Note on the coupled oscillator model solutions in crystalline optical activity

Vyšín, Ivo; Řı́ha, Jan; Sváčková, Kamila

doi:10.1088/1464-4258/8/6/014

Cited by 3 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…At this point, the forms of the dispersion relations ( 35)-(37) can be convenient for further discussion in comparison with analogous results for wave propagation in the direction of the optic axis [19]. It can be seen that the OA dispersion relations for the direction of the optic axis and for the direction perpendicular to the optic axis do not differ in the form of the frequency dependent terms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

“…In the model of three coupled oscillators, the number of single oscillators in the volume unit is N = 2N , where N is the number of compound oscillators in the volume unit [19]. Let us note that the same result can also be derived using the modified Rosenfeld relation [20] with direct calculation of the rotational strengths of the normal modes of vibration [21].…”

Section: Calculationsmentioning

confidence: 71%

“…where the constant expression π Ne 2 γ R(α sin ϕ −β cos ϕ)(1− cos θ)/mc 2 was denoted as C . In the following text, all the introduced constants will be denoted by a single quotation mark to distinguish them from the corresponding results of [19] for the OA solution in the direction of the optic axis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At the same time it must be emphasized that it was proved that Chandrasekhar's ORD dispersion relation holds even in spite of the revealed mistake. In order to verify Chandrasekhar's conclusions also for the propagation of the electromagnetic waves in the direction perpendicular to the optic axis, we would like to perform similar calculations [19] for this direction of wave propagation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…An analysis of the above-mentioned mistake and the alternative solution method of the model of coupled oscillators in the crystalline OA in the direction of the optic axis was presented in [19]. At the same time it must be emphasized that it was proved that Chandrasekhar's ORD dispersion relation holds even in spite of the revealed mistake.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Note on the solutions of the model of coupled oscillators in crystalline optical activity for the direction perpendicular to the optic axis

Vyšín

Baránek

Řı́ha

2011

J. Opt.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past, Chandrasekhar’s method of two coupled oscillators was successfully used for the interpretation of crystalline optical activity. The optical activity dispersion relations were obtained in the direction of the optic axis and also in the direction perpendicular to the optic axis. However, Chandrasekhar’s approach to the solution method is based on a mistake in his calculations. This mistake does not influence the character of the dispersion relations in the direction of the optic axis, which was proved by the solution of the model of coupled oscillators using the Condon relations. Similar conclusions have not been introduced for the direction perpendicular to the optic axis. For that reason, the model of coupled oscillators, using the Condon relations, is presented also for the direction perpendicular to the optic axis. The considered model of coupled oscillators is more complicated and therefore corresponds to the structure of real crystals more closely. It can be proved that, in spite of Chandrasekhar’s mistake in the calculations, his conclusions hold. The character of the dispersion relations in the directions parallel and perpendicular to the optic axis is the same and differs only by a constant multiplicative factor. However, Chandrasekhar’s factor differs from the derived form of this factor, which is presented in this paper. It is also presented for the example of an atomic crystal of tellurium that the form of Chandrasekhar’s factor is incorrect. The mistakes in Chandrasekhar’s derivations are also discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%