Graduate Poynting Vector in Non-Magnetic Dielectric Media

Click For Summary
Light in non-magnetic dielectric media behaves similarly to free space, with the Poynting vector defined as S = (1/μ₀)(E × B). The discussion raises questions about the Poynting vector's applicability when absorbance is present, as it affects the phase relationship between electric and magnetic fields. The focus shifts to analyzing energy transport in evanescent waves and reflected waves near lossy polariton resonances, considering the impact of refractive index and absorbance. The conversation also touches on the momentum associated with optical phonons, questioning whether they contribute to the energy transport equations. Overall, the thread explores complex interactions of light in various media and seeks clarification on theoretical frameworks.
Twigg
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
893
Reaction score
483
Hello all,

When light travels in a medium with negligible absorbance, it looks exactly like light in free space but with a different speed relative to that medium given by the refractive index. In free space, the Poynting vector is given by ##\vec{S} = \frac{1}{\mu _{0} } (\vec{E} \times \vec{B})##. For a non-magnetic medium (##\mu = 1##), I would naively expect that the Poynting vector expression would be unchanged. Is this the case? If the absorbance is not negligible, then the electric and magnetic fields are no longer in-phase. What does the Poynting vector look like then? If the base expression is unchanged, why does it still apply? If the wave is attenuated, is its Poytning vector complex (since its wavevector is complex)? Lastly, I would think that the intensity (average of the poynting vector over 1 wavelength) of an evanescent wave is 0. Is this true? Sorry for the boatload of questions. If anyone has a reference that goes over this, it may save a lot of time. My understanding is based off Ch 9 of Griffiths E&M textbook and Ch's 3 and 4 of Hecht's book.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
@Dale Sorry for the late reply. It took me a while to process that article. You definitely weren't kidding around when you said there had been some debate.

Since my original question is significantly larger in scope that I had anticipated, let me try to identify where I want to go with this. First, I would like to consider a solid, crystalline non-magnetic dielectric medium. I would like to look at reflected waves for which ##k_{z}## is complex (evanescent) at frequencies near a lossy polariton resonance, and determine how much energy they transport in the z direction averaged over a wavelength as a function of their index of refraction and absorbance. If I get that far, I would also like to do something similar for transmitted waves in an Ohmic conductor, looking at energy transport in the z-direction near surface plasmon resonances.

So, based on the kind of material considered, I'm ignoring pressure variations, fluid flow, and magnetization. Based on that, I think I can use the stress tensor given in (33) of the article Dale linked, by removing any term with a p, ##\vec{v}##, or ##\vec{M}## in it. That leaves ##\vec{g} = \epsilon_{0} \vec{E} \times \vec{B}##, which is the same as in free space. I'm a little surprised that there is no momentum associated with the optical phonons. I thought that ignoring the pressure p and fluid velocity ##\vec{v}## in equation (33) of the article would only neglect acoustic phonons and that any momentum or energy associated with optical phonons would be reflected in terms that depend only on ##\vec{P}##. Was I mistaken about that premise? Or is an additional term required for optical phonons? Or is there really no momentum associated with them?

Thanks in advance for any input.
 
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
845
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
24K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K