Lecture 3k -- Multiple Scattering

This lecture builds onto the idea of scattering at an interface by examining what happens when there are multiple interfaces. Discussion includes the dielectric slab, antireflection layers, and Bragg gratings.

[svm]

After finishing the lecture series 3, it is safe to say that you are one of the best professors in youtube currently. Your videos have helped me a lot. Thank you. Will continue to the rest of the lectures.

[joemulhern]

At 7:42, the Psi term is adjusted to explain phase accumulation when a wave enters at some non-normal angle of incidence. To me it seems like an oblique incidence would cause the wave to travel a longer distance in the center slab (that is, "d" is effectively longer). The distance seems like it should be d/cos(theta). Why is this longer distance not included in the Psi term?

[dipankarchugh]

Dear Prof Rumpf, Thanks for sharing these amazing videos. I wish to make a query. Is it possible to obtain a simplified expression for R and T (dielectric slab) for the high finesse case ?

[robertplant]

Great lecture series I've found these really useful, thank you! In the example for normal incident light reflected between multiple interfaces, it's mentioned (7:16) that to apply to oblique angles of incidence, only the phase term needs to be adjusted. Presumably, the transmission and reflection coefficients will also need to be adjusted to account for the angle of incidence on the respective interfaces as well (i.e. using the Fresnel equations)?

[vigneshradhakrishnan]

Amazing lecture series thank you. Regarding the angle in the psi term during oblique incidence, is the angle the transmitted angle calculated from snells law or is it something different. I am working with lossy materials. Thanks

[DWTIEN-liux]

Good job, by the way, where could i find this powerpoint to study?

[louisliu]

Dear Prof. Rumpf, I really appreciate your lecture and related videos, it helped me gain a better understanding of some basic physic concepts in EM theory. Here, I have a question in topic 7, lecture 7f, slide 5. The relation of r and t is t=1-r, but in the previous lecture (lecture 7a, slide 25), the relation is t=1+r, so there is a inconsistency. Based on your derivation, t=1+r seems right. if it is true, then the fomulas of total reflectance r and total transmittance t in lecture 7f may be modified ?

[yueyan]

in your previous slides, you mentioned that 1+r=t. When it relates to power, the reflected power R and transmission power T satisfy R+T=1. But in this slides, why t+r=1?