about drude-lorentz



 Science > Physics > about drude-lorentz

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Science > Physics
User: "Sery"
Date: 21 Sep 2006 02:54:52 AM
Object: about drude-lorentz
Hi there,
What is the reason for the Drude-Lorentz's model stops of valid being
for intense electric fields?
Thanks, Sere
.

User: "Timo A. Nieminen"

Title: Re: about drude-lorentz 22 Sep 2006 04:28:10 AM
On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Sery wrote:

What is the reason for the Drude-Lorentz's model stops of valid being
for intense electric fields?

It assumes linearity and local response, and both will fail for
sufficiently high fields.
Exercise: think about what dielectric susceptibility means. Explain why
all real materials cannot have a constant susceptibility, given a
sufficiently high field.
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
User: "Sery"

Title: Re: about drude-lorentz 22 Sep 2006 04:34:43 AM
Timo A. Nieminen ha scritto:

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Sery wrote:

What is the reason for the Drude-Lorentz's model stops of valid being
for intense electric fields?


It assumes linearity and local response, and both will fail for
sufficiently high fields.

Exercise: think about what dielectric susceptibility means. Explain why
all real materials cannot have a constant susceptibility, given a
sufficiently high field.

Excuse me sir, but I do not know nothing about dielectrics.
.
User: "Timo A. Nieminen"

Title: Re: about drude-lorentz 22 Sep 2006 05:01:36 AM
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Sery wrote:

Timo A. Nieminen ha scritto:

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Sery wrote:

What is the reason for the Drude-Lorentz's model stops of valid being
for intense electric fields?


It assumes linearity and local response, and both will fail for
sufficiently high fields.

Exercise: think about what dielectric susceptibility means. Explain why
all real materials cannot have a constant susceptibility, given a
sufficiently high field.


Excuse me sir, but I do not know nothing about dielectrics.

Take some dielectric, put it in an electric field E. You get a
displacement field
D = epsilon_0 E + P
where P is the dipole moment per unit volume. Why do you get an induced
dipole moment? Because the electrons have some mobility, and the applied
field pushes them to one side.
The usual assumption for small fields is that P is proportional to E, so
we write P = z E, where z is some constant. But! There is a maximum
possible P, namely when all the electrons are on one side, and all of the
nuclei are on the other. Then P _cannot_ increase. Linearity must fail,
and likely fails long, long before that ultimate limits.
What similar ultimate limits might apply to the Drude model?
--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html
.
User: "Sery"

Title: Re: about drude-lorentz 22 Sep 2006 05:18:28 AM
Timo A. Nieminen ha scritto:

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Sery wrote:

Timo A. Nieminen ha scritto:

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Sery wrote:

What is the reason for the Drude-Lorentz's model stops of valid being
for intense electric fields?


It assumes linearity and local response, and both will fail for
sufficiently high fields.

Exercise: think about what dielectric susceptibility means. Explain why
all real materials cannot have a constant susceptibility, given a
sufficiently high field.


Excuse me sir, but I do not know nothing about dielectrics.


Take some dielectric, put it in an electric field E. You get a
displacement field

D = epsilon_0 E + P

where P is the dipole moment per unit volume. Why do you get an induced
dipole moment? Because the electrons have some mobility, and the applied
field pushes them to one side.

The usual assumption for small fields is that P is proportional to E, so
we write P = z E, where z is some constant. But! There is a maximum
possible P, namely when all the electrons are on one side, and all of the
nuclei are on the other. Then P _cannot_ increase. Linearity must fail,
and likely fails long, long before that ultimate limits.

What similar ultimate limits might apply to the Drude model?

Dear Timo, My examinaton do not have in its interior dielectrics, so I
do not understand
when you write

D = epsilon_0 E + P

where P is the dipole moment per unit volume. Why do you get an induced
dipole moment? Because the electrons have some mobility, and the applied
field pushes them to one side.

The usual assumption for small fields is that P is proportional to E, so
we write P = z E, where z is some constant. But! There is a maximum
possible P, namely when all the electrons are on one side, and all of the
nuclei are on the other. Then P _cannot_ increase. Linearity must fail,
and likely fails long, long before that ultimate limits.

Thank you, Sere


--
Timo Nieminen - Home page: http://www.physics.uq.edu.au/people/nieminen/
E-prints: http://eprint.uq.edu.au/view/person/Nieminen,_Timo_A..html
Shrine to Spirits: http://www.users.bigpond.com/timo_nieminen/spirits.html

.





  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
Some comments about Lorentz contraction (Answer to *****)
Need information about Lorentz transformation (and/or every theory he has)
Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity
About Fiber optic gyroscope
About Quantum Teleportation( in reference to a post in sci.physics.research)
Futher questions about Big Bang Theory; Economist Feb. 5
John Baez's alleged remark about Brian Josephson
last week talked about oil shale; news release that talks about Canadaoil sand
Re: Answers To Questions About God...
Anyone know something about this problem?
Questions about Double Slit Experiment
about the Deutsh and Deutsh-Josza algorithms
AHAHAHA....ahahaha.... about the FAQ
Initial discussion about changing to moderation of sci.physics
Why are Referees for Professional Physics Journals so Hopelessly Confused about Special Relativity in 1+1 Dimensions?
 

NEWER

pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER