A Radiation back reaction in classical electrodynamics

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the unresolved issues surrounding radiation reaction force in classical electrodynamics, particularly for point particles, with no universally accepted breakthrough to address problems like pre-acceleration and runaway solutions. When Maxwell's equations are coupled with dynamical extended bodies, such as charged fluids, the resulting equations do not face the same issues as point sources, and these models are considered physically reasonable. However, the mathematical soundness of classical electrodynamics coupled with fluid dynamics remains uncertain, with doubts about the existence and uniqueness of solutions. Despite these theoretical challenges, fluid models of plasmas have effectively described physical phenomena. The Landau-Lifshitz approximation is noted as a better approach to the radiation-reaction problem than the Lorentz-Abraham-Dirac equation, with suggestions for a quantum-Langevin approach to avoid classical issues.
HomogenousCow
Messages
736
Reaction score
213
I've been doing some research on the topic of radiation reaction force/self force in classical electrodynamics and although there are some discussions on the internet I would like direct answers to these following questions:

  1. Is there a rigorous and universally accepted treatment of radiation reaction force in classical electrodynamics for point particles? If so what was the breakthrough that solved the issues plaguing the seminal works such as pre-acceleration and runaway solutions?
  2. If we couple Maxwell's equations to a dynamical extended body, such as a charged fluid, do the resulting equations suffer from the typical issues encountered with point sources? And if not, does this treatment predict radiation reaction force that is physically reasonable?
  3. Is classical electrodynamics coupled to fluid dynamics a mathematically sound theory? As in, are there results on the existence and uniqueness of solutions in this theory.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
HomogenousCow said:
If so what was the breakthrough that solved the issues plaguing the seminal works such as pre-acceleration and runaway solutions?
There is no such breakthrough. Those issues remain unresolved.

HomogenousCow said:
If we couple Maxwell's equations to a dynamical extended body, such as a charged fluid, do the resulting equations suffer from the typical issues encountered with point sources? And if not, does this treatment predict radiation reaction force that is physically reasonable?
Extended bodies with charge densities that are everywhere finite are physically reasonable.

HomogenousCow said:
Is classical electrodynamics coupled to fluid dynamics a mathematically sound theory? As in, are there results on the existence and uniqueness of solutions in this theory.
I don’t know, but I am not aware of problems like those with classical point particles.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and jasonRF
HomogenousCow said:
Is classical electrodynamics coupled to fluid dynamics a mathematically sound theory? As in, are there results on the existence and uniqueness of solutions in this theory.
I don't know if existence and uniqueness has been settled (I really doubt it), but a 30-second google search yielded some interesting hits like
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20209485
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/66955/
This is more in the realm of mathematics than physics, in that few physicists probably have the tools (or inclination) to make much progress on that front.

Even if those issues haven't been resolved, fluid models of plasmas have been pretty successful at describing physical phenomena. So have the more accurate kinetic models that can be used to derive fluid models by taking velocity-space moments.

jason
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Dale
According to "numerical studies" the best we have on the classical level concerning the radiation-reaction problem is the Landau-Lifshitz approximation to the Lorentz-Abraham-Dirac equation. For a nice treatment, see

C. Nakhleh, The Lorentz-Dirac and Landau-Lifshitz equations from the perspective of
modern renormalization theory, Am. J. Phys 81, 180 (2013),
https://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4773292.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1207.1745

K. Lechner, Classical Electrodynamics, Springer International Publishing AG, Cham
(2018), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91809-9
 
  • Like
Likes Dale and jasonRF
In his derivation, Lechner states on page 467, "Ultimately the Lorentz Dirac equation must be postulated."
 
But the LAD equation is not the solution! The Landau-Lifshitz approximation is much better. A quantum-Langevin approach (at least for the non-relativistic case) suggests that the real matter is a non-Markovian description on the classical level, which avoids all the problems of the LAD equation right away. For this, see

G. W. Ford, J. T. Lewis and R. F. O’Connell, Quantum
Langevin equation, Phys. Rev. A 37, 4419 (1988),
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.37.4419

or

https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(91)90054-C
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Hello! Let's say I have a cavity resonant at 10 GHz with a Q factor of 1000. Given the Lorentzian shape of the cavity, I can also drive the cavity at, say 100 MHz. Of course the response will be very very weak, but non-zero given that the Loretzian shape never really reaches zero. I am trying to understand how are the magnetic and electric field distributions of the field at 100 MHz relative to the ones at 10 GHz? In particular, if inside the cavity I have some structure, such as 2 plates...
Back
Top