Simulating Arbitrary Quantum Statistics with Entangled Photons

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Springer Theses book series (Springer Theses)

Abstract

Photons are classed as bosons with corresponding non-classical interference behaviour accurately modelled by Bose–Einstein statistics. The low noise properties of photons make them ideal for exploring quantum phenomena. However, photons can be viewed as limited in their use, due to their lack of interaction and their restriction to behaviour dictated by Bose–Einstein statistics, which has implications for quantum interference [2] and quantum logic gates [3], for example. Here we show that by controlling one phase parameter, entanglement can exactly simulate quantum dynamics in an arbitrary mode transformation—labelled A—of N identical fermions, bosons or particles with fractional statistics. We describe a generalised approach to simulate quantum interference of many particles with Fermi–Dirac statistics and a form of fractional statistics residing in the intermediate regime between Bose–Einstein and Fermi–Dirac statistics. Finally we report an experiment with two polarisation entangled photons to simulate the quantum interference of two Bosons, two Fermions and in general two particles with fractional statistics, undergoing quantum interference in a continuous time quantum walk unitary.

Keywords

Quantum Interference Quantum Walk Waveguide Array Einstein Statistic Dirac Statistic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    J.C.F. Matthews, K. Poulios, J.D.A. Meinecke, A. Politi, A. Peruzzo, N. Ismail, K. Wörhoff, M.G. Thompson, J.L. O’Brien, Simulating quantum statistics with entangled photons: a continuous transition from bosons to fermions. arxiv:1106.1166 (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Y.L. Lim, A. Beige, Generalized Hong-Ou-Mandel experiments with bosons and fermions. New J. Phys. 7, 155 (2005)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J.D. Franson, B.C. Jacobs, T.B. Pittman, Quantum computing using single photons and the zeno effect. Phys. Rev. A 70(6), 062302 (2004)MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. Kim, M.-S. Chang, S. Korenblit, R. Islam, E.E. Edwards, J.K. Freericks, G.-D. Lin, L.-M. Duan, C. Monroe, Quantum simulation of frustrated ising spins with trapped ions. Nature 465, 590–593 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    J.T. Barreiro, M. Müller, P. Schindler, D. Nigg, T. Monz, M. Chwalla, M. Hennrich, C.F. Roos, P. Zoller, R. Blatt, An open-system quantum simulator with trapped ions. Nature 470, 486–491 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    F.E. Camino, W. Zhou, V.J. Goldman, Realization of a laughlin quasiparticle interferometer: observation of fractional statistics. Phys. Rev. B 72, 075342 (2005)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. Loss, D.P. DiVincenzo, Quantum computation with quantum dots. Phys. Rev. A 57, 120–126 (1998)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    T. Byrnes, N.Y. Kim, K. Kusudo, Y. Yamamoto, Quantum simulation of Fermi-Hubbard models in semiconductor quantum-dot arrays. Phys. Rev. B 78, 075320 (2008)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J.F. Sherson, C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, M. Cheneau, I. Bloch, S. Kuhr, Single-atom-resolved flourecence imaging of an atomoc mott insulator. Nature 467, 68–72 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Aaronson, A. Arkhipov, The computational complexity of linear optics, in Proceedings of ACM STOC 2011. arXiv:1011.3245 [quant-ph] (2010) (to appear)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. Peruzzo, M. Lobino, J.C.F. Matthews, N. Matsuda, A. Politi, K. Poulios, X.-Q. Zhou, Y. Lahini, N. Ismail, K. Wörhoff, Y. Bromberg, Y. Silberberg, M.G. Thompson, J.L. O’Brien, Quantum walks of correlated photons. Science 329, 1500–1503 (2010)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Loudon, Fermion and boson beam-splitter statistics. Phys. Rev. A 58, 4904 (1998)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    R.C. Liu, B. Odom, Y. Yamamoto, S. Tarucha, Quantum interference in electron collision. Nature 391, 263–265 (1998)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    F. Wilczek, Magnetic flux, angular momentum and statistics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1144 (1982)MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    F. Wilczek, Fractional Statistics and Anyon Superconductivity (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R.B. Laughlin, Anomalous quantum hall effect: an incompressible quanutm fluid with fractionaly charged excitation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1395–1398 (1983)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    K. Mattle, M. Michler, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, M. Zukowski, Non-classical statistics at multiport beam splitter. Appl. Phys. B Lasers Opt. 60(2–3), Suppl. S, S111 (1995)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    K. Mayer, M.C. Tichy, F. Mintrt, T. Konrad, A. Buchleitner, Counting statistics of many-particle quantum walks. Phys. Rev. A 83, 061207 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Michler, K. Mattle, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, Interferometric bell-state analysis. Phys. Rev. A 53, R1209–R1212 (1996)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Q. Wang, Y.