IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags probability , quantum mechanics

Reply
Old 19th April 2008, 12:11 PM   #1
GreedyAlgorithm
Muse
 
GreedyAlgorithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 569
A question on quantum mechanics

A photon is coming in where the arrow is. The red lines are half-silvered mirrors, and the green lines with ticks on their ends are full mirrors. The blue circles are detectors. Here's what I'm getting as the probability of detectors 1, 2, or 3 going off given that a detector goes off:
D1=1/6, D2=1/6, D3=4/6
This is since all of the amplitude that you'd think was coming from the path where the photon goes down first, bounces around, and hits 1 or 2 is in fact canceled out.

Is this right? If not, can someone explain what the answer should be?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg qm.jpg (5.1 KB, 14 views)
__________________
while(true);
GreedyAlgorithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2008, 12:33 AM   #2
69dodge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,607
I agree with your explanation, but not with your numbers.

For detectors 1, 2, and 3, I get probabilities of 1/4, 1/4, and 1/2.

The photon is equally likely to go through the first mirror or to be reflected from it. If it goes through, it will certainly end up at detector 3. If it is reflected, it will end up at 1 or 2 with equal probability.

So to speak.

I think.
69dodge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2008, 01:38 AM   #3
vidiviciveni
Thinker
 
vidiviciveni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 209
I get a different result

For detectors 1, 2, and 3, I get probabilities of 3/8, 3/8, and 1/4.
vidiviciveni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2008, 02:12 AM   #4
69dodge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,607
Originally Posted by vidiviciveni View Post
I get a different result

For detectors 1, 2, and 3, I get probabilities of 3/8, 3/8, and 1/4.
Did you consider the possibility of interference?
69dodge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2008, 09:20 AM   #5
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
The question is ill-posed. The answer depends on both the thickness of the mirrors (in units of the wavelength of the light) and their orientation.

Where did you get this from?
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2008, 01:04 PM   #6
69dodge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,607
I assumed for each mirror that the reflected wave is delayed in phase by pi/2 radians relative to the transmitted wave and that both have equal intensity, regardless of which side of the mirror the incoming wave hits.

Apparently this is reasonable? (See the end of section IV.A.)
69dodge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2008, 08:37 PM   #7
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by 69dodge View Post
I assumed for each mirror that the reflected wave is delayed in phase by pi/2 radians relative to the transmitted wave and that both have equal intensity, regardless of which side of the mirror the incoming wave hits.
That depends on the type of beam splitter and on the wavelength of the light. Half-silvered mirrors (one type of beam splitter) aren't symmetrical like that.
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th April 2008, 10:02 PM   #8
GreedyAlgorithm
Muse
 
GreedyAlgorithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 569
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
The question is ill-posed. The answer depends on both the thickness of the mirrors (in units of the wavelength of the light) and their orientation.

Where did you get this from?
I'm trying to expand on this series of blog posts. I've ordered Feynman's QED but it hasn't arrived yet.

Originally Posted by 69dodge View Post
I assumed for each mirror that the reflected wave is delayed in phase by pi/2 radians relative to the transmitted wave and that both have equal intensity, regardless of which side of the mirror the incoming wave hits.
That's what I was assuming.

Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
That depends on the type of beam splitter and on the wavelength of the light. Half-silvered mirrors (one type of beam splitter) aren't symmetrical like that.
Suppose instead I said it was the symmetrical type. In fact, if such a thing exists, suppose it's a device where the two dominant flows are: 1) the phase is not changed nor the angle; 2) the phase is delayed pi/2 and the flow is reflected.
__________________
while(true);
GreedyAlgorithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2008, 07:10 AM   #9
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by GreedyAlgorithm View Post
Suppose instead I said it was the symmetrical type. In fact, if such a thing exists, suppose it's a device where the two dominant flows are: 1) the phase is not changed nor the angle; 2) the phase is delayed pi/2 and the flow is reflected.
OK - in that case, I get:

1/3,1/3,1/3
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2008, 09:46 AM   #10
Dilb
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 737
Originally Posted by 69dodge View Post
I agree with your explanation, but not with your numbers.

For detectors 1, 2, and 3, I get probabilities of 1/4, 1/4, and 1/2.

The photon is equally likely to go through the first mirror or to be reflected from it. If it goes through, it will certainly end up at detector 3. If it is reflected, it will end up at 1 or 2 with equal probability.

So to speak.

