1: \documentstyle[prl,aps,amssymb,amsmath,multicol,epsf,psfrag]{revtex}
2:
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: \title{Quantum interferometric optical lithography:\\
6: towards arbitrary two-dimensional patterns}
7: \author{Pieter Kok\cite{pieter}$^1$, Agedi N.\ Boto$^2$, Daniel S.\ Abrams$^2$,
8: Colin P.\ Williams$^2$, Samuel L.\ Braunstein$^1$ \\ and
9: Jonathan P.\ Dowling$^2$}
10: \address{$^1$Informatics, Bangor University, Bangor LL57 1UT, UK}
11: \address{$^2$Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, \\
12: Mail Stop 126-347, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, California 91109}
13:
14: \maketitle
15:
16: \begin{abstract}
17: As demonstrated by Boto {\em et al}.\ [Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 85}, 2733
18: (2000)], quantum lithography offers an increase in resolution below the
19: diffraction limit. Here, we generalize this procedure in order to create
20: patterns in one and two dimensions. This renders quantum lithography a
21: potentially useful tool in nanotechnology.
22: \end{abstract}
23:
24: \medskip
25:
26: PACS numbers: 42.50.Hz, 42.25.Hz, 42.65.--k, 85.40.Hp
27:
28: \begin{multicols}{2}
29:
30: Optical lithography is a widely used printing method. In this process light is
31: used to etch a substrate. The exposed or unexposed areas on the substrate then
32: define the pattern. In particular, the micro-chip industry uses lithography to
33: produce smaller and smaller processors. However, classical optical lithography
34: can only achieve a resolution comparable to the wavelength of the light used
35: \cite{brueck98,mack96,mansuripur00}. It therefore minimizes the scale of the
36: patterns. To create smaller patterns we need to venture beyond this classical
37: boundary \cite{yablonovich99}. In Ref.\ \cite{boto00} we introduced a procedure
38: called {\em quantum} lithography that offers an increase in resolution beyond
39: the diffraction limit. This process allows us to write closely spaced lines in
40: one dimension. However, for practical purposes (e.g., optical surface etching)
41: we need to create more complicated patterns in both one and two dimensions.
42: Here, we study how quantum lithography can be extended to create these
43: patterns.
44:
45: This paper is organized as follows: first, for completeness, we present a
46: derivation of the Rayleigh diffraction limit. Then, in Sec.\ \ref{intro} we
47: reiterate the method introduced in Ref.\ \cite{boto00}. Then, in Sec.\ \ref{1D}
48: we give a generalized version of the states used in this procedure. We show
49: how we can tailor arbitrary one-dimensional patterns with these states. In
50: Sec.\ \ref{2D} we show how four-mode entangled states lead to patterns in two
51: dimensions. Sec.\ \ref{phys} addresses the physical implementation of quantum
52: lithography.
53:
54: \section{Classical resolution limit}\label{resolution}
55:
56: When we talk about optical resolution, we can mean two things: it may denote
57: the minimum distance between two nearby points which can still be resolved
58: with microscopy. Or it can denote the minimum distance separating two points
59: which are printed using lithography. In the limit of geometric optics these
60: resolutions would be identical. In this section we derive the classical
61: resolution limit for interferometric lithography using the so-called Rayleigh
62: criterion \cite{rayleigh1879}.
63:
64: Suppose two plane waves characterised by $\vec{k}_1$ and $\vec{k}_2$ hit a
65: surface under an angle $\theta$ from the normal vector. The wave vectors are
66: given by
67: \begin{equation}\label{planewave}
68: \vec{k}_1 = k(\cos\theta,\sin\theta) \quad\mbox{and}\quad
69: \vec{k}_2 = k(\cos\theta,-\sin\theta)\; ,
70: \end{equation}
71: where we used $|\vec{k}_1|=|\vec{k}_2|=k$. The wave number $k$ is related to
72: the wavelength of the light according to $k=2\pi/\lambda$.
73:
74: In order to find the interference pattern in the intensity $I$, we sum the
75: two plane waves at position $\vec{r}$ at the amplitude level:
76: \begin{equation}
77: I(\vec{r}) \propto \left|e^{i\vec{k}_1\cdot\vec{r}}+e^{i\vec{k}_2\cdot\vec{r}}
78: \right|^2 = 4\cos^2\left[ \frac{1}{2}(\vec{k}_1 - \vec{k}_2)\cdot\vec{r}
79: \right]\; .
80: \end{equation}
81: When we calculate the inner product $(\vec{k}_1 - \vec{k}_2)\cdot\vec{r}/2$
82: from Eq.\ (\ref{planewave}) we obtain the expression
83: \begin{equation}\label{cos2}
84: I(x) \propto \cos^2(kx\sin\theta)
85: \end{equation}
86: for the intensity along the substrate in direction $x$.
87:
88: The Rayleigh criterion states that the minimal resolvable feature size
89: $\Delta x$ corresponds to the distance between an intensity maximum and an
90: adjacent minimum. From Eq.\ (\ref{cos2}) we obtain
91: \begin{equation}
92: k\Delta x\sin\theta = \frac{\pi}{2}\; .
93: \end{equation}
94: This means that the maximum resolution is given by
95: \begin{equation}
96: \Delta x = \frac{\pi}{2k\sin\theta} = \frac{\pi}{2\left(\frac{2\pi}{\lambda}
97: \sin\theta\right)} = \frac{\lambda}{4\sin\theta}\; ,
98: \end{equation}
99: where $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the light. The maximum resolution is
100: therefore proportional to the wavelength and inversely proportional to the
101: sine of the angle between the incoming plane waves and the normal. The
102: resolution is thus maximal ($\Delta x$ is minimal) when $\sin\theta=1$, or
103: $\theta=\pi/2$. This is the grazing limit. The classical diffraction limit is
104: therefore $\Delta x = \lambda/4$. Note that this derivation does not use the
105: approximation $\sin\theta\simeq\theta$, which is common when considering
106: diffraction phenomena.
107:
108: \section{Introduction to Quantum Lithography}\label{intro}
109:
110: In this section we briefly reiterate our method of Ref.\ \cite{boto00}.
111: It exploits the physical properties of multi-photon absorption of a substrate.
112: Suppose we have two intersecting light beams $a$ and $b$. We place a substrate
113: sensitive to $N$-photon absorption at the position where the two beams meet,
114: such that the interference pattern is recorded. For simplicity, we consider
115: the grazing limit in which the angle $\theta$ off axis for the two beams is
116: $\pi/2$ (see Fig.\ \ref{fig1}). Classically, the interference pattern on the
117: substrate
118: has a resolution of the order of $\lambda/4$, where $\lambda$ is the wavelength
119: of the light. However, by using entangled photon-number states (i.e.,
120: inherently {\em non-classical} states) we can increase the resolution well
121: into the sub-wavelength regime.
