1206 3110 PDF

FROM PHOTONS TO ATOMS
The Electromagnetic Nature of Matter
Daniele Funaro
arXiv:1206.3110v1 [physics.gen-ph] 7 May 2012
Department of Mathematics, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia

Via Campi 213/B, 41100 Modena (Italy)
E-mail: [email protected]
http://cdm.unimo.it/home/matematica/funaro.daniele/
Synopsis - Motivated by a revision of the classical equations of elec-

tromagnetism that allow for the inclusion of solitary waves in the so-
lution space, the material collected in these notes examine the conse-
quences of adopting the modified model in the description of atomic
structures. The possibility of handling “photons” in a deterministic
way opens indeed a chance for reviewing the foundations of quantum
physics. Atoms and molecules are described as aggregations of nu-
clei and electrons joined through organized photon layers resonating
at various frequencies, explaining how matter can absorb or emit light
quanta. Some established viewpoints are subverted, offering an alter-
native scenario. The analysis seeks to provide an answer to many
technical problems in physical chemistry and, at the same time, to
raise epistemological questions.
Forewords
The aim of this exposition is to informally present my viewpoint

concerning “matter” and the way it is structured. The analysis is
intended to reveal and better understand the secrets of the basic com-
ponents of our universe. I will try here to use technical language
as little as possible, with the hope of making this material available
to a public with a well developed scientific background, but without
specific professional skills. Most of the sentences reported here are
however consequences of a solid mathematical model, that combines
together, in an elegant way and with a relatively simple appearance,
well-established results that are world-wide recognized to form the
backbone of classical physics. Regarding a certain number of ques-
tions, I am unable to come out with a mathematical proof. In this
cases, my conclusions will be only supported by the experience gained
in these last years. I am confident that precise answers, not too far
from the guessed ones, sooner or later will be devised. Consequently
these preliminary notes may be improved and updated as additional
material and confirmation become available.
Let me briefly mention some justifications that are at the founda-
tion of my philosophy. Some are expressively manifested in my pre-
vious book (see [45]) and the successive papers, some others are only
vaguely anticipated therein. These arguments slowly took a global
and organic form in my mind, although, since the very beginning,
there was an underlying well-defined pattern, the guidelines of which
will be discussed in the pages to follow.
i
ii D.Funaro - From Photons to Atoms
The material has been carefully collected and developed in order

to adhere with the existing evidence, documented by a multitude of
publications and experiments. In this regard let me point out that
the possibility to access public information through the instruments of
modern informatics, and the ability of creating suitable connections,
are precious tools when sagely used and helped my research a lot.
The determination of not being influenced by known and established
theories has also been an important factor. In fact, the search for a
common denominator, based on an Occam razor procedure that led to
an overall solution, had to prevail over immediate local explanations,
acceptable to the first approximation, but irreparably false when ex-
tended to cover contiguous subjects. Another stimulus came from the
necessity of describing things in a straightforward way, as the per-
ception of our senses (helped, if needed, by the use of sophisticated
instruments) would suggest. To better clarify this concept, I did not
want to invoke, for example, the existence of unnatural environments,
such as additional space dimensions, parallel universes or a general
entanglement of all bodies. One of the assumptions was that the con-
stituting rules had to be in line with our way of decoding external
stimulations. Hence, matter had not to be more complicated than the
minimum allowed to originate the phenomena that fill up our everyday
life.
Of course, these concepts were present and clear up to a cen-
tury ago, until some controversial experiments, revealing the quan-
tum structure of matter brought disorder in the scientific community.
Ingenious explanations were given, but this slowly led to a radical
change in the way of interpreting nature, so that nowadays the gen-
eral approach seems not to fit common sense. Thus, why should I
be able, despite the efforts of distinguished scientists, to restore the
old-fashioned vision and come out with reliable answers? Well, first of
all, many decades have passed and numerous other experiments have
disclosed new results, not even expected before. These new insights
certainly provide some of the missing pieces of the puzzle. The impor-
tant thing, as I mentioned above, is to allow loose ends and not to rush
to conclusions. In addition to this sort of road map, I could account
on two decisive facts that definitely supported the development of my
thoughts.
The first important step is the review of electromagnetism actu-
ated in [45]. Assimilating those results is quite crucial, since, hidden
Forewords iii
in crude formulas, something innovative lies. My intent here is to re-

veal in a painless way the secret path leading to the comprehension of
photons, because, successively, it will be the cantilever to access the
atom’s world. The skeptical reader may think that there is no need to
propose additional theory for electromagnetic waves, because the do-
main of applications does not seem to require it. However, considering
that the known approaches are not even capable of simulating basic
entities, like spherical or solitary waves, the new model is intended to
be complementary, rather than alternative to the existing one. I will
do my best to set forth these considerations with rigorous arguments.
In truth, my job has been just a scrupulous re-reading of existing
material, so that my model merges Maxwell’s and shares with it all the
good features. This revolution may still not be considered decisive for
everyday large-scale applications, but it is certainly unavoidable when
one tries to describe what really happens at the atomic and molecu-
lar level. A convincing understanding of my theoretical arguments can
only be appreciated after clearing the path from preconceived schemes,
vaguely formalized in the early discoveries and inherited as incontro-
vertible truths. By saying this, I do not lack respect for the pioneering
work of J.C. Maxwell, who, inaugurating a new era of scientific knowl-
edge, was quite conscious (more than many of his successors) of the
physical meaning of the results he was achieving1 .
The second point in favor of my theory is the empirical evidence
of a large amount of electromagnetic energy coexisting with matter.
In quantum mechanics this is called zero-point radiation and it is also
present in pure vacuum. Officially, it comes from the uncertainty in
the description of physical events in the very small scale. This may
sound quite normal if one thinks according to a probabilistic descrip-
tion of nature, where some fuzziness is attributed to matter. It is
not a convincing explanation when one is looking for a classical type
answer, based on a set of deterministic differential equations, where
cause and effect follow a rigorous stream. As I will describe in the
coming chapters, a deeper knowledge of the properties of this radia-
1
In [68], K. Moffatt writes: “The distillation of the great mass of experimental
knowledge accumulated during the earlier decades of the Nineteenth Century into
what we now know as Maxwell’s equations provides evidence of real genius; the
beauty, and ultimate simplicity, of these equations is still a matter of wonder for
students of applied mathematics in our universities, and recognition of the signif-
icance of Maxwell’s equations must count as one of the high points of any degree
course in mathematics and physics”.
iv D.Funaro - From Photons to Atoms
tion is unavoidable to arrive at a full description of the structure of

matter, because this energy is not just an innocent by-product, but
the primary ingredient of our universe.
As I have already said, the exposition given here is mainly qualita-
tive. Therefore, some known facts will be reported in a simplistic way,
though they are based on the work of many excellent researchers. The
dissertation is organized in three chapters, plus a further one, where
technical mathematical issues are listed. The first chapter, dealing
with the modelling equations, is addressed to readers with a slightly
more specialized preparation. I expose my motivations by skipping
technicalities, continuing the investigation started in [45]. This pre-
liminary reading is crucial to appreciate the spirit of the successive
chapters; its full assimilation is not however necessary in order to pro-
ceed. The second chapter deals with elementary particles and subnu-
clear structures. The outcome is, as much as I could, in line with the
experiments and the guidelines of my model. Reaching more robust
conclusions is a matter of intensive investigation, mainly in the field of
numerical simulations. Covering with due care such an extended and
controversial area of knowledge is impossible. Therefore I opted for
a general overview that certainly needs debugging, but which points
to an escape route from the dark corridor of modern nuclear physics.
The third chapter is about the study of basic atoms and chemical
structures. The main battleground is to provide explanations on the
significance and the origin of the quantum properties of matter. Again,
due to scarcity of time, my role is limited to the collection of a series
of facts, aimed at revealing their common underlying nature.
Let me conclude this introduction by remarking that the most rel-
evant achievement of my analysis is its philosophical implication. This
paper is not only intended to be just an explanation of mechanisms,
but rather an essay on a possible way to look through different eyes
at the universe we live in.
Contents
1 The world of photons 1

1.1 Why improving the theory of electromagnetism? . . . . 1
1.2 Photon’s structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3 A closer look at the model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.4 Connections with special relativity . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.5 The geometry of space-time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
1.6 The geometry of a single photon . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
1.7 Constrained waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
1.8 Vortex rings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2 The subatomic environment 69

2.1 Electrons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
2.2 Surface tension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
2.3 Protons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
2.4 Nuclei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
2.5 Mass and Gravitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
2.6 Antimatter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
3 The constituents of matter 143

3.1 The hydrogen atom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
3.2 Organization of the photon shells . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
3.3 The structure of matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
3.4 In and around matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
3.5 Quantum properties of matter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
3.6 More on quantum properties of matter . . . . . . . . . . 210
3.7 Implications on biological systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
3.8 The birth of an idea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
4 Appendices 231
v
Chapter 1
The world of photons
Gli è tutto sbagliato, tutto da rifare

Gino Bartali, cyclist
1.1 Why improving the theory of electromag-

netism?
The fundamental brick of my construction process is the photon. Some-
body may find more appropriate the terms solitary wave or soliton.
Although physicists are quite sensitive about the correct nomencla-
ture, from the developments of this chapter it will come out that there
is actually no distinction between the various concepts. I will remark
however when some substantial differences may emerge.
Photons are ubiquitous. Nevertheless, experts can only count on
vague informal definitions about photons, whereas they have at their
disposal very accurate descriptions regarding their behavior. Accord-
ing to quantum theories, photons are the carriers of light and all
electromagnetic phenomena in general. In other words, a photon is
supposed to be an elementary particle. It is the “quantum” of the
electromagnetic field, the basic unit of all forms of electromagnetic ra-
diation. The photon has no rest mass and exhibits properties of both
waves and particles. The very last statement has been, and still is (de-
1
2 D.Funaro - From Photons to Atoms
spite an unconscious attitude to hide the problem), one of the crucial

questions in modern physics. I will devote here my efforts to come out
with convincing explanations aimed at giving meaning to the ambigu-
ity of the expression “wave-particle”. The endeavor is of paramount
importance, because, it will bring me to decrypt well-known facts from
quite a different perspective, providing a new interpretation of elemen-
tary concepts such as matter and energy, and studying the way they
transform into each other.
The above “definitions” of photon are clearly unsatisfactory2 . De-
scribing such solitary wave-packets in a classical context, that is by
means of a set of partial differential equations, where the unknowns
give an exact account of the position and the dynamics, has been the
goal of many researchers for more than a century. The reason for this
difficulty can be ascribed to the standard Maxwell’s model, initially
supposed to provide full explanation of electromagnetic phenomena,
but resulting in failure as the first quantum problems emerged, turn-
ing out to be totally unsuited to the treatment of photons.
For a technical review of Maxwell’s equations in vacuum and their
main properties, the reader is referred to appendix A. For an account
of the properties of photons, within the quantum and the semiclassical
approach, an exhaustive reference is [71]. The large amount of material
available should not lead us to think that the topic is trouble free. Al-
though seemingly complete, work on photons suffers from problems at
a foundational level, usually well hidden under a thick carpet, notwith-
standing that practical consequences of the existing models are largely
correct up to a certain degree of accuracy.
I claim to have achieved the result of fully incorporating photons
within the framework of differential models (see [45] and the earlier
paper [44]), but it has been necessary to sacrifice some aspects, taken
for granted, of Maxwell’s original model, and this is of course source
of controversial. I seriously believe that, if the revolution process had
started a long time ago, physics would have evolved along other paths.
Unfortunately, many conceptual approaches have survived for genera-
tions and are so established in the scientific community that it is hard
to propose alternatives. In addition to this, one has to account for
inaccuracies and mistakes, sometimes handed down through genera-
2
From [110], p.3 (A. Zajonc): “What are light quanta? Of course today every
rascal thinks he knows the answer, but he is deluding himself. We are today in the
same state of ‘learned ignorance’ with respect to the light as was Einstein”.
The world of photons 3
tions of students as urban myths, that have hindered the search for
a rigorous framework3 . A responsibility may be in part attributed
to mathematicians for having underestimated the importance of the
problem4 . Many of the things I am going to say may sound unreli-
able and unexpected to an engineer and, at the same time, trivial and
unessential to a theoretical mathematician. My role here is trying to
match both viewpoints. Since this kind of discipline “in between” is
not officially coded and recognized, I expect to be criticized from both
fronts.
Let me warn the reader that if he wants to appreciate the results of
my work it is necessary to cast any passage within a general framework,
i.e., the validation of the theory is a process to be taken as a whole and
judged at the end of the exposition. Any premature attempt to jump
into conclusions on the basis of already experimented schemes will be
biased towards the search of a local answer, while, as I specified in
the introduction, we are trying to solve an entire puzzle. I know that
there are readers ready to shoot me at the first mistake or incorrect
statement. I ask them to be patient and let me survive at least up to
the end of the story.
The first important achievement of the modified equations intro-
duced in [45] is that they make no actual difference between a photon
and any other electromagnetic phenomena (as, for instance, waves em-
anating from an antenna), since they all result from manifestations of
the same unifying theory. With rough approximation5 , the reader may
find it convenient to consider a 2D wave like that produced by a pebble
thrown vertically into water (see figure 1.3). Later, it will be compul-
sory to investigate more properly the internal nature of these wakes.
3
For example, R. Oppenheimer, in [99], p.113, writes: “A typical electromagnetic
wave may have the electric force changing with time periodically, [...] the magnetic
force is doing the same thing at right-angles to the electric force and out of phase
with it, so that when the electric force is zero the magnetic force is a maximum
...”. The sentence, although made by an authoritative fellow, is irreparably wrong.
4
As stated by Freeman J. Dyson in [42]: “The first clear sign of a breakdown
in communication between physics and mathematics was the extraordinary lack
of interest among mathematicians in James Clerk Maxwell’s discovery of the laws
of electromagnetism. [...] I shall try to convince you by examining actual cases
that the progress of both mathematics and physics has in the past been seriously
retarded by our unwillingness to listen to one another”.
5
As a consequence of theoretical results, the solutions of the wave equation in
2D may be substantially different from those of the 3D version, therefore the term
“rough” is not exaggerated.
As far as I am concerned, the evolution of an electromagnetic wave

is exclusively ruled by geometrical laws, more precisely those of geo-
metrical optics, though it is necessary to extend the concept of space
as done in general relativity (I will better specify this point later on,
starting from section 1.3). The key point is how to combine the local-
ity of a set of point-wise differential equations with the global nature
of a purely topological approach. I will show that answering this ques-
tion is fundamental to finding the link between classical and quantum
physics. Hence, geometry is selected to be a primary ingredient of my
descriptive approach, together with the quantitative power of differen-
tial calculus. On the other hand, as R. Descartes taught us, nature’s
laws show up through a clever mixture of both geometrical appearance
and analytic formulas.
Figure 1.1: In accordance with geometrical optics, the different phases of

the evolution of a free solid front (left) agree with the development of its
parts (center), up to the identification with a bundle of rays (right) carrying
infinitesimal wave-fronts.
For instance, as a consequence of my theory, a dipole wave can be

decomposed (transversally to the direction of motion) in many solitary
sub-waves, modelled by the same equations and independently follow-
ing their own route, that coincides with the global path of the mother
wave. In this way, the entire wave is the superposition of its indepen-
dent parts, each one representing another wave. In a limit process, one
could see any wave as a bundle of infinitesimal rays (see figure 1.1).
This is true when dealing with what I call free-waves (see section 1.3),
where the concepts of “big” or “small” are not applicable. We may
also call these phenomena propagating waves, in order to distinguish
them from other, more subtle, electromagnetic manifestations, that
will be analyzed later on.
Despite common belief, very intuitive operations, such as the one
of cutting and isolating a piece of front, are strictly forbidden in the
framework of Maxwell’s equations, and attempting to force their re-
alization is source of errors. It is however true that the word “pho-
ton” finds a more appropriate use in relation to extremely small wave-
packets, occurring in dynamical electromagnetic processes associated
with matter. Based instead on my viewpoint, photons are just expo-
nents of a large family and are indistinguishable from their compan-
ions, whatever the size and intensity. Thus, the infinitesimal solitary
waves depicted in the third picture of figure 1.1 are not necessarily
real photons (according to physics terminology), and certainly are not
the “carriers” of the electromagnetic field. It is my intention to better
illustrate this issue in the rest of this chapter.
More in detail, a photon could be hypothetically seen as a tiny bul-
let, travelling at the speed of light (straight, if undisturbed) and car-
rying an electromagnetic signal, that is two independent vector fields:
the electric and the magnetic. Despite the efforts of R.P. Feynman,
who clearly explained how photons can interact with other particles
by coding into diagrams the results of these interplays, the internal
structure still looks mysterious. This is also valid in force of the fact
that photons are not solutions of the whole set of Maxwell’s equa-
tions (see also footnote 43). In truth, the space of solutions of the
Maxwell’s system is quite weird and, in contrast to what many cele-
brated experts may think, does not contain any of the solutions gen-
erally considered in most electromagnetic applications. Indeed, as far
as “standard” waves are concerned, the solution space is practically
empty, so that it should not be a big surprise to discover that photons
cannot be actually modelled. I was very amazed too when discovering
that Maxwell’s equations are totally inapplicable in the description of
what have been considered to be electromagnetic phenomena since the
advent of Hertzian waves.
Thus, mathematics severely censures the existence of propagating
waves in the Maxwellian universe, so that there is little one can do
to save the reputation of the famous equations. Some facts justifying
these conclusions are rigorously documented in the book [45] and my

papers, so that it is not my intention to go over the process of explain-
ing here the details from the beginning. These are mainly based on
some specific situations, but I think that a general proof can be car-
ried out by a skilled mathematician. Many examples of simple waves
of propagating type, that cannot be modelled by Maxwell’s equations,
are reported in Appendix D. The check is a trivial calculus exercise
which is strongly suggested to the reader, since it helps in understand-
ing what are the limits of the classical approach. I will promise to add,
however, further (non technical) clarifying remarks, during this exposi-
tion. Let me just mention that problems often do not emerge from the
equation themselves (that are easily studied, as far as some mathemat-
ical aspects are concerned), but, more correctly, from the impossibility
of finding suitable initial conditions. Disappointingly, the analysis is
usually carried out by concentrating on the laws of dynamics, while
nobody seems to care about the existence of given initial settings com-
patible with the equations. Thus, the entire apparatus turns out to
be a very nice and ingenuous game, having however no pawns to play
with.
What I just said above is only in part true. On the one hand, it
turns out that the subspace of Maxwellian propagating waves is basi-
cally reduced to very few representatives, together with their combina-
tions and variations. On the other hand, the concrete solution space is
instead extremely rich, at the point that Maxwellian electromagnetic
waves actually fill all the surroundings. These solutions are of a type
usually not considered in the mainstream tecnology6 . There are how-
ever fields in which such a difference has been noticed. As it will be
described in section 1.7, Maxwell’s equations are very well-suited to
simulating rotating waves, with a particular preference for those con-
fined in regions with toroidal shape. Numerous examples emphasizing
the significance of these solutions are available. Let me just mention
for instance the interest they have in the field of plasma physics (see,
e.g., [61]). Anyway, I am going to stop the discussion of this issue
here, adding more insight later after more background. To conclude,
we find ourselves in a strange situation: Maxwell’s model is correct
6
From [66]: “Maxwell’s equations allow for curious solutions characterized by
the property that all electric and magnetic field lines are closed loops with any two
electric (or magnetic) field lines linked. These little-known solutions ...”. The paper
then examines the possibility of experimental realizations using knotted beams of
light in the framework of lasers.
when following families of waves that I consider to be relevant for the

description of our universe, but almost irrelevant for basic engineer-
ing problems, mostly related to propagating waves; on the contrary,
the model is incorrect when applied to solving exactly those practical
problems. Unfortunately, to complicate the situation, there are patho-
logical examples displaying an intermediate behavior, as for instance
the Hertz dipole solution that will be mentioned at the end of section
1.3.
In the history of mathematical-physics, lots of effort has been made
in order to come out with credible models allowing for the inclusion
of photons. They were important advances for technological applica-
tions, but they did not contribute a lot to the effective description of
the internal structure of a photon. These defeats were also sources
of pernicious ideas, that gradually led to the acceptance that such a
description does not exist at all, and photons should be taken as they
are supposed to be: quanta of light and nothing more.
But, where do we find photons in reality? They are everywhere
and, based on my point of view, they are the sole ingredient of our
universe. Before facing such an extreme statement, let us stay for a
while on a more standard ground. According to the common version,
photons effectively fill up our environment. They can be “absorbed”
by matter that is able to modify their frequency profiles and give them
back as the carrier of a new signal. When for instance sunlight, made
of an impressive amount of photons carrying an extended range of fre-
quencies, illuminates a material surface, some of these photons become
part of the body and contribute to raising its temperature or some al-
ternative form of energy state. Some others may be “reflected” back
(immediately or in a short time), reaching our eyes or other instru-
ments. One of the results of this filtering procedure is, for instance,
the possibility to distinguish objects of different colors7 . Similarly, by
providing energy to bodies, one may bring them to spontaneously emit
photons, as it happens for example in the filament of a lamp. Not all
the photons are visible however since their frequencies have an impres-
7
From the introduction in [56]: “So contemplation of the blue sky has enabled
the physicists to say that the colour gives us daily proof of the discontinuous struc-
ture of the scattering matter: blue light is more strongly scattered than red because
its wavelength is closed to the dimensions of a molecule. If atmospheric air were
a continuous medium - in other words, homogeneous at any submicroscopic level
however fine - the sky would be black and we should be able to see the stars in full
daylight as cosmonauts do outside our atmosphere”.
sively wide range, arriving approximately at 1023 Hertz, in the case of

the gamma rays released by atomic nuclei. So far, I have mentioned
several times the term “frequency”. This is a very central concept in
my theory, since everything started when I began to formalize the idea
of an everlasting oscillating behavior of matter at various regimes (see
section 3.8). For the moment let us leave the concept of frequency
indefinite, although I will use it in intuitive form.
It is important to observe that photons are present at very different
dimensional scales. They are in the constituents of nuclei; they appear
in atomic and molecular interactions; they are part of biological pro-
cesses (see section 3.7). All these levels share common properties, but,
because of the extreme fragmentation of competence characterizing
nowadays the world of scientific research, very little has been done in
favor of a unifying interpretation8 . My aim is to show that connections
can be made in a very natural way, once the assumptions of my theory
have been understood. For the moment, let me mention an important
observation: the “extension” of a photon is inversely proportional to
the carried frequency. This result may sound trivial, but it is a key
issue in my description of quantum phenomena.
I consider it therefore inadmissible that photons, the quanta of
light, such essential ingredients of our universe, cannot have a more
proper characterization. An analogous sense of incompleteness has for
certainly bothered many scientists in the past. Nevertheless, things
developed in a different manner. Indeed Maxwell’s equation are not
able to include photons within the possible solutions and the various
efforts to modify the model turned out to be uncompetitive, if one also
takes into account the numerous meaningful properties satisfied by the
original set of equations. So, photons, whose existence should not be
questioned anymore, became basic and unexplainable point-wise par-
ticles, carrying frequency and spin (in a not specified fashion). This
was the beginning of a new era, excellently described by quantum me-
chanics, where the objects involved cannot be explicitly specified under
a certain scale, but reliable predictions can be made on a statistical
basis. The assimilation process of such a cultural revolution has been
long and troubled9 , but the pill seems now to have been definitively
8
From [18], p.11: “What begins to emerge from these defenses of theoretical
pluralism is a view of science as ‘radically fractured’, with distinct scientific com-
munities whose respective members have difficulty communicating with each other”.
9
From the Feynman lectures, [37], 37-7: “Yes! physics has given up. We do not
swallowed. A naive example of this paradigm is the description of an

atom as a nucleus surrounded by a “cloud” of electrons, according to
a certain computable probability distribution. For extended regions
containing electromagnetic radiation, one can also introduce the idea
of photon energy density, that in many circumstances is an effective
tool to recover both qualitative and quantitative information, without
the need to specify in an exact way what is happening (which turns
out to be an impossible request, according to the spirit of quantum
mechanics).
Let me honestly say that I have no objections at all regarding the
above approach. However, I have always considered the quantum world
only as a palliative, a good starting point to proceed with scientific
investigations or to get technical achievements, but still waiting for
a definitive statement of the basic postulates. This is definitely not
true in other contexts, where the quantum way of thinking has been
considerably developed beyond the imaginary, becoming a subject for
philosophers, sometimes with aberrations that are in contrast with any
logical and realistic justification. The only chance to get out of this
impasse is to have the courage of blaming Maxwell’s model, discard
the system and revise the rules of electrodynamics in order to include
photons in the solution space. I will show how to achieve this scope
painlessly.
1.2 Photon’s structure

The photon-type wave is expected to be contained in a cylinder (not
necessarily with circular section), shifting at the speed of light along
the direction of its axis. Hence, it has a longitudinal extension along
which the electromagnetic fields are modulated in intensity through a
one-dimensional function, that in the simplest case may be a single si-
nusoid period. Moreover, the wave also displays transversal extension,
so that a photon is not point-wise. The information lies on paral-
lel slices, orthogonal to the direction of propagation, solidly packed
one after the other (see figure 1.2). These flat sections will be called
know how to predict what could happen in a given circumstance, and we believe
now that is impossible, that the only thing can be predicted is the probability of
different events. It must be recognized that this is retrenchment in our earlier ideal
of understanding nature. It may be a backward step, but no one has seen a way to
avoid it”.
wave-fronts and the electromagnetic signal is written on them. As a

matter of fact, each front contains the two independent (and orthog-
onal) vector fields E and B, representing respectively the electric and
the magnetic impulses. The way fields are defined on each front may
be quite arbitrary, provided some mathematical hypotheses of global
regularity are satisfied.
Figure 1.2: Shape of a photon according to my model. There are infinite flat
independent fronts, each one carrying an electromagnetic signal. The whole
structure shifts at the speed of light along the direction determined by V. On
each front, the magnetic field B follows closed loops and the electric field E
is orthogonal to it with |E| = |cB|. The triplet (E, B, V) is right-handed.
The intensity of the electromagnetic fields decays by approaching the photon’s
boundary. This is also true in the neighborhood of some point located at the
interior, in order to allow for the continuity of both E and B. For an analytic
expression, see for instance (48) in Appendix D.
Another requirement, partly in agreement with the Maxwellian

theory, is that the intensity of E must be c times the intensity of B,
where c is the speed of light. This condition is technically referred
as the vacuum impedance. We can reasonably impose that the inten-

sity of the electromagnetic field tends to zero when approaching the
boundary of the photon. This is aimed at ensuring continuity with
the exterior, where no signal is present. As a matter of fact, I intend
to solve the modelling equations in the whole 3D space and, for this
reason, demanding the smoothness of the solution is an essential re-
quest. To avoid the creation of magnetic monopoles (see also section
2.1), field B should have zero divergence (equation (4) in Appendix
A). This means that, for any two-dimensional sub-region taken inside a
single wave-front, the flux due to the incoming vectors is equal to that
of the outgoing ones, i.e., the magnetic field does not display sources
or sinks inside the photon. In other words, because of the boundedness
of the object, the magnetic lines of force are compelled to be closed
curves.
That’s all! Except for the above hypotheses we do not necessi-
tate further ingredients. In practice, the intensity and the orientation
(otherwise called polarization) of the couple (E, B) inside each front
is not subjected to heavy restrictions. The parallel slices can bring
along a different signal and, during the evolution, they do not inter-
fere with each other. The whole set shifts totally unperturbed. We
can associate to this movement a velocity field V parallel to the axis of
propagation and having constant magnitude equal to the speed of light:
|V| = c. Of course, the global energy of the packet is preserved during
evolution. This is also in full agreement with the fact that the flow
of energy has the same direction as the velocity propagation field V.
Mathematically, such a property can be checked by computing the so
called Umov-Poynting vector (proportional to the energy flux), given
by the cross product E × B, and by recalling that the triplet (E, B, V)
is orthogonal. This triplet may seem a bit “rigid”. Undeniably, there
is some redundancy also coming from the condition: |E| = |cB|. We
do not have to forget that I am dealing with the most basic structure;
the setting is however furnished with the right amount of degrees of
freedom to face more interesting configurations, made available when
accelerations are acting on the system (see section 1.7).
Let me now try to explain why Maxwell’s equation are not suitable
for the description of a photon structured as the above one. In addi-
tion to a couple of time-evolution equations ((1) and (2) in Appendix
A), Maxwell’s model in empty space implies that both the divergences
of E and B must vanish. This additional requirement, more related
to geometrical properties rather than to dynamical issues, is the real

source of troubles. Indeed, it is not difficult to realize that the condi-
tions E⊥B, divE = 0, divB = 0, cannot hold all together. Inevitably,
in most cases, the surplus of restrictions brings to the trivial solution:
E = 0 and B = 0. Thus, it is possible to impose divB = 0, but it is
necessary to drop the condition on the divergence of E, if we do not
want the problem to be over-determined. My new model equations,
introduced in Appendix B, have been actually designed in order to
handle the possibility that divE 6= 0, while Maxwell’s version is more
proper when both the electric and magnetic fields are independently
organized in closed loops (see footnote 6), a geometrical setting that
is rarely associated to propagating waves.
At this point of the exposition, let me give more technical infor-
mation about Maxwell’s model. When first conceived by J.C. Maxwell
in the late nineteenth century, the equations of electromagnetism were
not in the form they are commonly used nowadays. Successive ar-
rangements were actually made by several authors. However, since
from the very beginning, a few astonishing characterizations pointed
out the potentialities of the model. It has to be remarked that, before
the experiments of H.R. Hertz, a few years after the equations were in-
troduced, nobody would have bet on the existence of electromagnetic
waves10 . Hertz himself was not very convinced of the possible utility
of his realizations.
As briefly mentioned above, Maxwell’s model is based on two cou-
pled dynamical (i.e., time-dependent) equations. The first one is de-
rived from Ampère’s law. The second one is Faraday’s law of induction.
Combined together, the equations explain for example how a variable
electric field may generate a magnetic field, and vice versa. This prop-
erty is used for instance to build “transformers”, that, through coils
and ferromagnetic cores, allow for the conversion of voltages or cur-
rents. Maxwell’s great intuition was that such a process could be
directly made possible by using the sole fields, without the help of
macroscopic tools. The reader, however, has to pay attention to a
misleading interpretation, also reported in some books (see, e.g., fig-
ure 5.2 in [57], vol.1), that assumes the evolving fields to behave as
10
In [68], Freeman J. Dyson writes: “The idea that the primary constituents of
the universe are fields did not come easily to the physicists of Maxwell’s generation.
Fields are an abstract concept, far removed from the familiar world of things and
forces”.
chained loops of alternate electric and magnetic fields, displaying some

phase difference. This explanation is wrong (see also footnote 3). Ac-
cording to the equations, the travelling fields display the same phase,
by meaning that they attain maximum (or minimum) values together.
There are basically two ways of interpreting the solution associated
with a propagating wave. From one side, we can follow the evolution
standing at a given point and seeing the wave passing by. Alternatively,
one can follow the vectors E and B during their movement along the so
called characteristic lines, individuated by the tangential vector field
V. This observation suggests distinguishing between two concepts.
The first one deals with the kind of information to be transported,
corresponding to the couples (E, B). The second one, more recondite,
concerns the way the information is transported (in this case a constant
shift along straight characteristic lines).
A small ripple produced in the calm water of a long thin basin,
takes its message from one extreme to the other. However, in general,
there is no net movement of water in the horizontal direction, but, at
each point, only a momentary vertical oscillation is registered. Energy
is then transferred without actually shifting masses. Of course, here I
am not saying anything new; however it is better to clarify things at the
very beginning. This training is necessary to prepare the ground for
more insidious situations; as for instance the astonishing claim made
in section 3.4 that electrons do not need to circulate in a conductor to
produce current11 .
As previously anticipated, there are two additional relations, estab-
lishing conditions on the divergence of the fields. Roughly speaking, if
we are in a totally empty space, one usually constraints the divergence
of the electric field to be zero (absence of electric charges), as well
as that of the magnetic field (absence of magnetic monopoles). In the
end, one has to handle six unknowns (each field has three components)
and eight equations (two time-dependent vector equations, plus two
divergence scalar conditions). Although there is some (well hidden)
redundancy, the fact that there are more equations than unknowns is
not a good sign. With little manipulation, it is possible to decouple the
two fields E and B by recovering two second-order differential equa-
11
From [36], p.5: “We naturally wish to describe an electric current in a conductor
as a flow of electrons through its substance, but detailed enquiry convinces us that
any picture that we may make of this process in classical terms is fraught with
inconsistencies”.
tions in vector form, similar to the scalar wave equation describing for
instance acoustic phenomena. This was for Maxwell a decisive step
towards the validation of his model. In particular, some constants,
experimentally measured for Ampère’s and Faraday’s laws, allowed to
compute the velocity of propagation of an electromagnetic pulse, that,
with an immense pleasure for the discoverer (I suppose), turned out
√
to be equal to the speed of light (one has: c = 1/ µ0 0 , where µ0 is
the vacuum permeability and 0 is the vacuum permittivity).
The study of second-order wave equations is a leading subject in
most texts of mathematical physics. Nevertheless, the passage from
the vector wave equation to the scalar one by getting rid of negligible
components, often performed to simplify the computations, is far from
being innocuous. It is indeed a source of errors and misinterpretations
that have (negatively, according to my opinion) influenced the suc-
cessive study of Maxwell’s equations (more detailed motivations are
found in [45]). The effect of altering the equations often brings in mi-
nor changes in the solution at a local level12 , but irreparably deforms
its global aspect, strongly influencing the topology of the wave-fronts.
We find ourselves in an embarrassing situation. On one side, due to
the divergence constraints and the orthogonality of E and B, there
are practically very few solutions of the two wave-equations ensem-
ble. This makes the model not acceptable from the mathematical
viewpoint. On the other side, by retouching a little bit the solutions
and introducing some approximation, one ends up with reasonable by-
products, useful in a wide range of applications, offering an excellent
tool for engineers.
In conclusion, Maxwell’s model admits almost no solutions of a
propagating type, but well inspired changes may disclose a universe
of reliable information about the behavior of electromagnetic waves.
We must however face the fact that the original model has no real
meaning, without introducing some approximate steps in the analy-
sis. Nevertheless, the model was considered to be trustworthy because
it allowed the prediction of many phenomena observable in nature.
Thus, it seems there are no problems in the end, therefore why am I
12
Just to quote an example, from [73], p.60, we can read: “Since solving Maxwell’s
equations reduces in many instances to solving the wave equation, it is apparent
that the vector theory can be reformulated for scalar functions u satisfying the wave
equation”. The successive achievements are physically correct but, from the very
first passage, the link with Maxwell’s equation, whose peculiarity is to work with
vector entities, is lost.
complaining? I disagree with the statement that Maxwell’s equations

represent the major reference point in classical electromagnetism. Hav-
ing a drastically reduced space of solutions, they are unable to predict
the existence of photons for example. The reason why photons cannot
be modelled is not because they are out of the limit of the equations
(and thus do not belong to classical physics), but because these limits
are too strict.
I can recap by saying that a photon-like emission is a compacted
bunch of orthogonal triplets. The electric and magnetic fields are
transversally placed with respect to the direction of motion, which is
indicated by the velocity field V. We know that photons can travel
long distances with negligible deformation. It is the case for instance of
those emanated by far away stars. They reach our Earth after a jour-
ney at a crazy speed, showing no signs of dispersion. Their structure
has resisted this long trip, so that, from the frequency spectrum they
carry we can recognize nuclear and chemical reactions in the places of
origin.
The role of photons in the micro-world is well recognized and we
will have time during this exposition to analyze it in full. However,
the way photons have been defined here does not imply that they
must be small. As a matter of fact, at the beginning of section 1.1, I
specified that there is no distinction between a photon and a generic
electromagnetic wave. Does this entail that there could be photons
of any size? My answer is going to be ambiguous. Free photons are
usually emitted by atoms, through a procedure that will be clarified in
chapter three. Therefore they are indeed very small. Larger photons
could be emitted by some manmade tool, such as an antenna. Engi-
neers know that antennas are mainly omnidirectional and that it is
extremely difficult to pilot a signal towards a prescribed target. From
the theoretical viewpoint, the mechanism of emission of an antenna
device is still an open question. Also mysterious is the reason why
the output is so diffused. In a center-fed dipole the signal originates
from the feeding source, but the effective emission requires the whole
resonant apparatus13 .
13
From [89]: “As Sommerfeld reminds us: conductors are nonconductors of en-
ergy. Rather than thinking of the conductors of an antenna as source of radiation,
it may be better to consider them as a kind of inverse wave guide, which ‘tells’ the
radiation where not to go. [...] This reinforces the view that the conductors of the
antenna serve to redirect the waves ‘created’ at the central feed point, rather than
to create the wave themselves”.
Let me just mention a technical problem. As I specified before, free

emission is characterized by being represented by orthogonal triplets
(E, B, V), with |E| = |cB| and |V| = c. For reasons inherent to the
properties (up to atomic scale) of the conducting material used for
the emitter, this initial assessment is not verified. In particular, the
electric field tends to have a longitudinal component in the direction of
propagation14 . A wave not subjected to further perturbations tends
to restore the orthogonality of (E, B, V), but the imprinting at the
origin is decisive for addressing its orientation. I can be more precise
as the whole final set of model equations will be introduced.
I collected in a paper (see [50]) my thoughts about the function-
ing mechanism of antennas. I hope the ideas turn out to be useful in
projecting new devices. The question of building highly-directional an-
tennas is also addressed in that paper. In agreement with my general
viewpoint, the results rely on the possibility of enlarging the solution
space allowing E to have nonzero divergence. Establishing point-to-
point communications without significant dissipative effects is a pri-
ority feature in many applications, therefore I suggest the interested
reader to have a look at the material in [50]. A possible conclusion is
that big photons may theoretically exist but their perfect realization
seems out of reach because of impediments due to the instrumentation
used. Technology may surely provide new ideas to handle the asperi-
ties, and come out with very competitive devices, as far as directivity
is concerned. Anyway, it is important first of all to remove ambiguities
and this is the scope of these pages.
We are starting here to be confronted with questions that are at the
borderline between classical and quantum theories, which is exactly
the argument I would like to study in these notes. By looking at
figure 1.1, we may be tempted to argue that a wave is the sum of its
“photons”. Noting instead that photons are waves themselves, and
can have potentially any size, has serious methodological implications.
In fact, the role of photons as “carriers” of the electromagnetic field
becomes meaningless. On the other hand, wave-fronts produced by
an antenna are usually depicted as solid smooth surfaces; this is just
a rough mathematical simplification of an intricate phenomenon of
14
From [71], p.42: “The scalar and longitudinal photons only exist in the near-
field zone of matter, and only as long as the particle source emitting the transverse
photons is electrodynamically active. The longitudinal and scalar photons can-
not be detached from the matter field and they play an important role in linking
quantum optics and near-field optics together”.
photon emission, originating from the device itself. In this case, a set
of model equations can only provide reliable indication of averaged
behavior, but to know more about the real constitution and the way
the emission initially takes place, it is first necessary to carry out
investigations on the structure of metals. As the reader can notice,
there are several concepts fused (and confused) when talking about
electromagnetic waves. My wish is to bring order and clarity. Thus,
let us continue to analyze the most simple phenomena before facing
more complex ones.
1.3 A closer look at the model

The equations simulating electromagnetic phenomena must be energy-
preserving transport equations of hyperbolic type. Differently from
other situations (for instance acoustics), the information carried is not
of scalar type, i.e., a single quantity such as a density of mass, energy or
pressure. In fact, the equations in the electromagnetic case deal with
a far more complicated set of variables, representing the two indepen-
dent vector fields E and B. As I claimed in the previous section, there
is the tendency to simplify the problem by eliminating “negligible”
components of the vector fields and reduce the analysis to scalar vari-
ables (see footnote 12). Most of the times this might not correspond to
a reasonable approximation of the vector equations and people often
tend to abuse such a procedure; therefore, I strongly believe that a
serious approach must take into account the whole complexity of the
setting.
My model makes distinction between free-waves, where the evolu-
tion proceeds unperturbed, and constrained waves, where for external
reasons the evolution of the wave deviates from the natural path. All
these processes evolve at the speed of light, which is basically the only
velocity we actually find in my construction. In order to fully un-
derstand the last statement, it is necessary to embed the analysis of
the equations in the habitat of general relativity. Before facing this
complicated issue, I would prefer to give a certain number of insights
that do not necessitate fancy arguments. I will begin by describing the
case of free-waves, which is simpler. The set of equations is reported
in Appendix B with characteristic properties.
By defining ρ = divE, the general set of equation is:

∂E
= c2 curlB − ρV
∂t
∂B
= − curlE
∂t
divB = 0

∂V
ρ + (V · ∇)V + µ(E + V × B) = − ∇p
∂t
where µ is a given constant and c is the speed of light.
The continuity equation is obtained by taking the

divergence of the first equation:
∂ρ
= − div(ρV)
∂t
Free-waves are obtained as a special case, where:

∂E
= c2 curlB − ρV
∂t
∂B
= − curlE
∂t
divB = 0
ρ (E + V × B) = 0
Maxwell’s equations in vacuum are finally obtained for ρ = 0:
divE = 0
∂E
= c2 curlB
∂t
∂B
= − curlE
∂t
divB = 0
Let me first provide a brief description of the revised equations by

anticipating some comments. Differently from the classical ones, the
set of equations is of nonlinear type. This must be expected, since
all physical observations converge to a nonlinear description of natural
events. Linearization may be helpful to get a rough idea of the facts,
but it is deleterious when applied beyond certain limits. The second
relevant aspect is that the set of equations operates on three fields
(E, B, V). Thus together with the electromagnetic information, the
model also describes the way this information has to be transported
(see section 1.2). Since there are now more unknowns, there is the need
for an extra vector equation, that, in the case of free-waves, turns out
to be just a geometrical constraint, establishing the orthogonality of
the triplet (E, B, V). Such an equation reads as follows: E+V×B = 0.
The general equations ensemble is displayed in the previous page
together with the main subcases. The substantial achievement is the
ability to get rid of the divergence condition on the electric field (the
primary source of impediment) and modifying accordingly the Ampère
law. There is now a “current term” in this equation, given by: (divE)V
(see (15) in Appendix B). This is not an effective current due to an
external device, but rather something flowing with the wave itself with
a certain density ρ = divE and velocity V equal in magnitude to the
speed of light. Like currents circulating in a superconductive wire, pho-
tons travel in a straight line at speed c, preserving their bounds. With-
out adding further hypotheses, a continuity equation for the scalar ρ
can be easily obtained by differentiating the modified Ampère’s law
(see (21)). I will provide better explanations of the entire construction
later in this chapter, when dealing with constrained waves, that come
from generalizing the present setting. For the sake of completeness,
let me inform the reader more concerned with technical details that a
Lagrangian is available and that the equations are naturally connected
to the divergence of the electromagnetic stress tensor (see Appendix
C). With respect to these parameters the new model is as good as
Maxwell’s. The substantial gain is that it admits a larger space of
solutions.
Whatever their shape is, free-waves realize the Gaelilean concept of
a “body” travelling straightly at constant uniform speed. The family
of photons, introduced in the previous section, consists of free-waves
with parallel propagating fronts. An easy and typical example of free-
wave is the plane wave, where all the fronts are actually entire planes
and the fields defined on them are everywhere constant. Such an entity
does not exist in nature, since its transversal extension as well as its
energy are infinite. By the way, this is the only solution (up to changes
of intensity and polarization of the fields inside each front), based on
parallel flat fronts, that is admitted by the set of Maxwell’s equations.
Other Maxwellian propagating waves can be found by assuming that
the fronts are not plane, but still unbounded and carrying infinite
energy. If we opt for bounded fronts, chances to find solutions are
very few. Correspondingly, one also has to assume that the Umov-
Poynting vector is not lined up with the direction of propagation of
the fronts, which is an unphysical situation.
Free-wave fronts can display a multitude of different shapes. A sur-
vey of possible solutions satisfying the new set of equations is found
in Appendix D. Infinite other options are possible. In a pure spheri-
cal wave, the fronts are the skins of concentric spheres. This means
that the field V is still constant, but of radial type. On the surface of
each sphere we find the electromagnetic signal. More precisely, at each
point, E and B (still orthogonal) belong to the local tangent plane to
the spherical surface. Again, we are (almost) free to choose intensity
and polarization on each front as we prefer (as far as we respect the
divB = 0 condition), and, during the evolution, there is no interfer-
ence between the fronts. Nevertheless, to guarantee the preservation of
energy, the intensity of the electromagnetic field has to fade, since the
same original signal is going to be distributed on surfaces whose area
is growing with time. In this situation the information is diffused ev-
erywhere, and arrives at any single destination with reduced strength.
The model automatically takes care of these circumstances. The fur-
ther condition divE = 0 is incompatible with this setting, saying that
Maxwellian spherical wave-fronts are forbidden.
Let me stress once again that there is no direct relation between
the signal transported and the way it is transported (see figure 1.3).
In a spherical evolution of the fronts, E and B do not necessarily
satisfy any symmetry constraint. They constitute the message to be
transmitted (any message), that may vary both transversally and lon-
gitudinally. The adjective “spherical” is only associated with the shape
of the fronts and the way they move, which is dictated by the vector
field V. Commonly, when displaying signals, engineers do not make
these distinctions. Indeed, these doubts do no touch professionals in
specialized areas; that are too confident of their paraphernalia to look
Figure 1.3: These ripples in

water, taken at fixed instant,
are the information to be trans-
ported. They can be erro-
neously confused with the first
picture of figure 1.1, showing
the evolution of a single front
in time, underlining the way
a certain information is trans-
ported. Oscillatory phenom-
ena, such as this one, test
our capacity to discern between
space and time, and between
what and how.
into such sophisticated questions. That is one of the reasons why cer-
tain inconsistencies never came to light. This is especially true when
dealing with well tamed solutions, such as the Hertzian dipole, that
will be briefly handled later in this section.
There are many other intermediate situations that can be faced
with the following formula: fronts developing according to a stationary
constant velocity field V, and electromagnetic information imprinted
on the tangent planes to the fronts, in order to form orthogonal triplets
marching in empty space. The possibility of generating signals display-
ing suitable transversal distributions is not very used in radio commu-
nications, where the message is mainly encoded along the longitudinal
direction, through a process of amplitude or frequency modulation. I
guess that a more effective signal compression might be achieved by
also controlling the transverse displacement of the wave.
At this point, let me remark that, in conceiving the model equa-
tions, my attention was concentrated on the fact that I wanted the
solutions to behave in a certain manner. Therefore, the whole ma-
chinery was built around the a priori knowledge of exact solutions. Of
course, once the model is written, one can start thinking about the
characterization of the whole space of solutions. I have some results
in this direction, although I did not pay too much time on specific
theoretical issues. In particular, I have no idea how a general impo-
sition of the initial conditions may influence the future evolution of a
wave. For example, one could imagine initial fronts where equation
E + V × B = 0 is not fulfilled (see the comments at the end of sec-
tion 1.2, about fields emitted by an antenna). Other claims reported

here are not supported by a scrupulous analysis. I understand that
some inflexible pure mathematician could be scandalized by the lack
of rigorous results. Nevertheless, I always thought that it is possible
to breath also if one is not able to prove that air satisfies the 3D fluid
dynamics equations.
Now, it should be clear that the laws ruling the evolution of the
fronts are not connected with the signal transmitted. Based on ge-
ometrical optics, in an amount of time δt each front covers, in the
direction point-wise orthogonal to its surface, a distance δx = c δt,
c being the speed of light. In vector form, such a relation becomes:
δx = δtV. Thus, each point of a front can evolve independently from
the others, following a straight trajectory comparable to a light-ray
(see figure 1.1). My model equations are actually in agreement with
such a way of evolving vector waves, and this is quite an amazing
property. In fact, I am dealing with partial differential equations that
combine time and space derivatives of the components of electric and
magnetic fields. I assume that, at some initial time, E and B are set
up in order to be compatible with the successive evolution. This means
that the electric and magnetic vectors must be mutually orthogonal,
and placed on tangent planes of surfaces that will become the evolving
fronts. Once this is done, the equations allow for the development of
the global wave according to geometrical rules. Surprisingly, if the
shapes of the fronts were initially the same, but with a modified elec-
tromagnetic information, the subsequent evolution of the fronts would
not change, despite the fact that the equations are built on the specific
values attained by the carried fields. In this fashion, the model can re-
produce the behavior of a free photon, independently from the message
carried by it. This is a first example of what we can call globalization,
where the support of infinite point-wise unconscious contributions, fol-
lowing a specified law, produces an all-embracing effect that does not
rely upon the quantitative nature of the initial population, but only
on its topological set up. Moreover, the equations preserve physical
entities, such as energy, so that, as the case of spherical wave-fronts
requires, the intensity of the fields decays when the fronts develop. I
am sure that somebody, more expert than me, may find interesting
explanations for the new model equations within the framework of
differential geometry.
I consider it a severe handicap that spherical wave-fronts cannot
be build in the Maxwellian context (see [49]). With such a poor space
of solutions, the classical model is certainly unable to deal with the
immense and variegated universe of electromagnetic phenomena. This
is one of the reasons I felt that a revision could not be further post-
poned. The literature is full of rough efforts to adjust and combine
plane waves in order to get other possible propagating solutions, us-
ing the linearity of Maxwell’s equations. Some of these approaches
are mathematically questionable, thus showing how not well justified
intuitions can lead to unrealistic conclusions.
In textbooks, plane waves are described by (scalar or vector) ex-
pressions containing the multiplicative term ei(k·x−ωt) , with k denoting
the direction of movement. Such a writing does not represent a “prop-
agating” entity, but something that exists for all t, hence also in the
future, i.e. in places where the message is still not supposed to be.
Of course, one can try to restrict the support in order to work with
solitary shifting pulses, although troubles emerge from the imposition
of boundary conditions (as far as the scalar variable ξ = k · x − ωt is
concerned), since the evolution speed of each Fourier mode depends
on the magnitude of k, resulting in a distortion of the original packet.
Moreover, all those concepts, such as phase velocity and group velocity,
well-suited for the analysis of periodic structures, become meaningless
when studying a single pulse. Again, problems originate from a non
correct identification of what is transported and the way it is trans-
ported (see figure 1.3). With these prerequisites, connections with ge-
ometrical optics are imprecise and supported by weak justifications15 .
After suitable “normalization”, R.P. Feynman sets the founda-
tions of Quantum Electro Dynamics by linking photons to classical
Maxwell’s equations16 . He makes use of mystifying passages, gener-
ating self-confidence in borderline questions that should instead ne-
cessitate rigorous mathematical clarification. There is also a strong
tendency to avoid the distinction between time and space variables, so
15
From [73], p.14: “All one can really deduce from the study of plane waves is
that they obey some of the laws of geometrical optics but they do not suffice to
derive geometrical optics from Maxwell’s equations”. Unfortunately, I claim that
there is no way at all to get geometrical optics from Maxwell’s equations. Results at
local level are achievable but a global control of the fronts cannot be accomplished.
16
From [39], p.4: “Thus, in general, a photon may be represented as a solution
of the classical Maxwell equations if properly normalized. Although many forms of
expressions are possible it is most convenient to describe the electromagnetic field
in terms of plane waves”.
that a plane wave ends up to be a promiscuous object, conveniently

reduced to a moving point when required by the context. The result
is a picturesque representation where a photon is sketched by a little
snake. With this I do not want to cast a shadow on the universally
recognized success and consistency of QED, though the very initial
steps are embarrassingly approximative.
Solutions of Maxwell’s equations are often introduced as expansion

series in terms of well-known basis functions. A consolidated technique
is to integrate with respect to k a family of plane waves of the type
Ak ei(k·x−ωt) , for suitable vector coefficients Ak with Ak · k = 0 (see
for instance [25]). In this way, the divergence of the resulting vector
field turns out to be equal to zero. Unfortunately, excluding a few
exceptions, the lines of force of the final field are not tangential to the
evolving fronts, so missing the links with geometrical optics and the
possibility of including photons in the analysis. It is not possible to
have a cake and eat it too: either one preserves the correct advancing
of the fronts or realizes the divergence free condition17 . Ironically, the
above mentioned approach is the preferred one in classical optics18,19 .
The confusion may be one more time attributed to the unmarked dis-
tinction between the front surfaces and the envelopment of the lines
of force of the electric field.
In other contexts, people tend to forget that planes are huge cum-
bersome objects. Maxwellian plane wave-fronts carry a constant elec-
tromagnetic signal that spreads out; they cannot be cut without gen-
erating discontinuities and the information written on them cannot be
concentrated in some areas, without affecting the divergence of the
17
For example, in the expression (1, 0) sin(y − ωt) − (0, 2) sin(x − ωt), the modu-
lated 2D signal (1, −2) is transported along directions parallel to the vector (1, 1).
The divergence of the field is zero but the signal is not tangent to the fronts, which
are straight lines orthogonal to (1, 1).
18
From [62], p.27: “... first, physically, sinusoidal waves can be generated rel-
atively simply by using some form of harmonic oscillator; second, any three-
dimensional wave can be expressed as a combination of plane waves,
each having a distinct amplitude and propagation direction”.
19
From [113], p.478: “By suitably assigning amplitudes, polarizations, and phases
to the plane-wave components, one can construct a spherical wave or any other type
of radiation field arising in the classical theory”.
fields E and B, which in vacuum is expected to be zero everywhere.

It is unclear then how these unmanageable things can be used to “ap-
proximate” curved fronts, both regarding their geometry and the signal
written on them20 . In many numerical Finite Element codes, fronts
are discretized through a sequence of piece-wise flat surfaces, so ne-
glecting the fact that a plane wave has infinite spatial extension. In
such a procedure it is not guaranteed that the conditions on the di-
vergence are maintained passing to the limit (and this is usually false
if the approximated front is a simply connected region). The process
recalls that of approaching uniformly a 1D differentiable function us-
ing piece-wise constant functions. The approximating functions have
zero derivative almost everywhere, but this property is certainly not
transferred to the limit. This last example is referred to the stationary
case, but the situation does not improve if one also takes into account
time evolution.
Nevertheless, the task of making evident the little crimes perpe-
trated in more than a century is not that easy. Like an unprepared
student who reaches the right answer in his homework, after a se-
quence of mistakes cancelling each other out, the by-product of the
incorrect rearrangement of plane and spherical waves ends up fitting
real-life experiences quite well, within acceptable limits21 . In numeri-
cal experiments concerning the scattering of a wave by an obstacle, a
common mistake is to follow the dynamical equations (1) and (2) with-
out worrying about the divergence conditions, since these have been
already imposed on the incoming wave (normally a plane wave, what
else?). Irreparably, for certain type of boundary conditions, during
and after the impact with the obstacle at least one of the two fields
shows a divergence different from zero in its neighborhood. Such a
deviation is usually not tested, though the error introduced does not
reduce by refining the computational accuracy. In this way incorrect-
20
From [71], p.32: “Photon wave mechanics is based on the introduction of a
photon wave function, and the establishment of a dynamical equation which can
describe the spacetime evolution of the probability amplitude. The wave function
of a spatially localized photon must have wave packet character, and in classical
electrodynamics free-space electromagnetic wave packets can be formed by super-
position of monochromatic plane waves”. This interpretation is inspired by mono-
dimensional examples. As one tries to argue in 3D, contradictions soon emerge:
how can plane waves be combined to form a spatially localized wave-packet?
21
From [25], p.20: “The concept of an unbounded plane wave is, of course, an ide-
alization. Nevertheless, in theoretical work an unbounded homogeneous plane wave
in a lossless medium is a convenient fiction which can be physically acceptable”.
ness proliferates, nourishing the initial misunderstandings surrounding

the legendary equations. In spite of that, the final results agree quite
well with those of laboratory experiments.
The constant technological progress in radio communications seems
to testify in favor of Maxwell’s equations. I continue to claim instead
that a model with such a reduced space of solutions has no reason
to survive and one of the consequences of having accepted it, is the
neat division between the classical and quantum worlds. It is also to
be remembered that my modification of the original equations is not
drastic (just a small alteration). Theoretically, it can be physically
accepted with no major conceptual efforts. Practically, it provides
the world of applications with an extremely large space of effective
solutions.
There is an explicit spherical-type solution, called the infinitesi-
mal dipole solution found by H. Hertz himself, solving analytically
the whole set of Maxwell’s equations in vacuum (see (53) in Appendix
D). Its corresponding wave-fronts (the envelope surfaces of the couples
(E, B)) are toroidal (not spherical) with a banana-like section and, as
actually prescribed by the conditions divE = 0 and divB = 0, the
fields form closed loops (see figure 4.1). The Umov-Poynting vectors
are not orthogonal to spherical surfaces, so that the rules of geomet-
rical optics are not fulfilled. The way energy is transferred in this
process, for instance in the study of an antenna device, is still (after
more than one hundred years) reason for debate among technicians.
Approximations of the dipole solution are available; they do not solve
the Maxwell’s system (basically because they forget to impose the
divE = 0 constraint), but they better agree with an ideal spherical
wave.
The Hertzian solution is considered to be a pedagogical example
illustrating the goodness of the Maxwellian theory. From my viewpoint
its existence is a misfortune. For the reasons detailed in [45], that for
simplicity I do not wish to report here, the behavior of the Hertz fields
is, in its generality, quite unphysical, although locally very similar to
what is observed in reality. This equivocal situation is a source of
misunderstandings when talking with experts. My efforts to explain
my version about the propagation of fronts in relation to the Maxwell’s
model have been very often frustrated by referring to the Hertzian
solution as the panacea of all troubles. Plane and Hertzian waves
(both non existent entities in real life) seem to be the only weapons
in the hands of Maxwell’s supporters, but they are heavily employed

when repressing any uprising.
Let me summarize what I can actually do with my model. Without
introducing any significant physical alteration, I can include in the so-
lution space all those waves, mentioned above, that are well recognized
in engineering applications (like some well-behaved approximations of
the Hertzian solution). Moreover, I can include solitary waves, such
as photons. Therefore, let us not waste more time with the old stuff.
We have a new toy now. After appreciating its numerous capabilities,
the reader may turn his head back and realize how reductive was the
previous view. The next step will be to examine the role in the frame-
work of the theory of relativity. Amazingly, we will also rehabilitate
Maxwell’s equations; in fact they are correctly posed if we look at them
in the proper way.
1.4 Connections with special relativity

A first serious investigation on the properties of light started with the
work of A. Einstein, based on preliminary results by H. Lorentz. As
a consequence, Maxwell’s equations, one of the central issues in Ein-
stein’s analysis, gained further consensus. Roughly speaking, with an
appropriate rewriting of the Maxwellian model, it is possible to get
an “invariant formulation”, adaptable to almost any kind of observers.
According to such an intrinsic set up, the qualitative features of a
given light phenomenon can be properly described, and the same con-
clusions may be reached from various different observational frame-
works22 . The first achievement in this direction is the proof of the
Lorentz invariance of Maxwell’s equations. This result contains many
of the ingredients of the theory of special relativity. The property is
checked by applying a time-dependent change of variables (namely, a
Lorentz transformation), where the new reference frame moves with
constant speed v, i.e., it is an inertial frame with respect to the one con-
sidered to be at rest. It is then discovered that each inertial observer
22
In [33], A. Einstein writes: “... Examples of this sort, together with the unsuc-
cessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ‘light medium’,
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no
properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that,
as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of
electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the
equations of mechanics hold good”.
is able to interpret from his own viewpoint a given electromagnetic

emission with the same universal modelling equations.
The exercise is carried out as follows (see Appendix E). With little
computational effort, one discovers modified equations resulting from
the change of variables applied to the Maxwell’s model, i.e., by adapt-
ing partial derivatives in relation to the transformation. One has to
verify that any Maxwellian wave described in the rest frame is seen in
the moving frame as a solution of such modified equations. In addi-
tion, one discovers that the modified model equations have the same
“appearance” as the ones stated in the rest frame (compare (64) in Ap-
pendix E with (11) in Appendix A). Thus, there is a common denom-
inator that links equations and their corresponding solution spaces,
independently of v. Unfortunately, Einstein was not aware of the fact
that, as far as propagating waves are concerned, the solution spaces
are almost empty. This is a pedagogical example on how interest-
ing abstract results can be proven without having representatives to
satisfy them. Nevertheless, based on what has been reported in the
previous sections, there are other less known waves solving Maxwell’s
equations, hence the situation is not so critical (see footnote 6). This
kind of solutions will be extensively used in the following.
Another important aspect is the invariance of the speed of light.
In particular, two observers, one in motion (with constant velocity v)
with respect to the other, would deduce that light evolves at the same
speed c, as indirectly recovered by A. Michelson and E. Morley in their
famous experiment, trying to measure the effect of Earth’s motion on
the speed of light23 . Consequently, in disagreement with intuition,
velocities do not sum up linearly; namely one has |V + v| = c, even
if |V| = c and v 6= 0. In other terms, for a spherical wave the fronts
develop radially all around at the same speed c, and this remains true
also if one looks at the wave, while shifting with constant motion.
Ironically, this argument does not take into account that spherical
fronts of light (and other isomorphic shapes) are not members of the
Maxwellian population. I am sure that, if scientists were conscious of
this fact in the past, they would have soon found a remedy. However,
23
From [76], p.3: “Meausurements first performed by Michelson (1881) showed
complete lack of dependence of the velocity of light on its direction of propagation;
whereas according to classical mechanics the velocity of light should be smaller in
the direction of the earth’s motion than in the opposite direction”. The aim of the
experiment was actually to prove the existence of a sort of aether wind; with this
respect the outcome was a failure.
this incoherence was not pointed out, probably not being pondered
with the necessary thoroughness.
The result of the invariance of the equations of electromagnetism
is one of the pillars of the theory of special relativity. Therefore, it is
important to verify that Lorentz transformations are compatible with
my model too. Not only does this turn out to be true in the case
of free-waves (I give the details in Appendix E, that imitate those in
[33], i.e., the original Einstein 1905 paper), but there are additional
interesting consequences to remark. Let me first recall that the two
postulates of special relativity are generally stated as follows. The
first one says that physical laws are invariant under inertial coordinate
transformations: if an object obeys some mathematical equations in a
frame of reference, it will obey the same type of equations in any other
frame shifting at constant velocity v. This is exactly what happens
for the usual equations of electrodynamics. The second postulate says
(see above) that light always propagates in empty space with speed
c, independently of the state of motion of the emitting body. From
this, Lorentz also deduced a nonlinear formula for summing up velocity
vectors (see (69)).
Now, when proving the Lorentz invariance of the new set of equa-
tions one has to deal with E and B as in the traditional case. It has to
be remembered however that also the field V appears in the equations.
If the observer is moving with constant velocity v, the transformation
of V in the new reference frame has to be computed with the nonlin-
ear formula for velocities, combining both v and V, where here the
magnitude of V is equal to c. The proof of the Lorentz invariance has
to take into account this correction, which is exactly what Einstein did
when adding the Ampère current term to Maxwell’s equations24 . The
only difference is that, in my model, currents are not due to external
factors, but they are part of the field description. Hence, my approach
is not actually introducing any technical novelty, but only a different
24
In [33], after proving the invariance of Maxwell’s equations including the current
source term, A. Einstein writes: “... we have the proof that, on the basis of our
kinematical principles, the electrodynamic foundation of Lorentz’s theory of the
electrodynamics of moving bodies is in agreement with the principle of relativity.
In addition I may briefly remark that the following important law may easily be
deduced from the developed equations: if an electrically charged body is in motion
anywhere in space without altering its charge, when regarded from a system of
co-ordinates moving with the body, its charge also remains when regarded from the
‘stationary’ system ...”.
way to explicate facts. Finally, in addition to these accomplishments,

one needs to check that also the free-wave condition (18) is Lorentz
invariant (for example, spherical propagating fronts are represented by
free-waves, and this property must turn out to be true in any inertial
frame). Hence, it is necessary to work on the condition E+V ×B = 0.
In order to achieve the result, the nonlinear addition formula for ve-
locities has to be reused (see also [45], section 2.6). The verification is
going to be quite an easy job for an expert reader.
By reversing the order of the passages, one entails the following
amazing consequence: if my model is Lorentz invariant (including the
equation E + V × B = 0), then the second postulate must hold (there-
fore, this is not going to be a postulate anymore). Indeed, the fact
that a spherical wave is “spherical” for all inertial observers is directly
connected to the constancy of the speed of light. In other terms,
spherical signals emitted by a point-wise source reach their targets in-
dependently of the shifting velocity v of such a source (provided there
are no accelerations). In conclusion, it should be enough to state the
validity of the new model up to changes of inertial coordinate systems,
to recover the basic assumptions of special relativity, thus getting rid
of a postulate.
Observing that my model complies with all those basic rules, was
for me a good source of optimism. Once again, let me say that these
deductions were made by Einstein without having any concrete exam-
ple of propagating spherical fronts, because in the Maxwellian context
they just do not exist. Let me stress that these fronts have to carry
vector signals, therefore, spherical advancing fronts for scalar fields
are not acceptable. Let me also stress again that with the adjective
“spherical” I mean the geometrical form of the signal “carrier”, which
has nothing to do with the signal itself. For the reasons partly put
forth in section 1.3, the Hertzian dipole is not an acceptable example
of spherical wave-fronts propagation (see figure 4.1). Moreover, let
me admonish that the eikonal equation (the fundamental equation of
geometrical optics) describes very properly the way the fronts must
develop, but does not provide any insight about the carried message
(recall the distinction made in section 1.3).
Since I mentioned the eikonal equation, let me spend a few words
about it. This is a nonlinear partial differential problem (see (19) in
Appendix B), allowing for the determination of time-evolving surface
fronts, starting from some initial configuration. According to this ap-
proach, the fronts are interpreted as the 2D level sets (analogous to

the 1D level lines in 2D cartography) of a function Ψ in 3D, repre-
senting a scalar potential. We want each level set to be uniformly
distant with respect to the neighboring ones, i.e., we can pass from
one set to another by moving all points of an identical distance δx,
along the normal direction to the surface. The gradient ∇Ψ of Ψ is a
3-components vector orthogonal to the 2D level sets. In the station-
ary case, the eikonal equation amounts to imposing that ∇Φ has a
constant modulus everywhere it is defined. The constant turns out to
be equal to c, that is the speed of light (the velocity of the marching
fronts). If we denote by V such a gradient, we get the velocity field
of my model equations. The other way around, we can argue as fol-
lows. If V can be written as the gradient of a scalar function Ψ (which
is expected to be a reasonable assumption in the case of free-waves),
then the constancy of the modulus of V brings to the eikonal equation
|∇Ψ| = |V| = c, and, at the same time, expresses the constancy of
the speed of light. The corresponding surface fronts turn out to be
orthogonal to the field V. This justifies from another viewpoint the
presence of V in the new modelling equations and establishes a closer
link with geometrical optics.
Somehow, the velocity field V decides the direction of motion of
the fronts and forces, at any point, the couple (E, B) to lay on the
tangent plane of each corresponding front. If we do not impart any
acceleration to V, the motion will be undisturbed, the fronts proceed
according to the rules of optics and the light rays are straight lines (the
two typical examples are spherical waves or photons, but the family
includes uncountable members). Note that, if we try to solve the new
model equations with an initial V having a modulus different from
c, there are no chances of getting a free-wave. The mechanism that
docilely drives the electromagnetic fields to envelope the right fronts is
missing in Maxwell’s approach, with the result that there is no trace
of photons in the solution set. As a matter of fact, the Maxwellian so-
lution space originates from the condition ρ = 0, that sweeps away the
term containing V, breaking any contact with the eikonal equation.
I understand that the above presentation is incomplete and intuitive;
therefore, a more robust mathematical formalization of the results is
expected. Let me conclude this paragraph by remarking that the lack
of interconnections between Maxwellian electromagnetism and geo-
metrical optics is well-known. Links are actually very mild and can
only be found within the framework of heavy approximations, where,
basically, one discovers that a smooth front behaves locally as a piece

of plane wave. I already made my comments in section 1.3 about the
unreliability of such a procedure (see also footnote 15).
I think that the ideas presented so far can be accepted with no
major objections by scientists. The basic theoretical tools have been
matured for as long as hundreds years and belong to the background
preparation of a good physicist. They appear both in spontaneous and
rigorous fashion in many texts, though not exactly within the formal-
ism I am using here. There are however some approximate passages
in the habitual exposition that, although intuitively correct, do not
help the full development of the concepts involved. I refer for instance
to the ambiguous transition from the vector Maxwell’s equations to
the scalar eikonal equation, and, once again, to the lack of distinction
among the signal carried and the way it is carried. A typical phe-
nomenon, always mentioned in special relativity, is the Doppler effect.
Its study is mathematically correct, nevertheless the explication of the
facts is a bit fuzzy. Let me make some comments about it.
If a periodic process of period λ takes place in a moving frame,
then the period registered at the rest frame is going to be greater than
λ if the motion is away from the measuring point and less if the motion
is towards it. The change of frequency of a moving siren testifies to
the validity of this principle. It is said that we can predict for example
the velocity of a star from the shifting of the emission spectrum of
its atoms (see section 3.1). There is however no continuous oscillation
of period λ attached to a photon and there is no modification of its
velocity. The speed and the way a photon evolves are the same in all
inertial frames, but, experimentally, we register a different perception
of the same photon if we move with respect to it. With the usual
Fourier analysis, the explanation of this behavior is unclear, since the
photon turns out to consist of a single pulse and there is no frequency
directly associated with it. In fact, what changes is the longitudinal
spreading of the signal carried and not the modality of transportation.
A picture taken at a given time of a specific photon emitted by
a known atom in the passage from a certain state to another, can
tell us if the atom is moving and what its velocity is. We get this
piece of information even considering that a picture offers a stationary
view. The dynamics of the photon is unessential, being a free-wave it is
enough to recover the initial orientation of the electromagnetic fields to
determine its future evolution (it will shift at the speed of light in the
direction of the cross product E×B). Such an observation attracts the

attention to the geometrical properties of the photon (see section 1.6).
The mechanism of the Lorentz contraction of lengths, of not immediate
explication in our everyday life, assumes a simplified form when dealing
with the different representations of the same photon as a function of
the observer. In fact, instead of comparing what happens at velocities
V and V+v, where |V| = c, one just sits on the photon and looks at its
variation with respect to the parameter v. Better examining a steady
picture than trying to catch a photon with unconvincing meters and
clocks. To the reader who remarks that the picture of a photon cannot
be taken in reality, I answer that a mathematical shot is available from
the analysis of the explicit solutions of my model equations (see (82)
in Appendix D).
In conclusion, a given photon, that always moves at the speed of
light, may appear to us to be elongated or contracted depending on
the velocity of the source. Sources escaping from us emit photons that,
when reaching our instruments, display a lower energy (redshifting).
Light emanated from galaxies is usually affected by redshift. Cosmol-
ogists tend to attribute the explanation of this phenomenon to the
expansion properties of the universe. Less accepted is the idea that
such a modification could be also a consequence of some “accident” oc-
curred during the journey, so that an anomalous shape of the photons
might not be directly associated to the movement of the emitter25 .
Finally, going back to the study of invariance properties, the result
that a free photon remains a free-wave for all the inertial observers is a
wonderful feature, emphasizing the absolute nature of such an entity.
The property is analogous to that stated by Einstein (see footnote 24)
concerning the Lorentz invariance of the notion of a non-accelerated
charge. Let me remark anyway that a photon is something rather dif-
ferent from an electric charge. First of all, it does not radiate, but the
electromagnetic signal remains inside its travelling domain, without
diffusing. In agreement with this, though ρ = divE is usually different
from zero in the photon’s support, the integral of ρ vanishes (because
of the zero boundary conditions on E), respecting in this fashion the
25
From [94], p.775: “No one has ever put forward a satisfactory explanation for
the cosmological redshift other than the expansion of the universe. The idea has
been proposed at various times by various authors that some new process is at
work (‘tired light’) in which photons interact with atoms or electrons on their way
from source to receptor, and thereby lose bits and pieces of their energy. Ya.B.
Zel’dovich gives a penetrating analysis of the difficulties with any such ideas: ...”.
Gauss theorem. As I will explain in the coming sections, photons may

possibly transmute into real charges. This potentiality becomes effec-
tive as one tries to confine them in a bounded region of space. The
study of such a situation is going to be extremely complicated and the
instruments of special relativity are not fine enough for a deeper anal-
ysis. This is mainly due to the fact that my photons have an internal
structure. For example, later, I will assume that parts of a photon may
travel at different speeds, so breaking the second postulate of special
relativity. The explanations will rely on the possibility of handling
non-inertial reference frames. The spontaneous battleground to look
for an upgraded theoretical validation of the model is general relativ-
ity, where the notion of invariance gets more sophisticated. This will
open the path to the study of constrained waves and to my philosoph-
ical understanding of nature’s facts. Consequentially, the concepts of
space-time curvature and gravitation will emerge.
1.5 The geometry of space-time

Thanks to the work of distinguished mathematicians, such as B. Rie-
mann and G. Ricci Curbastro, Einstein was able to further extend
the theory of relativity by expressing physics laws in tensor form. I
guess that, initially, the idea was to study more complicated changes
of variable in the space-time, such as (non-inertial) uniform acceler-
ated frames, but the developments turned out to be impressively broad,
consistent and elegant. Personally, I consider the theory of general rel-
ativity to be the best achievement of mathematical physics. Although
the scientific literature is rich of variants and extensions, I believe that
the original Einstein’s version is already complete and sufficiently con-
cise. Moreover, there are still many unexplored territories, to which I
would like here to concentrate my attention.
It is not easy to describe in a few non-technical paragraphs the
principle ideas, taking also into consideration that I am far from being
an expert; nevertheless I will try here to come out with some naive
explanations. Such an introduction is not probably the one usually
followed in classical treatises, however it is coherent with my approach
to the study of electromagnetism. For these reasons and for the sake
of brevity, I will omit several canonical aspects, that can however be
retrieved from specialized publications.
To start with we may examine for instance the case of a uniform ac-
celerated frame along a straight path. Physics laws from this viewpoint
are going to be formally different from those related to an observer con-
sidered “at rest”. By the way, a general common formulation can be
provided. This is obtained by firstly noting that the two observers
can be supposed to live in different “space-time geometrical environ-
ments”. Here the meaning of the term geometry is rather complex. Let
me be vague for while. With some adjusted measuring instruments an
observer locally regulates the detection and the interpretation of his
own results. The metric system subtly depends on the environment
and may not coincide with that of another observer. For this reason,
the two of them may have a different perception of the facts going on.
Nevertheless, the governing laws are written in some unified abstract
form, that takes into account the presence, well concealed, of possible
geometric backgrounds. In this way, the laws maintain an absolute
validity, however they can assume various appearances in the presence
of different observers. Let us make these rough intuitions more clear
with a standard example.
Typically, one begins with analyzing what happens on a free-falling
elevator, subject to a gravitational field, as far as an external observer
at rest is concerned. Another observer, placed in the elevator, may
see free-falling objects at rest. By conducting simple experiments of
dynamics on these objects, there is no way the falling observer can
realize he is in accelerated motion. According to him the rules of
mechanics are the usual ones. We can then associate to the eleva-
tor an isotropic space having a “flat” geometry, which is basically the
standard Euclidean space we are used to. This is true at least in
the elevator’s micro-universe, i.e., the flat properties of the space-time
hold up to the elevator’s boundary. Also for the external observer
the rules of mechanics are the same, except that the contribution of a
suitable constant vector (proportional to a given acceleration) has to
be added to the formulas. The novelty of the approach is to include
this gravity-like vector in the geometrical environment of the second
observer (usually in the form of a potential). The presence of this
term is going to provide his space-time with a “curvature”. According
to Einstein’s idea, such a deformation of the geometry has to be at-
tributed to the presence of some far-away large mass, which is exactly
the one causing the elevator to fall. In the end, in both cases (the flat
and the curved ones), a generalized version of Newtonian laws can be
formulated with no additional corrections, because these are implicitly
and automatically assigned to the geometric parts.
Let me go a bit further into the details. The space-time geometry

is described by the so called metric tensor. Considering time as the
first one of four dimensions, for a given system of coordinates, the
metric tensor is expressed by a 4 × 4 symmetric matrix gαβ containing
distinctive point-wise information about lengths, angles and the way
time develops. Here, the 4D background is a natural choice. Indeed,
already in the theory of special relativity, there is no absolute notion
of space and time as individual entities, because these turn out to be
fully entangled. In section 1.4, my excursion on special relativity did
not cover this issue much, that can be however sharpened by searching
in the appropriate texts. In the current exposition, the link between
space and time starts assuming more importance.
Based on the example discussed above, two different metric ten-
sors can be assigned to the observers (the one at rest and the one in
the elevator). The next step is to find the way to express the laws
of mechanics in terms of a generic metric tensor. The final step is
to check whether there is a closed form to write the ruling equations,
by hiding their dependence on the metric tensors, obtaining a univer-
sal formula. In this fashion the laws turn out to be written in the
so called covariant form. When necessary, specific practical versions
can be recovered from such a symbolic system, by plugging the proper
metric tensor in the general formula and reading the laws in the local
geometrical space. If the space is flat, the corresponding metric ten-
sors are uninfluential; thus one gets plain Newtonian laws (presenting
no additional forcing terms), describing what happens in the elevator.
This is actually true with good approximation in a range of velocities
much smaller compared to the speed of light. When the space is mod-
ified by the gravitational context, one gets the laws of the observer at
rest, differing from the previous ones by the addition of an acceleration
field. To achieve mathematically this goal, it is necessary to create a
differential calculus that clarifies how to compute the derivatives in an
abstract way. Superficially, such covariant derivatives appear with an
innocent symbol of differentiation. When effectively evaluated, they
make heavy use of the entries of the metric and the system of coordi-
nates defined in the specific geometric environment26 .
26
From [94], p.387: “The transition in formalism from flat spacetime to curved
spacetime is a trivial process [...]. But it is nontrivial in its implications. It meshes
gravity with all the laws of physics. Gravity enters in an essential way through the
covariant derivative of curved spacetime”.
There are infinite metric tensors that can be associated with a

given geometrical space exhibiting a certain property (flatness for in-
stance), depending of all possible ways to define systems of coordinates
on it. Therefore, a flat space remains flat even by defining on it curvi-
linear coordinates. A change of variables is a transformation of the
4-dimensional space into itself, and depends on four functions, while
the metric tensor (which is symmetric) can accommodate up to ten
distinct functions. Therefore, there are infinitely many typologies of
geometrical spaces that cannot be globally transformed one into the
other by a mere change of coordinates. Under these circumstances,
one can start distinguishing among all possible “curved spaces”. The
presence of masses and the origin of gravity are considered to be the
most relevant motivations yielding curvature. The Einsteinian princi-
ple of equivalence actually states that a non-inertial reference system
is equivalent to a certain gravitational field. On the other hand, one
may have plenty of intermediate situations where the curvature of the
space does not clearly descend from the existence of well-determined
masses. I am mainly concerned with these cases and I will continue
to use the word “gravitation”, even if sometimes the term is not the
proper one.
Technically, the concept of curved space applies at a global level. It
is possible to adapt locally the system of coordinates in order to have
the impression of being for instance in a flat space, but the procedure
might not be extendable to the whole manifold27 . It is then far from
being easy to decide about the properties of a space associated with a
given metric tensor. The most straightforward method recalls the one
used in basic calculus, that amounts to evaluating second derivatives.
In the case of 4 × 4 tensors this is quite a tricky and cumbersome way
to proceed, but operatively is the only reliable one. Anyway, it is not
my intention to proceed with annoying notations and computations,
so I will continue to keep the exposition as simple as possible.
Before going ahead, it is important (and necessary) to embed my
theory of electromagnetism in the context of general relativity. In
other words, it is compulsory to state my model equations in covari-
ant form. Nevertheless, I do not want to here make use of tedious
27
From [94], p.191: “Geographers have similar problems when mapping the sur-
face of the earth. Over small areas, a township or a county, it is easy to use standard
rectangular coordinate system. However, when two fairly large regions are mapped,
each with one coordinate axis pointing north, then one finds that the edges of the
map overlap each other best if placed at slight angle”.
technicalities. Let me try anyway to provide some quick explanations.

The shortest way to write down Maxwell’s equations with the help of
4 × 4 tensors is: ∂α F αβ = 0, for β ranging from 0 to 3 (see (12) in
Appendix A). In a more cryptic form one can write: ∂F = 0. Here F is
the electromagnetic tensor and ∂ is a suitable covariant differential op-
erator. Both of them depend on a given metric tensor gαβ , although
this is not visible from the compacted formula. For example, when
gαβ = diag{1, −1, −1, −1} is the flat metric tensor in Cartesian coor-
dinates, the expression ∂F = 0 becomes (11) in Appendix A. Readers
with a background in calculus can easily go over the computations and
check that this writing really leads to Maxwell’s equations. More pre-
cisely, a couple of Maxwell’s equations ((1) and (3)) directly descend
from this approach, while the two other equations ((2) and (4)) are
implicitly assumed when constructing F . Now, for a certain choice of
the metric tensor, a full rendering of formula ∂F = 0 may look weird
and unusual, but still it represents the description of a given electro-
magnetic phenomenon from the viewpoint of the observer embedded
in that specific metric space.
As far as my equations are concerned, their contracted form looks
as follows: ∂F = (ρ/c)V and F V = 0 (see (24) and (25)), where V
is a 4-component velocity vector. The first equation is the Maxwell’s
version with a current term, though we know from section 1.3 that such
a term is not due to external sources, but the current is actually part of
the modelling of a wave. The second equation expresses the free-wave
condition. Both writings are well-suited to the framework of covariant
calculus. As already stressed in previous sections, my formulation does
not add any new technical difficulty and can be naturally inserted
in existing theories. The relevant advantage is to be able to work
with an extended space of solutions, preserving the features of classical
electromagnetism.
According to Appendix C, another method to write down Maxwell’s
equations in relativistic fashion is to use the electromagnetic 4×4 stress
tensor U (see (32)), providing information on energy fluxes and mo-
menta in electrodynamics processes. Conservation of these physical
quantities is imposed by setting to zero the covariant derivative of the
stress tensor, i.e.: ∂U = 0 (see (33)). This symbolic expression turns
out to be the essence of all energy-preserving electromagnetic phe-
nomena, cleared from specific geometric environments and coordinate
systems. One has the following implication: ∂F = 0 ⇒ ∂U = 0 (see
(36)), saying that Maxwellian waves comply with energy conservation

rules. The good thing is that Maxwell’s equations are not the sole
laws compatible with ∂U = 0, though (unlikely) the interest is re-
duced to such a linear subcase in common practice28 . The computed
quantity ∂U is the sum of several terms; it is zero if Maxwell’s equa-
tions hold true, but it is also zero when plugging my set of equations
(and they are probably the more general group of equations able to
do this). The verification is simple; it is enough to keep the quantity
ρ different from zero and perform some algebraic manipulation. More
insight is given in Appendix C and [47]. This little proof is another
crucial point in favor of my approach. In perfect line with existing
and well-assimilated material, I am able to provide an alternative way
of organizing facts. Some readers may remark that I am just putting
together trivial things, already well-established. Indeed, my work does
not seek to be in conflict with consolidated achievements, but at the
same time photons are now fully entitled to enter the world of classical
electromagnetic phenomena.
Let us now come back to the elevator problem. Each observer is
locally embedded in his geometrical environment, and, effectively, for
confined regions and small velocities, the mechanical behavior of bod-
ies may be described with good approximation by Newtonian laws, so
that, to a first level of approximation, the interpretations of nature’s
facts by the various independent observers are in agreement. For small
velocities, the observer at rest can “see” what happens in the elevator,
using for instance light as a mean to capture information. This be-
comes less true as velocities increase. A more serious analysis is then
unavoidable, since we are in the process of studying photons more
closely.
From these thoughts we learn that the geometry of the frame at
rest and that relative to the elevator might coexist in the same uni-
verse, but a smooth passage is difficult to imagine without crossing
some kind of boundary (placed on the elevator’s cabin walls, for ex-
ample). The problem is usually resolved by assuming the space-time
28
From [31]: “... the vector c−1 E × B [...] appears as natural complement of
Maxwell stress tensor, and allows to write down dynamical field equations having
direct local energy-momentum balance sense. However, looking back in time, we see
that this viewpoint for writing down field equations has been neglected, theorists
have paid more respect and attention to the linear part of Maxwell theory, enjoying,
for example, the exact but not realistic, and even physically senseless in many
respects, plane wave solutions in the pure field case”.
to be fully covered by overlapping coordinate charts, but what really

happens in the common regions is a bit unfocused from the physics
viewpoint29 . For instance, outside the elevator’s cabin the surround-
ings are affected by gravitation presence, while inside the effect is
counterbalanced by the motion of the elevator. But, how is the space-
time geometry in the immediate external neighborhood of the cabin?
What changes are involved if I jump from the falling elevator to the
stationary ground? Usually, the stop is quite abrupt. Does this mean
that in such a process I have been crossing a surface of discontinuity?
Actually, something discontinuous happened: I gained weight, a fea-
ture that was not present when in the elevator. These foundational
issues are often disregarded in the general relativity literature, in favor
of more practical aspects. They have to be treated with caution, since
it is easy to be caught in a trap. I also do not have sufficient experience
to handle them, but I understand they hide something interesting and
worth developing. I will have a chance to return to such important
questions in due course (see sections 2.2 and 2.5).
Afterwards, one is left with the nontrivial subject of deciding what
are the properties of the entire 3D universe (4D including time)30 . The
question is pertinent but the answer is not that easy. The problem of
finding the constitutive geometry of our universe is a troubled topic
that involves age-old debates. Large astronomical masses produce a
deformation of the 4D space-time (from its hypothetical uniform flat-
ness), having decisive effects on its metric properties, but nobody at
the moment knows what is the most plausible occurrence. Cosmo-
29
From [15]: “A free-falling frame of reference differs, however, from all frames of
references previously discussed in that it cannot be extended arbitrarily far through
space and time. It is well defined only in the neighborhood of a world point,
in a limited region of space and for a limited period of time. Because of the
inhomogeneity of all gravitational fields, any attempt to extend a free-falling frame
of reference to far distances or to long periods of time must fail through internal
inconsistencies”.
30
From the introduction in [41]: “In order to construct a theory of gravitation or
to apply it to physical problems it is, however, insufficient to study the space and
time only locally, i.e. in infinitely small regions of space and periods of time. One
way or another one must also characterize the properties of space as a whole. If
one does not do this, it is quite impossible to state any problem uniquely. This is
particularly clear in view of the fact the equations of the gravitational, or any other
field, are partial differential equations, the solution of which are unique only when
initial, boundary or other equivalent conditions are given. The field equations and
the boundary conditions are inextricably connected and the latter can in no way
be considered less important than the former”.
logical models, including or not Big Bang theories, proliferate. It is

not my intention to engage in the contest, but I will advance an ex-
planation of the facts, that is very far from the motivations behind
these struggles. The path is still long, and it will take time to pre-
pare the ground. Let me say for the moment that, due to the reasons
put forward in the previous paragraph, I believe there is no way to
recover a global smooth description of the geometrical properties of
the whole universe, and this is not only due to the difficulty of find-
ing suitable asymptotic expressions at some far-away boundary31 . My
conjectures go instead in the opposite direction, where the universe
may be fragmented into a myriad of individual geometrical settings,
akin to lower-level Leibniz monads, separated by appropriate bound-
aries. This should not prevent the search for an all-comprehensive
model, bypassing the micro-structures by using the right amount of
approximation.
At the moment, a more basic question can be raised: what is the
cause responsible for a certain geometrical setting? In the case of the
falling elevator, one has to assume the existence of a given gravita-
tional field, due to the presence of some distant mass. Therefore, at
least to a first approximation, a neat connection can be established be-
tween gravitation and the deformation of the space-time. According to
Einstein, a system of masses produces a distortion of the geometrical
background. Within this context, other point-wise masses may move
along geodesic paths and, if their velocities are relatively small, they
do it in agreement with Newtonian mechanics (as planets do around
Sun). But Einstein’s results run much deeper. He was able to write
down a complicated nonlinear tensor equation, providing the appro-
priate metric tensor for a given source of energy. Such a source can
be either represented by a set of masses or an electromagnetic type
phenomenon (in the last case we need to recall the stress tensor U
mentioned a few paragraphs above).
Einstein’s equation (see (39) in Appendix C) involves second order
derivatives of the unknown metric tensor, recalling in this way the con-
cept of curvature. It is the mother of all deterministic physics laws,
a concentration of wiseness and elegance. I am not surprised that,
after such an amazing achievement, Einstein felt himself close to the
31
From [41], p.396:“... In the first place there is an incorrect initial assumption.
Einstein speaks of arbitrary gravitational fields extending as far as one pleases and
not limited by boundary conditions. Such fields cannot exist”.
formulation of a comprehensive mathematical model for all nature’s

events. Regrettably, there were still two big open questions to solve;
the first one was the nontrivial goal of giving an explanation to quan-
tum mechanics, the second one, of which he was not aware, was the
inconsistency of Maxwell’s model. We will see that fixing the second
issue brings clarification of the first.
Let me spend a few more words on Einstein’s equation. After rep-
resenting the space-time with the help of a suitable metric tensor gαβ ,
an almost exhaustive estimate of the curvature is obtained by comput-
ing the Ricci tensor Rγδ , based on second order differentiation. This
is then used to build, through slight modification, another 4 × 4 tensor
Gγδ . If for instance gαβ represents a flat space, then Gγδ is identically
zero. Suppose that we want to determine the effects of a given forc-
ing source tensor Tγδ on the geometric environment. Now gαβ is the
unknown and Einstein’s equation amounts to solving a complex non-
linear system of equations recoverable by the relation: Gγδ = −χTγδ ,
where χ is a given constant. Both the equated terms turn out to be
implicitly dependent on gαβ . In absence of sources, the space turns out
to be flat (more precisely, with zero Ricci curvature). Alternatively,
the presence of energy (in principle of any kind) is able to ply the
geometric background and provide it with a nontrivial curvature.
The dynamics of small inoffensive slow-moving objects is affected
by a modified geometric environment and their evolution is ruled by
universal laws. Of course, this is a simplistic interpretation, since any
object carries energy in some way and this further contributes to the
space-time deformation and to the successive evolution of itself and
other entities. But, the above is just a technical difficulty; as a matter
of fact, Einstein’s equation is general enough to handle any type of
situation. As far as masses are concerned, under the hypothesis that
their development is within certain limits, Einstein’s equation is able
to reproduce the laws of gravitation, and this is why it has a primary
role in cosmology, provided certain simplifications are made32 . How-
32
In [34], A. Einstein writes: “According to the general theory of relativity, the
geometrical properties of space are not independent, but they are determined by
matter. Thus we can draw conclusions about the geometrical structure of the
universe only if we base our considerations on the state of the matter as being
something that is known. We know from experience that, for a suitably chosen co-
ordinate system, the velocities of the stars are small as compared with the velocity of
transmission of light. We can thus as a rough approximation arrive at a conclusion
as to the nature of the universe as a whole, if we treat the matter as being at rest”.
ever, my interest here is predominantly focussed on electromagnetic

applications, while I will return to the question of masses in the next
chapter. It is my opinion that the potentialities of Einstein’s equation
have not been fully exploited and it is my intention to analyze new
directions of development. Unfortunately, since I must deal with lu-
minous phenomena, I cannot count on certain assumptions that have
been considered valid in the cosmological analysis.
1.6 The geometry of a single photon

Going back to the elevator example considered in section 1.5, one can
also examine the trajectory of a photon from the two different view-
points. Let us suppose that the photon, emitted by a tool travelling
with the elevator, is shot horizontally (i.e., perpendicular to the direc-
tion of fall). As far as the observer at rest is concerned the photon will
not follow a straight line: indeed, it is “falling down” together with
the elevator (the effect is almost imperceptible, considered that light
flashes at a speed approximately equal to 3×108 meters/second). This
somehow entails that the path of an electromagnetic wave is affected
by a curved geometry due to the exterior gravitational field.
Simultaneously, the photon itself, with much less emphasis, modi-
fies the surrounding geometric environment. The fact that photons can
be deviated by the presence of masses (light bending) was confirmed
by a decisive experiment a long time ago, providing full recognition
to the theory of general relativity. As a mathematician I consider the
work of Einstein to be excellent also without this confirmation, but,
of course, the verification of certain predictions is part of the game in
physics. In some ways we can see the photon as a carrier of energy and,
by formally assigning a mass to it (although a photon is considered
to be massless), according to the famous relation E = mc2 , we could
interpret the change of trajectory as an interaction of masses. Such
a relation between gravitational field and electromagnetism is quite
amazing.
Nevertheless, I think this version of the facts may be reconsidered
remaining within the limits of general relativity. Einstein’s equation,
being the fulcrum around which electromagnetism and gravitation ro-
tate, can actually offer a more precise description of the real behavior.
To this end, it is also worthwhile recalling that the photon is not just a
point; it has an internal structure and, at the same time, is an electro-
magnetic wave described by my model equations. Moreover, according

to the heretical viewpoint that I will try to defend in the sequel of this
exposition, a gravitational field only exists as a by-product of suitable
electromagnetic emissions, so that, in a general context, its interaction
with a photon is exquisitely of electromagnetic type. To this we will
have to add some quantum effects, that make the story more intricate.
These audacious statements may sound rather speculative at the mo-
ment, but I will do my best to clarify the situation later. For the
moment, the first goal is to investigate how the passage of a free-wave
can alter the stillness of a flat universe.
Recall that a photon is a free-wave which is individuated by the
shifting at the speed of light of a certain distribution of electric and
magnetic fields (see figure 1.2). The motion is precisely described by
my set of model equations (see the exact solutions of Appendix D).
As I said in section 1.5, it is possible to assign to this phenomenon a
4 × 4 stress-energy tensor U , whose entries are quadratically depen-
dent on E and B. Such a tensor can be written, in covariant form,
as a function of a generic metric tensor. In a successive step, for a
given constant µ, one can plug the source term T = −(µ2 /c4 )U (see
(55)) on the right-hand side of Einstein’s equation and try to solve the
corresponding differential system in order to find the metric tensor.
Recall that the left-hand side contains the Ricci tensor, i.e., a con-
comitant of the second derivatives of the metric tensor to be found. If
things are done properly, one can come out with a solution, suitably
represented by a tensor gαβ (note that there is no unique solution to
Einstein’s equation, although families of solutions can be considered
qualitatively equivalent, if they just differ by coordinate changes). In
the most complicated situation there are 10 scalar unknowns, that are
functions of both time and the three space variables. These unknowns
are all coupled by 10 nonlinear scalar equations. In realistic situa-
tions, the problem can only be approached by numerical simulations,
but still its complexity may be out of reach for many computational
codes. There are a few known explicit solutions mostly related to con-
centrated masses, and, except for some theoretical analysis, the system
of equations remains a morsel hard to chew.
It has to be remarked that the interest in solving Einstein’s equa-
tion with electromagnetic sources is very limited. Real-life applications
are mainly astronomical, where electromagnetism interferes with neg-
ligible effects. There are coupled models where, for instance, planetary
systems are studied in conjunction with magnetic phenomena, but they

are far from pure electromagnetism. Solving Einstein’s equation with
an exclusively electromagnetic forcing term is primarily of interest to
the academic world and there are plenty of results, although they do
not strike as deep as those I am going to examine. The discussion
that will follow is aimed at stimulating attention towards relativistic
electromagnetism and is crucial for understanding basic questions that
are parts of the backbone of my general construction.
The possibility of getting explicit expressions of the metric ten-
sor in terms of E and B, in the case of free-waves, is an achievement
obtained in [45] and generalized in [47] (see also Appendix D). There-
fore, with the help of that analysis, I can clearly understand what is
going on in and around a photon. To get the result I used symbolic
manipulation programming and considered that the orthogonality of
E and B may, using an appropriate coordinate choice, involve only
two components different from zero. In the end, recalling that the
intensity of E is c times that of B, we are left with only one degree
of freedom. For the sake of simplicity, it is also possible to suppose
that V = (0, 0, c), expressing the fact that the wave develops along
the direction of the third space coordinate, that can be denoted by z
(as for instance in the case (48) treated in Appendix D). Let me skip
here the technical problem of converting these ingredients in the lan-
guage of four-components vectors. Afterwards, I have been searching
for a very plain version of the metric tensor gαβ (basically a diagonal
matrix). Roughly speaking, it turns out that on each wave-front the
“intensity” of the metric deformation, along the transversal direction
to the propagation vector V, is directly related to the magnitude of E
(proportional to that of B). Along the longitudinal shifting direction,
the entire solution of Einstein’s equation for free-waves can be reduced
to a single ordinary differential equation of the form: −σ 00 σ = g 2 in
the variable ξ = ct − z, where t is the time and g is a given function
related to the profile of the wave along the z axis (see (60); here the
constant χµ2 /c4 has been omitted for simplicity).
For the success of this computation, there are two other important
aspects that have to be taken into consideration. First of all, the stress
tensor depends on the unknown geometry, so that the metric tensor
appears both on the left-hand side (via a complex nonlinear system
with second-order partial derivatives) and on the right-hand side to
accompany the source term. I say this because the dependency of the
right-hand side on gαβ is systematically neglected, although essential to

recover a simple and elegant final answer. The second aspect concerns
the choice of the sign of the source term, since a switch considerably
changes the nature of the analytic problem. As a matter of fact, with
the proper choice, one can get significant solutions from: −σ 00 σ = g 2 .
For instance, if g(ξ) = sin ωξ, a possible solution is σ(ξ) = sin ωξ/ω.
Assuming instead the “wrong” sign for the right-hand side tensor, one
arrives at the equation σ 00 σ = g 2 that has no meaningful solutions
(most of them being unbounded or not compatible with homogeneous
boundary conditions). The last was anyway the version analyzed in the
past and solutions were found with an abundant misuse of ramshackle
adjustments and approximations. In [45], p.92, explanations are pro-
vided in favor of the first choice, and further hints will be given in this
chapter. Let me point out that this alteration does not contradict any
physical principle.
Let us go now to the real reasons for this investigation, i.e., under-
standing the anatomy of a photon. I will discuss the qualitative conse-
quences emerging from a rigorous study, that I am not reporting here.
In vacuum, far away from perturbing fields of any kind, the natural
metric environment is associated to a total flat geometry (immutable
meters and invariable clocks everywhere at every moment; zero cur-
vature tensors). In this environment the electrodynamic modelling
equations coincide with those I have introduced. In this landscape,
during a photon’s passage, together with the electromagnetic wave
one can also detect a travelling gravitational wave. Such a secondary
wave has the same support as the original electromagnetic one, hence
it travels in a straight line at the speed of light. Note that, in order
to preserve the global continuity, E and B tend to zero at the border
of the support of the photon, outside of which the signal vanishes.
The same is done by the gravitational signal. If in the longitudinal
direction the photon intensity is modulated by a piece of sinusoid, the
longitudinal intensity of the gravitational perturbation also behaves
as a sinusoid; in fact, they can be linked via the above mentioned or-
dinary differential equation. When I use the word “gravitational” I
mean it in the framework of alterations of the metric in the context
of general relativity. There are no masses necessarily involved. The
presence of the gravitational wave tells us that there is a local momen-
tary deformation of the space-time at some points of the flat universe,
situated in the path of the wave. Such a wave has no influence outside
the photon’s boundary.
Now, we can enter the photon. Here, we find a different metric,

i.e., the one generated by the electromagnetic wave through Einstein’s
equation. One may start wondering what the constitutive model equa-
tions look like (recall that they come from a general covariant writing,
but they can be specialized depending on the current geometrical set-
ting). The result is quite surprising: an observer placed inside the wave
does not realize that he is in motion and the local metric tensor de-
forms the electromagnetic field in such a way that it looks constant in
all transversal directions. The ruling equations are of the form 0 = 0,
hence they are totally useless. Basically, the traveller is convinced that
he is on a plane wave of infinite extent. This is a consequence of the
correction of the metric, but the observer is not aware of this. Corre-
spondingly, both the divergences of E and B turn out to be zero, so
that one finds himself in a stationary Maxwellian world. Therefore, if
for an external observer a photon is a confined object of finite measure,
the internal observer thinks he is in an isotropic space of infinite extent.
As a matter of fact, as the internal observer approaches the bound-
ary, the metric correction modifies his perception of distances, and the
border remains a far horizon33 . Jumping from a running photon (if
this were possible) to the total calm of an otherwise unperturbed uni-
verse is quite a shock (like jumping from the elevator of the previous
section). There is no smooth passage, but one has to overcome a kind
of spatial singularity, dividing two independent universes.
Riding a photon was probably the dream of Einstein. Simulating
this journey was one of the aims of the theory of relativity. According
to my results, a photon is not a point, but has a size and some interior
architecture. Under this assumption, thanks to Einstein’s theory, I am
able to get accurate descriptions of all the fields involved. The amazing
conclusion is that each photon is an isolated flat unbounded universe
with no internal relevant organization. Observers living in it cannot
conceive an external world. This indivisible entity can be effectively
called “elementary particle” and is a real “atom” in the Democritus
sense. Coincidentally, it is also a wave. From a philosophical viewpoint
we should not concern ourselves anymore with the photon’s internal
structure; in the end such an entity is only made by diaphanous vector
33
From Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, by L. Carrol: “Well, in our country -
said Alice, still panting a little - you’d generally get to somewhere else, if you ran
very fast for a long time as we’ve been doing [...] A slow sort of country! Now,
here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you
want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!”
fields, not necessitating any subordinate structure.

A deeper study shows that, from outside, the shape of a photon
is isomorphic to a toroid that moves in the direction of its axis (see
figure 1.2). This is mainly due to the divB = 0 condition. By the or-
thogonality of E and B, both fields must vanish at some point inside
each wave-front. This internal region of null vectors can be assumed
to be as large as one pleases. As we will examine later, rings are the
bricks of our universe. Let me finally note that the metric deformation
automatically adapts itself to the electromagnetic signal. This occurs
almost independently of the field organization inside the photon. In
this way, we can attribute to the particle topological properties that do
not follow from the signal carried, while its internal structure invari-
ably remains of some uniform “density”. In the end, the only peculiar
and observable property of a photon will be its energy.
As we saw, the electromagnetic fields of a free-wave (including
photons) are not alone in their trip, but they share their space with
a gravitational type wave, i.e., a shifting local alteration of the met-
ric properties of the flat space hosting the wave. One may ask if the
gravitational effects may exert a mechanic influence on nearby objects.
My personal opinion is definitely affirmative, but the intensity of the
perturbation may strongly vary with circumstances. We will have time
later to discuss the so called radiation pressure, a phenomenon that
characterizes the interaction between light and matter. In order to do
this, it is necessary to generalize the model equations, including a pres-
sure term as introduced in fluid dynamics. In the Nichols radiometer, a
device experimented with at the beginning of the XX century, focussed
light induces measurable torsion on a wire attached to a silvered plate.
Despite its simplicity, this phenomenon is very difficult to explain in
a classical context of deterministic differential equations, since it ac-
tually involves the transmutation from electromagnetic to mechanic
forces. Before facing such an intriguing issue, let me draw here some
basic conclusions, that may lead to more profound reflections.
By solving Einstein’s equation in the case of sinusoidal modulated
(g(ξ) = sin ωξ) wave-fronts in the direction of propagation, we dis-
covered that the corresponding gravitational wave is also of sinusoid
type (σ(ξ) = sin ωξ/ω), but the most important thing to remark is
that it displays an intensity that is inversely proportional to the si-
nus frequency (see also (61) in Appendix D). Thus, high-frequency
electromagnetic waves produce very low-intensity gravitational waves.
Tiny photons, as those for instance associated to nuclear or atomic

phenomena, can be related to short wave-lengths and, therefore, high
frequencies. Their gravitational effect on bigger objects is certainly
negligible. The situation is going to be different for very slow time-
varying electromagnetic phenomena. In this case I am thinking about
wave-lengths at the level of astronomic distances. We know that this is
the kingdom of real-life gravitation. After stating this, I do not want
right now to conclude that gravitational effects are a by-product of
low-frequency electromagnetic waves. We actually need more material
in order to arrive at that point, but this is a first clue in favor of such
an interpretation.
From the practical point of view, the detection of low-frequency
gravitational waves accompanying an electromagnetic wave is hard to
accomplish. Since they travel at the speed of light, the size of the
measuring instruments must be outrageously huge in order to catch
an appreciable signal. Producing low-frequency electromagnetic waves
is also a troubled problem, due to the exaggerated dimension of the
emitting devices. High frequencies, as I said, should not produce rele-
vant gravitational modifications. Perhaps, some experiment could be
conducted by using relatively small transmitting devices, based on a
high-frequency carrier, to transport a lower frequency message. The
existence of gravitational waves, not directly associated to electromag-
netic phenomena, is predicted by Einstein’s equation after suitable
linearization. Nevertheless, their detection is still an open issue. The
subject is complex and has been widely investigated. In my approach,
gravitational waves may survive with some independence, but always
within the context of an electromagnetic background and principally
relying on the nonlinear features of all the equations involved (see [2]).
Therefore, once again, I will stay away from the standard path.
Let me finally remark another interesting fact. Each point in the
wave is associated to a triplet (E, B, V). For a free-wave such a sys-
tem of vectors in the 3D space turns out to be orthogonal and may
represent a local reference frame, shifting in time with the wave. It
is nice to observe that the point-wise metric tensor, obtained by solv-
ing Einstein’s equation for the given wave, is somehow compatible, in
its simplicity, with the triplet (E, B, V). An electromagnetic signal is
then in relation with a multitude of point-wise frames, that simultane-
ously define a system of coordinates and a metric (the space unity of
measure is proportional to the intensity of the transversal electromag-
netic field). The time variable does not cause problems due to the fact
that there is only one velocity involved. Hence, there exists a kind of
isomorphism between the geometric environment naturally associated
to the wave and that recovered via Einstein’s equation.
In vacuum, with a total absence of signals, there is no way to under-
stand the geometric property of the space-time, that, for this reason,
can be considered flat. As a photon passes by, the exclusive presence
of the electromagnetic fields guarantees the existence of a modified
geometry, both in the form of referring triplets (E, B, V) and in the
Einsteinian sense (the two things seem to be formally indistinguish-
able, at least in the case of free-waves). These observations, waiting
for a more formal theoretical analysis, suggest the following conjecture:
vector fields accompanying a wave are not only the source of a geo-
metric environment, they are the geometric environment! This should
also imply that Einstein’s equation provides for a surplus of informa-
tion, the sole knowledge of the electromagnetic fields being sufficient
to understand the gravitational scaffolding. I will look for further con-
firmations of this hypothesis in the next section. Let me anticipate
that in order to get a result of this kind, in addition to the triplet
(E, B, V), one needs the help of a scalar potential p (which turns out
to be zero in the case of free-waves), corresponding to the previously
mentioned “pressure”. This will actually constitute the missing link
between electromagnetism and mechanics.
Later, I will claim that in our universe there is nothing but elec-
tromagnetic phenomena. In fact, gravitation, interpreted as a mod-
ification of the space-time geometry, naturally comes together with
the wave itself. Is that meaning that masses are byproducts of elec-
tromagnetic waves? As far as free-waves are concerned the answer is
negative. The perturbation in this case is negligible and non localized
(since the wave develops at the speed of light). There is a relatively
mild curvature of the space, which is not enough to produce durable
tangible effects. The only interesting geodesics are straight-lines and
are exactly those the wave is following. This is in agreement with the
concept of free-wave; the modification of the created geometry does
not influence its path, establishing no constraints on its motion. How-
ever, when waves start to interfere and build confined structures, then
gravitational effects are not only present in the geometrical sense, but
they show up in mechanical fashion. Thus, our next step is to examine
what happens to free-waves when they interact.
1.7 Constrained waves

A wave is constrained when, due to external perturbations, it is obliged
to leave its free path. This may also happen at the encounter of two
or more photons; if the trajectories of all their points do not meet,
the photons have no chance to influencing each other; but, if there is
an intersection of their supports, mutual constraints develop. Hence,
during this interaction time, the waves are not of free type. It took me
a while in order to understand how to convert into formulas the mech-
anism of such an impact. I then realized that a full theory was readily
available. It is a question of geometrical deformations, so the theory of
general relativity was there to help me. More drastically, I now believe
that general relativity exists primarily to answer the problem of wave
interactions, and that its role in gravitation is only incidental. The
importance of this statement will become more relevant going on with
my exposition. Thus, the suspicious reader is invited to stay calm a
bit longer.
Collectively, the colliding photons locally perturb the geometric
environment, following at the same time its new geodesics. Therefore,
Einstein’s equation is the right instrument to proceed with the anal-
ysis. The challenge is to translate the geometrical approach into the
language of partial differential equations. It has to be reminded that
“indirect” photon-photon scattering in vacuum is predicted by quan-
tum theories and the effects of photon collisions are observed at high
energies, resulting for instance in the production of electron-positron
pairs34 . In real life, the phenomenon is negligible and too mild to be
detected in laser laboratories. The continuous creation of “virtual”
particles during subatomic electromagnetic scattering looks to an out-
sider a pure fantasy, an elegant way to say that nobody knows what
really happens during those interplays, aggravated by the fact that
quantum theories deny any other form of interpretation by masking
everything under the mantle of the uncertainty principle. From the
quantitative viewpoint, Quantum Electrodynamics is quite a precise
theory, so that, the current shadowy assumptions must hide a more
credible core. The understanding of these situations is then crucial for
34
From [67], p.11: “There is a quantum-mechanical nonlinearity of electromag-
netic fields that arises because the uncertainty principle permits the momentary
creation of an electron-positron pair by two photons and the subsequent disappear-
ance of the pair with the emission of two different photons [...] This process is
called the scattering of light by light”.
the development of my theory at a subnuclear level.

In the process of finding an extension to the differential model, one
has to keep in mind that everything must be chiefly described through
electromagnetic fields. However, in terms of energy, something new
happens. At each point of the 3D space we assign a triplet (E, B, V).
This means that, at the intersection of their supports, two photons
have to share their fields, which in most situations leads to a reduc-
tion of their global electromagnetic energy. Therefore, if one believes in
energy preservation properties, the missing part has to be found some-
where else. Indeed, if a change of trajectory occurs, an acceleration is
acting on the field V, that, if we are lucky, is going to correspond to
a certain potential energy. The total energy turns out to be the sum
of a pure electromagnetic contribution and a kinetic one. In terms of
4 × 4 tensors (those to be placed at the right-hand side of Einstein’s
equation), the first contribution is the electromagnetic stress Uαβ (see
sections 1.5 and 1.6) and the second one is the so called mass tensor
Mαβ (see (93) in Appendix F). At least at an informal level, a link
between electromagnetism and masses starts emerging. Some ideas in
this direction have been also tried in [126].
Thus, at the encounter of two photons, we find a significant mod-
ification of the geometrical setting. Differently from the case of free-
waves, this change actually involves both space and time, since one has
to take into account that the velocity field V is now part of the game,
both with an active role (that of driving the electromagnetic signal)
and a passive one (V is influenced by the way the electromagnetic
signal is developing). The use of the techniques of general relativity
is now unavoidable35 . Such a nontrivial curvature of the geometry is
associated with a complicated metric tensor describing (at least lo-
cally) the space-time. This could be in principle put in relation to
the vague presence of some mass distribution. The interaction of pho-
tons becomes in this way similar to that of massive bodies; they are
like elastic fluid drops displaying electric and magnetic properties. We
are still far from the creation of an effective mass, but the basis for a
35
In [34], A. Einstein writes: “A curvature of rays of light can only take place
when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think
that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole
theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We
can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited
domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the
influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)”.
discussion has been set up.

In constrained waves, the triplet (E, B, V) is no more orthogonal
(see also footnote 14). Indeed, as I noticed in the previous section, the
local metric and the displacement of the triplets are strictly related,
and this seems to remain true in more complex situations. In such a
peculiar way, the electromagnetic fields provide both the information
on the signal carried and the geometric properties of the space they
are embedded in. The non-orthogonality of the electric and magnetic
fields with respect to the direction of motion is also observed when a
wave passes through matter, due for instance to dielectric polarization.
We have no matter here (at the moment), but we are starting to detect
the first signs of its presence.
In terms of governing equations, the differential model looks a bit
more complicated than the one related to free-waves. Indeed, the
free-waves model is included in the general one, as bodies in inertial
motion are naturally expressed in Newtonian mechanics. The gen-
eral set of equations combines the Maxwell’s superstructure and the
Euler’s model for compressible inviscid fluids (see Appendix F). The
result is the description of an “immaterial” flow that carries vector
quantities representing electricity and magnetism. I think that this
is, to some extent, what Maxwell had in mind when writing his pa-
pers, trying for example to interpret the attraction of magnets as the
difference of pressure of certain micro-vortices resident in matter36 .
Indeed, in those works there is a constant reference to the properties
of electromagnetism, viewed as a flow of some nature. Nowadays, this
mechanical approach looks an ingenuously intricate gadget37 , but the
36
In [87], J.C. Maxwell writes: “Let us now suppose that the phenomena of
magnetism depend on the existence of a tension in the direction of the lines of
force, combined with a hydrostatic pressure; or in other words, a pressure greater
in the equatorial than in the axial direction; the next question is, what mechanical
explanation can be given of this inequality of pressure in a fluid or mobile medium?
The explanation that most readily occurs to the mind is that the excess of pressure
in the equatorial direction arises from the centrifugal force of vortices or eddies in
the medium having their axes in the direction parallel to the lines of force”.
37
In [68], Freeman J. Dyson writes: “The scientists of that time, including
Maxwell himself, tried to picture fields as mechanical structures composed of a
multitude of little wheels and vortices extending throughout space. These struc-
tures were supposed to carry the mechanical stresses that electric and magnetic
fields transmitted between electric charges and currents. To make the fields sat-
isfy Maxwell’s equations, the system of wheels and vortices had to be extremely
complicated”.
Figure 1.4: Wave-fronts

subjected to a change of
orientation during their
development. An acceler-
ation is acting on the vec-
tor V giving rise to a mu-
tation of the trajectories of
the rays. The rules of ge-
ometrical optics are bro-
ken in the flat space, but
they survive in a suitable
curved metric space where
geodesics look bent.
reader will discover that Maxwell’s intuitions were not that far from
what I consider to be reality.
Quantitatively, the acceleration is provided by the term DV/Dt
(see figure 1.4 and (87) in Appendix F). In fluid dynamics, the operator
D/Dt is the so-called substantial or material derivative, describing the
time rate of change of a quantity along a velocity field, as measured
by an observer in motion following the streamlines. Geometrically,
DV/Dt is linked to the concept of parallel transport of a vector, that
leads to the definition of geodesics. The equation DV/Dt = 0 tells
us that the field V is tangent to the geodesics of the space-time. In
practice, such an equation models an autonomous system of infinites-
imal particles, free from external perturbations and only subject to
natural geometrical constraints. For a free photons in a flat space,
this means that the wave is correctly allowed to proceed undisturbed
along a straight path. Nontrivial cases happen when DV/Dt 6= 0;
then there are two possible ways to interpret the results: mechanically
there is some force acting on the system; geometrically there could be
the possibility that the space displays some curvature. Formalizing
these ideas is a matter for experts and requires a level of abstraction
that is not in my background. It has to be remarked that most of
the work was done in the past century. General relativity is made on
purpose to blend mechanics and geometry together, so I will just rely
on known techniques, since they can still teach us a lot.
A new entry appears in my model: it is the pressure p (considered
to be zero in the case of free-waves). In truth, dimensionally speaking,
p is not a real pressure, but the problem is solved by multiplication

by a dimensional constant. The presence of the scalar quantity p is an
important indicator that something in the gravitational environment
is going on. The introduction of p should be somehow expected: the so
called radiation pressure is for example exerted upon surfaces exposed
to luminous waves; this punctuates its role in the interaction of light
and matter.
There are basically two new equations in the system (see Appendix
F). The first one replaces the condition E + V × B = 0 by the Euler’s
equation, where now the expression µ(E + V × B) takes the meaning
of “forcing term”. Here µ > 0 is a fixed constant, whose role will be
clarified later on. When the wave is free such a forcing term is zero,
so that pressure remains zero and no acceleration is acting on the ve-
locity field. As a consequence the wave stays free. The same equation
has another important physical explanation: it is the counterpart of
the Lorentz law, in the case where only fields are involved. Light rays
can be seen as the trajectories of infinitesimal charged particles, trav-
elling at speed V, under the action of the fields (E, B). Breaking the
relation E + V × B = 0 amounts to apply a force to these objects,
causing the deviation from their path. On the other hand, the term
E + V × B also appears when operating a Lorentz transformation
to the electromagnetic tensor F αβ (see (71) and similar expressions).
This indicates that such a term is implicitly present in the description
of the wave without the necessity of introducing infinitesimal particles
carrying mass and charge. The constant µ is the ratio charge/mass
of these hypothetical point-wise particles. I propose µ to be approx-
imately equal to 2.85 × 1011 Coulomb/Kg, for the reasons that will
be explained in the sequel. This number is relatively small, with the
effect of producing on radio waves extremely mild accelerations, i.e.,
not appreciable at a short distance. It is however well calibrated when
one starts investigating atomic structures.
The last new equation participating in the system is a straight-
forward consequence of energy preservation and describes how pres-
sure can raise (see (89) in Appendix F). This effect comes with the
non-orthogonality of E and V. The entire set (see page 18) looks a
potpourri of well-known physical ruling equations; we can actually rec-
ognize Ampère’s, Faraday’s and Lorentz’s laws, blended into a mechan-
ical evolutive setting. It has to be remarked however that everything
is written in terms of pure fields and no effective matter is involved.
By an inspection in [24], p.84, or [67], p.491, one finds a strong affinity

with the model here studied. There the equations simulate the flux of
charged particles (electrons) having a certain density distribution n.
This similarity certifies that what I am doing here is not far from con-
solidated guidelines, except for replacing particles with fields, which is
something unseen before.
This final version of the modelling equations furnishes primordial
constitutive laws regulating light interactions. I will use these to build
up matter, without the help of any further support. In this fashion, it
will be interesting to rediscover how mechanical bodies behave and re-
act to electromagnetism. There will be no big surprises, because both
originate from the same roots. The sign of the electromagnetic energy
tensor that, added to the mass tensor form the right-hand side of Ein-
stein’s equation, is the same as that corresponding to free-waves (see
section 1.5). The two tensors may now balance each other, leading to
interesting equilibrium configurations. From the practical viewpoint,
the energy tensor Tαβ is now defined as in (93). The general set of
modelling equations turns out to be compatible with relation (38), i.e.:
∂α T αβ = 0.
Let me give some more technical instances. By taking the trace
of Einstein’s tensor equation, one arrives at a scalar equation, saying
that the scalar curvature R of the space-time is proportional to p (see
(96) in Appendix F). In order to get this result, one must assume a
suitable hypothesis on the mass tensor, which is equivalent to requiring
the validity of the eikonal equation in the modified metric space (see
section 1.4 and (95) in Appendix F). In other words, if for an external
observer embedded in a flat space the development of the wave-fronts
of a constrained wave does not follow the rules of geometrical optics,
the anomaly is not noticed by the local observer travelling with the
wave. When time elapses of a quantity δt, the fronts uniformly move
a distance δx = cδt along the orthogonal direction; the difference with
the classical case is that the concepts of distance and orthogonality
have to be referred to the local metric and do not necessarily coincide
with the notion of the external observer (see figure 1.4). Finally, let
me note that the scalar curvature does not provide accurate knowl-
edge of the metric space, but when it is different from zero indicates
that a serious deformation is going on; then, it is not by chance that
R 6= 0 derives from the presence of a non-vanishing pressure. Curved
space-time, deformed geodesics and pressure are various symptoms of
a common pathology. For an inflexible mathematicians, I am not prob-

ably using the proper rigorous language to express these ideas, but the
important thing here is setting up the main framework.
Let me remark once again that for free-waves one has p = 0 and
R = 0. The passage of a photon that, as said in section 1.6 pro-
duces a local shifting of the space-time, is not sufficient to create more
severe distortions than those necessary to its motion. The pressure
term is however ready to come out when a photon hits an obstacle.
In the encounter of two photons, things can become really compli-
cated. Certainly, at a very local level, the wave-fronts start following
strange paths, but in most circumstances the definition itself of wave-
front looses the meaning, since these surfaces may not exist in global
form. One has also to take into account possible changes of polariza-
tion twisting the fields, accompanied by breakage and reconstitution
of topological settings. The classification of these occurrences may be
largely variegated, thus the situation shown in figure 1.4 is oversimpli-
fied.
More likely, for an observer at rest, the electric field at each point
varies its angle with V, with the possibility of turning around in the
longitudinal direction38 . Thanks to (89) pressure changes in time,
but not with a monotone behavior and not uniformly in space. The
whole reaction is highly nonlinear and resembles turbulent flows. The
problem of finding solutions to the model equations in such complex
cases can be approached numerically, however, due to the nonlinearity
and the hyperbolicity of the system the task is not that easy. The
overlapped region where the interaction occurs is a transition zone in
which the mixture of various ingredients may give the impression that
virtual entities are momentarily formed39 . As we will have time to
38
From [71], p.93: “The photon is a concept of the free electromagnetic field which
only has transverse degrees of freedom, and in the initial phase of the emission pro-
cess, where the source is still electrodynamically active, one cannot rigorously speak
of photons in the wave mechanical sense. In the period of time where the particle(s)
and field are coupled the electromagnetic field in general has both longitudinal and
transverse parts, and with the spatial localization problem for photons in mind it is
of interest to follow the spacetime development of the transverse field (in the given
inertial frame). As the fieldmatter interaction process is brought to a conclusion
the transverse field smoothly approaches the field accompanying the just (newly)
generated photon”.
39
From [67], p.13: “In the atomic and subatomic domain there are small
quantum-mechanical nonlinear effects whose origins are in the coupling between
charged particles and the electromagnetic field. They modify the interactions be-
discuss later, these non permanent passages may end up with the for-
mation of stable particles and anti-particles, but more plausibly they
just constitute transitory stages that, though necessary for respect-
ing energy and momentum conservation, dissolve as the impact ends.
One may also try to recognize in this effervescing choreography the
micro-vortices conjectured by Maxwell (see footnote 36).
It has to be pointed out that the density ρ (that can also assume
negative values) appearing in the mass tensor is not exactly a den-
sity of mass, but continues to be a density of charge. The reasons of
this construction will be better clarified in section 1.8. Let me an-
ticipate that it is not enough to have ρ 6= 0 to “feel” the existence
of a mass, but a right amount of pressure p must also develop. My
strong claim is that, up to dimensional adjustment, p actually plays
the role of gravitational potential (see section 2.5). Due to this state-
ment, the model equations are sufficient to describe the combination
of electromagnetism and gravitation, without passing through the res-
olution of Einstein’s equation and the full knowledge of the metric.
The computation of the triplets (E, B, V) and the scalar p provide
enough information for a complete understanding of both electromag-
netic and gravitational-like quantities. If we want these results to
acquire a general validity, independently of the system of coordinates
and the observer, one must write down the new set of equations in
covariant form (as done in the case of free-waves). This goal does not
present major difficulties, basically because it uses standard tools of
general relativity (see Appendix F).
My model comes from considerations based on energy and momen-
tum preservation. Hence, in the impact of two waves we can recognize
the same conservation rules valid for mechanical bodies. What re-
mains at the very end of such close encounters continues to develop
as free-waves would do, and no further accelerations are registered. I
will explain later that the universe is completely filled up with electro-
magnetic signals; therefore, assuming the existence of pure free-waves
is utopistic. As a consequence, the general situation looks rather in-
volved, perhaps more similar to a chaotic broth. What happens in stars
is an “illuminating” example on how things can be knotty, but I expect
a similar degree of complexity also in unsuspected regions, assumed
erroneously to be empty. The situation is not however so desperate
tween charged particles and cause interactions between electromagnetic fields even
if physical particles are absent”.
since very organized patterns may emerge and drive the surroundings
into increasingly sophisticated shapes. It is my intention to examine
attentively this building process in the course of the following chap-
ters. At the moment, only very simplified structures can be analyzed
with the required accuracy: the case of vortex rings.
1.8 Vortex rings

Vortex tori are the most peculiar substructures that fluids can admit.
The flow is distributed inside a well determined doughnut-shaped do-
main and follows a rotatory movement around the major diameter, so
that the toroid axis is a symmetry axis (see figure 1.6). Sections are not
necessarily circles and the internal hole of the toroid can also degener-
ate into a segment (Hill’s spherical vortex). An easy way to get vortex
rings is by ejecting a fluid into another fluid from the hole of a nozzle
at relatively low velocity. Once the ring is created, it displays great
stability properties. It can last for long periods of time and tends to
rebuild if cut into pieces (see for example figure 1.5). Two vortices may
meet and adhere. They may start performing a kind of dance where,
with an alternate sequence, one ring enters inside the other’s hole and
reemerges on the other side allowing the second ring to enter its own
hole (leap-frogging). If the impact is more violent, they can break
into many smaller stable rings (see, e.g., [80]). Maxwell’s colleague
Lord Kelvin was really amazed by this behavior to the point where he
thought that atoms (at that time, the basic inseparable constituents of
matter) had actually a vortex shape40 . This was happening at the end
of nineteenth century, when knowledge of molecular composition was
still at a primordial stage. A quick search in Internet shows, starting
from smoke rings, an impressive collection of videos and experiments
concerning these amazing structures. An astonishing property of vor-
tex rings is that they seem very mildly affected by gravitation or other
external uniform forces, so that they can travel horizontally almost
undisturbed. Fine particles may be trapped in them and carried away
without being influenced by gravity (see [30]). Such a “screening” ef-
fect is curious; a partial answer will be attempted later (see sections
40
In [115], Lord Kelvin claims: “After noticing Helmholtz’s admirable discovery of
the law of vortex motion in a perfect liquid – that is, in a fluid perfectly destitute of
viscosity (or fluid friction) – the author said that this discovery inevitably suggests
the idea that Helmholtz’s rings are the only true atoms”.
Figure 1.5: By puffing air into

water, dolphins create wonderful
ring-shaped bubbles. Successively,
they play with these structures
boisterously. Indeed, such vortices
can persist for a long time and
support extreme perturbations.
2.2 and 2.5).

