arXiv:quant-ph/0701109v2 19 Jan 2007 rdcstoiae ftesis hc r atrdon captured are which the and slits, If lens detectors the the slits. two of through as images passes them two light to produces the refer removed, to is instead continue screen pinholes will a we inter- uses of slits, Afshar the of consists Although obtaining for it pattern. lens screen Basically, ference conventional converging a the 1. with behind FIG. experiment, two-slit in standard shown is complemen- the iment violate principle to claims tarity which experiment ing osb h aeo unu erasure quantum phenomenon of name This the back. by comes goes “erase” pattern to interference chooses the one information if which-way and a the destroyed, in interfer- is information the pattern somewhere, which-way ence stored the It is if experiment experiment. that com- double-slit interference shown two-slit most been the the has is which experiments, of various mon in demonstrated eaaepicpe h rnil fcomplementarity of of status principle the the to principle, principle, separate uncertainty the a proba- of is out which born concept, bly this elevated ex- Bohr mutually Niels are systems clusive. quantum of aspects particle and olcstelgtadotisteiae ftetosisA’ slits two detectors the The of images le respectively. the The obtains B’, pattern. and and loc and interference light exact the B the the of collects and fringes in L A dark carefully the placed slits) of are tions (not wires experiment. pin-holes Thin Afshar’s two interferes. of from representation schematic emerges A Light 1: FIG. htn o hs w images. two these for photons B A hhirAsa rpsdadcridota interest- an out carried and proposed Afshar Shahriar ic hn h opeetrt rnil a been has principle complementarity the then, Since ti eletbihdeprmna atta h wave the that fact experimental established well a is It S ASnmes 36.d;03.65.Ta ; whi 03.65.Ud experiment numbers: PACS any in violated be Afshar’s cannot in experiment. and flaw two-slit robust the out is point tarity We principle. complementarity eotdb .Con e Scientist New Chown, M. by reported oie w-ltitreec xeiet rpsdadc and proposed experiment, interference two-slit modified A D 4,5 .INTRODUCTION I. A ceai iga fteexper- the of diagram schematic A . G and L D eateto hsc,JmaMli sai,NwDelhi-110 New Islamia, Millia Jamia Physics, of Department B opeetrt n h fhrExperiment Afshar the and Complementarity after epciey pnn only Opening respectively. eetn h particle, the detecting D A 2,3 and . D B olc the collect A' B' 183 aihQureshi Tabish D D 0(04] list eosrt ilto fBohr’s of violation a demonstrate to claims (2004)], 30 , A B 1 ns a- . L slit opoehspit-oewtottewrs n ihthe with one wires, the experiments without two one but - one, point not ar- his do They prove to photons. to has same Afshar the that seen for gue be experiment, cannot same nature the particle principle, in and Bohr’s wave of the interpretation that formal namely more a to back rbd em oareta eetn htna (say) at photon a detecting that D agree ev- effect to And no seems exists. has interference erybody wires that shows of it intensity, introduction the the on if experiment. that the of agree interpretation Most point Afshar’s to in able flaw satisfactorily any been out has criticisms the of none nyslit only etddbt scretygigon and going currently experiment, is Afshar’s debate heated towards there a expected, skepticism As disturb- been understanding. deeply has established be its will to violation ing its and mechanics, has tum he that claims complementarity. Afshar of Hence violation a detectors. demonstrated inten- the of dark reduction at the significant sity any of to locations lead expected doesn’t the fringes, in wires in sliding that lcsasre eoeteln,teitreec pattern interference the lens, the visible. before is screen a places tfloe h te osbept,wtotatal mea- actually that without it path, establishes suring possible the path other to one the followed along spirit it particle in a similar non- of is the observation where This measurements” “interaction-free disturbing way. called any actually so in without photons established the interference be wires, the of can the the existence at pattern hit the way, count to This photon the bound detectors. reducing two are thus pattern scattered, photons interference get the some and If there, detectors. not two is intensity the the on affect light not will of i fringes ar- sliding dark The exists, the pattern through fringes. interference wires dark the if the that of are is locations bygument wires exact noted thin the are Then, in fringes placed pattern. dark interference the the of existence observing location it. the observing exact actually the establishing without First for pattern interference scheme the Af- clever of information. a which-way has the shar get cannot one pattern, h detectors the slit, A h opeetrt rnil sa h er fquan- of heart the at is principle complementarity The ovninly foetist bev h interference the observe to tries one if Conventionally, A en hti aefo slit from came it that means A ∗ eut nol detector only in results or 6 B fhrcridotteeprmn n found and experiment the out carried Afshar . B nlssadso h complemen- why show and analysis ridotb hhirAsa [first Afshar Shahriar by out arried ed oonly to leads hi ain fteconventional the of variant a is ch h atceiiilypse hog.I one If through. passed initially particle the , D A and 2,India. 025, D A D il nomto bu which about information yield B lcig fhrage that argues Afshar clicking. D A lcig n opening and clicking, A othv fallen have Most . 7,8,9,10,11 However, . n 2 wires. Some argue that Afshar already assumes the exis- A further evolution through a time τ will transform the tence of fringes, and that his argument is circular. How- states as ever, a reader who respects empirical facts, doesn’t see it as two experiments if putting in the wires is not changing Uˆ(2τ) = | ↑i −| ↓i the results. One would say, the interference is out there Uˆ(2τ) = (5) in the middle, and one check it out that the photons are | ↓i | ↑i not passing through certain regions, the dark fringes. After an evolution through a total time 2τ, if one puts Let us understand what is happening in the experiment a spin detector, one will either get a “spin-down” or a slightly better by simplifying the experiment. One might “spin-up”. In the beginning, if we started out with a argue that a two-slit experiment is the simplest exper- state , the detector at the end will register a iment one can imagine. But this experiment still has a state.| On ↑i the other hand, of we started with a state,| ↓i large number of degrees of freedom, and the Hilbert space the detector at the end will register a state.| ↓i Thus, is big. We will show in the following that the simplest the detector at the end obtains a which-initial-state| ↑i infor- interference (thought) experiment can be just carried out mation about the spin, exactly as the detectors in Afshar using a spin-1/2 particle. experiment obtain a which-slit information. So, now we carry out our thought experiment, with the initial state ψ 0, as given by (10). After a time τ we get II. A SIMPLIFIED “TWO-SLIT” EXPERIMENT into a state which| i is equivalent to the interference region in Afshar’s experiment: Let there be a spin-1/2 particle traveling along x-axis. 1 1 For our purpose, its physical motion is unimportant - we Uˆ(τ) ψ 0 = ( )+ ( + ). (6) will only be interested in the dynamics of its spin. In the | i 2 |↑i−|↓i 2 | ↑i | ↓i the two-slit experiment, the particle emerges from the Equation (6) represents an interference pattern, because slits in a superposition of two physically separated, lo- the “down-spins” cancel out to give destructive interfer- calized wave-packets, which are orthogonal to each other. ence, while the “up-spins” add up to give constructive in- Their physical separation guarantees their orthogonality. terference. So, in our two-state interference experiment, Any subsequent unitary evolution will retain their or- there is one dark fringe and one bright fringe. After parts thogonality. We assume the initial state of the spin to of the states have been destroyed by the “dark-fringe”, be what is left is just 1 ψ 0 = ( + ). (1) ˆ 1 1 | i √2 | ↑i | ↓i U(τ) ψ 0 = + . (7) | i 2| ↑i 2| ↑i Here, the states and are the eigenstates of Sˆ , | ↑i | ↓i z Now, these two contribution from the two initially or- and play the role of the two wave-packets that emerge thogonal states are identical. States which are not or- from the double-slit. The time evolution, in the conven- thogonal, are naturally not distinguishable. Thus the tional two-slit experiment, spreads the wave-packets so which-way or which-initial-state information is lost at that they overlap. In our thought experiment, we em- this stage. It might serve some useful purpose by keeping ploy a homogeneous magnetic field B, acting along the the two contributions separate and evolving them for a y-axis, to evolve the two states and . Thus the | ↑i | ↓i further time τ to see what they yield at the spin detector. Hamiltonian of the system is Hˆ = BSˆy. 1 1 1 1 The time evolution operator can be written as Uˆ(τ)( + )= ( )+ ( ). 2 | ↑i 2| ↑i 2√2 | ↑i−|↓i 2√2 | ↑i−|↓i i (8) Uˆ(t) = exp( BSˆyt) ¯h So, we see that both the initially orthogonal parts of the = cos(Bt/2)+ iσˆy sin(Bt/2), (2) initial state lead to a superposition of and states. So, although the spin-detector at the end| ↓i still gives| ↑i either whereσ ˆy is the usual Pauli matrix. The time evolution a “spin-up” or a “spin-down”, it gives no information operator, for a time τ = π/2B has the form about whether the initial state was a or . | ↓i | ↑i 1 Uˆ(τ)= (1 + iσˆ ). (3) √ y 2 III. INTERFERENCE DESTROYS WHICH-WAY It is straight forward to see that the time evolution trans- INFORMATION forms the states and as | ↑i | ↓i It is obvious from the simple thought experiment dis- 1 Uˆ(τ) = ( ) cussed above that interference destroys the which-way | ↑i √2 | ↑i− ↓i information. One might wonder if this statement is gen- 1 eral enough, or if it is an artifact of the over-simplification Uˆ(τ) = ( + ) (4) | ↓i √2 | ↑i ↓i of the analysis. Let us discuss this point in a bit more 3 detail. In any variant of the conventional two-slit experi- to the detectors. Let us assume that when the particle ment, the initial state has to be in a superposition of two emerges from the double-slit, its state is given by a super- orthogonal states. This follows simply from the fact that position of two distinct, spatially localized wave-packets. the two slits are distinguishable. Thus the initial state The state at this time, which we choose to call t = 0, can ψ 0 could be written as ψ 0 = ( ψA + ψB )/√2. These be written as |statesi then evolve and reach| i the| regioni | wherei they in- 2 2 2 2 a −(y−y0) /ǫ b −(y+y0) /ǫ terfere. The time evolution, being unitary, retains their ψ(y, 0) = 1 e + 1 e orthogonality. Let us assume that in the region where (π/2) 4 √ǫ (π/2) 4 √ǫ they interfere, they have the form: (10) where ǫ is the width of the wave-packets, 2y0 is the slit ψA = a α + c1 γ separation, and a and b are the amplitudes of the two | i | i | i wave-packets. ψ = b β c γ , (9) | B i | i− 2| i The wave-packets evolve in time, during which they spread, and reach the region where they overlap, and where we assume that c1 and c2 are real and positive, although this requirement is not essential. Here, α , β thus, interfere. This state can just be obtained by evolv- ˆ 2 and γ need not be simple states - each may involve| i | ai ing (10), using the Hamiltonian H =p ˆy/2m. Hence, the | i state at time t can be written as multitude of degrees of freedom. However, ψA and ψB | i | i − 2 2 have to have this form, so that there are parts from the − (y y0 ) − (y+y0) two which cancel out, to give the so-called dark-fringes. ψ(y,t) = aC(t)e ǫ2+2iht/m¯ + bC(t)e ǫ2+2iht/m¯ (11) We assume that γ is orthogonal to both α and β , for the dark fringe to| bei distinguishable from| thei rest| ofi the where part. 1 C(t) = . (12) If complementary could indeed be violated, the parts of (π/2)1/4 ǫ +2i¯ht/mǫ the two initial states which are left (after the destructive p interference), should be orthogonal, so that they can con- Now, this state can also be rewritten as tain a which-way information. In our example, it would y2+y2 mean that the states α and β should be orthogonal. − 0 2yy0 2yy0 | i | i ψ(y,t) = aC(t)e Ω(t) cosh( ) + sinh( ) It is trivial to verify that if ψA and ψB are orthogo-  Ω(t) Ω(t)  | i | i nal, α and β can never be orthogonal. This general y2 +y2 | i | i − 0 2yy0 2yy0 analysis shows that if interference exists, it necessarily +bC(t)e Ω(t) cosh( ) sinh( ) , destroys which-way information. So, complementarity is  Ω(t) − Ω(t)  robust, and cannot be violated in any such interference (13) experiment. where Ω(t)= ǫ2 +2i¯ht/m. In the usual case of a two-slit experiment, the ampli- tudes coming from the two slits are approximately equal, IV. REAL TWO-SLIT EXPERIMENT i.e., a = b = 1/√2. In this case, the sinh terms cancel out to give the dark fringes, and what is left is Coming back to Afshar’s experiment, let us see what − 2 2 implication the preceding analysis has on it. Clearly, in 1 − (y y0 ) − (y+y0 ) ψ(y,t) = aC(t) e Ω(t) + e Ω(t) Afshar’s experiment, after the particle pass through the 2   interference region, the which way information is lost. − 2 2 1 − (y y0 ) − (y+y0) The detector DA clicking doesn’t mean that the parti- + bC(t) e Ω(t) + e Ω(t) . (14) cle came from slit A. It might appear hard to visualize 2   that a wave-packet which travels in a straight line from In this state, the parts of the state coming from the two slit A can yield a click on detector DB, which is not in slits are equal. So, there is no which-way information in its direct path. However, the argument of momentum the state any more. If a lens is used after this stage, which conservation will hold only if we knew that the particle − − 2 takes the part e (y y0) /Ω(t) to one detector and the part started out from slit A - in that situation it would never − 2 e (y+y0) /Ω(t) to the other detector, one can easily see reach detector D . In order to demonstrate the validity B from (14) that a part coming from one slit, becomes a of these arguments for Afshar’s experiment, let us look superposition of two parts going to the two detectors. at the two-slit experiment in more detail. So, each detectors receives equal contribution from the We carry out the analysis for massive particles, to show two slits, and registering a particle gives no information that the argument doesn’t just hold for electromagnetic on which slit the particle came from. waves. Consider the particle to be moving along the x- Note however, that if one of the slits is closed, say, axis, and the slit plane to be parallel to the y-axis. We if a = 1 and b = 0, the state at time t will be will only be interested in the dynamics of the state in − 2 − (y y0 ) the y-direction, whereas the x-axis motion just serves aC(t)e Ω(t) , which goes to only one detector when the purpose of transporting the particle from the slits a lens is used. 4

