Polarized light; maximum number of disagreements?

xb4byish
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Polarized light and their disagreements

Starting with 2 vertical photons, how can we argue that the maximum number of disagreements and minimum number for +30° and -30° is Nmin(-30°,30°) ≤ N(60°,0°) ≤ Nmax(-30°,30°)? and should we also not rotate the light?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


What are you talking about?
 


xb4byish said:
Starting with 2 vertical photons, how can we argue that the maximum number of disagreements and minimum number for +30° and -30° is Nmin(-30°,30°) ≤ N(60°,0°) ≤ Nmax(-30°,30°)? and should we also not rotate the light?

Welcome to PhysicsForums, xb4byish!

I don't follow your question either. However, if by chance you are referring to entangled photons: they cannot be considered as vertically polarized.
 
What are Nmin(-30°,30°), N(60°,0°) and Nmax(-30°,30°)?

What do you mean with maximum number of disagreements? Maximal number of photon pairs where two detectors will see different orientations for both photons? That is just the number of photon pairs. The average number is more meaningful.
 
perhaps its average number of disagreements. But i mean how can we prove the number of disagreements for (60,0) is between the minimum number of disagreements of (-30,0) and the maximum number of disagreements between the maximum number of disagreements of (30,0)
 
I don't understand that question.

There is an explicit formula for the "disagreement probability", you can derive it simply by looking at the 4 different cases. That should help.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top