Timelines and Sources

This discussion simply seeks to outline an approximate timeline and the sources of information that might broadly be connected with a WSE model. Over the years, many famous scientists have considered, and argued, about whether some type of a propagation medium actually exists and whether it has the necessary physical properties, which could help better explain the concepts of both space and time.

Luminiferous Aether:
In the context of 16th-17th century science, Newton repeatedly alluded to the existence of a luminiferous aether. By the 19th century, the idea of an ether had developed in order to support propagation of electromagnetic waves, where James Maxwell had initially attempted to explain the electromagnetic phenomena by means of mechanical action through a medium occupying the space between two points. However, the Michelson-Morley experiment, carried out in 1887, to detect the motion of Earth through this ether unexpectedly failed to provide any evidence of its existence.

Christian Doppler (1842):
The Doppler effect is a description of waves, which will be considered in more detail in later sections within website-3. This effect is often introduced and perceived in terms of a change in frequency of a wave, when the source of the wave is in motion, e.g. a train whistle. However, the Doppler effect also occurs when the source is stationary, but received at a point in motion. While the Doppler effect might be described in terms of sound waves propagating through a physical media, i.e. air, the effect also applies to electromagnetic waves assumed to be self-propagating through the vacuum of space. However, the issue of whether the vacuum of space can act as a wave propagation media appears central to all WSE models to be discussed.

William Clifford (1870):
In 1870, prior to the Michelson-Morley experiment, Clifford had presented a paper entitled ‘On the Space-Theory of Matter’ to the Cambridge Philosophical Society. In this paper, he forwarded the idea that matter is nothing but ripples, hills and bumps in space curved into higher dimensions, where the motion of matter is nothing more than variations in that curvature

Hendrik Lorentz and George FitzGerald (1900):
In an attempt to explain the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment, Lorentz and FitzGerald forwarded the Lorentz ether theory as a possible solution as to why the motion of an absolute aether could not be detected. However, the subsequent publication and acceptance of Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity led most physicists to conclude that the notion of a luminiferous aether was not required, although it did not necessarily disprove its possible existence.

Einstein’s Relativity (1905):
Despite today’s perspective that relativity negates the idea of space being a wave propagation media, Einstein was often more circumspect on this issue – see historical context for more details. While, today, Einstein’s theory of relativity is assumed to be one of the two fundamental foundation stones of modern physics, we might still want to question how space is subject to curvature and expansion within the modern understanding of relativity and cosmology without space having some form of physical structure and why this structure cannot support the notion of a wave. The requirement of relativity, both special and general, on any WSE model will be outlined in a later discussion.

Quantum Theory (1920+):
The start of quantum physics is often linked to a formulated description of blackbody radiation by Max Planck. If so, the time might be precisely recorded as 5pm on Friday 14 December 1900, when Planck began a presentation of his paper to the Physics Institute at Berlin University. However, it is probably fair to say that nobody in the audience, including Planck himself, actually appreciated the full significance of this event. Therefore, other people consider Einstein’s paper on the Photoelectric Effect, in 1905, to be more representative of the transition from classical to quantum physics. Some 60 years later, in 1965, Richard Feynman is quoted as saying:

“I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”

It is possible that Feynman’s quote only underlines the earlier quote by Voltaire, when he questioned certainty.

Doubt is not a pleasant condition,
but certainty is absurd.

Today, despite the weight of authority in opposition, it would appear that it has not stopped some people from forwarding a number of variant models that attempt to describe a wave structure of everything, which by inference, must position them outside mainstream acceptance, such that their work is almost automatically rejected by any accepted peer review system. Therefore, our starting point must accept that all the ideas to be reviewed must be classed as ‘speculative science’, although this label does not necessarily mean that all these ideas have to be wrong, even though some conflict with each other, as well as mainstream models. The timeline being suggested is essentially a best-guess, but may serve as some indication of the chronology of the ideas to be reviewed. As another generalisation, it would seem that the initial work of Yuri Ivanov along with that of Christopher and Ruth Hawkings was more orientated towards the idea that the underlying matter waves are electromagnetic in nature; while the work of Milo Wolff and Gabriel LaFreniere appears to suggest that these waves must be scalar in nature. However, all seem to suggest that the matter waves are underpinned by the structural concept of a ‘standing wave’ .

Note: There is no deliberate intent to infringe any implicit copyright associated with the papers linked to this website. However, as was realised after the death of Gabriel LaFreniere in 2012 and Milo Wolff in 2015, sources of information linked to other websites can disappear overnight. As such, many of the following papers have simply been collated as a repository of information associated with this subject. However, when this is done, an effort has been made to highlight the original source, assuming that it still exists, and to acknowledge the authorship of the work under review.

Yuri Ivanov (1980):
Is a Russian scientist associated with the Russian Academy of Natural Science and director of the scientific technical centre known as MIRIT. Ivanov states that his experiments and publications, related to ‘Compressed Standing Waves’   date back to 1980. However, in 1997, Ivanov published a book called ‘Rhythmodynamics’ in which the author cites the results of many earlier years of experimental research related to wave phenomena. A second edition was published in 2007. This work presents a theory related to wave physics and can be reviewed in full using the link above. 

Ruth and Christopher Hawkings (1984):
As far as can be ascertained, a paper entitled ‘Could matter and matter waves be derivable?’ was presented in abstract form at the Australian Institute of Physics Sixth National Congress in 1984, although the linked version above appears to make reference to a book by Wolff published in 1990. In the paper, the authors outline the similarity in behaviour between matter and radiation, which leads them to the suggestion that matter may have an electromagnetic origin. It is highlighted that this runs contrary to the later work of Wolff and LaFreniere, who both assume that matter waves have a scalar standing wave structure from which electromagnetic phenomena can be derived. While some aspects of the work of Ruth and Christopher Hawkings will be referenced in later discussions, the   reader may wish to first review the paper cited above via the link provided.

Milo Wolff (1990):
Milo Wolff has been one of the main proponents of the WSM wave model since the early 1990’s. Some of information related to this model and the concept of space resonance can be still be found on the following website: Tripod. However, this website is not necessarily easy to navigate, especially when trying to determine the chronology of developments. For that reason, some of Milo Wolff’s key papers are listed below in what is assumed to be date order:

Milo Wolff has also written two books that might provide additional information, although it seems that these books are orientated to only provide the general reader with some of the background issues that led him to question the standard model. However, given the speculative nature of the WSM model, this is not an unreasonable approach as it is useful to have some appreciation of the open issues within the standard model, which are not always highlighted for the general audience. This said, any technical review of the WSM model needs to separate what might appear to be essentially philosophical commentary from any detailed description of the workings of the WSM model.

Either of these books will provide an overview of the concepts, both in terms of the general physics and philosophical implications. However, on reading both books, there is not much in the way of additional physics in support of the WSM model, although there may have been a change in style intended to make the ideas seem more compatible with both general relativity and quantum theory. However, it is unclear whether mainstream physicists would find the descriptions any more acceptable; especially as it does not necessarily add any more technical detail to the mathematical derivation of the wave equations. However, these points will be taken up in the more detailed technical review of Milo Wolff’s model in the pages to follow.

Note: At this time, a formal review of all Milo Wolff's papers and books has not been completed. However, the discussions under the heading ‘The Wave Model’ address some aspects of Milo Wolff’s work.

Gabriel LaFreniere (1995):
Gabriel LaFreniere's work also extended the WSM model beyond the standing wave description to speculate on the structure of matter in the form of atoms. The animation opposite is intended to reflect an oxygen atom. The empty cones can capture two or four electrons from other atoms, such as hydrogen or carbon.  As such, LaFreniere believed this wave structure may begin to explain phenomena, such as the  photoelectric effect, chemical bonding,  electric current  etc. He also suggested that a proton radiates most of its energy along the 15 gluonic fields axes, which leaves 8 axes free from any radiation between them, producing 8 shaded cones. While, as with all speculative discussions, some balance needs to be given to mainstream opinion, speculative models can all too quickly be dismissed and often denied a fair hearing in terms of peer review just because they would undermine the accepted models. Equally, while it is true that there is little to no empirical evidence supporting the WSM model, it is not clear that sufficient evidence exists to really support the accepted model in the degree of certainty that is often projected. Therefore, an open mind will be required in the consideration of the review to follow. As far as is known, the work of Gabriel LaFreniere was published in the form of a website, which ceased to exist when he died in 2012. However, an English translation of Lafreniere’s website has be created and linked to this website for further reference and will be discussed in some details later – see MMW model discussions. 

Note: In many respects, the Wolff model and LaFreniere model appear to be the most obvious wave models, although the work of Yuri Ivanov associated with standing wave compression details a concept of interest to all models. However, John Macken OST model is a detailed alternative – see below.

