Intensities from the Michelson Beamsplitter

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the phase shifts experienced by light at a Michelson beamsplitter. It clarifies that the minus sign in the equation for E_1 arises because light reflecting off a higher refractive index material incurs a 180-degree phase shift. In contrast, E_2 does not receive a phase shift since it reflects off the lower index surface of the beamsplitter. The beamsplitter is asymmetric, featuring an anti-reflection coating on one face, which affects the transmission coefficients. The composite Fresnel coefficient for t accounts for interactions at both the coated and uncoated surfaces.
Identity
Messages
151
Reaction score
0
(A laser monochromatic laser is shone in from the left, that's E_{in}.)

[PLAIN]http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/6184/beamsplitter.png

In the lecture notes, it says that:

E_{out1}=rE_2+tE_1, where E_1=-rE_{in}e^{i\phi} and E_2=tE_{in}e^{i\phi}

I don't really understand the signs (+/-) here.

According to the Fresnel equations, light reflecting off a material with a higher refractive index will experience a 180 degree phase shift, hence the minus sign in the E_1 equation. But then why isn't there also a minus sign here: E_{out1}=(-)rE_2+tE_1, is E_2 not also reflecting off a material with higher refractive index?

Thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
This is an asymmetric beamsplitter as it necessarily is, with an AR (anti-reflection) coating on one of the faces. If ## E_{out1} ## is down below, and ## E_2 ## coming from the right, with ## E_1 ## coming from above, they have the uncoated surface of the beamsplitter as being the upper surface, so that the reflection of ## E_{inc} ## is off the higher index as it goes to the upper mirror and becomes ## E_1 ## and gets a ## \pi ## phase change=-1 factor , and the ## E_2 ## coming from the right mirror reflects off the inside of the beam splitter, so there is no ## \pi ## phase change. It should be noted their ## t ## is actually a composite Fresnel coefficient that results from crossing both the surface with the AR coating and the surface that has no AR coating. See also: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/if-maxwells-equations-are-linear.969743/#post-6159689
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...

Similar threads

Back
Top