We have implemented a novel double‐slit “which‐way” experiment which raises interesting questions of interpretation. Coherent laser light is passed through a converging lens and then through a dual pinhole producing two beams crossing over at the focal point of the lens, and fully separating further downstream providing which‐way information. A thin wire is then placed at a minimum of the interference pattern formed at the cross‐over region. No significant reduction in the total flux or resolution of the separated beams is found, providing evidence for coexistence of perfect interference and which‐way information in the same experiment, contrary to the common readings of Bohr’s principle of complementarity. This result further supports the conclusions of the original experiment by the author in which an imaging lens was employed to obtain which‐way information. Finally, a short discussion of the novel nonperturbative measurement technique for ensemble properties is offered.
We have implemented a novel double‐slit “which‐way” experiment which raises interesting questions of interpretation. Coherent laser light is passed through a converging lens and then through a dual pinhole producing two beams crossing over at the focal point of the lens, and fully separating further downstream providing which‐way information. A thin wire is then placed at a minimum of the interference pattern formed at the cross‐over region. No significant reduction in the total flux or resolution of the separated beams is found, providing evidence for coexistence of perfect interference and which‐way information in the same experiment, contrary to the common readings of Bohr’s principle of complementarity. This result further supports the conclusions of the original experiment by the author in which an imaging lens was employed to obtain which‐way information. Finally, a short discussion of the novel nonperturbative measurement technique for ensemble properties is offered.
Bohr's principle of complementarity predicts that in a welcher weg ("which-way") experiment, obtaining fully visible interference pattern should lead to the destruction of the path knowledge. Here I report a failure for this prediction in an optical interferometry experiment. Coherent laser light is passed through a dual pinhole and allowed to go through a converging lens, which forms well-resolved images of the respective pinholes, providing complete path knowledge. A series of thin wires are then placed at previously measured positions corresponding to the dark fringes of the interference pattern upstream of the lens. No reduction in the resolution and total radiant flux of either image is found in direct disagreement with the predictions of the principle of complementarity. In this paper, a critique of the current measurement theory is offered, and a novel nonperturbative technique for ensemble properties is introduced. Also, another version of this experiment without an imaging lens is suggested, and some of the implications of the violation of complementarity for another suggested experiment to investigate the nature of the photon and its "empty wave" is briefly discussed.
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.
Young's 1D-dimension-double-slit experiments represent the basic mystery of quantum world and was extended to which-way-1D-double-slit experiment. To explore the mystery, 2D-cross-double-slit diaphragm have been proposed, which consists of more than one double-slits intersecting to each other at the same spot. In this article, the extended which-way 2D cross-double slit experiments are presented to test the normal interpretation of the which way experiments. 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 diaphragm. Namely the particle nature and wave distribution coexist, which violates Bohr's complementarity principle. It is a challenge to interpret those observations consistently.
A modified double slit experiment of light was implemented. In the experiment, a spatial shape filter is used to manipulate the shape of cross section of laser beam. When this modified laser beam was shined on the double slit, the intensity distribution of laser beam on double slit is asymmetrical. In this way, the laser light was directed to pass through only one or two slits of double slit in different sections. So the which‐way information is predetermined before the photons pass through the slits. At the same time, the visible interference pattern can be observed on a monitor screen after the double slit. A couple of new phenomena had been observed from this experiment. The results of this experiment raise questions about Wave‐Particle Duality model of quantum theory, which is the foundation for the Copenhagen explanation that is generally regarded as the principal interpretation of quantum theory. As the observed properties from this experiment cannot be fully explained using the quantum theory, especially the Copenhagen explanation, a new model of photon is proposed. The new model for photon should be also applicable to all other micro entities, according to L. de Broglie assumption.
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
We set up an experiment with two independent laser beams that cross at a small angle, spatially separate, and end at detectors in front of each beam. The setup allows us to obtain maximum path or which-way information, K=1. However, when we scan a thin wire across the beam intersection the which-way information drops to K=0.985. The thin wire serves to verify the presence of an interference pattern with visibility, V=0.833, at the beam intersection. Our results appear to be in conflict with the complementarity inequality, V^2+K^2 smaller or equal to 1. We introduce a model that describes a virtual interference pattern. We resolve our paradoxical findings by proposing that the complementarity inequality does not apply to virtual interference patterns but only to physically real ones. We find that the interference pattern in our setup is virtual.