This article was downloaded by: [University of Saskatchewan Library]

On: 31 August 2012, At: 12:43

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Modern Optics

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tmop20

Single-photon sources–an introduction

a
Stefan Scheel
a
Quantum Optics and Laser Science, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College London, London,
UK

Version of record first published: 07 Oct 2010

To cite this article: Stefan Scheel (2009): Single-photon sources–an introduction, Journal of Modern Optics, 56:2-3, 141-160

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500340802331849

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Journal of Modern Optics
Vol. 56, Nos. 2–3, 20 January–10 February 2009, 141–160

TOPICAL REVIEW
Single-photon sources – an introduction
Stefan Scheel*
Quantum Optics and Laser Science, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College
London, London, UK
(Received 31 January 2008; final version received 8 July 2008)

This review surveys the physical principles and recent developments in manufacturing single-photon sources.
Special emphasis is placed on important potential applications such as linear optical quantum computing
(LOQC), quantum key distribution (QKD) and quantum metrology that drive the development of these sources
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 12:43 31 August 2012

of single photons. We discuss the quantum-mechanical properties of light prepared in a quantum state of definite
photon number and compare it with coherent light that shows a Poissonian distribution of photon numbers. We
examine how the single-photon fidelity directly influences the ability to transmit secure quantum bits over
a predefined distance. The theoretical description of modified spontaneous decay, the main principle behind
single-photon generation, provides the background for many experimental implementations such as those using
microresonators or pillar microcavities. The main alternative way to generate single photons using postselection
of entangled photon pairs from parametric down-conversion, will be discussed. We concentrate on describing the
underlying physical principles and we will point out limitations and open problems associated with single-photon
production.
Keywords: single photons; cluster states; linear optical quantum computing; cavity QED

1. Introduction article we will discuss the main uses of single photons

In recent years, rapid advances in quantum informa-
tion theory and metrology were the main driving forces
behind the development of a novel technological tool –
a controllable source of single photons on demand.
Single photons on demand are an important resource
in various areas of the emerging quantum technologies
such as quantum key distribution and all-optical
quantum information processing. They are the basic
prerequisite for unconditional security in quantum key
distribution protocols and a key ingredient for fault-
tolerant quantum computing schemes. In other areas
such as metrology, an accurate standard for the
luminous intensity, or candela, one of the seven
primary SI units, can be built using single photons
on demand in well-defined modes.
Generating one and only one photon at a well-
defined instance, however, proves to be a formidable
task. It amounts to producing a highly nonclassical
state of light with strongly nonclassical properties.
Single photons on demand must therefore originate
from a source that operates deep in the quantum
regime and that is capable of exerting a high degree of
quantum control to achieve sufficient purity and
quantum efficiency of photon production. In this
on demand, their physical properties, and describe
ways of generating them. We will focus on the physical
principles of single-photon generation rather than
technical details of specific implementations which
can be found in the relevant literature. In particular,
we will concentrate on the two most widely used
methods, modifying spontaneous decay to achieve
unidirectionality and near-determinism, and postselec-
tion from entangled photon pairs generated in
parametric down-conversion.
This article is organized as follows. We will
introduce the three main applications that became
the driving forces behind the development for sources
of single photons on demand in Section 2. We then
briefly review the differences between Fock states and
attenuated coherent states in Section 3 and explain the
intrinsic difficulties associated with single-photon
generation. The main part of this review, Section 4, is
devoted to reviewing the principal designs for determi-
nistic single-photon sources and their basic functions.
This list is necessarily far from complete, with new
designs or combinations of mentioned designs
constantly being developed. The literature list which
concludes this review should be taken as a guidance
and does not claim to be complete.

*Email: s.scheel@imperial.ac.uk

ISSN 0950–0340 print/ISSN 1362–3044 online

ß 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09500340802331849
http://www.informaworld.com
 142
2. Applications for single photons
Single photons on demand in well-defined spatio-
temporal modes find a widespread use in modern
quantum technologies. Apart from fundamental appli-
cations in tests of quantum mechanics, single photons
play a vital part in quantum key distribution, all-
optical quantum computing schemes, and radiometry.
We have already noted that light prepared in a photon-
number eigenstate possesses properties that classical
light, containing many photons that are Poissonian
distributed, cannot have. In this section, we will briefly
describe those three main applications.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 12:43 31 August 2012
2.1. Quantum key distribution
The most advanced application is certainly quantum
key distribution (QKD) [1–3] in which the exchange of
quantum particles between two parties is used to
generate a string of secure bits of classical information.
The secure classical bits then form a key with which
a classical message can be encrypted by the sender,
transmitted, and deciphered by the receiver. It should
be stressed again that QKD does not involve encrypt-
ing the message into quantum states, only the exchange
of the key involves quantum particles.
In the original version of the BB84 protocol [1],
information is encoded in the polarization of a stream of
photons. The sender switches randomly between two
orthogonal basis sets, for example between vertical (")
and horizontal (!) polarization and a basis consisting
of 45 (%) and 135 (&) polarized photons. To each
individual basis state one assigns a classical bit value, for
example ‘0’¼ (", %) and ‘1’¼ (!, &). The receiver also
chooses to measure randomly in one of the two basis sets
and collects the respective bit values.
The receiver has no information about the polar-
ization basis the sender had actually chosen to send the
photons in. If the receiver decided to measure in the
wrong basis, the measurement outcome will, with
probability 1/2, yield a wrong result. If, however,
sender and receiver by chance use the same polariza-
tion basis to send and measure (which also happens in
half of all cases on average), then ideally both share
information about the classical bit value encoded
within the two-dimensional space spanned by the
orthogonal basis states. Sender and receiver therefore
have to classically communicate their choice of basis
(note that this does not reveal any information about
the bit value). This protocol is schematically depicted
in Table 1.
In principle, the BB84 protocol could be realized
with attenuated coherent laser pulses instead of single
photons. However, because of the non-vanishing
probability to find more than one photon per coherent
S. Scheel
Table 1. BB84 protocol for secret key distribution. Only in
those cases in which sender and receiver choose the same
polarization basis for preparation and measurement, a secure
bit is transmitted.
sender % " & ! % " ! " & % "
receiver "
! &
% &
% "
! &
% &
% "
! "
! &
% "
! "
!
key 1 1 0 1 0 1 0
pulse (see Section 3), this protocol is susceptible to
eavesdropping. A particularly effective eavesdropping
attack is the photon-number splitting attack which
consists of performing a quantum non-demolition
measurement on each pulse. In case of more than
one photon available per pulse, the ‘surplus’ photons
can be split off and can be used to perform projective
measurements in the basis publicly communicated
between the sender and receiver [4,5]. The obvious
way to make sure that such an attack does not succeed
is to send one and only one photon at any time, and
several experiments have been performed that imple-
ment the BB84-protocol with single-photon sources
[6,7].
There exist numerous extensions and modifications
to the original BB84 protocol that enhance the security
of the key distribution against various attacks despite
the use of weak coherent pulses. Out of the many
variants, we only mention the differential phase shift
protocol [8] which has resulted in the longest terrestrial
secure key distribution thus far [9]. In this experiment,
a secure bit rate of 17 kbit s1 at 105 km and 12.1 bit
s1 at 200 km length of the optical fibre, respectively,
was achieved with coherent pulses with on average 0.2
photons per pulse produced at a repetition rate of 10
GHz. The transmission line of 200 km of optical fibre
showed 42.1 dB channel loss which is already beyond
the loss tolerance threshold of 33 dB needed to
implement QKD in satellite-based systems [10]. It
should be stressed, however, that for any given channel
loss rate, an ideal single-photon source will always
yield higher secure key generation rates than any
protocol based on weak coherent states. In Section 3.3
we show the maximal distance over which secure
communication can be achieved as a function of the
second-order coherence function g(2)(0).
2.2. All-optical quantum information processing
Single photons in well-defined quantum states are an
indispensable tool in most linear-optical quantum
computing (LOQC) schemes (for recent reviews on
this topic, see [11,12]). The earliest notable proposal for
LOQC with single-photon Fock states in dual-rail
polarization encoding is due to Knill, Laflamme and
 Journal of Modern Optics
Figure 1. Left: the nonlinear sign (NS) gate forms the basis
of the KLM scheme. The beam splitter reflectivities
R1 ¼ R3 ¼ (4  2(21/2))1 and R2 ¼ 1  21/2 ensure that with
a success probability of 1/4 the transformation
j i ¼ c0j0i þ c1j1i þ c2j2i ° j 0 i ¼ c0j0i þ c1j1i  c2j2i is rea-
lized. Right: two NS gates in the arms of a Mach–Zehnder
interferometer realize a probabilistic controlled-phase gate.
Milburn (KLM). In their seminal paper [13] they
showed that, with the help of single photon sources
and detectors and linear optical elements such as beam
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 12:43 31 August 2012
splitters and phase shifters, it would be in
principle possible to create a universal quantum
computer. Their scheme combines off-line resources
of highly entangled states, quantum teleportation and
quantum error correction protocols.
The basic building block of the KLM scheme is the
nonlinear sign (NS) gate shown on the left in Figure 1.
It acts only on the two-photon component of an
arbitrary (unknown) quantum state of the form
j i ¼ c0j0i þ c1j1i þ c2j2i and changes the phase of
this component by  or, equivalently, performs the
transformation c2 ° c2. The unitary operator that
implements such a transformation is
U^ NS ¼ exp½ipnð
^ n^  1Þ=2
with n^ denoting the photon number operator acting on
the signal mode containing the state j i.
The interaction Hamiltonian that would generate
such a unitary operator is formally equivalent to
a (quartic) cross-Kerr interaction Hamiltonian,
H^ / ð3Þ n^2 . The phase shift that this cross-Kerr
nonlinearity needs to generate is, however, far too
large to be experimentally accessible as the nonlinear
crystal would have to be excessively long.
Hence, such type of nonlinear operation can only
be implemented by means of projective measurements.
However, these measurement-induced nonlinearities
are only generated with less than unit probability,
and the maximally achievable success rate is just 1/4
[14–16]. Two of these NS gates sandwiched between
two symmetric beam splitters in a Mach–Zehnder
interferometer (see right figure in Figure 1) result in
a probabilistic (success rate 1/16) controlled-phase gate
that introduces a  phase shift on the j1, 1i-component
of a two-mode quantum state. Such a controlled-phase
gate, together with the ability to perform arbitrary
single-mode operations, would be sufficient for
universal quantum computing [17]. A beam splitter
network realizing the controlled-phase gate without
143
referring explicitly to a Mach–Zehnder interferometric
set-up has been proposed by Knill [18]. This network
operates with a slightly higher success rate of 2/27.
The major drawback of the circuit-based KLM
scheme is that, for it is an inherently probabilistic
protocol, it requires an unacceptably large amount of
resources (beam splitters, single-photon sources,
photon-number-resolving detectors) to make it
approximately deterministic [19]. Improvements to
this scheme were introduced later [20–22] and made
use of the concept of one-way computing [23] using
graph states. Within the framework of one-way
quantum computing, the computational process is
not realized by a succession of unitary operations
acting on an input state as in the gate model of
quantum computation, but rather by a sequence of
(projective) measurements on a highly entangled
resource state, a cluster state or graph state [24].
Cluster states (a special subset of graph states) are
created by preparing all qubits (denoted by the symbol
) in an equal superposition of their two logical basis
states j0i and j1i and performing a controlled-phase
operation between neighboring pairs (denoted by the
link —). For example, the two-qubit cluster state is
obtained by applying the controlled-phase gate to the
product state (j0i þ j1i)  (j0i þ j1i) (disregarding nor-
malization factors) to give
ð1Þ
which, after performing a Hadamard operation
j0i ° j0i þ j1i, j1i ° j0i  j1i on the second qubit, is
equivalent to the Bell state j00i þ j11i. Similarly,
extending the two-qubit cluster yields (after
a Hadamard operation on the third qubit) the GHZ
state
Single-qubit measurements affect a cluster state in
different ways. A measurement in the logical basis
{j0i, j1i}, also known as a ^z measurement, removes
a qubit from the cluster,
shown here for a simple two-dimensional cluster. In
contrast, a measurement in the ^x direction not only
removes a qubit from the cluster but also joins the
adjacent qubits,
as shown here for the GHZ cluster. It then turns out
that any quantum-gate network can be rewritten in
 144 S. Scheel
terms of single-qubit measurements on a specific
cluster state (or graph state).
Because each cluster (or graph) realizes a particular
quantum operation depending on its graph connectiv-
ity, producing clusters with the same number of qubits
but different links between them are equivalent to
realizing different quantum networks. For example,
computation with purely one-dimensional clusters,
i.e. linear chains of qubits, can be efficiently
classically simulated [25]. However, two-dimensional
clusters can provide genuine, classically non-simulable,
computation.
In the experiment reported in [26], a four-qubit box
cluster
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 12:43 31 August 2012
has been generated which implements Grover’s search
algorithm. Even bigger, six-qubit clusters in star and
ladder formations
have been reported in [27]. The basic principle behind
the experimental realizations is the production of
entangled photon pairs from parametric down-conver-
sion which, as we have seen, yields two-qubit clusters
(or twin photons in old money). Using type-II fusion
gates described in [22] these two-qubit clusters can be
merged to form larger clusters of almost arbitrary
shapes.
Despite the fact that the controlled-phase opera-
tions between two photonic qubits have to be realized
with probabilistic gates, the resource overhead drops
dramatically compared to the KLM scheme.
The generation of an L-shaped two-dimensional
cluster, regarded as the central building block for
arbitrary clusters, requires on average 52 Bell pairs
[22], which are several orders of magnitude fewer than
in the original KLM proposal. With the additional use
of classical percolation methods, the creation of NN
cluster states could be possible using N2o(log3 N )
4-qubit clusters [28]. The resource overheads therefore
grow only polynomially rather than exponentially.
Cluster-state computation can in principle be made
fault-tolerant [29–31]. Fault-tolerant computing sets
stringent requirements on the performance and quality
of individual component elements, above which
efficient error correction can be successfully applied.
Within the framework of one-way quantum computing
it has been shown that there exist cluster-state schemes
that allow efficient LOQC provided that the
single-photon production efficiency p (see Section
7.2) and the single-photon detection efficiency  (see
Section 7.1) satisfy the inequality [32]
2
p 4 : ð2Þ
3
With the currently highest single-photon detection
efficiency of 70–80% using superconducting nanowire
detectors (SSPDs) and single-photon generation effi-
ciencies of at most 50–60%, this bound has not yet
been reached, but is not too far off experimental
realizability.
It is worth noting that alternative schemes for
cluster-state quantum computation have been pro-
posed, where the qubits are stored in extra internal
degrees of freedom in the single-photon sources and
entanglement is mediated by single-photon interference
effects [33,34].
2.3. The ‘quantum candela’
The potential to create single photons on demand in
well-defined spatio-temporal modes at high repetition
rates opens up the possibility for application of
deterministic single photon sources in the area of
metrology. Up until now, we have no accurate means
of building a standard to measure the luminous
intensity of a light source, the candela, one of the
seven primary SI units. The current definition of the
candela as it has been adopted since 1979 is [35]:
The candela is the luminous intensity, in a given
direction, of a source that emits monochromatic
radiation of frequency 5401012 hertz and that has
a radiant intensity in that direction of 1/683 watt per
steradian.
The candela is currently realized by cryogenic radio-
metry in which the optical power of a light source
heating an absorbing cavity is compared to the electric
power heating the same sample during alternating
optical and electrical heating cycles. This technique is
called Electric Substitution Radiometry (ESR)
(see Figure 2).
A far more elegant and potentially more accurate
way of realizing the candela would be to design a tool
that can (i) produce photons at a well-defined
frequency, i.e. energy, in a well-defined spatio-
temporal mode and (ii) that is capable of releasing
a predetermined number of photons in a certain time
window. In this way, a well-defined energy flux per
unit time and area can be produced. A deterministic
single-photon gun fulfils both of these requirements.
Photons released from some of the single-photon
sources described below have very well-defined
spatio-temporal properties and, since they can be
 Journal of Modern Optics
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 12:43 31 August 2012
Figure 2. Schematic set-up of a cryogenic radiometer using
the Electric Substitution Radiometry technique. Picture
taken from NPL website http://www.npl.co.uk. For explana-
tion see text. (The color version of this figure is included in
the online version of the journal.).
produced on demand, can be counted. As each of these
photons carries a well-defined energy  h!, and the
number of photons per unit time is known, photon
counting amounts to a very precise power measure-
ment. Such a device promises to revolutionize the
existing luminous intensity standards (a ‘quantum
candela’) [36]. With the help of a single-photon
source, there exists the realistic possibility to re-define
the candela as [36]:
The candela is the luminous intensity, in a given
direction, of a source that emits photons of frequency
540  1012 hertz at a rate of 4.092  1015 photons per
second per steradian in that direction.
Given that the current radiometric realization
already has a relative precision of 104, single-photon
sources will have a long way to go before the new
definition can be established. The reason is that using
heralded single-photon sources, as is being envisaged
for this particular realization, makes one dependent on
the probabilistic nature of the postselection process
(for details see Section 4.2).
2.4. Other applications
So far, we have concentrated on single-photon sources.
A host of new potential applications arise if one takes
twin photons (alternatively known as two-qubit cluster
states or Bell states in the context of all-optical
quantum information processing) into consideration.
Besides their immediate use as a heralded source of
single photons by postselected measurement (see
145
Section 4.2), twin photons find a wide range of
applications in quantum-optical coherence tomogra-
phy [37,38], quantum imaging [39–41] and potentially
loophole-free tests of Bell’s inequalities.
Bell’s inequality states that certain correlations
between measurements performed on spatially sepa-
rated and maximally entangled pairs of photons (EPR
pairs) exist that cannot be described by a classical local
hidden-variable model [42]. Tests of the validity of this
inequality are of fundamental importance for our
understanding of the quantum nature of our world.
However, all experimental verifications to date suf-
fered from a lack of sufficient evidence that would
support an interpretation of the obtained results in
favour of quantum mechanics rather than a local
hidden-variable model [43,44]. Two main loopholes
have been identified that make a quantum-mechanical
interpretation of some experimental data difficult.
The locality loophole is associated with the necessity
to choose two independent, space-like separated
measurement settings without the possibility of infor-
mation transfer between them. This loophole has
already been closed in photon experiments [45,46].
The so-called detection loophole is related to measure-
ments with insufficient detection efficiency whose
statistics can be interpreted using a local hidden-
variable model [47]. To close this loophole in photon
experiments using nonmaximally entangled states,
photodetectors with at least 67% efficiency are
needed [48]. In asymmetric atom–photon systems, in
which the atom is assumed to be detected with unit
efficiency, the minimum photodetection efficiency can
be as low as 50% [49] or even 43% [50].
3. Characterization of quantum states of light
In order to fully appreciate the technological achieve-
ments that we are going to review in this article,
one needs to understand the fundamental difficulties
associated with the generation of single photons.
Let us begin with examining the differences
between coherent states produced by a laser, and
Fock states.
3.1. Field quantization, Fock states versus coherent
states
The electromagnetic field in free space (and in the
Coulomb gauge) is quantized by regarding the classical
vector field A(r) and its canonically conjugate momen-
tum &(r) ¼ "0E?(r) as Hilbert-space operators Â(r)
and ^
&ðrÞ. The classical Poisson brackets
{Ai(r), j(r0 )} ¼ ?
ij ðr  r0
Þ have to be replaced by
the corresponding equal-time commutators
 146 S. Scheel

½A^ i ðrÞ, 
^ i ðr0 Þ ¼ i
h? 0
ij ðr  r Þ. The field operators can be electric field irrespective of the number of photons in
decomposed into monochromatic modes of frequencies the state, raise the question of whether there are other
! as quantum states of light with more familiar statistical
X properties. In particular, we are looking for states in
^ ¼
AðrÞ A ðrÞa^  þ H.c., ð3Þ which the mean value of the vector potential (and

hence of all electromagnetic field operators) could be
X obtained by replacing the photonic amplitude opera-
^
&ðrÞ ¼ i"0 ! A ðrÞa^ þ H.c., ð4Þ tors in Equation (6) by their complex amplitudes,

â °  and ây ° *. Clearly, from these arguments we
where the classical mode functions A(r) form immediately find that these states should be eigenstates
a complete set of orthonormal functions and are the of the non-Hermitian operator â with eigenvalue , i.e.
solution of the Helmholtz equation âji ¼ ji.
A proper definition of these states can be obtained
!2
A ðrÞ þ A ðrÞ ¼ 0: ð5Þ as follows. Since the Fock states form a complete set of
c2
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 12:43 31 August 2012

orthonormal states, each unitarily transformed set of

The bosonic field commutation relations translate into states will also be sufficient to form a basis in the same
bosonic commutation relations for the annihilation Hilbert space. The coherent states ji are realized by a
and creation operators â and a^ y , ½a^  , a^y0  ¼ 0 , whose particular such unitary transformation. Transforming
elementary excitations are the photons of mode  [51]. the annihilation operator â with the displacement
For example, in cartesian coordinates the solutions operator ^
DðÞ ¼ expða^y   aÞ,
^ one obtains
to the Helmholtz equation are plane waves exp(ik  r) 0 ^ ^ y
a^ ¼ DðÞa^ D ðÞ ¼ a^  . The transformed ground
with k2 ¼ !2 =c2 which, for each mode frequency !, ^
state ji ¼ DðÞj0i is a right-hand eigenstate of the
support two orthogonal polarizations, un-transformed (non-Hermitian) annihilation operator
X2 ð  1=2 â with eigenvalue , âji ¼ ji. In contrast to
^ d3 k h

