Is electric field decomposable when detected by CCD?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion regarding the computation of electric fields in light interference when detected by a CCD. The user attempts to express the electric field at the CCD using complex exponentials but realizes that electric fields are directional and require decomposition into components. There is uncertainty about whether a CCD detector respects the direction of electric fields and how traditional ray optics applies in this context. The user seeks clarification on the correct approach to add electric field components at the intersection point on the CCD. Understanding the directional nature of electric fields is crucial for accurate interference calculations.
genxium
Messages
137
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement



I'm learning light interference and confused by the concepts. Like the figure I attached below, while computing the "interference" of the intersection point on the CCD, I used to do this (E represents the electric field):

E_{CCD}=E_1 \cdot e^{i (\omega t + \frac{2 \pi}{\lambda} l)} + E_2 \cdot e^{i (\omega t + \frac{2 \pi}{\lambda} (l+d \cdot sin \alpha))}

I know this is wrong because electric field is directional and I should decompose it so that only components in the same direction add up -- yet I'm not sure how to do it. Does a CCD detector respect the direction of fields?

Homework Equations


Described above.


The Attempt at a Solution


Described above.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2014-04-22 at 10.10.00 am.png
    Screen Shot 2014-04-22 at 10.10.00 am.png
    5.9 KB · Views: 501
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know why you can't use traditional ray optics with the CCD at the location of the real image. You need to focus on a CCD just like on a screen or film. But perhaps I'm way off base here.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top