I Mirrors, phase shifts, and position

Talisman
Messages
94
Reaction score
6
I'm confused about something regarding phase shifts but I'm not sure I've pinned down what.

I had always thought of a mirror as introducing a global phase shift of π in the position basis, but I only now realize that this makes no sense: of course -A ⊗ B = A ⊗ -B, so a global phase shift is not specific to any particular observable. This is essentially the only operation that works this way.

Now, suppose you send a photon through a beam splitter, and in the upper path you place a mirror. This effectively introduces a relative phase shift between the two path components. But I cannot think of a way to use a mirror to introduce a relative polarization phase shift (which is normally accomplished with a waveplate). I can put a mirror in one place but not another; I cannot put it "in one polarization but not the other."

Why should the unique device that imparts a global phase shift (i.e., that treats all observables the same) "treat position specially?" I'm not sure my question makes any sense, but hopefully someone recognizes the confusion that's lurking here.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
It's as in classical electrodynamics (Fresnel's Laws): A reflected em. wave gets a phase shift by ##\pi## if it's entering a optically denser medium (i.e., a medium with larger index of refraction like, e.g., from air to glass). For a very good and careful treatment, see the excellent textbook on QT:

B. Schumacher, M. Westmorland, Quantum Processes, Systems, and Information, Cambridge-University Press (2010)
 
vanhees71 said:
It's as in classical electrodynamics (Fresnel's Laws): A reflected em. wave gets a phase shift by ##\pi## if it's entering a optically denser medium (i.e., a medium with larger index of refraction like, e.g., from air to glass). For a very good and careful treatment, see the excellent textbook on QT:

B. Schumacher, M. Westmorland, Quantum Processes, Systems, and Information, Cambridge-University Press (2010)

Sorry, I just got around to responding. Thanks for the reference, it's very helpful. But my confusion remains.

So the operation of a mirror is to introduce a phase shift of ##\pi## -- in other words, ##|\psi\rangle \mapsto -|\psi\rangle##. What's weird to me is that this operation is not specific to any observable, or indeed, any particle: if we write the universal wave function as ##|\psi\rangle \otimes |\phi_{world}\rangle##, the mirror turns it into ##-|\psi\rangle \otimes |\phi_{world}\rangle = |\psi\rangle \otimes -|\phi_{world}\rangle##. In other words, we can't tell if we phase-shifted the photon's position, its polarization, or indeed, the entire universe's state vector.

Is that correct, and if so, how should I interpret it?
 
I'm aware that global phase is physically irrelevant, but something about this result still feels weird. I can't put my finger on why though.
 
Me neither. It's just the solution of Maxwell's equations in linear-response approximation with the correct boundary conditions, and this translates to the quantized radiation field due to the linearity of the equations.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
I am reading WHAT IS A QUANTUM FIELD THEORY?" A First Introduction for Mathematicians. The author states (2.4 Finite versus Continuous Models) that the use of continuity causes the infinities in QFT: 'Mathematicians are trained to think of physical space as R3. But our continuous model of physical space as R3 is of course an idealization, both at the scale of the very large and at the scale of the very small. This idealization has proved to be very powerful, but in the case of Quantum...
Back
Top