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.
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.
Young’s one-dimension-double-slit experiment represents the basic mystery of quantum world and was extended to which-way-1D-double-slit experiment. To explore the mystery, 2D-cross-double-slit apparatuses have been proposed, which consists of more than one double-slits intersecting to each other. In this article, we report which-way-2D-cross-double-slit experiments by detecting which slit of a double-slit of 2D-cross-double-slit apparatus a photon would pass through. The experimental results show that photons passing through the detected double-slit behave as particle, while photons passing through other undetected double-slit(s) distribute as wave in the same experiment with the same apparatus. Namely the particle nature and wave distribution coexist, which violates Bohr’s complementarity principle. We suggest that photon’s “particle nature” is intrinsic, while the term “wave nature” represents a wave-like distribution, which is a consequence of movement of photon as particle. It is a challenge to interpret mathematically those observations consistently.
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
In recent years there has been an upsurge in the discussion of so-called delayed-choice experiments, as exemplified in the interferometer experiment discussed by Wheeler [1]. In commenting on this experiment Bohm et al. [2] claim that their quantum potential interpretation gives results entirely compatible with Bohr's views on wholeness and complementarity. It seems to me, however, that this discussion to a large extent completely misses the fundamental point in Bohr's argumentation as given in his famour answer [3] to Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen as well as in his paper on his discussions with Einstein [4]. Expressing it a bit paradoxically one might say that in the examples discussed the experiments are not sufficiently delayed. I shall therefore here discuss a different thought experiment, much closer to Bohr's own examples, which brings out this point.
Introduction Although the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics was understood within a few years after it was invented, numerous quantum paradoxes still disturb ‘simple-minded’ physicists. Most of them, as ‘naïve realists’, would probably never take Bohr's own over-philosophical and over-complicated treatment of these paradoxes seriously if they realized the philosophical consequences of the Copenhagen interpretation. To make my meaning clearer, let me quote Bohr's answer to Professor Hoffding's question regarding the double-slit experiment [1]. Bohr was asked: ‘What can the electron be said to be in its travel from the point of entry to the point of detection?’ And he replied: ‘ To be ? To be ? What does it mean to be ?’ However, if one questions the existence of microscopic constituents of macroscopic bodies, then the next logical step would be to question the existence of the macroscopic bodies and even ourselves. Needless to say, very few (if any) of us, when making experiments or analyzing their results, address the question of what it means ‘to be’ every time. Even in the context of elementary particles, probably nobody doubts that the particles exist and somehow travel from the point of entry to the point of detection. Moreover, within the accuracy allowed by the uncertainty relation, these particles can be localized and described just as well as macroscopic ‘classical’ objects.
This article reconsiders the double-slit experiment by establishing a new type of relationship between it and the concept of entanglement. While the role of entanglement in the double-slit experiment has been considered, this particular relationship appears to have been missed in preceding discussions of the experiment, even by Bohr, who extensively used it to support his argument concerning quantum physics. The main reason for this relationship is the different roles of the diaphragm with slits in two setups, S1 and S2, defining the double-slit experiment as a quantum experiment. In S1, in each individual run of the experiment one can in principle (even if not actually) know throughout which slit the quantum object considered has passed; in S2 this knowledge is in principle impossible, which impossibility is coextensive with the appearance of the interference pattern, once a sufficient number of individual runs of the experiment have taken place. The article offers the following argument based on two new concepts, an "experimentally quantum object" and an "ontologically quantum object." In S1 the diaphragm can be treated as part of an observational arrangement and thus considered as a classical object, while the object passing through one or the other slit is considered as an "ontologically quantum object," defined as an object necessary to establish a quantum phenomenon. By contrast, in S2, the diaphragm can, via the concept of Heisenberg-von-Neumann cut, be treated as an "experimentally quantum object," defined as an object treatable by quantum theory, even while possibly being an ontologically classical object. This interaction is not an observation but a quantum entanglement between these two quantum objects, one ontologically and one experimentally quantum. This argument is grounded in a particular interpretation of quantum phenomena and quantum theory, which belongs to the class of interpretations designated here as "reality without realism" (RWR) interpretations. The article also argues that wave-particle complementarity, with which the concept of complementarity is often associated, plays little, if any, role in quantum physics, or in Bohr's thinking, and may be misleading in considering the double-slit experiment, often explained by using this complementarity.