Letter | Published:

Quantum interference between two single photons emitted by independently trapped atoms

Abstract

When two indistinguishable single photons are fed into the two input ports of a beam splitter, the photons will coalesce and leave together from the same output port. This is a quantum interference effect, which occurs because two possible paths—in which the photons leave by different output ports—interfere destructively. This effect was first observed in parametric downconversion1 (in which a nonlinear crystal splits a single photon into two photons of lower energy), then from two separate downconversion crystals2, as well as with single photons produced one after the other by the same quantum emitter3,4,5,6. With the recent developments in quantum information research, much attention has been devoted to this interference effect as a resource for quantum data processing using linear optics techniques2,7,8,9,10,11. To ensure the scalability of schemes based on these ideas, it is crucial that indistinguishable photons are emitted by a collection of synchronized, but otherwise independent sources. Here we demonstrate the quantum interference of two single photons emitted by two independently trapped single atoms, bridging the gap towards the simultaneous emission of many indistinguishable single photons by different emitters. Our data analysis shows that the observed coalescence is mainly limited by wavefront matching of the light emitted by the two atoms, and to a lesser extent by the motion of each atom in its own trap.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1

    Hong, C. K., Ou, Z. Y. & Mandel, L. Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by interference. Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2044–2046 (1987)

  2. 2

    de Riedmatten, H., Marcikic, J., Tittel, W., Zbinden, M. & Gisin, N. Quantum interference with photon pairs created in spatially separated sources. Phys. Rev. A 67, 022301 (2003)

  3. 3

    Varoutsis, S. et al. Restoration of photon indistinguishability in the emission of a semiconductor quantum dot. Phys. Rev. B 72, 041303(R) (2005)

  4. 4

    Legero, T., Wilk, T., Hennrich, M., Rempe, G. & Kuhn, A. Quantum beat of two single photons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 070503 (2004)

  5. 5

    Kiraz, A. et al. Indistinguishable photons from a single molecule. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 223602 (2005)

  6. 6

    Santori, C., Fattal, D., Vučković, J., Salomon, G. S. & Yamamoto, Y. Indistinguishable photons from a single-photon device. Nature 419, 594–597 (2002)

  7. 7

    Dowling, J. P., Franson, J. D., Lee, H. & Milburn, G. J. Towards scalable linear-optical quantum computers. Quantum Inf. Process. 3, 205–213 (2004)

  8. 8

    Pan, J.-W., Bouwmeester, D., Weinfurter, H. & Zeilinger, A. Experimental entanglement swapping: entangling photons that never interacted. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3891–3894 (1998)

  9. 9

    Knill, E., Laflamme, R. & Milburn, G. J. A scheme for efficient quantum computation with linear optics. Nature 409, 46–52 (2001)

  10. 10

    Lim, Y. L., Beige, A. & Kwek, L. C. Repeat-until-success linear optics distributed quantum computing. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 030505 (2005)

  11. 11

    Barrett, S. D. & Kok, P. Efficient high-fidelity quantum computation using matter qubits and linear optics. Phys. Rev. A 71, 060310 (2003)

  12. 12

    Zoller, P., Cirac, J. I., Duan, L. & García-Ripoll, J. J. in Les Houches, Session LXXIX, 2003—Quantum Entanglement and Information Processing (eds Estève, D., Raimond, J.-M. & Dalibard, J.) 187–222 (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2004)

  13. 13

    Paillard, M. et al. Spin relaxation quenching in semiconductor quantum dots. Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1634–1637 (2001)

  14. 14

    Monroe, C., Meekhof, D. M., King, B. E., Itano, W. M. & Wineland, D. J. Demonstration of a fundamental quantum logic gate. Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4714–4717 (1995)

  15. 15

    Schrader, D. et al. Neutral atom quantum register. Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 150501 (2004)

  16. 16

    Simon, C. & Irvine, W. T. M. Robust long-distance entanglement and a loophole-free Bell test with ions and photons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 110405 (2003)

  17. 17

    Blinov, B. B., Moehring, D. L., Duan, L.-M. & Monroe, C. Observation of entanglement between a single trapped atom and a single photon. Nature 428, 153–157 (2004)

  18. 18

    Bergamini, S. et al. Holographic generation of microtrap arrays for single atoms by use of a programmable phase modulator. J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 21, 1889–1894 (2004)

  19. 19

    Schlosser, N., Reymond, G., Protsenko, I. & Grangier, P. Sub-poissonian loading of single atoms in a microscopic dipole trap. Nature 411, 1024–1027 (2001)

  20. 20

    Dingjan, J. et al. A frequency-doubled, pulsed laser system for rubidium manipulation. Appl. Phys. B 82, 47–51 (2006)

  21. 21

    Darquié, B. et al. Controlled single-photon emission from a single trapped two-level atom. Science 309, 454–456 (2005)

  22. 22

    Legero, T., Wilk, T., Kuhn, A. & Rempe, G. Time-resolved two-photon quantum interference. Appl. Phys. B 77, 797–802 (2003)

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge support from the European Union through the Integrated Project ‘SCALA’. J.D. was funded by Research Training Network ‘CONQUEST’. M.P.A.J. was supported by a Marie Curie fellowship.

Author information

Correspondence to A. Browaeys.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

Reprints and permissions information is available at npg.nature.com/reprintsandpermissions. The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Notes

This file contains discussion about: the normalized height of the residual peak for non-interfering photons; alignment of the optical system and limits on spatial overlap; and the effect of the inhomogeneous broadening on the shape of the residual peak at zero delay, including one figure. (PDF 60 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Further reading

Figure 1: Experimental set-up.
Figure 2: Histograms of the time delays of the arrival of two photons on the avalanche photodiodes, in the start–stop configuration.
Figure 3: Influence of wavefront matching.
Figure 4: Zoom of the histogram of Fig. 2 in the 50/50 beam-splitter configuration, around zero delay.

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.