Measurement problem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In quantum mechanics, the measurement problem is the problem of definite outcomes: quantum systems have superpositions but quantum measurements only give one definite result.

The wave function in quantum mechanics evolves deterministically according to the Schrödinger equation as a linear superposition of different states. However, actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution of the wave function is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the system that is not obviously a consequence of Schrödinger evolution. The measurement problem is describing what that "something" is, how a superposition of many possible values becomes a single measured value.

To express matters differently (paraphrasing Steven Weinberg), the Schrödinger equation determines the wave function at any later time. If observers and their measuring apparatus are themselves described by a deterministic wave function, why can we not predict precise results for measurements, but only probabilities? As a general question: How can one establish a correspondence between quantum reality and classical reality?

Schrodinger's cat

Main article: Schrodinger's cat

A thought experiment called Schrödinger's cat illustrates the measurement problem. A mechanism is arranged to kill a cat if a quantum event, such as the decay of a radioactive atom, occurs. The mechanism and the cat are enclosed in a chamber so the fate of the cat is unknown until the chamber is opened. Prior to observation, according to quantum mechanics, the atom is in a quantum superposition, a linear combination of decayed and intact states. Also according to quantum mechanics, the atom-mechanism-cat composite system is described by superpositions of compound states. Therefore, the cat would be described as in a superposition, a linear combination of two states an "intact atom-alive cat" and a "decayed atom-dead cat". However, when the chamber is opened the cat is either alive or it is dead: there is no superposition observed. After the measurement the cat is definitively alive or dead.^[6]: 154

The cat scenario illustrates the measurement problem: how can an indefinite superposition yield a single definite outcome? It also illustrates other issues in quantum measurement,^[7]: 585 including when does a measurement occur? Was it when the cat was observed? How is a measurement apparatus defined? The mechanism for detecting radioactive decay? The cat? The chamber? What the role of the observer?

Interpretations

Main article: Interpretations of quantum mechanics

The views often grouped together as the Copenhagen interpretation are the oldest and, collectively, probably still the most widely held attitude about quantum mechanics.^[8][9] N. David Mermin coined the phrase "Shut up and calculate!" to summarize Copenhagen-type views, a saying often misattributed to Richard Feynman and which Mermin later found insufficiently nuanced.^[10][11]

Generally, views in the Copenhagen tradition posit something in the act of observation which results in the collapse of the wave function. This concept, though often attributed to Niels Bohr, was due to Werner Heisenberg, whose later writings obscured many disagreements he and Bohr had during their collaboration and that the two never resolved.^[12][13] In these schools of thought, wave functions may be regarded as statistical information about a quantum system, and wave function collapse is the updating of that information in response to new data.^[14][15] Exactly how to understand this process remains a topic of dispute.^[16]

Bohr offered an interpretation that is independent of a subjective observer, or measurement, or collapse; instead, an "irreversible" or effectively irreversible process causes the decay of quantum coherence which imparts the classical behavior of "observation" or "measurement".^[17][18]

Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation attempts to solve the problem by suggesting that there is only one wave function, the superposition of the entire universe, and it never collapses—so there is no measurement problem. Instead, the act of measurement is simply an interaction between quantum entities, e.g. observer, measuring instrument, electron/positron etc., which entangle to form a single larger entity, for instance living cat/happy scientist. Everett also attempted to demonstrate how the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics would appear in measurements, a work later extended by Bryce DeWitt. However, proponents of the Everettian program have not yet reached a consensus regarding the correct way to justify the use of the Born rule to calculate probabilities.^[19][20]

The de Broglie–Bohm theory tries to solve the measurement problem very differently: the information describing the system contains not only the wave function, but also supplementary data (a trajectory) giving the position of the particle(s). The role of the wave function is to generate the velocity field for the particles. These velocities are such that the probability distribution for the particle remains consistent with the predictions of the orthodox quantum mechanics. According to de Broglie–Bohm theory, interaction with the environment during a measurement procedure separates the wave packets in configuration space, which is where apparent wave function collapse comes from, even though there is no actual collapse.^[21]

