Delayed-choice quantum eraser

Last updated

A delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment, first performed by Yoon-Ho Kim, R. Yu, S. P. Kulik, Y. H. Shih and Marlan O. Scully, [1] and reported in early 1999, is an elaboration on the quantum eraser experiment that incorporates concepts considered in Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment. The experiment was designed to investigate peculiar consequences of the well-known double-slit experiment in quantum mechanics, as well as the consequences of quantum entanglement.

Contents

The delayed-choice quantum eraser experiment investigates a paradox. If a photon manifests itself as though it had come by a single path to the detector, then "common sense" (which Wheeler and others challenge) says that it must have entered the double-slit device as a particle. If a photon manifests itself as though it had come by two indistinguishable paths, then it must have entered the double-slit device as a wave. If the experimental apparatus is changed while the photon is in mid‑flight, then the photon should reverse its original "decision" as to whether to be a wave or a particle. Wheeler pointed out that when these assumptions are applied to a device of interstellar dimensions, a last-minute decision made on Earth on how to observe a photon could alter a decision made millions or even billions of years ago.

While delayed-choice experiments have confirmed the seeming ability of measurements made on photons in the present to alter events occurring in the past, this requires a non-standard view of quantum mechanics. If a photon in flight is interpreted as being in a so-called "superposition of states", i.e. if it is interpreted as something that has the potentiality to manifest as a particle or wave, but during its time in flight is neither, then there is no time paradox. This is the standard view, and recent experiments have supported it.[ clarification needed ] [2] [3]

Introduction

In the basic double-slit experiment, a beam of light (usually from a laser) is directed perpendicularly towards a wall pierced by two parallel slit apertures. If a detection screen (anything from a sheet of white paper to a CCD) is put on the other side of the double-slit wall (far enough for light from both slits to overlap), a pattern of light and dark fringes will be observed, a pattern that is called an interference pattern. Other atomic-scale entities such as electrons are found to exhibit the same behavior when fired toward a double slit. [4] By decreasing the brightness of the source sufficiently, individual particles that form the interference pattern are detectable. [5] The emergence of an interference pattern suggests that each particle passing through the slits interferes with itself, and that therefore in some sense the particles are going through both slits at once. [6] :110 This is an idea that contradicts our everyday experience of discrete objects.

A well-known thought experiment, which played a vital role in the history of quantum mechanics (for example, see the discussion on Einstein's version of this experiment), demonstrated that if particle detectors are positioned at the slits, showing through which slit a photon goes, the interference pattern will disappear. [4] This which-way experiment illustrates the complementarity principle that photons can behave as either particles or waves, but not both at the same time. [7] [8] [9] However, technically feasible realizations of this experiment were not proposed until the 1970s. [10]

Which-path information and the visibility of interference fringes are hence complementary quantities. In the double-slit experiment, conventional wisdom held that observing the particles inevitably disturbed them enough to destroy the interference pattern as a result of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

However, in 1982, Scully and Drühl found a loophole around this interpretation. [11] They proposed a "quantum eraser" to obtain which-path information without scattering the particles or otherwise introducing uncontrolled phase factors to them. Rather than attempting to observe which photon was entering each slit (thus disturbing them), they proposed to "mark" them with information that, in principle at least, would allow the photons to be distinguished after passing through the slits. Lest there be any misunderstanding, the interference pattern does disappear when the photons are so marked. However, the interference pattern reappears if the which-path information is further manipulated after the marked photons have passed through the double slits to obscure the which-path markings. Since 1982, multiple experiments have demonstrated the validity of the so-called quantum "eraser". [12] [13] [14]

A simple quantum-eraser experiment

A simple version of the quantum eraser can be described as follows: Rather than splitting one photon or its probability wave between two slits, the photon is subjected to a beam splitter. If one thinks in terms of a stream of photons being randomly directed by such a beam splitter to go down two paths that are kept from interaction, it would seem that no photon can then interfere with any other or with itself.

However, if the rate of photon production is reduced so that only one photon is entering the apparatus at any one time, it becomes impossible to understand the photon as only moving through one path, because when the path outputs are redirected so that they coincide on a common detector or detectors, interference phenomena appear. This is similar to envisioning one photon in a two-slit apparatus: even though it is one photon, it still somehow interacts with both slits.

In the two diagrams in Fig. 1, photons are emitted one at a time from a laser symbolized by a yellow star. They pass through a 50% beam splitter (green block) that reflects or transmits 1/2 of the photons. The reflected or transmitted photons travel along two possible paths depicted by the red or blue lines.

In the top diagram, it seems as though the trajectories of the photons are known: If a photon emerges from the top of the apparatus, it seems as though it had to have come by way of the blue path, and if it emerges from the side of the apparatus, seem as though it had to have come by way of the red path. However, it is important to keep in mind that the photon is in a superposition of the paths until it is detected. The assumption above—that it 'had to have come by way of' either path—is a form of the 'separation fallacy'.

In the bottom diagram, a second beam splitter is introduced at the top right. It recombines the beams corresponding to the red and blue paths. By introducing the second beam splitter, the usual way of thinking is that the path information has been "erased"—however we have to be careful, because the photon cannot be assumed to have 'really' gone along one or the other path. Recombining the beams results in interference phenomena at detection screens positioned just beyond each exit port. What issues to the right side displays reinforcement, and what issues toward the top displays cancellation. It is important to keep in mind however that the illustrated interferometer effects apply only to a single photon in a pure state. When dealing with a pair of entangled photons, the photon encountering the interferometer will be in a mixed state, and there will be no visible interference pattern without coincidence counting to select appropriate subsets of the data. [15]

Delayed choice

Elementary precursors to current quantum-eraser experiments such as the "simple quantum eraser" described above have straightforward classical-wave explanations. Indeed, it could be argued that there is nothing particularly quantum about this experiment. [16] Nevertheless, Jordan has argued on the basis of the correspondence principle, that despite the existence of classical explanations, first-order interference experiments such as the above can be interpreted as true quantum erasers. [17]

These precursors use single-photon interference. Versions of the quantum eraser using entangled photons, however, are intrinsically non-classical. Because of that, in order to avoid any possible ambiguity concerning the quantum versus classical interpretation, most experimenters have opted to use nonclassical entangled-photon light sources to demonstrate quantum erasers with no classical analog.

Furthermore, use of entangled photons enables the design and implementation of versions of the quantum eraser that are impossible to achieve with single-photon interference, such as the delayed-choice quantum eraser, which is the topic of this article.

The experiment of Kim et al. (1999)

The experimental setup, described in detail in Kim et al., [1] is illustrated in Fig 2. An argon laser generates individual 351.1 nm photons that pass through a double-slit apparatus (vertical black line in the upper left corner of the diagram).

An individual photon goes through one (or both) of the two slits. In the illustration, the photon paths are color-coded as red or light blue lines to indicate which slit the photon came through (red indicates slit A, light blue indicates slit B).

So far, the experiment is like a conventional two-slit experiment. However, after the slits, spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC) is used to prepare an entangled two-photon state. This is done by a nonlinear optical crystal BBO (beta barium borate) that converts the photon (from either slit) into two identical, orthogonally polarized entangled photons with 1/2 the frequency of the original photon. The paths followed by these orthogonally polarized photons are caused to diverge by the Glan–Thompson prism.

One of these 702.2 nm photons, referred to as the "signal" photon (look at the red and light-blue lines going upwards from the Glan–Thompson prism) continues to the target detector called D0. During an experiment, detector D0 is scanned along its x axis, its motions controlled by a step motor. A plot of "signal" photon counts detected by D0 versus x can be examined to discover whether the cumulative signal forms an interference pattern.

The other entangled photon, referred to as the "idler" photon (look at the red and light-blue lines going downwards from the Glan–Thompson prism), is deflected by prism PS that sends it along divergent paths depending on whether it came from slit A or slit B.

Somewhat beyond the path split, the idler photons encounter beam splitters BSa, BSb, and BSc that each have a 50% chance of allowing the idler photon to pass through and a 50% chance of causing it to be reflected. Ma and Mb are mirrors.

The beam splitters and mirrors direct the idler photons towards detectors labeled D1, D2, D3 and D4. Note that:

• If an idler photon is recorded at detector D3, it can only have come from slit B.
• If an idler photon is recorded at detector D4, it can only have come from slit A.
• If an idler photon is detected at detector D1 or D2, it might have come from slit A or slit B.
• The optical path length measured from slit to D1, D2, D3, and D4 is 2.5 m longer than the optical path length from slit to D0. This means that any information that one can learn from an idler photon must be approximately 8 ns later than what one can learn from its entangled signal photon.

Detection of the idler photon by D3 or D4 provides delayed "which-path information" indicating whether the signal photon with which it is entangled had gone through slit A or B. On the other hand, detection of the idler photon by D1 or D2 provides a delayed indication that such information is not available for its entangled signal photon. Insofar as which-path information had earlier potentially been available from the idler photon, it is said that the information has been subjected to a "delayed erasure".

By using a coincidence counter, the experimenters were able to isolate the entangled signal from photo-noise, recording only events where both signal and idler photons were detected (after compensating for the 8 ns delay). Refer to Figs 3 and 4.

