The Quantum Venn Diagram Paradox

Sep 14, 2017 6:12 PM

FunSucks

Views

168877

Likes

4084

Dislikes

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

Both you and me know this is sorcery, OP. As everything quantum. Plain sorcery!

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Even with the source and links this is still theft.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Omg, that's so awesome! I never expected the filters to change the direction of the wave.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

What in notation?!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

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...

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

...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.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Yeah, that was my thought, too. This is just wave physics, why are we complicating it further?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Because it only becomes a paradox from a quantum perspective. With classical electromagnetism and continuous-amplitude waves, it is trivial.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

As a physicist: what the rootin tootin fuck is this witchcraft +1

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

This is what happens when you square a cosine.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Cool! More please!

9 years ago | Likes 108 Dislikes 1

And 3Blue1Brown on YouTube for the maths bits.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Minutephysics on YouTube

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 0

I like Vsauce for coo stuff like this too.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Looks like you've been reading a lot of Gordon wood.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Such confuse. But thanks for the info.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

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.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Yup. This makes perfect sense when described with classical EM fields with linear polarizations. 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Using the quantum description for this introduces unnecessary complexity if one is not used to working with quantum mechanics. 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

But you learn a lot by making sure the quantum and classical realms match.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Where are all the people from the "college is pointless" thread from yesterday?

9 years ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

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.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Having studied physics for the past five years now, I honestly think this is the best explanation I've ever received.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

-1/12. Got it!

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 2

Zeta function jokes are the best.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I love math and science

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

This is wrong. Wrong wrong wrong. *glowers*

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 6

explain?

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

I mean I'm not smart enough to get it. It makes no sense to me, so obviously this quantum stuff must be wrong.

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 4

it's super complicated and they've ran with it too far

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Ah, the "it must be wrong because it makes no sense to me" argument. Sorry, Flat Earthers took that one...

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

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/?

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

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/?

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

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

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 0

By the third polarizing filter. Right? 4/4

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

I have no idea.... so I'm gunna say yes.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

As someone who's studying aerospace engineering but loves anything about physics and math. I think you're right, but I'm no expert.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

You used a lot of big words. Now I'm scared of whatever is you said and demand we ban it.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Mhmmm yes, I know some of these words!

9 years ago | Likes 390 Dislikes 2

To many big words, brain hurts, must look at puppers

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

HA! I know all of these words, it's just the configuration that makes my brainmeats all weirdly.

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 1

9 years ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

Couldn't read them, so I had go get my glasses. Now I recognize 50% of them.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

From my understanding, this is not a paradox at all, but is well understood.

9 years ago | Likes 29 Dislikes 2

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.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Google says polarisation was discovered 1669. I guess 300 years of being a paradox is hard to let go of.

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

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.. :/

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

A paradox doesn't contradict that something is understood or not. So yes, it's still a paradox

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

It's not a paradox... it just isn't intuitive.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Correct. There is no paradox. This makes perfect sense when described with classical EM fields with linear polarizations. 1/2

9 years ago | Likes 21 Dislikes 0

Using the quantum description for this introduces unnecessary complexity if one is not used to working with quantum mechanics. 2/2

9 years ago | Likes 16 Dislikes 0

How does it work with classical EM fields with linear polarizations?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They explain in a second video. Basically: decompose the wave into tangent and normal components and only let tangent through.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I can't explain in 140 characters. This effect is described in essentially every college/undergrad textbook on classical optics.

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

What we call "filters" here don't actually filter. They modify the polarization of some of the light and reflect or absorb some. (132)

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Does the order of the lenses matter? What if you had it layered 90° 0° and 45°?

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

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.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

It DOES matter. 90 -> 0 removes all photons, no matter what. Mathematically, it's a function of the cosine of the difference in angles.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

It's actually (cos(x))^2. (Cos(45°))^2=0.5

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

That is so cool

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Thank you for the correction. So, it's the square of the cosine of the difference of the angles?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Just watched that minutephysics video and holy tits that was some wild shit

9 years ago | Likes 117 Dislikes 0

Yeah I was about to comment "I too subscribe to Minutephysics!" Great video, really shows how goofy this universe can be at times.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Want wild? Loot at PBS Infinite series. Is mind bending.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

*lok

9 years ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Fuck. *look

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

PBS Spacetime is also great

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I understand math, space phisics are fun but beyond my understanding

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Fuck my english. *Astrophisics

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

It always bugs me how little explanation we're given about these almost magical polarizing filers. Same with the two slit experiment.

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

No surprise it's a bit more complicated than sunbeams going through your shades.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

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.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

I really want to see an atomic level model of how the waves interact with the atoms of the polarizing filter.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Oh, it's pretty well understood. I'm earning a degree in Physics, would you like an explanation of either/both?

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

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.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

That's just an experimental set-up issue. The experiments that only send few photons are forcing the 'classical' expectation instead of (1)

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

the wave expectation. We can create devices that only emit one (or very few) photons, and we test those empirically.

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Unless I've misunderstood the question?

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Love me some science! Go physics!

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

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

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

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

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

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

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Enjoyable. It must blows my mind how someone figured that out.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

My tinker hurts

9 years ago | Likes 631 Dislikes 0

Just think of light being like a bunch of fidget spinners. When at an angle the collision can sorta deflect them, letting some through.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

9 years ago | Likes 46 Dislikes 0

Shit it's been a while since I laughed out loud on this crap site. Tnx fam

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 2

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

His mind-brain is rejecting the Paradox!

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

That's an odd name for a penis

9 years ago | Likes 38 Dislikes 0

Is it? No wonder people laugh at my tinker in the locker room.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

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...

9 years ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

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>

9 years ago | Likes 51 Dislikes 1

Both vertical and horizontal axes first?

9 years ago | Likes 27 Dislikes 0

Yup :)

9 years ago | Likes 12 Dislikes 0

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

9 years ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 0

Get some polarizers on Amazon and try it :)

9 years ago | Likes 15 Dislikes 2

Why are you downvoted?! The only thing better than learning this stuff is trying it yourself!

9 years ago | Likes 8 Dislikes 1

Because the filters in the vid are really expensive maybe? Here's some cheaper ones: (1/2)

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

WOW those are a lot more expensive than I was expecting.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

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

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

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

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

those filters aren't ideal, notice how even a single filter is darker than no filter

9 years ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

But, it'd be only as must as The filters would, if they weren't polarized, still right?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

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

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

but maybe my assumptions were wrong

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

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%

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Why 1%?

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Whoops didn't answer the question. about 1/90th. So actually like 1.11111%

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 1

Well it's a little more than that but also I forgot the first one. It'd be .50*(89/90)^89

9 years ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

about 18.5%

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

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/

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

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.

9 years ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

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--

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(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--

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(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---

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(5) me to conclude these are fucking witchcraft.

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

(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--

9 years ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0