Rhetorical Analyzation of Mansuripur’s Research Paper
By Andrew D Rocha
Famous physicist, Henri Poincaré, said, “the Relativity Principle, Newton's action and reaction, the conservation of mass, and the conservation of energy are not fully established and are even threatened by some experiments” [5]. Poincaré's comments were made in 1904 after Hendrik Lorentz derived the modern form of electromagnetic force earlier that year [3]. This rhetorical analysis will be on Masud Mansuripur's paper utilization of credibility with references, evidence with mathematical proofs, and publishing with a well known journal. His paper, "Trouble with the Lorentz Law of Force: Incompatibility with Special Relativity and Momentum Conservation," suggests adopting a solution first presented by Einstein-Laub in 1908 and gives a mathematically sound proof that resolves the issue of "hidden" momentum [6]. This claim brought about an uproar in the physics community with responses that challenged Mansuripur's paper and expertise. Mansuripur defended his paper by respectfully responding to the comments made with a follow-up paper and providing explicit details [5]. Publishing research papers and the peer review process is the best way for a scientific hypothesis to be accepted or denied in the physics community. Mansuripur's paper is a good example of how to submit a scientific hypothesis to the general optical physics community, even if the result may cause a large debate with the physics community.
Mansuripur knew that his solution to “hidden” momentum would interest optical physicists, such as himself. Convincing physicists to accept a scientific claim takes a voice of logical reasoning free of emotion. This requires mathematical proofs of established theories from a source with a strong educational background, a subject matter expert, and favorable reputation in the field while citing other reputable sources with related information. Masud Mansuripur is a great example in achieving such a stature as professor and Chair of Optical Data Storage at the College of Optical Sciences of the University of Arizona in Tucson. As an author of four books and over 250 technical papers in peer-reviewed journals, Dr. Mansuripur's expertise in optical and magnetic data storage, electromagnetic theory, information theory, and problems associated with radiation pressure and photon momentum inside material media is a great example of a credible source [4].
In Mansuripur's paper there are 23 references and he provides a step by step mathematical proof to guide the scientist as he explains how to utilize the formula he found to resolve the issue of “hidden” momentum[6]. He also does a great job of explaining why the Lorentz force formula should replace the Einstein-Laub formula, saying, “A generalized version of the Lorentz law, originally proposed in 1908 by A. Einstein and J. Laub and independently rediscovered by several authors afterward, not only justifies the definition of the Poynting vector as S(r, t)=E×H, but also eliminates the problem of hidden momentum, thus bringing classical electrodynamics into compliance with momentum conservation laws.” [6] Mansuripur clearly labels areas in his paper to remain focused on the topic; for instance, he separates the section of his paper by abstract, introduction, Lorentz law and the principle of relativity, and concluding remarks. He is sure to mention instances by which his hypothesis would offer solutions, such as modeling electromagnetic charges in transparent magnetic materials.
Although Mansuripur's work was met with much criticism, he held a noble stance as he responded cordially and did his best to explain his findings to clarify any misconceptions.[5] Mansuripur's paper utilized credibility with references, math proof, and publishing through a well known journal. He also did well in his organization, presentation, and logic. You must be reminded that even well-known scientists with credibility have been wrong and may have even hinder progress due to incorrect statements. For example, Sir Isaac Newton incorrectly hypothesized chromatic aberration could not be corrected and that light was a particle in 1703 . Newton’s misuse of credibility halted progress in these areas of physics until an optical lens designer, John Dollond, patented a solution to chromatic aberration decades later. Augustin-Jean Fresnel, a civil engineer, mathematically proved that light could show wave properties with mathematical proofs more than 100 years later [7].
Works Cited
1. H. Lorentz, “Electromagnetic phenomena,” in Wikisource (2015).
2. “History of special relativity,” in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2015).
3. “Lorentz force,” in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2015).
4. “SPIE Masud Mansuripur Profile,” in SPIE (215)
5. M. Mansuripur, “The Force Law of Classical Electrodynamics: Lorentz versus Einstein and Laub,” 2014, JS1A.3, OSA [doi:10.1364/FIO.2014.JS1A.3].
6. M. Mansuripur, “Trouble with the Lorentz law of force: Incompatibility with special relativity and momentum conservation,” Physical Review Letters 108(19) (2012) [doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.193901].
7. B. WatsonLight2015, “Particle Vs. Wave - Light’s Timeless Question,” in International Year of Light Blog.
Reflection on project 2
- The revisions done on this project were numerous, with a specific focus on the introduction and conclusion. I feel that even with the focused efforts, the peer review process showed that the introduction and conclusion were still in need of minor edits.
- The greatest global change I made was mentioning a secondary paper written as a response to comments made on the primary paper. I felt that it would enhance the analysis and show that scientific claims are a continual process.
- I felt that the global change was brought about when I realized that the debates are always accompanied by rebuttals. In the science community this is how they are done.
- I feel that the global revision increased my credibility as an author because I understood that controversy is multifaceted and an ongoing process.
- The global revision better addresses students wanting to learn about how to make scientific claims and how to handle their work becoming a controversial topic.
- My local revisions accounted for the majority of the revisions. I tried to maintain a professional style.
- These changes were mostly to enhance clarification and generate a stronger thesis.
- I did not fell that I had to reconsider the conventions of the genre to reach my audience. Although I felt that I had to give more background to fill in gaps in scientific knowledge that the audience may have had.
- The process of reflection has taught me that as an author, I should take care to view my projects from the perspective of the audience and to do that I need to consider the message and content.
