Duality principle is 'safe and sound': Researchers clear up apparent violation of wave-particle duality

Aug 26, 2014

Decades of experiments have verified the quirky laws of quantum theory again and again. So when scientists in Germany announced in 2012 an apparent violation of a fundamental law of quantum mechanics, a physicist at the University of Rochester was determined to find an explanation.

"You don't destroy the laws of that easily," said Robert Boyd, professor of optics and of physics at Rochester and the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Quantum Nonlinear Optics at the University of Ottawa.

In their 2012 version of the famous Young two-split experiment, Ralf Menzel and his colleagues at the University of Potsdam simultaneously determined a photon's path and observed high contrast interference fringes created by the interaction of waves from the two slits.

"This result was extremely surprising, as one of the basic tenets of quantum mechanics holds that there should be no when it is known through which slit the particle (a photon in this case) had passed," said Boyd.

Inspired by these intriguing results, Boyd and his colleagues replicated the Menzel experiment. Their findings were recently published online in an early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"The data of the Menzel experiment were very clean, so we weren't surprised to obtain the same initial result," said Boyd. "My coworkers and I asked what could explain this apparent violation of a key principle of quantum mechanics. What we found is that the resolution of the problem requires great subtly in the way that one needs to analyze the data for this type of measurement."

Following the method of Menzel and the Potsdam researchers, Boyd's group generated an entangled pair of photons, one called a signal and the other called an idler. By measuring the position of the idler photon, they thereby determined through which slit the signal photon had passed. They then observed that the signal photons produced an , in agreement with the results of the Potsdam group and in apparent conflict with the duality principle.

A careful examination of the results shows that the visibility of the interference pattern is stronger in some places and weaker in others. In particular, the strongest recorded visibility was much higher than the average visibility of the entire pattern.

Wave-particle duality suggests that elementary particles, like electrons and photons, cannot be completely described as either waves or particles, because they exhibit both types of properties. In the double-slit experiment, observing a photon pass through one of the two slits is an example of a particle-like property; a particle can only pass through one or the other. When two waves converge to form an interference pattern, the photon must have passed through both slits simultaneously—a wave-like property. Trying to measure both types of properties simultaneously, however, is problematic. The interference pattern disappears as soon as it is known through which slit the photon has passed.

Boyd and his colleagues discovered that the German physicists had inadvertently sampled the sections of high visibility with greater probability than the other sections. While only a handful of photons produced high visibility interference, they used the entire set of photons to determine the predictability of knowing through which slit they had passed.

This phenomenon, called biased sampling, occurs when certain measurements of a system are selected with a higher probability than others, and that subset of measurements is mistakenly taken to be representative of the entire system. In this case, the high visibility photon subsystem was more likely to be sampled. When Boyd's team "fairly" sampled each variable—giving each subsystem an equal opportunity to be detected and sampled—the problem went away and the results were consistent with the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Boyd emphasizes that the Menzel group had interpreted its data just as anyone else would have. The results were both "strange" and "incredible," but it took Boyd and his colleagues nearly a year and a half to figure out what was going on. He said in some ways everyone is relieved that our understanding of quantum laws has been reaffirmed.

Explore further: Classical physics shown to be equal to quantum theory when it comes to unusual experiments with light beams

More information: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, www.pnas.org/content/early/201… /1400106111.abstract

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Patterns of interfering massive particles

Mar 04, 2014

Two-particle interference has been the focus of many studies, specifically in quantum optics with photons. However, interference between two massive, identical particles is not so well understood. In a study published in ...

Quantum reality more complex than previously thought

Oct 28, 2013

Imagine you order a delivery of several glass vases in different colors. Each vase is sent as a separate parcel. What would you think of the courier if the parcels arrive apparently undamaged, yet when you ...

Viewing deeper into the quantum world

Jun 11, 2014

One of the important tasks for quantum physics researchers and engineers is designing more sensitive instruments to study the tiny fields and forces that govern the world we live in. The most precise measuring ...

Recommended for you

Physicists design zero-friction quantum engine

10 hours ago

(Phys.org) —In real physical processes, some energy is always lost any time work is produced. The lost energy almost always occurs due to friction, especially in processes that involve mechanical motion. ...

