1: %%\documentclass[twocolumn,aps,prb,draft]{revtex4}
2: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,aps]{revtex4}
3:
4: \usepackage{graphics}
5:
6: \begin{document}
7:
8: %\renewcommand{\familydefault}{cmss}
9: %\sffamily
10: %\newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
11: %\newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
12:
13: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}
14:
15: \title{On the Realization of Popper's Experiment}
16:
17: \author{Tabish Qureshi}
18: \email{tabish@jamia-physics.net}
19: \affiliation{Department of Physics, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi-110025,
20: India}
21:
22: \begin{abstract}
23:
24: An experiment proposed by Karl Popper to test the standard interpretation
25: of quantum mechanics was realized by Kim and Shih. We use a quantum
26: mechanical calculation to analyse Popper's proposal, and find a surprising
27: result for the location of the virtual slit. We also analyze Kim
28: and Shih's experiment, and demonstrate that although it ingeneously
29: overcomes the problem of temporal spreading of the wave-packet, it is
30: inconclusive about Popper's test. We point out that another experiment
31: which implements Popper's test in a conlcusive way, has actually been
32: carried out. Its results are in contradiction with Popper's prediction,
33: and agree with our analysis.
34:
35: \end{abstract}
36:
37: \pacs{03.65.Ud ; 03.65.Ta}
38:
39: \maketitle
40:
41: \section{Introduction}
42: Karl Popper, a philosopher of science, proposed an experiment to test the
43: standard interpretation of quantum theory \cite{popper,popper1}.
44: We describe the proposed experiment in the following.
45: Popper's proposed experiment consists of a source $S$ that can generate pairs
46: of particles traveling to the left and to the right along the $x$-axis. The
47: momentum along the $y$-direction of the two particles is entangled in such a
48: way so as to conserve the initial momentum at the source,
49: which is zero. There are two slits, one each in the paths of the two particles.
50: Behind the slits are semicircular arrays of detectors which can detect the
51: particles after they pass through the slits (see Fig.~1).
52: \begin{figure}[h]
53: \resizebox{3.3in}{!}{\includegraphics{pop1.eps}}
54: \caption{Schematic diagram of Popper's thought experiment. (a) With both
55: slits, the particles are expected to show scatter in momentum. (b) By removing
56: slit B, Popper believed that the standard interpretation of
57: quantum mechanics could be tested.}
58: \end{figure}
59:
60: Being entangled in momentum space implies that in the absence of the two
61: slits, if a particle on the left is measured to have a momentum $p$, the particle
62: on the right will necessarily be found to have a momentum $-p$. One can
63: imagine a state similar to the EPR state,
64: $\psi(y_1,y_2) = \!\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}e^{ipy_1/\hbar} e^{-ipy_2/\hbar}dp$.
65: As we can see, this state also implies that if a particle on the left is
66: detected at a distance $y$ from the horizontal line, the particle on the right
67: will necessarily be found at the same distance $y$ from the horizontal line.
68: It appears that a hidden assumption in Popper's setup is that the initial
69: spread in momentum of the two particles is not very large.
70: Popper argued that because the slits localize the particles to a narrow
71: region along the $y$-axis,
72: they experience large uncertainties in the $y$-components of their momenta.
73: This larger spread in the momentum will show up as particles being
74: detected even at positions that lie outside the regions where particles
75: would normally reach based on their initial momentum spread. This is generally
76: understood as a diffraction spread.
77:
78: Popper suggested that slit B be made very large (in effect, removed).
79: In this situation, Popper argued
80: that when particle 1 passes through slit A, it is localized to
81: within the width of the slit.
82: He further argued that the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics
83: tells us that if particle 1 is localized in a small region of space, particle
84: 2 should become similarly localized, because of entanglement.
85: The standard interpretation says that if one has knowledge about the
86: position of particle 2, that should be sufficient to cause a spread in
87: the momentum, just from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Popper said
88: that he was inclined to believe that there will be no spread in the particles
89: at slit B, just by putting a narrow slit at A.
90:
91: Popper's experiment came under lot of attention because no obvious flaw
92: in the argument was evident \cite{sudbery,sudbery2,krips,collet,storey,redhead,
93: nha,peres,hunter,tqijqi,bramon}. In 1999, Kim and Shih realized Popper's
94: experiment using entangled photons generated from (SPDC). Popper's
95: experiment was realized in 1999 by Kim and Shih using a spontaneous
96: parametric down conversion (SPDC) photon source.\cite{shih} They did not
97: observe an extra spread in the momentum of particle 2 due to particle
98: 1 passing through a narrow slit. In fact, the observed momentum spread
99: was narrower than that contained in the original beam. This observation
100: seemed to imply that Popper was right. Short has criticized Kim and
101: Shih's experiment, arguing that because of the finite size of the source,
102: the localization of particle 2 is imperfect,\cite{short} which leads to
103: a smaller momentum spread than expected.
104: In this paper, we do a rigorous analysis of the dynamics of an entangled
105: state, passing through a slit. We will show that this is necessary to
106: meaningfully interpret the results of Kim and Shih's experiment.
107:
108: \section{Dynamics of entangled particles}
109:
110: \subsection{The Entangled State}
111: First thing one must recognize is that in a real SPDC source, the correlation
112: between the signal and idler photons is not perfect. Serveral factors like
113: the finite width of the nonlinear crystal, finite waist of the pump beam and
114: the spectral width of the pump, play important role in determining how good
115: is the correlation \cite{spdc}.
116: Therefore, we assume the entangled particles, when they start out at the
117: source, to be in a state which has the following form,
118: \begin{equation}
119: \psi(y_1,y_2) = A\!\int_{-\infty}^\infty dp
120: e^{-p^2/4\sigma^2}e^{-ipy_2/\hbar} e^{i py_1/\hbar}
121: e^{-{(y_1+y_2)^2\over 4\Omega^2}}, \label{state}
122: \end{equation}
123: where $A$ is a constant necessary for the normalization of $\psi$. The
124: $e^{-(y_1+y_2)^2/4\Omega^2}$ term makes sure that the state (\ref{state})
125: is not infinitely extended in the limit $\sigma\to\infty$. The state (\ref{state}) is fairly general,
126: except that we use Gaussian functions.
127:
128: In order to study the evolution of the particles as they travel towards
129: the slits, we will use the following strategy. Since the motion along
130: the x-axis is unaffected by the entanglement of the form given by
131: (\ref{state}), we will ignore the x-dependence of the state. We will
132: assume the particles to be travelling with an average momentum $p_0$,
133: so that after a known time, particle 1 will reach slit A.
134: So, motion along the $x$-axis is ignored, but is implicitly included in the
135: time evolution of the state. Integration over $p$ can be carried out in
136: (\ref{state}), to yield the state of the particles at time $t=0$,
137: \begin{equation}
138: \psi(y_1,y_2,0) = 2A \sqrt{\pi}\sigma e^{-(y_1-y_2)^2\sigma^2/\hbar^2}
139: e^{-(y_1+y_2)^2/4\Omega^2} . \label{newstate}
140: \end{equation}
141: The uncertainty in the momenta of the two particles given by
142: $\Delta p_{1y}= \Delta p_{2y}=\sqrt{\sigma^2 + {\hbar^2/4\Omega^2}}$.
143: The position uncertainty of the two particles is
144: $\Delta y_1 = \Delta y_2 = {1\over 2}\sqrt{\Omega^2+\hbar^2/4\sigma^2}$.
145: Let us assume that the particles travel for a time $t_1$ before particle 1
146: reaches slit A. The state of the particles after a time $t_1$ is given by
147: \begin{equation}
148: \psi(y_1,y_2,t_1) = \exp\left(-{i\over\hbar}\hat{H}t_1\right)\psi(y_1,y_2,0)
149: \end{equation}
150: The Hamiltonian $\hat{H}$ being the free particle Hamiltonian for the two
151: particles, the state (\ref{newstate}), after a time $t_1$ looks like
152: \begin{eqnarray}
153: \psi(y_1,y_2,t_1) &=& {1\over \sqrt{{\pi\over 2}(\Omega+{i\hbar t_1\over m\Omega})
154: (\hbar/\sigma + {4i\hbar t_1\over m\hbar/\sigma})}}\nonumber\\
155: && \exp\left({-(y_1-y_2)^2\over
156: {\hbar^2\over\sigma^2} + {4i\hbar t_1\over m}}\right)
157: \exp\left({-(y_1+y_2)^2\over 4(\Omega^2+ {i\hbar t_1\over m}}\right).\nonumber\\
158: \label{statet1}
159: \end{eqnarray}
160:
161: \subsection{Effect of slit A}
162: At time $t_1$ particle one passes through the slit. We may assume that the
163: effect of the slit is to localize the particle into a state with position
164: spread equal to the width of the slit.
165: Let us suppose that the wavefunction of particle 1 is reduced to
166: \begin{equation}
167: \phi_1(y_1) = \frac{1}{(\epsilon^2\pi/2)^{1/4} } e^{-y_1^2/\epsilon^2}.
168: \label{phi1}
169: \end{equation}
170: In this state, the uncertainty in $y_1$ is given by
171: $\Delta y_1 = \epsilon/2$.
