Summary form only given. We say that the quantum observables "position" and "momentum" are "complementary" because the precise knowledge of the position (momentum) implies that all possible outcomes of measuring the momentum (position) are equally probable. In two-slit experiments, the common understanding is that the position-momentum uncertainty relation makes it impossible to determine which slit the photon (or electron) passes through without at the same time disturbing the object enough to destroy the interference pattern. In 1982, Scully et al. suggested a way around this position-momentum uncertainty obstacle and proposed a quantum eraser to obtain which-path or particle-like information without scattering or otherwise introducing large uncontrolled phase factors to disturb the interference. Since 1982, quantum has been claimed in several experiments; however, the original proposed ideas have not been fully demonstrated. We demonstrate them here.
Summary form only given. We say that the quantum observables "position" and "momentum" are "complementary" because the precise knowledge of the position (momentum) implies that all possible outcomes of measuring the momentum (position) are equally probable. In two-slit experiments, the common understanding is that the position-momentum uncertainty relation makes it impossible to determine which slit the photon (or electron) passes through without at the same time disturbing the object enough to destroy the interference pattern. In 1982, Scully et al. suggested a way around this position-momentum uncertainty obstacle and proposed a quantum eraser to obtain which-path or particle-like information without scattering or otherwise introducing large uncontrolled phase factors to disturb the interference. Since 1982, quantum has been claimed in several experiments; however, the original proposed ideas have not been fully demonstrated. We demonstrate them here.
The principle of complementarity is one of the cornerstones of quantum theory. The aim of this study was to advance our understanding of complementarity by analyzing the role of delayed choice and quantum erasers in two-slit experiments, and by proposing experiments for verifying the analysis. The analysis is based on models consisting of measurable spaces and probability measures involved in the experiments. The main findings are as follows: (a) The complementarity principle manifests itself in such a way that wave and particle behaviors cannot be simultaneously observed almost surely with respect to any single, fixed measure. (b) Described by different measures, complementary properties can coexist in the same experimental setup. (c) Which-way information will not preclude or erase interference fringes. (d) Delayed choice and quantum erasers are irrelevant to testing complementarity. (e) It is possible for us to know through which slit each quantum object passed almost surely with respect to the measure corresponding to the slit while the interference pattern is intact. Based on the experiments analyzed, realizable experiments are proposed for verifying the above results.
This note aims to make more familiar to philosophers yet another bizarre quantum mechanical effect with disturbing metaphysical implications. It is possible to modify the classic double-slit experiment so that one can register the path of a particle to determine which slit it passes through, and then erase this registered information so that the interference effects which would normally disappear upon registration of the “which path” information are reconstituted. Thus the “trajectory” of particles can be effected by temporally and spatially distant operations on the slit detectors. Nonetheless, no untoward effects (such as superluminal signalling) can result from the operation of the eraser.
The quantum eraser involves a two-slit experiment in which an individual chooses, after the particles have passed through the slits, whether to do an interference experiment or a which-way experiment. If the experimenter chooses to erase the which-way information, the interference is restored. In one design, an excited atom enters one or the other cavity and emits a photon. By choosing to observe the photon’s position or to let it be absorbed by a detector atom, the investigator can pick the type of experiment to be done. The analysis uses the change-of-basis method, in which the form of wave function used depends on the experiment performed. A similar experiment can be performed by using polarizers at the slits and at the screen.
This experiment explores the quantum phenomenon known as the Quantum Eraser, using a variation of Young’s Double Slit experiment. Young’s Double Slit experiment demonstrates that light acts as a wave by creating an interference pattern when diffracted through two slits. If one measures which of the two slits the photons pass through, then the interference pattern is replaced by a single bright spot, as would be expected for particle-like behaviour. The “Quantum Eraser” eliminates the measurement on the photons, thereby reintroducing the interference pattern observed in Young’s original experiment. The experiment’s first stage saw Young’s Double Slit experiment recreated and an interference pattern was observed. Upon adding two orthogonally polarized filters, the photon’s path was measured, and the interference pattern was removed. By then adding a third filter which was polarized 45O relative to both other polarisers, the interference pattern was somewhat restored. For each experiment, the heights of the peaks in the interference patterns were compared to each other to examine the quality of the reproduced interference pattern based on the original double slit interference pattern. This comparison gave a quantitative result that demonstrated that the Quantum Eraser was able to restore the interference pattern to within 5 standard errors, thereby exemplifying the effect that changing the measurement conditions affects the final measurement.
We report a quantum eraser experiment which actually uses a Young double slit to create interference. The experiment can be considered an optical analogy of an experiment proposed by Scully, Englert, and Walther [Nature (London) 351, 111 (1991)]. One photon of an entangled pair is incident on a Young double slit of appropriate dimensions to create an interference pattern in a distant detection region. Quarter-wave plates, oriented so that their fast axes are orthogonal, are placed in front of each slit to serve as which-path markers. The quarter-wave plates mark the polarization of the interfering photon and thus destroy the interference pattern. To recover interference, we measure the polarization of the other entangled photon. In addition, we perform the experiment under ``delayed erasure'' circumstances.
Introduction In recent years, numerous quantum optics experiments have demonstrated novel quantum effects based on quantum amplitude superposition. Some of these empirical observations raise disturbing questions about the nature of reality, particularly concerning quantum nonlocality. In this chapter we discuss some experiments that suggest (to us, at least) that the information void, that uncharted regime between signal preparation and outcome detection, is not well modeled by classical spacetime. Something strange seems to be lurking there. For the purposes of exposition, the sequence of experiments we discuss in this chapter does not follow the historical sequence of those experiments, We discuss first the delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment of Kim et al. (Kim et al., 2000), referred to here as KIM. This leads us to define a heuristic measure of which-path information that is central to the theme of this chapter. This leads to a discussion of Wheeler's thought experiments on the conundrum of delayed choice in physics, particularly evident in the phenomenon of galactic lensing (Wheeler, 1983), and its empirical implementation, the delayed-choice interferometer experiment of Jacques et al., referred to as JACQUES. Our final experiment in this sequence is the double-slit quantum eraser of Walborn et al. (Walborn et al., 2002), referred to as WALBORN. That experiment gives a significant challenge for quantized detector networks (QDN) to reproduce its empirical results. Such experiments have led to suggestions that interference patterns formed by particles impacting on a screen may be influenced in some way by decisions made long after those particles had landed on that screen. Our objective in this chapter is to show by a detailed QDN analysis of those experiments that quantum principles do not support these suggestions. Nevertheless, something bizarre seems to be there. There are two complementary aspects in these experiments that have deeply worried physicists. The first involves spatial nonlocality and is the point of Wheeler's concerns. Historically, it has been a great source of debate among physicists.