I recommend a look at "circular polarization" for anyone that thought they understood polarization as the direction the light vibrates.
Take two pair of Real-3d glasses from the movie theater and try the different orientations (including front-front, front-back permutations). The vertical/horizontal model will not explain your observations. Hence, I know about circular polarization and had a confusing pre-movie experience at Iron Man 2.
I missed the first 3 or 4 minutes of Avatar because I was playing with the glasses and a laser pen pointer :-)
On one level I agree with you that this seems, at least initially, as tidy bit of theoretical physics. Most people 'get' that light is an electromagnetic wave, and of course Maxwell tied the two together quite elegantly.
The clever bits will be these two:
1) Is there a material, either natural or 'meta' in which the structure can convert a fraction of the light passing through it into a magnetic field. If so, and the light is modulated, you can induce a current in a conductor. Could be useful, could be a parlor trick.
2) Can you run it backwards? Which is to say if you generate a magnetic field of the proper type and orientation in the presence of such a material, can you convert the magnetic field into light? If so what frequency? What coherence? Does this paper provide the foundation for a LAAMR (Light Amplification by Amplified Magnetic Resonance) (no, its not a pun on 'lamer' :-)
I expect if you can create the latter you could probably get a Nobel prize (or at least share it).
Am I the only one who enjoys finding out we're wrong about some long held scientific beliefs (in this case the magnetic influence of light)
As a complete aside from most of the conversation happening here..
The ISS uses mainly circular polarisation in their radio communications because horizontal flips to vertical in a range of 15 minutes, relative to position over the Earth (90 minute period).
A horizontal antenna _can_ receive a vertically transmitted signal, with a 22 dBi loss. The reverse is also true. However, if a vertical or horizontal antenna receives a circularly polarised radio signal, the loss is only 3 dBi.*
Spoken as a user and experimenter of amateur radio.
* And I also found a link showing experimental loss when one receives a wrong "handedness" of circular polarisation. There is a clockwise and counter-clockwise polarisation as well. Theoretical maximum loss is also around 22 dBi, the same if you used a vertical to receive a horizontal.
So far, the types are: Horizontal, Vertical, CW circular, CCW circular, CW elliptical, CCW elliptical. Admittedly, I have never done anything with elliptical, but is noted here for completeness.
Take two pair of Real-3d glasses from the movie theater and try the different orientations (including front-front, front-back permutations). The vertical/horizontal model will not explain your observations. Hence, I know about circular polarization and had a confusing pre-movie experience at Iron Man 2.