Re: New look for classic double-slit quantum-interference experiment

From: Quantum Mirror (junebug_at_pgrb.com)
Date: 03/09/05 

Date: 9 Mar 2005 00:01:17 -0800

> I say that because I don't believe complementarity can act as a
slit!!

> I'm not sure anyone says it has done so...

In the physics web article the writer says:
The researchers observed interference fringes at the first detector
because it was impossible to know if an electron counted by the
detector was produced during the first or second maximum.

There was no interference pattern at the second detector because all
the electrons were produced at the same time at the minimum.
However,when the phase of the laser was changed so that there was one
maximum and two minima, interference fringes were seen at the second
detector but not at the first.

What he is saying is mum-bo jumbo as it turns out. but the way he put
it since we were unsure which of the two maxima created the electron,
interference is possible(complementarity). "We have complete
which-way information and no which-way information at the same time for
the same electron," Paulus is referring to complimentary again here
but the writer has it wrong. Using the two maxima as slits is what the
whole article is about so I said that means complementarity is the
slits!

>For long pulses,in every optical cycle
>identical packets are created."

What he is saying is: for every optical cycle ( a minima and a maxima)
there are wave packets produced which is part of the structure of the
above threshold ionization (ATI) and when two are produced with the
same momentum, interference results. The real important part of this
work is the profound effects of the ATI and the amazing window it has
opened to study atoms. There may be a paper after this one that the
physicsweb article was taken from but he explains it quite clearly here
if you read very carefully!

PS Yes that is the paragraph I was talking about.

Relevant Pages