If you have an idea for a blog post or a new forum thread, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org, with a summary of the topic and its source (e.g., an academic paper, conference talk, external blog post or news item).

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

**It From Bit or Bit From It**

*March 25 - June 28, 2013*

*Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Questioning the Foundations**

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

*May 24 - August 31, 2012*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**Is Reality Digital or Analog?**

*November 2010 - February 2011*

*Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American*

read/discuss • winners

**What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?**

*May - October 2009*

*Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams*

read/discuss • winners

**The Nature of Time**

*August - December 2008*

read/discuss • winners

Current Essay Contest

Previous Contests

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

*Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.*

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

**Peter McNeall**: *on* 4/16/13 at 22:38pm UTC, wrote If the channeling experiment is confirmed this proves the neorealist...

**Russ Otter**: *on* 11/15/11 at 21:51pm UTC, wrote Connections The binding of existence This is a story, built upon...

**Sherman Jenkins**: *on* 1/1/09 at 17:55pm UTC, wrote You have my vote.

**Anonymous**: *on* 12/30/08 at 18:11pm UTC, wrote Mark Stuckey wrote, in part: "3) The picture seems very classical, much...

**Narendra Nath**: *on* 12/30/08 at 4:51am UTC, wrote The necessity of repeatation of such an experiment is much needed as...

**Yuri Rylov**: *on* 12/20/08 at 10:12am UTC, wrote Dear prof. Hestenes, I liked your essay. It is very important, that the...

**T H Ray**: *on* 12/18/08 at 14:21pm UTC, wrote David, You summed up, "Perhaps gravitational torsion due to spin, like...

**Narendra nath**: *on* 12/18/08 at 7:46am UTC, wrote My post of Dec.,07 remains unresponded. The reliability of your innovative...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

**Steve Agnew**: "The rabbit you pulled was dodging the black hole with an AGN, which of..."
*in* Why Quantum?

**Peter Jackson**: "Steve, Suggesting AGN's are rabbits from hats to astronomers is like..."
*in* Why Quantum?

**Akinbo Ojo**: "Witty exchanges!"
*in* Ripping Apart Einstein

**Georgina Parry**: "Shakira "Hips don't lie!" Really Tom, wouldn't the sensual belly dancing be..."
*in* Ripping Apart Einstein

**Domenico Oricchio**: "I am thinking that if there was a Big Bang, then there was many Big Bangs..."
*in* Hanny's Voorwerp, and...

**Steve Agnew**: "I get a kick out of these sorts of discoveries...dark matter is a patch for..."
*in* The Quasar Cluster that...

**Peter Jackson**: "John, That's as predicted by the 'kinetic decoupling' model in the..."
*in* The Quasar Cluster that...

**Thomas Ray**: ""'science is a wholly rationalist enterprise.' But human affairs are not." ..."
*in* “Utopia or Dystopia”

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**Heart of Darkness**

An intrepid physicist attempts to climb into the core of black hole.

**Why Quantum?**

Entropy could explain why nature chose to play by quantum rules.

**Reality's NeverEnding Story**

A quantum version of Darwinian natural selection could enable the universe to write itself into being.

**The Quantum Dictionary**

Mark Van Raamsdonk is re-writing how we define the shape of our universe. Can such translations help to unite quantum theory and gravity?

** Q&A with Paul Davies: What is Time?**

Where does time come from? Why does it seem to flow?

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

An intrepid physicist attempts to climb into the core of black hole.

Entropy could explain why nature chose to play by quantum rules.

A quantum version of Darwinian natural selection could enable the universe to write itself into being.

Mark Van Raamsdonk is re-writing how we define the shape of our universe. Can such translations help to unite quantum theory and gravity?

Where does time come from? Why does it seem to flow?

FQXi FORUM

July 23, 2014

CATEGORY:
The Nature of Time Essay Contest
[back]

TOPIC: Electron time, mass and zitter by David Hestenes [refresh]

TOPIC: Electron time, mass and zitter by David Hestenes [refresh]

de Broglie’s original idea that the electron has an internal clock has recently received experimental confirmation by measuring the period of the clock in an electron channeling experiment. This result has been explained by a new model of the electron, called the zitter model because it incorporates Schroedinger’s qualitative zitterbewegung concept into a fully specified interacting particle model. The zitter electron is a lightlike charged particle with intrinsic spin that maintains it in a helical spacetime path, with curvature and frequency determined by the electron mass. Thus, electron mass is fully reduced to clock frequency in electron motion. This essay discusses details of the model and its implications.

