How Is Light Intensity Affected by Multiple Polarizing Filters?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alittlelost
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on how light intensity is affected by multiple polarizing filters, starting with unpolarized light at 100% intensity. After passing through the first vertical polarizing filter, the intensity is halved to 50%. The second filter, angled at 30° from vertical, further reduces the intensity, but the calculations for this step are debated, particularly regarding the correct use of Malus' Law. The final intensity after passing through a third horizontal filter is also contested, with participants correcting each other's calculations and clarifying that the angle between filters is crucial for determining intensity reduction. The overall consensus emphasizes that intensity decreases by half with each filter and is further modified by the cosine of the angle between the light's polarization direction and the filter's orientation.
alittlelost
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Consider the following polarization problem.The original light wave is completely un-polarized.The first screen is oriented vertically, while the last (third) screen is oriented horizontally. The middle screen is angled at 30° from the vertical. Assume the original intensity of the unpolarized light is 100%.

I know that after going through the first screen, 50% of the original intensity remains and I also figured out the second screen too. I missed the notes for this so I'm a little stumped with what I would do for the last screen. Would it's % of intensity be half of what came out of the second screen?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If the intensity of the light before entering the first screen is I_{0}, then its intensity after exiting the screen in the middle is \displaystyle\frac{3I_{0}}{16}. By passing through the third screen, intensity will be reduced further to [STRIKE]cos^2(70)[/STRIKE] \displaystyle\frac{3I_{0}}{16}\frac{cos^2(60°)}{2}≈0.04688 I_{0}. Its 70° because that is the angle between the orientations of screens 2 and 3.

Whatever may be the orientation of the two screens, intensity will certainly be reduced to half of its original value. The angle between the screens will reduce it further.
 
Last edited:
kbar1 said:
If the intensity of the light before entering the first screen is I_{0}, then its intensity after exiting the screen in the middle is \displaystyle\frac{3I_{0}}{16}. By passing through the third screen, intensity will be reduced further to \displaystyle\frac{3I_{0}}{16}\frac{cos^2(70°)}{2}≈0.01097 I_{0}. Its 70° because that is the angle between the orientations of screens 2 and 3.

Oops. The factor cos2(70o)/2 is not correct. The angle is not 70o and the division by 2 is incorrect.
[EDIT: I'm afraid the 3/16 factor is also incorrect]
Whatever may be the orientation of the two screens, intensity will certainly be reduced to half of its original value. The angle between the screens will reduce it further.

No. If light is polarized vertically and then passes through a vertically oriented polarizing filter, the intensity will not be reduced at all (assuming ideal filter).
 
Last edited:
alittlelost said:
I know that after going through the first screen, 50% of the original intensity remains and I also figured out the second screen too.

Yes, 50% after first filter. Since you didn't show your work for the second filter, I can't know if what you did is correct.

I missed the notes for this so I'm a little stumped with what I would do for the last screen. Would it's % of intensity be half of what came out of the second screen?

No. You will need Malus' Law
 
TSny said:
Oops. The factor cos2(70o)/2 is not correct. The angle is not 70o and the division by 2 is incorrect.
[EDIT: I'm afraid the 3/16 factor is also incorrect]

Very sorry about that. I was just trying to help.

Silly me, that should be cos^2(60°).

But why is 3I0/16 incorrect? Intensity is reduced by 1/2 after the first screen, another 1/2 because of the second screen, and by cos^2(30°). So that would be 3I0/16. Am I missing anything?

And why is the division by two incorrect? Is the intensity not diminished by 50% after passing through a screen?

Again, very sorry "alittlelost"... :cry:
 
kbar1 said:
But why is 3I0/16 incorrect? Intensity is reduced by 1/2 after the first screen, another 1/2 because of the second screen, and by cos^2(30°). So that would be 3I0/16. Am I missing anything?

The intensity of unpolarized light will be reduced by 1/2 when passing through an ideal polarizing filter. But if the incident light is plane polarized, the intensity will be reduced by a factor of cos2θ (not ##\frac{1}{2}\cdot##cos2θ), where θ is the angle between the polarization direction of the incident light and the transmission direction of the filter. For example, if vertically polarized light is incident on an ideal filter with transmission direction also vertical, then 100% of the light gets through.
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
Back
Top