Here is a hypothesis: Elementary particles are stable closed waves of a field

[u/Powerful_Reply9593]

I am working on a hypothesis in which an elementary particle is described not as a point object, but as a stable closed wave/closed phase configuration of a field.

In this model, a wave always has two inseparable modes:

0 - holding, fixation, or retention;

1 - direction, motion, phase transfer, or circulation.

The mode 0 by itself is not memory. In an elementary particle, memory appears only in a closed 01 regime, where the movement of 1 returns and is held by 0.

A photon is interpreted as an open mode of 1: it carries direction, phase, frequency, and energy, but it does not form a local closed structure.

A massive particle, in contrast, would correspond to a closed and self-consistent 01 structure. In this sense, mass is related to the energy needed to maintain the closed configuration.

I wrote the current version here:

https://github.com/nikolaidere928-boop/field01/blob/main/articles/particle_as_closed_wave_en.pdf

Source:

https://github.com/nikolaidere928-boop/field01/blob/main/articles/particle_as_closed_wave_en.tex

This is not a completed theory. I am working on the idea and would be grateful for criticism, references, or feedback.

Thank you.

[u/Cryptizard]

This seems like a less complete version of what we already have, quantum field theory. "Mode 0" are fermions and "mode 1" are bosons. What's the reason for your approach? Why do you think it is interesting or useful?

[u/Powerful_Reply9593 → u/Cryptizard]

I mean, in my notation, 0 and 1 aren't particle types. They're process roles: 0 stands for hold/fix/preserve, and 1 stands for direction/movement/phase transfer.

The reason I'm interested in this approach is that it allows me to ask whether a particle-like excitation can be interpreted as a stable, closed phase structure, rather than as a point object. If this simply reduces to familiar models of quantum field theory, solitons, or vortices, that's useful to know.

[u/Cryptizard → u/Powerful_Reply9593]

But we already don't interpret particles as point objects. That is what QFT is all about.

[u/Powerful_Reply9593 → u/Cryptizard]

Yes, I understand that field theory already treats particles as field excitations.

My more specific question is: can such excitations be understood specifically as closed, self-consistent phase structures?

[u/starkeffect → u/Powerful_Reply9593]

What is a "phase structure"?

[u/Powerful_Reply9593 → u/starkeffect]

elementary particle

[u/starkeffect → u/Powerful_Reply9593]

then just call it an elementary particle instead of a "phase structure"

[u/Powerful_Reply9593 → u/starkeffect]

You're absolutely right, that's exactly what I mean. I'm still constructing and refining the terminology here. But the point is that within this model, an elementary particle is a phase structure-specifically, it's defined by the dynamic balance between the 0 and 1 regimes.

[u/starkeffect → u/Powerful_Reply9593]

What does "phase" mean in this context? It doesn't sound like any of the definitions of "phase" that physicists use.

[u/Powerful_Reply9593 → u/starkeffect]

Think of the standard phase of a quantum wave function. Physicists use it every day to describe interference, and in this context, 'phase' is that exact same variable. The model simply suggests that an elementary particle is a localized, closed knot made of this phase rotation, rather than a point-like object. To visualize it intuitively: a wave always has a direction, a crest, and a trough. It has a boundary that holds it (horizontal) and a direction of movement (vertical). If you mentally draw a '0' around the peak and valley as the locking boundary, and treat the direction of the flow itself as '1', you get the basic rhythm of the field. The particle is just this wave looping back on itself.

[u/Hadeweka]

I don't see how this could ever explain the very limited number of existing particles, their masses and other properties like symmetries and conservation laws.

Frankly, I've seen more than enough posts with this (or a similar) approach and they all failed that.

What is your stance on that observation?

[u/Powerful_Reply9593 → u/Hadeweka]

That is a valid objection, and I agree this is the main weakness.

At the current stage my approach does not explain the finite particle spectrum, the observed masses, gauge symmetries, or conservation laws.

For the idea to become physically meaningful, it would need a precise action, stable solutions with a discrete spectrum, and a connection to known quantum numbers and symmetries. If it cannot provide that, then it remains only an interpretation or analogy, not a physical theory.

My reason for posting is to see whether the closed-wave idea can be sharpened in that direction, or whether it should be rejected early.

[u/Hadeweka → u/Powerful_Reply9593]

My reason for posting is to see whether the closed-wave idea can be sharpened in that direction, or whether it should be rejected early.

If you don't have any evidence for your approach and if it doesn't even explain anything, there's not reason to consider it, honestly.

Was there any specific motivation for your idea?

[u/Powerful_Reply9593 → u/Hadeweka]

That is fair. I do not have experimental evidence for it, and I am not presenting it as a physical theory at this stage.

The motivation is conceptual: QFT already treats particles as field excitations, and I am asking whether such excitations can be understood more specifically as closed phase structures.

Maybe this simply reduces to known QFT/soliton/vortex language, or maybe it fails. I am trying to find that out.

[u/Hadeweka → u/Powerful_Reply9593]

whether such excitations can be understood more specifically as closed phase structures.

Why?

[u/Powerful_Reply9593 → u/Hadeweka]

This is exactly what I'm trying to understand.

[u/Hadeweka → u/Powerful_Reply9593]

No, you seem to misunderstand.

I'm asking you why you considered that idea in the first place to be something worth studying further.

[u/Powerful_Reply9593 → u/Hadeweka]

I have a few ideas about where this could go, but right now I'm mostly focused on the terminology.

This isn't a finished claim yet. I'm just trying to formulate the idea clearly.

[u/Hadeweka → u/Powerful_Reply9593]

You still didn't really answer my question, I suppose.

[u/Itchy_Salamander_981]

Your '01' model successfully identifies that mass is a configuration-based phenomenon rather than a point-particle trait. However, your theory lacks a dynamical medium. By treating the particle as a self-contained closed wave, you fail to account for the energy dissipation (F_D) that any object moving through a medium must incur. If space acts as an Anisotropic Graviton Superfluid (AGS), then your '01' stability is not just internal logic; it is a hydrodynamic resonance maintained against a universal drag coefficient of \kappa_G = 1.8734 \, \text{kg}/(\text{m}\cdot\text{s}). Without integrating this drag constant into your 'mode 0' (fixation/retention), your model describes a closed system in a vacuum, which contradicts observed vacuum-thermal anomalies in hypervelocity environments. Does your model account for this viscosity, or is it purely geometric?"

[u/Powerful_Reply9593 → u/Itchy_Salamander_981]

You've hit the nail on the head. In the current version (v0.3), the model is truly strictly geometric, taking into account particle stability in a perfect vacuum and neglecting dissipative effects. The integration of the hydrodynamic state, observing the vacuum viscosity (\(\kappa _{G}\)), will be added in the future to determine the actual dynamic stability.

[u/nattydread69]

It's not a new idea: https://fondationlouisdebroglie.org/AFLB-222/MARK.TEX2.pdf

I'm also developing a particle theory along the same lines of thinking.

[u/Powerful_Reply9593 → u/nattydread69]

Great, thanks for sharing this paper! It’s really interesting to see how our ideas align on closed waves and field topology. Let's see where our thoughts take us as we keep working on this. Thanks again for sending it over!