One-Dimensional Waveguide Coupled to Multiple Qubits:Photon-Photon Correlations

One-Dimensional Waveguide Coupled to Multiple Qubits:
Photon-Photon Correlations

Yao-Lung L. Fang    Huaixiu Zheng    Harold U. Baranger Department of Physics, Duke University, P.O. Box 90305, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA
July 5, 2019

For a one-dimensional (1D) waveguide coupled to two or three qubits, we show that the photon-photon correlations have a wide variety of behavior, with structure that depends sensitively on the frequency and on the qubit-qubit separation . We study the correlations by calculating the second-order correlation function in which the interference among the photons multiply scattered from the qubits causes rich structure. In one case, for example, transmitted and reflected photons are both bunched initially, but then become strongly anti-bunched for a long time interval. We first calculate the correlation function including non-Markovian effects and then show that a much simpler Markovian treatment, which can be solved analytically, is accurate for small qubit separation. As a result, the non-classical properties of microwaves in a 1D waveguide coupled to many superconducting qubits with experimentally accessible separation could be readily explored with our approach.

Figure 1: Quantum beats in three qubit system. (a) Schematic diagram of the 1D waveguide system coupled to 3 identical qubits with separation . (b) Comparison between the Markovian approximation (solid blue curve) and full numerical results (red dashed line) for of reflected photons with , , , and .

I Introduction

One-dimensional (1D) waveguide-QED systems are currently generating increasing interest—systems in which photons confined in one-dimension interact with one or several two-level systems (qubits). Part of the motivation comes from the striking quantum optics effects that can be seen in these strongly coupled systems Rupasov and Yudson (1984); Yudson (1985); Chang et al. (2006); Shen and Fan (2007a, b); Yudson and Reineker (2008); Witthaut and Sørensen (2010); Zheng et al. (2010); Ian et al. (2010); Rephaeli et al. (2011); Roy (2011a, b); Shi et al. (2011); Zheng et al. (2011, 2012); Rephaeli and Fan (2012); Zheng and Baranger (2013); Moeferdt et al. (2013); Lalumière et al. (2013). Another motivating factor is the promise of waveguide-QED systems for quantum information processing Shen and Fan (2005); Chang et al. (2007); Zhou et al. (2008); Longo et al. (2010); Kolchin et al. (2011); Eichler et al. (2012a); Zheng et al. (2013a, b). Finally, a key driver of the interest in waveguide-QED systems is the tremendous experimental progress that has been made recently in a number of systems Akimov et al. (2007); Bajcsy et al. (2009); Babinec et al. (2010); Claudon et al. (2010); Bleuse et al. (2011); Laucht et al. (2012); Astafiev et al. (2010a, b); Eichler et al. (2011); Hoi et al. (2011, 2012); Eichler et al. (2012b); Hoi et al. (2013); van Loo et al. (2013). Perhaps the leading system for waveguide-QED investigations and applications is an open microwave transmission line coupled to superconducting qubits Astafiev et al. (2010a, b); Wallraff et al. (2004); Schoelkopf and Girvin (2008); Eichler et al. (2011); Hoi et al. (2011). While much of the work to date has focused on systems in which there is a single qubit, and there is a growing literature on the case of two qubits Dzsotjan et al. (2010); Gonzalez-Tudela et al. (2011); Dzsotjan et al. (2011); van Loo et al. (2013); Rephaeli et al. (2011); González-Tudela and Porras (2013); Zheng and Baranger (2013); Gonzalez-Ballestero et al. (2013); Roy (2013); Lalumière et al. (2013), an important future direction for both fundamental effects and possible applications is to study a waveguide coupled to multiple (or many) qubits. As a step in this direction, here we compare and contrast results for one, two, and three qubits coupled to a waveguide [see Fig. 1(a)], focusing in particular on the generation of photon-photon correlations.

Correlations between photons are a key signature of non-classical light. They are often characterized by the second-order correlation function (photon-photon correlation function) where is the observation time between the two photons (see below for precise definition) Loudon (2003). The uncorrelated, classical value is (obtained, for example, for a coherent state). Bunching of photons, , often occurs due to the bosonic nature of photons but anti-bunching, , also occurs Loudon (2003). In recent experiments, of microwave photons coupled to superconducting qubits was measured, and both bunching and anti-bunching were observed Lang et al. (2011); Hoi et al. (2012). In a multi-qubit situation, one expects to have interference between the various scattered partial waves; interference effects in the photon-photon correlations are known as “quantum beats” Ficek and Sanders (1990).

In this paper, we first present our method of calculation, which exploits a bosonic representation of the qubits in the rotating wave approximation. We obtain a complicated yet analytic result for in the Markovian limit and show, by comparison with the full numerical result, that it is adequate for small, experimentally accessible separations between the qubits. In presenting results, we focus on an off-resonant case in which single photons have equal probability of being transmitted or reflected, and take the separation between qubits, denoted , to be either or where is the wavelength of a photon at the qubit resonant frequency. We find several striking features in : First, for , the transmitted photons are largely bunched for all times and become more strongly bunched as the number of qubits increases, while the reflected photons oscillate between strong bunching and anti-bunching, showing particularly strong quantum beats in the three qubit case. Second, for , we find the surprising situation that both transmitted and reflected photons are bunched at but then become anti-bunched for a large time interval. This suggests that the photons in this case become organized into bursts.

Ii Method

The Hamiltonian describing identical qubits coupled to a 1D waveguide [see Fig. 1(a)] is, in the rotating wave approximation,


where are the raising/lowering operators for -th qubit, is its position which is fixed by , is the transition frequency of the qubit, and is the decay rate to channels other than the waveguide. The spontaneous decay rate to the waveguide continuum is given by . In the waveguide QED context, “strong coupling” signifies that the spontaneous decay rate to the waveguide is much faster than the decay to all other modes, namely that the Purcell factor is large, .

To find , we first obtain the two-photon eigenstate of . As discussed in Ref. Zheng and Baranger (2013), it is convenient to use a bosonic representation of the qubits that includes an on-site interaction,


The raising/lowering operators in are replaced by the bosonic creation/annihilation operators and , respectively. One then takes in the end to project out occupations greater than . In this bosonic representation, the case corresponds to a non-interacting Hamiltonian and can readily be solved. In terms of the non-interacting wavefunctions and Green functions, a formal expression for the two-photon “interacting” wavefunction in the limit can be obtained; this then is the solution to the waveguide QED problem in which we are interested. Finally, the two-photon wavefunction together with the one-photon wavefunction yields for a weak incident coherent state. More details of this procedure are given in the appendices.

The Markovian approximation allows a considerable simplification of the final result Zheng and Baranger (2013). In the present context, the Markovian approximation consists of an approximate treatment of certain interference terms valid for small separation between the qubits. In the formal expression for the two-photon wavefunction discussed above, there is an integral over the non-interacting wavefunctions which generally must be performed numerically. The non-interacting wavefunctions naturally involve interference factors that make this integral difficult. However, if the qubits are close enough, may be replaced by , allowing the integral to be performed analytically using contour integration (the analytic expression of the final result is lengthy, so we just give the steps of the derivation in the appendices as well as the result as an example). All of the results in this paper are obtained in the regime where this is valid. An example of the checks we have made is shown in Fig. 1(b): the full numerical result is in good agreement with that from the small separation approximation.

We compare the one, two, and three qubit cases: , , or . In order to make a fair comparison, the typical transmission through the system in the three cases should be the same; otherwise, the lower probability of finding a photon in one case compared to another will affect . We therefore consider off-resonance cases (i.e.  where is the incoming photon frequency) in which the single-photon transmission probability is fixed. Because the single-photon transmission spectrum depends on the number of qubits, the frequency used is different in the three cases . Due to the asymmetry of the single-photon transmission spectrum in certain cases, the criterion used throughout this work is to pick up the frequency closest to so that is the largest.

In the following results, we consider , , or ; or ; and . The single photon transmission curves used to choose the photon frequency are shown in Fig. 2. We use as our unit of frequency, take , and consider the lossless case, .

Figure 2: Transmission spectra near the qubit resonant frequency () for an incident single-photon Fock state in the five situations studied here.

Iii Results

Figure 3: Second-order correlation function, , calculated with a weak incident coherent state for spacing . First row is for transmitted photons, second row for reflected photons. The columns correspond to , , or qubits coupled to the waveguide. The photon frequency is chosen so that . The result for uncorrelated photons, , is marked (dashed line) for comparison. In the three qubit case, note the strong bunching in transmission [panel (c)] and striking quantum beats in reflection [panel (f)].
Figure 4: Second-order correlation function, , calculated with a weak incident coherent state for spacing . First row is for transmitted photons, second row for reflected photons. The columns correspond to , , or qubits coupled to the waveguide. The photon frequency is chosen so that . The result for uncorrelated photons, , is marked (dashed line) for comparison. In the three qubit case, note the strong bunching in reflection [panel (f)] and long anti-bunching interval after the initial bunching in transmission [panel (c)].

The results for a single qubit, shown in Fig. 3 panels (a) and (d), provide a point of comparison for the two and three qubit cases discussed below; throughout we consider the response to an incident weak coherent state. Non-classical light in a waveguide produced by a single qubit has been extensively investigated theoretically Rupasov and Yudson (1984); Yudson (1985); Shen and Fan (2007a, b); Yudson and Reineker (2008); Zheng et al. (2010); Roy (2011a, b); Shi et al. (2011) as well as experimentally with microwave photons Hoi et al. (2012). We see that for our chosen detuning such that , the transmitted field shows bunching while the reflected field is anti-bunched. The correlation decays to its classical value (namely, ) quickly and with little structure. For this reason the single value is a good indication of the nature of the correlations overall. Note that in panel (d), due to the inability of a single excited qubit to release two photons at the same time.

For or , we start by considering the case , in which case the qubits are separated by ; the results are shown in Fig. 3. The presence of quantum beats coming from interference among the partial waves scattered by the qubits is clear, especially for three qubits. In the transmitted wave, photon bunching is considerably enhanced in magnitude and extends for a longer time (compared to a single qubit). In reflection, develops a striking oscillation between strongly bunched and anti-bunched [panel (f)]. Such behavior in suggests that the photons become organized periodically in time and space.

Turning now to the case , we see in Fig. 4 that the behavior is completely different. First, the quantum beats largely disappear in both transmission and reflection. Instead, for we see that both the reflected and transmitted photons are initially bunched, in the reflected case quite strongly bunched. The initial bunching is followed in both cases by anti-bunching. This anti-bunching is dramatic for the transmitted photons: strong anti-bunching persists for a time interval of several tens of (the natural unit of time in our problem). Initial bunching followed by a long interval of anti-bunching suggests that the photons are organized into bursts.

The different behavior for compared to can be traced to a difference in the structure of the poles of the single photon Green function (see, e.g., the discussion in Ref. Zheng and Baranger (2013)). For instance in the cases, for there are two dominant poles that have the same decay rate but different real frequencies, leading to maximum interference effects between those two processes. In contrast, for , the poles have very different decay rates; the one decaying most rapidly yields the sharp initial bunching, while the one with the slowest decay produces the long time anti-bunching.

Figure 5: The initial second-order correlation, (on a logarithmic scale), calculated with a weak incident coherent state as a function of the single-photon transmission probability, , for different number of qubits. The first (second) row is for (); the first (second) column is for transmitted (reflected) photons. For reflected photons with , for all and hence is not plotted. For a wide range of parameters, both transmitted and reflected photons are bunched.
Figure 6: The initial second-order correlation, (on a logarithmic scale), calculated with a weak incident coherent state as a function of the frequency near the qubit resonant frequency () for different numbers of qubits. The first (second) row is for (); the first (second) column is for transmitted (reflected) photons. The black, dashed line indicates the classical value (i.e., ). For reflected photons with , for all and hence is not plotted. Note that as for the single-photon transmission in Fig. 2, is symmetric about for but asymmetric in the case. For a wide range of parameters, both transmitted and reflected photons are bunched.

To study how the correlations depend on the frequency of the photons, we show the initial correlation, , in Fig. 5 and 6. Because of the oscillating structure in when there are multiple qubits, is not necessarily a good indication of the behavior at later times; nevertheless, the degree of initial bunching or anti-bunching is a physically important and measurable quantity. For a fair comparison between the , , and cases, we first plot as a function of the single photon transmission, ; see Fig. 5. To match the desired with an off-resonant photon frequency we follow the following procedure: Starting near the resonant frequency (where ), we scan toward smaller frequencies until is reached. We then use frequencies within the scanned range to calculate for both transmission and reflection as a function of at and . Another way of presenting the data is to simply plot directly as a function of frequency, as in Fig. 6. By comparing with Fig. 2, we see that the method above for selecting the range of frequencies to use in making Fig. 5 selects the range with largest for a given value of . Finally, note that for reflection from one qubit, in all cases, as mentioned above, and so is not plotted in panels (b) and (d) of both figures.

Several general trends are clear from Fig. 5. Bunching is favored over anti-bunching for both and . As the single photon transmission increases, decreases for transmission but generally increases for reflection. Opposite trends for transmission and reflection are natural based on the simple argument that incoming uncorrelated photons divide between transmitted and reflected ones so that bunching in one implies anti-bunching in the other. Clearly, this simple argument does not apply here; indeed, it is striking and surprising that for a broad range of parameters both transmitted and reflected photons are bunched.

Trends as the number of qubits increases from to are also evident in Fig. 5. In panels (a) and (d) the trend is monotonic: For , the reflected photons become tremendously bunched [panel (d)], whereas for and transmitted photons [panel (a)], the curves cross at the same point indicating that the trend changes sign—increasing bunching as increases for but decreasing bunching for smaller . In the other two cases, panels (b) and (c), the trend as increases from to is not monotonic. For and , the reflected photons switch from being anti-bunched to bunched to anti-bunched as changes from to , but show increasing bunching for larger [panel (b)]. Finally, in panel (c) [ and transmitted photons], there is a monotonic trend toward less bunching for but non-monotonic behavior for larger transmission.

From the explicit dependence on frequency shown in Fig. 6, we see that bunching is generally favored even outside the frequency range chosen in Fig. 5 (which in the case is quite small ()). Comparing to the single photon transmission spectrum (see Fig. 2), we point out two features: First, in the case, shows the asymmetry with respect to [panel (c) and (d)] seen in ; this again can be traced to the asymmetric pole structure of the Green functions mentioned above. is larger (for reflection) and varies more rapidly on the red-detuned side (), which explains why we chose the frequency range use in Fig. 5. In fact, on the blue-detuned side () the structure in is less dramatic, and it returns to faster (data not shown). Second, as also shown in Fig. 5, the peaks of for transmission are locatd where , while the peaks of reflected are located where . Note that the leftmost peak of in Fig. 6(d) is completely due to the small denominator () at that point.

Iv Conclusion

In this work, we have calculated the second-order correlation function, , for photons in a one-dimensional waveguide interacting with one, two or three qubits. By taking the separation between the qubits small, we are able to make a Markovian approximation which then allows an analytic solution. The small separation and small on which we focus means that these systems are within the range of current experimental capability Lalumière et al. (2013).

The interference among the partial waves scattered from the qubits leads to a variety of behavior in that is sensitive to both the separation between the qubits () and the frequency of the incoming photons. As examples of the rich variety accessible in these waveguide QED structures, we mention three here in conclusion: (i) For a wide range of parameters, both transmitted and reflected photons are initially bunched. (ii) For reflected photons with and , oscillates between bunching and anti-bunching [Fig. 3(f)]. (iii) For transmitted photons with and , initial strong bunching is followed by a long (i.e. ) interval of antibunching [Fig. 4(c)]. These last two observations suggest that some nascent organization of the photons may be occurring, providing an interesting direction for future research.

This work was supported by US NSF Grant No. PHY-10-68698. H.Z. is supported by a John T. Chambers Fellowship from the Fitzpatrick Institute for Photonics at Duke University.

Appendix A Two-photon interacting scattering eigenstate

The single photon eigenstate with is by definition the eigenstate of , i.e., , where


and the incoming photon travels in the -direction with wavevector . The single photon transmission amplitude is given by and the reflection amplitude by . Note that the positions of the qubits are chosen to be symmetric with respect to the origin, i.e., , in order to take advantage of parity symmetry. Setting from now on, we have for Zheng and Baranger (2013)


The corresponding result for is


with . Note that we do not need the other amplitudes for the rest of this section. For results see, e.g., Ref. Zheng et al. (2010).

We can now construct the two-photon “non-interacting” eigenstate


As described in the Supplementary Material of Ref. Zheng and Baranger (2013), starting from the Lippmann-Schwinger equation


where is given in Eq. (2) and is the two photon energy, one can derive the two-photon interacting eigenstate in the coordinate representation in the limit:


Note that and here refer to the positions of the photons.

By observing the structure of these Green functions, one would realize that given the following two pieces


the whole prescription is complete and in principle one may numerically compute the two-photon interacting eigenstate Eq. (20) for any .

Finally, to proceed with the Markovian approximation, we explicitly write down the integrands in Eqs. (21) and (23), replace the factors by therein, and do the double integral by standard contour integral techniques enclosing the poles in the upper half complex plane (for the case, for example, the denominator of each transmission amplitude is a cubic polynomial in , so there are three roots). The case Zheng and Baranger (2013) could serve as an illustrative example owing to its relatively simple polynomial structure: For with , we have


where , , and . During the two contour integrations, and (with ) are used. Due to parity symmetry, , , and .

Appendix B Two-photon correlation function

For a non-dispersive photonic field operator in the Heisenberg picture which satisfies , the two-photon correlation function can be rewritten in the Schrödinger picture as


where is the asymptotic output state and for transmitted photons or for reflected photons. The second equality holds if a weak incident coherent state (mean photon number ) with right-going photons is assumed—as is appropriate for comparison with an eventual experiment—such that we consider only two-photon states in the numerator and one-photon states in the denominator. The justification for the latter is twofold: (i) In the numerator, the 0- and 1- photon states are eliminated by the annihilation operators, leaving the 2-photon sector untouched which, then, can be described by . (ii) In the denominator, the probability of having only one photon is much larger then having two, so that the factors can be replaced by the single photon eigenstate given that (i.e. two identical incident photons). We are thus lead to an explicit expression for the photon-photon correlations in terms of the 1- and 2- photon states found using the method outlined in Appendix A.


  • Rupasov and Yudson (1984) V. I. Rupasov and V. I. Yudson, “Rigorous theory of cooperative spontaneous emission of radiation from a lumped system of two-level atoms: Bethe ansatz method,” Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 87, 1617–1630 (1984), [Sov. Phys. JETP 60, 927-934 (1984)].
  • Yudson (1985) V. I. Yudson, “Dynamics of integrable quantum systems,” Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 88, 1757–1770 (1985), [Sov. Phys. JETP 61, 1043-1050 (1985)].
  • Chang et al. (2006) D. E. Chang, A. S. Sørensen, P. R. Hemmer,  and M. D. Lukin, “Quantum optics with surface plasmons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 053002 (2006).
  • Shen and Fan (2007a) Jung-Tsung Shen and Shanhui Fan, “Strongly correlated two-photon transport in a one-dimensional waveguide coupled to a two-level system,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 153003 (2007a).
  • Shen and Fan (2007b) Jung-Tsung Shen and Shanhui Fan, “Strongly correlated multiparticle transport in one dimension through a quantum impurity,” Phys. Rev. A 76, 062709 (2007b).
  • Yudson and Reineker (2008) V. I. Yudson and P. Reineker, “Multiphoton scattering in a one-dimensional waveguide with resonant atoms,” Phys. Rev. A 78, 052713 (2008).
  • Witthaut and Sørensen (2010) D. Witthaut and A. S. Sørensen, “Photon scattering by a three-level emitter in a one-dimensional waveguide,” New J. Phys. 12, 043052 (2010).
  • Zheng et al. (2010) Huaixiu Zheng, Daniel J. Gauthier,  and Harold U. Baranger, “Waveguide QED: Many-body bound-state effects in coherent and Fock-state scattering from a two-level system,” Phys. Rev. A 82, 063816 (2010).
  • Ian et al. (2010) Hou Ian, Yu-xi Liu,  and Franco Nori, “Tunable electromagnetically induced transparency and absorption with dressed superconducting qubits,” Phys. Rev. A 81, 063823 (2010).
  • Rephaeli et al. (2011) Eden Rephaeli, Şükrü Ekin Kocabaş,  and Shanhui Fan, “Few-photon transport in a waveguide coupled to a pair of colocated two-level atoms,” Phys. Rev. A 84, 063832 (2011).
  • Roy (2011a) Dibyendu Roy, “Two-photon scattering by a driven three-level emitter in a one-dimensional waveguide and electromagnetically induced transparency,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 053601 (2011a).
  • Roy (2011b) Dibyendu Roy, “Correlated few-photon transport in one-dimensional waveguides: Linear and nonlinear dispersions,” Phys. Rev. A 83, 043823 (2011b).
  • Shi et al. (2011) T. Shi, Shanhui Fan,  and C. P. Sun, “Two-photon transport in a waveguide coupled to a cavity in a two-level system,” Phys. Rev. A 84, 063803 (2011).
  • Zheng et al. (2011) Huaixiu Zheng, Daniel J. Gauthier,  and Harold U. Baranger, “Cavity-free photon blockade induced by many-body bound states,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 223601 (2011).
  • Zheng et al. (2012) Huaixiu Zheng, Daniel J. Gauthier,  and Harold U. Baranger, “Strongly correlated photons generated by coupling a three- or four-level system to a waveguide,” Phys. Rev. A 85, 043832 (2012).
  • Rephaeli and Fan (2012) Eden Rephaeli and Shanhui Fan, “Stimulated emission from a single excited atom in a waveguide,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 143602 (2012).
  • Zheng and Baranger (2013) Huaixiu Zheng and Harold U Baranger, “Persistent quantum beats and long-distance entanglement from waveguide-mediated interactions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 113601 (2013).
  • Moeferdt et al. (2013) Matthias Moeferdt, Peter Schmitteckert,  and Kurt Busch, “Correlated photons in one-dimensional waveguides,” Optics Letters 38, 3693 (2013).
  • Lalumière et al. (2013) Kevin Lalumière, Barry C. Sanders, A. F. van Loo, A. Fedorov, A. Wallraff,  and A. Blais, “Input-output theory for waveguide QED with an ensemble of inhomogeneous atoms,” Phys. Rev. A 88, 043806 (2013).
  • Shen and Fan (2005) Jung-Tsung Shen and Shanhui Fan, “Coherent single photon transport in a one-dimensional waveguide coupled with superconducting quantum bits,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 213001 (2005).
  • Chang et al. (2007) Darrick E. Chang, Anders S. Sørensen, Eugene A. Demler,  and Mikhail D. Lukin, “A single-photon transistor using nanoscale surface plasmons,” Nature Phys. 3, 807–812 (2007).
  • Zhou et al. (2008) Lan Zhou, Z. R. Gong, Yu-Xi Liu, C. P. Sun,  and Franco Nori, “Controllable scattering of a single photon inside a one-dimensional resonator waveguide,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 100501 (2008).
  • Longo et al. (2010) Paolo Longo, Peter Schmitteckert,  and Kurt Busch, “Few-photon transport in low-dimensional systems: Interaction-induced radiation trapping,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 023602 (2010).
  • Kolchin et al. (2011) Pavel Kolchin, Rupert F. Oulton,  and Xiang Zhang, “Nonlinear quantum optics in a waveguide: Distinct single photons strongly interacting at the single atom level,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 113601 (2011).
  • Eichler et al. (2012a) C. Eichler, D. Bozyigit,  and A. Wallraff, “Characterizing quantum microwave radiation and its entanglement with superconducting qubits using linear detectors,” Phys. Rev. A 86, 032106 (2012a).
  • Zheng et al. (2013a) Huaixiu Zheng, Daniel J. Gauthier,  and Harold U. Baranger, “Decoy-state quantum key distribution with nonclassical light generated in a one-dimensional waveguide,” Opt. Lett. 38, 622–624 (2013a).
  • Zheng et al. (2013b) Huaixiu Zheng, Daniel J. Gauthier,  and Harold U. Baranger, “Waveguide-QED-based photonic quantum computation,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 090502 (2013b).
  • Akimov et al. (2007) A. V. Akimov, A. Mukherjee, C. L. Yu, D. E. Chang, A. S. Zibrov, P. R. Hemmer, H. Park,  and M. D. Lukin, “Generation of single optical plasmons in metallic nanowires coupled to quantum dots,” Nature 450, 402 (2007).
  • Bajcsy et al. (2009) M. Bajcsy, S. Hofferberth, V. Balic, T. Peyronel, M. Hafezi, A. S. Zibrov, V. Vuletic,  and M. D. Lukin, “Efficient all-optical switching using slow light within a hollow fiber,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 203902 (2009).
  • Babinec et al. (2010) T. M. Babinec, Birgit J. M. Hausmann, Mughees Khan, Yinan Zhang, Jeronimo R. Maze, Philip R. Hemmer,  and Marko Lončar, “A diamond nanowire single-photon source,” Nature Nanotech. 5, 195 (2010).
  • Claudon et al. (2010) Julien Claudon, Joël Bleuse, Nitin Singh Malik, Maela Bazin, Perine Jaffrennou, Niels Gregersen, Christophe Sauvan, Philippe Lalanne,  and Jean-Michel Gérard, “A highly efficient single-photon source based on a quantum dot in a photonic nanowire,” Nat. Photon. 4, 174 (2010).
  • Bleuse et al. (2011) Joël Bleuse, Julien Claudon, Megan Creasey, Nitin. S. Malik, Jean-Michel Gérard, Ivan Maksymov, Jean-Paul Hugonin,  and Philippe Lalanne, “Inhibition, enhancement, and control of spontaneous emission in photonic nanowires,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 103601 (2011).
  • Laucht et al. (2012) A. Laucht, S. Pütz, T. Günthner, N. Hauke, R. Saive, S. Frédérick, M. Bichler, M.-C. Amann, A. W. Holleitner, M. Kaniber,  and J. J. Finley, “A waveguide-coupled on-chip single-photon source,” Phys. Rev. X 2, 011014 (2012).
  • Astafiev et al. (2010a) O. Astafiev, A. M. Zagoskin, A. A. Abdumalikov, Yu. A. Pashkin, T. Yamamoto, K. Inomata, Y. Nakamura,  and J. S. Tsai, “Resonance fluorescence of a single artificial atom,” Science 327, 840–843 (2010a).
  • Astafiev et al. (2010b) O. V. Astafiev, A. A. Abdumalikov, A. M. Zagoskin, Yu. A. Pashkin, Y. Nakamura,  and J. S. Tsai, “Ultimate on-chip quantum amplifier,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 183603 (2010b).
  • Eichler et al. (2011) C. Eichler, D. Bozyigit, C. Lang, L. Steffen, J. Fink,  and A. Wallraff, “Experimental state tomography of itinerant single microwave photons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 220503 (2011).
  • Hoi et al. (2011) Io-Chun Hoi, C. M. Wilson, Göran Johansson, Tauno Palomaki, Borja Peropadre,  and Per Delsing, “Demonstration of a single-photon router in the microwave regime,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 073601 (2011).
  • Hoi et al. (2012) Io-Chun Hoi, Tauno Palomaki, Joel Lindkvist, Göran Johansson, Per Delsing,  and C. M. Wilson, “Generation of nonclassical microwave states using an artificial atom in 1D open space,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 263601 (2012).
  • Eichler et al. (2012b) C. Eichler, C. Lang, J. M. Fink, J. Govenius, S. Filipp,  and A. Wallraff, “Observation of entanglement between itinerant microwave photons and a superconducting qubit,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 240501 (2012b).
  • Hoi et al. (2013) Io-Chun Hoi, Anton F. Kockum, Tauno Palomaki, Thomas M. Stace, Bixuan Fan, Lars Tornberg, Sankar R. Sathyamoorthy, Göran Johansson, Per Delsing,  and C. M. Wilson, “Giant cross-Kerr effect for propagating microwaves induced by an artificial atom,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 053601 (2013).
  • van Loo et al. (2013) A F van Loo, A Fedorov, K Lalumiere, B C Sanders, A Blais,  and Andreas Wallraff, “Photon-Mediated Interactions Between Distant Artificial Atoms,” Science 342, 1494 (2013).
  • Wallraff et al. (2004) A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R.-S. Huang, J. Majer, S. Kumar, S. M. Girvin,  and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Strong coupling of a single photon to a superconducting qubit using circuit quantum electrodynamics,” Nature 431, 162 (2004).
  • Schoelkopf and Girvin (2008) R. J. Schoelkopf and S. M. Girvin, “Wiring up quantum systems,” Nature 451, 664 (2008).
  • Dzsotjan et al. (2010) David Dzsotjan, Anders S. Sørensen,  and Michael Fleischhauer, “Quantum emitters coupled to surface plasmons of a nanowire: A Green’s function approach,” Phys. Rev. B 82, 075427 (2010).
  • Gonzalez-Tudela et al. (2011) A. Gonzalez-Tudela, D. Martin-Cano, E. Moreno, L. Martin-Moreno, C. Tejedor,  and F. J. Garcia-Vidal, “Entanglement of two qubits mediated by one-dimensional plasmonic waveguides,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 020501 (2011).
  • Dzsotjan et al. (2011) David Dzsotjan, Jürgen Kästel,  and Michael Fleischhauer, “Dipole-dipole shift of quantum emitters coupled to surface plasmons of a nanowire,” Phys. Rev. B 84, 075419 (2011).
  • González-Tudela and Porras (2013) Alejandro González-Tudela and Diego Porras, “Mesoscopic entanglement induced by spontaneous emission in solid-state quantum optics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 080502 (2013).
  • Gonzalez-Ballestero et al. (2013) C Gonzalez-Ballestero, F J Garcia-Vidal,  and Esteban Moreno, ‘‘Non-Markovian effects in waveguide-mediated entanglement,” New Journal of Physics 15, 073015 (2013).
  • Roy (2013) Dibyendu Roy, “Cascaded two-photon nonlinearity in a one-dimensional waveguide with multiple two-level emitters,” Sci. Rep. 3, 2337 (2013).
  • Loudon (2003) R. Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, New York, 2003).
  • Lang et al. (2011) C. Lang, D. Bozyigit, C. Eichler, L. Steffen, J. M. Fink, A. A. Abdumalikov, M. Baur, S. Filipp, M. P. da Silva, A. Blais,  and A. Wallraff, “Observation of resonant photon blockade at microwave frequencies using correlation function measurements,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 243601 (2011).
  • Ficek and Sanders (1990) Z. Ficek and B. C. Sanders, “Quantum beats in two-atom resonance fluorescence,” Phys. Rev. A 41, 359–368 (1990).
Comments 0
Request Comment
You are adding the first comment!
How to quickly get a good reply:
  • Give credit where it’s due by listing out the positive aspects of a paper before getting into which changes should be made.
  • Be specific in your critique, and provide supporting evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements.
  • Your comment should inspire ideas to flow and help the author improves the paper.

The better we are at sharing our knowledge with each other, the faster we move forward.
The feedback must be of minimum 40 characters and the title a minimum of 5 characters
Add comment
Loading ...
This is a comment super asjknd jkasnjk adsnkj
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters
The feedback must be of minumum 40 characters

You are asking your first question!
How to quickly get a good answer:
  • Keep your question short and to the point
  • Check for grammar or spelling errors.
  • Phrase it like a question
Test description