Talk:Zitterbewegung

Deletions by Linas

Linas, please explain why you keep deleting stuff. So far you've proceeded to call some very well regarded physicists "cranks", and me a "vandal" for restoring information which is both relevant and sourced. I am willing to work with you here, but you're not giving me much to work with. Ok, so you don't like semi-classical theories, I got that, but that doesn't by itself make them invalid. ObsidianOrder 23:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The article, as it was just a few minutes ago, looked good. Zitterbewegung is a rather old-fashioned term that should be defined because it is of historical interest, and does appear in textbooks. There's nothing wrong with stating its a semilcassical idea, and documenting how difficult it was to understand during the 1930's, and how much trouble it caused for physicists of that era, and how they got into serious arguments over it. But by the 1940's, physicists were finally able to "wrap thier minds" around the concept, and understood it to imply that anti-particles exist, and understood it to mean that the mass of the positron is equal to the mass of the electron. Indeed, the frequency is nu = E/h = mc^2/h with m just twice the electron mass. At this point, the term was set aside, and no longer actively "researched". Instead, it was pointed out to students first learning the Dirac equation, as a curious aspect of the theory of spin-1/2 particles. However, its nothing more than that; its a curiousty of the Dirac equation and its plane-wave solutions.

What I objected to was the linking of this old and curious term to some highly questionable "modern" research. Trying to turn it into something "more" is essentialy numerology that is unsupported by any exprimental knowledge or theoretical understanding.linas 01:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I would say there has been quite a bit of interesting recent work that relies on this "historical curiosity": first, classical theories of electron structure with spin such as Barut & Zanghi (Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 52, pp. 2009–2012, 1984, and also the Salesi & Recami cite you deleted); and second, stochastic electrodynamics, which is not really a single well developed theory (yet), but rather a number of attempts to formulate a stochastic classical theory that reproduces the results of quantum mechanics and quantum electrodynamics, but without some of the shortcomings. By the way if you doubt that zitterbewegung is closely related to SED, please read Haisch & Rueda (Phys. Lett. A, vol. 268, pp. 224–227, 2000).

"Highly questionable"? Says who? Regardless of what you or I think of these theories, we have to rely on sources, rather than on our opinions. I have cited (numerous) peer-reviewed papers, which supports my assertion that this is valid science. You have produced no evidence to the contrary, other than your own opinion. That's the problem in a nutshell. ObsidianOrder 03:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are POV-pushing, and I really dislike the tone of this conversation. There are tens of thousands of papers published annually. There are libraries filled with tens of thousands of books. You can get a pretty good idea of what's mainstream and what's not by visiting a university library. What "evidence to the contrary" are you fishing for? The fact that Ed Witten has never written about this topic? What do you want, someone famous to drop by, and make a ruling or judgement on this? Would you accept that opinion? I believe that there is a vast amount of interesting physics and mathematics, and I believe that the saying "truth is stranger than fiction" is particularly apt for physics and math. It doesn't need to be embellished. linas 06:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, there is one "objective" way of looking at this. Google up some of the other "zitterbewegnung in layman's terms" articles on the net, and you will not find a single ref to SED or Heisch or anything else along those lines. Instead, you will find detailed historical and mathematical accounts that this article is lacking. And if you don't want to google, then go to the library and look up Bjorken and Drell, and Itzykson and Zuber, or Landau and Lifshitz. These are standard references that treat this topic in a standard way. Anything outside the purview is non-standard. I read some of the cites you gave, and they are not just a little non-standard, they are a very non-standard. linas 06:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Non-standard? Yes, you're absolutely right about that, but that's not what we were discussing. Your original claim was that it was pseudoscientific, which is something completely different from "non-standard". Are you not claiming that anymore? And does "non-standard" mean it shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia? You seem to be implying that "non-standard" or "non-mainstream", but scientifically valid, theories should not be included here. I think that would be very unfortunate. There are huge problems with SED and related theories as they stand now, but as you know there are different huge problems with the current "standard" theory as well, and that's exactly why it is important to include valid alternative theories. I think that as long as there is no mis-representation of the status of these theories, this is a very suitable subject for wikipedia. Science is a process, not a single truth from on high, and that what is standard now may not be so in a few years.

Regarding what evidence - well, if you could point to a physicist who has said on the record that it is pseudoscientific, I suppose, or evidence that papers on the topic have difficulty being publushed. It was your claim, you figure out how to support it. Incidentally, the three well-known books you mention may not discuss SED-like theories, but they were all written before 1980, and there was very limited work on SED at that time, as you can see from the bibliography. ObsidianOrder 16:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi - I visited this article about a decade ago, and I also tried to insert/modify - and all got rolled back. I talked to Dr. David Hestenes (an eminent but non-mainstream physicist/academic), and he agrees: all contents related to this topic is old (and I am talking like 25+ years old). I regret the tone of this conversation and another potential contributor gets heated, but I think there is a valid point to be made: what is mainstream and non-mainstream is a topic of appreciation, and this article certainly does not do reflect Dr. Hestenes' efforts to develop Schrödinger's interpretation into a fully-fledged alternative interpretation of quantum physics. The Zitterbewegung hypothesis yields electron and proton models, and yields their measured radii, magnetic moments, mass/energy, etcetera. Hence, stating that it has no 'predictive power' or has not been experimentally confirmed sounds weird to me. I am just an amateur physicist, but highlighting those elements in 'working papers' on ResearchGate got me a 300+ score in just three years (and into the top-20% bracket of most-read RG members). So... What to do? I think the material out there warrants adding a section on the 'non-mainstream' or 'Zitterbewegung' interpretation of quantum mechanics in general, and the Zitterbewegung hypothesis in particular. These 'ring current' models work. Also, when everything is said and done, it is a model which is based on original work such as the de Broglie frequency of matter-waves. See my most-read paper in this regard: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341269271_De_Broglie's_matter-wave_concept_and_issues. I do not want to promote myself but - frankly - more recent work by physicists such as Dr. Hestenes, Vassallo/Celani/Di Tommaso, Oliver Consa, deserves to be highlighted. The fact that the last conversation here goes back to 2005 says enough, doesn't it? Kindest regards - Jean Louis Jean Louis Van Belle (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Not responsible for spin

Although there were some suggestions in the past that zitterbewegung was responsible for spin this is no longer a mainstream view. An argument against this is found in the article itself. If zitterbewegung is the result of the interference between the large and small components of the Dirac wavefunction, a free particle at rest, which has no small component, should have no spin. But of course it does. The best explanation for the existence of spin seems to be that it is an intrinsic property of the Dirac equation. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC).

It just proves that zitterbewegung is not "the result of the interference between the large and small components of the Dirac wavefunction." Enemyunknown (talk) 06:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/html/GAinQM.html

[8] Mysteries and Insights of Dirac Theory

The Dirac equation has a hidden geometric structure that is made manifest by reformulating it in terms of a real spacetime algebra. This reveals an essential connection between spin and complex numbers with profound implications for the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Among other things, it suggests that to achieve a complete interpretation of quantum mechanics, spin should be identified with an intrinsic zitterbewegung.

[7] Geometry of the Dirac Theory

The Dirac wave function is represented in a form where all its components have obvious geometrical and physical interpretations.

just-emery (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Zitterbewegung in graphene

"In terms of condensed matter physics, the Zitterbewegung is nothing but a special kind of inter-band transitions with creation of virtual electron-hole pairs." (Katsnelson arxiv:0512337v3.pdf)

There is currently some interest in this aspect of the topic and perhaps Experts could add a few words in this effect.91.92.179.156 (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sidharth (2008)

Would it be possible for this article to include more recent material summarized in the following article?

Sidharth, Burra G. (2008). "Revisiting Zitterbewegung". International Journal of Theoretical Physics. doi:10.1007/s10773-008-9825-8. Retrieved 2008-11-10. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

How can $\alpha _{k}$ be an observable ?

I don't understand one thing: as $\alpha _{k}$ is the velocity, it should be observable (thus have real eigen values), but, the term $\alpha _{k}(0)exp(-2iHt/h)$ has clearly eigen values that are those of $\alpha _{k}(0)$ multiplied by the non-real eigen values of $exp(-2iHt/h)$ (that are $exp(-2i\lambda _{n}t/h)$ where $\lambda _{n}$ are eigen values of H). Where am I wrong ? Almeo (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Needs an animation/simulation showing the effect taking place

IMO this article would greatly benefit by having an animation showing the effect happening (obviously slowed down significantly; no display can do that many FPS and even if it could the human eye wouldn't be able to see anything but a blur). If it can also shows how it can result in a net circular motion it would be awesome (doesn't need to be the same animation though, an additional one with more labels and pauses or whatever is necessary to make it clear would work just fine; might even be preferable). If anyone could find/make those animations and add them to the article, it would be great. --TiagoTiago (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

But Zitterbewegung had no independent meaning besides this

A re-examination of Dirac theory, however, shows that interference between positive and negative energy states may not be a necessary criterion for observing zitterbewegung.

I thought that Zitterbewegung, by definition, is a hypothetical rapid motion caused by interference between positive and negative energy states that arises upon studying the Dirac equation. My understanding, also, is that it has never been observed.

So how can "it" now be caused by something else besides interference between positive and negative energy states? It is as if it's come alive, a phantom term looking for a real cause!!

I think if an expert would re-word this slightly the misapprehension would vanish. 89.217.29.25 (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The abstract of the cited article is:

The zitterbewegung is a local circulatory motion of the electron presumed to be the basis of the electron spin and magnetic moment. A reformulation of the Dirac theory shows that the zitterbewegung need not be attributed to interference between positive and negative energy states as originally proposed by Schroedinger. Rather, it provides a physical interpretation for the complex phase factor in the Dirac wave function generally. Moreover, it extends to a coherent physical interpretation of the entire Dirac theory, and it implies azitterbewegung interpretation for the Schroedinger theory as well.

This seems to provide a different meaning to Zitterbewegung, namely an actual circulation that causes the magnetic moment of the electron. This does not sound mainstream to me. Or is it a standard interpretation? Is it still coming from the same interference effect in the Dirac equation? If not, what makes it also "Zitterbewegung"? Experts? 89.217.29.25 (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Abbreviation

@Jean Louis Van Belle: this is an online encyclopedia, there is no need to abbreviate Zitterbewegung to zbw just to make it shorter, we have enough space.--MaoGo (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey MaoGo - greatful for your efforts on this ! I am a first-time 'user' of Wikipedia and so I am terribly at the technicalities of editing/working on this. How do I 'talk' to you directly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean Louis Van Belle (talk • contribs) 12:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jean Louis Van Belle: you can write directly in my talk page: User talk:MaoGo.--MaoGo (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi - I visited this article about five years ago, and I tried to insert/modify - and all got rolled back. I talked to Dr. David Hestenes (an eminent but non-mainstream physicist/academic), and he agrees: all contents related to this topic is old (and I am talking like 25+ years old). I want to make just one point here: what is mainstream and non-mainstream is a topic of appreciation, and this article certainly does not do reflect Dr. Hestenes' efforts back in the 1990s to develop Schrödinger's interpretation into a fully-fledged alternative interpretation of quantum physics. The Zitterbewegung hypothesis yields electron and proton models, and yields their measured radii, magnetic moments, mass/energy, etcetera. Hence, stating that it has no 'predictive power' or has not been experimentally confirmed sounds weird to me. I am just an amateur physicist, but highlighting those elements in 'working papers' on ResearchGate got me a 300+ score in just three years (and into the top-20% bracket of most-read RG members). So... What to do? I think the material out there warrants adding a section on the 'non-mainstream' or 'Zitterbewegung' interpretation of quantum mechanics in general, and the Zitterbewegung hypothesis in particular. These 'ring current' models work. Also, when everything is said and done, it is a model which is based on original work such as the de Broglie frequency of matter-waves. See my most-read paper in this regard: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341269271_De_Broglie's_matter-wave_concept_and_issues. I do not want to promote myself but - frankly - more recent work by physicists such as Dr. Hestenes, Vassallo/Celani/Di Tommaso, Oliver Consa, deserves to be highlighted. The fact that there are, apparently, very few conversations here (I think the one from 2005 reflects the same issue) and that they are very 'dated' says enough, doesn't it? Please let me know what you think of the idea to add a whole new section on the Zitterbewegung interpretation of QM as a whole: small edits are not very useful, and I do not want to waste time on things that serve no purpose. Kindest regards - Jean Louis Jean Louis Van Belle (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)