Momentum density in a Divergent Beam

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the direction of momentum density in a divergent paraxial electromagnetic field, specifically examining the relationship between momentum density, the Poynting vector, and the wavevector. Participants explore theoretical implications and potential applications related to the behavior of light and its interaction with matter.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that momentum density should be parallel to the Poynting vector, indicating that energy propagates outward along a combination of the radial and axial directions.
  • Another participant argues that momentum density should follow the wavevector, noting that the phase of the electric field expression does not depend on the radial coordinate, implying the wavevector points exclusively along the z-axis.
  • A participant provides a relationship between momentum density and the Poynting vector, stating that momentum density is related to the Poynting vector by the equation $$p=\epsilon\mu\mathbf{S}$$.
  • One participant calculates the Poynting vector and finds non-axial components that vanish at the origin, leading to a follow-up question about the implications for an atom in a red-detuned convergent beam and its interaction with the varying momentum density direction.
  • The follow-up question posits that if momentum density direction varies in space, it could lead to a transverse Doppler shift affecting the atom's transverse velocity and potentially resulting in transverse cooling.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express competing views regarding the relationship between momentum density, the Poynting vector, and the wavevector. No consensus is reached on the correct interpretation of these relationships.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the implications of their findings without resolving the underlying assumptions about the behavior of the electromagnetic field in a divergent beam.

Twigg
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
893
Reaction score
483
For a divergent paraxial field like $$E = E_0 e^{-\frac{r^{2}}{w(z)^{2}}} e^{-i(kz - tan^{-1}(\frac{z}{z_{0}}))}$$

What is the direction of the momentum density of the E-field. I have two competing feelings about it. 1) The momentum density should be parallel to the Poynting vector, and since the beam is diverging it is propagating energy outwards along some combination of the r and z axes. 2) the momentum density should follow the wavevector, and the phase of the above expression does not depend on the cylindrical radial coordinate r at all, so the wavevector should be pointing exclusively along the z-axis. Is this maybe a case where the usual rule about momentum density, poynting vector and wavevector all being parallel is faulty?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Twigg said:
The momentum density should be parallel to the Poynting vector
Yes, since the momentum density ##p## is related to the Poynting vector ##\mathbf{S}## by
$$p=\epsilon\mu\mathbf{S}$$.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Twigg
Twigg said:
the momentum density should follow the wavevector, and the phase of the above expression does not depend on the cylindrical radial coordinate r at all, so the wavevector should be pointing exclusively along the z-axis.
Calculate the ##\mathbf{H}## field corresponding to your ##\mathbf{E}## field. Then calculate the Poynting vector
$$\mathbf{S}=\mathbf{E}\times\mathbf{H}$$.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Twigg
Appreciate the help NFuller. I got the Poynting vector for the field, and sure enough it has non-axial components that vanish at r=0, which makes a lot of sense. I have a followup question. Does this mean that an atom moving in a red-detuned convergent beam will feel a transverse confining force that depending on the atom's transverse velocity? My logic for this is that if the momentum density direction varies in space, then the wavevector of the photons should also vary in space, and so the atom should have a transverse Doppler shift, leading to transverse cooling. Am I on the right track?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K