CCD measures intensity prop. to z-component of C-Poynting vector OR |E-field|^2

AI Thread Summary
In a CCD, photoelectrons are generated by the electric field of incident light, with intensity proportional to |E_x|^2 + |E_y|^2. However, some papers suggest intensity is proportional to the Poynting vector, defined as I = (1/2 μ0)(E x B*), which accounts for both electric and magnetic fields. This expression is more general and applies to various wave types, including non-transverse electromagnetic waves, which can occur in near-field conditions or within waveguides. The discussion emphasizes that for calculations involving intensity, the real part of the complex expression should be used, as the complex conjugate ensures real-valued results. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for accurate intensity calculations in different scenarios.
omg!
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
intuitively, i would say that in a CCD, the photoelectrons are being "created" only by the electric field of the incident light, so that the intensity is proportional to
|E_x|^2+|E_y|^2,
with the xy-plane coinciding with the CCD plane.
But I have several papers here saying that the intensity is actually proportional to
(\textbf{E}\times\textbf{B}^*)_z.
could someone shed some light on why this should be the case? thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
They both basically mean the same thing. The energy flow due to electrodynamic fields in general is described by the Poynting vector S:

S = E x H

For air, the magnetic field H and the magnetic field B are related according to B = μ0 H, leading to:

S =(1/μ0) E x B

The intensity in a certain direction is typically defined as the time-average of the Poynting vector dotted by the direction. For sinusoidal waves, the time-average is found by complex conjugating the magnetic field and multiplying by a half:

I = (<S>t)z =(1/2 μ0) (E x B*)z

If the wave is a transverse plane wave (not always the case), then the electric field and magnetic field are related according to: B= sqrt(μ0ε0) z x E which leads to:

I =(1/2Z0) |E|2

For a transverse wave, there is no z-component to the electric field, only x and y components, so we have finally:

I =(1/2Z0)(|Ex|2 +|Ey|2)

So your last expression is more general, and your first expression only applies to transverse plane waves.
 
thank you for your clear explanation.

forgive my ignorance, but could you point out an example of a non-transversal EM wave?

i'm trying to calculate the intensity on the CCD resulting from a focused light beam. the two formulas give slightly different values, the more general one has a complex component, do you think one should simply take the real part or the modulus?
 
If you are close enough to light sources, the fields are not necessarily transverse. This is called the near field. Also, light in a waveguide (like a fiber optic) is not necessarily transverse. If you are using the expression I =(1/2 μ0) (E x B*)z, then the result should be automatically real-valued only. That is the point of the complex conjugation operation ("*").
 
Thread ''splain this hydrostatic paradox in tiny words'
This is (ostensibly) not a trick shot or video*. The scale was balanced before any blue water was added. 550mL of blue water was added to the left side. only 60mL of water needed to be added to the right side to re-balance the scale. Apparently, the scale will balance when the height of the two columns is equal. The left side of the scale only feels the weight of the column above the lower "tail" of the funnel (i.e. 60mL). So where does the weight of the remaining (550-60=) 490mL go...
Consider an extremely long and perfectly calibrated scale. A car with a mass of 1000 kg is placed on it, and the scale registers this weight accurately. Now, suppose the car begins to move, reaching very high speeds. Neglecting air resistance and rolling friction, if the car attains, for example, a velocity of 500 km/h, will the scale still indicate a weight corresponding to 1000 kg, or will the measured value decrease as a result of the motion? In a second scenario, imagine a person with a...
Scalar and vector potentials in Coulomb gauge Assume Coulomb gauge so that $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A}=0.\tag{1}$$ The scalar potential ##\phi## is described by Poisson's equation $$\nabla^2 \phi = -\frac{\rho}{\varepsilon_0}\tag{2}$$ which has the instantaneous general solution given by $$\phi(\mathbf{r},t)=\frac{1}{4\pi\varepsilon_0}\int \frac{\rho(\mathbf{r}',t)}{|\mathbf{r}-\mathbf{r}'|}d^3r'.\tag{3}$$ In Coulomb gauge the vector potential ##\mathbf{A}## is given by...
Back
Top