Polarizaition and susceptibility


by KFC
Tags: polarizaition, susceptibility
KFC
KFC is offline
#1
Jun3-09, 12:11 PM
P: 369
In some unit, the relation of (linear) polarization and susceptibility can be written of

[tex]P(t) = \chi E(t)[/tex]

but I also read some expression in other text reads

[tex]P(\omega) = \chi(\omega) E(\omega)[/tex]

why change the time to frequency? Why polarization depends on frequency?
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
Physicists design quantum switches which can be activated by single photons
'Dressed' laser aimed at clouds may be key to inducing rain, lightning
Higher-order nonlinear optical processes observed using the SACLA X-ray free-electron laser
Andy Resnick
Andy Resnick is offline
#2
Jun3-09, 12:27 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 5,468
Your equations are not really written correctly. The first one, the time dependent one, should really be written as a convolution: The polarization of a linear isotropic medium with a local but noninstantaneous response (but still independent of time) is:

P(t)=[itex]\int \chi(t-\tau)E(\tau)d\tau[/itex]

And taking the Fourier transform of this equation provides your second expression.

If the material responds instantaneously and has no memory[[itex]\chi(t-\tau) = \chi\delta(t-\tau)[/itex]], then the convolution integral reduces to your first expression.

Having a frequency-dependent susceptibility is simply dispersion.
KFC
KFC is offline
#3
Jun3-09, 12:54 PM
P: 369
Quote Quote by Andy Resnick View Post
Your equations are not really written correctly. The first one, the time dependent one, should really be written as a convolution: The polarization of a linear isotropic medium with a local but noninstantaneous response (but still independent of time) is:

P(t)=[itex]\int \chi(t-\tau)E(\tau)d\tau[/itex]

And taking the Fourier transform of this equation provides your second expression.

If the material responds instantaneously and has no memory[[itex]\chi(t-\tau) = \chi\delta(t-\tau)[/itex]], then the convolution integral reduces to your first expression.

Having a frequency-dependent susceptibility is simply dispersion.
Oh ... I just wonder why in textbook they don't say it is a convolution! So you mean in frequency domain susceptibility is the repsonse function?

BTW, can you tell me one text in which the author show clearly the convolution relation b/w polarization, susceptibility and field? I am writing a short report and need a reference


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Polarizaition and dipole moment? Quantum Physics 0
Magnetisation and susceptibility Advanced Physics Homework 3
string susceptibility General Physics 0
Magnetic susceptibility Atomic, Solid State, Comp. Physics 2