Congratulations for being able of introducing this technology to society through these videos. This platform let us spread all we know about the field and from MEETOPTICS we are proud to be part of the photonics community and to help engineers and researchers in their search for optical lenses through our site. We celebrate every step forward.

How can these euqations be related to Bragg reflection in cholesteric liquid crystals? Specifically trying to derive why/how there is 100% reflection efficiency when the material is uniaxially mechanically strained.

How can e^-(j2phi) = -1 at 11:00. I thought that expression always yield a 1. Even if I consider that the phase can be out of phase with phase = -pi, it won’t came out with -1 Edit : Nvm, I can see a phase of -pi/2 can result in -1 but I still dont understand. I think better question to ask is why do you put the e^…. to be equal to 1 and -1?

Thank you so much for making such videos

There is something weird when you set the amplitude of the total reflected wave to zero. What you normally want in an interference is that the norm squared of the field, which is proportional to the intensity, be zero (or a minimum since sometimes zero is not possible) for the total destructive case. Interference is all about absoluting squaring the fields interfering, because it manifests itself on the crossterms.

A question please: If we want to get the reflectance as a function of the wavelength (to see the effect of the ARQ on other wavelengths for example in solar cells) we will calculate the real part of the complex amplitude (divided by the initial one) of the total reflected wave and then take the square. It works. But, should we worry about the variation of indices according to lambda (Cauchy's law)? Or just the variation of delta-phi is to take into consideration (delta-phi = 2pi.(2L)/lambda ) ?

Are the two conditions (on L and on n1) equivalent ?

@dhiagarbaya5283

2 жыл бұрын

Oh no! They're not. Indeed, The first condition (on the thickness L) assure the destructive interference but the amplitudes of the reflected waves aren't necessarily the same . Consequently, the interference results on an attenuated but non-null wave. We won't get a totally destructive interference (nothing reflected) unless we impose the 2nd condition on n1. Thanks... It was really helpful !

Why are you only considering "S polarized " reflection and transmission coefficient in the calculation?

@JordanEdmundsEECS

4 жыл бұрын

You can do it for p-polarized light as well (I believe I do in one of the next videos). S-polarized light is just easier to deal with and fortunately it’s also more common to find in practice.

how do we account for the interence of reflected waves ?

honestly I could not calculate how r01 = -r12 ,

you should add in your title that calculations is for s polarized light! and s-pol picks up an additional 180 phase shift upon relfection from air to glass. So I am assuming this is all glass to air reflections is that right?

@danielribastandeitnik9550

Жыл бұрын

Notice that he assumes a normal incidence. Therefore, the light is necessarily s-polarized since the polarization of the electric field will be parallel to the boundary by construction. If he had considered the general case with the incident light making an angle theta, than yes, he would have to make a different calculation for the s and p-polarization cases. Nevertheles, I think the normal incidence case is more important.

@serdaraliandrnloglu3220

Жыл бұрын

@@danielribastandeitnik9550 I think you meant that at normal incidence, frenel equations are same and air to glass or glass to air transmission doesn't give reflected wave a pi phase shift. I don't get why did you say normal incidence require s-pol.

@danielribastandeitnik9550

Жыл бұрын

@@serdaraliandrnloglu3220 The incident EM field is coming orthogonal to the boundary, therefore the wave-vector is normal to the boundary and the electric field must be parallel to the boundary since it must be orthogonal to the wave-vector. The definition of s-polorized lighe is "light whose electric field is normal to the plane of incidence is called s-polarized". Note that for a normal incident EM field the plane of incidence is kind of ill-defined since there are infinite candidate planes. Nevertheless, for a given electric-field, there is one plane of incidence for which it is normal, therefore it is a s-polarized beam.

can we apply this in the case of multi structures ?

@JordanEdmundsEECS

4 жыл бұрын

Yup! But if you try to do it with infinite sums it gets pretty complicated, and so most people use the Transfer Matrix method for this (I have a couple videos on that as well).

@huonghuongnuquy7272

4 жыл бұрын

@@JordanEdmundsEECS i saw your videos, i have one question. In the matrix method, for the case of the incident light have a certain incident angle, how can i do ? I imagine that i have to use the frenel equations in the case of incident angle instead of the frenel equations in the case of normal angle. But i don't know for the optical length, we have to change something or not. Thank you.