1:
2: \documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,showpacs]{revtex4}
3: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4: \usepackage{amsmath,xcolor}
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6:
7:
8: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{|#1\rangle}
9: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\langle#1|}
10: \newcommand{\braket}[2]{\langle#1|#2\rangle}
11: \newcommand{\eq}{\begin{equation}}
12: \newcommand{\fine}{\end{equation}}
13:
14: \begin{document}
15:
16: \title{Complete and Deterministic discrimination of polarization Bell state assisted by momentum entanglement}
17: \author{M. Barbieri$^{1,\dag,*}$, G. Vallone$^{1,2,*}$, P. Mataloni$^{1,*}$ and \ F. De Martini$^{1,*}$ \\
18: %EndAName
19: $^{1}$Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit\'{a} ``La Sapienza'' and
20: Consorzio Nazionale Interuniversitario per le Scienze Fisiche della Materia,
21: Roma, 00185 Italy\\
22: $^2$Dipartimento di Fisica Teorica dell'Universit\`a di Torino and INFN -
23: sezione di Torino - 10100 Italy}
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26: A complete and deterministic Bell state measurement was realized by a simple
27: linear optics experimental scheme which adopts 2-photon
28: polarization-momentum hyperentanglement. The scheme, which is based on the
29: discrimination among the single photon Bell states of the hyperentangled
30: state, requires the adoption of standard single photon detectors. The four
31: polarization Bell states have been measured with average fidelity
32: $F=0.889\pm0.010$ by using the linear momentum degree of freedom as the
33: ancilla. The feasibility of the scheme has been characterized as a function
34: of the purity of momentum entanglement.
35: \end{abstract}
36: \pacs{03.67.-a, 03.67.Hk, 42.65.Lm}
37: \maketitle
38:
39: In the domain of Quantum information (QI) the completion of most fundamental
40: quantum communication protocols involving bipartite entanglement, such as
41: quantum teleportation \cite{1}, quantum dense coding \cite{2}, entanglement
42: swapping \cite{3} and some important quantum cryptographic schemes \cite{4},
43: requires the complete and deterministic identification of the Bell states
44: which form the orthogonal basis for the reference Hilbert space of the
45: bipartite system.
46:
47: In quantum optics, pairs of correlated photons are generated by spontaneous
48: parametric down conversion (SPDC) in a nonlinear (NL) optical crystal slab
49: by choosing suitably phase matching conditions. Photon qubits can be encoded
50: in several accessible degrees of freedom, such as polarization \cite{5,16},
51: linear and orbital momentum \cite{6,7}, and energy-time \cite{8,9}.
52: In particular, the four orthogonal entangled Bell states,
53: expressed in the logic basis $\ket0,\ket1$:
54: \begin{equation}
55: \begin{aligned} \label{Bell} &|\Phi ^{\pm }\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}
56: \left(|0\rangle _{A}|0\rangle _{B}\pm |1\rangle _{A} |1\rangle _{B}\right),
57: \\ &|\Psi ^{\pm }\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left( |0\rangle _{A}|1\rangle_{B}
58: \pm |1\rangle _{A}|0\rangle _{B}\right)\,,
59: \end{aligned}
60: \end{equation}
61: form the complete maximally entangled basis of the Hilbert space
62: $\mathcal H_{A}\otimes \mathcal H_{B}$ with $dim(\mathcal H_{A})=dim(\mathcal H_{B})=2$.
63: In the particular case of a
64: photon polarization entangled state, $\ket0$ and $\ket1$ correspond to the
65: horizontal ($\ket H$) and vertical ($\ket V$) polarization states.
66:
67: By standard linear methods, the discrimination of polarization Bell states
68: can not be achieved by simply performing a single joint measurement on the
69: two particles. Indeed, a reliable experimental linear optical scheme capable to
70: deterministically distinguish among the four entangled Bell states with $100\%$
71: efficiency by using $2\times2$ entangled photon pairs,
72: doesn't exist and only a partial Bell state analysis with a
73: maximum attainable value of $50\%$ efficiency can be performed \cite{10}.
