MIT OpenCourseWarehttp://ocw.mit.edu 6.453 Quantum Optical Communication Spring 2009 For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science 6.453 Quantum Optical Communication Lecture Number 22 Fall 2008 Jeffrey H. Shapiro �c2008 Date: Thursday, December 4, 2008 Introduction Last time we established the quantum version of coupled-mode theory for sp onta-neous parametric downconversion (SPDC). We exhibited the exact solutions for the output signal and idler beams, their jointly Gaussian state characterization whe n the input beams are in their vacuum states, and the low-gain regime approximations for the correlation functions that characterize that state. We also introduced the lumped-element coupled-mode equations for the optical parametric amplifier (OPA), presented their solutions, described their jointly Gaussian state when the signal and idler inputs are unexcited, and showed that the OPA produced quadrature-noise squeezing. Today, we shall finish our survey of the nonclassical signatures produced by χ(2) interactions by considering Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometry, the generation of polarization-entangled photon pairs from SPDC, and the photon-twins behavior of the signal and idler beams from an OPA. Along the way we will learn about quantum interference and photon indistinguishability. Quantum Interference Let us get started with a simple single-mode description in order to introduce quantum interference. Consider the 50-50 beam splitter arrangement shown on slide 3. Here, the only excited modes at the input ports are the co-polarized, pure-tone, plane-wave pulses ˆ e−jω0t/√T and ˆ e−jω0t/√T , for 0 ≤ t ≤ T . The resulting excited modes aSin aIin at the beam splitter’s output then have annihilation operators given by1 aˆSout = jaˆSin√− 2 aˆIin and aˆIout = −aˆSin√+2 jaˆIin . (1) 1The reader should check that this is indeed a unitary transformation and that it conserves energy and commutator brackets. It differs from the 50-50 beam splitter relation, ˆaSout = (ˆaSin + ˆaIin )/√2 and ˆaIin = (ˆaSin − aˆIin )/√2, that we have previously employed. That difference, however, is one of phase-angle choices that amount to simple changes in the input and output reference planes on which the fields are defined. The new choices make the transformation symmetrical, which lends itself to greater insight into the quantum interference process. 1We shall assume that the input modes are each in their single-photon state, so that their joint state is the product state |ψin� = |1�Sin |1�Iin . What then is the joint state of the output modes? We know that it must b e a pure state, because we are starting from a pure state and the beam splitter transformation is a unitary evolution. We know that it must contain exactly two photons, because the beam splitter transformation conserves energy and there are exactly two photons present at its input. Thus we can safely postulate |ψout� = c20|2�Sout |0�Iout + c11|1�Sout |1�Iout + c20|0�Sout |2�Iout , (2) for the output state’s number–state representation, where |c20|2 + |c11|2 + |c02|2 = 1. Furthermore, treating each input mode’s input state as an independent, billiard-ball photon that is equally likely to be transmitted or reflected by the beam splitter, we could easily be led to conclude that |c20|2 = |c02|2 = 1/4 and |c11|2 = 1/2, (3) so that Pr(NSout = nS , NIout = nI ) = ⎧ ⎪⎪⎪⎨ 1/4, 1/2, for nS = 2, nI = 0 for nS = 1, nI = 1 ⎪⎪⎪⎩ 1/4, for nS = 0, nI = 2 0, otherwise, (4) for ideal (unity quantum efficiency) photon counting measurements on the output modes. These results seem quite reasonable. There is only one way for both photons to emerge in the ˆaSout mode: the ˆaSin photon gets transmitted and the ˆaIin photon gets reflected. Similarly, there is only one way for them to both emerge in the ˆaIout mode: the ˆaSin photon gets reflected and the ˆaIin photon gets transmitted. On the other hand, there are two ways for one photon to emerge in each mode, i.e., both input photons are transmitted or both are reflected by the beam splitter. Because this billiard-ball picture says photon transmission and reflection is equally likely to occur at the 50-50 beam splitter, we get the photon counting distribution given above. Photons, however, are not billiard balls, as we know from our work on polarization entanglement. In the present context, their wave-like properties cause them to interfere at the 50-50 beam splitter, leading, as we will soon show, to the following output state |ψout� = |2�Sout |0�Iout√+2|0�Sout |2�Iout . (5) Two things are worth noting before proceeding to the derivation: the input state was a product state, but the output state is entangled; and both photons always leave through the same output port. Why is it impossible to get one photon to appear in each output port? Quantum interference is the answer. In particular, we 2� � � � � � � � � � � � must add the complex amplitudes for the two possible ways in which one photon can appear in each output p ort before taking the squared magnitude to calculate the photon counting probability for the event in which one photon is present at each output port. It is the nature of 50-50 beam splitting that the complex amplitudes for these two possibilities—b oth input photons transmitted or both reflected—ha ve equal magnitudes but are π radians out of phase. Hence their complex amplitudes sum to zero, and we never get one photon emerging from each of the beam splitter’s output ports. To verify that the output state is as given in Eq. (5), let us assume that this equation is correct. The normally-ordered characteristic function for the output state then obeys, χout ζS aˆ†+ζI aˆ†S aˆSout −ζI ∗aˆIout � = N (ζS ∗ , ζI ∗; ζS, ζI ) ≡ �e Sout Iout e−ζ∗ (6) Sout e a†S aSout e−ζ∗ ˆ�e ζS aˆ†ζI ˆIout e−ζ∗ ˆI aIout � = (7) ζ2 ζ2 + S+ ISout�2| + √2ζSSout�1| √2 Sout�0| Iout�0| + Iout�2| + √2ζI Iout�1| √2 Iout�0| Sout�0|√2 × ζ∗2 ζ∗2 |2�Sout −√2ζS ∗