Next Article in Journal
Influence of Uncertainties in Optode Positions on Self-Calibrating or Dual-Slope Diffuse Optical Measurements
Previous Article in Journal
A Review of the Research Progress on Optical Fiber Sensors Based on C-Type Structures
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Delayed Choice for Entangled Photons

by
Rolando Velázquez
1,
Linda López-Díaz
2,
Leonardo López-Hernández
2,
Eduardo Hernández
2,
L. M. Arévalo-Aguilar
1 and
V. Velázquez
2,*
1
Facultad de Ciencias Físico Matemáticas, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, 18 Sur y Avenida San Claudio, Col. San Manuel, Puebla 72520, Mexico
2
Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apartado Postal 70-543, México 04510, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Photonics 2025, 12(7), 696; https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics12070696
Submission received: 11 May 2025 / Revised: 16 June 2025 / Accepted: 6 July 2025 / Published: 10 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Quantum Photonics and Technologies)

Abstract

The wave–particle duality is the quintessence of quantum mechanics. This duality gives rise to distinct behaviors depending on the experimental setup, with the system exhibiting either wave-like or particle-like properties, depending on whether the focus is on interference (wave) or trajectory (particle). In the interaction with a beam splitter, photons with particle behavior can transform into a wave behavior and vice versa. In Wheeler’s delayed-choice gedanken experiment, this interaction is delayed so that the wave that initially travels through the interferometer can become a particle, avoiding the interaction. We show that this contradiction can be resolved using polarized entangled photon pairs. An analysis of Shannon’s entropy supports this proposal.

1. Introduction

The efforts to understand the workings of the Universe have led us to reconsider the concept of physical reality and the possibility of fully comprehending it [1,2]. So far, rather than intuition, mathematics has been the primary tool enabling us to approach this reality. Using this same tool, we have recently begun to harness the potential of quantum applications across various technologies, from computing to quantum communication. Paradoxically, we can exploit what “nobody understands” (quantum mechanics) [3]. This uncertainty is exemplified in the quantum double-slit experiment [4], where individual photons pass through the slits, maintaining an anti-correlation between the two possible paths for each slit, yet still producing interference. How, then, is it possible for photons to traverse the double slit without splitting and still create interference? Furthermore, experimentally, our choice to determine through which slit the photon passes affects the visibility of the interference pattern. The photon “knows” how to behave when it is observed.
This paradox suggests that observation influences the photon’s behavior, raising profound questions about the nature of reality, measurement, and the role of the observer in quantum mechanics. In this sense, by demonstrating interference, the double-slit experiment offers a glimpse into the bewildering world of quantum mechanics, where the distinction between wave and particle properties becomes increasingly blurred. The experiment challenges our classical understanding of particles as distinct entities. It compels us to reconsider the limits of what can be known, as well as how the act of measurement itself influences the fabric of reality.
A striking example of this perplexing phenomenon is Wheeler’s “delayed-choice gedanken experiment” (WDCGE), or “law without law” [5], which further blurs the line between wave and particle behavior. In this experiment, individual photons directed into a Mach–Zehnder interferometer can behave as waves or particles, depending on the detection outcome at the interferometer’s output, particularly when the second beam splitter is unexpectedly removed. In such cases, the registered photons seem to “choose” to act as particles before exiting the interferometer or as waves when the second beam splitter remains in place. This experiment, performed in 2007 [6] and 2015 [7], provides experimental demonstrations of the delayed-choice gedanken experiment. However, the notion that quantum-state photons might possess privileged information or a mechanism enabling them to determine their behavior before the experiment concludes remains an unresolved mystery.
Perhaps part of this enigma stems from the way we perceive reality. Specifically, we may need to reconsider our concepts of wave and particle, which, at the quantum level, likely remain influenced by our classical interpretations.
In this article, we revisit Wheeler’s delayed-action “gedanken experiment” to show that, beyond complementarity and the choice to observe the complete information of a system, the two fundamental phenomena that transcend independently of the observer and the measurement process are the preparation of the system and the collapse of the state. We will note that in this class of experiments, the complementarity wave or particle behavior emerges depending on the conditions of the experiment, and that [8] “it is a general feature of delayed-choice experiments that quantum effects can mimic an influence of future actions on past events. However, there is no paradox if the quantum state is viewed only as a catalog of our knowledge”. However, the present article shows that the state conceived in the WDCGE after B S 1 must always be considered a wave state, with no possibility of being traced back to the past, like a particle.

2. What Is Measurable and How It Influences the Measurement

If individual photons are directed towards a beam splitter, as shown in Figure 1, the input state is transformed as [9]
| 1 1 | 0 0 1 2 ( i | 1 2 | 0 3 + | 0 2 | 1 3 )
This expression shows that the state of the photon emerging from the beam splitter is a linear combination of the two possible states along paths 2 and 3. This state is an entangled state of an individual photon with the vacuum state. In detectors D 2 and D 3 , it will be observed in only one of the two detectors, confirming the anti-correlation and validating the particle-like nature of the photon [10,11]. In this description of the photon’s behavior and its interaction with the beam splitter and detectors, we can state that initially, before interacting with the beam splitter, the photon behaves as a particle due to its well-defined trajectory towards port 1. After passing through the beam splitter, it behaves as a wave since its state is a superposition of two states corresponding to different paths. Finally, it is detected as a particle in one of the two detectors.
From this simple experimental scheme, we can conclude that the photon can behave as a particle because the photon will be detected in only one of the two detectors D 2 or D 3 ; however, the theory dictates that the photon can travel for the two paths simultaneously and behave like a wave (Equation (1)). To date, we lack wave detectors. We do not have a single detector capable of measuring a wave propagating through different paths. This is equivalent to stating that we do not have detectors for probability amplitudes C, but only ones that measure probabilities | C | 2 . Our detectors measure probabilities.

3. Wheeler’S Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment

Wheeler devised an experiment in which individual photons entered a Mach–Zehnder interferometer (see Figure 2), and due to random conditions, the second beam splitter might not be present. Depending on this condition, the photons would know whether to behave as a wave or a particle, which implies two possible cases:
  • MZI open: The photon arrives to D A or D B without any other interactions. If the photon is registered in D A , the WDCGE argues its is possible trace back the path selected by the photon, with a similar argument if the photon is detected in D B , denoting a particle behavior.
  • MZI closed: Naturally, the interference produced at the output testifies the wave-like behavior of each photon crossing the MZI.
It is complicated to resolve this apparent paradox because we have only two definite facts, the superposition principle at the beginning (1), and the particle detection at the end; what happens in the trip inside the interferometer is the question. Then, before the photon arrives at the BS2 place, how does the photon know whether to behave like a particle or a wave if the presence of BS2 is not certain or is present randomly? To reveal this mystery, we will use two particles or two entangled waves.

4. Wheeler’s Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment with Two Polarization-Entangled Photons

Entangled states have been considered on the WDCGE to study delayed decoherence [12] and the delayed-choice entanglement swapping in the context of quantum steering [13].
Theoretically, we can use an entangled polarized pair of photons in ports 0 and 1 of the B S 1 , which could be generated through Spontaneous Parametric Down Conversion (SPDC).
| ψ S P D C = 1 2 ( | H 0 | V 1 + e i ϕ | V 0 | H 1 )
The state at the output of B S 1 (beam splitter 1) will be
| ψ B S 1 = 1 2 2 [ ( | H 2 | V 3 + i | H 2 | V 2   + i | H 3 | V 3 | H 3 | V 2 )   + + e i ϕ ( | V 2 | H 3 + i | V 2 | H 2   + + i | V 3 | H 3 | V 3 | H 2 ) ]
We can choose the output state as a function of the phase e i ϕ . If ϕ = 0 , | ψ B S 1 = i | ξ + , while for ϕ = π , | ψ B S 1 = | ψ , where
| ξ + = 1 2 ( | H V 3 | 0 2 + | V H 2 | 0 3 )
and
| ψ = 1 2 ( | H 2 | V 3 | V 2 | H 3 )
Equation (4) is a state of two photons entangled with the vacuum. Its behavior is not very different from that in Equation (1) since if we placed a detector that identifies the number of photons, we would find that, with equal probability, two photons would be registered in detector A or two photons in detector B, with perfect anti-correlation. In such a case, the WDCGE experiment is valid in all its reasoning, with the only difference being that we will have two photons behave like two particles or one wave from two particles, depending on the presence of B S 2 , respectively. On the other hand, Equation (5) is one of the Bell states. | ψ can also be considered as two photons entangled with the vacuum, like Equation (1), but the entangled orthogonal photon contributions mutually fill the vacuum states.
If we work, in this gedanken experiment, with the phase ϕ = π , we can frame the WDCGE with two polarization-entangled photons. This completes the setup of the Mach–Zehnder interferometer as shown in Figure 3, where we have placed a phase-shifting element e i θ in one of the two arms of the interferometer, and where it is possible to omit the second beam splitter randomly. Assuming initially that B S 2 is in its position, the output state of the M Z I can be written as
| ψ B S 2 = 1 2 2 [ ( | H B | V A + i | H B | V B   + i | H A | V A | H A | V B )   + e i θ ( | V B | H A + i | V B | H B   + + i | V A | H A | V A | H B ) ]
which we can rewrite as
| ψ B S 2 = | ψ I B S 2 e i θ | ψ I I B S 2
with clear correspondence. Again, a few simple cases can be analyzed for θ = 0 , | ψ B S 2 = | ψ , while for θ = π , then | ψ B S 2 = i | ξ + . It is also interesting that, for θ = π / 2 , | ψ B S 2 = 1 + i 2 ( | ψ + | ξ + ) , and the case θ = 3 π / 2 with | ψ B S 2 = 1 i 2 ( | ψ | ξ + ) .
The four interference patterns are defined as follows:
P A = 1 4 ( 1 c o s ( θ ) )
P B = 1 4 ( 1 c o s ( θ ) )
P A B = 1 4 ( 1 + c o s ( θ ) )
P B A = 1 4 ( 1 + c o s ( θ ) )
The probabilities P A and P B refer to the probability that the two photons exit through port A or port B. The probabilities P A B and P B A refer to the photon states | H A | V B and | H B | V A , respectively. These joint probabilities produce signal coincidences in the D A and D B detectors. We can see four curves in the interference graph shown in Figure 4. The interference pattern oscillates between the two entangled possibilities | ψ and | ξ + . When photon coincidences can be detected, the probabilities are maximized at θ = 0 .
On the other hand, if the second beam splitter is absent, then the interference specified by Equations (8)–(11) could not take place, and according to the WDCGE, we could say that the photons would be detected as individual particles in the detectors. However, when coincidences occur ( θ = 0 ) in the D A and D B detectors, we then have two options:
D A : | H D B : | V
D A : | V D B : | H
In the case specified in Equation (12), we can assert that the horizontally polarized photon reached the detector D A traveling through the path p 2 . In contrast, the vertically polarized photon reached the detector D B and traveled through the path p 3 .
The same can be stated for Equation (13), in which the vertical photon was detected at D A after traversing the path p 2 . In contrast, the horizontally polarized photon detected at D B traveled along the path p 3 .
However, we can demonstrate that the two photons exhibit wave-like behavior in these implications of particle-like behavior, even in the absence of the second beam splitter. To illustrate this, we propose the placement of the polarizers P A and P B along the photon paths before they reach the detectors [14]. The probability P ( ϑ A , ϑ B ) indicates the probability of locating both photons at their respective detectors when the polarizers are oriented at the angles ϑ A and ϑ B . We can define the quantity E B = P ( 45 , 45 ) + P ( 45 , 45 ) P ( 0 , 90 ) + P ( 90 , 0 ) , which specifies the coincidence detection rate after the photons pass through the polarizers, oriented at diagonal angles relative to the orthogonal orientations. This quantity, E B , will indicate the presence of wave-like states, because this value is sensitive to the presence of the quantum components of the photon that are in phase.
For these calculations, we define vertical and horizontal orientations on polarizers in agreement with the orientation of the SPDC polarization states, and let θ = 0 in order to have | ψ .
Calculating each of these probabilities, we found that
P 0 , 90 = | B V | A H | ψ | 2 = 1 2 , P 90 , 0 = | B H | A V | ψ | 2 = 1 2 , P 45 , 45 = | B A | A D | ψ | 2 = 1 2 , P 45 , 45 = | B D | A A | ψ | 2 = 1 2 .
Thus,
E B = 1
Then, in the hypothetical case where the photon pairs from the state | ψ travel independently through the M Z I , that is, | ψ I 1 2 | H A | V B ó | ψ I I 1 2 | V A | H B , the coincidences in the detectors have the following probability rules:
P 0 , 90 = | B V | A H | ψ I | 2 + | B V | A H | ψ I I | 2 = 1 2 , P 90 , 0 = | B H | A V | ψ I | 2 + | B H | A V | ψ I I | 2 = 1 2 , P 45 , 45 = | B A | A D | ψ I | 2 + | B A | A D | ψ I I | 2 = 1 4 , P 45 , 45 = | B D | A A | ψ I | 2 + | B D | A A | ψ I I | 2 = 1 4 .
Then,
E B = 1 2
The difference between the two values—the wave behavior in Equation (15) and particle behavior in Equation (17)—arises from the absence of cross terms that generate quantum coherence and, ultimately, interference when we treat each component of the state | ψ separately, as a classical mixture. Measurement E B = 1 (Equation (15)) without the second beam splitter B S 2 indicates that each of the two photons behaves as a wave, whereas the result E B = 1 2 corresponds to the case of phase-shifted waves that make up the state | ψ . This represents an important situation for discussion. The probabilities, Equation (16), represent the two state options that can travel through the beam splitter, acting as individual particles, which means that, randomly and with probability P = 1 2 , the two particles travel through the trajectory p 2 or through the trajectory p 3 .
However, it is possible to project | ψ onto two anti-correlated states. If we select the two angle combinations in the polarizers, ( 0 , 0 ) and ( 90 , 90 ), we obtain photon statistics without coincidences that can be reproduced by the two states:
| ψ H = 1 2 ( | H A | 0 B + | 0 A | H B )
| ψ V = 1 2 ( | 0 A | V B + | V A | 0 B )
which would imply that the state | ψ can be understood as the coherent coupling of two waves.
The effect of incoherence will occur naturally when each pair, phase-shifted by the factor e i ϕ ( θ = 0 ), do not simultaneously pass through the polarizers with an orientation equivalent to D or A, as the vertical polarization wave could not coherently combine with the horizontal polarization wave, thus altering the probability of passing through the polarizers, as mentioned above.
However, it is possible to perform a hypothetical calculation of the EB quantity for a strict 2-photon state behaving like particles. Imagine that we send a two-photon state | H 1 | V 1 (through the same input port 1) to a PBS. The output state will be i | H B | V A , where we have matched, in the case of the open IMZ, p 3 B and p 2 A . The coincidence probabilities of the photon pairs after crossing the polarizers in the mentioned orientations are
                                      P 0 , 90 = | i A V | B H | H B | V A | 2 = 1
                                      P 90 , 0 = | i A H | B V | H B | V A | 2 = 0
P + 45 , 45 = | i A A | B D | H B | V A | 2 = | i 2 | 2 = 1 4
P 45 , + 45 = | i A D | B A | H B | V A | 2 = | + i 2 | 2 = 1 4
Hence, for a two-photon state behaving like particles, it has a value of E B = 1 2 , as well as for a statistical mixture of incoherent waves. This is important to mention here, because if in the WDCGE experiment both phases are not well adjusted, i.e., ϕ = π and θ = 0 , the wave-like behavior of the photons could be confused with particle behavior.
On the other hand, we can also calculate the E B coefficient, including the second beam splitter.
P 0 , 90 = | B V | A H | ψ B S 2 | 2 = 1 4 ( 1 + c o s ( θ ) ) , P 90 , 0 = | B H | A V | ψ B S 2 | 2 = 1 4 ( 1 + c o s ( θ ) ) , P 45 , 45 = | B A | A D | ψ B S 2 | 2 = 1 4 ( 1 + c o s ( θ ) ) , P 45 , 45 = | B D | A A | ψ B S 2 | 2 = 1 4 ( 1 + c o s ( θ ) ) .
In this way, E B = 1 implies the evident wave behavior independent of the interferometer phase.
In conclusion, each photon behaves like a wave independently of the presence of BS2.

