Optics Brewster's Angle Reflected Light Intesity

AI Thread Summary
An unpolarized light beam strikes glass plate B at Brewster's Angle, becoming s-polarized upon reflection. When this light hits the second plate A, the reflection depends on the orientation of plate A; if aligned with plate B, no light reflects, but as it rotates, some light is reflected. The intensity of the reflected light from plate A increases as it approaches alignment with the incident plane, reaching a maximum when the planes are parallel. The electric field of the s-polarized beam contains both parallel and perpendicular components, affecting the reflection. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for predicting the intensity changes as plate A is rotated.
frasermackay
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


An incident unpolarised light beam of intensity I_{0} strikes glass plate B at Brewster's Angle. The reflected light travels vertically and strikes a second glass plate A, again at Brewster's Angle. (We ignore the light transmitted by the glass plates.) Plate A is then rotated about the z-axis as shown. Briefly explain how the intensity of the light reflected by the apparatus varies with the angle of plate A. Illustrate with a qualitative sketch of intensity vs. angle of plate A.

2AZstU1.png



2. The attempt at a solution

We have an unpolarised beam incident on plate B at Brewster's Angle which upon reflection should become s-polarised or polarised perpendicular to the incident plane. My understanding of Brewster's Angle then says that upon the second reflection at plate A if the plate is oriented such that the incident plane is the same as for plate B there will be no reflection. Otherwise as it rotates there will be light reflected, is this correct?

Also does the intensity of the light reflected off of A increase gradually to a maximum when the beam is parallel to the incident plane at A? Any help would be much appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No expert, but my strong feeling is that s-polarized will reflect perfectly when planes of incidence are parallel. So please check!
 
frasermackay said:

Homework Statement


An incident unpolarised light beam of intensity I_{0} strikes glass plate B at Brewster's Angle. The reflected light travels vertically and strikes a second glass plate A, again at Brewster's Angle. (We ignore the light transmitted by the glass plates.) Plate A is then rotated about the z-axis as shown. Briefly explain how the intensity of the light reflected by the apparatus varies with the angle of plate A. Illustrate with a qualitative sketch of intensity vs. angle of plate A.

2AZstU1.png



2. The attempt at a solution

We have an unpolarised beam incident on plate B at Brewster's Angle which upon reflection should become s-polarised or polarised perpendicular to the incident plane. My understanding of Brewster's Angle then says that upon the second reflection at plate A if the plate is oriented such that the incident plane is the same as for plate B there will be no reflection. Otherwise as it rotates there will be light reflected, is this correct?

Also does the intensity of the light reflected off of A increase gradually to a maximum when the beam is parallel to the incident plane at A? Any help would be much appreciated.

Not quite ...

Unpolarised incident beam means that the beam has both p-polarized and s-polarized components with equal intensity. The parallel-polarized component does not reflect from mirror B, only the perpendicularly polarized beam travels toward A. When both mirrors align parallel the beam is reflected again.

If mirror A is turned round the vertical axis, the angle of incidence turns also. The electric field in the s- polarized beam will not be perpendicularly polarized to the plane of incidence: it will have parallel and perpendicular components. Only the perpendicular component reflects. What is the reflected intensity when mirror A is rotated by 90°?

ehild
 
Thank you very much for the help.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top