Limits...
Quantum interference of large organic molecules.

Gerlich S, Eibenberger S, Tomandl M, Nimmrichter S, Hornberger K, Fagan PJ, Tüxen J, Mayor M, Arndt M - Nat Commun (2011)

Bottom Line: First proposed by Louis de Broglie a century ago, it has since been confirmed with a variety of particles from electrons up to molecules.Here we demonstrate new high-contrast quantum experiments with large and massive tailor-made organic molecules in a near-field interferometer.We show that even complex systems, with more than 1,000 internal degrees of freedom, can be prepared in quantum states that are sufficiently well isolated from their environment to avoid decoherence and to show almost perfect coherence.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: University of Vienna, Vienna Center for Quantum Science and Technology, VCQ, Faculty of Physics, Boltzmanngasse 5, Vienna 1090, Austria.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Quantum interference visibility as a function of the diffracting laser power.The best distinction between quantum and classical behaviour is made by tracing the interference fringe visibility as a function of the laser power, which determines the phase imprinted by the second grating. Each of the two experimental runs per molecule is represented by full circles and the error bar provides the 68% confidence bound of the sinusoidal fit to the interference fringe. The thick solid line is the quantum fit in which the shaded region covers a variation of the mean molecular velocity by Δv=±2 m s−1. (a) The TPPF84 data are well reproduced by the quantum model (see text) and completely missed by the classical curve (thin line on the left). (b) The same holds for PFNS8. The following parameters were used for the models: TPPF84: v=95 m s−1±16%, α=200 Å3×4πɛ0 (fit), σopt=10−21 m−2, wx=34±3 μm and wy=500±50 μm. PFNS8: v=75 m s−1±10%, α=190 Å3×4πɛ0 (fit), σopt=10−21m−2, wx=27±3 μm and wy=620±50 μm.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3104521&req=5

f4: Quantum interference visibility as a function of the diffracting laser power.The best distinction between quantum and classical behaviour is made by tracing the interference fringe visibility as a function of the laser power, which determines the phase imprinted by the second grating. Each of the two experimental runs per molecule is represented by full circles and the error bar provides the 68% confidence bound of the sinusoidal fit to the interference fringe. The thick solid line is the quantum fit in which the shaded region covers a variation of the mean molecular velocity by Δv=±2 m s−1. (a) The TPPF84 data are well reproduced by the quantum model (see text) and completely missed by the classical curve (thin line on the left). (b) The same holds for PFNS8. The following parameters were used for the models: TPPF84: v=95 m s−1±16%, α=200 Å3×4πɛ0 (fit), σopt=10−21 m−2, wx=34±3 μm and wy=500±50 μm. PFNS8: v=75 m s−1±10%, α=190 Å3×4πɛ0 (fit), σopt=10−21m−2, wx=27±3 μm and wy=620±50 μm.

Mentions: The experimental values have to be compared with the theoretical predictions based on a classical and a quantum model23. The measured interference visibility is plotted as a function of the diffracting laser power P in Figure 4 for TPPF84 (4a) and PFNS8 (4b). Our data are in very good agreement with the full quantum calculation and in clear discrepancy with the classical prediction. The abscissa scaling of the V(P) curve is a good indicator for that. The quantum prediction mimics the classical curve qualitatively, but it is stretched in the laser power by a factor of about six (see Methods).


Quantum interference of large organic molecules.

Gerlich S, Eibenberger S, Tomandl M, Nimmrichter S, Hornberger K, Fagan PJ, Tüxen J, Mayor M, Arndt M - Nat Commun (2011)

Quantum interference visibility as a function of the diffracting laser power.The best distinction between quantum and classical behaviour is made by tracing the interference fringe visibility as a function of the laser power, which determines the phase imprinted by the second grating. Each of the two experimental runs per molecule is represented by full circles and the error bar provides the 68% confidence bound of the sinusoidal fit to the interference fringe. The thick solid line is the quantum fit in which the shaded region covers a variation of the mean molecular velocity by Δv=±2 m s−1. (a) The TPPF84 data are well reproduced by the quantum model (see text) and completely missed by the classical curve (thin line on the left). (b) The same holds for PFNS8. The following parameters were used for the models: TPPF84: v=95 m s−1±16%, α=200 Å3×4πɛ0 (fit), σopt=10−21 m−2, wx=34±3 μm and wy=500±50 μm. PFNS8: v=75 m s−1±10%, α=190 Å3×4πɛ0 (fit), σopt=10−21m−2, wx=27±3 μm and wy=620±50 μm.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3104521&req=5

f4: Quantum interference visibility as a function of the diffracting laser power.The best distinction between quantum and classical behaviour is made by tracing the interference fringe visibility as a function of the laser power, which determines the phase imprinted by the second grating. Each of the two experimental runs per molecule is represented by full circles and the error bar provides the 68% confidence bound of the sinusoidal fit to the interference fringe. The thick solid line is the quantum fit in which the shaded region covers a variation of the mean molecular velocity by Δv=±2 m s−1. (a) The TPPF84 data are well reproduced by the quantum model (see text) and completely missed by the classical curve (thin line on the left). (b) The same holds for PFNS8. The following parameters were used for the models: TPPF84: v=95 m s−1±16%, α=200 Å3×4πɛ0 (fit), σopt=10−21 m−2, wx=34±3 μm and wy=500±50 μm. PFNS8: v=75 m s−1±10%, α=190 Å3×4πɛ0 (fit), σopt=10−21m−2, wx=27±3 μm and wy=620±50 μm.
Mentions: The experimental values have to be compared with the theoretical predictions based on a classical and a quantum model23. The measured interference visibility is plotted as a function of the diffracting laser power P in Figure 4 for TPPF84 (4a) and PFNS8 (4b). Our data are in very good agreement with the full quantum calculation and in clear discrepancy with the classical prediction. The abscissa scaling of the V(P) curve is a good indicator for that. The quantum prediction mimics the classical curve qualitatively, but it is stretched in the laser power by a factor of about six (see Methods).

Bottom Line: First proposed by Louis de Broglie a century ago, it has since been confirmed with a variety of particles from electrons up to molecules.Here we demonstrate new high-contrast quantum experiments with large and massive tailor-made organic molecules in a near-field interferometer.We show that even complex systems, with more than 1,000 internal degrees of freedom, can be prepared in quantum states that are sufficiently well isolated from their environment to avoid decoherence and to show almost perfect coherence.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: University of Vienna, Vienna Center for Quantum Science and Technology, VCQ, Faculty of Physics, Boltzmanngasse 5, Vienna 1090, Austria.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus