Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Single Photon/Indistinguishabiliity principle experiment

  1. Sep 29, 2011 #1
    If a single photon light source shoots a photon through the "attached" path. What is the percentage of the photon will make it to each detector. The light source is the box, the photon trajetory is yellow, beamsplitter is blue, mirror is black, detectors are purple, and obstacle is red. I think because of the indistinguishabillity principle, the photon will go 50% to each detector because there is a physical disturbance in the trajectory(obstacle). Any thoughts?
     

    Attached Files:

  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 29, 2011 #2

    xts

    User Avatar

    In case of perfect beamsplitters: 25% photons would go to each detector and 50% would be lost.

    Not because of the "indistinguishabillity principle", but just because there is no interference in such setup, and each BS just divides the stream of photons into two with equal probabilities.
    There is nothing more in such experiment than first BS reflects half of the photons toward the obstacle, and the second sends half of the remaining photons to one detector and the rest to other.
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2011
  4. Sep 29, 2011 #3
    Thank you! So if the obstacle was taken away then 100% of the photons would end up being reflected-transmitted/transmitted-reflected and thus all ending up hitting the detector on the right. This is due to interference. Right?
     
  5. Sep 29, 2011 #4

    xts

    User Avatar

  6. Sep 29, 2011 #5
    Yeah i was thinking the same thing 25% in each, but was not sure!
     
  7. Sep 29, 2011 #6
    also would it be the same if you had multiple photons?
     
  8. Sep 29, 2011 #7

    Ken G

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes, if you analyze what is happening at the level of probability amplitudes which can interfere, then it doesn't matter if those same amplitudes are referring to more photons in the same states, they'd just be larger amplitudes doing all the same things. But photons in different states could mess up the coherences and destroy the interference pattern, which is why this sort of experiment is done with lasers (the photons are then in the same state).
     
  9. Sep 29, 2011 #8

    zonde

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This is certainly common interpretation that interference determines photon path at beamsplitter.

    But just as certain you would run into serious problems if you will try to interpret this experiment the same way:
    http://physics.nist.gov/Divisions/Div844/publications/migdall/psm96_twophoton_interference.pdf" [Broken]

    Alternative would be to say that 50% of photons ends up in one detector and 50% of photons end up in other detector and interference just changes how much photons are detected.
    In a sense it's just the same particle-wave duality. If you would try to find out what path photon is taking after beamsplitter interference will be lost. ;)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  10. Sep 30, 2011 #9

    Ken G

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes, the way I would put it instead is, if the experiment does not determine the "photon path at the beamsplitter", then there simply is no such thing.
     
  11. Oct 1, 2011 #10

    zonde

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    How would you analyze experiments without such concept as "photon path"?
    For example if you block one arm of interferometer like in OP picture you have different result than in non-blocked case. In non-blocked case you assign two different descriptions for two paths and then determine relative parameter (phase difference) between two descriptions. I can't see how you can do that without resorting to "path".

    Hmm, or maybe you would abandon "photon"?
    Then let's take a look at this paper that covers other interesting experiments:
    http://physics.nist.gov/Divisions/Div844/publications/migdall/apopts41.pdf" [Broken]
    I believe you can think of some other mechanism to describe correlations in detections between two downconverted light beams. But if you will agree that it is meaningful to extrapolate results to perfect efficiency detectors then your mechanism will be empirically equivalent to particle ("photon") description.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 5, 2017
  12. Oct 1, 2011 #11

    Ken G

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If you block one arm, then the experiment establishes photon path-- the other arm.
    If you have two paths, then the experiment does not establish which path, and so the (unique) path taken simply does not exist.
    I have no problem with the particle description, the particle is established in the experiment. Quantum mechanics always seems to support pretty strongly that what we can talk about meaningfully in any experiment is precisely what is established by that experiment, and nothing else.
     
  13. Oct 2, 2011 #12

    zonde

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I reread your reply and just noticed that you were speaking about experiment and what it "tells" us while I was speaking about interference and how it affects photon behavior at beamsplitter.


    If a person tosses two coins and tells me that both where showing the same side but doesn't tell me what side it was should I conclude that those coins didn't show (unique) side at all?
     
  14. Oct 3, 2011 #13

    xts

    User Avatar

    I like A.Zeilinger's non-realism: never talk about photons except of the very act of emission and detection. All what happen between those is a wave propagation. Thus 'photon path' should never be used. If you describe the experiment in terms of 'wave paths' you'd never fall into paradoxes.

    The difference between coins and photons is that coins do not interfere nor exhibit other quantum behaviour, so realistic approach to them is pretty justified.
     
  15. Oct 3, 2011 #14

    zonde

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yes you can do that. At least as long as you do not insist that you can detect all emitted photons. However if you insist on that then you either have to have wave model that is empirically indistinguishable from particle model or your detected photons should not correspond to emitted photons (you should have imperfect coincidence for downconverted photons).

    Ah, but in my analogy coins do not have to show interference. It is observer plus coins system that shows interference.
     
  16. Oct 3, 2011 #15

    Cthugha

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    You are examining only the limited case of a rather incoherent light field where the photon number per coherence volume does not get much larger than unity as it is the case for thermal light or PDC light or such stuff. In this case the wave model indeed is almost indistinguishable from a particle model because the coherence volumes of interest are so small that you can assume the corresponding quanta of the light field to be rather localized. This does not work for laser beams or similar stuff where the photon number per coherence volume is usually much larger than one. Here the fact that all photons inside the coherence volume are indistinguishable renders the concept of an identifiable and unique photon path pretty pointless.
     
  17. Oct 3, 2011 #16

    zonde

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Not sure I understand this.
    Are you saying that very low intensity light beam can not be coherent?
    Or rather that light beam can be coherent only if there is more than one photon within coherence length?
     
  18. Oct 3, 2011 #17

    Cthugha

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Oh, no. That was not what I intended to say. Maybe that post was a bit short.

    I was just intending to contrast the different types of light fields in their most common form:

    a) rather incoherent light sources like thermal light or PDC light:

    Here the coherence volume is usually rather small and typically the photon numbers per coherence volume and single mode are rather small. The coherence volume basically means two things: the probability to have a detection event for an ideally efficient detector is basically 1 inside the coherence volume and 0 on the outside. It is therefore something like an "upper bound" for the spatial extent of the area where a photon can be detected and could be cautiously referred to as the upper bound of the photon volume. However, it should not be referred to as such. Second, all photons inside the coherence volume are indistinguishable. One could therefore think of the concept of a photon path as rather intuitive in the case of having not more than one photon present per coherence volume and having a rather small coherence volume. The possible volume where a detection can happen is rather localized. Of course this leads to problems when using beam splitters, but there are plenty of interpretations out there covering this issue, I suppose.

    In this regime wave-like and particle-like theories are pretty similar.

    b) laser light having coherence volume as large as meters or kilometers and lots of photons per coherence volume however is extremely difficult to describe if you want to keep a naive intuitive photon path concept. You have millions of indistinguishable detection events which can indeed not be tracked back to some single well defined emission event, you have a total photon number which is not well defined and - for example - if you decrease the mean photon number such that you get one photon per coherence volume, you will notice that in interference experiments this one photon cannot be localized better than some dozen meters - depending on the type of laser of course. It is pretty complicated to find some interpretation which keeps the concept of a realistic photon path and are consistent with experiments in this regime. Pretty much any of them I know end up having a photon path which is there, but not well defined or impossible to determine in principle which is - in my opinion - not of much help.

    If you instead examine thermal light which has a large photon number per coherence volume, you may find traces of two-photon interference if you perform the right measurements. These are also rather difficult to describe using just single photons as these photons are not statistically independent of each other.
     
  19. Oct 3, 2011 #18

    xts

    User Avatar

    If you speak about "entangled" experiments - I can't use Huygens' wave optics, I must consider joint wavefunction of both particles - that's case different from the one considered in this thread.

    As long as you consider one-photon experiments (like OP's one - in both variations: Mach-Zender's and blocked path) you may describe it perfectly with simple waveoptics, just interpreting square of the amplitude as a probability density of photon hit. It works perfectly also for setups, where all photons are detected (e.g. idealised Mach-Zender).

    Of course, you always must be aware of imperfectness of detectors, opacity, some absorbption on mirrors, etc., so I never insist on registering all photons, just contrary - I often insist to consider experimental limitations.
     
  20. Oct 3, 2011 #19

    Ken G

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The way I would put this is, any experiment involving coins does establish which side shows (even if the information is not made available to us). There is no need to look carefully at the apparatus to tell if "which side" language is appropriate or not, because there are so many interactions that the outcomes are decohered and our description of the reality will be that an outcome has occurred. But that isn't the case with individual particles, there our description of the reality will be that no such outcome has occurred, if the coherences are preserved. If it sounds odd that we are making choices about how we will describe reality, rather than something that is the "real" reality, I think the former is appropriate and the latter is a fantasy. Reality has always been a kind of choice we make.
     
  21. Oct 4, 2011 #20

    zonde

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Basically you are saying that if the person is telling you that two coins show the same side you are inclined to trust him because you have personal experience with coins. But if the person tells you that two properties of "something" are the same you will not trust him if you don't have personal experience with that "something".

    Hmm, that might be a problem because if we approach this question from empirical stance our ability to talk about relative properties in a consistent way implies that they fairly represent some "absolute" properties.

    Our choice what descriptions of reality to pick is ruled by principle that they should fit together in a consistent way. If that happens we say that they fairly represent reality. That is empiricism.

    In other words "map is not the territory" doesn't mean that territory isn't real. On the contrary. Exactly because territory is real we can meaningfully speak about good maps and bad maps.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Single Photon/Indistinguishabiliity principle experiment
Loading...