Permeability, permittivity and susceptibility

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of permeability, permittivity, and susceptibility in the context of electromagnetism. Participants explore their definitions, relationships, and implications in physics, particularly in relation to the speed of light and material responses to electric and magnetic fields.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the relationships between permittivity (\(\epsilon\)), permeability (\(\mu\)), and susceptibility (\(\chi\)), citing different sources like Feynman and Griffiths.
  • Another participant clarifies that permittivity is related to electric fields while permeability pertains to magnetic fields, noting that they do not share the same susceptibility.
  • A participant reflects on the beauty of the relationship between the speed of light (\(c\)) and the fundamental constants of permittivity and permeability, emphasizing its significance in physics.
  • Another participant acknowledges a newfound understanding of the distinction between permeability and permittivity, while still seeking clarity on their meanings.
  • A participant mentions a technical issue with displaying TeX in their post, seeking assistance from others.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the distinction between permeability and permittivity, but there remains uncertainty regarding their specific definitions and relationships, particularly in the context of susceptibility and the speed of light.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express confusion over the definitions and relationships of the concepts discussed, indicating a need for further clarification on how these quantities interact in different contexts.

luitzen
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
I got a little confused of these three things by my teacher and Griffiths.

I am acquaintanced with Feynman's lectures on physics and what I get from there is \epsilon=\epsilon_{r}\epsilon_{0} = \left(1+\chi\right)\epsilon_{0}

For some reason Griffiths, as well as my teacher, likes to use \mu_{0}, where \mu_{0} = \dfrac{1}{\epsilon_{0}c^{2}}.

Now I'd assume \mu=\dfrac{1}{\epsilon c^{2}} and thus \mu=\dfrac{1}{\epsilon_{r}\epsilon_{0}c^{2}} = \dfrac{1}{\epsilon_{r}}\mu_{0}=\left(1+\chi\right)^{-1}\mu_{0}

But apparently (Wikipedia, Griffiths, etc.) \mu=\left(1+\chi\right)\mu_{0}

So what should it be?

And why do they use \mu at all? It seem rather inconvenient to me, since they keep writing stuff like \sqrt{\dfrac{1}{\epsilon_{0}\mu_{0}}} instead of c.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
\mu and \epsilon are different things. Permittivity is related to the material response to an applied electric field. Permeability is related to the material response to a magnetic field. They do not share the same susceptibility and only in free space can you assume that the product of the two is equal to c^-2.
 
Ok, thank you very much.

Then I think I'm going to stick with \mu for the test and find out what it exactly means later.
 
Don't you find it beautiful that c is defined as the reciprocal of the square root of the product of two truly fundamental constants of nature?

That identity tells you what c is - it's the speed at which an electromagnetic wave can propagate through free space and it is governed only by the electrical permittivity and the magnetic permeability of free space.

I find it jaw dropping.
 
I always saw the speed of light as something that was just known and I thought that permeability was used because it showed up often with permittivity and physicists are lazy. Now I realize that permeability and permittivity are something entirely different. That doesn't mean I now understand what it means, but it's at least a start.

I just started reading a book "Space, time and relativity" by Engel Roza and now I also know that the speed of light was first determined, by Maxwell, using \mu_{0} and \epsilon_{0}

PS does anyone know why my TeX isn't displayed correctly in my first post? I can't find a mistake, but maybe someone else can.
PPS adding spaces did miracles.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
972
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
943
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K