Why do wire-grid polarizers have a separation less than the wavelength?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter montser
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Grid Wire
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the functioning of wire-grid polarizers, specifically addressing why the separation between the wires must be less than the wavelength of the incident light and the implications of electron movement in relation to wave transmission and reflection.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants explain that waves perpendicular to the wires pass through with minimal energy loss because they cannot induce electron movement, while waves parallel to the wires are reflected due to possible electron movement.
  • One participant asserts that the separation of wires must be less than the wavelength to ensure effective electron movement and to allow the grid to act like a continuous sheet.
  • Another participant discusses the concept of phase shift, suggesting that the re-radiated wave is in anti-phase with the incident wave, leading to cancellation of forward waves.
  • There is a question raised about what breaks the symmetry between the incident and re-radiated waves, with a focus on the differences in direction of travel and phase progression.
  • One participant describes how the grid behaves like a continuous sheet, acting as a new plane wave source, which affects the phase progression of the waves on either side of the grid.
  • Another participant mentions that a standing wave is formed from the interference of the incident and reflected waves at normal incidence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints regarding the mechanisms of wave interaction with wire-grid polarizers, and there is no consensus on the specifics of how re-radiated waves interact with incident waves or the implications of phase shifts.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss boundary conditions and the behavior of electric fields at the surface of conductors, but the discussion does not resolve the underlying assumptions or mathematical details related to these concepts.

montser
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
I've read about wire-grid polarizers from wikipedia. The article says that waves perpendicular to the wires cannot induce electron movement and hence they pass through with minimal energy loss. On the other hand, waves parallel to the wires are reflected by the wires because electron movement is possible. What I don't understand is two things:

1. why the electron movement doesn't also induce a transmitted wave?

2. why must the wires need to have a separation less than the wavelength?

Thanks
 
Science news on Phys.org
You need 2. in order for 1. to happen.
Each wire has an 'effective cross section' so that high enough currents will be induced into it for the grid to act like a sheet.

Why just reflection? is because there is 180degree phase shift and the re-radiated wave is of equal amplitude to the incident wave. That means that forward waves will cancel . The energy has to go somewhere, so it goes back the way it came.
 
sophiecentaur said:
You need 2. in order for 1. to happen.
Each wire has an 'effective cross section' so that high enough currents will be induced into it for the grid to act like a sheet.

Why just reflection? is because there is 180degree phase shift and the re-radiated wave is of equal amplitude to the incident wave. That means that forward waves will cancel . The energy has to go somewhere, so it goes back the way it came.


what phase shift?between what?and why there is a phase shift?

Thanks for you replay
 
It's all about so-called Boundary conditions. The E field must be zero at the surface of a perfect conductor (a 'short circuit' therefore no volts) so the wave that is produced by the currents induced in the surface must produce a wave that is in anti-phase with the incident wave. The sum of these waves, in the forward direction is zero.

Having a grid is almost as good as having a continuous conducting surface (for that particular polarisation) as long as the wires are spaced close enough together.
 
sophiecentaur said:
It's all about so-called Boundary conditions. The E field must be zero at the surface of a perfect conductor (a 'short circuit' therefore no volts) so the wave that is produced by the currents induced in the surface must produce a wave that is in anti-phase with the incident wave. The sum of these waves, in the forward direction is zero.

Having a grid is almost as good as having a continuous conducting surface (for that particular polarisation) as long as the wires are spaced close enough together.

First, thanks for your replay. Now I understand why there is a phase shift. But what I still do not understand is why this re-radiated wave do not cancel also the incident beam? in other word, what breaks the symmetry between the incident and the forward waves?

again thanks
 
montser said:
First, thanks for your replay. Now I understand why there is a phase shift. But what I still do not understand is why this re-radiated wave do not cancel also the incident beam? in other word, what breaks the symmetry between the incident and the forward waves?

again thanks
With the scattered wave, there is no phase shift between the waves on either side of the grid. Basically the grid behaves like a continuous sheet as described previously and it acts as a new plane wave source. So the waves on either side of the grid only differ in the direction of travel. So on the transmitted side, this means that the spatial phase progression follows that of the incident wave since they both travel in the same direction. But on the reflected side, the scattered wave is traveling in the opposite direction (if we assume normal incidence) as the incident wave. Thus, the phase progression in space is different between the two. For example, the incident wave may be something like

\mathbf{E}_{inc} \sim \cos (kx-\omega t)

While the reflected wave is,

\mathbf{E}_{ref} \sim \cos (-kx-\omega t) = \cos (kx+\omega t)

So you can see that for a given time t that the two will interfere constructively (take the case of t = n*2\pi for an easy comparison).
 
For normal incidence, there will be a standing wave formed from the incident and reflected wave as the two waves interfere constructively and destructively at different points in space.
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
8K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
9K