Calculation of material properties in transformation media

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the calculation of permittivity and permeability tensors in the context of meta-materials, specifically referencing Schurig's paper. The user is struggling to reconcile different formulas for the z component of the permittivity tensor derived from two sources, noting discrepancies between their results. They have attempted to deduce the formulas multiple times without success and seek clarification on their calculations. Another participant suggests reviewing specific equations in the OE paper for potential insights. The user expresses difficulty in deriving one equation from another using the provided references.
radiofeda
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi everybody,

I'm focusing on meta-materials. I have recently read Schurig's paper "http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=OPEX-14-21-9794"). In the article, the components of the permittivity tensor are given by
\varepsilon^{i'j'} = \left|\rm{det}(\Lambda^{i'}_{i})\right|^{-1} \Lambda^{i'}_{i} \Lambda^{j'}_{j} \varepsilon^{ij}
where the Jacobian matrix
\Lambda_{\alpha}^{\alpha'} = \frac{\partial x^{\alpha'}}{\partial x^{\alpha}}
and the roman indices run from1 to 3, for the three spatial coordinates, as is standard practice.

Working out the algebra, the components of the permittivity (permeability) tensor can be obtained by
\left(\varepsilon^{i&#039;j&#039;}\right) = \left|\rm{det}\left(\Lambda\right)\right|^{-1}\Lambda^T \Lambda<br />
where \Lambda is a matrix, which components are the counterpart of the contravariant coefficients \Lambda_{\alpha}^{\alpha&#039;}.

For cylindrical cloak, the components of the transformation matrix are
\left(\Lambda^{i&#039;}_{j}\right) = \left(<br /> \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> \frac{\rho&#039;}{\rho}-\frac{ax^2}{\rho^3} &amp; -\frac{axy}{\rho^3} &amp; 0 \\<br /> -\frac{ayx}{\rho^3} &amp; \frac{\rho&#039;}{\rho}-\frac{ay^2}{\rho^3} &amp; 0 \\<br /> 0 &amp; 0 &amp; 1 \\<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right)<br />
It is easy to find the material properties. For instance, the z component of the permittivity tensor is
\varepsilon_z = \varepsilon^{3,3} = \frac{\rho^2}{\rho&#039;(\rho&#039;-a)} = \frac{1}{\left|\rm{det}\left(\Lambda\right)\right|}

However, in the paper "http://pre.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v74/i3/e036621" ), the components of the relative permittivity and permeability tensor specified in cylindrical coordinates are given
\varepsilon_z = \mu_z = \left(\frac{b}{b-a}\right)^2 \frac{\rho-a}{\rho}

It can be seen that the two formula are not equal obviously. And the other nonzero components of the permittivity and permeability tensor are not equal too.

I have deduced the formulas for many times. Depressingly, I can not figure out the problem. Could somebody please give me some comments on the calculation of material properties in transformation optics.

Regards.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I just glanced through the papers, but I wonder if you are looking in the wrong place: see, for example, eqns 20-22 and 29-30 in the OE paper.
 
Andy Resnick said:
I just glanced through the papers, but I wonder if you are looking in the wrong place: see, for example, eqns 20-22 and 29-30 in the OE paper.
I see. However, it seems not easy to obtain eq.(29) from eq.(26) by applying eq.(6) or (7).
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Back
Top