Arxiv:2010.15719V3 [Quant-Ph] 22 Feb 2021 2 2 Detector

PHYSICAL REVIEW A 103, 022219 (2021)

Multipath wave-particle duality with a path detector in a quantum superposition

Mohd Asad Siddiqui ∗ Institute of Fundamental and Frontier Sciences, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 610051, China.

Tabish Qureshi † Centre for Theoretical Physics, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi 110025, India.

According to Bohr’s principle of complementarity, a quanton can behave either as a wave or a particle, depending on the choice of the experimental setup. Some recent two-path interference experiments have devised methods where one can have a quantum superposition of the two choices, thus indicating that a quanton may be in a superposition of wave and particle natures. These experiments have been of interest from the point of view of Wheeler’s delayed-choice experiment. However, it has also been claimed that this experiment can violate complementarity. Here we theoretically analyze a multipath interference experiment that has a which-path detector in a quantum superposition of being present and absent. We show that a tight multipath wave-particle duality relation is respected in all such situations, and complementarity holds well. The apparent violation of complementarity may be due to incorrect evaluation of path distinguishability in such scenarios. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.103.022219

I. INTRODUCTION D2 The discourse of wave-particle duality has always attracted attention from the early days of quantum me- mirror D1 chanics. It is believed that it lies at the heart of quantum mechanics [1]. It was understood from the beginning that the object exhibits both wave and particle natures. Ob- BS2 jects showing both wave and particle natures are often Single called quantons [2]. It was Bohr who first pointed out photon BS1 that both properties are mutually exclusive and formu- mirror lated it as a principle of complementarity [3]. Wootters Phase and Zurek [4] revisited Bohr’s complementarity principle shifter from the information-theoretic approach, looking at two- slit interference in the presence of a path detector, and FIG. 1. Schematic diagram to illustrate a typical interfer- found that simultaneous observation of both natures is ence experiment with a quantum which-path device BS2. The possible with the proviso that the more you observe one, beam-splitter BS2 is in a superposition of being present in the the more it will obscure the other. Later, Greenberger path of the photon and being away from it. and Yasin [5] formulated a quantitative bound in terms of the predictability and fringe visibility. The predictability was defined as a priori information i.e., it tells one the detector due to destructive interference. In this situation, difference between probabilities of going through differ- it is logical to believe that the photon follows both paths, ent paths. Englert [6] proposed a stronger path quanti- which later interfere. If the second beam-splitter is re- fier which was based on a posteriori path information ac- moved, photons from one path can only reach a particular quired using a path detector, and derived a bound on the arXiv:2010.15719v3 [quant-ph] 22 Feb 2021 2 2 detector. So it is logical to assume that each photon de- path distinguishability and fringe visibility, D + V ≤ 1. tected by any detector came from only one path and not This relation, generally called the wave particle duality both. So the presence of the second beam-splitter makes relation, is understood to be a quantitative statement of the photons behave as a wave, following both paths, and Bohr’s principle. Of late the concept of wave particle in its absence they behave like particles, following only duality has been generalized to multipath interference one path at a time. Wheeler introduced an idea that if [7–11]. the choice of removing or retaining the beam-splitter is In a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, it is understood made after the photon has traversed most of its path, that in the balanced mode, only one of the detectors reg- one can affect the past of the particle in the sense of isters all the photons, and no photons arrive at the other making sure, even after a delay, that the photons behave like a wave or like a particle [12]. This “delayed choice” idea has been a subject of debate for a long time. Some ∗ [email protected] years back, a proposal was made by Ionicioiu and Terno † [email protected] [13] suggesting that the second beam-splitter could be a

1 2 quantum beam-splitter (QBS), such that it is in a quan- and the QPD in a superposition of being present and ab- tum superposition of being present and absent (see Fig. sent. The interaction can be represented by a controlled 1). The idea was that this would force the photon to unitary operation, U. The combined state of quanton be in a superposition of wave and particle natures. This and QPD, after the quanton has traversed the paths and “quantum delayed choice” experiment, with a quantum interacted with the QPD, can be written as beam-splitter immediately became a subject of attention, n n and many experimental and theoretical studies were car- X √ X √ ried out [14–19]. |Ψi = c1 pi |ψii|dii |Y i + c2 pi |ψii |d0i|Ni. Apart from the obvious relevance of this new class of i=1 i=1 experiments to Wheeler’s delayed choice idea, there have (4) been speculations that the superposition of wave and particle natures might violate complementarity. In particu- The ﬁrst term in the above equation represents the quan- lar, some claims of exceeding the bound set by the two- ton states entangled with the internal states of the QPD, path duality relation of the kind D2 + V2 ≤ 1 have been when the QPD is present in the path of the quanton, made [15]. In this paper, we investigate the issue of wave i.e., it is in the state |Y i. Here path information of the particle duality in the more general scenario of n-path quanton is encoded in the |dii states of the QPD, and the interference, where the path detector is in a quantum quanton behaves as a particle. The second term repre- superposition of being present and absent. sents the pure state of the quanton in a superposition of n paths, acting like a wave, and the QPD away from its path, in the state |Ni. The state (4) can be written as II. WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY IN c1|particlei|Y i+c2|wavei|Ni, and represents a superposi- MULTIPATH INTERFERENCE tion of particle nature and wave nature, with amplitudes c1 and c2, respectively. It is the most natural generaliza- A. Duality relation for pure quanton and quantum tion of the wave and particle superposition states studied path detector earlier (without a QPD) [14–19], to the case where there is a real QPD present. A similar state has also been used Consider an n-path interference experiment (see Fig. in a very recent work using a QPD [20]. It may be conve- 2) with pure initial quanton state nient to use the density operator formalism if one wants to generalize the analysis to mixed states. The density n X √ operator for the state (4), is given by |ψini = pi |ψii, (1) i=1 n X √ † ρQD = pipj |ψiihψj| ⊗ Ui|φ0ihφ0|Uj , (5) where pi is the probability of acquiring the ith path and i,j=1 |ψii forms an orthonormal basis. We use a quantum path detector (QPD) to detect the where U |φ i = c |d i|Y i + c |d i|Ni. path acquired by a quanton. There are two degrees of i 0 1 i 2 0 freedom associated with it. One is its location, which The above interaction creates entanglement between is assumed to have two states, |Y i corresponding to it the quanton and path detector. Thus, for gaining knowl- being present in the paths of the quantum and |Ni cor- edge of the path of the quanton, it is suﬃcient to do responding to be being absent from the path. The other a measurement on the states |dii of the QPD. Here we will use the unambiguous quantum state discrimination degree of freedom is its internal state denoted by |dii, which corresponds to it detecting the path of the quan- (UQSD) method for gaining the path information [7,8]. For wave information we will use l1 norm measure of ton. Initially, the QPD is assumed to be in the state |d0i, and if the quanton goes through the kth path, the QPD coherence [8, 21, 22]. Let us now look at the path distinguishability and the measure of coherence. state changes to |dki. So the full initial detector state is given by Path distinguishability: Based on UQSD, the path- distinguishability for n-path interference [7,8], is given |φ0i = |d0i (c1 |Y i + c2 |Ni) , (2) by where c1 is the amplitude of QPD presence and c2 the 1 X √ 2 2 D := 1 − p p |hφ |U †U |φ i| amplitude of its absence; c1+c2 = 1. The state represents Q n − 1 i j 0 j i 0 the QPD being in a superposition of the two locations. i6=j Initially, the joint state of quanton and QPD is given 1 X √ = 1 − p p c2 |hd |d i| + c2 . (6) by n − 1 i j 1 j i 2 i6=j n X √ |Ψini = |ψini|φ0i = pi |ψii|d0i (c1 |Y i + c2 |Ni) , (3) It is essentially the maximum probability with which the i=1 states Ui|φ0i can be unambiguously distinguished from which denotes a pure state of the quanton with amplitude each other. √ pk to go through the kth path, being in the state |ψki, Quantum coherence: Quantum coherence [8, 21, 22] 3

B. Superposition of wave and particle natures

Quantum path-detector The preceding analysis is for the behavior of the quanton irrespective of the location state of the QPD. One might argue that one would get the same result if QPD were not in the superposition state (2), but in a mixed Photon state of being present and absent. To really see the eﬀect of the QPD being in a superposition, one should look at the behavior of the quanton conditioned on obtaining a Multi-slit superposition location state of the QPD. To this end, let us assume the QPD location is measured in certain basis FIG. 2. Schematic drawing of an n-path interference experi- and collapses to ment with a quantum which-path detector. The path-detector is in a superposition of being present and absent in the path |φαi = cos α |Y i + sin α |Ni, (14) of the photon. which is the state just for the location degree of the QPD. The interaction can be represented by a controlled uni- gives the wave nature of a quanton, given by tary operation, U. The combined state of quanton and 1 X QPD can be written as C(ρ) := |ρ |, (7) n − 1 ij i6=j n where n is the dimensionality of the Hilbert space. The X √ 0 0 ρQD = pipj |ψiihψj| ⊗ |diihdj|. (15) reduced density matrix of the quanton can be obtained i,j=1 by tracing out all the states of the QPD: 0 n where |dii ≡ hφα|Ui|φ0i = c1 cos α |dii+c2 sin α |d0i; with X √ † normalization condition c2 cos2 α + c2 sin2 α = 1. ρQ = pipj Tr Ui|φ0ihφ0|Uj |ψiihψj|. (8) 1 2 i,j=1 The above interaction creates the entanglement between the quanton and path detector, with the QPD The set {|ψii} forms a complete basis for the n path out of the picture now. Following the earlier procedure, setup. Thus, the coherence can be obtained using the we will use the UQSD method for gaining the path in- reduced density matrix formation and coherence for wave information. Based 1 X on UQSD, the path-distinguishability for n-path inter- C = |hψ |ρ |ψ i| n − 1 i Q j ference is given by i6=j X √ 1 X √ 1 2 2 2 2 † DQ = 1 − n−1 pipj | c1 cos α hdj|dii + c2 sin α = pipj Tr Ui|φ0ihφ0|Uj . (9) n − 1 i6=j i6=j + c1c2 sin 2α (hd |d i + hd |d i) |. (16) Using Eq. (2), we get the following form: 2 j 0 0 i The reduced density matrix of the quanton can be ob- 1 X √ 2 2 C = pipj c |hdj|dii| + c . (10) tained by tracing out the detector states n − 1 1 2 i6=j n X √ 0 0 Combining Eqs. (6) and (10), we get ρQ = pipj Tr |dii|hdj| |ψiihψj|. (17) i,j=1 DQ + C = 1. (11) The set {|ψii} forms a complete incoherent basis for n This is a tight wave particle duality relation which had path setup. Thus, the coherence can be obtained using been derived earlier for n-path interference [8]. So, the the reduced density matrix relation continues to hold even in the case of a QPD. 1 X √ Two-path experiment: For n = 2 and p1 = p2 = , the 1 0 0 2 C = n−1 pipj hdj|dii . (18) path distinguishability (6) and coherence (10) becomes i6=j 2 DQ = c1 (1 − |hd1|d2i|) (12) Using Eq. (2), we get the following form: X √ 2 2 C = 1 p p |c2 cos2 α hd |d i + c2 sin2 α C = 1 − c1 + c1|hd1|d2i|. (13) n−1 i j 1 j i 2 i6=j Our result reproduces the earlier result [23] for a two path + c1c2 sin 2α (hd |d i + hd |d i) |. (19) experiment in the presence of a QPD, while recognizing 2 j 0 0 i that for two paths, the coherence C is identical to the Combining Eqs. (16) and (19), we get traditional visibility V [22]. It also satisﬁes Eq. (11) in the same way. DQ + C = 1. (20) 4

Thus, even when quanton is forced to be in a superposi- where there is no real path-detector in place, it is all the tion of wave and particle natures, the usual wave-particle more likely to come to an erroneous conclusion regarding duality relation continues to hold. This is at variance the violation of complementarity. with earlier claims suggesting that wave-particle duality relations are violated in such a situation. D. Generalized duality relation

C. Perspectives We extend our analysis for a noisy scenario. The mixed P quanton state can be taken as ρin = ij ρij|ψiihψj|. The At this stage, it may be useful to analyze these results initial joint state of a quanton and a detector system can in light of various earlier works. It is widely believed that 0(in) (0) be written as ρQD = ρin ⊗ ρφ . The effect of noise on the superposition of wave and particle natures may lead the QPD can be represented as to a violation of the complementarity. However, most (0) (0) X (0) † experiments that have been carried out, do not involve ρφ −→ ρeφ = Kiρφ Ki , (21) a path-detecting device. Rather, the beam-splitter BS2 i (see Fig.1) is in a superposition of being present and P † absent. So, in the situation where BS2 is in a superpo- with completeness relation i Ki Ki = I. The spectral sition, there is no way of knowing if a particular photon decomposition of the transformed QPD can then be writ- received at (say) D1, followed one path or both paths. In ten as such a situation, one can only talk of the probability of (0) X ρ = r |φ ihφ |, (22) taking one path or the other; the duality relation that is eφ k k k meaningful is the one derived by Greenberger and Yasin k P [5]. The duality relation pertaining to detecting which where k rk = 1, rk ≥ 0, and hφk|φli = δkl. path the quanton followed, derived by Englert [6], is not The combined quanton-QPD state, when QPD is con- applicable in such scenarios. sidered in state Eq. (14), can be written as The analysis carried out in the previous subsections shows that complementarity is always respected in the n multipath interference experiment which has a path- 0 X X 0 0 ρQD = ρij|ψiihψj| ⊗ rk|dkiihdkj| (23) detecting device in the superposition of being present and i,j=1 k absent. Equation (6) has a nice interpretation that the 0 path-detecting states |dii are present with a probabil- where |dkii ≡ hφα|Ui|φki = c1 cos α |dkii + c2 sin α|dki 2 2 ity c1 and absent with probability c2. And it leads to The path distinguishability for mixed QPD (22) can be the perfect duality relation (11). However, if one naively calculated using uses the same definition, which appears reasonable, for 1 X X √ the case where the quanton is really forced to be in a su- D0 = 1 − r ρ ρ |hd0 |d0 i|. (24) Q n − 1 k ii jj kj ki perposition of wave and particle behaviors, one will run k i6=j into a problem. With that reasoning, one would imag- To find the measure of coherence, let us first calculate ine that the path-detecting states |dii are present with 2 2 the reduced density matrix of the quanton, given by a probability c1 cos α and absent with probability prob- 2 2 ability c2 sin α. The distinguishability will then come n ! 1 P √ 2 2 0 X X 0 0 out to be DQ = 1 − n−1 i6=j pipj | c1 cos α hdj|dii + ρQ = ρijTr rk|dkiihdkj| |ψiihψj|. (25) 2 2 i,j=1 k c2 sin α)|. But the coherence in this situation will 1 P √ 2 2 2 2 be C = n−1 i6=j pipj | c1 cos α hdj|dii + c2 sin α + The coherence comes out to be c1c2 sin 2α (hdj|d0i + hd0|dii) |. It is easy to see that 2 the sum DQ + C may exceed 1 because of the term 0 1 X X 0 0 C = ρij rkhd |d i c1c2 n−1 kj ki 2 sin 2α(hdj|d0i + hd0|dii), which is a signature of in- i6=j k terference between the wave and particle natures. One 1 X X 0 0 may naively interpret it as a violation of complementar- 6 n−1 rk |ρij||hdkj|dkii|. (26) ity. However, recognizing that the paths of the quanton k i6=j 0 are correlated with |dii ≡ hφα|Ui|φ0i = c1 cos α |dii + Combining Eq. (24) and Eq. (26), we get c2 sin α |d0i, and not just with |dii, one can see that the 0 X X √ unambiguous discrimination of |dii is what will yield the 0 0 1 0 0 DQ + C + n−1 rk ( ρiiρjj − |ρij|)|hdkj|dkii| = 1. correct distinguishability (16). This distinguishability k i6=j leads to the correct duality relation (20). (27) So we see that even in the scenario where there is an Every principal 2x2 sub matrix of (23) is positive semi- interference between the wave and particle natures, quan- definite [24], thus we have tum complementarity is fully respected, governed by the √ wave particle duality relation (20). In the experiments ρiiρjj − |ρij| ≥ 0. (28) 5

Therefore, we find that Eq. (27) reduces to implies that detectors D1 and D2 click with probabilities 1 + rt cos θ and 1 − rt cos θ, respectively. For rt = 1 , one 0 0 2 2 4 DQ + C ≤ 1, (29) cannot experimentally distinguish between this situation and the previous one, described by (30), involving a QBS. where the inequality is saturated for pure initial quanton The original proposal claimed that one can correlate the states. detected quantons with the |Y i and |Ni states, and get wave or particle natures [13]. But even in doing that, at a time one can see either wave nature or particle nature. III. ARE EXPERIMENTS WITH A QUANTUM A similar effect can be achieved by randomly removing DEVICE REALLY UNIQUE? BS2 from the quanton path. Recognizing the fact that correlating with |Y i and |Ni Two-path interference experiments with a quantum de- states was like a statistical effect, some authors referred vice have attracted lots of attention. But are these exper- to it as a classical mixture of wave and particle natures, iments really unique? In this section, we try to answer and suggested that to get a true superposition, the quan- this question. ton be observed conditioned on detection of the state Let us consider the setup shown in Fig.1. Since it |φαi = cos α|Y i + sin α|Ni [15, 17, 19]. For the inter- does not use a path-detector, the duality relations de- esting case of α = π/4, the (unnormalized) state of the rived in the previous section are not directly applica- quanton in that situation will be ble here. For simplicity, let us consider the QBS to be 1 iθ in an equal superposition state |φi = √ (|Y i + |Ni), hφ |U |ψi = 1 √1 + e 2 cos θ |D i 2 α QBS 2 2 2 1 |Y i represents the situation when BS2 is in the path, iθ iθ and |Ni when it is not. Let the quanton in the two 1 2 2 √1 θ + 2 e e + i sin 2 |D2i. (32) paths also be in an equal superposition state |ψi = 2 √1 (eiθ|ψ i + |ψ i), θ being an arbitrary phase differ- This state is indeed different from (30), and the two will 2 1 2 ence between the two paths. The effect of BS2 is to yield different results. However, the state for a classical biased beam-splitter, given by (31), may be rewritten as take |ψ1i, |ψ2i to |D1i, |D2i, the detector states of the two detectors D1 and D2, respectively. The transfor- √ iθ 1 t−r 2 θ mation can be written as U |ψ i = √ (|D i + |D i) and UBBS|ψi = 2r 2r + e cos 2 |D1i Y 1 2 1 2 1 √ iθ iθ UY |ψ2i = √ (|D1i−|D2i). If BS2 is absent, the transfor- 2 2 2 t−r θ + 2re e 2r + i sin 2 |D2i. (33) mation is as follows: UN |ψ1i = |D2i and UN |ψ2i = |D1i. The action of the QBS can be represented by a unitary For √t−r = 1, (33) is very similar in form to (32), and operator U = U ⊗ |Y ihY | + U ⊗ |NihN|. Using 2r QBS Y N the probability of (say) D clicking will show the same this, the effect of the QBS on the quanton can be written 2 behavior with respect to the phase θ. as follows: The message from the preceding analysis is that the 1 h iθ quantum case of the QBS is different from the classical UQBS|ψi ⊗ |φi = (UY (e |ψ1i + |ψ2i)|Y i 2 mixture case of the QBS, as has been experimentally ob- iθ i served earlier [18]. However, both these situations can +UN (e |ψ1i + |ψ2i)|Ni also be mimicked by an appropriately biased classical iθ |Ni θ |Y i beam-splitter. We feel it will be interesting to explore = + e 2 cos √ |D1i 2 2 2 the implications of the connection between a QBS and a iθ iθ |Ni |Y i +e 2 e 2 + i sin θ √ |D i (30) biased classical beam-splitter. 2 2 2 2 What about a two-path interference experiment with a real two-state path-detecting device, which is in a su- The above relation implies that detectors D1 and D2 click 1 1 1 1 perposition of being present and absent, one may ask. In with probabilities 2 + 4 cos θ and 2 − 4 cos θ, respectively. Let us consider a setup similar to the one shown in the following, we will show even this experiment is com- Fig.1, except that the second beam-splitter BS2 is not a pletely equivalent to a two-path interference experiment quantum device but a classical biased beam-splitter with with a real two-state path-detecting device, which is al- reflection and transmission coefficients given by |r|2 and ways present, and is not in a superposition in the sense |t|2, respectively, such that |r|2 + |t|2 = 1. The action of that is being discussed here. Let us consider a two-path a biased beam-splitter can be described by the operator interference experiment with a which-way detector whose two states that correlate with the two paths of the quan- UBBS = (r|D1i + t|D2i)hψ1| + (t|D1i − r|D2i)hψ2|. It transforms the incoming state |ψi as ton are not orthogonal to each other. The state of the quanton and path-detector may be written as 1 h iθ iθ i U |ψi = √ (e r + t)|D i + (e t − r)|D i . (31) 1 BBS 2 1 2 |Ψi = √ (|ψ i|d i + |ψ i|d i), (34) 2 1 1 2 2 One can verify that if θ = 0 and r = t = √1 , the quan- 2 where hd1|d2i 6= 0. Now it can be shown that the states ton will always land at the detector D1. The state (31) |d1i, |d2i can be represented in terms of an expanded 6

Hilbert space as follows [25, 26]: IV. CONCLUSIONS

|d1i = γ|q1i + β|q3i, |d2i = γ|q2i + β|q3i, (35) In conclusion, we have theoretically analyzed an n- where |q1i, |q2i, |q3i are orthonormal states, and γ, β are path interference experiment where the path-detector is certain constants which we need not specify for the assumed to exist in a superposition of being present and present purpose. In this basis, the entangled state (34) absent from the interference path. We have shown that has the following form the n-path wave particle duality relation derived earlier [8] continues to hold even in this case. The duality re- |Ψi = √1 γ[|ψ i|q i + |ψ i|q i] + √1 β[|ψ i + |ψ i]|q i. 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 lation remains tight even in the situation where there is (36) expected to be interference between the wave and particle natures of the quanton. So, the various interference This state can be interpreted as a representation of a su- experiments, with a quantum device, may be of interest perposition of wave and particle natures. The quanton for various reasons but are completely within the realm state correlated with |q3i represents a quanton showing of complementarity. We have also shown that the effects wave nature, and the rest showing particle nature. If one seen due to a path detector in a quantum superposition, were to measure an observable Q which has |q1i, |q2i, |q3i can also be seen in interference experiments with a con- as three eigenstates with distinct eigenvalues, the quan- ventional which-way detector. The effects seen in the tons detected in coincidence with |q3i will show full inter- quantum delayed choice experiment, i.e., without a real ference, and those detected in coincidence with |q1i, |q2i path detector, but with a QBS, can also be seen in a will show full particle nature. This state will show all the conventional Mach-Zehnder setup with a biased beam- features that the state (5) can show, although it involves splitter. only a conventional path detector and not a quantum device. Such a state can also be produced without ex- panding the Hilbert space, but by introducing a two-state ancilla system interacting with the path-detector [27]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS From this analysis, we conclude that although a lot of research interest was generated by the interference experiments with a quantum device, the effect they show can M.A.S. acknowledges the National Key R&D Program also be seen in conventional interference experiments. of China, Grant No. 2018YFA0306703.

[1] R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, M. Sands, The Feyn- Lett. 120, 050402 (2018). man Lectures on Physics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, [11] P. Roy, T. Qureshi, Path predictability and quantum co- 1966) Vol. 3, p. 1-1. herence in multi-slit interference. Phys. Scr. 94, 095004 [2] M. Bunge, Foundations of Physics (Springer-Verlag, Hei- (2019) . delberg, 1967), p. 235 [12] J. A. Wheeler, The “past” and the “delayed-choice” [3] N. Bohr, The quantum postulate and the recent devel- double-slit experiment. in Mathematical Foundations of opment of atomic theory. Nature (London) 121, 580-591 Quantum Theory, edited by A.R. Marlow (Academic (1928). Press, New York, 1978), pp 9-48. [4] W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek, Complementarity [13] R. Ionicioiu and D. R. Terno, Proposal for a Quan- in the double-slit experiment: Quantum nonseparabil- tum Delayed-Choice Experiment. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, ity and a quantitive statement of Bohr’s principle. Phys. 230406 (2011). Rev. D 19, 473 (1979). [14] R. Auccaise, R. M. Serra, J. G. Filgueiras, R. S. Sarthour, [5] D. M. Greenberger, A. Yasin, Simultaneous wave and I. S. Oliveira, L. C. Celeri, Experimental analysis of the particle knowledge in a neutron interferometer. Phys. quantum complementarity principle. Phys. Rev. A 85, Lett. A 128, 391 (1988). 032121 (2012). [6] B.-G. Englert, Fringe visibility and which-way informa- [15] J-S. Tang, Y-L. Li, C-F. Li and G-C. Guo, Revisiting tion: an inequality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2154 (1996). Bohr’s principle of complementarity with a quantum de- [7] M. A. Siddiqui, T. Qureshi, Three-slit interference: A vice. Phys. Rev. A 88, 014103 (2013). duality relation. Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2015, 083A02 [16] A. Peruzzo, P. Shadbolt, N. Brunner, S. Popescu and (2015). J. L. O’Brien, A Quantum Delayed-Choice Experiment. [8] M. N. Bera, T. Qureshi, M. A. Siddiqui, A. K. Pati, Du- Science, 338, 634 (2012). ality of quantum coherence and path distinguishability. [17] F. Kaiser, T. Coudreau, P. Milman, D. B. Ostrowsky Phys. Rev. A 92, 012118 (2015). and S. Tanzilli, Entanglement-Enabled Delayed-Choice [9] T. Qureshi, M. A. Siddiqui, Wave-particle duality in N- Experiment. Science 338(6107), 637 (2012). path interference. Ann. Phys. 385, 598-604 (2017). [18] J. Tang, Y. Li, X. Xu, G-Y. Xiang, C-F. Li, G-C. Guo, [10] E. Bagan, J. Calsamiglia, J. A. Bergou, M. Hillery, Dual- Realization of quantum Wheeler’s delayed-choice exper- ity Games and Operational Duality Relations. Phys. Rev. iment. Nature Photon. 6, 600 (2012). 7

[19] S-B. Zheng, Y-P. Zhong, K. Xu, Q-J. Wang, H. Wang, [23] T. Qureshi, Quantum twist to complementarity: A du- L-T. Shen, C-P. Yang, J. M. Martinis, A. N. Cleland, and ality relation. Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2013, 041A01 S-Y. Han, Quantum Delayed-Choice Experiment with a (2013). Beam Splitter in a Quantum Superposition. Phys. Rev. [24] R. A. Horn, C. R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis, (Cambridge Lett. 115, 260403 (2015). University Press, Cambridge, 1985), p. 398. [20] D. Wang, J. Wu, J. Ding, Y. Liu, A. Huang, and X. Yang, [25] K. K. Menon, T. Qureshi, Wave-particle duality in asym- Wave-particle duality relation with a quantum which- metric beam interference. Phys. Rev. A 98, 022130 path detector. Entropy 23, 122 (2021). (2018). [21] T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, M. B. Plenio, Quantifying [26] N. Pathania, T. Qureshi, Momentum kicks in imperfect Coherence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140401 (2014). which-way measurement. arXiv:2009.07045 [quant-ph]. [22] T. Qureshi, Coherence, interference and visibility. [27] T. Qureshi, Quantitative wave particle duality. Am. J. Quanta 8, 24 (2019). Phys. 84, 517 (2016).