I Observables on the "3 polarizers experiment"

DougFisica
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
Analogy between 3 polarizers experiment and Stern-Gerlach experiment
Observables on the "3 polarizers experiment"
Hi guys,

I was analyzing the 3 polarizers experiment. This one: (first 2 minutes -> )

Doing the math (https://faculty.csbsju.edu/frioux/polarize/POLAR-sup.pdf) I realized that the process is similar to the Stern-Gerlach' experiment.

Using spins for the Stern Gerlach experiment: if you prepare a spin up (Z component) sample (first filter), and pass it to a second filter that measure the X component of the spin. You lose information about the Z component.

I undertand that Z and X component are non-commuting observables.

My question is:

Is there there an analogy for the polarizers experiment?

For example, if I measure the vertical component (first polarizer), I cannot get information about the 45º component (second polarizer).

I would guess the answer is Yes, however I cannot understand the "45º component" physical meaning.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
DougFisica said:
For example, if I measure the vertical component (first polarizer), I cannot get information about the 45º component (second polarizer).

I would guess the answer is Yes, however I cannot understand the "45º component" physical meaning.
What you are calling “the 45º component” is the probability amplitude that the photon will pass through a filter oriented at 45 degrees. No matter what that amplitude was before the vertical polarizer (it could even have been 1, if the photon had previously passed through a polarizer at 45º) the vertical measurement leaves that amplitude at ##\sqrt{2}/2## - we no longer know anything about the previous state and the photon has a 50% chance of passing a 45º filter.

To continue the analogy with the Stern-Gerlach measurement: just as the particle state “spin up” can be written as the vector sum of the states “spin left” and “spin right”, the vertically polarized state of a photon can be written as the vector sum of the states “polarized at 45º” and “polarized at -45º“.
 
  • Like
Likes DougFisica and vanhees71
Nugatory said:
Thanks for the answer =)
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In her YouTube video Bell’s Theorem Experiments on Entangled Photons, Dr. Fugate shows how polarization-entangled photons violate Bell’s inequality. In this Insight, I will use quantum information theory to explain why such entangled photon-polarization qubits violate the version of Bell’s inequality due to John Clauser, Michael Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard Holt known as the...
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...
I am not sure if this falls under classical physics or quantum physics or somewhere else (so feel free to put it in the right section), but is there any micro state of the universe one can think of which if evolved under the current laws of nature, inevitably results in outcomes such as a table levitating? That example is just a random one I decided to choose but I'm really asking about any event that would seem like a "miracle" to the ordinary person (i.e. any event that doesn't seem to...
Back
Top