Mass and light certainly have a battle for their existence as I feel light seeks mass for its identity, mass seeks time of existence for its. Your combo combines their survival.

    Couple points:

    (1) Do you (or anyone) intend to pursue your suggested gamma experiment to confirm or deny your approach?

    (2) Care to comment on my interpretation, posted on my essay, To Seek Unknown Shores? "The 3-fold electric-magnetic-gravitational wave of Newstead18 suggests, when (IF) experimentally confirmed and properly tuned, the creation of matter from nothing (a point) has a 0.0625 probability. This may be happening in nature occasionally, even now. "

    Good Luck in contest!

    Ted

      • [deleted]

      • Post #4

      Mark, Stephen,

      Propagating electromagnetic (EM) fields are somewhat neglected, there seeming to be nothing new to be learned about them. It is typical that papers about electromagnetics (EMs) are presented with no time frame specified when various concepts and associated equations were developed. I suspect the authors expect the readers to already know the details.

      Gauss had died before Hertz demonstrated that EM waves can propagate as waves through the air. Every EM wave consists of two electric and magnetic monopole sets at 90 degrees to each other, with their different polarities and poles. Gauss developed his theories using static laboratory produced electric and magnetic fields.

      You might want to consider how two other authors brought together EMs and gravity. They took a conventional approach, no new physics required. One paper was titled, "Electrifying Gravity", the other, which was prepared in parallel, "Newton's Gravitation Constant G as a Quantum Coupling Constant". Links below.

      Electrifying Gravity

      Newton's Quantum Coupling Constant

        • [deleted]

        • Post #5

        Mark, Stephen,

        A great step forward in presenting the true nature of EM radiation.

        May I suggest that your theory could benefit from a clear definition of radiant EM mass vs standing-wave Matter.

        As you point out 2D divergent EM mass is a distinct property of Energy [as opposed to Matter] which has been poorly defined for over a century now. Even Einstein admitted that his Stress energy tensor represents energy in all its forms without distinction [and this presented a problem for advancement of the theory].

        The interchange of the two terms has become a foundational problem for physics in the 21st century, forming the basis of my paper - Tetryonics, and as a result even your paper exchanges the two terms inappropriately.

        2D radiant mass-Energies [photons, EM waves etc] have a planar EQUILATERAL geometries while 3D standing-wave Matter [Fermions, Baryons etc] have TETRAHEDRAL geometries.

        The physical impact being that EM fields resulting from Matter in motion [KEM] are subject to Lorentz contractions and contribute to their total relativistic mass [energy density] changes due to accelerations. Matter on the other hand is a 3D charged geometry and is velocity invariant. [see attached]

        In short EM waves have mass BUT are best termed 'Matter-less' quanta.

        I hope this aids in the further development of your ideas.Attachment #1: EM__massENERGYMatter_800x600.jpgAttachment #2: Figure_39.07__Matter_in_motion_800x600.jpg

          • [deleted]

          • Post #6

          Hi Mark,

          Electromagnetic waves for the 21th century sounds promising. As an EE, I only found speculations. What does a "single" em wave mean in terns of a mathematical description? Did you try a modal analysis of propagating waves?

          Good luck,

          Eckard

            Pentcho,

            It is our understanding that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant at all times, (i.e. independent of whether the electromagnetic wave is entering or leaving a gravitational field) if you take into account its curved trajectory within a gravitational field. However, if you do not take this curvature into account then it can be argued that the speed of an electromagnetic wave will change within a gravitational field. In fact, if we understand correctly, the equation you present comes from this situation where the curvature of the waves is not taken into account.

            Mark

            Ted,

            Currently we are not intending to pursue the experiment that we propose, since it is far too complex for us to achieve without a laboratory. In terms of your second point we would need to do some more research in that particular area, before we could even comment on it.

            Thanks and we wish you good luck too.

            Mark

            Frank,

            Within the paper, we simply had insufficient space to give a full time line of events, concepts and equations being proposed by different scientists throughout the years. In the first section we were just trying to give a background of what the electromagnetic equations are, as well as an understanding of electromagnetic waves, such that everybody understood exactly what we were talking about.

            Thank you for the links to those papers, which we will save for future reference, as currently we do not think they are of much help to us.

            Mark

            Abraham,

            The paper that we have entered here is only part of our research which is ongoing. Some of this research includes combining electromagnetism with the other atomic forces, which is proving encouraging.

            Mark

            Eckard,

            From a mathematical description, a single EM wave would be a single sine wave (i.e. from 0 to 2Pi) for the electric and another one for the magnetic, such that the plane each wave exists in, is perpendicular to the other. Within the natural world there may also be small amount of damping occurring at the front and back as well. In terms of propagating waves, we would understand this to be a string of waves all connected together (front to back) that would travel in a straight line (given no external gravitational fields, medium changes, etc). However we also understand from an electrical point of view, you could consider waves being emitted from a radio mast for example. In this case you have lots of EM waves being emitted in each direction, all of which travel off on their own straight path. Using this idea, we would relate signal strength to be the density of the waves and thus close to the source where there are lots of waves close together you get a strong signal. Further away though, the waves are more spread out and thus the weaker the signal. Putting it another way, if we assume a radio mast emitted 360 waves, one at each degree, then close to the mast the distance between neighbouring degrees is small, but the further from the mast you are the greater this distance (between neighbouring degrees). Thus the signal strength decreases with distance, because the waves move further away from each other. Hopefully, this has answered your question.

