Principles of Quantum Physics
Jean Louis Van Belle, Drs, MAEc, BAEc, BPhil
6 June 2020
This paper summarizes the basic principles of the common-sense interpretation of quantum physics that
we have been exploring over the past few years.
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1
Principles of quantum electrodynamics (QED) ............................................................................................. 3
Hidden variables versus hidden structure .................................................................................................. 11
Thoughts on quantum chromodynamics (QCD) ......................................................................................... 12
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 17
Annex I: The non-anomalous magnetic moment of an electron ................................................................ 18
Annex II: The size and shape of a photon ................................................................................................... 23
Principles of Quantum Physics
Jean Louis Van Belle, Drs, MAEc, BAEc, BPhil
1 June 2020
Analyses of what might be going on inside of the atomic nucleus in terms of electromagnetic
interactions only will, hopefully, gain more widespread acceptance in the future. Such analysis may be
simply referred to as an electromagnetic theory of nuclear interaction.
Di Sia (2018), for example, offers
an easy explanation of the attractive force between protons in terms of the electromagnetic force
between ring currents.
Such analyses are based on a more coherent and complete conceptualization of what might going on
inside of the nucleus by also focusing on the magnetic forces resulting from the regular motion of one or
more elementary (electric) charges inside, as opposed to a narrow focus on the electrostatic Coulomb
force resulting from static charges only. The fundamental idea here is that a nuclear lattice structure
would not only arise from the mere presence of the charges inside but also from the pattern of their
Of course, one is tempted to think the magnetic force may be neglected in the analysis because the
magnitude of the magnetic field – and, therefore, of the force – is only 1/c times that of the electric
However, such thinking is not only incomplete but also quite misleading.
The mistake becomes
(1) using natural time and distance units to ensure the numerical value of lightspeed does not
distort calculations in regard to the relative strength of both forces The large numerical
value (299,792,458) of c using the second and meter as time and distance units effectively
indicates we may want to think of the second as a rather large unit as compared to the
Easily accessible references are, for example, Bernard Schaeffer (2016) or Paolo Di Sia (2018). Di Sia relates the
approach to nuclear lattice effective field theory, which the reader may or may not be familiar with. A
comprehensive overview of NLEFT approaches was published as a book by Timo Lähde and Ulf-G. Meißner:
Nuclear Lattice Effective Field Theory (2019).
We may not only refer to rather mundane examples here – such as, for example, Feynman’s treatment of
polarized light, which considers the electric field vector only. A historically more spectacular example of neglect is
Hideki Yukawa’s invention of a new potential and, therefore, of a new force that is supposed to be stronger than
the electrostatic (repulsive) force between protons. Of course, the invention of a new force and a new potential
should also come with the invention of a new charge so as to explain the origin of this potential, but physicists
preferred the quark-gluon model instead. We think the hypothesis of a strong force – and surely the quark-gluon
hypothesis – amounts to an unnecessary multiplication of concepts: an analysis in terms of electromagnetic forces
only should be rich enough.
We think an analysis of polarization which would also include the behavior of the magnetic field vector should
explain the mystery of one-photon Mach-Zehnder interference.
meter when thinking about the relativity of electric and magnetic fields
(2) noting that “magnetism and electricity are not independent things—that they should always
be taken together as one complete electromagnetic field”
(3) considering the idea of a pointlike charge having no other attributes than its charge: such
naked charge – with zero rest mass – must, theoretically, whizz around at the speed of
This ensures the β = v/c factor in our calculations is always equal to 1 and eliminates
the need to think about measurement units when discussing the relativity of electric and
Such electromagnetic theories of nuclear interaction require us to think of the magnetic moment of
protons – and of neutrons too, of course – as being generated by an actual electric current⎯as opposed
to some intrinsic property requiring no further explanation or detail. At this point, such theories diverge
from the mainstream interpretation of quantum physics.
To be precise, it requires us to think of
protons as tiny ring currents with an actual radius and circumference in space, which is what we shall
do. It also requires us to think of neutrons as, somehow, combining a proton and an electron⎯to
explain why they are electrically neutral but do have a magnetic moment of their own.
It must also result in a dynamic view of the fields surrounding charged particles. Potential barriers – or
their corollary: potential wells – should, therefore, not be thought of as static fields: they vary in time.
The definition of the speed of light as being equal to c = 299,792,458 m/s exactly results from the re-definition of
both the meter and the second in terms of the wavelength and cycle time of electromagnetic radiation. Of course,
such re-definition still requires a reference to a real-life electromagnetic oscillation. This reference is the frequency
of the light which is emitted or absorbed as a result of the transition of an electron between the two hyperfine
states that define the unperturbed ground state of the cesium-133 atom, which is defined as f = 9 192 631 770 Hz,
exactly (BIPM, 2019). We may, therefore, think of the cycle time (T = 1/f) and the wavelength ( = c·T = c/f) of this
radiation as the true base units of time and distance. The definition of Planck’s constant as being equal to h =
6.6260701510−34 J·s, exactly, may then be combined with the natural time unit to define a natural unit for energy
which, in turn, may be combined with the natural distance unit to define a natural unit for force (energy is defined
as a force over some distance). Needless to say, if we have a natural unit for energy, we get a natural unit for mass
from Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence relation. We then need to add the defined value of the elementary
charge (1.60217663410−19 C) so as to be able to calculate all other constants that one might need in quantum
Richard Feynman, Lectures on Physics, II-13-6 (the relativity of magnetic and electric fields).
Newton’s relativistically correct force law F = m·a implies even the smallest of small forces will give it infinite
acceleration. Such charge will, therefore, be photon-like in the sense that all of its mass will result from its motion.
However, photons do not carry charge, and we think of local circular motion here⎯as opposed to the linear
motion of light photons. We think this distinguishes matter from light.
