Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Evidence for Counterfactual Violation of Local Conservation Laws in Quantum Events

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A narrow mask near an optical vortex core extracts photons whose mean transverse momentum exceeds the maximum allowed by local momentum conservation, the paper reports.

desk verdict Strong, careful optics experiment with a clean null model, but the headline claim of local conservation violation rests on an untested assumption about the mask's recoil; still deserves serious review. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09205 v1 pith:PN6EVT7Q submitted 2026-08-10 quant-ph physics.optics

Patrick Cameron , Francesco Di Colandrea , Filippo Cardano , Lorenzo Marrucci This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.optics
keywords superoscillationsopticalvortexlocalmomentumconservationsuperkickpostselectioncounterfactualviolationLaguerre-Gaussmodesquantumfoundations
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper reports an experiment designed to test a claim of Aharonov, Popescu, and Rohrlich: that individual quantum events can violate local conservation laws even though ensemble averages obey them. Photons in a Laguerre-Gauss vortex are passed through a small Gaussian transmission mask placed near the vortex core, where the field is superoscillatory. The transmitted photons have a mean transverse momentum of about $7.2\,\hbar/w_0$ in one dataset, compared with a maximum of about $4.2\,\hbar/w_0$ allowed by any local-momentum-conserving theory under the stated assumptions; the paper reports a discrepancy above five standard deviations. If correct, this is the first experimental evidence that local momentum conservation can fail in postselected quantum events, with the violation arising only counterfactually and hence not conflicting with relativistic causality.

What carries the argument

The operative object is the superoscillatory region near the core of a Laguerre-Gauss vortex, where the local phase gradient, and hence local transverse momentum, can exceed every momentum in the Fourier spectrum. Extraction is by a Gaussian transmission mask of width $w_M$ centered at distance $d_M$ from the core, for which the mean transmitted momentum is $\bar{q}_{Ty}=\pm\frac{\hbar}{d_M}\left(\frac{w_0^2}{w_0^2+w_M^2}+\frac{w_M^2}{2d_M^2}\right)$, the superkick. The reference null hypothesis is the maximal local-momentum-conserving (MLMC) distribution: take the upper or lower tail of the input momentum distribution whose probability equals the mask transmission, then convolve it with the mask-kick distribution, producing the most favorable local-conserving hypothesis. The argument rests on assumptions A1 (no systematic mask recoil), A2 (mask kick independent of input momentum), and A3 (the weak apodization pedestal is not preferentially selected by the mask).

What would settle it

Mount the actual binary phase grating on a momentum-sensitive mechanical support and measure its center-of-mass recoil while photons are transmitted; if the mask acquires a mean momentum equal and opposite to the observed superkick $\bar{q}_{Ty}$, assumption A1 fails and local momentum conservation is restored.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery the paper seeks to establish is that local momentum conservation is violated in the conditional subset of quantum events in which a photon is extracted from a superoscillatory region of an optical vortex. The argument is statistical: the measured mean transverse momentum of mask-transmitted photons lies beyond the bound $\bar{q}_{Ty}\le\bar{q}_{Sy}$ derived from the input momentum distribution under the sole assumption that the mask does not supply the superkick momentum, and the measured number of high-momentum photons exceeds the maximally biased local-conserving reference distribution. The authors emphasize that the violation is counterfactual: input and transmitted momentum distributions are measured in mutually exclusive configurations, and the inference uses the prepared vortex state as the counterfactual input. They also state that the total ensemble, including blocked photons, conserves momentum, so the violation is conditional and does not imply that global conservation fails.

Load-bearing premise

The violation claim depends on assumption A1: the deterministic superkick momentum is not supplied by the mask itself; if the actual binary grating recoils with that momentum, the observed mean shift would be ordinary momentum transfer and the central claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Local momentum conservation would hold only as an ensemble statement, not for individual postselected events, so quantum back-action cannot always be balanced locally event by event.
  • The observed excess of high-momentum photons beyond the MLMC reference provides a second, distribution-level test of the same violation.
  • Because the comparison is counterfactual, the experiment does not permit superluminal signaling, and a delayed-choice version could make the measurement setting spacelike separated from the preparation.
  • Including blocked photons restores average momentum conservation, so any observable violation is confined to the rare transmitted subset of quantum events.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the reported violation holds, conservation laws at the level of individual events would be statistical rather than strict, which would change how measurement back-action is budgeted in quantum optics and weak-measurement setups.
  • A natural follow-up, suggested by the authors' discussion but not performed here, is to test the compensation mechanism with two entangled photons and look for a momentum anti-correlation that restores total-momentum conservation in each run.
  • The counterfactual inference used here is weaker than Bell-test local realism; generalizing it to other conserved quantities and other superoscillatory platforms would show whether this is a generic feature of postselected quantum events or specific to vortex masks.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experiment on photons in an optical vortex with charge ℓ=1, in which a small transmission mask extracts photons from the superoscillatory region near the vortex core. The authors derive an analytic expression for the mean transverse momentum of the transmitted photons, construct a 'maximal local momentum conserving' (MLMC) null distribution from the measured input momentum distribution and the measured mask-kick distribution, and find that the measured mean transverse momentum exceeds the MLMC bound by about five standard deviations, while the number of high-momentum photons exceeds the MLMC prediction by tens of standard deviations. The interpretation is that local momentum conservation is violated in the postselected subset of transmitted photons, conditionally on assumptions A1, A2, and A3 about the mask and about a weak nonintegrable pedestal in the input distribution. The theoretical derivation from Eq. (1) to Eq. (5) is transparent, the main comparison is parameter-free in the sense of having no fitted constant, and the photon-counting measurements are extensive. However, the central claim depends on untested assumptions about the physical mask, which is a binary phase grating rather than the idealized Gaussian amplitude mask used in the supporting model, and at least one central equation appears to be inconsistent with the numerical values reported in Table I.

