Talk:Mach–Zehnder interferometer

message: Are there always two detectors in a Mach-Zender? I'm pretty. You only really need one, perhaps depending on the application. -- DrBob 17:03, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a full quantum description of the action of the Mach-Zehnder interferometer should be added in the main article. Danko Georgiev MD 12:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that this article needs more rigor.  Is there a flag that we can set to help it get picked up by one of the clean-up projects? Cavebear42 (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I'd have to agree here.  The (very large) picture at the end doesn't seem to fit into the article at all and lacks explanation.  It should either be expanded or removed. Cavebear42 (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did some cleanup work on the article. I added figures, and modified and provided an explanation for the figure that you found did not fit in. I would appreciate further suggestions for improvement. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 12:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

message: Here are some points I noticed when reading the article, which might help improving it further:
# General
## Avoid excessive use of "we". In parts this looks a bit like textbook style, did anybody check for copypaste problems?
## A phase is an angle, not a (wave)length. For example, a phase shift of π corresponds to half a wavelength, but it is π.
## Bulleted lists are nice where they make sense, but having a bullet in front of each paragraph doesn't help much.
# Topics that could be covered/expanded if material is found
## Other types of beams (electrons, atoms?)
## Other, not so fundamental applications?
## History
#Lede
#:Is a bit shaky ("the two beams caused by a sample"?). Could be longer, could use a short introduction for non-experts.
#Introduction
##Start out explaining what it is and how it works, not with specific details (maybe re-arrange with material from the Set-up section). Introduce concepts like appearance of fringes or test cell before using them.
##"Note also the precise orientation of the beam splitters." No, I don't, how should I? What's precise about it?
##"when an extended source is used" or when the beam is expanded, like in the figure.
##Figure 1: The text would fit better in the main article. "we imagine" ??
##Figure 2: I don't get what that's saying.
##What is a "well behaved response"?
#How it works
##Find a more encyclopedic section title
##The beam splitters don't have to be half-silvered, dielectric ones are mentioned later
##One detector can be enough
##The second bullet point in set-up is hard to understand
##In "Caveat": it's not clear which paths are equal or not and what energy conservation has to do with it.
These are of course just suggestions, some points might be not so important and there might be room for improvement elsewhere. I hope it helps anyway. — HHHIPPO 12:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for improvement 

message: The section on Counterfactual measurement should be corrected.
The question in the text and the caption of Figure 4 is ill-posed.
There is nothing paradoxical about photons moving along the upper
path being evenly detected by A and B when the lower path is interrupted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.112.59.69 (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for improvement 

message: Could someone explain what is counterfactual or paradox about this experiment. It has the same simple classical explanation as a double slit where one slit is closed. Mirror M blocks one wave, so there is no (destructive) interference at A anymore, so A can measure photons again. DParlevliet (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester. Through straightforward modifications of the illustrated apparatus, it is possible to achieve arbitrarily close to 100% efficiency distinguishing between live and dud bombs, without photons ever being absorbed by live bombs setting them off. Does classical wave mechanics predict anything remotely comparable to this scenario, which involves measuring the properties of the bombs without any interactions with photons? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The bomb tester is a another paragraph. I asked about the "Counterfactual measurement". DParlevliet (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are very closely related. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Counterfactual measurement chapter

message: The article talks about localized and nonlocalized fringe patterns, but what does that mean? A fringe pattern is shown in eg the flame images in the article. Is it localized? nonlocalized? What would change if it were the other kind? Johnjbarton (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:   nonlocalized fringe pattern