Can anyone counter my argument that the photon energy is properly half of the generally accepted value? It is a short argument, as follows:
Accepting the Planck hypothesis that the energy of the standing-wave electromagnetic modes of a cavity oscillator at thermodynamic equilibrium is E = n h...
Here is the link to Abraham 1903, with thanks to Paul de Haas, whose historical physics papers site is linked upthread:
http://www.hep.princeton.edu/%7Emcdonald/examples/EM/abraham_ap_10_105_03.pdf
I had earlier spent a little bit of time trying to figure if the google translator could do...
Yes and I have puzzled over what was his basis for expecting that. Perhaps it was commonly written that way in textbooks and with an implicit assumption that the electric field was nonvarying.
Of course if you derive what the force should be, you get the first law, as Jackson does in all...
I came to what was for me a surprising realization the other day, that in spite of total angular momentum not being conserved in the presence of Thomas precession, the system can be nonetheless non-radiative, provided that the electron gyromagnetic ratio is twice the classically-expected value...
I have written a paper summarizing my findings with respect to Thomas's 1927 paper. I posted it on arXiv last week. Searching my name will turn it up.
I would like to submit it somewhere but I don't know where it would have a chance to get reviewed. I will welcome any recommendations...
Spinnor, (and everyone) did you know there is a school of thought that quantum behavior is simply the result of classical (but relativistic) elecytrodynamics when done properly. By properly here I mean including the effects of delay and radiation damping.
Here is an example paper, that was...
For anyone interested, I want to report I am still working trying to reconcile Thomas's results in his 1927 paper with mine which are directly opposed. I think I may be getting close. He says his Eq. 6.72 may be obtained using the force (his 5.1) based on the Abraham spherical-shell-of-charge...
I want to mention that m_e and m are the same above, meaning the electron mass (and not the magnitude of the magnetic moment. Tried to fix it but too late.
In this post I will derive my equation 3 from post #23 of this thread:
\omega_L = \frac{ge^2s}{2c^2mR^3}\nonumber
\omega_L is the (average) precession frequency of the electron orbit in the laboratory frame, due to the electron intrinsic magnetic moment.
To begin, the magnetic...
No, I am not saying that the g for orbital angular momentum is not unity.
I am saying that the g that appears in that equation has come from the electron spin and its resulting intrinsic magnetic moment.
g is not directly about precession frequencies but rather about how much magnetic...
Creator, that's not an unreasonable suggestion especially given that I didn't provide any derivation of the orbit precession frequency. I'll have to post it but it will take a while and I can't do it right now. It's somewhat elaborate in itself due to that it is a precession only in an average...
That particular effect puts a factor of gamma in front of the g's. The factor of a half in the Thomas precession also is of course not exactly a half. So the "Thomas factor" is not exactly a half either. But it is not off by much. The usual calculation makes these same approximations and I...
Thanks for reading it carefully, Creator.
The Thomas precession is the omega_T in the equation you copied, I think you realize.
If the relativistic gamma may be approximated as one then omega_T according to Jackson is (1/2c^2)*(vector acceleration cross vector velocity). For a circular...
OK here is how I come to the conclusion that Thomas precession leads to nonconstancy of total angular momentum despite a lack of external torque. My model is a quasiclassical hydrogen atom where the electron orbits the proton. The orbit here will be circular but it does not need to be so...