Principles and brief history of Cavity QED

1st S.Haroche, specialized Solvay Lecture, June 4 2010

From the Bohr-Einstein photon box thought experiment

to the super-high Q cavities of todays real experiments. exploring the quantum dynamics of atoms and photons in a confined space has progressed a lot

Bohrs draft of a box storing and releasing a photon to test quantum laws

and its realization by Gamov

1 Early History of Cavity QED: controlling spontaneous emission

Early History: Tailoring spontaneous emission in a confined space

Spontaneous processes are random. Only their rate can be predicted and, in the case of photon emission, estimated by classical arguments based on Maxwells equations The spontaneous emission rate of an excited state depends on the atoms state, but also on the structure of the surrounding vacuum, which determines the density of modes into which photons are emitted: an atom within boundaries does not radiate as in free space. Similar effects in beta decay: a neutron lives longer in a nucleus than in free space!

Spontaneous emission enhancement predicted by E.Purcell in 1945 and the possibility to inhibit spontaneous emission in atoms suggested by D.Kleppner in 1981

Antennae radiating near reflecting surfaces

Dipole \\ to mirror and image cancell Dipole # to mirror and image add up In close-spaced gap, field modes with polarization \\ to mirrors are suppressed When mirrors are curved, focusing effects enhance the resonances, leading to huge emission enhancement factors

Emission inhibited

Emission enhanced

"c/"

"c/"
100-1000 or larger

Mode density in cavity (peak increases with Q)

Dispersive effects: cavity Lamb shifts, Casimir effect

Freespace mode density

2l/!
When gap is increased to l = l/2, mode density jumps and undergoes resonances for larger l values

l/!

First demonstration of Purcell effect on atoms

Ionization of 23S Ionization of 22P

Ionization signal in a ramped electric eld applied to the atoms after they leave the cavity. The 22P state ionizes in a larger eld, thus at a later time than 23S. Signals corresponding to an average of N atoms crossing together the cavity: N = 3.5, 2 and 1.3 for traces a,b,c respectively. Cavity on resonance (solid line) or offresonance (dashed line).

Rydberg atoms prepared in state 23S in a cavity (V=70mm3) resonant with transition 23S22P (!=340 GHz).

Enhancement factor:
! = " C / " (23S #22 P ) = 530 at

P.Goy, J-M.Raimond, M.Gross et S.Haroche, PRL 50, 1903 (1983)

Inhibiting the spontaneous emission of circular Rydberg atoms

microwave transition

Atom prepared in circular Rydberg state n=22 (orbit parallel to metal plates)

Ionisation detector

! / 2L

Inhibited transition n=22 # n=21 at " = 0.45mm

R.G.Hulet, E.S.Hilfer et D.Kleppner, PRL 55, 2137 (1985).

Atomic transmission versus "/2L: " is swept by Stark effect, L being kept constant. The sharp signal increase for "/2L=1 demonstrates the inhibition of s.e. of the Rydberg atom which survives longer in its initial state.

Many enhancement and inhibition experiments in microwave, infrared and optical part of spectrum realized since these pionneering studies

Collective emission in cavity: from Purcell to Dicke

Atoms located at equivalent nodal positions in cavity are symetrically coupled to field: they evolve during emission in a subspace invariant by atomic permutation. There is no way to know which atom has emitted when a photon is lost Two atoms:
e, e ! "S = 1 ( e, g + ge 2

! g, g

Strong correlations with entanglement spontaneously build up between atoms, making collective dipole larger than when atoms radiate independently Due to this correlation, the spontaneous emission occurs faster than for single atom: this is Dicke superradiance

Superradiance rate proportional to number N of atoms

A double enhancement effect: ! C (N ) = " N! 0
Purcell factor: ~ number of images in cavity wall collectively emitting with one atom Number of atoms radiating collectively together

Observation of Dicke superradiance in a cavity

Sample of N=3200 Sodium atoms prepared in Rydberg state 29S, emitting collectively in a cavity resonant with 29S-28P transition at != 162 GHz. The single atom spontaneous emission rate in free space on this transition is $0 =43s-1. Purcell factor: % = $atC / $0 ~ 70.

The atom-cavity coupling is switched-off after variable time by applying an electric eld in cavity (Stark effect). For each interaction time t , we measure the number of atoms in states 29S and 28P after cavity exit. From an ensemble of 900 realizations of experiment, we reconstruct the histograms of the number Ne of excited atoms as a function of t (in units of tD ~ %N/$0 = 460 ns).

Agreement between experimental histograms and theory (solid lines in black)

J-M Raimond, P.Goy, M.Gross, C.Fabre et S.Haroche, Phys.Rev.Lett. 49, 1924 (1982)

2. The strong coupling regime of CQED in time-domain: Rydberg-atom microwave experiments

From Purcell to Rabi: the strong coupling regime of Cavity QED

$c ( &c
2

" !c = << # c #c

Spontaneous emission in a continuum of cavity modes of width &c = '/Q imparts to atomic excited state a width $c inversely proportional to &c.

From Purcell to Rabi: the strong coupling regime of Cavity QED

$c ( &c
As cavity Q factor increases, the cavity spectral width &c='/Q decreases and the rate of emission $c shoots up. The perturbative treatment of the Purcell effect breaks down when these two widths become equal.

"2 !c = $ #c #c
Atomic dipole

Rabi frequency

da .E0 " != = da Vacuum h 2h# 0Vc

Vacuum fluctuations in Cavity

" $ %c = Q

Strong coupling regime: large dipole, small cavity volume and very large Q factor

From Purcell to Rabi: the strong coupling regime of Cavity QED is a story about a spin and a spring
(Jaynes Cummings Hamitonian)

# e e " g g % + h!a a " i h' #a e g " a g e % H= $ & $ & 2 2

e g The spin: 2-level atom

h!eg

2 1 0 The spring: Cavity mode

Vacuum Rabi oscillation:
(reversible spontaneous emission)

$ #t ' $ #t ' e, 0 !! cos & ) e, 0 + sin & ) g,1 " % 2 ( % 2 ( $ # n +1t ' $ # n +1t ' e, n !! cos & " ) e, n + sin & ) g, n +1 2 2 % ( % (

Rabi oscillation sped-up in n photons (stimulated emission)

Rabi oscillation in vacuum or in small coherent field: direct test of photon graininess p(n) n
" ! n + 1t % Pe (t) = ( p(n)cos $ ' ; 2 # & n
2

p(n) = e) n

n n!

1 2 3

n=0

(n th = 0.06)

n = 0.40 (0.02)

n = 0.85 (0.04)
n = 1.77 (0.15)
Pe(t) signal Fourier transform Inferred p(n)

Brune et al, PRL,76,1800,1996.

First strong coupling experiment in CQED: the micromaser (1985)

Rydberg atoms cross one at a time a high Q cavity and build up a manyphoton field in it by cumulative Rabi oscillations: the ultimate maser-laser
Meschede et al, PRL 54, 551 (1985)

Herbert Walther 1935-2006

The ideal micromaser: a quantum machine to deliver photons in a box

t=l/v l

!n = 0

!n = +1
Probabilities given by Rabi: Simulations: # & n undergoes 2 ! n +1t + j " Pj (n) = cos % ( staircase-like 2 $ ' evolution, varying randomly j =1 Solid line: j=0 between ensemble average different Trapping states realizations If trapping ! n0 +1t = 2 p" condition fulfilled, all # Pj =1 (n0 ) = 0 trajectories Photon number converge to n0 converges to n0 (here n0=10) Photon nber histograms at increasing times

cavity tuned at half-frequency of transition between same parity levels

M.Brune et al, PRL 59, 1899 (1987)

The two-photon micromaser:

!n = 0

!n = +2

Single photon emission towards intermediate level is inhibited by CQED

Emits photons by pairs

Microlasers in optical CQED

The optical version of the micromaser: field builds up from kicks produced by atoms crossing one by one the cavity
K.An et al, PRL, 73, 3375 (1994).

Lasing of a single atom trapped in a cavity (Caltech group)

J.McKeever et al, Nature, 425, 268 (2003).

3. The strong coupling regime of atomicCQED in optical experiments

H.J.Kimble (Caltech), G.Rempe (Garching), T.Esslinger (ETH-Zurich)
Chapman (Georgia Tech), Vuletic (MIT), Orozco (Maryland), Blatt (Insbruck), Meschede (Bonn), Lange (Sussex)

Cavity QED in optical domain: the atom-cavity !molecule!

The transmission spectrum of the cavity is split into two components when cavity contains a single atom (from atomic beam or dropped from a MOT). Fourier transform of timedependent Rabi oscillation

Thompson et al, PRL, 68, 1132 (1992)

Single atom detection by cavity field transmission

a

a b

Depending on laser frequency, a single atom transit across cavity is signaled by a dip or a peak. A 100% efficient atom detector which can count one by one atoms in the cavity
J.McKeever et al, PRL 93, 143601 (2004)

Using CQED as single atom counter to study atom-laser statistics

similarity with optical laser (Glauber theory)
A.ttl et al, PRL, 95, 090404 (2005)

Second order atom correlation (BEC atom-laser)

Histogram of number of atoms in time-bin (Poisson)

Second order atom correlation for thermal atom beam

Trapping force of a single photon in a cavity

The atom-cavity dressed energies are atomic position dependent. Their spatial derivative corresponds to a light-force exerted on average by one photon! This force can attract atom inside the cavity. Conversely, the atom modifies the cavity frequency, which changes its response to the field. From an analysis of this field transmission, the position of the atom inside the cavity can be obtained in real time: an atom-cavity microscope tracking atoms. Feed back procedures to improve the trapping have been implemented.
Garching group (similar films by Caltech group)

C.J.Hood et al, Science, 287, 1457 (2000) . T.Fischer et al, PRL 88, 163002 (2002)

The CQED photon pistol: releasing photons one by one on demand

A Raman process on a single atom converts triggering pulses into photons escaping one by one from the cavity

f
repumping

Experiment performed with flying atoms, then with trapped atoms in cavity

Kuhn et al, PRL, 89, 067901 (2002) J.McKeever et al, Science, 303, 1992 (2004) M. Hijlkema et al, arXiv:quant-ph/0702034 (2007)

Analyzing the photon pistol output

The escaping light is analysed after beam splitting by correlation. Coincidence rate measured as a function of delay between the two output channels. Missing central peak is evidence of single photon emission (a photon cannot be !split!)

Single atom-non linear optics: the photon blockade effect in optical CQED
Once a photon is resonant with the atom-cavity system, a second photon is off-resonant: only one photon at a time can be transmitted by cavity at resonance!

The transmitted light is antibunched

Birnbaum et al, Nature 436, 87 (2005).

4. Entanglement experiments in microwave CQED

Two essential ingredients

Circular Rydberg atoms
Large circular orbit Strong coupling to microwaves

e g

n = 51 n = 50

Long radiative lifetimes (30ms) Level tunability by Stark effect Easy state selective detection Quasi two-level systems

The spin

Superconducting microwave cavity

Gaussian eld mode with 6mm waist Large eld per photon Long photon life time improved by ring around mirrors (1ms) Easy tunability

The spring

Possibility to prepare Fock or coherent states with controlled mean photon number

Artists view of the Paris microwave CQED set-up (2001-2005 version)

Microwave source Oven Circular Rydberg state preparation (coherent state)

Cavity
State selective detection

Auxiliary microwave (atom manipulation) Raimond, Brune and Haroche RMP, 73, 565 (2001)

The route to circular states: a 53 photon adiabatic process

Controlling the atom-cavity interaction time: atomic velocity selection by optical pumping

Rubidium level scheme with transitions implied in the selective depumping and repumping of one velocity class in the F=3 hyperne state

In green, velocity distribution before pumping, in red velocity distribution of atoms pumped in F=3, before being excited in circular Rydberg state

Useful Rabi pulses ( quantum knitting)

Initial state |e,0> % |e,0> + |g,1> $ / 2 pulse Creates atom-cavity entanglement
P e (t)
0.8

|e,0>

51 (level e) 0.6 51.1 GHz 50 (level g)

0.4

0.2

# "t & # "t & e, 0 ! cos % ( e, 0 + sin % ( g,1 $ 2' $ 2'

time ( ? s)
0 30 60 90

0.0

Hagley et al, PRL 79, 1 (97)

EPR pairs in CQED

|e,0> % |g,1> |g,1>% |e,0> |g,0> % |g,0> (|e> +|g>)|0> % |g> (|1> +|0>)

$ pulse maps atomic state on eld and back

0.8

51 (level e) 0.6 51.1 GHz 50 (level g)

0.4

P e (t)

0.2

# "t & # "t & e, 0 ! cos % ( e, 0 + sin % ( g,1 $ 2' $ 2'

time ( ? s)
0 30 60 90

0.0

Matre et al, PRL 79, 769 (97)

|e,0> % - |e,0> |g,1> % - |g,1> |g,0> % |g,0> 2$ pulse: phase gate and quantum logic operations

0.8

51 (level e) 0.6 51.1 GHz 50 (level g)

0.4

P e (t)

0.2

# "t & # "t & e, 0 ! cos % ( e, 0 + sin % ( g,1 $ 2' $ 2'

time ( ? s)
0 30 60 90

0.0

Nogues et al, Nature, 400, 239 (1999); Rauschenbeutel et al, PRL, 83, 5166 (1999)

Entangled atom-atom pair mediated by real photon exchange

V(t)

g2

e1

Electric eld F(t) used to tune atoms #1 and #2 in resonance with C for a determined time t realizing )/2 or ) Rabi pulse conditions

Hagley et al, P.R.L. 79,1 (1997)

Direct entanglement of two atoms via virtual photon exchange: a cavity-assisted controlled collision
(after S.B.Zeng and G.C.Guo, PRL 85, 2392 (2000)).

Two modes: 1/*#1/* 1 +1/*2 Relatively insensitive to cavity Q and thermal photons
%1 1 ( ! = 10 "6 # eg ' + * & $1 $ 2 )

A thought experiment about complementarity

EinsteinBohr discussion at Solvay 1927
Particle/slit entanglement

Microscopic slit: set in motion when deflecting particle. Which path information and no fringes Macroscopic slit: impervious to interfering particle. No which path information and fringes Wave and particle are complementary aspects of the quantum object.

A modern version of Bohrs proposal with a Mach-Zehnder interferometer

_ &

Interference between two well-separated paths. Getting a which-path information?

A modern version of Bohrs proposal: Mach-Zehnder with a moving beam-splitter

_ &

Massive beam splitter: negligible motion, no which- path information, fringes Microscopic beam splitter: which path information and no fringes

Complementarity and entanglement

P a B1 O _ _ M' M b

A more general analyzis of Bohrs experiment Initial beam-splitter state Final state for path b Particle/beam-splitter state Particle/beam-splitter entanglement (an EPR pair if states orthogonal) Final fringes signal

&

B2

!
" = "a 0 + "b !

" a "b

0!

Small mass, large kick NO FRINGES Large mass, small kick FRINGES

0 ! =0
0 ! =1

Complementarity and decoherence

Entanglement with another system destroys interference explicit detector (beam-splitter/ external) uncontrolled measurement by the environment (decoherence)

& _

Complementarity, decoherence and entanglement intimately linked

A more realistic system: Ramsey interferometry

Two resonant $/2 classical pulses on an atomic transition e/g
a B1 M

R1

R2

_ &
Which path information? Atom emits one photon in R1 or R2

D M'
1.0

B2

0.8

0.6

Pg
0.4 0.2 0.0

Ordinary macroscopic fields (heavy beam-splitter) Field state not appreciably affected. No "which path" information FRINGES Mesoscopic Ramsey field (light beam-splitter) Addition of one photon changes the field. "which path" info NO FRINGES
0 10 20 30 40

50

60

Frquence relative (kHz)

An object at the quantum/classical boundary

Coherent field in a cavity State produced by a classical source coupled for finite time to the cavity mode: field defined by complex amplitude ' From quantum to classical

Vacuum or small field:

Large quantum fluctuations. A field at the single-photon level is a quantum object

Large field

'

A picture in phase space (Fresnel plane)

Small quantum fluctuations. A field with more than 10 photons is almost a classical object.

Bohrs experiment with a Ramsey interferometer

Store one Ramsey field in a high Q cavity

S
Atom-cavity interaction time Tuned for $/2 pulse Possible even if C empty
Initial cavity state

From quantum to classical classical

_

e R1

& _

R2 g D

!
" =

C
1 e, ! e + g, ! g 2

Intermediate atom-cavity state Ramsey fringes contrast Large field

!e ! g

!e " ! g " !
FRINGES

Small field

!e = 0 , !g = 1
NO FRINGE

Quantum/classical limit for an interferometer

Fringes contrast versus photon number N in first Ramsey field
Fringes vanish for quantum field
0.8 0.7 0.6

photon number plays the role of the beamsplitter's "mass" An illustration of the (N() uncertainty relation : Ramsey fringes reveal field pulses phase correlations. Small quantum field: large phase uncertainty and low fringe contrast Not a trivial blurring of the fringes by a classical noise: atom/cavity entanglement can be erased

Fringes contrast

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Nature, 411, 166 (2001)

An elementary quantum eraser

Another thought experiment

_ &

Two interactions with the same beamsplitter assembly erase the which path information and restore the interference fringes

Ramsey quantum eraser

A second interaction with the mode erases the which path info
1.0 0.9

e,0

e,0

0.8 0.7

&
)

0.6

1 ( e,0 + g,1 2

|g,1>

0.5

Pe
0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

Ramsey fringes without fields ! Quantum interference fringes without external field A good tool for quantum manipulations

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Atom found in g: one photon in C whatever the path:no info and fringes

A conditional quantum eraser: new perspective on EPR