arXiv:0807.5079 · New Journal of Physics

Illustration of quantum complementarity using single photons interfering on a grating

V. Jacques, Ngoc Diep Lai, A. Dréau, Dingwei Zheng, Dominique Chauvat, François Treussart, Philippe Grangier, Jean-François Roch

Published Dec 9, 2008• 58 citations

arXiv HTML PDF

Abstract

A recent experiment performed by Afshar et al (2007 Found. Phys. 37 295–305) has been interpreted as a violation of Bohr's complementarity principle between interference visibility and which-path information (WPI) in a two-path interferometer. We have reproduced this experiment, using true single-photon pulses propagating in a two-path wavefront-splitting interferometer realized with a Fresnel's biprism, and followed by a grating with adjustable transmitting slits. The measured values of interference visibility V and WPI, characterized by the distinguishability parameter D , are found to obey the complementarity relation V 2 + D 2 ⩽1. This result demonstrates that the experiment can be perfectly explained by the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics.

DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/10/12/123009

Related papers

Afshar's experiment revisited: a demonstration of Bohr's complementary principle

Ngoc Diep Lai, V. Jacques, A. Dréau +5 more

A recent experiment performed by Afshar et al. has been interpreted as a violation of Bohr's complementarity principle between interference visibility and which-path information a two-path interferometer. The authors have reproduced the same experiment, using true single-photon pulses emitted by a single nitrogen-vacancy (NV) color center in a diamond crystal and propagating in a two-path wavefront-splitting interferometer realized with a Fresnels' biprism, followed by a grating with transmitting slits of adjustable width. The experimental setup is illustrated. The results go far beyond the reported results in the previous works of Afshar et al. and the subtle flaws in their analysis are then pointed out. The measured values of the interference visibility V and the which-path information, characterized by the distinguishability parameter D, are found, with values close to the ideal-case upper bound. This result demonstrates that the experiment can be perfectly explained by the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, without any violation of Bohr's complementarity principle.

Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics Europe & European Quantum Electronics Conference (CLEO/Europe-EQEC)Jun 1, 20090 citations

Delayed-Choice Test of Quantum Complementarity with Interfering Single Photons

V. Jacques, E Wu, Frédéric Grosshans +4 more

We report an experimental test of quantum complementarity with single-photon pulses sent into a Mach-Zehnder interferometer with an output beam splitter of adjustable reflection coefficient R. In addition, the experiment is realized in Wheeler's delayed-choice regime. Each randomly set value of R allows us to observe interference with visibility V and to obtain incomplete which-path information characterized by the distinguishability parameter D. Measured values of V and D are found to fulfill the complementarity relation V2+D2 < or =1.

arXiv:0801.0979Physical Review LettersJun 3, 2008157 citations

Wave-particle duality of light appearing in an intensity interferometric scenario

Rikizo Ikuta

A single photon exhibits wave-particle duality in the Young's double-slit interferometer. The duality characterized by an interference visibility and a which-path information has trade-off relation known as complementarity. These quantities are related to the first-order coherence, and the interference is based on the phase correlation between lights coming from two arms. However according to quantum optics theory, such a simple wave-particle picture is not enough to understand the nature because the theory showed an importance of higher-order coherence in the sense of both interference and statistical distribution of photons. Second-order intensity correlation is especially crucial to reveal distinctive quantum features of photons with no classical analogue. Here, in an intensity interferometric scenario as represented by the Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometer, we discuss a wave-particle duality of light based on a which-path information and a quantity characterizing a magnitude of the intensity interferometric effect. We show, for classical light, the two quantities obey the complementary principle similar to the case of the double-slit experiment, but do not for nonclassical light. The nonclassical light such as photons at two arms is allowed to show larger which-path information and intensity interference simultaneously beyond the complementary relation. Moreover, the violation reveals a new nonclassical nature of light although both of the above two quantities seem to be understandable classically, which is never found from a consideration of only one side of wave-particle duality.

arXiv:2201.04790Optics ExpressNov 23, 20224 citations

Complementarity and the Quantum Eraser

Thomas Herzog, Paul G. Kwiat, Harald Weinfurter +1 more

We present various experiments demonstrating the mutual exclusivity of observing interference and which-path information, as demanded by Bohr's complementarity principle. Using photon pairs created in parametric down-conversion, no which-path measurements need to be performed on the interfering photon itself. Instead the other photon can be used to introduce distinguishability, which consequently destroys interference. However, a suitable measurement erases this distinguishability and interference can be recovered.

Physical Review LettersOct 23, 1995355 citations

Wave Particle Duality and the Afshar Experiment

Aurélien Drezet

In an interesting series of articles published few years ago Afshar and coworkers [1,2] reported an optical experiment in which they claimed to refute the well known N. Bohr principle of complementarity [3, 4]. Obviously this result, if justified, would constitute a serious attack against the orthodox interpretation of quantum mechanics (known as the Copenhagen interpretation). This work stirred much debate in different journals (see for examples references [5–12]). We think however that there are still some important misunderstandings concerning the interpretation of this experiment. In a preprint written originally in 2004 [5] (and following some early discussions with Afshar) we claimed already that the interpretation by Afshar et al. can be easily stated if we stay as close as possible from the texts written by Bohr. The aim of the present article (which was initially written in 2005 to precise a bit the thought developed in [5]) is to comment the interpretation discussed in [1]. We will in the following analyze the meaning of Bohr principle and show that far from disproving its content the experiment [1] is actually a complete confirmation of its general validity. The difficulties associated with the understanding of this principle are not new and actually complementarity created troubles even in Einstein mind [3] so that we are here in good company. To summarize a bit emphatically Bohr’s complementarity we here remind that this principle states that if one of a pair of non commuting observables of a quantum object is known for sure, then information about the second (complementary) is lost [3, 4, 15, 16]. This can be equivalently expressed as a kind of duality between different descriptions of the quantum system associated with different experimental arrangements which mutually exclude each other (read in particular [3,4]). Later in the discussion we will try to precise this definition but for the moment it is enough to illustrate the concepts by examples Consider for instance the well known Young double-pinholes interference experiment made with photons. The discrete nature of light precludes the simultaneous observation of a same photon in the aperture plane and in the interference pattern: the photon cannot be absorbed twice. This is already a trivial manifestation of the principle of Bohr. Here it implies that the two statistical patterns associated with the wave in the aperture plane and its Fourier (i. e., momentum) transform require necessarily different photons for their recording. It is in that sense that each experiment excludes and completes reciprocally the other. In the case considered before the photon is absorbed during the first detection (this clearly precludes any other detection). However even a non-destructive solution for detection implying entanglement with other quantum systems has a radical effect of the same nature: the complementarity principle is still valid. For example, during their debate Bohr and Einstein [3] discussed an ideal which-way experiment in which the recoil of the slits is correlated to the motion of the photon. Momentum conservation added to arguments based on the uncertainty relations are sufficient to explain how such entanglement photon-slits can erase fringes [15–19]. It is also important for the present discussion to remind that the principle of complementarity has a perfidious consequence on the experimental meaning of trajectory and path followed by a particle. Indeed the unavoidable interactions existing between photons and detectors imply that a trajectory existing independently of any measurement process cannot be unambiguously defined. This sounds even like a tragedy when we consider once again the two-holes experiment. Indeed for Bohr this kind of experiments shows definitely the essential element of ambiguity which is involved in ascribing conventional physical attributes to quantum systems. Intuitively (i. e., from the point of view of classical particle dynamic) one would expect that a photon detected in the focal plane of the lens must have crossed only one of the hole 1 or 2 before to reach its final destination. However, if this is true, one can not intuitively understand how the presence of the second hole (through which the photon evidently did not go) forces the photon to participate to an interference pattern (which obviously needs an influence coming from both holes). Explanations to solve this paradox have been proposed by de Broglie, Bohm, and others using concepts such as empty waves or quantum potentials [20, 21]. However all these explanations are in agreement with Bohr principle (since they fully reproduce quantum predictions) and can not be experimentally distinguished. Bohr and Heisenberg proposed for all needed purposes a much more pragmatic and simpler answer: don’t bother, the complementarity principle precludes the simultaneous observation of a photon trajectory and of an interference pattern. For Bohr [3]: This point is of great logical consequence, since it is only the circumstance that we are presented with a choice of either tracing the path

Jan 1, 20115 citations

Should We Interpret Quantum Mechanics According to Bohr

Shubhayan Sarkar

I present here a thought experiment which violates the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics “The Copenhagen Interpretation” and Bohr’s complementarity which says that there is no meaning of the state of a particle until it is observed and the act of observation might change it. The experiment consists of a double slit apparatus which is modified by putting a second double slit apparatus between the source and the original apparatus with certain conditions imposed on both the apparatuses using the facts of interference and diffraction. A striking paradox emerges if we consider the arguments of Bohr’s complementarity, i.e. the photon travels through both the paths simultaneously in a double slit apparatus whenever there is interference. It turns out that this paradox can be resolved only if the photon travels through one path even if interference fringes are visible.

Mar 1, 20170 citations