User talk:Komar11

Poynting-Robertson effect

I don't think your edits to that article improve it: The explanation is much less clear than before, some of the formulas seem to be plain wrong, and in the process, you removed the image and all internal links. The last could be solved by further editing, of course, but I see no need for such weeping changes which decrease clarity and ease of understanding. Please discuss your changes on the article's talk page. Yours, Huon (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Huon,

We suggest you to look into the paper Arxiv:astro-ph/0904.0368You have to look into Sec. 6.2 (point 4) and also to Sec.6.32. We hope you can understand the relevant physics. Thus, it is clear that explanation by the aberration of light is physically incorrect. This is the reason why explanation using aberration of light should not be presented as an explanation of the P-R effect on wikipedia. Our explanation is correct, although, as it is evident from your communication, it requires a little more time to understand it. Our formuale are physically correct, relativistically covariant formulations are OK.

I still don't see how the equation dp'/dτ=p'_incoming-p'_outgoing (p. 62 of the article you mentioned) can be correct. The right side has the dimension of a momentum, the left that of a force, or am I mistaken?

Of Klačka's claim that, unlike the standard assumption made by Poynting, Robertson and others, the outgoing radiation of a spherical totally absorbent body does depend on the direction of incoming radiation (see p. 8 of that paper), I am a little skeptical. I found no explanation why a particle's heat radiation should be influenced by any incoming radiation. Is an uneven distribution of heat within the particle assumed, ie it's hotter on the side where the radiation is absorbed? Does Klačka's 2008 paper on Electromagnetic radiation, motion of a particle and energy-mass relation mention a mechanism how incoming radiation influences re-radiation?

Concerning Sec. 6.32, I believe the article currently follows the approach of Minato et al. in defining the Poynting-Robertson drag to be that part of the radiation pressure that's orthogonal to the line Sun-particle, and it says that the "spiraling inward" part is what constitutes the P-R effect. While it may be "unphysical" to split the radiation pressure along these lines, apparently it's done, and we at Wikipedia should report it.

You seem to have exceptional knowledge of the literature concerning the P-R effect. I'm sure the article could be improved by adding newer references than Poynting and Robertson, but I'd ask you to change it in small steps. For example, we seem to be in need of a source for the very definition of what the Poynting-Robertson effect is - I believe you can provide sources for such a definition (apparently even sources for several slightly different definitions of P-R drag).

Your Wikipedia article version seems to be heavily based on Klačka's article, sec. 7, which would probably be a violation of Wikipedia's copyright rules. In any case it might be better to wait until Klačka's articles have been published in peer-reviewed journals before we use them as sources - see Wikipedia's policy against original research. Yours, Huon (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Huon,

It is explicitly written then p'_incoming is momentum per unit time. Please, you have to read carefully.

As for the thermal emission force, it is important for nonspherical particle, \see Mishchenko (2001).

Definition of the P-R effect is gievn at the beginning of our wikipedia's text! ... radiation pressure force on moving spherical particle

Arxiv presentation is very good ... it immediately show why aberration of light "derivation" is physically incorrect. Thus,we want to have correct presentation in wikipedia

We hope that you have already understood the correct physics. If not, please do not defend to put correct physical explanations on wikipedia.