Understanding - how universe/reality plays dice

  • Thread starter San K
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Dice
In summary: Summary:According to the more popular interpretations of QM, photons have indeterminate properties prior to measurement, and the outcome of the photon properties, upon measurement, is totally random. However, after measurement the photon has definite/fixed/deterministic properties.Question:Now does this (recently measured) photon stay deterministic for ever? (because it has been measure via a polarizer or some other thing/material/apparatus).How does this photon go back to being totally random? which experiments/actions put a photon into a) determinate state or b) into a totally random state?
  • #36
lugita15 said:
If it is in a superposition of polarization states to start with, then as soon as it passes through the first polarizer the wave function will collapse and it take on a state of definite polarization, either parallel to the orientation of the first polarizer or perpendicular to the orientation of the first polarizer.

***

Then, after it passes through the second polarizer, it will have a new state of definite polarization, either parallel to the orientation of the second polarizer or perpendicular to the orientation of the second polarizer, with the probability of becoming polarized in the direction of the second polarizer being equal to the cosine squared of the difference in angle between the two polarizers.

*** The problem with the logic that there are two lines of probability flowing from any polarized filter is that a polarized filter precludes this possibility. Delta Kilo pointed this out very lucidly to me.
Tests have shown that my example of horizontal-diagonal-vertical polarized filters results in <1/8 the output of the original signal which precludes any signal from an orthogonal signal out of any polarized filter getting through by any means. This notion (of double exit from polarized filters) may be my fault, and for that, I apologize. mathal
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
mathal said:
*** The problem with the logic that there are two lines of probability flowing from any polarized filter is that a polarized filter precludes this possibility.l
Sorry, by polarizer I didn't mean a polarized filter, which destroys photons which are polarized perpendicular, but rather a polariscope like the one discussed http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html.
 
  • #38
lugita15 said:
Sorry, by polarizer I didn't mean a polarized filter, which destroys photons which are polarized perpendicular, but rather a polariscope like the one discussed http://quantumtantra.com/bell2.html.
Thanks for that clarification. The link you provided had a neat shot of the two polarized images of a page of print seen through a calcite crystal.
mathal
 
Back
Top