A fourth approach is given by objective-collapse models. In such models, the Schrödinger equation is modified and obtains nonlinear terms. These nonlinear modifications are of stochastic nature and lead to behaviour that for microscopic quantum objects, e.g. electrons or atoms, is unmeasurably close to that given by the usual Schrödinger equation. For macroscopic objects, however, the nonlinear modification becomes important and induces the collapse of the wave function. Objective-collapse models are effective theories. The stochastic modification is thought to stem from some external non-quantum field, but the nature of this field is unknown. One possible candidate is the gravitational interaction as in the models of Diósi and Penrose. The main difference of objective-collapse models compared to the other approaches is that they make falsifiable predictions that differ from standard quantum mechanics. Experiments are already getting close to the parameter regime where these predictions can be tested.^[22]

The Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber (GRW) theory proposes that wave function collapse happens spontaneously as part of the dynamics. Particles have a non-zero probability of undergoing a "hit", or spontaneous collapse of the wave function, on the order of once every hundred million years.^[23] Though collapse is extremely rare, the sheer number of particles in a measurement system means that the probability of a collapse occurring somewhere in the system is high. Since the entire measurement system is entangled (by quantum entanglement), the collapse of a single particle initiates the collapse of the entire measurement apparatus. Because the GRW theory makes different predictions from orthodox quantum mechanics in some conditions, it is not an interpretation of quantum mechanics in a strict sense.

The role of decoherence

Erich Joos and Heinz-Dieter Zeh claim that the phenomenon of quantum decoherence, which was put on firm ground in the 1980s, resolves the problem.^[24] The idea is that the environment causes the classical appearance of macroscopic objects. Zeh further claims that decoherence makes it possible to identify the fuzzy boundary between the quantum microworld and the world where the classical intuition is applicable.^[25][26] Quantum decoherence becomes an important part of some modern updates of the Copenhagen interpretation based on consistent histories.^[27][28] Quantum decoherence does not describe the actual collapse of the wave function, but it explains the conversion of the quantum probabilities (that exhibit interference effects) to the ordinary classical probabilities. See, for example, Zurek,^[5] Zeh^[25] and Schlosshauer.^[29]

The present situation is slowly clarifying, described in a 2006 article by Schlosshauer as follows:^[30]

Several decoherence-unrelated proposals have been put forward in the past to elucidate the meaning of probabilities and arrive at the Born rule ... It is fair to say that no decisive conclusion appears to have been reached as to the success of these derivations. ...

As it is well known, [many papers by Bohr insist upon] the fundamental role of classical concepts. The experimental evidence for superpositions of macroscopically distinct states on increasingly large length scales counters such a dictum. Superpositions appear to be novel and individually existing states, often without any classical counterparts. Only the physical interactions between systems then determine a particular decomposition into classical states from the view of each particular system. Thus classical concepts are to be understood as locally emergent in a relative-state sense and should no longer claim a fundamental role in the physical theory.

Six degrees of freedom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_freedom

The six degrees of freedom: forward/back, up/down, left/right, yaw, pitch, roll

Six degrees of freedom (6DOF), or sometimes six degrees of movement, refers to the six mechanical degrees of freedom of movement of a rigid body in three-dimensional space. Specifically, the body is free to change position as forward/backward (surge), up/down (heave), left/right (sway) translation in three perpendicular axes, combined with changes in orientation through rotation about three perpendicular axes, often termed yaw (normal axis), pitch (transverse axis), and roll (longitudinal axis).

Three degrees of freedom (3DOF), a term often used in the context of virtual reality, typically refers to tracking of rotational motion only: pitch, yaw, and roll.

Robotics

Serial and parallel manipulator systems are generally designed to position an end-effector with six degrees of freedom, consisting of three in translation and three in orientation. This provides a direct relationship between actuator positions and the configuration of the manipulator defined by its forward and inverse kinematics.

Robot arms are described by their degrees of freedom. This is a practical metric, in contrast to the abstract definition of degrees of freedom which measures the aggregate positioning capability of a system.

In 2007, Dean Kamen, inventor of the Segway, unveiled a prototype robotic arm with 14 degrees of freedom for DARPA. Humanoid robots typically have 30 or more degrees of freedom, with six degrees of freedom per arm, five or six in each leg, and several more in torso and neck.

Engineering

The term is important in mechanical systems, especially biomechanical systems, for analyzing and measuring properties of these types of systems that need to account for all six degrees of freedom. Measurement of the six degrees of freedom is accomplished today through both AC and DC magnetic or electromagnetic fields in sensors that transmit positional and angular data to a processing unit. The data is made relevant through software that integrates the data based on the needs and programming of the users.

Mnemonics to remember angle names

The six degrees of freedom of a mobile unit are divided in two motional classes as described below.

Translational envelopes:

1. Moving forward and backward on the X-axis. (Surge)
2. Moving left and right on the Y-axis. (Sway)
3. Moving up and down on the Z-axis. (Heave)

Rotational envelopes:

1. Tilting side to side on the X-axis. (Roll)
2. Tilting forward and backward on the Y-axis. (Pitch)
3. Turning left and right on the Z-axis. (Yaw)

In terms of a headset, such as the kind used for virtual reality, rotational envelopes can also be thought of in the following terms:

• Pitch: Nodding "yes"
• Yaw: Shaking "no"
• Roll: Bobbling from side to side

Operational envelope types

There are three types of operational envelope in the Six degrees of freedom. These types are Direct, Semi-direct (conditional) and Non-direct, all regardless of the time remaining for the execution of the maneuver, the energy remaining to execute the maneuver and finally, if the motion is commanded via a biological entity (e.g. human), a robotical entity (e.g. computer) or both.

1. Direct type: Involved a degree can be commanded directly without particularly conditions and described as a normal operation. (An aileron on a basic airplane)
2. Semi-direct type: Involved a degree can be commanded when some specific conditions are met. (Reverse thrust on an aircraft)
3. Non-direct type: Involved a degree when is achieved via the interaction with its environment and cannot be commanded. (Pitching motion of a vessel at sea)

Transitional type also exists in some vehicles. For example, when the Space Shuttle operated in low Earth orbit, the craft was described as fully-direct-six because in the vacuum of space, its six degrees could be commanded via reaction wheels and RCS thrusters. However, when the Space Shuttle was descending through the Earth's atmosphere for its return, the fully-direct-six degrees were no longer applicable as it was gliding through the air using its wings and control surfaces.

Game controllers

Six degrees of freedom also refers to movement in video game-play.

First-person shooter (FPS) games generally provide five degrees of freedom: forwards/backwards, slide left/right, up/down (jump/crouch/lie), yaw (turn left/right), and pitch (look up/down). If the game allows leaning control, then some consider it a sixth DOF; however, this may not be completely accurate, as a lean is a limited partial rotation.

The term 6DOF has sometimes been used to describe games which allow freedom of movement, but do not necessarily meet the full 6DOF criteria. For example, Dead Space 2, and to a lesser extent, Homeworld and Zone Of The Enders allow freedom of movement.

Some examples of true 6DOF games, which allow independent control of all three movement axes and all three rotational axes, include Elite Dangerous, Shattered Horizon, the Descent franchise, the Everspace franchise, Retrovirus, Miner Wars, Space Engineers, Forsaken and Overload (from the same creators of Descent). The space MMO Vendetta Online also features 6 degrees of freedom.

Motion tracking hardware devices such as TrackIR and software-based apps like Eyeware Beam are used for 6DOF head tracking. This device often finds its places in flight simulators and other vehicle simulators that require looking around the cockpit to locate enemies or simply avoiding accidents in-game.

The acronym 3DOF, meaning movement in the three dimensions but not rotation, is sometimes encountered.

The Razer Hydra, a motion controller for PC, tracks position and rotation of two wired nunchucks, providing six degrees of freedom on each hand.

