OSA's Digital Library

Optics Express

Optics Express

  • Editor: C. Martijn de Sterke
  • Vol. 19, Iss. 18 — Aug. 29, 2011
  • pp: 17308–17317
« Show journal navigation

Interference effects induced by non-local spatial filtering

S. P. Walborn, P. H. Souto Ribeiro, and C. H. Monken  »View Author Affiliations


Optics Express, Vol. 19, Issue 18, pp. 17308-17317 (2011)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.19.017308


View Full Text Article

Acrobat PDF (822 KB)





Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Browse by Journal and Year


   


Lookup Conference Papers

Close Browse Journals / Lookup Meetings

Article Tools

Share
Citations

Abstract

The spatial correlation between down-converted photons allows for non-local spatial filtering when two-photon coincidences are registered. This allows one to non-locally control the visibility of interference fringes, to observe ghost images and interference patterns, and to “retrieve” a coherent quantum image from an incoherent field distribution. We show theoretically that non-local spatial filtering can lead to counter-intuitive effects when the pump beam is no longer given by a Gaussian profile. Namely, increased non-local filtering can actually decrease the visibility of interference fringes, contrary to what has been observed so far. We explain this behavior through the transverse spatial parity entanglement of the down-converted photons.

© 2011 OSA

1. Introduction

The spatial correlations between twin-photons produced in parametric down-conversion have given rise to a large number of experimental and theoretical studies [1

1. S. P. Walborn, C. H. Monken, S. Pádua, and P. H. S. Ribeiro, “Spatial correlations in parametric down-conversion,” Phys. Rep. 495, 87–139 (2010). [CrossRef]

]. Various interesting and counter-intuitive features have been revealed, including the observation of ghost interference and ghost images [2

2. D. V. Strekalov, A. V. Sergienko, D. N. Klyshko, and Y. H. Shih, “Observation of two-photon ghost interference and diffraction,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3600–3603 (1995). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

4

4. R. S. Bennink, S. J. Bentley, R. W. Boyd, and J. C. Howell, “Quantum and classical coincidence imaging,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 033601 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

], the observation of fourth-order quantum images [5

5. C. H. Monken, P. S. Ribeiro, and S. Pádua, “Transfer of angular spectrum and image formation in spontaneous parametric down-conversion,” Phys. Rev. A. 57, 3123–3126 (1998). [CrossRef]

], subwavelength interference fringes [6

6. E. Fonseca, C. Monken, and S. Pádua, “Measurement of the de Broglie wavelength of a multiphoton wave packet,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2868–2871 (1999). [CrossRef]

], spatial antibunching [7

7. W. A. T. Nogueira, S. P. Walborn, S. Pádua, and C. H. Monken, “Experimental observation of spatial antibunching of photons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4009–4012 (2001). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] and retrieval of a coherent image from incoherent illumination [8

8. A. F. Abouraddy, P. R. Stone, A. V. Sergienko, B. E. A. Saleh, and M. C. Teich, “Entangled-photon imaging of a pure phase object,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 213903 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. An early experiment by Souto Ribeiro et al. [9

9. P. H. S. Ribeiro, S. Pádua, J. C. M. da Silva, and G. A. Barbosa, “Controlling the degree of visibility of young’s fringes with photon coincidence measurements,” Phys. Rev. A 49, 4176–4179 (1994). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] showed that the visibility of a Young’s interference experiment involving the signal photon could be controlled by appropriate selection of the idler photon. It was observed that the increasing of the spatial filtering on the idler increased the visibility of the interference fringes. This result is adequately explained by the spatial correlation between the down-converted photons using a multi-mode theory [10

10. G. A. Barbosa, “Quantum images in double-slit experiments with spontaneous down-conversion light,” Phys. Rev. A 54, 4473–4478 (1996). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. By filtering the idler and detecting in coincidence, one remotely filters the signal photon by post-selection, thus increasing the spatial coherence, and the visibility of the interference pattern. This behavior can also be understood using the advanced wave picture introduced by Klyshko [11

11. D. N. Klyshko, “A simple method of preparing pure states of an optical field, of implementing the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment, and of demonstrating the complementarity principle,” Sov. Phys. Usp. 31, 74–85 (1988). [CrossRef]

, 12

12. A. V. Belinskii and D. N. Klyshko, “Two-photon optics: diffraction, holography, and transformation of two-dimensional signals,” J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 78, 259–262 (1994).

], which is a convenient way to visualize two-photon coincidence experiments. In this picture, the idler detector plays the role of a source emitting photons back towards the crystal. These photons are then reflected by the crystal as though it were a mirror, follow the path of the signal photons, and are registered by the signal detector. In this way, the increased spatial filtering of the idler detector is equivalent to the reduction of the size of the source in the advanced wave picture, which increases the spatial coherence. This effect has also been observed for ghost interference [13

13. P. H. Souto Ribeiro and G. A. Barbosa, “Direct and ghost interference in double-slit experiments with coincidence measurements,” Phys. Rev. A 54, 3489–3492 (1996). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

].

