Timeline for Microscopic Lorentz force density
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
21 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 6, 2023 at 11:16 | answer | added | zuko1997 | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 21, 2023 at 21:34 | history | edited | Kubik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Jun 21, 2023 at 21:31 | comment | added | Kubik | @Buzz: OK, thank you. I was not aware of this article, which seems very interesting. I will read it carefully. This is a complex issue! | |
| Jun 21, 2023 at 21:17 | comment | added | Buzz♦ | @Kubik ... it turns out that, contrary to expectations, the mechanical/canonical ambiguity does appear, because there have to be source charges in the dielectric medium. See, e. g. journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.070401 | |
| Jun 21, 2023 at 21:16 | comment | added | Buzz♦ | @Kubik The Abraham-Minkowski controversy has indeed been resolved, although it took until this millennium. The resolution is that in electrodynamics, there is no single unique quantity that can be identified as "the momentum." The is well known for the momentum of a charged particle in a magnetic field, where the mechanical momentum $\vec{\pi}=\gamma m\vec{v}$ differs from the canonical momentum $\vec{p}=\vec{p}-\frac{q}{c}\vec{A}$. You might think this ambiguity would not be a problem for just wave propagation, and that's true—for waves in vacuum. However, for waves in media... | |
| Jun 21, 2023 at 20:58 | history | edited | Kubik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Jun 21, 2023 at 20:39 | history | edited | Kubik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1100 characters in body
|
| Jun 21, 2023 at 20:30 | history | edited | Kubik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1100 characters in body
|
| Jun 21, 2023 at 20:24 | history | edited | Kubik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1100 characters in body
|
| Jun 21, 2023 at 19:42 | comment | added | Woe | Also, notice that in the first approach you are calculating the force density -- therefore, even if the self-force is initially singular, its density (i.e., force over the point charge volume) could be finite. In any case, a continuum description seems much more natural to me (as in second approach), specially because the true microscopic field cannot be really assessed. This is developed in detail in one of the sources I linked. | |
| Jun 21, 2023 at 19:34 | comment | added | Kubik | Thanks. The “Abraham-Minkowksi controversy” has not been solved after more than 100 years of theory and experiment!! It is one of the “perpetual problems” of physics, in words of the Nobel laureate Vitaly Ginzburg. | |
| Jun 21, 2023 at 19:24 | comment | added | Woe | I would recommend two recent papers on this subject: this one and this one | |
| Jun 21, 2023 at 19:08 | history | edited | Kubik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 25 characters in body
|
| Jun 21, 2023 at 19:03 | history | edited | Kubik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 25 characters in body
|
| Jun 21, 2023 at 15:48 | comment | added | Kubik | Fine. But then we will have to ignore the millions of papers in which the authors pretend to derive the MACROSCOPIC Lorentz force (in matter) from the MICROSCOPIC Lorentz force (for point charges), as if the later was more fundamental, e.g. Shevchenko & Hoenders, "Microscopic derivation of electromagnetic force density in magnetic dielectric media". | |
| Jun 21, 2023 at 15:14 | history | edited | Kubik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 547 characters in body
|
| Jun 21, 2023 at 15:09 | comment | added | Michael Seifert | Most of these problems are (if I'm not mistaken) due to the use of singular charge & current distributions. If instead you assume that the charge & current densities are smooth, these issues do not arise. | |
| Jun 21, 2023 at 14:53 | history | edited | Kubik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Jun 21, 2023 at 13:43 | history | edited | Kubik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| S Jun 21, 2023 at 13:38 | review | First questions | |||
| Jun 21, 2023 at 13:55 | |||||
| S Jun 21, 2023 at 13:38 | history | asked | Kubik | CC BY-SA 4.0 |