Have i got the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PERMITTIVITY AND PERMEABILITY Right?

Click For Summary
Permittivity and permeability are fundamental properties of materials that describe their response to electric and magnetic fields, respectively. Permittivity indicates a medium's resistance to the formation of an electric field, while permeability reflects its ability to support the creation of a magnetic field. The confusion arises from their appearance in equations like the Helmholtz equation, where both properties are involved in defining wave behavior in electromagnetic fields. Historical interpretations of electromagnetic components have contributed to misunderstandings, but modern physics clarifies their interrelation through Maxwell's equations. Understanding these concepts is crucial for accurately analyzing electromagnetic phenomena in various media.
BINNOY.S.P
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi,
Just wanted to know the difference between permittivity and permeability.

As far as I researched, permittivity is resistance to the creation of electric field and permeability is like an allowance of a medium to the creation of a magnetic field. Is it right?

I get confused because in some of the equations, both pemittivity and permeability occur in the numerator . That boggles me.

Like
2E = -ω2.μ.ε.E

it should be E bar above. But i don't know how to but a bar. The example is known as Helmhotz equation something.

BINNOY
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The trouble is caused by historical confusion about the physical meaning of the em. field componentents in matter. Nowadays, having relativity at hand, we know that \vec{E} and \vec{B} as well as \vec{D} and [/itex]\vec{H}[/itex] belong together, while traditionally people thought one should associate \vec{E} and [/itex]\vec{H}[/itex]. That's why you define the permitivity \epsilon and permeability \mu (for a homogeneous isotropic medium and working in Heaviside-Lorentz units, i.e., \epsilon and [/itex]\mu[/itex] are dimensionless constants and unity in a vacuum) for a medium at rest as
\vec{D}=\epsilon \vec{E}, \quad \vec{H}=\frac{1}{\mu} \vec{B}.
Now the homogeneous Maxwell equations read
\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{E} + \frac{1}{c} \partial_t \vec{B}=0, \quad \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{B}=0,
and the inhomogeneous ones
\vec{\nabla} \times \vec{H} -\frac{1}{c} \partial_t \vec{D}=\frac{1}{c} \vec{j}, \quad \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{D}=\rho,
where \vec{j} and \vec{\rho} are the free electric current and charge densities, i.e., the currents and charges added to the ones constituting the medium.

If you now insert the consititutive relations, you can derive the wave equations for \vec{E} and [/itex]\vec{B}[/itex], and then you'll get the Helmholtz equation when using the Fourier ansatz
\vec{E}(t,\vec{x})=\tilde{\vec{E}}(\vec{x}) \exp(-\mathrm{i} \omega t)
and analogous for all the other field quantities as well. Note that (neglecting spatial dispersion) the permitivity and permeablity are functions of \omega.
 
Topic about reference frames, center of rotation, postion of origin etc Comoving ref. frame is frame that is attached to moving object, does that mean, in that frame translation and rotation of object is zero, because origin and axes(x,y,z) are fixed to object? Is it same if you place origin of frame at object center of mass or at object tail? What type of comoving frame exist? What is lab frame? If we talk about center of rotation do we always need to specified from what frame we observe?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
39K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K