Indistinguishability and interference in the coherent control of atomic and molecular processes

Journal of Chemical Physics

Volumn 132, Issue 5, 2010, Pages

  Gong, Jiangbin ^a,b   Brumer, Paul ^c  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^b NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATOMS; MOLECULES; PHOTODISSOCIATION; QUANTUM INTERFERENCE DEVICES;

ATOMIC AND MOLECULAR PROCESS; COHERENCE TRANSFER; ENERGY EIGENSTATES; INDISTINGUISHABILITY; INTERFERENCE CONTROL; MULTIPLE EXCITATIONS; PHOTODISSOCIATION PRODUCTS; QUANTUM INTERFERENCE;

QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT;

EID: 76349088552     PISSN: 00219606     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.3304921     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. M. P. Silverman, More Than One Mystery: Explorations in Quantum Interference (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995).
2. G. Greenstein and A. G. Zajonc, The Quantum Challenge: Modern Research on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 2nd ed. (Jones and Bartlett, Amherst, 2006).
3. M. Shapiro and P. Brumer, Adv. At., Mol., Opt. Phys. 1049-250X 42, 287 (2000);
4. M. Shapiro and P. Brumer, Principles of the Quantum Control of Molecular Processes (Wiley, New York, 2003).
5. S. A. Rice and M. Zhao, Optical Control of Molecular Dynamics (Wiley, New York, 2000).
6. H. Rabitz, R. de Vivie-Riedle, M. Motzkus, and K. Kompa, Science 0036-8075 288, 824 (2000). 10.1126/science.288.5467.824 (Pubitemid 30257723)
7. R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton, and M. Sands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics (Addison, Wesley, Reading, 1965), Vol. III.
8. M. Jammer, The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (Wiley, New York, 1974), pp. 121-132.
9. M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000).
10. M. O. Scully, B. Englert, and H. Walther, Nature (London) 0028-0836 351, 111 (1991). 10.1038/351111a0
11. An extensive treatment of the loss of quantum effects and the relation to measurements of which-way information is provided in M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence and the Quantum to Classical Transitions (Springer, New York, 2007).
12. L. Mandel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 0034-6861 71, S274 (1999). 10.1103/RevModPhys.71.S274
13. W. K. Wootters and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 0556-2821 19, 473 (1979). 10.1103/PhysRevD.19.473
14. J. Uffink and J. Hilgevoord, Physica B & C 151, 309 (1988). 10.1016/0378-4363(88)90184-2 0378-4363
15. B. G. Englert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 0031-9007 77, 2154 (1996). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.2154
16. L. Mandel, Opt. Lett. 0146-9592 16, 1882 (1991). 10.1364/OL.16.001882
17. P. G. Kwiat, A. M. Steinberg, and R. Chiao, Phys. Rev. A 1050-2947 49, 61 (1994). 10.1103/PhysRevA.49.61
18. A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 0096-8250 47, 777 (1935). 10.1103/PhysRev.47.777
19. Strictly speaking a moving particle should be described by a wavepacket comprised of various momentum components, as opposed to a momentum eigenstate. However, it is appropriate to use momentum eigenstates to describe the scattering processes for two reasons. First, the wavepacket momentum width is often negligible when compared to the average momentum. Second, it was shown [H. J. Bernstein and F. E. Low, Phys. Rev. Lett. 0031-9007 59, 951 (1987)] that experiments with directionally collimated beams incident on passive targets cannot distinguish between coherent wavepacket structure and the incoherent mixing of momentum eigenstates. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.951
20. J. B. Gong, V. Zeman, and P. Brumer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 0031-9007 89, 109301 (2002). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.109301
21. D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Today 0031-9228 46 (8), 22 (1993). 10.1063/1.881360
22. M. Shapiro and P. Brumer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 0031-9007 77, 2574 (1996) 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.2574;
23. A. Abrashkevich, M. Shapiro, and P. Brumer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 0031-9007 81, 3789 (1998) 10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.3789;
24. A. Abrashkevich, M. Shapiro, and P. Brumer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 0031-9007 82, 3002E (1999) 10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.3002;
25. E. Frishman, M. Shapiro, and P. Brumer, J. Chem. Phys. 0021-9606 110, 9 (1999) 10.1063/1.478076; (Pubitemid 129708017)
26. C. A. Arango, M. Shapiro, and P. Brumer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 193202 (2006). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.193202 (Pubitemid 44739913)
27. T. Seideman, M. Shapiro, and P. Brumer, J. Chem. Phys. 0021-9606 90, 7132 (1989) 10.1063/1.456243;
28. D. G. Abrashkevich, M. Shapiro, and P. Brumer, J. Chem. Phys. 0021-9606 108, 3585 (1998). 10.1063/1.475785
29. D. Tannor and S. A. Rice, J. Chem. Phys. 0021-9606 83, 013 (1985).
30. For reviews, see T. Baumert, J. Helbing, and G. Gerber, Adv. Chem. Phys. 0065-2385 101, 47 (1997) 10.1002/9780470141601.ch2;
31. P. Nuernberger, G. Vogt, T. Brixner, and G. Gerber, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 1463-9076 9, 2470 (2007). 10.1039/b618760a
32. R. Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light (Oxford University Press, New York, 2000).
33. V. Buzek and P. L. Knight, Progress in Optics 34, 1 (1995). 10.1016/S0079-6638(08)70324-X
34. J. Gea-Banacloche, Phys. Rev. A 1050-2947 65, 022308 (2002) 10.1103/PhysRevA.65.022308;
35. J. Gea-Banacloche, Phys. Rev. Lett. 0031-9007 89, 217901 (2002). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.217901
36. Note that the situation can be different if the goal is to create entangled matter-photon states. See P. Král, I. Thanopulos, and M. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. A 1050-2947 72, 020303 (2005) (where " 1 photon+2 photon " control was considered and only one of the two light fields is quantized.). 10.1103/PhysRevA.72.020303 (Pubitemid 41493100)
37. S. T. Pratt, J. Chem. Phys. 0021-9606 104, 5776 (1996) 10.1063/1.471309;
38. F. Wang, C. Chen, and D. S. Elliott, Phys. Rev. Lett. 0031-9007 77, 2416 (1996). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.2416
39. Z. Chen, M. Shapiro, and P. Brumer, J. Chem. Phys. 0021-9606 102, 5683 (1995) 10.1063/1.469299;
40. Z. Chen, M. Shapiro, and P. Brumer, Phys. Rev. A 1050-2947 52, 2225 (1995). 10.1103/PhysRevA.52.2225
41. Z. Chen, P. Brumer, and M. Shapiro, J. Chem. Phys. 0021-9606 98, 8647 (1993). 10.1063/1.464472
42. However, the entanglement between photodissociation fragments can also be useful. For example, if one can manipulate the quantum states of all the fragments, then quantum entanglement in photodissociation processes can be used for quantum teleportation. For details, see T. Opatrny and G. Kurizki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 0031-9007 86, 3180 (2000). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.3180
43. R. M. Bowman, M. Dantus, and A. H. Zewail, Chem. Phys. Lett. 0009-2614 156, 131 (1989). 10.1016/S0009-2614(89)87108-8
44. J. Manz, B. Reischl, T. Schroder, F. Seyl, and B. Warmuth, Chem. Phys. Lett. 0009-2614 198, 483 (1992) 10.1016/0009-2614(92)80032-7;
45. U. Banin, A. Waldman, and S. Ruhman, J. Chem. Phys. 0021-9606 96, 2416 (1992). 10.1063/1.462041
46. M. Shapiro, J. Phys. Chem. A 1089-5639 110, 8580 (2006). 10.1021/jp0568071 (Pubitemid 44115531)
47. J. B. Gong, Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, 2001.