Why does refractivity not depend on density; Lorentz-Lorenz

  • Thread starter Thread starter Soren
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Density
AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies that the Lorentz-Lorenz formula indicates that specific refractivity (r) does not depend on density, even though density (ρ) is related to the number of molecules (N). The formula shows that while ρ appears on both sides, it does not affect the specific refractivity value. The refractive index (n) itself is not directly stated to be independent of density in the text referenced. The key takeaway is that specific refractivity is a different concept from the refractive index. Understanding this distinction is crucial for interpreting the relationship between refractivity and density correctly.
Soren
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
I must be stupid but my textbook states that the refractive index of a media does not depend on the density according to the Lorentz-Lorenz formula (LL)
(\frac{n^2-1}{n^2+2}) = \frac{4\pi Ne^2}{ 3m} \frac{1}{\omega_0^2 \omega^2}
Specifically it (Physical Optics, Akhmanov Nikitin pp.367) says: ".. since ρ ~ N, it follows from (LL formula) that the quantity
r =(\frac{n^2-1}{n^2+2}) \frac{1}{\rho}
should not depend on density"
Are they simply telling me that ρ appears on both sides of the equation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
They don't say that the index of refraction does not depend on density. At least not in the quote you give.
That "r" is not the index of refraction.
 
no you are right, r is called the specific refractivity of the substance. I suppose that is what they are trying to tell me, that specific refractivity (r) does not depend on density, whereas the refractive index of a substance does.
 
Last edited:
Susskind (in The Theoretical Minimum, volume 1, pages 203-205) writes the Lagrangian for the magnetic field as ##L=\frac m 2(\dot x^2+\dot y^2 + \dot z^2)+ \frac e c (\dot x A_x +\dot y A_y +\dot z A_z)## and then calculates ##\dot p_x =ma_x + \frac e c \frac d {dt} A_x=ma_x + \frac e c(\frac {\partial A_x} {\partial x}\dot x + \frac {\partial A_x} {\partial y}\dot y + \frac {\partial A_x} {\partial z}\dot z)##. I have problems with the last step. I might have written ##\frac {dA_x} {dt}...
Thread 'Griffith, Electrodynamics, 4th Edition, Example 4.8. (Second part)'
I am reading the Griffith, Electrodynamics book, 4th edition, Example 4.8. I want to understand some issues more correctly. It's a little bit difficult to understand now. > Example 4.8. Suppose the entire region below the plane ##z=0## in Fig. 4.28 is filled with uniform linear dielectric material of susceptibility ##\chi_e##. Calculate the force on a point charge ##q## situated a distance ##d## above the origin. In the page 196, in the first paragraph, the author argues as follows ...
Back
Top