An Alternative Theory of Everything:
Classical Quantum Physics
Jean Louis Van Belle, Drs, MAEc, BAEc, BPhil
23 April 2020
This paper recaps the main results of our photon, proton and electron models and also revisits our
earlier hypothesis of the neutrino being the carrier of the strong force carrier. As such, we think this
paper contains all necessary ingredients of an alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics. We
refer to this interpretation as a realist or classical interpretation because it does not require any
equations or assumptions beyond the classical framework of physics: Maxwell’s equations and the
Planck-Einstein relation are all that is needed. In order to distinguish our approach from mainstream
physics (read: the Standard Model), we refer to our ideas as classical quantum physics.
Smoking gun physics ..................................................................................................................................... 1
The idea of a photon ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Particle classifications ................................................................................................................................... 7
Stable versus non-stable particles and the Planck-Einstein Law .................................................................. 9
The ring current model of matter-particles ................................................................................................ 10
The two radii of an electron: the Thomson versus the Compton radius .................................................... 11
The Compton radius of a muon-electron.................................................................................................... 13
The Compton radius of a proton ................................................................................................................. 15
The intrinsic properties of an electron: the magnetic moment ................................................................. 16
The intrinsic properties of an electron: the non-anomalous anomaly ....................................................... 20
The nature of the force inside the muon-electron ..................................................................................... 23
The electron versus the proton: separate forces or modes of the same?.................................................. 25
The neutrino as the carrier of the strong(er) force .................................................................................... 28
Inter-nucleon forces: what keeps protons and neutrons together? .......................................................... 28
What about the weak force? ...................................................................................................................... 29
An alternative Theory of Everything? What about gravity? ....................................................................... 29
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 31
Annex: Some unsolved or difficult questions ............................................................................................. 32
The neutron model ................................................................................................................................. 32
The size of the electron charge ............................................................................................................... 34
The nature of the strong(er) force .......................................................................................................... 36
Pair creation and annihilation: what’s the nature of anti-matter? ........................................................ 41
An Alternative Theory of Everything:
Classical Quantum Physics
Jean Louis Van Belle, Drs, MAEc, BAEc, BPhil
23 April 2020
Smoking gun physics
Mainstream physicists have fallen into the same trap as medieval philosophers
: they have been
multiplying concepts without providing any real explanation of what might or might not be happening at
the subatomic level.
The idea of virtual particles – also known as messenger particles – ferrying energy and momentum
(linear or angular) between non-virtual particles, for example, is not only superfluous but also
nonsensical: could someone please explain how do they do this, exactly, and – now that we are there –
what happens to them, exactly, after they have done their duty? Do they bounce back into space with
some other energy or momentum package to be delivered to the other side? How should we imagine
these energy or momentum packages they are supposed to ferry around? The whole theory is just a
modern-day version of 19th century aether theory: something must carry the force, right?
Well… No. After staring at Maxwell’s equations long enough, physicists found there was no need for an
aether to transmit the light. The concepts of space and time – as used in Einstein’s special relativity
theory – are sufficient. Likewise, I have stared long enough at equations now to feel that forces don’t
have to be mediated by messenger particles. The idea of (force) fields – static or dynamic
– will do.
We know this sounds sacrilegious: the actual existence of W and Z0 bosons was confirmed in a series of
experiments by Rubbia and van der Meer, back in 1983⎯wasn’t it? They got the Nobel Prize for it – the
next year already (1984) – so it must be true, right? Likewise, the quark hypothesis was confirmed as
early as in 1968, wasn’t it? Stanford’s Linear Accelerator (SLAC) had been in operation for about two
, and further experiments in the 1970s and 1980s confirmed the existence of the second and
third generation of quarks, isn’t it? Friedman, Kendall and Taylor, who led those experiments, got a
Nobel Prize for it in 1990.
Last but not least, we now have the experimental confirmation – about 7-8 years ago now (CERN, 2012)
– of the reality of the Higgs mechanism, which is supposed to explain mass, isn’t it? This time it was not
We refer to scholasticism here⎯think of Thomas Aquinas’ De Ente et Essentia, for example. We sometimes feel
the only difference between the rambling of Thomas Aquinas and, say, Ian Aitchison and Anthony Hay (Gauge
Theories in Particle Physics) is the language: Thomas Aquinas used Latin. Aitchison and Hay talk math.
The idea of a static field refers to the interaction between one (static) charge and another. The idea of a dynamic
field refers to a traveling field: think of a photon here. Don’t worry about the distinction right now. We will come
back to this.
SLAC started operations in 1966, so it was about time they found something to justify the investment. The
Wikipedia article on SLAC gives a good overview of SLAC research and the Nobel Prizes it earned.
the experimentalists but the theorists (Englert and Higgs
) who got the Nobel Prize for it: their research
goes back to the early 1960s, so they must have been surprised! We have beautiful images of this so-
called discovery. Look at the image below, for example
Think about it: what do you see here? Let me tell you. Let me tell you what you actually can see
here⎯as opposed to what you are supposed to imagine. The image of the left shows two gamma rays
emerging from the CERN LHC CMS detector, while the one on the right shows the tracks of four muons
in the CERN LHC ATLAS detector. Gamma rays, muons. These are real. All the rest is imagination. Think
for yourself here. All we can see are signals, or traces, or jets of unstable particles disintegrating into
more stable configurations: there is no direct evidence of W/Z bosons, of quarks (let alone gluons), or
of the reality of the Higgs field.
These traces or signals indicate that the lifetime of the so-called Higgs boson is of the order of 10−22
seconds. Labelling it as a particle is, therefore, hugely misleading: even at the speed of light – which an
object with a rest mass of 125 GeV/c2 cannot aspire to attain – it cannot travel any further than a few
tenths of a femtometer: about 0.310−15 m, to be precise. That’s smaller than the radius of a proton,
which is in the range of 0.83 to 0.84 fm.
Particles with such short lifetimes are not referred to as
particles in high-energy physics: they are referred to as resonances. Also note the language of the press
"CMS and ATLAS have compared a number of options for the spin-parity of this particle, and
these all prefer no spin and even parity [two fundamental criteria of a Higgs boson consistent
with the Standard Model]. This, coupled with the measured interactions of the new particle with
Many more contributed but were either dead (Nobel Prize are not awarded posthumously, which is the reason
why John Stewart Bell didn’t get his: he died from a cerebral hemorrhage the year he was nominated) or not
More images and explanations can be found on CERN’s website (https://home.cern/science/physics/higgs-
Don’t get me wrong here: I am not saying that the fact that we have two, three or four jets of particles emerging
out of some high-energy collision between elementary particles is not significant. It is. It is just that it doesn’t
justify the hypothesis of intermediate vector bosons or whatever other force carrying particle one might think of.
For more details, see our paper on Smoking Gun Physics (https://vixra.org/pdf/1907.0367v2.pdf).
We will come back to the measurements and explanations of the proton radius.
other particles, strongly indicates that it is a Higgs boson."
Strong indications, right? Note the language: a number of options, criteria consistent with, prefer,
etcetera. Nothing very definitive here, right? The Wikipedia article on it
dutifully notes that the Higgs
boson is the first elementary scalar particle to be discovered in Nature.
Hello there!? So you say you have discovered some number – a scalar particle with no other properties
is just some number, right? – and you refer to it as a particle!? What you are saying, basically, is that
mass is a scalar quantity, right? Of course, it is! Let me make a very strong statement here: I think we
don't need a Higgs theory – or field, or particle, or mechanism, or whatever you want to call it – to
explain why W/Z bosons have mass because I think W/Z bosons don't exist: they're a figment of our
We lamented about this before, so we won’t repeat ourselves here: the gun may or may not be smoking
but we don’t think of this as evidence. It is wishful thinking, or worse. The Nobel Prize Committee has
been in a hurry to consecrate the Standard Model but few people – including physicists – believe the
Standard Model is the end of physics. In fact, we believe she Standard Model is the end of physics⎯but
for entirely different reasons: it is not because we think it is complete (we do not
) but because we
think it exposes the fundamental conceptual weaknesses of mainstream physics. We also wrote about
this before so let us, without further ado, talk about what we think of as real physics⎯as opposed to
mystification and multiplication of concepts.
We kindly request the reader to forget about intermediate vector bosons for the time being. In fact, we
ask him or her to forget about the weak force as a whole. A force explains why stuff stays together, or
pushes it apart. A description of disintegration processes doesn’t require the concept of a force. We feel
they are to be analyzed in entirely different terms. Think of non-equilibrium physics here. Please also
erase some other useless theoretical distinctions⎯such as the distinction between bosons and
fermions, for example. Also forget about g-factors, which we can’t measure anyway: we can measure
the magnetic moment of a particle, but calculating a g-factor involves assumptions about its shape and
the distribution of its mass over that shape.
Think specifics: try to imagine what a photon, an electron and a proton might actually be. If you want to
learn truly new things, you may also need to un-learn a lot of what you’ve learned.
One of the things you need to let go of is the idea that an electron or a proton have no internal
structure: they are not the dimensionless pointlike particles that you learnt about. Dimensionless
pointlike particles are mathematical idealizations only: the intrinsic properties of photons, electrons and
protons – their mass, their magnetic moment (including the anomaly) and their momentum – can and
should be explained. In fact, we think of this as the single largest failure of mainstream quantum physics:
because they forgot to think of what an electron or a photon might actually be, mainstream physicists
See: https://home.cern/news/news/physics/new-results-indicate-new-particle-higgs-boson. We added the italics.
The Higgs boson has no other properties, indeed: its spin is zero. It is just said to couple to other massive bosons,
most notably W and Z bosons, so as to give them mass. We are quite happy to just accept that a charge must come
with some mass, as opposed to engaging in metaphysical parlance like this.
Its greatest failure is that it does not explain the intrinsic properties of elementary particles. In fact, we blame
mainstream theorists for not even trying to do that.
had to come up with all kinds of weird theories – quantum field theory is probably a good aggregate
name for them
– to explain wave-particle duality. Our photon, electron and proton models build wave-
particle duality in from the start: no need for hocus-pocus here!
We’re getting a bit ahead of ourselves here, so we should wrap up this introduction. Before we truly get
started, however, we want to offer some reflections on time and distance scales. They are also rather
philosophical, but we feel they may be more useful than starting with, say, introducing the Yukawa
We also use the digression to introduce the basic concepts of fields and forces, as
we will use these throughout our paper.
The idea of a photon
At some point, we will be reflecting on very small dimensions: in space and in time. We will be talking
distances as short as the one mentioned above: 0.2 or 0.3 femtometer (10−15 m). We will also be talking
times as short as the one mentioned above: 10−22 or 10−23 seconds. You will often read that we cannot
imagine how short such distances or time intervals actually are. We disagree. Imaging a particle with no
dimension whatsoever is – most probably – an impossible task. However, just thinking about very short
time or distance intervals should not be a problem.
We request the reader to do the latter: think about extremely small, or extremely large, values, but
don’t try to imagine zero-dimensional or infinite stuff. The finite speed of light (c) probably tells us the
mathematical concept of infinity is useful as a limiting idea but that, in Nature, actual infinities do
probably not exist. Likewise, forget about the idea of the electric charge having no dimension
whatsoever. As we will argue later in this text, we think it has a tiny but non-zero (spatial) dimension.
Why? Because there is real experimental evidence for it⎯from scattering experiments and also from
measuring its magnetic moment!
So that’s the very first basic idea: matter-particles carry electric charge and they are not pointlike.
If there is one particle which we should probably think of as pointlike, then it’s the photon (and the
neutrino⎯which we think of as the photon of the strong force
). So let us quickly tell you how we think
of the photon⎯as a model of a non-matter particle. We refer to it as the one-cycle photon model. The
argument goes like this.
1. Photons are real and, yes, they carry energy. When an electron goes from one state to another –
from one electron orbital to another, to be precise – it will absorb or emit a photon. Photons make up
We already mentioned the textbook of Ian Aitchison and Anthony Hay: Gauge Theories in Particle Physics (2013).
Two volumes of text and math that leave one wondering: what are they actually trying to describe here?
