Talk:Brewster's angle

‹See TfM›

The last sentence: "The refractive index for a given medium changes depending on the wavelength of light, but typically does not vary much. The difference in the refractive index between ultra violet (≈100nm) and infra red (≈1000nm) in glass, for example, is ≈0.01." is only true for dielectric materials, glas, diamond ect. In semiconductors, which have bandgaps (critical points) in the visible or infrared region, the refractive indices can vary quite dramatically and hence the brewster angle.

• I've removed most of that statement for a more general one. In fact, it was wrong anyway - most glasses have a bigger variation than 0.01 between the UV and NIR. --Bob Mellish 18:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I have converted all occurrences of polarisation with polarization, with apologies to British users. I felt it was confusing that the page used both spellings, somewhat inconsistently. I chose the spelling with z because the page on polarization spells it that way. --Srleffler 15:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Can someone check this edit: [1] and see if it's vandalism. The user is a persistent vandal but I don't know enough about Brewster's angle to know if the change was legit or not. Powers 14:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the edit and can confirm that it´s clearly vandalism. The former formulae are correct! waifar 84.178.106.15 11:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Mechanism of the polarisation of light when incident at the Brewster Angle

It is said in the article that the light reflected from the boundary between the media is polarised because the dipoles that are excited in medium 2 can't emit radiation along the axis of their oscillation.

This explanation at first sight seems logical, however, there is a contradiction. If the experiment is performed with medium 2 as a vacuum, polarised light is still observed. Obviously, if medium 2 is a vacuum there are no dipoles in medium 2 that can oscillate. At the moment I don't have a better explanation for this phenomenon, however I think you should revise the article. Also, the diagram is very misleading, again just image medium 2 as a vacuum.

Hope that helps,

Robert

The refraction and reflection are both caused by the interaction of the light with the material, at its surface. Either way, the dipoles are in the material. The explanation, as written, assumes the light is incident on a medium from outside. The principle is the same the other way, though. If light goes from a medium into a vacuum, the refracted light in the vacuum has to be generated by dipoles at the surface of the medium. Since they can't be in the vacuum, they must be in the medium. At Brewster's angle, the reflected light is parallel to the direction of oscillation that would be required for dipole radiators to generate the p-polarized refracted beam, so p-polarized light cannot be reflected by this surface.

In the end, it's all a crude approximation. Light isn't really produced by "dipoles". The dipole approximation does give a good feel for what is going on, though, and gives the correct results if correctly applied.

Thanks for pointing this out. This paragraph in the article probably needs to be clarified.--Srleffler 22:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I took a stab at changing the article. It now avoids saying where the dipoles are, other than that they are "at the interface". This is all that is required for a physical description here. It doesn't really matter which medium the dipoles are in, since this is an interface effect. No interface, no Brewster effect.

Typo??

There's a missspelling in the first paragraph: "The polarization that cannot be reflected at this angle is the one for which the electric field of the light waves lies in the same plane as the incident ray and the surface normal." Should be "AS this angle", not "AT this angle, right?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.2.74.148 (talk • contribs) 07:58, October 5, 2006.

No, it is correct as written. I'm not sure how you are interpreting it, but you are clearly not interpreting what is written there correctly. If you explain what you think it says, perhaps we can make the wording clearer. --Srleffler 19:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Revise first paragraph

In the first paragraph, combined with the picture it is very difficult to understand what is reflected and what is refracted, would someone please consider revising this, so that it is easier to comprehend.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthew Rollings (talk • contribs).