• When the experimenters looked at the signal photons whose entangled idlers were detected at D1 or D2, they detected interference patterns.
• However, when they looked at the signal photons whose entangled idlers were detected at D3 or D4, they detected simple diffraction patterns with no interference.

Significance

This result is similar to that of the double-slit experiment, since interference is observed when it is not known from which slit the photon originates, while no interference is observed when the path is known.

However, what makes this experiment possibly astonishing is that, unlike in the classic double-slit experiment, the choice of whether to preserve or erase the which-path information of the idler was not made until 8 ns after the position of the signal photon had already been measured by D0.

Detection of signal photons at D0 does not directly yield any which-path information. Detection of idler photons at D3 or D4, which provide which-path information, means that no interference pattern can be observed in the jointly detected subset of signal photons at D0. Likewise, detection of idler photons at D1 or D2, which do not provide which-path information, means that interference patterns can be observed in the jointly detected subset of signal photons at D0.

In other words, even though an idler photon is not observed until long after its entangled signal photon arrives at D0 due to the shorter optical path for the latter, interference at D0 is determined by whether a signal photon's entangled idler photon is detected at a detector that preserves its which-path information (D3 or D4), or at a detector that erases its which-path information (D1 or D2).

Some have interpreted this result to mean that the delayed choice to observe or not observe the path of the idler photon changes the outcome of an event in the past. [18] [19] Note in particular that an interference pattern may only be pulled out for observation after the idlers have been detected (i.e., at D1 or D2).[ clarification needed ]

The total pattern of all signal photons at D0, whose entangled idlers went to multiple different detectors, will never show interference regardless of what happens to the idler photons. [20] One can get an idea of how this works by looking at the graphs of R01, R02, R03, and R04, and observing that the peaks of R01 line up with the troughs of R02 (i.e. a π phase shift exists between the two interference fringes). R03 shows a single maximum, and R04, which is experimentally identical to R03 will show equivalent results. The entangled photons, as filtered with the help of the coincidence counter, are simulated in Fig. 5 to give a visual impression of the evidence available from the experiment. In D0, the sum of all the correlated counts will not show interference. If all the photons that arrive at D0 were to be plotted on one graph, one would see only a bright central band.

Implications

Retrocausality

Delayed-choice experiments raise questions about time and time sequences, and thereby bring the usual ideas of time and causal sequence into question. [note 1] If events at D1, D2, D3, D4 determine outcomes at D0, then effect seems to precede cause. If the idler light paths were greatly extended so that a year goes by before a photon shows up at D1, D2, D3, or D4, then when a photon shows up in one of these detectors, it would cause a signal photon to have shown up in a certain mode a year earlier. Alternatively, knowledge of the future fate of the idler photon would determine the activity of the signal photon in its own present. Neither of these ideas conforms to the usual human expectation of causality. However, knowledge of the future, which would be a hidden variable, was refuted in experiments. [21]

Experiments that involve entanglement exhibit phenomena that may make some people doubt their ordinary ideas about causal sequence. In the delayed-choice quantum eraser, an interference pattern will form on D0 even if which-path data pertinent to photons that form it are only erased later in time than the signal photons that hit the primary detector. Not only that feature of the experiment is puzzling; D0 can, in principle at least, be on one side of the universe, and the other four detectors can be "on the other side of the universe" to each other. [22] :197f

Consensus: no retrocausality

However, the interference pattern can only be seen retroactively once the idler photons have been detected and the experimenter has had information about them available, with the interference pattern being seen when the experimenter looks at particular subsets of signal photons that were matched with idlers that went to particular detectors. [22] :197

Moreover, the apparent retroactive action vanishes if the effects of observations on the state of the entangled signal and idler photons are considered in their historic order. Specifically, in the case when detection/deletion of which-way information happens before the detection on D0, the standard simplistic explanation says "The detector Di, at which the idler photon is detected, determines the probability distribution at D0 for the signal photon". Similarly, in the case when D0precedes detection of the idler photon, the following description is just as accurate: "The position at D0 of the detected signal photon determines the probabilities for the idler photon to hit either of D1, D2, D3 or D4". These are just equivalent ways of formulating the correlations of entangled photons' observables in an intuitive causal way, so one may choose any of those (in particular, that one where the cause precedes the consequence and no retrograde action appears in the explanation).

