Single-Particle Electrodynamics - Assassination Science

term omitted! This attempt at self-aggrandisement fails as soon as the reader
consults the original Bhabha and Corben paper, to find out what they actually
found. The only similarity between the Bhabha–Corben results, and the
Barut–Unal equation (6.2), is that the Lorentz–Dirac equation for a charge
is contained in the Barut–Unal result when v 2 = 1. The Bhabha–Corben
results for dipole moments contain—as described and lamented in the previous
section—dozens of terms, over and above the Lorentz–Dirac equation.
These are conveniently ignored by Barut and Unal.
As to the statement that “the BC equation is an approximation to ours”,
one wonders whether Barut and Unal actually read the Bhabha–Corben paper
at all. The Barut–Unal and Bhabha–Corben results appear to both contain
the correct physics, but in completely different ways. To state that one
is more accurate than the other would require them to be expressed in similar
form, and the conclusions compared. The author has already suggested
above that a semiclassical “Foldy–Wouthuysen transformation” of the Barut
“zitterbewegung” model is desirable; if performed, a direct comparison on
classical terms could be made. It would be difficult to see how one could
transform the Bhabha–Corben results to the Barut model. In any case, a direct
comparison between the Bhabha–Corben and Barut–Unal results cannot
be made at this stage.
The author agrees that the Barut–Unal analysis may well be “the first
relativistic symplectic formulation of both coordinates and spin”, for this
application. But to state that it is “the first significant generalization of the
Lorentz–Dirac equation since 1938” is yet another self-aggrandising attempt
to rewrite history.
In summary, the author considers the mathematical techniques of Barut
and Unal to be elegant and ingenious, and a promising start to a new line of
attack on this problem. But he finds their comments reprehensible.
231