Talk:Polarization (waves)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Working on lead paragraph

See discussion above, and the discussion of transverse polarization.

How about the following for the first paragraph?

Polarization (Brit. polarisation) is a property of waves that describes the direction of their oscillations. It is most commonly associated with light, which travels in free space as a transverse wave. For transverse waves, the polarization describes the orientation of the oscillations in the plane perpendicular to the wave's direction of travel. The oscillations may be oriented in a single direction (linear polarization), or the oscillation direction may rotate as the wave travels (circular or elliptical polarization). When light travels in a waveguide or optical fiber its waves can have both transverse and longitudinal oscillations. The polarization of these waves is more complex. For longitudinal waves such as sound waves in fluids, the direction of oscillation is by definition along the direction of travel.

I would really like to add "therefore longitudinal waves do not have polarization", but I don't think we have consensus for that.--Srleffler (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Mistake in introduction

It seems like there is a mistake in the Introduction to this page, when it has Real(Ax, Ay*e^i*phi,0)*e^(...). The real part of an exponential is the cosine, but the Real() operation is only shown operating on the other part of the equation. This looks like a typo. I apologize if this is not the proper place for this, I don't have time to read up on how to properly post this. -Richard

Fixed.--Srleffler (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Silmilarities?

I have at times wondered whether the polarization of Light and other electromagnetic radiations had ANYTHING to do with the polarization of electric charges separated in space (as for example between two electrodes). Considering that the phenomenon has the same name for both cases (i.e. Polarization); it would seem like they should be related at some level. It seems to me like the electric field component of the Poynting Vector (i.e. the direction of propagation) should force positive and negative charges apart in the direction of it's amplitude. Also, I seem to remember somewhere in Maxwell's equations the derived formula: Induced Electric Field Vector = [(Permitivity times Initial Electric Field Vector) + (Displacement Field Vector times Polarization Vector)]. The preceding equation makes me think that the polarization of the incoming radiation is caused by the movement of the electrical charges within the medium. Could someone please tell me if I am mistaken? Please excuse my non-Mathematical description of the formula which I seem to remember, as I do not know how to make bold, super, and subscripts (I suppose that I could have accessed the toolbar in MS Word but did not think of it). I wrote the word "times" in the equation instead of the letter "X" so as not to confuse it with vector (Cross Product) multiplication; as I remember it as scalar multiplication. Could someone please respond, thank you.JeepAssembler (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, when light propagates in a dielectric medium it creates a transient oscillating electric polarization. I believe this is why light propagates slower in media then it does in a vacuum. When light enters a conductive medium, the electrons are free to move, so they oscillate with the same frequency as the light wave's oscillating electric field. This efficiently extracts energy from the light wave. The oscillating electrons radiate, producing a new light wave. Interference causes the new wave to cancel except in the direction that satisfies the law of reflection. --Srleffler (talk) 04:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Image:Elliptical_polarization_schematic.png

Hello!

This bot has detected that this page contains an image, Image:Elliptical_polarization_schematic.png, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:Polarisation (Elliptical).svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

I've no quarrels with the content arguments but I have strong feelings as to the current fragmented structure[1] being, I believe, faulty and unencyclopedic. Would appreciate active members' participation with suggestions.
Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

If no one steps up, I'd be forced to make a (second) attempt myself. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I took a stab at it.--Srleffler (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I like it. There is one more idea I would like to see included, although I do not know how best to do it right now. Polarization only becomes interesting when the waves are 3 dimensional, so that the oscillation can be decomposed into two orthogonal components. This keeps getting glossed over, and, I think, ignoring this makes it harder for people to understand polarization. I know the idea is introduced below, and is discussed in the transverse wave article, but I still think it deserves a brief mention here too. Maybe you can see a way to say that in the intro. --AJim (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you thinking about water waves as examples of two-dimensional waves? Generally, I think introducing an abstract concept like dimensionality is more likely to be confusing than enlightening to a general audience. Water waves don't have meaningful polarization because the water only oscillates up and down, not side to side. If it could oscillate side to side as well, there would be two polarizations.--Srleffler (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree the water example is a problem. Because the waves are confined to a surface, polarization is not an interesting concept; all waves are linearly polarized in the same direction. It is only when the second dimension of transverse motion is possible that you get interesting polarization. At that point it is not a case of "two polarizations", it is the full phenomenon; it hinges on having the second dimension. I started the plane wave description a few years ago; the plane wave approximation was the way I was taught. But now I wonder if using a ray might make an easier introduction, that is not bother about the infinite extent, etc., and just focus on the two dimensions of wave motion along the ray. There was no transverse wave article when I started to work on this; those concepts are critical. I extended the waves on a string introduction to transverse wave recently, and it seemed to work well to explain the idea to people new to the concept of polarization. I guess I would be satisfied if the introduction said something like "two dimensional transverse wave" instead of just "transverse wave". A few years ago the polarization intro did say something like that. It was changed from "two dimensional" to "vector", which I think is less clear, and was then lost entirely. --AJim (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Incoherent radiation