74: Recently, probabilistic complete Bell state analyzers for photonic quantum
75: bits were demonstrated by using a controlled-Not (C-NOT) gate for photonic
76: qubits \cite{11}.
77:
78: The strategy adopted to overcome the intrinsic probabilistic character of
79: any Bell analysis exploits further degrees of freedom to assist the
80: measurement. In fact, by two photons entangled in $N>1$ degrees of freedom,
81: namely giving rise to an hyperentangled states
82: spanning the $2^{N}\times 2^{N}$ Hilbert space,
83: a complete and deterministic Bell state analysis can be performed
84: with standard linear optics \cite{12,13}. In the case of double entangled
85: states ($N=2$) it was shown that this operation can occur together with a
86: C-NOT logic operation between the control and target degrees of freedom \cite
87: {13}. An experimental demonstration of a complete analysis of the four
88: polarization entangled Bell states has been recently given by Schuck
89: \textit{et al.} \cite{14}, who discriminate the polarization entanglement of two photons
90: generated by a Type II NL crystal assisted by the intrinsic time-energy entanglement
91: occurring in the SPDC process. The measurement apparatus described in that
92: work consisted of a sequence of three different steps which allowed to
93: distinguish among the four polarization entangled states. By that scheme, a
94: full deterministic analysis of all the photon pairs requires the adoption of
95: photon number resolving detectors.
96:
97: In this letter we demonstrate that a complete and deterministic polarization ($\pi$) Bell state
98: analysis can be performed by using the further degree of freedom of momentum (\textbf{k}) as the ancilla.
99: More precisely, the analysis of the Bell states (\ref{Bell}) is carried out
100: by discriminating among the single photon Bell states of a
101: $\pi$-$\mathbf{k}$ hyperentangled 2-photon
102: state, at the Alice ($A$) and Bob ($B$) sites. By our scheme the four Bell
103: states $|\Phi^{+}\rangle $, $|\Phi ^{-}\rangle $, $|\Psi ^{+}\rangle $, $%
104: |\Psi^{-}\rangle $, have been analyzed with high fidelity and equal
105: detection probabilities by a single step measurement apparatus and using
106: single photon detectors. On this purpose we used the SPDC source of $\pi$-$\mathbf{k}$
107: hyperentangled 2-photon states, based on a single Type I $%
108: \beta $-$BaB_{2}O_{4}$ (BBO) crystal, already described in other experiments
109: (cfr. Fig. 1a) \cite{15}.
110: \begin{figure}[t]
111: \includegraphics[scale=.43]{fig1.eps}
112: \caption{a) Scheme of the hyperentanglement source: the polarization
113: entangled state $|\Phi \rangle = \frac{1}{\protect\sqrt{2}}\left( |H\rangle
114: |H\rangle +e^{i\protect\theta }|V\rangle |V\rangle \right) $ comes from the
115: superposition of the degenerate cones of a type-I BBO crystal. The basic
116: elements of the source are: [$i$] a spherical mirror $M$, reflecting both
117: the parametric radiation or the pump beam, whose micrometric displacement
118: allows to control the state phase $\protect\theta $ ($\protect\theta = 0,%
119: \protect\pi$). [$ii$] a $\protect\lambda /4$ waveplate, placed within the $M-
120: $BBO path, which performs the $|H\rangle_A|H\rangle_B \rightarrow
121: |V\rangle_A|V\rangle_B $ transformation on the 2-photon state belonging to
122: the left-cone. [$iii$] a positive lens which transforms the conical
123: parametric emission of the crystal into a cylindrical one. Mode selection is
124: performed by a four hole mask. The $\protect\lambda/2$ waveplate $HW^*$
125: intercepting modes $r_A,r_B$ performs the $|\Phi^\pm\rangle\rightarrow|\Psi^%
126: \pm\rangle$ transformation, the glass plate (on the $\ell_A$ mode) sets the
127: phase of the momentum state. b) Scheme of the Bell state analyzer (see text
128: for details). The delay $\Delta x$ is simultaneously varied for both $\ell_A$
129: and $\ell_B$ modes.}
130: \label{fig1}
131: \end{figure}
132: By this source we can generate over the whole BBO emission cone the
133: polarization entangled states. By inserting a four-holes screen aligned to intercept the
134: whole SPDC radiation, we select the photon pair passing through the modes
135: $\ell_A$-$r_B$ (left Alice-right Bob) or $r_A$-$\ell_B$,
136: with coherent superposition between the two events.
137: Then the hyperentangled states
138: \begin{equation}
139: \begin{aligned} |\Xi \rangle &=|Bell\rangle_{AB} \otimes \left| \psi
140: ^{+}\right\rangle\\ &=|Bell\rangle_{AB} \otimes \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
141: |\ell\rangle_{A}|r\rangle_B+|r\rangle_A|\ell\rangle_B\right)
142: \label{hyper-ent} \end{aligned}
143: \end{equation}
144: can be generated \cite{15}. Here
145: the state $|Bell\rangle_{AB}$ can be either one of the 2-photon
146: polarization Bell states, $|\Phi ^{\pm }\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
147: |H\rangle _{A}|H\rangle _{B}\pm |V\rangle _{A}|V\rangle _{B}\right) $, $%
148: |\Psi ^{\pm }\rangle =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left( |H\rangle _{A}|V\rangle
149: _{B}\pm |V\rangle _{A}|H\rangle _{B}\right) $.
150:
151: The parametric source, which
152: allows to finely control the phase of the $\pi$-states, generates the hyperentangled
153: states $|\Phi ^{\pm }\rangle\otimes\ket{\psi^+} $ \cite{16}. The insertion of a
154: zero-order $\lambda /2$\ waveplate (wp) intercepting the modes $r_A$, $r_B$
155: (HW* in Fig. \ref{fig1}a) allows to transform the state $|\Phi ^{+}\rangle\otimes\ket{\psi^+} $
156: in $|\Psi ^{+}\rangle\otimes\ket{\psi^+} $, while the transformation $|\Phi ^{-}\rangle
157: \rightarrow |\Psi ^{-}\rangle $ is accompanied by a $\pi $ phase shift on
158: the momentum entangled state, $|\psi ^{+}\rangle \rightarrow |\psi
159: ^{-}\rangle $. As a consequence, in order to generate $|\Psi ^{-}\rangle
160: \otimes |\psi ^{+}\rangle $, we need to compensate this phase shift by
161: suitable tilting of a thin glass plate inserted on mode $\ell_A$ (Fig. \ref
162: {fig1}a). The nonlocal character of the states $|\Xi \rangle $
163: was recently demonstrated by two different
164: experiments, the All Versus Nothing test \cite{17} and the Bell's
165: inequalities violation of local realism with two degrees of freedom \cite{18}.
