Polarisation

[@zoneface1]

You're my hero. I'm not even kidding. Doing a Physics major and I'd be crying in a ditch without you.

[@niclassamuelsson9087]

I love that you show proofs, keep it up! :)

[@DrPhysicsA]

the electromagnetic radiation consists of a changing electric field which is also changing in polarity. The electron will of course always move in the opposite direction of the electric field vector but that is constantly changing so the electron will oscillate.

[@atsul.7943]

Nice tut. At long last, am getting a grasp on this concept now. Infact your series matched the objectives of a course I am doing in physical optics.

[@revgro]

Great video. I now understand why a vertical/45-degree/horizontal filter combination, and the twist in an LCD works.

[@connor9018]

hi i am 14 years old and i have started an A level in physics 2 years early and i think your videos are brilliant so thanks.

[@chakflying1]

Can I say that the photon isn't actually oscillating in two different phase at the same time, but that the circular pattern of the wave can be described in terms of X Y components?

[@tomroper147]

Was wondering how do we still see light after the electric/magnetic field is cancelled in sun glasses for instance? Because surely you need both for visible light, is it to do with the verticle/horizontal component being still present after polerisation

[@fizixx]

I like your explanations. Thank you.

[@stephenangus7296]

when polarized light is reduced to zero. that being a directional vectorization specifically, does that mean a input now allows a gap for output. ?

[@adosar7261]

does unpolarized light oscilates in all directions at the same time or as the time flows the direction changes ? also why the light from sun or bulbs is unpolarized ? do the waves be in superposition ?

[@EnellGmz]

Why do the electromagnetic waves which are produced from an LC circuit, out of phase close to the circuit but in phase when far from it?

[@Jameshf007]

Why doesn't a polariser behave as a diffracting grating when slits are involved as well? Appreciate if you could explain. Thanks in advance

[@MsRanitaVerde]

At, 35:39, wouldn't an electron be accelerated opposite to the direction of the electric field? I mean, if it is F=q*E, and q

[@DrPhysicsA]

Thanks. Yes you are right but it will still oscillate as the E field oscillates, but in the opposite direction.

[@anupcrash]

Omg... :)

[@textboxdesign]

Question about polarisation trick: So If we have unpolarised light and we send it through horizontally oriented polarised it comes out polarised and it gets blocked totally by vertically oriented polariser. Simply scribbling it as: ********[-]- - - - [|] (!!!nothing here!!!) So is it the case if we put third polariser in between those two - a one that is oriented at 45deg then at the end after third polariser we get some light this time? Scribbling it as: ********[-]- - - - [/] / / [|] | (where number of * and - and / and | means intensity of the light for that polarisation) So by adding third polariser between those two we force light to skew its polarisation a bit to come through the last polariser (of course at the "cost" of intensity)

[@blugreen99]

Nobody explains why the tranverse magnetic field is not stoppedby vertical polarizer.?

[@techhelp1941]

Sir I have a question, If universe is continously expanding with an acceleratory rate and everything is in non inertial frame of reference then inertial frame of reference does make any sense?

[@vagmahesh]

Want to address two things.. a).. when u talk about the acceleration of the electrons, the electrons always get accelerated in the OPPOSITE direction of the E fields.. i know it really doesn't matter.. but just wanted to point out :) b) I don't understand why many people say B = E/c and hence B is very small compared to E.. That does not make sense to me because u just cannot compare B and E.. they are apples and oranges.. Its like saying distance travelled by light d = ct .. or t = d/c .. hence t time which is measured in seconds is very small compared to d = distance measured in meters.. .So.. am i missing something?! i have seen many professors say , that in a EM wave B is very small compared to E.. but i just feel that is not right!.. :O

[@stefankirsch6061]

I have a question regarding unpolarized light: I thought from previews videos that the light waves add up or cancel each other out if they meet. So in case of a variety of different polarisation planes in one ray of light wouldn't these planes just add up and cancel out to finally result in just one wave? Or is it that when you're talking about unpolarized light, you rather mean several consecutive light rays, that are just not polarized in the same plane but travelling in the same direction? Great videos by the way, I also appreciate that you respond to so many questions!

[@Berto7948]

Awesome video!! Thanks for posting!

[@puneetkumarsingh2989]

What happens to the magnetic field because if an electric field is parallel to transmission axis , the magnetic field must be perpendicular to the axis. Does it is blocked there itself? If yes, then why do we see light because light is composed of both the fields?

[@tanmoydutta5846]

Puneet Kumar Singh You are making a mistake there...an electric field in an electromagnetic wave can never travel parallel to the transmission or propagation axis since it is a transverse wave. Ok??

[@jjeon9850]

Brilliant video.

[@sasha7064570]

Thank you for the effort and time! It is very helpful.

[@prachisikarwar3567]

NYC explanation

[@622572]

Thanks you for the lesson it helps a lot

[@shubhammishra2223]

Actually. E=nhf, so decrease in E means decrease in 'n' - no. of photons and not decrease in h

[@tanmoydutta5846]

Shubham Mishra Actually, it can't be.. because this equation was created keeping in mind the quantum of light or "photons". So, it states what energy each photon carries. If you want to talk about n photons in a light beam, it's never possible to do so because in quantum mechanics, we can only make a probabilistic approach to the number of photons and this will not give us an actual result.

[@natotem]

41:33 speech glitch

[@arahman1404]

Verry helpfull indeed thank you sirr!! :)

[@654321123able]

excellent...

[@nahnahnah30]

love ya

[@elektropassgo]

I respect your wonderful teachings, but you spelled 'Polarization' wrong... >_>

[@giacomoly]

Polarisation = UK Polarization = US They're interchangeable

[@blugreen99]

Average over time or theta? It's theta!

[@revgro]

Below is a Sixty Symbols KZbin video on polarization that complements this video. It's worth watching. /watch?v=KM2TkM0hzW8

[@iceyred6668]

A new near-zone electric field-strength meter. - WorldCat //.,.>/Nd.D

[@iceyred6668]

Private Day School | Washington, DC | Electromagnetic Fields Mvc.N/.,.