The connection with electromagnetism is imminent. According to
my review, it is possible to predict the existence of ring type forma-
tions, inside which two or more photons are rotating in stable equi-
librium. Such constrained waves behave exactly as material rings.
In fact, from the mechanical viewpoint, they are ruled by the Eu-
ler’s equation. Moreover, they display electrical properties. Roughly
speaking, the situation is similar to that corresponding to a wire, sup-
plied by an alternating current, wrapped around a toroid surface. The
wavelength of the current is a sub-multiple of the circumference sec-
tion, so that the artifact is a complex resonant cavity. The wave is so
imprisoned in a region that turns out to have electric and magnetic
properties. There are however no physical boundaries, but the wave is
self-induced to remain within its natural border. This is also true in
the case of material fluids where an explanation relies on the balance
between centrifugal forces and surface tensions. The issue of stability
is not trivial as it seems and will be developed in section 2.2. In order
to permit the wave to undergo such a localization, a suitable deforma-
tion of the space-time geometry is strictly necessary. Thus, the object
also displays “gravitational” properties.
Vortex rings of electromagnetic type are observed in nature. Let me
mention a few examples. First of all, toroid structures are examined in
plasma physics41 . Afterwards, soliton rings are commonly produced in
41
In [61], p.107, about plasma confinement we can read: “A magnetic surface,
or flux surface, is a smooth surface whose normal is everywhere orthogonal to the
magnetic field. Thus the field lines lie everywhere in the surface; the generic flux
optical laboratories by sending laser beams through a crystal lattice.

In these studies, waves are supposed to carry angular momentum with
the result of creating peculiar structures when propagating in nonlin-
ear periodic arrays. Finally, the atmospheric phenomenon referred as
ball lightning, where some form of radiation remains imprisoned for
relatively short periods of time in confined errant regions, could also
originate from electromagnetic waves trapped in rings42 .
Figure 1.6: Photons rotate inside a toroid according to the arrows. The
electric field lays entirely on each single section, while the magnetic field,
orthogonal to it, oscillates back and forth parallel to the major circumference.
This is an exact solution of the whole set of Maxwell’s equations (see also the
picture on top of figure 4.2).
In [59], an amazing relation between the motion of a thin vortex

ring filament and the nonlinear Schrödinger equation has been found.
Such a kind of link is very important, since, in the sequel of this
surface is densely covered by a single line. When the confining field never vanishes
and never intersects a material wall, each flux surface must be a topological torus”.
42
From [125]: “Various explanations of these phenomena have been put forward,
and I now suggest that the lightning ball consists of plasma vortex rings. Vortex
rings are hydro-dynamically stable and are easily produced, for example, a smoke
ring. [...] The vorticity of the lighting ball could be produced impulsively by
asymmetric expansion of a lightning stroke, particularly if the stroke occurred in
the vicinity of a solid object, having an aperture. Reports of ball lightning describe
its arrival down chimneys or through doorway”.
exposition, I will have a chance to focus on many aspects inherent

in the role of electromagnetic tori in the composition of atoms and
molecules.
Let me better explain what a toroid wave looks like. I am able to do
this since exact solutions are available (see Appendix F), at least in the
case when the major diameter of the toroid is reasonably larger than
the one corresponding to the section. With this hypothesis the section
is practically a circle (see [23]). These solutions appear to be the sum
of two parts: a time-dependent one and a stationary one. The latter
is going to be examined later. The time-dependent component is due
to the circular motion of one or more photons displaying a sinusoidal
modulation with respect to the rotation angle. The electric field lays
on the section of the toroid, while the magnetic field, orthogonal to the
first one, is oriented as the major circumference and circulates around
the ring axis (see figure 1.6). The velocity vector field V, orthogonal
to B but not to E, also belong to the toroid’s sections and indicates
the direction of movement.
If one looks at the evolution of the electric field for the pure rotating
part, several conclusions can be drawn. First of all, the condition
ρ = divE = 0 is permanently satisfied. Hence, we are solving the
equations in the Maxwellian case. There are plenty of these waves,
representing the actual solution space of Maxwell’s equations, although
these rotating photons can be considered anomalous in the classical
sense (see section 1.1 and footnote 6). Contrary to free-waves, they do
not propagate and their support is a doubly connected region of the 3D
space (note that the toroid is exactly this). In this way, it is possible
to simultaneously enforce all the conditions: divE = 0, divB = 0 and
E⊥B. As I mentioned above, the electric field is not orthogonal to the
velocity field, which is a typical situation characterizing constrained
waves. By the way, having ρ = 0 and setting p = 0, there is no
need to introduce the field V, since the whole set of equations will
be satisfied anyway. Indeed, both Euler’s equation (86) and equation
(89), containing the time derivative of p, become of the form 0 =
0. Hence V can be totally arbitrary, a property that makes these
solutions very permeable to the passage of free-waves. In fact, in
cases where the parameter µ can be considered negligible, Maxwellian
and propagating waves sum almost linearly. This is a very important
observation because it reveals that behind complex nonlinear ruling
equations one may find a linear response at specific regimes.
Figure 1.7: Evolution

of the section of a
surface enveloping the
electromagnetic field in
the case of the toroid
solution of figure 1.6.
A velocity field V, lin-
early increasing in in-
tensity from the center
can be defined. The
magnetic field B is or-
thogonal to the page.
The solution (100) in Appendix F and its derivations are very im-
portant, being the prototype of an immense variety of Maxwellian
solutions constituting the support of real matter. For an external
observer at rest, at any point inside the toroid, the electric field is
turning around, following elliptic type patterns (possibly degenerating
into segments). It is possible to individuate the surfaces enveloping
the electromagnetic field at a fixed time (see figure 1.7); these are
toroid-like. During the evolution they self cross and the principles of
geometrical optics in the classical sense are completely disregarded.
A similar situation is encountered for the Hertzian wave (see section
1.3 and figure 1.4 in Appendix D). These are just examples of how a
constrained wave can be amazingly unconventional. Let me remind to
the reader that, at the moment, I am only analyzing Maxwellian type
waves, so that I am not adding anything new to what should already
be known. The real revolution is noting that standard propagating
waves do not belong to the solution space of Maxwell’s equations, that
includes instead many unexpected representatives.
The definition of wave-fronts is now getting problematic. A rea-
sonable assumption is that these are the surfaces orthogonal to the
velocity flow-field V of figure 1.7. In this case, the carried electric
message has a component in the direction of motion. The limiting
case is at the outer surface of the vortex ring, where E and V are
lined up and B is zero. Differently from free-waves, we do not have
now the coincidence of the wave-fronts with the surface envelope of
the carried fields. The global average of the electric field, taken over
the toroid region in a period of oscillation, turns out to be zero. The
same is true for the orthogonal magnetic field, that oscillates back
and forth in the direction parallel to the major toroid circumference.
Thus, although this localized electromagnetic entity has energy and
momentum of inertia, we cannot actually claim that it is a “charged
particle”. Such a spinning object is hard to detect in experiments, due
to the fact that it cannot be accelerated under the action of electric
or magnetic fields. It could be however decisive to maintain certain
energy balances, and this is the only way to catch it. In fact, let us
suppose that in an experiment some quantity that has to be preserved
is instead missing; if we know that such a quantity has not escaped
from the site in other forms, it can be well hidden in a transitory toroid
storage area, as the one described above.
Figure 1.8: Stationary orthogonal triplets may be added to the rotating fields.
In the first picture (see also figure 1.6) the whole section containing the elec-
tric field rotates according to the arrow. In the second picture, compatibly
with the model equations, a stationary radial electric field has been added
(see figure 4.2). Analogously, an orthogonal stationary magnetic field has
also been summed, in such a way that the triplet (E, B, V) is right-handed.
As anticipated at the beginning of this section, compatibly with

the model equations, it is possible to add a stationary solution to the
dynamical one, in such a way the result is still defined in the 3D toroid
region. According to the new set of modelling equations, it turns out

that E must be of radial type and growing linearly from each section’s
center (see the bottom picture of figure 4.2). Again, the magnetic
field B is orthogonal to the toroid sections (see figure 1.8). Now, it
is compulsory to define V, so that the right-handed triplet (E, B, V)
is clearly individuated. The angular speed of rotation ends up being
constant, so that V grows linearly with the distance from the section’s
center (figure 1.7). It is very important to notice that there are no
other displacements of the stationary orthogonal triplet (E, B, V), ex-
cept for the one indicated above. This says that the ruling equations
are very accommodating as far as time-dependent solutions are con-
cerned, but very strict regarding the stationary ones. Interestingly,
the distribution of an oscillating electric field inside a solenoidal coil
is still a matter of debate and, only recently, accurate experimental
results have been made available (see [78]). The existence of station-
ary type fields and the possibility of superposing them on dynamical
fields will allow us to introduce for instance the concepts of charge
and magnetic momentum, otherwise unavailable in the Maxwellian
case without permitting the solutions to exhibit singularities. I will
return on these issues in the next chapter.
Note also that the property that light rays travel at the speed of
light is not true anymore. In fact, this would be correct if we treated
the photon as a point-wise particle globally moving at speed c. But,
assuming that a photon has an internal structure, we have to recognize
that, during a change of trajectory, there are parts of it travelling at
different velocities, greater or smaller than c, with an average equal
to c. Note that the relation |V| = c is not going to be true as far as
constrained waves are concerned. This observation points out the limit
of the theory of special relativity, that has to be replaced by general
relativity (see also footnote 28). Working with the tensor structure
of the metric it is possible to adjust the clock transversally to the
direction of motion, in such a way that the curving trajectory of any
internal point of the photon moves at speed c, even if, during a certain
amount of time, some paths look longer or shorter. Of course, talking
about “short” or “long” has no absolute meaning and depends on
the observer. In terms of the metric tensor the correction of the clocks
involves the activation of the matrix coefficients linking space and time
variables.
A pressure p 6= 0 now comes into play. Roughly speaking, p (neg-
ative or positive) signifies a rarefaction or compression of the wave-

fronts, that, for an observer at rest, do not develop according to the
rules of geometrical optics. To be more precise, the evolution of the
wave-fronts does not follow the Huygens principle in the flat geome-
try; however this should rather be true in the metric space modified
by the wave itself, according to Einstein’s equation. In truth, in sec-
tion 1.7, I specified that, although not visible in the model equations,
the eikonal equation is available to show its validity. When riding a
rotating photon (i.e., from the viewpoint of an observer placed in the
modified metric), based on the considerations developed in the case
of free-waves, I expect the following to happen. Independently of the
size of the photon, the wave-fronts are plane wave of infinite extent
marching parallel one next to the other. There is no gradient of pres-
sure in the azimuthal direction, so the fronts seem to satisfy the rules
of geometrical optics. In any case, the radial gradient of p should
be different from zero with p proportional to the scalar curvature of
the space-time (see (96) in Appendix F). In this way, the photon’s
observer may feel the effect of a transverse acceleration that can be
interpreted as a gravitational field. I will show in the next chapter how
to confer a mass to the whole system. Let me confess that I do not
have precise confirmation of what is written in this paragraph, since a
rigorous analysis can only follow after solving Einstein’s equation with
the goal of finding the geometrical structure inside the toroid. Such
computation looks at the moment to be rather involved.
A question arises: do we really need to solve Einstein’s compli-
cated equation in order to have a clear picture of what happens dur-
ing photon-photon interactions? In sections 1.6 and 1.7, I noticed that
the magnitude and the orientation of the electromagnetic field provide
sufficient description of the geometric evolution. In other words, the
triplet (E, B, V) is a kind of surrogate of the local metric tensor. If this
was true, knowledge of the fields (E, B, V) should already be enough
for a complete analysis. It is however necessary to include as further
information the scalar quantity p. Since the set of equations modelling
the evolution of the fields has validity independently of the geometrical
environment (covariance), a suitable description of our phenomena is
already well represented in the flat space. In such a particular reference
domain, the equations speak the language of classical physics, so that
one may try to interpret, without the help of fancy generalizations,
what is behind the electromagnetic vortex structure. Nevertheless, as
it will emerge in the continuing of my exposition, the flat space view-
point is a very rough averaging of a complex reality made of a gigantic

number of time-developing pieces, suitably patched together, each one
representing a micro-universe.
There are a couple of ways to describe in classical terms the stable
rotation of two photons, and this is the key point to comprehend the
unification process between electromagnetic and gravitational forces.
We can first attribute a density of charge ρ and a density of mass ρm to
the toroid solution (see (97) in Appendix F). From the computations
(in the flat space) it turns out that the density of charge is uniformly
constant, while the density of mass is strictly related to p (which ap-
proximately varies as a quadratic expression of the electromagnetic
field). We know that a charge travelling in a combination of electric
and magnetic fields can be put in steady rotation (the cyclotron ex-
ercise). This is due to the action of the Lorentz force, that in some
form also appears in the modelling equations. On the other hand, a
mass can be put in orbit in a gravitational field. Without having to
deal with actual masses or charges, but only with fields, the equations
already incorporate all these features. The evolving structure has to
be seen as a unique body, inside of which relations between fields are
built according to the same identical laws ruling point-wise charges
and masses. The model equations for fields are the germs from which,
once matter has been finally built, one recovers the classical physics
laws.
I believe that this is the completion of the work initiated by Maxwell
himself, i.e., to translate into the jargon of fields what can be observed
in nature. The core of my reasoning is the following. If I am able to
construct something that has all the features of an electron (the most
simple piece of matter) by constraining photons into a toroid, and I
can do it with model equations inspired by standard electromagnetism
and fluid mechanics, then I have to expect that classical physics will
descend as a consequence. Somebody, at this point may argue that
classical physics is only part of the game, and that, particularly in the
case of objects of the size of an electron, quantum mechanics is pre-
vailing. I am not bothered by this criticism, since I will also show how
to recover quantum properties of matter. In truth, my story started in
the opposite way (see section 3.8). I was searching for a justification
of quantum phenomena and I ended up by dealing with electromag-
netism. Therefore, the most interesting part has still to come and I will
face quantum problems without the need to alter the model equations.
What I just said is correct only when we add the stationary part
to the rotating one. By the way, in my theory there are no pure sta-
tionary solutions. Hence, there are no charged bodies in the way it is
usually supposed. As we shall see in the next chapter, an electron is
quite a complicated object, that, only to the first approximation and
at a certain distance, can be roughly described as a point-wise elemen-
tary charge, emanating electric field in accordance with Coulomb’s law
(note that in this case the corresponding potential tends to become sin-
gular when approaching the charge). According to my interpretation,
an electron is made of rotating photons, trapped in a toroidal region,
therefore, it is a dynamical object. The time-evolving part is needed
to create the topological structure, the added stationary part provides
for the effective mass and charge. Nevertheless, the stationary part
cannot survive without the dynamical one; it would degenerate into
singularities as Coulomb’s formula prescribes. Note instead that the
non-stationary part can exist with or without the stationary one, giv-
ing rise to different types of elementary structures. With these obser-
vations, I have prepared the ground for the next chapter, where more
sophisticated solutions displaying strong similarities with subatomic
particles will be studied.
Chapter 2
The subatomic
environment
Quello che noi ci immaginiamo

bisogna che sia o una delle cose già vedute,
o un composto di cose o di parti delle cose altra volta vedute
Galileo Galilei, scientist
2.1 Electrons
I start in this chapter my adventure towards a systematic description of
matter and its properties. We already have an elementary particle: the
photon, and we know almost everything about it, at least in the case
when it behaves as a free-wave. Finding place for light-quanta within
the context of a classical theory of electromagnetism is a fundamental
achievement, considering that the problem has been on the priority
list of open questions in physics for decades43 . The initial erroneous
43
In [103], M. Planck writes: “For the elementary quantum of action plays no
part in Maxwell’s equations. From dimensional considerations it would be entirely
impossible to introduce this quantity into Maxwell’s equations unless additional
constants should appear therein. [...] Again and again the question arises, must
we really ascribe to the light-quanta a physical reality, or is there after all a way of
taking account of them, which preserves the validity of Maxwell’s classical electro-
dynamics?”.
69
assumption was to consider Maxwell’s model as immutable44 . We

overcame this difficulty, so it is possible to restart the research process
from the very beginning and see how the clarification of the duality
wave-particle enigma can bring benefit to us.
In section 1.8, I provided instructions for building other distinctive
objects, constituting the basic bricks for further developments. In the
simplest form, these entities are composed of photons self-constrained
in bounded regions of the 3D space, having a toroid-like shape. Let me
remind the reader that, according to the way I introduced free-waves,
it is not compulsory for a photon to be a small object, but any size
may fit the definition (see section 1.2). Nevertheless, physicists are
used to dealing with photons imagining them as microscopic entities
associated to quantized phenomena. I will show the reader how to han-
dle this discrepancy45 . For the moment, let me specify that quantum
properties of photons are not inherent to photons themselves, but to
the way they interact with matter. Hence, before discussing these con-
nections, we must discover what exactly is “matter”. For this reason,
it is necessary to start from the simplest levels.
I begin by examining the case of the electron, since, according to my
equations, full explicit computations can be carried out (see Appendix
G). In particle physics, the electron is not supposed to have internal
structure. It carries a unit of charge and a very small mass. Moreover,
it also displays spin. The concept of spinning particle was vaguely
proposed by W. Pauli and later reconsidered by R. Kronig and G. Uh-
lenbeck. At the beginning, this property was associated to an actual
44
In [103], M. Planck writes: “You all know that theoretical physics, which devel-
oped and progressed consistently through two hundreds years, and only a generation
ago seemed near to its final conclusion, has now entered a critical period, fraught
with serious consequences. Not all its fundamental principles have been questioned!
For its more general and at the same time its simplest laws, such as [...], and the
Fundamental Equations of the Electromagnetic Field, are just the ones which have
so far withstood successfully the most severe trials, and serve now as ever before
as the guides for wider exploration”.
45
In [38], R.P. Feynman writes: “We know that light is made of particles because
we can take a very sensitive instrument that makes clicks when light shines on it,
and if the light gets dimmer, the clicks remain just as loud - there are just fewer of
them. thus light is something like raindrops - each lump of light is called a photon
- and if the light is all one color, all the raindrops are the same size”. Concluding
from this sentence that diaphanous low-frequency photons are almost uncolored
large raindrops would be too quick; the explanation is going to be more delicate
and necessitates more understanding about the way matter is structured.
The subatomic environment 71
rotation of the massive body, represented by a tiny charged sphere.

Lately, it was made clear that this was not quantitatively compatible
with the electron’s characterizing assumptions. Connections with the
concepts of parity and helicity are usually established when talking
about spin. I am more precise on these issues in section 2.6. Nowa-
days, the idea of spin is purely based on mathematical hypotheses and
fits experimental data quite well. Physicists do not bother anymore
comparing spin to classical mechanical behavior, so the real reason for
its existence remains an indefinite philosophical exercise.
As far as I am concerned, the electron is composed of confined
spinning photons and this confers an intrinsic dynamical behavior to it.
The form assumed is the simplest one: sinusoidal photons constrained
in a vortex ring. A possible configuration (the most elementary) is
visible in figure 4.2, where one recognizes two symmetric patterns;
they rotate around an orthogonal axis placed at the center of the disk.
A frequency can be associated to this object depending on its size and
on the fact that the internal information shifts along closed circular-
type orbits with an averaged speed c. This sets an inverse proportional
relation between the frequency and the minor diameter of the toroid.
It is interesting to observe that, while the major diameter turns out to
be fixed due to stability arguments (I will return later to this issue),
there is no prescribed size for the minor diameter, so that there is
a continuum of frequencies that can be associated with an electron
(see figure 2.1). In other words, there is no single representative of
the family of electrons, since the ratio between the minor and the
major diameters may vary, preserving however charge and mass. Note
also that the movement of a vortex ring is not comparable to the
rotation of a rigid 3D body. In the latter case an absolute concept of
spin cannot be introduced, since the revolving velocity depends on the
observer’s framework. The above considerations are the results of the
study of exact solutions defined on toroid shaped domains (see [47]
and Appendix G).
Spin is not however enough to characterize an electron, since mass
and charge have still to be taken into consideration. They derive from
the stationary component, mentioned in section 1.8, that is linearly
added to the evolving part. Remember that this operation is compat-
ible with the set of equations presented in Appendix F. In particular,
the dynamical part is a Maxwellian wave (ρ = 0 and V undefined),
but the addition of the stationary part requires the solution of the
Figure 2.1: Three different

aspects of an electron built
from spinning photons. Mass,
charge and major diameter are
fixed. Frequencies, inversely
proportional to the minor di-
ameters, may vary with conti-
nuity, but the kinetic energy as
well as the electromagnetic one
remain unchanged.
whole set of model equations. In particular, the current term of the

Ampère law (that in the case of free-waves has been associated with
a sort of immaterial charge density travelling within the support of
the wave), is now witnessing the presence of an effective charge, with
density ρ 6= 0, trapped inside the toroid. I also specified that solitary
propagating waves are not compatible with the assumption ρ = 0. In
other words, free photons carry with them the potentiality to generate
charge, which is actually manifested when they are forced to remain
in bounded regions. Thus, stationary fields overlapping the spinning
photons, immediately provide the particle with electric and magnetic
properties, while to understand how mass is created we need more
investigation.
There are a few possible ways to add stationary contributions. I
examine here one possibility and I will add more explanations later in
section 2.6, where antimatter is introduced. Extraordinarily, there are
not so many degrees of freedom to work with. I consider this to be
a positive fact, since in the end the property of being an electron is
very exclusive and cannot be shared with counterfeit copies. Without
the steady part, we get a spinning, uncharged, massless particle that
agrees very well with the definition of neutrino, i.e., another remarkable
particle, one of the primary ingredients of nuclear physics. Let me
say first of all that the neutrinos of standard particle physics are an
extremely small subset, whereas I will use the term to denote structures
that are far more general and unconventional.
Let me specify here that a controversial question is often raised

when dealing with massless neutrinos; it is in fact claimed that zero-
mass particles must travel at the speed of light46 . If this is certainly
true for photons, the observation does not apply to neutrinos that, as
far as I am concerned, may assume whatever velocity the circumstances
require. Indeed, they are a sort of storage container of energy and
momentum, aimed to preserve mechanical rules. The mistake comes
from attributing a rotatory motion of the particle around an axis. The
situation is different for the toroid, where, for example, it is hard to
find a trivial system of coordinates where the object is at rest.
In the course of this exposition, we will have time to appreciate
all the features of neutrinos. Contrary to the electron, these enjoy
a lot of freedom and may adapt themselves to an unlimited number
of configurations. Their equilibrium is sometimes precarious; they
can degenerate into a photon and in this form travel at the speed of
light, ready to restore their initial configuration as the circumstances
are favorable. Arbitrary stationary fields with ρ = 0 may be added
to a neutrino. For the sake of a full rehabilitation of old-fashioned
electromagnetism, it is essential to remark that, in toroid form, these
are Maxwellian waves. They belong to a picturesque and variegated
space, having nothing in common with propagating signals emitted by
an antenna device.
The geometric properties of the space-time must be invoked in or-
der to understand the existence of spinning photons. Let me briefly
review a few facts already discussed in the previous chapter. The rotat-
ing photons, being energy carriers, modify the geometric nature of the
environment, and this can be checked by computing the correspond-
ing metric tensor, obtained from Einstein’s equation after plugging the
appropriate energy tensor on the right-hand side. In this context, as
far as an observer from a flat space is concerned, the geodesics are not
straight-lines. Hence, the trajectories of the rays are bent. This im-
pression is not shared with the observer riding the photons, who, due
to the metric modification, is convinced of proceeding straight. Now,
46
For example, in [98] p.11, we find: “The concept of helicity is not Lorentz
invariant if the particle mass is non-zero. The helicity of such a particle depends
upon the motion of the observer’s frame of reference. For example, it will change
sign if we try to catch up with the particle at speed above this velocity. Overtaking
a particle is the more difficult, the higher its velocity, so that helicity becomes a
better quantum number as velocity increases. It is an exact quantum number for
massless particles (neutrinos and photons)”.
we have a chance to get a stable situation when the path followed by

the photons perfectly coincides with the self generated geodesics. Put
in other terms, energy and momenta associated with the photons are
able to ply the space and produce a toroidal geometric structure where
the geodesics are closed paths; the same paths are exactly those the
photons are actually following and the process is somehow locked. I
was not able to compute exact solutions of Einstein’s equation in such
a complex case, therefore the above considerations are not formally
proven.
Similar configurations have already been studied in the general
relativity framework, although at a qualitative level, within the con-
text of the theory of black holes47 . Roughly speaking, the situation
is similar to the one of twin planets rotating in equilibrium around a
common center. If their speed of rotation and their distance are appro-
priately set, the configuration is stable. The coupled system modifies
the space-time geometry creating curved geodesics, and, at the same
time conform to such pre-determined trajectories. This is in the spirit
of Einstein’s interpretation of gravity, to which we have to include here
the additional difficulty of dealing with electromagnetic fields.
A crucial aspect contributing to the stability of a neutrino-like so-
lution concerns the sign of the electromagnetic stress tensor Uαβ to be
placed on the right-hand side of Einstein’s equation (see (55) in Ap-
pendix D). As observed in section 1.6, I opted for a switch, subverting
the standard set up (see also the justifications provided in [45], p.92).
It is nice however to discover that the modification is also meaningful
with respect to well-established solutions. There is in fact a version of
the Reissner-Nordström metric (see (62) in Appendix D) that suitably
matches the sign flip. The metric represents a point-wise black-hole.
The usual version is affected by an technical intrinsic limitation that
influences the minimal radius of the black-hole, whereas my updated
version eliminates such a restriction, allowing for the existence of black-
47
In [120], J.A. Wheeler writes: “On the basis of classical general relativity as it
already exists, and without any call on quantum theory, it turns out to be possible
to construct an entity that we call geon. This object serves as a classical singularity
free, exemplar of the “bodies” of classical physics. Of such entities there exist in
principle a great variety, distinguished from one another by mass, intrinsic angular
momentum, and other properties. The simplest variety is most easily visualized as
a standing electromagnetic wave, or beam of light, bent into a closed circular toroid
of high energy concentration. It is held in form by the gravitational attraction of
the mass associated with the field energy itself”.
holes also of the size and the mass of the electron. This is a further
symptom of the correctness and consistency of my proposal to alter
some conventions.
In physics, the term “neutrino” denotes very specific representa-
tives of the family I am considering here, therefore I expect some
perplexed reactions to my statements. It is better then to face the ex-
planation of the role of neutrinos when the reader is more acquainted
with my theory. Therefore, let us go ahead with the analysis of the
electron. Very few gravitational interactions end up with masses in
fixed orbits. Similarly, not all the interactions of two photons lead
to stable periodic configurations. In this regard, we have to admit
that the formation of an electron is a very rare event. One needs the
right shape and the right energy of the colliding entities. In most
cases, the final product consists instead of smashed free-waves diffus-
ing all around. It has to be kept in mind however that, independently
of the event taking place, energy and momentum conservation must
hold. This rule is implicitly contained in the balance laws representing
Einstein’s equation.
At this point, it is necessary to give more details about the station-
ary part of the electron’s solution. According to figure 1.8, the electric
field E is radially distributed on the toroid sections, in such a way
that ρ 6= 0 is constant. In practice, E grows linearly from the section’s
center. For the reasons detailed in [45], p.122, one must have ρ > 0;
therefore, the electron turns out to be a positive uniformly charged
particle, despite the convention of considering its charge negative. I
hope this information is not going to bring consternation to the reader,
who is referred for an explanation to section 2.6; everything is however
under control (just in any case I would suggest to wearing the oxygen
mask and breathing normally).
R
The volume integral e = 0 ρ, where e is the electron’s charge
and 0 the dielectric constant in vacuum, quantitatively allows for the
determination of ρ (that amounts to fixing γ0 in (100), Appendix F).
The velocity field V is orthogonal to the stationary E and establishes
the sense of rotation of the dynamical part (see figure 1.7). Note that,
when summing up the steady and the time-evolving contributions, one
looses the orthogonality relation between E and V. The stationary
magnetic field B is orthogonal to both E and V, forming a right-
handed triplet; thus, it lies on closed loops around the toroid axis. This
confers magnetic properties to the particle, a very important feature
that will be reconsidered many times in the course of this exposition.

There are no singularities (E and B are bounded inside the electron’s
domain), contrary to what we would have in the case of a point-wise
particle. Finally, an expression for the pressure p is also available (see
(101) in Appendix F). I remark that the displacement of the fields
examined in Appendix F refers to a cylindrical setting, but the whole
machinery can be adapted to rings (see [23]). It is very interesting to
observe that the displacement of the stationary E is analogous to that
obtainable inside a homogeneous dielectric (see figure 2.2). This shows
that our electron is more and more resembling a real piece of matter,
though it only consists of pure fields.
I will start discussing questions regarding mass from section 2.2,
arriving at the nitty gritty in section 2.5. For the moment, let me just
give some technical points. Based on the definition given in [47], a
density of mass can be derived by taking the M00 component of the
mass tensor; up to dimensional constants, this is proportional to the
scalar ρc2 −p (see (97) Appendix F). Therefore, the mass m of a particle
is a suitable multiple of the volume R integral of the density of mass;
more in detail one has: m = (0 /µ) (ρ − p/c2 ), where µ ≈ 2.85 × 1011
is the same constant appearing in the model equations (see (88) in
Appendix F). The integral is extended to the 3D domain enclosing the
solution. For example,
R as far as a single free-photon is concerned, one
has p = 0 and ρ = 0, hence the formula yields m = 0, in agreement
with the fact that photons carry energy but display no mass. A similar
conclusion holds for the dynamical part of the electron. This time we
have p = 0 and ρ = 0, showing that neutrinos have zero mass. In the
case of the full solution (i.e., including the stationary fields), m exactly
agrees with the electron’s mass. In accordance with special relativity
m is not an invariant quantity.
To tell the truth, µ, which is approximately of the same magnitude
as the elementary charge e divided by the electron mass m, has been
set up with the purpose of obtaining this result. This means that,
once the constant µ is appropriately defined, it is possible to construct
solutions of the entire set of model equations, such that they have
the same global size, charge and mass as an electron. We should not
forget however that µ must remain constant, so that we are not allowed
to modify it in the future. Therefore, a significant validation of my
theory may follow by proving that, with the same identical µ, other
charged massive particles can be built with characteristics similar to
the originals. Let me honestly confess that, due to the complication

of the problem, I cannot rely at the moment upon such a result.
In the end, in my view, an electron is a cloud of spinning fields, dis-
playing all the necessary quantitative and qualitative properties. It is
a piece of “matter” that cannot be divided further. Indeed, the object
has to be taken as a whole, since its parts do not survive indepen-
dently, but are only sustained by a delicate equilibrium process. This
construction is quite challenging, but can be supported by some ex-
perimental observations. For instance, once an electron is formed, it is
very hard to destroy it; anyway, if by chance it interacts with a positron
(the anti-particle of the electron, see figures 2.16 and 2.17), the couple
breaks up into pieces, that are in most cases high-frequency free pho-
tons. This exactly shows the nature of the two particles. Put together,
particle and anti-particle form an unstable structure and give back the
substance they are made of, i.e., electromagnetic fields. The massive
part disappears due to the annihilation of the respective stationary
components and to the breakage of the geometric environment (this is
a crucial point that will be examined later in section 2.5). Conversely,
one needs relatively large powers in order to generate electrons from
photons. However, from the collision of high-energy photons (two-
photons physics), realized in accelerators, it is possible to create the
conditions for (indirect) particle generation. These phenomena are
well documented and suitably coded in Feynman diagrams, covering a
wide range of cases. These magical recipes can predict with extreme
accuracy the outcomes of almost any reaction. What is really lacking
in this taxonomy is an explanation that goes beyond the schematic ap-
proach and the consolidated rules of quantum electrodynamics. And
this is what I am trying to do in this chapter.
Based on my computations, it turns out that an electron may as-
sume a multitude of different shapes, sharing however the same phys-
ical properties (see figure 2.1 and Appendix G). All of them have a
toroid shape, more or less of the same size. The major diameter is
practically fixed around 2.7 × 10−15 meters (2.7 fm), in accordance
with nuclear dimensions, but the minor diameter may vary. Thus,
the ring could be very thin, so that the frequency of rotation of the
photons is extremely high. Conversely, the ring can be fat and the
frequency low (above 1022 Hertz, however). Probably, there exists a
natural asset, corresponding to a certain choice of the minor diameter
that optimizes some parameters, but its determination seems not to be
easy without more serious numerical computations. All the members

of this family have the same charge and mass. They are actually dif-
ferent representations of the same particle in various possible “states”,
described by a parameter (the frequency, for example) that may vary
with continuity. The fact that the frequency is not uniquely deter-
mined is not a problem; on the contrary, it provides the electron with
an incomparable adaptability. From experiments, the volume of an
electron turns out to be very small, at the point that its size is consid-
ered to be negligible. I think that this is instead due to the thinness
of its support and to its high versatility, making the particle hard to
catch. I also would like to specify that the supporting ring is not rigid;
in fact, I expect the electrons to be very deformable when subjected
to external perturbations, exactly as fluid vortex rings behave in their
various manifestations, both in nature and laboratories (see also figure
1.5). Thus, electrons can be squeezed and twisted, showing a resistance
that can only be broken through the interaction with antimatter.
At first sight, it may sound strange that objects of different volumes
display the same mass and charge. Of course, this is because the
respective densities scale inversely with volume, but I believe there
is a deeper reason, especially concerning electric charge. Incidentally,
in the framework of differential cohomology (a branch of algebraic
geometry), charge quantization is strictly referred to rings. As a matter
of fact, cutting out a ring from the 3D space amounts to drilling a real
hole in it. Smooth closed paths can be divided into two categories:
those that can be shrunk to a point and those interlaced with the ring,
that cannot be reduced to a point without cuts. Note that a spherical
hollow does not produce such a dichotomy, so it is not a real hole.
In topology, the magnitude of the ring has no influence, since the
discipline is only concerned with the study of shapes. Therefore, in
the presence of a toroidal hole we have a quantum of charge, indepen-
dently of actual size. It has to be noted that the value of the charge is
computed through a line integral on a close path taking also into ac-
count the displacement of the electric field. It turns out that, although
displaying a toroidal shape, neutrinos have charge equal to zero as is
expected to occur. These properties have been checked using exact
solutions, but there must be a way to reach general conclusions by
directly working on the differential problem, and analyzing its under-
lying geometric nature. This would also prove that, provided ruptures
do not occur, certain quantities continue to be preserved even under
severe alterations of the electron’s support, a result that analytically

cannot be inferred, due to the unavailability of explicit solutions. A lot
of material is already available for Maxwell’s equations, so that such an
investigation would start from good credentials. I am certainly not an
expert on this subject, therefore I leave the question to those skilled.
The idea that matter is of electromagnetic origin is not so weird.
I am not indeed the first one claiming that photons are constituent
of elementary particles48 , also considering that such a statement, at
least in the case of the electron, looks an obvious consequence of real
experiments. Anyway, most of the attempts in this direction did not
completely succeed in their goals. They started with good initial as-
sumptions, but they failed to get final convincing answers. As far as I
am concerned, all in all the problem is always reducible to the chronic
incapability of casting photons within the classical electromagnetic
context49 . My additional contribution consisted in proposing the ap-
propriate modelling equations and showing, from this improved stand-
point, that creation of matter from fields is theoretically achievable
through classical tools, implying ultimately that fields are actually the
sole ingredient. The nonlinear properties of the ruling equations are
fundamental in this analysis50 .
Let me add at this point some historical notes. In the so-called
48
From [91], p.33: “... These were the chief developments that led Wilhelm Wien
to propose research toward an ‘electromagnetic basis for mechanics’, that is, an
electromagnetic world-picture, as an alternative to the apparently sterile inverse
research effort toward a mechanical world-picture. In the electromagnetic world-
picture, mechanics and then all of physical theory would be derivable from Lorentz’s
electromagnetic theory. A far-reaching implication of this research program was
that the electron’s mass originates in its own electromagnetic field quantities as a
self-induction effect”.
49
Regarding Einstein’s determination to find an unification theory of electromag-
netism and general relativity, in [55] D. Gross writes: “The core of his program was
to include electromagnetism and derive the existence of matter in the form of, what
we call today, solitons. As Einstein understood, nonlinear equations can posses reg-
ular solutions that describe lumps of energy that do not dissipate. Thus one could
start with the non-linear field equations of general relativity and find localized par-
ticles. [...] As far as I can tell, Einstein knew of no example of solitons or any toy
model that exhibited his hopes”.
50
In studying the possibility of obtaining electrons from confined photons, the
following statement is reported in [123]: “Although circulating solutions of the
linear Maxwell equations have been shown to exist, the fact that the electron does
not have arbitrary mass means that some extra, presumably non-linear, effect must
also play a role”.
classical model, the electron is supposed to be a deformable spherical

distribution of charge. Its assemblage requires the help of a certain
external pressure of not well specified nature. A first study of this
structure was conducted by H. Poincaré51 . More recently, the model
was abandoned due to the difficulty of explaining many open questions.
The Parson magneton is a toroid simulation of an electron, where
a collection of infinitesimal charges are circulating along continuous
paths wrapped around a ring. A magnetic field is generated inside the
body. The structure was the first one to incorporate charge, spin and
magnetic moment in a single unitary object. This is a naive version
of what I actually got. Nevertheless, according to modern physics,
particles must remain under the competence of quantum mechanics,
thus frustrating all the efforts of finding explanations via classical tools.
Nowadays, the common trend is to attribute point-wise properties to
the electron. It is not my intention to report on such approaches,
because, though I think they deserve attention, they diverge from the
path I am following.
When I started to look for rotating photon solutions, the first
idea was addressed to spherical configurations. I realized that the
goal was not achievable, and I moved my analysis to the investigation
of rings. It was amazing to discover fluid vortices and their excep-
tional stability properties. It was even more surprising to find out the
above mentioned topological properties of electrically charged rings,
their relations with Maxwell’s equations and the natural disposition
of Maxwellian solutions to lie on doubly connected regions. This con-
firmed that I was advancing in the right direction. The theory that
I am presenting here does not disclose untried fields of research, but
has the advantage of setting up the links between various classical
milestones. Past scientific advances brought a rich harvest, which is
now ready to be used. Electromagnetism had still some “little bugs”;
however, when properly fixed, is one of the pillars making the entire
51
Concerning the existence of some hypothetical pressure maintaining an electron
in shape, H. Poincaré writes in [105]: “J’ai cherché à déterminer cette force, j’ai
trouvé qu’elle peut être assimilée à une pression extérieure constante, agissant sur
l’électron déformable et compressible, et dont le travail est proportionnel aux vari-
ations du volume de cet électron. Si alors l’inertie de la matière était exclusivement
d’origine électromagnétique, comme on l’admet généralment depuis l’expérience de
Kaufmann, et qu’à part cette pression constante dont je vien de parler, toutes les
forces soient d’origine électromagnétique, le postulat de relativité peut être établi
en toute rigueur”.
edifice solid (see footnote 44).

An interesting consequence of my reasoning is the difficulty (and
perhaps the impossibility) of building magnetic monopoles. Maxwell’s
equations in vacuum do not actually distinguish among electric and
magnetic fields; the role of the two entities can be exchanged, without
altering the general setting. As a matter of fact, one could build neu-
trino type solutions where electric and magnetic fields are switched.
By dropping the condition divE = 0 , as done in the case of my equa-
tions, one can enlarge the space of solutions, but the differentiation
between magnetic and electric components becomes extremely neat.
An electron type solution where such fields are interchanged is now
not admissible. Moreover, the presence of the term E + V × B em-
phasizes the asymmetric role of the two field flavors. I tried in [45] to
introduce a more general set of equations allowing for the possibility
to also include the case divB 6= 0, but I do not think this is a viable
alternative, since it causes many other fundamental properties to be
lost.
Before ending this section, there is another important issue I would
like to discuss. It concerns the electron’s boundary. The solution I am
considering here is a kind of bounded and isolated displacement of
fields. This means that I am not taking care of what is happening out-
side the toroid region. My electron is indeed a charged particle, but, at
the moment, it has no opportunities to transfer the property of being
a charge to the surrounding space. The object ends at its boundary
and does not interact with other entities. I will call this a bare parti-
cle. This is certainly not in agreement with the standard concept of
charge, displaying an unbounded electric halo, quadratically decaying
in magnitude at infinity. Therefore, if we do not want this particle
candidate to remain just a nice mathematical exercise, it is necessary
to face the problem of providing it with a suitable habitat. For a while,
I will continue to neglect the existence of any organization of the fields
far outside the bare particle and I will stay in the neighborhood of the
ring region.
2.2 Surface tension

A crucial question is to study what happens on the particle boundary.
First of all I must say that, although what I am going to show is
intuitive and logical, I have no formal theoretical results yet. A more
serious analysis of the modelling equations, combined with a good

knowledge of fluid dynamics is needed. A preliminary analysis can
be carried out on the neutrino component, i.e., the rotating fields
without the stationary part. Explicit computations show that, at the
boundary, the magnetic field is zero and the electric field oscillates
along the direction of rotation determined by the vector V. According
to this behavior, there is a deterioration of the metric at the boundary
of the toroid. This is also confirmed by the degeneracy of the triplets
(E, B, V) that collapse onto one-dimensional curves.
The particle’s border is effectively a 2D transition zone, where the
model equations should continue to hold. Note that it is an infinite
“horizon” for an observer inside the ring (see also section 1.6). Instead,
an observer placed on the boundary (if we think this could be some-
how possible) would only be able to see in the direction of the wave
motion. From our standard flat space, we can distinguish between an
interior, a boundary and an exterior, and these three entities turn out
to be independent, non-communicating universes. Across the barrier,
it makes no sense to speak about discontinuities. The jump situated
between the internal and the external worlds is only apparent; as a
matter of fact it cannot be measured. Observers from both sides con-
sider the border zone as an infinitely distant unreachable frontier. An
observer in the transition zone has no notion of the direction joining
the two separated parts. It has to be remarked that I am working
in a purely inviscid context. Differently from viscous flows, there is
no possibility for a single point of the fluid to communicate with the
neighboring points, via the mechanism of diffusion.
The background setting is not modified by adding the stationary
part. In this case, the notions of charge, mass and radial pressure
enter the scenario. Here, in absence of more rigorous explanations
(mainly due to the lack of time to conduct the investigations), things
start to be more dogmatic. Following standard arguments, it is reason-
able to assume that the gradient of pressure normal to the boundary
is zero, implying that the centrifugal acceleration is compensated by
the electrodynamical one, exerted by a Lorentz type force (see (86)
in Appendix F). In such a situation we should get stability, and we
do not need to go through the computation of the metric tensor to
actually check it. This is the trick I used to find the electron’s bound-
ary (see Appendix G). The neutrino part, which is more adaptable,
serves as support for the entire object. As I anticipated in section 2.1,
the balance is realized for a family of toroid configurations, displaying

the same global size, charge and mass, but dissimilar regarding the
frequencies of rotation (see figure 2.1). Moreover, these configurations
are referred to the particle at rest, but I expect the main properties
to hold true under the action of external perturbations. Experiments
conducted with real fluids, even in presence of viscosity, confirm the
impressive resistance of vortex rings under the effects of heavy defor-
mations. For the exact determination of the quantities involved in
the construction of the electron, the role played by the constant µ ap-
pearing in the model equations is very important. Such a constant is
dimensionally equivalent to a charge divided by mass, and its magni-
tude has strict influence on the charge/mass ratio of the electron.
At the edge of the electron, the peripheral speed of rotation can be
measured to be more than three and a half times the speed of light.
Somebody may argue that this violates the theory of special relativity.
On the other hand, this is what Einstein’s equation predicts; so where
is the inconsistency? As argued in section 1.7 (see also footnote 28), the
theory of general relativity expressed in tensor form, can provide much
more insight with respect to the restricted theory, from where only
an averaged behavior can be recovered. For example, when a bullet
travels at constant velocity, we mean that its baricenter is moving
at that velocity. Usually, the bullet is also spinning around its axis,
so that there are points on the bullet that proceed, in spiral motion,
faster than the speed of the baricenter. This aspect can be detected
through conservation laws that, together with energy, also take into
account momenta. Similarly, in the analysis of electromagnetic waves,
we can distinguish between a general evaluation, based on scalar energy
conservation, and a deeper understanding, where the internal structure
enters into consideration.
Let me spend a few lines formally expressing the above concepts.
All free-waves develop at constant velocity c. This constant actually
appears in the modelling equations (see (83) in Appendix F), and
establishes the link between the scale of measure of distances and that
of time. For free-waves the electric field is c times the magnetic field
and both are orthogonal to the direction of motion. When the wave
is constrained the situation changes. The electromagnetic fields are
not totally “exposed” during their motion, but they start developing
a longitudinal component. An extreme case is the one where B is zero
and E is lined up with V. One can check that to build this solution
there is no need to know the constant c; it just disappears from the

equations. Therefore, a pure longitudinal wave of this type can in
principle travel at any velocity. If V follows a straight path, explicit
solutions of Einstein’s equation are also available in such a critical
situation (see [45], section 5.1). If B = 0, and E oscillates back and
forth in the direction of motion V with a frequency ω, then the scalar
curvature of the deformed space-time ends up to be proportional to
ω2.
This is also what is expected to happen at the neutrino’s boundary,
although exact computations are now not available. Examining the so-
lution found for a cylinder (see (100) in Appendix F), in the rotation
of one or more photons it is possible to identify an internal trajec-
tory where the information develops with the electromagnetic fields
completely transverse to the direction of motion, as in a very thin
free-wave. Here the speed is not exactly equal to c because the condi-
tion |E| = |cB| is not fulfilled. As far as more external (or internal)
trajectories are concerned, the electric field starts having a component
in the direction of motion (see figure 4.2). With this inclination, the
rays may travel at speeds greater (or smaller) than c. This is true up
to the boundary, where B = 0; there the electric field is completely
longitudinal and could shift in principle at any velocity. But, at this
point, the metric looses control on the radial direction and it makes no
sense to go beyond such a limit. According to the equations (see (89)
in Appendix F), breaking the orthogonality between E and V gener-
ates pressure (positive or negative), which is an indicator of the fact
that the wave is of constrained type. From the above considerations, a
very important remark reemerges. In the evolution of rotating waves
there is a precise relation between frequency and maximum radius al-
lowed, due to the fact that the evolution occurs at an averaged speed
equal to c.
A subject of research in special relativity is the study of the so
called rigid rotating body. In particular, one may ask himself what
happens to the internal structure of a fast spinning disk when the
points far from the center rotate at speeds approaching that of light
(or faster). Constrained electromagnetic phenomena, as those intro-
duced here, belong indeed to the same class. The substantial difference
is that the circulating points are not totally independent observers, but
they are all linked by the continuous electric field. Therefore, to carry
out an analysis, the instruments of general relativity have to be utilized
in full. The entire structure develops as a whole with constant angular

velocity, without breaking the rules of Einsteinian relativity. As I said,
by going towards the edge, the electric field gradually assumes a more
pronounced longitudinal asset. This also sets a limit to the magnitude
of the body, exactly when the electric field is completely longitudinal.
The extremal velocity is greater than that of light by an amount that
also depends on the number of photons involved in the rotatory move-
ment (see (102) in Appendix F). This shows that elegant solutions of
the rigid rotating body problem may emerge from including suitable
electrical bonds between the points constituting the object; the study
gets far more complicated from the technical viewpoint, but more ap-
propriate as far as its physical meaning is concerned. A deeper analysis
may suggest a review of the definitions of dielectric and permeability
constants as functions of the rotating framework (see [102]).
Do the above considerations mean that it is possible to travel faster
than the speed of light? The answer is yes and no. Theoretically (and
surprisingly), Einstein’s equation allows for solutions developing at any
speed and I also remarked that in the process involving the interac-
tion of photons there are parts where the information actually evolves
in super-luminous fashion. On the other hand, unperturbed electro-
magnetic waves can only proceed at speed c and, when interacting,
they can be faster only in a controlled neighborhood. I do not know
if, through an ingenious amplification process, one could be able to
launch objects at any speed. My impression is that, although permit-
ted by the theory, super velocities are in general not present in nature,
unless in an amount of time and space strictly necessary to safeguard
the rules of conservation of energy and momenta.
Let us now go back to the discussion of the electron, so that we also
must consider the added constant fields. At the boundary, three pieces
of information are known. These concern with the electric field (or-
thogonal to the surface), the magnetic field (tangential to the surface)
and pressure. For a ring with a circular section, they are practically
constant in magnitude. I went through the computations by assuming
the pressure (see Appendix G) to be zero at the central circumfer-
ence inside the toroid (the one associated with the major diameter).
I thought this was a reasonable choice, though other possibilities may
be tried. With the idea of conferring stability to the whole body, my
request was that the normal gradient of pressure had to be zero on
the toroid surface. Thus, in the end one finds that a negative pressure
is present on the electron’s boundary (see (114) in Appendix G). The

pressure is also negative at the interior (radially decreasing), so that
one can confer to p the role of a potential producing attractive forces
(see section 2.5). On the boundary the pressure is constant in the case
of a cylindrical geometry, or for a ring where the minor diameter is
negligible with respect to the major diameter. In a more realistic case,
p displays small variation in the direction of V, depending on the cur-
vature of the boundary surface. The phenomenon is due to a greater
compression of the toroid’s sections near the ring hole. In particular,
there is a difference of pressure between the region of the ring surface
near the toroid axis and that far from it.
If we now immerse the bare particle in a totally empty space, there
are evident radial discontinuities across the boundary regarding E, B
and p. We need to fill this gap.
Due to the Magnus effect, a fluid vortex ring immersed in another
fluid moves along its axis, in such a way to create a constant flux
through the hole. This is partly due to viscous effects52 . Through
such a mechanism, the rotating boundary of the ring transmits the
motion to the outside fluid and forms another external larger and
slower ring. The fluid dynamics of a ring vortex, inside and outside
the well-defined toroid region, is quite complex, but extensively studied
both theoretically and experimentally. Analogies can be noted with
the development of a typhoon, where the fast spinning central kernel
is usually surrounded by air, also in rotatory motion53 . Sharp layers
develop at the separation interface in the viscous regime; hypothet-
ically, they should become discontinuities in the inviscid case. The
outside region is wider and its angular velocity is smaller than that of
the core; this is also true due to momentum conservation arguments
(large diameter, small frequency, and vice versa). As I will show you
52
From [13], p.523: “From the theoretical point of view the striking property
of all observed vortex rings in uniform fluid is the approximate steadiness of the
motion relative to the ring when the ring is well clear of the generator. There is
some decay of the motion always, presumably due to the action of viscosity, but
the decay is less for larger rings, suggesting that the motion would be truly steady
at infinite Reynolds number”.
53
Regarding the development of typhoons, one can read in [75]: “One way to
produce a halo of enhanced vorticity around an intense vortex is through a binary
interaction in which the large, weak vortex is completely strained out. It will be
shown that this mode of interaction is most likely to occur when the peak vorticity
in the small, strong vortex is at least 6 times that of the large, weak vortex”.
later, this coordination is the key point for understanding the quan-
tum properties of matter. It might also be an explanation of why the
Planck constant h is actually “constant”.
When we put a bare electron in a sea of photon-like electromag-
netic energy, we can expect a similar effect. In this case, there is no
viscosity in the model, so it is not very clear how the flux through
the hole may develop. Before guessing some explanations, I advise the
reader that I am now dealing with pathologies that are still a matter
of research in fluid dynamics. Therefore, I will only be able to speak
informally. First of all, the particle is not a perfect rigid body and,
through oscillations of the boundary around the equilibrium position,
can impart acceleration to the surrounding electromagnetic waves. To
this we have to add the above mentioned difference of pressure, some-
how related to the local curvature properties of the surface. A further
more significant hypothesis can be connected to the phenomenon of
“adherence”, developing between the two fluids separated by a steady
interface, even if diffusive effects are not directly coded in the model.
These circumstances create the conditions for an organized movement
of energy in the immediate neighborhood of the bare particle. As a
consequence, a set of photons, trapped in a larger external toroid-type
domain, may start floating around the primary vortex ring. This new
secondary ring might also degenerate into a Hill’s type vortex, i.e., a
“fat” toroid with the hole reduced to a segment. Other intermedi-
ate situations, inspired by real fluid motion (see figure 2.9), may also
originate; however for the moment we will stay with the simplest case.
Pictorially, a secondary spinning neutrino is embracing the bare
electron and its existence and stability are granted by the presence of
the inner particle (see figure 2.2). Being a larger region and knowing
that photons move on average at the speed of light, the new set displays
a smaller frequency. On both sides, the operations can be done in
total respect of the modelling equations. But, what really happens at
the interface? I cannot provide a complete explanation because the
question is very deep and touches the foundations of mechanics. On
the other hand, if I want my model to be an exhaustive description of
what is around us, all the most basic questions have to emerge and be
dealt with. It is a good sign that they derive from the lowest level of
the construction process, to later become the empirical laws observed
in experiments. Let us look at this more deeply.
The bare electron is a kind of balloon, filled up of circulating fluid,
that remains at rest in empty space. In particular, such a bubble does

not explode. In classical mechanics, one may say that there exists
a surface tension keeping the object well-balanced. Where does this
tension come from? I cannot invoke the pre-existence of a membrane
with an appropriate atomic character, since there are no suitable sub-
structures. An explanation must be found within the context of the
underlying geometrical structure. As I specified before, the pressure p
turns out to be different from zero at the boundary.
In the study of free-boundary flows, in the case of ideal fluids,
the difference of pressure across a surface boundary in equilibrium is
proportional, via a certain constant σ, to a scalar quantity obtained
by taking the divergence of the normal vector field with respect to the
surface under consideration. To the first order of approximation, the
above quantity may be put in relation to the so called mean curvature.
In the case of the toroid, by denoting with R1 and R2 the minor and
the major radii respectively, the mean curvature is on average equal to
1/R1 + 1/R2 ; more precisely, it is 1/R1 + 1/(R2 + R1 ) at the outmost
equatorial circumference, and 1/R1 +1/(R2 −R1 ) at the innermost one.
Hence, the curved shape of the ring surface testifies to a difference of
pressure between the interior and the exterior of the ring.
In practical applications, depending from the types of fluid in-
volved, the constant σ is determined experimentally. Here σ should
instead be deduced from the model, without the introduction of ad-
ditional rules. This could be theoretically possible because the equa-
tions are not only describing the evolution of the single fluid velocity
V (that by itself is probably not a sufficient condition to reconstruct
the behavior at the boundary), but they follow the entire electrody-
namical history (i.e., they are coupled with Maxwell’s type equations),
providing for suitable physical properties of the (infinitesimally thick)
separation membrane. Information might be recovered by passing to
the limit on the width of a suitable thin layer built around the surface
separating the inner region from the outer universe. A possible start-
ing point for a more accurate analysis is the Bernoulli equation, that
can be easily recovered from the set of model equations (see (90) in
Appendix F). Note that Bernoulli’s principle was devised on purpose
to deal with changes of pressure caused by different speeds of a fluid.
A typical application is the study of the transversal pressure in a Ven-
turi tube, which is an effect very similar to the one we are considering
here.
Another direct link between pressure and curvature is obtained

as follows. By taking the trace of Einstein’s equation, one discovers
that p is proportional to the scalar curvature R (see section 1.5 and
(96) in Appendix F), which is an excellent geometrical invariant. In
a two dimensional space R is the so-called Gaussian curvature, which
is quite easy to compute with standard tools. In 4D (including time)
the situation is more intricate. Now, it is not just the 3D shape of the
toroid that decides the function R, but how things develop in time.
Even if the set is apparently stationary, there are photons lapping the
surface and they are associated with a frequency which is inversely
proportional to the size of the toroid section. As we saw above, at
experimental level at least, there is a straightforward nexus relating
a suitable 2D curvature of the free surface and the pressure of the
separated fluids. Some paragraphs above I also said that the scalar
curvature is expected to be proportional to ω 2 , where ω is related
to the photon’s frequency; this is the result obtainable in simplified
circumstances, at least. I am tempted to deduce from this property
that the difference of pressure across a separation boundary is propor-
tional to the difference ω12 − ω22 of the squared frequencies. Compatible
with this guess is the observation that the radial pressure present at
the boundary of the bare electron actually behaves as the frequency
squared (see (114) in Appendix G). There is no direct relation how-
ever between R and the mean curvature, thus it is difficult to jump to
conclusions. I am not experienced enough to be able to proceed with
these arguments in order to find a correct place for all the pieces of
this puzzle with the hope of more precise theoretical results. For the
moment, it is enough to have recognized that a problem exists and its
possible solution may rely on geometrical assumptions.
Always in accordance with the equations, a stationary field may be
added to the dynamical solution corresponding to the outer secondary
ring. A configuration using the minimum of photons allowed should
correspond to a state of minimal energy. By setting ρ̃ = divE, where
E is the electric field in the secondary vortex, I can now impose that
ρ̃ = 0 and divB = 0, without introducing singularities. This oppor-
tunity comes from the presence of the hole in the secondary toroid,
constituted by the primary vortex. In addition, one has enough de-
grees of freedom to define the stationary fields E and B in order to
get a global continuous solution defined on the union of the encap-
sulated rings. The setting is exactly the same we are used to seeing
in static electric or magnetic fields, except for the removal of singu-
larities. The outer shell (up to its external boundary) simulates the
electric field of the exterior of a charged homogeneous dielectric. In
conclusion, one can construct a continuous prolongation of the station-
ary electromagnetic fields outside the bare electron, in such a way that
ρ̃ = 0 (while ρ is constant and different from zero inside the particle).
Such a stationary solution must also be sustained by a dynamical ge-
ometrical environment. In fact, the existence of both the stationary
components is subjected to the presence of the background system of
rotating photons, that curve the space-time and actually provide for a
stable support.
Figure 2.2: Two encapsulated spinning rings. The inner one is an electron
dragging the outer one at lower frequency and causing a discontinuity in the
velocity field. The stationary electric and magnetic fields are described by
continuous functions. In particular, the intensity of E grows linearly inside
the electron (ρ > 0 constant) and decays outside, displaying zero divergence
(ρ̃ = 0). The illustration above is qualitative, hence it does not reflect the
real shape of the secondary ring and its peripheral velocity.
From different sides of the same frontier, the electromagnetic waves

of the bare electron and the outer shell march at different velocities,
according to suitable eikonal equations based on deformed space-time
geometries. The geometrical setting degenerates at the common bor-
der. Although there are no measurable discontinuities for the field V
across the 2D surface, since its differentiation is only taken along the
streamlines, traces of the presence of a third dimension should be no-
ticeable. As mentioned above, they are expected to come out through
Figure 2.3: Schematic

representation of the sec-
tions of three different
types of neutrinos. We
can have a single ro-
tating photon in a hol-
low toroid, with the pos-
sible addition of a sta-
tionary electric field with
ρ = 0 (first two pictures).
Otherwise, we can have
a rotating photon in a
solid toroid (third pic-
ture). Finally, the last
picture refers to the sec-
tion of an electron.
a limit process and contain the rule that relates the difference of pres-
sure across the surface with some invariant curvature of the space.
Thus, an analysis of the behavior of the model equations in the neigh-
borhood of a separation boundary should guarantee a certain number
of properties. Indeed, I would expect the continuity of the stationary
components of the electric and magnetic fields across the boundary, as
well as the continuity of the normal gradient of pressure. Note instead
that the pressure itself may be discontinuous (only its gradient appears
in the model equations). In the sequel, I will take these conditions for
granted, although at the moment they are still a conjecture.
It is useful to code the various situations we shall encounter with
the help of a schematic approach. The examination of the section
of the toroid already contains enough information to draw the main
conclusions, therefore a qualitative sketch of the principal features of
a particle can be obtained by the simple pictures shown in figures 2.3
and 2.4. In the first one, we can see the ring sections of some kinds of
neutrinos and an electron. The most basic neutrino is composed of a
single rotating photon (k = 1 in the cylindrical solutions of Appendix
F). Its sinusoid aspect is graphically shown by two bumps (see figure
4.2). It is a Maxwellian wave, so that ρ = 0. We also know that the
mass m is zero. There is a direction of rotation indicated by the arrow,
although there is no need to introduce the vector field V. Stationary
electromagnetic fields may be added; in particular when the hole is

present one can impose ρ = 0. The neutrino with no hole is the
backbone of the electron; it also has m = 0 and ρ = 0. Finally, the
bare electron has additional properties. It displays a constant electric
density ρ > 0 and a positive mass. The arrows inside the circle give
an idea of the distribution of the electric field. The velocity V is now
rigorously defined, as well as a constant magnetic field orthogonal to
the page, in such a way to form a right-handed triplet (E, B, V). In
reality, E and B do not remain firm but, being added to a time-evolving
solution, they oscillate in the neighborhood of a steady configuration.
As far as figure 2.4 is concerned, we see in the first picture a bare
electron surrounded by a secondary slower vortex with radial electric
field having ρ = 0 (the second neutrino of figure 2.3). It is natural to
assign a spin equal to 21 to all these objects, though, without any quan-
titative consideration, this choice just turns out to be a convention.
The drawings are qualitative, so that the effective shape of the section
of such a secondary vortex may not be a circle. Scales and velocities
are also not respected. Regarding the second picture of figure 2.4, I
will be able to provide the details in a moment.
The formation of an outer vortex looks like an initial attempt to
transfer the charge from the bare electron to the outside world. Note
that this can be only done if energy is present in the surroundings. Of
course, in addition to the two already available, one can assume the
existence of further encapsulating rings. Thus, the process of trans-
ferring the charge can be achieved by quantized stages. Anyway, this
is a problem that will be faced in chapter three. Nevertheless, there
is another way to add stationary solutions to the secondary vortex,
ensuring the continuity of the stationary fields E and B. This can be
done by taking ρ̃ = divE 6= 0 constant (different from the constant
inside the electron), implying the onset of new pressure p̃ (see second
picture of figure 2.4). In this way, the original electron ring turns out
to be covered by a sort of charged and massive envelope.
Because of the presence of the external pressure, the inner bound-
ary of the secondary vortex exerts a force on the primary vortex by
contracting it with respect to both the minor and the major diameters.
We can then assume that an equilibrium is reached when the normal
derivative of p̃ is equal to that of p. On the exterior boundary of the
secondary vortex, one can impose that the normal derivative of p̃ is
zero. The whole system should be able to find an appropriate balance,
stabilizing the shape of the separation and the external surfaces. In

addition, one can require that ρ and ρ̃ are adjusted in such a way that
the total charge (proportional to the sum of the densities multiplied
by the respective ring volumes) is the electron charge (without modi-
fying the constant µ). This is reasonably possible if we recall that the
entire annular object is a double connected region excavated in the 3D
space, and in section 2.1 we established a sort of connection between
this topology and the invariance of the charge e.
Figure 2.4: The bare electron of figure 2.3 is encircled by a secondary vortex
ring. In the first case, the outside charge density is zero. In the second case it
is positive, with the corresponding creation of further mass. The so modified
setting recalls the so-called muon.
The final result is a two-layered bare elementary particle, probably

a bit smaller than the electron, but displaying the same charge. As in
the case of the electron, the newborn entity is a member of a family
depending on a parameter, which is the ratio between the major and
the minor diameters of the global toroid, indicating the frequency of
the photons circulating in it (see figure 2.1). Note that there are now
two independent sets of photons and the proportion of their frequencies
can be determined when searching for the equilibrium configuration.
Again, one is naturally led to conclude that the global spin is equal to
1
2.
The alternative version of the electron found above might be the

muon. This is an unstable particle (with a relatively long life how-
ever) that shares all its properties with the electron, except that it is
more massive (about 206 times more)54 . Instability is a vague concept
in particle physics. Indeed, it is not possible to distinguish among a
truly unstable object (that exists mathematically, but unable to stay
in equilibrium independently of the applied prturbation) and an effec-
tively stable object with a very small stability basin. This is a kind of
analysis that could be rigorously done on my muon model, but with
an extreme waste of computational resources.
The study of the muon mass can be done more easily; it is the
question of summing up the integral of ρ − p/c2 in the inner toroid
and the integral of ρ̃ − p̃/c2 in the outer toroid. There is anyway a
severe drawback. The function p is uniquely determined by setting the
pressure to be equal to zero at the center of the inner toroid. Instead,
the pressure p̃ is determined up to an additive constant and I have no
reason to conclude that the global pressure has to be continuous across
the common interface (realistically, this should not be the case). To
say the truth, I expect a gap between p and p̃ for the reasons discussed
in the previous paragraphs. Indeed, the difference in velocity of the
internal and the external photons produces a jump in the curvature
properties of the 4D space-time when approaching either side. We also
said that the scalar curvature R must be proportional to p. Hence,
more quantitative results can be given only after a serious pondering
of what actually happens at the interface. The lack of information
about the behavior at the boundaries should not prevent us however
from advancing conjectures and continuing the discussion.
Anticipating some of the results of section 2.5, the essence of my
reasoning can be summarized as follows. The discontinuities of pres-
sure witness that something important happens on the separating sur-
faces. Energy is concentrated there, that in the classical sense can be
interpreted as something due to surface tension. Breaking a surface
54
In [26], p.425, S. De Benedetti writes: “... but the muon is a puzzle: nobody
knows why its mass should be different from that of the electron, since muons
and electrons are identical in all other ways. Furthermore, at present state of our
knowledge one has the feeling that the world would be essentially the same if the
muon did not exist, and thus this particle remains both unexplained and unneeded”.
I agree on the statement that the muon is unnecessary; it is however important to
have it in order to comprehend how mass is assigned to particles. If it was not yet
discovered, my approach would be able to theoretically predict its existence.
can liberate this energy, with a pop that recalls that of blowing soap
bubbles. The process alters the global topology and, at the same time,
modifies masses.
Figure 2.5: Particles involved during muon decay. The muon (top left)
impacts with a suitable neutrino (top right). The external shell breaks up
destroying the topological environment. As a consequence, the extra mass
of the muon disappears. The electron (bottom left) remains isolated, while
the surrounding envelope merges with the previous neutrino to form a unique
structure (bottom right). Spins are so preserved before and after the collapse.
Formally, the reaction takes the form: µ + ν1 → e + ν2 . This can be reinter-
preted in the following form: µ → e + ν1 + ν 2 , where the muon gets rid of
the secondary shell that generates a further anti-rotating ring (spin = − 12 ) to
maintain momentum. The recombination phenomenon recalls that pertain-
ing to the formation of vortices and anti-vortices in fluids (see figure 2.20).
Anti-neutrinos are introduced in section 2.6.
Hitting a muon in the proper way, for instance with the help of
an energetic photon, can destroy its outer ring with a drastic reduc-
tion of mass. The energy will always be preserved; it is just going

elsewhere, perhaps momentarily stored in some neutrinos because of
momentum conservation. The most significant remnant of this inter-
action is a muon without its secondary toroid, i.e., an electron. Such a
subatomic process corresponds to that effectively documented by lab-
oratory experiments. The complicated recombination, schematically
shown in figure 2.5, is more properly an evolution of 3D rings, moving
according to the laws of fluid dynamics. It is not easy to figure out all
the processes in detail. I will try to provide further explanations at
the end of this chapter. Nature offers however numerous suggestions
to interpret these phenomena at various scales of complexity55 , up to
the fantastic elaborateness of turbulence.
The two neutrinos ν1 and ν2 of figure 2.5 are purely indicative.
Their exact organization largely depends on the causes responsible for
the breaking of the muon’s sealing envelope. Everything also depends
on the environment. Going ahead with my exposition, it will always
be more evident that particles are far from being “naked”; they are
dressed by an ocean of electromagnetic signals, like a tornado in the
atmosphere56 . Certainly, the rules of mechanics must hold, and spin
conservation belongs to this category. There is a very short transi-
tion period, during which the electromagnetic information stored in
the muon’s secondary vortex is reorganized. Preserving a global con-
tinuity, the electric and magnetic fields mutate their displacement, by
stretching and twisting. Pressure diminishes until it is different from
zero only in the final massive body left: the electron. Communications
between the various parts are made possible via the electromagnetic
background. Note that these kinds of transitions occur systematically
at the atomic level and they constitute the environment for complex
interactions at a larger scale. Thus, they should deserve a lot of at-
tention. Outside the muon, further shells can be built. They can be
“inert”, meaning that they carry fields having zero divergence, able
55
From the introduction in [112]: “It is in the flows with topological transitions
where the free surface manifests itself in the most spectacular way, making both ex-
perimental studies and the mathematical description of fluid motion so notoriously
difficult. At the same time, due to the complex nature of these flows there are still
many amazing effects waiting to be discovered and understood even in seemingly
simple phenomena we see every day”.
56
From [43], p.148: “This is what physicists call a physical electron: an electron
and its vacuum polarization cloud. An electron without a vacuum polarization
cloud is called a naked electron”.
to transport the muon’s charge far away. They can be “active”, i.e.,
contributing with other massive slices. The short living tauon, the
heavier companion of the muon, might come from this last process.
2.3 Protons
The next and more ambitious step is to build the proton. Here the
computations get far more complicated and let me honestly admit that
I do not have a rigorous proof of all the claims. I will conduct a study
on the feasibility of the project of creating proton-like particles, argu-
ing with classical tools as done up to this moment. The conclusions
emerging from high-energy laboratory experiments indicate that pro-
ton structure is rather complex. Therefore, the model has to reflect
such an intricate behavior. The conjectures here advanced could be
tested with a series of numerical computations. This achievement, al-
though not immediate, is not too hard. The setting up of an effective
numerical code requires however time and professional skill.
The new particle is also expected to have a toroid shape. In this
respect it will be isomorphic to the electron, carrying in absolute value
the same charge (recall the topological interpretation given in section
2.1). But this will be the only similarity. The difficulty in the new
construction is that the ring is going to be quite deformed, at the point
that its hole can be reduced to a segment. In fluid dynamics, structures
of this type are known as Hill’s spherical vortices. If in the case of
the electron the section is almost a circle, in the new type of vortex
the determination of the section’s shape is a demanding exercise. I
also cannot exclude that the section is not of steady type, but freely
oscillates around an intermediate configuration with periodic motion.
The most significant part is however the interior and, regarding this,
I am going to follow a track suggested by some proven facts plus a
dose of intuition, although there is also room to formulate alternative
hypotheses.
It might sound weird, but the base for operations is going to be
again the bare electron. The first idea is to change the polarity of the
electric field, so switching the sign of ρ. However, this strategy does
not lead to any stable configuration. More precisely, when dealing with
antimatter (see section 2.6), such an option will be allowed, reproduc-
ing in this way the positron (the antimatter conjugate of the electron).
Remaining instead in the framework studied so far, the introduction of
a stationary component having electric and magnetic fields of different

signature with respect to the electron, raises some problems. Going
through the computations, one realizes that it is impossible to impose
that the normal derivative of the pressure at the particle’s boundary
is zero as done in Appendix G (see (111), implying that γ0 must be
negative, since δ > 1). Following this idea, one finds that there is no
balance between the centrifugal acceleration and the electrodynamical
component given by the expression µ(E + V × B) (see (86) in Ap-
pendix F). As a consequence, the body tends to inflate, squeezing the
central hole. Even assuming a bound, due to self-interaction and the
consequent development of inner pressure, a stable state seems how-
ever not achievable. This is in contrast with the naive prediction I
proposed in [45], section 5.4. In absence of a more throughout analy-
sis, that proposal, perfectly fitting the electron requirements, was still
too qualitative for the proton. In the end, it is a good discovery that
theoretically the proton fails to be so simple. In some way, this is an
indirect confirmation of the model: if the trivial proton existed, the
theory would disagree with experiments.
In order to build a proton, there is the need for a robust scaf-

folding. For this reason, we insist one more time on the stable bare
electron. Provided a suitable amount of external energy is present, we
assume that photons are dragged in rotatory motion in order to wrap
the electron forming a Hill’s vortex (see figure 2.6) presenting a kind
of ellipsoidal shape. The problem of determining Maxwellian waves of
this type has been numerically solved in [23], by looking for suitable
eigenfunctions associated with the vector wave equation. This exercise
has been explicitly solved in a complex geometry, constituted by the
excavated Hill’s vortex deprived of the internal electron ring. For the
reasons explained in [23], the dynamical behavior is obtained from a
time-dependent linear combination of two eigenfunctions, correspond-
ing respectively to the fourth and the fifth eigenvalues of a suitable
elliptic differential operator. The computational domain is such that
the above eigenvalues are equal. This means that the central torus
must have a prescribed diameter and occupy a fixed position inside
the secondary torus. These configurations are very rare; therefore,
the difficulty of the computation is detecting such peculiar situations.
The procedure can be taken as a general recipe to find exceptionally
weird solutions of the entire set of Maxwell’s equations, generalizing
the simplest one defined on the most basic toroid.
In the specific case we are dealing with, the solution consists of two
almost independent spinning photons exhibiting a phase difference of
90o degrees, interlacing in a complicated dance (the animations in [51]
are more descriptive than a thousands words). A rough idea of what
happens is given in figure 2.6. When the shape of the secondary toroid
is a perfect sphere, from the experiments one recovers that the fre-
quency
√ associated with this periodic evolution is approximately equal
to c 136.3/4πd, where d is the diameter of the large ring. In the end,
the structure will basically contain two distinct neutrinos: one inside
the internal ring and one floating outside. Using a term borrowed from
fluid dynamics, the secondary lower-frequency trapped photons corre-
spond to “recirculations” around the primary fast rotating vortex. As
in the case of the single ring, at the outer boundary, the magnetic field
is zero and the electric field is lined up with the direction of motion.
Figure 2.6: Maxwellian periodic waves can be found in complicated domains

as the above one, where a secondary fat toroid encircles a more standard one
(determined by the small hole shown in the three sections). Two steps of
the evolution are plot, showing the intensity of the electric field. From these,
one recognizes the correlated rotatory movement of two photons (each one
represented by black and white spots). The arrows qualitatively indicate the
phases of the evolution. The photons are not completely untied but present
time-dependent overlapping areas.
Let me remind the reader once again that these are not specula-
tions, but effective solutions of the Maxwell’s system. Let me now
enter the conjectural part. In fact, the next and final step is to dress
such a dynamical structure with a stationary component. Hence, the

general set of model equations has to be taken into account. In this
regard, I have no numerical confirmations about the feasibility of this
operation. Nevertheless, a description can be attempted.
Figure 2.7: Schematic representation of a proton containing a revolving

inner ring (not to scale) comparable to an electron plus two recirculating
photons (see figure 2.6). The magnetic field is orthogonal to the page in such
a way that the triplet (E, B, V) is right-handed. Note that B always points
in the same direction, even when the direction of E is switched. Reasonably,
the electric field can be taken as the gradient of the function plotted on the
right. The internal white circle is a kind of peak in the middle of two deep
depressions.
Adding the stationary part amounts to providing the entire object

with charge, magnetic properties and a brand new mass (see previ-
ous section). Let us suppose that the inner ring behaves as a stable
electron. In this circumstance, we have a radial diverging electric field
with ρ constant and greater than zero (remember that I said that an
electron is positive, see also section 2.6). We then prolong the sta-
tionary solution outside with continuity, whereas the velocity field will
suffer a discontinuous gap. As we saw in section 2.2, there are two

ways to achieve this result. One can make the extension by imposing
ρ = 0, but this is not the case I am interested in. The alternative is to
argue as in the case of the muon, so generating a charged and massive
surrounding of the bare electron. Now we impose ρ 6= 0 and, thanks
to equation (86) in Appendix F, pressure is then going to be present.
This is the main ingredient for creation of mass and, at the same time,
pressure will also act on the inside electron by reducing its size, until
an equilibrium is reached.
On the farther outside boundary we need instead to require the
normal gradient of pressure to be zero. The idea is to look for a
distribution of the electric field having a couple of spots with negative
divergence (on average the proton is going to be “negatively” charged).
A possible combination is depicted in figure 2.7, where one can see two
negative sources and a positive one, giving a global negative integral
on the whole domain. A way to set up the stationary electric field
is by taking the gradient of a potential function obtained from the
eigenfunction, related to the smallest eigenvalue, of a suitable elliptic
differential operator with zero boundary conditions (see the second
picture in figure 2.7). Note that the fields are not uniformly distributed
on the surface. In addition, both the electric and magnetic fields are
expected to be zero along the main axis.
An important theoretical result (and a significant validation of my
conjectures) would be to show that, given the constant µ as in (88)
(Appendix F) and assuming the total charge to be equal to −e, the
global mass of the newborn object actually agrees with that of the
proton. The difficulties inherent with these computations are similar to
those described in the case of the muon (see previous section). Another
achievement would be to discover that the diameter agrees with the
experimentally estimated quantity: 1.8 × 10−15 (1.8 fm), which is a bit
less than the electron’s diameter. Of course, if these facts were true I
would be incredibly happy.
As I said, photons trapped in unconventional vortices may assume
interesting dynamical behaviors, where one does not necessarily rec-
ognize an effective rotation around a common center. Moreover, by
adjusting the shape of the ring, the internal evolution may be altered
so that the photons follow different patterns. On the other hand, it is
well known that the proton is a very complex particle, displaying non-
trivial substructures. This is one of the main issues that led to the in-
troduction of quarks. Differently from the electron, which is extremely

flexible and resistant to deformations, and seems not to have peculiar
internal organization, the proton looks more rigid and compact but
with a complicated internal animation. It shows however some elastic
properties and, when not at rest, assumes multiple forms57 .
Figure 2.8: Shapes of the secondary toroid as a function of the thickness of

the internal one. In these sectioned 3D domains, Maxwell’s equations can be
fully solved (see [23]).
Examining the numerical solutions obtained in [23] by solving Max-

well’s equations in toroid-shaped domains, one finds a correlation be-
tween the thickness of the central annulus and that of the secondary
ellipsoidal toroid (see figure 2.8). When the minor diameter of the
internal ring tends to zero (infinite frequency of rotation) the vertical
axis of the ellipsoid ends up to be .60 times the horizontal width. The
resemblance with experiments on fluids is astonishing (see figure 2.9).
Hence, similarly to the case of the electron, my proton model is an
exponent of a family depending on a parameter (the frequency of the
internal vortex), even when external perturbations are not applied. In-
finite other solutions might be studied by assuming that the proton’s
shape is not exactly an ellipsoid. Nevertheless, one has to consider
that Maxwell’s equations introduce heavy constraints, so that there is
a strict relation between the form of the inner and the outer surface.
57
From [92]: “For high momentum quarks with spin parallel to that of the proton,
the shape resembles that of a peanut, but for quarks with anti-parallel spin the
shape is that of a bagel”.
Figure 2.9: Fluid

vortex formation.
Concentric toroid
patterns are made
visible thanks to
the injection of
dye.
Courtesy of T.T.
Lim, Mech. Eng.,
National Univer-
sity of Singapore
(see also [79]).
The mathematical analysis of this nice and difficult problem is a stimu-

lating shape-optimization exercise, independently from the possibility
of applications.
Most of the known properties about protons follow from high-
energy experiments with large colliders. The deep inelastic scatter-
ing of protons reveals recurrent behaviors, suggesting the existence
of three primary constituents (two up types quarks u and one down
type quark d), members of a family from which matter is supposed to
be generated. Quarks u and d have a charge equal to − 32 and 31 of
the electron’s charge, respectively. Somehow, the displacement pro-
posed in figure 2.7 approximately reflects such a situation. As in the
quark’s case, my three sub-entities cannot be isolated from the con-
text they live in. There is an exchange and recombination of quarks in
nuclear reactions, in a repetitive way that gives strength to the theory
of quantum chromodynamics and suggests a certain number of basic
interaction rules. Recent electron-proton scattering experiments also
reveal internal magnetic properties of the protons, attributed to the
movement of the charged quarks. Note that quantum chromodynamics
is exclusively based on statistical data, since, at such microscopic level,
this is the only way to interpret the results of experiments. Roughly
speaking, one throws objects inside a black box and, from the com-
parisons of input and output, tries to figure out what is in there.
At this point of the exposition, it should be clear to the reader what
is my opinion about particle structure; in particular, proton internal
organization does not comply with the existence of subparticles. As far
as I am concerned, the proton is made of a bunch of trapped photons,
spinning approximately at the speed of light in a very tiny region of
space and providing the particle with charge, magnetic momentum

and mass, in a way similar to that already described for the electron.
The special geometrical setting, makes the recipe of the proton more
complicated than that of the electron, but the basic ingredients are the
same. Thus, the most elementary brick remains the photon, carrying
electromagnetic information and moving like a fluid.
I do not deny that experimental evidence suggests, through the
detection of peaks in the statistical response, the possible existence
of substructures, showing up in certain resonance conditions. There
is no need however to look for a specific individual naming of the
various constituents, since they are all expressions of a global unique
phenomenon and are automatically destroyed when the mother par-
ticle is broken. Charge is also existing globally and cannot split up.
Therefore, that quark d carries minus one third of the unitary charge,
and the two quarks u carry four thirds of it, does not look very mean-
ingful in this context, although one can effectively recognize from my
proton model that the total charge is the sum of positive and negative
contributions.
The fact that a group of quarks may split and rejoin in different
manners, based on coded algebraic laws, does not testify to their ef-
fective presence. Substructures in a complicated flow also undergo
similar decomposition and recombination processes. The parts mix
up with continuity before reemerging in a modified fashion; in other
situations they experience changes of topology through the creation
or the breakage of fictitious separation membranes. The real novelty
here is that such fluids carry electromagnetic information; thus, to-
gether with the standard concepts of density, pressure and vorticity,
one can discern electric and magnetic properties. In addition, from
my viewpoint, there is no need to introduce gluons (other elementary
particles, acting as exchange particles for the “color” force between
quarks) and the emission of gamma photons from a nucleus will turn
out to be a very natural electromagnetic process. Nevertheless, there
is the need to show, with more accurate calculations, that the struc-
ture I am proposing here resembles (beyond a reasonable doubt) that
of a real proton, and this is still a weak point of my description.
There are thousands of papers and sumptuous budgets in parti-
cle physics58 , thus, what I am writing here is certainly heretical to
58
From [95], p.10: “The symbol of elementary particle physics is the giant accel-
erator. Without this tool there can be no particle physics experiments, and without
the ears of most of the researchers in the field. The quark model
agrees quite well with observations and many predicted results have
been lately confirmed. There are however many open questions left59 ;
first of all, the quark model looks completely disjointed from reality
and does not let us understand the end of the story, since work is
still in progress. Then there are philosophical questions. What are
quarks made of?60 . How does the mediation mechanism work, during
interactions? How do they combine with electromagnetism? My al-
ternative explanation is not consolidated by a long history of research
and I am sure that, at this early stage of development, it can be eas-
ily exposed to the attacks of experienced particle physicists. At the
moment, I can only reproduce with classical tools some features of
the main elementary particles. I consider it an important achievement
that this can be done with the help of partial differential equations,
a mathematical approach that has been almost forgotten in particle
physics. A straightforward check of the validity of the model can be
obtained by applying numerical techniques, with the goal of getting
approximated solutions to the equations that compare well with the
experiments. Unfortunately, even for the most elementary configu-
rations, the computations are rather massive, so that the problem is
going to be postponed.
Remaining within the framework of the quark, let us look at results
regarding the disintegration of protons. In fact, significant indications
are experimentally obtained from the encounter of protons and anti-
protons, where a series of short-living conglomerations of subparticles
are observed. Similar conclusions may be achieved through my model.
This issue requires the introduction of antimatter, so that my discus-
sion may be more precise after examining the material of section 2.6.
Let me say for the moment that an anti-proton contains one quark
of type d and two quarks of type u. When particle and anti-particle
meet all their components mix up (see figure 2.19, where one has to
remember the all charges have sign opposed to the usual ones). The
experiments there can be no progress in physics”.
59
From [95], p.28: “... the quark is one of the particles thought to be ‘elementary’
at present, and still has not escaped the realm of fiction completely”.
60
From [43], p.263: “Perhaps there is one more level of structure, and leptons and
quarks are composite systems consisting of as yet unknown subunits. Such lepton-
quark subunits have already been introduced into the physics literature, bearing
such names as subquarks, preons, stratons, rishons, and haplons. [...] There may
even more levels in the hierarchy of substructures, nothing is known at present”.
couple ud joins to form a negative pion π − (positive, according to my

notations). The couple du joins to form a positive pion π + (negative,
in truth). Finally, the couple uu produces a neutral pion π 0 , that,
most of the times suddenly decays to a bunch of photons. Let us
start by saying something about this last case. Photon production is
quite a mystery in the quark environment: why should they come out?
It is certainly not a novelty in my context, where everything derives
from electromagnetic radiation. This is in favor of my approach. Pos-
itive and negative pions display very short life and in high percentage
decay into muons and neutrinos. According to the muon definition
given in section 2.2, this occurrence could also be explainable from my
viewpoint (see the description in section 2.6). Pions may also directly
decay into electrons and neutrinos, and this is also compatible with
my setting (see figure 2.5). All these processes involve alterations of
masses, which is an uncontrolled procedure within the context of parti-
cle physics. As far as I am concerned, masses are modified because the
topologies of the various objects change; so, every time a separation
membrane is broken (see section 2.2), sudden variations of masses are
noticed. Such a crucial subject is going to be reconsidered in section
2.5.
2.4 Nuclei
In order to investigate atoms, a commitment that will start from the
next chapter, it is necessary to deal first with their nuclei. To this
end, I may just provide some general thoughts, since reliable results
can only be given after a serious and systematic analysis, at the mo-
ment beyond the scope of this paper. In order to proceed, I need to
introduce the neutron. This is known to be an unstable particle with
an averaged age of 300 seconds. Mathematically, it is unclear if the
neutron is really unstable; it may have instead a very narrow basin of
stability, statistically broken in a finite period of time as a consequence
of external factors. The neutron’s mass is slightly larger than that of
the proton61 . At a certain distance such a particle may be consid-
ered electrically neutral, but scattering experiments show that it has
a positive core surrounded by a negative cover. In the decay process,
61
From [43], p.49: “Oddly enough, the situation is reversed with nucleons: the
neutral particle is heavier than the charged one. Why this is so we still do not
know”.
the proton gives rise to a proton, an electron and a neutrino. The

neutrino is not actually observed, but its official justification relies on
spin and energy conservation arguments. According to quantum chro-
modynamics, there should be three quarks inside a neutron. They are
two down quarks d and one up quark u, with total charge equal to
zero.
Now, the quark version is quite in disagreement with my theory.
Indeed, I think it is more credible to assume that a neutron is actu-
ally composed of three separated elementary particles: a proton, an
electron and a neutrino62 . Since we now know many things about
their properties, we can easily find a natural combination, fitting the
neutron’s shape. I propose for instance that of figure 2.10 (see also
the front cover of [112] for an amazingly similar UFO profile, in the
framework of viscous fluids).
Figure 2.10: A combination of a proton and an electron, plus a suitable

neutrino, provides the model for the neutron. At a distance, the new particle
is electrically neutral, it has about the same mass as the proton and its con-
stituents are exactly those observed in neutron decay. Its spin turns out to be
equal to 12 .
62
From [91], p.156: “Although Heisenberg chose to consider the neutron as a
fundamental particle, in the succeeding deliberations he equivocated, owing prin-
cipally to the problem of where the electrons originated in β-decay. And so, when
necessary, he invoked arguments based on conservation of energy - for example,
when he discussed the stability of certain nuclei against β-decay. But then, at the
paper’s conclusion, he suggested that for certain processes such as the scattering of
light from nuclei, it is useful to assume that the neutron is a composite particle”.
The idea that nuclei contain electrons dates back to the earlier
stages of atomic physics and was dismantled long ago. Modern physi-
cists are in fact quite skeptical about this version63 , safeguarding as
much as possible the quark origin of the neutron. Attempts to give rig-
orous explanations rely on the uncertainty principle64 that forces the
nuclear components round an everlasting roundabout. If such com-
ponents were at rest, they would be fully “detectable”, since position
and velocity are known. With the addition of more technical insight,
such a situation excludes the presence of electrons in nuclei (see [122],
p.14). My model aims at being a deterministic one, so that this type of
argument should not apply. The connections with quantum theories
and my way of interpreting the Heisenberg principle will be devel-
oped starting from chapter three. On the other hand, there is already
something moving fast inside each particle, with no hope of escape: the
photons. They perfectly satisfy the Heisenberg inequality; so I have
found a harmonious way to accommodate both classical and quantum-
like justifications.
Going back to figure 2.10, the presence of the neutrino is due to a
kind of cushion, a recirculating vortex between the two spinning bare
particles. It is not evident how to attribute a spin to the whole par-
ticle. However, when splitting the neutron into its components, the
algebraic sum of their spins agrees with the standard one (i.e., neutron
has spin equal to 21 ). That is also the procedure indirectly followed in
experiment, where conclusions are reached after examining the various
fragments. Neutrinos are important ingredients both for stabilizing a
nuclear ensemble and providing the necessary conservation properties
of momenta. They must then be counted for an overall evaluation. For
example, the nucleus of Nitrogen 14 N, having a real spin equal to zero,
according to my view must contain 14 protons and 7 electrons lead-
63
From the introduction in [107]: “The same reasoning which shows that there
could not be electrons in the nucleus shows that a neutron must not be thought
of as a composite particle, say a proton and an electron tightly bound, but that
the neutron must be treated as a fundamental particle on the same footing as the
proton. Indeed, it is useful to consider the neutron and the proton as simply two
different states of a single particle, the nucleon”. This reasoning is based on some
discrepancies related to the nucleus of Nitrogen to be discussed later on.
64
From [122], p.64: “The collective motion of nuclei must be very different from
those of a drop of liquid. In the latter case the molecular motions keep each molecule
localized to a relatively small part of the drop but in nuclei the uncertainty principle
does not permit localization of a nucleon to the same extent relative to the size of
a nucleus”.
ing instead to an odd parity spin. This rough computation, usually

put forth by physicists to show that nuclei cannot encapsulate elec-
trons, does not actually take into account the presence of additional
neutrinos.
Actual measurements agree with the model, since the proton has
an experimentally estimated diameter of 1.8 fm (1 fm = 10−15 meters)
and my electron has a global diameter of 2.7 fm. It has also to be re-
called that these elementary components are elastic vortex rings, hence
they enjoy a reasonable degree of freedom and adaptability. Moreover,
it is documented that the difference between the neutron mass and
that of the proton is slightly bigger than the electron mass. Recall
that the minor diameter of the electron may vary with the inverse of
its photon’s revolution frequency (see figure 2.1). Touching the pro-
ton is however forbidden to the electron, since the orientations of the
magnetic fields of the two particles are opposite (the triplet (E, B, V)
must always be right-handed); and probably this is the reason for the
instability of the neutron. Stationary fields must be added to the in-
termediate neutrino in order to join continuously those present at the
surfaces of the bare particles. The link must be done by respecting
the two divergence conditions: divE = 0 and divB = 0 (neutrinos are
Maxwellian solutions). Hence, the magnetic field has to comply with a
sudden variation within the neutrino support. Squeezing the neutrino
too much may effectively lead to a collapse of the entire structure.
The change of orientation of the magnetic field inside the neutron
ensemble is in agreement with the experimental evidence that the mag-
netic momentum of the neutron is smaller than that of the proton. It
is worthwhile at this point spending a few words on the magnetic prop-
erties of a particle, since it is an ambiguous issue. Heuristically, mag-
netic momentum µ ~ originates from the rotatory motion of a charged
body, like a tiny sphere revolving around its axis. This classical view
is rather in contrast with reality. As a matter of fact, by applying a
magnetic field to a standing electron or a proton we do not observe
any visible effect. In fact, particles are not magnets and do not display
any magnetic axis. Quantum physicists would say that this version of
the facts was replaced long ago in favor of a formal combination of
mathematical operators, that however take their inspiration from the
definition of angular momentum. Thus, it is forbidden to talk about
a real rotation, although the theory is build on such a primitive con-
cept (see footnote 93). Modifying experimentally the polarization of
a particle seems to be a difficult exercise65 . Spin detection is usually

achieved in an indirect way by examining the hyperfine structure of
emission spectra. Other tests determine the torque effect µ ~ ×B ~ in
the presence of a sophisticated magnetic environment B. ~ Therefore,
what is actually measured is the reaction of the particle to magnetism,
which is not necessarily a proof of any spinning-like behavior, or, in
milder form, it does not tell us how such a spinning occurs.
According to my interpretation, in the bare particle the magnetic
field follows closed lines around the spin axis (coinciding with the sym-
metry axis of the ring). The situation is similar to that of a current
flowing in a toroid wiring. Indeed, it is exceptionally similar, since
also at quantitative level the distribution of the magnetic field inside
an electron (where computations can be done explicitly) follows the
Biot-Savart law. By the way, we do not have to be amazed by these
coincidences. What is happening in a particle is ruled by the same
model that in the large-scale world describes the electric and magnetic
properties of matter. The result shows that it is possible to have a
rotatory kinetic behavior with no net magnetic flux through a surface
orthogonal to the spin axis. When an external magnetic field is applied
to my particle, there are actually changes inside its structure, brought
through the separation surface. I expect that these stimulations may
twist and jerk the particle but are not so serious as to accelerate the
whole object by shifting its baricentre, also because, if the perturbing
field is homogeneous, the rotatory displacement of the inner magnetic
field produces movements with zero average. These are however only
suppositions. To know more about this effect, a more careful theoreti-
cal analysis is required, also because it would be important to provide
a handy formula for evaluating µ ~ that compares well to experiment.
It is wise to observe that the magnitude of the magnetic momentum
has some sort of relation with particle masses, hence, until an expla-
nation of the meaning of mass is found (see section 2.5), the measured
65
From [116]: “One may think of obtaining polarized electrons by a means of a
kind of Stern-Gerlach experiment sending electrons through a strongly inhomoge-
neous magnetic field (although still varying on a microscopic scale). However, [...]
it is shown that a splitting of an electron beam according to spin orientation cannot
be attained in this way: the inhomogeneity of the magnetic field causes a spreading
of the charged electron beam (the particles of the Stern-Gerlach experiment are
electrically neutral), which is so large that the spreading arising from the different
orientations of the magnetic moment in the inhomogeneous magnetic field is not
detectable”.
Figure 2.11:
Possible ar-
rangement
of two pro-
tons, plus an
electron and
a neutrino
providing the
model for
the deuteron
(spin=1).
momenta of the various nuclei remain an unrelated set of numbers.

I will continue on the subject of magnetic momentum in section 3.2,
when discussing atoms. In that circumstance we will learn how impor-
tant the role of magnetic fields is in stabilizing atomic and molecular
structures.
Returning to the neutron, the existence of a nonzero magnetic mo-
mentum confirms that it is a composite particle (if it was totally neu-
tral one should find no magnetic properties), although in my version
quarks only appear inside the proton. Other confirmations in favor
of the neutron structure of figure 2.10 come from nuclear reactions,
where protons may be transformed into neutrons and vice versa, the
difference being the absorption or the release of electrons (or their
anti-particles) and high-frequency photons. In order to look for fur-
ther coincidences, it is necessary to proceed with the construction of
more involved aggregations.
A further step ahead is to build the deuteron. This is the nucleus
of heavy Hydrogen 2 H, composed of a neutron and a proton. There are
many ways to proceed. Without the help of numerical investigation,
that at this stage of complexity would be an ambitious commitment,
I can only propose some ideas. According to figure 2.11, we actually
find two protons sharing a single electron. As in more involved nuclei,
modifying a bit the position of the electron decides which proton is
going to remain a proton or became a neutron. These promiscuous
transformations are quite frequent in nuclear reactions and, as far as I
am concerned, they are not due to an exchange of quarks, which remain
instead confined within each proton in the form uud. Concerning the
neutron, the quark aggregation udd is then definitively abandoned.
This is a nice thing after all. In fact, it is not necessary to set the
quark charge according to the proportion 43 , − 13 . Based on figure 2.7,
the only restriction is that the sum of the charges of two up quarks
and one down quark must be equal to unity. As far as I know, nobody
at present has been able to isolate charges equal to one third of the
unitary one. Regarding the charge of mesons, I will express my opinion
in section 2.6.
In the deuteron, the various components are held together by a
suitable neutrino, produced by trapped photons dragged by the bare
particles. The creation of an interstitial pressure helps keep the system
stable. Electrically speaking the configuration is admissible, i.e., one
can actually place two charged spheres and a ring with opposite charge
in (unstable) equilibrium as in figure 2.11. Nevertheless, one should
quit the idea that the glue is exclusively based on classical electrostat-
ics. Fluid dynamics is instead the key issue here. This is also the secret
for keeping more protons inside a single nucleus. In fact, in my opin-
ion, there is no such concept as strong force. In a nucleus, bare protons
do not “see” each other, so they are not subject to any repulsive force.
The only way they have to communicate is through neighboring elec-
tromagnetic signals circulating in between. In small amounts the inner
photons help glue everything together; after a suitable threshold they
are instead the cause of a vigorous explosion. To know more about
the mechanism of repulsion in the case of equal charges the reader is
referred to section 3.2. One of the explanations for excluding electrons
from nuclei is that their presence, compatibly with other various re-
strictions, would lead to an extremely high Coulomb energy. Such a
concept as Coulomb potential does not apply in my situation, at least
not within the range of distances we are examining here. Interaction
at a distance between particles are dictated by quantum rules that are
going to be studied in chapter three. Within a nucleus we are still in
a sort of “level zero” regarding quantized stages.
Looking at figure 2.11, we notice that the various proton surfaces
almost adhere, not leaving enough room for undesired intruders. As
stated above, each bare particle knows about the existence of its com-
panions only if a source of energy in the form of neutrinos transmits
the information present at the various boundaries. If this is done in the
proper fashion, the two protons tend to repel but the electron acts as
a mediator. However, if further external energy enters the nucleus, it

may lacerate the delicate balance holding the structure together. Con-
sequently, a strong reaction is observed. For example, some photons
may violate the core by getting stuck inside. The structure “inflates”
and the collapse begins, with the result that some components of the
nucleus are ejected far away with extreme force. Note that to be ef-
fective, the perturbing photons have to be presumably of the same
wavelength of the deuteron dimensions (corresponding to frequencies
of the order of 1023 Hertz). Of course, the destruction process might
also be caused by the collision with other particles. The behavior
agrees with what is observed in radioactivity and, more in general, in
nuclear reactions, where elementary parts, such as electrons (β-decay)
or photons (γ-rays) are emitted. In an inverse process, electrons may
also be captured, becoming part of a nucleus and transforming protons
into neutrons. More complex parts, such as α-particles may also be
shot out and I will mention them again in a moment. Current explana-
tions of these phenomena are rather involved and require cumbersome
technicalities accessible to a limited community of experts in quantum
theories. Evidence of competing forces in the proximity of a nucleus
are reported66 , and I am more inclined to imagine a non-homogeneous
distribution of the charge inside a nucleus, rather than resorting to
the existence of inexplicable short-range strong attracting forces, only
conceived with the purpose of justifying nuclei compactness. In the
end, I think it is not a scandal to suppose that electrons are among
the constituents of nuclei; there could not be a better explanation of
the β-decay phenomenon! Despite the arguments I give in favor of
this hypothesis and the insufficiency of the arguments of the antago-
nists; I still have the feeling that many readers are going to repudiate
this assumption. Let me go on with the discussion and see if contin-
uing along this path is a feasible alternative or whether one is led to
contradictions.
Concerning again the deuteron, another viable hypothesis is that
the two protons, instead of being two separated entities, constitute a
single “nucleon” by sharing their internal quarks. The option would
roughly corresponds to the so called collective model of the nucleus in
66
From [35], p.511: “Both the α-particle scattering and the α-particle emission
analyses showed that there is a nuclear force, which is attractive, acting between the
particle and the nucleus, in addition to the repulsive Coulomb force acting between
the two”.
contrast to the independent particle model. This possibility brings us

back to the nontrivial analysis of constrained photons in regions with
multiple holes (see section 2.3). The external electron would serve to
stabilize the structure, by imposing an appropriate shaping. Indeed,
it is well known that the union of only two protons is tremendously
unstable. This version better follows the research trend in nuclear the-
ories, although the help of an isolated electron is still required. I am
not particularly inclined to this approach, since it does not help justify
how charges and masses sum up linearly (for example a structure with
3 protons and 4 neutrons has charge equal to 3 and mass almost equal
to 7). From the study of the assemblage of simpler units, the problem
now passes to the more demanding computation of the whole unified
configuration. One should first detect Maxwellian type solutions pro-
viding the structure with a stable support, and then look, compatibly
with the model equations, for stationary solutions to be added. The
reader can imagine how this study is going to be increasingly diffi-
cult as more sophisticated nuclei are taken into account. An attempt
in this direction must be tried, at least to show that the itinerary is
not precluded. The aim of this achievement is twofold. First of all,
there is the rediscovery of known properties of nuclei, beyond the al-
gebraic combination of basic elementary components (i.e., quarks and
gluons), with the goal of explaining why and how some configurations
are stable, possibly providing quantitative results. Secondly, there is
the appealing temptation to show that this can be actually done using
classical tools (electromagnetism and fluid dynamics).
Anyway, for the sake of both simplicity and convenience, I would
like to stay on the option of maintaining isolated electrons and pro-
tons. So, let me naively combine these main ingredients (together with
neutrinos) to form interesting aggregations. From now on the study is
purely speculative, although stimulating reflections will emerge. Let
me go ahead with the analysis of nuclei by introducing α-particles.
These are the nuclei of Helium 4 He. They consist of two protons and
two neutrons, that, based on my assumptions, make a total of four
protons, two electrons and a bunch of neutrinos, suitably encapsu-
lated in a tiny region of space, having an approximate diameter of 4
fm. These composite particles are almost indestructible and are the
primary building blocks of most of the more involved nuclei. A possi-
ble configuration is the one depicted in figure 2.12. The agglomerate
is quite interesting, since it can be naturally and easily combined with
other similar geometrical entities. Differently from what is shown in
figures 2.10 and 2.11, now neutrinos entirely cover the electrons. With
this I mean that the corresponding photons encircle the electron rings.
In this way, the orientation of the electron is opposite to that con-
sidered in figure 2.10 and matches that of the nearby protons. This
distinction was also pointed out in [23] (see the simulations regarding
the domains labeled with B and C respectively). The observation re-
marks that neutrinos are able to self-adapt to disparate circumstances,
in fact they reproduce the behavior of a fluid dragged by a system of
rotating gears. The reasons why the structure does not collapse from
the electric viewpoint are the same as those set forth for the deuteron.
Figure 2.12: Hypothetical way to arrange electrons and protons in order to

simulate an α-particle. Some neutrinos circulate around the bare particles
forming vortices whose spinning verse is in agreement with that of the parti-
cles. Together with a neat charge of two unities, a stationary magnetic field,
displaying zero average distribution, also exists.
Apart from the rushing movement of the constituting photons, the

ensemble is not necessarily at rest. In particular, the two electrons
may enjoy a certain freedom, being able to move upwards or down-
wards (in relation to figure 2.12) and assume an inclination. A periodic
vibration can possibly shake the whole arrangement, even if it is not
under the influence of external factors. I did not define what is the
spin of a complex nucleus, but, for symmetry reasons, the global spin
of the particle is zero, as it also turns out to be from practical exper-
iments. On the other hand, magnetic fields are present and display
anti-symmetric distribution, suggesting that the particle is, to a first
approximation, insensitive to magnetic perturbations. Note however,
and this is going to be a crucial property in the discussion of atomic
structures, that the distinctive magnetic patterns emanating from a
nucleus are going to be decisive for characterizing the features of a
specific atom (see also figure 2.15). Such a constructive work will be
dealt with starting from section 3.1.
Figure 2.13: Schematic representation of some basic nuclei. Protons are

denoted by a circle and electrons by a bar. Starting from 4 He (see also fig-
ure 2.12), one can similarly build stable Lithium nuclei. For the purpose of
generalizations (see figure 2.14), the various structures are also viewed from
top, where the numbers specify how many protons are involved in each pile.
In this way, the piles cardinality equates the atomic number Z and the sum
of the entries indicates the mass number A. The different colors of the dots
tell the (alternate) orientation of the proton spins in each pile.
The way I am proposing to combine the various ingredients of the

α-particle remains of course an elegant theoretical conjecture. Nev-
ertheless, this example stimulates further developments. Advancing
with circumspection, let me try the assembling of more α-particles
and similar gadgets. A preliminary sketch is shown in figure 2.13,
where the α-particle scheme is suitably replicated to form Lithium nu-

clei (neutrinos are not depicted). The displacements of the pieces is
not rigorously reported: for example, electrons are free to shift axially
in order to find electrostatic equilibrium. The adjustment may require
a continuous and systematic readaptation giving the nuclei a restless
quivering.
Figure 2.14: Nuclei of more involved elements, represented according to the

12 16 20
indications given in figure 2.13. Some nuclei, such as C, O, Ne, are
exclusively made of α-particles.
One can easily figure out how the following reactions may occur:
6 Li+ n →3 H + α, 6 Li +3 H → 2α + n, 7 Li + p → 2α. Once again,
I recall that, although these configurations might be in equilibrium
from the electric and magnetic viewpoints, their stability is given by
the electromagnetic energy fluctuating around and passing through
the holes of the various rings. The dynamical behavior leads to the
appropriate curvature of the space-time. Photons are then trapped
in a complex network of chained geodesics and relativistic gravitation
is the cement. In this way, we can associate a mass to the nucleus.
Nevertheless, if we want to read these geometric interactions in terms
of classical masses, suitable clarifications must be made. I discuss this
in the coming section.
More involved situations, obtained by replicating the 4 He sten-
cil, are examined in figure 2.14. The various constituents are closely
packed and interlaced to form elegant crystal-like frames. Experiments
show that the diameter of the most complex nuclei (including Uranium
with 238 protons and neutrons) does not exceed 20 fm (recall that the
diameter of a proton is less than 2 fm). Thus, nucleons are sardined
optimally. In my view, nucleons occupy fixed positions but photons
circulate in and around at speed c, conferring to their union a dynam-
ical behavior compatible with the Heisenberg principle. No strong
forces are necessary, since at this level of compactness, repulsion due
to Coulomb’s law does not take place.
Let us examine each of the various options, though I will be inca-
pable of answering many questions. The Beryllium isotope 8 Be (spin
0) is unstable and decays into two α-particles. The products of decay
are easily imaginable from the picture. To ensure stability an extra
neutron must be present (see 9 Be). Now, I cannot explain why the
modified structure happens to be more solid, but a study of the dis-
placement of the electrons in the piles of protons may be illuminating.
Let me recall that the displacement of the magnetic field must also be
taken into account. The analysis gets more interesting starting from
Carbon. Both 12 C (see the picture on the front page) and the isotope
14 C display an interesting symmetry that somehow justifies why their
spin is equal to zero (see also later). The first case comes from joining
three α-particles and effectively this turns out to be a more robust
configuration than that of 8 Be. The symmetry is broken for Nitrogen,
14 N and 15 N, where the algebraic sum of the spins of the components
is different from zero. This is also true for the stable isotope 13 C (not
reported in figure), that can be easily deduced from their companions.

Similar considerations apply to 16 O, 17 O and 18 O. The presentation
proceeds with Fluorine and Neon.
Using imaginativeness the list can be further prolonged. It should
be then clear why Sodium, Aluminium, Phosphorus, and Chlorine can-
not have spin zero, whereas Magnesium, Silicon, Sulfur, Argon and
many of their isotopes display peculiar symmetries. It should also
be evident how, under the process of spallation, the crash of nuclei
can transform an element into an isotope of another element. For in-
stance, by natural radioactivity, the unstable 14 C transforms into 14 N
by loosing an electron (and some spare energy in the form of a neu-
trino). The process involves some redistribution of the participating
protons which is not unfamiliar in fluid dynamics, as one can see from
the prompt reorganization of an aggregation of soap bubbles after the
breaking of one of them. The proposed schemes for the neutron (fig-
ure 2.10) and the deuteron (figure 2.11) do not fit very well the rest of
the group, since the electrons rotate differently. It has to be noticed
however that neutron and deuteron emissions from nuclei are rarely
seen, while α-particle emission is dominant. The reader must recognize
that, although the outcome is a product of the imagination, some fea-
tures of the real world are faithfully reproduced. Fascinating theories
assume that heavy nuclei might have been produced from primordial
superdense aggregates of neutrons67 . These packages should not be
too dissimilar from the compact clusters here examined.
Nuclei also display quantum magnetic properties and this does not
surprise me, since magnetic fields are automatically built-in and con-
stitute an essential ingredient for stabilization. When I first worked on
the problem of assembling nuclei, my primary concern was to quanti-
tatively maintain the amount of spin, according to the specifications
given for each element. For instance, 7 Li has spin equal to 32 . The
enterprise was unsuccessful. The spin of a nucleus is not just the alge-
braic sum of those of the components involved, but also includes the
total angular momentum, whose definition is borrowed from quantum
mechanics. Again, without explicit mention, one comes back to ro-
67
From [108], p.355: “It is interesting to speculate about such a superdense state
of matter and its possible subdivision into nuclei. Here we shall merely state that in
this superdense state all electrons are probably pressed into the nuclei, transforming
the protons into neutrons, so that the actual aggregate consists of neutrons only.
Whenever superdense matter breaks up, beta processes would occur and, together
with the emission of electrons, protons would be formed within the nuclei”.
Figure 2.15: Lines of

force of the magnetic field
around a Carbon nucleus
(see 12 C in figure 2.14).
The actual displacement is
more complex, since the
present picture only refers
to a 2D projection.
tating bodies around an axis which is an oversimplified way to study

nuclear dynamics, where nonlinearities are predominant. In the end,
what really matters is the measured intensity of the magnetic momenta
(rigorously and abundantly documented for all nuclei), which do not
follow any simple recipe (as it actually should be).
From a distance, as far as the electric field is concerned, a nucleus
looks like a homogeneous spherical charge. The same statement is not
correct when examining the magnetic part. The alternate orientation
of the spin axes of the constituting particles creates distinguished pat-
terns (see for instance figure 2.15). It is true that there are no sources
or sinks (recall that divB = 0), but the feeling is different as one
moves from one spot to another. This behavior is going to affect the
formation of the corresponding atom, with subsequent consequences
for molecular bonds. From a trivial massive and isotropically charged
body, a nucleus is here promoted to become a fussy controller of the
electronic traffic floating around.
Perhaps, the assemblage of nuclei proposed in this section admits
improved versions; perhaps, not reliable at all. Independently of the
effective construction, the message that I would like to communicate is
that all the instructions to compose atoms and molecules are already
imprinted in nuclei, that are able to provide the environment with
the necessary information both of an electric and magnetic nature. I
will examine more deeply in chapter three the consequence of such a
revolutionary conjecture.
2.5 Mass and Gravitation

Let me devote this section to some observations concerning gravita-
tional properties of particles. So far, we have used the term gravitation
in relation to the presence of a modification of the space-time, in ac-
cordance with the theory of general relativity. Such a deformation is
quite complicated, since in the case of bare particles it involves the
support of a time-dependent electromagnetic wave, surmounted by a
stationary component able to confer a real mass to the particle. Rela-
tively to the electron, explicit computations show that the density of
charge ρ and the pressure p, deduced by the solution of the modelling
equations, can be used to recover plausible estimates of the effective
mass (see the definition of ρm given by (97) in Appendix F and the
successive computations in Appendix G). It is known however that
masses of elementary particles are considered to be too small to be re-
sponsible of the stability process of an atom or a molecule. I think that
this viewpoint needs to be corrected. In truth, as we better check in
chapter three, the stability of these systems is mainly due to their ge-
ometric displacement and to the pressure that the various components
exert on each other. Such a mechanism must be somehow related to
gravitation (in the broad sense of the term), and the fact that the mea-
sured mass of a particle is to some extent negligible does not belittle
the importance of the geometrical setting.
Again I am noting that pressure p, and in particular its gradient,
plays a crucial role in gravitational interactions, at the point that one
is led to think that p can assume the meaning of gravitational potential
(up to multiplicative dimensional constants). In a given gravitational
environment, the term ∇p in (86) is proportional to forces that act
only on regions where ρ 6= 0, as for instance inside charged parti-
cles. If this was true, it would be quite an elegant way to realize the
so called unification of forces, one of the goals of past and present
physics. In reality, physicists look for particle carriers, such as the
graviton or the Higgs boson, but, as the reader may have already un-
derstood, my mind is set on a completely different approach. The
search of such carriers is under way, but doubts about their existence
are still strong68 . In principle, the unification of electromagnetism and
68
From [122], p.343: “The standard model requires one or more Higgs bosons
to generate mass. If no evidence for the existence of such bosons can be found,
beyond this role in a hypothetical mechanism, then understanding mass will be an
outstanding problem”.
gravitation is readily available as soon as one solves Einstein’s equa-

tion69 (see also footnote 47). I have already shown how this can be
done by putting the electromagnetic stress tensor on the right-hand
side, and what interesting consequences can be drawn. The fact that
the gravitational potential directly appears in the constitutive model
equations is far more important, since one can avoid solving Einstein’s
equation in order to recover gravito-geometrical information. Similar
considerations were made in the case of free-waves (see section 1.6), by
noting that electromagnetic fields already contain information about
the organization of the geometrical part, even if in this case we have
p = 0.
I am assuming that there is no distinction among gravitational and
inertial mass. This principle of equivalence, as well as the possibility to
transform electromagnetic energy into mass and vice versa, should be
implicitly assumed at the same moment as writing my right-hand side
tensor in Einstein’s equation, thus linking the mass tensor with the
metric space. The problem of identifying inertial and gravitational
mass, well treated in [41], section 6.1, has however restricted valid-
ity, being limited to uniform fields and slow motions. Nevertheless,
we learnt that general relativity has a meaning that goes beyond the
mere interpretation in terms of mechanical phenomena. The novelty
of my approach consists in mixing up in the energy tensor both the
electromagnetic and mass contributions with different signs (see (93)
in Appendix F). These turn out to be well-balanced in the case of
elementary particles, bringing to a neat characterization two compet-
ing components. The obtained structures are then impermeable to
energy relocation. The isolation of the bare electron from the rest is
the first step towards a quantum view of matter. Without the help
of differential geometry this path would not be viable70 . For other
69
From [3]: “Wheeler’s early hope was that vacuum geometrodynamics might
turn out to be a Theory of Everything. [...] The properties of a distant isolated
mass were argued to be recoverable from geons i.e gravity waves almost completely
trapped in some region (mass without mass). Aspects of charge could be recovered
from the mere topology of empty space (charge without charge)”.
70
In [41], p.101, it is written: “It is natural to inquire into the deeper reason for
the fact that in normal conditions the predominant part of the energy is bound so
durably as to be in a completely passive state. Why does even a negligible part
of it never leave this state and destroy the separate balance of the active part?
The Theory of Relativity by itself is unable to answer this question. One should
look for the answer in the domain of quanta laws, which have as one of their main
features the existence of stable states with discrete energy levels”. Contrary to
types of unstable gravito-electromagnetic interactions, the percentage

of the different ingredients is not defined a priori, but only obeys the
global laws of energy and momentum conservation71 . Anyway, before
attempting any analysis concerning the concept of inertia, one should
first know how to actually accelerate a particle. Let me postpone this
issue until section 3.2.
Interestingly, the unstable muon has a mass about 200 times larger
than that of the electron, and this is not easily understandable if one
considers that, when it decays into an electron and a couple of neu-
trinos the latter have zero mass (see figure 2.5). In order to justify
this lack of mass conservation, nuclear physicists had to assume the
existence of another field, called the Higgs field, responsible of the ex-
change of masses in particle reactions. I believe this should not be too
far from the pressure gradient introduced in my model. As said before,
the carrier of the Higgs fields is the Higgs boson, still actively searched
for in high-energy colliders, but its existence makes no sense in my
interpretation of the facts. As we saw, the amazing conservation prop-
erties, mainly based on algebraic relations, that are at the foundations
of the standard model, could also be derived from classical type model
equations, linking in a natural way electromagnetic, mechanical and
gravitational effects. According to this interpretation, it would not be
a surprise to discover that, ultimately, gravity might be interpreted as
an “entropic phenomenon”, a consequence of thermodynamic princi-
ples acting on the information of mass distributions72 .
As I specified in section 2.2, the muon is an example of an isolated
unstable agglomerate of rotating photons, perturbing the space-time
geometry at an appreciable level, during its averaged life-time of the
order of 10−6 seconds. In the context of my theory, the anomalous
what has been stated above, my belief is that, exactly because of the prerogative
of general relativity to be able to suitably adapt the geometrical environment, the
confinement of energy is effectively possible.
71
From [41], p.101: “The particularly durable binding of the predominant part of
all energy, or mass, it is the reason why one can speak of the laws of conservation of
mass and energy as two separate laws, although in Relativity the two laws coalesce
into one”.
72
From [119]: “In this paper we will argue that the central notion needed to derive
gravity is information. More precisely, it is the amount of information associated
with matter and its location, in whatever form the microscopic theory likes to have
it, measured in terms of entropy. Changes in this entropy when matter is displaced
leads to an entropic force, which as we will show takes the form of gravity. Its origin
therefore lies in the tendency of the microscopic theory to maximize its entropy”.
extra mass of the muon is due to the presence of a further separa-

tion membrane between the bare electron boundary and the outside
world. The membrane envelops a good amount of pressure intensity,
justifying the presence of mass in addition to that of the contained
electron. This precarious covering can be easily popped, setting free,
through a discontinuous process involving a change of topology, the
exceeding mass. In section 1.5, I mentioned that jumping from a free
falling elevator to a standing floor is a discontinuous effect that pro-
duces a different perception on the measurements of weights. As a
matter of fact, the change from the flat geometric environment of the
elevator to that of the observer at rest is realized by passing through
a bidimensional boundary, that is a separation membrane. The anal-
ogy between the elevator example and the motivation of the loss of
mass of a decaying muon is very mild. However, it should enforce the
idea that mass-energy transformations occur during sudden changes
of topology, caused by the rupture of interface boundaries. Informa-
tion about mass can then be stored on confinement membranes and
quantitatively encoded by measuring surface tensions (see section 2.1).
Pressure discontinuities are actually concentrated on certain surfaces.
A similar approach has been considered, in a totally different abstract
context, by other authors73 . In proton decay, due to collision with
anti-protons, things are more complex but substantially analogous (see
next section). We must not forget that conservation of energy and mo-
mentum are always assumed, and after any transition process, mass
is transformed into electromagnetic energy and vice-versa, and this is
done in the search of the most stable equilibrium and in the direction
of increasing entropy.
Once again, let me recall the main ideas. The scalar p is con-
stantly zero when the corresponding photons behave as free-waves,
i.e., they travel with constant uniform speed equal in intensity to c.
As soon as a photon is subject to external factors (that can also be self-
interactions, as in the case of the system of circling waves in a toroid),
then the gradient of p starts to be different from zero, so generating
non-trivial pressures. This agrees with the mechanics of bodies, where
a change of trajectory is related to the action of forces. Kinetic en-
ergy is thus converted into potential energy and vice-versa. Thanks to
73
From [119]: “Thus we are going to assume that information is stored on sur-
faces, or screens. Screens separate points, and in this way are the natural place to
store information about particles that move from one side to the other”.
Einstein’s equation that ensures conservation of energy and momenta,

the total balance is always preserved. Note also that the fact that
light may exert pressure on objects is a known phenomenon, that is
not easily explained by quantum theories but is naturally embedded
in the framework of my theory. Therefore, for given initial data, it is
enough to solve the system of model equation in a prescribed metric
space (the flat one for instance), in order to know both electromagnetic
and gravitational type behaviors. As the accelerations end, pressure
and its gradient go back to zero and the various components proceed
with uniform constant velocity, i.e., they behave as free electromag-
netic waves following the rules of standard geometrical optics. Pressure
may however be trapped in “bubbles”, that can last forever (as in the
case of stable particles) or for short periods of time. To realize this,
there must be an instant when the particle container, initially opened,
is suddenly sealed: charge and mass are thus confined.
The crucial question is now to see if p may be quantitatively re-
garded as a gravitational potential. According to my construction, by
examining the constant χ in front of the energy tensor T to be placed
at the right-hand side of Einstein’s equation (see Appendices D and
F), we find an inconvenience: the associated “gravitational constant”
G̃ is predicted to be about 1041 times larger than the standard one,
usually denoted by G ≈ 6.67 × 10−11 m3 /s2 Kg. As a matter of fact,
the most popular choice for the constant multiplying the mass tensor
is κ = 8πG/c4 , while in my case we find χµ2 /c4 0 , where χ ≈ .15.
Considering that µ ≈ 2.8 × 1011 , the ratio G̃/G turns out to be ap-
proximately 5 × 1041 . It is then necessary to comment on this result
and possibly come out with some explanations.
The classical Newton law of gravitation seems in any case useless
at atomic level74 . Let me first point out that this is partially true also
at cosmological level, where it is common to distinguish between the
gravitational and the geometrical radii of a given mass. For instance,
in disagreement with celestial observations, standard exact solutions
of Einstein’s equation require the predicted gravitational radius to be
much smaller than the effectively measured geometrical radius, and the
74
From [60], p.15 (S. Weinberg): “We have a theory of gravity, Einstein’s theory
of general relativity, which reduces to Newton’s theory at large distances and small
velocities. This theory of gravity works very well on the scale of the solar system
or the galaxy or here on the scale of everyday life on the surface of the earth, but
it is a theory which when pushed to very short distances and high energies begins
to give mathematical nonsense”.
discrepancy gets more evident as masses are larger. This is true for
instance for the Schwarzschild metric, recoverable from (62) (Appendix
F) by plugging Q = 0. On the other hand, Newton’s law of gravitation
does not give any prescription about the effective size of the masses
involved (one must know density, but density depends on the context).
I recall that the gravitational radius is given by 2Gm/c2 , where m is
the mass of the object under consideration. For example, according to
the Schwarzschild solution, if the Earth was a black hole of equivalent
mass, its diameter would be less than a centimeter. In this guise,
despite such an assumption on the Earth’s size not being realistic, the
asymptotic behavior of the gravitational field at large distances from
the Earth would be in agreement with Newton’s law. By extrapolating,
if we assume the proton to be a black hole having a diameter of 10−15
meters and a mass of the order of 10−27 Kg, general relativity would
suggest a gravitational constant 1040 bigger than G, in agreement to
what has been found in the previous paragraph. Note that my idea
of elementary particle matches that of a black hole, interpreted as
a massive object from where light cannot escape, since this is what
really happens when photons are constrained in that tiny portion of
space. It is however a far more complex structure than those studied
in cosmology, where for the sake of simplicity bodies are often reduced
to spinning spheres.
Astronomers may consider this argument rough and superficial. It
is probably true, but one cannot deny that there are open questions
regarding the identification of real masses and certain well-known so-
lutions of Einstein’s equation. Thus, standard relativistic arguments
are also affected by a good dose of naive passages. In truth, although
very celebrated and ubiquitous, the Schwarzschild solution and its up-
graded variants, can be considered reliable only at large distances and
small velocities, while their behavior at different regimes is going to
be totally disjoint to questions properly related to gravity75 . In addi-
tion, such a solution represents the gravitational field produced by a
singular point-wise stationary mass, that is more or less analogous to
simulating a point-wise stationary electric charge in the framework of
Coulomb’s law, having the Laplace operator equal to zero at all points
with the exception of the source. Charged particles are far from being
75
Radial geodesics of the Schwarzschild metric are computed in [6], section 4.3.
In particular, formula (4.31) tells us that, for non negligible velocities (dr/dt > ac),
the gravitational field of a positive mass is repulsive.
so simple, and I have already pointed out in many circumstances the

limits of electrostatics. Therefore, for my purposes, the Schwarzschild
solution offers an oversimplified description. The forcing right-hand
side in the Schwarzschild case is zero everywhere except for a single
point. It is quite a borderline pathological situation. I believe therefore
that major attention should be devoted to smooth solutions.
Classical and relativistic approaches are closely linked but quanti-
tatively separated by a series of approximations and neglected terms.
The models available, although similar in some respects, offer in the
end an incomplete picture. The situation gets even more unpredictable
when masses below a certain magnitude are taken into consideration.
The gravitational constant G remains in fact one of the most difficult
quantities to estimate and, in the case of relatively small bodies, mea-
surements can be heavily influenced by several other factors. The aim
of the above specifications is to point out how insidious is the matter
at hand.
Another crucial aspect of Newton’s law is that it deals with masses,
independently of their nature and density. This is a limit for small ob-
jects. Indeed, when we examine a molecule, its mass is very small on
the whole; nevertheless, it is concentrated on the nuclei and, in smaller
part, on the electrons. In between there is imponderable photon en-
ergy (to be studied in chapter three). The spacing between nuclei is of
the order of 105 times their size, that, in terms of volumes, amounts
to 1015 . A more precise way to obtain this proportion is to use the
Avogadro constant. This means that, if we want to extend the va-
lidity of Newton’s law of gravitation to micro-systems, we first have
to evaluate the mass as the volume integral of the mass density, and
then observe that such a density is not uniform, but concentrated on
smaller volumes. Therefore, the writing of Newton’s laws in terms of
single and isolated nuclear masses (i.e., obtained by integrating over
the support of the particles instead of the whole space including the
interstices) requires the updating of the gravitational constant, and
the new constant G̃ is going to be much larger than G.
In addition, we can explicitly check that if G̃ was 1040 times larger
than G, there should not be much difference in magnitude between
the repulsive electric force of two protons and their gravitational at-
traction. Having pointed this out, one may start realizing that such
infinitesimal gravitational masses, as that of a proton, are not so small
after all. In fact, the standard constant G is based on an averaged
mass of a body, consisting of a multitude of spikes. When one enters

the lattice structure, the corrected constant G̃ must be used. When
approaching a piece of matter, force fields start mixing up without
necessarily passing through violent jumps, so that one cannot quanti-
tatively distinguish among the various contributors. The mixture can
produce fields of new flavors, such as Van der Waals forces76 . To tell
the truth, there are no such different effects in nature, but everything
descends from the apotheosis of electromagnetism.
The real fact is that gravitation cannot be coded in simple rules,
at least not so simple as the Newton’s law of attraction. Let me
specify that I totally trust the theory of general relativity, and I do
not believe it needs further adjustment, although alternative proposals
or improvements have been copiously proposed. I dislike however the
direct connection between general relativity and the empirical laws of
astronomical gravitation, which are just imprecise descriptions of a
complex system. General relativity was validated when the so-called
precession of the planet Mercury, theoretically predicted, was actually
confirmed. Such a property could not be deduced through previously
existing laws. Nevertheless, this is another example of astronomically
related achievement, that depicts Einstein’s theory as a completion
and rationalization of results in that specific area.
It is an underemployed use of a tool that is very rich in poten-
tialities, able to describe phenomena that go far beyond gravitational
effects. It has to be said that the theoretical and numerical study of
Einstein’s equation presents nontrivial difficulties. However, nowadays
the research seems to have plateaued on a certain number of cosmolog-
ical problems, and, as frequently happens, extending simple solutions
outside the domain of their validity is an unstable process, sometimes
leading to conclusions that explain both everything and its contrary.
I think I have already provided here plenty of examples where gen-
eral relativity could play a significant role, without being relegated to
gravitational facts. In other words, in the micro-world, gravitation is
of fundamental importance, but, in this case, it it not merely the com-
76
The molecular interaction zoo is described for instance in [111], p.85: “... it
is customary to divide the types of bonding into ionic, covalent, metallic and van
der Waals’s (hydrogen bonding is sometimes added as a special category). The
weak residual attraction between molecules which are not covalently bonded, for
example, are often grouped together under the heading of van der Waals’s forces,
though it is now recognized that three types of interaction are involved: dipole-
dipole, dipole-induced dipole, and dispersion (or London) forces”.
pletion of a set of rules based on the attraction of bodies. It represents

instead a unifying theory, able to deal with forces at various scales,
manifesting themselves in several ways, both in the attractive and the
repulsive regimes (see footnote 75). Current research at the nanoscale
level offers new vistas.
In many cosmological problems, the universe is equipped with some
background metric, which is usually not the flat one, where masses are
given and evolve, further modifying the geometrical setting. One of
the questions is to understand what is the real form of the universe,
with special attention to experiments showing its mode of expansion.
Although a general behavior could possibly emerge, my guess is that
the geometrical description of our universe is the sum of an immense
number of small dynamical events, each one carrying its own contri-
bution. The sequence starts at the atomic level, but at certain stages
of development the geometry can be mediated by larger clusters77 .
Therefore, it is not possible to refine the knowledge at the upper level,
if one does not take into account the myriad of intermediate passages.
Moreover, the phenomenon of gravity is continuously changing with
time, involving a full range of frequencies from that of gamma rays
to that of the slow motion of galaxies. For these reasons, I think
that the term gravitation, as it is commonly adopted nowadays, only
refers to an averaged description of large-scale behaviors, but misses
the opportunity for studying complex molecular phenomena, very rich
in dynamical substructures, where geometry is the codification key.
To better appreciate this scenario and the links between the different
passages, additional comments are provided in section 3.8.
Finally, it has not to be forgotten that, according to my opinion,
the source of gravitational signals is electromagnetism, the primary
building block. Untying the secrets of electrodynamics is the door-
way to understanding gravity. Concurrently, space-time deformations
drive electromagnetic signals along specific paths. Kinematic energy
turns out to be an inseparable mixture of electric and magnetic contri-
butions. The conversion into potential energy is the start of tangible
gravitational effects, that may culminate in the formation of stable
particles. Here, the symbiosis is high. Evidence of this process, is
77
From [99], p.40: “These acausal atoms compose the familiar world of large
bodies, orbits, and Newton’s laws. The laws that describe atomic behavior, the
stationary states and transitions, reduce by correspondence, when applied to large
systems, to Newton’s laws”.
the mutual, instantaneous and synchronous creation of both charge

and mass, as far as simple stable particles are concerned. By the
way, the study of astronomical interactions often neglects electromag-
netic waves, since they seem not to have a decisive role. I stated that
gravitational waves can be associated with electromagnetic ones via
Einstein’s equation. Gravitation turns out to be then a pure and en-
tire consequence of electrodynamical interactions. Besides, it has also
been observed that the amplitude of gravitational waves is inversely
proportional to their frequency (see section 1.6). As a result of this im-
portant remark, very low-frequency electromagnetic signals may carry
significant contribution at gravitational level. Nevertheless, these phe-
nomena evolve at the speed of light, which means that their detection
is almost impossible on the medium-small scale. Gravitational effects
at low-frequency are going to be a by-product of electromagnetic waves
of a very small intensity and variation that nobody really cares or has
the means to measure.
On the other hand, a good deal of astronomical research is closely
connected to magnetic phenomena. To quote an example, one may
think about the terrestrial magnetic field and the the famous van Allen
belts, that, not incidentally, display a toroid shape. Relativistic Mag-
neto Hydrodynamics is a branch of physics that, in the framework of
general relativity, merges the constitutive equations for a conductive
fluid with contributions due to magnetic sources, in a fashion very sim-
ilar to that described by my model. The context of applications, as
well as the consequences, are however very different from the ones here
considered. In chapter three, I will claim that our universe is filled with
a colossal amount of fluctuating and organized electromagnetic energy,
also contributing to generate and transfer gravitational information.
This implicitly means for instance that the Earth is at the mercy of
intense, although hardly detectable, gravitational oscillations brought
by extremely low frequency electric and magnetic perturbations.
If it is true that electromagnetism is the primary source of gravita-
tional forces and what I am presenting here is the decryption key, one
should not be too far from setting up experiments aimed at the produc-
tion of mechanical effects from electromagnetic devices. To this end,
one may take into account that, as light rays are plied by gravity, vice
versa, a sudden variation of trajectory imparted to photons activates
the mass tensor at the right-hand side of Einstein’s equation, with the
consequent production of pressure; and when the presence of pressure
is registered it means that one has entered the world of mechanics.

Some theoretical considerations concerning the possible generation of
gravitational waves from accelerated electromagnetic waves have been
made for instance in [4]. Scattered, non officially validated, experi-
ences report the possibility of obtaining “gravitational shielding” from
fast rotating apparatuses presenting peculiar electrical properties.
In a controversial experiment (see [104]), the high-voltage discharge
of a superconductive cathode generates a radiation pulse of non elec-
tromagnetic type that seems to act as a gravity repulsion beam, as
testified by the oscillations imparted to pendulums. The adoption of a
superconductive material for the electrode gives to the discharge spark
an uncommon distributed shape, with the result of reaching the an-
ode in a non-rectilinear way. We clearly have all the ingredients for
guessing some explanation in accordance with my viewpoint.
2.6 Antimatter
I finish this chapter by talking about antimatter, an argument that
has been touched on in the previous sections without sufficient detail.
Qualitatively, antiparticles are perfectly equal to their corresponding
particles, except for a switch in the sign of the charge. In my view,
the triplet (E, B, V) is going to be replaced by (−E, B, V). Accord-
ingly, the model equations must be corrected by changing the sign
in correspondence to the electric field. This means that we can ob-
tain the same identical solutions we had before, where right-handed
triplets are now replaced by left-handed ones. In this way, we can first
get anti-photons and, successively, build antimatter. An all-inclusive
set of modelling equations may be written by specifically placing the
sign + or − in front of E, following the orientation (right-handed or
left-handed) of the current triplet.
Thus, electromagnetic waves are of two types: right-handed or left-
handed. The classical Maxwell’s equations only produce right-handed
waves. As we switch the sign of one of the two electromagnetic fields,
the Poynting vector changes orientation and the wave moves in the
opposite direction, still remaining right-handed. If we want Maxwell’s
equations to generate left-handed waves, one needs to modify for ex-
ample the sign of the curls in Faraday’s and Ampère’s laws, obtaining
an unusual version. The solutions of the modified system are specu-
lar images of the standard ones. The same situation is found for my
Figure 2.16: An
electron (top)
and a positron
(bottom). The
first one is right-
handed, whereas
the second one
is left-handed.
Except for the
orientation of
the electric
field, they dis-
play identical
properties.
model equations in the case of free-waves. Apparently (and regret-

tably), these weird but meaningful remarks are not found in common
treatises on electromagnetism.
As electrons are made by rotating photons in a toroid region, their
anti-particles (the positrons) are identically realized by using anti-
photons, producing opposite charge but identical mass. The same
can be said for other types of particles. Note that my electron is not
the mirror image of a positron (see figure 2.16). In fact, depending
on wether one analyzes the particle or its anti-particle, the electric
field points outwards or inwards, and there is no way to pass from one
displacement to the other through a reflection. The mirror image of a
positron turns out to be an unstable particle; it corresponds indeed to
the attempt of building a proton, that, as we saw, has a much more
complex form.
However, by removing the stationary part and leaving the neutrino
time-dependent component, one gets an entity that at first sight coin-
cides with the specular reflection of its anti-particle (see figure 2.17).
The subtle difference is that the first one is made of photons and the
latter of anti-photons. In this way, neutrinos and anti-neutrinos, al-
though not perfectly coincident, may be related through the so called
parity conjugation. From theoretical arguments, the coincidence of a
particle and its anti-particle implies that their mass is zero. The pos-
sibility of assigning a positive mass to pure neutrinos is indeed very
remote, although this analysis is an active field of investigation. As far
as I am concerned, neutrinos are generic photon aggregations confined
Figure 2.17: Mirror image of a

vortex ring. After a rotation of
180o degrees the object is super-
imposable upon its reflection. The
most basic neutrinos are almost
of this kind. They are made of
photons, while anti-neutrinos are
made of anti-photons. Geometri-
cally there is no distinction, but
the internal constitution is slightly
different.
in a region of space. They do not display any neat charge or magnetic

moment, since the fields are in constant movement with zero average
over a period of oscillation. Based on my theory they have mass equal
to zero (ρ is zero and consequently p is also zero). As a matter of
fact, there is no way they can be accelerated by external factors. This
remains true if we add a stationary component having ρ equal zero. If
the stationary part is not of this type, neutrinos can partially acquire
mass becoming potential particles. Electrons and protons (and their
antiparticles), are examples where neutrinos become stable massive
entities. There are infinite species of neutrinos, but only a few of them
are effectively recognized by nuclear physics, because they are those
principally involved in reactions.
An electron and a positron may form an unstable atom (the positro-
nium) before collapsing and annihilating. In truth, what actually dis-
appear are the electric stationary components, being equal and with
opposite sign, while the neutrino parts merge in an unstable structure
that decomposes into its constituents, i.e., pure photons. The transi-
tion is made with the respect to global energy and momentum balance.
Note that an electron and a proton are not expected to annihilate just
because they have different charges. In fact, it is important to also
consider what happens to the stationary components of the magnetic
field. In the electron-positron interaction, if the particles are properly
oriented, the magnetic parts cancel out, while this is not true in the
case of the electron-proton, that will be better studied in sections 3.1
and 3.2. There, we will also learn how spin orientation affects inter-
actions78 . The electron-positron collapse is a clear example of two
78
From [43], p.38: “The difference in the lifetime of the two forms of positro-
nium can now be explained more fully. In parapositronium, the electron and the
“solid” pieces dissolving in gamma rays; what an incontrovertible evi-

dence of the electromagnetic nature of matter (and antimatter)! Note
that positrons in a universe made of matter tend to extinguish. This
is not only true because of the violent interaction with electrons, but
because they are eroded by the right-handed electromagnetic vacuum
background (see chapter three). In my opinion, the reason why there
is more matter than antimatter in our universe is based on the trivial
observation that, if the two kinds were in perfect balance, we would
not be here to speak about these concepts, since no significant durable
structure would have emerged from the primitive setting79 .
Positrons (and anti-particles in general) can be momentarily cre-
ated (before they are reabsorbed by matter) in various nuclear reac-
tions. In my model, anti-waves are generated every time the triplet
(E, B, V) changes orientation. This may happen quite often, if the dy-
namics of the evolution allows for it. An interesting possible solution
fully discussed in [45], chapter 5, is when B = 0 and E is lined up with
V. The orientation of the triplet is then undetermined. In this case,
the radiation may reemerge in the form of wave or anti-wave, depend-
ing on the context. If the intensity of the fields is strong enough and
the region sufficiently large, anti-waves can produce antiparticles and
we can actually see them. Otherwise it is just a transition event that
could not be recorded.
The term chirality is attributed to objects that are not super-
imposable on their mirror image. This property is clearly noticeable in
our everyday life from small molecules to living organisms, with very
few exceptions80 . Nuclear experiments suggest that the micro-universe
is chiral and left-handed. In chemistry, chiral molecules are very often
encountered and they mostly show a left-handed (levorotatory) orien-
tation. Typical naturally occurring amino acids are left-handed, and so
positron annihilate each other and produce two photon quanta. The annihilation of
orthopositronium can be described in a similar fashion; in this instance, however,
three photon quanta are produced”.
79
“Doomed to vanish in the flickering light, disappearing to a darker night,
doomed to vanish in a living death, living anti-matter, anti-breath”; from Pi-
oneers Over C, Van Der Graaf Generator, H To He Who Am The Only One,
Charisma/Virgin Records (1970).
80
From [85], v.4, p.73: “In the hierarchically organized levels of life, asymmetry
appears at the scale of the nucleus, the small molecule, the chain, forms (organelles,
cells, organs, individuals) and stereochemical composition (from the macromolecule
to the biosphere)”.
are the corresponding proteins. This has a remarkable influence on the

whole biological environment, at the level that right-handed molecules
may be toxic or have devastating effects on living beings (I will return
later in section 3.7 to the examination of some biological questions).
The mystery of the occurrence of only one prevailing form of chiral
molecules in nature has no direct explanation in chemistry, unless one
start looking at atoms’ nuclei. The discovery that β-particles emitted
from radioactive nuclei do not display symmetric behavior, led scien-
tists to hypothesize a sort of chirality also in the micro universe. Now,
it is well accepted that most of the particles are left-handed and their
antiparticles are instead right-handed. This perfectly fits my theory:
it is enough to require that the triplets (E, B, V) associated with mat-
ter are left-handed. Correspondingly, the required change of sign has
to be reported in the model equations.
In conclusion, left-handed electromagnetic waves are the principal
ingredients of the present universe, while the right-handed ones are
possible but occur in rare occasions. In classical electromagnetism,
cross products and curls are right-handed; this fact, put together with
the adoption of certain conventional rules, is in contrast to natural
events, although this discrepancy is not even noticed in common ap-
plications. Let me recall again that the spinning of a vortex ring is
definitely different from that of a body revolving around an axis. The
more sophisticated ring interpretation offers a clear way to redefine the
concept of spin in line with observations81 . The built-in asymmetry
of electrons and protons influences the shape of atoms and molecules.
It is evident that the mere analysis of the electrostatic forces does
not give a clear picture of the organization of a complex molecular
structure. It is at least necessary to introduce considerations regard-
ing the displacement of the magnetic fields, which are responsible for
orientation angles and symmetry breaking. I will deal again with this
problem in the coming chapter.
So far we have insisted on the fact that an electron must be a
positively charged particle. Let us see now why. The orientation of the
81
From [107], p.385: “Speaking anthropomorphically, one might say that the
neutrino can tell a left-handed screw from a right-handed screw. This might not
be what one would intuitively expect of such an apparently basic and therefore
supposedly simple particle, but it is the experimental fact. Hence there is something
in the atomic domain capable of distinguish handedness, and it is a matter of
physical significance which type of axes we choose to describe physical systems
interacting with neutrinos”.
Figure 2.18: A negatively

charged rotating dielectric pro-
duces a magnetic field oriented
as shown. Having ρ < 0, the
electric field points toward the
center of the body, so that the
triplet (E, B, V) turns out to
be left-handed. In order to
get a right-handed triplet, the
charge of the object must be
positive.
fields influences three factors: the polarity of the particle, the direction
of the magnetic momentum and that of the rotation axis. If we want
the electron to be negative, we have to impose ρ < 0, so that there
are sinks in the electric displacement inside the particle. According
to classical physics laws, a spinning charge produces a magnetic field
(see figure 2.18). If we want the orientation of the electron magnetic
field to be compatible with the standard choice, one has to set the
triplet (E, B, V) to be left-handed. Therefore, we find ourselves with
two possible settings. The electron is negative, the triplets are left-
handed, but the modelling equations have to be corrected to match
the change of sign of the electric field. As a second option we have
that the electron is positive, the triplets right-handed and we can keep
the equations as we are used to. When the electron was discovered, the
choice of its polarity was totally arbitrary. Now we observe that this
choice does not agree very well with that of the cross product based on
the right hand82 . In the end, it is just a matter of notations, but if we
do not want to subvert some elementary convention rules of differential
calculus, it would be better to assume that the electron is positive (and
the positron negative, I beg your pardon for the oxymoron!).
82
A Murphy’s law says: “You can never tell which way the train went by looking
at the track”.
Figure 2.19: Fragmentation of a proton and an anti-proton. The collision

generates three pions: π + , π − , π 0 , each one consisting of two quarks. The
latter is highly unstable and decays into γ-rays. The two others display a
short life before decaying in different particles and anti-particles.
Now that antimatter has been built, one can try to understand
what happens in the collision of a proton uud with an anti-proton uud
(see figure 2.19). I have already mentioned in section 2.3 that the
smashing of the two particles leads to the formation of three mesons:
π − = du, π + = ud and π 0 = uu, all having spin equal to zero. Spin
balance is obtained by attributing spin − 12 to anti-neutrinos. The
last particle is basically out of interest, since it dissolves pretty soon
into photons and anti-photons. The negative pion is also present in
the reaction: π − + p → n + π 0 , which is correct in terms of quark
balance. Let us see what its meaning is in the case of vortices. The
neutron n is a proton p with the addition of an electron and a neu-
trino (figure 2.10). According to figure 2.19, π − is an electron (the
one belonging to the internal proton’s structure) plus an anti-neutrino
(made of anti-photons). During the interaction of π − and p, a couple
of matter neutrinos having opposite sense of rotation are generated.
One of them stays with the electron and the proton to form the neu-
tron. The remaining one joins the anti-neutrino to form π 0 . Thus, it
is not necessary to assume that a neutron is of the form udd. Dur-
ing these transitions momentary mass is created and then destroyed.
Indeed, masses are well defined and stable only when they are per-
fectly sealed in suitable envelopes, while the above reaction passes
through a series of topological transitions. Any lack or excess of mass
is however recorded in neutrinos and free photons in such a way as to
preserve energy. The reaction p + p → d + π + , where the deuteron
d is given in figure 2.11, may be explained in a similar way (see also
π − + d → 2n + γ).
Pions π − and π + are also known for having a very short life. I guess
that π − (and similarly π + ) remains for a while the distinct union of
the quarks d and u. Also in fluid mechanics, two vortices may adhere
and stay attached for a certain time. Usually they start doing a kind
of leap-frogging (see section 1.8). The situation does not last for long.
The embryo of a couple of neutrinos rotating in opposite fashion pro-
gressively grows in between. One of the two new entities embraces the
electron carrying along part of the charge belonging to u. When the
set is closed around the electron, the charge becomes unitary (see the
topological arguments I put forth in section 2.1) and together with
pressure generates effective mass. The resulting particle is a muon µ−
(see figure 2.4). The rest of the energy remains stored in another suit-
able neutrino. There, the excess of charge does not become mass and
it is quickly dissipated in the environment. Similarly to the muon case,
neutrinos carrying charge density different from zero may also adhere
around heavy particles, such as protons and neutrons, producing even
more massive bodies that are actually observed in experiments. This
may lead to the introduction of new quark flavors and explain for in-
stance the origin of hyperons. Note that neutrinos are not obliged to
remain in the neighborhood of an impact site; on the contrary, they
take the form of free photons and travel at speed c. Later, they may
again interact with matter, showing their presence through the energy
they carry on.
Let me conclude with a few more comments. The secret of the
parity violation of matter is another piece of the puzzle that has been
set into place and seems to be well handled by my equations, estab-
lishing an explicit link between charge conjugation (C) and parity (P),
both obtainable by replacing E by −E. We can include also time (T)
reversal in this analysis, since a switch of the arrow of time influences
the orientation of the field V. The so called CPT-invariance is an
experimentally established law that has found large consensus83 . I be-
lieve that my constructive approach may contribute to its explanation.
Recall that, in my model, changing parity is not exactly to perform a
mirror image, since, as I said above, the positron is not the reflection
of the electron. Nevertheless, it is true that positrons are made of
anti-photons that are mirror images of photons.
There are however experiments that do not appear to be CP-
invariant. Seemingly, two types of almost identical kaons (KL and
KS ) exist. These are neutral unstable particles with equal mass, dis-
playing two different sets of decay products with different parity. The
two decay processes do not have the same probability of occurring and
this is in strict relation with the velocities of the kaons. Usually, the
discussion proceeds with subtle and groundless questions about the
reversibility of time and I prefer not to speculate in this direction.
Different decaying behaviors of the same unstable particle may be jus-
tified in terms of the “environmental influence”. During their short life,
kaons are not singular entities in the middle of a desert vacuum ex-
tending between particles. As I will support in the following, kaons are
fully immersed with continuous contact in an electromagnetic ocean.
83
From [20], p.273: “There are no fundamental reasons why the forces in nature
should be invariant under the transformations C, P and T separately, but taken
together the combined operation of time reversal, space inversion and charge conju-
gation appears to be a fundamental symmetry transformation which has important
and very general consequences”.
There is no way to state universal laws without including the influence,

more or less marked, of such an incredible source of energy84,85 . This
may be especially true when the disturbance comes from a recording
apparatus, no matter how sophisticated it is. Note that experiments in
particle accelerators are supposed to be carried out in “vacuum”. This
means that the chances to collide with spurious nuclei are very low,
whereas the interaction with the invisible background is unavoidable
even by taking strict precautionary measures86 .
The generation of electron-positron pairs from gamma rays87 , and
similar events several times mentioned above, recalls the formation
of vortices and anti-vortices in the context of fluid dynamics. Such
“virtual” particles play a role in the recombination of subnucler com-
ponents after collisions88 . Although made of matter and antimatter,
these vortices do not come from nothing. They may originate for in-
stance from the recirculation of some electromagnetic fluid (part of the
background I was referring to before) around massive particles moving
at high speed, as happens in common flows past an obstacle (see fig-
84
From [22], p.188: “When we have an electron moving in the neighborhood
of a nucleus, calculations show that it is not enough to take into account the
static Coulomb field of the nucleus in order to obtain the energy eigenvalues of
the electron, but a coupling with the zero-point vibrations of the field must be
also considered. This is what occurs in the Lamb shift, detectable in the spectra
of hydrogen and deuterium. Obviously, then, the ground state of the background
electromagnetic field plays an observable role”.
85
From [27], p.194: “This seems to suggest that in general, the accelerated de-
tectors are not robust systems, contrary to what is normally assumed in quantum
theory: when they are immersed in a local zeropoint field they are distorted by it”.
86
From [43], p.149: “In processes where the energy of the electron is small relative
to its mass, we cannot explicitly see the effects of vacuum polarization. This is
what happens in most everyday instances. In these cases we are dealing with the
‘dressed’ physical electron. However, if the energies involved are sufficiently large
(in the scattering process for example), we can see the vacuum polarization effects
explicitly”.
87
Following the introduction to vacuum polarization, in [20], p.240, we can read:
“... QED shows us that the electron can appear in many guises; it can spontaneously
emit a photon which may materialize into an electron-positron pair, the electron
and the positron may emit other photons and so on. The electron is thus surrounded
by a fluctuating ‘cloud’ of virtual electron-positron pairs with ‘radius’ of the order
of the Compton wavelength ...”.
88
From [43], p.186: “The physical vacuum is filled with an infinite number of
virtual quark-antiquark pairs simply waiting to manifest themselves in the form
of physical particles. This is feasible, however, only if the corresponding energy
needed for this manifestation is available”.
Figure 2.20: The recircu-

lation of a fluid (at rela-
tively small velocity) past a
fixed cylinder leads to the
formation of a couple of
vortices. The behavior be-
comes increasingly complex
as the velocity of the fluid
grows. From the celebrated
book of M.D. Van Dyke (see
[118], M. Coutanceau & R.
Bouard).
ure 2.20). Of course, these tenuous suppositions do not quantitatively

explain the strange behavior of kaons. They may however inspire a
different way of dealing with subatomic problems. Certainly, as it will
emerge in chapter three, the presence of an energetic background is
decisive in understanding how particles communicate in order to form
atoms and molecules.
In modern nuclear physics, the above mentioned processes are in-
terpreted as a complicated recombination of quarks in agreement with
certain accepted diagrams. The aim is to give a meaning to a plen-
itude of various unstable objects, characterized by very short lives
(often shorter that the “clock time” of an electron), ejected during
heavy nuclear collisions. I do not think it would be difficult to repro-
duce them in terms of fluid dynamics transition phenomena; there are
certainly plenty of degrees of freedom to play with (it is enough to
have a look at a whirling water stream to get the idea). Note that
analogies between optics phenomenology and fluid vortices, both at
experimental and theoretical levels, have been pointed out by many
research groups. Here, I am pushing these similarities to the smallest
scale. The fact that subatomic structures are repetitive and can be
coded into families should not be a surprise, since, according to my
theory, there are concise and deterministic differential equations ruling
these interactions.
This discussion is however becoming too speculative. I have too
little material (and too little competence) in my favor to review the
backbones of nuclear physics, sustaining and adequately justifying al-
ternative approaches. It is enough for me to have shown a possible
viable path. On the other hand, the cards of specialists are not always
aces; argumentation is based on statistical evidence and if one looks

at the way things have developed, there is space for a reinterpretation
of the foundations. Inelegant adaptations and exceptions characterize
the current theories; so that the discipline, even if introduced in an
informal fashion, ends up to be abstruse for an outsider. For a com-
prehensive historical introduction to particle physics, underlining the
main highlights, the reader is addressed to [84].
Anyway, it is better to stop at this point: the more I add considera-
tions on the subject of particle physics, the higher is the risk of writing
nonsense. In the end, the goal of this presentation is only to offer a
general description, emphasizing the role of photons in nature, within
the framework of a self-consistent theoretical context. My approach,
although still to be extended and validated, has the advantage of be-
ing coherent with classical results and a vision of reality in syntony
with common understanding. The reader is obviously free to take into
account the suggestions that better fit his own viewpoint and discard,
after due consideration, that which seems meaningless.
Chapter 3
The constituents of matter
Millenni di sonno mi hanno cullato

ed ora ritorno. Qualcosa è cambiato
non scorgo segnale che annunci la vita
eppure l’avverto ci son vibrazioni
Franco Battiato, composer
3.1 The hydrogen atom
After having devised a preliminary sketch of electrons, protons and nu-

clei, the next situation to be handled is the formation of the simplest
atomic structure: the Hydrogen atom. Recall that, up to this moment,
we have mostly dealt with bare particles, analyzing their internal struc-
ture and what happens in their vicinity. Thus, we need something in
between to allow more incisive communication between the parts, and
since I only have electromagnetism in my menu, I will play again with
photons. From now on, my exposition will be even more qualitative.
Although direct numerical simulations can be performed on the math-
ematical differential model, such computations look rather intensive
and need careful preparation. I will base my arguments on intuition
and experience. I basically treat electromagnetism as a fluid and take
inspiration from mechanics to describe its behavior.
143
In chapter two, I claimed that the energy surrounding a bare elec-

tron is going to be dragged into a toroid shaped envelope (see figure
2.2), that hereafter will be called a photon shell. It should be clear
that the process can be repeated. As long as there is energy floating
around, this is driven to form a matrioshka-like sequence of encapsu-
lated photon shells (see figure 3.1), all circulating in the same direction.
The analogy with the picture of figure 2.9 is only incidental; there the
surfaces are just due to a dye injected in the fluid, while in the case
we are discussing here they mark a discontinuity of the velocity field.
Differently from the case of the proton, that will be treated later, the
case of the electron is a bit peculiar. The shells can be numerous, but
mostly concentrated in the surrounding of the main ring, so that for
the moment the influence of the particle cannot be felt at large dis-
tances. Energies associated with shells are relatively small and decay
quite fast with distance.
Figure 3.1: If electromagnetic energy is available, an electron generates a

sequence of encapsulated photon shells solving the set of Maxwell’s equations.
They include a dynamical part as well as stationary electric and magnetic
signals both with zero curl and divergence. As in figure 2.2, the stationary
solution is continuous across the various boundaries.
Realistically, only a few shells at the time encircle an electron,

though hypothetically the covering may be composed by infinite mem-
bers. Their number and magnitude depend on circumstances that will
be analyzed in more detail later. The electron’s shell system can be
The constituents of matter 145
defined to be the set of all possible quantized configurations that the

shells may assume in a given context and at a given time. In a cluster
of electrons, different shell systems could develop around each parti-
cle. The number of components is then estimated on a statistical basis,
taking into account the energy level of the environment.
Before continuing, let me recall what we got in the previous chap-
ter. The bare electron is a classical ring with photons circulating in
it. In the first picture of figure 2.4 (see also figure 2.2), such a ring is
surrounded by a first shell. Successive shells can be added in similar
fashion. The shells do not carry any discernible charge (the fields oscil-
late with a time-average per period equal to zero), however stationary
electric and magnetic terms with ρ = divE = 0 and divB = 0 may be
present. One can match things in such a way that the whole stationary
solution, defined both on the bare particle and the subsequent shells,
is globally continuous (see again figure 2.2). The divE = 0 condition
implies that the electric field decays as the inverse of the square of the
distance from the bare particle. Recall again that inside the particle
one has divE 6= 0; this prevents field singularities. I also examined
the possibility that the first photon shell encircling the bare particle is
such that divE 6= 0. In this case we obtain the muon, i.e., the heavier
version of the electron (see the second picture of figure 2.4 and the
comments of section 2.5).
Protons are much more complicated. Basically, they are consti-
tuted by an electron-type ring immersed in a first photon shell con-
taining two other spinning photons (see figures 2.6 and 2.7). In this
system we have ρ 6= 0, so that the structure acquires charge and mass.
For simplicity, the bare proton was represented as a Hill’s vortex, i.e.,
a vortex with the inner hole degenerated into a segment. As far as
the successive shells are concerned, the reader can refer to figure 3.2.
With heuristic arguments, one checks that their size grows geometri-
cally and their associated frequency decays accordingly. This property
of self-similarity (that a geometrical sequence can be transformed into
itself by a suitable amplification factor) is a first contribution to the
fractal structure of matter, that will emerge as I go ahead with the
discussion.
The study of 3D electromagnetic waves, solving all of Maxwell’s
equations and trapped in perfectly spherical Hill’s type vortices, has
been treated in [23], case D, both analytically and numerically. Exact
proportions are given. More realistically the shape should be similar
to that of an ellipsoid. The dynamics is analogous to that sketched in

figure 2.6. Let me specify that the cases in [23] are hypothetical. Other
shapes could in principle be devised, though the expected dynamical
behavior should not be dissimilar. One has also take into account
that the framework is not rigid, since it may change under the action
of external mechanical forces; those that later will contribute to the
vibrational properties of molecules.
Figure 3.2: Differently from the electron (see figure 3.1), a proton generates
a sequence of encapsulated photon shells, whose radius grows geometrically.
In each shell there are two spinning photons, synchronized with a phase dif-
ference of 90o , organized to form toroid structures. The direction of rotation
changes by passing from one shell to the successive one. The picture on the
right-hand side shows the modulus of the electric field at a given time (see
also figure 2.6 and the simulation in [23]).
The rules of electrostatics will continue to hold, and point-wise

charges are substituted by charged dielectrics with annular shape. It
is important to point out a mathematical property. The condition
ρ = 0 by itself does not characterize the behavior of the electric field
outside a domain, given the boundary conditions on its surface. There
are in fact infinite solutions to this problem. Nevertheless, from the
analysis of the few cases that can be explicitly handled, it follows that
there is only one way to prolong the solution compatibly with the dy-
namic part, and this is amenable to a Coulomb-type potential. Thus,
one rediscovers the rules of electrostatics not only because they are
trivially included in the modelling equations, but because, among the
other possible stationary solutions, they are the only ones permitted.
As a consequence, fields present at the outer surface of each shell turn
out to be uniquely determined by those given on the inner boundary
(going backwards, everything originates from the bare particle). As it
will be shown later, this may be a source of conflict when two shells
related to two different particles meet. The presence of the station-
ary magnetic field, although non-standard in classical electrostatics,
should not surprise us at all, since it is revealed by many experiments
(see later).
Let me also say that, since ρ = 0 outside the bare particle, the vec-
tor V might not be necessary and the pressure p can be taken to be
equal to zero (see equation (86) in Appendix F). As a consequence, the
shells do not display any mass. We may introduce V by assuming that
it is oriented in such a way that the triplet (E, B, V) is right-handed
(or left-handed, depending wether we are dealing with antimatter or
matter; see section 2.6), where E and B denote the stationary compo-
nents of the electric and magnetic fields respectively. In this fashion, a
unique direction of rotation is associated to all shells (both in the case
of the electron and the proton), regardless of the actual development
of the dynamical fields. In this way, the notion of spin orientation of
a particle can be transferred to the external shells.
At least in the proton case, by the mechanism of developing shells
(if neighboring energy is available), the particle can transmit informa-
tion about its charge far away, and this is probably done at velocities
comparable to that of light. Let me point out that, with the classical
approach of considering the particle as a point-wise singularity sub-
ject to Coulomb’s law, the transfer of information is immediate, i.e.,
isolated charges at enormous distance feel their reciprocal existence in-
stantaneously. Although a large community of physicists support the
idea that some interactions may develop with almost zero propagation
time, perhaps because of connections through other space dimensions,
I would prefer to remain in a “classical” 3D universe. Thus, an entire
proton consists of the bare core and a possibly unbounded sequence of
photon shells. Hence, the velocity of propagation of the electric infor-
mation depends on how rapidly the shells develop, and, in any case,
Figure 3.3: By turning the

small gear the rotation is trans-
mitted to the larger ones. In
this fashion, the frequency de-
cays. Note that the peripheral
velocity of each gear does not
vary. Conservation of energy
is obtained by requiring all the
gears to have the same mass,
i.e., a density of mass inversely
proportional to the squared ra-
dius. The rotating photons of
figure 3.2 follow a similar mo-
tion, although the contact is not
point-wise as in this example.
does not pass the speed of light. The frequency associated to each shell
reduces as one moves from the core, proportionally to the inverse of the
distance. The last observation is very crucial in my theory, since my
interest in atomic physics started with the aim of generating such an
effect, that is a decay of the frequency with distance (see section 3.8).
As in the case of real non-viscous fluids, conservation of energy and
momenta dictate the laws ruling the various shells. An analogy can
be established with a set of communicating gears of different sizes (see
figure 3.3); a tricky appliance that finds roots in Maxwell’s mechanical
description of electromagnetism (see footnotes 36 and 37).
Let me also observe that together with the charge also the magnetic
information and the geometrical properties (including spin orientation,
as said above) are transferred through the shells. This means that the
gravitational message is spreading out. In this context, “gravitation”
assumes a very general meaning that goes far beyond that commonly
ascribed for instance to astronomy. Let me recall some concepts al-
ready expressed in the previous sections. Nuclei, atoms and molecules
are essentially kept together by gravity, despite the popular argument
claiming that, since particle masses are negligible, there is no reason
to involve gravitational issues at the atomic level. These statements
certainly sound very eccentric, but my purpose here is to slowly bring
the reader to my side and let him appreciate the advantages of my
approach. For this, we have to subvert the order of things and inter-
pret well-known experimental results in a new spirit. This implies an

entire review of some consolidated assumptions, without denying the
evidence of the available data.
I mentioned in the introduction that the easiest explanation of a
phenomenon is not necessarily extendible to all circumstances (see also
footnote 150). As remarked in section 2.5, applying the rules of stan-
dard gravitation obtained for large mass bodies is not straightforward
in the microcosm. For this reason, it is unfair to use the usual inverse
squared law, introduced to study the attraction of two planets, in the
limiting case of two particles. As a matter of fact, it wrongly leads
us to believe that gravitation is unnecessary at those scales. Stable
elementary particles are provided with the same features and flavors
of all the objects we find in our universe. Neglecting gravitational ef-
fects sounds like a non-optimized use of resources. Thus, I will be very
radical in this respect. Following the pattern of previous chapters:
electromagnetism relies on photons, photons are geometrical emana-
tions, geometry is the embryo of gravitation, gravitation governs elec-
tromagnetism. Geometry may keep photons together, showing that
particles are glued by “gravity”. Some electromagnetic energy may be
missing but only because it has been converted into gravity potential
energy, ready to be transformed back into photons. Therefore grav-
ity, intended as a dynamical geometrical process is also the cement of
atoms, and I am going to discuss how the miracle actually happens by
starting with Hydrogen.
Physicists and chemists seem to be satisfied with the current model
of atoms, and the technological world has proliferated based on it.
The search for a justification that goes beyond quantum mechanics
dogma has been abandoned by most. I always thought that, although
practically effective, the explanation of the structure of matter given
by official sources is totally unsatisfactory and leaves a sensation of
incompleteness89 . Sometimes definitions grasp at straws90 .
89
From [60], p.26 (R. Penrose): “We are here confronted with the odd picture
of reality that quantum mechanics presents us with. [...] Some people feel uneasy
with such a clear-cut geometrical pictures of quantum states. They say that we
should not try to form a picture of reality when applying the rules of quantum
mechanics: just follow the rules of quantum mechanical formalism, do not try to
form pictures and do not ask questions about reality! This seems to me to be wholly
unreasonable”.
90
From [16], p.236: “In the hydrogen atom the electron does not appear as a wave
or as a particle, but in a form different from both, namely, as angular-momentum
Let me naively review the main steps starting with the Bohr model.
In the Bohr Hydrogen, the electron physically rotates around the pro-
ton. This vision soon generates questions regarding the choice of a pre-
ferred observer frame, but let us forget this for a while. The represen-
tation is so rooted in popular iconography that atoms are depicted as a
central granular bunch encircled by trajectories of spinning electrons,
and when asking a friend to describe Hydrogen he will involuntarily
start moving a finger in rotatory fashion. The electrical attraction of
the two bodies maintains the orbit. Not all the trajectories are possi-
ble. Due to the de Broglie interpretation, the electron is also a wave,
carrying a frequency proportional to its velocity. It turns out that
there is an infinite set of quantized “states”,
such that the electron’s frequency, induced
by the velocity of rotation, agrees well with
the corresponding orbit frequency. These
can be exactly evaluated, by knowing a few
basic constants. The kinetic energies re-
sulting from this computation adequately
match observations, and this, at the time
of the discovery of such a primitive atom
model, was the first significant validation.
Though simple and appealing, this idea is not relativistically com-
patible and not trivially adaptable to more complex atoms91 (not at
all, I would say). In the case of a molecule it is very hard to imagine
how a structure can be stable with all those staggered circumnavigat-
ing electrons. It has to be taken into account anyway that mechanical
interpretations have been, and still are, sources of inspiration92,93 .
and energy eigenstate, in which it has neither a definite position (particle) nor a
definite momentum (wave), but does have a definite angular momentum (rotator).
The classical picture that come closest to this is that of a standing spherical wave”.
91
From [91], p.129: “... Alas, continued Born, the ‘possibility of considering the
atom as a planetary system has its limits. The agreement is only in the simplest
case [the hydrogen atom].’ The honeymoon of the Bohr theory was over”.
92
From [18], p.130: “Although it is typically believed that classical trajectories
were banished from quantum systems with the downfall of the old quantum theory,
recent work in semiclassical mechanics reveals that they still have a legitimate,
though revised, role to play”.
93
From the Preface in [32]: “In contrast with the mainstream of accepted wisdom,
we consider that quantum-classical analogies are a source of understanding and
further development of quantum physics. Indeed, many quantum physical concepts
have originated from classical notions, a striking example in this respect being
In the successive and “upgraded” explanations, critical problems

have been disappointingly hidden. Through the work of W.K. Heisen-
berg, quantum mechanics claims that determining the exact position
of an electron is an ill-posed question. The calculation is reduced to the
determination of a distribution of probability, having higher intensity
where there are more chances to find the electron. The proton is then
supposed to be covered by a cloud of expectation values. Schrödinger’s
and Dirac’s theories provide us with an effective means of calculating
the “correct” distributions, passing through the resolution of suitable
differential equations and the evaluation of the associated eigenfunc-
tions. The corresponding sequence of eigenvalues gives us a glimpse of
the energy distribution and agreement with reality is now achievable
even for more complicated atoms and molecules. Further extensions
take care of the concept of spin and Pauli’s exclusion principle. By
the way, I do not want to proceed with this discussion any longer. I
believe in a complete causal description of nature phenomena, and I
consider the statistical approach to be a contingent result, temporarily
set up to collect the main ideas, but still waiting for radical reorganiza-
tion94,95 . Therefore I would like to stay within my set of deterministic
equations, where the solutions are exactly telling me what happens
time-wise and point-like. I am inclined to accept most of the hints
and conclusions of quantum mechanics, but I would like to disclose
the underlying machinery.
Let us go back to the Hydrogen atom. How do we check that
a proposed model fits experiment? We know that it is possible to
the Schrödinger equation, which was formulated by starting from classical optical
concepts”.
94
From [17]: “It is possible that looking to the future to a deeper level of physical
reality we will be able to interpret the laws of probability and quantum physics as
being the statistical results of the development of completely determined values of
variables that are at present hidden from us. It may be that the powerful means
we are beginning to use to break up the structure of the nucleus and to make new
particles appear will give us one day a direct knowledge that we do not now have at
this deeper level. To try to stop all attempts to pass beyond the present viewpoint
of quantum physics could be very dangerous for the progress of science and would
furthermore be contrary to the lesson we may learn from the history of science”.
95
From [55]: “Einstein, who understood better than most the implications of
emerging interpretations of quantum mechanics, could never accept it as final theory
of physics. He had no doubt that it worked, that it was a successful interim theory
of physics, but he was convinced that it would be eventually replaced by a deeper,
deterministic theory”.
associate to the atom a multitude of different quantized energy states

and that jumps between one state and another may occur. These
changes are characterized by the emission or the absorption of photons,
globally having the same amount of energy as the gap between the
two Hydrogen states involved. Well, well, there are photons inside
Hydrogen! Trapped photons. They indeed provide part of the atom’s
energy. When abundant, some of them can be ejected, leaving the
atom in a lower energy state. Conversely, pumping some form of energy
into the atom corresponds to adding photons.
And there are also frequencies involved. The spectrum of Hydrogen
is a set of prescribed and very characterizing resonance frequencies96 ,
that can be easily pointed out by tickling the atom with an oscillating
source (note that some of them are in general outside of the visible
range). This is a sign that those trapped photons are “rotating”.
Thus, something is actually circulating inside Hydrogen, although it
is not the electron.
There is more: at the end of the nineteenth century, the scientists J.
Balmer and J. Rydberg found that the energy needed to pass from the
n-th state to the m-th state is proportional to: 1/n2 −1/m2 . The state
corresponding to n = 1 is at the minimum of energy and it is called
the ground-state. Jumping from the state n = 1 to the state m = 2
requires much more energy than moving for instance between the states
n = 10 and m = 11. Thus, the atom can be excited more easily when
far from the ground-state. The picture starts getting focussed and,
according to my view, we are not far from the final answer.
Following Planck and Einstein, the energy of a photon is propor-
tional to its frequency. This is partly true. For a general free-wave
(and the photon is one of them) there is no reason (nor possibility)
to introduce the concept of frequency, since any kind of information
can be carried, varying both in intensity and shape. In fact, when
E + V × B = 0 (see (18) in Appendix B), the modelling equations
do not impose heavy restrictions, so quantization cannot emerge in
any form. For photons produced from the breakage of a rotating sys-
tem, the situation is different. There, we find a preliminary form
96
From [99], p.41: “Whenever light acts on matter, or is produced by it, we find
packets of defined energy and impulse, related to their frequency and wave number
by the universal proportionality of the quantum of action. How were these quanta
to be thought of? Were they guided by the waves? Were they the waves? Were
the waves an illusion, after all?”.
Figure 3.4: Approximative

sketch of the photon shell
distribution in the Hydro-
gen atom. Each of the two
particles has its own system
of shells until the two sets
start interfering. Then, after
topological mutation, the se-
quence extends further away.
In this simplified picture,
spin orientation is not con-
sidered. Both particles oc-
cupy fixed positions, whereas
the effervescence is given by
the circulating photons.
of quantization that links the space magnitude of the wave (i.e., its
wave-length) and the inverse of the frequency of rotation, before the
rupture occurred. I claimed that, around a particle, there are vari-
ous photon shells, displaying frequencies decaying with distance. The
proton-electron system, together with the corresponding bare parti-
cles, is supposed to have a group of interstitial shells. The highest
frequency shells can be found directly in proximity of both particles.
Passing from an energy state to the next one at a higher level, amounts
to adding a lower frequency shell between particles, in a way to be
studied later. This can be done only if the new-come photons have the
right amount of energy to create a further stable configuration. On
the other hand, an excited atom can get rid of the lowest frequency
shell and pass to a lower state through photon emission.
Without dismantling the work accumulated in more than a hun-
dred years of atomic physics, the above considerations show how the
idea works. Indeed, everything can be set up to be in line with the
experimental results. The new and decisive instrument for the anal-
ysis is a more powerful theory of electromagnetism, which provides a
deterministic model for describing photons, allowing for full control of
what happens inside Hydrogen. Note that here the word “inside” is
very appropriate. In fact, the vision of an atom composed of a mate-
rial nucleus and a bunch of electrons, exchanging information through
not well identified subparticle carriers, has been now replaced by a
thick set of circulating photons. There is no void between the bare
proton and the bare electron, but an impetuous rush of neutrino-like

structures, animated by different particular frequencies, forming the
distinctive imprint of Hydrogen. These photons are ready to come out
at any moment, as the appropriate stimulation is applied. From the
modelling equations, it is possible to show that energetic photons may
pass through larger low-frequency shells without being too affected,
freely abandoning the emission site. In some other circumstances,
electromagnetic energy coming from outside can be encompassed and
digested by the atom, then suitably filtered to produce “orbitals” of
the right frequency.
In chemistry, orbitals are used to denote the regions where electrons
are supposed to be statistically found when an atom is in a certain ex-
citation state. According to my viewpoint, electrons are not orbiting
at all and there are not potential orbits where they must be searched
for. Orbitals are really existing photons structures, wisely arranged
between bare particles. Moreover, the atom, by acting on further elec-
tromagnetic energy, can also generate additional outer shells. In this
fashion it will be able to interact with other atoms to form molecules.
Looking at picture 3.4, a kind of action radius can be naturally asso-
ciated to the proton-electron pair in the Hydrogen atom in its ground
state (see the thicker line), which is of the order of half an Ångström (1
Å= 10−10 meters). It is basically similar to what is called the Van der
Waals radius, of practical utility in the study of chemical compounds.
It is interesting to note that such a domain also follows the contour
of the electron. This fact is important, since I am going to give a
promotion to electrons, that are going to be handled in a chemical
structure in the same guise as nuclei. Hence, electrons come out from
anonymity, they are no more fuzzy underdeveloped displacements and
they will expect to be treated as respectable components of matter.
Having set the basic ideas, let us go now to check some quantitative
aspects.
3.2 Organization of the photon shells

Photon shells do not have charge or mass. In truth, they display a
given energy, that, for the Planck hypothesis at the ground state is ob-
tained by multiplying the constant h by the corresponding frequency.
However, the associated densities of charge and mass are zero. When
the first shell embraces a bare particle, it adheres like a suction pad
(see also the considerations made in section 2.2 about surface tension).
At the same time, the electric and magnetic fields, expressed by the
bare particle through the stationary components, are transferred to
the new shell’s outer surface. The process is repeated in the succes-
sive shells with no influence on the total mass and charge. Together
with the electromagnetic information, the shells carry outbound grav-
itational information. Some ideas on how the formation process of the
whole structure takes part will be given in the following paragraphs.
Recall that each shell is an indivisible entity. By the way, a shell can
adjust its size and when it has accumulated enough energy, may start
a smooth subdivision process, brusquely terminating with the splitting
into separated shells, with a consequent mutation of the topology.
In quantum mechanics, the transition between states is explained by
attributing to the electron a vibrational movement until it reaches
the new equilibrium. During the oscillations there is a production of
electromagnetic waves like in a dipole. Dipole waves are far from being
self-contained solitary waves (as a typical photon should be), therefore,
this explanation of the photon’s emission process remains vague and
unconvincing97 .
Another explanation usually put forward relies on the observation
that an accelerated charge emits a series of photons. Since there is a
shifting of the electron from an equilibrium position to another, this
explanation seems more credible, though still not coincident with my
viewpoint. It has to be clarified however how the mechanism of photon
emission during acceleration works and why this is not a continuous
process but subject to quantization. The classical arguments, justify-
ing how a moving charge produces electromagnetic field, do not explain
what really happens. But, if one agrees with my interpretation, the
view gets more clear. As I have already said, a single bare charged
particle is surrounded by shells corresponding to a specific set of fre-
quencies. The frequency decays with the distance from the particle.
When one excites the entire system, for example through an electric
97
From [62], p.65: “The radiated light can then be envisioned in a semiclassical
way as emitted in a sort of oscillatory directional pulse [...] In a way, the pulse is
a semiclassical representation of the manifest wave nature of the photon. But the
two are not equivalent in all respects: the electromagnetic wavetrain is a classical
creation that describes the propagation and spatial distribution of light extremely
well; yet its energy is not quantized, and that is an essential characteristic of the
photon. So when we consider photon wavetrains, keep in mind that there is more
to the idea than just a classical oscillatory pulse of the electromagnetic wave”.
field, each component reacts to the perturbation with a different in-

ertia. The central bare particle, being the one carrying the highest
frequency, tends to accelerate faster. The other shells do the same
depending on the frequency involved. At a certain point, the most
outer shells, whose stability strictly depends on the inner shells, are
left behind. In this way, they break up dissolving into photons. As
the acceleration process continues, the particle loses one after another
various shells through a quantized path. The frequency of the photons
emitted is proportional to the velocity achieved, that is in relation
with the impulse of the particle (see also [45], p.177). This result
qualitatively agrees with experiments and the basic laws of quantum
mechanics. Things are however not as simple as just depicted, there-
fore deeper investigation is necessary. Although I am conscious that
details are important in a scientific treatise, the search for a global
understanding temporarily takes precedence. So, I ask the reader to
forgive me if the dissertation is of necessity vague.
The set of shells circulating around an electron strongly depends
on the context. Indeed the size of the shells depend on the internal
frequency of the bare particle, that, as specified in section 2.1, may
vary without altering the main characterizing features. This is why
there is no prescribed rule for the spectrum of frequencies produced by
an accelerated electron, that for this reason is said to be continuous.
When the electron is tied to a certain atom it is no longer a single
entity, but concurs, together with the nucleus and the other electrons
(if any) to a quantized formation of shells, specific to that atom and
related to its excitation state. Altering this structure may lead the
atom to “jump” to another state with a corresponding elimination or
addition of shells (photon emission or absorption). This phenomenon
is global and it is not directly due to the fact that a specific electron
of the group has been accelerated98 . Changes can be only ascribed
to the photon structure, since electrons remain blocked in a small
neighborhood of their initial position.
Let me add more comments concerning inertia. A way to acceler-
ate an electron is to apply an electric field. The law is well described
in physics books, although such an “action at a distance” is a mys-
98
From the Historical Introduction in [19]: “The problem of how light is produced
or destroyed in atoms is, however, not exclusively of an optical nature, as it involves
equally the mechanics of the atom itself; and the laws of spectral lines reveal not
so much the nature of light as the structure of emitting particles”.
terious process, and, being instantaneous, violates the postulates of

special relativity. My approach is different. As we saw, the electron is
made of electromagnetic signals confined in a toroidal region. Interac-
tion with an external electric field, results in a change of orientation
of its internal fields, which also implies a modification at the geomet-
rical level. Geodesics are no longer closed orbits, but start spiraling
and, from the outside, one can see the particle shifting. Everything
continues to evolve at velocities close to that of light, although the
shift can be much slower. At rest, the particle can be compared to
a working engine with the gear in the neutral position, waiting for a
possible input signal. In some regions the speed of light may be ex-
ceeded. As explained in section 2.2, such a localized phenomenon is
not alarming and does not violate general relativity. It is clear that
now the interaction is at a purely electromagnetic level and does not
need further abstract explanations. An outside inertial observer sees
the movement of the particle and the surrounding shells and recog-
nizes that there is an acceleration from the asymmetry of the system.
As I mentioned above, at a certain point, some external shells may
uncouple from the group and give rise to free photons. As a matter
of fact, due to the larger size and the lower frequency, the spiraling of
the geodesics related to the far away shells produces a milder shifting.
Contrary to what is generally believed, it does not make sense to
speak about pure stationary electric (or magnetic) fields. According
to my model, an electron generates its own dynamic surroundings,
overlapped by stationary fields. The structure however stays in equi-
librium because of the time-dependent parts. Thus, everything should
be interpreted in terms of shell interactions. In this way, processes at
the atomic level are depicted as a movement, destruction and recom-
bination of 3D pieces of a complicated puzzle, with tassels varying in
size from the extremely small fragments, directly built around parti-
cles, up to the largest intermolecular components99 . We do not have to
actually know what is inside these bubbles, since they are independent
units. Although one may reconstruct their internal dynamics through
the modelling equations, the observations would be simpler if it was
possible to handle them as macro-structures, glued together by surface
99
From [90], p.17: “Motion is an inherent property of molecules; consequently,
molecular shapes cannot be described in detail without taking into account the
dynamic aspect of the motion of various parts of the molecule relative to one an-
other. Within a semiclassical approximation, the dynamic shape variations during
vibrations can be modelled by an infinite family of geometrical arrangements”.
tensions. The successive theoretical step would then be providing some

model equations for the shells, without necessarily computing the en-
tire inside solution. The process passes over to geometry and, through
it, to gravitation (in the extended sense of the term). We should not
confuse this with everyday gravitation, that is only a by-product of a
complex mechanism occurring inside molecular structures.
I would like now to show that magnetic effects are very relevant in
maintaining the equilibrium states of an atom. Neglecting magnetic
properties limits the validity of the approach. This crucial observation
is also going to be true for Schrödinger’s equation and other affine
models (see section 3.3). Some links with the Dirac’s equation were
devised in [45], section 5.5.
In the Hydrogen case, optimal configurations are supposedly ob-
tained when the spin axes are lined up. Note that spin orientation
does not appear in the rough picture of figure 3.4. Using terms bor-
rowed from the dynamics of fluids, proton and electron attract each
other as two little vacuum pumps, and stay together by virtue of some
Venturi-like effect. As in the Casimir effect between two uncharged
metallic plates (I will return to this issue later with more details),
there is more energy outside the system of the two particles than in-
side, and this generates the pressure that keeps them together. The
issue is indeed more delicate and its explanation must be improved
upon. In addition, we do not have to forget that there is a minimum
distance from proton and electron and this turns out to be mainly due
to the presence of the stationary components. This avoids the mutual
collapse of the two particles and guarantees the stability at the ground
state. Let us better examine this aspect.
Before dealing with our problems, let me also recall that, together
with the electric field, there is an omnipresent magnetic component.
Since divB = 0, the lines of force must be closed curves. Thus, let
me devote some attention for a moment to a few remarks concerning
the magnetic properties of atoms. As electromagnetism predicts, these
come part and parcel with the electric ones. In fact, although the rea-
soning is principally based on the stationary components, everything
is always dynamical and the two concepts of electricity and magnetism
cannot be disjoint. We know that an atom reveals magnetic aspects
that are often presented in an unconvincing way. At the beginning,
quantum mechanics borrowed ideas from classical mechanics, and the
concept of magnetic momentum of a particle was inspired by the spin-
Figure 3.5: The electric fields

present at the surfaces of two
independent photon shells, rel-
ative to two distinct particles of
the same charge, give raise to a
region Ω where ρ < 0. Pressure
increases in Ω and the shells are
pushed apart. The final result
is identical if the electric fields
point in the opposite direction
(ρ > 0 in Ω).
ning of a charge. Although not realistic, this explanation is usually the

one given in standard textbooks. Later, the idea of spin is introduced
in an abstract way, but this further complicates things, since it be-
comes a kind of dogmatic definition, never clarified and always having
an ambiguous link with some unreliable rotating charge. The same
was said in section 2.1 regarding the magnetic moment of a nucleus.
Let us examine what happens with more attention when two par-
ticles interact. The remarks I am going to make are decisive for the
comprehension of more general situations. Note first that two protons
(or two electrons) will never be able to realize an equilibrium. Every-
body will promptly say that this is evident from the fact that they
display charges of the same sign, but, if we discard the action-at-a-
distance argument, an alternative explanation must be given.
Independently of the orientation of the spin axis, two particles of
the same sign tend to produce regions where the divergence of the elec-
tric field ρ is different from zero (see figure 3.5). As claimed in section
3.1, the stationary part of E at the boundary of a shell is uniquely
determined by the inner bare particle (and by the dynamical fields
supporting the steady ones). Two equal charges generate conflicting
situations in the region of space between the furthermost shells. We
can for instance localize a neighborhood Ω where ρ < 0 or ρ > 0 de-
pending on the orientation of E. Note that the product ρE always
points outside Ω, independently of the sign of the charges (provided
they are equal). Since ρ 6= 0, equation (86) in Appendix F comes into
play, with consequences on the gradient of pressure ∇p. I guess that a
first variation on ∇p is produced by an amount equal to −µρE, thus
the gradient of p points inside Ω. This says that the pressure inside Ω
is higher than the surroundings. The corresponding effect is a push-
ing on the shells surfaces. Pressure diffuses all around and affects the
boundaries of the other existing shells up to the bare particles, that
are thrown far apart. In doing this, they also drag the two correspond-
ing systems of encapsulated shells. When the bare particles are at a
certain distance two more independent shells may possibly form, but
troubles are encountered again when new-coming energy tries to pen-
etrate in between the two shell systems. Therefore, if electromagnetic
energy is present in the neighborhood of particles with charges of the
same sign, successive disjoint shells are generated moving the parti-
cles in different directions. Thus, pressure waves may travel across the
shells. All the shells are then concerned with a momentary “mass”
flow. In these transitions, electromagnetic formations, still far from
being stable particles, may acquire mass and assume for a few instants
a state that is in between matter and pure photonic energy. Let me
point out that these conjectures could be actually verified by working
on the model equations, although with uncommon technical effort.
Now, let us go back to the Hydrogen atom. The spin axis of the
electron and the proton can be parallel or anti-parallel. I exclude a
priori situations in which the axis are inclined, since I attribute higher
energy to this eventuality. The problems that emerged before do not
bother us since the electric vectors follow a unique stream. Heuristi-
cally, one can expect to arrange things in order to preserve the condi-
tion ρ = 0, though this is not automatical and must respect the whole
set of equations. The discussion then passes to the magnetic com-
ponent (we are starting here to appreciate the importance of its exis-
tence). An analysis based on the knowledge of electron’s exact solution
gives the following relation: c2 B = −E × V (valid for right-handed
triplets; see also (103) in Appendix F, given for left-handed triplets).
Magically, the same equation holds when studying the spin-orbit inter-
action in Bohr’s Hydrogen model (see for instance [35], p.279). This
coincidence is astonishing since it confirms the tight relationship be-
tween a physics conceived upon standard considerations (on rotating
charged bodies in magnetic fields) and a physics constructed solely on
the knowledge of pure fields. Classically, the formula allows us to inter-
pret the rotatory path of the Hydrogen’s electron as a consequence of
the combined solicitations of the proton’s electric field and a suitable
magnetic field generated by the rotation of the electron itself (more
exactly, by the rotation of the proton, as seen from an observer placed
on the electron). My viewpoint is much simpler, the two particles
do not move and the existence of B is automatically granted by the
electromagnetic environment.
Thus, formula c2 B = −E × V is excellent in order to get an idea
of the magnitude of the forces involved in the neighborhood of the
electron. In section 3.1, I insisted on observing that the photon shell
system of a proton has little in common with that of an electron. There
are two main reasons for this dichotomy. First of all, the bare proton
is rather complicated and, for this reason, substantially different from
the simple electron. Such a divergence gets more remarkable as ad-
vanced nuclei are taken into account. Secondly, the energy present at
the boundary of a bare proton is much higher than that of the elec-
tron. This is due to the presence of the stationary magnetic field. Let
me note that such a property has nothing to do with the measured
magnetic dipole moment of a nucleus. In fact, there are situations in
which such a dipole moment is zero (see for instance 4 He, 12 C, 16 O),
but the presence of a magnetic message cannot be denied (perhaps in
the form of quadrupole moment). According to (97) in Appendix F,
the density of mass of a particle has been defined to be proportional to
ρ − p/c2 . Quantitatively, it turns out that pressure p is mainly affected
by the contribution of B. As the proton is very massive compared to
the electron (about 1830 times more), we should then expect intense
magnetic fields in its surroundings, transferring high energies to the
circulating system of photon shells. From the quantitative viewpoint,
the estimated magnitude of B, when acting on the dipole moment of
the electron in the Hydrogen ground state, is extremely large; here we
are talking about intensities of the order of 1 Tesla (see [35], p.281).
The strongest man-made magnets do no exceed 40 Teslas. Therefore,
the role of the magnetic component ends up being decisively impor-
tant.
In the electron-proton interaction, the first case to be handled is
when the spins are opposite. In this way, the magnetic lines of force
have a common orientation. The first picture in figure 3.6 gives an
idea of the displacement of the lines of force of the magnetic fields as
they emerge from the outermost shells: one relative to the proton and
the other to the electron. Such signals are brought from the respec-
tive bare particles, which, as stated before, display different magnetic
behaviors. Thus, the corresponding intensities may not match, gener-
ating a region of strong variation at the interstice. By equation (83)
in Appendix F, the sudden variation of curlB reflects on the term ρV,
that also appears in equation (86) under the form µ(ρV) × B. At
this point a gradient of pressure develops. The sign of the pressure is

then decided by the orientation of ρV. The reciprocal position of the
particles mutates until one has ρV = 0, which should lead to the con-
tinuity of the magnetic field across the two surfaces. The adjustment
process aimed at reaching an equilibrium state may pass through the
asymmetrical creation or suppression of shells. Electron shells do not
have a wide range (see figure 3.1); in fact they can only provide some
fine adjustment. Thus the dominating geometrical role belongs to the
proton.
Figure 3.6: Situation at the encounter of two shell surfaces relative to par-
ticles of opposite charge. The qualitative pictures refer to the behavior in
proximity of the spin axes when they are lined up (opposing in the first case,
concordant in the second one). The magnetic field is compatible only in the
first picture, while the intermediation of a recirculating wave in the second
picture is necessary.
In figure 3.7 it is naively shown how, by varying the distance of

the bare particles, one can get an intermediate configuration leading
to a smooth joint of the magnetic signals, independently emanated by
the two sources. Since the magnetic field of the proton is much more
vigorous, the meeting point of the signals must be positioned very near
to the electron. In this fashion the shell system associated with the
nucleus is quite extended in comparison to that of the electrons (see
figure 3.4). If we also recall that the intensity of B is somehow related
to the mass of a particle, it could be possible to justify the geometrical
displacement of the Hydrogen atom from the magnitude of the ratio
M/m between proton and electron masses. Note that the parameter
M/m takes part in the description of the Bohr’s atom through the
so called reduced mass of the system, and this is another salient co-
incidence between my approach and classical results. Differences in
atomic configurations are noticed for instance by replacing a nucleus
with any of its isotopes. It is also known that by replacing an electron
of certain atoms by a muon, which is 200 times heavier, the spectrum
changes considerably. This confirms that mass actually plays a role in
the atomic world, and here we roughly start understanding why the
promiscuity between electromagnetism and mechanics may have come
about, although nothing is mechanically turning around except pho-
tons. It is known that strong external magnetic fields can significantly
interfere with the shell distribution providing visible perturbation on
the emission spectrum of a substance. The Zeeman effect is an ex-
ample of such modifications, confirming that the magnetic context is
latent and ready to come into play as soon as appropriate conditions
are fulfilled.
Figure 3.7: The signals from two different sources meet at some point in
between. It is possible to adjust the distance of the sources in such a way that
there is no discontinuity at the meeting point (see central diagram).
We may finally ask ourselves what happens when the spin axes
of the proton-electron pair are parallel and with the same orientation
(see the second picture of figure 3.6). We are now confronted with an
incompatibility of both B and V, which can be overcome by assum-
ing the existence of a recirculating energy forming a cushion between
the two shell systems. This is an intercommunicating electromagnetic
wave of neutrino type, displaying appropriate shape and carrying suit-
able connecting fields B and E (with ρ = 0). The situation recalls that
of figure 2.10, obtainable after eliminating all the superfluous shells.

It is understood that the presence of the extra component alters a
bit the equilibrium, resulting in a slightly different distribution of the
atomic spectrum frequencies. The phenomenon is actually observed in
practice and it is referred to as fine structure. From accurate analysis,
many emission lines of atomic spectra appear to be the overlapping
of two almost coincident bands. In the substance under study the
majority of the electrons are orientated with the spin axes lined up
with the nuclear ones. A sample contains in general a huge number
of atoms, so that the emission bands show us on the same screen the
fingerprints of the atoms in both situations (i.e., spin parallel or anti-
parallel). The flip of the spin of an electron inside an atomic structure
rarely occurs without the intervention of external factors. Spin-flip
may be generated for instance by magnetic effects (in the context of
quite complex situations however). Changes of the spin orientation are
well documented and correspond to the emission of the so called 21
cm-wavelength photon. It is also known that such an effect is actually
due to magnetic reasons. From my viewpoint, the emission of a photon
in the transition from a spin orientation to the opposite one, amounts
to the liberation and the successive breakage of the low-energy cush-
ion neutrino mentioned above. Astonishing similarities can be noticed
with regard to electron-positron annihilation (see footnote 78).
Several concepts are then fused in the Hydrogen atom, that in the
micro-universe represents the easiest example of interaction of bodies,
the germ of what in a complex and sophisticated context will become
classical mechanics. Quantitatively, both the electric and magnetic
stationary fields are indispensable to defining the constituting struc-
ture, and they symbolize what we can directly understand about the
object (charge distribution, magnetic momentum, mass). Neverthe-
less, they only survive with the support of the dynamical electromag-
netic background, whose organization, reflecting quantization, is indi-
rectly observed by stimulating the atom100 . Both the ingredients are
essential in the constitution of matter, that can be formally separated
into a sort of “skeleton” and a “living” part. The first does not exist
independently of the second one, but it is necessary to give flavor to
100
From [22], p.189: “The conception of atoms as consisting of matter and void
is clearly inadequate. If the void should be interpreted in the most obvious sense
of the word as nothing, how could this conception give reason for the stability of
the atomic aggregate? [...] The atom is clearly a complex, unified entity in which
charges and fields interact intimately”.
the universe.
The symbiosis between quantum and classical mechanics is basi-
cally accomplished. From now on, the study only becomes a question
of complexity101 and it will be my duty to show to the reader, with a
series of examples, how known facts observed in nature are deducible
from this paradigm. Numerical computations performed on the differ-
ential model may in the future validate these reasonings and eventually
point out possible flaws in my arguments. The important thing is hav-
ing set up the principal ideas and furnished a partial explanation to
the mechanism of formation of atomic structures. In the sequel of this
chapter, I will try to see if the whole machinery works by examining
and comparing further facts.
In view of discussing more involved atoms and some simple molecu-
les, let me end this section by introducing Helium. Arguing as in the
case of Hydrogen, a sequence of shells, resulting from the convoy of
spare electromagnetic energy, may develop around the nucleus (which
is now an α-particle). Successively, an electron might be involved in
the process of formation of the shells. Presumably, it will find a pre-
ferred standpoint along one of the two privileged directions determined
by the nuclear proton’s axes (see figure 2.12). The electron’s spin axis
may be suitably oriented in parallel or anti-parallel (in the first case
an extra recirculating vortex appears). Such a combination of electron
and nucleus (forming a positive Helium ion) establishes a new peculiar
stable configuration of shells, leaving however an option for the arrival
of another electron, preferably from the direction opposite to the one
of the first electron. When the full atom (the nucleus and two elec-
trons) is set up, the situation from the shell’s viewpoint is saturated
and does not allow further additions. The final distribution of the
shells and the frequencies associated to them allows us to deduce the
Helium spectrum, in a way that will be better specified in the next
section. The distribution resembles that of the negative Hydrogen ion
(H− , one proton and two electrons). Anyway, He and H− do not co-
incide, not simply because the nuclei are not the same, but because
the whole internal arrangement is structured in an alternative man-
ner. Again, my atom is not just the union of the bare particles but an
101
From [38], p.114: “You might wonder how such simple actions could produce
such a complex world. It’s because phenomena we see in the world are the result
of an enormous intertwining of tremendous numbers of photons exchanges and
interferences”.
active changeable entity, filling up an entire portion of the 3D space

of diameter approximately 10−10 meters.
3.3 The structure of matter

Before studying more sophisticated cases, it is necessary to better ex-
plain the relationship between the family of shells associated with an
atom and the corresponding emission spectrum. In fact, I specified
that there are two systems of shells: those generated by each electron
and those encircling the nucleus. For the reasons set forth in section
3.2, the second ensemble is highly energetic in particular near the bare
nucleus, to the point that a reduced factor of 3-4 orders of magnitude is
expected when approaching the electrons. The nuclear shells are very
few (maybe less than ten), since their growth is geometric. Through
mechanisms of the type described in the previous section, the nuclear
shells influence the position of the electrons and, once the electronic
set settles down, are almost immutable. I am going to provide later a
deeper analysis of their behavior. For the moment, let us concentrate
on the shell systems associated with electrons.
I assume that in the ground state, no shells surround the electrons.
The electrons can however communicate with the exterior through the
shell system of the nucleus. It is wise to recall how adaptable is the
electron’s shape, that, preserving global diameter, may vary its in-
ternal frequency by adjusting its thickness (see section 2.1). This is
another degree of freedom to be taken into consideration when passing
to excited states. Different energy levels, other than the ground state,
may be reached via the absorption of photons in the proper frequency
domain. In fact, when all the parameters are stretched to their maxi-
mum level it is the moment to change the topological setting, through
the release or the acquisition of shells. The electron’s shells remain
however very localized, thus they contribute very little to the global
organization of the atom they are embedded in. Therefore, there is not
a real “jump” from one configuration to another. My electrons neither
revolve around the nucleus nor move when excited. Small adaptations
are just allowed.
I admit that the above claim is in contrast to what is stated in
chemistry textbooks. On the other hand, the same texts do not justify
why Bohr’s theory predicts that the Hydrogen radius grows n2 times
when passing from the ground state (n = 1 and a diameter of about
1 Å) to the n-th state, despite the fact that the size of a generic
atom does not exceed a few Ångströms. For n = 4, one is already
exceeding any credible stretching. Of course, one can always say that
these reasonings are old-fashioned and already by-passed by modern
quantum mechanics, where it turns out that an electron can actually be
found far away from the nucleus, although with a very low probability.
In this way some theoretical aspects are safeguarded, leaving however
the auditorium with an unpleasant and unsatisfactory sensation. Thus,
in the God-plays-with-dice version, having abandoned the idea of a
clear picture of what is really happening, quantum theories are able
to support an accurate reconstruction of atomic spectra in terms of
energy levels. And it is exactly on energies that we also need to orient
our study.
The extended optical spectrum goes from the infrared to the ul-
traviolet. That is the range of all the most basic photon emissions.
It is possible to associate a particular energy to the atomic quantized
states of a certain atom, however, what we can see from the emission
spectrum is the energy difference between states. A frequency is usu-
ally attributed to spectral lines; which may also be measured in terms
of wave-lengths (in inverse proportion). As anticipated in section 3.1,
a free-wave may carry any message with the same support. Therefore,
the longitudinal length of a photon is not clearly connected with any
specific frequency. There is no periodic behavior pertaining to a pho-
ton; it is just a pulse of a certain dimension travelling at the speed of
light. The only reasonable way to distinguish photons (not knowing
their exact shape) is to measure their energy. Thus, when we see a
specific band in the emission spectrum we can say that photons have
been released, having an energy equal to the difference of energies of
the two states before and after emission.
From a qualitative analysis of exact solutions on toroidal domains,
one realizes that a sequence of shells can be built around the bare
electron (see figure 3.1), showing an energy proportional to 1/n2 at the
n-th shell. This is mainly due to the decay of the electric and magnetic
signals outside the bare particle. The width of such shells can be very
limited, so that lots of them can be stored in a narrow neighborhood
(see figure 3.1). When an electron gets rid of an outer shell it means
that the constituting photon is practically ejected. One can actually
observe such a photon, or, more exactly, one may evaluate the exact
energy it is transporting. Since there are bands, corresponding to
the simultaneous passage from one state to another several quantized

jumps below, it is necessary to assume that the release of shells may
occur in groups. Perhaps for reasons due to resonance, the separating
barriers between two or more neighboring shells may crack and the
signal merges before being emitted. In this way, the associated global
photon carries an energy which is the sum of the energy gaps involved.
The maximum energy achievable in Hydrogen can be converted to
about 911 Å in terms of wave-length in the ultraviolet region. This
estimate is outrageously meaningless if one takes into account that
the size of Hydrogen is around 1 Å. Clearly, a photon of that extent
cannot fit. On the other hand, photons of such energies can be easily
accommodated into suitable shells of the electron; it is enough to play
with the intensity of the signal carried. Energy is not however the
unique parameter characterizing a given photon. There must be some
other features differentiating “colors”. Unfortunately, I have no means
for distinguishing yellow from green, except than saying that the as-
sociated photons have different energies. For sure, the conversion of
energy into frequencies and wave-lengths is confusing because it does
not conform to atomic scales.
In truth, the progression from microwaves (that can be really rep-
resented through oscillatory phenomena) to optical “waves” crosses a
blurred region. Continuous periodic behaviors are imaginable up to
certain frequencies, then one enters the domain of quantum physics
ruled by discrete photon emissions. The devices used for the detec-
tion and the analysis of these phenomena are rather dissimilar102 . The
transition through the various frequency domains of physics is often
imagined and described with the help of an ideal turning knob. There
are however unfocused transitions between microwaves and optics, and
between optics and X-rays. The fact that the wave-lengths of the op-
tic region do not agree with atomic extensions is not a problem any-
way. Within each range everything is compatible. Photons emitted by
an orange source may reach our retina; they excite certain molecules
that allow the transfer of the orange information to our brain. Atoms
emit photons that are successively digested by other atoms. All these
processes remain at the same level. The interpretation in terms of
102
From [40], p.47: “... This whole region is subdivided into the region of γ-
rays and X-rays, the ultraviolet, the visible, the infrared, the microwave, and the
radiowave regions. Each of these ranges requires a specific experimental technique
of recording and investigation”.
Figure 3.8: Qualitative

sketch of the system of shells
relative to the Lithium atom.
Spins are not taken into
account. Real dimensions are
not respected. The thicker
line confines a sort of Van
der Waals zone. Two elec-
trons are at the edge of the K
region of the nuclear X-rays
systems of shells. The third
one is at the edge of the L
region.
frequencies is just a convention to make easier our analysis of facts.

Each electron without wandering around can then eject photons.
The process most probably occurs to the peripheral electrons of the
atom. The inner ones, having almost no contouring shells, are instead
nailed to their positions which are decided by the nucleus. In Lithium
(see figure 3.8), whose nucleus is naively depicted in figure 2.13, two
electrons are located near the center and the third one is placed at
a distance. In the positive ion Li+ , the two electrons are lined up
according to nuclear spin orientation. As the third electron tries to
complete the neutral atom, it finds no room in the neighborhood of the
first couple. An explanation for this “exclusion” should be searched in
the displacement of the lines of force of the stationary nuclear magnetic
field, following specific symmetric patterns. The presence of the third
host is however supposed to interfere with the position of the already
existing electrons, that may shift laterally with the aim of achieving
electrical equilibrium.
In classical chemistry language, we would say that the shell 1s is
complete, so that one starts filling the 2s shell (these shells are not
related to the term “shell” used in my context, I am sorry for the
confusion!). In Beryllium, the fourth extra electron completes the 2s
shell, by settling down in the location opposite to the third one. It is
important to remark that, according to my viewpoint, excited electrons
just inflate a little by increasing the number of their own circulating
photons, but do not leave their site. This is a drastic change with
respect to the canonical interpretation. In order to proceed and clarify
these sentences, I first need to say something more about the role of
nuclear photon shells.
At the beginning I was very skeptical about the real existence of
nuclear photon shells. On one hand, they necessarily result from my
theory, on the other hand they are a bit cumbersome. Indeed, they
look so peculiar that their detection cannot escape experiment. Then I
came across X-rays. These were discovered by W. Röntgen about 120
years ago; but their prediction in terms of photon shells was for me
a kind of revelation. Wave-lengths associated with X-rays are of the
order of less than a few Ångström, therefore they perfectly fit atomic
dimensions. This also means that they are highly energetic (intense
magnetic fields), as it should be since they live close to the nucleus.
X-ray spectroscopy gives very precise information about nuclei. Spec-
tral emission lines in this case are very few but highly representative
of each nucleus. This is exactly what I needed to justify the presence
of my nuclear photon shells. They basically show up when an electron
of the atomic structure effectively moves from one position to another,
because there is some room nearer to the nucleus not yet occupied.
The so called hard X-rays correspond to very short wave-lengths be-
low 1 Å, hence in my diagrams they are related to photons circulating
between the nucleus and the first group of electrons. They then be-
long to the so called K shell (in X-ray terminology). Softer X-rays
are found when moving towards the successive electron zone (see for
instance figures 3.8 and 3.9) and belong to the so called L shell. In
nuclear magnetic resonance, intense non-uniform magnetic fields are
applied to samples under study. The combined action with a radio fre-
quency pulse allows for the absorption and re-emission of signals that
in the resonant regime may provide interesting insight regarding the
molecular structure of the sample. It should not be difficult to figure
out how these phenomena can be incorporated into the framework of
my theory.
In the light of these new discoveries, we are ready to examine more
sophisticated atomic structures. In section 2.4, I gave some ideas for a
possible construction of complex nuclei. Whatever is inside a nucleus,
I now turn my attention to the qualitative analysis of the behavior
at some distance from it. Similarly to the case of lighter atoms, I
expect the creation of organized photon shells having different shapes
depending on the nucleus under consideration. This surrounding en-
ergy is extremely important for the characterization of the atom: it is
its fingerprint and, as specified above, it belongs to the X-ray range.

This has no spherical symmetry, showing instead a certain number of
distinguished patterns, peculiar to each atom. An electron (also sur-
rounded by a certain number of shells) may join the system and find a
stable spot at a suitable distance from the nucleus (it has available a
set of quantized equilibrium slots). The arrival of the electron changes
the configuration of the shells. Thus, we have passed from the system
of shells related to the bare nucleus to the one of a positive ion. This
modification is substantial, since it affects the position of other elec-
trons joining the group, until saturation is reached, which is when the
number of electrons equals the atomic number. Spin orientation of the
electrons must also conform. In practice, one should be able to recover
all those rules recognized in quantum mechanics by the Pauli exclu-
sion principle. The passage through the various adaptation stages may
sometimes be traumatic since photon emission rearranges topological
configurations. This construction is not however based on statistics;
the position of the involved particles is well defined and their dynamics
is due to the rapid circulation (at the speed of light) of the photons
taking part and interfering with the outside environment. As in the
more elementary Hydrogen atom, the electrons stick on some nuclear
shell, maintaining firmly their new position. In the settling down pro-
cedure excess of energy is manifested by the presence of smaller shells
for the electron. Finally, all these spurious shells are eliminated, driv-
ing the structure to its ground state. In some cases, the intermediate
configuration levels may enjoy a large basin of stability so that the
ground state may be reached by steps through relatively long periods
of time. It is the case for instance in phosphorescence and fluorescence.
An idea of the electron distribution in Carbon is given in figure 3.9.
Nuclei and electrons are not to scale; they have been magnified with
the purpose of making the picture readable. In reality, the distance
between particles is approximately 105 times their size. The configu-
ration is hypothetical, since at this degree of complexity I am unable
to be more precise. As the reader can notice, my orbitals disagree
with those usually assumed. The 1s level is filled, but there is no 2s
level. The four furthermost electrons are at the same distance from
the nucleus. In the Neon atom, I expect eight electrons out of ten to
be placed at the vertices of a cube centered at the nucleus. This means
that Sodium will have an additional electron somewhere outside such a
cube, placed in the transition zone between the L and M X-ray ranges.
Concerning the first 20 atoms, the electron distribution at the ground
state is summarized in the following simplified table. So, things do

not behave exactly in the standard way, and I think the reader at this
point is going to expect explanations.
K L M N K L M N
H 1 Na 2 8 1
He 2 Mg 2 8 2
Li 2 1 Al 2 8 3
Be 2 2 Si 2 8 4
B 2 3 P 2 8 5
C 2 4 S 2 8 6
N 2 5 Cl 2 8 7
O 2 6 Ar 2 8 8
F 2 7 K 2 8 8 1
Ne 2 8 Ca 2 8 8 2
The energy levels of an atomic structure may be modelled via the

Schrödinger equation. In the stationary case the study leads to the
computation of eigenfunctions and eigenvalues that respectively rep-
resent the states of the quantum system and their corresponding en-
ergy strength. In the case of the one-electron atom, the 3D problem
can be explicitly solved in a spherical coordinate framework, where
the eigenfunctions depend on a certain number of integer parameters.
From the mathematical viewpoint the result is a standard evaluation
of the spectrum of an elliptic differential operator, but for physicists
it is an elegant formalization of quantum theories. The first integer
parameter is denoted by n and it is directly related to the amount of
energy associated with a given state. As a matter of fact eigenvalues
behave as 1/n2 in agreement with observations103 . The two other pa-
103
From [83], p.122: “Letters are sometimes used to denote the value of n, each
letter denoting a shell of electrons (see Pauli exclusion principle). These letters
originated with the classification of X-rays spectra. Thus: n=1K 2L M
3 4 5 6 7 ...
N O P Q ...
”.
This classification is amazing, because it implicitly admits a sort of direct implica-
tion between atom’s states and X-rays, that in a more recent context are instead
not related. It would be interesting to carry out historical research to know more
about the reasons for the choice of such terminology.
rameters, l and m, are in relation to the angular momentum and the

way the electron’s spin is orientated.
Figure 3.9: Schematic 3D representation of the Carbon atom. The position

of the electron rings is determined by the photon shells associated with the
nucleus (see figures 2.14 and 2.15). A flattened version of the shell system is
shown on left. When excited, these photons are emitted in the X-rays range.
Other shells surround electrons and give raise to the optical spectrum.
When passing from one state to another, not all the transitions are
permitted and one has to conform to specific selection rules. Moreover,
some transitions are amenable to identical energy gaps. Hence, the ma-
chinery contains some redundancy104 . The idea of building weird or-
bitals to predict the electron’s motion is suggested by the shape of the
3D eigenfunctions, therefore it is indissolubly tied to the Schrödinger
104
From [35], p.241: “Thus the atom has states with very different behavior, that
is with the electron travelling in very different orbits, which nevertheless have the
same total energy. Exactly the same phenomenon occurs in planetary motion. This
classical degeneracy is comparable to the l degeneracy that arises in the quantum
mechanical one-electron atom. The energy of a Bohr-Sommerfeld atom, or of a
planetary system, is also independent on the orientation in space of the plane of
the orbit. This is comparable to the ml degeneracy of the quantum mechanical
atom”.
model. The fact that the equation produces within a reasonable accu-
racy the energy levels of the different states does not guarantee however
that the states themselves are geometrically configured in that way.
The organization of the states in terms of the parameters n, l,
m, does not emerge in trivial atoms, but may be meaningful in more
complex situations (multielectron atoms, molecules, external applied
magnetic fields). A good theory is properly fitted when it can handle
these generalizations. I am not expert enough to be able to judge
to what extent Schrödinger theory can reasonably simulate reality. I
know there are difficulties in its implementation. Concerning this, I
will add some considerations later in this section. I am here anyway to
present my ideas that, being based on purely deterministic arguments,
differ radically from the existing ones. Nevertheless, my analysis is
not sufficiently developed at the moment to provide an evaluation of
the degree of coherence with experimental data. The reader cannot
deny that, if my construction was quantitatively correct, it would be
superior to standard quantum mechanics in clearness and simplicity.
Figure 3.10: One of the possible ways Helium may crystallize is in the hexag-
onal close-packed fashion. To each nucleus (dark larger balls) it is possible
to associate two electrons (smaller balls) at prescribed fixed positions. The
nuclei are at the vertices of the crystal structure. Dotted lines encircle satu-
rated atoms (one nucleus and two electrons), though there is no unique way to
combine the elements of the lattice. The crystal becomes a unitary structure
where its parts are homogeneously distributed.
We can now pass to the analysis of very simple molecular aggrega-

tions. Further external lower frequency shells may develop outside the
entire atom which is now ready to form compounds. Helium, being a
noble gas, does not take part to the formation of molecules. However,
under certain conditions, it displays a crystalline structure. There are
several ways this can be done (see [10], v.1, p.167), technically de-
scribed as: hcp (hexagonal close-packed), bcc (body-centered cubic)
or fcc (face-centered cubic). A possible displacement, which is only
aimed to show that a combination with stationary electrons actually
exists, can be seen in figure 3.10. The larger balls represent Helium
nuclei (α-particles). In the “standard” version these are the only visi-
ble constituents, since electrons are somewhere in between, distributed
according to some probability density. In my version the small balls
are the electrons and belong to the lattice. It is not to be forgotten
that the main ingredient of the recipe is the complicated system of
photons (not displayed here) joining the various parts.
In figure 3.11, we can observe the most trivial compounds. In the
Hydrogen molecule H2 , one can distinguish among parahydrogen and
orthohydrogen, depending whether the proton spins are parallel or
anti-parallel. The first case looks quite natural, having the orientation
of rotation of the shells in syntony. In the second case it is necessary
instead to assume the existence of an intermediate recirculating vortex.
Explaining the reaction H2 + H → H + H2 is trivial in this framework;
more involved is instead the interpretation in terms of electron clouds
(see [108], p.75). A combination with three protons is also known: it is
the ion H+ 3 (trihydrogen cation). As far as I am concerned, it has the
protons at the vertices of an equilateral triangle and the two electrons
symmetrically placed on the axis orthogonal to the triangle.
The pictures get more involved as we go to upgraded examples,
since the number of electrons increases fast. In experiments, an idea
of the electron displacement in molecules is obtained by a technique
called neutron scattering, that actually uses the behavior of neutron
projectiles to reconstruct electrical distributions. The results are usu-
ally interpreted in terms of a high probability of finding electrons in a
determined area, but with my approach, where electrons are blocked
in their position, probability becomes certitude. My diagrams are ex-
tremely qualitative and do not give precise indications about bond
lengths. A deeper quantitative analysis should be performed in order
to check if dimensions are appropriate. At this initial stage, where
an accurate analysis lacks even with respect to the simplest configu-

rations, 3D implementations may be challenging. The reader has to
confess however that finding a place for electrons in a molecular struc-
ture is fun and leads to curious combinatorial problems. So, even if
nothing is chemically correct in here, there are at least hints for some
new mathematical game.
Starting from the configuration of figure 3.9, four more Hydrogen
atoms (each one carrying a proton and an electron) can be added to
Carbon. In the first picture of figure 3.12, we may see the final out-
come, corresponding to methane. The same tetrahedral configuration
characterizes the ammonium ion [NH4 ]+ . As far as water is concerned
(see the second picture of figure 3.12), there is only room for two addi-
tional Hydrogen atoms, since the other free spots have been occupied
by electrons. The asymmetrical shape of the molecule is dictated by
the form of the nucleus (see figure 2.14). The three dimensional system
of photon shells is not reported since it is rather complex. Regarding
NH3 (ammonia) the situation is more delicate. Here, one of the four
free spots is taken by an electron. The asymmetry of the system allows
for two configurations that may possibly switch (Nitrogen inversion),
turning the molecule inside out.
Due to the importance of Carbon, I tried to figure out how basic
organic molecules could be made. It is not my intention to rebuild
chemistry, but only see if it is possible to distribute electrons in some
meaningful fashion. Some of the results of my tests are reported in
figure 3.13. I do not exclude that there could be better ways to arrange
things in these puzzles. One has to take into account that the single
parts have to combine from the electrical viewpoint; so equal charges
should stay far apart as much as possible. In addition, each nucleus
exerts asymmetric forces, acting like invisible guides and permitting
only a finite number of quantized geometries. The exercise may help
understanding the nonlinearity of CH2 (methylene)105 .
105
From [77], p.160: “The methylene molecule, CH2 , is of particular historical
interest. Despite its small size, this molecule and the controversy surrounding it
played an important role in establishing the role of computational quantum me-
chanical methods in modern-day research and the relationship between theory and
experiment. The early debate concentrated on the ground state of the molecule
and whether its geometry was linear or bent”.
Figure 3.11: Nuclei and electron distribution for some elementary com-
pounds. Dimensions and proportions are just qualitative. Annular geome-
tries are replaced by spherical ones. On top we have the Hydrogen molecule
H2 , both in the ortho and para versions. The first case has parallel proton
spins. In the second case, spins are anti-parallel and an extra counter-rotating
neutrino is present. Below are some linear molecules. These are: Lithium
hydride (LiH) and Beryllium hydride (BeH2 ). The first molecule has four
electrons, the second one six. All electrons are suitably located; thus these
pictures do not show a distribution of probability but are aimed at indicating
exact particle displacement. The shells encircling nuclei are made of photons
belonging to the X-rays range. Those encircling electrons are composed by
photons in the optical range.
Figure 3.12: A possible displacement of nuclei and electrons in methane

(CH4 ) and water (OH2 ). Similarly, one can construct ammonia (NH3 ).
There are three planes of symmetry in the first case, two in the second case
and only one in the case of ammonia.
Figure 3.13: Possible ways to arrange electrons in organic compounds. Ac-

cording to figure 3.9, in each atom of Carbon two electrons are close to the
nucleus and are not shown here. Top left, a single Carbon-Carbon bond is
present, which is the archetype of ethane (C2 H6 ). Successively, a stronger
bonding is considered; there is less room for other atoms, so that one may
build ethene (C2 H4 ). Note that now four peripheral electrons do not belong
to the fictitious horizontal plane of symmetry. Below left, in a triple bond,
corresponding for instance to acetylene (C2 H2 ), electrons are even more com-
pacted. Finally, three Carbon atoms; this is the germ of fancier structures of
the aromatic type and various allotropes of Carbon.
Figure 3.14: Electron distribution for some basic molecules: O2 (top left),
O3 (top right), N2 (bottom left, see also the triple Carbon bond of figure 3.13),
CO2 (bottom right, Carbon is in the middle). Two more electrons (not shown
here) are associated with each nucleus. Particulars of the Oxygen atom can
be seen in figure 3.12.
The most controversial situation is the one relative to the last pic-
ture, where three Carbon atoms share part of their electrons. This
can be reproduced ad libitum, generating an infinite sequence of com-
posites, based for example on hexagonal stencils. Note that the nuclei
are not at the intersection of planes, where instead we find a bunch
of electrons. A similar situation is encountered for instance in the O3
molecule (see figure 3.14). The proposed solutions seem to be elegant
and put all the atoms at the same level, in contrast with the need of
assuming doubled strength for some of the links, in order to preserve
the valence of Carbon. On the other hand, in composite structures
such as graphene, the Carbon-Carbon nuclei distances are homoge-
neously distributed. These considerations are not new and have been
a matter of discussion among chemists106 . Benzene (C6 H6 ) can be

obtained from a single hexagon by placing six Hydrogen atoms close
to the intersection of the corresponding planes. Cyclohexane (C6 H12 )
may instead accommodate twelve Hydrogen atom by appending them
in dyads directly within the neighborhood of each Carbon nuclei, as
done for the lower half of the methane molecule of figure 3.12.
The study of anthracene (C14 H10 , see picture aside) starts becom-
ing more complex. The planes of symmetry of Carbon nuclei (related
to spin orientations) are here visualized through dashed segments,
offering an unusual square-like configuration
at the center. Electrons (not shown) are dis-
seminated around nuclei and near plane inter-
sections. Hydrogen nuclei have also been ne-
glected. The present setting may explain the
mechanism of cycloaddition of two anthracene
molecules, following the absorbtion of UV pho-
tons. In this occurrence, the displacement of
the global photon system is artificially altered
and the central Carbon nuclei find an alter-
native way to share their electrons, plying the
global 3D scaffold and creating the dimer. The
reader can easily figure out how to harmonize
the various parts. Note that the official expla-
nation of cycloaddition using classical orbitals
is quite puzzling (see [70], section 6.4.4).
Arranging Carbon atoms in order to obtain diamond requires the
full three dimensional environment, where planes are perhaps com-
bined to form tetrahedra. Fullerene can be handled more easily. An-
106
In [100], p.218, L. Pauling writes: “It is true that chemists, after long experience
in the use of classical structure theory, have come to talk about, and probably to
think about, the carbon-carbon double bond and other structural units of the theory
as though they were real. Reflection leads us to recognize, however, that they are
not real, but are theoretical constructs in the same way as the individual Kekulé
structures for benzene. It is not possible to isolate a carbon-carbon bond and to
subject it to experimental investigation. There is, indeed, no rigorous definition
of the carbon-carbon double bond. We cannot accept, as rigorous definition, the
statement that the carbon-carbon double bond is a bond between two carbon atoms
that involves four electrons, because there is no experimental method of determining
precisely the number of electrons that are involved in the interaction of two carbon
atoms in a molecule, and, of course, this interaction has rigorously to be considered
as being dependent on the nature of the entire molecule”.
other challenging area is the chemistry of Boron107 . I leave this com-

binatorial exercises to suicide volunteers.
Note that, differently from crystals, many simple organic molecules
assume “flat” (planar) configurations (see for instance the sketch of cy-
tosine given in figure 3.17). This is readily explainable in term of the
fact that nuclei are constrained in their relative orientations forming
preset patterns and fictitious planes of symmetry (see figures 3.12,
3.13, 3.14). Deviation from flatness is primarily noticed in relation
to low-order bonds, since single isolated protons (Hydrogen nuclei)
impose less restrictions108 . This noteworthy (and predictive) obser-
vation adds strength to my theory. In fact, arguments based on the
exclusive use of Coulomb’s potential are not enough to justify planar
geometries, where additional inputs are needed to make the calcula-
tions work109 . My version of cytosine is slightly different from the
canonical one, which has well-defined interatomic distances and angles
(see, e.g., [100], p.307). However, the canonical model is constructed
via a comparison of experimental data from varying methods, and fi-
nal figures result from the application of a mediation process, such as
that of molecular resonance. Therefore, within certain limits, there
should be enough “wiggle room” for different displacements. The elec-
trostatic potential contour of cytosine is shown in [77], p.84. This has
been computed from both the given location of the nuclei and some
integral of the so-called “electron density”. Assuming one can estimate
where electrons are located (as I am trying to do), a more thorough
analysis could be undertaken.
Note that photon shells envelop, like onion layers, the single com-
ponents of a molecule, groups of them and, finally, the global struc-
ture. Compounds assume unique photons stratifications that are not
107
From [10], v.1, p.688: “A unique confluence of circumstances has fortuitously
combined to make the inorganic chemistry of boron more diverse and complex than
that of any other element in the Periodic Table”.
108
From [77], p.457: “The conformations of a molecule are traditionally defined
as those arrangements of its atoms in space that can be interconverted purely by
rotation about single bonds”.
109
From [77], p.169: “When preparing the input for a quantum mechanics calcu-
lation it is usually necessary to specify the atomic numbers of the nuclei present,
together with the geometry of the system and the overall charge and spin multi-
plicity. [...] The atom type is more than just the atomic number of an atom; it
usually contains information about its hybridisation state and sometimes the local
environment”.
deducible straightforwardly from the nature of the single links. Hence

a molecule is not the sum of its parts, but an entire object with a
complex interior and the capability to extend its beingness to the en-
vironment110 . A more extended notion of molecular bond is obtained
by involving the concept of van der Waals forces111 . These promiscu-
ous links are not easily explained by quantum theories, but they can
find natural codification in the context of my constructive theory of
matter.
Let me devote the last part of this section to some thoughts and
concluding remarks. In introducing basic chemistry, nuclei are con-
sidered to be sufficient for the description of molecular structures. In
fact, electrons are usually neglected. A molecule is generally depicted
as a lattice with the different nuclei at the vertices. For example, wa-
ter is an Oxygen nucleus with two protons at a given distance and a
certain angle. This fact is mainly supported by empirical evidence.
Fancy 3D graphical software is available to specialists in order to cre-
ate molecular structures, composed of prepackaged sticks and colored
balls already taking into account all the possible bonding possibilities.
Actual electrons are totally forgotten and have few chances of directly
taking part in the game.
Numerical simulations are indispensable options. Textbooks in
physical chemistry proudly show rigorous detailed computations, based
on Schrödinger’s equation for diatomic molecules and compare the re-
sults with the real ones, magnifying the success of the predictions.
They miserably skip however more advanced cases (such as triatomic
water), opting for a combination of qualitative theoretical results on
eigenfunctions and reliable laboratory measurements. Relativistic ef-
fects are sometimes implemented in the Schrödinger model; the reason
110
In [100], p.14, L. Pauling writes: “For example, the propane molecule, C3 H8 ,
has its own structure, which cannot be described exactly in terms of structural
elements from other molecules; it is not possible to isolate a portion of the propane
molecule, involving parts of two carbon atoms and perhaps two electrons between
them, and to say that this portion of the propane molecule is the carbon-carbon
single bond, identical with a portion of the ethane molecule”.
111
From [40], p.376: “... These molecules consist of atoms which are not able
to form a genuine molecule by re-arranging their electron shells. However, there
exists between them some attraction that is due to interaction forces of the second
order. These second-order forces imply the possibility of formation of loosely bound
molecules”; and p.416: “Asbestos is an example for a solid in which only fibers or
needles are kept together by chemical bonds proper, whereas van der Waals forces
are responsible for holding together the molecular chains”.
for this complication being the observation that electrons circulate in-
side atoms at velocities comparable to that of light (in Hydrogen, the
electron’s speed is αc, where α ≈ 1/137). We know that relativity is
a key issue in explaining the constitution of atoms; however, accord-
ing to my interpretation, electrons do not move at all, whereas the
dynamical component is given by trapped photons.
At first sight, the conclusions of existing quantum theories are grat-
ifying, but, together with the limits of the theoretical approach, they
set a kind of border beyond which it is not allowed to better model
what really happens112 . Concerns about the criticality and the inade-
quateness of theoretical quantum theories have been publicly expressed
by various authors113 . A main criticism to Schrödinger equation is
that, in its simplest version, it is associated with potential energies
built on Coulomb’s law. Such a law treats a charged nucleus as a spher-
ical entity and the space around it as an isotropic medium. Therefore,
all the directional properties that I am here trying to emphasize get
lost. Without additional information taken from experiments, regard-
ing the displacement of the nuclei in a molecule, the plain Schrödinger
equation does not automatically furnish reliable predictions114 (see
112
From the introduction of the book of L. Pauling, [100]: “The theory of chemical
bond, as presented in this book, is still far from perfect. Most of the principles that
have been developed are crude, and only rarely can they be used in making an
accurate quantitative prediction. However, they are the best that we have, as yet,
and I agree with Poincaré that it is far better to foresee even without certainty
than not to foresee at all”.
113
From [85], v.1, p.45 (R. G. Woolley): “Over the last few years there has been a
growing awareness that the traditional formulation of quantum chemistry does not
exhaust the possibilities for the application of quantum theory to chemical prob-
lems. This awareness has come about through a re-examination of the foundations
of theoretical chemistry to which many have contributed in the last decade. Ten
years ago, I encountered considerable hostility to my suggestion that the programme
of conventional quantum chemistry is not just a simple consequence of setting out a
molecular quantum theory if one starts from the Schrödinger equation for a system
of interacting electrons and nuclei; today that is a much controversial statement,
and it is now widely recognized that classical molecular structure is problematic for
a quantum theory of molecules”.
114
From [63], chapter 10: “The Schrödinger equation for the next simplest atom,
helium, is not soluble analytically, although accurate numerical methods are avail-
able. To solve the Schrödinger equations for more complex atoms, or for any
molecule, quantum chemists apply a battery of approximate methods and mod-
els. Whether they address the electronic structure of atoms or the structure and
bonding of molecules, these approximate models are calibrated by an array of the-
oretical assumptions many of which are drawn from chemistry itself”.
also footnote 109). Despite the efforts for providing a unifying molec-
ular quantum theory based on the additive union of suitable functional
groupings of atoms (see for instance [7], [8]), my understanding, further
supported by other evidence that will emerge later, is that electrostatic
potentials (and similar other “functionals”) are far from being suffi-
cient for a global description, whereas magnetism is also required. In
conclusion, the process of mediating between theory and experiments
is certainly effective, but does not suggest convincing explanations
about the foundations of the structure of matter. Hence, the whole
superstructure is permeated by an uncomfortable vagueness115 . The
common trend, especially among physicists, is however to assume that,
if a sort of explanation already exists, why look for anything better?
In my approach, electrons are definitely promoted, becoming ac-
tive gears of the machinery116 . A molecule is a lattice of both nuclei
and electrons, strongly bonded by a sea of photons. These particles
occupy fixed positions, although they can slightly oscillate around in
an elastic way like any mechanical device. In this way, it is clear how
two or more atoms can “share” the same electrons. The whole system
may jump to some excited state by absorbing photons and come back
to the ground state by emitting them. Due to the distinctive distribu-
tion of the photon shells inside the structure, the frequency spectrum
of emission characterizes the compound, justifying the amazing results
of spectroscopy. In my view, water is an elastic 3D network, at the
grid-points of which we find an Oxygen nucleus, two protons and ten
electrons. In the ground state their mutual positions are exactly de-
termined as well as the embedded system of photons shells involved in
the links. Similarly, NaCl is a 30 body complex. Of course, one can
threaten the solidity of the structures by lowering or rising tempera-
ture, i.e., by extracting or introducing photons until the bonds are at
risk.
For solid matter, heuristic comparisons can be made with a set of
115
From [85], v.2, p.62 (P.G. Mezey): “It is evident that there is an inherent
three-space ‘fuzziness’ associated with the quantum chemical concept of molecular
structure, a fact acknowledged but seldom fully appreciated by chemists”.
116
From [90], p.4: “In the conventional interpretation of chemistry, the shapes of
these fuzzy electron distributions are still much too often relegated to play a role
that appears only secondary to the simplest but less revealing skeletons of structural
bond formulas. The fact that the peripheral regions of fuzzy bodies of electronic
charge densities have a dominant role in molecular interactions is well understood,
but it has not yet fully transformed chemical thinking”.
Figure 3.15: In solid state,

a molecular aggregation can be
compared to an ensemble of soap
bubbles centered on nuclei. Bub-
bles also contain electrons, that
may also belong to the interfaces,
in order to be shared among
atoms. Numerous photons, or-
ganized in layers and associ-
ated with a multitude of frequen-
cies, are trapped in each domain.
They both contribute to stabiliz-
ing the structure and carry elec-
tric and magnetic information.
soap bubbles joined together (see figure 3.15). Note that nuclei are
supposed to be at the center of the bubbles and not in correspondence
to their intersections. Such a structure is usually quite stable; if small
perturbations are applied the aggregation trembles like a jelly without
ruptures. If one bubble of the group is broken by a needle, the others
look for an alternative equilibrium state, tending to accomplish the
maneuver very fast. Therefore, more ideas may come from the physics
of surface tension.
In [46], I introduced a stationary partial differential equation in

3D. The analysis was devoted to the Casimir effect, however some
principles have general validity. The zero levels of the unknown scalar
function Φ are in a good approximation related to the separation sur-
faces of the various shells for a given distribution of nuclei. There
are different quantized positions of the particles corresponding to ad-
missible solutions, representing the excitation states of the molecule
at the X-ray level. Note that, due to the approximations introduced,
a certain degree of inaccuracy may affect the outcome. It is not my
intention to show here any computational result, since the subject is
still under investigation. Interestingly, the real function Φ2 can be di-
rectly related to the function |Ψ|2 , where, in quantum mechanics, Ψ
is the complex function giving the probability of finding electrons in
a prescribed region. Other recipes for finding the displacement of the
photon shells, at least to a reasonable degree of accuracy, might be
devised. An important feature to be encoded, which is not present in
the above mentioned potential Φ, is the contribution of the stationary
magnetic part.
The main drawback of my model is that, even in the simplest case
of the Hydrogen atom, full computations get very complicated. Plots
taking into account molecular electron density can be found in the liter-
ature (see for instance [52] or [77]), but, differently from my approach,
the electron’s treatment requires a probabilistic framework. As I previ-
ously mentioned, one can come out with surrogate differential models
that skip the troublesome evaluations of the evolving electromagnetic
fields, going straight to the determination of the shell boundaries in
a stationary configuration. Such an alternative procedure inevitably
introduces some approximation errors. At the same time, one has to
look for the right displacement of the constituents in order to optimize
some sort of energy functional. The procedure is made difficult for at
least three reasons: numerous individual electrons are also taking part
in the system; shells surrounding nuclei do not have a simple spherical
geometry but reflect the distinctive patterns of each specific nucleus;
spin orientation plays an important role especially in conjunction with
topological setups. In this way the analysis of a small molecule might
turn out to be a nightmare. On the other hand, the aim here is not to
speed up computations. The goal is to clarify what is at the origin of
molecular organization in terms of a deterministic approach. I am sure
that more effective codification algorithms and simplifications can be
devised, once a series of studies on basic situations have been carried
out. Of course, such a preliminary analysis must confirm the results
of practical experiments, otherwise the entire theoretical apparatus is
going to collapse.
3.4 In and around matter

So far, we have learnt that electrons do not go anywhere. They cannot.
They are held firm to keep the molecule in place. At this point, one
may argue that electrons in metals usually enjoy a considerable degree
of freedom. This property is clearly not true by virtue of a series of ex-
perimental observations117 . Electric signals in copper travel at speeds
117
From [72], p.242: “... The discrepancy represents an outstanding failure of the
classical free electron gas model. It is a particularly puzzling failure in the light of
the partial successes of the model in explaining electrical and thermal conductiv-
ity in metals: it is difficult to see classically how the electrons can participate in
transport processes as if they were free and yet give only a very small contribution
to the heat capacity”.
comparable to that of light (between c/3 and c/2). In standard con-

ditions, it turns out that the sum of the kinetic energies of electrons
is going to be much higher than the energy pumped into the circuit
despite conservation rules118 . Moreover, my electrons are bare parti-
cles surrounded by a halo of photons interacting with other molecular
photons. Their passage through a metallic molecule would be like the
entrance of a bull in a china shop119 .
So, what is really floating when an electric current is flowing in-
side metal? The answer is simple: photons, the only mobile parts
of the system. Zigzagging at the speed of light within the metallic
structure, they carry electromagnetic information (and energy) from
one site to another. The idea that electric conduction is due to the
passage of waves rather than particles has been widely studied, but al-
ways within the framework of quantum mechanics, where a point-wise
electron is seen as a wave-packet. This brought to the definition of
new entities called phonons, able to describe transport phenomena in
solids. Phonons are vibration waves propagating through the crystal
atomic lattice, as a by-product of appropriate compositions of electron
waves. They play an important role in judging thermal and electrical
conductivity. Packets of phonons can propagate for large distances
inside a medium with no significant distortion120 .
Of course this does not match at all my viewpoint: electrons nei-
ther in the form of particles nor in the form of waves travel across
molecules. In solids, electrons may enjoy a certain degree of freedom
only near the surface; for instance they can be liberated through the
118
From [36], p.335: “When a physical theory has to be buttressed by particular
assumptions which do not derive directly from the premisses on which the theory is
founded, then the theory is failing in a most important respect. [...] The classical
free-electron theory of metallic conduction of heat and electricity must be adjudged
to be in this category: it provides a pictorial representation of these phenomena
which even now is not seriously misleading, but in a wider context it is sterile and
unprofitable”.
119
Taken from section 1.1 in [128]: “If we insist on a particulate, electronic theory
of electricity, the high conductivity of metals such as copper or silver is exceedingly
difficult to explain. The electrons must penetrate through the closely packed arrays
of atoms as though these scarcely existed. It is as if one could play cricket in the
jungle”.
120
From [128], section 1.1: “A single electron is no longer represented as an isolated
particle attempting to penetrate the lattice of atoms; out of all the electrons in the
solid are constructed waves, which can be gathered into wave packets and guided
through the interstices of the crystal almost if as the ions did not exist”.
photoelectric effect. Studying phonons may give a blurred idea on how

energy is transported inside matter. They are supported by an ingenu-
ous implementation of Fourier analysis, that does not provide however
insight into the heavy nonlinear interactions between atoms121 . There
is for sure a molecular agitation able to transfer heat or sound at
certain speeds. According to my view, this mechanical information is
carried by the deformation (perhaps also accompanied by creation and
annihilation) of shells surrounding electrons and nuclei, according to
some chain reaction. There are anyway fastest paths where photons
can migrate at velocities close to that of light, without bothering too
much with low-frequency photon shells, because these latter substruc-
tures do not have enough energy to compete with signal carriers.
Evidently, not all materials react in similar ways, so that we can
make distinctions based on their electrical conductivity. Dielectric
polarization is due to a rearrangement of charges inside electrical in-
sulators to compensate the action of an applied external field. The
phenomenon is permitted by the weak molecular bonds characterizing
the medium. The effect is compatible with my interpretation, provided
the internal reorganization involves the whole set of shells. What are
actually “polarized” are the electric fields carried by the photon shells,
perhaps also due to a slight adaptation of the particle spin axes, while
the salient points of the molecular lattice in solids remain mechanically
firm. The evident promiscuousness of mechanics and electromagnetism
inside a piece of matter is manifested by piezoelectricity, that is, the
ability of some materials to generate an electric field in response to
given mechanical strains. Moreover, the piezoelectric effect is some-
times reversible.
Exciton is a magic word that encompasses the capability of the
internal structure of matter to change disposition. The transition from
a given electronic state to another may be properly described through
the quantum absorption of excitons. For instance, this allows the
jumping from ground state to the so called electron-hole state, which
is a way to conceptualize the existence of a positive area suited to
host an electron. In some cases, during the return to the atom’s bond
state, the exciton may be transferred through the molecules; thus, it
121
From [97], p.113: “These particles can exist, of course, only inside solid or fluid
matter; they have no independent existence in vacuum. Are they ‘real’ ? As far as
physicists are concerned, phonons are objects to be dealt with just like photons;
the problem of their reality matters little to them”.
is regarded as perturbation conducting energy without transporting

net electric charge. Excitons are usually studied in the framework
of semiconductors during the passage from the valence band to the
conduction band. When an electron-hole is created, a nearby electron
subject to Coulomb’s attraction may take its place, determining the
local decay of the exciton. Let me say that this last explanation is more
exotic than the one emerging from my conceptualization of matter,
where everything is interpreted in terms of evolving quantized bubbles.
These may press, squeeze, twist, pass by or disappear, in order to
find a state of equilibrium minimizing energy. They leave no “holes”,
but situations where energy gaps must be filled via electromechanical
adaptation. In this scenario, massive nuclei and electrons enjoy a very
limited freedom of movement, reducible to a vibrational agitation. In
doing this, particles act like pumps relocating the same photon’s shells
that were responsible for their initial stimulation. Take into account
however that electrons are not totally prevented from moving inside
a solid piece of matter. In addition to the possibility of vibrating
around an equilibrium position, they are free in some materials to look
for other compatible stable configurations. This happens for instance
in the process of photography, where, under the action of external
photons, illuminated areas have their electronic textures reorganized.
Let me now face the issue of superconductivity. A way to fur-
ther weaken low-frequency shells is to subtract energy from a given
material by lowering its temperature towards absolute zero. At this
stage we know that the bonds between atoms are getting inconsistent
and some compounds start manifesting properties of superconductiv-
ity. The constituent electrons continue to maintain their positions; if
they want to avoid the material becoming a plasma, they must guar-
antee that their shell systems are still at work. Spare propagating
photons can now move more easily, basically encountering no resistiv-
ity.
Superconductivity is a quantum effect122 . The accepted quantum
explanation is that superconductivity is due the interaction of pairs
of electrons, through the exchange of phonons. The electrons of each
pair are not fixed a priori and they can be quite far apart (even ten
122
Such a kind of sentence, often encountered in modern physics, looks somehow
imperative. Indeed, it does not leave room for other interpretations. It sets a neat
distinction among the micro-world and that ruled by the laws of classical physics,
as the second was not consequential to the first one. Its use is not inoffensive,
denoting in fact a preconceived hostility towards alternative options.
thousands times the diameter of a single atom of the medium). Their

distribution depends on the properties of the conductor crystal lattice.
Under the influence of an applied field, each independent pair of elec-
trons linked by a phonon (this system considered as a single particle),
travels rigidly and very fast through the conductor, since the way it
has been formed exactly fits some resonance wavelengths of the lattice.
Again, a good dose of Fourier analysis is the main tool for investiga-
tion. Although the quantitative aspects of the theory find excellent
agreement with experiments, the explanation looks more an abstract
technical exercise than an effective verification of facts.
There is an important side effect, namely the Meissner effect, con-
nected to superconductivity, whose explanation in terms of quantum
theories is still controversial. Superconductors in the Meissner state
are superdiamagnetic, meaning that, using a common terminology, at
very low temperatures the magnetic flux has been totally “expelled”
from inside the body. In other words, at normal temperatures, the
lines of force of an external magnetic field pass through the interior
of a conductor, while, in the superconduction regime, the external
field turns the conductor around, and the inside contribution seems
to be completely cancelled out. In classical theory, diamagnetism is
explained by the tendency of the electrons in orbit around a nucleus
to generate a counter-magnetic field when externally perturbed. This
should happen by virtue of some momentum preservation arguments.
Of course, I disagree with this viewpoint, due to the fact that I claimed
that there are no orbiting electrons. At a superconduction level, the
Meissner effect is a quantum effect (see footnote 122), thus classical
reasoning is not accepted.
Whatever the official explanations are, I am going to give my ver-
sion of the facts. This is quite simple. Photon shells are the carriers of
both electric and magnetic signals. At low temperature regimes, the
less energetic shells (those associated with low frequencies) almost do
not exist, severely weakening the strength of the crystal lattice made of
both electrons and nuclei. The electromagnetic field persists inside the
higher frequency shells but they look like isolated regions, since they
are not surrounded by enough energy to communicate their existence.
In this way, there is open access without resistivity to new photons,
but denial of access to magnetic signals, since the environment does
not have the minimal requirements to support them. The external
applied field must be very weak, otherwise, since it is also carried
by suitable electromagnetic waves, it would raise the global tempera-

ture and allow for the formation of stronger links between elements of
the crystal lattice, with the consequence of permitting the transfer of
the magnetic information inside the body. Experimental observations
actually show that there is the creation of a thin internal region in
proximity to the body surface (London penetration depth), where the
magnetic field is not totally cancelled. In my opinion, this is due to
the slight “heating” actuated by the external magnetic field that sets
the molecule’s shells, belonging to a surface layer, to an intermediate
state of “magnetic conduction”.
The existence of magnetic fields inside matter is a natural situa-
tion. Officially this is due to the electron spinning, but we already
know that this is not the case. There is instead a stationary magnetic
component, automatically overlapped with the dynamical electromag-
netic part. In permanent magnets such a component is directly visible;
in other situations is not easily accessible. There are however stimula-
tions that can accentuate its presence. In nuclear magnetic resonance,
an applied combination of magnetic fields and electromagnetic pulses
to nuclei with spin different from zero allows energy to be stored and
then radiated back at specific resonance frequencies. In fact, a con-
stant magnetic field is able to modify the resonant spectrum of the
substance, that can be evoked through the action of a specific pulse.
Chemical information about molecules can be recovered by analyzing
the resonance spectrum at different magnetic field intensities. I would
like to emphasize that the frequencies required to achieve resonance
are strictly related to the distribution of electrons, which may reduce
the effects of the magnetic field at the nucleus (electronic shielding).
Hence, magnetic resonance is not an exclusive property of the nuclei
but of the entire molecular system (see also the previous section). The
shielding is also depending on the orientation of the molecule with re-
spect to the external field. All these observations concord very well
with my standpoint.
A piece of solid matter, even in vacuum, is surrounded by electro-
magnetic radiation. More insight about the presence of this electro-
magnetic background will be given in the next sections. The internal
photons, through their very well organized patterns, give strength and
stability to the structure, also extending their action to the exterior.
Thus, without the phenomenon being actually visible to us, matter
ends up to be embedded in a “dark energy” environment, that confers
further properties to it. Photons circulate around bodies developing

successive stratifications (that I will call layers), changing with time,
carrying frequencies that decay inversely with the distance. The situ-
ation is more complex than that of a single molecule, since there are
zillions of sources whose effects sum up nonlinearly. There could be
however recursive configurations, especially in proximity to the body
surface, characterizing the type of material. In this way, shining metal
surfaces appear to be different from granular formations. A way to
access such information is to examine the spectrum of scattered light.
On this I have some remarks to make.
Consulting books and talking with experts, vague and preconceived

ideas emerge about light emission, such as for example sunlight. Main-
taining the arguments at the intuitive level, there is the tendency to
confuse plane waves and photons, a disorientation which is often over-
come by stating that the second are the constituents of the first. Even
more naively, it is said that photons are the “carrier” of the signal. As
I remarked in chapter one, in my theory, the various electromagnetic
ingredients are products of a single descriptive model. Unfortunately,
from the viewpoint of the narrow framework of Maxwell’s equations
the explanations remain unfocussed and the particulars cannot be ap-
preciated. Plane and dipole waves are usually produced artificially in
radio communications or other applications. There are few chances
to find examples of this kind in nature. Sunlight (as well as the light
emitted by lamps) is the result of photon emission of excited atoms
and molecules, through the process detailed in the previous sections.
Common light is a multitude of single photons of different size, shape,
polarization and “frequency”; an impressive quantity of independent
photons marching in the same direction (in first approximation, at
least). More attentively, pure free-waves generated by antennas are
mathematical abstractions, since a real device, emitting waves through
the excitement of an immense quantity of molecules, cannot be such a
perfect source.
Recall that we can attribute a frequency to photons, not just be-

cause this is in some way written on them, but because they were part
of a specific shell of a certain atom, to which we associated a frequency.
When light reaches a surface, an extremely complex procedure starts,
which cannot trivially be summarized by depicting the parallel fronts
of a plane wave while they are reflected or refracted according to the
rules of geometrical optics123 . Note also that plane waves have an in-
finite extension, thus they turn out to be quite intractable. On the
other hand a localization process is forbidden in the Maxwellian case,
since it breaks the zero divergence condition for the electric field (see
section 1.3). Incoming photons mix up with those already present in
matter, transferring part of their energy to the various atom shells.
The entire piece of matter elaborates the signals and finally absorbs
some of the energy and gives back the remaining in the form of other
photons. This is different from claiming that a plane wave (longitudi-
nally modulated by a suitable Fourier expansion in infinite frequencies)
hits the body and, depending on the material and the roughness of its
surface, part of the frequencies are scattered while others penetrate.
The last explanation may work for practical purposes, but it is too
rudimentary and does not reflect the complexity of the situation.
Let me finally specify that lasers are very similar to sunlight in
their constitution, although their photons, enjoying high-directivity
properties, display frequencies confined in a very narrow band. There-
fore, laser light is far from being a unique focussed electromagnetic
wave. I know it is useful for engineers to express laser emissions as
plane waves, with the fields transversally concentrated in a region with
compact support and longitudinally modulated by a certain frequency.
I also agree that this is a constructive and effective way to proceed.
However, I must warn once again that this is totally inadmissible in
Maxwellian theory.
A clear demonstration of the mutualism between atomic organized
structures, such as the ones of pure crystals, and the immanence of a
photon structure are for example photonic crystals. These are periodic
nanostructures occurring in nature, displaying alternate regions of high
and low dielectric constant. Photons propagate or not through these
crystals, depending on the stimulation frequency. Not allowed wave-
lengths belong to the so called photonic band gap. Photonic crystals
are found in many applications regarding the control of the flow of light
in suitable optic devices, as for instance in high-reflecting mirrors or
123
From [38], p.16: “When I talk about the partial reflection of light by glass, I am
going to pretend that the light is reflected by only the surface of the glass. In reality,
a piece of glass is a terrible monster of complexity - huge numbers of electrons are
jiggling about. When a photon comes down, it interacts with electrons throughout
the glass, not just on the surface. The photons and electrons do some kind of dance,
the net result of which is the same as if the photon hit only the surface”. In my
case electrons are almost stationary and the agitation is due to photons.
waveguides. The use of classical Maxwell’s equations and plane electro-

magnetic waves in the numerical simulation of the reflective properties
of these materials is a common procedure (sigh!).
In truth, light begins its interaction process with matter long before
the arrival at the target. Indeed, matter is a kind of open system; the
fact that beyond a certain frontier there are nuclei and electrons does
not imply the existence of a real barrier. A system of oscillating energy
layers extends outside the limits and covers the crystal lattice structure
like an invisible neutral halo. Objects are bigger than expected and
they are all connected. At the lowest energy level, the outside photon
layers have an energy proportional to the frequency carried. These
layers get larger with distance (with geometric growth), hence the
energy density decays quite fast, but it can be significantly large near
the body, at the point that can severely influence the behavior of
incoming photons. External photons of the right energy, may not
encounter noticeable reactions when passing through the more distant
layers, but they may have a hard time if they approach further. I must
recall that all these shells and layers are geometrical environments in
the sense of general relativity, thus they are associated with significant
modifications of space-time. We should not forget that in such regions
there are trapped photons, that are following curved geodesics of the
diameter of the order of nanometers.
The minimum influence that matter may have on an incoming pho-
ton amounts to a gentle scattering. This is what is actually observed
during diffraction. When light passes through a relatively large aper-
ture a small diffusive effect is noticed near the rim. We can compare
the behavior with that of a fluid subject to a no slip condition near
the obstacle. The velocity reduction at some points, forces the fluid to
rotate producing diffusion (see my numerical simulations in [48]). At
atomic level, the encounter of an incoming photon with the electro-
magnetic halo around matter modifies the setting of the fields. During
this iteration, the photon is no more a free-wave. Accelerations and
variations of pressure develop in full respect of energy conservation
laws. The photon changes the direction of motion and pressure is
exerted on matter, simulating the most simple action-reaction effect.
Departing from the impact site, the influence of matter is greatly re-
duced and the photon returns to the state of free-wave, proceeding
straightly at the speed of light. Of course, a remarkable change of
trajectory only happens by passing very close to the border of the
aperture, while the remaining portion of the hole does not affect in a
significant way the passage of light. This is however true provided the
opening is not too small. The classical theory suggests that the hole
must be much greater than the photon wave-length, otherwise things
get more complicated.
One of the crucial experiments for the validation of the theory of
general relativity was to show that light rays could be deflected by large
masses. Einstein predicted that a mass modifies the space-time geom-
etry in such a way that the corresponding geodesics are not straight-
lines. Although photons are massless particles, the theory claims that
their trajectory may be curved when passing through a gravitational
field, and this is what was actually observed by comparing the location
of far away stars in two cases, depending on the presence or absence
of the Sun in the path between those stars and the Earth. There is no
need however to search for astronomical examples to confirm general
relativity. The diffusion of light after the passage through a hole is
a small-scale experiment showing how strong can be the influence of
geometry on photons, causing a deflection of many degrees in a very
small portion of space. This also remarks how decisive is the role of
gravitation (in the extended sense of the term, as specified so far) in
the constitution of matter.
Can we say more about the way photon layers are distributed
around a piece of solid matter? Without solving the set of model
equations, I can try to guess some qualitative configurations. Suppose
that the crystal lattice surface is as flat as possible. Each single nu-
cleus is responsible for the formation of photon shells with decreasing
frequency. The operations are almost undisturbed in the vicinity of
the nuclei, but their combined interference is felt at a distance. Note
also that, due to the nonlinearity of the governing laws, the effects
do not simply sum up. In addition, the setting is the result of a dy-
namical process, therefore I do not expect the regions involved to be
immutable. There are a few facts worth mentioning. First of all,
regarding size, the formation of nuclear shells follows a geometrical
law and a similar behavior is expected for the layers, at least start-
ing from a certain distance. The geometrical spacing of the layers
leaves enough room in between for the development of subsystems of
intermediate structures due to the influence of neighboring clusters of
nuclei. For instance, sitting at a certain point, one can feel both the
high frequencies emanating from close nuclei and the low frequencies
of the distant ones. Moving a bit spatially, the situation may totally
change. Anyway, the transition area, in the vicinity of matter, even
if quite troubled, may contain repetitive patterns at different scales
of magnitude. It would not be a surprise to recognize fractal patterns
there, as a consequence of self-similarity properties (implicitly entailed
by the geometric growth).
The literature about chaos and fractals in nature is vast (see for
instance [101]), so I will not spend further time on the issue. Cauliflow-
ers, sea shells, tree leaves and rock formations, are just a few expres-
sions among the infinite wonders that nature provides us. These are
known to be present up to the nanoscale. And then there are clouds,
fractures, sedimentations and lightning, just to mention some phe-
nomena that can be more easily associated with time evolution. I am
inclined to believe that the indications for the realization of such geo-
metric blossoms are already programmed and hidden in the apparently
chaotic electromagnetic halo covering a material surface. This means
for example that, when a small crystal of solid water tries to join an
already consolidated group, it is not free to approach the system from
any direction and angle, but it is suitably driven, in such a way that it
may only choose between a few degrees of freedom. When in place, it
will give its contribution to deform the global surrounding fractal halo
in order to predetermine the possible position of a new entry. Thanks
to the information imprinted in the halo, the project is actuated on
different fronts that seem to be independent, but are linked by invisible
global forces.
The final result is a snowflake appearing with its magnificent sym-
metry (see figure 3.16). Assuming that water atoms are not conscious
of what they are doing, we can hypothesize that their capability to
create perfect snowflakes is due to the possibility of communicating
through the ubiquitous electromagnetic background. Such communi-
cations are not limited to a local level, but are adjusted to pursue a
global optimization. This permits the allocation of atoms that are far
apart to achieve an unbelievable coordination. Of course, the initial
general displacement of water molecules and their formation of tetra-
hedra is decisive in determining the final shape, but I do not think that
the sole analysis of the electrostatic forces, without the help of a global
dynamical self-adjustment, would be sufficient to pilot the molecules
into a minimum energy configuration.
Take also into account that the mechanism of formation of snowfla-
kes and other organized crystal structures is still to be clarified, since,

evidently, the realization of a minimal electrostatic energy is consid-
ered not to be a sufficient argument (see footnote 138). Mathemati-
cians are used to optimizing shapes by working with variational for-
mulations based on integrals extended to the whole domain. Once the
functional to be minimized is given, the analysis turns out to be some-
how approachable. The problem here remains at the modelling level.
If the passage from local to global is not well represented by electric
potentials, what is then the right associated functional? I believe the
answer should be searched for in the photon shell system. Perhaps,
the analysis of the stationary magnetic contribution could be enough.
Figure 3.16: Nature can produce these wonderful snowflakes (printed with
the permission of SnowCrystals.com). Their beauty is emphasized by an as-
tonishing symmetry. It is still unclear however how water finds its way to
form complicated stencils, since the sole local electrical interaction of single
molecules cannot account for a general final displacement of such a regular-
ity. The results of these pages may provide hints for the understanding of
this phenomenon.
Let me finally point out that, in the dynamics of chemical pro-

cesses, topological changes of the photon system, including emission
and absorption of new components, are essentially associated to a
modification of the magnetic patterns. Under suitable conditions, the
magnetic lines of force, organized in closed loops, find alternative dis-
positions. In this way, an entire closed line can break up into several
smaller loops. To mention a concrete example that can be recreated in

laboratory, the front collapse of two smoke rings develops into a bunch
of little rings escaping transversally from the collision site (see [80]).
The transition is a splendid geometric metamorphosis within the fluid
dynamics framework.
3.5 Quantum properties of matter

By dealing with experiments revealing quantum mechanical manifes-
tations of matter, I am going to enter another slippery issue. Since
my fight started with the desire to provide quantum theories with de-
terministic foundations (see section 3.8), I cannot avoid the duty of
facing a more or less detailed discussion. In the previous sections,
I empirically analyzed in terms of my deterministic model equations
some basic quantum phenomena, trying to describe for instance how
atoms and molecules are constituted. I am now going to introduce
additional quantum aspects.
I start this section by giving my definition of “vacuum”: it is a
region of space totally free of electromagnetic radiations. Probably,
there are no parts of our known universe where this happens. As a
matter of fact, electromagnetic waves are present everywhere in very
different forms, although with a common root. To some waves we can
associate a frequency, in a way that depends on the mechanism that
gave origin to them. For example, waves can be forced to circulate in
bounded space regions, or they can be by-products of the breakage of
the isolated systems as mentioned above. For objects marching at the
speed of light, frequency is inevitably related to their size.
I also claimed that waves carry gravitational information. This is
true if we look at them as a geometric phenomenon, essentially re-
lated to a modification of the space-time, but practically subjected to
the rules of the dynamics of fluids. This is also true because, during
wave interactions, pressure wakes may pass by or remain blocked in
confined areas, and I suggested connections between the gradient of
pressure and gravitational forces (see section 2.5). Such a dynamics is
fully described by the modelling equations, presenting electromagnetic
waves as a sort of fluid without viscosity. The only difference with a
classical fluid is that there is no matter: the properties of the flow are
only determined by a velocity field, as it is classically studied in fluid
dynamics. We know that material fluids, when suitably driven, can
display lots of interesting configurations. Stable structures can then

build up also in my context. They have the characteristics of real mat-
ter, although they are just made of vector fields124 . In this way, the
link between matter and electromagnetism is soon explained, without
assuming postulates based on phenomenological arguments. Every-
thing seems at this point related to the analysis of pure fields, obeying
to a set of differential laws that contain the basic ingredients of clas-
sical physics125 . The equations are the result of a wise combination
of electromagnetism, fluid dynamics and general relativity, the three
main pillars of physics. In addition, they are the prodromes of quan-
tum mechanics. Thus, quantum theories are not directly imprinted in
the model, but follow as a result of interacting solutions.
Since I mentioned the word fluid, one might ask if there is any
means by which it propagates. If there was “something”, to be called
ether, the whole construction of the theory would be quite contorted,
since we should start worrying about the presence of other unexpected
concepts and entities. There is however no reason to assume the exis-
tence of ether; it is in fact enough to assume the definition of vector
fields as a primitive idea. So I must take for granted that one knows
the meaning of the vectors (E, B, V) and the scalar p. After impos-
ing the initial condition, these objects evolve according to the rules.
There are no other elements necessary. I do not intend to investigate
what is beyond the essence of vector fields, and I leave the question to
philosophers.
I guess that the beginning of our universe started with the release
of a huge amount of electromagnetic radiation, corresponding to some
initial undetermined conditions. This energy, due to self-interactions,
started to create substructures in continuous evolution. Stars are ex-
amples of sites where interesting gatherings are forged, but the process
involves all the invisible interstitial space, even if matter is not actu-
ally present in quantity. In this powerful and immense melting pot,
bare electrons and protons are created. I have shown that these can
be effectively composed of confined electromagnetic waves, evolving in
124
From [65], p.121: “When modern physics abandoned the notion of the ether as
a kind of ‘elastic solid’, it arrived at a new concept of matter. ‘Matter’ became the
product of the field, which cannot itself be intuited or represented in and by the
imagination. Indeed, there is no schematic image of matter”.
125
In [106], p.194, K. Popper claims: “In any case, the fundamental idea of a
unified field theory seem to me one that cannot be given up ...”.
agreement with the equations and having properties analogous to the

real ones. These distinguished tiny packets are the most elementary
manifestation of matter, although, other unstable massive structures
are constantly generated and destroyed. It is important to remark
once again that such a context may be conjectured and understood
only with the help of a powerful model for electromagnetism, such
as the one I have proposed. Trying to reach a similar goal with old-
fashioned techniques is out of the question.
It is evident that matter is just a small part of this immense play-

ground. Even in a small atom, there is a tremendously large amount
of energy floating between bare particles. Such an ocean is quite well
organized, to the point that it allows the formation of complicated
compounds, ranging from the simplest molecules to biological entities.
The name dark matter is in this case very intuitive, appropriate and
trendy, although the term is mainly used in astronomy, where dark
matter exists to fill up discrepancies in the masses of galaxies or clus-
ters of galaxies. Cosmologists estimate that dark matter constitutes
80% of the energy in the universe, the rest being occupied by ordinary
matter.
My concept of dark matter is however in contrast with what is

usually postulated, since, according to my theoretical results it is not
possible to assume its existence without a significant background of
electromagnetic radiation. Such a “substance” displays an intermedi-
ate state between that of pure free photons and effective matter. It is
a sort of “mushy region”. At the present stage of evolution, the uni-
verse is completely filled up of conflicting waves that leave no room for
pure waves. Theoretically, in situations of equilibrium, dark matter is
practically invisible. More properly, we may call it dark energy, since
it is made of electromagnetic radiations in dynamical evolution, but
with no neat electric, magnetic or gravitational properties, if measured
in a certain amount of time much longer than the various periods of
oscillation involved. We can however visualize dark energy. If things
are done properly, instruments may detect it, and there are many ways
this can be done. I will discuss this in a while. Indeed, the presence of
plenty of hidden energy is not just the result of my imagination; it is
real and documentable. It is taken into considerations in many disci-
plines, although the lack of communication between different branches
prevents researchers from collecting all the snapshots in a unifying
album126 .
It is not to be forgotten that shells and layers, apart from their im-
portant vibrational contribution, are carriers of stationary electric and
magnetic fields. Everybody would agree about the presence of elec-
trostatic forces, since the interplay between small or large molecules
is mostly explained as the result of Coulombian interactions. Less
evident is the influence of the magnetic component, which has been
proven here to be crucial in justifying for instance the preparatory ro-
tations and the final corrections that put the pieces together. In my
theory, static fields do not exist alone, but only in conjunction with
travelling waves. This makes electric and magnetic fields indissolubly
tied, so that, even in the stationary components, they coexist. The
condition divB = 0 puts the magnetic field in a situation difficult to
observe, but its latent presence is ready to come out at any moment.
A typical weird situation is the following one: magnetic forces are
experimentally registered outside an infinite long cylindrical solenoid
(subject to a current), even if stationary magnetic fields should not be
present according to classical arguments. In the framework of quan-
tum theories, the existence of such magnetic forces is put in relation
to the Aharonov-Bohm effect (see [1]), which is a quantum effect (see
footnote 122). Its discovery was another confirmation of the poor lim-
its of classical electromagnetism, although the current explanations
raise other embarrassing questions; one of these considers the possibil-
ity that the electromagnetic potentials A and Φ (see (6) in Appendix
A) contain more information than the effectively observed fields E and
B. Forces are thus insufficient to describe physics, the missing part
being attributed to energy potential. Some claim to be able to directly
measure potentials; I instead believe that they remain a mathematical
construct with no additional impact on observable events. One can
however introduce a novelty in the expression of the potentials in the
way roughly described here below.
A solenoid is made of matter and, as far as I am concerned, matter
is not the union of its atoms, but something more composite that ex-
tends far outside its supposed boundaries through a halo of well orga-
126
From [63], chapter 10: “The development of a discipline is the work of a com-
munity of scientists who may be relatively isolated, deliberately or accidentally,
from the work of neighboring disciplines. Each discipline may have its own theo-
retical concepts, styles of explanation and judgments of theoretical plausibility, so
there can be no guarantee that physics and chemistry will mesh even if, ultimately,
their subject matter is the same”.
nized electromagnetic patterns. The constant magnetic field generated

inside the solenoid is a macroscopic consequence, due to the sum of a
multiplicity of contributions generated by the electrically stimulated
atoms. In the non-convex external part, such a monolithic component
is absent, but a minimal magnetic part survives in its ground state.
In the light of this, the arguments justifying the Aharonov-Bohm ef-
fect could be reconsidered in the classical fashion, without resorting to
bizarre extensions. Indeed, we have observed that there might be pres-
sure jumps every time one crosses a shell boundary. We then combine
the scalar p, which is actually another potential (dimensionally differ-
ent from the electromagnetic ones), in conjunction with A and Φ. In
this fashion, including both the electromagnetic and the gravitational
contributions due to jumps, we effectively get more information than
that needed to build E and B. For example, a general Lagrangian
function, also incorporating the pressure term, has been proposed in
[49].
Another typical quantum manifestation is the Casimir effect (see
again footnote 122). Two parallel uncharged metal plates are subject
to an attractive force, even in vacuum. Such a force is quite strong
since it decays as the inverse of the distance of the plates to the fourth
power. Due to the presence of small multiplying constants, the phe-
nomenon is very mild normally, but in nanoscale physics the Casimir
effect turns out to be quite relevant. There is no classical explanation
of this fact and this is a typical example of problem that can be eas-
ily handled by introducing the zero-point energy, which is the lowest
possible energy assumed by a quantum mechanical system (i.e., the
ground state energy). The concept is about one century old and it is
used as a synonym for vacuum energy in empty space.
Zero-point radiation pervades the universe and has electromag-
netic origin. Such energy remains even when all the usual sources
are removed from the system. It is a kind of fuzziness, attributed to
matter, at a minimum uncertainty energy level, as a consequence of
the Heisenberg principle. Its presence is however obscure in the classi-
cal non-quantum context. The theoretical justification of the Casimir
effect relies on the fact that the vacuum energy circulating at the ex-
terior of the plates is larger than that trapped in between, resulting in
a gradient of pressure acting on the surfaces (see for instance [93] for
a technical review).
The influence of the zero-point energy on the constitution of mat-
ter was pointed out by W. Nernst long time ago, but the study was
not sufficiently developed127,128 . On the one hand I am glad to hear
about these efforts, since a recognized existence of an electromagnetic
background is in line with my viewpoint. On the other hand, I con-
sider the modern descriptions to be very simplistic (and vague). In
quantum field theory, all the various fundamental fields are quantized
at any point of space where a quantum harmonic oscillator is formally
placed. Vibrations of the fields then propagate according to a suit-
able wave equation. In this fashion, one can associate to each point
of the vacuum various properties such as energy, spin and polariza-
tion. With the exception of energy, they sum zero on average. The
lowest possible energy of a quantum oscillator is proportional to the
frequency by a factor h/2, where h is the Planck constant. To obtain
the vacuum energy in a region of space, one has to integrate over all
possible oscillators at all points. Here we start having trouble, since
the calculated energy is infinite (it is usually related to the sum of a
series, whose terms grow cubically). Physicists claim that this is not a
problem, because they can mathematically handle the situation. I re-
main skeptical to learn that, although things can be put under control,
there is an infinite amount of energy in the neighborhood of any point
of the vacuum space. There is of course awareness of the problem and
scientist have been trying to do their best to come up with new ideas
and interpretations.
The attraction of the plates in the Casimir effect is explained by
arguing that, due to boundary conditions, only a subset of all the pos-
sible frequencies is allowed at the interior, while there are no restriction
outside. The two corresponding energy sums diverge but the first one
has less terms with respect to the second one, and this makes the dif-
ference. The theory however does not clarify neither the nature of
127
Concerning the stability of the Hydrogen molecule, W. Nernst writes in [96]:
“Die beiden kreisenden Elektronen erhalten durch die Nullpunktsstrahlung ihre
geordnete, d. h. im Vergleich zur Wärmebewegung nur sehr kleinen Schwankun-
gen unterworfene Nullpunktenergie, welche einerseits die bekanntlich ser große
Stabilität des Wasserstoffmoleküls bedingt, andererseits als mit der Nullpunk-
tsstrahlung im Gleichgewicht befindlich selbstverständlich nicht strahlen kann”.
128
From [27], p.100: “Nernst also saw that the zeropoint field could help explain
atomic stability by providing mechanism to compensate for the energy lost through
radiation by the orbiting electrons, and he speculated that this field could well be
the source of the quantum properties of matter. Physics went along a different
course and Nernst’s ideas were soon forgotten; however, we will see them recover
their intrinsic value once the zeropoint field is taken seriously into consideration”.
these electromagnetic waves nor the way they are actually organized.
As the reader already knows, my approach to the problem is definitely
deterministic. The electromagnetic radiation floating inside and out-
side the metal plates follows precise (dynamical) patterns made of a
series of layers. In [46] I discuss how these non-overlapping films are
possibly distributed. The geometry is ruled by an underlying fractal
behavior. Assuming that each photon layer has an energy proportional
to the carried frequency, the total energy ends up being finite, which is
a more sound result. The attractive force turns out to be proportional
to the inverse of the fourth power of the distance of the plates, in line
with experiments. The analysis is carried out in the stationary case,
but the situation is going to be more complex; in reality, the layers,
animated by the atoms of the plates, undergo a swarming process of
creation, recombination and disintegration. As a rule, high photon
frequencies are encountered near the plates. A phenomenon, called
the dynamical Casimir effect, has been predicted and deals with the
possibility of emitting “real” photons from the system, by suitably ac-
celerating one of the two plates. In the framework of my theory, this
is certainly not a surprise. For charged plates with different sign the
Casimir effect is enhanced, since more energy is involved, resulting in
the stronger Coulomb-type attraction (see later for an interpretation
in terms of the gradient of p). Finally, when the plates support charges
of the same sign, a repulsive phenomenon of hydrodynamical nature
is manifested (see figure 3.5).
Based on my scheme, it should not be too difficult to come up
with some estimates about the intensity of such a hidden energy in-
side and around a given molecule. If quantitatively the results were
optimistic they may encourage the search for new devices capable of
extracting the so-called “energy from nothing” (see, e.g., [14]), maybe
without the ambitious goal of solving the world’s energetic problems,
as some practitioners sustain. In truth, most of this energy is the
one closing balances in chemical reactions, where the transformation
of a compound into another is accompanied by the release of some
form of work129 . The geometrical setting of the reactive substances
transmutes into another one at lower energetic level, with the corre-
129
From [27], p.198: “The geometry of the energy-extracting device will surely be
a matter of careful calculations. Moreover, at such small scales other phenomena
probably occur that could prevent the possibility of extracting the energy in a useful
way before it is radiated”.
sponding elimination of the exceeding photons. These last may leave

the emission site in the form of electromagnetic radiations (sometimes
showing up in the visible spectrum) or contributing to raising tem-
peratures. Note that when a complex system is broken in favor of
a simpler one, it is hard to come back by recombining the missing
pieces, even by replacing the lost energy in some way. This is because
energy is a generic word, while what has been lost in the reaction are
the irreplaceable small fragments of a valuable pottery, represented
by the initial shell configuration. Such a piece of information cannot
be restored and I think this is somehow the justification of the second
principle of thermodynamics. There are however complex experiments
with rotating magnets (see for instance [109]), still in process of replica-
tion, where free energy seems to be created, posing puzzling questions
about their physical interpretation. Suggestions for the construction
of “free-energy” motors proliferate in the web.
Nevertheless, there is no need to look for fancy applications in
order to see how electromagnetic forces can be transmuted into me-
chanical ones. Repulsion or attraction of charges and magnets, and
the functioning of electric motors, are examples in which energies of
electrodynamical nature are converted into mechanical work. These
devices do not take extra energy from vacuum, but they certainly use
the vacuum as a medium. In the context of my modelling equations
this is possible due to the mix of electromagnetic terms (the vector
fields E and B) and fluid dynamics terms (the vector field V and the
scalar p). The principles of energy and momentum conservation govern
the exchange of information between the various actors.
From my viewpoint, a nontrivial problem is to understand how a
difference of electric potential can be established between two bod-
ies. For a Volta pile the secret lyes on chemical reactions caused by
electrodes of different nature. The potential gap propagates along
conductors and may “charge”, for instance, a capacitor. Since the
process physically takes place without moving electrons, the study of
this phenomenon is not as simple as it might appear at first glance.
Another area of interest concerns asymmetrical capacitors. When
these devices are charged with different polarities, the two conductors,
as expected, tend to attract each other. The weird thing is that the
forces have non-zero resultant, so that the setting is subject to lateral
acceleration, and the results, depending on the geometrical configura-
tion, are more or less pronounced. A practical application is the con-
struction of the so-called anti-gravity flying machines (lifters). These

are very light capacitors, made of aluminium foils, immersed in a di-
electric (usually air) and subject to a voltage difference of the order
of ten KiloVolts. Due to their asymmetry, they start rising and freely
floating (see [21] and [9]). The explanations of this effect are various,
but not really convincing. The most reliable is that there is creation
of ions in the dielectric due to a corona effect. Thanks to the applied
voltage, a migration of ions produces a “wind”, that may be better
described as a transfer of momentum due to colliding particles. Be-
cause of the asymmetric setting, such a wind blows unevenly resulting
in a non-zero force on the baricenter. I partly agree with this version.
I think however that there is no effective movement of ions. What
flows are not necessarily massive particles, but interstitial photons
(the ones constituting, together with bare particles, the structure of
the dielectric, or more in general the background radiation). Forces are
generated because such photons acquire a momentary “mass”, rapidly
converted into work. The reason is due to both the asymmetry of
the capacitor and the presence of the dielectric, that combined give a
charge density ρ = divE slightly different from zero. Having ρ 6= 0,
thanks to the model equations, a gradient of pressure may form, with
a consequent impact on the mechanical behavior of the entire device.
Similar observations hold concerning asymmetric rotating metal ob-
jects under the effect of high-voltage (see for instance [117]). It is
interesting to remark that there is almost no current flowing in the
supplier when the devices are moving, i.e., the consumption is negligi-
ble if compared to the work done. The needed energy is continuously
alimented by the background.
In alternative to the idea of the photonic wind, I also suggest the
following argument, which can be also applied in absence of interposed
dielectrics. Near the surface of the charged conductors, at a distance
comparable to the atomic scale (10−10 ÷10−9 meters), ρ is subject to a
very sharp variation: it has a neat value ρ 6= 0 within the metal lattice
and drops to zero in the relatively extended region between the conduc-
tors. Certainly ρ is not zero inside electrons and protons, however, at
the nanoscale level, one can assume the existence of intermediate areas
(dynamically changing in time) where ρ is also not zero. This is due
to the everlasting vibrations of the molecular photon shells, combining
electrical and mechanical stresses, as in a micro version of the piezo-
electric effect. At macroscopic level, since we are in the electrostatic
case, E is orthogonal to the conductor’s surface, so that ρ corresponds
to its normal derivative. Let us take V = 0 and B = 0 in the model

equations, so obtaining: µρE = −∇p (see also (107) in Appendix G).
Hence, by projecting along the normal direction to the surface, one
finds out that a strong negative pressure p = − 12 µ|E|2 is present near
the conductors, resulting in their reciprocal movement. Given the size
of one of the two capacitor plates, the intensity of E in the neighbor-
hood of the other plate is inversely proportional to its area. On the
other hand, as seen above, pressure behaves as the square of the inten-
sity of the electric field. Thus, the two plates ensemble feels the action
of asymmetric forces (with resultant different from zero), that are con-
tinuously supplied through the imposed difference of potential. From
the above observations, it should be possible to give an estimate of the
dimensional constant that relates p to standard mechanical forces.
Similar arguments are used in [50] to explain the mechanism of
antenna emission. In this case a signal can leave the device only at the
points where E = 0 (so that p = 0), otherwise it will “stick” on the
antenna surface. Such a condition can be realized when the antenna
enters in a resonant regime through the supplied frequency. In this
way, a fictitious “bubble” whose boundary is made of nodes (points
where E = 0) is generated around the device, permitting the liberation
of the wave.
The fluctuations of a permanent magnet above a superconductor
(magnetic levitation) could be partially explained as follows. The
closed lines of force of the magnet are prevented from entering the
superconductor, since the background radiation in and around it is
too weak to support magnetic fields (the phenomenon is known as the
Meissner effect; see previous section). The loops are then deviated in
conjunction with a general reorganization of the layer system between
the two bodies. As a consequence, pressure waves develops establishing
equilibrium situations (quantum locking). The above justification is
very qualitative, also because the potential p is activated when ρ 6= 0,
therefore a deeper motivation must also rely on the behavior of the
electric field.
Theoretically, a source of gravitational field (or a shielding of the
Earth gravitational field) could be realized with the help of electromag-
netic signals by isolating a significant portion of space where ρ 6= 0.
According to equations (86) and (97) in Appendix F this would possi-
bly imply p 6= 0 and ρm 6= 0 (note for example that photons actually
have ρ 6= 0 at their interior and that one has p 6= 0 when they collide).
Unfortunately, checking this prediction is hard because of the very

small constants involved (µ in particular) making the effect practi-
cally undetectable. Achieving this goal, even in very mild form, would
be a decisive validation of the model equations.
Let me briefly mention another question that is related to the exis-
tence of a non-trivial vacuum (more organized than that predicted by
quantum theories). In the Unruh effect, two observers moving relative
to each other in accelerated fashion have different perceptions of vac-
uum. This should be true both if we describe the zero-point radiation
in the quantum way (a system of connected point-wise resonators) or
with my approach. The underlying argument, based on general rel-
ativity, is the impossibility in certain situations of finding a suitable
mapping relating the observers’ frames. I am not going to discuss any
theoretical detail about this phenomenon. It is sufficient to point out
that the Unruh effect may cause the decay rate of accelerated parti-
cles to differ from inertial particles, and this could justify for instance
the anomalous behavior of kaons (see section 2.6). In other words, the
properties of vacuum may effectively affect the history of a certain phe-
nomenology, as reported by experiments. Further disquisitions on the
Unruh effect lead to reasoning about anti-gravity and the meaning of
absolute time. I leave the discussion to the experts. There is however
a fil rouge connecting all the above described experiments. The strong
isolation of the various disciplines from the general context amplifies
the lack of dialog130 . The viewpoint I am presenting here may help to
unravel the problem and detect the correct links.
The above disquisitions about some well-known quantum proper-
ties of matter give emphasis to my unifying approach. Scattered and
unconnected explanations now have a place in a more organic and uni-
versal context. As I continue to stress from the very beginning, two
ingredients are the key: the necessity of a review of electromagnetic
theories and the existence of an organized background radiation. I can
now deal with more tough and intriguing phenomena. There are in
fact experiments that reveal more involved quantum behaviors. These
are the starting point of upgraded disputable theories that are the
subject of the current research in theoretical physics. Though serious
they open a Pandora’s box to sometimes extravagant and “at the limit
of credibility” descriptions of our universe.
130
A Murphy’s law says: “An expert is one who knows more and more about less
and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing”.
3.6 More on quantum properties of matter

The double-slit experiment is a decisive turning point in quantum
physics. Electrons (or other particles) are sent against a barrier with
two thin vertical slits at small separation distance (here small is rela-
tive to the wavelengths involved). With 50% probability each electron
passes through one hole or the other. What can be seen on a screen put
on the other side of the barrier is amazing. Instead of two neat marks,
a set of interference patterns (bright and dark alternating bands) is
observed, confirming the wave nature of particles. Indeed, if we accept
as given the wave-particle duality dogma, such an experiment is not
extraordinary. A trivial explanation comes from the study of undu-
lating phenomena, where at the passage through contiguous holes, the
same interference waves are observed. The waves “associated” to each
electron give rise to interference similar to that produced by waves on
the surface of a liquid. To better understand the comparison one has
to assume that such a flow of electrons happens in large numbers. Let
us admit for a moment that this is the simplest way to provide for
an explanation without invoking more involved mechanisms, although
one has to pass through the unappealing description of a particle as a
wave-packet.
But the story does not end here. The same patterns can be ob-
served when many electrons are sent one at a time towards the target.
Again, each electron has a 50% probability of passing through one of
the two slits. When it reaches the screen a mark is left. At the end of
the test, when a large number of particles has been shot, the union of
the marks does not form two well distinct clusters, but appears with
the same interference fringes as the case in which electrons travel al-
together. Providing an explanation to this situation is far from being
trivial. We cannot argue that electrons interfere with each other, since
they move alone, with no apparent way to communicate.
The above example, and many others of the same kind, is a puzzle
that opened new frontiers in physics, accompanied by disorientation at
philosophical level. Something, displaying a wavelike nature, goes si-
multaneously through both slits interfering with itself, despite the fact
that there is only one particle present at a time131 . The question forced
131
From [29], p.9: “The new theory, which connects the wave function with prob-
abilities for one photon gets over the difficulty by making each photon go partly
into each of the two components. Each photon then interferes only with itself.
Interference between two different photons never occurs”.
a review of the most commonplace concepts in physics, including for

example the possibility of predicting the future (a particle knows that
another one will come and starts interacting with its ghostly version)
or assuming a possible correlation of the involved objects (the particles
of the experiment are somehow entangled even if they occupy different
positions in time and space). Quantum entanglement implies for in-
stance that when the first of two correlated particles is measured, the
state of the other is automatically known at the same time without
measurement. This is true regardless of the separation of the two par-
ticles which can be very far apart. As a consequence, there is a kind of
information able to travel at speeds well beyond the velocity of light.
The so called hidden-variables theories have been introduced in order
to account for the creation of entangled ensembles. Hidden variables
permit entangle particles to communicate independently of their dis-
tance, violating the basic principles of Einsteinian relativity. For this
reason Einstein himself was very doubtful concerning this version of
facts.
I would like to avoid spending more words on the above theories and
other alternatives. First of all, not being an expert in the field, I risk
venturing into vague dissertations that could be easily argued against
by a careful reader. Secondly, I dislike the hidden-variables approach
since it washes away our certainties, offering an objectionable view
of our universe based on elements that are remotely sound but quite
disconnected from our common perception. We are at the point that
some researchers even believe that our mental attitude is not suited
to understanding “matter”132 . Last, but not least, I have my own
explanation, in line with my understanding of the structure of matter.
So, let us now discuss my version.
I start with a clarifying remark. The earlier version of the double-
slit experiment uses photons, emitted by a laser source, as particles.
As experts claim, in this case there is no ambiguous wave-particle
argument, since one is dealing with pure electromagnetic emanations.
132
From [22], p.287: “Finally, the classical mentality had exaggerated the ex-
planatory power of physics. This science was thought to be able to give an absolute
explanation of reality by means of an unending series of mathematica deductions
based on an exhaustive intuition of the essence of matter. Quantum physics has
clarified the meaning of physical explanation. This does not go beyond the ability
of tracing back the properties of the compounds to the observed properties of the
components. The reason is that human mind is not capable of intuiting material
essence at all”.
Therefore, the interference behavior can be easily predicted. As I

already explained in chapter one, there is a sort of blurred area when
discussing these issues, and one never knows when clearly the notion of
a wave (as a solution of Maxwell’s equations) ends and that of photon,
the carrier of electromagnetic radiation, begins. In the end, we always
return to the same dilemma: what exactly are photons? By adopting
my model equations all problems disappear. My equations clarify that
a solid piece of electromagnetic wave and a myriad of independent
photons marching along in the same direction, are distinct phenomena,
although events of an identical nature. An oscillating dipole and a
light bulb both emit electromagnetic waves, but with very different
characterizing properties.
From the discussion in section 3.4, we also know that a laser is a
photon emitter and its beam is not a continuous fluid, but an oriented
flux of scattered pinheads. Laser photons are isolated waves that are
not conscious of being part of an organized controlled emission. There-
fore, the argument that photons are waves and produce interference
patterns (as waves are expected to do), cannot be trivially utilized to
give a meaning to the classical double-slit experiment.
Let us suppose, as it is usually done, that the whole experimental
apparatus is made of mathematical entities: the barrier is a geomet-
rical plane, with two perfect vertical cuts. Photons passing strictly
within the interior of each hole just go straight through, while those
that partly encounter the boundary of the holes may be affected, like
solid balls, by some deviation that one may call diffraction. With this
setting it is hard to justify the formation of interference patterns. Some
may start thinking that my viewpoint is wrong, since the interference
bands are actually visible in reality.
But in reality the barrier is not an aseptic geometrical obstacle,
but a true and complex piece of matter, and it behaves as matter. We
learned that matter is a complicated bustle of photon shells and layers,
extending beyond the limits of its molecular set. This superstructure
involves a nontrivial modification of the space-time, according to the
axioms of general relativity, into independent and evolving elementary
cells (see for instance the bubbles of figure 3.15). There are photons
trapped in these local geometric environments. The space-time alter-
ation is so strong that it keeps these photons blocked and following
extremely curved geodesics. Thus, the whole experimental setting is
immersed in an invisible turbulent electromagnetic cloud, exhibiting
an extended range of energies and frequencies.

A new coming photon is certainly affected by such a background,
especially in the areas ruled by high frequencies. The passage of a soli-
tary photon might also influence the setting, but I expect this happens
with less strength, especially when moving at relatively small distances
from atomic nuclei. Hence, the path of the photon is deviated and de-
flected many times before reaching the screen target. The scattering
angles are however so small to escape direct detection. The travel tra-
jectory heavily depends on initial conditions; a small modification of
the photon’s entry displacement, may lead to a drastically new evolu-
tion history. This is also due to the fractal nature of the electromag-
netic background surrounding matter. The photon is interfering, but
it is not doing this with other photons of the family it belongs to (both
in the case they are fired all together or one at a time), but with the
tortuous environment pertaining to the experiment’s site133,134 . The
same can be said for other kinds of particles.
In practice, the incoming particles of the double-slit experiment
only illuminate a preexisting situation. Hidden to our eyes, there are
already interference patterns extending between the openings of the
barrier and the arrival screen. If there were no holes, we should en-
counter an electromagnetic distribution of photon layers similar to that
described in [46], introduced to study the Casimir effect. If we drill
a single slit, the situation is altered, allowing for a new design of the
environment, pre-arranged to handle diffraction of incoming particles
passing through the aperture. When we drill another slit at a short dis-
tance, the interference of the various photon layers prepare the ground
for the final configuration. The experiment is done before we actually
perform it. Sending particles into the system shows us what really has
been prepared down there.
133
From [27], p.103: “Any nearby body modifies the background field, and one
may conceive that in the neighborhood of a periodic structure the radiation is
enhanced in the direction of the Bragg angles. Under the assumption that the
electron responds mainly to the waves of the zeropoint field of wavelength close to
the de Broglie wavelength, their main effect on the particle will be to produce those
angular deviations that tend to give shape to the observed interference patterns.
Hence the particle needs to ‘know’ nothing: it is the random background that
carries the required ‘knowledge’ and operates accordingly to the particle”.
134
From [81]: “The particle travels through only one slit. The wave goes through
both slits. But the wave goes through first, setting up the interferences, before the
particle arrives”.
Heuristically, I expect the major deviations of the trajectories to

happen when incoming photons hit the separation surfaces between
the various shells and layers forming and surrounding matter. This
should be similar to what happens in refraction, during the passage
of light rays through the transition zone separating media having dif-
ferent refractive indices. The final arrival points of these piece-wise
independent paths are not uniformly distributed, reflecting instead
the prearranged organization of the entire experimental setting, which
also includes the arrival screen and the measurement instruments.
If this explanation may be considered too involved in the case of
a swarm of incoming particles, it is certainly adequate in the case of
solitary particles sent one at a time, without the need of assuming
exchange of information between entangled particles through other
space dimensions or at speeds possibly larger than that of light. The
astounding discovery (following the more basic double-slit experiment)
that particles independently shot behave identically to those marching
all together, should have suggested reconsidering the whole of quantum
theory from the very beginning. A similar viewpoint has been stressed
in [82], where analogous conclusions are reported with emphasis135 .
In the theory of elementary waves (see [81] and [82]) the anal-
ysis is carried out using the tools of quantum mechanics, with the
difference that wave properties are not only given to single particles
but to the entire environment, more or less with the same aims that
stimulated my research. Matter emits elementary waves that interfere
non-linearly, although there is no clear description on how they are
produced and what kind of physics dimension they have in the observ-
able world. Reconsidering all the basic and advanced experiments in
quantum mechanics, the study of elementary waves allows for a rea-
sonable restatement of quantum physics without denying evidence and
putting things in a unifying and functioning framework. On a similar
track is the theory of Stochastic Electrodynamics (see [27]).
135
From the introduction in [82]: “Some 80 or 90 years ago, physicists made a
fundamental error in their development of the theory known as quantum mechanics,
the bedrock theory of modern subatomic physics. Because the theory is erroneous,
physicists inevitably began to uncover laboratory evidence that contradicted it. In
the face of that evidence, physicists should have retraced their steps until they
discovered the error; but instead, reluctant to give up the partial success they had
achieved with the theory, they chose to ‘twist’ reality in an attempt to make it
agree with the theory”.
Another crucial aspect is the role of a material observer placed in

the experiment’s site to report on what is going on. It is noticed that
the presence of the observer heavily affects the outcome, disrupting
for instance the interference lines. Thus, trying to better understand
the secrets of quantum phenomena with practical intervention may
substantially alter the scene. Such an observation led some physi-
cists to theorize that the sole act of watching makes events happen
or not. At a philosophical level, somebody was also induced to con-
jecture that real things could not even exist without observing them.
From my viewpoint the situation is clear: the device used to record
observations modifies the experiment because it is made of matter.
When approaching the experiment, it changes the background topol-
ogy before the experiment is done136 . As a matter of fact, more recent
versions of the double-slit experiment, with a less influential role of
the observer, partially maintain the features of the original.
On similar lines is the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) paradox. I
will briefly mention it, with no claim of being exhaustive. In the easi-
est version, particles from a common source are emitted in such a way
that they march in opposite directions. Two measuring instruments
are set far apart in order to compare the spin orientations of the two
independent particles. Without adding further details, it turns out
that the measurment outcomes give the impression of a sort of in-
formation exchanged by the particles, that goes beyond basic notions
and suggesting the inadequateness of the Heisenberg principle or an
incompleteness of standard quantum theories. Thus, some unexpected
hidden variables enter into play, revealing an uncommon structure of
the universe that motivates harsh discussions among philosophers. My
viewpoint is to some extent analogous to that put forth in [82]. My
interpretation is based on the observation that these experiments are
not conducted in a mathematical aseptic environment (in this utopian
case, the results would be really embarrassing, nourishing the search
for exotic explanations). On the contrary, particles interact with the
electromagnetic background, especially near the measurement instru-
ments. Thus, discrepancies on the outcomes are not to be ascribed to
some exchange of information between particles, but to the effects of
136
From [81]: “In no way we are required to conclude that there is a breach
between the real and the observed, between our knowledge and the objects of that
knowledge. What we see is what exists. A measuring apparatus affects the creation
of the particles that are observed; but this does not require the conclusion that a
particle lacks identity until actually detected”.
the entire environment that involves the use of material tools, with all
the consequences discussed.
3.7 Implications on biological systems

Let me devote this short section to the crucial issue of correlating
the results here obtained with some peculiarities of living systems.
In particular, I would like to point out how the interpretation of a
molecule as a gadget, endowed with an inner dynamical individuality,
might help understand biological processes. I will limit the analysis
to a few marginal considerations and ideas, due to my inexperience
in these fields. In addition to the study of the constitution of living
organisms, one may also wonder how significant is the impact of the
presence of an organized electromagnetic background in our everyday
life, and how this can affect our evolution, survival and connection
with nature.
First of all, I can quickly recall the effects (negative or positive)
of exposure to daylight, that can affect biological molecules in direct
or indirect ways. Molecules may be dissociated by photolysis, i.e.
through the injection of energy carried by photons. For example, DNA
may be severely damaged by UV light. Other stimuli are provoked by
magnetic fields (see, e.g., [114]).
On the other hand, almost all living systems are supplied by chem-
ical devices able to transform visible photons into work137 . In plants
for example, the active core of chlorophyll consists of a porphyrin-
like structure, made of Carbon and Nitrogen and presenting a sort
of cavity, inside which a Magnesium atom is situated. The set res-
onates at various optical frequencies in the red and the blue spectrum.
The energy of the absorbed photons is suitably driven and utilized to
activate chemical reactions. The Magnesium is interpreted as Mg++
ion connected to two N− ions. In my construction, these three atoms
share a couple of electrons that occupy fixed positions between them.
Such positions do not match those of the single isolated atoms but
are individuated by the global shell system of all nuclei involved. The
137
From [64], p.1412: “In plants, algae, and photosynthetic bacteria, the photo-
synthetic apparatus converts light energy into chemical energy. It has a complex
structure that starts with an ‘antenna’ - an ensemble of pigments embedded in
proteins, which absorbs light and funnel excitation energy toward specific proteins
called reaction centers where photo-induced charge separation takes place”.
particular locations of these electrons force them to become sensitive

to specific wave-lengths. In the standard version, some free electrons
then migrates through a series of molecules following specific cycles
and participating in chemical reactions (see, e.g., [86], chapter 19).
Nevertheless, we know that an effective movement is not necessary,
since it could be replaced by the right allowance of photons.
However, the aspect I am more concerned with is connected to
the release of photons, since, following a generic multi-frequency in-
jection of light, the photonic response of a molecule provides accurate
information about its constitution. Biophotonics is a field of research
that combines biology and photonics, which is the science that studies
photons from the viewpoint of their generation, detection and manip-
ulation. With applications in life science, the discipline basically refers
to photon emission and absorption from cells, but it is sometimes ex-
tended to tissues and even organisms. Biophotons usually range in
the visible and ultraviolet spectrum. The detection of these photons
is achieved through very sensitive equipment, and it has not to be
confused with bioluminescence, where energy is released by living or-
ganisms through chemical reaction and successively in the form of light
emission (as for example the luciferin emitted by fireflies). Most of the
applications are in the medical field. The research is scattered in many
independent branches, most of them sharing the study of the reactions
of cells under laser stimulations. At the origin of the discipline is the
discovery that all living systems permanently emit light quanta that
induce chemical reactions in the cells. The cells themselves are a sort
of cavity resonator contributing to biophoton regulation. The cor-
rect functioning of a living organism relies on the proper circulation
of biophotons stored in the cells, so that one could in principle dis-
criminate between healthy or cancer cells by differences in biophoton
emission. An intricate dynamical exchange of light quanta constantly
occurs inside an organism, having as principal points of absorption and
emission the DNA molecules. The activity of this communication net-
work regulates, using proteins as intermediate transmitting stations,
the most fundamental biological processes starting from morphogene-
sis, cell growth and cellular differentiation. Theoretically, information
could be communicated not only throughout the organism but to the
environment.
Obviously, I am not surprised to learn about this mixture of com-
plex chemical structures and photons, since the framework perfectly
agrees with the one I developed starting from the simplest compo-
nents. A great deal of biological processes are not simply due to
straight chemical reactions. The truth is that messages carried by
photons flow at the speed of light in a very organized electromagnetic
landscape extending between atoms, supplying with life blood an inan-
imate scaffold of nuclei and electrons. Like in an electric circuit, both
the various components and the currents supplied by a generator are
essential parts of the machinery and, in a functioning device, they
cannot be separated. Hence, a DNA molecule is mainly an active ap-
paratus governing the transfer of complex instructions in the form of
photons, rather than just the sum of its nucleotides (see my version
of cytosine in figure 3.17). As the formation of a lifeless snowflake
requires the simultaneous contribution of the water molecules to ex-
change information via the electromagnetic background (see section
3.4), more complex winding molecular systems may be formed on the
same principles, that go beyond the minimization of the electrostatic
energy138 . Is this for instance the process at the base of the mechanism
of protein folding?139
Furthermore, involved molecular aggregations may take advantage
of the communication network to self-assemble and reproduce. If this
is a viable explanation, certain proteins could undergo chemical syn-
thesis from available C, N, O, H atoms following recipes imprinted in
the photon shells of the cellular environment. Assuming that nature
can effectively account on my extended definition of chemical struc-
ture, which includes an impressive amount of well-organized intersti-
tial photonic energy, I would be surprised if this feature was not wisely
utilized to speed up evolution processes.
138
From [77], p.520: “One option is to parametrise the simple model to reproduce
the results of a more detailed, all-atom model. An early attempt to develop such
a representation was made by Levitt who used energy minimization to predict
the structures of small proteins. [...] Some of Levitt’s observations are still very
pertinent. In particular, he noted that the ‘wrong’ structure may still have a lower
energy than the ‘correct’ structure; this is also found to be the case with more
complex molecular mechanics functions”.
139
From [86], p.197: “Although we still know only a little about the kinetics of
protein folding, we are certain of one thing: folding does not proceed by anything
approaching a random search through all the conformations possible to the unfolded
form”.
Figure 3.17: Tentative electron distribution of the cytosine molecule. Dashed

segments denote the imaginary planes of symmetry of heavier atoms (C, N,
O), as also shown in figures 3.12, 3.13 and 3.14. Single electrons are rep-
resented by small dots, whereas small annuli indicate that two electrons are
lined up on an axis orthogonal to the page. Though the whole configuration
is three dimensional, the molecule is basically planar. Close to the nucleus
of each heavy atom there are two electrons (not shown), raising the total
number of electrons to 58. Note that the nuclei are not at the vertices of
the hexagon as standard chemistry notation suggests (see top-left scheme).
Such a structure is only a scaffold. The actual molecule is kept together by
a vitalizing recirculation of photons. Some of them remain trapped inside,
providing characteristic frequency patterns; some others are just passing by,
influencing further molecules with their distinctive message.
For instance, the question is to examine the role of existing elemen-

tary molecules (not very complex in terms of number of constituting
atoms, but already advanced in the evolution scale) displaying pecu-
liar electromagnetic surrounding of the type examined so far and that
are able to sort and redirect given basic atoms, helping their assem-
bling with the aim of building other functional entities. Every time
elementary building block atoms join the system, the environment au-
tomatically changes to allow the selective access of a further atom.
The procedure stops, arriving at saturation, when a new molecule is
so created. Separation of the parent molecule from the generated one,
would allow for the restarting of the guided cycle (if other basic atoms
are present to feed a new activity). This would be the most basic repro-
duction machine ever; a prototype for much more evolved structures.
The procedure should justify the preparation of cellular material of
increasing complexity, perhaps in view of a cell duplication process.
The trick is aimed at optimizing, in terms of processing time, those
reproduction stages apparently ruled by randomness. In this way, the
formation process is not only guided by crude deterministic chemical
reactions, but follows an imperceptible scheme, prearranged by the
organism’s evolution history.
Instructive video simulations of excellent quality, displaying the in-
teractions between DNA and proteins, tend to simplify the situation
by showing the components flowing in an exceedingly spacious envi-
ronment. In reality, in a cell, the space available is much reduced and
completely filled with essential molecules. This significantly restricts
the freedom of movement of any massive components. The presence of
other simple molecules, such as water, produces a screening effect, so
that electrostatic forces are mitigated or redirected. On the contrary,
photons are fast, they easily zigzag between atoms conveying precious
information. Chain reactions can then occur with the active participa-
tion of proteins not primarily for their specific chemical constitution,
but for the capacity of their atoms to influence the photonic environ-
ment. In this context, water is not an electrostatic impediment, but
an indispensable mediator.
Let me stress again the concept of passing from a local behavior
(the capability of a single cell to directly interact with the environ-
ment) to a global one (the capability of a union of cells to gather
information from the outside and accordingly react together, even if
the accomplishment seems to be pursued independently). For example,
how can an entire part of a plant, not provided with a central nervous
system, catch sensations at a very local level and respond with a col-
lective behavior? Carnivorous plants are probably the most striking
examples displaying such kind of reactions. A first quick answer is that
nature is following the process of minimizing a certain global “func-
tional” (using the language of mathematicians; see also at the end of
section 3.4). However, even in the case of a single cell140 , the difficulty
here is how to conceive the passage from a point-wise evaluation to a
comprehensive output; a problem that in the end amounts to find the
explicit appropriate expression of the functional. My way to approach
the problem would rely on the observation that an extended group
of molecules may collectively “feel” the presence of an extraneous ob-
ject because, even if the direct contact looks circumscribed, there are
more deep interactions through the electromagnetic aura the various
parts are embedded in. Similar arguments may be applied to many
other circumstances141 , though I have no idea how to proceed in this
analysis.
Moreover, we should not forget that the electromagnetic back-
ground extends above everything, with an immense range of frequen-
cies that go far below the scale of biological phenomena, down to the
slow motion of planets and further, to the imperceptible cycles of the
evolving galaxies. How might this affect life on Earth? I have no
answer, but small traces of possible conflicts are scattered around, al-
though discussing specific examples can be improper, due to the lack
of unambiguous verifications. Let me just observe that unpredictable
mutations in the mechanisms of genetic selection might be partly due
to the undetectable influence of periodic phenomena belonging to the
large length scale. Evolution would then be the product of several con-
curring factors, intervening at different scales and reaching a complete
140
From [64], p.1445: “Many freely mobile microorganisms like bacteria, unicellu-
lar algae, and protozoa are able to detect temporal variation in the external light
field and to react to these environmental stimuli by modifying their movement, usu-
ally to achieve the best illumination conditions for their growth and metabolism
and/or to avoid harmfully high light intensities”.
141
From [11]: “On the other hand, it is well known that some dynamical systems
act in a more concerted way, where the individual degrees of freedom keep each other
in a more or less stable balance, which cannot be described as a perturbation of some
decoupled state, nor in terms of a few collective degrees of freedom. For instance,
ecological systems are organized such that the different species support each other
in a way which cannot be understood by studying the individual constituents in
isolation”.
symbiosis under the right circumstances142 .

There is evidence of cyclical behavior occurring in the universe,
from the extreme low frequencies of galactic space to the periodic
oscillations of a solar system. Although there is not direct proof of
the influence of such slow cycles in human evolution, nobody can deny
that this could be a possibility143 . As I will better explain in the
last section, coexisting overimposed recursive behaviors are all around
us, ranging from Brownian motion of simple entities, passing to the
frenetic agitation of insects, up to tidal waves. Each level may not
be aware of being part of a lower frequency organization. Ants move
fast not primarily for the reason that they are small, but because
they had the chance to evolve in an environment ruled by certain
high frequencies (compared to ours). Due to arguments of momentum
conservation, physics relates high frequencies with small objects, and
this lately explains why ants, if we assume them to be fast, must also
be small.
Moreover, an insect perception of the surrounding world is different
from ours. Even if my hand moves fast it is hard to catch a fly. A
spider and a walrus are both supposed to belong to Earth’s habitat;
their perceived time flows however in different manners; to prove this,
a rule of thumb is noticing that one of the two species is bigger than the
other. The word “relativity” comes naturally into mind, but we can
now give to it a deeper scientific meaning. The global universe is not
a unique metric space, but the union of a gigantic number of distinct
and interlaced geometrical habitats, each one carrying a proper clock.
Einsteinian relativity is now at its maximum stage of potentiality, and
here the theory meets relativism.
142
In [54], p.32, S.J. Gould writes: “Thus, for Darwin’s near exclusivity of organ-
ismic selection, we now propose a hierarchical theory with selection acting simul-
taneously on a rising set of levels, each characterized by distinctive, but equally
well-defined, Darwinian individuals within a genealogical hierarchy of gene, cell-
lineage, organism, deme, species, and clade. The results of evolution then emerge
from complex, but eminently knowable, interactions among these potent levels, and
do not simply flow out and up from a unique casual locus of organism selection”.
143
From [28]: “The student of periodic rhythms in human affairs has a tool which
the law of averages itself puts into his hands. If trends have continued for decades,
or if the oscillations of cycles around the trend have repeated themselves so many
times and so regularly that the rhythm cannot reasonably be the result of chance,
it is unwise to ignore the probability that these behaviors will continue”.
3.8 The birth of an idea

Physical phenomena at the nuclear and atomic level are dominated
by very high frequencies. Conversely, astronomical and cosmological
events are ruled by very low frequencies. In the middle, depending
on the magnitude of the objects under study, we find a whole range
of frequencies, roughly connecting the objects’ size with the inverse of
the frequency144 . There is a sort of scalability in these processes, so
that by enlarging the scene of some event, this becomes more credible
if we also slow down its velocity145 . For example, a trick often used by
movie makers to obtain impressive special effects from miniaturized
models is the following: in order to make things look real, the movie is
shot at high speed and then played in slow motion. The nanomovies
of A.H. Zewail (see, e.g., [127]) are wonderful upshots of this modus
operandi. Implicitly, this has also a scaling effect on the perception
of masses, and shows that, based on our experience, we can more or
less guess the magnitude of a mass from the speed and the way it
moves, without even touching it. We know that an eagle will never
be able to flap its wings as fast as a bumble-bee. Nevertheless, a
magnified and decelerated bee will appear as a plausible threatening
monster. The fact that in a movie we recognize large slow massive
objects to be real, when instead they are just the magnification of
small fast light models, tells us how precarious is the concept of mass.
Such a promiscuity between size and frequency seems to exist before
the idea of mass is actually introduced. This observation follows an
inverse path of that pursued for instance in classical mechanics, when
the period of a pendulum is calculated starting from the weight force.
Oscillations come first; then other concepts may follow. Concurrently,
things start assuming a fractal-like structure, where big objects are
linked to their smaller constituents by scaling transformations that
also reparametrize time.
144
From [69], p.4: “The myriad particles found in nature can be viewed as the
vibrations of a string, in much the same way that the notes found in music can
be explained as the modes of a vibrating string. Pursuing this analogy, the basic
particles of our world correspond to the musical notes of the superstring, the laws of
physics correspond to the harmonies that these notes obey, and the universe itself
corresponds to a symphony of superstrings”.
145
From [112], p.9: “Indeed, on a geological time and length scale the mountains
are quite ‘fluids’, whilst a microscopic droplet of water on a microscopic time scale
can behave like a solid particle”.
Maybe, one may find relationship with string theories, where for
instance electrons are mono-dimensional vibrating segments. There,
the basic assumptions are oversimplified but they soon develop in a
very complex abstract way, to the point that they may require many
more space dimensions than the usual. String theorists are able to
merge quantization with general relativity, an achievement that is also
pursued in these notes. The final conclusions, though reached following
a different path, are not dissimilar146 .
A strong attack on string theories has recently been brought to
the attention of the public. The criticism recognizes the ideals of the
theory and the elegant mathematics, but severely relegates it to be a
mere theoretical effort with no practical content147 . It is not my desire
however to enter the debate. Let me just point out that string theories
give the possibility of reinterpreting Feynman’s diagrams, used in the
description of subatomic interactions, in terms of topological changes
at string level. There might not be any direct resemblance with my 3D
evolutive model, where boiling bubbles, shells and layers, fight at every
instant for living space and eventually bifurcate or disappear with a
pop. However, if I was an expert I would search for some affinity. For
example: is there any relationship between my uncharged neutrino
and the closed massless graviton?
Animated by the above considerations, I started my review of the
foundations of physics, and here is a little resumé of the developing
phases. The real goal was to face the problem of giving a rational
sense to quantum phenomena and to the constitution of basic atoms.
146
From [69], p.4: “Moreover, when the string executes its motions, it actually
forces space-time to curl up around it, yielding the complete set of Einstein’s equa-
tions of motion. Thus, the string naturally merges the two divergent pictures of a
force: the modes of vibration are quantized, but the string can only self-consistently
vibrate in a curved space-time consistent with Einstein’s equations of motion”.
147
From the introduction in [124]: “The willingness of some physicists to give
up on what most scientist consider the essence of the scientific method has led
to a bitter controversy that has split the superstring theory community. Some
superstring theorists continue to hold out hope that a better understanding of the
theory will make the landscape problem go away. Others argue that physicists have
no choice but to give up on long-held dreams of having a predictive theory, and
continue to investigate the landscape, hoping to find something about it that can
be used to test an idea experimentally. The one thing both camps have in common
is a steadfast refusal to acknowledge the lesson that conventional science says one
should draw in this kind of circumstance: if one’s theory can’t predict anything, it
is just wrong and one should trying something else”.
The fact that there are frequencies hidden inside an atomic structure
is inspiring. If oscillations come first, they approximately have to span
a region of space of magnitude inversely proportional to the frequency.
Are atomic and molecular bonds a consequence of resonant properties
of such a pre-existing set of oscillators? That was roughly the idea,
but to be acceptable, I had to specify what was actually oscillating
and based on what kind of rules. I considered the first question sec-
ondary and I tried to concentrate my attention on a mathematical
model able to fulfill the following request: the wave emanated by some
fixed source has to dampen with distance, not only in amplitude, but
also in frequency. Through such a mechanism, it turns out that the
“sound” has to be high pitched in proximity to a given source, but
the tonality has to lower moving away. The phenomenon is indeed
nonlinear.
Without bothering about applicability issues, I began to play with
Maxwell’s equations, just to have a solid starting point to develop
a nonlinear set of partial differential equations. The first edition of
the modified model was not too difficult to obtain and seemed quite
promising. Simultaneously, I understood that there was something
wrong in the Maxwell’s model. Although I tried to act prudently,
the inconsistency remained. At that stage, my fight for a more co-
herent description of electromagnetic phenomena began, with all the
consequences described in these notes, including the most important
one: the unifying connection between corpuscular and undulatory the-
ories148 . It is for me important to recall that I believed from the very
beginning in a quantitative description based on old-fashioned differ-
ential tools. Therefore, the systematic algebraic approach of the stan-
dard model and the strict geometric attitude of string theories were
not suitable.
In conclusion I got what I anticipated at the beginning of the
present section: an oscillating background with an extended range
of frequencies, and together with it, a preparation to understanding
the meaning of mass. Everything is described by deterministic field
148
In [103], M. Planck claims: “In what relation, however, the corpuscular laws
stand to the laws of wave-motion in the general case, remains the great problem, to
which at present time a whole generation of investigators is devoting its best efforts.
We can entertain no doubt that finally a satisfactory solution will be found, and
that then theoretical physics will have made another significant advance toward the
attainment of its ultimate goal, the building up of a unified system embracing all
physical phenomena”.
equations, seemingly up to the last detail. The whole discovery process

was not painless, since I had to overcome many clichés. I found myself
reviewing and connecting too many different branches of knowledge,
an enterprise hard to accomplish with the necessary depth by a sin-
gle person149 . I think however that the final result, although in need
of confirmation and some interpretational adjustment, is quite consis-
tent and pragmatic. I wonder if my unconventional claims can alter
the conservative attitude of the contemporary science150 .
Only subsequently, I realized that the frequency decay with dis-
tance cannot be achieved continuously but requires quantum jumps.
Starting from nuclei, where the highest frequencies are concentrated,
a sequence of nested shells having geometrical growth is found. If one
shell is removed, perhaps because it has been perturbed from the ex-
terior with the due resonance frequency, the neighboring shells tend to
fill the gap. In doing this they adapt in size and frequency to restore
the missing one. In [11], the authors consider the dynamical behavior
of a sand-pile where additional sand is supplied from above. By an-
alyzing what they define as self-organized criticalities, it is found out
that the energy spectrum radiated from this system can be put in re-
lation to flicker noise, where intensity is proportional to a given power
β of the inverse of the frequency (we have pink noise when β = 1).
It is also argued that many physical phenomena, connected with self-
similar fractal structures, display such noise production, although the
origin of this property is unknown151 . Predictions are finally confirmed
149
From [85], v.1, p.228 (G. Naray-Szabo): “The ambition to achieve interdis-
ciplinarity may not mean that the rigorous treatment of a given problem should
be abandoned. Clearly, careless work, improper argumentation or logical errors
cannot be tolerated in a scientific study. Interdisciplinarity therefore involves pro-
found studies in the related areas that are not always practicable for a single person.
Team-work is necessary ...”.
150
From [22], p.230: “Physicists tend to be conservative. Despite the impression
to the contrary frequently conveyed by popular writings, this is a historical fact.
The numerous controversies that constantly accompanied atomic physics during its
formative years are evidence enough that physicists tend to cling to currently pre-
vailing conceptions and greet innovations with skepticism or downright opposition.
And this is quite reasonable. Earnest researchers cannot be expected to renounce
established ideas once they have proved their validity. The trouble is that the same
scientists may extrapolate their already demonstrated conclusions into unexplored
domains of physical reality”.
151
From [11]: “To summarize, our general arguments and numerical simulations
show that dissipative dynamical systems with extended degrees of freedom can
evolve towards a self organized critical state, with spatial and temporal power-law
by numerical tests. We can now look at my shell agglomerates as kinds

of inverted sand-piles, i.e., sand holes where sand disappears when it
gets to the bottom, as in the upper part of an hour glass. Note that in
this case the sand distribution at the surface does not have the shape
of a reversed cone, being instead more similar to something amenable
to an exponential. After better formalization of the problem, it would
then be interesting to perform an analysis to check if noise production
from this system is still of flicker type. Such a study might help to
determine the reasons for the ubiquitousness of this kind of noise in
nature’s events and provide another confirmation of my approach.
Let me add further philosophical thoughts. Throughout this paper,
I always used the term “model” when referring to the proposed set of
equations. Nowadays, within the scientific context, the word model
corresponds to a system of axioms, able to reproduce up to a certain
degree of approximation some specific processes. In physics, the model
should describe, through the language of mathematics and more real-
istically as possible, how natural phenomena work. There is however
another way to interpret the concept: a model is a kind of theoretical
prototype with manufacture in reality in mind, like the design drawn
by a tailor that eventually becomes a dress. In this way a model does
not explain a given reality, but anticipates it. The dilemma is the fol-
lowing: is the model here described an accurate description of a given
“real” world? Or, is it a set of recipes, useful in the construction of a
possible real world, as for example the one we leave in? Answering the
second question would be quite an ambitious project. The idea of cod-
ing natural laws with the help of a few basic mathematical formulas
has been the dream of many scientists. Even more appealing was the
hope that the goal was not just a description, but a series of primitive
instructions from which everything originated.
It has to be remarked that if a theory is to be as simple as possible,
it needs a huge quantity of elements to operate with. This seems not
to be a problem since the universe is large enough. In addition, even
the most elementary significant structure, such as the bare electron,
requires a very involved description. All the equations are fully used
to describe a bare particle and this somehow confirms the minimalism
of the assumptions. Once the basic building blocks are available, the
rest becomes an arduous technical exercise that, due to the simplic-
ity of the governing laws, allows for an immense variety of solutions.
scaling behavior. The spatial scaling leads to self-similar fractal structure”.
Electromagnetism generates particles that, with the help of the same

vitalizing source, may give rise to clusters of molecules, even up to the
origin of life. We would then be in the amazing situation in which
the mathematical solution of a set of partial differential equations, ac-
quires self-consciousness of its own originating model. Whether or not
my model is correct, this last observation is a shocking remark. The
problem remains the identification of what initial conditions can lead
to this and how the constants involved are crucial.
According to some radical quantum theories, the universe itself
would need consciousness in order to exist152 . I believe on the con-
trary that the universe is a kind of fancy self-generated153 “homework”
and, accidentally, we are part of it, whether or not we observe and un-
derstand its rules. Before the effective realization there is the “plan”
(whatever this vague concept may mean) and the constituting laws.
Based on the same identical laws, things could have been evolved in a
different manner.
At larger-scales, the explanation of fundamental facts in the frame-
work of a theory that originates from electromagnetic fields is certainly
too complex. In this case offhand phenomenological conclusions could
turn out to be more effective154 . Finding a direct link between atomic
phenomena and celestial mechanics is a rather involved process ne-
152
From [121], p.199 (J.A. Wheeler): “Yes, oh universe, without you I would not
have been able to come into being. Yet you, great system, are made of phenomena;
and every phenomenon rests on an act of observation. You could never even exist
without elementary acts of registration such as mine”.
153
From [121], p.205 (J.A. Wheeler): “The absolute central point would seem to
be this: The Universe had to have a way to come into being out of nothingness,
with no prior laws, no Swiss watchworks, no nucleus of crystallization to help it -
as on a more modest level, we believe, life came into being out of lifeless matter
with no prior life to guide the process. When we say ‘out of nothingness’ we do
not mean out of the vacuum of physics. The vacuum of physics is loaded with
geometrical structure and vacuum fluctuations and virtual pair of particles. The
Universe is already in existence when we have such a vacuum. No, when we speak
of nothingness we mean nothingness: neither structure, nor law, nor plans”.
154
From [112], p.10: “The reason why the fluids which are organized so differently
behave qualitatively in the same way when observed on a macroscopic length and
time scale is still not quite clear. It is even less clear why the chain of casual links
between processes on different length and time scales, from the macroscopic down
to the molecular level, can be broken to form a closed set of equations involving
a small number of parameters on the macroscopic level with the microscopic ‘tail’
replaced by a few, in many cases constant, coefficients (e.g., viscosity, thermal
conductivity, etc.)”.
cessitating several intermediate steps where macro-agglomerates of in-

creasing complexity are fused and treated as single entities subjected
to revised laws. New fundamental constants may emerge in this av-
eraging process155 . Nevertheless, as I said in the preface, the original
goal was to provide an overall meaning to the greatest number of phe-
nomena, although global optimization is not necessarily the best choice
at a local level. Thus, simplicity might be sacrificed in particular cases
in favor of a unifying vision.
On a qualitative level, the analysis of the micro-world, completely
filled up by zillions of evolving geometrical units carrying energy, may
teach us something new about the macro-world. The work done here
to unify electromagnetic and mechanical forces is at present not suf-
ficient to understand the gravitational attraction of bodies. During
the exposition it has been remarked the role of the magnetic field in
assigning mass to particles and justifying the constitution of atoms.
Therefore, I would not be surprised if one discovers that magnetic
forces are essential for explaining gravitational phenomena156 . More-
over, let me also observe that the vision of the greater universe from
our standpoint has chance to be affected by aberrations, due to the
filtering of the incoming signals in the passage through invisible sur-
rounding shell boundaries. The redshift effect, mentioned at the end
of section 1.4, might be the consequence of distorted information that,
like in a huge kaleidoscope, induces us to see patterns in the space-time
not corresponding to what is supposed to be reality.
At this point physicists may ask for some predictive hypotheses
aimed at validating the theory. Though there are some ideas that I
would like to explore, I do not really believe that it is compulsory
to look for new experimental results157 ; in the end my goal was to
155
From [53], p.442: “This immediately makes us understand that is should be
possible to express the phenomenological coefficients of viscosity or thermal con-
ductivity in terms of averages, over time and space, of microscopic quantities which
are more or less rapidly fluctuating. We deduce that transport coefficients (such
as viscosity or conductivity, etc.) do not have a fundamental nature: they must be
rather thought of as macroscopic parameters that measure the disorder at molecular
level”.
156
From the Preface in [24]: “More and more astrophysicists are recognizing that
magnetic fields are a powerful agent in the dynamics of our universe. Our own earth,
sun, planetary system, stars, and the material between them are all profoundly
influenced by magnetic fields”.
157
“No one has the right to destroy another person’s belief by demanding empirical
evidence”, Ann Landers (Ruth Crowley).
point out the deficiencies of existing theories and find out the way
to link various aspects of them based on known empirical facts. The
complicated world of quantum phenomena, far from classical principles
as it is, and the surprising variety of nuclear phenomena instill in us
the idea that an epistemological explanation may not actually exist or
has to be based on tools yet to be invented. Now we are standing in
front of a new proposal whose actors are known (the vector fields). The
rules and the properties are those developed through centuries of hard
science158 , and the results are quite in accordance with observation,
without needing further postulates. Is this the instruction set of our
universe? It would be enough to show at least an unexplainable fact
or a non-matching constant to destroy the whole dream. In chapters
two and three my exposition was mainly qualitative because of the
difficulty of solving the model equations in such complicated situations.
Therefore, the possibility of misconception and overestimation is high.
The reader cannot deny however that the achievements presented here
are intriguing and provide us with an alternative way of deciphering
our universe159 .
158
From the introduction in [97]: “If the purpose of physics is to correctly describe
nature, then two of the various aspects of this description are among the most
important: what the constituents of the world are and how objects move. We want
to know what the world consists of and what accounts for the changes we constantly
observe, that is, what are the dynamical laws underlying these motions”.
159
From the The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams: ‘Forty-
two,’ said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm. [...] ‘I checked it very
thoroughly,’ said the computer, ‘and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the
problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you’ve never actually known what
the question is’.
Chapter 4
Appendices
Esistono delle leggi naturali di una profondità

e di una bellezza incredibili
Non si può pensare che tutto ciò
si riduca ad un accumulo di molecole
Carlo Rubbia, scientist
A - Maxwell’s equations in vacuum

The main properties of the Maxwell’s system of equations in vacuum
are going to be collected here. Denoting by E = (E1 , E2 , E3 ) the
electric field and by B = (B1 , B2 , B3 ) the magnetic field, we first have
the Ampère’s law, with no current source term:
∂E
= c2 curlB (1)
∂t
where c ≈ 2.99 × 108 m/sec denotes the speed of light. Successively,
we have the Faraday’s law of induction:
∂B
= − curlE (2)
∂t
and the two following conditions on the divergence of the fields:
divE = 0 (3)
divB = 0 (4)
231
Multiplying (1) by E and (2) by B, summing up and using basic

notion of differential calculus, one gets:
1∂
(|E|2 + c2 |B|2 ) = − c2 div(E × B) (5)
2 ∂t
Note that the quantity E = 21 (|E|2 + c2 |B|2 ) is proportional to the
density of electromagnetic energy.
It is standard to introduce the electromagnetic potentials Φ and
A = (A1 , A2 , A3 ), such that:
1 1 ∂A
B = curlA E = − − ∇Φ (6)
c c ∂t
By assuming this, equations (2) and (4) are automatically satisfied.
The potentials are not unique, but are usually related through some
gauge condition. For convenience, the following Lorenz gauge will be
assumed:
1 ∂Φ
divA + = 0 (7)
c ∂t
The writing of Maxwell’s equations in tensor form is obtained as
follows. Using the notations in [67], in the system of time-space Carte-
sian coordinates (x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 ) = (ct, x, y, z), one first defines the elec-
tromagnetic tensor:
Fαβ = ∂α Aβ − ∂β Aα (8)
where ∂α is the α-component of the differential operator (∂/∂x0 , ∇)

with ∇ = (∂/∂x, ∂/∂y, ∂/∂z) and Aα is the generic entry of the tensor
(Φ, −A). According to (6), the anti-symmetric electromagnetic tensor
and its contravariant version take the explicit form:
 
0 E1 E2 E3
∂Aβ ∂Aα  −E1 0 −cB3 cB2 
Fαβ = − =   (9)
∂xα ∂xβ  −E2 cB3 0 −cB1 
−E3 −cB2 cB1 0
 
0 −E1 −E2 −E3
 E1 0 −cB3 cB2 
F αβ = g αγ g βδ Fγδ =   (10)
 E2 cB3 0 −cB1 
E3 −cB2 cB1 0
with g αβ = gαβ = diag{1, −1, −1, −1}. According to Einstein’s nota-
tion, in (10) one has to sum up from 0 to 3 on repeated indices.
Appendices 233
Maxwell’s equations (1) and (3) are then obtained by computing:
∂F αβ
= 0 for β = 0, 1, 2, 3 (11)
∂xα
where one has to sum up on the index α. As a matter of fact, for β = 0
one gets (3), and for β = 1, 2, 3 one gets the three components of (1).
The above expression can be shortened as follows:
∂α F αβ = 0 (12)
The electromagnetic Lagrangian density assumes the form:
L = − Fαβ F αβ = 2(|E|2 − c2 |B|2 ) (13)
The search for the stationary points of the action function associated
to the Lagrangian, by applying all the possible variations δAα to the
potentials, leads to equation (12). In fact, after carrying out compu-
tations that for simplicity are not reported here, one finds that:
(∂α F αβ ) δAβ = 0 ∀ δAβ (14)
B - The model equations for free-waves

We introduce the equations studied in [44] and [45]. In the simple case
of free-waves, they are as follows:
∂E
= c2 curlB − ρV (15)
∂t
∂B
= − curlE (16)
∂t
divB = 0 (17)
ρ (E + V × B) = 0 (18)
where by definition: ρ = divE. Here V = (V1 , V2 , V3 ) is a velocity
field, built in such a way that the triplet (E, B, V) is right-handed.
Equation (15) turns out to be the Ampère law for a free flowing im-
material current with density ρ associated to the movement of the
electromagnetic wave. From (18), one easily gets the orthogonality

relations: E · B = 0 and E · V = 0. This allows us to prove relation
(5), after multiplication of (15) by E and (16) by B.
In addition, we assume that the intensity of V is constantly equal to
the speed of light, i.e.:
|V| = c (19)
In particular, if V turns out to be the gradient of a potential function
Ψ, equation (19) becomes
|∇Ψ| = c (20)
which is the stationary eikonal equation.

A way to satisfying the geometric relations (18) and (19) is to set
V = c(E × B)/|E × B|. In this way, from (18) one also gets |E| = |cB|.
These relations actually hold in many circumstances (see some exact
solutions in Appendix D). In these situations the triplet (E, B, V) is
orthogonal.
Since a current term is present, due to preservation arguments,
a continuity equation must hold. This does not need to be imposed
independently, since it is easily obtained by taking the divergence of
(15):
∂ρ
= − div(ρV) (21)
∂t
One can still define the potentials as in (6) and the electromagnetic
tensors as in (9) and (10). With this setting, equations (16) and (17)
are automatically satisfied.
In tensor form, equation (15) is now written as:
∂F αβ 1 ∂F γ0 β
= V for β = 1, 2, 3 (22)
∂xα c ∂xγ
where Vα = (c, −V) and V β = g βδ Vδ = (c, V). It is worthwhile

recalling that one has to sum up on repeated indices. Note that, for
β = 0, (22) turns out to be a trivial identity, hence equation (3) is not
imposed. We also have:
V α Vα = 0 (23)
that corresponds to (19).
Finally, the whole set of equations in compact form takes the form:
ρ β
∂α F αβ = V (24)
c
Appendices 235
F αβ Vβ = 0 (25)
with V α = (V 0 , V). Indeed, up to a multiplicative scaling factor, it is
not restrictive to choose: V 0 = V0 = c, that is suggested by condition
(19). Then, by examining (24), for β = 0 one gets ρ = divE, while
for β = 1, 2, 3 one gets the three components of (15). Concerning
the tensor multiplication in (25), for β = 0 one finds that E must be
orthogonal to V, while for β = 1, 2, 3 one gets the three components
of (18).
A Lagrangian for the new formulation is obtained by taking L =
2(|E|2 − c2 |B|2 ), i.e., the same as the Maxwell’s case (see (13)). In
order to get equation (15), it is necessary however to fix a constraint
on the potentials. This is given by:
cA = ΦV (26)
which says that A must be lined up with V. For an explanation of

this choice one may look in [45], section 2.4, and in [49]. The exact
solutions given in Appendix D actually satisfy such a restriction.
From (26) and (19), one gets |A|2 = Φ2 and A · V = cΦ, that in
tensor form read as follows:
Aα Aα = 0 and Aα V α = 0 (27)
having set Aα = (Φ, −A).

By applying such a restriction to the variations δAα one finds out
that V β δAβ = 0. Therefore, relation (14) must be replaced by:
(∂α F αβ ) δAβ = 0 ∀ δAβ such that V β δAβ = 0 (28)
This says that ∂α F αβ and V β are linearly dependent, which leads to

equation (24).
Finally, by taking the time-derivative of (15) and using (21), one
gets:
∂2E ∂V
2
= ∆E + [(∇ρ · V)V − c2 ∇ρ] + ρV divV − ρ (29)
∂t ∂t
which, for ρ = 0, yields the classical vector wave equation. For ex-
ample, when V is a stationary field orthogonal to B with divV = 0,
the operator ∆E + [(∇ρ · V)V − c2 ∇ρ] only contains second partial
derivatives in the direction of V, explaining why concentrated solitary

waves may be generated.
C - Einstein’s equation
All the results presented up to this moment can be extended to general
metric spaces by writing the equations in covariant form. To this end,
it is sufficient to recall that (8), (23), (24), (25), (27), already hold
for a generic metric tensor gαβ . The Lorenz condition (7) and the
continuity equation (21) take now respectively the form:
∂α Aα = 0 (30)
∂α (ρV α ) = 0 (31)
We also recall that the symmetric electromagnetic stress tensor turns
out to be defined as:
U αβ = g αγ Fγδ F δβ + 1
4 g αβ Fµλ F µλ (32)
Maxwell’s equations are compatible with the conservation law:
∂α U αβ = 0 (33)
We show (33) for the flat metric tensor gαβ = diag{1, −1, −1, −1} and
the Cartesian system of coordinates (x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 ) = (ct, x, y, z). A
general proof in covariant form is given for instance in [67]. One has:
∂U 0β 1 ∂
= (|E|2 + c2 |B|2 ) + c div(E × B) (34)
∂xβ 2c ∂t
and
∂U 1β ∂U 2β ∂U 2β

∂B
, , = + curlE × E
∂xβ ∂xβ ∂xβ ∂t

∂B
− − c curlB × B + E divE + c2 B divB
2
(35)
∂t
Therefore, if Maxwell’s equations in vacuum are satisfied all the above
expressions are zero. In particular, requiring (34) to be zero corre-
sponds to equation (5). In the end, one gets the implication:
∂α F αβ = 0 ⇒ ∂α U αβ = 0 (36)
Appendices 237
Similarly, by adding and subtracting the term (divE)V, (35) takes

the form:
1β
∂U 2β ∂U 2β

∂U ∂B
, , = + curlE × E
∂xβ ∂xβ ∂xβ ∂t

∂B
− − c curlB + (divE)V × B + (E + V × B) divE + c2 B divB
2
∂t
which is now compatible with the new set of equations (15), (16), (17),
(18). Hence, we now have the implication (see [45]):
ρ β
∂α F αβ = V and F αβ Vβ = 0 ⇒ ∂α U αβ = 0 (37)
c
which is very important since it says that (33) is true under very mild
hypotheses, because the space of solutions of the new set of equations
is much larger than that corresponding to Maxwell’s equations.
We can now introduce Einstein’s equation (see for instance [41]).
For a given constant χ and a given tensor Tαβ satisfying:
∂α T αβ = 0 (38)
the goal is to find a metric tensor gαβ such that:

1
Gαβ = − χTαβ where Gαβ = Rαβ − 2 gαβ R (39)
The signature of the metric tensor is supposed to be (+, −, −, −). The

constant χ > 0 will be determined in Appendix F. In (39), Rαβ is the
Ricci curvature tensor and R is the scalar curvature. They are defined
as:
∂Γδαβ ∂Γδαδ
Rαβ = − + Γγαβ Γδγδ − Γγαδ Γδβγ (40)
∂xδ ∂xβ
R = g αβ Rαβ (41)
where the Christoffel symbols are given by:
g δγ ∂gγα

δ ∂gγβ ∂gαβ
Γαβ = + − (42)
2 ∂xβ ∂xα ∂xγ
One can show that the left-hand side of (39) is always compatible
with (38), i.e.: ∂α Gαβ = 0, ∀gαβ . Solutions of Einstein’s equation
are proposed in Appendix D when the right-hand side of (39) is the
electromagnetic stress tensor (i.e., Tαβ is proportional to Uαβ ).
D - Exact solutions
Let us start by working in Cartesian coordinates (x, y, z). By orienting
the electric field along the z-axis, a full solution of the set of equations
(15), (16), (17), (18) is obtained with the following setting:

E = 0, 0, cf (z)g(ct − x)

B = 0, − f (z)g(ct − x), 0 V = (c, 0, 0) (43)
where f and g can be arbitrary. This wave is shifting at the speed of

light along the x-axis. Note that it is possible to enforce the condition
ρ = 0 (thus, returning to the set of Maxwell’s equations) only if f is
a constant function. This first example shows why the new solution
space turns out to be rather large. Regarding (43), we can also provide
the potentials (see (6)):

A = − cF (z)g(ct − x), 0, 0 Φ = − cF (z)g(ct − x) (44)
where F is a primitive of f . Note that (26) is satisfied.

An upgraded case is obtained as follows:

E = 0, cf1 (y, z)g(ct − x), cf2 (y, z)g(ct − x)

B = 0, −f2 (y, z)g(ct−x), f1 (y, z)g(ct−x) V = (c, 0, 0) (45)
In order to enforce condition (17), f1 and f2 must satisfy:
∂f2 ∂f1
= (46)
∂y ∂z
If f1 , f2 and g have compact support, the wave remains bounded in a

shifting portion of space. Again, we can have ρ = 0 only if f1 and f2
are both constants, drastically reducing the dimension of the solution
space. As far as the potentials are concerned, we have:

A = − cF (y, z)g(ct − x), 0, 0 Φ = − cF (y, z)g(ct − x) (47)
where F is such that f1 = ∂F/∂y and f2 = ∂F/∂z. This choice is

possible by virtue of (46).
Appendices 239
Solutions similar to the above ones can be written in cylindrical

coordinates (r, φ, z). For instance, we may consider:

E = cf (r)g(ct − z), 0, 0

B = 0, f (r)g(ct − z), 0 V = (0, 0, c) (48)

A = 0, 0, − cF (r)g(ct − z) Φ = − cF (r)g(ct − z) (49)
where now the shifting is in the direction of the z-axis. Again, F is a

primitive of f . The function f must tend to zero for r → 0, in order
to be able to define the fields on the z-axis. Here, E is radial and
B is organized in closed loops around the z-axis. Starting from this
setting there are no solutions (except zero) in the Maxwellian case.
Further extensions, explicitly depending also on the variable φ may be
considered. If f and g have compact support, one obtains a kind of
bullet travelling undisturbed at the speed of light (see figure 1.2).
Going to spherical coordinates (r, θ, φ), one can analyze waves as-
sociated to perfect spherical fronts. We have:
c c
E = 0, f1 (θ, φ)g(ct − r), f2 (θ, φ)g(ct − r)
r r
1 1
B = 0, − f2 (θ, φ)g(ct − r), f1 (θ, φ)g(ct − r) V = (c, 0, 0) (50)
r r

A = − cF (θ, φ)g(ct − r), 0, 0 Φ = −cF (θ, φ)g(ct − r) (51)
with the conditions:

∂(f2 sin θ) ∂f1 ∂(F sin θ) ∂F
= f1 = f2 = (52)
∂θ ∂φ ∂θ ∂φ
The electric and magnetic fields are tangent to spherical surfaces and
shift in the radial direction. Let us observe that F and g may be
arbitrary, while there are no waves of this type in the Maxwellian case
(divE = 0).
Looking for spherical type solutions having ρ = divE = 0, one
finds oneself with very few possibilities. An example is the Hertzian
dipole solution:

2 cos θ g1 sin θ kg
2 −2 2
E = + kg2 , + (r − k )g1 , 0 (53)
r2 r r r
deducible from:
g k cos θ g2 k sin θ k cos θ g1
2
A = , − , 0 Φ = kg2 + (54)
r r r r
where k ≥ 1 is an integer and: g1 = sin k(ct − r), g2 = cos k(ct − r).
Other similar examples may be taken into account; however the
restriction ρ = 0 is too heavy to allow much freedom. For example,
the function g in (50) is arbitrary and regulates the longitudinal shape
of the wave. It does not interfere with f1 and f2 , which control the
transversal behavior. By expanding g in Fourier series through the
basis functions g1 = sin k(ct − r) and g2 = cos k(ct − r), for k ≥ 1,
we can adjust accordingly the solutions given in (53) for arbitrary k.
Regarding the transversal behavior, the Hertzian solution (longitudi-
nally modulated by g) is now “blocked” by the coefficients of the linear
combination, reducing drastically its degree of freedom.
Figure 4.1: Qualitative sketch of the evolution of spherical wave-fronts (left),

compared to the weird one of the Hertz solution (right). In the first picture,
the surfaces enveloping the electromagnetic fields are spheres, whereas in the
second picture they are doughnuts that self-intersect during evolution.
Appendices 241
The Hertz solution does not represent a free-wave, since it does not
satisfy neither E + V × B = 0 or (26). The envelope of the electromag-
netic fields does not correspond to spheres, although their development
resembles that of spherical fronts. In fact, in the Maxwellian case, one
has to work with doubly connected topological objects, so that the
fronts have toroid shape and do not move according to the rules of
geometrical optics (see figure 4.1 and the explanations given in [45]).
Here the velocity field V is not defined and there is no reasonable way
to introduce it, compatibly with both the direction of the energy trans-
fer of the wave and the geometric advancing of the spherical fronts (see
also [51] for some explicative movies).
We now examine some solution of Einstein’s equation. We start
by setting:
µ2
T αβ = − 4 U αβ (55)
c
where U αβ is the electromagnetic stress tensor (see (32)) and µ is a
given constant (see (88)). We then plug the tensor Tαβ = gαγ gβδ T γδ
on the right-hand side of Einstein’s equation (39). The goal is to find
the metric tensor gαβ , representing the geometrical deformation of the
space-time in correspondence to the evolution of a given electromag-
netic phenomenon.
Concerning free-waves, exact solutions in a very wide context have
been given in [45] and [47]. In particular, exact metric tensors have
been computed, by substituting in (55) the electromagnetic stress ten-
sors associated with the radiations in (43), (45), (50). For the sake of
simplicity, here we just would like to discuss the case corresponding to
(48).
By setting u = E1 = cB2 = cf (r)g(ct − z), the electromagnetic
tensor (9) in cylindrical coordinates takes the form:
 
0 u 0 0
 −u 0 0 u 
Fαβ =   0
 (56)
0 0 0 
0 −u 0 0
Let us observe that, for the particular orientation of the fields, the
variable r does not explicitly appear in the change of coordinates from
Cartesian to cylindric (it multiplies instead other zero entries).
As in [45], we look for a metric tensor of the following simple form:
diag{1, −σ 2 f 2 , −1, −1}, where σ is a function of the single variable
ξ = ct − z. With this hypothesis, the contravariant tensor F αβ and

the tensor Tαβ become respectively:
−u/(σf )2 0
 
0 0
 u/(σf )2 0 0 u/(σf )2 
F αβ =   (57)
 0 0 0 0 
0 −u/(σf )2 0 0
(u/σf )2 0 0 (u/σf )2
 
µ2  0 0 0 0 
Tαβ = − 4   (58)
c  0 0 0 0 
(u/σf )2 0 0 (u/σf )2
On the other hand, from gαβ , we can first compute the Christoffel
symbols (see (42)) and then the entries of the Ricci tensor (see (40)
and (41)) obtaining:
σ 00
R00 = R03 = R30 = R33 = R=0 (59)
σ
where upper primes denote derivation with respect to the variable ξ.
All the other entries turn out to be zero.
Substituting (58) and (59) in (39), one arrives at the differential
equation:
χµ2 2
− σ 00 σ = g (60)
c2
where we recalled that u/f = cg. There are interesting solutions of
the above ordinary differential equation. For example:
√
µ χ
g = sin ω(ct − z) ⇒ σ= sin ω(ct − z) (61)
cω
showing that the intensity of the gravitational wave produced is in-
versely proportional to the frequency of the originating electromag-
netic signal. The divergence of the electric field, which is not zero in
the flat space, is always equal to zero in the modified metric space.
More technical details are discussed in [45].
It is relevant to point out that the sign of the electromagnetic
tensor on the right-hand side of Einstein’s equation is opposite to the
one usually assumed. The explanation of this fact is given in [45] and
[47]. One practical reason relies on the possibility of finding solutions
to equation (60). In fact, if we switch the sign of the right-hand side
of (60) there are no chances of finding meaningful bounded solutions.
Appendices 243
The change of sign of the right-hand side of Einstein’s equation

does not affect other consolidated solutions, that can be easily adapted
to the new context. In a new version of the Reissner-Nordström metric
(see [94]), the nonzero entries can be defined as follows:
M Q2
g00 = 1− − 2 g11 = −1/g00 g22 = −r2 g33 = −(r sin θ)2 (62)
r r
for M > 0 and Q related respectively to the mass and the charge of a
black-hole.
After introducing p
the electromagnetic potential Aα = (A0 , 0, 0, 0),
2
where A0 = c Q/(rµ χ/2), one computes the corresponding tensor
Uαβ and successively finds out that (39) is satisfied with the tensor
(55) on the right-hand side.
It is crucial to observe that in the standard Reissner-Nordström
metric, the first entry in (62) is replaced by g00 = 1 − M/r + Q2 /r2 ,
which solves Einstein’s equation where the sign plus appears on the
right-hand side of (39). Differently from the standard case, using (62)
one is able to remove the constraint M > 2Q, therefore allowing the
existence of the so called horizon also for small masses.
An estimate of the constant χ has been provided in [47] by as-
suming the horizon to have the same magnitude as the electron radius
η (see also Appendix G). In this way one gets: χ ≈ 32(πc2 η0 /µe)2 ,
where e is the electron’s charge. According to the computations car-
ried out in Appendix G, one finds out that the order of magnitude of
the adimensional constant χ is about 0.175.
E - Lorentz invariance
In the 4D space, we have the frame (x0 , x1 , x2 , x3 ) = (ct, x, y, z), con-
sidered to be at rest, and another inertial frame (x̃0 , x̃1 , x̃2 , x̃3 ) shifting
at constant velocity v = (v, 0, 0), |v| < c. According to Lorentz, we
can write:
(x̃0 , x̃1 , x̃2 , x̃3 ) = (γct − βγx, − βγct + γx, y, z) (63)

p
where β = v/c and γ = 1/ 1 − β 2 . Based on this definition, it is easy
to evaluate the Jacobian matrix aαβ = ∂xα /∂ x̃β and its inverse aαβ .
The contravariant electromagnetic tensor in the moving frame is
defined as F̃ αβ = aαγ F γδ aδβ , where F γδ is given in (10). Explicitly,
one has:
 
0 −E1 −γ(E2 − vB3 )
−γ(E3 + vB2 )
 
 γ 2 γ 2

E1 0 (vE2 − c B3 ) (vE3 + c B2 )
 
c c

 
 
 γ 
 γ(E2 − vB3 ) − (vE2 − c2 B3 ) 0 −cB1
 
c

 
 
 γ 
γ(E3 + vB2 ) − (vE3 + c2 B2 ) cB1 0
c
We first check the validity of Maxwell’s equations in the moving
frame. To this end, we must prove the counterpart of (11), i.e.:
∂ F̃ αβ
= 0 for β = 0, 1, 2, 3 (64)
∂ x̃α
We have:
∂ F̃ α0

βγ ∂E 2
D0 = = − c curlB + γ divE (65)
∂ x̃α c ∂t 1
∂ F̃ α1

γ ∂E 2
D1 = = − − c curlB − βγ divE (66)
∂ x̃α c ∂t 1
∂ F̃ α2

1 ∂E 2
D2 = = − − c curlB (67)
∂ x̃α c ∂t 2
∂ F̃ α3

1 ∂E
D3 = = − − c2 curlB (68)
∂ x̃α c ∂t 3
where ( )m denotes the m-th component of the vector. In the above
expressions, the operators curl and div are associated with the coordi-
nates (x, y, z) of the reference frame at rest. Clearly, when (1) and (3)
are satisfied, we have that Dm = 0 for m = 0, 1, 2, 3. This is basically
the proof of the Lorentz invariance given by A. Einstein.
In order to handle the new set of equations, we start by proving the
invariance of (18). We define Ṽβ = (c, −Ṽ) and Ṽ β = (c, Ṽ), where
in the moving frame Ṽ is the velocity field corresponding to V. Note
that, according to the theory of relativity, the expression Ṽ = V − v
is incorrect. We assume instead that:

1 V2 V3
Ṽ = V1 − v, , (69)
1 − vV1 /c2 γ γ
Appendices 245
which is exactly the rule to sum up velocities in special relativity. We

are going to show that this choice is in agreement with the invariance
properties of all the equations. Thus, first of all we must have:
F̃ αβ Ṽβ = 0 for β = 0, 1, 2, 3 (70)
By substituting the expression (69) in (70), one obtains:

1
F̃ 0β Ṽβ = − v(E + V × B)1 + E · V (71)
1 − vV1 /c2
1
F̃ 1β Ṽβ = c(E + V × B)1 − β E · V (72)
1 − vV1 /c2
c
F̃ 2β Ṽβ = (E + V × B)2 (73)
γ(1 − vV1 /c2 )
c
F̃ 3β Ṽβ = (E + V × B)3 (74)
γ(1 − vV1 /c2 )
Considering that E is orthogonal to V and recalling (18), all the above
expressions vanish. This means that (70) is true.
Regarding the invariance of the differential equation (15), we would
like to have (see (22)):
∂ F̃ αβ 1 ∂ F̃ γ0 β
− Ṽ = 0 for β = 1, 2, 3 (75)
∂ x̃α c ∂ x̃γ
Going back to (65), we rewrite D0 as follows:

βγ ∂E 2 vV1
D0 = − c curlB + VdivE + γ 1 − 2 divE (76)
c ∂t 1 c
By assuming that (15) is satisfied, then the first term on the right-hand
side of (76) is zero. After this simplification one gets:

vV1
D0 = γ 1 − 2 divE (77)
c
Similarly, from (66) we have:

γ ∂E 2
D1 = − − c curlB + V divE
c ∂t 1

V1 γ
+ γ − β divE = (V1 − v) divE (78)
c c
Recalling that Ṽ 1 = (V1 − v)/(1 − vV1 /c2 ) (see (69)), we get:
∂ F̃ α1 Ṽ 1 ∂ F̃ γ0 V1 − v
− = D1 − D0 = 0 (79)
∂ x̃α c ∂ x̃γ c(1 − vV1 /c2 )
The last expression is zero thanks to (77) and (78). Thus, we have
obtained (75) for β = 1. With the same arguments, for β = 2 and
β = 3, we have:
∂ F̃ βα Ṽ β ∂ F̃ 0γ Vβ
− = Dβ − D0
∂ x̃α c ∂ x̃γ cγ(1 − vV1 /c2 )

1 ∂E 2 Vβ
= − − c curlB − divE
c ∂t β c

1 ∂E
= − − c2 curlB + V divE (80)
c ∂t β
that due to (15) is also zero. Hence, (75) is proven. Because of the
numerous constraints, we do not expect there are other interesting
choices for Ṽ, except for the one given in (69).
We would like to note that:
|Ṽ| = c (81)
that corresponds to (19). In this way light moves at the same speed in
both the rest frame and the one in motion. Therefore, the constancy
of the speed of light, which is one of the postulates of special relativity,
seems to be recoverable from the Lorentz invariance of the whole set
of equations.
Finally, it is possible to rewrite some exact solution (for example
(43)) in the moving frame, obtaining:

Ẽ = 0, 0, cγ(1 − β)f (z̃)g(γ(1 − β)(ct̃ − x̃))

B̃ = 0, −γ(1−β)f (z̃)g(γ(1−β)(ct̃− x̃)), 0 Ṽ = (c, 0, 0) (82)
We observe that the wave undergoes contraction or expansion in the

direction of motion, depending on the sign of β. This is also true if
g corresponds to a single pulse, thus in the case there is no continu-
ous oscillatory phenomenon directly involved. Note that the energy
changes with the observer.
Appendices 247
F - The general set of model equations

We are ready to introduce the final set of model equations, which
strictly includes the case of free-waves previously discussed. It is just a
matter to transform equation (18) in order to include situations where
the fronts may develop without respecting the rules of geometrical
optics in the flat space. We have:
∂E
= c2 curlB − ρV (83)
∂t
∂B
= − curlE (84)
∂t
divB = 0 (85)

DV
ρ + µ(E + V × B) = − ∇p (86)
Dt
with ρ = divE and:
DV ∂V
= + (V · ∇)V (87)
Dt ∂t
Relation (86) recalls the Euler’s equation for inviscid fluids with a
forcing term of electromagnetic type given by the vector: E + V × B.
The Maxwell’s case is now obtained by setting ρ = 0 and p = 0. It
should be also clear that when DV/Dt = 0 and p = 0, one comes back
to the case of free-waves.
Up to dimensional scaling, the scalar p plays the role of pressure.
The constant µ is a charge divided by a mass and in Appendix G (see
also [47]) it is estimated to be equal to:
µ ≈ 2.85 × 1011 Coulomb/Kg (88)
which is of the same order of magnitude of the elementary charge
divided by the electron’s mass.
A further equation, related to energy conservation arguments (see
later), can be added:
∂p
= µρ(E · V) (89)
∂t
This says that pressure may raise as a consequence of a lack of or-
thogonality between E and V. These two vectors are instead always
orthogonal in the case of free-waves (multiply (18) by V).
By multiplying scalarly (86) by V and taking into account (89),

we arrive at a Bernoulli type equation:
ρ D|V|2 Dp
+ = 0 (90)
2 Dt Dt
The writing of the above model equations in covariant form read

as follows:
ρ β
∂α F αβ = V (91)
c
µ
ρ V γ ∂γ V α + F αβ Vβ = ∂ α p (92)
c
By setting V 0 = c, we actually get (83) from (91) with β = 1, 2, 3 (for
β = 0 such a relation is just a trivial identity). We then get (86) from
(92) with β = 1, 2, 3, and (89) from (92) with β = 0. The continuity
equation (31) naturally descends by taking the divergence of (91).
We now define:
µ
Tαβ = − µUαβ + M αβ (93)
c4
that generalizes (55). In (93), Mαβ is a mass type tensor, defined as
follows:
Mαβ = ρVα Vβ − pgαβ (94)
In addition, we assume the condition:
g αβ Vα Vβ = 0 (95)
that corresponds to the eikonal equation in a generic metric space,

extending in this way (19).
One can show that, if (91) and (92) are true then (38) holds. This
is the way to show the compatibility of the model equations with en-
ergy preservation properties. For the sake of simplicity we omit the
computation (see [47] for details).
By taking the trace of (39), we get this interesting relation between
pressure and scalar curvature:
c4
p = R (96)
4χµ
In [47], an estimate of the dimensionless constant χ has been given,

namely: χ ≈ 0.175.
Appendices 249
We can finally give a definition of mass density ρm . When gαβ =

diag{1, −1, −1, −1} and |V0 | = c, we set:
0 M00 0 p
ρm = = ρ − (97)
µc2 µ c2
By integrating ρm on the “support” Ω of the wave we get its “mass” m.
For instance, a Maxwellian wave has ρ = 0 and p = 0, so that m = 0,
as expected. For a free-wave, one has p = 0 and ρ 6=R0. However,
R it is
true that, having E with compact support, one gets: Ω ρ = ∂Ω E = 0,
so that once again one obtains m = 0. Several other solutions may
instead produce nonzero masses. We are going to discuss an example
(see also Appendix G).
Following [45], we work in the left-handed cylindrical system of
coordinates (r, z, φ). For an integer k ≥ 1 and arbitrary constants
ω > 0, γ0 and γ1 , we start by defining the potentials:
γ
1 γ0 r 3 γ1
A=− Jk+1 (ωr) sin(cωt−kφ), 0 , + Jk+1 (ωr) cos(cωt−kφ)
ω 4k ω
γ0 r 2 γ1
Φ = − − Jk (ωr) cos(cωt − kφ) (98)
2ω ω
for 0 ≤ φ < 2π, 0 ≤ r ≤ δk /ω and any z. By Jk we denoted the k-th
Bessel function, recoverable from the relation:
Jk0 (x) k 2 Jk (x)
Jk00 (x) + − + Jk (x) = 0 (99)
x x2
The quantity δk is the first zero of Jk . Dimensionally, ω is the inverse
of a length.
The potentials satisfy the Lorenz gauge condition (7) and bring,
thanks to (6), to the electromagnetic fields:

γ0 r kJk (ωr)
E= + γ1 cos(cωt − kφ), 0, γ1 Jk0 (ωr) sin(cωt − kφ)
ω ωr
1 γ0 r 2
B = 0, + γ1 Jk (ωr) cos(cωt − kφ), 0 (100)
c k
In order to check the above expressions it is worthwhile recalling the
0
relations: Jk+1 (x)+(k+1)Jk+1 (x)/x = Jk (x) and Jk0 (x)−kJk (x)/x =
−Jk+1 (x).
Figure 4.2: Displacement of the electric field, at a given time t, as provided

by (100) for k = 1. The magnetic field is orthogonal to the page. The
solution is defined on a cylinder. It does not depend on z and rotates about
the axis. On top, one can see the case corresponding to a pure Maxwellian
wave (γ0 = 0). Here the field V does not need to be introduced. Below, we
have a full solution of the model equations, where a stationary radial electric
field (ρ > 0) has been added to the time dependent wave shown on top.
Appendices 251
For r = 0, we have B = 0 and E = 0, if k > 1. In the case

k = 1, we have B = 0 and E = γ1 J10 (0)(cos(cωt − φ), 0, sin(cωt − φ)).
For t = 0, the last expression written in Cartesian coordinates is:
E = γ1 J10 (0)(1, 0, 0) (see figure 4.2).
As far as the pressure is concerned one has:
c2 ωγ0 r2 µγ02 r2 ω2 r2
p = p0 + − 1 −
k2 ω2 2k 2
2µγ0 γ1 r 0
− Jk (ωr) cos(cωt − kφ) (101)
kω
where p0 is an arbitrary constant.
We finally give the expression of the velocity vector field:
cωr
V = 0, 0, (102)
k
Going through tedious computations one can check that the above
defined E, B, V, p, solve the entire set of model equations. In addition,
the following meaningful relation can be checked:
c2 B = E × V (103)
The solution is defined on a cylinder Σ (see figure 4.2) and rotates

about its axis. At the boundary of Σ (i.e., when r = δk /ω) the time-
dependent components E1 and B2 are zero. Along the z-axis, both E
and B vanish. The divergence divE = 2γ0 /ω is constant and different
from zero, except for γ0 = 0 where we have ρ = 0 and ∇p = 0, so that
obtaining a pure Maxwellian wave.
Similar solutions may be defined on tori and other, more or less
complex, toroid shaped domains also in the case ρ = 0 (see [23]). This
shows how big can be the solution space of Maxwell’s equations when
one is not looking for propagating type wave-fronts.
A further generalization, in which the wave twists in the direction
of the z-axis, is obtained as follows:

kJk (ζr) 0
E= cos(cωt − kφ − λz), 0, Jk (ζr) sin(cωt − kφ − λz)
ζr
1 0
B = λJk (ζr) sin(cωt − kφ − λz), ζJk (ζr) cos(cωt − kφ − λz),
cω
λkJk (ζr)
− cos(cωt − kφ − λz) (104)
ζr
√
where ζ = ω 2 − λ2 and λ (with |λ| < ω) is a parameter. For λ = 0
we obtain the previously examined solution.
G - Construction of the electron

Solutions on annular domains can be built with size, mass and
charge equal to those of the electron. The toroid is denoted by Σ and
it is assumed to be adequately thin in order to be approximated with
the cylindrical solutions proposed in Appendix F.
Let us take k = 1 in (100) and (101) (see also [47], where, having
set k = 2, the computations are slightly different from those we are
going to carry out here). Let δ = δ1 ≈ 3.832 be the first zero of the
Bessel function J1 . After having fixed the parameter ω, the minor
radius turns out to be equal to δ/ω. The major radius will be denoted
by η. Thus, the volume of Σ is: 2π 2 ηδ 2 /ω 2 .
Successively, one obtains the charge −e of the electron by integrat-
ing divE = 2γ0 /ω in Σ:
4π 2 0 ηδ 2
Z
2γ0
− e = 0 = γ0 (105)
Σ ω ω3
from which we can explicitly compute γ0 :
eω 3 ω 3 αhc
γ0 = − = − (106)
4π 2 0 ηδ 2 2π 2 ηδ 2 e
where α = e2 /2hc0 is the fine structure constant and h is the Planck

constant.
Let us observe that the system of coordinates (r, z, φ) is left-handed.
Therefore, according to section 2.6, the electron has negative sign.
On the contrary, working in right-handed frameworks is equivalent to
deal with antimatter, thus in this case the particle turns out to be a
positron.
By taking r = 0 in (100), one gets B = 0. From (102) one has:
DV/Dt = (−c2 ω 2 r, 0, 0) = 0. This means that equation (86) becomes:
µρE = − ∇p (107)
Therefore, the gradient of p is lined up with the electric field and, for
symmetry reasons (see figure 4.2), one should have p = 0 at r = 0.
Appendices 253
Hence, p0 = 0 in (101). The stationary part of the pressure now takes

the form:
µγ02 r2 ω2 r2
pstat = c2 ωγ0 r2 − 1 − (108)
ω2 2
The mass of the particle is obtained by integrating the density ρm
introduced in (97):
Z Z δ/ω
0 p 0 p
m = ρ− 2 = 4π 2 η ρ− rdr (109)
µ Σ c µ 0 c2
Considering that the time-dependent part of p has zero average in Σ,
going through the computations, one arrives at:
2 2
δ e δ αh
m = −1 − −1 (110)
4 µ 3 8π 2 ηc
Here γ0 has been eliminated by recalling (106).

The next step is to set equal to zero the component of the gradient
of pressure normal to the boundary of Σ. Therefore, we must have
∂p/∂r = 0 for r = δ/ω. By using (86), (100) and observing that
J1 (δ) = 0, we get:
µγ0
− c2 + (1 − δ 2 ) = 0 (111)
ω3
Recovering γ0 from (105), the above relation implies:

µ αh 1
η = 1− 2 (112)
e 2π 2 c δ
Therefore, going back to (110) one computes the mass:
δ 4 − 6δ 2 + 6 e e
m = 2
≈ 1.626 (113)
6(δ − 1) µ µ
Since m and e are known, we may in this way estimate the constant
µ ≈ 1.626 e/m ≈ 2.85 × 1011 Coulomb/Kg. With this, recalling (112)
we may also estimate η ≈ 1.35 × 10−15 meters. The “classical electron
radius” is about twice this value (see , e.g., [58], p.68). Note however
that multiplicative constants are systematically neglected or adjusted
in the standard literature. With the help of these data we can re-
view the estimate of the constant χ in (39), already provided in [47],
obtaining χ ≈ 0.175 (see at the end of Appendix D). These results
are independent from the parameter ω, so that there is a family of

solutions presenting the same physical properties of the electron.
We finally compute the pressure on the surface of Σ (i.e. for r =
δ/ω). Neglecting the time-dependent part, from (108) we have:
c4 δ4
pstat (δ/ω) = − ω 2 = − σω 2 < 0 (114)
µ 2(δ 2 − 1)2
with σ ≈ 2.86 × 1022 . Hence, the boundary pressure behaves as ω 2 .

We can finally evaluate the stationary electromagnetic energy:
3δ 2 (1 + 2δ 2 /3)
Z
0
E = (|E|2 + |cB|2 ) = mc2 ≈ .89 mc2 (115)
2 Σ 4(δ 4 − 6δ 2 + 6)
which is a result reasonably compatible with predictions.

The example here discussed does not specifically use the toroid
structure of Σ. A finer study should take into account the evolution of
p in an annular domain, considering that there must be a difference of
pressure between the sides facing the hole and the outer rim. Such an
analysis, though far more complex, will surely reveal more interesting
properties. For instance, based on the computations here developed,
there are no elements for estimating the magnitude of the constant γ1
in (100), which remains arbitrary. One could recover γ1 by requiring
the integral of the electromagnetic energy density 12 0 (|E|2 + c2 |B|2 )
of the time-dependent part to be equal to hν, where h is the Planck
constant and ν = cω/2π is the associated frequency. This imposition
looks however artificial. On the other hand, if one was able to indepen-
dently fix γ1 in relation to geometrical reasonings, this would indicate
a way to estimate the Planck constant.
Bibliography
Non sono mai uscito dai libri:

lo so ora nella veglia continua del mio sonno,
ma l’ho capito nel momento di cui ho ora memoria
Umberto Eco, writer
[1] Aharonov Y., Bohm D., Significance of electromagnetic potentials in the

quantum theory, Phys. Rev., 115 (1959), pp.485-491.
[2] Aldrovandi R., Pereira J.G., Vu K.H., The nonlinear essence of gravita-
tional waves, Found. Phys., 37 (2007), pp.1503-1517.
[3] Anderson E., Geometrodynamics, spacetime or space?, arXiv:gr-qc/

0409123 v1.
[4] Ardavan H., A singularity arising from the coherent generation of grav-
itational waves by electromagnetic waves, in Classical General Relativ-
ity (W.B. Bonner, I.N. Islam, M.A.H. MacCollum Editors), Cambridge
Univ. Press, 1984.
[5] Atkins P.W., Physical Chemistry, Oxford Univ. Press, 1990.
[6] Atwater R.A., Basic Relativity, Springer, New York, 1994.
[7] Bader R.F.W., A quantum theory of molecular structure and its appli-
cation, Chem. Rev., 91 (1991), pp.893-928.
[8] Bader R.F.W., Atoms in Molecules, A Quantum Theory, Clarendon

Press, Oxford, 1994.
[9] Bahder B., Fazi C., Force on an asymmetric capacitor, arXiv:physics/

0211001 v2.
255
[10] Bailar J.C., Emeléus H.J., Sir Ronald Nyholm, Trotman-Dickenson A.F.
(Editors), Comprehensive Inorganic Chemistry, Pergamom Press, 1973.
[11] Bak P., Tang C., Wiesenfeld K., Self-organized criticality, Phys. Rev.
A, 38-1 (1988), pp.364-374.
[12] Barrow G.M., Physical Chemistry, McGraw-Hill, 1996.
[13] Batchelor G.K., An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics, Cambridge Univ.

Press, 1967.
[14] Bearden T., Energy from the Vacuum, Concepts & Principles, Cheniere
Press.
[15] Bergmann P.G., The Riddle of Gravitation, Charles Scribner’s Sons,

NY, 1968.
[16] Böhm A., Quantum Mechanics, Springer, New York, 1979.
[17] Bohm D., Casuality and Chance in Modern Physics, Van Nostrand,
1957.
[18] Bokulich A., Reexamining the Quantum-Classical Relation, Cambridge

Univ. Press, New York, 2008.
[19] Born M., Wolf E., Principles of Optics, VI Edition, Pergamon Press,
Oxford, 1980.
[20] Burcham W.E., Jobes M., Nuclear and Particle Physics, Longman, Sin-
gapore, 1997.
[21] Canning F.X., Melcher C., Winet E., Asymmetrical capacitors for
propulsion, NASA/CR-2004-213312.
[22] Cantore E., Atomic Order, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mi-

crophysics, The MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1969.
[23] Chinosi C., Della Croce L., Funaro D., Rotating electromagnetic waves
in toroid-shaped regions, International Journal of Modern Physics C,
21-1 (2010), pp.11-32.
[24] Clauser F.H. (Editor), Symposium on Plasma Dynamics, Addison-

Wesley, Reading MA, 1960.
[25] Clemmow P.C., The Plane Wave Spectrum Representation of Electro-

magnetic Fields, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1966.
[26] De Benedetti S., Nuclear Interactions, John Wiley & Sons, New York,
1964.
Bibliography 257
[27] de la Peña L., Cetto A.M., The Quantum Dice, An Introduction to

Stochastic Electrodynamics, Kluwer Academic Pub., The Netherlands,
1996.
[28] Dewey E.R., Dakin E.F., Cycles, the Science of Prediction, H. Holt &
Company, New York, 1947.
[29] Dirac P.A.M., The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Oxford Univ.

Press, 1967.
[30] Domon K., Ishihara O., Watanabe S., Mass transport by a vortex ring,
J. Phys. Soc. Jpn., 69 (2000), pp.120-123.
[31] Donev S., Tashkova M., From Maxwell stresses to photon-like

objects through curvature geometrization of physical interaction,
arXiv:0902.3924v2.
[32] Dragoman D., Dragoman M., Quantum-Classical Analogies, Springer-

Verlag, 2004.
[33] Einstein A., On the electrodynamics of moving bodies, English trans-

lation from the original paper “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper”,
Annalen der Physik., 17:891 (1905).
[34] Einstein A., Relativity: The Special and General Theory, H. Holt &
Company, New York, 1920 (English translation from the original paper,
1916).
[35] Eisberg R., Resnick R., Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids,
Nuclei, and Particles, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1985.
[36] Feather N., Electricity and Matter, Edinburgh Univ. Press, 1968.
[37] Feynman R.P., Leighton R.B., Sands M., The Feynman Lectures on
Physics, Addison Wesley, Reading MA, 1963.
[38] Feynman R.P., QED, The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, Prince-
ton Univ. Press, 1985.
[39] Feynman R.P., Quantum Electrodynamics, Westview Press, 1998.
[40] Finkelnburg W., Structure of Matter, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1964.
[41] Fock V., The Theory of Space, Time and Gravitation, Pergamon Press,
London, 1959.
[42] Freeman J. Dyson, Missed opportunities, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 78-5
(1972), pp.635-652.
[43] Fritzsch H., Quarks, The Stuff of Matter, Allen Lane, London, 1983.
[44] Funaro D., A full review of the theory of electromagnetism, arXiv:

physics/0505068.
[45] Funaro D., Electromagnetism and the Structure of Matter, World Sci-
entific, Singapore, 2008.
[46] Funaro D., The fractal structure of matter and the Casimir effect,
arXiv:0906.1874v1.
[47] Funaro D., Electromagnetic radiations as a fluid flow, arXiv:0911.4848

v1.
[48] Funaro D., Numerical simulation of electromagnetic solitons and their

interaction with matter, J. Sci. Comput., 45 (2010), pp.259-271.
[49] Funaro D., A Lagrangian for electromagnetic solitary waves in vacuum,

arXiv:1008.2103v1.
[50] Funaro D., On the near-field of an antenna and the development of new
devices, arXiv:1203.1229v1.
[51] Funaro D., http://cdm.unimo.it/home/matematica/funaro.daniele/
[52] Gadre S.R., Shirsat R.N., Electrostatic of Atoms and Molecules, Uni-
versities Press, Hyderabad, 2000.
[53] Gallavotti G., Foundations of Fluid Dynamics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin

(2002).
[54] Gould S.J., The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, Harvard Univ. Press,
2002.
[55] Gross D., Einstein and the search for unification, Current Science, 98-
12 (2005), pp.2035-2040.
[56] Guinier A., The Structure of Matter, Edward Arnold, London, 1984.
[57] Haken H., Light, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1981.
[58] Haken H., Wolf H.C., The Physics of Atoms and Quanta, Springer,
Heidelberg, 1994.
[59] Hasimoto H., A soliton on a vortex filament, J. Fluid Mech., 51 (1972),

pp.477-485.
[60] Hawking S., Israel W. (Editors), 300 Years of Gravitation, Cambridge

Univ. Press, 1987.
[61] Hazeltine R.D., Meiss J.D., Plasma Confinement, Dover Pub., Mineola
NY, 2003.
Bibliography 259
[62] Hecht R., Optics, Addison-Wesley, International Edition, 2002.
[63] Hendry E., The Metaphysics of Chemistry, Oxford Univ. Press, 2011.
[64] Horspool W.M., Song P.-S.H. (Editors), CRC Hahdbook of Organic

Photochemistry and Photobiology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1995.
[65] Innis R.E., Consciousness and the Play of Signs, Indiana Univ. Press,
1994.
[66] Irvine W.T.M., Bouwmeester D., Linked and knotted beams of light,
Nature Phys., 4 (2008), pp.716-719.
[67] Jackson J.D., Classical Electrodynamics, Second Edition, John Wiley

& Sons, New York, 1975.
[68] James Clerk Maxwell Commemorative Booklet, produced by the J.C.

Maxwell Foundation on the occasion of the Fourth Int. Congress on
Industrial and Applied Math., Edinburgh, 1999.
[69] Kaku M., String, Conformal Fields and Topology, An Introduction,

Springer-Verlag, New York, 1991.
[70] Karplus M., Porter R.N., Atoms and Molecules, an Introduction for
Students of Physical Chemistry, W.A. Benjamin, New York, 1970.
[71] Keller O., On the theory of spatial localization of photons, Physics Re-
ports, 411 (2005), pp.1232.
[72] Kittel C., Introduction to Solid State Physics, Second Edition, John
Wiley & Sons, New York, 1962.
[73] Kline M., Kay I.W., Electromagnetic Theory and Geometric Optics,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1965.
[74] Kramers H.A., Holst H., The Atom and the Bohr Theory of its Struc-
ture, An Elementary Presentation, London, Gyldendal, 1923.
[75] Kuo H.-C., Lin L.-Y., Chang C.-P., Williams R.T., The formation of
concentric vorticity structures in typhoons, J. of the Atmospheric Sci-
ences, 61 (2004), pp.2722-2734.
[76] Landau L., Lifshitz E., The Classical Theory of Fields, Pergamon Press,
London, 1961.
[77] Leach A.R., Molecular Modelling, Principles and Applications, Second

edition, Pearson Education, Harlow (England), 2001.
[78] Lee S., Lee Y., Yu I., Electric field in solenoids, Japanese J. of Appl.
Phys., 44-7A (2005), pp.5244-5248.
[79] Lim T.T., Nickels T.B., Vortex rings, in Fluid Vortices, S.I. Green (Ed-
itor), Kluwer Academic, New York, 1995.
[80] Lim T.T., http://serve.me.nus.edu.sg/limtt/
[81] Little L.E., The theory of elementary waves, Physics Essays, 9 (1996),
pp.100-132.
[82] Little L.E., The Theory of Elementary Waves: A New Explanation of

Fundamental Physics, New Classics Library, Gainesville GA, 2009.
[83] Lothian G.F., Electrons in Atoms, Butterworths, London, 1963.
[84] Marshak R.E., Conceptual Foundations of Modern Particle Physiscs,

World Scientific, Singapore, 1993.
[85] Maruani J., Molecules in Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Kluwer Aca-
demic Pub., Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1988.
[86] Mathews C.K., van Holde K.E., Biochemistry, The Benjamin Cum-
mings Publishing Company, Redwood City CA, 1990.
[87] Maxwell J.C., On physical lines of forces, The London, Edinburgh and
Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, (1861), pp.161-
175, 281-291.
[88] Maxwell J.C., A dynamical theory of electromagnetic fields, Philosophi-

cal Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 155 (1865), pp.459-512.
[89] McDonald K.T., Radiation in the near zone of a center-fed linear an-
tenna, Preprint, Princeton University.
[90] Mezey P.G., Shape in Chemistry, An Introduction to Molecular Shape

and Topology, VCH Pub., New York, 1993.
[91] Miller A.I., Imagery in Scientific Thought, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1984.
[92] Miller G.A., Non-spherical shapes of the proton: existence, measure-

ment and computation, Nucl. Phys. News, 18:12-16 (2008).
[93] Milton K.A., The Casimir Effect, Physical Manifestations of Zero-Point

Energy, World Scientific, Singapore, 2001.
[94] Misner C.W., Thorne K.S., Wheeler J.A., Gravitation, W.H. Freeman
& c., San Francisco, 1973.
[95] Nambu Y., Quarks, Frontiers in Elementary Particle Physics, World

Scientific, Singapore, 1985.
Bibliography 261
[96] Nernst W., Über einen Versuch, von quantentheoretischen Betrach-

tungen zur Annahme stetiger Energieänderungen zurückzukehren, Ver-
handlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft, 18-4 (1916),
pp.83-116.
[97] Newton R.G., How Physics Confronts Reality, World Scientific, Singa-
pore, 2009.
[98] Okun L.B., Leptons and Quarks, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1987.
[99] Oppenheimer R.J., Atom and Void, Princeton Univ. Press, 1989.
[100] Pauling L., The Nature of the Chemical Bond, Cornell Univ. Press,
Ithaca NY, 1960.
[101] Peitgen H.-O., Jürgens H., Saupe D., Chaos and Fractals, Springer,
New York, 1992.
[102] Pellegrini G.N., Swift A.R., Maxwell’s equations in a rotating medium:

Is there a problem?, Am. J. Phys., 63 (1995), pp.694-705.
[103] Planck M., The physical reality of light-quanta, Jour. Frank. Inst.,
(1927), pp.13-18.
[104] Podkletnov E., Modanese G., Investigation of high voltage discharges

in low pressure gases through large ceramic superconducting electrodes,
J. Low Temp. Phys., 132 (2003), pp.239-259.
[105] Poincaré M.H., Sur la dynamique de l’électron, Rend. Circ. Palermo,

XXI (1906), pp.129-175.
[106] Popper K.R., Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, Hutchinson,
London, 1982.
[107] Preston M.A., Physics of the Nucleus, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA,

1962.
[108] Rice F.O., Teller E., The Structure of Matter, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, 1949.
[109] Roshchin V.V., Godin S.M., An experimental investigation of the phys-

ical effects in a dynamic magnetic system, Technical Physics Letters, 26
(2000), pp.1105-1107.
[110] Roychoudhuri C., Kracklauer A.F., Creath K. (Editors), The Nature

of Light: What is a Photon?, CRC Press, Boca Raton FL, 2008.
[111] Sharpe A.G., Inorganic Chemistry, Longman, New York, 1981.

[112] Shikhmurzaev Y.D., Capillar Flows with Forming Interfaces, Chapman

& Hall, Boca Raton FL, 2008.
[113] Stone J.M., Radiation and Optics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1963.
[114] Tenforde T.S. (Editor), Magnetic Field Effect on Biological Systems,

Plenum Press, New York, 1979.
[115] Thomson W. (Lord Kelvin), On vortex atoms, Proc. of the Royal Soc.
Edinburgh, VI (1867), pp.94-105.
[116] Tolhoek H.A., Electron polarization, theory and experiment, Reviews

of Modern Phys., 28-3 (1956), pp.277-298.
[117] Turtur C., https://www.ostfalia.de/export/sites/default/de/pws/turtur

/NeuesVerzeichnis/Film englisch.pdf
[118] Van Dyke M., An Album of Fluid Motion, 10th ed., Stanford: Parabolic
Press, 1982.
[119] Verlinde E., On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton, arXiv:hep-
th/1001.0785v1.
[120] Wheeler J.A., Geons, Phys. Rev., 97-2 (1955), pp.511-536.
[121] Wheeler J.A., Zurek W.H (Editors), Quantum Theory and Measure-
ment, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton NJ, 1983.
[122] Williams W.S.C., Nuclear and Particle Physics, Clarendon Press, 1991.
[123] Williamson J.G., van der Mark M.B., Is the electron a photon with
toroidal topology?, Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 22-2
(1997), pp.133-158.
[124] Woit P., Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search
for Unity in Physical Law, Basic Books, New York, 2006.
[125] Wooding E.R., Ball lightning, Nature, 199-4890 (1963), pp.272-273.
[126] Woodside R.W.M., Space-time curvature of classical electromagnetism,

arXiv:gr-qc/0410043v1.
[127] Zewail A.H., Filming the invisible in 4D: new microscopy makes movies
of nanoscale objects in action, Sci. Am., 303-74 (2010).
[128] Ziman J.M., Electrons and Phonons, Oxford Univ. Press, London,
1962.

1206 3110 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1206 3110 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1206 3110 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FROM PHOTONS TO ATOMS

The Electromagnetic Nature of Matter

Department of Mathematics, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia

Synopsis - Motivated by a revision of the classical equations of elec-

The aim of this exposition is to informally present my viewpoint

The material has been carefully collected and developed in order

in crude formulas, something innovative lies. My intent here is to re-

tion is unavoidable to arrive at a full description of the structure of

1 The world of photons 1

2 The subatomic environment 69

3 The constituents of matter 143

The world of photons

Gli è tutto sbagliato, tutto da rifare

1.1 Why improving the theory of electromag-

spite an unconscious attitude to hide the problem), one of the crucial

As far as I am concerned, the evolution of an electromagnetic wave

Figure 1.1: In accordance with geometrical optics, the different phases of

For instance, as a consequence of my theory, a dipole wave can be

these conclusions are rigorously documented in the book [45] and my

when following families of waves that I consider to be relevant for the

sively wide range, arriving approximately at 1023 Hertz, in the case of

swallowed. A naive example of this paradigm is the description of an

1.2 Photon’s structure

wave-fronts and the electromagnetic signal is written on them. As a

Another requirement, partly in agreement with the Maxwellian

as the vacuum impedance. We can reasonably impose that the inten-

to geometrical properties rather than to dynamical issues, is the real

chained loops of alternate electric and magnetic fields, displaying some

complaining? I disagree with the statement that Maxwell’s equations

Let me just mention a technical problem. As I specified before, free

1.3 A closer look at the model

By defining ρ = divE, the general set of equation is:

The continuity equation is obtained by taking the

Free-waves are obtained as a special case, where:

Maxwell’s equations in vacuum are finally obtained for ρ = 0:

Let me first provide a brief description of the revised equations by

Figure 1.3: These ripples in

tion 1.2, about fields emitted by an antenna). Other claims reported

that a plane wave ends up to be a promiscuous object, conveniently

Solutions of Maxwell’s equations are often introduced as expansion

fields E and B, which in vacuum is expected to be zero everywhere.

ness proliferates, nourishing the initial misunderstandings surrounding

in the hands of Maxwell’s supporters, but they are heavily employed

1.4 Connections with special relativity

is able to interpret from his own viewpoint a given electromagnetic

way to explicate facts. Finally, in addition to these accomplishments,

proach, the fronts are interpreted as the 2D level sets (analogous to

basically, one discovers that a smooth front behaves locally as a piece

direction of the cross product E×B). Such an observation attracts the

Gauss theorem. As I will explain in the coming sections, photons may

1.5 The geometry of space-time

Let me go a bit further into the details. The space-time geometry

There are infinite metric tensors that can be associated with a

technicalities. Let me try anyway to provide some quick explanations.

(36)), saying that Maxwellian waves comply with energy conservation

to be fully covered by overlapping coordinate charts, but what really

logical models, including or not Big Bang theories, proliferate. It is

formulation of a comprehensive mathematical model for all nature’s