Quarter wave plate made of anisotropic crystal

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of a quarter wave plate (QWP) in an interferometry experiment, specifically in a Michelson-Morley-type setup. Participants explore the implications of using a QWP to manipulate the polarization of light beams in the absence of a suitable half wave plate (HWP) and the effects of reflection on polarization states.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Chen describes a setup where a QWP is used to change the polarization of one beam to elliptical and questions whether the second pass through the plate would negate the phase shift gained in the first pass.
  • Another participant expresses confidence that the direction of propagation does not affect the fast and slow axes of the crystal, suggesting that the polarization changes would remain consistent regardless of the beam's direction.
  • A request for a diagram of the setup is made to clarify the proposed configuration.
  • Chen provides a visual representation of the original and revised setups, explaining the reasoning behind the use of a QWP instead of an HWP due to size constraints of the beam splitter.
  • One participant asserts that a double-pass through a QWP will yield the same effect as a single-pass through an HWP, suggesting equivalence between the two configurations.
  • Chen expresses concern about unintended polarizing effects in the system, emphasizing the goal of observing interference patterns without additional polarization complications.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the potential equivalence of the double-pass QWP and single-pass HWP, but there remains uncertainty regarding the effects of the second pass on polarization phase shifts. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the implications of these effects for the experiment.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the behavior of polarization states upon reflection and the specific characteristics of the beamsplitter used in the setup. The discussion also highlights limitations related to the physical constraints of the apparatus.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those involved in experimental physics, particularly in optics and interferometry, as well as individuals exploring polarization effects in light manipulation.

Chen
Messages
976
Reaction score
1
Hi,

I'm constructing an interferometry experiment, in which I'm using a Michelson-Morley-type interferometer. However, the only beam splitter I have which preserves polarization is physically small (a few mm), and so in my setup the beam in each arm is not split. The reflection off the mirror is completely, or extremely close to, normal. The input beam is linearly polarized.

I'd like to have the polarization plane of one of the beams reflected through some axis (doesn't matter which), with respect to the polarization of the beam in the second arm. Normally I'd use a half wave plate for this purpose, however since I can't split the beam in each arm, it would pass through the plate twice and the final result would be the same as if I had no plate at all.

So I thought, why not use a quarter wave plate instead? After the beam splitter, one of the beams would pass through the plate and change its polarization to something elliptic (because the polarization along one axis would gain a phase of pi/2). That beam would be reflected off the mirror, and pass through the plate again, and the polarization along the same axis would gain an additional phase of pi/2 and the total effect would be just that of a half wave plate.

However, I'm not sure that it would work, because in its second pass through the plate, the beam would be going in the opposite direction. So I thought it might be the case that the polarization which gained a phase of pi/2 in the first pass, would lose it in the second pass, and not gain an additional pi/2. Do you think that's the case? The material I'm using for the wave plates is Mica, optical quality.

Any input would be most welcome.

Thanks,
Chen
 
Science news on Phys.org
My first intuition is that it should work. The direction of propagation (up or down the same line) shouldn't make a difference. The fast and slow axes don't interchange when I send the beam into the crystal from the opposite direction, right? So the slow polarization should still be behind the fast one, and the end result should be the same.

What do you think?
 
It'd help if you drew a picture of the setup, I'm not quite sure I follow.
 
Okay, this is the original setup I had in mind, in which I'd use a half-wave plate (HWP) in order to flip the polarization plane of one beam:

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/1346/hwpwr2.png

However, since I don't have a non-polarizing beam-splitter (BS) big enough to support this setup, I have to resort to something like this:

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2092/qwpuv2.png

In which case I'd use a quarter-wave plate (QWP) in order to first turn the linear polarization into elliptical, and then on the way back it would be transformed into linear polarization, which is flipped relative to the original beam.

Think it'd work? The second setup also has the benefits of bouncing the beams off the mirrors at exactly 90 degrees, which would minimize any polarizing effects of the mirrors.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The double-pass 1/4 waveplate will have the same effect as a single-pass 1/2 waveplate, so yes, they're equivilent. Try it and see, you may also find some interesting polarization and phase-shifting features due to the beamsplitter depending on what you're using.
 
Heh, "interesting" is the last word I'd use in that context. I'm trying to avoid any polarizing effects in the system, since the goal of the experiment is to see how rotating one beam's polarization with respect to the other affects the intereference pattern (well, its contrast anyway). I was originally instructed to use a Sagnac-type interferometer, but I was having much problem with the mirror reflections, which was at 45 degrees and extremely polarizing.

I'm on my way to the lab now, will report back. Thanks for the input.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K