Tag Info

New answers tagged

1

I think the simplest way to understand this is that any vector can be described as the sum of two basis vectors. The vector from, say (0,0) to (1,1) is the vector sum of (0,0) to (1,0) and (0,0) to (0,1) . So, take your original polarized light and run it thru a 45-degree polarizer. You've just tossed half the amplitude, and the output light is now at ...


1

I also found this surprising when first introduced. The light has no memory. When it passes through the second polariser, there is no information whatsoever of its previous polarisation. It could have been whatever! When light goes through a polariser at $30ยบ$, it gets tilted at the cost of some lost intensity. In other words, it gets projected on the ...


0

Your interpretation is partially correct. Complex numbers are superimposition of two independent variables. Coming to electromagnetic(EM) waves we consider two components of EM wave which are perpendicular to each other. This two components do not interact with each other but they are both part of a single wave. So the vector some of these components is the ...


0

As mentioned by Ruslan , precisely speaking, what one 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. Plane source is a special case because its z-polarized component is quite weak so it won't hurt even if only an average of x and y-polarized component is ...


1

linearly - then there's exactly the same number of both spins. This is incorrect. If you have a collection of photons in which half are left hand circularly polarized ($L$) and half are right ($R$), then you have unpolarized light (not linearly polarized). If you have linear polarized light, then each photon is in a (quantum) superposition of R and L at ...


-1

electromagnetism is not a handed force. So i don't think you even need to use vectors that are transverse. I recently, learned about a mathematical object called a differential form. a dx+dy is like the k unit vector and dx-dy is like -k. So spin can be described in a more natural way that does not resort to a perpendicular direction. Definetly, more than ...


-1

light rays are not one dimensional objects. True, in the figures that directed segments are shown. Mathematically, you can think of sort of an infinitesimal vector showing that direction. it can be made infinitely small. is that 0 dimensional small, i don't know. I don't think it is. It would have the dimension of dx.


4

You are right that the oscillations of the electromagnetic field need not have any spatial extent. The oscillations, as you point out, are in the strength of the electric and magnetic fields. If I understand your question correctly, you are asking why then can some objects distinguish between the two different polarizations of light. This is because ...


0

If instead of the string Light were to be used then it will pass through both of the slits S1 and S2. The book is using this analogy to explain the concept of polaroids. The whole string-slit system that your book quotes is analogus to the above shown light-polaroid system. Light will not pass through the second polaroid. I am not explaining how polaroid ...


0

Just to add to Anna v's answer and Aanel's answer which are both admirably pithy and correct. Polarisers making use of the Brewster angle deflect the light of the "blocked" polarisation, rather than absorbing it. The "blocked" light actually passes into a refracting, the unblocked light is reflected off and redirected to the output. Polarising beamsplitters ...


4

Light that is not transmitted is either absorbed or reflected. Wire grid polarizers tend to reflect. Polarization beam splitters separate the two polarizations in different directions. Polymer based ones absorb it i believe...


3

In general light that does not pass a barrier, a wall for example, is absorbed.The energy is turned mainly into heat and also chemical bond breaking etc. The part of the light beam that does not have the correct polarization for the polaroid will be absorbed in the same way.


2

As Ruslan said, your error lies in the fact that you used z-polarized light. There is no such thing as z-polarized light (it doesn't exist).


2

Assuming 3D RealD glasses - uses circular polarized light to cancel images. To understand better, ask yourself why do I see my eyes when both eyes are opened? The answer is that your brain mixes two reflected images: one image contains your left lens blacked the other image contains the right lens blacked When you close an eye, you cancel one image. ...



Top 50 recent answers are included