The duality of the subatomic

The duality of the subatomic

A simulated interference pattern • Timm Weitkamp (CC BY 3.0)

Originally published 18 February 1985

You can’t lose doing physics,” says physi­cist Mike Horne. “Either you have the thrill of stum­bling upon some­thing new or you have the plea­sure of see­ing accept­ed prin­ci­ples work­ing perfectly.”

Horne is a the­o­reti­cian attached to Clif­ford Shul­l’s lab­o­ra­to­ry at MIT. Shull and his col­leagues are using a device called an inter­fer­om­e­ter to study the quan­tum world of sub­atom­ic par­ti­cles. In par­tic­u­lar, the inter­fer­om­e­ter is an instru­ment apt­ly suit­ed for inves­ti­gat­ing the mys­te­ri­ous wave/particle dual­i­ty that is at the heart of quan­tum physics.

Splitting a light wave

The prin­ci­ple of the inter­fer­om­e­ter was first used in the 19th cen­tu­ry as a con­vinc­ing demon­stra­tion of the wave nature of light. In the opti­cal inter­fer­om­e­ter, a light wave is split and sent trav­el­ing along two dif­fer­ent paths. Mir­rors bring the two halves of the wave back togeth­er. The con­verg­ing beams “inter­fere,” that is, they rein­force each oth­er or can­cel out depend­ing on whether the peaks and val­leys of the com­bin­ing waves are in phase or out of phase. If wave crests align with wave crests, a bright spot will appear on a screen. If crests align with troughs, the screen will be dark. Because light waves are so com­pact (20,000 would fit across your fin­ger­nail), the char­ac­ter of the recom­bined wave is very sen­si­tive to dif­fer­ences in the two light paths. For exam­ple, slight dif­fer­ences in the lengths of the two paths, or dif­fer­ences in the veloc­i­ties of the waves along the two paths, will cause the waves to be in step or out of step when they recombine.

Accord­ing to the the­o­ry of quan­tum mechan­ics, sub­atom­ic par­ti­cles have a wave-like char­ac­ter. The elec­tron, pro­ton, and neu­tron, for exam­ple, although usu­al­ly thought of as tiny local­ized bits of mat­ter, are more accu­rate­ly thought of as waves. In the appro­pri­ate cir­cum­stances, these par­ti­cles can be made to “inter­fere,” that is, add up or can­cel out like waves of light.

Shul­l’s MIT lab is one of the few places in the world where inter­fer­ence exper­i­ments are being per­formed with neu­trons, exper­i­ments like the 19th cen­tu­ry exper­i­ments with light. Ordi­nary mir­rors can­not be used to redi­rect neu­tron beams. Rather, the neu­trons are deflect­ed by caus­ing them to bounce off rows of atoms in high­ly ordered crys­tals. Shul­l’s inter­fer­om­e­ter is carved from a sin­gle crys­tal of sil­i­con about the size of a hand. It is shaped in cross-sec­tion like a let­ter E. A beam of neu­trons is direct­ed at the bot­tom of the E. Part of the beam is deflect­ed and two beams go stream­ing in a V‑like fash­ion toward the mid­dle crys­tal. They are deflect­ed again and brought back togeth­er at the top of the E. Neu­trons emerg­ing from the inter­fer­om­e­ter in the recom­bined beam are “count­ed.”

The inter­fer­om­e­ter pro­vides a clas­sic demon­stra­tion of the enig­mat­ic wave/particle dual­i­ty inher­ent in mat­ter at the quan­tum lev­el. Since the inter­fer­om­e­ter is as wide as a hand, it seems clear that a par­tic­u­lar neu­tron in the inci­dent beam must trav­el along one path or the oth­er toward its ulti­mate des­ti­na­tion. Indeed, a detec­tor placed in one of the two paths will detect neu­trons that are whol­ly local­ized. In this sense, the neu­trons behave entire­ly like par­ti­cles. But inter­fer­ence effects are observed at the exit of the crys­tal where the beams recom­bine. The merg­ing beam is strength­ened or weak­ened as con­di­tions are var­ied along the two paths, exact­ly as in the opti­cal inter­fer­om­e­ter. This could only hap­pen if the neu­trons are behav­ing like waves, and if parts of the wave asso­ci­at­ed with an indi­vid­ual neu­tron are trav­el­ing along both paths simultaneously!

Horne describes how he used to stick his thumb into the inter­fer­om­e­ter between the beams. It gave him “shiv­ers,” he says, to real­ize that a sin­gle neu­tron, a par­ti­cle vast­ly small­er than an atom, was pass­ing on both sides of his thumb at the same time.

A strange world

Does that sound impos­si­ble? Physi­cists have learned to live with the “impos­si­bil­i­ty.” Neu­trons inhab­it an Alice-in-Won­der­land world where a par­ti­cle can be in two places at the same time, or no place at all, except when you go look­ing for it, and then … “Oh, dear,” one is like­ly to say with Alice, “things flow about so here!” Com­mon sense floun­ders in the face of quan­tum real­i­ty. What is impor­tant to physi­cists is that they have a math­e­mat­i­cal the­o­ry — quan­tum mechan­ics — that enables them to pre­cise­ly cal­cu­late the out­come of any exper­i­ment involv­ing atom­ic par­ti­cles. And for more than half a cen­tu­ry that the­o­ry has stood the test of innu­mer­able experiments.

The neu­tron inter­fer­om­e­ter is a par­tic­u­lar­ly sen­si­tive device for test­ing the quan­tum mechan­i­cal descrip­tion of mat­ter. The nature if the emerg­ing beam is del­i­cate­ly depen­dent upon con­di­tions along the two paths. For exam­ple, the MIT group has rotat­ed the inter­fer­om­e­ter and applied mag­net­ic fields to study the effect of accel­er­a­tion and mag­net­ism on neu­tron waves. So far, the observed out­comes of these exper­i­ments have been in per­fect har­mo­ny with the quan­tum mechan­i­cal predictions.

Future improve­ments in the pre­ci­sion of these tests will require more sophis­ti­cat­ed cal­cu­la­tions to find out exact­ly what quan­tum the­o­ry pre­dicts for neu­trons trav­el­ing through chunks of sil­i­con. Accord­ing to Horne, “the inter­fer­om­e­ter will take the mea­sure of our abil­i­ty to rea­son quan­tum mechanically.”

Share this Musing: