• How to relate discrete energy levels with Hamiltonian described in terms of continгous coordinate x and momentum p? • Acoustics: set of frequencies is associated with periodic solutions of linear differential equations • Does solution Ψ(x) describe a motion of particle ? • M. Born, L. Mandelstamm: |Ψ(x)| 2 is probability density. Schrödinger equation determines the time evolution of statistical ensemble Erwin Schrödinger and “his” cat Erwin Schrödinger (1887 -1961) 0 ) ( 2 2 2 = Ψ − + Ψ ∇ V E m Does the Ψ(x) yield the complete description of the physical reality?
33
Embed
Erwin Schrödinger and “his” cat - uni-saarland.de · Erwin Schrödinger and “his” cat “Experimental setup” Schrödinger Cat (1930 -Present) • A. Einstein: … Is the
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
• How to relate discrete energy levels with Hamiltonian described in terms of continгous coordinate x and momentum p?
• Acoustics: set of frequencies is associated with periodic solutions of linear differential equations
• Does solution Ψ(x) describe a motion of particle ?
• M. Born, L. Mandelstamm: |Ψ(x)|2 is probability density. Schrödinger equation determines the time evolution of statistical ensemble
• A. Einstein: … Is the quantum state of a cat created upon a “measurement”? However, nobody doubts whether the cat state is something independent from measurement process.
• L. Mandelstamm: we can discuss statistics only when the ensemble is defined. For example we repeat the experiment under the same conditions
1,2,),( deadbliveaatomcat +=Ψ
?2
<<∆∆ px
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox (1935)
“Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?" Phys. Rev. 47 , 777–780 (1935).
0 x
21
21 )()(pp
txtx
−=−=
One of topics: EPR paradox in quantum optics
Detection of the momentum
Detection of the coordinate
Pump
Let’s try to understand what kind of media produces such correlated beams
Mind boggling experiments with entangled photons
2.12.2012
• EPR paradox and Completeness of QM
• Nonlinear optics and parametric downconversion
• HOM experiment
• Mind boggling experiments with entangled photons
1. Lorentz model of atomic oscillators
2. Non-linear oscillators
3. Real pump field
4. Non-linear term treated as small perturbation . First order (linear solution):
Non-linear optics: anharmonic oscillators
medium consists of atomic oscillators
mteExxx p /)(20 =++ ωγ
Ep(t) mteEaxxxx p /)(220 =+++ ωγ
( )titip eeEtE 11
2)( 1 ωω −+=
( )..~
./)(1
1
)1(21)1(
121
201
)1(
ccexx
ccimeeExti
tip
+=
+−−=−
−
ω
ω γωωωω)()(
...)( )3()2()1(
tNextPxxxtx
=+++=
Non-linear terms as perturbations:
Non-linear optics: anharmonic oscillators
5. Second order approximation
6. As we see non-linear polarization components on sum/difference and doubled frequencies has appeared
7. Let’s estimate the magnitude of non-linear polarization
..)2()0( 1)2()2()2( ccxxx ++= ω
8. Consider non-resonance case (resonance case is UV- excitation)
9. Estimate the non-linear coefficient “a”. Consider large displacements of an oscillator nonlinear and linear terms are an order of atomic field.
10. Estimation for “standard laser” and “standard atom”.
• Parametric pair originates wether in NL1 or in NL2.
• The paths for i1 and s1, and i2 and s2 are indistinguishable
• To destroy „wich way information“, ND-filter is introduced on i1
Mind boggling experiment: which way information
X. Zou et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 318 (1991)
• Without ND filter: clear interference fringes by measuring count rate
• ND filter diminishes the visibility
• Obtaining which way information is sufficient to destroy interference
Mind boggling experiment: which way information
L. Mandel et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, S274 (1999)
Single photon interference: HOM experiment
• Generation of indistinguishable photons in type 2 parametric down-conversion
• Entangled state of the field
• What we do next? – Trying to defeat quantum mechanics by doing EPR-like experiments
• Will we succeed? …
( )1221 ,,2
1 λλλλ ϕiPDC e+=Ψ
EPR paradox with entangled photons
Detection of the momentum
Detection of the coordinate
• What would happen if we detect the coordinate for the photon 1 and the momentum for the photon 2?
• Will we break uncertainty relations?
• Let’s consider an experiment with entangled photon pairs
Pump
2~
~
/~
0
0
<<∆∆
≈∆
∆
axp
x
ap
λ
λαλ
A. Zeilinger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, S288 (2000)A. Zeilinger et al., Nature 433, 230 (2005)
• Type 1 parametric light
• Choose the detection mode in 1a. Image plane detection: <x>b. Focal plane detection: <p>
• Case b): A momentum eigenstate can not carry position information: Interference pattern for photon 2 is detected conditioned on registration of photon1.
• Case a): Fringes vanishes when photon 1 is projected on image plane.
• Neither of entangled photon possesses its own wave-function before the click of one of photo-detectors
Mind boggling experiment to test EPR
Conclusion of the part: Copenhagen interpretation
N. Bohr W. Heisenberg V. Fock L. Mandelstam
• In general case we can not assign neither momentum nor coordinate or polarization to the entangled photons before the measurement!
• Variables ( p,x ) has classical origin and can not characterize the field propagation, rather they relate measurement devices and quantum object. Consider a length in relativity theory, one has to define at least the reference frame.
• Comprehensive treatment is made with the full state vector. Even better to use density matrix.
Klyshko D. N., Sov. Phys. Usp. 31 74–85 (1988)
• Einstein: “We measure the system 1 without affecting the system 2”. Why is that?
• Where the system 2 has acquired its momentum? Apparently during its interaction with system 1. Therefore, by taking into account only specific momentum values of the system 2, we restrict the statistical ensemble. Wrong use of the probability theory.
• Systems 1 or 2 do not possess their own wave-function before the measurement
• Entangled state:
• Measurement on any system destroys the quantum correlations between them!
• Indeed, the wave-function of single system does not imply complete description of the reality
Entangled State and EPR paradox
( ))()()()(2
1)2,1( 2121 xxxx ψψψψ −+−=Ψ
0 x
• Principle of the experimental setup
• Type I process. Degenerate (the same wavelength) emission of photon pairs of the same polarizations.
• Arms are nearly equal and much larger then coherence length
• Analyzer: Michelson interferometer or Franson interferometer
• Observation of coincidence between different arms separated by 10 km
Mind boggling experiment with entangled pairs
W. Tittel et al. , Phys. Rev. A 57, 3229 (1998)
EPR source
Analyzer 2Analyzer 1D1 D2
Coincidence
~ 10 km
Look also in book of M. Scully
EPR source
δ1
D1 D2
Coincidence
mode a
( )( )( )
( )[ ]21*
)()()()(
cos141),(),(
1),(
1,1)()()()(0,0),(21
δδ
δδ
++∝ΨΨ=
+∝Ψ
++=Ψ+
++++
babaP
eba
bEbEaEaEba
c
i
longshortlongshort
δ2
mode b
• Interference of the paths: both long or both short
• The coincidence rate acquires total path phase shift δ1+δ2
Mind boggling experiment with entangled pairs
Observation of quantum correlations over 10 km distance
• 8 mW pump diode laser at 655.7 nm
• Type I non-linear crystal KNbO3
• Parametric waves at 1310 nm
• Michelson fiber interferometers
• Each single photon counter triggers lasers which send pulses to Geneva
• TPHC – time to pulse hight converter. Coincidence hystogramm.
W. Tittel et al. , Phys. Rev. A 57, 3229 (1998)
Optical loss in fibers
Observation of quantum correlations over 10 km distance
( )
+
−−+= 21
21 cos2
)(exp141 δδ
πδδλ
cc L
VP
EPR source
Interferometer 2Interferometer 1D1 D2
Coincidence
~ 10 km
• Beam from EPR source is divided 50/50
• δ1- δ2 ≈ 0, δi >> kLc . Single photon interference is excluded
• Entangled state: total phase shift affect the field propagation
• Term δ1+ δ2 due to two-photon interference of entangled pairs
• Detectors are widely separated and photon‘s trajectories do not mix
1δ 2δ
Observation of quantum correlations over 10 km distance
• Coherence length of photon is about 10 um. Much shorter then separation between them
• Observation of interference fringes (81% ): entanglement is not broken by large separation !W. Tittel et al. , Phys. Rev. A 57, 3229 (1998)