Correct definition of the Poynting vector in electrically and magnetically polarizable medium reveals that negative refraction is impossible: reply Export

@article{citeulike:5426469, abstract = {In this reply I argue that ” the work done on the bound current densities” can not be ” attributed differently”, as Favaro, Kinsler and McCall (FKM) suggest in the preceding Comment. There is a unique physically justifiable expression for this quantity, namely, Jb • E. This expression follows from the Newtonian laws of motion. Alternative forms can not be obtained by mathematically manipulating the Poynting identity. I also discuss other points raised by FKM in their Comment.}, author = {Markel, Vadim A.}, citeulike-article-id = {5426469}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.17.015170}, citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://www.opticsinfobase.org/abstract.cfm?id=184554}, comment = {1) LOSS For the ExB continuity equation, the work done is E.J=E.dtP+E.curlM, ie it is all in terms of electric current. For the ExH continuity equation, the work done is E.dtP+H.dtM, ie it has an electric current part (E.dtP=E.J\_P) and a magnetic current part(H.dtM=H.K\_M). Markel's "no other channel" (p.2 para.3) exists, and is H.dtM; the work done on the ficticious magnentic monopole current representing the magnetization M. For more details see "Four Poynting Theorems" Eur. J. Phys. 30, 983 (2009); http://www.citeulike.org/user/pak/article/5044532 I regret that we did not make this clear in our Comment ( http://www.citeulike.org/user/pak/article/5044560 ), but unfortunately the Optics Express "comment" process uses only independent referees, not the other authors; so we did not get the chance to adapt our Comment accordingly. 2) NPV conditions In Markel's discussion of the Im(epsilon mu) NPV condition, he does not distinguish between doubly passive and mixed active-passive cases with net loss, or between doubly active cases and mixed active-passive cases with net gain. However, he should do so, because the NPV condition for mixed active-passive media is \_not\_ Im(epsilon mu). For more details see "Criteria for negative refraction in active and passive media", P. Kinsler, M. W. McCall, Microwave Opt. Tech. Lett. 50, 1804 (2008); http://www.citeulike.org/user/pak/article/2988946}, day = {17}, doi = {10.1364/OE.17.015170}, journal = {Opt. Express}, keywords = {em, npv, physics, poynting}, month = {August}, number = {17}, pages = {15170--15172}, posted-at = {2009-08-12 11:46:00}, priority = {2}, publisher = {OSA}, title = {Correct definition of the Poynting vector in electrically and magnetically polarizable medium reveals that negative refraction is impossible: reply}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.17.015170}, volume = {17}, year = {2009} }

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:5426469 L3 - citeulike-article-id:5426469 N2 - In this reply I argue that “the work done on the bound current densities” can not be “attributed differently”, as Favaro, Kinsler and McCall (FKM) suggest in the preceding Comment. There is a unique physically justifiable expression for this quantity, namely, Jb • E. This expression follows from the Newtonian laws of motion. Alternative forms can not be obtained by mathematically manipulating the Poynting identity. I also discuss other points raised by FKM in their Comment. IS - 17 JF - Opt. Express EP - 15172 TI - Correct definition of the Poynting vector in electrically and magnetically polarizable medium reveals that negative refraction is impossible: reply PB - OSA VL - 17 SP - 15170 KW - em KW - npv KW - physics KW - poynting N1 - 1) LOSS For the ExB continuity equation, the work done is E.J=E.dtP+E.curlM, ie it is all in terms of electric current. For the ExH continuity equation, the work done is E.dtP+H.dtM, ie it has an electric current part (E.dtP=E.J_P) and a magnetic current part(H.dtM=H.K_M). Markel's "no other channel" (p.2 para.3) exists, and is H.dtM; the work done on the ficticious magnentic monopole current representing the magnetization M. For more details see "Four Poynting Theorems" Eur. J. Phys. 30, 983 (2009); http://www.citeulike.org/user/pak/article/5044532 I regret that we did not make this clear in our Comment ( http://www.citeulike.org/user/pak/article/5044560 ), but unfortunately the Optics Express "comment" process uses only independent referees, not the other authors; so we did not get the chance to adapt our Comment accordingly. 2) NPV conditions In Markel's discussion of the Im(epsilon mu) NPV condition, he does not distinguish between doubly passive and mixed active-passive cases with net loss, or between doubly active cases and mixed active-passive cases with net gain. However, he should do so, because the NPV condition for mixed active-passive media is _not_ Im(epsilon mu). For more details see "Criteria for negative refraction in active and passive media", P. Kinsler, M. W. McCall, Microwave Opt. Tech. Lett. 50, 1804 (2008); http://www.citeulike.org/user/pak/article/2988946 AU - Markel, Vadim PY - 2009/08/17/ UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.17.015170 ER -