luitzen
- 47
- 0
I got a little confused of these three things by my teacher and Griffiths.
I am acquaintanced with Feynman's lectures on physics and what I get from there is \epsilon=\epsilon_{r}\epsilon_{0} = \left(1+\chi\right)\epsilon_{0}
For some reason Griffiths, as well as my teacher, likes to use \mu_{0}, where \mu_{0} = \dfrac{1}{\epsilon_{0}c^{2}}.
Now I'd assume \mu=\dfrac{1}{\epsilon c^{2}} and thus \mu=\dfrac{1}{\epsilon_{r}\epsilon_{0}c^{2}} = \dfrac{1}{\epsilon_{r}}\mu_{0}=\left(1+\chi\right)^{-1}\mu_{0}
But apparently (Wikipedia, Griffiths, etc.) \mu=\left(1+\chi\right)\mu_{0}
So what should it be?
And why do they use \mu at all? It seem rather inconvenient to me, since they keep writing stuff like \sqrt{\dfrac{1}{\epsilon_{0}\mu_{0}}} instead of c.
I am acquaintanced with Feynman's lectures on physics and what I get from there is \epsilon=\epsilon_{r}\epsilon_{0} = \left(1+\chi\right)\epsilon_{0}
For some reason Griffiths, as well as my teacher, likes to use \mu_{0}, where \mu_{0} = \dfrac{1}{\epsilon_{0}c^{2}}.
Now I'd assume \mu=\dfrac{1}{\epsilon c^{2}} and thus \mu=\dfrac{1}{\epsilon_{r}\epsilon_{0}c^{2}} = \dfrac{1}{\epsilon_{r}}\mu_{0}=\left(1+\chi\right)^{-1}\mu_{0}
But apparently (Wikipedia, Griffiths, etc.) \mu=\left(1+\chi\right)\mu_{0}
So what should it be?
And why do they use \mu at all? It seem rather inconvenient to me, since they keep writing stuff like \sqrt{\dfrac{1}{\epsilon_{0}\mu_{0}}} instead of c.
Last edited: