- #1
bobfei
- 30
- 0
Hi All,
I would like to ask a question on Purcell’s EM textbook on atomic polarizability.
On page 362, Purcell put the relation:
[tex]\underbrace {\frac{{\Delta z}}{a}}_{{\rm{dimensionless}}} \approx \underbrace {\frac{E}{{e/{a^2}}}}_{\frac{1}{{{\varepsilon _0}}}}[/tex]
I suspect that it has missed the constant [tex]{\varepsilon _0}[/tex] here. The left side of the approximate equation is a dimensionless quantity, whereas on the right side:
E has dimension [tex]\frac{e}{{{\varepsilon _0}{a^2}}}[/tex], dividing by the denominator, the net result will still have the dimension of [tex]\frac{1}{{{\varepsilon _0}}}[/tex].
But why Purcell put the equation like that? I also compared with Griffiths book as well as Wikipedia, both of which gave the correct dimension. So Purcell must be wrong here, but why he makes such a junior level mistake?
Thanks,
Bob
I would like to ask a question on Purcell’s EM textbook on atomic polarizability.
On page 362, Purcell put the relation:
[tex]\underbrace {\frac{{\Delta z}}{a}}_{{\rm{dimensionless}}} \approx \underbrace {\frac{E}{{e/{a^2}}}}_{\frac{1}{{{\varepsilon _0}}}}[/tex]
I suspect that it has missed the constant [tex]{\varepsilon _0}[/tex] here. The left side of the approximate equation is a dimensionless quantity, whereas on the right side:
E has dimension [tex]\frac{e}{{{\varepsilon _0}{a^2}}}[/tex], dividing by the denominator, the net result will still have the dimension of [tex]\frac{1}{{{\varepsilon _0}}}[/tex].
But why Purcell put the equation like that? I also compared with Griffiths book as well as Wikipedia, both of which gave the correct dimension. So Purcell must be wrong here, but why he makes such a junior level mistake?
Thanks,
Bob
Attachments
Last edited: