Malus law in quantum mechanics

AlexHT
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Hi,

For example, if I were to send |y> = 1/sqrt{2}( |H> + |V> ) photons into a polarizer with a 45 degre angle from horizontal, would the beam loose intensity? How can I calculate it on my own?


EDIT: The picture below illustrate what is happening. I am changing the base from x-y to a diagonal base. Do I loose intensity?
 

Attachments

  • base.JPG
    base.JPG
    2.7 KB · Views: 520
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
No. Or rather, it depends on which diagonal you're talking about. One will allow |H>+|V> through and completely block |H>-|V> ; the other will do the reverse. You can pretty much see what happens here just by looking at things: the lower-left to upper-right diagonal clearly corresponds to |H>+|V> -- that line is given by c (\hat{x}+\hat{y}) ,\ c \in R after all -- and so a polarizer along that lines corresponds to a projection onto |H>+|V>. The intensity of light getting through is given by | <\mbox{light}|\mbox{polarizer}>|^2 where light is the normalized polarization vector of the light, and polarizer is the normalized vector of the polarizer.

In a more general situation -- I mean when you're dealing with polarization of objects which are not spin-1 like light -- what you'd want to do is rotate the object's polarization vector into the basis of the polarizer. To do this you need to know how the object transforms under rotations; that can be found by exponentiating the angular momentum operators (which are the generators of rotations.) If this sounds like gobbedy-gook, you can study a good (grad-level) quantum mechanics textbooks. They will go into this in some depth. IIRC Sakurai's Modern Quantum Mechanics is particularly good on this topic. For a spin-m object polarized perpendicularly to the plane of the polarizer, this turns out to be pretty simple; you get roughly the same result as for light, except the rotation angle that shows up is proportional to m*theta, ie

|\mbox{rotated ket}> = \left( \begin{array}{cc} \cos(m\theta) & \sin(m\theta) \\ -\sin(m\theta) & \cos(m\theta) \end{array} \right) |\mbox{original ket}>
 
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