Significance. If the interpretation is correct, this would be the first experimental evidence for the APR counterfactual violation of a local conservation law, with implications for the foundations of quantum mechanics and for possible nonlocal mechanisms restoring conservation. The paper is commendable for its clean parameter-free derivation of the bound, the explicit separation of assumptions A1-A3, the use of a conservative MLMC construction, and the high-statistics photon-counting data. The experimental excesses over the MLMC null are large and statistically unambiguous. The significance is nevertheless conditional: the headline claim stands or falls on whether the extraction mask imparts a systematic mean momentum that is not accounted for, and on whether the pedestal-exclusion assumption A3 is valid. These are physical premises about the measuring device, not statistical details, and the manuscript does not yet provide the measurements needed to support them.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (4); Appendix A, Eq. (A.27)] The reported formula for the mean transmitted momentum is not the mean of the distribution f_T in Eq. (3). Direct integration of Eq. (3) for ℓ=1 gives qbar_Ty = ±(ℏ/d_M)[2 d_M^2(w0^2+w_M^2)]/[w_M^2(w0^2+w_M^2)+2w0^2 d_M^2]. For the parameters of Fig. 3(c), w_M=0.097w0 and d_M=0.10w0, this yields +6.84 ℏ/w0, matching the 'Theory' column of Table I, whereas Eq. (4) as printed gives about 14.9 ℏ/w0. The identical error appears in the Appendix A expression preceding Eq. (A.28) and contradicts the paper's own statement in Appendix A that qbar_Ty≈(2/3)q_s when w_M≈d_M (Eq. (4) gives q_s in that limit). Please correct Eq. (4), the corresponding Appendix A expression, and any statements that rely on them, and verify that the numerical values in Table I are derived from the corrected formula.
  2. [Sec. II.A (assumption A1), Appendix B, Methods (mask realization)] The central inequality |qbar_Ty|≤|qbar_Sy| is derived only under assumption A1, that the deterministic superkick momentum is not supplied by the mask. The experimental mask is a contrast-modulated binary phase grating (Methods, Eq. C.2), not the Gaussian amplitude mask with delta-in-time interaction modeled in Appendix B. A phase grating diffracts into multiple orders, and the first detected order receives a fixed grating momentum that must be removed in calibration; the manuscript does not state how this offset is removed when fixing the momentum origin from the input LG distribution (Appendix D), nor does it report the mean momentum of the mask-transmitted Gaussian beam (MD4) relative to the unmasked Gaussian beam (MD3). The Appendix B model predicts zero mean mask recoil, but it does not describe the momentum balance among diffraction orders of a phase grating. Because the experiment never measures the blocked orders or the mask recoil, ordinary mask-induced mean momentum remains an untested alternative explanation for the observed excess over qbar_Sy. Please report the momentum balance in all diffraction orders, the measured mean of MD4, and an explicit justification of the offset subtraction before invoking A1.
  3. [Sec. II.B (assumption A3) and Methods/Appendix D (pedestal)] Assumption A3, that the weak 1/|q_y| power-law pedestal is not preferentially selected by the mask, is load-bearing for the mean-momentum bound qbar_Sy and for the MLMC null. The pedestal subtraction is necessary because the pedestal is nonintegrable, but A3 is justified only by the physical statement that the apodization occurs far from the mask location. This is not directly tested: the mask could in principle select the corresponding spatial structure at the mask plane. Please provide a direct test of A3, for example by varying the aperture configuration and showing that qbar_Sy and the MLMC predictions are stable, or by characterizing the pedestal contribution in the plane of the mask and showing that it does not correlate with the mask transmission.
  4. [Sec. II.A (assumption A2) and Methods (experimental MLMC)] The high-momentum excess test relies additionally on assumption A2, that the mask-kick distribution K_M is independent of the input photon momentum. The experimental MLMC is constructed by convolving the measured input tail f_S with K_M measured on a Gaussian input (MD4). If the grating's diffraction efficiency depends on incident angle or momentum, K_M for the high-momentum tail of the LG distribution could differ from K_M for the Gaussian input, and the reported excess of high-momentum photons would not be a valid rejection of the MLMC null. Please test A2 by measuring K_M for inputs displaced in momentum, or by directly comparing the transmitted distribution for a prepared high-q_y tail input with the convolution prediction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the bound derivation requires 'only the theoretically well-supported assumption' that the extraction mechanism does not alter the mean transverse momentum; given that the supporting Appendix B model is idealized and does not describe the actual phase grating, this wording overstates the current evidence for A1.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The measured mask positions are reported as d_M=(0.10±0.01)w0 for panel (c) and d_M=(0.13±0.01)w0 for panel (f), while the nominal value is d_M=0.1w0; please clarify whether the difference is due to the measured vortex displacement and explain how this enters the theory values in Table I.
  3. [Table I] After correcting Eq. (4), please check that all 'Theory' entries in Table I are computed from the corrected formula and from the stated mask parameters in the figure caption; the current table is internally consistent with the corrected formula but not with the printed equation.
  4. [Appendix D, Table II caption] The phrase 'after correcting for the actual background based on a previous run of the same fit' is unclear; please specify exactly how the background correction was applied to the quoted pedestal parameters.
  5. [Methods, Uncertainty estimation] The uncertainty procedure assigns a constant uncertainty per point by requiring reduced chi-square equal to unity; a brief statement that this procedure captures known optical imperfections without double-counting the pedestal Monte Carlo uncertainty would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the superkick prediction and the local-conservation bound are derived independently, and the main null hypothesis is reconstructed from separate measurements without fitting to the target data.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The predicted superkick mean, qbar_Ty (Eq. 4), is computed from the assumed LG input and Gaussian mask via the convolution result in Eq. (3). The local-conservation bound, qbar_Sy (Eq. 5), is instead the maximum possible mean momentum of any momentum-selection subset of the measured input distribution having probability P_tr. These two quantities are constructed from independent ingredients: qbar_Ty is a property of the post-mask wavefunction, while qbar_Sy is a tail statistic of the pre-mask input. The inequality |qbar_Ty| <= |qbar_Sy| is therefore not satisfied by construction; it is an empirical comparison. The experimental MLMC null is reconstructed from MD1 (input LG), MD4 (Gaussian beam through the mask, providing K_M), and the measured mask transmission probability, then convolved together; it does not use the mask-transmitted LG data MD2 as a fitting target. The high-momentum excess test likewise compares MD2 against this independently reconstructed null. The fitted apodization parameters (eta, gamma) in Fig. 4 are post-hoc and are not used in the main statistical claims, which the paper explicitly states are parameter-free. The central physical assumption A1 (the mask does not supply the deterministic superkick momentum) is a premise about the measuring device, not a restatement of the violation conclusion. It is supported by an explicit idealized photon-mask model in Appendix B, in which the mask interaction is a real amplitude transmission with zero-mean recoil, and by the fact that the first diffraction order of the binary grating acts as a real amplitude mask. Whether the actual grating's mechanical recoil and blocked-order momentum are measured is an empirical limitation, and the Discussion concedes that the compensating momentum change is not monitored; however, this is a correctness or evidence concern, not a circularity, because A1 does not assert the violation and is not derived from the target data. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citations: the APR and Berry references supply background and independent theoretical context, and the derivations in Appendices A and B are explicitly carried out in the paper. The central claim is conditional on A1 and A3, but conditional claims built on stated physical assumptions are not circular when the predictions and bounds are derived independently and the comparison is made on measured data. Thus the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ideal theory adds no new free parameters: the predicted superkick is parameter-free given calibrated w_M and d_M. The burden is carried by assumptions A1-A3 rather than by fitted constants. The fitted pedestal and apodization parameters affect the null model and uncertainty, but they are not used to produce the predicted qbar_Ty.

