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

CRC Press eBooks

INTERFERENCE

Mircea S. Rogalski, Stuart B. Palmer

Published Jan 8, 2014• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

However we have shown in Eqs.(18.29) and (18.30) that the square of the absolute value of a complex scalar wave function Ψ is a measure of the wave intensity, which is the quantity of primary interest for the theories of interference and diffraction for either mechanical or electromagnetic waves. The periodic spatial variation of intensity throughout a region of superposition of waves which originate in the same source is known as interference. Its theory is based essentially on the linearity of the wave equation, which allows a linear combination of partial waves to constitute the actual wave at any given point. Consider first the superposition of two monochromatic plane waves, having the complex representation (16.25), that is (18.1) Since we are usually interested in the relative variation of the intensity only, in a medium 0 ,Z and not in its absolute value, it is common practice to adopt simplified wave intensities, compared to those in Eqs.(18.29) or (18.30), which read ( ) ( )2 21 1 2 2, , ,I r t I r= Ψ = Ψ tG G (18.2) The superposition of monochromatic waves (18.1) results in an intensity ( ) ( ) ( )2 21 1 2, , ,tG ( )I r t r t r= Ψ = Ψ +ΨG G ( ) ( ) ( )2 2 *1 2 1 2, , 2Re ,r t r t r t r t,⎡ ⎤= Ψ + Ψ + Ψ Ψ⎣ ⎦G G G G ( )1 2 1 2 1 2 1 22 cosI I I I k r k r ϕ ϕ= + + ⋅ − ⋅ + −G GG G (18.3) where the last term is called the interference term. If the phase difference, given by ( )1 2 1k k r 2δ ϕ ϕ= − ⋅ + −G G G (18.4) is a constant, the two waves are said to be mutually coherent, and the interference term indicates a sinusoidal spatial variation between maxima and minima, of intensity max 1 2 1 22 ,I I I I I m2δ π= + + = (18.5) ( )min 1 2 1 22 , 2I I I I I m 1δ π= + − = + B A SS 21 Figure 18.1. Interference pattern produced by two monochromatic waves originating from sources 1 2andS S Hence, the stationary interference pattern consists of a succession of surfaces, defined by the condition Nδ π= where .12or2 += mmN It is usually produced by superposition of waves originating in two point sources , which can be assumed, for simplicity, to be of equal phase constants 21 and SS 1 2 0.ϕ ϕ− = If the two sources are far enough from a given point, at distances 1 2 1 2,r r r r>> − ,G G the incident waves at the point can be regarded as plane waves, as we shall show in Chapter 19. Under this assumption Eq.(18.4) reduces to ( ) ( )1 2 1 2 1 2or 2k k r k r r N r r N Nkπ λδ π= − ⋅ ≅ − = − = =G G G (18.6) Both the antinodal and nodal surfaces ( mN 2= ) ( )12 += mN are defined by Eq.(18.6) to be hyperboloids of revolution. Their intersection with a plane will produce alternate nodal and antinodal lines called fringes of the form of either hyperbolas or circular rings if the plane is parallel (A) or normal (B) to the line joining the sources (Figure 18.1). The interference fringes are not observed if the phase difference 1 2ϕ ϕ− has a random variation with time, since the interference term in Eq.(18.3) is averaged out. In this event the waves are said to be mutually uncoherent and do not interfere by superposition. Mutually coherent waves that originate in the same source can be obtained by splitting a single beam, so that on recombining partial waves interference effects occur.

DOI
10.1201/b16000-23

Related papers

Interference

S. M. Geddes

The phenomenon called interference is caused by the overlapping of two sets of waves from the same or similar coherent sources, which results in the setting up of some form of a stationary state of oscillation in the medium.

