Hypothesis Disproved

A linear polarizer which I had ordered on-line recently arrived, and I did a promised experiment today, to test a hypothesis.

Hypothesis:

In This earlier posting and This earlier posting, I had proposed what amounts to two hypotheses combined:

  1. That photons may be circularly-polarized as one of their fundamental states, specifically left-handedly or right-handedly, so that other states of light can emerge from those states, eventually also due to a superposition of these two, intrinsic states.
  2. That quantum superposition can generally be collapsed, after which it will not resume as such, but after which witnessing of the resulting state may still take place.

The second hypothesis was meant as a synonym, for stating that:

  • Quantum-Mechanics is to take a form, in which certain states of particles are primary, while others are secondary, so that the secondary states can only form from the superposition of the primary states, while the reverse does not follow. This paraphrasing of the second hypothesis was further meant as a motivation to test, whether the particle-nature of matter and energy are in fact primary – hence, the circularly-polarized photons – and not the wave-nature.

Equipment used in the experiment:

A circular polarizer: A complex component, which has the logical operations of filtering light first, so that only light whose wave-function is plane-polarized along one axis is transmitted, and then secondly, to circularly-polarize the resulting light, so that its wave-functions along any two axes will be phase-shifted 90⁰ with respect to time. This was meant as a source for a primary state of light, polarized in an unknown direction out of two possible directions, since the retail store that sold me this circular polarizer, also did not label, whether it would produce left-handed or right-handed light. It’s to serve as a sufficiently-reliable source of circularly-polarized light.

A linear polarizer: A technically simpler component, which simply transmits light whose wave-function is plane-polarized along one axis, while absorbing light, whose wave-function is perpendicular to the plane transmitted. This was meant as an alternative, secondary state of light, formed as the superposition of left-handed and right-handed, circularly-polarized light.

A light-source: To consist of a mundane room-lighting fixture, which is assumed to generate randomly-polarized light.

Comments:

  1. The matter will be regarded as trivial, that when stating ‘the wave function’, I am referring to ‘the electrostatic wave-function’, which is assumed to be perpendicular to the magnetic wave-function, while also being in-phase with it at all times.
  2. The question will be ignored, whether the circular polarizer itself physically consists of two distinct layers, that perform its logical operations one-by-one, or whether it is of some other design, that accomplishes the same logical operations in some other way.

Procedure:

Control:

Light from the light-source will first be passed through the linear polarizer, and then through the circular polarizer, to confirm that two axes of plane-polarized light, when perpendicular, will lead to near-zero overall transmission, while when they are parallel, will lead to maximum transmission, which will also be used as the notional reference, corresponding to ‘50% transmission’.

Test-Case:

Light from the light-source will first be passed through the circular polarizer, the output of which is somehow to correspond to photons polarized in one circular direction, after which it will be passed to the linear polarizer.

Expected Result:

Because according to the hypotheses, the circularly-polarized light corresponds to an intrinsic state, which will no longer become superposed with the opposite state, the second component, the linear polarizer in the test-case, should not be able to output linearly- or plane-polarized light, because to do so should require the availability of both left- and right-handed photons. But, the linear polarizer will only receive a full amplitude of one or the other.

Real results:

Control:

The control case performed as expected.

Test-Case:

In the test-case, regardless of what orientation was chosen between the two polarizers, light emerged from the last, with constant brightness corresponding to ‘50% transmission’.

Conclusion:

While the principal is to be upheld, that circularly-polarized light may be one system for stating polarization, out of which plane-polarized light can emerge, eventually through quantum superposition, the reverse also seems to be possible.

However, this does not seem to favor an intrinsic state, as belonging to classical concepts of a particle, because the wave-function can be manipulated, regardless of the eventual existence of particles. And so this result further seems to suggest that wave-particle duality is plausible.

(Further Observations as of 02/22/2018 : )

Continue reading Hypothesis Disproved

Mirrors

I’ve read, that essentially there exist three types of reflections in Physics:

  1. Metallic
  2. Non-Metallic
  3. Total Internal Reflection (See Below)

Metallic reflections tend to preserve the polarization of the light, while non-metallic reflections tend to polarize the light. The latter are also the basis for “polarizing mirrors”.

Beam-splitters are essentially polarizing mirrors:

  • When randomly-polarized light hits them, the deflected beam will be plane-polarized in one direction, while the transmitted beam will contain, what the deflected beam does not contain.
  • When circularly-polarized light hits them, nothing really prevents them from splitting the beam.
  • When plane-polarized light hits them, depending on the angle of polarization, the amplitude of one emerging beam can become much lower, than that of the other. This is probably also why, linear polarizers can interfere with the physical auto-focus of a DSLR-camera.

From what I read, reflection, according to the particle depiction, takes place, because photons couple with plasmons, to form surface-polaritons.

From what I read, refraction takes place, according to the particle depiction, because photons couple with excitons, to form photon-excition polaritons.

(Updated 02/22/2018 : )

Continue reading Mirrors

A Problem with How Light is Presently Conceptualized

The fact that the macroscopic phenomenon of light, can be stated as a set of wave-functions, whose polarization can be stated as vector-sums, in which either component can additionally be phase-shifted with respect to the other, is also the direct statement today, of what the possible states of a photon are, entirely justified by the concept of superposition of states.

The problem with this approach is, that it’s possible for the macroscopic inspection of a phenomenon to reveal properties, which individual particles – i.e. photons – do not have.

What the real set of properties, of one photon, are, remains to be discovered at some future point in time.

Dirk

 

How two subjects might be confused, that both have to do with polarized light.

There exists a concept, by which a single photon is visualized as having an electrostatic dipole-moment, which does not lie in a plane, but which performs a corkscrew, either left-handedly, or right-handedly, to start the phenomenon of electromagnetic radiation as based on circularly-polarized light, as opposed to being based primarily on plane-polarization. A quantity of photons could then still form plane-polarized light, not because they interact with each other, but because they coincide with each other in such a way, that their electrostatic fields cancel along one axis, but reinforce perpendicularly to the axis along which they cancel.

In reality, it’s dangerous to make such statements, about what exactly one photon does, because nobody has ever ‘seen’ a photon. We’re mainly able to make more-coarse measurements of what light does, when composed of swarms of photons, and must then deduce what the properties of one photon could be.

(Edit 02/20/2018 :

According to This Experiment, this hypothesis is disproved.

In the macroscopic world, circularly polarized light seems to exist, just as plane-polarized light does, without shedding much light on the subject of how one photon behaves, unless the latter subject is studied in much greater depth. )

But there is the matter of how any of this agrees with the classical, electrodynamic explanation of ‘light’, which would say that it has a magnetic dipole-moment, that oscillates with the same set of frequencies, with which the electrostatic dipole-moment, oscillates, but perpendicularly to the electrostatic moment.

The question could be asked of, If the electrostatic moment was plotted against time, What its phase-position would be, relative to the magnetic moment. And what I claim to know, is that they’d be in-phase.

This subject has been confused at times, with the question of whether the electrostatic component along one plane of polarization, is in-phase or out-of-phase, with the electrostatic component, along the perpendicular plane of polarization. Those are out-of-phase, in the case of circularly-polarized light, as well as in the case of circularly-polarized photons.

(Edit 02/07/2018 : )

 

photon_3

Now, the question about plotting this could get sidetracked, by the question of whether it’s more correct, if where the electrostatic dipole moment, which I’ll say is denoted by the Green line above, is pointing ‘upwards’, the magnetic dipole moment, which I’ll say is denoted by the Red line above, should be pointing ‘towards the viewer’, or ‘away from the viewer’. The way I presently have it, at the left end of the plot, the red line is towards the viewer at that instant. Because magnetic dipole moments differentiate between North and South, while electrostatic dipole moments differentiate between Positive and Negative, these signs of polarity are independent. By convention, the magnetic North pole is denoted by positive numbers. If it was assumed that the Red line corresponds to North, as shown above, then the photon would need to be traveling from the left, to the right, which also corresponds to an increasing parameter (t), just in case anybody is interested in actually analyzing the Math I entered.

In that case it should also be noted, that ‘Wolfram Mathematica’ switches the (Y) and (Z) plotting axes, so that (Z) actually faces upwards, but needs to be given as the 3rd input of a parametric 3D plot, while (Y) faces away from the viewer, which is different from how some other 3D plots work. The way I tend to visualize World Coordinates these days, (Y) should be facing Up, and (Z) should be facing Towards the Viewer.

(Updated 02/08/2018 … )

Continue reading How two subjects might be confused, that both have to do with polarized light.