Did I Apply Malus' Law Correctly for Three Polarizers?

  • Archived
  • Thread starter IHateMayonnaise
  • Start date
  • Tags
    General Law
In summary, the conversation discusses a scenario involving three linear polarizers in series and an incident beam of light with intensity I_o. It is mentioned that when passing through the first polarizer, the intensity is reduced by half according to Malus' law. After passing through the second polarizer at an angle of 45^o, the intensity is further reduced to \frac{I_o}{4}. The third polarizer is then introduced, with an angle of 45^o relative to the previous filter, resulting in a final intensity of \frac{I_o}{8}. The question of whether a similar analysis can be applied to polarizers of different types is also raised.
  • #1
IHateMayonnaise
94
0
No specific question, just studying for the physics GRE and making sure that I remember all this correctly. Can someone verify or deny my rational? Here I go:

Say we have three linear polarizers in series, where [tex]\theta_1=0[/tex], and [tex]\theta_2=45^o[/tex] and [tex]\theta_3=90^o[/tex]. An incident beam of light (with intensity [tex]I_o[/tex]) goes through the first polarizer and loses half it's intensity, since the time average of Malus' law is equal to [tex]\frac{I_o}{2}[/tex]. Now, after the now diminished light passes through the second polarizer (oriented [tex]45^o[/tex] with respect to the first), the intensity is given by

[tex]I=\frac{I_o}{2}Cos(\theta_2)^2=\frac{I_o}{2}\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\right)^2=\frac{I_o}{4}[/tex]

So, when it passes through the third polarizer, the incident intensity is equal to [tex]\frac{I_o}{4}[/tex] and [tex]\theta_3=45^o[/tex]. This is where I'm confused. [tex]\theta_3=45^o[/tex] is the angle we choose because it is always with respect to the previous filter, not the original, since in that case we have [tex]\theta_3=90^o[/tex] and Malus' law warrants a big fat zero. So, the resultant intensity is equal to [tex]\frac{I_o}{8}[/tex].

Also: can an analysis of this sort be done with polarizers of different types (circular, elliptical)? I would assume that the equation would be somewhat different, but I would think that the general idea could be extended. Thanks yall

IHateMayonnaise
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You did it correct.it is always with respect to the previous filter.
 

FAQ: Did I Apply Malus' Law Correctly for Three Polarizers?

1. What is Malus' Law?

Malus' Law, also known as the Law of Polarization, is a mathematical equation that describes the relationship between the intensity of polarized light and the angle of the polarizer. It was discovered by French physicist Etienne-Louis Malus in 1808.

2. What is the mathematical equation for Malus' Law?

The mathematical equation for Malus' Law is I = I0cos2θ, where I is the intensity of the transmitted light, I0 is the initial intensity, and θ is the angle between the polarizer and the direction of polarization.

3. How does Malus' Law apply to real-life scenarios?

Malus' Law is commonly used in various fields such as optics, astronomy, and photography. It helps in understanding the behavior of polarized light in different materials and can be used to calculate the intensity of light passing through polarizing filters.

4. What are the key assumptions of Malus' Law?

The key assumptions of Malus' Law are that the initial light is completely unpolarized and that the polarizer and the analyzer are ideal, meaning they only allow polarized light to pass through and do not absorb or reflect any light.

5. Can Malus' Law be applied to non-visible light?

Yes, Malus' Law can be applied to non-visible light such as infrared and ultraviolet light. As long as the light is polarized and the key assumptions are met, the law can be used to calculate the intensity of the transmitted light.

Back
Top