AðrÞ ¼ 3=2 2" kc
e expðik  rÞa^ ðkÞ þ h.c, Fock states, in a coherent state the mean value and
¼1 ð2pÞ 0
variance of the photon number operator are hjnji ^ ¼
ð6Þ hjðnÞ^ 2 ji ¼ jj2 . The mean value of the electric-field
and the bosonic commutation relations satisfied by the strength is hjE^ i ðrÞji ¼ i!½Ai ðrÞ  Ai ðrÞ  and thus
photonic amplitude operators read closely corresponds to classical light, with the variance
h i of the electric-field strength being independent of the
a^  ðkÞ, a^ y 0 ðk0 Þ ¼ 0 ðk  k0 Þ: ð7Þ coherent amplitude, hj[Êi(r)]2ji ¼!2jAi(r)j2, and
equal to its vacuum value.
The operator of the electromagnetic energy, i.e. the The number distribution of photons in a coherent
Hamiltonian, is then simply the infinite sum of state is Poissonian,
harmonic oscillator Hamiltonians, jj2n  
  pn ¼ jhnjij2 ¼ exp jj2 : ð10Þ
X X y 1 n!
^
H¼ ^
H ¼ ^ ^
h! a a þ :
 ð8Þ
 
2 An immediate consequence of the fact that the
photon-number variance is non-zero is that devices
Since the number operator, n^  ¼ a^y a^ , clearly commu- that produce coherent states can never be used as
tes with the Hamiltonian (8), its eigenstates (the deterministic single-photon sources. For example,
photon-number or Fock states), n^  jn i ¼ n jn i, are with jj ¼ 0.1 1, the probability of finding no
also the energy eigenstates of Ĥ with energy photon at all is p0
0.99, whereas the single-photon
E ¼ h! ðn þ 12Þ. Because of that, the photon- probability is p1
jj2 ¼ 0.01. However, there are
number variance vanishes in a Fock state, also non-negligible contributions from higher photon
^ 2 jni ¼ 0
hnjðnÞ ð9Þ numbers, e.g. p2
jj4/2 ¼ 5  105. The existence of
contributions from Fock states with photon number
[from now on, we drop the mode index ]. In contrast larger than one is detrimental for quantum key
to classical light, the mean value of the electric-field distribution and certain flavors of quantum informa-
strength vanishes, hnjÊ(r)jni ¼ 0, and its field fluctua- tion processing as they open the door for beam
tions are linear in the number of photons, splitting attacks (in case of quantum key distribu-
hnj[Êi(r)]2jni ¼ !2jAi(r)j2(2n þ 1). tion) and introduce irrecoverable errors (in quantum
These rather unexpected statistical properties of the information processing with photon-number
Fock state, in particular the vanishing of the mean encoding).
 Journal of Modern Optics 147

On the other hand, we have seen that quantized

light prepared in a single-photon Fock state j1i shows
no fluctuation in photon number at all,
^ 2 j1i  0, because the Fock states are eigenstates
h1jðnÞ
of the number operator with the photon numbers being
its sharp eigenvalues. Hence, a deterministic source of
single photons must necessarily generate Fock states. Figure 3. Different pathways two indistinguishable photons
impinging on a beam splitter can take. For explanation see
Before we properly turn to the problem how to text. (The color version of this figure is included in the online
generate single photons, let us investigate ways of version of the journal.).
judging how close a given quantum state of light is
from a single-photon Fock state. In particular, we will
look at two types of correlation properties, the beam splitter. Following [52], we write the joint
Hong–Ou–Mandel quantum interference (or mutual probability for detecting one photon at times t and
indistinguishability) and photon anti-bunching (mea- t þ , respectively, at the detectors 1 and 2 as
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 12:43 31 August 2012

sured by second-order intensity correlation).

P12 ð Þ ¼ Sh jE^ ðÞ ^ ðÞ ^ ðþÞ ^ ðþÞ
1 ðtÞE2 ðt þ ÞE2 ðt þ ÞE1 ðtÞj i ,
ð11Þ
3.2. Hong–Ou–Mandel quantum interference
where S is the spectral response function of the (broad-
The Hong–Ou–Mandel effect is a quantum interfer- band) detector. The electric-field operators appearing
ence effect that occurs when two indistiguishable in Equation (11) are the operators of the outgoing
photons impinge onto a symmetric beam splitter [52]. fields which have to be related to the electric-field
Based on the quantum theory of the beam splitter [53] operators of the incoming fields. For a symmetric
(we also refer the reader to standard textbooks, e.g. beam splitter one obtains [we set t ¼ 0 and remove
[51]) one can devise an intuitive argument based on constant prefactors]
adding probability amplitudes.
In Figure 3 we show the possible pathways two P12 ð Þ / h jE^ ðÞ ^ ðÞ ^ ðþÞ ^ ðþÞ
1 ð0ÞE2 ð ÞE2 ð ÞE1 ð0Þj i
identical single photons can take when they impinge on
þ h jE^ ðÞ ^ ðÞ ^ ðþÞ ^ ðþÞ
2 ð0ÞE1 ð ÞE1 ð ÞE2 ð0Þj i
a beam splitter. Although the photons are indistin-
guishable, we label them by different colors in order to  h jE^ ðÞ ð0ÞE^ ðÞ ð ÞE^ ðþÞ ð ÞE^ ðþÞ ð0Þj i
1 2 1 2
trace their paths. Paths (a) and (b) depict the two  h jE^ ðÞ ^ ðÞ ^ ðþÞ ^ ðþÞ
2 ð0ÞE1 ð ÞE2 ð ÞE1 ð0Þj i: ð12Þ
possibilities of having one photon reflected and the
other transmitted through the beam splitter. In these The electric-field operators in Equation (12) are now
cases both photons end up in the same output arm and the input field operators with respect to which the
leave the other port empty. quantum state j i has to be defined.
Reflection from an interface between two dielectric We assume the initial quantum state to be a pure
materials leads to a phase shift. For simplicity, we will product state of two single photons that may have
assume that the photons arriving from the bottom different spatiotemporal mode profiles. In order to
experience a  phase shift. In paths (c) and (d) the define these profiles, let us return to the definition of
photons leave the beam splitter in separate output the monochromatic mode expansion, Equation (4),
ports. However, the amplitudes of paths (c) and (d) and let us unitarily transform the annihilation
have opposite phases, and because of the indistinguish- operators
ability of the two photons, the amplitudes of these two X
paths cancel each other. Hence, two photons impinging a^ 0 ¼ U
a^
ð13Þ

on a symmetric beam splitter will always leave in the

same output port. so that the positive-frequency component of the
In contrast to Fock states, a tensor product of two electric-field strength in the Heisenberg picture can be
coherent states remains a tensor product of coherent written as
states, even if they are mixed at a beam splitter. In this !
sense, coherent states behave like classical light. X X
^EðþÞ ðr, tÞ ¼ i U ! A ðrÞ expði! tÞ a^ 0 : ð14Þ

The Hong–Ou–Mandel quantum interference effect  
 
can be used to define a measure for the indistinguish-
ability between two single-photon sources. For this Setting  ¼ (1, 2), the functions Uð1,2Þ (i.e. the columns
purpose, we have to calculate the joint probability for of the unitary matrix U ) determine the spatiotemporal
detecting one photon in each of the output ports of the mode profiles of the (non-monochromatic) modes 1
 148 S. Scheel

and 2 in terms of the monochromatic modes A(r).

Hence, we can write
X
E^ ðþÞ
1 ðr, tÞ ¼ i U1 ! A ðrÞ expði! tÞa^ 01 , ð15Þ


X Figure 4. Schematic set-up of a Hanbury-Brown–Twiss

E^ ðþÞ
2 ðr, tÞ ¼ i U2 ! A ðrÞ expði! tÞa^02 : ð16Þ experiment. The intensity correlation function with a delay

time is measured at the correlator C.
The input state can now be defined in terms of these
non-monochromatic modes as
3.3. Photon anti-bunching
0 0
j i¼ a^ 1y a^2y j0, 0i: ð17Þ Another feature of nonclassical states of light such as
Fock states that distinguishes them from classical (or
A straightforward calculation then reveals that the near-classical) states such as coherent states is the
joint probability (12) can be expressed as
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 12:43 31 August 2012

effect of anti-bunching. In an experiment of the

Hanbury-Brown–Twiss type [55] (see Figure 4) one
P12 ð Þ / jG1 ð0Þj2 jG2 ð Þj2 þ jG1 ð Þj2 jG2 ð0Þj2 measures the intensity correlation function
 
 G1 ð0ÞG2 ð0ÞG1 ð ÞG2 ð Þ þ c.c. , ð18Þ Gð2Þ ð Þ ¼ lim hE^ ðÞ ðtÞE^ ðÞ ðt þ ÞE^ ðþÞ ðt þ ÞE^ ðþÞ ðtÞi:
t!1
where we have defined the (temporal Fourier) ð22Þ
transforms
For classical light, when the operator character of the
X
Gi ðtÞ ¼ Ui ! A ðrÞ expði! tÞ: electric field does not play a role, one can write
ð19Þ Equation (22) as


When integrating the joint probability over Gð2Þ

class ð Þ ¼ lim hIðt þ ÞIðtÞiclass , ð23Þ
t!1
a measurement time that is assumed to be longer
than the spread of Gi(t), we obtain an expression for where I ¼ E() E(þ) is the classical intensity.
the expected number of coincidences as The classical average is performed using the joint
ð ð probability distribution pclass(I1, t þ , I2, t) for two
Nc / jG1 ð0Þj2 d jG2 ð Þj2 þ jG2 ð0Þj2 d jG1 ð Þj2 intensities I1 and I2 as [51]
 ð  ðð
 
 G1 ð0ÞG2 ð0Þ d G1 ð ÞG2 ð Þ þ c.c. : ð20Þ Gð2Þ
class ð Þ ¼ lim dI1 dI2 I1 I2 pclass ðI1 , t þ , I2 , tÞ: ð24Þ
t!1

