The complex refractive index vs. permittivity

[Plant_Boy]

I have a process of thought and would like to run past some other minds to point out if I am incorrect in my thinking.

I am looking into conductivity in high frequencies and a lot of papers I am looking up list a complex refractive index. They list something as in n_Ag = 0.1453 + j11.3587. (Excuse the imaginary symbol, j, I come from an electrical engineering background.)

Various sources inform that n = \sqrt {ε_r}. [Link]

Also that ε = ε' - jε'' = ε_1 - j \frac {σ}{ω} [Electromagnetics for Engineers; Fawwaz T Ulaby]

We can get from [Wikipedia.org] that:

ε = ε_1 + jε_2 = (n + j κ)^2 = n^2 + j 2nκ - κ^2
ε_1 = n - κ^2; ε_2 = 2nκ
​

*Possible contradiction in Wikipedia vs. Ulaby*

Ulaby states - ε = ε' - jε''
Wikipedia states - ε = ε_1 + jε_2
​

So, does:

2nκ = \frac {σ}{ω}
​

Where:

n - real part refractive index
κ - Complex part refractive index
σ - conductivity
ω - angular frequency
​

I am kind of running this by so that someone can say "Yup" but also, I think, writing it down helps me to understand a little better. Also, this is the first time of me using LaTeX and wanted to keep trying it out.

 

[DrDu]

I don't know why Ulaby uses a minus sign in the definition of epsilon''. Must be an engineering convention.

 

[dlgoff]

So, does:
2nκ=σ/ω

Isn't that just an approximation?

I don't know why Ulaby uses a minus sign in the definition of epsilon''. Must be an engineering convention.

If you mean this equation, I believe it's a dash; not a negative sign.

Ulaby states - ε=ε′−jε″ ε = ε' - jε''

 

[Plant_Boy]

It was a proof from Maxwell's Equations

\nabla \times H(t)= J(t) + jωεE(t)
J(t) = σE(t)
​

Substitute

\nabla \times H(t) = (σ + jωε) E(t)
\nabla \times H(t) = jω (ε + \frac {σ}{jω}) E(t)
\nabla \times H(t) = jω (ε - j \frac {σ}{ω}) E(t)
\nabla \times H(t) = jω (ε' - j ε'') E(t)
​

Where:

H(t) - Time Varying Magnetic Field with direction (Still getting used to the coding)<br /> E(t) - Time Varying Electric Field with direction<br /> J(t) - Current Density<br /> σ - Conductance<br /> ω - Angular Frequency (2π f)<br /> ε - Permittivity​

<br /> <br /> Though I could well be wrong in my assumptions as this provides a relationship between Time Varying (TV) Magnetic fields and TV Electric fields...

 

[Plant_Boy]

I suppose the question would then be, is the permittivity gained through complex refractive index similar to that of the permittivity relating Magnetic Fields and Electric fields?

 

[DrDu]

It certainly is, but usually, we use it in other frequency regions. There are also different conventions. E.g. in optics it is usual to set B=H. All potential magnetic effects are included in a dependence of the dielectric function on the wavevector, i.e. $\epsilon(\mathbf{k},\omega)$.

 

[Plant_Boy]

Previously I had given the proof:

\varepsilon - j \frac{\sigma}{\omega} = n^2 - K^2 + j2nK
​

Should it be:

\varepsilon_r = n^2 - K^2 + j2nK
​

And so:

\varepsilon_0 \varepsilon_r = \varepsilon_0 \varepsilon_r - j \frac{\sigma}{\omega}
\varepsilon_r = \varepsilon_r - j\frac{\sigma}{\omega \varepsilon_0}
​

Therefore:

\varepsilon_r - j \frac{\sigma}{\omega \varepsilon_0} = n^2 - K^2 + j2nK
​

Does this sound correct?