Fortschr. Phys.

46 (1998) 6±±8, 689±±695

Transmission of Quantum Information

in a Quantum Network:
A Quantum Optical Implementation
S. van Enk 1 , J. I. Cirac 1 , P. Zoller 1 , H. J. Kimble 2 , and H. Mabuchi 2
1
Institut fuÈr Theoretische Physik, UniversitaÈt Innsbruck, Technikerstraûe 25,
A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria
2
Norman Bridge Laboratory of Physics 12-33, California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena CA 91125

Abstract

We show how to transmit quantum communication reliably between the nodes of a quantum network.
The nodes are represented by atoms, stored in a trap. The communication is accomplished via photons,
which are coupled to the atoms by a high-Q cavity. We discuss the effects of decoherence and ways to
correct for the corresponding errors.

1. Introduction

The application of fundamental principles of Quantum Mechanics have raised an enormous

interests during the last few years. In particular, quantum cryptography and computation ex-
ploit these principles to guarantee secure communication and to construct algorithms that
allow fast computations [1]. The combination of these concepts leads to the idea of a quantum
network, consisting of separated nodes (small quantum computers) connected by quantum
communication channels. A physical implementation of such a network could consist e.g. of
clusters of trapped atoms or ions representing the nodes, with optical fibers or similar photon
ªconduitsº providing the quantum channels. Atoms and ions are particularly well suited for
storing qubits in long-lived internal states, and recently proposed schemes for performing
quantum gates between trapped atoms or ions provides an attractive method for local proces-
sing within an atom/ion node [2±±4]. On the other hand, photons clearly represent the best
qubit-carrier for fast and reliable communication over long distances [5, 6]. So far, however,
no physical process has been identified to serve as an interface between photons and atoms.
In this contribution we propose a scheme to implement this interface [7]. Our scheme
allows quantum transmission with (in principle) unit efficiency between distant atoms 1 and 2.
The possibility of combining local quantum processing with quantum transmission between
the nodes of the network opens the possibility for a variety of novel applications ranging
from entangled-state cryptography [8], teleportation [9] and purification [10], and is interest-
ing from the perspective of distributed quantum computation. On the other hand, we also
outline a way to correct the most important errors that can take place during transmission
due to decoherence, imperfect laser pulses, photon absorption, etc. The unique feature of
this correction scheme is that it allows to retry sending the (unknown) state of a given qubit
until perfect transmission is achieved [11].
The basic idea of our scheme is to utilize strong coupling between a high-Q optical
cavity and the atoms [5] forming a given node of the quantum network. By applying laser
beams, one first transfers the internal state of an atom at the first node to the optical state
690 S. van Enk, et al., Transmission of Quantum Information

of the cavity mode. The generated photons leak out of the cavity, propagate as a wave-
packet along the transmission line, and enter an optical cavity at the second node. Final-
ly, the optical state of the second cavity is transferred to the internal state of an atom.
Multiple-qubit transmissions can be achieved by sequentially addressing pairs of atoms
(one at each node), as entanglements between arbitrarily located atoms are preserved by
the state-mapping process. The distinguishing feature of our protocol is that by control-
ling the atom-cavity interaction, one can absolutely avoid the reflection of the wavepack-
ets from the second cavity, effectively, switching off the dominant loss channel that
would be responsible for decoherence in the communication process. The presence of
other errors during transmission of quantum information remains as the main obstacle. In
principle, these problems could be circumvented using ingenious schemes for purifying
states [10] and correcting errors [12], since they allow to transmit intact quantum states
even in the presence of errors. These ªstandardº methods require a large (in principle
infinite) number of extra quantum bits (qubits) to store intermediate information. How-
ever, in the first generations of experiments on quantum networks one expects to be able
to store and manipulate only a few qubits in each location. Thus, new methods are
needed to overcome the presence of errors during quantum communication in small phy-
sical systems. Here we show how one can circumvent these problems by using few extra
atoms node and several transmissions.

2. Model

A simple configuration of quantum transmission between two nodes consists of two atoms
1 and 2 which are strongly coupled to their respective cavity modes. The Hamiltonian
describing the interaction of each atom with the corresponding cavity mode is …
h ˆ 1†:

H^i ˆ wc a^yi a^i ‡ w0 jrii i hrj ‡ g…jrii i hgj a^i ‡ h:c:†

1
‡ Wi …t† ‰eÿi‰wL t‡ji …t†Š jrii i hej ‡ h:c:Š …i ˆ 1; 2† : …1†
2
Here, a^i is the annihilation operator for cavity mode i with frequency wc, jgi, jri, and jei
from a three-level system of excitation frequency w0, and the qubit is stored in a superposi-
tion of the two degenerate ground states. The states jei and jgi are coupled by a Raman
transition [3, 4], where a laser of frequency wL excites the atom from jei to jri with a time
dependent Rabi frequency Wi …t† and phase ji …t†, followed by a transition jri ! jei which
is accompanied by emission of a photon into the corresponding cavity mode, with coupling
constant g. In order to suppress spontaneous emission from the excited state during the
Raman process, we assume that the laser is strongly detuned from the atomic transition
jDj  W1; 2 …t†, g, jj1; 2 j (with D ˆ wL ÿ w0 ). In such a case, one can eliminate adiabati-
cally the excited states jrii . The new Hamiltonian for the dynamics of the two ground states
becomes, in a rotating frame for the cavity modes at the laser frequency
2
g y
H^i ˆ ÿd^ayi a^i ‡ a^ a^i jgii i hgj ‡ dwi …t† jeii i hej
D i
ÿ igi …t† ‰eiji …t† jeii i hgj ai ÿ h:c:Š …i ˆ 1; 2† : …2†

The first term involves the Raman detuning d ˆ wL ÿ wc . The next two terms are AC-Stark
shifts of the ground states jgi and jei due to the cavity mode and laser field, respectively,
with dwi …t† ˆ Wi …t†2 =…4D†. The last term is the familiar Jaynes-Cummings interactions,
 Fortschr. Phys. 46 (1998) 6±±8 691

with an effective coupling constant gi …t† ˆ gWi …t†=…2D†. The notation jei as ªexcitedº and
jgi as ªgroundº state is motivated by this analogy with the Jaynes-Cummings Model.
Our goal is to select the time-dependent Rabi frequencies and laser phases to accomplish
the ideal quantum transmission

…cg jgi1 ‡ ce jei1 † jgi2

j0i1 j0i2 jvaci
! jgi1 …cg jgi2 ‡ ce jei2 †
j0i1 j0i2 jvaci ; …3†

where cg; e are complex number; in general, they have to be replaced by unnormalized
states of other ªspectatorº atoms in the network. In (3), j0ii and jvaci represent the vacuum
state of the cavity modes and the free electromagnetic modes connecting the cavities. Trans-
mission will occur by photon exchange via these modes.
In the present context, it is convenient to formulate the problem in the language of quan-
tum trajectories [15, 16]. Let us consider a fictitious experiment where the output field of
the second cavity is continuously monitored by a photodetector. The evolution of the quan-
tum system under continuous observation, conditional to observing a particular trajectory of
counts, can be described by a pure state wavefunction jY c …t†i in the system Hilbert space
(where the radiation modes outside the cavity have been eliminated). During the time inter-
vals when no count is detected, this wavefunction evolves according to a SchroÈdinger equa-
tion with non-hermitian effective Hamiltonian

H^eff …t† ˆ H^1 …t† ‡ H^2 …t† ÿ ik…^

ay1 a^1 ‡ a^y2 a^2 ‡ 2^
ay2 a^1 † : …4†

Here, k is the cavity loss rate, which is assumed to be the same for the first and the second
cavity. The detection of a count at time tr is associated with a quantum jump according to
jY c …tr ‡ dt†i / c^ jY c …tr †i, where c^ ˆ a^1 ‡ a^2 [14, 16]. The probability density for a jump
(detector click) to occur during the time interval from t to t ‡ dt is hY c …t†j c^y c^ jY c …t†i dt
[14, 16].