166:
167: By the present method, we are able to discriminate among the four possibility
168: $|\Phi ^{+}\rangle $, $|\Phi ^{-}\rangle $, $|\Psi ^{+}\rangle$,
169: $|\Psi ^{-}\rangle$, by using the single photon Bell basis:
170: \begin{equation}
171: \begin{aligned}
172: \label{single-Bell}
173: &\left| \sigma ^{\pm }\right\rangle _{i}
174: =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[ |H\rangle |\ell\rangle _{i}\pm |V\rangle |r\rangle_{i}\right],\\
175: &\left| \tau ^{\pm }\right\rangle _{i}
176: =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[ |V\rangle |\ell\rangle _{i}\pm |H\rangle |r\rangle_{i}\right] ,
177: \end{aligned}
178: \quad
179: i=A,B
180: \end{equation}
181: which allows to express the four possible states $|\Xi \rangle $ as
182: % \begin{widetext}
183: % \begin{equation}
184: % \begin{aligned}
185: % |\Phi ^{\pm}\rangle \otimes |\psi ^{+}\rangle
186: % &=\frac{1}{2}\left[\pm|\sigma ^{+}\rangle _{A}|\tau ^{\pm}\rangle _{B}
187: % \mp|\sigma ^{-}\rangle_{A}|\tau ^{\mp}\rangle _{B}+|\tau ^{+}\rangle _{A}|\sigma ^{\pm}\rangle_{B}
188: % -|\tau^{-}\rangle _{A}|\sigma ^{\mp}\rangle _{B}\right], \\
189: % |\Psi ^{\pm}\rangle \otimes |\psi ^{+}\rangle & =\frac{1}{2}\left[
190: % \pm|\sigma ^{+}\rangle _{A}|\sigma ^{\pm}\rangle _{B}
191: % \mp|\sigma ^{-}\rangle_{A}|\sigma ^{\mp}\rangle _{B}+|\tau ^{+}\rangle _{A}|\tau ^{\pm}\rangle_{B}
192: % -|\tau^{-}\rangle _{A}|\tau ^{\mp}\rangle _{B}\right]\,.
193: % \end{aligned}
194: % \end{equation}
195: % \end{widetext}
196: \begin{equation}
197: \begin{aligned}
198: |\Phi ^{\pm}\rangle \otimes |\psi ^{+}\rangle
199: =\frac{1}{2}[&\pm|\sigma ^{+}\rangle _{A}|\tau ^{\pm}\rangle _{B}
200: \mp|\sigma ^{-}\rangle_{A}|\tau ^{\mp}\rangle _{B}+\\
201: &\quad+|\tau ^{+}\rangle _{A}|\sigma ^{\pm}\rangle_{B}
202: -|\tau^{-}\rangle _{A}|\sigma ^{\mp}\rangle _{B}], \\
203: |\Psi ^{\pm}\rangle \otimes |\psi ^{+}\rangle =\frac{1}{2}[&
204: \pm|\sigma ^{+}\rangle _{A}|\sigma ^{\pm}\rangle _{B}
205: \mp|\sigma ^{-}\rangle_{A}|\sigma ^{\mp}\rangle _{B}+\\
206: &\quad+|\tau ^{+}\rangle _{A}|\tau ^{\pm}\rangle_{B}
207: -|\tau^{-}\rangle _{A}|\tau ^{\mp}\rangle _{B}]\,.
208: \end{aligned}
209: \end{equation}
210: Each product state on the r.h.s. identifies unambiguously one of the states $\ket\Xi$.
211: Our scheme adopts linear momentum entanglement as the ancilla and
212: polarization entanglement as the target. It is equivalent to the one
213: proposed by Walborn et al. \cite{13}, except for the change of roles between
214: the momentum and polarization degrees of freedom in that case.
215: It is worth noting that by our scheme we distinguish among the four
216: hyperentangled states $|\Xi \rangle=|Bell\rangle_{AB} \otimes \ket{\psi^+}$.
217: However, since the momentum state $\ket{\psi^+}$ is fixed,
218: this is equivalent to distinguish among the four Bell polarization states.
219:
220: Concerning the measurement apparatus, the two couples $\ell_A$-$r_B$ and $r_A
221: $-$\ell_B$ are spatially and temporally combined onto a $50\%$ beam splitter
222: ($BS$) by an interferometric apparatus, where a trombone mirror assembly
223: with fine delay adjustment $\Delta x$ is mounted on the left ($\ell$) modes.
224: %{\textit{the upper (Alice) and lower (Bob) modes
225: %$\ell-r$, which corresponds respectively to
226: %the upper and lower side of the BBO emission cone},
227: We set the position $\Delta x=0$ in correspondence of the
228: superposition between the mode pairs $\ell_A$-$r_B$ and
229: $r_A$-$\ell_B$, i.e. when the right ($r$) and left ($\ell$) optical paths of the
230: interferometer are equal \cite{15}. The analyzing apparatus is given by the $%
231: BS$ which follows a $45^{\circ }$ oriented $\lambda/2$ wp ($HW_{0}$),
232: inserted on the right ($r$) side in order to intercept both the Alice than
233: Bob modes (Fig. 1b) \cite{19}.
234:
235: We are then able to completely distinguish among the states %
236: \eqref{single-Bell}, that are transformed by $HW_{0}$ as:
237: \begin{equation}
238: \begin{aligned}
239: &\left| \sigma ^{\pm }\right\rangle _{i}\xrightarrow{\quad HW_0\quad}|H\rangle
240: \otimes \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[ |\ell\rangle _{i}\pm|r\rangle _{i}\right],\\
241: &\left| \tau ^{\pm}\right\rangle _{i}\xrightarrow{\quad HW_0 \quad}|V\rangle \otimes
242: \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[ |\ell\rangle _{i}\pm |r\rangle _{i}\right]\,.
243: \end{aligned}
244: \quad i=A,B
245: \end{equation}
246:
247: The $BS$ discriminates between $|\ell\rangle _{A}+|r\rangle _{A}$ and $%
248: |\ell\rangle _{A}-|r\rangle _{A}$, $|\ell\rangle_{B}+|r\rangle _{B}$ and $%
249: |\ell\rangle _{B}-|r\rangle _{B}$ and polarization analysis on each $BS$
250: output mode, performed by a polarizing beamsplitter ($PBS$), completes the
251: single photon Bell state measurement \cite{19}. Note that a completely
252: deterministic Bell state analysis requires to detect the eight possible
253: outputs of the apparatus (Fig. 1b). In our proof of principle experiment we
254: used four avalanche single photon detectors (mod. Perkin Elmer SPCM-AQR14)
255: on the transmitted modes of the $PBS$'s. In the actual case the transmitted
256: polarization is set by a further $\lambda /2$ wp before each $PBS$.
257:
258: We can also explain in a different way this effect: the hyperentangled states
259: \eqref{hyper-ent} can be viewed as a three qubit states
260: \begin{equation}\label{3qubit}
261: |\Xi \rangle =|Bell\rangle _{AB}\otimes \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left( |0\rangle
262: _{C}+|1\rangle _{C}\right)
263: \end{equation}
264: where now the qubit $C$ is represented by the \textit{couple of photons} in
265: the coherent superposition of the two states $|0\rangle _{C}=|\ell \rangle
266: _{A}|r\rangle _{B}$ and $|1\rangle _{C}=|r\rangle _{A}|\ell \rangle _{B}$ .
267: We are then able to completely discriminate
268: between the four polarization Bell states $|Bell\rangle _{AB}$ of the two
269: qubits $A$ and $B$ with the a priori information about the state of the
270: ancillary qubit $C$. This is the minimum a priori information (one over
271: three qubits) required to perform a complete and deterministic Bell state
272: analysis by linear optics. It is well known that this discrimination is not
273: possible with only two qubits and no extra information \cite{10}.
274: Our approach improves the ``standard'' Bell state analysis where two bits of
275: information are contained in the four Bell states and just one bit,
276: concerning the information on {which of the two kinds of states, }$|\Phi
277: \rangle ^{\pm }${\ or }$|\Psi \rangle ^{\pm }$, the input particles are in,
278: can be deterministically and completely extracted.
279: It is worth noting the relevance
280: for communication or cryptographic protocols of our method which allows to extract all
281: (i.e. two) the bits of information that can be encoded in the states \eqref{3qubit}
282: \footnote{The present method is feasible only for
283: quantum communication schemes, e.g. dense coding, which do not require independent photons.}.
284:
285: Hence, Bell state analysis is performed by the following procedure:
286:
287: \begin{itemize}
288: \item[1)] The phase information (the $+$ or $-$ signs) of the Bell states
289: is transferred into the qubit $C$. In fact the $HW_{0}$
290: operates in the following way:
291: \begin{equation}
292: \begin{aligned}
293: &|\Phi^\pm\rangle_{AB}\otimes\ket{+}_C\xrightarrow{\quad HW_0\quad}
294: |\Psi^\pm\rangle_{AB}\otimes\ket{\pm}_C\\
295: &|\Psi^\pm\rangle_{AB}\otimes\ket{+}_C\xrightarrow{\quad HW_0\quad}
296: |\Phi^\pm\rangle_{AB}\otimes\ket{\pm}_C\end{aligned}
297: \end{equation}
298: where $\ket{\pm}_C=\frac1{\sqrt2}\left(|0\rangle_C\pm|1\rangle_C\right)$.
299:
300: \item[2)] The $BS$ discriminates between $\ket{+}_C$ and $\ket-_C$ as follows:
301: the photons emerge either on the same or the opposite sides of the $BS$
302: depending of the states $\ket+_C$ or $\ket-_C$, respectively.
303:
304: \item[3)] The four PBSs perform polarization analysis distinguishing between $|\Psi
305: \rangle $ and $|\Phi \rangle $.
306: \end{itemize}
307:
308: \begin{figure}[t]
309: \includegraphics[scale=.9]{fig2.eps}
310: \caption{Experimental coincidence frequencies showing the complete Bell
311: state analysis of the polarization states $|\Phi ^{+}\rangle $, $|\Phi
312: ^{-}\rangle $, $|\Psi ^{+}\rangle $, $|\Psi ^{-}\rangle $. Relative errors
313: are typically 2\% for the maxima, 5\% for the other terms.}
314: \label{fig2}
315: \end{figure}
316: The four 3-D histograms given in Fig. \ref{fig2} show all the $16$ possible
317: combinations of the states (\ref{single-Bell}) for either one of the input
318: states $|\Phi ^{+}\rangle $, $|\Phi ^{-}\rangle $, $|\Psi ^{+}\rangle $, $%
319: |\Psi ^{-}\rangle $ and demonstrate the successful implementation of the
320: Bell state analyzer. Each datum was obtained in an acquisition time of $%
321: 10\sec $, while the typical count rate was $\simeq 1000\sec ^{-1}$ for each
322: maximum measurement.
323: \begin{figure}[t]
324: \includegraphics[scale=.8]{fig3.eps}
325: \caption{Overall experimental fidelities obtained by the Bell state analyzer
326: for each input Bell state. Relative errors are typically 2\% for the maxima,
327: 5\% for the other terms.}
328: \label{fig3}
329: \end{figure}
330: The overall input-output histogram shown in Fig. \ref{fig3} clearly
331: indicates the high efficiency of the analysis performed by our scheme. The
332: achieved fidelities of each Bell-state analysis are $F_{\left| \Phi
333: ^{+}\right\rangle }=0.886\pm 0.018$, $F_{|\Phi ^{-}\rangle }=0.895\pm 0.018$%
334: , $F_{|\Psi ^{+}\rangle }=0.877\pm 0.018$, $F_{|\Psi ^{-}\rangle }=0.899\pm
335: 0.018$, with an average value of $0.889\pm 0.010$. Note that
336: the adoption of the same measurement apparatus allows to identify the four
337: Bell states with almost the same fidelity. The noise contribution due to the
338: unexpected coincidences is partially caused by the non perfect purity of the
339: polarization input state and partially due to imperfections of the analysis
340: set-up, e.g. mode mismatch on $BS$.
