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 =)
 
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