Recent content by JerryY

I'm not sure I agree. Firstly, due to the non-unity reflectivity of the mirrors, we don't actually get a standing wave inside the cavity. Second, if photons populate standing waves then nothing would couple in and out of the cavity, and we know that photons travel with speed c0/n where n is the...

Perhaps not, but the photon number is the quantity I'm interested in, for use in further calculations. Regarding the rest of your comment, yes I've now understood how energy is conserved in such a system with the help of previous comments and yours. But the question still remains: do I take...

Unfortunately, the course I'm currently studying deals with entirely semi-classical derivations, e.g. the Schawlow Townes linewidth is derived without considering quantum fluctuations, and I believe there is a semi-classical explanation to relate the interference with the photon number.

I can see how ##|E_{circ}|^2## (##|E_{bcirc}|^2##) corresponds to the photons traveling in the forward (backward) direction, but what does the interference term physically correspond to though?

Thanks for the explanation. I have one more question. Physically, the absolute value squared of Ecirc and Ebcirc is proportional to the number of photons propagating in the forward and backward directions respectively. So logically speaking summing these two up gives you the number of photons...

Sorry, but that still isn't what I'm asking. Take this diagram of a Fabry Perot I got from wikipedia. It is well understood that the interference between Erefl,1 and Eback compensates for the interference between Elaun and ERT. I'm asking about the interference between Ecirc and Ebcirc. If this...

Nowhere. My question concerns the intensity stored inside the resonator itself. Everywhere I look people take the absolute value squared of the two counter-propagating fields and claim that as the total intensity without taking the interference of the two fields into account. Why are they...

Constructive interference in one place is compensated for by destructive interference in another for energy to be conserved. If my original question I picked a non-resonant Fabry Perot resonator. This leads to, on average, partial constructive or destructive interference within the resonator...

Yes, but destructive interference by itself doesn't conserve energy though, hence my initial question.

Thanks for your reply, but I'm considering a resonator with mirror reflectivity < 1, i.e. finite Q-factor. I agree that the energy inside the resonator shouldn't change with time, but again due to the non-unity reflectivity, the two counter-propagating waves do not have the same magnitude, and...

It is known that constructive interference in one place must be compensated for by destructive interference in another. Take a simple Fabry Perot resonator for example. The interference occurring at both sides of the first mirror (assuming one incident electric field) compensate each other out...

Here's the relevant quote from the publication: 'Consider a 50/50 beam splitter where one particle is incident via beam (a). Obviously, this particle has a 50% chance of ending up in either in output port (c) or in output port (d). Quantum mechanically we may write the operation of the beam...

Thanks for the detailed reply. The links you've provided look very interesting. However, I'm afraid my original question still hasn't been answered. In the reference I provided (page 2 actually) there is only one beam incident on the beamsplitter, and the resulting waves must be 90 degrees out...

Quantum mechanically speaking when we split a wave in two the resulting waves must have a 90 degrees phase difference for energy to be conserved. Take the beamsplitter depicted in [1] for example. But the Fresnel equations state that the reflected wave should experience a phase shift of π when...