Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger state generation with linear optical elements

Bertúlio de Lima Bernardo; Mate Lencses; Samuraí Brito; Askery Canabarro

doi:10.1007/s11128-019-2442-z

Quantum Information Processing

November 2019, 18:331 | Cite as

Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger state generation with linear optical elements

Authors
Authors and affiliations

Bertúlio de Lima Bernardo
Mate Lencses
Samuraí Brito
Askery Canabarro

Article

First Online: 10 September 2019

85 Downloads
1 Citations

Abstract

We propose a scheme to probabilistically generate Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger states encoded on the path degree of freedom of three photons. These photons are totally independent from each other, having no direct interaction during the whole evolution of the protocol, which remarkably requires only linear optical devices to work and two extra ancillary photons to mediate the correlation. The efficacy of the method, which has potential application in distributed quantum computation and multiparty quantum communication, is analyzed in comparison with similar proposals reported in the recent literature. We also discuss the main error sources that limit the efficiency of the protocol in a real experiment and some interesting aspects about the mediator photons in connection with the concept of spatial nonlocality.

Keywords

Quantum entanglement Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) states Nonlocality

This is a preview of subscription content, to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the Brazilian funding agency CNPq (AC’s Universal Grant No. 423713/2016-7, BLB’s PQ Grant No. 309292/2016-6), UFAL (AC’s paid license for scientific cooperation at UFRN), MEC/UFRN (postdoctoral fellowships at IIP). We also thank Rafael Chaves for fruitful discussions.

Appendix: Calculating the error influence in the protocol of GHZ state generation

Here we show how to obtain the most general outcome in our protocol of GHZ state generation, as shown in Fig. 1 of the main article. First, one needs to consider all possible paths taken by the photons. At this point, we shall treat each photon independently. For the sake of notation, we divide the interferometer of Fig. 1 into 10 regions (channels), which represents the upper and lower halves of the five circuits. The upper halves of the original circuits of photons 1 to 5 will be labeled as 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9, respectively. On the other hand, the lower halves of these circuits will be labeled as 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10, respectively. For example, the history reflection–reflection–transmission (r,r,t) of photon 1 can be denoted as $(i)^2 R_1|1,1,2\rangle _1$. The parameter $R_{1}$ represents the reflection amplitude of BS$_{1}$, and $i^{2}$ is the phase acquired due to the two reflections.

Note that photons 1 and 5 can have four different histories, whereas photons 2, 3, and 4 can take six different paths before detection. Therefore, the general outcome has $4^2 6^3=3456$ terms. For example, there is a term

$$\begin{aligned} |1,1,2\rangle _1|3,3,3\rangle _2|6,6,5\rangle _3|8,8,7\rangle _4 |10,10,9\rangle _5, \end{aligned}$$

(16)

with coefficient

$$\begin{aligned} i^2 R_1 i^3 R_2 R_6 R_{10} i T_3 R_8 i T_4 R_9 T_{11} T_5 i, \end{aligned}$$

(17)

representing the path (r,r,t); (r,r,r), (t,r,t); (t,r,t) and (t,r,t) of photons 1 to 5, respectively. Again, we put a factor i whenever a reflection takes place, and $R_{j}$ ($T_{j}$) is the reflection (transmission) amplitude of BS$_{j}$. This particular path provides single photons in the channels 2, 3, 5, 7, 9. We denote such outcome as (2, 3, 5, 7, 9), which has the information that photon 1 ends up in channel 2, photon 2 in channel 3, etc. If an experiment had this history, detectors $D_1$ and $D_3$ would click.

Let us consider the following two histories

$$\begin{aligned} |2,2,1\rangle _1|3,3,3\rangle _2|6,7,8\rangle _3|8,8,10\rangle _4 |10,10,9\rangle _5, \end{aligned}$$

(18)

with coefficient

$$\begin{aligned} -i R_6^2 R_2 R_{10} T_1 T_3 T_8 T_{11} T_4 T_9 T_5, \end{aligned}$$

(19)

and

$$\begin{aligned} |2,3,3\rangle _1|3,2,1\rangle _2|6,7,8\rangle _3|8,8,10\rangle _4 |10,10,9\rangle _5, \end{aligned}$$

(20)

with coefficient

$$\begin{aligned} i T_6^2 R_2 R_{10} T_1 T_3 T_8 T_{11} T_4 T_9 T_5. \end{aligned}$$

(21)

The beam splitters in our proposal have $R=T=1/\sqrt{2}$. If the photons are indistinguishable, the above two histories are equivalent. Due to the opposite sign in the linear combination, this term does not have any contribution at the end (the HOM effect at BS$_6$ with the simultaneously arrivals of photons 1 and 2). One can handle the failure of the HOM effect at the second layer by keeping the photons distinguishable, but changing $R_i^2=T_i^2=\delta $ for $i=6\dots 9$ in the coefficients, and then setting the remaining factors $R_i$ and $T_i$ to $1/\sqrt{2}$ (50:50 beam splitters and allowed failure of the HOM effect with probability $\delta $). When $\delta =0$, we have the ideal case considered in the main text.

Having the above substitutions been carried out, one can apply detector projections. Here we suppose that the detectors can count the number of incoming photons. To get the GHZ state ($|\psi \rangle _1$), for example, one needs exactly one click on the detectors $D_1$ and $D_3$ and no click on the other two detectors (postselection). Therefore, from the general linear combination of the outgoing state, one can select only the ones which have exactly one photon in channels 3 and 7 and no photons in channels 4 and 8.

As a matter of fact, we can restore the indistinguishability of the photons by checking the last parts of the history and identifying the indistinguishable outcomes. For example, one identifies (1, 3, 8, 10, 9) with (3, 1, 8, 10, 9). See the HOM failure example above. Then, one has to sum up over all the possible histories generating the same outcome. With $\delta =0$, the $D_1D_3$ postselection leads to the following general outcome:

$$\begin{aligned} |\psi (\delta =0)\rangle _{1,gen}= & {} \frac{1}{64} i |1\rangle _1 |1\rangle _2 |5\rangle _4+\frac{1}{64} i |1\rangle _1 |5\rangle _3 |5\rangle _4+\frac{1}{64} |6\rangle _2 |5\rangle _3 |5\rangle _4 \nonumber \\&+\,\frac{i |2\rangle _1 |6\rangle _3 |5\rangle _4}{32 \sqrt{2}}+\frac{1}{64} i |6\rangle _2 |6\rangle _3 |5\rangle _4-\frac{|2\rangle _1 |1\rangle _2 |5\rangle _4}{32 \sqrt{2}} \nonumber \\&+\,\frac{i |1\rangle _1 |5\rangle _3 |9\rangle _5}{32 \sqrt{2}}+\frac{|6\rangle _2 |5\rangle _3 |9\rangle _5}{32 \sqrt{2}}+\frac{|1\rangle _1 |10\rangle _4 |9\rangle _5}{32 \sqrt{2}} \nonumber \\&+\,\frac{1}{64} |1\rangle _1 |1\rangle _2 |10\rangle _5+\frac{i |2\rangle _1 |1\rangle _2 |10\rangle _5}{32 \sqrt{2}}+\frac{|2\rangle _1 |6\rangle _3 |10\rangle _5}{32 \sqrt{2}} \nonumber \\&+\,\frac{1}{64} |6\rangle _2 |6\rangle _3 |10\rangle _5+\frac{1}{64} i |1\rangle _1 |10\rangle _4 |10\rangle _5 \nonumber \\&+\,\frac{1}{64} |6\rangle _2 |10\rangle _4 |10\rangle _5-\frac{i |6\rangle _2 |9\rangle _5 |10\rangle _4}{32 \sqrt{2}}. \end{aligned}$$

(22)

If $\delta \ne 0$, one has even more terms. One can easily see that there are many outcomes with multiple photons in the same channel.

Let us suppose that one can make an extra postselection step, namely selecting outcomes with single photons in each channel (for example, by using at the end an apparatus which works only with single-photon input states). In this case, the general ($\delta \ne 0$) outcome is the following

$$\begin{aligned}&\frac{i \left( 1-2 \sqrt{\delta }\right) ^2 |1\rangle _1 |5\rangle _3 |9\rangle _5}{32 \sqrt{2}}+\frac{\left( 1-2 \sqrt{\delta }\right) ^2 |2\rangle _1 |6\rangle _3 |10\rangle _5}{32 \sqrt{2}} \nonumber \\&+\,\frac{1}{32} \sqrt{\delta } \left( 1-2 \sqrt{\delta }\right) |1\rangle _1 |5\rangle _3 |10\rangle _4+\frac{\sqrt{\delta } \left( 1-2 \sqrt{\delta }\right) |2\rangle _1 |6\rangle _3 |10\rangle _4}{16 \sqrt{2}} \nonumber \\&+\frac{\sqrt{\delta } \left( 1-2 \sqrt{\delta }\right) |2\rangle _1 |6\rangle _2 |10\rangle _5}{16 \sqrt{2}}+\frac{i \delta |1\rangle _2 |5\rangle _4 |9\rangle _5}{8 \sqrt{2}} \nonumber \\&+\,\frac{1}{16} \delta |1\rangle _2 |5\rangle _3 |10\rangle _4+\frac{1}{16} \delta \left( \sqrt{2} |2\rangle _1-i |1\rangle _1\right) |6\rangle _2 |10\rangle _4 \nonumber \\&+\,\frac{1}{16} i \delta |1\rangle _2 |6\rangle _3 |10\rangle _4+\frac{1}{32} \left( 2 \sqrt{\delta }-1\right) \sqrt{\delta } |1\rangle _1 |5\rangle _4 |10\rangle _5 \nonumber \\&-\,\frac{1}{16} \delta |1\rangle _2 |5\rangle _4 |10\rangle _5+\frac{1}{32} i \left( 2 \sqrt{\delta }-1\right) \sqrt{\delta } |1\rangle _1 |6\rangle _2 |10\rangle _5 \nonumber \\&-\,\frac{1}{32} i \left( 2 \sqrt{\delta }-1\right) \sqrt{\delta } |1\rangle _2 |6\rangle _3 |10\rangle _5-\frac{i \left( 2 \sqrt{\delta }-1\right) \sqrt{\delta } |1\rangle _2 |5\rangle _3 |9\rangle _5}{16 \sqrt{2}} \nonumber \\&-\,\frac{i \left( 2 \sqrt{\delta }-1\right) \sqrt{\delta } |1\rangle _1 |5\rangle _4 |9\rangle _5}{16 \sqrt{2}}. \end{aligned}$$

(23)

It is easy to see that the GHZ state is obtained when $\delta =0$

$$\begin{aligned} \frac{|2\rangle _1 |6\rangle _3 |10\rangle _5}{32 \sqrt{2}}+\frac{i |1\rangle _1 |5\rangle _3 |9\rangle _5}{32 \sqrt{2}} \end{aligned}$$

(24)

or restoring the notation of Sect. 2 in the main text

$$\begin{aligned} \frac{|B\rangle _1 |B\rangle _3 |B\rangle _5}{32 \sqrt{2}}+\frac{i |A\rangle _1 |A\rangle _3 |A\rangle _5}{32 \sqrt{2}}. \end{aligned}$$

(25)

References

1.
Schrödinger, E.: Discussion of probability relations between separated systems. Math. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. (1935). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305004100013554 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
2.
Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M.: Quantum $\alpha $-entropy inequalities: independent condition for local realism? Phys. Lett. Sect. A Gen. Atomic Solid State Phys. (1996). https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(95)00930-2 Google Scholar
3.
Calabrese, P., Cardy, J.: Entanglement entropy and quantum field theory. J. Stat. Mech: Theory Exp. (2004). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2004/06/P06002 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
4.
Sarovar, M., Ishizaki, A., Fleming, G.R., Whaley, K.B.: Quantum entanglement in photosynthetic light-harvesting complexes. Nat. Phys. (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys1652 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.
Maldacena, J., Susskind, L.: Cool horizons for entangled black holes. Fortschr. Phys. (2013). https://doi.org/10.1002/prop.201300020 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
6.
Laflorencie, N.: Quantum entanglement in condensed matter systems. Quant. Entanglement Condens. Matter Syst. (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2016.06.008 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.
Rangarajan, R., Goggin, M., Kwiat, P., Lee, K.F., Chen, J., Liang, C., Li, X., Voss, P.L., Kumar, P., Bennett, C.H., Brassard, G., Crépeau, C., Jozsa, R., Peres, A., Wootters, W.K., Lu, C.Y., Zhou, X.Q., Guhne, O., Gao, W.B., Zhang, J., Yuan, Z.S., Goebel, A., Yang, T., Pan, J.W., Hodelin, J.F., Khoury, G., Bouwmeester, D.: Optimizing type-I polarization-entangled photons “Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen channels”. Phys. Rev. Lett. Nat. (1993). https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.17.018920 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.
Bennett, C.H., Wiesner, S.J.: Communication via one- and two-particle operators on Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen states. Phys. Rev. Lett. (1992). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2881 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
9.
Ekert, A.K.: Quantum cryptography based on Bellâs theorem. Phys. Rev. Lett. (1991). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.67.661 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
10.
Nielsen, M.A., Chuang, I.L.: Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
11.
Dicarlo, L., Chow, J.M., Gambetta, J.M., Bishop, L.S., Johnson, B.R., Schuster, D.I., Majer, J., Blais, A., Frunzio, L., Girvin, S.M., Schoelkopf, R.J.: Demonstration of two-qubit algorithms with a superconducting quantum processor. Nature (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08121 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.
Blatt, R., Wineland, D.: Entangled states of trapped atomic ions. Nature (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07125 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.
Nelson, R.J., Cory, D.G., Lloyd, S.: Experimental demonstration of Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger correlations using nuclear magnetic resonance. Phys. Rev. A (2000). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.61.022106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.
Lu, C.Y., Zhou, X.Q., Gühne, O., Gao, W.B., Zhang, J., Yuan, Z.S., Goebel, A., Yang, T., Pan, J.W.: Experimental entanglement of six photons in graph states. Nat. Phys. (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys507 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.
Gómez, S., Mattar, A., Gómez, E.S., Cavalcanti, D., Farías, O.J., Acín, A., Lima, G.: Experimental nonlocality-based randomness generation with nonprojective measurements. Phys. Rev. A (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.97.040102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.
Dur, W., Vidal, G., Cirac, J.I.: Three qubits can be entangled in two inequivalent ways. Phys. Rev. A—Atomic Mol. Opt. Phys. (2000). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.62.062314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.
Verstraete, F., Dehaene, J., De Moor, B., Verschelde, H.: Four qubits can be entangled in nine different ways. Phys. Rev. A—Atomic Mol. Opt. Phys (2002). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.65.052112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.
Aolita, L., Chaves, R., Cavalcanti, D., Acín, A., Davidovich, L.: Scaling laws for the decay of multiqubit entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2008). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.080501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.
Chaves, R., Aolita, L., Acín, A.: Robust multipartite quantum correlations without complex encodings. Phys. Rev. A—Atomic Mol. Opt. Phys. (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.86.020301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.
Vivoli, V.C., Ribeiro, J., Wehner, S.: High fidelity GHZ generation within nearby nodes. (2018). http://arxiv.org/abs/1805.10663
21.
Friis, N., Marty, O., Maier, C., Hempel, C., Holzäpfel, M., Jurcevic, P., Plenio, M.B., Huber, M., Roos, C., Blatt, R., Lanyon, B.: Observation of entangled states of a fully controlled 20-qubit system. Phys. Rev. X (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.8.021012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.
Greenberger, D.M., Horne, M.A., Shimony, A., Zeilinger, A.: Bell’s theorem without inequalities. Am. J. Phys. (1990). https://doi.org/10.1119/1.16243 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
23.
Hao, J.C., Li, C.F., Guo, G.C.: Controlled dense coding using the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger state. Phys. Rev. A—Atomic Mol. Opt. Phys. (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.63.054301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.
Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S., MacCone, L.: Advances in quantum metrology. Nat. Photonics (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2011.35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.
Chaves, R., Brask, J.B., Markiewicz, M., Kołodyński, J., Acín, A.: Noisy metrology beyond the standard quantum limit. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.120401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.
Kómár, P., Kessler, E.M., Bishof, M., Jiang, L., Sørensen, A.S., Ye, J., Lukin, M.D.: A quantum network of clocks. Nat. Phys. (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys3000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.
Anders, J., Browne, D.E.: Computational power of correlations. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.050502 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.
Hillery, M., Bužek, V., Berthiaume, A.: Quantum secret sharing. Phys. Rev. A—Atomic Mol. Opt. Phys. (1999). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.59.1829 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
29.
Brunner, N., Cavalcanti, D., Pironio, S., Scarani, V., Wehner, S.: Bell nonlocality. Rev. Mod. Phys. (2014). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.86.419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30.
Bouwmeester, D., Pan, J.W., Bongaerts, M., Zeilinger, A.: Observation of three-photon Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett. (1999). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.1345 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
31.
de Lima Bernardo, B.: Unified quantum density matrix description of coherence and polarization. Phys. Lett. Sect. A Gen. Atomic Solid State Phys. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2017.05.018 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
32.
Preskill, J.: Quantum Computation lecture notes for physics 219/computer science 219. http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/ph229/
33.
Bergamasco, N., Menotti, M., Sipe, J.E., Liscidini, M.: Generation of path-encoded Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger states. Phys. Rev. Appl. 8(5), 54014 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevApplied.8.054014 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.
Su, X., Tian, C., Deng, X., Li, Q., Xie, C., Peng, K.: Quantum entanglement swapping between two multipartite entangled states. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.240503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.
Jin, X.R., Ji, X., Zhang, Y.Q., Zhang, S., Hong, S.K., Yeon, K.H., Um, C.I.: Three-party quantum secure direct communication based on GHZ states. Phys. Lett. Sect. A Gen. Atomic Solid State Phys. (2006). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2006.01.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36.
Zukowski, M., Zeilinger, A., Horne, M.A., Ekert, A.K.: “Event-ready-detectors” Bell experiment via entanglement swapping. Phys. Rev. Lett. (1993). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.4287 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37.
de Lima Bernardo, B.: How a single photon can mediate entanglement between two others. Ann. Phys. (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aop.2016.06.018 MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
38.
De Lima Bernardo, B., Canabarro, A., Azevedo, S.: How a single particle simultaneously modifies the physical reality of two distant others: a quantum nonlocality and weak value study. Sci. Rep. (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39767 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39.
Hong, C.K., Ou, Z.Y., Mandel, L.: Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by interference. Phys. Rev. Lett. (1987). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.2044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40.
Eltschka, C., Osterlohe, A., Siewert, J., Uhlmann, A.: Three-tangle for mixtures of generalized GHZ and generalized W states. New J. Phys. (2008). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/10/4/043014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41.
Bose, S., Vedral, V., Knight, P.L.: Multiparticle generalization of entanglement swapping. Phys. Rev. A—Atomic Mol. Opt. Phys. (1998). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.57.822 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42.
Lu, C.Y., Yang, T., Pan, J.W.: Experimental multiparticle entanglement swapping for quantum networking. Phys. Rev. Lett. (2009). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.020501 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43.
Srivastava, A., Sidler, M., Allain, A.V., Lembke, D.S., Kis, A., Imamoglu, A.: Optically active quantum dots in monolayer WSe2. Nat. Nanotechnol. 10, 491 EP (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2015.60 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
44.
Chakraborty, C., Kinnischtzke, L., Goodfellow, K.M., Beams, R., Vamivakas, A.N.: Voltage-controlled quantum light from an atomically thin semiconductor. Nat. Nanotechnol. 10, 507 EP (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2015.79 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
45.
He, Y.M., Clark, G., Schaibley, J.R., He, Y., Chen, M.C., Wei, Y.J., Ding, X., Zhang, Q., Yao, W., Xu, X., Lu, C.Y., Pan, J.W.: Single quantum emitters in monolayer semiconductors. Nat. Nanotechnol. 10, 497 EP (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2015.75 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
46.
Tran, T.T., Bray, K., Ford, M.J., Toth, M., Aharonovich, I.: Quantum emission from hexagonal boron nitride monolayers. Nat. Nanotechnol. 11, 37 EP (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2015.242 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
47.
Aharonovich, I., Englund, D., Toth, M.: Solid-state single-photon emitters. Nat. Photonics 10, 631 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nphoton.2016.186 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
48.
Pan, J.W., Chen, Z.B., Lu, C.Y., Weinfurter, H., Zeilinger, A., Zukowski, M.: Multiphoton entanglement and interferometry. Rev. Mod. Phys. (2012). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.84.777 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49.
Lopes, R., Imanaliev, A., Aspect, A., Cheneau, M., Boiron, D., Westbrook, C.I.: Atomic Hong–Ou–Mandel experiment. Nature (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
50.
Kaufman, A.M., Tichy, M.C., Mintert, F., Rey, A.M., Regal, C.A.: The Hong–Ou–Mandel effect with atoms. Nature (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aamop.2018.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Bertúlio de Lima Bernardo
- 1
- 2
Mate Lencses
- 3
Samuraí Brito
- 3
Askery Canabarro
- 4
- 5
Email authorView author's OrcID profile

1.Departamento de FísicaUniversidade Federal de Campina GrandeCampina GrandeBrazil
2.Departamento de FísicaUniversidade Federal da ParaíbaJoão PessoaBrazil
3.International Institute of PhysicsFederal University of Rio Grande do NorteNatalBrazil
4.Grupo de Física da Matéria Condensada, Núcleo de Ciências Exatas - NCEx, Campus ArapiracaUniversidade Federal de AlagoasArapiracaBrazil
5.International Institute of PhysicsFederal University of Rio Grande do NorteNatalBrazil

Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger state generation with linear optical elements

Abstract

Keywords

Notes

Acknowledgements

References

Copyright information

Authors and Affiliations

Personalised recommendations

Cite article