Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.optics    |    Discussion relating to the science of op    |    12,750 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 12,070 of 12,750    |
|    Michael Koch to All    |
|    Re: circular polariscope    |
|    15 Jul 15 12:59:39    |
      From: astroelectronic@t-online.de              Phil,              thanks for your answer. Points 1 and 3 are clear. Point 2 is difficult to       understand for me. I have an input which is described by a 2x2 matrix, then I       make any operation which is also described by a 2x2 matrix, and the output is       also a 2x2 matrix. I        would understand it if input and output were vectors. Can a matrix be       multiplied by a matrix? I really need an example to see how this works. Any       idea where to find one?              Michael                             > On 07/15/2015 02:26 AM, Michael Koch wrote:       > > Phil,       > >       > > I have a few questions about your book. The first question is about       > > formula 6.17 on page 204. If I set theta to 90°, then all four       > > matrix elements become zero, which means the analyzer passes no light       > > at all. I think that can't be correct.       >        > Right you are, thanks. Lower right element should be sin**2. (You put       > a rotation matrix on each side, with opposite angles.)       >        > > The next question is about formulas 6.20 to 6.24. Why are       > > polarization _states_ described by matrices, and not by vectors?       >        > Because it's possible for light to be partially polarized.       > Instantaneously the E field has a well-defined magnitude and direction       > everywhere, but in most cases both change randomly on femtosecond time       > scales. You need more degrees of freedom to express partial polarization.       >        > > The last question is about formulas 6.22 and 6.23. Might it be       > > possible that in 6.22 a factor of 2 is missing in the denominator?       > > Please compare with Eugene Hecht: Optics, table 8.5 on page 323       >        > From the definition (6.19), the normalizations should actually be E0**2        > (6.20 and 6.21), and EO**2/2 for the other three.       >        > Thanks again!       >        > Cheers       >        > Phil Hobbs       >        >        > --        > Dr Philip C D Hobbs       > Principal Consultant       > ElectroOptical Innovations LLC       > Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics       >        > 160 North State Road #203       > Briarcliff Manor NY 10510       >        > hobbs at electrooptical dot net       > http://electrooptical.net              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca