Indexing
All Issues
Submission
Author Guidelines
Reviewers
Editorial Members
Publication Fee
Vol.1 , No. 4, Publication Date: Aug. 20, 2014, Page: 151-156
 part of the total momentum. Our analysis is based on results of two well-know unambiguous but contradictory experiments. No preliminary assumption about kinds and physical origin of optically induced force responsible for a change of the photon momentum in matter is made. It is shown that these experiments can be matched if the Abraham force arising in the regions where leading and trailing edges of the wave train are propagating is taken into account.&picture=http://www.aascit.org/aascit/decorators/img/journal/902.jpg)
| [1] | V. P. Torchigin, Institute of Informatics Problems, Russian Academy of Sciences, Nakhimovsky prospect, Moscow, Russia. |
| [2] | A. V. Torchigin, Institute of Informatics Problems, Russian Academy of Sciences, Nakhimovsky prospect, Moscow, Russia. |
We show that the total momentum of a photon in matter increases by n times as compared with that in free space where n is the refractive index of the matter. The photon is considered as a wave train which total momentum consists of two components. The electromagnetic component is smaller by n2 times than the total momentum. The mechanical component that is distributed uniformly between leading and trailing edges of the train and is (1-1/n2) part of the total momentum. Our analysis is based on results of two well-know unambiguous but contradictory experiments. No preliminary assumption about kinds and physical origin of optically induced force responsible for a change of the photon momentum in matter is made. It is shown that these experiments can be matched if the Abraham force arising in the regions where leading and trailing edges of the wave train are propagating is taken into account.
Keywords
Optical Forces, Photon Momentum, Abraham-Minkowski Controversy, Minkowski Momentum, Abraham Momentum, Abraham Force
Reference
| [01] | Н. Minkowski, Nachr. Konigl. Ges. Wiss. Gottingen, (1908) 53. |
| [02] | C. Baxter, R. Loudon, J. of Modern Opt. 57, 42 (2010) 830-842. |
| [03] | D.J. Griffiths, Am. J. Phys. 80 (2012) 7-18. |
| [04] | R. V. Jones and J. C. S. Richard, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 221 (1954) 480-498. |
| [05] | R. V. Jones and B. Leslie, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 360, (1978) 347-363. |
| [06] | N.L. Balazs, Phys. Rev. 91 (1953) 408-411. |
| [07] | S. M. Barnett and R. Loudon, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2010) 368-927. |
| [08] | M. Mansuripur, Opt. Comm. 283 (2010) 1997-2005. |
| [09] | S.M. Barnett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, (2010) 070401. |
| [10] | M Abraham, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 28, (1909) 1-28. |
| [11] | R.P. Feynman, R.B. Leighton, M. Sands, The Feynman lectures on physics, San Francisco, Addison-Wesley, 2005). |
| [12] | L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, Mechanics. Vol. 1 (Butterworth Heinemann, 1976). |
| [13] | V. P. Torchigin and A. V. Torchigin, Annals of Physics 327 (2012) 2288-2300. |
| [14] | R. V. Jones, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 360, (1978) 365-371. |
| [15] | W. K. H. Panofsky and M. Phillips, Classical electricity and magnetism (Addison-Wesley, Mass., 1960). |
| [16] | R. N. C. Moller, The theory of Relativity, 2nd ed. (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1972). |
| [17] | I. Brevik Phys. Rev. Lett., 103, (2009) 219301. |
| [18] | I. Brevik and S. Ellingsen, Phys. Rev. A 81 (2010) 011806. |
| [19] | I. Brevik and S. Ellingsen, Phys. Rev. A 86 (2012) 025801. |
