Ben (narrator/author of the LessWrong post)

But it remains my impression.

I think it's because doing the sort of physics Einstein famously did, looking to replace foundational theories, is perceived partly as a status claim, so when someone comes up with a weird new theory to replace general relativity it is not enough to label them wrong, assuming they are, but the extra label crank is appended.

Taking any stance on Abraham Minkowski lands you squarely in the foundational theory work.

If I am right about this we have something wrong with our science culture, where people are pushed away from the places of genuine disagreement, which by any reasonable standard are the places most in need of study.

To summarize our options.

Here's a list of bullet points.

Abraham does Newton's momentum, Minkowski Heisenberg's, with the caveat that we use the group index for Newton and the phase index for Heisenberg.

Abraham does the purely electromagnetic component of the momentum.

Minkowski also includes the material contribution, 1.

Abraham does the purely electromagnetic component of the momentum.

But the multiplier for the momentum, including material contributions, is a different expression altogether.

Here's a formula.

Minkowski is just wrong.

It's a matter of convention how to partition the momentum between the light and the background matter in which it propagates, and any division, however arbitrary, is equally acceptable, including the Abraham and Minkowski equations.

What stance should be taken on the value of the total momentum and which direction the glass block is expected to move is unclear.

Abraham was just right 100 years ago.

Why are we still debating this?

Minkowski was just right 100 years ago, why are we still debating this?

Depending on who you ask they might also tell you for good measure that Abraham was a complete hack who never got anything right in his whole career, and certainly not this.

The momentum is actually given by some totally different expression.