172: The measurement destroys the entangelment, but
173: the wavefunction of particle 2 is now known to be:
174: \begin{eqnarray}
175: \phi_2(y_2) &=& \!\int_{-\infty}^\infty \phi_1^*(y_1) \psi(y_1,y_2,t_1)
176: dy_1 \label{phi2f}
177: \end{eqnarray}
178: We had argued earlier \cite{tqijqi} that the mere presence of slit A does not
179: lead to a reduction of the state of the particle. While strictly speaking,
180: this is true, one would notice that if one assumes that the wave-function
181: is not reduced, part of the wave function of particle 1 passes through the
182: slit, and a part doesn't pass. The part which passes through the slit, is
183: just $\phi_1(y_1)\phi_2(y_2)$. By the linearity of Schr\"odinger equation,
184: each part will subsequently evolve independently, without affecting the other.
185: If we are only interested in those pairs where particle 1 passes through
186: slit A, both the views lead to identical results. Thus, whether one believes
187: that the presence of slit A causes a collapse of the wave-function or not,
188: one is led to the same result.
189:
190: The state of particle 2, given by (\ref{phi2f}), after normalization, has
191: the explicit form
192: \begin{eqnarray}
193: \phi_2(y_2) &=& \left({\Gamma+\Gamma^*\over \pi\Gamma^*\Gamma}\right)^{1/4}
194: \exp\left(-{y_2^2\over\Gamma}\right), \label{phi2}
195: \end{eqnarray}
196: where
197: \begin{equation}
198: \Gamma = \frac{\epsilon^2+2i\hbar t_1/m+{\hbar^2/\sigma^2\over
199: 1 + \hbar^2/(4\sigma^2\Omega^2) }}{1+{\epsilon^2+2i\hbar t_1/m\over\Omega^2 +
200: \hbar^2/4\sigma^2}} + {2i\hbar t_1\over m} .\label{dy2}
201: \end{equation}
202: The above experession simplifies in the limit $\Omega \gg \epsilon$,
203: $\Omega \gg \hbar^2/\sigma^2$. In this limit, (\ref{phi2}) is a Gaussian
204: function, with a width $\sqrt{\epsilon^2+\hbar^2/\sigma^2 +
205: {16\hbar^2 t_1^2/m^2 \over\epsilon^2+\hbar^2/\sigma^2}}$. In the limit
206: $\hbar/\sigma \to 0$, the correlation between the two paticles is expected
207: to be perfect. One can see that even in this limit, localization of
208: particle 2 is not perfect. It is localized to a region of width
209: $\sqrt{\epsilon^2 + {16\hbar^2 t_1^2/m^2 \over\epsilon^2}}$. So, Popper's
210: thinking that an initial EPR like state implies that localizing particle
211: 1 in a narrow region of space, after it reaches the slit, will lead to a
212: localization of particle 2 in a region as narrow, is not correct.
213:
214: Once particle 2
215: is localized to a narrow region in space, its subsequent evolution should
216: show the momentum spread dictated by the uncertainty principle.
217: The uncertainty in the momentum of particle 2 is now given by
218: \begin{equation}
219: \Delta p_{2y} = {\hbar\over 2\Delta y_2}
220: \approx {\sigma \over \sqrt{1 + \sigma^2\epsilon^2/\hbar^2 +
221: {16 t_1^2/m^2\sigma^2 \over\epsilon^2+\hbar^2/\sigma^2}}} \label{dp2n}
222: \end{equation}
223: Clearly, the momentum spread is less than or equal to that present in
224: the initial state, which was $\sqrt{\sigma^2 + {\hbar^2/4\Omega^2}}
225: \approx \sigma$.
226: Infact, even without the approximation $\Omega \gg \epsilon$,
227: $\Omega \gg \hbar^2/\sigma^2$, one can show that the momentum spread of
228: particle 2, conditioned on the localisation of particle 1, is less
229: than or equal to that in the initial state, not conditioned upon the
230: measurement of particle 1, for any value of $\epsilon$, $\sigma$, and $\Omega$.
231:
232: \subsection{The Virtual Slit}
233: After particle 1 has reached slit A, particle 2 travels for a time $t_2$
234: to reach the array of detectors. The state of particle 2, when it reaches
235: the detectors, is given by
236: \begin{equation}
237: \phi_2(y_2,t_2) = \left({\Gamma+\Gamma^*\over \pi\Gamma'^*\Gamma'}\right)^{1/4}
238: \exp\left(-{y_2^2\over\Gamma'}\right), \label{phi2d}
239: \end{equation}
240: where $\Gamma' = \Gamma + 2i\hbar t_2/m$. In the limit $\Omega \gg \epsilon$,
241: $\Omega \gg \hbar^2/\sigma^2$, (\ref{phi2d}) assumes the form
242: \begin{eqnarray}
243: \phi_2(y_2,t_2) &\approx& \left({2\over\pi}\right)^{1/4}
244: \left(\sqrt{\epsilon^2+{\hbar^2\over\sigma^2}}
245: +{2i\hbar(2t_1+t_2)\over m\sqrt{\epsilon^2+{\hbar^2\over\sigma^2}}}\right)^{-1/2} \nonumber\\
246: &&\times \exp\left(-{y_2^2\over \epsilon^2+{\hbar^2\over\sigma^2}
247: +{2i\hbar(2t_1+t_2)\over m}}\right), \label{phi2final}
248: \end{eqnarray}
249: Equation (\ref{phi2final}) represents a Gaussian state, which has undergone
250: a time evolution. But this form imlplies that particle 2 started out as
251: Gaussian state, with a width $\sqrt{\epsilon^2+\hbar^2/\sigma^2}$, and traveled
252: for a time $2t_2+t_2$. But the time $2t_2+t_2$ corresponds to the particle
253: having travelled a distance $2L_1+L_2$, which is the distance between slit A
254: and the detectors behind slit B. This is very strange because particle 2
255: never visits the region between the source and slit A. If particle 1 were
256: localized right at the source, the width of the localization of particle 2
257: would have been
258: $\sqrt{\epsilon^2+\hbar^2/\sigma^2}$ (for large $\Omega$). {\em So, the virtual
259: slit for particle 2 appears to be located at slit A, and not at slit B.}
260: However, the width of the virtual slit will be more than the real slit A,
261: and the diffraction observed for particles 1 and 2 will be different.
