Abstract
A fivelevel atomic system is proposed in vicinity of a twodimensional (2D) plasmonic nanostructure with application in atomphoton entanglement. The behavior of the atomphoton entanglement is discussed with and without a control laser field. The amount of atomphoton entanglement is controlled by the quantum interference created by the plasmonic nanostructure. Thus, the degree of atomphoton entanglement is affected by the atomic distance from the plasmonic nanostructure. In the presence of a control field, maximum entanglement between the atom and its spontaneous emission field is observed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
The lightmatter coherent interaction leads to an important phenomenon in quantum science such as quantum entanglement^{1,2}. Quantum entanglement has widely been proposed due to its applications in quantum computing and quantum information technology^{3,4}. Some important applications of entangled particles are their use in quantum algorithms^{5}, quantum cryptography^{6}, quantum networks^{7,8}, and teleportation^{9}. In last two decades, different approaches were presented to generate entangled particles^{10,11}. Lately, matterfield entanglement has reached specific regard, because photons are used to carry the quantum information, and atoms are used to store it^{12}. Many proposals were presented to produce the entanglement between quantum systems and their spontaneous emission field. Some of these articles are including the generation of entanglement between the atom and its spontaneous emission field via quantum entropy under the EIT conditions^{13,14,15}. Time dependent behavior of the atomphoton entanglement is discussed when a fourlevel atom is embedded near the band edge of a photonic crystal^{16}. The time evolution of the quantum entropy in a triple quantum dot molecule is controlled by the gate voltage and the rate of an incoherent pump field^{17}. It was also shown that atomphoton entanglement can be controlled by the relative phase of the applied fields^{18}, and the quantum interference parameter^{19,20}. Basically, atomphoton entanglement can be achieved by the atomic coherence that is created by the coherent laser fields. Instead, when the system interacts with the surrounding reservoirs, due to the decoherence processes, the degree of entanglement and the information degrades. Spontaneous emission is an important phenomenon that leads to disentanglement of the two entangled states. However, spontaneous emission is an incoherent process, which can be controlled by placing the emitters in frequencydependent reservoirs^{21}, near the edges of photonic bandgaps (PBG)^{22,23}, or in a microwave cavity^{24}. The spectrum of the spontaneous emission strongly depends on the energy levels structure and the generated quantum coherence^{25}. Therefore, due to quantum interference mechanism, the rate of spontaneous emission may be decreased or even suppressed.
On the other hand, the optical properties of the quantum emitters, i.e. atoms or semiconductor quantum dots, can significantly be modified when quantum systems are placed near the plasmonic nanostructures^{26}. In vicinity of plasmonic nanostructures, the strong interaction between the electromagnetic field and the quantum emitters can be occurred^{27}. Therefore, the optical response of the quantum emitter can be controlled using a hybrid quantumplasmonic system. Quenching or enhancement of the spontaneous emission^{28,29,30}, gain without population inversion^{31}, enhancement of nonlinear optical response^{32,33,34} are described in hybrid plasmonic nanostructure. The effect of plasmonic nanostructure on optical grating^{35}, probe field absorption^{36}, and slowlight propagation^{37} was also proposed.
Now, we study the entanglement of a fivelevel quantum emitter coupled to a plasmonic nanostructure, namely a periodic 2D array of metalcoated dielectric nanospheres, and its spontaneous emission field. The combined density matrix approach and ab initio electromagnetic calculations are employed to discuss the response of the system. Steadystate population distribution of the various levels of the quantum emitter with and without the control laser field are investigated. We show that the population distribution and consequently atomphoton entanglement is strongly affected by the distance of quantum emitter from the plasmonic nanostructure. We show that the maximum value of entanglement can be achieved at a certain distance from the plasmonic nanostructure. We also prove that the degree of entanglement can effectively be controlled by the quantum interference between decay processes due to the proximity of the plasmonic nanostructure.
In the following discussion; we first present the coherently driven atomic model. Then, we obtain the relevant density matrix equations in the presence of the plasmonic nanostructure, and present the reduced entropy for calculating the atomphoton entanglement. In “Results and discussions” section some numerical results of the atomphoton entanglement are presented. Finally, the paper is concluded in “Conclusion” section.
