Talk:Electromagnetic mass

Status today
What is the status of the concept in the science of today?--213.233.84.165 (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, a demonstration of pilot waves has been provided from purely classical Maxwell’s electrodynamics and the concept of electromagnetic mass, and published recently in a notable journal (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-020-05928-5). I am the author of the paper, and therefore I am not the person allowed to upload the reference, since a COI is at stake. But perhaps, if somebody finds it intereseting, he could introduce a section entitled “Zitterbewegung” with something similar to this:


 * Charged extended particles can experience self-oscillatory dynamics as a result of classical electrodynamic self-interactions \cite{}. This trembling motion has a frequency that is closely related to the zitterbewegung frequency appearing in Dirac's equation. The mechanism producing these fluctuations arises because some parts of an accelerated charged corpuscle emit electromagnetic perturbations that can affect another part of the body, producing self-forces. Using the Liénard-Wiechert potential as solutions to Maxwell's equations with sources, it can be shown that these forces can be described in terms of state-dependent delay differential equations, which display limit cycle behavior. Therefore, the principle of inertia, as appearing in Newton's first law, would only hold on average, since uniform motion can become unstable through a process of symmetry breaking of the Lorentz group. Alvaro12Lopez (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

There should probably be some mention of the units in use at the time for the equations in the article if they aren't going to be updated. Under current SI units and as written, the mass and energy results would have the wrong units which is likely to cause confusion. You'd need something like $$m_e=k_e\frac{e^2}{ac^2}$$, which is true, but in gaining the Coulomb constant ($$k_e$$, or $$\kappa$$ in some sources), we seem to have lost the 2/3 factor somewhere and I'm not qualified to say if that's due to the change in units. It could be they are attributing only and exactly 2/3 of the rest mass-energy of an electron ($$m_ec^2$$) to its charge-energy ($$E_{em}$$); in which case you'd still need $$m_{em}=k_e\frac{2}{3}\frac{e^2}{ac^2}$$. Noting that it is in fact 2/3 of $$m_e$$ would seem useful in that case. JSC74 (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)