Talk:Circular polarization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high importance within physics.

Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Citation:

Circular (and eliptical) polarization is possible because the propagating electric (and magnetic) fields can have two orthogonal components with independent amplitudes and phases (and the same frequency).

I would understand circular polarisation if E and M fields could have DIFFERENT frequencies. But with same frequencies, as stated here, I don't see why there should be circular polarization. Thanks, --Abdull 20:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article, and the related polarization article, have drifted a bit. The essential insight needed to understand all polarization phenomena is that the transverse wave is two-dimensional. The usual example of a water wave is confusing in this respect, because it is not; the water wave motion occurs only perpendicular to the water surface. Only the special case of linear polarization behaves like water waves. The electric field of a plane, two dimensional electromagnetic wave can be resolved into two orthogonal components, because, unlike a water wave, the wave "motion" is two-dimensional. Each of these components can have an independent phase and an amplitude. The question above demonstrates the need to emphasize the essential two-dimensional nature of the electromagnetic wave early in the article. I hope this helps.

AJim 03:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] direction of helices

Citation: "When looking toward the source, right hand circular polarized light rotates clockwise as time increases, and describes a right hand helix along the propagation axis."

Logic dictates that exactly one of these two statements is correct: (1) "When looking toward the source, right-hand circular polarized light rotates clockwise as time increases." (2) "[P]olarized light […] describes a right-hand helix along the propagation axis."

Anyone know which is true and which needs to be corrected?


[edit] direction of helices (2)

I agree with the inconsistency in the article.

the probelm is to differ between circular polarization helicity and handedness

Let's take light that describes a clockwise rotation along its direction:

  • it has positive helicity.
  • it is right-handed
  • but left circular polarized, as the definition for circular polarisation comes from the "classic" spectroscopists who defined by looking into the beam /at the source, and not along the beam.

see: http://courses.washington.edu/phys55x/Physics%20557_lec9_App.htm

[edit] circularly polarizing materials

Now that this has a publicly accessible manifestation, in 3D movies such as Real D, could we have something more about the practicalities, circularly polarizing materials and Liquid Crystal filters for circular polarization, or at least links to articles about them? (I was intrigued that the left and right lenses of my briefly hired 3D glasses seemed to have different effects on colour filters in the theatre, and on my cellphone display. More about that would be interesting -- Hugh7 (talk) 08:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)