Optics: Anomalous Dispersion & Absorption Explained

  • Thread starter Thread starter Niles
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dispersion Optics
AI Thread Summary
Anomalous dispersion occurs when dn/dω is less than zero, indicating strong absorption due to damping, which is explained by the Kramers-Kronig relations linking dispersion and absorption peaks. The discussion also addresses a potential misunderstanding regarding the relationship between the complex index of refraction and the complex wavevector. It clarifies that the formula k = n*ω/c remains valid, emphasizing that the index of refraction is unitless while the wavevector has units of inverse length. This distinction highlights an error in equating n² with k. Understanding these concepts is crucial for deeper insights into optics and wave behavior in materials.
Niles
Messages
1,834
Reaction score
0
Hi

I am reading about dispersion and index of refraction, and I have encountered the term "anomalous dispersion". This is where dn/dω<0, and where the absorption is strongest because of damping. Now, I can't seem to connect those two dots (and my book does not explain it nor Wiki): Why does dn/dω<0 imply strong absorption and vice versa?
 
Science news on Phys.org
Briefly- it's the Kramers-Kronig relations. Anamolous dispersion (and high dispersion generally) occurs in the same spectral region as absorption peaks.
 
Thanks.

I have another question related to optics, so I will ask it here rather than creating a new thread. When we solve Maxwells equations inside a conductor, we eventually get the Helmholtz equation, where the wavevector k is complex.

In order to find the index of refraction, my teacher told me that n2=k, where n is the complex index of refraction and k is the complex wavevector. Did he make an error? I really have to idea where that formula comes from.
 
Niles said:
In order to find the index of refraction, my teacher told me that n2=k, where n is the complex index of refraction and k is the complex wavevector. Did he make an error? I really have to idea where that formula comes from.

Sounds like a mistake to me--the quickest way to see this is to note that n is unitless while k has units of inverse length. If you're treating n as the complex index of refraction, and k as the complex wavevector, then the formula k = n*omega/c still holds.
 
Back
Top