In this paper we explore the influence of the spatial symmetry of two-photon states on their fourth- order coherence properties, considering an interference experiment involving an asymmetric Mach- Zehnder (AMZ) interferometer [14

14. H. Sasada and M. Okamoto, “Transverse-mode beam splitter of a light beam and its application to quantum cryptography,” Phys. Rev. A 68, 012323 (2003). [CrossRef]

], which has been used in several experiments [15

15. A. N. de Oliveira, S. P. Walborn, and C. H. Monken, “Implementation of the Deutsch algorithm using polarization and transverse modes,” J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclassical Opt. 7, 288–292 (2005). [CrossRef]

17

17. T. Yarnall, A. F. Abouraddy, B. E. A. Saleh, and M. C. Teich, “Synthesis and analysis of entangled photonic qubits in spatial-parity space,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 250502 (2007). [CrossRef]

] (see Fig. 1). We show that when one pumps the crystal with a Gaussian pump beam, an effect similar to that described above appears: stronger filtering of one of the twin beams increases the visibility of the interference fringes which appear in the coincidence counts. However, when one pumps the crystal with a first-order Hermite-Gaussian beam, counter-intuitive effects appear. Depending on the widths of the signal and idler detectors, one can actually decrease the interference visibility by spatial filtering. We show that this curious effect can be explained by considering the spatial parity correlations between the down-converted photons [18

18. S. P. Walborn, S. Pádua, and C. H. Monken, “Conservation and entanglement of Hermite-Gaussian modes in parametric down-conversion,” Phys. Rev. A 71, 053812 (2005). [CrossRef]

, 19

19. S. P. Walborn and C. H. Monken, “Transverse spatial entanglement in parametric down-conversion,” Phys. Rev. A 76, 062305 (2007). [CrossRef]

].

Fig. 1 Interference experiment considered here. The orthogonally polarized photons created by type-II SPDC are separated by a polarizing beam splitter (PBS). One photon is subject to an AMZ interferometer. The photons are registered by detectors D 1 and D 2 with square detection apertures of width 2a 1 and 2a 2, respectively. Here ϕ is an adjustable phase.

2. Asymmetric interferometer

Consider the experimental arrangement shown in Fig. 1. We suppose that a sufficiently weak cw pump beam is incident on a nonlinear crystal, producing down-converted photons 1 and 2. One photon then passes through the AMZ interferometer and is registered by detector D 2, while the other photon propagates directly to detector D 1. In our choice of coordinate system, the fields propagate along the z-direction, as shown in Fig. 1. Due to the reflections at the 50-50 non-polarizing beam splitters (BS) and the mirrors, a field propagating through the AMZ suffers an even number of reflections when passing through one arm and an odd number of reflections when passing through the other. Under an odd number of reflections, the horizontal (with respect to the laboratory table) coordinate suffers a sign change, that is, in momentum space: qy → −qy [20

20. S. P. Walborn, A. N. de Oliveira, S. Pádua, and C. H. Monken, “Multimode Hong-Ou-Mandel interference,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 143601 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

, 21

21. S. P. Walborn, W. A. T. Nogueira, A. N. de Oliveira, S. Pádua, and C. H. Monken, “Multimode Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometry,” Mod. Phys. Lett. B 19, 1–19 (2005). [CrossRef]

]. We can understand the interference process in the AMZ interferometer as the interference between the field and its own mirror image, due to the asymmetric number of reflections. We will also assume that the path difference between the two arms of the interferometer is much less than the coherence length of the down-converted fields. Therefore, we can relate the photon annihilation operator at the exit port with the operator at the input:
a2(q)=12{ain(qx,qy)eiϕain(qx,qy)}
(1)
where ϕ is the relative phase difference between optical paths 1 and 2, and q = qx + qy ŷ is the transverse component of the wave vector.

The two-photon detection probability is [22

22. L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, 1995).

]
P(r1,r2)=|Ψ(r1,r2)|2,
(2)
where the two-photon detection amplitude can be defined as
Ψ(r1,r2)=vac|E2(+)(r2)E1(+)(r1)|ψ,
(3)
and El(+)(rl) is the field operator for the mode l = 1, 2 and r l is the detection position for the down-converted modes l = 1, 2 and |ψ〉 is a two-photon state.

In the paraxial approximation and Fraunhofer regime, El(+)(r) is proportional to
El(+)(r)eikzdqal(q)eiqρ,
(4)
where k is the magnitude of the wave vector k and ρ = x + y ŷ is the transverse component of the position vector r = (x, y, z). The operator al(q) annihilates a photon in mode l with transverse wave vector q.

Using Eqs. (1), (3) and (4), the two-photon detection amplitude, also called the biphoton wave function, in the detection planes (x 1, y 1), (x 2, y 2) can be calculated:
Ψd(r1,r2)=12{Ψ(ρ1,ρ2)+eiϕΨ(ρ1,ρ2)},
(5)
where ρ′ = x y ŷ due to the odd number of reflections in one arm.

The detection probability is then
Pd(r1,r2)=P(ρ1,ρ2)+P(ρ2,ρ2)+Ψ*(ρ1,ρ2)Ψ(ρ1,ρ2)eiϕ+Ψ*(ρ1,ρ2)Ψ(ρ1,ρ2)eiϕ,
(6)
where P(ρ 1, ρ 2) is given by Eq. (2). The last two terms in Eq. (6) are responsible for the interference fringes.

Before we proceed, let us briefly summarize the experimental conditions for SPDC that will be assumed here. We suppose that there are narrow bandwidth interference filters in the detection system, which allow us to work in the monochromatic approximation, and that they are centered at the degenerate wavelength λc = 2λp, where λp is the pump beam wavelength. We will also assume the paraxial and thin-crystal approximations, and consider that the polarization state of each down-converted photon pair is well defined. Under these approximations, the two-photon detection amplitude is given by [1

1. S. P. Walborn, C. H. Monken, S. Pádua, and P. H. S. Ribeiro, “Spatial correlations in parametric down-conversion,” Phys. Rep. 495, 87–139 (2010). [CrossRef]

, 5

5. C. H. Monken, P. S. Ribeiro, and S. Pádua, “Transfer of angular spectrum and image formation in spontaneous parametric down-conversion,” Phys. Rev. A. 57, 3123–3126 (1998). [CrossRef]

]
Ψ(ρ1,ρ2)U(ρ1+ρ22).
(7)
Here U is the transverse profile of the pump beam propagated to the detection region. We have assumed that the distance from the crystal to each detector is the same: z 1 = z 2 = Z. For notational simplicity, the z-dependence of U has been omitted.

Now suppose that the pump beam is prepared so that the transverse profile U(ρ) is accurately described by a Hermite-Gaussian (HG) mode [23

23. B. E. A. Saleh and M. C. Teich, Fundamental Photonics (Wiley, 1991). [CrossRef]

], such that we can define U(ρ) ≡ Ux(x)Uy(y). In this case, the detection probability in Eq. (6) can be factorized as
Pd(r1,r2)=Pd(x1,x2)Pd(y1,y2)
(8)
where Pd(x 1, x 2) ∝ |Ux(x 1/2 + x 2/2)|2 and
Pd(y1,y2)|Uy(y1+y22)|2+|Uy(y1y22)|2+2Uy(y1+y22)Uy(y1y22)cos[ϕ+ξ(y1,y2)],
(9)
where ξ (y 1, y 2) = ky 1 y 2/2R(Z) comes from the quadratic phase of the Hermite-Gaussian pump beam profile U [23

23. B. E. A. Saleh and M. C. Teich, Fundamental Photonics (Wiley, 1991). [CrossRef]

]. Here R(Z) is the radius of curvature and k = 2π / λp the wave number of the pump beam. We assume that the interferometer is perfectly aligned. Let us suppose that detectors D 1 and D 2 are equipped with square apertures of width 2a 1 and 2a 2, centered at ρ 1 = ρ 2 = 0, respectively. The coincidence count rate is obtained by integrating over the square detection apertures. From Eqs. (8) and (9) it is evident that the transverse spatial dependence of the interference curves depends only on the y coordinates of the detectors, and we notice that the dx 1 and dx 2 integrals will not affect the visibility of the interference fringes. With these considerations, we omit the x-dependence of the coincidence count rate, and write
C(a1,a2)A1(y1)A2(y2)Pd(y1,y2)dy1dy2,
(10)
where A 1 and A 2 are functions describing the apertures in the y direction.

2.1. Gaussian pump profile

For simplicity, let us consider that the pump beam is prepared with the beam waist in the detection plane, so that Z = 0. In this case, the radius of curvature R(Z) is infinite, and ξ (y 1, y 2) = 0. Let us also assume that the pump beam is given by the usual Gaussian profile: U(x,y)exp[(x2+y2)/wp2]. Then we have
C(a1,a2)A1(y1)A2(y2){e|y1+y2|2/w2+e|y1y2|2/w2+2ey12/w2ey22/w2cosϕ}dy1dy2,
(11)
where w=2wp. A straighforward but somewhat lengthy calculation gives
C(a1,a2)Ig(a1+a2)+w2πerf(a1w)erf(a2w)cosϕ,
(12)
where
Ig(a1,a2)=2min(a1,a2)wπerf(|a1a2|w)+(a1+a2)wπerf(a1+a2w)(a1+a2)wπerf(|a1a2|w)w2[e|a1a2|2/w2e(a1+a2)2/w2].
(13)

The visibility of the interference fringes is usually defined as
V(a1,a2)=|Cmax(a1,a2)Cmin(a1,a2)Cmax(a1,a2)+Cmin(a1,a2)|.
(14)
Since only the last term in Eq. (12) depends on the phase ϕ and this term is always nonnegative, C max occurs when ϕ = 0 and C min occurs when ϕ = π. The visibility of fringes in the coincidence counts, or fourth-order visibility, is then
V(a1,a2)={wπerf(a1w)erf(a2w)}[Ig(a1,a2)]1.
(15)

