How indistinguishable are photons?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Killtech
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Photons
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the indistinguishability of photons and the implications for two-photon interference, specifically the Hong-Ou-Mandel (HOM) effect. It explores the behavior of photon pairs at a 50:50 beam splitter, analyzing how entangled states influence interference patterns. The conversation highlights that while the HOM effect persists under certain conditions, the presence of entangled states complicates the interpretation of results, particularly regarding the non-locality of quantum mechanics. Key references include the analysis of entangled states and their behavior in quantum teleportation and entanglement swapping.

PREREQUISITES
  • Quantum mechanics fundamentals, specifically photon behavior and interference.
  • Understanding of beam splitter operations and their mathematical representations.
  • Familiarity with quantum entanglement and Bell states.
  • Knowledge of quantum teleportation principles and their application to mixed states.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect in detail, focusing on its mathematical derivation and experimental setups.
  • Explore the concept of entanglement swapping and its implications in quantum teleportation.
  • Investigate the role of indistinguishability in quantum optics and its effects on interference patterns.
  • Review literature on quantum field theory (QFT) and its relationship with quantum mechanics, particularly regarding photon behavior.
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, optical engineers, and researchers in quantum information science who are interested in the nuances of photon interference and entangled states.

  • #31
DrChinese said:
've lost track of your various examples. But if you are talking about the AB + A'B' setup I commented on in #12: There is no difference in observable outcomes regardless of ordering of observations. That is true of all EPR entanglement setups, especially swapping setups.
No, i have reduced the structure i am querying about to the following two states in a similar 4 beam setup but a different source emitting a different initial state instead of two independent Bell pairs.

Killtech said:
  1. a 2-photon 4 beam entanglement with same polarizations:
    |ϕ⟩=|HA,HA′⟩+|HB,HB′⟩
    So this case is a mirror experimental setup with a mirror photon state - whichever path one photon chose (A or B), his mirror photon had to do the same but mirrored.
  2. a 4-photon 4 beam Bell state
    |ψ⟩=|HA,HA′,VB,VB′⟩+|VA,VA′,HB,HB′⟩
    Here the distinction is that the HOM interferences will differ when also taking into account polarization depending on the loss of coherence.
But you'll need to read a little more about the following discussion to follow the context, specifically to understand my statement about observable outcomes - since you need to know what what observables are being observed. The issue is that within the formalism the observable in question is technically non-local with the way no-signaling theorems use this word (and therefore failing to commute with observables in either part of the space), albeit it remains is a simple measurement.

The question moved on how physical such state would be since just because the formalism does allow to write them down doesn't make them necessarily realistic.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Killtech said:
1. a 4-photon 4 beam Bell state
|ψ⟩=|HA,HA′,VB,VB′⟩+|VA,VA′,HB,HB′⟩2. "...For those particular examples we see that it makes a difference whether a measurement of beam A is done before or after A'B' passes through their beam splitter and it is not mere change in correlations."
1. A 4 photon Bell state (presumably photons A A' B B') does not produce polarization as you have tried to write. There are a lot more outcomes to consider, such as |VA,HA′,HB,VB′⟩. To be clear: if these 4 are entangled together, there is no requirement that any pair subset follow perfect anti-correlations. On the other hand, if any 2 follow perfect anti-correlations, they are prohibited from being entangled to other particles due to monogamy of entanglement.

2. And again, I'll ask you to retract your statement per my challenge in #30. Or produce an appropriate reference. If you don't, I will pass this to the moderators as being personal speculation that is not generally accepted.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
  • #33
Killtech said:
For those particular examples we see that it makes a difference whether a measurement of beam A is done before or after A'B' passes through their beam splitter and it is not mere change in correlations.
@DrChinese has already raised a valid challenge for this claim of yours:

DrChinese said:
I'll ask you to retract your statement per my challenge in #30. Or produce an appropriate reference. If you don't, I will pass this to the moderators as being personal speculation that is not generally accepted.
The moderators have already seen it. :wink:

@Killtech, I am closing this thread. If you are unable to supply a reference to back up your claim quoted above, the thread will remain closed. If you do have a reference, please PM me a link and the moderators will review it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DrChinese and vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
  • · Replies 76 ·
3
Replies
76
Views
6K
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K