Study and characterisation of polarisation entanglement
JABIR M V
Photonic sciences laboratory, PRL
Plan of talk• What is entanglement ?
• Why we need entangled system ?
• Question on completeness of QM
• Bell-CHSH inequality for discrete variables
• Source of entanglement
• Measuring entangled state
• Experimental setup and results
What is entanglement ? Suppose we have a composite system which composes of two subsystems and , if we can write
then it is a product state.
then we call it is an entangled state.
Pairs or groups of particles in such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently – instead, a
quantum state may be given for the system as a whole.
| | a | b
| | |a b
| | |a b
Why we need entangled system ?
• Quantum teleportation
• Quantum cryptography
• Quantum computation
Question on completeness of QM
• EPR questioned element of reality and locality of Quantum theory
Assertion
1Quantum mechanics is
complete if incompatible quantities can not have
simultaneous reality
2Quantum mechanics is
incomplete if incompatible quantities can have simultaneous reality
Measurement by Alice does not change Bob’s system- locality Bob’s spin component is predetermined - realism
Measurement of position on electron and momentum on positron give simultaneous reality
Assertion one is failed- Quantum description of physical reality is incomplete
Introduce local hidden variable to explain this contrary
non-seperable system
Bell-CHSH inequality for discrete variables
• Hidden variable theory: Hidden variables must exist which determine EPR results being necessary to extend quantum mechanics to a complete local and realistic theory.
• Bell’s role: One can find bounds between a local and nonlocal prediction of quantum mechanics.
• Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt (CHSH) inequality : Experimental adaptation of Bell’s inequality
• λ - hidden variable ; p(λ) - probability distribution which determines measurement results.
Bell-CHSH inequality for discrete variables
• A(a,λ), A(a’,λ) and B(b,λ), B(b’,λ) – two measurement outcomes for particle A and B. a, a’, b and b’ projection angle
• Possible outcomes are ±1
• Principle of locality - A(a,λ), A(a’,λ) independent of B(b,λ), B(b’,λ) and vice versa
• Thus the correlation value E of the measurement on particle A and B
( , ) p( ) ( , ) ( , ) ( ). ( )E a b d A a A b E a E b ...(1)
• Using the constraints of A and B, a parameter S can be defined as
Lets calculate possible outcome..
S | ( , ) ( , ) ( , ) ( ', ) | | ( ', ) ( , ) ( ', ) ( ', ) |A a B b A a B b A a B b A a B b
2 |)),'(),(( ),'(| |)),'(),(( ),(| bBbBaAbBbBaA .... (2)
±1 ±10±2
0±2
1)
2)
1 0 1 2 2
1 2 1 0 2
3) 1 0 1 2 2
4) 1 2 1 0 2
• Using the constraints of A and B, a parameter S can be defined as
S | ( , ) ( , ) ( , ) ( ', ) | | ( ', ) ( , ) ( ', ) ( ', ) |A a B b A a B b A a B b A a B b
2 |)),'(),(( ),'(| |)),'(),(( ),(| bBbBaAbBbBaA .... (2)
±1 ±10±2
0±2
• Using inequality we can derive the CHSH inequality as
dxxfdxxf )()(
2 |)','(),'(||)',(),(| baEbaEbaEbaES
CHSH inequality
• For local realistic system, and for entangled system
Here,
Where,
is the coincidence counts at angle a and b of corresponding analysers
2 2S
(a, b) (a', b) (a,b') (a', b')S E E E E
(a, b) N(a,b ) N(a ,b) N(a ,b )(a, b)
(a, b) N(a,b ) N(a ,b) N(a ,b )
NE
N
(a, b)N
2 2 2S
EPR-Bell statesThere are mainly four maximally entangled bipartite system called EPR-Bell states.
1| (| HV | VH )
2
1| (| HV | VH )
2
1| (| HH | VV )
2
1| (| HH | VV )
2
Sources of entanglementOne of the popular source of entanglement is spontaneous
parametric down converted photons.
Type-Ι phase matching
for positive uniaxial ( )
for negative uniaxial crystal ( )
3 1 2o e e
p i sn n n
03 1 2e o
p i sn n n
e on n
e on n
1| (| | )
2iHH e VV
Type- ΙΙ phase matching
for negative uniaxial crystal ( )
3 1 2o o e
p i sn n n
3 1 2e e o
p i sn n n
for positive uniaxial crystal ( ) e on n
e on n
A
B
1| (| | )
2iHV e VH
Measuring entangled states
• Characterisation is done by projective measurements.• Here we use polarizer for project to desired state
single state of photons which we can pass through PA
So the coincidence count,
• For diagonal projection-
For linear projection-
| ip
2| | |C N
1 2| | |p p
1| (| | V )
2p H
| | |p H or V
• For linear projection ,
| H 2 21
| cos2
C
Experimental Setup
1. Blue diode laser2. Half wave plate3. Cascaded BIBO crystal4. Polarising beam splitter5. Interference filter @810nm6. Collimator7. Single photon counting module(SPCM)8. Time to digital converter10. Half wave plate
Experimental Setup
1
1. Blue diode laser2. Half wave plate3. Cascaded BIBO crystal4. Polarising beam splitter5. Interference filter @810nm6. Collimator7. Single photon counting module(SPCM)8. Time to digital converter10. Half wave plate
Analyser -I Analyser -II
Result and discussion
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0
200
400
600
800
Coin
cedence c
ounts
(counts
/10s)
Analyser (degree)
Coincedence(counts /10 s) Singles (counts /10 s) Theoretical fit
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
Sin
gle
dete
cto
r counts
(counts
/10s)
CHSH inequality
Where,
is the coincidence counts at angle a and b of corresponding analysers
(a, b) (a', b) (a,b') (a', b')S E E E E
(a, b) N(a,b ) N(a ,b) N(a ,b )(a, b)
(a, b) N(a,b ) N(a ,b) N(a ,b )
NE
N
(a, b)N
• Visibility, V=91.5±0.2%
• Bell’s parameter S = 2.518835± 0.126864
• The state which we have produced is,
1| (| | )
2iHH e VV
0 100 200 300 400 5000
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Coincidence Theoretical fit
Coin
cidence
Analyser