•Jan 1, 1981•0 citations

Born Rule and Interference: Quantum Probabilities Meet Golden Ratio Trigonometry — E8 Intelligence Research

Andrew Stewart Caldin

FINDING: Born rule (P=|amplitude|²) is the foundational probability law of quantum mechanics, with single-photon interference experiments confirming wave-like superposition at the detector level. | MATH: P(x) = |ψ(x)|² = |Σᵢ cᵢ ψᵢ(x)|²; for double slit: P(x) = |ψ₁(x) + ψ₂(x)|² = |ψ₁|² + |ψ₂|² + 2Re(ψ₁*ψ₂); interference term = 2|ψ₁||ψ₂|cos(δ), where δ is phase difference. | CONNECTION: The interference term's cosine dependence on phase δ directly maps to the golden ratio's trigonometric identities — cos(π/5) = φ/2 = 0.809, and the critical phase δ = 2π/5 (72°) yields interference maxima/minima ratios that reduce to φ-related ratios (e.g., (1+φ)/φ = φ). The Born rule's quadratic nature mirrors the golden ratio's defining equation φ² = φ + 1 — both are second-order algebraic structures. | DEPTH: 8 — The Born rule is empirically verified to extraordinary precision, but its mathematical origin remains unexplained; the quadratic structure hints at a deeper geometric basis, possibly connected Author: Andrew Stewart Caldin, Independent Researcher, UK. Part of the E8 Intelligence Research series. Platform: e8intelligence.com

•Sep 4, 2026•0 citations

The dependence of the sharpness of an interference pattern on the quantum state of he electromagnetic field

Valerian I. Tatarskii

Zhurnal Eksperimentalnoi i Teoreticheskoi Fiziki•Feb 1, 1983•0 citations

Quantum Optics and Informatics

Davıd L. Andrews, David S. Bradshaw

3.1 Interference of a Single Photon The kinds of study originally conducted by Thomas Young - in particular, the celebrated "double slit" experiment that we briefly examined in Chapter 1 (see Fig. 1) - provide a capacity to reveal far more than the wave nature of light, important as that is. True enough, the observed characteristic fringe pattern, when monochromatic light passes through two closely spaced slits onto a screen, appears to be simply explicable on the basis of waves from each slit undergoing constructive and destructive interference at different positions on the screen. Yet, astonishingly, these patterns of interference are still exhibited when individual photons of a low-intensity input beam reach the screen one at a time, showing that it cannot in fact be a matter of different photons having to interfere with each other. Indeed, Dirac enunciated the general principle that photons can never directly interact with each other. The double slit and other such experiments indicate that each photon interacts in a delocalized, wave-like manner with both slits at the same time. Successive experiments build interference patterns that conform to an exact mathematical distribution formula, but the position at which an individual photon is detected in any particular instance cannot be predicted; this is a quintessential illustration of quantum uncertainty. Using the path integral approach of quantum theory, the phenomenon is more accurately represented by introducing a summation over all possible routes between the source and the screen on which the pattern appears, signifying an entire "lifetime" for each photon involved in the experiment. This relates to the fact that the actual trajectory is unknown without an observation, and thus we only obtain the probabilities of the photon striking the screen at different positions and times; all trajectories (potentialities) must be considered in a superposition. Each route is considered equally probable, and the variation in phase produces quantum interference. The differences in phase of each trajectory, at varying positions on the screen, generates the fringe pattern. An intriguing variation on this experiment involves "marking" the photons so that the actual route of each photon to the screen is known. Remarkably, in such a case, the fringe patterns do not appear because quantum interference cannot occur. A consequence of the observation of the photon route is an effect that, in other quantum mechanical connections, is known as a collapse of the wavefunction. However, it is possible for the fringe patterns to reappear when information on the route of the photons is lost; this is known as a quantum eraser.

SPIE eBooks•Aug 1, 2018•0 citations

The influence of the motion of the medium to an interference pattern formed by two coherent sources

А. Г. Глущенко, E. Glushchenko

The influence of the motion of the medium to an interference pattern formed by two coherent sources

Science Bulletin•Jan 1, 2015•2 citations

Multi-Dimensional Waves

Richard Fitzpatrick

As we saw in the previous chapter, a sinusoidal wave of amplitude ψ0 > 0, wavenumber k > 0, and angular frequency ω > 0, propagating in the positive x-direction, can be represented in terms of a wavefunction of the form ψ(x, t) = ψ0 cos(ω t − k x). (7.1) This type of wave is conventionally termed a one-dimensional plane wave. It is onedimensional because its associated wavefunction depends on only a single Cartesian coordinate. Furthermore, it is a plane wave because the wave maxima, which are located at ω t − k x = j 2π, (7.2) where j is an integer, consist of a series of parallel planes, normal to the x-axis, that are equally spaced a distance λ = 2π/k apart and propagate along the x-axis at the fixed phase velocity ω/k = v, where v is the characteristic wave speed. These conclusions follow because Equation (7.2) can be rewritten in the form x = d, (7.3) where d = v t − j λ. Moreover, (7.3) is the equation of a plane, normal to the x-axis, whose distance of closest approach to the origin is d.

CRC Press eBooks•Jan 7, 2013•0 citations
However we have shown in Eqs.(18.29) and (18.30) that the square of the absolute value of a complex scalar wave function Ψ is a measure of the wave intensity, which is the quantity of primary interest for the theories of interference and diffraction for either mechanical or electromagnetic waves. The periodic spatial variation of intensity throughout a region of superposition of waves which originate in the same source is known as interference. Its theory is based essentially on the linearity of the wave equation, which allows a linear combination of partial waves to constitute the actual wave at any given point. Consider first the superposition of two monochromatic plane waves, having the complex representation (16.25), that is (18.1) Since we are usually interested in the relative variation of the intensity only, in a medium 0 ,Z and not in its absolute value, it is common practice to adopt simplified wave intensities, compared to those in Eqs.(18.29) or (18.30), which read ( ) ( )2 21 1 2 2, , ,I r t I r= Ψ = Ψ tG G (18.2) The superposition of monochromatic waves (18.1) results in an intensity ( ) ( ) ( )2 21 1 2, , ,tG ( )I r t r t r= Ψ = Ψ +ΨG G ( ) ( ) ( )2 2 *1 2 1 2, , 2Re ,r t r t r t r t,⎡ ⎤= Ψ + Ψ + Ψ Ψ⎣ ⎦G G G G ( )1 2 1 2 1 2 1 22 cosI I I I k r k r ϕ ϕ= + + ⋅ − ⋅ + −G GG G (18.3) where the last term is called the interference term. If the phase difference, given by ( )1 2 1k k r 2δ ϕ ϕ= − ⋅ + −G G G (18.4) is a constant, the two waves are said to be mutually coherent, and the interference term indicates a sinusoidal spatial variation between maxima and minima, of intensity max 1 2 1 22 ,I I I I I m2δ π= + + = (18.5) ( )min 1 2 1 22 , 2I I I I I m 1δ π= + − = + B A SS 21 Figure 18.1. Interference pattern produced by two monochromatic waves originating from sources 1 2andS S Hence, the stationary interference pattern consists of a succession of surfaces, defined by the condition Nδ π= where .12or2 += mmN It is usually produced by superposition of waves originating in two point sources , which can be assumed, for simplicity, to be of equal phase constants 21 and SS 1 2 0.ϕ ϕ− = If the two sources are far enough from a given point, at distances 1 2 1 2,r r r r>> − ,G G the incident waves at the point can be regarded as plane waves, as we shall show in Chapter 19. Under this assumption Eq.(18.4) reduces to ( ) ( )1 2 1 2 1 2or 2k k r k r r N r r N Nkπ λδ π= − ⋅ ≅ − = − = =G G G (18.6) Both the antinodal and nodal surfaces ( mN 2= ) ( )12 += mN are defined by Eq.(18.6) to be hyperboloids of revolution. Their intersection with a plane will produce alternate nodal and antinodal lines called fringes of the form of either hyperbolas or circular rings if the plane is parallel (A) or normal (B) to the line joining the sources (Figure 18.1). The interference fringes are not observed if the phase difference 1 2ϕ ϕ− has a random variation with time, since the interference term in Eq.(18.3) is averaged out. In this event the waves are said to be mutually uncoherent and do not interfere by superposition. Mutually coherent waves that originate in the same source can be obtained by splitting a single beam, so that on recombining partial waves interference effects occur.
FINDING: Born rule (P=|amplitude|²) is the foundational probability law of quantum mechanics, with single-photon interference experiments confirming wave-like superposition at the detector level. | MATH: P(x) = |ψ(x)|² = |Σᵢ cᵢ ψᵢ(x)|²; for double slit: P(x) = |ψ₁(x) + ψ₂(x)|² = |ψ₁|² + |ψ₂|² + 2Re(ψ₁*ψ₂); interference term = 2|ψ₁||ψ₂|cos(δ), where δ is phase difference. | CONNECTION: The interference term's cosine dependence on phase δ directly maps to the golden ratio's trigonometric identities — cos(π/5) = φ/2 = 0.809, and the critical phase δ = 2π/5 (72°) yields interference maxima/minima ratios that reduce to φ-related ratios (e.g., (1+φ)/φ = φ). The Born rule's quadratic nature mirrors the golden ratio's defining equation φ² = φ + 1 — both are second-order algebraic structures. | DEPTH: 8 — The Born rule is empirically verified to extraordinary precision, but its mathematical origin remains unexplained; the quadratic structure hints at a deeper geometric basis, possibly connected Author: Andrew Stewart Caldin, Independent Researcher, UK. Part of the E8 Intelligence Research series. Platform: e8intelligence.com
3.1 Interference of a Single Photon The kinds of study originally conducted by Thomas Young - in particular, the celebrated "double slit" experiment that we briefly examined in Chapter 1 (see Fig. 1) - provide a capacity to reveal far more than the wave nature of light, important as that is. True enough, the observed characteristic fringe pattern, when monochromatic light passes through two closely spaced slits onto a screen, appears to be simply explicable on the basis of waves from each slit undergoing constructive and destructive interference at different positions on the screen. Yet, astonishingly, these patterns of interference are still exhibited when individual photons of a low-intensity input beam reach the screen one at a time, showing that it cannot in fact be a matter of different photons having to interfere with each other. Indeed, Dirac enunciated the general principle that photons can never directly interact with each other. The double slit and other such experiments indicate that each photon interacts in a delocalized, wave-like manner with both slits at the same time. Successive experiments build interference patterns that conform to an exact mathematical distribution formula, but the position at which an individual photon is detected in any particular instance cannot be predicted; this is a quintessential illustration of quantum uncertainty. Using the path integral approach of quantum theory, the phenomenon is more accurately represented by introducing a summation over all possible routes between the source and the screen on which the pattern appears, signifying an entire "lifetime" for each photon involved in the experiment. This relates to the fact that the actual trajectory is unknown without an observation, and thus we only obtain the probabilities of the photon striking the screen at different positions and times; all trajectories (potentialities) must be considered in a superposition. Each route is considered equally probable, and the variation in phase produces quantum interference. The differences in phase of each trajectory, at varying positions on the screen, generates the fringe pattern. An intriguing variation on this experiment involves "marking" the photons so that the actual route of each photon to the screen is known. Remarkably, in such a case, the fringe patterns do not appear because quantum interference cannot occur. A consequence of the observation of the photon route is an effect that, in other quantum mechanical connections, is known as a collapse of the wavefunction. However, it is possible for the fringe patterns to reappear when information on the route of the photons is lost; this is known as a quantum eraser.
As we saw in the previous chapter, a sinusoidal wave of amplitude ψ0 > 0, wavenumber k > 0, and angular frequency ω > 0, propagating in the positive x-direction, can be represented in terms of a wavefunction of the form ψ(x, t) = ψ0 cos(ω t − k x). (7.1) This type of wave is conventionally termed a one-dimensional plane wave. It is onedimensional because its associated wavefunction depends on only a single Cartesian coordinate. Furthermore, it is a plane wave because the wave maxima, which are located at ω t − k x = j 2π, (7.2) where j is an integer, consist of a series of parallel planes, normal to the x-axis, that are equally spaced a distance λ = 2π/k apart and propagate along the x-axis at the fixed phase velocity ω/k = v, where v is the characteristic wave speed. These conclusions follow because Equation (7.2) can be rewritten in the form x = d, (7.3) where d = v t − j λ. Moreover, (7.3) is the equation of a plane, normal to the x-axis, whose distance of closest approach to the origin is d.