We would also like to obtain the visibility of interference fringes in the single counts at detector D 2. This can be easily done by calculating the single count rate C 2(a 2), obtained by letting the width of the aperture A 1 tend to infinity. Taking the limit, C 2(a 2) is
C2(a2)2πw2[a2w+π2erf(a2w)cosϕ].
(16)
C 2(a 2) has a maximum and minimum at ϕ = 0 and ϕ = π, respectively. Using Eq. (14), the visibility for the interference fringes in the single counts, or second-order visibility, is
V2(a2)=π2wa2erf(a2w).
(17)
Note that in the limiting case a 2 → ∞, V 2 → 0. Eq. (15) gives the visibility as a function of the size of the detection apertures and the beam width w. Figure 2 shows a plot of the fourth-order visibility given by Eq. (15) as a function of a 2/w for various values of a 1/w. We have also plotted the second-order visibility V 2 in Fig. 2. Note that the fourth-order visibility V tends to the second-order visibility V 2 for large values of a 1/w.

Fig. 2 Visibility as a function of a 2/w for a Gaussian pump beam of width wp=1/2. The solid lines correspond to the fourth-order visibility for various values of a 1/w. The dark blue dashed line is the second-order visibility.

2.2. Hermite-Gaussian HG01 pump profile

Let us now analyze the visibility of the fringes in the AMZ interferometer when the pump profile is a first order Hermite-Gaussian beam, as has been done in a number of experiments [20

20. S. P. Walborn, A. N. de Oliveira, S. Pádua, and C. H. Monken, “Multimode Hong-Ou-Mandel interference,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 143601 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

, 26

26. S. P. Walborn, W. A. T. Nogueira, S. Pádua, and C. H. Monken, “Optical Bell-state analysis in the coincidence basis,” Europhys. Lett. 62, 161–167 (2003). [CrossRef]

]. At the position of the beam waist, the Hermite-Gaussian beam HG01 is defined as
HG01(x,y)ye(x2+y2)/wp2.
(18)
Using this pump profile, the coincidence count rate Eq. (10) becomes
C(a1,a2)A1(y1)A2(y2)dy1dy2{2(y12y22)ey12/w2ey22/w2cosϕ+(y1+y2)2e|y1+y2|2/w2+(y1y2)2e|y1y2|2/w2},
(19)
where we have used w=2wp. Using the same square apertures as in the case of the Gaussian pump beam, we arrive at
C(a1,a2)πw3{Ihg(a1+a2)+cosϕa2ea22/w2erf(a1w)cosϕa1ea12/w2erf(a2w)},
(20)
where
Ihg(a1,a2)=πw3{(a1+a22min(a1,a2))[|a1a2|πwe|a1a2|2/w212erf(|a1a2|w)]+(a1+a2)12erf(a1+a2w)(a1+a2)a1+a2πwe(a1+a2)2/w2}.
(21)

Defining the visibility as in Eq. (14), we have, for the HG01 pump beam
V(a1,a2)=|a2ea22/w2erf(a1w)a1ea12/w2erf(a2w)|{Ihg(a1,a2)}1
(22)
As in section 2.1, the second-order visibility V 2(a 2) can be found by calculating the single count rate C 2(a 2) at detector D 2 as the limit of the coincidence counts when a 1 tends to infinity. In this case, we obtain
C2(a2)πw4a2(1+ea22/w2cosϕ).
(23)
Again, C 2(a 2) has a maximum and minimum at ϕ = 0 and ϕ = π, respectively. Using Eq. (14), the second-order visibility is
V2(a2)=ea22/w2.
(24)

Figure 3 shows a plot of the fourth-order visibility for various values of a 2/w as a function of a 1/w. We note that the visibility is symmetric, that is V (a 1, a 2) = V (a 2, a 1). A striking feature can be observed: for fixed a 2 (a 1), the fourth-order visibility can also increase as a 1 (a 2) increases. In other words, increased spatial filtering of the non-interfering photon can decrease the visibility of the fourth-order interference, in contrast to what is observed for the Gaussian pump profile. Another interesting point of Eq. (22) is that V (a, a) = 0 for all values of a, as shown in Fig. 3. Therefore, there is always an aperture size for the detector of the non-interfering photon for which no interference is observed. These effects can be seen directly in the visibility in Eq. (22), which is given by the difference of two terms. When a 1 = a 2 these two terms are equal, and V = 0. Depending on whether a 1 > a 2 or a 2 > a 1, the term inside the absolute value is positive or negative. Since V is defined as the absolute value, this accounts for the increase in visibility when a 1 and a 2 are different. The dashed line in Fig. 3 represents the second order visibility V 2 as a function of a 2/w. Notice that V 2 is zero only for large values of a 2/w.

Fig. 3 Visibility as a function of a 2/w for a Hermite-Gaussian pump beam HG01 of width wp=1/2. The solid lines correspond to the fourth-order visibility for various values of a 1/w. The dark blue dashed line is the second-order visibility.

For the second-order visibility V 2, the transverse coherence length in the case of the HG01 pump beam is a 2coh ≈ 0.5w. However, for the fourth-order interference, it is not possible to define an effective coherence length as was done when the pump was Gaussian. It would be necessary to define a higher-order coherence “length” or coherence area, depending on the parameters of pump, signal and idler fields. In usual second-order coherence theory, the complex degree of coherence between points r 1 and r 2 generally decreases as a function of |r 1r 2| [24

24. M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics (Cambridge University Press, 1999).

]. The coherence area is then defined as the region in which the complex degree of coherence is above some cut-off value, typically 1/2 or 1/e. For a circularly symmetric coherence function, for example, the coherence area is πrc2, where rc is the radius for which the coherence is above the cut-off value. In the case of the effective fourth-order coherence length for the HG01 pump profile, it is not possible to make this simple distinction, and a more elaborate definition is necessary. We leave the careful derivation of this definition to future work.

In the above analyses it was assumed that the waist of the pump beam coincided with the detection planes of the down-converted photons, which gave ξ (y 1, y 2) = 0 in the detection probability given by Eq. (9). The same qualitative effects will appear even when the waist of the pump laser is not at the detection plane. The propagation of the pump beam in this context appears in two forms. First, due to the divergence of the pump beam, the beam width is no longer given by the waist w but by the z-dependent width w(Z). Thus, replacing w with w(Z) in all of the results obtained above accounts for the divergence of the pump beam. Secondly, since ξ (y 1, y 2) = ky 1 y 2/2R(Z), the term cos[ϕ + ξ (y 1, y 2)] introduces a phase that depends on the spatial coordinates which appears only in the interference term in Eq. (9). We note first that this phase is identical for both the Gaussian and the HG01 pump beam. The overall effect is a reduction in the visibilities obtained in both cases, but the form of the curves in Figs. 2 and 3 do not change. For Z that is much less than the Rayleigh range of the pump beam, ξ (y 1, y 2) can be ignored. For example, for w = 1 mm, λp = 400 nm and Z = 100 mm, (k/2R(Z)) ≈ 0.01/w 2. Hence, the phase variation is slow compared to the variation of the amplitude of the fourth-order field.

3. Parity Correlations

We can understand this counter-intuitive behavior of the visibilitiy in the experiment using the HG 01 mode by decomposing the two-photon state in terms of Hermite-Gaussian modes [18

18. S. P. Walborn, S. Pádua, and C. H. Monken, “Conservation and entanglement of Hermite-Gaussian modes in parametric down-conversion,” Phys. Rev. A 71, 053812 (2005). [CrossRef]

], which illustrates the spatial parity correlations of the down-converted fields. The two-photon state is maximally-entangled in parity for a HG01 pump beam [16

16. T. Yarnall, A. F. Abouraddy, B. E. A. Saleh, and M. C. Teich, “Experimental violation of Bell’s inequality in spatial-parity space,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 170408 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

19

19. S. P. Walborn and C. H. Monken, “Transverse spatial entanglement in parametric down-conversion,” Phys. Rev. A 76, 062305 (2007). [CrossRef]

]. The two-photon quantum state produced by SPDC in this case can be written as:
|ψ=12(|EO12+|OE12),
(25)
where, for example, |EO12 is the (normalized) state of photon pairs such that photon 1 and 2 have even and odd y-indices:
|EO12=jeven,koddCjk|HGj1|HGk2,
(26)
and |HGn〉 are single photon states in Hermite-Gaussian modes. The asymmetric interferometer is sensitive to the parity of the input field [14

14. H. Sasada and M. Okamoto, “Transverse-mode beam splitter of a light beam and its application to quantum cryptography,” Phys. Rev. A 68, 012323 (2003). [CrossRef]

17

17. T. Yarnall, A. F. Abouraddy, B. E. A. Saleh, and M. C. Teich, “Synthesis and analysis of entangled photonic qubits in spatial-parity space,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 250502 (2007). [CrossRef]

], such that even and odd fields produce interference fringes that are out of phase. At the same time, the detectors register the different HG modes with different probabilities, depending on the size of the detectors. An example is illustrated in Fig. 4. The total coincidence count curve (P 1 + P 2 in Fig. 4) is composed of two contributions (P 1 and P 2) that are out of phase. The visibility depends on the difference in the overall weight of each contribution.

Fig. 4 The coincidence counts (P 1 + P 2) are composed of two out of phase contributions, P 1 and P 2. The visibility depends on the difference in overall weights.

Explicitly, the fringe visibility is given by
Vhg=|COE(a1,a2)CEO(a1,a2)COE(a1,a2)+CEO(a1,a2)|
(27)
where, for example, CEO(a 1, a 2) is the number of coincidence counts from the even-odd term, as a function of the width of the detection apertures. The two-photon state in this case is symmetric, and as a result CEO(a, b) = COE(b, a). Thus, if the detectors are the same size, CEO(a, a) = COE(a, a) and Vhg = 0, as is shown in Fig. 3. Depending on the size of the detectors, it is possible to have CEO(a 1, a 2) > COE(a 1, a 2) or CEO(a 1, a 2) < COE(a 1, a 2). Both of these cases result in non-zero visibility. Thus, due to the parity correlations of the down-converted photons, the appearance of interference fringes depends non-trivially on the size of the detector apertures. The parity correlations produce a different effect in the case of the Gaussian pump beam. In this case, the two-photon state in Hermite-Gaussian expansion is [18

18. S. P. Walborn, S. Pádua, and C. H. Monken, “Conservation and entanglement of Hermite-Gaussian modes in parametric down-conversion,” Phys. Rev. A 71, 053812 (2005). [CrossRef]

]
|ψ=α|EE12+β|OO12,
(28)
where α > β. In this case the down-converted photons are produced with the same parity. The visibility for a Gaussian pump beam can be written as
Vg=|CEE(a1,a2)COO(a1,a2)CEE(a1,a2)+COO(a1,a2)|
(29)
When a 1 or a 2 is small, CEE(a 1, a 2) ≫ COO(a 1, a 2), and interference fringes with large visibility are observed. As a 1 and a 2 grow, CEE(a 1, a 2) and COO(a 1, a 2) become more and more similar, and the visibility becomes reduced.

4. Discussion

The use of optical devices, and in particular optical interferometers, illuminated by twin photons and detecting in coincidence has given rise to the observation of several new phenomena and the exploration of fundamental optical concepts from a new perspective. In some cases, it is rather simple to extend concepts that were developed in the context of light intensity measures to the domain of the fourth order correlations measured by the coincidence count rates. One example is the visibility of interference fringes, that can be directly translated from intensity to coincidence.

From the point of view of practical applications, the results presented here show that all applications of asymmetric interferometers that can be used with twin photons and coincidence counting, should suffer the influence of the correlation between the parity of the different modes. For example, the higher-order transverse spatial modes have been proposed as a method to encode quantum information, as was demonstrated in Ref. [27

27. G. Gibson, J. Courtial, M. J. Padgett, M. Vasnetsov, V. Pas’ko, S. M. Barnett, and S. Franke-Arnold, “Free-space information transfer using light beams carrying orbital angular momentum,” Opt. Express 12, 5448–5456 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

] with an intense laser. Let us consider a quantum communication experiment, in which single-photon states are prepared by detecting one of the down-converted photons. Information can be encoded into the single photon by preparing the pump beam in the appropriate higher-order transverse mode. Extraction of information encoded in the single-photon can be performed using a higher-order mode sorter, composed of asymmetric interferometers, as was shown in Ref. [14

14. H. Sasada and M. Okamoto, “Transverse-mode beam splitter of a light beam and its application to quantum cryptography,” Phys. Rev. A 68, 012323 (2003). [CrossRef]

, 28

28. J. Leach, M. J. Padgett, S. M. Barnett, S. Franke-Arnold, and J. Courtial, “Measuring the orbital angular momentum of a single photon,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 257901 (2002). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

]. This scenario is exactly that considered here, in which the transverse spatial structure of the pump beam plays a non-trivial role in the visibility of fourth-order interference. To achieve proper sorting of the higher-order modes in the quantum communication experiment, and thus proper readout of the encoded information, care must be taken in choosing the aperture size of both detectors. Though the results presented above were derived specifically for parametric down-conversion, they apply to any physical realization of the entangled state of the form Eq. (7).

5. Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Financial support was provided by Brazilian agencies CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, and the Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia - Informação Quântica (INCT-IQ).

References and links

1.

S. P. Walborn, C. H. Monken, S. Pádua, and P. H. S. Ribeiro, “Spatial correlations in parametric down-conversion,” Phys. Rep. 495, 87–139 (2010). [CrossRef]

2.

D. V. Strekalov, A. V. Sergienko, D. N. Klyshko, and Y. H. Shih, “Observation of two-photon ghost interference and diffraction,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3600–3603 (1995). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

3.

T. B. Pittman, Y. H. Shih, D. V. Strekalov, and A. V. Sergienko, “Optical imaging by means of two-photon quantum entanglement,” Phys. Rev. A 52, R3429–R3432 (1995). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

4.

R. S. Bennink, S. J. Bentley, R. W. Boyd, and J. C. Howell, “Quantum and classical coincidence imaging,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 033601 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

5.

C. H. Monken, P. S. Ribeiro, and S. Pádua, “Transfer of angular spectrum and image formation in spontaneous parametric down-conversion,” Phys. Rev. A. 57, 3123–3126 (1998). [CrossRef]

6.

E. Fonseca, C. Monken, and S. Pádua, “Measurement of the de Broglie wavelength of a multiphoton wave packet,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2868–2871 (1999). [CrossRef]

7.

W. A. T. Nogueira, S. P. Walborn, S. Pádua, and C. H. Monken, “Experimental observation of spatial antibunching of photons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4009–4012 (2001). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

8.

A. F. Abouraddy, P. R. Stone, A. V. Sergienko, B. E. A. Saleh, and M. C. Teich, “Entangled-photon imaging of a pure phase object,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 213903 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

9.

P. H. S. Ribeiro, S. Pádua, J. C. M. da Silva, and G. A. Barbosa, “Controlling the degree of visibility of young’s fringes with photon coincidence measurements,” Phys. Rev. A 49, 4176–4179 (1994). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

10.

G. A. Barbosa, “Quantum images in double-slit experiments with spontaneous down-conversion light,” Phys. Rev. A 54, 4473–4478 (1996). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

11.

D. N. Klyshko, “A simple method of preparing pure states of an optical field, of implementing the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment, and of demonstrating the complementarity principle,” Sov. Phys. Usp. 31, 74–85 (1988). [CrossRef]

12.

A. V. Belinskii and D. N. Klyshko, “Two-photon optics: diffraction, holography, and transformation of two-dimensional signals,” J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 78, 259–262 (1994).

13.

P. H. Souto Ribeiro and G. A. Barbosa, “Direct and ghost interference in double-slit experiments with coincidence measurements,” Phys. Rev. A 54, 3489–3492 (1996). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

14.

H. Sasada and M. Okamoto, “Transverse-mode beam splitter of a light beam and its application to quantum cryptography,” Phys. Rev. A 68, 012323 (2003). [CrossRef]

15.

A. N. de Oliveira, S. P. Walborn, and C. H. Monken, “Implementation of the Deutsch algorithm using polarization and transverse modes,” J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclassical Opt. 7, 288–292 (2005). [CrossRef]

16.

T. Yarnall, A. F. Abouraddy, B. E. A. Saleh, and M. C. Teich, “Experimental violation of Bell’s inequality in spatial-parity space,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 170408 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

17.

T. Yarnall, A. F. Abouraddy, B. E. A. Saleh, and M. C. Teich, “Synthesis and analysis of entangled photonic qubits in spatial-parity space,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 250502 (2007). [CrossRef]

18.

S. P. Walborn, S. Pádua, and C. H. Monken, “Conservation and entanglement of Hermite-Gaussian modes in parametric down-conversion,” Phys. Rev. A 71, 053812 (2005). [CrossRef]

19.

S. P. Walborn and C. H. Monken, “Transverse spatial entanglement in parametric down-conversion,” Phys. Rev. A 76, 062305 (2007). [CrossRef]

20.

S. P. Walborn, A. N. de Oliveira, S. Pádua, and C. H. Monken, “Multimode Hong-Ou-Mandel interference,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 143601 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

21.

S. P. Walborn, W. A. T. Nogueira, A. N. de Oliveira, S. Pádua, and C. H. Monken, “Multimode Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometry,” Mod. Phys. Lett. B 19, 1–19 (2005). [CrossRef]

22.

L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, 1995).

23.

B. E. A. Saleh and M. C. Teich, Fundamental Photonics (Wiley, 1991). [CrossRef]

24.

M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics (Cambridge University Press, 1999).

25.

P. H. Souto Ribeiro, S. Pádua, J. C. Machado da Silva, and G. A. Barbosa, “Control of Young’s fringes visibility by stimulated down-conversion,” Phys. Rev. A 51, 1631–1633 (1995). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

26.

S. P. Walborn, W. A. T. Nogueira, S. Pádua, and C. H. Monken, “Optical Bell-state analysis in the coincidence basis,” Europhys. Lett. 62, 161–167 (2003). [CrossRef]

27.

G. Gibson, J. Courtial, M. J. Padgett, M. Vasnetsov, V. Pas’ko, S. M. Barnett, and S. Franke-Arnold, “Free-space information transfer using light beams carrying orbital angular momentum,” Opt. Express 12, 5448–5456 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

28.

J. Leach, M. J. Padgett, S. M. Barnett, S. Franke-Arnold, and J. Courtial, “Measuring the orbital angular momentum of a single photon,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 257901 (2002). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

OCIS Codes
(030.1640) Coherence and statistical optics : Coherence
(270.0270) Quantum optics : Quantum optics

ToC Category:
Quantum Optics

History
Original Manuscript: June 6, 2011
Revised Manuscript: August 3, 2011
Manuscript Accepted: August 8, 2011
Published: August 18, 2011

Citation
S. P. Walborn, P. H. Souto Ribeiro, and C. H. Monken, "Interference effects induced by non-local spatial filtering," Opt. Express 19, 17308-17317 (2011)
http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-19-18-17308


Sort:  Author  |  Year  |  Journal  |  Reset  

References

  1. S. P. Walborn, C. H. Monken, S. Pádua, and P. H. S. Ribeiro, “Spatial correlations in parametric down-conversion,” Phys. Rep. 495, 87–139 (2010). [CrossRef]
  2. D. V. Strekalov, A. V. Sergienko, D. N. Klyshko, and Y. H. Shih, “Observation of two-photon ghost interference and diffraction,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3600–3603 (1995). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. T. B. Pittman, Y. H. Shih, D. V. Strekalov, and A. V. Sergienko, “Optical imaging by means of two-photon quantum entanglement,” Phys. Rev. A 52, R3429–R3432 (1995). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. R. S. Bennink, S. J. Bentley, R. W. Boyd, and J. C. Howell, “Quantum and classical coincidence imaging,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 033601 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. C. H. Monken, P. S. Ribeiro, and S. Pádua, “Transfer of angular spectrum and image formation in spontaneous parametric down-conversion,” Phys. Rev. A. 57, 3123–3126 (1998). [CrossRef]
  6. E. Fonseca, C. Monken, and S. Pádua, “Measurement of the de Broglie wavelength of a multiphoton wave packet,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2868–2871 (1999). [CrossRef]
  7. W. A. T. Nogueira, S. P. Walborn, S. Pádua, and C. H. Monken, “Experimental observation of spatial antibunching of photons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4009–4012 (2001). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. A. F. Abouraddy, P. R. Stone, A. V. Sergienko, B. E. A. Saleh, and M. C. Teich, “Entangled-photon imaging of a pure phase object,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 213903 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. P. H. S. Ribeiro, S. Pádua, J. C. M. da Silva, and G. A. Barbosa, “Controlling the degree of visibility of young’s fringes with photon coincidence measurements,” Phys. Rev. A 49, 4176–4179 (1994). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. G. A. Barbosa, “Quantum images in double-slit experiments with spontaneous down-conversion light,” Phys. Rev. A 54, 4473–4478 (1996). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. D. N. Klyshko, “A simple method of preparing pure states of an optical field, of implementing the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment, and of demonstrating the complementarity principle,” Sov. Phys. Usp. 31, 74–85 (1988). [CrossRef]
  12. A. V. Belinskii and D. N. Klyshko, “Two-photon optics: diffraction, holography, and transformation of two-dimensional signals,” J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 78, 259–262 (1994).
  13. P. H. Souto Ribeiro and G. A. Barbosa, “Direct and ghost interference in double-slit experiments with coincidence measurements,” Phys. Rev. A 54, 3489–3492 (1996). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. H. Sasada and M. Okamoto, “Transverse-mode beam splitter of a light beam and its application to quantum cryptography,” Phys. Rev. A 68, 012323 (2003). [CrossRef]
  15. A. N. de Oliveira, S. P. Walborn, and C. H. Monken, “Implementation of the Deutsch algorithm using polarization and transverse modes,” J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclassical Opt. 7, 288–292 (2005). [CrossRef]
  16. T. Yarnall, A. F. Abouraddy, B. E. A. Saleh, and M. C. Teich, “Experimental violation of Bell’s inequality in spatial-parity space,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 170408 (2007). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. T. Yarnall, A. F. Abouraddy, B. E. A. Saleh, and M. C. Teich, “Synthesis and analysis of entangled photonic qubits in spatial-parity space,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 250502 (2007). [CrossRef]
  18. S. P. Walborn, S. Pádua, and C. H. Monken, “Conservation and entanglement of Hermite-Gaussian modes in parametric down-conversion,” Phys. Rev. A 71, 053812 (2005). [CrossRef]
  19. S. P. Walborn and C. H. Monken, “Transverse spatial entanglement in parametric down-conversion,” Phys. Rev. A 76, 062305 (2007). [CrossRef]
  20. S. P. Walborn, A. N. de Oliveira, S. Pádua, and C. H. Monken, “Multimode Hong-Ou-Mandel interference,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 143601 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. S. P. Walborn, W. A. T. Nogueira, A. N. de Oliveira, S. Pádua, and C. H. Monken, “Multimode Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometry,” Mod. Phys. Lett. B 19, 1–19 (2005). [CrossRef]
  22. L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, 1995).
  23. B. E. A. Saleh and M. C. Teich, Fundamental Photonics (Wiley, 1991). [CrossRef]
  24. M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics (Cambridge University Press, 1999).
  25. P. H. Souto Ribeiro, S. Pádua, J. C. Machado da Silva, and G. A. Barbosa, “Control of Young’s fringes visibility by stimulated down-conversion,” Phys. Rev. A 51, 1631–1633 (1995). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. S. P. Walborn, W. A. T. Nogueira, S. Pádua, and C. H. Monken, “Optical Bell-state analysis in the coincidence basis,” Europhys. Lett. 62, 161–167 (2003). [CrossRef]
  27. G. Gibson, J. Courtial, M. J. Padgett, M. Vasnetsov, V. Pas’ko, S. M. Barnett, and S. Franke-Arnold, “Free-space information transfer using light beams carrying orbital angular momentum,” Opt. Express 12, 5448–5456 (2004). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. J. Leach, M. J. Padgett, S. M. Barnett, S. Franke-Arnold, and J. Courtial, “Measuring the orbital angular momentum of a single photon,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 257901 (2002). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Cited By

Alert me when this paper is cited

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.

Figures

Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3
 
Fig. 4
 

« Previous Article  |  Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.

CrossCheck Deposited