Cavity QED with Strong Coupling Toward the Deterministic Control of Quantum Dynamics

H. Jeff Kimble, Innsbruck, May 29, 2002

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~qoptics

FUNDING: NSF, Caltech MURI on Quantum Networks via ARO, ONR NSF IQI

Outline Outline

Cavity QED as enabling for quantum information science Quantum networks New avenues for quantum measurement, nonlinear optics, ... A brief history Radiative processes with boundaries Coherent evolution for a spin in a cavity Cavity QED with strong coupling Internal degrees of freedom for atomic dipole + cavity field External degrees of freedom - atomic center-of-mass motion Cavity QED with cold atoms Trapping and tracking single atoms in cavity QED Atomic wavepackets and single photons Future prospects - cavity QED at the limits

Quantum Quantumnetworks networksfor fordistributed distributedquantum quantumcomputation computationand andcommunication communication

Quantum Quantum Networks Networks

Quantum node generate, process, store quantum information

Quantum channel transport / distribute quantum entanglement

A
How to reliably transport quantum information from place to place? Quantum error correction Quantum teleportation Entangle locations A, B either over small (i.e., within a quantum computer) or large (i.e., long-scale quantum networks) distances

The The Quantum Quantum Internet* Internet*

Physical Physicalrealization realizationwithin withinthe thesetting settingof ofcavity cavityQED QED

Quantum node

Quantum Channel

Quantum Quantum node -- generate, process, store quantum information Internal atomic states

Quantum Quantum channel -- transport / distribute quantum entanglement Photon number, polarization

Divide and Conquer! k nodes each with n qubits gives state space dimension k 2 n without entanglement versus 2 n k with entanglement of nodes
*J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, H. J. Kimble, and H. Mabuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3221 (1997) S. J. Van Enk, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Science 279, 205 (1998)

Combine Combinestanding standingand andflying flyingqubits qubitsto torealize realizequantum quantumnetworks networksfor fordistributed distributed quantum computation and communication quantum computation and communication
*J. I. Cirac, S. J. Van Enk, P. Zoller, H. J. Kimble, and H. Mabuchi, Physica Scripta T76, 223 (1998)

Quantum Quantum State State Exchange* Exchange*

(t)

Site A
(t)

Site B

Quantum Logic with Atoms and Photons

Flying qubits
(photon-atom-photon)

Experiment - Q. Turchette, C. Hood, W. Lange, H. Mabuchi, and HJK, PRL 78, 4710(1995) Universal quantum gate - polarization dependent Kerr effect with 1 photon per mode

in A in B
Cs

+
outA, B

Standing qubits

(atom-photon-atom)

Theory - T. Pellizzari, S. Gardiner, I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3788 (1995)

g ~ 100MHz

Quantum QuantumStates Statesand andEntanglement Entanglement A Apriori prioriversus versusa aposteriori posterioricapabilities capabilities
Entangled? A Consider entangled states of the general form B

AB :

1 P 0 + P AB AB + ...
Bell State

0 A0 B 0 A 0B

Devise detection scheme sensitive only to component AB AB As post-diction, conditional detections allow determination of properties of AB AB component (e.g., fidelity) But note that the state AB AB never existed independently Scalable quantum computing require states with P ~ 1 thereby enabling a priori state generation of entangled states Post dictions made Contrast to Parametric Down Conversion and a posteriori Cavity QED with Atomsic Beams for which P << 1

Atomic Radiative Decay Free-space decay A - Einstein A coefficient

Decay in the presence of a boundary (Purcell, 1946) ~ A {(1 - /4 ) + {Boundary Function} /4} /4}
inhibition >>1, enhance <<1, inhibit

Experiments -K. H. Drexhage, Progress in Optics Vol. XII (1974)

Atomic Radiative Processes near Boundaries

D. Klepper and S. Haroche, Physics Today (January, 1989)

Inhibition of atomic decay - an atom below cutoff

Yale Collaboration - Boshier, Haroche, Hinds, Meschede E. A. Hinds, Adv. At. Mol. Phys. 28, 237 (1991); D. Meschede, Phys. Reps. 211, 201 (1992) Rome - F. diMartini, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2955 (1987); ...

