Kramers-Kronig: Solving for Dielectric Permeability E'(w)

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Spy2008
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Kramers-Kronig relations, specifically regarding the dielectric permeability E'(ω) and its imaginary counterpart E''(ω). The formula presented from Landau-Lifshitz, specifically equation 82.9, introduces a term 2 composed of 4πσ/ω, which indicates a pole at zero frequency in conductors. A key question arises about the necessity of the -1 factor in the integral for E''(ω), as it appears to be omitted in equation 82.7. Participants suggest that the -1 may improve convergence of the integral, particularly at certain frequencies, and seek references or literature to substantiate the physical implications of this factor.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Kramers-Kronig relations
  • Familiarity with dielectric permeability concepts
  • Knowledge of complex analysis and integral convergence
  • Basic principles of electromagnetic theory
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the mathematical foundations of Kramers-Kronig relations
  • Study the physical significance of dielectric permeability in conductors
  • Explore advanced topics in complex analysis related to integral convergence
  • Review literature on the implications of the -1 factor in dielectric models
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, electrical engineers, and students studying electromagnetic theory, particularly those interested in the mathematical and physical aspects of dielectric materials and their properties.

Spy2008
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
In formula Kramers-Kronig 82,9 Landau - Lifgarbages page 390 volume 8 for dielectric permeability have added 2 composed 4*pisigma/W (omega) which is responsible for a pole in zero in a conductor. A question: the First part of imaginary dielectric permeability E’’(w)=-1/pi*∱E’(w’)/(w’-w) dw’ where E-dielectric permeability should remain constant, but in it was gone-1 why, and hardly above in the formula 82,7 for dielectric was not gone-1?
The question of the teacher in that that it was not necessary but if who can prove that it influences something or something depends on it will be plus:). Using any materials. Here were, what variants:
" On the mathematician the conclusion assumes to neglect integral on infinite to a floor of a circle for what from function subtract its value on infinity, and it just (see at the same LL) 1. " On other that due to-1 integral to converge better and it is not necessary to look what frequency, here, if it is possible to become more in detail at which frequencies noticeably participation-1
If it is possible write the variants as can influence-1 physically, mathematical, for example if all таки with-1 to converge better that it is possible to paint if not difficultly or to give the reference to the literature where is painted, simply the teacher should to something be shown, that-1 is though any sense, instead of in words. In advance ALL THANKS.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Just so you know, your post here is very difficult to understand. I'm guessing that you used a translator of some kind, which means that you may use the same one reading the responses on here. That will make it very tough to communicate effectively on both sides.

Zz.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Help needed with derivation: solving a complex double integral
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 244)
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K