Notes: how does the l-cutoff affect absorption?

Former-commit-id: 059c1f8a7aa29f19e2febe54d360ab045782603b
This commit is contained in:
Marek Nečada 2018-08-12 20:54:14 +00:00
parent 9e30722756
commit 8ca7671092
1 changed files with 53 additions and 0 deletions

View File

@ -638,6 +638,59 @@ extremal
while everything outside it represents (unrealistic) system with gain. while everything outside it represents (unrealistic) system with gain.
\end_layout \end_layout
\begin_layout Subsection
Open questions
\end_layout
\begin_layout Subsubsection
How much does the sph.
harm.
degree cutoff affect the eigenvalues of
\begin_inset Formula $W$
\end_inset
?
\end_layout
\begin_layout Standard
When I simulated a cylindrical nanoparticle in scuff-tmatrix (
\begin_inset Formula $l_{\mathrm{max}}=2$
\end_inset
, 50 nm height, 50 nm radius, Palik Ag permittivity) and then with the same
parameters, just with the imaginary part of permittivity set to zero (i.e.
without losses), I got almost the same results, including very similar
eigenvalues of
\begin_inset Formula $W$
\end_inset
(although it should then be basically zero).
This is probably a problem of the BEM method, but it could also be consequence
of the cutoff.
\end_layout
\begin_layout Standard
For comparison, when I tried exact Mie results for a sphere with
\begin_inset Formula $\Im\epsilon=0$
\end_inset
, I got also
\begin_inset Formula $W=0$
\end_inset
(as expected).
But
\begin_inset Formula $T$
\end_inset
-matrix of a sphere is diagonal, hence the cutoff does not affect the eigenvalue
s of resulting (also diagonal)
\begin_inset Formula $W$
\end_inset
-matrix (below the cutoff, of course).
\end_layout
\begin_layout Section \begin_layout Section
Multiple scattering Multiple scattering
\end_layout \end_layout