Which Model Explains Light Polarization: Ray Optics or Particle Model?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on which model—ray optics or the particle model—best explains light polarization. Participants express uncertainty about the definitions and applications of both models, with some suggesting that the particle model might be more relevant. Ray optics is described as focusing on light propagation through discrete rays, while the particle model considers light as particles with specific properties. There is also mention of the electromagnetic (EM) wave model as a potential alternative explanation for polarization. Overall, the conversation highlights confusion and a need for clarity regarding the relationship between light models and polarization.
Jimmy25
Messages
69
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Which model of light is used to explain polarization?

Ray optics or particle model?

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I don't know. My guess is particle model.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Jimmy25 said:

Homework Statement



Which model of light is used to explain polarization?

Ray optics or particle model?

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



I don't know. My guess is particle model.

That doesn't ring any bells with me either. What are the definitions of "ray optics" and "the particle model"?
 
"Rays are used to model the propagation of light through an optical system, by dividing the real light field up into discrete rays that can be computationally propagated through the system"

I assume the particle model models light as particle as opposed to a ray.

I still don't know which could be better applied to the polarization of light.
 
Jimmy25 said:
"Rays are used to model the propagation of light through an optical system, by dividing the real light field up into discrete rays that can be computationally propagated through the system"

I assume the particle model models light as particle as opposed to a ray.

I still don't know which could be better applied to the polarization of light.

Okay, I think I see where they are going with this question, but IMO it's not a very good question (not your fault), and is a bit obscure.

As you stated, Ray Tracing is used to model the propagation of light through optics, so on the surface, it is pretty independent of polarization.

So think about the "particle" model of light. What are the fundamental particles of light called? What properties does each of these particles posses (there are several properties). When you have a bunch of uncoordinated ones of these particles moving together, what polarization characteristic would you get when you measured the polarization? What would you get if you could measure an individual particle? (or a group of particles with similar properties...)
 
hmmm.

Maybe I'm not on the right track here. I narrowed it down to two possible choices out of four, perhaps I shouldn't have been so quick to rule other two options out.

EM wave model is another possible answer.

I don't know anything about polarization other than polarized light is light that has been "filtered."
 
Jimmy25 said:
hmmm.

Maybe I'm not on the right track here. I narrowed it down to two possible choices out of four, perhaps I shouldn't have been so quick to rule other two options out.

EM wave model is another possible answer.

I don't know anything about polarization other than polarized light is light that has been "filtered."

Um, what were the original choices (exact words please)?
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top