Comment on "Analysis of recent interpretations of the Abraham-Minkowski problem"

Jukka Tulkki; Mikko Partanen

arxiv: 1907.07300 · v1 · pith:CNB6HLVNnew · submitted 2019-07-17 · ⚛️ physics.optics

Comment on "Analysis of recent interpretations of the Abraham-Minkowski problem"

Mikko Partanen , Jukka Tulkki This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 20:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.optics

keywords Abraham-Minkowski problemmass polaritonstress-energy-momentum tensorgraphene oxide filmoptical forcelight momentum in mediafour-divergencerest energy flux

0 comments

The pith

The flux of rest energy from atoms displaced forward by light must be counted in the total energy flux of the mass polariton.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that Brevik's analysis of laser-induced deformation in a graphene oxide film misapplies an optoelastic model because the two-dimensional AFM scans occur too slowly to capture any reversible elastic response, rendering the observed changes irreversible. It corrects the comparison of atomic kinetic energies by distinguishing them from the rest energies of the displaced atoms, which move with the light pulse and thereby produce an additional energy flux. The central disagreement reduces to whether this rest-energy flux carried by the moving medium should be included when calculating the total energy flux associated with light in matter. The authors further establish that the four-divergence of the stress-energy-momentum tensor in their mass polariton theory vanishes, confirming local conservation.

Core claim

The atoms and their masses are displaced forward by the field and their displaced rest energies give rise to an energy flux. The difference of arguments between ours and Brevik's culminates on the question whether the flux of rest energy caused by the displacement of the medium moving with light should be included in the total energy flux. We also show that the four-divergence of the stress-energy-momentum tensor of the mass polariton theory of light is zero.

What carries the argument

Mass polariton theory of light, which couples the electromagnetic field to a mass-density wave whose forward displacement carries rest energy.

If this is right

Brevik's rough estimates of kinetic energy and atomic displacement remain numerically correct but cannot be compared directly to rest-energy contributions.
The total energy flux of light in a dielectric must incorporate the rest energy transported by the displaced atoms.
Local conservation holds for the mass polariton because its stress-energy-momentum tensor has vanishing four-divergence.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If rest-energy flux is required, momentum-transfer calculations in other dielectric experiments may need re-examination for consistency with the same tensor.
The irreversibility argument could be tested by repeating the Kundu experiment with faster imaging techniques that resolve elastic transients.

Load-bearing premise

The AFM line scans of the GO film after the laser is switched off occur on a timescale too long for any elastic deformation to persist, so the observed changes must be irreversible.

What would settle it

A time-resolved measurement showing that the GO film deformation relaxes elastically on a timescale shorter than the AFM scan duration would validate the applicability of the optoelastic model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1907.07300 by Jukka Tulkki, Mikko Partanen.

read the original abstract

In a recent paper [I. Brevik, Phys. Rev. A 98, 043847 (2018)], Brevik analyzed the experiment by Kundu et al. [A. Kundu et al., Sci. Rep. 7, 42538 (2017)] reporting deformation of a graphene oxide (GO) film after it has been irradiated by a laser beam. The two-dimensional atomic force microscope (AFM) line scanning of the deformation of the GO film after switching off the laser beam takes by far too much time for any elastic changes to remain in the AFM scans. Thus, the changes in the GO film are irreversible and the optoelastic model used by Brevik is not applicable. The rough estimates of the kinetic energy and displacement of atoms by the optical force of a light pulse calculated by Brevik are correct, but in making a comparison with the corresponding high-precision results for the kinetic energy and displacement of atoms in our work [M. Partanen et al., Phys. Rev. A 95, 063850 (2017)], the kinetic energy of atoms is confused with their rest energy. The atoms and their masses are displaced forward by the field and their displaced rest energies give rise to an energy flux. The difference of arguments between ours and Brevik's culminates on the question whether the flux of rest energy caused by the displacement of the medium moving with light should be included in the total energy flux. We also show that the four-divergence of the stress-energy-momentum tensor of the mass polariton theory of light is zero.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This comment applies the authors' prior mass polariton framework to critique Brevik's reading of the Kundu GO-film experiment, mainly by questioning scan timing and flagging a kinetic-versus-rest energy mix-up.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that Partanen and Tulkki argue the AFM line scans in the Kundu experiment occur too late for elastic deformations to remain visible, so Brevik's optoelastic model does not apply, and that Brevik compared the wrong energy quantity when checking the authors' 2017 kinetic-energy numbers. They add that displaced atoms carry rest energy, producing a flux that belongs in the total energy balance, and they restate that the four-divergence of their stress-energy-momentum tensor is zero. The energy-flux point is stated plainly and follows directly from treating the medium as moving with the field. The zero-divergence claim is consistent with the earlier derivation they cite. The timing argument is the clearest weakness. The abstract asserts that scanning “takes by far too much time” for elastic recovery but gives no measured scan duration from Kundu et al. and no recovery timescale for the GO film, so the claim that changes must be irreversible stays unquantified. Without those numbers it is difficult to judge whether the optoelastic analysis is actually ruled out. The comment contains no new derivation or external check; it applies the mass-polariton picture to an existing dataset. Readers already working inside that framework may find the energy-accounting clarification useful for keeping track of the Abraham-Minkowski accounting conventions. A reader outside that circle will see mostly restatement. The piece is coherent on its own terms and engages the cited literature without internal contradiction. It is narrow enough that I would not bring it to a general reading group, but a journal that runs comments could reasonably send it for review so the exchange stays on record.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a comment critiquing I. Brevik's analysis of the Kundu et al. experiment on laser-induced deformation of a graphene oxide (GO) film. The authors argue that the AFM line scanning after laser switch-off takes too long for elastic changes to remain, making the deformation irreversible and Brevik's optoelastic model inapplicable. They note that Brevik's estimates of kinetic energy and atomic displacement are correct but that he confuses kinetic energy with rest energy when comparing to their prior work. The comment discusses whether the flux of rest energy due to medium displacement should be included in the total energy flux and claims to show that the four-divergence of the stress-energy-momentum tensor in the mass polariton theory is zero.

Significance. Should the timing argument be substantiated with quantitative data, this comment would provide a valid basis for questioning the applicability of the optoelastic model to the Kundu experiment and would highlight an important distinction in energy types relevant to the Abraham-Minkowski controversy. The demonstration of zero four-divergence for the mass polariton tensor is a positive technical contribution if it stands independently. The paper correctly credits Brevik's estimates while challenging the interpretation.

major comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that 'the two-dimensional atomic force microscope (AFM) line scanning of the deformation of the GO film after switching off the laser beam takes by far too much time for any elastic changes to remain in the AFM scans' is load-bearing for the conclusion that changes are irreversible and that Brevik's optoelastic model is inapplicable, yet the manuscript supplies no numerical values for either the scan duration (from Kundu et al.) or the elastic/viscoelastic recovery timescale of the GO film. Without this comparison the premise cannot be verified.

minor comments (1)

The derivation of the zero four-divergence result would be clearer if the manuscript included an explicit equation reference or short outline of the steps, even if the result follows from the authors' prior framework.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our comment. The single major comment concerns the need for quantitative support of the timing argument in the abstract. We address it below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The assertion that 'the two-dimensional atomic force microscope (AFM) line scanning of the deformation of the GO film after switching off the laser beam takes by far too much time for any elastic changes to remain in the AFM scans' is load-bearing for the conclusion that changes are irreversible and that Brevik's optoelastic model is inapplicable, yet the manuscript supplies no numerical values for either the scan duration (from Kundu et al.) or the elastic/viscoelastic recovery timescale of the GO film. Without this comparison the premise cannot be verified.

Authors: We agree that the timing argument is central and that explicit numerical comparison would strengthen verifiability. The revised manuscript will add the AFM line-scan durations reported by Kundu et al. together with a brief comparison to the elastic recovery timescales of GO films drawn from the literature on their viscoelastic response. This addition will be placed in the abstract and main text to substantiate the claim that the observed deformations are irreversible on the relevant timescale. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Zero four-divergence result for mass polariton theory tied to authors' prior self-work

specific steps

self citation load bearing [Abstract]
"We also show that the four-divergence of the stress-energy-momentum tensor of the mass polariton theory of light is zero."

The mass polariton theory is defined in the authors' prior paper (Partanen et al., Phys. Rev. A 95, 063850 (2017)). The zero-divergence is asserted here as following from that framework, with the comment supplying no separate derivation or external verification that stands apart from the self-citation.

full rationale

The comment's core rejection of Brevik's optoelastic model is an experimental timing argument about AFM scans (unquantified but not circular). The additional claim to 'show' zero four-divergence is presented as a property of the mass polariton theory introduced in the authors' 2017 paper. This matches self-citation load-bearing for that specific result, as no independent derivation or external benchmark is supplied in the comment. No self-definitional equations, fitted predictions, or other patterns appear. The energy-flux disagreement is a conceptual stance, not a reduction by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claims rest on the authors' 2017 mass polariton framework and on the interpretation that AFM timing rules out elastic recovery; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Validity of the mass polariton theory of light as formulated in the authors' prior work
The zero four-divergence result is asserted within that framework without re-derivation here.

invented entities (1)

mass polariton no independent evidence
purpose: Quasiparticle combining electromagnetic field and medium response to carry momentum and energy
Referenced from earlier publication; no new independent evidence supplied in this comment.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5821 in / 1383 out tokens · 31915 ms · 2026-05-24T20:32:34.279763+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Comment on "Analysis of recent interpretations of the Abraham-Minkowski problem"

we have shown using two independent approaches that the kinetic energy of atoms in the MDW is a vanishingly small part of the ﬁeld energy. arXiv:1907.07300v1 [physics.optics] 17 Jul 2019 2 III. THEORETICAL GEDANKEN EXPERIMENT In Eq. (35) of his work [1], Brevik found for an average momentum of atoms under the inﬂuence of the optical force of a light pulse...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1907
[2]

AFM height image of GO surface after focused laser irradiation at diﬀerent spots for various laser power

by stating that, due to the term δMc 2, the “values of EMP and pMP do not allow one to use the Lorentz transformation, as they are not the energy and momen- tum components of an energy-momentum tensor whose four-divergence is zero.” However, Brevik provided no ar- guments to support his claim that the four-divergence of the SEM tensor of the MP would be n...

work page
[3]

Analysis of recent interpretations of the Abraham-Minkowski problem,

I. Brevik, “Analysis of recent interpretations of the Abraham-Minkowski problem,” Phys. Rev. A 98, 043847 (2018)

work page 2018
[4]

Graphene ox- ide demonstrates experimental conﬁrmation of Abraham pressure on solid surface,

A. Kundu, R. Rani, and K. S. Hazra, “Graphene ox- ide demonstrates experimental conﬁrmation of Abraham pressure on solid surface,” Sci. Rep. 7, 42538 (2017)

work page 2017
[5]

Photon mass drag and the momentum of light in a medium,

M. Partanen, T. H¨ ayrynen, J. Oksanen, and J. Tulkki, “Photon mass drag and the momentum of light in a medium,” Phys. Rev. A 95, 063850 (2017)

work page 2017
[6]

Mass-polariton theory of light in dispersive media,

M. Partanen and J. Tulkki, “Mass-polariton theory of light in dispersive media,” Phys. Rev. A 96, 063834 (2017)

work page 2017
[7]

Mass-polariton theory of sharing the total angular momentum of light between the ﬁeld and matter,

M. Partanen and J. Tulkki, “Mass-polariton theory of sharing the total angular momentum of light between the ﬁeld and matter,” Phys. Rev. A 98, 033813 (2018)

work page 2018
[8]

Light-driven mass density wave dynamics in optical ﬁbers,

M. Partanen and J. Tulkki, “Light-driven mass density wave dynamics in optical ﬁbers,” Opt. Express 26, 22046 (2018)

work page 2018
[9]

Isolated detection of elastic waves driven by the momentum of light,

T. Poˇ zar, J. Laloˇ s, A. Babnik, R. Petkovˇ sek, M. Bethune- Waddell, K. J. Chau, G. V. B. Lukasievicz, and N. G. C. Astrath, “Isolated detection of elastic waves driven by the momentum of light,” Nat. Commun. 9, 3340 (2018)

work page 2018
[10]

J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics , Wiley, New York (1999)

work page 1999
[11]

Zur Lichtfortpﬂanzung nach der Rela- tivit¨ atstheorie,

W. Gordon, “Zur Lichtfortpﬂanzung nach der Rela- tivit¨ atstheorie,”Ann. Phys. 377, 421 (1923)

work page 1923
[12]

General relativity in electrical engineering,

U. Leonhardt and T. G. Philbin, “General relativity in electrical engineering,” New J. Phys. 8, 247 (2006)

work page 2006
[13]

Leonhardt and T

U. Leonhardt and T. Philbin, Geometry and Light: The Science of Invisibility , Dover, New York (2010)

work page 2010
[14]

Lorentz covariance of the mass-polariton theory of light,

M. Partanen and J. Tulkki, “Lorentz covariance of the mass-polariton theory of light,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 033852 (2019)

work page 2019
[15]

Elastic constants of graphene oxide few-layer ﬁlms: correlations with interlayer stacking and bonding,

R. J. Jimenez Rioboo, E. Climent-Pascual, X. Diez- Betriu, F. Jimenez-Villacorta, C. Prieto, and A. de An- dres, “Elastic constants of graphene oxide few-layer ﬁlms: correlations with interlayer stacking and bonding,” J. Mater. Chem. C 3, 4868 (2015)

work page 2015
[16]

Lagrangian dynamics of the coupled ﬁeld-medium state of light,

M. Partanen and J. Tulkki, “Lagrangian dynamics of the coupled ﬁeld-medium state of light,” New J. Phys., doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ab3069 (2019)

work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ab3069 2019

[1] [1]

Comment on "Analysis of recent interpretations of the Abraham-Minkowski problem"

we have shown using two independent approaches that the kinetic energy of atoms in the MDW is a vanishingly small part of the ﬁeld energy. arXiv:1907.07300v1 [physics.optics] 17 Jul 2019 2 III. THEORETICAL GEDANKEN EXPERIMENT In Eq. (35) of his work [1], Brevik found for an average momentum of atoms under the inﬂuence of the optical force of a light pulse...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1907

[2] [2]

AFM height image of GO surface after focused laser irradiation at diﬀerent spots for various laser power

by stating that, due to the term δMc 2, the “values of EMP and pMP do not allow one to use the Lorentz transformation, as they are not the energy and momen- tum components of an energy-momentum tensor whose four-divergence is zero.” However, Brevik provided no ar- guments to support his claim that the four-divergence of the SEM tensor of the MP would be n...

work page

[3] [3]

Analysis of recent interpretations of the Abraham-Minkowski problem,

I. Brevik, “Analysis of recent interpretations of the Abraham-Minkowski problem,” Phys. Rev. A 98, 043847 (2018)

work page 2018

[4] [4]

Graphene ox- ide demonstrates experimental conﬁrmation of Abraham pressure on solid surface,

A. Kundu, R. Rani, and K. S. Hazra, “Graphene ox- ide demonstrates experimental conﬁrmation of Abraham pressure on solid surface,” Sci. Rep. 7, 42538 (2017)

work page 2017

[5] [5]

Photon mass drag and the momentum of light in a medium,

M. Partanen, T. H¨ ayrynen, J. Oksanen, and J. Tulkki, “Photon mass drag and the momentum of light in a medium,” Phys. Rev. A 95, 063850 (2017)

work page 2017

[6] [6]

Mass-polariton theory of light in dispersive media,

M. Partanen and J. Tulkki, “Mass-polariton theory of light in dispersive media,” Phys. Rev. A 96, 063834 (2017)

work page 2017

[7] [7]

Mass-polariton theory of sharing the total angular momentum of light between the ﬁeld and matter,

M. Partanen and J. Tulkki, “Mass-polariton theory of sharing the total angular momentum of light between the ﬁeld and matter,” Phys. Rev. A 98, 033813 (2018)

work page 2018

[8] [8]

Light-driven mass density wave dynamics in optical ﬁbers,

M. Partanen and J. Tulkki, “Light-driven mass density wave dynamics in optical ﬁbers,” Opt. Express 26, 22046 (2018)

work page 2018

[9] [9]

Isolated detection of elastic waves driven by the momentum of light,

T. Poˇ zar, J. Laloˇ s, A. Babnik, R. Petkovˇ sek, M. Bethune- Waddell, K. J. Chau, G. V. B. Lukasievicz, and N. G. C. Astrath, “Isolated detection of elastic waves driven by the momentum of light,” Nat. Commun. 9, 3340 (2018)

work page 2018

[10] [10]

J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics , Wiley, New York (1999)

work page 1999

[11] [11]

Zur Lichtfortpﬂanzung nach der Rela- tivit¨ atstheorie,

W. Gordon, “Zur Lichtfortpﬂanzung nach der Rela- tivit¨ atstheorie,”Ann. Phys. 377, 421 (1923)

work page 1923

[12] [12]

General relativity in electrical engineering,

U. Leonhardt and T. G. Philbin, “General relativity in electrical engineering,” New J. Phys. 8, 247 (2006)

work page 2006

[13] [13]

Leonhardt and T

U. Leonhardt and T. Philbin, Geometry and Light: The Science of Invisibility , Dover, New York (2010)

work page 2010

[14] [14]

Lorentz covariance of the mass-polariton theory of light,

M. Partanen and J. Tulkki, “Lorentz covariance of the mass-polariton theory of light,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 033852 (2019)

work page 2019

[15] [15]

Elastic constants of graphene oxide few-layer ﬁlms: correlations with interlayer stacking and bonding,

R. J. Jimenez Rioboo, E. Climent-Pascual, X. Diez- Betriu, F. Jimenez-Villacorta, C. Prieto, and A. de An- dres, “Elastic constants of graphene oxide few-layer ﬁlms: correlations with interlayer stacking and bonding,” J. Mater. Chem. C 3, 4868 (2015)

work page 2015

[16] [16]

Lagrangian dynamics of the coupled ﬁeld-medium state of light,

M. Partanen and J. Tulkki, “Lagrangian dynamics of the coupled ﬁeld-medium state of light,” New J. Phys., doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ab3069 (2019)

work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ab3069 2019