This is what Aitchison and Hey start with. We think Yukawa’s formula is basically useless. If you feel the need to
assume some new strong force, then you also need to introduce some new strong charge⎯as opposed to
introducing some new boson. See our paper on The Nature of Yukawa’s Nuclear Force and Charge
You may think this contradicts our earlier statements on the idea of force-carrying particles and you are
right⎯to some extent, at least. We do not believe in W and Z bosons and gluons, but we do believe photons carry
electromagnetic energy (you can already note that carrying energy and carrying force are slightly different
concepts). Likewise, we do think the concept of a strong(er) force inside the nucleus is useful and, therefore, we
feel the concept of neutrinos carrying some strong(er) energy is useful too.
light: visible light, low-energy radio waves, or high-energy X- and γ-rays. These waves carry energy and,
yes, when we look really closely, these waves are made up of photons.
So, yes, it’s the photons that
carry the energy.
Saying they carry electromagnetic energy is something else than saying they carry electromagnetic force
itself. A force acts on a charge: a photon carries no charge. So what are they then? How should we think
of them? Think of it like this: a photon is an oscillating electromagnetic field. We describe this field by an
electric and a magnetic field vector E and B.
Field vectors do not take up any space: think of them as a force without a charge to act on. Indeed, a
non-zero field at some point in space and time – which we describe using the (x, y, x, t) coordinates – tell
us what the force would be if we would happen to have a unit charge at the same point in space and in
time. You know the formula for the electromagnetic force. It’s the Lorentz force F = q·(E + vB). Hence,
the electromagnetic force is the sum of two (orthogonal) component vectors: q·E and q·vB.
The velocity vector v in the equation shows both of these two component force vectors depend on our
frame of reference. Hence, we should think of the separation of the electromagnetic force into an
‘electric’ (or electrostatic) and a ‘magnetic’ force component as being somewhat artificial: the
electromagnetic force is (very) real – because it determines the motion of the charge – but our cutting-
up of it in two separate components depends on our frame of reference and is, therefore, (very)
At this point, we should probably also quickly note that both amateur as well as professional physicists
often tend to neglect the magnetic force in their analysis because the magnitude of the magnetic field –
and, therefore, of the force – is 1/c times that of the electric field or force. Hence, they often think of the
magnetic force as a tiny – and, therefore, negligible – fraction of the electric force. That’s a huge
mistake, which becomes very obvious when using natural time and distance units so as to ensure
Nature’s constant is set to unity (c = 1). We will come back to this.
Let us get back to our photon: we think the photon is pointlike because the E and B vectors that describe
it will be zero at each and every point in time and in space except if our photon happens to be at the (x,
y, z) location at time t.
Please read the above again, and think about it for a while. To help you, we will repeat ourselves: our
photon is pointlike because the electric and magnetic field vectors that describe it are zero
everywhere except where our photon happens to be at some time t.
2. At the same time, we know a photon is defined by its wavelength. So how does that work? What is
the physical meaning of the wavelength? It is, quite simply, the distance over which the electric and
magnetic field vectors will go through a full cycle of their oscillation. Nothing more, nothing less. That
distance is, of course, a linear distance: to be precise, it is the distance s between two points (x1, y1, z1)
and (x2, y2, z2) where the E and B vectors have the same value. The photon will need some time t to
travel between these two points, and these intervals in time and space are related through the
We know this because a zillion experiments did confirm the reality of the photoelectric effect.
(constant) velocity of the wave, which is also the velocity of the pointlike photon.
That velocity is, effectively, the speed of light, and the time interval is the cycle time T = 1/f. The
distance interval is the wavelength, of course. We, therefore, get the equation that will be familiar to
We can now relate this to the Planck-Einstein relation.
3. Any (regular) oscillation has a frequency and a cycle time T = 1/f = 2π/ω. The Planck-Einstein relation
relates f and T to the energy (E) through Planck’s constant (h):
The Planck-Einstein relation applies to a photon: think of the photon as packing not only the energy E
but also an amount of physical action that is equal to h. Physical action is a concept that is not used all
that often in physics: physicists will talk about energy or momentum rather than about physical action.
However, we find the concept as least as useful. In fact, we like to think physical action can express itself
in two ways: as some energy over some time (E·T) or – alternatively – as some momentum over some
distance (p·). For example, we know the (pushing) momentum of a photon
will be equal to p = E/c.
We can, therefore, write the Planck-Einstein relation for the photon in two equivalent ways:
We could jot down many more relations, but we should not be too long here.
We said the photon
packs an energy that is given by its frequency (or its wavelength or cycle time through the c = f
relation) through the Planck-Einstein relation. We also said it packs an amount of physical action that is
equal to h. So how should we think of that? We will come to that: let us, effectively, connect all of the
4. The Planck-Einstein relation does not only apply to a photon, but it also applies to electron
orbitals⎯but in a different way. When analyzing the electron orbitals for the simplest of atoms (the
one-proton hydrogen atom), the Planck-Einstein rule amounts to saying the electron orbitals are
separated by an amount of physical action that is equal to h = 2π·ħ.
Hence, when an electron jumps
from one level to the next – say from the second to the first – then the atom will lose one unit of h. The
The German term for physical action – Wirkung – describes the concept much better, we feel.
For an easily accessible treatment and calculation of the formula, see: Feynman’s Lectures, Vol. I, Chapter 34,
section 9 (https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_34.html#Ch34-S9).
We may refer the reader to our manuscript (https://vixra.org/abs/1901.0105) or various others papers in which
we explore the nature of light (for a full list, see: https://vixra.org/author/jean_louis_van_belle). We just like to
point out one thing that is quite particular for the photon: the reader should note that the E = mc2 mass-energy
equivalence relation and the p = mc = E/c for the photon are mathematically equivalent. This is no coincidence, of
The model of the atom here is the Bohr model. It does not take incorporate the finer structure of electron
orbitals and energy states. That finer structure is explained by differences in magnetic energies due to the spin
(angular momentum) of the electron. We will come back to this.
photon that is emitted or absorbed will have to pack that somehow. It will also have to pack the related
energy, which is given by the Rydberg formula:
To focus our thinking, let us consider the transition from the second to the first level, for which the 1/12
– 1/22 is equal 0.75. Hence, the photon energy should be equal to (0.75)·ER ≈ 10.2 eV. Now, if the total
action is equal to h, then the cycle time T can be calculated as:
This corresponds to a wave train with a length of (3×108 m/s)·(0.4×10-15 s) = 122 nm. It is, in fact, the
wavelength of the light (λ = c/f = c·T = h·c/E) that we would associate with this photon energy.
The reader may think all of the above is rather trivial. If so, then that’s good: the reader should just
consider it as a warm-up for the math that follows. If not, then it’s also good: it then means it was useful
to take the reader through this.
As mentioned above, we think the distinction between bosons and fermions is not only useless but
actually counter-productive, in the sense that it hampers rather than promotes understanding. We have
exposed the conceptual emptiness of the oft-used distinction between bosons and fermions
, so we won’t repeat ourselves here. Let us just say we find the simpler distinctions between
elementary and composite particles, and between stable and non-stable particles, much more valuable.
The reader should immediately note that these two distinctions (stable/non-stable and
elementary/composite) are related but not the same: they complement each other. Let us give some
⎯ We think of photons, electrons and protons as elementary particles. Elementary particles are,
obviously, stable. They would not be elementary, otherwise. In contrast, not all stable particles
⎯ We think of atoms as stable composite particles, for example: we can, effectively, remove
electrons from them (by ionization). That reveals their composite structure. Atoms are stable
but, obviously, they are not indestructible. In fact, ionization requires very little energy: the
electromagnetic bond between the nucleus and the electrons is quite weak.
⎯ A neutron is an example of a composite particle which is non-stable: outside of the nucleus, it
spontaneously disintegrates into a proton and a neutron.
Pions are another example of non-
stable composite particles.
See, for example, Feynman’s Worst Jokes and the Boson-Fermion Theory (https://vixra.org/abs/2003.0012).
The neutron’s mean lifetime is just under 15 minutes (), which is an eternity in the sub-atomic world, but quite
short on the human time scale, of course. Neutron disintegration also involves the emission of the mysterious
neutrino, which we shall talk about later.
Pions are classified as mesons. We also have baryons. However, to make sense of the concept of mesons and
We should make a few additional notes here. First, while we think of electrons and protons as
elementary particles, we think they have some internal structure.
This is why they are also not
indestructible, as evidenced from, say, high-energy proton-proton collisions in CERN’s LHC.
Second, we do not believe in the quark hypothesis. We think the quark hypothesis results from an
unproductive approach to analyzing disintegration processes: inventing new quantities that are
supposedly being conserved, such as strangeness (see, for example, the analysis of K-mesons in
), is… Well… As strange as it sounds. We, therefore, think the concept of quarks
confuses rather than illuminates the search for a truthful theory of matter.
Third, as mentioned above, we think all matter-particles carry charge⎯even if they are neutral. When
they are neutral, there is a positive and negative charge inside which balances out. We think photons
and neutrinos – all particles which travel at the speed of light – do not carry any electric charge. They are
nothing but a traveling field. The reader will now ask: what is a traveling field? Our answer is this: think
of a force without a charge to act on. This brings us to our fourth and most fundamental remark:
We think a charge comes with a very tiny but non-zero rest mass. We also think a charge takes up some
very tiny but non-zero space.
We think most of the mass of the electron and the proton can be
explained by Wheeler’s concept of ‘mass without mass’: the equivalent mass of the energy in a local
oscillation of the charge. In other words, we think the mass of protons and electrons is relativistic.
However, for the equations to make sense, some non-zero rest mass must be assumed.
The remarks above lead to the following simple table of matter-particles:
Electrons and protons27
Atoms and molecules
All non-stable particles
(e.g. neutrons, pions, kaons,…)
baryons, one needs to believe in quarks. Mesons are supposed to consist of two quarks, while baryons are
supposed to consist of three. Because we do not believe in quarks, we think the distinction is not useful. Worse,
we think it is an example of non-productive theory. For a complete scientific overview of what happens to unstable
particles, we refer the reader to the tables of the Particle Data Group
Their structure is given by the ring current or Zitterbewegung model, which we will present in a moment.
See: Feynman’s Lectures, Vol. III, Chapter 11, Section 5
The latter remark is not as fundamental as the former, however.
The non-zero rest mass also explains the anomaly in the magnetic moment (and radius) of protons and
electrons, so we feel good about this assumption.
The reader will note we leave the photon (and the neutrino) out of the table. We do not think of them as matter-
particles. We might have referred to them as bosons, but the concept of bosons has been contaminated by the
idea of messenger particles ‘mediating’ forces (think of W/Z bosons here), so we do not like to use it. If we would
have to use a common term for photons and neutrinos, we’d refer to them as light or light-particles, as opposed to
The table above suggests we should try to why some only very few (composite) particles are stable. We
think it has to do with the Planck-Einstein Law. We think it models a fundamental cycle in Nature, and if
that cycle is slightly off, particles will disintegrate into stable components, which do respect the Planck-
Einstein Law⎯exactly, that is.
Stable versus non-stable particles and the Planck-Einstein Law
We think of electrons and protons as oscillations in time and in space. Because of relativity theory, we
need to quickly say a few things above that first: what is relative and what isn’t?
Relativity theory tells us time is relative (your clock isn’t mine, and vice versa) but that is not a sufficient
reason to mix the concepts of space and time into the rather vaguely defined concept of spacetime.
Space is what it is – just three-dimensional Cartesian space – and time is also what it is: the clock that
ticks away. Both are related through the idea of motion: an object moving from here to there covering
some distance s in some time interval t. Its velocity – as measured in our reference frame – is equal
to v = s/t. The relativity of time is nicely captured in the following formula for the Lorentz factor:
The t-time is the time in our reference frame – which is, quite aptly, referred to as the inertial reference
frame (think of it as my clock) – while the -time is the proper time: the clock of the moving object (think
of it as your clock). We may usefully distinguish between the velocity in the x-, y- or z-direction and it
may, therefore, also be necessary – but only very occasionally – to distinguish between the Lorentz
factor in the x-, y- or z-direction. If this comes as a surprise to you, you should note that Einstein himself
– in the seminal 1905 article in which he introduces the principle of relativity – distinguished between
the ‘transverse’ and ‘longitudinal’ mass of an electron, and not because he was confused or mistaken on
Any case, that should be enough of an introduction to the concepts of space, time and motion. Let us
get on with the matter⎯literally. We introduced a photon, electron, and proton model in previous
So what about other particles, such as neutrons or mesons?
As mentioned above, we think of these as non-stable composite particles and, hence, they should be
analyzed as non-equilibrium systems. The reader will, of course, immediately cry wolf: the neutron is
stable, isn’t? It is, but only inside of the nucleus. Hence, that too requires a different type of analysis:
such analysis may or may not resemble the analysis of electron orbitals or other atomic systems. It is of
no concern to us here now.
