A quantum delayed choice experiment by alberto peruzzo peter shadbolt nicolas brunner sandu popeseu and jeremy l o brien



Quantum systems exhibit particle-like or wave-like behaviour depending on the experimental ...

Quantum systems exhibit particle-like or wave-like behaviour depending on the experimental
apparatus they are confronted by. This wave-particle duality is at the heart of quantum mechanics,
and is fully captured in Wheeler's famous delayed choice gedanken experiment. In this variant of the
double slit experiment, the observer chooses to test either the particle or wave nature of a photon
after it has passed through the slits. Here we report on a quantum delayed choice experiment,
based on a quantum controlled beam-splitter, in which both particle and wave behaviours can be
investigated simultaneously. The genuinely quantum nature of the photon's behaviour is tested via
a Bell inequality, which here replaces the delayed choice of the observer. We observe strong Bell
inequality violations, thus showing that no model in which the photon knows in advance what type
of experiment it will be confronted by, hence behaving either as a particle or as wave, can account
for the experimental data.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 1

http://www.docseek.net 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

A quantum delayed choice experiment by alberto peruzzo peter shadbolt nicolas brunner sandu popeseu and jeremy l o brien A quantum delayed choice experiment by alberto peruzzo peter shadbolt nicolas brunner sandu popeseu and jeremy l o brien Document Transcript

  • A quantum delayed choice experiment Alberto Peruzzo,1 Peter Shadbolt,1 Nicolas Brunner,2 Sandu Popescu,2 and Jeremy L. O’Brien1, ∗ 1 Centre for Quantum Photonics, H.H.Wills Physics Laboratory & Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UB, UK 2 H.H. Wills Physics Laboratory, University of Bristol, Tyndall Avenue, Bristol, BS8 1TL, United Kingdom Quantum systems exhibit particle-like or wave-like behaviour depending on the experimental apparatus they are confronted by. This wave-particle duality is at the heart of quantum mechanics, and is fully captured in Wheeler’s famous delayed choice gedanken experiment. In this variant of the double slit experiment, the observer chooses to test either the particle or wave nature of a photon after it has passed through the slits. Here we report on a quantum delayed choice experiment, based on a quantum controlled beam-splitter, in which both particle and wave behaviours can be investigated simultaneously. The genuinely quantum nature of the photon’s behaviour is tested viaarXiv:1205.4926v2 [quant-ph] 28 Jun 2012 a Bell inequality, which here replaces the delayed choice of the observer. We observe strong Bell inequality violations, thus showing that no model in which the photon knows in advance what type of experiment it will be confronted by, hence behaving either as a particle or as wave, can account for the experimental data. Quantum mechanics predicts with remarkable accu- performing the experiment has the choice of modifying racy the result of experiments involving small objects, the above experiment, in particular by removing the sec- such as atoms and photons. However, when looking more ond beam-splitter of the interferometer. In this case, he closely at these predictions, we are forced to admit that will perform a which-path measurement. The photon will they defy our intuition. Indeed, quantum mechanics tells be detected in each mode with probability one half, thus us that a single particle can be in several places at the exhibiting particle-like behaviour. The main point is that same time, and that distant entangled particles behave the experimentalist is free to choose which experiment as a single physical object no matter how far apart they to perform (i.e. interference or which-path, thus testing are [1]. the wave or the particle aspect), once the particle is al- In trying to grasp the basic principles of the theory, in ready inside the interferometer. Thus, the particle could particular to understand more intuitively the behaviour not have known in advance (for instance via a hidden of quantum particles, some of its pioneers introduced the