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is, perhaps, not well defined but we interpret it as having
the Uncertainty Principle at its core, which amounts to saying we should not even try to look for hidden variables
to explain intrinsic properties – most notably inertial mass and magnetic moment – of elementary particles. The
Zitterbewegung interpretation of quantum mechanics explains the mass of an elementary particle as the
equivalent mass of the energy in the oscillation, and the magnetic moment as the magnetic moment of a ring
The non-stability of neutrons outside of the nucleus and other considerations make this a plausible hypothesis.
We will come back to this so the reader should not worry about it now
They result from two or more charges moving around and creating some joint or superposed field which
varies in time. Hence, a particle breaking through a ‘potential wall’ or coming out of a potential ‘well’
may just be using a temporary opening corresponding to a very classical trajectory in space and in time.
There would, therefore, be no need to invoke an Uncertainty Principle.
All of the considerations above may be rather elementary. Taken together, however, they amount to a
coherent re-formulation of the basic principles of quantum physics – or a common-sense or realist
interpretation of the same – which we thought we might usefully summarize in a single paper.
Principles of quantum electrodynamics (QED)
1. The electromagnetic force acts on the (elementary) electric charge. We think of the (naked) charge as
being pointlike but not dimensionless. The elementary charge is a fundamental constant and there is,
therefore, no uncertainty in its value: it is defined as being equal to 1.60217663410−19 C.
elementary charge can be positive or negative.
2. The electron and the proton are matter-particles which carry the elementary charge. The idea of an
elementary (matter-)particle combines the idea of a charge and its motion and, therefore, accounts for
both the particle- as well as the wave-like character of matter-particles.
This motion is essentially
and was – according to Ernest Rutherford’s 1921 account of the theory of the electron
modelled in Parson’s magnetic electron model (1915).
This oscillatory motion is the same Zitterbewegung which Schrödinger found when analysing Dirac’s
wave equation for an electron in free space (1927). While Dirac immediately grasped the significance of
Schrödinger’s discovery, he rather unfortunately confused the concept of the electron as a particle with
the concept of the (naked) pointlike charge:
“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
We effectively think of this paper as a summary of the 60-odd papers we published so far.
See our remarks on the 2019 revision of the SI system of units in footnote 4.
The geometry of the anti-matter counterpart of a particle has a different spacetime signature. Using common-
sense language we may say antimatter counterparts of elementary particles are geometrically ‘left-handed’ or,
alternatively, that ‘their clock ticks counterclockwise’. These definitions depend on the plane of motion of the
elementary charge and, therefore, assume the relation in space between the observer and the particle can be
defined. The latter is not an issue when using Wittgenstein’s definition of reality: “1. Die Welt is alles was der Fall
ist. 2. Was der Fall ist, die Tatsache, ist das Bestehen von Sachverhalten.” We believe Wittgenstein’s seven logical
propositions (Abschnitte) say all there needs to be said about epistemology in the context of physics. There is no a
priori reason to assume the positive charge inside of a positron is different from the positive charge inside of a
proton. Likewise, there is no reason to assume the negative charge inside of a antiproton differs from the negative
charge inside of an electron. Photons carry electromagnetic energy but do not carry any charge.
The (classical) linear motion of an electron adds a linear component to the motion of the pointlike charge. We
will come back to this.
See Ernest Rutherford’s remarks on the Parson's ‘électron annulaire’ (ring electron) and the magnetic properties
of the electron in his lecture on ‘The Structure of the Electron’ at the 1921 Solvay Conference.
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, 1933)
3. The Zitterbewegung of the pointlike charge is possibly – most probably, we dare say – chaotic.
However, experiments yield results that are statistically regular and, hence, this motion must be
statistically regular as well. We can, therefore, model it by the formula for circular velocity:
Any (regular) oscillation has a frequency and a cycle time T = 1/f = 2π/ω. The Planck-Einstein relation (E
= h·f = ħ·ω) relates f and T to the energy (E) through Planck’s constant h (or, when using the reduced
form of Planck’s equation, ħ). This frequency formula then allows us to use the tangential velocity
formula to calculate the radius of this orbital motion:
This effectively corresponds – as Dirac suggest – to what we refer to as the Compton radius of an
, which, paraphrasing Prof. Dr. Patrick LeClair, we can now understand as “the scale above
which the electron can be localized in a particle-like sense.”
4. The Zitterbewegung or ring current inside of an electron generates the theoretical magnetic moment
of the electron:
The measured magnetic moment differs slightly from this theoretical value. Such tiny anomaly in the
magnetic moment suggests that the pointlike charge must have some tiny spatial dimension itself. The
order of magnitude of this physical dimension is that of the classical electron radius and can be
calculated from Schwinger’s α/2π factor.
The Compton radius is the reduced Compton wavelength. The ring current model interprets the Compton
wavelength not as a linear wavelength but as a circumference. Instead of a distance corresponding to a linear
length of travel, a circumference measures the circular length of travel. We should, therefore, think of Broglie’s
concept of the matter-wave as corresponding to orbital rather than linear motion.
See: http://pleclair.ua.edu/PH253/Notes/compton.pdf, p. 10. Note that we can also measure the scale of the
pointlike charge because of the phenomenon of elastic scattering (Thomson scattering): however, while we can
measure its effective scattering radius, we cannot precisely localize the pointlike charge because of its lightlike
We think of the anomalous magnetic moment as an experimental answer to a theoretical question: we think
objects whose spatial dimension is truly zero do not exist and the pointlike charge must, therefore, have some
non-zero dimension itself, which can be calculated from the measured anomaly: we refer the reader to Annex I for
the calculation. We also think of photons as having some non-zero size. However, this dimension is linear rather
5. The mass of an electron is the inertia of the electron’s state of motion and is given by Einstein’s mass-
energy equivalence relation (E = mc2). The ring current model, therefore, embodies Archibald Wheeler’s
‘mass without mass’ principle, and the de Broglie relation (p = h/λ = ħk) has a geometric interpretation
which one can only appreciate by noting that the linear momentum of a particle is a vector quantity: it
has a magnitude as well as a (linear) direction. When writing the de Broglie relation, one should,
therefore, also think of Planck’s quantum as a vector quantity:
In a similar vein, we think of the reduced Planck constant (ħ = h/2π) as a proper angular momentum,
which can and should be written as ħ = I·ω: the product of an angular mass (the rotational inertia I) and
an orbital angular frequency (ω). This, then, also gives meaning to the concept of spin (which is either up
or down). As mentioned above, this oscillatory motion thus also generates a classical magnetic moment
which – equally classically – will precess in an external electromagnetic field.
6. There is no uncertainty in this model except for the uncertainty in regard to the plane of oscillation
(which is given by the direction of ħ and ω) in the absence of an external electromagnetic field. We can
use the elementary wavefunction (Euler’s formula) to represents the motion of the pointlike charge by
interpreting r = a·eiθ = a·ei·(E·t − k·x)/ħ as its position vector. The relativistic invariance of the argument of
the wavefunction is then easily demonstrated by noting that the position of the pointlike particle in its
own reference frame will be equal to x’(t’) = 0 for all t’.
We can then relate the position and time variables in the reference frame of the particle and in our
frame of reference by using Lorentz’s equations
When denoting the energy and the momentum of the electron in our reference frame as Ev and p =
m0v, the argument of the (elementary) wavefunction a·ei can be re-written as follows
than circular: see Annex II. One can relate the geometry of the electron and the photon using the concept of the de
We can use these simplified Lorentz equations if we choose our reference frame such that the (classical) linear
motion of the electron corresponds to our x-axis.
One can use either the general E = mc2 or – if we would want to make it look somewhat fancier – the pc = Ev/c
relation. The reader can verify they amount to the same.
E0 is, obviously, the rest energy and, because p’ = 0 in the reference frame of the electron, the
argument of the wavefunction effectively reduces to E0t’/ħ in the reference frame of the electron itself.
Besides proving that the argument of the wavefunction is relativistically invariant, this calculation also
demonstrates the relativistic invariance of the Planck-Einstein relation when modelling elementary
This is why we feel that the argument of the wavefunction (and the wavefunction itself) is
more real – in a physical sense – than the various wave equations (Schrödinger, Dirac, or Klein-Gordon)
for which it is some solution.
In any case, a wave equation usually models the properties of the medium in which a wave propagates.
We do not think the medium in which the matter-wave propagates is any different from the medium in
which electromagnetic waves propagate. That medium is generally referred to as the vacuum and,
whether or not you think of it as true nothingness or some medium, we think Maxwell’s equations –
which establishes the speed of light as an absolute constant – model the properties of it sufficiently
well! We, therefore, think superluminal phase velocities are not possible, which is why we think de
Broglie’s conceptualization of a matter particle as a wavepacket – rather than one single wave – is
7. A good theory should respect Occam’s Razor⎯the lex parsimoniae: one should not multiply concepts
without necessity. The need for new concepts or new principles – such as the conservation of
strangeness, or postulating the existence of a new force or a new potential
– should, therefore, be
continuously questioned. Conversely, when postulating the existence of the positron in 1928 – which
directed experimental research to a search for it and which, about five years later, was effectively found
to exist – Paul Dirac unknowingly added another condition for a good theory: all of the degrees of
freedom in the mathematical description should map to a physical reality.
The relativistic invariance of the Planck-Einstein relation emerges from other problems, of course. However, we
see the added value of the model here in providing a geometric interpretation: the Planck-Einstein relation
effectively models the integrity of a particle here.
See our paper on matter-waves, amplitudes and signals.
We think of the invention of the concept of strangeness by Murray Gell-Man and Kazuhiko Nishijima in the 1950s
here. This concept started a rather strange life of its own and would later serve as the basis for the quark
hypothesis which – for a reason we find even stranger than the concept of strangeness itself – was officially
elevated to the status of a scientific dogma by the Nobel Prize Committee for Physics.
As for the invention of a new force or a new potential, we are, obviously, referring to the Yukawa potential. This
hypothesis – which goes back to 1935 – might actually have been productive if it would have led to a genuine
exploration of a stronger short-range force on an electric charge⎯or, if necessary, the invention of a new charge.
Indeed, if the electromagnetic force acts on an electric charge, it would be more consistent to postulate some new
charge – or some new wave equation, perhaps – matching the new force. Unfortunately, theorists took a whole
different route. They invented a new aether theory instead: it is based on the medieval idea of messenger or
virtual particles mediating forces. The latter led to the invention of gluons which – as a concept – we find at least
as weird as quarks.
It is, therefore, surprising that the mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics does not integrate
the concept of particle spin from the outset because the + or − sign in front of the imaginary unit (i) in
the elementary wavefunction (a·e−i· or a·e+i·) is thought as a mathematical convention only. This non-
used degree of freedom in the mathematical description then leads to the false argument that the
wavefunction of spin-½ particles has a 720-degree symmetry. Indeed, physicists treat −1 as a common
phase factor in the argument of the wavefunction.
However, we should think of −1 as a complex
number itself: the phase factor may be +π or, alternatively, −π: when going from +1 to −1 (or vice versa),
it matters how you get there⎯as illustrated below.
Figure 1: e+iπ e−iπ
Combining the + and − sign for the imaginary unit with the direction of travel, we get four mutually
exclusive structures for the electron wavefunction:
Spin and direction of travel
Spin up (J = +ħ/2)
Spin down (J = −ħ/2)
* = exp[−i(kx−t)] = exp[i(t−kx)]
χ = exp[−i(kx+t)] = exp[i(t−kx)]
χ* = exp[i(kx+t)]
Table 1: Occam’s Razor: mathematical possibilities versus physical realities (1)
We may now combine these four possibilities with the properties of anti-matter.
8. We think antimatter is different from matter because of its opposite spacetime signature. The logic
here is the following. Consider a particular direction of the elementary current generating the magnetic
moment (we effectively define spin as an (elementary) current
). It is then quite easy to see that the
magnetic moment of an electron (μ = −qeħ/2m) and that of a positron (μ = +qeħ/2m) would be opposite.
We may, therefore, associate a particular direction of rotation with an angular frequency vector ω which
Mainstream physicists therefore think one can just multiply a set of amplitudes – let us say two amplitudes, to
focus our mind (think of a beam splitter or alternative paths here) – with −1 and get the same physical states.
The quantum-mechanical argument is technical, and I did not reproduce it in this book. I encourage the reader
to glance through it, though. See: Euler’s Wavefunction: The Double Life of – 1. Note that the e+iπ e−iπ expression
may look like horror to a mathematician! However, if he or she has a bit of a sense for geometry and the difference
between identity and equivalence relations, there should be no surprise. If you are an amateur physicist, you
should be excited: it is, effectively, the secret key to unlocking the so-called mystery of quantum mechanics.
Remember Aquinas’ warning: quia parvus error in principio magnus est in fine. A small error in the beginning can
lead to great errors in the conclusions, and we think of this as a rather serious error in the beginning!
We are aware this may sound shocking to those who have been brainwashed in the old culture. If so, make the
switch. It should not be difficult: a magnetic moment – any magnetic moment, really – is generated by a current.
The magnetic moment of elementary particles is no exception.
− depending on the direction of the current − will be up or down with regard to the plane of rotation.
We can, therefore, associate this with the spin property, which is also up or down.
We, therefore, have another table with four mutually exclusive possibilities, which we should combine
with the possible directions of travel in Table 1
μ−e = −qeħ/2m
μ−e = +qeħ/2m
μ+e = +qeħ/2m
μ+e = −qeħ/2m
Table 2: Occam’s Razor: mathematical possibilities versus physical realities (2)
Table 2 shows that (1) the ring current model also applies to antimatter but that (2) antimatter has a
different spacetime signature. Abusing Minkowski’s notation, we may say the spacetime signature of an
electron would be + + + + while that of a positron would be + − − −.
Table 1 and Table 2, therefore,
complement each other.
9. Spacetime trajectories – or, to put it more simply, motions – need to be described by well-defined
functions: for every value of t, we should have one, and only one, value of x. The reverse, of course, is
not true: a particle can travel back to where it was (or, if there is no motion, just stay where it is). Hence,
it is easy to see that the concepts of motion and time are related because our mind (mathematical logic)
imposes the use of the well-behaved functions to describe reality.
Figure 2: A well- and a not-well behaved trajectory in spacetime
To determine what is up or down, one has to apply the ubiquitous right-hand rule.
The use of the subscripts in the magnetic moment may be confusing, but should not be: we use −e for an
electron and +e for a positron. We do so to preserve the logic of denoting the (positive) elementary charge as qe
(without a + or a − in the subscript here).
In case the reader wonders why we associate the + +++ signature with the positron rather than with the
electron, the answer is: convention. Indeed, if I am not mistaken (which may or may not be the case), it is the + +++
metric signature which is the one which defines the usual righthand rule when dealing with the direction of electric
currents and magnetic forces.
We wish the reader who would want to try using not-so-well-behaved functions to arrive at some kind of
description of reality the best of luck.
We actually do not like the concept of spacetime very much: time and space are related (through special and
general relativity theory, to be precise) but they are not the same. Nor are they similar. We do, therefore, not think
that some ‘kind of union of the two’ will replace the separate concepts of space and time any time soon, despite
Time, therefore, goes in one direction only.
This, then, makes it possible to physically interpret the
meaning of conjugates and the breaking of (combined) CP-symmetry: CPT-symmetry models the
theoretical reversibility of physical processes and/or phenomena. However, such reversibility is,
effectively, theoretical only. We can play a movie backwards, but we cannot reverse time. We know that
because a movie in which two like charges (say, two electrons) would attract rather than repel each
other does not make sense.
10. There is no weak force: a force theory explaining why charges stay together must also explain when
and how they separate. A force works through a force field: the idea that forces are mediated by virtual
messenger particles resembles 19th century aether theory. The fermion-boson dichotomy does not
reflect anything real: we have charged and non-charged wavicles (electrons and protons, for example,
versus photons). An electron is a wavicle that carries charge. A photon does not carry charge: it carries
energy between wavicle systems (atoms, basically). It can do so because it is an oscillating field.
The Planck-Einstein law embodies a (stable) wavicle. A stable wavicle respects the Planck-Einstein
relation (E = h·f) and Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence relation (E = m·c2). A wavicle will, therefore,
carry energy but it will also pack one or more units of Planck’s quantum of action. Planck’s quantum of
action represents an elementary cycle in Nature. An elementary particle embodies the idea of an
elementary cycle. The ‘particle zoo’ is, therefore, a collection of unstable wavicles: they disintegrate
because their cycle is slightly off (the integral of the force over the distance of the loop and over the
cycle time is not exactly equal to (a multiple of) h).
11. The geometry of a matter-particle can be related to the geometry of the photon using the following
illustration, which shows how the Compton wavelength (the circumference of the Zitterbewegung of the
pointlike charge) becomes a linear wavelength as the classical velocity goes from 0 to c: the radius of the
circulatory motion must effectively diminish as the electron gains speed.
Minkowski’s stated expectations in this regard back in 1908. Grand statements and generalizations are not often
useful in physics.
This intuition contrasts with the erroneous suggestion of Richard Feynman that we may want to think, perhaps,
of matter-particles as particles that travel back in time. This suggestion results from not associating any particular
physical meaning with the + or − sign of the imaginary unit in the wavefunction.
This is a rather technical matter which we do not want to spell out here because a detailed exploration would
take up several pages. We must refer the interested reader to our other paper(s) here.
We refer the reader to our photon model for more detail.
We thank Prof. Dr. Giorgio Vassallo and his publisher to let us re-use this diagram. It originally appeared in an
article by Francesco Celani, Giorgio Vassallo and Antonino Di Tommaso (Maxwell’s equations and Occam’s Razor,
November 2017). Once again, however, we should warn the reader that he or she should imagine the plane of
oscillation to rotate or oscillate itself. He should not think of it of being static – unless we think of the electron
moving in a magnetic field, in which case we should probably think of the plane of oscillation as being parallel to
the direction of propagation. To be precise, he should think of it as precessing in the external field.
Figure 3: The Compton radius must decrease with increasing velocity
The illustration above is, of course, didactic only: there is no reason to assume perfect perpendicularity
between the plane of the ring current and the linear motion of the electron: the plane of oscillation
should be taken to be random or – when an external magnetic field is applied – to correspond to
Larmor’s precessional motion of the angular momentum vector.
We should also reiterate that the fundamental Zitterbewegung may be chaotic: perfect circularity or
perfect linearity may exist in our mind only. However, our measurements give statistically regular results
and, hence, “though this be madness, yet there is method in ‘t”
and we can, therefore, meaningfully
associate a frequency ω = c/a and a radius a = c/ω to the Zitterbewegung motion – whether it be
perfectly or not-so-perfectly circular or regular – which, using natural time and distance units (c = 1) are
nothing but the reciprocal of each other.
12. We concur with Rutherford’s idea of the neutron combining a proton and an electron.
As such, one
should think of the neutron as carrying not one but two charges, which combine to make up an
electrically neutral composite particle. The idea of the neutron combining a proton and an electron is
consistent with the instability of neutrons outside of the nucleus, their size
, their energy (or rest
, the magnetic moment of a neutron, the existence of an anti-neutron, the presence of neutrinos
The reader will recognize the quote from Polonius in The Tragedy of Hamlet (Shakespeare), Act 2 Scene 2.
The reader may also note another inverse proportionality: the a = ħ/mc = ħc/E formula tells us the
Zitterbewegung or Compton radius is inversely proportional to the energy (or the equivalent mass) of the
elementary particle. This relation is, obviously, not as intuitive as the easy a = c/ω or ω = c/a relations.
See Rutherford’s remarks in this regard in his paper on ‘The Structure of the Electron’ at the 1921 Solvay
The Compton wavelength for a neutron is more or less the same as that of a proton:
neutron = 1.31959090581(75)10-15 m
proton = 1.32140985539(40)10-15 m
The reduced value of these wavelengths is the Compton radius.
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, is probably the most
compelling argument when making the case that a neutron must, somehow, combine a proton and an electron. It
is true that the mass of an electron is 0.511 MeV/c2, which represents only 40% of the energy difference but the
kinetic and binding energy could make up for the remainder. The reader should note that the mass of a proton and
in proton/neutron Verwandlung
and other common-sensical considerations. We, therefore, think this
idea is too evident to be dismissed. We, therefore, have no need for the quark hypothesis to explain the
neutron even if we have not worked out the exact equations of motion for the proton and electron that
make up the neutron.
Hidden variables versus hidden structure
We feel the twelve principles above are plain logical: there are no hidden variables, perhaps, but
elementary particles have a hidden structure⎯and we can understand such structure in terms of
motion. We think these principles also offer a more common-sense explanation of the structure of an
, the scattering of photons by electrons (and of Compton scattering in general
), diffraction or
interference, the Lamb shift, the anomalous magnetic moment, one-photon Mach-Zehnder interference
or whatever other phenomenon that is said to ‘prove’ quantum mechanics.
The ring current model also comes with a rather dynamic view of the fields surrounding charged
particles. Potential barriers – or their corollary: potential wells – should, therefore, not be thought of as
static fields: they vary in time. They result from two or more charges moving around and creating some
joint or superposed field. Hence, a particle breaking through a ‘potential wall’ or coming out of a
potential ‘well’ probably just uses an opening which corresponds to a classical trajectory.
This should offer a new perspective on the so-called ‘new physics’ and/or the ‘scientific ‘revolution’
which was started by the younger Heisenberg and his admirers. From an epistemological point of view,
this revolution amounts to ‘elevating indeterminism to a philosophical and scientific principle’, as H.A.
Lorentz notes in an untypically brutal remark after Bohr, Born and Heisenberg, Schrödinger and de
Broglie had presented their papers on ‘the new quantum mechanics’ at the occasion of the 1927 Solvay
We are almost 100 years later now and, as far as I can see, this revolution has not added a
single iota to our understanding of the above-mentioned physical phenomena or processes. Indeed, all
these phenomena have alternative common-sense explanations using the Planck-Einstein relation and
simple (circular) wave geometry.
We also think the remarks above provide a solid foundation for electromagnetic theories for inter-
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. Indeed, 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
We provide an overview of the equations involving a proton turning into a neutron and, vice versa, neutron
decay in our paper on the nature of protons and neutrons.
This is a reference to Dirac’s terminology.
An atom is a system of wavicles. A wavicle system has an equilibrium energy state. This equilibrium state packs
one unit of h. Higher energy states pack two, three,…, n units of h. When an atom transitions from one energy
state to another, it will emit or absorb a photon that (i) carries the energy difference between the two energy
states and (ii) packs one unit of h.
Photons may also scatter of protons or of other charged or neutral matter-particles.
See our translation of the remarks of H.A. Lorentz at the 1927 Solvay Conference in: A Brief History of Quantum-
nucleon or nuclear forces: we think protons and neutrons stick together because of the electromagnetic
interaction between ring currents.
Let us now think about what might or might not be happening at an even smaller scale, which is
generally referred to as high-energy physics or the QCD sector in the Standard Model. We do not refer
to our ideas in this regard as ‘principles’ because they are speculative. Nevertheless, we think these
reflections are rather sound and – in any case – less outlandish than mainstream hypotheses.
Thoughts on quantum chromodynamics (QCD)
1. The electron has two heavier versions. Both of them are unstable. The muon energy is about 105.66
MeV, so that is 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 is fairly
long as compared to other non-stable particles.
The energy of the tau electron (or tau-particle as it is more commonly referred to
) is about 1776 MeV,
so that is almost 3,500 times the electron mass. However, its lifetime 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. We will,
therefore, only deal with the muon here.
2. The calculation of the Compton radius of a muon-electron – i.e. its non-reduced wavelength, which
we interpret as the circumference of the Zitterbewegung motion of the charge – is equal to:
This falls within the uncertainty interval of the CODATA value, which is equal to:
1.17344411010−14 m 0.00000002610−14 m
The CODATA value is also precise enough to calculate the anomaly, which makes sense as well. We,
therefore, think the ring current model works for a muon-electron as well.
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 is only 85 times less.
In light of its short lifetime, we prefer to refer to the tau-electron as a resonance. Indeed, we like to reserve the
term ‘particle’ for stable particles. Within the ‘zoo’ of unstable particles, we may refer to longer-living particles as
transients so as to distinguish them from these very-short life resonances.
We will leave it to the reader to repeat the exercise for the tau-electron: he will find the theoretical a = ħ/mc
radius does not match the CODATA value for its radius. We think this indirectly confirms our interpretation of the
Planck-Einstein relation and our reference to the tau-electron as a resonance instead of a transient or a (stable)
particle. CODATA/NIST values for the properties of the tau-electron can be found on the NIST website.
3. 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 Prof. Dr. Pohl and colleagues in 2010, and which was re-confirmed by the PRad research
group at JLAB last year.
We may, therefore, assume a different form factor for the angular momentum
and derive the Compton radius for the proton as follows:
The assumption in regard to the form factor is, admittedly, rather ad hoc but the rather precise match of
the calculation cannot be a coincidence.
4. The ring current model may also be analysed as an oscillator in two dimensions. Indeed, we may think
of the sine and cosine components of the wavefunction as the (perpendicular) components of the
centripetal force. However, instead of a one linear oscillation, we get two for the price of one, so to
speak. The energies of these two oscillations can be added and offers a geometric explanation of
Einstein’s E = mc2 relation.
One can analyse these oscillators as relativistic oscillators, and the calculations will then involve the
concept of the relativistic or effective mass of the pointlike charge: it is the mass it acquires because it
travels at lightspeed (which it can do, of course, because its rest mass is equal to zero). When denoting
the effective mass as mγ = m/2
, we can calculate the centripetal force as a function of the mass only
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.
In any case, Prof. Dr. Gasparan noted mainstream QCD actually has no theory whatsoever in regard to the
(theoretical) radius of a proton. Hence, we would think any attempt to model it should be welcomed.
For more detail, we may refer the reader to our paper(s) on the electron as an electromagnetic oscillator. It may
be noted that our initial metaphor was based on a rather classical linear oscillator model: the sum of the potential
and kinetic energy in one linear oscillator effectively add up to E = m·a2·ω2/2 and it is, therefore, logical to think of
two perpendicular oscillators to explain Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence relation geometrically. However, we
do use relativistically correct equations (the relativistic oscillator) in our later calculations.
The subscript (gamma) may remind the reader of the symbol that is often used for a photon but we should
remind the reader the only commonality here is lightspeed: a photon does not carry any charge. In contrast, our
pointlike Zitterbewegung charge is a charge. As for the rather obvious question as to where we can find the other
half of the electron mass, the answer here must be that of David Hestenes: half of the energy of the electron is
kinetic, and the other half is in the electromagnetic field that is generated by this charge in motion and which may
or may not keep it in place (the answer as to the question of what keeps the charge in place has not conclusively
answered). The argument of Hestenes is based on the energy equipartition theorem. We derive the ½ factor from
more formal geometric calculations.
The ac in this formula is not the Compton radius but the centripetal acceleration:
The reader can double-check the force calculation by using the tangential velocity formula for the Compton radius
a or r:
We can now calculate the relative strength of the force inside of a muon (μ) and an electron (e) as their
This is a rather huge value which may or may not justify us thinking the force inside of a muon must be
some strong(er) mode of the electromagnetic oscillation. To put it simply, we may want to think of it as
the strong force.
5. Because muon decay involves the emission of neutrinos, we think of neutrinos as carriers of the
strong force. Indeed, a muon decays into an electron while emitting not one but two neutrinos⎯one
with relatively low energy, which is referred to as an electron neutrino, and another with very high
energy, which is referred to as a muon neutrino. Hence, the decay goes like this:
μ− → e− + νe + νμ
The muon's anti-matter counterpart decays into the positron, of course:
μ+ → e+ + νe + νμ
This raises two questions. The first is: why two neutrinos? We assume there must be two neutrinos
because energy as well as angular momentum must be conserved, and a single neutrino would not be
able to do that trick.
The second question is: should or should we not distinguish between neutrinos and anti-neutrinos?
We do not 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.
When actually calculating the force, one gets a value of about 0.106 N for an electron. This force is equivalent to a
force that gives a mass of about 106 gram an acceleration of 1 m/s per second. This is a rather enormous value
considering the sub-atomic scale. For a muon, one gets a force that is equal to 4,532 N.
The reader will note that, in contrast to mainstream theorists, we did not denote one of the two neutrinos as an
We mention this because we think of the question of the (non-existence of the) anti-neutrino as one of those
mysteries which mainstream physicists religiously (but wrongly) worship. The reader may also note we have
thought of some strong charge which the strong force may or may not act upon. See our paper on our neutrino
hypothesis and the nature of the strong force.
6. The two-dimensional oscillator model proton implies the following value for the centripetal force
inside of a proton:
We can now take ratio of the forces in a proton, an electron, and a muon respectively:
The numbers on the right-hand side are squared 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. However, such rather vague statements
should be detailed, of course—and we are not (yet) in a position to do so.
The other notable particularity about the proton-muon and the proton-electron ratio is the ¼ factor
which, as mentioned above, we may relate to a different form factor in the formula for the angular
momentum. Because we know the academic reader will cry wolf here and insist that protons, muons
and electrons must all be spin-1/2 particles, we will show he or she is actually right here but – possibly –
not in the sense he or she might expect. We must talk about g-ratios at this point, which we will do now.
7. If we accept the modified Planck-Einstein relation for a proton (E = 4ħω), we can re-write this
equation in terms of energy (E) and cycle time (T):
This way of writing shows that physical action may come as a multiple of h.
To be precise, 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 we may think of our proton as a spin-1/2 particle after all!
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.
This should not surprise us as we have encountered the E = n·h relation in the context of the Bohr model of an
atom or, more generally, in the context of a system of elementary particles, which is what an atom actually is.
Why? Because its g-ratio is, effectively, equal to ½
This, then explains, the meaning of this mysterious spin-1/2 property: 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. Indeed, you can easily verify this in general now, or more in particular for an electron, for a
muon, and for a proton:
We may, therefore, say that the only meaningful g-factor that can be defined is Bohr's (1/2)·q/m
For the calculation of the magnetic moment of the proton, we must refer the reader to our paper on the mass,
radius and magnetic moment of protons and electrons, in which we corrected the CODATA value for precession in
a magnetic field by inserting a factor. We contacted Prof. Dr. Pohl in this regard (besides being expert in so
many fields, he is also a member of the CODATA Task Group for Fundamental Constants) but we did not get any
reply. We think our argument is rather solid but it triggers an obvious question: why is there no such factor for the
CODATA value of the magnetic moment of an electron? Prof. Dr. Randolf Pohl should surely know more in this
The reader will want to verify any other definition he or she may come across that physicists have used to
explain the not-so-mysterious spin-1/2 property of matter-particles.
We think we were able to explain – to a large extent, at least – all of the intrinsic properties of a proton
– and the nature of inter-nucleon forces – without any need for the quark hypothesis.
do not think very highly of the invention of the concept of strangeness by Murray Gell-Man and
Kazuhiko Nishijima in the 1950s.
We actually think Feynman’s treatment of it in his 1963 Lectures on
physics shows that the concept of strangeness – and the related conservation law – is a rather desperate
assumption to explain the decay of K-mesons (kaons) which – in our not-so-humble opinion – should
probably not be explained in terms of a weak force but in terms of non-equilibrium states.
We have, however, not advanced much in our thinking here and we will, therefore, conclude our paper
with a quote that was written quite a while ago but still rings very true today:
“Quantum mechanics may be defined as the application of equations of motion to particles. […]
The domain of applicability of the theory is mainly the treatment of electrons and other charged
particles interacting with the electromagnetic field⎯a domain which includes most of low-
energy physics and chemistry.
Now there are other kinds of interactions, which are revealed in high-energy physics and are
important for the description of atomic nuclei. These interactions are not at present sufficiently
well understood to be incorporated into a system of equations of motion. Theories of them
have been set up and much developed and useful results obtained from them. But in the
absence of equations of motion these theories cannot be presented as a logical development of
the principles set up in this book. We are effectively in the pre-Bohr era with regard to these
It is to be hoped that with increasing knowledge a way will eventually be found for adapting the
high-energy theories into a scheme based on equations of motion, and so unifying them with
those of low-energy physics.” (Paul A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 4th edition
(1958), p. 312)
Our paper on the proton radius also explains its magnetic moment, including first-order calculations (or
estimates, at least) of its anomaly based on the PRad measurement.
Unfortunately, the concept of strangeness started a strange life of its own and would effectively later serve as
the basis for the quark hypothesis which – for a reason we find even stranger than the concept of strangeness
itself – was officially elevated to the status of a scientific dogma by the Nobel Prize Committee for Physics.
Annex I: The non-anomalous magnetic moment of an electron
Before discussing the magnetic moment itself, we would like to draw the attention of the reader to the
physicality of the model by calculating the actual current inside of an electron:
This is a household-level current at the sub-atomic scale. One also gets very large values when
calculating the field strength and the centripetal force that must hold the electron together (0.106 N)
We think these values make sense because the associated energy and mass densities are still very much
below the threshold that would trigger well-founded worries about the effects of such mass/energy
densities on the curvature of spacetime.
However, we do admit that, because of gravity (read: general relativity theory), Maxwell’s equations
may not hold exactly when going down to the tiniest scales. Electron models which incorporate gravity
are, therefore, very interesting and our simple calculations may, therefore, not be fully exact.
models should also answer Dr. Burinskii’s quintessential remark and question on the simple ring current:
“What keeps the charge in its circular orbit?”
We cannot delve into this question here and so we will
return to the simple ring current model again.
Despite the simplicity of the model we are able to explain the anomaly in the magnetic moment of an
electron in very simple classical terms. We must be able to do, of course, because the experimental
measurements and the theoretical calculations of the anomalous magnetic moment are usually hailed
as the ‘high-precision test’ of mainstream 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
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
For more detail, see our paper on classical quantum physics.
We must refer the interested reader here to, for example, Prof. Dr. Alexander Burinskii’s explorations of Dirac-
Kerr-Newman electron models.
Email exchange between the author and Dr. Burinskii dated 22 December 2018.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_tests_of_QED, accessed on 10 March 2020.
suggests a huge scientific scam fuelled 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.
Besides custom, fame, fashion or perceived wisdom, academics may also have other motives for keeping
the mystery alive, such as religious ones, perhaps.
Whatever the reasons for mainstream physicists not looking into classical solutions for tricky problems
may be, we must make abstraction of them and show how the ring current model explains the
anomalous magnetic moment. The logic goes like this:
1. From Maxwell’s Laws, one can easily derive the formula the magnetic moment: it is equal to the
current times the area of the loop.
The theoretical value for the magnetic moment generated by a
pointlike charge zittering around at lightspeed is, therefore equal to:
The CODATA value – which is supposed to be based on measurements
– 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
The reader will recognize this value: it is equal to about 99.85% of Schwinger’s factor: α/2π =
2. 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 –
Oliver Consa, Something is Rotten in the State of QED, February 2020 (https://vixra.org/abs/2002.0011).
If God exists, we do not think He or She will choose to hide in modern-day versions of medieval metaphysical
principles such as the aether or some metaphysical uncertainty principle. Such hypotheses all amount to thinking
of God as being the ultimate ‘hidden variable’ which, to us, comes across as being quite irrational.
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!
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.
3. We hasten to add that this does not imply that we doubt the accuracy of the Planck-Einstein relation
here. On the contrary, we think the Planck-Einstein relation is valid, always! All that we are saying here
is that the idea of a pointlike charge with absolutely no spatial dimension whatsoever is probably what
common-sense tells us it should be: a mathematical idealization. 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:
This too is a value that is slightly different from the theoretical a = c/ω = ħ/mc radius, which is 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 radius:
We again get a slightly different value. How can we explain this? By doing the calculations.
4. Let us first re-confirm the 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
5. 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. Using the f = c/2πa formula
, we get the value we calculated above already:
This formula is easier to use than a formula involving a square root, but the reader can verify the two
calculations would amount to the same.
We effectively get a larger value than the Compton radius (0.38616 fm⎯more or less). We can now
calculate the 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…
6. As mentioned above, we think 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: the μr/μa ratio is about
99.99982445% of 1 + α/2π.
7. We can now also calculate the effective velocity by using 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:
Great ! We are done ! The only thing that is 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? This is easily
explained by thinking of the physicality of the situation⎯as depicted below.
Needless to say, for r, we use the CODATA value.
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, perhaps? We do not think things can be too
simple, but we will let you – the reader – judge, of course!
8. To conclude this digression, we should add one more formula. It is an interesting one because it
brings an important nuance to the quantum-mechanical rule that angular momentum should come in
units of ħ. 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.
We invite the reader to perform the same calculations for the muon-electron using CODATA values for
the actual muon radius
and magnetic moment: we are confident he (or she) will be able to get the
same results. The reader may also want to think through a possible explanation for the higher-order
In case the reader how the use of a full unit of ħ here fits with our spin-1/2 property, the ½ factor is explained by
the concept of the effective mass, which is half of the total mass of the electron. The other half is in the
electromagnetic field that is generated by the charge in motion and which may or may not keep it in place.
The reader should calculate the radius from the Compton wavelength.
If he or she would need some inspiration in this regard, we offer some reflections on that in our paper(s) too.
Annex II: The size and shape of a photon
1. Photons carry energy, just like matter-particles, but, unlike matter-particles, they do not carry the
(electric) charge. 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. Dirac’s description of photons as the particles of
light is very apt:
“We have, on the one hand, the phenomena of interference and diffraction, which can be
explained only on the basis of a wave theory; on the other, phenomena such as photo-electric
emission and scattering by free electrons, which show that light is composed of small particles.
These particles, which are called photons, have each a definite energy and momentum,
depending on the frequency of the light, and appear to have just as real and existence as
electrons, or any other particles known in physics. A fraction of a photon is never observed.”
(Paul A.M. Dirac, Principles of Quantum Mechanics, p. 2)
Any light – visible light, low-energy radio waves, or high-energy X- and γ-rays – consists of waves that,
when we look really close, are effectively made up of photons whose integrity as a particle is captured
by the same Planck-Einstein relation that models an electron or other matter-particles. We just need to
specify what energy concept we are using, exactly. This is easy enough. However, before we do so, we
should make a few notes on the concept of a field.
2. Saying photons carry electromagnetic energy is something else than saying they carry the
electromagnetic force itself. A force always 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 is 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)
3. 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.
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 is 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).
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
(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.
4. 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
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
5. The Planck-Einstein relation does not only apply to a photon, but it also applies to electron
orbitals⎯but in a different way. When analysing 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
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.
Is the photon structure really as simple as this? It is. Of course, simple models may have rather subtle
consequences: we did not discuss polarization, for example, which would be essential in a classical
explanation of, say, one-photon Mach-Zehnder interference. However, we dealt with that in other
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 refer the reader who would want to look up more details in this regard
to our paper on the Lamb shift.
The detail of these calculations can be found in most textbooks but, for ease of reference, we may also refer the
reader to Chapter VII of the manuscript we had originally prepared for the WSP/IOP publishing houses: The
Emperor Has No Clothes: A Realist Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. We withdrew this manuscript after their
first reviewer accused of ‘casually connecting formulas’ and – more importantly – noted our lack of academic
credentials in the field of physics. We prefer peer review by our colleagues now, who are (other) amateur
physicists rather than academics. If we are left with sufficient time and energy, we may or may not try to transform
our writings into one or more journal articles. For the time being, however, we must admit we do not bother too
See, for example, the Annex to our paper on the difference between a theory, a calculation and an explanation.