Illustrated Physics
physics, drawn
Concept

Malus's law — where it appears

The cosine-squared fall of intensity through a polariser turned away from the light's own direction of vibration. The square is because the polariser passes the component of the amplitude and the detector reads the intensity, so two crossed polarisers pass nothing and a third between them passes some.

Named by 6 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Malus's law. The fraction of polarised light passing a filter, against the angle between the light's own direction of shaking and the filter's axis. It is the cosine squared: half at 45 degrees, nothing at 90.

The direction of the shaking, and the filter that only asks about it

A wave that travels one way can still shake in any direction across that way. Light does, most of it shakes in all of them at once, and a sheet of plastic can ask which.

optics · Polarisation A beam through a chain of analysers. An unpolarised beam of intensity 1 entering 3 analysers oriented at 0°, 90°, 0°, selecting the + then + output each time. The intensities are 0.500 and 0.500 out of analyser 1; 0.250 and 0.250 out of analyser 2; 0.125 and 0.125 out of analyser 3. The last analyser is oriented the same way as the first, and it produces a "−" beam of 0.125 — a beam of exactly the kind the first analyser removed entirely. The middle analyser did not filter the beam; it replaced what the beam had an answer to.

The answer that was not there before

Send a beam through an analyser and it splits in two. Send one half through a second analyser turned sideways, then through a third pointing the way the first did, and the property the first analyser removed has come back.

quantum · Measurement The correlation, and the best a shared list of answers can do. The coincidence correlation between two polarisation analysers against the angle between them, over two full turns of the correlation — a polariser turned through 180° is the same polariser, so the picture repeats. The singlet gives −cos 2Δ, drawn through −1.00 at 0°, 1.00 at 90°, −1.00 at 180°, 1.00 at 270°. Beside it is the best correlation any shared list of pre-agreed answers can produce: straight lines between the same four extremes, with corners where the cosine is smooth. The two agree exactly at the multiples of 45° and nowhere else, and they are furthest apart — by 0.2105 — at 19.77° and 70.23°, which is ½ arcsin(2/π) from either end of the quarter turn. The difference is not a matter of degree: it is a curve against a shape with a corner in it, and no list can be bent into the curve.

The correlation no instructions can produce

A pair of gloves in two boxes agrees perfectly and needs no physics, because the answers were settled at packing. What no packing can imitate is the shape that appears as the two analysers are turned relative to each other, and the shape is a number — 2.828 where every list of pre-agreed answers is stuck at 2.

quantum · Entanglement The two reflectances, and the angle one of them loses. Reflectance against angle of incidence for light going from n = 1 into n = 1.5. The upper curve is light polarised with its electric field along the surface, which reflects more and more strongly until at grazing incidence everything reflects. The lower curve is light polarised in the plane of incidence, and it does something the other cannot: it falls to exactly zero at 56.31°, where tan θ = 1.5000, and then rises again. At normal incidence the two are equal at 4.00% because there is no plane of incidence to tell them apart. The dashed curve is the transmittance, computed from the transmission coefficients and the two media's projected impedances rather than as one minus the reflectance; it agrees with one minus the reflectance to 4.4e-16 across the whole range, which is where the energy accounting can be seen to close.

The angle at which reflection picks a side

At one angle of incidence, a water surface reflects no light at all of one polarisation. The Fresnel algebra says so, and says nothing about why. The reason is that the reflected ray would have to leave along the axis of the charges radiating it — and a shaking charge sends nothing along the direction it shakes in.

optics · Polarisation What the return journey does to each of them. The rotation of the plane after a beam has gone through a rotator, been reflected, and come back, against the length of the rotator — divided by the one-way rotation, so the two answers are 0 and 2 and nothing else can happen. A naturally active medium is handed with respect to the beam: reverse the beam and the sense of the rotation reverses with it, and the second pass undoes the first exactly, at every length and every wavelength. A Faraday rotator is handed with respect to the field, which does not care which way the light is going, so the second pass adds to the first and the round trip is twice the single one: 1 mm of it gives 21.7° out and 43.4° back; 2 mm of it gives 43.4° out and 86.8° back; 4 mm of it gives 86.8° out and 173.6° back; 8 mm of it gives 173.6° out and 347.2° back. That is a violation of reciprocity, and it is only available because a magnetic field is odd under time reversal. Everything a passive optical component can do — a lens, a mirror, a waveplate, a piece of quartz — looks the same run backwards, and none of them can be made into a one-way street. This can.

The rotation a return trip doubles

Quartz turns the plane of polarisation and so does glass in a magnetic field. The two look identical on the way through and are opposites on the way back — the crystal undoes its own rotation exactly, and the magnet adds to it. That difference is the whole of why a one-way street for light can be built at all, and why nothing passive will ever be one.

optics · Polarisation One measurement that separates unpolarised from polarised. What a rotating linear polariser passes, against its angle, for beams of the same total intensity and degrees of polarisation 0, 0.35, 0.7, 1. Every curve has the same average — a polariser passes half of any beam over a whole turn, whatever its state — and they differ only in how deeply they modulate. The depth of the modulation is the degree of polarisation, exactly: a fully polarised beam goes to zero at one angle and a beam with no preferred direction gives a flat line at a half. That is the whole measurement, and it is why "unpolarised" is a statement about a modulation depth rather than about what a wave is doing.

The light with no direction of shaking

Unpolarised light is not a state of a wave; it is the absence of one, and no description of a single wave can represent it. What can is a set of four numbers, all of them powers a detector reads — and they describe every beam there is, including the ones that are neither polarised nor not.

optics · Polarisation

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

PolarisationSuperpositionRefractive indexBrewster's angleMeasurementProbability densitySnell's lawSpinTransverse and longitudinalBoundary conditionsCausalityChirality

All concepts