free parameters (2)
  • pedestal amplitudes A_pL, A_pR, B_p = A_pL=(2.32+-0.09)e-4 w0/hbar, A_pR=(2.80+-0.09)e-4 w0/hbar, B_p=(6+-8)e-7 w0/hbar
    Fitted to the tails of the input LG marginal distribution (Appendix D, Table II) and subtracted before constructing the MLMC null. The central bound is sensitive to this subtraction.
  • apodization parameters eta, gamma = eta=0.20, gamma=12 hbar/w0 for MD2; eta=0.14, gamma=14 hbar/w0 for MD4
    Fitted to mask-transmitted photon distributions to capture finite-aperture apodization (Appendix D, Eq. D.2-D.3). Used in quantitative modeling and uncertainty estimation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A1: the deterministic superkick momentum is not supplied by the mask
    Introduced in Section II.A after Eq. (4) and supported by an idealized photon-mask model in Appendix B that predicts zero mean mask recoil. If false, the observed mean shift is ordinary momentum transfer and no violation occurs.
  • domain assumption A2: the random mask-kick distribution is independent of input photon momentum
    Used to construct the MLMC null via convolution of the selected tail with the measured mask-kick distribution. Justified by single-plane-wave behavior but not directly measured for LG inputs.
  • ad hoc to paper A3: the weak power-law pedestal in the input LG momentum distribution is not preferentially selected by the mask
    Introduced in Section II.B and Methods. Without it the selected tail f_S is not normalizable over the measured window. The pedestal is subtracted and partially re-added, making the test dependent on this assumption.
  • standard math Standard Fourier and paraxial wave optics, including LG mode analysis and convolution theorem
    Used throughout Appendix A for the masked wavefunction and momentum distributions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evidence for Counterfactual Violation of Local Conservation Laws in Quantum Events." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PN6EVT7Q

@misc{pith2026260809205,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evidence for Counterfactual Violation of Local Conservation Laws in Quantum Events},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PN6EVT7Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09205}
}
read the original abstract

Physical conservation laws, such as those of energy and momentum, are generally believed to hold exactly and locally in spacetime, including in quantum phenomena. Yet Aharonov, Popescu, and Rohrlich (APR) recently argued, on the basis of a thought experiment, that individual quantum events, unlike ensemble averages, may occasionally violate local conservation laws. Their argument relies on the wave phenomenon known as "superoscillations", which APR themselves discovered more than 30 years ago. Here we provide experimental evidence for such a violation. We extract photons from a small superoscillatory region near the core of an optical vortex and show that their mean transverse momentum is statistically incompatible with a general bound implied by local momentum conservation. The derivation of this bound requires only the theoretically well-supported assumption that the extraction mechanism does not alter the photons' mean transverse momentum. We also detect photons with high transverse momentum at a rate significantly exceeding that predicted by a model assuming local momentum conservation. Because this violation can be established only counterfactually and through postselection, it does not conflict with relativistic causality. Our results may represent the first example of a distinct form of quantum nonlocality that does not explicitly rely on entanglement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09205 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Concept of the momentum non-conservation experiment and an idealized case. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Input LG mode used for our experiments, with vor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Main experimental results, providing evidence for a violation of local momentum conservation. The input vortex has [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Comparison of the experimental momentum distri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a)-(b) shows two-dimensional plots of the joint marginal distribution for the qy, qCy momenta before and after the interaction (conditional on photon transmission), to further illustrate this behavior. It is evident from these figures that the interaction between the …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Schematic of the experimental apparatus. Lens focal lengths are in mm. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Marginal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Pedestal appearing with the input LG mode. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Marginal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Cumulative marginal momentum distributions of the input LG mode under different pedestal treatments. Panels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Selected momentum distributions constructed from the tails of the input LG mode. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Marginal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Marginal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Marginal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Experimentally reconstructed MLMC distribution compared with the theoretical predictions without and with optical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. V. Berry, Faster than Fourier, inQuantum Coher- ence and Reality; in celebration of the 60th Birthday of Yakir Aharonov, edited by J. S. Anandan and J. L. Safko (World Scientific, Singapore, 1994) pp. 55–65

    work page 1994

  2. [2]

