Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “wave-particle duality”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

Resolving Wave-Particle Duality Could Accelerate the Mass Production of Quantum Computers

Quantum computers, hypothesized in 1980s, use concepts of superposition and entanglement phenomena. Although theoretical propositions and associated search algorithms for accurate measurements are being generated, the development of practical quantum computers themselves are advancing very slowly requiring enormous time and investments. The underlying concepts of a quantum computer are not new to the optical domain. However, the crucial enabling concepts of Entanglement and Superposition Principle are remaining clouded under the unresolved postulates, Wave-Particle Duality (WPD), and Wave Packet Reduction (WPR), implicating incompleteness in the interpretations of the mathematical formalism behind Quantum Mechanics. The WPD debate started during late1600 between Newton and Huygens. Young’s resolution of WPD through his double-slit experiment in 1802 was effectively overturned by Einstein’s interpretation of photoelectric effect as due to “indivisible light quanta”. However, Einstein disowned his “light quanta” postulate shortly before his death in1955, even though it had earned him the Nobel Prize. We resolve WPD by synthesizing Newton’s and Maxwell’s concepts and assume atoms do emit quanta but propagate as time-finite exponential pulses. This assumption also resolves WPR for light-matter interaction with the assumption that Schrodinger’s ψ represents atom’s internal dipolar amplitude stimulations. This over-turns Born’s interpretation that ψ only represents the abstract mathematical probability amplitude, rather than the physical “internal amplitude stimulation” of the quantum entity. However, our concept of atomic pulse emission forces us to re-derive the expression for the N-slit grating-spectrometer response since the classical derivation uses CW light, which does not exist. This pulsespectrometric response function strengthens our postulate since the grating response to the exponential pulse appears to be the convolution of a Lorentzian spectrum with the classical CW response function of the grating. The Fourier Transform of an exponential function is Lorentzian and QM predicts spontaneous emission line width to be Lorentzian. Then, conceptually one can extend the grating-expression (with N=2) to get the double-slit pattern. This approach preserves the classical causality that each of the two slits, like the N-signals out of a grating, are physically real and jointly stimulate the quantum detector array at the far field to generate the “Local” cosine fringes. The detector array executes the square modulus operation on its imposed dipolar amplitude stimulation and absorbs the necessary energy to fill up their quantum cups. Hence the double-slit pattern must also be “Local”, just as the N-slit grating spectrum is generated locally at the exit spectral-plane of the spectrometer. This removes the need to believe that “single photons” mysteriously generate the double slit pattern. Quantum computers, hypothesized in 1980s, use concepts of superposition and entanglement phenomena. Although theoretical propositions and associated search algorithms for accurate measurements are being generated, the development of practical quantum computers themselves are advancing very slowly requiring enormous time and investments. The underlying concepts of a quantum computer are not new to the optical domain. However, the crucial enabling concepts of Entanglement and Superposition Principle are remaining clouded under the unresolved postulates, Wave-Particle Duality (WPD), and Wave Packet Reduction (WPR), implicating incompleteness in the interpretations of the mathematical formalism behind Quantum Mechanics. The WPD debate started during late1600 between Newton and Huygens. Young’s resolution of WPD through his double-slit experiment in 1802 was effectively overturned by Einstein’s interpretation of photoelectric effect as due to “indivisible light quanta”. However, Einstein disowned his “light quanta” postulate shortly before his death in1955, even though it had earned him the Nobel Prize. We resolve WPD by synthesizing Newton’s and Maxwell’s concepts and assume atoms do emit quanta but propagate as time-finite exponential pulses. This assumption also resolves WPR for light-matter interaction with the assumption that Schrodinger’s ψ represents atom’s internal dipolar amplitude stimulations. This over-turns Born’s interpretation that ψ only represents the abstract mathematical probability amplitude, rather than the physical “internal amplitude stimulation” of the quantum entity. However, our concept of atomic pulse emission forces us to re-derive the expression for the N-slit grating-spectrometer response since the classical derivation uses CW light, which does not exist. This pulsespectrometric response function strengthens our postulate since the grating response to the exponential pulse appears to be the convolution of a Lorentzian spectrum with the classical CW response function of the grating. The Fourier Transform of an exponential function is Lorentzian and QM predicts spontaneous emission line width to be Lorentzian. Then, conceptually one can extend the grating-expression (with N=2) to get the double-slit pattern. This approach preserves the classical causality that each of the two slits, like the N-signals out of a grating, are physically real and jointly stimulate the quantum detector array at the far field to generate the “Local” cosine fringes. The detector array executes the square modulus operation on its imposed dipolar amplitude stimulation and absorbs the necessary energy to fill up their quantum cups. Hence the double-slit pattern must also be “Local”, just as the N-slit grating spectrum is generated locally at the exit spectral-plane of the spectrometer. This removes the need to believe that “single photons” mysteriously generate the double slit pattern.

Quantum Computer↗

The photon: Experimental emphasis on its wave-particle duality

Two types of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiments were demonstrated recently in our laboratory. It is interesting to see that in an interference experiment (wave-like experiment) the photon exhibits its particle property, and in a beam-splitting experiment (particle-like experiment) the photon exhibits its wave property. The two-photon states are produced from Type 1 and Type 2 optical spontaneous parametric down conversion, respectively.

Shih, Yan-Hua↗

A new approach to the photon localization problem

Since wavelets form a representation of the Poincare group, it is possible to construct a localized superposition of light waves with different frequencies in a Lorentz-covariant manner. This localized wavelet satisfies a Lorentz-invariant uncertainty relation, and also the Lorentz-invariant Parseval's relation. A quantitative analysis is given for the difference between photons and localized waves. It is then shown that this localized entity corresponds to a relativistic photon with a sharply defined momentum in the non-localization limit. Waves are not particles. It is confirmed that the wave-particle duality is subject to the uncertainty principle.

Han, D.↗

Various Ambiguities in Re-constructing Laser Pulse Parameters

We think that mode lock laser pulses are generated by the summation process that take place between the monochromatic EM filed frequencies as if they interact with each other as shown in equation 1. In reality, the pulse generation is a collaborative interaction process between EM fields and various material medium. When we carry out the actual mode lock analysis, we do take into account of interpaly between all the temporal dynamics of the cavity gain medium, cavity round trip time and the response time of the intra cavity element (saturable absorber, Kerr medium, etc.). that really enforces the locking of the phase of the cavity spontaneous emissions. On a conceptual level, this simplistic representation of the mode locking by Eq.1 ignores all these critical physical processes. When we try to analyze a pulsed field, again we start by representing it very much like this equation, even though we can only detect the square modulus of this complex field and loose a lot of phase related information to the detectors quantum whims and their time constants. The key parameters for a light pulse are as follows. Foremost is the (i) carrier frequency, which cannot be described or imagined without its state of undulation expressed as its (ii) phase. Next is our imagined time finite (iii) carrier envelope that provides the temporal boundary of the field amplitude strength of the undulating E-field. The final parameter is the (iv) state of polarization or the unique plane along which the strength of the E-field gradient undulates. None of these filed characteristics are made self-evident to us by the fields themselves. We do not see light. Light does not see light. Light beams pass through each other without altering each others energy distribution unless there are interacting material molecules (dipoles) within the physical volume of superposition of the beams. In contrast, we can sense the material particles. Material particles sense each other and they cannot pass through each other without interacting with (scattering from) each other. Thus the interpretation of the superposition phenomenon of multiple fields on detectors should not be lumped under the mysterious "wave-particle duality" philosophy. The phenomenon of superposition can be understood better when we focus on the actual process experienced by the detecting dipoles when allowed by QM rules, they respond to and sum all the induced stimulations due to all the superposed fields followed by the proportionate energy absorption giving rise to the fringes we observe. We will present various experimental results to illustrate our arguments. Our position is that such detector behavior driven interpretations rather than the generally implied field-field interaction driven explanations, will help us better understand the ultimate nature of light and hence invent better and newer devices and instruments.

Roychoudhuri, Chandrasekhar↗

Entanglement in Self-Supervised Dynamics

A new type of correlation has been developed similar to quantum entanglement in self-supervised dynamics (SSD). SSDs have been introduced as a quantum-classical hybrid based upon the Madelung equation in which the quantum potential is replaced by an information potential. As a result, SSD preserves the quantum topology along with superposition, entanglement, and wave-particle duality. At the same time, it can be implemented in any scale including the Newtonian scale. The main properties of SSD associated with simulating intelligence have been formulated. The attention with this innovation is focused on intelligent agents interaction based upon the new fundamental non-New tonian effect; namely, entanglement.

Zak, Michail↗

Accelerating the Deployment of Space-Based Quantum Sensors

Quantum sensors rely on quantum mechanical properties, such as wave-particle duality, atomic energy levels, or entanglement, to measure physical, optical, or electromagnetic information from a target. Examples include Rydberg sensors, nitrogen-vacancy magnetometers, HOM (Hong-Ou-Mandel) interferometers, and SQUIDs (Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices). In general, as quantum sensors rely on interrogation at the atomic and photonic level rather than on classical mechanical measurements, these technologies promise advantages over their traditional counterparts in sensitivity, accuracy, and SWaP (Size, Weight, and Power). Conceptually, the use of quantum sensors unlocks the new phenomenology of sensor entanglement. While an ultra-low TRL (Technology Readiness Level) prospect for most sensor types, multi-sensor entanglement is a high risk, high reward strategy with a potential for exquisite sensitivity and SWaP improvements entirely inaccessible to classical sensors.

Grace Caroline Wusk↗