Adding a 3rd Polarizer Changes Light Passing Through It

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter thenewmans
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the phenomenon observed when a third polarizer is added between two polarizers that are oriented at 90 degrees to each other, resulting in some light passing through. Participants explore the implications of this setup in both classical physics and quantum mechanics, particularly in relation to entanglement experiments and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about how the addition of a third polarizer allows light to pass through, questioning whether polarizers adjust the spin or angle of photons.
  • Another participant clarifies that photons passing through a horizontal polarizer emerge as horizontally polarized.
  • A link to the "Dirac three-polarizers experiment" is provided, with a description suggesting that passing through a polarizer "collapses" the photon's wave function, allowing it to pass through at a specific angle.
  • Discussion includes the idea that the third polarizer introduces a random fraction of photons that can pass through, which is also noted by another participant.
  • Some participants draw parallels between the three polarizer scenario and the Stern-Gerlach experiment, suggesting it illustrates fundamental properties of quantum mechanics, including complex phases and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
  • Questions are raised about how the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is validated by the results of the three polarizers, with references to field quantization and the limitations of knowledge regarding polarization direction.
  • One participant suggests that the randomness in photon passage through the polarizers might relate to inherent randomness in quantum mechanics, while another counters this idea, proposing a comparison to the projection of spin-1/2 particles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the implications of the three polarizer setup, with no consensus reached on the interpretations of quantum mechanics involved or the relationship to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Contextual Notes

Some discussions hinge on the interpretation of quantum mechanics, including concepts like wave function collapse and field quantization, which may not be universally accepted or fully resolved among participants.

thenewmans
Messages
168
Reaction score
1
One time, I saw this experiment where 2 polarizers were offset by 90 degrees so that no light got through. Then a third polarizer was added in between so that some light got through. I don’t know how this works in either a classical physics explanation or in a QM explanation. Do the polarizers adjust the spin or angle of the photon? If so, I wouldn’t have expected that. I thought that the photons that make it through a polarizer come out in just the same condition as when they entered.

I ask because I’m thinking about what implications this might have in an entanglement experiment.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hi thenewmans! :smile:
thenewmans said:
… I thought that the photons that make it through a polarizer come out in just the same condition as when they entered.

nope, any thing getting through a "horizontal" polarizer comes out "horizontally" polarized :wink:
 
Page on the "Dirac three-polarizers experiment" here:

http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/experiments/dirac_3-polarizers/

Here's a java applet that allows you to recreate it:

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/PhysicsInitiative/Physics2000/applets/lens.html

One way of looking at this would be that traveling through a polarizer at a given angle "collapses" the photon's wave function so it is definitely able to make it through at that angle (and definitely blocked by a polarizer at 90 degrees to that angle), while at other angles it has some probability of getting through and some probability of getting blocked. You can probably also model this situation without the assumption of "collapse", just a wavefunction continuously evolving over time or doing a path integral to calculate the probability the photon will be seen at a detector past the final filter, though I'm not sure of the details.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is worth noting that there is a very deep similarity between the 3 polarizer example and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment" . I personally consider this to be the clearest evidence of two fundamental properties of quantum mechanics:

1) quantum particles have complex phases associated with their positions/trajectories
2) the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle .. i.e. the fundamental restriction on knowing precise values for non-commuting observables.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SpectraCat said:
It is worth noting that there is a very deep similarity between the 3 polarizer example and the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment" . I personally consider this to be the clearest evidence of two fundamental properties of quantum mechanics:

1) quantum particles have complex phases associated with their positions/trajectories
2) the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle .. i.e. the fundamental restriction on knowing precise values for non-commuting observables.

How is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for quantum mechanics validated by the results of the 3 polarizers?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
San K said:
How is the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for quantum mechanics validated by the results of the 3 polarizers?

I was referring to the triple Stern-Gerlach experiment ... but I expect you can draw the same conclusions from the polarization experiment, if you include field quantization in your description. I am not an expert on QFT though, so I am not completely sure.
 
Last edited:
San K said:
Maybe you are thinking that the randomness that allows the photons to pass through all the three polarizers, can mathematically be used to prove inherent randomness?

No, nothing like that. I am thinking that the polarization direction of a photon is much like the projection of a spin-1/2 particle on a space fixed axis. The triple SG shows that you can only know one spatial component (x OR y OR z) of the spin vector. I expect that QED shows that there is an equivalent restriction on what you can know about the polarization direction of a photon .. but like I said, I don't know that to be true.
 
Wow, OK, all I got to say is this is why I love PF.
 

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K