Message: Re: Boundary interaction model Not Logged In (login)
 Next-in-Thread Next-in-Thread
 Next-in-Forum Next-in-Forum

None Re: Boundary interaction model 

Forum: Processes Involving Optical Photons
Re: Question Boundary interaction model (Nicolas Di Vara)
Re: None Re: Boundary interaction model (Sehwook Lee)
Re: None Re: Boundary interaction model (Erik Dietz-Laursonn)
Date: 15 Nov, 2012
From: Sehwook Lee <Sehwook Lee>

On Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:50:40 GMT, Erik Dietz-Laursonn wrote:
> Dear Sehwook
> If I understand this (
> ) correctly, every material has a complex refractive index:
> "When light passes through a medium, some part of it will always be
> absorbed. This can be conveniently taken into account by defining a
> complex index of refraction" "Dielectric loss and non-zero DC
> conductivity in materials cause absorption. Good dielectric materials
> such as glass have extremely low DC conductivity, and at low frequencies
> the dielectric loss is also negligible, resulting in almost no
> absorption (&#954; &#8776; 0). However, at higher frequencies (such as
> visible light), dielectric loss may increase absorption significantly,
> reducing the material's transparency to these frequencies."
> I under stand this in the way, that a material has a complex refractive
> index (with maybe a very small imaginary part), as long as light
> (partly) gets absorbed when passing through. This would mean that only
> perfect vacuum has a purely real refraction index.
> > If dielectric material really has absorption depending on the energy
> of photon, polarization and incident angle, please let me know. If so, I
> have known about it wrong. I would like to correct myself about this
> physics fact.
> That the absorption of dielectric materials depends on the energy of the
> photon is for sure (
> ). That it depends on polarisation and incident angle is something I
> would doubt, but also for metals. 
Yes, the absorption of dielectric materials depends on the energy of the photon (wave length). However, in my first post, I wanted to ask the absorption of dielectric material really depends on the energy of photon, polarization and incident angle like metal surface which has relatively big number for the imaginary part in the refractive index. For example, self-absorption of scintillator depends on the wavelength of light and the longer wavelength of photon is less absorbed. This self-absorption can be reduced by, for example, using yellow filter. But for metal which has a bigger number for the imaginary part of the refractive index, I would like to ask this absorption on metal can be reduced by changing or selecting the longer wavelength of photon. As far as I know, there are the most common factors for light attenuation in a dielectric material. They are self-absorption and reflection losses. In my answer to the Nicolas' first message, I wanted to suggest him to use light attenuation instead of using the complex refractive index method if he want to simulate light loss in a dielectric material.

>To my understanding, the Fresnel
> equations only give the reflectivity and transmittance of THE
> INFINITESIMAL BOUNDARY between two materials (dielectric or metal).
> If/how much of the transmitted light is absorbed only depends on the
> attenuation length, which can be calculated from the imaginary part of
> the refractive index. For metals, the attenuation length is very short
> (large imaginary part of the refractive index) and for dielectrics this
> is vice versa.
> I might be wrong, too, but this is my understanding of the Fresnel
> equations. And this brings me to my (still unanswered) physical
> question: Does the reflectivity of a boundary always depend on the
> refraction indices of both materials which are forming the boundary? I
> think we all agree, that for a dielectric-dielectric boundary, both
> refraction indices have to be considered and can be found in the Fresnel
> equations. This is also the way how it is implemented in GEANT4 (using
> only the non-complex refraction indices, this is ok as the imaginary
> part should be very small). But what about a dielectric-metal boundary?
> I see no reason, why it should be different in this case. But in GEANT4,
> the Fresnel equation for the dielectric-metal case does NOT consider the
> refraction index of the dielectric. And as I wrote before, I found many
> scripts introducing the Fresnel equations with two complex refraction
> indices or one complex and one non-complex refraction index (e.g.
> ). On the other hand, I could not find any measurement comparing the
> reflectivity of let's say air-aluminum with water-aluminum. If the
> Fresnel equations consider both refractive indices, this should make a
> difference, but for the version implemented in GEANT4, the result would
> be the same, i.e. it is only correct for air/vacuum-metal boundaries, in
> my opinion.
> Best regards, Erik

I got your point. I appreciate you for your brining the nice question. I will be back to this question in the Christmas break. To answer your question, I need to think about it and probably derive some analytic solution. For now, I have many works to do about my job.

Thank you, Sehwook

Inline Depth:
 1 1
 All All
Outline Depth:
 1 1
 2 2
 All All
Add message: (add)

1 None: Re: Boundary interaction model   (Erik Dietz-Laursonn - 16 Apr, 2013)
(_ Warning: Re: Boundary interaction model   (Andrea Celentano - 16 Jan, 2015)
 Add Message Add Message
to: "Re: Boundary interaction model"

 Subscribe Subscribe

This site runs SLAC HyperNews version 1.11-slac-98, derived from the original HyperNews