3 ms·
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me this phenomenon is entirely explainable classically (and fairly simply) by using the fact that linear filters do
by cyphar 4y ago
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me this phenomenon is entirely explainable classically (and fairly simply) by using the fact that linear filters dot product the polarisation vector of the incoming light with the polarisation vector of the filter. A dot product of orthogonal vectors gives you 0, while a dot product of vectors rotated 45° gives you a non-zero answer (meaning if you do it twice you still get a non-zero answer). We did a fairly simple proof of this in second-year undergraduate physics. It's only surprising if you make certain assumptions about linear filters that are not correct.
Of course you need a quantum explanation if you're treating light as photons, but quantum mechanics is not needed to explain this phenomenon (unlike other phenomena).
- cratermoon 4y agoHow do you explain it with one photon at a time, then?
- cyphar 4y agoYou do need a quantum explanation if you are considering it one photon at a time (since photons are are part of the quantum mechanical model), but that doesn't mean you need quantum mechanics to explain the phenomenon. Every classically explainable phenomenon in principle has an equivalent quantum proof because otherwise quantum mechanics would not be a complete theory.