Crystal Thickness for particular phase difference

AI Thread Summary
To achieve a 90-degree phase difference between two light waves entering a crystal, one polarized parallel and the other perpendicular to the optic axis, the thickness of the crystal must be calculated based on their refractive indices, η(1)=1.55 and η(2)=1.54. The phase difference corresponds to a quarter wavelength, leading to the equation d=nλ1=(n+1/4)λ2, where 'd' is the crystal thickness. The number of wavelengths 'n' can be derived from n=(1/4)(λ2/Δλ), assuming equal frequencies for both waves. The calculated thickness is approximately 14.7μm, confirming the approach to the problem is correct. This method effectively determines the necessary crystal thickness for the desired phase difference.
Sekonda
Messages
201
Reaction score
0
1. Hey, the question I believe should be fairly simple to solve but it's been a while since I've looked over such content. There are two light waves that enter a crytstal at the same time, one linearly polarised parallel to the optic axis and one perpendicular to the optic axis, they have refractive indices η(1)=1.55 and η(2)=1.54. How thick must the crystal be for the light waves to exit with a 90 degree phase difference?



2. η=c/v



3. Right, so considering they have to have a phase difference of 90 degrees - that corresponds to a difference in quarter of a wavelength, so the amount of wavelengths in the thickness of the crystal must differ by just a quarter more i.e.

d=n\lambda_{1}=(n+\frac{1}{4})\lambda_{2}

Where 'd' is the thickness of the crystal, the number of wavelengths 'n' can be determined from

n=\frac{\frac{1}{4}\lambda_{2}}{\lambda_{1}-\lambda_{2}}=\frac{1}{4}\frac{\lambda_{2}}{\Delta \lambda}=\frac{1}{4}\frac{\eta _{1}}{\Delta\eta}

The last step I think we assume that the frequencies of the waves are the same... I can't remember how the last step is made unless we assume the frequencies of the waves are equal... Anyway, once 'n' is found we can substitute it into the first equation but I'm not sure how I find the final distance... I'll take another look at it.


Thanks SK
 
Physics news on Phys.org
... We are told the wavelengths of the waves (in the vacuum) are both 589nm... Still, is this the correct way to approach the question?

I get an answer of about 14.7μm=d
 
Last edited:
Sekonda said:
... We are told the wavelengths of the waves (in the vacuum) are both 589nm... Still, is this the correct way to approach the question?

I get an answer of about 14.7μm=d

Me too.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top