1: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amssymb,pra]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphicx}
3: \usepackage{dcolumn}
4: \usepackage{color}
5: \usepackage{bm}
6: \begin{document}
7: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
8: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{|#1\rangle}
9: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\langle#1|}
10: \newcommand{\braket}[2]{\langle#1|#2\rangle}
11: \newcommand{\kb}[2]{|#1\rangle\langle#2|}
12: \newcommand{\kbs}[3]{|#1\rangle_{#3}\phantom{i}_{#3}\langle#2|}
13: \newcommand{\kets}[2]{|#1\rangle_{#2}}
14: \newcommand{\bras}[2]{\phantom{i}_{#2}\langle#1|}
15: \newcommand{\af}{\alpha}
16: \newcommand{\bt}{\beta}
17: \newcommand{\gm}{\gamma}
18: \newcommand{\la}{\lambda}
19: \newcommand{\dt}{\delta}
20: \newcommand{\s}{\sigma}
21: \newcommand{\qq}{(\s_{y}\otimes\s_{y})}
22: \newcommand{\uu}{\rho_{12}\qq\rho_{12}^{*}\qq}
23: \newcommand{\tr}{\textrm{Tr}}
24: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
25: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
26: %\large
27:
28: \title{Atomic entanglement mediated by a squeezed cavity field}
29: \author{Biplab Ghosh}
30: \altaffiliation{Email:biplab@bose.res.in}
31: \affiliation{S. N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences,
32: Salt Lake, Kolkata 700 098, India}
33: \author{A. S. Majumdar}
34: \altaffiliation{Email:archan@bose.res.in}
35: \affiliation{S. N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences,
36: Salt Lake, Kolkata 700 098, India}
37: \author{N. Nayak}
38: \altaffiliation{Email:nayak@bose.res.in}
39: \affiliation{S. N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences,
40: Salt Lake, Kolkata 700 098, India}
41: \date{\today}
42:
43: \vskip 0.5cm
44: \begin{abstract}
45: We consider the coherent state radiation field inside a micromaser
46: cavity and study the entanglement mediated by it on a pair of
47: two level atoms passing though the cavity one after the other. We then
48: investigate the effects of squeezing of the cavity field on the
49: atomic entanglement. We compute the entanglement of formation for
50: the emerging mixed two-atom state and show that squeezing of the cavity
51: radiation field can increase the atomic entanglement.
52: \end{abstract}
53: \pacs{03.67.-a, 03.65.Ud}
54: \maketitle
55:
56: \section*{I. Introduction}
57:
58: The most interesting idea associated with composite quantum systems
59: is quantum entanglement. A pair of particles is said to be entangled in
60: quantum mechanics if its state cannot be expressed as a product of the states
61: of its individual constituents. This was first noted by Einstein, Podolsky
62: and Rosen in 1935\cite{1}. The preparation and manipulation of these
63: entangled states that have nonclassical and nonlocal properties leads to a
64: better understanding of basic quantum phenomena. For example, complex
65: entangled
66: states, such as the Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger triplets of
67: particles\cite{2} are used for tests of quantum nonlocality\cite{3}.
68: In addition to pedagogical aspects, entanglement has become a fundamental
69: resource
70: in quantum information processing\cite{4} and there has been rapid development
71: of this subject in recent years\cite{5}.
72:
73: In recent years entanglement has been widely observed within the framework
74: of atom-photon interactions such as in optical and microwave
75: cavities\cite{6}.
76: An example that could be highlighted is the generation of
77: a maximally entangled state
78: between two modes in a single cavity using a Rydberg atom coherently
79: interacting with each mode in turn\cite{7}. The utility of entangled
80: atomic qubits for quantum information processing has prompted several
81: new methods for their generation\cite{8}. In many of these schemes
82: the transfer of entanglement between two different Hilbert spaces, i.e., from
83: the photons to the atoms\cite{9,10}, is involved. The properties of the
84: radiation field involved govern the quantitative nature of
85: atomic entanglement generated through such transfers.
86:
87: The squeezed radiation field\cite{18} has wide applications in many different
88: arenas of quantum optics. The relation between squeezing and entanglement
89: in general, is
90: itself an interesting issue which has been discussed through many approaches in
91: the literature\cite{squeezent}. Squeezing has been used as a resource
92: in several
93: protocols of generating and distilling entanglement, and in information
94: transfer\cite{squeezent2}. In particular, it has been shown
95: how atomic
96: qubits can be entangled with the help of a squeezed radiation field using
97: one or two optical cavities\cite{squeezent3}. In this Letter we will study
98: the effects of squeezing parameters
99: of a squeezed radiation field inside a microwave cavity on the quantitative
100: entanglement of atomic
101: qubits passing through it.
102:
103: The motivation for this work is to investigate the role of squeezing of
104: the radiation field inside a cavity on the atomic entanglement mediated by it.
105: We will focus
106: on a micromaser system\cite{10,21} in which two-level Rydberg atoms are sent
107: into the cavity at such a rate that the probability of two atoms being
108: present there is negligibly small. Since the atoms do not interact directly
109: with each other, the properties
110: of the radiation field encountered by them bears crucially on the nature
111: of atomic entanglement. We take the initial state of the two atoms as
112: separate or product state, and the emergent two-qubit state is of a mixed
113: entangled type\cite{10}. The interaction between the atom and the field is
114: governed by the
115: Jaynes-Cummings model\cite{13} which is experimentally realizable.
116: We consider the cavity to be of a non-leaky
117: type, i.e.,
118: $Q=\infty$, and the cavity-QED experiments are very close to such
119: situations\cite{6}. We quantify the two-atom entanglement by computing
120: the entanglement of formation\cite{16} and demonstrate how the entanglement
121: can be increased
122: by the squeezing of the radiation field, if the average cavity
123: photon number is kept fixed.
124:
125: We begin with a brief description of the basic framework. We consider a
126: single mode cavity and two two-level atoms initially prepared in their
127: upper excited states $|e_1>$ and $|e_2>$ which pass through the cavity
128: one after the other. We first consider a coherent state field
129: inside the cavity.
130: A coherent states contains an indefinite number of photons and is a
131: minimum uncertainty state\cite{20} standing at the
132: threshold of the classical-quantum limit. These states are parametrised by a
133: single complex number $\alpha$ as follows:
134: \begin{eqnarray}
135: \ket{\alpha}=\sum_n\frac{\alpha^n}{\sqrt{n!}}\ket{n}.
136: \label{29}
137: \end{eqnarray}
138: A coherent state is an eigenstate of the annihilation operator $a$ written as
139: \begin{eqnarray}
140: a\ket{\alpha}=\alpha\ket{\alpha}
141: \label{30}
142: \end{eqnarray}
143: and obeys a Poissonian distribution function in the photon number
144: representation
145: given by
146: \begin{eqnarray}
147: P_n=\frac{e^{-<n>}<n>^n}{n!}
148: \label{31}
149: \end{eqnarray}
150: with the average photon number $<n>=|\alpha|^2$.
151: The distribution function $P_n$ peaks at non-zero photon number, i.e.,
152: $n_{peak}\ne0$.
153:
154: The Janynes-Cummings interaction\cite{13} leads to
155: a tripartite joint state of the cavity field and the two atoms passing
156: through it given by
157: \begin{eqnarray}
158: \ket{\Psi(t)}_{a-a-f}=\sum_nA_n[\cos^2{(\sqrt{n+1}gt)}
159: \ket{e_1,e_2,n}\nonumber\\
160: +\cos{(\sqrt{n+1}gt)}\sin{(\sqrt{n+1}gt)}\ket{e_1,g_2,n+1}\nonumber\\
161: +\cos{(\sqrt{n+2}gt)}\sin{(\sqrt{n+1}gt)}\ket{g_1,e_2,n+1}\nonumber\\
162: +\sin{(\sqrt{n+1}gt)}\sin{(\sqrt{n+2}gt)}\ket{g_1,g_2,n+2}]
163: \label{32}
164: \end{eqnarray}
165: where $P_n=|A_n|^2$ is the photon distribution function of the coherent
166: state field.
167: Since we are interested in calculating the entanglement
168: of the joint two-atom state after the atoms emerge from the cavity, we
169: consider the reduced density matrix $\rho(t)$ of the two-atom state given by
170: \begin{eqnarray}
171: \rho(t)={\textrm Tr}_{\mathrm{field}}({|\Psi(t)>}_{a-a-f.a-a-f}{<\Psi(t)|})
172: \label{12}
173: \end{eqnarray}
174: obtained after taking trace over the field variables.
175: This state can be written in the matrix form in the basis
176: of $|e_1>, |e_2>, |g_1>$ and $|g_2>$ states as
177: \begin{eqnarray}
178: \rho_{a-a}=\left(\begin{matrix}{\gamma_1&\gamma_7&\gamma_8&\gamma_6 \cr
179: \gamma_7&\gamma_2&\gamma_4&\gamma_9\cr \gamma_8&\gamma_4&\gamma_3&\gamma_{10}
180: \cr\gamma_6&\gamma_9&\gamma_{10}&\gamma_5}\end{matrix}
181: \right).
182: \label{33}
183: \end{eqnarray}
184: where
185: \begin{eqnarray}
186: \gamma_1&=&\sum_nP_n\cos^4{(\sqrt{n+1}gt)},\nonumber\\
187: \gamma_2&=&\sum_nP_n\cos^2{(\sqrt{n+1}gt)}\times\nonumber\\
188: &&\sin^2{(\sqrt{n+1}gt)},\nonumber\\
189: \gamma_3&=&\sum_nP_n\cos^2{(\sqrt{n+2}gt)}\times\nonumber\\
190: &&\sin^2{(\sqrt{n+1}gt)},\nonumber\\
191: \gamma_4&=&\sum_nP_n\sin^2{(\sqrt{n+1}gt)}\times\nonumber\\
192: &&\cos{(\sqrt{n+1}gt)}\cos{(\sqrt{n+2}gt)},\nonumber\\
193: \gamma_5&=&\sum_nP_n\sin^2{(\sqrt{n+1}gt)}\times\nonumber\\
194: &&\sin^2{(\sqrt{n+2}gt)},\nonumber\\
195: \gamma_6&=&\sum_n\sqrt{P_nP_{n-2}}\cos^2{(\sqrt{n+1}gt)}\times\nonumber\\
196: &&\sin{(\sqrt{n}gt)}\sin{(\sqrt{n-1}gt)},\nonumber\\
197: \gamma_7&=&\sum_n\sqrt{P_nP_{n-1}}\cos^2{(\sqrt{n+1}gt)}\times\nonumber\\
198: &&\cos{(\sqrt{n}gt)}\sin{(\sqrt{n}gt)},\nonumber\\
199: \gamma_8&=&\sum_n\sqrt{P_nP_{n-1}}\cos^3{(\sqrt{n+1}gt)}\times\nonumber\\
200: &&\sin{(\sqrt{n}gt)},\nonumber\\
201: \gamma_9&=&\sum_n\sqrt{P_nP_{n-1}}\sin^2{(\sqrt{n+1}gt)}\times\nonumber\\
202: &&\cos{(\sqrt{n+1}gt)}\sin{(\sqrt{n}gt)},\nonumber\\
203: \gamma_{10}&=&\sum_n\sqrt{P_nP_{n-1}}\sin^2{(\sqrt{n+1}gt)}\times\nonumber\\
204: &&\cos{(\sqrt{n+2}gt)}\sin{(\sqrt{n}gt)}.
205: \label{34}
206: \end{eqnarray}
207:
208: \vskip 1cm
209:
210: \begin{figure}[h!]
211: \begin{center}
212: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{coherent.eps}
213: \caption{Two-atom entanglement mediated by the coherent state cavity field at
214: low average photon number is plotted versus $gt$.}
215: \end{center}
216: \end{figure}
217:
218:
219:
220: We compute the entanglement of formation $E_F$ for the state
221: $\rho_{a-a}$, using the Hill-Wootters formula\cite{16}
222: \begin{eqnarray}
223: E_{F}(\rho)=h\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{1-C^{2}(\rho)}}{2}\right),
224: \label{13}
225: \end{eqnarray}
226: where $C$ is called the concurrence defined as
227: \begin{eqnarray}
228: C(\rho)=\max(0, \sqrt\la_1-\sqrt\la_2-\sqrt\la_3-\sqrt\la_4),
229: \label{14}
230: \end{eqnarray}
231: where the
232: $\la_{i}$ are the eigenvalues of $\uu$ in descending order,
233: and
234: \begin{eqnarray}
235: h(x)=-x\log_{2}x-(1-x)\log_{2}(1-x)
236: \label{15}
237: \end{eqnarray}
238: is the binary entropy function.
239:
240:
241: \vskip 1cm
242:
243:
244: \begin{figure}[h!]
245: \begin{center}
246: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{coherent1.eps}
247: \caption{Atom-atom entanglement mediated by coherent state cavity field at
248: high average photon number is plotted
249: versus $gt$.}
250: \end{center}
251: \end{figure}
252:
253:
254: The entanglement of formation $E_F$ is computed separately for low and
255: high photon numbers
256: as the two cases have distinctive features for the coherent state
257: field. $E_f$ is plotted versus the Rabi angle $gt$ ($g$ is the atom-photon
258: coupling constant of the Jaynes-Cummings interaction, and $t$ is the time
259: spent by the atom inside the cavity)
260: for low average photon number $<n>$ in Figure~1.
261: The peaks of the entanglement of formation are reflective of the photon
262: statistics that are typical in micromaser dynamics\cite{21}.
263: We see that $E_F$ falls off sharply as $n$ increases. For small photon
264: numbers, $n_{peak}\approx0$ and hence, the evolution of $E_F$ is similar to
265: the case when a thermal field is inside the cavity\cite{ghosh}. For large
266: $<n>$, $n_{peak}$ moves
267: significantly to the right (Figure~2) and
268: its influence is completely different compared to that for the low $<n>$ case.
269: Quantum effects which are
270: predominant primarily when the photon number is low, help to increase
271: the peak value of $E_f$.
272: We note in Figure~2 that in general, $E_F$ increases slightly with $<n>$ with
273: its time evolution being different for different $<n>$.
274: This is reflective of the collapse-revival characteristic in the
275: Jaynes-Cummings model\cite{21}. We further note that though $E_F$ is higher
276: for the low photon number category (Figure~1), this behaviour is reversed
277: for the high photon
278: number category (Figure~2). For high $<n>$, the features of generated
279: entanglement are thus significantly different from those in the
280: case of the thermal field\cite{ghosh}.
281:
282:
283:
284: The above analysis sets the stage for the consideration of a squeezed
285: radiation field inside the cavity.
286: A class of minimum-uncertainty states are known as squeezed states.
287: In general, a squeezed states have less noise in one quadrature than a
288: coherent state. To satisfy the requirements of a minimum-uncertainty state
289: the noise in the other quadrature is greater than that of a coherent state.
290: Coherent states are a particular category of a more general class of
291: minimum uncertainty states with equal noise in both quadratures.
292: Our purpose
293: here is to study what effect squeezing of the radiation field has on
294: the entanglement of a pair of atoms passing through it.
295: The single mode field inside the cavity can be written as
296: \begin{eqnarray}
297: E(t)=a_1 \cos{\omega t} + a_2 \sin{\omega t}
298: \label{35}
299: \end{eqnarray}
300: where $a_1=(a+a^\dagger)/2$ and $a_2=(a-a^\dagger)/2i$ are the two
301: quadratures satisfying $[a_1,a_2]=i/2$. The variances
302: $\Delta a_1=\sqrt{<a_1^2>-<a_1>^2}$ and $\Delta a_2=\sqrt{<a_2^2>-<a_2>^2}$
303: satisfy
304: \begin{eqnarray}
305: \Delta a_1 \Delta a_2 \ge\frac{1}{4}.
306: \label{36}
307: \end{eqnarray}
308: The coherent state or the minimum uncertainty state given by
309: Eqs.(\ref{29}-\ref{31})
310: satisfy the equality sign along with
311: \begin{eqnarray}
312: \Delta a_1=\Delta a_2=\frac{1}{2}.
313: \label{37}
314: \end{eqnarray}
315: Further, either of $\Delta a_1$ or $\Delta a_2$ can be reduced below
316: $\frac{1}{2}$ at the expense of the other such that Eq.(\ref{36}) is satisfied,
317: and radiation fields having such properties are called squeezed fields.
318:
319: \vskip 0.6cm
320:
321: \begin{figure}[h!]
322: \begin{center}
323: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{squeez1.eps}
324: \caption{Atom-atom entanglement of formation mediated by the squeezed field
325: for different values of $\alpha$ is plotted versus $gt$ for the low
326: photon number case.}
327: \end{center}
328: \end{figure}
329:
330:
331:
332: The photon distribution function of the squeezed radiation field can be
333: represented as
334: \begin{eqnarray}
335: P_n=\frac{1}{n!\mu}(\frac{\nu}{2\mu})^ne^{-\beta^2(\frac{\nu}{\mu}-1)}
336: |H_n(\frac{\beta}{\sqrt{2\mu\nu}})|^2,
337: \label{38}
338: \end{eqnarray}
339: where $\beta$ is related to the coherent state amplitude $\alpha$ in
340: Eq.(\ref{30})
341: by $\beta=(\mu+\nu)\alpha$ for real $\alpha$. $\mu$ and $\nu$ can be
342: represented by the squeezing parameter $r$ as $\mu=\cosh{r}$ and
343: $\nu=\sinh{r}$.
344: The average photon number can thus be written as
345: \begin{eqnarray}
346: <n>&=&|\alpha|^2+\sinh^2{r}.
347: \label{39}
348: \end{eqnarray}
349: In terms of the squeezing parameter, the variances of such fields are given by
350: \begin{eqnarray}
351: \Delta a_1=\frac{1}{2}e^{-r}, \nonumber\\
352: \Delta a_2=\frac{1}{2}e^{r}.
353: \label{40}
354: \end{eqnarray}
355: Clearly, for $r=0$, the statistics reduce to that for a coherent state
356: given by Eq.(\ref{31}).
357: $r>0$ gives rise to sub-Poissonian statistics, whereas $r<0$ produces a
358: super-Poissonian field.
359:
360: \vskip 0.7cm
361:
362: \begin{figure}[h!]
363: \begin{center}
364: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{squeez2.eps}
365: \caption{$E_F$ mediated by the squeezed field is plotted versus $gt$ for
366: different values of the squeezing parameter $r$ corresponding to the
367: low average photon number case.}
368: \end{center}
369: \end{figure}
370:
371: As, in the previous case, we first obtain the reduced density matrix
372: corresponding to the joint two-atom state after passing through a
373: cavity with the squeezed field. The reduced density matrix has a
374: similar form to that of the coherent state field given by Eq.(\ref{33}),
375: where $\gamma^s$ are also of the same form as given in Eq.(\ref{34}).
376: The difference in this case arises from the different photon statistics
377: $P_n$ obtained from the squeezed field distribution function as
378: given in Eq.(\ref{38}).
379:
380: \vskip 0.6in
381:
382: \begin{figure}[h!]
383: \begin{center}
384: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{squeez3.eps}
385: \caption{$E_F$ mediated by squeezed field for different values of $\alpha$)
386: is plotted versus $gt$ for the high average photon number case.}
387: \end{center}
388: \end{figure}
389:
390:
391: The effects of the photon statistics of the squeezed
392: field on two-atom entanglement for low average photon number
393: are displayed in the Figures~3 and 4, for varying $\alpha$ and $r$,
394: respectively.
395: We see that for low photon numbers, the time evolution of $E_F$ is
396: similar to that for a coherent field.
397: The effect of the squeezing parameter $r$ enters through $<n>$
398: in Eq.(\ref{39}). An increase in $r$ increases $<n>$ and thus $E_F$ diminishes
399: accordingly. It might appear from Figure~4 that squeezing of the
400: radiation field is anti-correlated with the generated atomic entanglement,
401: but what is actually reflected here is the decrease of $E_F$ caused
402: by the increase of the average photon number $<n>$. We emphasize on this
403: point since later (Figure~6) we will indeed see that by squeezing the field
404: but holding $<n>$ fixed, one can increase the atomic entanglement of
405: formation.
406: The situation for the high photon number case resembles that
407: for the coherent state field. This is seen in Figure~5 where a
408: larger value of $\alpha$ corresponds to a larger $<n>$, and causes $E_F$
409: to be slightly increased with increasing $n$ or $\alpha$.
410:
411: \vskip 0.6cm
412:
413: \begin{figure}[h!]
414: \begin{center}
415: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{lpc.eps}
416: \caption{Atom-atom entanglement mediated by (i) squeezed cavity field
417: (dotted line) when $<n>=0.3$ and $r=0.5$, and (ii) coherent state field
418: (dashed line) when $<n>=0.3$, plotted vs $gt$.}
419: \end{center}
420: \end{figure}
421:
422: The actual effect of squeezing of the cavity field is apparent by performing a
423: comparitive computation of $E_F$ mediated by the coherent and squeezed
424: fields for the same average photon number $<n>$.
425: In Figures~6 and 7 we plot the two-atom entanglement of formation $E_F$
426: versus the Rabi angle $gt$ separately for the coherent
427: state and the squeezed state keeping the average cavity
428: photon number fixed. In Figure~6 we see that for
429: small $<n>$, the dynamics of $E_F$ are similar for both kinds
430: of cavity fields. But the striking feature of Figure~6 is in the peaks of $E_F$
431: for various values of $gt$. Note that $E_F$ for the squeezed field (dotted
432: line) is higher compared to the coherent state field (dashed line). Thus
433: squeezing of the radiation field as represented by the non-vanishing value
434: of the
435: squeezing parameter $r$, leads to a notable increase in the magnitude
436: of atomic entanglement over the case the coherent state field
437: ($r=0$; no squeezing). This trend is also visible in the high photon
438: number case (Figure~7), though not for all values of $gt$.
439:
440: \vskip 0.6cm
441:
442: \begin{figure}[h!]
443: \begin{center}
444: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{hpc.eps}
445: \caption{Atom-atom entanglement mediated by (i) squeezed cavity field
446: (dashed line) when $<n>=50$ and $r=1$, and (ii) coherent state field
447: (solid line) when $<n>=50$
448: when $<n>=50$, plotted vs $gt$.}
449: \end{center}
450: \end{figure}
451:
452: To summarize, in this Letter we have considered a
453: micromaser model where two
454: spatially separated atoms are entangled via a cavity field.
455: The entanglement between the two separate atoms builds up via atom-photon
456: interactions inside the cavity, even though no single atom interacts
457: directly with another. We have computed the two-atom entanglement as
458: measured by the entanglement of formation $E_F$ for the cases of the
459: coherent state field and the squeezed radiation field inside the cavity.
460: Our purpose has
461: been to perform a quantitative study of the effects of squeezing of the
462: bosonic radiation field
463: on the mediation of the mixed state entanglement of two atomic qubits.
464: Two distinct patterns of
465: entanglement are seen to emerge for the cases corresponding to low and
466: high average cavity photon numbers, respectively. In the former case the
467: quantum nature of the radiation field plays a prominent role in enhancing
468: atomic entanglement with the decrease of $<n>$. The situation reverses
469: for high $<n>$ case where actually the increase of $<n>$ leads to a slight
470: increase of $E_F$.
471: The key feature prominently observed for the low $<n>$ case
472: is that the two-atom entanglement can
473: be increased with squeezing of the cavity field if the average cavity
474: photon number is held fixed. Further interesting directions could
475: be to study the impact of squeezed radiation on the ``monogamous''
476: character\cite{29} of atomic entanglement, and also to investigate
477: the possibility of generating maximally entangled mixed atomic
478: qubits\cite{mems}
479: using squeezing of the bosonic field as a resource.
480:
481:
482:
483:
484: \begin{thebibliography}{24}
485: \bibitem{1}
486: A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. {\bf 47}, 777 (1935).
487: \bibitem{2}
488: D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, Am. J. Phys.
489: {\bf 58}, 1131 (1990).
490: \bibitem{3}
491: J. W. Pan, D. Bouwmeester, M. Daniell, H. Weinfurter and A. Zeilinger,
492: Nature (London) {\bf 403}, 515 (2000).
493: \bibitem{4}
494: C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 70}, 1895 (1993);
495: M. Zukowski, A. Zeilinger, M. A. Horne and A. K. Ekert, Phys, Rev. Lett.
496: {\bf 71}, 4287 (1993).
497: \bibitem{5}
498: See, for example, M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, {\it Quantum Computation and Information} (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2000).
499: \bibitem{6}
500: J. M. Raimond, M. Brune and S. Haroche, Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 73}, 565 (2001).
501: \bibitem{7}
502: A. Rauschenbeutel, P. Bertet, S. Osnaghi, G. Nogues, M. Brune,
503: J. M. Raimond and S. Haroche, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 64}, 050301 (2001).
504: \bibitem{8}
505: K. Hammerer, K. Molmer, E. S. Polzik and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A{\bf 70},
506: 044304 (2004); K. Hammerer, E. S. Polzik and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev.
507: A{\bf 72}, 052313 (2005);
508: D. N. Matsukevich, T. Chanelière, S. D. Jenkins, S.-Y. Lan, T. A. B. Kennedy,
509: and A. Kuzmich, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96}, 030405 (2006).
510: \bibitem{9}
511: M. S. Kim, Jinhyoung Lee, D. Ahn and P. L. Knight, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 65},
512: 040101(R) (2002);
513: P. Masiak, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 66}, 023804 (2002); T. Tessier, A. Delgado,
514: I. Fuentes-Guridi, and I. H. Deutsch,
515: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 68}, 062316 (2003); A. Biswas and G. S. Agarwal,
516: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 69}, 062306 (2004); P. K. Pathak and G. S.
517: Agarwal, Phys. Rev. A{\bf 70}, 043807 (2004).
518: \bibitem{10}
519: A. Datta, B. Ghosh, A. S. Majumdar and N. Nayak, Europhys. Lett. {\bf 67},
520: 934 (2004).
521: \bibitem{18}
522: D. F. Walls, Nature {\bf 324}, 210 (1986).
523: \bibitem{squeezent}
524: L.-M. Duan, A. Sørensen, J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85},
525: 3991 (2000); A. Sørensen, L.-M. Duan, J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Nature
526: {\bf 409}, 63 (2001); A. Banerjee, quant-ph/0110032;
527: A. Messikh, Z. Ficek, M. R. B. Wahiddin, quant-ph/0303100; quant-ph/0305166;
528: L. Zhou, H. S. Song and C. Li, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. {\bf 4},
529: 425 (2002); M. M. Wolf, J. Eisert and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90},
530: 047904 (2003); X. Wang and B. C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. A{\bf 68}, 012101 (2003);
531: J. Fiurasek and N. J. Cerf, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 063601 (2004);
532: A. Botero and B. Reznik, Phys. Lett. A{\bf 331}, 39 (2004); D. W. Berry and
533: B. C. Sanders, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. {\bf 38}, L205 (2005);
534: J. Korbicz, J. I. Cirac and M. Lewenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 120502
535: (2005); P. Marek, M. S. Kim and M. Paternostro, quant-ph/0604152.
536: \bibitem{squeezent2}
537: G. Giedke, M. M. Wolf, O. Krüger, R. F. Werner, and J. I. Cirac,
538: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 91}, 107901 (2003); L.-M. Kuang, A.-H. Zeng and
539: Z.-H. Kuang, Phys. Lett. A{\bf 319}, 24 (2003); J. Eisert, D. E. Browne,
540: S. Scheel,
541: and M. B. Plenio, Annals of Physics (NY) {\bf 311}, 431 (2004);
542: J. Eisert, M. B. Plenio, S. Bose and J. Hartley, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93},
543: 190402 (2004); R. G.-P. Sanchez, J. Fiurasek, N. J. Cerf, J. Wenger, R.
544: T.-Brouri and Ph. Grangier, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 130409 (2004); N.
545: Schuch, M. M. Wolf and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96}, 023004 (2006).
546: \bibitem{squeezent3}
547: W. Son, M. S. Kim, J. Lee and D. Ahn, J. Mod. Opt. {\bf 49}, 1739 (2002);
548: S. G. Clark and A. S. Parkins, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 047905 (2003);
549: M. Paternostro, W. Son and M. S. Kim, quant-ph/0310031.
550: \bibitem{21}
551: N. Nayak, Opt. Commun. {\bf 118} 114 (1995); N. Nayak, A. S. Majumdar and
552: V. Bartzis, Nonlinear Optics {\bf 24}, 319 (2000);
553: A. S. Majumdar and N. Nayak, Phys. Rev. A{\bf 64}, 013821 (2001).
554: \bibitem{13}
555: E. T. Jaynes, F. W. Cummings, Proc. IEEE {\bf 51}, 89 (1963).
556: \bibitem{16}
557: S. Hill and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 5022 (1997);
558: W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80} 2245 (1998).
559: \bibitem{20}
560: M. Keyl, Phys. Rep. {\bf 369}, 431 (2002).
561: \bibitem{ghosh}
562: B. Ghosh, A. S. Majumdar and N. Nayak, quant-ph/0603039.
563: \bibitem{29}
564: B. Ghosh, A. S. Majumdar, and N. Nayak, quant-ph/0505037 (to appear in
565: Int. J. Quant. Inf.).
566: \bibitem{mems}
567: W. J. Munro, D. F. V. James, A. G. White and P. G. Kwiat, Phys. Rev. A{\bf 64},
568: 030302 (2001); T.-C. Wei, K. Nemoto, P. M. Goldbart, P. G. Kwiat, W. J. Munro
569: and F. Verstraete, Phys. Rev. A{\bf 67}, 022110 (2003).
570:
571:
572:
573: \end{thebibliography}
574: \end{document}
575:
576: