arXiv:0812.4775v4 [quant-ph] 25 Dec 2010 eitoso oiinadmmnu.Heisenberg 2]. [1, states Gaussian momentum. for (2) and relation proved position himself of deviations with rtpoe h o-oua inequality now-popular the proved first h ucranis ∆ ’uncertainties’ the measurement. position any by caused disturbance Heisenberg momentum unavoidable the 1927, of as amount expression in minimum quantitative this published establish [1] to attempted paper celebrated his ftepril nti ieto screae o∆ to ∆ correlated principle is general direction Heisenberg’s this of in means particle the ∆ and of uncertainty momentum is the between It that relation slit. wave-length Broglie’s the de to the from to perpendicular seen relative direction particle a the in of diaphragm, position the of uncertainty the narrower the has greater it is slit. which after an diaphragm, particle imply the the will passed of slit momentum the the by wave in diaphragm, uncertainty plane the the on of diffraction impinges is the it particle before the particle of known momentum single completely the experimen- if some a Even of of diaphragm arrangement. a case tal in measurement. ordinary slit of a the through process with passing the begin in us uncertainty role Let Heisenberg’s their of and illustration relations an as discussed etr 2 eepaie i rnil ytefra re- formal the his by principle In his finement separately. emphasized case he each [2] in lecture measure, plausible some nteohrhn,i a enr 3 n12 who 1927 in [3] Kennard was it hand, other the On esneghmefddntgv nqedfiiinfor definition unique a give not did himself Heisenberg o h it ftesi,sy∆ say slit, the of width the Now been often has slit a by wave plane a of diffraction The igesi ircinadteHiebr rnil o po for principle Heisenberg the and diffraction Single-slit ~ = h/ 2 rbblt egtt esr oetmi nt idwof window finite a in momentum a measure to weight probability scniee ooti h orsodn rbblt dens probability law corresponding asymptotic the obtain to considered is ASnmes 36.w 36.a 03.65.Db 03.65.Ta, 03.65.-w, numbers: PACS Pl mechanics; process; Quantum Measurement principle; Uncertainty Keywords: π oohoai ih speae yasnl lto pta w spatial of slit single a by prepared is light Monochromatic and , INTRODUCTION σ ¨ lc uecmuigCnr,JuihRsac ete 5 Centre, J¨ulich Research Centre, J¨ulich Supercomputing σ x ∆ x x x , n ∆ and σ ∆ σ p p p ≥ P en h riaystandard ordinary the being & ~ ∼ p ifi ¨rih noHffan hmsSch¨urmann Thomas Hoffmann, G¨orlich, Ingo Winfrid / h. u siae hmby them estimated but , (2) 2 ∆ x h x ∆ a etkna the as taken be may , p p svrfid while verified, is ftemomentum the of x ∆ p ∼ h x In . h (1) by sPac’ osato action. of constant Planck’s is 1 eest rosof statement The errors to [4]. are refers related (1) (1) closely principle even or uncertainty equivalent the not of statement common zdwv ucini oiinsae ihntesi will slit the be normal- within to spaces the considered generality, position be of in function loss distance wave Without a ized at slit. placed the screen a behind on observed are particles h oetm smaue nayoesse.So system. with interfering or one measurement one other. position any of the the prepared on question either no measured is similar them, there is of on momentum, one only the measurements But of systems. ensembles slit. in a pass particles when Actually, situation that preparation. the so the is by this particle, changed the is measurement disturbs momentum initial the necessarily the position that the is of particle observation same key and the the position for and considered The both system. are momentum one the on momentum and sition eu.Fnly epeetasml ae xeietand experiment principle. laser uncertainty simple the a verify present experimental we well-defined Finally, a obtain setup. statement to the necessary in of seem see refinements (1) will some we section, As following the consideration. under process surement ai ln ae ersniga noigba fpar- momentum of with beam incoming ticles an representing wave, plane matic an nifiieyln lto it ∆ width of slit long infinitely an tains rnil 1.Iiily ewl ics h rcs defini- precise the discuss ∆ of will tion we Initially, (1). uncertainty the principle to corresponding processes measurement lal,tesaitcldseso rnil 2 n the and (2) principle dispersion statistical the Clearly, nwa ilflo,w utfcson focus just we follow, will what In spreads statistical to refers (2) hand, other the On ntesnl-ltdffato xeiet monochro- a experiment, diffraction single-slit the In nkscntn;Dffato experiment; Diffraction constant; anck’s t ftemmnu.Let momentum. the of ity H IGESI EXPERIMENT SINGLE-SLIT THE x ψ ( n ∆ and x dh∆ idth = ) 45J¨ulich, Germany 2425 it ∆ width  p n hi enn ntrso h mea- the of terms in meaning their and x √ h ircinpattern diffraction The . ∆ 1 iinadmomentum and sition simultaneous x if 0 p p 0 ∗ o ∆ For . migso alta con- that wall a on impinges , if | | x x p | ≤ | P esrmnso po- of measurements → > ethe be ∆ ∆ the 0 x h diffracted The . x/ x/ 2 2 simultaneous (3) L 2 where x is the position coordinate in the direction per- Momentum probability pendicular to the slit. The most natural measure of the 1 uncertainty in position is the width of the slit ∆x > 0, 0.9 while any particle reaching the screen has to pass the slit unit step function in advance. Let p be the momentum component along 0.8 least upper bound exact the x-direction. Then, all particles of the sample acquire 0.7 measurement a momentum spread on passing through the slit in accor- 0.6 x) dance to the distribution ∆ p|

∆ 0.5

2 P( π∆x 2 ∆x sin( h p) 0.4 |ϕ(p)| = π∆x . (4) h " h p # 0.3 0.2 In quantum mechanics, the latter is obtained by Fourier transform of the initial wave function (plane wave) 0.1 reduced by the slit. 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ξ = ∆x∆p/h Although the position uncertainty ∆x is clearly defined by the width of the slit, the uncertainty ∆p of the mo- FIG. 1: The Heisenberg inequality (1) is schematically ex- mentum has many appearances. In the usual analysis it is pressed by a step-function at ξ = 1. For the plane wave evaluated as the width of the main peak in the diffraction (exact) the conditional probability (5) is monotonic increas- pattern at the screen. Typically, the latter is chosen as ing and approaches ∼ ξ for ξ → 0. The least upper bound is twice the value of the first interference minimum (FIM), also shown (see text). or equal to the full width at the half maximum (FWHM) [5][6][7]. The choice between both is sometimes forced by practical purposes since a high quality diffraction pattern time-frequency analysis in signal-theory [8][9][10]. Its in- is hard to obtain. For instance, in the case of heavy mas- terpretation for position and momentum observables can sive particles the minima of the diffraction pattern do be found in [11][12][13]. In the quantum limes ξ → 0 this not always reach zero at their minima. However, such bound approaches zero of order ∼ ξ (see Fig. 1). measures are mostly based on the probability weight of In the following section, we will consider a simple (text- the momentum density inside the width ∆p around the book) setup for an experimental verification of the mo- main peak. mentum probability (5) applied to the particular case of The probability of detecting particles with momentum a monochromatic wave. inside the interval ∆p is formally given by integrating the momentum density of the particles. In our example, we obtain the following expression: EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

∆p/2 2 P (∆p|∆x; ϕ)= |ϕ(p)| dp (5) The diffraction pattern associated with the probability ∆p/2 Z− density (4) is obtained on a distant screen. That is, for Actually, this probability is a conditional probability large distances L the momentum substitution p → xp0/L and dependent on both measurement precisions ∆x and is applied, while x is the coordinate perpendicular to the ∆p, ensuring the tradeoff between the complimentary ob- beam measured on the screen and p0 = h/λ0 is the initial servables. mean momentum of the particles. In Fig. 1, we see the measurement probability for a The incident wave may represent either the plane wave with respect to the parameter Schr¨odinger wave function of a particle of mass m, in which case the angular frequency is ω = ~k2/2m, or ∆x∆p else it may represent the electric field amplitude of an ξ = . (6) h electromagnetic wave, in which case ω = ck. The latter approach is represented by the Helmholtz equation and The FWHM and the FIM then correspond to the the mathematical formulation is similar in both cases. special cases ξ = 0.89 and ξ = 2 respectively. The By simple algebraic substitution we obtain the following Heisenberg inequality (1) is schematically expressed by intensity pattern at the screen in terms of x in the the ’step-function’ at ξ = 1. Fraunhofer approach On the other hand, there is a general least upper bound of the probability (5) which is independent of the wave 2 sin( π∆x x) function. This bound was first obtained by Slepian, Lan- 2 ∆x λ0 |ϕ˜(x)| = ∆ (7) λ0L π x dau and Pollak in the study of bandlimited functions for " λ0 x # 3 and the screen position x is related to the parameter Measurement and theoretical diffraction pattern 3 2∆x 10 exact ξ = x. (8) measurement λ0L 2 10 The latter is the key quantity relating the theoretical 1 predictions of Fig. 1 within the slit to the intensity pat- 10 tern at the screen. It is known from Fourier-Optics [14] 0 that a thin converging lens with focal length f performs 10 a Fourier transformation between the front and rear focal −1 plane. Furthermore, it reduces the limit L → ∞ to the Normalized Intensity 10 finite length L = f, and equation (7) holds.

−2 10

−3 10 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 Position on CCD (mm)

FIG. 3: Measured versus theoretical probability density in semi-logarithmic representation for 12 orders of diffraction. The theoretical prediction fits the data for about 4 orders of magnitude.

SUMMARY FIG. 2: The intensity of the diffraction pattern is measured by a CCD-Sensor. The width of the slit is ∆x = 109 ± 2 µm and the focal length of the lens is f = 200.5 mm. It has been shown that there are measurement events beyond the inequality ∆x∆p ≥ h. Moreover, we verified that the probability weight of such events approach zero We apply laser light of the spontaneous and stimulated ∆ ∆ 2 4 x p emission between the 3s and 2p states which results in by the scaling law P ∼ h , when ∆x or ∆p is suffi- a wavelength of λ0 = 632.82 nm, the typical operating ciently small. Finally, it has been verified that the mea- wavelength of a HeNe-Laser (power: 0.5 mW). The in- surement intensity satisfies the least upper bound pre- tensity of the beam is controlled by a polarization filter dicted in literature. and subsequently collimated (see Fig. 2). The fixed width of the slit is ∆x = 109 ± 2 µm and the focal length of the thin lens is f = 200.5 mm. ∗ The intensity of the diffraction pattern is measured Electronic address: ¡[email protected]¿ by a Charge-Coupled-Device Sensor (CCD-Sensor). It [1] W. Heisenberg, Z. Phys. 43, 172 (1927). is located at the distance of 2f behind the slit. The [2] W. Heisenberg, The Physical Principles of the Quantum measurement range and the resolution of the CCD-Sensor Theory, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1930) is given by 3648 pixels and the size of a single pixel 8 µm. [Reprinted by Dover, New York (1949, 1967)]. 44 The exposure time for a single snapshot is 1 ms. [3] E. H. Kennard, Z. Phys. , 326 (1927). 42 In Fig. 3, we see the average diffraction pattern of the [4] L. E. Ballentine, Rev. Mod. Phys. , 358 (1970). [5] C. G. Shull, Phys. Rev. 179, 752 (1969). measurement compared to the exact density correspond- [6] J. A. Leavit, F. A. Bills, Am. J. Phys. 37 (9), 905 (1969). ing to (7) in semi-logarithmic scales. The error bars are [7] O. Nairz, M. Arndt and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. A 65, very small and thus not expressed in the figure. The ex- 032109 (2002); perimental data fit very well to the exact computation http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0105061v1. up to 12 orders of diffraction. By numerical integration [8] D. Slepian and H. O. Pollak, Bell Syst. Techn. J. 40, 43 of the data we obtain the proabability (5). (1961). 40 It should be mentioned that the main peak of the mea- [9] H. J. Landau and H. O. Pollak, Bell Syst. Techn. J. , 65 (1961). sured histogram is not normalized by the maximum of the [10] D. Slepian , J. Math. Phys. 44, 99 (1965). central peak. Instead, we compute the total voltage over [11] A. Lenard, J. Functional Anal. 10, 410 (1972). all pixels and the partial area of the momentum inter- [12] P. J. Lahti, Rep. Math. Phys. 23, 289 (1986). val ∆p of the empirical density is obtained by numerical [13] T. Sch¨urmann, Acta Phys. Pol. B 39, 587 (2008); integration. The monotonic increasing behavior of the http://th-www.if.uj.edu.pl/acta/vol39/pdf/v39p0587.pdf. distribution is shown in Fig. 1. All measurement results [14] J. W. Goodman, Introduction to Fourier Optics, fit very well to the theoretical computation of (5) over McGraw-Hill Inc., San Francisco, 1968 the whole range ξ > 0.