Linear to Circular Polarisation Questions

StevieTNZ
Messages
1,934
Reaction score
873
I have some questions referring to wave plates.

We have an entangled pair of photons as |H>|V> - |V>|H> and both go through 22.5 degree orientated half-wave plates. |H> is converted to |45> and |V> is converted to |135> (so the description is now |45>|135> - |135>|45>). So inputting the polarisation |H> (regardless if the photon is in the possibility being |H> polarised, or if the photon is actually |H> polarised) into the half wave plate does not produce the output |45>-|135> (a superposition)? Are those two statements correct?

However I am a bit confused when converting photons, either in superposition or in definite polarisation, to the |R> and |L> axis. If we inputted a definite |H> polarised photon into a quarter wave plate orientated at 45 degrees (if that is the correct orientation and wave plate to convert from |H> or |V> to circular polarisation), would the output be a superposed state of |R> +|L>? With |V> polarised photon it would be –i|R>-|L> [the same would apply if the photon was in a superposition of being either |H> or |V>, and one of the superposition terms, |V>, would produce the same wave plate output -i|R>-|L>].

Likewise, if we measure (using wave plates and PBS orientated in the H/V basis) the entangled state |H>|V> - |V>|H> in the R/L basis, would the output of wave plates be for the first |H> be |R> + |L>, the
|V> = -i|R>-|L>, then for the 2nd half of the entangled state (starting with -|V>), - -i|R>-|L> and the |H> =|R>+|L>. If we expanded over these terms, could we only find one photon as |R> and the other as |L>, or would it be both |R>|R> or |L>|L>, or both of those possibilities?

I hope the above questions are clear. If not, please let me know.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Maybe this helps. In the Jones formalism, the only difference between linear polarization vectors and circular (or elliptical) polarization vectors is that the latter include complex components. So if you know how optical elements act on linear polarization you should be able to deduce their effect also on other polarizations.
 
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