David Hestenes is Emeritus Professor of Physics at Arizona State University, APS Fellow, Overseas Fellow of Churchill College, Cambridge. Formerly UCLA University Fellow, NSF Postdoctoral Fellow, NASA Faculty Fellow and Senior Fulbright Fellow. His main line of research is development and application of Geometric Algebra as a unified mathematical language for physics. In recognition of this work he was designated Foundations of Physics Honoree in 1993. For contributions to physics education he was awarded the 2002 Oersted Medal by the AAPT and the 2003 Education Research Award by the National Council of Scientific Society Presidents.

Hi David,

Let me be the first to congratulate you on your essay. I was so surprised and delighted to see you name on one of the entries for today. I’ve skimmed the essay, but have followed your work for years.

With this fortuitous breakthrough, your physical ideas should get much more attention, accelerating the acceptance of your great mathematical accomplishments. I hope so.

Just out of curiosity, what implications, if any, do you think this has for the relevancy of Planck units, and theoretical views stemming therefrom?

Let me be the first to congratulate you on your essay. I was so surprised and delighted to see you name on one of the entries for today. I’ve skimmed the essay, but have followed your work for years.

With this fortuitous breakthrough, your physical ideas should get much more attention, accelerating the acceptance of your great mathematical accomplishments. I hope so.

Just out of curiosity, what implications, if any, do you think this has for the relevancy of Planck units, and theoretical views stemming therefrom?

Dear Dr. Hestenes,

Thank you for the good news you bring to us in this essay, about the electron’s “inner clock”. During the time, I devoured your articles and books on Geometric Algebra, with their applications to Physics, including the zitterbewegung interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. But it is only now when I hear about this major experimental confirmation. I was really impressed by the insights and the history presented here. I am happy for this major point earned by a point-like model of the electron, although I myself am pursuing a rather complementary (but not opposed) viewpoint in QM.

Congratulations for your work,

Cristi Stoica

“Flowing with a Frozen River”,

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/322

Thank you for the good news you bring to us in this essay, about the electron’s “inner clock”. During the time, I devoured your articles and books on Geometric Algebra, with their applications to Physics, including the zitterbewegung interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. But it is only now when I hear about this major experimental confirmation. I was really impressed by the insights and the history presented here. I am happy for this major point earned by a point-like model of the electron, although I myself am pursuing a rather complementary (but not opposed) viewpoint in QM.

Congratulations for your work,

Cristi Stoica

“Flowing with a Frozen River”,

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/322

Dear Dr. Hestenes,

Unlike many other pointless philosophical writings about the concept of time presented here, your essay seems to be about real physics and is very concrete. I like it and I am sorry that I didn't know about your works before (thanks for putting references to your papers). Of course, the idea about charges circling inside the electron is not new, but I see that you are trying to develop this idea into a real theory. Although the structure your are exploring is oversimplified comparing to what it actually might be, I am pretty sure that you are on the right track. Congratulations!

Vladimir Yershov

report post as inappropriate

Unlike many other pointless philosophical writings about the concept of time presented here, your essay seems to be about real physics and is very concrete. I like it and I am sorry that I didn't know about your works before (thanks for putting references to your papers). Of course, the idea about charges circling inside the electron is not new, but I see that you are trying to develop this idea into a real theory. Although the structure your are exploring is oversimplified comparing to what it actually might be, I am pretty sure that you are on the right track. Congratulations!

Vladimir Yershov

report post as inappropriate

I had no trouble downloading and reading the paper. It mentions Gauge Theory Gravity, which is somewhat unique in that it gives results identical to general relativity but constructed on a flat or Minkowski background space and so avoids topological stuff like worm holes etc.

One has to admit that a flat background space for gravity is an invitation to write a quantum field theory for it, and a cosmology to go along. The stuff that the Cambridge geometry group has done along this line is compatible with Big Bang theory. However, one wonders if it is possible to rewrite cosmology on a flat space as well.

To get a big bang effect on flat space, one has to assume that the clock of an observer increases its rate steadily over time. Early on, his clock runs very slowly so the universe appears very hot and small. This change in clock time corresponds to the ZBW frequency of Dr. Hestenes' paper. To get the right cosmological consequences, one must suppose that the zbw frequency is proportional to how far into the universe he can look backwards (to its beginning).

report post as inappropriate

One has to admit that a flat background space for gravity is an invitation to write a quantum field theory for it, and a cosmology to go along. The stuff that the Cambridge geometry group has done along this line is compatible with Big Bang theory. However, one wonders if it is possible to rewrite cosmology on a flat space as well.

To get a big bang effect on flat space, one has to assume that the clock of an observer increases its rate steadily over time. Early on, his clock runs very slowly so the universe appears very hot and small. This change in clock time corresponds to the ZBW frequency of Dr. Hestenes' paper. To get the right cosmological consequences, one must suppose that the zbw frequency is proportional to how far into the universe he can look backwards (to its beginning).

report post as inappropriate

I also greatly enjoyed this essay and was completely unaware of this interesting experiment. I look forward to such an analysis for other particle clocks. Maybe the GSI anomaly?

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Prof. Hestenes, I've been following your work with interest since I read your book "Space-time Algebra" years ago, so I'm surprised and delighted to read your essay here. I'm especially delighted since the Gouanère experiment you mentioned seems to corroborate my own long-standing suspicion of an elementary process underlying the fermion mass. Though our models differ in details (mine is nowhere as refined as yours), I do salute you for your fine essay and for bringing to light an interesting experiment.

P.S. there's a typo for reference 3 at the end of the paper. Here's the correct link for those who may have trouble looking it up in arXiv:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2728

report post as inappropriate

P.S. there's a typo for reference 3 at the end of the paper. Here's the correct link for those who may have trouble looking it up in arXiv:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2728

report post as inappropriate

Hi Dr Hestenes,

I have been reading thermophysics literture:

SV Alekseenko, PA Kuibin, VL Okulov,

Theory of Concentrated Vortices: An Introduction.

These authors discuss Beltrami flows ~ helical motion, which seems related to Zitterbewegung. In fluids speeds are slow relative to distance, while in Zitterwebegung, speeds are realtivistic at quantum distances.

Could time also be a Beltrami flow?

report post as inappropriate

I have been reading thermophysics literture:

SV Alekseenko, PA Kuibin, VL Okulov,

Theory of Concentrated Vortices: An Introduction.

These authors discuss Beltrami flows ~ helical motion, which seems related to Zitterbewegung. In fluids speeds are slow relative to distance, while in Zitterwebegung, speeds are realtivistic at quantum distances.

Could time also be a Beltrami flow?

report post as inappropriate

I really aprreciated the novelty of this contribution.

The only source of misunderstanding is the interpretation of the "electron intrinsic time" as something real. As stated at a certain point, such parameter relates the spin and phase of the electron with space variable. The only speakable consequence is that space and spin/phase are related, but nothing can be said about the parameter time, especially its connection with clock time of macroscopic objects.

It is a convenient view to call such parameter time, but it is possible only by supposing that one knows what is frequency, which is a time dependent concept (uses "period").

John

report post as inappropriate

The only source of misunderstanding is the interpretation of the "electron intrinsic time" as something real. As stated at a certain point, such parameter relates the spin and phase of the electron with space variable. The only speakable consequence is that space and spin/phase are related, but nothing can be said about the parameter time, especially its connection with clock time of macroscopic objects.

It is a convenient view to call such parameter time, but it is possible only by supposing that one knows what is frequency, which is a time dependent concept (uses "period").

John

report post as inappropriate

Dear Dr. Hestenes,

Did you read the book "Schroedinger - Life and Thought"?

It contains an erotic poem by Schroedinger: Zittern.

My factual criticism of Schroedinger can be found in

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/369.

Regards,

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

Did you read the book "Schroedinger - Life and Thought"?

It contains an erotic poem by Schroedinger: Zittern.

My factual criticism of Schroedinger can be found in

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/369.

Regards,

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

Dear David,

Your late submission permitted me to see your essay only now. It is significantly informative for me as i was not aware of the aspect touched-electron time due to its zitter!The huge frequency of zitter is mind boggling 10 E21 Hz.You say that electron moves in circular motion with speed of light about the spinning direction.In fact the spinning itself arises from circular spinning about its own axis! It all sounds quite a bit imaginative for a point particle like the compton radius of the electron.If one questions the concepts of space time and have alternative description, the spce-time history of electron will go too to sustain the zitter model.The channeling experiment has just been done only once. from what i know about channeling, it is very tough experiment to conduct. The interpretation is based on single row/plane of the crystal in theoretical considerations. But actual experiment yields depend on contributions from the neighbouring rows/planes, besides consideration of crystal defects. These can affect the interpretation of results. The experiment needs more than one repetition at different laboratories to substantiate the Zitter and its universality, being proposed.Your connection of this aspect to the dark matter also does not seem to have attracted the cosmologists thus far!

