pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.25738 · v1 · pith:5GEAGBZZnew · submitted 2026-05-25 · 🪐 quant-ph

Wave-particle duality of unpolarized photons

Naofumi Abe , Keiichi Edamatsu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 21:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords wave-particle dualitywhich-way markerdistinguishabilityvisibilitymixed statesunpolarized photonssingle photonsinterferometer
0
0 comments X

The pith

A generalized distinguishability measure makes the wave-particle duality relation hold with equality for mixed photon states.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The standard wave-particle duality relation V squared plus D squared less than or equal to one fails to reach equality when the which-way marker inside the photon is in a mixed state, because the usual distinguishability misses part of the path information. The authors treat any mixed marker state as the reduced state of a larger pure state entangled with an external environment and define a new distinguishability D that counts the total information shared with that environment. This D can be extracted from measurements performed only on the photon. When tested with true single photons prepared in the completely mixed unpolarized state, the new D and the measured visibility satisfy V squared plus D squared equals one.

Core claim

Within a purification framework the mixed which-way marker is regarded as the reduced state of an entangled pure state, and the generalized distinguishability D is defined to include the full which-path information carried jointly by the marker and the environment. This D is experimentally accessible from the photon alone and yields the saturated relation V squared plus D squared equals one for both pure and mixed marker states.

What carries the argument

The purification-based generalized distinguishability D that incorporates which-path information shared between the mixed which-way marker and its purifying environment.

If this is right

  • The duality relation becomes an equality for every state of the which-way marker, including the completely mixed case.
  • Distinguishability can be quantified from the photon system without any direct access to the environment.
  • The same definition of D applies uniformly whether the marker begins in a pure or mixed state.
  • Single-photon experiments with unpolarized light now confirm the saturated relation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same purification construction could be applied to other internal degrees of freedom that become mixed through interaction with uncontrolled surroundings.
  • The result indicates that any apparent shortfall in duality for mixed markers stems from an incomplete accounting of information rather than a change in the underlying quantum limit.
  • The framework supplies a concrete operational procedure that could be checked in multi-particle or higher-dimensional interferometers.

Load-bearing premise

Any mixed which-way marker state can be treated as the reduced state of a pure entangled state that includes an external environment.

What would settle it

A measurement of visibility V and the new D on unpolarized photons in which V squared plus D squared is found to be less than one would show that the saturation does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.25738 by Keiichi Edamatsu, Naofumi Abe.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Michelson interferometer setup that we used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The visibility 𝑉, the conventional path distinguishability 𝐷c, the redefined path distinguishability 𝐷, and 𝑉 2 + 𝐷 2 are depicted as functions of 𝜃1 (the fast axis angle of QWP1 in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Interference fringes (𝐺 (1) ) observed in the experiments using unpolarized single photons. (a) 𝐺 (1) observed at OUT1 without QWP0 and QWP1. (b) 𝐺 (1) observed at OUT0 (yellow) and OUT1 (purple) when WPI is completely absent (𝜃0 = 𝜃1 = 0 ◦ ). (c) Same as (b) but observed at APD10 (blue) and APD11 (red), which detect photons of OUT1 on the circular polarization bases. (d) 𝐺 (1) observed at OUT0 (yellow), O… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the measured and theoretical values of the visibility [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Photons in a two-path interferometer best embody wave-particle duality (WPD), which is a core concept of quantum theory. So far, the WPD relation is commonly written as $V^2+D^2 \leq 1$, where $V$ is the interference fringe visibility and $D$ is path distinguishability, i.e., the distinguishability of which path a photon passed. This inequality is saturated only when the which-way marker (WWM), which embodies which-path information (WPI) via an internal degree of freedom of photons, such as polarization, is in a pure state. For mixed-state WWM, conventionally defined distinguishability underestimates the amount of WPI and thus does not saturate the WPD relation. Here, we introduce a generalized measure of distinguishability $D$ that properly quantifies the WPI and saturates the WPD relation for all pure- and mixed-state WWM within a purification-based framework. To this end, mixed-state WWM is treated as a result of entanglement formation between the WWM and an external degree of freedom, e.g., environment, and $D$ is defined so that it incorporates the total WPI shared between the WWM and the environment. We show that $D$ thus defined is experimentally quantifiable, independently of $V$, without access to the environment. We experimentally evaluate $V$ and $D$ using true single photons generated in the completely mixed (unpolarized) state, and thus verify the saturated WPD relation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that the standard wave-particle duality relation V² + D² ≤ 1 is not saturated for mixed-state which-way markers (WWM) because conventional D underestimates which-path information (WPI). It introduces a generalized distinguishability D within a purification framework, treating the mixed WWM as the reduced state of an entangled pure state with an environment, such that D incorporates the total WPI shared with the environment and saturates V² + D² = 1 for all pure and mixed WWMs. The authors further assert that this D is experimentally measurable from the photon alone (without environment access) and verify the saturated relation using true single photons prepared in the completely mixed (unpolarized) state.

Significance. A well-defined, purification-independent D that saturates the duality for mixed states and is measurable from the system alone would meaningfully extend the quantitative WPD relation beyond pure-state WWMs. The manuscript does not yet demonstrate invariance under choice of purification or supply the explicit experimental protocol and data needed to substantiate the measurement claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: D is explicitly 'defined so that it incorporates the total WPI shared between the WWM and the environment' in order to saturate the WPD relation. This construction makes saturation follow from the definition rather than an independent derivation; an explicit formula for D (presumably in the main text) must be shown to be invariant under non-unique purifications of the mixed WWM.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (experimental claim): The verification that 'V and D [are] experimentally evaluate[d] using true single photons generated in the completely mixed (unpolarized) state' is asserted without any reported data, error bars, measurement protocol, or section reference. Because the central claim is the saturation for mixed states, the absence of these details is load-bearing.
  3. The purification-based definition of D must be shown to yield the same numerical value for any choice of environment (i.e., any purification of the same reduced WWM state). No argument or equation establishing this invariance is referenced in the provided text, leaving open whether D is uniquely defined.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would be clearer if it stated the explicit functional form of the new D (e.g., in terms of the joint pure-state entanglement) rather than only describing its intended property.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, clarifying the structure of our arguments and indicating where revisions will strengthen the presentation. We agree that explicit demonstrations of invariance and clearer experimental pointers are needed.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: D is explicitly 'defined so that it incorporates the total WPI shared between the WWM and the environment' in order to saturate the WPD relation. This construction makes saturation follow from the definition rather than an independent derivation; an explicit formula for D (presumably in the main text) must be shown to be invariant under non-unique purifications of the mixed WWM.

    Authors: We agree that the saturation property follows directly from the purification-based construction of D. The central technical contribution is therefore the demonstration that this D is uniquely determined by the reduced state of the WWM alone. In the main text we derive an explicit expression for D in terms of the eigenvalues of the WWM density operator; because this expression depends only on the reduced state, it is automatically invariant under choice of purification. To make the argument fully self-contained we will add a short subsection that explicitly verifies invariance by comparing two distinct purifications of the same mixed WWM and showing that the numerical value of D is identical. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (experimental claim): The verification that 'V and D [are] experimentally evaluate[d] using true single photons generated in the completely mixed (unpolarized) state' is asserted without any reported data, error bars, measurement protocol, or section reference. Because the central claim is the saturation for mixed states, the absence of these details is load-bearing.

    Authors: The experimental protocol, raw visibility and distinguishability data, and error analysis are contained in Section IV together with the associated figures. The abstract statement is therefore a summary rather than a standalone claim. To improve accessibility we will insert a parenthetical reference to Section IV in the abstract and add a concise one-paragraph summary of the measurement procedure (including how D is extracted from polarization tomography on the photon alone) at the end of the abstract. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [—] The purification-based definition of D must be shown to yield the same numerical value for any choice of environment (i.e., any purification of the same reduced WWM state). No argument or equation establishing this invariance is referenced in the provided text, leaving open whether D is uniquely defined.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the provided text does not contain an explicit cross-reference or dedicated equation block proving invariance. As noted above, the explicit formula for D is written solely in terms of the WWM reduced density matrix, which guarantees uniqueness. We will add both the formula and a short invariance proof (comparing two purifications) with an equation reference in the abstract and introduction so that readers can locate the argument immediately. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Generalized D defined to saturate V² + D² = 1 by incorporating total WPI with environment

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Abstract]
    "Here, we introduce a generalized measure of distinguishability D that properly quantifies the WPI and saturates the WPD relation for all pure- and mixed-state WWM within a purification-based framework. To this end, mixed-state WWM is treated as a result of entanglement formation between the WWM and an external degree of freedom, e.g., environment, and D is defined so that it incorporates the total WPI shared between the WWM and the environment."

    D is constructed inside the purification framework specifically so that it includes the joint WPI with the environment, thereby forcing V² + D² = 1 to hold for mixed states. The saturation is therefore true by the definition of D rather than derived from an independent argument about the interferometer or the reduced state.

full rationale

The paper's core claim is that a new distinguishability D saturates the WPD relation for mixed-state WWMs. However, the abstract explicitly states that D is introduced within a purification framework and 'defined so that it incorporates the total WPI shared between the WWM and the environment' precisely in order to achieve saturation. This reduces the saturation result to a definitional choice rather than an independent derivation from the physics of the interferometer or the mixed state. No quoted equation demonstrates that the same numerical D emerges invariantly from multiple purifications or from a measurement protocol independent of the definition's intent to saturate.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard quantum-information purification theorem for mixed states and on the authors' specific definition of the new D; no free parameters or new physical entities are introduced beyond the measure itself.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Any mixed state of the which-way marker can be realized as the partial trace of a pure entangled state with an ancillary environment system
    Invoked to justify treating mixed WWM as entanglement with environment so that total WPI can be defined.
invented entities (1)
  • generalized distinguishability D no independent evidence
    purpose: To quantify the total which-path information including the portion shared with the environment
    Introduced in the paper's purification framework to achieve saturation for mixed states.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5800 in / 1424 out tokens · 40893 ms · 2026-06-29T21:34:15.580601+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Single-photon wavefront-splitting interference,

    V. Jacques, E. Wu, T. Toury,et al., “Single-photon wavefront-splitting interference,” Eur. Phys. J. D35, 561–565 (2005)

    2005

  2. [2]

    Observingmomentumdisturbanceindouble-slit‘which-way’measurements,

    Y.Xiao,H.M.Wiseman,J.-S.Xu,et al.,“Observingmomentumdisturbanceindouble-slit‘which-way’measurements,” Sci. Adv.5, eaav9547 (2019)

    2019

  3. [3]

    Controlled double-slit electron diffraction,

    R. Bach, D. Pope, S.-H. Liou, and H. Batelaan, “Controlled double-slit electron diffraction,” New J. Phys.15, 033018 (2013)

    2013

  4. [4]

    Single-and double-slit diffraction of neutrons,

    A. Zeilinger, R. Gähler, C. Shull,et al., “Single-and double-slit diffraction of neutrons,” Rev. Mod. Phys.60, 1067–1073 (1988)

    1988

  5. [5]

    Young’s double-slit experiment with atoms: A simple atom interferometer,

    O. Carnal and J. Mlynek, “Young’s double-slit experiment with atoms: A simple atom interferometer,” Phys. Rev. Lett.66, 2689–2692 (1991)

    1991

  6. [6]

    Quantum interference experiments with large molecules,

    O. Nairz, M. Arndt, and A. Zeilinger, “Quantum interference experiments with large molecules,” Am. J. Phys.71, 319–325 (2003)

    2003

  7. [7]

    Fringe visibility and which-way information: An inequality,

    B.-G. Englert, “Fringe visibility and which-way information: An inequality,” Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 2154–2157 (1996)

    1996

  8. [8]

    Remarks on some basic issues in quantum mechanics,

    B.-G. Englert, “Remarks on some basic issues in quantum mechanics,” Zeitschrift für Naturforschung A54, 11–32 (1999)

    1999

  9. [9]

    On the connection between complementarity and uncertainty principles in the Mach-Zehnder interferometric setting,

    G. Bosyk, M. Portesi, F. Holik, and A. Plastino, “On the connection between complementarity and uncertainty principles in the Mach-Zehnder interferometric setting,” Phys. Scr.87, 065002 (2013)

    2013

  10. [10]

    Hidden coherences and two-state systems,

    F. De Zela, “Hidden coherences and two-state systems,” Optica5, 243–250 (2018)

    2018

  11. [11]

    Experimental display of generalized wave-particle duality,

    M. Jara, J. Marrou, M. Uria,et al., “Experimental display of generalized wave-particle duality,” Opt. Express30, 34740–34749 (2022)

    2022

  12. [12]

    Experimental display of the extended polarization coherence theorem,

    P. Sánchez, J. Gonzales, V. Avalos,et al., “Experimental display of the extended polarization coherence theorem,” Opt. Lett.44, 1052–1055 (2019)

    2019

  13. [13]

    Quantitative wave-particle duality and nonerasing quantum erasure,

    P. D. Schwindt, P. G. Kwiat, and B.-G. Englert, “Quantitative wave-particle duality and nonerasing quantum erasure,” Phys. Rev. A60, 4285–4290 (1999)

    1999

  14. [14]

    Relation between wave-particle duality and quantum uncertainty,

    H.-Y. Liu, J.-H. Huang, J.-R. Gao,et al., “Relation between wave-particle duality and quantum uncertainty,” Phys. Rev. A85, 022106 (2012)

    2012

  15. [15]

    ExperimentalrealizationofWheeler’sdelayed-choicegedankenexperiment,

    V.Jacques,E.Wu,F.Grosshans,et al.,“ExperimentalrealizationofWheeler’sdelayed-choicegedankenexperiment,” Science315, 966–968 (2007)

    2007

  16. [16]

    Delayed-choice test of quantum complementarity with interfering single photons,

    V. Jacques, E. Wu, F. Grosshans,et al., “Delayed-choice test of quantum complementarity with interfering single photons,” Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 220402 (2008)

    2008

  17. [17]

    Entanglement-enabled delayed-choice experiment,

    F. Kaiser, T. Coudreau, P. Milman,et al., “Entanglement-enabled delayed-choice experiment,” Science338, 637–640 (2012)

    2012

  18. [18]

    Delayed-choice gedanken experiments and their realizations,

    X.-s. Ma, J. Kofler, and A. Zeilinger, “Delayed-choice gedanken experiments and their realizations,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 015005 (2016)

    2016

  19. [19]

    Afshar’s experiment does not show a violation of complementarity,

    O. Steuernagel, “Afshar’s experiment does not show a violation of complementarity,” Found. Phys.37, 1370–1385 (2007)

    2007

  20. [20]

    Illustration of quantum complementarity using single photons interfering on a grating,

    V. Jacques, N. Lai, A. Dréau,et al., “Illustration of quantum complementarity using single photons interfering on a grating,” New J. Phys.10, 123009 (2008)

    2008

  21. [21]

    Fringe visibility and which-way information in an atom interferometer,

    S. Dürr, T. Nonn, and G. Rempe, “Fringe visibility and which-way information in an atom interferometer,” Phys. Rev. Lett.81, 5705–5709 (1998)

    1998

  22. [22]

    Measurement of geometric phase for mixed states using single photon interferometry,

    M. Ericsson, D. Achilles, J. T. Barreiro,et al., “Measurement of geometric phase for mixed states using single photon interferometry,” Phys. Rev. Lett.94, 050401 (2005)

    2005

  23. [23]

    Predictability, distinguishability, and entanglement,

    T. Qureshi, “Predictability, distinguishability, and entanglement,” Opt. Lett.46, 492–495 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    Dynamically unpolarized single-photon source in diamond with intrinsic randomness,

    N. Abe, Y. Mitsumori, M. Sadgrove, and K. Edamatsu, “Dynamically unpolarized single-photon source in diamond with intrinsic randomness,” Sci. Rep.7, 46722 (2017)

    2017

  25. [25]

    Polarization coherence theorem,

    J. Eberly, X.-F. Qian, and A. Vamivakas, “Polarization coherence theorem,” Optica4, 1113–1114 (2017)

    2017

  26. [26]

    Entanglement limits duality and vice versa,

    X.-F. Qian, A. Vamivakas, and J. Eberly, “Entanglement limits duality and vice versa,” Optica5, 942–947 (2018)

    2018

  27. [27]

    Experimental observation of the polarization coherence theorem,

    B. Kanseri and K. R. Sethuraj, “Experimental observation of the polarization coherence theorem,” Opt. Lett.44, 159–162 (2019)

    2019

  28. [28]

    Turning off quantum duality,

    X.-F. Qian, K. Konthasinghe, S. K. Manikandan,et al., “Turning off quantum duality,” Phys. Rev. Res.2, 012016 (2020)

    2020

  29. [29]

    Entanglement of a pair of quantum bits,

    S. A. Hill and W. K. Wootters, “Entanglement of a pair of quantum bits,” Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 5022–5025 (1997)

    1997

  30. [30]

    Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits,

    W. K. Wootters, “Entanglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits,” Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 2245–2248 (1998)

    1998

  31. [31]

    Universal state inversion and concurrence in arbitrary dimensions,

    P. Rungta, V. Bužek, C. M. Caves,et al., “Universal state inversion and concurrence in arbitrary dimensions,” Phys. Rev. A64, 042315 (2001)

    2001

  32. [32]

    Relationship between entanglement and polarization in tripartite states,

    C. R. M. Montenegro La Torre, Y. Yugra, and F. De Zela, “Relationship between entanglement and polarization in tripartite states,” J. Opt.24, 105202 (2022)

    2022

  33. [33]

    Wave–particle duality in tripartite systems,

    J. P. Marrou, C. M. L. Torre, M. Jara, and F. D. Zela, “Wave–particle duality in tripartite systems,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A40, C22–C29 (2023)

    2023

  34. [34]

    Quantification and observation of genuine three-party coherence: A solution based on classical optics,

    X.-F. Qian, S. A. Wadood, A. N. Vamivakas, and J. H. Eberly, “Quantification and observation of genuine three-party coherence: A solution based on classical optics,” Phys. Rev. A102, 062424 (2020)

    2020

  35. [35]

    Coherence constraints and the last hidden optical coherence,

    X.-F. Qian, T. Malhotra, A. N. Vamivakas, and J. H. Eberly, “Coherence constraints and the last hidden optical coherence,” Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 153901 (2016)

    2016

  36. [36]

    Precise creation, characterization, and manipulation of single optical qubits,

    N. Peters, J. Altepeter, E. Jeffrey,et al., “Precise creation, characterization, and manipulation of single optical qubits,” Quantum Inf. Comput.3, 503–517 (2003)

    2003

  37. [37]

    I. V. Hertel and C.-P. Schulz,Atoms, Molecules and Optical Physics 2(Springer, 2015), Chap. 2

    2015

  38. [38]

    Coherence length of photons from a single quantum system,

    F. Jelezko, A. Volkmer, I. Popa,et al., “Coherence length of photons from a single quantum system,” Phys. Rev. A 67, 041802 (2003)

    2003

  39. [39]

    Experimental demonstration of complementarity with single photons,

    C. Braig, P. Zarda, C. Kurtsiefer, and H. Weinfurter, “Experimental demonstration of complementarity with single photons,” Appl. Phys. B76, 113–116 (2003)

    2003

  40. [40]

    Coherence properties of a single dipole emitter in diamond,

    G. D. Marshall, T. Gaebel, J. C. Matthews,et al., “Coherence properties of a single dipole emitter in diamond,” New J. Phys.13, 055016 (2011)

    2011

  41. [41]

    Delayed “choice

    Y.-H. Kim, R. Yu, S. P. Kulik,et al., “Delayed “choice” quantum eraser,” Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 1–5 (2000)

    2000

  42. [42]

    Double-slit quantum eraser,

    S. Walborn, M. T. Cunha, S. Pádua, and C. Monken, “Double-slit quantum eraser,” Phys. Rev. A65, 033818 (2002)

    2002

  43. [43]

    Comparing quantum and classical correlations in a quantum eraser,

    A. Gogo, W. D. Snyder, and M. Beck, “Comparing quantum and classical correlations in a quantum eraser,” Phys. Rev. A71, 052103 (2005)

    2005

  44. [44]

    Multipath wave-particle duality in classical optics,

    B. Paul, S. Kamal, and T. Qureshi, “Multipath wave-particle duality in classical optics,” Opt. Lett.45, 3204–3207 (2020)

    2020