|WikiProject Physics / Relativity||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Seems to be an error in the form of ds^2. I understand it should be:
(ds)^2=(c dt)^2 - (dr)^2 - (r d phi)^2 - (dz)^2
- It's just using units in which c=1, as is commonly done in relativity.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
poor choice of derivation
The derivation is basically copied directly, without credit, from the book by Rindler. It's also a poor choice of derivation. Rindler is introducing the reader to general as well as special relativity, so it makes sense for him to use GR in the derivation. For this article, it would be preferable to give an explanation in terms of special relativity, such as the one in Jackson's Classical Electromagnetism.--126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate efforts of all contributors to improve this WP article, but it seems to me that lengthy quotation of a paper that contradicts to long well-established results violates WP policies.
Concerning the spin precession rate, let me confirm that:
1. Two articles in External links Mathpages article on Thomas Precession and Alternate, detailed derivation of Thomas Precession are in agreement with Jackson's Classical Electromagnetism. Jackson is in agreement with Møller.
3. C. Møller is in agreement with the first paper on Thomas precession published by L. Föppl and P. J. Daniell, "Zur Kinematik des Born'schen starren Körpers", Nachrichten von der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, 519 (1913).
4. G. B. Malykin suggests in Phys. Usp. 49, 83 (2006) that the spin precession rate is γ = 1/√(1 - v²/c²) times lower than that found by Föppl and Daniell, Møller and others.
I actually see neither conflicting results nor serious discussions among the experts. I thus remove the lengthy quotation of Malykin's conclusions and leave one neutral reference.
It was David Hilbert who recommended the work of Föppl and Daniell for publication. This work illustrates again the excellence of the Göttingen school.