Re: POLARIZATION

[brian whatcott <inet@intellisys.net>]

At 12:13 6/13/98 -0700, you wrote:
....
> If linear polarization can be described as a superposition of circular
> polarization, and vice versa, how can one be more 'basic' than the other?
>
> -- 
> --James McLean


Here's a weak, quantum argument:

A linear wave has twice the amplitude of its two component helical waves.
A helical wave has the same amplitude as its component linear waves.
 In the limit, smaller helical waves are permitted than linear waves. QED

(I regret to use this kind of argument, because most readers here seem to 
hold the photon model very dear; not always the best conceptual basis for
statistical ensembles, like photopolarization, for instance.

 I was tempted to suppose even that polarization is an 'emergent' property
of such large echelons; but on consideration, I recall that the same was
thought of diffraction through two slits: eventually it was found that
single particles conspire to interfere observably....)

Brian Whatcott    Altus OK