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

arXiv:physics/0612089

Comment on "Beam-splitters don't have memory: a comment on "Event-based corpuscular model for quantum optics experiments" by K.Michielsen et al."

V. A. Kuz’menko

Published Dec 10, 2006• 2 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

R. Ionicioiu in arXiv:1012.0647 claims that beam-splitters do not have memory. This is the unproved statement. From other side, such small quantum objects as molecules, atoms and even photons have memory, which is connected with the inequality of forward and reversed processes in quantum physics.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.physics/0612089

Related papers

Beam-splitters don't have memory: a comment on "Event-based corpuscular model for quantum optics experiments'' by K.Michielsen et al

Radu Ionicioiu

In a recent article (arXiv:1006.1728) K.Michielsen et al. claim that a simple corpuscular model can explain many quantum optics experiments. We discuss these claims and show that their proposal fails at several levels. Finally, we propose an experiment to falsify the model.

arXiv:1012.0647•Dec 3, 2010•0 citations

Simple optical instruments

Ulf Leonhardt

Beam splitter Compared with other fundamental experiments in physics, optical tests of quantum mechanics are often distinguished by their simplicity. Most quantum optical experiments do not require a whole industry - an optical table of equipment and a few people are often sufficient. Good ideas, good research problems are more important. “Research is to see what everybody has seen and to think what nobody has thought” (Jammer, 1989). A simple optical beam splitter, for instance, is already a nice device to demonstrate the quantum nature of light. Quite a number of puzzling quantum effects have been seen by splitting or recombining photons at a small cube of glass. Additionally, the beam splitter serves as a theoretical paradigm for other linear optical devices. Interferometers, semitransparent mirrors, dielectric interfaces, wave guide couplers, and polarizers are all described sufficiently well by a simple beam splitter model. The quantum effects of almost all passive optical devices can be understood assuming appropriate beam splitter models. (It's all done with mirrors.) Heisenberg picture An ideal beam splitter is a reversible, lossless device in which two incident beams may interfere to produce two outgoing beams. For instance, a dielectric interface inside a cube or plate of glass splits a light beam into two, see Fig. 5.1. We may reverse this situation by sending the two beams back to the cube, where they interfere constructively to restore the original beam.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Feb 18, 2010•1 citation

Reply to Comment on “Experimental Test of an Event-Based Corpuscular Model Modification as an Alternative to Quantum Mechanics”

G. Brida, Ivo Pietro Degiovanni, Marco Genovese +4 more

We have presented an experimental result, where we show that the predictions of an Event-Based Corpuscular Model (EBCM) from Ref. 2, a model that belongs to a class of non-ergodic models first described by Buonomano, are inconsistent with our measurements. We concluded that traditional quantum mechanics adequately describes our experiment, where pure single photons were used, and that our findings agree with earlier verification experiments by Summhammer, where a poissonian source of heavy particles was used. In their comment, Michielsen et al. disagree with the above conclusions. The central point of their argument is that EBCM predictions would be compatible with the observation, if the Mach–Zehnder interferometer (MZI) under test is modeled as a single system, and not as two independent, non-communicating beam splitters (BS). Unfortunately, the physics of interaction and a quantitative model of communication among the parts of MZI that would make it possible to reduce the model to effectively one memory register are not offered. Furthermore, no modification for a verification experiment that would guarantee the absence of an unspecified interaction is offered. An argument resorting to communication between the MZI parts is not a surprise. It is identical to invoking a locality loophole in Bell inequalities: when one considers communication among the different parts of the experimental apparatus, it is well known that hidden variable models can reproduce the results of Quantum Mechanics (QM). But by invoking an undescribed locality loophole, the EBCM and its verification experiment largely loses its appeal, because it becomes a sub-class of hidden variable theories falsifiable via a locality loophole free Bell test. In this sense, the class of local variable theories with noncommunicating memories per each optical element was by far more interesting and unique, because they provide an independent way for testing. We point out that the argument of Michielsen et al. begs the question by suggesting that more experiments are needed while providing no details on how one may avoid any and all interactions that may lead to replacing the two independent registers in the two beam splitters (as originally proposed in their model) with one collective register. Ultimately, we believe that it is not possible to suggest an experiment, even in principle, that would allow a test similar to that from Ref. 2 with the two beam splitters outside of the light cone, i.e., where one could guarantee that no sub-luminal communication occurs, because the ‘‘message carriers’’ are photons that travel with a luminal speed. Given that this loophole can never be closed, it is really hard to define what ‘‘independent’’ means. In view of this, it is unfortunate that Michielsen et al. do not offer any discussion on how to ensure that optical parts are ‘‘independent’’. Particularly, no details are offered on how to reduce independent BSs to a single system that guarantees that the functionality of the device before and after reduction is consistent with QM. How would that reduction occur in nature? Is this reduction adiabatic or discontinuous? How can one control the transition from a set of non-interacting EBCM elements to a single EBCM element? In other words, where are new registers located, and why are they to be moved from the BS as initially asserted, and how does such a device reproduce laws of QM before, during and after such a drastic transition? We believe that, by invoking a non-formalized locality loophole, Michielsen et al. commend the experimental efforts of Ref. 1, acknowledging that all other aspects of the experiment are flawless. That is, the authors of Ref. 1 conducted a fair experiment, in strict accordance with their initial theoretical proposal, and free of an unintentional bias. In conclusion, the comment does not explain how and why the EBCM model is modified to overcome the Ref. 1 test. Further, it neither clarifies the relevance of the model in its new version nor proposes new tests of it. By invoking a non-formalized locality loophole, the authors implicitly moved their model to a much larger class of local realism models.