R. Hulet, E. Hilfer, D. Kleppner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2137 (1985)

Radiation damping of an isolated electron undergoing cyclotron motion Electromagnetic (Penning) trap formed cavity
G. Gabrielse and H. Dehmelt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 67 (1985) S. Peil and G. Gabrielse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1287 (1999) 140x suppression of decay due to synchrotron radiation ncylotron = 147GHz

Atomic Radiative Processes near Boundaries, cont. Level shifts in the presence of a boundary (Casimir, 1948)
Modification of structure of vacuum field via geometry Casimir-Polder force due to spatially varying Lamb shift
Ground state atom as opposed to excited antenna

Sukenik et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 560 (1993)

Diverse other investigations - Heinzen and Feld, Mossberg, Haroche and Raimond, Casimir effect more generally - Mohideen, Lameraux, ... Importance for precision measurement g - 2 for electron
L. S. Brown and G. Gabrielse and H. Dehmelt, Rev. Mod. Phys. 58, 233 (1986)

From Boundaries to Cavities

g
excited state

Single-photon Rabi nutation at frequency 2g Nutation angle for time : = 2 g Jaynes-Cummings, 1963

ground state

The physics of g Hinteraction = hg (+ a + a ) g ~ Electric field per photon ~ [h / Vmode ]1/2

+ 21/2g - 21/2g
Jaynes-Cummings eigenstates +g

-g

Vmode
0

transition frequency mode volume of cavity

Combine (reversible) coherent dynamics g with incoherent processes (, ) g

Theory of open quantum systems (the laser) Haken, Scully & Lamb, Lax, Senitzky, ... circa 1960

Quantum theory of coherence - Glauber, Sudarshan ... Quantum statistical theories of optical bistability - circa 1980
Bonifacio-Lugiato, Walls et al, Agarwal, ...

Critical volume Vcritical ~ c2 Area 2 length c = 1 / ( Einstein-A coefficient)

Character of dynamical processes? Critical photon number m0 ~ 2 / g2 Critical atom number N0 ~ / g2 m0 ~ Vmode / Vcritical

Strong vs. Weak Coupling in Optical Physics

g /( , ) << 1

Weak Coupling
Historical emphasis Conventional lasers, optical parametric oscillators, optical bistability ... Traditional nonlinear optics (including nano-fabricated quantum wells)

0,n

, with

g n1/2 = constant ~ electric field E

Critical photon number m0 ~ 2 / g2 >> 1 m0 ~ 108 photons Critical atom number N0 ~ / g2 >> 1 Dynamical processes for single photons or atoms are largely irrelevant

Cavity QED Rates and Ratios

T Strong C o u p l i n g
Critical photon number 2

g /( , , 1/T) >> 1
Critical atom number

<1 m0 2 2g
Nonlinear optics with one photon per mode

= max{, 1/T }

2 N0 2 < 1 g
N0 ~ 10-2 atoms

Single-atom switching of optical cavity response

m0 ~ 10-4 photons

Dynamics Dynamics of of Open Open Quantum Quantum Systems Systems

Hint
Internal interaction strength vs.

External dissipative (dephasing) rate

g ~ <Hint>/ h
E E

E E

diagonal (level shift) off-diagonal (Rabi frequency) rate of information exchange

phase diffusion spontaneous emission rate of information loss

The brave new world of strong coupling - m0 ~ 2 / g2 << 1 m0 - critical number of quanta

m0

specifies system size in terms of number photons, electrons, phonons, atoms, required for non-trivial dynamics

Achieving Strong Coupling - Conflicting Requirements

Require critical photon number m0 < < 1 and hence Vcritical >> Vmode Vmode (cavity cross-sectional area A) x (cavity length l) Hence take (A, l) However, critical atom number N0 < < 1 requires small loss c/{(cavity finesse F) x (cavity length l)} Hence reductions in cavity length (or area) must be offset by concomitant reductions in cavity losses Absolute premium for high cavity finesse F (large cavity Q) Cavity with smallest possible Vmode and highest attainable F
Various scaling possible - Mossberg, Hourglass cavity

Achieving Strong Coupling - More Conflicts!

A menu of choices from the periodic table

Dipole-allowed atomic transitions in the visible or near IR e a0, 2 Einstein A-coefficient ~ 107 - 108 /sec Quadrupole atomic transitions in the visible or near IR 2Q/, Q ~ e a02 g/ increased by factor ~ / a0 relative to dipole transition, but g is reduced by factor a0 /. Difficult to reduce similarly. Rydberg atomic transitions in microwave regime (20-50GHz) n2 e a0 Atomic decay mitigated via circular states Superconducting cryogenic cavities - Q ~ 109 - 1011

Photon Trapping States in the Micromaser

H. Walther et al., MPQ, Garching
excited state

ground state

g0 = 7.1 kHz , m0 ~ 0.04 photons

Quantum Nondemolition Detection of Single Photons

S. Haroche et al., ENS, Paris

g0 = 24 kHz, m0 ~ 0.08 photons

Single-Atom Microlaser
M. Feld et al., MIT

g0 = 340 kHz, m0 = 1.6 photons

An et al., PRL 73, 3375(1995) An and Feld, PRA 56, 1662(1997)

<nss> photons

10 <nss> photons

<Nss> atoms

0.1 0.1

<Nss> atoms

1.0

Nonlinear Optics with Single Atoms and Photons

H. J. Kimble et al., Caltech
nProbe orma lphase i z e dtransmission tphase rans m ission shift Probe shift Probe a 14 30o 1.0 1o . 0 12 20 0.8 o 10 10 0.8 0.6 0 8
0.6

(1+2/N0) -10 6 0.4 ba -20 0 4 4 . 0.2 g0 = 20 MHz -30 2 -20 0 20 40 (MHz) 0.2 0.0 Critical photon number -60 -40 -20 0 0 -60 -40 -20 0 20
- 5 0.02 m 10 1 0 - 4 photons 1 0 -3 1 -2 0 -2 0 = -4 -3

g0 = 20 MHz
40
100

60
101

-1 10 10 Probe Probe 10 detuning 10 (MHz) 100 101 detuning (MHz) probe intracavity photon number, m Intracavity pump photons mb

1 0 -1

Critical photon number m0 = 0.02 photons

Christina Hood

Quentin Turchette

Quantum Phase Gate

Initial demonstration of conditional quantum dynamics at the single photon level suitable for quantum logic
Q. Turchette, C. Hood, W. Lange, H. Mabuchi, HJK, PRL 78 (1995)

inA inB

Cs

+
outA,B

+ + +

single-qubit phase shifts

0 0 1 0 0 eiA 0 0 UQPG = 0 0 eiB 0 i( A + B + ) 0 e 0 0

a (17.5 1) b (12.5 1)
conditional phase shift

(16 3)

Quantum Phase Gate is universal for 0

Wave-Particle Correlations in Cavity QED

L. Orozco et al., SUNY Stony Brook Strong coupling leads to nonclassical dynamics with N >> 1 atom

N ~ 11 atoms

g0 = 12 MHz, m0 = 0.08 photons

Classically allowed

Deja vu all over again! Weak to Strong Coupling in Cavity QED

Energy Level Structure

+g -g
10 20 30 4 0 50 6 0 70 80 90 10 0

>>
1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 -400 -200 0 200 Probe detuning (MHz) N 15 .

Decay Rates

atom = cavity
0 10 20 30 4 0 50 6 0 c o u p l in g , g / 70 80 90 10 0

Eigenvalues for coupled atom-cavity system,

naverage (10-3 photons)

atom = cavity

Turchette, Thompson, Kimble, App. Phys B 95

Rempe, Thompson, Kimble, PRL 92

Strong Coupling in Cavity QED

Stochastic Nature of Atomic Beams and Resulting Indeterminism

Atomic beams (optical and microwave regimes) Critical photon number m0 ~ 0.01 - 0.1 photon Optical information limited to I0 ~ 1 bit Atomic arrival time is unknown a priori leading to intrinsic indeterminism Knowledge of atom-field interaction Post-diction based upon atomic detection Few exceptions, e.g., Walther et al. single photon generation

In regime of strong coupling m0 << 1 photon, I0 >> 1 bit,

controlled quantum dynamics require N = 1, 2, 3, ... atoms on demand

Cavity QED with localized atoms QUANTUMINFORMATION INFORMATIONSCIENCE SCIENCE QUANTUM Quantummeasurement measurement Quantum Quantumlogic logicand andcomputation computation Quantum Quantumcommunication communication Quantum Quantum-classicalinterface interface Quantum-classical

Cavity QED by the Numbers Some experiments underway

Magnetic Micro-traps H. Mabuchi, Caltech

Multiple beam FORT for cavity QED M. Chapman, GIT

Trapped ion for cavity QED R. Blatt, Innsbruck

Ion trap laser H. Walther, Garching

Integration of laser cooling and trapping with cavity QED

Goal: localized atoms in a regime of strong coupling Kimble, Caltech; Rempe, Garching; Chapman, GIT; Kuga, U of Tokyo ...

x y z

104 Cesium Atoms

Mirror Surface

Detector

Probe Laser

Mirror Substrate

A Menagerie of Optical Resonators

Lest you scoff at Fabry-Perot cavities with single atoms, here is a sampling of zoology other systems for cavity QED with strong coupling
Microdisk laser McCall, Slusher, Ho,...

