Realization of quantum Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment

Journal name:
Nature Photonics
Volume:
6,
Pages:
600–604
Year published:
DOI:
doi:10.1038/nphoton.2012.179
Received
Accepted
Published online

Abstract

Light is believed to exhibit wave–particle duality1 depending on the detecting devices, according to Bohr's complementarity principle2, as has been demonstrated by the ‘delayed-choice experiment’ with classical detecting devices3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. A recent proposal10 suggests that the detecting device can also occupy a quantum state, and a quantum version of the delayed-choice experiment can be performed. Here, we experimentally realize the quantum delayed-choice experiment and observe the wave–particle morphing phenomenon of a single photon. We also illustrate, for the first time, the behaviour of the quantum wave–particle superposition state of a single photon. We find that the quantum wave–particle superposition state is distinct from the classical mixture state because of quantum interference between the wave and particle states. Our work reveals the deep relationship between the complementarity principle and the superposition principle, and it may be helpful in furthering understanding of the behaviour of light.

At a glance

Figures

  1. Logic diagrams of the classical and quantum delayed-choice experiments.
    Figure 1: Logic diagrams of the classical and quantum delayed-choice experiments.

    a,b, The classical (a) and quantum (b) experiments. The first H (Hadamard) gate corresponds to the splitting of the two paths, after which a ϕ phase is added. The second H gate corresponds to the detecting device, which is controlled by an ancilla. The set-ups differ in the following way. In a, the ancilla |polright fence = sin α|Vright fence + cos α|Hright fence is first detected on the basis of {|Hright fence,|Vright fence}to generate a series of random numbers, p, and these numbers are used to control the second H gate. In b, the ancilla |polright fence is directly used to control the second H gate, placing the gate in a quantum-superposition state of producing and not producing interference fringes. QRNG represents a quantum random number generator.

  2. Experimental set-up.
    Figure 2: Experimental set-up.

    The set-up includes four parts: single photons generated by the SAQD (not shown), the opened (closed) MZI (quartz, BD1, BD3, HWP1 (HWP2), BD4), the quantum-control apparatus (α, BD2, particle layer, wave layer, BD5), and the detection apparatus (movable polarizer, APDs and the counter and time analyser, which are not shown). Note: the arrows are used to represent the photon polarizations, and the HWPs are not shown; ‘Layer’ in the lower figure represents a detailed sketch of the particle and wave layers.

  3. Probabilities of finding a photon in path 1.
    Figure 3: Probabilities of finding a photon in path 1.

    From a to h, α = jπ/8 (j = 0 to 7). The red symbols are the results of the classical wave–particle mixture, and the blue symbols the quantum superposition. The lines show the corresponding theoretical fit.

  4. Three quantities (centre, visibility and ratio) derived from Fig. 3.
    Figure 4: Three quantities (centre, visibility and ratio) derived from Fig. 3.

    a, ‘Centre’ is the average of the maximum and minimum probabilities. b, ‘Visibility’ is the ratio of the oscillation amplitude to the sum of the maximum and minimum probabilities. c, ‘Ratio’ indicates the ratio of the rise period to the total period. The larger symbols are experimental results and the smaller symbols the theoretical simulation results.

References

  1. Greiner, W. Quantum Mechanics: An Introduction (Springer, 2001).
  2. Bohr, N. in Quantum Theory and Measurement (eds Wheeler, J. A. & Zurek, W. H.) 9–49 (Princeton University Press, 1984).
  3. Wheeler, J. A. in Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Theory (eds Marlow, A.R.) 9–48 (Academic Press, 1978).
  4. Lawson-Daku, B. J. et al. Delayed choices in atom Stern–Gerlach interferometry. Phys. Rev. A 54, 50425047 (1996).
  5. Kim, Y. H., Yu, R., Kulik, S. P., Shih, Y. & Scully, M. O. Delayed ‘choice’ quantum eraser. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 15 (2000).
  6. Hellmut, T., Walther, H., Zajonc, A. G. & Schleich, W. Delayed-choice experiments in quantum interference. Phys. Rev. A 35, 25322541 (1987).
  7. Baldzuhn, J., Mohler, E. & Martienssen, W. A wave–particle delayed-choice experiment with a single-photon state. Z. Phys. B 77, 347352 (1989).
  8. Jacques, V. et al. Experimental realization of Wheeler's delayed-choice gedanken experiment. Science 315, 966968 (2007).
  9. Jacques, V. et al. Delayed-choice test of quantum complementarity with interfering single photons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 220402 (2008).
  10. Ionicioiu, R. & Terno, D. R. Proposal for a quantum delayed-choice experiment. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 230406 (2011).
  11. Buchwald, J. Z. The Rise of the Wave Theory of Light: Optical Theory and Experiment in the Early Nineteenth Century (University of Chicago Press, 1989).
  12. Planck, M. On the law of distribution of energy in the normal spectrum. Annalen der Physik 4, 553563 (1901).
  13. Einstein, A. On a heuristic viewpoint concerning the production and transformation of light. Annalen der Physik 17, 132148 (1905).
  14. Young, T. Experimental demonstration of the general law of the interference of light. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 94, 116 (1804).
  15. von Weizsäcker, C. F. Ortsbestimmung eines elektrons durch ein mikroskop. Z. Phys. 70, 114130 (1931).
  16. von Weizsäcker, C. F. Zur Deutung der Quantenmechanik. Z. Phys. 118, 489509 (1941).
  17. Wheeler, J. A. in Quantum Theory and Measurement (eds Wheeler, J. A. & Zurek, W. H.) 182–213 (Princeton University Press, 1984).
  18. Leggett, A. J. in Compendium of Quantum Physics (eds Greenberger, D., Hentschel, K. & Weinert, F.) 161–166 (Springer, 2009).
  19. Ma, X. S. et al. Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping. Nature Phys. 8, 479484 (2012).
  20. Schirber, M. Focus: another step back for wave–particle duality. Physics 4, 102104 (2011).
  21. Tang, J. S. et al. Direct observation of single InAs/GaAs quantum dot spectrum without mesa or mask. Phys. E 41, 797800 (2009).
  22. Tang, J. S., Li, Y. L., Li, C. F. & Guo, G. C. Revisiting Bohr's principle of complementarity using a quantum device. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5304v1 (2012).
  23. Freedman, S. J. & Clauser, J. F. Experimental test of local hidden-variable theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 938941 (1972).
  24. Huang, Y. F., Li, C. F., Zhang, Y. S., Pan, J. W. & Guo, G. C. Experimental test of the Kochen–Specker theorem with single photons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 250401 (2003).
  25. Greenberger, D. M. & Yasin, A. Simultaneous wave and particle knowledge in a neutron interferometer. Phys. Lett. A 128, 391394 (1988).
  26. Jaeger, G., Shimony, A. & Vaidman, L. Two interferometric complementarities. Phys. Rev. A 51, 5467 (1995).
  27. Englert, B. G. Fringe visibility and which-way information: an inequality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 21542157 (1996).
  28. Greenstein, G. & Zajonc, A. in The Quantum Challenge: Modern Research on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics Ch. 2 (Jones & Bartlett, 1997).
  29. Li, C. F., Tang, J. S., Li, Y. L. & Guo, G. C. Experimentally witnessing the initial correlation between an open quantum system and its environment. Phys. Rev. A 83, 064102 (2011).
  30. Chen, G. et al. Convenient exciton lifetime measurement of quantum dots with high resolution. Physica E 42, 196199 (2009).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Key Laboratory of Quantum Information, University of Science and Technology of China, CAS, Hefei, 230026, China

    • Jian-Shun Tang,
    • Yu-Long Li,
    • Xiao-Ye Xu,
    • Guo-Yong Xiang,
    • Chuan-Feng Li &
    • Guang-Can Guo

Contributions

C-F.L. and J-S.T. planned and designed the experiments. J-S.T., Y-L.L. and G-Y.X. implemented the experiments. G-C.G., J-S.T. and X-Y.X. carried out the theoretical analysis and developed the interpretation. C-F.L. and J-S.T. wrote the paper and all authors discussed its contents. C-F.L. supervised the project.

Competing financial interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to:

Author details

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. Supplementary information (428 KB)

    Supplementary information

Additional data