341: \begin{figure}[t]
342: \includegraphics[scale=.8]{fig4.eps}
343: \caption{Output fidelities of the states $|\Phi ^{+}\rangle $, $|\Phi
344: ^{-}\rangle $, $|\Psi ^{+}\rangle $, $|\Psi ^{-}\rangle $, vs. the path
345: length difference $\Delta x$ in the interferometric apparatus (Input state: $%
346: |\Psi ^{+}\rangle $). Error bars are smaller than the corresponding
347: experimental points.}
348: \label{fig4}
349: \end{figure}
350:
351: To test the feasibility of the Bell state analyzer realized by our scheme,
352: we measured the output of the analyzer when the state $|\Psi ^{+}\rangle $
353: is injected, while introducing noise in a controlled way in the ancilla
354: state $|\psi ^{+}\rangle $. This was performed by varying the value of $%
355: \Delta x$ in the interferometric apparatus. This procedure
356: makes the two events, corresponding to the photons passing through the modes
357: $\ell _{A}$-$r_{B}$ or $r_{A}$-$\ell _{B}$, more
358: distinguishable and simulates an increasing amount of decoherence
359: between the two possible mode pairs (not between one photon and the other).
360: As a consequence the final state is pure in
361: polarization and mixed in the momentum degree of freedom. The experimental
362: output fidelities, shown in Fig. \ref{fig4}, indicate, as expected, that $%
363: |\Psi ^{+}\rangle $ and $|\Psi ^{-}\rangle $ can not be discriminated when $%
364: \Delta x>l_{coh}$, the coherence length of the down converted photons
365: imposed by the $\Delta \lambda =6$nm interference filters before the
366: detectors. The results of Fig. 4 demonstrate that a still efficient Bell
367: state analysis, with $F_{\left| \Psi ^{+}\right\rangle }\geq 0.75$, may be
368: performed even with a partially degraded ancilla state. Similar results are
369: expected when the input polarization entangled state is partially mixed.
370: %or non maximally entangled.\cite{20}.
371:
372: We have presented in this letter a linear optical scheme based on two photon
373: hyperentanglement which allows to perform in a deterministic way the
374: simultaneous measurement of the four polarization Bell states by using
375: standard single photon detectors. By virtue of the simplicity of the
376: measurement procedure and of the high fidelity experimentally attained, the
377: present Bell state analyzer (Fig.1b) may be applied to any source able to
378: produce polarization-momentum entangled photons \cite{5,15,20} and could be
379: useful for the realization of QI protocols, in particular dense coding and
380: quantum key distribution.
381: %Nota sulla teleportation
382: Precisely, the implementation of cryptographic schemes with qudits up to $%
383: d=4$ (ququarts) requiring $5$ mutually unbiased bases and the consequent
384: Bell state measurement can be efficiently performed by adopting the method
385: described in the present work \cite{21}. Indeed, it has been shown that
386: these systems are more robust against specific classes of eavesdropping
387: attacks \cite{pasquin}.
388:
389: Thanks are due to Serge Massar for useful discussions. This work was
390: supported by the FIRB 2001 (\textit{Realization of Quantum Teleportation and
391: Quantum Cloning by the Optical Parametric Squeezing Process}) and PRIN 2005 (%
392: \textit{New perspectives in entanglement and hyper-entanglement generation
393: and manipulation}) of MIUR (Italy).
394: \\\\
395: *Web-page: http://quantumoptics.phys.uniroma1.it/\\
396: $\ ^\dag$present address: School of Physical Sciences, the University of
397: Queensland, 4072, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
398:
399: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
400: \bibitem{1} C. H. Bennett \textit{et al.}, \textit{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
401: \textbf{70}, 1895 (1993).
402:
403: \bibitem{2} C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, \textit{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
404: \textbf{69}, 2881 (1992).
405:
406: \bibitem{3} T. Jennewein, G. Weihs, J. W. Pan, and A. Zeilinger, \textit{%
407: Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{88}, 017903 (2002); F. Sciarrino, E. Lombardi, G.
408: Milani, and F. De Martini, \textit{Phys. Rev. A} \textbf{66}, 024309 (2002).
409:
410: \bibitem{4} A.Ekert, \textit{Nature} \textbf{358}, 14 (1992); N. Gisin, G.
411: Ribordy, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, \textit{Rev. Mod. Phys.} \textbf{74},
412: 145 (2002).
413:
414: \bibitem{5} P. G. Kwiat \textit{et al.}, \textit{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{%
415: 75}, 4337 (1995); P. G. Kwiat, E. Waks, A. G. White, I. Appelbaum and P. H.
416: Eberhard, \textit{Phys. Rev. A} \textbf{60}, R773 (1999).
417:
418: \bibitem{16} C. Cinelli, G. Di Nepi, F. De Martini, M. Barbieri, and P.
419: Mataloni, \textit{Phys. Rev. A} \textbf{70}, 022321 (2004).
420:
421: \bibitem{6} J.G.Rarity, P.R.Tapster, \textit{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{64},
422: 2495 (1990).
423:
424: \bibitem{7} N. Langford \textit{et al.}, \textit{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{%
425: 93}, 053601 (2004).
426:
427: \bibitem{8} J. D. Franson, \textit{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{62}, 2205
428: (1989).
429:
430: \bibitem{9} J. Brendel\textit{\ et al.}, \textit{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{%
431: 82}, 2594 (1999).
432:
433: \bibitem{10} N. L\"utkenhaus, J. Calsamiglia, and K.-A. Suominen, \textit{%
434: Phys. Rev. A} \textbf{59}, 3295 (1999); J. Calsamiglia and N. L\"utkenhaus,
435: \textit{Appl. Phys. B} \textbf{72}, 67 (2001).
436:
437: \bibitem{11} J. L. O'Brien \textit{et al.}, \textit{Phys. Rev. Lett}
438: \textbf{93}, 080502 (2004); Z. Zhao \textit{et al.}, \textit{Phys. Rev. Lett}
439: \textbf{94},030501 (2005); P. Walther and A. Zeilinger, \textit{Phys. Rev. A}
440: \textbf{72}, 010302(R) (2005).
441:
442: \bibitem{12} P. G. Kwiat and H. Weinfurter, \textit{Phys. Rev. A},\textbf{\
443: 58}, R2623 (1998).
444:
445: \bibitem{13} S. P. Walborn, S. P\`{a}dua and C. H. Monken, \textit{Phys.
446: Rev. A }\textbf{68}, 042313 (2003).
447:
448: \bibitem{14} C. Schuck, G. Huber, C. Kurtsiefer, and H. Weinfurter, \textit{%
449: Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{96}, 190501 (2006).
450:
451: \bibitem{15} M. Barbieri \textit{et al.}, \textit{Phys. Rev. A} \textbf{72}%
452: , 052110 (2005).
453:
454: \bibitem{17} C. Cinelli \textit{et al., Phys Rev. Lett.} \textbf{95},
455: 240405 (2005).
456:
457: \bibitem{18} M. Barbieri \textit{et al.},
458: \textit{Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 97}, 140407 (2006)
459:
460: \bibitem{19} D. Boschi, S. Branca, F. De Martini, L. Hardy, S. Popescu,
461: \textit{Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{80}, 1121 (1998).
462:
463: %\bibitem{20} M. Barbieri, G. Vallone, F. De Martini and P. Mataloni,
464: %''Realization and characterization of a deterministic Bell state
465: %analyzer based on two photon hyper-entanglement'', in preparation.
466:
467: \bibitem{20} T.Yang \textit{at al. , Phys. Rev. Lett.} \textbf{95}, 240406
468: (2005).
469:
470: \bibitem{21} G. M. D'Ariano, P. Mataloni and M. F. Sacchi \textit{Phys. Rev.
471: A } \textbf{71}, 062337 (2005).
472:
473: \bibitem{pasquin} H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci and A. Peres {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 85}, 3313 (2000)
474:
475: \end{thebibliography}
476:
477: \end{document}
478: