reference. According to his assumption, he had shown that the Abraham tensor should no longer be considered since it contradicted the criterion he had derived Assuming, on this basis, Minkowski's tensor to be correct, Laue drew far-reaching conclusions. For example, as the space-time components of Minkowski's tensor are antisymmetrical, Planck's postulate g= must be recognized to be in error (and in the same way Einsteins relation E= mc) Laue was not alone in taking this approach; moller independently developed analogous considerations rejecting Abraham's tensor. Laue's criterion was widely accepted in the literature of the time as proof that abrahams tensor was incorrect Jones& Richards'[12], and these views were held until the mid-1970s with ver o These findings appeared to be borne out by experiments such as Barlows[11] little challenge Penfield and Haus [13 provided a very extensive and detailed discussion of the various formulations of electromagnetism, and for the major formulations they found expressions for the energy momentum tensor, for the momentum density and for the force density. The expressions they arrived at are complex-the force densities each comprise about 20 terms. In view of the fact that most of the terms correspond to barely observable mechanical effects, it is hopeless to attempt a full experimental verification Brevik started off agreeing with Laue that minkowski's tensor was the correct representation. In two early papers [6, 14] he provided a discussion that"if properly interpreted the tensors of Abraham and minkowski are 'adequate and equivalent'in most considered simple physical situations. He believed the two to e equivalent, since Abrahams force density must excite the dipoles within the dielectric material and produces a mechanical momentum which travels along with the field. By considering this mechanical momentum as well as Abrahams momentum. he obtained minkowski tensor However, from the early-1970s onwards, this position was challenged. In his little- known paper, Skobel'tsyn [15 provided a strong attack on Laue's criterio providing an alternative criterion which the Abraham tensor satisfied and demonstrated how the Jones Richard's experiment could also support Abrahams theory. He also dealt with Mollers criterion, showing how an asymmetrical tensor(like Minkowski's) could satisfy the criterion, while if the tensor is symmetrical and the sum of the diagonal terms is zero(per Abrahams)the criterion cannot be satisfied. He concluded that "it is in general incorrect to require that the momentum-energy tensor to satisfy the Moller criterion". In his handling of others Skobel'tsyn was not exactly gentle, as witnessed by his comments about articles tend to ignore arguments that appear to lead unambiguously to the original Brevik on page 395 In Skobeltsyn opinion "The authors of the review and original conclusion that Minkowski' s postulate is not acceptable Skobel'tsyn put forward two Gedanken experiments. In the first one, he considered a packet of light waves plus medium" and how the displacements of the centre of gravity changes as the beam propagates. He considered this for two cases, and claimed this was sufficient to exclude minkowski's hypothesis from being correct In the second thought experiment, he considers a cylindrical capacitor almost11 reference. According to his assumption, he had shown that the Abraham tensor should no longer be considered since it contradicted the criterion he had derived. Assuming, on this basis, Minkowski’s tensor to be correct, Laue drew far-reaching conclusions. For example, as the space-time components of Minkowski’s tensor are antisymmetrical, Planck’s postulate 2 c g Φ = must be recognized to be in error (and in the same way Einstein’s relation E = mc2 ). Laue was not alone in taking this approach; Moller independently developed analogous considerations rejecting Abraham’s tensor. Laue’s criterion was widely accepted in the literature of the time as proof that Abraham’s tensor was incorrect. These findings appeared to be borne out by experiments such as Barlow’s [11] and Jones & Richards’ [12], and these views were held until the mid-1970s with very little challenge. Penfield and Haus [13] provided a very extensive and detailed discussion of the various formulations of electromagnetism, and for the major formulations they found expressions for the energy momentum tensor, for the momentum density and for the force density. The expressions they arrived at are complex – the force densities each comprise about 20 terms. In view of the fact that most of the terms correspond to barely observable mechanical effects, it is hopeless to attempt a full experimental verification. Brevik started off agreeing with Laue that Minkowski’s tensor was the correct representation. In two early papers [6, 14] he provided a discussion that “if properly interpreted the tensors of Abraham and Minkowski are ‘adequate and equivalent’ in most considered simple physical situations”. He believed the two to be equivalent, since Abraham’s force density must excite the dipoles within the dielectric material and produces a mechanical momentum which travels along with the field. By considering this mechanical momentum as well as Abraham’s momentum, he obtained Minkowski’s tensor. However, from the early-1970s onwards, this position was challenged. In his little￾known paper, Skobel’tsyn [15] provided a strong attack on Laue’s criterion, providing an alternative criterion which the Abraham tensor satisfied and demonstrated how the Jones & Richard’s experiment could also support Abraham’s theory. He also dealt with Moller’s criterion, showing how an asymmetrical tensor (like Minkowski’s) could satisfy the criterion, while if the tensor is symmetrical and the sum of the diagonal terms is zero (per Abraham’s) the criterion cannot be satisfied. He concluded that “it is in general incorrect to require that the momentum-energy tensor to satisfy the Moller criterion”. In his handling of others Skobel’tsyn was not exactly gentle, as witnessed by his comments about Brevik on page 395. In Skobel’tsyn opinion “The authors of the review and original articles tend to ignore arguments that appear to lead unambiguously to the conclusion that Minkowski’s postulate is not acceptable.” Skobel’tsyn put forward two Gedanken experiments. In the first one, he considered a “packet of light waves plus medium” and how the displacements of the centre of gravity changes as the beam propagates. He considered this for two cases, and claimed this was sufficient to exclude Minkowski’s hypothesis from being correct. In the second thought experiment, he considers a cylindrical capacitor almost