What is WSM = Wave Structure of Matter?

[RayTomes]

Bohr won the battle with Einstein over whether there was something real (Einstein's view) beneath the Quantum Equations, or whether it was all just probabilities (Bohr's view). However there have been many Physics Nobel winners who think that the waves are real including Einstein, Schroedinger and de Broglie.

Over the last few decades, some stubborn alternative thinkers have refused to go along with the mystical view of physics that says that things are incomprehensible. Rather, we look to ways to explain everything in physics from simple mechanical principles. Fundamental to achieving this is to comprehend what particles really are. The WSM (Wave Structure of Matter) view is that particles are spherical standing waves and nothing else. Wheeler and Feynman got close to this view with their advance and retarded waves for an electron but described one wave as running backwards in time. If they had made the final step of running it forwards in time, they would have seen that it is an in wave and the other an out wave. Together these make a standing wave.

The biggest issue that physicists seem to have with the WSM approach is that they do not understand how the in wave can arise. And yet the physical descriptions of standing waves in any musical instruments have exactly the same behaviors and no-one so much as blinks. And what are the benefits of the WSM approach? The de Broglie waves arise quite naturally as interference effects between the in and out waves. The wave-particle duality disappears - everything is waves.

Please see the CRI page on WSM for more details including some fascinating graphics and animations: http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/wsm.html

[Andrei Shkarubo]

The issue of reality, probability, illusion, and so on, rests on the issue of our perception. If you take the result of our perception as the imposition of the frequency of our perception on the frequency of the fragment of reality we interact with (in other words, as the division of the ‘reality frequency’ by ‘perception frequency’), such result could vary vastly from definite/real to indefinite/unreal, with various degrees of probability and possibility in between.
One can draw the analogy from our interaction with a television screen: the ‘reality’ we actually see there depends on the frequency of tv projections and the frequency of our perception, as well as the level (frequency band) of our consciousness – depending of its level some may regard such reality as ‘real’ (as it allegedly happened during presentations of brothers’ Lumiere Arrival of the Train), while others, ‘enlightened ones’, may see it for what it’s worth: as a conditional and relative/virtual reality, a batch of information created by a scanning ray of electrons emitted from a cathode tube.

A definite/stable result of the ‘reality’ frequency by ’perception’ frequency division – for a thing to be considered ‘real’ – should extend to all three levels of human perception: high/‘information’, medium/‘energy’ and low/‘material’ frequency bands, in other words, what you see by your eyes should be confirmed by your hide.

The aim of the study of cycles is to give an adequate projection of a cycle’s progress by reconstructing 'reality'. To do this one has to build a) model of a cycle, b) model of a thing which ‘cycles’, i.e. an abstract system.
A standing wave can be the simplest model of a system. And the way such system interacts with the outside world (how a standing wave behaves in the wave medium to reach the state of synchronism) can be the simplest model of a cycle. The basics of such behavior, its mechanism, are expounded in Yuri Ivanov’s work Rhythmodynamics: http://www.mirit.ru/rd_2007en.htm

[RayTomes]

Can you please,post as many WSM equialvialants that can be explain by WSM theory,so That I, can input the numbers and create a circular slide rule from the data. Thanks. hyperspace

I am not sure what you are asking here. Are you asking for particle properties as numbers? These do not exist from WSM theory.

Harmonics theory has had some success with predicting particles. In 1994 I predicted in the USENET group sci.physics and at a FSC conference, that a new particle of mass about 34.76 Mev should exist to explain other particle masses (not that mass and frequency are directly proportional so this is about cycles). A few months later a 33.9 Mev particle was reported by scientists at KARMEN.

[RayTomes]

...
A standing wave can be the simplest model of a system. And the way such system interacts with the outside world (how a standing wave behaves in the wave medium to reach the state of synchronism) can be the simplest model of a cycle. The basics of such behavior, its mechanism, are expounded in Yuri Ivanov’s work Rhythmodynamics: http://www.mirit.ru/rd_2007en.htm

Thank you for this link. Yuri Ivanov's work is truly wonderful, and to find this updated site is quite exciting. I recommend his work.