122:
123: How does quantum lithography work? Let the two counter-propagating light beams
124: $a$ and $b$ be in the combined entangled state of $N$ photons
125: \begin{equation}\label{n00n}
126: |\psi_N\rangle_{ab} = \left( |N,0\rangle_{ab} + e^{iN\varphi} |0,N\rangle_{ab}
127: \right) / \sqrt{2}\; ,
128: \end{equation}
129: where $\varphi=kx/2$, with $k=2\pi/\lambda$.
130: We define the mode operator $\hat{e} = (\hat{a}+\hat{b})/\sqrt{2}$ and its
131: adjoint $\hat{e}^{\dagger} = (\hat{a}^{\dagger}+\hat{b}^{\dagger})/\sqrt{2}$.
132: The deposition rate $\Delta$ on the substrate is then given by
133: \begin{equation}\label{delta}
134: \Delta_N = \langle\psi_N|\hat{\delta}_N|\psi_N\rangle\qquad\text{with}\qquad
135: \hat{\delta}_N=\frac{(\hat{e}^{\dagger})^N \hat{e}^N}{N!}\; ,
136: \end{equation}
137: i.e., we look at the higher moments of the electric field operator
138: \cite{goppert31,javanainen90,perina98}.
139: The deposition rate $\Delta$ is measured in units of intensity. Leaving the
140: substrate exposed for a time $t$ to the light source will result in an
141: exposure pattern $P(\varphi)=\Delta_N t$. After a straightforward calculation
142: we see that
143: \begin{equation}\label{deprate}
144: \Delta_N \propto (1 + \cos N\varphi)\; .
145: \end{equation}
146: We interpret this as follows. A path-differential phase-shift $\varphi$ in
147: light beam $b$ results in a displacement $x$ of the interference pattern on
148: the substrate. Using two classical waves, a phase-shift of $2\pi$ will return
149: the pattern to its original position. However, according to
150: Eq.~(\ref{deprate}), one cycle is completed after a shift of $2\pi/N$. This
151: means that a shift of $2\pi$ will displace the pattern $N$ times. In other
152: words, we have $N$ times more maxima in the interference pattern. These need
153: to be closely spaced, yielding an effective Rayleigh resolution of $\Delta x
154: = \lambda/4N$, a factor of $N$ below the classical interferometric result of
155: $\Delta x=\lambda/4$ \cite{brueck98}.
156:
157: \begin{figure}[h]
158: \label{fig1}
159: \begin{center}
160: \begin{psfrags}
161: \psfrag{a}{$a$}
162: \psfrag{b}{$b$}
163: \psfrag{t}{$\theta$}
164: \psfrag{f}{$\varphi$}
165: \psfrag{p}{substrate}
166: \epsfxsize=8in
167: \epsfbox[-100 20 900 70]{setup.eps}
168: \end{psfrags}
169: \end{center}
170: {\small Fig.\ 1. Two light beams $a$ and $b$ cross each other at the
171: surface of a photosensitive substrate. The angle between them is
172: $2\theta$ and they have a relative phase difference $\varphi=kx/2$. We
173: consider the limit case of $\theta\rightarrow\pi/2$.}
174: \end{figure}
175:
176: Physically, we can interpret this result as follows: instead of having a state
177: of $N$ single photons, Eq.~(\ref{n00n}) describes an $N$-photon state. Since
178: the momentum of this state is $N$ times as large as the momentum for a
179: single photon, the corresponding DeBroglie wavelength is $N$ times smaller.
180: The interference of this $N$-photon state with itself on a substrate
181: thus gives a periodic pattern with a characteristic resolution dimension of
182: $\Delta x = \lambda/4N$.
183:
184: \section{General Patterns in 1D}\label{1D}
185:
186: So far, we have described a method to print a simple pattern of evenly
187: spaced lines of sub-wavelength resolution. However, for any practical
188: application we need the ability to produce more complicated patterns. To this
189: end, we introduce the state
190: \begin{eqnarray}\label{nm}
191: |\psi_{Nm}\rangle_{ab} &=& \biggl( e^{im\varphi}|N-m,m\rangle_{ab} \biggr.\cr
192: && + \biggl. e^{i(N-m)\varphi} e^{i\theta_m} |m,N-m\rangle_{ab} \biggr)
193: / \sqrt{2}\; .
194: \end{eqnarray}
195: This is a generalized version of Eq.\ (\ref{n00n}). In particular, Eq.\
196: (\ref{nm}) reduces to Eq.\ (\ref{n00n}) when $m=0$ and $\theta_m=0$. Note
197: that we included a relative phase $e^{i\theta_m}$, which will turn out to be
198: crucial in the creation of arbitrary one-dimensional patterns.
199:
200: We can calculate the deposition rate again according to the procedure in Sec.\
201: \ref{intro}. As we shall see later, in general, we can have superpositions
202: of the states given by Eq.\ (\ref{nm}). We therefore have to take into account
203: the possibility of different values of $m$, yielding a quantity
204: \begin{equation}
205: \Delta_{Nm}^{Nm'} = \langle\psi_{Nm}|\hat{\delta}_N|\psi_{Nm'}\rangle\; .
206: \end{equation}
207: Note that this deposition rate depends not only on the parameter $\varphi$,
208: but also on the relative phases $\theta_m$ and $\theta_{m'}$. The deposition
209: rate then becomes
210: \end{multicols}
211:
212: \noindent\rule{5cm}{.5 pt}
213:
214: \begin{eqnarray}\label{nmmn}
215: \Delta_{Nm}^{Nm'} \propto \sqrt{\binom{N}{m}\binom{N}{m'}} && \left[
216: e^{i(m'-m)\varphi} + e^{i(N-m-m')\varphi} e^{i\theta_{m'}} + \right. \cr
217: && \left. e^{-i(N-m-m')\varphi} e^{-i\theta_m} + e^{-i(m'-m)\varphi}
218: e^{i(\theta_{m'}-\theta_m)} \right] \; ,
219: \end{eqnarray}
220:
221: \hfill\noindent\rule{5cm}{.5 pt}
222:
223: \medskip
224:
225: \begin{multicols}{2}
226: \noindent where $\binom{N}{m}$ means $N!/(N-m)! m!$.
227: Obviously, $\langle\psi_{Nm}|\hat{\delta}_l|\psi_{N'm'}\rangle=0$ when
228: $l\not\in \{N,N'\}$.
229: For $m=m'$, the deposition rate takes on the form
230: \begin{equation}\label{genn00n}
231: \Delta_{Nm} \propto \binom{N}{m} \left\{ 1 + \cos[(N-2m)\varphi+\theta_m]
232: \right\}\; ,
233: \end{equation}
234: which, in the case of $m=0$ and $\theta_m=0$, coincides with Eq.\
235: (\ref{deprate}). When $\theta_m$ is suitably chosen, we see that we also have
236: access to deposition rates $(1-\cos N\varphi)$ and $(1\pm\sin N\varphi)$.
237: Apart from this extra phase freedom, Eq.~(\ref{genn00n}) does not look like
238: an improvement over Eq.\ (\ref{deprate}), since $N-2m\leq N$, which means that
239: the resolution decreases. However, we will show later how these states {\em
240: can} be used to produce non-trivial patterns.
241:
242: First, we look at a few special cases of $\theta_m$ and $\theta_{m'}$. When
243: we write $\Delta_{Nm}^{Nm'}=\Delta_{Nm}^{Nm'}(\theta_m,\theta_{m'})$ we have
244: \begin{mathletters}
245: \begin{eqnarray}
246: \Delta_{nm}^{Nm'} (0,0) &\propto& \cos\Bigl(\frac{N-2m}{2}\,
247: \varphi\Bigr) \cos\Bigl(\frac{N-2m'}{2}\,\varphi\Bigr)\; , \\
248: \Delta_{Nm}^{Nm'} (0,\pi) &\propto& \cos\Bigl(\frac{N-2m}{2}\,
249: \varphi\Bigr) \sin\Bigl(\frac{N-2m'}{2}\,\varphi\Bigr)\; , \\
250: \Delta_{Nm}^{Nm'} (\pi,0) &\propto& \sin\Bigl(\frac{N-2m}{2}\,
251: \varphi\Bigr) \cos\Bigl(\frac{N-2m'}{2}\,\varphi\Bigr)\; , \\
252: \Delta_{Nm}^{Nm'} (\pi,\pi) &\propto& \sin\Bigl(\frac{N-2m}{2}\,
253: \varphi\Bigr) \sin\Bigl(\frac{N-2m'}{2}\,\varphi\Bigr)\; .
254: \end{eqnarray}
255: \end{mathletters}
256: These relations give the dependence of the matrix elements $\Delta_{Nm}^{Nm'}$
257: on $\theta_m$ and $\theta_{m'}$ in a more intuitive way than Eq.\ (\ref{nmmn})
258: does. Finally, when $\theta_m = \theta_{m'}=\theta$ we obtain
259: \begin{equation}
260: \Delta_{Nm}^{Nm'} \propto \cos\left[\frac{(N-2m)\varphi+\theta}{2}\right]
261: \cos\left[\frac{(N-2m')\varphi-\theta}{2}\right]\; .
262: \end{equation}
263:
264: So far we have only considered generalized deposition rates given by Eq.\
265: (\ref{nm}), with special values of their parameters. We will now turn our
266: attention to the problem of creating more arbitrary patterns.
267:
268: Note that there are two main, though fundamentally different, ways we can
269: superpose the states given by Eq.\ (\ref{nm}). We can superpose states with
270: different photon numbers $n$ and a fixed distribution $m$ over the two modes:
271: \begin{equation}\label{phot}
272: |\Psi_m\rangle = \sum_{n=0}^N \alpha_n |\psi_{nm}\rangle\; ,
273: \end{equation}
274: with $\alpha_n$ complex coefficients. This is a superposition of states with
275: {\em different} total photon number in each branch.
276: Alternatively, we can superpose states with a fixed photon number $N$, but with
277: different distributions $m$:
278: \begin{equation}\label{dist}
279: |\Psi_N\rangle = \sum_{m=0}^{\lfloor N/2\rfloor} \alpha_m|\psi_{Nm}\rangle\; ,
280: \end{equation}
281: where $\lfloor N/2\rfloor$ denotes the largest integer $l$ with $l\leq N/2$ and
282: $\alpha_m$ again the complex coefficients. Every branch in this superposition
283: is an $N$-photon state.
284:
285: These two different superpositions can be used to tailor patterns which are
286: more complicated than just closely spaced lines. We will now study these two
287: different methods.
288:
289: \subsection{The Pseudo-Fourier Method}
290:
291: The first method, corresponding to the superposition given by Eq.\
292: (\ref{phot}), we will call the pseudo-Fourier method (this choice of name will
293: become clear shortly). When we calculate the deposition rate $\Delta_m$
294: according to the state $|\Psi_m\rangle$ we immediately see that branches with
295: different photon numbers $n$ and $n'$ do not exhibit interference:
296: \begin{equation}
297: \Delta_m = \sum_{n=0}^N |\alpha_n|^2 \langle\psi_{nm}|\hat{\delta}_n|
298: \psi_{nm}\rangle = \sum_{n=0}^N |\alpha_n|^2 \Delta_{nm} \; .
299: \end{equation}
300: Using Eq.\ (\ref{genn00n}) the exposure pattern $P(\varphi)=\Delta_m t$
301: becomes
302: \begin{equation}\label{fourier}
303: P(\varphi) = t \sum_{n=0}^{N} c_n \left\{1+\cos[(n-2m)\varphi+\theta_n]
304: \right\}\; ,
305: \end{equation}
306: where $t$ is the exposure time and the $c_n$ are real and positive. Since
307: $m<n$ and
308: $m$ is fixed, we have $m=0$. We will now prove that this is a Fourier series
309: up to a constant.
310:
311: A general Fourier expansion of $p(\varphi)$ can be written as
312: \begin{equation}
313: P(\varphi) = \sum_{n=0}^N (a_n \cos n\varphi + b_n \sin n\varphi)\; .
314: \end{equation}
315: Writing Eq.\ (\ref{fourier}) as
316: \begin{equation}
317: P(\varphi) = t\sum_{n=0}^{N} c_n + t \sum_{n=0}^{N} c_n \cos(n\varphi+
318: \theta_n)\; ,
319: \end{equation}
320: where $t\sum_{n=0}^{N} c_n$ is a constant. If we ignore this constant (its
321: contribution to the deposition rate will give a general uniform background
322: exposure of the substrate, since it is independent of $\varphi$) we see that
323: we need
324: \begin{equation}
325: c_n \cos(n\varphi+\theta_n) = a_n \cos n\varphi + b_n \sin n\varphi
326: \end{equation}
327: with $c_n$ positive, $\theta_n\in[0,2\pi)$ and $a_n$, $b_n$ real. Expanding
328: the left-hand side and equating terms in $\cos n\varphi$ and $\sin n\varphi$
329: we find
330: \begin{equation}
331: a_n = c_n \cos\theta_n \qquad\mbox{and}\qquad b_n = c_n \sin\theta_n\; .
332: \end{equation}
333: This is essentially a co-ordinate change from Cartesian to polar co-ordinates.
334: Thus, Eq.\ (\ref{fourier}) is equivalent to a Fourier series up to an additive
335: constant. Since in the limit of $N\rightarrow\infty$ a Fourier series can
336: converge to any well-behaved pattern $P(\varphi)$, this procedure allows us to
337: approximate arbitrary patterns in one dimension (up to a constant). It is now
338: clear why we call this procedure the pseudo-Fourier method.
339:
340: However, there is a drawback with this procedure. The deposition rate
341: $\Delta$ is a positive definite quantity, which means that once the substrate
342: is exposed at a particular Fourier component, there is no way this can be
343: undone. Technically, Eq.\ (\ref{fourier}) can be written as
344: \begin{equation}
345: P(\varphi) = Q \cdot t + t \sum_{n=0}^{N} (a_n\cos n\varphi +
346: b_n\sin n\varphi)\; ,
347: \end{equation}
348: where $Q$ is the uniform background `penalty exposure rate' $Q = \sum_{n=0}^{N}
349: c_n$ we mentioned earlier. The second term on the right-hand side is a true
350: Fourier series. Thus in the pseudo-Fourier method there is always a minimum
351: exposure of the substrate. Ultimately, this penalty can be traced to the
352: absence of interference between the terms with different photon number in Eq.\
353: (\ref{phot}). Next, we will investigate whether our second method of tailoring
354: patterns can remove this penalty exposure.
355:
356: \subsection{The Superposition Method}
357:
358: We will now study our second method of tailoring patterns, which we call the
359: `superposition method' (lacking a better name). Here we keep the total number
360: of photons $N$ constant, and change how the photons are distributed between
361: the two beams in each branch [see Eq.\ (\ref{dist})]. A distinct advantage of
362: this method is that it {\em does} exhibit interference between the different
363: branches in the superposition, which eliminates the uniform background penalty
364: exposure.
365:
366: Take for instance a superposition of two distinct terms
367: \begin{equation}
368: |\Psi_N\rangle = \alpha_m |\psi_{Nm}\rangle +\alpha_{m'}|\psi_{Nm'}\rangle\; ,
369: \end{equation}
370: with $|\alpha_m|^2 + |\alpha_{m'}|^2 =1$ and $|\psi_{nm}\rangle$ given by Eq.\
371: (\ref{nmmn}). After some algebraic manipulation the deposition rate can be
372: written as
373: \begin{eqnarray}
374: \Delta_N &\propto& |\alpha_m|^2
375: \binom{N}{m} \left\{1+\cos[(N-2m)\varphi + \theta_m] \right\}\cr &&
376: + |\alpha_{m'}|^2 \binom{N}{m'} \left\{1+\cos[(N-2m')\varphi + \theta_{m'}]
377: \right\}\cr &&
378: +8 r_m^{m'}\sqrt{\binom{N}{m}\binom{N}{m'}}
379: \cos\left(\frac{\theta_{m'}}{2}-\frac{\theta_m}{2} + \xi_m^{m'} \right)\cr &&
380: ~\times \cos\frac{1}{2}\left[(N-2m)\varphi + \theta_m \right] \cr &&
381: ~\times \cos\frac{1}{2}\left[(N-2m')\varphi+ \theta_{m'} \right]\; ,
382: \end{eqnarray}
383: where the deposition rate $\Delta$ is now a function of
384: $\alpha_m$ and $\alpha_{m'}$, where we have chosen the real numbers $r_m^{m'}$
385: and $\xi_m^{m'}$ to satisfy $\alpha_m^*\alpha_{m'} \equiv r_m^{m'}
386: \exp(i\xi_m^{m'})$. For the special values $N=20$, $m=9$, $m'=5$ and
387: $\theta_m=\theta_{m'}=0$ we obtain the pattern shown in Fig.\ \ref{fig3}.
388: Clearly, there is no uniform background penalty exposure here.
389:
390: \begin{figure}[h]
391: \label{fig2a}
392: \begin{center}
393: \begin{psfrags}
394: \psfrag{D}{$\Delta_{20}$, with $m=5$ and $m'=9$.}
395: \psfrag{phi}{$\varphi$}
396: \psfrag{1.5708}{$\quad\pi/2$}
397: \psfrag{Pi}{$~\pi$}
398: \psfrag{4.71239}{$\quad 3\pi/2$}
399: \psfrag{2 Pi}{$~2\pi$}
400: \epsfxsize=8in
401: \epsfbox[-20 50 730 240]{parity.eps}
402: \end{psfrags}
403: \end{center}
404: {\small Fig.\ 2: The deposition rate due to a superposition of two states
405: containing 20 photons with distributions $m=9$ and $m'=5$ ($\theta_m =
406: \theta_{m'}=0$). The deposition rate at $\varphi=\pi/2$ and
407: $\varphi=3\pi/2$ is zero, which means that there is no general uniform
408: background exposure.}
409: \end{figure}
410:
411: For more than two branches in the superposition this becomes a complicated
412: function, which is not nearly as well understood as a Fourier series. The
413: general expression for the deposition rate can be written as
414: \begin{eqnarray}
415: \Delta_N &\propto& \sum_{m=0}^{\lfloor N/2\rfloor}
416: \sum_{m'=0}^{\lfloor N/2\rfloor} r_m^{m'}
417: \sqrt{\binom{N}{m}\binom{N}{m'}} \cr
418: && \quad~\times \cos\left(\frac{\theta_{m'}}{2}-\frac{\theta_m}{2} +\xi_m^{m'}
419: \right)\cr
420: && \quad~\times \cos\frac{1}{2}\left[(N-2m)\varphi + \theta_m\right] \cr
421: && \quad~\times\cos\frac{1}{2}\left[(N-2m')\varphi + \theta_{m'} \right]\; ,
422: \end{eqnarray}
423: where we have chosen $r_m^{m'}$ and $\xi_m^{m'}$ real to satisfy
424: $\alpha_m^*\alpha_{m'} \equiv r_m^{m'}\exp(i\xi_m^{m'})$. Note that
425: $\xi_m^m=0$.
426:
427: If we want to tailor a pattern $F(\varphi)$, it might be the case that this
428: type of superposition will also converge to the required pattern. We will now
429: compare the superposition method with the Fourier method.
430:
431: \subsection{Comparing the two methods}\label{arb}
432:
433: So far, we discussed two methods of creating non-trivial patterns in one
434: dimension. The Fourier method is simple but yields a uniform background
435: penalty exposure. The superposition method is far more complicated, but seems
436: to get around the background exposure. Before we make a comparison between the
437: two methods we will discuss the creation of `arbitrary' patterns.
438:
439: It is well known that any sufficiently well-behaved periodic function can be
440: written as an infinite Fourier series (we ignore such subtleties which arise
441: when two functions differ only at a finite number of points, etc.). However,
442: when we create patterns with the pseudo-Fourier lithography method we do not
443: have access to every component of the Fourier expansion, since this would
444: involve an infinite number of photons ($n\rightarrow\infty$). This means that
445: we can only employ truncated Fourier series, and these can merely approximate
446: arbitrary patterns.
447:
448: The Fourier expansion has the nice property that when a series is truncated
449: at $N$, the remaining terms still give the best Fourier expansion of the
450: function up to $N$. In other words, the coefficients of a truncated Fourier
451: series are equal to the first $N$ coefficients of a full Fourier series. If
452: the full Fourier series is denoted by $F$ and the truncated series by $F_N$,
453: we can define the normed-distance quantity $D_N$:
454: \begin{equation}
455: D_N \equiv \int_0^{2\pi} |F(\varphi)-F_N(\varphi)|^2 d\varphi\; ,
456: \end{equation}
457: which can be interpreted as a distance between $F$ and $F_N$. If quantum
458: lithography yields a pattern $p_N(\varphi)=\Delta_N t$, we can introduce the
459: following definition: quantum lithography can approximate arbitrary patterns
460: if
461: \begin{equation}
462: \int_0^{2\pi} |F(\varphi)-P_N(\varphi)|^2 d\varphi \leq \varepsilon D_N\; ,
463: \end{equation}
464: with $\varepsilon$ some real, positive definite proportionality constant.
465: This definition gives the concept of approximating patterns a solid basis.
466:
467: We compare the Fourier and the superposition method for one special case. We
468: choose the test function
469: \begin{eqnarray}\label{test}
470: F(\varphi) = \left\{
471: \begin{matrix}
472: h ~\mbox{if}~ -\frac{\pi}{2} < \varphi < \frac{\pi}{2}\; , \cr
473: \, 0 ~\mbox{otherwise}\; .\quad\qquad
474: \end{matrix}
475: \right.
476: \end{eqnarray}
477: With up to ten photons, we ask how well the Fourier and the superposition
478: method approximate this pattern.
479:
480: In the case of the Fourier method the solution is immediate. The Fourier
481: expansion of the `trench' function given by Eq.\ (\ref{test}) is well known:
482: \begin{equation}\label{fourmin}
483: F(\varphi) = \sum_{q=0}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^q}{2q+1} \cos[(2q+1)\varphi]\; .
484: \end{equation}
485: Using up to $n=10$ photons we include terms up to $q=4$, since $2q+1\leq 10$.
486: The Fourier method thus yields a pattern $P(\varphi)$ (the two patterns
487: $P(\varphi)$ and $F(\varphi)$ are generally not the same) which can be written
488: as
489: \begin{equation}
490: P(\varphi) = \sum_{q=0}^4 \frac{c_q t}{2q+1}
491: \left( 1+\cos\left[(2q+1)\varphi + \pi\kappa_q\right] \right)\; ,
492: \end{equation}
493: where $c_q$ is a constant depending on the proportionality constant of
494: $\Delta_{2q+1}$, the rate of production of $|\psi_{nm}\rangle$ and the coupling
495: between the light field and the substrate. The term $\kappa_q$ is defined to
496: accommodate for the minus signs in Eq.\ (\ref{fourmin}): it is zero when $q$
497: is even and one when $q$ is odd. Note the uniform background penalty exposure
498: rate $\sum_{q=0}^4 c_q/(2q+1)$. The result of this method is shown in
499: Fig.\ \ref{fig3}.
500:
501: Alternatively, the superposition method employs a state
502: \begin{equation}
503: |\Psi_{N}\rangle=\sum_{m=0}^{\lfloor N/2\rfloor}\alpha_m|\psi_{Nm}\rangle\; .
504: \end{equation}
505: The procedure of finding the best fit with the test function is more
506: complicated. We have to minimize the absolute difference between the
507: deposition rate $\Delta_{N}(\vec\alpha)$ times the exposure time $t$ and the
508: test function $F(\varphi)$. We have chosen $\vec\alpha=(\alpha_0,\ldots,
509: \alpha_{n/2})$. Mathematically, we have to evaluate the $\vec\alpha$ and $t$
510: which minimize $d_N$:
511: \begin{equation}\nonumber
512: d_N = \int_0^{2\pi} |F(\varphi)-\Delta_N (\vec\alpha) t|^2 d\varphi\; ,
513: \end{equation}
514: with
515: \begin{equation}
516: \Delta_N (\vec\alpha) = \langle\Psi_N |\hat{\delta}_N |\Psi_N \rangle\; .
517: \end{equation}
518: We have to fit both $t$ and $\vec\alpha$. Using a genetic optimalization
519: algorithm \cite{price} (with $h=1$, a normalized height of the test function)
520: we found that the deposition rate is actually very close to zero in the
521: interval $\pi/2 \leq\varphi\leq 3\pi/2$, unlike the pseudo-Fourier method,
522: where we have to pay a uniform background penalty. This result implies that
523: in this case a superposition of different photon distributions $m$, given a
524: fixed total number of photons $N$, works better than a superposition of
525: different photon number states (see Fig.\ \ref{fig3}). In particular, {\em
526: the fixed photon number method allows for the substrate to remain virtually
527: unexposed in certain areas}.
528:
529: \begin{figure}[h]
530: \label{fig2}
531: \begin{center}
532: \begin{psfrags}
533: \psfrag{D}{$P(\varphi) = \Delta_{10}(\varphi)t$}
534: \psfrag{phi}{$\varphi$}
535: \psfrag{b}{$P(\varphi)\sum_{n=1}^{10} \alpha_n \Delta_n t$}
536: \psfrag{pi2}{}
537: \psfrag{p}{$\Bigg\updownarrow$ penalty}
538: \psfrag{3 pi2}{}
539: \psfrag{2 Pi}{$2 \pi$}
540: \psfrag{Pi}{$\pi$}
541: \psfrag{1.5708}{$\pi/2$}
542: \psfrag{4.71239}{$~\quad 3\pi/2$}
543: \epsfxsize=8in
544: \epsfbox[0 70 700 240]{combine.eps}
545: \end{psfrags}
546: \end{center}
547: {\small Fig.\ 3: The deposition rate on the substrate resulting from a
548: superposition of states with $N=10$ and different $m$ (black curve),
549: and also resulting from a superposition of states with different $n$
550: with $m=0$ (grey curve). The coefficients of the superposition that
551: yield the black curve are optimized using a genetic algorithm
552: \cite{price}, while the grey curve is a truncated pseudo-Fourier
553: series. Notice the `penalty' (displacement from zero) of the deposition
554: rate for the pseudo-Fourier series between $\pi/2$ and $3\pi/2$.}
555: \end{figure}
556:
557: We stress that this is merely a comparison for a specific example, namely that
558: of the trench target function $F(\varphi)$. We conjecture that the
559: superposition method can approximate other arbitrary patterns equally well,
560: but we have not yet found a proof. Besides the ability to fit an arbitrary
561: pattern, another criterion of comparison between the pseudo-Fourier method and
562: the superposition method, is the time needed to create the $N$-photon
563: entangled states.
564:
565: Until now, we have only considered sub-wavelength resolution in one direction,
566: namely parallel to the direction of the beams. However, for practical
567: applications we would like sub-wavelength resolution in both directions on
568: the substrate. This is the subject of the next section.
569:
570: \section{General Patterns in 2D}\label{2D}
571:
572: In this section we study how to create two-dimensional patterns
573: on a suitable substrate using the quantum lithography techniques developed
574: in the previous sections. As we have seen, the phase shift $\varphi$, in the
575: setup given by Fig.\ \ref{fig1}, acts as a parametrization for the deposition
576: rate in one dimension. Let's call this the $x$-direction.
577:
578: \begin{figure}[h]
579: \label{fig3}
580: \begin{center}
581: \begin{psfrags}
582: \psfrag{a}{$a$}
583: \psfrag{b}{$b$}
584: \psfrag{c}{$c$}
585: \psfrag{d}{$d$}
586: \psfrag{t}{$\theta$}
587: \psfrag{x}{$\chi$}
588: \psfrag{f}{$\varphi$}
589: \psfrag{s}{substrate}
590: \epsfxsize=8in
591: \epsfbox[-100 20 900 220]{2dsetup.eps}
592: \end{psfrags}
593: \end{center}
594: {\small Fig.\ 4: Four light beams $a$, $b$, $c$ and $d$ cross each other at
595: the surface of a photosensitive substrate. The angles between $a$ and
596: $b$ and $c$ and $d$ are again taken in the grazing limit of
597: $\theta=\pi/2$. The relative phase difference between $a$ and $b$ is
598: $\varphi$ and the relative phase difference between $c$ and $d$ is
599: $\chi$.}
600: \end{figure}
601:
602: We can now do the same for the $y$-direction, employing two counter-propagating
603: beams ($c$ and $d$) in the $y$-direction (see Fig.\ \ref{fig4}). The same
604: conditions apply: we consider the limit where the spatial angle $\theta$ off
605: axis approaches $\pi/2$, thus grazing along the substrate's surface.
606:
607: Consider the region where the four beams $a$, $b$, $c$ and $d$ overlap. For
608: real lithography we have to take into account the mode shapes, but when we
609: confine ourselves to an area with side lengths $\lambda$ (where $\lambda$ is
610: the wavelength of the used light) this problem does not arise.
611:
612: The class of states on modes $a$ to $d$ that we consider here are of the form
613: \begin{eqnarray}\label{nmk}
614: |\psi^k_{Nm}\rangle &=& \frac{1}{2}
615: \biggl[ e^{im\varphi}|N-m,m;0,0\rangle \biggr. \cr &&
616: \qquad +\; e^{i(N-m)\varphi} e^{i\zeta_m}|m,N-m;0,0\rangle \cr &&
617: \qquad +\; e^{ik\theta}|0,0;N-k,k\rangle \cr &&
618: \qquad \biggl. +\; e^{i(N-k)\chi} e^{i\bar\zeta_k}|0,0;k,N-k\rangle \biggr]
619: \; ,
620: \end{eqnarray}
621: where $\zeta_m$ and $\bar\zeta_k$ are two relative phases.
622: This is by no means the only class of states, but we will restrict our
623: discussion to this one for now. Observe that this is a superposition on the
624: amplitude level, which allows destructive interference in the deposition rate
625: in order to create dark spots on the substrate. Alternatively, we could have
626: used the one-dimensional method [with states given by Eq.\ (\ref{nm})] in the
627: $x$- and $y$-direction, but this cannot give interference effects between the
628: modes $a,b$ and $c,d$.
629:
630: The phase-shifts $\varphi$ and $\chi$ in the light beams $b$ and $d$ (see
631: Fig.\ \ref{fig4}) result in respective displacements $x$ and $y$ of the
632: interference
633: pattern on the substrate. A phase-shift of $2\pi$ in a given direction will
634: displace the pattern, say, $N$ times. This means that the maxima are closer
635: together, yielding an effective resolution equal to $\Delta x = \Delta y =
636: \lambda/4N$. This happens in both the $x$- and the $y$-direction.
637:
638: We proceed again as in Sec.\ \ref{intro} by evaluating the $N^{\rm th}$ order
639: moment $\hat{\delta}_N$ of the electric field operator [see Eq.~(\ref{delta})].
640: This gives the deposition rate $\Delta_{Nmk}^{Nm'k'} = \langle \psi^k_{Nm}|
641: \delta_N|\psi^{k'}_{Nm'}\rangle$ [with $|\psi^k_{Nm}\rangle$ given by Eq.\
642: (\ref{nmk})]:
643: \end{multicols}
644:
645: \noindent\rule{5cm}{.5 pt}
646:
647: \medskip
648:
649: \begin{eqnarray}\label{2ddeprate}
650: \Delta_{Nmk}^{Nm'k'} \propto &&
651: \binom{N}{m}\binom{N}{m'}
652: \left( e^{-im\varphi} e^{im'\varphi} +
653: e^{-im\varphi} e^{i(N-m')\varphi} e^{i\zeta_{m'}} + e^{-i(N-m)\varphi}
654: e^{im'\varphi} e^{-i\zeta_m} \right.\cr &&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\left. +
655: e^{-i(N-m)\varphi} e^{i(N-m')\varphi}
656: e^{-i(\zeta_m-\zeta_{m'})} \right) \cr
657: && + \binom{N}{m}\binom{N}{k'}
658: \left( e^{-im\varphi} e^{ik'\chi} +
659: e^{-im\varphi} e^{i(N-k')\chi} e^{i\bar\zeta_{k'}} + e^{-i(N-m)\varphi}
660: e^{ik'\chi} e^{-i\zeta_m} \right.\cr &&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\left. +
661: e^{-i(N-m)\varphi} e^{i(N-k')\chi}
662: e^{-i(\zeta_m-\bar\zeta_{k'})} \right) \cr
663: && + \binom{N}{k}\binom{N}{m'}
664: \left( e^{-ik\chi} e^{im'\varphi} +
665: e^{-ik\chi} e^{i(N-m')\varphi} e^{i\zeta_{m'}} + e^{-i(N-k)\chi}
666: e^{im'\varphi} e^{-i\bar\zeta_k} \right.\cr &&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\left.
667: + e^{-i(N-k)\chi} e^{i(N-m')\varphi}
668: e^{-i(\bar\zeta_k-\zeta_{m'})} \right) \cr
669: && + \binom{N}{k}\binom{N}{k'}
670: \left( e^{-ik\chi} e^{ik'\chi} +
671: e^{-ik\chi} e^{i(N-k')\chi} e^{i\bar\zeta_{k'}} + e^{-i(N-k)\chi}
672: e^{ik'\chi} e^{-i\bar\zeta_k} \right.\cr &&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\left. +
673: e^{-i(N-k)\chi} e^{i(N-k')\chi}
674: e^{-i(\bar\zeta_k-\bar\zeta_{k'})} \right)\; .
675: \end{eqnarray}
676: For the special choice of $m'=m$ and $k'=k$ we have
677: \begin{eqnarray}
678: \Delta_{Nm}^{k} &\propto&
679: \binom{N}{m}^2 \left( 1 + \cos[(N-2m)\varphi+\zeta_m] \right)
680: + \binom{N}{k}^2 \left( 1 + \cos[(N-2k)\chi+\bar\zeta_k] \right)\cr &&
681: + 4 \binom{N}{m} \binom{N}{k} \cos\frac{1}{2}\left[ N(\varphi-\chi)
682: + (\zeta_m-\bar\zeta_k) \right] \cr && \qquad\times
683: \cos\frac{1}{2}\left[ (N-2m)\varphi-\zeta_m\right]
684: \cos\frac{1}{2}\left[ (N-2k)\chi-\bar\zeta_k\right] \; .
685: \end{eqnarray}
686:
687: \hfill\noindent\rule{5cm}{.5 pt}
688:
689: \medskip
690:
691: \begin{multicols}{2}
692: We can again generalize this method and use superpositions of the states
693: given in Eq.\ (\ref{nmk}). Note that there are now three numbers $N$, $m$ and
694: $k$ which can be varied. Furthermore, as we have seen in the one-dimensional
695: case, superpositions of different $n$ do not give interference terms in the
696: deposition rate.
697:
698: Suppose we want to approximate a pattern $F(\varphi,\chi)$, with $\{\varphi,
699: \chi\}\in [0,2\pi]$. This pattern can always be written in a Fourier expansion:
700: \begin{eqnarray}\label{2Dfourier}
701: F(\varphi,\chi) &=& \sum_{p,q=0}^{\infty} a_{pq} \cos p\varphi\cos q\chi +
702: b_{pq} \cos p\varphi\sin q\chi \times\cr
703: && \qquad c_{pq} \sin p\varphi\cos q\chi + d_{pq} \sin p\varphi\sin
704: q\chi \; .
705: \end{eqnarray}
706: with $a_{pq}$, $b_{pq}$, $c_{pq}$ and $d_{pq}$ real. In the previous section
707: we showed that quantum lithography could approximate the Fourier series of a
708: one-dimensional pattern up to a constant displacement. This relied on absence
709: of interference between the terms with different photon numbers. The question
710: is now whether we can do the same for patterns in {\em two} dimensions.
711: Or alternatively, can general superpositions of the state
712: $|\psi_{Nm}^k\rangle$ approximate the pattern $F(\varphi,\chi)$?
713:
714: From Eq.\ (\ref{2ddeprate}) it is not obvious that we can obtain the four
715: trigonometric terms given by the Fourier expansion of Eq.\ (\ref{2Dfourier}):
716: \begin{mathletters}
717: \begin{eqnarray}
718: \Delta &~\propto~& \cos p\varphi\, \cos q\chi\; , \\
719: \Delta &~\propto~& \cos p\varphi\, \sin q\chi\; , \\
720: \Delta &~\propto~& \sin p\varphi\, \cos q\chi\; , \\
721: \Delta &~\propto~& \sin p\varphi\, \sin q\chi\; .
722: \end{eqnarray}
723: \end{mathletters}
724: We can therefore not claim that two-dimensional quantum lithography can
725: approximate arbitrary patterns in the sense of one-dimensional lithography.
726: Only simple patterns like the one given in Fig.\ \ref{fig4} can be inferred
727: from Eq.\
728: (\ref{2ddeprate}). In order to find the best fit to an arbitrary pattern
729: one has to use a minimization procedure.
730:
731: For example, we calculate the total deposition rate due to the quantum state
732: $|\Psi_N\rangle$, where
733: \begin{equation}
734: |\Psi_N\rangle = \sum_{m=0}^{\lfloor N/2\rfloor} \sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor N/2
735: \rfloor} \alpha_{mk} |\psi_{Nm}^k\rangle\; .
736: \end{equation}
737: Here, $\alpha_{mk}$ are complex coefficients. We now proceed by choosing a
738: particular intensity pattern $F(\varphi,\chi)$ and optimising the
739: coefficients $\alpha_{mk}$ for a chosen number of photons. The deposition rate
740: due to the state $|\Psi_N\rangle$ is now
741: \begin{equation}
742: \Delta_N (\vec\alpha) = \sum_{m,m'=0}^{\lfloor N/2\rfloor}
743: \sum_{k,k'=0}^{\lfloor N/2\rfloor} \alpha^*_{mk} \alpha_{m'k'}
744: \Delta_{Nmk}^{Nm'k'}\; ,
745: \end{equation}
746: with $\vec\alpha=(\alpha_{0,0},\alpha_{0,1}\ldots,\alpha_{N/2,N/2})$.
747: We again have to evaluate the $\vec\alpha$ and $t$ which minimize
748: \begin{equation}
749: \int_{0}^{2\pi} \int_{0}^{2\pi} \left| F(\varphi,\chi)
750: - \Delta_N (\vec\alpha) t \right|^2 d\varphi\, d\chi\; .
751: \end{equation}
752: The values of $\vec\alpha$ and $t$ can again be found using a genetic
753: algorithm.
754:
755: \begin{figure}[h]
756: \label{fig4}
757: \begin{center}
758: \begin{psfrags}
759: \psfrag{X}[b]{$y$}
760: \psfrag{Y}[b]{$x$}
761: \psfrag{Z}{$\Delta$}
762: \psfrag{0}{}
763: \psfrag{6}{}
764: \psfrag{2}{}
765: \psfrag{4}{}
766: \psfrag{10}{}
767: \psfrag{5}{}
768: \psfrag{2.5}{}
769: \psfrag{7.5}{}
770: \epsfxsize=8in
771: \epsfbox[0 50 700 250]{2Ddots3.eps}
772: \end{psfrags}
773: \end{center}
774: {\small Fig.\ 5: A simulation of a two-dimensional intensity pattern on an
775: area $\lambda^2$, where $\lambda$ denotes the wavelength of the used
776: light. Here we modelled a square area with sharp edges. The pattern
777: was generated by a Fourier series of up to ten photons (see also
778: Fig.\ 3 for the one-dimensional case).}
779: \end{figure}
780:
781: \section{Physical implementation}\label{phys}
782:
783: With current experimental capabilities, the physical implementation of quantum
784: lithography is very challenging. In particular, there are two major issues to
785: be dealt with before quantum lithography can become a mature technology. First
786: of all, we not only need the ability to create the entangled photon states
787: given by Eqs.\ (\ref{nm}) and (\ref{nmk}), but we should also be able to
788: create coherent superpositions of these states. One possibility might be to
789: use optical components like parametric down-converters. Contrary to the
790: results of Ref.\ \cite{kok}, we are not concerned with the usually large
791: vacuum contribution of these processes, since the vacuum will not contribute
792: to the spatial profile of the deposition [see Eqs.\ (\ref{n00n}) and
793: (\ref{delta})].
