CCD measures intensity prop. to z-component of C-Poynting vector OR |E-field|^2

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter omg!
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ccd Intensity Vector
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the intensity measurement in a CCD (Charge-Coupled Device) and its relationship to the electric field and Poynting vector in electromagnetic waves. Participants explore the theoretical underpinnings of intensity calculations, particularly in relation to transverse and non-transverse electromagnetic waves.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the intensity in a CCD is proportional to |E_x|^2 + |E_y|^2, based on the electric field of the incident light.
  • Another participant argues that intensity is actually proportional to the z-component of the Poynting vector, expressed as (\textbf{E} \times \textbf{B}^*)_z, indicating a more general case.
  • A later reply seeks clarification on non-transverse electromagnetic waves and their implications for intensity calculations.
  • Participants discuss the differences in intensity values derived from the two formulas, with one questioning whether to use the real part or modulus of the complex component in calculations.
  • It is noted that in the near field or in waveguides, electromagnetic fields may not be transverse, which could affect intensity measurements.
  • One participant clarifies that using the expression I =(1/2 μ0) (E x B*)_z should yield a real-valued result due to the complex conjugation operation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriate formula for calculating intensity in a CCD, with no consensus reached on which approach is definitively correct. The discussion includes both theoretical perspectives and practical considerations.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the dependence on definitions of intensity and the conditions under which different electromagnetic wave behaviors apply. There are unresolved questions regarding the application of formulas in specific scenarios, such as focused light beams.

omg!
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
intuitively, i would say that in a CCD, the photoelectrons are being "created" only by the electric field of the incident light, so that the intensity is proportional to
|E_x|^2+|E_y|^2,
with the xy-plane coinciding with the CCD plane.
But I have several papers here saying that the intensity is actually proportional to
(\textbf{E}\times\textbf{B}^*)_z.
could someone shed some light on why this should be the case? thanks!
 
Science news on Phys.org
They both basically mean the same thing. The energy flow due to electrodynamic fields in general is described by the Poynting vector S:

S = E x H

For air, the magnetic field H and the magnetic field B are related according to B = μ0 H, leading to:

S =(1/μ0) E x B

The intensity in a certain direction is typically defined as the time-average of the Poynting vector dotted by the direction. For sinusoidal waves, the time-average is found by complex conjugating the magnetic field and multiplying by a half:

I = (<S>t)z =(1/2 μ0) (E x B*)z

If the wave is a transverse plane wave (not always the case), then the electric field and magnetic field are related according to: B= sqrt(μ0ε0) z x E which leads to:

I =(1/2Z0) |E|2

For a transverse wave, there is no z-component to the electric field, only x and y components, so we have finally:

I =(1/2Z0)(|Ex|2 +|Ey|2)

So your last expression is more general, and your first expression only applies to transverse plane waves.
 
thank you for your clear explanation.

forgive my ignorance, but could you point out an example of a non-transversal EM wave?

i'm trying to calculate the intensity on the CCD resulting from a focused light beam. the two formulas give slightly different values, the more general one has a complex component, do you think one should simply take the real part or the modulus?
 
If you are close enough to light sources, the fields are not necessarily transverse. This is called the near field. Also, light in a waveguide (like a fiber optic) is not necessarily transverse. If you are using the expression I =(1/2 μ0) (E x B*)z, then the result should be automatically real-valued only. That is the point of the complex conjugation operation ("*").
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K