Re: Snell (in Calcite)

[Ludwik Kowalski <KowalskiL@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>]

As I read Mojca's message again I see that the first sentence
(see below), if it were to be interpreted literally, is an internal
contradiction. Snell's law claims that what the right side is a
constant. It is good to know the relations given, perhaps we
can say they represent a generalized Snell's law.

Jenkin and White give experimental values of ne and no (with
six significant digits), for different lamdas. For example,
1.48 and 1.65, for red in calcite along the direction which is
perpendicular to the optical axis. For any other direction the
difference between ne and no is smaller; it becomes zero
along the optical axis.

I am sending a HeNe laser beam through a large Calcite crystal
of nearly optical quality. And I see the two beams emerging;
their polarization planes are mutually perpendicular. What I
am trying to verify? A hypothesis that the path of the E beam
is not a straight line segment. More on this later, when I have
more confidence. It will be a busy weekend.

Mojca Cepic wrote:

> Snells law is still valid but the refraction index for the parallel
> polarization is angle dependent i.e.
>
> Sin[t1]/Sin[t2] = n(t2)
>
> For uniaxial crystals the mathematics is easy for a case ...