[General] Support for Zitterbewegung

[Chip Akins]

Hi John M

It occurs to me that when I look at the similarities in your electron model and the models proposed by Williamson/van der Mark, Vivian, and mine, and combine some of the concepts into a single model, we may come up with a description of how the “standing waves” concept bares some similarities to the circulating photon concept. It is my opinion that the electron is not made up of standing waves in the normal sense of the term, but of a circular or toroidal shaped circulating field structure, but the results may be similar. If the transport radius of the field structure is at approximately then the RMS radius for the fields could be approximately.

For me it is easier to grasp how the circulating field model may be confined to become the electron, because the confinement for radial or transverse standing waves implies a barrier condition similar to a reflection, and this seems a bit more difficult to justify.

I do not yet fully understand how you propose the standing waves are confined??

 

Chip

 

 

From: General [mailto:general-bounces+chipakins=gmail.com at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org] On Behalf Of John Macken
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 6:00 PM
To: Nature of Light and Particles
Subject: [General] Support for Zitterbewegung

 

Hello Everyone,

 

Most people in this group would feel more comfortable if I explained my ideas using terms like “zitterbewegung” and quoting Dirac.  OK, here goes.  I can prove that an electron has a vibration that you are welcome to call “zitterbewegung”.  In my model there is no particle going through a trembling motion, but I agree that there is a pulsation so we can move on.  If there is zitterbewegung then there should be some waves in the surrounding volume of space.  If no power is being radiated, then the electron must achieve standing waves.  If these standing waves exist, then they should reveal themselves by causing a disturbance that we would call a “field”.  The obvious answer is: an electric/magnetic field and a gravitational field. If these fields are caused by “zitterbewegung” disturbances, then we should find some evidence connecting the electron’s electrostatic force and its gravitational force to the wavelength of the zitterbewegung standing waves.  

 

What is the wavelength of the zitterbewegung waves?  Depending on who you listen to, it is either ħ/mc or ħ/2mc.  OK, a factor of 2 difference can be tolerated.  When the rest of the world does not believe in zitterbewegung waves, we should consider models which differ by only a factor of 2 as being the equivalent of first cousins.  So where is the proof that these waves exist?  In the email that I wrote on Sunday, April 12, I made the case that the electrostatic force and the gravitational force are connected.  So far there has been no comments on this, but it should be of great interest to this group.  I am not going to modify some of the points using different emphasis.  The conclusion will be that when the separation distance between two particles is expressed as the number of reduced Compton wavelengths λc = ħ/mc, then wonderful things happen.  I consider this to be the electron’s radius, but you are welcome to define this as the electron’s diameter, so we can proceed. Suppose that we start with the simplest case.  We are going to compare the electrostatic force Fe of two electrons (charge e) to the gravitational force Fg when the two electrons are separated by a distance of λc ≈3.8616x10-13 m. This is chosen because N = 1 at this distance. We will also be using Planck force Fp = c4/G and α, the fine structure constant.  So how do these forces compare at this distance?    



 

It is easy to do a numerical example since we are dealing with a specific separation distance of 3.8616x10-13 m.  At this distance we have: 

 

Fg = 3.713x10-46 N,   

Fe = 1.547x10-3 N      therefore      Feα-1 = 0.21201 N and

Fp = 1.2105x1044 N  

 

To test the above equation, we will calculate the ratios.

 

   N

  N

 

This equality is exact, but I did not incorporate enough accuracy to achieve perfect agreement to 5 significant figures.  There is another way to think of this.  Suppose we place the vastly different forces on a log scale of force.  At one end of this log scale we place the largest possible force, Planck force.  At the other end we place the weakest force between two electrons at a separation distance of λc.  This weakest force is the gravitational force.  Then at the exact midpoint between these forces we have the electrostatic force between two electrons times α-1 ≈ 137.036.  Remember, that this simplicity happens only when the separation equals λc, the electron’s radius or diameter, depending on your model.  

 

If we had used Planck charge rather than charge e, then we would have a coupling constant of 1 and α-1 disappears.  Suppose that we go to arbitrary separation.  Since both the gravitational force and the electrostatic force are caused by the standing zitterbewegung waves, we still need to express the separation distance as the number N of reduced Compton wavelengths N = r/λc. then this equation becomes: 

  
   


There is another set of equations which show that the only difference between the gravitational force and the electrostatic force is that wave amplitude is squared in the gravitational force equation and not squared in the electrostatic equation.  These equations were predicted by my wave-based analysis.  However, the previous equations are independent of the model that first generated them.  Therefore you are welcome to use them to support the contention that an electron is a confined photon possessing zitterbewegung that affects the forces generated by an electron.

 

On another subject, John D. sent out an email earlier today disputing some of my ideas.  I will respond to that at a later date, but now I am trying to prove that I share a common ground with the rest of the group.

 

John M.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150416/befcc2ef/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 510 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150416/befcc2ef/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 374 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150416/befcc2ef/attachment-0007.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 893 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150416/befcc2ef/attachment-0008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1087 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150416/befcc2ef/attachment-0009.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 1115 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150416/befcc2ef/attachment-0010.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 883 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150416/befcc2ef/attachment-0011.png>