Polarization of Light without the Wave Model

Errors of Post-Classical Fysics Series: Part VI

G. Stolyarov II

Issue XLVI- January 12, 2006

 

 

 

 

Note: This is the sixth  article in Mr. Stolyarov’s “Errors of Post-Classical Fysics” series. The first five articles are “Modern Scientists’ Faulty Definitions of Matter,” “Light is not a Particle,” “Light is not a Wave,” “Radio Signals are not Waves,” and “Rational Cosmology and Lasers.”

            In the second and third articles of this series, I refuted the fashionable post-Classical view of light as a “particle/wave duality.” Of course, it is unsatisfactory to simply prove a negative: to show that a given interpretation is false. Rather, one must replace the false understanding with a true one. I have done so in A Rational Cosmology, classifying light as the direct relationship at a distance between a light source and its target.

            This view of light as a relationship ought to be able to explain several particular fenomena which modern scientists invoke to justify the “particle/wave duality.” The “particle/wave duality” accounts for these fenomena, they allege, so it must be true. Yet it is quite possible for a false model to incorporate and “explain” facts. It is possible to “explain” gravitation, for example, as the pulling of invisible green demons (or invisible “gravitron” particles) on all objects. The mere ability to explain particulars does not automatically imply a theory’s truth—especially if, like the “particle/wave duality” of light, the theory is riddled with contradictions. However, a true theory will be consistent with all the particulars of observation; reality brooks no contradictions.

            In this series, I have already explained how rational cosmology’s view of light is consistent with observations about radio signals and lasers. Now I shall examine its compatibility with another observation often invoked to justify the false duality. Rational cosmology cannot derive the existence and nature of the polarization of light from ubiquitous observation alone. However, rational cosmology is reconcilable with the particular observations of polarization—which means the particulars can be explained without reference to the erroneous “particle/wave duality.”

            Unfortunately, because they are so deeply steeped in the wave model, modern fysicists cannot even define polarization of light without reference to it. In every explanation of the fenomenon I have come across, this defect was readily manifest. The explanation that was supposed to justify the wave model of light actually presupposed the validity of that model. Defining polarization in terms of waves of light and then claiming that polarization “proves” a wavelike nature to light is circular: it uses the wavelike nature of light to “prove” the wavelike nature of light. Furthermore, such descriptions are unlinked to empirical observation. Few of them address the question, “What do we directly see as a result of the polarization of light, which would be different had this fenomenon not occurred?”

            The best description of the empirical fenomena which the polarization of light accounts for can be found on The Physics Classroom website. This site’s description makes the same essential error as the others by presupposing the wave nature of light without explaining it—and then using it as a part of the description of the fenomenon of polarization. Conveniently for those supporting the wave model, the introductory paragraf to the description reads, “The nature of such electromagnetic waves [is] beyond the scope of The Physics Classroom.” This conflicts with the very title of the description: “How Do We Know Light Behaves as a Wave?” We certainly cannot know that by assuming it from the beginning and stating that the nature of the assumption is too complex to justify in the text.

            Nevertheless, The Physics Classroom does devote much of its discussion to observable manifestations of the polarization of light, two of which we shall examine here. I will show that the operation of Polaroid filters and the polarization of light by refraction off nonmetallic surfaces can be explained without reference to the wave model. Rather, the view of light as a direct relationship at a distance between source and target provides a far more adequate account of these fenomena.

Polaroid Filters

            The Physics Classroom’s description of polarization by Polaroid filters invokes the “wave nature” of light multiple times, but it still reveals much true information about the actual fysical operation of the Polaroid filter. I will reproduce crucial aspects of that description and accompanying diagrams here:

A Polaroid filter is able to polarize light because of the chemical composition of the filter material. The filter can be thought of as having long-chain molecules that are aligned within the filter in the same direction. During the fabrication of the filter, the long-chain molecules are stretched across the filter so that each molecule is (as much as possible) aligned in, say, the vertical direction. As unpolarized light strikes the filter, the portion of the waves vibrating in the vertical direction [is] absorbed by the filter. The general rule is that the electromagnetic vibrations which are in a direction parallel to the alignment of the molecules are absorbed.

