Angular twophoton interference and angular twoqubit states.
ABSTRACT Using angularpositionorbitalangularmomentum entangled photons, we study angular twophoton interference in a scheme in which entangled photons are made to pass through apertures in the form of double angular slits, and using this scheme, we demonstrate an entangled twoqubit state that is based on the angularposition correlations of entangled photons. The entanglement of the twoqubit state is quantified in terms of concurrence. These results provide an additional means for preparing entangled quantum states for use in quantum information protocols.

Article: Quantifying the nonGaussianity of the state of spatially correlated downconverted photons.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The state of spatially correlated downconverted photons is usually treated as a twomode Gaussian entangled state. While intuitively this seems to be reasonable, it is known that new structures in the spatial distributions of these photons can be observed when the phasematching conditions are properly taken into account. Here, we study how the variances of the near and farfield conditional probabilities are affected by the phasematching functions, and we analyze the role of the EPRcriterion regarding the nonGaussianity and entanglement detection of the spatial twophoton state of spontaneous parametric downconversion (SPDC). Then we introduce a statistical measure, based on the negentropy of the joint distributions at the near and farfield planes, which allows for the quantification of the nonGaussianity of this state. This measure of nonGaussianity requires only the measurement of the diagonal covariance submatrices, and will be relevant for new applications of the spatial correlation of SPDC in CV quantum information processing.Optics Express 02/2012; 20(4):375372. · 3.55 Impact Factor  SourceAvailable from: Dmitri Mogilevtsev
Article: Selfcalibrating Tomography for Angular Schmidt Modes in Spontaneous Parametric DownConversion
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We report an experimental selfcalibrating tomography scheme for entanglement characterization in highdimensional quantum systems using Schmidt decomposition techniques. The selftomography technique based on maximal likelihood estimation was developed for characterizing nonideal measurements in Schmidt basis allowing us to infer both Schmidt eigenvalues and detecting efficiencies.Physical Review A 12/2011; 87. · 3.04 Impact Factor
Page 1
Angular TwoPhoton Interference and Angular TwoQubit States
Anand Kumar Jha,1Jonathan Leach,2Barry Jack,2Sonja FrankeArnold,2Stephen M. Barnett,3
Robert W. Boyd,1and Miles J. Padgett2
1Institute of Optics, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York 14627, USA
2Department of Physics and Astronomy, SUPA, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
3Department of Physics, SUPA, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom
(Received 7 August 2009; published 5 January 2010)
Using angularposition–orbitalangularmomentum entangled photons, we study angular twophoton
interference in a scheme in which entangled photons are made to pass through apertures in the form of
double angular slits, and using this scheme, we demonstrate an entangled twoqubit state that is based on
the angularposition correlations of entangled photons. The entanglement of the twoqubit state is
quantified in terms of concurrence. These results provide an additional means for preparing entangled
quantum states for use in quantum information protocols.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.010501 PACS numbers: 03.67.Bg, 42.50.Ex, 42.50.Tx, 42.65.Lm
The signal and idler photons produced by parametric
downconversion (PDC) are entangled in several different
degrees offreedom includingtime and energy, positionand
momentum, and angular position and orbital angular mo
mentum (OAM). Entanglement of the two photons in a
given degree of freedom gives rise to twophoton coher
ence in the corresponding domain, which manifests itself
as twophoton interference in that particular domain.
Several twophoton interference effects have been ob
served in the temporal [1–5] and spatial [6–8] domains.
These effects have been used to test the foundations of
quantum mechanics [9–11] and are central to many appli
cations as well [12–14].
The existence of a Fourier relationship between angular
position and OAM gives rise to angular interference—
interference in the OAMmode distribution of a photon
field when it passes through an angular aperture [15–18].
Angular Fourier relationship in the context of angular
position–OAM entanglement leads to twophoton interfer
ence in the angular domain [19–21]. In this Letter, we
study angular twophoton interference in a scheme in
which entangled photons are made to pass through aper
tures in the form of double angular slits and, using this
scheme, we demonstrate an entangled twoqubit state that
is based on the angularposition correlations of the down
converted photons. Entangled twoqubit states are the nec
essary ingredients for many quantum information proto
cols [12–14], and they have previously been realized by
exploring thecorrelationsofentangledphotonsinvariables
including polarization [22], time bin [4,5], frequency [23],
position [7,8], transverse momentum [24,25], and OAM
[19–21]; however, to date, the angularposition correla
tions had not been utilized. Therefore, the results presented
here not only demonstrate twophoton coherence effects in
the angular domain but also provide an additional means
for preparing entangled quantum states.
Let us consider the situation shown in Fig. 1(a). A
Gaussian pump beam produces signal and idler photons
by typeI degenerate PDC with noncollinear phase match
ing. The state jctpi of the downconverted twophoton
field is given by [26,27]:
jctpi ¼
X
1
l¼?1
cljlisj?lii:
(1)
FIG. 1 (color online).
(see text for details). (b) An example of the phase pattern
impressed on the SLM. (c) Twophoton path diagrams showing
the four alternative pathways by which signal and idler photons
can pass through the angular slits and be detected in coincidence
at detectors Dsand Di.
(a) Schematic of the experimental setup
PRL 104, 010501 (2010)
PHYSICAL REVIEWLETTERS
week ending
8 JANUARY 2010
00319007=10=104(1)=010501(4)0105011
? 2010 The American Physical Society
Page 2
Here s and i stand for signal and idler, respectively, and jli
represents an OAM eigenmode of order l, corresponding to
an azimuthal phase eil?. jclj2is the probability that the
signal and idler photons are generated in modes of order l
and ?l, respectively. The width of this mode probability
distribution is referred to as the spiral bandwidth of the
twophoton field [28]. The signal and idler photons are
made to pass through double angular slits [as shown in
Fig. 1(a)] located in the image planes of the crystal. The
amplitude transmission functions of the individual angular
slits are given by
Ajað?jÞ ¼ 1
if ? ?=2 < ?j< ?=2
or else
0; (2)
Ajbð?jÞ ¼ 1
if ? ? ?=2 < ?j< ? þ ?=2
or else
0;
(3)
where j ¼ s, i. There are, in principle, four alternative
pathways—represented by the twophoton path diagrams
[3]ofFig.1(c)—bywhichthedownconvertedphotonscan
pass through the apertures and get detected in coincidence
at detectors Dsand Di. In alternative 1 (4), the signal
photon passes through slit AsaðAsbÞ and the idler photon
through slit AiaðAibÞ. In alternative 2 (3), the signal photons
passes through slit AsaðAsbÞ and the idler photon through
slit AibðAiaÞ. We represent the states of the signal and idler
photons in alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 by jsaijiai, jsaijibi,
jsbijiai, and jsbijibi, respectively. Because of the strong
position correlations of the two photons in the image
planes of the crystal, only alternatives 1 and 4 have appre
ciable probabilities. Therefore, the density matrix ? of the
twoqubit state thus prepared can be written in the angular
position basis fjsaijiai;jsaijibi;jsbijiai;jsbijibig as:
? ¼ ?11jsaijiaihiajhsaj þ ?14jsaijiaihibjhsbj
þ ?41jsbijibihiajhsaj þ ?44jsbijibihibjhsbj;
where ?11and ?44are the probabilities that the signal and
idler photons are detected in alternatives 1 and 4, respec
tively, with ?11þ ?44¼ 1. The offdiagonal term ?14is a
measure of coherence between alternatives 1 and 4, with
?14¼ ??
written as ?14¼
coherence and ? the argument of ?14.
We now write the density matrix ? in the OAM basis. By
taking the Fourier transforms of the amplitude transmis
sion functions Asað?sÞ and Aiað?iÞ [15,16], corresponding
to each OAM mode in the summation of Eq. (1), we write
jsaijiai in the OAM basis as
jsaijiai¼AX
?X
where A is the normalization constant to ensure that
hiajhsajsaijiai ¼ 1. We evaluate jsaijiai by substituting
(4)
41; it is, in general, a complex number and can be
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
?11?44
p
?ei?, where ? is the degree of
l
cl
X
1
2?
l0
1
2?
Z?
Z?
??d?sAsað?sÞe?iðl0?lÞ?sjl0is
l00
??d?iAiað?iÞe?iðl00þlÞ?ijl00ii;
(5)
for Asað?sÞ and Aiað?iÞ from Eq. (2). In a similar manner,
we evaluate jsbijibi by substituting from Eq. (3). The
coincidence count rate Rsiof detectors Dsand Di, which
is the probability per ðunit timeÞ2that a photon is de
tected at detector Dsin mode lsand another at detector
Diin mode li, is given by Rsi¼ihlijshlsj?jlsisjliii. Using
Eqs. (2)–(5), we find that
????????
?11?44
Rsi¼A2?4
16?4
X
l
clsinc
?
ðls? lÞ?
2
?
sinc
?
ðliþ lÞ?
2
?????????
2
? f1 þ 2
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
p
?cos½ðlsþ liÞ? þ ??g:
(6)
The interference between the two alternatives manifests
itself in the periodic dependence on the angular separation
? and on the sum of the OAMs lsþ li. From Eq. (6),
ignoring the effects due to diffraction envelopes, the visi
bility V of the coincidence fringes can be seen to be
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
The entanglement of a general twoqubit state can be
characterized in terms of Wootters’ concurrence [29,30],
which ranges from 0 to 1, with 1 corresponding to the
maximally entangled twoqubit state and 0 to a nonen
tangled state. To calculate concurrence, we write the den
sity matrix ? in the full 4 ? 4 form. The concurrence C is
then given by C ¼ maxf0;?1? ?2? ?3? ?4g. Here the
?is are the (positive) eigenvalues, in descending order, of
the operator R where R2¼
with
?
being the Pauli operator and ??the complex conjugate of
?. For the density matrix of Eq. (4), which has only two
nonzero diagonal elements, the concurrence C is
V ¼ 2?11?44
p
?:
(7)
ffiffiffiffi?
p?y? ?y???y? ?y
ffiffiffiffi?
p,
?y¼
0
i
?i
0
?
C ¼ 2j?14j ¼ 2
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
?11?44
p
?:
(8)
Comparing Eqs. (7) and (8), we see that the concurrence is
equal to the visibility of angular twophoton interference
fringes.
C ¼ V:
(9)
In the setup of Fig. 1, the pump is a frequencytripled,
modelocked, NdYAG laser (Xcyte) with a pulse repeti
tion frequency of 100 MHz at 355 nm. SLM denotes a
spatial light modulator from Hamamatsu, SMF a single
mode fiber, and F an interference filter with 10nm band
width, centered at710 nm. The 400 ?mdiameter Gaussian
pump beam was normally incident on a 3mmlong crystal
of beta barium borate, phase matched for frequency degen
erate typeI downconversion with a semicone angle of the
downconverted beams of 3.5?. We note that for the given
pump beam and phasematching parameters, the conserva
tion of OAM is strictly obeyed in the downconversion
process [31]. The crystal plane was imaged, with a mag
nification of about 5, onto the SLM planes, which were
PRL 104, 010501 (2010)
PHYSICALREVIEWLETTERS
week ending
8 JANUARY 2010
0105012
Page 3
then imaged onto the input facets of the SMFs with a
demagnification of about 380. The SLMs were used for
two purposes as illustrated in Fig. 1(b). One, they were
used for selecting out OAM modes [32]; and two, they
were used for simulating amplitude apertures [33] de
scribed by Eqs. (2) and (3).
First of all, withoutanyapertures, the mode probabilities
jclj2were measured. Figure 2 shows the measured coinci
dence counts plotted against l, with signal and idler pho
tons being detected in modes of order l and ?l,
respectively. The mode probabilities jclj2were calculated
by normalizing the counts of Fig. 2.
Second, we verify the preparation of the twoqubit state
as represented by Eq. (4). Coincidence counts were mea
sured with only one of the signal and one of the idler slits
(with ? ¼ ?=10 and ? ¼ ?=4) being displayed on the
SLMs and with both signal and idler photons being de
tected in modes of order 0. Figure 3(a) shows the measured
coincidence detection probabilities of the signal and idler
photons in the four different alternatives. We find that the
probabilities ?22and ?33are negligibly small, showing that
the twoqubit state prepared in our experiment resembles
the state represented by Eq. (4) to a very good approxima
tion. Therefore, as shown by Eq. (9), the entanglement of
the prepared twoqubit state can be characterized by mea
suring the visibility of twophoton interference fringes in
the OAM basis.
Next, measurements were made in the OAM basis. Both
signal and idler slits, with ? ¼ ?=10 and ? ¼ ?=4, were
displayed on the SLMs. SLMiwas adjusted to successively
select out two different idler OAM modes: li¼ 2 and li¼
?2. For each selected idler mode li, coincidence counts
were measured as a function of the signal OAM mode ls.
Figure 3(b) shows the coincidence counts plotted against ls
for two different values of li. The solid dots are theoretical
fits based on Eq. (6), using the values of jclj2calculated
from Fig. 2. The visibility of the twophoton fringes is
92.8% (96.3%, after correcting for random coincidences),
within 2% experimental error. Thus, using Eq. (9), we find
that the concurrence of the prepared twoqubit state is
0.928 (0.963, after correcting for random coincidences).
However, as ?22and ?33are not precisely zero in our
experiment, it is desirable to quantify the error in the above
estimation of concurrence. Although a precise error calcu
lation requires knowledge of all of the 16 different terms of
thetwoqubitdensitymatrixandisbeyondthescopeofthis
Letter, a realistic estimation can be obtained by modeling
the probabilities ?22and ?33as a small amount of noise in
the twoqubit density matrix ? in Eq. (4). The corrected
density matrix ?ðcÞ
is then
?22jsaijibihibjhsaj þ ?33jsbijiaihiajhsbj and the visibility
VðcÞof angular twophoton fringes by VðcÞ¼ 2
with ?11þ ?22þ ?33þ ?44¼ 1. The concurrence CðcÞof
givenby ?ðcÞ¼ ? þ
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
?11?44
p
?,
2500
5000
7500
(6, 6)
OAMmode order of signal and idler photons (l,l)
Coincidence counts in 5 sec
0
(3, 3)
(0, 0)
(3, 3)
(6, 6)
FIG. 2 (color online).
abilities with the SLMs set for uniform reflectivity. Measured
coincidence counts are given as a function of l, the OAMmode
order of the detected signal photon, with ?l being the OAM
mode order of the idler photon. The solid dots are the expected
values based on the theoretical prediction of Ref. [28] [Eq. (10)];
the solid line through the dots is drawn as a visual guide. The
fitting parameters are an overall constant factor and the effective
beamwidth of downconverted modes as measured by the detec
tion system.
Measurements of the OAMmode prob
(a)
Probability
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
ρρρρ
11 4433 22
0.486
0.016
0.028
0.460
1050
ls
5 10
100
200
100
200
(b)
Coincidence counts in 60 sec
li=−2
li=+2
0
0
0.495
0.470
0.025
0.019
FIG. 3 (color online).
probabilities ?11, ?22, ?33, and ?44. The measured probabilities
are shown by blue bars (black in the printed version); the
probabilities after correcting for random coincidences are shown
by light blue bars (gray in the printed version). (b) Measured
coincidence counts (light red, gray in the printed version) as
functions of lsfor two different values of li, with ? ¼ ?=10 and
? ¼ ?=4. The solid dots are theoretical fits obtained from
Eq. (6), the solid lines are visual guides, and the dashed lines
are measured random coincidences for the 10ns coincidence
detection window.
(a) Measured coincidence detection
PRL 104, 010501 (2010)
PHYSICAL REVIEWLETTERS
week ending
8 JANUARY 2010
0105013
Page 4
the state takes the following form: CðcÞ¼ 2
2?22?33
, and with the above expression for visibility, it
can be written as
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
?11?44
p
? ?
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
p
CðcÞ¼ VðcÞ? 2
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
experimental
?22?33
p
;
(10)
which reduces to the formula given in Eq. (9) when
?22¼ ?33¼ 0.
Figs. 3(a) and 3(b), we find that the concurrence CðcÞof
the prepared twoqubit state is 0.875 (0.929, after cor
recting for random coincidences), which differs from
the value obtained from Eq. (9) by about 6% (4% after
correcting for random coincidences).
Finally, to test the applicability of our method, we
perform a series of experiments with various values of
slit separation ?. Figure 4 shows the measured coincidence
counts as a function of lsfor four different values of ?:
?=6, ?=4, ?=2, and ?. The high visibility (between 85%
to 92%, without correcting for random coincidences) of
these plots shows that the angularposition correlations of
the signal and idler photons are almost uniform over the
entirerange of2?radians andthatthemethodisapplicable
over a wide range of ? values.
In conclusion, we have studied twophoton interference
in the angular domain and have reported experimental
demonstrations of an entangled twoqubit state that is
based on the angularposition correlations of the entangled
twophoton field. These results provide an additional
means for preparing entangled twoqubit states and con
stitute a step towards better understanding angular
position—OAM entanglement [26–28] and thus towards
finding novel ways of utilizing OAM basis for quantum
information science [19–21,32,34]. We believe that the
method presented in this Letter can be easily generalized
for preparing entangled twoqudit states, using apertures
with d angular slits.
Using thevalues in
We gratefully acknowledge financial support through a
MURI grant from the U.S. Army Research Office, through
DARPA/DSO, the Future and Emerging Technologies
(FET) programme within
Programme of the European Commission, HIDEAS
(No. FP7ICT221906), the UK EPSRC, RCUK, the
Royal Society, and the Wolfson Foundation. We would
like to thank Hamamatsu for their support of this work.
We thank M.N. O’Sullivan, L. Neves, and S. Agarwal for
useful discussions, and we also thank the referees of this
Letter for some important comments and suggestions.
theSeventhFramework
[1] C.K. Hong, Z.Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59,
2044 (1987).
[2] T.J. Herzog et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 629 (1994).
[3] A.K. Jha et al., Phys. Rev. A 77, 021801(R) (2008).
[4] J. Brendel et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2594 (1999).
[5] R.T. Thew et al., Phys. Rev. A 66, 062304 (2002).
[6] E.J.S. Fonseca et al., Phys. Rev. A 61, 023801 (2000).
[7] L. Neves et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 100501 (2005).
[8] L. Neves et al., Phys. Rev. A 76, 032314 (2007).
[9] A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49,
91 (1982).
[10] L. Mandel, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, S274 (1999).
[11] A. Zeilinger, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, S288 (1999).
[12] A.K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991).
[13] C.H. Bennett and S.J. Wiesner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2881
(1992).
[14] C.H. Bennett et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993).
[15] S.M. Barnett and D.T. Pegg, Phys. Rev. A 41, 3427
(1990).
[16] S. FrankeArnold et al., New J. Phys. 6, 103 (2004).
[17] B. Jack, M. Padgett, and S. FrankeArnold, New J. Phys.
10, 103013 (2008).
[18] A.K. Jha et al., Phys. Rev. A 78, 043810 (2008).
[19] A. Vaziri, G. Weihs, and A. Zeilinger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89,
240401 (2002).
[20] N.K. Langford et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 053601 (2004).
[21] J. Leach et al., Opt. Express 17, 8287 (2009).
[22] P.G. Kwiat et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4337 (1995).
[23] S. Ramelow et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 253601 (2009).
[24] J.G. Rarity and P.R. Tapster, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2495
(1990).
[25] M.N. O’SullivanHale et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 220501
(2005).
[26] S.P. Walborn et al., Phys. Rev. A 69, 023811 (2004).
[27] S. FrankeArnold et al., Phys. Rev. A 65, 033823 (2002).
[28] J.P. Torres, A. Alexandrescu, and L. Torner, Phys. Rev. A
68, 050301(R) (2003).
[29] W.K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998).
[30] B. Jack et al., New J. Phys. 11, 103024 (2009).
[31] G. MolinaTerriza, J. Torres, and L. Torner, Opt. Commun.
228, 155 (2003).
[32] A. Mair et al., Nature (London) 412, 313 (2001).
[33] J. Leach et al., New J. Phys. 7, 55 (2005).
[34] G. Tyler and R. Boyd, Opt. Lett. 34, 142 (2009).
Coincidence counts in 60 sec
100
200
300
0
100
200
0
ls
ls
= /2
β π
= /4
β π
β=π
β π
=
/6
100
200
0
100
200
0
10 505 101050510
FIG. 4 (color online).
tion of lsfor four different values of ?, with ? ¼ ?=10 and li¼
0. Each plot is an average of 24 different plots, taken with the
starting angles of both the signal and idler apertures rotated in
steps of 15?from 0?to 360?.
Measured coincidence counts as a func
PRL 104, 010501 (2010)
PHYSICALREVIEWLETTERS
week ending
8 JANUARY 2010
0105014