Polarizing filter not extinguish the wave although 90 degree polarizers

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Felipe Lincoln
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Degree Filter Wave
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of polarized light as it passes through multiple polarizing filters, specifically addressing the phenomenon where a wave does not vanish when a third polarizer is introduced between two perpendicular polarizers. The conversation touches on both classical and quantum mechanical explanations of polarization.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that when a non-polarized electromagnetic wave passes through a polarizer, its intensity is halved, and when it encounters a second polarizer at 90 degrees, it should vanish, but introducing a third polarizer at 45 degrees allows some intensity to pass through.
  • Others argue that the behavior of light through polarizers can be explained classically, where the first polarizer produces vertically polarized light, and the 45-degree polarizer allows half of that light to pass, which is then polarized at 45 degrees before encountering the horizontal filter.
  • One participant emphasizes that the phenomenon is a demonstration of quantum mechanics, contrasting it with classical mechanics, while another suggests that classical explanations using Maxwell's Equations are also valid.
  • There is mention of the practical application of polarization in RF broadcasting, where orthogonal polarizations are used to improve signal selectivity.
  • Some participants express that both classical and quantum explanations yield similar mathematical results, indicating a potential overlap in understanding the phenomenon.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether the phenomenon should be explained through classical mechanics or quantum mechanics. There is no consensus on a single explanation, as both perspectives are presented and debated.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight that the discussion involves complex interactions of light and polarization, which may depend on specific conditions or definitions. The relationship between classical and quantum explanations remains unresolved.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying optics, electromagnetic theory, or quantum mechanics, as well as practitioners in fields related to RF communications and signal processing.

Felipe Lincoln
Gold Member
Messages
99
Reaction score
11
When a non-polarized electromagnetic wave cross a polarizer filter, its intensity drops to a half. Then this now polarized wave cross a polarizer such that it has 90 degree compared to the other. The wave is completely vanished. But if we put another polarizer with, let's say 45 degree in comparison with the first, the wave pass through all the three polarized and is not vanished. Its intensity is ##\frac{1}{2}I_0\cos^245\cos^245 ##.
It seems that the tricky happened when the polarized wave let's with 0 degree from the vertical axis passes through the 45 degree polarizer it breaks into vertical and horizontal components, if it wasn't true the wave would disapear when crossing the last 90 degree polarizer (horizontal).
Why the wave doesn't disapear after adding the third polarizer in between the two perpendicular polarizers?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is a quantum mechanical phenomenon, and it's one of the neater demonstrations of how quantum mechanics is different from classical mechanics (it might be the only one that is routinely done in high-school labs).

The tricky thing you're looking for is that a polarizing filter does more than just absorbing some of the light; whatever passes the polarizer is also polarized in the direction of the filter. The light that leaves the first polarizer is vertically polarized, and none of it can pass through the horizontal filter (##cos^2(90)## is zero). But if it encounters a 45-degree polarizer on the way, half of it passes through (##cos^2(45)## is 1/2) and that surviving half is now polarized at 45 degrees. When this encounters the horizontal filter, the angle with the horizontal is 45 degrees, so half of it passes through.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Felipe Lincoln
I would have thought that the OP is correct and that there is no need for the doubt that's written in the final paragraph as it's already been explained fine in classical terms. The OP doesn't mention photons.
Nugatory said:
This is a quantum mechanical phenomenon, and it's one of the neater demonstrations of how quantum mechanics is different from classical mechanics (it might be the only one that is routinely done in high-school labs).
Maybe that comment applies to some kinds of polariser but the same effect can be observed using a very classical wire grid and plane polarised microwaves. As far as I know, the way such a polariser works is explained using Maxwell's Equations. The wire polariser passes components of one polarisation and reflects the other components.
I agree that the quantum level explanation is somewhat harder to take on board but, as with many phenomena, one of the two approaches is often more convenient than the other. Interference and diffraction (both taught at a similar level in School) can also be approached from either direction but surprisingly (?) the resulting mathematical expressions are the the same.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Felipe Lincoln and Mentz114
sophiecentaur said:
[]
Maybe that comment applies to some kinds of polariser but the same effect can be observed using a very classical wire grid and plane polarised microwaves. As far as I know, the way such a polariser works is explained using Maxwell's Equations. The wire polariser passes components of one polarisation and reflects the other components.
I agree that the quantum level explanation is somewhat harder to take on board but, as with many phenomena, one of the two approaches is often more convenient than the other. Interference and diffraction (both taught at a similar level in School) can also be approached from either direction but surprisingly (?) the resulting mathematical expressions are the the same.

That is interesting. I found this* which looks meaty.

*
http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/polarizer.pdf
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur
It certainly is 'meaty' for one as out of touch as I am. The result of all that seems to agree with the notion that the transmitted wave is more or less linearly polarised normal to the wires. It's a pretty easy A level experiment to perform with basic microwave equipment and you get the 'right' answer.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Felipe Lincoln
. . . . . . the phenomenon of polarisation rotation occurs all over the place in the RF world. Broadcasters go to a lot of trouble to arrange for nearby co-channel transmitters (all frequencies) to use orthogonal polarisations in order to help receiving antennae to select the wanted signal and reject the unwanted. Problem is that nearby metal structures (diagonal) can re-radiate components of the 'cross' polar wave and spoil the selectivity that's been aimed at.
 
Nugatory said:
This is a quantum mechanical phenomenon, and it's one of the neater demonstrations of how quantum mechanics is different from classical mechanics (it might be the only one that is routinely done in high-school labs).
It's also perfectly valid within classical electrodynamics. It's of course true that it is valid in QED as well.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sophiecentaur

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K