Theoretical explanation for Dispersion? (Sellmeier)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the theoretical explanation for dispersion in materials, specifically examining the Sellmeier equation and its empirical nature. Participants explore various models of dispersion, including the Drude-Lorentz model, and the relationship between these models and the Sellmeier equation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the Sellmeier equation as a highly accurate formula for dispersion but questions its theoretical foundation.
  • Another participant argues that the Sellmeier equation is primarily empirical and lacks a physical basis, suggesting that other expressions like Cauchy’s equation are similarly empirical.
  • A participant proposes the Drude-Lorentz model as a theoretically grounded alternative to the Sellmeier equation, noting its simplicity and effectiveness across various materials.
  • Further, a participant claims that the Sellmeier equation can be derived from the classical harmonic oscillator model associated with the Drude-Lorentz framework, indicating a connection between the two models.
  • Some participants express frustration over the lack of coverage on this topic in common resources like Wikipedia, seeking more comprehensive textbooks on the subject.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the empirical nature of the Sellmeier equation and its theoretical underpinnings. While some advocate for the Drude-Lorentz model as a more robust theoretical framework, others maintain that the Sellmeier equation is useful despite its empirical origins. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best model for explaining dispersion.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the Sellmeier equation may not be applicable to all materials, particularly those with significant extinction coefficients. There is also mention of the need for a summation over various contributions to the complex dielectric function, indicating that the discussion is limited by the complexity of the subject matter.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying optics, materials science, or theoretical physics, particularly in relation to dispersion phenomena and the mathematical models used to describe them.

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

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 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · 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
2K