Preparation, manipulation and detection of single atoms on a chip

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Gregynog QIP meeting QIP Experiments with ions, atoms and molecules Christopher Foot, University of Oxford
Advertisements

1 Trey Porto Joint Quantum Institute NIST / University of Maryland DAMOP 2008 Controlled interaction between pairs of atoms in a double-well optical lattice.
Cavity cooling of a single atom James Millen 21/01/09.
The feasibility of Microwave- to-Optical Photon Efficient Conversion By Omar Alshehri Waterloo, ON Fall 2014
What makes a cavity good? Dan Brooks April 29, 2008 Physics 250.
Nanophotonic Devices for Quantum Optics Feb 13, 2013 GCOE symposium Takao Aoki Waseda University.
Cooling a mechanical oscillator to its quantum ground state enables the exploration of the quantum nature and the quantum–classical boundary of an otherwise.
Nanophotonics Class 6 Microcavities. Optical Microcavities Vahala, Nature 424, 839 (2003) Microcavity characteristics: Quality factor Q, mode volume V.
Towards a Laser System for Atom Interferometry Andrew Chew.
P. Cheinet, B. Pelle, R. Faoro, A. Zuliani and P. Pillet Laboratoire Aimé Cotton, Orsay (France) Cold Rydberg atoms in Laboratoire Aimé Cotton 04/12/2013.
Generation of short pulses
Quantum Computing with Trapped Ion Hyperfine Qubits.
Indistinguishability of emitted photons from a semiconductor quantum dot in a micropillar cavity S. Varoutsis LPN Marcoussis S. Laurent, E. Viasnoff, P.
Rydberg physics with cold strontium James Millen Durham University – Atomic & Molecular Physics group.
Universal Optical Operations in Quantum Information Processing Wei-Min Zhang ( Physics Dept, NCKU )
PBG CAVITY IN NV-DIAMOND FOR QUANTUM COMPUTING Team: John-Kwong Lee (Grad Student) Dr. Renu Tripathi (Post-Doc) Dr. Gaur Pati (Post-Doc) Supported By:
Niels Bohr Institute Copenhagen University Eugene PolzikLECTURE 5.
Light-Matter Quantum Interface
Cavity QED as a Deterministic Photon Source Gary Howell Feb. 9, 2007.
Long coherence times with dense trapped atoms collisional narrowing and dynamical decoupling Nir Davidson Yoav Sagi, Ido Almog, Rami Pugatch, Miri Brook.
CAVITY QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMICS IN PHOTONIC CRYSTAL STRUCTURES Photonic Crystal Doctoral Course PO-014 Summer Semester 2009 Konstantinos G. Lagoudakis.
Excited state spatial distributions Graham Lochead 20/06/11.
PG lectures Spontaneous emission. Outline Lectures 1-2 Introduction What is it? Why does it happen? Deriving the A coefficient. Full quantum description.
Ideas for Experimental Realization of Neutral Atom Quantum Computing 演 講 者:蔡 錦 俊 成功大學物理系
Coherence and decay within Bose-Einstein condensates – beyond Bogoliubov N. Katz 1, E. Rowen 1, R. Pugatch 1, N. Bar-gill 1 and N. Davidson 1, I. Mazets.

