[General] Hestenes' work

Tue Sep 19 02:49:18 PDT 2017

Dear Richard,

comments below

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
>
>   I think the explanation of the transformation of photon to an e-p pair
> is very relevant to the theme of the “Nature of light and particles”
> e-group, so that I think the e-group should be included in the discussion
> (anyone can always push “delete". Plus it gives the others a chance to give
> their opinions and criticisms which could be helpful. I hope you will
> encourage your French colleague to join the e-group. *{will do, However,
> he is presently learning QED to approach the problem from that
> perspective.} *We always have google-translate when needed. *{not needed}*
> I won’t be of any help when it comes to Clifford algebra although it is
> definitely a useful tool, but I’d like to be part of the discussion. *{too
> bad google-translate doesn't do Cliford algebra} *What did you mean by
> light cone? Are you referring to the Minkowski light cone? *{Yes}*
>

> I think the regular uncharged photon becomes two spin-1/2 charged photons,
> which then curl up to become an electron and a positron, so this process
> should take some small amount of time. The two spin-1/2 photons coming from
> a single spin-1 uncharged photon may be initially uncharged (if the
> formation process is continuous) and then gain their + and - charges
> continuously as they curl up to form stable particles (perhaps solitons, if
> adding this concept is helpful.)
>

I agree with you here almost completely. I would only add two words. "...
gain their + and - charges continuously as they curl up to *separate and*
form stable particles." Your single sentence contains (and infers) many
important points, some generally accepted, *some not:*

   1. two spin-1/2 photons coming from a single spin-1 uncharged photon
   2. initially uncharged and massless
   3. *the formation process is continuous*
   4.
*gain their + and - charges continuously *
   5.
*they curl up to form stable particles (with mass) *
   6. *solitons,*
   7. I would add that *mass and charge both form/grow in the process of
   curling and separating*

> In QED, e-p pairs form as virtual particles from photons all the time and
> then return to being a photon, so that virtual pair production and
> disappearance might be included in the discussion also. And an e-p pair can
> mutually annihilate after forming positronium for a very short time, to
> become two or three (or sometimes more I think) photons. So this would need
> to be included in the discussion.
>

I had not considered the virtual e-p pair formation as a real or useful
concept. However, in the context of stochastic electro-dynamics*, E*-field
polarization and separation of photons and, perhaps if explained properly,
the concept of virtual pairs (i.e., examples of charged photons) could be
useful.

>
>   My article “Transluminal Energy Quantum Model of a Spin-1/2 Charged
> Photon Composing an Electron” is the sixth article at
> https://richardgauthier.academia.edu/research#papers . It’s key ideas
> (besides being internally superluminal with internal speed c sqrt(2) and
> having a helical angle 45-degrees like my photon model) are that the
> spin-1/2 photon model's helical radius lambda/4pi is 1/2 the helical radius
> lambda/2pi of my model of a spin-1 uncharged photon, and the spin-1/2
> photon model makes two helical turns per photon wavelength as compared to
> one helical turn per photon wavelength in my spin-1 photon model. (This
> helps in the creation of a double-looping photon model of the electron with
> its zitterbewegung frequency f=2 mc^2/h .)
>

Richard, I would consider your transluminal model as a worthwhile attempt
to reconcile relativity and light /matter interactions. It causes kneejerk
rejection, just as your charged -photon model does (see below).
Nevertheless, it may have its place in the ultimate picture. I have
approached the same problem from a different viewpoint in my model of the
distortion of space associated with high energy densities within elementary
particles and photons. This distortion reduces the speed of light (by
increasing the refractive index) locally to create the solitonic photon and
the whispering-gallery-mode confinement of a photon into an electron. It
could be that your local transluminousity and my energy-density-induced
distortion of space would cancel to allow the transfer of energy to still
be limited to the velocity of light in free space.

> So when two spin-1/2 photons models are side-by-side (as in photon -> e-p
> production), their radii would add up in amplitude to the amplitude of the
> radius of a spin-1 photon, and also have the same “apparent" wavelength,
> i.e. the same length of a single helical turn of the spin-1 photon model
> (while each spin-1/2 photon model actually having twice the wavelength and
> therefore half the energy) of the spin-1 photon transforming into the e-p
> pair.
>

Your side-by-side charged-photon model may be similar to (a variant of?)
Albrecht's two-body electron model. And, while I may reject both models as
stated (for various reasons), I also use the concept of polarization to
separate the 'potentials' within a photon in the creation of an
electron-positron pair. Thus, the three of us may be approaching a 'truth'
that QM has swept under its rug as 'inconvenient'. Modern QM allows
violation of conservation laws (within the limits of the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Relation) during an interaction - as long as they are
maintained after the interaction. Our models are attempts to explain this
'QM magic' and restore some reality to difficult processes.

I'm now looking to Hestenes' Space-Time Algebra and Dirac's equations as a
means of bringing these, and other, models together with an acceptable
language.

Andrew M.

>
>       all the best,
>            Richard
>
>
>
> On Sep 15, 2017, at 9:03 AM, Andrew Meulenberg <mules333 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Richard,
>
> Since I believe the electron to be a bound photon, I must also believe it
> to have spin-1/2, mass, and charge associated with the photon trapped in a
> specific condition. Do you consider the charged photon to exist
> independently (beyond the ephemeral transition period) without the specific
> condition(s)?
>
> I consider the chargeless, massless, spin-1, photon to be a self-bound
> solition. By extension, the electron-positron pair is a bifurcation of that
> soliton that is stable because it forms two new self-bound solitons.
>
> I am planning on exploring the characteristics of the 'photon to
> electron/positron transition' in terms of the time-cone and Hestenes'
> spacetime algebra. I think that he may have misinterpreted some of the
> implications from the math; but, his approach seems to be the best path to
> unifying the concepts.
>
> If you care to share this development, we could do it on this forum (if
> others are interested and wish to comment/contribute, or simply for a
> public record) or just between us, until we get some serious results.
>
> I will also be working on this project with a retired applied
> mathematician (French) with whom I have been publishing results of the
> Dirac equations as a basis for deep-electron orbits (with binding energy in
> the 500 keV range). If you and I decide to do this study on the Nature of
> Light forum, I will ask him if he wishes to join the group.
>
> Andrew M.
> _ _ _
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20170919/2d49cb9e/attachment.htm>