The total pattern of signal photons at the primary detector never shows interference (see Fig. 5), so it is not possible to deduce what will happen to the idler photons by observing the signal photons alone. The delayed-choice quantum eraser does not communicate information in a retro-causal manner because it takes another signal, one which must arrive by a process that can go no faster than the speed of light, to sort the superimposed data in the signal photons into four streams that reflect the states of the idler photons at their four distinct detection screens. [note 2] [note 3]

In fact, a theorem proved by Phillippe Eberhard shows that if the accepted equations of relativistic quantum field theory are correct, it should never be possible to experimentally violate causality using quantum effects. [23] (See reference [24] for a treatment emphasizing the role of conditional probabilities.)

In addition to challenging our common-sense ideas of temporal sequence in cause and effect relationships, this experiment is among those that strongly attack our ideas about locality, the idea that things cannot interact unless they are in contact, if not by being in direct physical contact then at least by interaction through magnetic or other such field phenomena. [22] :199

Against consensus

Despite Eberhard's proof, some physicists have speculated that these experiments might be changed in a way that would be consistent with previous experiments, yet which could allow for experimental causality violations. [25] [26] [27]

Other delayed-choice quantum-eraser experiments

Many refinements and extensions of Kim et al. delayed-choice quantum eraser have been performed or proposed. Only a small sampling of reports and proposals are given here:

Scarcelli et al. (2007) reported on a delayed-choice quantum-eraser experiment based on a two-photon imaging scheme. After detecting a photon passed through a double-slit, a random delayed choice was made to erase or not erase the which-path information by the measurement of its distant entangled twin; the particle-like and wave-like behavior of the photon were then recorded simultaneously and respectively by only one set of joint detectors. [28]

Peruzzo et al. (2012) have reported on a quantum delayed-choice experiment based on a quantum-controlled beam splitter, in which particle and wave behaviors were investigated simultaneously. The quantum nature of the photon's behavior was tested with a Bell inequality, which replaced the delayed choice of the observer. [29]

Rezai et al. (2018) have combined the Hong-Ou-Mandel interference with a delayed choice quantum eraser. They impose two incompatible photons onto a beam-splitter, such that no interference pattern could be observed. When the output ports are monitored in an integrated fashion (i.e. counting all the clicks), no interference occurs. Only when the outcoming photons are polarization analysed and the right subset is selected, quantum interference in the form of a Hong-Ou-Mandel dip occurs. [30]

The construction of solid-state electronic Mach–Zehnder interferometers (MZI) has led to proposals to use them in electronic versions of quantum-eraser experiments. This would be achieved by Coulomb coupling to a second electronic MZI acting as a detector. [31]

Entangled pairs of neutral kaons have also been examined and found suitable for investigations using quantum marking and quantum-erasure techniques. [32]

A quantum eraser has been proposed using a modified Stern-Gerlach setup. In this proposal, no coincident counting is required, and quantum erasure is accomplished by applying an additional Stern-Gerlach magnetic field. [33]

Notes

1. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "More recently, the Bell type experiments have been interpreted by some as if quantum events could be connected in such a way that the past light cone might be accessible under non-local interaction; not only in the sense of action at a distance but as backward causation. One of the most enticing experiments of this kind is the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser designed by Yoon-Ho Kim et. al (2000). It is a rather complicated construction. It is set up to measure correlated pairs of photons, which are in an entangled state, so that one of the two photons is detected 8 nanoseconds before its partner. The results of the experiment are quite amazing. They seem to indicate that the behavior of the photons detected these 8 nanoseconds before their partners is determined by how the partners will be detected. Indeed it might be tempting to interpret these results as an example of the future causing the past. The result is, however, in accordance with the predictions of quantum mechanics." http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-backwards/.
2. "... the future measurements do not in any way change the data you collected today. But the future measurements do influence the kinds of details you can invoke when you subsequently describe what happened today. Before you have the results of the idler photon measurements, you really can't say anything at all about the which-path history of any given signal photon. However, once you have the results, you conclude that signal photons whose idler partners were successfully used to ascertain which-path information can be described as having ... traveled either left or right. You also conclude that signal photons whose idler partners had their which-path information erased cannot be described as having ... definitely gone one way or the other (a conclusion you can convincingly confirm by using the newly acquired idler photon data to expose the previously hidden interference pattern among this latter class of signal photons). We thus see that the future helps shape the story you tell of the past." — Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos , pp 198–199
3. The Kim paper says: P. 1f: The experiment is designed in such a way that L0, the optical distance between atoms A, B and detector D0, is much shorter than Li, which is the optical distance between atoms A, B and detectors D1, D2, D3, and D4, respectively. So that D0 will be triggered much earlier by photon 1. After the registration of photon 1, we look at these "delayed" detection events of D1, D2, D3, and D4 which have constant time delays, i ≃ (Li − L0)/c, relative to the triggering time of D0. P.2: In this experiment the optical delay (Li − L0) is chosen to be ≃ 2.5m, where L0 is the optical distance between the output surface of BBO and detector D0, and Li is the optical distance between the output surface of the BBO and detectors D1, D2, D3, and D4, respectively. This means that any information one can learn from photon 2 must be at least 8ns later than what one has learned from the registration of photon 1. Compared to the 1ns response time of the detectors, 2.5m delay is good enough for a "delayed erasure". P. 3: The which-path or both-path information of a quantum can be erased or marked by its entangled twin even after the registration of the quantum. P. 2: After the registration of photon 1, we look at these "delayed" detection events of D1, D2, D3, and D4 which have constant time delays, i ≃ (Li − L0)/c, relative to the triggering time of D0. It is easy to see these "joint detection" events must have resulted from the same photon pair. (Emphasis added. This is the point at which what is going on at D0 can be figured out.)

Related Research Articles

In modern physics, the double-slit experiment is a demonstration that light and matter can display characteristics of both classically defined waves and particles; moreover, it displays the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena. This type of experiment was first performed, using light, by Thomas Young in 1801, as a demonstration of the wave behavior of light. At that time it was thought that light consisted of either waves or particles. With the beginning of modern physics, about a hundred years later, it was realized that light could in fact show behavior characteristic of both waves and particles. In 1927, Davisson and Germer demonstrated that electrons show the same behavior, which was later extended to atoms and molecules. Thomas Young's experiment with light was part of classical physics long before the development of quantum mechanics and the concept of wave-particle duality. He believed it demonstrated that the wave theory of light was correct, and his experiment is sometimes referred to as Young's experiment or Young's slits.

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when a group of particles are generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in a way such that the quantum state of each particle of the group cannot be described independently of the state of the others, including when the particles are separated by a large distance. The topic of quantum entanglement is at the heart of the disparity between classical and quantum physics: entanglement is a primary feature of quantum mechanics lacking in classical mechanics.

Wave–particle duality is the concept in quantum mechanics that every particle or quantum entity may be described as either a particle or a wave. It expresses the inability of the classical concepts "particle" or "wave" to fully describe the behaviour of quantum-scale objects. As Albert Einstein wrote:

It seems as though we must use sometimes the one theory and sometimes the other, while at times we may use either. We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do.

The de Broglie–Bohm theory, also known as the pilot wave theory, Bohmian mechanics, Bohm's interpretation, and the causal interpretation, is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. In addition to the wavefunction, it also postulates an actual configuration of particles exists even when unobserved. The evolution over time of the configuration of all particles is defined by a guiding equation. The evolution of the wave function over time is given by the Schrödinger equation. The theory is named after Louis de Broglie (1892–1987) and David Bohm (1917–1992).

In physics, the Mach–Zehnder interferometer is a device used to determine the relative phase shift variations between two collimated beams derived by splitting light from a single source. The interferometer has been used, among other things, to measure phase shifts between the two beams caused by a sample or a change in length of one of the paths. The apparatus is named after the physicists Ludwig Mach and Ludwig Zehnder; Zehnder's proposal in an 1891 article was refined by Mach in an 1892 article. Demonstrations of Mach-Zehnder interferometry with particles other than photons had been demonstrated as well in multiple experiments.

In Bell tests, there may be problems of experimental design or set-up that affect the validity of the experimental findings. These problems are often referred to as "loopholes". See the article on Bell's theorem for the theoretical background to these experimental efforts. The purpose of the experiment is to test whether nature is best described using a local hidden variable theory or by the quantum entanglement theory of quantum mechanics.

A Bell test, also known as Bell inequality test or Bell experiment, is a real-world physics experiment designed to test the theory of quantum mechanics in relation to Albert Einstein's concept of local realism. The experiments test whether or not the real world satisfies local realism, which requires the presence of some additional local variables to explain the behavior of particles like photons and electrons. To date, all Bell tests have found that the hypothesis of local hidden variables is inconsistent with the way that physical systems behave.

A local hidden-variable theory in the interpretation of quantum mechanics is a hidden-variable theory that has the added requirement of being consistent with local realism. It refers to all types of the theory that attempt to account for the probabilistic features of quantum mechanics by the mechanism of underlying inaccessible variables, with the additional requirement from local realism that distant events be independent, ruling out instantaneous interactions between separate events.

Spontaneous parametric down-conversion is a nonlinear instant optical process that converts one photon of higher energy, into a pair of photons of lower energy, in accordance with the law of conservation of energy and law of conservation of momentum. It is an important process in quantum optics, for the generation of entangled photon pairs, and of single photons.

The Afshar experiment is a variation of the double slit experiment in quantum mechanics, devised and carried out by Shahriar Afshar while at the private, Boston-based Institute for Radiation-Induced Mass Studies (IRIMS). The results were presented at a Harvard seminar in March 2004. Afshar claimed that the experiment gives information about which of two paths a photon takes through the apparatus while simultaneously allowing interference between the two paths to be observed, by showing that a grid of wires, placed at the nodes of the interference pattern, does not alter the beams. Afshar claimed that the experiment violates the principle of complementarity of quantum mechanics, which states roughly that the particle and wave aspects of quantum objects cannot be observed at the same time, and specifically the Englert–Greenberger duality relation. The experiment has been repeated by a number of investigators but its interpretation is controversial and there are several theories that explain the effect without violating complementarity.

The Elitzur–Vaidman bomb-tester is a quantum mechanics thought experiment that uses interaction-free measurements to verify that a bomb is functional without having to detonate it. It was conceived in 1993 by Avshalom Elitzur and Lev Vaidman. Since their publication, real-world experiments have confirmed that their theoretical method works as predicted.

In quantum mechanics, the quantum eraser experiment is an interferometer experiment that demonstrates several fundamental aspects of quantum mechanics, including quantum entanglement and complementarity. The quantum eraser experiment is a variation of Thomas Young's classic double-slit experiment. It establishes that when action is taken to determine which of 2 slits a photon has passed through, the photon cannot interfere with itself. When a stream of photons is marked in this way, then the interference fringes characteristic of the Young experiment will not be seen. The experiment also creates situations in which a photon that has been "marked" to reveal through which slit it has passed can later be "unmarked." A photon that has been "marked" cannot interfere with itself and will not produce fringe patterns, but a photon that has been "marked" and then "unmarked" will interfere with itself and produce the fringes characteristic of Young's experiment.

Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment is actually several thought experiments in quantum physics, proposed by John Archibald Wheeler, with the most prominent among them appearing in 1978 and 1984. These experiments are attempts to decide whether light somehow "senses" the experimental apparatus in the double-slit experiment it will travel through and adjusts its behavior to fit by assuming the appropriate determinate state for it, or whether light remains in an indeterminate state, neither wave nor particle until measured.

The wave–particle duality relation, often loosely referred to as the Englert–Greenberger–Yasin duality relation, or the Englert–Greenberger relation, relates the visibility, , of interference fringes with the definiteness, or distinguishability, , of the photons' paths in quantum optics. As an inequality:

Popper's experiment is an experiment proposed by the philosopher Karl Popper to put to the test different interpretations of quantum mechanics (QM). In fact, as early as 1934, Popper started criticising the increasingly more accepted Copenhagen interpretation, a popular subjectivist interpretation of quantum mechanics. Therefore, in his most famous book Logik der Forschung he proposed a first experiment alleged to empirically discriminate between the Copenhagen Interpretation and a realist interpretation, which he advocated. Einstein, however, wrote a letter to Popper about the experiment in which he raised some crucial objections and Popper himself declared that this first attempt was "a gross mistake for which I have been deeply sorry and ashamed of ever since".

Quantum imaging is a new sub-field of quantum optics that exploits quantum correlations such as quantum entanglement of the electromagnetic field in order to image objects with a resolution or other imaging criteria that is beyond what is possible in classical optics. Examples of quantum imaging are quantum ghost imaging, quantum lithography, sub-shot-noise imaging, and quantum sensing. Quantum imaging may someday be useful for storing patterns of data in quantum computers and transmitting large amounts of highly secure encrypted information. Quantum mechanics has shown that light has inherent “uncertainties” in its features, manifested as moment-to-moment fluctuations in its properties. Controlling these fluctuations—which represent a sort of “noise”—can improve detection of faint objects, produce better amplified images, and allow workers to more accurately position laser beams.

In physics, the observer effect is the disturbance of an observed system by the act of observation. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A common example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. Similarly, it is not possible to see any object without light hitting the object, and causing it to reflect that light. While the effects of observation are often negligible, the object still experiences a change. This effect can be found in many domains of physics, but can usually be reduced to insignificance by using different instruments or observation techniques.

Hardy's paradox is a thought experiment in quantum mechanics devised by Lucien Hardy in 1992–3 in which a particle and its antiparticle may interact without annihilating each other.

Quantum illumination is a paradigm for target detection that employs quantum entanglement between a signal electromagnetic mode and an idler electromagnetic mode, as well as joint measurement of these modes. The signal mode is propagated toward a region of space, and it is either lost or reflected, depending on whether a target is absent or present, respectively. In principle, quantum illumination can be beneficial even if the original entanglement is completely destroyed by a lossy and noisy environment.

Quantum microscopy is a novel tool that allows microscopic properties of matter and quantum particles to be measured and directly visualized. There are various types of microscopy that use quantum principles. The first microscope to make use of quantum concepts was the scanning tunneling microscope, which paved the way for development of the photoionization microscope and the quantum entanglement microscope.

References

1. Kim, Yoon-Ho; R. Yu; S. P. Kulik; Y. H. Shih; Marlan Scully (2000). "A Delayed "Choice" Quantum Eraser". Physical Review Letters . 84 (1): 1–5. arXiv:. Bibcode:2000PhRvL..84....1K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1. PMID   11015820. S2CID   5099293.
2. Ma, Xiao-Song; Kofler, Johannes; Qarry, Angie; Tetik, Nuray; Scheidl, Thomas; Ursin, Rupert; Ramelow, Sven; Herbst, Thomas; Ratschbacher, Lothar; Fedrizzi, Alessandro; Jennewein, Thomas; Zeilinger, Anton (2013). "Quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 110 (4): 1221–1226. arXiv:. Bibcode:2013PNAS..110.1221M. doi:10.1073/pnas.1213201110. PMC  . PMID   23288900. Our results demonstrate that the viewpoint that the system photon behaves either definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle would require faster-than-light communication. Because this would be in strong tension with the special theory of relativity, we believe that such a viewpoint should be given up entirely.
3. Peruzzo, A.; Shadbolt, P.; Brunner, N.; Popescu, S.; O'Brien, J. L. (2012). "A Quantum Delayed-Choice Experiment". Science. 338 (6107): 634–637. arXiv:. Bibcode:2012Sci...338..634P. doi:10.1126/science.1226719. PMID   23118183. S2CID   3725159. This experiment uses Bell inequalities to replace the delayed choice devices, but it achieves the same experimental purpose in an elegant and convincing way.
4. Feynman, Richard P.; Robert B. Leighton; Matthew Sands (1965). The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. 3. US: Addison-Wesley. pp. 1.1–1.8. ISBN   978-0-201-02118-9.
5. Donati, O; Missiroli, G F; Pozzi, G (1973). "An Experiment on Electron Interference". American Journal of Physics. 41 (5): 639–644. Bibcode:1973AmJPh..41..639D. doi:10.1119/1.1987321.
6. Greene, Brian (2003). . Random House, Inc. ISBN   978-0-375-70811-4.
7. Harrison, David (2002). "Complementarity and the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics". UPSCALE. Dept. of Physics, U. of Toronto. Retrieved 2008-06-21.
8. Cassidy, David (2008). "Quantum Mechanics 1925–1927: Triumph of the Copenhagen Interpretation". Werner Heisenberg. American Institute of Physics. Retrieved 2008-06-21.
9. Boscá Díaz-Pintado, María C. (29–31 March 2007). "Updating the wave-particle duality". 15th UK and European Meeting on the Foundations of Physics. Leeds, UK. Retrieved 2008-06-21.
10. Bartell, L. (1980). "Complementarity in the double-slit experiment: On simple realizable systems for observing intermediate particle-wave behavior". Physical Review D. 21 (6): 1698–1699. Bibcode:1980PhRvD..21.1698B. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.21.1698.
11. Scully, Marlan O.; Kai Drühl (1982). "Quantum eraser: A proposed photon correlation experiment concerning observation and "delayed choice" in quantum mechanics". Physical Review A. 25 (4): 2208–2213. Bibcode:1982PhRvA..25.2208S. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.25.2208.
12. Zajonc, A. G.; Wang, L. J.; Zou, X. Y.; Mandel, L. (1991). "Quantum eraser". Nature. 353 (6344): 507–508. Bibcode:1991Natur.353..507Z. doi:10.1038/353507b0. S2CID   4265543.
13. Herzog, T. J.; Kwiat, P. G.; Weinfurter, H.; Zeilinger, A. (1995). "Complementarity and the quantum eraser" (PDF). Physical Review Letters. 75 (17): 3034–3037. Bibcode:1995PhRvL..75.3034H. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.3034. PMID   10059478. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 December 2013. Retrieved 13 February 2014.
14. Walborn, S. P.; et al. (2002). "Double-Slit Quantum Eraser". Phys. Rev. A. 65 (3): 033818. arXiv:. Bibcode:2002PhRvA..65c3818W. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.65.033818. S2CID   55122015.
15. Jacques, Vincent; Wu, E; Grosshans, Frédéric; Treussart, François; Grangier, Philippe; Aspect, Alain; Rochl, Jean-François (2007). "Experimental Realization of Wheeler's Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment". Science. 315 (5814): 966–968. arXiv:. Bibcode:2007Sci...315..966J. doi:10.1126/science.1136303. PMID   17303748. S2CID   6086068.
16. Chiao, R. Y.; P. G. Kwiat; Steinberg, A. M. (1995). "Quantum non-locality in two-photon experiments at Berkeley". Quantum and Semiclassical Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B. 7 (3): 259–278. arXiv:. Bibcode:1995QuSOp...7..259C. doi:10.1088/1355-5111/7/3/006. S2CID   118987962.
17. Jordan, T. F. (1993). "Disappearance and reappearance of macroscopic quantum interference". Physical Review A. 48 (3): 2449–2450. Bibcode:1993PhRvA..48.2449J. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.48.2449. PMID   9909872.
18. Ionicioiu, R.; Terno, D. R. (2011). "Proposal for a quantum delayed-choice experiment". Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (23): 230406. arXiv:. Bibcode:2011PhRvL.107w0406I. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.230406. PMID   22182073. S2CID   44297197.
19. J.A. Wheeler, Quantum Theory and Measurement, Princeton University Press p.192-213
20. Greene, Brian (2004). The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. Alfred A. Knopf. p.  198. ISBN   978-0-375-41288-2.
21. Peruzzo, Alberto; Shadbolt, Peter J.; Brunner, Nicolas; Popescu, Sandu; O'Brien, Jeremy L. (2012). "A quantum delayed choice experiment". Science. 338 (6107): 634–637. arXiv:. Bibcode:2012Sci...338..634P. doi:10.1126/science.1226719. PMID   23118183. S2CID   3725159.
22. Greene, Brian (2004). . Alfred A. Knopf. ISBN   978-0-375-41288-2.
23. Eberhard, Phillippe H.; Ronald R. Ross (1989). "Quantum field theory cannot provide faster-than-light communication". Foundations of Physics Letters. 2 (2): 127–149. Bibcode:1989FoPhL...2..127E. doi:10.1007/BF00696109. S2CID   123217211.
24. Gaasbeek, Bram (2010). "Demystifying the Delayed Choice Experiments". arXiv: [quant-ph].
25. John G. Cramer. NASA Goes FTL - Part 2: Cracks in Nature's FTL Armor. "Alternate View" column, Analog Science Fiction and Fact, February 1995.
26. Werbos, Paul J.; Dolmatova, Ludmila (2000). "The Backwards-Time Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - Revisited with Experiment". arXiv:.
27. John Cramer, "An Experimental Test of Signaling using Quantum Nonlocality" has links to several reports from the University of Washington researchers in his group. See: http://faculty.washington.edu/jcramer/NLS/NL_signal.htm.
28. Scarcelli, G.; Zhou, Y.; Shih, Y. (2007). "Random delayed-choice quantum eraser via two-photon imaging". The European Physical Journal D. 44 (1): 167–173. arXiv:. Bibcode:2007EPJD...44..167S. doi:10.1140/epjd/e2007-00164-y. S2CID   10267634.
29. Peruzzo, A.; Shadbolt, P.; Brunner, N.; Popescu, S.; O'Brien, J. L. (2012). "A quantum delayed-choice experiment". Science. 338 (6107): 634–637. arXiv:. Bibcode:2012Sci...338..634P. doi:10.1126/science.1226719. PMID   23118183. S2CID   3725159.
30. Rezai, M.; Wrachtrup, J.; Gerhardt, I. (2018). "Coherence Properties of Molecular Single Photons for Quantum Networks". Physical Review X. 8 (3): 031026. Bibcode:2018PhRvX...8c1026R. doi:.
31. Dressel, J.; Choi, Y.; Jordan, A. N. (2012). "Measuring which-path information with coupled electronic Mach-Zehnder interferometers". Physical Review B. 85 (4): 045320. arXiv:. doi:10.1103/physrevb.85.045320. S2CID   110142737.
32. Bramon, A.; Garbarino, G.; Hiesmayr, B. C. (2004). "Quantum marking and quantum erasure for neutral kaons". Physical Review Letters. 92 (2): 020405. arXiv:. Bibcode:2004PhRvL..92b0405B. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.92.020405. PMID   14753924. S2CID   36478919.
33. Qureshi, T.; Rahman, Z. (2012). "Quantum eraser using a modified Stern-Gerlach setup". Progress of Theoretical Physics. 127 (1): 71–78. arXiv:. Bibcode:2012PThPh.127...71Q. doi:10.1143/PTP.127.71. S2CID   59470770.