High-flux source of polarization-entangled photons from a periodically poled KTiOPO4 parametric down-converter

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 69, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 138071-138075

  Kuklewicz, Christopher E ^a   Fiorentino, Marco ^a   Messin, Gaétan ^a   Wong, Franco N C ^a   Shapiro, Jeffrey H ^a  

^a MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CRYSTALS; FLUORESCENCE; LASERS; OPTICAL BEAM SPLITTERS; POLARIZATION; POTASSIUM COMPOUNDS; PROBABILITY; QUANTUM INTERFERENCE PHENOMENA; SPECTRUM ANALYSIS; ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION;

QUASI-PHASE-MATCHING; SINGLE-BEAM-ENTANGLEMENT;

PHOTONS;

EID: 4644352837     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. J.S. Bell, Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447 (1966).
2. J.F. Clauser, M.A. Home, A. Shimony, and R.A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969).
3. C.H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W.K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993).
4. J.H. Shapiro, New J. Phys. 4, 47. 1 (2002).
5. M. Hillery, V. Buzek, and A. Berthiaume, Phys. Rev. A 59, 1829 (1999).
6. A.K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991).
7. P.G. Kwiat, E. Waks, A.G. White, I. Appelbaum, and P.H. Eberhard, Phys. Rev. A 60, R773 (1999).
8. C. Kurtsiefer, M. Oberparleiter, and H. Weinfurter, Phys. Rev. A 64, 023802 (2001).
9. P.G. Kwiat, K. Mattle, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, A.V. Sergienko, and Y. Shih, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4337 (1995).
10. M.M. Fejer, G.A. Magel, D.H. Jundt, and R.L. Byer, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 28, 2631 (1992).
11. J.H. Shapiro and N.C. Wong, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclassical Opt. 2, L1 (2000).
12. (2) interactions. Furthermore, we have shown how the low-gain limit of the polarization-entangled Gaussian state is well approximated by vacuum plus biphoton components [15]. Because our down-converter operates in this low-gain regime, it is appropriate to describe its nonvacuum output component in terms of the probability amplitudes of a biphoton state. Because the biphoton description is more intuitive than the rigorous Gaussian-state characterization, we have chosen to use the former throughout this paper.
13. J.H. Shapiro and K.-X. Sun, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 11, 1130 (1994).
14. J.H. Shapiro, Proc. SPIE 5111, 382 (2003).
15. J. H. Shapiro, in Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Quantum Communication, Measurement and Computing, edited by J.H. Shapiro and O. Hirota (Rinton Press, Princeton, 2003), pp. 153-158.
16. M.H. Rubin, D.N. Klyshko, Y.H. Shih, and A.V. Sergienko, Phys. Rev. A 50, 5122 (1994).
17. C.K. Hong, Z.Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2044 (1987).
18. C.E. Kuklewicz, E. Keskiner, F.N.C. Wong, and J.H. Shapiro, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclassical Opt. 4, S162 (2002).
19. S. Lloyd, M.S. Shahriar, J.H. Shapiro, and P.R. Hemmer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 167903 (2001).
20. The biphoton state from Sec. II is the leading (first-order) nonvacuum term when the Gaussian state produced by SPDC is expanded in the number-state basis. That ∼1% of our coincidences are due to double-pair occurrences represents the contribution of the second-order term in this number-state expansion. In Ref. [18] we used the Gaussian-state treatment of SPDC to analyze a quantum-interference measurement similar to that of Fig. 2. The same analysis procedure can be used for the Bell's inequality configuration. When the coincidence gate is short enough that the probability of a singles count in that time window is low, then the Gaussian-state results reduce to those obtained from the biphoton description.