Phase difference between polarization and field?

Mixer
Messages
38
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Atomic losses can be described in the Lorentz model by adding into the equation of motion a damping term proportional to velocity. The equation of motion is then\partial ^2x(t) / \partial t^2 + \gamma \partial x(t) / \partial t + \omega_o^2 x(t) = qE/m

Consider the optical field E(t) = E_o e^{-i\omega t} Solve the equation of motion by using a trial and calculate the polarization of the material. What is the phase difference between the polarization and the field for very large and very small frequencies and on resonance? Calculate also the real and imaginary parts of the index of refraction by assuming that the material is rare (low density). Show that the imaginary part leads to the attenuation of the field as a function of distance (absorption).

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution



My trial was x(t) = x_0 e^{-i\omega t}

I was able to solve everything but calculating phase difference is the part I have not been able to do. How is it done? Expression for polarization I got is:

p(t) = {E(t)(q^2 / m) N} /( \omega _0 ^2 - \omega ^2 - i \omega \gamma )
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I was able to find out (it was written somewhere) that on resonance the phase difference is 90° But the material did not explain why it is so. What on Earth should I do?

Ok, I know that when \omega ≈ \omega_0 the polarization is imaginary.But how does that help me (how do I regognize that phase difference is 90°?) ?
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top