Caroline Thompson (2006):
Prior to her death in 2006, Thompson developed a website in which she expressed her concern about a number of issues related to fundamental physics. While the following paper makes reference to Gabriel LaFreniere’s work, her Phi-Wave wave model appears to be another variant of the wave structure of everything.

The Phi-Wave-Aether assumption is that the universe is entirely composed of a fluid aether, pervaded by very high frequency longitudinal “phi-waves”, these being both emitted and received by all matter. In this context, Phi is a scalar measuring the state of the aether and possibly, though not necessarily, identifiable with the concept of density. The name was chosen because of the close relationship between aether waves and the electric scalar potential [φ] of Maxwell’s theory. The waves are not necessarily sinusoidal. They are emitted all at the same frequency but, as with any other wave, become Doppler shifted when there is relative motion.

Robert Gray (2008):
Gray’s website provides some useful review information related to the Wolff model. In particular, there are two papers detailing the mathematical derivation of the spherical wave equations adopted, but not necessarily explained in full within the Wolff model plus a section on spherical rotation, which has been reproduced as a PDF document for archive purposes within this website:

Mike Harney (2008):
Harney has written a number of papers, which possibly provide more technical insights into the Wolff model.

Dennis Crossley (2009):
Dennis Crossley is a physics professor at the University of Wisconsin, who has written a number of papers, which challenge some of the tenets of the standard models of physics that may be important to the development of any WSM model.

Robert Close (2011):
Dr. Robert Close holds a BS in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a PhD in physics from the University of California at Berkeley and can be referenced via his website, which discusses his book.

Amy Robinson & John Holland (2011):
Amy Robinson and John Holland are members of the Nature and Inquiry group in Boston. While these people appear to have no direct qualifications as physicists, they have presented some general ideas under a website paper entitled Quantum Wave Theory. While this website offers up no technical WSE model, it does provide some general outlines that may be useful to some readers.

Jeff Yee (2013):
Jeff Yee works in telecommunication and, as such, is not a professional physicist. However, he has published a number of papers and a book based on the work of Milo Wolff’s WSM model. In the WSM model, Wolff forwards the idea that the electron is a standing wave of energy, but provides no obvious explanation for other particles found in the standard model, e.g. the neutrino and other leptons. Yee argues that if there is a fundamental particle responsible for wave generation, and for creating all other particles in the standard model, the likeliest candidate would be the smallest and lightest particle – the neutrino. In his work, Yee details an equation, which he claims identifies the sequence and calculation for the mass of the six leptons in the standard model

Declan Traill (2013):
No information is known about Declan Traill, other than he has written quite a few papers, which are listed on the General Science Journal website . Of these, the two following papers may be of interest.

John Macken (2013):
John Macken is a scientific inventor with expertise in lasers and optics, who published an extensive 373-page book entitled ‘The Universe is Only Spacetime’, see link for details of his website. A section of the website-3 is being reserved for a review of this OST model, which differs from the WSM model described by Wolff and LaFreniere as it assumes that spacetime is a form of superfluid that requires the quantization of angular momentum and where the wave structure exists below the Planck scale.

Gary Simpson (2014):
Gary Simpson has published a number of papers, see viXra.org list, which discuss some of the tangential issues surrounding the idea of a WSE model.

Donald Chang (2015):
Professor Chang is associated with the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, who has published three books and over 100 papers in international journals. A summary of some of these papers can be found on the Researchgate website .

General Comment:
While there may be other sources of information in support of other wave structure models, it would seem that such ideas are ‘thin-on-ground’ and remain firmly outside mainstream acceptance. As such, it is possible that the subject in general may be seen as a somewhat ‘taboo subject’ for anybody wishing to pursue a career in advance physics. In fact, the link below cites a complaint by one of the supporters of the WSM model, who claims that even the Physics Forum has effectively imposed a form of censorship on the discussion of the WSM model, i.e. ‘Censorship at the Physics Forums’.  Of course, the Physics Forum might reasonably argue that it was only applying its rules concerning the discussion of speculative theories, i.e. those have not been subject to any accepted peer review. On the other hand, the process of accepted peer review has been likened to a catch-22 process, which the following quote simply tries to characterise:

Anybody developing a scientific idea without peer review support is crazy. 
Anybody labelled as crazy will be rejected by peer review.

However, this sort of dismissive rejection does not really clarify whether any of the ideas within the general framework of a wave model have any validity, irrespective of whether they have been subject to peer review or not.