为什么阿夫沙尔实验没有反驳互补性
Why the Afshar Experiment Does Not Refute Complementarity
摘要：
Shahriar Afshar对Young的实验进行了修改，证明了在似乎是“哪种方式”的测量之前，存在干涉图案。Afshar声称，这一结果违反了互补原理。本文讨论了这个实验的影响，并认为如何克莱默的transmittance解释很容易容纳的结果。它还表明，Afshar实验是类似的自旋二分之一粒子制备为“自旋沿$\bf x$”，进行了非破坏性的确认，准备，并后选择在一个特定的状态下沿$\bf z$自旋的关键方面。术语“which-way”或“which-slit”被批评;有人认为Afshar和他的批评者的这种用法是误导性的，并导致了对实验解释的混乱。尽管如此，可以得出结论，玻尔在解释阿夫沙尔的结果时不会遇到更多的问题，就像他在解释前面提到的选择前和选择后的自旋实验一样，在选择前和选择后的自旋实验中，粒子的准备状态是通过非破坏性测量来确认的。此外，本文还对延迟选择实验的解释提出了一些新的推论。
英文摘要：
A modified version of Young's experiment by Shahriar Afshar demonstrates that, prior to what appears to be a ``which-way'' measurement, an interference pattern exists. Afshar has claimed that this result constitutes a violation of the Principle of Complementarity. This paper discusses the implications of this experiment and considers how Cramer's Transactional Interpretation easily accomodates the result. It is also shown that the Afshar experiment is analogous in key respects to a spin one-half particle prepared as ``spin up along $\bf x$'', subjected to a nondestructive confirmation of that preparation, and post-selected in a specific state of spin along $\bf z$. The terminology ``which-way'' or ``which-slit'' is critiqued; it is argued that this usage by both Afshar and his critics is misleading and has contributed to confusion surrounding the interpretation of the experiment. Nevertheless, it is concluded that Bohr would have had no more problem accounting for the Afshar result than he would in accounting for the aforementioned pre- and post-selection spin experiment, in which the particle's preparation state is confirmed by a nondestructive measurement prior to post-selection. In addition, some new inferences about the interpretation of delayed choice experiments are drawn from the analysis.
机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来，可能存在错误，请以论文正文为准。