A cross uninterrupted, the detectors DA and DB give the D which path information. From our preceding analysis it B is clear that if there is interference in the crossing region, S the two detectors no longer give the which-path informa- tion. Wheeler was contrasting this setup with the one where in the crossing region there is another half silvered mirror which mixes the two beams. Wheeler probably DA B did not look into the possibility of an interference in the beam-crossing region. In a general case of the crossing of FIG. 2: A schematic representation of Wheeler’s beams, there will be interference, and consequently, the experiment12. A photon beam is split at a half-silvered mirror which-path information will be lost. S. One part of the beam goes and reflects off the mirror A In conclusion, although Afshar’s experiment does have and other reflects off mirror B. The beams cross and there genuine interference, as shown by his introducing thin D D after the detectors A and B collect the photons. wires, the detectors detecting the photons behind the converging lens, do not yield any which-way information. Many earlier analysis of complementarity have concen- A critic might argue that instead of canceling out some trated on showing how existence of which-way informa- parts of the two wave-packets, one might just evolve them tion destroys interference. We have taken the reverse separately, and because they were initially orthogonal, approach, as demanded by the Afshar experiment. We they will give distinct result at the end. The answer have shown that the existence of interference necessarily to that is, if one really looks for interference by putting destroys the which-way information. The complemen- thin wires, one is blocking those very parts of the wave- tarity principle is robust and cannot be violated in any packets which are canceling out. So, those parts will not experiment which is a variant of the two-slit experiment. reach the detectors, even if one insists on not canceling We see yet again that in dealing with quantum systems, them out. On the other hand, the argument of bringing trusting classical intuition can easily lead one to wrong in wires is not really needed. The state (14) as such, has conclusions. no which path information. At this stage we would like to recall an experiment dis- cussed by Wheeler to demonstrate complementarity12. The scheme of the experiment is shown in FIG. 2. A Acknowledgments photon beam is split at a half-silvered mirror S. One part of the beam goes and reflects off the mirror A and The author thanks the Centre for Philosophy and other reflects off mirror B. The beams cross and there Foundations of Science, New Delhi, for organizing annual after the detectors DA and DB collect the photons. In- meetings on foundations of quantum mechanics, which terestingly, Wheeler assumes that when the two beams provide a platform for exchange of ideas.

∗ Electronic address: [email protected] 7 “Why the Afshar Experiment Does Not 1 N. Bohr in Albert Einstein philosopher-scientist, edited Refute Complementarity” R. E. Kastner, by P. A. Schilpp, (The library of living philosophers, arXiv.org:quant-ph/0502021. Evanston, 1949), pp. 200-241. 8 “Logical analysis of the Bohr Complemen- 2 M. O. Scully and K. Dr¨uhl, “Quantum eraser: A proposed tarity Principle in Afshar’s experiment un- photon correlation experiment concerning observation and der the NAFL interpretation” R. Srinivasan, delayed choice in quantum mechanics”, Phys. Rev. A 25, arXiv.org:quant-ph/0504115. 2208 (1982). 9 “Complementarity and Afshar’s experiment” A. 3 M. O. Scully, B.-G. Englert and H. Walther, “Quantum Drezet, arXiv.org:quant-ph/0508091. optical tests of complementarity”, Nature (London) 351, 10 “Afshar’s Experiment does not show a Vi- 111 (1991). olation of Complementarity” O. Steuernagel, 4 “Quantum rebel” M. Chown, New Scientist 183, 30 arXiv.org:quant-ph/0512123. (2004). 11 “Entanglement and quantum interference” P. 5 “Violation of the principle of Complementarity, O’Hara, arXiv.org:quant-ph/0608202. and its implications” S. S. Afshar, Proc. SPIE 5866 12 “Law without law J. A. Wheeler, in Quantum Theory (2005) 229-244. and Measurement (ed. J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek), 6 P.G. Kwiat, H. Weinfurter, T. Herzog, A. Zeilinger, Princeton University Press pp. 182-213 (1983). and M.A. Kasevich, ”Interaction-free measurement,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, (1995) 4763.