| Abraham 光動量違反狹義相對論嗎? |
| 送交者: xilihudu0 2011年10月31日16:06:08 於 [教育學術] 發送悄悄話 |
|
Abraham 光動量違反狹義相對論嗎? 背景:光在媒質中的動量是爭論了一百多年的尚未解決的問題,愛因斯坦本人也參與了這一爭論。目前主流科學家認為:光的Abraham動量和Minkowski動量都是正確的 Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 070401 (2010),都有實驗支持:Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 243601 (2008);Physical Review Letters. Vol.94, issue 17, 2005, pp.170403。然而,從下面的討論看出,Abraham動量在理論上是和狹義相對論矛盾的,主流科學家用巧妙的方法極力違避這個問題。 Abraham's light momentum breaks special relativity? http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=541846 Sciencewatch: For a plane wave in an isotropic, homogeneous, non-conducting medium, the wave vector k and the frequency w constitute a wave 4-vector (k,w/c) which is Lorentz covariant, where |k|=n*w/c with n the refractive index. Sine the Planck constant hbar is assumed to be a Lorentz invariant. Thus hbar*(k,w/c) is a Lorentz covariant momentum-energy 4-vector. The Minkowski's photon momentum is defined as p_M=n*hbar*w/c = hbar*|k|, and we say the Minkowski's momentum hbar*k is Lorentz covariant, as the space component of hbar*(k,w/c). ........ DaleSpam: We have already established through the review article I posted (Rev.Mod.Phys.79:1197-1216 (2007); http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.0461 ) that Abrahams is correct (as well as Minkowski) and that is no contraindication to SR. This new article says the same. Evidence in favor of Abrahams is not evidence against SR, for the reasons given above. We are going around in circles. If you have something new to say then I will be glad to discuss it, otherwise you are welcome to repeat your same invalid argument once more so as to get the last word and end the thread. Sciencewatch: Indeed, “Abrahams is correct” is the conclusion made by the review article you posted and the new article I posted: DaleSpam: Do you find a statement in any of those that there is a contradiction with SR? Sciencewatch: No. That is why I say "This paper implicitly challenges the special relativity by claiming that Abraham's photon's momentum is correct." (see Post #45) DaleSpam: I find it interesting that you see an implicit challenge where there is none and yet look for an explicit confirmation. That seems to indicate an anti-mainstream science bias. Sciencewatch: My argument is given below: DaleSpam: You are correct in the above. Abraham's momentum is not covariant. If you want a covariant momentum then use Minkowski. |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
| 實用資訊 | |
|
|
| 一周點擊熱帖 | 更多>> |
| 一周回復熱帖 |
| 歷史上的今天:回復熱帖 |
| 2010: | 假貨唐駿和騙子方舟子為啥不怕被打假? | |
| 2010: | 2010年北京普通正教授的月可支配收入53 | |
| 2009: | 有理性的信仰:無神論和不可知論 | |
| 2009: | 錢學森是我國的傑出的、唯一的應用數學 | |
| 2008: | 北大醜聞,國學醜聞,新儒家醜聞? | |
| 2008: | 猥褻兒童罪,應送法辦 | |
| 2007: | 和和,原來老虎的問題在國內已經吵翻天 | |
| 2007: | 亦明:我和方舟子分手、決裂的前前後後 | |
| 2006: | 一件令人深思的教訓 | |
| 2006: | 從Nature論文、長江學者到院士,北大還 | |




