Photon detectors in a double slit experiment

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the double slit experiment, particularly focusing on the role of photon detectors and the implications of detecting photons on interference patterns. Participants explore theoretical and experimental aspects of the experiment, including the detection methods and historical context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how photon detectors can detect photons without absorbing them, which would prevent the photons from reaching the screen.
  • Another participant suggests using a transparent waveplate and polarizing beamsplitters to detect which slit the photon passed through, noting that this would eliminate the interference pattern due to the polarization difference.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the double slit experiment being conducted in reality, asking for references to published results.
  • Several participants confirm that the double slit experiment has been performed historically and with modern techniques, including experiments with single photons and larger particles like buckyballs.
  • One participant references a specific paper that discusses a method to detect photons without destroying them, while emphasizing that any strong interaction will disrupt coherence and interfere with the pattern.
  • Another participant mentions a related experiment using C70 molecules to gather "which slit" information, leading to a decrease in interference fringes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the double slit experiment has been conducted and that various methods exist for detecting photons. However, there is disagreement regarding the feasibility and implications of these detection methods on the interference pattern, as well as skepticism about the experiment's historical execution.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the experimental details and the implications of detection methods on interference patterns. There are references to specific experiments and papers, but not all claims are substantiated with direct evidence or consensus on the interpretations.

Trollfaz
Messages
144
Reaction score
16
It is said that if one shoots photons in a double slit experiment, and place a detectors around the slits to find which slit the photon went, one will not see the photon interfere. However, to detect a photon, one must absorb it. So how does the photon detectors work by detecting the photons and still allowing it to reach the screen?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
One thing you could do would be to put a transparent waveplate over one of the slits to rotate the polarization of light going through one slit 90 degrees while keeping the polarization of the other slit unaltered. Then, you can use polarizing beamsplitters at the detector to see which slit the light came from with each detection event. However, this sort of experiment would show no interference pattern because two light sources polarized at right angles to each other don't interfere. In general, any interaction with the photon that's strong enough to tell you which slit the photon passed through will also be strong enough to reduce the spatial coherence of the light to the point that the interference pattern is destroyed.

As an interesting side note, it is possible to detect the presence of a single photon without destroying it, but the previous argument holds. See for example:
https://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/2013/11/nondestructive-photon-detection.html
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK and vanhees71
I suspect that the double slit experiment is a thought experiment. I seriously doubt if anyone has ever done the experiment in reality. But I could be wrong. Has anyone ever done it? If so then where were the results published?
 
Prophet said:
I suspect that the double slit experiment is a thought experiment. I seriously doubt if anyone has ever done the experiment in reality. But I could be wrong. Has anyone ever done it? If so then where were the results published?
I suspect you haven't even try to make a google search. I personally suspect it is one of the most repeated experiment because it does not implies very complicated apparatus.

They are up to using huge buckyball now.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: phinds
The double-slit experiment with light has been done already by Huygens and was taken as evidence for the wavelike nature of light early on. Today one can do this experiment with single photons and also with all kinds of massive particles and composite objects, as mentioned in the previous posting, even with the rather large C-60 buckyball molecules, all showing the wave-like aspects predicted by quantum theory.
 
Prophet said:
I suspect that the double slit experiment is a thought experiment. I seriously doubt if anyone has ever done the experiment in reality. But I could be wrong. Has anyone ever done it? If so then where were the results published?
It's been done. https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/9903047.pdf uses a rather clever trick to get around the problem in the original post, namely that detecting a photon destroys it; there's a more user-friendly description here. And, although I don't have a link handy, the variant that @jfizzix describes have had been done many times.

That's specifically with photons, because that's what OP asked about. Nowadays, most experimental effort has gone into demonstrating interference with more massive particles, and there's no shortage of experimental results there. Google for "quantum buckyball interference" for some examples and further links.
 
Last edited:
The experiment that most closely relates to what the OP asked is https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402146, using C70 molecules instead of photons. By heating the molecules, one could get "which slit" info from emitted infrared photons, and that leads to a decrease of the interference fringes.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
9K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K