[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Don't you realize that the experiment in the video uses linearly polarized light, instead of circularly polarized light?

Yes, of course I realised that.

You are confused between Circular dichroism and circular birefringence.

That can't be right because circular birefringence does not, of itself explain the colours.

Actually, I got CD muddled with optical rotatory dispersion (ORD).
Sorry about that.
But the fact that I mislabelled the phenomenon doesn't mean that I was making the wrong assumption so...
Once again...

What "false assumptions" were you talking about?

I must admit that you have an extraordinary confidence I've rarely seen before.

Steve Mould seemed to assume that optical rotation isn't affected by light frequency when he was asked to predict the result. Your reply indicates that you've made the same assumption.

The host seemed to expect that the results weren't widely known yet. Otherwise, he wouldn't ask about it in the first place.

[Bored chemist]

Your reply indicates that you've made the same assumption.

No.
My reply says that optical rotation is affected by wavelength.
That's what ORD is.
Try reading what I said a few times.

[Bored chemist]

The host seemed to expect that the results weren't widely known yet.

I have textbooks from the 1930s which make it clear that the phenomenon was well known then.
A guy on YT didn't know about it; so what?

[Bored chemist]

Steve Mould seemed to assume that optical rotation isn't affected by light frequency

Here's a picture of two clips from that video. They both show pictures from Steve Mould's video.

In it, you can clearly see the different colours you get at different angles.

And yet you say that he didn't expect to see different colours.
Your assertion is absurd.

ORD.png (164.04 kB . 424x519 - viewed 525 times)

[Bored chemist]

Once again...

Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:14:17
What "false assumptions" were you talking about?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's the second video.

I pointed in the comments section about a problem with the explanation at 4:30. It says that receiving particle is accelerated perpendicular to the acceleration of the transmitting particle. But experiments with dipole antennas show that they are parallel to each other.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's a picture of two clips from that video. They both show pictures from Steve Mould's video.

In it, you can clearly see the different colours you get at different angles.

And yet you say that he didn't expect to see different colours.
Your assertion is absurd.

In 3B1B's video, Steve was asked to predict the result, and he literally said nothing will happen. It's not my assertion. By saying that, he made some implicit assumptions which he wasn't aware of due to time constraints to think about it more thoroughly.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Once again...

Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:14:17
What "false assumptions" were you talking about?

I've answered that. You're free to accept it or not.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Your reply indicates that you've made the same assumption.

No.
My reply says that optical rotation is affected by wavelength.
That's what ORD is.
Try reading what I said a few times.

Which part of this says that?

That can't be right because circular birefringence does not, of itself explain the colours.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The next video will demonstrate circular polarization using double 3D glasses.

Here it is. I hope you enjoy it.

[Bored chemist]

In 3B1B's video, Steve was asked to predict the result, and he literally said nothing will happen.

And I explained why.

Perhaps he would have if he  had been given longer to think about it.

Circular birefringence says that a sugar solution will rotate the plane of polarised light.
It does not say anything about colours, does it?
So, when I said " circular birefringence does not, of itself explain the colours." I was right, wasn't I.

ORD does explain the colours.

The polarisation by scattering explains why you do not need an analysing filter to see them

he made some implicit assumptions which he wasn't aware of

He was aware of the facts.
He even made a very good video about them.

You seem to be muddling up two things
Not knowing about something and
not realising, at short notice, that something you know is applicable here.

He didn't make the wrong assumption. He just didn't think his deduction through properly.

So,  once again...

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:14:17
What "false assumptions" were you talking about?

[Bored chemist]

Unexpected results come from false assumptions.

You seem to mean "If you don't give people time to think about something properly, they may make a mistake."

That's not surprising.
It's also nothing to do with physics.

[Bored chemist]

I pointed in the comments section about a problem with the explanation at 4:30. It says that receiving particle is accelerated perpendicular to the acceleration of the transmitting particle. But experiments with dipole antennas show that they are parallel to each other.

For what it's worth, I think you are right.
But I don't think it matters much.
At about 07:15 he gets it right.
So, you can't say "He is making a false assumption", But you can say he messed up when writing his script.
Congratulations! you proved he's human.

Quote from: hamdani yusuf on Yesterday at 13:54:48
Don't you realize that the experiment in the video uses linearly polarized light, instead of circularly polarized light?

And at 18:30 to 19:00 or so, the video explains why your objection was irrelevant.
I already knew that.
Did you?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

For what it's worth, I think you are right.
But I don't think it matters much.
At about 07:15 he gets it right.
So, you can't say "He is making a false assumption", But you can say he messed up when writing his script.
Congratulations! you proved he's human.

If a mistake is not addressed, then there is risk that it will be repeated. Someone who learns from the video might get unnecessarily confused, and subsequently make bigger or further mistakes.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's another simple way to demonstrate the polarization of light using every day objects.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I've recorded a video showing behavior of absorptive polarizer in visible light. It's in contrast to reflective polarizer I've shown using metal grids in microwave spectrum.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Searching for reflective polarizer, I found this video.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Searching for absorptive polarizer in YouTube doesn't give informative videos, but Google gives some sources. Some of them equate it to dichroic polarizer. So, I searched it in YouTube and get some results.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Other results from the searching only give theoretical explanation without physical demonstration.
Although this one is pretty good.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Polarizer ? How it Works: Visible Light Linear Polarizers

METHODS OF PRODUCING LINEAR POLARIZED LIGHT:
There are numerous ways of developing linearly polarized light. There are three widely known mechanisms:

Double refraction or birefringence
Reflection
Dichroism

...

DICHROIC ABSORPTIVE POLARIZERS
API?s and most commercially produced polarizers are dichroic polarizers. They exhibit dichroism; the property of absorbing light that is polarized in a particular direction. A dichroic linear polarizer can be considered as having an indicated absorption and transmission axis. The transmission axis is also referred to as the ?polarizing axis.? Stretched Polyvinyl Alcohol (PVA) is most commonly used in dichroic polarizers.
https://www.apioptics.com/about-api/resources/visible-light-linear-polarizer/

This is one of the results in Google search.