On examining Equation (20), we see that only if Application of the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality yields
G1(t) ¼ G2(t) the coincidence count drops to zero. ð 1=2
ð2Þ 2
Clearly, the photons are indistiguishable and interfer Gclass ð Þ  lim dI1 I1 pclass ðI1 , t þ Þ
t!1
perfectly. On the other hand, if Ðthe spatiotemporal ð 1=2
mode profiles do not overlap, d G1 ð ÞG2 ð Þ ¼ 0,
 dI2 I22 pclass ðI2 , tÞ ¼ Gð2Þ
class ð0Þ , ð25Þ
the coincidence counts are maximized. Hence, we
can define a degree of mutual indistinguishability
where pclass(I, t) is the marginal probability distribu-
as [54]
tion. With this definition we find that for classical light
Ð
Re½G1 ð0ÞG2 ð0Þ d G1 ð ÞG2 ð Þ
M¼ Ð Ð , ð21Þ Gð2Þ ð2Þ
jG1 ð0Þj2 d jG2 ð Þj2 þ jG2 ð0Þj2 d jG1 ð Þj2
which takes its values in the interval M 2 [0, 1].
The value M ¼ 1 corresponds to two perfectly
indistinguishable photons. By definition, the depth
of the Hong–Ou–Mandel dip is proportional to
1  M. While mutual indistinguishability is a vital
ingredient in linear-optical quantum computing
schemes, it is not necessary for a successful quantum
key distribution.
class ð Þ  Gclass ð0Þ,
ð26Þ
meaning that the probability of detecting a photon
immediately after the arrival of another photon is
nonzero. Photons in classical light always arrive in
clumps (as do buses in London), this effect is called
photon bunching. Equality holds for coherent states.
There are, on the other hand, nonclassical quantum
states of light, that obey the reverse inequality
Gð2Þ ð Þ 4 Gð2Þ ð0Þ: ð27Þ
 Journal of Modern Optics 149

Figure 6. Theoretically allowed transmission loss 1  jTj2 in

Figure 5. Second-order correlation function g(2)( ) in arbi- dB as a function of the value of the intensity correlation at
trary units for classical light (red curve) with g(2)(0) ¼ 2, zero time delay, g(2)(0), to achieve a secure bit rate of 108
coherent light with g(2)( ) ¼ 1 (green curve), and perfectly bits per pulse. After [6].
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 12:43 31 August 2012

anti-bunched (nonclassical) light with g(2)(0) ¼ 0 (blue curve).

The width of the curves reflects the coherence time of the
photons. (The color version of this figure is included in the
online version of the journal.). Table 2. Experimental values for the intensity correlation
function gð2Þ
exp ð0Þ at zero time delay.

This means that after the arrival of one photon, the Single-photon source gð2Þ
exp ð0Þ Refs.
probability of finding a second photon immediately
NV color center 0.08 [7]
after the first is greatly reduced. The photons tend to 87
Rb in optical cavity 0.054 [56]
arrive separately. This effect is called photon anti- 133
Cs in optical cavity 0.063 [57]
bunching. 40
Caþ in ion-trap cavity 0.015 [58]
In the literature, one finds the normalized intensity semiconductor polymer 0.08 [59]
correlation function (or simply second-order single molecule fluorescence 0.25 [60]
electrically driven InAs quantum dot 0.28 [61]
coherence) electrically driven InGaAs/GaAs quantum dot
0 [62]
GaN quantum dot 0.3 [63]
hE^ ðÞ ðtÞE^ ðÞ ðt þ ÞE^ ðþÞ ðt þ ÞE^ ðþÞ ðtÞi InAs quantum dot in micropillar 0.02 [64,65]
gð2Þ ð Þ ¼ lim :
t!1 hE^ ðÞ ðt þ ÞE^ ðþÞ ðt þ ÞihE^ ðÞ ðtÞE^ ðþÞ ðtÞi
ð28Þ
In Figure 6 we show the maximal distance over
Let us examine the possible values of g(2)(0) for which secure communication can be established with
different single-mode quantum states. Using the a number of secure bits per pulse of 108 as a function
definition (14) and restricting ourselves to one mode of g(2)(0). Additional parameters are the dark count
( ¼ 0), we immediately see that for a single-photon
0
probability of pdark ¼ 2.5  109 (corresponding to the
Fock state j i ¼ a^y0 j0i we must have G(2)(0) ¼ 0 and experimental data presented in [9]; time jitter of the
thus g(2)(0) ¼ 0 because the action of two annihilation detectors j ¼ 50 ps, dark count rate d ¼ 50 Hz,
operators on a single excitation destroys the state. On pdark ¼ d j ¼ 2.5  109) and a baseline signal error
the other hand, for a single-mode coherent state rate of
¼ 4%.
obeying a^ 0 ji ¼ ji we find that g(2)( ) ¼ 1 which Typical experimental values lie in the range
marks the boundary between classical and nonclassical between gð2Þ exp ð0Þ ¼ 0:015 and gð2Þ exp ð0Þ ¼ 0:3 (see
states. A thermal P state with density operator Table 2), with one experiment reporting a value of
%^ ¼ ½1  expðxÞ n expðxnÞjnihnj (x ¼ h!/kBT ) gð2Þ
exp ð0Þ
0 [62]. However, the measured values are
shows g(2)(0) ¼ 2 (see Figure 5). generally higher than the actual values for the sources
Measurements of the intensity correlation function themselves. Dark counts in the detectors increase the
in a Hanbury-Brown–Twiss set-up can therefore reveal probability to register two photons at the same time,
the quantum nature of light and, as the Hong–Ou– one from the single-photon source and one from the
Mandel quantum interference effect, can be used to background light. Given the signal-to-background
determine the degree of nonclassicality of a quantum ratio x ¼ S/B, one can estimate the actual value of
state of light. For example, the value of g(2)(0) g(2)( ) from the measured value gð2Þ
exp ð Þ as [66]
determines the maximal channel loss, and thus the
maximal transmission distance, that can be tolerated gð2Þ
exp ð Þ  1 x
gð2Þ ð Þ ¼ 1 þ , ¼ : ð29Þ
for secure quantum key distribution [4,6]. 2 xþ1
 150
The dramatic effect of background noise in the
detector on the measured value of the zero-delay
coincidence probability has been demonstrated in [67].
In this work, single-photon emission from the same
semiconductor quantum dot has been studied with two
different types of detectors, two InGaAs avalanche
photodiodes (APD) and two NbN nanowire super-
conducting single-photon detectors (SSPD). While the
APD measurement registered a coincidence probability
g(2)(0) ¼ 0.38, the same experiment using the SSPDs gave
a much improved value of g(2)(0) ¼ 0.18 due to the much
lower dark count rate of the SSPD.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 12:43 31 August 2012
4. Single-photon sources
After this brief overview of the characterization and
possible applications of single photons, we will now
turn our attention to the latest developments in
S. Scheel
4.1. Spontaneous decay
The basic problem one faces when attempting to design
a single-photon source is to make sure that at any time
one and only one photon is produced. The idea behind
virtually all designs is the release of a photon by
a single atomic or molecular system with a wide variety
of emitters such as trapped neutral atoms or ions,
quantum dots, color centers or organic molecules being
investigated. Spontaneous emission, however, is an
isotropic and probabilistic process. But what is in fact
needed is a unidirectional, i.e. a highly anisotropic and
deterministic process. The common way to proceed is
to tailor the spontaneous decay to make it approxi-
mately unidirectional. How can this be achieved?
Recall that the rate of spontaneous decay is given by
Fermi’s Golden Rule as
2p
designing single-photon sources. There already exist Gi!f ð!Þ ¼ ð!ÞjMi!f j2 , ð30Þ
h
excellent reviews on this topic [54,68] that give very
detailed accounts of a wide range of experiments. In
this review we will concentrate on the basic functional
principles of some of the implementations as well as
their limitations.
Single-photon sources can be classified in various
ways. Oxborrow and Sinclair [54] distinguish various
realizations by their control or trigger mechanism.
The so-called Class I sources implement a controlled
pump mechanism where the release of the photon is
random, the Class II sources, on the other hand,
continuously pump the emitter and control the release
of the photon. A combination of both, the Class III
sources, exerts full control over both pump and trigger
mechanisms. We will give examples of these classes in
the following sections. Another possible classification,
introduced by Lounis and Orrit [68], is concerned with
the photon emitter itself. As we will see, the photon
emitters can be atoms or ions in resonant cavities,
organic molecules, colour centres, semiconductor
nanocrystals and quantum dots. The single-photon
emitters themselves are embedded in resonant dielectric
structures to ensure unidirectional emission.
The other main method to produce single photons,
albeit not necessarily on demand, is by postselection.
Here, a parametric down-conversion source is used to
generate entangled, i.e. quantum-mechanically corre-
lated, pairs of photons. Registering one of these
photons in a photodetector ensures that a twin of
this photon must exist in the mode that had been
entangled with the measured photon. Although this
process is inherently probabilistic, the instance of
photon creation is known and ‘heralded’ by the
detection of its twin. This section describes the physical
principles behind both methods.
where (!) is the density of states and Mi!f the
relevant dipole transition matrix element.
Dielectric structures or resonators can now be used
to alter the density of modes in the frequency window
occupied by the atomic transition (Purcell effect) [69].
In a non-magnetic bulk material with (real) refractive
index n(!), the spontaneous decay rate changes from
its free-space value 0 to (!) ¼ n(!)0 [70]. Structured
materials can generate effective refractive indices with
rather complicated frequency dependencies with the
prospect of enhancing [69] or inhibiting [71,72]
spontaneous decay. For example, Bragg stacks or
photonic band-gap structures are known to reduce the
density of modes in a certain frequency window by
multiple reflections that lead to destructive interfer-
ence. It should, however, be noted that due to a sum
rule valid for the spontaneous decay rate in lossless
materials [73],
ð1 ð1
Gð!Þ  G0
d! ¼ d!½nð!Þ  1 ¼ 0, ð31Þ
0 G0 0
the density of modes has to be increased in other
frequency regions. The last equality in Equation (31)
follows from a sum rule for the (real part of the)
refractive index and is a result of the superconvergence
theorem for Hilbert transform pairs [74]. The enhance-
ment effect near a band edge in photonic band-gap
materials is used in micropillar structures (see Section
5.1). Similarly, resonator-like structures (see Section 6)
are used to enhance the spontaneous decay in one
particular spatial direction.
The discussion above is strictly correct only for
lossless materials. In case of absorbing materials,
 Journal of Modern Optics 151

Fermi’s Golden Rule (30) has to be replaced by the local-field corrected modified spontaneous decay rate
generalized formula [75–77] that we encountered earlier for real refractive index.
The sum rule (31) can now be extended to
2!2A
Gð!A Þ ¼ d  Im GðrA , rA , !A Þ  d , ð32Þ absorbing materials. It can be shown that the
" 0 c2 
h regularized decay rate
where d is the matrix element of the atomic dipole

3ð"  1Þ 1 9ð"  1Þð4" þ 1Þ 1
moment and G(r, r0 , !) denotes the dyadic Green G0 ð!Þ ¼ G  G0 Im þ
function associated with the classical scattering pro-
blem. More precisely, the Green tensor satisfies the
partial differential equation
!2
;  ;  Gðr, r0 , !Þ  "ðr, !ÞGðr, r0 , !Þ ¼ ðr  r0 ÞI ,
c2
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 12:43 31 August 2012
where "(r, !) is the (complex) space- and frequency-
dependent dielectric permittivity and I denotes the unit
dyad. Analytical and numerical methods for comput-
ing the dyadic Green function in various geometries
can be found, for example in [78].
Equation (32) describes the spontaneous decay rate
of a two-level atomic system in a general absorbing
environment, including non-radiative decay processes
(Förster transfer) and local-field corrections. Assuming
a real-cavity model in which the radiating atom is
placed in an empty cavity of radius Rcavity, the latter
can be explicitly written as [79]
G ¼ G0 þ Gcavity þ Gbulk
with the contribution to the decay rate associated with
2" þ 1 3 5ð2" þ 1Þ2 
ð37Þ
fulfils the generalized sum rule [80]
ð1
G0 ð!Þ  G0
d! ¼ 0: ð38Þ
0 G0
ð33Þ
This means that the rate 0 (!) can be associated with
decay processes into photonic final states, whereas the
subtracted terms contain all non-radiative decay
processes. The strength of the latter, assuming
a single-resonance Lorentz model, turns out to be
proportional to the squared plasma frequency which
itself is proportional to the number of electrons per
unit volume of the dielectric material [80]. Sum rules
for decay rates reflect the fact that inhibition and
enhancement of spontaneous decay are delicately
balanced over all frequencies, examples of which will
be provided in Sections 5.1 and 6.
ð34Þ 4.2. Postselected single-photon sources
In certain cases, it is not necessary to generate single
the real cavity [ ¼ Rcavity!A/c, " ¼ "(rA, !A)] photons deterministically. Instead, it might be suffi-
cient just to know when a photon had been produced,
Gcavity
for example, when a trigger signals the arrival of a
G0 photon. If the trigger itself is a photodetection process,

 
3ð"  1Þ 1 9ð"  1Þð4" þ 1Þ 1 9"5=2 the triggering photon must have been entangled with
¼ Im þ þi 1
hð2Þ pump a^signal a^ idler þ h.c.
2" þ 1 3 5ð2" þ 1Þ2  ð2" þ 1Þ2 the photon that one wishes to make use of.
ð35Þ Entangled photons, or biphotons, are the result of
a (2) nonlinear process known as spontaneous para-
and the bulk contribution without the cavity, metric down-conversion (PDC) which was first reported
" 2 # in [81]. Energy and momentum conservation requires
2!2A 3" ðS Þ
Gbulk ¼ d  Im Gbulk ðrA , rA , !A Þ  d, the pump, signal and idler photons to obey the relations
" 0 c2 
h 2" þ 1
!pump ¼ !signal þ !idler and kpump ¼ ksignal þ kidler :
ð36Þ
ð39Þ
where GðS Þ
bulk is the scattering part of the Green function
of the medium without the cavity. The first two terms The Hamiltonian governing such a process must
in the rate contribution cavity are proportional to the therefore be of the form
imaginary part of the dielectric permittivity "(rA, !A) H^ int ¼ hð2Þ a^ ypump a^ signal a^idler þ h.c: ð40Þ
which is responsible for absorption. It thus follows that
these two terms describe non-radiative near-field In the parametric approximation, i.e. when depletion
processes, i.e. those that are not associated with of the pump is negligible, one replaces the operator
a photonic final state. In other words, a decay process âpump by its coherent amplitude and writes the
into one of those channels will not yield a photon and interaction Hamiltonian in the simpler form
is thus detrimental to the performance of a single-
photon source. The third term in cavity is the H^ int
ð41Þ

Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 12:43 31 August 2012
2p1, is not negligible. These multi-
¼ n1/n2 of the refractive indices which
152
The associated unitary time evolution operator
h) corresponds to a squeeze operator.
Û ¼ exp(iĤintt/
Starting from the vacuum in signal and idler modes,
the two-mode quantum state of signal and idler
photons can be written in the Fock basis as
X
1 produces correlated (entangled) photons. Upon detection of
j PDC i ¼ ð1  2 Þ1=2 n jni1 jni2 :
n¼0
Ideally, signal and idler photons would be perfectly
correlated (entangled) as can be seen from the (pure)
quantum state (42). In reality, however, there are many
more degrees of freedom to be taken into account than
just the photon number content. Spatial and temporal
pulse shapes as well as polarization play important
roles in determining the full quantum state of signal
and idler photons. A full characterization and control
of all degrees of freedom is necessary to produce an
entangled state of the form (42) [82]. Eliminating
temporal and frequency correlations by employing
narrow-band filters, however, decreases the rate at
which these entangled photons can be generated.
Alternative approaches such as engineering the
(2)-material and properties of the pump have been
implemented that reduces these unwanted correlations
[83,84].
The effective squeeze parameter  that determines
the photon number content in the signal and idler
modes is usually much smaller than unity.
The probability p1 of finding exactly one photon in
either of the two modes is thus p1 ¼
h PDC jn^ ð1 or 2Þ j PDC i ¼ (1  2)2 1. Although the
probability p2 of finding two photons in each mode,
p2 ¼ 2(1  2)4, is even smaller than p1, their relative
weight, p2/p1 ¼ 22
decay to make a single-photon device as deterministic
photon contributions are detrimental for the security
of quantum key distribution as they allow photon-
splitting attacks, but they can be filtered out by using
a photon-number resolving detector instead of
a ‘bucket’ (photon/no photon) detector.
With such a source of entangled photons,
a heralded single photon source can be realized by
placing a photodetector in the path of the idler photon
(see Figure 7) [85]. Upon registering a photon in the
detector, by Equation (42), there must also be a photon
in the signal mode. This method has several draw-
backs. The most obvious disadvantage is that it is
a probabilistic way of generating photons, as opposed
to a deterministic photon gun. Although in some
applications such as in versions of LOQC there is no
need for deterministic photon generation, in single-
photon radiometry with application to the quantum
candela heralding is not good enough. Attempts have
been made to make PDC sources quasi-deterministic
by operating them in parallel [86]. If we denote the
S. Scheel
Figure 7. Heralded single-photon source. A parametric
down-conversion source based on a (2)-nonlinear material
ð42Þ the idler photon, a trigger T allows the signal photon to pass.
probability of registering a photon in the idler arm by
p1 as above, one could in principle operate bp11 c PDC
sources in parallel and multiplex the outputs to a single
output.
5. Quantum dots in dielectric structures
In this and the following sections we will describe
examples of typical experimental implementations of
single-photon sources that make use either of the
principle of modified spontaneous decay in solid-state
structures (this section) or free-space microresonators
(Section 6), or use postselection from entangled
biphotons (Section 7).
5.1. Micropillars
Dielectric structures such as Bragg reflectors and
photonic band-gap (PBG) materials have been pro-
posed and are frequently used to tailor the mode
structure of the electromagnetic field in selected spatial
directions. Recall that one requires both unidirection-
ality as well as a strong enhancement of spontaneous
as possible. The band edge provided by a layered Bragg
stack fulfils both requirements at once. Because it
massively increases the decay in the direction perpen-
dicular to the stack layers, and leaves the decay in the
transverse directions almost untouched, it creates
a strong anisotropy for the otherwise isotropic
spontaneous decay.
For simplicity, we will focus on a one-dimensional
periodic structure that consists of alternating layers of
thickness d1 and d2 made of dielectric materials with
refractive indices n1 and n2 such that the relation
0 pc
n1 d1 ¼ n2 d2 ¼ ¼ ð43Þ
4 2!0
is fulfilled for some fixed wavelength 0 corresponding
to a midgap frequency !0. Let us further define the
average (bulk) group velocity vbulk ¼ c/2(1/n1 þ 1/n2)
and the ratio
we assume without loss of generality to be greater
than one.
 Journal of Modern Optics 153

Figure 8. Left figure: an isolated atom or a quantum dot located in a spacer between two quarter-wave Bragg stacks experiences
a strong change in the local mode density. Right figure: top view of photonic-crystal defect pillar microcavities with triangular or
square lattice structure. Figure taken from [90]. Reprinted with permission from Ho, Y.-L.D., Cao, T., Ivanov, P.S., Cryan, M.J.,
Craddock, I.J., Railton, C.R., Rarity, J.G. IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 2007, 43, 462–472. Copyright 2007, IEEE.

In an N-period quarter-wave stack, the density of Improvements to the performance of micropillar

modes at exactly the midgap frequency !0 is then [87] devices can be made by considering more sophisticated
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 12:43 31 August 2012

   structures that go beyond circular pillar geometries

midgap 1
þ 1
2N  1 1 such as triangular or square lattice photonic crystals in
N ¼ , ð44Þ
2vbulk
 1
2N þ 1 N place of the spacer [90] (right figure in Figure 8). These
photonic crystal structures are there to suppress
which is seen to decrease with increasing number of
photon emission into transverse modes that diminish
periods N. On the other hand, at the band-edge
the performance of a single-photon device.
resonance, the density of modes for large stacks
increases quadratically with N,

1 ð
 1Þ2 2 5.2. Triggering the photon emission – shifting the
band -edge

N!1
N : ð45Þ
N
p2 vbulk
band gap
In the nomenclature of Oxborrow and Sinclair [54],
Note that in both Equations (44) and (45) the average single-photon sources based on quantum dots in
density of modes is equal to the inverse of the bulk micropillars fall into Class I, in which the excitation
group velocity vbulk so that vbulkN becomes
a dimensionless quantity. The characteristic depen-
dence of the local density of modes on frequency is
shown in Figure 9, Section 5.2.
The change in the density of modes is, as noted in
Section 4, reflected in the modification of the
spontaneous decay rate. This effect can be enhanced
by either increasing the number of periods N or by
increasing the refractive index contrast
. Whereas resonance.
process is controlled and the emission process is
spontaneous (albeit modified to make it as unidirec-
tional as possible). We have seen that unidirectionality
can be achieved by enhancing the spontaneous decay
rate in one selected direction by placing the atom in
a one-dimensional dielectric band-gap structure which
has been designed in such a way that the atomic
transition frequency falls into the band-edge
midgap
N [Equation (44)] stays approximately constant The location of the band gap is determined by the
for sufficiently large
, the density of modes at the refractive index ratio
¼ n1/n2. A change in one of the
band edge, band -edge [Equation (45)], increases linearly
N refractive indices will change the location of the stop
with
. gap [91]. Such a change can be induced externally if
A commonly used design is to use micropillars with
a diameter of a few micrometers (see left figure in
Figure 8). The quarter-wave layers in the propagation
direction consist of GaAs or AlAs layers alternating
with InAs layers with refractive indices nGaAs ¼ 3.55
and nInAs ¼ 2.94 [88,89]. The one-wavelength GaAs
spacer contains either an atom that has been injected
during the growing process of the stack, or a quantum
dot. The latter method commonly requires selecting
those pillar microcavities containing quantum dots
with the desired properties. Confinement in the
direction perpendicular to the emission direction is
ensured by the high GaAs/InAs–air refractive index
contrast.
one of the materials shows a substantial Kerr
nonlinearity. The optical Kerr effect results in an
intensity-dependent refractive index of the form
n(I) ¼ n0 þ (n)I. Thus, irradiating a Bragg stack with
light will shift the stop gap by an amount that depends
on n and the number of layers N.
In Figure 9 we show the shift of the normalized
mode density for a 40-layer stack with n1 ¼ 1, n2 ¼ 2
(solid line) and n2 ¼ 2.006 (dashed line) [92]. We assume
a structure whose midgap frequency is tuned such that
!A ¼ 0.7814!0. Without the externally applied field,
!A is in the stop gap, and no de-excitation can occur
(other than non-radiative decay). Shifting the refractive
index from n2 ¼ 2 to n2 ¼ 2.006 brings !A right into the
 154
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 12:43 31 August 2012
Figure 9. Left figure: normalized local mode density at the position of the atom or ion in a 40-layer stack with n1 ¼ 1 and n2 ¼ 2.
Right figure: the displaced bandgap for n2 ¼ 2 (solid line) and n2 ¼ 2.006 (dashed line). Figures taken from [92]. (The color version
of this figure is included in the online version of the journal.).
band-edge resonance and due to the strong Purcell
/(2f ). Thus, Q ¼ 2c/(2
). The finesse F, on
enhancement the atom almost instantaneously releases
a photon. In the nomenclature of Oxborrow and
Sinclair [54], such a process would fall into Class III
(2L)]. Therefore, quality factor and finesse are
where both excitation and emission processes are
controlled.
6. Single atoms in resonant microcavities
As in most other schemes, cavity QED relies on the
strong enhancement of spontaneous decay in a selected
spatial direction. In the case of a cavity with high
quality factor Q, this is achieved by confining the
electromagnetic field between highly reflecting
confocal mirrors. The effect of this confinement is to
select a discrete number of (equally spaced) supported
modes with a line width proportional to the cavity
decay rate
. The spacing of the modes is given by the used for single-photon generation are F
60,000 [96].
condition for constructive interference; the allowed
cavity modes form standing waves (for a review on
optical microcavities, see e.g. [93]).
From the discussion on sum rules [see Equation
(31)] it is clear that the redistribution of modes goes
hand in hand with a strong enhancement of the density
of states in the frequency regions defined by the cavity
modes, and a decrease in mode density elsewhere. After
all, Equation (31) can be thought of as a conservation
law for the integrated density of states, i.e. the total
number of available modes.
There are several figures of merit that are used to
describe the quality of a cavity, the quality factor Q
and the finesse F. The quality factor Q is defined as the
ratio of the centre frequency and the line width of the
cavity resonance. Equivalently, Q1 is proportional
to the fraction of energy lost per field oscillation,
S. Scheel
1/Q ¼ 2
the other hand, is related to the energy loss per photon
round trip through the cavity of length L, F ¼ 2c/
[2
related by Q ¼ (2L/)F.
The absorption-assisted part of the Q-factor can be
expressed in terms of the real (n0 ) and imaginary (n00 )
parts of the refractive index of the cavity mirrors as [94]
n0 ð!Þ
Qabs ’ : ð46Þ
2n00 ð!Þ
The total Q-factor is then determined by taking both
absorptive losses and radiative losses into account, 1/
Q ¼ 1/Qabs þ 1/Qrad. A quality factor of Q ¼ 4.2  1010
and a finesse of F ¼ 4.6  109 has been achieved in
a superconducting microwave cavity [95]. Typical
values for the finesse of high-quality optical cavities
Note that in this case a very high finesse is not even
desired as the photon has to be able to leave the cavity
through one of the mirrors. For example, the cavity
used in [96] consisted of one (almost) perfect mirror
and one with a 25-fold increased transmittivity thereby
reducing the potentially achievable finesse.
A different line of approach has been to combine
techniques of trapping atoms near microstructured
surfaces (known as atom chips) and cavity QED.
Microcavities consisting of a spherical reflector etched
into the silicon wafer surface and a polished optical
fiber with a dielectric Bragg reflector attached to it
have already achieved a finesse of F 4 5000 [97]
(Figure 10). In addition, because of the available
microstructuring techniques it is straightforward to
build large regular arrays of these microcavities, each
of which can serve as a single-photon source.
 Journal of Modern Optics
Figure 10. Schematic diagram of a microcavity mirror
etched into a silicon substrate. The second cavity mirror
consists of a dielectric multilayer glued onto the cleaved tip of
an optical fibre. Figure taken from [97]. Reused with
permission from M. Trupke, Appl. Phys. Lett. 2005, 87,
211106. Copyright 2005, American Institute of Physics.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 12:43 31 August 2012
155
For a successful deterministic photon production at
least an atomic three-level system is needed (see
Figure 11). The states je, 0i and jg, 1i are connected
by the strong cavity coupling g, whereas the states je, 0i
and jl, 0i are driven by a near-resonant laser with Rabi
frequency p. The process starts with an atom being
placed into the cavity in the state jl, 0i. A laser pulse is
then applied to drive the atom towards the state je, 0i
which itself is strongly coupled to the state jg, 1i. Thus,
the pump laser plus the cavity transition couple the
three states such that a Raman transition can
be driven.
One of the three eigenstates of the atom–cavity
system is [96]
2gjl, 0i  Op jg, 1i
jd i ¼ 
1=2 : ð48Þ
4g2 þ O2p

This particular eigenstate jd i is not coupled to the

Figure 11. Schematic three-level system in which the states
je, 0i and jg, 1i are connected by the strong cavity coupling g.
The transition between the states je, 0i and jl, 0i is driven by
a laser with Rabi frequency p.
6.1. Atom–field dynamics in a high-Q cavity – the
Jaynes–Cummings model
Let us now turn to the atom–field dynamics inside
a cavity. For sufficiently large quality factor, that is,
when the line width of the cavity response is much
smaller than the mode spacing, the dynamics of the
atom–cavity system is well described by the Jaynes–
Cummings model [98,99]. In this model, a single
electromagnetic-field mode of frequency ! is coupled
to an atomic two-level system with frequency !A; the
Hamiltonian in the rotating-wave approximation is
1 ion-trap cavity system [58].
H^ JC ¼ 
h!a^ y a^ þ  hgða^^ y þ a^ y Þ:
h!A ^ z   ^ ð47Þ
2
The operators  ¼ jgihej,  y ¼ jeihgj, and
^z ¼ jeihej  jgihgj connecting the ground (jgi) and
excited (jei) states form the usual SU(2)-algebra.
The eigenstates of the Jaynes–Cummings
Hamiltonian are superpositions of the unperturbed
states {je, ni, jg, nþ1i} with a splitting equal to the
. The latter determines
n-photon Rabi frequency n ¼ 2g(nþ1)1/2. The set of
states that is interesting for single-photon sources is
{je, 0i, jg, 1i} which are split by the vacuum Rabi
frequency 0 ¼ 2g.
atomic excited state je, 0i and is hence called a dark
state. The atom is never excited and therefore cannot
deposit a photon via spontaneous decay into any mode
other than the cavity mode. With a sufficiently slowly
varying (adiabatic) pump laser intensity the atom–
cavity system will stay in this eigenstate for all times.
This process is known as Stimulated Raman Adiabatic
Passage (STIRAP) [100,101].
Starting with the pump laser turned off, the atom–
cavity system will be in the state jl, 0i. Increasing the
pump laser intensity slowly to a value p  2g, the
system will move towards the state jg, 1i thereby
depositing a single photon into the cavity mode.
This photon can then escape the cavity through one
of the mirrors leaving the atom–cavity system in the
state jg, 0i. This state is not coupled to any other state.
A repumping laser is then used to re-excite the atom to
je, 0i so that it can decay spontaneously back to the
initial state jl, 0i and the system is ready to produce
another photon.
Several experiments have been reported using
rubidium 85Rb [56,96] and 87Rb [102], cesium 133Cs
[57] in optical microcavities, and calcium 40Caþ in an
6.2. Quantum-state extraction from a cavity
As we have described in the previous section,
the quality of a cavity is commonly measured by
either the quality factor Q, the finesse F or, alterna-
tively, by the cavity decay rate
the photon power loss per unit time from the cavity,
i.e. it relates to cavity leakage. However, a photon
being lost from the cavity does not necessarily reappear
outside the cavity walls as a real and usable photon.
 156 S. Scheel

1. Photon-number conservation implies
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 12:43 31 August 2012
It is wrong to assume that, only because the reflectivity
R of the cavity mirror is close to unity, the photon loss
from the cavity is solely due to transmission through
the mirror. These radiative losses might be dominant
(and described by the quality factor Qrad), but
absorptive losses (described by Qabs) can never be
excluded. We have mentioned this fact earlier in this
section, but let us elaborate on this effect.
Generally, high-quality cavity mirrors have reflec-
tivities R
that infer the presence of a photon and thus the success
that jRj2 þ jTj2 þ jAj2 ¼ 1, where T and A are the
transmission and absorption coefficients, respectively.
Obviously, we have jTj, jAj 1. However, nothing can
be said about the ratio jTj/jAj which is clearly of
swept into free space. This process repeats until, for
large extraction times, the steady-state solution (49) is
reached and the full photon wavefunction (minus the
portion absorbed by the mirrors) can be found
traveling away from the cavity.
It should be stressed again that the effect men-
tioned in this section only plays a role if it is necessary
to extract the full quantum state of the photon without
performing a measurement. Some heralded schemes
of a desired operation by destructive measurements are
not susceptible to a finite extraction efficiency.

