Difference between longitudinal and transverse refractive indices

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the differences between longitudinal and transverse refractive indices, particularly in the context of solids and their dielectric properties. Participants explore the implications of these concepts for both crystalline and amorphous materials, as well as the conditions under which these distinctions are relevant.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the necessity of two descriptions of refractive indices in a homogeneous medium.
  • Another participant suggests that the difference arises from the directionality of the k vector and the anisotropic nature of the dielectric function in solids.
  • A question is raised about whether a transverse and longitudinal description is needed for amorphous materials like glass.
  • It is noted that in isotropic materials, the dielectric constant can become a tensor when considering q dependence, which complicates the situation.
  • A participant questions whether the distinction is only relevant for waves incident on a surface, suggesting that in an infinite isotropic medium, directionality may not matter.
  • Another participant clarifies that the distinction is still relevant in bulk matter, as surfaces are not isotropic.
  • One participant expresses difficulty in understanding why light would experience different refractive indices in an infinite isotropic medium.
  • A later reply asserts that in an isotropic medium, light does not see different refractive indices based on direction, but introduces the concept of circular dichroism as an exception where different polarizations experience different indices.
  • It is mentioned that the longitudinal dielectric constant is important for phenomena like shielding of Coulomb potential and plasmons, rather than for the propagation of light itself.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a mix of understanding and confusion regarding the relevance of longitudinal and transverse refractive indices, particularly in isotropic versus anisotropic materials. There is no consensus on the necessity of these distinctions in all contexts, and some questions remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the dependence of the dielectric constant on the wave vector (q or k) and the implications for different types of materials, but the discussion does not resolve the complexities involved in these relationships.

Gobil
Messages
59
Reaction score
0
hi All,

as the title suggests, I a not so clear on the difference between the two. in particular in solids, I have been looking at various approached to calculating the refractive index. But I´m not so clear on why there is two descriptions of we have a homogeneous medium.

thnks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Have a look at:

http://siba.unipv.it/fisica/articoli/P/PhysicsUspekhi2006_49_1029.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
thanks for the article DrDu, I guess now my understanding is that we need these two descriptions because the k vector goes in a certain direction, and the dielectric function is not the same in all directions. Is this due to crystal orientations in different directions? would we need a transverse and longitudinal description for something amorphous, like glass?
 
Gobil said:
would we need a transverse and longitudinal description for something amorphous, like glass?

Yes, also in an isotropic material the dielectric constant becomes a tensor once q dependence is taken into account. The free electron gas you are especially interested in is an example.
Note that the need to make epsilon dependent on q (or k) results partially from the convention in optics to take mu=1. Compare especially sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the link I gave you.
 
DrDu said:
Yes, also in an isotropic material the dielectric constant becomes a tensor once q dependence is taken into account. The free electron gas you are especially interested in is an example.
Note that the need to make epsilon dependent on q (or k) results partially from the convention in optics to take mu=1. Compare especially sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the link I gave you.


but in an isotropic material with mu = 1 do we also need this description?

also, is this only valid for waves incident on a surface? i.e. we are going from vacuum to some material, otherwise, if we are in a infinite isotropic homogeneous medium, the direction of the k vector does not matter at all, right?
 
No, you will also need this description in bulk matter ( a surface is not isotropic, is it?).
Almost all of your questions are better answered in that article than I can do it.
 
I´m sorry, physically I just don't get it. In an infinite isotropic, homogeneous medium, why does the light see a different refractive index depending on what direction it is propagating??
 
Indeed in an isotropic medium, light doesn't see a different refractive index depending on direction.
However it is possible that there are waves with the same frequency but different wavelength present. The most well known effect of this kind is, as I mentioned already, circular dichroism, where left and right circularly polarized light have different indices of refraction.

On the other hand, the distinction between longitudinal and transversal dielectric constant is not so much a difference of different kinds of light: As light is transversally polarized, its propagation depends only on the transversal dielectric constant. The longitudinal dielectric constant is more important in the description of the shielding of Coulomb potential or the description of plasmons.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
3K