Merged: Quantum Ring Theory: Evidence for photon and neutron models

[edd]

Was basing that partly on a quote from an author

Quote:

“One thing we can say with near certainty is that radioactive decay alone is not enough to account for Earth’s heat energy. Whether the rest is primordial heat or comes from some other source is an unanswered question.”

- http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-relea...-geoneutrinos/
but sure, it certainly doesn't sound like it needs anything quite so peculiar as padrone thinks.

[Complexity]

Somewhere there is a woo-friendly random-thread-title generator at work.

What nonsense.

[BenBurch]

In fact, the fact that we can explain the earth's heat with radioactive decay and primordial heat is one of the things that tends to DIS-prove cold fusion. If it existed, it would leave geophysical evidence, and there is none.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AdMan

Let's see. (Though not yours, especially if you do look like John Candy.)

I do. Fortunately I needn't demonstrate mine to demonstrate them.

No nudity BTW: Boobs.

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

In fact, the fact that we can explain the earth's heat with radioactive decay and primordial heat is one of the things that tends to DIS-prove cold fusion.

Originally Posted by BenBurch

If it existed, it would leave geophysical evidence, and there is none.

the opposers to cold fusion claim that they dont see evidences even in experiments made in laboratory, even with the cold fusion researchers pointing out the evidences to them...

... and now BenBurch wants to find geological evidence... which nobody was never looking for...


help me..
... I die laughing

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by pedrone

the opposers to cold fusion claim that they dont see evidences even in experiments made in laboratory, even with the cold fusion researchers pointing out the evidences to them...

... and now BenBurch wants to find geological evidence... which nobody was never looking for...

help me..
... I die laughing

I see you're still engaging in argument by smiley.

Still as (in)effective as every time you've done it.

[Mister Earl]

Pedrone, why don't you give cold fusion claims the same level of skepticism you give everything else? Is there some reason that particular topic gets carte-blance acceptance where nothing else does?

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by Mister Earl

Pedrone, why don't you give cold fusion claims the same level of skepticism you give everything else?

because I use my brain to analyze scientific facts and get conclusions about them, and they show me that cold fusion is real

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by AdMan

I see you're still engaging in argument by smiley.

sorry, my English is not very good, and when somebody says stupid things making me schocked ... with the ability of some people to use idiotic arguments ... the smileys transmit better my reaction face to foolishes

Besides, why does to waste time by replying stupid arguments?


The smileys save our time...

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by pedrone

because I use my brain to analyze scientific facts and get conclusions about them, and they show me that cold fusion is real

Well, if cold fusion is real, then show us a case where cold fusion is real.

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by pedrone

The smileys save our time...

No, they don't.

And they make your posts appear infantile, to be honest.

[ben m]

(As an aside, I was amused to see Wladimir Guglinski's name pop up here. Fun fact: Guglinski's book "Quantum Ring Theory" was published by micro-publishing house "Bauu Press". Bauu is sort of funny. Their book list consists of ten or twelve books on Native American history, anthropology, and culture; two or three books on environmentalism; one pop psychology book; one vampire novel; and one book of quantum physics theory.

The proprietor of Bauu is one Dr. Peter N Jones.

Surprisingly to me, Guglinski's book has actually been purchased and read. Four Amazon reviewers give it one star and say it's terrible crackpot nonsense.

One Amazon reviewer gives it *four* stars; he says it's important, controversial work, and that the one-star reviewers must not know much physics. Who is this reviewer? It's Peter N. Jones, publisher of "Quantum Ring Theory"!

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by ben m

One Amazon reviewer gives it *four* stars; he says it's important, controversial work, and that the one-star reviewers must not know much physics. Who is this reviewer? It's Peter N. Jones, publisher of "Quantum Ring Theory"!

ben m
dont pay attention to what people say about Quantum Ring Theory

pay attention to the experiments that are corroborating the proposals of the theory.

Here is one among several ones
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?...ticle&sid=3302

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by ben m

One Amazon reviewer gives it *four* stars; he says it's important, controversial work, and that the one-star reviewers must not know much physics. Who is this reviewer? It's Peter N. Jones, publisher of "Quantum Ring Theory"!

ben m

the physicist C.A. Bonin attritubed to Guglinski the hypotesis that spin is a manifestation of the zitterbewegung.

See what Mr. Bonin wrote in his review in Amazon:
Mr. Guglinski tells us in this book ... the idea that a particle's spin depends on the so-called helical trajectory

However, such idea was not proposed by Guglinski.
Actually such idea was originally proposed by Schroedinger:
The idea that the electron spin and magnetic moment are generated by a localized circulatory
motion of the electron has been proposed independently by many physicists.
Schroedinger's zitterbewegung (zbw) model for such motion is especially noteworthy, because
it is grounded in an analysis of solutions to the Dirac equation
http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf-preAdobe8/ZBW_I_QM.pdf


So, dear ben m,
tells your opinion:

do you think Mr. Bonin has a good knowledge on theoretical physics ?

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Back when the P&F cold fusion claims were first being examined, I spent the summer working as a lab assistant with one of our professors. He was doing work at another university, under conditions very similar to what P&F described, and similar to what other cold fusion claimants have been working with. Had any such fusion reactions been taking place, this research team would almost certainly have seen something, even if they weren't expecting it, and yet they did not.

Even after the cold fusion announcement, they didn't see anything like that. I recall one day at that lab, when they had every article on cold fusion they could find spread out on the conference table in the lab, while they tried to figure out what P&F were doing. It eventually came down to a group of them standing around, scratching their heads, and saying, "Well, why haven't we seen any of this?"

Horatius,
Guglinski tells us why in his paper WHAT IS MISSING IN LES CASE'S CATALYTIC FUSION , Published in Infinite Energy Vol. 8 , No. 46 , 2002 , and also published in the page 266 of the book Quantum Ring Theory


Look what Guglinski writes in the paper:

UNKNOWN PARAMETERS
First of all, let us consider McKubre's words, "different experiments performed in the same laboratory give apparently different results."

This seems to imply that in two different days, the conditions in the laboratory have changed. But since every parameter seems to under control, perhaps we have to consider that the Sun's magnetic field changes when there are magnetic storms on the surface of the star. For instance, suppose that the Earth's magnetic field is able to help the alignment of the deuterons, increasing the speed of the reaction d+d=He-4. In this case a magnetic storm in the Sun's surface could eliminate such a help by the Earth's magnetic field, and the reaction d+d=He-4 would not occur.

Or suppose that in Case's process there is an interference by a parameter like the Sun's magnitude field. We can try to eliminate the influence of the Sun's field by creating a new type of Case's process, in which the Sun's influence will be minimal. Let us see how to get it.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by pedrone

the Sun's magnetic field changes

Ah, yes, how silly of them not to have considered this!

indeed.


Now, perhaps you'd like to address the fact that, just like cold fusion researchers, this research team also performed experiments on many different days over the course of years, and yet, never seems to hit the "sun's magnetic field" sweet spot?

[Jimmy42]

Originally Posted by pedrone

We can try to eliminate the influence of the Sun's field by creating...

Maybe this thread should be transferred to some psychic thread? Don't psychics claim that skepticism renders them impotent? Too many skeptics around for fusion to occur.

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Ah, yes, how silly of them not to have considered this!

indeed.


Now, perhaps you'd like to address the fact that, just like cold fusion researchers, this research team also performed experiments on many different days over the course of years, and yet, never seems to hit the "sun's magnetic field" sweet spot?

19:49 - He wonders whether there are correlations between earthquakes and cold fusion reactions. Celani says he's been detected correlation between earthquakes and emissions of tritium that could be explained by the phenomena of cold fusion.
http://pesn.com/2011/07/25/9501876_E...io_Conference/





Look what is written in the paper Forecasting Effect of Macroscopic Nonlocality: A Cold Fusion Manifestation ? , published as paper No. 24 in the book Quantum Ring Theory :

The correlations between earthquakes and solar magnetic activity suggests that earthquakes can be consequence of cold fusion reactions in the Earth's interior (in the region where the magma touches the solid crust). In addition, considering that cold fusion occurrence is due to an electromagnetic resonance, then geomagnetic activity is influenced by cold fusion reactions within the Earth.

SUN AND EARTH: TWO ASTROPHYSICAL COLD FUSION VESSELS
The solar atmosphere could be an astrophysical vessel of cold fusion reactions, and the interface magma-crust of Earth would be another one. The cold fusion reactions in the solar atmosphere would occur thanks to resonance process, and the same would occur within the Earth. But it is possible that the disturbance provoked by the resonance in the Sun's atmosphere can be propagated as non-transverse microwaves perturbation of the ether's particles, and so the two vessels could resonate, i.e. , the process in resonance into the solar atmosphere resonates with the resonance into the Earth.
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?...ticle&sid=3269



New experiment (July 2011) shows that heat from radioactive decay contributes about half of Earth’s total heat flux:
The Earth has cooled since its formation, yet the decay of radiogenic isotopes, and in particular uranium, thorium and potassium, in the planet’s interior provides a continuing heat source. The current total heat flux from the Earth to space is 44.2±1.0 TW, but the relative contributions from residual primordial heat and radiogenic decay remain uncertain. However, radiogenic decay can be estimated from the flux of geoneutrinos, electrically neutral particles that are emitted during radioactive decay and can pass through the Earth virtually unaffected. Here we combine precise measurements of the geoneutrino flux from the Kamioka Liquid-Scintillator Antineutrino Detector, Japan, with existing measurements from the Borexino detector, Italy. We find that decay of uranium-238 and thorium-232 together contribute 20.0  TW to Earth’s heat flux. The neutrinos emitted from the decay of potassium-40 are below the limits of detection in our experiments, but are known to contribute 4 TW. Taken together, our observations indicate that heat from radioactive decay contributes about half of Earth’s total heat flux. We therefore conclude that Earth’s primordial heat supply has not yet been exhausted.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo1205.html [www.nature.com]

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by pedrone

ben m

the physicist C.A. Bonin attritubed to Guglinski the hypotesis that spin is a manifestation of the zitterbewegung.

See what Mr. Bonin wrote in his review in Amazon:
Mr. Guglinski tells us in this book ... the idea that a particle's spin depends on the so-called helical trajectory

However, such idea was not proposed by Guglinski.
Actually such idea was originally proposed by Schroedinger:
The idea that the electron spin and magnetic moment are generated by a localized circulatory
motion of the electron has been proposed independently by many physicists.
Schroedinger's zitterbewegung (zbw) model for such motion is especially noteworthy, because
it is grounded in an analysis of solutions to the Dirac equation
http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf-preAdobe8/ZBW_I_QM.pdf


So, dear ben m,
tells your opinion:

do you think Mr. Bonin has a good knowledge on theoretical physics ?

Dear ben m
we are waiting your response:

do you think Mr. Bonin has a good knowledge on theoretical physics ?

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by ben m

One Amazon reviewer gives it *four* stars; he says it's important, controversial work, and that the one-star reviewers must not know much physics. Who is this reviewer? It's Peter N. Jones, publisher of "Quantum Ring Theory"!

Mr. ben m

the physicist Bonin wrote the following in his review in Amazon:

I rated it one star because it was not possible rate it none.

Dear ben m,
do you trust what Bonin claims ?

[Craig B]

Pedrone

Is it your contention that Rossi's e-cat contraption is doing the strange things alluded to by you in multicoloured fonts?

If so, it's a curious way to go about heating a factory for a year in northern Italy, as Rossi claims to have done. Personally, I'd stick to gas.

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by Craig B

Pedrone

Is it your contention that Rossi's e-cat contraption is doing the strange things alluded to by you in multicoloured fonts?

If so, it's a curious way to go about heating a factory for a year in northern Italy, as Rossi claims to have done. Personally, I'd stick to gas.

multicoloured fonts is a strategy used by authors of conspiracy theories

HA HA HA

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by pedrone

Dear ben m
we are waiting your response:

do you think Mr. Bonin has a good knowledge on theoretical physics ?

Dear pedrone
This is your your response:
Any one with too brain cells woulde think Mr. Bonin has a good knowledge on theoretical physics because he knows that that Guglinski's is a a crank:

• Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank.
• Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank II )

ETA Edited because the review was actually by the publisher of Guglinski's book.

The real reason that Bonin is right is that he probably understands the Guglinski's 'helical trajectory' fantasy has nothing to do with Zitterbewegung

Quote:

The resulting expression consists of an initial position, a motion proportional to time, and an unexpected oscillation term with an amplitude equal to the Compton wavelength. That oscillation term is the so-called "Zitterbewegung."

A Compton wavelength is constant for a particle like an electron with the "CODATA 2006 value for the Compton wavelength of the electron is 2.4263102175±33×10−12 m"
Guglinski's 'helical trajectory' varies according to the energy of the electron and is on teh scales of femtometer: 10^-15 meters.

It would be insane to think that they are the same when Zitterbewegung is a constant amplitude for a partice and a 1000 times bigger than what Guglinski wants.

In addition Guglinski's 'helical trajectory' is some sort of classical trajectory (he seems to throw away QM) and thus physically impossible since the acceleration involved means there will be radiation that destroys the trajectory.

Is this Zitterbewegung == 'helical trajectory' also part of Guglinski's theory?
You cited a crank web site before on 15 June 2011 where this was imnplied.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by pedrone

Here is one among several ones
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?...ticle&sid=3302

Thanks for making Quantum Ring Theory look idiotic again, perdron !
The web page states "In Quantum Ring Theory is proposed a model of neutron n=p+e formed by a proton+electron (actually it is a quark model of neutron, which structure is n=[u,d,u-e] , where the electron is tied to the quark up of proton through the spin-fusion mechanism, proposed by Guglinski in QRT"
The model is invalid because the spins do not add up.

But you have stated before that Guglinski's model is a proton plus selectron. That model is ruled out
Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank II

Originally Posted by Reality Check

• He thinks that super-symmetry particles have light masses so that the selectron (lower mass estimates of ~20 GeV) can provide ~2 MeV of mass in a neutron.
• ...

P.S. (from that post in the otehr thread and still not answered)

pedrone. what is the spiral radius for a photon, electron or C60 molecule
First asked 17 June 2011

We also have an interesting paper:
Constraints on Lorentz Invariance Violation using integral/IBIS observations of GRB041219A
Phys. Rev. D 83, 121301(R) (2011) [5 pages]

With a comment
Dr. Laurent, leader of the astronomical observation, said:

Quote:

”Some theories suggest that the quantum nature of space should manifest itself at the ‘Planck scale’: the minuscule 10-35 of a metre, where a millimetre is 10-3 m.

However, Integral’s observations are about 10 000 times more accurate than any previous and show that any quantum graininess must be at a level of 10-48 m or smaller.

“This is a very important result in fundamental physics and will rule out some string theories and quantum loop gravity theories”

The web page then lies about the statement: "So, this new experiment is suggesting that current theories are wrong, and Quantum Ring Theory is correct.".

• The experiment rules out some string theories and quantum loop gravity theories.
  It suggests that all of the remaining theories are correct.
• There are no cited values of quantum grainiess from QRT. If the prediction is that there is none then this experiment does not say that QRT is correct since it just puts an upper limit on the graininess.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by ben m

Surprisingly to me, Guglinski's book has actually been purchased and read. Four Amazon reviewers give it one star and say it's terrible crackpot nonsense.

One Amazon reviewer gives it *four* stars; he says it's important, controversial work, and that the one-star reviewers must not know much physics. Who is this reviewer? It's Peter N. Jones, publisher of "Quantum Ring Theory"!

Thanks for mentioning this ben m.
The reviews reveal even more crackpottery from Guglinski, e.g. the typical crank persecution complex ("In the first pages the author establishes a paralel between Galileo and himself, both having new revolutionary ideas, and both being silenced by the actual "paradigms". In Galileo case it was the church. Now, the Academy.").

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by pedrone

Dear ben m
we are waiting your response:

do you think Mr. Bonin has a good knowledge on theoretical physics ?

and so,
ben m did not respond my question

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The real reason that Bonin is right is that he probably understands the Guglinski's 'helical trajectory' fantasy has nothing to do with Zitterbewegung


.

The idea that the electron spin and magnetic moment are generated by a localized circulatory
motion of the electron has been proposed independently by many physicists.
Schroedinger's zitterbewegung (zbw) model for such motion is especially noteworthy, because
it is grounded in an analysis of solutions to the Dirac equation
http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf-preAdobe8/ZBW_I_QM.pdf


it seems Reality Check does not know that a circulatory motion combined with the electron's rectilinear motion result in a helical trajectory, called zitterbewegung by Schroedinger


the theorists changed the original interpretation of zitterbewegung proposed by Schroedinger.
That's why wikipedia has a different interpretation for zitterbewegung

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by pedrone

..snipped pedrone's usual childish formating .. which means that his post has no coherent content! ...

It seems pedrone cannot read:
Zitterbewegung is grounded in an analysis of solutions to the Dirac equation. This analysis gives that Zitterbewegung has an "oscillation term with an amplitude equal to the Compton wavelength".

Guglinski then (according to pedrone) displays that he is a crank yet again by ignoring what Zitterbewegung and the Compton wavelength" are.
(Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank, Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank II , Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank III )

A Compton wavelength is constant. Guglinski's 'helical trajectory' varies according to the energy of the electron.
pedrone: Can you understand that a constant quantity cannot be the same property as a varying quantity?

A Compton wavelength of the electron is 2.4263102175±33×10−12 m
Guglinski's 'helical trajectory' is on the scales of femtometer: 10-15 meters.
pedrone: Can you understand that these scales are different by a factor of 1000?

And you never answered:
Is this Zitterbewegung == 'helical trajectory' also part of Guglinski's theory?
You cited a crank web site before on 15 June 2011 where this was implied.

Perhaps you can cite Guglinski's statement that Zitterbewegung == 'helical trajectory' and how he shows that

• Zitterbewegung does not have a constant amplitude for a particle.
• Zitterbewegung has an amplitude of on the scale of femtometers.

Otherwise he is just being deluded about the equality.

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

It seems pedrone cannot read:
Zitterbewegung is grounded in an analysis of solutions to the Dirac equation. This analysis gives that Zitterbewegung has an "oscillation term with an amplitude equal to the Compton wavelength".

Guglinski then (according to pedrone) displays that he is a crank yet again by ignoring what Zitterbewegung and the Compton wavelength" are.
(Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank, Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank II , Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank III )

A Compton wavelength is constant. Guglinski's 'helical trajectory' varies according to the energy of the electron.
pedrone: Can you understand that a constant quantity cannot be the same property as a varying quantity?

A Compton wavelength of the electron is 2.4263102175±33×10−12 m
Guglinski's 'helical trajectory' is on the scales of femtometer: 10-15 meters.
pedrone: Can you understand that these scales are different by a factor of 1000?

And you never answered:
Is this Zitterbewegung == 'helical trajectory' also part of Guglinski's theory?
You cited a crank web site before on 15 June 2011 where this was implied.

Perhaps you can cite Guglinski's statement that Zitterbewegung == 'helical trajectory' and how he shows that

• Zitterbewegung does not have a constant amplitude for a particle.
• Zitterbewegung has an amplitude of on the scale of femtometers.

Otherwise he is just being deluded about the equality.

So, as always happens, Reality Check never understands the true subject of any discussion.



The subject of the discussion here is NOT what zitterbegung is.


There are two interpretation on the meaning of the zitterbewegung:

1- the original intepretation proposed by Schroedinger
2- the interpretation proposed by Krekora, which was addopted in Quantum Field Theory

But here in the present discussion between Ben M and Pedrone there is NOT interest to know what is the correct interpretation for the zitterbewegung.


The actual subject of the discussion is the following:

1- The physicist Bonin claimed in his review in Amazon that Guglinski proposed the idea of zitterbewegung to be a helical trajectory

2- However such idea was not proposed by Guglinski, as we see in the link:

The idea that the electron spin and magnetic moment are generated by a localized circulatory motion of the electron has been proposed independently by many physicists.
Schroedinger's zitterbewegung (zbw) model for such motion is especially noteworthy, because
it is grounded in an analysis of solutions to the Dirac equation
http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf-preAdobe8/ZBW_I_QM.pdf


So, even if Schrodinger interpretation of zitterbewegung is wrong, this does not change the fact that Bonin has not a good knowledge on Physics, because:
Bonin wrongly attributed to Guglinski an idea which was actually proposed by Schroedinger.


Therefore, again Reality Check said foolishes, because he never understands the true subject of any discussion.

[Dancing David]

Uh huh Pedrone, give us the derivation of the existing figures. You know that the QRT gives figures that are wrong, so show us how they are right. Just because it is based upon Dirac's theory does not mean that it is not off by a large factor.

QRT is off is it not?

Show us how it is correct, you know that math thing?

You have a history of misquotes, mischaracterizations and false statements, perhaps you should show your work and stop with the rhetoric.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by pedrone

So, as always happens, Reality Check never understands the true subject of any discussion.

So, as always happens, pedrone never states the true subject of any discussion.

Originally Posted by pedrone

1- The physicist Bonin claimed in his review in Amazon that Guglinski proposed the idea of zitterbewegung to be a helical trajectory

The actual subject of the discussion turns out that you are wrong.

Bonin stated

Quote:

It is not a scientific book
...the idea that a particle's spin depends on the so-called helical trajectory...

He never stated that this 'helical trajectory' was zitterbewegung.

Zitterbewegung is a oscillatory motion but has no relationship to Guglinski's fantasy of 'helical trajectory' (see below).

It is the publisher of the book in another review who said ''The idea that a particle's spin depends on the helical trajectory is actually NOT an idea proposed by Guglinski. This idea was originally put forth by Schrodinger, after his analysis of Dirac's equation of the electron'

Is the publisher of the book right?
Is this Zitterbewegung == 'helical trajectory' also part of Guglinski's theory?

If so then Guglinski is an even bigger crank:

Originally Posted by Reality Check

A Compton wavelength is constant. Guglinski's 'helical trajectory' varies according to the energy of the electron.
pedrone: Can you understand that a constant quantity cannot be the same property as a varying quantity?

A Compton wavelength of the electron is 2.4263102175±33×10−12 m
Guglinski's 'helical trajectory' is on the scales of femtometer: 10-15 meters.
pedrone: Can you understand that these scales are different by a factor of 1000?

If the publisher of the book is wrong then Guglinski's 'helical trajectory' is just an unphysical fantasy since all electrons would then emit unobserved synchrotron radiation even when moving in straight lines.

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by pedrone

2- the interpretation proposed by Krekora, which was addopted in Quantum Field Theory

What interpretation proposed by Krekora?

Are you refering to
Relativistic Electron Localization and the Lack of Zitterbewegung
P. Krekora, Q. Su, and R. Grobe

Quote:

Using space-time resolved solutions to relativistic quantum field theory we analyze the electron-positron pair creation process from vacuum. For early times the entangled electron-positron wave function can be obtained analytically. We show that there are, in principle, no limitations to the localization length of an electron and demonstrate that its spatial probability density can be much narrower than the Compton wavelength. We also find that quantum field theory prohibits the occurrence of Zitterbewegung for an electron.

i.e. that an electron has no 'helical trajectory' in QFT?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by pedrone

So, as always happens, Reality Check never understands the true subject of any discussion.

So if I can find a single post by Reality Check in which he understands the thread, you are a liar ?

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

So, as always happens, pedrone never states the true subject of any discussion.



The actual subject of the discussion turns out that you are wrong.

Bonin stated

He never stated that this 'helical trajectory' was zitterbewegung.

Zitterbewegung is a oscillatory motion but has no relationship to Guglinski's fantasy of 'helical trajectory' (see below).

It is the publisher of the book in another review who said ''The idea that a particle's spin depends on the helical trajectory is actually NOT an idea proposed by Guglinski. This idea was originally put forth by Schrodinger, after his analysis of Dirac's equation of the electron'

Is the publisher of the book right?
Is this Zitterbewegung == 'helical trajectory' also part of Guglinski's theory?

If so then Guglinski is an even bigger crank:


If the publisher of the book is wrong then Guglinski's 'helical trajectory' is just an unphysical fantasy since all electrons would then emit unobserved synchrotron radiation even when moving in straight lines.

so, we realize that Reality Check is illiterate, and is unable to understand simple concepts of physics


Schroedinger's interpretation on zitterbewegung is very clear:
The idea that the electron spin and magnetic moment are generated by a localized circulatory motion of the electron has been proposed independently by many physicists.
Schroedinger's zitterbewegung (zbw) model for such motion is especially noteworthy, because
it is grounded in an analysis of solutions to the Dirac equation
http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf-preAdobe8/ZBW_I_QM.pdf

Look:
localized circulatory motion + rectilinear motion of the electron = helical trajectory.


Therefore, Schroedinger interpretation of the zitterbewegung is a helical trajectory


If such intepretation of the zitterbewegung is wrong, then Schroedinger was wrong.



=========================================
Therefore Bonin would have to write in his review in Amazon:

Schroedinger's idea of zitterbewegung is wrong
=========================================



Instead to claim that Schroedinger is wrong, Bonin wrote that Guglinski is wrong.


So, Bonin and Reality Check do not know physics well, since that interpretation of the zitterbewegung was not proposed by Guglinski.

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by Belz...

So if I can find a single post by Reality Check in which he understands the thread, you are a liar ?

no,
it means that you did not understand the subject too

[pedrone]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

He never stated that this 'helical trajectory' was zitterbewegung.

it seems Reality Check is unable to understand the subject because he does not understand how a helical trajectory is generated.


Reality Check,
imagine a plane powered by a propeller.

And suppose you glue a piece of gum on the propeller.

Let's see the trajectory of the gum, when the plane moves with rectilinear motion:

1- while the plane moves with rectilinear motion

2- the propeller has a localized circulatory motion



The motion of the gum glued in the propeler is the combination of two motions:


a) localized circulatory motion caused by the rotation of the propeller

b) rectilinear motion of the plane


The trajectory described by the gum is a HELICAL TRAJECTORY


The same happens to the electron, by considering the Schroedinger's original idea.



Go back to school, Reality Check

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by pedrone

localized circulatory motion + rectilinear motion of the electron = helical trajectory.

You are still unable to understand the point of the Schroedinger interpretation of the zitterbewegung:

The localized circulatory motion has the amplitude of the Compton wavelength. This is a constant value for the electron.

Guglinski's 'helical trajectory'

1. varies according to the energy of the electron
2. is 1000 times smaller than the Compton wavelength.

Thus Guglinski's 'helical trajectory' is not the localized circulatory motion + rectilinear motion of the electron = helical trajectory in zitterbewegung.

Originally Posted by pedrone

Therefore Bonin would have to write in his review in Amazon:

Still wrong: Bonin never mentions Schroedinger's idea of zitterbewegung

Quote:

Bonin stated It is not a scientific book
...the idea that a particle's spin depends on the so-called helical trajectory...

He never stated that this 'helical trajectory' was zitterbewegung.

The publisher of the book mentions Schroedinger's idea of zitterbewegung

You keep on ignoring the question:
Is this Zitterbewegung == 'helical trajectory' also part of Guglinski's theory?
But since the publisher of the book says yes then this is more evidence that Guglinski is a crank.

Guglinski is ignorant of what the Schroedinger interpretation of the zitterbewegung means.

The Schroedinger interpretation of the zitterbewegung is that the electron has a localized circulatory motion + rectilinear motion of the electron (i.e. a helical trajectory) where

1. The localized circulatory motion has the amplitutde of the Compton wavelength. This is a constant value.
   Guglinski's amplitude varies.
2. The Compton wavelength of an electron is 2.4263102175±33×10−12 m.
   This is 1000 times greater than what Guglinski has for his helical trajectory.

• Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank
• Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank II
• Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank III

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by pedrone

The trajectory described by the gum is a HELICAL TRAJECTORY

So now Guglinski's helical trajectory is a lump of gum stuck on a propeller !

Having English as a second language may be an excuse, but even you should be able to read the entire review

Quote:

It is not a scientific book, March 2, 2009
By

CA Bonin
This review is from: Quantum Ring Theory (Paperback)

I rated it one star because it was not possible rate it none.

Mr. Guglinski tells us in this book the existence of a structure for the photon, the idea of existence of ether, the proposition that a neutron is formed by a proton and an electron (or a "selectron"), the existence of trajectories as solutions for quantum-mechanical equations, the idea that a particle's spin depends on the so-called helical trajectory, the statement that Schroedinger equation only works if we consider a constant potential, etc., [...]

In other words, this is not a scientific book.

And see no mention of zitterbewegung.

Guglinski's 'helical trajectory' is not zitterbewegung:
Evidence that shows that Guglinski is a crank IV

[Dancing David]

Pedrone you still have not shown how QRT is accurate, why is that?

[Dancing David]

Breep. breep. No demonstration of the validity of the theory is forthcoming....