The point is this: we think non-stable particles are non-stable because their cycle is not slightly off. What
do we mean by that? We mean their cycle time (T) does not fully respect the Planck-Einstein relation (E
= h·f = ħ·ω), which – in this context – we may write as:
For a concise discussion, see: https://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath674/kmath674.htm
Hence, we think of non-stable particles as non-stable oscillations which have some excess energy they
need to get rid of by ejecting a stable or unstable matter-particle (electrons and protons are stable, but
an unstable configuration may also eject a neutron or some meson
) or, else, one or more photons or
neutrinos. The so-called second and third generation of charged particles are also non-stable and we
think of them in the same way: we do not see any mystery in terms of explanation here.
Finally – and importantly – we here answer the question as to what we think of what W and Z bosons
might actually be: we think of their nature as being essentially the same as that of any intermediate
unstable particle⎯or a resonance, even.
Nothing more, nothing less. No mystery here!
Let us get back to the elementary particles we want to look at: their cycle not slightly off. It is on⎯and
very precisely so. What do we mean with that, then? Let us briefly recap our model(s) here.
The ring current model of matter-particles
As mentioned above, we do not think the distinction between spin-1/2 and spin-1 particles (bosons
versus fermions) is productive.
We think the basic distinction is this:
1. Matter-particles carry electric charge⎯even if they are neutral: we think of a neutron as some
combination of a proton and an electron, for example.
2. In contrast, photons (and neutrinos) are, effectively, force carriers.
What’s a force carrier? It is nothing but a traveling field. What’s a field? A field is a force without a
charge to act on. Of course, the reader may think this definition confuses as much as it explains, but we
think it is clear enough. In case the reader would be confused, then we strongly advise him or her to
read one or more previous papers on our photon model.
We will come back to photons and neutrinos. Let us first discuss our ring current model of matter-
particles⎯of electrons and protons, that is. Unlike other ring current or Zitterbewegung theorists, we do
not invoke Maxwell’s laws of electrodynamics to explain what a proton and an electron might actually
be⎯not immediately, at least (we will need Maxwell’s laws later, though). Our model only uses (1)
Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence relation, (2) the Planck-Einstein law, and (3) the formula for a
It may also be some other baryon. Wikipedia offers a decent introduction to the particle zoo
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron) but it should be obvious to the reader that we do not agree with the
traditional classifications. Why? Because we do not adhere to the quark hypothesis. We think the quark hypothesis
results from an unproductive approach to analyzing disintegration processes: inventing new quantities that are
supposedly being conserved, such as strangeness (see, for example, the analysis of K-mesons in Feynman’s
Lectures, Vol. III, Chapter 11, section 5), is… Well… As strange as it sounds. We, therefore, think the concept of
quarks confuses rather than illuminates the search for a truthful theory of matter.
The difference between a unstable particle (which we sometimes refer to as a transient wavicle or a transient,
tout court) and a resonance is basically a matter of appreciation: resonances have extremely short lifetimes: we
think of these lifetimes as the time it takes to go from one energy state to another.
We refer to our jokingly harsh conceptual analysis of this distinction in: https://vixra.org/abs/2003.0012.
See our paper on protons and neutrons: https://vixra.org/abs/2001.0104.
See, for example: https://vixra.org/abs/2001.0345.
tangential velocity. Indeed, the basics of the ring current model may well be summed up by the latter:
c = a·ω
Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence relation and the Planck-Einstein relation explain everything else
evidenced by the fact that we can immediately derive the Compton radius of an electron from these
The geometry of the ring current model is further visualized below. We think of an electron (and a
proton) as consisting of a pointlike elementary charge – pointlike but not dimensionless
- moving about
at (nearly) the speed of light around the center of its motion.
The relation works perfectly well for the electron. Let us illustrate this by highlighting a few implications
of the theory.
The two radii of an electron: the Thomson versus the Compton radius
The model does allow us to explain the two different radii we get from elastic versus inelastic scattering
experiments, or Thomson versus Compton scattering. Thomson scattering is referred to as elastic
scattering because the energy – and, hence, the wavelength – of the incoming and outgoing photons in
the scattering interaction remains unchanged. In contrast, Compton scattering does involve a
wavelength change and, therefore, a more complicated interaction between the photon and the
electron. To be specific, we think of the photon as being briefly absorbed, before the electron emits
another photon of lower energy.
The energy difference between the incoming and outgoing photon
In this paper, we make abstraction of the anomaly, which is related to the zbw charge having a (tiny) spatial
See footnote 35.
Our paper on Compton scattering combines our photon and electron model to provide a more detailed
description (see: https://vixra.org/abs/1912.0251). Think of the interference as a process during which –
temporarily – an unstable wavicle is created. This unstable wavicle does not respect the integrity of Planck’s
quantum of action (E = h·f). The equilibrium situation is then re-established as the electron emits a new photon
then gets added to the kinetic energy of the electron according to the law you may or may not
remember from your physics classes:
The 1 − cosθ factor on the right-hand side of this equation goes from 0 to 2 as θ goes from 0 to π.
Hence, the maximum possible change in the wavelength is equal to 2λC, which we get from a head-on
collision with the photon being scattered backwards at 180 degrees.
We will not further dwell on this
but just note that even (some) mainstream physicists do think of the Compton wavelength as effectively
defining some interference space. Indeed, one of the reasons why we like Prof. Dr. Patrick LeClair’s
lecture on it
is that he tries to derive the very same equations for photon-proton scattering. He argues
this can easily be done:
“The only difference is that the proton is heavier. We simply replace the electron mass in the
Compton wavelength shift equation with the proton mass, and note that the maximum shift is
at θ = π. The maximum shift is Δλmax = 2h/mpc 2.64 fm. Fantastically small. This is roughly the
size attributed to a small atomic nucleus, since the Compton wavelength sets the scale above
which the nucleus can be localized in a particle-like sense.”
This is probably as far as any mainstream physicist would go in terms of actually interpreting the physical
meaning of the Compton wavelength or radius.
In contrast, we do not hesitate to phrase the same in
much simpler terms: the Compton radius is the distance or scale within which we can, effectively,
expect the photon to interfere with the electromagnetic field of the electron or proton current ring.
Of course, we need a photon model to corroborate this: if a photon and an electron (or a proton) are
going to interfere, we need to know what interferes with what, exactly. What is our photon model? We
have elaborated that elsewhere and, hence, we will not repeat ourselves here.
We need to move on!
Before we do so, however, we would like to note this rather intuitive explanation of Compton scattering
was the main reason why Dirac attached so much importance to what we may refer to as Erwin
Schrödinger’s version of the ring current model. Indeed, Erwin Schrödinger inadvertently stumbled upon
and moves away. Both the electron and the photon respect the integrity of Planck’s quantum of action again and
they are, therefore, stable.
The calculation of the angle of the outgoing photon involves a different formula, which the reader can also look
up from any standard course. See, for example, the reference below.
The reader can find the basics on Compton scattering in any basic course on quantum physics, but we effectively
find the exposé of Prof. Dr. Patrick R. LeClair particularly enlightening. We, therefore, will refer to it more than
See: http://pleclair.ua.edu/PH253/Notes/compton.pdf, p. 10
At this point, we should probably note that the concept of a Compton radius is actually never mentioned in
physics textbooks. They only talk about the Compton wavelength (λC), or its reduced value (rC = λC/2π), pretty much
like the difference between ħ and h, which – in our realist interpretation of quantum mechanics – is also physical.
The non-reduced value (h) is a unit of physical action which, in our interpretation of the Planck-Einstein relation is
as real as a physical dimension as, say, the concepts of energy or (linear) momentum. In contrast, its reduced value
(ħ) is a unit of angular momentum. In this regard, we may briefly note that the ring current model may also be
analyzed as a rather intuitive combination of the concepts of linear and angular momentum.
See, for example, our paper on Relativity, Light and Photons (https://vixra.org/abs/2001.0345).
the ring current idea while exploring solutions to Dirac’s wave equation for free electrons.
to it as a Zitterbewegung (rather than a ring current)
, and it is always worth quoting Dirac’s summary
of Schrödinger’s discovery:
“The variables give rise to some rather unexpected phenomena concerning the motion of the
electron. These have been fully worked out by Schrödinger. It is found that an electron which
seems to us to be moving slowly, must actually have a very high frequency oscillatory motion of
small amplitude superposed on the regular motion which appears to us. As a result of this
oscillatory motion, the velocity of the electron at any time equals the velocity of light. This is a
prediction which cannot be directly verified by experiment, since the frequency of the
oscillatory motion is so high and its amplitude is so small. But one must believe in this
consequence of the theory, since other consequences of the theory which are inseparably
bound up with this one, such as the law of scattering of light by an electron, are confirmed by
experiment.” (Paul A.M. Dirac, Theory of Electrons and Positrons, Nobel Lecture, December 12,
The reference to the ‘law of scattering of light by an electron’ is not only a reference to Compton
scattering but to Thomson scattering as well. Indeed, the hybrid description of the electron as a
Zitterbewegung (we’ll abbreviate this as zbw) charge zittering around some center effectively explains
why the electron also seems to have some hard core causing photons to scatter of it elastically, i.e.
without a change in the wavelength of the photon. As such, apart from the fact that the ring current
model offers a natural and intuitive explanation of all of the intrinsic properties of an electron, we think
most of its appeal is in this explanation of the dual radius of an electron.
Needless to say, the hybrid wavicle-like description also offers a natural explanation for electron
interference in single- and double-slit experiments⎯or whatever set-up one might think of.
Let us now proceed to a discussion of these intrinsic properties. Before we get into the meat of the
matter – literally – we will briefly note the theory is also applicable to the heavier version of an electron:
The Compton radius of a muon-electron
As mentioned above, we think the reduced form of the Compton wavelength – a = λC/2π – effectively
defines the space in which the Zitterbewegung charge is actually moving, which is why we refer to it as
the Compton radius of an electron. Let us be specific and calculate this radius so we know what we are
Hence, we interpret this as an effective radius for inelastic (Compton) scattering of photons⎯as
opposed to the radius for elastic scattering, which is the classical electron radius whose value you will
We do not know if Schrödinger and Dirac were aware of earlier work done by Parson (1915). For a brief but
enlightening history of the ring current model, see: Oliver Consa (April 2018), who develops his own version of it:
the Helical Solenoid Model of the Electron (http://www.ptep-online.com/2018/PP-53-06.PDF).
Zitter is German for shaking or trembling. Both Dirac as well as Schrödinger thought of it as local oscillatory
motion—which we, obviously, now believe to be real.
find listed among the CODATA values for fundamental physical constants
re = rCODATA = 2.8179403262(13)10−15 m
The reader will remember this classical radius – expressed in femto-meter (1 fm = 10−15 m) rather than
pico-meter (1 pm = 10−12 m) – can be related to the Compton radius and/or wavelength through the
re = α· rC
Indeed, when applying the
CODATA definition, we get this:
The reader should note that the final digits of the two values above are different. Hence, the relation is
very precise but it is not quite there.
We will explain the relation – and this tiny discrepancy – later: we think the re = α· rC relation is directly
related to the anomaly of the magnetic moment⎯which, in our view, is not an anomaly at all: we think
the fine-structure constant tells us that we should think of the zbw charge as having some tiny but non-
zero rest mass, as well as tiny but non-zero spatial dimension.
Any case, we will come back to that. Let us first show the ideas we have developed so far also apply to
the heavier version of the electron: the muon-electron. In fact, we should remind the reader that the
electron has two heavier versions. Both of them are unstable, however:
1. The muon energy is about 105.66 MeV, so that’s about 207 times the electron energy. Its
lifetime is much shorter than that of a free neutron but longer than that of other unstable
particles: about 2.2 microseconds (10−6 s). That’s fairly long as compared to other non-stable
2. The energy of the tau electron (or tau-particle as it is more commonly referred to
) is about
1776 MeV, so that’s almost 3,500 times the electron mass. Its lifetime, in contrast, is extremely
short: 2.910−13 s only. Hence, we think of it as some resonance or very transient particle. We,
therefore, think that – in line with the reasoning we presented in the introduction to our paper
– the Planck-Einstein relation does not apply: we think the tau-electron quickly disintegrates
because its cycle is way off.
In contrast, the calculation of a Compton radius for the muon-electron might or might not make sense.
Let us see what we get:
This presumed longevity of the muon-electron should not be exaggerated, however: the mean lifetime of
charged pions, for example, is about 26 nanoseconds (10−9 s), so that’s only 85 times less.
In light of its short lifetime, I would prefer to refer to it as a resonance. I like to reserve the term ‘particle’ for
stable particles. Within the ‘zoo’ of unstable particles Longer-living particles may be referred
The CODATA value for the Compton wavelength of the muon is the following:
1.17344411010−14 m 0.00000002610−14 m
If you divide this by 2 - to get a radius instead of a wavelength – you get the same value: about 1.8710−15
m. So our oscillator model seems to work for a muon as well! Why, then, is it not stable? We think it is
because the oscillation is almost on, but not quite. Let us, therefore, be more precise in our calculation
and use CODATA values for all variables here
The calculated value still falls within CODATA’s uncertainty interval. Hence, we cannot be conclusive, but
we do think the result is quite telling.
We will leave it to the reader to repeat the exercise for the tau-electron: he will find the theoretical a =
ħ/mc radius will not match the CODATA value for its radius.
We think this indirectly confirms our
interpretation of the Planck-Einstein relation.
The Compton radius of a proton
We may now try to apply the ring current model to a proton. We recommend the reader to do the
actual calculation. He or she will see that, when applying the a = ħ/mc radius formula to a proton, we
get a value which is about 1/4 of the measured proton radius: about 0.21 fm, as opposed to the 0.83-
0.84 fm charge radius which was established by Professors Pohl, Gasparan and others over the past
In previous papers
, we motivated the 1/4 factor by referring to the energy equipartition theorem and
assuming energy is, somehow, equally split over electromagnetic field energy and the kinetic energy in
the motion of the zbw charge. However, the reader must have had the same feeling as we had: these
assumptions are rather ad hoc. We, therefore, propose a more radical assumption: we will insert the
factor in the Planck-Einstein relation. We then get this:
In the new calculation, we will also express Planck’s quantum of action and the muon energy in joule so as to get
a more precise wavelength value. Note that the 2/2 = 1 factor in the ratio is there because we calculate a
wavelength (which explains the multiplication by 2) and because we do not use the reduced Planck constant
(which explains the division by 2).
CODATA/NIST values for the properties of the tau-electron can be found here: https://physics.nist.gov/cgi-
For the exact references and contextual information on the (now solved) ‘proton radius puzzle’, see our paper
on it: https://vixra.org/abs/2002.0160.
See reference above.
The reader will probably find this very uncomfortable, but we will let this sink in to come back to it
Indeed, the E = 4ħ·ω relation suggests the force(s) inside of the proton are, effectively, some
stronger variant of the electromagnetic force.
However, before we can proceed to further discussions and reflections on this, we first need to further
elaborate our electron model⎯and how the electromagnetic force fits into it! That is what we will do
The intrinsic properties of an electron: the magnetic moment
One critical reviewer of an earlier manuscript
accused us of just ‘casually connecting formulas.’ We
think we have refuted such accusations in very much detail
but, here, we will just limit ourselves to
some more general remarks.
The calculation of the electron’s Compton radius is very straightforward but it raises the following
question: the a = ħ/mc relation is undetermined. Indeed, because ħ and c are constants, the radius
effectively depends on the mass. Why is the mass of the electron what it is? In other words, what are
the other relations that would allow us to determine a unique radius of the electron? The limited set
of equations that we have used so far effectively allow us to dream up any elementary particle⎯with
any mass or any radius. So what makes an electron an electron and what makes a proton a proton?
Here, we do need to invoke Maxwell’s laws indeed, and the other constants of Nature – most notably
the electric and magnetic constants 0 and 0, which are related to each other and to the fine-structure
constant as follows
Only then we can see that everything is related to everything in this model: our model is, effectively, not
only determined by Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence, the Planck-Einstein relation and the geometry
of the model (the tangential velocity formula). No! We also need the electron charge and the
electric/magnetic constant. Our oscillator model and the traditional ring current (or Zitterbewegung
model) need each other! In other words, we have to get very real here, and so we need to think in terms
of an effective circular electric current generating some electromagnetic field and force that keeps the
We offer extra remarks in the Annex to this paper, in which we discuss the unsolved questions and/or
ambiguities of our approach.
Jean Louis Van Belle, The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Realist Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Easter 2019
We may refer to this paper, in particular: The Electron as a Harmonic Electromagnetic Oscillator
The reader can easily google these results. We get the second and third equation from combining the first and
the definition of the fine-structure constant.
charge in its orbit. Such calculations are quite complicated and we, therefore, refer to previous papers
and/or other authors for the detail. We will just mention some key results here.
1. The electric current inside of the electron – we talk about the actual ring current itself here – can be
calculated as being equal to:
That is huge: it is, effectively, a household-level current at the sub-atomic scale. Based on this, we can
do many other interesting calculations. Oliver Consa, for example, uses the Biot-Savart Law to calculate
the magnetic field at the center of the ring
This is yet another humongous value.
Last but not least, we can calculate the magnitude of the
centripetal force inside of the electron
This force is equivalent to a force that gives a mass of about 106 gram (1 g = 10−3 kg) an acceleration of 1
m/s per second. This is, once again, a rather enormous value considering the sub-atomic scale.
Finally, dividing the force by the charge, we can calculate a value for the field strength inside of the
Another humongous value: just as a yardstick to compare, we may note that the most powerful man-
made accelerators reach field strengths of the order of 109 N/C (1 GV/m) only. So this is a billion times
more. Hence, we may wonder if this value makes any sense at all. We think they do. Why?
Our answer is this: the related energy and mass densities are still very much below the threshold
triggering worries about the effects of such mass/energy densities on the curvature of spacetime. We
offered some thoughts on that in previous papers
so we will limit ourselves to a very simple calculation
See the reference above (https://vixra.org/abs/1905.0521)
See the reference above (Oliver Consa, 2018). In case the reader would want to verify Consa’s calculations, we
may refer to Feynman’s rather straightforward derivation of the relevant formulas. See:
Consa dutifully notes the largest artificial magnetic field created by man is only 90 T (tesla).
Our calculation differs from Consa’s by a 1/2 factor. Indeed, Consa gets twice the value for the force holding the
pointlike charge in orbit: 0.23 N instead of 0.115 N. That is because our electron model is, effectively, somewhat
different from Consa’s. We think of the zbw charge as having an effective (relativistic) mass that is 1/2 (half) of the
total electron mass. Hence, that explains the 1/2 factor: while we feel our model adds some complication, we also
feel our additional assumptions are justified and, therefore, more real. We will come back to this.
We use the same symbol for field and energy here. The reader should not confuse the two concepts, though!
See the reference above (https://vixra.org/abs/1905.0521).
to prove the point: if we would pack all of the mass of an electron into a black hole, then the
Schwarzschild formula gives us a radius that is equal to:
One can see this exceedingly small number has no relation whatsoever with the Compton radius. In fact,
its scale has no relation with whatever distance one encounters in physics: it is much beyond the Planck
scale, which is of the order of 10−35 meter and which, for reasons deep down in relativistic quantum
mechanics, physicists consider to be the smallest possibly sensible distance scale. We, therefore, trust
2. The above-mentioned calculations for currents, internal forces and field strengths are very
interesting but we will never be able to measure these: they will, therefore, remain hypothetical,
always. In contrast, we can measure the magnetic moment and – as we know too well – we know that
measurement reveals an anomaly – i.e. a difference between some theoretical value and the actual
measurement – which needs to be explained.
Indeed, the experimental measurements and the theoretical calculations of the anomalous magnetic
moment are usually hailed as the ‘high-precision test of quantum mechanics’. The Wikipedia article on
this describes this as follows:
“The most precise and specific tests of QED consist of measurements of the
electromagnetic fine-structure constant, α, in various physical systems. Checking the
consistency of such measurements tests the theory. Tests of a theory are normally carried out
by comparing experimental results to theoretical predictions. In QED, there is some subtlety in
this comparison, because theoretical predictions require as input an extremely precise value
of α, which can only be obtained from another precision QED experiment. Because of this, the
comparisons between theory and experiment are usually quoted as independent
determinations of α. QED is then confirmed to the extent that these measurements of α from
different physical sources agree with each other. The agreement found this way is to within ten
parts in a billion (10−8), based on the comparison of the electron anomalous magnetic dipole
moment and the Rydberg constant from atom recoil measurements as described below. This
Having said that, we are very much intrigued by suggestions that the Schwarzschild formula can or should not be
used as it because of the particularities of our model. The hybrid structure of the electron would, effectively, seem
to imply that, perhaps, we should not calculate the Schwarzschild radius of our electron as we would calculate it
for, say, a baseball or some other more or less uniformly distributed mass. To be precise, we are particularly
intrigued by models that suggest that, when incorporating the above-mentioned properties of an electron, the
Compton radius might actually be the radius of an electron-sized black hole. See, for example, the papers
published by Dr. Alexander Burinskii (2008, 2016). Could the integration of gravity into the model provide some
path to unifying gravity with particle physics? We are not well versed in these more advanced theories, so we will
just refer the reader here to more advanced treatments. The exact reference of Alexander Burinskii’s work is this:
The Dirac–Kerr–Newman electron, 19 March 2008, https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507109. Adepts of string and
other theories should probably read Dr. Burinskii’s more recent articles, such as this: The New Path to Unification
of Gravity with Particle Physics, 2016 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1701.01025), in which Dr. Burinskii relates his model to
theories such as the “supersymmetric Higgs field” and the “Nielsen-Olesen model of dual string based on the
Landau-Ginzburg (LG) field model.” Instinctively, we feel these models are way too complicated and, therefore, not
very convincing⎯but we readily admit this is just our non-informed and, therefore, non-scientific guts instinct.
makes QED one of the most accurate physical theories constructed thus far.”
Oliver Consa’s seminal February 2020 article on the actual history of this theory and the measurements
suggests a huge scientific scam fueled by the need to keep the funds flowing for upgrades of
technological infrastructure such as high-value particle accelerators and other prestigious projects
costing hundreds of millions of dollars.
We think it is a good point to make: applying for grants by
saying physics is basically dead because all problems have been solved is not a great business strategy.
Top academics may also have other motives for keeping the mystery alive. Religious ones, perhaps: God
must be hiding somewhere, isn’t it?
And the last place He can hide is in modern-day versions of
medieval metaphysical principles⎯ think of the largely unexplained Uncertainty Principle here.
not religious, and so we want to strictly stick to logic and science. Let us, therefore, proceed with some
The ring current model allows us to calculate a theoretical value for the magnetic moment. Indeed, from
Maxwell’s Laws one can derive an easy formula for the magnetic moment: it is equal to the current
times the area of the loop.
We, therefore, get this:
As mentioned above, this is a theoretical value. The CODATA value – which is supposed to be based on
– is slightly different:
μCODATA = 9.2847647043(28)10−24 J·T−1
The difference is the so-called anomaly, which we can easily calculate as follows
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED, accessed on 10 March 2020.
Oliver Consa, Something is Rotten in the State of QED, February 2020 (https://vixra.org/abs/2002.0011).
Keeping the mystery alive is, of course, a tendency that is also present in much of the non-mainstream research.
We are appalled, for example, by attempts trying to incorporate consciousness into particle physics. See, for
example, the work of Richard Gauthier (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Gauthier2) who – after
having produced some fine electron models – now seems to focus on the idea of some ‘cosmic intelligence
creating and maintaining our multiverse.' Let us be clear: this sounds like utter nonsense to us!
A careful philosophical reading of the comments on this quantum-mechanical dogma reveals most authors
prefer to not define what they mean by ‘uncertainty’: for us, it’s just statistical (in)determinism, but most writers
make it look like yet another non-scientific God-like concept playing the role of the ultimate ‘hidden variable’.
For a straightforward derivation of this formula, we refer – once again – to the Great Teacher: Richard Feynman
(https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_14.html#Ch14-S5). In case the reader wonders: our reference to
Richard Feynman as a great teacher is somewhat ambiguous: we feel he is part of the group of post-WW II
physicists which I now think of mystery Wallahs.
One reason why we think Oliver Consa’s criticism of both the (mainstream) theory as well as the measurements
of the anomalous magnetic moments is justified is that the US National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) – which is the institution which publishes these CODATA values – is not very clear about how they weigh the
various experimental results to arrive at some weighted average that, by some magic, then sort of corresponds to
the theoretical two-, three- or n-loop calculations based on quantum field theory.
You should watch out with the minus signs here – and you may want to think why you put what in the
denominator – but it all works out!
The reader will recognize this value: it is, effectively, equal to about 99.85% of Schwinger’s factor: α/2π
We think of the anomaly as the litmus test of our model too, so how do we explain it?
The intrinsic properties of an electron: the non-anomalous anomaly
We do not think of the anomaly as an anomaly. We see an immediate perfectly rational explanation for
it: we think the zbw charge has some very tiny (but non-zero) spatial dimension. As a result, we should
distinguish between its effective and theoretical (tangential) velocity. The effective velocity – which we
will denote as v – is very near but not exactly equal to c. Likewise, we should distinguish between an
effective radius – which we will denote as r – versus its theoretical radius a = ħ/mc. Let us get through
the logic here.
We should, first and foremost, note the crucial assumption here, which is that we think the accuracy of
the Planck-Einstein relation is preserved, always! We, therefore, think we should not only distinguish
between a theoretical and an actual (i.e. experimentally determined) magnetic moment but also
between a theoretical and an actual radius of the ring current. To be precise, based on the measured
value of the magnetic moment (i.e. the CODATA value), we can calculate the anomaly of the radius of
the presumed ring current. Indeed, the frequency is, of course, the velocity of the charge divided by the
circumference of the loop. Because we assume the velocity of our charge is equal to c, we get the
following radius value:
We should note that we get a value that is slightly different from the theoretical a = c/ω = ħ/mc radius
which was equal to 0.38616… pm. We, therefore, have an anomaly, indeed! We can confirm this
anomaly by re-doing this calculation using the Planck-Einstein relation to calculate the frequency:
We again get a slightly different value⎯again a slightly larger value that the theoretical a = ħ/mc value.
How can we explain this? Let us go through the calculations here.
1. Let us first find a theoretical value for the magnetic moment by equating the two formulas for the
radius that we have presented so far. Both are based on a different physical concept of the frequency of
the oscillation. While different, we can only have one radius, of course. We, therefore, get this:
So that confirms the theoretical value of the magnetic moment, which is equal to the above-mentioned
μCODATA = 9.27401… J·T-1.
2. Now, we know that a magnetic moment is generated by a current in a loop and, from experiment, we
know that the actual magnetic moment is slightly higher than the above-mentioned value. We can,
therefore, calculate the effective radius – using one of the two formulas above – from the actual
magnetic moment. If you do this, you should get this:
We effectively get a larger value than the Compton radius, which is equal to 0.38616 fm⎯more or less.
We can now calculate an anomaly based on these two radii:
We get the same thing here: the anomaly of the radius is, once again, equal to about 99.85% of
Schwinger’s factor: α/2π = 0.00116141…
This allows us to guide the reader through the following calculations.
3. Our assumption is that the anomaly is not an anomaly at all. We get it because of our mathematical
idealizations: we do not really believe that pointlike charge are, effectively, pointlike and, therefore,
dimensionless. In other words, we think the assumption that the electron is just a pointlike or
dimensionless charge is non-sensical: when thinking of what might be going on at the smallest scale of
Nature, we should abandon these mathematical idealizations: an object that has no physical dimension
whatsoever does – quite simply – not exist.
We should, therefore, effectively distinguish the effective radius r and the effective velocity v from the
theoretical values a and c. We can write this:
There is a crucial step here: we equated the anomaly to 1 + α/2π. Is that a good approximation? In a
first-order approximation, it is. In fact, the reader will probably have heard that Schwinger’s α/2π factor
explains about 99.85% of the anomaly, but it is actually better than. Check it: the μr/μa ratio is about
99.99982445% of 1 + α/2π.
4. We can also calculate the effective velocity. We will use the fact that the v/c and r/a ratios must be
the same, as we can see from the tangential velocity formula:
We can, therefore, calculate the relative velocity as:
We realize this is a long text. However, we beg the reader to bear with us. We feel the view from the top
warrants the climb⎯and more than a bit! Of course, this is just a mountaineer’s opinion.
Needless to say, for r, we use the CODATA value.
Great ! We’re done ! The only thing that’s left to explain is… Well… How can the effective radius be
larger than the theoretical one? And how can the effectively velocity be larger than c? Think of about
the physicality of the situation here⎯as depicted below.
If the zbw charge is effectively whizzing around at the speed of light, and we think of it as a charged
sphere or shell, then its effective center of charge will not coincide with its center. Why not? Because
the ratio between (1) the charge that is outside of the disk formed by the radius of its orbital motion and
(2) the charge inside – note the triangular areas between the diameter line of the smaller circle (think of
it as the zbw charge) and the larger circle (which represent its orbital) – is slightly larger than 1/2. In fact,
the reader should actually think of the zbw charge as a small sphere but relativity theory tells us a
sphere will appear as a disk because of relativistic length contraction. Hence, the drawing is actually not
correct: the plane of the disk is perpendicular to the direction of motion.
It all looks astonishingly simple, doesn’t it? Too simple? We don’t think so, but we will let you – the
reader – judge, of course!
To conclude this section, we should add one more formula. It is an interesting one because it brings a
very important nuance to the quantum-mechanical rule that angular momentum should come in units
5. Indeed, our calculation shows the actual angular momentum of an electron must be
slightly larger than ħ:
Unsurprisingly, the difference is, once again, given by Schwinger’s α/2π factor.
Let us now re-visit the muon-electron, so as to analyze the nature of this force.
The nature of the force inside the muon-electron
We tentatively showed that the ring current model works for the muon as well, because we already
calculated a Compton radius for it that matches – more or less, that is – with the CODATA value.
However, there are at least two or three obvious questions here, which we should and will answer:
1. Why is the muon unstable? We already answered that one: we think it is because the oscillation is
almost on, but not quite.
2. Why is the centripetal force so much stronger for a muon than it is for an electron?
3. Why is the anomaly of the magnetic moment of the muon almost - but not quite - the same as that of
the electron? Let us list the CODATA values for the magnetic moment of an electron, a muon and
Schwinger's factor respectively:
ae = 1.00115965218128(18)
aμ = 1.00116592089(63)
1 + α/2π = 1.00116140973...
Let us start with the last question⎯on the anomaly. The attentive reader will have noticed we refrained
from fast conclusions on the radius or diameter of the zbw charge while analyzing the difference
between the effective and theoretical (Compton) radius of an electron. If the zbw charge inside a muon
and an electron would be the same hard core charge, then the anomaly of the magnetic moment of a
muon-electron would not have the same order of magnitude. We may, indeed, remind ourselves that
the anomaly in the magnetic moment must equal the (square root of the) anomaly of the radius:
[The square or the square root in these formulas is always difficult to appreciate but think of it like this:
the (angular) frequency is the ratio of the (tangential) velocity and the radius, so we have two variables
(rather than just one) - velocity and radius - that must be proportional to the same factor (frequency).
The point is intuitive and, at the same time, not at all. In any case, the reader will be able to verify the
formula above respects the (r·v)/(a·c) = μr/μa = 1 + α/2π equation, so that's at least something. :-)]
So what’s the matter here? It is a rather intuitive thought, but we suspect there is no real hard core
charge—not inside the electron, and not inside the muon. In contrast, we do believe some kind of
fractal structure must be there—finite or infinite. [Fractals structures are usually thought of as infinite
structures: ratios within ratios, but we see no a priori reason here to think of an infinite structure
here: Nature seems to be discrete - so the 'order within the order' may involve some absolute scaling
We took this text from our new website: Beyond Physics (https://ideez.org/matter/). This new site summarizes
various pieces into a new structure. Hence, the reader may note there may be some overlap with other sections in
this paper. Also, we apologize if the language does not always fit with the rest of the paper.
constant as well. Because we have no idea about the dimensions of that constant, we should probably
think of it as some kind of absolute minimum value on any scale. If this sounds absurd, we may usefully
note that the fine-structure constant has no physical dimension whatsoever. As such, we think α (no
physical dimension) and ħ (a product of force, distance and time) make for a good couple. :-)]
Let us revert to the second question. This question is quite deep. Let us analyze this in terms of the
centripetal acceleration vector here, which we will denote by ac, and which is equal to:
ac = vt2/r = r·ω2
Is this formula relativistically correct? Where does it come from? The position or radius vector r (which
describes the position of the zbw charge) has a horizontal and a vertical component: x = r·cos(ωt) and y
= r·sin(ωt). We can now calculate the two components of the (tangential) velocity vector v = dr/dt as vx =
-r·ω·sin(ωt) and vy y = -r· ω·cos(ωt) and, in the next step, the components of the (centripetal)
acceleration vector ac: ax = -r·ω2·cos(ωt) and ay = -r·ω2·sin(ωt). The magnitude of this vector is then
calculated as follows:
ac2 = ax2 + ay2 = r2·ω4·cos2(ωt) + r2·ω4·sin2(ωt) = r2·ω4 ac = r·ω2 = vt2/r
Now, the tangential velocity is assumed to be equal to c, and the radius r is equal to r = ħ/mc. The
centripetal acceleration should, therefore, be equal to:
Now, Newton’s force law tells us that the magnitude of the centripetal force ǀFǀ = F will be equal to the
product of this acceleration and the mass, but what mass should we use here? We need to use the
effective mass of the zbw charge as it zitters around the center of its motion at (nearly) the speed of
light. We will denote the effective mass as mγ, and we used a geometric argument to prove it is half the
electron mass—or, in this case, the muon mass. [The reader may not be familiar with the concept of the
effective mass of an electron but it pops up quite naturally in quantum physics. Richard Feynman, for
example, gets the equation out of a quantum-mechanical analysis of how an electron could move along
a line of atoms in a crystal lattice.
] To make a long story short, we get this for the force inside the
muon—and the electron, if we replace m by the electron mass, that is:
We can double-check this formula by using the other formula for ac:
The reader may be tired by now and wonder: what's the point of these calculations? It is this: if we
denote the force inside the muon by Fμ and the force inside the electron by Fe , then we can use the
CODATA value for the mμ/me mass ratio to calculate both the absolute as well as the relative strength of
both forces. Indeed, their ratio (Fμ/Fe) can be calculated as:
Now, we already calculated the actual value for the force inside the electron. We found it to be equal to:
Again, that's a huge force at the sub-atomic scale: it is equivalent to a force that gives a mass of about
106 gram (1 g = 10-3 kg) an acceleration of 1 m/s per second! However, our force ratio shows the force
inside the muon-electron is about 42,743 times stronger! Hence, we should probably refer to it as the
strong(er) force—especially because we know muon decay also involves the emission of neutrinos,
which we think of as carriers of the strong force!
To be precise, you can do the calculation using CODATA values for the energy or mass of the muon, and
you will find the centripetal force inside a muon should be equal to about 4,532 N. Enormous, but not as
enormous as the force which holds a proton together. Indeed, a proton is even smaller (about 0.83-84
fm) and even more massive: the proton-muon mass ratio is about 8.88.
So what happens there? We'll
turn to that discussion in the next section. Before we do so, we will just quickly jot down the decay
reaction of a muon—to show those neutrinos! Indeed, a muon decays into an electron while emitting
two neutrinos: one with low energy - which is referred to as an electron neutrino - and another with
very high energy - which is referred to as a muon neutrino. So it looks like this:
μ− → e− + νe + νμ
The muon's anti-matter counterpart decays into the positron, of course:
μ+ → e+ + νe + νμ
Should we distinguish anti-neutrinos here? We don't think so. Neutrinos may have opposite spin, but
the idea of anti-matter involves a charge, and neutrinos - just like photons - do not carry charge. We
mention this because we think of the question of the anti-neutrino as one of those mystery which
mainstream physicists religiously worship
The electron versus the proton: separate forces or modes of the same?
We have many more things to talk about but – as we’re reaching 25+ pages here – we should probably
think of a way to wrap things up. We are not sure how to go about this. We have so many papers
– as mentioned before – we feel we shouldn’t repeat ourselves too much. Hence, we should
probably limit ourselves to some of the quintessential ideas in what may or may not amount to a
wholistic alternative interpretation of quantum physics.
We think our papers over the last two or three years covering a pretty bewildering array of quantum-mechanical
topics⎯ranging, as they do, from physical explanations of the wavefunction (and Schrödinger’s equation) to the
weird interference patterns one gets from one-photon Mach-Zehnder interference experiments. For a full list, see:
These quintessential ideas include (1) the idea of the effective mass of the zbw charge and (2) the idea of
a stronger version of the electromagnetic force⎯so as to explain the mass and the radius of a proton.
We will probably further expand on the following quick calculations in a future version of this paper. As
for now, we kindly request the reader to accept them – not on face value but on his or her own intuition
in regard to what might or might not make sense – while going through the motions so as to arrive at
the final conclusions of this paper.
1. Let us do some more calculations by doing some more thinking about the geometry of that
centripetal force which we think keeps the elementary charge in motion. One approach might be to
calculate the centripetal acceleration, which should be equal to:
ac = vt2/a = a·ω2
It is probably useful to remind ourselves how we get this result so as to make sure our calculations are
relativistically correct. The position vector r (which describes the position of the zbw charge) has a
horizontal and a vertical component: x = a·cos(ωt) and y = a·sin(ωt). We can now calculate the two
components of the (tangential) velocity vector v = dr/dt as vx = −a·ω·sin(ωt) and vy y = −a· ω·cos(ωt) and,
in the next step, the components of the (centripetal) acceleration vector ac: ax = −a·ω2·cos(ωt) and ay =
−a·ω2·sin(ωt). The magnitude of this vector is then calculated as follows:
ac2 = ax2 + ay2 = a2·ω4·cos2(ωt) + a2·ω4·sin2(ωt) = a2·ω4 ac = a·ω2 = vt2/a
Now, Newton’s force law tells us that the magnitude of the centripetal force F= F will be equal to:
F = mγ·ac = mγ·a·ω2
As usual, the mγ factor is, once again, the effective mass of the zbw charge as it zitters around the center
of its motion at (nearly) the speed of light: it is half the electron mass.
If we denote the centripetal
force inside the electron as Fe, we can relate it to the electron mass me as follows:
2. Assuming our logic in regard to the effective mass of the zbw charge inside a proton is also valid –
and using the 4E = ħω and a = ħ/4mc relations – we get the following equation for the centripetal force
inside of a proton
The reader may not be familiar with the concept of the effective mass of an electron but it pops up very
naturally in the quantum-mechanical analysis of the linear motion of electrons. Feynman, for example, gets the
equation out of a quantum-mechanical analysis of how an electron could move along a line of atoms in a crystal
lattice. See: Feynman’s Lectures, Vol. III, Chapter 16: The Dependence of Amplitudes on Position
(https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_16.html). We have been criticized by fellow physicists for our
calculations of the 1/2 factor. We feel they are sound – see, once again, our paper on the oscillator model of an
electron (https://vixra.org/abs/1905.0521) – but, yes, we welcome constructive criticism because we do admit that
the whole argument does somewhat heuristic right now.
We apply a factor of 1/4 (rather than 1/2) to calculate the effective mass of the proton here. It has to do with
the specific assumptions.
How should we think of this? In our oscillator model, we think of the centripetal force as a restoring
force. This force depends linearly on the displacement from the center and the (linear) proportionality
constant is usually written as k. Hence, we can write Fe and Fp as Fe = −kex and Fp = −kpx respectively.
Taking the ratio of both so as to have an idea of the respective strength of both forces, we get this:
Nice – you might think – but how meaningful are these relations, really? We try to be very honest, so
we’ll admit we actually feel rather uncomfortable with these formulas.
If we would be thinking of the
centripetal or restoring force as modeling some elasticity of spacetime – which is nothing but the guts
intuition behind all of the more complicated string theories of matter – then we may think of
distinguishing between a fundamental frequency and higher-level harmonics or overtones.
it’s not so easy to sort of ‘translate’ the relations above into such simple statements. The strong force –
and the proton itself – remains, therefore, a bit of a mystery!
We will refer the reader to the Annex at this point, in which we do the detailed calculations. It turns out
that these detailed calculations give rather monstrous values for the centripetal force. There is also the
question of the size of the charge inside. The two sets of issues combine into some rather serious
question marks. In fact, they make us wonder whether the ring current is actually appropriate for the
proton! Perhaps we should think of the proton as a disk-like structure or some other geometry
integrating the idea of a spinning charge and angular momentum. We won’t expand on that here,
however: there is sufficient detail in the Annex!
We calculate actual numerical values in the Annex to this paper. They do not look good. They look even worse
than the numerical values we got when calculating ratios between the electromagnetic and strong force using
Yukawa’s equation for the nuclear potential. See, for example: https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0311, in which we do a
rough calculation showing the nuclear force must be in the range of 358,000 N! Now we get a value of 22.9 million
N! We probably made some huge mistake somewhere! Or perhaps we didn’t: the very different orders of
magnitude of natural constants often produce shocking ratios that – after some reflection – then turn out to be
not all that crazy! We invite the reader to go through all of the calculations: we very much welcome critical
comments! [Our guts instinct tells us we’re missing gravity in these equations⎯but integrating that requires very
advanced math, which we don’t have.]
For a basic introduction, see my blog posts on modes or on music and physics (e.g.
We think we solved quite a few mysteries already, but this one seems very intractable! We refer the reader to
the Annex, in which we do the detailed calculations. These detailed calculations give rather monstrous values for
the centripetal force which actually makes us wonder if the ring current is actually appropriate for the proton!
Perhaps we should think
The neutrino as the carrier of the strong(er) force
We think of a photon a simple oscillation of the electromagnetic field: it does not carry any electric
This is why the concept of virtual photons does not appeal to us⎯not at all, actually: if
we believe that two electric charges – static or in relative motion one to another – produce some
electromagnetic field that keeps them together, then we don’t need virtual photons to carry energy or
momentum between them.
We can now think of neutrinos as oscillations of the above-mentioned ‘strong’ or – there may be higher
modes – stronger version of the electromagnetic field.
Why? Let us – for reasons of convenience –
refer to the stronger version of the centripetal force as… Well… The strong force.
If we have two forces, we must also have two different energies. Why? Energy is force over a distance.
Distance is distance, so they do not have any stronger or weaker variant. In contrast, if we distinguish
between a strong force and an electromagnetic force, then we should also distinguish between
electromagnetic from strong energy. Hence, the idea of neutrinos taking care of the energy equation
when some shake-up involves a change in the energy state of a nucleus makes perfect sense to me.
In other words, the idea of a counterpart of the photon (as the carrier of the electromagnetic force) for
the strong force – i.e. the neutrino as the carrier of the strong force – makes perfect sense to us.
Inter-nucleon forces: what keeps protons and neutrons together?
We must now, of course, answer the question which led Yukawa and others to propose an entirely
different force must be present inside the nucleus: what keeps protons (and neutrons) together? Here
we must thank another Zitterbewegung theorist (Giorgio Vassallo
) for pointing us to the exciting work
of Dr. Paolo Di Sia of the University of Padova, who shows the nuclear force between protons (and
neutrons) may be explained by the classical electromagnetic force between current coils. These current
coils are, of course, the ring currents inside the proton and – we think – inside of the neutron too!
Indeed, just by using the classical Biot-Savart Law once again, Di Sia derives what is generally referred to
as a nuclear lattice effective field theory (NLEFT). The results match the typical assumptions in regard to
inter-nucleon distances, which are of the order of 0.2 fm. For more detail, we advise the reader to
download Di Sia’s work
which, unlike the bulk of other quantum-mechanical publications, is very
See our papers on this, including but not limited to our Relativity, Light and Photons
This reflects our earlier remarks: as far as we are concerned, the concept of a field versus that of a matter-
particle – with the former not carrying any charge, as opposed to the latter – deals with it all. No need for quantum
field theory mixing up the two.
If the charge remains the same, but the force is stronger, then the field (think of it as the force without a charge
to act on) will be stronger as well.
For his profile and research, see: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Giorgio_Vassallo.
We think the neutron combines a proton and an electron, with the oscillating electron also serving to keep
nucleons together. See: Electrons as Gluons? (https://vixra.org/abs/1908.0430)
See: Paolo Di Sia, A Solution to the 80 years old problem of the nuclear force, International Journal of Applied and
Advanced Scientific Research (IJAASR), Volume 3, Issue 2, 2018
readable for the amateur physicist as well.
We should add an additional note: we think of the neutron as a composite particle⎯combining a proton
and an electron. Hence, we may want to think of the electron as some kind of gluon between nucleons
At the same time, we should add, of course, that any detailed model of these inter-nucleon forces based
on standard electromagnetic theory should include an equally carefully analysis of the enormous
electrostatic repulsive forces. In one of our papers, we effectively calculated that force. At the typical
inter-nucleon distance (0.21 fm), it is equal to about 5,200 N.
That’s equivalent to a force that gives a
mass of 5.2 metric ton (1 g = 10−3 kg) an acceleration of 1 m/s per second. We should, therefore,
probably analyze Di Sia’s calculations of what are – essentially – magnetic forces, very carefully.
Having said that, we believe this line of research has much potential.
What about the weak force?
We now have both the electromagnetic and strong force covered⎯sort of. What about the weak force?
We have stated our point of view before here, and very clearly so. Our answer is, effectively, brutally
short⎯or just brutal, I guess: we think the concept of a weak force doesn’t make sense.
We know Glashow, Salam and Weinberg got a Nobel Prize in Physics for modeling the weak force but –
from what we wrote above – it is rather obvious we think it is a crucial mistake to think of the weak
force as a force.
We think decay or disintegration processes should be analyzed in terms of transient or
resonant oscillations and in terms of classical laws: conservation of energy, linear and angular
momentum, charge and – most importantly – in terms of the Planck-Einstein relation. Forces keep
things together: they should not be associated with things falling apart.
Again, we are getting much beyond the intended 20 pages here, so we will leave further reflections on
this for the next version of this paper. Let us proceed to some kind of conclusion.
An alternative Theory of Everything? What about gravity?
The reader will probably think all of the above is a rather meagre alternative Theory of Everything. We
acknowledge that: in any case, the reader is always right, right? There are two or three reasons why
we kept it meagre⎯perhaps only one, really:
1. We wanted to keep the paper short⎯and we realize we are not doing a good job at that.
2. We want the reader to have some fun thinking through the concepts themselves.
3. See the reason(s) above.
See the Annex to this paper as well as our first tentative paper on this: Electrons as Gluons,
See our paper on the Yukawa potential, force and charge (https://vixra.org/abs/1906.0311).
The reader will think that’s brutal. We actually think of it as an understatement. In order to shock the reader into
thinking for himself, let us put it this way: we think the idea of a weak force is plain nonsensical. From a
philosophical point of view, we think one can easily show it is a contradiction in terminis.
4. We are rather tired of repeating things we talked about in previous papers.
Having said that, we should note we did cover all of the stable and non-stable particles in this paper⎯in
about 30 pages only (excluding the Annex, of course)! That, in itself, is quite an achievement, isn’t it?
The second of the two questions in the title of this section must be the final question: if the strong force
is just another mode of the electromagnetic force, then what about gravity? The honest answer is this:
we have no clue whatsoever. In this regard, we can only note that the scope of our theory is not any
larger – nor any smaller! – than that of the Standard Model: it’s a theory about almost everything.
Having said that, the reader will have to acknowledge it’s much simpler and – therefore – much more
Back to the question. What’s gravity? Gravity is and remains a mystery. Efforts to think of it as some
residual force (electromagnetic and strong forces may not cancel out) look equally tedious and non-
productive as, say, trying to think about what quarks or W/Z bosons might actually be. Einstein’s
geometrical approach to gravity continues to make sense, intuitively⎯but that’s only because of its
mathematical beauty, basically. Of course, we fully acknowledge that a beautiful theory is not
necessarily true. On this point, we may quote Dirac
“It seems that if one is working from the point of view of getting beauty in one's equations, and
if one has really a sound insight, one is on a sure line of progress. If there is not complete
agreement between the results of one's work and experiment, one should not allow oneself to
be too discouraged, because the discrepancy may well be due to minor features that are not
properly taken into account and that will get cleared up with further development of the
The gravitational force, obviously, keeps the Universe together – even as it expands.
Indeed, we have
the Earth going around the Sun (or – in a Ptolemaian world view – the Sun around the Earth, but we
don’t like to think that way because then we have too many reference frames to deal with), and we also
have the Milky Way next to Andromeda, and so on and so on. In other words, perhaps we should think
of gravity as a very simple idea: we live in One Universe. Full stop. Without gravity, the Universe
wouldn’t stick together, would it? Hence, Einstein’s geometrical approach to gravity – which basically
amounts to saying gravitation is, effectively, not a force but a structure – makes a lot of sense to us.
For more advanced theories or research integrating gravity and particle physics, we must refer to the
already mentioned work of Dr. Alexander Burinskii.
We refer the reader to our 50+ papers covering other relevant topics, which include but are not limited to a
physical interpretation of the wavefunction (https://vixra.org/abs/1901.0105) and the de Broglie wavelength
(https://vixra.org/abs/1902.0333). We also think our interpretation of one-photon Mach-Zehnder interference
should interest the reader (https://vixra.org/abs/1812.0455).
We quickly googled and the results indicate Dirac wrote these words in an article for the May 1963 issue of
Scientific American. Dirac was born in August 1902, so he was getting closer to retirement then. It is interesting to
see how Dirac distanced himself from mainstream quantum mechanics at a later age. He must have had the same
feeling: al this hocus pocus cannot amount to a real explanation.
The Universe is expanding, of course! We do not doubt the measurements here. At the same time, it is sticking
together! Fortunately! Otherwise we would not be here to write any stories about it.
See Footnote 62.
While this paper is only about 30 pages, we do think it offers a simple but correct explanation of
(almost) everything. The reader should probably think of it as a Great Simplification Theory rather than a
Great Unification Theory but – if the simplifications are mathematically correct, which we think they are
– then that should be good enough.
Jean Louis Van Belle, 23 April 2020
Annex: Some unsolved or difficult questions
We’ve presented some rather grand results of our ring current model. However, we will not hide there
are some issues and questions that we have not been able to solve⎯or which we may have solved,
somehow, but still feel like they are a bit shaky or problematic. Let us go through these.
The neutron model
We think of photons, electrons and protons – and neutrinos – as elementary particles. Elementary
particles are, obviously, stable. They would not be elementary, otherwise. The difference between
photons and neutrinos on the one hand, and electrons, protons and other matter-particles on the other,
is that we think all matter-particles carry charge⎯even if they are neutral.
A neutron is an example of a neutral matter-particle. We know it is unstable outside of the nucleus but
its longevity – as compared to other non-stable particles – is remarkable. Let us explore what it might
be⎯if only to provide some kind of model for analyzing other unstable particle, perhaps.
We should first note that the neutron radius is about the same as that of a proton. How do we know
this? We quickly googled but – funnily enough – NIST only gives the rms charge radius for a proton
(based on the various proton radius measurements). There is only a CODATA value for the Compton
wavelength for a neutron, which is more or less the same as that for the proton. To be precise, the two
values are this.
neutron = 1.31959090581(75)10-15 m
proton = 1.32140985539(40)10-15 m
These values are just mechanical calculations based on the mass or energy of protons and neutrons
respectively: the Compton wavelength is, effectively, calculated as = h/mc.
A comparison between
the energies is, therefore, more interesting. The neutron’s energy is about 939,565,420 eV. The proton
energy is about 938,272,088 eV. Hence, the difference is about 1,293,332 eV. This mass difference,
combined with the fact that neutrons spontaneously decay into protons but – conversely – there is no
such thing as spontaneous proton decay
, makes us think a neutron must, somehow, combine a proton
and an electron. The mass of an electron is 0.511 MeV/c2, so that’s only about 40% of the energy
difference, but the kinetic and binding energy could make up for the remainder.
So, yes, let us think of
a neutron as carrying both positive and negative charge inside. These charges balance each other out
(there is no net electric charge) but their respective motion still yields a small magnetic moment, which
we think of as some net result from the motion of the positive and negative charge inside. To be precise,
The reader should note that the Compton wavelength and, therefore, the Compton radius is inversely
proportional to the mass: a more massive particle is, therefore, associated with a smaller radius. This is somewhat
counterintuitive but it is what it is.
None of the experiments (think of the Super-Kamiokande detector here) found any evidence of proton decay so
The reader should note that the mass of a proton and an electron add up to less than the mass of a neutron,
which is why it is only logical that a neutron should decay into a proton and an electron. Binding energies – think of
Feynman’s calculations of the radius of the hydrogen atom, for example (see:
https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_02.html#Ch2-S4) – are usually negative.
the CODATA value for the magnetic moment of a neutron is equal to
μneutron = 9.6623651(23)10−27 J T −1
The CODATA value for the magnetic moment of an electron is (almost) 961 times larger:
μelectron = 9.2847647043(28)10−24 J·T −1
Can we, perhaps, try some easy calculations combining the magnetic moment of a proton and an
electron? Let us see. The CODATA value for the magnetic moment of a proton is equal to:
μproton = 14.1060679736(60)10−27 J·T −1
The ratio between e and p is about 658, more or less. These are strange numbers. We already mentioned
that, if we accept a theoretical radius for the proton that is equal to ap = 4ħ/mc, then the ring current
model yields the following theoretical value for the magnetic moment:
This value differs from the CODATA value by a factor, more or less
. In previous papers, we argued
the a factor can be explained by the precession of the current loop in the magnetic field.
think that the actual velocity of the proton charge in its circular motion must be somewhat less than the
velocity of light. This echoes our explanation of the anomalous magnetic moment for the electron. We
calculated the anomaly for the proton based on the actual magnetic moment – as given by its CODATA
value – and found that the anomaly for the proton is actually larger, relatively speaking, than for the
electron. The calculation is this
One should compare this value to the α/2π factor for the electron, which is equal to 0.001161, more or
less. Hence, the anomaly for the proton is about 11 times larger than the anomaly for the electron. We
are not worried about this because the most recent precision measurement of the proton radius – we
refer to the 2019 PRad experiment here
– yields the same order of magnitude for the anomaly of the
We make abstraction of the sign of the electron and proton charge. The reader can add it if he or she wishes to
Multiplying the CODATA value for p by yields a value that is equal to about 19.94910−27 J·T −1.
See our previous calculations on the theoretical and actual radius and magnetic moment of a proton:
https://vixra.org/pdf/2001.0685v8.pdf. We think the argument is solid but it triggers an obvious question: why is
there no such factor for the CODATA value of the magnetic moment of an electron? We have no answer to that:
we must, somehow, assume the electron value has already been corrected for precession. Prof. Dr. Randolf Pohl,
who not only knows all about proton radius measurements but who is also a member of the CODATA Task Group
for Fundamental Constants, may know more in this regard.
One can do the calculations with or without the precession factor: they yield the same result. We also left
the 10−27 scale factors out because these cancel each other out.
Based on this, we think the PRad value might be the actual proton radius, while the results from the
muonic hydrogen spectroscopy experiments (the 2010 experiments done by Prof. Dr. Pohl, that is) may
not include the anomaly⎯although we have no idea what that would be so.
However, we got distracted here. We were trying to do some calculations with the magnetic moments
but we can readily see we do not get anywhere when adding or subtracting the magnetic moments of the
electron and the proton. The only sensible thing we can say is that the magnetic moment of the neutron
and the proton have the same order of magnitude. To be precise, the magnetic moment of a proton is
about 1.46 times that of a neutron. What can we do with this? Perhaps there is some forgotten factor
in the magnetic moment of a neutron too? If so, then the two magnetic moments would be the
same⎯more or less, at least: .
However, it is obvious we get into a rather shaky line of argument here. In short, the summary conclusions
have to be these:
If a neutron somehow combines a proton and an electron, then how should we imagine such
combination? The measured values for the magnetic moments seem to give no clue.
We should also note another problem here: the classical electron radius is much larger than the proton or
neutron radius. Hence, how can we possibly fit an electron into a neutron?
Let us analyze this question in a separate section.
The size of the electron charge
We did the calculations in the text. We get this difference between the effective and theoretical radius of
We equate the anomaly to Schwinger’s factor here, so we make abstraction of the higher order factors in
the anomaly. Because we know Schwinger’s factor explains about 99.85% of the anomaly, we have a ‘good
enough’ equation here⎯for a first approximation, at least! Re-inserting the higher-order factors – but just
using the … symbol for them – we get:
This is a very interesting equation. A priori, one might have expected that the difference between the a =
ħ/mc Compton radius and the actual radius r would be of the order of α·a. Why? Because α·a is the
classical electron radius, which explains elastic scattering. We, therefore, do think of it as some kind of
actual radius of the zbw charge inside of the electron.
However, the result above shows we should probably not think of the zbw charge as some solid sphere
of charge. The 1/2π factor is, effectively, equal to about 0.16, so the difference between what we think
of the real radius of the ring current and its theoretical radius a = ħ/mc is just a fraction of α·a. We are
not sure how to make sense of this. Perhaps we should think of some kind of fractal structure here: is
the zbw charge itself a smaller version of the zbw electron? We have no idea. It is a great mystery!
So, yes, that is not so good: We like to think our model has clarified a lot of mysteries but, yes, some
mystery is left! On the positive side, we should remind the reader our model does seem to solve one
of the questions which Richard Feynman struggled with. Indeed, he got the following interesting formula
when calculating the electromagnetic mass or energy of a sphere of charge with radius a
Feynman was puzzled by that ½ factor: where is the other half of the energy (or the mass) of the
electron? Our ring current model shows the ½ factor is quite logical: Feynman is assembling the zbw
charge here⎯not the electron as a whole. Hence, the missing mass is in the Zitterbewegung or
orbital/circular motion of the zbw charge. We can now derive the classical electron radius from the
However, as mentioned, while we get a very sensible formula for the classical electron radius here, it
does not solve our question: this value is about 3.4 times the (assumed) radius of the neutron, so how
can it possibly fit into the neutron? It cannot. It made us make the following semi-serious joke in one of
our papers on nuclear processes
“Electron capture by a proton? If size matters, we should probably think of it as proton capture
by an electron – because, taking the Compton radius, the electron is like 500 times bigger than
the proton. On the other hand, the proton’s mass is almost 2,000 times that of the electron. So
what would capture what here, exactly?”
It is a serious question. Now, of course, if the radius would, effectively, be equal to the above-calculated
αa/2π 0.45 fm value, then we might think it could work: 0.45 fm is, effectively, radius might make
more sense because that’s just a bit more than half the proton radius. However, even then one would
think that a zbw charge that is more than half of the proton radius doesn’t quite fit into a ring current
model. If it’s so big, then it’s more like a rotating disk, isn’t it?
This is a very fundamental remark, and we will raise this question once more in the following section,
which reflects on another fundamental question: what is the nature of the ‘stronger’ force inside of the
proton? Indeed, we vaguely distinguished between the fundamental frequency and one or more higher
See: https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_28.html. The basic idea is to ‘assemble’ the elementary
charge by bringing infinitesimally small charge fractions together. We should note that Feynman did not write it
like this, but we inserted and used the
See our paper exploring the fundamental nature of protons and neutrons (https://vixra.org/abs/2001.0104).
modes of spacetime – but that needs to be ‘translated’ into a better ‘visual’ image of what might or
might not be going on. So let us try to develop some thoughts on that. We will see it will lead to another
set of questions for which we have few answers⎯if any.
The nature of the strong(er) force
We need to explain that 1/4 or 4 factor in the radius formula for the proton. Indeed, if μL ≈ 1.995...×10-26
J·T-1 is a sensible value for the actual magnetic moment, then we may also calculate a
sensible theoretical value:
At first, this looks like a weird result: the only radius that is compatible with the magnetic moment of a
proton - in- or excluding some tiny anomaly - is a radius that is four times the radius we would get from
applying the formula we used to calculate the Compton radius for an electron or a muon. What
explanation do we have here? Should we sacrifice our interpretation of the Planck-Einstein relation and
insert that 1/4 factor by writing something like E/4 = ħ·ω? It seems to work alright:
Let us see if we don't get any contradictions. Combining the E = 4ħω and c = a·ω equations, and re-
inserting the radius formula, we get: E = 4ħω = 4ħc/a = 4ħmc2/4ħ = mc2 = E. In fact, we can see it also
works the other way. If a is equal to 4ħ/mc, then we can use the a = c/ω formula to calculate backwards
and obtain the E = 4ħω formula:
There are two ways to go about it—perhaps more, of course, but we readily see two. The first way is the
one we first used to get the a = 4ħ·/mc, radius: we talk about in our paper on the proton radius
one we sent to Prof. Dr. Pohl and the PRad team - and it involves some rather ad hoc assumptions
involving the energy equipartition theorem. To be precise, we basically assume only 1/4 of the energy of
the proton is in the Zitterbewegung of the elementary charge inside. It works, but it doesn't feel good as
an explanation: where are the other three quarters of the energy then?
