1: %% ****** Start of file template.aps ****** %

2: %%

3: %%

4: %%   This file is part of the APS files in the REVTeX 4 distribution.

5: %%   Version 4.0 of REVTeX, August 2001

6: %%

7: %%

8: %%   Copyright (c) 2001 The American Physical Society.

9: %%

10: %%   See the REVTeX 4 README file for restrictions and more information.

11: %%

12: %

13: % This is a template for producing manuscripts for use with REVTEX 4.0

14: % Copy this file to another name and then work on that file.

15: % That way, you always have this original template file to use.

16: %

17: % Group addresses by affiliation; use superscriptaddress for long

18: % author lists, or if there are many overlapping affiliations.

19: % For Phys. Rev. appearance, change preprint to twocolumn.

20: % Choose pra, prb, prc, prd, pre, prl, prstab, or rmp for journal

21: %  Add 'draft' option to mark overfull boxes with black boxes

22: %  Add 'showpacs' option to make PACS codes appear

23: %  Add 'showkeys' option to make keywords appear

24: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,superscriptaddress,showpacs,showkeys]{revtex4}

25: \documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,superscriptaddress,showpacs,showkeys]{revtex4}

26: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

27: %\documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,groupedaddress]{revtex4}draft

28: \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,epsfig}

29: % You should use BibTeX and apsrev.bst for references

30: % Choosing a journal automatically selects the correct APS

31: % BibTeX style file (bst file), so only uncomment the line

32: % below if necessary.

33: %\bibliographystyle{apsrev}

34: 

35: \begin{document}

36: 

37: % Use the \preprint command to place your local institutional report

38: % number in the upper righthand corner of the title page in preprint mode.

39: % Multiple \preprint commands are allowed.

40: % Use the 'preprintnumbers' class option to override journal defaults

41: % to display numbers if necessary

42: \preprint{NSF-ITP-02-67}

43: 

44: %Title of paper

45: \title{Real-time determination of free energy and losses in optical

46: absorbing media }

47: 

48: % repeat the \author .. \affiliation  etc. as needed

49: % \email, \thanks, \homepage, \altaffiliation all apply to the current

50: % author. Explanatory text should go in the []'s, actual e-mail

51: % address or url should go in the {}'s for \email and \homepage.

52: % Please use the appropriate macro foreach each type of information

53: 

54: % \affiliation command applies to all authors since the last

55: % \affiliation command. The \affiliation command should follow the

56: % other information

57: % \affiliation can be followed by \email, \homepage, \thanks as well.

58: \author{C. Broadbent}

59: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Brigham Young University,

60: Provo, Utah, 84601}

61: \author{G. Hovhannisyan}

62: \affiliation{Department of Mathematics, Brigham Young University,

63: Provo, Utah 84601 }

64: \author{J. Peatross}

65: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Brigham Young University,

66: Provo, Utah, 84601}

67: \author{M. Clayton}

68: \affiliation{Department of Mathematics, Penn State University,

69: University Park, State College, Pennsylvania 16802}

70: \author{S. Glasgow}

71: %\email[]{Your e-mail address}

72: %\homepage[]{Your web page}

73: %\thanks{}

74: %\altaffiliation{}

75: \affiliation{Department of Mathematics, Brigham Young University,

76: Provo, Utah 84601 }

77: 

78: %\email[]{Your e-mail address}

79: %\homepage[]{Your web page}

80: %\thanks{}

81: %\altaffiliation{}

82: 

83: 

84: %Collaboration name if desired (requires use of superscriptaddress

85: %option in \documentclass). \noaffiliation is required (may also be

86: %used with the \author command).

87: %\collaboration can be followed by \email, \homepage, \thanks as well.

88: %\collaboration{}

89: %\noaffiliation

90: 

91: \date{\today}

92: 

93: \begin{abstract}

94: % insert abstract here

95: We introduce notions of free energy and loss in linear, absorbing

96: dielectric media which are relevant to the regime in which the

97: macroscopic Maxwell equations are themselves relevant. As such we

98: solve a problem eluded to by Landau and Lifshitz \cite{LL84} in

99: 1958, and later considered explicitly by Barash and Ginzburg

100: \cite{BG76}, and Oughtsun and Sherman \cite{OS94}. As such we

101: provide physically-relevant real-time notions of "energy" and

102: "loss" in all analogous linear dissipative systems.

103: 

104: \end{abstract}

105: 

106: % insert suggested PACS numbers in braces on next line

107: \pacs{}

108: % insert suggested keywords - APS authors don't need to do this

109: %\keywords{}

110: 

111: %\maketitle must follow title, authors, abstract, \pacs, and \keywords

112: \maketitle

113: 

114: % body of paper here - Use proper section commands

115: % References should be done using the \cite, \ref, and \label commands

116: %\section{\label{1} Introduction}

117: % Put \label in argument of \section for cross-referencing

118: %\section{\label{}}

119: 

120: In a previous publication we showed that in many instances fast

121: and slow light \cite{GM70,CW82,HHDB99} is a manifestation of a

122: dielectric interacting differently with the early parts of an

123: electromagnetic pulse than with its later parts \cite{JOSAA}. For

124: example, slow light in a passive linear dielectric typically

125: corresponds to energy in the leading part of the pulse being

126: preferentially stored by the medium and then being largely

127: returned to the pulse's (backward) tail. Quantifying the extent to

128: which this process is possible was a primary motivation for this

129: work.

130: 

131: Application of the principles presented in this letter will in

132: no-wise supersede the group velocity description of such

133: phenomena. The present development compliments other such analysis

134: by attaching precise notions of reversibility and irreversibility

135: to the medium's storage of the pulse energy. As such it also

136: solves a long outstanding problem regarding the real-time meaning

137: of "energy" and "loss" in linear dissipative systems.

138: 

139: From Poynting's energy conservation theorem (Eq. \ref{Eq:Poyn})

140: the total energy density in a dielectric at time $t$, $u(t)$, is

141: the sum (Eq. \ref{Eq:utot}) of the field energy $u_{field}(t)$

142: (Eq. \ref{Eq:ufield}) and the medium-field interaction energy

143: $u_{int.}(t)$ (Eq. \ref{Eq:uint}):

144: 

145: \begin{align}

146: \nabla \cdot {\bf S }+ \frac{\partial u}{\partial t} &= 0 \label{Eq:Poyn}\\

147: u(t) &= u_{field}(t)+u_{int.}(t) \label{Eq:utot}\\

148: u_{field}(t) &= \frac{E^2}{2} + \frac{H^2}{2}

149: \label{Eq:ufield}\\

150: u_{int.}(t) &= \int\limits_{-\infty}^t E(\tau)\dot{P}(\tau) \,

151: d\tau .\label{Eq:uint}

152: \end{align}

153: 

154: Here we restrict to isotropic, temporally dispersive media in

155: which a scalar analysis suffices, and in which one may safely

156: suppress reference to the spatial coordinate ${\bf x}$. In

157: addition we restrict to linear media. Consequently we restrict to

158: the case in which the medium's response to an applied field ${\bf

159: E}$ is completely determined by a scalar, point-wise defined

160: susceptibility $\chi=\chi(\omega,{\bf x})$. For a basic discussion

161: of properties of the medium-field interaction energy $u_{int.}(t)$

162: in anisotropic media, see \cite{GWP01}. Since $u_{int.}(t)$

163: quantifies the net work the field has done against the polarized

164: medium in the course of creating the current system state, in the

165: following we will also call $u_{int.}(t)$ the (medium) internal

166: energy. In the sequel, notions of work done, and the ability to do

167: work in the future, will become pivotal in establishing an

168: unambiguous, dynamically relevant notion of energy allocation in

169: dielectric media.

170: 

171: Landau and Lifshitz interpreted $u_{int.}(+\infty)$ as the energy

172: that is eventually lost to and dissipated by the medium over the

173: course of the medium-field interaction \cite{LL84}.  This

174: asymptotic quantity only depends on the medium susceptibility

175: $\chi$ and the evolution of the electric field $E$, not on the

176: particulars of any microscopic model giving rise to $\chi$. This

177: suggests the possibility of establishing a real-time, model

178: independent notion of loss. Barash and Ginsburg considered this

179: question \cite{BG76}.  They concluded, however, that a real-time

180: determination of losses is impossible without a microscopic model,

181: i.e. that a knowledge of the macroscopic susceptibility $\chi$ is

182: insufficient. Having concluded that a model independent notion of

183: loss is meaningless, they calculated (a certain notion of) loss

184: for specific models. In particular they generalized the work of

185: Loudon \cite{L70} concerning single Lorentz oscillator media by

186: making a straightforward extension of his notion of losses to

187: multiple Lorentz oscillators. Loudon's and, so, Barash and

188: Ginsburg's notion of losses amounts to identifying those terms in

189: (a certain expression of) the internal energy which explicitly

190: depend on phenomenological damping parameters. More convincingly,

191: their determination of the "energy" in the medium amounts to

192: summing the kinetic and potential energies of the individual

193: oscillators. We call this notion of energy the \emph{polarization}

194: energy, $u_{polarization}(t)$.

195: 

196: We initially followed a certain extension of this reasoning. We

197: hoped to establish a unique map from an arbitrary susceptibility

198: $\chi(\omega)$ to an oscillator representation, which in turn

199: would establish a unique (polarization) energy, as well as losses

200: via Loudon's identification procedure. Unfortunately, we found

201: that generically a susceptibility can be mapped to many different

202: microscopic models. This property is perfectly analogous to the

203: one by which it is possible for distinct LRC circuits to yield

204: identical impedances. However, we then conjectured that all such

205: equivalent representations might yield identical \emph{values} for

206: the polarization energy. Unsurprisingly, one finds that this is

207: not the case dynamically. (Although asymptotically all such

208: representations must obviously agree:

209: $u_{polarization}(+\infty)=0$, and the losses are given, then, by

210: $u_{int}(+\infty)$, which, as mentioned, is completely determined

211: by $\chi$.)

212: 

213: Figures \ref{fig:sprgms} and \ref{fig:free} demonstrate this

214: ambiguity. Given a double Lorentz oscillator susceptibility

215: $\chi(\omega) = \sum\nolimits_{n=1,2}

216: \omega_{p_n}^2/(\omega_n^2-i\gamma_n\omega-\omega^2)$ we examine

217: two different microscopic models for the same susceptibility.  The

218: first model $\chi_{a}(\omega)$, is given by the explicit structure

219: of $\chi(\omega)$ as just written. It corresponds to two different

220: masses of equal charge on two different springs, each spring

221: having different restoring and damping parameters. The total

222: polarization is given by the net displacement of both charged

223: masses from their equilibrium positions:

224: $P=\textup{X}_{1_a}+\textup{X}_{2_a}=\chi_a E$. See

225: FIG.~\ref{fig:sprgms}(a).

226: 

227: \begin{figure}

228:     \includegraphics{SpringFigure.eps}

229:     \caption{Macroscopic equivalent spring-mass systems for a double

230:     Lorentz oscillator and their LRC circuit analogs. (a) The two

231:     oscillator representation.  (b) The LRC circuit analog of (a).

232:     (c) The coupled oscillator representation.  (d) The circuit analog of (c).\label{fig:sprgms}}

233: \end{figure}

234: 

235: We use the tangency algorithm~\cite{GMCHB}, a transfer function

236: preserving algorithm intended for model reduction in LRC circuits,

237: to construct the second microscopic model $\chi_b(\omega)$.

238: Mechanically this model corresponds to coupled oscillators. See

239: FIG.~\ref{fig:sprgms}(c). The susceptibility for this microscopic

240: model is given in Eq. (\ref{Eq:chib}) (where we have mapped

241: $\omega$ to $i s$ for convenience). In this model the total

242: polarization is given by the displacement of the charged mass from

243: its equilibrium position $P=\textup{X}_{1_b}=\chi_b E$. It can be

244: shown that the coefficients $k_{n_b},\gamma_{n_b},m_{n_b}$ can be

245: found such that $\chi_a(\omega)=\chi_b(\omega)$ for all

246: frequencies $\omega$.

247: \begin{eqnarray}

248: \chi_b(s) = \frac{1}{k_{1_b}+\gamma_{1_b}s+m_{1_b}s

249: ^2+\frac{1}{\frac{1}{k_{2_b}+\gamma_{2_b}s}+\frac{1}{\gamma_{3_b}s}+\frac{1}{m_{3_b}s^2}}}

250: \label{Eq:chib}

251: \end{eqnarray}

252: 

253:  By inserting the two representations into the internal energy $u_{int}(t) =

254: \int\nolimits_{-\infty}^{t} E(\tau)\dot{P}(\tau)\,d\tau$ one can

255: find the kinetic and potential energies associated with each

256: representation.  This polarization energy, the energy reckoned

257: instantaneously via the motion and position of the masses, will be

258: shown to be representation dependent. To demonstrate this, we

259: calculate the "microscopic" energetics associated with the

260: response of these macroscopically equivalent systems to an

261: impulse. That is we excite the two media, with susceptibility

262: models $\chi_a$ and $\chi_b$, via a delta function E-field at time

263: $t=0$, and then plot the losses for each representation. We assign

264: values to the parameters of the two oscillator, $\chi_a$

265: representation (the plasma frequencies, resonant frequencies, and

266: damping coefficients), and then find parameters for the coupled

267: oscillators', $\chi_b$ representation such that the

268: representations are macroscopically equivalent. Figure

269: \ref{fig:free} shows the evolution of the losses for the different

270: representations, these losses determined in the sense of Loudon,

271: Barash and Ginzburg. The corresponding differences between the

272: internal energy imparted to the media by the delta function

273: E-field (as shown by the piecewise constant curve in figure

274: \ref{fig:free}) and the plotted losses gives the polarization

275: energies for the two representations.

276: 

277: \begin{figure}

278:     \includegraphics{HeatFigure.eps}

279:     \caption{The instantaneous losses of a

280:     two oscillator (long dash), and a coupled oscillator (short dash) model of a

281:     double Lorentz oscillator susceptibility

282:     responding to an instigating delta function E-field at time

283:     $t=0$.  The interaction energy

284:     $u_{int.}[E](t)$ (solid), and the irreversible energy $u_{irrev.}(t)$ (dot-dash) are also shown.\label{fig:free}}

285: \end{figure}

286: 

287: The qualitative features of Figure \ref{fig:free} can be

288: understood intuitively: the delta excitation of the medium

289: instantaneously creates the polarization energies, which, then,

290: decrease as the systems dissipate these energies. However, as

291: clearly seen in the figures, the polarization energies for each

292: microscopic representation differ significantly. Thus the

293: polarization energy does in fact depend on the microscopic model

294: ascribed to the susceptibility $\chi(\omega)$. Of course, since

295: Barash and Ginzburg specified no underlying macroscopic physical

296: principle in their determination of "energy", this result is just

297: a consequence of their (lack of a) definition of energy.

298: Consequently, we will argue that a model-dependent (e.g.

299: polarization) energy is irrelevant, both from the point of view of

300: the relevant physical principles that should be required of a

301: viable macroscopic description, as well as from that of the

302: practical considerations of the energy storage and return process

303: mentioned at the beginning of this article.

304: 

305: Before establishing relevant macroscopic principles of energy

306: allocation, we highlight the connection between mechanical and

307: electrical oscillators and the ambiguities associated with

308: representation in the context of the latter.  The perfect analogy

309: between electrical LRC circuits and linear passive dielectric

310: media (where polarization $P$, susceptibility $\chi$ and E-field

311: $E$ , translate to charge $Q$, derivative of admittance

312: $\partial_t A$, and electromotive force $\mathcal{E}$,

313: respectively), allows one to reinterpret the polarization energy

314: evolutions implied in Fig. \ref{fig:free} as the evolutions of the

315: energies contained in the dispersive elements (inductors and

316: capacitors) of admittance-equivalent circuits. In the case of

317: electrical circuits, the plotted losses correspond to the losses

318: in the dissipative elements of the two circuits, i.e. the losses

319: through the resistors. This time we interpret the discrepancies in

320: these curves as indicating that different LRC circuits with the

321: same admittance can, temporarily, lose energy to their resistors

322: at different rates. Figures \ref{fig:sprgms}(b)and (d) give LRC

323: circuits corresponding to the mechanical models shown in Figures

324: \ref{fig:sprgms}(a) and (c), respectively.

325: 

326: From the discussion above, one concludes that the polarization

327: energy and the associated losses depend intrinsically upon the

328: specific microscopic model giving rise to the susceptibility

329: $\chi$. However, these allocations cannot be relevant

330: macroscopically: for example, within the phenomenological

331: framework in which $\chi$ is introduced, the spatial and temporal

332: evolution of the various fields depend only upon this particular

333: piece of information, not upon its various representations. In

334: this circumstance in which the system dynamics is completely

335: determined by some piece of information (e.g. $\chi$), to say that

336: some other piece of information is important in order to establish

337: some particular notion of energy allocation is to admit that that

338: notion of energy allocation is irrelevant to those all-ready

339: specified dynamics. We establish a notion of energy allocation

340: that is determined uniquely by $\chi$ and, so, is relevant to

341: system dynamics. In particular it provides a precise notion of the

342: maximum possibility for the field to recover energy from the

343: medium in, for example, the borrow-return process mentioned at the

344: beginning of this article.

345: 

346: In this article, we introduce the \emph{irreversible energy}

347: density $u_{irrev.}(t)$. At any given time $t$, it is defined to

348: be the infemum of all possible [LL] asymptotic losses

349: $u_{int.}(+\infty)$, this extrema being realized over all possible

350: future evolutions of the electric field $E$, holding its past

351: evolution fixed. Temporarily using notation emphasizing that the

352: internal energy at time $t$ depends not only on this time, but

353: also on the history of the instigating electric field $E$ up until

354: that time, one writes

355: 

356: \begin{align}

357: u_{irrev.}[E](t)=u_{irrev.}[E_t^{-}](t)

358: &:=\underset{E_t^{+}}{\inf} u_{int.}[E_t^{-}+E_t^{+}](+\infty).

359:  \label{Eq:uirrev}

360: \end{align}

361: 

362: Here $E_t^{-}$ denotes the electric field time series $E(\tau)$

363: with its $t$-future ($\tau > t$) eliminated. Similarly, $E_t^{+}$

364: denotes an appended electric field time series $E(\tau)$ with its

365: $t$-past ($\tau < t$) eliminated. For a passive dielectric, this

366: infemum exists and, so, is unique \cite{AMEREM}. In particular,

367: and is shown later in Eq. (\ref{Eq:RI}), it does not depend upon

368: an explicit representation for $\chi$.

369: 

370: Almost tautologically, from definition (\ref{Eq:uirrev}), it

371: follows that $u_{irrev.}(t)$ can never decrease as time increases.

372: Thus, at any given time $t$, it quantifies a component of the

373: medium internal energy $u_{int.}(t)$ that will, under all

374: circumstances, remain in and be dissipated by the medium. That is

375: it specifies a component of the medium internal energy that cannot

376: under any circumstances be returned to the field. Moreover, since

377: it is defined in terms of an infemum, i.e. a greatest lower bound,

378: all notions of loss greater than this value are too pessimistic:

379: at any given time $t$, there always exists a future medium-field

380: interaction creating less eventual energy loss to the medium than

381: any value greater than that specified by $u_{irrev.}(t)$. This is

382: true regardless of how small this overestimation is. Consequently,

383: within the phenomenological, macroscopic framework in which $\chi$

384: dictates the system dynamics, this quantity uniquely records the

385: energetic irreversibility generated within this dissipative

386: system.

