Tying to use Zangwill's EM book for multilayer R and T coeff

  • Thread starter Thread starter fluidistic
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Book Em
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on calculating the transmission (T) and reflection (R) coefficients for an electromagnetic (EM) plane wave traversing three layers, as outlined in Zangwill's "Modern Electrodynamics." The user encounters confusion regarding the number of unknowns in the equations presented on pages 604/605, specifically why T and R are treated as separate variables despite their relationship (R + T = 1). The user derives a complex expression for T, which depends on the refractive indices and permeability of the layers, raising concerns about the validity of the matrix formula used from the book.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electromagnetic wave propagation
  • Familiarity with matrix algebra in the context of physics
  • Knowledge of refractive indices and their physical significance
  • Experience with complex numbers and their applications in wave mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Review Zangwill's "Modern Electrodynamics" for detailed explanations of transmission and reflection coefficients
  • Study the derivation of the matrix formulation for multilayer systems in electromagnetic theory
  • Learn about the physical significance of complex numbers in wave mechanics
  • Explore numerical methods for solving systems of equations in electromagnetic applications
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those studying electromagnetism, optical engineering, or anyone working with multilayer systems in wave propagation analysis.

fluidistic
Gold Member
Messages
3,932
Reaction score
283

Homework Statement


I am trying to use Zangwill's book to calculate the transmisson (T) and reflexion (R) coefficients for an EM plane wave going through 3 layers. (the intermediate layer has a width d).
I am reading pages 604/605, he defines "N+1" as the number of layers in which layer 0 is half infinite (from say ##x=-\infty## to x=0) and layer N is also semi infinite and extends to positive infinite.
The book reaches a system of 2 equations with 2 unknows: \begin{bmatrix} 1+R \\ (1-R)Z_0^{-1} \end{bmatrix}=\prod _{j=1}^{N-1} \begin{bmatrix} \cos \phi _j && -i Z_j \sin \phi _j \\ -iZ_j ^{-1}\sin \phi _j && \cos \phi _j \end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix} T \\ TZ_N^{-1} \end{bmatrix} where the 2 unknowns are R and T. In fact I don't understand why these are 2 unknows since when we know one of them we know both of them since R+T must equal 1. 2. The attempt at a solution
I have 3 layers so N+1=3, so N=2. So if I use the formula given in the book, the product goes from j=1 to N-1=1 so I have only 1 term for the product.
Then I manually solved the system of equations for T and reached that T=\frac{2n_1/(c \mu_0 )}{\left ( \frac{-in_2}{c\mu_1} \right ) \sin (n_2 d \omega /c) + \cos (n_2 d \omega /c) \left ( \frac{n_3}{c \mu_2} \right ) + \left ( \frac{n_1}{c\mu_0} \right ) [\cos (n_2 d \omega /c) -\frac{in_2}{c \varepsilon_1} \sin (n_2 d \omega /c) \frac{n_3}{c \mu _2}] } where the notation is a bit misleading since ##n_i## is the refractive index of the i'th layer while ##\varepsilon _i## and ##\mu _i## corresponds to the i-1'th layers.
What I don't like about my result is that it depends on ##\varepsilon _i## and ##\mu _i## and given the problem statement I would have hoped to get all in terms of ##n_i## instead but I see no way of reaching that.
Then I'm told to calculate explicitely T and R for particular values of ##n_1##, ##n_2## and ##n_3##. So I don't know where I went wrong...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Assuming that the 3 mediums have the same permeability than free space (##\mu_0##), I reach that T=\frac{2n_1}{(n_1+n_3)\cos (n_2 d \omega /c)-i (n_2+n_3)\sin (n_2d \omega /c)}. However I see that this is a complex number which cannot be right. I am wondering whether the matrix formula from Zangwill's book that I posted here is well suited to solve my problem. Can someone confirm that I can reach what I want using that formula and that I probably made some arithmetic errors somewhere... Thanks.
 
Maybe I should take the absolute value of my result and square it up... I find the book extremely confusing about what is meant by "T" and "R". Apparently it is used for more than 1 physical concept...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K