[General] Hestenes' work

Albrecht Giese phys at a-giese.de
Mon Sep 18 12:06:44 PDT 2017 

Dear Andrew,

thank you for your response.

The development of my model was in my understanding a compelling step by 
step development. Comprising the following steps:

o  If one understands Special Relativity not as a mathematically 
abstract system for time and space, but rather as a physical phenomenon, 
which means to follow Lorentz and Poincaré instead Einstein, then 
relativistic dilation is explained by the internal oscillation of 
particles with c. (This was later re-detected by Dirac / Schrödinger as 
Zitterbewegung.)

o  If now there is an internal oscillation / motion at c in particles, 
then the constituents moving this way must be mass-less - otherwise c is 
not possible

o  This conforms BTW also with mainstream physics which says since many 
decades that mass is not a fundamental property but an additional 
function for particles

o  If there is an oscillation then there must be at least two 
constituents. Otherwise the conservation of momentum, which in my 
understanding is the most fundamental law in all physics, would be violated

o This oscillation in a particle has to be a circular one in order to 
explain spin and magnetic moment.

Now the open question would be what the cause of inertia is. Mainstream 
says that this is given by the Higgs model. But that model is not 
complete and the Higgs field does in fact not exist. My model on the 
other side explains inertia by the very fundamental fact that every 
extended object necessarily has inertial behaviour. This is caused by 
the finiteness of the speed of light by which the binding fields propagate.

These are the fundamental aspects of my model. I do not see much play to 
make different choices. Or would do you think?

Further answers in the text below:

Am 18.09.2017 um 01:49 schrieb Andrew Meulenberg:
> Dear Albrecht,
>
> comments below
>
> On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 6:15 AM, Albrecht Giese <phys at a-giese.de 
> <mailto: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.
Hestenes simply refers to the statements of experimenters who are saying 
this. And he simply relies on them.
>
>     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.
Why so complicated? Why can we not assume that an electric charge has an 
"atomic" shape, so it is in fact point-like. And this is a clear result 
of the scattering experiments that the size of this elementary charge is 
< 10^-18 m.
Then no assumptions about any relativistic behaviour of a charge are 
necessary. - And if we follow the relativity of Lorentz and Poincaré, 
then relativity starts with particles as entire units, not with their 
constituents.

And mass is not an elementary process in physics as written above. That 
is not the understanding of present physics and not reasonable also in 
my view. - Further on, spin is in this model the simple classical 
process of angular momentum. Also the magnetic moment can be calculated 
on a purely classical way.
>
>     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
>     e_0 , 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.
We should not refer to any considerations regarding space an time. This 
is not real physics. There is no means to measure space physically, 
space is just a mathematical concept, so no real physics. And also time 
cannot be measured directly. What we do measure is in fact oscillations, 
not time.

  Best regards
Albrecht
>
> 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.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 <mailto: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 <mailto:richgauthier at gmail.com>
>>>     <a
>>>     href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/richgauthier%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
>>>     <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 atphys at a-giese.de <mailto: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
>     <mailto:mules333 at gmail.com>
>     <a
>     href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%40gmail.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1
>     <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/mules333%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">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>



---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170918/1c1863ef/attachment.htm>

More information about the General mailing list