            Thanks for the good luck,

            Mark

            • [deleted]

            • Post #12

            It is a matter of a LOCAL measurement, Mark. The top of a tower of height h emits light and the observer on the ground measures the frequency to be shifted: from f=c/L to f'=f(1+gh/c^2), where f, c and L are the initial frequency, speed of light and wavelength (as measured by the emitter). We have also f'=c'/L', where f', c' and L' are the final frequency, speed of light and wavelength (as measured by the observer). You may try to answer the following questions:

            c' = ? ; L' = ?

            Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

            Mark and Stephen

            As far as I know when proton and antiproton pair collide not all their mass is converted into

            electromagnetic waves, but only about 180 MeV. The main energy is spent for creation of 4-5 pions.

            Also about the mass of a wave in substance, where the speed of wave is V < c. For this you find the mass of wave (9). But the speed of wave V in substance is due to of interaction of wave with charges of the substance. It seems that you find mass-energy of the interaction, not the mass of wave quantum.

            Sergey Fedosin

              Pentcho

              From what you have said, it would appear that the apparent frequency and wavelength change are due to time dilations and length contractions that occur within gravitational fields. These time dilations and length contractions cancel themselves out, such that

              v = f * L = f' * L'.

              Mark

              Sergey,

              In terms of proton and antiproton collisions, pions maybe formed but again these would be particle, antiparticle pairs, which could again annihilate each other. Even, if they did not they would decay either into gamma rays (in the case of neutral pions) or eventually into positrons and electrons (which do produce gamma rays when they come together) plus neutrinos and anti-neutrinos. Thus it would appear to us that given sufficient time matter, antimatter collisions do result in mainly a conversion from mass to energy.

              We do not disagree that the wave speed decrease is caused by the interaction with the medium the wave is passing through. However, that does not seem to discount the possibility that this speed reduction causes a shift in the wave's energy between electromagnetism and mass. This possibility that a wave can have mass fits well with the other research we are doing into combining electromagnetism with the other atomic forces, which is proving encouraging.

              Mark

              The wavelength of light subject to length contraction?!?! This could not be Lorentz contraction so Einsteinians obviously have access to some secret knowledge allowing them to remain winners. "Anything goes" would say Paul Feyerabend.

              Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

              • [deleted]

              • Post #17

              Mark, Stephen,

              In your essay, page 3, you state, "Thus if the wave was travelling really slowly, it would have an incredibly short wavelength, implying that its energy was contained in a very small volume."

              I do not understand the quoted statement. What does the velocity of an EM wave have to do with "energy volume?"

              I would think the "energy volume" of an electromagnetic (EM) wave would be defined by the wavelength. For equation (6), wavelength and frequency are inversely proportional and this is a linear relationship. When an EM beam enters a material in which it can propagate, that has a different permittivity, it is assumed both the frequency and the wavelength are changed; typically a change in frequency is measured, which implies a change in wavelength. Ask Eckard which came first. Keep in mind that equation (10) is defining energy, an idealized quanta of energy, in relationship to the frequency of an EM wave. The actual "energy content" of an EM wave is a result of the process that creates the wave. And, it is "assumed" that the EM field configuration and the energy content of the EM wave does not result in a nonlinear response in the medium in which it is permitted to propagate.

              Equation (6) is somewhat like the equation that represents Ohm's law, V=IR, it represents a linear relationship. EEs recognize that simplistic formula represents idealized conditions, that is, there are no conditions that will cause one of the parameters to become nonlinear. The problem with equation (6) is equivalent, everyone is "assuming" there are no conditions which would result in one of the parameters becoming nonlinear.

              • [deleted]

              • Post #18

              Mark, Stephen,

              The timeline has to be considered when you are using a statement that is timeline limited.

              "Examples of these implications are that it would allow magnetic monopoles to exist, define whether charge is conserved and quantized, as well as whether there could be charged black holes in the universe." (this statement preceded Eq. 2)

              "Equation 2 (Gauss's law for magnetism) states that there are no magnetic monopoles (i.e. a magnetic north and south can never be separated)."

              It would not be obvious to many readers when Gauss made that statement. Many readers do not know propagating EM fields already contain magnetic monopoles.

              • [deleted]

              • Post #19

              Mark, Stephen

              Your ideas are very interesting and it takes courage to tackle this vast subject. For too long EM radiation has been a troublesome relation of physics, always locked away and spoken for where historic equations are accepted as though they can never be challenged.

              I encourage you to explain more of your thinking, particularly interactions of EM at the atomic level. The 'is it a wave, is it a particle' debate has been an unsatisfactory truce for too long.

              Good luck...

              Guy Wilhelmy

              • [deleted]

              • Post #20

              Mark:

              Thanks.. Good luck!!