Do you mean that everything is EM waves? If so, I agree. We know that photons are EM waves. Electrons can absorb or emit a photon, so it is not a very big stretch to imagine that electrons are also made of EM waves. But unlike a photon, a electron is a standing wave. It then follows that an electron can't move faster than (or as fast as) light. This is because it is made of the same stuff that light is made of, EM waves. Modern science talks a lot about particles, especially particles that represent forces and interactions between other particles. But would it not be much simpler to view everything as waves? That everything is made up of the same kind of waves. All these funny intermediate short-lived particles are just transient wave patterns. I think it is possible to simulate these waves and their interactions on a computer once the correct math is found. I further think that these waves are waves in space. It is space itself that waves. The waves are distortions in space, contractions and expansions. An area of space that is distorted represents a concentration energy. This distortion influences other waves passing through the area. An example could be that light is bent around a massive star.
or how about the electron is a portion (neg charge) of the occillation (wave), hence usable and manageable? then the argument: is a hot piece of iron, moving or resonating with 'heat' (em) upon that mass? the argument comes in that 'well, the photon is not stopped, it is moving at 'c' upon that electron'............ How many arguments can you see within that ideology? (ie... conflicts) i dont do the particle game. There is no 'speed' of a particle to ascertain and that is the error of the physics. and the 'fields' (electric and magnetic) of that 'energy' (em) ie... what is the particle of a magnetic feild? (there aint one) Or, the feilds are the energy state and the detection as considered the 'particle' is when mass (an atom/molecule) within that field reaches a threashold it emits a portion of itself (like a wave crest) of one side of the charge and that is considered a 'particle' (photo electric effect) but i dont see mass under a H atom as a unit singular. ie.... an electron of one battery cannot be used for the proton of another, arbitrarily unless in a serier/parrellel to the source (circuit) So electrons are not separate entities that uniformly can be transferred to mass, unless a cycle (circuit) is involved. For example; the sun fires ionized mass all throughout the solar system, if that ionazed mass is captured by a molecular structure on pluto, there is an entanglement between the 2 bodies until that charge recombines milo wolff has a model you can use for a simulation. google him up i sat in his house on thanksgiving of 06 and he shared his math and the computer simulation of the occilation of the atom (electron proton) on his home system. you are thinking and i like it. for example; that bending of the light for the eddington experiment is just the light of the distant star bending thru the corona (heat/fields) of our sun and when the moon covered the sun (eclipse) you can see the stars behind the sun. You hit it on the head and now can represent the eddington experiment with a greater accuracy (go get your nobel).
