Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Please point out for the slower of those among us: what are you
arguing, and where is the argument? I surely don't see it. What
is the proposition? What are the assumptions?
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
[Leigh]
I don't know what photopolarization is, either. Should I?
Leigh seems to have let passed unnoticed my recent assertion that his
*A* photon picture is entirely adequate to model polarization
phenomena. *No* model explains all electrodynamic phenomena
except in an *ad hoc* manner.
Leigh
[Leigh]So can one account for the phenomenon (of polarization) in terms of the
interactions of spinning photons with the polarizer?
If one considers the interaction of a circularly polarized
photon with a (dissipative) linear polarizer, then its
angular momentum is absorbed by the polarizer whether it
is transmitted or not.