The "Incoherent radiation" section seems to be deeply flawed. While there is a connection between incoherent emission and lack of polarization, it is more complicated than the section indicates. Incoherent light can be fully polarized, and coherent light from a laser can be completely unpolarized. --Srleffler (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

mistake in definition of stokes parameters

there is a mistake in the definition of the stokes parameters.

S1 should be S1=Ip cos2psi cos2chi

S2 should be S2=Ip sin2psi cos2chi

argh I'm sure I've fixed that before ... anyway, fixed now! -- Rkundalini 00:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The numbering of Pauli matrices also seems wrong (or non-standard). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.111.218.42 (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancies like that usually turn out to be just notational differences between different authors or different fields. Arbitrary sign conventions and other types of convention can affect the appearance of expressions.--Srleffler (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Satellite television

Can anybody add information about horizontal and vertical polarization in satellite television (for satellite channels)?. Thanks in advance.

Most satellites do not have a fixed orientation with respect to an earth observer, and spin as they revolve, and so are circularly polarized. A satellite would probably have to be geostationary (or at least geosynchronous) and non-spinning to have a linear polarization. Even then, it would only be a fixed orientation, and only coincidentally horizontally or vertically polarized. Also, usually a sat antenna points UP, making horizontal / vertical polarization kinda meaningless, as both would be in the wrong plane. --ssd 00:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That is not exactly precise. If a satellite antenna were linearly polarized, the satellite's spinning would make the polarization change, not be circular. To reliably receive a rotating linear polarization with one receiver, one needs a circularly polarized antenna. I am not sure about the propagation or what satellites actually transmit. David R. Ingham 22:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Current sattellites: Different signal in both linear polarizations. Old el cheapo rotating sattelites: Circular

Geosynchronous communication satellites use station keeping thrusters and gyroscopes to keep their orientation relative to earth fixed, thus a linearly polarized transmit antenna will always produce the same polarization at a given receiving location on earth. Current practice for most US domestic satellites is to use dual linear polarization, with odd numbered transponders having one polarization and even numbered transponders having the orthogonal polarization. This allows the reuse of frequencies on the same satellite with receive antenna polarization used to discriminate between two transponders operating on the same frequency. (Usually transponder frequency plans have transponders half overlapped. That is, the center frequency of one transponder falls at the edges of the two adjacent frequency transponders.)

The two polarizations do not necessarily correspond to vertical and horizontal relative to the earth. Indeed, a little thought to the geometry of the situation shows that for a fixed polarization orientation at the transmit antenna at the satellite, orientation of the polarization at the receive end will vary with geographical location. When describing the pointing parameters for a satellite receive antenna at any particular location on earth, in addition to providing the azimuth and elevation angles, you also have to provide a polarization angle which delineates the angle of one of the receive polarizations relative to level.

Many international satellite providers, such as Intelsat, use circularly polarized transmit antennas with adjacent transponders having opposite polarization senses.

Ooops - forgot to sign. 24.22.22.228 (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Gray

SIMPLE ENGLISH!

Can someone write a Simple English version of this page. PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! Don't be an asshole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.70.249.102 (talk) 19:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a rough draft at simple:Polarization. But it needs more illustrations and other work. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the simple English article. I think this article should either (a) have a tag on it saying it's too technical and has to be made easier to understand for the layperson and/or (b) should have a link AT THE TOP to the simple English version. I consider myself to be a fairly well educated person with an interest in science, but no physics background. Although I'm confident the introduction is a very accurate description, I basically understood nothing of it. At least, with the simple English version, I could get the gist, thanks to the metaphors.Star-lists (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sunglasses and eye protection

