1: % ****** Start of file apssamp.tex ******

2: %

3: %   This file is part of the APS files in the REVTeX 4 distribution.

4: %   Version 4.0 of REVTeX, August 2001

5: %

6: %   Copyright (c) 2001 The American Physical Society.

7: %

8: %   See the REVTeX 4 README file for restrictions and more information.

9: %

10: % TeX'ing this file requires that you have AMS-LaTeX 2.0 installed

11: % as well as the rest of the prerequisites for REVTeX 4.0

12: %

13: % See the REVTeX 4 README file

14: % It also requires running BibTeX. The commands are as follows:

15: %

16: %  1)  latex apssamp.tex

17: %  2)  bibtex apssamp

18: %  3)  latex apssamp.tex

19: %  4)  latex apssamp.tex

20: %

21: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

22: \documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

23: 

24: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities

25: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}

26: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}

27: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B

28: 

29: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

30: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point

31: \usepackage{bm}% bold math

32: 

33: \newcommand{\avg}[1]{\langle #1 \rangle}

34: \def\Re{\mbox{Re}}

35: \def\Im{\mbox{Im}}

36: \newcommand{\TR}[1]{\mbox{Tr}\left\{ #1 \right\}}

37: \newcommand{\TRsub}[2]{\mbox{Tr}_{#1}\left\{ #2 \right\}}

38: \newcommand{\TRA}[1]{\mbox{Tr}_a\left\{ #1 \right\}}

39: \newcommand{\TRE}[1]{\mbox{Tr}_e\left\{ #1 \right\}}

40: \newcommand{\TRAE}[1]{\mbox{Tr}_{ae}\left\{ #1 \right\}}

41: \def\<#1|{\langle#1|}

42: \def\|#1>{|#1\rangle}

43: \def\Trans{\alpha_L}

44: \def\T2{\alpha_{L/2}}

45: \def\TM{\alpha_{N}}

46: \def\nbar{\bar{n}}

47: 

48: \newcommand{\gt}{g^{(2)}}

49: \newcommand{\n}{\hat{n}}

50: \newcommand{\tr}{\mbox{Tr}}

51: \def\bk<#1|#2>{\left\langle\vphantom{#1|#2}#1\right|%

52: \left.\vphantom{#1|#2}#2\right\rangle}

53: %\def\bk<#1|#2>{\left\langle\vphantom{\mbox{#1}|\mbox{#2}}\mbox{#1}\right|%

54: %\left.\vphantom{\mbox{#1}|\mbox{#2}}\mbox{#2}\right\rangle}

55: %\def\kb|#1><#2|{\left|\vphantom{\mbox{#1}|\mbox{#2}}\mbox{#1}\right\rangle%

56: %\left\langle\vphantom{\mbox{#1}|\mbox{#2}}\mbox{#2}\right|}

57: \def\kb|#1><#2|{\left|\vphantom{#1|#2}#1\right\rangle%

58: \left\langle\vphantom{#1|#2}#2\right|}

59: \def\aux|#1><#2|{\left|\vphantom{#1|#2}#1\right\rangle_{a}%

60: \left\langle\vphantom{#1|#2}#2\right|}

61: \def\matrix[#1][#2]{\left[

62:   \begin{array}{#1}

63:     #2

64:   \end{array}  \right]}

65: 

66: 

67: \def\bX{{\bf X}}

68: \def\bY{{\bf Y}}

69: \def\bZ{{\bf Z}}

70: 

71: \def\zero{|0\rangle}

72: \def\one{|1\rangle}

73: \def\tzero{|\tilde{0}\rangle}

74: \def\tone{|\tilde{1}\rangle}

75: \def\Ezero{E_0}

76: \def\Eone{E_1}

77: \def\Etzero{E_{\tilde{0}}}

78: \def\Etone{E_{\tilde{1}}}

79: 

80: \def\upz{\|\uparrow_z>}

81: \def\downz{\|\downarrow_z>}

82: \def\upx{\|\uparrow_x>}

83: \def\downx{\|\downarrow_x>}

84: \def\upy{\|\uparrow_y>}

85: \def\downy{\|\downarrow_y>}

86: 

87: \def\adag{\hat{\op{a}}^{\dagger}}

88: \def\bdag{\hat{\op{b}}^{\dagger}}

89: \def\cdag{\hat{\op{c}}^{\dagger}}

90: \def\ddag{\hat{\op{d}}^{\dagger}}

91: \def\edag{\hat{\op{e}}^{\dagger}}

92: \def\fdag{\hat{\op{f}}^{\dagger}}

93: \def\gdag{\hat{\op{g}}^{\dagger}}

94: \def\hdag{\hat{\op{h}}^{\dagger}}

95: \def\ldag{\hat{\op{l}}^{\dagger}}

96: \def\a{\hat{\op{a}}}

97: \def\b{\hat{\op{b}}}

98: \def\c{\hat{\op{c}}}

99: \def\d{\hat{\op{d}}}

100: \def\e{\hat{\op{e}}}

101: \def\f{\hat{\op{f}}}

102: \def\g{\hat{\op{g}}}

103: \def\h{\hat{\op{h}}}

104: \def\i{\hat{\op{i}}}

105: 

106: \def\ethresh{\eta_{thresh}}

107: \def\pthresh{P_{thresh}}

108: \def\evlpc{\eta_{VLPC}}

109: \def\pvlpc{P_{VLPC}}

110: \def\enum{\eta_{num}}

111: \def\pnum{P_{num}}

112: 

113: \newcommand{\op}[1]{{\mathbf #1}}

114: 

115: 

116: 

117: \def\psihat{\hat{\psi}^\dagger}

118: \def\zerodag{\hat{0}^\dagger}

119: \def\onedag{\hat{1}^\dagger}

120: \def\xdag{\hat{x}^\dagger}

121: \def\Sswap{\sqrt{Swap}}

122: \def\sigz{\op{\sigma_z}}

123: \def\sigm{\op{\sigma_-}}

124: \def\sigp{\op{\sigma_+}}

125: \def\aout{\a_{out}}

126: \def\cout{\c_{out}}

127: \def\eout{\e_{out}}

128: \def\ain{\a_{in}}

129: \def\cin{\c_{in}}

130: \def\ein{\e_{in}}

131: \def\aeven{\a_{even}}

132: \def\aodd{\a_{odd}}

133: \def\domega{\Delta\omega}

134: 

135: \def\aoutdag{\a_{out}^{\dagger}}

136: \def\coutdag{\c_{out}^{\dagger}}

137: \def\eoutdag{\e_{out}^{\dagger}}

138: \def\aindag{\a_{in}^{\dagger}}

139: \def\cindag{\c_{in}^{\dagger}}

140: \def\eindag{\e_{in}^{\dagger}}

141: \def\Dalpha[#1]{D_\alpha\left(#1\right)}

142: 

143: 

144: 

145: %\nofiles

146: 

147: \begin{document}

148: 

149: \preprint{APS/123-QED}

150: 

151: \title{Dipole Induced Transparency in drop-filter cavity-waveguide systems}% Force line breaks with \\

152: 

153: \author{Edo Waks}

154: % \homepage{http://www.Second.institution.edu/~Charlie.Author}

155: \affiliation{

156: E.L. Ginzton Labs\\

157: Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305

158: }%

159: 

160: \author{Jelena Vuckovic}

161: % \homepage{http://www.Second.institution.edu/~Charlie.Author}

162: \affiliation{

163: E.L. Ginzton Labs\\

164: Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305

165: }%

166: 

167: 

168: \date{\today}% It is always \today, today,

169:              %  but any date may be explicitly specified

170: 

171: \begin{abstract}

172: We show that a waveguide that is normally opaque due to

173: interaction with a drop-filter cavity can be made transparent when

174: the drop filter is also coupled to a dipole.  A transparency

175: condition is derived between the cavity lifetime and vacuum Rabi

176: frequency of the dipole. This condition is much weaker than strong

177: coupling, and amounts to simply achieving large Purcell factors.

178: Thus, we can observe transparency in the weak coupling regime.  We

179: describe how this effect can be useful for designing quantum

180: repeaters for long distance quantum communication.

181: \end{abstract}

182: 

183: \pacs{Valid PACS appear here}% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy

184:                              % Classification Scheme.

185: %\keywords{Suggested keywords}%Use showkeys class option if keyword

186:                               %display desired

187: \maketitle

188: 

189: %\section{\label{sec:Introduction} Introduction}

190: 

191: The field of cavity quantum electrodynamics (CQED) has seen rapid

192: progress in the past several years.  One of the main reasons for

193: this is the development of high quality factors optical

194: micro-cavities with mode volumes that are less than a cubic

195: wavelength of light~\cite{VuckovicYamamoto03}.  These high-Q

196: cavities allow previously unattainable interaction strengths

197: between a cavity mode and a dipole emitter such as a quantum dot.

198: 

199: There are a large number of applications that require strong

200: interactions between a cavity and dipole emitter.  These include

201: methods for conditional phase shifts on single

202: photons~\cite{DuanKimble04}, single photon

203: generation~\cite{KuhnHennrich02}, and quantum

204: networking~\cite{CiracZoller97}. These applications either exploit

205: modification of the dipole emission rate, or cavity spectrum, when

206: the two systems are coupled.  It is often perceived that in order

207: to observe significant modification of the cavity spectrum, one

208: must enter the so-called ``strong coupling'' regime. In this

209: regime the interaction strength between the cavity and dipole is

210: sufficiently large to fully split the cavity mode into a lower and

211: upper polariton.

212: 

213: In this paper we show that the strong coupling regime is not

214: required in order to see significant modification of the cavity

215: spectrum.  We consider a single cavity that is coupled to two

216: waveguides and behaves as a resonant drop filter. When an optical

217: field whose frequency is resonant with the cavity is sent down one

218: waveguide, the drop filter cavity would normally transmit all the

219: field from one waveguide to another. Hence, the waveguide would

220: appear opaque at the cavity resonance because all the light would

221: be dropped to the other port. We show that if one places a

222: resonant dipole in the drop-filter cavity, the waveguide becomes

223: highly transparent, even in the weak coupling regime. This

224: transparency is caused by destructive interference of the two

225: cavity dressed states.  We refer to this effect as Dipole Induced

226: Transparency (DIT), because of its close analogy to

227: Electromagnetically Induced Transparency (EIT) in atomic

228: media~\cite{HarrisField90}.

229: 

230: The fact that we do not need strong coupling to modify the

231: transmission of a waveguide is extremely important for the field

232: of semiconductor CQED.  Although photonic crystal cavities allow

233: us to approach the regime of strong coupling with a single

234: emitter, it is very difficult to fabricate cavities that have

235: sufficiently high quality factors to reach the strong coupling

236: regime. Things become even more difficult when we attempt to

237: integrate these cavities with waveguides.  The cavity-waveguide

238: coupling rate must be sufficiently large that we do not lose too

239: much of the field to leaky modes.  At the same time, leakage into

240: the waveguide introduces additional losses making strong coupling

241: even more difficult to achieve.  Thus strong coupling and

242: efficient waveguide interaction require mutually conflicting

243: demands on the performance of the cavity.  Our result relaxes the

244: constraint on strong coupling, allowing us to work in a practical

245: parameter regime.  To demonstrate the application of DIT, we

246: conclude this paper by showing how it can be used to share

247: entanglement between spatially separated dipoles, and to perform a

248: full non-destructive Bell measurement on two dipoles. These

249: operations are extremely useful for building quantum

250: repeaters~\cite{BriegelDur98,DuanLukin01}.

251: 

252: \begin{figure}

253: \centering\includegraphics[width=5cm]{Figure1.eps} \caption{Cavity

254: waveguide system for quantum repeaters.} \label{fig:CavWguide}

255: \end{figure}

256: 

257: Fig.~\ref{fig:CavWguide} shows a schematic of the type of system

258: we are considering. A cavity containing a single dipole emitter is

259: evanescently coupled to two waveguides. The cavity is assumed to

260: have a single relevant mode, which couples only to the forward

261: propagating fields (e.g. a whispering gallery mode).  This system

262: is equivalent to an input field reflecting off of a double-sided

263: linear cavity, and our analysis equally applies to both cases. The

264: dipole may be detuned by $\delta$ from cavity resonance, denoted

265: $\omega_0$, while $g$ is the vacuum Rabi frequency of the dipole.

266: Both waveguides are assumed to have equal coupling rate into the

267: cavity. This condition is known as critical coupling, and should

268: result in the input field from one waveguide being completely

269: transmitted to the other when

270: $\gamma\gg\kappa$~\cite{ManolatouKhan99}.  When a dipole is placed

271: inside the cavity, the cavity mode will split into two modes, the

272: lower and upper polariton branches, that are shifted from the

273: center frequency by the vacuum Rabi frequency. In the strong

274: coupling regime, the vacuum Rabi frequency is sufficiently large

275: that the cavity mode is split by more than a linewidth.  In this

276: regime, the cavity spectrum is no longer resonant with the input

277: field, which now remains in its original waveguide.  Our main

278: interest, however, is in the weak coupling regime where the vacuum

279: Rabi frequency does not exceed the cavity decay rate. In this

280: case, the lower and upper polariton branches overlap

281: significantly, and are still largely resonant with the input

282: field.  Nevertheless, the two branches can still destructively

283: interfere in a narrow spectral region near zero detuning.  This

284: interference is analogous to the interference between the two

285: dressed states of an atomic lambda system in Electromagnetically

286: Induced Transparency.

287: 

288: To establish this, we begin with the Heisenberg operator equations

289: for the cavity field operator $\b$ and dipole operator $\sigm$,

290: given by~\cite{WallsMilburn}

291:   \begin{eqnarray}

292:     \frac{d\b}{dt} & = & -\left(i\omega_0 + \gamma + \kappa/2 \right)\b  -

293:     \sqrt{\gamma} \left(\ain + \cin\right) \nonumber\\

294:      & &  - \sqrt{\kappa}\ein -

295:     ig\sigm \label{eq:Heisenbergb}\\

296:     \frac{d\sigm}{dt} & = & -\left(i\left(\omega_0+\delta\right)+\frac{\tau}{2}\right)\sigm + ig\sigz\b-\f \label{eq:HeisenbergSig}

297:   \end{eqnarray}

298: The operators $\ain$ and $\cin$ are the field operators for the

299: flux of the two input ports of the waveguide, while $\ein$ is the

300: operator for potential leaky modes. The bare cavity has a resonant

301: frequency $\omega_0$ and an energy decay rate $\kappa$ (in the

302: absence of coupling to the waveguides). This decay rate is related

303: to the cavity quality factor Q by $\kappa=\omega_0/Q$. The

304: parameter $\gamma$ is the energy decay rate from the cavity into

305: each waveguide. Similarly, the dipole operator $\sigm$ has a decay

306: rate $\tau$, and $\f$ is a noise operator which preserves the

307: commutation relation. The output fields of the waveguide, $\aout$

308: and $\cout$, are related to the input fields

309: by~\cite{WallsMilburn}

310:   \begin{eqnarray}

311:     \aout - \ain & = & \sqrt{\gamma}\b \label{eq:ascat}\\

312:     \cout - \cin & = & \sqrt{\gamma}\b \label{eq:cscat}

313:   \end{eqnarray}

314: 

315: Eq.~\ref{eq:HeisenbergSig} is difficult to solve because the field

316: operator $\b$ is multiplied by the time varying operator $\sigz$.

317: However, we can significantly simplify the problem by looking at

318: the weak excitation limit, where the quantum dot is predominantly

319: in the ground state. In this limit, $\langle\sigz(t)\rangle\approx

320: -1$ for all time, and we can substitute $\sigz(t)$ with its

321: average value of $-1$. After deriving a solution, we will check

322: the validity of this approximation.

323: 

324: Assuming the cavity is excited by a weak monochromatic field with

325: frequency $\omega$, we calculate the response of $\b$ and $\sigm$

326: using fourier decomposition.  We assume that the cavity decay rate

327: is much faster than the dipole decay rate, so that

328: $\tau/\gamma\approx 0$. This is a realistic assumption for a

329: quantum dot coupled to a photonic crystal cavity, but does not

330: necessarily apply in atomic systems coupled to very high-Q optical

331: resonators.  In this limit the waveguide input-output relations

332: are given by the expressions

333:     \begin{eqnarray}

334:     \aout & = & \frac{-\gamma \cin + \left( -i\Delta\omega + \frac{\kappa}{2} +\frac{g^2}{-i\left(\Delta\omega - \delta\right)

335:     +\tau/2}\right)\ain

336:     - \sqrt{\kappa\gamma}\ein}{-i\Delta\omega + \gamma + \kappa/2 + \frac{g^2}{-i\left(\Delta\omega - \delta\right)+\tau/2}} \label{eq:asolved}\\

337:     \cout & = & \frac{-\gamma \aout + \left( -i\Delta\omega + \frac{\kappa}{2} + \frac{g^2}{-i\left(\Delta\omega - \delta\right)+\tau/2}\right)\cout

338:     -\sqrt{\kappa\gamma}\eout}{-i\Delta\omega + \gamma + \kappa/2 + \frac{g^2}{-i\left(\Delta\omega

339:     - \delta\right)+\tau/2}} \label{eq:csolved}

340:   \end{eqnarray}

341: where $\Delta\omega = \omega - \omega_0$.

342: 

343: First, consider the case where the dipole is resonant with the

344: cavity, so that $\delta=0$.  In the ideal case, the bare cavity

345: decay rate $\kappa$ is very small and can be set to zero. In this

346: limit, when the field is resonant with the cavity and $g=0$ we

347: have $\ain=-\cout$, as one would expect from critical coupling. In

348: the opposite regime, when $2g^2/\tau\gg\gamma+\kappa/2$ we have

349: $\ain=\aout$, so that the field remains in the original waveguide.

350: This condition can be re-written as $F_p = 2g^2/[(\gamma +

351: \kappa/2)\tau]\gg1$, where $F_p$ is the Purcell factor.  Thus, in

352: order to make the waveguide transparent, we need to achieve large

353: Purcell factors.  However, we do not need the strong coupling

354: regime $(g>\gamma+\kappa/2)$. When $\tau\ll\gamma+\kappa/2$ we can

355: achieve transparency for much smaller values of $g$.  In this

356: sense, our scheme is best suited for implementation in photonic

357: crystal cavities coupled to quantum dots.  The small mode volumes

358: of photonic crystal cavities, coupled with the large oscillator

359: strength of quantum dots, allows us to achieve the large Purcell

360: factors needed for proper

361: operation~\cite{EnglundFattal05,BadolatoHennessy05,VuckovicFattal03}.

362: The above condition has another interpretation that can be

363: borrowed from atomic physics. The critical atom number

364: $N_0=(2\gamma +\kappa)\tau/g^2$ and critical photon number

365: $m_0=(\tau/2g)^2$ are defined as the number of atoms and photons

366: in the cavity required to see modification of the cavity

367: spectrum~\cite{Kimble}. Our condition is equivalent to $N_0\ll 1$,

368: so a single emitter is enough to modify the cavity. Also, because

369: $\tau\ll g$ we automatically have $m_0\ll 1$.

370: 

371: We now go back and check the validity of our assumption that

372: $\langle\sigz\rangle\approx -1$, which is equivalent to stating

373: that $\langle\sigp\sigm\rangle\ll 1$. Using

374: Equations~\ref{eq:Heisenbergb}-\ref{eq:cscat}, and assuming

375: $F_p\gg 1$, we can show that on resonance,

376: $\langle\sigp\sigm\rangle\ll 1$ is equivalent to the condition

377: $\langle\aindag\ain\rangle\ll g^2/\gamma$. This condition

378: basically states that the incoming photon flux

379: $\langle\aindag\ain\rangle$ must be much smaller than the modified

380: spontaneous emission decay rate of the emitter (in the limit that

381: the cavity decay is dominated by $\gamma$), and is well satisfied

382: in the operating regime we are working in.

383: 

384: \begin{figure}

385: \centering\includegraphics[width=5cm]{Figure2.eps}

386: \caption{Probability for field in $\ain$ to transmit into $\aout$

387: and $\cout$ respectively. (a) transmission with no dipole in

388: cavity. (b) transmission with a dipole in the cavity}

389: \label{fig:scatter}

390: \end{figure}

391: 

392: Fig.~\ref{fig:scatter} plots the probability that $\ain$ transmits

393: into $\aout$ and $\cout$.  We use realistic experimental

394: parameters to create this plot.  We set $\gamma=1THz$ which is

395: about a factor of 10 faster than $\kappa$ for a cavity with a

396: quality factor of $Q=10,000$.  We set $g=330GHz$, a number

397: calculated from FDTD simulations of cavity mode volume for a

398: single defect dipole cavity in a planar photonic crystal coupled

399: to a quantum dot~\cite{VuckovicYamamoto03}. The dipole decay rate

400: is set to $\tau=1GHz$, taken from experimental

401: measurements~\cite{VuckovicFattal03}.

402: 

403: Panel (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:scatter} considers the case where the

404: cavity does not contain a dipole.  In this case $g=0$,

405: representing a system where two waveguides are coupled by a

406: cavity.  This well known structure is often referred to as a drop

407: filter. The width of the transmission spectrum for the drop filter

408: is determined by the lifetime of the cavity, which in our case is

409: dominated by $\gamma$.

410: 

411: When a dipole is present in the cavity, the result is plotted in

412: panel (b).  In this case, a very sharp peak in the transmission

413: spectrum appears at $\domega=0$.  This peak is caused by

414: destructive interference of the cavity field, which prevents the

415: input field from entering the cavity. On resonance, all of the

416: field is now transmitted through the waveguide instead of being

417: dropped to the other port. The spectral width of the transmission

418: peak is roughly equal to $g$. It is important to note that the

419: transmission is almost complete, even though $g$ is a factor of 3

420: smaller than the cavity decay rate of $\gamma+\kappa/2$.

421: 

422: \begin{figure}

423: \centering\includegraphics[width=5cm]{Figure3.eps}

424: \caption{Transmission of waveguide as function of $\delta$, the

425: detuning of the dipole from the cavity.} \label{fig:DeltaPlot}

426: \end{figure}

427: 

428: We now consider the effect of detuning the dipole.  The

429: transmission spectrum for several values of $\delta$ is plotted in

430: Fig~\ref{fig:DeltaPlot}.  Introducing a detuning in the dipole

431: causes a shift in the location of the transmission peak., so that

432: destructive interference occurs when the field frequency is equal

433: to the dipole frequency.  Thus, we do not have to hit the cavity

434: resonance very accurately to observe DIT.  We only need to overlap

435: the dipole resonance within the cavity transmission spectrum.

436: 

437: \begin{figure}

438: \centering\includegraphics[width=5cm]{Figure4.eps}

439: \caption{Application of DIT to quantum repeaters. a) a method for

440: generating entanglement between two dipoles using DIT.  b) a

441: non-destructive Bell measurement.} \label{fig:RepeaterFig}

442: \end{figure}

443: 

444: The fact that we can strongly modify the transmission spectrum of

445: a waveguide by the state of a dipole can be extremely useful for

446: quantum information processing.  As one example, we now present a

447: way in which DIT can be applied to engineering quantum repeaters

448: for long distance quantum communication.  Quantum repeaters can be

449: implemented all optically~\cite{PanGasparoni03,WaksZeevi02}, as

450: well as using atomic systems~\cite{DuanLukin01}. One of the main

451: problems with these proposals is that it is difficult to implement

452: the full Bell measurement required for swapping entanglement.

453: This leads to a communication rate that is exponentially decaying

454: with the number of repeaters. More recent proposals incorporate

455: interaction between nuclear and electron spins to implement the

456: full Bell measurement~\cite{ChildressTaylor05}.  Here we propose a

457: method for implementing entanglement, as well as a full Bell

458: measurement on an atomic system using only interaction with a

459: coherent field. This leads to an extremely simple implementation

460: of a quantum repeater.

461: 

462: \begin{figure}

463: \centering\includegraphics[width=5cm]{Figure5.eps} \caption{Panel

464: (a), probability of detecting even parity for an odd parity state

465: as a function of $\gamma$. Panel (b), solid line plots the

466: fidelity of the state $(\|gg>\pm\|mm>)/{\sqrt{2}}$ after a parity

467: measurement. Dotted line plots the probability that the measuring

468: field contains at least one photon for detection.

469: \label{fig:FidSuc}}

470: \end{figure}

471: 

472: In panel (a) of Fig.~\ref{fig:RepeaterFig}  we show how DIT can be

473: used to generate entanglement between two spatially separated

474: dipoles.   A weak coherent beam is split on a beamsplitter, and

475: each port of the beamsplitter is then sent to two independent

476: cavities containing dipoles. The waveguide fields are then mixed

477: on a beamsplitter such that constructive interference is observed

478: in ports $\f$ and $\h$.  Each dipole is assumed to have three

479: relevant states, a ground state, an excited state, and a long

480: lived metastable state which we refer to as $\|g>$, $\|e>$, and

481: $\|m>$ respectively.  The transition from ground to excited state

482: is assumed to be resonant with the cavity while the metastable to

483: excited state transition is well off resonance from the cavity,

484: and is thus assumed not to couple to state $\|e>$.  The states

485: $\|g>$ and $\|m>$ represent the two qubit states of the dipole.

486: 

487: When the dipole is in state $\|m>$, it does not couple to the

488: cavity, which now behaves as a drop filter. Thus, we have a system

489: that transforms $\aindag\|g>\|0>\to\aoutdag\|g>\|0>$ and

490: $\aindag\|m>\|0>\to-\coutdag\|m>\|0>$.  This operation can be

491: interpreted as a C-NOT gate between the state of the dipole and

492: the incoming light.  When the dipole is in a superposition of the

493: two states, this interaction generates entanglement between the

494: path of the field and the dipole state.  After the beamsplitter,

495: this entanglement will be transferred to the two dipoles. If the

496: state of both dipoles is initialized to $(\|g> + \|m>)/\sqrt{2}$,

497: it is straightforward to show that a detection event in ports $\g$

498: or $\i$ collapses the system to $(\|g,m> - \|m,g> )/\sqrt{2}$.

499: 

500: Another important operation for designing repeaters is a Bell

501: measurement.  Panel (b) of Fig.~\ref{fig:RepeaterFig} shows how to

502: implement a complete Bell measurement between two dipoles using

503: only cavity waveguide interactions with coherent fields.  The two

504: cavities containing the dipoles are coupled to two waveguides.

505: When a coherent field $\|\alpha>$ is sent down waveguide 1, each

506: dipole will flip the field to the other waveguide if it is in

507: state $\|m>$, and will keep the field in the same waveguide if it

508: is in state $\|g>$. Thus, a detection event at ports $\aeven$ and

509: $\aodd$ corresponds to a parity measurement.  A Bell measurement

510: can be made by simply performing a parity measurement on the two

511: dipoles, then a Hadamard rotation on both dipoles, followed by a

512: second parity measurement.

513: 

514: To understand why this works, consider the four Bell states

515: $\|\phi_\pm> = (\|gg>\pm\|mm>)/\sqrt{2}$ and $\|\psi_\pm> =

516: (\|gm>\pm\|mg>)/\sqrt{2}$.  The first parity measurement

517: distinguishes the states $\|\phi_\pm>$ from $\|\psi_\pm>$, since

518: these two groups have opposite parity.  After a Hadamard rotation

519: on both dipoles, it is easy to verify that the states $\|\phi_+>$

520: and $\|\psi_->$ are unaffected, while $\|\phi_->\to\|\psi_+>$ and

521: $\|\psi_+>\to\|\phi_->$, and thus flip parities. The second

522: measurement will then distinguish between the states $\|\phi_+>$

523: from $\|\phi_->$ and $\|\psi_+>$ from $\|\psi_->$, which

524: completely distinguish the four Bell states. It is important to

525: note that this measurement is non-destructive, in that after the

526: measurement the state of the dipoles remains in the measured

527: state.

528: 

529: The performance of the Bell apparatus is analyzed in

530: Fig~\ref{fig:FidSuc}.  Panel (a) plots the probability that an odd

531: parity state will falsely create a detection event in port

532: $\aeven$, as a function of $\gamma$.  The probability becomes high

533: at large $\gamma$ due to imperfect transparency.  It also

534: increases at small $\gamma$ because of imperfect drop filtering.

535: The minimum value of about $10^{-3}$ is achieved at approximately

536: 3THz.  In panel (b) of Fig.~\ref{fig:FidSuc} we plot both the

537: fidelity and success probability of a parity measurement as a

538: function of the number of photons in the probe field.  The

539: fidelity is calculated by applying the Bell measurement to the

540: initial state $\|\psi_i>=(\|g,g> \pm \|m,m>)/\sqrt{2}$, and

541: defining the fidelity of the measurement as

542: $F=|\bk<\psi_f|\psi_i>|^2$, where $\|\psi_f>$ is the final state

543: of the total system which includes the external reservoirs.  The

544: probability of success is defined as the probability that at least

545: one photon is contained in the field.  The fidelity is ultimately

546: limited by cavity leakage, which results in ``which path''

547: information beaing leaked to the environment. This information

548: leakage depends the strength of the measurement which is

549: determined by the number of photons in the probe fields. Using

550: more probe photons results in a higher success probability, but a

551: lower fidelity.  To calculate this tradeoff, we use previously

552: described values for cavity and reservoir losses, and set the

553: coupling rate $\gamma$ to 4THz, which is where the probability of

554: false detection is near its minimum.   At an average of three

555: photons, a fidelity of over $90\%$ can be achieved with a success

556: probability exceeding $95\%$.  These numbers are already

557: promising, and improved cavity and dipole lifetimes could lead to

558: even better operation.

559: 

560: This work was funded in part by the MURI center for photonic

561: quantum information systems (ARO/DTO Program DAAD19-03-1-0199),

562: and a Department of Central Intelligence postdoctoral grant.

563: 

564: \begin{thebibliography}{16}

565: \expandafter\ifx\csname

566: natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

567: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibnamefont\endcsname\relax

568:   \def\bibnamefont#1{#1}\fi

569: \expandafter\ifx\csname bibfnamefont\endcsname\relax

570:   \def\bibfnamefont#1{#1}\fi

571: \expandafter\ifx\csname citenamefont\endcsname\relax

572:   \def\citenamefont#1{#1}\fi

573: \expandafter\ifx\csname url\endcsname\relax

574:   \def\url#1{\texttt{#1}}\fi

575: \expandafter\ifx\csname

576: urlprefix\endcsname\relax\def\urlprefix{URL }\fi

577: \providecommand{\bibinfo}[2]{#2}

578: \providecommand{\eprint}[2][]{\url{#2}}

579: 

580: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Vuckovic and Yamamoto}(2003)}]{VuckovicYamamoto03}

581: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Vuckovic}} \bibnamefont{and}

582:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Yamamoto}},

583:   \bibinfo{journal}{App. Phys. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{82}},

584:   \bibinfo{pages}{2374} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

585: 

586: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Duan and Kimble}(2004)}]{DuanKimble04}

587: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{L.}~\bibnamefont{Duan}} \bibnamefont{and}

588:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.}~\bibnamefont{Kimble}},

589:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{92}},

590:   \bibinfo{pages}{127902} (\bibinfo{year}{2004}).

591: 

592: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kuhn et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Kuhn, Hennrich, and

593:   Rempe}}]{KuhnHennrich02}

594: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Kuhn}},

595:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{M.}~\bibnamefont{Hennrich}}, \bibnamefont{and}

596:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Rempe}},

597:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phy. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{89}},

598:   \bibinfo{pages}{067901} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

599: 

600: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Cirac et~al.}(1997)}]{CiracZoller97}

601: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.~I.} \bibnamefont{Cirac}}

602:   \bibnamefont{et~al.}, \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.}

603:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{78}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3221} (\bibinfo{year}{1997}).

604: 

605: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Harris et~al.}(1990)\citenamefont{Harris, J.E.Field,

606:   and Imamoglu}}]{HarrisField90}

607: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{S.}~\bibnamefont{Harris}},

608:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{J.E.Field}}, \bibnamefont{and}

609:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Imamoglu}},

610:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phy. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{64}},

611:   \bibinfo{pages}{1107} (\bibinfo{year}{1990}).

612: 

613: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Briegel et~al.}(1998)\citenamefont{Briegel, D{\"{u}}r,

614:   Cirac, and Zoller}}]{BriegelDur98}

615: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~J.} \bibnamefont{Briegel}},

616:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{W.}~\bibnamefont{D{\"{u}}r}},

617:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Cirac}}, \bibnamefont{and}

618:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{P.}~\bibnamefont{Zoller}},

619:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{81}},

620:   \bibinfo{pages}{5932} (\bibinfo{year}{1998}).

621: 

622: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Duan et~al.}(2001)}]{DuanLukin01}

623: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Duan}} \bibnamefont{et~al.},

624:   \bibinfo{journal}{Nature} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{414}},

625:   \bibinfo{pages}{413} (\bibinfo{year}{2001}).

626: 

627: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Manolatou et~al.}(1999)}]{ManolatouKhan99}

628: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{C.}~\bibnamefont{Manolatou}}

629:   \bibnamefont{et~al.}, \bibinfo{journal}{IEEE J. Quant. Electron.}

630:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{35}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1322} (\bibinfo{year}{1999}).

631: 

632: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Walls and Milburn}(1994)}]{WallsMilburn}

633: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Walls}} \bibnamefont{and}

634:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{G.}~\bibnamefont{Milburn}},

635:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Quantum Optics}} (\bibinfo{publisher}{Springer},

636:   \bibinfo{address}{Berlin}, \bibinfo{year}{1994}).

637: 

638: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Englund et~al.}(2005)}]{EnglundFattal05}

639: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{D.}~\bibnamefont{Englund}} \bibnamefont{et~al.},

640:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{95}},

641:   \bibinfo{pages}{013904} (\bibinfo{year}{2005}).

642: 

643: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Badolato et~al.}(2005)}]{BadolatoHennessy05}

644: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Badolato}}

645:   \bibnamefont{et~al.}, \bibinfo{journal}{Science}

646:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{308}}, \bibinfo{pages}{1158} (\bibinfo{year}{2005}).

647: 

648: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Vuckovic et~al.}(2003)}]{VuckovicFattal03}

649: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{J.}~\bibnamefont{Vuckovic}}

650:   \bibnamefont{et~al.}, \bibinfo{journal}{App. Phys. Lett.}

651:   \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{82}}, \bibinfo{pages}{3596} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

652: 

653: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Kimble}(1994)}]{Kimble}

654: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{H.~J.} \bibnamefont{Kimble}},

655:   \emph{\bibinfo{title}{Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics}}

656:   (\bibinfo{publisher}{Academic}, \bibinfo{address}{San Diego},

657:   \bibinfo{year}{1994}).

658: 

659: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Pan et~al.}(2003)}]{PanGasparoni03}

660: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Pan}} \bibnamefont{et~al.},

661:   \bibinfo{journal}{Nature} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{423}},

662:   \bibinfo{pages}{417} (\bibinfo{year}{2003}).

663: 

664: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Waks et~al.}(2002)\citenamefont{Waks, Zeevi, and

665:   Yamamoto}}]{WaksZeevi02}

666: \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{E.}~\bibnamefont{Waks}},

667:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{A.}~\bibnamefont{Zeevi}}, \bibnamefont{and}

668:   \bibinfo{author}{\bibfnamefont{Y.}~\bibnamefont{Yamamoto}},

669:   \bibinfo{journal}{Phys. Rev. A} \textbf{\bibinfo{volume}{65}},

670:   \bibinfo{pages}{052310} (\bibinfo{year}{2002}).

671: 

672: \bibitem[{\citenamefont{Childress et~al.}()}]{ChildressTaylor05}

673: \bibinfo{author}{\bibnamefont{Childress}} \bibnamefont{et~al.},

674:   \bibinfo{note}{quant-ph/0502112}.

675: 

676: \end{thebibliography}

677: 

678: 

679: 

680: \end{document}

681: %

682: % ****** End of file apssamp.tex ******

683: