Understanding Polarisation in Electromagnetic Waves

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of polarization in electromagnetic (e.m.) waves, specifically addressing the definition and implications of further polarization. It clarifies that while the electric field of an e.m. wave is confined to one plane, the magnetic field remains perpendicular, and both components coexist within the wave. The conversation highlights that a polarizer does not eliminate the magnetic field but rather restricts the electric field's orientation, leading to potential confusion regarding the definitions of polarization and the behavior of light through polarizing materials.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of electromagnetic wave properties
  • Familiarity with the concept of polarization
  • Knowledge of light behavior through polarizers
  • Basic grasp of vector components in physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of electromagnetic wave propagation
  • Explore the mathematical representation of polarization states
  • Investigate the behavior of light through various types of polarizers
  • Learn about the applications of polarized light in optics
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, optical engineers, and anyone interested in the principles of light behavior and electromagnetic theory will benefit from this discussion.

ananthu
Messages
105
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


"Polarisation" is defined as the cofinement of the vibrations of the wave in only one plane and the removal of the vibrations in the other perpendicualar plane of the electromagnetic wave. But the e.m. wave is defined as a wave in which the electic vetors are restricted in one plane only where as the magnetic vector is vibrating in the other plane, i.e,. the em wave is itself is polasrised only as per above definition.
In that case what does further polaristion of the wave mean? Removing the vibrations in the other perpendicular plane means removing the magnetic vector? Also if we assume that the electric field has components in all possible directions and out of these vibrations, those in one plane are removed and those in a plane perpendicular to it is retained, will it lead to the conclusion that the electric field vector has components parallel to the magnetic field vector also i.e.in the x-z plane ( assume the electric field is vibrating in the x-y plane and the magnetic field in the x-z plane, x-axis being the direction of propagation)?
If that is so, will it not violate the very definition of the em wave which says that these are the waves in which electric filed, magnetic field and the direction of propagation all are mutually perpendicular to each other? Will anybody kindly clarify these points?


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
ananthu said:
In that case what does further polaristion of the wave mean? Removing the vibrations in the other perpendicular plane means removing the magnetic vector?

Hi ananthu! :smile:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarised_light" …
By convention, the polarization of light is described by specifying the direction of the wave's electric field.

In other words, the magnetic field is still there, but its plane of polarisation is perpendicular to the direction specified.

You mustn't think of a polariser as like a grating which will only let one plane through …

if you do, then you have to say that it let's the perpendicular plane through for the magnetic field, which rather destroys the analogy. :rolleyes:

(and there isn't anything special about either the electric or magnetic components anyway … essentially, they're two arbitrary complementary components of the whole 6-parameter electromagnetic field, just as "our" time and "our" space are two arbitrary complementary components of space-time :wink:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Thank you for your reply. But my question is that whether the electric field itslef is already polarised or not in an em wave? The definition misleads. It says that in an e.m. wave, the electric vector is restricted in only one plane. So when you rotate a crystal in the path of an unpolarised light, no light should come out of the crystal at all when its optic axis is held perpendicular to a previously allowed plane. But a polariser allows light vibrations whichever are parallel to its axis in any plane to pass through, irrespective of its orientation. Only the second crystal placed in the path of a plane polarised light cuts the vibrations when it is rotated.
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
873
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K