Quantum imaging with undetected photons - adding of states

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the paper "Quantum imaging with undetected photons," specifically focusing on the behavior of idler photons produced in nonlinear crystals and their interference at beam splitters. Participants explore the implications of photon production and state superposition in quantum imaging setups.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the resulting state is not a two-photon state if an identical photon is created at NL2, suggesting that the amplitudes of the two idler photons can be added instead.
  • Another participant interprets a statement from the paper to mean that simultaneous production of idler photons from both crystals is negligible, leading to uncertainty about the origin of the idler photons.
  • One participant expresses confusion about how states can interfere at the beam splitter if simultaneous production is not allowed, raising questions about the presence of two photons at a specific point in the setup.
  • A participant proposes a simplified scenario to clarify the situation, suggesting that if down-conversion occurs in one crystal, it results in a superposition of states, leading to interference effects.
  • Another participant agrees with the interpretation that the system is in a superposition of states, which allows for interference between the possibilities of photon production from either crystal.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and confusion regarding the implications of photon production and superposition in the context of the paper. There is no clear consensus on the interpretation of the interference effects and the conditions under which they occur.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of the quantum imaging setup and the assumptions regarding photon production, which may affect the interpretation of the results and the conditions for interference.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in quantum optics, photon behavior in nonlinear crystals, and the principles of quantum interference may find this discussion relevant.

Sonderval
Messages
234
Reaction score
11
I have a question concerning the paper "Quantum imaging with undetected photons".
http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.4318
In the schematic (Fig. 1) a photon (idler) is created at NL1 and passing the object at O to be reflected further to NL2.
It is then stated in the paper
"By reflection at dichroic mirror D2, the
idler from NL1 aligns perfectly with idler amplitude produced at NL2,
[tex]|d\rangle_i \rightarrow |f\rangle_i[/tex]"
However, if the incoming green laser beam at NL2 also creates an identical photon, why is the resulting state not a two-photon state? Why is it permissible to simply add the amplitude of the two idler photons
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Symmetry777 and atyy
Physics news on Phys.org
On page 2, they write "The probability that a down-conversion occurs at each crystal is equal and very low so the chance that more than one pair of photons is produced at a given time can be neglected."

This doesn't mean only that cases where two or more pairs are produced in a single crystal can be neglected, but also cases where pairs are created in both crystals simultaneously. So you never have a two photon idler state but only single idler photons and you don't know whether a photon comes from one crystal or the other because both crystals produce idler photons in state |f>.

That's at least the impression I got from skimming the relevant part of the paper.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: liuray, atyy, Sonderval and 1 other person
@kith
Thanks a lot for finding this - I was reading the nature version, where this sentence is missing (nasty nature's space restrictions). I think I get how it works now.
 
O.k.,, after thinking again, I don't get it at all.
If you never have simultaneous production of photons at NL1 and NL2, how can the states |c⟩ and |e⟩ interfere at BS2 (i.e., how can there ever be two photons at the dashed vertical line in Fig. 1)?
 
Sonderval said:
O.k.,, after thinking again, I don't get it at all.
If you never have simultaneous production of photons at NL1 and NL2, how can the states |c⟩ and |e⟩ interfere at BS2? (i.e., how can there ever be two photons at the dashed vertical line in Fig. 1)
Let's look at the most simple case first. Remove all crystals and dichroic mirrors. Also let's assume that the green laser is a single photon source (which it isn't because regardless of intensity, lasers produce coherent states).

So we only have a single photon, a beam splitter and a beam combiner. How would you describe the situation at the dashed vertical line now? What exactly goes wrong if you apply the same description to the more complicated case?

(Also an answer to your last question is that signal and idler photons come in pairs. So if a down-conversion event is triggered in one of the crystal, there will always be two photons at the dashed line. But I don't think that this is the issue.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Symmetry777
@kith
Thanks for the help. I think I got it now, here is my current understanding:

"if a down-conversion event is triggered in one of the crystal, there will always be two photons at the dashed line"

If down-conversion is triggered at, say NL1, I will have a photon at c and one idler f, but no photon e.
If down-conversion is triggered at NL2, I'll have a photon e and f, but not c. This is what I also see in eq. (1) of the paper - the f-state occurs together with either c or e.

So the system is actually in a superposition of states, one with a signal photon at c and one with a signal photon at e, because we do not know which of the two ways actually happened. (The same as in a standard double-slit.)

And then I get interference between these two possibilities to get to eq. (2).

Is this the trick?
 
Yes, this sounds good to me.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Sonderval
Thanks a lot.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
893
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K