How do anti-reflective coatings let MORE light in through the lens?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gauss44
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lens Light
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the mechanisms by which anti-reflective coatings on lenses allow more light to pass through compared to uncoated lenses. Participants explore theoretical explanations, applications in optics, and the implications of energy conservation in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that destructive interference of reflected light waves allows more coherent light to enter the lens without being redirected by reflections.
  • Others argue that anti-reflective coatings reduce the amount of light reflected due to destructive interference, thus increasing the light that is transmitted through the lens.
  • A participant mentions that conservation of energy dictates that if no light is reflected, all incident light is refracted, leading to increased transmission.
  • There is a discussion about the timing of interference, with some suggesting that interference occurs immediately rather than after a half wavelength.
  • One participant emphasizes that the anti-reflective coating does not violate fundamental laws but rather redirects energy from reflection to transmission through wave interference.
  • Another participant explains that for a perfect anti-reflective coating, all reflected rays can cancel each other out, resulting in zero reflection and full transmission of the incident light.
  • There is mention of the complexity involved in creating broad-band anti-reflective coatings, which may require multiple layers of materials with varying refractive indices.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying interpretations of how anti-reflective coatings function, with no consensus reached on the precise mechanisms or implications. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the nuances of light behavior at the interfaces.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations include assumptions about the uniformity of light behavior and the specific conditions under which the coatings operate. The discussion also touches on the mathematical details of wave interference without delving into them fully.

gauss44
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
In the context of anti-reflective coatings put on glasses lenses, I recently read, "No light reflecting means more light in through the lens - energy must be conserved after all."? How does MORE light get in?

The best I could imagine is either:

1. That by using destructive interference on reflecting rays, more coherent light can enter the lenses and get to the lenses without colliding with reflecting light which might change their direction.

Or

2. The anti-reflective coatings keep the critical angle wide so that more light is refracted and less is reflected.

How do you suspect that MORE light gets into a lens with an anti-reflective coating, than without that coating?

(I am currently not a student. I am studying for the medical college admissions test on my own and without a course to hopefully get into medical school. Many of my questions are inspired by my studying.)
 
Science news on Phys.org
Light is an electromagnetic wave. When a wave enters a medium with a different refractive index, such as when light enters a glass lens, a certain portion of the wave will always be reflected. The coatings use destructive interference to make it so that the reflected portion of the wave contains a much smaller percentage of energy than it would without the coatings. Less energy in the reflected portion of the wave means less light is reflected and more passes through the lens.
 
Drakkith said:
Light is an electromagnetic wave. When a wave enters a medium with a different refractive index, such as when light enters a glass lens, a certain portion of the wave will always be reflected. The coatings use destructive interference to make it so that the reflected portion of the wave contains a much smaller percentage of energy than it would without the coatings. Less energy in the reflected portion of the wave means less light is reflected and more passes through the lens.

What causes more light to pass through the lens? Sorry if I'm being dense.
 
gauss44 said:
What causes more light to pass through the lens? Sorry if I'm being dense.

It is because of conservation of energy. If the glass does not absorb, the intensity of the incident ray (incoming energy in unit time) equals to the sum of the reflected intensity and the intensity of the refracted ray. If there is no reflected ray because of the anti-reflective coating, all light is refracted. Reaching the other side of the lens, also covered with anti-reflecting layer, the whole light beam traverses the interface with air, without reflection loss.

ehild
 
ehild said:
It is because of conservation of energy. If the glass does not absorb, the intensity of the incident ray (incoming energy in unit time) equals to the sum of the reflected intensity and the intensity of the refracted ray. If there is no reflected ray because of the anti-reflective coating, all light is refracted. Reaching the other side of the lens, also covered with anti-reflecting layer, the whole light beam traverses the interface with air, without reflection loss.

ehild

Really? My understanding or misunderstanding was that with an anti-reflective coating, the same amount of light was initially reflected (and then about half a wavelength later would face destructive interference) like in this illustration: The first illustration here if you scroll down, http://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...flective-coating-makes-glass-more-transparent

The drawing shows R1 and R2 facing destructive interference after about half a wavelength, essentially cancelling each other out. Unless I read it wrong. I know there's something I'm missing, and am not sure what?
 
gauss44 said:
The drawing shows R1 and R2 facing destructive interference after about half a wavelength, essentially cancelling each other out. Unless I read it wrong. I know there's something I'm missing, and am not sure what?

They interfere immediately, not after a half wavelength.
 
The anti-reflective coating works for light beams much broader than the thickness of the layer. You can imagine that a ray reflected from the interface with glass and stepping out into air "finds" a directly reflected ray out of phase.

ehild
 

Attachments

  • antiref.JPG
    antiref.JPG
    12.5 KB · Views: 693
@gauss44
This is not a case of getting something for nothing and no fundamental law is being tinkered with. It's merely a matter of re-directing some energy from being reflected to being transmitted. It just boils down to the effect of wave interference.
 
Note that when the index of refraction changes gradually over a distance that is large compared to the wavelength of the rays, the rays will refract under exactly the same angle as if there were an interface - but there is no reflection.

If you look at the side of the refracted ray... what is the ray that can interfere with the refracted ray and reinforce it?
 
  • #10
snorkack said:
If you look at the side of the refracted ray... what is the ray that can interfere with the refracted ray and reinforce it?

All the rays that aren't reflected or absorbed?
 
  • #11
There are multiple reflected rays, and there are multiple transmitted rays. The reflected rays interfere destructively, the transmitted rays interfere constructively.

Without getting into the math or other details, that ↑ is the plain simple answer.

Getting a little more detailed, the following figure may help. Just imagine that the incident ray is at normal incidence, so all the reflected rays overlap each other, and all the transmitted rays overlap each other as well:

jopt429920f1_online.jpg

For a perfect AR coating, when you add all the reflected rays accounting for the phase of each, you get an amplitude of zero. When you do the same for all the transmitted rays, you get an amplitude equal to that of the original incident ray. So 0% is reflected and 100% is transmitted.

Going further with this, the coating pictured above is AR only for some discrete wavelengths. To get "broad band AR" coatings, you might have 20 to 30 coating layers, alternating between two materials of different refractive indexes:

Sec4104.gif

The thickness of each layer can be adjusted, and companies that make such coatings can calculate a set of thickness that typically give under 0.25% to 0.5% reflectivity (considered acceptably small in many applications) over a fairly wide range of wavelengths (eg. visible, near IR, etc.)

-----

Acknowledgements:
The above figures were found at
http://iopscience.iop.org/2040-8986/14/10/105701
and
http://xdb.lbl.gov/Section4/Sec_4-1.html
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Anti-relection means more transmission all right.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 207 ·
7
Replies
207
Views
14K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K