Saibal Mitra wrote:

Now in the article, Afshar claims to have measured which slit the
photon passed through and verified the existence of an interference
pattern. However, this is not the case - without the wires in
place to detect the presence of the interference pattern, photons
arriving at detector A have passed through slit A, and vice-versa with
detector B and slit B. However, with the wires in place, some photons
are scattered, indeed some photons which passed through slit A will
arrive at detector B. With both slits open, and the wire placed
exactly at a null point of the interference pattern, the photons
passing through slit A and arriving at detector B exactly counteracts
the photons passing thoguh slit B that have been lost through
scattering. The mathematics of quantum mechanics assures this,
coincidental this may seem.

A poster on sci.physics.research elaborates on this point a little with a nice thought-experiment involving enlarging the wires until they are almost touching, at which point you just have a new set of "slits":

Now I haven't done any calculations or read the New Scientist article
except looking at the lab setup graphics, but if I would hazard a quick
guess, it would be that it will turn out that even if the wires are
placed in the interference fields valleys, the finite width of the
wires will diffract just enough photons to erase the which-way
information that was gained by focusing the detectors at the holes in
the wall through the lens.

Consider the limiting case with wires placed with their centres in the
interference fields valleys as before, but expand their width so much
that they almost touch each other. What you have now is yet another
wall with a bunch of slits in! Obviously, almost all which-way
information is lost after the wavefronts pass these almost
infinitesimal slits since they will diffract the photons equally no
matter from which hole in the *first* wall they originated, so any
detector placed after this obstacle will be like running a new
multiple-slit interference setup (although with the lens now severely
defocusing the too-closely placed new slits). And since the which-way
information from the first wall is erased, interference is free to
happen between the first and the second wall. After the secondary wall
the detectors can pick up which-way information causing them to behave
as if there was little subsequent interference.

Conversely, the other limiting case is with no wires (or secondary
wall) present. Then all which-way information is present and again the
detectors behave as if there was no interference.

The experiment shows a case in between these limits and the effect I
guessed at above could (and should, according to traditional QM) turn
out to always cancel any attempt to find both 100% interference and
100% which-way information. This would be better showed with some
calculations of course...

Reply via email to