Young’s double-slit experiment played a crucial role in establishing the wave nature of light. In this chapter, the shocking result that incident electrons yield a similar interference pattern as that formed by light waves is described. It is shown that the only way the experimental results could be explained is via a wave function description of electrons. It is also shown that, in the same experiment, the interference fringes disappear if the which-path information becomes available. This is the essence of wave–particle duality. The first of the Einstein–Bohr debates on wave-particle duality and Bohr’s principle of complementarity in the double-slit experiment is also discussed. Also presented are the counterintuitive notions of delayed choice and quantum eraser effects showing how the availability or erasure of information generated in the future can affect how the data in the present can be interpreted.
Young’s double-slit experiment played a crucial role in establishing the wave nature of light. In this chapter, the shocking result that incident electrons yield a similar interference pattern as that formed by light waves is described. It is shown that the only way the experimental results could be explained is via a wave function description of electrons. It is also shown that, in the same experiment, the interference fringes disappear if the which-path information becomes available. This is the essence of wave–particle duality. The first of the Einstein–Bohr debates on wave-particle duality and Bohr’s principle of complementarity in the double-slit experiment is also discussed. Also presented are the counterintuitive notions of delayed choice and quantum eraser effects showing how the availability or erasure of information generated in the future can affect how the data in the present can be interpreted.
Abstract Young’s double-slit experiment played a crucial role in establishing the wave nature of light. In this chapter, the shocking result that incident electrons yield a similar interference pattern as that formed by light waves is described. It is shown that the only way the experimental results could be explained is via a wavefunction description of electrons. It is also shown that the interference fringes disappear if the which-path information becomes available. This is the essence of wave–particle duality. The first of the Einstein–Bohr debates on wave–particle duality and Bohr’s principle of complementarity in the double-slit experiment are also discussed. The counterintuitive notions of delayed choice and quantum eraser effects showing how the availability or erasure of information generated in the future can affect how the data in the present can be interpreted are presented. Quantum interference is responsible for novel phenomena like interaction-free measurement and counterfactual communication.
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
Young’s double slit experiments revived the wave theory of light. The standard interpretation is that the light behaves as waves before and after passing through the double slit. Feynman called the double slit experiment the only mystery in quantum mechanics. In this article, we experimentally show the novel universal phenomena: (1) each of the fringes of the interference patterns are produced independently and partially; (2) within macro-distance from a diaphragm, the light rays behave as photons and produces a non-interference pattern; while near the screen, the photons produce an orthogonal interference pattern; (3) The non-interference pattern evolves to the orthogonal interference pattern gradually in the same experiment; (4) The non-interference patterns and the orthogonal interference patterns can show on the screen simultaneously; (5) The convex lens stops the further evolution. The experiments: (1) challenge the wave theories of light; (2) violate both Bohr’s complementarity principle and wave particle duality; (3) provide profound phenomena for developing optics and for studying the nature of light; (4) suggest that a complete theory should be able to consistently interpret all phenomena, including the non-interference pattern, the interference pattern, and the evolution from the non-interference to the interference pattern in the same experiment.
The precise knowledge of one of two complementary experimental outcomes prevents us from obtaining complete information about the other one. This formulation of Niels Bohr's principle of complementarity when applied to the paradigm of wave-particle dualism--that is, to Young's double-slit experiment--implies that the information about the slit through which a quantum particle has passed erases interference. In the present paper we report a double-slit experiment using two photons created by spontaneous parametric down-conversion where we observe interference in the signal photon despite the fact that we have located it in one of the slits due to its entanglement with the idler photon. This surprising aspect of complementarity comes to light by our special choice of the TEM(01) pump mode. According to quantum field theory the signal photon is then in a coherent superposition of two distinct wave vectors giving rise to interference fringes analogous to two mechanical slits.
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.
We report observations of Cross-Double-Slit Experiment and Which-Path-Cross-Double-Slit experiment. Cross-Double-Slit apparatus contains two double-slit, where first double-slit is perpendicular to second double-slit. The first double-slit and the second double-slit generate not only their own interference pattern perpendicular to each other, but also generate “Cross-interference-patterns”. When we do which-way experiment with one of two double-slit, say first double-slit, then its interference pattern disappeared, i.e., photons behave as particles; but the second double-slit’s interference pattern and the cross-interference-pattern still exist; which implies an significant phenomenon that in the same experiment, photons behave as both wave and particle, which is first time caught on film. Thus we suggest to re-study wave-particle duality, which is the basic mystery of quantum mechanics. We postulate that the particle nature of photons is intrinsic; while the wave-like of photons is manifest-behavior.