Quantum Disentanglement Eraser

M. Suhail Zubairy
(with G. S. Agarwal and M. O. Scully)

Department of Physics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843

 Quantum Eraser

Texas A&M University

Marlan O. Scully

Girish S. Agarwal
Herbert Walther
M. Suhail Zubairy

Institute for
Quantum Studies
 COMPLEMENTARITY
(N. BOHR, 1927)
• Two observables are “COMPLEMENTARY” if precise knowledge of
one of them implies that all possible outcomes of measuring the other
one are equally probable
– POSITION-MOMENTUM
– SPIN COMPONENTS
– POLARIZATION

• TRADITIONALLY
Complementarity in quantum mechanics is associated with
“Heisenberg’s uncertainty relations”
[ x, p]  i  xp  
• However it is a more general concept!!!

Scully, Englert, Walther, Nature 351, 111 (1991).

 Newsweek, June 19, 1995, p. 68
Erasing Knowledge!

As Thomas Young taught us two

Hundred years ago, photons interfere.

But now we know that:

Knowledge of path (1 or 2) is the reason
why interference is lost. Its as if the photon
knows it is being watched.

But now we discover that:

Erasing the knowledge of photon path
brings interference back.

“No wonder Einstein was confused.”

Photon correlation experiment
• Light impinging on atoms at sites 1 and 2.
Scattered photons γ1 and γ2 produce
interference pattern on screen.

• Two-level atoms are excited by laser pulse and

emit γ photons in the a → b transition (Fig. b).

• Atom-scattered field system:

1
  b1b2 (  1   2 )
2
• The state vector for the scattered photon from
the ith atom: 1
g k e  ik ri
i   1k
k ( k   )  i / 2

______________________________
M. O. Scully and K. Druhl, PRA 25, 2208 (1982)
• Correlation function for the scattered field:
1
G (r , t )    1   2 E (r , t ) 0
(1) () 2

2
1 2
 0 E (  ) (r , t )  1  0 E (  ) (r , t )  2
2
1 2
 1 (r , t )  2 (r , t )
2
• This is just the interference pattern associated with a
Young’s double-slit experiment generalized to the
present scattering problem. Note that when the γ1 and
γ2 photons arrive at the detector at the ‘same time’,
interference fringes are present.
• Three-level atoms excited by a pulse l1
from |c> → |a> followed by emission of
γ-photons in the |a> → |b> transition
(Fig. c).
• State of the coupled atom-field system:
1
1   b1c2  1  c1b2  2 
2

• Field correlation function:

1
G (1) (r , t ) 2 
2
 2 2
 
1 (r , t )  2 (r , t )  1* (r , t )2 (r , t ) b1c2 c1b2  c.c.

1
 2
 1 (r , t )  2 (r , t )
2
2

• Which path information available - No
fringes
• Can we erase the information (memory)
locked in our atoms and thus recover
fringes?
• Four-level system: a second pulse l2
takes atoms from |b> → |b’>. Decay from
|b’> → |c> results in emission of Φ-
photons.
• The second laser pulse l2 , resonant with |
b>→ |b’> transition, transfers 100
percent of the population from |b> to |b’>
(second laser pulse - π pulse).
• State of the system after interacting with
the l2 pulse is
2 
1
2

b1' c2  1  c1b2'  2 
• The ith atom decays to the |c> state via
the emission of |Φi> photon. State vector
after Φ-emission:
1
3  c1c2  1 1   2 2 
2
• Scattered photons γ and γ result from a → b transition.
• Decay of atoms from b′→ c results in Φ photon emission
• Elliptical cavities reflect Φ photons onto a common photodetector.
• Electrooptic shutter transmits Φ photons only when switch is open.
• Choice of switch position determines whether we emphasize
particle (shutter open) or wave (shutter
• closed) nature of γ photon.
• “Delayed choice” quantum eraser!!!
U. Mohrhoff, Am. J. Phys. 64, 1468 (1996)
 “Delayed choice” quantum eraser -
experimental demonstration a

• Pair of entangled photons is emitted from either atom A or atom B by

atomic cascade emission.
• ‘Clicks’ at D3 or D4 provide which path information (No interference
fringes!!)
• ‘Clicks’ at D1 or D2 erase the which path information (Fringes!!)
• absence or restoration of interference can be arranged via an
appropriately contrived photon correlation experiment.
_______________________________________________

a
Kim, Yu, Kulik, Shih, and Scully, PRL 84, 1 (2000)
 Experimental considerations

• Distance LA, LB between atoms A, B and detector D0 << distance between

atoms A,B and the beam splitter BSA and BSB where the which path or both
paths choice is made randomly by photon 2
• When photon 1 triggers D0, photon 2 is still on its way to BSA, BSB
• After registering of photon 1 at D0, we look at the subsequent detection
events at D1, D2, D3, D4 with appropriate time delay
• Joint detection events at D0 and Di must have resulted from the same photon
pair
• Interference pattern as a function of D0’ s position for joint counting rates R01
and R02
• No interference pattern for R03 and R04
 Experimental setup a

• The delayed choice to

observe either wave or
particle behavior of the
signal photon is made
randomly by the idler
photon about 7.7 ns
after the detection of
the signal photon

a
Kim, Yu, Kulik, Shih, and Scully, PRL 84, 1 (2000)
 Experimental results a

a
Kim, Yu, Kulik, Shih, and Scully, PRL 84, 1 (2000)
U. Mohrhoff, Am. J. Phys. 67, 330 (1999)
 Double-slit experiment with atoms

• In the absence of laser-cavity system:  (r )  1  (r )   (r ) i

1 2
2
r is the center-of-mass coordinate and i denotes the
internal state of the atom.
• The probability density for particles on the screen:

• Fringes!! P( R) 
1
2
 2 2
 
 1   2   1* 2   2* 1 i i
 Micromaser Which-Path Detector

• State of the correlated atomic beam-maser system:  (r ) 

1
 1 (r ) 1102  2 (r ) 0112  b
2
• Probability density at the screen:

P( R) 
1
2
 2 2

 1   2   1* 2 110 2 0112   2* 1 0112 110 2  b b

 
• Because <1102|0112> vanishes, 1 2 2
P( R)  1   2
2
• No fringes!!
 Quantum Eraser a

• Is it possible to retrieve the

coherent interference cross-
terms by removing (‘erasing’)
the which-path information
contained in the detectors?
• The answer is yes, but how
can that be? The atom is now
far removed from the
micromaser cavities and so
there can be no thought of any
physical influence on the
atom’s center-of-mass wave
function.

a
Scully, Englert and Walther, Nature 351, 111 (1991)
•  (r ) 
1
 1 (r ) 1102  2 (r ) 0112  b d
2
After absorbing a photon, the detector atom, initially in state |d> would be excited to state |e>.
•
 (r ) 
1
  (r )    (r )   b d
2
with
1
  (r )   1 (r )   2 (r );   1  1102  0112 
2 2
• Detector produces
 (r ) 
1
  (r ) 0102 e    (r )  d  b
2

• i.e., the symmetric interaction couples only to the symmetric radiation state |+>; the
antisymmetric state |-> remains unchanged.
• Atomic probability density at the
screen: P( R) 
2

1 *
  ( R)  ( R)   * ( R)  ( R) 
• No interference fringes if the final
state of the detector is unknown!!

• Probability density Pe(R) for finding

both the detector excited and the 2
atom at R on the screen: Pe ( R )    ( R )


1
2
 2 2
 
 1 ( R)   2 ( R)  Re  1* ( R) 2 ( R) 
Fringes → solid lines!!
• Probability density Pd(R) for finding
both the detector deexcited and the 2
atom at R on the screen: Pe ( R )    ( R )


1
2
 2 2
 
 1 ( R )   2 ( R)  Re  1* ( R) 2 ( R ) 
Antifringes → broken line!!
Quantum disentanglement erasersa
• Involves at least three-subsystems A, B, T.
• Entangled state of the AB subsystem:
 AB   00 
1
AB
 11 AB
2
• Wave function of whole system:
 ABT 
1
2

