text:
# Binaries discovered by the SPY project. II. HE 1414–0848: a double degenerate with a mass close to the Chandrasekhar limitBased on data obtained at the Paranal Observatory of the European Southern Observatory for programs No. 165.H-0588, 266.D-5658, and 167.D-0407

## 1 Introduction

Supernovae of type Ia (SN Ia) play an outstanding role in the study of cosmic evolution. In particular they are regarded as one of the best standard candles to determine the cosmological parameters $`H_{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (e.g. Riess et al. ries98 (1998), Leibundgut L01 (2001)). However, the nature of their progenitors remains a mystery (e.g. Livio liv00 (2000)).

There is general consensus that the SN event is due to the thermonuclear explosion of a white dwarf (WD) when a critical mass (likely the Chandrasekhar limit) is reached, but the nature of the progenitor system remains unclear. While it must be a binary, with matter being transferred to the WD from a companion until the critical mass is reached, two main options exist for the nature of the mass donator: either another WD in the so-called double degenerate (DD) scenario (Iben & Tutukov ibtu84 (1984)), or a red giant/subgiant in the so-called single degenerate (SD) scenario (Whelan & Iben whel73 (1973)).

As progenitor candidate, the DD model considers a binary with the total mass of the white dwarf components larger than the Chandrasekhar mass, which merges in less than a Hubble time due to the loss of angular momentum via gravitational wave radiation. Several systematic radial velocity (RV) searches for DDs have already been undertaken starting in the mid 1980’s (see Marsh mar00 (2000) for a review). By now, combining all the surveys $`180`$ WDs have been checked for RV variations yielding a sample of 18 DDs with $`P<6\stackrel{d}{.}3`$ (Marsh mar00 (2000); Maxted et al. 2000a ). Six of the 18 known DDs are double-lined systems (in three of these systems the companion is barely detectable). None of the 18 known DD systems seems massive enough to qualify as a SN Ia precursor. This is not surprising, as theoretical simulations suggest that only a few percent of all close DDs are potential SN Ia progenitors (Iben et al. ITY97 (1997); Nelemans et al. NYP01 (2001)). Recently, the binary KPD 1930+2752, consisting of a subluminous B (sdB) star and an invisible white dwarf component, was proposed as potential SN Ia progenitor by Maxted et al. (2000b ). The system mass exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit, and the system will merge within a Hubble time. However, it is not clear, if the merger event will produce a SN Ia explosion (Ergma et al. EFY01 (2001)).

In order to perform a definite test of the DD scenario we have embarked on a large spectroscopic survey of 1500 white dwarfs using the UVES spectrograph at the ESO VLT UT2 (Kueyen) to search for white dwarfs and pre-white dwarfs with variable RVs (ESO SN Ia Progenitor surveY – SPY). The SPY project yields a wealth of new RV variable DDs (Napiwotzki et al. 2001b ). An analysis of the subdwarf B + white dwarf system HE 1047$``$0436 was presented in the first paper of this series (Napiwotzki et al. 2001a ).

Among the newly detected DDs are six new double-lined binaries. In all systems both WD components can be easily recognised. Here we report on follow-up spectroscopy of HE 1414$``$0848 (cf. Sect. 2). The determination of the radial velocity curves, orbital parameters, and masses for both components is described in Sect. 3. A model atmosphere analysis is carried out and the results are compared with the analysis of the RV curves in Sect. 4. We finish with a discussion of the HE 1414$``$0848 system and possible formation scenarios.

## 2 Observations and Data Analysis

HE 1414$``$0848 ($`\alpha _{2000}=14^\mathrm{h}16^\mathrm{m}52.1^\mathrm{s}`$, $`\delta _{2000}=9^{}02^{}04^{\prime \prime }`$, $`B_{\mathrm{pg}}=`$$`16\stackrel{\mathrm{m}}{.}2`$) was discovered by the Hamburg ESO survey (HES; Wisotzki et al. wis00 (2000), Christlieb et al. chri01 (2001)) as a potential cool white dwarf and, therefore, was included in our survey. The survey spectra showed that it is a double-lined system consisting of two DA white dwarfs. Both components were visible in the Hα core separated by 4.6 Å, corresponding to 210 km/s, in both discovery spectra. This indicated high orbital velocity and a short period, making HE 1414$``$0848 a high-priority target for follow-up studies.

Fifteen high resolution (0.3Å) echelle spectra of HE 1414$``$0848 have been secured with VLT-UVES between March 9 and April 5, 2001 in service mode. Details on the observational set up of the UVES instrument and the data reduction can be found in Koester et al. (KNC01 (2001)) and Napiwotzki et al. (2001b ). The chosen observing strategy was to start with several closely spaced exposures during the first night. This should provide us with a rough first estimate of the period and radial velocity curve, which could be used to extrapolate the orbit to the next nights. Consequently, a decreasing number of spectra was taken during the following nights, finishing with single exposures separated by more than one day. This strategy in conjunction with the high quality of the UVES data allowed the determination of accurate orbital parameters with a relatively small number of spectra.

Six Hα spectra taken during the first night of the follow-up observations are displayed in Fig. 1 together with a fit of both components as described in Sect. 3. The rapid change of the spectral appearance due to the orbital motion is obvious.

## 3 Radial velocity curve and orbital parameters

Although the line cores of both components are similar, the left one in Fig. 1 is slightly deeper and broader (called component A further on). We used this in a first step to identify both stars in each spectrum. In a second step we fitted the central region ($`\pm 20`$ Å) by using two Gaussians (one for every component), a Lorentzian to model the line wings (parameters of the Lorentzian were determined from a fit covering $`\pm 50`$ Å and then held fixed), and a linear polynomial to reproduce the overall spectral trend. Fitting of the Hα profiles was performed with a downhill simplex algorithm, which will be described in a forthcoming paper.

In a third step we fitted RV curves for a range of periods and produced a “power spectrum” indicating the fit quality as a function of period (like the one presented in Fig. 2). In a fourth step we inspected the phased RV curves using periods corresponding to peaks in the power spectrum and compared them with the measured values. Most could be ruled out, because of discrepant RV measurements. Finally, one unambiguous solution remained.

