Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #691474 > unrolled thread

Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 13:40 -0700
    Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-06-21 16:33 -0700
    Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-21 23:40 +0000
      Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-06-21 16:49 -0700
        Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 06:28 -0700
          Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-22 13:45 +0000
            Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-06-23 00:54 -0700
              Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-23 07:09 -0700
                Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-23 16:16 -0400
                  Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 05:42 -0700
                Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-06-23 16:16 -0700
                Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-23 23:59 +0000
                  Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 05:56 -0700
                    Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 13:17 +0000
                      Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 06:29 -0700
                        Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 13:31 +0000
                      Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 06:55 -0700
                        Re: Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-24 15:22 +0000
                          Re: Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 09:44 -0700
                            Re: Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-24 17:11 +0000
                              Re: Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 11:39 -0700
                                Re: Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-24 21:46 +0000
                            Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 23:21 +0000
                              Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 19:52 -0700
                                Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 14:07 +0000
                              Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 19:54 -0700
                                Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-24 19:58 -0700
                                  Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 14:07 +0000
                      Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. poraty149@gmail.com - 2018-06-24 08:49 -0700
                    Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-24 15:12 +0000
    Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-22 17:27 -0500
      Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 22:48 +0000
        Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-22 20:44 -0400
        Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-06-23 01:25 +0000
          Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-06-22 22:54 -0700
      Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-22 20:42 -0400
        Re: Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-23 19:56 -0500

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#691474 — Light wave circularly polarized? No, it’s not.

Polarization switches from clockwise to counterclockwise and back every cycle.
They’re actually figure-eightly polarized.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#691491

On Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 11:40:20 PM UTC+3, john wrote:
> Polarization switches from clockwise to counterclockwise and back every cycle.
> They’re actually figure-eightly polarized.
==========================
if    so
why should it be like that ??!!
====
TIA
Y.P
==========

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691492

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>Polarization switches from clockwise to counterclockwise and back every cyc>le.
>They’re actually figure-eightly polarized.

And your evidence of this is...?

Oh that's right, you believe in making stuff up, not evidence.

Also, explain how polarized sunglasses work.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691494

On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 2:40:19 AM UTC+3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >Polarization switches from clockwise to counterclockwise and back every cyc>le.
> >They’re actually figure-eightly polarized.
> 
> And your evidence of this is...?
> 
> Oh that's right, you believe in making stuff up, not evidence.
> 
> Also, explain how polarized sunglasses work.
=============================
and you Moroney??
what is  your understanding of that issue !!
=
TIA
Y.P
=========================================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691546

porat 
“===================== 
and you Moroney?? 
what is  your understanding of that issue !! 
= 
TIA ”
MM?
Understand?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691547

John wrote:

>"porat
>=====================
>and you Moroney??
>what is  your understanding of that issue !!
>=
>TIA "
>MM?
>Understand?

Look it up. Light is polarized in a plane, or can be elliptically
polarized. Polaroid film will restrict light passing through it to
polarization in a plane, blocking the proportion polarized perpendicular
to it.

This has the cool effect where two polarized sheets will either pass
the same amount of light as one, or block ALL the light passing through
it, depending only on the orientation of the two sheets with respect
to each other.

Explain THAT with your figure 8 polarization, John! You can't!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691635

On Friday, June 22, 2018 at 4:45:56 PM UTC+3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> John wrote:
> 
> >"porat
> >=====================
> >and you Moroney??
> >what is  your understanding of that issue !!
> >=
> >TIA "
> >MM?
> >Understand?
> 
> Look it up. Light is polarized in a plane, or can be elliptically
> polarized. Polaroid film will restrict light passing through it to
> polarization in a plane, blocking the proportion polarized perpendicular
> to it.
============================================
thank you Moroney 
right !!

but don't you understand what you Saied just above ??
 is a prove :

(for a person that id trained about 3D.....)
that the wave of the photon is …….

3D !!!! !!!

and that is one of the reasons that I suggested 
the  ** helix model***   for the photon wave !!!!!

THAT IS NOT DONE BY A F EN   ' CURVED SPACE'  
BUT BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THAT  NOT KNOWN UNTILL NOW 

(except to  myself   (:=) 
and may be you could guess my thought s 
that I repeated on and on  here   in this  n g 

==
TIA
Y.P

======================!! ….

 
> 
> This has the cool effect where two polarized sheets will either pass
> the same amount of light as one, or block ALL the light passing through
> it, depending only on the orientation of the two sheets with respect
> to each other.
> 
> Explain THAT with your figure 8 polarization, John! You can't!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691645

As light travels, it is constantly drawing one figure eight  every wavelength. The Poynting value goes to zero at the top of the eight (parallel with Center), to maximum at the crossing of the eight (maximum displacement in front of Center), to zero at the bottom of the eight, and back to 100% at the crossing, again.
That is why Poynting goes to zero twice per cycle.

But I’m sure MM and Odd have a MUCH better explanation- they just can’t explain it right now

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691657

On 6/23/2018 10:09 AM, john wrote:
> As light travels, it is constantly drawing one figure eight  every wavelength. The Poynting value goes to zero at the top of the eight (parallel with Center), to maximum at the crossing of the eight (maximum displacement in front of Center), to zero at the bottom of the eight, and back to 100% at the crossing, again.
> That is why Poynting goes to zero twice per cycle.
> 
> But I’m sure MM and Odd have a MUCH better explanation- they just can’t explain it right now
> 
Who knows what Odd has read?

However I have a better explanation, John. You are correct (unlike the 
myriad kooks here that think that the electric and magnetic fields of EM 
radiation are 90 degrees out of phase with each other. They are NOT. As 
you say the Poynting value is variable and goes through zero twice. 
However, even though E and H reverse, they are in phase and since the 
Poynting value is E x H BOTH change sign together so the energy flow is 
always DOWN the light beam no matter if fields are positive or negative. 
Cool.

However the money fact is that the fields are IN PHASE. And if you are 
familiar with Lissajous patterns you will know that the pattern for two 
in phase functions is not a figure eight, but rather a diagonal straight 
line!

If you have any more questions please ask "Dr. Kensi". She has a Ph.D. 
in physics and will fill in any missing details for you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691727

benj 
“And if you are 
familiar with Lissajous patterns you will know that the pattern for two 
in phase functions is not a figure eight, but rather a diagonal straight 
line! ”
Pretty cool.
But diagonal to what?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691700

On Saturday, June 23, 2018 at 5:09:42 PM UTC+3, john wrote:
> As light travels, it is constantly drawing one figure eight 
===========================
no 
nothing in it goes back= wards !!
--only forwards !!
(while the figer 8 
it it means 
that on some of its wat
it is backwards    
2
see the helix model 
for  it 
it explains both
the   say   vertical part (cross section ) of it - is the  = magnetic
while the 'horizontal cross section of it
is the electric  part of it 

one must understand 
3D structures 
===

Y.Porat
=================================


= 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691704

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>As light travels, it is constantly drawing one figure eight  every 
>wavelength. The Poynting value goes to zero at the top of the eight 
>(parallel with Center), to maximum at the crossing of the eight (maximum 
>displacement in front of Center), to zero at the bottom of the eight, and 
>back to 100% at the crossing, again.
>That is why Poynting goes to zero twice per cycle.

John, what is the purpose of pulling crap out of your ass and posting it
as if it was true? Why not get a good book and READ it?

>But I'm sure MM and Odd have a MUCH better explanation- they just can't 
>explain it right now

Read Benj's post, he has it right.

BTW no answer to this?

>>>Also, explain how polarized sunglasses work. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691729

MM
“what is the purpose of pulling crap out of your ass and posting it ”
http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/PHOTON.GIF

I am simply saying what I have drawn and animated.
If you understand something, you can draw it, you can explain it, and if you find a good mathematician he MAY be able to find a general formula that approximates it under ideal conditions. I can explain it in multiple ways the same as the animation.
The graphic above was rotated 90 degrees to lie along the X axis for better viewing.
The propagation is a non-zero value taken as positive lying along the Y axis which turns once around the X axis and once around the Z axis every cycle.
There.
English words. A picture.
Different but the same every time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691731

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> MM
> “what is the purpose of pulling crap out of your ass and posting it ”
> http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/PHOTON.GIF
> 
> I am simply saying what I have drawn and animated.

That you have. But in physics, an explanation does not mean showing what it
looks like and how it moves. That’s just visual representation, not
physical explanation. 

> If you understand something, you can draw it, you can explain it, and if
> you find a good mathematician he MAY be able to find a general formula
> that approximates it under ideal conditions. I can explain it in multiple
> ways the same as the animation.
> The graphic above was rotated 90 degrees to lie along the X axis for better viewing.
> The propagation is a non-zero value taken as positive lying along the Y
> axis which turns once around the X axis and once around the Z axis every cycle.
> There.
> English words. A picture.
> Different but the same every time.
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691732

Odd
“That’s just visual representation, not 
physical explanation. ”
You see what it does.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691733

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “That’s just visual representation, not 
> physical explanation. ”
> You see what it does.
> 

Yes, but that is STILL not a physical explanation. 

I understand that it is what you like looking at. But si what? That’s
children’s museum stuff. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691734

benj
“However, even though E and H reverse, they are in phase and since the 
Poynting value is E x H BOTH change sign together so the energy flow is 
always DOWN the light beam no matter if fields are positive or negative. ”

http://users.accesscomm.ca/sefton/PHOTON.GIF
 This has been rotated counterclockwise to display better. I describe it how I built it, so I don’t get crossed up:

The circle starts in the YZ plane, rotating around the X axis. At the same time, the circle itself is rotated around the Z axis at the same rate: IN PHASE, ONE-TO-ONE.
This way, the downwardly-rotating front edge of the circle which started as a displacement on the Y axis will rotate around to the exact opposite side of the circle  in the exact same time as the circle itself rotates 180 degrees, and the front edge finds itself....in front again!!
In phase.
But!! The front edge is now upwardly-rotating!! Opposite.

In phase.
One-to-one.
I go there at the same time as you come here, by mirrored routes.
In this case, light, one-to-one orthogonal rotation.

Starts on the Y axis.
Rotates clockwise back to the Y axis.
Rotates counterclockwise back to the Y axis.

One-to-one.
In phase.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691738

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

> This has been rotated counterclockwise to display better. I describe it 
>how I built it, so I don't get crossed up:

>The circle starts in the YZ plane, rotating around the X axis. At the same
>time, the circle itself is rotated around the Z axis at the same rate: IN PHASE, ONE-TO-ONE.

[snip detailed description of the color, shape and aroma of a turd]

That's nice. But once again, why pull crap from your ass and then go into
excruciating detail describing it.  Why????

Science will describe what is OBSERVED and go into detail what science
actually saw. Science will also take other evidence of what is observed
and come up with a hypothesis, as well as an experiment that will
falsify the hypothesis.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691744

MM
“Science will describe what is OBSERVED and go into detail what science 
actually saw. Science will also take other evidence of what is observed 
and come up with a hypothesis, as well as an experiment that will 
falsify the hypothesis. 
”
There are already enough experiments done.
It’s just a matter of explaining them.

How does YOUR light model produce circular polarization, MM?
How do YOU say polarized lenses work?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#691747

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> writes:

>MM
>"Science will describe what is OBSERVED and go into detail what science
>actually saw. Science will also take other evidence of what is observed
>and come up with a hypothesis, as well as an experiment that will
>falsify the hypothesis.
>"
>There are already enough experiments done.
>It's just a matter of explaining them.

OK, I must have missed the experiment showing light polarized as a crazy
8. Since you say enough experiments have been done, that data must exist.
So give me a reference!

>How does YOUR light model produce circular polarization, MM?
>How do YOU say polarized lenses work?

Go read a book on optics. Also I'm sure a Google search of "light 
polarization" will turn up plenty. I don't need to spoon feed you.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web