Section 31–2 The field due to the material

(Oscillator model / Equation of motion / Deriving dispersion equation)

 

In this section, the three interesting concepts are a simplified Lorentz oscillator model, an equation of motion of electrons (or oscillator equation), and the derivation of a dispersion equation. Based on the simplified version of Lorentz oscillator model, Feynman forms an equation of motion of electrons and then derives the dispersion equation. Thus, the title of this section could be “Simplified version of Lorentz oscillator model.”

 

1. Oscillator model:

“To find what motion we expect for the electrons, we will assume that the atoms are little oscillators, that is, that the electrons are fastened elastically to the atoms, which means that if a force is applied to an electron its displacement from its normal position will be proportional to the force (Feynman et al., 1963, p. 31–4).”

 

To be precise, electrons are connected to the nuclei because electrons are a part of the atoms. On the other hand, instead of using the phrase normal position, Lorentz (1916) writes: “[i]n the first place we shall conceive a certain elastic force by which an electron is pulled back towards its position of equilibrium after having been displaced from it (p. 136).” It is possible that some may argue whether the equilibrium position of the electron is located at the center of the nucleus. However, we can assume the negative charge forms an electron cloud (radius » 10^-10 m) surrounding the nucleus. Furthermore, we may idealize the core electrons to be tightly bound and thus only the valence electrons are oscillating due to the light waves.

 

“You may think that this is a funny model of an atom if you have heard about electrons whirling around in orbits. But that is just an oversimplified picture. The correct picture of an atom, which is given by the theory of wave mechanics, says that, so far as problems involving light are concerned, the electrons behave as though they were held by springs (Feynman et al., 1963, p. 31–4).”

 

Although this model of an atom is described as funny, it is a simplified version of Lorentz oscillator model. Perhaps Lorentz could be recognized for using Maxwell’s equations to explain the refractive index of dense materials. In his Nobel lecture titled The Theory of Electrons and the Propagation of Light, Lorentz mentions: “if attention is focused on the influence of the greater or smaller number of particles in a certain space an equation can be found which puts us in a position to give the approximate change in the refractive index with increasing or decreasing density of the body…” Historically, Lorentz has formulated the refractive index equation that is also known as the Clausius-Mossotti equation. In Volume II (Chapter 32), Feynman discusses the derivation of Clausius-Mossotti equation 3(n²−1)/(n²+2) = Nα (32.32).

 

2. Equation of motion:

“We have already studied such oscillators, and we know that the equation of their motion is written this way: m(d²x/dt²+ω₀²x) = F, (31.11) where F is the driving force. (Feynman et al., 1963, p. 31–4).”

 

Feynman writes the equation of motion of atomic oscillators as m(d²x/dt²+ω₀²x) = F, (31.11) where F is the driving force. However, the equation may also be written as F_driving + F_damping + F_restoring = m(d²x/dt²), i.e., m(d²x/dt²) is placed at the right-hand side as the resultant force. In Volume II, Feynman clarifies: “we did not include the possibility of a damping force in the atomic oscillators... Such a force corresponds to a resistance to the motion, that is, to a force proportional to the velocity of the electron (Feynman et al., 1964).” Specifically, the source of the damping force could be explained as random collisions with other atoms and radiation emitted by the electrons.

 

“For our problem, the driving force comes from the electric field of the wave from the source, so we should use F = q_eE_s = q_eE₀e^iωt,(31.12), where q_e is the electric charge on the electron and for E_s we use the expression E_s = E₀e^iωt from (31.10) (Feynman et al., 1963, p. 31–5).”

 

Feynman says that the driving force is due to the electric field of the electromagnetic wave from the source and we should use F = q_eE₀e^iωt where q_e is the electric charge on the electron. In Volume II, he elaborates: “[w]e assumed that the forces on the charges in the atoms came just from the incoming wave, whereas, in fact, their oscillations are driven not only by the incoming wave but also by the radiated waves of all the other atoms (Feynman et al., 1964).” In essence, the original field is combined with the induced field and results in a new field with a phase shift as compared to the original field. Perhaps Feynman should explain that it is traditional to define q_e as positive although q_e refers to the electron’s charge. However, we can obtain the equation (31.19) n = 1+Nq_e²/2ϵ₀m(ω₀²−ω²) by multiplying another q_e of the same sign from (30.18).

 

“Each of the electrons in the atoms of the plate will feel this electric field and will be driven up and down (we assume the direction of E₀ is vertical) by the electric force qE (Feynman et al., 1963, p. 31–4).”

“So we shall suppose that the electrons have a linear restoring force which, together with their mass m, makes them behave like little oscillators, with a resonant frequency ω₀ (Feynman et al., 1963, p. 31–4).”

 

In Volume II, Feynman explains restoring force as follows: “[w]e are assuming an isotropic oscillator whose restoring force is the same in all directions. Also, we are taking, for the moment, a linearly polarized wave, so that E doesn’t change direction (Feynman et al., 1964).” Firstly, the restoring force can be expressed as F = -kr by idealizing electrons as isotropic oscillators whereby this force is electric in nature. It is a linear force because the oscillation amplitude is small enough such that high order terms in the Taylor expansion of the electric force are negligible. Next, the source S is idealized (Fig. 31–1) to be infinitely far and thus the electric fields of oscillating electrons are in the same direction. This is known as the plane wave approximation as the direction of electric fields is perpendicular to the motion of the plane wave.

 

3. Deriving dispersion equation:

“Substituting NΔz for η and cancelling the Δz, we get our main result, a formula for the index of refraction in terms of the properties of the atoms of the material—and of the frequency of the light: n = 1+Nq_e²/2ϵ₀m(ω₀²−ω²) (31.19). This equation gives the ‘explanation’ of the index of refraction that we wished to obtain (Feynman et al., 1963, p. 31–5).”

 

Although Feynman claims that the equation (31.19) provides the explanation of the refractive index, it is based on a differential equation (equation of motion) of Newton’s second law of motion. In Volume II, Feynman says: “[t]his method obscures the physical origin of the index (as coming from the re-radiated waves interfering with the original waves), but it makes the theory for dense materials much simpler (Feynman et al., 1964).” In her book titled How the Laws of Physics Lie, Cartwright (1983) cites the above statement of Feynman and writes: “How does Feynman’s study of light in Volume I ‘make clear’ the physical principles that produce refraction? I do not have an answer (p. 162).” This is related to the “funny model of an atom” that involves many idealizations and approximations.

Interestingly, Cartwright (1983) elaborates: “I can tell you what Feynman does in Volume I, and it will be obvious that he succeeds in extracting a causal account from his model for low-density materials. But I do not have a philosophic theory about how it is done (p. 162).” In a sense, one may use the term toy model because this model is simpler than Lorentz oscillator model as it does not include a damping force. However, the phrase “thin gas plate” could be used instead of “glass plate” in the previous section. Perhaps Feynman could have clarified that the total phase shift is dependent on the number of gas atoms per unit volume in the so-called thin plate. Better still, there could be discussions on the accuracy of the toy model by comparing it with the experimental data.

 

To understand the model and derivation of refractive index, one should understand how the velocity of the charges in the equation (31.17) is retarded in time by z/c just like in the equation (30.19) such that it can be eliminated. However, some may disagree with Feynman’s method of approximation in (30.19), e.g., the formula is deduced by assuming a plane of oscillating charges that is infinitely large and without thickness. Furthermore, some may not feel comfortable with his explanation of letting e^−i∞ equal to zero due to the physical situations. He also claims that the formula (30.19) is correct at any distance z and substitutes NΔz for η to relate reflective index to the number of atoms. In summary, the velocity of the charges in the equation (31.17) requires not only many assumptions, such as the plate should be very thin, but this is essentially a toy model.

 

Review Questions:

1. How would you describe the simplified version of Lorentz oscillator model?

2. What are the idealizations and approximations needed to formulate the oscillator equation (or equation of motion)?

3. How would you explain the velocity of the charges in the equation (31.17) can be eliminated to obtain the dispersion equation?

 

The moral of the lesson: The explanation of reflective index is based on the simplified Lorentz oscillator model involving idealizations (isotropic oscillators, linear electric force, infinitely far source) and approximations (far field, plane wave, thin plate…).

 

References:

1. Cartwright, N. (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. New York: Oxford University Press.

2. Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. (1963). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol I: Mainly mechanics, radiation, and heat. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

3. Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. (1964). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol II: Mainly electromagnetism and matter. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

4. Lorentz, H. A. (1916). The theory of electrons and its applications to the phenomena of light and radiant heat (2nd Ed.). New York: G. E. Stechert & Co.

Section 31–1 The index of refraction

 (Low density materials / Apparent speed c/n / Correction field)

 

The three interesting concepts in this section are low density materials (related to idealization), effective speed (related to limitation), and correction field (related to approximation).

 

1. Low density materials:

“That corresponds to a material in which the index of refraction is very close to 1, which will happen, for example, if the density of the atoms is very low (Feynman et al., 1963, p. 31–2).”

 

Feynman states an assumption of refraction index of this chapter as “very close to 1,” e.g., very low density of the atoms. In Volume II, he clarifies: “In Chapter 31 of Volume I…, we had to restrict ourselves to finding the index only for materials of low density, like gases” (Feynman et al., 1964, section 32–1 Polarization of matter). Perhaps it is more accurate to state low density materials or rarefied gases for refractive index, but physicists have developed various models based on the density of atoms. Some may emphasize the condition, homogenous medium, i.e., an optical medium which has a uniform composition throughout a material. In Volume II, Feynman suggests that we “limit ourselves to isotropic dielectrics,” which refer to isotropic media, where the electromagnetic properties are the same in all directions.

 

“We shall try to understand the effect in a very simple case. A source which we shall call “the external source” is placed a large distance away from a thin plate of transparent material, say glass (Feynman et al., 1963, p. 31–1).”

 

It is potentially confusing for some when Feynman says that we shall understand the refractive index of a thin glass plate because this is different from materials of low density, like gases. It is worth mentioning that chapter 32 of Volume II is titled “Refractive Index of Dense Materials,” whereas chapter 31 of Volume I is mainly about the refractive index of rarefied gases. The word mainly is used because section 31.1 is related to the refractive index of the thin plate. Interestingly, in chapter 32 of Volume II, Feynman mentions that “[i]n ordinary inactive materials-that are not, like lasers, light sources themselves-g is a positive number, and that makes the imaginary part of n negative.” Thus, one may include the condition, linear medium, where nonlinear optical effects are negligible provided lasers (or intense light beams) are not used.

 

2. Apparent speed c/n:

“It is approximately true that light or any electrical wave does appear to travel at the speed c/n through a material whose index of refraction is n, but the fields are still produced by the motions of all the charges — including the charges moving in the material — and with these basic contributions of the field travelling at the ultimate velocity c (Feynman et al., 1963, p. 31–1).”

 

According to Feynman, light appears to travel at the speed c/n through a material, but the basic contributions of the electric field are still travelling at the ultimate velocity c. In QED, Feynman (1985) elaborates that “the ‘slowing’ of the light is extra turning caused by the atoms in the glass (or water) scattering the light. The degree to which there is extra turning of the final arrow as light goes through a given material is called its ‘index of refraction’ (p. 109).” One may stress that light is moving as a wave at c through the electromagnetic field in any medium, but its phase is delayed due to its interaction with atoms. In short, the interactions of light with atoms in any material can be described as absorptions and re-emissions of photons. In other words, the process of scattering and re-scattering of light waves in the material causes a phase shift and the apparent speed of light as c/n.

 

“It is approximately true that light or any electrical wave does appear to travel at the speed c/n through a material whose index of refraction is n, but the fields are still produced by the motions of all the charges… (Feynman et al., 1963, p. 31–1).”

“These charges will also radiate waves back toward the source S. This backward-going field is the light we see reflected from the surfaces of transparent materials. (Feynman et al., 1963, p. 31–2).”

 

In a sense, Feynman’s descriptions of light are inconsistent because he says that light is an electrical wave and light is a backward-going field. (In Volume II, Feynman also uses the phrase “electric field of the light wave.”) Perhaps it is a distraction to include the concept of light as a field here, however, a photon is an excitation of the electromagnetic field (based on quantum theory). Alternatively, one may describe light as an electromagnetic wave that is generated by oscillating electromagnetic fields. Furthermore, a light source can produce light waves to interact with a glass plate such that an electron in the plate is influenced by the source and all other oscillating electrons. Simply put, light waves tell the electromagnetic fields how to oscillate; electromagnetic fields tell light waves how to bend and reflect.

 

“Now all oscillations in the wave must have the same frequency. (We have seen that driven oscillations have the same frequency as the driving source.) This means, also, that the wave crests for the waves on both sides of the surface must have the same spacing along the surface because they must travel together, so that a charge sitting at the boundary will feel only one frequency (Feynman et al., 1963, p. 31–2).”

 

Feynman explains that all oscillations in a wave must have the same frequency because driven oscillations have the same frequency as the driving source and a charge at the boundary of two media will feel only one frequency. However, Franken, Hill, Peters, and Weinreich (1961) show that the color of a laser’s light in a medium could be changed, which led to uses such as LASIK eye surgery. This also results in the development of nonlinear optics that studies the interaction of light with matter in which the response of materials to the applied electromagnetic field is not linear. Specifically, the frequency of illuminated light could be doubled or tripled in the materials if light intensities are relatively high. Perhaps Feynman was not familiar with this phenomenon when the lecture was delivered on 27 Feb 62.

 

3. Correction field E_a:

“To see where we are going, let us first find out what the ‘correction field’ E_a would have to be if the total field at P is going to look like radiation from the source that is slowed down while passing through the thin plate… But if it appears to travel at the speed c/n then it should take the longer time nΔz/c or the additional time Δt = (n−1)Δz/c (Feynman et al., 1963, p. 31–3).”

 

It may be unclear to some why Feynman states the additional time needed to pass through a thin plate as Δt = (n−1)Δz/c. In a sense, the refractive index n of a medium is a number that tells us how many more wavelengths can be squeezed within the medium as compared to vacuum. In general, the additional time needed is Δt = (n₂−n₁)Δz/c in which n₁ and n₂ are the refractive index of vacuum and thin plate respectively. If we assume the thin plate mainly consists of rarefied gases, then n₂ and n₁ are equal to 1.0003 and 1 respectively, but n₂−n₁ becomes 0.0003. (Although the refractive index of air is equal to 1.0003, it is sometimes approximated as 1.) However, this chapter is not completely about rarefied gases because this section is partly related to the refractive index of a thin glass plate.

 

“The delay due to slowing down in the plate would delay the phase of this number, that is, it would rotate E_s through a negative angle. But this is equivalent to adding the small vector E_a at roughly right angles to E_s But that is just what the factor –i means in the second term of Eq. (31.8). It says that if E_s is real, then E_a is negative imaginary or that, in general, E_s and E_a make a right angle (Feynman et al., 1963, p. 31–3).”

 

According to Feynman, if E_s is real, then the induced field E_a is negative imaginary or that, in general, E_s and E_a make a right angle. This implies that the resultant of E_s and E_a would be longer than E_s and he should clarify whether this violates the law of conservation of energy. However, one may explain that the angle between E_s and E_a is a right angle based on the approximation formula: e^{−iω(n−1)Δz/c} ≈ 1−iω(n−1)Δz/c. To be more accurate, E_a would be rotated by an angle that is close to 90 degrees if we consider the contributions of the remaining terms of the exponential function. Importantly, the resultant of E_s and E_a should be slightly shorter than E_s (see Fig 31-3) such that the law of conservation of energy is not violated.

 

Review Questions:

1. Should Feynman state low density materials (rarefied gases) or very low density atoms as an idealization for the refractive index in this chapter?

2. Why do light waves appear to travel at the speed c/n in a medium? Do you agree with Feynman that all oscillations in the wave must have the same frequency or provided we limit ourselves to low intensity light?

3. Is it correct for Feynman to say that E_s and E_a make a right angle (Approximation)?

 

The moral of the lesson: light waves tell the electromagnetic fields how to oscillate, whereas electromagnetic fields tell light waves how to bend and reflect; this is due to the process of scattering and re-scattering of light waves in the material that causes a phase shift and the apparent speed of light as c/n.

 

References:

1. Feynman, R. P. (1985). QED: The strange theory of light and matter. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

2. Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. (1963). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol I: Mainly mechanics, radiation, and heat. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

3. Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. (1964). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol II: Mainly electromagnetism and matter. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

4. Franken, P.A., Hill, A.E., Peters, C.W., & Weinreich, G. (1961). Generation of Optical Harmonics. Physical Review Letters, 7, 118-119.

Section 30–7 The field of a plane of oscillating charges

 (Radiation field / Infinite plane / Finite charges)

 

In this section, the three interesting concepts involved in a problem are radiation field, an infinite plane of in-phase oscillating charges, and a finite amount of charges on the plane. This section is about an idealization of a plane of in-phase oscillators, but the title could be known as “The far field of an infinite plane of oscillating charges.” This section not only aptly ends with the concept of diffraction that is due to an infinite number of sources, but a formula is derived to explain the origin of refractive index for the next chapter.

 

1. Radiation field:

Suppose that we have a plane full of sources, all oscillating together, with their motion in the plane and all having the same amplitude and phase. What is the field at a finite, but very large, distance away from the plane? … (We cannot get very close, of course, because we do not have the right formulas for the field close to the sources.) (Feynman et al., 1963, p. 30–10).”

 

One may define radiation field as an electromagnetic field that provides the energy radiated by accelerated charges and it is inversely proportional to the distance from the charges. However, the term radiation field could be distinguished into two regions, namely near field and far field, that can be expressed by two different mathematical formulas. To be specific, we can define far field using the equation (28.6) in which the field produced by an accelerating charge is moving non-relativistically and it is located at a very large distance r. This problem also includes the far field of an infinite number of sources that are located at infinity. On the other hand, we do not need the right formulas here for the near field that is close to the sources.

Note: It may be confusing to some why Feynman says “… we do not have the right formulas for the field close to the sources,” but we may use near field to explain the maximum limit of refractive index of a medium (Andreoli et al., 2021).

 

“We know that the radiation field is proportional to the acceleration of the charge, which is −ω²x₀e^iωt…… Using this value for the acceleration as seen from P in our formula for the electric field at large distances from a radiating charge, we get (30.11) (Electric field at P from charge at Q) ≈ q/4πϵ₀c²ω²x₀e^iω(t−r/c)/r (Feynman et al., 1963, p. 30–10).”

 

Feynman clarifies that the formula (30.11) is not quite right because it should not only include the acceleration of the charge but its component perpendicular to the line QP. Theoretically, the component perpendicular to QP of the far field due to the charges would not be canceled out because the oscillations are all in the same direction despite having cylindrical symmetry. From a practical point of view, it is the far field that allows electromagnetic waves to propagate far distances with weak signal strength, but it can still be picked up by receivers or antennas. However, some may prefer saying the acceleration field (instead of radiation field or far field) produced by an accelerating charge varies as 1/r. This is different from the velocity field (Coulomb field) of the charge that is independent of a, but its field varies as 1/r².

 

2. Infinite plane:

“When ρ = 0, we have r = z, so the limits of r are z to infinity… Now e^−i∞ is a mysterious quantity. Its real part, for example, is cos (−∞), which, mathematically speaking, is completely indefinite (although we would expect it to be somewhere—or everywhere (?)—between +1 and −1!). (Feynman et al., 1963, p. 30–11).”

 

Feynman says that e^−i∞ is a mysterious quantity and its real part, cos(−∞), is indefinite. On the contrary, mathematicians prefer to write lim e^−iz and include the condition z ® ∞, but they consider e^−i∞ to be illegal. Furthermore, they would investigate whether a function is holomorphic using Cauchy-Riemann equations u_x = v_y and u_y = –v_x. In general, physicists may define terms involving infinity without rigor or quote a statement that is attributed to Einstein: “Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe.” More importantly, the problem based on the infinite plane of constant density of charge is unrealistic and an infinite amount of charges on a “circular ring element” (2pr)Dr divided by the distance r that is infinity could be considered as an undefined quantity.

 

In Fig. 30–11 we have drawn the first five pieces of the sum. Each segment of the curve has the length Δr and is placed at the angle Δθ = −ωΔr/c with respect to the preceding piece (Feynman et al., 1963, p. 30–11).

 

The first term of e^iθ = e^−iωz/c has the most contribution to the total field because z is the shortest distance from the plane to P, but ωz/c is relatively small compared to z and thus the angle of the first arrow (θ) should be small. Similarly, the remaining each segment of the curve has the length Δr and it is placed at the angle Δθ = −ωΔr/c with respect to the preceding piece. One should realize that the real part (x component) starts to decrease in Fig. 30–11 when we add the fourth and fifth term, but this may not really correspond to the physical situation. In other words, not only e^−i∞ is a mysterious quantity, but it is remarkable that e^−iωz/c starts to oscillate right at the beginning. This suggests that the idealized model based on e^−iωz/c has a serious limitation and thus needs tweaking.

 

In Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!, Feynman (1997) challenged Paul Olum to give him an integral that most people could evaluate with only contour integral, but he could use other methods: “One time I boasted, ‘I can do by other methods any integral anybody else needs contour integration to do.’ So Paul puts up this tremendous damn integral he had obtained by starting out with a complex function that he knew the answer to, taking out the real part of it and leaving only the complex part. He had unwrapped it so it was only possible by contour integration! He was always deflating me like that. He was a very smart fellow (pp. 195-196).” Perhaps Feynman could have explained how the physical situations result in another Cornu spiral or contour integral based on Fermat’s principle of extremum path.

 

3. Finite charges:

“In any real situation the plane of charges cannot be infinite in extent, but must sometime stop... If, however, we let the number of charges in the plane gradually taper off at some large distance from the center (or else stop suddenly but in an irregular shape so for larger ρ the entire ring of width dρ no longer contributes), then the coefficient η in the exact integral would decrease toward zero. (Feynman et al., 1963, p. 30–11).”

 

Feynman suggests tweaking the problem by decreasing the number of charges in the plane that are farther from the center, i.e., the coefficient η in the exact integral would decrease toward zero. We can also include the projection of the acceleration on the plane perpendicular to the line PQ, but we would feel unlucky to even approximate the integral involving an additional 1/r. More importantly, some may argue whether it is mathematically legal to let e^−i∞ equal to zero due to various physical situations. For instance, the coefficient η could be specified as a function that varies with 1/r or e^−r because there is no infinite amount of charges in the real world. Alternatively, Feynman could have discussed whether including the projection of the acceleration on the plane perpendicular to the line PQ would definitely improve the formula, however, he claims that the formula (30.18) or (30.19) is correct at any distance z.

 

It is interesting to note that (iωx₀e^iωt) is just equal to the velocity of the charges, so that we can also write the equation for the field as Total field at P=−ηq²ϵ₀c[velocity of charges] at t−z/c (Feynman et al., 1963, p. 30–11).”

 

Feynman concludes the chapter by saying the formula derived is fortunately rather simple and it is valid for distances far from the plane of oscillating charges… If he assumes that η is a function that varies with 1/r or e^−r, then the integration method has to be changed and it would result in a different formula. The so-called simple formula is a result of idealizations and approximations because we have avoided realistic models such as including the projection of the acceleration on the plane perpendicular to the line PQ (cosine factor). In a sense, this problem beautifully shows the daily life of a physicist in cheating (idealizing models) and tweaking (approximating formulas). However, Feynman could end this chapter by explaining the importance of the formula derived because it relates the delay in phase of the field to refractive index.

Note: It may be worth mentioning this section was delivered at the beginning of the lecture of chapter 31 on refractive index.

 

Review Questions:

1. How would you define the radiation field at a distance far from a plane of oscillators (Idealization)?

2. Should we assume the problem to be based on an infinite plane of constant density of oscillating charges (Limitation)?

3. Is it mathematically legal to let e^−i∞ equal to zero such that we can obtain a reasonable approximate answer (Approximation)?

 

The moral of the lesson: We can understand diffraction further by idealizing (cheating) a plane of in-phase oscillating charges, approximating (tweaking) the density of charges on the plane, and confessing the limitation of the model. In a sense, this is an unfortunate problem, but it comes out—fortunately a rather simple formula by “cheating” and “tweaking” (creating luck).

 

References:

1. Andreoli, F., Gullans, M. J., High, A. A., Browaeys, A., & Chang, D. E. (2021). Maximum Refractive Index of an Atomic Medium. Physical Review X, 11, 011026.

2. Feynman, R. P. (1997). Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman! : Adventures of a Curious Character. New York: Norton.

3. Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B., & Sands, M. (1963). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol I: Mainly mechanics, radiation, and heat. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.