I think.
I agree with these numbers.
Dilb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2008, 10:48 AM   #11
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 32,814
Originally Posted by GreedyAlgorithm View Post
A photon is coming in where the arrow is. The red lines are half-silvered mirrors, and the green lines with ticks on their ends are full mirrors. The blue circles are detectors. Here's what I'm getting as the probability of detectors 1, 2, or 3 going off given that a detector goes off:
D1=1/6, D2=1/6, D3=4/6
This is since all of the amplitude that you'd think was coming from the path where the photon goes down first, bounces around, and hits 1 or 2 is in fact canceled out.

Is this right? If not, can someone explain what the answer should be?

I get:
Code:
#      %       x/y
1     37.5     3/8
2     37.5     3/8
3     25       1/4
The discrete breakdown is this:

Code:
1/2 up at mirror A
	1/4 up at mirror D, to 1
	1/4 down at mirror D, to 2
1/2 down
	1/4 up at mirror B
		1/8 up at mirror C
			1/16 up at mirror D, to 1
			1/16 down at mirror D, to 2
		1/8 down at mirror C, to 3
	1/4 down at mirror B
		1/8 up at mirror C
			1/16 up at mirror D, to 1
			1/16 down at mirror D, to 2
		1/8 down at mirror C, to 3
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

Last edited by Beerina; 21st April 2008 at 10:58 AM.
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2008, 11:03 AM   #12
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post

I get:
Code:
#      %       x/y
1     37.5     3/8
2     37.5     3/8
3     25       1/4
The discrete breakdown is this:

Code:
1/2 up at mirror A
	1/4 up at mirror D, to 1
	1/4 down at mirror D, to 2
1/2 down
	1/4 up at mirror B
		1/8 up at mirror C
			1/16 up at mirror D, to 1
			1/16 down at mirror D, to 2
		1/8 down at mirror C, to 3
	1/4 down at mirror B
		1/8 up at mirror C
			1/16 up at mirror D, to 1
			1/16 down at mirror D, to 2
		1/8 down at mirror C, to 3
That doesn't take interference into account.

I think my answer is correct (with the assumptions spelled out above).
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2008, 11:19 AM   #13
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
Originally Posted by 69dodge View Post
I agree with your explanation, but not with your numbers.

For detectors 1, 2, and 3, I get probabilities of 1/4, 1/4, and 1/2.

The photon is equally likely to go through the first mirror or to be reflected from it. If it goes through, it will certainly end up at detector 3. If it is reflected, it will end up at 1 or 2 with equal probability.

So to speak.

I think.
By the way, the problem with this logic is that the intensity of the light that ends up at 3 is 1/4, not 1/2 (because there are two paths, each passing through three beam splitters, for a total of 1/8+1/8=1/4). So I think the answer is
1/4,1/4,1/4, which (since we were asked for probabilities, not intensities) is 1/3,1/3,1/3
.
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2008, 07:07 PM   #14
69dodge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,607
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
By the way, the problem with this logic is that the intensity of the light that ends up at 3 is 1/4, not 1/2 (because there are two paths, each passing through three beam splitters, for a total of 1/8+1/8=1/4).
But don't those two paths interfere constructively, because they're in phase at the end, each containing two transmissions and one reflection, so that the resulting intensity is more than just the sum of the individual intensities?
69dodge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2008, 08:11 PM   #15
sol invictus
Philosopher
 
sol invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,613
You're saying the amplitude gets decreased at each splitter by a factor of the square root of 2, not 2... yes, you're right.

I was wrong. I agree with your numbers.
sol invictus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st April 2008, 09:16 PM   #16
GreedyAlgorithm
Muse
 
GreedyAlgorithm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 569
Originally Posted by sol invictus View Post
You're saying the amplitude gets decreased at each splitter by a factor of the square root of 2, not 2... yes, you're right.

I was wrong. I agree with your numbers.
Ah! Now this finally makes sense to me. Let's see if I've got it: After the first splitter, we've i/sqrt(2) going NE and 1/sqrt(2) going SE. That top i/sqrt(2) will bounce off of the top mirror to become -1/sqrt(2), then hit detectors 1 and 2 with -i/2 and -1/2 respectively. Meanwhile the bottom splits again into i/2 going NE and 1/2 going SE, bouncing off mirrors to become -1/2 SE and i/2 NE. Then comes another splitter - going NE we get (-i/2sqrt(2))+(i/2sqrt(2))=0, and going SE we get (-1/2sqrt(2))+(-1/2sqrt(2))=-1/sqrt(2) at detector 3.

Probabilities come from the squared abs of amplitude which give us 1/4, 1/4, and 1/2.
__________________
while(true);

Last edited by GreedyAlgorithm; 21st April 2008 at 09:17 PM.
GreedyAlgorithm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:11 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.