In the fifth and last step we extrapolated the derived RV curves back to the time of the discovery observations and to an additional spectrum taken in August 2001. We used the phase information to identify the components in these exposures, and added the RVs to our analysis. Individual measurements are listed in Table 1. Since the spectra span more than one year, a very accurate period could be determined: $`P=12^\mathrm{h}25^\mathrm{m}39^\mathrm{s}`$. Results for both components agree within 1 s. Semi-amplitudes $`K_{\mathrm{A}/\mathrm{B}}`$ and the “system velocities” $`\gamma _0`$ are given in Table 2. Accordingly the ephemeris for the time $`T_0`$ defined as the conjunction time at which star A moves from the blue side to the red side of the RV curve (i.e. star A is closest to the observer) is

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{Hel}.\mathrm{JD}(T_0)=\hfill & \hfill 2451976.911& \hfill +\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}0.51781}& \times E\hfill \\ & \hfill \pm 0.001& \hfill \pm 0.00001& \end{array}.$$
(1)
Error limits are given in the second line. The mass ratio of both white dwarfs can be computed from the ratio of RV amplitude:

$$\frac{M_\mathrm{B}}{M_\mathrm{A}}=\frac{K_\mathrm{A}}{K_\mathrm{B}}=1.28\pm 0.02.$$
(2)
From Fig. 3 and Table 2 it is evident that the “system velocities” $`\gamma _0`$ derived for component A and B differ much more than naively expected considering the error bars: $`\gamma _0(\mathrm{B})\gamma _0(\mathrm{A})=14.3\pm 1.7`$ km/s . However, this is easily explained by the mass dependent gravitational redshift of white dwarfs

$$z=\frac{GM}{Rc^2}.$$
(3)
This offers the opportunity to determine masses of the individual white dwarfs in the HE 1414$``$0848 binary. For a given mass-radius relation gravitational redshift can be computed as a function of white dwarf mass. Since the mass ratio is given by Eq. 2, only one combination of masses can fulfil both constraints. Since HE 1414$``$0848 is the outcome of common envelope evolution, it is not clear which mass-radius relation to use. We performed the analysis with mass-radius relations constructed for $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=9800`$ K (cf. Sect. 4) from three different white dwarf cooling tracks, which should give us an estimate of systematic errors introduced by a particular choice. We used the tracks computed by Blöcker et al. (BHD97 (1997)), which result from the self-consistent calculation of single star evolution and cooling curves computed by Wood (Woo95 (1995)) for white dwarfs with a “thick” hydrogen layer ($`M_\mathrm{H}=10^4M_{\mathrm{WD}}`$) and a “thin” layer ($`M_\mathrm{H}=0`$). The resulting white dwarf masses are $`M_\mathrm{A}=0.55\pm 0.03M_{}`$ and $`M_\mathrm{B}=0.71\pm 0.03M_{}`$ for Wood’s models with ($`M_\mathrm{H}=0`$). The resulting masses are $`0.01M_{}`$ larger/lower if we adopt the ($`M_\mathrm{H}=10^4M_{\mathrm{WD}}`$) models or the tracks of Blöcker et al. (BHD97 (1997)), respectively. Thus the choice of a particular mass-radius relation is of little importance. The mass sum of both white dwarfs is $`M=1.26\pm 0.06M_{}`$ (errors propagated from the orbital parameters + possible systematic errors). Thus HE 1414$``$0848 is the most massive DD ever found with a total mass only 10% below the Chandrasekhar limit!

The separation between both white dwarfs is quite small, only $`2.9R_{}`$. Thus HE 1414$``$0848 obviously underwent phases of strong binary interaction in its history. From the size of the orbits and the period orbital velocities can be computed: 164 km s-1 for component A and 123 km s-1 for B. The comparison with the observed RV amplitudes allows us to determine the inclination of this system as $`i=52^{}`$.

## 4 Spectroscopic analysis

### 4.1 Spectral fitting with one model

Further insight into the HE 1414$``$0848 system can be gained from a model atmosphere analysis. Since this system is double-lined the spectra are a superposition of both individual white dwarf spectra. A deconvolution is beyond the scope of this paper, but an analysis of the combined spectrum will already allow us to derive constraints on this system. We used four spectra obtained close to conjunction for this purpose (Table 3). Radial velocity differences are small and do not cause significant artificial broadening of the line profiles.

The spectra were rebinned to a resolution of approximately 1 Å. A large grid of LTE DA models computed with a model atmosphere code described in Finley et al. (FKB97 (1997)) was used for the analysis. A simultaneous fit of the Balmer lines H$`\alpha `$ to H8 using a $`\chi ^2`$ minimisation technique was performed. For details refer to Koester et al. (KNC01 (2001) and references therein). The fits are shown in Fig. 4 and individual results are given in Table 3. The average parameters are $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=9800\pm 90`$ K and $`\mathrm{log}g=8.17\pm 0.09`$ (errors correspond to the scatter of individual measurements).

Since the observed spectra are a combination of spectra of both components, the interpretation of this result is not straightforward. However, we expect that the analysis results represent some sort of average of the individual values of both components (especially, if both components are similar as in the case of HE 1414$``$0848; cf. next Section). We used Wood’s (Woo95 (1995)) mass radius-relation for ($`M_\mathrm{H}=0`$) to estimate a mass of $`0.68\pm 0.06M_{}`$ for these parameters. This is consistent with the results of our analysis of the RV curve.

### 4.2 Spectral fitting with two models

Fitting the combined spectra of the two white dwarfs can only give an approximate average of the atmospheric parameters. We have therefore tried to use 14 individual spectra covering different phases of the orbit and fit them with a combination of two DA spectra (another spectrum – 12 – has a very perturbed H$`\alpha `$ profile and could not be used). The quality of these spectra varies and the total number of fit parameters is high – it is not possible to determine them unambiguously. We have therefore used the radial velocities of the individual components and their masses from the radial velocity curve and held them fixed during the fitting. Surface gravities are 8.18 and 7.87; this also determines the relative weight of the two model spectra from the radius, obtained from the mass-radius relation of Wood (1995); the weight ratio is 40:60. The only remaining parameters are then the two effective temperatures of the models, which are obtained through a $`\chi ^2`$ fitting routine similar to the methods described in Koester et al. (2001).

Table 4 gives the results for two different attempts. With Method 1 we have used only the inner parts of H$`\alpha `$ and H$`\beta `$ (80 - 100 Å) to determine the atmospheric parameters. In Method 2 we performed a simultaneous fit of all Balmer lines from H$`\alpha `$ to H8.

This exercise demonstrates that the individual temperatures are similar for both components and are in fact fairly close to the values obtained from fitting the combined spectra with one average model. However, the scatter from the different spectra is quite large – even the assignment, which of the two stars is the hotter one is not the same in all phases. Obviously the demand on the signal-to-noise ratio and on the calibration is higher for this method than for fitting single stars, especially if the two spectra are very similar as in this case.

The most meaningful results can be expected during the quadrature phases ($`\varphi =0.25`$ and 0.75), when the RV separation between both components is largest. Thus not unexpectedly the scatter of the temperature determinations for the corresponding spectra P3, P4, P5, P6, and P10 (marked boldface in Table 4) is relatively small. Our best temperature estimates are $`8900\pm 550`$ K for component A and $`10790\pm 550`$ K for B from Method 2 ($`9330\pm 640`$ K and $`10310\pm 480`$ K if Method 1 is adopted). The error margins correspond to the scatter of individual measurements. Sample spectra fitted with these parameters for several orbital phases are displayed in Fig. 5.

## 5 Discussion

From the above derived temperatures we can estimate the ages of both components using cooling tracks for white dwarfs. Ages were interpolated from the tracks of Wood (Woo95 (1995)) for the masses of the white dwarfs (temperatures from Method 2 adopted). Resulting ages are $`(1.2\pm 0.2)10^9`$ yrs for A and $`(1.0\pm 0.3)10^9`$ yrs for B. Thus the cooling ages of both white dwarfs are very similar and although B is $``$2000 K hotter than A it could, within our error margins, have been formed first.

We can compare the properties of HE 1414$``$0848 with the outcome of computations for the synthesis of the population of double white dwarfs of (Nelemans et al. NYP01 (2001)). In Fig. 6 we compare the predicted distribution over period and mass ratios’ for systems with masses similar to the masses of HE 1414$``$0848. The mass ratio in this plot $`m/M`$ is defined as the mass of the last formed white dwarf over the mass of the first formed white dwarf. Since in the case of HE 1414$``$0848 it is not reliable known which white dwarf formed first, we plotted both possible mass ratios, 1.28 and 0.78, in Fig. 6. The population synthesis indicates a larger probability for the systems with $`m/M=0.78`$. In Fig. 7 we give an example of a scenario leading to such a DD system.

A binary with an initial semi-major axis of $``$$`150R_{}`$ has components with initial masses of $``$4 and $`3M_{}`$. The primary fills its Roche lobe in the AGB stage and unstable mass transfer ensues. We estimate the outcome of the mass transfer using an angular momentum balance (Nelemans et al. NVY (2000)). The orbit of the system shrinks slightly and the primary becomes a hot carbon-oxygen (CO) white dwarf. After $``$170 Myr the secondary fills its Roche lobe as an AGB star. The mass transfer is again unstable, the common envelope is lost, and a close binary consisting of two CO white dwarfs, just like HE1414-0848, is the result (see Fig 7). The period of the system decreases during the subsequent evolution due to angular momentum loss via radiation of gravitational waves.

## 6 Conclusions

We report the discovery of the double-lined radial velocity variable binary HE 1414$``$0848. We measured accurate radial velocities for both components from high resolution spectra and derived an orbital period of $`12^\mathrm{h}25^\mathrm{m}39^\mathrm{s}`$ and semi-amplitudes of 128 km/s and 100 km/s, respectively. We combined the mass ratio computed from this amplitudes and the measured difference of gravitational redshifts and determined masses of $`0.55\pm 0.03M_{}`$ and $`0.71\pm 0.03M_{}`$ for the components using a mass-radius relation. This is the first application of this method to a DD system. The total mass of the HE 1414$``$0848 system is $`1.26\pm 0.06M_{}`$, only 10% below the Chandrasekhar limit, making it the most massive DD ever found in a RV survey. It will merge within two Hubble times (24 Gyrs).

We performed spectral fitting of both individual components and derived $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=10800\pm 550`$ K for the more massive component B and $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}=8900\pm 550`$ K for component A. Ages can be estimated from the WD cooling tracks of Wood (Woo95 (1995)). The resulting cooling ages for both white dwarfs are close to 1 Gyr.

We compared the resulting orbital parameters of HE 1414$``$0848 with the outcome of theoretical calculations for the formation of DDs and find that HE 1414$``$0848 seems to be a fairly typical double white dwarf in terms the masses of the two white dwarfs and its orbital period.

###### Acknowledgements.

We express our gratitude to the ESO staff, for providing invaluable help and conducting the service observations and pipeline reductions, which have made this work possible. This project is supported by the DFG (grant Na365/2-1). L.Y. acknowledges support by RFBR and “Program Astronomy” grants and warm hospitality and support of the Astronomical Institute “Anton Pannekoek”.


format: text

text:
# References

SPIN AND ELECTRON STRUCTURE$`^{}`$

Matej PAVŠIČ, Erasmo RECAMI∗∗, Waldyr A. RODRIGUES Jr.∗∗∗

I.N.F.N., Sezione di Catania, 57 Corsitalia, Catania, Italy.

00footnotetext: $`^{}`$ Work partially supported by INFN, CNR, MURST; by FUNREI, CNPq, FAPESP; and by the Slovenian Ministry of Science and Technology.00footnotetext:  On leave from the J.Stefan Institute; University of Ljubljana; 61111–Ljubljana; Slovenia.00footnotetext: ∗∗ Also: Department of Applied Mathematics; State University at Campinas; 13083–Campinas, S.P.; Brazil; Department of Physics; State University at Catania; 95129–Catania; Italy; and: Facoltà di Ingegneria; Università degli studi di Bergamo; Bergamo; Italy.00footnotetext: ∗∗∗ On leave from Departamento de Matemática Aplicada — Imecc; UNICAMP; 13083–Campinas, S.P.; Brazil.

and

G. Daniele MACCARRONE, Fabio RACITI, Giovanni SALESI

Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Catania, Catania, Italy.

ABSTRACT: The recent literature shows a renewed interest, with various independent approaches, in the classical models for spin. Considering the possible interest of those results, at least for the electron case, we purpose in this paper to explore their physical and mathematical meaning, by the natural and powerful language of Clifford algebras (which, incidentally, will allow us to unify those different approaches). In such models, the ordinary electron is in general associated to the mean motion of a point–like “constituent” $`𝒬`$, whose trajectory is a cylindrical helix. We find, in particular, that the object $`𝒬`$ obeys a new, non-linear Dirac–like equation, such that —when averaging over an internal cycle (which corresponds to a linearization)— it transforms into the ordinary Dirac equation (valid, of course, for the electron as a whole).

1. Introduction –  The possibility of constructing formal classical models of spin was already realized at least 60 years ago, from different points of view.1 In particular, Schrödinger’s suggestion2 that the electron spin was related to its Zitterbewegung (zbw) motion has been investigated by several authors3.

In ref.4, for instance, one meets even the proposal of models with clockwise and anticlockwise “inner motions” as classical analogues of quantum relativistic spinning particles and antiparticles, respectively. The use of grassmannian variables in a classical lagrangian formulation for spinning particles was proposed, on the contrary, by Berezin and Marinov5 and by Casalbuoni6. Pauri,7 moreover, showed how a relativistic (or non-relativistic) spin can enter a classical formulation, in the ordinary phase space \[without resource now to grassmannian quantities\] , just as a consequence of the algebraic structure of the Poincaré (or Galilei) group. In such an interesting approach, it was found7 that a relativistic classical zbw motion can directly follow as a “spin effect” from the requirements of existence of a lagrangian and of a covariant position in Dirac’s instant form of relativistic dynamics. The quantum analogue of those developments had been studied in ref.8.

The number of papers appeared on the subject of classical models for spin, starting from the fifties, is so large that it would be difficult to try quoting them here. A recent approach, based on a generalization of Dirac non-linear electrodynamics, where the spin of the electron is identified with the momentum of the Poynting vector in a soliton solution of that theory, can be found in ref.9.

In this paper we choose, by making recourse to the natural and powerful language of Clifford algebras, to refer ourselves mainly to the model by Barut and Zanghi10,11 (BZ), which relates the spin (at least in the case of the electron) to a helical motion. Namely, we first recast the BZ model into the Clifford formalism, in the meantime clarifying its physical and mathematical meanings; then, we quantize that model for the electron case. In particular, we derive from the BZ model a new non-linear equation for the “spinorial variable” of the model, which when linearized reduces to the ordinary Dirac equation. Solutions of this non-linear equation will be discussed in forthcoming papers12.

2. Spin and helical motion –  In the BZ model,10 a classical electron is characterized, besides by the usual pair of conjugate variables ($`x^\mu ,p_\mu `$), by a second pair of conjugate classical spinor variables ($`z,i\overline{z}`$), representing internal degrees of freedom, which are functions of an invariant time parameter $`\tau `$, that when convenient will be identified with the proper time of the center of mass (CM). Quantity $`z`$ was a Dirac spinor, while $`\overline{z}z^{}𝜸^0`$. Barut and Zanghi, then, introduced for a spinning particle the classical lagrangian \[$`c=1`$\]

$`=\frac{1}{2}\lambda i(\dot{\overline{z}}z\overline{z}\dot{z})+p_\mu (\dot{x}^\mu \overline{z}𝜸^\mu z)+eA_\mu (x)\overline{z}𝜸^\mu z,`$ (1)

where $`\lambda `$ has the dimension of an action, $`𝜸^\mu `$ are the Dirac matrices, and the particle velocity is

$`v_\mu \overline{z}𝜸_\mu z.`$ (1’)

We are not writing down explicitly the spinorial indices of $`\overline{z}`$ and $`z`$. Let us consider the simple case of a free electron ($`A_\mu =0`$). Then a possible solution of the equations of motion corresponding to the lagrangian (1) is:#1 00footnotetext: #1 For other solutions, see refs.12.

$`z(\tau )=[\mathrm{cos}m\tau i𝜸^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu }{m}}\mathrm{sin}m\tau ]z(0),`$ (2a)

$`\overline{z}(\tau )=\overline{z}(0)[\mathrm{cos}m\tau +i𝜸^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu }{m}}\mathrm{sin}m\tau ],`$ (2b)

and $`p_\mu =\mathrm{constant}`$; $`p^2=m^2`$; $`H=p_\mu \overline{z}𝜸^\mu zp_\mu v^\mu `$; and finally:

$`\dot{x}_\mu =v_\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu }{m^2}}H+[\dot{x}_\mu (0){\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu }{m^2}}H]\mathrm{cos}2m\tau +{\displaystyle \frac{\ddot{x}_\mu (0)}{2m}}\mathrm{sin}2m\tau `$ (2c)

(which in ref.10 appeared with two misprints). In connection with this “free” general solution, let us remark that $`H`$ is a constant of motion so that we can set $`H=m`$. Solution (2) exhibits the classical analog of the phenomenon known as “zitterbewegung” (zbw): in fact, the velocity $`v_\mu \dot{x}_\mu `$ contains the (expected) term $`p_\mu /m`$ plus a term describing an oscillatory motion with the characteristic frequency $`\omega =2m`$. The velocity of the center of mass will be given by $`W_\mu =p_\mu /m`$. Notice incidentally that, instead of adopting the variables $`z`$ and $`\overline{z}`$, one can work in terms of the spin variables, i.e. in terms of the dynamical variables $`(x_\mu ,v_\mu ,\pi _\mu ,S_{\mu \nu })`$, where:

$$v_\mu =\dot{x}_\mu ;\pi _\mu =p_\mu eA_\mu ;S_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4}i\overline{z}[𝜸_\mu ,𝜸_\nu ]z,$$

so that $`\dot{S}_{\mu \nu }=\pi _\mu v_\nu \pi _\nu v_\mu `$ and $`\dot{v}_\mu =4S_{\mu \nu }\pi ^\nu `$. In the case of a free electron, by varying the action corresponding to $``$ one finds as generator of space-time rotations the conserved quantity $`J_{\mu \nu }=L_{\mu \nu }+S_{\mu \nu }`$, where $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ is just the particle spin.#2 00footnotetext: #2 Alternatively, Barut and Zanghi,10 in order to study the internal dynamics of the considered (classical) particle, did split $`x_\mu `$ and $`v_\mu \dot{x}_\mu `$ as follows: $`x_\mu X_\mu +Q_\mu ;v_\mu W_\mu +U_\mu `$ (where by definition $`W_\mu =\dot{X}_\mu `$ and $`U_\mu =\dot{Q}_\mu `$). In the particular case of a free particle, $`\dot{W}_\mu =0;W_\mu =p_\mu /m`$. One can now interpret $`X_\mu `$ and $`p_\mu `$ as the c.m. coordinates, and $`Q_\mu `$ and $`P_\mu mU_\mu `$ as the relative position and momentum, respectively. For a free particle, then, one finds that the internal variables are coordinates oscillating with the zbw frequency $`2m`$; and that, again, the total angular momentum $`J_{\mu \nu }=L_{\mu \nu }+S_{\mu \nu }`$ is a constant of motion, quantities $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ being the spin variables.

Let us explicitly observe that solution (2c) is the equation of a space-time cylindrical helix, i.e. it represents in 3–space a helical motion. Let us also stress that this motion describes particle spin at a classical level. In fact, such a classical system has been shown by Barut and Pavšič13 to describe, after quantization, the Dirac electron.13-15

An alternative approach leading to a classical description of particles with spin was put forth by Pavšič,16-18 by making recourse to the (extrinsic) curvature of the particle world–line in Minkowski space. Let us finally mention that the same classical equations of motion (and the same Poisson–bracket algebra) have been found also in a third approach, which consists in adding to the ordinary lagrangian an extra term containing Grassmann variables.19

3. About the electron structure –  Considering the interest of the previous results (which suggest in particular that the helical motion can have a role in the origin of spin), we purpose to explore their physical meaning more deeply, by the very natural —and powerful— language of the Clifford algebras:20,21 in particular of the “space-time algebra (STA)” $`IR_{1,3}`$. First of all, let us preliminarily clarify why Barut and Zanghi had to introduce the Dirac spinors $`z`$ in their lagrangian, by recalling that classically the motion of a spinning top has to be individuated by (i) the world–line $`\sigma `$ of its center of mass (e.g., by the ordinary coordinates $`x^\mu `$ and the conjugate momenta $`p_\mu `$), and (ii) a Frenet tetrad#3 00footnotetext: #3 The use of Frenet tetrads in connection with the Dirac formalism was first investigated in ref.22. attached22 to the world–line $`\sigma `$. This continues to be true when wishing to describe the motion of a point-like spinning particle. For the Frenet tetrad23 we have:

$`e_\mu =R\gamma _\mu \stackrel{~}{R}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\nu \gamma _\nu ;\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^\nu L_+^{}`$ (3)

where $`e_0`$ is parallel to the particle velocity $`v`$ (even more, $`e_0=v`$ whenever one does use as parameter $`\tau `$ the CM system proper–time); the tilde represents the reversion#4; 00footnotetext: #4 The main anti-automorphism in $`IR_{1,3}`$ (called reversion), denoted by the tilde, is such that $`\stackrel{~}{AB}=\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{A}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{A}=A`$ when $`A`$ is a scalar or a vector, while $`\stackrel{~}{F}=F`$ when $`F`$ is a 2-vector. and $`R=R(\tau )`$ is a “Lorentz rotation” \[more precisely, $`R\mathrm{Spin}_+(1,3)`$, and a Lorentz transform of quantity $`a`$ is given by $`a^{}=Ra\stackrel{~}{R}`$\]. Moreover $`R\stackrel{~}{R}=\stackrel{~}{R}R=\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}1}`$. The Clifford STA fundamental unit–vectors $`\gamma _\mu `$ should not be confused with the Dirac matrices $`𝜸_\mu `$. Let us also recall that, while the orthonormal vectors $`\gamma _\mu /x^\mu `$ constitute a global tetrad in Minkowski space-time (associated with a given inertial observer), on the contrary the Frenet tetrad $`e_\mu `$ is defined only along $`\sigma `$, in such a way that $`e_0`$ is tangent to $`\sigma `$. At last, it is: $`\gamma ^\mu =\eta ^{\mu \nu }\gamma _\nu `$, and $`\gamma _5\gamma _0\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3`$.
Notice that $`R(\tau )`$ does contain all the essential information carried by a Dirac spinor. In fact, out of $`R`$, a “Dirac–Hestenes” (DH) spinor24 $`\psi _{\mathrm{DH}}`$ can be constructed as follows:

$`\psi _{\mathrm{DH}}=\rho ^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{\beta \gamma _5/2}R`$ (4)

where $`\rho `$ is a normalization factor; and $`\mathrm{e}^{\beta \gamma _5}=+1`$ for the electron (and $`1`$ for the positron); while, if $`\epsilon `$ is a primitive idempotent of the STA, any Dirac spinor $`\psi _\mathrm{D}`$ can be represented in our STA as:25

$`\psi _\mathrm{D}=\psi _{\mathrm{DH}}\epsilon .`$ (5)

For instance, the Dirac spinor $`z`$ introduced by BZ is obtained from the DH spinor#5 by the choice $`\epsilon =\frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma _0)`$. 00footnotetext: #5 The DH spinors can be regarded as the parent spinors, since all the other spinors of common use among physicists are got from them by operating as in eq.(5). We might call them “the fundamental spinors”. Incidentally, the Frenet frame can also write $`\rho e_\mu =\psi _{\mathrm{DH}}\gamma _\mu \stackrel{~}{\psi }_{\mathrm{DH}}`$.
Let us stress that, to specify how does the Frenet tetrad rotate as $`\tau `$ varies, one has to single out a particular $`R(\tau )`$, and therefore a DH spinor $`\psi _{\mathrm{DH}}`$ , and eventually a Dirac spinor $`\psi _\mathrm{D}`$. This makes intuitively clear why the BZ Dirac–spinor $`z`$ provides a good description of the “spin motion” of a classical particle.
Let us now repeat what precedes on a more formal ground. In the following, unless differently stated, we shall indicate the DH spinors $`\psi _{\mathrm{DH}}`$ simply by $`\psi `$.

Let us translate the BZ lagrangian into the Clifford language.
In eq.(1) quantity $`z^\mathrm{T}=(z_1z_2z_3z_4)`$ is a Dirac spinor $`\tau z(\tau )`$, and $`\overline{z}=z^{}𝜸^0`$. To perform our translation, we need a matrix representation of the Clifford space-time algebra; this can be implemented by representing the fundamental Clifford vectors ($`\gamma _0`$, $`\gamma _1`$, $`\gamma _2`$, $`\gamma _3`$) by the ordinary Dirac matrices $`𝜸_\mu `$. Choosing:

$$\gamma _0𝜸_0\left(\begin{array}{cc}11& 0\\ 0& 11\end{array}\right);\gamma _i𝜸_i\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sigma _i\\ \sigma _i& 0\end{array}\right),$$

the representative in $`IR_{1,3}`$ of Barut–Zanghi’s quantity $`z`$ is

$`z\mathrm{\Psi }\psi \epsilon ;\epsilon \frac{1}{2}(1+\gamma _0)`$ (6)

where $`\psi `$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$, are represented (with $`\psi \stackrel{~}{\psi }=11`$) by

$`\psi =\left(\begin{array}{cccc}z_1& \overline{z}_2& z_3& \overline{z}_4\\ z_2& \overline{z}_1& z_4& \overline{z}_3\\ z_3& \overline{z}_4& z_1& \overline{z}_2\\ z_4& \overline{z}_3& z_2& \overline{z}_1\end{array}\right);\stackrel{~}{\psi }=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\overline{z}_1& \overline{z}_2& \overline{z}_3& \overline{z}_4\\ z_2& z_1& z_4& z_3\\ \overline{z}_3& \overline{z}_4& \overline{z}_1& \overline{z}_2\\ z_4& z_3& z_2& z_1\end{array}\right).`$ (7)

The translation of the various terms in eq.(1) is then:

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{2}i(\dot{\overline{z}}zz\dot{z})\hfill & & \stackrel{~}{\psi }\dot{\psi }\gamma _1\gamma _2_0\hfill \\ p_\mu (\dot{x}^\mu \overline{z}𝜸^\mu z)\hfill & & p(\dot{x}\psi \gamma _0\stackrel{~}{\psi })_0\hfill \\ eA_\mu \overline{z}𝜸^\mu z\hfill & & eA\psi \gamma _0\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0,\hfill \end{array}`$

where $`_0`$ means “the scalar part” of the Clifford product. Thus, the lagrangian $``$ in the Clifford formalism is

$`=\stackrel{~}{\psi }\dot{\psi }\gamma _1\gamma _2+p(\dot{x}\psi \gamma _0\stackrel{~}{\psi })+eA\psi \gamma _0\stackrel{~}{\psi }_0,`$ (8)

which is analogous, incidentally, to Krüger’s lagrangian26 (apart from a misprint).
As we are going to see, by “quantizing” it, also in the present formalism it is possible (and, actually, quite easy) to derive from $``$ the Dirac–Hestenes equation:#6

$`\psi (x)\gamma _1\gamma _2+m\psi (x)\gamma _0+eA(x)\psi (x)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$ (9)

00footnotetext: #6 Observe that in eq.(8) it is $`\psi =\psi (\tau )`$, while in eq.(9) we have $`\psi =\psi (x)`$ with $`\psi (x)`$ such that its restriction $`\psi (x)_\sigma `$ to the world–line $`\sigma `$ coincides with $`\psi (\tau )`$. Below, we shall meet the same situation, for instance, when passing from eq.(10a) to eqs.(12)–(12’).

which is nothing but the ordinary Dirac equation written down in the Clifford formalism.20,24 Quantity $`=\gamma ^\mu _\mu `$ is the Dirac operator. Let us notice that $`p`$ in eq.(8) can be regarded as a Lagrange multiplier, when the velocity $`v=\dot{x}`$ is represented by $`\psi \gamma _0\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$. The BZ model is indeed a hamiltonian system, as proved by using Clifford algebras in ref.27 (cf. also ref.28). The dynamical variables are then ($`\psi ,\stackrel{~}{\psi },x,p`$), and the Euler–Lagrange equations yield a system of three independent equations:

$`\dot{\psi }\gamma _1\gamma _2+\pi \psi \gamma _0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}`$ (10a)

$`\dot{x}=\psi \gamma _0\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ (10b)

$`\dot{\pi }=eF\dot{x}`$ (10c)

where $`FA`$ is the electromagnetic field (a bivector, in Hestenes’ language) and $`\pi peA`$ is the kinetic momentum. \[Notice incidentally, from eq.(10b), that $`\dot{x}^2=\rho (\tau )`$\].
At this point, let us consider a velocity vector field $`V(x)`$ together with its integral lines (or stream–lines). Be $`\sigma `$ the stream–line along which a particle moves (i.e., the particle world–line). Then, the velocity distribution $`V`$ is required to be such that its restriction $`V(x)_\sigma `$ to the world–line $`\sigma `$ is the ordinary velocity $`v=v(\tau )`$ of the considered particle.
If we moreover recall29,30 that any Lorentz “rotation” $`R`$ can be written $`R=\mathrm{e}^{}`$, where $``$ is a bivector, then along any stream–line $`\sigma `$ we shall have:19

$`\dot{R}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}R}{\mathrm{d}\tau }}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}v^\mu \mathrm{\Omega }_\mu R={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Omega }R,`$ (11)

with $`_\mu R=\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu R/2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mu 2_\mu `$, and where $`\mathrm{\Omega }v^\mu \mathrm{\Omega }_\mu `$ is the angular–velocity bivector (also known, in differential geometry, as the “Darboux bivector”). Therefore, for the tangent vector along any line $`\sigma `$ we obtain the relevant relation:

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\tau }=v^\mu _\mu =v$$

The \[total derivative\] equation (10a) thus becomes:#6

$`v\psi \gamma _1\gamma _2+\pi \psi \gamma _0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$ (12)

which is a non-linear \[partial derivative\] equation, as it is easily seen by using eq.(10b) and rewriting it in the noticeable form

$`(\psi \gamma _0\stackrel{~}{\psi })\psi \gamma _1\gamma _2+\pi \psi \gamma _0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.`$ (12’)

Equation (12’) constitutes a new non-linear Dirac–like equation. The solutions of this new equation will be explicitly discussed in refs.12. Let us here observe only that the probability current $`JV`$ is conserved: $`V=0`$, as we shall show elsewhere.

Let us pass now to the free case ($`A_\mu =0`$), when eq.(10a) may be written

$`\dot{\psi }\gamma _1\gamma _2+p\psi \gamma _0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$ (10’a)

and admits some simple solutions.12 Actually, in this case $`p`$ is constant \[cf. eq.(10c)\] and one can choose the $`\gamma _\mu `$ frame so that $`p=m\gamma _0`$ is a constant vector in the direction $`\gamma _0`$. Since $`\dot{x}=\psi \gamma _0\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$, it follows that

$`v={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\psi p\stackrel{~}{\psi };{\displaystyle \frac{p}{m}}=\psi ^1v\stackrel{~}{\psi }^1.`$ (13)

The mean value of $`v`$ over a zitterbewegung period is then given by the relation

$`v_{\mathrm{zbw}}=p/m=\psi ^1v\stackrel{~}{\psi }^1`$ (14)

which resembles the ordinary quantum–mechanical mean value for the wave–function $`\psi ^1`$ (recall that in Clifford algebra for any $`\psi `$ it exists its inverse). Let us recall, by comparison, that the time average of $`v_\mu `$ given in eq.(2c) over a zbw period is evidently equal to $`p_\mu /m`$.
Let us explicitly stress that, due to the first one \[$`z\psi \epsilon `$\] of eqs.(6), the results found by BZ for $`z`$ are valid as well for $`\psi `$ in our formalism. For instance, for BZ \[cf. eq.(1’)\] it was $`v^\mu =\overline{z}𝜸^\mu zv_{\mathrm{BZ}}^\mu `$, while in the Clifford formalism \[cf. eq.(7)\] it is $`v=\psi \gamma ^0\psi =\gamma ^0\stackrel{~}{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \psi _0\gamma _\mu =v_{\mathrm{BZ}}^\mu \gamma _\mu `$. As a consequence, $`\sigma `$ refers in general to a cylindrical helix (for the free case) also in our formalism.
Going back to eq.(10’a), by the second one of eqs.(13) we finally obtain our non-linear (free) Dirac–like equation in the following form:

$`v\psi \gamma _1\gamma _2+m\psi ^1v\stackrel{~}{\psi }^1\psi \gamma _0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$ (15)

which in the ordinary, tensorial language would write: $`i(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}𝜸^\mu \mathrm{\Psi })_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }=𝜸^\mu p_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`𝜸^\mu `$ are now an ordinary Dirac spinor and the ordinary Dirac matrices, respectively, and $`\widehat{p}_\mu i_\mu `$.

In connection with this fundamental equation of motion (15), let us explicitly notice the following. At a classical level, the equation of motion in the BZ model was eq.(10a), which held for the world–line $`\sigma `$. In other words, eq.(10a) was valid for one world–line; on the contrary, eq.(15) is a field equation, satisfied by quantities $`\psi (x)`$ such that $`\psi (x)_\sigma =\psi (\tau )`$. A change in interpretation is of course necessary when passing from the classical to the “quantum” level: and therefore eq.(15) is now to be regarded as valid for a congruence of world lines, that is to say, for a congruence of stream–lines of the velocity field $`V=V(x)`$. In the quantum case, the “particle” can follow any of those integral lines, with probability amplitude $`\rho `$. In this context, it must be recalled that a tentative interpretation of the Dirac equation within the Clifford algebra approach has been suggested in ref.20, and later in ref.31. However, in the present paper we shall not put forth, nor discuss, any interpretation of our formalism.
As we have seen, eq.(15) will hold for our helical motions. Notice moreover that, since \[cf. eq.(4)\] it is $`\psi =\rho ^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{e}^{\beta \gamma _5/2}R`$, in the case of the helical path solution the Lorentz “rotation” $`R`$ will be the product of a pure space rotation and a boost.

It is important to observe that, if we replace $`v`$ in eq.(15) by its mean value over a zbw period, eq.(14), then we end up with the Dirac–Hestenes equation \[i.e., the ordinary Dirac equation!\], valid now for the center-of-mass world–line. In fact, since $`v_{\mathrm{zbw}}=p/m`$, eq.(15) yields

$`p\psi \gamma _1\gamma _2+mp\psi \gamma _0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$ (15’)

and therefore —if we recall that for the eigenfunctions of $`p`$ in the DH approach20 it holds $`\psi \gamma _1\gamma _2=p\psi `$, so that $`(p)\psi \gamma _1\gamma _2=p\psi \gamma _1\gamma _2`$— one obtains:

$`p(\psi \gamma _1\gamma _2+m\psi \gamma _0)=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},`$ (15”)

which is satisfied once it holds the ordinary Dirac equation (in its Dirac–Hestenes form):

$`\psi \gamma _1\gamma _2+m\psi \gamma _0=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}.`$ (16)

Let us observe that all the eigenfunctions of $`p`$ are solutions both of eq.(15) and of the Dirac equation.

In conclusion, our non-linear Dirac–like equation (15) is a quantum–relativistic equation, that can be regarded as “sub-microscopic” in the sense that it refers to the internal motion of a point-like “constituent” $`𝒬`$. In fact, the density current $`\psi \gamma ^0\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$, relative to the solutions $`\psi `$ of eq.(15), does oscillates in time in a helical fashion, in complete analogy to the initial equation (2c); so that $`x`$ and $`\dot{x}`$ refer to $`𝒬`$. On the contrary, the ordinary (linear) Dirac equation can be regarded as the equation describing the global motion of the geometrical centre of the system (i.e., of the whole “electron”); actually, it has been obtained from eq.(15) by linearization, that is to say, replacing the density current $`v\psi \gamma ^0\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ by its time average $`p/m`$ over the zbw period \[cf. eqs.(13)–(14)\].
At last, let us underline that, in the free case, eq.(10’a) admits also a trivial solution $`\sigma _0`$, corresponding to rectilinear motion.

4. A very simple solution –  In the free case, the equation (10’a) admits also a very simple solution (the limit of the ordinary helical paths when their radius $`r`$ tends to zero), which —incidentally— escaped BZ’s attention; namely:

$`\psi =\rho ^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}[\gamma _2\gamma _1m\tau ]=\psi (0)\mathrm{exp}[\gamma _2\gamma _1m\tau ]`$ (17)

as it can be easily verified. Notice that expressions (17) are also solutions of the Dirac equation (16). Moreover, from eq.(10b) it follows that $`v\dot{x}=\rho \gamma _0`$ and we can set $`\rho =1`$, which confirms that the trivial solution (17) corresponds to rectilinear uniform motion, and that $`\tau `$ in this case is just the proper–time along the particle world–line $`\sigma _0`$. (In this case, of course, the zbw disappears).

Before going on, we want to explicitly put forth the following observation. Let us first recall that in our formalism the (Lorenz force) equation of motion for a charged particle moving with velocity $`w`$ in an electromagnetic field $`F`$ is

$`\dot{w}={\displaystyle \frac{e}{m}}Fw.`$ (18)

Now, for all the free–particle solution of the BZ model in the Clifford language, it holds the “Darboux relation”:

$`\dot{e}_\mu =\mathrm{\Omega }e_\mu ,`$ (19)

so that the “sub–microscopic” point–like object $`𝒬`$, moving along the helical path $`\sigma `$, is endowed \[cf. eq.(11)\] with the angular–velocity bivector

$`\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{2}\dot{e}_\mu e^\mu =\frac{1}{2}\dot{e}_\mu e^\mu ,`$ (20)

as it follows by recalling that $`e_\mu `$ can always be written, like in eq.(3), as $`e_\mu =R\gamma _\mu \stackrel{~}{R}`$. Finally, let us observe that eq.(19) yields in particular $`\dot{e}_0=\mathrm{\Omega }e_0`$, which is formally identical to eq.(18). Thus, the formal, algebraic way we chose \[see eq.(18)\] for describing that the system as a whole possesses a non-vanishing magnetic dipole structure suggests that the bivector field $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ may be regarded as a kind of internal electromagnetic–like field, which keeps the “sub–microscopic” object $`𝒬`$ moving along the helix.32-36 In other words, $`𝒬`$ may be considered as confining itself along $`\sigma `$ \[i.e., along a circular orbit, in the electron C.M.\], via the generation of the internal, electromagnetic–like field

$`F_{\mathrm{int}}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2e}}\dot{e}_\mu e^\mu .`$

We shall further discuss this point elsewhere.

5. Further remarks –  In connection with our new equation (12’), or rather with its (free) form (15), we met solutions corresponding —in the free case— to helical motions with constant radius $`r`$; as well as a limiting solution, eq.(17), for $`r0`$. We have seen above that the latter is a solution also of the ordinary (free) Dirac equation. Actually, the solution of the Dirac equation for a free electron in its rest frame can be written20 in the present formalism as $`\psi (x)=\psi (0)\mathrm{exp}[\gamma _2\gamma _1m\tau ]`$, which coincides with our eq.(17) along the world–line $`\sigma _0`$. Let us here add the observation that, by recalling that in the Clifford formalism the spin bivector $`S`$ is given by $`S=R\gamma _2\gamma _1\stackrel{~}{R}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}=e_2e_1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}},`$ whilst the angular–velocity bivector $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is given by eq.(20), one can finally write

$`pv=\mathrm{\Omega }S=m,`$ (21)

which seems to suggest20 the electron rest–mass to have an (internal) kinetic origin! It is possible, moreover, that such a motion be also at the origin of electric charge itself; in any case, we already saw that, if the electron is associated with a clock-wise rotation, then the positron will be associated with an anti–clock-wise rotation, with respect to the motion direction. Further considerations about the solutions of our non-linear, new equation and the interesting consequences of the present formalism are in preparation and will appear elsewhere.
At last, we mentioned at the beginning of this note about further methods for introducing an helical motion as the classical limit of the “spin motion”. We want here to show how to represent in the Clifford formalism the extrinsic curvature approach,16,17 due to its possible interest for the development of the present work.
Let us first recall that in classical differential geometry one defines23 the Frenet frame $`\{e_\mu \}`$ of a non-null curve $`\sigma `$ by the so–called Frenet equations, which with respect to proper time $`\tau `$ write \[besides $`\dot{x}=e_0=v`$\]:

$`\ddot{x}=\dot{e}_0=K_1e^1;\dot{e}_1=K_1e^0+K_2e^2;\dot{e}_2=K_2e^1+K_3e^3;\dot{e}_3=K_3e^2`$ (22)

where the i-th curvatures $`K_\mathrm{i}`$ (i=1,2,3) are scalar functions chosen in such a way that $`e_{\mathrm{j}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=1`$, with j=1,2,3. Quantity $`K_1`$ is often called curvature, and $`K_2,K_3`$ torsions (recall that in the 3–dimensional space one meets only $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$, called curvature and torsion, respectively). Inserting eqs.(22) into eq.(20), we get for the Darboux (angular–velocity) bivector:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }=K_1e^1e^0+K_2e^2e^1+K_3e^3e^2,`$ (23)

so that one can build the following scalar function

$`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }=K_1^2K_2^2K_3^2=(\dot{e}_\mu e^\mu )(\dot{e}_\nu e^\nu ).`$ (23’)

At this point, one may notice that the square, $`K^2`$, of the “extrinsic curvature” entering Pavšič’s lagrangian is equal to $`K_1^2`$, so that such a lagrangian16 results —after the present analysis— to take advantage only of the first part,

$`\ddot{x}^2=\dot{e}_0^2=K_1^2,`$

of the Lorentz invariant (23’). On the contrary, in our formalism the whole invariant $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ suggests itself as the suitable, complete lagrangian for the problem at issue; and in future work we shall exploit it, in particular comparing the expected results with Plyushchay’s.37
For the moment, let us stress here only the possibly important result that the lagrangian $`=\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ does coincide (factors apart) along the particle world–line $`\sigma `$ with the auto–interaction term38

$`\theta ^5(\mathrm{d}\theta ^\mu \theta _\mu )(\mathrm{d}\theta ^\nu \theta _\nu )`$

of the Einstein–Hilbert lagrangian density written (in the Clifford bundle formalism) in terms of tetrads of 1-form fields $`\theta ^\mu `$. Quantity $`\theta ^5\theta ^0\theta ^1\theta ^2\theta ^3`$ is the volume element.
Finally, we can examine within our formalism the third approach: that one utilizing Grassmann variables.19 For instance, if we recall that the Grassmann product is nothing but the external part $`A_\mathrm{r}B_\mathrm{s}=A_\mathrm{r}B_\mathrm{s}_{|\mathrm{r}\mathrm{s}|}`$ of the Clifford product (where $`A_\mathrm{r}`$, $`B_\mathrm{s}`$ are a r-vector and a s-vector, respectively), then the Ikemori lagrangian19 can be immediately translated into the Clifford language and shown to be equivalent to the BZ lagrangian, apart from the constraint $`p^2=m^2`$.

6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors express their gratitude to the Referee, for his comments and for many references to previous related work; and acknowledge the kind collaboration of J. Vaz. They are also grateful to Asim O. Barut, A. Campolattaro, R.H.A. Farias, E. Giannetto, Cesare Lattes, L. Lo Monaco, P. Lounesto, A. Insolia, E. Majorana jr., J.E. Maiorino, R.L. Monaco, E.C. de Oliveira, M. Sambataro, S. Sambataro, Q.G. de Souza and M.T. Vasconselos for stimulating discussions. Two of them (M.P. and W.A.R.) thank moreover I.N.F.N.–Sezione di Catania, Catania, Italy, for kind hospitality during the preparation of the first draft of this work; while F.R. acknowledges a grant from the Fondazione Bonino–Pulejo, Messina.