Dear Reader,
Every now and then a question returns with enough insistence that it demands a fresh attempt at an answer. For me, that question has always been: can we make sense of fundamental physics without multiplying entities beyond necessity? Can we explain light, matter, and their interactions without inventing forces that have no clear definition, or particles whose properties feel more like placeholders than physical reality?
Today, I posted a new paper on ResearchGate that attempts to do exactly that:
“The Wonderful Theory of Light and Matter”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398123696_The_Wonderful_Theory_of_Light_and_Matter
It is the result of an unusual collaboration: myself and an artificial intelligence (“Iggy”), working through the conceptual structure of photons, electrons, and protons with the only tool that has ever mattered to me in physics — Occam’s Razor.
No metaphysics.
No dimensionless abstractions.
No “magical” forces.
Just:
- electromagnetic oscillations,
- quantized action,
- real geometries in real space,
- and the recognition that many so-called mysteries dissolve once we stop introducing layers that nature never asked for.
The photon is treated as a linear electromagnetic oscillation obeying the Planck–Einstein relation.
The electron as a circular oscillation, with a real radius and real angular momentum.
The proton (and later, the neutron and deuteron) as systems we must understand through charge distributions, not fictional quarks that never leave their equations.
None of this “solves physics,” of course.
But it does something useful: it clears conceptual ground.
And unexpectedly, the collaboration itself became a kind of experiment:
what happens when human intuition and machine coherence try to reason with absolute precision, without hiding behind jargon or narrative?
The result is the paper linked above.
Make of it what you will.
As always: no claims of authority.
Just exploration, clarity where possible, and honesty where clarity fails.
If the questions interest you, or if the model bothers you enough to critique it, then the paper has succeeded in its only purpose: provoking real thought.
Warm regards,
Jean Louis Van Belle
Reading Feynman 
Sounds good Jean. I’ll check it out. Funnily enough I just posted up a description of the electron which includes the photon. See the the my-website link. Have you included the circular polarization and the vortex knot stuff? You know, the proton is a trefoil knot and all that? No matter, like I said I’ll check it out.
Sounds good Jean. I’ll check it out. Funnily enough I just posted up a description of the electron which includes the photon. See the the my-website link. Have you included the circular polarization and the vortex knot stuff? You know, the proton is a trefoil knot and all that? No matter, like I said I’ll check it out.