How Is the Sellmeier Equation Derived from Complex Dielectric Constants?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lillemy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derive
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
3 replies · 12K views
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!