262:
263: \section{Kim and Shih's experiment}
264:
265: \subsection{Width of the observed pattern}
266:
267: In order to use the results obtained in the preceding section, we will recast
268: them in terms of the d`Broglie wavelength of the particles. In this
269: representation, (\ref{phi2final}) has the form
270: \begin{eqnarray}
271: \phi_2(y_2,t_2) &\approx& \left({2\over\pi}\right)^{1/4}
272: \left(\sqrt{\epsilon^2+{\hbar^2\over\sigma^2}}
273: +{i\lambda(2L_1+L_2)\over\pi\sqrt{\epsilon^2+{\hbar^2\over\sigma^2}}}\right)^{-1/2} \nonumber\\
274: &&\times \exp\left(-{y_2^2\over \epsilon^2+{\hbar^2\over\sigma^2}
275: +{i\lambda(2L_1+L_2)\over\pi}}\right),
276: \end{eqnarray}
277: where $\lambda$ is the d`Broglie wavelength associated with the particles.
278: For photons, $\lambda$ will represent the wavelength of the photon. For
279: convenience, we will use a rescaled wavelength $\Lambda=\lambda/\pi$. The
280: probability density distribution of particle 2 at the detectors behind slit B,
281: is given by $|\phi_2(y_2,t_2)|^2$, which is a Gaussian with a width equal to
282: \begin{equation}
283: W_2 = \sqrt{\epsilon^2+{\hbar^2\over\sigma^2}
284: +{4\Lambda^2(2L_1+L_2)^2\over\epsilon^2+\hbar^2/\sigma^2}}. \label{width}
285: \end{equation}
286:
287: \begin{figure}[h]
288: \resizebox{3.5in}{!}{\includegraphics{result.eps}}
289: \caption{Results of the photon experiment by Kim and Shih, \cite{shih} aimed
290: at realizing Popper's proposal. The diffraction pattern in the absence of
291: slit B (diamond symbols) is much narrower than that in the presence of a
292: real slit (square symbols).}
293: \end{figure}
294:
295: Let us now look at the experimental results of Kim and Shih. Equation
296: (\ref{width}) should represent the width of the observed pattern in their
297: experiment (see FIG. 2). They observed
298: that when the width of slit B is 0.16 mm, the width of the diffraction pattern
299: (at half maximum) is 2 mm. When the width of slit A is 0.16 mm, but slit B
300: is left wide open, the width of the diffraction pattern
301: is 0.657 mm.
302: In a Gaussian function, the full width at half maximum
303: is related to the Gaussian width $W$ by
304: \begin{equation}
305: W_{fwhm} = \ln2~W
306: \end{equation}
307: Using $W_2 = 0.657/\ln(2)$ mm, $\lambda = 702$ nm and $2L_1 + L_2 = 2$ m,
308: we find $\sqrt{\epsilon^2+\hbar^2/\sigma^2} = 0.632$ mm. Assuming that
309: a rectangular slit of width 0.16 mm corresponds to a Gaussian width
310: $\epsilon = 0.11$ mm, the number 0.632 for $\sqrt{\epsilon^2+\hbar^2/\sigma^2}$
311: is unusually large. Clearly, something is amiss here.
312:
313: A careful look reveals that the analysis we presented in the last section
314: applies to freely evolving entangled particle, while Kim and Shih's
315: setup also involves a converging lens. Thus, the photons are not
316: really free particles - their dynamics is affected by the lens. So,
317: our next task is to incorporate the effect of the lens in our calculation.
318:
319: \subsection{Effect of converging lens}
320:
321: We assume the effect of a converging lens of focal length $f$ to be the
322: following. If a Gaussian wave-packet of width $\sigma$ starts from a distance
323: $2f$ from the lens, it will spread due to time evolution as it reaches the
324: lens. The effect of lens is to have a unitary transformation on the
325: wave-packet such that in its subsequent dynamics, it narrows instead of
326: spreading, and comes back to its original width after a distance $2f$ from
327: the lens. Also, the observed width of the wavepacket, immediately after
328: emerging from the lens should be the same as that just before entering
329: the lens. In general, we can quantify the effect of the lens by a unitary
330: transformation of the form
331: \begin{eqnarray}
332: \hat{U}_f {(\pi/2)^{-1/4}\over\sqrt{\sigma+{i\Lambda L\over\sigma}}}
333: \exp\left({-y_1^2 \over \sigma^2+i\Lambda L}\right) &=&
334: {(\pi/2)^{-1/4}\over\sqrt{\tilde{\sigma}+{i\Lambda (L-4f)\over
335: \tilde{\sigma}}}}\nonumber\\
336: &&\exp\left({-y_1^2 \over \tilde{\sigma}^2+i\Lambda (L-4f)}\right),
337: \label{lens} \nonumber\\
338: \end{eqnarray}
339: where $L$ is the distance the wave-packet, of an initial width $\sigma$,
340: travelled before passing through the lens, and $\tilde{\sigma}$ is such that
341: it satisfies
342: \begin{equation}
343: \tilde{\sigma}^2+{\Lambda^2(L-4f)^2\over\tilde{\sigma}^2} =
344: \sigma^2+{\Lambda^2 L^2\over\sigma^2}.
345: \end{equation}
346: One can verify that if $L=2f$, the state emerging from the lens, given
347: by (\ref{lens}), after travelling a further distance $2f$, assumes the form
348: ${(\pi/2)^{-1/4}\over\sqrt{\sigma}} \exp\left({-y_1^2 \over \sigma^2}\right)$.
349:
350: \begin{figure}[h]
351: \resizebox{3.5in}{!}{\includegraphics{setup.eps}}
352: \caption{Setup of the photon experiment by Kim and Shih, \cite{shih} aimed
353: at realizing Popper's proposal. Slit A is narrow while slit B is left wide
354: open.}
355: \end{figure}
356:
357: In this scenario, we split the time $t_1$, taken by particle 1 to reach
358: slit A, into two parts: the time $t_{b1}$ taken to travel the distance $b_1$,
359: from the source to the lens, and the time $t_{2f}$ taken to travel the
360: distance $2f$, from the lens to slit A. So, the state of particle 2,
361: after a time $t_1$, conditioned on particle 1 having passed through slit A,
362: is given by
363: \begin{eqnarray}
364: \phi_2(y_2,t_1) &=& \int_{-\infty}^\infty \phi_1^*(y_1) \psi(y_1,y_2,t_1)
365: dy_1 \nonumber\\
366: &=& \int_{-\infty}^\infty \phi_1^*(y_1) e^{-{i\over\hbar}H_1t_{2f}}
367: \hat{U}_fe^{-{i\over\hbar}H_1t_{b2}} \nonumber\\
368: &&\times e^{-{i\over\hbar}H_2t_1} \psi(y_1,y_2,0) dy_1
369: \end{eqnarray}
370: Similarly, one can write the state of particle 2 at a general time $t$,
371: conditioned on particle 1 having passed through slit A, as
372: \begin{eqnarray}
373: \phi_2(y_2,t) &=& \int_{-\infty}^\infty \phi_1^*(y_1)
374: e^{-{i\over\hbar}H_1t_{2f}} \hat{U}_fe^{-{i\over\hbar}H_1t_{b2}}\nonumber\\
375: &&\times e^{-{i\over\hbar}H_2t}\psi(y_1,y_2,0) dy_1 \label{phi2t}
376: \end{eqnarray}
377: A word of caution is needed while interpreting (\ref{phi2t}). For a time
378: $t < t_1$, the two particle state is actually an entangled state, which
379: renders any attempt to write the wavefunction of just particle 2, meaningless.
380: However, if one were to calculate any quantity, including the probability
381: of finding particle 2 in a certain region of space, {\em conditioned on
382: particle 1 having passed through slit 1}, (\ref{phi2t}) will give the correct
383: result, even for a time before $t_1$.
384:
385: For $\phi_1(y_1)$ given by (\ref{phi1}), the wavefunction of particle 2,
386: at a time $t$, has the explicit form
387: \begin{eqnarray}
388: \phi_2(y_2) = \exp\left({- y_2^2 \over \epsilon^2 + {\hbar^2\over
389: \sigma^2}+i2\Lambda(b_1-2f)+2i\Lambda L}\right),
390: \end{eqnarray}
391: where $L$ is the distance travelled by the particle in time $t$ and $C$
392: is a constant necessary for normalization. For $L=2f-b_1$, $\phi_2(y_2)$
393: is a Gaussian with a width equal to $\sqrt{\epsilon^2 +
394: \hbar^2/\sigma^2}$, which is exactly the position spread of particle 2,
395: when it started out at the source. $L=2f-b_1$ corresponds to particle 2
396: being at slit B. Indeed, we see that because of the clever arrangement
397: of the setup in Kim and Shih's experiment, particle 2 is localized at
398: slit B to a region as narrow as the its initial spread. Thus, the spreading
399: of the wave-packet because of temporal evolution, which would have been
400: present in Popper's original setup, has been avoided. So, in Kim and Shih's
401: realization, the virtual slit is indeed at the location of slit B. However,
402: its width is larger than the width of the real slit.
403:
404: Now one can calculate the width of the distribution of
405: particle 2, at seen by detector D2. In reaching detector D2, particle 2
406: travels a distance $L=L_1+L_2 = 2f-b_1 + L_2$. The width (at half maximum)
407: of pattern at D2 is now given by
408: \begin{equation}
409: W_2 = \sqrt{\epsilon^2+{\hbar^2\over\sigma^2}
410: +{4\Lambda^2L_2^2\over\epsilon^2+\hbar^2/\sigma^2}}. \label{widthnew}
411: \end{equation}
412: Contrasting this expression with (\ref{width}), one can explicitly see
413: the effect of introducing the lens in the experiment - basically, the length
414: $L_2$ occurs here in place of $2L_1+L_2$.
415: Using $W_2 = 0.657/\ln(2)$ mm, $\lambda = 702$ nm and $2L_1 + L_2 = 2$ m,
416: we now find $\sqrt{\epsilon^2+\hbar^2/\sigma^2} = 0.236$ mm. Assuming that
417: a rectangular slit of width 0.16 mm corresponds to a Gaussian width
418: $\epsilon = 0.08$ mm (which gives the correct diffraction pattern width for
419: a {\em real} slit), we find $\hbar^2/\sigma^2 = 0.049~mm^2$. For a perfect
420: EPR state, $\hbar^2/\sigma^2$ should be zero. So, we see that for a real
421: entangled source, where correlations are not perfect, a small value of
422: $\hbar^2/\sigma^2 = 0.049~mm^2$, satisfactorily explains why the diffraction
423: pattern width is 0.657 mm, as opposed to the width of 2 mm for a real slit
424: of the same width.
425:
426: From the preceding analysis, it is clear that if $\hbar^2/\sigma^2$ were
427: zero, the diffraction pattern would be as wide as that for a real slit.
428: However, smaller the quantity $\hbar^2/\sigma^2$, the more divergent is
429: the beam. This can be seen from (\ref{statet1}), which implies that
430: an initial width of the beam $\Delta y_2=\sqrt{\Omega^2+\hbar^2/4\sigma^2}$,
431: corresponds to a width $\sqrt{\Omega^2+{\Lambda^2 L^2\over\Omega^2}
432: +\hbar^2/4\sigma^2+{\Lambda^2 L^2\over\hbar^2/\sigma^2}}$, after particle
433: 2 has travelled a distance $L$. Consequently, the width of the diffraction
434: pattern is never larger than the width of the beam, in the case of
435: diffraction from a virtual slit. Thus, no additional momentum spread can
436: ever be seen in Popper's experiment.
437: The conlcusions is that although Kim and Shih correctly implemented Popper's
438: experiment through the innovative use of the converging lens, it is not
439: decisive about Popper's test of the Copenhagen interpretation, because of
440: imperfect correlation between the two photons.
441:
442: \section{The Real Popper's Test}
443:
444: The discussion in the preceding section implies that making the the
445: correlation
446: of the two entangled particles better, doesn't throw any new light on the
447: issue. However there is a way in which Popper's test can be implemented.
448: Popper states:\cite{popper}
449: \begin{quote}
450: ``if the Copenhagen interpretation is
451: correct, then any increase in the precision in the measurement of our {\em
452: mere knowledge} of the particles going through slit B should increase their
453: scatter.''
454: \end{quote}
455: This view just says that if the
456: (indirect) localization of particle 2 is made more precise, the momentum
457: spread should show an increase. This could have easily been done in Kim
458: and Shih's experiment by gradually narrowing slit A, and observing the
459: corresponding diffraction pattern. This point has also been made by
460: Bramon and Escribano \cite{bramon}.
461:
462: An experiment which (unknowingly) implements this idea, has actually been
463: performed,
464: although its connection to Popper's proposal has not been recognized. This is
465: the so-called ghost interference experiment by Strekalov et al \cite{ghost}.
466: In the single slit ghost interference experiment,
467: a SPDC source generates entangled photons and a single slit is put in the
468: path of one of these. There is a lone detector D1 sitting behind the single
469: slit, and a detector D2, in the path of the second photon, is scanned along
470: the y direction, after a certain distance. The only way in which this experiment
471: is different from the Popper's proposed experiment is that D1 is kept fixed,
472: instead of being scanned along y-axis. Now, the reason for doing coincident
473: counting in Popper's experiment was to make sure that only those particles
474: behind slit B where counted, whose entangled partner passed through
475: slit A. This was supposed to see the effect of localizing particle 1, on
476: particle 2. In Strekalov's experiment, all the particles counted by D2
477: are such that the other particle of their pair has passed through the single
478: slit. There are many pairs which are not counted, whose one member has
479: passed through the slit, but doesn't reach the fixed D1. However
480: as far as Popper's experiment is concerned, this is not important. As long as
481: the particles which are detected by D2 are those whose other partner passed
482: through the slit, they will show the effect that Popper was looking for.
483: Popper was inclined to predict that the test would decide
484: against the Copenhagen interpretation.
485:
486: Let us look at the result of Strekalov et al's experiment (see FIG. 4).
487: The points represent the width of the diffraction pattern, in Strekalov et
488: al's experiment, as a function
489: of the slit width. For small slit width, the width of the diffraction
490: pattern sharply increases as the slit is narrowed. This is in clear
491: contradiction with Popper's prediction. To emphasize the point, we quote
492: Popper: \cite{popper}
493: \begin{quote}
494: "If the Copenhagen interpretation is correct, then such
495: counters on the far side of slit B that are indicative of a wide scatter
496: \ldots should now count coincidences; counters that did not count any
497: particles before the slit A was narrowed \ldots''
498: \end{quote}
499: Strekalov et al's experiment shows exactly that, if we replace the scanning
500: D2 by an array of fixed detectors. So, we conclude that Popper's
501: test has decided in favour of Copenhagen interpretation.
502:
503: \begin{figure}[h]
504: \resizebox{3.5in}{!}{\includegraphics{pop-ghost.eps}}
505: \caption{Width of the diffraction pattern, plotted against the
506: full width of slit A.
507: The squares represent the data of Strekalov et al's experiment \cite{ghost}.
508: The line represents the theoretical width, calculated from
509: (\ref{width}) for $\hbar/\sigma=0.04$ mm,
510: using the parameters of Strekalov et al's experiment }
511: \end{figure}
512:
513: The theoretical analysis carried out by us should apply to Strekalov et al's
514: experiment, with the understanding that the single slit interference
515: pattern is seen only if D1 is fixed. In other words, if D1 were also
516: scanned along y-axis, the diffraction pattern would essentially remain the
517: same except that the smaller peaks, indicative of interference from
518: different regions within the slit, would be absent. We use (\ref{width})
519: to plot the full width at half maximum of the diffraction pattern
520: against, $2\epsilon$, which we assume to be the full width of the
521: rectangular slit A (see FIG 4). The plot uses $2L_1+L_2=1.8$ m, the value
522: used in Ref. \cite{ghost}, and an arbitrary $\hbar/\sigma=0.04$ mm.
523: Our graph essentially agrees with that of Strekalov et al. Some deviation
524: is there because we have not taken into account the beam geometry, and the
525: finite size (0.5 mm) of the detectors, which will lead to an additional
526: contribution to the width.
527:
528: \section{Discussion and conclusion}
529:
530: In 1987, when Collet and Loudon \cite{collet} argued that the use of a
531: stationary source was fundamentally flawed, the general view was that
532: Popper experiment will not be able to test the Copenhagen interpretation
533: of quantum mechanics. Short has also emphasized that the impefect localization
534: is a manifestation of the problem pointed out by Collet and Loudon,
535: and concluded that the experiment cannot implement Popper's test \cite{short}.
536: Kim and Shih's experiment actually avoids this problem by obtaining a ghost
537: image of the slit.
538:
539: We have shown that Strekalov et al's ghost intereference experiment, actually
540: implements Popper's test in a conclusive way, but the result is in
541: contradiction with Popper's prediction. It could not have been
542: otherwise, because our theoretical analysis shows that the results are
543: a consequence of the formalism of quantum mechanics, and not of any
544: particular interpretation. This was also pointed out by Krips, who
545: predicted that narrowing slit A would lead to increase in the width of
546: the diffraction pattern behind slit B \cite{krips}. So, Krips prediction
547: has been vindicated by Strekalov et al's experiment.
548:
549: In our view, the only robust criticism of Popper's experiment was that
550: by Sudbery, who pointed out that in order to have perfect correlation
551: between the two entangled particles, the momentum spread in the initial
552: state, had to be truely
553: infinite, which made any talk of additional spread, meaningless
554: \cite{sudbery,sudbery2}. For some reason, the implication of Sudbery's
555: point was not fully understood. It is this very point which, when
556: generalized, leads to our conclusion that no additional momentum spread
557: in particle 2 can be seen, even in principle.
558:
559: Thus, our conclusion is that although Kim and Shih's experiment circumvents
560: the objections raised by Collet and Loudon, it is not conclusive about
561: Popper's test. On the other hand, Strekalov et al's experiment, implements
562: Popper's test in a conclusive way. Their results vindicate the Copenhagen
563: interpretation of quantum mechanics (if one takes Popper's viewpoint).
564: In reality, the results are just a manifestation of quantum mechanics, which
565: hardly needs any more vindication at this stage.
566:
567: \begin{acknowledgments}
568: The author acknowledges valuable suggestions from Virendra Singh and useful
569: discussions with Pankaj Sharan on narrowing wave-packets.
570: \end{acknowledgments}
571:
572: \begin{thebibliography}{0}
573:
574: \bibitem{popper} K. R. Popper, {\em Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics}
575: (Hutchinson, London, 1982), pp. 27--29.
576:
577: \bibitem{popper1} ``Realism in quantum mechanics and a new version of the EPR experiment", K. R. Popper in {\em Open Questions in
578: Quantum Physics}, edited by G. Tarozzi and A. van der Merwe (Dordrecht,
579: Reidel, 1985)
580:
581: \bibitem{sudbery} ``Popper's variant of the EPR experiment does not test the
582: Copenhagen interpretation",
583: A. Sudbery, {\em Phil. Sci.} {\bf 52}, 470--476 (1985).
584:
585: \bibitem{sudbery2} ``Testing interpretations of quantum mechanics",
586: A. Sudbery in {\em Microphysical Reality and Quantum Formalism}, edited by
587: A. van der Merwe et al (1988) pp 267-277.
588:
589: \bibitem{krips} ``Popper, propensities, and the quantum theory", H. Krips,
590: {\em Brit. J. Phil. Sci.} {\bf 35}, 253--274 (1984).
591:
592: \bibitem{collet} ``Analysis of a proposed crucial test of quantum mechanics",
593: M. J. Collet and R. Loudon, {\em Nature} {\bf 326}, 671--672 (1987).
594:
595: \bibitem{storey} ``Measurement-induced diffraction and interference of atoms",
596: P. Storey, M. J. Collet, and D. F. Walls, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 68}, 472--475 (1992).
597:
598: \bibitem{redhead} ``Popper and the quantum theory", M. Redhead
599: in {\em Karl Popper: Philosophy
600: and Problems}, edited by A. O'Hear (Cambridge, 1996) pp 163-176.
601:
602: \bibitem{nha} ``Atomic position localization via dual measurement",
603: H. Nha, J.-H. Lee, J.-S. Chang, and K. An, {\em Phys. Rev. A} {\bf
604: 65}, 033827--033833 (2002).
605:
606: \bibitem{peres} ``Karl Popper and the Copenhagen interpretation",
607: A. Peres, {\em Studies in History and Philosophy of Science}
608: {\bf 33}, 23 (2002).
609:
610: \bibitem{hunter} ``Realism in the realized Popper's experiment",
611: G. Hunter, {\em AIP Conference Proc.} {\bf 646} (1), 243--248 (2002).
612:
613: \bibitem{tqijqi} ``Popper's experiment, Copenhagen interpretation and nonlocality",
614: T. Qureshi, {\em Int. J. Quant. Inf.} {\bf 2}, 407-418 (2004).
615:
616: \bibitem{bramon} ``Popper's test of Quantum Mechanics",
617: A. Bramon, R. Escribano in {\em Fundamental Physics Meeting "Alberto Galindo"},
618: R. F. Alvarez-Estrada, A. Dobado, L. A. Fernandez, M. A. Martin-Delgado,
619: A. Munoz Sudupe (Eds.) Aula Documental de Investigacion, Madrid (2004).
620:
621: \bibitem{shih} ``Experimental realization of Popper's experiment: violation of the uncertainty principle?",
622: Y.-H. Kim and Y. Shih, {\em Found. Phys.} {\bf 29}, 1849--1861 (1999).
623:
624: \bibitem{short} ``Popper's experiment and conditional uncertainty relations",
625: A. J. Short, {\em Found. Phys. Lett.} {\bf 14}, 275--284 (2001).
626:
627: \bibitem{tqajp} ``Understanding Popper's experiment",
628: T. Qureshi, {\em Am. J. Phys.} {\bf 73}, 541--544 (2005).
629:
630: \bibitem{spdc} ``Coherence properties of entangled light beams generated
631: by paramteric down-conversion: theory and experiment",
632: A. Joobeur, B. E. A. Saleh, T. S. Larchuk and M. C. Teich, {\em Phys. Rev. A}
633: {\bf 53}, 4360--4371 (1996).
634:
635: \bibitem{ghost} D. V. Strekalov, A. V. Sergienko, D. N. Klyshko, and Y. H.
636: Shih, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 74}, 3600--3603 (1995).
637:
638: \end{thebibliography}
639:
640:
641: \end{document}
642: