Yes, although it may be difficult for a single photon.
There are lots of different ways of altering the polarization of a beam of light, generally. You could use a half-wave plate, or a birefringent medium, or a Faraday rotator, for example.
Individual photons have "helicity", which translates into circular polarization. So 'rotating' the photon will not change the polarization state.
Going over to the macroscopic description of polarization, with arbitrary polarization states, means that the light is now composed of a population of partially (mutually) coherent photons. Pure polarized light is completely coherent, randomly polarized light is incoherent. Descriptions of polarizers and retarders using photons is statistical in nature.
The polarization of light corresponds to spin, certain specially-prepared fields (Bessel beams, etc) of radiation possesses a property corresponding to angular momentum.
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
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
I don't know why the electrons in atoms are considered in the orbitals while they could be in sates which are superpositions of these orbitals? If electrons are in the superposition of these orbitals their energy expectation value is also constant, and the atom seems to be stable!