Journal of the Physical Society of Japan•Jul 29, 2013•0 citations

On the Physical Nature of Hanbury-Brown-Twiss and Hong-ou-Mandel Effects.

V. A. Kuz’menko

The physical nature of the nonrandom quantum phenomena of bunching-antibunching of photons in a beam splitter is discussed. The physical explanation is based on the fact that the forward and reverse processes are not equivalent in quantum physics. The possibility and necessity of an experimental study of the nonlocality of memory of quantum systems is also discussed.

•Dec 1, 2020•0 citations

A Quantum Light-Matter Beamsplitter in Diamond

Duncan G. England, Khabat Heshami, Philip J. Bustard +4 more

A quantum memory can be viewed as a light-matter beam-splitter, mapping a photon to a superposition of the output optical mode and stored mode. We use this mechanism to demonstrate non-classical one-photon and two-photon interference.

Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics•Jan 1, 2017•0 citations

Quantum physics and the beam splitter mystery

Francois B. Hénault

Optical lossless beam splitters are frequently encountered in fundamental physics experiments regarding the nature of light, including “which-way” determination or the EPR paradox and their measurement apparatus. Although they look as common optical components at first glance, their behaviour remains somewhat mysterious since they apparently exhibit stand-alone particle-like features, and then wave-like characteristics when inserted into a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. In this communication are examined and discussed some basic properties of these beamssplitters, both from a classical optics and quantum physics point of view. Herein the most evident convergences and contradictions are highlighted, and the results of a few emblematic experiments demonstrating photon existence are discussed. Alternative empirical models are also proposed in order to shed light on some remaining issues.

arXiv:1509.00393•Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE•Sep 10, 2015•17 citations
Beam splitter Compared with other fundamental experiments in physics, optical tests of quantum mechanics are often distinguished by their simplicity. Most quantum optical experiments do not require a whole industry - an optical table of equipment and a few people are often sufficient. Good ideas, good research problems are more important. “Research is to see what everybody has seen and to think what nobody has thought” (Jammer, 1989). A simple optical beam splitter, for instance, is already a nice device to demonstrate the quantum nature of light. Quite a number of puzzling quantum effects have been seen by splitting or recombining photons at a small cube of glass. Additionally, the beam splitter serves as a theoretical paradigm for other linear optical devices. Interferometers, semitransparent mirrors, dielectric interfaces, wave guide couplers, and polarizers are all described sufficiently well by a simple beam splitter model. The quantum effects of almost all passive optical devices can be understood assuming appropriate beam splitter models. (It's all done with mirrors.) Heisenberg picture An ideal beam splitter is a reversible, lossless device in which two incident beams may interfere to produce two outgoing beams. For instance, a dielectric interface inside a cube or plate of glass splits a light beam into two, see Fig. 5.1. We may reverse this situation by sending the two beams back to the cube, where they interfere constructively to restore the original beam.
We have presented an experimental result, where we show that the predictions of an Event-Based Corpuscular Model (EBCM) from Ref. 2, a model that belongs to a class of non-ergodic models first described by Buonomano, are inconsistent with our measurements. We concluded that traditional quantum mechanics adequately describes our experiment, where pure single photons were used, and that our findings agree with earlier verification experiments by Summhammer, where a poissonian source of heavy particles was used. In their comment, Michielsen et al. disagree with the above conclusions. The central point of their argument is that EBCM predictions would be compatible with the observation, if the Mach–Zehnder interferometer (MZI) under test is modeled as a single system, and not as two independent, non-communicating beam splitters (BS). Unfortunately, the physics of interaction and a quantitative model of communication among the parts of MZI that would make it possible to reduce the model to effectively one memory register are not offered. Furthermore, no modification for a verification experiment that would guarantee the absence of an unspecified interaction is offered. An argument resorting to communication between the MZI parts is not a surprise. It is identical to invoking a locality loophole in Bell inequalities: when one considers communication among the different parts of the experimental apparatus, it is well known that hidden variable models can reproduce the results of Quantum Mechanics (QM). But by invoking an undescribed locality loophole, the EBCM and its verification experiment largely loses its appeal, because it becomes a sub-class of hidden variable theories falsifiable via a locality loophole free Bell test. In this sense, the class of local variable theories with noncommunicating memories per each optical element was by far more interesting and unique, because they provide an independent way for testing. We point out that the argument of Michielsen et al. begs the question by suggesting that more experiments are needed while providing no details on how one may avoid any and all interactions that may lead to replacing the two independent registers in the two beam splitters (as originally proposed in their model) with one collective register. Ultimately, we believe that it is not possible to suggest an experiment, even in principle, that would allow a test similar to that from Ref. 2 with the two beam splitters outside of the light cone, i.e., where one could guarantee that no sub-luminal communication occurs, because the ‘‘message carriers’’ are photons that travel with a luminal speed. Given that this loophole can never be closed, it is really hard to define what ‘‘independent’’ means. In view of this, it is unfortunate that Michielsen et al. do not offer any discussion on how to ensure that optical parts are ‘‘independent’’. Particularly, no details are offered on how to reduce independent BSs to a single system that guarantees that the functionality of the device before and after reduction is consistent with QM. How would that reduction occur in nature? Is this reduction adiabatic or discontinuous? How can one control the transition from a set of non-interacting EBCM elements to a single EBCM element? In other words, where are new registers located, and why are they to be moved from the BS as initially asserted, and how does such a device reproduce laws of QM before, during and after such a drastic transition? We believe that, by invoking a non-formalized locality loophole, Michielsen et al. commend the experimental efforts of Ref. 1, acknowledging that all other aspects of the experiment are flawless. That is, the authors of Ref. 1 conducted a fair experiment, in strict accordance with their initial theoretical proposal, and free of an unintentional bias. In conclusion, the comment does not explain how and why the EBCM model is modified to overcome the Ref. 1 test. Further, it neither clarifies the relevance of the model in its new version nor proposes new tests of it. By invoking a non-formalized locality loophole, the authors implicitly moved their model to a much larger class of local realism models.
Optical lossless beam splitters are frequently encountered in fundamental physics experiments regarding the nature of light, including “which-way” determination or the EPR paradox and their measurement apparatus. Although they look as common optical components at first glance, their behaviour remains somewhat mysterious since they apparently exhibit stand-alone particle-like features, and then wave-like characteristics when inserted into a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. In this communication are examined and discussed some basic properties of these beamssplitters, both from a classical optics and quantum physics point of view. Herein the most evident convergences and contradictions are highlighted, and the results of a few emblematic experiments demonstrating photon existence are discussed. Alternative empirical models are also proposed in order to shed light on some remaining issues.