3. Laser Pulses for Ideal Transmission

We wish to design the laser pulses in both cavities in such a way that ideal quantum trans-
mission condition (3) is satisfied. A necessary condition for the time evolution is that a
quantum jump (detector click) never occurs, i.e. c^ jY c …t†i ˆ 0 8t, and thus the effective
Hamiltonian will become a hermitian operator. In other words, the system will remain in a
dark state of the cascaded quantum system. Physically, this means that the wavepacket is
not reflected from the second cavity. We expand the state of the system as

jY c …t†i ˆ jcg jggi j00i

‡ jce ‰a1 …t† eÿij1 …t† jegi j00i ‡ a2 …t† eÿij2 …t† jgei j00i
‡ b1 …t† jggi j10i ‡ b2 …t† jggi j01iŠ : …5†

Ideal quantum transmission (3) will occur for

a1 …ÿ1† ˆ a2 …‡1† ˆ 1 ; j1 …ÿ1† ˆ j2 …‡1† ˆ 0 : …6†

The first term on the RHS of (5) does not change under the time evolution p generated by
Heff . Defining symmetric and antisymmetric coefficients b1; 2 ˆ …bs  ba †= 2, we find the
692 S. van Enk, et al., Transmission of Quantum Information

following evolution equations

p
a_ 1 …t† ˆ g1 …t† ba …t†= 2 ; …7a†
p
a_ 2 …t† ˆ g2 …t† ba …t†= 2 ; …7b†
p p
b_ a …t† ˆ ÿg1 …t† a1 …t†= 2 ‡ g2 …t† a2 …t†= 2 …7c†

where we have chosen the laser frequencies wL ‡ j_ 1; 2 …t† so that d ˆ g2 =D and

j_ 1; 2 …t† ˆ dwi …t† …8†

in order to compensate the AC-stark shifts; thus Eq. (7) are decoupled from the phases. The
dark state condition implies bs …t† ˆ 0, and therefore
p p
b_ s …t† ˆ g1 …t† a1 …t†= 2 ‡ g2 …t† a2 …t†= 2 ‡ kba …t†  0 ; …9†

as well as the normalization condition

ja1 …t†j2 ‡ ja2 …t†j2 ‡ jba …t†j2 ˆ 1 : …10†

We note that the coefficients a1; 2 …t† and bs …t† are real.
The mathematical problem is now to find pulse shapes W1; 2 …t† / g1; 2 …t† such that the
conditions (6, 7, 9) are fulfilled. In general this is a difficult problem, as imposing condi-
tions (6, 9) on the solutions of the differential equations (7) give functional relations for the
pulse shape whose solution are not obvious. We shall construct a class of solutions guided
by the following physical idea. Let us consider that a photon leaks out of an optical cavity
and propagates away as a wavepacket. Imagine that we were able to ªtime reverseº this
wavepacket and send it back into the cavity; then this would restore the original (unknown)
superposition state of the atom, provided we would also reverse the timing of the laser
pulses. If, on the other hand, we are able to drive the atom in a transmitting cavity in such
a way that the outgoing pulse were already symmetric in time, the wavepacket entering a
receiving cavity would ªmimicº this time reversed process, thus ªrestoringº the state of the
first atom in the second one. Thus, we look for solutions satisfying the symmetric pulse
condition

g2 …t† ˆ g1 …ÿt† …8t† : …11†

This implies a1 …t† ˆ a2 …ÿt†, and ba …t† ˆ ba …ÿt†. The latter relation leads to a symmetric
shape of the photon wavepacket propagating between the cavities.
Suppose that we specify a pulse shape W1 …t† / g1 …t† for the second half of the pulse in
the first cavity …t  0† [17]. We wish to determine the first half W1 …ÿt† / g1 …ÿt† …for
t > 0†, such that the conditions for ideal transmission (3) are satisfied. From (9, 6) we have
p
2 kba …t† ‡ g1 …t† a1 …t†
g1 …ÿt† ˆ ÿ ; …t > 0† : …12†
a2 …t†

Thus, the pulse shape is completely determined provided we know the system evolution for
t  0. However, a difficulty arises when we try to find this evolution, since it depends on
the yet unknown g2 …t† ˆ g1 …ÿt† for t > 0 [see Eqs. (7)]. In order to circumvent this pro-
 Fortschr. Phys. 46 (1998) 6±±8 693

blem, we use (9) to eliminate this dependence in Eqs. (7a, 7c). This gives
p
a_ 1 …t† ˆ g1 …t† ba …t†= 2 ; …13a†
p
b_ a …t† ˆ ÿkba …t† ÿ 2 g1 …t† a1 …t† …13b†

for t  0. These equations have to be integrated with the initial conditions

" #1=2
2k2
a1 …0† ˆ ; …14a†
g1 …0†2 ‡ k2

ba …0† ˆ ‰1 ÿ 2a1 …0†2 Š1=2 …14b†

which follow immediately from a1 …0† ˆ a2 …0†, and (10, 9) at t ˆ 0. Given the solution of
Eqs. (13), we can determine a2 …t† from the normalization (10). In this way, the problem is
solved since all the quantities appearing on the RHS of Eq. (12) are known for t  0. It is
straightforward to find analytical expressions for the pulse shapes, for example by specify-
ing W1 …t† ˆ const for t > 0.

4. Noise in the Quantum Channel

So far we have ignored the effects of decoherence, as well as errors occurring during the
transmission from the first to the second node. In this Section we will use a simple way to
describe all these errors. For concenience and to accomodate to the language of error cor-
rection, we denote by j0i  jgi and j1i  jei, and call Alice and Bob the sender and recei-
ver.
In the case of ideal transmission, we will have

jc0 i j0iA j0iB 7! jc0 i j0iA j0iB ; …15a†

jc1 i j1iA j0iB 7! jc1 i j0iA j1iB : …15b†

where jci denote the states of other atoms that may be already entangled with the sending
node. In the presence of decoherence and errors, we have to include the state of the envir-
onment in this mapping. Since in the present case no photon can appear if the sending
atom was in j0i, we obtain the general mapping

jc0 i j0iA j0iB jEi 7! jc0 i j0iA j0iB t0 jEi ; …16a†

jc1 i j1iA j0iB 7! jc1 i j0iA …j1iB t1 ‡ j0iB ta † jEi : …16b†

Here, jEi denotes the initial state of the environment; t0; 1; a contains spontaneous emis-
sion, and transitions to other states, followed by repumping to j0i and therefore all the
physics is in these formulas. In the following we will call a channel defined by (16) the
ªphotonic channelº.
The goal is thus, using the channel (16), to transmit quantum information. We will show
how to do it taking by first analyzing how using (16) one can stablish a pure entangled
EPR state between one atom in the first node and one atom in the second node. Once this
is accomplished, one can send information between the nodes using teleportation [9].
694 S. van Enk, et al., Transmission of Quantum Information

In the following we will assume the environment operators t0; 1 fulfill the stationary
property for two consecutive operations
…2† …1† …2† …1†
t1 t0 jEi ˆ t0 t1 jEi ; …17†

starting at times t1; 2 , of duration Dt1; 2 , respectively. Here we have used the short hand
…j†
notation ti  ti …tj ; Dtj †, where i ˆ 0; 1 and j ˆ 1; 2. In Ref. [18], the validity of (17)
has been demonstrated for the present model using the quantum trajectories approach. Here,
as a simple example, we illustrate this stationary property in the context of photon absorp-
tion: we consider a cavity mode coupled to a bath of oscillators in the vacuum state
jEi  j0i (i.e., at zero temperature). We assume a linear coupling Hamiltonian
P P
H ˆ way a ‡ wk byk bk ‡ gk …ay bk ‡ h:c:† ; …18†
k k

where bk ; byk
are creation and annihilation operators for the bath oscillators, and wk and gk
the corresponding frequencies and coupling constants. Denoting by t the initial time, after a
time Dt we will have

j0icav jEi ! j0icav jEi ;

 j0icav l0 …t; Dt† jEi ;
P
j1icav jEi ! c…Dt† j1icav jEi ‡ j0icav ck …Dt† byk jEi ;
k
 j1icav t1 …t; Dt† jEi ‡ j0icav ta …t; Dt† jEi :

where c and ck are c-numbers. Note that t0; 1 only depend on Dt but not on the initial time t.
Moreover, they commute and therefore they satisfy (17). The stationary property is related to
the zero temperature of the reservoir, which for optical frequencies is a good approximation
even at room temperature. On the other hand, one can verify that systematic errors also fulfill
(17) since the corresponding t0; 1 will be c-number as only depending on Dt but not on t.
As shown in ([19]), the possibility of (error free) local quantum computing allows us to
reduce the photonic channel (16) to a channel without the absorptive term ta ,
jc0 i j0iA j0iB 7! jc0 i j0iA j0iB s0 jEi ; …19a†
jc1 i j1iA j0iB 7! jc1 i j1iA j1iB s1 jEi ; …19b†

by using the photonic channel twice at times t and t 0 > t, where s0; 1 ˆ t1 …t 0 † t0 …t†,
t0 …t 0 † t1 …t†. The proof of the channel reduction [19] involves two auxiliary atoms A2 and A3
in the first node and one in the second node B2 , all initially in the state j0i. At the end, one
performs some local operations and measures the states of the auxiliary qubits. Starting from
…jc0 i j0iA ‡ jc1 i j1iA † j0iB , depending on the outcome of these measurements, one obtains

jc0 i j0iA j0iB s0 ‡ jc1 i j1iA j1iB s1 ; …20†

or
…jc0 i j0iA ‡ jc1 i j1iA † j0iB sa : …21†

In the first case we have obtained an effective channel of the form (19). In the second case
we recover the initial state without distortion, so that we can retry the procedure until we
obtain the effective channel.
 Fortschr. Phys. 46 (1998) 6±±8 695

We are now in the situation to show how to establish an EPR pair using the reduced
channel (19). Alice has to prepare here atom 1 in the state j0iA ‡ j1iA and use the channel.
According to (19), the state after the full transmission will be
jYiAB ˆ j0ia j0iB st jEi ‡ j1ia j1iB s1 jEi : …22†
Taking into account (17) we obtain that the state of the environment factorizes, and there-
fore Alice and Bob have accomplished their task.

5. Conclusions
We have proposed a scheme to achieve ideal transmission of quantum information between
distant nodes in a quantum network. In our scheme, the nodes are represented by atoms
that are connected by photons, using high-Q cavities. We have also presented a scheme to
correct the most important errors that can occur during transmission.

6. Acknowledgments
We thank the members of the ITP program Quantum Computers and Quantum Coherence for discus-
sions. This work was supported in part by the Ústerreichischer Fonds zur FoÈrderung der wissenschaft-
lichen Forschung, by the European TMR network ERB4061PL95-1412, by NSF PHY94-07194 and
PHY-93-13668, by DARPA/ARO through the QUIC program, and by the ONR.

References

[1] See, for example, C. H. Bennett, Phys. Today, volume 24 (October 1995); D. P. DiVincenzo,
Science 270, 255 (1995).
[2] J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4091 (1995).
[3] T. Pellizzari et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3788 (1995).
[4] C. Monroe et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4714 (1995).
[5] Q. Turchette et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4710 (1995); for experimental CQED in the microwave
regime see, for example, M. Brune et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. in press.
[6] K. Mattle et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4656 (1996).
[7] J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, J. H. Kimble, and H. Mabuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. (in press).
[8] C. H. Bennett, Phys. Today 24 (October 1995) and references cited; A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 67, 661 (1991).
[9] C. H. Bennett et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 1895 (1993).
[10] C. H. Bennett et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 722 (1996); D. Deutsch et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77,
2818 (1996); N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. Lett. A 210, 151 (1996).
[11] S. van Enk, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett.
[12] P. W. Shor, Phys. Rev. Lett. A 52, R2493 (1995); A. M. Steane, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 793
(1996); J. I. Cirac, T. Pellizzari and P. Zoller, Science 273, 1207 (1996); P. Shor, Fault-
tolerant quantum computation, quant-ph/9605011; D. DiVicenzo and P. W. Shor, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 77, 3260 (1996).
[13] In a perfect realization of the present scheme no light field will be reflected from the second
mirror, and therefore the assumption of unidirectional propagation is not needed.
[14] C. W. Gardiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2269 (1993).
[15] H. J. Carmichael, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2273 (1993).
[16] For a review see P. Zoller and C. W. Gardiner in Quantum Fluctuations, Les Houches, ed.
E. Giacobino et al. (Elsevier, NY, in press).
[17] W1 …t† has to be such that a1 …1† ˆ 0. This is fulfilled if W1 …1† > 0, which also guarantees that
the denominator in (12) does not vanish for t > 0.
[18] S. J. van Enk, J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 4293 (1997).
[19] S. J. van Enk, J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, unpublished.