B Double slit question, rotating polarizers...

mister mishka
Messages
41
Reaction score
32
I've wondered about this for sometime, say you rotate one of the polarizers (one of the two covering each slit) slowly from perpendicular to parallel, would the interference pattern slowly come into view?
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
Physics news on Phys.org
  • Like
Likes mister mishka and vanhees71
Ok, but what happens if both polarizers are perpendicular and you introduce a third larger polarizer before the two slits and slowly rotate that? Would you ever see an interference pattern? Say at 45 degrees to the polarizers perpendicular to one another? Kind of like how polariscopes work..

Thanks for any answers, I unfortunately do not know math well enough to understand, but I want to just know ("see") what the result is. Maybe its possible for me to do this experiment myself, but I will google it and see..
 
mister mishka said:
Ok, but what happens if both polarizers are perpendicular and you introduce a third larger polarizer before the two slits and slowly rotate that? Would you ever see an interference pattern? Say at 45 degrees to the polarizers perpendicular to one another? Kind of like how polariscopes work..

Thanks for any answers, I unfortunately do not know math well enough to understand, but I want to just know ("see") what the result is. Maybe its possible for me to do this experiment myself, but I will google it and see..

When there are 2 separate polarizers in front of the slits, the interference is controlled by those - and not the 3rd large one. That one serves primarily to adjust the intensity of the resulting pattern. Obviously you have to look at the math (a la Malus) to get the exact effect as you vary 3 settings.
 
  • Like
Likes mister mishka
I was thinking the 2 perpendicular polarizers being behind the slits, and polarized light shining through the slits first (at 45 degrees). However maybe the slits themselves act as a polarizer? Yeah, I think I need to study a bit tonight.. I will see what type of math I need to learn, and inevitably how long that will take :p
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top