Why Is Only the Electric Field Considered in Polarisation?

mkbh_10
Messages
217
Reaction score
0
Why is only electric field considered when we discuss the phenomenon of polarisation ? What about the magnetic field ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i assume you are talking about light?

magnetic field as always perp to the electric, so will be polarised in the same manner but rotated 90deg
 
i think its because the direction of magnetic field is helical whereas the electric field is straight .
 
ahhh... no the magnetic polarisation will be the same as the electric

ie linearly polarised light has both linearly polarised eletric & magnetic fields, both at 90deg to teh directino of propogation & to each other

similarly cicularly polarised light has both cicularly polarised eletric & magnetic fields, still both at 90deg to the direction of propogation & to each other

try finding the equation for a plane wave and check it out
 
I am not saying that the polarised light will not have magnetic field , it will have it but genreally in polarisation we don't talk abt the mag field & i think the reason i gave must be it .
 
for linearly polarised light the magnetic field will be lineraly polarised not helical, so that reason is not correct

have a look here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

if you want to get into the philosophical side of things then we probably usually talk about electric field as the relative strength is B = E/c. So in terms of interacting with things the electric part is probably more significant.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top