MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1909352504 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2012-0537

A new approach in the derivation of the Larmor formula for radiation loss from an accelerating charged particle

2013· article· en· W1909352504 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Biswaranjan Dikshit

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicQuantum and Classical Electrodynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsCharged particleGyroradiusAccelerationParticle accelerationParticle (ecology)ElectronCharged particle beamComputational physicsParticle radiationClassical mechanicsHigh energy particleMagnetic radiation reaction forceEnergy (signal processing)Quantum electrodynamicsQuantum mechanicsCyclotron radiationIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Normally, the Larmor formula for the rate of energy loss from an accelerating charged particle (e.g., an electron) is derived by considering the energy due to the acceleration field being transmitted to infinity without attenuation. This method does not give any insight into the actual physical phenomenon occurring at the particle itself that is responsible for the loss of energy. To circumvent this problem, we develop a different approach in which the Larmor formula is derived by considering the work done against self-forces created within the particle when it is accelerated. We carry out this analysis in three dimensions so that it is easy to visualize the events happening inside the particle during the acceleration that result in loss of energy. Thus, our method clearly demonstrates the mechanism of energy loss from an accelerated charged particle.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicQuantum and Classical ElectrodynamicsFrench-language works237,207