Model and equations
Consider a fivelevel atomic system with two lower levels \(1\rangle\) and \(2\rangle\), two closely lying middle Zeeman sublevels \(3\rangle\) and \(4\rangle\), and an additional higherlevel \(5\rangle\) as depicted in Fig. 1. Assume this atomic system is fixed at a distance \(d\) from the plasmonic nanostructure’s surface, which is located in vacuum space (Fig. 2). The strength of the interaction between the atom and nearlyresonant optical electric field \(\widehat{\overrightarrow{E}}\) is characterized by the dipole moment operator \(\widehat{\overrightarrow{\mu}}\). Hamiltonian for this interaction is \({\widehat{H}}_{int}=\widehat{\overrightarrow{\mu }}.\widehat{\overrightarrow{E}}\). The diagonal matrix elements \({\overrightarrow{\mu }}_{ii}\) of this operator determine the dipole moments of the electron in the states \(i\rangle\), and are nonzero only in atoms with permanent dipole moments. The offdiagonal matrix elements \({\overrightarrow{\mu }}_{ij}\) are transition dipole moment, which demonstrates the transition of an electron from the state \(i\rangle\) to the state \(j\rangle\) and vice versa. The matrix elements \({\mu }_{ij}\) can be real or complex and \({\mu }_{ij}={\mu }_{ji}^{*}\). We take \({\overrightarrow{\mu }}_{32}={\overrightarrow{\mu }}_{42}=\overrightarrow{\mu }\), \({\overrightarrow{\mu }}_{31}={\overrightarrow{\mu }}_{41}={\overrightarrow{\mu }}{{^{\prime}}}\) and \({\overrightarrow{\mu }}_{53}={\overrightarrow{\mu }}_{54}={\overrightarrow{\mu }}{{^{\prime\prime}}}\). The diagonal matrix elements \(\overrightarrow{\mu }\), \({\overrightarrow{\mu }}{{^{\prime}}}\) and \({\overrightarrow{\mu }}{{^{\prime\prime}}}\) are assumed to be real. The electric dipole moment operator is written as
where \({\hat{\varepsilon }}_{+}\) and \({\hat{\varepsilon }}_{}\) describe the right and leftrotating unit vectors, which are defined as
Here, \({\mathbf{e}}_{z}\) and \({\mathbf{e}}_{x}\) are unit vectors in \(z\) and \(x\) directions. Two linearly polarized continuous electric fields as \(\overrightarrow{E}\left(t\right)={\mathbf{e}}_{z}{E}_{0}{\cos}\left(\nu t\right)\) and \({\overrightarrow{E}}^{{\prime}}\left(t\right)={\mathbf{e}}_{z}{E}_{0}^{{\prime}}{\cos}\left({\nu }^{{\prime}}t\right)\) are applied to the quantum system, where \({E}_{0}\) (\({E}_{0}^{{\prime}}\)) and \(\nu\) (\({\nu }^{{\prime}}\)) are the amplitude and angular frequency of the electric field, respectively. The electric field \(\overrightarrow{E}\left(t\right)\) drives transition \(1\rangle \leftrightarrow i\rangle\) (\(i=3, 4\)), while controlling electric field \({\overrightarrow{E}}^{{\prime}}\left(t\right)\) couples level \(5\rangle\) to Zeeman sublevels \(3\rangle\) and \(4\rangle\). The atom–field interaction in dipole and rotatingwave approximation is described by Hamiltonian
Here, \(\delta\) (\({\delta }^{{\prime}})\) is the detuning between respected energy levels and applied fields, which is measured from average transition frequencies of level \(3\rangle\) and level \(4\rangle\) with level \(1\rangle\) (\(5\rangle\)). So, detunings define as \(\delta =\nu \left({\omega }_{31}+\frac{1}{2}{\omega }_{43}\right)=\nu \left({\omega }_{41}\frac{1}{2}{\omega }_{43}\right)\), and \({\delta }^{{\prime}}={\nu }^{{\prime}}\left({\omega }_{54}+\frac{1}{2}{\omega }_{43}\right)={\nu }^{{\prime}}\left({\omega }_{53}\frac{1}{2}{\omega }_{43}\right)\), where, \({\omega }_{ij}\) are transition frequencies between the energy level \(i\rangle\) and level \(j\rangle\). The parameters \(\Omega =\mu {E}_{0}/\sqrt{2}\hslash\) and \({\Omega }^{{\prime}}={\mu }^{{{\prime}}{{\prime}}}{E}_{0}^{{\prime}}/\sqrt{2}\hslash\) are the corresponding Rabifrequencies.
The spontaneous emission rates from the excited level \(5\rangle\) to the other lower levels are denoted by \(2{\gamma }_{5i}\) (\(i=1, 2, 3, 4\)). The transitions from level \(5\rangle\) to level \(3\rangle\) and level \(4\rangle\) are influenced by the interaction of the quantum system with freespace vacuum modes, so these transitions are not affected by the plasmonic nanostructure. The Zeeman sublevels \(3\rangle\) and \(4\rangle\) spontaneously decay to level \(1\rangle\) (\(2\rangle\)) with decay rates \(2{\gamma }_{3}^{{\prime}}\) (\(2{\gamma }_{3}\)) and \(2{\gamma }_{4}^{{\prime}}\) (\(2{\gamma }_{4}\)), respectively. Moreover, we assume the transitions from level \(3\rangle\) and level \(4\rangle\) to level \(2\rangle\) spectrally be located in the surfaceplasmon band of the plasmonic nanostructure, while the transitions from level \(3\rangle\) and level \(4\rangle\) to level \(1\rangle\) are also far from the surfaceplasmon bands.
Note that, if we consider the transitions from level \(3\rangle\) and level \(4\rangle\) to level \(1\rangle\) near the surface plasmon band of the plasmonic nanostructure, the Rabi frequency of the coupling light, which couples the ground level \(1\rangle\) to upperintermediate states, may be affected by plasmonic nanostructure. In fact, the plasmonic nanostructure affects the Rabi frequency of coupling light, and its value may be changed.
For simplicity, we assume \({\omega }_{43}\) to be relatively small that equals to a few \({\Gamma }_{0}\) (decay rate of level \(3\rangle\) and level \(4\rangle\) to level \(2\rangle\) in the vacuum). Later, the energy of both middle levels is taken to be the same; thus decay rates from level \(3\rangle\) and level \(4\rangle\) to level \(1\rangle\) are coupled by the same vacuum mods. Therefore, these transitions are freespace spontaneous decay. In addition, spontaneous decay from level \(3\rangle\) and level \(4\rangle\) to level \(2\rangle\) are coupled by the same mods that affected by plasmonic nanostructure. Then, we can assume \({\gamma }_{3}={\gamma }_{4}=\gamma\) and \({\gamma }_{3}^{{\prime}}={\gamma }_{4}^{{\prime}}={\gamma }^{{\prime}}\)^{38}.
Considering the Hamiltonian described in Eq. (3), the density matrix equations of motion in rotating frame are obtained by quantum Liouville equation
where \(\mathcal{L}\rho\) is Liouville operator and expresses the dissipation processes which is given by
where, \({\sigma }_{ij}=i\rangle \langle j\) is the atom transition operator (see Eq. 1 in Supplementary Note). \(\kappa\) represents the coupling coefficient between level \(3\rangle\) and level \(4\rangle\). This coefficient is due to anisotropic vacuum influence on spontaneous emission due to the existence of plasmonic nanostructure (anisotropic Purcell effect)^{39}, which arises due to the quantum interference mechanism^{40}. The values of \(\gamma\) and \(\kappa\) can be obtained by the dyadic electromagnetic Green’s tensor \(\mathbf{G}\left(\overrightarrow{r},\overrightarrow{r};\omega \right)\)^{41}, as
where \(\omega =\left({\omega }_{4}+{\omega }_{3}\right)/2{\omega }_{2}\), \(\overrightarrow{r}\) displays the position of the atomic system, and \({\mu }_{0}\) refers to the permeability of vacuum space. Due to the Eq. (5), we can write the values of \(\gamma\) and \(\kappa\)^{42}, as
Moreover, \({G}_{\perp }\left(\overrightarrow{r},\overrightarrow{r};\omega \right)={G}_{zz}\left(\overrightarrow{r},\overrightarrow{r};\omega \right)\), \({G}_{\parallel }\left(\overrightarrow{r},\overrightarrow{r};\omega \right)={G}_{xx}\left(\overrightarrow{r},\overrightarrow{r};\omega \right)\) indicates the elements of the electromagnetic wave Green’s tensor. Here, index \(\parallel\) (\(\perp\)) denotes the dipole oriented parallel (normal) along the xaxis (zaxis) to the surface of the plasmonic nanostructure^{38}. Therefore, we express the spontaneous emission rates in parallel and normal directions to the surface of the plasmonic nanostructure as
Now, we introduce the quantum interference parameter as \(p=\frac{{\Gamma }_{\perp }{\Gamma }_{\parallel }}{{\Gamma }_{\perp }+{\Gamma }_{\parallel }}=\frac{\kappa }{\gamma }\) that arises due to existence of plasmonic nanostructure. Spontaneous emission may be enhanced or even quenched via the quantum interfere mechanism depending on \({\Gamma }_{\parallel }\) and \({\Gamma }_{\perp }\). When quantum system is very far from the plasmonic nanostructure, i.e. \({\Gamma }_{\perp }={\Gamma }_{\parallel }\) and \(\kappa =0\), no quantum interference appears^{37,43,44}. However, if the emitter is placed near the plasmonic nanostructure, i.e. \({\Gamma }_{\parallel }=0\), the parameter \(\kappa\) is identical and quantum interference is maximum.
Here, we propose a 2D array of plasmonic nanostructures, where metalcoated silica nanospheres are connected to each other (Fig. 2). The shell has a frequencydependent dielectric function represented by a Drudemodel electric permittivity
where \(\tau\) demonstrates the relaxation time for electrons of metal conductionband, and \({\omega }_{p}\) represents the plasma frequency of the bulk. The plasma frequency for silver metal is \(\hslash {\omega }_{p}= 3.8 eV\). Also, this value specifies the length order of the system as \(c/{\omega }_{p}\approx 22 \; \text{nm}\). For \(Si{O}_{2}\) the dielectric constant is \(\epsilon =2.1\). In the calculation process, we assume \({\tau }^{1}=0.1 {\omega }_{p}\). This square lattice has a lattice constant \(a=104\; \text{nm}\) and radius of the sphere (core) \(S=52\; \text{nm}\) (\({S}_{c}=36.4\; \text{nm}\))^{27}.
Now, we consider a model with two subsystems such as atom (\(A\)) and its spontaneous emission photon (\(F\)). If this atom–field pure state system cannot be expressed as a tensor product of the two subsystems (\(\rho \ne {\rho }_{A}\otimes {\rho }_{F}\)), the atom and its spontaneous emission photon will be entangled. We utilize the reduced quantum entropy to measure the amount of atomphoton entanglement. To measure the degree of entanglement of a pure state \(\rho\), we only need the atomic quantum entropy \({S}_{A}\left(t\right)\)^{45,46}. The reduced quantum entropy for the bipartite pure system is the vonNeumann reduced entropy as defined
We can also represent the atomic quantum entropy according to terms eigenvalues \({\lambda }_{A\left(F\right)}\left(t\right)\) of reduced density operators as a degree of entanglement (\(DEM\))
where \({\lambda }_{A}^{\left(j\right)}\) are the eigenvalues of the \({\rho }_{A}\). To achieve a quantum pure state, we assume all the atoms initially in their ground states (\({\rho }_{11}=1\)). If this reduced density matrix, \({S}_{A}\left(t\right)\), describes a (maximally) mixed subsystem, then the whole pure state \(\rho\), will be (maximally) entangled. When entropy of entanglement is equal to \(E\left(\rho \right)={{\log}}_{2}\left[\text{min}\left({d}_{A},{d}_{F}\right)\right]\), we will have a maximally entangled state. In addition, the amount of the entropy is limited by the \(0\le S\left(\rho \right)\le {{\log}}_{2}D\), where \(D\) is the dimension of a Hilbert space \(H\). The entropy is maximized when the quantum state is maximally mixed, i.e. \(\rho =\frac{1}{D}I\), where \(I\) is an identity matrix^{47}. Therefore, by evenly distributed population on the atomic levels, we will have the maximum amount of entanglement. Hence, the rate of spontaneous emission affects the population distribution leading to change of the atomphoton entanglement.
Results and discussions
Now, density matrix equations (4) along with Eq. (11) should numerically be solved to reach the \(DEM\). In this regard, \(DEM\) relates to the atomic parameters given in supplementary Eq. (1), and will characterize the degree of atomphoton entanglement. In following discussion, all the parameters are scaled by the parameter \({\Gamma }_{0}\) that is the decay rate of spontaneous emission in free space. The decay rates from level \(5\rangle\) to level \(i\rangle\) (\(i=1, 2, 3, 4\)) are defiend as \({\gamma }_{51}={\gamma }_{52}=0.02{\Gamma }_{0}\) and \({\gamma }_{53}={\gamma }_{54}={\Gamma }_{0}\). The transitions from level \(3\rangle\) and level \(4\rangle\) to level \(1\rangle\) and from level \(2\rangle\) to level \(1\rangle\) are the dipoleallowed spontaneous decay rates that are equal to \({\gamma }^{{\prime}}={\Gamma }_{0}\) and \({\gamma }^{{{\prime}}{{\prime}}}=0.2 {\Gamma }_{0}\), respectively. For transitions from level \(3\rangle\) and level \(4\rangle\) to level \(2\rangle\), the dipoleallowed spontaneous decay rates are equal to \(\gamma\). The parameters \(\gamma\) and \(\kappa\) are obtained according to Eq. (8) in terms of \({\Gamma }_{\perp }\) and \({\Gamma }_{\parallel }\) for the distances expressed in Table 1. Note that the values for the controlling parameters are chosen according to the ^{87}Rb atom as a areal atomic system. In fact, the proposed fivelevel quantum system can be realized in hyperfine sublevels of ^{87}Rb. Thus the proposed levels are labeled by the spectroscopic definition as \(1\rangle =5{S}_{1/2};F=1, {m}_{F}=0\rangle\), \(2\rangle =5{S}_{1/2};F=2, {m}_{F}=0\rangle\), \(3\rangle =5{P}_{1/2};{F}^{{\prime}}=2, {m}_{{F}^{{\prime}}}=1\rangle\), \(4\rangle =5{P}_{1/2};{F}^{{\prime}}=2, {m}_{{F}^{{\prime}}}=+1\rangle\), and \(5\rangle =6{S}_{1/2};{F}^{{{\prime}}{{\prime}}}=2, {m}_{{F}^{{{\prime}}{{\prime}}}}=0\rangle\). In this regards transition \(\left1\right.\rangle \to 2\rangle\) is corresponding to the \({D}_{1}\) line of ^{87}Rb^{48,49,50,51}.
Here, we are interested in studying the steadystate and dynamical behavior of the atomphoton entanglement under the condition \(\delta =0\). Note that maximum value of the entanglement for the Nlevels atomic system is \({DEM}_{max}={{\log}}_{2}N\), where we use the concept of normalized entanglement as a ratio of \(DEM\left(x\right)\) per \({DEM}_{max}\). Here, \(x\) represents variables such as Rabifrequencies and quantum interference that may change the \(DEM\). Hence, the amount of normalized entanglement of any Nlevel atomic system can be expressed as \(0\le \left(DEM\left(x\right)/{DEM}_{max}\right)\le 1\). For the proposed fivelevel quantum system, the maximum value of expected entanglement must be \({DEM}_{max}={{\log}}_{2}5=2.32\), where its normalized value is \(0\le \left\{DEM\left(x\right)/2.32\right\}\le 1\).
Figure 3, displays the timedependent normalized behavior of \(DEM\) in the absence of plasmonic nanostructure, i.e. \(d\to \infty\), where \({\Gamma }_{\perp }={\Gamma }_{\parallel }\) and \(\kappa =0\). The atoms initially are in their ground state, \({\rho }_{11}=1\) and \({\rho }_{ij}=0\), thus the whole system is in a pure state. Therefore, the atom and its spontaneous emission field is initially disentangled. By increasing the normalized time, the two subsystems including the atom and photon reache to a mixed state, and the \(DEM\) increases by the time. In the absence of the control field, i.e. \({\Omega }^{{{\prime}}}=0\), the fivelevel atomic system converts to a fourlevel one. Without the control field (Fig. 3a), the \(DEM\) reaches to \(0.56\), while it increases to \(0.68\) for \({\Omega }^{{{\prime}}}\ne 0\) (Fig. 3b). So, in the presence of control field, the \(DEM\) is higher than the case without control field. This is due to the existence of spontaneous emission from upper level \(5\rangle\) to lover levels leading to equally population distribution of each levels.
The steadystate behavior of the normalized \(DEM\) as a function of the Rabifrequency \(\Omega /{\Gamma }_{0}\) without plasmonic nanostructure is displayed in Fig. 4. The results are in a good agreement with Fig. 3.
In Fig. 5, the time evolution of normalized \(DEM\) is presented in the presence of plasmonic nanostructure with and without control field. Similarly, the atom and its spontaneous emission field are initially disentangled, but by increasing the normalized time the \(DEM\) also increases. In vicinity of nanostructure, the atom and its spontaneous emission field undergoes different degrees of entanglement depending on the distance of atom from the plasmonic nanostructure. We find that for both cases \({\Omega }^{{\prime}}=0\) and \({\Omega }^{{\prime}}\ne 0\), by increasing the distance of atom from the plasmonic nanostructure, the atomphoton entanglement increases (Fig. 5). Similar to Fig. 3, for \({\Omega }^{{\prime}}\ne 0\) the \(DEM\) is higher than \({\Omega }^{{\prime}}=0\). But in \(d=52 \; \text{nm}\) the amount of \(DEM\) for \({\Omega }^{{\prime}}=0\) is about \(0.8\), while it reaches to \(1\) for \({\Omega }^{{\prime}}\ne 0\). This \(DEM\) is the optimal normalized entanglement. Note that the quantum interference arising from the existence of plasmonic nanostructure has crucial role in atomphoton entanglement. By increasing the distance of the emitter from the plasmonic nanostructure, quantum interference reduces as can be seen from table (1). Thus, the spontaneous emission from level \(3\rangle\) and level \(4\rangle\) to level \(2\rangle\) can be controlled by the quantum interference that depends on the distance of atom from the nanostructure. Then, \(DEM\) will change just by the spontaneous emission of level \(3\rangle\) and level \(4\rangle\) to level \(2\rangle\), where it controls by the quantum interference.
The normalized \(DEM\) as a function of the Rabifrequency \(\Omega /{\Gamma }_{0}\) for various distances is denoted in Fig. 6. It is obviously realized that by increasing the distance of atom from the plasmonic nanostructure, the atomphoton entanglement increases. These results are confirmed by Fig. 5, and we concluded that the amount of atomphoton entanglement in vicinity of the plasmonic nanostructure can be controlled just by the distance \(d\).
In order to discuss the physical mechanism of the obtained results, the population distribution of the bare and dressed states is analyzed in the following discussion.
Figure 7 shows the population distribution of the bare states. We observe that the population is not equally distributed among the bare states, and this may reduce the \(DEM\) (Fig. 7a). However, when the population is equally distributed among the bare states, the maximum atomphoton entanglement is observed. Thus the obtained results in previous figures are approved by the population distribution.
To give more physical insight on the maximal atomphoton entanglement, the dressed state formalism is also presented. Without the control field, i.e. \({\Omega }^{{{\prime}}}=0\), the transformed Hamiltonian can be written as
By calculating the eigenvalues of this Hamiltonian, using the relation \(\mathrm{det}\left(\tilde{H }\lambda I\right)=0\), we obtain
where \(\lambda\)’s are eigenvalues of this Hamiltonian operator. For \(\delta =0\), the eigenvalue \(\lambda\)’s are given by
where \({\Omega }_{d}\equiv \sqrt{{\omega }_{43}^{2}+2{\left\Omega \right}^{2}}\) called generalized Rabifrequency. So, the corresponding dressed states are
When the control field \({\Omega }^{{{\prime}}}\) is on, transformed Hamiltonian are written as
Thus, using the relation \(\text{det}\left(\tilde{H }\lambda I\right)=0\), we can reach to
For \(\delta ={\delta }^{{\prime}}=0\), eigenvalues \(\lambda\)’s are obtained as follows
where, generalized Rabifrequency is \({\Omega }_{d}\equiv \sqrt{{\omega }_{43}^{2}+2\left({\left{\Omega }_{1}\right}^{2}+{\left{\Omega }_{2}\right}^{2}\right)}\). So, the corresponding dressed states are
Figure 8 demonstrates the evolution of dressed state’s population. According to 8(a), the dressed state \(\alpha \rangle\) has no population distribution, and the population are equally distributed in other three dressed states. In this case, the system operates as a threelevel dressed atom, and the maximum value of normalized \(DEM\) should be \(\left({{\log}}_{2}3/{{\log}}_{2}4\right)=0.79\). This anticipation is in a good agreement of obtained results in Figs. 5a and 6a. In Fig. 8b, all the levels are populated, and the population distributed are almost equal in five dressed states. In this regards, the system acts as a fivelevel atom, and the maximum value of normalized \(DEM\) should be equal to \(\left({{\log}}_{2}5/2.32\right)=1\). This is also covering the obtained result of Figs. 5b and 6b.
Physically, existence of plasmonic nanostructure affects the transition \(3\rangle\) (\(4\rangle\)) \(\to 2\rangle\) that appears in parameter \(\kappa\). In fact, the fivelevel atomic system has two \(\mathrm{V}\)type transitions \(i\rangle \to 1\rangle\), and \(i\rangle \to 2\rangle\) (\(i=3, 4\)). The second transitions are coupled due to existence of plasmonic nanostructure that creates the parameter \(\kappa\). These transitions may destroy the equality of the population distribution that leads in reduction of atomphoton entanglement as can be viewed in Figs. 7a and 8a. However, this may be balanced by the other laser field namely \({\Omega }^{{{\prime}}}\) as can be confirmed in Figs. 7b and 8b.
Conclusion
The entanglement of a fivelevel atomic system and its spontaneous emission field is investigated with and without plasmonic nanostructure. For two linear laser fields, two different cases are examined. For turn off control laser field, the fivelevel system converts to a fourlevel one. In free space, the degree of created entanglement in fivelevel atomic system with its spontaneous emission is larger than the fourlevel atom. In the vicinity of the nanostructure, the atomphoton entanglement is affected by the distances of the atomic system from plasmonic nanostructure. The degree of entanglement depends on the distance of atom and the plasmonic nanostructure. Maximal atomphoton entanglement is obtained for a distance of \(52 \; \text{nm}\) from the nanostructure. Because no coupling field drives the level \(2\rangle\), the only way to populate this level is spontaneously emitted photons from higher levels. Then, we are able to control the quantum interference using plasmonic nanostructure and therefore can control the spontaneous emission from level \(3\rangle\) and level \(4\rangle\) to level \(2\rangle\). By controlling the amount of population of level \(2\rangle\), we will be able to control the amount of normalized entanglement.
References
Paternostro, M., Kim, M. S. & Ham, B. S. Generation of entangled coherent states via crossphasemodulation in a double electromagnetically induced transparency regime. Phys. Rev. A 67, 23811 (2003).
Marino, A. M., Pooser, R. C., Boyer, V. & Lett, P. D. Tunable delay of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen entanglement. Nature 457, 859–862 (2009).
Ekert, A. & Jozsa, R. Quantum algorithms: Entanglement–enhanced information processing. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 356, 1769–1782 (1998).
Azuma, H., Bose, S. & Vedral, V. Entangling capacity of global phases and implications for the DeutschJozsa algorithm. Phys. Rev. A 64, 62308 (2001).
Briegel, H.J., Dür, W., Cirac, J. I. & Zoller, P. Quantum repeaters: The role of imperfect local operations in quantum communication. Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5932–5935 (1998).
Jennewein, T., Simon, C., Weihs, G., Weinfurter, H. & Zeilinger, A. Quantum cryptography with entangled photons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4729 (2000).
Kimble, H. J. The quantum internet. Nature 453, 1023–1030 (2008).
Cirac, J. I., Zoller, P., Kimble, H. J. & Mabuchi, H. Quantum state transfer and entanglement distribution among distant nodes in a quantum network. Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3221–3224 (1997).
Bouwmeester, D. et al. Experimental quantum teleportation. Nature 390, 575–579 (1997).
Ma, Y. H., Mu, Q. X. & Zhou, L. Entangled photons produced by a threelevel atom in freespace. Opt. Commun. 281, 2695–2699 (2008).
AmniatTalab, M., Guérin, S., Sangouard, N. & Jauslin, H.R. Atomphoton, atomatom, and photonphoton entanglement preparation by fractional adiabatic passage. Phys. Rev. A 71, 23805 (2005).
Stute, A. et al. Tunable ion–photon entanglement in an optical cavity. Nature 485, 482–485 (2012).
Kuang, L.M. & Zhou, L. Generation of atomphoton entangled states in atomic BoseEinstein condensate via electromagnetically induced transparency. Phys. Rev. A 68, 43606 (2003).
Kordi, Z., Ghanbari, S. & Mahmoudi, M. Atom–photon entanglement beyond the multiphoton resonance condition. Quantum Inf. Process. 15, 199–213 (2016).
Fang, M.F. & Zhu, S.Y. Entanglement between a Λtype threelevel atom and its spontaneous emission fields. Phys. A Stat. Mech. Appl. 369, 475–483 (2006).
Sahrai, M. & Boroojerdi, V. T. A. Dynamical behavior of atom–photon entanglement for a fourlevel atom near the band edge of a 3Danisotropic photonic crystal. Quantum Inf. Process. 16, 145 (2017).
Sahrai, M., Arzhang, B., Taherkhani, D. & Boroojerdi, V. T. A. Control of the entanglement between triple quantum dot molecule and its spontaneous emission fields via quantum entropy. Phys. E LowDimens. Syst. Nanostruct. 67, 121–127 (2015).
Kordi, Z., Ghanbari, S. & Mahmoudi, M. Maximal atom–photon entanglement in a doubleΛ quantum system. Quantum Inf. Process. 14, 1907–1918 (2015).
Tang, Z., Li, G. & Ficek, Z. Entanglement created by spontaneously generated coherence. Phys. Rev. A 82, 063837 (2010).
Abazari, M., Mortezapour, A., Mahmoudi, M. & Sahrai, M. Phasecontrolled atomphoton entanglement in a threelevel Vtype atomic system via spontaneously generated coherence. Entropy 13, 1541–1554 (2011).
Lewenstein, M., Zakrzewski, J. & Mossberg, T. W. Spontaneous emission of atoms coupled to frequencydependent reservoirs. Phys. Rev. A 38, 808 (1988).
Zhu, S.Y., Chen, H. & Huang, H. Quantum interference effects in spontaneous emission from an atom embedded in a photonic band gap structure. Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 205 (1997).
Zhang, H. Z., Tang, S. H., Dong, P. & He, J. Quantum interference in spontaneous emission of an atom embedded in a doubleband photonic crystal. Phys. Rev. A 65, 63802 (2002).
Garraway, B. M. & Knight, P. L. Cavity modified quantum beats. Phys. Rev. A 54, 3592 (1996).
Zhu, S.Y., Narducci, L. M. & Scully, M. O. Quantummechanical interference effects in the spontaneousemission spectrum of a driven atom. Phys. Rev. A 52, 4791 (1995).
Tame, M. S. et al. Quantum plasmonics. Nat. Phys. 9, 329–340 (2013).
Paspalakis, E., Kallos, E. & Yannopapas, V. Controlled interaction of a fourlevel quantum emitter with a plasmonic nanostructure. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series Vol. 633, 12063 (IOP Publishing, 2015).
Kühn, S., Mori, G., Agio, M. & Sandoghdar, V. Modification of single molecule fluorescence close to a nanostructure: Radiation pattern, spontaneous emission and quenching. Mol. Phys. 106, 893–908 (2008).
Yannopapas, V. & Vitanov, N. V. Spontaneous emission of a twolevel atom placed within clusters of metallic nanoparticles. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 19, 96210 (2007).
Gu, Y., Huang, L., Martin, O. J. F. & Gong, Q. Resonance fluorescence of single molecules assisted by a plasmonic structure. Phys. Rev. B 81, 193103 (2010).
Sadeghi, S. M. Gain without inversion in hybrid quantum dot–metallic nanoparticle systems. Nanotechnology 21, 455401 (2010).
Hamedi, H. R., Yannopapas, V. & Paspalakis, E. Control of nonlinear optical phenomena and spatially structured optical effects in a fourlevel quantum system near a plasmonic nanostructure (2020).
Yannopapas, V. Enhancement of nonlinear susceptibilities near plasmonic metamaterials. Opt. Commun. 283, 1647–1649 (2010).
Pu, Y., Grange, R., Hsieh, C.L. & Psaltis, D. Nonlinear optical properties of coreshell nanocavities for enhanced secondharmonic generation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 207402 (2010).
Vafafard, A., Sahrai, M., Siahpoush, V., Hamedi, H. R. & Asadpour, S. H. Optically induced diffraction gratings based on periodic modulation of linear and nonlinear effects for atomlight coupling quantum systems near plasmonic nanostructures. Sci. Rep. 10, 16684 (2020).
Carreño, F., Antón, M. A., Yannopapas, V. & Paspalakis, E. Control of the absorption of a fourlevel quantum system near a plasmonic nanostructure. Phys. Rev. B 95, 195410 (2017).
Evangelou, S., Yannopapas, V. & Paspalakis, E. Transparency and slow light in a fourlevel quantum system near a plasmonic nanostructure. Phys. Rev. A 86, 053811 (2012).
Evangelou, S., Yannopapas, V. & Paspalakis, E. Modifying freespace spontaneous emission near a plasmonic nanostructure. Phys. Rev. A 83, 023819 (2011).
Agarwal, G. S. Anisotropic vacuuminduced interference in decay channels. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5500–5503 (2000).
Kiffner, M., Macovei, M., Evers, J. & Keitel, C. H. VacuumInduced Processes in Multilevel Atoms 85–197 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1016/B9780444537058.000035.
Yannopapas, V., Paspalakis, E. & Vitanov, N. V. Plasmoninduced enhancement of quantum interference near metallic nanostructures. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 063602 (2009).
Li, G., Li, F. & Zhu, S. Quantum interference between decay channels of a threelevel atom in a multilayer dielectric medium. Phys. Rev. A 64, 013819 (2001).
Evangelou, S., Yannopapas, V. & Paspalakis, E. Simulating quantum interference in spontaneous decay near plasmonic nanostructures: Population dynamics. Phys. Rev. A 83, 055805 (2011).
Paspalakis, E., Evangelou, S., Yannopapas, V. & Terzis, A. F. Phasedependent optical effects in a fourlevel quantum system near a plasmonic nanostructure. Phys. Rev. A 88, 053832 (2013).
Bennett, C. H., DiVincenzo, D. P., Smolin, J. A. & Wootters, W. K. Mixedstate entanglement and quantum error correction. Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824–3851 (1996).
Djordjevic, I. B. Quantum Information Processing, Quantum Computing, and Quantum Error Correction: An Engineering Approach (Elsevier Science, 2021).
ur Rehman, J. & Shin, H. Puritybased continuity bounds for von Neumann entropy. Sci. Rep. 9, 13912 (2019).
Shah, V., Knappe, S., Hollberg, L. & Kitching, J. Highcontrast coherent population trapping resonances using fourwave mixing in 87Rb. Opt. Lett. 32, 1244 (2007).
Brannon, A. et al. Selfinjection locking of a microwave oscillator by use of fourwave mixing in an atomic vapor. In 2007 IEEE International Frequency Control Symposium Joint with the 21st European Frequency and Time Forum 275–278 (IEEE, 2007).
Becerra, F. E., Willis, R. T., Rolston, S. L. & Orozco, L. A. Quantum beats from fourwave mixing in Rubidium 87. Rev. Mex. Física 57, 23–28 (2011).
Abad, M. G. G., Valinezhad, M. & Mahmoudi, M. Enhanced nonlinear magnetooptical rotation in cold atoms: A theoretical study. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–10 (2019).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
S.H.A. and M.S. proposed the idea, B.S. obtained the figures and wrote the main manuscript text. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Sangshekan, B., Sahrai, M., Asadpour, S.H. et al. Controllable atomphoton entanglement via quantum interference near plasmonic nanostructure. Sci Rep 12, 677 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598021046416
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598021046416
This article is cited by

Revealing broken valley symmetry of quantum emitters in WSe2 with chiral nanocavities
Nature Communications (2023)

Tunability of plasmonic electromagnetically induced transparency from double quantum dotmetal nanoparticle structure under transition momenta
Optical and Quantum Electronics (2023)

Quantum Control of AtomPhoton Entanglement via Structure Light in a ThreeLevel Medium
International Journal of Theoretical Physics (2022)

Spatially Control of Quantum Entropy in a Threelevel Medium
International Journal of Theoretical Physics (2022)
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.