Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

The Anomalous Magnetic Moment: Classical Calculations

Jean Louis Van Belle

Published Jun 1, 2019• 1 citation
OpenAlex

Abstract

Critics of the Zitterbewegung model often ask what predictions come out of the model. The answer to this question is quite simple: in order to gain credibility, the model would need to explain the anomalous magnetic moment as measured in experiments. If it can do this, then it should probably be recognized as a valid and alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics. This paper explores the geometry of the model in very much depth and, as such, lays the foundations for such explanation.

Related papers

A Classical Explanation for the One-Photon Mach-Zehnder Experiment

Jean Louis Van Belle

In previous papers, we tried to show that the lack of an agreed-upon model of the electron may have contributed to an extraordinary convoluted explanation of the anomalous magnetic moment of an electron. We also suggested a classical electron model (the Zitterbewegung or the Dirac-Kerr-Newman model) may explain what is going on. The next logical step, of course, was to re-explore the classical idea of a photon to check if it can do what John Stewart Bell said cannot be done, and that is to explain interference at the level of a single photon. We think we have a classical explanation in this paper. If Mr. Bell was right, we must be wrong – we should be – but we don’t see why.

•Dec 1, 2018•0 citations

Probability interpretations of quantum mechanics and the prediction of anomalous magnetic moment assuming an energy field existing around rigid bodies

P. K. Misra

Physics Essays•Feb 25, 2011•3 citations

ANOMALOUS MAGNETIC MOMENT OF THE ELECTRON IN STOCHASTIC QUANTUM MECHANICS.

Ana Marı́a Cetto, L. de la Peña-Auerbach

•Jan 1, 1971•0 citations

Challenging the Uncertainty Principle: A Deterministic Interpretation of Measurement and Reality in Quantum Mechanics

Satoshi, Hanamura

[16 Supplement] This document presents a comprehensive review of the 0-Sphere electron model, a theoretical framework developed since 2018 that challenges fundamental assumptions in quantum mechanics. The model reconceptualizes elementary particles as inherently spatiotemporal structures rather than point entities, proposing that electrons possess internal oscillatory dynamics that give rise to quantum phenomena through deterministic mechanisms. Central to this framework is the elegant relationship γ = 1 + a, which bridges the Lorentz factor from special relativity with the anomalous magnetic moment from quantum electrodynamics. The model proposes that electrons contain two energy kernels exchanging thermal potential energy through a photon sphere, functioning as a microscopic clock with a predicted Zitterbewegung velocity of approximately 0.040374c—a specific value offering experimental verification pathways. Note: The general relativistic correction yielding this velocity value of 0.040374c has been corrected due to a computational error. The corrected analysis is available in "A Supplementary Correction to the 0-Sphere Model: Dimensional Consistency of G and c²" (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17765448). Key contributions include: (1) a deterministic reinterpretation of the uncertainty principle as reflecting measurement limitations rather than fundamental indeterminacy; (2) geometric explanations for spin-½ quantization and the 720° rotation property; (3) critical radii predictions for muon (3.43 × 10⁻²⁵ m) and tau lepton (5.71 × 10⁻²⁴ m) decay; (4) novel perspectives on quantum entanglement without nonlocality; (5) reexamination of CP symmetry through mirror-invariant spin interpretation; and (6) potential unification of quantum mechanics with general relativity through proper time integration. This retrospective traces the evolution of the 0-Sphere model from 2018 onwards, documenting its development as an alternative to probabilistic quantum interpretations and its implications for fundamental physics. The summary was prepared with assistance from large language models (LLMs) to synthesize the author's research trajectory and key theoretical advances. Keywords: 0-Sphere model, deterministic quantum mechanics, Zitterbewegung, anomalous magnetic moment, spin geometry, lepton mass hierarchy, quantum-gravity unification, electron internal structure, Thomas precession, proper time

•May 3, 2025•0 citations

Three Solutions

Y. M. Guttmann

THE PUZZLE CONCERNING THE CONCEPT OF PROBABILITY IN SM Throughout the book we have been preoccupied with a single simple scenario. We consider now an n -particle system M that is in a state s t at t . We want to know whether s t has a certain property A . The question that we are asking has a perfectly clear physical meaning. Nevertheless, the information that the answer requires may not always be available to us. It may be the case that the experiment needed to answer the question is too expensive or difficult to perform. It is also possible that there are theoretical reasons why we cannot perform the experiment, or, simply, the experiment has not been performed yet. In all of these cases the need for probabilities arises. We need to calculate the probability P ( s t ∈ A ) and use our results to derive predictions concerning M . But, even if there is little doubt that we constantly use probabilities, there is a basic problem concerning the interpretation of the probabilities. It is difficult to define probabilities as observable parameters that depend only on the physical properties of M . This difficulty gives rise to a philosophical puzzle: If probabilities are not physical parameters that we discover by methods of observation and measurement only, how can we justify our willingness to be guided by them? How can we explain the utility of probabilities? In the previous chapters, we reviewed several attempts to solve this problem.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jul 13, 1999•0 citations

Zitterbewegung revisited

G C Sherry

Certain inconsistencies in the derivation of the zitterbewegung in Dirac's theory of the free electron are discussed.

European Journal of Physics•Oct 1, 1988•3 citations
Critics of the Zitterbewegung model often ask what predictions come out of the model. The answer to this question is quite simple: in order to gain credibility, the model would need to explain the anomalous magnetic moment as measured in experiments. If it can do this, then it should probably be recognized as a valid and alternative interpretation of quantum mechanics. This paper explores the geometry of the model in very much depth and, as such, lays the foundations for such explanation.
In previous papers, we tried to show that the lack of an agreed-upon model of the electron may have contributed to an extraordinary convoluted explanation of the anomalous magnetic moment of an electron. We also suggested a classical electron model (the Zitterbewegung or the Dirac-Kerr-Newman model) may explain what is going on. The next logical step, of course, was to re-explore the classical idea of a photon to check if it can do what John Stewart Bell said cannot be done, and that is to explain interference at the level of a single photon. We think we have a classical explanation in this paper. If Mr. Bell was right, we must be wrong – we should be – but we don’t see why.
[16 Supplement] This document presents a comprehensive review of the 0-Sphere electron model, a theoretical framework developed since 2018 that challenges fundamental assumptions in quantum mechanics. The model reconceptualizes elementary particles as inherently spatiotemporal structures rather than point entities, proposing that electrons possess internal oscillatory dynamics that give rise to quantum phenomena through deterministic mechanisms. Central to this framework is the elegant relationship γ = 1 + a, which bridges the Lorentz factor from special relativity with the anomalous magnetic moment from quantum electrodynamics. The model proposes that electrons contain two energy kernels exchanging thermal potential energy through a photon sphere, functioning as a microscopic clock with a predicted Zitterbewegung velocity of approximately 0.040374c—a specific value offering experimental verification pathways. Note: The general relativistic correction yielding this velocity value of 0.040374c has been corrected due to a computational error. The corrected analysis is available in "A Supplementary Correction to the 0-Sphere Model: Dimensional Consistency of G and c²" (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17765448). Key contributions include: (1) a deterministic reinterpretation of the uncertainty principle as reflecting measurement limitations rather than fundamental indeterminacy; (2) geometric explanations for spin-½ quantization and the 720° rotation property; (3) critical radii predictions for muon (3.43 × 10⁻²⁵ m) and tau lepton (5.71 × 10⁻²⁴ m) decay; (4) novel perspectives on quantum entanglement without nonlocality; (5) reexamination of CP symmetry through mirror-invariant spin interpretation; and (6) potential unification of quantum mechanics with general relativity through proper time integration. This retrospective traces the evolution of the 0-Sphere model from 2018 onwards, documenting its development as an alternative to probabilistic quantum interpretations and its implications for fundamental physics. The summary was prepared with assistance from large language models (LLMs) to synthesize the author's research trajectory and key theoretical advances. Keywords: 0-Sphere model, deterministic quantum mechanics, Zitterbewegung, anomalous magnetic moment, spin geometry, lepton mass hierarchy, quantum-gravity unification, electron internal structure, Thomas precession, proper time
THE PUZZLE CONCERNING THE CONCEPT OF PROBABILITY IN SM Throughout the book we have been preoccupied with a single simple scenario. We consider now an n -particle system M that is in a state s t at t . We want to know whether s t has a certain property A . The question that we are asking has a perfectly clear physical meaning. Nevertheless, the information that the answer requires may not always be available to us. It may be the case that the experiment needed to answer the question is too expensive or difficult to perform. It is also possible that there are theoretical reasons why we cannot perform the experiment, or, simply, the experiment has not been performed yet. In all of these cases the need for probabilities arises. We need to calculate the probability P ( s t ∈ A ) and use our results to derive predictions concerning M . But, even if there is little doubt that we constantly use probabilities, there is a basic problem concerning the interpretation of the probabilities. It is difficult to define probabilities as observable parameters that depend only on the physical properties of M . This difficulty gives rise to a philosophical puzzle: If probabilities are not physical parameters that we discover by methods of observation and measurement only, how can we justify our willingness to be guided by them? How can we explain the utility of probabilities? In the previous chapters, we reviewed several attempts to solve this problem.