High-Q small-V Photonic-Crystal Microcavities
Coherence in Spontaneous Emission Creston Herold July 8, 2013 JQI Summer School (1 st annual!)
Spin-motion coupling in atoms Cooling to motional ground states and Quantum logic spectroscopy.
Single atom lasing of a dressed flux qubit
Dressed state amplification by a superconducting qubit E. Il‘ichev, Outline Introduction: Qubit-resonator system Parametric amplification Quantum amplifier.
Quantum Devices (or, How to Build Your Own Quantum Computer)
Preparing antihydrogen at rest for the free fall in Laurent Hilico Jean-Philippe Karr Albane Douillet Vu Tran Julien Trapateau Ferdinand Schmidt Kaler.
Generation of Mesoscopic Superpositions of Two Squeezed States of Motion for A Trapped Ion Shih-Chuan Gou ( 郭西川 ) Department of Physics National Changhua.
Determination of fundamental constants using laser cooled molecular ions.
A deterministic source of entangled photons David Vitali, Giacomo Ciaramicoli, and Paolo Tombesi Dip. di Matematica e Fisica and Unità INFM, Università.
Degenerate Quantum Gases manipulation on AtomChips Francesco Saverio Cataliotti.
Experiments with ultracold RbCs molecules Peter Molony Cs Rb.
Accurate density measurement of a cold Rydberg gas via non-collisional two-body process Anne Cournol, Jacques Robert, Pierre Pillet, and Nicolas Vanhaecke.
Coherent excitation of Rydberg atoms on an atom chip
D. L. McAuslan, D. Korystov, and J. J. Longdell Jack Dodd Centre for Photonics and Ultra-Cold Atoms, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. Coherent.
Meet the transmon and his friends
Single atom manipulations Benoît Darquié, Silvia Bergamini, Junxiang Zhang, Antoine Browaeys and Philippe Grangier Laboratoire Charles Fabry de l'Institut.
Experimental study of Efimov scenario in ultracold bosonic lithium
LONG-LIVED QUANTUM MEMORY USING NUCLEAR SPINS A. Sinatra, G. Reinaudi, F. Laloë (ENS, Paris) Laboratoire Kastler Brossel A. Dantan, E. Giacobino, M. Pinard.
Quantum noise observation and control A. HeidmannM. PinardJ.-M. Courty P.-F. CohadonT. Briant O. Arcizet T. CaniardJ. Le Bars Laboratoire Kastler Brossel,
Atom chips: A vision for neutral atom QIP E.A. Hinds Imperial College, 11 July 2006 Imperial College London.
Resonant dipole-dipole energy transfer from 300 K to 300μK, from gas phase collisions to the frozen Rydberg gas K. A. Safinya D. S. Thomson R. C. Stoneman.
Copenhagen interpretation Entanglement - qubits 2 quantum coins 2 spins ( spin “up” or spin “down”) Entangled state many qubits: Entangled state:
Multiparticle Entangled States of the W- class, their Properties and Applications A. Rodichkina, A. Basharov, V. Gorbachev Laboratory for Quantum Information.
Prospects for ultracold metastable helium research: phase separation and BEC of fermionic molecules R. van Rooij, R.A. Rozendaal, I. Barmes & W. Vassen.
Excited state spatial distributions in a cold strontium gas Graham Lochead.
Fawaz S. K. Aldafeery. Introduction Quantum memories are important elements for quantum information processing applications such as quantum networks,
Dynamics of Low Density Rydberg Gases Experimental Apparatus E. Brekke, J. O. Day, T. G. Walker University of Wisconsin – Madison Support from NSF and.
Spatial distributions in a cold strontium Rydberg gas Graham Lochead.
Aiming at Quantum Information Processing on an Atom Chip Caspar Ockeloen.
Jerzy Zachorowski M. Smoluchowski Institute of Physics, Jagiellonian University Nonlinear Spectroscopy of Cold Atoms, Preparations for the BEC Experiments.
Spatial distributions in a cold strontium Rydberg gas Graham Lochead.
|| Quantum Systems for Information Technology FS2016 Quantum feedback control Moritz Businger & Max Melchner
Many-Body Effects in a Frozen Rydberg Gas Feng zhigang
Jiří Minář Centre for Quantum Technologies
TC, U. Dorner, P. Zoller C. Williams, P. Julienne
Circuit QED Experiment
Quantum Computing from theory to experiments
Preparing antihydrogen at rest for the free fall in
Optical qubits
Coupled atom-cavity system
Strong Coupling of a Spin Ensemble to a Superconducting Resonator
Cavity QED
by A. Sipahigil, R. E. Evans, D. D. Sukachev, M. J. Burek, J
Presentation transcript:

Preparation, manipulation and detection of single atoms on a chip Guilhem Dubois Supervisor: Jakob Reichel Atomchips group, Laboratoire Kastler Brossel, ENS Paris

Single atoms : remarkable features Tcoh > 10s Well-controlled system! Testbed for Quantum Mechanics Qubit candidate? Cooling & trapping single atom characterized by a quantum structure of levels, which is perfecly known if you add the 3 external dof, it is still a simple quant system Stable states+ mw transitions Tc limited by B field inhomogeneity Laser cooling, magnetic and optical traps Scalability: array of magnetic microtraps / optical lattices manipulate single, identical atoms in parallel. 2

Outline Introduction: experiments with single atoms Cavity QED and single atom detection Experimental setup Detection of waveguided atoms Preparation and detection of trapped single atoms Detection with minimum backaction Quantum Zeno effect

Single atoms toolbox Preparation Interaction Detection 4 Terminology of QIP 2-qubit -> entanglement 4

Single atoms toolbox Preparation Interaction with … Detection light fields (in free space, in a cavity)  atom-photon entanglement [Volz et al. PRL 96 (2006)]  non-classical states of light - Fock states [Deleglise Nature 455 (2008)] - polarisation-entangled photons [Wilk Science 317 (2007)] another single atom (atom-atom entanglement)  controlled collisions [Mandel et al. Nature 425 (2003)]  Rydberg blockade [Gaëtan et al. Nat. Phys. 5 (2009)] Terminology of QIP 2-qubit -> entanglement 5

Single atoms toolbox Preparation : constraints  deterministic  specific internal state e.g. clock states  specific motional state e.g. trap ground state Interaction Detection Here the preparation step is not step not easy difficult to have exactly one atom in a given trap furthermore constraints depend on the exact experiment you want to achieve, but are generally of two forms : either you want to single out a specific internal state, like « clock states » which have long coherence time, and/or aim for a specific motional state, like the ground state of the trap. 6

Single atoms toolbox Preparation : feedback  deterministic  specific internal state e.g. clock states  specific motional state e.g. trap ground state Interaction Detection : here atom counting  minimum backaction (spontaneous emission) Terminology of QIP 2-qubit -> entanglement How can we achieve that ? 7

Outline Introduction Cavity QED and single atom detection Experimental setup Detection of waveguided atoms Preparation and detection of trapped single atoms Detection with minimum backaction Quantum Zeno effect

Atom-cavity system e b Strong coupling regime : g >> k , g optical cavity k coupling g Schematic atom+ cavity Coupling rates and decay rates Strong coupling regime. Strong coupling regime : g >> k , g  small mode volume  good quality mirrors

Cavity QED experiments  single atom - single photon interaction Detection of single atoms Oettl et al. PRL 95 (2005) Quantum light sources Hijlkema PhD thesis (2007) Evidence of field quantisation & photon counter Brune et al. PRL 76 (1996) The experiments you can perform with a cavity QED system take advantage of the good control and the large value of the single atom – single photon interaction. 1- In the experiments of Haroche group at ENS, the atom acts as a probe of the cavity field, and allows to count the number of photons in the cavity. It is the oscillations frequency of the atom which tells you how many photons are in the cavity. This expt is actually a very nice proof of field quantisation. 2- The subject of a number of recent expts is to take advantage of the good control over the coupling to fashion the light-matter interaction and obtain sources of quantum light. Here I show of expt from the MPQ group which produces single photons on demand from a trapped atom in a cavity. 3- Another class of experiment you can perform with an atom-cavity system is the detection of single atoms, for example here I show an expt performed in Zurich where they use the detector to probe the coherence properties of an atom laser beam. I should now get into more detail about the way a cavity is used to detect single atoms.

Resonant Jaynes-Cummings spectrum b,0 e,0 energy b,1 b,0 +,1 energy coupling g -,1 splitting 2g e b Interaction single atom - single photon visible! Now we consider the situation when the atom and the cavity mode are exactly resonant. The interaction between the atom and the cavity field is described by a simple Hamiltonian which models the coherent energy exchange between the atom and the cavity. Initially the level structure is like that, with a degeneracy between the atomic excited state and the one-photon state. 2-The effect of the coupling is to lift this degeneracy to obtain new eigenstates of the system called the dressed states. 3- this interaction with a single atom is visible in the transmission spectrum of the cavity as the initial transmission peak is splitted in two new peaks corresponding to the position of the dresses states.

Principle of single atom detection in a cavity Optimum measurement rate 1 measurement = 1 photon With losses L : ¡signal = L £ ¡inc 1-The detection process with a strongly coupled cavity is optimum. I just need 1 photon to know if I have one atom or not. Or equivalently: if I have a single atom in the cavity, that can be in two state, one resonant one nonresonant, I would just have to send one photon to know in which state it is. If I had a single photon source, I would just need to trigger it once.

Detection with minimum backaction?  Backaction characterized by Gsp For a free space detector: factor C ! Now if you look again at this picture, there is something quite fascinating (and suspicious) : you can detect the atom with light, but there is no light entering the cavity. We would therefore say that the detection is done with no spontaneous emission, no perturbation of atomic variables like motion, zeeman state, etc. In reality, there is always some light that enters the cavity, and you get some spontaneous emission in the external modes of the light fields (shown in green here). Nevertheless we can still compute it and find that the fraction of light that is scattered by the atom out of the cavity, compared to the light we sent in in very small : 1/C Let us know insist on the differences with a free space based detection scheme, such as fluorescence detection. Here, the signal that you get in olny due to spontaneous emission, and for the same signal, you have a factor C of difference between free space and cavity detection. The idea is then to make this factor as big as possible to obtain the smallest possible backaction on the atom.

Outline Introduction Cavity QED and single atom detection Experimental setup Detection of waveguided atoms Preparation and detection of trapped single atoms Detection with minimum backaction Quantum Zeno effect

AutoCAD’s view Integrated atom chip-cavity system The experimental setup consists in the combination of an atom chip, used to trap ultracold atoms, and a high-finesse Fabry-Perot cavity

Atom chip basics 1cm Applications: - BEC - precise transport and positioning - atomic clocks and interferometers - single atom manipulation? Magnetic traps: - versatility - strong confinement close to the surface Atomchips are used to trap atoms, with magnetic fields. They are made of small wires, here it’s gold wires, on a planar surface, in which you drive current to create a magnetic trap, together with external bias fields. Many wires -> many trap configurations. Small distance atoms/chip -> good confinement. -> applications …

Miniaturized Fabry-Perot cavity Mention this cavity is OUR design C02 laser ablation -> good surface quality, curved fiber tips -> HR coating

Miniaturized Fabry-Perot cavity - tunable - small mode volume w0=4 mm ; d=39 mm - integrated 150mm from chip surface Cavity QED Strong coupling regime! finesse F = 38000 coupling g /2p = 160 MHz cavity decay k / 2p = 50 MHz atomic decay g / 2 p = 3 MHz cooperativity C = g2/2kg = 85 Mention this cavity is OUR design

Outline Introduction Cavity QED and single atom detection Experimental setup Detection of waveguided atoms Preparation and detection of trapped single atoms Detection with minimum backaction Quantum Zeno effect

Detection of waveguided atoms Principle APD BEC Atomic waveguide a Mention it is the easiest way to put SINGLE atoms in the cavity Detection zone LASER … the easiest way to put SINGLE atoms in the cavity

Detection of waveguided atoms Reference with no atoms

Detection of waveguided atoms Single run with atoms

Detection of waveguided atoms Experiment Threshold Excellent signal to noise ratio for dilute BECs. From these results : not possible to conclude on a detection efficiency with this technique. Some atoms are missed – because they do not lead to a deep enough signal.  these are single atoms !!!

Outline Introduction Cavity QED and single atom detection Experimental setup Detection of waveguided atoms Preparation and detection of trapped single atoms Detection with minimum backaction Quantum Zeno effect

Trapping & detecting the atoms in the cavity mode Transfer magnetic trap  Optical dipole trap @ 830nm Experiments with BEC : see Colombe et al. Nature 450 (2007)

Positioning the BEC in the cavity BEC in magnetic trap N ~ a few 1000s input fibre output fibre Initial cloud size ~1mm  single-site loading possible. Y Dipole trap @ 830nm Probe light @ 780nm

Vacuum Rabi Splitting with collective enhancement How to get to the single atom regime? Laser detuning ΔL-A [GHz] The effect of a BEC in a cavity in to increase the coupling by srqt(N) compared to a single atom. We measured this increased coupling by performing a spectroscopy of the system for different values of N, and looking for the resonance peaks corresponding here to the collective dressed states. We find a very good agreement to the theory. 2-We also see on this curve that is difficult to get to the small atom number regime. So how can we prepare trapped single atoms this way? Y. Colombe, T. Steinmetz, G. Dubois, F. Linke, D. Hunger and J.Reichel Nature 450 (2007)

From the BEC to just a single atom Problem: Evaporation down to N=1 not possible. Solution: Extract a single F=2 atom from a ‘reservoir’ of F=1 atoms – and detect it. F'=0,1,2,3 Cavity tuned to F=2 -> F’=3 transition F=2 F=1 Reservoir (N~10) Weak MW pulse (@6.8 GHz) ~2% transfer probability/atom To do deterministic preparation of single atoms with cavity , you need to start with a very small could of 0 or a1 toms. Noise in external magnetic fields and current wires. Key idea: weak mw pulse to decrease the relative probability of multiple transfers.

Usual strategy to obtain trapped single atoms “Wait and trap” scheme: dip ! First trapped cavity QED experiments (Caltech, Garching) Problem: the atom is hot - cooling required (Raman sideband cooling, cavity cooling) Possible improvement: optical conveyor belt (Bonn, Zurich) We do differently! We aim at direct preparation in the trap ground state Analogy with our scheme : position  internal state.

“Preparation and detection” iterative sequence time Reservoir preparation mw Detection mw Detection Etc … F’=3 F=2 F=1 1000 ~10

0 or 1 atom in F=2? nAPD ~ 25 nAPD < 1

Analysis of detection pulses Transfer efficiency 10% Relative transmission 1.4% threshold We find that the results of detection pulses, in terms of APD counts, are distributed along a Bi-Poissonian distribution successful transfers (~10%) unsuccessfultransfers (~90%) after ~10 pulses  Reliable preparation

Lifetime of the atoms during detection single run or ??

Lifetime of the atoms during detection Fit or ?? Average lifetime 1.2 ms Limited by depumping to F=1 Fidelity=99.7% + QND measurement stat. limit depump limit

Outline Introduction Cavity QED and single atom detection Experimental setup Detection of waveguided atoms Preparation and detection of trapped single atoms Detection with minimum backaction Quantum Zeno effect

How can we measure spontaneous emission? Zeeman “random walk”: But not visible in lifetime !

Measurement and preparation of a specific Zeeman state (F=2;mF=0) Measurement of mF p p p Until now I did not talk about Zeeman state Zeeman state : not visible in cavity detection + all Zeeman states are trapped -> however it is important to perturb the atomic state as little as possible for preparation in the ground state, for example, or a given Zeeman state. B

Diffusion in the Zeeman manifold Fit

Detection figure of merit : backaction  Better than a perfect free space detection !  Possible to prepare a single atom without changing the motional state ! Improvements require: - simultaneous R&T meas. - lower optical losses

Detection without perturbation ? with L ~ 0.1 : C ~ 20 expected value C ~ 85 ??? What is the real measurement rate of the system? for a lossless observer ¡m = ¡inc = C ¡sp can we check that ???

Outline Introduction Cavity QED and single atom detection Experimental setup Detection of waveguided atoms Preparation and detection of trapped single atoms Detection with minimum backaction Quantum Zeno effect

Quantum Zeno Effect b mw p a m = Coherence decay rate between a and b Cavity & atomic excited state F=2;mF=0 F=1;mF=0 b mw p What does the QZE consist in? Consider the situation of two stable states, between which you can drive a Rabi oscillation with an external field. Now suppose that you continuously measure the population in one of the two states, for example by coupling to a fast-decaying 3rd state. This measurement will actually prevent the transitions between the two initial states. The reason is that in QM, the measurement perturbs the state. More precisely, the measurement destroys the coherence between the two states, which are necessary to establish the Rabi osc. Therefore, if you apply a pi-pulse on the initial transition, you find that the transfer probability will drop from 1 to 0 as you increase the meas rate. In the experiment, the transition we consider is the F=2 mF=0 -> F=1 mF=0 transition, and the measurement is performed by pumping the cavity which measure the value of F. The measurement rate is in fact the coherence decay rate of an initial state superposition. Here, we find that the coherence decay rate = photon input rate in the cavity mode; If we compare with the Zeeman diffusion expt. we find that this is approx 20 times larger than sp em rate. It is also equal to the optimum detection rate for the experimentator, if the system were lossless. So this expt actually demonstrates that the state of the system is measured (at least by the environment) with almost no sp. em. a m = Coherence decay rate between a and b m = Photon input rate ~ 20 £ Spontaneous emission rate

