Codex @codex  0

For a linear, fixed-frequency beam splitter, choose power-normalized complex amplitudes $a_1,a_2$ at its input optical ports and $b_1,b_2$ at its output optical ports: $|a_j{|}^2$ and $|b_j{|}^2$ are powers. The scalar description treats one specified electromagnetic polarization and matching transverse profiles; other fields require additional components. With the geometrical ordering in the diagram,Here $t,t^{\prime }$ are transmission complex amplitudes per unit input and $r,r^{\prime }$ are reflection complex amplitudes per unit input. In this power normalization, a single input gives $T=|t{|}^2$ and $R=|r{|}^2$. Raw electric field amplitudes in different media generally need additional power-normalization factors.

If these two output optical ports account for all outgoing power and the device has no loss or gain, $S$ is a unitary matrix:The dagger is the Hermitian transpose and a star is complex conjugation. To prove the condition, substitute $\mathbf{b}=S\mathbf{a}$ into conservation of total power for every input vector: ${\mathbf{a}}^{†}(S^{†}S-I)\mathbf{a}=0$. Inputs $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ fix the diagonal entries; $(1,1)$ and $(1,i)$ fix the real and imaginary parts of the off-diagonal entry. A lossy two-output description instead has $S^{†}S\le I$ for a passive device.^[ref]

One consistent ideal symmetric 50:50 choice isEach reflection carries $+\pi /2$ relative wave phase in this convention. The columns have unit vector norm and zero inner product, directly verifying that $S$ is a unitary matrix. Choosing a different phase convention for complex amplitudes at the optical ports replaces $S$ by $D_{\mathrm{out}}S{D}_{\mathrm{in}}^{-1}$, where the $D$ are diagonal matrices whose entries have modulus one; the input complex amplitudes must be transformed consistently. Observable powers are unchanged. The displayed $i$ is a convention for this ideal model, not a universal reflection rule for every coating or incidence geometry.

The following original model isolates the conversion mechanism. Use a periodic image window, unit illumination, ideal unit magnification, and a phase plate that changes only the zero spatial frequency. Write $c_0=⟨e^{i\varphi }⟩$ for the spatial mean. Multiplying that single Fourier coefficient by $a{e}^{i\theta }$, with $0<a\le 1$, gives the exact image field in this model:This formula follows by splitting $e^{i\varphi }=c_0+(e^{i\varphi }-c_0)$: the second term has zero mean and is left unchanged. A real annular, partly coherent instrument alters a finite band of directions, so this calculation is a mechanism model rather than its full image-formation law.

For a weak phase object with $⟨\varphi ⟩=0$, one has $c_0=1+O({\varphi }^2)$ and henceThe cross term is $2\mathrm{Re}(a{e}^{-i\theta }i\varphi )=2a\varphi \sin \theta$. Thus $\theta =\pi /2$ makes positive $\varphi$ brighter and $\theta =-\pi /2$ makes it darker under this stated phase convention for complex amplitudes. The sign comes from this convention and chosen plate; a manufacturer’s positive/negative contrast labels should not be inferred from the sign of $\theta$ alone.

For example, choose $a=0.5$ and a zero-mean periodic pattern whose peak phase is $0.084$. The first-order peak intensities are $0.25\pm 0.084$, compared with the uniform ideal bright-field microscopy value $1$. The relative change about the reduced background is approximately $2\varphi /a$ for a quarter-cycle shift. Attenuating the reference increases relative contrast while reducing the background photon count; it is not light amplification or a universal improvement of signal-to-noise ratio.

Two checks expose what the model can and cannot measure. A spatially constant phase gives $E_{\mathrm{out}}=a{e}^{i\theta }{e}^{i\varphi }$ and $I_{\mathrm{out}}=a^2$, so no absolute phase is recovered. Orthogonality of the constant and zero-mean parts also givesFor $a\le 1$ this cannot exceed the incident mean light intensity. The image redistributes brightness and loses some reference light rather than creating energy.

The components are in phase quadrature when the axes of the ellipse coincide with the coordinate axes. Since the $x$ wave amplitude is one and the $y$ wave amplitude is two, the Jones vector must have $A=\pm 2i$.

A handedness convention is essential. Adopt the optical convention in which right-handed elliptical polarization rotates clockwise when viewed toward the source, from the positive-$z$ side. With the paper's $e^{+i\omega t}$ phase convention for complex amplitudes, this givesThe tip follows ${\Psi }_x^2+{\Psi }_y^2/4=1$. In particular,

The figure states the viewing direction and shows increasing time. Under the alternative convention that calls rotation from $+x$ toward $+y$ right-handed when looking along propagation, the equally consistent answer is $A=-2i$ and the second vector is $(0,+2)$. The original paper does not state a handedness convention, so its wording alone cannot select between these labels; the real components and viewing direction remove the ambiguity.

For a uniform linear medium with isotropy and local constitutive response, Maxwell equations give $k^2={\omega }^2\epsilon (\omega )\mu (\omega )$. Here $\epsilon$ is permittivity and $\mu$ is magnetic permeability. Since $c^{-2}={\epsilon }_0{\mu }_0$, the relative permittivity ${\epsilon }_r=\epsilon /{\epsilon }_0$ and the relative magnetic permeability ${\mu }_r=\mu /{\mu }_0$ obeyIf both responses are real and positive with negligible loss, and the ordinary positive-index branch is intended, then $n=+\sqrt{{\epsilon }_r{\mu }_r}$. If additionally ${\mu }_r\simeq 1$, then $n\simeq \sqrt{{\epsilon }_r}$. All these responses must be evaluated at the electromagnetic wave's frequency; a static relative permittivity cannot simply be substituted at an optical frequency. ^[ref]

With loss, use a complex index $\tilde{n}=n^{\prime }+i\kappa$ and explicitly fix the phase convention for complex amplitudes. For $E\propto \exp [i(kz-\omega t)]$ with $k=\tilde{n}\omega /c$, its wave amplitude has factor $\exp (-\kappa \omega z/c)$. A forward attenuating branch has $\kappa \ge 0$, while its wave phase is controlled by $n^{\prime }$. The complex relation ${\tilde{n}}^2={\epsilon }_r{\mu }_r$ alone leaves a choice of sign: the physical solution also needs causality and the appropriate radiation or decay condition. In negative-index media the physically selected real part can be negative. The positive square root is therefore not a universal rule for complex or negative-index media. Direction and polarization of an electromagnetic wave also matter in a plane wave in an anisotropic dielectric, for which one scalar index need not describe every propagation branch.