Abstract
Uncertainty, being perhaps the most basic principle of quantum mechanics, distinguishes the world of quantum phenomena from the realm of classical physics. Quantum entanglement, being perhaps the most surprising consequence of quantum mechanics, on the other hand apparently suggests paradoxes relating to or violations of the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle in some experimental situations. Popper’s experiment and quantum eraser are two examples. Is this a paradox? Are we confronted by a violation of the uncertainty principle? These questions are addressed in this paper.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev., 47, 777 (1935).
K.R. Popper, Zur Kritik der Ungenauigkeisrelationen, Die Naturwissenschaften, 22, Helft, 48, 807 (1934)
K. R. Popper, From the Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery, edited by E.I. Bitsakis and N Tambakis, Gutenberg Publishing, (1984)
K. Popper, Quantum Theory And The Schism In Physics, edited by W.W. Bartly, Hutchinson, London, 28 (1983). Amongst the most notable opponents to the “Copenhagen School” were Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen, de Broglie, Landé, and Karl Popper. One may not agree with Popper’s philosophy (EPR classical reality as well) but once again, Popper’s thought experiment gives yet another way of understanding the foundations of quantum theory.
M.O. Scully and K. Drühl, Phys. Rev. A 25, 2208 (1982).
The use of a “point source” in the original Popper’s proposal has been criticized. The basic argument is that a point source can never produce a pair of entangled particles which preserves two-particle momentum conservation. However, a “point source” is not a necessary requirement for Popper’s experiment. What we need is to learn the precise knowledge of a particle’s position through quantum entanglement. This is achieved in our experiment by the “ghost image”.
D.N. Klyshko, Photon and Nonlinear Optics, Gordon and Breach Science, New York, (1988).
A. Yariv, Quantum Electronics, John Wiley and Sons, New York, (1989).
T.B. Pittman, Y.H. Shih, D.V. Strekalov, and A.V. Sergienke, Phys. Rev. A, 52, R3429 (1995).
R.P. Feynman, R. Leighton, and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. III, ( Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1965 ).
For criticisms of Popper’s experiment, see for example, D. Bedford and F. Selleri, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 42, 325 (1985)
M.J. Collett and R. Loudon, Nature, 326, 671 (1987)
A. Sudbery, Philosophy of Science, 52, 470 (1985).
M. Horne, Experimental Metaphysics, ed. R.S. Cohen, M. Home, and J. Stachel, Kluwer Academic, 109 (1997).
In type-I SPDC, signal and idler are both ordinary rays of the crystal; however, in type-II SPDC the signal and idler are orthogonal polarized, i.e., one is the ordinary ray and the other is the extraordinary ray of the crystal.
M.H. Rubin, D.N. Klyshko, and Y.H. Shih, Phys. Rev. A 50, 5122 (1994).
D. Bohm, Quantum Theory, Prentice Hall Inc., New York, (1951).
E.Schrödinger, Naturwissenschaften 23, 807, 823, 844 (1935)
J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek, Princeton University Press, New York, (1983).
Y.H. Shih, A.V. Sergienko, and M.H. Rubin, Phys. Rev. A, 50, 23 (1994).
N. Bohr, Naturwissenschaften, 16, 245 (1928).
See Wheeler’s “delayed choice”, in Quantum Theory and Measurement,edited by J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek, Princeton Univ. Press (1983).
A.G. Zajonc et al.,Nature, 353, 507 (1991)
P.G. Kwiat et al.,Phys. Rev. A 49, 61 (1994)
T.J. Herzog et al.,Phys. Rev. Lett., 75, 3034 (1995)
T.B. Pittman et al.,Phys. Rev. Lett., 77, 1917 (1996).
C.O. Alley, O.G. Jakubowicz, and W.C. Wickes, Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Tokyo 1986, M. Namiki, et al. (eds.), Kokubunji, Tokyo, Japan: Physical Society of Japan (1987)
T. Hellmuth, H. Walther, A. Zajonc, and W. Schleich, Phys. Rev. A 35, 2532 (1987).
R.J. Glauber, Phys. Rev. 130, 2529 (1963)
R.J. Glauber, Phys. Rev. 131, 2766 (1963).
M.O. Scully and M.S. Zubairy, Quantum Optics, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK (1997).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Shih, Y., Kim, YH. (2000). Quantum Entanglement: from Popper’s Experiment to Quantum Eraser. In: Xu, Z., Xie, S., Zhu, SY., Scully, M.O. (eds) Frontiers of Laser Physics and Quantum Optics. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-07313-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-07313-1_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-08644-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-07313-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive