Light and Absorptive polarizers

  • Thread starter Thread starter PenKnight
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light
AI Thread Summary
In the three polarizer experiment, inserting a third polarizer at a 45-degree angle between two perpendicular polarizers allows some light to pass through due to the intermediate polarizer reorienting the light's polarization. The first two polarizers block light completely when aligned at 90 degrees, but the middle one enables transmission by converting the light's polarization to 45 degrees. This process does not involve diffraction, as polarization and diffraction are distinct phenomena; polarization relates to the orientation of light waves, while diffraction involves the bending of light waves around obstacles. The energy absorbed by the polarizers depends on the alignment of the light's oscillation with the polarizing material. Understanding this mechanism clarifies why light can pass through the third polarizer despite the first and second being perpendicular.
PenKnight
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I was thinking about the 3 polarizers experiment where you have them angled 45 degree to each other and the first and third are perpendicular.

With 2 polarizer angles 90 degree to each other, no light passes through.
But with a third one inserted between them at a angle of 45 to the 1st and 3rd, light can pass through at a lower intensity.

I like to ask why?

Homework Equations



none.

The Attempt at a Solution



With 2 polarizer angles 90 degree to each other, no light passes through.
But with a third one inserted between them at a angle of 45 to the 1st and 3rd, light can pass through at a lower intensity.

I'm pondering on the why this happens. I've read a little bit of how the polarizers work. The electromagnetic waves must be perpendicular to the length of the metal grating so that it can pass through with a little loss of energy. Is this correct?

Secondly would diffraction have any part in the explanation?
Because I'm thinking the light in the one direction is diffracted. With the 2 polarizers, the interference pattern is absorbed by the 2nd polarizers, since all the light is parallel to the metal grating. But when a new polarizer is inserted between them, the light is firstly diffracted in a new direction through the 2nd polarizer which can pass through the 3rd lens?

This makes me wonder about another question.
Was the double slit experiment performed with monochromatic polarized light? Does it make a differences?

Thanks for your help
 
Physics news on Phys.org
PenKnight said:
I'm pondering on the why this happens. I've read a little bit of how the polarizers work. The electromagnetic waves must be perpendicular to the length of the metal grating so that it can pass through with a little loss of energy. Is this correct?

No, that is not it.
Secondly would diffraction have any part in the explanation?
none, whatsoever.

Polarization and diffraction are completely different phenomena.

Polarization has to do with the transverse nature of light waves. Photons are an oscillation of electric and magnetic fields. THe direction of this oscillation is perpendicular to the direction in which the photon travels. Normal light is composed of many photons oscillating in random planes (up-down side-to-side, cross-ways). When transmitting through polarizing material, those photons oscillating in a certain direction will be absorbed by the material.

Those photons that oscillate cross-ways will have a portion of their energy absorbed such that all the light that transmits will be oscillating in one plane only. If the middle polarizer is put in at 45 degrees, then a portion of the polarized light will be transmitted such that the transmitted light is now in a 45 degree plane. The third filter is 45 degrees (not 90) to the second, so a portion of that light will be transmitted.
 
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