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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pervect
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the Lorentz Force Law, particularly in relation to electromagnetic interactions with dielectric slabs. Key papers referenced include Mansuripur's work in Optics Express and rebuttals by Griffiths and Franklin, which highlight the contentious issue of "hidden momentum." The participants express disappointment over the contradictory nature of these peer-reviewed publications, indicating a fundamental problem in classical electrodynamics and mechanics. The absence of a back reaction force term in Maxwell's Equations is identified as a critical factor contributing to these confusions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lorentz Force Law
  • Familiarity with Maxwell's Equations
  • Knowledge of electromagnetic wave interactions with dielectric materials
  • Awareness of concepts like hidden momentum in electrodynamics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of hidden momentum in classical electrodynamics
  • Study the interaction of electromagnetic waves with dielectric slabs
  • Examine the critiques of Mansuripur's work in Optics Express
  • Explore alternative interpretations of Maxwell's Equations and their implications for momentum conservation
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, electrical engineers, and students studying classical electrodynamics who seek to clarify the complexities surrounding the Lorentz Force Law and its applications in electromagnetic theory.

pervect
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
10,482
Reaction score
1,635
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
621
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
10K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
7K
  • · Replies 140 ·
5
Replies
140
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K