Fresnels Equations for p-Polarized Waves

/ edmundsj
If you want to see more of these videos, or would like to say thanks for this one, the best way to do that is by becoming a patron - see the link above :). And a huge thank you to all my existing patrons - you make these videos possible.
Up to this point we have only discussed a single polarization (with the E-field pointing out at us). In this video, we cover the other possible polarization, pointing in the plane of incidence. This is also known as a p-polarized or TM wave.
This is part of my graduate series on optoelectronics / photonics, and is based primarily on Coldren's book on Lasers as well as graduate-level coursework I have taken in the EECS department at UC Berkeley.
Hope you found this video helpful, please post in the comments below anything I can do to improve future videos, or suggestions you have for future videos.

[@dannili4004]

thank you so much! now i really understand what fresnels equations are and i could calculate the r for p-polarized waves by myself!

[@swish6143]

Thanks, this video saved me, couldn't figure our why Et= Ee + Er and not Ee = Er + Et (incidence wave is split in reflective and transmissive part). Very clear explanation!

[@anchakaghatge4347]

Your video is helpful.

[@ajeeshpv4413]

Hi, Thank u for your beautiful lecture. Could u pls tell me the Surface Plasmon Reflection equation for S and P polarized waves?

[@ahmadrizky567]

Hi! Thank you for your great video. This helps me a lot. Actually, i have a question about the video. At 5:46, you write that Hi is equal to Ei/eta i. Where is this come from? And what is eta means here? Thank you, i'm looking forward your response. Nb. Im sorry for my english :)

[@user-cp8tj3lk5c]

hey, thank you for the videos you such a great teacher! I got one question, why coefficients of the transmitted light not equal in p-polarized and s-polarized at angel zero?

[@JordanEdmundsEECS]

Great question, they should definitely be the same when the angle is zero. If you see them being different, this means that the sign convention for the reflected fields is different (it was assumed in the derivation that the polarization flipped sign). Physically, they must give the same results.