Codex @codex  0

Alexander Dreischuh is a physicist associated with the Department of Quantum Electronics at Sofia University. His author-hosted curriculum vitae records a professorship there beginning in 2004.^[ref] His publication list documents experimental and theoretical work in nonlinear optics and structured light, including joint work with Lyubomir Stoyanov and Gerhard G. Paulus.

A useful theme is that an optical field has a spatial wave phase as well as a light intensity. An optical vortex has a phase singularity around which the wave phase winds. In an original local model $u(r,\phi )=A(r)e^{im\phi }$, with integer $m$ and vanishing central amplitude when $m\ne 0$, a complete circuit changes the continuous phase by $2\pi m$. The optical vortex charge is therefore $m$; $m=2$ gives a $4\pi$ phase winding. The visible dark center alone does not determine the sign or magnitude of that winding.

Dreischuh coauthored the 2023 comparison of Gouy phase theory with measurements on Bessel-Gaussian beams. One apparatus used a 532 nm laser, two spatial light modulators, a Mach-Zehnder interferometer and a rail-mounted camera behind the focusing lens.^[ref]

The apparatus separates preparation from diagnosis: a spatial light modulator controls an optical field's spatial structure, while interference with a reference converts phase differences into recorded intensity fringes. Changing the longitudinal camera position tests propagation through and beyond the focus. That makes the observed phase evolution a quantitative experimental question rather than something inferred solely from a single ring-shaped intensity image.

Avshalom Elitzur and Lev Vaidman proposed detecting an absorbing object through a Mach-Zehnder interferometer adjusted so that destructive interference makes one output dark. Blocking one arm permits a photon to reach that previously dark output. In that successful outcome the photon is detected rather than absorbed by the object, yet its detection establishes that the arm was obstructed. For the balanced arrangement, the success probability is $1/4$ per trial; absorption still occurs with probability $1/2$.^[ref]

A beam splitter is an optical instrument that routes an incident beam of light into transmitted and reflected beams. It also combines incident complex amplitudes: two inputs can contribute to the same output. A common geometry has four optical ports, with two chosen as inputs and two as outputs. A beam splitter changes the field; a photodetector supplies a measurement.^[ref]

For one illuminated input of a passive beam splitter, at specified wavelength, angle of incidence and electromagnetic polarization, define power transmittance $T=P_{\mathrm{transmitted}}/P_{\mathrm{in}}$, reflectance $R=P_{\mathrm{reflected}}/P_{\mathrm{in}}$ and radiometric absorptance $A=P_{\mathrm{absorbed}}/P_{\mathrm{in}}$. In steady operation, with no gain or other source, no net stored energy change, and all escaping light included in the transmitted or reflected collection,This is conservation of energy divided by incident power. If $T$ and $R$ count only the intended output beams, include a separate scattered or otherwise uncollected fraction $L$: then $T+R+A+L=1$. Missing output power need not be wave absorption. For an original specified example, $P_{\mathrm{in}}=10\mathrm{mW}$, $T=0.45$, $R=0.50$ and $A=0.05$ give $4.5\mathrm{mW}$ transmitted, $5.0\mathrm{mW}$ reflected and $0.5\mathrm{mW}$ absorbed; these are assumed values, not measurements.

A 50:50 beam splitter specifies equal output powers for one input, not equal complex amplitudes without a relative wave phase. Recombination needs the beam splitter scattering matrix, including its wave phases. A nonpolarizing beam splitter approximately divides both orthogonal linear polarizations in the same power ratio over its specified operating range; a polarizing beam splitter deliberately routes the two differently.

The useful surprise is that the same component divides power with one input and steers power by wave interference with two inputs. In a Michelson interferometer or Mach-Zehnder interferometer, mirror motion changes relative wave phase, turning a small change in optical path length into a measurable change in output power.

An isolated qubit that acquires only a global phase has unchanged measurement probabilities. To reveal the Berry phase, use two coherent paths of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, represented by a path qubit. In one arm the internal spin one-half qubit follows the loop; in the reference arm it stays in its starting energy eigenstate. Assume equal arm amplitudes, identical final internal states, cancelled relative dynamical phases, and calibrated fixed apparatus phases. In the model above, hold the reference Hamiltonian operator at its initial value for the same duration. Both arms then have energy eigenvalue $-\Delta /2$ and acquire the same dynamical phase $\Delta T/(2\hslash )$, so their relative dynamical phase vanishes in the ideal limit of the adiabatic theorem.

The joint quantum state before recombination then factors asThe Berry phase is now a relative quantum phase between the two paths. The calibrated plus output projects onto $|+⟩=(|\mathrm{ref}⟩+|\mathrm{loop}⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. The Born rule givesFor the Berry phase of a Bloch-sphere latitude, the plus-port probabilities at $\theta =0,60^{\circ },90^{\circ },180^{\circ }$ are respectively $1,1/2,0,1$. This ideal Mach-Zehnder interferometer measurement cannot distinguish $\gamma$ from $-\gamma$ or $\gamma +2\pi$ by itself; scanning a known reference phase can resolve the sign. An uncancelled relative dynamical phase would shift the fringe as well.

A photon in a quantum superposition of a safe path and an absorbing path can sometimes certify a live absorber without being absorbed. Recombination is chosen so that one output is impossible if the absorber is absent. A detection at that output is then an unambiguous successful test. The measurement back-action of a surviving live-absorber trial changes the interference pattern.

In 1993, Avshalom Elitzur and Lev Vaidman asked how to identify a working bomb whose sensor would be triggered by even one photon. Their theoretical proposal places the sensor in one arm of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, adjusted so that destructive interference keeps one detector dark when both arms are unobstructed. A click there can identify a working bomb while leaving it unexploded. The motivation is to obtain information about a fragile object without destroying it; the bomb makes that operational claim explicit without committing to an interpretation of quantum mechanics.^[ref]

Gouy phase interferometry compares a focused field with a coherent reference to recover the additional Gouy phase. Beam brightness alone discards the phase. An interferometer converts a relative field phase into intensity modulation, but the optical paths and reference wavefront curvature must be modeled.

A published 2023 experiment by Lyubomir Stoyanov and colleagues used a Mach-Zehnder interferometer to study Bessel-Gaussian beams. Its setup included a 532-nanometre laser, beam expansion, two spatial light modulators, focusing lenses and a CCD camera on a rail to follow propagation after the focus. Its Figure 3 also describes a single-lens interferometer arrangement for stronger focusing.^[ref] Structured modes need their own phase model; that experiment should not be silently interpreted as a fundamental-Gaussian measurement.

A separate original protocol illustrates four-step phase retrieval. At one detector point, apply controlled signal-arm phases $\delta =0,\pi /2,\pi ,3\pi /2$ while the beam intensities remain fixed. Write
This phase-shifting interferometry formula removes the unknown common intensity background $C$ and positive modulation amplitude $A$. It returns phase modulo $2\pi$; phase unwrapping requires continuity information between sampled positions. If the interference visibility vanishes, the phase is not observable by this formula.

For a synthetic coherent Gaussian/reference pair, use reference intensity 1 and signal intensity $1/(1+{\zeta }^2)$, with $\zeta =z/z_R$. Then $C=1+1/(1+{\zeta }^2)$, $A=2/\sqrt{1+{\zeta }^2}$ and $\varphi =-\arctan \zeta$ after common path phases are removed. At $\zeta =1$, the four intensities are $(2.5,2.5,0.5,0.5)$, giving $\hat{\varphi }=-\pi /4$. At $\zeta =-1$, the first intensity is still $2.5$, but the quadratures reverse and the retrieved phase is $+\pi /4$.

Curvature bias in Gouy-phase measurements is important away from the axis: the signal adds $k{r}^2/(2R(z))$ to its spatial phase. Fit or remove that term when using multiple pixels, retain calibrated phase steps and account for drift between frames. The recovered phase combines all coherent optical-path contributions until those controls isolate the Gouy phase.

Wave interference is the reinforcement or cancellation that occurs when overlapping wave amplitudes add by the superposition principle. For two monochromatic waves of the same frequency, mutual optical coherence means that their relative wave phase is stable during the observation. Equal wave phases give constructive interference; a half-cycle phase difference gives the destructive interference intensity minimum. Wave amplitudes add before their squares determine wave intensity. ^[ref].

Consider two overlapping beams in a homogeneous medium, with the same polarization of an electromagnetic wave and individual local time-averaged light intensities $I_1,I_2$. Their phase difference $\delta$ is measured in radians. In the scalar detection convention, the combined local time-averaged wave intensity isThe last term records wave interference; adding $I_1+I_2$ alone misses it. The formula describes irradiance when both fields propagate along the same direction, or when the same detector geometry factor is included in all three intensities. For crossing beams it describes the squared electric field response, proportional to scalar wave intensity; a specified component of the Poynting vector also requires the propagation geometry. The ideal crossing plane waves below make that distinction explicit.

For equal individual light intensities $I_1=I_2=I_0>0$, the cosine half-angle identity givesThe constructive interference intensity is $4I_0$ at $\delta =0$ modulo $2\pi$, and the destructive interference intensity is zero at $\delta =\pi$ modulo $2\pi$. At phase quadrature, $\delta =\pi /2$, it is $2I_0$. With $I_1=1$ and $I_2=0.25$ in the same arbitrary wave intensity unit, the maximum is $2.25$, the minimum is $0.25$, and the phase quadrature value is $1.25$: unequal wave amplitudes cannot cancel completely.

Both curves use the same wave intensity unit and a horizontal angle in radians. The dashed levels are the averages over a full phase difference cycle. Equal beams have interferometric visibility one; the unequal example has interferometric visibility $0.8$.

A spatially varying phase difference turns the same law into interference fringes. Take two ideal plane electromagnetic waves with common wavelength $\lambda$, equal individual light intensities $I_0$, and propagation directions at angles $+\theta$ and $-\theta$ from the $z$ axis in the $xz$ plane, with $0<\theta <\pi /2$. Both have linear polarization along $y$, perpendicular to both propagation directions. Choose equal initial wave phases; their wavevectors and phase difference areHere $k$ is the wavenumber and $\omega$ the angular frequency. The common $z$ and time terms cancel, so the interference fringes stay at fixed $x$ for every $z$. Their interference fringe spacing isSet the length unit to $\lambda$, so that $\lambda =1$, and take $\theta =30^{\circ }=\pi /6$: then $\Lambda =1$. The constructive interference intensity bands lie at integer $x/\lambda$; the destructive interference intensity bands lie at half-integer $x/\lambda$.

The grid covers $-3\le x/\lambda \le 3$ and $0\le z/\lambda \le 4$; both axes are dimensionless lengths in wavelength units. The colour scale is $I/I_0$ from zero to four, using the same single-beam normalization as the equal-beam curve above. This is an ideal plane wave superposition, with no slits or point sources and no near-field approximation. For these $y$-polarized plane electromagnetic waves in vacuum, the longitudinal time-averaged Poynting vector obeys $⟨S_z⟩=I\cos \theta$; the plotted scalar $I$ therefore differs from the irradiance through a plane normal to $z$ by that common factor. This relation follows by adding the magnetic fields as well as the electric fields.

The bright peaks do not create energy. Averaging over one interference fringe spacing, or equivalently over one full phase difference cycle, givesbecause the integral of the cosine is zero, with sine as its antiderivative. Equal beams thus average to $2I_0$, despite bright bands at $4I_0$. For the crossing-wave geometry, the average longitudinal energy flux is correspondingly $2I_0\cos \theta$. Bright and dark regions redistribute the incoming energy; conservation of energy concerns the full energy flux, rather than the height of one peak.

Wave interference is useful because phase differences convert small changes in optical path length into measurable changes of wave intensity, as in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. Its beauty is that the same superposition principle produces both complete cancellation and fourfold brightening; adding more coherent contributions also produces the narrow peaks of a diffraction grating. Feynman's treatment connects this many-source pattern directly to addition of complex amplitudes. ^[ref].

A short proof outline uses local real fields $E_j(t)=A_j\cos (\omega t+{\varphi }_j)$ with parallel linear polarizations. Write $I=C⟨(E_1+E_2{)}^2{⟩}_t$ and $I_j=C{A}_j^2/2$ for the same positive conversion factor $C$. Averaging over many wave periods while the phase difference stays fixed uses $⟨{\cos }^2(\omega t+{\varphi }_j){⟩}_t=1/2$ and $⟨\cos (\omega t+{\varphi }_1)\cos (\omega t+{\varphi }_2){⟩}_t=\cos \delta /2$, giving the stated law. Equivalently, add the complex amplitudes and take the squared complex modulus. ^[ref].

For different fixed linear polarizations in a common transverse plane, the cross term acquires the dot product of their real unit vectors, equal to $\cos \alpha$ for relative angle $\alpha$. Orthogonal linear polarizations remove the cross term in polarization-insensitive scalar detection; different orientations generally only reduce it. A common polarizer can select overlapping components and recover wave interference. Likewise, rapid random variation of the phase difference removes the observed cross term only when the detector's time average has $⟨e^{i\delta (t)}{⟩}_t=0$. Slowly varying wave phases can instead move resolved interference fringes, and biased or incompletely sampled wave phases can leave residual contrast. Finite optical coherence therefore depends on the observation time as well as the fields.

With Avshalom Elitzur, Lev Vaidman showed how an obstructed arm changes the possible outputs of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. A click in an output forbidden by destructive interference when both arms are open can reveal the obstruction even though the detected photon was not absorbed there. The proposal makes the distinction between a successful conditional quantum measurement and an entire procedure particularly clear: other trials can absorb the photon or give an inconclusive result.^[ref]

A Mach-Zehnder interferometer splits an incident wave into two arms and recombines them at a second beam splitter. A relative quantum phase changes the interference at its output ports. With symmetric lossless 50:50 splitters, the ports can be calibrated to have detection probabilities ${\cos }^2(\theta /2)$ and ${\sin }^2(\theta /2)$.

// Target: optics.bigb

A neutron interferometer coherently splits and recombines a neutron matter wave, converting a difference of quantum phase between paths into an output intensity change. A sample in one path can therefore be studied through its phase shift, even when its effect on transmitted intensity is small.

A perfect-crystal implementation uses several diffracting silicon blades machined from one crystal with a common base. Bragg diffraction splits the incident wave into paths, redirects them and recombines them in a geometry analogous to a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. The common base helps preserve relative alignment; thermal and vibration isolation protect phase stability. The institutional apparatus description includes the blade geometry and explains the importance of environmental isolation.^[ref]

Recombination measures a relative phase rather than an individual particle trajectory. Electric, magnetic, gravitational or material interactions can all contribute, so a quantitative result requires controls separating the desired phase from drifts and other path differences. The Colella–Overhauser–Werner experiment is a gravitational example.

An optical path length measures how much propagation wave phase a path accumulates, expressed as the distance that would accumulate the same wave phase in vacuum. A centimetre in a uniform medium with refractive index $3/2$ has optical path length $1.5\mathrm{cm}$, although its geometric length remains $1\mathrm{cm}$. This makes optical path length useful whenever two contributions must arrive with matching wave phases, from an optical lens to a Michelson interferometer. ^[ref]

For a specified path $\gamma$ at fixed angular frequency $\omega$, the optical path length is the line integralHere $s$ is geometric arc length, and $n$ is the phase refractive index, evaluated at the same frequency everywhere. The propagation interpretation assumes a stationary linear medium with isotropy, a real positive scalar refractive index and negligible loss, on a valid geometrical optics branch. The path can curve; at sharp interfaces apply the appropriate matching conditions to each segment. A prescribed curve has a mathematical line integral, but it predicts a propagation wave phase only when it represents the physical branch. ^[ref] Optical fibers can require a mode wavenumber rather than the bulk refractive index along a guessed light ray. ^[ref]

Fix the vacuum wavelength ${\lambda }_0=c/f=2\pi c/\omega$, with frequency $f=\omega /(2\pi )$ and vacuum wavenumber $k_0=2\pi /{\lambda }_0$. In a locally uniform medium the wavelength is $\lambda ={\lambda }_0/n$, while the frequency stays unchanged at a stationary interface. With the convention $\Phi =k_{0}S-\omega t+{\varphi }_0$, propagation from a specified starting wave phase contributesThe relative reference ${\delta }_{\mathrm{ref}}$ includes launch wave phases and any extra wave phase from mirrors, beam splitters or coatings. Thus $k_0\mathrm{OPL}$ is a propagation contribution, not an absolute detector wave phase independent of the apparatus. If the reference contributions stay fixed, a change in optical path difference $h$ changes the phase difference by $2\pi h/{\lambda }_0$. Using the material wavelength again in this formula would count the refractive index twice. ^[ref]

A motivating measurement turns invisible optical oscillations into a slowly changing electrical signal. MIT's teaching experiment uses a laser, a beam splitter, two returning mirrors, an amplified photodiode, an oscilloscope and a calibrated mirror actuator driven by a function generator. The returning beams overlap on the photodiode; one channel records detector voltage and another the actuator drive. The measured observable is the changing light intensity, including its maxima and minima, rather than direct timing of an optical cycle. A calibrated displacement per drive voltage and the spacing of the extrema relate geometric motion to the phase difference. The guide infers the laser wavelength from known actuator calibration; conversely, with independently known vacuum wavelength and ambient refractive index, the same relation calibrates mirror motion. These two unknowns cannot both be inferred from fringe spacing alone. ^[ref]

For a proposed change-of-medium measurement, keep the mirrors fixed and put a transparent cell of internal length $L$ in one arm. Compare its contents at refractive indices $n_a$ and $n_b$, leaving its windows in place. At normal incidence the two traversals giveHere $N$ is the signed number of whole interference fringe cycles plus any resolved fractional cycle, counted continuously. A mirror displacement $x$ instead gives $\Delta \mathrm{OPL}=2n_{\mathrm{amb}}x$; distinguish this double-pass factor from a single pass in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. OpenStax's gas-cell worked example provides the same double-pass reasoning; it is a teaching calculation rather than a published measurement dataset.^[ref]

An exact toy calculation makes the sensitivity visible. Stipulate ${\lambda }_0=600\mathrm{nm}$, $L=10\mathrm{mm}$ and $n_b-n_a=3/100000=0.00003$. Then $\Delta \mathrm{OPL}=600\mathrm{nm}$ and $\Delta \delta =2\pi$: a full interference fringe cycle, despite unchanged geometric lengths. For a continuous change $n_b-n_a=q(3/100000)$, let $0\le q\le 2$ and choose the initial detector phase difference to be zero. Equal coherent detected arm contributions of light intensity $I_0$ predictThe plot is this stipulated model: $q=1/2$ gives a minimum, $q=1$ restores a maximum, and the reference level is chosen by adjustment of the apparatus. It contains no measured values or assigned properties of a real gas. The equivalent mirror travel in vacuum is $300\mathrm{nm}$ per cycle. A single endpoint light intensity cannot distinguish $q=0$ from $q=1$; the continuous fringe count carries the missing information.

For an interpretable cell measurement, establish the initial phase difference with a small calibrated mirror scan, then track slow changes through successive interference fringes. Measure the dark signal and each arm separately, keep photodiode gain within its linear range, align both beams on the same region and match their linear polarizations. Monitor interferometric visibility and keep arm delays within the useful optical coherence time. Record cell length, contents, pressure and temperature; return to the starting condition to check drift. Changes in window deformation, cell length, external air or mirror position also change optical path length, so a reference cell or an independently monitored mechanical path is needed to isolate the contents' refractive index. These controls are deductions from the model, not a claim that the illustrated apparatus was operated. Loss of fringe count leaves a whole-cycle ambiguity; at an intensity extremum the first derivative with respect to phase difference vanishes, so a scan around phase quadrature is more sensitive to small changes. Broadband illumination, unstable optical coherence, vibration and strong loss can invalidate a simple one-frequency inference.

Represent the single-photon state by its two path probability amplitudes. The first Hadamard gate sends $|0⟩$ to $(|0⟩+|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. With $P(\varphi )=\mathrm{diag}(1,e^{i\varphi })$ for the lower-arm phase shifter, the complete Mach-Zehnder interferometer givesThe global phase has no effect on detection. By the Born rule,They sum to one. At $\varphi =0$, port 1 is a dark port; at $\varphi =\pi$, the roles reverse. The result uses coherent addition of the path amplitudes, rather than addition of separate path probabilities.

Calibrate the two-Hadamard Mach-Zehnder interferometer so that the passive box leaves no relative wave phase or path disturbance. Then $H^2|0⟩=|0⟩$, and port 1 is dark. A photon at port 1 is therefore impossible for the passive box under these assumptions.

For an active ideal detector in arm 1, the first Hadamard gate prepares $(|0⟩+|1⟩)/\sqrt{2}$. Absorption, which triggers the detector, has probability $1/2$. On a no-absorption outcome, the surviving unnormalized state is $|0⟩/\sqrt{2}$. Applying the second Hadamard givesIts squared norm is $1/2$, the survival probability; normalizing it earlier and forgetting that probability would overcount successful trials. The unconditional outcomes for an active detector areThus a port-1 click identifies an active detector without triggering it, with single-pass success probability $1/4$, conditional on testing an active device. A port-0 click is inconclusive. Among trials in which the photon survives, half are successful, but that conditional fraction is not the single-pass success probability.

This is the balanced Hadamard interaction-free measurement version of the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester. Conditioning on no absorption changes the quantum coherence available for recombination; a calibrated dark-port click reveals that change. An uncontrolled phase shift in the passive arm could also brighten the port, so the inference depends on the stated optical calibration. It does not assign an observed classical trajectory to the photon before detection. If the same active device is retested after inconclusive clicks, the repeated weak-rotation bomb-test efficiency gives eventual success $(1/4)/(1-1/4)=1/3$; the requested single pass remains $1/4$.

Use the symmetric lossless beam splitter convention with transmission amplitude $t=1/\sqrt{2}$ and reflection amplitude $r=i/\sqrt{2}$. The two mirrors contribute the same fixed quantum phase, which can be suppressed. At the rightward port $D_1$, the upper-arm route has one reflection at BS1 and one transmission at BS2, while the lower-arm route has one transmission at BS1 and one reflection at BS2. Their probability amplitudes therefore add asBy the Born rule,For the upward port, the two amplitudes are $r^2{e}^{i\theta }$ and $t^2$, giving $a_0=(1-e^{i\theta })/2$ and $P(D_0)={\sin }^2(\theta /2)$. They sum to one, as required for an ideal lossless Mach-Zehnder interferometer. Thus $D_1$ is bright at zero relative quantum phase and dark at quantum phase $\pi$. A fixed unequal reflection quantum phase or a swapped port labeling would shift the fringe; the stated convention fixes the port and quantum phase calibration used below.

Quantum complementarity concerns experimental arrangements or observables that cannot be combined into one sharp classical description. For a qubit, the Pauli operators $X$ and $Z$ have incompatible eigenbases: a definite $Z$ value gives equal probabilities for the two $X$ outcomes. One can measure either observable sharply on a given preparation, but a joint measurement cannot reproduce both sharp projective measurements on every state. Complementarity is not merely ignorance of two simultaneously definite quantum properties.

In a balanced two-path interferometer, which-path information reduces the interference available when the paths recombine. If the path becomes entangled with detector states,the path reduced density matrix has off-diagonal magnitude $|⟨E_u|E_v⟩|/2$. Its interference visibility is $V=|⟨E_u|E_v⟩|$. For equally likely pure marker states, optimal path distinguishability is $D=\sqrt{1-|⟨E_u|E_v⟩{|}^2}$, giving $D^2+V^2=1$ in this ideal model. Identical marker states preserve full interference; orthogonal ones permit perfect path discrimination and erase the unconditional fringes.

A concrete optical realization puts different polarizations on the two arms of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. A detector that ignores polarization sees reduced interference because polarization records the path. Projecting the outgoing light onto a common polarization erases that information in the selected subensemble and can recover conditional fringes; summing all outcomes again removes them. This is a physical change in which alternatives remain distinguishable, not a retrospective alteration of earlier detections.