[General] Support for Zitterbewegung

Thu Apr 16 19:33:41 PDT 2015

Dear John M,

See comment below.

On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 4:29 AM, John Macken <john at macken.com> wrote:

> 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 had made a comment agreeing with this point. (I may not have emailed it
yet, I am perpetually behind.) For several years, I have believed that
gravity is a 'residue' of EM interaction. You model gave it a specific form
that made good sense, since this term is a square and will therefore always
give an attractive potential regardless of charge type.

I agree that it should be of interest to the group. It addresses the nature
of the distortions of space, which concept is critical to both the nature
of a photon and its interactions.

> 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 *λ*c = 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 *F*e of two electrons (charge* e*) to the
> gravitational force *F*g when the two electrons are separated by a
> distance of *λ*c ≈3.8616x10-13 m. This is chosen because N = 1 at this
> distance. We will also be using Planck force *F*p = 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 *λ*c.  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 *λ*c, the electron’s radius or diameter, depending on your model.
>

If lepton spin is exactly aligned, then, when the separation equals *λ*c,
the spin-spin coupling force is equal in magnitude to the electrostatic
force between them. However, the S-S coupling grows faster with reduction
of separation. Is such alignment possible at that distance in a 'free'
system? Have you considered this in any of your calculations? Does anyone
know of any good references on the spin-spin coupling between leptons in
this regime or below?

Andrew

>
>
> 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/*λ*c. 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.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="
> http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
> ">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150417/6b0321d5/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1098 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150417/6b0321d5/attachment-0004.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image010.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1382 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150417/6b0321d5/attachment-0005.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image011.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1026 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150417/6b0321d5/attachment-0006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1338 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150417/6b0321d5/attachment-0007.png>