Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Skimming through Minkowski's famous 1907 paper, he uses the term ponderomotive force.

What does he mean by this?

share|improve this question
    
He just means the Lorentz force on one in response to the field of the other. –  Ron Maimon Sep 3 '11 at 2:36
    
@Ron: That's what I thought too, but Wikipedia has a description of ponderomotive force that's not identical to the Lorentz force. Edit: Although I now wonder if Minkowski really was referring to the Lorentz force and Ponderomotive force is not the correct translation of the German. Unfortunately I don't have Minkowski's paper. –  twistor59 Sep 3 '11 at 7:18
    
@twistor59: I put the comment on after looking at both Wikipedia and Minkowski's paper. –  Ron Maimon Sep 3 '11 at 19:07
    
Minkowski writes "ponderomotorische Kräfte", so there is no translation from German at all, its some kind of Latin in both cases. The gist of this new-latin "creation" is something like "force that causes movement of mass" BTW, Minknowski is a fine typo, one could call it a Freudian typo :=) –  Georg Nov 2 '11 at 21:58
    
@Georg: The "pondermotive force" is explicitly stated to be what we call the Lorentz force today, and there are no two answers here. –  Ron Maimon Nov 3 '11 at 16:50
show 2 more comments

3 Answers

He just means the Lorentz force. The Lorentz force is called the "pondermotive force" in his paper, for no good reason. Old papers did not have internet to standardize their terminology for them.

share|improve this answer
    
This is the correct answer, despite the ignorant downvote. –  Ron Maimon Nov 3 '11 at 18:39
    
Added a +1. Guys, don't down-vote on a whim, please. –  Antillar Maximus Nov 3 '11 at 20:30
    
@Antillar: It's not "guys", it's just one person who doesn't like me, personally. –  Ron Maimon Nov 4 '11 at 3:49
    
I didn't down vote, but I guess he down voted everything after the first sentence since you might as well say this about electromotive and magnetomotive as well –  Physiks lover Nov 4 '11 at 11:28
    
@Physics lover: The downvote was for a different version of the answer, which read: "He just means the Lorentz force on one in response to the field of the other". I don't understand this--- I read the paper, and made sure. He does. –  Ron Maimon Nov 4 '11 at 15:12
add comment

Let's look at some clues as to what it probably meant at the time. The word is ponderomotive rather than pondermotive and is constructed like electromotive, magnetomotive, from ponder-o-motive. The [etymology][1] of ponder is given as

ponder early 14c., "to estimate the worth of, to appraise," from O.Fr. ponderare "to weigh, poise," from L. ponderare "to ponder, to consider," lit. "to weigh," from pondus (gen. ponderis) "weigh" (see pound (1)). Meaning "to weigh a matter mentally" is attested from late 14c.

Therefore as an initial guess, it could mean the line integral between two points of a force that acts upon substance to give it weight; perhaps the line integral of the Newtonian gravitational force?

Book Googling 'ponderomotive' turns up a quote from Energy and Empire: a biographical study of Lord Kelvin

what makes an electrified body move?

In May of 1843 Thomson published in the Cambridge Mathematical Journal a paper of a mere two pages which marks his earliest consideration of ponderomotive forces on electrified bodies. 'On the attractions of conducting and non-conducting electrified bodies' showed that, for a given distribution of electricity on the surface of a body A, the total moving force exerted on A by an arbitary electrical mass M is the same whether A be a conductor or non-conductor.

Hermann von Hermholtz and the foundations of nineteenth-centurey science by David Cahan

For he sought to orientate himself and others in the "pathless wilderness" of competing theories in electrodymanics around 1870; it was in this historical context that he promulgated his own contribution to the ongoing discussion about a fundamental potential for current elements. As already noted, those current potentials were mathematical tools used to derive further equations. Thus, the negative gradient of the potentials (the variation with repsect to changing position) furnished laws of ponderomotive forces, that is laws of mechanical forces between distant linear currents. The time derivative of the potentials furnished the electromotive force induced in systems of time-varint currents.

Page 11 of Eddington's Principle in the Philosophy of Science

In order to generate mechanical momentum, we usually need the action of a pondermotive force. Now a ponderomotive force of electromagnetic origin does act on conduction-current, but there is no conduc-tion-current in the free aether.

Page 165 of a 1922 Bulletin of the National Research Council By National Research Council (U.S.)

According to the Maxwell-Lorentz theory the fundamental equation for the calculation of all ponderomotive forces of electromagnetic origin is $f = q(E + \frac 1 c \vec v \times\vec H)$

So Minkowski meant the electromagnetic force on mass - the Lorentz force.

share|improve this answer
    
Yes, this is correct, but it requires no long exegesis. –  Ron Maimon May 2 '12 at 15:02
add comment

Ron's responses are incorrect. You can see here that it was Boot and Harvie in 1957. In an inhomogenous plasma all particles regardless of charge will move toward the weaker field. This is much different from Lorentz forces, ie the motion of neutral particles do not generate a magnetic field.

share|improve this answer
    
If you read the question, I do say Minkowski mentions it in 1907. –  Physiks lover Mar 6 '13 at 19:00
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.