0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

As far as proofs of quantum mechanics goes, the 3 polariser experiment may be considered to be the ace in the hole.

However, there is a simpler explanation if one looks at the polariser as a diffraction grating.

Theories such as quantum mechanics are never "proven", theories are considered viable if they are consistent with observation and experimentation.

Quantum mechanics explains the 3 polarizers results. It also gives the exact intensity of light that results. This means that the quantum theory is a good theory to use in this situation.You have a conjecture that it is a diffraction effect, but you can only back up your claim with vague arm waving. If you had some mathematics that supported your conjecture then it would be worth considering, but you don't so it isn't worth considering.Unsupported conjectures are not theories, they're just guesses.

Strictly speaking your statement is not true.

Therefore, it should be clear from the above that for an experiment to be viable,

They are also the right size for diffracting light in a direction orthogonal to the lines of molecules. Therefore, the physical explanation of the linear polarisation of light (as used in the 3 polariser experiment) is much as I had described in the OP. Since the polarisers diffract light in an orthogonal direction, a diagonally oriented polariser would diffract light diagonally.

One result of this is that the vertical component is blocked or absorbed by the chains of molecules, while the remaining vertical component of the light is diffracted in a horizontal direction.

.... one can no longer state that this experiment proves once and for all the quantum mechanics theory of super position and by association of quantum mechanics itself....