Abraham–Minkowski controversy

The Abraham–Minkowski controversy is a physics debate concerning electromagnetic momentum within dielectric media. Related theories have been put forward that, should their principles be demonstrated to be true, they may allow the design of a reactionless drive.

Theoretical basis

Two equations exist describing momentum transfer between matter and electromagnetic fields.[1] Both seem to be supported by contradictory experimental data. The two existing equations were first suggested by Hermann Minkowski (1908)[2] and Max Abraham (1909),[3][4] from which the controversy name derives.

Both define the momentum of an electromagnetic field permeating matter. Abraham's equation suggests that in materials through which light travels more slowly, electromagnetic fields should have lower momentum, while Minkowski suggests it should have a greater momentum. "Using relativity, Feigel found that the Abraham definition accounts for the momentum of the electric and magnetic fields alone, while the Minkowski definition also takes into account the momentum of the material".[5] More recent work suggests that this characterization is incorrect.[6]

At least one report has suggested Minkowski's formulation, if correct, would provide the physical base for a reactionless drive.[7] However, an independent review from the United States Air Force Academy concluded that there would be no expected net propulsive forces, and a NASA report determined that "The signal levels are not sufficiently above the noise as to be conclusive proof of a propulsive effect."[8]

The two equations for the photon momentum in a dielectric with refractive index n are:

p_\mathrm{M} = \frac{n h \nu}{c};
p_\mathrm{A} = \frac{h \nu}{nc},

where h is the Planck constant, ν is the frequency of the light and c is the speed of light in vacuum.

Leonhardt ascribed the preceding Minkowski and Abraham formulas to the wave-particle duality of light: Minkowski momentum is a wave-characteristics momentum, deduced from the combination of de-Broglieʼs relation with Einstein’s light-quantum theory; Abraham momentum is a particle-characteristics momentum, deduced from the combination of Newton’s law with Einstein’s energy-mass equivalence formula.[9] In his reasoning, Leonhardt implicitly used a plane-wave model, where a plane wave propagates in a lossless, non-conducting, uniform medium so that the wave phase velocity and the photon moving velocity are both equal to c/n. However this assignment of wave-particle duality is questioned by the result in a recent study, which claims that both the Minkowski and Abraham formulas can be directly obtained only from Einstein’s light-quantum theory (applied to the plane wave), without any need to invoke de-Broglieʼs relation, Newton’s law, and Einstein’s energy-mass equivalence formula.[10]

A 2010 theoretical study suggested that both equations are correct, with the Abraham version being the kinetic momentum and the Minkowski version being the canonical momentum, and claims to explain the contradictory experimental results using this interpretation.[11] However, a recent study showed that in the principle of relativity frame the Abraham momentum would break the global momentum–energy conservation law in the medium Einstein-box thought experiment and it claims that the justification of Minkowski momentum as the correct light momentum is completely required by the principle of relativity and the momentum–energy conservation law, which are both fundamental postulates of physics.[12]

The two equations for the electromagnetic momentum in a dielectric are:

\mathbf{g}_\mathrm{M} = \mathbf{D} \times \mathbf{B};
\mathbf{g}_\mathrm{A} = \frac{1}{\mathrm{c}^2}\mathbf{E} \times \mathbf{H},

where D is the electric displacement field, B is the magnetic flux density, E is the electric field, and H is the magnetic field. The photon momentum is thought to be the direct result of Einstein light-quantized electromagnetic momentum.[12]

Pfeifer and coworkers claim that the "division of the total energy–momentum tensor into electromagnetic (EM) and material components is arbitrary".[1] In other words, the EM part and the material part in the total momentum can be arbitrarily distributed as long as the total momentum is kept the same. But some others don’t agree, and they suggested a Poynting vector criterion. They say for EM radiation waves the Poynting vector E × H denotes EM power flow in any system of materials, and they claim that the Abraham momentum E × H/c2 is "the sole electromagnetic momentum in any system of materials distributed throughout the free space".[13]

Conventionally, the Poynting vector E × H as EM power flow has been thought to be a well-established basic concept in textbooks.[14][15][16][17][18][19] In view of the existence of a certain mathematical ambiguity for this conventional basic concept, some scientists suggested it to be a "postulate",[13] while some others suggested it to be a "hypothesis", "until a clash with new experimental evidence shall call for its revision".[19] However, this basic concept is challenged in a recent study, which claims "Poynting vector may not denote the real EM power flow in an anisotropic medium",[12] and “this conclusion is clearly supported by Fermat’s principle and special theory of relativity”.[20]

In addition to the Poynting vector criterion,[13] Laue and Møller suggested an criterion of four-vector covariance imposed on the propagation velocity of EM energy in a moving medium, just like the velocity of a massive particle.[21] The Laue–Møller criterion supports Minkowski EM tensor, because the Minkowski tensor is a real four-tensor while Abraham's is not, as indicated by Veselago and Shchavlev recently.[22] But some scientists disagree, criticizing that "it is widely recognized now that Abraham's tensor is also capable of describing optical experiments," and such a criterion of this type is only "a test of a tensor's convenience rather than its correctness ".[21] Some scientists also criticized the justifications of the energy–velocity definition and the imposed four-vector covariance in Laue–Møller criterion.[17] Regarding the energy–velocity definition which is given by Poynting vector divided by EM energy density in Laue–Møller criterion, they say "the Poynting vector does not necessarily denote the direction of real power flowing" in a moving medium.[12] Regarding the imposed four-velocity covariance, which was probably prompted by the relativistic velocity addition rule applied to illustrating Fizeau running water experiment,[23] they say "one essential difference between massive particles and photons is that any massive particle has its four-velocity, while the photon (the carrier of EM energy) does not."

It is generally argued that Maxwell equations are manifestly Lorentz covariant while the electromagnetic stress–energy tensor follows from the Maxwell equations; thus the EM momentum defined from the EM tensor certainly respects the principle of relativity. However a recent study indicates that “such an argument is based on an incomplete understanding of the relativity principle”, and states that the EM stress-energy tensor is not sufficient to define EM momentum correctly.[10] That is because a covariant EM tensor usually does not guarantee that all the elements of the tensor have the same physical meanings in all inertial frames due to the existence of possible "intrinsic Lorentz violation", while the relativity principle requires that the mathematical equations describing a physical law must be the same in form in all inertial frames, and the specific physical implications of the equations also must be the same. For example, when we say that according to the principle of relativity, Maxwell equations are the same in all inertial frames, we must understand it as that, (i) the mathematical expressions of Maxwell equations are the same in form in all inertial frames, and (ii) the physical implications of all field quantities E, B, D, H, J and ρ appearing in the Maxwell equations are also the same.

Theoretically speaking, the Abraham–Minkowski controversy is focused on the issues of how to understand some basic principles and concepts in special theory of relativity and classical electrodynamics.[10][24] For example, when there exist dielectric materials in space,

Experiments

The results through the years have been mixed, at best.[6][25] However, a report on a 2012 experiment claims that unidirectional thrust is produced by electromagnetic fields in dielectric materials.[26] A recent study shows that both Minkowski and Abraham pressure of light have been confirmed by experiments, and it has been published in May 2015. The researchers claim:[27]

“we illuminate a liquid … with an unfocused continuous-wave laser beam … we have observed a (reflected-light) focusing effect … in quantitative agreement with the Abraham momentum.”
“we focused the incident beam tightly … we observed a de-focusing reflection … in agreement with the Minkowski momentum transfer.”

In other words, their experiments have demonstrated that an unfocused laser beam corresponds to a response of Abraham momentum from the liquid, while a tightly-focused beam corresponds to a response of Minkowski momentum. But the researchers did not tell what the response will be for a less tightly-focused beam (between “unfocused” and “tightly-focused”), or whether there is any jump for the responses. The researchers concluded:[27]

We have obtained experimental evidence, backed up by hydrodynamic theory, that the momentum transfer of light in fluids is truly Janus–faced: the Minkowski or the Abraham momentum can emerge in similar experiments. The Abraham momentum, equation (2), emerges as the optomechanical momentum when the fluid is moving and the Minkowski momentum, equation (1), when the light is too focused or the container too small to set the fluid into motion. The momentum of light continues to surprise.

See also

References

  1. 1 2 Pfeifer, R. N. C.; Nieminen, T. A; Heckenberg, N. R.; Rubinsztein-Dunlop, H. (2007). "Colloquium: Momentum of an electromagnetic wave in dielectric media". Reviews of Modern Physics 79 (4): 1197–1216. arXiv:0710.0461. Bibcode:2007RvMP...79.1197P. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.79.1197. See also: "Erratum: Colloquium: Momentum of an electromagnetic wave in dielectric media [Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 1197 (2007)]". Reviews of Modern Physics 81 (1): 443. 2009. Bibcode:2009RvMP...81..443P. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.81.443.
  2. ↑ Minkowski, H. (1908). "Die Grundgleichungen für die elektromagnetischen Vorgänge in bewegten Körpern". Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse: 53–111.
  3. ↑ Abraham, M. (1909). "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper". Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo 28: 1–28. doi:10.1007/bf03018208.
  4. ↑ Abraham, M. (1910). "Sull'Elletrodinamica di Minkowski". Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo 30: 33–46. doi:10.1007/bf03014862.
  5. ↑ Cho, A. (2004). "Focus: Momentum From Nothing". Physical Review Focus 13: 3. doi:10.1103/PhysRevFocus.13.3.
  6. 1 2 Dacey, J. (9 January 2009). "Experiment resolves century-old optics mystery". Physics World. Retrieved 4 Mar 2010.
  7. ↑ Brito, H. H. (1999). "Propellantless Propulsion by Electromagnetic Inertia Manipulation: Theory and Experiment" (PDF). In El-Genk, M. S. Space Technology and Applications International Forum – 1999. American Institute of Physics. ISBN 978-1-56396-846-4.
  8. ↑ Millis, M. G. (2004). "Report on Prospects for Breakthrough Propulsion From Physics". In Lohn, J. Proceedings 2004 NASA/DoD Conference on Evolvable Hardware. IEEE Computer Society. ISBN 0-7695-2145-2.
  9. ↑ Leonhardt, Ulf (2006). "Momentum in an uncertain light". Nature 444 (7121): 823–824. Bibcode:2006Natur.444..823L. doi:10.1038/444823a.
  10. 1 2 3 Wang, C. (2015). "Self-consistent theory for a plane wave in a moving medium and light-momentum criterion". Canadian Journal of Physics 93 (12): 1510–1522. arXiv:1409.5807. Bibcode:2015CaJPh..93.1510W. doi:10.1139/cjp-2015-0167.
  11. ↑ Barnett, S. (2010). "Resolution of the Abraham–Minkowski Dilemma". Physical Review Letters 104 (7): 070401. Bibcode:2010PhRvL.104g0401B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.070401. PMID 20366861.
  12. 1 2 3 4 Wang, C. (2013). "Plane wave in a moving medium and resolution of the Abraham–Minkowski debate by the special principle of relativity". arXiv:1106.1163 [physics.gen-ph].
  13. 1 2 3 Mansuripur, M.; Zakharian, A. (2009-02-20). "Maxwell's macroscopic equations, the energy–momentum postulates, and the Lorentz law of force". Physical Review E 79 (2): 026608. arXiv:1312.3383. Bibcode:2009PhRvE..79b6608M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.79.026608.
  14. ↑ Born, M.; Wolf, E. (1986). Principles of Optics (6th ed.). Pergamon Press. p. 669.
  15. ↑ Feynman, R. P.; Leighton, R. B.; Sands, M. (1964). Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume II. Addison-Wesley. Chapter 27.
  16. ↑ Landau, L. D.; Lifshitz, E. M. (1984). Electrodynamics of Continuous Media (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. §97.
  17. 1 2 Møller, C. (1955). The Theory of Relativity. Oxford University Press. §76.
  18. ↑ Panofsky, W. K. H; Phillips, M. (1962). Classical electricity and magnetism (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley. p. 180. LCCN 61010973.
  19. 1 2 Stratton, J. A. (1941). Electromagnetic theory. McGraw-Hill. p. 135. LCCN 41002180.
  20. ↑ Wang, C. (2015). "Electromagnetic power flow, Fermat’s principle, and special theory of relativity". Optik 126 (20): 2703–2705. doi:10.1016/j.ijleo.2015.06.053.
  21. 1 2 Brevik, I. (May 1979). "Experiments in phenomenological electrodynamics and the electromagnetic energy–momentum tensor". Physics Reports 52 (3): 133–201. Bibcode:1979PhR....52..133B. doi:10.1016/0370-1573(79)90074-7.
  22. ↑ Veselago, V. G.; Shchavlev, V. V. (2010). "On the relativistic invariance of the Minkowski and Abraham energy–momentum tensors". Physics Uspekhi 53 (3): 317–318. Bibcode:2010PhyU...53..317V. doi:10.3367/UFNe.0180.201003k.0331.
  23. ↑ Pauli, W. (1958). Theory of relativity. Pergamon Press. p. 18, Eq. (14).
  24. ↑ C. J. Sheppard, B. A. Kemp (2016). "Kinetic-energy-momentum tensor in electrodynamics". Phys. Rev. A 93 (1): 013855. Bibcode:2016PhRvA..93a3855S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.93.013855.
  25. ↑ Wang Zhong-Yue, Wang Pin-Yu, Xu Yan-Rong (2011). "Crucial experiment to resolve Abraham-Minkowski Controversy". Optik 122 (22): 1994–1996. arXiv:1103.3559. Bibcode:2011Optik.122.1994W. doi:10.1016/j.ijleo.2010.12.018.
  26. ↑ Charrier, D. S. H. (2012). "Micronewton electromagnetic thruster". Applied Physics Letters 101: 034104. Bibcode:2012ApPhL.101c4104C. doi:10.1063/1.4737940.
  27. 1 2 Zhang, Li; She, Weilong; Peng, Nan; Leonhardt, Ulf (2015). "Experimental evidence for Abraham pressure of light". New Journal of Physics 17: 053035. Bibcode:2015NJPh...17e3035Z. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/17/5/053035.

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Friday, May 06, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.