Circular Polarization of Light, Circularly polarized Light

Hi Confused2,

Thanks for your comments.

Prima facie it appears that way. But No.
A QWP do have a distinct molecular arrangement that distinguish it from another material that do not have such regimental arrangement.
However, you are correct to state that A PHOTON with one Random angle will be dispersed to another random angle through a QWP or a linear polarizer. But in the Linear polarizer or a QWP, the final state of A PHOTON (the permissible range of angles θ) is governed by the molecular axes that make up these filters.

You have asked a very important question.
By 2.2, I am stating that the molecules making up the QWP has two distinct physical alignments: at 0 (and 180) deg. and the other at 90 (and 270) deg. This is unlike a linear polarizer where there is only one alignment.

If a x-linear polarizer would allow the passage of those photons falling in the range 0 deg. < θ < 45 deg, 135 deg. < θ < 225 deg and 315 deg. < θ < 360 deg; while a y-linear polarizer for those photons 45 deg. < θ < 135 deg and 225 deg. < θ < 315 deg, then the QWP would allow photons of all angles to pass through it and distribute them among all the angles, but characterised by the two principal axes. The reason I said that they are identical is because the y(Right) axis and the y(Left) axis will coincide with one another if the two molecular axes are orthogonal (based on the assumption that we fix the x-axis as common to both the QWP).

To reiterate, if the two molecular axes making up the QWP are truly orthogonal, it does not matter if the photons have been rotated clockwise or anticlockwise in the process of passing through the QWP. All the photons will be distributed principally along the two molecular axes.

However, if the two molecular axes of the QWP are not orthogonal, then the photons rotated to the right and the photons rotated to the left will be different. In both cases, all the photons that fall on the QWP will pass through it with no loss in intensity (again assuming ideal condition). But the distribution of photons in the random state passing through a Left QWP is different from one that is passing through a Right QWP.

Let me illustrate this by an example. If one of the molecular axis of a QWP is at 0 deg. a Right QWP will have the other molecular axis pointing at 80 deg or less. In the case of a Left QWP, the other molecular axis may be pointing at 100 deg. or more. The net effect is that the photons (in the random state) passing through a Right QWP will be quite different from that passing through a Left QWP.

With the above explanation, I hope you can see how this hypothesis will help us to explain the ellipticity of eccentric Circular polarizers (which I will discuss in greater details a little while later)?

I hope with the above explanation, you can see the subtle difference that I was trying to highlight with regards to the properties of a QWP. This may have led you to think that there is a discrepancy between 2.2 and 2.3.

I hope I have also addressed your queries pertaining to my statement on 2.4.

Cheers.

This post has been edited by hexa on Nov 2 2006, 02:55 AM

Hi hexa, Mr Homm et al,
hexa .. thanks for the clarification. All, thanks for following up this topic.
Best wishes, C2

Hi Confused2,

Thanks for your acknowledgement.

Since, Mr Homm may be too busy with his personal engagement while MrMysteryScience does not appears to have anything further to add at the moment, I will proceed to address the question on circular polarization that Montec had raised earlier.

Before we can understand Circular Polarization, we need to be familiar with this other property about the QWP. While a QWP can split a beam of light into two beams (Ordinary and extraordinary rays) it can also be used to recombine the two rays back into a single beam. This can be demonstrated by placing one calcite crystal sequentially to the first calcite crystal. Do it to see if what I say is true. A word of caution is that the geometry of the calcite crystals must be exactly right to yield this observation.

The standard construction (described in most books) of a Circular polarizer essentially comprise of a Linear Polarizer followed by a QWP. Since there are two types of QWP (Left and Right based on the description of my previous post), it is then possible for a beam of Linearly Polarized Photons to be split into two beams (Ordinary and Extraordinary) by the QWP with a Left or a Right Rotation. In other words, the photons after passing through the Linear Polarizer (and become , say, the X-Linear Polarized state) will be split into two beams (comprising the x-linear polarized state and the y’(Left) or the y’(Right) polarized state).

It is this process that enable us to obtain half the intensity of the photons if we should place another Linear Polarizer after the Circular Polarizer. Similarly, if we place another Circular Polarizer ( that has only One Linear Polarizer followed by a QWP), the intensity of Light that we are going to get from passing through two Circular Polarizers is ¼ and not ½ or 0 the intensity of the original source which QM predicts. This is because the passage of light through the first Circular Polarizer will half the intensity; and the passage through the second Circular polarizer will further reduce it by half. It is not possible to obtain the result predicted by QM based on this Simplified Definition of a Circular Polarizer. Do the experiment yourself to verify if what I say is correct.

The proposal by Mr Homm in describing what constitute a TRUE Right or a TRUE Left Circular Polarizer is indeed very innovative and interesting. His suggestion does solve the dispute I had with Schneibster with regards to how a Circular Polarizer ought to be constructed before it will yield SOME of the predictions in QM.
In most literature, the illustration of how light can be cut off by the passage of light through a Right followed by a Left Circular Polarizer is illustrated by reflecting the Right Circular Polarized Light with a mirror back into the Right Circular Polarizer in the opposite direction, that is, QWP then the Linear Polarizer.
This had led me to think that the Construction of a Left Circular Polarizer differs from a Right Circular Polarizer by simply reversing the position of the Linear Polarizer with the QWP. This perception was corrected by Mr Homm.

By this reverse translation, we can see that a substantial portion of the original beam (before passing through the Circular Polarizer) will be filtered off by the composite filter with the help of a mirror.

Let us try to analyse this experiment based on the hypothesis that I have proposed.
3.1 Passage of a beam of Light Through a Right Circular Polarizer followed by reflection of the Circularly Polarized Light through the same Circular Polarizer in the reverse direction.
3.1.1. The unpolarized light on passing through the Linear Polarizer will be polarized into photons in the say X-linearly polarized state:
l ψ > -----> [Mx] ----->l X >
3.1.2 The X-linearly polarized beam is then split into two beams by the Right QWP comprising:
l X > -----> [QWP(Right)] -----> l x1 (0 deg) > + l y2 (90 deg.)>
3.1.3 The reflection of the two beams by the mirror essentially changes nothing.
3.14 However with respect to the Right Circular Polarizer, the frame of reference is rotated by 180 deg.
3.1.5 The photons as described in 3.1.2 is now subject to a correction, similar to what I have describe on the recombination of the two beams back into a single beam by the QWP.
3.1.6 The molecules or the QWP essentially rotate the photons in the l x1 (0 deg) > state to the l y1 (90 deg) > state and then combine with the l y2(90 deg) > state to form one beam of l Y > state.
3.1.7 The Mx-Linear polarizer is now confronted with a l Y > state photons for photons traveling in the opposite direction. The net result is that the l Y > state photons are prevented from passing through the Mx-Linear Polarizer that constitute the Circular Polarizer.

This I believe is what took place to yield the Quantum Mechanical Prediction of :
a] l ψ > -----> [MR] -----> l R >
b] l <R lMR l R > l ^ 2 = 1
b] l <L lML l R > l ^ 2 = 0

I will pause again to hear from all of you as to whether it is reasonable and useful to engage in this hand waving exercise so as to find out if there is a simpler truth behind QM that we have overlooked in our contemporary physics?
While QM may have been used successfully in many areas, could QM be wrong to predict the Circular Polarized State of Light the way it does that has found its way into many physics text including the Lectures on Physics by Richard Feynman???

I hope the erudite participants following this thread could voice their opinion before I tackle the QM assertion that Circularly Polarized Light is Rotation Invariant based on the True Right and True Left Circular Polarizer proposd by Mr Homm.

Cheers.

This post has been edited by hexa on Nov 3 2006, 03:29 AM

Hi hexa,

I must admit that my last post should have include the fact that I had my fingers crossed .. hoping Mr Homm would make a contribution.

I am well beyond my conmfort zone here .. but..

If we accept that a QWP is lossless then I suspect there are restrictions on what it can do. I suspect one restriction is that it can neither increase nor decrease the amount of order (entropy) of the beam of light.. I can't apply this beyond hand-waving .. it just seems to me that it cannot order the beam as you suggest.

I think the point can be partiallly resolved by rotating a QWP between two vertical polarizers .. I would predict a no loss point at 45 degrees to the axes of the crystal (four per full rotation) where the QWP is doing nothing rather than forcing the light into the axes of the crystal. Would you be kind enough to try it and report the result?

Best wishes,

-C2.

Hi everyone,

Once again, I am trying to catch up with a lot of posts in a row. I just don't seem to have enough time lately!

@Confused_2, Oct.19:

You give me far too much credit! QFT is far beyond the level of discussion needed to analyze circular polarization. The point of QFT is to explain how particles can be created and destroyed by showing that they are really just epiphenomena (gotta love that word!) of a deeper underlying field. We don't need to go there for this discussion. My own knowledge of QFT is very shallow as I will be the first to admit.

However, I will say that upon looking at the text, it seems to be a pretty good one. Perhaps I'll read it in my spare time (joke -- like saying I'll read it when pigs fly, which is about as likely as my having spare time). Anyway, the math isn't a problem from my point of view, so that's not a hurdle for me, but I really don't know all that much about QFT.

By the way, those links you provided are great. Thanks a lot!

@hexa, Oct. 20

As to taking my word as gospel -- well, yes and no. I am trying to give a clear account of what standard QM says about circular polarization, and it would please me if you thought my reporting was trustworthy. I really am accurately reporting what the theory says, so in that sense, yes, it would be gratifying if everyone took my word for it. On the other hand, I'm just reporting what the standard theory SAYS, not what REALITY IS. These may be two different things, after all, since no theory is utterly immune to possible falsification by new data.

It is my OPINION that current QM gives a pretty good account of circular polarization, which agrees with experimental data. It is important to note also that part of what I find convincing about QM is its ability to use the same few concepts to explain and mathematically predict a wide variety of phenomena. To me, this is the hallmark of a good theory. There is a nice minimalism about QM, a good Occam's Razor quality of getting much explanation with few assumptions. I will agree that those few assumptions are pretty weird.

As always, I will try to clearly separate my own opinions from the tenets of standard QM.

Here is a central point that we must clarify. QM states that a filter performs a measurement, which technically means just that it treats photons in different states differently, absorbing some states but not others. Linear polarizing filters absorb different orientations of linear photon states differently, so they preform a measurement; hence they are filters by the technical definition. On the other hand, a QWP delays the phase of one state relative to another state, but does not absorb either state. Every photon that goes into a QWP comes out the other side (except for a small amount of absorption because the crystal is not absolutely transparent -- but it absorbs all polarization states equally, so it still doesn't distinguish between them); therefore the QWP is NOT a filter by the technical definition.

This means that the RCP is not actually a series of filters. There is only one filter in the series, and the other two layers (the QWPs) alter the state without filtering it. One way to see that this is true is to ask what would happen if you omitted the LP layer and kept just the two QWPs. They are turned 90 degrees to each other, so one will delay the |H> state and the other will delay the |V> state. Since these states form a basis for all photon states, and since they are both delayed equally, the net result is that the photon state as a whole is delayed, but neither component is delayed relative to the other. This is exactly what you would expect from plain old glass, since its refractive index slows, and hence slightly delays, photons. In other words, if you omit the LP layer, the combination of the two QWPs does EXACTLY NOTHING to the light. Light would be delayed simply by traveling through space anyway, to the two QWPs are equivalent to simply letting the light travel a tiny extra distance forward. This obviously does not affect the state of the light in any way.

So you see that the only filtering action is provided by the LP layer. The two QWPs process the incoming state (WITHOUT measuring it, so no uncertainty relations are involved) so that light that was initially circularly polarized becomes linear, so that the LP can act on it, and then processes the resulting light back into its original circular state (because, as I said in the above paragraph, the effect of the two QWPs cancels out i.e. one is the inverse of the other). The action of this filter is mathematically identical to a single layer of circularly polarizing material. Now we don't happen to have single layer circularly polarizing materials to use in the experiment, but this is a technical limitation only, not part of the basic physics. It should be possible to create a circularly polarizing material, but the fact is that no one is likely to bother, since the QWP LP QWP sandwich already works well.

I think we talked about this before in this thread, but I would like to add that although your idea is attractive, the behavior of photons doesn't seem to me to make it very workable. In the case of gases, the macro parameters such as P and T are the result of the motion of very many particles, but the laws the particles obey seem to be simpler or more fundamental than the laws gases obey; therefore, it is useful to try to reduce gas behavior to the study of particle behavior.

On the other hand, in the case of light, the behavior of individual photons does not seem to be simpler than that of strong light beams. In fact, the mathematics of the description of individual photon states in QM is pretty much the same as the mathematics of the description of polarization states for strong light beams. The only difference is that for the individual photons, the interpretation of the math is as a probability, while for the strong light beam, the interpretation is as a change of intensity. This means that light beams do not have any "emergent" properties that are not directly apparent in the individual photons. This is unlike the case of gases and particles.

@hexa, Oct. 24:

I fully agree with the first paragraph here, but I also fully DISagree with the second paragraph. Let's start with your statement that every photon has a definite physical axis with a definite angle. OK, no problem with that. Now, how do you know what that angle is, i.e. how do you measure it? I don't see any way to do this except to put it through a polarizing filter. If it gets through the filter, then when it emerges its angle is the same as the filter's angle, correct? Let me know if you disagree with this, because it's a crucial point, and affects the reasoning from here on. Also, on that topic, if you do disagree with this, we need to define an alternative experimental technique for measuring the exact axis angle of a photon; without such a defined procedure there is a danger of losing contact with the physical world and producing a theory that has mathematical consistency and elegance but is not physically meaningful.

Now according to what you have said, a photon will get through a LP filter if the line of its axis is within +/-45 degrees of the line of the filter's axis. This gives the correct statistics for an unpolarized beam passing through a LP, because half the intensity will get through regardless of the angle of the filter axis. However, when you consider the light that emerges from one LP and then strikes a second LP, you get strange results from your rule. If the angle of the first filter is 0 degrees, then photons passing through it come out with an axis angle of 0 degrees also. Now suppose the second filter is at an angle 30 degrees. Then every photon that strikes the second filter has an axis angle of 0, which is less than 45 degrees from the axis of the second LP. Therefore, every photon will get through. As you rotate the second filter so that the angle becomes more than 45 degrees, now suddenly NO photons have an axis angle within 45 degrees of the second filter axis, so NO light gets through. This means that you get full intensity if the two filter axes are within 45 degrees of each other and zero intensity if they are more than 45 degrees apart. This clearly contradicts Malus's law, which is experimentally known to be true.

There is no way around this with your definition, unless you deny that each photon emerging from an LP has the same axis as the LP. However, that opens up the question 2 paragraphs above about how to define the axis angle experimentally.

That is how it is defined in QM, that's all I'm saying. Your definition is different, but (see above) I don't see how it can agree with experiment.

Here again, this is in direct contradiction to experiment, unless your definition of photon axis is different from what I am understanding. I think this is an important point that we need to clarify.

Yes there is! Probability cannot exceed 1.0, therefore the trigonometric function cannot be sec, csc, tan, or cot, only sin or cos. That is a mathematical reason, but there is also a physical one: if the function exceeds 1.0 then the energy coming out of the filter is more than what came in, so conservation of energy eliminates sec, tan, csc, and cot. Now consider two LP filters with their axes aligned. Since filters act by absorption, and the first LP filter has already absorbed all of the light component perpendicular to its axis, there is nothing for the second LP filter to absorb. Hence it must pass 100% of the light through. This means that the trig function must have a value of 1.0 when the angle is zero. Hence the only possibility is cosine. The reasons leading to this conclusion are all physical.

Well, to describe the polarization of a beam of light, you need to give its axis and degree of polarization. These are two real numbers, but when you examine the way that light behaves experimentally, you find that these real numbers are not entirely independent, but work together. Something is tying them together, and an examination of their mathematical relationships shows that they behave exactly like the magnitude and phase of a complex number. In other words, if you choose not to use complex numbers, that's fine, but the two real numbers will ACT like they are part of a complex number whether you wish to write them that way or not. It seems to me that since the simplest mathematical model of the experimentally observed behavior uses complex numbers, and the complex behavior is THERE in the experimental data, to avoid complex numbers is simply artificial.

By the way, speaking as a mathematician now, complex numbers are no more or less real than real numbers. Both are artificial constructions based on systems of axioms. Both may or may not be useful in physical theory. One system is newer than the other, and is taught later in school, and has the unfortunate name "imaginary" attached to it, that's all. I see no reason to prefer the real numbers. Why stop there and not use newer structures if they are available and can simplify calculations? Or why not go the other direction and decline to use real numbers and insist that physics be formulated using only rational numbers, or even integers. That could be done, you know, if you wanted to. Complex numbers can be expressed as 2X2 matrices of real numbers, which can be expressed as limits of sequences of rationals, which can be expressed as pairs of integers. What level of mathematical "dressing up" the theory gets is just a matter of taste; the only thing that matters is the predictions of the theory. I see no reason not to use more modern number systems, since they can simplify calculations and make the theory easier to use, since I know that they can ALWAYS be reduced to expressions based on earlier number systems.

I'll agree that the Copenhagen interpretation is not satisfactory. However, that is just an interpretation of the theory, not the theory itself, which is merely the mathematical structure and its predictions. Of course the predictions are very successful as you note, and also of course that doesn't prove that the theory is TRUE. I believe you cited earlier the example of Ptolemaic astronomy as a theory that got the right answers but is manifestly absurd to modern people. I agree with this criticism you have made.

On the other hand, I personally don't thing that QM violates determinism. I think that that's just a misinterpretation of the theory. I do not hold with the probabilistic formulation, nor the uncertainty principle, as I think that really understanding the state vector as the fundamental reality makes all these troubles simply go away. By the way, the "collapse of the wave function" is designed to PRESERVE determinism, not to destroy it. It is based on the idea that if you measure a particle and find it in a particular state, then measure it again immediately, you must find it in the same state. This is basically saying that if no outside cause has time to affect the particle, it can not spontaneously change its state, which is EXACTLY the principle of determinism.

I've got lots more to say on these topics, and I still have several posts to catch up on, but I must stop here to go to work. This weekend, the University is flying me to Wisconsin to attend a training session for teachers who prepare students to take the Graduate Record Exam, and i won't be back until Monday night, so it may be several days before I can pick up the discussion again.

More later...

--Stuart Anderson

Hi Confused2,

Looks like both our prayer has been answered.
Thanks to Mr. Homm for setting aside some time from his busy schedule to share his opinion with us.

The reason I resort to alternative explanation is because, unlike Linear Polarization, QM does not appear to provide the correct prediction for Circular Polarization. Initially, even the most simple experiment on Circular Polarization fails to yield any result predicted by QM. Fortunately, Mr Homm proposal on the construction of a True Right or a True Left Circular Polarizer with the introduction of another QWP before the Linear Polarizer of the second Circular polarizer appears to have alleviated some of the problem that I faced earlier.
The discrepancy with regards to Rotation invariance between observation and prediction by QM, remains.

Hence, I must apologise if I have brought distress to you based on the proposition that I have made here.

I believe you and perhaps the other members following our discussion are enlighten enough to see the possibility that some parts of Quantum Mechanics may be incorrect in spite of its astounding success in providing elegant answer (according to Mr. Homm) to account for many phenomena in Nature. He also cited Occam’s Razor.
Similarly, Newtonian Physics also stood for 300 years until the beginning of the 20th century.
Indeed, Ptolemy Law of the cosmos stood much longer even though it was totally wrong based on careful measurement of the motion of the planets by Kepler..
Please pardon me if I were to use this analogy to describe QM. It appears that we are using the shadow of an object to describe the object itself. In the process, we sometime may miss the important details that are needed to fully describe the object. If one may recall, it is none other than the allegory of the Plato’s Cave.

But before we accept QM whole heartedly based on the Copenhagen Interpretation, perhaps it is better for us to refer to what Richard Feynman had said when he lamented in his Lecture on physics as he described the Double slits Experiment:

Generally, I do not disagree that there will be uncertainty if we attempt to measure both position and momentum (or time and energy) simultaneously, as elicited by the Uncertainty Principle. What I find unacceptable, according to the Copenhagen Interpretation, is that we cannot even talk about it prior to making an observation. A particle has no physical reality until it is observed. According to the Superposition principle, a particle (an electron or any other elementary particle) passing through one of the Double Slits has no physical presence anywhere prior to making an observation. In fact some even make this ludicrous proposition that the particle could be EVERYWHERE prior to making an observation. That is to say that we cannot attached a cartesian coordinate in the Euclidean space to describe the position of the particle before observation. For those familiar wth relativity, there is no space-time coordinate where we can attach to the particle prior to observation. Hence, it is not possible to describe the electron as having a physical state until it interacts with the apparatus to provide an observation.
Personally, I abhor such a postulate and would prefer to use classical statistics to interpret the behavior of particles including that of the photons. This would allow us to describe every single particle (photons included) as having a Real Physical State that will enable us to predict how it would interact with the apparatus, at least, statistically. I have shown that this approach seem to give us the correct prediction where QM fails.

Sorry for the digression.

On your other assertion:

I don’t think entropy is violated. The photons continue to be deflected through the molecules making the polarizer randomly, except, that a linear polarizer has one molecular alignment while a QWP has two. In other materials such as ordinary glass, there is no specific molecular alignment that will restrict the photons deflecting through them.

On your suggestion:

Before I attempt to provide you the result, let me clarify your proposition to ensure that I do not misinterpret your request.

Are you saying that we pass MONOCHROMATIC or WHITE light through the following set of filters in this sequence and then give a full rotation to QWP(2):
Experiment (1)
l ψ> -----> My(1) -----> QWP(2) ------> My(3).

Where l ψ> is the unpolarized state of photons (Monochromatic or White Light)
My = Linear polarizer
QWP= Quarter wave plate

1.1 Using Monochromatic Light
You would have ¼ the original intensity of l ψ>.
The rotation of the QWP(2) has minimal effect (not perceptible to the naked eyes) on the intensity of light passing the three filters.

1.2 Using White Light
No perceptible variation in the color of the light passing through the composite filters as we rotate the QWP(2).

[Note: For want of a better name, I will continue to refer QWP as a filter in spite of Mr. Homm objection]

If you conduct this other experiments:
Experiment (2)
l ψ> -----> My(1) -----> QWP(R2) ------> QWP(R3)(inverted 180 deg.)------> My(4).

2.1 Using Monochromatic Light
You should obtain the same result as the experiment --had you used a mirror. The only difference, is that you may get a higher intensity passing through this set of filters compared with when you uses the mirror. It is not quite as dark compared to the experiment using the mirror.
The rotation of QWP(2) relative to QWP(3) causes a variation in the intensity of light passing through the filters that is perceptible to the naked eyes.

2.2 Using White Light
The chromaticity of the white light passing through the set of filters vary as we rotate one QWR(R3) relative to QWP(R2) as well as when we rotate both QWP relative to both the Linear Polarizer.

Finally, if we were to conduct this last experiment:
Experiment (3)
l ψ> -----> My(1) -----> QWP(R2) ------> QWP(L3)------> My(4).

3.1 Using Monochromatic Light
We will see that there will be a greater intensity of photons passing through all the filters than in the case for Experiment (2).
The rotation of QWP(L3) relative to QWP(R2) causes some perceptible changes to the intensity of the monochromatic light passing through it. Similar changes is also recorded as we rotate both the QWP relative to the Linear Polarizers (where we fix it).

3.2 Using White Light
The chromaticity of the white light passing through the set of filters vary as we rotate one QWP(L3) relative to the other QWP(R2) as well as when we rotate both QWP relative to both the Linear Polarizer (where they are fixed).

I hope you, Mr Homm or some other members who happen to have these apparatus could also independently verify the observation that I have described above.

I will address Mr Homm remarks in my next post.

Cheers.

Hi hexa, Mr Homm et al,

Hexa, many thanks for trying out my suggestion. My lack of comfort is due to the fact that even I have no faith in my understanding of what is going on .

The result .. no change as the QWP is rotated between two vertical filters. Could this be that the QWP has only changed the z angle of the spin vector .. to which neither the filters nor the human eye are sensitive. A more sensitive test would be to start with the filters at right angles.

Best wishes,

-C2.

Hi Mr Homm,

Please do not mistake my replies to Confused2 as saying that you have been less than accurate in stating Quantum Theory. On the contrary, your command of Quantum Theory has been impeccable. You were able to distinguish the different shades of grey. This can only be the hallmark of a true master who knows Quantum Theory inside out.
But that does not mean that Quantum Theory represents the Gospel Truth of Nature. As what Richard Feynman had said, Quantum Theory is build on---to paraphrase him--- the ruins of Logic and Common sense. In the absence of Determinism (which you disputed my assertion), and an over reliance on mathemathics (Quantum Mechanics), do you see the danger that in the absence of a Logical Phenomenological account of Nature, we run the risk of predicting an outcome that may be contrary to experiment that is far remote from Reality? Can we learn anything from the allegory of Plato’s Cave?

I think you are mistaken, when you said:

Prior to hearing your suggestion on what constitute a TRUE Right and a TRUE Left Circular Polarizer, all the experiments that I have conducted with Circular Polarizers does not agree with what was predicted by QM as stated in the Physics textbook. Even with the introduction of another QWP before the Circular Polarizer, ROTATION INVARIANCE continues to evade from my experimental observation. The other observation involves a heavy dose of discount before we can begin to infer the prediction made in QM with regards to Circular Polarization.

I sincerely hope you will be able to conduct the same experiments on Circular Polarization to satisfy yourself with regard to whether they are mere artefact or that there is something fundamentally wrong with the QM prediction.

To state that QM may be wrong on Circular Polarization, does not automatically make my proposition to use CLASSICAL STATISTICAL Method as correct.
One of the cardinal tests for this alternative approach is that it must be able to account LOGICALLY MALUS Experimental Law for the passage of light through two linear polarizers inclined at an angle δ. I will do this in my next post to show that Malus Law is only an approximation to what we will observe experimentally. There is a more fundamental Reality.

In this posting, I will only address your remarks that you request further clarification.

[1.1] is accepted with qualification in [1.2].
[1.2] may not be technically correct. The molecules making up the polarizer does not significantly ABSORB the photons. Most of these photons that does not pass through a Linear Polarizer is reflected away from it. You can verify this assertion using a laser beam.
[1.3] can be accepted since the extraordinary ray takes a longer path. However there is nothing in the molecules of the QWP to suggest that the “PHASES” can be precisely control to depart from one another by exactly 90 deg. It is just not reasonable to make this assumption, with the knowledge that the molecules making up the QWP is constantly vibrating and oscillating.
[1.4] and [1.5] may be accepted.
[1.6] How do you account for the fact that a calcite crystal (which can be used as a QWP), split ONE Beam of photons into two DISTINCT beams (Ordinary and Extraordinary Beams) if it is unable to distinguish one photon from another?

[2.1] is incorrect. This is where I will have to disagree with you on your proposition that QWP is not a filter based on the reason that I have stated in [1.6].
[2.2] and [2.3] appears to differ from your earlier proposition that there are two types of QWP. One that rotates light in the clockwise direction, and the other in the counterclockwise direction. In each of these cases, what is it that are being rotated?
[2.4] has a problem. According to you---in the set up involving two TRUE Right Circular Polarizers, the x-linearly polarized photon will have to pass through Two QWP (one rotates in one direction with the other in another direction), before passing through the next x-linear polarizer.
On another experiment involving ONE TRUE Right Circular Polarizer followed by a TRUE Left Circular Polarizer, the x-linearly polarized photon will have to pass through Two QWP (one rotate in one direction with the other reinforcing the rotation), before passing through another x-linear polarizer.
If both the QWP does nothing, how do we account for the fact that:
A] one allows more Light to pass through both the Linear Polarizers with TWO QWP than when only ONE QWP is being used? And
B] the other cut-off a substantial parts of the light as if the two linear polarizers are aligned orthogonally to one another?
Hence, I don’t think [2.5] is tenable.

[3.1] is accepted.
[3.2] need to answer the question that I have raised in [2.4].
[3.3] I remain skeptical as to whether we could construct a single layer of polarizing material based on how we define a Circular Polarizer.

Please pardon me for my impudence. I hope you could continue to set aside sometime from your busy schedule to clarify some of the issues that I have raised here. I will attempt to provide an explanation on Malus Law using simple Classical Statistical Method after your clarification to the issues that I have raised here.

Cheers.

Hi Confused2,

Do not feel exasperated because you have lost faith in what we have been taught in school on how this wonderful Quantum Theory has brought us the benefits that we are enjoying in the 21stCentury.
Look at it as another phase where Mankind take another quantum leap in trying to understand Nature. Quantum Theory and Relativity had replaced the Deterministic World of Newtonian Physics. Maybe, it is time to see if Quantum Theory can be understood more rationally. This urge to understand physics MORE RATIONALLY can be traced to the founding fathers of Quantum Physics. Einstein headed the list including giants like, de Broglie, Schrodinger and many others. Bohr and Heisenberg while recognising the problem chose to ignore the issue. Some have proposed String, Membrane, etc, etc in hope that they could better describe Nature. Many are discussing the prospect of a theory beyond the Standard Model that had commanded the Loyalty of the mainstream community for the 20th Century.

I think that is an excellent suggestion.
The insertion of the QWP would allow light to pass through the two linear polarizers that are orthogonal to one another. At first sight, the subsequent rotation of the QWP appears not to change anything (for Monochromatic and White Light) that is significant to the naked eyes. I was Wrong. I have discounted the fluctuation when I rotated the QWP as artefacts of the QWP when I gave you the earlier result in my previous post. On hindsight, this fluctuation is due to the permutation of the two molecular axes found in the QWP against the Single axis of each of the Linear Polarizer. This confirms unequivocally that Circular Polarizer is not ROTATION INVARIANT as what QM has predicted. I don’t think Mr Homm assertion that the QWP is not a filter is defensible.

Alternatively, we could fix the QWP and rotate one of the linear polarizer; or fix one linear polarizer and rotate both the QWP and another linear polarizer simultaneously. You will observe that the intensity of the monochromatic light passing the entire set of filters will vary. If White Light is used, you will notice a variation in the chromaticity as the filters are being rotated.

You are correct to state that changes of the spin vector changes nothing with regard to the intensity. Hence, you are correct to state that the changes are not perceptible to the naked eyes. However, careful observation of the experiment suggested by you do reveal a fluctuation to the intensity that is perceptible to the naked eyes.

I hope the information will enable you to formulate your own physical reality with regards to Circular Polarization of Light. Personally, I do not find QM to have provided the Mathematics nor the Theory behind Circular Polarization.

Cheers.

This post has been edited by hexa on Nov 7 2006, 03:38 AM

Hi all,

I'm back from my trip, but still quite busy, so I'll try to squeeze in a few replies:

Continuing to discuss hexa's Oct 24 post:

This description has the angles backwards. The molecules are oriented along the direction in which polarized light would be absorbed, not transmitted. This doesn't change anything essential to your argument, but I thought I would point it out. Here is a reference from a British university astronomy department (see especially sections 6.5 and 6.6): Polarization notes You can ignore the stuff about "complex refractive index" as that's just a mathematical trick to make the calculations work smoothly, the same way that complex voltages are used in electrical engineering. It doesn't mean anything is "really" complex, only that complex numbers provide a calculation shortcut.

Now this one is just plain wrong. There is no such thing as a right QWP or left QWP, there is only one type of QWP. Also, a QWP will NOT rotate the orientation of a linearly polarized photon. I think you are confusing QWPs with optically active biological molecules here: there certainly are molecules which will rotate the axis of polarization of linearly polarized light; these are called levorotary (left) and dextrorotary (right) molecules. For example a solution of glucose in water will rotate the plane of polarization of a light beam passing through it. The amount of rotation depends on the distance the light travels through the solution and the concentration of the solution. In fact, this effect is used in chemical labs to measure solution concentrations optically without having to take a sample of the solution -- a pretty clever idea!

Essentially, a QWP is made of a material which transmits light at different speeds depending on the orientation of the electric field of the light. In the case of calcite (a "triclinic" crystal, meaning that the repeating unit of the crystal is a "skewed" cube with no right angles), there is one direction within the crystal that is distinguished. Light passing through the crystal with its E field aligned with this special direction (the "optic axis" of the crystal) will pass through more slowly than light that has its E field oriented perpendicular to the optic axis.

Now notice a couple of things here: if you send a light beam through the crystal so that the propagation direction is along the optic axis, then the E field is necessarily perpendicular to the optic axis (since light is transverse), and so all polarization states will pass through the crystal in equal times IF the propagation is along the optic axis. In that case, the crystal doesn't do anything interesting, and acts just like an ordinary piece of glass.

If on the other hand, you send the light through the crystal so that the propagation direction is perpendicular to the optic axis, then the E field may be either perpendicular or parallel to the optic axis (or any angle in between, of course). In this case, a light ray with its E polarized to be parallel to the optic axis will pass through the crystal slower, and one with its E perpendicular to the optic axis will pass through faster. Both rays will travel along the same path, and there will NOT be separate ordinary and extraordinary rays. In that case, the crystal does phase delay one polarization direction relative to the other, but does NOT separate the light into tow paths, so it is NOT filtering in this orientation.

Finally, suppose you send the light through the crystal at an angle to the optic axis. This one is trickier, so let's set up some coordinates. Say the optic axis as along the line from the origin to (x,y,z) = (1,0,0) and the light ray is along the line from the origin to (1,1,0). Then consider two polarization states: First, E is along (0,0,1), and second along (1,-1,0). Both of these are perpendicular to the direction of propagation as they should be. The first E is also perpendicular to the optic axis, while the second E makes a 45 degree angle to the axis. The second E field could be brought more into alignment with the optic axis if the ray were to change direction slightly, say to (1.1,0.9,0). This would slow the travel of the ray, because E is more nearly aligned with the optic axis. Conversely, bending the ray slightly away from the optic axis would cause it to speed up. Since light must take the quickest path, this ray will bend slightly away from the optic axis to achieve the speed increase. This is the extraordinary ray. The other ray cannot achieve a speed increase, because its E is already perpendicular to the axis, so it is already going at the maximum speed. Therefore this ray does not bend away from the optic axis. This is the ordinary ray. As a matter of fact, when I was taking first year physics, our class calculated the exact angle of deviation of the extraordinary ray based on this analysis (looking for the angle that would produce the shortest travel time), and it agrees perfectly with measured values.

So you can see that the behavior of the calcite depends on how you CUT the crystal. If you cut it to a shape where the front and back faces are perpendicular to the optic axis and shine light straight into it, it will do nothing. If you cut it to a shape where the front and back faces are parallel to the optic axis and shine light straight into it, it will delay one E orientation relative to the other, but not split the ray into two rays. If you cut it into a shape where the optic axis makes a 45 degree angle with the surface normal vector, and then shine light straight into ti, it will split the beam into separate ordinary and extraordinary rays, each polarized perpendicular to the other.

These three behaviors are obtained by preparing the crystal in three different ways. The second preparation is what produces a QWP if the thickness of the crystal is adjusted so that the phase delay is exactly 1/4 wave. This preparation of the crystal does NOT exhibit the separation into two rays, so it is NOT acting as a filter. The third case is most definitely a filter, but that behavior is not present in the second case.

This one is of course not correct either, because it is based on the previous one. The correct statement is: If a Circular Polarizer uses a QWP after a linear polarizer, and its optic axis is turned 45 degrees counterclockwise relative to the transmission axis of the linear polarizer, then the composite filter will behave as a Right Circular Polarizer. If we use a QWP with its axis turned 45 degrees clockwise relative to the transmission axis of the linear polarizer, then it will be a Left Circular Polarizer.

I must confess that I am rather distressed that this was not already clear. I spent a lot of effort over several posts to describe these filters exactly, but I must have failed to make it clear. This is my fault of course, so I am disappointed in myself as a teacher. Could you please do me a favor and look over this post and the ones just before it, and show me where I went wrong? I always want to improve the clarity of my explanations, so this would be a great help.

Let me restate this in my own words to see if I understand you correctly: Start with an LP filter with axis angle θ_0. When a photon hits this LP filter, it will either get through or not. If it does get through, we say that the photon is in polarization state |θ_0>. This means exactly that the photon got through an LP filter with axis angle θ_0, nothing more. This is how the measurement of photon polarization is defined: a photon is in polarization state |θ_0> if and only if it has just emerged from an LP filter with axis angle θ_0.

However, the photon itself has its own true polarization angle θ, which may not be identical to θ_0. This exact angle is not measured by the LP filter. The action of the filter is to reject all photons whose true polarization angle θ differs from the filter's axis angle θ_0 by more than 45 degrees. Photons with a polarization angle θ that differs by less than 45 degrees from the filter's axis angle θ_0 will pass through the filter, but they will not preserve their polarization angle in the process. Instead, they will have a new exiting polarization angle θ' which must differ from the filter's axis angle by less than 45 degrees.

Summary:
1: If |θ-θ_0|>45 degrees, photon does not get through the filter
2: If |θ-θ_0|<45 degrees, photon does get through filter.
3: In case 2, the exiting photon has an axis θ' satisfying |θ'=θ_0|<45 degrees.
4: In case 3, θ' is not necessarily equal to θ.

To me, this seems like the central point. Your hypothesis allows you to associate the same real photon with various different measured polarization states, which means that you do not have to assume that the state is described by a state vector. The purpose of the state vector in standard QM is to account for the fact that a particle that has just been measured and found in a particular state, can then be measured again with a different filter, and found in a different state with nonzero probability. QM accounts for this by saying that the state vector of the particle is resolved into components by each filter, and the component aligned with the filter gets through. In order for this to work, EVERYTHING in QM has to be a state vector, which gives the whole complex-valued, uncertainty-limited standard quantum weirdness.

Your hypothesis avoids all this by postulating an unmeasured real photon angle θ , which is changed by the filter to a new angle θ' that is still within the acceptance range of the filter. I think a host of troubles will arise later from this unmeasured real angle θ, but I will wait until after I have discussed the rest of the details to lay out these general concerns.

Yes, your hypothesis does indeed predict 1) and 2), which are experimentally correct. In fact, you can go to any angle and predict
|<θ|Mθ|θ>| = 1 and |<θ +/- 90|Mθ|θ>| = 0, which also agree with experiment.

So far, your hypothesis is looking good, but I would like to know further details:

How is θ' determined from θ? Is this actually deterministic, controlled by the unknown details of the molecular structure of the LP filter? Or is it truly random? I am assuming that you intend the first interpretation, based on your comments earlier about determinism.

In either case, how are the possible angles θ' distributed? Is the probability of getting a specific angle θ' evenly spread across the range θ_0 - 45 to θ_0 + 45? Is it influenced in any way by the incoming angle θ? In other words does θ' tend to stay close to θ?

Is θ' impossible in principle to measure, or is it just a technical limitation of our current filter technology? That makes a big difference for the interpretation of the theory. In the first case, you have a "local hidden variable" theory, which Bell's theorem should apply to. How do you plan to escape from Bell's theorem? In the second case, new filters could produce radically different experimental results from current filters, invalidating Malus's Law.

@hexa Oct.25

Yes, that is a very amusing post of Gtrax. My attitude is similar. If a theory can be made more and more elaborate to account for everything, then that theory is useful for making predictions, but it still might not be TRUE. On the other hand, if the theory is actually true, then you should be able to use it to make predictions of phenomena you hadn't even thought of when you constructed the theory. In other words, the theory should predict outcomes for experiments OTHER than the ones that it was founded upon, and it should get these predictions RIGHT. Then you have a very strong suspicion that at least something about your theory is really on the right track. However, even then it might be possible to reorganize the theory into a different format that would be much cleaner and clearer, and still make the same predictions. QM is in this position now: it has successfully predicted the outcomes of many experiments beyond the ones that were used to define it; therefore, there is something right about it; on the other hand, all common interpretations of QM have logical or philosophical problems of one kind or another, and the math may seem unnecessarily complicated (though that's a matter of taste), so there is something wrong about it as well (or at least something wrong about how we are interpreting it).

@montec, Oct. 25

The first part is correct. The second part is kind of right, but the circularly polarized light does not have an axis of polarization. I think what you mean is that the E field vector rotates as the light travels through space. That is standard textbook physics. When the E field vector does not rotate, then you have linearly polarized light, and the polarization axis is then the same as the direction of the E field vector.

Now there are two ways to picture this, and only one of them is right. First, some people picture the circularly polarized wave as like a ribbon with a twist in it, so that the light is plane polarized at any point, but the angle of polarization changes as you go along the wave. In that case, if you placed an antenna in the path of the wave and moved it back and forth along the path of propagation, you would sometimes see the antenna pick up a lot of energy (when it is in a position where the E field lines up with it) and sometimes pick up no energy (when E is perpendicular to it). This is NOT what happens, so this is not the correct picture.

The other picture is to think of the threads on a screw and imagine spinning the screw WITHOUT moving it forward. You will see the threads appear to move forward. Now imagine that the E field vector at each point on the wave points radially out from the axis of the screw to the thread, so that the arrow heads of all the E vectors form the ridge of the screw thread. Then at each point in space, the E vector is rotating around as the screw turns. In this case, you would expect an antenna to pick up exactly half of the energy of the wave (because it misses the part that comes when the E field is rotated perpendicular to the antenna) regardless of position. This IS what happens, so this is the correct picture. In other words, the circularly polarized wave does not consist of a twisted plane polarized wave; instead the E field vector rotates around and around at EACH point along the wave path.

Hope that clears it up!

@Confused2, Oct. 26

You're right, defining those properties correctly is hard. You have to derive QED by applying quantum field theory to the photon (as it has been defined) and then show that classical EM follows as the limit of QED when Planck's constant approaches zero. This is (as they say in mathematics) "highly nontrivial."

@hexa, Oct. 28

This experiment has been called "the most important NEGATIVE result in the history of physics." You are right, it is ironic that Morely refused to believe his own result. It was observed once (by Arthur C. Clarke, if I remember correctly, but perhaps he was quoting someone else) that the way to advance physics was to (1) prove your result was correct and (2) wait for all the old physicists to die.

As to the large quoted material from your earlier post, I have responded to it in this post (see above).

@MrMysteryScience, Oct. 28

I am having some trouble understanding your post in detail. Without intending any disrespect, I will confine my remarks to trying for clarification rather than responding to the content of what you have said. When clarity is reached, then will be the time to respond without fear of misunderstanding.

Your main points seem to be these:
1: It is hard to picture a particle having more than 1 spin axis at the same time. It seems intuitively that if the particle is spinning one particular way, then it is NOT spinning some other way.
2: You have mentioned a possible "higher dimensional" viewpoint where you can see that the particle has only one true spin, but that in this higher dimension, there may be more than 1 spin axis.
3: You cite two papers on the Optical Magnus Effect, showing that the chirality (right or left handedness of the circular polarization) affects the physical distribution of light at the exit of the fiber. This looks like it is intended to show that circular polarization is a real state for photons, because it has observable effects.

Am I understanding you correctly?

One comment about point 3. There are other experiments as well that show circular polarization has physical effects. For instance, set up the apparatus for a Cavendish experiment, blacken the bottom side of the torsion pendulum with carbon dust, and shine a right circular polarized laser beam up onto it from below. This beam contains angular momentum, so when it is absorbed by the torsion pendulum, it will exert a (very small) torque on it. Knowing the period of the pendulum, you can reverse the polarization at the same period to give the pendulum a series of torsional boosts, much like pushing a child on a swing. The pendulum will build up a rotational oscillation, and by measuring the amplitude of the oscillation and its damping, you can calculate the amount of torque the laser exerted on the pendulum.

Now this is important in view of linearity. Since plane polarized light carries NO angular momentum, it CANNOT be the most fundamental state for light. This is because by linearity, any combination of plane polarized photons must then have a total angular momentum of exactly zero (just the sum of the individual contributions, which are all zero). If linear polarization were truly fundamental, all other polarizations could be built by summing linear polarizations, and no light beam would ever carry angular momentum, directly contradicting the experiment. On the other hand, if the fundamental states of light are RCP and LCP, and if these DO carry angular momentum, it is easy to see that if linear polarizations are constructed from equal mixtures of RCP and LCP, they will have zero angular momentum, agreeing with experiment. In short, you can build zero angular momentum states from nonzero ones, but you cannot build nonzero angular momentum states from zero ones. Therefore, the photon must intrinsically have angular momentum.

It is true that ALGEBRAICALLY all states are equally fundamental in standard QM, but physically the photons must have an intrinsic angular momentum. Now, how can it be that you can algebraically combine states like |H> and |V> to get |R> and |L>? After all, the first two do not have angular momentum but the last two do have it. It turns out that the complex numbers are what make this work. The fact that |R> and |L> are complex linear combinations of |H> and |V>, not real linear combinations, is what allows them to have angular momentum. It is the complex numbers that allow all states to be thought of as equally fundamental. Without them, you would be forced to say that the circular states are fundamental and the linear states are not.

I must stop here for the night, but will try to catch up with more recent posts tomorrow.

Cheers!

--Stuart Anderson

Hi Mr Homm,

Thanks for setting aside time to provide clarification to all our queries.
Thanks for the link ( http://www.star.le.ac.uk/~rw/courses/lect4313.html#tth_sEc6 ) and the explanation of the two terms levorotary (left) and dextrorotary (right) molecules.

I am afraid I am getting a bit confused with your latest clarification:

Now this one is just plain wrong. There is no such thing as a right QWP or left QWP, there is only one type of QWP. Also, a QWP will NOT rotate the orientation of a linearly polarized photon.

This does not appear to agree with your statement that you had made with regards to QWP in your earlier post: (http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=3310&view=findpost&p=113085 ):

With your latest clarification, I now know that I have totally misinterpreted the meaning of the statement that you intend to convey. What you in fact said is that a Linear Polarizer somehow become a Right or Left Circular Polarizer if the optical axis of the QWP is rotated clockwise or anti-clockwise relative to the polarizing axis of the Linear Polarizer.
By the way:
1)What does this OPTICAL Axis of the QWP represent?
2)How is this related to the Molecular arrangement of the QWP?
3)Does the molecules of the QWP not determine how any PHOTON is going to interact with it?

This one is of course not correct either, because it is based on the previous one. The correct statement is: If a Circular Polarizer uses a QWP after a linear polarizer, and its optic axis is turned 45 degrees counterclockwise relative to the transmission axis of the linear polarizer, then the composite filter will behave as a Right Circular Polarizer. If we use a QWP with its axis turned 45 degrees clockwise relative to the transmission axis of the linear polarizer, then it will be a Left Circular Polarizer.

I must confess that I am rather distressed that this was not already clear. I spent a lot of effort over several posts to describe these filters exactly, but I must have failed to make it clear. This is my fault of course, so I am disappointed in myself as a teacher. Could you please do me a favor and look over this post and the ones just before it, and show me where I went wrong? I always want to improve the clarity of my explanations, so this would be a great help.

Sorry to have misunderstood you. The fault is not entirely yours.
However, there is a BIGGER PROBLEM if the photons are not rotated clockwise or anti-clockwise relative to the linear polarizer as you now intended to mean. This is because you have also stated that it is the Linear Polarizer in the TRUE Circular Polarizer (QWP + LP + QWP) that will either allow more light to pass through or none at all. If it does not rotate the orientation of the photons, then How is the Linear polarizer going to do what it does, if it is the ONLY FILTER by your definition?

I am sure you are aware of this experiment.
Experiment-1
Place x-linear polarizer at position 1 and y-linear polarizer at position 3 along the z-axis.
Pass a beam of photons along the z-axis passing through the two linear polarizers.
What do you see?

Experiment-2
Place a linear polarizer (inclined at 45 deg. to the x-linear polarizer) at position 2 in between the x-linear polarizer at position-1 and y-linear polarizer at position 3.
What do you see?

How do you account for the fact that the photons can now pass through the polarizers in Experiment-2 but not in Experiment-1 if none of the photons are being rotated by the linear polarizer inclined at 45 degree to the x and y linear polarizers?

On your other remarks:

The answer is Yes and No. The angle that you refer to for the molecules of the LP is angle σ. I hope we can keep to the convention that I have adopted here. At the individual level, the passage of a SINGLE PHOTON through the molecules is still random. The range of angle θ' upon which a SINGLE PHOTON passes through a given Molecular arrangement of the Linear Polarizer is fixed by angle σ. Whether that PHOTON passes through the linear polarizer is governed by the angle θ. Beyond the permissible range, the PHOTON DOES NOT pass through the linear polarizer.

The molecular structure of the Linear Polarizing filter can be known quite accurately using a Transmission Electron Microscope or X-ray spectroscopy. The molecular axis can also be determined quite accurately when the linear polarizers are being constructed. Notwithstanding all that I have said about a unique molecular axis, this must be understood in the context that the molecules are constantly vibrating and oscillating about this axis which is the mean.

The angle θ is NOT evenly spread across the range between θ= +45 deg and –45 deg. It has a bell curve that takes its reference from the molecular axis of the linear polarizer. Angle σ is important.

Not necessary. But it does has a higher probability. It is influenced by angle σ. This is the angle measured with reference to the molecular axis of the polarizer. In a linear polarizer, there is only one alignment. In a QWP there are two such axes.

The angle θ of a SINGLE PHOTON cannot be measured physically and is unlikely that we can measure it definitively in the near future. This is because a PHOTON is a boson. Unlike fermion, a boson is not affected by magnetic field or electric field. Hence, it is impossible to measure the angle θ with the precision that we can measure for the spin of an electron or any other fermion. I could be wrong, but I don't see how one could measure this angle θ definitively, given the limitation that I have mentioned above.
But that does not mean that we cannot infer the range of angle θ from its group behavior.

In my case, since I look at everything as having a REAL Physical State, I also look at a SINGLE PHOTON as having a PHYSICAL STATE where we can use an axis in Cartesian Coordinate to describe this physical state.
The Local Hidden Variable Theory made the assumption that the angle θ of the photons are evenly distributed. This is an incorrect assumption which I will explain when I provide you the proof for Malus Law.
Bell’s theorem is made on this erroneous premises. This has led to the ludicrous presumption that Locality is violated and that it is possible to communicate information faster than the speed of light. No. The claim is even more preposterous. It is instant communication irrespective of whether the two communicating parties may be half a Univese away from one another. This is the current claim of Quantum entanglement.

Before I provide the proof for Malus Law (which is only an approximation), I would need you to help me by stating the probability intensity provided by QM. It is OK if you want to use Malus Law to state the value of the Intensity of light passing through this set of linear polarizers:
1)The polarizing axis of first Linear polarizer is aligned at 0 degree.
2)The second linear polarizer is aligned at 45 degree.
3)The third linear polarizer is aligned at 90 degree.
Question:
Determine the probability intensity of light passing through all the three linear polarizers.

It is important that you state the value so that we can make a comparison between what QM predict and what I will be predicting. After which, we can both do the experiment to satisfy ourselves whether QM prediction is correct or the one that I am proposing that rest squarely on Determinism.

Cheer

This post has been edited by hexa on Nov 9 2006, 03:35 AM

Hello mr_homm,

Thank you for your very polite response. Now is not a great time for me to respond. And I do respect the direction this thread is taking and do not wish to post anything that would take away from that. Perhaps you are willing to take a message using this forum's messaging system. In the meantime, a primitive research on Magnus effects, that were even hinted at by Newton, might give you a very simplified concept as to why that effect was used as a descriptive in the "Optical Magnus Effect". Of course there is more...

Thanks again.

there is yes two distict polarizations to the light,left-handed and vright-handed,due
the the light appear of quantic vaccum as anisotropic,then could have the non-locality and orientaby,where the polarization of the light rays are circular,then occur a mirror symmetry breaking that turn the light with two opposed polarization
,it is, permit that that speed of light has it speed altered when can to pass from medium to other with negative refraction index,that does see the light ray with pathway forward in time,and therefore there are negative spaces conjugated to
imaginary space-time when observer the light go out before to enter in the medium,it is the break of symmetry of mirror that permit that pathwat of speed of lught be non-linear,then occur a reversion of parity and reversal-time that does the
show it opposed direction,as if the light was oriented by a determined direction
and returned by the non-oriented direction.then could see the "future" as ptential vector that contain all the information sent to future and reflected through of hidden variables that occult the symmetries broken when occur the reversion of image as real through of the virtual potential vectors;as the speed goes to past,with velocity faster than the light,that goes backward in space-time(not only in the time) with nrgative energy,then the relations univocity between the events
in the place of negative space-time and positive space-time.then occur a circularity
of the phenomenons of space-time through of two polarizations driven to the space-time(left-handed- that goes forward in given orientation and goes backward
with contrary orientation)

the opposed rotations of background of the universe,generate in the vaccum,two disctint polarizations to the light that is left-handed and right-handed,it is,non-symmetry of pt,that does the polarizations be non-local,then creating several parallel pathway to the light rays.then the oriented and non-oriented rotations
generate a circular polarization of light.the subquantic vaccum symmetry breaking generate the circular polarization of light through of the left-handed and right-handed polarizations,that does curve the light .

Hi Mott.Carl,

What are you saying???????:

I can now understand why these other members are so critical about you:

You could not express yourself but chose to use Big Stupid Bombastic Terms.
Worst, you don't seem to be able to spell.
In fact, if what these other members is saying about you is true, you should not even be allowed in this forum. It just make you look extremely STUPID and OBNOXIOUS.
Please save yourself further embarrassment.

I am a fan of Mr Homm. He will always have my respect as an astute teacher that is extremely careful with his choice of words. He is among the best who could express himself in such vivid terms and provide the mathematics when needed.
While I have been taught Quantum Mechanics and believe that that is the best we can describe nature, I find it difficult to dismiss the Deterministic approach proposed by hexa. I hope Mr Homm could provide a satisfactory answer to the questions posed by hexa. I also hope that hexa would continue to challenge the prevailing doctrine in Science. If what he said is true, then learning Science would certainly be a breeze and not a chore with tons and tons of abstract mathematics that nobody seem to be able to fully comprehend that they can relate to reality.

From the views put forward by Mr Homm, hexa, Confused2, Dr Brettmann, Schneibster, MrMysteryScience, Montec, etc, in this thread, I find it quite humbling to put any view across.
As such I am only listening quietly and learning as much of what is being discussed.
I cannot say about the other members following this thread. As for you Mott.Carl, I am Very, Very Sure you have nothing worthwhile to contribute. So, why don't you just SHUT UP like me.

PLEASE GO ELSEWHERE where you are welcome to spout your view.Start your own thread if you like.


Please accept my APOLOGY. But I am Extremely frustrated with your stupid remarks and interuption like a kindergarden kid, that makes me break my silence.

Peter Robert.

Hi Peter Robert,

Thanks for your encouragement.
While I tend to agree with much of all you have said, I hope you could be a little more forgiving on Mott. Carl.
In all honesty, much of what we understand as contemporary physics are heavily coated with abstract mathematical postulates that are essentially non accessible to the common folks. Some are just as absurd as what Mott.Carl had attempted to say, although he may not have the command of the language to express himself in those terms used by the experts. Look at the plea by Good Elf in this other thread: (http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=6587&view=findpost&p=141392 )

From the discussion in this other thread, you can see that Contemporary Physics is very very weird. QM is also being attacked. Unfortunately, the alternatives are not much better as it also require us to depart from what we consider as Rational and the Cardinal Principle of Science. DETERMINISM that do not violate Locality and Causality.

The reason I posed this question here is because the experiment that I have conducted using Circular Polarizers does not yield the result predicted by QM. Thanks to Mr. Homm, he has helped to solve a major construction problem by introducing the definition of a TRUE Right and TRUE Left Circular Polarizer that I could not find anywhere in any Physics Text.

As you can see, our discussion has now reach a crucial stage that we need to be very precise on what we meant. It will have quite significant repercussion between what we predict and what we will in fact observe.

In this respect, I will need Mr. Homm help in stating the prediction by QM (where he can use Malus Law if that is his preference) to state the prediction before I proceed to state the proof of Malus Law. Although the result is meant for Linear Polarizers, it is important that we understand it phenomenonlogically and how the mathematics is being derived that will be crucial for us to understand the crux of Circular Polarization.

I think we will need to address the issue of the Double Slits Experiement after we have thoroughly explored the subject on Circular Polarization. I hope you will be with us on this Journey of Exploration. Hopefully, we can all understand Nature a little better than continue to be chained to the myth of yesteryear. Personally, I am confident that Determinism is preserved. But this require us to understand the apparatus at the nanoscale and in the same way that we are trying to understand the topic on Polarization of Light.


Cheers.

This post has been edited by hexa on Nov 11 2006, 04:05 AM