Help with derivation of Malus' Law

  • Thread starter Thread starter member 731016
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivation Law
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of Malus's Law, focusing on the behavior of polarized light as it passes through a polarizer. Participants are examining the relationship between the electric field amplitude before and after the polarizer, specifically addressing the mathematical representation of the transmitted electric field.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive Malus's Law by analyzing the electric field components related to the polarizer's orientation. They express confusion regarding the relationship between the angles and the transmitted electric field. Other participants suggest considering the projection of the electric field vector onto the polarizer's axis and question the choice of orientation for the vector diagram.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the concepts, with some providing clarifications on vector projections and the relationship between electric field amplitude and intensity. There is an exploration of the mathematical derivation involving the dot product and its implications for the transmitted intensity of light.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing discussion about the assumptions related to the symmetry of electromagnetic waves and the proportionality of intensity to the square of the electric field amplitude. The participants are also considering the implications of these relationships in the context of the problem.

member 731016
Homework Statement
Please see below
Relevant Equations
##I= I_{max}\cos^2\theta## Where ##\theta## is the angle between the direction of propagation and axis of polarizer
I am trying to Derive Malus's Law. My textbook says that an electric field as an amplitude ##E## before passing thought the polarizer and reduce to ##E_{trans} = E\cos\theta##.

I am trying to understand why this occurs my considering a vertically polarized light passing though a polarizer that is at angle ##\phi## to the horizontal. The red line in the diagram below is the polarizer axis.
1681794100965.png

However, from the diagram, ##\cos\theta = \frac{E}{E_{trans}}## which rearranges to ##E_{trans} = \frac{E}{\cos\theta}## however, the component of the light transmitted should be ##E_{trans} = E\cos\theta##. Could some please give me some guidance on what I have done wrong?

NOTE: ##\theta## could also be ##\theta_2## since ##(\cos\theta_1)^2 = (\cos\theta_2)^2##
1681794602815.png


Many thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
You chose to draw the dashed line horizontally, but you could have drawn it normal to the red line. How to decide?
##E_{trans}## is the component of E parallel to the polarizer angle.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016
haruspex said:
You chose to draw the dashed line horizontally, but you could have drawn it normal to the red line. How to decide?
##E_{trans}## is the component of E parallel to the polarizer angle.
Thank you for your reply @haruspex!

True, I can see how drawing the dashed line normal to the red line agrees with the textbook. However, deciding why is very interesting.

I recall from the dot product, that to find the component of one vector on another, we must find the projection of one vector on another and that method we do is to draw a line from one vector that is normal to the other vector.

Many thanks!
 
BvU said:
Thank you for your reply @BvU!

Do you please know whether my dot product relation to find the electric field transmitted is correct? @haruspex you may also be interested in this algebraic derivation.

##\vec {E_{trans}} = \hat p \cdot \vec E## where ##\hat p## is the unit vector that is pointing along the slit of the polarizer from the origin.
##|\vec {E_{trans}}| = |\hat p||\vec E|\cos\theta##
##|\vec {E_{trans}}| = |1||\vec E|\cos\theta##
##E_{trans} = E\cos\theta##

Many thanks!
 
The textbook now says that the intensity of the wave is proportional to the amplitude squared.

Is it true that an EM wave is symmetrical in nature, so the amplitude is proportional to both the magnitude of the electric and magnetic field vector ##I ∝ E^2 ∝ B^2##? Conversely, is it true that ##|\vec E_{max}|= |\vec B_{max}|##?

Since we already have the magnitude of the transmitted electric field vector in terms of the magnitude of the initial electric field vector before passing though the polarizer, I think the choose the ##I ∝ E^2## relation.

So ##I_{trans} = kE_{trans}^2 = kE^2\cos^2\theta ## and ##I = kE^2##. Then we solve for the proportionally constant ##k## and set the two equations equal to get,

##\frac{I_{trans}}{E^2\cos^2\theta} = \frac{I}{E^2}##
##I_{trans}= I\cos^2\theta##

That is so cool!!

Many thanks!
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K