2026-07-15
Introduction to Wave Electricity
A popular science review article
In the beginning was a point. Then came numbers, and time was born. Time split, giving rise to space and length. Space split once more and took on volume.
What if space, particles, fields, and free radiation are not independently defined primary entities, but instead emerge sequentially from a single geometric foundation? This is precisely the possibility explored by Wave Electricity. The model begins with an extremely simple state a mathematical point that does not yet possess spatial coordinates. A sequence of distinguishable states creates time; a directed change creates a temporal field; and the orthogonal splittings of this field open up the possibility for spatial directions to emerge.
The first dynamically organized object within this geometry is a normalized wave state. The ways in which it undergoes internal closure, external projection, and spatial propagation manifest subsequently as a particle, a field, and free radiation.
In conventional language, an electron is called a particle, an electric field is described as a special state of the space surrounding a charge, and a photon is termed a quantum of radiation. The proposed framework establishes a deeper connection between them. A closed and localized wave is observed as a particle. Its internal gradient can extend outward and manifest as a field. If the closure is released, free propagation occurs.
\[\tag{1} \boxed{ \begin{aligned} \text{particle}&:\quad \text{wave is localized and closed},\\ \text{field}&:\quad \text{gradient of the closed state extends outward},\\ \text{radiation}&:\quad \text{wave is open and propagates freely}. \end{aligned} } \] This does not mean that all physical properties have already been derived from a single formula. Wave Electricity is currently under development. Within this framework, it is necessary to distinguish between rigorous algebraic results, additional geometric assumptions, and physical hypotheses. The aim of this overview article is to present the big picture in simple terms and provide references to works where each element is examined in detail.
The active core of the model: postulates, definitions, limits of applicability, and the distinction between mathematical results and physical hypotheses are gathered in the article “Unified Concept of Wave Electricity.”
Brief structure of the model
|
1. From a point to time and space
In the initial state, internal change and external motion are not yet present:
\[\tag{2} \boxed{J(0,0)=1.} \] This is neither a particle placed in empty space nor a coordinate origin with \(x=y=z=0\). Spatial coordinates are not yet defined at this level. The state \(J=1\) should be understood as a mathematical point or the simplest event preceding the manifestation of length, direction, and volume.
If such events are distinguishable and ordered, a sequence emerges. The numbers in the epigraph signify precisely the ability to distinguish between preceding and succeeding events that is, to number their positions within this sequence. Time is introduced as a measure of ordered change that does not yet require displacement within a pre-existing space.
A sequence of events creates a primary directionality, conveniently represented by the temporal coordinate \(X_0=c\tau\mathbf e_0\). Its derivative, \(\mathcal T_0\), defines the universal flow of events. When a specific state \(J\) begins to change along this flow, the temporal field of this wave structure, \(\mathcal T_J\), emerges:
\[\tag{3} \boxed{ \mathcal T_0=\frac{dX_0}{d\tau}=c\mathbf e_0, \qquad \mathcal T_J=\frac{dJ}{d\tau}. } \] These quantities cannot be equated. For the initial, unchanging state \(J=1\), we have \(dJ/d\tau=0\), even though the ordering of events and the direction \(\mathcal T_0\) are already established. Therefore, time is not derived from the derivative of an invariant operator; rather, the primary order is posited as a precondition for any subsequent change.
The poetic formula in the epigraph states that "time split." More precisely, it is not time as an independent physical substance that splits, but the directed temporal field. Its independent orthogonal projection creates a new direction. When positions can be distinguished and accumulated change measured along this direction, it acquires the meaning of a spatial coordinate and length.
Repeated independent splittings can create new orthogonal directions. Thus, a one-dimensional extent can transform into a plane, and a plane into a volume. Idempotent algebra ensures the completeness and orthogonality of the channels; however, on its own, it does not yet explain why the stable observable space possesses precisely three dimensions. This remains a physical hypothesis of the model.
\[\boxed{ \text{point}\longrightarrow\text{sequence of events}\longrightarrow\text{time}\longrightarrow\text{temporal field}\longrightarrow\text{splitting}\longrightarrow\text{space}. } \] Read more: The transition from a mathematical point to primordial temporal geometry and spatial directions is examined in the article “The Temporal Field and the Origin of Space.” The continuation the transition from temporal dynamics to electric, magnetic, and wave fields is presented in the work “Projections of the Temporal Field.”
2. What Wave Electricity Seeks to Explain
Modern physics successfully describes nature through several interconnected theories. Quantum mechanics determines measurement probabilities, field theory describes particles as field excitations, and relativity links space, time, energy, and momentum. Wave Electricity does not dispute these results. Instead, it seeks an intuitive geometric foundation upon which various properties might emerge as manifestations of a unified structure.
At the heart of the model lies the question: is it possible to start with the simplest sequence of events, derive time and spatial directions, and then via a normalized wave state sequentially arrive at intrinsic periodicity, mass, spin, the electric field, atomic scales, and the free wave? In this approach, a known physical formula is viewed not as the ultimate goal, but as a means of verifying the geometric construction. It is important not only to reproduce the result but also to demonstrate which element of the model is responsible for it.
For instance, internal closure is linked to particle stability, a double-sheeted cycle to spinor periodicity, deep splitting to the Lorentz factor, and an external gradient to the electric field. At the same time, such correspondences must be distinguished from algebraic properties that arise automatically.
Read more: the general transition from a normalized state to a wave and a particle is discussed in the article “A Unified Geometric Model for Wave and Particle.”
3. First Postulate: Motion Along a Single Trajectory
The model's first postulate states that, in any given physical state, a point has a single actual direction of motion. This does not imply that the world is one-dimensional or that all particles must move in straight lines. A circle, a helix, and a complex orbit are also one-dimensional curves: a single path coordinate suffices to specify a position on any of them.
Let this coordinate be denoted by \(s\). Then the observed trajectory is expressed as
\[\tag{4} s=s(t), \qquad \mathbf r(t)=\mathbf r\bigl(s(t)\bigr), \qquad \mathbf v=\widehat{\boldsymbol{\tau}}(s)\frac{ds}{dt}. \] The vector \(\widehat{\boldsymbol{\tau}}\) is tangent to the curve. If the trajectory curves, the tangent changes direction, yet at any given moment, motion still proceeds along that single tangent line. Three-dimensionality manifests itself in the shape and orientation of the entire curve, rather than in a requirement for three independent instantaneous movements of a single point.
It is important here to distinguish between the actual trajectory and the set of possible continuations. A single path is recorded in any given event. However, prior to recording, the geometry of the setup may allow for an entire family of paths with different phases. This distinction will be relevant when discussing diffraction.
An experimentally testable proposition regarding electric interaction follows from this postulate: a chosen source and receiver can be linked by a single instantaneous coordinate \(R(t)\) directed along the line connecting them. Two different motions that generate the same function \(R(t)\) should yield the same quasistatic scalar signal, whereas motion along a circle at constant \(R\) should not, in itself, generate a variable component of such a signal.
Experimental verification: two experiments involving the rectilinear and circular motion of a charge are proposed in the article “The One-Dimensional Coordinate of Electric Interaction: Two Experiments with a Moving Charge.” While they may partially confirm the first postulate as applied to electric coupling, they do not constitute proof of the fundamental one-dimensionality of all motion.
Read more: local one-dimensionality, the curvilinear coordinate, and its relationship with the phase operator......are discussed in detail in the “Unified Concept of Wave Electricity” and in the article “Geometric Origin of the Schrödinger Equation in the Split-Operator Formalism.”
4. Second Postulate: Energy of the Particle and the Source
A normalized geometric state should not be confused with the physical law of conservation of energy. If a particle accelerates in an external field, its laboratory energy increases. This increase does not arise from nothing, nor is it necessarily compensated solely by a decrease in the particle's internal energy. The source of the influence also participates in the process.
Therefore, the total balance is written for a closed system:
\[\tag{5} \boxed{ E_{\mathrm{int}}+E_{\mathrm{motion}}+E_{\mathrm{source}}=\operatorname{const}. } \] When an electric field accelerates an electron, the electron's energy increases at the expense of work done by the field source. When an atom emits a photon, the internal energy of the bound state decreases by the energy of the radiation. Geometry describes the permissible relationships between states but does not, in itself, negate the necessity of a total energy balance.
Read more: the relativistic change in energy resulting from a change in an external parameter is examined in the article “Relativistic Force as a Change in an External Parameter,” while the general energy balance is formulated in the “Unified Concept of Wave Electricity.”
5.
Levels of description that must not be conflated Most apparent contradictions arise when different levels of description are mistaken for the same space. These levels are preceded by a primordial temporal geometry, \(\mathcal M_0=\mathbb R_{\tau}\). It contains only the ordering of events and is neither the observable three-dimensional space nor the operator's phase space.
Once spatial directions emerge, it is necessary to distinguish between several levels of description.
Spatial manifestation a system of stable orthogonal projections that have acquired a metric and allow for the accumulation of coordinates. This is a transitional geometric level between primordial temporal dynamics and observable space.
Observable physical space the ordinary three-dimensional world where instruments record the position of a particle's center, the direction of motion, and electric and magnetic fields.
One-dimensional trajectory a specific curve within three-dimensional space. A path coordinate \(s\) is defined along it.
Finite phase space the two complex idempotent planes of the operator \(J(a,b)\). They describe state components but are not the coordinate planes \(ct,x,y,z\).
Deeply split space a countable set of orthogonal channels arising from successive idempotent splitting. Upon the introduction of a metric and self-similarity, its state acquires a norm equal to the Lorentz factor.
Thus, one-dimensional physical motion is fully compatible with a multi-component internal state. Similarly, a melody unfolds along a single temporal sequence, even though its spectrum may contain multiple frequency components.
Read more: the mathematical significance of the two phase planes is explained in the article “The Hidden Geometry of the Hyperbolic Unit,” while the distinction between levels of description is covered in “The Unified Concept of Wave Electricity.”
6. Motion as a physically manifested splitting
In the standard description, space is assumed to pre-exist, and motion is understood as the displacement of a body between points within it. The developing geometry of Wave Electricity considers the reverse possibility: spatial extension emerges alongside the differentiation of states, and observed motion is the physical manifestation of their splitting.
Sequential splitting gives rise to mutually orthogonal channels \(E_0, E_1, E_2, \ldots\). If the ratio of amplitudes between adjacent levels is constant and identified with the relative velocity \(\beta=v/c\), the normalized external state is expressed as
\[\tag{6} \boxed{ \mathcal\Phi_{\beta}=\sqrt{1-\beta^2}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\beta^nE_n, \qquad \frac{a_{n+1}}{a_n}=\beta, \qquad \|\mathcal\Phi_{\beta}\|=1. } \] In this formula, the idempotent algebra ensures the independence of the channels, while the equality of the amplitude ratio to the velocity \(\beta\) is introduced as a physical postulate. Therefore,Motion and splitting become two mutually linked descriptions of a single process, yet such an identification does not follow automatically from the algebra alone.
Vacuum rest can also be understood not as an absence of any internal dynamics, but as their symmetric compensation. A zero mean flux \(\langle\boldsymbol\beta\rangle=0\) is compatible with a non-zero second moment \(\langle\beta_i\beta_j\rangle\). Given its isotropy, a Euclidean spatial metric \(g_{ij}=\delta_{ij}\) emerges. For now, this interpretation remains a new postulate of the model rather than a fully derived conclusion regarding the physical vacuum.
Read more: the connection between motion, spatial extension, the vacuum state, and the Euclidean metric is examined in the article “Space Splitting and Motion as a Unified Process.”
7. Operator of Internal State and External Motion
The mathematical foundation of the final operator consists of two mutually complementary idempotents, \(\ep\) and \(\em\). They can be viewed as two independent selectors: each isolates its own complex phase component, while their product is zero.
The hyperbolic unit \(\j\) satisfying \(\j^2=1\) is defined via their difference. Continuous powers of \(\j\) and \(-\j\) allow for the independent variation of the phases of the two components. Their product yields the model's fundamental operator:
\[\tag{7} \boxed{ J(a,b)=\j^a(-\j)^b=\ep e^{i\pi b}+\em e^{i\pi a}. } \] The parameter \(a\) describes internal periodicity, while the parameter \(b\) describes external motion:
\[\boxed{ a=\varpi t, \qquad \omega_{\mathrm{int}}=\pi\varpi, \qquad b=\frac{\arcsin\beta}{\pi}, \qquad \beta=\frac vc. } \] Both processes are part of a single normalized state yet retain distinct physical roles. The parameter \(a\) cannot be substituted by velocity, nor can the parameter \(b\) be substituted by the particle's internal phase.
This resembles a device with two independent controls. One alters the internal rate of the clock, while the other changes the state of external motion. The device's housing remains a single unit, yet turning one control does not necessarily entail turning the other.
From the perspective of primary temporal geometry, the parameters \(a\) and \(b\) describe two different ways a single directed change manifests. The parameter \(a\) organizes the internal periodicity of the wave structure, whereas the parameter \(b\) determines the external displacement of its center. They do not create new fields out of nothing but rather define different modes of organizing and projecting the temporal field.
For more details: the derivation of the powers of the hyperbolic unit and the operator \(J\) is presented in the article “The Hidden Geometry of the Hyperbolic Unit”; the physical distinction between parameters \(a\) and \(b\) is discussed in “A Unified Geometric Model for Wave and Particle”.
8. Why cJ is not the velocity of the particle center
The operator notation \(V_J=cJ\) describes the complete phase-geometric dynamics of constant norm. However, it cannot be interpreted as an ordinary three-dimensional velocity vector of the particle center. Internal phase components need not coincide with the directions of physical displacement.
The observable velocity is obtained only after isolating the external parameter:
\[\tag{8} \boxed{ \mathcal P_{\mathrm{ext}}[J]=\sin(\pi b)=\beta, \qquad \mathbf v=c\beta\widehat{\boldsymbol{\tau}}(s). } \] Thus, a state may contain two phase planes, deep channels, and an internal cycle, yet the particle center still moves along a single observable curve. Phase geometry reveals the state of the system; the physical projection reveals how its center moves.
Read more: the distinction between \(V_J\) and the observable velocity is consistently maintained in the article “A Unified Geometric Model for Wave and Particle”.
9. Two observers and a single event
Idempotent splitting can be applied not only to internal phases but also to two coordinate descriptions of a single event. Let reference frames \(S\) and \(S'\) assign the coordinates \((ct,x)\) and \((ct',x')\) to an event. In that case, both pairs can be stored in a single object without mixing them: \[\tag{9} \boxed{ \mathcal T_{S'S}=\ep\,ct'+\em\,ct, \qquad \mathcal X_{S'S}=\ep\,x'+\em\,x. } \] Here, it is not the physical event itself that splits, but rather its coordinate description. The idempotents serve as independent labels for the two observers. If their coordinates coi...drop out, and the expression collapses into an ordinary coordinate thanks to the equality \(\ep+\em=1\).
This representation does not replace the Lorentz transformation, but it allows two related descriptions to be placed within a unified algebraic structure without conflating it with the particle's phase space.
Read more: the joint idempotent representation of coordinates and the preservation of the spacetime interval are discussed in the article “Geometric Splitting of Coordinates Between Observers.”
10. Deep Splitting and the Lorentz Factor
The two first-level idempotents need not constitute the final layer of the structure. Each channel can be split again, and the process repeated. This results in a sequence of mutually orthogonal directions. If the contribution of each successive level decreases by a factor of \(\beta\), the total state has components \(1, \beta, \beta^2, \ldots\).
Since these components are orthogonal, their squares add up according to the Pythagorean theorem. The sum forms a geometric progression, and the norm of the state turns out to be
\[\tag{10} \boxed{ \left\|\boldsymbol{\Gamma}_{\beta}\right\|=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\beta^2}}=\gamma. } \] In this construction, the Lorentz factor has an intuitive meaning: it is the total length of a self-similar state distributed across an infinite chain of orthogonal channels. At low speeds, the deeper levels decay rapidly. As \(v\) approaches \(c\), they cease to be suppressed, and the total norm increases without bound.
The finite operator \(J\) and the deep state possess different norms. The operator remains unitary, yet one of its external projections encodes the inverse factor \(1/\gamma\). This is precisely why the normalization of \(J\) does not impede the growth of relativistic energy.
At the same time, "deep splitting" is not a single, universal operation. A recursive chain of channels is employed to construct \(\boldsymbol{\Gamma}_{\beta}\) and the Lorentz factor; a symmetric-tensor combination of independent binary generators is used for atomic orbitals; and a multiplicative assembly of uniform phases serves the projection-based description of acceleration and rotation. While these architectures share the preservation of the original whole, their norms and physical mappings must be defined separately.
For more details: the full derivation is presented in the article “The Origin of the Lorentz Factor from Infinite Idempotent Splitting,” while the transition from the deep norm to energy and momentum is detailed in the article “The Lorentz Factor in the Finite Operator J.”
11. Acceleration as a Projection of Higher Uniform Phases
Observed velocity can vary even when the unfolded phases of a more complete description evolve uniformly. Mathematically, any sufficiently smooth subluminal motion function on a finite interval can be represented with a specified degree of accuracy by a finite set of uniform phases, whereas in an infinite splitting, it can be reconstructed exactly.
If the external parameter is represented as the projection of a higher state, then the observed velocity and acceleration take the form
\[\tag{11} \boxed{ v(t)=c\sin\bigl(\pi b(t)\bigr), \qquad A(t)=\pi c\cos\bigl(\pi b(t)\bigr)\dot b(t). } \] The proven result here is the existence of such a representation. The stronger assertion that physical acceleration actually arises from the incompleteness of the observed level remains a hypothesis. To substantiate it, one must derive the spectrum of higher phases from a unified geometry of interaction, rather than selecting it separately for a trajectory that is already known.
Read more: the finite approximation, the exact infinite-dimensional representation, and the boundary between a theorem and a physical hypothesis are discussed in the article “Acceleration as a Projection of Uniform Motion in Higher Splittings.”
12. Internal periodicity and mass
The Lorentz factor describes the external motion of an already existing massive particle but does not explain the origin of its mass. In this model, the source of rest energy is linked to internal periodicity a stable cycle that persists even when the particle's center is stationary.
For the electron, the hypothesis is adopted that the observed rest energy is a transverse Doppler projection of a higher internal frequency:
\[\tag{12} \boxed{ m_ec^2=\alpha_{\mathrm{fs}}\hbar\omega_{\mathrm{int}}. } \] The fine-structure constant \(\alpha_{\mathrm{fs}}\) here refers to the internal mapping. The externalThe factor \(\gamma\) has a different origin and increases the total energy of an already formed particle as it moves. These two coefficients must not be conflated.
This picture suggests that mass is not an amount of matter contained within a geometric point, but rather the observable manifestation of a stable internal rhythm. However, the numerical appearance of \(\alpha_{\mathrm{fs}}\) specifically remains a physical hypothesis of the model.
Read more: the relationship between internal frequency, rest energy, and the zero mass of the photon is discussed in the article “Mass as a Geometric Projection of a Closed Wave.”
13. Why a closed wave appears as a particle
A free wave transports phase from one region of space to another. A closed wave, by contrast, repeatedly returns to its initial internal state. If this return is stable, external observation reveals a localized object with constant characteristics.
This is precisely why the model employs a concise definition:
\[\tag{13} \boxed{ \text{particle}=\text{stable closed wave}. } \] The closure refers to the internal cycle, not the entire trajectory of the center. An electron may travel across a laboratory along an open path, yet its internal wave continues to undergo a closed cycle. Thus, localization and translational motion are not mutually exclusive.
The characteristic internal scale is linked to the frequency by the simple wave invariant \(r_{\mathrm{int}}\omega_{\mathrm{int}}=c\). The higher the internal frequency, the smaller the spatial scale of the closed state.
This same structure can be viewed as an ideal distributed wave circuit.
Its electric and magnetic components do not belong to separate "capacitor" and "coil" elements but are distributed along a single closed path. In this description, the electron's equivalent capacitance and inductance are modal parameters of a stable natural wave. Read more: the geometric transition from phase velocity to closed and free waves is analyzed in the article “A Unified Geometric Model for Wave and Particle,” while the distributed circuit and its modal parameters are discussed in the article “The Geometric Meaning of Electron Capacitance and Inductance.”
14. The Electron: Two-Sheetedness, Spin, and Charge
In this model, the electron's internal circuit consists of two successive sheets. The same wave traverses the first sheet, then the second, and only then fully returns to its initial configuration. Consequently, a single complete return of the internal state corresponds to two ordinary rotations.
The fundamental phase is distributed over a doubled path, giving rise to a half-angle relative to the standard angle. After a rotation of \(2pi\), the state changes sign, whereas after \(4pi\), it is restored:
\[\tag{14} \boxed{ \Psi(2pi)=-\Psi(0), \qquad \Psi(4pi)=\Psi(0). } \] In a physical representation, these sheets may manifest as two closely spaced branches of a single internal circuit. They do not constitute two independent electrons or two simultaneously propagating waves. These are two successive segments of a single wave's path.
Spin orientations are defined separately as two ways of positioning the total internal state relative to a chosen axis: \(J(a,0)\) and \(J(0,a)\). Nor should the sign of the charge be identified with the spin. As a working hypothesis, the electron and positron are associated with opposite directions of traversal along a deep two-sheeted cycle.
For more details: the two-sheeted orbit and spinor periodicity are discussed in the articles “The Electron’s Double Internal Orbit” and “Electron Spin”; the algebra of the deep sheet factor is covered in the article “Multilevel Splitting of Electron Geometry”.
15. From the electron scale to the atom, orbitals, and spectrum
Three characteristic distances can be identified for the electron and the hydrogen atom: the classical electron radius, the reduced Compton wavelength, and the Bohr radius. These do not constitute a random set of values. Each successive scale is larger than the preceding one by a factor of approximately \(1/\alpha_{\mathrm{fs}}\):
\[\tag{15} \boxed{ r_e\longrightarrow\bar\lambda_C\longrightarrow a_0, \qquad \frac{r_e}{\bar\lambda_C}=\frac{\bar\lambda_C}{a_0}=\alpha_{\mathrm{fs}}. } \] The first transition is associated with the observ...as a projection of the internal electronic state. The second involves the formation of a bound atomic loop. In this process, the radius increases and the frequency decreases, while certain products of spatial and frequency scales remain invariant.
In this framework, the atom is not constructed from a structureless electron placed into a pre-existing orbit. Instead, it is viewed as a new, coherent closure involving an already structured electron and the nucleus. The electron's intrinsic two-sheeted nature persists and may manifest as minor spectral corrections.
Recent work extends this construction. For an energy level with principal quantum number \(n\), two symmetrically split internal directions give rise to \(n^2\) spatial components. These are grouped into subspaces with dimensions \(1, 3, 5, dots, 2n-1\); upon three-dimensional projection, these correspond to \(s\)-, \(p\)-, \(d\)-, and \(f\)-orbitals:
\[ \boxed{ n^2=\sum_{l=0}^{n-1}(2l+1)=1+3+5+\ldots +(2n-1). } \] Two independent spin states, \(J_n(a,0)\) and \(J_n(0,a)\), are preserved for each spatial orbital. Their antisymmetric combination allows for an electron pair, whereas a third linearly independent state is absent from the two-dimensional spin space. Thus, the Pauli exclusion principle acquires a geometric interpretation that does not conflate orbital shape with spin.
The same number \(n^2\) plays a role in the spectral construction: conservation of the total quadratic phase norm yields the angle \( heta_n=\alpha_{\mathrm{fs}}/n\), while the full orthogonal projection of energy leads to the relationship \(B_n=\mu c^2(\sec\theta_n-1)\). The standard \(1/n^2\) law emerges as the leading term of this expression when \(\alpha_{\mathrm{fs}}/n\) is small.
Further details: the transition between the three scales is described in the article “From the Geometric State of the Electron to the Hydrogen Atom Orbit”; the construction of orbits is detailed in the papers “The First Orbit” and “Higher Orbits and Fine Splitting”. Orbital geometry, pair formation, and the spectral law are elaborated in the articles “Atomic Orbitals as Projections of Split Phase Space”, “Geometric Formation of the Electron Pair and the Pauli Exclusion Principle”, and “Geometric Origin of the Rydberg Law”.
16. How an internal gradient becomes an electric field
Two closely spaced branches of the internal loop have slightly different geometric projections. Within the bound state, most of these contributions cancel out, but a small remainder can extend outward. In the far-field region, this corresponds to a potential energy decreasing as \(1/R\), and its gradient gives rise to a force dependence of \(1/R^2\).
At the adopted electronic scale, the coefficient of this dependence matches the Coulombic one:
\[\tag{16} \boxed{ \mathbf E(R)=\frac{\alpha_{\mathrm{fs}}\hbar c}{eR^2}\widehat{\mathbf R}=\frac{e}{4\pi\varepsilon_0R^2}\widehat{\mathbf R}. } \] A single field line is parameterized by a single radial coordinate. However, the source allows for all radial directions; thus, the aggregate of these one-dimensional extensions forms a standard three-dimensional field.
If the source is in motion, the external gradient acquires a transverse magnetic component within the working geometric model. In the non-relativistic limit, its direction and magnitude must yield the well-known relation \(\mathbf B\simeq\mathbf v\times\mathbf E/c^2\). This correspondence establishes a necessary consistency condition but does not yet constitute a general derivation of electromagnetic field transformations. Here, the magnetic field is not introduced as a new, independent form of energy; instead, it is viewed as a different spatial manifestation of the state of a moving source.
Read more: the origin of the \(1/R^2\) dependence is analyzed in the article “The Geometric Origin of Electric Force”; the signs of interaction are discussed in “Attraction and Repulsion of Charges and Currents”; and the relationship between electric and magnetic projections is covered in the articles “The Geometric Origin of Electric and Magnetic Fields” and “Projections of the Temporal Field”.
17. How a field differs from free radiation
The presence of a field around...of an electron does not mean that its internal wave has opened up. As long as the electron exists as a particle, its internal cycle remains localized. The field is an external extension of the gradient of this closed state, but it does not carry all its energy off to infinity.
Free radiation arises in a different regime when an open spatial extension of the phase appears. During a standard atomic transition, the electron does not transform entirely into a photon; instead, it transitions to a new bound state, while the photon acquires the energy difference:
\[\tag{17} E_{\gamma}=E_i-E_f. \] A complete transformation of the electron state into radiation is possible only for the entire interacting system and in compliance with conservation laws. For example, during annihilation, an electron and a positron produce at least two photons in order to simultaneously conserve energy and total momentum.
Thus, the distinction between a field and radiation does not lie in the presence or absence of a wave nature. Both regimes are wave-like, but the field is linked to a persistent localized source, whereas radiation involves the independent, open-ended transport of energy and momentum.
For more details: the geometric transition from a closed loop to a traveling wave is discussed in the article “Geometric Origin of a Propagating Wave”; the transformation of the pair's spin structure into photon polarization is covered in the article “Transition of Electron and Positron Spin into Photon Polarization.”
18. Spatial phase, diffraction, and correlated phases
The parameter \(b\) indicates the instantaneous state of external motion but is not, in itself, a phase accumulated along the path traveled. To describe propagation, one must consider an action that depends on both time and the spatial coordinate:
\[\tag{18} d\mathcal S=p_s\,ds-E\,dt. \] It is the spatial difference of such a phase that allows for the comparison of different admissible continuations in single- or double-slit experiments. An individual particle is always detected as a whole and leaves a single point. However, the set of possible phase continuations encompasses the entire open area of the slit; consequently, an interference pattern emerges after many events.
The uncertainty in this pattern is linked to the unknown initial internal phase of an individual state. If two particles are created in a single process, their absolute phase may remain random, yet the relative relationship between the phases is preserved. This establishes a geometric basis for two-particle interference and the subsequent discussion of entanglement.
In the temporal representation, the finite duration of phase localization necessitates a range of frequencies. Determining the root-mean-square widths for the two Fourier-conjugate representations yields the spectral relation \(\Delta E\,\Delta t\geqslant\hbar/2\).
Here, \(\Delta t\) denotes the duration of the wave packet or the interval of phase coherence, rather than the uncertainty in the readings of an external clock. At the same time, the rule \(P\propto|\mathcal A|^2\) and the specific dynamics governing the selection of a single outcome have not yet been derived from the operator \(J\); instead, they are adopted as additional conditions for registration.
Idempotent branching also provides a common language for quantum interpretations: the complete state can be termed a unified reality, while its stable orthogonal projections are referred to as relative realities. However, algebraic decomposition, physical decoherence, and the assertion of the existence of multiple worlds represent distinct levels. To select a specific interpretation, an actualization rule must be added to the geometry of the splitting.
For more details: single- and double-slit diffraction are analyzed in the articles “Passage Through a Single Slit” and “Passage Through Two Slits”; intrinsic uncertainty and correlated phases are discussed in the papers “Intrinsic Phase Uncertainty” and “Correlated Random Phases”; and the energy-time relationship is covered in the article “Geometric Origin of Energy-Time Uncertainty.” A geometric comparison of quantum interpretations is presented in the paper “Unified Reality and Multiple Realities.”
19. Composite states and interactions
An electron differs from a photon not only in its mode of motion. Particles possess spin, charge, flavor, color, and other properties. Multilevel rSplitting suggests that independent characteristics can be described by separate normalized operators, the product of which forms the complete state.
This formulation represents a classification architecture rather than a ready-made table of elementary particles. The mere addition of a new factor does not yet explain the physical nature of the corresponding property; one must also define its algebra, observable values, transformation rules, and experimental consequences.
A "double balance" rule is proposed for the interaction of two input states and two output states:
\[\tag{19} \boxed{ J_1+J_2=J_3+J_4, \qquad J_1J_2=J_3J_4. } \] The first equality governs the additive composition, while the second governs the overall multiplicative structure. However, geometric feasibility does not guarantee the physical realization of the process. Energy, momentum, charge, and angular momentum must be conserved independently, and channel probabilities require their own dynamic law.
Read more: multi-operator classification is discussed in the articles “Constructing Known Particles from Normalized Operators” and “Operator Classification of Matter”; the double balance rule and branch reconfiguration are covered in the series “Geometric Representation of Particle Interactions”.
20. From Microphysics to Cosmological Hypotheses
The same sequence "state order time temporal field space" allows for a cosmological extension. Under this interpretation, the Universe does not pass through its initial states in external time; rather, the stable order of distinguishable states itself creates the possibility of measuring duration and, subsequently, forming spatial projections.
Ascending splitting which must be distinguished from the unfolding of a particle's internal structure is considered separately. If a new orthogonal level increases the total metric norm of the spatial interval, the observed projection may appear as a uniform expansion. Self-similar scaling yields the kinematic law \(\dot R=H(t)R\); however, the function \(H(t)\) and the physical mechanism governing transitions between algebras do not yet follow directly from the framework.
Even more preliminary is the hypothesis that dark matter represents a coherent scalar mode of internal geometry. While this suggests a possible additional channel, the dynamics, normalization, and gravitational coupling associated with it have not yet been derived from the operator \(J\). Consequently, cosmological implications should be regarded as an independent area for verification rather than an established consequence of the microscopic model.
Read more: the logic behind the emergence of time and space is outlined in the article “From State to Time and Space: The Geometric Evolution of the Universe”; hypotheses regarding expansion and the scalar mode are detailed in the papers “Universe Expansion as Ascending Spatial Splitting” and “Dark Matter as a Geometric Scalar Mode.”
21. What follows from the mathematics and what remains a hypothesis
The idempotent decomposition of unity, channel orthogonality, the existence of two independent complex planes, the form of the operator \(J(a,b)\), its composition, and a unit finite norm follow directly from the adopted algebra. The algebra also allows for sequential splitting and the construction of a chain of mutually orthogonal projectors.
To derive the Lorentz factor, additional concepts are introduced: a deep-space metric, the orthonormality of its directions, self-similarity, and a unified transition coefficient \(\beta\). These conditions select the state \(\{1,\beta,\beta^2,\ldots\}\) and its norm \(\gamma\).
Remaining as physical hypotheses are: the emergence of spatial directions from the splitting of the temporal field; the identification of motion with physically manifested idempotent splitting; the interpretation of the vacuum as compensated motion and the origin of the spatial metric from its second moment; the physical origin of acceleration from the projections of higher uniform phases; the primacy of the normalized wave as a dynamically organized state; particle emergence via closure; the transverse-Doppler origin of mass; the mapping of two sheets onto the close branches of the electron; the geometric nature of the charge sign; the extension of the internal gradient into an external field; and the complete mechanism of wave opening. Belonging to this same level are the physical mapping of tensor splitting onto atomic orbitals, the geometric mechanism underlying the Pauli principle and the Rydberg formula, as well as the cosmological hypotheses of ascending splitting and the scalar mode.
Such a distinction does not weaken the model. On the contrary, it shows which parts already have a mathematical foundation and which require further derivation or experimental verification. The geometric reproduction of a known formula is an important condition for consistency, but it does not yet constitute proof of the entire theory.
For more details: a comprehensive list of mathematical consequences, additional assumptions, physical hypotheses, and constraints is provided in the article “Unified Concept of Wave Electricity.” The general hierarchy of splittings, horizontal connections, and potential methods for experimental verification are discussed in the article “The Splitting Principle: Hierarchy, Horizontal Connections, and Experimental Verification.”
22. The Big Picture
Wave Electricity establishes a unified sequence leading from the simplest event to observable physics. The ordering of events gives rise to time; a directed change in state creates a temporal field; and the independent splittings of that field open up spatial dimensions. Spatial extent and motion are viewed as two manifestations of the distinction between split states. Based on the resulting geometric framework, the final operator \(J(a,b)\) separates internal periodicity from external motion, while deep self-similar splitting given a specific metric leads to the Lorentz factor.
The closure of the wave creates a stable, localized regime observed as a particle. A two-sheeted cycle is linked to spinor periodicity. The internal frequency acquires a macroscopic projection. The residual gradient of the closed state extends outward as a field. Upon the breaking of the closure, a freely propagating wave emerges.
Various architectures of subsequent splitting extend this foundation in several directions. A recursive chain describes the relativistic norm; the tensor combination of binary channels corresponds to orbitals and electron pairs; a tree of orthogonal histories represents the space of quantum possibilities; and ascending splitting is viewed as a distinct cosmological hypothesis.
This hierarchy can be represented by a single sequence:
\[\tag{20} \boxed{ \begin{gathered} \text{distinguishable states}\longrightarrow\text{order}\longrightarrow\text{time}\longrightarrow\text{temporal field},\\ \text{splitting}\longrightarrow\text{directions and extension}\longrightarrow\text{space and motion},\\ J(a,b)\longrightarrow\text{internal state and external projection},\\ \text{deep self-similar splitting}\longrightarrow\boldsymbol{\Gamma}_{\beta}\longrightarrow\gamma,\\ \text{closure}\longrightarrow\text{particle},\qquad \text{gradient}\longrightarrow\text{field},\\ \text{opening}\longrightarrow\text{radiation}. \end{gathered} } \] The core idea remains simple: space, motion, particle, field, and radiation are viewed not as independently given foundations of the world, but as successive levels of organization of a single geometry. Time establishes the order of changes; splitting creates independent directions and metric relations; wave localization forms a particle; the field extends its gradient outward; and the breaking of the closure transforms the cyclic phase into free propagation.
However, transforming this idea into a complete physical theory requires deriving the three-dimensionality and local metric of space, as well as the physical laws governing the formation of higher phases of acceleration, charges, interaction probabilities, measurement dynamics, and verifiable deviations from standard physics. Further reading: A rigorous version of the modern model is presented in the “Unified Concept of Wave Electricity,” and a complete list of related papers can be found in the “Wave Electricity” section.

