Non identical particles and one bit results can not explain the 3 polarizer problem. Two polarizers at 90 degrees block all light. With one at 45 degrees in between, some light comes through the last polarizer. so the population characteristics meeting the last polarizer are different depending on whether they have gone through the 45 degrees polarizer or not. We know from that the polarizers are not just blocking the passage of some of the photons. Something I haven't seen mentioned is refraction. Could refraction of the light as it passes from air to plastic back to air again be responsible? That refraction is happening isn't in doubt.
replied on Sep. 18, 2019 @ 17:33 GMT
Georgian,"Non identical particles and one bit results can not explain the 3 polarizer problem."That statement is false:Because, the detection of polarization is not a linear process. |A|*|C| may or may not equal A * C. Similarly, |A|+|C| may or may not equal A + C. If you wish to ever understand what is going on, you need to stop endlessly speculating, and actually study the actual mathematical behavior, of the algorithm implementing the "matched filtering", used in polarization detection.Rob McEachern
replied on Sep. 18, 2019 @ 20:12 GMT
Robert, I accept that it would be good for me to learn more about the analysis of polarization experiments. I wrote about a specific experiment. The 3 polarizer problem I described, that can be done without entangled photons is showing a change is happening to the 'light' as well as filtering out of some photons. Nothing to do with analysis or algorithms. 'Light' can be seen coming through the 3rd polarizer when the 45 degree one is inserted. Polarizers have a different refractive index to air and so even if the gap between is small there will be refraction. For want of a mechanism that will alter the light paths, it seems a good candidate and something I have not seen discussed in this context; reflection being another candidate. The change to the light is happening before any analysis.
replied on Sep. 18, 2019 @ 23:35 GMT
Georgina, you seem to believe that simply because polarization experiments produce results that do not conform to your (or most other people's) expectations, there must be something odd happening. A much more plausible explanation, is that there is something odd about your expectations; they are being based upon an incorrect model of how polarization detection actually takes place, , within each polarizer. Once you replace that incorrect model of the polarization detection process, with the correct model, the new model will enable a corresponding change in your expectations. Thereafter, you will discover, that there no longer is any discrepancy between your expectations and the observed results.While it would indeed be good for you to "learn more about the analysis of polarization experiments", it would be even better, much better, if you learned more about how each polarizer actually functions; they function the way you (and others) think they do - rather, they function in the manner embodied in the Matlab model I created - thus, while reality may not conform to your expectations, it does conform to mine.Rob McEachern
replied on Sep. 19, 2019 @ 03:06 GMT
No Robert I don't think something odd is going on in Dirac's experiment. I think something explicable is happening, which doesn't require any odd physics. I just haven't nailed down what precisely is going on in the polarizers. I haven't given them much thought till now. I have been reading up on their construction, which may also have some relevance. What I know is the light leaving the second polarizer is not just quantitatively different to the light that entered (or light that only goes through the first not second polarizer) it is qualitatively different in some way. I was thinking also there may be something wrong with the classical idea of how polarizers function. I thought you might like to discuss the topic with me. But it seems you just want to tell me i'm ignorant and you have the answers. Well good for you.
replied on Sep. 19, 2019 @ 13:48 GMT
"I was thinking also there may be something wrong with the classical idea of how polarizers function."Exactly my point. Real polarizers cannot produce perfectly polarized light, except under very specific conditions. Because every time you pass light through an additional polarizer, its "mistakes" in attempting to identify each, individual input photon, as being either "polarized one way" or "polarized the other way" will inevitably cause its output to contain some of both. This behavior is not just due to imperfections in the manufacturing/construction of the devices, it is partially due to the fundamental, unavoidable, behavior of a single-bit-of-information - the single-bit required to identify what the input polarization is ("this way" or "that way"), in the first place.My frustration with your approach, stems from the fact that while you freely acknowledge that "I haven't given them much thought till now", you nevertheless persist on endless, speculation, rather than "giving much thought" to the only detailed, classical polarization model that has ever been developed, that actually duplicates results observed in quantum experiments; and not just any, old experiments, but the very experiments that were specifically intended to prove that such a classical polarizer cannot possibly exist. But it does exist. This result has been replicated by others. In the past several years, it has been studied by thousands of different people and not a single person has publicly claimed to find any flaw in the model. It works as claimed - in spite of fifty years of research, that has produced millions of pages of peer-reviewed "proofs", that it cannot possibly work. But it does work. So why not give that some thought?Rob McEachern
replied on Sep. 19, 2019 @ 21:29 GMT
"Endless speculation" is hardly a fair description. I have admitted I've only just started thinking about polarization, and I've had a few preliminary thoughts. Which may or may not turn to be useful to me. Just thinking 'aloud'. Another thought is about the common depiction of an EM wave passing through a polarizer. The wave is a depiction of the electric and magnetic phases in complex maths. space but a polarizer is shown as an object in Euclidean space, making it seem as if this what's happening in 3D Euclidean space. However in Feynman's lecture on polarization he explains that the mathematical depiction is not physical. That makes me interested in what is actually going on in 3D space. Maybe imperfections of the polarizers are responsible for the proportions found as you say. I'm not saying you are wrong. It has not been my intention to annoy you.
replied on Sep. 20, 2019 @ 06:10 GMT
Sorry... Imperfections and single bit information, as you say.
replied on Sep. 20, 2019 @ 15:27 GMT
Georgina,It is difficult for me to give you any meaningful advice, since I do not know what goal you are aiming to achieve. That being said, if your goal is merely to wander around in the "maze of quantum weirdness", pausing occasionally to smell and admire all the peculiar roses, paradoxes and otherwise interesting sights to be found along the way, then you seem to be doing just fine, since any of the myriad paths winding throughout the maze, is likely to be just as interesting as any other; enjoy whatever environment you happen to wander into.But keep in mind, that thousands of physicists have been trampling though all those paths for an entire century, without ever finding a single one that leads out of the maze, to a simple, classical, deterministic explanation of quantum phenomenon.If your goal is to find the only known path out of that "maze", then there is only one known way to find it: like a bloodhound, sniff-out the reeking scent of Shannon's most famous discovery, the most-peculiar rose of all, the "single-bit-of-information", AKA the rose of the Uncertainty Principle, then follow that scent wherever it leads - which, not coincidentally, happens to be the exit from the maze.I hope you enjoy your trip, whatever path you chose.Rob McEachern
replied on Sep. 21, 2019 @ 01:02 GMT
That's OK Robert.I'm happy doing my own thing. I'm more interested in material reality than quantum weirdness.This is just another paradox I'd like to put to rest.I've been thinking about the 'light' waves in space, being shredded and recombined. Thinking of the first polarizer like a sharp comb taking out the parts that are too horizontal. Leaving combed light which is more uniform, more alike in its vertical-ness. The second polarizer I'm thinking of as a shredder that cuts the waves. Part of the waves are absorbed . The other parts are recombined , so that parts of different waves come together into the same wave. The third polarizer is another sharp comb.The recombined waves have a new vertical component that gets combed, leaving the remainder to pass through.
replied on Sep. 21, 2019 @ 01:14 GMT
I might be able to improve on that description. It's early days.If it is a valid description of what is happening in 3D space, it is showing that whether an individual photon gets through a polarizer is not a pre-existing characteristic of the photon but a natter of where it is in the wave when wave and polarizer meet and the challenge presented by the polarizer. Since it is not a characteristic of the photon Bell's inequalities don't apply.
replied on Sep. 21, 2019 @ 03:20 GMT
'Sharp comb" and 'shredder' are used as similes and metaphors because the waves are not just being moved out of the way but being 'cut', as part is absorbed by the pigment crystals of the polarizer and does not proceed. The terms should be thought of as a loose analogy, a simplification, for what is really going on at the level of particles.
replied on Sep. 22, 2019 @ 00:04 GMT
Reduction in intensity is easily explicable as photons are being removed from the beam as they are absorbed. If a torch beam is used, it can be seen from across the dim room.To be seen photons from the beam must meet the observer's retina. So the seen beam path is not showing all about how the light is propagating, but source of the seen product when the photons were scattered towards the observer's eye. It is known that it is a spectrum of colours, as they can be isolated using a prism. But I don't know how they travel as part of the white light. Are they randomly distributed in space? The polarizers are not separating colous. When i try to imagine it I get a mess of different wave directions and frequencies interfering.The resultant wave from all of that must be what is traveling through 3D space and gets shredded, reduced and spliced by the polarizers.
replied on Sep. 22, 2019 @ 03:43 GMT
'The resultant wave' is probably not the best description. How about the resultant spatial actualization of the interacting fields and phases of the constituents [I don't know what to say here-is it waves of photon particles?]. Imagining the spatial actualization being the condition of the base medium. The discrete excitation of that medium being the photon particles.
replied on Sep. 22, 2019 @ 08:08 GMT
The polarizers are material things, beables or as I say, actualizations. I'm trying to describe their interaction with the actualization that is the Em radiation, 'light', the beable. Not the measurables; frequency, wavelength, polarization, amplitude (mathematical values and vectors). The material polarrizers are not acting on numbers along the number line or on a complex plane or vectors. That's why I'm looking for a description of what the polarizers are acting on and what they are doing, in a 'concrete' sense.
replied on Sep. 23, 2019 @ 02:28 GMT
Bell's inequalities: Members of the population have fixed characteristics under consideration. The sets of members of the population can be added and subtracted to give valid information about the population. Polarisers and 'light' presents a dynamic geometric problem. The condition of the 'excitement' of the base medium that is actualized is different before and after each polariizer. The order in which the polarizers are met matters. Polarizers ABC does not equal ACB. Whether an individual photon will pass a particular polarizer will depend on the where and when of the photon's emission, the dynamics of the medium influencing the photon and the spatial puzzle presented by the coming together of dynamic base medium (3 spatial dimensions and time) and fixed polarizer challenge (min. 2 spatial dimensions and same time).The dimensions mentioned are for modeling.
replied on Sep. 23, 2019 @ 02:54 GMT
I should add to the list of influences on whether a photon passes through a polarizer, any material interactions prior to meeting the polarizer. That could be another polarizer or,for example, reflection from a dust particle. The unique characteristics of an individual polarizer might also have bearing. Such as how the molecules that hold the pigment have been aligned by stretching, and any impurities in the substrate. A mis-aligned pigment molecule could capture a photon that should have passed with correct pigment molecule alignment. Impurities could capture photons that should pass or divert photons that would have been captured. Different quality of polarizer could give different results.
replied on Sep. 23, 2019 @ 05:20 GMT
Dimensions and modeling/visualization: I'm thinking that a simplified version can be imagined where 2D slices of the excited base medium are interacting with a 2D simplified polarizer. Different slices for each time sample. But the polarizer is 3D with internal structure, I think the whole polarizer is permeable to the base medium but the pigment can absorb photons from it.So the medium and polaarizer can be imagined overlapping/interwoven. A photon doesn't have a preset will or won't pass for each polarizer orientation. Whether it passes or not comes about when the dynamic base medium meets the environment of the polarizer. Bell's inequalities (applicable to fixed characteristics) don't apply.
replied on Sep. 25, 2019 @ 09:01 GMT
Dirac expressed the opinion that we do not need a 'picture' of what is going on. I think that one that works would be really useful.I think that thinking of the EM radiation as excitation of the base medium is useful and overcomes the question of waves in what? It relegates the particle nature to singular portions of disturbance. I haven't yet got a really clear notion of how the medium plus excitation behave, to give the findings of the polarization experiments. If the answer is to be found there. Keeping in mind Robert's work. I'd like to keep thinking over the problem as I know I'm still not providing a satisfactory explanation. Double slit and half silvered mirror experiments seem to suggest to me that the wave like disturbances can be split and recombined. Perhaps photons are more mutable or divisible than we think. It's just a thought at the moment.
replied on Sep. 26, 2019 @ 04:20 GMT
I have found the following paper. It talks about multiple polarizers in a graduated sequence of angles giving refraction of the light path, like passing the light through a substance of higher refractive index. So not just acting as filters but rotating the light path as well. This ties in with my first supposition. So breaking up of photons is probably not needed to understand the polarizer problems. If this is an effect of the environment that only has effect when the light passes through the polarizers, it can effect the whereabouts of the photons without being a pre existing characteristic of the individual photons. Johannes V.D.Wirjawan, 2014
replied on Sep. 26, 2019 @ 08:20 GMT
Doing some background reading I've found out that the orientation of the polarizer pigment crystals is parallel to the direction of travel of the photons adsorbed. Interesting to me as that is the opposite of what I imagined.I haven't seen it written about but maybe the uptake is only temporary, otherwise the polarizer pigment could become 'saturated' with photons and unable to take up any more. Especially if very bright light is used. In which case they are only temporarily cut and will be re-emitted to interfere. I need to think about what the 50 per cent reduction in seen brightness (observation product) is indicating about the source light beam.
replied on Sep. 27, 2019 @ 04:07 GMT
I've been thinking about the problem in the wrong way. No need to fit the dynamic structure of the beable 'light' input to the structure of the polarizer to work out if it passes or not. Because, and how exactly doesn't matter for now, the polarization output is actualized because of the structure of the polarizer. A particular polarisation is not an unchanged intrinsic characteristic of the light. Compare with the Stern Gerlach apparatus and spin states; once acquired the state remains for a same test but is changed, as it must, by a different orientation of the apparatus. If this is so, it makes no sense to ask whether a photon will pass through polarizer A, polarizer B and polarizer C, either in sequence or as individual polarizers. The photon populations in/out-put is not of the hats, scarves, gloves kind. So need not comply with Bell's inequalities.
replied on Sep. 27, 2019 @ 04:21 GMT
Re. seen brightness of the observation product. Generated from photon input to observer visual system or device, scattered from the beam source. Less input to observer seems to suggest less photons of visible wavelengths scattered from the beam. Indicating less activity. Which could be thought of as less photons in the beam. Though it might be more correct to think of a portion of the photons being 'quietened/ smoothed' by destructive interference.
replied on Sep. 28, 2019 @ 01:19 GMT
The nature of the input beam is each photon has a frequency, it has a velocity i.e a direction of travel, and a polarization. The nature of the polarizer is that it can 'capture' and re-emit photons. Is it the same photons emitted? It depends on how it is thought about. Though it has the same frequency, its velocity and polarization can be different, ( 2 of 3 characteristics of the input photon changed.) It could be thought of as nurture, interaction with environment that alters the photon, or simply there is fair exchange of photons. Either way there is change of 'apparel' going on. The output population is not the same as the input population. A few of the input photons will have the polarization to pass through but the rest that do are produced by nurture/exchange.
replied on Sep. 28, 2019 @ 22:07 GMT
The question of whether a photon passes through a polarizer or not is based on the assumption that those options apply to what is happening. It is offering a binary choice at the quantum level. But most of the photons output from the polarizer are as those input. They can either be thought as different photons that were exchanged or same photons altered. Both are valid descriptions. Whether a photon passes or not is actualized when the relations between the photon and the polarizer material is actualized. It is not an intrinsic character of the photons. The separation into the linearly polarized output is showing the nature of thee polarizer material, rather than the intrinsic nature of the photons. Once polarized the same test gives the same result as the photons are already aligned for passing through that orientation of polarizer.
replied on Sep. 29, 2019 @ 23:29 GMT
Hi All, can anyone give me the reference for an article or paper on how the Polaroid type of polarizer interacts with light. I have read the patent and other papers on how to make them. So I have a clearer idea of their structure. I have read a description on Wikipedia involving the electric field and electrons of the paralleled crystals, but there is no reference telling where that information has come from. I don't know how that is known or whether it is conjecture. The polarizers aren't acting like sieves with different sized holes. Two 22.5 degree polarizers meeting vertically polarized light, do not add up to one polarizer at 45 degrees. I have seen numerous mathematical 'descriptions' but it would be good to know about the material phenomenon happening in the polarizers. I've tries searching on Google scholar but haven't found what I'm trying to find.
replied on Oct. 1, 2019 @ 03:57 GMT
"Questions as to what determines whether the photon is transmitted or not, or how it changes its direction of polarization, are illegitimate, because they do not relate to the outcome of a possible experiment."Richard Fitzpatrick 2013-04-08 Photon polarization, http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/qm/lectures/node5.htmlCan't a large scale 3D model of the polarizer structure be accurately made, to investigate what must be going on when the photons intact with it? I've read that the electrons of the captured long crystals can move with ease in the directions parallel to the polymer chains and crystal length but are held more firmly in the perpendicular direction. That latter direction being the direction of transmission, it is said. Some talk just of absorption, others of re-emission and canceling incident light
replied on Oct. 2, 2019 @ 23:04 GMT
The polaroid material is anisotropic. It has long polymer chains in which long crystals are embedded lengthwise in one direction. Going by what I have read this is what I think is happening. Electrons of the embedded crystals have some movement in the direction of their long length but are held firmly so they can't move significantly at 90 degrees to their long length. When a photon is taken up by an electron such that it moves along the crystal, some of the energy input is converted to the motion energy , and incoherent heat (smaller wavelength EMr) is emitted. So photons interacting in that way do not get emitted as visible 'light'. Something different must be happening to photons that strike the electrons in their non moving orientation. It isn't clear to me yet. Maybe reflection is happening which is polarizing the EMr making it coherent.
replied on Oct. 3, 2019 @ 03:08 GMT
...ohh for goodness sake...is there any such thing as quantum phase?
replied on Oct. 3, 2019 @ 05:33 GMT
Steve, I'm not trying to be annoying. I'm trying to work out the beable, material reality underlying the statistical outcomes of experiments involving Polaroid polarizers. Having said that the outcomes do not depend on fixed characteristics of the 'light'-i.e. the population of photons is not of the hats. gloves, scarves kind, what is the relation between the polarizers and 'light' that changes the outcomes when the polarizers are turned relative to each other. Results that are not additive. . Re. quantum phase; Maybe as it is your 'baby' you should define and explain its relevance in this context. I have been told off before for feeding back my misunderstanding of other posters own physics.
replied on Oct. 4, 2019 @ 16:32 GMT
You are obviously a very smart person, just not that technical and this device has an alluring simplicity that even beguiles the very smart people who fabricated the original experiment. The gives more details, but then it is only the even more technical paper that describes the exact experiment. Suffice it to say that Brown then extracts a very simple and alluring thought experiment and introduces the mysterious new term counterfactual and does not even mention an interaction-free measurement.Sigh...The basic semiclassical approximation in this quantum mystery is that a single photon carries information only in its energy, but of course the single photon spectrum also carries information as pure phase. Since a single photon can interfere with itself just like any quantum particle, a single photon spectrum can change its phase or spin or polarization without changing its energy.There is no classical analog for either pure phase exchange or self-interaction or energy. So by making semiclassical assumptions that ignore quantum phase, even very smart people end up with absurd answers for even a very simple single photon quantum resonator...
replied on Oct. 4, 2019 @ 21:50 GMT
Hi Steve, I wrote some thought about the experiment in the blog on this page, 9th-10th Sept. Here I've just been trying to find how a polaroid polaarizer functions. I've found lots of explanations involving analogies that aren't actually how they work.I think I grasp how light is being absorbed but don't yet clearly understand how the transmitted light comes to be plane polarized from being a mixture of polarizations. I've read that 38 percent is transmitted for a realistic polarizer and 50 percent for an ideal polarizer. I don't know how the percentage comes to be so high. If it was filtering out 'light' not polarized in that plane it would be much lower.So it seems possible to me that the polarization is being altered to become uniform; (fitting my argument). Or it is not plane polarized, but has variation of polarization either side of the plane.
replied on Oct. 4, 2019 @ 22:14 GMT
Steve, I don't know what you mean by the single photon spectrum. Is it just your way of referring to a photon? I think that a photon has a single frequency. I think that frequency is information that can be obtained by a receptor. Phase is related to frequency, but I don't know why you are emphasizing phase. Frequency and hence phase can be altered, as can polarization and velocity (Whether it is the same photon afterwards or not is a question I have pondered.) I don't think there is spontaneous alteration or spontaneous self interference, but that such phenomena have origins in underlying existence. I think it possible that an amount of energy detectable as a photon is able to affect its environment, and that effect is not measurable on its own but able to be transmitted and interfere with the parent.
replied on Oct. 5, 2019 @ 03:59 GMT
replied on Oct. 5, 2019 @ 07:10 GMT
Steve, I don't think a single photon has a spectrum of frequencies. The frequency of the source can vary so the population it produces vary in individual frequency.Re. polarization: Somehow the polarization of the transmitted 'light' seems to be becoming the same, from a diverse input."Resonance in light waves results in absorption of the light frequency. When no resonance is present, then the light is transmitted through the object." study.com Re. 'the parent': I don't really understand what you mean by the excited state of the photon. Is plasma relevant in these polarizer and beam splitting experiments? Do you mean disturbance of the environment? I think of a field as an effect on the environment. I don't think a photon can be separated from its fields. So I'm imagining the effect to be divisible.
replied on Oct. 5, 2019 @ 08:27 GMT
A light bulb has just come on. The energy of the 'light' either resonates with the movable electrons, being absorbed and re-radiated as heat or it does not. When the crystals are vertical the vertical component of the light is 'extracted ' like mechanical dampening. The horizontal component is unaffected as the electrons can't move sideways. So there is no dampening in that orientation. It just needs the individual photons to be dampen-able not just 'light' waves (of many photons). If the photons transmitted have been selectively 'dampened', they are changed; fitting with my argument regarding the non-applicability of Bell's inequalities. I have really beaten around the bush, but at least now i really understand the classical 'picture' of what is happening. Not gates or the like!
replied on Oct. 8, 2019 @ 04:08 GMT
The single photon is not only a spectrum or superposition of frequencies, it is also a superposition of polarizations or phases for those frequencies. A single frequency photon would be a sine wave that would never end. A photon pulse in time is necessarily a superposition of frequencies and phases that make up a band or peak of frequencies.A single photon polarization occurs as a pure phase interaction with transparent or transparent matter. Thus the electrons in a transparent material still affect photon phase.The excited state is not of the photon, but of the atom, ion, or molecule that then resonates with a detector atom, ion, or molecule to transmit the photon bond. The single photon has both an electric field and an orthogonal magnetic field and is always a superposition of two polarizations. Linear polarization is a superposition of right and left circular and circular is a superposition of vertical and horizontal with phase shifts or delays.In other words, a polarized photon is still carrying two polarizations. Polarization is a dispersive effect of electrons in transparent material. Semiclassical approximations are very useful, but can also result in absurd answers to simple questions.
replied on Oct. 8, 2019 @ 04:58 GMT
Steve A., you wrote "A single frequency photon would be a sine wave that would never end." Why? Isn't it an amount of energy of wave form that can be thought of as a discrete particle (energy packet) that travels from place to place. I can see why it might be useful to consider an individual photon of unpolarized white 'light' as a superposition of frequencies and polarizations, representing what might be measured (covering all possibilities).You wrote" Linear polarization is a superposition of right and left circular and circular is a superposition of vertical and horizontal with phase shifts or delays."Steve A. Now I'm perplexed. A superposition can be found to be either or but if it linearly polarized it isn't circularly polarized one way or the other.It seems a quantum classical mash up. As if the alive cat can interact with its dead self.
replied on Oct. 9, 2019 @ 00:36 GMT
The two opposite circular polarizations resulting in linear polarization is like the two states of Schrodinger's cat resulting in a zombie cat, no heartbeat but able to devour a rat. That's not how superposition resolves though, the measurement is always one or other of the states that were in superposition. If polarized 'light' is a special case working differently to other kinds of superposition -why is that? If instead it is said that the two circular polarizations are superimposed, producing linear polarization then that would not be problematic but that is a classical description.
replied on Oct. 9, 2019 @ 02:13 GMT
You have to realize that the photon time pulse has a photon frequency spectrum and the two are just different time and energy versions of the same thing. There is no use in fighting that...that is just the way the universe is.A photon size is equivalent to the size of the universe, but of course, the photon amplitude is 1e-39 less at the universe edge than it is here. That is really small, but so in gravity...in fact that is gravity versus charge force and that is not a coincidence.Superposition math may perplex you, but it is really just math. So 1+1=2 and 1-1=0, right? Now throw in quantum phase and you get everything in between. The fact that linear polarization is decomposed into circular is just math and really just a classical outcome of Maxwell's electromagnetism. It is not really need QM...Now the two states of Schrodinger's cat is a good point, but first you must include the decay of quantum phase. Superposition is not needed once quantum phase decays...Polarization represents a superposition just like spin or any other quantum state. Producing linear polarization from circular is after all just a classical outcome of Maxwell's equations just as you say...
replied on Oct. 9, 2019 @ 09:10 GMT
Why I'm perplexed is the quantum superposition of photon polarization is not just like superposition of other states, if it is as you say. That isn't about the maths.. A superposition of states is a way of representing what an unknown outcome state will be found to be taking into account the possibilities, it isn't how the universe is but a 'place holder' for an unknown measurable;and a measurable is something that can be found by establishing a relation between a beable and measuring apparatus or observer.The different possibilities are not interacting with each other to generate the measurable outcome. (That would be like the zombie cat).There has to be consistency, either the states in superposition can always interact and generate the outcome or they do not. Polarization shouldn't be a special case.
replied on Oct. 10, 2019 @ 02:44 GMT
A photon has spin states just like an electron or proton has spin states. Just like all quantum states, superposition is one of many possible outcomes. Although we cannot ever know for certain the precursor of a superposition, the outcome is something that we can know.There are many who believe in a hidden variable or a pilot wave or hidden dimensions or hidden multiverses and it is true...a bunch of hidden and unmeasurable constants can explain anything and therefore predict nothing of value.It is not clear why polarization is a special case. The single photon has a single polarization by a single measurement. However, that single photon still carries a lot of information including polarization information. After all, a linearly polarized photon can magicially be transformed into a circularly polarized photon with a quarter wave plate. Circular polarization is a superposition of both horizontal and vertical polarizations.Anyway, we are probably why too deep in this rabbit hole...
replied on Oct. 10, 2019 @ 20:44 GMT
Steve, superposition is a representation of possibilities prior to measurement that gives a singular state outcome. It isn't the same as macroscopic or classical superimposing of phenomena. The states in superposition are states of a singular photon. not two individual photons. Though it is done it can't be correct to borrow the maths. from classical wave phenomena, as it is inconsistent with how other quantum phenomena are treated.Circular polarization is the result of superimposing horizontal and vertical polarized 'light'. That isn't superposition of states. In a superposition there isn't a resultant state that is different to the constituent states; dead or alive cat not a zombie.
replied on Oct. 11, 2019 @ 05:17 GMT
It doesn't seem consistent to go from a probabilistic wavefunction description to using classical electromagnetic maths.. Usually the 'what might be measured' states of a measurable are not beables. They are just maybes, unlike electromagnetic waves. Those are beables associated with with polarization, frequency and amplitude measurables.
replied on Oct. 11, 2019 @ 16:07 GMT
Well, the deeper we go, the deeper we go...You are very correct in that semiclassical and quantum descriptions are not completely consistent. That is my entire point with Brown's thought experiment.A single photon has a spin just like an electron or proton. The single photon spin is what we call polarization, but semiclassically really a single photon is technically always polarized. Semiclassically, it is the polarizer that passes only one type of photon and reflects all others and so now we have selected a single photon with a linear polarizer.However, the quantum single photon was actually a superposition of polarization states and we cannot actually say which polarization state existed before polarization. The superposition collapsed the photon wavefunction into linear with the polarizer and then we use semiclassical simplifications instead of carrying our bulky quantum wavefunctions everywhere.A linear polarized photon is equivalent to the superposition of rcp and lcp and another device (quarter wave plate) can collapse that single photon superposition as well. So the photon phase is an intrinsic part of a single photon spectrum and holds all kinds of information. Brown's thought experiment simply did not mention the single photon spectrum, which of course is an important part of all of these kinds of thought experiments.
replied on Oct. 11, 2019 @ 17:07 GMT
The Schrödinger cat thought experiment is a semiclassical simplification of a quantum superposition that even Schrödinger did not seem to understand. Of course, a cat is a macroscopic body that makes up a causal set of a large number of quantum matter actions.A live cat is a complex quantum state that evolves from one moment to the next with measurable but very, very short quantum phase decays for each live state. In between live moments, the live cat exists in correspondingly very, very short quantum superpositions. Likewise, a dead cat is a complex quantum state that likewise evolves and a dying cat likewise and so on.So now it is obvious why this thought experiment gives absurd semiclassical answers. Each cat state is a complex quantum affair but the outcome is simply knowledge that is knowable once phase decay occurs and highly determinate. However, the quantum precursors to each and every one of the very many quantum outcomes from phase decay are not precisely knowable and limited by quantum uncertainty.
replied on Oct. 12, 2019 @ 10:27 GMT
The Schrodinger's cat thought experiment was conceived to expose the absurdity of quantum mechanics. However it does not mimic superposition that are due to the unknowability of a measurement prior to the context of the measurement or observation being applied. I.e.. relative to this or observed in this way. Which is perfectly reasonable, as measurements are necessarily relative to how the measurement is performed.The decayed and un decayed atom, broken and intact flask, dead and alive cat are all pairs of mutually exclusive states that can not co-exist; unlike 'context-less' states. The photon superpositions seem to be yet another category of superposition, not lack of measurement context alone or mutually exclusive so not physically co-existing, but a physical ensemble of states -the concept borrowed from classical wave maths.
replied on Oct. 12, 2019 @ 15:27 GMT
Okay...it is true that the Schrödinger cat thought experiment was meant to show quantum surreality, but what it really showed was how fundamentally confused very smart people are about the quantum nature of physical reality.Somehow people accept that hydrogen atoms exist, which is a superposition of many precursors, but then people get upset that all outcomes come from superpositions of two or more precursors. Then people get all upset if the superposition is of a precursor with itself...or of two precursors entangled across the universe...how can that be mon ami...My argument is that the world is quantum, but that many semiclassical and determinate approximations are very useful for short trips compared to all of the quantum baggage that we need for longer explorations of discovery. You can choose not to believe in the quantum nature of physical reality and it will affect your life very little. A spectroscopist like me has to believe in quantum, but even I still use space and time and black holes. Space and time and black holes all emerge as useful simplifications of how the universe really works. A single photon of light, you have seen in our discussion, actually embodies quite a lot of the actual complexity of matter action.
replied on Oct. 12, 2019 @ 19:01 GMT
Steve,In your statement that "the Schrödinger cat thought experiment was meant to show quantum surreality, but what it really showed was how fundamentally confused very smart people are about the quantum nature of physical reality", you have it completely reversed.It was meant to show that reality is surreal. It was to show the exact opposite. It was to show "how fundamentally confused very smart people are about the quantum nature of physical reality": that existing interpretations of quantum theory are completely ridiculous, because reality surreal or absurd. He even used the word "ridiculous", when he first introduced the thought experiment, in his 1935 discussions of the EPR thought experiment:"One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with... a Geiger counter..."To their dying day, both Schrodinger and Einstein believed that every existing interpretation of quantum theory, be wrong; a profound misunderstanding, that in turn, be founded upon some unrecognized, false premise. They were right. Quantum theory simply is not describing, what physicists have always thought that it to describe. It is not describing the states of observed matter at all. It is simply describing the very act of decision making itself - deciding whether or not something has been detected - including all the false detections.Rob McEachern
replied on Oct. 12, 2019 @ 19:59 GMT
Hi all,dear Rob,I must say that it is very well explained and resumed your analyse.Always a pleasure to read your Words.Friendly
replied on Oct. 12, 2019 @ 21:03 GMT
It is true that today there are two distinct narratives about the surreality of the quantum cat versus reality of a classical cat. Is it alive or dead? The classical question makes perfect sense for classical reality where every outcome has a knowable cause even though an outcome might be hidden from view.The quantum question is absurd for a quantum reality where not every precursor has a knowable cause. Quantum surreality limits classical knowledge and hydrogen atoms exist in surreal and perpetual cat dances.Why does the world exist? Why does the world exist right now? Why does the world exist for me and not just for someone else? These are not very useful questions and are all equivalent to asking why a hydrogen atom exists the why that it exists.The quantum cat is after all just a causal set of hydrogen atoms from the CMB creation along with other atoms and molecules from the causal set of star and galaxy actions. Once a quantum object quantum phase decays, it becomes classical and real. Until then, a quantum object is a surreal mystery...
replied on Oct. 12, 2019 @ 22:12 GMT
Quantum objects are no more mysterious than classical objects, precisely because they are one-and-the-same thing.The belief in the "weirdness" of quantum behaviors, has the exact same origin, as the earlier belief in the weirdness of the retrograde motion of planets; how could the planetary epicycles possibly produce such a motion, without the planets slamming into Aristotle's "crystalline spheres", that support the planets, thus destroying the "coherency" of the spheres, and causing the whole system to collapse? After many centuries, is was finally realized, that the problem does not exist, precisely because epicycles and crystalline-spheres do not exist, as real physical entities. They merely exist as computational aids - an example of the method of "successive approximation."The same is true of superpositions; wavefunctions do not collapse for the same reason that the crystalline spheres do not collapse - because they do not exist. But like the epicycles before them, Fourier superpositions just happen to be a very, very accurate method of successive-approximation, that can be used to accurately compute the statistics of the act of detection; the only thing that quantum theory has ever actually described.Even though the nonsense of quantum superpositions has now endured for an entire century, I remain hopeful that not many more centuries will elapse, before the world finally realizes that, just as in the case of retrograde motions, and just as Einstein and Schrodinger suspected, when you correct the fundamental premise regarding the underlying cause, that is at the heart of the problem, then the problem itself, completely disappears.Rob McEachern
replied on Oct. 13, 2019 @ 09:52 GMT
Dear Rob, the cristalline spheres yes but not the spherical volumes,spheres,quant and cosmol :) with or without lol the approvements of course of persons against a so evident truth lol, the cat is dead,not the spheres dear thinker,they turn so they are ,and now let s analyse the Vanity like freewill or just due to education,evironments and genetic and consciousness? what are your thoughts about this?
replied on Oct. 13, 2019 @ 10:08 GMT
Dear Rob,to be serious a Little bit,could you tell me more about these crystalline spheres please,I didn t know. I see on wickipedia but I d like to have more informations from you if it is possible dear Jedi of the sphere :)
replied on Oct. 13, 2019 @ 14:08 GMT
Steve,Here are some links:Rob McEachern
replied on Oct. 13, 2019 @ 14:59 GMT
Thanks Rob,it is nice,friendly
replied on Oct. 13, 2019 @ 17:35 GMT
Yes, there are two very different narratives. The classical narrative works really well of most matter action and completely ignores the hydrogen atom. Doing quantum spectroscopy with only a classical narrative is not possible, so it is important for the classical narratives to avoid things like quantum spectroscopy and explaining hydrogen atom and all of chemical bonding as well.The classical narrative is very useful for much of reality, but the classical narrative does not work at all for a lot of quantum surreality. Saying that there is a classical meaning for a hydrogen does not make it true and there are no measurements that show quantum wrong...
replied on Oct. 13, 2019 @ 18:04 GMT
There are some questions that do not seem to have answers in the classical narrative.1) Does matter oscillate?2) If matter oscillates classically, does relative phase result in classical bonds?3) What is a classical hydrogen atom?
replied on Oct. 14, 2019 @ 19:01 GMT
replied on Oct. 14, 2019 @ 21:10 GMT
Hi Robert, I don't understand the difference between 'measurement' as you write it and discreet decisions. You also write of observations. I usually equate observation and measurement. Is 'measurement ' referring to calculation of the evolution of the mathematical representation? Can you give an example of what the difference is from a practical (method) point of view?
replied on Oct. 14, 2019 @ 23:20 GMT
replied on Oct. 15, 2019 @ 01:05 GMT
Hi Robert, thank you. I now understand the difference between decisions and measurements that you write about and how decisions overcome the noise issue. You wrote" So, if you have a "deterministic theory" that naively assumes that the "measurements" are the sole cause of any subsequent effect, then you will be sadly mistaken.." Can you give an example of measurement being considered the cause of subsequent effect? If I think of the coin analogy.Prior to measurement the measurable 'heads or tails' is only possibility as the method of calling the outcome has not been applied. Once it is applied a measurement is generated that did not previously exist. There was no singular state.. The observer generates the seen state only from the received EMr.input. There is no input from obscured side. Generating the seen, (call-able) measurement is end of the line
replied on Oct. 15, 2019 @ 14:49 GMT
In the case of a polarized coin, the "matched filter" detector simply adds up all the amplitudes (related to energy) of each pixel on one half (semi-circle) of the coin, and subtracts it from the sum of the pixels on the other half. That is the "measurement"; if the axis of the detector is aligned with the axis of a coin, the sum will produce either a large positive, or a large negative measurement value, depending on whether or not the axes are parallel or anti-parallel. But if the axis of the detector is orthogonal to the axis of the coin, the measured value will be exactly zero, if there is no noise.Now think what happens if there is noise present on each coin. Consider two cases: (1) the noise on each coin is identical and (2) the noise differs from coin-to-coin, but always has the same statistical distribution (the same mean value and standard deviation). What happens if the detector axis is misaligned with the coin axis? How does the "measurement" add up then?Next consider what happens if you introduce a crude decision-making process, to eliminate any response in the noise-only, orthogonal-axes cases, such as demanding that all measured amplitude (energy) levels are completely ignored (the coin's presence goes undetected) unless the measured level exceeds some minimum threshold.Rob McEachern
replied on Oct. 15, 2019 @ 21:51 GMT
Robert, Re.measurement being considered the cause of subsequent effect; I think you are referring to the conclusions drawn from analysis of the results of many tests.Just thinking of a coin toss; the pre measurement 'state' of the beable is a superposition of two possible measurement outcomes. That is the Object reality, I.e. the reality independent of observation. Once measurement has happened the superposition is no longer relevant as one measurement outcome has been selected and is known via sensory input, I.e. an Image reality; (Not necessarily visual, could be auditory). That switch is relevant to the measurement problem. This shows that superposition of state is not something alien but pertaining to existence independent of observation.
replied on Oct. 15, 2019 @ 23:28 GMT
Coins have two sides. Always. The fact that some observer has made a decision to look at one side, but not the other, has to do with what a coin is, or ever will be. Coins do not "contain" or even exhibit any superpostions. Superpositions are merely an external description, being applied to the coin, just like your name is not the same thing as , but is something being applied to you. No one needs to "observe" your name, in order for it to exist. And no one needs to observe a description of a coin (a superposition) in order for description to exist. But the "thing" and the "description of the thing" are two entirely different things.The existence of a coin is independent of the existence of its description (AKA superposition); just like your existence is independent of any name or description being applied to you."Once measurement has happened the superposition is no longer relevant as one measurement outcome has been selected" Which simply means that the description of the coin has changed, and the superpostion is now a of the observer's experience of the coin. But the coin itself is just the same old coin it has always been - no change whatsoever.Rob McEachern
replied on Oct. 16, 2019 @ 00:56 GMT
Robert I agree, a coin always has two sides. That is the difference between the beable coin and a coin measurable. The coin does not exhibit (as an observable or measurable) superposition but the two possible outcomes are possible because of the structure of the beable. So it might be said to contain a superposition of states, 'embody' might be a better term. I agree the superposition of states is a description not intrinsic to the beable, but giving acknowledgement of the potential of the unobserved beable entity to enable production of one or the other mutually exclusive measurement outcome. Yes a measurable is fundamentally different from a beable. The measurement is produced from limited input. In the coin example only input from one side. So the superposition description ceases to be relevant when the switch is made to considering the measurable.
replied on Oct. 16, 2019 @ 01:14 GMT
What exists unobserved is relevant to QM. Whether it is modeled realistically is a separate issue. Relativity is all about observations and measurements. It does not deal with beables.
replied on Oct. 16, 2019 @ 14:54 GMT
replied on Oct. 16, 2019 @ 23:09 GMT
'Superposition is not the correct term for me to use. There seems to be three different conditions of a beable, regarding the potential measurement outcome states. In the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment the beable atom, flask and cat at the start all have "state switching potential". The states are mutually exclusive and the measurement possibility of both can not exist together, they are sequential, temporally separate. There is no merger of states giving a zombie cat state. In the coin toss example there is the possibility of either mutually exclusive outcome measurement and not the merger of both. The possibilities are not temporally separate. The beable could be described as having "co-state potentials". In the polarization experiments there is the of merger of possible measurement states, "state merger potentials".
replied on Oct. 17, 2019 @ 02:48 GMT
Robert, I'm not sure that the 'thing as it is' is irrelevant. I can imagine three kinds of turnstile designed to keep rival sports fans separate at a sports ground. One separates on the basis of ticket, one by team colour of clothing and one by team rfid tag bracelet. Once sorted, people pass through or are directed to the opposite turnstile. Passing through another same turnstile will give the same result. And unlike electrons the outcomes for different turnstiles are correlated. If used on a non sports event, ticket and rfid could be set to distinguish randomly assigned odd from even numbers and randomly assigned rfid and the clothing, each entrant can be given a choice of two colours of neck scarf. Now the various sorting are uncorrelated. Correlated or not depends on the input (sports day or not) as well as how the sorting device operates.
replied on Oct. 17, 2019 @ 07:17 GMT
I suggested the turnstiles separate odd form even numbered tickets randomly assigned on non sports days. In that case the seats at one end of the stadium should be odd numbered and at the other end even numbered. That would allow team supporter segregation on sports days. More realistic would be separation by numerical value on both sports and non sports days. Say, one to 300 at one end and 301 and above the other end.
replied on Oct. 17, 2019 @ 13:55 GMT
"I'm not sure that the 'thing as it is' is irrelevant." It is not. It is the description (which is all that a superposition is), of the thing, that is usually irrelevant, to the thing being whatever it is: As in the case in which you have described the cat as being either dead or alive and "The states are mutually exclusive", when in fact you may have just described a living, unconscious cat (temporarily rendered unconscious by the toxin meant to kill it), as being dead. You describing the cat as being either dead, or in a superposition, does not make it so. To use the phrase you yourself expressed in an earlier comment, while describing the situation that I have been describing - all the standard interpretations of quantum theory may be, and very probably are "one huge mistake" - they are describing non-existent causes, for existing effects. Rob McEachern
replied on Oct. 18, 2019 @ 01:29 GMT
BTW The neck scarves are a promotional souvenir given out at non sports occasions. Robert I agree that superposition are not generally describing what is. I have suggested some terms that may be useful. 'State switching potential' ('cat' like),' co-state potentials' (coin toss like),'state merger potentials' (wave like).I think there should be another, fitting the electron spin experiments and non sports days when the public arrives without tickets or tags and they are randomly given out to work the turnstiles. I will call that "state latency'. A state once measured is retained but is uncorrelated with other states. To be like an electron undergoing tests with Stern Gerlach apparatus, upon passing a different turnstile the other untested state (previously tested) is relinquished and randomly replaced when that state is retested.
replied on Oct. 18, 2019 @ 04:30 GMT
The Schrodinger's cat thought experiment presents 3 causally linked state switch potentials, a series. If the state of the radioactive atom switches, so does the state of the poison flask and so does the state of the cat. Decayed atom, broken flask and dead cat are all temporally separate from the corresponding starting state. The state switching happens in a temporal order; The scenario of what happens if the first state switch occurs is a sequence of configurations of the Object (material) reality. That is passage of foundation time occurs and is irreversible. The switch is permanent. The radioactive atom will not become un-decayed, etc. Future measurement possibilities are either or for the three objects. The possibilities, both outcomes, are imaginary. The imagined futures do not exist and so the imagined outcomes are not physically interacting.
replied on Oct. 18, 2019 @ 21:18 GMT
Robert, re. your ""one huge mistake"- they are describing non-existent causes, for existing effects." Richard Feynman uses the term "bean counting" for mathematical processes that give correct answers but do not represent what is actually happening. State switching potentials, co-state potentials and state latency are three kinds of potential to give different measurement outcomes, that don't physically fit the quantum physics definition of superposition. The "cat" idea can not in actuality involve superposition because of the temporal separation of the states. Co-state potentials involve possible states that are materially separate so can not be in superposition. With state latency the potential to provide a particular outcome is not yet a part of the system but that develops and is actualized upon application of the measurement process.
hide replies