An introduction to the em-model

3 Light and matter

How a classical oscillations can explain observed electromagnetic radiation

3.5.04 Erling Skaar

Can quantum properties be explained by the EM-model?
In the previous two documents we have described matter according to the EM-model. But these documents is probably not enough to persuade those that believe that the QM-model (Quantum Mechanics model) is the only model that can describe nature, that there may be an alternative model that also may describe nature. A reason is that we have not mentioned the main problem in classical physics that led to a general acceptance of the QM-model about 100 years ago. Matter exchange energy in form of light and other electromagnetic radiation. A main view is that because classical physical principle could not explain different properties connected to this exchange of energy, scientist had to accept the QM-model.

According to the QM-model, light is a sort of particle (photons) with energy exact like the difference between two energy levels of an electron.

According to the EM-model, light is a sort of wave-trains which originates in oscillating electrons which have different oscillating or resonant frequency.

A main difference between the QM-model and the EM-model(ElectroMagnetic mode) is that the EM-model is based on physical explanations where continuous values is what we expect in basic explanations. The QM-model on the other hand is based on mathematical equations. A main assumption in the QM-model is that everything in nature, both matter and electromagnetic waves, are quantified in small exact values called quantum.

A main purpose in this document is to show that the EM-model based on classical electromagnetism can explain the experiments that bothered scientists about 100 years ago and those that bother modern scientists today. Because the QM-model have a total dominance in the science communities today, other models have experienced straitened circumstances. The EM-model in its present state is rather new and much work is ahead of us. Therefore it should be accepted that this short introduction can not cover everything that is relevant, but some main evidences for the EM-model and some main problems for the QM-model will be mentioned.

Two main substances in nature: Matter and electromagnetic radiation

A main aim behind these documents is to help everybody, not only physicists,  to understand nature. Some general cognitive structures (thinking structures) is therefore valuable. In seems that those that supports the QM-model do not always estimate efforts to make simple explanation of basic processes in nature. The reason is probably that it is not possible to make a simple description of the nature based on the QM-model.

As mentioned in the previous two documents, matter consists of two elementary particles with two sorts of forces in between them according to the EM-model. But if this was all that exists in nature we could not exist. Energy is another fundamental property in nature which is mainly exchanged between elements/structures as electromagnetic radiation. We need both light and heat to live and both of these are called electromagnetic radiation. In general we can say that light is energy that comes from elements and ends up in elements. We says that elements emit light, and absorb light and when light is on its way from where it is emitted to where it is absorbed we often call it electromagnetic waves. That is because it has been shown that light is of the same nature as other electromagnetic waves like radio waves, microwaves and infrared radiation or heat radiation. 

Electromagnetic waves is created because electrons are forced to oscillate up and down in the antenna. It is the electric field which surrounds all charges that is the medium that is waving and transports the energy according to the EM-model.




around 10-15





Radio wave

less than 10-9

The only difference between these radiations is the frequency. The table to the left gives a overview of the frequencies that are involved in different radiation or waves. The animation to the right illustrates how energy in form of waves leaves the antenna of a mobile telephone. The nature of the energy that radiates from the antenna have been a main question all the time since the radio was developed. According to modern physics (the QM-model), all radiation from light to radio waves is quantified into something called photons which is a sort of energy packets or particles. Although this is the accepted view among orthodox scientists, we experiences in practical situations that more and more science books describes this sort of radiation as waves.

Problem to understand the QM-model
The quantum explanation of electromagnetic wave  is hard to understand partly because of some internal paradoxes in the explanations. The best known paradox, which the believers of the QM-model may say are not a paradox, can be addressed with a question: How can light (or other electromagnetic radiation) be both a wave and a particle (photon) at the same time? Those that have studied real waves or real particles knows that a wave have to include at least a wavelength in the direction of radiation, but it have also an extension normal to its velocity (se the animation above). A particle on the other hand, have a rather clear surface or border and therefore it makes cense to measure how big a particle is. The wavelength of the radiation from a mobile can be measured in cm, and the wavelength of for example the radio band LW can be measured in km. One problem connected to the wave-particle-paradox that faces those that believe that all electromagnetic radiation is quantified in photons, is to figure out how big those particles are that are called photons. Because of that sort of problems, it is common practice to not mention the QM-model while working with electromagnetic radiation.

The EM-model have shown that it works with low frequencies - why not use it on high frequencies?
A possible question that may be asked is the why stick to the QM-model while it seems to create major problems to those that tries to understand what really goes on in a radio or mobile telephone. It is a fact that those that work with electromagnetic communication uses the classical electromagnetic explanation in their writings and work. It means that they explains what happens in for example the mobile telephone above as oscillation of electrons in the antenna which then makes electromagnetic waves in the surroundings which is often called the ether. These waves will then reach another antenna and makes some electrons oscillate. They do not describe the process as a matter of electrons jumping from one state to another as would be a logical conclusion based on the QM-model.

A conclusion so long is that people uses classical oscillation models when explaining electromagnetic waves with low frequency, but the orthodox scientists sticks to the QM-model when they explains light and electromagnetic radiation with higher frequency. It has also been a strong and effective resistance against different suggestions that also light interactions with matter may be explained by using oscillating electron is stead of jumping electrons. If people with high positions in scientific communities wants to withhold the common explanation of light, it seems that they may do it by just refuse to listen to the evidence against the QM-model. That tactic will work as long as other people thinks that scientific truth is what the experts says. Her we will just encourage the reader to make some own thinking instead of just accepting what the scientific authorities says. This is not about forbidding the QM-model but let the EM model get a fair chance to show its value.

The EM-model is based on classical electromagnetism and therefore there are no problems with explaining electromagnetic radiations with low frequencies. The EM-model is not a new explanation. What we here may call new, is the idea that all light phenomena can be explained with an electromagnetic model. At first look it may seem a little "single tracked" to just accept one explanation when those with the other view (the QM-model), seems to accepts electromagnetic explanations in many cases. But this is about understanding the fundaments in nature, and therefore it is important to avoid everything that may create confusion. An analogy: Someone may argue that those that accepts two wives is more kind than those that just accept one. If the purpose is to get a good marriage, many will agree that the more different thinking which we include, the more probable  is conflict and confusion.

A basic principle in science is also that  it should be possible to falsify scientific statements based on experiments or observations. Some statements may be so general that it is impossible to describe experiments or observations which can test the statement, and in that case we should not call the statement scientific.

Ockham's Razor is a common name for a principle that in short say that the easiest explanation is normally the best. A simple explanation is normally better than a more complicated one as long as we don't know any phenomena that it cannot explain. But if we discover phenomena that the model can't explain we should first consider a reversion before we chose a model that can explain almost everything as seems the case for the QM-model. If a fundamental assumption in the QM-model says that things can be considered both waves and particles which are logically opposite explanations, you probably have got a model that can explain everything. That sort of theories are normally not very useful in science. If anybody do not agree with this statement, I'm still searching for descriptions of experiments or observations which may falsify the QM-model. If they exists I want to hear about them.

The EM-model

Before we comments on how the EM-model explains some fundamental experiments, we will give a general introduction to some main principle.

1) It is mainly oscillations of electrons that are involved in emission and absorption of electromagnetic waves. Protons and whole nucleuses are more heavy (more magnetic energy) and therefore they will oscillate less.

2) Electrons have to be a part of a structure to oscillate. In our daily life we experience many things that oscillate (pendulum, strings on a guitar etc.)  and a main condition for oscillations is that there are forces that drags the swinging particle back to a point of equilibrium. In atomic structures it is electric and magnetic forces with opposite direction that force the electron back when it swings out of its equilibrium.

3) A single electron  in a structure may be compared with a pendulum which may be set into oscillations by for example periodical pushes. The pendulum will have a special resonance frequency(f0) and if the external influence have that frequency the pendulum will get the biggest amplitude (A). Frequencies near to resonance frequency may also result in oscillations and therefore we get a frequency-amplitude-diagram as shown to the right if a single electron oscillates.

4) Electrons will absorb electromagnetic radiation and start  to oscillate when they are hit by electromagnetic radiation with frequency near to the resonance frequency. On the other hand, when electrons oscillate, they will emit electromagnetic radiation with the oscillating frequency. In general an electron will absorb radiation from one direction and emit it in different directions (circular in 360 degree as shown in the mobile phone animation)


5) Because all electrons in atomic structures have a spin according to the EM-model, there is a magnetic force that makes electrons come together into pairs. That means that when one electron starts to oscillate because of external influence,  it will itself emit radiation with the same frequency and the neighbour-electron will receive relative much of that radiation and itself start to radiate. We then gets a situation that is more like a guitar string than a pendulum. To the right we see three modes which may exist on one a guitar string at the same time. These are called standing waves or modes. The first mode gives the tone called the key tone and the others gives some harmonic tones with higher frequency. The swinging guitar sting may be considered a wave-guide that transmit waves between the ends of the string where they are reflected. In this situation we get another frequency-amplitude-diagram than from the pendulum. A diagram is shown to the left and the formula that lies behind is:

where n is a number (n=1,2,3,..), L is the length of the string and  ln is the wavelength of the wave. If v is the velocity of the wave along the string (v=lf) the equation may be transformed to:

where fn is the frequency of what we may call frequency lines or spectral lines. Note that those lines are much more narrow than the broad "band" around the resonance frequency from a pendulum. The point here is then that a couple of electrons also will give what we call spectral lines when they are exposed to energy of one or another sort.

A model of a oscillating electron pair

 A couple of electron oscillate with positive interference because the distance between them is l/2.

The principle for a oscillating couple of electrons is shown in the figure to the right. A light wave is coming in from left and causes the first electron to oscillate. This oscillation will result in new wave from the first electron which will propagate in all direction (360░). The part that continue in the direction toward the next electron will be in phase with the first wave that started the oscillation. The second electrons will then do the same as the first, and some of the wave from the second electron will go back toward the first electron (This wave is not drawn in the animation). In this situation where the first electron receives waves from both directions, it is essential that they are in phase, otherwise they will work against each other on the electron and force it to stop oscillating. The distance between the electrons have to be a l/2, 3l/2 and so fort to avoid that the waves from the electrons interferes negatively. This means that we from an electron pair should expect half of the spectral lines than we receive from a guitar string but the equation is in principle the same:

where n=1,2,3.. and  k is a constant if the speed of light  is a constant. This means that a couple of electrons may give spectral lines according to the same principle as we have in a guitar string if the distance between them is so big that it is possible to draw one or more wavelength between them.

Is there enough space for a half wavelength's between electron pairs?

This question address an important problem that is treated more in dept other places. Here we will just say that the electrons that are the end points for electromagnetic radiation, is surrounded by an electric field with high density, and that field will then slow down the speed of light and also make the wavelength of the electromagnetic waves much shorter. In common science books we can read that the wavelength of light is about 10-6m while the size of the atoms is about 10-10m. If we then assume that an average distance between electrons are 10-11m, it understandable that most people will conclude that there are not enough space between two electrons for standing waves which have to be minimum a half wavelength. But this conclusion is based on the assumption that the speed of light is constant (c=3e8m/s) all the way between the two electrons. If for example the size of the electrons are about 10-14m which means a 1/1000 part of the distance between two electrons, we can then show that the speed of light close to the two electrons will be so low that there really are enough space for whole wavelengths between the two electrons.

This figure shows two electrons that exchange waves. The wave fronts illustrate that the wavelength and also the speed of light will experience a radical reduction near to the electrons.

This is done in some other documents and here we will jus conclude that it is possible to get whole wavelengths of light between electrons in atomic structures.  

So long we have mentioned that electron pair that oscillate will result in small spectral lines in stead of broad bands of electromagnetic radiation as we would expect from single electrons. We have also shown that there may be enough space between electron pairs for a number of wavelengths if we assume that the speed of light varies as d▓ near to the electrons. An example of the spectral lines which may be explained by the EM-model is the spectral lines of Hydrogen which is shown in the figure below:

Here we se that ordinary white light from a light bubble is going through a prism and is there spread out in different colours. But because the white light also goes through hydrogen gas, we may experience that some of he light will be absorbed by the hydrogen gas and this will leave some dimmed or black lines on the spectrum to the right. This spectrum is then called an absorption spectrum and it is the explanation behind hose small spectral lines with a special mathematical relation which also may be explained by the EM-model. Here we will just mention that they may be explained as caused by standing waves between electrons in the same way as sound from a guitar string originates from standing waves on the string. More about his in other documents.

How do the EM-model explains temperature and heat?
In common textbooks and other places, the concept temperature is connected to the velocity of atoms or molecules. According to the EM-model, it is electrons (not atoms or molecules) that experience different forms of vibrations which also sends out heat radiation.


When the EM-model connect the temperature concept to radiation it means that it makes sense to talk about temperature also in a evacuated chamber in a normal lab. The temperature outside and inside will be the about same in this case, but if we connect temperature to the velocity of the molecules in the chamber we gets some definition problems. It means for example that it is impossible to talk about temperature if there are no molecules and if there are for example one cesium atom and one nitrogen molecule, which of them defines the temperature in the chamber? Common thermometer is based on the  principle that things expands while the temperature rise, an the animation to the right illustrate this principle. The two red spheres illustrates two positive nucleus in an atomic structure like a metal for example. Higher amplitude of the oscillating binding electrons will then result in increased size of the compound (push the buttons on the figure) and if the temperature gets too high it means that the bindings may broke down and atoms or molecules will then escape as gas particles.
(small copies that makes extra images follow the document)


Different tests from different fields inside physics have shown that the EM-model may explain all experiments and observations in a more logical way than the traditional QM-model can. The work with the EM-model have just started and there are of course a need for more studies before we can reach a definite conclusion. A problem which may stop this sort of free debate inside science, is predisposed people that believe that the QM-model is the only model that can explain nature. It is a basic idea in science that different scientific models and explanations should have an equal right to be tested with normal scientific methods by people which have time and equipment to do this sort of job, and it is therefore a hope that there exists some scientists somewhere that are able to give an open minded evaluation of the EM-model.