Talk:Polarization (waves)

Archives

Reverted lede

I reverted recent edits to the lede. See the sections above, #unclear (transverse polarization) and #Introduction. Electromagnetic waves are not always transverse, and polarization is not a property only of transverse waves. The statement "Waves that oscillate only in a single plane are referred to as polarized, while ones that oscillate in multiple planes are said to be unpolarized." is badly wrong. Circularly polarized waves do not oscillate in a single plane, and they are not unpolarized. --Srleffler (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know about the circularly polarized waves, but I felt that they're sort of a special case, and it can be argued that it is still a single plane at any given moment. I don't mind your revert, as changes by Chetvorno and myself probably weren't thought out too well. Still, I feel that much of the lead is needlessly vague, particularly the first sentence, which is supposed to be definition: parameter ... that specifies the geometrical orientation of the oscillation is not terribly informative; and polarization is hardly a "parameter" – I'd expect that you could assign a single numerical value to a parameter, but polarization is too complex for that. No such user (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Circular polarization is not a special case, and is as fundamental as linear polarization is. You can describe any polarization as a superposition of left and right circular polarization. Describing it as a single plane at any given moment is not a good way to think about it.

The wording can probably be improved but it's hard. The lede for this article has to walk a tightrope between presenting a complex subject accurately, and presenting it simply enough that everyone can understand. It's probably best to discuss ideas for changes here first.--Srleffler (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, my edits weren't well thought out and I don't mind the revert; "drive by" editing is always a bad idea. However like No such user I would like to see the introduction be clearer for general readers. I have no argument with the lead sentence. but I would like to see the concepts of longitudinal and transverse waves appear in the introduction, because I think there should be a statement that only transverse waves have polarization. @Srleffler: While the plane containing the electric and magnetic fields is not always perpendicular to the wave vector, electromagnetic waves are classified as "transverse waves"; the fields cannot be parallel to the wave vector so they always have "transverse" components. In contrast in the most common type of longitudinal wave, sound waves in fluids, the displacement is always in the direction of the wave vector so it has no degrees of freedom, hence there can't be different polarization states. Many sources state that polarization only occurs in transverse waves: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] --Chetvorno^TALK 11:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for reverting my accidental page blanking, No such user :) --Chetvorno^TALK 13:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote lead to be consistent with the above sources. --Chetvorno^TALK 18:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transverse EM-waves

What is the factor Q in this part of the article? 2A02:A463:2848:1:B877:7C1B:4DDD:B31C (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First person plural language

Usually, Wikipedia articles read like they are really an article but this article reads like it's a paper, with lots of uses of "we", like "as we have shown". Is it important, should this not be in this case "as shown above", etc.? Dan Dart (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see WP:PRONOUN. Articles should not be written in first-person.--Srleffler (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]