And if not, why the frick not? Polarised lenses don’t absorb the light they block, so why not measure the light bouncing off them to pin down exactly where things get fricky?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
>Polarised lenses don’t absorb the light they block
What
Are you moronic?
Guys, help me out, how do we communicate this simple concept to spasticus here? Has he never seen sunlight reflected off sunglasses?
They partially reflect and partially absorb the light that they don't transmit
you could start by sucking some BBC, you fricking twat
do polarized reflectors not exist?
Isn’t that just colour?
Of course they do, I wasn’t implying they couldn’t reflect light, just surprised they don’t absorb some too.
>Has this experiment with been done?
Yes, and sometimes we call the effect something completely different.
Why it's simple really, light is an electromagnetic phenomena being altrered with a polarization filter. It's not like it's actually "passing through" or "traveling into" said lens afterall.
>Guys, help me out, how do we communicate this simple concept to spasticus here?
You're talking to people who actually believe light travels and has a speed despite the very devices mentioned in OP disproving all of that shit.
>Are you saying that lenses affect the polarisation of the light?
>Are you saying this polarization filter does exactly what it's advertised to do?
Yes.
Constructive/destructive interference. You have polarized the waves into "no waves" and you undo this when you put another polarization after the fact.
> You have polarized the waves into "no waves" and you undo this
If that were the case, then picrel could be reproduced. Is that so? (I don’t have any polarised lenses, otherwise I’d try this for myself)
Aaand I forgot the pic
Do you understand vector projection?
Yeah, used to work with 3D maths. Not sure what that has to do with this, though.
>Not sure what that has to do with this, though.
A polarizer projects the field onto its axis as
stated. All of your questions can be answered if you understand this.
... you mean it projects the wave, right? The medium being projected doesn’t make sense.
>you mean it projects the wave, right?
The wave itself is an oscillation in the electromagnetic field, which is composed of two vector fields. By projecting the field (the electric field in this case), it is essentially projecting the amplitude of the wave. For example, pic related is what the last polarizer in your original image would see.
Polarizers effectively project the light's electric field onto the axis of polarization. So the first polarizer is correct because the incoming light is randomly polarized, but the second polarizer only reflects [math] 1- frac{1}{sqrt{2}} [/math] of the light it sees (and consequently passes [math] frac{1}{sqrt{2}} [/math]), as does the third one because the incoming light is 45 degrees off of the axis of polarization for both, so the total amount of light observed at the end is [math] frac{1}{2}(frac{1}{sqrt{2}})^2 = frac{1}{4} [/math] of the initial light. This is all classical E&M, no quantum frickery required.
And yet, if we take away the middle one, we get 0% remaining light.
Are you saying that lenses affect the polarisation of the light?
>Are you saying that lenses affect the polarisation of the light?
yes, that's exactly what happens
But if the lenses “rotate” the photons, as opposed to filtering them, then there’d be next to zero percent reflected. Which isn’t what we observe.
it doesn't "rotate" photons in the classical sense. What happens when light goes through a polarizer is that the single photons have a chance of being aligned or not with the polarizer's axis, and the chance depends on the angle between the photon's polarization and the axis of the polarizing lens (being zero if they are orthogonal). Once they pass through, they are effectively aligned with the polarizer they just passed through. If you put a second polarizer in front of them, you have to repeat the process again, and so on for each subsequent polarizer.
Interesting. So the ZOMG QUANTUM people touting this as demonstrable proof are just actual brainlets.
Not really since you can think of it as an effect of the dual wave-particle nature of photons. But it doesn't require knowing the quantum rules in order to explain or understand it
>tl;dr
The photons will rotate if they don't collide with the atoms in the filter by chance.
>Not really since you can think of it as an effect of the dual wave-particle nature of photons
In what sense? Wave-particle duality has nothing to do with polarization. You can think of it as only one or the other and it still works out.
>Are you saying that lenses affect the polarisation of the light?
Thats literally how it works...
A full 90 shift is opaque, a shift of 45 is not. Adding a 45 between 0 and 90 gives the photons the ability to shift their orientation twice, therefore allowing them to pass through the 90 even though their original orientation was 0.
Look into circular polarization. The only thing that matters is the relative position of the filters and the initial state of the photons. A polarized photon is not bound to any specific orientation, and in the case of circular polarization their orientation is constantly changing. Arrange the polarizers such that phase cancellation isn't taking place, and then you can twist the photons around instead of simply terminating them.
This is what happens when you pump people with popsci QM videos on muh polarizers and photon probabilities while they don't even understand what the frick light is on the classical level.
Oi, even you big brained rickety farts don’t know what light is on a classical level. Temper your eggo.
So is polarization like:
If you have a baseball with 4 cones, pointy side out, attatched in a line evenly along a perimeter of the baseballs body;
And you had a wooden wall 20ft by 20ft, and you had a bunch of baseball pitching machines that could throw these balls, and the wooden wall had 100s of baseball with cone shaped cut out all throughout them
And there were 100 pitching machines lined up, throwing those balls at the wall? Anything like this?
What would be an equivelent analogy for waves?
The atoms of the polarized/polarizing material are a molecular lattice of a certain shape; waves pass into the lattice and some of them pass through, some of them are reflected, and some of them in the process of passing through are altered by the lattice orientation/lattice orientation resulting in a semi uniform distribution of electron orbit orientation wherein the waves that pass through are altered by the electrons orbit into a new orientation of propagation?
So hm, analogy; on a particular shores seawall, there are a series of 1 foot long thin tunnel slices in the rock, that then lead to a pool, which then further still, another rock wall with more thin slits in it;
Not all ocean waves crash high enough to enter the first slits, but the ones that do, have their bodies compressed momentarily into a thin verticality, (yay this analogy may be righteous), which then travel the length of tunnel, and impart their momentum into the pooling, which then continues to travel across the pool, to the next series of rock wall slits, where some of the energy of the wave will make it through those slits, some of the wave energy will collide against the rock between the slits. A difference being apparently in the case of light, after the polarizing lens the attitude of the light is changed as it back enters into the air, wheras in the analogy water after traveling through the first slits does not maintain that altered new compressed verticality, as it returns to original
Light is a wave in a vector field, which means you can't use waves on the surface of a fluid as an analogy because the surface of the fluid has no information about the actual orientation of a wave, just its magnitude. The electric and magnetic fields obey the principle of superposition, meaning they can be broken down into orthogonal components. Light polarized at 45 degrees has equal amounts of the "up/down" component as it does the "left/right" component, and a vertical polarizer simply transmits the "up/down" component and rejects the rest.
So what is it that is moving up down and or left right?
And there can be two separate waves in very close proximity one doing up down, the other left right, and there can be an occurance of them being in phase, or out of phase? An up down can down onto a left right and disturb it? Or it czn also always miss the zig zaggin, upping and downing on the left rights 0,0... Though that seems much smaller odds than interfering; it just must be said how utterly bizzare this vastly quickly wobbling light material is, that such a thing can occur and remain coherent and on a steady trajectory, astonishing, bewildering.
I squint my eyes at in coming headlights and street lights some times at night, trying to comprehend any way I can how this light stuff is possible. The other night I reestablished an experience I forgot about and just remember now to mention it in a light thread;
Find a few streetlamps with trees nearby, oh I just realized the now unmysterious cause of what I'm gonna say; look at the shadows of the trees leaves on the ground made by the light, God I can be so dumb sometimes thank God it is incredibly rare and my exceeding intelligence irrelevantizes it so; there is a crazy grid pattern, but now I realize it's the plastic covering of the lights... Maybe? Because now as I struggle to recall the wind moved the trees and the pattern moved with it... Maybe column A and B; light cover considered, there is still some weird effect of the shadow?
Ok polarization, what the eff? If there really is a non surface wave, that is, there is a wave in the middle of a 4d medium/field; when the wave first trajectories upwards in it's crest, what forces it downwards and not just continuing upward (*key question alert*)
>I squint my eyes at in coming headlights and street lights some times at night, trying to comprehend any way I can how this light stuff is possible.
It's very interesting, you see the beams, lots of talk of waves and particles, and then beams. A rod of light, rods that enter my rods (or cones, rods enter my cones, cones enter my rods).
Surprisingly, or is it, I don't see a million seperate light beams, only like 12 or 20 or so.
Interestingly light reflects off everything and I see the thing, I don't see the light, but I do see the light,it's just not like the visible light beam, it's light they took the impression of a thing; the light beams have taken no impression, they just beam into my eye.
Oh so those beams are diffraction lines from my eyashes?
If I stare at a bright light, I dont see seperate beams, I am just blinded, no object impression, just light.
I should get a prize for trying to figure out this word salad, but alas its incomprehensible
I am truly duly sorry friendorio
This is the most important aspect of my post:
If there really is a non surface wave, that is, there Is a wave in the middle of a 4d medium/field; when the wave first trajectories upwards in it's crest, what forces it downwards and not just continuing upward (*key question alert*)
A wave; up down up down up down
Or side to side to side to side
Whatever this 4d materia is, when it is forced it's first Up, what forces it down, and not just Up Up Up
Another related interesting question;
What state do Photons exist in prior to being propagated by Electrons?
Someone I the know respond to these questions so I may respond to that
So polarization huh, soooo weird dude.... It's like...... The waves direction is changed....that's crazzzyyyy.......like how does the wave even wiggle through space......and then it's wiggle can be turned whatttt, and there are other wiggles next to it, there can be 10 billion wiggles in one place and they can not cancel out each other.... Or can they..
. Oh big thing there if they can.... Physicality touching physicality, the lights body touching itself of another location, oh but conservation of momentum ,like water waves ...now I know God made the Universe, for using electrons and light to make water..... Lol..... To use quantum to make classical.... The goof!!!!! To make water and air be partially made of fire
>the lights body touching itself of another location, oh but conservation of momentum ,like water waves ..
Water wave from the left, and water wave from the right heading to a common point at 45 degree angle;
Their wave bodies crash into one another, but momentum is conserved, it's not like their crashing halts the waves in place. The energy still goes on moving some forward direction.
Same with light waves? They can bump up and collide, but it's not like the energy and momentum of their forward travel I halted when they do so, they collide, there may be some changes, but their previous qualities continue
Come in answer