Momentum conservation for EM-Field/matter interaction

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conservation of momentum in the context of electromagnetic field interactions with matter, particularly focusing on the behavior of moving charges and the implications of field momentum. Participants explore theoretical frameworks, mathematical formulations, and conceptual challenges related to this topic.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant outlines a plan to calculate the electric and magnetic fields for two orthogonally moving charges and to derive the total field momentum, questioning the complexity of the integration involved.
  • Another participant introduces the concept of charge density and relates the Lorentz force to the Maxwell stress tensor, providing a mathematical framework for understanding momentum conservation in the system.
  • A later reply acknowledges the clarity of the previous explanation and discusses the challenges of integrating over the entire space while considering momentum flux terms.
  • Concerns are raised about the interpretation of the quantity S/c² as momentum density, suggesting that it may lead to non-additive behavior of field momenta, which some find counterintuitive.
  • Another participant argues that while S/c² may seem abstract, it has practical implications in calculating mechanical pressure due to electromagnetic radiation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying views on the interpretation of field momentum and its implications for momentum conservation. There is no consensus on the nature of S/c² as momentum density or its additivity, indicating ongoing debate and exploration of these concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of the integration involved in calculating total field momentum and the potential for different interpretations of the mathematical terms used in the discussion. The implications of these interpretations on physical understanding remain unresolved.

euphoricrhino
Messages
23
Reaction score
14
Hello,
I'm reading Feynman Lectures Vol II, and saw this "paradox" in section 26-2 (Figure 26-6), where two orthogonally moving charges can be shown to have unequal action and reactions. Later in Chapter 27, the explanation was given briefly citing field momentum.

I tried to prove this rigorously, but couldn't do so, below is my plan:
1. calculate the E and B field for each particle using formula for uniform-velocity charges and obtain E1,B1, E2, B2 as function of (x, y, z, t)
2. For any point in space, using superposition of fields, we can get E=E1+E2, and B=B1+B2
3. Obtain the Poynting vector ExB, thus the momentum density vector g as a function of (x, y, z, t)
4. Integrate g(x, y, z, t) over the whole space to get the total field momentum p at time t.
5. take the time derivative of p, and verify that this equals the difference between the action and reaction of the two charges.

The integration step is very complicated. I even simplified so one particle is taken to be at rest and the other particle moves straight to the first one. In this simplified case, the integration can be infinity since that the E field at distance-0 is infinity.

Is my plan at least reasonable (i.e., it's just a hard integration)? Another observation is that although E or B fields are additive from two charges, the momentum vector from two charges' fields is definitely not additive, am I understanding it correctly?

Thanks for any pointers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In full generality it's helpful to consider a charge density ##\rho(\mathbf{r},t)##. In the case of two particles you can of course specialise this to ##\rho(\mathbf{r},t) = q_1\delta(\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}_1(t)) + q_2\delta(\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}_2(t))##. The Lorentz force per unit volume ##f_i = \rho E_i + \rho \epsilon_{ijk} v_j B_k## is related to the divergence ##\partial_j \sigma_{ij}## of the Maxwell stress tensor by the equation ## f_i = \partial_j \sigma_{ij} - \frac{1}{c^2} \partial_t S_i## (derivable from Maxwell's equations & the Lorentz force law). If you integrate this over some domain ##V## and invoke Gauss' theorem, you end up with\begin{align*}
-\frac{d}{dt} \int_V \frac{1}{c^2} S_i dV &= F_i - \int_{\partial V} \sigma_{ij} n_j dS \\
-\dot{p}_i^{\mathrm{field}} &= \dot{p}_i^{\mathrm{particles}} - \int_{\partial V} \sigma_{ij} n_j dS
\end{align*}and one identifies the rate of decrease of field momentum ##p_i^{\mathrm{field}} = \frac{1}{c^2} S_i ## with the rate of increase of the momentum ##p_i^{\mathrm{particles}}## of the charge inside ##V## and the momentum flux ##- \int_{\partial V} \sigma_{ij} n_j dS ## out of through the boundary.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: euphoricrhino, vanhees71 and dRic2
Thanks so much, this is very clear. In fact, FLP has dropped the hint when talking about momentum density without giving the derivation. I was able to derive the exact form based on your hint.

I guess my plan would have worked but the integration is too complex to evaluate, and the fact I was planning to integrate over the whole space should account for the momentum flux term in your post above (which should evaluate to zero at infinity).

There is also this question of "how real" is the quantity ##\mathbf{S}/c^2## as momentum density. They are just algebraic terms being interpreted as field momentum density to make equations work. It's plausible to rearrange the terms to get another equivalent equation which can be interpreted differently. If we treat ##\mathbf{S}/c^2## as momentum density, this would mean that the momenta of the two fields cannot be additive point-wise, which seems counter intuitive.
 
euphoricrhino said:
There is also this question of "how real" is the quantity S/c2 as momentum density. They are just algebraic terms being interpreted as field momentum density to make equations work.
Well, if you want to calculate the mechanical pressure on a surface due to the EM radiation, then S (its time average...) it's a pretty tangible thing... (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: euphoricrhino

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
815
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K