Summary Preparation of trapped single atoms starting from a BEC: preparation in a specific Zeeman state  qubit clock states well localized within the cavity First detector of single atoms on a chip  ability to distinguish F=1 from F=2 states with 99.7% fidelity Demonstrated a Quantum Zeno effect w/o spontaneous emission.

Outlook e laser cavity b a Characterize the atomic motional state are we still in the ground state? Manipulate of pairs of atoms in the cavity  Cavity-assisted entanglement generation Combine with other atom chip technology (state dependent mw potentials) Quantum memory with BEC and Fiber-cavity - Large collection efficiency - Long storage time laser cavity a b e

Single atom Vacuum Rabi splitting

Atomchip-based single atom detectors Fluorescence (Wilzbach et al. 0801.3255) Photoionization (Stibor et al PRA 76 (2007)) Cavity QED (Purdy et al. APB 90 (2008)) 1 2 3

Single atoms – light/matter interface laser vacuum a b e Single photon source Atom-photon entanglement Photon-photon entanglement Long-distance atom-atom entanglement via entanglement swapping  Quantum networks for quantum cryptography - Probabilistic is OK (DLCZ 2002)  atomic ensembles possible but coherence time ~ms. - Collection efficiency small with single atoms  a cavity helps Lambda scheme

Single atom ‘temperature‘ Release and recapture Mean energy < 100 mK (trap depth 2.6 mK)

Single atom Rabi oscillations

Single atoms : some fascinating achievements Beugnon et al. Nature 440 (2006) Hong-Ou-Mandel effect Evidence of field quantisation & photon counting Brune et al. PRL 76 (1996) Massive multi-particle entanglement Mandel et al. Nature 425 (2003) 50

Single atoms toolbox Preparation & trapping 1-qubit gates State readout Scheme : controlled collisions Entangle atomic internal and external state Theory: Calarco et al. , PRA 61 (2000) Experiment: Mandel et al. Nature 425 (2003) Böhi et al. preprint arXiv 0904.4837 for this entanglement to succeed you need a perfect knowledge about the state initial state -> trap grd state! Requirements: - state dependent potentials - preparation in the trap ground state 51

Single atoms toolbox Preparation & trapping 1-qubit gates State readout Scheme : Rydberg gate r b d1.d2 a Theory: Jaksch et al. PRL 85 (2000) Experiment: Wilk et al. preprint arXiv:0908.0454 Ref : Calarco proposal Bloch realization Requirements: - preparation of Rydberg states - small distance (<5mm) between atoms 52

Single atoms toolbox Preparation & trapping 1-qubit gates State readout Scheme : cavity-mediated interaction ae ea aa+1 photon g g ba ab aa aa You et al. PRA 67 (2003) Ref : proposal You and Li Requirements: - optical cavity, strong coupling regime - good control over the coupling g 53

Single atoms toolbox Preparation & trapping 1-qubit gates State readout : For free space detection Signal = Spontaneous emission  heating & depumping Non-destructive measurement? - Not necessary in principle - but very useful for preparation! e QND measurement -> Not necessary for quantum computing BUT allows to do preparation in a well-defined state with active feedback.  need a cavity to enhance light/matter coupling and avoid spontaneous emission b a 54

Detection of waveguided atoms Analysis Spontaneous emission:  depumping to untrapped states. Some atoms lost before they reach maximum coupling Still: Demonstrates >50% efficiency single atom detection (absorption imaging, simulations) But: trapped atoms in the strong coupling region should lead to better results