Why are you guys dragging QM into this? Is the OP's difficulty that this isn't complicated enough?
If you think as a wave as something either passing through the polaroid or not, it's slightly surprising. I've certainly seen polaroids illustrated as a gate with a plastic sinusoid slid through it (which will only go one way, and can't be rotated by a polaroid). That's a wrong picture, of course.I've also no clue, why this is called a paradox
You don't use QM to describe what happens in your VP VHF boat antenna. RF electromagnetism make so much more sense when people want some 'understanding'. You can 'feel' the currents flowing and the result of tilting an antenna.My bad. I thought it was a QM-only thing.
Really? I thought it was a fairly standard explanation of how wire grid (and similar) polarisers work, an anisotropic relative of the usual explanation of why EM waves don't penetrate metals. The charges can't move very far across the grid.I had never heard that before. Very Huygens-like.
Well, it's always more fun to solve a straightforward problem when it is presented as a "paradox". At least to me.Argh! That's also a paradox now. Well, I've to reformulate next week's problem set for my students to make them solve a paradox rather than some projection operator applications ;-)).
That's probably true. It can bring out your argumentative side and makes you more determined to disprove the paradox. Everyone loves a Devil's Advocate.Well, it's always more fun to solve a straightforward problem when it is presented as a "paradox". At least to me.
Yes, using Jones vectors. The 3-polarizer setup is a very useful (and classical) way to demonstrate the behavior of spin-polarized atoms in magnetic fields. The Pauli spin matrices serve double-duty as Hermitian polarization operators.Can it be explained classically?