We're sorry but this page doesn't work properly without JavaScript enabled. Please enable it to continue.
Feedback

Dynamical modeling of pulsed two-photon interference

00:00

Formal Metadata

Title
Dynamical modeling of pulsed two-photon interference
Title of Series
Number of Parts
51
Author
License
CC Attribution 3.0 Unported:
You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor.
Identifiers
Publisher
Release Date
Language

Content Metadata

Subject Area
Genre
Abstract
Single-photon sources are at the heart of quantum-optical networks, with their uniquely quantum emission and phenomenon of two-photon interference allowing for the generation and transfer of nonclassical states. Although a few analytical methods have been briefly investigated for describing pulsed single-photon sources, these methods apply only to either perfectly ideal or at least extremely idealized sources. Here, we present the first complete picture of pulsed single-photon sources by elaborating how to numerically and fully characterize non-ideal single-photon sources operating in a pulsed regime. In order to achieve this result, we make the connection between quantum Monte-Carlo simulations, experimental characterizations, and an extended form of the quantum regression theorem. We elaborate on how an ideal pulsed single-photon source is connected to its photocount distribution and its measured degree of second- and first-order optical coherence. By doing so, we provide a description of the relationship between instantaneous source correlations and the typical experimental interferometers (Hanbury-Brown and Twiss, Hong–Ou–Mandel, and Mach–Zehnder) used to characterize such sources. Then, we use these techniques to explore several prototypical quantum systems and their non-ideal behaviors. As an example numerical result, we show that for the most popular single-photon source—a resonantly excited two-level system—its error probability is directly related to its excitation pulse length. We believe that the intuition gained from these representative systems and characters can be used to interpret future results with more complicated source Hamiltonians and behaviors. Finally, we have thoroughly documented our simulation methods with contributions to the Quantum Optics Toolbox in Python in order to make our work easily accessible to other scientists and engineers.
Model buildingInterference (wave propagation)PhotonPlain bearingParticle physicsVideo
ParticleRRS DiscoveryLightLecture/Conference
Buick CenturyDie proof (philately)FlightLightInterference (wave propagation)Wind waveLecture/Conference
Fuse (electrical)BlackLightMusical developmentDiffractionInterference (wave propagation)Perturbation theoryRadiationPhotonicsParticleQuantumDie proof (philately)Quantum opticsNewton, Isaac
BlackPhotonOpticsParticleComputer animation
BlackParticleQuantum opticsMusical developmentDolchPhotonFocus (optics)Specific weightModel buildingVakuumphysikPower (physics)LightComputer animation
Transverse modeGeokoronaMagnetspulePhotonPhotonicsElectric power distributionBallpoint penRadiant energyComputer animation
Power (physics)PhotonicsQuantumBallpoint penGeokoronaSource (album)Ground (electricity)Computer animation
Source (album)Electric power distributionPhotonGround stateEmissionsvermögenAngeregter ZustandHot workingPhotonicsGround (electricity)Single (music)PhotographyComputer animation
Transverse modeEngineMopedMode of transportPhotonicsPerturbation theoryPhotonQuantumOpticsCoherence (signal processing)ToolDiving suitPaperWind waveMachineOrder and disorder (physics)Profil <Bauelement>Computer animation
EmissionsvermögenSingle (music)ToolFlight simulatorPaperOrder and disorder (physics)PhotonHot workingFinger protocolQuantumComputer animation
Transcript: English(auto-generated)
Hi, I'm Kevin Fisher from Stanford University, and I'm going to speak to you about our research on particles of light. Up until the discovery of quantum mechanics in the 20th century, the nature of light was hotly debated. A long history of eminent scientists proved light behaved like a wave with interference
and diffraction, but Isaac Newton firmly believed that light was a particle. The proof for particle behavior came from understanding radiation from hot objects called black bodies, which required that light be broken up into particles called photons. Further mathematical developments in quantum optics allowed for a refined description
of the photon. A photon was discovered to be a single particle of the electromagnetic field. Mathematically, this particle can be described by some beautifully simple shorthand, a-dagger, which creates a photon of a given momentum from vacuum. This model had incredible predictive power in shaping our understanding of light, but
the specifics of the photon are a bit odd. It extends infinitely over all space, which doesn't seem to capture a realistic particle of light. The development of a field in the 1990s called multimode quantum optics resolved this
confusion. A complete description of a realistic photon can be built by considering a summation of a large number of those infinite photons. By combining these photons together in the right way, we make something called a wave packet that fully describes a traveling single photon. From this insight, one can imagine that a photon is a distribution of electromagnetic
energy, so we draw the photon as a blurry sphere rather than just a billiard ball. This is a mathematically sound and rigorous definition with complete predictive power of how photons interfere with one another. But what produces single photons?
One popular source is the quantum two-level system, a system with one ground and one excited state. Beginning with the system in its ground state, then excited by a short pulse, it returns to its ground state roughly by emitting a single photon. But what about more complicated systems? Do they also emit single photons?
How are their photons different? Is one more useful than the other in a given application? Here, in our research work, we studied how to characterize emission of an arbitrary system. By examining three simple metrics, we show how to answer the question, how close is
the emission to a single photon? One, the photo count distribution. A source may emit more than one photon at a time, so simply put, does it emit only one photon? Two, the mode profile. How is the energy distributed? The energy could be in a nice sphere, or an oval, or a dumbbell, or actually any
shape at all. Three, the first-order optical coherence. Think of this metric as describing how wave-like the photon is, and how it interferes with other photons. In our paper, we developed a theoretical framework for taking an arbitrary quantum system, putting
it through a suite of mathematical tools and machinery, and then answering the question of how well does it emit a single photon? In order to make our work accessible, we contributed to an open-source quantum simulation project, the Quantum Toolbox in Python, and provided example code for reproducing all
of our simulations from this paper. Thank you again for listening, and I hope this work will be a useful tool in understanding single photon emission.