Strategy for interference problems

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on achieving constructive interference at point X from two light sources, S1 and S2, with differing phase angles and travel distances through media of different refractive indices. The proposed strategy involves calculating the phase angles of each light ray at X, factoring in the distance traveled and any reflections. While the method appears complex, it is affirmed as correct, emphasizing that the key is to consider the phase difference at X. Simplifying the approach by directly addressing the phase difference could streamline the process without altering the fundamental reasoning. Overall, the method is validated, though perceived as convoluted due to its novelty.
etotheipi
For instance, consider two sources of light ##S_{1}## and ##S_{2}## where ##S_{1}## is emitting with a phase angle ##\frac{\pi}{4}## greater than ##S_{2}##. The light from ##S_{1}## travels a straight distance ##d_{1}## through a medium of refractive index ##n_{1}##. The light from ##S_{2}## travels a total distance ##d_{2}## through a medium of refractive index ##n_{2}##, reflecting off of a plane mirror as well. Please see the below diagram:

(N.B. I forgot to draw in a barrier, but assume light cannot travel directly from ##S_{2}## to X!)

IMG_0415.jpeg


Let's say we want constructive interference at X where the rays meet. The strategy I came up with is keeping track of the phase angle (modulo an uninteresting ##2\pi##) of each light ray at points along the path of each. So I would say that if we set the phase of ##S_{1}## to ##\frac{\pi}{4}## at some constant time, the phase angle at X on the first light ray would be

##\phi_{1} = \frac{\pi}{4} + 2\pi\frac{OPL_{1}}{\lambda}## (where ##\frac{OPL}{\lambda} = \frac{n_{1}d_{1}}{\lambda}## is the number of wavelengths along the path).

whilst the phase at X on the second wave would be

##\phi_{2} = 0 + 2\pi\frac{OPL_{2}}{\lambda} + \frac{\pi}{2}## (with the final term due to the reflection).

Finally, I'd set the difference to be a multiple of ##2\pi## and would go from there to solve the system. I can't help but think this is a really convoluted way of going about the question, and I was wondering if anyone had a better method? Thank you in advance!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0415.jpeg
    IMG_0415.jpeg
    45.2 KB · Views: 186
Last edited by a moderator:
Science news on Phys.org
The electric fields will add as vectors, and the way you have drawn it, the electric field vectors will be at nearly right angles to each other. The best I can tell, what you are trying to do will not work.
 
etotheipi said:
For instance, consider two sources of light ##S_{1}## and ##S_{2}## where ##S_{1}## is emitting with a phase angle ##\frac{\pi}{4}## greater than ##S_{2}##. The light from ##S_{1}## travels a straight distance ##d_{1}## through a medium of refractive index ##n_{1}##. The light from ##S_{2}## travels a total distance ##d_{2}## through a medium of refractive index ##n_{2}##, reflecting off of a plane mirror as well. Please see the below diagram:

(N.B. I forgot to draw in a barrier, but assume light cannot travel directly from ##S_{2}## to X!)

View attachment 255057

Let's say we want constructive interference at X where the rays meet. The strategy I came up with is keeping track of the phase angle (modulo an uninteresting ##2\pi##) of each light ray at points along the path of each. So I would say that if we set the phase of ##S_{1}## to ##\frac{\pi}{4}## at some constant time, the phase angle at X on the first light ray would be

##\phi_{1} = \frac{\pi}{4} + 2\pi\frac{OPL_{1}}{\lambda}## (where ##\frac{OPL}{\lambda} = \frac{n_{1}d_{1}}{\lambda}## is the number of wavelengths along the path).

whilst the phase at X on the second wave would be

##\phi_{2} = 0 + 2\pi\frac{OPL_{2}}{\lambda} + \frac{\pi}{2}## (with the final term due to the reflection).

Finally, I'd set the difference to be a multiple of ##2\pi## and would go from there to solve the system. I can't help but think this is a really convoluted way of going about the question, and I was wondering if anyone had a better method? Thank you in advance!
This is indeed correct and is the only way to do it. If it seems very convoluted, it is just that it is new. The only way to shorten it is to work directly with the difference of the phases at X (which is all that matters), but that really does not change all your reasoning.
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi
Thread 'A quartet of epi-illumination methods'
Well, it took almost 20 years (!!!), but I finally obtained a set of epi-phase microscope objectives (Zeiss). The principles of epi-phase contrast is nearly identical to transillumination phase contrast, but the phase ring is a 1/8 wave retarder rather than a 1/4 wave retarder (because with epi-illumination, the light passes through the ring twice). This method was popular only for a very short period of time before epi-DIC (differential interference contrast) became widely available. So...
I am currently undertaking a research internship where I am modelling the heating of silicon wafers with a 515 nm femtosecond laser. In order to increase the absorption of the laser into the oxide layer on top of the wafer it was suggested we use gold nanoparticles. I was tasked with modelling the optical properties of a 5nm gold nanoparticle, in particular the absorption cross section, using COMSOL Multiphysics. My model seems to be getting correct values for the absorption coefficient and...
Back
Top