Theoretical explanation for Dispersion? (Sellmeier)

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Sellmeier equation, expressed as n^2(λ) = 1 + ∑(B_i λ^2 / (λ^2 - C_i)), is one of the most accurate formulas for dispersion but is primarily empirical and lacks a physical foundation. It is effective for dielectrics with a small extinction coefficient but fails for many other materials. The Drude-Lorentz model provides a theoretical framework for understanding dispersion, derived from classical harmonic oscillator principles, and offers a more robust explanation for a wider range of materials. Textbooks discussing the derivation of the complex dielectric function provide deeper insights into this topic.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the Sellmeier equation and its application in optics
  • Familiarity with the Drude-Lorentz model of dispersion
  • Knowledge of complex dielectric functions and their derivations
  • Basic principles of classical harmonic oscillators in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the derivation of the complex dielectric function from classical approaches
  • Study the Drude-Lorentz model in detail for its applications in material science
  • Explore alternative dispersion models such as Cauchy and normalized Cauchy equations
  • Read textbooks that cover the physics of dispersion and dielectric materials
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, materials scientists, and optical engineers seeking to understand the theoretical foundations of dispersion and its mathematical representations.

greswd
Messages
764
Reaction score
20
One of the most accurate formulas for dispersion is the Sellmeier equation:
n^2(\lambda) = 1 + \sum_i \frac{B_i \lambda^2}{\lambda^2 - C_i}

Dispersion does not arise with Huygen's Principle.

Is there a theoretical model that describes dispersion and explains why Sellmeier's equation takes the form that it does?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As far as I’m aware, Sellmeier’s equation is purely empirical. It’s just a handy form that fits the measured data quite well. There are many similar expressions (Cauchy, normalised Cauchy, etc.) that also don’t have any physics behind them; they’re simply cooked up to describe the measured numbers.

Sellmeier, by the way, only works well for dielectrics in which the extinction coefficient is vanishingly small. It’s a poor fit for many other materials.

If you want a dispersion model which does have a physical foundation look up the Drude-Lorentz model. The physics behind it is very simple but it works remarkably well for a wide range of materials where Sellmeier fails.

So, to answer your question: Drude-Lorentz is one example of a theoretical model that describes dispersion very successfully, despite its simplicity.
 
Daz said:
If you want a dispersion model which does have a physical foundation look up the Drude-Lorentz model.
In fact, the expression of Sellmeier equation the OP posted can be derived from the classical harmonic oscillator mode that Drude and Lorentz proposed. Following this derivation, one can arrive at the expression for the complex dielectric function of the form
$$
\epsilon(\omega) = 1 + \frac{Ne^2}{\epsilon_0 m}\frac{\omega_0^2-\omega^2 + i\gamma \omega}{(\omega_0^2-\omega^2)^2+(\gamma \omega)^2}
$$
If the frequency plotted in the Sellmeier equation's curve is far from the resonance frequency, ##\omega_0##, the above expression can be approximated as
$$
\epsilon(\omega) = 1 + \frac{Ne^2}{\epsilon_0 m}\frac{1 }{\omega_0^2-\omega^2}
$$
Changing the variable from frequency to wavelength, you will obtain the Sellmeier equation for only one term in the summation. In reality, there are many contributions (coming from the various atomic/molecular constituents of the matter) to the complex dielectric function and thus the summation over these contribution should be used.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Daz
thanks guys. this is obscure enough that wikipedia doesn't cover it.
 
greswd said:
this is obscure enough that wikipedia doesn't cover it.
Why do you seem to rely on Wikipedia? There are a couple of textbooks which discuss the issue of deriving the complex dielectric function, although through a classical approach.
 
blue_leaf77 said:
Why do you seem to rely on Wikipedia? There are a couple of textbooks which discuss the issue of deriving the complex dielectric function, although through a classical approach.
Wikipedia is a first resource. Can you recommend a textbook? thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
9K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K