Meaning of a complex polarizability?

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Andreas
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Complex
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of complex polarizability in materials, particularly its physical implications when an electric field is applied. Participants explore the relationship between polarizability, induced dipole moments, and the phase difference between these quantities.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking, Exploratory

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand the physical meaning of complex polarizability and its relation to damping effects. Others suggest that a complex polarizability indicates a phase difference between the induced dipole moment and the electric field. Some participants question the definitions and assumptions related to the real and imaginary components of polarizability.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights into the nature of complex polarizability and its implications in oscillating electric fields. There is an ongoing exploration of the mathematical relationships and physical interpretations, with no explicit consensus reached yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific sections from Griffith's Introduction to Electrodynamics to support their points, indicating a reliance on established texts for clarification. There are mentions of potential misunderstandings regarding mathematical expressions and their interpretations.

_Andreas
Messages
141
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



As I understand it, the polarizability of a material is a measure of the tendency of the material to polarize when an electric field is applied across it. However, the polarizability can be both purely real and complex, and I'm not sure what a complex polarizability means physically. Does the imaginary part have something to do with some kind of damping, perhaps? Anyone who knows? Google didn't help me very much.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I had a thought. Since p=aE, where p is the induced dipole moment and a is the polarizability, a complex polarizability means that p is out of phase with E. In other words, there's a slight time delay between the application of the electric field and the response to it, the induced dipole moment. Am I on the right track?
 
Last edited:
good question.

I know that imaginary permitivity has to do with conductivity.
 
First off, it's important to note that polarizability is a property of individual atoms or molecules and both the electric field \mathbf{E} and the atom's/molecule's dipole moment \mathbf{p} must be real valued quantities.

So, for a complex polarizability \tilde{\alpha} to make any sense at all you would need to first define the electric field and dipole moments to be the real part of some complex quantities \mathbf{\tilde{E}} and \mathbf{\tilde{p}}:

\mathbf{E}=\text{Re}[\mathbf{\tilde{E}}], \, \; \mathbf{p}=\text{Re}[\mathbf{\tilde{p}}]

And then you would have

\mathbf{\tilde{p}}=\tilde{\alpha}\mathbf{\tilde{E}}

The only direct conclusion you can draw from this is that the electric field is out of phase with induced dipole moment.

Physically, this scenario can occur when an atom is placed in an oscillating electric field (as in the case of an EM-wave incident on an atom) and there is some sort of velocity dependent damping of its electron(s) (the radiation reaction force produces a similar damping proportional to \mathbf{\ddot{v}}). See for example Griffith's Introduction to Electrodynamics 3rd ed. section 9.4.3.

When there are many atoms//molecules present (such as in any bulk material) that have at least one electron each that is to a large extent free to move about (such as in a conductor) this leads to a complex susceptibility, which results in attenuation/absorption of an incident EM-wave.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for a very helpful reply, gabbagabbahey.

gabbagabbahey said:
See for example Griffith's Introduction to Electrodynamics 3rd ed. section 9.4.3.

Found this book online. Great resource. However, in the section you mention (below equation 9.158), Griffith states that "the angle arctan(some argument) (...) rises to \pi when \omega is much greater than \omega_0". It makes sense that p and E can be \pi radians out of phase, but the limit as arctan(x) goes to infinity (plus or minus) is \pi/2 (again, plus or minus) as far as I know.
 
Although Griffith's never explicitly says so in his text (IIRC), when he uses \tan^{-1} to represent the inverse tangent, he is using the multivalued version; not \arctan which always returns a value between \frac{-\pi}{2} and \frac{\pi}{2}.

In other words, when he gives an equation of the form a=\tan^{-1}(b) he means that b=\tan(a) not a=\arctan(b)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K