Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
>
> An imaginary piece to the index of refraction is an _imperfect_ shorthand
> for representing absorption. It is easy to see how it produces an
> imaginary part to the wavenumber (k), which leads to a wavefunction that
> decays in magnitude as it goes along.
>
> It is also easy to see that this representation cannot possibly be correct
> in detail. It suggests that the equation of motion is non-unitary. It
> doesn't conserve phase space. It violates the fluctuation-dissipation
> theorem. It violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It violates the
> uncertainty principle. But if you don't look too closely, you might not
> notice the violations.
>
Huh? The index is complex if the wave is traveling in an absorbing
medium. What's to conserve?
I don't know what John meant by his caveat "in detail".