The second way to think about it is in terms of a different form factor. The ring current model for the
electron and the muon assumed a pointlike charge in orbit. Combining this idea of an orbital with the
electromagnetic field, you may think of the electron (and the muon) as a disk-like structure. The 1/4
factor suggests we should, perhaps, not think of the proton as a disk-like structure based on the idea of
a ring current, as we did for the electron and the muon. There are other possibilities, indeed. Perhaps it
We copied the text from our new site (https://ideez.org/matter/), which we use to publish/update our ideas
and models as we do keeping modifying them from time to time. We apologize for the informal language.
is a disk-like structure, but then it might a whole disk of electric charge in some Zitterbewegung-like
oscillatory motion or - a more intriguing possibility - perhaps it is a sphere or a shell of charge!
Let us explore these ideas by developing some thoughts on the g-factor for a proton.
The g-factor for a proton
We have already noted that the concept of a g-factor may be more confusing than enlightening. Why?
Because we cannot directly measure the angular momentum. All we can measure is the magnetic
moment. Hence, the calculation of a g-factor always involves an assumption regarding the angular
mass of the particle that we are looking at. We, therefore, think that the concept of a g-factor is not very
scientific: what is the use of calculating some g-factor if one cannot directly observe the shape of an
electron, or a muon, or a proton—or any sub-atomic particle, really?
Having said that, we do think the g = 2 value for an electron (or our g = 1 value when using the simpler
q/m unit) makes sense. In fact, perhaps, we should say the g-factor for an electron is 1/2. Why? It's a
much simpler equation for the magnetic moment, isn't? No mysterious 1/2 or 2 factors:
Again, the reader may exclaim: what about the spin-1/2 property? Think of it like this: the electron is
spin-1/2 because its real g-factor is 1/2. :-) Seriously, we really don't want to ridicule mainstream
scientists, but the equations are what they are, and so we are free to group and/or un-group any
numeric factor in them like we want. The idea of a gyromagnetic ratio that we cannot directly measure
should not deter us here.
Let us now try to think some more. We have a CODATA value for the g-factor for a proton: it's equal to
5.5857, more or less. This value is calculated using the theoretical (or mythical, I'd say) ħ/2 value for the
angular momentum. It also uses the CODATA value for the magnetic moment, as opposed to our μL
value, which is the CODATA value corrected for precession. Hence, the CODATA calculation of the g-
factor is this:
That is a weird result. Indeed, if the geometry is that of an easy mathematical shape - like a hoop, a disk
or sphere - then we should get a g-factor that is some integer or some fraction of integers that is related
to the difference between two shapes. Think, for example, of the ratio of the 1/2 and 2/5 factors in the
formulas for the angular mass of a disk and a sphere: (1/2)/(2/5) = 5/4.
So why don't we get such number here? The answer is: we actually do get a simple integer number if we
incorporate the √2 factor which - as mentioned - may or may not be there because of the precession of
an atomic or sub-atomic magnet in a magnetic field. To be precise, using the q/m variant of the nuclear
magneton (rather than the usual q/2m definition of it), we get a g-factor that is equal to 2:
Wow ! We get a g-ratio that is four times that of an electron! What does it mean? We are not sure, but
we can check a few relations that may or may not help to interpret this result. Let us, for example,
calculate the ratio of the magnetic moment of the electron and the proton:
That's a very interesting result, especially because you can actually calculate it and you will see it works!
So, yes, perhaps we are onto something here. Now that we are calculating ratios of magnetic moments,
we should, perhaps, use our formulas for the magnetic moment of a ring, a shell and a sphere of charge.
Let us first try the ratio using the formula for a ring current—for the electron as well as for the proton.
We get this:
We get the same result—not approximately, but exactly! We don't need the formula for the magnetic
moment of a sphere or a shell of charge!
What is going on? Our E = 4ħω formula works, but we still haven't explained it.
The proton as a spin-1/2 particle
We are a bit at a loss here. We've explored the idea of a different form factor for the proton, but it
doesn't work. You can check: just re-calculate the μe/μp ratio using the ring current formula for μe and,
say, the formula for a shell or a sphere of charge for μp. We get a 3/4 or a 5/4 factor we can't get rid of.
What is the solution?
The answer is simple but mysterious: we must accept this modified Planck-Einstein relation for a proton:
E = 4ħω. What does it mean? We can re-write this in terms of energy (E) and cycle time (T):
What does it mean? It means that physical action does not always come in units of h. In the case of a
proton, it comes in units of four times h! Dividing by 2π, that means its angular momentum must also be
equal to four units of ħ! It means our proton is - after all - a spin-1/2 particle. Indeed, we can write this:
Something inside of me says all these Mystery Wallahs
had a secret version of the correct quantum
theory somewhere in a drawer. :-/ So what's the meaning then of this mysterious spin-1/2 property? It
simply is this: the ratio of (1) the product of the mass and the magnetic moment and (2) the product of
the charge and the angular momentum is equal to 1/2—for an electron, for a muon, and for a proton.
Indeed, you can easily verify this now:
We may, therefore, say that the only meaningful g-factor that can be defined is really this: (1/2)·q/m. It
is, effectively, the ratio between the magnetic moment and the angular momentum for all of the
matter-particles we looked at there, which are the electron, the muon and the proton. Rather ironically,
this newly defined g-factor is, effectively, Bohr's magneton. Why did he want to confuse us with the
definition of some new one? Some pure but rather meaningless number, such as 1/2 or 2? We don't
know: the Mystery Wallahs must have had their own reasons. :-/
Let us conclude by doing some final calculations—we are interested in the magnitude of that force
inside the proton, aren't we? We sure are!
The strong(er) force inside of a proton
Using the formulas we derived from our geometric analysis of the centripetal force and acceleration, we
can calculate the force inside an electron, a muon-electron and a proton as follows:
We can also calculate their ratios. Indeed, in our two-dimensional oscillator force, we effectively think of
the centripetal force as some restoring force. This force depends linearly on the displacement from the
center and the (linear) proportionality constant is usually written as k. Hence, we can write Fe, Fμ, and Fp
as Fe = −kex , Fμ = −kμx and Fp = −kpx respectively. Taking the ratio of each of these forces gives an idea of
their respective strength:
You will recognize the numbers on the right-hand side as mass ratios. There are no surprises there: the
proton is about 8.88 times more massive than the muon, which, in turn, is almost 207 times more
massive than an electron. The proton is, therefore, 1,836 times more massive than an electron. For the
rest, it is difficult to make sense of these ratios. We should probably understand these oscillations,
frequencies and forces as higher modes of some fundamental frequency but such rather vague
statements should be detailed, of course—and we are not (yet) in a position to do so.
We will leave it to the reader to calculate the electric currents inside these elementary particles. For the
electron, you should find a current of about 19.8 A (ampere). That's a household-level current—inside
something we measure at the pico-meter scale. If you think that's outrageous, please calculate the
current inside a proton. It is also inversely proportional to the radius. Hence, the proton is much smaller,
but we calculate the current inside as being much larger:
The associated electromagnetic field strengths are equally enormous. Lest the reader becomes very
skeptical here, we remind him of this: something has to explain the enormous mass density of a proton
(and a muon), as compared to the electron, and because our model is basically a 'mass without mass'
model, the energies have to be humongous, indeed!
We hope that comes across as credible enough! Having said that, we do invite you to think everything
through and, importantly, to also check our calculations so as to make sure we are OK!
Note: In order to help the reader check our calculations, we may offer some alternative presentation of
the same equations. The first is just our interpretation of c as a tangential velocity⎯the lynchpin of our
two-dimensional oscillator model:
Complicated? Yes and no, I guess. What does it mean? Just consider it as a sort of proof that the model
makes sense. Let us now think of the cycle time of an electron as a natural time unit. We will write it as
Te = 1. The speed of light remains what it is: c. If we use natural units, that implies the associated natural
distance unit is equal to λe = c.
We can then express the cycle time of the muon in terms of Te = 1 by
doing the following parallel calculations:
Where are we going with these tautologies? Nowhere. We just wanted to show this equivalent
expression of the force ratio between the muon and the electron:
Theory? Not really. The electron cycle time is about 8.093299810−21 seconds. You can also easily
calculate the muon cycle time using the T = h/E relation
: it is equal to 3.914188210−23⎯more or less,
that is. Take the ratio, and you will get that mysterious 206.7682830… mass ratio between the muon
and the electron. Combining this with the E/Ee, we get the squared 206.7682830… factor that we had
found already by taking the ratio of
. It shows, once again, that our formulas
Can we explain it? I cannot⎯for the time being, at least. I can only repeat what I wrote above already: it
is difficult to make sense of these ratios. We should probably understand these oscillations, frequencies,
and forces as higher modes of some fundamental frequency but such rather vague statements should be
detailed—and we are not (yet) in a position to do so.
Pair creation and annihilation: what is the nature of anti-matter?
We want to raise another obvious question in regard to our model(s). Electron-positron pair creation
and annihilation⎯or the question in regard to the nature of anti-matter in general. We do not have
many ideas here⎯but then we don’t feel too dumb because we are in good company here: from all of
Dirac's formal or informal remarks on the state of our knowledge, it's clear he struggled very much with
The gist of the matter is this: our world could be an anti-matter world. We may think of that as a
mathematical fiction: who cares if we write q or −q in our equations? No one, right? It's just a
convention, and so we can just swap signs, right?
Well... No. Dirac had noticed the mathematical possibility early on—in 1928, to be precise, as soon as he
had published his equation for the free electron. He said this about it in his 1933 Nobel Prize Lecture:
"If we accept the view of complete symmetry between positive and negative electric charge so
The reader will probably not recognize the usual reasoning when thinking about natural units, but it is actually
just the same as reasoning that the natural charge unit must be the charge of the proton (or the electron). In case
of confusion, we can only advise the reader to slowly go through it and think about this for him- or herself.
We get the T = h/E relation from the Planck-Einstein relation: E = h·f = h/T. We recommend the reader to re-do
the calculations so as to get a feel for these things.
far as concerns the fundamental laws of Nature, we must regard it rather as an accident that the
Earth (and presumably the whole solar system), contains a preponderance of negative electrons
and positive protons."
The carefully chosen 'preponderance' term shows he actually did imagine some stars could possibly be
made of anti-matter, and he said as much in the very same lecture:
"It is quite possible that for some of the stars it is the other way about, these stars being built up
mainly of positrons and negative protons. [...] The two kinds of stars would both show exactly
the same spectra, and there would be no way of distinguishing them by present astronomical
Strangely enough, he doesn't mention Carl D. Anderson who - just the previous year (1932) - had
actually found the trace of an actual positron on one of his cloud chamber pictures of what happens to
cosmic radiation when it enters... Well... Anderson's cloud chamber. :-) Anderson got his own Nobel
Prize for it - and one that's very well deserved (the reader who's read our previous posts will know we
have serious doubts on the merit of some (other) Nobel Prizes).
The point is this: we should not think of matter and anti-matter as being 'separate worlds' (theoretical
and/or physical). No. Pair creation/annihilation should be part and parcel of our 'world view' (read: our
classical explanation of quantum physics). So what can/should we do with this?
Nothing at all, perhaps. We can, obviously, use our electron and proton models to construct a positron
model and an anti-proton model, and then we can combine this to make an anti-neutron
, and so
there is no issue, is there?
Probably not in terms of our models and whatever else we’ve been trying to demonstrate in this paper.
We just note that matter-anti-matter pair creation/annihilation out of – out of what, really? – is deeply
mysterious. We have explored some of it in various papers
, in which we noted this, for example:
“Electron-positron pair creation does not happen because gamma-rays happen to
spontaneously ‘disintegrate’ into electron-positron pairs. They do not: the presence of a
nucleus is required. Plain common-sense tells us the process is likely to be something like this:
the photon causes a proton to emit a positron (+ decay), so the proton turns into a neutron and
something else needs to happen now: the atom needs to eject an electron or, more likely, a
neutron decays into a proton and emits an electron. Hence, charge is being conserved and we
shouldn’t think of it as being a Great Big Mystery.”
However, we will be honest and admit we are still very much puzzled by the matter, or the anti-matter.
The reader may, therefore, expect more reflections in future versions of this paper⎯or in a new paper
The reader should note that the reality of the antineutron confirms our hypothesis of the neutron being some
combination of a proton and an electron. If a neutron wouldn’t carry charge (positive and negative), then it
wouldn’t have an anti-matter counterpart. But so it has one. The reader can check the Wikipedia article on it,
which says the antineutron was discovered in proton–antiproton collisions at the Bevatron (Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory) by Bruce Cork in 1956, one year after the antiproton was discovered.
See, for example, our paper on conservation laws (https://vixra.org/abs/1908.0592).