I On 'A Quarter Waveplate (QWP) rotated between 2 Polarisers'

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the behavior of a quarter-wave plate (QWP) between two crossed polaroids when an unpolarized beam is incident. Key questions arise regarding the use of "cosθ" versus "sinθ" in resolving the electric field components, the propagation of only the E(y) component after QWP adjustments, and the implications of assuming the wave is x-polarized instead of y-polarized. Participants suggest using Jones calculus for a clearer analysis, although one user expresses concern about its acceptance in academic settings. The conversation emphasizes the need for clarity in conceptual understanding and the derivation methods used in optics.
warhammer
Messages
164
Reaction score
33
While going through the book 'Problems & Solutions in Optics and Photonics' I was having difficulty in understanding a question & have some issues about my own conceptual know-how in this regard.

The Question is: A quarter-wave plate is rotated between two crossed polaroids. If an unpolarised beam is incident on the first polaroid, discuss the variation of intensity of the emergent beam as the quarter-wave plate is rotated. What will happen if we have a half-wave instead of a quarter-wave plate?

This is the solution that they have provided (attached below).

Now I am having trouble understanding:

i) If θ is the angle made with respect to the y-axis, why the E(x') component has a "cosθ" instead of a "sinθ" (or in other words how was Resolution carried out here)

ii) Assuming it should indeed be cosθ & after making necessary QWP adjustments of π/2 in the equations, why does only the E(y) propagate here? (Is it due to the fact that it is an E Wave that's not absorbed inside?)

iii) Why did we assume that the wave is x-polarised here, as in what was the purpose for the same and what would it entail if we assume it to be y-polarised instead (will that bring changes in the equation as well)
I would be extremely grateful if someone would guide me & help me plug my conceptual holes
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20220110-145241_ReadEra.jpg
    Screenshot_20220110-145241_ReadEra.jpg
    24.2 KB · Views: 242
Science news on Phys.org
warhammer said:
While going through the book 'Problems & Solutions in Optics and Photonics' I was having difficulty in understanding a question & have some issues about my own conceptual know-how in this regard.

The Question is: A quarter-wave plate is rotated between two crossed polaroids. If an unpolarised beam is incident on the first polaroid, discuss the variation of intensity of the emergent beam as the quarter-wave plate is rotated. What will happen if we have a half-wave instead of a quarter-wave plate?

This is the solution that they have provided (attached below).

Now I am having trouble understanding:

i) If θ is the angle made with respect to the y-axis, why the E(x') component has a "cosθ" instead of a "sinθ" (or in other words how was Resolution carried out here)

ii) Assuming it should indeed be cosθ & after making necessary QWP adjustments of π/2 in the equations, why does only the E(y) propagate here? (Is it due to the fact that it is an E Wave that's not absorbed inside?)

iii) Why did we assume that the wave is x-polarised here, as in what was the purpose for the same and what would it entail if we assume it to be y-polarised instead (will that bring changes in the equation as well)
I would be extremely grateful if someone would guide me & help me plug my conceptual holes
I realized that the image I uploaded seems very blurry. Please find below better quality images.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20220111-005746_Drive.jpg
    Screenshot_20220111-005746_Drive.jpg
    29.6 KB · Views: 209
  • Screenshot_20220111-005756_Drive.jpg
    Screenshot_20220111-005756_Drive.jpg
    42 KB · Views: 205
warhammer said:
While going through the book 'Problems & Solutions in Optics and Photonics' I was having difficulty in understanding a question & have some issues about my own conceptual know-how in this regard.

The Question is: A quarter-wave plate is rotated between two crossed polaroids. If an unpolarised beam is incident on the first polaroid, discuss the variation of intensity of the emergent beam as the quarter-wave plate is rotated. What will happen if we have a half-wave instead of a quarter-wave plate?

This is the solution that they have provided (attached below).

Now I am having trouble understanding:

i) If θ is the angle made with respect to the y-axis, why the E(x') component has a "cosθ" instead of a "sinθ" (or in other words how was Resolution carried out here)

ii) Assuming it should indeed be cosθ & after making necessary QWP adjustments of π/2 in the equations, why does only the E(y) propagate here? (Is it due to the fact that it is an E Wave that's not absorbed inside?)

iii) Why did we assume that the wave is x-polarised here, as in what was the purpose for the same and what would it entail if we assume it to be y-polarised instead (will that bring changes in the equation as well)
I would be extremely grateful if someone would guide me & help me plug my conceptual holes
Are you familiar with Jones calculus and how vectors and matrices are used to represent polarization in an optical system?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_calculus
 
Andy Resnick said:
Are you familiar with Jones calculus and how vectors and matrices are used to represent polarization in an optical system?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_calculus
I have heard of the same sir but not at all familiar with it. Moreover I am not sure if I would be 'permitted' to use this in my university for instance, as this is not in the curriculum 😕
 
warhammer said:
I have heard of the same sir but not at all familiar with it. Moreover I am not sure if I would be 'permitted' to use this in my university for instance, as this is not in the curriculum 😕
I'm not sure what you mean by 'permitted'. It's not classified information...?

Anyhow, your questions are all answered by writing out the Jones matrix for the polarizer-QWP-polarizer system. It's not hard- the wiki link has the individual matrix elements, just multiply them together and you're done.
 
Apologies for an extremely delayed response.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'permitted'. It's not classified information...?
😅 If I wasn't clear before, what I meant was because it simplifies the question largely, in the university examinations the questions come accompanied with the tagline that one has to employ the traditional methods *other than* Jones Matrices.

Hence I seeked knowledge specifically on the derivation methods specified in the snippet for I had already seen how to apply Jones Matrices for solution of such problems.
 
After my surgery this year, gas remained in my eye for a while. The light air bubbles appeared to sink to the bottom, and I realized that the brain was processing the information to invert the up/down/left/right image transferred to the retina. I have a question about optics and ophthalmology. Does the inversion of the image transferred to the retina depend on the position of the intraocular focal point of the lens of the eye? For example, in people with farsightedness, the focal point is...
Back
Top