If I may be allowed to interject a few thoughts here, I would like to consider the aspect of the wave.

**For a long time, I have had trouble understanding the character of charge, but after reviewing the forgoing commentary, I think the concept has taken root in my imagination. Now that the essence of charge has become somewhat understandable to me, I would like to proceed on to the obvious.** (1)

**How can we developement a reality based understanding of the wave? We know that the wave can not be discribed as a collection of infinitely small particles moving like water on the ocean surface. So what exactly is the electromagnetic wave? ** (2)

**We know that the photon wave can, when disturbed from it's preferred path, give rise to the charged particle.**** (3)**

**From seemly empty space, the wave transforms itself into 'Localized orbital energy flux' we call matter. This wave, apparently made of nothing but the organized perturbation of space, suddenly becomes localized into an object with radial momentum and mass. ** (4)

How do we realistically define the electromagnetic wave?

(1) I'll take that as a compliment.

Thanks.

(2) - An elctromagnetic wave, is really a photon in a quantum wave function.It spreads out over space in many possible locations, but only in a virtual sense. If that's what you meant?

(3) - Only theoretically. This is verns hypothesis, and i'm just attempting to make a mahematical model to help describe it. It's by no means universally-accepted though

..

.... unfortunately

(4) - Absolutely. There From seemly empty space, the wave transforms itself into 'Localized orbital energy flux' we call matter. This wave, apparently made of nothing but the

organized perturbation of space, suddenly becomes localized into an object with radial momentum and mass

Certainly, there is a local phenomena going on. The instrinsic change (or flux) from energy to matter seems to be an instrinsic internal change, but that

doesn't exclude the presence of a gravitational force field that can act as a mechanism for such a flux. It's always been a pet theory of mine to

not accept Higgs Mechanism, but resort to an easier approach using the gravitational field but vern made me realize that in many ways that mechanism was too

magically-inhanced by imaginary terms of course, just because the gravitational fields mechanism was a certain degree of energy did not suggest a reason to

why such a flux would usually happen. I decided it required verns hypothesis that curvature for photons implied a presence of a charge, both of graviational form

and of EM-form... but what i do not agree with is that the charge is constant - meaning constant in the sense it is present all the time, whether it changes

in quantity over time or not. I prefer the contention that charge only appears when there is an acting strong gravitational field associated to the photons

movement in a curved distorted spacetime warp; then as soon as it breaks free,

*that is* if it breaks free, the charge will dissipate, meaning that gravitons

so not couple to the instrinsic properties of a photon when not in a curved geodesic.

This means that the two main equation i have presented:

|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i∫d^4 x(½[ξε_0(=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ]+½[ξε_g(=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ]) ;a

and

|(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>|=∫-▼²φ²(ћ(c/G))_g β²t²^(e^i∫d^4 x(½[μ_0(=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ]+½[μ_g(=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ]) ;b

Are two equations with two different charge solutions. Vern's hypothetical neutral decription of photon charge in a respective gravitational field and its associated

charge, and one which solves for the charge-related to the permittivity which is non-nuetral, in fact, its positive.. to attain the negative, just simply remove the

supercomplex coefficient; it's irrational as an equation however, that is equation (a;) to be non-positively attracted, since it would eliminate the connectivity of

both the electromagnetic and gravitational field interactions. Instead of terms:(½[ξε_0(=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ]) and (½[ξε_g(=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ]) being

added they would instead be subtracted, eliminating the Langrangian relation and also the vibrational pattern in |(∫F_g vt)²_<A_k²>| where F²_g v²t² is not a gravitational

energy and the expectancy or strength of expectancy of A=(e^i∫d^4 x(½[μ_0(=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ-=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ]-½[μ_g(=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ*-=-∂t(ψ)+▼²ψ]) is no longer valid unless its seen

as an oscillatory system, which still accounts to nothing in the end of any integration.

(5) - How do we realistically define the electromagnetic wave?

Well, my own personal view...

I'd say its the most primal form of information which has had one of the largest impacts in the construction of the universe. But it's still a particle afterall