![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do we know who Mr. Jones who invented this was? I ask because I suspect it was Isaac Newton's contemporary Sir William Jones and we might as well link to that if so. -- Paul Drye
I very much doubt it. Try this:
I think we should expand this section to include elliptical jones vectors and how to get their magnitudes.
The polarizer with azimuth 0:
The rotation by :
The polarizer with azimuth :
-- HarpyHumming 22:01, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
In a couple of places (e.g. "The Depolarisation of Electromagnetic Waves", Beckmann 1968) I've seen a conflicting definition of Jones vectors for right- and left-hand polarisations, where right circular is (1, i) - not the (1, -i) that is quoted here. In this Wiki article, I assume the wave propagates along +z, so E has components in x and y directions. Beckmann assumes the wave propagates along +x, so the corresponding E vectors are y and z (if we stick with a right-handed coordinate system!), thus a right circular wave screws clockwise if viewed in the direction of propagation. A right circular wave, by his definition, has Ey = 1 and Ez = +i, which correspond to Ex = 1 and Ey = +i in this article, hence my confusion. Any ideas?
Rob Granger. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.123.216.147 ( talk) 10:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
Unless I am mistaken, the Jones matrix for a mirror [1] is:
Should we add it to the list? Gellule ( talk) 22:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments: the Jones matrix of mirror is diag(1,-1) only when the incidence angle is 90 degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:8A1E:83DD:3E50:491F:2B42:9648:8B9A ( talk) 10:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
In Jones vectors section, it is written
Then,
I believe these (maybe no more) should be fixed. WiOp ( talk) 09:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Slightly changed. WiOp ( talk) 04:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I am a graduate student in optics (at the best optical sciences university in the world) and it is appalling that this is still in the main article. Pick a phase convention and stick with it consistently throughout the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.251.197 ( talk) 03:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Add a sentence stating that Jones vectors are not about single photons. Its not the same as describing a photon spin in Pauli vectors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.105.17.135 ( talk) 21:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure they do not. You have to properly normalize photon states and deal with collapse, which classical Jones vectors can avoid. --Israel Vaughn — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.228.251.197 (
talk)
03:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Michael, so what is the phase of a single photon (Fock state)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.252.75 ( talk) 17:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
This section is hopeless without a picture! See my many notes in it indicating the lack of clarity in the specification of the geometry.
89.217.8.245 ( talk) 20:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I am having difficulty figuring out what the circularity term with an arbitrarily-oriented retarder. This question at https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/572230/meaning-of-circularity-in-phase-retarder-definition is what I can't figure out.
My confusion: the circularity term seems redundant, after considering the presence of 𝜂. Since the behaviour of the retarder (its impact on the output polarization state) depends on the relative phase change between field components along the principal axes, doesn't 𝜂 govern the 'circularity'? How is the term 𝜙 distinct from 𝜂?
j-beda ( talk) 05:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
How is Mueller calculus different from Jones calculus applied over a distribution of Jones vectors? 207.91.187.66 ( talk) 16:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Do we know who Mr. Jones who invented this was? I ask because I suspect it was Isaac Newton's contemporary Sir William Jones and we might as well link to that if so. -- Paul Drye
I very much doubt it. Try this:
I think we should expand this section to include elliptical jones vectors and how to get their magnitudes.
The polarizer with azimuth 0:
The rotation by :
The polarizer with azimuth :
-- HarpyHumming 22:01, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
In a couple of places (e.g. "The Depolarisation of Electromagnetic Waves", Beckmann 1968) I've seen a conflicting definition of Jones vectors for right- and left-hand polarisations, where right circular is (1, i) - not the (1, -i) that is quoted here. In this Wiki article, I assume the wave propagates along +z, so E has components in x and y directions. Beckmann assumes the wave propagates along +x, so the corresponding E vectors are y and z (if we stick with a right-handed coordinate system!), thus a right circular wave screws clockwise if viewed in the direction of propagation. A right circular wave, by his definition, has Ey = 1 and Ez = +i, which correspond to Ex = 1 and Ey = +i in this article, hence my confusion. Any ideas?
Rob Granger. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.123.216.147 ( talk) 10:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC).
Unless I am mistaken, the Jones matrix for a mirror [1] is:
Should we add it to the list? Gellule ( talk) 22:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments: the Jones matrix of mirror is diag(1,-1) only when the incidence angle is 90 degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:8A1E:83DD:3E50:491F:2B42:9648:8B9A ( talk) 10:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
In Jones vectors section, it is written
Then,
I believe these (maybe no more) should be fixed. WiOp ( talk) 09:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Slightly changed. WiOp ( talk) 04:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I am a graduate student in optics (at the best optical sciences university in the world) and it is appalling that this is still in the main article. Pick a phase convention and stick with it consistently throughout the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.251.197 ( talk) 03:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Add a sentence stating that Jones vectors are not about single photons. Its not the same as describing a photon spin in Pauli vectors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.105.17.135 ( talk) 21:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure they do not. You have to properly normalize photon states and deal with collapse, which classical Jones vectors can avoid. --Israel Vaughn — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.228.251.197 (
talk)
03:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Michael, so what is the phase of a single photon (Fock state)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.252.75 ( talk) 17:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
This section is hopeless without a picture! See my many notes in it indicating the lack of clarity in the specification of the geometry.
89.217.8.245 ( talk) 20:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I am having difficulty figuring out what the circularity term with an arbitrarily-oriented retarder. This question at https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/572230/meaning-of-circularity-in-phase-retarder-definition is what I can't figure out.
My confusion: the circularity term seems redundant, after considering the presence of 𝜂. Since the behaviour of the retarder (its impact on the output polarization state) depends on the relative phase change between field components along the principal axes, doesn't 𝜂 govern the 'circularity'? How is the term 𝜙 distinct from 𝜂?
j-beda ( talk) 05:40, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
How is Mueller calculus different from Jones calculus applied over a distribution of Jones vectors? 207.91.187.66 ( talk) 16:56, 2 May 2024 (UTC)