143 reputation
8
bio website
location China
age
visits member for 1 year, 9 months
seen Oct 17 at 2:50

Feel free to correct the grammar mistakes in my posts.


Apr
15
comment Is my simulation result for unpolarized light correct?
@ChrisMueller Sorry, I didn't notice your comment (there're so many comments that day). I've moved part of the update into the answer and modified some of the description in the question to make it more readable. As for the suggestion of combining the figure in to a grid, I have to say it's hard for me now because I've deleted almost all of the raw data (they're too large! )
Apr
15
revised Is my simulation result for unpolarized light correct?
added 581 characters in body
Apr
14
revised Is my simulation result for unpolarized light correct?
added 85 characters in body
Apr
14
revised Is my simulation result for unpolarized light correct?
deleted 234 characters in body
Apr
14
accepted Is my simulation result for unpolarized light correct?
Apr
14
comment Is my simulation result for unpolarized light correct?
@Ruslan It took me several days to get a better simulation result of z-polarized case. Without all your help it'll be harder for me to find the answer so I turned my answer to a community wiki. Thanks for all!
Apr
14
answered Is my simulation result for unpolarized light correct?
Apr
14
revised Is my simulation result for unpolarized light correct?
deleted 2007 characters in body; edited title
Apr
6
comment Is my simulation result for unpolarized light correct?
@Ruslan If my understanding above is right, I'll wait for a while and answer the question myself if no one is interested in this chance to get some reputation :)
Apr
6
comment Is my simulation result for unpolarized light correct?
@Ruslan Yeah, in the last simulation the z-polarized one is indeed not negligible. (the passing rate is about 11% and that for y-polarized light is about 17%. ) So generally speaking, if I understand correctly, what I should do to simulate the unpolarized light is to take an average of the intensity of all the orthogonal polarized light other than just 2 of them, the plane source is just a special case because its z-polarized component is quite weak, right?
Apr
6
comment Is my simulation result for unpolarized light correct?
@Ruslan The grid is indeed a little scarce…… OK, now there remains the last question, see my update of the question for details.
Apr
6
revised Is my simulation result for unpolarized light correct?
added 2083 characters in body; edited title
Apr
3
comment Is my simulation result for unpolarized light correct?
@Ruslan OK, but the simulation for the source in vacuum has already finished (since it's in vacuum, it takes less time), it shows perfect symmetry, so the source seems to work as expected, see my update for details. BTW, I've noticed another possibility, that's, my grid maybe a little scarce (roughly 10 points per wavelength in vacuum, 7 points per wavelength in cone), so I decided to halve the grid size and see the result. (This time it'll be really slow, 16 times the time needed for the previous simulation 囧)
Apr
3
revised Is my simulation result for unpolarized light correct?
deleted 1 characters in body
Apr
3
revised Is my simulation result for unpolarized light correct?
deleted 5 characters in body
Apr
3
revised Is my simulation result for unpolarized light correct?
added 789 characters in body
Apr
3
comment Is my simulation result for unpolarized light correct?
@Ruslan BTW, what do you mean by "using a pre-generated wave packet"? Does it mean setting non-zero initial conditions i.e. something like $E(x, y, z)|_{t=0} =\ldots, H(x, y, z)|_{t=0} =\ldots$ for Maxwell's equations? If so, at top of P41 of the document I linked above, it's suggested not to be used, and according to my test, this approach is indeed more likely to introduce numeric errors.
Apr
3
comment Is my simulation result for unpolarized light correct?
@Ruslan OK, another several hours to wait :) As to the additive source part, have a look at P48 of this document, in the code it's in fact only a difference of = and +=. For some silly reason, I've chose hard source in my first simulation, while an additive source is more close to the beam I'm trying to model. Theoretically it's trivial here, and it is: the result still lacks full rotational symmetry.
Apr
2
comment Is my simulation result for unpolarized light correct?
@Ruslan The result proves negative. See my update for details.
Apr
2
revised Is my simulation result for unpolarized light correct?
added 2180 characters in body