Why doesn't momentum transfer on mirrors reveal which path?

In summary: Sorry for the duplicate.In summary, the conversation discusses the idea of using momentum to measure which-path information in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. However, due to the Uncertainty Principle, the spread in momentum of the mirrors would make it impossible to obtain meaningful results from such a measurement. The conversation also mentions the use of a single molecule as a mirror, but it is noted that the uncertainty in its momentum would still be too large to accurately measure the photon's impact. The conversation concludes by mentioning a book that provides further explanation on this topic.
  • #1
greypilgrim
513
36
Hi.

In a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, there are mirrors in both paths. When a photon gets reflected on a mirror, it transfers momentum. Also, mirrors are classical objects that are usually not assumed to exist in superposition states.
Shouldn't it (at least in principle) be possible to measure the forces on the mirrors, which would reveal the path taken and therefore destroy the superposition and interference on the screen?
 
  • Like
Likes hsdrop
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
That's a very interesting idea.

I think the Uncertainty Principle would prevent this. In quantum interferometer experiments like delayed-choice, the which-path information is recorded on a permanent record, via the photon detectors, so that it can be examined after the experiment. In contrast, to use momentum to measure which-path info, one would need to measure the momentum increments in real time, on a photon by photon basis, so that changes in screen momentum can be mapped to individual photons showing up on the screen.

Measuring momentum of the mirror with the extraordinarily high accuracy that demands would - courtesy of the HUP - massively increase the uncertainty of the position of the mirror. Since the mirror needs to be very precisely positioned in order to align the reflected and transmitted beams and stabilise path-length, that uncertainty would - I imagine - be enough to prevent any meaningful results to be obtained from the readings.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier, dlgoff and bhobba
  • #3
greypilgrim said:
Hi.

In a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, there are mirrors in both paths. When a photon gets reflected on a mirror, it transfers momentum. Also, mirrors are classical objects that are usually not assumed to exist in superposition states.
Shouldn't it (at least in principle) be possible to measure the forces on the mirrors, which would reveal the path taken and therefore destroy the superposition and interference on the screen?
Is this what you mean ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur–Vaidman_bomb_tester
 
  • #5
I asked this same basic question on the physics stackexchange awhile ago.

Basically it comes down to the fact that the mirrors don't have one specific momentum; they have a superposition of momentums. The spread in momentums is wide enough that the trace distance (the effective difference) between the nudged and not-nudged states is nearly zero. The overlap is nearly perfect. And the math doesn't care about nudge-vs-not-nudge, it cares about trace distance.

In other words, yes hitting the mirrors does cause decoherence. But only a negligible amount.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #6
so, change the mirror to a molecule that scatters the light. the molecule momentum could be known fairly accurately by cooling. its momentum could subsequently be measured with Doppler. seems like there is no way around the problem by claiming the effect is "small".
 
  • #7
Well obviously if you're only using a single molecule the approximation of the mirror as not being affected is going to stop working. The spread in total momentum is much sharper with a single molecule than with an object made up of over ##10^{20}## molecules. The trace distance between the two cases is going to jump from nearly-0 to nearly-1.
 
  • #8
Right. So the question stands in principle. The photon could be detected years later. I calculate for a hydrogen molecule and a 3 volt photon we are looking at about 1 meter per second. Piece of cake to detect.
 
  • #9
injinear said:
Right. So the question stands in principle. The photon could be detected years later. I calculate for a hydrogen molecule and a 3 volt photon we are looking at about 1 meter per second. Piece of cake to detect.

No, waiting years doesn't help. The uncertainty in the momentum of the mirror will swamp out the signal you want to extract.

The mirror's predicted position years later is not a fixed position, but a distribution of positions. The mirror is macroscopic, so that distribution has a standard deviation which is tiny. But the deviation is still significantly larger than the effect of a single photon bouncing off of the mirror. You can't tell the difference between "Oh it drifted a bit further than I expected because of inherent uncertainty in the momentum/position." and "Oh it drifted a bit further than I expected because the photon hit it.". Waiting longer increases the standard deviation of the expected position in tandem with the effect of the single photon, so your accuracy stays quantum-limited.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #10
greypilgrim said:
Hi.

In a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, there are mirrors in both paths. When a photon gets reflected on a mirror, it transfers momentum. Also, mirrors are classical objects that are usually not assumed to exist in superposition states.
Shouldn't it (at least in principle) be possible to measure the forces on the mirrors, which would reveal the path taken and therefore destroy the superposition and interference on the screen?
This question is answered in detail in the book
https://www.amazon.com/dp/052187534X/?tag=pfamazon01-20
Sec. 10.4.

Here is a short answer. The mirror is a macroscopic object with very small position uncertainty ##\Delta x##. The mirror momentum uncertainty ##\Delta p## is at least ##\hbar/2 \Delta x## or larger. If the momentum transferred by photon is much smaller than ##\Delta p##, then the mirror state after the reflection is not much different from the mirror state before the reflection, so the scalar product of those two states is close to 1. Consequently, the mirror cannot distinguish the cases with and without reflection, so it cannot perform the measurement.

EDIT: Now I saw that @Strilanc already said essentially the same.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes dlgoff

1. Why doesn't momentum transfer on mirrors reveal which path?

The reason momentum transfer on mirrors does not reveal which path is because mirrors reflect light based on the law of reflection, which states that the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection. This means that the incoming light and the reflected light follow the same path, making it impossible to determine the original path of the light.

2. Does this mean that mirrors are not useful for determining the path of light?

No, mirrors can still be used to determine the path of light by using other techniques such as interference or diffraction. However, the reflection of light off of a mirror alone cannot reveal the path of light.

3. How does momentum transfer work on mirrors?

Momentum transfer on mirrors occurs when photons, which have momentum, are absorbed and then re-emitted by the surface of the mirror. The change in momentum of the photons is what causes the mirror to reflect light.

4. Are there any exceptions to the rule that momentum transfer on mirrors does not reveal which path?

Yes, there are certain scenarios where momentum transfer on mirrors can reveal which path. This includes when the mirror is moving at a high velocity or when the mirror has a curved surface that can cause the light to deviate from the original path.

5. How does this concept relate to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle?

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to know both the position and momentum of a particle with absolute certainty. When it comes to the reflection of light on mirrors, the momentum transfer is affected by the position of the mirror, making it impossible to determine the original path of the light with certainty.

Similar threads

Replies
33
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
13
Views
648
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
15
Views
248
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
783
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top