Timeline for Dielectric constant of crystals: Feynman's mistake?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 25, 2021 at 8:04 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| Jun 25, 2021 at 0:05 | comment | added | Roy | Feynman is calculating at each atom site. Of course E-field is not zero everywhere. This is more about Feynman's approach. | |
| Jun 24, 2021 at 10:40 | comment | added | Wihtedeka | In that case, refer to my plot. The electric field does not cancel out everywhere but just in the origin coincidentally. He also links eq 7.44 which shows the exponential decay and it's derived mathematically not numerically. One array of dipoles is also not the same as a chain. | |
| Jun 24, 2021 at 9:41 | comment | added | Roy | Thanks but that part is not the issue. He says the effect of neighboring chains decays exponentially. But if you calculate numerically, they are not and they cancel out the main one. I did the numerical calculation, it is just 6 neoghbors. | |
| Jun 24, 2021 at 8:42 | comment | added | Wihtedeka | I added a justification of what Feynman did in my post. | |
| Jun 24, 2021 at 8:40 | history | edited | Wihtedeka | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
explaining comment
|
| Jun 24, 2021 at 8:07 | comment | added | Roy | First, the equation is correct. It is just that I used unit vectors (u). What you said is obvious but irrelevant. The question is about Feynman's approach for dielectrics. He used the approximate equation and found some value and claimed other components decay exponentially. | |
| Jun 21, 2021 at 9:51 | history | answered | Wihtedeka | CC BY-SA 4.0 |