Transmittance of absorbing multilayer thin-films on an absorbing substrate

  • Thread starter Thread starter DivGradCurl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Substrate
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on finding the transmittance (T) of multilayer thin films on an absorbing substrate, given the known amplitude transmittance (t). The user references existing literature that provides expressions for transmittance but notes discrepancies in handling complex refractive indices and assumptions about the media. They highlight that while reflectance is straightforward to compute, transmittance becomes complex due to the absorbing nature of the substrate. The user seeks clarification on how to accurately compute transmittance in this context, emphasizing the need for a correct approach to the expressions derived from the literature. Overall, the challenge lies in reconciling different formulas and assumptions for multilayer systems involving absorbing materials.
DivGradCurl
Messages
364
Reaction score
0
I have found a general expression for the amplitude transmittance (t) of multilayer film stacks in the literature [1], but the author does not explain how to obtain the transmittance (T). I looked up other references, and the closest I could find was the description of "an absorbing film on a transparent substrate" [2].

On page 756 of [2] there are expressions for transmittance:

T = \frac{n_3 \cos \theta _3}{n_1 \cos \theta _1} \left| t \right| ^2 \qquad \qquad \mbox{(TE)}

T = \frac{(\cos \theta _3) / n_3}{(\cos \theta _1)/ n_1} \left| t \right| ^2 \qquad \qquad \mbox{(TM)}

In other words, I'm trying to find the transmittance (using the amplitude transmittance value I already know) for a system that consists of a semi-infinite incidence medium (dielectric), many thin-films (absorbing), and a semi-infinite substrate (absorbing). In comparison, the reflectance is easy to find, because you just multiply the reflectivity by its complex conjugate; this is not the case. If you use the expressions above, replacing (n_3) and (\theta_3) by the substrate complex refractive index and the complex angle on the exit side, respectively, the results will be complex as well.

Any ideas? Thanks.

[1] J. Eastman, Surface scattering in optical interference coatings. PhD thesis, University of Rochester, 1974.
[2] M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 7th ed., 1999.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
PS: maybe it's simply 0, because of my semi-infinite assumption for an absorbing substrate.
 
I've found an explanation in this reference [3]. This is not exactly what is in the book, but it's what I think is correct. Please correct me if I am wrong.

In a system where the media are:

# 0 = a semi-infinite dielectric (transparent incident medium)
# 1 = the first thin film (absorbing)
.
.
.
# m = the last thin film (absorbing)
# m+1 = a semi-infinite substrate (absorbing)

I assume:

1. Oblique incidence
2. I already know the amplitude transmittance (t)
3. The coordinate system has the origin at the last interface, where +z points down.

Beyond the last interface, the transmittance is

T = \left| \frac{\hat{n}_{m+1} \cos \hat{\theta} _{m+1}}{n_0 \cos \hat{\theta} _0} \right| \left| t \right| ^2 \exp \left[ - \left( \frac{4\pi \, \kappa_{m+1}}{\lambda} \right) \frac{z}{\cos \theta _{m+1}} \right] \qquad \qquad \mbox{(TE)} \right|

T = \left| \frac{ (\cos \hat{\theta} _{m+1})/\hat{n}_{m+1}}{(\cos \hat{\theta} _0)/n_0} \right| \left| t \right| ^2 \exp \left[ - \left( \frac{4\pi \, \kappa_{m+1}}{\lambda} \right) \frac{z}{\cos \theta _{m+1}} \right] \qquad \qquad \mbox{(TM)} \right|

where (\kappa) is the imaginary part of the complex refractive index.

This means I can generalize the two transmittance expressions (from the first post) for the case of complex media [3]. I also introduce a decay, because the semi-infinite substrate is absorbing---according to the Lambert law of absorption (in its oblique version) [3]. So, the better way to put it is that the transmittance approaches 0 very fast.

[3] C. Mack, Fundamental Principles of Optical Lithography: The Science of Microfabrication. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, 2007.
 
Last edited:
One last thought:

I've found yet another reference [4] with a slightly different expression for the case of a multilayer stack:

T = \Re \left\{ \frac{\hat{n}_{s} \cos \hat{\theta} _s}{n_a \cos \hat{\theta} _a} \right\} \left| t \right| ^2

where "s" and "a" stand for substrate and ambient media, respectively. Of course, this author tells the reader to carry out separate computations for TE and TM-polarized light, but that's really the only formula presented. It appears that the only difference between the two cases is the amplitude transmittance, which does not sound right for a TM calculation. I would expect something like:T = \Re \left\{ \frac{\cos \hat{\theta} _s / \hat{n}_{s}}{\cos \hat{\theta} _a / n_a} \right\} \left| t \right| ^2

Also, notice that he does not take the absolute value of the ratio; he uses the real part of the result instead. What confuses me even more is that he cites [2] as his reference, which does not present the same formalism.

This takes me back to my original question:

How do I compute the transmittance in (absorbing) stratified media? Any help is highly appreciated!

[2] M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 7th ed., 1999.
[4] D. L. Windt, IMD - Software for modeling the optical properties of multilayer films, Computers in Physics, 12, 360 (1998).
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
I passed a motorcycle on the highway going the opposite direction. I know I was doing 125/km/h. I estimated that the frequency of his motor dropped by an entire octave, so that's a doubling of the wavelength. My intuition is telling me that's extremely unlikely. I can't actually calculate how fast he was going with just that information, can I? It seems to me, I have to know the absolute frequency of one of those tones, either shifted up or down or unshifted, yes? I tried to mimic the...
Back
Top