Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:57:19.485Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

X.—Remarks on Coincidence Experiments with Visible Light*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 February 2012

Z. Bay  and
P. S. Farago
Z. Bay
Affiliation:
National Bureau of Standards, Washington, D.C.
P. S. Farago
Affiliation:
Department of Natural Philosophy, University of Edinburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Synopsis

After the detection of correlations in two coherent light beams by Hanbury Brown and Twiss, objections were raised by Brannen and Ferguson on the basis of the experiments of Adam, Janossy and Varga and their own experiments in which no correlations were detected. It is pointed out here that the different groups were looking for two entirely different effects, one being quadratic, the other one linear in the number of photons involved; the quadratic effect (discovered by Hanbury Brown and Twiss) is in agreement with quantum theory while the linear effect is not. It was shown by Purcell and by Hanbury Brown and Twiss that the choice of parameters in the experiments which gave negative results was inadequate to show the quadratic effect. It is shown in this paper that their experiments were also inadequate to decide between the existence or nonexistence of the linear effect.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh Section A: Mathematics , Volume 66 , Issue 2 , 1962 , pp. 111 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Society of Edinburgh 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References to Literature

Adam, A., Janossy, L., and Varga, P., 1954. Magy. Fiz. Foly., 2, 499.Google Scholar
Adam, A., Janossy, L., and Varga, P. 1955. Ada Phys. Hung., 4, 301.Google Scholar
Bothe, W., 1926. Z. Phys., 37, 547.Google Scholar
Brannen, E., and Ferguson, H. I. S., 1956. Nature, Lond., 178, 481.Google Scholar
Brannen, E., Ferguson, H. I. S., and Wehlau, W., 1958. Canad. J. Phys., 36, 871.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brannen, E., Hunt, F. R., Adlington, R. H., and Nicholls, R. W., 1955. Nature, Lond., 175, 810.Google Scholar
Hanbury Brown, R., and Twiss, R. Q., 1954. Phil. Mag., 45, 663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanbury Brown, R., and Twiss, R. Q. 1956a. Nature, Lond., 177, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanbury Brown, R., and Twiss, R. Q. 1956b. Nature, Lond., 178, 1447.Google Scholar
Hanbury Brown, R., and Twiss, R. Q. 1957a. Proc. Roy. Soc, A, 242, 300.Google Scholar
Hanbury Brown, R., and Twiss, R. Q. 1957b. Proc. Roy. Soc, A, 243, 291.Google Scholar
Mandel, L., 1958. Proc. Phys. Soc. Lond., 72, 1037.Google Scholar
Purcell, E. M., 1956. Nature, Lond., 178, 1449.Google Scholar
Twiss, R. Q., and Little, A. G., 1959. Aust.J. Phys., 12, 76.Google Scholar
Twiss, R. Q., Little, A. G., and Hanbury Brown, R., 1957. Nature, Lond., 180, 324.Google Scholar