Mansuripur's Confusion-a-dox: Lorentz Force Law Issues

  • Thread starter Thread starter pervect
  • Start date Start date
pervect
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
10,400
Reaction score
1,579
This came up while I was trying to research the interaction of an electromagnetic plane wave with a dielectric slab, though the issues appear to be more fundamental.

The first confusion: An EE"s claim that there is "trouble with the Lorentz law of Force", published in physics review letters.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0096
http://arxiv.org/abs/1211.3485 (not PRL, but an EE journal)

I don't believe this. (But it's published in genuine peer-reviewed print).

The second confusion: A rebuttal by Griffiths, which however relies heavily on "hidden momentum"

http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4646

I would have believed this, but...

The third confusion: A paper by Franklin that debunks hidden momentum (mentioned in another thread).

http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.4646

I haven't studied this enough to have a personal opinion yet, but it's a bit dissapointing that there's so much confusion on such basic issues in the literature!

Also, I don't know what papers to recommend to students at this point regarding the Lorentz force law issue, nor the starting questing about the interaction of a plane wave with a dielectric slab. (for example, Mansuripur's http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.7057 published in Optics Express, which I'm not familiar with).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Those papers are too contradictory for students at the present stage. Everything that Mansuripur writes is wrong, and there is no hidden momentum.
 
Well, I think, we have an actual problem with classical electrodynamics description and classical mechanics when discussing setup's involving point charge and changing magnetic field source(or the other way around), and in order to solve the problem by the means of inventions, we first got the static EM momentum(undetectable), but then we soon realized that momentum must be paired to respect conservation theorems, therefore, the hidden momentum(this time mechanical and undetectable).

But it is apparent that, the NO back reaction force term in Maxwell's Equations on the magnetic field source, is the actual source of problem, since it makes us to attach the other part of momentum to non-moving things.
 
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...
Back
Top