I Double Slit Interference Question II

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around a double-slit experiment where photons are split into entangled pairs, with one photon heading to a detector (D0) for interference observation and the other towards separate detectors (D1 and D3). The main question posed is whether the configuration shown in Figure 2, which omits the Coincidence Counter and half-silvered mirrors, will still allow for interference patterns at D0 or if detection at D1 and D3 will eliminate them. Participants express uncertainty about the necessity of the Coincidence Counter in this setup, suggesting that it may not be needed since the goal is not to filter photons based on which-path information. There is also a query about the possibility of photons escaping detection entirely. The experiment's viability and implications for photon behavior remain central to the discussion.
David Charles
Messages
9
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
Follow-up to my previous post (Double Slit Interference Question) I have a question regarding the effect(s) of obtaining the which-path information of photons that have travelled through a double slit. I'm posting the question anew without my previous diagram which was incomplete/confusing. The basic question is: if detectors are positioned such that every single photon striking a detector must have come from one or another of the two slits, will this automatically destroy all interference?
A stream of photons pass through a double-slit. The photon stream emerging from each slit then passes through a crystal which splits each photon into coherent entangled pairs. One photon from each pair heads towards a detector (D0) that "can be scanned by a step motor along its x-axis for the observation of interference fringes" and the entangled twin travels toward one of two detectors (one for each slit)

Figure 1 is a replica of a figure from "A DELAYED CHOICE QUANTUM ERASER" - https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9903047v1. Since many of you are more familiar with this experiment than myself, I won’t explain anything here.

Figure 2 shows a simplified version of the configuration in Figure 1. In Figure 2, the Coincidence Counter has been removed, as well as the half-silvered mirrors. Mirror 3 has been repositioned such that it directs all photons to a detector. All photons will thus be detected at either D1 or D3.

Question: Will the experiment shown in Figure 2 work? (i.e. will the detection of photons at D1 and D3 destroy any interference that may have occurred at D0?)

I'm thinking that in the Figure 2 configuration, the Coincidence Counter is not necessary, as we are not trying to extract a subset of photons from a superset consisting of a mix of photons that had either the which-path information obtained or not.

Thanks, so much.
 

Attachments

  • Figure 1.png
    Figure 1.png
    32.2 KB · Views: 204
  • Figure 2.png
    Figure 2.png
    19.7 KB · Views: 207
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
I am not acquainted with photon experiment so much. Can such a thing happen that some photons escape from all the detectors ?
 
anuttarasammyak said:
I am not acquainted with photon experiment so much. Can such a thing happen that some photons escape from all the detectors ?

I think it is possible.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
First, I need to check that I have the 3 notations correct for an inner product in finite vector spaces over a complex field; v* means: given the isomorphism V to V* then: (a) physicists and others: (u,v)=v*u ; linear in the second argument (b) some mathematicians: (u,v)=u*v; linear in the first argument. (c) bra-ket: <v|u>= (u,v) from (a), so v*u . <v|u> is linear in the second argument. If these are correct, then it would seem that <v|u> being linear in the second...