variable) the kind of experiment it will be confronted, notion of wave-particle duality [2]. A quantum system, since this choice was simply not made when the parti- for instance a photon, may behave either as a particle cle entered the interferometer. Wheeler’s experiment has or a wave. However, the way in which it behaves de- been implemented experimentally using various systems, pends on the kind of experimental apparatus with which all confirming quantum predictions [9–12]. In a recent it is measured. Hence, both aspects, particle and wave, experiment with single photons, a space-like separation which appear to be incompatible, are never observed si- between the choice of measurement and the moment the multaneously [3]. This is the notion of complementarity photon enters the interferometer was achieved [13]. in quantum mechanics [4, 5], which is central in the stan- Here we explore a conceptually different take on dard Copenhagen interpretation, and has been intensely Wheeler’s experiment. Our starting point is a recent debated in the past. theoretical proposal [14] of a delayed choice experiment In an effort to reconcile quantum predictions and com- based on a quantum-controlled beamsplitter, which can mon sense, it was suggested that quantum particles may be in a superposition of present and absent. Hence, the in fact know in advance to which experiment they will interferometer can be simultaneously closed and open, be confronted, via a hidden variable, and could thus de- thus testing both the wave and the particle behaviour cide which behaviour to exhibit. This simplistic argu- of the photon at the same time. Here, using a recon- ment was however challenged by Wheeler in his elegant figurable integrated quantum photonic circuit [15], we ‘delayed choice’ arrangement [6–8]. In this gedanken ex- implement an interferometer featuring such a quantum periment, sketched in Fig. 1(a), a quantum particle is beam-splitter, observing continuous morphing between sent towards a Mach-Zender interferometer. The relative wave and particle behaviour [14]. We point out however phase ϕ between the two arms of the interferometer can that this morphing behaviour can be reproduced by a be adjusted such that the particle will emerge in output simple classical model, and note that this loophole also D0 with certainty. That is, the interference is fully con- plagues both the theoretical proposal of [14] as well as structive in output D0 , and fully destructive in output two of its recent NMR implementations [16, 17]. In or- D1 . This measurement thus clearly highlights the wave der to overcome this issue, we then present and experi- aspect of the quantum particle. However, the observer mentally demonstrate a quantum delayed choice scheme
  • 2based on Bell’s inequality [18], which allows us to test (a) D0the most general classical model. The main conceptual Observer’s choice D1novelty of this scheme is that the temporal arrangementof Wheeler’s original proposal, i.e. the delayed choiceof closing or not the interferometer, is not necessary any-more. Instead, we certify the quantum nature of the pho-ton’s behaviour by observing the violation of a Bell in-equality. This demonstrates in a device-independent way,that is, without making assumptions about the function- (b)ing of the devices, that no local hidden variable modelcan reproduce the quantum predictions. In other words,no model in which the photon decided in advance whichbehaviour to exhibit—knowing in advance the measure- H Hment setup—can account for the observed statistics. Inour experiment, we achieve strong Bell inequality viola-tions, hence giving an experimental refutation to such FIG. 1. Quantum delayed choice experiment. (a) Schematic of Wheeler’s original delayed choice experiment. A photon ishidden variable models, up to a few additional assump- sent into a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. At the first beam-tions due to imperfections in our setup. splitter (solid blue line), the photon is split into a superposi- The scheme is presented in Fig. 1(b). A single photon tion across both paths. Once the photon is inside the interfer-is sent through an interferometer. At the first beamsplit- ometer, the observer decides to close (or not) the