Coherence time of parametrically downconverted entangled photons

In summary, coherence time is related to the power spectral density of the light field in SPDC. The total energy of the incoming photon is conserved, but the energy can be distributed in various combinations among the outgoing photons. By performing spectral filtering in one arm, the total state can have a well-defined energy and long coherence time, while the individual single photon states have short coherence time. This can be seen in experiments such as the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect. In a thought experiment, placing a narrow wavelength filter in one output port of a beam splitter can result in the other photon having infinite coherence time, but the question of when this coherence time changes still remains.
  • #1
nandan
19
0
What is the coherence time for a pair of entangled photons produced in a nonlinear crystal? Is it related to coherence time of the pump photon? Also, if we say that the coherence time of the two photons is T, then does it mean that the two photons can interfere with each other even if their relative delay is T?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
You need to consider two coherence times here. The coherence time of the two photon state is pretty long and may be given by the pump. The coherence time of the single photons is usually pretty short.

It is easier to see when discussing transversal coherence length instead. The argument is similar. SPDC gives you a broad range of emission angles (and has to in order to violate Bell inequalities). This is the opposite of the requirement of spatial coherence (a narrow angular size of the light source). However, the total momentum (and therefore also the sum of the emission angles) is very well defined. That means that if you perform a measurement in coincidence you can use a small detector and therefore postselect on a narrow range of angles. The corresponding photons in the other arm must also necessarily come from a narrow range of emission angles due to momentum conservation. This subset has large spatial coherence. So the total state has well defined momentum, while you do not get well defined momentum looking at the single arms.

Coherence time is instead related to the power spectral density of your light field. In SPDC, the total energy of the incoming photon must be conserved, but there is no need for the energy to be distributed 50/50 among the outgoing photons. All the combinations are allowed as long as they fulfill the phase matching condition. So in each arm you will get a spectrally broad distribution and a short coherence time. However, if you perform spectral filtering in one arm and do coincidence counting now, you postselect on an ensemble with well defined energy, so the corresponding photons in the other arm will have a narrow spectral distribution and a long coherence time. So here, the two photon state has a well defined sum of energies so you have a long coherence time for the two-photon state, but the individual single photon states have very short coherence time when looked at in total.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #3
Thanks a lot Marc for your detailed reply.
I understand your point that individually the two photons have low coherence both spatially and temporally but due to entanglement of two photons, if you post-select one photon in a narrow momentum or spectral state, then the other photon will have high coherence. Can't we post-select both the photons in this way e.g. by using the same very narrow spectral filters in both the outgoing photon arms?

What I was puzzled about was the fact that if the uncertainty in wavelength for the SPDC process is equal to the 10 nm for outgoing photons of wavelength 1060 nm, then the corresponding coherence time is of the order of ps. However in some of the experiments I saw in literature e.g. in Hong-Ou-Mandel experiments, the effect of two photon interference appears to be visible even in ns range. It may be due to detector jitters but I am not sure.

So if the two photons are generated with 10 nm bandwidth at 1060 nm wavelength, then the two photons are generated with maximum of 1 ps delay between the two (This comes from the uncertainty principle). So, if I now send these two photons to the two input ports of a beam splitter, then the two photons should interfere with each other only if the delay between them is less than 1 ps. We can use spectral filters to increase the coherence time and in that case the maximum delay for which the two photons can interfere with each other will be equal to this new coherence time. Are these statements correct?
 
  • #4
If what I say above is correct, then another experiment can be imagined. Two photons generated by SPDC with broad spectral power density are made to fall on two input ports of a beam splitter with a delay between them which is much greater than the temporal coherence of two photons. Therefore, the two photons do not interfere and the probability of the two photons going in two output arms and the two photons going in same output port is 1/2 in both cases. A narrow wavelength filter (in a thought experiment can be assumed to be a delta function in wavelength domain) is placed in one output port (port A) of the beam splitter. If the detector in this output port A now makes a click, then the coherence time of the other photon (in output port B) becomes infinite. In such a case, photon of port B should have interacted with the photon that has been detected at port A. I understand that the question of interference seems impossible since one photon has already been detected. But then again, that raises the question for me: when does the coherence time of the second photon change to infinity? Exactly at the instant when the photon at output port B is detected? Or when this photon passes through the spectral filter? Or did this photon did did interfere with the other photon of same wavelength component and has been detected afterwards?
This last question can be answered by looking at the statistics of coincidence counts with and without the spectral filter.
 
  • #5
nandan said:
Can't we post-select both the photons in this way e.g. by using the same very narrow spectral filters in both the outgoing photon arms?

In principle yes, but you will not gain much from that. If you already picked a subset via postselection, the spectral distribution in the second arm will be narrow anyway.

nandan said:
What I was puzzled about was the fact that if the uncertainty in wavelength for the SPDC process is equal to the 10 nm for outgoing photons of wavelength 1060 nm, then the corresponding coherence time is of the order of ps. However in some of the experiments I saw in literature e.g. in Hong-Ou-Mandel experiments, the effect of two photon interference appears to be visible even in ns range. It may be due to detector jitters but I am not sure.

It would be helpful to see the exact paper in question. HOM measurements are routinely done to check whether single photons are indistinguishable. That may include photons created by consecutive pulses and whatever.

nandan said:
We can use spectral filters to increase the coherence time and in that case the maximum delay for which the two photons can interfere with each other will be equal to this new coherence time. Are these statements correct?

Seems right to me. It should be noted that doing so "breaks" entanglement. You will not be able to violate Bell's inequalities using the filtered subset as the distribution is now too narrow.

nandan said:
If what I say above is correct, then another experiment can be imagined. Two photons generated by SPDC with broad spectral power density are made to fall on two input ports of a beam splitter with a delay between them which is much greater than the temporal coherence of two photons. Therefore, the two photons do not interfere and the probability of the two photons going in two output arms and the two photons going in same output port is 1/2 in both cases. A narrow wavelength filter (in a thought experiment can be assumed to be a delta function in wavelength domain) is placed in one output port (port A) of the beam splitter. If the detector in this output port A now makes a click, then the coherence time of the other photon (in output port B) becomes infinite. In such a case, photon of port B should have interacted with the photon that has been detected at port A. I understand that the question of interference seems impossible since one photon has already been detected. But then again, that raises the question for me: when does the coherence time of the second photon change to infinity? Exactly at the instant when the photon at output port B is detected? Or when this photon passes through the spectral filter? Or did this photon did did interfere with the other photon of same wavelength component and has been detected afterwards?
This last question can be answered by looking at the statistics of coincidence counts with and without the spectral filter.

This sounds like a different take on quantum eraser experiments. It is well accepted that the photons do not even have to overlap at the beam splitter. The crucial thing is that you have two different pathways with two different processes leading to the same final result. If these processes are in principle indistinguishable, you will get interference of the two-photon probability amplitudes. A nice example was given in "Can Two-Photon Interference be Considered the Interference of Two Photons?" by T.B. Pittman et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1917 (1996). http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.1917
 

1. What is the coherence time of parametrically downconverted entangled photons?

The coherence time of parametrically downconverted entangled photons refers to the duration during which the photons remain in a quantum entangled state. This means that their properties, such as polarization and momentum, are correlated and dependent on each other, even when the photons are separated by a large distance.

2. How is the coherence time of parametrically downconverted entangled photons measured?

The coherence time of parametrically downconverted entangled photons is typically measured using interference experiments. This involves sending the photons through a series of beam splitters and observing the resulting interference patterns. The coherence time can be determined by comparing the observed interference patterns at different time intervals.

3. Why is the coherence time of parametrically downconverted entangled photons important?

The coherence time of parametrically downconverted entangled photons is important because it affects the reliability and efficiency of quantum communication and computation systems. A longer coherence time allows for a larger number of entangled photon pairs to be transmitted and manipulated, leading to more accurate and robust quantum systems.

4. What factors can affect the coherence time of parametrically downconverted entangled photons?

The coherence time of parametrically downconverted entangled photons can be affected by various factors, such as the quality of the entangled photon source, the environment in which the photons are being transmitted, and any external perturbations that may disrupt the entanglement. It is important to carefully control these factors in order to achieve a longer coherence time.

5. Can the coherence time of parametrically downconverted entangled photons be extended?

There have been efforts to extend the coherence time of parametrically downconverted entangled photons through various techniques, such as using high-quality entangled photon sources, implementing error correction protocols, and utilizing quantum error correction codes. However, there is still ongoing research in this area to further improve the coherence time of entangled photons for practical applications.

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
953
Replies
4
Views
905
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
27
Views
801
Replies
1
Views
638
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
20
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
748
Back
Top