Absorption coefficient and Linear Optical Susceptibility

Click For Summary
The absorption coefficient, denoted as α, is linked to the complex refractive index and the linear optical susceptibility, χ. The discussion highlights the need to clarify the relationship between these quantities, particularly through the equation (n + ik)² = ε_r = 1 + χ. It is suggested that assuming a complex form of χ and separating its real and imaginary components is a viable approach. This method simplifies the algebra needed to express the real and imaginary parts of χ in terms of α, n, and λ. Overall, the focus is on establishing a clear mathematical relationship between these optical properties.
PhysicsTruth
Messages
117
Reaction score
18
Homework Statement
For a complex refractive index ##n^*=n+ik##, establish the relationship between the absorption coefficient and linear optical susceptibility. Take ##(n+ik)^2 = \epsilon = 1 + \chi##
Relevant Equations
##(n+ik)^2 = \epsilon = 1+ \chi##
##I=I_0 e^{-\alpha z}##
##\alpha = \frac{4\pi k}{\lambda}##
##\alpha## is considered to be the absorption coefficient for a beam of light of maximum intensity ##I_0##. It's related to the complex part of the refractive index as we have shown above. Now, I have a doubt. Should I solve for ##k## from the quadratic equation in terms of the linear optical susceptibility ##\chi## directly, or should I assume a complex form of ##\chi## and separate the real and imaginary terms and then proceed?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
PhysicsTruth said:
Homework Statement:: For a complex refractive index ##n^*=n+ik##, establish the relationship between the absorption coefficient and linear optical susceptibility. Take ##(n+ik)^2 = \epsilon = 1 + \chi##
I've (extremely) limited knowledge of this topic. But, since no one else has answered yet, see if this helps...

First note that:
##(n+ik)^2 = \epsilon = 1 + \chi##
should be:
##(n+ik)^2 = \epsilon_r = 1 + \chi##

The equation tells you that susceptibility, ##\chi##, and relative permittivity, ##\epsilon_r##, are being treated as complex quantities.

PhysicsTruth said:
... or should I assume a complex form of ##\chi## and separate the real and imaginary terms and then proceed?
That sound like the way to go. It only requires simple algebra to express the real and imaginary parts of ##\chi## in terms of ##\alpha## (along with ##n## and ##\lambda##).
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and PhysicsTruth
Yeah, I've done that thankfully. Thanks for the heads up!
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Steve4Physics
At first, I derived that: $$\nabla \frac 1{\mu}=-\frac 1{{\mu}^3}\left((1-\beta^2)+\frac{\dot{\vec\beta}\cdot\vec R}c\right)\vec R$$ (dot means differentiation with respect to ##t'##). I assume this result is true because it gives valid result for magnetic field. To find electric field one should also derive partial derivative of ##\vec A## with respect to ##t##. I've used chain rule, substituted ##\vec A## and used derivative of product formula. $$\frac {\partial \vec A}{\partial t}=\frac...