1
$\begingroup$

Assume a linearly polarized light passing through a retardation crystal and a quarterwave plate and the angle between the linear light and the principal axis is 45 degrees. The question is to calculate the intensity difference between $x$ and $y$ axies of the transmitted light. Here are two ways to calculate it.

  1. Assume the light is originally along $x$ axis, so its Jones vector is $\begin{pmatrix} 1\\ 0 \end{pmatrix}$. Then rotate the retardation matrix of the crystal $W$ and the quaterwave plate $Q$ of 45 degrees so that they are in the same bases, namely $W' = R(-\theta)WR(\theta)$ and $Q' = R(-\theta)QR(\theta)$, where $W = \begin{pmatrix} e^{-i\Gamma/2} & 0\\ 0& e^{i\Gamma/2} \end{pmatrix}$ and $R(\theta) = \begin{pmatrix} cos\theta & sin\theta\\ -sin\theta& cos\theta \end{pmatrix}$. Then the final vector is $Q'W'\begin{pmatrix} 1\\ 0 \end{pmatrix}$ and the $|E_x|^2 - |E_y|^2$ is calculated to be proportional to $sin(\Gamma)$ which is the theoretical basis of electro-optic sampling.

  2. Keep $W$ and $Q$ the same as they are consistent with the lab axis but set the linearly light as $\begin{pmatrix} 1\\ 1 \end{pmatrix}$ which means it is 45 degrees polarized. Now we directly multiply them because they share the same bases, namely the final vector is $QW\begin{pmatrix} 1\\ 1 \end{pmatrix}$ but now the$|E_x|^2 - |E_y|^2$ is calculated to be $0$.

What's wrong?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ It is the same situation just two ways to solve it. Can you tell me what made you confusing? $\endgroup$
    – Chris Bohr
    Commented Mar 20, 2022 at 19:32
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for making it clearer and yes your got it right. The important thing is it should have the same result for this two situations because only the relative angle between the light and crystal/waveplate matters. Just I could only find the first solution on many books but in my setup I used the second one. $\endgroup$
    – Chris Bohr
    Commented Mar 20, 2022 at 20:54
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your efforts. And maybe you can check my logic here to see if it is correct or not. I mean, are these two situations equivalent or not? I am a bit confused now... $\endgroup$
    – Chris Bohr
    Commented Mar 20, 2022 at 22:41
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Ed! But this seems not the real case. These two situations should give the same results if I put a wollaston prism and a balanced detector behind it, right? But now it seems that situation 2 gives no signal which is not the real case. $\endgroup$
    – Chris Bohr
    Commented Mar 21, 2022 at 8:12
  • $\begingroup$ Actually I know this because if you compare the formula you will find that it only misses a rotation matrix on the left side for the second situation, namely rotate the QWP to 45 degrees. But this makes no sense. The way to do electro-optic sampling is, without the retarder, the linear light will be circularly polarized after passing QWP so that the balanced detector receives the same signal for both channels. Now if the QWP is 45 degrees rotated which means the linear light will still be a linear light. Plus, it is really not clear why should we rotate the QWP to 45 degrees. $\endgroup$
    – Chris Bohr
    Commented Mar 21, 2022 at 13:50

0

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.