In making these comments, i certainly don't mean to be critical of your unique essay on a unique aspect. Let us repeat the channeling experiment at 2, 3 different labs of repute around the world. The significance to me lies in uuderstanding Gravity better than what we know currently, as the Unified field is being defied ,the other three field components get unified! Also, what will be the consequence of a varying value of 'c' that has been experimentally observed to have slightly lost its value closer to the birth of the Universe? The changes in 'c' may affect your zitter model's mathematical equations!

report post as inappropriate

Your late submission permitted me to see your essay only now. It is significantly informative for me as i was not aware of the aspect touched-electron time due to its zitter!The huge frequency of zitter is mind boggling 10 E21 Hz.You say that electron moves in circular motion with speed of light about the spinning direction.In fact the spinning itself arises from circular spinning about its own axis! It all sounds quite a bit imaginative for a point particle like the compton radius of the electron.If one questions the concepts of space time and have alternative description, the spce-time history of electron will go too to sustain the zitter model.The channeling experiment has just been done only once. from what i know about channeling, it is very tough experiment to conduct. The interpretation is based on single row/plane of the crystal in theoretical considerations. But actual experiment yields depend on contributions from the neighbouring rows/planes, besides consideration of crystal defects. These can affect the interpretation of results. The experiment needs more than one repetition at different laboratories to substantiate the Zitter and its universality, being proposed.Your connection of this aspect to the dark matter also does not seem to have attracted the cosmologists thus far!

In making these comments, i certainly don't mean to be critical of your unique essay on a unique aspect. Let us repeat the channeling experiment at 2, 3 different labs of repute around the world. The significance to me lies in uuderstanding Gravity better than what we know currently, as the Unified field is being defied ,the other three field components get unified! Also, what will be the consequence of a varying value of 'c' that has been experimentally observed to have slightly lost its value closer to the birth of the Universe? The changes in 'c' may affect your zitter model's mathematical equations!

report post as inappropriate

Dear David,

Before getting into a discussion of your essay, let me say I hope to see an intro physics text based on clifford algebra someday! (Am J Phys v71, #2, 2003, p104)

I realize you had to leave much out of your essay, so maybe these three naive questions result fm that fact:

1) Do I understand correctly that you want a massive particle, the electron, to follow a null path?

2) What force supplies the centripetal acceleration for the helical motion?

3) The picture seems very classical, much like that of an electron in orbit about the nucleus. We know that picture doesn't work b/c the electron would promptly irradiate away its orbital energy and spiral into the nucleus. Why doesn't that happen in this model?

Thanks,

Mark

report post as inappropriate

Before getting into a discussion of your essay, let me say I hope to see an intro physics text based on clifford algebra someday! (Am J Phys v71, #2, 2003, p104)

I realize you had to leave much out of your essay, so maybe these three naive questions result fm that fact:

1) Do I understand correctly that you want a massive particle, the electron, to follow a null path?

2) What force supplies the centripetal acceleration for the helical motion?

3) The picture seems very classical, much like that of an electron in orbit about the nucleus. We know that picture doesn't work b/c the electron would promptly irradiate away its orbital energy and spiral into the nucleus. Why doesn't that happen in this model?

Thanks,

Mark

report post as inappropriate

Enjoyed reading your essay, although I found some of it to be heavy going. But I am intrigued by the notion of helical lightlike trajectories around timelike worldlines. Could this mean that all fundamental particles are "really" massless? Could the "transverse" directions be unphysical? After all, null vectors in higher dimensional spacetimes project to causal (null or timelike) vectors in lower dimensions!

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Dear David Hestenes,

The received results mean the nonzero sizes of the electron or the electron remains a dot particle? The question is put in a context of an essay The Theory of Time, Space and Gravitation, where the conclusion about the nonzero sizes of any material particle is presented.

Regards,

Robert Sadykov

report post as inappropriate

The received results mean the nonzero sizes of the electron or the electron remains a dot particle? The question is put in a context of an essay The Theory of Time, Space and Gravitation, where the conclusion about the nonzero sizes of any material particle is presented.

Regards,

Robert Sadykov

report post as inappropriate

My post of Dec.,07 remains unresponded. The reliability of your innovative concepts is much tied to the Channeling Experiment's reliability that has been commented upon in the said post!

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

David,

You summed up, "Perhaps gravitational torsion due to

spin, like gravitational force due to mass, is negligible at the atomic level but accumulates to an

observable effect at the galactic level. Enough said!"

Enough indeed. My own calculation for concservation of angular momentum even at the planetary level (FQXI, "Time Counts") is a tiny but not negligible difference from the classical expectation of about 8.96 X 10^-7 sec for the example given (sun-earth relation)--meaning a tiny loss of time due to energy dissipation.

Thanks for a well done and enlightening essay!

Tom

report post as inappropriate

You summed up, "Perhaps gravitational torsion due to

spin, like gravitational force due to mass, is negligible at the atomic level but accumulates to an

observable effect at the galactic level. Enough said!"

Enough indeed. My own calculation for concservation of angular momentum even at the planetary level (FQXI, "Time Counts") is a tiny but not negligible difference from the classical expectation of about 8.96 X 10^-7 sec for the example given (sun-earth relation)--meaning a tiny loss of time due to energy dissipation.

Thanks for a well done and enlightening essay!

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Dear prof. Hestenes,

I liked your essay. It is very important, that the helical world line of the Dirac particle, predicted by your Zitter-Dirac model, was confirmed experimentally. There is an important detail, connected with the helical world line. Besides, the helix follows from the Zitter-Dirac model , it follows also directly from the Dirac equation. One can eliminate gamma-matrices from the action for the Dirac equation by means of change of dynamic variables, and one can present the action in terms of hydrodynamic variables. (Yu.A.Rylov, "Dirac equation in terms of hydrodynamic variables" Advances in Applied Clefford Algebras, 5, pp 1-40, (1995)).

Elimination of gamma-matrices discovers two important circumstances: (1) In the hydrodynamic variables the action can be divided into two parts: classical and quantum ones, (2) description of the Dirac dynamic system appears to be nonrelativistic.

The classical part describe the statistical ensemble of classical dynamic systems S_cl. Each dynamic system S_cl has 10 degrees of freedom. Considering the dynamic system S_cl as a particle, one obtains, that the world line of this particle is a helix. Six external degrees of freedom, describing translations are described relativistically, whereas four remaining degrees of freedom describe the particle spiraling. These four degrees of freedom are described nonrelativistically.

Nonrelativistic character of spiraling is a defect of the Dirac equation. This defect does not appear in the consideration of electronic envelopes in atoms, because in this case the intrinsic structure of the electron is of no importance. But it may be important in theory of elementary particle.

It is interesting, whether this defect appears in the Zitter-Dirac model of Hestenes. Although the nature of the spiraling is not yet clear, I believe, that prediction of this spiraling and confirmation it in experiment is a very important achievement.

Sincerely yours,

Yuri Rylov

report post as inappropriate

I liked your essay. It is very important, that the helical world line of the Dirac particle, predicted by your Zitter-Dirac model, was confirmed experimentally. There is an important detail, connected with the helical world line. Besides, the helix follows from the Zitter-Dirac model , it follows also directly from the Dirac equation. One can eliminate gamma-matrices from the action for the Dirac equation by means of change of dynamic variables, and one can present the action in terms of hydrodynamic variables. (Yu.A.Rylov, "Dirac equation in terms of hydrodynamic variables" Advances in Applied Clefford Algebras, 5, pp 1-40, (1995)).

Elimination of gamma-matrices discovers two important circumstances: (1) In the hydrodynamic variables the action can be divided into two parts: classical and quantum ones, (2) description of the Dirac dynamic system appears to be nonrelativistic.

The classical part describe the statistical ensemble of classical dynamic systems S_cl. Each dynamic system S_cl has 10 degrees of freedom. Considering the dynamic system S_cl as a particle, one obtains, that the world line of this particle is a helix. Six external degrees of freedom, describing translations are described relativistically, whereas four remaining degrees of freedom describe the particle spiraling. These four degrees of freedom are described nonrelativistically.

Nonrelativistic character of spiraling is a defect of the Dirac equation. This defect does not appear in the consideration of electronic envelopes in atoms, because in this case the intrinsic structure of the electron is of no importance. But it may be important in theory of elementary particle.

It is interesting, whether this defect appears in the Zitter-Dirac model of Hestenes. Although the nature of the spiraling is not yet clear, I believe, that prediction of this spiraling and confirmation it in experiment is a very important achievement.