interferom-ter, the photon evolves into a superposition of the two eter by inserting (or not) the second beam-splitter (dashedspatial modes, represented by two orthogonal quantum blue line). For a closed interferometer, the statistics of thestates |0 and |1 . Formally, this first BS is represented by measurements at detectors D0 and D1 will depend on the phase ϕ hence revealing the wave nature of the photon. Fora Hadamard operation [19], which transforms the √ initial an open interferometer, both detectors will click with equalphoton state |0 into the superposition (|0 + |1 )/ 2. A probability, revealing the particle nature of the photon. (b)phase shifter then modifies the relative phase between√ the Schematic of the quantum delayed choice experiment. Thetwo modes, resulting in the state |ψ = (|0 +eiϕ |1 )/ 2. second beam-splitter is now a quantum beam-splitter (rep-Both modes are then recombined on a second BS before a resented by a controlled-Hadamard operation), which can befinal measurement in the logical ({|0 , |1 }) basis. In the set in a superposition of present and absent, by controllingstandard delayed-choice experiment, the presence of this the state of an ancilla photon |ψa . This allows intermediate quantum behaviour to be observed, with continuous transfor-second BS is controlled by the observer (see Fig. 1(a)). mation between particle and wave behaviour. Here, on the contrary, the presence of the second beam-splitter depends on the state of an ancillary photon. Ifthe ancilla photon is prepared in the state |0 , no BS is and absent. Indeed, if the ancilla photon is initiallypresent, hence the interferometer is left open. Formally in a superposition, for instance in the state |ψα =this corresponds to the identity operator acting on |ψ , cos α |0 + sin α |1 , the global state of the system evolveshence resulting in the state into |ψp = 1 √ (|0 2 + eiϕ |1 ). (1) |Ψf (α, ϕ) = cos α |ψp s |0 a + sin α |ψw s |1 a (3)The final measurement (in the {|0 , |1 } basis) indicates where the subscripts s and a refer to the state of thewhich path the photon took, in other words revealing the system and ancilla photons respectively. Importantly theparticle nature of the photon. The measured intensities system and ancilla photons now become entangled, whenin both output modes are equal and phase-independent, 0 < α < π/2.i.e I0 = I1 = 1/2. The measured intensity at detector D0 is then given If, however, the ancilla photon is prepared in the state by|1 , the BS is present and the interferometer is there- I0 (ϕ, α) = Ip (ϕ) cos2 α + Iw (ϕ) sin2 αfore closed. Formally this corresponds to applying theHadamard operation to |ψ resulting in the state 1 ϕ = cos2 α + cos2 ( ) sin2 α (4) 2 2 |ψw = cos ϕ |0 − i sin ϕ |1 . (2) 2 2 while intensity at D1 is I1 (ϕ, α) = 1 − I0 (ϕ, α).The final measurement gives information about the phase We fabricated the quantum circuit shown in Fig. 2ϕ that was applied in the interferometer, but indeed not in a silica-on-silicon photonic chip [15]. The Hadamardabout which path the photon took. The measured inten- operation is implemented by a directional coupler ofsities are I0 = cos2 ϕ and I1 = sin2 ϕ . 2 2 reflectivity 1/2, equivalent to a 50/50 beam-splitter. The main feature of this quantum controlled BS is The controlled-Hadamard (CH) is based on a non-that it can be put in a superposition of being present deterministic control-phase gate [20, 21]. The system and
  • 3 dc6 UAlice D’0 dc1 dc2 dc9 dc10 A 1 2 5 6 D’1 dc7 α D0 dc3 dc4 dc5 dc11 dc12 dc13 S 3 4 7 8 D1 dc8 H ϕ CH UBobFIG. 2. Implementation of the quantum delayed choice experiment on a reconfigurable integrated photonic device. Non-entangled photon pairs are generated using type I parametric downconversion and injected into the chip using polarizationmaintaining fibres (not shown). The system photon (S), in the lower part of the circuit, enters the interferometer at theHadamard gate (H). A relative phase ϕ is applied between the two modes of the interferometer. Then the controlled-Hadamard (CH) is implemented by a nondeterministic CZ gate with two additional MZ interferometers. The ancilla photon(A), in the upper part of the circuit, is controlled by the phase shifter α, which determines the quantum state of the secondbeam-splitter, i.e a superposition of present and absent. Finally the local measurements for the Bell test are performed throughsingle qubit rotations (UA and UB ) followed by APD’s. The circuit is composed of directional couplers of reflectivity 1/2 (dc1−5and dc9−13 ), and 1/3 (dc6−8 ) and resistive heaters (orange rectangles) that implement the phase shifters. See Methods sectionfor more details.ancilla photon pairs are generated at 808 nm via para- delayed choice is performed by the observer—no conclu-metric down conversion and detected with silicon APDs sion can be drawn from this experiment. Note that thisat the circuit’s output. loophole also plagues the recent theoretical proposal of Ref. [14], as well as two of its NMR implementations We first characterized the behaviour of our setup, for [16, 17].various quantum states of the ancilla photon. We mea- In order to show that the measurement choice couldsured the output intensities I0,1 (ϕ, α) for α ∈ [0, π/2], not have been known in advance, we must ensure thatand ϕ ∈ [−π/2, 3π/2]. In particular, by increasing the our quantum controlled beam-splitter behaves in a gen-value of α, we observe the morphing between a par- uine quantum way. In particular, we will ensure thatticle measurement (α = 0) and a wave measurement it creates entanglement between the system and ancilla(α = π/2). For α = 0, i.e. no BS, the measured intensi- photons, which is the clear signature of a quantum pro-ties are independent of ϕ. For α = π/2 the BS is present, cess. The global state of the system and ancilla pho-and the data shows interference fringes. Our results are tons, given in equation (3), is entangled for all valuesin excellent agreement with theoretical predictions (see 0 < α < π/2. Note that ψp |ψw ∼ cos ϕ, hence the de-Fig. 3). gree of entanglement depends on ϕ and α; in particular To achieve our main goal — that is, to refute models for α = π/4 and ϕ = π/2, the state (3) is maximallyin which the photon knows in advance with which setup entangled.it will be confronted — we must go one step further. In- In order to certify the presence of this entanglement,deed, it is important to realize that the result of Fig. 3 we will test the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH)does not refute such models. The main point is that, Bell inequality [22], the violation of which will implyalthough we have inserted the ancilla photon in a super- in a device-independent way that the measured dataposition, hence testing both wave and particle aspects at could not have been produced by a classical model. Inthe same time, we have in fact not checked the quantum the CHSH Bell scenario, each party (here Alice holdsnature of this superposition. This is because the final the system photon while Bob holds the ancilla photon)measurement of the ancilla photon was made in the log- chooses among two possible measurement settings, de-ical ({|0 , |1 }) basis. Therefore, we cannot exclude the noted x = 0, 1 for Alice and y = 0, 1 for Bob. Eachfact that the ancilla may have been in a statistical mix- measurement is dichotomic, i.e. giving a binary resultture of the form cos2 α |0 0| + sin2 α |1 1|, which would Ax = ±1 and By = ±1. The CHSH inequality thenlead to the same measured statistics. Hence the data can readsbe explained by a classical model, in which the state ofthe ancilla represents a classical variable (a classical bit) S = A0 B 0 + A0 B 1 + A1 B 0 − A1 B 1 ≤ 2 (5)indicating which measurement, particle or wave, will beperformed. Since the state of the ancilla may have been This represents a Bell inequality in the sense that anyknown to the system photon in advance—indeed here no local model must satisfy it.
