Biphoton Interference in a Double-Slit Experiment

Ananya Paul
Department of Physics, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi-110025, India.

Tabish Qureshi
Centre for Theoretical Physics, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi-110025, India.

A double-slit experiment with entangled photons is theoretically analyzed. It is shown that, under suitable
conditions, two entangled photons of wavelength can behave like a biphoton of wavelength /2. The
interference of these biphotons, passing through a double-slit can be obtained by detecting both photons of
the pair at the same position. This is in agreement with the results of an earlier experiment. More interestingly,
we show that even if the two entangled photons are separated by a polarizing beam splitter, they can still
behave like a biphoton of wavelength /2. In this modified setup, the two separated photons passing through
arXiv:1704.01613v1 [quant-ph] 5 Apr 2017

two different double-slits, surprisingly show an interference corresponding to a wavelength /2, instead of
which is the wavelength of a each photon. Additionally, in this modified setup, if one moving detector
counts photons in coincidence with the other fixed, the usual single-photon interference, corresponding to
wavelength is recovered.

PACS numbers: 03.65.Ud, 03.65.Ta

I. INTRODUCTION Double-slit
z
y
Quantum mechanics has taught us that wave nature and
x
particle nature are two complementary aspects of the same
entity [1]. Whether we talk of massive particles or quanta of
light, both can behave like particles and waves in different D1 Source
situations. Youngs double-slit experiment carried out with
individual particles showed that a particle passes through
two slits and interferes with itself [2]. Later it was demon-
strated that much larger particles, e.g., C 60 molecules, can
also show interference [3]. It has been convincingly argued
that instead of calling them waves or particles, such entities
should be called quantons [4, 5]. Going beyond this, quan-
tum mechanics also tells us that a group of entities, e.g., Entangled
many photons together, can behave as a single quanton. photons
This has only been recognized relatively recently [6].
First we briefly explain the idea which motivated Jacob- FIG. 1. Schematic diagram for Youngs double-slit experiment
son et.al. [6] to propose that many photons can behave as with entangled photons. Detector D1 is capable of detecting
a single quanton. Consider a beam of I2 molecules each pairs of photons.
with mass 2m , traveling with a velocity v , passing through
a double-slit. The resulting interference would be in accor-
dance with a de Broglie wavelength 2m  h/2mv . But
suppose that the molecule dissociates on the way, and only
separate iodine atoms, each of mass m , pass through the
double-slit. Then the resulting interference would be in ac-
cordance with a de Broglie wavelength m  h/mv , which
shows that 2m  m /2. More generally, N particles with a the de Broglie wavelength of a two-photon wavepacket [7].
de Broglie wavelength , can behave as single quanton of
wavelength /N . The same should hold for photons too. An
experiment was subsequently carried out which measured In the following we carry out a wave-packet analysis of
two entangled photons, typically generated in a type-I spon-
taneous parametric down conversion (SPDC) process, and
ananya94ananya@gmail.com analyze the situtation in which they can behave like a single
tabish@ctp-jamia.res.in quanton.
 2

II. THEORETICAL ANALYSIS For massive particles, one would have assumed (k x ) 
~k x2 /2m . For photons one can work within the Fresnel ap-
A. Entangled photons proximation, ( k y k 0 , k x  k y ) to write (k x ) as [12]

ck x2
q
A well known state to describe momentum-entangled par- (k x )  c k x2 + k 2y ck0 + . (6)
2k0
ticles was discussed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR)
[8] So the spread of a photon wave-packet in the x -direction,
ipx 2
which is moving essentially along y -direction, is given by
EPR (x1 , x2 )  A dpe ~ e ipx1 /~ . (1)
e ik0 t


(x, t)  x )e ik x x e ictk x2 /2k0 dk x .
(k (7)
This so-called EPR state does capture the properties of en- 2
tangled particles well, but has some disadvantages like not Using the above, the time propagation ker-
being normalized, and also not describing varying degree nel for the two photons can be written as
of entanglement. The best state to describe momentum- q h (x 0 2
1 x 1 )
i
entangled particles is the generalized EPR state [9] K 1 (x 1 , x10 , t)  1
ict exp ict , K 2 (x2 , x20 , t) 
x 0 )2
q h (x i
p 2 2 (x1 +x 2 )2 1 2 2
ipx 2
exp , and the two-particle
(x1 , x2 )  A dpe ~2 e ~ e ipx1 /~ e 42 , (2) ict ict
state after a time t is given by (x 1 , x 2 , t) 

where A is a normalization constant, and , are certain
dx10 K 1 (x1 , x 10 , t)
dx 20 K 2 (x2 , x 20 , t)(x 10 , x20 ).
parameters. In the limit 0, the state (2) At this stage it is convenient to introduce new coordinates
reduces to the EPR state (1). for the entangled particles: r  (x 1 +x 2 )/2, q  (x 1 x 2 )/2.
After performing the integration over p , (2) reduces to The state of the entangled particles, at time t  0, can then
be written as
1
e (x1 +x2 )
2 /4 2 2 /42
(x 1 , x2 )  e (x1 x2 ) . (3) 1 2 / 2 2 /2
(r, q)  e q e r . (8)

It is straightforward to show that and ~/ quantify the posi-
tion and momentum spread of the particles in the x-direction The time-propagator, in the new coordinates, can be written
because the uncertainty in position and the wave-vector of as
r
the two photons, along the z-axis, is given by 2(r r 0)2
 
0 1
K r (r, r , t)  exp
ict ict
r
1 1
x1  x2  2 + 2 , k1x  k 2x  1
+ . r
4
2 2 2(q q 0)2
 
0 1
(4) K q (q, q , t)  exp . (9)
ict ict
Notice that for  , the state is no longer entangled, and
factors into a product of two Gaussians centered at x 1  The state after a general time t can then be evaluated as
0 and x2  0, respectively. The state (3) also describes

well the two-photon mode function at the output of the type-I
(r, q, t)  dr 0 K r (r, r 0 , t)
crystal in SPDC generation [10, 11].

The experiment is schematically described in FIG. 1. En- dq 0 K q (q, q 0 , t)(r 0 , q 0). (10)

tangled particles (generally photons) emerge from a source,
and pass through a double-slit to reach a screen or a de- Let us assume that during a time t0 , the photons travel a
tector D1 which is movable along the x-axis. We assume distance L , from the source to the double-slit, and the state
that at time t  0, the two particles are in the state (3), at the double-slit takes the form:
q 2 r 2
   
and travel along the y-axis, towards a double-slit, with av-
(r, q, t0 )  C exp 2 exp , (11)
erage momenta p 0 . Each particle can then be described as + i 2 + i
a quanton with a wavelength  h/p 0 . For photons, the
wavelength is fixed as  2/k 0 . where C  q 1
, and  L/2 .
+i/ +i/

B. Time evolution
C. Effect of the double-slit

Time evolution of a one-dimensional wave-packet, along

After a time t0 , the two photons reach the double-slit
x-axis, is given by
and pass through it to emerge on the other side. A rig-

1 x ) exp [i(k x x (k x )t)] dk x . (5) orous, but immensely difficult approach would be to con-
(x, t)  (k
2 sider the double-slit as a potential, and let the two photons
 3

evolve under the action of that potential. We take a sim- Double-slit Double-slit
z y
pler and less rigorous approach, by assuming that the effect
x
of the double-slit is to truncate the wave-function abruptly Source
such that only the part of the wave function in the region
   
2 2 x 1 , x 2 2 + 2 and 2 2 x 1 , x 2 2 + 2 sur-
d d d d D1 D2
vives. This region corresponds to the region of the two slits,
if the slits of width  are located at x  d2 and x  2 . In our
d Photon 1 Photon 2

new coordinates, this region corresponds approximately to

(a) d2 2 r d2 + 2 together with 2 q 2 and (b)
Coincidence counter
d2 2 q d2 + 2 together with 2 r 2 . This is not
completely accurate as far as  is concerned, but since the FIG. 2. Schematic diagram for the proposed nonlocal biphoton
interference will be seen in the limit of very small  , this ap- experiment. Photons 1 and 2 effectively move in opposite di-
proximation suffices for our purpose. Case (a) corresponds rections along y-axis. Detectors D1 and D2 move along the
to both photons passing through the same slit, whereas case x-axis in synchrony such that their x-positions are always the
(b) corresponds to both the photons passing through differ- same. They also count the photons in coincidence.
ent slits. Notice that if the two photons have a high spatial
correlation, case (b) is expected to have very low probability.
The two photons travel a distance D  ct to reach the correlation between the two photons is high at the double-
d 2 2

screen/detector. The state at the screen is given by the fol- slit, is very small and consequently, the term e 44 +42 be-
lowing time-evolution comes much smaller than unity. For   1, in a large region
around r  0 on the screen, we can make the approximation
d2 + 2 
0
2
f (r d2 ) f (r + d2 ) f (r). One may note that because
(r, q, t)  dr K r (t) dq 0 K q (t)(r 0 , q 0 , t0 )
d2 2 2 of the truncation approximation, the state (13) is no longer
d   normalized. However, since we are only interested in the
2+2

2
+ dr 0 K r (t) dq 0 K q (t)(r 0 , q 0 , t0 ) interference pattern, we will continue to work with the unnor-
d 
22 2 malized state.
d2 + 2 
2
0
+ dq K q (t) dr 0 K r (t)(r 0 , q 0 , t0 )
d2 2 2
d  
2+2

2
III. RESULTS
+ dq 0 K q (t) dr 0 K r (t)(r 0 , q 0 , t0 ),
d 
22 2
A. Biphoton with wavelength /2
(12)

where the propagator and the intial state are given by (9) and If the entanglement between the two photons is good, the
(11), respectively. For brevity, the q, q 0 , r, r 0 dependence of last two terms in (13) can be dropped. One would like to
the propagators has been suppressed. A little algebra leads see the distribution of the two photons striking at the same
to the following form of the final state of the biphoton position on the screen. This can be achieved by putting x 
 (x1 + x 2 )/2  r and q  (x1 x2 )/2  0. The probability
2i d 2 2i 2 d 2 2 density P(x) of the two photons striking together at a position

(r, q, t)  C t e D (r 2 ) e D q f (r d2 ) f (q)e 44 +4 2
x on the screen is then given by |(x, 0, t)| 2 where is
2i d 2 2i 2 d 2 2 given by (13). Within the approximations described above,
+e D (r+ 2 ) e D q f (r + d2 ) f (q)e 44 +4 2
the probability density of the biphoton to strike a position x
2i d 2 2i 2 d 2 2 on the screen is given by

+e D (q+ 2 ) e D r f (q + d2 ) f (r)e 4 4 +4 2

d 2 d 2 2
2i 2i 2
  
D (q 2 )
4 2 4xd
+e e D r f (q d
2 ) f (r)e
4 +4 , P(x)  |C t |  f (x) 1 + cos
2 2 2
. (14)
D
(13)
The above expression respresents an interference pattern
where C t  i
D ()
1/2 ( + i i )1/4 ( + i i )1/4 , and (/2)D
with a fringe width given by w  d , which means that
sin(2x/D)
f (x) 2x/D governs the spatial spread of the in- the biphoton behaves like one quanton of wavelength /2.
terference pattern. When the spatial spread of the bipho- This feature has already been experimentally demon-
ton at the double-slit is much larger than the slit separa- strated in an experiment carried out with entangled photons
2 2
d4 2
tion, the term e 4 +4 is of the order of unity. If the spatial generated via SPDC [7].
 4

B. Nonlocal biphoton with wavelength /2 2

1.8
We now argue that in order for the entangled photons to 1.6

P(x) (arbitrary units)

act as a single quanton of wavelength /2, it is not neces-
1.4
sary that they be physially close together. That may sound
1.2
like an outlandish claim, but we shall see in the following
how it may be possible. We propose a modified experiment 1
in which entangled photons are separated by a polarizing 0.8
beam-splitter, and each passes through a different double- 0.6
slit kept at equal distance from the beam splitter. Effectively, 0.4
the photons may now be assumed to be traveling in opposite 0.2
directions along y-axis, as shown in FIG. 2. 0
The two entangled photons, emerging from the source, -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
are described by the state (3). They travel in opposite di- xd/D
rection for a time t0 , after which they reach their respective
double-slits. The double-slits are kept on opposite sides of FIG. 3. Double-slit interference pattern of the biphoton given
the source, at a distance L  ct0 from the source. When by (14), where is the wavelength of the photons (solid line).
(/2)D
the two photons reach the double-slits, their x-dependence Fringe width is w  d
. Double-slit interference pattern
is described by (11). Of course the y-dependence of the of the photons given by (16) (dotted line). Fringe width is
two particles will be very different: one photon will be a w  Dd
. A typical profile of f (x) has been used for the plots.
wave-packet centered at y  L , and the other centered
at y  L , assuming that the source sits at y  0. However,
as far as the entanglement, and the x-dependence of the x2  0 corresponds to r  x1 /2 and q  x1 /2. Doing that
state is concerned, their y-dependence is unimportant. We simplifies (13) to
assume that the effect of the two double-slits is to truncate  i 2 i 2
the state of the two photons to the region within the slits, i.e., (x1 , x 2  0, t) C t e 2D (x1 d) e 2D x1 f 2 ( x21 )
   
2 2 x 1 , x 2 2 + 2 and 2 2 x 1 , x 2 2 + 2 . Need-
d d d d 
+e 2D (x1 +d) e 2D x1 f 2 ( x21 ) ,
i 2 i 2
(15)
less to say that for this argument to work, the x-positions
of the two double-slits should be exactly the same. After
where the combined state (x 1 , x 2 , t) is labeled by the orig-
emerging from the double-slits, the two photons travel, for
inal coordinates x 1 , x 2 , and not by r, q . The probability
a time t , a distance D  ct , to reach their respective de-
density to find a photon at x 1 , P(x 1 ) is given by P(x 1 ) 
tectors D1 and D2. The final state of the two photons at
|(x1 , x 2  0, t)| 2 , and has the following form:
the two detectors is given by (13). One would notice that
  
the same analysis, that was used for both photons traveling 2x 1 d
P(x1 )  |C t | 2 2 f 2 ( x21 ) 1 + cos . (16)
in the same direction and passing through the same double- D
slit, works for the photons traveling in opposite direction, and
passing through different double-slits. The above represents a Youngs double-slit interference pat-
The probability density of coincident click of D1 at tern with a fringe with w  D
d . In this arrangement the pho-
x1  x and tons detected by D1 behave as independent quantons with
h D2 at x2   i x , is given by P(x)  wavelength (see Fig. 3).
|C t | 2  2 f 2 (x) 1 + cos 4xd
D , which is the same as (14).
But this is an interference pattern corresponding to a wave-
length /2. Thus we reach an amazing conclusion, that the IV. CONCLUSIONS
two photons, although widely separated in space, behave
like a single quanton of wavelength /2 which interferes with We have a done a rigourous wave-packet analysis of two
itself (see FIG. 3). entangled photons passing through a double-slit. We have
shown that the two photons can behave like a single quanton
of half the wavelength of the photons when detected in co-
C. Single photon interference incidence at the same position. This is in agreement of an
earlier analysis and experiment by Fonseca, Monken and
We now investigate the possibility of a photon of the en- Pdua [7]. Going further, we have shown that the two pho-
tangled pair behaving like a standalone quanton. This can tons can continue to behave like a single quanton even when
be achieved by fixing detector D2 at x 2  0 and counting they are widely separated in space, a highly nonlocal feature.
photons by D1 at various x 1 , in coincidence with D2. Putting This work extends the theoretical ideas of multiphoton wave

packets [6, 7] to a nonlocal scenario. Our result implies that
even when two entangled photons are separated in space,
they may act like a single quanton which interferes with it-
self. Entangled particles show very strange and counter-
intuitive properties. It has previously been shown that en-
tangled photons can exhibit a nonlocal wave-particle duality
[1] N. Bohr, The quantum postulate and the recent development
of atomic theory," Nature (London) 121, 580-591 (1928).
[2] C. Jnsson, Electron diffraction at multiple slits," Am. J. Phys.
42, 4 (1974).
[3] O. Nairz M. Arndt, A. Zeilinger, Quantum interference exper-
iments with large molecules," Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 319 (2003).
[4] M. Bunge, Foundations of Physics (Springer-Verlag, Heidel-
berg, 1967), p. 235.
[5] Jean-Marc Lvy-Leblond, Quantum words for a quantum
world, in Epistemological and experimental perspectives on
quantum physics," D. Greenberger, W.L. Reiter, A. Zeilinger
(eds) (Springer, Netherlands) (1999).
[6] J. Jacobson, G. Bjork, I. Chuang, Y. Yamamoto, Photonic de
Broglie waves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4835-4838 (1995).
[7] E.J.S. Fonseca, C.H. Monken, S. Pdua, Measurement of the
de Broglie wavelength of a multiphoton wave packet, Phys.
5
[13].
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Ananya Paul is thankful to the Centre for Theoretical
Physics, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, for providing its
facilities during the course of this work.
Rev. Lett. 82, 2868-2871 (1999).
[8] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, N. Rosen, Can quantum-mechanical
description of physical reality be considered complete?", Phys.
Rev. 47 (1935) 777780.
[9] T. Qureshi, Understanding Poppers experiment," Am. J.
Phys. 73, 541-544 (2005).
[10] K. Chan, J. Torres, and J. Eberly, Transverse entanglement
migration in Hilbert space," Phys. Rev. A 75, 050101 (2007).
[11] H.D.L. Pires and M. van Exter, Near-field correlations in the
two-photon field," Phys. Rev. A 80, 053820 (2009).
[12] G. Dillon, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 127, 66 (2012).
[13] M.A. Siddiqui, T. Qureshi, A nonlocal wave-particle duality,"
Quantum Stud.: Math. Found. 3, 115-122 (2016).