6

If just a single photon hit a single slit interferometer, what would happen? Would you just see a dot on the screen, or would there be a diffraction pattern? Furthermore, if you had a double slit interferometer but also had which-path information would there still be a diffraction pattern even though there is no interference?

  • Have a look https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzbKb59my3U – anna v Dec 23 '15 at 18:17
  • @annav - that video shows that single photons interfere with themselves. But if you have just one photon (for the entire experiment) it will leave just one dot. The probability distribution of the location of that dot will still follow a diffraction pattern - but to see that you would need to repeat the single photon experiment many thousands of times (as in the video you linked). – Floris Dec 23 '15 at 18:34
  • 1
    @Floris ΝΟ. It shows that adding up photons an interference appears. The single photon gives a single hit in the photomultiplier. For a single photon it will look random where it ends. as it showed before the interference pattern appeared clearly. Yes, the probability distribution has the interference pattern, and the summation plots the probability distribution. – anna v Dec 23 '15 at 18:57
  • I don't understand why you say "no". I believe we agree exactly. When I say "interferes with itself" that doesn't mean it produces an interference pattern - just that it has a non uniform probability distribution – Floris Dec 23 '15 at 19:09
  • @annav Are you saying that the single photon will carry a tiny diffraction pattern, as a result of the probability distribution, but that that diffraction pattern only becomes noticeable when the photons add up? – Clement Decker Dec 23 '15 at 19:35
  • @Floris "interferes with itself" perpetuates the impression that the probability distribution is somehow material/energy of the single photon oscillating, that is where the no goes. – anna v Dec 23 '15 at 20:26
  • 2
    @ClementDecker When you throw a dice, it has 1/6 probability of falling out a six. One throw , six, does not have shadows. The photon has a sinusoidal probability distribution to fall on (x,y) of the screen ( photomultiplier). One hit is a point. – anna v Dec 23 '15 at 20:40
  • But isn't that sinusoidal probability distribution a diffraction pattern? I do not understand how you can say that there is no oscillation though there is a sinusoidal patters. – Clement Decker Dec 24 '15 at 03:25
  • @annav You said in that the probability of the distribution of the dot will follow a diffraction pattern. But a diffraction pattern is precisely an interference pattern. So I am confused by how you can still say that the photon is not interfering with itself – Clement Decker Dec 24 '15 at 03:41
  • @ClementDecker The photon is a quantum mechanical entity. It has energy =h*nu, and momentum and zero mass. Its energy is not spread out in space . When detected it acts as a classical particle as far as a trajectory goes: from one nucleus to a photosensitive screen is a staight (geodesic) line. It is the boundary conditions of the quantum mechanical problem , slit edges(for singles slit), or double slits that affect the quantum mechanical solution which the photon obeys. The complex conjugate square of that solution gives accurately the probability pattern observed from two slits, for example. – anna v Dec 24 '15 at 05:21
  • 1
    continued: so the photon is not interfering with itself as far as energies go, but with the boundary conditions set up by the experiment, which give probabilities for deflection that are dependent on the energy and hence the frequency of the photon. – anna v Dec 24 '15 at 05:23
  • After 1000 tests , the pattern begins to appear and one can check if the 1001th test strengthens it or not. –  Dec 24 '15 at 17:11
  • @annav - please see whether you agree with my answer; I have tried to reiterate some of the points you made but I would be happy with your constructive criticism of my approach – Floris Dec 24 '15 at 17:12

5 Answers5

6

When a single photon hits a screen, it can only create a dot at the point where it is detected. Thus, the short answer to your question is "yes, you would just see a dot".

However, it is clear from the various comments on this page that you are looking for deeper insight, and that the concept of a "photon interfering with itself" is confusing and potentially misleading.

The behavior of a photon is at times best described by calling it a particle; at other times, its behavior looks like that of a wave. The dual slit experiment attempts to demonstrate this duality.

As the photon "wave" passes through the slits, it actually passes through both slits, like a wave would. The result of this is that the wave, after the slit, gets certain peaks and troughs - there are certain "preferred" directions for the wave, while the amplitude in other directions is diminished. But when the photon "wave" interacts with the screen, the photon can only be observed at a single place. In quantum mechanics, they say "the wave function collapses".

Here is the fun bit: the single photon could have appeared just about anywhere on the screen - but it only appeared in one place. This is where probability comes into play - similar to the example given by Anna V, if you roll a pair of dice, the sum could be any number from 2 to 12. But for a given roll, you only see a specific sum - for example, 5. If I asked you to guess the number, your best guess would be "7", because for a pair of dice, the probability of the sum being 7 is higher than any other value (1-6, 2-5, 3-4, 4-3, 5-2, 6-1 are the 6 rolls that could get you 7. Any other number has fewer possible combinations). Now when you roll the dice just once, you get a particular sum (like the photon hitting the screen at just one place); if you roll the dice many times, and plot the number of occurrences of each sum, you get a triangular distribution (example after 500 random rolls):

enter image description here

And so it is with photons going through slits. The act of going through the slit changes their wavefunction in such a way that the probability of them landing at a particular point on the screen is no longer uniform; but when they do land, they land in a particular location; it is only by observing a large ensemble of photons that you start to see this pattern emerge - there will be more dots in some regions than in others.

I wrote a little simulation to demonstrate this - each plot has ten times more dots than the one before. In the first plot you have just a few dots, with no pattern; in the next row, a pattern starts to emerge; in the bottom row, the interference pattern is clear. But in each case, an individual photon lands in just one place.

enter image description here

If you are interested in reproducing a graph like this, here is the (rather crummy) code I used to generate it. Don't rely on this as either "good code" or "good physics" - it was purely designed to illustrate the concepts above.

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
import math

def pattern(w, d, l, a):
  if a==0:
      sinc = 1.0
  else:
      sinc = math.sin(a*w/l)/(a*w/l)
  p=math.cos(a*d/(math.pi*l))*sinc
  return p*p

w = 1e-6
d = 1e-5
l = 5e-7

plt.figure()
for ni,n in enumerate([20, 200, 2000]):
    dots=[]
    X=np.random.uniform(low=-1.5,high=1.5,size=n)
    Y = np.random.uniform(size=n)
    for x in X:
        if np.random.uniform() < pattern(w,d,l,x):
            dots.append(x)
    plt.subplot(3,1,ni+1)
    plt.plot(dots, np.random.normal(size=len(dots)),'.')
plt.show()
Floris
  • 118,905
  • 1
    Thank you very much. I still have a few questions though. It seems like in this discussion the particle at question has perfect path distinguishability. Correct? In that case we see only a dot. But what if there was not perfect path distinguishability? Would we not see a sort of interference pattern with only a single photon? If not, I don't see how one can argue that in a double slit experiment the photons interfere with themselves. – Clement Decker Dec 24 '15 at 16:20
  • I don't know what you mean by "perfect path distinguishability". You will see a dot at the point where the photon interacts with the screen. One dot. Always. The location of the dot is determined probabilistically, and depends on all the obstacles that the wave function encountered between the source and the screen. – Floris Dec 24 '15 at 16:23
  • 2
    According to the quantum theory, interference can only occur when there are two or more paths which a photon can take and there is not way to determine which path the photon took. This is illustrated mathematically by the Englert-Greenberger-Yasin duality relation. Now, in a single slit experiment there already is perfect path distinguishability. In other words, you already know which path the photon took. So doesn't this mean that the photon can't interfere with itself? – Clement Decker Dec 24 '15 at 16:31
  • Not true. A single slit has finite width and you don't know what part of the slit your photon went through. If the slit was infinitely narrow (perfect knowledge of the path) the probability of a photon going through becomes zero. The uncertainty in the position of the photon as it goes through the slit is an essential component of the experiment. – Floris Dec 24 '15 at 17:11
  • 1
    I still do not like the "photon wave passes through both slits" . It is not clear that what is waving is the probability. Think QED and creation annihilation: the photon approaches the slits and has a probability to interact with one of the electron fields from either of the slits, this given by the appropriate feynman diagram. It is the field of the electrons that throws the dice and generatres a sinusoidal probability pattern. Not the photon per se. – anna v Dec 24 '15 at 18:57
  • @annav if you believe you could improve my answer please feel free to edit it. I have to confess I do not fully grasp what you are saying. Perhaps writing an answer of your own is the best solution here... – Floris Dec 24 '15 at 19:34
  • +1 anyway, since you have quotes around "wave". I will try to answer the " single slit part" – anna v Dec 24 '15 at 19:48
  • @Floris I am not sure if that is correct. The EGY duality relation simply states that interference fringes disappear if one knows which slit the photon went through. It does not necessitate knowledge about where exactly the photon was in relation to the slit. Here is the Wikipedia page on the EGY duality relationhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englert%E2%80%93Greenberger%E2%80%93Yasin_duality_relation – Clement Decker Dec 24 '15 at 20:53
  • 1
    I looked at the link you provided, and it includes the statement "the pinholes are considered to be idealized". I agree that in that case, there will be no fringes, because you know the lateral position of the photon with infinite precision as it passes through the slit. That also means you have no idea about its lateral momentum and it can appear anywhere on your screen with equal intensity. In other words, the pinhole acts as a point source. My statement above refers to a "real" slit of finite width, for which you do not have perfect knowledge of the lateral position of the photon. – Floris Dec 24 '15 at 21:09
  • Wait, so from what you are saying it sounds like interference can only be destroyed if the position of the photon is known with complete certainty. So does that mean that in quantum eraser experiments, the which path detectors measure the photons position with complete certainty? In most of the quantum eraser experiments that I have heard of, polarization is used as a which path detector and each path is respectively orthogonal. But in such an apparatus, it is impossible to know the photons position with absolute certainty, but just which path it took. – Clement Decker Dec 24 '15 at 23:29
  • The "in slit" interference pattern is typically much more pronounced than the "between slits" pattern - it is often ignored, and when we say "path known" it refers to left/right slit, not the exact position within a slit. I think. – Floris Dec 25 '15 at 06:02
  • So is the wave function is destroyed if we know the exact position of if we know which slit it passed through? – Clement Decker Dec 25 '15 at 19:53
  • The wave function collapses when you make an observation. But exactly what that observation is determines (with varying degrees of uncertainty) what happens next. "It went through this slit" does not mean "I know everything about the position". But it does mean that the original wave function, which had a finite probability that "it is going through the other slit", is no longer a valid description. – Floris Dec 25 '15 at 22:50
  • So it seems that in order to observe the concept of quantum complementarity, it is necessary to disturb the wave-function. – Clement Decker Dec 27 '15 at 21:46
  • Any observation disturbs the wave function – Floris Dec 28 '15 at 01:54
  • What I am still confused by is what the pattern of a double slit experiment will be if which path information. Will it simply be the sum of the intensities of two single slit patterns? – Clement Decker Dec 29 '15 at 01:49
  • Yes, I think so - if you know the photon went through slit A the pattern should be that of slit A without slit B adding anything, and vice versa. – Floris Dec 29 '15 at 02:12
2

There would never be a pattern with only one photon. No matter how many slits or even if you have information about the photons path. It would probably take thousands of photon impacts to form a recognizable pattern. Also remember not every photon will make it to the detection screen.

Bill Alsept
  • 4,043
  • You might want to expand this answer a little bit more for the answer to be really helpful to the OP. While the question is amenable to a yes/no answer, that's not really what he is after, I believe... – Floris Dec 23 '15 at 18:36
  • 1
    So how can people say that the photons are interfering with themselves if the interference pattern is made when many photons hit parts of a screen to form a pattern? It seems to me that the photons are not interfering with themselves but only making a pattern on the screen – Clement Decker Dec 23 '15 at 18:43
  • I agree I believe the individual photons are making the pattern. It is believed that interference is the only thing that explains this pattern. I believe it can be derived other ways as I explained in my paper on the website at the top of my page. – Bill Alsept Dec 23 '15 at 19:01
  • I must admit I have not read your whole paper but I don't think that your assumption that an opaque object upon absorbing a photon will immediately emit one. The photon may be reflected, or it may be absorbed, but it won't be reemitted as visible light. Correct me if I am wrong though – Clement Decker Dec 24 '15 at 03:52
  • No it's not always re emitted. Sometimes it's retains as heat – Bill Alsept Dec 24 '15 at 04:05
1

Please read at first Annas answer.

Anna, you clearly pointed out that "The accumulation shows the interaction of the photon as it scatters in the field of the electrons that define the edges of the slit". Fringes we get behind single edges too. The same phenomenon takes place on a single edge, so it's not necessary to talk about slits at all.

Now it has to be proofed whether the photons wave function alone is responsible for the intensity distribution or the electric field of the involved surface electrons of the edge(s) are responsible together with the electric field component of the photon. I articulated this point here Can the intensity distribution behind edges and slits be explaint by the interaction with the surface electrons of the edges? and in more details in my papers here and - if you have enought time to read her.

HolgerFiedler
  • 10,334
0

If you are using only a single photon, you'd of course see only a dot in the screen in both the cases.

But if you use enough photons (but one at a time) then you will see that each of them are hitting the screen in different positions and the distribution of dots will be like the diffraction pattern in case of single-slit interferometer.

