The purpose of this paper is to embolden students to raise basic questions regarding the feasibility of “indivisible single photon interference”. We do this by presenting experimental results of well-known classical Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI) under two different conditions of beam alignment. We routinely do such experiments in our laboratories. In the first case, we align the light beams on the beam combiner (BC) with their Poynting vectors as perfectly collinear. The 50% dielectric boundary can now transmit 100% of the energy of both the beams into either one of the two MZI output ports, depending upon the relative phase between the two beams combined on the BC from the opposite directions. The dielectric boundary layer actively re-directs the energy from one beam to the other. This is pure classical superposition effect. In the second case, we combine the two beams on the BC with a small intersecting angle. Now the BC functions as a 50% beam splitter to both the beams. One can see spatial fringes as the relative phase varies with spatial distance by placing a photo detector array after the BC. At very low intensity, the quantum properties of the photo detector will become apparent because the photo electrons are discrete and are always bound quantum mechanically to its host molecular assembly; and not because light is definitely quantized. Students can learn to distinguish the pedagogical difference between the Superposition Principle (linear sum of wave amplitudes) and the Superposition Effect (square modulus of the sum of all the wave-induced stimulations) as observable intensity variations due to interaction with materials, classical or quantum.
The purpose of this paper is to embolden students to raise basic questions regarding the feasibility of “indivisible single photon interference”. We do this by presenting experimental results of well-known classical Mach-Zehnder interferometer (MZI) under two different conditions of beam alignment. We routinely do such experiments in our laboratories. In the first case, we align the light beams on the beam combiner (BC) with their Poynting vectors as perfectly collinear. The 50% dielectric boundary can now transmit 100% of the energy of both the beams into either one of the two MZI output ports, depending upon the relative phase between the two beams combined on the BC from the opposite directions. The dielectric boundary layer actively re-directs the energy from one beam to the other. This is pure classical superposition effect. In the second case, we combine the two beams on the BC with a small intersecting angle. Now the BC functions as a 50% beam splitter to both the beams. One can see spatial fringes as the relative phase varies with spatial distance by placing a photo detector array after the BC. At very low intensity, the quantum properties of the photo detector will become apparent because the photo electrons are discrete and are always bound quantum mechanically to its host molecular assembly; and not because light is definitely quantized. Students can learn to distinguish the pedagogical difference between the Superposition Principle (linear sum of wave amplitudes) and the Superposition Effect (square modulus of the sum of all the wave-induced stimulations) as observable intensity variations due to interaction with materials, classical or quantum.
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.
The chapter discusses the Mach–Zehnder interferometer (MZI), which uses beam splitters in combination with mirrors to place a photon into a superposition of paths. In a final beam splitter, the two paths may be recombined to interfere, showing wave behavior. If the final beam splitter is removed, the photon is definitely in one path or the other, showing particle behavior. The polarization of light allows additional applications—one can use a polarizing beam splitter to separate and reconstitute the wave functions of a photon polarized at an angle. In a delayed-choice experiment, one decides which kind of experiment one is to do, particle or wave, after the photon has already entered the arms of the MZI. The chapter discusses a version of this that puts the MZI and a second-detector photon in an entangled state of particle and wave results.
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.
Abstract The Mach–Zehnder interferometer experiment described earlier shows why and how quantum mechanics is different from classical mechanics. A photon sent through a beam splitter behaves like a particle when it is observed by only one of the two detectors. When two beam splitters are used, the photon “interferes with itself” and behaves like a wave. This is the so-called wave-particle duality of quantum mechanics which leads to quantum entanglement. This chapter discusses quantum superpositions when two or more particles are present. Understanding and analysing entanglement is one of the most interesting directions in the field of quantum information. First, a historical background of quantum entanglement is given, followed by a discussion on Bell's inequalities, separable states that do not violate Bell's inequalities, pure states that violate Bell's inequalities, mixed states that do not violate Bell's inequalities, and entanglement in second quantisation.
It is generally believed that the “mystery” behind understanding Quantum Mechanics (QM) and the global drives to construct quantum computers using “Entanglement”, can be understood from how the two-beam superposition effect (SE) emerges out of a 2-slit, and a Mach-Zehnder Interferometer (MZI). This chapter rehabilitates the classical analyses of these two superposition effects, while exploiting functional asymmetries, either deliberately introduced or intrinsic in the two-beam apparatuses. We are using mathematical formalism already well-established in classical optics since 1800’s, but with the extra emphasis that any final data generation requires some real physical interaction between the detector and the two light signals simultaneously stimulating the detecting molecules. This critical step of physical interaction process is not explicitly underscored by either the classical or the quantum physics. However, the asymmetry, either in the propagation or in the interaction process, is utilized to bring out the contradictions with the QM interpretations. For the 2-slit system, we deliberately introduce asymmetry on one of the slits. For MZI, the asymmetry is already built into the classical reflection property of a typical beams splitter.
Abstract The superposition states, allowed by quantum theory, are dramatically diverse with respect to classical states and represent the true quantum states. By using a Mach-Zehnder interferometer we experimentally show how a single photon in a polarization superposition state can produce interference. The experimental setup includes a strongly attenuated laser source, polarizing beam splitters, half-waveplates, polarizers and single-photon detectors. The experimental activity has been performed with high-school students and teachers in several different contexts.