00 AB
0 T  11 AB
1T 
• State of the AB subsystem: 
1
00 00  11 11 
AB AB
2
• Entanglement of subsystem AB is lost!
• However if one erases the tag information, then the entanglement is
restored.
• Thus entanglement of any two particles that do not interact (directly
or indirectly) never disappears but is encoded in the ancilla of
the system. A projective measurement that seems to destroy such
entanglement could always in principle be erased by uitable
manipulation of the ancilla.

a
R. Garisto and L. Hardy, PRA 60, 827 (1999)
• Entangled state of the AB subsystem:
 AB 
1
2

00 AB
 11 AB

• Wave function of whole system:
 ABT 
1
2
00 AB
0 T
 11 AB
1T 
• Define
T 
1
0 T
1T 
2
• Thus

 ABT 
1

 T
 1
00 AB
 11 AB
    1
T
00  AB
 11 AB
 
2   2   2 

• Measurement of the tagging qubit realizes the

entangled state.
• AB system is given by the polarization, T is given by the path of particle 1.
• At t0 t 
1
1
 h s s 0 p  h s s 1 p 
2 1 2 1 1 2 1

1
• After passage through polarizing beam splitter (PBS)
  h h   h  h 
2

• If we measure the spin of photons at this point, we obtain mixed state

t 0
1
2
h s1s2
 h s1s2
0 p1
No entanglement!!
• To reversibly erase the tagging information at t = 2, we perform the reverse of the
operation of t=1.
Entanglement is restored!!
 Cavity QED Implementation
• Consider cavities A and B with |0> state and an
atom 1 in excited state |a> passes through the
two cavities

• After passage through cavity A with interaction

time corresponding to π/2 pulse:

1 
1
0 A
a 1 1 A b 1 0  B
2
• After passage through cavity B with interaction
time corresponding to π pulse:

1 
1
0 A
1B1 A
0 B
b 1
2
Entangled state!!!

• Atom 2 (tagging qubit) now passes through

cavity A
• Atom 2 has dispersive coupling
with cavity A,
 ca  v A  
• Effective Hamiltonian:

Η eff  (g 2 / ) aa  c c  a  a a a 
• Initially atom 2 is in state
a  b / 2

• After passage through cavity A,

a quantum phase gate is made
-iΗ eff 
3  e 2
  1  g 2

1
 b2 
  1
 
 0 A1B  1A0 B   a2  0 A1B  e 1A0 B  ,  
i


2   2   2 
_____________________________________
A. Rauschenbeutal et. al PRL 83, 5166 (1999).
• Pass atom through classical field with
(1 / 2 ) a2  b2   a2
(1 / 2 ) a2  b2   b2

• Resulting state
(with η=π):
4 
1
0 A1B a 21 A 0 B
b 2
b 1
2

• Entanglement between
cavities A and B is
controlled by atom 2!!
• Initial state:
1 
1
0 A
1B1 A
0 B
b 3
2

• After passage through

cavity A:
 
2
1
b 1  a 0 0
3 B 3 B A
2

• Phase shift:
3 
1

b 3 1 B  e i ( t ) a 3
0 B
0 A
2

• After passage through cavity B:

4 
1
2

b3 ,1B  a3 ,0 B  ei ( t ) ( a3 ,0 B  b3 ,1B ) 0 A 
1
   
 b3 ,1B 1  e i ( t )  a3 ,0 B 1  e i ( t ) 0 A .
2

 4 (t )   b3 ,1B 1  ei (t )  a3 ,0 B 1  ei (t )  0 A .
1
2
Detection probabilities:

1 1
Pa3  1  e i ( t ) 2
 1  cos  (t ) 
4 2
1
Pb3  1  cos  (t ) 
2

Haroche et. al, Nature (2000)

 Quantum Eraser

• Initial state: 2' 

1

b 31B a 2 a 3 0 B
b 2
0 A
.
2
• After passage through cavity A:
1' 
1

0 A1B a 21 A 0 B
b 2
b 3
.
2
• Phase shift:
3' 
1

b 3 1 B a 2  e i ( t ) a 3 0 B
b 2
0 A
.
2
• After passage through cavity B:
 4' 
1
2
  
b3 ,1B a2  b2 ei (t )  a3 ,0 B a2  b2 ei (t ) 0 A .  
• Detection probabilities:
P  Tr  a  b e  a  b e 
1 1 i ( t )  i ( t )
a 2 2  2 2
4 2
1
Pb 
2
• Restoration of fringes:
a2  (1 / 2 ) a2  b2  b2  (1 / 2 ) a2  b2 
5' 
1
 a ,0  a 1  e  b 1  e  b ,1  a 1  e  b 1  e 
3 2
i ( t )
2
i ( t )
3 B 2
i ( t )
2
i ( t )

2 2

Pa 
1
2
{ 1  cos (t )
1  cos (t )
for a2
for b2
Pb 
1
2
{ 1  cos  (t )
1  cos  (t )
for a2
for b2
 Quantum teleportation
• Initial state is an entangled
state between cavities A
and B along with the tagged
qubit T:
 2' 
1
0 A
1 B
a 21 A
0 B
b 2
b 1
.
2

• We want to teleport the state of qubit C:

 C  c0 0  c1 1
to cavity B
• State of combined system ABCT is
1
 ABCT   [ c

AC 0 0  c1 1 B   AC

c0 1  c1 0    
AC c0 0  c1 1    
AC c0 1  c1 0 ]
2 2 2 B B B

 1  2[ AC c0 0  c1 1 B   AC c0 1  c1 0 

B
  AC

c0 0  c1 1 B   AC c0 1  c1 0 ] B
2 2

where
1 1 1
 
AC   01  10 ;  AC   00  11 ;  2   a  b

 2
2 2 2

• A Bell-basis measurement of  AC

reduces the BT
state to
 BT 
1
c0 0 B   2   2  c1 1B   2   2  1
c0 0 B 02  c1 1B12 
2 2
 Induced coherence without induced
emission
• Recall we produced:
-iΗ eff 
3  e 2
1   1  g 2
  b2
  1
 
 0 A1B  1A0 B   a2  0 A1B  e 1A0 B  ,  
i

2   2   2  

• Interference terms are only

partially erased in the reduced
two-cavity density matrix ρAB,
given by
 AB
2
1
2
 
  0 A1B 0 A1B  1A0 B 1A0 B  0 A1B 1A0 B e i  1 c.c.
1
• Probabilities for finding the atom 3 in the excited and
ground states:
1  cos   cos   
P  1 , P  1 P .
2  
a3 b3 a3
2 

• For η≠π, we have the control of the interferences in

unconditional measurements on atom 2.
• Visibility of the fringes is equal to |sin(η/2)|.
Brian Greene in The Fabric of the Cosmos (2004)

These experiments are a magnificent

affront to our conventional notions of
space and time. . . . . . . . . .For
a few days after I learned of these
experiments, I remember feeling
elated. I felt I'd been given a glimpse
into a veiled side of reality.
 Table of Contents
• Quantum Disentanglement Eraser • Interference Fringes
• Quantum Eraser • Atomic Probability
• Complementarity (Bohr) • Quantum Disentanglement
• Erasing Knowledge • Entangled State
• Photon Correlation Experiment • AB System
• Correlation Function • Cavity QED
• Three-Level Atom • Eraser Field
• Can we erase? • Classical Field
• Particle or Wave • Initial State
• Restoration of Interference (Mohrhoff) • Detection Probabilities
• Delayed Choice • Quantum Eraser
• Experimental Considerations • After Passage
• Experimental Set-up • Quantum Teleportation
• Experimental Results • ABCT
• Objectivity, retrocausation (Mohrhoff II) • Induced coherence
• Double-Slit Experiment • Probabilities
• Micromaser Which-Path Detector • Fabric of the Cosmos
• Quantum Eraser