I Amplitudes in a Michelson interferometer

AI Thread Summary
In a Michelson interferometer, the assumption that both resulting waves have half the amplitude after hitting the beam splitter is incorrect, as it leads to an inaccurate calculation of the fringe irradiance. The correct expression for the irradiance is given by I = 4 I_0 * cos^2(2πd/λ + π/2), where d is the path length difference and I_0 represents the intensity after the beams have passed through the system. The confusion arises from the fact that the amplitude of the beams remains equal to the source amplitude, which does not imply energy creation. Understanding this distinction is crucial for accurate calculations in interferometry. This highlights the importance of correctly interpreting amplitude and intensity in optical systems.
Decimal
Messages
73
Reaction score
7
Hello,

I am having a hard time understanding a result relating to a michelson interferometer. I always assumed that when the beam hits the wave splitter both resulting waves will have half the amplitude of the original wave. However using this assumption does not give the correct irradiance for fringes on a michelson interferometer. $$ I = 4 I_0 * cos^2(\frac {2{\pi}d} {\lambda} + \frac {\pi} {2}) $$ Here ##d## is the difference in length between the two arms of the interferometer. I can only arrive at this expression by assuming that the amplitude of both beams after the beam amplitude is still the same as the source amplitude. Is this true, and if so, why is this? Wouldn't you be creating energy in this way?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
##I_0## is the intensity of each of the beams after passing the entire system, not the source intensity.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field propagation'
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...
Dear all, in an encounter of an infamous claim by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the Greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics I came to a simple thought experiment which I wanted to share with you to check my understanding and brush up my knowledge. The thought experiment I tried to calculate through is as follows. I have a sphere (1) with radius ##r##, acting like a black body at a temperature of exactly ##T_1 = 500 K##. With Stefan-Boltzmann you can calculate...
Thread 'A scenario of non-uniform circular motion'
(All the needed diagrams are posted below) My friend came up with the following scenario. Imagine a fixed point and a perfectly rigid rod of a certain length extending radially outwards from this fixed point(it is attached to the fixed point). To the free end of the fixed rod, an object is present and it is capable of changing it's speed(by thruster say or any convenient method. And ignore any resistance). It starts with a certain speed but say it's speed continuously increases as it goes...
Back
Top