Single-Particle Electrodynamics - Assassination Science

immediate practicality, since then we would again have position, velocity,
mechanical momentum and spin quantities that would have a direct connection
with classical physics. But the author has not seen such a suitable
transformation provided.
The author’s ire is raised beyond the point of containment by several
comments in the Barut–Unal paper [35]. Let us reproduce them here for the
consideration of the reader:
In the Bhabha–Corben equations, v 2 is taken to be unity; hence
v· ˙v = 0 and the term with coefficient 9 is missing, and v 4 µS µν = 0.
Both of these relations do not hold here; the BC equation is an
approximation to ours.
And the concluding paragraph, in full:
Our main result is Eq. (12) [or (18)]. We believe that it is the
first relativistic symplectic formulation of both coordinates and
spin and the first significant generalization of the Lorentz–Dirac
equation since 1938. In the second term of (12) we have the LD
term 2 3 (¨vν /v 2 )˜g µν but also the new term − 9[(v· ˙v) 4 ˙vν /v 4 ]. Another
difference from the LD equation is that on the left-hand side
we have ˙π µ instead of mẍ µ . The Bhabha–Corben equation is
not derived from an action principle, but from considerations of
energy conservation of a magnetic dipole moment, and the new
term − 9[(v· ˙v) 4 ˙vν /v 4 ] is missing. They have assumed a mass point
with charge g 1 and dipole moment g and put v 2 = 1, S µν S µν = 0,
and S µν v ν = 0 from the beginning.
What rot. Of course Bhabha and Corben take v 2 = 1: they are considering
standard classical mechanics. To describe the term with coëfficient 9/4 as
“missing” carries with it the completely misleading implication that Bhabha
and Corben obtained simply the Barut–Unal result, but with that single
230