Talk:Zitterbewegung

message: "In terms of condensed matter physics, the Zitterbewegung is nothing but a special kind of inter-band transitions with creation of virtual electron-hole pairs." (Katsnelson arxiv:0512337v3.pdf)
There is currently some interest in this aspect of the topic and perhaps Experts could add a few words in this effect.91.92.179.156 (talk) 09:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zitterbewegung in [[graphene]] 

message: Would it be possible for this article to include more recent material summarized in the following article?
:
Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sidharth (2008) 

message: I don't understand one thing: as \alpha_k is the velocity, it should be observable (thus have real eigen values), but,
the term \alpha_k(0) exp(-2iHt/h) has clearly eigen values that are those of \alpha_k(0) multiplied by the non-real eigen values of exp(-2iHt/h) (that are exp(-2i\lambda_n t/h) where \lambda_n are eigen values of H).
Where am I wrong ?
Almeo (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can <math>\alpha_k</math> be an observable ? 

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

message: this is an online encyclopedia, there is no need to abbreviate Zitterbewegung to zbw just to make it shorter, we have enough space.--MaoGo (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey MaoGo - greatful for your efforts on this ! I am a first-time 'user' of Wikipedia and so I am terribly at the technicalities of editing/working on this. How do I 'talk' to you directly?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jean Louis Van Belle (talk • contribs) 12:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  you can write directly in my talk page: User talk:MaoGo.--MaoGo (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi - I visited this article about five years ago, and I tried to insert/modify - and all got rolled back. I talked to Dr. David Hestenes (an eminent but non-mainstream physicist/academic), and he agrees: all contents related to this topic is old (and I am talking like 25+ years old). I want to make just one point here: what is mainstream and non-mainstream is a topic of appreciation, and this article certainly does not do reflect Dr. Hestenes' efforts back in the 1990s to develop Schrödinger's interpretation into a fully-fledged alternative interpretation of quantum physics. The Zitterbewegung hypothesis yields electron and proton models, and yields their measured radii, magnetic moments, mass/energy, etcetera. Hence, stating that it has no 'predictive power' or has not been experimentally confirmed sounds weird to me. I am just an amateur physicist, but highlighting those elements in 'working papers' on ResearchGate got me a 300+ score in just three years (and into the top-20% bracket of most-read RG members). So... What to do? I think the material out there warrants adding a section on the 'non-mainstream' or 'Zitterbewegung' interpretation of quantum mechanics in general, and the Zitterbewegung hypothesis in particular. These 'ring current' models work. Also, when everything is said and done, it is a model which is based on original work such as the de Broglie frequency of matter-waves. See my most-read paper in this regard: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341269271_De_Broglie's_matter-wave_concept_and_issues. I do not want to promote myself but - frankly - more recent work by physicists such as Dr. Hestenes, Vassallo/Celani/Di Tommaso, Oliver Consa, deserves to be highlighted. The fact that there are, apparently, very few conversations here (I think the one from 2005 reflects the same issue) and that they are very 'dated' says enough, doesn't it? Please let me know what you think of the idea to add a whole new section on the Zitterbewegung interpretation of QM as a whole: small edits are not very useful, and I do not want to waste time on things that serve no purpose. Kindest regards - Jean Louis Jean Louis Van Belle (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviation