B "Mysterious" beamsplitter cube

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around unexpected behavior observed when using a non-polarizing beamsplitter cube in an experiment. Instead of the anticipated output of two beams—one passing through and one reflecting at a 90-degree angle—the beam exits in all four directions, including reflections back to the source. Participants suggest that internal reflections off the glass-air boundary could cause this phenomenon, and that visual assessments of beam intensity may not be reliable. One user mentions that alignment issues might be contributing to the problem and recommends checking the input face for proper alignment. The conversation highlights the complexities of beamsplitter behavior and the importance of precise setup in optical experiments.
boxfullofvacuumtubes
Messages
19
Reaction score
2
I'm using a non-polarizing beamsplitter cube in an experiment, but it's behaving in an unexpected way. I expected that, if a laser beam enters the cube from one side, ~50% of the beam passes through the cube in the same direction, while ~50% of the beam is reflected and exits the cube at a 90-degree angle. So, one beam entering the cube and two beams exiting the cube.

Instead, the beam seems to exit the cube in all 4 directions: passing through, exiting left, exiting right, and even being reflected back to the source. Is this expected behavior? What is causing it?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What about the intensities ?
 
Last edited:
I didn't measure intensities, but, visually, the beams along the two "expected" axes look ~50% stronger.
 
boxfullofvacuumtubes said:
Instead, the beam seems to exit the cube in all 4 directions: passing through, exiting left, exiting right, and even being reflected back to the source. Is this expected behavior? What is causing it?

Internal reflections off of the glass-air boundary will likely reflect part of the beam out of the other two faces, but the intensities should be fairly weak.

boxfullofvacuumtubes said:
I didn't measure intensities, but, visually, the beams along the two "expected" axes look ~50% stronger.

Don't trust your eyes. They aren't very good measuring devices. This is a known problem with the version 1.0's and I'd replace them as soon as the first upgraded models come out. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Likes Tom.G and BvU
boxfullofvacuumtubes said:
I'm using a non-polarizing beamsplitter cube in an experiment, but it's behaving in an unexpected way. I expected that, if a laser beam enters the cube from one side, ~50% of the beam passes through the cube in the same direction, while ~50% of the beam is reflected and exits the cube at a 90-degree angle. So, one beam entering the cube and two beams exiting the cube.

Instead, the beam seems to exit the cube in all 4 directions: passing through, exiting left, exiting right, and even being reflected back to the source. Is this expected behavior? What is causing it?

Thanks!

I've noticed a similar phenomenon, in my case it seems to be an 'alignment' problem- using a different input face may fix the problem. The manufacturer may place a marking on the cube to help alignment, I'm not entirely sure how these devices work:

https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=754
 
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