Capacitors: why is the dielectric constant defined the way it is?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the definition of the dielectric constant, particularly how it is expressed as Eκ=E0 instead of the more intuitive U(f)=KU(0). Participants question why the dielectric constant is defined based on permittivity rather than directly from the electric field. This raises concerns about the clarity and consistency of terminology in physics. The conversation highlights the need for a better understanding of how dielectric constants relate to electric fields and permittivity. Overall, the dialogue emphasizes the importance of clear definitions in scientific discourse.
iScience
Messages
466
Reaction score
5
usually when we have some initial variable U(0), and we have some factor K that changes this initial variable, we usually express the new variable U(f) like so..

U(f)=KU(0)

and NOT the other way around...

so why is the dielectric constant expressed in the following way?

Eκ=E0

this doesn't make any sense to me
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top