Single-Particle Electrodynamics - Assassination Science

other than pedagogy, in the past fifty-three years.
The Bhabha–Corben analysis, however, appears to most definitely be
based on a correct method of derivation. Whilst one cannot know whether
their algbraic manipulations of such lengthy expressions can be fully relied
on, the correct physics should be in there—somewhere. We therefore examine
only the broader features of their results. Firstly, they find that timederivatives
up to the fourth order are required in the force equation, and up
the third order in the torque equation. Secondly, the coëfficients of the terms
that they find all have denominators from the following set of numbers:
1, 3, 5, 6, 15, 35.
Thirdly, they find numerous terms that depend on ε −3 and ε −1 , but only a
few dependent on ε −2 . They state that these terms were “expected”; the
author is still coming to grips with the detailed arguments for them.
Beyond this, it is difficult to go, without examining the Bhabha–Corben
equations in explicit detail.
It is clear that any new classical analysis of this problem should be compared
against the Bhabha–Corben results. However, due to the complexity
of their findings, such a comparison is not performed in this thesis, other
than a comparison of the broad features listed above. It is, perhaps, left as
an exercise for the reader!
6.2.2 The Barut–Unal analysis
In 1989, Barut and Unal [35] considered anew the question of the generalisation
of the Lorentz–Dirac equation to particles possessing spin.
Their method of doing so, however, did not follow the completely classical
path of Bhabha and Corben (which is also to be followed by the author in
this chapter). Rather, Barut and Unal considered a “zitterbewegung” model
of spin, developed by Barut and collaborators in previous years [31, 33, 34,
228