Could matter and matter waves be derivable?

Chris O. Hawkings and Ruth M. Hawkings
Merici College, Braddon, A.C.T. Australia 2601

PREAMBLE

Please note. This preamble was originally published in 2000, in book form, along with the article “Could matter waves be derivable?” Some modifications have been necessary in presenting the booklet electronically. I owe a great debt to Geoff Haselhurst for the presentation of this material on the internet. Chris, (January, 2005)

From Ruth

Could matter waves be derivable? It is an interesting question and one which I have watched my husband consider, with sporadic success, for over two decades now. His own response to it early in the piece was a robust yes and I have been witness to an evolution in his understanding of the answer with time. Now, he tells me he is even more certain about his discovery of a meaningful explanation of matter waves. A more formal treatment of this is presented in the article mentioned above. The path taken, not so much to arrive at this position, but to convince others of it has been slow and arduous for him, partly because of his perception that he holds a meager standing academically (as a high school teacher) and partly because most members of the physics community were perfectly content with not knowing the answer. To the physics fraternity, at large, the world progressed quite happily without him or anyone else disturbing the very waves on which particles seem to rely for their existence. Consequently, he worked hard at trying to persuade scientists that he had, at least to some degree, unlocked a door previously closed on the matter wave question. His success at persuasion, however, has been very limited and he is still in the frustrating position of trying to break through the academic barrier of disinterest. It has been this that prompted us both to self-publish his work.

From Chris

In the latter half of 1978, the beginning of a twenty two year marriage to my wife Ruth, I stumbled on an interesting connection between two unrelated phenomena in physics. I do not remember exactly how it happened, but it confirms my belief in the saying “we are the sum of all our experiences”.

Through my university days (1972-77), I had a strong feeling that matter may have an electromagnetic foundation. This, of course, was not original. Rather, it must have been the culmination of ideas collected and assimilated unconsciously over time. It is amazing how circumstances influence and even direct our lives, but I became quite fascinated with Abraham’s and Lorentz’s theory of the electron once I heard about it. In particular, I was enthralled with their profound explanation of inertia in terms of Faraday’s law and Lenz’s law. To overlay this approach with the concept of matter waves must have seeded my thinking to the extent that led me to equate matter waves, and matter itself, to electromagnetic phenomena. The alternative was to accept, as we have all been taught in physics classes, that matter waves are not really there except when we look at them, a pretty untenable notion to the logical thinking person.

I know I was sitting at the dining room table in a small flat in Queanbeyan. I remember, not the specifics, more the feeling of a particular afternoon in 1978, when I was considering the combination of “red shifted” and “blue shifted” radiation. Whether this was directly related to a search for a greater understanding of matter waves I no longer recall. But, I will never forget the incredible euphoria that came over me when I noticed that by adding or subtracting the Doppler equations, the resulting expressions when multiplied by h/2, matched precisely with the energy and momentum of matter. The feeling was deeper and more permanent than that of one’s first sexual encounter; it was like I imagine Neil Armstrong felt as he stepped on the surface of another world before another soul. For the succeeding twenty odd years I worked on developing the idea that matter waves were a manifestation of electromagnetic waves. I approached it with a mixture of excitement, wishing to tell my discovery to everyone I met, and paranoia that someone would find out and publish the discovery before me. Early transcripts of my ideas were sent to publishers. Their replies along with their rejections were consistently similar, stating that my work was “too speculative” or that I had failed to deal with specific, obscure aspects which in reality had no bearing on the main ideas. Rejection took its toll, of course, but after a time of heavy contemplation and encouragement from Ruth, I inevitably found myself bouncing back ready to try again.

There was one rejection which, through unusual circumstances, led me to find out an important point about electromagnetic waves. In 1980 or 1981, I wish I could remember more clearly, Dr Tassie from the Research School of Physical Sciences, Canberra, paid a personal visit to my place of work, what is now Alfred Deakin High School. Tassie was the referee of an early version of my paper that I sent to the Australian Journal of Physics. I gather he felt it was kinder to let me down personally than to communicate rejection of my paper through official and detached correspondence. Our meeting allowed me the opportunity to speak to someone eminently knowledgeable in the field of electromagnetic theory. He pointed out to me that electromagnetic waves have constraints, imposed by their wave equation, that must be accounted for in developing my ideas. I am very grateful to Tassie for his explanations, his encouragement and for making me feel relaxed, despite his distinguished academic standing.

In 1984, I presented a poster for the Australian Institute of Physics Sixth National Congress, at Griffith University. This was a step ahead for me in two ways. The material was at last out there in the scientific community, to be reviewed and discussed. It was also registered in a book of abstracts for all those in attendance at the conference to read about. On reviewing it recently, I am surprised at how little has changed between the basic tenets of that abstract and the ideas given in the abstract of my paper http://www.spaceandmotion.com/chris-hawkings-wave-theory.htm (originally published as a book in Feb. 2000). I still have my catalogue of abstracts as a permanent record of my participation in the event in August, 1984. More importantly, it represents an official recognition of my work. I include here a copy of it for the historical record and to remove any confusion about what I was trying to convey at that conference.

