Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE

What are the processes behind energy re-direction and re-distribution in interference and diffraction?

Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri

Published Aug 1, 2005• 4 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The interpretation of the detection of very slow rate of photo counts in interference and diffraction experiments have given rise to the prevailing interpretation that photons interfere by themselves and they are indivisible, albeit non-local. The purpose of this paper is to inspire the development of alternate models for the photons by underscoring that, in reality, light does not interfere with light. The effects of superposition, registered as interference fringes, can become manifest only when a suitable detector can respond simultaneously to all the superposed light beams separately arriving from all the paths (or, slits). It should be a strictly causal process. In fact, different detectors with different quantum properties, report different results while exposed to the same superposed fields. Interference and diffraction effects are always observed as fringes through the processes of re-distribution and/or re-direction of the measured energy of the superimposed fields. Accordingly, we present a number of experiments, actual and conceptual, which highlight the contradictions built into the notion of non-locality in interference. A closer examination of these experiments can guide us to develop a conceptually congruent and causal model for both the evolution of photons and the interference (diffraction) effects by adapting to the classical diffraction theory. This theory has been correctly predicting the characteristics of light whether it is star light propagating through the inter galactic space, or nano tip generated light propagating through complex nano photonic waveguides.

DOI
10.1117/12.620493

Related papers

If superposed light beams do not re-distribute each others energy in the absence of detectors (material dipoles), can an indivisible single photon interfere by/with itself?

Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri

The intention of this paper is to underscore that to understand fundamentally new properties of light beams, we must first find the limits of semi classical model to explain optical interference phenomena. We claim that we have not yet reached that limit. Careful analysis of the processes behind detecting fringes indicate that the effect of superposition of multiple optical beams can become manifest only through the mediation of the detecting dipoles. Since the detectors are quantum mechanical, (i) the observed effects are different for different detectors for the same superposed light beams, and further, (ii) they are only capable of registering discrete number of "clicks", whose rate will vary with the incident intensity. A reduced rate of "clicks" at very low intensity does not prove that light consists of indivisible packets of energy. We have also experimentally demonstrated that (i) neither Fourier synthesis, nor, (ii) Fourier decomposition actually model the behavior of EM fields under all possible circumstances. Superposed light beams of different frequencies do not synthesize a new average optical frequency. A pure amplitude modulated pulse does not contain any of the mathematical, Fourier analyzed frequencies. The QED definition of photon being a Fourier mode in the vacuum, it necessarily becomes non-local. Since we have demonstrated that the Fourier theorem has various limitations in classical physics, its indiscriminate use in quantum mechanics should also be critically reviewed.

Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE•Aug 1, 2005•6 citations

What can we learn by differentiating between the physical processes behind interference and diffraction phenomena?

Qing Peng, A. Michael Barootkoob, Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri

This paper extends and generalizes the principle of Non-Interference of Light (NIL) to diffracted secondary wavelets. In a previous series of papers we have demonstrated the NIL principle for well defined superposed light beams, which experience negligible diffracted spreading within the interferometers being used. NIL is consistent with quantum physics where emitted photons from material dipoles are considered non-interacting Bosons. Our NIL principle describes the formation of fringes (energy re-distribution) as patterned energy absorptions or scattering by "local" material dipoles proportional to the square modulus of the sum of all the superposed stimulating fields experienced by the dipoles.

Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE•Aug 20, 2009•2 citations

Differentiating the Superposition Principle from the Measurable Superposition Effects in Interferometry

Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri

The physical interaction processes behind the emergence of dark and bright fringes registered by the detectors at the output of optical interferometers is explained. This knowledge should be helpful to interferometrists to make better physical interpretations of their data. The belief in mysterious “interference of single indivisible photon” will disappear once we recognize that the spatial or temporal energy re-distributions are generated by the physical transformation experienced by the detecting molecules drawing energy from all the light beams. The molecules could be photodetectors at the interferometer output, or the beam combining dielectric boundary. The superposition principle (SP), represented by the linear mathematical sum of two or more wave amplitudes, does not represent an observable phenomenon. The superposition effect (SE), represented by the non-linear square modulus of the joint dipolar stimulation of the detectors by all the superposed waves, is observable. We present two laboratory experiments to clarify these points. Both classical beam combiners and quantum detectors are capable of generating superposition fringes of intensity variations. The logic of “quantumness” of light is narrowly relevant only when a quantum detector deciphers the fringes; it is not valid for classical beam combiners. We will also discuss “entanglement” based on these experiments.

IntechOpen eBooks•Feb 7, 2019•2 citations

Can the 'photon interferes only with itself' hypothesis be reconciled with superposition of light from multiple beams or sources?

Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri, Narasimha S. Prasad, Qing Peng

Any superposition effect as measured (SEM) by us is the summation of simultaneous stimulations experienced by a detector due to the presence of multiple copies of a detectee each carrying different values of the same parameter. We discus the cases with light beams carrying same frequency for both diffraction and multiple beam Fabry-Perot interferometer and also a case where the two superposed light beams carry different frequencies. Our key argument is that if light really consists of indivisible elementary particle, photon, then it cannot by itself create superposition effect since the state vector of an elementary particle cannot carry more than one values of any parameter at the same time. Fortunately, semiclassical model explains all light induced interactions using quantized atoms and classical EM wave packet. Classical physics, with its deeper commitment to Reality Ontology, was better prepared to nurture the emergence of Quantum Mechanics and still can provide guidance to explore nature deeper if we pay careful attention to successful classical formulations like Huygens-Fresnel diffraction integral.

Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE•Aug 26, 2007•0 citations

How does energy separate in the fringes produced by intersecting beams?

Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri, Kenneth Bernier

Spatial energy re-distribution as interference fringes are recorded when two spatially and temporally coherent beams intersect. We show simple experiments with different recording materials to explain this energy re-distribution process. Interference effects are manifest in materials as dictated by their quantum properties because optical fields do not interfere with (or operate on) each other.

Education and Training in Optics and Photonics•Jan 1, 2003•0 citations

How does energy separate in the fringes produced by intersecting beams?

Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri, K. Bernier

Spatial energy re-distribution as interference fringes are recorded when two spatially and temporally coherent beams intersect. We show simple experiments with different recording materials to explain this energy re-distribution process. Interference effects are manifest in materials as dictated by their quantum properties because optical fields do not interfere with (or operate on) each other.

Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE•Oct 9, 2003•1 citation
The interpretation of the detection of very slow rate of photo counts in interference and diffraction experiments have given rise to the prevailing interpretation that photons interfere by themselves and they are indivisible, albeit non-local. The purpose of this paper is to inspire the development of alternate models for the photons by underscoring that, in reality, light does not interfere with light. The effects of superposition, registered as interference fringes, can become manifest only when a suitable detector can respond simultaneously to all the superposed light beams separately arriving from all the paths (or, slits). It should be a strictly causal process. In fact, different detectors with different quantum properties, report different results while exposed to the same superposed fields. Interference and diffraction effects are always observed as fringes through the processes of re-distribution and/or re-direction of the measured energy of the superimposed fields. Accordingly, we present a number of experiments, actual and conceptual, which highlight the contradictions built into the notion of non-locality in interference. A closer examination of these experiments can guide us to develop a conceptually congruent and causal model for both the evolution of photons and the interference (diffraction) effects by adapting to the classical diffraction theory. This theory has been correctly predicting the characteristics of light whether it is star light propagating through the inter galactic space, or nano tip generated light propagating through complex nano photonic waveguides.
The intention of this paper is to underscore that to understand fundamentally new properties of light beams, we must first find the limits of semi classical model to explain optical interference phenomena. We claim that we have not yet reached that limit. Careful analysis of the processes behind detecting fringes indicate that the effect of superposition of multiple optical beams can become manifest only through the mediation of the detecting dipoles. Since the detectors are quantum mechanical, (i) the observed effects are different for different detectors for the same superposed light beams, and further, (ii) they are only capable of registering discrete number of "clicks", whose rate will vary with the incident intensity. A reduced rate of "clicks" at very low intensity does not prove that light consists of indivisible packets of energy. We have also experimentally demonstrated that (i) neither Fourier synthesis, nor, (ii) Fourier decomposition actually model the behavior of EM fields under all possible circumstances. Superposed light beams of different frequencies do not synthesize a new average optical frequency. A pure amplitude modulated pulse does not contain any of the mathematical, Fourier analyzed frequencies. The QED definition of photon being a Fourier mode in the vacuum, it necessarily becomes non-local. Since we have demonstrated that the Fourier theorem has various limitations in classical physics, its indiscriminate use in quantum mechanics should also be critically reviewed.
This paper extends and generalizes the principle of Non-Interference of Light (NIL) to diffracted secondary wavelets. In a previous series of papers we have demonstrated the NIL principle for well defined superposed light beams, which experience negligible diffracted spreading within the interferometers being used. NIL is consistent with quantum physics where emitted photons from material dipoles are considered non-interacting Bosons. Our NIL principle describes the formation of fringes (energy re-distribution) as patterned energy absorptions or scattering by "local" material dipoles proportional to the square modulus of the sum of all the superposed stimulating fields experienced by the dipoles.
The physical interaction processes behind the emergence of dark and bright fringes registered by the detectors at the output of optical interferometers is explained. This knowledge should be helpful to interferometrists to make better physical interpretations of their data. The belief in mysterious “interference of single indivisible photon” will disappear once we recognize that the spatial or temporal energy re-distributions are generated by the physical transformation experienced by the detecting molecules drawing energy from all the light beams. The molecules could be photodetectors at the interferometer output, or the beam combining dielectric boundary. The superposition principle (SP), represented by the linear mathematical sum of two or more wave amplitudes, does not represent an observable phenomenon. The superposition effect (SE), represented by the non-linear square modulus of the joint dipolar stimulation of the detectors by all the superposed waves, is observable. We present two laboratory experiments to clarify these points. Both classical beam combiners and quantum detectors are capable of generating superposition fringes of intensity variations. The logic of “quantumness” of light is narrowly relevant only when a quantum detector deciphers the fringes; it is not valid for classical beam combiners. We will also discuss “entanglement” based on these experiments.
Any superposition effect as measured (SEM) by us is the summation of simultaneous stimulations experienced by a detector due to the presence of multiple copies of a detectee each carrying different values of the same parameter. We discus the cases with light beams carrying same frequency for both diffraction and multiple beam Fabry-Perot interferometer and also a case where the two superposed light beams carry different frequencies. Our key argument is that if light really consists of indivisible elementary particle, photon, then it cannot by itself create superposition effect since the state vector of an elementary particle cannot carry more than one values of any parameter at the same time. Fortunately, semiclassical model explains all light induced interactions using quantized atoms and classical EM wave packet. Classical physics, with its deeper commitment to Reality Ontology, was better prepared to nurture the emergence of Quantum Mechanics and still can provide guidance to explore nature deeper if we pay careful attention to successful classical formulations like Huygens-Fresnel diffraction integral.