Series

Dielectrics — the series

4 essays on one idea, from the one that introduces it to the one that assumes the rest.
  1. The field a polarised sphere makes inside itself. A uniformly polarised sphere, its bound surface charge drawn at the size the cosine gives it, the uniform field that charge makes inside, and the exact dipole field it makes outside. The internal field is the same everywhere and points against the polarisation — that is what makes it a depolarising field — and its size is P/3ε₀, the third being the sphere's share of the one unit the three axes divide between them.

    The field the matter takes away

    Put a piece of glass in an electric field and the field inside it is smaller. How much smaller is not a property of glass. A needle of it keeps almost the whole field, a sphere keeps three-quarters, a slab across the field keeps a seventh — same material, same applied field, three answers, and the difference is arithmetic about shape.

    part 1 · electromagnetism
  2. Water's permittivity across six decades of frequency. The real and imaginary parts of water's permittivity against frequency, on logarithmic axes, from 10 to 16 in powers of ten hertz. ε′ begins at 80.1 — the number a textbook prints — falls through the Debye relaxation near twenty gigahertz, is dragged down again by the librational, bending and stretching bands of the molecule, and settles at 1.777 in the visible, whose square root is 1.3330: water's refractive index. The identity n = √ε_r is exact and is an identity between two numbers taken at the same frequency; using the static permittivity in it predicts an index of 8.9 and is the most instructive wrong answer in the subject. The curve is a Debye term and four Lorentz oscillators, with two parameters solved so that the two plateaus are the measured ones rather than fitted by eye.

    The constant that depends on how fast it is asked

    Water's relative permittivity is 80.1. Its refractive index is 1.333, and the square of 1.333 is 1.777. The identity n = √ε_r is exact, the two numbers differ by a factor of forty-five, and nothing is wrong with either — because a permittivity is a function of frequency and the two measurements were made eight orders of magnitude apart.

    part 2 · electromagnetism
  3. A refraction with no wave in it. Field lines crossing the boundary between two dielectrics whose permittivities differ by a factor of 4, at incidences of 12°, 26°, 40°, 54°, 68°. Nothing is oscillating and nothing is travelling: these are static fields, and the only inputs are that the component of E along the surface is the same on both sides and that the component of D across it is. Dividing one condition by the other gives the ratio of the tangents of the two angles, and it comes out equal to the ratio of the permittivities — measured off the constructed directions as 4.000, 4.000, 4.000, 4.000, 4.000, against 4. The lines bend towards the surface on the side with the larger permittivity, which is the opposite sense from a light ray entering glass, and the chart on the right shows the whole relation: it is a version of Snell's law with the sines replaced by tangents, and there is no speed anywhere in it. Two things follow that are worth carrying. A field line meeting a surface at grazing incidence stays nearly parallel to it whatever the materials, so the ratio matters least where the field is largest along the surface. And in the limit of a very large ratio every line comes out very nearly perpendicular on the low side, which is the electrostatic ancestor of a conductor's boundary condition — a conductor is the ratio taken to infinity.

    A refraction with no wave in it

    A field line crossing from one dielectric into another bends, by a law that looks exactly like Snell's with the sines replaced by tangents. Nothing is oscillating, nothing is travelling, and no speed appears anywhere in the derivation — only the two conditions that say what a boundary may and may not do to a field.

    part 3 · electromagnetism
  4. The only part of the field that can pull. A dielectric slab part-way into a parallel-plate capacitor. Everywhere except at the slab's edge the field is perpendicular to the plates and therefore perpendicular to the direction the slab can move, so it exerts no force along that direction at all: inside the parallel-plate model, which is uniform between the plates and zero outside them, nothing pulls the slab anywhere. The force lives in the bowed lines drawn at the edge, where the field leaks past the end of the dielectric and acquires a component along the plates. Those lines are what the model throws away as a small correction near the boundary, and they are the entire mechanism. The energy method sidesteps the drawing altogether: differentiate the total energy with respect to the insertion and the answer is 1.328e-3 newtons, inward, without ever asking where on the slab the force is applied.

    The force that lives where the model is not

    A slab of glass held at the mouth of a charged capacitor is pulled in. Inside the parallel-plate model there is no force at all — the field is perpendicular to the slab's motion everywhere — and the same model's energy nevertheless gives the pull exactly right. The mechanism is entirely in the part of the field the model throws away.

    part 4 · electromagnetism

All series