0% found this document useful (0 votes)
10 views53 pages

Project Report

This study explores the preparation of photonic Schrödinger cat states using three protocols in solid-state quantum dot-cavity and atom-cavity systems, highlighting their potential applications in quantum information processing. The Dot-Driven Protocol (DOD) is deemed unsuitable due to losses, while the Cavity-Driven Protocol (CAD) successfully prepares cat states. The research demonstrates the feasibility of creating these states, enhancing understanding of their preparation processes.

Uploaded by

Aakash Rankawat
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
10 views53 pages

Project Report

This study explores the preparation of photonic Schrödinger cat states using three protocols in solid-state quantum dot-cavity and atom-cavity systems, highlighting their potential applications in quantum information processing. The Dot-Driven Protocol (DOD) is deemed unsuitable due to losses, while the Cavity-Driven Protocol (CAD) successfully prepares cat states. The research demonstrates the feasibility of creating these states, enhancing understanding of their preparation processes.

Uploaded by

Aakash Rankawat
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 53

Preparation Of Schrodinger Cat States : A Comprehensive Study

Submitted by

Akash Vaishnav
(212121005)

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

Prof. Amarendra Kumar Sarma


Abstract

This study investigates the preparation of photonic Schrödinger cat states using three
protocols in solid-state quantum dot-cavity (QDC) and atom-cavity systems, with poten-
tial applications in quantum information processing and communication. The first two
protocols (DOD and CAD) for QDC Schrödinger cat state preparation rely heavily on the
timing and mutual phases of laser pulses and suffer from radiative decay, cavity losses, and
environmental coupling. The CAD protocol successfully prepares Schrödinger cat states in
QDCs, while the DOD protocol is unsuitable due to detrimental effects. The third protocol
for atom-cavity Schrödinger cat state preparation uses Ramsey field pulses, enabling the
creation of more advanced Schrödinger cat states, but also suffers from losses. Overall,
the findings demonstrate the feasibility of preparing Schrödinger cat states in QDCs and
atom-cavity systems, providing a more detailed understanding of the preparation process.

v
vi
Contents

1 Introduction 1
1.1 Classical and Quantum States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.1 Classical States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.2 Quantum States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Schrödinger Cat States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.1 Introduction to Schrödinger Cat States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.2 Importance and Potential Applications of Schrödinger Cat States . 4

2 Schrödinger cat states in Quantum Dot-Cavity System 5


2.1 Theoretical Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Dot Driven Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.1 Method to Create an Arbitrary Photonic State in a Single Mode
Microcavity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.2 Implementation in QD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.3 The ideal case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.4 Loss and phonons effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.3 Cavity Driven Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3.1 Wavefunction Collapse and Quantum Revivals in the Jaynes-Cummings
Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.3.2 Improvising this protocol in QDC in CAD protocol . . . . . . . . . 25

vii
2.3.3 Loss and Phonon effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3 Schrödinger Cat States in Atom-Cavity system 29


3.1 Generating Nonclassical Atom-Light States via Deterministic Entanglement 30
3.1.1 Protocol . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.1.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4 Conclusion 36

5 Appendix 38
5.1 Environmental coupling Hamiltonian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5.2 Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

References 41

viii
Chapter 1

Introduction

In the last century, the introduction of quantum mechanics has transformed our comprehen-
sion of the physical world, unmasking the microscopic realm’s quantum nature. The funda-
mental principles of quantum mechanics involve superposition and entanglement, whereby
a quantum system can occupy multiple states simultaneously. Decades after being an ob-
ject of theoretical interest, quantum superposition has finally emerged as a tool in quantum
technology. The concept of superposition was famously illustrated in Erwin Schrödinger’s
famous thought experiment of a simultaneously alive and dead cat, known as Schrödinger’s
cat paradox. The experiment results showed that, in quantum mechanics, a system can
maintain a superposition of states until it undergoes measurement or observation.
The physical realization of Schrodinger’s cat-like superposition has fascinated researchers
for years. Schrodinger cat states (SC) are an elegant demonstration of this. These states
have the potential to revolutionize quantum computing[15], quantum cryptography[8], and
quantum metrology[12]. Over the years, physicists have successfully prospected different
systems to create SC states, including vibrational states of a trapped ion[2], propagating
photon modes and superconducting qubits.
In this report, we will conduct a comprehensive investigation into preparing Schrödinger
cat states. Our study will begin with a review of classical and quantum states; then, we will

1
inspect Schrodinger cat states and their applications. Finally, we explore the possibilities
of engineering these states using different theoretical and numerical protocols.

1.1 Classical and Quantum States

1.1.1 Classical States

Classical mechanics describes the behavior of macroscopic objects, such as billiard balls,
cars, and planets. According to classical mechanics, a system’s position and momentum
define its state. The position of a particle is its location in space, while its momentum is
its mass multiplied by its velocity. A particle’s state at any time is entirely determined by
its location and momentum.
Many types of classical states exist, depending on the specific physical system being
studied. Some examples of classical states include:
Stationary states: These states correspond to particles that remain stationary over time,
with both their position and momentum remaining constant
Oscillatory states: These states correspond to particles undergoing oscillatory motion,
such as simple harmonic motion, with their position and momentum varying periodically
over time
Chaotic states: These states correspond to particles that appear to move randomly
and erratically, as in chaotic systems like the weather, where the particle’s location and
momentum change over time without showing any visible pattern.

1.1.2 Quantum States

Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes the behavior of microscopic objects at
atomic and subatomic levels. Unlike classical mechanics, the quantum realm is inherently
probabilistic, introducing the idea of the superposition of states, which means that the
system can exist in multiple states simultaneously.

2
Many quantum states exist, depending on the specific physical system being studied.
Some examples of quantum states include:
Coherent states: These are states where the wave function is localized in both position
and momentum space and are often used to describe the behavior of systems like lasers.
Entangled states: Another peculiarity of quantum mechanics is quantum entanglement.
These states describe the cooperative behavior of two or more quantum systems and cannot
be described independently.
Schrödinger cat states: These are a type of quantum state often used to explore the
boundary between classical and quantum physics.

1.2 Schrödinger Cat States

1.2.1 Introduction to Schrödinger Cat States

Schrödinger cat states are defined as the quantum superposition of two macroscopically
distinct states analogous to the famous thought experiment proposed by Erwin Schrödinger
in 1935[16], in which a cat placed in a box is both dead and alive simultaneously. Though
in the earlier years, the Preparation of Schrödinger’s cat states had attracted research
interest as a solution of fundamental quantum physics, now it has emerged as a candidate
for quantum computation, quantum communication, and quantum information.
A Schrödinger cat state is a superposition of two coherent states in quantum optics,
which are states with well-defined amplitude and phase:

1
ψ = √ (|αi + eιθ | − αi) (1.1)
2

Here, |αi is the coherent state with amplitude α, and θ is the relative phase between
the two coherent states. The normalization factor ensures an equal chance of identifying
the system in any of the two coherent states.

3
1.2.2 Importance and Potential Applications of Schrödinger Cat States

Schrodinger cat states are anticipated to be a testing ground for the decade-long controversy
of quantum measurement. Preparing cat states will imply the controlled study of deco-
herence; It will contribute to measuring the illusive boundary between the quantum and
classical worlds. SC states are beneficial in applied quantum physics and are of fundamen-
tal relevance. They promise to be the foundation for quantum computation, cryptography,
metrology, and teleportation.
The ability to generate and manipulate Schrödinger cat states has important impli-
cations for quantum information processing and technology. One potential application is
quantum communication, where Schrödinger cat states can increase the distance over which
quantum information can be transmitted. Entangled Schrödinger cat states can send quan-
tum information over long distances without requiring quantum repeaters [4], a possible
substitute for entangled photon pairs as quantum channels in quantum teleportation[20].
In quantum sensing and metrology, they are helpful for precision measurements[19]. In ad-
dition, Schrödinger cat states can enhance the precision of atomic clocks and other types of
sensors. In quantum computing, these states could increase the number of qubits in a quan-
tum computer, leading to greater computational power and the ability to solve problems
beyond classical computers’ reach.

4
Chapter 2

Schrödinger cat states in Quantum


Dot-Cavity System

Quantum dots are nanoscale semiconductor structures with three-dimensional spatial con-
finement. Their bandgaps are often called ’zero-dimensional’ tunable showing unique elec-
tronic and optical properties [10]. The strong interaction between the quantum dot and
cavity modes can lead to intriguing phenomena such as vacuum Rabi splitting and entan-
glement, which are of fundamental importance in quantum optics.
Quantum dots can be precisely engineered and fabricated using advanced semiconduc-
tor fabrication techniques. This enables the creation of devices with strictly controlled
properties, including their size, shape, and composition. Additionally, quantum dots have
long coherence times, making them attractive for quantum information processing and
communication applications.
Regarding fundamental advantages, quantum dots offer a unique platform for studying
the behavior of electrons in confined systems. These captive systems can simulate the
behavior of atoms and molecules, providing a way to study quantum mechanical effects in
condensed matter systems. Additionally, the discrete energy levels of quantum dots can be
precisely controlled and manipulated, creating complex quantum states that can be used

5
for various applications.
In recent years the application of Quantum Dots in quantum information processing
and quantum communication has dragged attention due to easy on-chip integration. Hence
moving different quantum phenomena to solid state-based systems such as QDC systems
has attracted researchers.
This study explores two protocols for creating Schrödinger-cat states in a Quantum
Dot-Cavity (QDC) system. To accomplish this, we modify already-existing preparation
techniques and apply them to the QDC system. The Dot-Driven Protocol (DOD), the first
protocol, is based on the idea suggested by Law and Eberly [14]. We rely solely on external
laser pulses in the DOD protocol to drive the quantum dot and generate the Schrödinger-
cat state. The precise timing of these pulses is crucial to control the interaction between
the dot and cavity. The second protocol, the Cavity-Driven Protocol (CAD), is adapted
from Banacloche[5] and involves producing a coherent initial state by driving the cavity.
In our analysis of both protocols, we consider the impact of losses and phonon interac-
tion and use realistic parameters verified in current experiments. Our findings show that
the DOD protocol suffers from an unfavorable influence of casualties on the sensitive coher-
ence of the Schrödinger cat, leading to the generation of only mixed states under realistic
conditions. On the other hand, the CAD protocol shows promise in generating a photonic
Schrödinger cat state even under natural conditions. We locate parameter regimes that
can be reached experimentally and encourage these states’ creation.
In summary, quantum dot-cavity systems offer several advantages for quantum informa-
tion processing and quantum communication applications. The evolution of Schrodinger
cat states in these systems has potential benefits for creating logical qubits and entangled
states. The Dot-driven and cavity-driven protocols offer different advantages and can be
used to produce Schrodinger cat states in these systems.

6
Fig. 2.1 Cat states can be produced on-demand by controlling the emission
of photons that occur when QD excitons transition from the conductance band
to the valence band [3].

2.1 Theoretical Model

A Quantum Dot Cavity system can be defined by a driven two-level Quantum Dot
coupled to a single photon. The Hamiltonian of the system can be written as,

Ĥ = ĤQDC + Ĥdrive + Ĥac−stark (2.1)

From the JC model[18], we characterize QDC Hamiltonian,

HQDC = ωu |u >< u| + ωc ↠â + gc (âσ+ + ↠σ− ) (2.2)

Where |ui is the excited state of energy with energy h̄ωu , σ− = |lihu| is the decrement
operator for excited state |ui to ground state |li and σ+ = |uihl| is the increment operator
for ground state |li to excited state |ui and ǎ is known as annihilation operator and ǎ† is
known as creation operator and coupling between quantum dot and cavity are denoted by
gc . The driving Hamiltonian for DOD protocol can be defined in its general form as
follows,

ĤdriveDOD = − {fp∗. (t. )σ− + fp. (t. )σ+ } (2.3)
2

7
And Driving Hamiltonian for CAD protocol


ĤdriveCAD = − {fp∗. (t. )â + fp. (t)aˆ† } (2.4)
2

where the pump field is defined as,

X
fp (t) = fkp (t − tk )e−ιωp (t−tk ) (2.5)
k

And where fkp (t) = Envelope function of the pump fields. and we are going to use
Gaussian pulses as pump-field with area Θ = 1

Θi − t22
fkp (t) = √ e 2σ (2.6)
2πσ

p
And FWHM of this Gaussian pulse is taken to be F W HM = 2 2 log(2)σ with condition
ωp = ωE , and in our case, it is nearby 100 fs[3].
To preserve the photonic cat state in the cavity, we have to decouple the quantum dot and
cavity, so we apply Ac-Stark pulses and Hamiltonian for ac-stark pulses can be defined as,

h̄ ∗
Ĥac−stark = − {fac−stark (t. )σ− + fac−stark (t. )σ+ } (2.7)
2

The rectangular-shaped facs tark pulses define the AC-Stark pulses.


 τlength
0,


 t. < − 2


fac−stark = e−ιωA−S t. τ
fs , − length ≤ t. ≤
τlength (2.8)
 2 2



0, t. > τlength


2

The ac-stark pulses are precisely adjusted to remain below the exciton line, with
ωA−S,u = ωA−S − ωu , chosen from a range inside the rotating wave approximation.

8
2.2 Dot Driven Protocol

The Schrödinger’s cat state can be expressed in a general form as follows[7],

0
|cati = No (|αi + eiϕ | − αi) (2.9)

The most prevalent representation of Schrödinger’s cat state in Quantum optics involves a
0
normalization constant No and an overall phase ϕ, and this is our target state via using
π
DOD protocol here; we set α = 2
and ϕ = 0, and reason of choosing this choice is that it
ensures that the related coherent states are differentiable and overall numbers of photons
are low enough so we can limit the effects of the cavity losses.

0 π π
|πi = No {| i + eιϕ | − i} (2.10)
2 2

Normalisation constant is,


0 1
No = q (2.11)
2
− π4
2(1 + e )

In order to produce the desired target state, we will be using the method proposed by
C.K. Law and Eberly[14], which was originally proposed to create specific photonic states
within an atomic cavity.

2.2.1 Method to Create an Arbitrary Photonic State in a Single Mode


Microcavity.

We observe that atom-field interactions can transform the photonic vacuum state into a
superposition of Fock states with finite photon numbers, as desired. However, it is
important to note that the Hamiltonian imposes a fundamental constraint, limiting the
accessibility of certain final states from the initial state.
The Hamiltonian for a system comprising a quantized cavity field interacting with a

9
driven quantum system is given as follows

1
Ĥ(t. ) = ωc ↠â + ωo σz + {r(t. )e−ιωl t. + g(t. )â}σ+ + {r(t. )∗ eιωl t. + g(t. )∗ ↠}σ− (2.12)
2

where,ωl =frequency of driving field, r(t)=coupling strength of atom-external field


interaction. g(t)=coupling strength of atom and cavity field interaction. Let the coupling
strength of the interaction between the atom and the cavity field be denoted by g(t. ). We
will assume that our objective is to prepare a specific photonic state, which will serve as
our target state,
M
X
|ψtarget i = {Cn |ni} (2.13)
n=0

So the atom or trapped ion can make transitions between two levels, so here we have used
two interaction channels.
In this setup, we may discriminate between two channels. The first channel represents the
atom’s interaction with the external driving force. In contrast, the interaction between
the atom and the quantized cavity field is related to the second channel. so we have

1
Ĥo = ωc ↠â + ω0 σz (2.14)
2
And,

ĤI = {r(t. )e−ιωL. t. + r∗ (t. )eιωL t. σ− } + {g(t. )âσ+ + g ∗ (t. )↠σ− } (2.15)

using the unitary operator,


Uo = e−ιĤo t (2.16)

Then, the wave function is,


|ΨI i = U † |Ψs i (2.17)

and convert the Hamiltonian in interaction picture, with rotating wave approximation on
resonance condition (ωL = ωo = ωc ),

10
the interaction Hamiltonian (in the interaction picture),

ĤI. = {r(t. ) + g(t. )â}σ+ + {r∗ (t. ) + g ∗ (t. )↠σ− } (2.18)

And we select the initial state (the simplest one),

|Ψ(0)i = |0, gi (2.19)

Under these conditions, the atom is in its ground state, and the cavity field is in a pure
vacuum state, with no excitations present. We presume that both the cavity damping and
atomic decay can be neglected. It is worth noting that the highest possible Fock state in
the cavity field, denoted by M , depends on the strength of the coupling.
So the strategy of our model is such that we divide total time into 2M equal subintervals
t.
with the length of subintervals is { 2π → τc }.
assigning a rule such that only one channel is effective at a time.

2(m − 1)τc < (t. ) < (2m − 1)τc , (2.20)

r(t. ) = rm & g(t. ) = 0 (2.21)

And, F or

(2m−1)τc < (t. ) < (2m)τc , (2.22)

r(t. ) = 0 & g(t. ) = gm (2.23)

The complex constants rm and gm (with 1 ≤ m ≤ M ) must be resolute. The time


evolution öperator of the system can then be expressed as,

U (t∗ ) = QM CM QM −1 CM −1 ...........Qm Cm ..........Q2 C2 Q1 C1 (2.24)

Where Q0m s are the evolution operator for the g(t) channel and Cm
0
s are the evolution

11
operator for r(t) channel then we have,

U (t∗ ) = e−ιHI t. /h̄ (2.25)


ι ∗ (t )+g ∗ (t )ǎ† )σ )
U (t∗ ) = e− h̄ (r(t. )+g(t. )â)σ+ +r . . −
(2.26)

so for evolution operator for the g(t) channel we define,

ι ∗ † σ )t
Qm = e− h̄ (gm âσ− +gm â +
(2.27)

And if we solve it, we get the matrix

√ √
 
−ιâeιφm Sin|gm | ↠âτ
Cos(|g m | â↠τ ) √
↠â
Qm =  † −ιφ (2.28)
 
−ιâ e
m


Sin|gm | ââ τ
√ 

ââ†
Cos(|gm | ↠âτ )

and for evolution operator for r(t) channel,

ι ∗ (t)σ
Cm = e− h̄ (r(t)σ+ +r − )t
(2.29)

and solving this, we get a matrix,


 
ιθm
Cos(|rm |τ ) −ιe Sin(|rm |τ )
Cm =  (2.30)


−ιe−ιθm Sin(|rm |τ ) Cos(|rm |τ )

With, rm = |rm |eιθm ,and gm = |gm |eιφm then,finally to determine the external pulses
(gm andrm ), we use inverse evolution

|0, gi = U (−t∗ )|n, gi (2.31)

12
And solving this, we get solutions to be like

√ √
hm, g|Fm+1 iCos(|gm mτ |) + ιhm − 1, e|Fm+1 ie−ιφm Sin(|gm | mτ ) = 0 (2.32)

And

hm − 1, e|Q+ +
m |Fm+1 iCos(|rm τ |) + ιhm − 1, g|Qm |Fm+1 ie
ιφm
Sin(|rm |τ ) = 0 (2.33)

Where |Fm i is defined as



|Fm i = Cm Q†m Cm−1 Q†m−1 .........C1† Q†1 |Ψ(t∗ )i

or,

|FM +1 i = |Ψ(t∗ )i (2.34)

And, on solving the above equations, we get relations.

√ ιhm, g|Fm+1 ieιφm


tan(|gm | mτ ) = (2.35)
hm − 1|Fm+1 i

and also,
ιe−ιφm hm − 1, e|Q†m |Fm+1 i
tan(|rm |τ ) = (2.36)
hm − 1, g|Q†m |Fm+1 i

using these formulas we can get solutions of rm and gm .

2.2.2 Implementation in QD

The protocol was initially designed to account for cavity loss channels only. However, to
implement it in QDC, the effects of phonons must also be considered. An appropriate
laser pulse is required to drive the system using this protocol, and the interaction between
the quantum dot and cavity needs to be controlled, which is still challenging. To
overcome this challenge, we need to change the magnitude of the quantum dot and cavity
coupling while keeping the coupling constant gc constant. During the driving of the field,

13
the quantum dot and cavity need to be decoupled, which can be achieved by using
Ac-Stark pulses. Alternatively, we can avoid decoupling altogether to achieve our goal
with shorter pulses. It is crucial to consider that switching off the laser takes more time
than the system’s dynamics. Therefore, we need to switch off the laser with precise
timing to ensure that the quantum dot and cavity remain coupled. We can use a
Gaussian pulse with the same area as the rectangular pulse to drive the system. The
FWHM of the Gaussian pulse can be set to 100 fs.

Fig. 2.2 Series of pulses for DOD protocol where at tc pulses are on peak
and Θ is the area of applied pulse[3]

2.2.3 The ideal case

Figure(2.3) shows the dynamics of the Quantum Dot Cavity in a dot-driven protocol
where the bottommost panel shows ten series of pluses to prepare the Schrödinger’s cat
state of equation (2.7), and this pulse sequence is derived from equations (2.33) and
(2.34) and here, we are applying 10-π pulses with arc area Θ = 1. The time distinction
between two consecutive pulses is time τi where the cavity coupling constant g(constant)
takes effect. After reaching the desired state, the coupling between the quantum dot and
cavity should be off to maintain the generated Schrödinger’s cat state in the hole, and the
result of this time evolution can be seen in the second bottommost panel that photons are
partially created after every pulse means double bottom-most panel shows exciton
occupation nX in the cavity, and then average numbers photon hni inside the cavity is
shown in 2nd upper panel and it amplify after each pulse. To know whether we have

14
Desh-doted lines for
ideal case
Dashed line for
without Phonons but
Losses.
With phonons
And losses.

Fig. 2.3 These plots visualize the system’s dynamics in DOD protocol in
the ideal case. Where bottom most panels show an external pulse, then the
Second panel from the bottom shows exciton occupation nE then the second
from the top shows the average number of photons hni, then top most panel
shows time-dependent fidelity[11],[1].

generated a Schrödinger’s cat state in this process, We examine the consistency between
the target and end states. A measure of how closely or similarly two different states are is
called fidelity.
For Mixed state fidelity is defined as,

√ √
q
F (ρ1 , ρ2 ) = [T r ρ 1 ρ 2 ρ 1 ]2 (2.37)

Some properties of fidelity are[13],

0 ≤ F (ρ1 , ρ2 ) ≤ l (2.38)

F (ρ1 , ρ2 )=1 if and only if ρ1 = ρ2 ,i.e. if the states are exactly similar.

F (ρ1 , ρ2 ) = F (ρ2 , ρ1 ) (2.39)

ρ = |Φ >< Φ| , is for a pure state the,

15
F (ρ1 , ρ2 ) = hΦ|ρ2 |Φi = trace(ρ1 ρ2 ) (2.40)

where, ρ1 =density matrix of target state and ρ2 = density matrix of Hdynamics [13]. And,
in the plot, we get that the fidelity approaches one after the 10nth pulse. That result
shows that with this protocol, in the ideal case where we have ignored any losses and
phonon effects, we can generate a cat state, which can also be confirmed by analyzing the
Wigner function. And this Wigner function is defined as[17],

Z
1 † −α† ϑ)
W (ϑ) = 2 d2 αCW ely (α)e−(αϑ (2.41)
π

With, CW ely (α) defined as Weyl ordered characteristic function and CW ely (α) defined as
”tarce[ρD(α)]” and D(α) is the displacement vector,

|α| 2

~
D(α) = e− 2 eαâ e−αǎ (2.42)

Fig. 2.4 Under ideal circumstances, the Wigner functions for the photonic
state produced by the DOD procedure[11],[1]

This figure shows all Schrödinger’s cat state features, where two Gaussian curves show
two macroscopically recognizable forms. These coherent states oscillate around the center
point, which shows their superposition characteristics.

16
And non-classicality is an essential property of Schrödinger’s cat state, and
non-classicality is shown by δ. The negative part of the Wigner function is related to the
nonclassical nature of the states, and the positive value indicates classical nature. And we
can calculate the non-classicality δ by using the form,

[|W ( π2 )| − W ( π2 )]d( π2 )
R
δ= (2.43)
W ( π2 )d( π2 )
R

Non-classicality denotes the quantum nature of the Wigner function, and δ = 0 means we
are in a classical state. For DOD protocol in the ideal case, we obtain δ = 0.51. So
adoption of the protocol to generate Schrödinger’s cat state is quite successful.

2.2.4 Loss and phonons effects.

Fig. 2.5 The Wigner functions for the photonic state evolved by the DÖD
procedure with cavity losses and other possible losses that occur in the atomic
system[11],[1]

Now, we see the loss channels. First, we consider loss channels due to radiative decay(due
to recombination of exciton) of quantum dot and cavity losses (Here, we believe that our
cavity is imperfect, and the cavity mode can lose photons). Then we will see fidelity
drops to F = 48.7%, and the non-classicality measure reduces to δ = 0.03. This Wigner
function figure demonstrates that the domains of the Wigner function’s negative values
have all but vanished. Now consider loss channels as well as phonons. These phonons will

17
destroy the remaining non-classicality. And the fidelity drops to F = 25%, and
non-classicality measures reduce to δ = 0, which shows a pure classical state.

Fig. 2.6 The Wigner functions for the photonic state generated by the DOD
procedure with both decay cavity loss and phonon loss[11],[1]
.

From all analysis, it is clear that fidelity is insufficient to define a state’s actual nature,
and it is necessary to consider non-classicality parameters like δ simultaneously. So
overall, the DOD protocol can create Schrödinger’s cat state only in ideal conditions. In
realistic cases, the cat state cannot survive the environmental coupling even at cryogenic
temperature(4K), and the phonon effect destroy the coherence between coherent stats.

18
2.3 Cavity Driven Protocol

The Collapsed And Revival (CAD) protocol is based on a method proposed by Julio
Gea-Banacloche[5], which uncovered two remarkable features of the collapse-and-revival
phenomenon in the JCM: (1) the QD and photonic subspaces become distinct at half the
revival time, and (2) a Schrödinger-cat state is produced in the cavity mode.
To generate a Schrödinger-cat state using the CAD protocol, it is crucial to begin with;
the starting state of the Jaynes-Cummings dynamics is a coherent state in the cavity
mode. At half the rebirth time, the system produces a photonic state, which is created in
the following manner:

|Ψi =N (|φ+ i + |φ− i) (2.44)

W here,
∞ η
hηi 2 √
− 21 hηi
X
|φ± i = exp √ exp−ιηφ exp∓ιπ hηiη |ηi (2.45)
η=0
η!

Equation (2.45) presents a different form of a Schrödinger cat state, where the
normalization constant N ensures. The mean photon count of the initial coherent state is
denoted by hηi = |α|2 , and the phase φ is determined by a short analytical calculation to
be 3π/2 in the case of an actual envelope Gaussian pulse. It should be noted that these
states are macroscopically recognizable but are not coherent states like those in Eq. (2.7)
due to the presence of a phase that depends on both hηiand n in Eq. (2.46).
To achieve our goal of generating the target state, we employ the state preparation
method proposed by Julio Gea-Banacloche[5], which involves using a Quantum
Apparatus.

19
2.3.1 Wavefunction Collapse and Quantum Revivals in the Jaynes-Cummings
Model

The Jaynes-Cummings model (JCM)[18] is a fascinating quantum system that depicts the
interaction between a two-level atom and a single mode of the electromagnetic radiation
field. This model has garnered significant attention due to its exact solvability and recent
experimental verification. The JCM displays remarkable and unexpected dynamics that
diverge significantly from the semiclassical theory. A central and fundamental inquiry
addressed in this model is whether it is feasible to portray the evolution of an interacting
quantum system by a unitary state vector, primarily in the presence of entanglement
between the atom and the field. Entanglement plays an indispensable and essential role in
JCM dynamics and is a critical component of various proposals related to measurement
theory. Consequently, entanglement has been the subject of numerous and extensive
theoretical investigations in the condition of the JCM.
And interaction Hamiltonian in the JCM model can be written as

ĤI = gc {| ↑ih↓ |â + | ↓ih↑ |↠} (2.46)

Assuming | ↑i represents the upper state, | ↓i represents the lower state, and ǎ and ǎ†
denote the annihilation and creation operators, respectively, while gc is the coupling
constant, the interaction Hamiltonian in the interaction picture can be expressed as
follows
V̂I = gc {| ↑ih↓ |âeιΛt. + | ↓ih↑ |↠e−ιΛt. } (2.47)

With, Λ = ω − ν is, de-escalation between fields.


And the solution of the Schrödinger equation for the primary state of the atom and field

20
is given as,

|ϕ(0)iA = α| ↑i + β| ↓i (2.48)

And,

X
|ϕ(0)iCF = Cη |ηi (2.49)
η=0

The well-known answer for the JC model at any given time t is then provided by,

X
|Ψ(t. )i = {C↑,η | ↑, ηi + C↓,η | ↓, ηi} (2.50)
η

X p p
|Ψ(t. )i = {{αCη cos(gc t. η + 1) − ιβCη+1 sin(gc η + 1t. )}| ↑i

√ √
+ {-ιαCη−1 sin(gc t. η) + βCη cos(gc t. η)}| ↓i}(2.51)
From the Schrödinger equation, we get solutions to be like as,

p
Ċ↑,η = −ιgc η + 1eιΛt. C↓,η+1 (2.52)
p
Ċ↓,η+1 = −ιgc η + 1e−ιΛt. C↑,η (2.53)

After evaluating the eq.(2.52) and (2.53), we get

Ωη t. ιΛ Ωη t. ιΛt.
C↑,η (t. ) = Cη (0){cos( )− sin( )}e 2 (2.54)
2 Ωη 2

2ιgc η + 1 Ωη t. − ιΛt.
C↓,η+1 (t. ) = −Cη (0) sin( )e 2 (2.55)
Ωη 2

Now, the evaluate the Wigner function,

W (t. ) = hϕ↑ |ϕ↑ i − hϕ↓ |ϕ↓ i (2.56)

21
The atomic inversion’s behavior reveals the ion’s current state of motion.


X λ2 2
2 4gc (η + 1) Ωη t. Ωη t.
W (t. ) = |Cη (0)|2 2
+ |C η (0)| 2
{cos2 ( ) − sin2 ( )} (2.57)
η=0
Ωη Ωη 2 2

X Λ2 4gc2 (η + 1)
W (t. ) = ρηη (0){ + {cos(Ωη t. )}} (2.58)
=0
Ω2η Ω2η

From eq(2.51), it is clear that the atom and the cavity field are entangled. Now that the
density matrix formalism has been introduced, it may be used to represent the
development of atoms alone.

ρA = T rCF (|ψ(t. )ihψ(t. )|) (2.59)

This density matrix does not describe a single atom but an ensemble of identically
prepared atoms. The state for the ensemble to be in a pure state,

T r(ρA )2 = 1 (2.60)

And for statistical mixture,

T r(ρA )2 = 1/2 (2.61)

In equation (2.58), we observe the state vector’s collapse and revival. The plot in the
figure above shows the time evolution of T r(ρ2A ), where η̄ = 49, and the atom is primarily
1
in the lower state. The atomic state remains pure during a short time interval of gc
. The
collapse time, when the atomic inversion occurs, is also visible. At this point, T r(ρ2A )
collapses to a value of 1/2, indicating that the ensemble is in a mixed state. At
1
t0 = η̄ − 2 π/gc , T r(ρ2A ) = 1 again, and the atom is once again in a pure state, We see that
this rebirth takes place right within the collapse region where the atomic inversion is still
1
zero. Hence, Looking upon the atomic inversion, the conventional revival is trev = 2πgc η̄ 2

22
so t0 = trev /2.

Fig. 2.7 The time evolution of T r(ρ2A (t. )) and atomic inversion at η̄ = 49[5].

And using binomial expansion, we can write,

π
gc t. (η + 1)1/2 = gc t. η 1/2 + (2.62)
2

Putting(2.62) in equation(2.51) and Cη =e−ιφ Cη−1 , |Φ(t. )i,we get,

X p p
|Φ(t. )i = ({{αCη cos(gc η + 1t. )−ιβCη+1 sin(g. η + 1t. )}| ↑i+{−ιαCη−1 sin(gc )}| ↓i}|ηi
(2.63)

X √ √
|Φ(t. )i = {{αe−ιφ Cη−1 cos(gc ηt. + π/2) − ιβCη+1 sin(gc ηt. + π/2)}| ↑i

√ √
+{−ιαCη−1 sin(gc ηt. ) + βCη cos(gc ηt. )}| ↓i}|ηi (2.64)

X √ √
|Φ(t. )i = { αCη−1 sin(gc ηt. ){e−ιφ | ↑i + ι| ↓i} + βCη cos(gc ηt. ){e−ιφ | ↑i + ι| ↓i}}|ηi
(2.65)

23
X √ √
|Φ(t. )i = {e−ιφ | ↑i + ι| ↓i}{ αCη−1 sin(gc ηt. ) + ιβCη cos(gc ηt. )}|ηi (2.66)

There is no link between the states. Thus, they are in a condition of purity,

1
|Ψ(t. ≈ to )i = √ {e−ιφ | ↑i + ι| ↓i} (2.67)
2

This is an impressive outcome because we obtained this state |Ψ(t. ≈ to )i irrespective of


the initial state’s properties leading up to this point.

1
|Ψ± i = √ {e−ιφ | ↑i ± ι| ↓i} (2.68)
2

As far as gc t. /η̄ is within a reasonable range, the state continues to evolve into a pure
state instead of collapsing.

1 1/2
|Ψ± i = √ (e−ιφ | ↑> ±e±ιgc t. /2η̄ | ↓i) (2.69)
2

By including the field component of ψ,


X
|ψ(0)CF i = Cη |ηi (2.70)
nη=0


1 −ιφ ±ιgc t. /2η̄ 1/2
X 1/2
|ψi = √ (e | ↑i ± e | ↓i) e±ιgc t. /2η̄ Cη |ηi (2.71)
2 η=0

P∞ η̄ η −ιηφ
Now we can substitute, Cη = e−η̄/2 η=0

η!
e

1 −ιφ ±ιgc t. /2η̄ 1/2
X 1/2 η̄ η
|ψi = √ (e | ↑i ± e | ↓i) e±ιgc t. /2η̄ e−η̄/2 √ e−ιηφ |ηi (2.72)
2 η=0
η!

1 1/2 1 1/2
|ψi = √ (e−ιφ | ↑i ± e±ιgc t. /2η̄ | ↓i)|Φ+ i + √ (e−ιφ | ↑i ± e±ιgc t, /2η̄ | ↓i)|Φ− i (2.73)
2 2

Where,


1/2
X
|Φ± i = e±ιgc t. /2η̄ e−ιηφ |ηi (2.74)
η=0

24
When t. = t0 , the two atomic states in the equation become identical, and a Schrodinger
cat state is formed as a linear combination of |Φ± (t0 )i. This state represents two
microscopically distinct field states.

2.3.2 Improvising this protocol in QDC in CAD protocol

Ideal case

Desh-doted lines for


ideal case
Dashed line for
without Phonons but
Losses.
With phonons
And losses.

Fig. 2.8 The plot displays the dynamics of the quantum dot cavity system
in the CAD method, from bottom to top: the laser pulse that excites the
system, the exciton occupation number nX , the average photon number hni,
T r(ρ2 ), and finally the fidelity[11],[1].

Figure (2.7) showcases the remarkable QDC dynamics in the cavity-driven mode with a
pulse area of 1.2π. The dotted lines show the ideal case. For n̄ = (Θ/2)2 , the mean
photon number is approximately 3, which is not enough to generate differentiable collapse
and revival behaviors. However, the exciton dynamics suggest a revival around 80 ps.
The value of tr(photonic density matrix)2 is almost unity, indicating that the photonic
subsystem is near to a pure state. The fidelity Oscillates in a bell-shaped envelope and
reaches a peak of 88.1% 42.9 ps after the pulse. To preserve the cat state’s integrity, a

25
supplementary driving pulse must decouple the quantum dot from the cavity. Figure(2.8)

Fig. 2.9 Dynamics of Wigner function in CAD protocol in the ideal


case[11],[1].

portrays the Wigner function at maximum fidelity during decoupling, where oscillations
between negative values among the two elongated Gaussians imply a coherent state.
Schrodinger cat state, to be precise. Notably, this protocol’s efficacy hinges on the pulse
area. Fidelity increases as η̄ → 0 and displays oscillatory behavior for higher η̄. For
decreasing η̄, commitment approaches unity while decreases. Therefore, low n̄ states are
unsuitable as a Schrödinger cat state. And if we apply the limit hni → ∞, the equation
(2.68) can be modified as.

|Φi → e∓ιn̄π/2 | ∓ ιαi (2.75)

2.3.3 Loss and Phonon effect

Cavity losses and radiative decay severely impact the creation of Schrödinger cat states
using the CAD protocol, as evidenced by Figure(2.7). The adverse effects are powerful for
high photon number states, denoted by η̄. The fidelity is reduced to zero due to the
proportional increase in effective loss rates with higher Fock states. Furthermore,
exceeding the ideal pulse duration of 1.5 results in the non-classicality measure δ
becoming zero, thereby preventing the generation of Schrodinger cat states under such

26
Fig. 2.10 Dynamics of Wigner function in CAD protocol with the presence
of decay and cavity losses[11],[1].

conditions. In the limit of η̄ approaching infinity, there is a complete absence of


Schrodinger cat states. Therefore, it is crucial to carefully consider and mitigate the effect
of cavity losses and radiative decay in preparing Schrodinger cat states using the CAD
protocol. These findings underscore the need for innovative techniques and robust
experimental designs to minimize the effects of unwanted decoherence in quantum
systems. When accounting for the impact of phonons and loss effects, the dynamics of a

Fig. 2.11 Dynamics of Wigner function in CAD protocol with both decay
cavity loss and phonon loss[11],[1].

quantum system are further smoothed out, resulting in a decrease in non-classicality and
fidelity of the state. This effect is observed even considering only the impact of losses

27
without phonons. It is important to note that the specific parameters that dictate these
findings, such as temperature and QD geometry, are crucial to preparing a Schrodinger
cat state. However, it is essential to emphasize that the loss effects significantly impact
the preparation of such a state. Loss effects and phonons can dramatically impact a
quantum system’s behavior and must be carefully considered in any design or analysis.

28
Chapter 3

Schrödinger Cat States in


Atom-Cavity system

The atom-cavity system is an up-and-coming platform for exploring the quantum


behavior of physical systems. Confining an atom within a high-Quality optical cavity
makes creating a strong interaction between the atom and the cavity field possible,
leading to various quantum phenomena. One of the most intriguing phenomena is the
generation of Schrödinger Cat states, which are highly nonclassical states that exhibit
properties of waves and particles.
The ability to generate Schrödinger Cat states in the atom-cavity system holds enormous
potential benefits. Firstly, these states have been proposed as a resource for quantum
information processing, offering the possibility of performing impossible tasks with
classical systems. Secondly, they provide a new regime for testing the foundations of
quantum mechanics and exploring the boundary between the quantum and classical
worlds.
However, the generation of Schrödinger Cat states in the atom-cavity system has
challenges. One major challenge is the effect of decoherence, which can quickly destroy
the delicate quantum superpositions required for creating these states. Additionally, the

29
preparation and measurement of these states require exact control over the atom and
cavity field, which poses another significant challenge.
In addition to these theoretical and experimental challenges, physical world difficulties
also arise in generating Schrödinger Cat states in the atom-cavity system. External noise
sources, such as temperature and magnetic field fluctuations, can significantly disrupt the
delicate quantum coherence required for creating these states. Furthermore, imperfections
in the cavity and atoms, such as losses and defects, can limit the efficiency and fidelity of
the state preparation and measurement processes.
To overcome these challenges, sophisticated techniques for controlling and manipulating
the atom and cavity field are required, along with careful engineering of the experimental
setup to minimize external noise sources and imperfections. Despite these challenges, the
potential benefits of generating Schrödinger Cat states in the atom-cavity system make it
an up-and-coming area of research in quantum physics. The following chapter will discuss
one of the techniques[9] and, using the simulation, will discuss physical world difficulties
and generate Schrödinger Cat states in the atom-cavity system.

3.1 Generating Nonclassical Atom-Light States via Deterministic

Entanglement

Using coherent laser pulses in this technique, In an optical cavity containing only one
confined atom, it is possible to construct entangled light-matter Schrödinger cat states
with certainty. The Atom is placed in a superposition of two spin states, and the resulting
Entanglement is utilized to manipulate the flying optical cat state. This is accomplished
through a coherent rotation followed by analysis of the atomic spin direction, which can
be performed despite the atom and light being widely separated[9].

30
3.1.1 Protocol

In this scheme, the focus is on an atom with three appropriate energy levels that are
confined within an optical cavity. Specifically, the ground-state manifold of the atom
contains levels |0i and |1i, which have different hyperfine spins. In contrast, level |ei is an
excited state that can be reached from level |1i through resonant coupling to a cavity
mode ac. The input optical pulse, generated in a weak coherent state |αi, is also
resonantly driven by this cavity mode ac. The atom-cavity field interaction is, therefore, a
dispersive one described by the effective interaction Hamiltonian

ĤI = gc ↠âσz (3.1)

Where gc is the coupling constant,ǎ is the annihilation operatör, and σz is the Pauli
matrix along the z-direction. Suppose the atom is initially in level |0i. In that case, the
input pulse will resonate with the bare cavity mode ac after resonant reflection, resulting
in a phase shift of eιφ , as expected from standard quantum optics calculations. This
causes the practical state of the pulse to become | − αi. However, suppose the atom is
prepared in level |1i. In that case, the frequency of the dressed cavity mode is
significantly detuned from the center frequency of the input pulse due to the strong
atom-cavity interaction. Therefore, the interaction between the atom-cavity system and
the input pulse does not play an important role. The reflection is similar to a mirror,
preserving the pulse shape and phase. As long as the amplitude of the input pulse,
denoted by α, is not too large, the pulse will remain in the same state |αi after the
reflection. However, outside the cavity on either side - in regions are referred to as

31
Ramsey zones. And here, Ramsey zones are set to produce π/2 pulse,

1
|ei → √ (|1i + |0i) (3.2)
2
1
|gi → √ (|0i − |1i) (3.3)
2

To generate a Schrödinger-cat state, the trapped atom is prepared in a superposition

Fig. 3.1 Disruptive small pathways within the system resulting from Ram-
sey microwave interaction in R1 and R2 zones and cavity interaction in the
center of the diagram, indicating potential outcomes[6].


state of (|0i + |1i)/( 2), and a coherent pulse |αi is reflected with this single-atom
cavity.The initial state of the atom-cavity field system is |ΨAF (0)i = |ΨA i|αi .With an
atom in the cavity, at time t, the system state vector is,

ˆ
|ΨAF (t)i = e−ιHI t/h̄ |ΨF (0)i (3.4)

And we get,
1
|ΨAF (t)i = √ (|1i|αeιgt i + |0i|αi) (3.5)
2

32
We now suppose that the atomic velocity is selected such that, at the time, the atom
leaves the cavity gt=π. Then our state vector has the form

g 1
|Ψ( )iAF = √ {|1i(| − αi) + |0i(|αi)} (3.6)
π 2

To Obtain superposition of the |αi and | − αi we must apply the second Ramsey field
pulse

g 0 g
|Ψ( )iAF → |Ψ ( )iAF (3.7)
π π
g 1
|Ψ( )iAF = {|1i(|αi − | − αi) + |0i(|αi + | − αi)} (3.8)
π 2

Now,selecively ionzing and detecting |0i projects the cavity field in the state
|Φe i = Ne (|αi + | − αi), while for |ei into |Φ0 i = No (|αi − | − αi),Where |Φe i is defined as
even cat state and|Φ0 i is defined as odd cat state.

3.1.2 Results

We have discerned Wigner functions that showcase two Gaussian peaks and interference
fringes at the center, indicative of the coherent superposition state. Notably, the even cat
state shows a local maximum, and the odd cat state demonstrates a local minimum at the
center of the Wigner distribution. The fidelities of these measured states with their ideal
counterparts (even and odd cat states) are a respectable 0.78 and 0.67, respectively,
cementing their dependable approximation to the ideal states. Additionally, the enigmatic
character of cat states - the presence of hostile regions in the Wigner function - remains
unexplainable by classical means.
In an atom-cavity system, the impact of dissipation on state preparation can significantly
affect the fidelity of the prepared state. In our study, we investigated the preparation of
even and odd cat states with environmental coupling and found that in the ideal case, the
fidelity for even cat states was 0.78, and for odd cat states, it was 0.67. However, when

33
Fig. 3.2 Even Schrodinger cat states in idea conditions[11],[1].

Fig. 3.3 Odd Schrodinger cat states in ideal condition[11],[1].

we introduced dissipation into the system, we observed a notable decrease in fidelity for
both even and odd cat states. Specifically, the fidelity for even cat states decreased to
0.65, and for odd cat states, it fell to 0.55.
It is important to note that different types of dissipation can have varying impacts on the
fidelity of state preparation. For instance, the decay of the cavity mode can lead to
mixing the cat state with other cavity states, whereas spontaneous emission can cause the
cat state to collapse rapidly. Therefore, careful consideration of the effects of dissipation
is essential in designing an atom-cavity system for preparing cat states.

34
Fig. 3.4 even Schrodinger cat states with decay and cavity losses[11],[1].

Fig. 3.5 odd Schrodinger cat states with decay and cavity losses[11],[1].

35
Chapter 4

Conclusion

In this study, we have investigated three different protocols for preparing photonic
Schrodinger cat states. We aimed to explore the feasibility of preparing these states in
solid-state quantum dot-cavity (QDC) and atom-cavity systems, which have potential
applications in quantum information processing and quantum communication.
The first two protocols we investigated were the Deterministic Dot-Driven (DOD) and the
Cavity driven (CAD) protocols for generating Schrodinger cat states in the QDC system.
We found that both protocols rely heavily on the precise timing and mutual phases of
external laser pulses to control the quantum dot and prepare the Schrodinger cat state.
However, we also discovered that radiative decay and cavity losses could harm all
preparation schemes. In particular, the environmental coupling to longitudinal acoustic
phonons significantly impacts the Schrodinger cat state preparation in QDCs. Therefore,
theoretical guidance on the feasibility of preparing cat states is essential.
We determined that the DOD protocol was inadequate for generating Schrödinger cats in
realistic QDCs due to the negative impact of the Cavity and radiative losses and
environmental coupling with longitudinal acoustic phonons. The resulting state is an
incoherent mixture of the two macroscopically distinct forms with no non-classicality.
Achieving Schrödinger-cat preparation with this protocol in QDCs would require a similar

36
improvement in the quality factor. On the other hand, the CAD protocol was more
effective in preparing Schrödinger cats in QDCs by utilizing the internal dynamics of the
Jaynes-Cummings model. In the ideal scenario, this protocol is most successful with
high-pulse areas, but losses also increase in such cases, rendering preparation impossible.
Although the phonon effects are less severe than in the DOD protocol, the coherences and
non-classicality of the Schrödinger cats remain even under the influence of both losses and
phonons.
The third protocol we investigated was generating Schrodinger cat states in an
atom-cavity system via deterministic entanglement. We found that it is possible to
prepare more advanced Schrodinger cat states with this protocol using Ramsey field
pulses, which are used to achieve superposition in the atom state and overall superposition
in the coherent states. We were able to create even Schrodinger cat states and odd
Schrodinger cat states, which are more complicated and advanced Schrodinger cat states.
In this protocol, the precise timing of the pulse and their mutual phase are paramount.
However, like the QDC protocols, the losses are caused by destroying the cat state.
Our findings demonstrate that Schrödinger cats in QDCs can be prepared with an
easy-to-use protocol under realistic conditions. However, a boost of the cavity quality
factor would improve the characteristics of the prepared cat state in all protocols. In the
atom-cavity system, we prepared more advanced Schrodinger cat states with the help of
Ramsey pulses, but losses also played a significant role in this protocol. By investigating
these protocols, we have provided a more detailed understanding of the preparation of
Schrodinger cat states in both QDCs and atom-cavity systems.

37
Chapter 5

Appendix

5.1 Environmental coupling Hamiltonian

In real-world scenarios, Quantum Dot Cavities (QDCs) are subject to lose effects,
primarily due to the radiative decay of Quantum Dots and the limited quality factor of
the cavity. Additionally, Quantum Dots are influenced by longitudinal acoustic phonons,
which are recognized as a significant source of decoherence, even at cryogenic
temperatures such as T=4K. This presents a fundamental difference between
semiconductor-based systems and atomic-based systems. The Hamiltonian that accounts
for the coupling of longitudinal acoustic phonons with a Quantum Dot is expressed as
follows.
Ĥph = Σk h̄ωb†k b†k + Σk (Γk b†k + Γ†k bk )|EihE|) (5.1)

And 2nd part of above Hamiltonian

Ĥd.phase = Σk (Γk b†k + Γ†k bk )|EihE| (5.2)

A Hamiltonian consisting of a pure dephasing term is considered, wherein b† k and bk are


the (bulk) phonon operators with vector k and energy h̄ωk , and ωk is the frequency of the
bath oscillators [7]. The Γk parameterizes the deformation potential-type coupling to the

38
electronic state. This dephasing Hamiltonian encompasses the phonon sideband in the
QD-emission spectrum, damping of Rabi oscillations, and the recombination of their
frequencies. A complete Hamiltonian for a practical scenario can be obtained by summing
all the terms.
Ĥf ull = Ĥ + Ĥph (5.3)

By defining γ as the radiative recombination rate of the exciton and κ as the cavity loss
rate, the Markovian Lindblad-type operator can be employed to describe the system’s
behavior.
1
ΞG,ζ • = ζ(G• G† − {•, G† G}) (5.4)
2

Assuming G is the system operator, ζ is linked to the loss process’s decay rate associated
with the system, and ·.· represents the anticommutator, and the system’s dynamics can
be expressed using the Liouville-von Neumann equation

δ ι
ρ = − [Ĥf ull , ρ] + ζâ,κ ρ + ζσX ,γ ρ, (5.5)
δt h̄

Where ,[·, ·] is commutator.

5.2 Parameters

Fig. 5.1 Relevant system parameters[3]

To perform numerical computations, GaAs/In(Ga)As quantum dots are utilized, with the
cavity’s quality factor being approximately Q ≈ 268000 at a mode frequency of
h̄ωc = 1.5eV. The entire system is assumed to be in thermal equilibrium with a
temperature of 4 Kelvin, and additional pertinent parameters are listed in figure(5.1)[3].

39
40
References

[1] Ari, N., and Ustazhanov, M. Matplotlib in python. In 2014 11th International
Conference on Electronics, Computer and Computation (ICECCO) (2014), IEEE,
pp. 1–6.

[2] Cirac, J., Parkins, A., Blatt, R., and Zoller, P. Nonclassical states of
motion in ion traps. In Advances in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, vol. 37.
Elsevier, 1996, pp. 237–296.

[3] Cosacchi, M., Seidelmann, T., Wiercinski, J., Cygorek, M., Vagov, A.,
Reiter, D., and Axt, V. M. Schrödinger cat states in quantum-dot-cavity
systems. Physical Review Research 3, 2 (2021), 023088.

[4] Duan, L.-M., Lukin, M. D., Cirac, J. I., and Zoller, P. Long-distance
quantum communication with atomic ensembles and linear optics. Nature 414, 6862
(2001), 413–418.

[5] Gea-Banacloche, J. Collapse and revival of the state vector in the


jaynes-cummings model: An example of state preparation by a quantum apparatus.
Physical review letters 65, 27 (1990), 3385.

[6] Gerry, C., and Knight, P. Quantum superpositions and schrödinger cat states
in quantum optics. American Journal of Physics 65, 10 (1997), 964–974.

41
[7] Gerry, C., Knight, P., and Knight, P. L. Introductory quantum optics.
Cambridge university press, 2005.

[8] Gisin, N., Ribordy, G., Tittel, W., and Zbinden, H. Quantum cryptography.
Reviews of modern physics 74, 1 (2002), 145.

[9] Hacker, B., Welte, S., Daiss, S., Shaukat, A., Ritter, S., Li, L., and
Rempe, G. Deterministic creation of entangled atom–light schrödinger-cat states.
Nature Photonics 13, 2 (2019), 110–115.

[10] Jacak, L., Hawrylak, P., and Wojs, A. Quantum dots. Springer Science &
Business Media, 2013.

[11] Johansson, J. R., Nation, P. D., and Nori, F. Qutip: An open-source python
framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems. Computer Physics
Communications 183, 8 (2012), 1760–1772.

[12] Joo, J., Munro, W. J., and Spiller, T. P. Quantum metrology with entangled
coherent states. Physical review letters 107, 8 (2011), 083601.

[13] Jozsa, R. Fidelity for mixed quantum states. Journal of modern optics 41, 12
(1994), 2315–2323.

[14] Law, C. K., and Eberly, J. H. Arbitrary control of a quantum electromagnetic


field. Physical review letters 76, 7 (1996), 1055.

[15] Ralph, T. C., Gilchrist, A., Milburn, G. J., Munro, W. J., and Glancy,
S. Quantum computation with optical coherent states. Physical Review A 68, 4
(2003), 042319.

[16] Schrödinger, E. Die gegenwärtige situation in der quantenmechanik.


Naturwissenschaften 23, 50 (1935), 844–849.

42
[17] Scully, M. O., and Zubairy, M. S. Quantum optics, 1999.

[18] Shore, B. W., and Knight, P. L. The jaynes-cummings model. Journal of


Modern Optics 40, 7 (1993), 1195–1238.

[19] Thomas-Peter, N., Smith, B. J., Datta, A., Zhang, L., Dorner, U., and
Walmsley, I. A. Real-world quantum sensors: evaluating resources for precision
measurement. Physical review letters 107, 11 (2011), 113603.

[20] van Enk, S. J., and Hirota, O. Entangled coherent states: Teleportation and
decoherence. Physical Review A 64, 2 (2001), 022313.

43

You might also like