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

Can we get any better information about the nature of light by comparing radio and light wave detection processes?

Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri, Peter Poulos

Published Aug 26, 2007• 4 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Comparing the radio and the light wave detection processes, this paper clarifies that what we normally call "interference" of EM waves, is actually the summation of the field induced signals carried out by the detectors. We have also presented a generalized definition of the superposition effects as measured (SEM) due to multiple physical steps behind any detection process. Thus the manipulation of the various physical properties of the detectors to various parameters of the EM waves can yield different "interference" effects for the same set of superposed waves. If EM waves interfered by themselves, such manipulation would not have been possible. We also give simple examples of visibility degradations due to rotation of the states of polarization and underscore that such degradation should not be assigned to degradation of coherence properties of the EM waves. It is due to the change in the stimulating amplitude, reduced by Malus'cosθ law, which is accessible to the uniaxial dipole like response of the detecting molecules.

DOI
10.1117/12.740177

Related papers

Emergence of Superposition Effects

Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri

This chapter explains the basic mathematical framework behind the emergence of the superposition effect as experienced by detectors when simultaneously stimulated by more than one EM wave by modeling the light–matter interaction process in view of the Non-Interaction of Waves property. The growing field of quantum optics does treat the atoms and molecules as quantum dipoles and EM waves mostly as classical waves. The summation of amplitudes implied by the superposition principle is actually carried out by the oscillating dipoles as their single conjoint dipolar stimulation, while constrained by their intrinsic quantum properties. The measurable superposition effects, which are always reported by detectors, are colored by their own unique response characteristics. Thus, one can generate different types of measurable superposition effects simply by changing the quantum characteristics of the detectors.

CRC Press eBooks•May 7, 2014•0 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

Can the hypothesis 'photon interferes only with itself' 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•3 citations

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

A Deeper Look at the Fundamentals of Heterodyne Detection Requirements

Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri, Narasimha S. Prasad

We generally accept the experimentally observed criteria for heterodyne detections that the two waves that are mixed must (i) be collinear, (ii) have matched wave fronts and (iii) cannot be orthogonally polarized. We have not found in the literature adequate physical explanations for these requirements. The purpose of this paper is to find deeper physical understanding of the coherent heterodyne detection processes that could lead to better coherent laser radar system designs1. We find that there are a number of unresolved paradoxes in classical and quantum optics regarding the definitions and understanding of the "interference" and "coherence" properties of light, which are attributed as essentially due to inherent properties of the EM waves. A deeper exploration indicates that it is the various quantum mechanical properties of the detecting material dipoles that make light detectable (visible, or measurable) to us. Accordingly, all the properties that we generally attribute to only light, are in reality manifestations of collective properties of dipole-light interactions. "Interference" and "coherence" can be better understood in terms of this mutual interaction, followed by energy absorption by the dipoles from EM wave fields, manifesting in some measurable transformation of the detecting dipoles. Light beams do not interfere by themselves. The superposition effects due to light beams become manifest through the response characteristics of the detecting dipoles. In this paper, we will show some preliminary expe rimental results that clearly demonstrate that the heterodyning wave fronts have quantitative degradation in signal generation as the angle between them deviates from perfect collinearity. Subsequently, we will propose a hypothesis for this behavior. We will present experimental data establishing that the so called incoherent light can be detected through heterodyne mixing as long as the pulse length contained in the "incoherent" light is longer than the response time of the detector. We will also present a correspondingly better interpretation of two distinguishable coherence properties, temporal coherence and spectral coherence. Our investigation provides a deeper insight into how to rela x various system requirements for heterodyne detection and accordingly develop systems that are simpler, more reliable and lower in cost. Also, we believe that engineering of detector architecture by appropriately modifying dipole behavior using emerging nanotechnology to optimize heterodyne efficiency will be advantageous.

•Jul 8, 2007•2 citations

Similarities and differences in microwave and optical radiation detection

Negussie Tirfessa, Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri

The differences and similarities between the detection processes involved in the microwave and visible electromagnetic (EM) waves are presented for the case of two beam superposition. A microwave receiver measures the motion of conduction electrons which responds linearly to the superposed time dependent EM field amplitudes. A visible light detector also responds to the superposition of the EM field amplitudes due to interactions with the detecting dipoles. However, the visible light detector measures the quantum of energy absorbed and responds to the square modulus of the superposition of the time dependent amplitudes of the EM fields. The measured current in the microwave detector is directly proportional to the superposed microwave amplitudes. The measured energy in visible light detector is directly proportional to the square modulus of the superposed visible light amplitudes. We will highlight the similarities and differences in the detection processes. These important similarities and difference are not underscored in most optics textbooks.

Education and Training in Optics and Photonics•Jul 2, 2019•0 citations
Comparing the radio and the light wave detection processes, this paper clarifies that what we normally call "interference" of EM waves, is actually the summation of the field induced signals carried out by the detectors. We have also presented a generalized definition of the superposition effects as measured (SEM) due to multiple physical steps behind any detection process. Thus the manipulation of the various physical properties of the detectors to various parameters of the EM waves can yield different "interference" effects for the same set of superposed waves. If EM waves interfered by themselves, such manipulation would not have been possible. We also give simple examples of visibility degradations due to rotation of the states of polarization and underscore that such degradation should not be assigned to degradation of coherence properties of the EM waves. It is due to the change in the stimulating amplitude, reduced by Malus'cosθ law, which is accessible to the uniaxial dipole like response of the detecting molecules.
This chapter explains the basic mathematical framework behind the emergence of the superposition effect as experienced by detectors when simultaneously stimulated by more than one EM wave by modeling the light–matter interaction process in view of the Non-Interaction of Waves property. The growing field of quantum optics does treat the atoms and molecules as quantum dipoles and EM waves mostly as classical waves. The summation of amplitudes implied by the superposition principle is actually carried out by the oscillating dipoles as their single conjoint dipolar stimulation, while constrained by their intrinsic quantum properties. The measurable superposition effects, which are always reported by detectors, are colored by their own unique response characteristics. Thus, one can generate different types of measurable superposition effects simply by changing the quantum characteristics of the detectors.
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.
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.
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.
We generally accept the experimentally observed criteria for heterodyne detections that the two waves that are mixed must (i) be collinear, (ii) have matched wave fronts and (iii) cannot be orthogonally polarized. We have not found in the literature adequate physical explanations for these requirements. The purpose of this paper is to find deeper physical understanding of the coherent heterodyne detection processes that could lead to better coherent laser radar system designs1. We find that there are a number of unresolved paradoxes in classical and quantum optics regarding the definitions and understanding of the "interference" and "coherence" properties of light, which are attributed as essentially due to inherent properties of the EM waves. A deeper exploration indicates that it is the various quantum mechanical properties of the detecting material dipoles that make light detectable (visible, or measurable) to us. Accordingly, all the properties that we generally attribute to only light, are in reality manifestations of collective properties of dipole-light interactions. "Interference" and "coherence" can be better understood in terms of this mutual interaction, followed by energy absorption by the dipoles from EM wave fields, manifesting in some measurable transformation of the detecting dipoles. Light beams do not interfere by themselves. The superposition effects due to light beams become manifest through the response characteristics of the detecting dipoles. In this paper, we will show some preliminary expe rimental results that clearly demonstrate that the heterodyning wave fronts have quantitative degradation in signal generation as the angle between them deviates from perfect collinearity. Subsequently, we will propose a hypothesis for this behavior. We will present experimental data establishing that the so called incoherent light can be detected through heterodyne mixing as long as the pulse length contained in the "incoherent" light is longer than the response time of the detector. We will also present a correspondingly better interpretation of two distinguishable coherence properties, temporal coherence and spectral coherence. Our investigation provides a deeper insight into how to rela x various system requirements for heterodyne detection and accordingly develop systems that are simpler, more reliable and lower in cost. Also, we believe that engineering of detector architecture by appropriately modifying dipole behavior using emerging nanotechnology to optimize heterodyne efficiency will be advantageous.
The differences and similarities between the detection processes involved in the microwave and visible electromagnetic (EM) waves are presented for the case of two beam superposition. A microwave receiver measures the motion of conduction electrons which responds linearly to the superposed time dependent EM field amplitudes. A visible light detector also responds to the superposition of the EM field amplitudes due to interactions with the detecting dipoles. However, the visible light detector measures the quantum of energy absorbed and responds to the square modulus of the superposition of the time dependent amplitudes of the EM fields. The measured current in the microwave detector is directly proportional to the superposed microwave amplitudes. The measured energy in visible light detector is directly proportional to the square modulus of the superposed visible light amplitudes. We will highlight the similarities and differences in the detection processes. These important similarities and difference are not underscored in most optics textbooks.