Photonic Bandgap E. Yablonovitch, A. Scherer C. Weisbuch, ...

VCSELs Gibbs and Kitrova, Scherer, ...

Review H. M. Gibbs, G. Kitrova, and S. W. Koch, Rev. Mod. Phys. (2000)

Cavity QED with Cold Atoms Two Experiments at Caltech

Graduate students Kevin Birnbaum Joe Buck (Christina Hood - APS) Theresa Lynn Jason McKeever (David Vernooy - Internet Startup)

Postdocs Alex Kuzmich (Christoph Naegerl - Innsbruck) (Ron Legere - Lincoln Labs) (Dan Stamper-Kurn - UCB) (Steven van Enk - Lucent) (Jun Ye - JILA)

FUNDING: NSF, Caltech MURI via ARO, ONR http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~qoptics

Spherical Mirror, Fabry-Perot Cavity

High Reflectivity Surfaces - Finesse ~ 470,000 Length actively stabilized to ~ 10-15 m
Record finesse - F = 1.9 x10 6, R = 0.9999984 CIT & R. Lalezari, REO, Opt. Lett. 17, 363 (1992) Most recently - Finesse F = 3 x10 6

1mm

BK7 Substrate

Length l~10 50 m; Mode waist w0~ 12 25 m

The Mechanical Consequences of Strong Coupling

Strong coupling for internal degrees of freedom: Strong coupling for external degrees of freedom: 5 mK
g 0 > ~ k B Tdoppler
+ g ,1 , e , 0
drive g ,0 atom , cavity g0

g0 > ,
120

Spatial dependence of atom-photon interaction g(r) provides trapping potential

Theory: Haroche; Walther (1991), ... Scully et al. (1996) ( wave), ... Parkins, Tan, Doherty, Walls (1996); Ritsch (1997) (optical)

Cavity QED versus Traditional Free Space Trapping

...
e,2 a,3

Cavity QED Pseudo-potential U Diffusion D A. Doherty, T. W. Lynn, C. J. Hood, and HJK, Phys. Rev. A63, 013401 (2000); quant/ph-0006015

e,1 a,2

e,0 a,1

+ a p c
radial position

Free Space Pseudo-potential V Diffusion D Standard Semiclassical Theory

a,0

EXPERIMENT - Single-atom trapping with n ~ 1 photon C. J. Hood and T. L. Lynn

+ e ,0 g ,1

probe cavity

g ,0
1.4

40MHz 100MHz

probe cavity atom

Cavity Transmission

1.2

T1
1

T2 A2
n ~ 1 photon

0.8

A1
Trigger

0.6

0.4

0.2

1.3msec
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Transmission with no atom

Time, msec

Anharmonic Trapping Potential for n ~ 1 photon and N = 1 atom T(s)

300

Experiment
200

100

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Pseudo-potential U() from quantum master equation for experimental n, AC , p

A
2.6mK

T(s)
300

Simulation
200

9.3 m

Radius
100

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

Simulated Atom Transits

1.2 0.8 m 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 time(ms) 1.0 1.2 1.4 y, -z, 10*x ( m) 30 20 10 0

300

P ( s)

200

Atoms localized at peak of a single standing-wave antinode. Heating in this dimension leads to escape. Orbital periods separate by angular momentum. Conservative radial motion dominates diffusion and standing-wave motion.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

100

1.0

Normalized Oscillation Amplitude

Cs - g0=110MHz, =14.2 MHz, =2.6MHz Hood et al.,Science 287, 1447 (2000)

Reconstruction of Single-Atom Trajectories i(t) E(t)

z x y Quantum master equation Photocurrent i(t) to Intracavity photon number n(t) to Coupling coefficient g((t)) to Radial atomic position (t) Position (t) and potential U((t)) allow reconstruction of atomic trajectory {(t), (t)}

z y = cos() z = sin() y

i(t) E(t)

Laboratory Reconstruction of Single-Atom Trajectory

One atom bound in orbit with n = 1 photon

www.its.caltech.edu/~qoptics/atomorbits/

Validation of Reconstruction Algorithm

Numerical Simulation via quantum master equation (A. Doherty, A. S. Parkins) Fully quantum for internal degrees of freedom (atom dipole + cavity field) Wave-packet dynamics of atom in quasi-classical approximation Actual atomic trajectory Trajectory reconstructed from photocurrent (including quantum noise)

The Atom-Cavity Microscope (ACM) A New Time-Resolved Microscopy near the Standard Quantum Limit
C. J. Hood, T. W. Lynn, A. Doherty. A. S. Parkins, and H. J. Kimble, Science 287, 1447 (2000)

~ 10-5 sec for SNR ~ 1

Detection capability enhanced by 1/N0 >> 1 Measured sensitivity ~ 20nm/Hz1/2 radial Inferred sensitivity ~ 0.2nm/Hz1/2 axial Determine full quantum susceptibility near (and perhaps beyond) SQL Measure amplitude and phase of field
H. Mabuchi, J. Ye, and HJK, Applied Phys. B68, 1095 (1999)

Im Re

Optical Information Characterize ability to sense atomic motion within the cavity
cavity transmission

atom empty cavity

jD

g
missing cav ity output phot on

jD + i

flux

ay a

E em p t y

ay a

E fu ll

2g

for a saturated atom

I = (Optical Information)/atom = R t I ~ g2 t /

~ 1 cavity QED with atomic beams ~ 107 realized in current work

More generally, compare to fluorescence from single atom in free space

~ 107/s

R ~ 109/s

In principle enhancement in ability to extract information via cavity QED

Quantum feedback control in cavity QED* One and the same quantum system in real time
(one atom strongly coupled to an optical cavity)

Plant
Modulator
intensity

Optimal estimation of quantum state of plant ? Cs

detector

phase

Controller
Optimal control law?

(Computer or DSP)

modify equilibrium states tailor regression eigenvalues track a time-dependent target state

atomic center-of-mass motion intracavity field state outgoing field state

*G. Milburn, H. Wiseman, H. Mabuchi, ...

Quantum Feedback for Real-Time Control of Atomic Motion

Modulate
Cs
detector
2

i(t) Photocurrent
Angular Momentum
1.5 1

l(t)

DSP
1

0.5

Kalman
0.75

Simulated Trajectory
1.2

50

100

150

200

250

300

Track
0.5 0.25

time (s)

(t) 0.8
0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0.6

Radial Coordinate

-1

-0.75

-0.5

-0.25 -0.25

-0.5

-0.75

-1

Using small 1,0 mode for feedback to: Track absolute angle from noisy measurements of I() Damp angular momentum

0.4 0.2

50

100

150

200

250

300

time (s)

Indefinite Confinement inside a FORT within the Cavity

Red FORT confines to anti-nodes Classical trapping potential FORT - Far-Off Resonance (Dipole-Force) Trap Automatic mode overlap and power buildup Long trap lifetimes (10 100 seconds)

Cavity QED and Atomic Center-of-Mass Quantization

Vernooy and HJK, PRA 56, 4287 (97)

3 |+ 500 kHz 1 2 1 100 MHz |+ |( g , , ) / 2 = ( 50 , 2.5 , 4 ) MHz

Diverse new dynamical processes involving the interplay of atomic wavepackets and single photons

2 1 2

1 |-

Magic Wavelengths for Dipole-Force Trapping

C. Hood & C. Wood; H. Katori et al.

Problem: Solution:

Spatially Varying Atomic Level Shift Complicates Cavity QED Auxiliary Level ( 6D ) to manipulate excited state level shift

Cs

6 D5/2 6 P3/2 6 S 1/2

c
Red-detuned driving laser

Uc

Uc
Red-detuned driving laser

b
Red-detuned driving laser

Ub

Ub1
Red-detuned driving laser

Ub2

Ua

Ua

Provides:

Zero Light-Shift Dipole Trap Sisyphus Type Cooling Scheme Polarization tuning of Magic wavelength to balance potential

Expanded model
Include couplings to a more complete set of levels
F=4, 6S1/2-> 6-11P1/2; 6-11P3/2 F=4, 6P3/2-> 6-15S1/2; 5-11D3/2; 5-11D5/2

Include counter-rotating terms

Deduce partial lifetimes (which is to say, reduced matrix elements) from various sources 6S 6P well known Fabry-Cussenot oscillator strengths Laplanche, Jaouen, Rachman D-P oscillator strengths Sanity check Theodosiou total lifetimes