Sincerely yours,

Yuri Rylov

report post as inappropriate

The necessity of repeatation of such an experiment is much needed as Channeling experiments need very careful interpretation , as perfect crystals structure don't exist in nature. Both lattive defects and impurities play significant role and need careful analysis!

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

Mark Stuckey wrote, in part: "3) The picture seems very classical, much like that of an electron in orbit about the nucleus. We know that picture doesn't work b/c the electron would promptly irradiate away its orbital energy and spiral into the nucleus. Why doesn't that happen in this model?"

I was hoping David might reply, because I thought he did answer this question in his essay, as a hypothesis of angular momentum conservation that scales all the way down to the electron. Quoting Hestenes:

"We know that the cumulative gravitational force from stars in a galaxy, for example, is insufficient to account for the angular momentum of the galaxy. Perhaps the discrepancy is not due to missing matter, but missing angular momentum in the gravitational field, as might be supplied by a torsion component. Indeed, the spin-zitter hypothesis requires that masses of particle sources are accompanied by spins. Perhaps gravitational torsion due to spin, like gravitational force due to mass, is negligible at the atomic level but accumulates to an observable effect at the galactic level."

To me, this implies a Mach's Principle type classical effect that informs the quantum effect. If so, David's hypothesis would be a very significant contribution to general relativity which is, of course, fundamentally based on this principle.

As I noted in a previous posting here, I have a calculation in my paper ("Time counts") that shows for the example given (sun-Earth relation) a tiny 8.96 X 10^-7 sec deviation in the oribital period from the unitary classical expectation. That small a difference on the plantary scale, extrapolated to the atomic scale, does not have to assume a quasi-classical picture for electron motion--but possibly can explain why classical scale quantum jitters birth microscale jitters and prevent electron decay beyond ground energy.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

I was hoping David might reply, because I thought he did answer this question in his essay, as a hypothesis of angular momentum conservation that scales all the way down to the electron. Quoting Hestenes:

"We know that the cumulative gravitational force from stars in a galaxy, for example, is insufficient to account for the angular momentum of the galaxy. Perhaps the discrepancy is not due to missing matter, but missing angular momentum in the gravitational field, as might be supplied by a torsion component. Indeed, the spin-zitter hypothesis requires that masses of particle sources are accompanied by spins. Perhaps gravitational torsion due to spin, like gravitational force due to mass, is negligible at the atomic level but accumulates to an observable effect at the galactic level."

To me, this implies a Mach's Principle type classical effect that informs the quantum effect. If so, David's hypothesis would be a very significant contribution to general relativity which is, of course, fundamentally based on this principle.

As I noted in a previous posting here, I have a calculation in my paper ("Time counts") that shows for the example given (sun-Earth relation) a tiny 8.96 X 10^-7 sec deviation in the oribital period from the unitary classical expectation. That small a difference on the plantary scale, extrapolated to the atomic scale, does not have to assume a quasi-classical picture for electron motion--but possibly can explain why classical scale quantum jitters birth microscale jitters and prevent electron decay beyond ground energy.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Connections

The binding of existence

This is a story, built upon knowledge, intuition, and speculation. In the end, it is built upon some known theoretically successfully tested truths, and some unknowns conveyed in a formula that I consider trumps any objections – as we ponder the scope of existence. First we know of existence, by way of our self-awareness, coupled with scientific...

view entire post

The binding of existence

This is a story, built upon knowledge, intuition, and speculation. In the end, it is built upon some known theoretically successfully tested truths, and some unknowns conveyed in a formula that I consider trumps any objections – as we ponder the scope of existence. First we know of existence, by way of our self-awareness, coupled with scientific...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

If the channeling experiment is confirmed this proves the neorealist interpretation of QM (the Paris school) is correct. There is a particle and a wave!(See Nick Herbert's book "Quantum Reality.")

You reference Huang's 1949 paper. He has twice the spiral radius as yours, so he can account for the electron magnetic moment. If you put beta = 1 and p = 0 in his equation 27 you can also account for the electron spin by assuming the inertial mass of the electron in the spin mode is only one half its normal translational mass.

report post as inappropriate

You reference Huang's 1949 paper. He has twice the spiral radius as yours, so he can account for the electron magnetic moment. If you put beta = 1 and p = 0 in his equation 27 you can also account for the electron spin by assuming the inertial mass of the electron in the spin mode is only one half its normal translational mass.

report post as inappropriate