-S. Zhang, Y.-F. Huang, G.-C. Guo, Simulating the fourth-order interference phenomenon of anyons with photon pairs. Eur. Phys. J. D. 42, 179–182 (2007)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Y. Omar, N. Paunković, L. Sheridan, S. Bose, Quantum walk on a line with two entangled particles. Phys. Rev. A 74, 042304 (2006)MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    D.S. Abrams, S. Lloyd, Simulation of many-body fermi systems on a universal quantum computer. Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2586–2589 (1997)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    N.J. Ward, I. Kassal, A. Aspuru-Guzik, Preparation of many-body states for quantum simulation. J. Chem. Phys. 130, 194105 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    T.C. Ralph, A.G. White, W.J. Munro, G.J. Milburn, Simple scheme for efficient linear optics quantum gates. Phys. Rev. A 65, 012314 (2001)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    R. Oxalmoto, J.L. O’Brien, H.F. Hofmann, S. Takeuchi, Realization of a knill-laflamme-milburn controlled-not photonic quantum circuit combing effective optical nonlinearities. PNAS 108(25), 10067–10071 (2011)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    L. Sansoni, F. Sciarrino, G. Vallone, P. Mataloni, A. Crespi, R. Ramponi, R. Osellame, Polarization entangled state measurement on a chip. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 200503 (2010)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    H.B. Perets, Y. Lahini, F. Pozzi, M. Sorel, R. Morandotti, Y. Silberberg, Realization of quantum walks with negligible decoherence in waveguide lattices. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100(17), 170506 (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    C.K. Hong, Z.Y. Ou, L. Mandel, Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by interference. Phys. Rev. Lett. 59(18), 2044–2046 (1987)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Y. Bromberg, Y. Lahini, R. Morandotti, Y. Silberberg, Quantum and classical correlations in waveguide lattices. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102(25), 253904 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    L. Sansoni, F. Sciarrino, G. Vallone, P. Mataloni, A. Crespi, R. Ramponi, R. Osellame, Two-particle bosoinic–fermionic quantum walk via integrated photonics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 010502 (2012)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    A.P. Hines, P.C.E. Stamp, Quantum walks, quantum gates, and quantum computers. Phys. Rev. A 75, 062321 (2007)MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    C.-Y. Lu, W.-B. Gao, O. Guhne, X.-Q. Zhou, Z. B. Chen, J.-W. Pan, Demonstrating anyonic fractional statistics with a six-qubit quantum simulator. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 030502 (2009)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    J.K. Pachos, W. Wieczorek, C. Schmid, N. Kiesel, R. Pohlner, H. Weinfurter, Revealing anyonic features in a toric code quantum simulation. New J. Phys. 11, 083010 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    E. Keil, A. Szameit, F. Dreisow, M. Heinrich, S. Nolte, A. Tünnermann, Photon correlations in two-dimensional waveguide arrays and their classical estimate. Phys. Rev. A 81, 023834 (2010)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    I. Kassal, S.P. Jordan, P.J. Love, M. Mohseni, A. Aspuru-Guzik, Polynomial-time quantum algorithm for the simulation of chemical dynamics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Scie. USA 105, 18681–18686 (2008)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    J.M. Harrison, J.P. Keating, J.M. Robbins, Quantum statistics on graphs. Proc. R. Soc. A 467, 212–233 (2011)MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    M. Reck, A. Zeilinger, H.J. Bernstein, P. Bertani, Experimental realization of an discrete unitary operator. Phys. Rev. Lett. 73(1), 58–61 (1994)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    R.T. Thew, A. Acin, H. Zbinden, N. Gisin, Bell-type test of energy-time entangled qutrits. Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 010503 (2004)MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    J.C.F. Matthews, A. Politi, A. Stefanov, J.L. O’Brien, Manipulation of multiphoton entanglement in waveguide quantum circuits. Nat. Photonics 3, 346–350 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Quantum PhotonicsUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations