FunSucks
168877
4084
59
Hold two polarizing filters between you and the light. As you rotate the second filter, the lamp will get lighter and darker. It should look darkest when the second filter is oriented 90 degrees off from the first. What you're observing is that the photons with polarization that allows them to pass through a filter along one axis have a much lower probability of passing through a second filter along a perpendicular axis - in principle 0%.
polarization black magic
But here's where things get quantum-ly bizarre. All these filters do is remove light - they "filter" it out. But if you take a third filter, orient it 45 degrees off from the first filter, and you put it between the two, the lamp will actually look brighter. This is not the middle filter generating more light - somehow introducing another filter actually lets more light through.
Here's what's happening.
We can interpret a diagonally polarized wave as a superposition of a horisontal and a vertical wave.
If you were to take a vertically oriented polarizing filter and shoot this diagonally polarized photon right at it what do you think would happen?
Classically the way you'd interpret the superposition is that the half of it's energy (in the horizontal direction) would be absorbed. But because energy comes in discrete packets (photons) it either has to pass through with all of it's energy or get absorbed entirely. And if you actually did this experiment, about half the time the photon goes through entirely and about half the time it gets absorbed entirely.
If it does pass through, forcing it to make a decision like this, actually changes it so that it's polarization is oriented along the filters direction.
This is analogous to the classic Schrodinger's cat setup. You have something that's in a superposition of two states, but once you make a measurement of that superposition forcing it to interract with an observer in a way where each of those two states would behave differently from the perspective of that observer this superposition collapses to be entirely in one state or entirely in another.
So 50% of photons passing that vertical filter will also pass through the diagonal filter, and once they do they're going to be changed to have a purely diagonal polarization and once they're in that state they have a 50% chance of passing through a filter oriented at 90 degrees.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcqZHYo7ONs - Minutephysics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzRCDLre1b4 - 3Blue1Brown
RatoMolhado
Both you and me know this is sorcery, OP. As everything quantum. Plain sorcery!
FoxyOfManyLives
Even with the source and links this is still theft.
Warlocktopus
Omg, that's so awesome! I never expected the filters to change the direction of the wave.
Gloriously
eedude
What in notation?!
AllTheGoodOnesWereGone
It works best if you have two big and one small polarizing filters, and pass the small one between the first two. It freaks people out...
AllTheGoodOnesWereGone
...But I didn't think you needed to resort to QM to explain this. Classical wave theory ought to cover it I think, even though QM is sexier.
ForTheSwarm
Yeah, that was my thought, too. This is just wave physics, why are we complicating it further?
cdelta
Because it only becomes a paradox from a quantum perspective. With classical electromagnetism and continuous-amplitude waves, it is trivial.
lysinedispenser
As a physicist: what the rootin tootin fuck is this witchcraft +1
MechanusIncarnate
This is what happens when you square a cosine.
sentimentallyill
ImAlreadyNakedUnderTheseClothes
Cool! More please!
ztrrider
And 3Blue1Brown on YouTube for the maths bits.
Contundo
Minutephysics on YouTube
Spinbot11
I like Vsauce for coo stuff like this too.
JohnSmithterms
Looks like you've been reading a lot of Gordon wood.
BenHipno
Such confuse. But thanks for the info.
ChronologicalMyopia
This is less confusing if you think of light as a field instead of a particle/wave duality. of course, thinking of it like that can be hard.
iamnotfunatparties
Yup. This makes perfect sense when described with classical EM fields with linear polarizations. 1/2
iamnotfunatparties
Using the quantum description for this introduces unnecessary complexity if one is not used to working with quantum mechanics. 2/2
Eeko390
But you learn a lot by making sure the quantum and classical realms match.
btraqnasty
Where are all the people from the "college is pointless" thread from yesterday?
Xyzair
College is pointless, All I do is go to class in a museum and then cry about all the homework that needs to be done.
googleybody
Having studied physics for the past five years now, I honestly think this is the best explanation I've ever received.
altonbrowndeserveshisownmemefuckyouifyoudisagree
-1/12. Got it!
disconat
Zeta function jokes are the best.
augieCakeFlyer
I love math and science
CamelbackJack
This is wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. *glowers*
bbueller
explain?
CamelbackJack
I mean I'm not smart enough to get it. It makes no sense to me, so obviously this quantum stuff must be wrong.
Gustave13
it's super complicated and they've ran with it too far
OstentatiousMusings
Ah, the "it must be wrong because it makes no sense to me" argument. Sorry, Flat Earthers took that one...
AntonioStark
That's awesome! So if I understood. 100% of light will blocked by 2 perpendicular filters because after passing thru the 1st filter, the 1/?
AntonioStark
photons have been forced into a position that will be be opposite of the following filter, ensuring a total blockage. BUT. By adding a 2/?
AntonioStark
a middle filter at 45°, the light once again has distributed horizontal and vertical energy so only half of that will get filtered out 3/4
AntonioStark
By the third polarizing filter. Right? 4/4
Arrrrgggggghhhh
I have no idea.... so I'm gunna say yes.
CerealKiller2142
As someone who's studying aerospace engineering but loves anything about physics and math. I think you're right, but I'm no expert.
Ijustmadeanewusername
You used a lot of big words. Now I'm scared of whatever is you said and demand we ban it.
ASmallOffDutyCzechTrafficWarden
SlowDownTurbo
Mhmmm yes, I know some of these words!
FBKatB3TAdotcom
To many big words, brain hurts, must look at puppers
Nostradamuswaswrong
HA! I know all of these words, it's just the configuration that makes my brainmeats all weirdly.
CommanderStrax
LostCatWantedDeadAndAlive
Couldn't read them, so I had go get my glasses. Now I recognize 50% of them.
bbueller
From my understanding, this is not a paradox at all, but is well understood.
Corrodias
Yes. Inasmuch as it could still qualify as a "paradox" it would be in the proof by contradiction, i.e., in classical mechanics, it is one.
lookinatdumbshitontheinternet
Google says polarisation was discovered 1669. I guess 300 years of being a paradox is hard to let go of.
MerToo
it certainly appears paradoxical in the demo. I'll allow it, especially since I still can't see HTF it works & I *did* do some physics.. :/
Sheldonian
A paradox doesn't contradict that something is understood or not. So yes, it's still a paradox
nanyatenyaa
It's not a paradox... it just isn't intuitive.
iamnotfunatparties
Correct. There is no paradox. This makes perfect sense when described with classical EM fields with linear polarizations. 1/2
iamnotfunatparties
Using the quantum description for this introduces unnecessary complexity if one is not used to working with quantum mechanics. 2/2
vowofloudness
How does it work with classical EM fields with linear polarizations?
cearn
They explain in a second video. Basically: decompose the wave into tangent and normal components and only let tangent through.
iamnotfunatparties
I can't explain in 140 characters. This effect is described in essentially every college/undergrad textbook on classical optics.
vowofloudness
What we call "filters" here don't actually filter. They modify the polarization of some of the light and reflect or absorb some. (132)
madbydesign
Does the order of the lenses matter? What if you had it layered 90° 0° and 45°?
mynewestusername
Yes. Diagonal has to be between them or you will lose all the photons with the two at a 90 degree angle to each other.
sunboy4224
It DOES matter. 90 -> 0 removes all photons, no matter what. Mathematically, it's a function of the cosine of the difference in angles.
FunSucks
It's actually (cos(x))^2. (Cos(45°))^2=0.5
madbydesign
That is so cool
sunboy4224
Thank you for the correction. So, it's the square of the cosine of the difference of the angles?
DancingPanther
Just watched that minutephysics video and holy tits that was some wild shit
SidneyHarbor
Yeah I was about to comment "I too subscribe to Minutephysics!" Great video, really shows how goofy this universe can be at times.
zadel99
Want wild? Loot at PBS Infinite series. Is mind bending.
zadel99
*lok
zadel99
Fuck. *look
TheAdventuresofStealy
PBS Spacetime is also great
zadel99
I understand math, space phisics are fun but beyond my understanding
zadel99
Fuck my english. *Astrophisics
barnwolf
It always bugs me how little explanation we're given about these almost magical polarizing filers. Same with the two slit experiment.
barnwolf
No surprise it's a bit more complicated than sunbeams going through your shades.
Remainder
I mean we derived it all on a chalkboard in one of my classes and it was more than a year later when I first saw the effect in person.
barnwolf
I really want to see an atomic level model of how the waves interact with the atoms of the polarizing filter.
lordgreyii
Oh, it's pretty well understood. I'm earning a degree in Physics, would you like an explanation of either/both?
barnwolf
Sure. 2slit don't explain how you can be sure you're only sending one photon, or that it's not just an artifact of absorb+emit/deflect.
lordgreyii
That's just an experimental set-up issue. The experiments that only send few photons are forcing the 'classical' expectation instead of (1)
lordgreyii
the wave expectation. We can create devices that only emit one (or very few) photons, and we test those empirically.
lordgreyii
Unless I've misunderstood the question?
CaptainMcRocket
Love me some science! Go physics!
27yoUGLYvirgin
I just can't understand for the life of me why anyone would possibly be interested in this mathematical stuff. I find the experiment very
27yoUGLYvirgin
Very interesting, but the maths part is so incredibly horrifying to me, there's nothing I'd be interested in less. And I'm not stupid, I'm
27yoUGLYvirgin
Blessed with an above average IQ, but this is all just crazy numbers to me. I admire anyone who enjoys that but I can't fathom haw that is
27yoUGLYvirgin
Enjoyable. It must blows my mind how someone figured that out.
Surgas
My tinker hurts
barnwolf
Just think of light being like a bunch of fidget spinners. When at an angle the collision can sorta deflect them, letting some through.
StickerOnTomatoe
Pie77
Shit it's been a while since I laughed out loud on this crap site. Tnx fam
kodiak931155
Bob64
His mind-brain is rejecting the Paradox!
GoJuice
That's an odd name for a penis
SailorBOB
Is it? No wonder people laugh at my tinker in the locker room.
Junktrunkjunkie
Dang it I was gonna be more subtle and say "Well you should stop playing with it" But no you just had to come right out and say it...
ButIamvoiceless
So if you put the 45° filter on top instead of the middle it would look black instead, right? Because the light is getting filtered through>
ButIamvoiceless
Both vertical and horizontal axes first?
agghagg
Yup :)
norill
yes. if you have 2 filters next to each other rotated by pi/2, then any filters in front or back dont matter, it's still black
MegaDeuce
Get some polarizers on Amazon and try it :)
ImClearlyInsane
Why are you downvoted?! The only thing better than learning this stuff is trying it yourself!
Pacaruru
Because the filters in the vid are really expensive maybe? Here's some cheaper ones: (1/2)
Pacaruru
https://www.amazon.com/Educational-Innovations-TRTV2091-Polarizing-Filter/dp/B009P8B548
ImClearlyInsane
WOW those are a lot more expensive than I was expecting.
usersubbordercontrol
And if you had, say 90 layers, each turned 1 degree more than the previous, it'll be pretty much the same light put in, right? Like a roller
usersubbordercontrol
Coaster making a turn, the rotation can turn slowly and maintain velocity (amount of light), but a 90 degree turn means crash, and no turns
norill
those filters aren't ideal, notice how even a single filter is darker than no filter
usersubbordercontrol
But, it'd be only as must as The filters would, if they weren't polarized, still right?
norill
i'm not sure. i did some math and the result i got was that even with infinite ideal filters you would still only get 1/e ≈ 37% of light
norill
but maybe my assumptions were wrong
NickRivieraMD
No. You'd lose about 1% of the remaining light with each filter by the same logic as the above situation. So you'd end up with about 41%
usersubbordercontrol
Why 1%?
NickRivieraMD
Whoops didn't answer the question. about 1/90th. So actually like 1.11111%
NickRivieraMD
Well it's a little more than that but also I forgot the first one. It'd be .50*(89/90)^89
NickRivieraMD
about 18.5%
DrSparken
You would have to take the cosine of 1 degree for a 1 degree offset, not use 89/90. 90 layers would actually give about 98.6% 1/
KiteSC
They also use polarization for 3D movies. Try looking at yourself in the mirror with a pair of 3D movie glasses and closing one eye.
ElioNope
Okay so I had encountered the 3D glasses one before. Didn't have TWO sets before though. One set looking in the mirror and closing one eye--
ElioNope
(2) produced that fun "The lens I'm using is blacked out" effect. Looking through one set at the other *facing each other* the second set--
ElioNope
(4) faintly warm yellow, which fades to cyan when perpendicular (both facing away from me, one ear to ear, one brow to chin). This leads---
ElioNope
(5) me to conclude these are fucking witchcraft.
ElioNope
(3) appear to have deep purple lenses. However, if I look through both sets facing the same way (ie both away from me) then the colour is--