My optometrist said that for optimal protection, sunglasses should have both UV protection and polarization. I wouldn't assume that I know more than an optometrist, but I can think of no reason why polarization would protect one's eyes better. Thoughts? 98.141.72.165 (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure they provide much extra protection, but I wouldn't buy a pair of non-polarized sunglasses. Polarized ones just work better, since they cut reflections from ground and water dramatically. I guess they protect your eyes better, since they cut out these sources of glare. I think it's more about effectiveness than protection, though.--Srleffler (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Polarized sun glasses can play havoc on being able to read LCD displays found on some auto dashes, since the LCD displays use polarized light to operate. 24.22.22.228 (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Gray

Axial Ratio

The discussion of axial ratio under the heading "Parameterization" is not correct. The axial ratio is defined as the ratio of the major axis to the minor axis, and thus it is always greater than unity. For linear polarization the AR is infinity, not zero as stated. Also, in the figure defining the angles, the angle Chi should be related to the axial ratio as cot(Chi) = AR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.206.76 (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like the text was confused between conflicting definitions of "ellipticity". Some authors define it as minor over major axis rather than major over minor. I adjusted the text.--Srleffler (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The error was introduced in July—the article formerly used the minor-over-major definition. An editor changed the definition, but did not check that the new definition was consistent with the text immediately below it.--Srleffler (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigma

σ₊ and σ_- refer to the two directions in which the E-field in circularly polarized light rotates. Is it therefore sensible to say that s-polarized light is also referred to as sigma polarization? I'm not convinced I've seen sigma used like this before, and using it here may be confusing.Mattyp9999 (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We have to document actual uses of terms, even if there are different sets of terminology that are not consistent with one another. Of course, we should document usage in a way that is clear and does not confuse the reader. It doesn't matter whether it is "sensible" to call s-polarized light "sigma polarized". It only matters whether reliable sources actually do refer to s-polarized light that way.--Srleffler (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was superseded by Talk:Polarization#Requested_move.  Skomorokh  07:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Polarization (waves) → Polarization — Page was moved without any discussion. Propose moving it back. --Srleffler (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC) This page should not have been moved without some discussion. The move has also not been completely implemented; there are broken links. I'm not sure whether it would be best to fix the links, or move the page back. We should discuss it.--Srleffler (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I redirected Polarization to here for now, since the links to that page are intended to point to this article. If there is consensus that Polarization should redirect to the dab page, someone will have to fix every current link to Polarization to point here instead. Before we do that, though, we should make sure that there is actually consensus for this move. --Srleffler (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

See also Talk:Polarization (disambiguation)#Requested move--Srleffler (talk) 05:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I think political polarization would have atleast equal footing with this. 70.29.211.163 (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"It"

(In the intro) I replaced the word "it" with "polarization", because, otherwise the sentence comes across as saying that light propagates as a transverse wave. I think that is not the intended meaning. Hopefully this makes sense (see diff). In addition, this is not about whether or not polarization is perpendicular. I guess that is a topic for discussion. Thanks. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I undid your change. The sentence was carefully worded, and correct as written: in most cases, light in free space propagates as a transverse wave.--Srleffler (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

relationship between Jones vector and axial ratio/tilt angle formulation

There is an equivalence between the Jones vector description (based on R and L circular polarizations) and the axial ratio/tilt angle description of polarization. It would be really great if this could be made explicit, with transformations being shown for both directions. This would help to unify the discussion of the two descriptions. I can supply two of the four relevant equations:

axial ratio= (abs(R) + abs(L)) / (abs(R) - abs(L))

tilt angle= 0.5 * arg(R/L)= 0.5 * (arg(R) - arg(L))

Dr. Phillip M. Feldman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfeldman (talk • contribs) 00:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you also provide a reference for this material? One of our goals is to have citations to reliable sources for everything we can. Such citations are also useful for catching errors (typos, conflicts in variable definitions or sign conventions, etc.)--Srleffler (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

new diagram

Ive created a new diagram related to polarisation, i leave it here for someone to inlude in a relevant place if it is up to par.

Adding Axis to polarization diagram

I would really recommend adding axis to the polarization diagrams, it got me confused studying for this personally. And its not really scientific not including the axis. I never contributed to wikicommons before, so I am not sure how to add this myself, moreover it seems I am not auto-confirmed. Here are the suggested images: [2] GuySoft (talk) 15:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

s and p polarization

The "Parametrization" section concerning the meaning of the "parallel" and "perpendicular" components is really off. The direction of the components has nothing to do with the surface or whatever of any Earth or what is used as directions in Astronomy, but is *only* related to the plane of incidence. Sure, if the mirror train is all horizontal (as what is found on a standard laboratory table), then it happens that the plane of incidence of the beam (which stays horizontal for all reflections) is the same for the entire setup, but this is simply convenience not to climb ladders. But if you are looking at some optical astronomical telescopes which points roughly to the zenit, light falls in vertically, and the s and p polarizations are just defined arbitrarily until the first mirror is hit that breaks that symmetry and pushes the beam sideways. Basically, the s-or-p definition make only sense if it's related to either the previous or the next surface. If someone is building a folded instrument with vertical "layers" of mirrors etc to keep the housing small, there may be as many different directions of s and p as there are mirrors.

Also note that the *magnetic*, not the *electric* component defines the s- and p-polarization, for historical reasons (see a text book like Born for example), although this is (for standard reasons) the worse choice of the two.

The section "Unpolarized light" mingles "correlation" and "polarization". Correlation is defined in time, space and with respect to polarization, Unpolarized light may very well be completely correlated in phase: a camera will still work even in standard daylight situations, because interference needs correlation in only one of the two polarization states. R. J. Mathar (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but it looks like you may have misread what the "Parameterization" section says. The designation of light as s- or p-polarized is, as you say, always done with reference to the plane of incidence. The article does not assert otherwise. You may have been confused by the fact that the article referred to a diagram showing the geometry, which is no longer present (the file was deleted).

Describing polarization of light in terms of s and p polarization works great if one is describing the interaction of light with a single surface. If one wants to describe the propagation of light through a more complicated optical system, however, one typically chooses a fixed coordinate system in which to represent the light's polarization state. For the common case of light propagating horizontally, a common choice is to consider polarization components that are vertical and horizontal. When the light intersects a surface, one must calculate the s- and p-components from the known vertical and horizontal polarization components in the incident light. Modern optical software automates this process.--Srleffler (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Diagram needed

--Srleffler (talk) 03:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

citation for S and P Polarization section

If I am interpretting the article text correctly, an example of " and certain authors do refer to light with p-like electric field as TE and light with s-like electric field as TM" which is marked citation required is the Dover book "Modern Optics" by Fowles (section 2.7). Somebody else more familiar with the subject should probably verify. Peeter.joot (talk) 04:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Malus and the discover of polarization

In the section "In nature and photography" it says that Malus discovered polarization of light. This is certainly not true. He discovered polarization by reflection. --AJim (talk) 06:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

History section needed

So who did discover polarization of light, or at least first observe phenomena now known to be due to polarized light? And who first understood the essential nature of plane polarized light? And of circularly polarized light? This article needs a section called History to answer these questions. Now we just have a few hints buried in various application sections. Dirac66 (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I see that some of the answers are at Optical rotation#History, although without sources. Should we copy some of that section here? Dirac66 (talk) 03:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see much history of polarization itself in that article, just history of the discovery of rotation of polarization by certain materials. I agree, though, that this article needs a history section.--Srleffler (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Radio Transmission

To clarify a bit about transmission polarization in broadcasting, especially US domestic practice.

AM broadcasting (though we should probably say, medium wave broadcasting, since the polarization used is not a function of modulation but of frequency) is universally vertically polarized, both in the US and internationally. Generally the tower itself is the radiator, most being insulated from ground.

Television broadcasting in the US, both VHF and UHF, is overwhelmingly horizontally polarized, though some stations employ circular polarization. Other than certain classes of low power television stations, television stations in the US are not permitted to broadcast using vertical polarization only. The classic outdoor television receiving antenna is horizontally polarized log periodic dipole array or Yagi-Uda.

FM broadcast stations in the US are overwhelmingly circularly polarized, though horizontal polarization only was standard up until the late 60's, when circular polarization was first permitted. In the US, other than certain classes of low power FM stations and some stations operating in the band between 88.1 and 91.9 MHz to protect near by Channel 6 television stations, vertical polarization only is not permitted.

Practice outside of the US varies from country to country, with some jurisdictions unconcerned with polarization, some specifying horizontal only and some specifying vertical polarization only. 24.22.22.228 (talk) 02:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Gray

If you don't edit the article, this talk will soon be lost and gone.Fgnievinski (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

bloated

this subject is important. the article needs rescue. it's too big. I'll ignore the measurements & applications sections. the theory section is bloated almost beyond repair. it absolutely has to be made leaner, or else it'll collapse under its own weight. that means moving portions into child articles. the only hope is for the theory section to be written as an overview. the vision is: let each topic article discuss its own polarization aspects instead of having this monstrous article talking about every topic's polarization aspects. please help. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right that it's bloated, but I would go after the sections that don't have much to do with polarization per se, such as section 1.1.1. And there is more than a bit of duplication, but that is typical in Wikipedia where multiple authors have rewritten the same thing and it's a lot of work to consolidate them without either losing material or clarity. I'd get rid of some of the esoteric stuff, section 1.2.4.3 Coherency matrix (which indeed should be its own page) and 1.2.4.4.1 Pauli matrices. But I don't think splitting the material off into other pages (especially when they don't exist yet, or contain no useful content) is a solution. It's OK and expected that this page should mention everything having mainly to do with polarization or which have to do with polarization and aren't going to be covered elsewhere.

Thanks to Fgnievinski for your efforts, and let us try to further improve the page. But not just through slash and burn ;-) Interferometrist (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry about deletion of anchors etc.!Interferometrist (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll take some time off. Right now I can only think that we've inherited a white elephant. Maybe starting a Template:Talkspace draft of an outline-type article would help (Wikipedia:Delete the junk#Why starting from scratch can be an advantage). Thanks for the consideration. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

But let me take the time to point out a fundamental difference that hopefully can be reconciled. What is it that you offer as an alternative to splitting the material off into other pages? In my view that is the only option currently on the table, even if that means creating a new polarization section in the target articles. It's NOT OK to have this page mentioning everything about polarization. For example, if dichroism doesn't care to mention polarization, the reverse must be true. The focus here should be on cross-cutting issues. Otherwise it'll never reach a manageable size. Again, any alternatives? Fgnievinski (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm quite busy and need to take time off as well. If someone was getting paid to create this article, I'm sure s/he could rewrite the article, making it half as long (even without relegating material to separate pages) without compromising any information of importance, and much more readable. But unless you have that kind of time to devote to it (I certainly don't!) it isn't an option, so just starting from scratch isn't realistic. I would start with the current structure (more or less) which I DO think is logical (and you improved it) but make some of the sections more concise, remove some of the more esoteric material (but hopefully finding a place elsewhere on Wikipedia for it), and separate out some material which indeed deserves its own article. But just moving material to a different page doesn't really help if it means someone trying to learn the material needs to go off-page for essential aspects of the presentation, especially if that page doesn't already exist, and even more so when most of the traffic reading the child article would only have found it from the main page. Otherwise it's just as easy for someone to skip a section which they don't want to go into. That works best if it's something way down in the article, but if it's earlier in the article, you don't want someone giving up when they run into some heavy math when they just wanted a layperson's description, for instance. So that's the challenge.

Even when an appropriate separate page already exists, that shouldn't be an invitation to offload material there. For instance, the birefringence page (which I've also edited) does not (and probably SHOULD NOT) go into Jone's calculus. That page concentrates on birefringent materials themselves and this page describes wave propagation through them. That detail wouldn't belong on the birefringence page, and making that page dense with math would likewise make that page less accessible to the casual reader. Likewise the page on Fresnel coefficients isn't about transformation of polarization, just reflection. However I do think the material on transverse waves (as you originally had tagged) should indeed be read elsewhere, and only take up a paragraph on this page. Unfortunately the other two pages that could be linked to are not in good shape (would you want to rewrite those pages, which I've also proposed for merging?). Section 2.4 isn't what most readers are going to be interested in (it has to do with light that ISN'T polarized!), and should mainly provide an overview of Stokes parameters (and the Poincare sphere) which there is a page about.

Looking at the article as if I were a layperson, the biggest problem I see is that someone has to wade through section 1 (supposedly an "introduction") before getting to section 2 (and beyond) where polarization is really discussed. It was laid out more like a textbook where you lay out the basic math and definitions before talking about the subject at hand.

Your thoughts? Interferometrist (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

@Interferometrist: Hi. Let me offer a good counter-example which I recently came across: circular dichroism. Can you imagine if we were to try to incorporate that level of detail here or even in circular polarization? Well, that's how I see most of the present sections. There doesn't need to be more than a sentence or a paragraph about polarization in dichroism, polarization in reflection, polarizatin in birefringence. That's because someone who is interested in any of these is hardly interested in all of them. The guideline is clear: WP:Summary style applies here. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Interferometrist: Let me know if there persists any contention in disfavor of WP:Summary style; if I don't hear anything, I'll start dumping these specific sections into their respective main articles -- or else the present article will remain unmanageable. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Gravity is an electromagnetic wave?

Since when did these fundamental forces merge? Also gravitational waves remain theoretical, not having been observed directly yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.77.109 (talk) 21:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

It isn't. The sentence was poorly phrased.--Srleffler (talk) 01:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, apologies to Srleffler.... I saw this on the talk page first and edited the lede even though you had already resolved the ambiguity complained about here. Interferometrist (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Splitting Poincaré sphere

Poincaré sphere can be used for both polarized and unpolarized light, e.g., poles are circularly polarized, equator is linearly polarized. Jones vectors can be mapped to a point on the sphere just just Stokes vectors. Fgnievinski (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

The other meaning of polarization in physics

Polarity is often used in physics to describe binary distinctions such as the north and south poles of a magnet or the positive and negative terminals of an electrical source. No such binary distinction exists for the notion in optics however, where it refers instead to asymmetries in the plane normal to the ray (though a binary distinction exists in the case of the chirality of circularly polarized light).

I mention this because the New York Times Magazine has an April 7 article by Mark Leibovich on polarization in politics which says "Polarization is an idea from physics. In 1808, the French engineer Étienne-Louis Malus noticed that a calcite crystal could block or transmit various kinds of light, depending on the angle by which you viewed it." Perhaps something more than just the hat note to "other uses" is needed in order to steer people to the proper connection in physics, namely those situations in which binary distinctions are made. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Even in optics, "polarization" refers to a binary distinction. In the simple case of a linearly polarized plane wave, for example, you can describe the light as a mixture of vertically and horizontally polarized light. Two "orthogonal" states. --Srleffler (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually you are right, there is a rather different (and more general) connotation to the word. It has to do with polarity, that is, the state of having a division between two poles (such as "political polarization"). This more basic meaning is indeed used in physics in relation to fields but is so general that it doesn't require an article. Polarization in this article is more unambiguously called "State of Polarization" but colloquially just polarization. The oscillation of the electric or magnetic field (or the motion of particles in acoustics, etc.) is indeed a polarization in the former sense -- at any instant there is an electric field thus a polarity -- but since that's true for any wave, the distinctive property is the direction (or state) of the polarization. I'm not sure how to mention the first definition within the article without being a distraction, and if someone thereby came to the page by accident then hopefully they'd consult a dictionary to find the more basic definition.Interferometrist (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually I see now that at the top of the page there is a "For other uses, see Polarization (disambiguation)." Perhaps the disambiguation page doesn't include the most general meaning I mentioned because it doesn't merit a page, but in any case the problem is on that page, not this one.Interferometrist (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Orthogonality

From the article:

Note that given that relationship, the dot product of E and H must be zero:

${\vec {E}}({\vec {r}},t)\cdot {\vec {H}}({\vec {r}},t)=e_{x}h_{x}+e_{y}h_{y}+e_{z}h_{z}=e_{x}(-e_{y}/\eta )+e_{y}(e_{x}/\eta )+0\cdot 0=0$

indicating that these vectors are orthogonal (at right angles to each other), as expected.

I can't understand this. E and H are complex, and we have computed a complex dot product above. But it is their real parts that should be orthogonal. For these are the true (x,y,z,t)-dependent physical fields, as opposed to the phasor coding of the fields by four complex numbers. So shouldn't we be computing Re(E) ⋅ Re(H), as functions of (x,y,z,t)? Then we get

Re(E) ⋅ Re(H) = Re ( e exp(i(kz - ωt))) ⋅ Re ( h exp(kz - ωt))

= Re ( (e_x,e_y,0) exp(i(kz - ωt))) ⋅ Re ( (h_x,h_y,0) exp(i(kz - ωt)))

= Re (e_x exp(i(kz - ωt))) Re (h_x exp(i(kz - ωt))) + Re (e_y exp(i(kz - ωt))) Re (h_y exp(i(kz - ωt)))

= Re (e_x exp(i(kz - ωt))) Re ((-e_y/η) exp(i(kz - ωt))) + Re (e_y exp(i(kz - ωt))) Re ((e_x/η) exp(i(kz - ωt)))

= 0

if the impedance η is real, as is the case in free space.

I don't see how to get this calculation from the one given in the article. Is there some general shorthand computation principle relating the complex dot product of the phasor coding, as computed in the article, with the dot product of the actual physical E and H fields, computed above?

If η is not necessarily real, the above expression has the general form

-Re(au) Re(bu/η) + Re(bu) Re (au/η) = - Re(c) Re(d/η) + Re(d) Re(c/η) = -Re(c) Re(f) + Re(c/η) Re(fη)

for arbitrary complex numbers. This won't vanish in general.

Does this mean that electromagnetic waves are not orthogonal in a conducting medium, or just that the phasor vectors aren't orthogonal (for the complex dot product) and can't be related using η? This doesn't make sense to me. Or what am I missing?

178.38.191.160 (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 20 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. The supporters make a good case for natural disambiguation, but opinions are clearly split on whether the proposed form "wave polarization" (in and of itself, absent qualifiers such as "seismic wave polorazation") is really a much used or recognizable title for this phenomenon, and no definitive evidence for that was presented.(non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Polarization (waves) → Wave polarization – Natural disambiguation is the preferred method, and the suggested title is well attested in the literature, see https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Wave+polarization%22 . No such user (talk) 12:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support based on natural disambiguation. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Wave polarization" sounds awkward and archaic. The phenomenon is typically referred to just as polarization.--Srleffler (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  However, even for a physics buff, this is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term (molecular/dipolar polarization being as equally important), so it requires disambiguation. WP:NATURAL recommends that Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names. Google books search for the exact phrase gives "about 19000 results". (yeah, I know...) I would argue that "Polarization (waves)" is far more awkward title. No such user (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. You just don't hear the term "wave polarization" ever used. Even to differentiate from other uses of "polarization" in the same paper. If someone got to this page it is because they are concerned with waves (thus the disambiguation in parenthesis, only) where you don't need to further qualify it. If this page were to be renamed (in order to "naturally disambiguate" it), it should be called State of Polarization. But that would confuse too many people who only have heard about the "polarization of light" etc. So keep it.Interferometrist (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support, but if it is too awkward, move instead to Wave propagation and polarization, per the Introduction section. I do agree it sounds a little awkward, and also that the lede reads awkwardly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support also Polarization of waves. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support: either the proposal or Polarization of waves would be less awkward than the current title. fgnievinski (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NATURALDIS; "wave polarization" is clearly an established term with over 19k Google Books hits. Polarization of waves would also be fine, with 11k+ Gbooks hits.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Google counting is not all that useful or accurate, and most of the hits have the words "wave polarization" used as part of a phrase: "seismic wave polarization", "evanescent-wave polarization", "incident wave polarization", "P-wave polarization", "probe wave polarization", etc. Of the first ten hits that have a snippet, only two are using "wave polarization" by itself as a noun phrase, and one of those is using that phrase to distinguish from antenna polarization. Altogether, the google search does not provide good support for your argument.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Srleffler (talk • contribs)

Are references to "seismic wave polarization", etc., not references to the topic of this article? At any rate, sources like these[3][4][5][6] show that the phrase is well established, meaning it's suitable WP:NATURALDIS.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

References that use phrases like "seismic wave polarization" are not relevant to the question at hand, but the sources you link to above are good.--Srleffler (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose As Interferometrist says above, the proposed term is simply not in common use (other than as part of a compound phrase such as "incident wave polarization"). There's nothing 'natural' about making up a stand-alone term that is never or virtually never used in physics and using that as an article title. Either keep the title as it is, or change to 'Polarization of waves'. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Putting the word "wave" first misses the point, and is confusing. As has been noted, people come here to learn about polarization, not about waves. I do not think the proposed change is natural or disambiguating. I do think that "Polarization of waves" is about equally as good as "Polarization (waves)", but there are a lot of links to the current title already. Changing the title seems like a lot of work just to make the English a little better. AJim (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lede claims gravitational waves are polarized.

The lede (lead) makes the completely speculative assertion that gravity waves are polarized. I challenge this. It is BELIEVED, based on theory, that they are capable of polarization. Since this has NEVER been observed or even indirectly verified, it has no place as an established fact. Obviously.173.191.243.18 (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed the claim, since it is not supported by a reference to a reliable source.--Srleffler (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2016 (UTC)