Deterministic coupling of single quantum dots to single nanocavity modes

Science

Volumn 308, Issue 5725, 2005, Pages 1158-1161

  Badolato, Antonio ^a   Hennessy, Kevin ^a   Atatüre, Mete ^b   Dreiser, Jan ^b   Hu, Evelyn ^a   Petroff, Pierre M ^a   Imamoǧlu, Atac ^b  

^a University of California at Santa Barbara   (United States)

^b ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CRYSTALS; ELECTRODYNAMICS; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; MEMBRANES; PHOTONS; QUANTUM THEORY; SELF ASSEMBLY; SPECTRUM ANALYSIS;

NANOCAVITY; QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMICS (QED); QUANTUM INFORMATION PROCESSING; SINGLE QUANTUM DOTS;

SEMICONDUCTOR QUANTUM DOTS;

NANOPARTICLE; QUANTUM DOT;

PHYSICS;

ARTICLE; CRYSTAL STRUCTURE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTUM MECHANICS; SOLID STATE; STRUCTURE ANALYSIS;

EID: 18844418460     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1109815     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Q. A. Turchette, C. J. Hood, W. Lange, H. Mabuchi, H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4710 (1995).
2. J. M. Raimond, M. Brune, S. Haroche, Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 565 (2001).
3. J. M. Gérard, in Single Quantum Dots: Fundamentals, Application and New Concepts, P. Michler, Ed., vol. 90 of Springer Series in Topics in Applied Physics (Springer, Berlin, 2003), pp. 269-314.
4. P. Michler et al., Science 290, 2282 (2000).
5. E. Moreau et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 2865 (2001).
6. C. Santori, D. Fattal, J. Vuckovic, G. S. Solomon, Y. Yamamoto, Nature 419, 594 (2002).
7. J. P. Reithmaier et al., Nature 432, 197 (2004).
8. T. Yoshie et al., Nature 432, 200 (2004).
9. E. Peter et al., in preparation (available at http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/ quant-ph/0411076).
10. Fabrication and characterization details are available as supporting material on Science Online.
11. K. Hennessy et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 83, 3650 (2003).
12. Q. H. Xie, A. Madhukar, P. Chen, N. P. Kobayashi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 2542 (1995).
13. D. M. Bruls et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 82, 3758 (2003).
14. P. M. Petroff, A. Lorke, A. Imamoglu, Phys. Today 54, 46 (2001).
15. The seed QD layer was grown 64 nm below the top surface of the membrane; successive stacked QD layers were spaced by 12 nm of GaAs.
16. K. Hennessy, A. Badolato, P. M. Petroff, E. Hu, Photonics Nanostruct. Fund. Appl. 2, 65 (2004).
17. In the broad field of QD nanosystems, our positioning technique can provide enough accuracy to implement functional devices such as QDs coupled to nanoelectromechanical systems and electrical addressing of single QDs.
18. G. C. DeSalvo et al., J. Electrochem. Soc. 143, 3652 (1996).
19. C. Schulhauser et al., Phys. Rev. B 66, 193303 (2002).
20. sat. In this way, we rule out potential variations in optical alignment and laser power.
21. The distance between the QD on the surface and the closest hole surface was ∼50 nm, which was large enough to keep the seed QD from interacting with the surface states as described in (22).
22. C. F. Wang et al., Appl. Phys. Lett. 85, 3423 (2004).
23. sat (Fig. 3B).
24. A. Kiraz, M. Atature, A. Imamoglu, Phys. Rev. A 69, 032305 (2004).
25. A. Imamoglu et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4204 (1999).
26. These simulations were done with commercially available software from Lumerical Solutions.
27. Supported by NSF Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Team grant 0304678 (A.B. and P.M.P.), Binational Science Foundation grant 2000233 (A.B. and P.M.P.), NSF Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship grant 9987618 (K.H. and E.H.), and internal grants from ETH Zürich (M.A., J.D., and A.I.). We thank Lumerical Solutions for detailed assistance with the farfield calculations.