Past exam of the optics and electrodynamics course of the University of Cambridge / 2022

The emission mechanism is Cherenkov radiation. An Electron moving faster than the phase velocity $c/n$ of light in the material excites electric polarization disturbances whose radiation adds coherently on a cone. This does not require the Electron to exceed the speed of light in vacuum. Taking $n=1.4$ as constant over the detected optical band, the Cherenkov cone angle satisfiesEmission requires $\beta >1/n$. The detector accepts ${\theta }_C<20^{\circ }$, soNumerically,The lower endpoint has vanishing Cherenkov radiation yield, and the upper endpoint is excluded by the stated strict angular acceptance. Faster Electrons emit at larger cone angles: at $v\simeq c$, ${\theta }_C\simeq {\cos }^{-1}(1/1.4)=44.4^{\circ }$, outside this detector's acceptance. The angular condition gives the accepted speed interval conditional on rays reaching the detector; no collection geometry or total signal yield is specified.

The Johnson-Nyquist noise formula gives the open-circuit mean-square voltage in a small frequency band $d\nu$. When a source electrical resistance $R$ drives a load $R$ with impedance matching, the load sees half the source voltage, so the available noise power isThe factor of four in the open-circuit formula is therefore not an extra factor in the delivered power.

The transmitter's antenna gain $G$ makes the axial spectral energy flux at range $d$Multiplication by the receiving antenna effective area $A$ gives $d{P}_r=k_B{T}_{t}GAd\nu /(4\pi d^2)$. Define the equivalent receiving antenna temperature $T_A$ by the available matched-load noise $d{P}_r=k_B{T}_{A}d\nu$. ThenThis is the transmitter-induced equivalent noise temperature of the receiver port. It does not determine the actual physical temperature of its internal electrical resistance, or any additional receiver and background noise. The calculation assumes the usual far-field link, negligible path loss beyond geometric spreading, matched polarization of an electromagnetic wave at the two antennas and the stated effective collecting area. No additional one-half polarization factor is needed for the matched polarization of radiation from one transmitting antenna.

Each mutually incoherent patch of an extended star produces a displaced double-slit interference pattern. The detector adds their light intensities. For two apertures separated by a projected interferometric baseline $D$, a source direction offset by a small angle ${\vartheta }_x$ changes their phase difference by $2\pi D{\vartheta }_x/\lambda$. The normalized sum over the source's angular brightness distribution is its first-order optical coherence, whose magnitude is the interferometric visibility for equally bright channels.

For a uniform circular stellar disk of full angular diameter $\alpha$, the normalized angular Fourier transform gives the uniform-disk stellar visibilityHere $J_1$ is the order-one Bessel function of the first kind. This follows by integrating $e^{i(2\pi D/\lambda ){\vartheta }_x}$ over the disk and dividing by its area. In particular, its power series gives $2J_1(x)/x=1-x^2/8+O(x^4)$.

For an ordinary slit separation $d=1\mathrm{mm}$, using the paper's $\alpha =22.6\times 10^{-8}\mathrm{rad}$ and observing wavelength $\lambda =570\mathrm{nm}$,Even $d=10\mathrm{mm}$ gives a visibility loss of only $1.94\times 10^{-5}$. Thus millimetre separation leaves the interference fringes almost indistinguishable from those of a point source; it gives very little sensitivity to the diameter.

The movable mirrors in the Michelson stellar interferometer collect light at a large adjustable separation $D$ and redirect it into closely spaced output beams. They increase the sampling interferometric baseline independently of the fixed output slit spacing $d$: $D$ sets sensitivity to source structure, whereas the output optics set the screen's interference fringe spacing. The first Bessel function zero is $x_1=3.83170597$, henceThe interference fringes disappear at this baseline even though each beam separately remains bright.

The value $3.08\mathrm{m}$ assumes a uniform disk. The original question supplies a diameter without a surface brightness law; real limb darkening changes the precise visibility zero. A one-dimensional uniformly bright strip of the same full angular width instead has a sinc function visibility and first zero $D=\lambda /\alpha =2.522\mathrm{m}$. That is a different source model, not the circular-disk result. The robust conclusion without a surface brightness model is that a baseline of a few metres, rather than millimetres, is required.

Birefringence means that two independent polarization eigenmodes have different refractive indices at the same frequency and propagation direction. The rotatory-power formula relevant here requires circular birefringence: the eigenmodes are opposite circular polarizations. General linear birefringence instead introduces phase retardation between linearly polarized components and need not rotate every incident linear polarization through one common angle.

Use the complex amplitude convention $\mathrm{Re}[\mathbf{E}{e}^{-i\omega t}]$ and transverse unit vectors ${\mathbf{e}}_1,{\mathbf{e}}_2$. DefinePropagation through thickness $d$ adds phases ${\varphi }_{\pm }=(2\pi /{\lambda }_0)n_{\pm }d$, where ${\lambda }_0$ is the vacuum wavelength. Recombining the two components givesThus the rotation and the specific rotatory power per unit length areThe units of $\rho$ are $\mathrm{rad}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. The sign follows the specified circular basis and viewing convention. Equal attenuation of the two eigenmodes has been assumed; unequal attenuation also produces elliptical polarization.

Flint glass is approximately optically isotropic without an applied magnetic field. A longitudinal magnetic field changes the motion of its bound Electrons: the magnetic part of the Lorentz force acts with opposite sense on the two circularly rotating components of a driven electronic oscillation. Their optical response, and hence their refractive indices, split. Equivalently, the transverse permittivity tensor acquires a field-odd antisymmetric contribution whose eigenvectors are opposite circular polarizations.

The resulting circular birefringence gives Faraday rotation. For a weak longitudinal bias it is linear in the field:Here ${\rm Y}$ is the Verdet constant and $L$ the path length. The magnetic field breaks time-reversal symmetry, which is why this rotation is nonreciprocal. Reversing the bias reverses the rotation; reversing propagation while keeping the bias fixed does not undo it when physical polarization directions are compared in fixed laboratory axes. A transverse magnetic bias can have different, higher-order effects; the setup here is the longitudinal Faraday effect.

Choose the first polarizer's pass axis as ${\mathbf{e}}_1$ and write the second as $\mathbf{a}=({\mathbf{e}}_1+{\mathbf{e}}_2)/\sqrt{2}$. The positive signed rotation takes ${\mathbf{e}}_1$ toward $\mathbf{a}$ by the short $\pi /4$ angle. Let $B_{\parallel }$ be signed according to $\theta ={\rm Y}L{B}_{\parallel }$. The Jones matrices of ideal polarizers are their orthogonal projection matrices,Removing the unimportant common propagation phase, the lossless glass block has the rotation matrixThe elements act from right to left, soWith the common optical phase retained, multiply this by $e^{i\bar{\varphi }}$. Extra scalar attenuation would also multiply the result, but none is supplied. A single Jones vector does not represent unpolarized light; the device's Jones matrix is nevertheless well defined for each incident component and can be applied to their statistical mixture.

Let $I_0$ be the incident light intensity. The first ideal polarizer transmits $I_0/2$ and produces linear polarization along ${\mathbf{e}}_1$. Faraday rotation turns that direction through $\theta ={\rm Y}L{B}_{\parallel }$, and Malus's law at the second polarizer givesEquivalently, use the input coherency matrix $C_{\mathrm{in}}=(I_0/2)I_2$ and $I_f=\mathrm{tr}(J{C}_{\mathrm{in}}{J}^{†})$. This produces the same one-half factor required by unpolarized light.

Maxima satisfy $\theta =\pi /4+m\pi$, with $m\in \mathbb{Z}$. For $L=1\mathrm{m}$ and ${\rm Y}=9\mathrm{rad}{\mathrm{T}}^{-1}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$, the smallest field magnitude isIts direction is the axial direction that rotates the polarization passed by $P_1$ toward the pass axis of $P_2$ through the shorter $45^{\circ }$. In the right-handed ray-basis convention where $\rho =+{\rm Y}{B}_{\parallel }$ and the depicted second axis is $+45^{\circ }$, this is $B_{\parallel }>0$, along $S\to O$. Reversing that field at the same magnitude gives $\theta =-\pi /4$ and zero transmission. A signed Verdet constant is meaningful only together with its rotation convention, so the polarization-alignment description fixes the physical direction without relying on ambiguous clockwise labels in a perspective diagram.

Keep the magnetic field fixed in the laboratory and exchange source and observer. The incident unpolarized light now meets $P_2$ first. In fixed transverse laboratory axes the backward glass map is still $R(\theta )$, not $R(-\theta )$: this is optical nonreciprocity of the Faraday effect. The order of the two polarizers is reversed, soThe reverse light intensity is thereforeFor the optimal forward setting $\theta =\pi /4$, it vanishes: the $45^{\circ }$ input selected by $P_2$ rotates to $90^{\circ }$ and is blocked by $P_1$. At a general field, $I_r+I_f=I_0/2$. The result assumes equal incident light intensities in the two experiments. Treating the glass as a reciprocal natural optical rotator would predict cancellation of its laboratory rotation on reversal and would give the wrong answer here.

Keep source, observer and magnetic field in their original places, but interchange the physical polarizers, including their pass-axis orientations. The forward order is then $P_2$, glass, $P_1$, so the new Jones matrix is again $P_{1}R(\theta )P_2$. ConsequentlyThis is the same intensity change as exchanging source and observer. At the field that maximizes the original forward transmission, the swapped arrangement blocks the beam. If both operations were performed together, the original order relative to propagation would be restored and so would the original transmission. The answer concerns exchanging the two differently oriented pass axes; simply relabelling two identical polarizers while leaving their axes fixed would not change the apparatus.

Only the $1/r$ fields transport a nonzero outgoing power to infinity. Retain those terms from the Hertzian dipole fields:The brackets mean evaluation at the retarded time,for a point source at the origin in vacuum. They are not a time average. The radial Poynting vector in the radiation zone isIntegrating over a sphere usesThereforeNear-field terms either give inverse powers of $r$ after the surface integral or describe reversible exchange with the near field. The emitted power labelled by source time $t_{\mathrm{src}}$ is ${\mu }_0\ddot{p}(t_{\mathrm{src}}{)}^2/(6\pi c)$; the enclosing surface receives it one light-travel time later. For a changing dipole orientation, the general form is $P={\mu }_0|\ddot{\mathbf{p}}{|}^2/(6\pi c)$.

The prescribed surface charge density is that of a uniformly polarized sphere and has zero total charge because $\int \cos \theta d\Omega =0$. Its electric dipole moment at $t=0$ isThe transverse components cancel by axisymmetry, while the $z$ component isThusThe angular surface distribution is a pure degree-one spherical harmonic. Hence its static external electric potential is exactly that of this dipole, with no higher electric multipole moments; it is not an assertion that the potential inside the finite sphere equals a singular point-dipole potential.

For right-handed uniform rotation about $+\hat{\mathbf{x}}$, the rigidly attached dipole isConsequently $|\ddot{\mathbf{p}}{|}^2=p_0^2{\omega }^4$ is constant. The electric dipole radiation formula givesThere is no extra factor of one-half: the squared sine and cosine contributions of the two perpendicular oscillating components sum to one. This is the leading electric-dipole approximation for radiation, requiring $\omega R/c\ll 1$ and observation in the radiation zone. The stated permanent surface distribution is interpreted as the actual charge producing the given external dipole; adding another dielectric screening factor would contradict the dipole moment the question asks to establish. The relative permittivity enters the induced-polarization problem in part (d), not this prescribed total dipole moment.

Let $\mathcal{I}$ be the sphere's mechanical moment of inertia about its rotation axis, and let ${\omega }_i=\omega (0)$. For an undriven rigid sphere the rotational energy is $E_{\mathrm{rot}}=\mathcal{I}{\omega }^2/2$. In the weak-radiation-loss approximation, conservation of energy givesIntegrating $d({\omega }^{-2})/dt=2K/\mathcal{I}$ givesEquivalently, the characteristic spin-down time isThe radiative spin-down of a rotating electric dipole therefore has angular frequency that decays as $t^{-1/2}$ at late times within this model, rather than exponentially. The original paper gives no mass or mass-density profile, so $\mathcal{I}$ cannot be determined from $R$ and the relative permittivity. If a homogeneous solid sphere of mass $M$ is additionally assumed, insert $\mathcal{I}=2M{R}^2/5$; uniform dielectric response alone does not imply this mechanical mass distribution.

The approximation is important. If the dipole angle is $\varphi (t)$ with $\dot{\varphi }=\omega (t)$, direct differentiation gives $|\ddot{\mathbf{p}}{|}^2=p_0^2({\omega }^4+{\dot{\omega }}^2)$. Using the constant-frequency radiation law instantaneously neglects the second term and assumes $|\dot{\omega }|\ll {\omega }^2$. This gives the standard leading slow spin-down solution above. An exact nonadiabatic radiation reaction evolution would require the mechanical and near-field dynamics beyond the information supplied, rather than treating this leading law as exact at arbitrarily rapid damping.

The given static induced surface charge and the dipole integral from part (b) giveHere $ϵ$ is the dimensionless relative permittivity, as required by the stated $ϵ\pm 1,2$ expression; ${\alpha }_E$ is the SI electric polarizability. Take ${\mathbf{E}}_{\mathrm{inc}}(t)=E_0\cos \omega t\hat{\mathbf{e}}$ and $k=\omega /c=2\pi /\lambda$. In the Rayleigh scattering regime the field is approximately uniform across the sphere. Its induced dipole radiates mean powerThe incident time-averaged light intensity in vacuum is $I_{\mathrm{inc}}={ϵ}_{0}c{E}_0^2/2$. Dividing power by intensity gives the total cross section,The units are ${\mathrm{m}}^2$; the comparison is with the geometric projected area $\pi R^2$, not with a length:The inequality holds for an ordinary nonabsorbing dielectric, with finite contrast factor and $kR\ll 1$. It explains why a sufficiently small transparent sphere scatters weakly and why its scattered power has the characteristic ${\lambda }^{-4}$ dependence. Near a material resonance where $ϵ+2$ is small, this simple inequality and static-polarizability approximation need reconsideration, including loss and radiative corrections. For the stated low-frequency ordinary dielectric the supplied polarizability is the intended approximation.

Fix coordinates $x^{\mu }=(ct,x,y,z)$ and use the following convention for the contravariant electromagnetic field tensor:For $O^{\prime }$ moving with velocity $+v\hat{\mathbf{x}}$ relative to $O$, the Lorentz transformation hasThe rank-two tensor transformation rule isFor example,Similarly, $F^{\prime 03}=-\gamma (E_z+v{B}_y)/c$ and $F^{\prime 13}=\gamma (B_y+v{E}_z/c^2)$. The $01$ component is unchanged because ${\gamma }^2(1-{\beta }^2)=1$, and the $23$ component is unchanged since neither index lies in the boost plane. Reading off the six field components givesAn alternative overall sign convention for $F^{\mu \nu }$ gives the same physical Lorentz transformation of electromagnetic fields when its identifications with $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ are used consistently.

Write $a_y=E_{A,y}^0$, $a_z=E_{A,z}^0$, $b_y=E_{B,y}^0$ and $b_z=E_{B,z}^0$, evaluated at the same transverse coordinates $(y,z)$. A superscript $0$ labels each filament's own rest frame, rather than a single common frame in all cases. The filaments are infinite and uniform along $x$, so the change of longitudinal coordinate under a Lorentz boost creates no extra dependence in these functions. After the acceleration transients have passed, the magnetic field of each filament vanishes in its own rest frame.

For a filament moving at $+v\hat{\mathbf{x}}$, use the inverse of part (a): its transverse electric field in the laboratory is $\gamma {\mathbf{E}}^0$ and its magnetic field is $\mathbf{v}\times \mathbf{E}/c^2$. Superposition for the two co-moving filaments therefore gives, in $O$,In the common co-moving frame $O^{\prime }$ both filaments are at rest, soFor example, $B_y^{\prime }=\gamma [-\gamma v(a_z+b_z)/c^2+v\gamma (a_z+b_z)/c^2]=0$, a useful sign check. The supplied $\eta$ is the proper linear charge density. Thus each laboratory density is $\gamma \eta$ and each laboratory electric current is $\gamma \eta v$, consistently with length contraction and the four-current transformation. In $O^{\prime }$ each density is $\eta$ and both currents vanish.

Retain $a_y,a_z,b_y,b_z$ as defined in Case 1. In the laboratory, A moves and B is stationary. Transform A's fields and add B's unchanged electrostatic field:The laboratory linear charge densities are ${\lambda }_A=\gamma \eta$ and ${\lambda }_B=\eta$, with electric currents $I_A=\gamma \eta v$ and $I_B=0$.

In $O^{\prime }$, A is stationary while B moves with velocity $-v\hat{\mathbf{x}}$. Thus A contributes its rest electrostatic field, and B contributes the boosted electric field and the opposite-sign convective magnetic field:The densities in this frame are ${\lambda }_A^{\prime }=\eta$, ${\lambda }_B^{\prime }=\gamma \eta$, with $I_A^{\prime }=0$ and $I_B^{\prime }=-\gamma \eta v$. Substituting the laboratory result into part (a) gives the same fields; for instance $E_y^{\prime }=\gamma [(\gamma a_y+b_y)-v\gamma v{a}_y/c^2]=a_y+\gamma b_y$. The magnetic contribution attributed to A disappears in its own frame, but B's contribution does not.

The infinitely long filaments have no finite total force; the meaningful result is force per unit length in the laboratory. Evaluate only A's field at B, excluding B's singular self-field. B is at $y=0,z=-d/2$, so defineIn both cases A moves at $+v\hat{\mathbf{x}}$, hence at BFor a filament with linear charge density ${\lambda }_B$ and convective electric current $I_B$, the Lorentz force per laboratory length isIn Case 1, ${\lambda }_B=\gamma \eta$ and $I_B=\gamma \eta v$. Electric repulsion and magnetic attraction givesoThe cancellation uses ${\gamma }^2(1-{\beta }^2)=1$. In Case 2, B is stationary, ${\lambda }_B=\eta$ and $I_B=0$, givingBoth results have units $\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ and are repulsive, away from A, irrespective of the common sign of $\eta$. In Case 1 the velocity independence of force per laboratory length does not violate the transverse force transformation: a material segment of proper length ${\ell }_0$ occupies laboratory length ${\ell }_0/\gamma$, so its force is the rest-frame force divided by $\gamma$. The calculation interprets the stated $\eta$ as each filament's final proper density; holding a laboratory density fixed during acceleration would be a different preparation.

Spin-orbit coupling is a relativistic interaction between a particle's spin and its orbital angular momentum or, more generally, its motion through an electric field. A moving Electron experiences a transformed magnetic field, which couples to its magnetic dipole moment. For an electron bound in a central electrostatic potential energy $U(r)$, the leading interaction, including the Thomas precession correction, isHere $\mathbf{L}$ is orbital angular momentum and $\mathbf{S}$ is spin. The factor of one-half relative to the simplest rest-field argument comes from Thomas precession of the accelerated Electron frame.^[ref]

For example, in the hydrogen atom, the $2p$ states with total angular momentum $j=1/2$ and $j=3/2$ have different $\mathbf{L}\cdot \mathbf{S}$ eigenvalues. Their splitting is part of the atomic fine structure. The interaction redistributes and splits spin-dependent energies; it is not the same physical effect as the spin-independent convective magnetic force between charged filaments.

The information in the original question is insufficient to determine a unique spin-induced change of charge density. It specifies ideal dielectric filaments with a prescribed excess linear charge density, but not the charge carrier species, their spin state, charge carrier mobility, binding potential or relaxation mechanism. A classical line charge has no spin variable at all. The following conditional conclusions are supported by the fields already calculated.

For a carrier moving with its filament, the local magnetic field in its instantaneous rest frame is, for the transverse fields here,where $\mathbf{u}$ is that carrier's laboratory velocity. Exclude its filament's singular self-field and first retain only the prescribed straight convective motion.

In Case 1 there is a common rest frame in which both filaments and the excess charges are stationary and the interfilament magnetic field vanishes. Equivalently, in the laboratory ${\mathbf{B}}_A=\mathbf{v}\times {\mathbf{E}}_A/c^2$, so B's co-moving charges have ${\mathbf{B}}_{A,\mathrm{rest}}=0$. Thus uniform common translation alone creates no extra mutual rest-field spin splitting. This does not exclude intrinsic spin-orbit coupling of electrons moving within their atomic binding potentials; that material physics was never specified.

In Case 2 there is relative motion and no frame in which both source distributions are stationary. Put $E_{\ast }=\eta /(2\pi {ϵ}_{0}d)$ as in part (c). At the respective filament axes, the external fields experienced in each carrier distribution's own rest frame areFor the first expression B is at rest in $O$; for the second A is at rest in $O^{\prime }$ and the field comes from B moving at $-v\hat{\mathbf{x}}$. For a carrier with magnetic dipole moment ${\mathbf{\mu }}_s$, the interaction $H_s=-{\mathbf{\mu }}_s\cdot {\mathbf{B}}_{\mathrm{rest}}$ distinguishes opposite transverse spin orientations. A field gradient could exert a spin-dependent force $\nabla ({\mathbf{\mu }}_s\cdot {\mathbf{B}}_{\mathrm{rest}})$ on mobile carriers; spin relaxation could instead produce a spin polarization. These are possible responses, not consequences of charge density alone. In B's frame the displayed interaction is directly a magnetic-moment coupling to the moving source's field; treating the moving carrier's electrostatic orbital term in another frame also requires consistent binding and acceleration dynamics, including any applicable Thomas precession.

For example, if $\eta >0$ and mobile electron spins can relax, the lower magnetic-energy orientation has the electron's magnetic moment toward $+\hat{\mathbf{y}}$ and its spin toward $-\hat{\mathbf{y}}$. Oppositely oriented moments would experience opposite gradient forces. The sign changes if the source charge changes sign. None of these statements fixes a net charge redistribution without a confinement and response model, and the stipulated zero transverse size supplies no resolved “sides” on which charge could accumulate.

Therefore Case 1 has no new mutual spin effect from common bulk motion alone; Case 2 permits motion-induced spin-dependent interactions, but neither case determines an additional charge-density profile from the supplied data. In particular, the factor $\gamma$ relating proper and laboratory linear charge densities in part (b) follows from length contraction and is not an effect of spin-orbit coupling. If the charges remain pinned in an ideal dielectric, their imposed density remains the prescribed density in either case.