Linear Polarization Puns

I don't know If this is the right thing to ask, but this interests my Ti.

Do electric and magnetic waves in linear polarization have the same amplitude ?

I'm specifically curious about elliptical polarization. If my understanding of this is correct (and it may not be) photons must travel with their e and b fields perpendicular to eachother and to the direction of travel. This would make circular polarization equivalent to a rotating (along the axis of propagation) photon and linear polarization equivalent to a non-rotating photon. I was also under the impression the ratio of the e and b fields is a constant.

How are elliptical polarizations possible? Are one or more of the above incorrect?

We are currently using l3 wimax antennas that area about 6 inches by 3 inches. Our entire board is now smaller than that. Anyone have a good source of relatively obscure antennas or a good custom design shop?

I'm using polarizer filters for a Computer Vision application and I want to learn the theory better to be able to use it better. Would be super helpful if someone with good theoretical knowledge in the topic could help answer a few doubts I have: I am using a circular polarizer filter to eliminate reflections/glare due to the sun, on leaves. However, since the surface of the reflecting leaves are at different angles and my application is automated, I cannot stick with one orientation(angle). Right now, I am rotating the filter manually, obtaining 3-4 pictures at different angles and combining them. I am looking for a better way to do this as this affects the efficiency.

Hi guys. I just wanted to double check something.

If I'm buying a set of Circular Polarized antennas (Pagoda) LHCP and RHCP doesn't actually matter if my Quads are using Linear dipole antennas, correct?

I understand there is a significant loss from mixing circular and linear, but it's only mixing LHCP and RHCP that genuinely REJCT each other, right?

So all my whips will work equally well with LHCP or RHCP until I get good enough to stop crashing and replace them with Pagodas also?

I was just reading this article on Stokes parameters and it states that if lE_Rl = lE_Ll then V (circular polarization) = 0 and this implies the total intensity must be linearly polarized. But what is the physical origins for such a statement? How can a signal that is linearly polarized be composed of circularly polarized waves? When considering a single photon, if it were to be polarized linearly, how can we break it down further into a detectable left and right circular polarization?

I know of a crude way to change the polarization angle of polarized light by attaching a polarizer to a pulley and spin it slowly with a motor. My question is: is there a way of changing the physical properties in a material with either an electrical or magnetic field that would affect the angle of polarization of polarized light passing through the material?

I was reading this text where they state: "Many cosmic masers are observed to have both circular and linear polarization although the reasons for linear polarization are not well understood."

Just curious, aren't there any molecules such as OH, CH4, or water masers that have transitions that emit linearly polarized waves? Why is the mechanism behind linear polarization in masers an outstanding question?

Perhaps on a related note, have astrophysical masers ever had measurements of rotation measure (RM)? Although these masers can arise in a variety of conditions (e.g. near stars, pulsar), they are typically in environments with strong EM fields, correct? So would we be able to observe an RM associated with a maser?

From my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, linear polarizers such as the ones in old 3d IMAX glasses (before they started being also circularly polarized), polarize light going through it by selectively absorbing the light whose electric field is lined up to induce little currents in the material. The polarizing material, of the sort that i'm talking about, not of the reflective type (with brewster's angle and the such), contains parallel conductive pathways so that electrons are only really free to move in one direction in the material - hence the selective absorption.

Shouldn't this mean that polarizers are conductive along these conductive pathways? Is this true only in the ideal case? What I mean is...in actual linear polarizers, are the conductive pathways not necessarily connected - they are just all aligned?

Hi,

When two or more individual waves of light are in phase, is the light then automatically linearly polarized as the e-vector sum oscillates linearly? If so, what happens if a polarizer is placed in the lightbeam with its axis parallel to the angle of that e-vector sum?

Thanks

Hi everybody,

I need your help to imagine the B1 field in MRI. A linearly polarized magnetic field can be written as two rotating components. I do understand this MATHEMATICALLY (Euler's identity), but not the physics behind it. And that is also okay I could live with the math. BUT in every book I've read about MRI they would say: the counter clockwise component could be neglected because it does not interact with the spins!

My question is why it does not interact with spins and only the clockwise component does?

thanks in advance.

I'm currently learning about the normal Zeeman Effect and it seems as if different polarizations of the light that falls on an electron affects (slightly) the Energy state where this electron ends up. My question would be where this extra energy comes from. Maybe it could come from the wavelength difference between types of polarized light...

Hi Mech Market, clearing out some of my keyboard collection to make room for new things coming in and hopefully give these items new homes, where they will see more use. I prefer to ship within the United States, but if you are willing to pay for international shipping shoot me a message and we can talk. Thanks for taking a look, feel free to PM me if you have any questions.

Timestamp: https://imgur.com/a/gilmlPW

I think a normal combination of two orthogonal linear polarisators isn't enough?

I see that linear response is not availabkle still for spin-polarized systems. I wonder when that will be available in CASTEP.

ERROR: Spin-polarized LR calculations not yet supportedPBE

Hi,

Can someone point me to the relevant information about circular polarized arrays? More specifically, how to say one antenna element is more suitable than the other for a circular polarized antenna array.

I also was wondering how easy is to transform from LP to CP using things like FSSs, Metasurfaces, etc. Because nowadays, we are seeing lots of LP/dual-LP designs, so having something to attach on top of that that is capable of scanning would be interesting. But it seems there are many ways to realize this polarization conversion and it is kinda overwhelming, so I'm looking for a way to also compare them or at least to know which ones are usually more applicable for array structures.

Thank you so much in advance!

Here is the whole question and I am a little unsure on part b

An isotropic point source emits light at wavelength 500 nm with the power of 200 W.

a)Suppose that the isotropic light source emits unpolarized light. A linear polarizer is positioned 300 m from the source. Calculate the light intensity immediately after the light passes through the linear polarizer.

intensity at 300m = 200 / (4 pi r^(2)) = 176.838 micro W/m^(2)

intensity after polarizer: I / 2 = 88.4195 micro W/m^(2)

b)Repeat part (a), but now the isotropic light source emits circularly polarized light. Explain your answer.

My first thought is that it is also 88.4195 since circular polarized have E-field point to every direction, and that is like unpolarized light. But the E-field move through space, so when it hit the polarizer, it only point to one direction.

And I tried to make use of the wavelength give, but the orientation of the polarizer is not given, so its useless to know the phase when the light hit

Then I separate it into x-y component and I = Ex * cos^(2)(theta) + Ey * cos^(2)(90-theta), which gives no loss in intensity, and it just feels so weird. Did I do it right?

I'm currently learning about the normal Zeeman Effect and it seems as if different polarizations of the light that falls on an electron affects (slightly) the Energy state where this electron ends up. My question would be where this extra energy comes from. Maybe it could come from the wavelength difference between types of polarized light...

Hi Mech Market, clearing out some of my keyboard collection to make room for new things coming in and hopefully give these items new homes where they will see more use. I prefer to ship within the United States, but if you are willing to pay for international shipping shoot me a message and we can talk. Thanks for taking a look.

Timestamp: https://imgur.com/a/FmjPUfo