[General] Hestenes' work

Sun Sep 17 16:49:54 PDT 2017

Dear Albrecht,

comments below

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 6:15 AM, Albrecht Giese <phys at a-giese.de> wrote:

> Dear Andrew, dear Richard, and dear All,
>
> I think that the cause of all problems regarding the electron is caused by
> the assumption given by Hestenes in his paper:
>
> "High energy scattering experiments limit the size of the electron to less
> that 10−16 cm, ...  which rules out models of the electron as an extended
> body."
>
I also disagree with this statement. This is one of the items that I feel
can be corrected in his model. So it is necessary to examine his
assumptions (and those of the electron accelerator groups) and his (their)
logic.

> This assumption causes a blocking of an understanding of the electron (and
> other particles).
>
> I have discussed this assumption with professors of the DESY accelerator
> in Hamburg, where such experiments have been performed very extensively.
> One of them was the research director at that accelerator. The conclusions
> from these discussions resulted in the following:
>
> At first the result that the size of the electron is that small. If we
> look at those experiments, then the result is in fact the size of the *electric
> charge *in the electron. And now  we have to see that the usual
> assumption that the electron is built up by the electric charge only is a
> possible one, but not the only possible one.
>
I agree that, in energetic scattering experiments, the electric charge may
be diminished either in size or magnitude, or both. This may compensate for
the relativistic effects of potentials that can greatly increase (by ~2
orders of magnitude) the interaction forces. However, I believe that charge
and mass are directly connected (and I now think that spin is tied into
that connection) and Hestenes work may be able to help us derive this
effect. Of course, we also have to examine the assumptions of the
scattering analysis and the relativistic near-field effects.

> The other result of these experiments was that it was not possible to
> break up the electron by the bombardment with other particles of a
> sufficiently high energy. So it was concluded that the electron is not
> built by any constituents. -  But this latter conclusion is only true if it
> is assumed that the constituents do have individual masses. If we however
> assume that the constituents are mass-less then such an electron can never
> be decomposed by bombardment. Because if one constituent is accelerated at
> any huge acceleration, the other one can follow this acceleration without
> any restriction. So, no breakup can happen.
>
> Here now can my model serve as an explanation. In my model the electron
> (like any other elementary particle) is built by two constituents which do
> not have any mass at all. The particle as a whole has an inertial
> behaviour, but that is a dynamical process which I have repeatedly
> described here and at our meetings. It is also described on my website with
> the title "Origin of Mass". (This site has top ranking in the internet for
> this title continuously since 15 years, so there exists a lot of response).
>
> If this model is used, we can explain the properties of e.g. the electron
> like the inertial mass, the magnetic moment, the constancy the spin, the
> zitter frequency *with high precision *and without the need for quantum
> mechanical considerations. No free parameters are needed. The parameters
> used in the model are merely the speed of light c, Planck's constant h, the
> elementary charge e0, and as a type dependent variable the size of the
> particle (which is of course much greater than the one cited also by
> Hestenes). So I am asking again: what else is needed? Or what are
> objections against this model?
>
I'll have to reread your paper to make specific comments. From a quick
refresher, I find some very useful developments and some weaknesses. I
don't like the use of paired identical particles. On the other hand, if
these can be distortions of, or oscillations in, space and time, I would be
much happier. While your assumption of massless charge pairs is not very
illuminating, my assumption that spin is a result of physical motion about
a time axis may not be much better. Nevertheless, both provide a basis for
physical observables and for the testing of physical models.

Best regards,

Andrew

> Best regards
> Albrecht
>
> Am 15.09.2017 um 16:09 schrieb 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.nobel
> prize.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)
>
> 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>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at phys at a-giese.de
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1" <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/phys%40a-giese.de?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1>>
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>
>
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> Virenfrei.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> <#m_6034641129745152495_m_-3786212815325519655_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light
> and Particles General Discussion List at mules333 at gmail.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.
> cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%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/20170917/9a9c9461/attachment.htm>