[General] Hestenes' work

[Richard Gauthier]

Hi Andrew and all,
  I’m familiar with Hestene’s zitter model of the electron, though I don’t follow his Clifford spacetime algebra that he used to derive it from the Dirac equation. Hestenes doesn’t call his helically-circulating (with helical radius hbar/2mc = Lambda-compton/4pi) light-speed charged-particle zitter electron model a spin-1/2 charged photon, but it sounds like it could be one to me. Dirac said in his Nobel lecture: 

“It is found that an electron which seems to us to be moving slowly, must actually have a very high frequency oscillatory motion of small amplitude superposed on the regular motion which appears to us. As a result of this oscillatory motion, the velocity of the electron at any time equals the velocity of light. This is a prediction which cannot be directly verified by experiment, since the frequency of the oscillatory motion is so high and its amplitude is so small. But one must believe in this consequence of the theory, since other consequences of the theory which are inseparably bound up with this one, such as the law of scattering of light by an electron, are confirmed by experiment.” https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1933/dirac-lecture.pdf <https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1933/dirac-lecture.pdf> , p322. 

 Dirac's electron description also seems consistent with the idea that the electron is a spin-1/2 charged photon. 
     Richard

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 8:57 PM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Richard,
> 
> I noticed that you are following Hestenes on researchgate. Have you read his 
> Zitterbewegung in Quantum Mechanics 
> D. Hestenes, published in: Foundations of Physics, Vol. 40, 1-54 (2010); (also available at <http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/pdf/ZBWinQM15**.pdf> http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/html/GAinQM.html <http://geocalc.clas.asu.edu/html/GAinQM.html>)
> 
> If so, I think there are some important points, which we could discuss, that pertain to both photons and electrons. For example, below eq 44:
> 
> "S cannot be a timelike bivector, though it can be null "
> 
> and
> 
> "for a lightlike particle [a photon] the spin must be a lightlike bivector."
> 
> He doesn't come out and say that electron spin is a spacelike bivector; but, he should. (Perhaps he has done so in another paper?) 
> 
> Once it is recognized that spin is a rotation about a time axis (for all but photons), rather than a space axis, many of the QM problems associated with electrons and their interactions are reduced or eliminated.
> 
> Andrew M.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at richgauthier at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170915/6182600f/attachment.htm>