How Is the Sellmeier Equation Derived from Complex Dielectric Constants?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lillemy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derive
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving the Sellmeier equation from the complex dielectric constant equation, specifically in the context of materials like gases or glasses with negligible absorption. Participants are exploring the relationship between the variables involved and the implications of certain assumptions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to simplify the complex dielectric constant equation by setting the absorption term to zero and substituting variables, leading to a question about an unexpected term in their result. Other participants engage by questioning the presence of this term and its implications for the constant A in the Sellmeier equation.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively discussing the derivation process, with some providing clarifications regarding the role of specific terms in the equations. There is a recognition that the term in question is accounted for in the constant A, indicating a productive exchange of ideas.

Contextual Notes

The discussion is framed within the constraints of deriving a specific equation while adhering to the assumption of negligible absorption, which is critical to the problem context.

lillemy
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Derive the Sellmeier equation
[itex]n^{2} = 1 + \frac{A\lambda^{2}_{vac}}{\lambda^{2}_{vac}-\lambda^{2}_{0,vac}}[/itex]
from
[itex](n+i\kappa)^{2}= 1 + \frac{\omega^{2}_{p}}{\omega^{2}_{0}-<br /> i\omega\gamma - \omega^{2}}[/itex]

for a gas or glass with negligible absorption (i.e. [itex]\gamma[/itex] ≈ 0, valid far
from resonance [itex]\omega_{0}[/itex], where [itex]\lambda_{0,vac}[/itex]
corresponds to frequency [itex]\omega_{0}[/itex] and A is a constant.


Homework Equations


[itex]\omega = \frac{2\pi c}{\lambda_{vac}}[/itex]

[itex]\omega^{2}_{p}= \frac{Nq^{2}_{e}}{\epsilon_{0}m_{e}}[/itex]



The Attempt at a Solution



Since the absorption is negligible, [itex]\gamma = 0[/itex] we can drop the imaginary part , and I will substitute directly for [itex]\omega[/itex] and [itex]\omega_{p}[/itex] from the above equations. It gives this result:

[itex]1+ \frac{\lambda^{2}_{vac}\lambda^{2}_{0,vac}\frac{Nq^{2}_{e}}{4\pi^{2}c^{2}\epsilon_{0}m_{e}}}{\lambda^{2}_{vac}-\lambda^{2}_{0,vac}}[/itex]

i.e. everything is ok expect that i have on extra of [itex]\lambda^{2}_{0,vac}[/itex] in the numerator. What have I done wrong? Very thankful for all help:)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I know the thread is 3 years old but any idea on this question? Have a similar problem, appreciate any help
 
lillemy said:
[itex]1+ \frac{\lambda^{2}_{vac}\lambda^{2}_{0,vac}\frac{Nq^{2}_{e}}{4\pi^{2}c^{2}\epsilon_{0}m_{e}}}{\lambda^{2}_{vac}-\lambda^{2}_{0,vac}}[/itex]

i.e. everything is ok expect that i have on extra of [itex]\lambda^{2}_{0,vac}[/itex] in the numerator. What have I done wrong? Very thankful for all help:)
Nothing is wrong. That "extra" [itex]\lambda^{2}_{0,vac}[/itex] is included into the constant A.
 
That's what I was thinking but wasn't sure since that term appeared elsewhere in the formula, thanks for your help!
 

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K