    Kempf, Black holes, bandwidths and beethoven, Jour- nal of Mathematical Physics41, 2360 (2000)

    A. Kempf, Black holes, bandwidths and beethoven, Jour- nal of Mathematical Physics41, 2360 (2000)

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Aharonov, S

    Y. Aharonov, S. Popescu, and D. Rohrlich, How a soft photon can emit a hard photon (1991), preprint TAUP 1847-90, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 9

    work page 1991

  4. [4]

    M. V. Berry and S. Popescu, Evolution of quantum superoscillations and optical superresolution without evanescent waves, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General39, 6965 (2006)

    work page 2006

  5. [5]

    P. J. S. G. Ferreira and A. Kempf, Superoscillations: Faster than the Nyquist rate, IEEE Transactions on Sig- nal Processing54, 3732 (2006)

    work page 2006

  6. [6]

    Berry, N

    M. Berry, N. Zheludev, Y. Aharonov, F. Colombo, I. Sabadini, D. C. Struppa, J. Tollaksen, E. T. F. Rogers, F. Qin, M. Hong, X. Luo, R. Remez, A. Arie, J. B. G¨ otte, M. R. Dennis, A. M. H. Wong, G. V. Eleft- heriades, Y. Eliezer, A. Bahabad, G. Chen, Z. Wen, G. Liang, C. Hao, C.-W. Qiu, A. Kempf, E. Katzav, and M. Schwartz, Roadmap on superoscillations, J...

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Chen, Z.-Q

    G. Chen, Z.-Q. Wen, and C.-W. Qiu, Superoscillation: from physics to optical applications, Light: Science & Applications8, 56 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    N. I. Zheludev and G. Yuan, Optical superoscillation technologies beyond the diffraction limit, Nature Reviews Physics4, 16 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    A. N. Jordan, J. C. Howell, N. Vamivakas, and E. Karimi, Superoscillations and Physical Applications, inOperator Theory, edited by D. Alpay, I. Sabadini, and F. Colombo (Springer, 2025) pp. 1–33, arXiv:2505.22925 [quant-ph]

    2025

  2. [10]

    F. M. Huang, Y. Chen, F. J. Garc ´ ıa de Abajo, and N. I. Zheludev, Optical super-resolution through super- oscillations, Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Op- tics9, S285 (2007)

    2007

  3. [11]

    E. T. F. Rogers, J. Lindberg, T. Roy, S. Savo, J. E. Chad, M. R. Dennis, and N. I. Zheludev, A super-oscillatory lens optical microscope for subwavelength imaging, Na- ture Materials11, 432 (2012)

    2012

  4. [12]

    G. H. Yuan, S. Vezzoli, C. Altuzarra, E. T. Rogers, C. Couteau, C. Soci, and N. I. Zheludev, Quantum super- oscillation of a single photon, Light: Science & Applica- tions5, e16127 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Ghosh, A

    B. Ghosh, A. Daniel, B. Gorzkowski, and R. Lapkiewicz, Azimuthal backflow in light carrying orbital angular mo- mentum, Optica10, 1217 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    X. Ma, H. Zhang, W. Wei, Y. Tai, Y. Qian, X. Li, and Y. Shen, Observation of superoscillation Moir´ e super- lattices, Advanced Photonics8, 10.1117/1.AP.8.2.026008 (2026)

    2026 doi

  7. [15]

    Kempf and P

    A. Kempf and P. J. S. G. Ferreira, Unusual properties of superoscillating particles, Journal of Physics A: Mathe- matical and General37, 12067 (2004)

    2004

  8. [16]

    M. V. Berry and S. Fishman, Escaping superoscillations, Journal of Physics A: Mathematics Theory51, 025205 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Afanasev, C

    A. Afanasev, C. E. Carlson, and A. Mukherjee, Super- kicks and the photon angular and linear momentum den- sity, Physical Review A105, L061503 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Aharonov, S

    Y. Aharonov, S. Popescu, and D. Rohrlich, On conser- vation laws in quantum mechanics, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences118, e1921529118 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Aharonov, S