utmost importance for the extraction of a photon from
a cavity. For high-Q cavities, one typically has jTj
jAj
which means that the probability of a photon being
absorbed in the cavity mirror is of the same order of
magnitude as the probability of actually recording
a photon outside the cavity. Since, in contrast to
heralded single-photon sources (see Section 4.2), there
is no way of telling whether a photon has left the
cavity, we have to ‘trust’ the cavity to deliver a photon.
Let us associate a cavity decay rate  rad with the
transmission of a photon through the cavity mirror,
and a decay rate  abs with the absorption of a photon.
Because we are ‘trusting’ the photon to leave the
cavity, but it might not actually do so, the quantum
state will be a mixed state of the form
%^ ¼ pj1ih1j þ ð1  pÞj0ih0j, ð49Þ
where the extraction efficiency p is given in the limit of
large extraction time by [103,104]
rad
p¼ : ð50Þ
rad þ abs
This means that for the single-photon contribution to
dominate over the vacuum state, the extraction
efficiency must exceed 50%, that is, radiative decay
must dominate absorption,  rad 4  abs.
For finite extraction times, one observes transient
‘tidal wave’ behaviour [105] which can be understood
as follows. The initially excited atom undergoes half
a Rabi cycle and deposits a photon inside the cavity.
Due to the finite transmittivity of the semi-transparent
mirror the photon wavefunction starts to leak out into
free space (a small portion never leaves the resonator
as it is absorbed in the mirror). At the same time, the
coherent evolution inside the cavity continues and the
atom reabsorbs the photon from the cavity field.
Hence, the already leaked portion of the photon
wavepacket gets ‘sucked’ back into the cavity and
a new Rabi cycle begins. With each of the cycles
a slightly larger portion of the photon wavepacket is
7. Heralded single-photon sources
Common realizations of heralded single-photon
sources use (2) nonlinear materials in the form of
crystals made from beta barium borate (BBO), lithium
niobate, or potassium dihydrogen phosphate (KDP).
Depending on the orientation of the nonlinear crystal
and the phase-matching relations, signal and idler
photons may propagate either collinearly or they may
diverge. In addition, the down conversion process is of
type-I or type-II depending on whether the polariza-
tions in signal and idler beams are oriented parallel or
perpendicular to one another (see left figure in
Figure 12).
The right figure in Figure 12 depicts schematically
the experimental set-up reported in [27] to generate
six-qubit cluster states from three parametric down-
conversion sources using BBO crystals, and postselec-
tion by type-II fusion gates. Particular detection
patterns in the photon counters D1T . . . D6T signals
the successful generation of one of the six-qubit
clusters sketched above. In principle, this set-up
could be enlarged by attaching yet another down-
conversion step and adding more fusion gates. In the
near future, we will see that progress in generating
cluster states with photons will be made at a rapid pace
with more qubits being added all the time.
However, increasing the number of successive
down-conversion steps exponentially decreases the
success probability. In the experiment in [27], the
average two-fold coincidence counts of around
9.3  104 s1 dropped dramatically to on the order of
one six-fold coincidence event per minute.
7.1. Imperfect detection and dark counts
Our arguments regarding the generation of a single
photon by triggered detection of an idler photon was
based on the assumption of perfect photodetection
which is normally not justified. In general, one can
only detect photons with an efficiency  5 1 which
 Journal of Modern Optics 157
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 12:43 31 August 2012

Figure 12. Left figure: diverging photons from a type-II nonlinear crystal used to generate entangled photon pairs at the
intersection points of signal and idler cones. Figure taken from http://www.quantum.at. Right figure: schematic experimental set-
up for the generation of six-qubit cluster states by parametric down-conversion and postselecting type-II fusion gates. Figure
taken from [27]. (The color version of this figure is included in the online version of the journal.) Reproduced with permission.
Copyright 2007, Nature Publishing Group.

means that generally the number of registered photons detection, Equation (51) can be formally solved by the
is smaller than the number of incident photons. inverse Bernoulli transformation,
The marginal probability P0m of recording m photons X
1
is given by the joint probability Pmjn()pn summed over pn ¼ Pnjm ð1 ÞPm , ð54Þ
the number n of available photons m¼0

which, however, does not converge for  5 0.5 as the

X
1
P0m ¼ Pmjn ðÞpn , ð51Þ conditional probabilities Pnjm(1) become unbounded
n¼m (see also the discussion in [106,107]). In more
complicated cases, maximum-likelihood inversion
where pn is the probability of finding n photons in the methods can be used [108].
incident light. The conditional probability Pmjn () for
finding m photons conditioned on n incoming photons
is given by the Bernoulli distribution [85] 7.2. Postprocessing with linear optics
 
n m Single-photon sources quite often have only a finite
Pmjn ðÞ ¼  ð1  Þnm , n  m: ð52Þ
m efficiency by which we mean that they produced at
If in addition to a detection efficiency  5 1 the most a mixed state of the form
photodetector produces dark counts, i.e. it registers %^ ¼ pj1ih1j þ ð1  pÞj0ih0j , p 5 1: ð55Þ
photons that do not originate from the source, the
probability distribution (51) has to be convoluted with For example, a photon might have been deposited into
the dark count probability distribution pdark,r as an optical cavity by a STIRAP process, but it might
not be transmitted through the semi-transparent
Xm
Pm ¼ pdark, r P0mr mirror due to a finite absorption probability. In the
r¼0 light of the mentioned applications in quantum key
X
m X1   distribution and metrology, an efficiency less than one
n
¼ pdark, r mr ð1  Þnmþr pn : ð53Þ translates into an increase of the bit error rate in QKD
r¼0 n¼mr m  r
and a drop in accuracy of a potential ‘quantum
In practise, one is interested in retrieving the candela’.
photon-number probabilities pn from the measured It would therefore be expedient to come up with
marginal probabilities Pm. For unit detection effi- a scheme that could improve upon the single-photon
ciency, Pmjn ¼ mn, and zero dark count probability, efficiency by postprocessing, for example using passive
pdark,r ¼ r0, we find that Pm ¼ pm. In case of imperfect linear optical elements and postselection. Such ideas
 158 S. Scheel
are similar in spirit to the schemes for entanglement
purification which are used to concentrate quantum
correlation from several weakly entangled photon pairs
into one or few highly entangled pairs. However, as it
turns out, there is no such linear optical scheme that
can deliver the desired results [109,110]. This rather
disappointing result provides yet more motivation to
design even better, i.e. more efficient, single-photon
sources. In passing, we mention that a similarly
negative result has been found when trying to enhance
the detection efficiency of single-photon counters [111]
by mimicking a perfect detector by a network of poor
detectors.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 12:43 31 August 2012
8. Outlook
Sources of single photons on demand are a vital tool in
the rapidly expanding field of quantum technology.
With the advent of new methods to coherently control
single emitters, the quality of the generated photons
will soon be good enough that attempts at designing
small-scale quantum information processing circuitry
and loophole-free tests of Bell’s inequality will be
successful. At the same time, we will see a rapid growth
in the number of applications of single photons and
entangled photons in imaging, tomography and
metrology.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks S.D. Barrett, S.Y. Buhmann, E.A. Hinds,
P. Kok, A. Kuhn, and D.-G. Welsch for stimulating
discussions.
References
[1] Bennett, C.H.; Brassard, G. In Quantum Cryptography:
Public Key Distribution and Coin Tossing, Proceedings of
IEEE International Conference of Computer Systems and
Signal Processing, Bangalore, India, 1984; IEEE:
New York.
[2] Bennett, C.H.; Bessette, F.; Brassard, G.; Salvail, L.;
Smolin, J. J. Cryptology. 1992, 5, 3–28.
[3] Gisin, N.; Ribordy, G.; Tittel, W.; Zbinden, H. Rev. Mod.
Phys. 2002, 74, 145–195.
[4] Lütkenhaus, N. Phys. Rev. A 2000, 61, 052304.
[5] Brassard, G.; Lütkenhaus, N.; Mor, T.; Sanders, B.C.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 2000, 85, 1330–1333.
[6] Waks, E.; Inoue, K; Santori, C.; Fattal, D.; Vučković,
J.; Solomon, G.S.; Yamamoto, Y. Nature. 2002, 420,
762.
[7] Beveratos, A.; Brouri, R.; Gacoin, T.; Villing, A.; Poizat,
J.-P.; Grangier, P. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002, 89, 187901-1–4.
[8] Inoue, K.; Waks, E.; Yamamoto, Y. Phys. Rev. Lett.
2002, 89, 037902-1–3.
[9] Takesue, H.; Nam, S.W.; Zhang, Q.; Hadfield, R.H.;
Honjo, T.; Tamaki, K.; Yamamoto, Y. Nature Photonics
2007, 1, 343–348.
[10] Kurtsiefer, C.; Zarda, P.; Halder, M.; Weinfurter, H.;
Gorman, P.M.; Tapster, P.R.; Rarity, J.G. Nature
(London) 2002, 419, 450.
[11] Kok, P.; Munro, W.J.; Nemoto, K.; Ralph, T.C.;
Dowling, J.P.; Milburn, G.J. Rev. Mod. Phys. 2007,
79, 135–174.
[12] O’Brien, J.L. Science. 2007, 318, 1567–1570.
[13] Knill, E.; Laflamme, R.; Milburn, G.J. Nature (London)
2001, 409, 46–52.
[14] Scheel, S.; Lütkenhaus, N. New J. Phys. 2004, 6, 51.
[15] Eisert, J. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2005, 95, 040502-1–4.
[16] Scheel, S.; Audenaert, K.M.R. New J. Phys. 2005, 7,
149.
[17] Lloyd, S. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1995, 75, 346–349.
[18] Knill, E. Phys. Rev. A 2002, 66, 052306-1–5.
[19] Gilchrist, A.; Hayes, A.J.F.; Ralph, T.C. Phys. Rev. A
2007, 75, 052328-1–5.
[20] Yoran, N.; Reznik, B. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2003, 91, 037903-
1–4.
[21] Nielsen, M.A. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2004, 93, 040503-1–4.
[22] Browne, D.E.; Rudolph, T. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2005, 95,
010501-1–4.
[23] Raussendorf, R.; Briegel, H.J. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2001, 86,
5188–5191.
[24] Raussendorf, R.; Browne, D.E.; Briegel, H.J. Phys. Rev.
A 2003, 68, 022312-1–32.
[25] Nielsen, M.A. Rep. Math. Phys. 2006, 57, 147–161.
[26] Walther, P.; Resch, K.J.; Rudolph, T.; Schenck, E.;
Weinfurter, H.; Vedral, V.; Aspelmeyer, M.; Zeilinger,
A. Nature (London) 2005, 434, 169–176.
[27] Lu, C.-Y.; Zhou, X.-Q.; Gühne, O.; Gao, W.-B.; Zhang,
J.; Yuan, Z.-S.; Goebel, A.; Yang, T.; Pan, J.-W. Nature
Physics. 2007, 3, 91–95.
[28] Kieling, K.; Rudolph, T.; Eisert, J. Phys. Rev. Lett.
2007, 99, 130501-1–4.
[29] Varnava, M.; Browne, D.E.; Rudolph, T. Phys. Rev.
Lett. 2006, 97, 120501-1–4.
[30] Dawson, C.M.; Haselgrove, H.L.; Nielsen, M.A. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 2006, 96, 020501-1–4.
[31] Dawson, C.M.; Haselgrove, H.L.; Nielsen, M.A. Phys.
Rev. A 2006, 73, 052306-1–26.
[32] Varnava, M.; Browne, D.E.; Rudolph, T. New J. Phys.
2007, 9, 203.
[33] Barrett, S.D.; Kok, P. Phys. Rev. A 2005, 71, 060310-
1–4.
[34] Lim, Y.L.; Barrett, S.D.; Beige, A.; Kok, P.; Kwek, L.C.
Phys. Rev. A 2006, 73, 012304-1–14.
[35] BIPM, The International System of Units (S.I.), 1998.
[36] Cheung, J.Y.; Chunnilall, C.J.; Woolliams, E.R.;
Fox, N.P.; Mountford, J.R.; Wang, J.; Thomas, P.J.
J. Mod. Opt. 2007, 54, 373–396.
[37] Abouraddy, A.F.; Saleh, B.E.A.; Sergienko, A.V.; Teich,
M.C. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2001, 87, 123602-1–4.
[38] Abouraddy, A.F.; Nasr, M.B.; Saleh, B.E.A.;
Sergienko, A.V.; Teich, M.C. Phys. Rev. A 2002, 65,
053817-1–6.
 Journal of Modern Optics
[39] Belinsky, A.V.; Klyshko, D.N. Sov. Phys. JETP. 1994,
78, 259–262.
[40] Strekalov, D.V.; Sergienko, A.V.; Klyshko, D.N.; [68]
Shih, Y.H. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1995, 74, 3600–3603.
[41] Gatti, A.; Brambilla, E.; Lugiato, L.A. Phys. Rev. Lett. [69]
2003, 90, 133603-1–4. [70]
[42] Bell, J.S. Physics (Long Island City, N.Y.) 1965, 1, [71]
195–200. [72]
[43] Franson, J.D. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1989, 62, 2205–2208.
_
[44] Aerts, S.; Kwiat, P.; Larsson, J.-Å.; Zukowski, M. Phys. [73]
Rev. Lett. 1999, 83, 2872–2875.
[45] Aspect, A.; Dalibard, J.; Roger, G. Phys. Rev. Lett. [74]
1982, 49, 1804–1807.
[46] Genovese, M. Phys. Rep. 2005, 413, 319–396. [75]
[47] Pearle, P. Phys. Rev. D 1970, 2, 1418–1425.
[48] Eberhard, P.H. Phys. Rev. A 1993, 47, R747–R750. [76]
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 12:43 31 August 2012
[49] Cabello, A.; Larsson, J.-Å. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2007, 98,
220402-1–4. [77]
[50] Brunner, N.; Gisin, N.; Scarani, V.; Simon, C. Phys.
Rev. Lett. 2007, 98, 220403-1–4. [78]
[51] Vogel, W.; Welsch, D.-G. Quantum Optics; Wiley-VCH:
Weinheim, 2006. [79]
[52] Hong, C.K.; Ou, Z.Y.; Mandel, L. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1987,
59, 2044–2046. [80]
[53] Campos, R.A.; Saleh, B.E.A.; Teich, M.C. Phys. Rev. A [81]
1989, 40, 1371–1384.
[54] Oxborrow, M.; Sinclair, A.G. Contemp. Phys. 2005, 46, [82]
173–206.
[55] Hanbury Brown, R.; Twiss, R.Q. Nature (London) [83]
1956, 178, 1046–1048.
[56] Hijlkema, M.; Weber, B.; Specht, H.P.; Webster, S.C.; [84]
Kuhn, A.; Rempe, G. Nature Physics. 2007, 3, 253–255.
[57] McKeever, J.; Boca, A.; Boozer, A.D.; Miller, R.; Buck,
J.R.; Kuzmich, A.; Kimble, H.J. Science. 2004, 303, [85]
1992–1994.
[58] Keller, M.; Lange, B.; Hayasaka, K.; Lange, W.; [86]
Walther, H. Nature (London) 2004, 431, 1075–1078.
[59] Lee, T.H.; Kumar, P.; Mehta, A.; Xu, K.; Dickson, [87]
R.M.; Barnes, M.D. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2004, 85, 100–102.
[60] Lukishova, S.G.; Schmid, A.W.; McNamara, A.J.; [88]
Boyd, R.W.; Stroud Jr, C.R. IEEE J. Sel. Top.
Quantum Electron. 2003, 9, 1512–1518.
[61] Ward, M.B.; Farrow, T.; See, P.; Yuan, Z.L.; Karimov, [89]
O.Z.; Bennett, A.J.; Shields, A.J.; Atkinson, P.; Cooper,
K.; Ritchie, D.A. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2007, 90, 063512. [90]
[62] Patel, R.B.; Bennett, A.J.; Cooper, K.; Atkinson, P.;
Nicoll, C.A.; Ritchie, D.A.; Shields, A.J. Phys. Rev.
Lett. 2008, 100, 207405-1–4. [91]
[63] Kako, S.; Santori, C.; Hoshino, K.; Götzinger, S.;
Yamamoto, Y.; Arakawa, Y. Nature Materials. 2006, 5,
887–892. [92]
[64] Vučković, J.; Fattal, D.; Santori, C.; Solomon, G.S.;
Yamamoto, Y. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2003, 82, 3596–3598. [93]
[65] Bennett, A.J.; Unitt, D.C.; Atkinson, P.; Ritchie, [94]
D.A.; Shields, A.J. Opt. Express. 2005, 13, 50–55.
[66] Becher, C.; Kiraz, A.; Michler, P.; Imamoğlu, A.; [95]
Schoenfeld, W.V.; Petroff, P.M.; Zhang, L.; Hu, E.
Phys. Rev. B 2001, 63, 121312-1–4.
[67] Zinoni, C.; Alloing, B.; Li, L.H.; Marsili, F.; Fiore, A.; [96]
Lunghi, L.; Gerardino, A.; Vakhtomin, Yu.B.; Smirnov,
159
K.V.; Gol’tsman, G.N. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2007, 91,
031106.
Lounis, B.; Orrit, M. Rep. Prog. Phys. 2005, 68,
1129–1179.
Purcell, E.M. Phys. Rev. 1946, 69, 681.
Dexter, D.L. Phys. Rev. 1956, 101, 48–55.
Kleppner, D. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1981, 47, 233–236.
Yablonovitch, E. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1987, 58,
2059–2062.
Barnett, S.M.; Loudon, R. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1996, 77,
2444–2446.
Altarelli, M.; Dexter, D.L.; Nussenzveig, H.M.; Smith,
D.Y. Phys. Rev. B 1972, 6, 4502–4509.
Scheel, S.; Knöll, L.; Welsch, D.-G.; Barnett, S.M. Phys.
Rev. A 1999, 60, 1590–1597.
Scheel, S.; Knöll, L.; Welsch, D.-G. Phys. Rev. A 1999,
60, 4094–4104.
Ho, T.D.; Knöll, L.; Welsch, D.-G. Phys. Rev. A 2000,
62, 053804-1–13.
Chew, W.C. Waves and Fields in Inhomogeneous Media;
IEEE Press: New York, 1995.
Ho, T.D.; Buhmann, S.Y.; Welsch, D.-G. Phys. Rev. A
2006, 74, 023803-1–11.
Scheel, S. Phys. Rev. A 2008, 78, 013841.
Burnham, D.C.; Weinberg, D.L. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1970,
25, 84–87.
Joobeur, A.; Saleh, B.E.A.; Teich, M.C. Phys. Rev. A
1994, 50, 3349–3361.
Grice, W.P.; U’Ren, A.B.; Walmsley, I.A. Phys. Rev. A
2001, 64, 063815-1–7.
U’Ren, A.B.; Silberhorn, C.; Erdmann, R.; Banaszek,
K.; Grice, W.P.; Walmsley, I.A.; Raymer, M.G. Laser
Phys. 2005, 15, 146–161.
Hong, C.K.; Mandel, L. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1986, 56,
58–60.
Migdall, A.L.; Branning, D.; Castelletto, S. Phys. Rev. A
2002, 66, 053805-1–4.
Bendickson, J.M.; Dowling, J.P.; Scalora, M. Phys. Rev.
A 1996, 53, 4107–4121.
Moreau, E.; Robert, I.; Gérard, J.M.; Abram, I.; Manin,
L.; Thierry-Mieg, V. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2001, 79,
2865–2867.
Santori, C.; Fattal, D.; Vučković, J.; Solomon, G.S.;
Yamamoto, Y. Nature (London) 2002, 419, 594–597.
Ho, Y.-L.D.; Cao, T.; Ivanov, P.S.; Cryan, M.J.;
Craddock, I.J.; Railton, C.R.; Rarity, J.G. IEEE J.
Quantum Electron. 2007, 43, 462–472.
Florescu, M.; Scheel, S.; Häffner, H.; Lee, H.; Strekalov,
D.V.; Knight, P.L.; Dowling, J.P. Europhys. Lett. 2005,
69, 945–951.
Florescu, M.; Scheel, S.; Lee, H.; Knight, P.L.; Dowling,
J.P. Physica E 2006, 32, 484–487.
Vahala, K.J. Nature (London) 2003, 424, 839–846.
Ho, T.D.; Knöll, L.; Welsch, D.-G. Phys. Rev. A 2001,
64, 013804-1–15.
Kuhr, S.; Gleyzes, S.; Guerlin, C.; Bernu, J.; Hoff, U.B.;
Deléglise, S.; Osnaghi, S.; Brune, M.; Raimond, J.-M.
Appl. Phys. Lett. 2007, 90, 164101.
Kuhn, A.; Hennrich, M.; Rempe, G. Phys. Rev. Lett.
2002, 89, 067901-1–4.
 160 S. Scheel
[97] Trupke, M.; Hinds, E.A.; Eriksson, S.; Curtis, E.A.;
Moktadir, Z.; Kukharenka, E.; Kraft, M. Appl. Phys.
Lett. 2005, 87, 211106.
[98] Jaynes, E.T.; Cummings, F.W. Proc. IEEE. 1963, 51,
89–109.
[99] Shore, B.W.; Knight, P.L. J. Mod. Opt. 1993, 40,
1195–1238.
[100] Bergmann, K.; Theuer, H.; Shore, B.W. Rev. Mod.
Phys. 1998, 70, 1003–1025.
[101] Vitanov, N.V.; Fleischhauer, M.; Shore, B.W.;
Bergmann, K. Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 2001, 46,
55–190.
[102] Wilk, T.; Webster, S.C.; Specht, H.P.; Rempe, G.;
Kuhn, A. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2007, 98, 063601-1–4.
[103] Cui, G.; Raymer, M.G. Opt. Express. 2005, 13,
9660–9665.
Downloaded by [University of Saskatchewan Library] at 12:43 31 August 2012
[104] Khanbekyan, M.; Knöll, L.; Semenov, A.A.; Vogel,
W.; Welsch, D.-G. Phys. Rev. A 2004, 69, 043807-1–9.
[105] Khanbekyan, M.; Welsch, D.-G.; di Fidio, C.; Vogel,
W. 2007, quant-ph/0709.2998.
[106] Kiss, T.; Leonhardt, U. Phys. Rev. A 1995, 52,
2433–2435.
[107] D’Ariano, G.M.; Leonhardt, U.; Paul, H. Phys. Rev. A
1995, 52, R1801–R1804.
[108] Zambra, G.; Paris, M.G.A. Phys. Rev. A 2006, 74,
063830-1–7.
[109] Berry, D.W.; Scheel, S.; Sanders, B.C.; Knight, P.L.
Phys. Rev. A 2004, 69, 031806-1–4.
[110] Berry, D.W.; Scheel, S.; Myers, C.R.; Sanders, B.C.;
Knight, P.L.; Laflamme, R. New J. Phys. 2004, 6, 93.
[111] Kok, P. IEEE Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 2003, 9,
1498–1501.