Hong-Ou-Mandel with two beam splitters

[Swamp Thing]

In http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=104112 , Pittman et al write:

"It is not uncommon for people to think that in these (Hong-Ou-Mandel) types of two-photon interference experiments the photons must arrive at the beam splitter at the same time, which seems to imply that some type of classical local interaction was required between two single photons meeting at the beam splitter and “agreeing” which way to go, or how to be polarized. In this Letter, we hope to dispel this misconception by reporting on a similar type of two-photon experiment in which interference is observed, even though the photons arrive at the beam splitter at much different times."

Is it possible to make a version where the two photons pass through two different beam splitters altogether, but are brought together finally at the detectors? For example by slightly tilting the mirrors upwards and downwards, we can send one photon to a beam splitter that is located just above the central plane, while the other photon passes through another splitter just below the first. After exiting the beam splitters we can have some extra optics that bring the beams back into alignment.

As long as the phase relationships are maintained, HOM interference should still occur -- is this true?

 

[zonde]

In http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=104112 , Pittman et al write:

This is interesting experiment, but note that in experiment it is SA interference that is observed not HOM interference. While SA and HOM interference experiments are very similar, demonstration that SA interference does not happen at beam splitter does not prove that HOM interference does not happen at beam splitter.
Actually when I first saw this experiment some time ago I got impression that it falsifies Bohmian mechanics exactly because I initially did not noticed this difference between SA and HOM setups.

After exiting the beam splitters we can have some extra optics that bring the beams back into alignment.

That's the tricky part. You can't join two beams into one. You can mix two beams into other two beams using beam splitter, but then the HOM interference would happen in this later beam splitter.

 

[Swamp Thing]

Thanks for the reply. I need to read more about SA interference -- at the moment I'm not very clear about how it relates to HOM. (There's a lot more written about HOM than SA, it seems).

Have you seen this paper:
"Hong-Ou-Mandel interference without beam splitters" --- https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.01639
Is this experiment really equivalent to a HOM setup?

 

[Swamp Thing]

That's the tricky part. You can't join two beams into one.

I'm trying to understand this question of, how do we say that two modes are distinguishable or indistinguishable from the detector's point of view? Let's say two beams (modes) are hitting a detector surface, and the angle between them is \Delta \theta. If \Delta \theta = 0, we have 100% visibility of interference. At \Delta \theta = 0.1\deg we can expect, say, 99.9% interference visibility. At a \Delta \theta of 10 degrees, maybe much less.

But how do we calculate the function relating visibility to \Delta \theta? What factors enter into it? For example, in a photoemulsion film, does each grain of emulsion "know" which beam the photon came from, even if the directions differ by a large \Delta \theta like 20 degrees?

 

[zonde]

Have you seen this paper:
"Hong-Ou-Mandel interference without beam splitters" --- https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.01639
Is this experiment really equivalent to a HOM setup?

It seems more like HBT setup. I don't understand why it should be compared to HOM setup.

I'm trying to understand this question of, how do we say that two modes are distinguishable or indistinguishable from the detector's point of view? Let's say two beams (modes) are hitting a detector surface, and the angle between them is \Delta \theta. If \Delta \theta = 0, we have 100% visibility of interference. At \Delta \theta = 0.1\deg we can expect, say, 99.9% interference visibility. At a \Delta \theta of 10 degrees, maybe much less.

But how do we calculate the function relating visibility to \Delta \theta? What factors enter into it? For example, in a photoemulsion film, does each grain of emulsion "know" which beam the photon came from, even if the directions differ by a large \Delta \theta like 20 degrees?

I would say that angle between beams affect variation of phase across the surface of detector. So if collection pinhole of detector is very small you can get good visibility with larger angles. And that's it as I see.

 

[Swamp Thing]

Thanks again. The phase variation thing is clear and convincing. But maybe, sometimes, authors think that "welcher weg" is more impressive. :)