Content deleted Content added
→year of discovery: new section |
|||
| (14 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{
}}
==Last sentence==
The last sentence:
Line 81 ⟶ 82:
I saw your rewrite. Nice work. I had a few commitments pop up and you beat me to it. I did some minor english edits to make the text more obvious. Other than that, I think it is good - it avoids the long derivation but since it points to Fresnel it is very easy for the reader to see how a mathematical derivation might be made. [[User:One really angry guy|One really angry guy]] ([[User talk:One really angry guy|talk]]) 20:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
: "That is, if the oscillating dipoles are aligned along the supposed direction of the reflection, no light is reflected at all." I could not follow this sentence. Are we assuming that the dipoles know the angle of incidence and line up with it, or are we assuming that they occur in every direction but deducing that these particular ones are the only ones that can be involved in absorbing and retransmitting light? If so, perhaps the reasoning could be spelled out more completely. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.227.237.33|84.227.237.33]] ([[User talk:84.227.237.33|talk]]) 16:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::The derivation is poorly written and needs a rewrite, but I can't attempt that tonight. The dipoles are excited by the incident light, and have their moments parallel to the electric field of the light in the medium (i.e. the refracted light). It happens that the dipoles can't emit light along their moment axis, so if the dipoles happen to be lined up with the direction in which the reflected light has to go, that light can't be produced.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler|talk]]) 06:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
::I see that I wrote a clearer explanation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brewster%27s_angle&oldid=391326159 in 2010] but somebody overwrote it.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler|talk]]) 07:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
::I replaced the bad explanation with the old one. As it was, the explanation was flat out wrong on several points.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler|talk]]) 07:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
==The definition is ambiguous as well==
Line 103 ⟶ 109:
... isn't the whole point that it is the reflected light that ends up perfectly polarised? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.86.7.250|78.86.7.250]] ([[User talk:78.86.7.250|talk]]) 00:08, 23 November 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You achieve perfect polarization of the reflected light by perfectly transmitting the other polarization. The polarization that is reflected is not perfectly reflected: some of that polarization is transmitted as well.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler|talk]]) 05:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I have read this sentence several times, and I cannot see the logic that justifies the use of 'therefore':-
"Brewster's angle (also known as the polarization angle) is an angle of incidence at which light with a particular polarization is perfectly transmitted through a transparent dielectric surface, with no reflection. When unpolarized light is incident at this angle, the light that is reflected from the surface is therefore perfectly polarized. " I propose the following definition: "Brewster's Angle is that angle of incidence of unpolarised light on a dielectric surface at which the reflected light is perfectly polarised. The polarisation of the reflected light is such that its E-field is parallel to the reflecting surface". g4oep <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:G4oep|G4oep]] ([[User talk:G4oep#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/G4oep|contribs]]) 18:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:The "therefore" is justified. Breaking it down:
:*One polarization is completely transmitted through the surface,
:*therefore there is no reflection of that polarization,
:*therefore all of the light that is reflected has the opposite polarization,
:*therefore the reflected light is perfectly polarized.
:The definition in the article is better than yours because it describes both of the important functions of a Brewster surface, and how they are related. The fact that one polarization has precisely zero reflectance is at least as important technologically as the fact that the surface can produce a perfectly polarized reflection. While understanding that these two properties are in fact the same thing may take a bit of thought, it is necessary to appreciate both to fully understand Brewster's angle.--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler|talk]]) 02:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
== year of discovery ==
Line 108 ⟶ 124:
Is there any publication before 1813? The one I found predates the one used in the article by two years .{{cite journal | doi =10.1098/rstl.1813.0016}}
--[[User:Stone|Stone]] ([[User talk:Stone|talk]]) 09:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
== Not on subject ==
I meant to write in the edit summary (but must have hit the wrong key and it got published before I could finish!) that the section on polarizing sunglasses and camera filters doesn't ''really'' have to do with the Brewster angle, but is about reflections at large incidence angles, period. So I didn't think it belongs in this page, but didn't want to argue about it and just improved what was there. If someone wants to remove it for that reason (and perhaps incorporate any of it in a more relevant page), please go ahead.[[User:Interferometrist|Interferometrist]] ([[User talk:Interferometrist|talk]]) 22:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
== Dead link in page; found one site with respective document ==
https://sites.esm.psu.edu/~axl4/lakhtakia/Documents/No170(Optik).pdf [[Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:5420:680:F3C0:9271:A531:9CA2|2607:FEA8:5420:680:F3C0:9271:A531:9CA2]] ([[User talk:2607:FEA8:5420:680:F3C0:9271:A531:9CA2|talk]]) 03:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
:Fixed. Thanks,--[[User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] ([[User talk:Srleffler|talk]]) 19:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
| |||