EM Theory: Refractive index of water

samreen
Messages
24
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement




Problem: Sea water has k = 80 in the low frequency limit. Yet its refractive index is around 1.34. Explain the discrepancy



Homework Equations



For a non magnetic dielectric medium, the absolute refractive index in the low frequency range, is given by : n = √k where k = Є/ Єo is the dielectric constant of the medium. Є and Єo are the permittivities of the medium and free space, respectively.




The Attempt at a Solution



No idea. Does it have anything to do with the fact that water shows a wide variety of behaviour in various frequency ranges?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Note: this relation n \simeq \sqrt{K_{\epsilon}} (Maxwell Relation) only holds for simple gases (air, Helium, Hydrogen).

For water, this relation doesn't work well because K_{\epsilon} and then n are actually frequency-dependent, known as 'dispersion'.
You can consult to your Optics book for the dispersion eqn. I only summarize dispersion eqn, as:

n^2(\omega) = 1 + A (\frac{1}{\omega^2_0 - \omega^2}), A is constant value.


you see, if the frequency (\omega)is low (as your question) than resonance \omega_0, the refractive index will be greater than 1. so in case for sea water, n is about 1.34
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top