Archived Did I Apply Malus' Law Correctly for Three Polarizers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IHateMayonnaise
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    General Law
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the application of Malus' Law to three linear polarizers arranged in series with angles of 0°, 45°, and 90°. The initial intensity of light is halved after passing through the first polarizer, resulting in an intensity of I_o/2. After passing through the second polarizer, the intensity further reduces to I_o/4. The confusion arises regarding the angle for the third polarizer, which should indeed be measured relative to the second polarizer, yielding a final intensity of I_o/8. The possibility of extending this analysis to different types of polarizers, such as circular or elliptical, is acknowledged, though it would require different equations.
IHateMayonnaise
Messages
87
Reaction score
0
No specific question, just studying for the physics GRE and making sure that I remember all this correctly. Can someone verify or deny my rational? Here I go:

Say we have three linear polarizers in series, where \theta_1=0, and \theta_2=45^o and \theta_3=90^o. An incident beam of light (with intensity I_o) goes through the first polarizer and loses half it's intensity, since the time average of Malus' law is equal to \frac{I_o}{2}. Now, after the now diminished light passes through the second polarizer (oriented 45^o with respect to the first), the intensity is given by

I=\frac{I_o}{2}Cos(\theta_2)^2=\frac{I_o}{2}\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\right)^2=\frac{I_o}{4}

So, when it passes through the third polarizer, the incident intensity is equal to \frac{I_o}{4} and \theta_3=45^o. This is where I'm confused. \theta_3=45^o is the angle we choose because it is always with respect to the previous filter, not the original, since in that case we have \theta_3=90^o and Malus' law warrants a big fat zero. So, the resultant intensity is equal to \frac{I_o}{8}.

Also: can an analysis of this sort be done with polarizers of different types (circular, elliptical)? I would assume that the equation would be somewhat different, but I would think that the general idea could be extended. Thanks yall

IHateMayonnaise
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You did it correct.it is always with respect to the previous filter.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Calculation of Tensile Forces in Piston-Type Water-Lifting Devices at Elevated Locations'
Figure 1 Overall Structure Diagram Figure 2: Top view of the piston when it is cylindrical A circular opening is created at a height of 5 meters above the water surface. Inside this opening is a sleeve-type piston with a cross-sectional area of 1 square meter. The piston is pulled to the right at a constant speed. The pulling force is(Figure 2): F = ρshg = 1000 × 1 × 5 × 10 = 50,000 N. Figure 3: Modifying the structure to incorporate a fixed internal piston When I modify the piston...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top