THE ELECTROMAGNETIC WAVE NATURE OF MATTER

C. O. Hawkings, Hawker College, Hawker, A.C.T. 2614

ABSTRACT

The similar properties of matter and radiation suggests that matter may be composed of oscillating electromagnetic fields. Support for this is indicated by the wave nature of matter and the fact that particle interactions often result in the production of radiation alone, such as spontaneous emission and pair annihilation. It is argued that although field approaches have, to some degree, been successful in the past, the incorporation of waves into such a model overcomes many of their difficulties and leads to results which agree with reality.
“Reverse beats” are defined as beats produced by two counter-going waves, and the likeness of this phenomenon to aspects of matter waves leads to the following hypothesis. A particle is composed of a pair of electromagnetic waves which propagate in mutually opposed directions. When observed in the rest frame, this pair of waves is perceived as a standing wave. It is pointed out that when the electromagnetic waves are seen from a non-rest reference frame, their energies and momenta undergo Doppler shifts which are inversely related, and the effect is perceived as reverse beats. The average of the two energies and the two momenta are shown to give the observable energy and momentum of the system as a whole. These are found to be identical to the energy and momentum of the material particle seen from the same frame of reference. The group speed and phase speed of the electromagnetic system turns out to be identical to the group speed and phase speed associated with the matter wave of the particle.
This approach is shown to agree generally with the structure and dimensions observed for protons.

Following a long period of inactivity, about half a decade after meeting Dr Tassie, I underwent a resurgence of inspiration (between 1988 & 1992). I decided to overview my work with the hope of better preparing it for publication. I cannot really explain why it took so long to get back to it. I guess some of the difficulties I encountered earlier had more impact on my psyche than I realized at the time. This time I contacted Professor John Sanderman, Head of Department of Physics at the Australian National University, and asked him to review my paper. He graciously consented. A number of interviews with him ensued and led to my introduction to Dr Mark Andrews, a theoretical physicist of the department.

My communication with Andrews was not easy, I think because he was a quantum mechanist, and what I was “peddling” was in direct opposition to his position on how the microcosm operates. Whether that was a real feeling or one perceived by me I am not sure. As well as that, I was somehow “encouraged” to enrol as a Masters Qualifying student, to ensure that my ideas would be fully appreciated. I resented this greatly; I felt too old to have to jump over such a protracted and tortuous hurdle in order to be heard. The course involved attending lectures on quantum mechanics and, I found out later, sitting exams on the subject as well. I always felt alien even among the students I was with; they were younger and, from what I could see, were new graduates with the theories and mathematics still very fresh in their minds. I, on the other hand, was losing touch with the refinements of the subject, having been out of the university scene for some twenty years. I eventually abandoned the course and inevitably lost that initial resurgence to publish.

Oddly, Andrews made contact with me to find out why I left. During the phone call he mentioned a conference from which he had recently returned. At the conference he had purchased a book for me, by Dr Milo Wolff, which he thought covered the same material I was developing. To hear him speak set me panicking momentarily. I wondered immediately whether Wolff’s book had actually published my discovery, but I dismissed it as highly improbable. That confidence was short-lived as I picked it up and read it. It made my heart sink. My ideas, the ideas on which I had worked feverishly for fourteen or fifteen years, seemed to explode in my face. It was like losing a loved one. I had nurtured and protected these ideas for so long only to have them stolen from me in a moment. For a time I was too numb to share how I felt with anyone, not even my family. I wondered why I had been bothered to pursue my work, why God let me get this far if it was to be snatched away, why He had not given me the skills or opened doors for me. It was an agonising time.

Despite my initial reaction, it began to dawn on me over the succeeding weeks that Wolff’s proposal was a simpler, one-dimensional version of my three-dimensional analysis. The racing in my head slowed a little. After all, his book had been published in 1990, six years after my poster session at the Sixth A.I.P Congress in Brisbane and twelve years after the initial discovery I made in Queanbeyan. I still felt apprehensive at losing my uniqueness as its sole discoverer, but I was sufficiently satisfied that in a court of law I had enough evidence to show that I was the original source of the idea connecting matter waves to the interference of ingoing and outgoing waves. My assumption that the waves were electromagnetic in nature, constituted a further and significant distinction between us.

I now found myself in the valley of decision. How should I contend with Wolff’s book? Should I ignore it and go on as if it did not exist? I decided to speak to a physicist friend, Dr David Short, who attended the church where I and my family attended. His advice was that it was probably wiser to collaborate with Wolff than work independently. With some deep soul searching and some desperate praying, I settled in favour of David’s guidance.

Of the two letters I wrote to Wolff, the first was answered by his son, with shocking news; Wolff was in hospital undergoing bypass surgery. The son explained that a personal letter by Wolff would be forthcoming as soon as possible. Wolff’s eventual reply expressed his appreciation for my correspondence and his understanding of the dilemma I was in, but he agreed that collaboration between us was probably the smartest way to operate. He also informed me of two other people in the world who, to some degree, had been working in the same area. Their details were not forwarded and I never asked for them, at least not to this point. My second letter naturally expressed concern at Wolff’s operation. It was accompanied with all the research that is essentially in the main body of this book. I still feel uneasy about having been so open with my material, but to date Wolff’s integrity has remained steadfast, for which I am grateful. Neither of us have corresponded since his response to my second letter.

My most recent bout of enthusiasm has ultimately led to this book, its preamble and the article, http://www.spaceandmotion.com/chris-hawkings-wave-theory.htm. Someone once said that a book is a piece of the world seen through a temperament. I guess, despite the limited number of pages, that defines the collective contributions that constitute this book. The formal way in which it is presented has been necessary to appropriately cover the scientific nature of the material. Hopefully, its formality will not dissuade the reader from noting the significance of its findings. It is intended for undergraduates, postgraduates and all other enthusiasts of physics who are open and flexible to new ways of thinking. In a way, this book represents both nativity and closure for me. Beyond this, I look forward to others with the skills and imagination to take it further.

As a final aside, I feel co-authorship includes the efforts and contribution of a team working to produce a body of work. By that definition, Ruth is clearly a co-author; her patient support and encouragement were essential for the completion of this book in its present form. My gratitude to her is beyond expression.

For the complete article referred to in this Preamble see: Could matter waves be derivable?