Simulations of radiation pressure experiments narrow down the energy and momentum of light in matter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consensus on a single electrodynamic theory has yet to be reached. Discord was seeded over a century ago when Abraham and Minkowski proposed different forms of electromagnetic momentum density and has since expanded in scope with the gradual introduction of other forms of momentum and force densities. Although degenerate sets of electrodynamic postulates can be fashioned to comply with global energy and momentum conservation, hope remains to isolate a single theory based on detailed comparison between force density predictions and radiation pressure experiments. This comparison is two-fold challenging because there are just a handful of quantitative radiation pressure measurements over the past century and the solutions developed from different postulates, which consist of approximate expressions and inferential deductions, are scattered throughout the literature. For these reasons, it is appropriate to conduct a consolidated and comprehensive re-analysis of past experiments under the assumption that the momentum and energy of light in matter are degenerate. We create a combined electrodynamic/fluid dynamic simulation testbed that uses five historically significant sets of electrodynamic postulates, including those by Abraham and Minkowski, to model radiation pressure under diverse configurations with minimal assumptions. This leads to new interpretations of landmark investigations of light momentum, including the Balazs thought experiment, the Jones-Richards and Jones-Leslie measurements of radiation pressure on submerged mirrors, observations of laser-deformed fluid surfaces, and experiments on optical trapping and tractor beaming of dielectric particles. We discuss the merits and demerits of each set of postulates when compared to available experimental evidence and fundamental conservation laws. Of the five sets of postulates, the Abraham and Einstein-Laub postulates provide the greatest consistency with observations and the most physically plausible descriptions of electrodynamic interactions. Force density predictions made by these two postulates are unique under many conditions and their experimental isolation is potentially within reach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".