Fluid mechanics suggests alternative to quantum orthodoxy

Sep 12, 2014

The central mystery of quantum mechanics is that small chunks of matter sometimes seem to behave like particles, sometimes like waves. For most of the past century, the prevailing explanation of this conundrum ...

The sound of an atom has been captured

Sep 11, 2014

Researchers at Chalmers University of Technology are first to show the use of sound to communicate with an artificial atom. They can thereby demonstrate phenomena from quantum physics with sound taking on ...

The quantum revolution is a step closer

Sep 11, 2014

A new way to run a quantum algorithm using much simpler methods than previously thought has been discovered by a team of researchers at the University of Bristol. These findings could dramatically bring ...

User comments : 32

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

arom
1 / 5 (15) Aug 26, 2014
Decades of experiments have verified the quirky laws of quantum theory again and again. So when scientists in Germany announced in 2012 an apparent violation of a fundamental law of quantum mechanics, a physicist at the University of Rochester was determined to find an explanation.

"You don't destroy the laws of quantum mechanics that easily," said Robert Boyd, professor of optics and of physics at Rochester and the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Quantum Nonlinear Optics at the University of Ottawa…..

Boyd emphasizes that the Menzel group had interpreted its data just as anyone else would have. The results were both "strange" and "incredible," but it took Boyd and his colleagues nearly a year and a half to figure out what was going on. He said in some ways everyone is relieved that our understanding of quantum laws has been reaffirmed.


It seems that everyone should be happy that our understanding of quantum laws has been reaffirmed; unfortunately what which still bother us is that we really do not know how the quantum laws work in that way! Maybe this 'working mechanism' could help to pave the way …
http://www.vacuum...19〈=en
Doug_Huffman
1 / 5 (9) Aug 26, 2014
Well I have just recently discovered a personalist Bayesian interpretation of QM in QBism that is very interesting, particularly in the context of Lee Smolin's work, with its citation of Popper, and intersection with Taleb/Mandelbrot.
Vyhea
5 / 5 (12) Aug 26, 2014
Maybe this 'working mechanism' could help to pave the way

Have you not been reading the accident reports? Your "working mechanism" is irreparably broken. Your paving mechanism slid off the mountain, along with the entire roadway, years ago. The ill-conceived route required an impossible-to-design foundation and was doomed from the start. The NTSB recommends you bury the "mechanism" where it lay, choose a more plausible route and stop designing in a vacuum.
bloopotheclown
1 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2014
Could all particles be Wave Structures of Matter, standing wave centers of elastic space?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (14) Aug 26, 2014
Boyd and his colleagues discovered that the German physicists had inadvertently sampled the sections of high visibility with greater probability than the other sections. While only a handful of photons produced high visibility interference, they used the entire set of photons to determine the predictability of knowing through which slit they had passed.


Dang it. That's one subtle piece of business. Good job by Boyd and his group on figuring out the flaw. That sounds like some serious piece of detective work.
Jixo
1.3 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2014
The particle wave duality isn't mutually inclusive, as Afshar already demonstrated in 2004. Even at the trivial double slit experiment the particles do behave in ]both ways at the same moment - both like the dots at the target, both like the wave-like pattern in density distribution of these dots.
swordsman
1 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2014
Investigators would do well to apply the Heaviside method of analysis of the waves passing through slits. This results in the interference fringes observed from the waves passing through the two slits. Note that the architects of quantum mechanics, Dirac, Born, Heisenberg, Hilbert, Von Neumann and Wiener all utilized and extended Heaviside's operator method.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2014
In the double-slit experiment, observing a photon pass through one of the two slits is an example of a particle-like property;
Why? Can a single wave not pass through a single slit?
a particle can only pass through one or the other.
So can a wave if you collapse its size before it arrives at the two slits.
When two waves converge to form an interference pattern, the photon must have passed through both slits simultaneously—a wave-like property.
Exactly, but if you are stupid enough to put two detectors behind the slits to measure through which slit a non-collapsed photon-wave has moved, you collapse the wave that has moved through BOTH slits, so that the diffracted wavefront is destroyed before it reaches the screen: Furthermore it collapses into the detector with which it resonates FIRST. Thus 50% collapses within one detector and 50% within the other.

Now if you are insanely stupid, you will conclude the photon-wave has only moved through one slit.
Jixo
1 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2014
Wave particle duality means, that the behavior of particles is both particle-like, both wave-like, depending on context. The AWT based on dense aether model explains, how this trick is done - the particle (a dense compact grain of matter) is surrounded with the wake wave in similar way, like the boat floating along water surface. Inside of vacuum formed with space-time foam you should imagine the foam membranes in the role of the water surface, but the principle remains the same. In this way the moving particle always exhibit a wave-like behavior also. Actually, if we would observe the objects at the water surface as consistently, as we are observing them in the vacuum, i.e. by the waves of their environment only, we would realize fast the wave-particle duality at the water surface too. You couldn't observe the boats at the water surface in other means, than with their wake wave, if you would exclude the light, sound or other types of waves from observations.
Jixo
1 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2014
The wave-particle duality is therefore the logical consequence of the fact, we cannot observe the particles of matter in no other way, than with ripples of the environment, which they're doing around itself during their motion. We cannot feel them at distance in other way, than with vacuum splash which they're doing around itself.

The situation is slightly complicated at the case of photons, the particle character of which is only weakly expressed (they're formed with solitons of surface waves, not with piece of matter), but the principle remains the same. At the case of photon their wake wave just undulates in synchrony with the wave, which is forming the photon itself, but the difference in energy density of both waves is still apparent. The very energetic gamma ray photons do behave like the electrons during double slit experiment, so that their internal wave wouldn't communicate very well with their wake wave.
Jixo
1.2 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2014
To be honest, the above article doesn't bother with wave-particle duality as such, as its existence is out of discussions already. What the physicists are discussing today actually is, if both particle, both wave aspects of matter can be observed at the same moment with single observer during single pass experiment. IMO this question just depends on the size of observer and localeness of experiment. The realistic (i.e. rather large) observers or experimental devices can interact with matter by mean of both transverse, both longitudinal waves at the same moment, so that the wave and particle aspects of matter will not be quite mutually exclusive for them. The strictly local arrangement of arrangement would disallow this uncertainty, but such an experiment is of rather theoretical importance.
Hakan1997
1 / 5 (1) Aug 27, 2014
To be honest, the above article doesn't bother with wave-particle duality as such, as its existence is out of discussions already. What the physicists are discussing today actually is, if both particle, both wave aspects of matter can be observed at the same moment with single observer during single pass experiment. IMO this question just depends on the size of observer and localeness of experiment. The realistic (i.e. rather large) observers or experimental devices can interact with matter by mean of both transverse, both longitudinal waves at the same moment, so that the wave and particle aspects of matter will not be quite mutually exclusive for them. The strictly local arrangement of arrangement would disallow this uncertainty, but such an experiment is of rather theoretical importance.

Jixo
1 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2014
For us human observers the wave-particle duality will never become fully exclusive, because we are huge & slow creatures and we used to interpret the double slit experiment as a whole, i.e. like the sequence of large number of individual observations, which indeed takes some time interval. Therefore the wave-like patterns at the target will be always followed with smaller less or more overlapping dots: individual particles. Only for low frequency photons close to wavelength of CMBR these dots will get blurred. But this is not because the violation of particle-wave complementarity - but simply because such a photons are already quite huge solitons by itself, so we can never arrange very local experiment with these giant blobs. Such a photons will therefore have their particle character only very weakly expressed and they will interfere rather like waves.
Jixo
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 27, 2014
I can imagine, that if we would arrange the double slit experiment at large scale with low intensity single photon source and very sensitive detector, then we could recognize the overlapping dot character even for double slit experiment with using of quite long-wavelengh light. The problem is, the photons from common laser source already leave the laser partially entangled in small bunches, so that they behave as a more large particles, than they really are. We should therefore use some single photon source with photons well separated each other both temporally, both spatially and single photon detector - which is still not quite trivial technological task.
johanfprins
4 / 5 (8) Aug 27, 2014
Zephyr=Jixo,

PLEASE go and learn calculus and solve Maxwell's equations: THERE IS NO AETHER.!!
Jixo
2.6 / 5 (10) Aug 27, 2014
But the Maxwell's equations were originally derived just with using of aether model...;-) The fact, that you can approximate the waterfall with parabola and calculate with it after then, that no turbulence may happen in it doesn't mean, such a conclusion is relevant physically - you just used an oversimplified model. The Maxwell's equations are very rough approximation of the actual vacuum behavior - they even don't allow the existence of photons (after Heaviside/Lorentz symmetrization) and quantum mechanics. You should incorporate the Lorentz symmetry or mass/energy equivalence into Maxwell equations for to get the quantum Schrodinger equation. If the Universe would allow only Maxwell's equations, it would behave like the giant block of elastic but transparent empty jelly.
no fate
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2014
"There can be no concentration of energy without a field to bind it" - Einstein

At the quantum level there are no particles, just waves and fields. You would think that the necessity to catalogue every "particle" by its vibrational energy or oscillation frequency would be a tip off...or the fact that it isn't called "the cosmic microparticle background".
johanfprins
2.5 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2014
But the Maxwell's equations were originally derived just with using of aether model...;-)
A blatant lie!!!!! they were derived from the experiments that showed magnetic-field and electric-field induction. No aether was assumed by Maxwell ANYWHERE to obtain these equations.

Maxwell only WRONGLY interpreted that waves can ONLY move in an aether. If he had solved his own equations for stationary EM -waves in a reflecting cavity, it would have hit him like a sledgehammer that these waves cannot move within a medium: For if they did it would violate energy-conservation.

PLEAAAASE Zephyr: Stop spouting when you cannot even solve a differential equation but can only imagine ducks farting in a non-existing aether.
Aligo
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 27, 2014
Maxwell only WRONGLY interpreted that waves can ONLY move in an aether
He considered this instead and he assumed, that the light waves are formed WITH aether, not moving IN it. The luminiferous aether concept is very different from your naive ideas about it
they were derived from the experiments that showed magnetic-field and electric-field induction
Haven't I linked the Maxwell's stance about it already? Who should know better, how the Maxwell's theory was derived and interpreted, than Maxwell himself?
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 27, 2014
Oh my God! Now is Aligo !! ha ha ha!
He considered this instead and he assumed, that the light waves are formed WITH aether, not moving IN it.
Bullshit! No matter how you want to word it, an aether-wave means a continuouis harmonic exchange between potential energy and kinetic energy while the wave moves: This is not possible for a light-wave since a light-wave moving through space has ONLY kinetic energy WITHIN ALL inertial reference-frames.!
Who should know better, how the Maxwell's theory was derived and interpreted, than Maxwell himself?
He did not know about the constancy of the speed of light within all inertial reference- frames: So how the HELL could he know better? You are an arsehole!!
Aligo
1 / 5 (2) Aug 28, 2014
He did not know about the constancy of the speed of light within all inertial reference- frames
Maxwell couldn't know about it, because his original theory was much more deep, complex and it actually didn't predicted it.
Aligo
1 / 5 (2) Aug 28, 2014
The Maxwell equations become consistent with speed of light just after their symmetrization with Lorenz gauge group, which removes the spin-0 components. When originally published, Lorenz's work was not received well by Maxwell himself. Maxwell proposed the Coulomb gauge fixing instead, which leaves a coupling term with first-order derivatives. Therefore the scalar waves which results from fast changes of EM field intensity exhibit spin-0 component and as such they're not Lorentz invariant.
johanfprins
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2014
He did not know about the constancy of the speed of light within all inertial reference- frames
Maxwell couldn't know about it, because his original theory was much more deep, complex and it actually http://www.chenie...706.htm.

Wrong again: His theory DID predict it: He just did not realise that it did. Maxwell's equations when solved within any inertial reference frame, gives the SAME speed for light c=1/(SRT(eps0*mu0)) where eps0 and mu0 are constants which are THE SAME in any and all inertial reference frames. So PLEAAASE Zephyr: Stop spouting claptrap.
johanfprins
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2014
The Maxwell equations become consistent with speed of light just after their symmetrization with http://en.wikiped...ndition, which removes the spin-0 components.
Maxwell was right: Tthe Lorentz equations are a result of Maxwell's equations in electric- and magnetic-field format. And these equations already DEMAND that the speed of light must be the same within any and all inertial reference frames.
Jixo
1 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2014
Maxwell's equations when solved within any inertial reference frame, gives the SAME speed for light
Nope, such an equations behave so, only when they're symmetrized with Lorenz and transformed from quaternion notation with Heaviside into vector format. Original Maxwell's theory consists of 20-equations of 20 variables and it's substantially richer than this theory, as above explained.
Lorentz equations are a result of Maxwell's equations in electric- and magnetic-field format. And these equations already DEMAND
It's a simplification. Of course, the Maxwell's equations are a simplification too - as I explained above, they even cannot predict the existence of photon and quantum phenomena by itself. So that Lorentz transforms are the Lorentz simplification of Heaviside, which is simplification of Lorenz, which is simplification of Maxwell, which is simplification of observable reality...
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2014
Maxwell's equations when solved within any inertial reference frame, gives the SAME speed for light
Nope, such an equations behave so, only when they're symmetrized with Lorenz and transformed from quaternion notation with Heaviside into vector format.
The Heavyside notation only simplifies the equqtions. It does not change the physics.

It's a simplification. Of course, the Maxwell's equations are a simplification too - as I explained above, they even cannot predict the existence of photon and quantum phenomena by itself.
Oh but they do this. You can directly derive the Lorentz equations from them since they predict that light speed must be c in all IRF's. One can then derive the de Broglie wavelength from the Lorentz transformation, which gives for any moving matter object with mass m a frequency f=(m*c^2)/h. Note that h has NOTHING to do with a matter quantum.

continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Aug 29, 2014
When such a matter-wave aborbs light, it increases its mass energy to M*c^2, so that it now has a frequency F=(M*c^2)/h. Thus the energy E that it absorbs by slicing this energy from a continuous light-wave as modelled by Maxwell's equations is thus;

E=M*c^2-m*c^2=h*F-h*f=h(F-f)=h*nu, where nu is the frequency that the light wave must have.

The light-wave does not need to consist of light-quanta since the matter-wave, like any antenna (for examplefor radio-waves) only absorbs a part of the energy from the light-wave, notwithstanding that the light-wave is continuous energy, as it must be when it has been emitted by a coherent, harmonic source. This wave-energy is stupidly called a photon-"particle". IT IS NOT A "PARTICLE" , but still a wave that has continous energy as demanded by Maxwell's equations. Only its energy is restricted to h*nu, since the electron absorber changes in energy by E=h*(F-f)=h*nu.

Thus Maxwell's equations and quantum mechanics dovetail seamlessly!
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Sep 01, 2014
The particle wave duality isn't mutually inclusive, as Afshar already demonstrated in 2004. Even at the trivial double slit experiment the particles do behave in http://www.sps.ch...d288.jpg - both like the dots at the target, both like the wave-like pattern in density distribution of these dots.
Afshar's interpretation of his results remains extremely controversial at this time. He also doesn't properly understand quantum erasure.

I certainly wouldn't call it decided either way, but this result puts a lot of the burden back on Afshar to show the result cannot be due to a biased measurement like the one in this article.
Jixo
1 / 5 (2) Sep 01, 2014
Afshar's interpretation of his results remains extremely controversial at this time
It was already confirmed.
..a team, ... that proved Afshar's original claims, which were based on a series of experiments he had conducted several years ago...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Sep 12, 2014
Unfortunately this article says not. The title says, "Researchers clear up apparent violation of wave-particle duality."
Aligo
not rated yet Sep 13, 2014
In their 2012 version of the famous Young two-split experiment, Ralf Menzel and his colleagues at the University of Potsdam simultaneously determined a photon's path and observed high contrast interference fringes created by the interaction of waves from the two slits.
Nope, they didn't. They didn't use a photon, but an entangled photon pair.. This is a difference - the photon pair already exhibits a trait of classical behavior typical for large ensembles of particles, where we can really observe both wave, both particle behavior at the same moment.
Aligo
not rated yet Sep 13, 2014
Once you start with entangled pair instead of single photon, you can realize a similar trick, like this one from this article: you can split that pair and use one half for observation of wave-like character of photon (i.e. interference pattern) and the second path for observation of particle character of it (i.e. to measure it's path or location). But the entangled pair is not a single localized particle, which can be observed only once in a single moment.