| Abraham 光动量违反狭义相对论吗? |
| 送交者: xilihudu0 2011年10月31日16:06:08 于 [教育学术] 发送悄悄话 |
|
Abraham 光动量违反狭义相对论吗? 背景:光在媒质中的动量是争论了一百多年的尚未解决的问题,爱因斯坦本人也参与了这一争论。目前主流科学家认为:光的Abraham动量和Minkowski动量都是正确的 Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 070401 (2010),都有实验支持:Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 243601 (2008);Physical Review Letters. Vol.94, issue 17, 2005, pp.170403。然而,从下面的讨论看出,Abraham动量在理论上是和狭义相对论矛盾的,主流科学家用巧妙的方法极力违避这个问题。 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. |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
| 实用资讯 | |
|
|
| 一周点击热帖 | 更多>> |
| 一周回复热帖 |
| 历史上的今天:回复热帖 |
| 2010: | 假货唐骏和骗子方舟子为啥不怕被打假? | |
| 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:无神论和不可知论 | |
| 2009: | 钱学森是我国的杰出的、唯一的应用数学 | |
| 2008: | 北大丑闻,国学丑闻,新儒家丑闻? | |
| 2008: | 猥亵儿童罪,应送法办 | |
| 2007: | 和和,原来老虎的问题在国内已经吵翻天 | |
| 2007: | 亦明:我和方舟子分手、决裂的前前后后 | |
| 2006: | 一件令人深思的教训 | |
| 2006: | 从Nature论文、长江学者到院士,北大还 | |




