Classical explanation of double slit polarization experiment

[DParlevliet]

I have a disagreement with a Quantum mechanical scientist about a double slit experiment with polarizers, which gives interference or not depending on "which path" knowledge of the photon. That is alright with me, but I can calculate the same results with classical wave formula. He does not agree with me, but also does not seem to be familiar working with classical waves calculations. Is there someone here who is? Who can check if my calculations and conclusions are right?

 

[Cthugha]

Is this a try to restart this discussion:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=731634
because you did not like the responses you got?

If so, opening two threads for the same topic is not a good idea. Otherwise you are not likely to get an answer if you do not tell what experiment you are talking about.

 

[DParlevliet]

Of coarse not, that is closed. It is about a wiki-part causing discussion about a different subject from the thread you are referring to. An answer is only useful from someone who is an expert in classical optical calculation and is really interrested.

 

[Cthugha]

No, it is not closed. That was your other topic. The topic above was your (invalid) try to explain the quantum eraser classically.

However, you are not likely to get people interested, if you do not tell them what you are exactly talking about.

 

[DParlevliet]

Indeed, I confused with the other topic. This thread is indeed the same subject. In the old thread you referred to I got the QM explanation and I am checking here the classical explanation. If someone is really fond of classical waves he will answer. If not, then I din't find the person I was looking for.

 

[Cthugha]

Indeed, I confused with the other topic. This thread is indeed the same subject. In the old thread you referred to I got the QM explanation and I am checking here the classical explanation.

You have been given the explanation why your approach cannot work e.g. in post 10 by vanhees71. You just did not like the answer. Opening a second thread on the same topic hoping you get a response you like better is not really an acceptable practice.

 

[DParlevliet]

Van Hees cave the QM answer. But calculating with classical (probability) waves gives the same result. According (some) QM is using waves wrong, therefore I post it on the classical forum. The question is not if using a wave is right or wrong, but if the calculation and conclusion is right according classical rules

 

[Cthugha]

If you reread the topic you will find that you have been given explanations why you cannot describe an experiment involving entanglement classically. Also a claim that qm is using waves wrong seems esoteric to me. If you think you can describe entanglement classically, please provide a peer-reviewed reference for that. It is against the policy of these forums to discuss personal theories and non-mainstream science.

 

[DParlevliet]

It is an old topic and there were a lot of discussions afterwards (elsewhere). Now I except that classical and QM can give the same results but a different conclusion.