    Y. Aharonov, S. Popescu, and D. Rohrlich, Conserva- tion laws and the foundations of quantum mechanics, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences120, e2220810120 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    J. F. Nye and M. V. Berry, Dislocations in wave trains, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences336, 165 (1974)

    1974

  13. [21]

    M. V. Berry, Waves near zeros, inCoherence and Quan- tum Optics IX, edited by N. P. Bigelow, J. H. Eberly, and C. R. J. Stroud (The Optical Society of America, Washington, DC, 2008) pp. 37–41

    2008

  14. [22]

    M. V. Berry, Five momenta, European Journal of Physics 34, 1337 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

    S. M. Barnett and M. V. Berry, Superweak momen- tum transfer near optical vortices, Journal of Optics15, 125701 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    M. V. Berry, Superoscillations and leaky spectra, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical52, 015202 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Collins and S

    D. Collins and S. Popescu, Conservation Laws For Ev- ery Quantum Measurement Outcome, Quantum9, 1815 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Collins, C

    D. Collins, C. M. Ferrera, I. L. Paiva, and S. Popescu, Networks of quantum reference frames and the nature of conserved quantities (2026), arXiv:2603.25485 [quant- ph], 2603.25485

    2026

  19. [27]

    Bolduc, N

    E. Bolduc, N. Bent, E. Santamato, E. Karimi, and R. W. Boyd, Exact solution to simultaneous intensity and phase encryption with a single phase-only hologram, Optics Letters38, 3546 (2013). 10 Appendix A: Main theoretical modeling

    2013

  20. [28]

    The normalization constant (for ourp= 0 case) is the following: Nℓ = s 2ℓ+1 π(ℓ!) .(A.2) From now on, we will omit thezandtvariables for brevity

    Notations and description of the system Let us assume that the photon initial wavefunction is described by a single OAM eigenstate|±ℓ⟩with OAM eigenvalue±ℓℏ, whereℓis a non-negative integer, and in particular let us take a Laguerre-Gauss (LG) mode (in paraxial approximation) w...

  21. [29]

    quasi plane-wave

    Approximate theory for small mask (“quasi plane-wave” masked wavefunction) Let us consider first a limiting case for which we are able to obtain simple analytical approximate results that can be easily interpreted. Specifically, we assume thatw M ≪d M ≪w 0, that is the mask ra...

  22. [30]

    Exact mask theory From the convolution theorem of Fourier transforms, the effect of the mask product in momentum space can be given as a 2D convolution of fM(q) and eψ(q) (divided by a factor 2πℏ). Hence, after the mask we obtain the following momentum wavefunction: eψT (q) = ...

  23. [31]

    unbiased local momentum conserving

    Reference null-hypothesis distributions: unbiased local momentum-conserving (ULMC) and maximal local momentum-conserving (MLMC) theories In this subsection we construct the reference null-hypothesis distributions against the measured distribution is compared to demonstrate the...

    2013

  24. [32]

    Its spectrum is inherently broadband (∼25 nm), so a 3 nm bandpass filter (Semrock LL01-810-25) is used to define a narrow bandwidth

    Source Our photon source is a superluminescent diode (SLED) from Thorlabs (SLD810S) coupled to a single mode fiber. Its spectrum is inherently broadband (∼25 nm), so a 3 nm bandpass filter (Semrock LL01-810-25) is used to define a narrow bandwidth. Polarization is cleaned to m...

  25. [33]

    Input state preparation The first spatial light modulator (Meadowlark 1920x1200 S-Series) is used to prepare the desired input beam following the method introduced by Bolduc et al. [27]. This method is used to find the required hologram to generate the Fourier transform of the...

  26. [34]

    Masking The second SLM (also Meadowlark 1920x1200 S-Series) is used to apply the mask to the input state. Following the iris after SLM 1, another lens (f= 300 mm) is used to Fourier-image the iris plane onto SLM 2, effectively magnifying the target field generated by SLM 1 by ...

  27. [35]

    Detection The final momentum distributions were measured using cameras placed in the far-field of SLM 2, following suitable imaging and magnification such that the distributions covered a sufficiently large area of the sensor. A standard CMOS camera (Thorlabs Zelux CS165MU/M) ...

  28. [36]

    pedestal-free

    Single-photon regime To demonstrate the superkick effect in the regime of individual quantum events, measurements at the single-photon level are required. We use an attenuated coherent state to approximate a single-photon state. This is done by setting the SLED power and indiv...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.