Two slit experiment - quantum theory - problem

dageki
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi, I'm new and I'm from Poland.
I have problem with equation(average number of photons registered behind pinhole 1 in two slit experiment):
\bar{n}_1=\langle n|a_{1}^{+}a_{1}|n\rangle=\frac{\langle 0|(a^{+})^{n}a_{1}^{+}a_{1}(a^{+})^{n}|0\rangle}{n!}
using:
a^{+}=\frac{(a_{1}^{+}+a_{2}^{+})}{ \sqrt{2}}
and
a=\frac{(a_{1}+a_{2})}{\sqrt{2}}
and
|n\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}(a^{+})^{n}|0\rangle
and using usual creation and destruction oprator properties, to give finally :
\bar{n}_1=\frac{1}{2}

I have no idea how to do it...
Big thnx
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dageki said:
Hi, I'm new and I'm from Poland.
I have problem with equation(average number of photons registered behind pinhole 1 in two slit experiment):
\bar{n}_1=\langle n|a_{1}^{+}a_{1}|n\rangle=\frac{\langle 0|(a^{+})^{n}a_{1}^{+}a_{1}(a^{+})^{n}|0\rangle}{n!}
using:
a^{+}=\frac{(a_{1}^{+}+a_{2}^{+})}{ \sqrt{2}}
and
a=\frac{(a_{1}+a_{2})}{\sqrt{2}}
and
|n\rangle=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}(a^{+})^{n}|0\rangle
and using usual creation and destruction oprator properties, to give finally :
\bar{n}_1=\frac{1}{2}

I have no idea how to do it...
Big thnx

Welcome
Hi i think that you must specify that whether there is a detector or not at any of the slits and whether the other slit is open or not.Other wise refer volume three of feynman lectures
 
We have a stream of photons incident on a pair of identical pinholes. We assume that only a single mode of the cavity (cavity formed by the lens and the first screen) is excited, with photon creation and destruction operators

a^{+}

and

a

We suppose that the two piholes provide the only means for photons in the cavity.For pinholes of equal size, the incident photons are equally likely to be registered in mode 1 or 2.

Still I don't know how to prove it.
I will be grateful for help.
 
To solve this, I first used the units to work out that a= m* a/m, i.e. t=z/λ. This would allow you to determine the time duration within an interval section by section and then add this to the previous ones to obtain the age of the respective layer. However, this would require a constant thickness per year for each interval. However, since this is most likely not the case, my next consideration was that the age must be the integral of a 1/λ(z) function, which I cannot model.
Back
Top