4.8 Article

A twofold quantum delayed-choice experiment in a superconducting circuit

期刊

SCIENCE ADVANCES
卷 3, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1603159

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Science and the Ministry of Education of China
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11474177, 11674060]
  3. Major State Basic Research Development Program of China [2012CB921601]
  4. Youth Fellowship program in China
  5. Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wave-particle complementarity lies at the heart of quantum mechanics. To illustrate this mysterious feature, Wheeler proposed the delayed-choice experiment, where a quantum system manifests the wave-or particle-like attribute, depending on the experimental arrangement, which is made after the system has entered the interferometer. In recent quantum delayed-choice experiments, these two complementary behaviors were simultaneously observed with a quantum interferometer in a superposition of being closed and open. We suggest and implement a conceptually different quantum delayed-choice experiment by introducing a which-path detector (WPD) that can simultaneously record and neglect the system's path information, but where the interferometer itself is classical. Our experiment is realized with a superconducting circuit, where a cavity acts as the WPD for an interfering qubit. Using this setup, we implement the first twofold delayed-choice experiment, which demonstrates that the system's behavior depends not only on the measuring device's configuration that can be chosen even after the system has been detected but also on whether we a posteriori erase or mark the which-path information, the latter of which cannot be revealed by previous quantum delayed-choice experiments. Our results represent the first demonstration of both counterintuitive features with the same experimental setup, significantly extending the concept of quantum delayed-choice experiment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据