English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We find that the electric field is not a suitable physical quantity todescribe the response of a non-metallic material in the study of non-resonantnear-field optics. In practice, we show the spin-less one-electron two-levelsystem responds differently to longitudinal and transverse electric fieldsunder the non-resonant condition. This difference originates from thenon-relativistic nature of the system, and should exist in actual many-electronsystems. For this type of system, it is a logical fallacy to use theconstitutive equation in terms of the total electric field and the associatedpermittivity. Recognizing this fallacy, both experimental and theoreticalprogress is needed in the field of non-resonant near-field optics ofnon-metallic materials.

Logical Fallacy of using the Electric Field in Non-resonant Near-field Optics