FORT-6S-6P-5D-CR.nb Cesium; Linear polarization Couplings considered F=4, 6S1/2-> 6-11P1/2; 6-11P3/2 F=4, 6P3/2-> 6-15S1/2; 5-11D3/2; 5-11D5/2 Counter-rotating terms included

20

8 8<8< 8<8< <

Cs : 6S1 2, F,q
=

4, 0 , Cs : 6P3 2,

F,q

4, 0

15 10

-5

-10 -15

0.84 0

8 8<8< 8<8< <

0.86 Cs : 6S1 2 , 0.88
=

F ,q

0.9 0.92 4, 0 , Cs : 6P3 2, F,q

0.94 4, 0

0.96

-0.25 -0.5

F=4, 6P3/2 F=4, 6S1/2

-0.75

-1

-1.25

-1.5 -1.75

0.932

0.934

0.936

0.938

FORT-6S-6P-5D-CR.nb Cesium; Linear polarization Couplings considered F=4, 6S1/2-> 6-11P1/2; 6-11P3/2 F=4, 6P3/2-> 6-15S1/2; 5-11D3/2; 5-11D5/2 Counter-rotating terms included

FORT = 935nm

8 8<8<
Cs : 6S1 2, F,q
=

4, 0 ; l- FORT = 0.935 , Cs : 6P3 2,

8<8<
F,q
=

4, 0 ; l - FORT = 0.935

<

-0.94

F=4, 6P3/2
-0.96

-0.98

-1

F=4, 6S1/2
-1.02

-1.04

-1.06

-4

-2

mF

Apparatus for Real-Time Trapping and Tracking Single Atoms

Lifetime for Single Trapped Atoms in Cavity QED

J. Ye, D. W. Vernooy, and HJK, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4987 (1999) Jason McKeever, Joseph Buck, Alex Kuzmich, HJK, November, 2001

CQED - probe FORT- trap

Trapping Results for 906 nm FORT

Lifetime t = 0.1 sec

Limitations to Lifetime for Trapped Atom in Cavity QED

J. Ye, D. W. Vernooy, and HJK, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4987 (1999) Joseph Buck, Alex Kuzmich, J. McKeever, H. C. Naegerl, D. Stamper-Kurn

Fluctuations in intracavity FORT intensity 1/ = 2 2trap (2trap)

Savard et al., Phys. Rev. A56, R1095 (1997); C. Gardiner et al., Phys. Rev. A61, 045801 (1999)

P(n)

n0

Presumably, FM to AM conversion via high finesse

Greatly improved stability of frequency locking

Cavity QED, FORT, cavity-lock beams

~ 1kHz linewidths as compared to ~ 4MHz

s) m ( e m Ti

Other mechanisms Background gas? 10-10 Torr sets ~ 100sec trap lifetime. OK Stray fields? n << 0.01 photons, or P << 10-13 Watts. Found some; now fixed. Optical pumping from F = 4 to F = 3? Circular polarization now linear for FORT. Triggering strategy? Explored to reduce initial atomic kinetic energy. ???

Continuum Mechanics 101The Menagerie of Mode Shapes

Dennis Coyne - LIGO
A. Gillespie and F. Raab, PRD 52, 577 (1995)

The eigenmodes of a right circular cylinder

l~a 2a l

Thermal Excitation of the Elastic Modes of a Cylinder - kBT BK7 Q = 90

5x 10-17
5. 10 - 1 7

x
3.6mm

3.0mm

Elastic modes of vibration of a right circular cylinder,

each excited with

kBT
of energy!
P. Saulson, PRD 42, 2437 (1990)

x m/Hz1/2

2. 10

- 17

1. 10 - 1 7

5 x 10-18

5. 10 - 1 8

2. 10 - 1 8

1 106

2 10 6

3 106

4 106

5 10 6

1 MHz

5 MHz

A Surprising Discovery! kBT Thermal Noise in Mirrors Leads to Intracavity Intensity Noise!
x
BK7 with cylindrical eigenmodes - Q = 90 , power - W = 2.78 10 , qe = 0.5 , detuning = 1, length - m = 0.00357143 45 45dB

(f)
-6

(f) - Relative to shot-noise dB

Ra tio of noi se powers R f

@ D

40

Match Q for one mode Then absolute comparison Power = 2.8W

35

30

25

20

15 15dB 0

1 MHz

1 10

2 10

3 10 Frequency f

4 10

5 MHz

5 10

Finite Element Analysis for Quantitative Mode IdentificationDennis Coyne - LIGO

Scientific directions Feedback to cool selected elastic modes Quantum limits to sensing/controlling mirror motion See work by Heidmann et al. (Paris), Schiller et al. (Konstanz) FORT implications Basic limitation for exploiting high-Q modes for atomic trapping in cavity QED FORT intensity noise arises from convolution of spectral density
of phase noise. Low and high frequencies mix. Solution? Move to longer FORT wavelengths with reduced finesse Noise scales as (Cavity Finesse)2

Cavity QED and Atomic Center-of-Mass Quantization

Trapped via light forces (as here) or otherwise (e.g., as in Blatt, Walther ion trap)
Meystre, Schumaker, Stehholm (1989),, Carmichael (1995),,Scully et al. (1996),...,Schleich,Walls,...

Atomic motion (q, p)

Light (Q, P)

Quantum state transfer between motion and light

A. S. Parkins and H. J. Kimble, Journal Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 1, 496 (1999).

Cavity QED with Quantization of Internal a n d External D e g r e e s o f F r e e d o m

z

Internal Quantum Field Mode + Atomic Dipole

External -

L ig h t A to m

Atomic CM W a v e f u n c t i o n

M ic r o s p h e r e

Spatial scale for atomic wavepacket and for quantized cavity field comparable
Vernooy and HJK, PRA (1997)

2 1 0

z [m ]

-1 -2 50. 1

50.1 5

50. 2

[ m

Beyond Beyond Traditional Traditional Nonlinear Nonlinear and and Quantum Quantum Optics Optics -Deterministic DeterministicControl ControlAtom Atomby byAtom Atomand andPhoton Photonby byPhoton Photon
Spectacular advances in the manipulation of the quantum states of motion for a single bound atom (ion) Monroe, Wineland et al., NIST; Blatt et al., Innsbruck; Utilize with quantum-state exchange between motion and light New sources for manifestly quantum light New possibilities for quantum measurement
Atomic motion (q, p) Light (Q, P)

Manipulate atomic wave packets with light Cooling of atomic motion (the vacuum-state of light is easy to make!) EPR (q, p) at a distance Teleportation of atomic wave packets Cavity QED + trapped ions- Blatt et al.; H. Walther et al. - ion-trap laser See also work by Polzik, Cirac, Zoller - entanglement with N >> 1

Cavity QED at the Limits

C. J. Hood, J. Ye, and HJK, Phys. Rev. A (2001)

Cesium: Finesse = 3 x 106 g0/2= 650MHz, /2 = 56MHz, /2 = 2.6MHz 1 photon Rabi frequency 0/2 = 1.3 GHz
1200 n(z) Coupling Strength, g (MHz)
1

m0 ~ 8 x 10-6 photons N0 ~ 7 x 10-4 atoms /2

1000 800 600 400 200 0

0.8

0.6

0.4

Cesium

0.2

0 -3

-2

-1

z (m)

10

Mirror Separation (in units of /2)

Progress with Strong Coupling The Quest for m0 , N0 << 1 at Caltech

108

106

Photonic Bandgap Cavity* and Planar Magnetic Microtrap m0 < 10-7 photons
Single defect photonic bandgap nano-cavity Current-carrying wires for magnetic micro-trap

Hideo Mabuchi Michael Roukes

Axel Scherer

Single trapped atom

* J. Vuckovic et al., Phys. Rev. E65, 016608 (2001)

References References
Review articles from various groups in Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics, editor P. Berman (Academic Press, San Diego, 1994) Textbook development of fundamentals of cavity QED by Serge Haroche in in Fundamental Systems in Quantum Optics, Les Houches Session LIII, eds. J. Dalibard, J.-M. Raimond, and J. Zinn-Justin (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1992) Scientific tutorial of microwave cavity QED by Pierre Meystre, Cavity Quantum Optics and the Quantum Measurement Process, Progress in Optics XXX, ed. E. Wolf (Elsevier Science Publishing, 1992) A new generation of optical microresonators Optical Processes in Microcavities, Y. Yamamoto and R. Slusher, Physics Today (June, 1993) Optical Processes in Microcavities, ed. R. K. Chang and A. J. Campillo (World Scientific, 1996) Other citations, reviews throughout presentation