The generation and control of quantum states of light constitute fundamental tasks in cavity quantum electrodynamics1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (QED). The superconducting realization of cavity QED, circuit QED (refs 11, 12, 13, 14), enables on-chip microwave photonics, where superconducting qubits15,16,17,18 control and measure individual photon states19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26. A long-standing issue in cavity QED is the coherent transfer of photons between two or more resonators. Here, we use circuit QED to implement a three-resonator architecture on a single chip, where the resonators are interconnected by two superconducting phase qubits. We use this circuit to shuffle one- and two-photon Fock states between the three resonators, and demonstrate qubit-mediated vacuum Rabi swaps between two resonators. By shuffling superposition states we are also able to demonstrate the high-fidelity phase coherence of the transfer. Our results illustrate the potential for using multi-resonator circuits as photon quantum registers and for creating multipartite entanglement between delocalized bosonic modes27.
The combination of high-finesse electromagnetic cavities with atoms or qubits enables fundamental studies of the interaction between light and matter. The cavity provides a protected environment for storing and tailoring individual photonic excitations1,2,3,14. Both stationary6,21,23 and propagating7,9 non-classical fields can be synthesized using such systems, enabling quantum memory and quantum messaging8. A critical challenge however is the extension from single to more versatile multi-cavity architectures27,28, allowing manipulation of spatially separated bosonic modes. Although the entanglement of different modes of a single cavity4 and of free-space modes10 has been shown in atomic systems, and a coupled low- and high-quality-factor resonator studied in circuit QED (refs 25, 26), coherent dynamics between two or more high-quality-factor cavities has yet to be demonstrated. Here we describe a triple-resonator system, where three high-quality-factor microwave resonators are coupled to two superconducting phase qubits (see Fig. 1). The qubits serve as quantum transducers29 that create and transfer photonic states between the resonators. Both Fock states and linear superpositions of Fock states are transferred, thus demonstrating a fully phase coherent process. The quantum transduction is carried out by means of purely resonant qubit–resonator interactions, rather than dispersive coupling27, enabling rapid transfers between resonators with significantly different frequencies. As an important example, we demonstrate single-photon Rabi swaps between two resonators detuned by ≃12,000 resonator linewidths.
Figure 1a,b shows the main experimental elements, which comprise three coplanar waveguide resonators, Ra,Rb and Rc, two phase qubits, Q1 and Q2, and two superconducting quantum interference devices used for qubit state readout. Each qubit is coupled to a control line that is used to adjust the qubit operating frequency f1,2 and couple microwave pulses for controlling and measuring the qubit state. During operation, the device is attached to the mixing chamber of a dilution refrigerator at ≃25 mK.
The circuit layout (see Fig. 1b) can be decomposed into two unit cells, Ra–Q1–Rb (green area) and Rb–Q2–Rc (blue area). The shared resonator Rb connects the two cells and protects the two qubits from unwanted crosstalk. The resonator frequencies fa,fb and fc are measured with qubit spectroscopy (not shown). The vacuum Rabi couplings between each qubit and its corresponding resonators, g1a and g1b for Q1 and g2b and g2c for Q2, are determined by their respective coupling capacitors (see Fig. 1b). The coupling strengths are measured using two-dimensional swap spectroscopy (see Fig. 1c–e). We note that the swap spectroscopy provides an excellent tool for revealing the presence of spurious two-level systems as well as frequencies with short qubit relaxation times. In all of the experiments, the qubits are initialized in the ground state |g〉 and are typically tuned to the idle point, where the qubit Q1 (Q2) |g〉↔|e〉 transition frequency f1 (f2) is set in-between, and well away from, the resonator transition frequencies fa and fb (fb and fc).
When Q1 (Q2) is at the idle point, the qubit–resonator detuning is sufficiently large that the qubit–resonator interactions are effectively switched off. A particular qubit–resonator Qp–Rq (p=1,2 and q=a,b,c) interaction is switched on by shifting the qubit transition frequency fp to equal the resonator frequency fq, thus setting the detuning to zero and enabling quantum energy transfers. The time-dependent control of the qubit transition frequency consequently enables highly complex quantum control of the resonators23.
Figure 2a shows a diagram of the pulse sequence used to implement the single-photon equivalent of the ‘shell game’, in which a pea is hidden under one of three shells and the contestant must guess where the pea is after the shells have been shuffled. The three resonators play the role of the shells and a single-photon Fock state |1〉 that of the pea. The system is initialized in the ground state, with the qubits at their idle points, so that all interactions are effectively switched off. Qubit Q1 is used to pump a single photon into resonator Ra (see Fig. 2a(I)–(III)). The photon state can then be transferred to either of the other two resonators, using the qubits in a similar fashion to mediate the single-excitation transfer. A transfer from Ra to Rb is shown in steps (IV)–(VI), and a second transfer from Rb to Rc carried out using Q2 in steps (VII)–(IX). The final location of the photon can be determined by employing the qubits as photon detectors, through the vacuum Rabi oscillations that occur when a qubit is brought in resonance with a resonator storing a photon (steps (X)–(XI)).
In the data shown in Fig. 2b(i)–(v), which represents different versions of the game, a photon was stored in one of the three resonators, shuffled between the resonators, and all three resonators then measured. In the shell game of Fig. 2b(i), no photon was placed in any resonator, whereas for example in game (iv), a single photon was transferred from Ra to Rc through Rb, and then detected using qubit Q2; measurements of the other resonators Ra and Rb show no oscillations, that is, no photonic excitation.
We also explored a variant of the shell game, transferring a two-photon Fock state |2〉 from Ra to Rb to Rc. The two-photon Fock state (see ref. 21) is first generated in Ra, as shown by the measurements in Fig. 3a(i),(ii). Figure 3a also shows the measurements after this state is transferred from Ra to Rb and then to Rc. Each transfer takes two steps, starting with for example the state |Q1RaRb〉=|g20〉. The qubit is brought into resonance with Ra, and one photon is Rabi-swapped to the qubit, at a rate faster than the usual one-photon rate21, leaving the system in the state |e10〉. The qubit is then tuned into resonance with resonator Rb for a one-photon Rabi swap, resulting in the state |g11〉 (see Fig. 3a(iii)). The qubit is subsequently placed back in resonance with Ra for a one-photon swap, yielding |e01〉, and brought into resonance with Rb to transfer the second photon, ending with the state |g02〉 (see Fig. 3a(iv)). To finally transfer the photons to resonator Rc, the process is repeated using qubit Q2, which completes the full transfer of Fock state |2〉 (see Fig. 3a(v)). This process resembles the well-known game ‘The towers of Hanoi’, where a set of discs with different diameters has to be moved between three posts (the three resonators) while maintaining the larger discs (Fock state |1〉, with the longer swapping time) always at the bottom of each post, and the smaller discs (Fock state |2〉, with shorter swapping time) on top.
Figure 3b,c shows the density matrices and corresponding Wigner functions24 for the coherent transfer of the phase-sensitive state |ψX〉=|0〉+|1〉 (top panels) and |ψY〉=|0〉+eiπ/2|1〉 (bottom panels) between Ra and Rb. From left to right, each state is first prepared in Ra, shuffled to Rb, thus leaving Ra in the vacuum state, and finally shuffled back to Ra. For a phase coherent transfer, the off-diagonal terms of the first and third density matrices on the top row (red arrows) should be orthogonal to those in the bottom row. We find a transfer orthogonality ≃0.96 and a total transfer fidelity ≃0.92 and ≃0.88 for |ψX〉 and |ψY〉, respectively (see Supplementary Information).
Another fundamental question for resonator-based quantum computing is whether quantum states can be stored in a resonator and later extracted and stored elsewhere. We demonstrate this functionality in Fig. 4, where a single photon is stored in each of the three resonators for a variable time τst/3 before being transferred to the next resonator. Qubit measurements of the resonator containing the photon (for example resonator Rc in Fig. 4a) exhibit clear oscillations for total storage times τst exceeding 3 μs. Figure 4b is the same experiment repeated with a two-photon Fock state; clear oscillations are visible for total storage times τst exceeding 1.5 μs. These experiments demonstrate the realization of a programmable quantum information register.
We further show two-resonator vacuum Rabi swaps that can lead to quantum state entanglement between the two resonators Ra and Rb. The protocol is diagrammed in Fig. 5a. A one-photon Fock state is first stored in Ra, placing the system in the state |Q1RaRb〉=|g10〉 (see Fig. 5a(I)–(III)). The qubit is then used to carry out a partial transfer of the photon to Rb, by placing Q1 in resonance with Ra and varying the transfer time τ (see Fig. 5a(IV)). This leaves the system in the entangled state α|g10〉+β|e00〉, with amplitudes30 α=cos(πg1aτ) and β=−i sin(πg1aτ). The qubit frequency f1 is then tuned from fa to fb, and left there for a time equal to the Q1–Rb swap time, thus mapping the qubit state onto the resonator and resulting in the two-resonator entangled state
We then use both qubits to simultaneously measure the two resonators, Q1 measuring Ra for a measurement time Δτ1 and Q2 measuring Rb for a time Δτ2. Figure 5b(c) shows the resulting oscillations in P1e (P2e) for Q1 (Q2) (colour bar scale), as a function of the measurement time Δτ1,2 (horizontal axis) and Q1–Ra transfer time τ (vertical axis). The data exhibit a single Rabi oscillation along the horizontal axis, which would repeat if the measurement time were increased, and also shows clear swaps as a function of the transfer time τ, as expected from the functional dependence of α and β. If the measurement times Δτ1,2 are chosen to equal a full qubit–resonator swap time (dashed white lines in Fig. 5b,c), the system will be in the state |Q1RaRbQ2〉=α|e00g〉+β|g00e〉. An ideal measurement of Q1 and Q2 would then yield probabilities P1e=|α|2=cos2(πg1aτ) and P2e=|β|2=sin2(πg1aτ) for Q1 and Q2, respectively, as a function of the transfer time τ. In Fig. 5d we show this functional dependence, with a clear 180° phase difference between the two probabilities and the summed probability P1e+P2e close to unity, as expected. The probabilities decrease with τ, owing to the finite energy relaxation time of Q1 and Ra. The decay time of Rb does not contribute noticeably (see Supplementary Information). Fitting yields an effective two-resonator decay time approximately equal to the harmonic mean of the energy relaxation times T1rel≃340 ns and Tarel≃3.9 μs of Q1 and Ra, respectively, Tabrel≈(1/2T1rel+1/2Tarel)−1≃626 ns. We note that the phase qubit enables a photon transfer between Ra and Rb even though the two resonators are separated in frequency by ≃12,000 resonator linewidths.
This last experiment demonstrates a true quantum version of the ‘shell game’, where the ‘pea’ (the photon Fock state) is simultaneously hidden under two shells, and the contestant’s selection of a shell constitutes a truly probabilistic measurement. More generally, we have experimentally demonstrated an architecture with three resonators and two qubits that exhibits excellent quantum control over single, double and superpositions of microwave photon Fock states. From a fundamental perspective, these results demonstrate the potential of multi-resonator circuit QED (refs 27, 28), both for scientific study and for quantum information.
Sample fabrication. The resonators are made from a 150-nm-thick rhenium film grown in a molecular-beam-epitaxy system on a polished sapphire substrate. All the other wiring layers are made from sputtered aluminium with Al/AlOx/Al Josephson tunnel junctions. All of the microstructures on the different layers are patterned by means of optical lithography and etched by means of inductively coupled plasma etching. Amorphous silicon is used as a dielectric insulator for the qubit shunting capacitors and crossovers. Our sample fabrication clearly shows the flexibility offered by multi-layer processing.
The complete device is wire bonded by aluminium wire-bonds to an aluminium sample holder, which is bolted to the mixing chamber of a dilution refrigerator operating at ≃25 mK. A detailed description of the fabrication techniques, electronics and qubit calibration procedures can be found elsewhere23.
Three-resonator circuit QED Hamiltonian. The Hamiltonian for the circuit of Fig. 1b can be written as the sum of the Hamiltonians of each unit cell, and . Neglecting the driving and dissipative terms for simplicity, the Hamiltonian of the first circuit unit cell can be expressed in the interaction picture with respect to Q1 and Ra and Rb as the combination of two Jaynes–Cummings interactions:
where are the rising and lowering operators for Q1, and are the bosonic annihilation and creation operators for Ra and Rb, respectively, and Δ1a≡f1−fa and Δ1b≡f1−fb are the qubit–resonator detunings. The Hamiltonian for the second circuit unit cell has an analogous expression.
To effectively switch off a particular qubit–resonator Qp–Rq interaction, the condition Δp q≫gp q must be fulfilled. This is the case when Q1 (Q2) is at the idle point. On the contrary, when Δp q0, a resonant Jaynes–Cummings interaction takes place enabling state preparation and transfer in and between the resonators as well as photon detection.
Mabuchi, H. & Doherty, A. C. Cavity quantum electrodynamics: Coherence in context. Science 298, 1372–1377 (2002).
Haroche, S. & Raimond, J-M. Exploring the Quantum (Oxford Univ. Press, 2006).
Walther, H., Varcoe, B. T. H., Englert, B-G. & Becker, T. Cavity quantum electrodynamics. Rep. Prog. Phys. 69, 1325–1382 (2006).
Rauschenbeutel, A. et al. Controlled entanglement of two field modes in a cavity quantum electrodynamics experiment. Phys. Rev. A 64, 050301(R) (2001).
Gleyzes, S. et al. Quantum jumps of light recording the birth and death of a photon in a cavity. Nature 446, 297–300 (2007).
Deléglise, S. et al. Reconstruction of non-classical cavity field states with snapshots of their decoherence. Nature 455, 510–514 (2008).
Hijlkema, M. et al. A single-photon server with just one atom. Nature Phys. 3, 253–255 (2007).
Wilk, T., Webster, S. C., Kuhn, A. & Rempe, G. Single-atom single-photon quantum interface. Science 317, 488–490 (2007).
Dayan, B. et al. A photon turnstile dynamically regulated by one atom. Science 319, 1062–1065 (2008).
Papp, S. B. et al. Characterization of multipartite entanglement for one photon shared among four optical modes. Science 324, 764–768 (2009).
Wallraff, A. et al. Strong coupling of a single photon to a superconducting qubit using circuit quantum electrodynamics. Nature 431, 162–167 (2004).
Chiorescu, I. et al. Coherent dynamics of a flux qubit coupled to a harmonic oscillator. Nature 431, 159–162 (2004).
Johansson, J. et al. Vacuum Rabi oscillations in a macroscopic superconducting qubit LC oscillator system. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 127006 (2006).
Schoelkopf, R. J. & Girvin, S. M. Wiring up quantum systems. Nature 451, 664–669 (2008).
Makhlin, Yu., Schön, G. & Shnirman, A. Quantum-state engineering with Josephson-junction devices. Rev. Mod. Phys. 73, 357–400 (2001).
Wendin, G. & Shumeiko, V. S. in Handbook of Theoretical and Computational Nanotechnology Vol. 3 (eds Rieth, M. & Schommers, W.) 223–309 (American Scientific, 2006).
You, J. Q. & Nori, F. Superconducting circuits and quantum information. Phys. Today 58, 42–47 (November, 2005).
Clarke, J. & Wilhelm, F. K. Superconducting quantum bits. Nature 453, 1031–1042 (2008).
Houck, A. A. et al. Generating single microwave photons in a circuit. Nature 449, 328–331 (2007).
Sillanpää, M. A., Park, J. I. & Simmonds, R. W. Coherent quantum state storage and transfer between two phase qubits via a resonant cavity. Nature 449, 438–442 (2007).
Hofheinz, M. et al. Generation of Fock states in a superconducting quantum circuit. Nature 454, 310–314 (2008).
Deppe, F. et al. Two-photon probe of the Jaynes–Cummings model and controlled symmetry breaking in circuit QED. Nature Phys. 4, 686–691 (2008).
Hofheinz, M. et al. Synthesizing arbitrary quantum states in a superconducting resonator. Nature 459, 546–549 (2009).
Wang, H. et al. Decoherence dynamics of complex photon states in a superconducting circuit. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 200404 (2009).
Leek, P. J. et al. Cavity quantum electrodynamics with separate photon storage and qubit readout modes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 100504 (2010).
Johnson, B. R. et al. Quantum non-demolition detection of single microwave photons in a circuit. Nature Phys. 6, 663–667 (2010).
Mariantoni, M. et al. Two-resonator circuit quantum electrodynamics: A superconducting quantum switch. Phys. Rev. B 78, 104508 (2008).
Helmer, F. et al. Cavity grid for scalable quantum computation with superconducting circuits. Europhys. Lett. 85, 50007 (2009).
Sun, C. P., Wei, L. F., Liu, Y-X. & Nori, F. Quantum transducers: Integrating transmission lines and nanomechanical resonators via charge qubits. Phys. Rev. A 73, 022318 (2006).
Walls, D. F. & Milburn, G. J. Quantum Optics 2nd edn (Springer, 2008).
This work was supported by IARPA under ARO award W911NF-08-1-0336 and under ARO award W911NF-09-1-0375. M.M. acknowledges support from an Elings Prize Postdoctoral Fellowship. Devices were made at the UC Santa Barbara Nanofabrication Facility, a part of the NSF-funded National Nanotechnology Infrastructure Network.
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
About this article
Cite this article
Mariantoni, M., Wang, H., Bialczak, R. et al. Photon shell game in three-resonator circuit quantum electrodynamics. Nature Phys 7, 287–293 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys1885
Frontiers of Physics (2020)
Quantum Information Processing (2020)
Analogue of dynamic Hall effect in cavity magnon polariton system and coherently controlled logic device
Nature Communications (2019)
Theory for frequent measurements of spontaneous emissions in a non-Markovian environment: Beyond the Lorentzian spectrum
Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy (2019)
Quantum Information Processing (2018)