File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1364/JOSAA.35.000591
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85044591971
- WOS: WOS:000428931500053
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Comparison of different theories for focusing through a plane interface: comment
Title | Comparison of different theories for focusing through a plane interface: comment |
---|---|
Authors | |
Issue Date | 2018 |
Citation | Journal of the Optical Society of America A: Optics and Image Science, and Vision, 2018, v. 35, n. 4, p. 591-592 How to Cite? |
Abstract | © 2018 Optical Society of America. In light focusing through a dielectric interface, Wiersma et al. [J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 14, 1482 (1997)] claim that the Debye–Wolf diffraction theory and the m-theory predict axial focal fields with “little difference.” We found a possible mistake of using an inaccurate apodization factor in the m-theory integral. Here we correct the apodization factor, which then leads to better agreement on axial intensity distributions between the two theories than reported. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/256844 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.4 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.459 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Jeongmin, K. I.M. | - |
dc.contributor.author | Wang, Yuan | - |
dc.contributor.author | Zhang, Xiang | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2018-07-24T08:58:05Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2018-07-24T08:58:05Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Journal of the Optical Society of America A: Optics and Image Science, and Vision, 2018, v. 35, n. 4, p. 591-592 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1084-7529 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/256844 | - |
dc.description.abstract | © 2018 Optical Society of America. In light focusing through a dielectric interface, Wiersma et al. [J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 14, 1482 (1997)] claim that the Debye–Wolf diffraction theory and the m-theory predict axial focal fields with “little difference.” We found a possible mistake of using an inaccurate apodization factor in the m-theory integral. Here we correct the apodization factor, which then leads to better agreement on axial intensity distributions between the two theories than reported. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Journal of the Optical Society of America A: Optics and Image Science, and Vision | - |
dc.title | Comparison of different theories for focusing through a plane interface: comment | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1364/JOSAA.35.000591 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85044591971 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 35 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 4 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 591 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 592 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1520-8532 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000428931500053 | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 1084-7529 | - |