Unknown Light Source Through Polarizer

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a homework problem regarding the intensity of light from an unknown source passing through polarizers with horizontal and vertical transmission axes, both resulting in the same transmitted intensity of 8.00 × 10−3 W/m2. Participants debate whether the light is unpolarized, linearly polarized, or could be either. It is concluded that if the light were unpolarized, it would maintain consistent intensity through any orientation, making it the most likely answer. The possibility of circular polarization is acknowledged but not included in the options. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards the light being unpolarized, as it aligns with the observed intensity results.
kkcolwell
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I recently had a homework problem that asked the following. Can someone please explain to me how in the world this can be true?! It makes no sense to me that you can get an intensity that is equal to when light is passed through a vertical transmission axis and a horizontal transmission axis...

When light from an unknown source, with intensity 1.60 × 10−2 W/m2, passes through a polarizer with a horizontal transmission axis, the intensity of the light transmitted is 8.00 × 10−3 W/m2. When the light from the unknown source passes through a polarizer with a vertical transmission axis, the intensity of the light transmitted is again 8.00 × 10−3 W/m2.

These are the choices. To me I would think that maybe it would be unpolarized since the electromagnetic fields are randomly oriented so maybe it could go through both, but that does not seem logical to me...

the light from the unknown source is unpolarized
the light from the unknown source is linearly polarized
the light could be unpolarized or linearly polarized

All I ask is for some clarification because I am finding this section to be very troublesome...
 
Science news on Phys.org
If the source were linearly polarised and it just happened to be polarised at 45°, you would get half the power through the polariser in both orientations (but it would need to be 45°. If unpolarised, you would get half power for all orientations. Any of the three choices are reasonable. A2 or A3 could be the answer they're after but the more likely answer would be A1 because it doesn't require a particular pair of orientations. It's a good question because you have to think about it and you would really need to argue a case fro whichever answer you went for.
In real life, you'd wiggle the polariser about a bit and see if the power varied - if not then the answer is Unpolarised.
 
From the answers you give, the only possible answer is that the light must be unpolarised. There can be no degree of linear polarisation.

Technically, the light could also be circularly polarised; but since this is not offered as an option, the first answer must be true.

Claude.
 
Thread 'A quartet of epi-illumination methods'
Well, it took almost 20 years (!!!), but I finally obtained a set of epi-phase microscope objectives (Zeiss). The principles of epi-phase contrast is nearly identical to transillumination phase contrast, but the phase ring is a 1/8 wave retarder rather than a 1/4 wave retarder (because with epi-illumination, the light passes through the ring twice). This method was popular only for a very short period of time before epi-DIC (differential interference contrast) became widely available. So...
I am currently undertaking a research internship where I am modelling the heating of silicon wafers with a 515 nm femtosecond laser. In order to increase the absorption of the laser into the oxide layer on top of the wafer it was suggested we use gold nanoparticles. I was tasked with modelling the optical properties of a 5nm gold nanoparticle, in particular the absorption cross section, using COMSOL Multiphysics. My model seems to be getting correct values for the absorption coefficient and...
Back
Top