Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Concept

Polarimetry — where it appears

The measurement of the polarisation state of light, usually as Stokes parameters rather than as an angle and a fraction. It is the route to most magnetic measurements in astronomy, because a magnetic field breaks the isotropy of whatever does radiate.

Named by 3 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

A slope, not an angle. Above: the polarisation angle of a background source against the square of the observing wavelength, at the five wavelengths a radio survey actually uses. The plane rotates as it passes through magnetised plasma, by an amount proportional to the integral of the electron density times the field along the path — and to λ². The intercept is the angle the source emitted at, which nobody knows, so a measurement at one wavelength contains no information whatever; the slope is the rotation measure, here 42 radians per square metre, and it needs no knowledge of the source at all. Below: the fractional polarisation that survives. A telescope beam covers many lines of sight with slightly different rotation measures, their angles disagree by more at longer wavelengths, and the vector sum collapses — which is why the useful band has a long-wavelength edge that has nothing to do with sensitivity. Divide the rotation measure by the dispersion measure of the same path, 26.8 in the usual units, and the electron density cancels: the mean line-of-sight field is 1.93 µG, obtained without knowing the distance, the density, or where along the path the field was.

A slope that needs no source

Polarised light passing through magnetised plasma has its plane rotated, by an amount proportional to the square of the wavelength. A single measurement of the angle is worthless, because nobody knows the angle the source emitted at. A measurement of the slope against wavelength squared does not need to know.

starlight · Faraday rotation A field strength read off the scatter of directions. The Davis–Chandrasekhar–Fermi estimate: field strength against the dispersion of polarisation angles across a cloud, at a density of 10⁴ molecules per cubic centimetre and a turbulent velocity of 0.9 kilometres a second. The polarisation directions themselves contain no field strength — an aligned grain reports which way the field points and nothing about how hard it is pulling. The strength is in the disorder. Turbulence of a given energy bends a stiff field less than a weak one, so the angular scatter is the ratio of the turbulent velocity to the Alfvén speed, and inverting it gives the field: 220 µG at a 9-degree dispersion. The relation is exactly inverse, so the estimate is most trustworthy where the field is most ordered and worst where it matters most. The factor of 0.5 in front is not theory — it is what simulations of a known field, analysed this way, turn out to need, and the honest statement is that this method is calibrated rather than derived.

A direction measured by something with no strength in it

An interstellar grain spins with its long axis across the magnetic field, so starlight through a cloud is polarised along the field and the cloud's own emission across it. The observable contains no field strength whatever — and the strength is recovered anyway, from how much the directions disagree.

galaxies · Dust polarisation Two effects that are blind in opposite directions. The sensitivity of two magnetic diagnostics against field strength, on a logarithmic axis spanning five decades. The Zeeman effect measures the line-of-sight component and adds it up along the path, so a field tangled into 100 independent cells inside one resolution element averages down by a factor of 10 and reports almost nothing — which is exactly the situation in a chromosphere or a turbulent cloud. The Hanle effect is a different device altogether: a field precesses the atom between absorption and re-emission, so a scattering line's polarisation is rotated and reduced, and the amount depends on how far the precession gets in one radiative lifetime. That makes it sensitive around 1 gauss for a 100-nanosecond level, and — the useful part — it does not care about sign, so a tangled field does not cancel. Above the crossing at 27.7 gauss the Hanle signal has saturated and carries no strength information, and the Zeeman effect is the instrument. Neither is a measurement of the field; each is a measurement of what the field did to something else.

Two instruments blind in opposite directions

The Zeeman effect measures the component of a field along the line of sight and adds it up, so a field tangled into a hundred cells reports a tenth of one cell's strength. The Hanle effect measures how far an atom precesses between absorbing and re-emitting, does not care about sign, and saturates just where the Zeeman effect becomes useful.

starlight · Polarimetry

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Magnetic fieldAlfven speedBirefringenceChromosphereDavis chandrasekhar fermiDepolarisationDispersion measureDust polarisationExtinctionFaraday rotationGrain alignmentHanle effect

All concepts