Optics: refractive index and dielectric constant

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion regarding the refractive index of water and its relationship with the dielectric constant. The refractive index is calculated using the equation n=sqrt(epsilon*mu), where for water, the dielectric constant is 80, leading to a theoretical refractive index of 8.94, which contradicts the experimentally measured value of 1.33. The discrepancy arises because the dielectric constant of water is frequency-dependent; it is 80 for static fields but significantly lower (around 1.78) for optical frequencies. Participants also discuss the differences in dielectric behavior between liquids and solids, particularly how molecular movements affect permittivity in liquids. Additionally, there are inquiries about finding dielectric constants for silica and the refractive index of SF6 gas.
ivas
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Dear all,
i am a bit confused with a very simple equation connecting refractive index of water and its dielectric constant for visible range of wavelengths and room temperature.

i hope, You can help me

as we know, the refractive index 'n' can be defined as

n=sqrt(epsilon*mu), (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index)

where 'epsilon' is material's dielectric constant (or material's relative permittivity) and 'mu' is its relative permeability.

for water we have:
mu is almost 1, epsilon=80 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dielectric_constant)

it means that (using the equation above) the refractive index of water is n=sqrt(80)=8.94, but the measured refractive index of water at room temperature is about 1.33 (http://www.ps.missouri.edu/rickspage/refract/refraction.html, http://www.cargille.com/certwater.shtml) .

Thus, refractive index computed from the equation is not the same and not near to its experimental quantity.

Where is my fault?
Thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
The dielectric constant depends strongly on the frequency of the applied field. While the dielectric constant of water is 80 for a static field, it is much lower for optical frequencies (around 1.78, according to one reference I found).
 
Doc Al said:
The dielectric constant depends strongly on the frequency of the applied field. While the dielectric constant of water is 80 for a static field, it is much lower for optical frequencies (around 1.78, according to one reference I found).

Thanks,
i agree, :rolleyes:
 
For crystals, the dielectric constant does generally not change too much with measurement frequency (if temperatrue is not high), and thus the equation still gets along with the low frequency values of permittivity. But for liquids, molecular movements (or dipole reorientation) have a dominant (say to be excess) contribution to static permittivity. In this case, only the high frequency value of permittivity follows the equation.
 
Last edited:
Doc Al said:
The dielectric constant depends strongly on the frequency of the applied field. While the dielectric constant of water is 80 for a static field, it is much lower for optical frequencies (around 1.78, according to one reference I found).

I was wondering if you could give me a link to that reference.

I am also looking for values for the dielectric constant for water and silica (SiO2) in the visible. Any suggestions where I could find them?

Lastly, a little aside...I am also struggling to find the refractive index of SF6 gas at std T and P, or at RT (~20C-30C), any suggestions?

Thank you in advance
 
Thread 'Griffith, Electrodynamics, 4th Edition, Example 4.8. (Second part)'
I am reading the Griffith, Electrodynamics book, 4th edition, Example 4.8. I want to understand some issues more correctly. It's a little bit difficult to understand now. > Example 4.8. Suppose the entire region below the plane ##z=0## in Fig. 4.28 is filled with uniform linear dielectric material of susceptibility ##\chi_e##. Calculate the force on a point charge ##q## situated a distance ##d## above the origin. In the page 196, in the first paragraph, the author argues as follows ...
Thread 'Inducing EMF Through a Coil: Understanding Flux'
Thank you for reading my post. I can understand why a change in magnetic flux through a conducting surface would induce an emf, but how does this work when inducing an emf through a coil? How does the flux through the empty space between the wires have an effect on the electrons in the wire itself? In the image below is a coil with a magnetic field going through the space between the wires but not necessarily through the wires themselves. Thank you.
Back
Top