Timeline for Isn't linearly polarised light actually chiral or am I stupid?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 28 at 17:39 | comment | added | hyportnex | The Lorentz transformation of the EM field mixes the E and H components in one frame to another set but the nature of the E and H fields do not change in the sense that an electric dipole is responsive to the E components while a magnetic dipole to the H components, be it in the old or in the new frame. This is manifest in the Faraday tensor that has the same structure in any inertial frame, see. | |
| Feb 28 at 17:10 | comment | added | Jorge | @hyportnex ... Whereas from the point of view of the moving proton, the electrons are at rest, but the protons in the wire are moving (appear contracted leading to a net charge, resulting in an electric field). The interaction is via the electric field then. You are saying the magnetic vector is a "whirl" (pseudovector). This makes sense to me. In a different reference frame however: Would the electric vector be a "whirl" (pseudovector)? Thank you very much for your time! | |
| Feb 28 at 17:10 | comment | added | Jorge | @hyportnex Thank you very much! I pondered this and think I understand this now!! I'm wondering though: If we have a magnetic or an electric field or both depends on the reference frame (Faraday tensor), e.g. electrons moving in a wire and a proton moving with the same speed along the wire. Moving charges create magnetic field and that is where the interaction takes place. ... | |
| Feb 11 at 14:46 | comment | added | PhysicsDave | For laser light, all the light would be left or right handed ... not both. One day you turn your laser on it is right handed, next day maybe its left handed, .... but scientists don't have ability today to determine it. | |
| Feb 11 at 5:54 | answer | added | HolgerFiedler | timeline score: 0 | |
| Feb 10 at 10:37 | comment | added | Jorge | Thanks, I'm not sure it answers my question. But it's definitely something I didn't consider! | |
| Feb 8 at 15:53 | comment | added | Cosmas Zachos | WP and also. | |
| Feb 8 at 15:32 | comment | added | hyportnex | Now think of what happens to CW and CCW in a mirror. | |
| Feb 8 at 15:31 | comment | added | hyportnex | to get a better feeling you should remember that the electric field is associated with a path integral representing work along it. The relevant part of the projection of the E- field on the tangent line to the path. The magnetic B-field is associated with flux through a surface, it is a surface thing, and on that surface it can whirl clock-wise or counter-clockwise in analogy to a vector that can point along a line "up" or "down". A surface "thing" such as a B-field can be represented by a pair of vectors similarly to a volume "thing" that would need three vectors. | |
| Feb 8 at 15:21 | comment | added | Jorge | Thank you! I don't understand this :( | |
| Feb 8 at 14:51 | comment | added | hyportnex | You should think of the magnetic field not as a vector but rather as a bivector, a surface "thing". For a linear polarized wave the electric field vector and the direction of the ray (Poynting vector) forms a plane, the magnetic field as bivector is in that plane not as a vector but rather as "whirl"., see physics.stackexchange.com/questions/410714/… and physics.stackexchange.com/questions/160993/…; no mirror worry now. | |
| S Feb 8 at 14:42 | review | First questions | |||
| Feb 8 at 14:50 | |||||
| S Feb 8 at 14:42 | history | asked | Jorge | CC BY-SA 4.0 |