Dispersion vs. time-dependence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Niles
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dispersion
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between time-invariance of permittivity (ε) and its dispersion characteristics in the context of Maxwell's Equations. The first book assumes ε is constant over time, while the second book introduces time-invariance as a separate condition. The key point is that if ε is time-invariant, it cannot exhibit frequency-dependent behavior, which is characteristic of dispersion. The Kramers-Kronig relations indicate that a lossless, dispersionless permittivity must remain constant across frequencies. Thus, time-invariance and lack of dispersion are effectively equivalent in this context.
Niles
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
0
Hi

I have two books about electrodynamics that solve Maxwell's Equations. The first one uses the assumptions

1) Linear regime (i.e. not strong fields)
2) Isotropic medium (so disregard tensor nature of ε)
3) Transparent medium (i.e. a real ε)
4) No dispersion of ε

In the second book, they use (1)-(3) as well, but (4) is now stated as

4) ε is time-invariant

Now, my questions is: How can time-invariance of ε be the same as ε not having dispersion? Because if ε is constant in time, then Fourier-transforming it will give me a delta-function. So ε *will* depend on ω. What is wrong with my reasoning so far?

Thanks for any help.Niles.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You do not need to assume these assumptions for Maxwell's equations (though it does greatly simplify the solving of the equations) so I don't think you need to assume that the two are the same. I would say that real \epsilon and dispersionless \epsilon are equivalent. The real and imaginary parts of the permittivity are related by a Hilbert transform called the Kramers-Kronig relation. If you have loss (imaginary part) this requires that the real part be frequency dependent (dispersion). So a dispersionless permittivity has to be lossless.

But I guess you can say they are equivalent because if you had dispersion and you had the situation where you sent a wave of 1MHz and then say 25 MHz then you would see that the \epsilon must change according to the frequency at hand (of course since we are doing time limited pulses there will be a bandwidth of frequencies in fact). So if you took the Fourier Transform you would get two pulses that would be associated with the two frequencies that you used. So if the permittivity does not change in time, then it can't change in response to a changing frequency in the incident waves and thus if you would find that for all frequencies that the epsilon would be constant. I guess you have to think of the Fourier Transform being done with respect to the behavior of the epsilon in time with respect to the frequency of the waves.
 
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...
Back
Top