I Does Reflecting Light Through a Birefringent Crystal Compensate Walkoff?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of birefringent walkoff in nonlinear optics and whether reflecting light through a birefringent crystal can compensate for this walkoff. The original poster questions if reflecting the light back after it exits the crystal would reverse the walkoff direction of the extraordinary beam towards the ordinary beam. A response highlights the importance of reciprocity in optical systems, noting that while some devices like Faraday isolators are not reciprocal, using a phase-conjugate mirror can restore reciprocity and correct aberrations. The conversation emphasizes the complexity of the interactions between the extraordinary and ordinary beams in these contexts. Understanding these principles is crucial for effectively managing walkoff in nonlinear optical processes.
quackyneudle
Hi,
I am having trouble wrapping my head around a simple (I think?) question about birefringent walkoff:

If the crystal is oriented at some angle such that walkoff is nonzero between e and o beams (in a nonlinear conversion process, for example), it seems to me that reflecting the light straight back after it exits should have the e beam walkoff in the opposite direction as before i.e. towards the o beam, and "compensated". But, I haven't been able to convince myself of this by drawing pictures. Can anyone help provide an explanation about whether this is correct of not, whether through math or visual argument?

Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
<Moderator's note: Post merged from another thread>

Hi,
I am trying to reason out whether when one reverses the sign of k, does the angle between k_e and S_e (wavevector experiencing extraordinary refraction, extraordinary Poynting vector) change in sign. In other words, if a reflect back with a normal-incidence mirror a beam experience extraordinary index of refraction, will it return to the same point at which it entered the crystal?

I am asking this in the context of nonlinear optics (OPG), and wondering whether double-passing a pump beam through a crystal will compensate for walkoff.

Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
quackyneudle said:
Hi,
I am having trouble wrapping my head around a simple (I think?) question about birefringent walkoff:

If the crystal is oriented at some angle such that walkoff is nonzero between e and o beams (in a nonlinear conversion process, for example), it seems to me that reflecting the light straight back after it exits should have the e beam walkoff in the opposite direction as before i.e. towards the o beam, and "compensated". But, I haven't been able to convince myself of this by drawing pictures. Can anyone help provide an explanation about whether this is correct of not, whether through math or visual argument?

Thanks!

If I understand your question, you are asking about 'reciprocity'. Some polarization-dependent devices, such as a Faraday isolator, are not reciprocal. Use of a phase-conjugate mirror instead of a 'normal' mirror restores reciprocity, and so that technology has been used, for example, to correct aberrations.

Does that help?
 
I think it's easist first to watch a short vidio clip I find these videos very relaxing to watch .. I got to thinking is this being done in the most efficient way? The sand has to be suspended in the water to move it to the outlet ... The faster the water , the more turbulance and the sand stays suspended, so it seems to me the rule of thumb is the hose be aimed towards the outlet at all times .. Many times the workers hit the sand directly which will greatly reduce the water...
Back
Top