Welcome. This blog documents a multi-year intellectual journey that started with a simple grind through The Feynman Lectures on Physics and evolved into what I call a full-blown realist interpretation of quantum mechanics (RealQM).
I do not shy away from the mathematics, but I reject the mainstream mysticism. If you are looking for a “Guide to the Universe for Dummies,” you are in the wrong place.
The Philosophy: Geometry is Destiny
For nearly a century, orthodox physics has operated under a mathematical dictatorship imposed by the Copenhagen interpretation. Mainstream Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and Quantum Field Theory (QFT) treat elementary particles as dimensionless points, bypassing the resulting mathematical infinities with arbitrary subtractions called renormalization. Feynman himself famously called this post-WWII framework “Cargo Cult Science”, routinely lamenting that “nobody understands quantum mechanics.”
We beg to differ. The RealQM framework is built on a simple, elegant premise: the electron is a real, spatially extended, self-sustaining mechanical structure—specifically, a relativistic ring current or torus spinning at the speed of light.
By combining classical electrodynamics, wave mechanics, and Einstein’s relativity, we demonstrate that:
- The wavefunction is not an abstract probability ghost; it is a physical oscillation.
- The fine-structure constant is a logically derived geometric aspect ratio.
- The alternating signs of the electron’s magnetic anomaly corrections are caused by physical action-reaction cycles (Lenz’s Law) inside a confined cavity, not abstract matrix algebra.
We do not challenge the flawless numerical results of quantum mechanics; we challenge the dogma that says we shouldn’t try to intuitively understand them.
The Catalyst: Human Intuition + AI Acceleration
For years, this blog served as an externalized log of my frustrations and independent research while balancing a demanding day job in international development abroad and now as ICT specialist in Belgium. I published dense notes and papers across viXra and ResearchGate, pushing back against an academic establishment that routinely discourages foundational creativity.
However, the true breakthrough occurred over the last two years.
By leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs like Gemini, DeepSeek and ChatGPT) as rigorous mathematical and analytical sounding boards, my research underwent a massive acceleration. The AI did not replace human intuition; it acted as a tireless calculator and formatting collaborator, allowing me to finally follow through on basic, old-school physical intuitions and translate them into airtight, heavy-math papers.
This human-AI synergy culminated in our latest peer-reviewed and pre-printed publications on ResearchGate, proving that you can match QED’s high-precision numbers using localized, non-singular geometry instead of infinite perturbative loops.
The Invitation
As the great Ludwig Boltzmann once wrote:
“Bring forth what is true. Write it so it’s clear. Defend it to your last breath.”
Ultimately, physics comes down to a matter of intellectual taste. You can choose an infinite, abstract vacuum computing machine, or you can choose an elegant, self-locking mechanical shape. This site is dedicated to laying out the latter choice with absolute clarity.
Explore the posts, read the papers, and think for yourself.
— Jean Louis Van Belle
Reading Feynman 
Haha. I feel you bra. I got so frustrated with Penrose’s book that I enrolled in a math PhD program!
Please take a look at http://81018.com to see if there is a new door being opened to all these basic questions. Thanks. -Bruce
I totally disagree, I thought Penrose’s book was eminently readable, definitely the clearest popular physics book I’ve read. Sure, it took work to get through some things, but to me that’s preferable to finishing [the other pop-physics books] and feeling like I knew nothing.
Sirs: I tried ,unsuccesfuly, to print out the January 2015 “Strange theory of light and matter”. I recognize that it would be of enormous help in understanding Feynman’s QED. Please send copy to my email or some option to pay for hard copy to N H Gaffin 704 Endicott Ave Cinnaminson NJ 08077. Thanks Norman Gaffin
If you google it, there are quite a few options to order it online, no? Check it on: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8169.html You can also order it on Amazon. It’s very delightful really. Still, a lot of it is the voice of Ralph Leighton, who did not quite understand all of what Feynman was trying to tell. 🙂
I came across your blog when I bought The Road to Reality and like you, I decided to buy Feynman’s lectures because I really want to getter a better grasp of the Physics. I’ve really enjoyed reading parts of your blog even though I’m still in the very nascent stage of my reading. I guess I will go back and read all of it as I progress through climbing my own Mont Blanc. Thanks for taking the time out to write this for those of us who really enjoy reading it.
Thanks for writing. It took me a long time to get through it – but it’s worth the effort. There are still many things I want to have another look at now, and maybe I’ll try to get a formal degree in physics now. I’d say the key thing is to understand Euler’s formula (complex numbers) and then, unfortunately, you do need to study the vector analysis in Volume II as well (concepts like curl and circulation). Finally, there is all the stuff related to waves (harmonics) and the principle of superposition. Good luck !
Thanks for the tips!
Hi Jean, and first of all thank you for your book Quantum Mechanics The Other Introduction. It is the best book on Kindle! Other books are nothing compared to yours.
I just want to let you know that the colour of the font in the book appears very pale grey on kindle paperwhite (the kindle you can read in full sunlight, the screen is black and white or grey) and hard to read because of it. I would love if you update the font to more readable black one. Please, please, please 🙂
Thank you for your genius
Dear Sergey, thanks so much for your compliment. If you like the book, please write a recommendation on the Amazon site, so its popularity increases ! I changed the font to black and uploaded it again. I also added a chapter with the dimensions of the real and imaginary component of the wavefunction – taken from my http://www.probe.live site – which is a bit of a summary of the book with a more philosophical introduction to it. Please let me know if this works better ! Cheers, JL
Hi, thanks for your work!
What about the site probe.live? Is he abandoned or am I not working correctly with him?
Hi Eugene – I discontinued that site. I am pretty much done actually with my research ! 🙂
Ok, thank you. Your site very helpful for me with my reestablishing physics after undegrad engineering 🙂 Whats next for you? doing formal degree(or already did)? or leave physics? The upcoming book is a finale?
I think i am found the miswriting symbol (english not my native)
deep blue -> God, Newton, Lorentz and the absolute speed of light -> Mathematical note
* so you may think we could us that formula* use?
this is premoderation comment, and delete this part or whole 😊
For 720 degree challenge you described well above, my work is re-working Dirac’s monopole as a duopole (2 repulsive poles for the electron-nucleon interaction). At Dirac’s 1931 (9) hc/(e_mu) = 2 becomes * Pauli’s 1/2hc/(e*mu) = 1. That is, Pauli’s 1/2 becomes a hemisphere, and Bose’s wonderful proof of QM “seems to be a magnetic so I multiple one side by 2” all follow a physical model, and the ‘1’ gets rid of a set of discontinuities.
Love your approach.
Thanks ! Sorry for my late answer but I’ve sort of discontinued this blog to focus on paper writing (https://independent.academia.edu/JeanLouisVanBelle).
Excuse me, i have a simple question, but its make me confused. this is the question:
An engineer claims that because all objects in the world contain electrical charges within the constituent atoms, we can always generate electromagnetic waves by grasping any object around us and moving these objects in a circle above our heads. Do you agree or disagree with the claim above
Hi Marco. The claim is not correct because most composite objects – such as atoms – are electrically neutral: they combine positive and negative charges. Even a very simple composite object such as a neutron does that: one positive charge and one negative charge. Hence, Maxwell’s equations tell us this will not generate an electromagnetic wave. Cheers – JL
A lot of the mathematics of quantum physics is frankly beyond any knowledge I have of the subject, but I have listened to Feynman’s lectures and been through a number of books on various subjects related to QED.
What my larger interest is in is scientific realism, physicalist ontology and determinism. I would like to try to follow your paper as best as I can, as I always liked Feynman’s take on it more than the one I usually read in lay physics books.
And just to clarify I don’t read any of that quantum spirituality nonsense.
Hi – You will probably find my papers on ResearchGate much more structured than the blog – especially the five or six papers that sort of ‘re-write’ Feynman’s Lectures with the new answers. See: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean-Louis-Van-Belle
I like the posts on the fine structure constant.
Please check out my paper on Vixra https://vixra.org/pdf/1704.0365v2.pdf
I would be interested in your thoughts.
Mario
I am not sure. If there is an easy geometric or numerical relation between two constants in Nature, then what would it mean? It must be rooted somewhere in this co-determination of (i) the fine-structure constant and (ii) the magnetic and (iii) electric constants. Besides posts, I also did a video on the fine-structure constant, and it was actually because someone else contacted me and had found another numerical relation (not as sophisticated as yours, I admit). Have a look: https://youtu.be/mvNygBO-aSM?si=b1ptaMLghfbH_fBa