I How Does Rotating Polarization Work in Optics Experiments?

AI Thread Summary
In optics experiments, a common configuration involves using a quarter-wave plate (QWP) and a mirror to rotate the polarization of a linearly polarized laser beam by 90 degrees. The discussion highlights that while circular polarization's handedness typically changes upon reflection, the setup allows for the final reflected beam to maintain its polarization state due to the QWP's orientation. The reflected circularly polarized beam undergoes another transformation through the QWP, resulting in linear polarization that is perpendicular to the original beam. This mechanism is explained by the relationship between helicity and the reflection process, where the fast axis of the QWP is perceived differently upon reflection. Overall, this configuration effectively rotates the polarization by an angle of π/2.
ynyin
Messages
3
Reaction score
2
In optics experiments, I often see the following optics configuration to rotate the polarization of an incident linearly-polarized laser beam. The final reflected beam has its polarization rotated by 90 degrees. My question is:
1) Between the quarter plate and the mirror( reflecting surface), the following figure indicates the handness of the circular polarization does not change when it is reflected back. But from what I learned, the polarization should change its handness while being reflected by a mirror. (see, e.g. this question: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...se-polarization-of-circularly-polarised-light)

2) If the circular polarization changes its handness, then after the quaterplate it should become the same linear polarization as the incident laser beam, meaning that it should pass through the PBS again and not be refleted away.

Where could I be wrong in understanding its principle? Thanks!

1653082680313.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'd need a bit more context to understand the depicted optical setup. Where is the picture from?
 
vanhees71 said:
I'd need a bit more context to understand the depicted optical setup. Where is the picture from?
Thanks for the reply. There are quite some occasions where this optics configuration is used, see, for example:
1) The picture is from Figure 14 in this link:
https://www.edmundoptics.com/knowledge-center/application-notes/optics/understanding-waveplates/

2) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/cdopt.html#c3

3) http://www.jg-intl.com/cp/html/?85.html
 
Through 2) it became clear what the picture in 1) means: You have an incoming unpolarized beam hitting a polarizing beam splitter (PBS) and use one of the beams, which now is linearly polarized. This linearly polarized light goes through a quarter-wave plate (QWP) making it circular polarized. Depending on the polarization of the used linearly polarized beam (H or V) the outgoing beam is L or R circular polarized after the QWP. The now circular polarized beam is reflected. Circular polarization means the light is in a helicity eigenstate, and a reflection flips helicity. The reason is that helicity is a pseudoscalar: Helicity is ##\vec{k} \cdot \vec{J}/|\vec{k}|##, where ##\vec{k}## is the wave vector and ##\vec{J}## the angular momentum of the electromagnetic wave. Under a reflection ##\vec{k}## flips sign (polar vector), while ##\vec{J}### doesn't (axial vector). Thus if you have a L (R) circular polarized incoming beam the relected one is R (L) polarized. Now this goes again through the QWP making it linearly polarized in the perpendicular direction than that of the before incoming beam. At the PBS it still stays in this same perpendicular direction, i.e., the entire apparatus rotates the polarization by an angle of ##\pi/2##.
 
vanhees71 said:
Through 2) it became clear what the picture in 1) means: You have an incoming unpolarized beam hitting a polarizing beam splitter (PBS) and use one of the beams, which now is linearly polarized. This linearly polarized light goes through a quarter-wave plate (QWP) making it circular polarized. Depending on the polarization of the used linearly polarized beam (H or V) the outgoing beam is L or R circular polarized after the QWP. The now circular polarized beam is reflected. Circular polarization means the light is in a helicity eigenstate, and a reflection flips helicity. The reason is that helicity is a pseudoscalar: Helicity is ##\vec{k} \cdot \vec{J}/|\vec{k}|##, where ##\vec{k}## is the wave vector and ##\vec{J}## the angular momentum of the electromagnetic wave. Under a reflection ##\vec{k}## flips sign (polar vector), while ##\vec{J}### doesn't (axial vector). Thus if you have a L (R) circular polarized incoming beam the relected one is R (L) polarized. Now this goes again through the QWP making it linearly polarized in the perpendicular direction than that of the before incoming beam. At the PBS it still stays in this same perpendicular direction, i.e., the entire apparatus rotates the polarization by an angle of ##\pi/2##.
Thanks for the explanation! The flipping of the handness of the circular polarization (from L to R or R to L) is something I have thought about, and that is why I think the figure shows the circular polarization wrongly. The question now is why after QWP the linear polarization is perpendicular to that of the incoming beam. Fortunately, I got the answer from StackExchange, the key point is that the reflected beam sees the fast axis of the QWP at an angle rotated by 90 degrees w.r.t what it sees when it is incoming. Hope that also clarifies something for you.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Hello! I am generating electrons from a 3D gaussian source. The electrons all have the same energy, but the direction is isotropic. The electron source is in between 2 plates that act as a capacitor, and one of them acts as a time of flight (tof) detector. I know the voltage on the plates very well, and I want to extract the center of the gaussian distribution (in one direction only), by measuring the tof of many electrons. So the uncertainty on the position is given by the tof uncertainty...
Back
Top