Demonstrating optical birefringenceA modification of Schneiders experiment

Paul R. Camp Citation: Am. J. Phys. 65, 672 (1997); doi: 10.1119/1.18625 View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.18625 View Table of Contents: http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/AJPIAS/v65/i7 Published by the American Association of Physics Teachers

Related Articles
Veritasium video plus analysis of falling slinky passes 1.3M views www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiyMuHuCFo4 Phys. Teach. 51, 382 (2013) The Binchotan microphone: A pice de rsistance from the Stray Cats Phys. Teach. 51, 379 (2013) The Frahm Resonance Apparatus: Variations on a Theme Phys. Teach. 51, 357 (2013) Electromagnetic Induction with Neodymium Magnets Phys. Teach. 51, 344 (2013) Vacuum Energy and Inflation: 1. A Liter of Vacuum Energy Phys. Teach. 51, 354 (2013)

Additional information on Am. J. Phys.

Journal Homepage: http://ajp.aapt.org/ Journal Information: http://ajp.aapt.org/about/about_the_journal Top downloads: http://ajp.aapt.org/most_downloaded Information for Authors: http://ajp.dickinson.edu/Contributors/contGenInfo.html

Downloaded 02 Sep 2013 to 148.206.159.132. Redistribution subject to AAPT license or copyright; see http://ajp.aapt.org/authors/copyright_permission

Demonstrating optical birefringenceA modication of Schneiders experiment

Paul R. Camp
Department of Physics, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469-5709

Received 29 July 1996; accepted 15 January 1997

Schneider1 has given us a macroscopic demonstration of the way in which the state of polarization changes as an initially plane-polarized ray of light propagates through a birefringent medium. His medium was a Lucite rod which had been turned from cast sheet. This material, because of the volume contraction of the Lucite as it polymerized, was slightly birefringent with the optic axis perpendicular to the sheet surface. Thus the circular rod had an optic axis perpendicular to its axis. Schneiders demonstration is shown in Fig. 1a. A linearly polarized beam of light was directed along the rod axis, Y , with the E vector of the incident light along Z , making an angle of 45 to the optic axis of the rod. As the light traveled through the Lucite, its polarization changed from linear to elliptical to circular to elliptical to
672 Am. J. Phys. 65 7, July 1997

linear at 90 to that of incidence and so forth, making a complete rotation at intervals of the order of a few centimeters. In addition to being birefringent, his material Rayleigh scattered a small amount of light, thus making the beam visible. If the rod was viewed from the side along a line parallel to Z , the original E vector, the beam was invisible at every point along the rod where the state of polarization was that of the incident beam and bright when it was 90 deg to the original, so that when viewed in this way, the ray appeared as a dashed line. In trying to reproduce this demonstration, I had a most interesting, and serendipitous, failure. Rather than use rod stock, which we didnt have, I used sheet acrylic2 cut as shown in Fig. 1b so that I could view
1997 American Association of Physics Teachers 672

Downloaded 02 Sep 2013 to 148.206.159.132. Redistribution subject to AAPT license or copyright; see http://ajp.aapt.org/authors/copyright_permission

Fig. 2. Bottom line: Pattern seen when the transmission axis of the analyzer is along the beam. Each dash represents one half-cycle of rotation and is about 3-cm long. Top line: Reection of this scattered light in the back surface of the sample. This reection rotates the plane of polarization 90 deg.

Fig. 1. a Schneiders experiment: The beam is along the rod axis, Y . The scattered light is viewed along X or Z . The optic axis of the rod is perpendicular to Y and makes an angle of 45 deg to X . E of the incident light is along the Z axis. b This experiment: The beam is along Y . The X axis is perpendicular to the slant face of the sample and the Z axis lies along the slant face which makes an angle of 45 deg to the vertical. The optic axis is vertical and makes an angle of 45 deg to both X and Z . E of the incident light is along Z . The scattered light is viewed along X . A polaroid, P , is placed between the eye and the slant surface.

Everything I have observed is consistent with the presence in this material of a dilute distribution of very small particles which scatter the light by specular reection. A diagram of possible scattering is shown in Fig. 3. Light following paths such as AE in Fig. 3 produce the bottom line in Fig. 2, and light following paths such as BCD produce the top line in Fig. 2. For clarity in illustration, the reection from a spherical particle is described. But the argument is essentially the same for a random distribution of reecting platelets. Con-

the beam through a surface which was parallel to the original state of polarization 45 deg from the optic axis. The intensity of the scattered beam was satisfyingly bright, but however viewed, it was a uniform solid line. There were no alternate bright and dark regions as in Schneiders demonstration. In desperation, I looked at it through a second polaroid oriented so that its transmission axis was along Z and behold, the line broke up into a series of dashes. However, when I rotated the analyzer so that its transmission axis was parallel to the beam, the same pattern was present but reversed, dark where it had been bright and bright where it had been dark. Figure 2 is a photograph of the scattered light viewed through an analyzer with its axis along the beam. Two patterns are seen. The bottom line is the direct view and the top one is the reection of this from the back side of the sample. As is shown below, this reection rotates the plane of polarization 90 deg. How could this be? Rayleigh scattering could not produce light with its E vector parallel to the beam, and amorphous scattering would simply produce unpolarized light. If I used an unpolarized incident beam, the scattered beam was unpolarized also. If the incident beam was polarized along the optic axis and viewed perpendicularly to the side of the sample, the scattered ray was also polarized along the optic axis. If the incident beam was polarized perpendicular to the optic axis and viewed perpendicularly to the side of the sample, the scattered ray was polarized along Y .
673 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 65, No. 7, July 1997

Fig. 3. Illustration of the changes in the direction of the E vector of light specularly reected from a spherical particle. The rays considered are those of incident light along the Y axis into the paper which are scattered in the X direction either directly or on reection from the back surface of the sample. Circles indicate polarization along Y . The single circles go with the single arrows and the double circles go with the double arrows. The particles with which we are dealing are very small. P is a polaroid.

Apparatus and Demonstration Notes

673

Downloaded 02 Sep 2013 to 148.206.159.132. Redistribution subject to AAPT license or copyright; see http://ajp.aapt.org/authors/copyright_permission

sider a beam of light along the Y axis which strikes a spherical inclusion at a point, A , such that it is reected along the path AE perpendicular to the slant surface of the sample. Let this reection take place at a distance along the sample such that the light is linearly polarized either along X double arrow or along Z single arrow. The incident beam and the reected ray, AE , are at right angles to one another and together dene the plane of incidence for the reection. If the incident beam is polarized along Z single arrow, the E vector is perpendicular to the plane of incidence and will remain unchanged in the reected ray. However, if the incident ray is polarized along X double arrow, the E vector is parallel to the plane of incidence and will be rotated in reection so that it lies along the Y axis. This is signied by the double circle. For a ray striking the spot B such that on reection it will follow the path BCD and be totally reected by the back surface to emerge parallel to AE , the reection surface at B will be so oriented that an E vector parallel to X double arrow will be perpendicular to this plane of incidence and will be parallel to X after reection. Now the single-arrow state will lie in the plane of incidence and will be rotated on reection to lie along Y . This is signied by the single circle. Upon reection at C , the double arrow lies in the plane of incidence and is rotated as shown while the single circle is not. Thus maxima in the bright lines in the upper trace of Fig. 2 are approximately over the dark spaces in the lower trace. There is a negligible shift due to the fact that the path length of the ray BCD is slightly longer than AE and both make angles of 45 deg with the optic-axis. A tempting model is that what we have here is total internal reection from a distribution of tiny spherical voids. However, if this were the sole cause, the intensity of reection should fall off rapidly at angles of incidence smaller than the critical angle. For acrylic, which has an index of refraction of 1.49, the critical angle is about 42 deg. Moreover, the intensity of that component which is polarized in the plane of incidence should fall to zero at the Brewsters angle for internal reection, about 34 deg. Although the intensity does drop off as we view the sample obliquely so that the angle of incidence is reduced, I have found no null for one component at Brewsters angle. Moreover, the intensity of reection increases as the angle of incidence is increased beyond 45 deg. Thus observation seems to favor the presence in the material of inclusions which, if lossless, have an index of refraction large compared to that of the plastic. However, if the inclusions are sufciently absorbing, there is no angle of incidence at which one component of the reected ray vanishes regardless of the inclusions index of

refraction.3 An order-of-magnitude estimate of the density of the scattering centers made by counting the number of points of light in the volume eld of a low power microscope is 300/mm3. Thus, in this material, we have a different means of detecting the rotation demonstrated by Schneider. In so doing, we show a little different physics than does his experiment. But the fundamental feature, using scattered light to reveal the polarization changes along the beam, is the same. The important thing from the standpoint of the demonstrator is that some materials behave one way and other seemingly identical materials behave quite differently. How can one choose? Probably only by trying various suppliers.4 Subsequent experiments with materials from different manufacturers gave a variety of results. The material discussed above,2 called Plexiglas G, was made by Polycast and supplied by Industrial Plastic Supply. But other samples from the same source have exhibited very weak Rayleigh scattering and almost no specular scattering. All sheet material showed some birefringence. Beware of cast rod. That which I have obtained has rich Rayleigh scattering, but almost no birefringence. While this note was undergoing review, a paper by Ferguson5 appeared in which he comments on the difculty of reproducing Schneiders demonstration using available plastics. He then proceeds to give an elegant demonstration using gelatin which proves to be a rather spectacular Rayleigh scattering medium.
1

W. B. Schneider, A surprising optical property of Plexiglas rodsAn unusual approach to birefringence, Am. J. Phys. 5912, 10861087 1991. 2 My material, Polycast, was sold by the Industrial Plastics Supply Division of International Safety Supply Co., 176 Newington Ave., West Hartford, CT. It had a birefringence of about 2 10 5 . 3 The effect of absorption is shown very nicely by Fig. 2 of Polarization, Section 10 by J. M. Bennett and H. E. Bennett, in The Handbook of Optics, edited by W. G. Driscoll McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978, p. 108. 4 Three major manufacturers of acrylic sheet are 1 Autohaas Philadelphia, PA, 1-800-523-7500, formerly Rohm and Haas: The trade name for the material is Plexiglas. 2 ICI Acrylics Wilmington, DE, 1-800-253-8881: E. I. Dupont de Nemours has turned over to ICI everything related to Lucite. The trade name remains Lucite. 3 Polycast of Stamford, CT 1-800-243-9002 supplied as indicated in Ref. 3. I am indebted to Christopher Bruno of the Commercial Plastics and Supply Co. of Sommerville, MA for test samples of Autohaas Plexiglas and other Polycast Plexiglas G. They behaved almost identically. Both were weak Rayleigh scatterers with no specular scattering detected. The Autohaas had a slightly larger birefringence. 5 J. L. Ferguson, Two semiquantitative demonstrations of stress birefringence, Am. J. Phys. 6410, 13381340 1996.

GOOD MANNERS AND BAD But the real problem is that science is bad-mannered by its nature. All of us want to be rst, and push and shove to get there. And, should someone beat us to it, we delight in showing that they were wrong in detail if not necessarily in fact. This is healthy. Good, lasting, veriable and useful science is made by the aggressive promulgation of ideas honed by the also-rans. No runners, no race.
Simon P. Wolff, Restoring Good Manners, Nature 377, 192 1995.

674

Am. J. Phys., Vol. 65, No. 7, July 1997

Apparatus and Demonstration Notes

674

Downloaded 02 Sep 2013 to 148.206.159.132. Redistribution subject to AAPT license or copyright; see http://ajp.aapt.org/authors/copyright_permission