In case of double-slit if you have which path info then with the above technique of one-photon-at-a-time you'd get two normal single slit distributions overlapped.

Ari
  • 2,841
  • Yes but I think OP is questioning why a single photon needs to interfere with itself. – Bill Alsept Dec 23 '15 at 19:44
  • That cannot be a valid question. "Why a photon needs to interfere" is not the domain of physics as I understand it. Physics simply dictates "it does". That's the beauty of nature. – Ari Dec 24 '15 at 13:57
  • I think it's a good question, one that's been around for centuries. I'm pretty sure that's what OP `is asking in one form or another. – Bill Alsept Dec 24 '15 at 16:03
  • That is not exactly what I am asking though I do think it is an interesting discussion. What I am wondering at this point is why, as people have been saying, a single photon sent through a single slit apparatus does not interfere with itself, while a single photon sent through a double slit apparatus does. Is it because with one slit there is perfect path distinguishability? After all, single slit diffraction is light interfering with itself – Clement Decker Dec 24 '15 at 16:12
  • Actually, a single photon going through a single slit also exhibits an interference pattern - for a rectangular aperture it is known as the sinc function. The wave function is diffracted by any aperture - and every part of the wave front, in a sense, interferes with every other part of the wave front. – Floris Dec 24 '15 at 16:19
  • So the photon does interfere with itself. Now say we had a double slit experiment in which there was perfect path distinguishability. One would argue that in this case the photons wave function collapses and hence there is not interference. However, as the single photon passes the single slit, no matter which slit it is, there should be diffraction and there should be an interference pattern as you argue. Or, does wave function collapse result in the fact that the photon no longer acts like a wave and therefore cannot diffract while passing through the single slit. – Clement Decker Dec 24 '15 at 16:25
  • No. In this case where you know the whole path you won't get a diffraction pattern. You'll just get a single ray – Ari Dec 24 '15 at 17:55
0

Here is the Fraunhofer singles slit interference

fraunhiferinterfenter image description here

The diffraction pattern at the right is taken with a helium-neon laser and a narrow single slit.

This is a light beam composed out of zillions of photons. The fact that the photon is a quantum mechanical entity implies that this difraction pattern is the probability distribution for an individual photon going through the slit.

Each individual photon gives one spot on the screen ( the image on the right). The accumulation shows the interaction of the photon as it scatters in the field of the electrons that define the edges of the slit. It is the complex conjugate square of the photon's wave function. It gives the probability of finding the photon at a particular y on this plot.

Even for a classical set up, a slit and balls thrown at it, if the ball was of the order of magnitude of the slit width the errors would introduce an uncertainty and the balls would scatter at the edges at an angle , so not all balls thrown one at a time would fall on the same y. The probability would be a gaussian due to the errors, but no interference. In quantum mechanics there are no edges, there are fields and particles interacting with the fields and the position y given by sinusoidal solutions of the applicable differential equations. In the case of the photon it is Maxwell's equation turned into operator format. So the probability instead of being a gausian shows the maxima and minima of a wave pattern.

The double slit is covered by other answers. This experiment shows that again , the interference pattern depends on the boundary conditions which change with which way detection.

anna v
  • 233,453
  • Anna, I posted a replay or more a extension to your answer. – HolgerFiedler Dec 26 '15 at 07:23
  • Is there any experiment done by someone, of throwing single photons on a single slit? – Chetan Waghela Aug 09 '17 at 07:06
  • I found a video online but no description.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB52gMg5bvA – Chetan Waghela Aug 09 '17 at 07:25
  • @ChetanWaghela this link is about single photons scttering on touble slits http://www.sps.ch/en/articles/progresses/wave-particle-duality-of-light-for-the-classroom-13/ – anna v Aug 09 '17 at 12:10
  • @anna v Yes, there is a lot of information on single photon interference+diffraction from double slit, however diffraction of "single photon from single slit" is no where to be found. It is not hard to say that we will see diffraction for single photons, but surprisingly there is no mention of such a phenomenon in books anywhere. – Chetan Waghela Aug 09 '17 at 13:40
  • 1
    @ChetanWaghela have a look here http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/phyopt/sinslit.html . In the single photon double slit the dimensions of the slits are chosen so that only the central peak appears when one of the slits is closed. This is seen in the single photon experiment both double and single slit http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/light/youngs-experiment-single-photons.html#4 . the dimensions of the slits are important as seen in the first link – anna v Aug 09 '17 at 13:54