Infinite number of polarisers (Malus's law)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Raphisonfire
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Infinite Law
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on determining the maximum intensity of light transmitted through a series of polarizers using Malus's law. The initial setup involves two polarizers oriented at 0° and 90°, with natural light incident at 1000 W/m². The key point is that the angles of the intermediate polarizers must be adjusted to evenly distribute the 90° rotation for maximum transmission. For one polarizer, the intensity can be expressed as I = (1/2)I₀ cos⁴(45°), and a pattern emerges as more polarizers are added. The overall goal is to generalize the expression for 'n' polarizers placed between the two fixed polarizers.
Raphisonfire
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
My problem:
"Imagine you have two identical perfect linear polarisers and a source of natural light. Place them one behind the other and position their transmission axes at 0° and 90° respectively. If 1000 W.m-2 of randomly polarised light is incident.

Determine an expression for the maximum possible intensity of light that can be transmitted through if you insert ‘n’ polarisers between them."

I understand that I need to be using, Malus's law which is...
I_θ = I_0 Cos(θ_n)^2

My attempt:

I know that the first and last polariser transmission axes must be at 0° and 90°, I know how to write the expression out... eg. I_θ = I_0 Cos(θ_1)^2 Cos(θ_2)^2... Cos(θ_∞)^2 But I am just not sure how to generalize the expression.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Raphisonfire said:
My problem:
"Imagine you have two identical perfect linear polarisers and a source of natural light. Place them one behind the other and position their transmission axes at 0° and 90° respectively. If 1000 W.m-2 of randomly polarised light is incident.

Determine an expression for the maximum possible intensity of light that can be transmitted through if you insert ‘n’ polarisers between them."

I understand that I need to be using, Malus's law which is...
I_θ = I_0 Cos(θ_n)^2

My attempt:

I know that the first and last polariser transmission axes must be at 0° and 90°, I know how to write the expression out... eg. I_θ = I_0 Cos(θ_1)^2 Cos(θ_2)^2... Cos(θ_∞)^2 But I am just not sure how to generalize the expression.
I'll try to get you started.

I don't think the problem is actually asking about an infinite number of polarizers. It's just asking for n polarizers (plus the two given polarizers on each end), where n is some arbitrary natural number (and can be finite).

Here are some hints that I promised to get you started.
  • The light's intensity after the first polarizer is \frac{1}{2}I_0, where I_0 is the original intensity. That's because the original light is unpolarized.
  • Now let's start adding polarizers in between the two given ones. The problem statement said that the transmission axes should be such that the maximum possible intensity gets through the system. That means that you need to adjust the transmission axes of the polarizers in the middle such that the total of 90o of rotation is divided up evenly between them. In other words, if you add 1 polarizer, its angle should be 45o. If you add two polarizers, the angles should be at 30o and 60o, and so on.
  • Let's start with 1 polarizer (n = 1). Remember, the intensity after the first polarizer is \frac{1}{2}I_0. That intensity is then reduced by a factor of \cos^2(45^{\circ}) by the middle polarizer. Finally, the intensity is reduced by another factor of \cos^2(90^{\circ} - 45^{\circ}) = \cos^2(45^{\circ}) by the last polarizer. So the final intensity in this case is I = \frac{1}{2}I_0\cos^2(45^{\circ})\cos^2(45^{\circ}) = \frac{1}{2}I_0 \cos^4(45^{\circ})

Now try it with n = 2. Then n = 3. Do you see a pattern forming?
 
Last edited:
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 '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