Thin-Film Interference
Add a finite layer between two media. Its reflections interfere; changing optical thickness shifts the spectrum. This coherent, isotropic calculation uses planar electromagnetic boundary conditions.
Interference in a thin film
A thin film is two interfaces close together. Light reflected at the top surface meets light reflected at the bottom one, and the two either reinforce or cancel. The colours of a soap film come from this. The editor below computes it for one uniform layer between two media. The layer-stack, mirror and cavity experiments repeat the same idea for more layers.
The extra path
Each crossing of a film with index and thickness adds a phase
where is the vacuum wavelength, is the angle inside the film and is the normal wave number (in units of ) from the calculation section. A reflection from the bottom surface crosses twice, so it lags by . Tilting lengthens the slanted path inside the film, but the top reflection also travels further in air before the two beams rejoin; what is left is , which shrinks with angle. So every feature in the spectrum moves to shorter wavelengths, which is why the colours of a soap film change as you tilt it.
Adding up every bounce
Light does not reflect only twice. It bounces back and forth inside the film, and each extra round trip multiplies the returning amplitude by the same factor, . The bounces therefore form a geometric series, which sums to
Here and are the single-interface amplitudes from Light at an Interface, and . For a single layer, the solver's layer-by-layer recursion is exactly this formula.
Derivation from Maxwell's equations
Start from the macroscopic Maxwell equations for a linear, isotropic, nonmagnetic medium with no free charge. Fields vary as , units are SI, is the relative permittivity, is the vacuum wave number and is the vacuum admittance.
In a uniform region is constant, so . Taking the curl of Faraday's law, substituting the Ampère–Maxwell law and using gives the Helmholtz equation, with :
Put the ambient medium at , the film at and the substrate at . The structure is uniform along , so every field shares one -dependence, , where is the incidence angle in the ambient. Putting into the Helmholtz equation gives each medium its normal wave number . The admittance is the ratio of tangential to tangential for a forward wave, in units of : for TM and for TE. That gives (TE) or (TM, with ). Light at an Interface derives these. Label ambient, film and substrate 0, 1, 2 in reflection subscripts and a, f, s on admittances ( is already the vacuum value). So is the interface formula from Light at an Interface with , , and uses , . Without a subscript, means the film's value.
Inside the film the tangential electric field is a forward plus a backward wave. Faraday's law (TE) or Ampère's law (TM) then gives the tangential magnetic field:
Here is (TE) or (TM), and is (TE) or (TM). Above the film the same form holds with , , and ; below it there is only with . Both tangential components are continuous at each interface.
At , with and , continuity gives
Dividing the second by the first gives with , so
is the substrate reflection seen from the top of the film, delayed by one round trip. The solver stores the backward amplitude at the film's exit instead, , so no growing exponential appears in an absorbing film. At :
Eliminate , solve for , and divide the numerator and denominator by , with :
That is the formula from Adding up every bounce. To recover the bounces, use , and , and expand the denominator wherever :
The first term is the top reflection. Term of the sum is a wave that enters, makes round trips, reflecting times off the underside of the top surface (), and leaves; is the round-trip factor from the lecture. The condition holds for every transparent film with . It can fail for a thin metal film in TM when the field in the substrate is evanescent, near a surface-plasmon resonance: the series then diverges, but the closed form still holds. The same conditions give and , so
The powers come from the time-averaged normal Poynting flux . In the transparent ambient the incident–reflected cross terms are imaginary and drop out, leaving ; the substrate carries . What is left, , is absorbed in the film.
Two notes on conventions. In TM, and are ratios of , as in the solver. This differs from textbook , written for the full field, with
at each interface: here and , where is the angle in the substrate. and are unchanged. For an absorbing film and are complex and includes the decay; nothing else changes.
Two special cases. A free-standing slab has , so and , which vanishes for a lossless film when , . At normal incidence , so exactly when ; a quarter-wave film, , makes , the numerator becomes , and reflection vanishes.
Three things to try
The editor opens at 30° with TE polarization, where the electric field lies parallel to the film; in TM the magnetic field does. The spectrum is in the Parameter dependence result tab.
A free-standing slab. The default example, Symmetric Fabry–Pérot slab, is a 250 nm film with and air on both sides. Its two surface reflections have opposite signs. When the round trip is a whole number of wavelengths, , the bottom reflection comes back still flipped and cancels the top one. In the 400–900 nm scan that zero sits at 707 nm at 30° (750 nm at normal incidence). Halfway in phase to the next zero, near 471 nm, reflection peaks at about 21% for TE but only about 10% for TM.
Quarter-wave antireflection. On a coated glass surface both reflections go from lower to higher index, so they have the same sign. A round trip of half a wavelength flips one of them, and choosing the film index makes them equal in size. At normal incidence that needs
For air and this gives and nm for a 550 nm design. Bare glass reflects 4% at normal incidence; with the coating, reflection at 550 nm drops to zero. At 30° the minimum moves to about 502 nm and is no longer exactly zero, about 0.01%.
A film that isn't there. The ideal glass film has the same index as the glass beneath it. Its bottom surface does not reflect, so there is nothing to interfere with and the spectrum is flat at the bare-glass value: about 5.8% for TE and 2.5% for TM at 30°. Optically, it is just more glass.
All of this assumes perfectly coherent plane waves. Real fringes wash out when the round-trip path exceeds the light's coherence length, as in a thick layer or with broadband light, or when a range of angles is averaged. This calculation does not model that.
Drag to orbit · click a region to inspect
Calculation and evidence
Time dependence is . Amplitudes are tangential (TE) or (TM), with
Interfaces use Fresnel amplitudes; propagation uses . Reflection recursion composes scattering responses using only decaying exponentials in passive finite layers. Backward fields are anchored at each layer’s exit.
The exterior media must be transparent and positive-index. Internal layers can be passive and absorbing. All layers are coherent, uniform, isotropic and nonmagnetic. An exact zero longitudinal wave number is reported as a singular amplitude basis; nearby angles remain calculable. No roughness, incoherent thick-layer approximation or beam envelope is included.
Independent fixtures use Steven Byrnes’s tmm 0.2.0 for oblique TE/TM, absorbing films, evanescent layers and multilayers. Powers agree within in the fixtures. Checks also cover boundary fields, antireflection and zero-thickness limits. The Python fixture generator is retained with the source.
History of the method
Newton measured the thicknesses at which thin plates reflect different colours. In his Bakerian Lecture, read to the Royal Society on 12 November 1801, Thomas Young proposed that two undulations arriving together combine their motions. He used that principle to explain the colours of thin plates and why they change with the angle of view, and used Newton's thickness measurements to estimate the length of the undulations.
Films can also form by themselves. In 1886 Lord Rayleigh found that glass surfaces aged for months or years reflected 10 to 80 per cent less than Fresnel's formula predicts, with no visible tarnish. He could not settle the cause, but noted that a thin surface layer of lower index would explain the loss, and that, unlike absorption or scattering, a transparent layer of intermediate index would raise transmission by as much as it lowered reflection.
Charles Fabry and Alfred Perot turned the multiple reflections into an instrument at the end of the 1890s. With two partly silvered, parallel plates, more round trips produced sharper fringes, which made precise spectroscopy and length measurement possible.
References
Steven J. Byrnes, Multilayer optical calculations, 2016, revision 5 (2020): field conventions, transfer matrices, flux and absorption. The browser implementation uses scattering recursion for numerical stability; the Python implementation supplies independent fixtures.
Thomas Young, The Bakerian Lecture: On the theory of light and colours, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 92, 12–48 (1802). The statements above follow the Royal Society's printed abstract of the lecture in Abstracts of the Papers Printed in the Philosophical Transactions, vol. 1, pp. 63–67.
Lord Rayleigh (John William Strutt), On the intensity of light reflected from certain surfaces at nearly perpendicular incidence, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 41, 275–294 (1886); open scan.
A. Perot and Charles Fabry, On the application of interference phenomena to the solution of various problems of spectroscopy and metrology, The Astrophysical Journal 9, 87 (1899). The principle described above follows Sella's short popular history of the Fabry–Perot interferometer (author manuscript on UCL Discovery; its publication venue was not verified, and the repository page could not be rechecked for this revision). The 1899 paper itself was not consulted.
Calculation source code · Implementation and validation notes