  • 4FIG. 3. Characterization of the continuous transition between wave and particle behaviour. Measured (a) and simulated (b)intensity at detector D0 when continuously tuning the state of the ancilla photon |ψa . The experimental data (white dots)were fitted using equation (4). The data shows excellent agreement with theoretical predictions. Indeed, this inequality can be violated by making judi- the choice of measurement setting in the Bell test, then aciously chosen local measurements on certain entangled local model can mimic Bell inequality violations. In thestates. We measured S for the output state |Ψf (α, ϕ) , future it would be interesting to perform a more refinedfor α ∈ [0, π/2], and ϕ ∈ [−π/2, 3π/2]. We tailored the experiment in which these assumptions could be relaxed.local measurement operators of Alice and Bob (adjusting In conclusion we have reported on a quantum delayedphase shifters 5, 6 and 8, see Appendix for details) for choice experiment, giving a novel demonstration of wave-the maximally entangled state |Ψf (α = π/4, ϕ = π/2) . particle duality, Feynman’s ’one real mystery’ in quan-Hence, for this state, we expect the maximal possible vi- tum mechanics. In our experiment, the delayed choice ofolation of the √CHSH inequality in quantum mechanics, Wheeler’s proposal is replaced by a quantum controllednamely S = 2 2 [23]. It is interesting to note that the beam-splitter followed by a Bell inequality test. In thischoice of apparatus in Wheeler’s original setup, is here, way we demonstrate genuine quantum behaviour of sin-in some sense, replaced by the choice of measurement set- gle photons. The demonstration of a quantum controlledtings for the Bell test. The latter choice is nevertheless beam-splitter shows that a single measurement deviceconceptually different from the former in that it can be can continuously tune between particle and wave mea-performed after the photon left the interferometer. surements, hence pointing towards a more refined notion Experimentally we observe a maximal violation of of complementarity in quantum mechanics [14, 24, 25].S = 2.45 ± 0.03, for α = π/4 and ϕ = π/2, which Acknowledgements. We thank R. Ionicioiu, S. Pironio,is in good agreement with theoretical predictions (see T. Rudolph, N. Sangouard, and D.R. Terno for usefulFig. 4). Therefore, our data could not been accounted discussions, and acknowledge financial support from thefor by any model in which the system photon would have UK EPSRC, ERC, QUANTIP, PHORBITECH, Nokia,known in advance whether to behave as a particle or as NSQI, the Templeton Foundation, and the EU DIQIP.a wave. However, for this claim to hold without mak- J.L.OB. acknowledges a Royal Society Wolfson Meriting further assumptions, a loophole-free Bell inequality Award.violation is required. Indeed this is not the case in ourexperiment, as in all optical Bell tests performed so far, Note added. We note a related work of Kaiser et al.which forces us to make a few additional assumptions. [26] who performed a similar quantum delayed choice ex-We make the standard fair-sampling assumption (allow- periment.ing us to discard inconclusive results, and post-select onlycoincidence events), which must here be slightly strength-ened because of the nondeterministic implementation ofthe controlled Hadamard operation. We must also as- ∗ Electronic email: Jeremy.OBrien@bristol.ac.uksume independence between the photon source and the [1] J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Me-choice of measurement setting used in the Bell inequal- chanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004).ity test. As usual, if the photons could know in advance [2] R.P. Feynman, R.B. Leighton, and M.L. Sands, Lecture
  • 5FIG. 4. Experimental Bell-CHSH inequality test. Measured (a) and simulated (b) Bell-CHSH parameter S (equation (5)).When the CHSH inequality is violated, i.e. S > 2 (yellow dots in (a) and yellow circle in (b)), no local hidden variablemodel can explain the observed data, hence demonstrating genuine quantum behaviour. The maximal experimental violation(S = 2.45 ± 0.03) is achieved for α = π/4 and ϕ = π/2, as expected. The data is in excellent agreement with theoreticalpredictions. notes on Physics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1965). Laing, M. Lobino, J. C. F. Matthews, J. L. O’Brien, [3] N. Bohr, in Quantum Theory and Measurement, J.A. Generating, manipulating and measuring entanglement Wheeler, W.H. Zurek, Eds. (Princeton Univ. Press, and mixture with a reconfigurable photonic circuit, Na- Princeton, NJ), pages 949, 1984. ture Photonics 6, 45 (2012). [4] M.O. Scully, B.-G. Englert, and H. Walther, Quantum [16] S.S. Roy, A. Shukla, and T.S. Mahesh, NMR implementa- optical tests of complementarity, Nature 351, 111 (1991). tion of a quantum delayed-choice experiment, Phys. Rev. [5] B.-G. Englert, Fringe Visibility and Which-Way Infor- A 85, 022109 (2012). mation: An Inequality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2154 (1996). [17] R. Auccaise, R. M. Serra, J. G. Filgueiras, R. S. Sarthour, [6] J. A. Wheeler, pp. 9-48 in Mathematical Foundations of I. S. Oliveira, and L. C. Cleri, Experimental analysis of Quantum Mechanics, edited by A.R. Marlow (Academic, the quantum complementarity principle, Phys. Rev. A 85, New-York, 1978). 032121 (2012). [7] J. A. Wheeler, pp. 182-213 in Quantum Theory and Mea- [18] J. S. Bell, Physics (Long Island City, N.Y.) 1, 195 (1964). surement, J. A. Wheeler and W. H. Zurek eds (Princeton [19] M.A. Nielsen and I.L. Chuang, Quantum computation University Press, 1984). and quantum information, Cambridge University Press [8] A.J. Leggett, pp. 161-166 in Compendium of Quantum (2000). Physics, D. Greenberger, K. Hentschel and F. Weinert [20] T.C. Ralph, N.K. Langford, T.B. Bell, and A.G. White, eds (Springer, Berlin, 2009). Linear optical controlled-NOT gate in the coincidence ba- [9] T. Hellmut, H. Walther, A. G. Zajonc, and W. Schle- sis, Phys. Rev. A 65, 062324 (2002). ich, Delayed-choice experiments in quantum interference, [21] H.F. Hofmann and S. Takeuchi, Quantum phase gate for Phys. Rev. A 35, 2532 (1987). photonic qubits using only beam splitters and postselec-[10] B. J. Lawson-Daku, R. Asimov, O. Gorceix, Ch. tion, Phys. Rev. A 66, 024308 (2002). Miniatura, J. Robert, and J. Baudon, Delayed choices [22] J.F. Clauser, M. Horne, A. Shimony, R.A. Holt, Pro- in atom Stern-Gerlach interferometry, Phys. Rev. A 54, posed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-Variable Theo- 5042 (1996). ries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969).[11] Y.-H. Kim, R. Yu, S.P. Kulik, Y. Shih, and M.O. Scully, [23] B.S. Cirelson, Quantum generalizations of Bell’s inequal- Delayed choice quantum eraser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1 ity, Lett. Math. Phys. 4, 93 (1980). (2000). [24] J.-S. Tang, Y.-L. Li, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, Revisiting[12] A. Zeilinger, G. Weihs, T. Jennewein, M. Aspelmeyer, Bohr’s principle of complementarity using a quantum de- Happy centenary, photon, Nature 433, 230 (2005). vice, arXiv:1204.5304.[13] V. Jacques, E. Wu, F. Grosshans, F. Treussart, P. Grang- [25] T. Qureshi, Quantum version of complementarity: a du- ier, A. Aspect, and J.-F. Roch, Experimental realization ality relation, arXiv:1205.2207. of Wheeler’s delayed choice experiment, Science 315, 966 [26] F. Kaiser, T. Coudreau, P. Milman, D. B. Ostrowsky, (2007). and S. Tanzilli, Entanglement-enabled delayed choice ex-[14] R. Ionicioiu and D.R. Terno, Proposal for a quantum periment, arXiv:1206.4348. delayed-choice experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 230406 (2011).[15] P.J. Shadbolt, M.R. Verde, A. Peruzzo, A. Politi, A.
  • 6 APPENDIX and X −Z −X − Z B1 = √ , B2 = √ (8)CH gate decomposition 2 2The CH gate is equivalent to a two-qubit CZ gate andtwo single-qubit W gates as shown in Fig. 5(a). The W for Alice and Bob respectively (where X, Y , Z aregate, described by the matrix the usual Pauli matrices). In the experiment, Alice and Bob’s measurements were implemented by setting (φ5 = −π/2, φ6 = 0) for A1 , (φ5 = π/4, φ6 = π/2) for cos π sin π 8 8 A2 , (φ8 = π/4) for B1 , and (φ8 = −π/4) for B2 . W= , (6) sin π − cos π 8 8is equivalent to the operation of a beamsplitter with re- (a)flectivity η = cos2 ( π ). This was achieved, up to a non 8 =measurable global phase, by setting phase shifters 4 and7 —in the Mach-Zehnder interferometers indicated with H W Z WW in Fig. 5(b)— to 5π and 3π respectively. 4 4 (b) dc6Measurements for the Bell test CZAlice and Bob’s local measurement operators on the max- dc7imally entangled state (3) (with α = π/4 and ϕ = π/2) W Wwere performed through single qubit rotations and single dc4 dc5 dc11 dc12photon detection. For this state, the optimal measure- 4 7 dc8ment settings for the CHSH inequality are given by FIG. 5. Integrated photonics implementation of the CH gate. (a) Block diagram of the CH decomposition, (b) implementa- −X − Y tion using an integrated photonics device. A1 = −Z, A2 = √ (7) 2