The alignment of these molecules gives the filter a polarization axis. This polarization axis extends across the length of the filter and only allows vibrations of the electromagnetic wave that are parallel to the axis to pass through. Any vibrations which are perpendicular to the polarization axis are blocked by the filter. Thus, a Polaroid filter with its long-chain molecules aligned horizontally will have a polarization axis aligned vertically. Such a filter will block all horizontal vibrations and allow the vertical vibrations to be transmitted (see diagram above). On the other hand, a Polaroid filter with its long-chain molecules aligned vertically will have a polarization axis aligned horizontally; this filter will block all vertical vibrations and allow the horizontal vibrations to be transmitted.”

            There are two components to the above description: an essential and a nonessential. The nonessential component is the assumption that light “vibrates” as a wave in directions parallel and perpendicular to the alignment of the long-chain molecules. The essential component is the description of the actual alignment of the long-chain molecules themselves. This alignment, not any fictitious “wave nature of light,” is responsible for the Polaroid filter’s operation and effects.

            To understand how this is so, we first consider light as a relationship. Every relationship is the action of one entity on another to alter some of the other’s qualities. By the fact of acting, the first entity also alters some of its own qualities. Light is a relationship, so what qualities are altered during its course? We will call the quality which is affected by the relationship of light, “luminosity.” The target entity of the relationship gains luminosity by means of the light source’s action on it. In order for the target entity to gain luminosity, the source must expend its own. Thus, the relationship of light can be thought to be a transfer of luminosity between source and target.

            As with any quality, every entity has only finite amounts of luminosity. Furthermore, we know from ubiquitous observation that a regular light source can transfer this luminosity to a target entity in any direction from it. Transferring luminosity to a target in one direction does not inhibit the source’s ability to transfer luminosity to targets in any other direction. We can thus describe the source entity’s luminosity as not only limited in overall magnitude, but limited in its magnitude for every direction from the source entity.  Furthermore, the source’s luminosity in one direction is expended independently of its luminosity in any other direction. If a target entity above the source absorbs all the source’s luminosity in the upward direction, this will have no effect on the source’s luminosity in the downward direction; the source will still be able to illuminate other target entities below it. Luminosity in one direction can be redirected elsewhere, but this is not done automatically by a regular light source. The light source must be specifically constructed for this purpose—as is a laser—or it must, in a given direction, encounter targets that reflect light elsewhere—as mirrors do.

            What happens to a source’s directional luminosity if it encounters targets? This luminosity is expended on the targets, in proportion to the targets’ number and density. I wrote in A Rational Cosmology, Chapter VII:

[L]ight does not require continuity of particles in order to propagate; it can overcome a vacuum, i.e., the absence of a medium. On the contrary, it seems that, the more dense the medium, the less receptive it is to light. Light can propagate through gaseous media, and some liquids (such as water), but not through most solids.

If there is some large concentration of particles in the way between the light source and the intended target, then, naturally, a source’s luminosity will be partially expended on these particles! In the directions where there are no such particles, the source’s luminosity will not be spent, however.

            In a Polaroid filter, the long-chain molecules are this concentration of particles, and the source entity must exhibit the relationship of light with them. Because the long-chain molecules are solid and do not have surfaces which allow for reflection of light, they will absorb that part of the light which is transmitted directly at them. (The Physics Classroom describes this as the light “parallel” to the long-chain molecules.) The source’s luminosity in that direction will be entirely expended, allowing for no further relationship of light in that direction.

             On the contrary, where there are no long-chain molecules and thus no intervening object between the source and the intended target, the relationship of light will propagate onward to the intended target. This is the case with light that The Physics Classroom calls “perpendicular” to the long-chain molecules. I describe this situation as follows: there is no intervening object between the source and the target, so, naturally, the light will reach the target. The source has all of its original luminosity in that direction to expend on that target. On the contrary, light that had the intervening long-chain molecules as its target will naturally not reach the targets beyond the filter. 

             To summarize, every light source not only has limited luminosity, but limited luminosity in every particular direction. In the direction parallel to the long-chain molecules of the filter, the source’s luminosity is expended on interaction with the molecules. In the direction perpendicular to the molecules, there is no obstruction, so this luminosity is not expended; rather, the source has enough luminosity to interact with the intended target. 

             The so-called “polarization axis” of the filter is simply the sum of the directions where light from the source entity does not encounter the filter’s molecules as targets. Rather, light in those directions altogether bypasses the filter. In those directions, there is nothing between the source and the target but empty space, so a direct relationship between source and target can occur.

             This explanation for the operation of Polaroid filters does not invoke fictitious “vibrations” of light, which are inconsistent with ubiquitous observation. Rather, it depends only on undoubtedly known fysical properties of the filter and an understanding—supported by ubiquitous observation—of how luminosity is transferred. Hence, ubiquitous and particular observation are reconciled, without the erroneous “duality of light” to sever them apart.

Polarization by Reflection off Nonmetallic Surfaces

            The Physics Classroom describes another frequent manifestation of the polarization of light thus:

Unpolarized light can also undergo polarization by reflection off of nonmetallic surfaces. The extent to which polarization occurs is dependent upon the angle at which the light approaches the surface and upon the material which the surface is made of. Metallic surfaces reflect light with a variety of vibrational directions; such reflected light is unpolarized. However, nonmetallic surfaces such as asphalt roadways, snow fields, and water reflect light such that there is a large concentration of vibrations in a plane parallel to the reflecting surface. A person viewing objects by means of light reflected off of nonmetallic surfaces will often perceive a glare if the extent of polarization is large.
 

            Again, assuming that light “vibrates” is unnecessary for describing this fenomenon. Rather, this type of polarization can be explained by analyzing the transfer of the source’s luminosity in relevant directions.

            It is known that nonmetallic surfaces are far better able to absorb light than to reflect it, due to the microscopically rough nature of said surfaces. The natures of both the source and target affect the relationship of light—a truth I have always maintained. Let us presume, as the scenario requires, that light is transmitted to a nonmetallic surface from a source at an angle to that surface. The direction in which the source’s luminosity is expended is the direction of that angle. This direction (not the light itself) has a parallel and a perpendicular component to it with respect to the target surface. Light aimed in the perpendicular component of that direction gets absorbed by the surface, since the light is transmitted directly toward the surface. Meanwhile, only the light aimed in the parallel component of that direction gets reflected off the surface. Being parallel to the target surface, this light cannot be transmitted toward the surface; the most the surface can do is redirect its transmission to another target entity. Because the target surface cannot receive this light, and because all light must have a target, the light is reflected at an angle to some other target. Yet, the only light that is reflected is the “polarized” light, which had not been absorbed by the surface.

           Targets with metallic surfaces, on the contrary, have a tendency to reflect all the light that is transmitted to them, irrespective of the direction of the surface from the source. Thus, the light they reflect is “unpolarized,” since the source’s luminosity was not expended in any direction.

            I will now define polarization in terms admissible by rational cosmology.

            Polarization of light is the result of the light source’s limited expenditure of luminosity in only those directions where an intervening target is found between the source and the original target. All light in the direction of the intervening target is absorbed by that target, whereas light which is not directed toward the intervening target is passed to the intended target in the form of polarized light—either through direct transmission or through reflection. 

            Any assumption that light must “vibrate” in order to be polarized is entirely superfluous. It certainly does not have to “vibrate” to be blocked by an intervening target in some directions and not blocked in others—which is the essence of polarization. Polarization does not “prove” the wave model of light, either, since another model—the relationship model of rational cosmology—can account for it just as well, while not contradicting ubiquitous observation.

G. Stolyarov II is a science fiction novelist, independent filosofical essayist, poet, amateur mathematician and composer, contributor to organizations such as Le Quebecois Libre, Enter Stage Right, and The Autonomist.  Mr. Stolyarov is the Editor-in-Chief of The Rational Argumentator and a Senior Writer for the Liberal Institute (http://www.liberalinstitute.com). He can be contacted at gennadystolyarovii@yahoo.com.

Read Mr. Stolyarov's new comprehensive treatise, A Rational Cosmology, explicating such terms as the universe, matter, space, time, sound, light, life, consciousness, and volition, at http://www.geocities.com/rational_argumentator/rc.html.