Question on a simple caluclation of electric susceptibility

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the calculation of electric susceptibility in dielectrics, specifically through the driven oscillation of an electric dipole described by the equation m\ddot{x}+\gamma \dot{x}+kx=-eE. The resistive force, interpreted as radiation reaction, is discussed in relation to the Abraham–Lorentz formula, which is proportional to the time derivative of acceleration. The resistive force proportional to velocity is a simplification for mathematical convenience rather than a physically realistic model. The conversation also references the Drude model of conductivity, highlighting the distinction between damping forces due to radiation and those arising from interactions with other particles.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electric susceptibility in dielectrics
  • Familiarity with the Abraham–Lorentz formula
  • Knowledge of the Drude model of conductivity
  • Basic principles of oscillatory motion and damping forces
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation and applications of the Abraham–Lorentz formula
  • Explore the implications of the Drude model in solid-state physics
  • Investigate the role of radiation reaction in classical electrodynamics
  • Learn about advanced models of electric susceptibility beyond simple oscillatory models
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, electrical engineers, and students studying electromagnetism and material science, particularly those interested in the behavior of dielectrics and the underlying principles of electric susceptibility.

ShayanJ
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Messages
2,802
Reaction score
605
The simplest model for calculating electric susceptibility of dielectrics,is a driven oscillation of an electric dipole with a resistive force proportional to its velocity.Its equation is like below:
m\ddot{x}+\gamma \dot{x}+kx=-eE
We know that the restoring force is the same force binding the electron to its nucleus and the driving force is due to an external field.Now,for a bound charge,the only interpretation of the resistive force can be the radiation reaction due to the electron's radiation because of its acceleration.My question is this:
The radiation reaction is given(classically) by the Abraham–Lorentz formula which says its proportional to the time derivative of the acceleration.How can such a force be approximated by a term proportional to velocity?
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The resistive force proportional to v is just a parametrization used to make the equations soluble in a much oversimplified model. Although it is not physically realistic, it does give a mathematically reasonable description of the complex structure.
 
Now,for a bound charge,the only interpretation of the resistive force can be the radiation reaction due to the electron's radiation because of its acceleration.
That is one source of damping, and Lorentz and Planck used it that way. But proper description of action of molecule's own field would really require more than by viscous force term. Viscous term is more appropriate for friction due to other particles/fields. For example, Einstein in his paper on Quantum theory of radiation considers neutral molecule moving in a system of molecules and EM radiation in equilibrium state. The force molecule feels is divided into average damping force (given by viscous term ##-\gamma \mathbf v##) and random fluctuating force (describable by fluctuating E(t) in your equation). So the term ##-\gamma \mathbf v## may be regarded as approximate description of action of other bodies, not just due to "radiation reaction" of the molecule's own field. Similarly, in the Drude model of conductivity of metals, this term is due to randomization of motion after collision of the electron with some scatterer in the metal.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
13K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K