The SpaceOrb 360 is a 6DOF computer input device released in 1996 originally manufactured and sold by the SpaceTec IMC company (first bought by Labtec, which itself was later bought by Logitech). They now offer the 3Dconnexion range of 6DOF controllers, primarily targeting the professional CAD industry.

The controllers sold with HTC VIVE provide 6DOF information by the lighthouse, which adopts Time of Flight (TOF) technology to determine the position of controllers.

Coherence (physics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_(physics)

In physics, coherence expresses the potential for two waves to interfere. Two monochromatic beams from a single source always interfere. Physical sources are not strictly monochromatic: they may be partly coherent. Beams from different sources are mutually incoherent.

When interfering, two waves add together to create a wave of greater amplitude than either one (constructive interference) or subtract from each other to create a wave of minima which may be zero (destructive interference), depending on their relative phase. Constructive or destructive interference are limit cases, and two waves always interfere, even if the result of the addition is complicated or not remarkable.

Two waves with constant relative phase will be coherent. The amount of coherence can readily be measured by the interference visibility, which looks at the size of the interference fringes relative to the input waves (as the phase offset is varied); a precise mathematical definition of the degree of coherence is given by means of correlation functions. More generally, coherence describes the statistical similarity of a field (electromagnetic field, quantum wave packet etc.) at two points in space or time.

Qualitative concept

Two slits illuminated by one source show an interference pattern. The source is far to the left in the diagram, behind collimators that create a parallel beam. This combination ensures that a wave from the source strikes both slits at the same part of the wave cycle: the wave will have coherence.

Coherence controls the visibility or contrast of interference patterns. For example, visibility of the double slit experiment pattern requires that both slits be illuminated by a coherent wave as illustrated in the figure. Large sources without collimation or sources that mix many different frequencies will have lower visibility.

Coherence contains several distinct concepts. Spatial coherence describes the correlation (or predictable relationship) between waves at different points in space, either lateral or longitudinal. Temporal coherence describes the correlation between waves observed at different moments in time. Both are observed in the Michelson–Morley experiment and Young's interference experiment. Once the fringes are obtained in the Michelson interferometer, when one of the mirrors is moved away gradually from the beam-splitter, the time for the beam to travel increases and the fringes become dull and finally disappear, showing temporal coherence. Similarly, in a double-slit experiment, if the space between the two slits is increased, the coherence dies gradually and finally the fringes disappear, showing spatial coherence. In both cases, the fringe amplitude slowly disappears, as the path difference increases past the coherence length.

Coherence was originally conceived in connection with Thomas Young's double-slit experiment in optics but is now used in any field that involves waves, such as acoustics, electrical engineering, neuroscience, and quantum mechanics. The property of coherence is the basis for commercial applications such as holography, the Sagnac gyroscope, radio antenna arrays, optical coherence tomography and telescope interferometers (Astronomical optical interferometers and radio telescopes).

Mathematical definition

Further information: Degree of coherence

The coherence function between two signals ${\displaystyle x(t)}$ and ${\displaystyle y(t)}$ is defined as

${\displaystyle {\gamma }_{xy}^2(f)=\frac{|S_{xy}(f){|}^2}{S_{xx}(f)S_{yy}(f)}}$

where ${\displaystyle S_{xy}(f)}$ is the cross-spectral density of the signal and ${\displaystyle S_{xx}(f)}$ and ${\displaystyle S_{yy}(f)}$ are the power spectral density functions of ${\displaystyle x(t)}$ and ${\displaystyle y(t)}$, respectively. The cross-spectral density and the power spectral density are defined as the Fourier transforms of the cross-correlation and the autocorrelation signals, respectively. For instance, if the signals are functions of time, the cross-correlation is a measure of the similarity of the two signals as a function of the time lag relative to each other and the autocorrelation is a measure of the similarity of each signal with itself in different instants of time. In this case the coherence is a function of frequency. Analogously, if ${\displaystyle x(t)}$ and ${\displaystyle y(t)}$ are functions of space, the cross-correlation measures the similarity of two signals in different points in space and the autocorrelations the similarity of the signal relative to itself for a certain separation distance. In that case, coherence is a function of wavenumber (spatial frequency).

The coherence varies in the interval ${\displaystyle 0\le {\gamma }_{xy}^2(f)\le 1}$. If ${\displaystyle {\gamma }_{xy}^2(f)=1}$ it means that the signals are perfectly correlated or linearly related and if ${\displaystyle {\gamma }_{xy}^2(f)=0}$ they are totally uncorrelated. If a linear system is being measured, ${\displaystyle x(t)}$ being the input and ${\displaystyle y(t)}$ the output, the coherence function will be unitary all over the spectrum. However, if non-linearities are present in the system the coherence will vary in the limit given above.

Coherence and correlation

The coherence of two waves expresses how well correlated the waves are as quantified by the cross-correlation function. Cross-correlation quantifies the ability to predict the phase of the second wave by knowing the phase of the first. As an example, consider two waves perfectly correlated for all times (by using a monochromatic light source). At any time, the phase difference between the two waves will be constant. If, when they are combined, they exhibit perfect constructive interference, perfect destructive interference, or something in-between but with constant phase difference, then it follows that they are perfectly coherent. As will be discussed below, the second wave need not be a separate entity. It could be the first wave at a different time or position. In this case, the measure of correlation is the autocorrelation function (sometimes called self-coherence). Degree of correlation involves correlation functions.

Examples of wave-like states

These states are unified by the fact that their behavior is described by a wave equation or some generalization thereof.

• Waves in a rope (up and down) or slinky (compression and expansion)
• Surface waves in a liquid
• Electromagnetic signals (fields) in transmission lines
• Sound
• Radio waves and microwaves
• Light waves (optics)
• Matter waves associated with, for examples, electrons and atoms

In system with macroscopic waves, one can measure the wave directly. Consequently, its correlation with another wave can simply be calculated. However, in optics one cannot measure the electric field directly as it oscillates much faster than any detector's time resolution. Instead, one measures the intensity of the light. Most of the concepts involving coherence which will be introduced below were developed in the field of optics and then used in other fields. Therefore, many of the standard measurements of coherence are indirect measurements, even in fields where the wave can be measured directly.

Temporal coherence

Figure 1: The amplitude of a single frequency wave as a function of time t (red) and a copy of the same wave delayed by ${\displaystyle \tau }$ (blue). The coherence time of the wave is infinite since it is perfectly correlated with itself for all delays ${\displaystyle \tau }$.

Figure 2: The amplitude of a wave whose phase drifts significantly in time ${\displaystyle {\tau }_{\mathrm{c}}}$ as a function of time t (red) and a copy of the same wave delayed by ${\displaystyle 2\tau }$(green). At any particular time t the wave can interfere perfectly with its delayed copy. But, since half the time the red and green waves are in phase and half the time out of phase, when averaged over t any interference disappears at this delay.

Temporal coherence is the measure of the average correlation between the value of a wave and itself delayed by ${\displaystyle \tau }$, at any pair of times. Temporal coherence tells us how monochromatic a source is. In other words, it characterizes how well a wave can interfere with itself at a different time. The delay over which the phase or amplitude wanders by a significant amount (and hence the correlation decreases by significant amount) is defined as the coherence time ${\displaystyle {\tau }_{\mathrm{c}}}$. At a delay of ${\displaystyle \tau =0}$ the degree of coherence is perfect, whereas it drops significantly as the delay passes ${\displaystyle \tau ={\tau }_{\mathrm{c}}}$. The coherence length ${\displaystyle L_{\mathrm{c}}}$ is defined as the distance the wave travels in time ${\displaystyle {\tau }_{\mathrm{c}}}$.

The coherence time is not the time duration of the signal; the coherence length differs from the coherence area (see below).

The relationship between coherence time and bandwidth

The larger the bandwidth – range of frequencies Δf a wave contains – the faster the wave decorrelates (and hence the smaller ${\displaystyle {\tau }_{\mathrm{c}}}$ is)

${\displaystyle {\tau }_c\mathrm{\Delta }f\gtrsim 1.}$

Formally, this follows from the convolution theorem in mathematics, which relates the Fourier transform of the power spectrum (the intensity of each frequency) to its autocorrelation.

Narrow bandwidth lasers have long coherence lengths (up to hundreds of meters). For example, a stabilized and monomode helium–neon laser can easily produce light with coherence lengths of 300 m. Not all lasers have a highly monochromaticity, however (e.g. for a mode-locked Ti-sapphire laser, Δλ ≈ 2 nm – 70 nm).

LEDs are characterized by Δλ ≈ 50 nm, and tungsten filament lights exhibit Δλ ≈ 600 nm, so these sources have shorter coherence times than the most monochromatic lasers.

Examples of temporal coherence

Examples of temporal coherence include:

• A wave containing only a single frequency (monochromatic) is perfectly correlated with itself at all time delays, in accordance with the above relation. (See Figure 1)
• Conversely, a wave whose phase drifts quickly will have a short coherence time. (See Figure 2)
• Similarly, pulses (wave packets) of waves, which naturally have a broad range of frequencies, also have a short coherence time since the amplitude of the wave changes quickly. (See Figure 3)
• Finally, white light, which has a very broad range of frequencies, is a wave which varies quickly in both amplitude and phase. Since it consequently has a very short coherence time (just 10 periods or so), it is often called incoherent.

Holography requires light with a long coherence time. In contrast, optical coherence tomography, in its classical version, uses light with a short coherence time.

Measurement of temporal coherence

Figure 3: The amplitude of a wavepacket whose amplitude changes significantly in time ${\displaystyle {\tau }_{\mathrm{c}}}$ (red) and a copy of the same wave delayed by ${\displaystyle 2\tau }$(green) plotted as a function of time t. At any particular time the red and green waves are uncorrelated; one oscillates while the other is constant and so there will be no interference at this delay. Another way of looking at this is the wavepackets are not overlapped in time and so at any particular time there is only one nonzero field so no interference can occur.

Figure 4: The time-averaged intensity (blue) detected at the output of an interferometer plotted as a function of delay τ for the example waves in Figures 2 and 3. As the delay is changed by half a period, the interference switches between constructive and destructive. The black lines indicate the interference envelope, which gives the degree of coherence. Although the waves in Figures 2 and 3 have different time durations, they have the same coherence time.

In optics, temporal coherence is measured in an interferometer such as the Michelson interferometer or Mach–Zehnder interferometer. In these devices, a wave is combined with a copy of itself that is delayed by time ${\displaystyle \tau }$. A detector measures the time-averaged intensity of the light exiting the interferometer. The resulting visibility of the interference pattern (e.g. see Figure 4) gives the temporal coherence at delay ${\displaystyle \tau }$. Since for most natural light sources, the coherence time is much shorter than the time resolution of any detector, the detector itself does the time averaging. Consider the example shown in Figure 3. At a fixed delay, here ${\displaystyle 2\tau }$, an infinitely fast detector would measure an intensity that fluctuates significantly over a time t equal to ${\displaystyle \tau }$. In this case, to find the temporal coherence at ${\displaystyle 2{\tau }_{\mathrm{c}}}$, one would manually time-average the intensity.

Spatial coherence

In some systems, such as water waves or optics, wave-like states can extend over one or two dimensions. Spatial coherence describes the ability for two spatial points x₁ and x₂ in the extent of a wave to interfere when averaged over time. More precisely, the spatial coherence is the cross-correlation between two points in a wave for all times. If a wave has only 1 value of amplitude over an infinite length, it is perfectly spatially coherent. The range of separation between the two points over which there is significant interference defines the diameter of the coherence area, ${\displaystyle A_{\mathrm{c}}}$, (Coherence length ${\displaystyle l_{\mathrm{c}}}$, often a feature of a source, is usually an industrial term related to the coherence time of the source, not the coherence area in the medium.) ${\displaystyle A_{\mathrm{c}}}$ is the relevant type of coherence for the Young's double-slit interferometer. It is also used in optical imaging systems and particularly in various types of astronomy telescopes. Sometimes people also use "spatial coherence" to refer to the visibility when a wave-like state is combined with a spatially shifted copy of itself.

Examples

• Spatial coherence
• 
  Figure 5: A plane wave with an infinite coherence length.
• 
  Figure 6: A wave with a varying profile (wavefront) and infinite coherence length.
• 
  Figure 7: A wave with a varying profile (wavefront) and finite coherence length.
• 
  Figure 8: A wave with finite coherence area is incident on a pinhole (small aperture). The wave will diffract out of the pinhole. Far from the pinhole the emerging spherical wavefronts are approximately flat. The coherence area is now infinite while the coherence length is unchanged.
• 
  Figure 9: A wave with infinite coherence area is combined with a spatially shifted copy of itself. Some sections in the wave interfere constructively and some will interfere destructively. Averaging over these sections, a detector with length D will measure reduced interference visibility. For example, a misaligned Mach–Zehnder interferometer will do this.

Consider a tungsten light-bulb filament. Different points in the filament emit light independently and have no fixed phase-relationship. In detail, at any point in time the profile of the emitted light is going to be distorted. The profile will change randomly over the coherence time ${\displaystyle {\tau }_c}$. Since for a white-light source such as a light-bulb ${\displaystyle {\tau }_c}$ is small, the filament is considered a spatially incoherent source. In contrast, a radio antenna array, has large spatial coherence because antennas at opposite ends of the array emit with a fixed phase-relationship. Light waves produced by a laser often have high temporal and spatial coherence (though the degree of coherence depends strongly on the exact properties of the laser). Spatial coherence of laser beams also manifests itself as speckle patterns and diffraction fringes seen at the edges of shadow.

Holography requires temporally and spatially coherent light. Its inventor, Dennis Gabor, produced successful holograms more than ten years before lasers were invented. To produce coherent light he passed the monochromatic light from an emission line of a mercury-vapor lamp through a pinhole spatial filter.

In February 2011 it was reported that helium atoms, cooled to near absolute zero / Bose–Einstein condensate state, can be made to flow and behave as a coherent beam as occurs in a laser. Moreover, the coherence properties of the output light from multimode nonlinear optical structures were found to obey the optical thermodynamic theory.

Spectral coherence of short pulses

Figure 10: Waves of different frequencies interfere to form a localized pulse if they are coherent.

Figure 11: Spectrally incoherent light interferes to form continuous light with a randomly varying phase and amplitude

Waves of different frequencies (in light these are different colours) can interfere to form a pulse if they have a fixed relative phase-relationship (see Fourier transform). Conversely, if waves of different frequencies are not coherent, then, when combined, they create a wave that is continuous in time (e.g. white light or white noise). The temporal duration of the pulse ${\displaystyle \mathrm{\Delta }t}$ is limited by the spectral bandwidth of the light ${\displaystyle \mathrm{\Delta }f}$ according to:

${\displaystyle \mathrm{\Delta }f\mathrm{\Delta }t\ge 1}$,

which follows from the properties of the Fourier transform and results in Küpfmüller's uncertainty principle (for quantum particles it also results in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle).

If the phase depends linearly on the frequency (i.e. ${\displaystyle \theta (f)\propto f}$) then the pulse will have the minimum time duration for its bandwidth (a transform-limited pulse), otherwise it is chirped (see dispersion).

Measurement of spectral coherence

Measurement of the spectral coherence of light requires a nonlinear optical interferometer, such as an intensity optical correlator, frequency-resolved optical gating (FROG), or spectral phase interferometry for direct electric-field reconstruction (SPIDER).

Polarization and coherence

Further information: Unpolarized light

Light also has a polarization, which is the direction in which the electric or magnetic field oscillates. Unpolarized light is composed of incoherent light waves with random polarization angles. The electric field of the unpolarized light wanders in every direction and changes in phase over the coherence time of the two light waves. An absorbing polarizer rotated to any angle will always transmit half the incident intensity when averaged over time.

If the electric field wanders by a smaller amount the light will be partially polarized so that at some angle, the polarizer will transmit more than half the intensity. If a wave is combined with an orthogonally polarized copy of itself delayed by less than the coherence time, partially polarized light is created.

The polarization of a light beam is represented by a vector in the Poincaré sphere. For polarized light the end of the vector lies on the surface of the sphere, whereas the vector has zero length for unpolarized light. The vector for partially polarized light lies within the sphere.

Quantum coherence

Further information: Quantum decoherence

The signature property of quantum matter waves, wave interference, relies on coherence. While initially patterned after optical coherence, the theory and experimental understanding of quantum coherence greatly expanded the topic.

Matter wave coherence

The simplest extension of optical coherence applies optical concepts to matter waves. For example, when performing the double-slit experiment with atoms in place of light waves, a sufficiently collimated atomic beam creates a coherent atomic wave-function illuminating both slits. Each slit acts as a separate but in-phase beam contributing to the intensity pattern on a screen. These two contributions give rise to an intensity pattern of bright bands due to constructive interference, interlaced with dark bands due to destructive interference, on a downstream screen. Many variations of this experiment have been demonstrated.

As with light, transverse coherence (across the direction of propagation) of matter waves is controlled by collimation. Because light, at all frequencies, travels the same velocity, longitudinal and temporal coherence are linked; in matter waves these are independent. In matter waves, velocity (energy) selection controls longitudinal coherence and pulsing or chopping controls temporal coherence.

Quantum optics

The discovery of the Hanbury Brown and Twiss effect – correlation of light upon coincidence – triggered Glauber's creation of uniquely quantum coherence analysis. Classical optical coherence becomes a classical limit for first-order quantum coherence; higher degree of coherence leads to many phenomena in quantum optics.

Macroscopic quantum coherence

Macroscopic scale quantum coherence leads to novel phenomena, the so-called macroscopic quantum phenomena. For instance, the laser, superconductivity and superfluidity are examples of highly coherent quantum systems whose effects are evident at the macroscopic scale. The macroscopic quantum coherence (off-diagonal long-range order, ODLRO) for superfluidity, and laser light, is related to first-order (1-body) coherence/ODLRO, while superconductivity is related to second-order coherence/ODLRO. (For fermions, such as electrons, only even orders of coherence/ODLRO are possible.) For bosons, a Bose–Einstein condensate is an example of a system exhibiting macroscopic quantum coherence through a multiple occupied single-particle state.

The classical electromagnetic field exhibits macroscopic quantum coherence. The most obvious example is the carrier signal for radio and TV. They satisfy Glauber's quantum description of coherence.

Quantum coherence as a resource

Recently M. B. Plenio and co-workers constructed an operational formulation of quantum coherence as a resource theory. They introduced coherence monotones analogous to the entanglement monotones. Quantum coherence has been shown to be equivalent to quantum entanglement in the sense that coherence can be faithfully described as entanglement, and conversely that each entanglement measure corresponds to a coherence measure.

Applications

Holography

Coherent superpositions of optical wave fields include holography. Holographic photographs have been used as art and as difficult to forge security labels.

Non-optical wave fields

Further applications concern the coherent superposition of non-optical wave fields. In quantum mechanics for example one considers a probability field, which is related to the wave function ${\displaystyle \psi (\mathbf{r})}$ (interpretation: density of the probability amplitude). Here the applications concern, among others, the future technologies of quantum computing and the already available technology of quantum cryptography. Additionally the problems of the following subchapter are treated.

Modal analysis

Coherence is used to check the quality of the transfer functions (FRFs) being measured. Low coherence can be caused by poor signal to noise ratio, and/or inadequate frequency resolution.