387: 

388: In Fig. \ref{fig:free} the dot-dashed curve specifies the

389: irreversible energy for the case considered, obviously valid for

390: either of the two $\chi$-equivalent physical systems. Note that in

391: the figure it is never exceeded by the losses in the sense of

392: Loudon, Barash and Ginzburg. Indeed one can prove that this

393: relationship must hold between the macroscopically relevant

394: irreversible energy and any notion of loss specified

395: microscopically. Equivalently one determines that energy (the

396: ability to do work) specified macroscopically cannot exceed any

397: such microscopic notion. Further, one concludes that the former is

398: almost always strictly less than the latter because of incoherence

399: among the system's microscopic, energy containing elements. The

400: former statement (the one regarding losses) can be obtained by

401: repeated application of the following theorem: (As in the

402: monotonicity of $u_{irrev.}(t)$, the theorem follows almost

403: tautologically from the definition.)

404: 

405: \begin{align}

406: u_{irrev.}[E;\chi_1+\chi_2](t) \geq

407: u_{irrev.}[E;\chi_1](t)+u_{irrev.}[E;\chi_2](t),

408:  \label{Eq:entropy}

409: \end{align}

410: 

411: with strict inequality holding almost always for nontrivial

412: $\chi_1$ and $\chi_2$. Eq. (\ref{Eq:entropy}) demonstrates that in

413: "additive" processes (i.e. generating media mixtures),

414: irreversibility is generated. By repeated (additive) subdivisions

415: of a macroscopically relevant susceptibility $\chi$ into pieces

416: $\chi_i$, one may obtain microscopic representations of the medium

417: response. If the elements are "simple" enough (to be quantified

418: later) $u_{irrev.}[E;\chi_i]$ will be equivalent to the

419: parameter-dependent notion of loss suggested by Loudon, and

420: Ginzburg and Barash. Indeed the notion of loss and energy

421: specified by Loudon happen to agree with the

422: macroscopically/phenomenologically relevant notion herein

423: introduced in the cases he considered-- single Lorentz oscillator

424: media. [This is not the case for (competing) multiple oscillator

425: media considered by Barash and Ginzburg, as demonstrated by figure

426: \ref{fig:free}.]

427: 

428: The difference between the current internal energy and the current

429: irreversible energy gives the \emph{reversible energy}

430: $u_{rev.}(t)$:

431: 

432: \begin{align}

433: u_{rev.}(t):= u_{int.}(t)-u_{irrev.}(t).

434:  \label{Eq:urev}

435: \end{align}

436: 

437: The reversible energy gives the least upper bound on the amount of

438: energy that the medium can relinquish after time $t$: any amount

439: greater than this value, no matter how small the discrepancy,

440: overestimates the ability of the medium's microscopic,

441: energy-containing components, say, to organize themselves and do

442: useful, macroscopic work. Obviously the difference between the

443: (piece-wise constant) internal energy plotted in Fig.

444: \ref{fig:free}, and the dot-dashed curve in that figure, gives

445: this dynamical notion of the possibility for the medium to do work

446: (against the field) for the example considered.

447: 

448: Using Eq. (\ref{Eq:uint}), one immediately shows that

449: $u_{int.}(t)$ is constant after the electric field ceases. From

450: definition (\ref{Eq:urev}), and the theorem regarding the

451: monotonicity of $u_{irrev.}(t)$, it follows that $u_{rev.}(t)$ can

452: never increase after such time, i.e. after the electric field

453: quits subsidizing its existence by doing work against the

454: polarized medium. We will show that $u_{rev.}(t)$ is never

455: negative.  Consequently, one sees that when the system becomes

456: energetically closed, the reversible energy behaves like a

457: dynamical system free energy (density), equivalently like a system

458: Lyapunov function (density). For this reason, and for the

459: microscopic consideration mentioned, in particular the

460: entropy-generation-like statement embodied in Eq.

461: (\ref{Eq:entropy}), we will also designate the reversible energy

462: as the (medium-field) \emph{free energy}.

463: 

464: We finish with a formula demonstrating how the macroscopic loss

465: (and so the free energy (via \ref{Eq:urev})), can be calculated.

466: (In particular how the irreversible energy plotted in figure

467: (\ref{fig:free}) can be generated.) This formula is obtained by

468: applying a variational principle to the definition

469: (\ref{Eq:uirrev}), and solving the resulting

470: \emph{Riemann-Hilbert} problem. One finds that, for passive,

471: causal dielectrics,

472: 

473: \begin{eqnarray}

474: \begin{aligned}

475: u_{irrev.}[E](t) &=\frac{\lambda}{2 \pi}

476: \int\limits_{-\infty}^{t}\left|\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}

477: \frac{-i\omega\chi(\omega)E_{\tau}(\omega)}{\phi_+(\omega)}e^{-i\omega

478: \tau} \, d\omega \right|^2 \, d\tau \label{Eq:RI}

479: %\\

480: %\intertext{where}

481: \end{aligned}

482: \end{eqnarray}

483: where

484: \begin{eqnarray}

485: \begin{aligned}

486: \lambda &= \lim_{\omega \to \infty}

487: \frac{\textup{Im}[\chi(\omega)]}{\omega\left|\chi(\omega)\right|^2},\\

488: \phi_+(\omega) &= \lim_{\epsilon \to 0^+} \exp\left[\frac{-1}{2\pi

489: i}\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{\log\frac{\textup{Im}[\chi(\omega^{\prime})]}

490: {\lambda\omega^{\prime}\left|\chi(\omega^{\prime})\right|^2}}{\omega^{\prime}-\left(\omega+i\epsilon\right)}

491: \,d\omega^{\prime} \right]

492: \end{aligned}

493: \end{eqnarray}

494: 

495: Here we introduce the \emph{instantaneous spectrum at time $t$},

496: $E_{t}(\omega)$. It is the Fourier transform of $E_t^{-}$ (see the

497: lines following definition (\ref{Eq:uirrev})). We also introduce

498: the \emph{medium complexity factor} $\phi_+(\omega)$. Its

499: deviation from unity gives a measure of the effective

500: macroscopic/phenomenological incoherence of possible microscopic,

501: energy containing elements. Media for which $\phi_+(\omega)$ is

502: identically unity we call \emph{simple} media, the rest we call

503: \emph{complex}. In the case that the susceptibility $\chi$

504: corresponds to a single Lorentz oscillator medium, as in the case

505: considered by Loudon, $\phi_+(\omega)$ is identically one, and Eq.

506: (\ref{Eq:RI}) reduces to

507: 

508: \begin{eqnarray}

509: \begin{aligned}

510: u_{irrev.}[E](t) &=\lambda \int\limits_{-\infty}^{t} \dot

511: P^2(\tau) \, \, d\tau \label{Eq:RIL}

512: %\\

513: %\intertext{where}

514: \end{aligned}

515: \end{eqnarray}

516: where, then, $\lambda$ is determined in terms of the

517: phenomenological damping parameter $\gamma$ and the effective

518: plasma frequency $\omega_p$:

519: \begin{eqnarray}

520: \begin{aligned}

521: \lambda &= \gamma/\omega_p^2.

522: \end{aligned}

523: \end{eqnarray}

524: 

525: In such case, then, and as claimed by Loudon, the relevant losses

526: correspond to the frictional losses generated by the single

527: Lorentz oscillator.

528: 

529: \section{Summary}

530: 

531: We have introduced notions of free energy and losses relevant to

532: the macroscopic behavior of passive, linear dielectric media.

533: These notions are relevant in the same regime in which the

534: macroscopic Maxwell equations are themselves relevant, i.e. in the

535: regime in which that theory specifies all measurable dynamics. In

536: particular, the macroscopic theory introduced is relevant to the

537: regimes in which the macroscopic, energy barrow-return process

538: describes the production of slow and fast light in passive,

539: linear, temporally dispersive media. Further communications will

540: describe the precise evolutions of the ideal medium-field

541: interactions giving rise to maximum energy recovery, i.e. those

542: "recovery" fields suggested by the variational definition

543: (\ref{Eq:uirrev}). The nature of the analogy of such recovery

544: fields in dissipative media with reversible processes in the

545: thermodynamic setting will be analyzed. Finally, the nonintuitive

546: evolution of the medium-field interaction on such recovery fields

547: in complex media will be exposed, e.g. the failure of monotonicity

548: in the evolution of the internal energy to its minimum value, even

549: on ideal recovery fields, and the identification of such as a

550: measure of the level of macroscopic disorder created by the

551: existence of many, competing degrees of freedom.

552: 

553: \begin{acknowledgments}

554: Conversations with Kurt Oughstun, Joseph Eberly, Peter Milonni,

555: Aephraim Steinberg, Raymond Chiao, and Michael Fleischhauer are

556: gratefully acknowledged. This research was supported in part by

557: the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY99-07949.

558: \end{acknowledgments}

559: 

560: 

561: 

562: 

563: 

564: 

565: 

566: 

567: 

568: 

569: % If in two-column mode, this environment will change to single-column

570: % format so that long equations can be displayed. Use

571: % sparingly.

572: %\begin{widetext}

573: % put long equation here

574: %\end{widetext}

575: 

576: % figures should be put into the text as floats.

577: % Use the graphics or graphicx packages (distributed with LaTeX2e)

578: % and the \includegraphics macro defined in those packages.

579: % See the LaTeX Graphics Companion by Michel Goosens, Sebastian Rahtz,

580: % and Frank Mittelbach for instance.

581: %

582: % Here is an example of the general form of a figure:

583: % Fill in the caption in the braces of the \caption{} command. Put the label

584: % that you will use with \ref{} command in the braces of the \label{} command.

585: % Use the figure* environment if the figure should span across the

586: % entire page. There is no need to do explicit centering.

587: 

588: % \begin{figure}

589: % \includegraphics{}%

590: % \caption{\label{}}

591: % \end{figure}

592: 

593: % Surround figure environment with turnpage environment for landscape

594: % figure

595: % \begin{turnpage}

596: % \begin{figure}

597: % \includegraphics{}%

598: % \caption{\label{}}

599: % \end{figure}

600: % \end{turnpage}

601: 

602: % tables should appear as floats within the text

603: %

604: % Here is an example of the general form of a table:

605: % Fill in the caption in the braces of the \caption{} command. Put the label

606: % that you will use with \ref{} command in the braces of the \label{} command.

607: % Insert the column specifiers (l, r, c, d, etc.) in the empty braces of the

608: % \begin{tabular}{} command.

609: % The ruledtabular enviroment adds doubled rules to table and sets a

610: % reasonable default table settings.

611: % Use the table* environment to get a full-width table in two-column

612: % Add \usepackage{longtable} and the longtable (or longtable*}

613: % environment for nicely formatted long tables. Or use the [H]

614: % placement option to break a long table (with less control than

615: % in longtable).

616: % \begin{table}%[H] add [H] placement to break table across pages

617: % \caption{\label{}}

618: % \begin{ruledtabular}

619: % \begin{tabular}{}

620: % Lines of table here ending with \\

621: % \end{tabular}

622: % \end{ruledtabular}

623: % \end{table}

624: 

625: % Surround table environment with turnpage environment for landscape

626: % table

627: % \begin{turnpage}

628: % \begin{table}

629: % \caption{\label{}}

630: % \begin{ruledtabular}

631: % \begin{tabular}{}

632: % \end{tabular}

633: % \end{ruledtabular}

634: % \end{table}

635: % \end{turnpage}

636: 

637: % Specify following sections are appendices. Use \appendix* if there

638: % only one appendix.

639: %\appendix

640: %\section{}

641: 

642: % If you have acknowledgments, this puts in the proper section head.

643: %\begin{acknowledgments}

644: % put your acknowledgments here.

645: %\end{acknowledgments}

646: 

647: % Create the reference section using BibTeX:

648: \bibliography{PRL.bbl}

649: 

650: \end{document}

651: %

652: % ****** End of file template.aps ******

653: