Talk:Clausius–Mossotti relation

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mathematics Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Unreadable

This article is unreadable, and does ... not make clear how Clausius-Mossotti relates the dielectric constant with the polarizability of individual particles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.116.129 (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this comment, at least regarding the section called "Derivation". It is unreadable. Several of the variables are unexplained. Is r the distance to R_i, p_i, or zero? Is R_i the same as p_i? Is p_i a lattice vector too?

The third section (after Feynman) is also bad. What is the local field, for example? I would welcome a thorough rewrite. 84.227.254.143 (talk) 04:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up to do

We have a red link on maxwell's formula so somethign is spelled wrong.
The explanation of the variables in the formula is unclear to me.
The context for the formula needs improvement.

RJFJR 17:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The formula for the phasor permittivity should be >>> eps*=eps-i*sigma/omega or if you want to keep the plus sign >>> eps*=eps+sigma/(i*omega) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.6.154.8 (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SERIOUSLY FOLKS, I fixed the formula for \eps^* and someone identified it as vandalism and changed it back. This page is useless, the formula for \eps* should have a minus sign! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.6.154.8 (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Kindly specify under what conditions the Lorentz-Lorentz relation is applicable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.30.250.66 (talk) 05:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

System of units?

Could somebody please clarify which measurement system is used in formula in the top part of the page? 4π as far as I can see correspond to Gaussian system, but ε₀, if it is really the permittivity of vacuum here, is more of SI, isn't it? Thanks in advance. --Esmu Igors (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also got suspicious, and read question and discussion, lecture notes in SI found on the web, the Rysselberghe (1932) and Aspnes (1981) articles in CGS and the Atkins (2010) book. Since Atkins specifically mentions both the SI and CGS versions of polarizability (volume or not) I feel convinced that my edit resolves the ambiguity. --ErikM (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed units

Right now there is both Clausius–Mossotti relation and Lorentz–Lorenz equation; one uses SI and the other CGS, so they seem to be different but they really are saying the same thing. I suggest to give SI and cgs for both equations. --Nanite (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]