偏振光学：第二版 - Dennis Goldstein的经典著作

需积分: 9 80 浏览量更新于2024-07-21 2 收藏 6.64MB PDF 举报

"Polarized Light, Second Edition" 是一本由 Dennis Goldstein 博士编写的关于偏振光学的专业书籍，作者在电光领域有深厚的背景，曾在空军研究实验室工作，并在多个大学担任客座教授。这本书是第一版 "Polarized Light: Fundamentals and Applications" 的修订与扩展版。《偏振光（第二版）》是光学领域的一本经典著作，尤其关注光的偏振性质及其应用。作者 Dennis Goldstein 博士是美国空军研究实验室的资深物理学家，他在电光研究方面拥有28年的经验，并且是SPIE和AFRL的研究员。他的学术成就还包括在多所大学的教学、发表超过70篇论文和技术报告以及两章书的内容。此外，他还持有六项专利，这都体现了他在该领域的权威地位。本书旨在提供关于偏振光的精确和最新的信息，尽管作者和出版商已尽最大努力确保内容的准确性和时效性，但他们并不对因使用本书内容而直接或间接导致的任何损失、损害或责任负责。书中内容不针对任何特定情况提供具体建议或推荐，而是作为普遍知识的来源。本书的第一版于1993年由 Edward Collett 出版，而第二版则增加了新的内容和更新，以满足不断发展的光学科学和技术需求。值得注意的是，所有商标的使用仅是为了识别和解释，没有侵犯任何商标持有者的意图。这本书是在酸性自由纸上印刷的，这有助于保证其长期的保存质量。Marcel Dekker 出版社负责书籍的发行，总部位于纽约，同时也通过 Marcel Dekker AG 在东半球进行分发。总结来说，《偏振光（第二版）》是一本全面探讨光偏振现象及其在各个领域应用的重要文献，对于物理学家、工程师、光学研究人员以及相关专业学生来说，是一本不可或缺的参考书。它深入浅出地阐述了偏振光的基础理论，并结合了作者的实际研究经验，为读者提供了丰富的实践视角。

A Historical Note

At the midpoint of the nineteenth century the wave theory of light developed by

Augustin Jean Fresnel (1788–1827) and his successors was a complete triumph. The

wave theory completely explained the major optical phenomena of interference,

diﬀraction, and polarization. Furthermore, Fresnel had successfully applied the

wave theory to the problem of the propagation and polarization of light in aniso-

tropic media, that is, crystals. A further experiment was carried out in 1851 by

Armand Hypolite Louis Fizeau (1819–1896), who showed that the speed of light

was less in an optically dense medium than in a vacuum, a result predicted by the

wave theory. The corpuscular theory, on the other hand, had predicted that in an

optically dense medium the speed of light would be greater than in a vacuum. Thus,

in practically all respects Fresnel’s wave theory of light appeared to be triumphant.

By the year 1852, however, a crisis of quite signiﬁcant proportions was slowly

simmering in optics. The crisis, ironically, had been brought on by Fresnel himself

35 years earlier. In the year 1817 Fresnel, with the able assistance of his colleague

Dominique Franc¸ ois Arago (1786– 1853), undertook a series of experiments to deter-

mine the inﬂuence of polarized light on the interference experiments of Thomas Young

(1773–1829). At the beginning of these experiments Fresnel and Arago held the view

that light vibrations were longitudinal. At the end of their experiments they were

unable to understand their results on the basis of longitudinal vibrations. Arago

communicated the puzzling results to Young, who then suggested that the experiments

could be understood if the light vibrations were transverse, co nsisted of only two

orthogonal components, and there was no longitudinal component. Indeed, this did

make some, but not all, of the results comprehensible. At the conclusion of their

experiments Fresnel and Arago summarized their results in a series of statements

that have come down to us as the four interference laws of Fresnel and Arago.

All physical laws are described in terms of verbal statements from which

mathematical statement s can then be written (e.g., Kepler’s laws of planetary

motion and Newton’s laws of motion). Fresnel understood this very well. Upon

completing his experiments, he turned to the problem of developing the mathema-

tical statements for the four interference laws. Fresnel’s wave theory was an ampli-

tude description of light and was completely successful in describing completely

polarized light, that is, elliptically polarized light and its degenerate states, linearly

and circularly polarized light. However, the Fresnel–Arago experiments were carried

out not with completely polarized light but with another state of polarized light

called unpolarized light. In order to describe the Fresnel–Arago experiments it

would be necessary for Fresnel to provide the mathematical statements for unpolar-

ized light, but much to his surprise, on the basis of his amplitude form ulation of

light, he was unable to write the mathematical statements for unpolarized light! And

he never succeeded. With his untimely death in 1827 the task of describing unpolar-

ized light (or for that matter any state of polarized light within the framework of

classical optics) along with providing the mathematical statements of the Fresnel–

Arago inter ference laws passed to others. For many years his successors were no

more successful than he had been.

By 1852, 35 years had elapsed since the enunciation of the Fresnel–Arago laws

and there was still no satisfactory descri ption of unpolarized light or the interference

laws. It appeared that unpola rized light, as well as so-called partially polarized light,

could not be described within the framework of the wave theory of light, which

would be a crisis indeed.

The year 1852 is a watershed in optics because in that year Sir George Gabriel

Stokes (1819–1903) published two remarkable papers in optics. The ﬁrst appeared

with the very bland title ‘‘On the Composition and Resolution of Streams of

Polarized Light from Diﬀerent Sources,’’ a title that appears to be far removed

from the Fresnel–Arago interference laws; the paper itself does not appear to have

attracted much attention. It is now, howeve r, considered to be one of the great

papers of classical optics. After careful reading of his paper, one discovers that it

provides the mathematical formulation for describing any state of polarized light

and, most importantly, the mathematical statements for unpolarized light: the math-

ematical statements for the Fresnel–Arago interference laws could now be written.

Stokes had been able to show, ﬁnally, that unpolarized light and partially polarized

light could be described within the framework of the wave theory of light.

Stokes was successful where all others had failed because he developed a highly

novel approach for de scribing unpolarized and parti ally polarized light. He aban-

doned the fruitless attempts of his predecessors to describe unpolarized light in terms

of amplitudes and, instead, resorted to an experimental deﬁnition of unpolarized

light. In other words, he was led to a formulation of polarized light in terms of

measured quantities, that is, intensities (obser vables). This was a completely unique

point of view for the nineteenth century. The idea of observables was not to reappear

again in physics until the advent of quantum mechanics in 1925 by Werner

Heisenberg (1901–1976) and later in optics with the observable formulation of the

optical ﬁeld in 1954 by Emil Wolf (1922– ).

Stokes showed that his intensity formulation of polarized light could be used to

describe not only unpolarized and partially polarized light but complet ely polarized

light as well. Thus, his form ulation was applicable to any state of polarized light . His

entire paper is devoted to describing in all the detail of mid-nineteenth-century algebra

the properties of various combinations of polarized and unpolarized light. Near the

end of his paper Stokes introduced his discove ry that four parameters, now known as

the Stokes polarization parameters, could characterize any state of polarized light.

Unlike the amplitude formulation of the optical ﬁeld, his parameters were directly

accessible to measurement. Furthermore, he then used these pa rameters to obtain a

correct mathematical statement for unpolarized light. The stage had now been set to

write the mathematical statements for the Fresnel–Arago interference laws.

At the end of Stokes’ paper he turns, at long last, to his ﬁrst application, the

long awaited mathematical statements for the Fresnel–Arago interference laws. In

his paper he states, ‘‘Let us now apply the principles and formulae which have just

been established to a few exampl es. And ﬁrst let us take one of the fundamental

experiments by which MM. Arago and Fresnel established the laws of interference of

polarized light, or rather an analogous experiment mentioned by Sir John Herschel.’’

Thus, with these few words Stokes abandoned his attempts to provide the mathe-

matical statements for the Fresnel–Arago laws. At this point Stokes knew that to

apply his formulation to the formulation of the Fresnel–Arago interference laws was

a considerable undertaking. It was suﬃcient for Stokes to know that his mathema-

tical formulation of polarized light woul d explain them. Within several more pages,

primarily devoted to correct ing several experiments misunderstood by his colleagues,

he concluded his paper.

This sudden termination is remarkable in view of its author’s extraordinary

eﬀort to develop the mathematical machinery to describe polarized light, culminat-

ing in the Stokes polarization parameters. One must ask why he brought his paper to

such a rapid co nclusion. In my opinion, and this shall require further historical

research, the answer lies in the paper that immediately follows Stokes’ polarization

paper, published only two months later. Its title was, ‘‘On the Change of the

Refrangibility of Light.’’

In the beginning of this Historical Note it was pointed out that by 1852 there

was a crisis in optics over the inability to ﬁnd a suitable mathematical description for

unpolarized light and the Fresnel–Arago interference laws. This crisis was ﬁnally

overcome with the publica tion of Stokes’ paper on polarized light in 1852. But this

next paper by Stokes dealt with a new problem of very disconcerting proportions. It

was the ﬁrst in a series of papers that would lead, 75 years later, to quantum

mechanics. The subject of this second paper is a topic that has become known as

the ﬂuorescence of solutions. It is a monumental paper and was published in two

parts. The ﬁrst is a 20-page abstract! The second is the paper itself, which consists of

nearly 150 pages. After reading this paper it is easy to understand why Stokes had

concluded his paper on the Fresnel–Arago interference laws. He was deeply

immersed in numerous experiments exploring the peculiar phenomenon of ﬂuores-

cence. After an enormous amount of experimental eﬀort Stokes was able to enun-

ciate his now famous law of ﬂuorescence, namely, that the wavelength of the emitted

ﬂuorescent radiation was greater than the excitation wavelength; he also found that

the ﬂuorescence radiation appeared to be unpolarized. Stokes was never able to ﬁnd

the reason for this peculiar behavior of ﬂuorescence or the basis of his law. He would

spend the next 50 years searching for the reason for his empirical law until his death

in 1903. Ironically, in 1905, two years after Stokes’ death, a young physicist by the

name of Albert Einstein (1879–1955) published a paper entitled ‘‘On a Heuristic

Point of View Concerning the Generation and Conversion of Light’’ and showed

that Stokes’ law of ﬂuorescence could be easily explained and understood on the

basis of the quantum hypothesis of Max Planck (1858–1947). It is now clear that

Stokes never had the slightest chance of explaining the phenomenon of ﬂuorescence

within the framework of classical optics. Thus, having helped to remove one of the

last barriers to the acceptance of the wave theory of light, Stokes’ investigations on

the nature of light had led him to the discovery of the ﬁrst law ever associ ated with

the quantum phenomenon. Unknowingly, Stokes had stumbled onto the quantum

nature of light. Thirty-ﬁve years late r, in 1888, a similar chain of events was repeated

when Heinrich Hertz (1857–1894), while verifying the electromagne tic ﬁeld theory of

James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879), the ultimate proof of the truth of the classical

wave theory of light, also discovered a new and unexplainable phenomenon, the

photoelectric eﬀect. We now know that this too can be understood only in terms

of the quantum theory. Science is ﬁlled with ironies.

Within two months of the publication in March 1852 of his paper on polarized

light, in which the formulation of classical optics appeared to be complete, with the

May 1852 publication of his paper on ﬂuorescence, Stokes went from complete

triumph to complete dismay. He would constantly return to the subject of ﬂuores-

cence for the remainder of his life, always trying but never succeeding in under-

standing the origin of his law of ﬂuorescence.

Stoke’s great paper on polarization was practically forgotten because by the

mid-nineteenth century classical optics was believed to be complete and physicists

had turned their attention to the investigation of the electromagnetic ﬁeld and the

statistical mechanics of molecules. His paper was buried in the scientiﬁc literature for

nearly a century. Its importance was ﬁnally recognized with its ‘‘discovery’’ in the

1940s by the Nobel laureate Subrahmanya Chandrasekhar (1910– ), who used

the Stokes parameters to include the eﬀects of polarized light in the equations of

radiative transfer.

In this book we shall see that the Stokes polarization parameters provide a rich

and powerful tool for investigating and understanding polarized light and its inter-

action with matter. The use of these parameters provides a mathematical formula-

tion of polarized light whose power is far greater than was ever imagined by their

originator and serves as a tribute to his genius.

Edward Collett

REFERENCES

Papers

1. Stokes, G. G. Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc. 9, 399, 1852. Reprinted in Mathematical and

Physical Papers, Vol. 3, p. 233, Cambridge University Press, London, 1901.

2. Stokes, G. G. Proc. of the Royal Soc. b, 195, 1852. Reprinted in Mathematical and

Physical Papers, Vol. 3, p. 259, Cambridge University Press, London, 1901.

3. Einstein, A. Ann. Phys. 17, 132, 1905.

4. Heisenberg, W. Zs. f. Phys. 33, 879, 1925.

5. Wolf, E. Nuovo Cimento, 12, 884, 1954.

6. Collett, E. Amer. J. Phys., 39, 1483, 1971.

7. Mulligan, J. Physics Today, 42, 50, March, 1989.

Books

1. Fresnel, A. J. L’Oeuvres Completes, Henri de Senarmont, Emile Verdet et Leonor Fresnel,

Vol. I. Paris, 1866.

2. Born, M. and Wolf, E. Principles of Optics, 3rd ed. Pergamon Press, Inc., New York, 1965.

3. Whittaker, E. A History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity, Vol. I. Philosophical

Society, New York, 1951.

4. S. Chandrasekhar, Radiative Transfer, Dover Publications, pp. 24–34, New York, 1960.

剩余643页未读，继续阅读

beyondcz

粉丝: 2
资源: 7

偏振光学：第二版 - Dennis Goldstein的经典著作

Polarized Light (Second Edition)

MONTE CARLO SIMULATION OF POLARIZED LIGHT SCATTERING IN TISSUES

Self-mixing interferometry with mutual independent orthogonal polarized light

Application of polarized light compass system on solar position calculation

Variable optical attenuators with ability to independently control two orthogonal linearly polarized light amplitudes

Refractive index measurement of dielectric samples using highly focused radially polarized light (Invited Paper)

Tighter focus for a radially polarized light beam with suppressed side lobes of longitudinal component using absorbance modulation

Hall effects in monolayer MoS2 with spin-orbit coupling under the shining of a circularly polarized light

Scattering of on-axis polarized Gaussian light beam by spheroidal water coating aerosol particle

Simulation-of-polarized-light.rar_scattering medium_偏振光_偏振光 传播_散

最新资源

Simulation-of-polarized-light.rar_scattering medium_偏振光_偏振光传播_散