794:
795: Secondly, we need substrates which are sensitive to the higher moments of the
796: electric field operator. When we want to use the pseudo-Fourier method, up to
797: $N$ photons for quantum lithography in one dimension, the substrate needs to be
798: reasonably sensitive to all the higher moments up to $N$, the maximum photon
799: number. Alternatively, we can use the superposition method for $N$ photons
800: when the substrate is sensitive to predominantly one higher moment
801: corresponding to $N$ photons. Generally, the method of lithography determines
802: the requirements of the substrate.
803:
804: There are also some considerations about the approximation of patterns. For
805: example, we might not {\em need} arbitrary patterns. It might be the case that
806: it is sufficient to have a set of patterns which can then be used to generate
807: any desired circuit. This is analogous to having a universal set of logical
808: gates, permitting any conceivable logical expression. In that case we only
809: need to determine this elementary set of patterns.
810:
811: Furthermore, we have to study whether the uniform background penalty exposure
812: really presents a practical problem. One might argue that a sufficient
813: difference between the maximum deposition rate and the uniform background
814: penalty exposure is enough to accommodate lithography. This depends on
815: the details of the substrate's reaction to the electro magnetic field.
816:
817: Before quantum lithography can be physically implemented and used in the
818: production of nano circuits, these issues have to be addressed satisfactorily.
819:
820: \section{Conclusions}
821:
822: In this paper we have generalized the theory of quantum lithography as first
823: outlined in Ref.\ \cite{boto00}. In particular, we have shown how we can create
824: arbitrary patterns in one dimension, albeit with a uniform background
825: penalty exposure. We can also create some patterns in two dimensions, but
826: we have no proof that this method can be extended to give arbitrary patterns.
827:
828: For lithography in one dimension we distinguish two methods: the
829: pseudo-Fourier method' and the superposition method. The pseudo-Fourier method
830: is conceptually easier since it depends on Fourier
831: analysis, but it also involves a finite amount of unwanted exposure of
832: the substrate. More specifically, the deposition rate equals the pattern in
833: its Fourier basis plus a term yielding unwanted background exposure.
834: The superposition method gets around this problem and seems to give better
835: results, but lacks the intuitive clarity of the Fourier method. Furthermore,
836: we do not have a proof that this method can approximate arbitrary patterns
837: (see Sec.\ \ref{arb} for a discussion on this approximation).
838:
839: Quantum lithography in two dimensions is more involved. Starting with a
840: superposition of states, given by Eq.\ (\ref{nmk}), we found that we can indeed
841: create two-dimensional patterns with sub-wavelength resolution, but we do not
842: have a proof that we can create {\em arbitrary} patterns. Nevertheless, we
843: might be able to create a certain set of elementary basis patterns.
844:
845: There are several issues to be addressed in the future. First, we
846: need to study the specific restrictions on the substrate and how we can
847: physically realize them. Secondly, we need to create the various entangled
848: states involved in the quantum lithography protocol.
849:
850: Finally, G.S.\ Agarwal and R.\ Boyd have called to our attention that quantum
851: lithography works also if the weak parametric downconverter source, described
852: in Ref.\ \cite{boto00} is replaced by a high-flux optical parametric
853: amplifier \cite{agarwal00}. The visibility saturates at 20\% in the limit of
854: large gain, but this is quite sufficient for some lithography purposes, as well
855: as for 3D optical holography used for data storage.
856:
857: \section*{acknowledgements}
858:
859: We would like to acknowledge interesting and useful discussions with G.S.\
860: Agarwal, R.\ Boyd, D.\ Branning, M.\ Holland, P.G.\ Kwiat, Y.\ Shih, J.E.\
861: Sipe, D.\ Strekalov, R.B.\ Vrijen and E.\ Yablonovich. A portion of the
862: research in this paper was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
863: California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National
864: Aeronautics and Space Administration. In addition, this research was supported
865: by the Office of Naval Research and by project QUICOV under the IST-FET-QIPC
866: programme.
867:
868: \begin{references}
869: \bibitem[*]{pieter} pieter@sees.bangor.ac.uk
870: \bibitem{brueck98} S.R.J.\ Br\"uck, {\em et al}., Microelectron.\ Eng.\ {\bf
871: 42}, 145 (1998).
872: \bibitem{mack96} C.A.\ Mack, Opt.\ Phot.\ News {\bf 7}, 29 (1996).
873: \bibitem{mansuripur00} M.\ Mansuripur and R.\ Liang, Opt.\ Phot.\ News {\bf
874: 11}, 36 (2000).
875: \bibitem{yablonovich99} E.\ Yablonovich and R.B.\ Vrijen, Opt.\ Eng.\ {\bf
876: 38}, 334 (1999).
877: \bibitem{boto00} A.N.\ Boto, P.\ Kok, D.S.\ Abrams, S.L.\ Braunstein, C.P.\
878: Williams and J.P.\ Dowling, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 85}, 2733 (2000).
879: \bibitem{rayleigh1879} Lord Rayleigh, Phil.\ Mag.\ {\bf 8}, 261 (1879).
880: \bibitem{goppert31} M.\ G\"oppert-Mayer, Ann.\ Phys.\ {\bf 5}, 273 (1931).
881: \bibitem{javanainen90} J.\ Javanainen and P.L.\ Gould, Phys.\ Rev.\ A {\bf
882: 41}, 5088 (1990).
883: \bibitem{perina98} J.\ Perina Jr., B.E.A.\ Saleh and M.C.\ Teich, Phys.\
884: Rev.\ A {\bf 57}, 3972 (1998).
885: \bibitem{price} K.\ Price and R.\ Storn, {\em Dr.\ Dobb's Journal}, April,
886: p.\ 18ff, (1997).
887: \bibitem{kok} P.\ Kok and S.L.\ Braunstein, Phys.\ Rev.\ A, to appear.
888: \bibitem{agarwal00} G.S.\ Agarwal and R.\ Boyd, private communication.
889: \end{references}
890: \end{multicols}
891:
892: \end{document}
893: