Decoherence

Decoherence protection
protection and
and quantum
quantum logic
logic gates
gates
in
in photonic
photonic bandgap
bandgap structures
structures
Sophie
SophiePellegrin,
Pellegrin,Gershon
GershonKurizki
Kurizki
Chemical
ChemicalPhysics
PhysicsDepartment
Department
Weizmann
Weizmann Instituteof
Institute ofScience
Science
Rehovot
Rehovot76100,
76100,Israel
Israel

sophie.pellegrin@weizmann.ac.il
sophie.pellegrin@weizmann.ac.il
www.weizmann.ac.il
www.weizmann.ac.il




Quantum
Quantuminformation
information––optically
opticallymanipulated
manipulatedatoms
atoms
Challenge:
Challenge:protection
protectionof
ofthe
thequantum
quantumstates
statesfrom
fromdecoherence
decoherence––spontaneous
spontaneousemission
emission

Photonic
Photoniccrystals
crystals––photonic
photonicbandgap
bandgapstructures
structures

Quantum
Quantumlogic
logicgates:
gates:dynamical
dynamicalaspects
aspects
adiabatic
adiabatic//nonadiabatic
nonadiabatic

Periodic
Periodicsudden
suddenchanges
changes
 Photonic crystals
photonic crystals - light semi conductors - electrons

periodic refractive index periodic atomic potential

Band structure
1D
3D

K. Lim et al., GaAs and AlGaAs  1.8m, =4.5 m and 1.5 m

2D Fan et al., Si (dark) and SiO2 (light), large

and complete submicron bandgap.

AIST, Japan, TiO2 pillars of

 640 nm and height 2 m J. G. Fleming and S. Y. Lin,
S. G. Johnson and J. D. Joannopoulos,
Opt. Lett. (1999)
APL 77, 3490-3492 (Nov. 2000)
 Defects
Breaking the periodicity
• point like defects: cavities

bandgap

frequency

• linear defects: waveguide

90 bend: 98 of the power transmission

(30  in analogous dielectric waveguide)

2 m
 Density of modes

Scalar, isotropic approximation


Density of modes

c  c 

Neglecting the vectorial nature of the electromagnetic field:

analytic scalar dispersion relation

 isotropic density of modes (gap = sphere)  ( - c)-1/2

 qualitative results, limited to the description of the bandgap neighborhood

Quantitative results: non isotropic density

 Coupling with an atom – static aspects

1.0

Excited state population

0.8

0.6

at 0.4

Strong interaction between the atom 0.2

and its own photon : splitting 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0
time (dimensionless)
of the atomic transition
one part is stable, the other one decays.

Static position of the atomic transition inside the gap.

A. G. Kofman, G. Kurizki, B. Sherman, J. of Mod. Opt. 41, 353 (1994)

 Dynamic aspects – periodic shifts (1)
1.0

dyn(t) = Astat() Bstat(t-) +

Excited state population

static
0.9
one change +

0
 ,Astat() ,Bstat(t- ) () d, t
0.8

0.7
A/Bstat = excited state amplitude
at a fixed frequency A (B)
,A/Bstat = mode  amplitude
0.6
0 20 40 60

time (dimensionless)
A A  B

Excited state population

B static
B  A

density
of modes

A B
time (dimensionless)
 Dynamic aspects – periodic shifts (2)

Excited state population

Excited state population

0.95 0.95
Finite transition times
…
density
0.85 0.85
of modes

0.75 0.75

0.65
0 20 40
A B 0.65
0 20 40
time (dimensionless) time (dimensionless)

1.0
0.95
0.8

“control phase gate”:

fidelity

fidelity
0.6
excited atomic state
0.4 phase shift of  / 2
performed adiabatically
0.2
gate
0.0 0.90
0 5 10 15 8 9 10 11
time (dimensionless) time (dimensionless)
 Conclusion and perspectives

• Periodic modulation of the detuning is able to protect the atomic state

from spontaneous emission more effectively
than fixing the largest possible detuning value

• Sudden changes outperform the adiabatic modulation

• First attempts to apply the results

to quantum logic gates are very encouraging