Home › About

About Geometric Wave Theory

Work in Progress — Geometric Wave Theory is an independent theoretical framework under active development. Its derivations and predictions have not been peer-reviewed or independently verified. All experimental comparisons use published data from established sources.
AI Disclosure — The individual ideas underlying GWT (elastic media, cosine potentials, Wyler’s α, Koide’s relation, etc.) are not new — they belong to the scientists credited on the References page. The author’s contribution is the synthesis: assembling these disparate results into a single unified framework, proposing that atoms are coherent standing waves (not assemblies of quarks, orbiting electrons, and neutrons), and developing the interactive models (including the atomic mass predictor). The framework was developed collaboratively with AI tools (Claude, Anthropic), which assisted with mathematical derivations, numerical verification, and website development. All experimental data are the work of the collaborations cited in References.

What Is GWT?

Geometric Wave Theory (GWT) is a unified framework for all of physics. Its central claim: the universe is an elastic three-dimensional lattice, and every particle, force, and phenomenon is a standing or traveling wave in this medium.

This is not a metaphor. The mathematical structure of wave mechanics on an elastic lattice directly produces the equations of quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, general relativity, and the Standard Model — all from pure geometry. In Planck units the framework has zero free parameters: k = η = 2/π, a = 1.

How It Differs from the Standard Model

Standard ModelGWT
Free parameters 19 (masses, couplings, angles) 0 (everything derived from geometry: k = η = 2/π)
What is a particle? Point-like excitation of a quantum field Standing wave in an elastic medium
What is space? A continuous manifold A discrete elastic lattice (spacing = Planck length)
Gravity Separate theory (GR), not unified Longitudinal lattice compression (1/3 of response)
Dark matter Unknown particle(s) Enhanced Geff in compressed regions; cross-well gravity
Dark energy Cosmological constant (unexplained) Transverse lattice restoring force (2/3 of response)
Quantum weirdness “Shut up and calculate” Classical wave mechanics — every “mystery” has a wave explanation
Predictions Post-dicts (fits parameters to data) 212 quantitative predictions, no fitting

The Framework

One Geometric Axiom

In Planck units, the entire framework reduces to:

k = η = 2/π      a = 1

2/π is the average of |sin(x)| over a full cycle — a geometric constant forced by wave mechanics. The lattice stiffness equals its inertial response (impedance-matched), and the spacing defines the unit of length. Zero free parameters.

In SI Units

The same axiom expressed in physical units gives three mechanical constants:

  • k = 4.77×1078 N/m — lattice stiffness (spring constant per bond)
  • a = 1.616×10−35 m — lattice spacing (Planck length)
  • η = 1.385×10−8 kg — inertial response

One Derived Integer

Nc = 3 — any oscillator has exactly three states (+, 0, −). This gives three spatial dimensions, three quark colors, three particle generations, and the Koide ratio 2/3.

What Follows

From geometry alone:

  • Speed of light, Planck's constant, gravitational constant
  • Fine structure constant α = 1/137.042
  • All particle masses (electron through top quark)
  • All coupling constants and mixing angles
  • Proton radius, nuclear force parameters
  • Hubble constant, dark energy fraction, MOND acceleration
  • CMB acoustic peaks, neutrino mass splittings
  • Black hole thermodynamics, Casimir force, charge quantization
  • And 100+ more — see the full prediction table

The Statistical Case

The framework produces ~212 quantitative predictions from ~4 input numbers (~80 bits of information). The output exceeds 300 bits. Information cannot be fabricated from nothing — the excess comes from real physical structure.

If just 40 of the 212 predictions each had a 5% chance of coincidental agreement:

P(all coincidence) = (0.05)40 ≈ 10−54

That's less probable than picking a specific atom from all atoms in the universe — twice. The actual probability (using all 212 predictions) is < 10−146.

Why a Website?

Physics has a gatekeeping problem. Peer review is essential for quality — but it shouldn't prevent ideas from being seen. This website presents GWT openly so anyone can evaluate the math, check the predictions, and form their own conclusion.

Every derivation is shown. Every prediction is compared to experiment. The interactive tools let you verify the calculations yourself. The framework either works or it doesn't — the numbers speak for themselves.

Disclaimer

This framework is presented for examination, not as established science. The author is not a physicist. Every derivation and prediction is shown openly so that qualified experts can verify, challenge, or refute them.

Some derivations may contain errors. Some predictions may turn out to be coincidences. The author welcomes corrections and is committed to fixing mistakes publicly rather than defending them.

If the math is wrong, show where. If it's right, help make it better. That's all this website asks.

Author

ORCID: 0009-0009-5872-9076

Questions, corrections, or collaboration inquiries are welcome. Join the Discussion Forum or open an issue on the GitHub repository.