The Goos-Hanchen Shift. When describing total internal reflection of a plane wave, we developed expressions for the phase shift that occurs between the. Goos-Hänchen effect in microcavities. Microcavity modes created by non- specular reflections. This page is primarily motivated by our paper. these shifts as to the spatial and angular Goos-Hänchen (GH) and Imbert- Fedorov (IF) shifts. It turns out that all of these basic shifts can occur in a generic beam.
||21 December 2004
|PDF File Size:
|ePub File Size:
||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
An alternative explanation of the GHS can be given in terms of the time delay associated with the scattering of a radiation pulse at the interface.
Goos–Hänchen effect – Wikipedia
Early generalizations to include angles near the critical angle were given by Artmann Artmann K, and by Wolter Wolter H, The answer is, as we noted above, that it’s a wave phenomenon and hence outside shit scope of ray physics.
Because of the different angles and finite extent, there is a coherence effect, which causes the shift to occur. Ggoos-hanchen main goal here is to give a basic informal introduction to the phenomenon that forms the basis of our paper.
The fundamental difficulty with the ray picture is that all waves are plagued by uncertainty relations which make it impossible to simultaneously pin down quantities that are related to shirt other by Fourier transformation. As a result, reliable analytical formulas for the shift in the presence of curved interfaces have so far not been derived.
So far as Shlft can tell by reading a couple refs, it is a coherent interference effect for an input beam of finite width. The above image captures part of the physics behind this effect, but it also obscures part of the physics because it doesn’t simulate an actual light beam.
Goos-Hänchen effect in microcavities
gos-hanchen However, we do know that Newton’s ideas about light are by no means obsolete:. This effect occurs because the reflections of a finite sized beam will interfere along a line transverse to the average propagation direction. As your mouse leaves the image, notice how the reflected beam moves over to the right, so the red reference line is no longer in the center of the beam.
The vertex of the V must thus coincide with the center of curvature of the dome, which lies a small distance z 1 below the bottom mirror surface. This is a qualitatively new approach to measuring this effect, because it doesn’t rely on directly observing the tiny lateral shift of an incident beam.
Goos-Hänchen effect – Scholarpedia
Goos-hanchen the simplest analytical treatments, that’s all you need to know — it doesn’t even matter what the precise shape of the incident beam is. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from ” http: These equations were derived by Artmann Artmann K, the form of Eq. It’s such a small effect that you need this kind of image comparison to appreciate what’s going on. Their experimental work inspired new theoretical work by Artmann Artmann K, and v.
So just watch episode of Numb3rs: Which question are you asking? In this semiclassical limitthe uncertainty relations become less uncertain, and the ray picture becomes more accurate. By matching boundary conditions at the interface, one obtains the standard Fresnel equations for transmission and reflection at an interface.
This effect is the linear polarization analog of the Imbert—Fedorov effect. So there are situations where isolated ray trajectories are shiftt to describe the wave patterns. They report a substantial, negative lateral shift of the reflected beam in the plane of incidence for a p-polarization and a smaller, positive shift for the s-polarization case.
We validated this claim in a fully vectorial, three-dimensional solution of Maxwell’s equations for a dome cavity with a dielectric mirror. Newton gave both a theoretical basis and experimental evidence for goos-hancuen of goos-hancheen into medium 2 under conditions of total internal reflection.
When total internal reflexion happens, the field isn’t abruptly turned around by the interface, it actually penetrates some distance beyond the interface as an evanescent field.
This is not related to Goos-Hanchen, which depends on coherence of the source. There’s a more formal discussion of this phenomenon at Scholarpedia. Compared to the dielectric ellipse, our dome cavity simulations are actually much more difficult to do because we’re dealing with a 3D structure with mixed boundary conditions, leakiness and polarization-dependent effects.
Fragstein C,in which expressions for the lateral shift were obtained, with different shifts predicted for field polarization parallel to or perpendicular to the plane of incidence.
You can see this in the first movie, and in the image on the left: We know a V-shaped ray must be self-retracingi.
Email Required, but never shown. But what determines the “penetration depth” of the ray?
Much of this work is motivated by the possibility that the GHS can serve as a probe of scattering and excitations that occur at and near the interface of two bulk materials. This acts as an ideal curved mirror, and the cavity is closed off by a planar, dielectric multilayer Bragg mirror.
BermanScholarpedia, 7 3: