Optics: Polarization rotation using polarizers Instructor: Shaoul Ezekiel View the complete course: ocw.mit.edu/RES... License: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA More information at ocw.mit.edu/terms More courses at ocw.mit.edu
Пікірлер: 17
@golamnazib12984 жыл бұрын
Thanks & دل سے شکریہ, شكرا جزيلا لك
@thelowendstudio2 жыл бұрын
Just awesome
@supersonic174 Жыл бұрын
I remember seeing a similar video, but stating that it was not understood how the light is able to come through in some cases.
@uploadJ4 ай бұрын
re: "but stating that it was not understood how the light is able to come through in some cases." Polarizers are not "filters", per se, but "re-radiators" of the EM or light waves (as the presenter in the video says, although subtly)... but, the polaizer must intercept some energy on their 'linear' segments, or elements, so the case of the 90 deg rotation then no energy is re-radiated since none was picked up, or intercepted, in the first place. That is to say, the 'elements' in a polarizer act like dipole antenna elements, with intercepted energy equal to the cosine of the angle, where cos(90) = 0.
@mahmoudabdelaal84686 жыл бұрын
thank you :)
@keithdutton12463 жыл бұрын
תודה
@swati2005bh11 жыл бұрын
really easy to understand and very well explained..Thanks for the video :) But I was wondering that how the use of 2 polarizers have enabled the rotation of light by 90 degrees? (basically I want to know the logic behind this phenomenon ...)
@YodaWhat5 жыл бұрын
See this collaborative explanation by Minute Physics and 3Blue1Brown kzfaq.info/get/bejne/sMmhjauK1J2zfqc.html
@uploadJ5 жыл бұрын
Note, there is a PENALTY for this "rotation", the re-radiation of the RF, I mean light EM energy is at a cost of the cosine of the angle difference from polarizer to polarizer (neglecting a small amount lost in the polarizer regardless of angle). AS long as you can sustain this cosine loss, you can infinitely rotate the light.
@uploadJ5 жыл бұрын
re: "(basically I want to know the logic behind this phenomenon ...)" Think: Re-radiation of the light at the angle of the last polarizer encountered. As long as the angle between the two is not 90 deg, then light, at the new angle, will be "radiated" by the polarizer or grating.
@ebunny91 Жыл бұрын
@@uploadJ I thought that polarizers worked by blocking light that was not at the proper polarization to pass through. All of the light passing through one polarizer should then be parallel with each other. Isn't that correct?
@uploadJ Жыл бұрын
@@ebunny91 The light is at the angle of the **last** polarizer encountered ... nothing more, nothing less. IF the angle between two polarizers is 90 degs, then NO light makes its way through, according to the cosine of the angle, cos(90) = 0.
@dalenassar91525 жыл бұрын
I want to try and explain something in science class, but first, how do I get, with four polorizers, the MAXIMUM light change through the polorizers,for the MINIMUN rotation of any ONE polorid? Thank you so much, I spend all of my free time on it and, it is my last chance to make it to the science fair. And I want to thank my school for being kind and nice enough to let be take lab stuff home on weekends.
@YodaWhat5 жыл бұрын
See this collaborative explanation by Minute Physics and 3Blue1Brown kzfaq.info/get/bejne/sMmhjauK1J2zfqc.html
@uploadJ5 жыл бұрын
@YodaWhat re: "See this collaborative explanation by Minute Physics and 3Blue1Brown" Sorry, that does not cut it. That is "obfuscation" by physicists because they THEMSELVES do not understand the simple phenomenon this actually represents.
@uploadJ5 жыл бұрын
Better to understand THIS experiment first, before jetting off into Bell's theorem and QM nonsense - I give you the microwave experiment using a simple grate: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/gbNih85-lc7eh2w.html&t=116
@cosmological7773 Жыл бұрын
Hmmm. 90° relative to what? If your "floating" in empty space what would make 90° 90°?