## Abstract

As is well known, the eigen-vibrations of a cubical cavity, with edge
where the integers
where the factor 2 takes care of the two polarisation directions of the wave, while the factor 8 arises because for standing waves we have to restrict ourselves to the positive octant of the

*l*and volume*V*=*l*^{3}whose walls are perfect reflectors, have the following properties: The components*k*_{ i }of the wave vector whose magnitudes amount to 2π divided by the wave-length, have the eigenvalues$$k_t = 2\pi \frac{{s_t }}
{{2l}},\,\,\,\,s_1 ,s_2 ,s_3 = 1,2,3,...$$

*s*_{ i }are to be restricted to positive numbers, since we are dealing with standing waves. The number*dN*of eigen-vibrations with wave vector components*k*_{ i }lying between*k*_{ i }and*k*_{ i }+*dk*_{ i }is then given by$$dN = V \cdot 2 \cdot 8 \cdot \frac{1}
{{\left( {2\pi } \right)^3 }}\,\,dk_1 \,dk_2 \,dk_3 ,$$

*k*-space.## Keywords

Field Strength Material Particle Lorentz Transformation Photon Number Quantum Electrodynamic
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## Notes

- 2.Cf. C.G. Darwin, Proc. Roy. Soc. London (A),
**136**, 36 (1932).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 3.These relations can be found in a somewhat different form (four-dimension) in P. Jordan and W. Pauli, Z. Phys.
**47**, 151 (1927) and in the form given here in W. Heisenberg and W. Pauli, ibid.,**56**, 1 (1927).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 4.Cf. L. Landau and R. Peierls, Z. Phys.
**62**, 188 (1930).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 5.A discussion on the introduction of the quantities
*F*and*F** for avoiding the zero-point energy can be found in L. Rosenfeld and J. Solomon, Journ. de Phys. Series 7,**2**, 139 (1931) and also in J. Solomon, Doctoral Thesis, Paris (1931). The C.R. between i*F*and*F** given in these references arc, incorrect, since they are not compatible with the conditions, div \(\vec F = 0\) and div \(\vec F* = 0\).Google Scholar - 6.Cf. L. Landau and R. Peierls, Z. Phys.
**69**, 56 (1931) in particular, Secs. 3 and 4; W. Heisenberg, The Physical Principles of Quantum Theory, loc. cit., Chapter 3, Sec. 2.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 9.L. Landau and R. Peierls, Z. Phys.,
**62**, 188 (1930)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - cf. also J.R. Oppenheimer, Phys. Rev.,
**38**, 725 (1931).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 2.Reviews: L. Rosenfeld, Mém. de l’Inst. Henri Poincaré,
**2**, 24 (1932)Google Scholar - E. Fermi, Rev. Mod. Phys.
**1**, 87 (1932).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Original Papers; G. Mie, Ann. d. Phys. (4)
**85**, 711 (1928)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - W. Heisenberg and W. Pauli, I, Z. Phys.
**56**, 1 (1929); II, ibid,**59**, 168 (1929). (Remarks on these: L. Rosenfeld, ibid.,**58**, 540 (1929) and**63**, 574 (1930)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - L. Rosenfeld, Ann. d. Phys.,
**5**, 113 (1930).)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 4.P.A.M. Dirac, Proc. Roy. Soc. London,
**114**, 243, 710 (1927). Dirac employed standing waves and not progressive waves for quantising the radiation. Secondly, at that time his theory of the electron had not appeared and, therefore, he used in the Hamiltonian for each particle the non-relativistic operator \(\left( {1/2m} \right)\sum {\pi _j^2 }\) instead of \(c\left( {\sum {\alpha _j \pi _j + mc\beta } } \right)\). This is approximately correct for small velocities of particles. The fact that the equations (26.23) and (26.24) follow from quantum electrodynamics was shown byADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - J.R. Oppenheimer, Phys. Rev.,
**35**, 461 (1930) andADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - E. Fermi, Lincei Rend.,
**12**, 431 (1930).Google Scholar - 5.L. Landau and R. Peierls, Z. Phys.
**62**, 188 (1930).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 6.W. Heisenberg, Ann. d. Phys. (5),
**9**, 338 (1931). In contrast to Heisenberg’s approach, we do not use here the method of quantisation of matter waves. The interaction between the electrons of the atom can then be arbitrary.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 1.I thank Prof. R. Peierls for these remarks. For the case of the self-energy of an oscillator, cf., also L. Rosenfeld, Z. Phys.,
**70**, 454 (1931).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 2.I. Waller, Z. Phys.,
**62**, 673 (1930).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 3.J.R. Oppenheimer, Phys. Rev.,
**35**, 461 (1930).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 4.Cf. M. Born and G. Rumer, Z. Phys.,
**69**, 141 (1931).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - 5.Approximate ansatz for these have been presented in G. Breit, Phys. Rev.,
**34**, 553 (1929);**36**, 383 (1930) (magnetic interaction, but without retardation). See H. Bethe and E. Salpeter, Quantum Mechanics of One-and Two-electron problem, loc. cit. andADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar - C. Moller, Z. Phys.,
**70**. 786 (1931) (Collisions with weak interaction, treated as retarded), also Ann. d. Phys.,**14**, 531 (1932). See further G. Wentzel, Wave Mechanics of Collision and Radiation Processes, loc. cit.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - Cf. also A.D. Fokker, Physica,
**12**, 145 (1932) and Z. Phys.,**58**, 386 (1929), where a two-body problem with partly retarded and partly advanced potentials is treated. For this problem, no radiation is emitted classically.Google Scholar - 6.L. Rosenfeld, Z. Phys.,
**65**, 589 (1930).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - J. Solomon, Z. Phys.,
**71**, 162 (1931).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

## Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1980