5. Entropy and Wave–Particle Duality

Counting the photons crossing a 50:50 beam splitter (see Figure 1) allows us to calculate the probability of detecting a photon in the detector D 3 depending on its state (1), so P 3 = 1 / 2 ( P 2 = 1 / 2 ). With such probabilities, we can obtain the Shannon entropy:
S = i p i l o g 2 ( p i )
The entropy associated with the wave (1) has entropy S = 1 . This is clear because in the photon-counting experiment, the statistics are random in both detectors with anti-correlation. On the other hand, for the case in which it is possible to know precisely if each photon crosses the BS1 as transmitted or reflected, the trajectory is fixed and defined, so it is clear that P 3 = 1 , P 2 = 0 or P 3 = 0 , P 2 = 1 . In this case, S = 0 . Then, zero entropy is associated with particle behavior in this context [15,16]. By completing the MZI and measuring the photon count with the MZI open, obtaining the value S = 1 implies that the photons behave like a wave. With the MZI closed, there is no doubt about the wave behavior. In cases 0 < S < 1 , we have the superposition of wave states with particle states in different proportions depending on the transmission and reflection properties at the beam splitter. Now, in the case of the previous section, we can analyze the entropy of the entangled state in the two WDCGE cases.
  • Case 1: MZI open
With the | ψ state arriving at detectors, the photon-counting statistic in each detector, regardless of polarization, ensures in the context of the WDCGE that there is always a photon traveling through one of the arms of the interferometer. The probability of finding a photon in each detector is P A = 1 and P B = 1 , so the entropy associated with both counts will be S A = 0 and S B = 0 . However, let us consider polarization by placing the polarizers before the detectors, in the horizontal combination ( ϑ A = 0 , ϑ B = 0 ), the probability of recording photons with horizontal polarization is P A = 1 / 2 and P B = 1 / 2 , so S ( H ) A = 1 and S ( H ) B = 1 . Similarly, with the polarizer orientation ( ϑ A = 90 , ϑ B = 90 ), S ( V ) A = 1 and S ( V ) B = 1 , which implies that there are two in-phase waves with orthogonal polarization propagating towards the detectors.
  • Case 2. MZI closed.
For this case, the entropy at S ( θ ) can be changed on demand 0 S H 1 and 0 S V 1 , precisely because each wave of defined polarization, H or V, can only interfere with each other.
In both cases, open or closed MZI, the photons behave as waves, in agreement with the previous section.

6. Conclusions

We have proposed a simple way to perform an experiment that shows that photons considered in the WDCGE propagate within the IMZ as waves regardless of the presence of the second beam splitter. This rules out any communication between the photons within the interferometer and the second beam splitter. Our result implies that individual photons, once interacting with the B S 1 , cannot change their wave state to a particle state through a future interaction without any intermediate interaction. This proposal is reinforced using the entropy associated with photon counting in the WDCGE. Therefore, quoting Feynman, the only mystery of quantum mechanics remains the superposition of states, as shown in Equation (1), and its generalizations, depending on the number of possible states and the number of particles considered. In such a case, we have a “law with law” experiment where the only law is the superposition principle.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.M.A.-A., R.V. and V.V.; methodology, R.V.; software, R.V., L.L.-H. and L.L.-D.; validation, R.V., L.M.A.-A. and V.V.; formal analysis, R.V., L.M.A.-A., and V.V.; investigation, R.V., L.L.-D., L.L.-H., E.H. and L.M.A.-A.; resources, L.M.A.-A. and V.V.; writing—original draft preparation, R.V.; writing review and editing, R.V., L.M.A.-A. and V.V.; supervision, L.M.A.-A. and V.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We acknowledge financial support from PAPIIT-UNAM-IN113023. R.V., L.L.-H., and E.H., thanks to the CONACHyT-México scholarship.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
MZIMach–Zehnder Interferometer
WDCGEWhiller’s Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment

References

  1. Einstein, A.; Infeld, L. The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta; Snow, C.P., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1938. [Google Scholar]
  2. Einstein, A.; Podolsky, B.; Rosen, N. Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 1935, 47, 777–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Feynman, R.P. The Character of Physical Law, 3rd ed.; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1967. [Google Scholar]
  4. Walborn, S.P.; Terra Cunha, M.O.; Pádua, S.P.; Monken, C.H. Double-Slit Quantum Eraser. Phys. Rev. A 2002, 3, 033818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wheeler, J.A. Quantum Theory and Measurement. In Quantum Theory and Measurement; Wheeler, J.A., Zurek, W.H., Eds.; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1984; pp. 182–213. [Google Scholar]
  6. Jacques, V.; Wu, E.; Grosshans, F.; Treussart, F.; Grangier, P.; Aspect, A.; Roch, J.-F. Experimental Realization of Wheeler’s Delayed-Choice Gedanken Experiment. Science 2007, 315, 966–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Yan, H.; Liao, K.; Deng, Z.; He, J.; Xue, Z.-Y.; Zhang, Z.-M.; Zhu, S.-L. Experimental Observation of Simultaneous Wave and Particle Behavior in a Narrowband Single-Photon Wave Packet. Phys. Rev. A 2015, 91, 042132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ma, X.s.; Kofler, J.; Zeilinger, A. Delayed-choice gedanken experiments and their realizations. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2016, 88, 015005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gerry, C.; Knight, P. Introductory Quantum Optics; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  10. Grangier, P.; Roger, G.; Aspect, A. Experimental evidence for a photon anticorrelation effect on a beam splitter: A new light on single-photon interferences. Europhys. Lett. 1986, 1, 173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Rey, G.; Mathevet, R.; Massenot, S.; Chalopin, B. Introducing quantum mechanics with a two-mode Mach–Zehnder interferometer. Am. J. Phys. 2025, 93, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lee, L.C.; Lim, H.T.; Hong, K.H.; Jeong, Y.C.; Kim, M.S.; Kim, Y.H. Experimental demonstration of delayed-choice decoherence suppression. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 4522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ma, X.-S.; Zotter, S.; Kofler, J.; Ursin, R.; Jennewein, T.; Brukner, Č.; Zeilinger, A. Experimental delayed-choice entanglement swapping. Nat. Phys. 2012, 8, 479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kim, S.; Ham, B.S. Observations of the delayed-choice quantum eraser using coherent photons. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 9758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Mendoza, B.D.; Lara, D.A.; López-Aparicio, J.; Armendáriz, G.; López-Hernández, L.; Velázquez, V.; Hernández, E.M.; Grether, M.; López-Moreno, E.; Frank, A. Quantum Chaos in Time Series of Single Photons as a Superposition of Wave and Particle States. Photonics 2021, 8, 326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Coles, P.J.; Kaniewski, J.; Wehner, S. Equivalence of wave–particle duality to entropic uncertainty. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 5814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Schematic of the anti-correlation experiment. If the photon entering through port 1 possesses quantum components in both output ports 2 and 3, it can be described as exhibiting wave-like behavior. However, if it follows only one of the two output paths, it will manifest particle-like behavior.
Figure 1. Schematic of the anti-correlation experiment. If the photon entering through port 1 possesses quantum components in both output ports 2 and 3, it can be described as exhibiting wave-like behavior. However, if it follows only one of the two output paths, it will manifest particle-like behavior.
Photonics 12 00696 g001
Figure 2. Schematic of the WDCGE, where after the photon passes through the first beam splitter and before reaching the position of the second beam splitter, it may or may not be present in a random manner.
Figure 2. Schematic of the WDCGE, where after the photon passes through the first beam splitter and before reaching the position of the second beam splitter, it may or may not be present in a random manner.
Photonics 12 00696 g002
Figure 3. Schematic of the device in which a state | ψ S P D C is introduced into a Mach–Zehnder interferometer M Z I , with the possibility that the second beam splitter may be removed before the arrival of the two photons. We introduce polarizers before the detectors with polarization angles ( ϑ A , ϑ B ) , in combinations of ( + 45 , 45 ) , ( 45 , + 45 ) , and ( 0 , 90 ) , ( 90 , 0 ) in order to obtain the value E B .
Figure 3. Schematic of the device in which a state | ψ S P D C is introduced into a Mach–Zehnder interferometer M Z I , with the possibility that the second beam splitter may be removed before the arrival of the two photons. We introduce polarizers before the detectors with polarization angles ( ϑ A , ϑ B ) , in combinations of ( + 45 , 45 ) , ( 45 , + 45 ) , and ( 0 , 90 ) , ( 90 , 0 ) in order to obtain the value E B .
Photonics 12 00696 g003
Figure 4. Interference patterns of the probability of locating the two photons at port A or B: P ( A ) (crosses) and P ( B ) (boxes). The probabilities that the photons arrive, one at port A and the other at port B: P ( A , B ) (plus) simultaneously and vice versa P ( B , A ) (circles).
Figure 4. Interference patterns of the probability of locating the two photons at port A or B: P ( A ) (crosses) and P ( B ) (boxes). The probabilities that the photons arrive, one at port A and the other at port B: P ( A , B ) (plus) simultaneously and vice versa P ( B , A ) (circles).
Photonics 12 00696 g004
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Velázquez, R.; López-Díaz, L.; López-Hernández, L.; Hernández, E.; Arévalo-Aguilar, L.M.; Velázquez, V. Delayed Choice for Entangled Photons. Photonics 2025, 12, 696. https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics12070696

AMA Style

Velázquez R, López-Díaz L, López-Hernández L, Hernández E, Arévalo-Aguilar LM, Velázquez V. Delayed Choice for Entangled Photons. Photonics. 2025; 12(7):696. https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics12070696

Chicago/Turabian Style

Velázquez, Rolando, Linda López-Díaz, Leonardo López-Hernández, Eduardo Hernández, L. M. Arévalo-Aguilar, and V. Velázquez. 2025. "Delayed Choice for Entangled Photons" Photonics 12, no. 7: 696. https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics12070696

APA Style

Velázquez, R., López-Díaz, L., López-Hernández, L., Hernández, E., Arévalo-Aguilar, L. M., & Velázquez, V. (2025). Delayed Choice for Entangled Photons. Photonics, 12(7), 696. https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics12070696

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop