Oe 18 024423

Minimal state tomography of spatial
qubits using a spatial light modulator
W. M. Pimenta,1 B. Marques,1 M. A. D. Carvalho,1 M. R. Barros,1

J. G. Fonseca,1 J. Ferraz,1,∗ M. Terra Cunha,2 and S. Pádua1
1 Departamento de Fı́sica, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais,
caixa postal 702, 30123-970, Belo Horizonte, MG - Brazil
2 Departamento de Matemática, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais,
caixa postal 702, 30161-970, Belo Horizonte, MG - Brazil

[email protected]
Abstract: We report minimal quantum state tomography with spatial

qubits created by a pair of parametric down converted twin-photons
passing through a double-slit. A novel experimental setup is used, which
includes a Spatial Light Modulator, as a fundamental tool, to reconstruct
the state density matrix. The theory needed to perform a minimal quantum
tomography is described. The density matrix is experimentally obtained for
the two-qubit photonic states in spatial variables.
© 2010 Optical Society of America
OCIS codes: (270.5585) Quantum information and processing; (270.5565) Quantum commu-
nications.
References and links

1. J. P. Home, M. J. McDonnell, D. M. Lucas, G. Imreh, B. C. Keitch, D. J. Szwer, N. R. Thomas, S. C. Webster,
D. N. Stacey, and A. M. Steane, “Deterministic entanglement and tomography of ion-spin qubits,” New J. Phys.
8, 188 (2006).
2. M. Riebe, K. Kim, P. Schindler, T. Monz, P. O. Schimdt, T. K. Korber, W. Hansel, H. Häffner, C. F. Hoos, and R.
Blatt, “Process tomography of ion trap quantum gates,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 220407 (2006).
3. M. A. Nielsen, E. Knill, and R. Laflamme, “Complete quantum teleportation using nuclear magnetic resonance,”
Nature 396, 52–55 (1998).
4. D. F. V. James, P. G. Kwiat, W. J. Munro, and A. G. White, “Measurement of qubits,” Phys. Rev. A 64, 052312
(2001).
5. Z. Y. Ou and L. Mandel, “Violation of Bell’s inequality and classical probability in a two-photon correlation
experiment,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 50–53 (1988).
6. Y. H. Shih and C. O. Alley, “New type of Einstein-Podolky-Rosen-Bohm experiment using pairs of light quanta
produced by parametric down conversion,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2921–2924 (1988).
7. L. Neves, G. Lima, J. G. A. Gómes, C. H. Monken, C. Saavedra, and S. Pádua, “Generation of entangled states
of qudits using twin photons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 100501 (2005).
8. J. G. Rarity and P. R. Tapster, “Experimental violation of Bell’s inequality based on phase and momentum,” Phys.
Rev. Lett. 64, 2495–2498 (1990).
9. A. Rossi, A. Chiuri, G. Vallone, F. De Martini, and P. Mataloni, “Multipath entanglement of two photons,” Phys.
Rev. Lett. 102, 153902 (2009).
10. A. Mair, A. Vaziri, G. Weihs, and A. Zeilinger, “Entanglement of the orbital angular momentum states of pho-
tons,” Nature 412, 313–316 (2001).
11. N. K. Langford, R. B. Dalton, M. D. Harvey, J. L. O’Brien, G. L. Pryde, A. Gilchrist, S. D. Bartlett, and A. G.
White, “Measuring entangled qutrits and their use for quantum bit comminment,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 053601
(2004).
12. J. D. Franson, “Bell inequality for position and time,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2205–2208 (1989).
13. J. Brendel, N. Gisin, W. Tittel, and H. Zbinden, “Pulsed energy-time entangled twin-photon source for quantum
communication,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2594–2597 (1989).
14. A. Rossi, G. Vallone, F. de Martini, and P. Mataloni “Generation of time-bin entangled photons without temporal
post-selection,” Phys. Rev. A 78, 012345 (2008).
#135365 - $15.00 USD Received 20 Sep 2010; revised 11 Oct 2010; accepted 27 Oct 2010; published 8 Nov 2010
(C) 2010 OSA 22 November 2010 / Vol. 18, No. 24 / OPTICS EXPRESS 24423
15. P. G. Kwiat, “Hyper-entangled states,” J. Mod. Opt. 44, 2173–2184 (1997).
16. C. Cinelli, M. Barbieri, R. Perris, P. Mataloni, and F. de Martini, “All-versus-nothing nonlocality test of quantum
mechanics by two-photon hyperentaglement,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 240405 (2005).
17. T. Yang, Q. Zhang, J. Zhang, J. Yin, Z. Zhao, M. Zukowski, Z.-B. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, “All-versus-nothing
violation of local realism by two-photon, four-dimensional entaglement,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 240406 (2005).
18. B. C. dos Santos, K. Dechoum, and A. Z. Khoury, “Continuous-variable hyperentanglement in a parametric
oscillator with orbital angular momentum,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 230503 (2009).
19. A. G. White, D. F. V. James, P. H. Eberhard, and P. G. Kwiat, “Nonmaximally entangled states: production,
characterization, and utilization,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3101–3107 (1999).
20. G. Lima, F. A. Torres-Ruiz, L. Neves, A. Delgado, C. Saavedra, and S. Pádua, “Measurement of spatial qubits,”
J. Phys. B 41, 185501 (2008).
21. G. Taguchi, T. Dougakiuchi, N. Yoshimoto, K. Kasai, M. Iinuma, H. F. Hofmann, and Y. Kadoya, “Measurement
and control of spatial qubits generated by passing photons through double slits,” Phys. Rev. A 78, 012307 (2008).
22. J. T. Barreiro, N. K. Langford, N. A. Peters, and P. G. Kwiat, “Generation of hyperentangled photon pairs,” Phys.
Rev. Lett. 95, 260501 (2005).
23. S. Massar and S. Popescu, “Optimal extraction of information form finite quantum ensembles,” Phys. Rev. Lett.
74, 1259–1263 (1995).
24. R. Derka, V. Bužek, and A. K. Ekert, “Universal algorithm for optimal estimation of quantum states from finite
ensembles via realizable generalized measurement,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1571–1575 (1998).
25. J. I. Latorre, P. Pascual, and R. Tarrach, “Minimal optimal generalized quantum measurements,” Phys. Rev. Lett.
81, 1351–1354 (1998).
26. J. Řeháček, B.-G. Englert, and D. Kaszlikowski, “Minimal qubit tomography,” Phys. Rev. A 70, 052321 (2004).
27. A. Ling, K. P. Soh, A. Lamas-Linares, and C. Kurtsiefer, “Experimental polarization state tomography using
optimal polarimeters,” Phys. Rev. A 74, 022309 (2006).
28. G. Lima, A. Vargas, L. Neves, R. Guzmán, and C. Saavedra, “Manipulating spatial qudit states with programable
optical devices,” Opt. Express 17 10688–10696 (2009).
29. S. Cialdi, D. Brivio, and M. G. A. Paris, “Demonstration of a programable source of two-photon multiqubit
entangled states,” http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0912.2975v3.
30. E. Yao, S. Franke-Arnold, J. Courtial, M. J. Padgett, and S. M. Barnett, “Observation of quantum entanglement
using spatial light modulators,” Opt. Express 14, 13089–13094 (2006).
31. J. Leach, B. Jack, J. Romero, M. Ritsch-Marte, R. W. Boyd, A. K. Jha, S. M. Barnett, S. Franke-Arnold, and
M. J. Padgett, “Violation of a Bell inequality in two-dimensional orbital angular momentum state-spaces,” Opt.
Express 17, 8287–8293 (2009).
32. I. Moreno, P. Velásquez, C. R. Fernández-Pousa, and M. M. Sánchez-López, “Jones matrix method for predict-
ing and optimizing the optical modulation properties of a liquid-crystal display,” J. Appl. Phys. 94, 3697–3702
(2003).
33. W. M. Pimenta, M. R. Barros, B. Marques, M. A. D. Carvalho, J. Ferraz, M. T. Cunha, and S. Pádua are preparing
a manuscript to be called “Engineering spatial quantum states of twin-photons.”
34. D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, “Multiparticle interferometry and the superposition principle,”
Phys. Today 46, 22–29 (1993).
35. E. J. S. Fonseca, J. C. Machado da Silva, C. H. Monken, and S. Pádua, “Controlling two-particle conditional
interference,” Phys. Rev. A 61, 023801 (2000).
36. L. Neves, G. Lima, E. J. S. Fonseca, L. Davidovich, and S. Pádua, “Characterizing entanglement in qubits created
with spatially correlated twin photons,” Phys. Rev. A 76, 032314 (2007).
37. L. Neves, S. Pádua, and C. Saavedra, “Controlled generation of maximally entangled qudits using twin photons,”
Phys. Rev. A 69, 042305 (2004).
38. W. K. Wootters, “Entenglement of formation of an arbitrary state of two qubits,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245–2248
(1998).
39. D. Collins, K. W. Kim, and W. C. Holton, “Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm as a test of quantum computation,” Phys.
Rev. A 58, 1633–1636 (1998).
40. M. R. Barros, R. C. Drumond, W. M. Pimenta, B. Marques, M. A. D. Carvalho, J. Ferraz, M. T. Cunha, and S.
Pádua are preparing a manuscript to be called “Optical implementation of minimal Deutsch algorithm.”
1. Introduction
Characterizing a quantum state is a fundamental step in quantum information science. To
achieve this goal it is used a technique known as quantum state tomography, which consists
of a series of measurements on a large number of identically prepared copies of a system using
a special set of measurement operators. The experimental results are used together with the
maximum likelihood method to obtain a meaningful density matrix that represents the physical
state under study. This technique has been used to reconstruct the density matrix of different
quantum systems such as the spin and the energy levels of trapped ions [1, 2], molecules [3],
and photons [4].
Spontaneous Parametric Down Conversion (SPDC) [5] is a natural source of entangled sys-
tems because the photon pairs are easy to produce and manipulate. Another advantage of this
system is that entanglement occurs in many degrees of freedom of the photon pairs, e. g., polar-
ization [5, 6]; transversal [7], longitudinal [8, 9], and orbital angular momenta [10, 11]; energy-
time [12], and time bin [13,14]. The entanglement can even exist simultaneously, in two or more
different degrees of freedom of the photon pairs, the so called hyperentanglement [15–18].
The quantum tomographic technique has been used to reconstruct the system density
matrix in the various photon’s degrees of freedom: polarization [4, 19], transversal mo-
menta [11, 20, 21], orbital angular momenta [10], and in more than one degree of freedom
in hyperentangled photon pairs [22]. Research in improving the efficiency of quantum state
estimation techniques is an area of intense theoretical study [23–25]. For many applications it
is essential to make the fastest possible density matrix determination. In particular, Řeháček
et al. [26] proposed a method for state estimation of polarization-based single qubits, which
requires a minimum number of measurements. In [27], the authors implement this theoretical
method in a tomographic reconstruction of twin-photons polarization states.
The tomographic reconstruction is based in measurements on a quorum of measurement op-
erators. In order to implement them, we need to control phases and amplitudes. G. Lima and
collaborators [28] have shown that a Spatial Light Modulator (SLM), can be used to perform
this kind of state control. Recently, the SLM was used for tomographic purposes in the pho-
ton’s polarization degree of freedom by Cialdi et al. [29]. In [30], the authors used the SLM to
observe the quantum entanglement of down converted photon pairs. It was also used to demon-
strate a Bell’s inequality violation in the orbital angular momentum of photon pairs [31].
In this work, we use a SLM to reconstruct the state’s density matrix of two photonic spatial
qubits. Two spatial qubits were produced in the experiment when two photons generated by
SPDC cross a double-slit. The method of minimal quantum state tomography proposed in [26]
is implemented for obtaining the density matrix of two qubit photon states. The minimal to-
mography technique is applied for the first time for obtaining the density matrix of photon pairs
entangled in the spatial variables.
The paper is organized as follows: in section 2, we describe briefly, the mathematical theory
used in a minimal quantum state tomography protocol; the experimental results, are presented
in section 3, together with a discussion of these measurements; section 4 is dedicated to a
discussion in which we characterize and quantify entanglement, using our principal result, the
system density matrix. In this section, we also make a correspondence between the experimental
results and the density matrix. Section 5 is dedicated to the paper’s conclusion.
2. Theory
Let us start in abstract terms by considering only one qubit. A source generates identically
prepared qubits, described by a density matrix ρ . Our problem is to obtain ρ . With the usual
{|0i , |1i} basis, suppose we have a detection apparatus which clicks with a probability propor-
tional to Tr (ρ P), with P = |+i h+| the projector over |+i = √12 (|0i + |1i). Moreover, suppose
we are able to implement alternative evolution maps, on the density operator given by the ma-
trices:
" #
√1 0
E1 = 2 ,
0 1
" #
√1
0
E2 = 2 ,
0 −1
" #
i 0
E3 = ,
0 √12
" #
−i 0
E4 = . (1)
0 √12
In this sense, for each of the four evolution maps (always assuming the same source), the
detector counts of the evolved density operator E j ρ E †j ( j = 1, . . . , 4) will be given by

c j ∝ Tr E j ρ E †j P = Tr ρ E †j PE j , (2)
which can be rewritten using Π j = 23 E †j PE j , as
c j ∝ Tr (ρ Π j ) .
An important property of the Π j measurement operators that can be easily verified is that
their sum is equalto the identity operator. Since each Π j is a positive operator and they add
up to the identity, Π j can be considered as a positive operator valued measure (POVM). The
most important implication of it is that the four counting ratios ci are minimal for the one-
qubit state reconstruction. One simple way to recognize it is to write the density matrix ρ in
terms of parameters, and to recognize that the system given by (2) allows for a unique solution
(one needs four ratios, since relations (2) are not equations, but proportions). This tomographic
strategy can be visualized with a tetrahedron in the Bloch sphere, which is represented in Fig. 1
(see [26]).
Fig. 1. Schematic vector representation of the tomographic strategy. Measurement opera-

tors Π j , are proportional to projectors ψ j ψ j , with the states ψ j being the tetrahedron
vertices of the Bloch sphere.
For two-qubits one only needs to use the sixteen-operator POVM given by Π j ⊗ Πk .

Again, state reconstruction is straightforward, in the ideal case.
3. Experimental Setup
The experimental setup used for obtaining the density matrix of the two-qubit state in path
variables is shown in Fig. 2. A 50 mW He-Cd laser, operating at λ = 325 nm, is used to pump
a 2-mm-thick Lithium Iodate crystal and generate, by type I SPDC, degenerate non-collinear
photon pairs. Signal and idler (λs ,i = 650 nm) beams passes through a polarizer P1 , before they
cross a double-slit placed perpendicular to the signal and idler beams plane at a distance of
250 mm from the crystal. Considering the pump beam direction as the z-direction, the double-
slit plane is in the x-y plane with its smaller dimension in the x-direction. The slits are 2a =
100 µ m wide and have a separation of 2d = 250 µ m.
A 350 mm focal length lens, L1 , placed at 100 mm before the crystal is used for focusing
the pump beam at the double-slit plane such that an entangled two-photon state in transverse
path variables is generated, after the double-slit [7]. The two-qubit quantum states are created
after the photon pairs cross the double-slit plane. The state determination starts with the SLM
positioned just behind the double-slit, at 2.0 mm from it, for preventing diffraction. Signal and
idler photons are reflected by the SLM, returning through the slit’s paths. They are detected at
the image or Fourier plane where there are two single photon module detectors as shown in
Fig. 2.
Two 200 mm focal length lenses, Ls1 and Li1 , placed at the focal distance from the detectors
plane, are used to obtain an interference pattern at the detectors plane, which, in this case, is
the lenses Fourier plane or two 125 mm focal length lenses, Ls2 and Li2 , placed at 2f = 250 mm
from the detectors plane, are used for forming the double-slit’s image on the detectors. All
measurements necessary to reconstruct the density matrix, ρ , are made in the Fourier plane. By
detecting at the origin of the interference pattern, at the Fourier Plane, we are able to produce
the detection projector P = |+i h+|, with |+i = √12 (|0i + |1i). Here {|0i , |1i} are the photon
path states provided by the slits. Polarizers Pi and Ps are placed attached to the detectors because
the SLM modify the photon polarizations differently depending on the applied grey scale. The
pump beam is blocked right before the double-slit.
Single-slits, Si and Ss are placed in front of the detectors and have a width of 100 µ m.
Their planes (xyi,s planes) are aligned perpendicular to the propagation direction of the idler
and signal beam (zi,s direction), respectively. The small direction, of each slit, is parallel to
the corresponding x-direction. The used SLM is a Holoeye Photonics LC-R 2500, which has a
1024 x 768 pixel resolution (each pixel consists in a 19 x 19 µ m square) and it is controlled by
a computer. Signal and idler beams were focused on the detectors with a microscope objective
lens and two interference filters, centered at 650 nm, with 10 nm Full Width Half Maximum
(FWHM), were kept before the objective lenses. Pulses from the detectors are sent to a photon-
counter and a coincidence detection setup with 5.0 ns resolving time.
4. Experimental Results
In Eq. (1), we have defined the evolution maps E j ( j = 1, . . . , 4) used in our tomographic re-
construction. Our experimental setup is arranged in a way that a photon passing through the
inferior slit of the double-slit corresponds to state |0i, while a photon that passes through the
superior slit corresponds to state |1i. To prepare these maps, we must be able to modify the
amplitude and phase of each of these states. It was shown [32] that a SLM plus the input and
output polarizers, can be properly calibrated to obtain this goal. Our state engineering method
will be described in [33]. The liquid crystal display of the SLM is divided in four regions for
the two qubit tomography, each region attenuating and/or adding a phase to the photon path
state defined by the slits. A SLM gray level is associated with each one of the display’s re-
gions. Different gray levels introduce a relative phase between the photon path states. By also
Fig. 2. (Color online) Experimental setup scheme for quantum tomography, in the trans-
verse path degrees of freedom of two-qubit photon states. The L1 lens focuses the pump
beam in the double slit’s plane; lenses Ls1 and Li1 are used to detect the signal and idler
beams at the Fourier plane, while lenses Ls2 and Li2 are used to project the double slits
images in the detectors planes. A half-wave plate is placed right after the crystal and po-
larizers Pi and Ps are positioned in front of APD’s detectors. CNC is a coincidence counter
and SLM is the Spatial Light Modulator.
adjusting correctly the half-wave plate and polarizers Pi and Ps angles, in the two-particle to-
mography (Fig. 2), the necessary relative path attenuation is also obtained. The evolution maps
E j ( j = 1, . . . , 4) are implemented when the correct phase difference and amplitude attenuation
are introduced in the photon paths by the SLM and the polarizers. In our setup, the SLM can
not perform state rotations (|0i → (a |0i + b |1i)), so, the implemented SLM maps are diagonal.
In Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 we measured the phase difference and attenuation, respectively, and the
maps Ei might be fully determined.
Fig. 3 shows interference patterns obtained when the idler detector, Di , is kept fixed, while Ds
is scanned in the x direction. This measurement is made using lenses Li1 and Ls1 , and removing
lenses Li2 and Ls2 in our experimental apparatus, in order to obtain the double slit’s interference
pattern. In particular, the interference patterns, shown in Fig. 3 (a) were obtained when the
SLM was turned off. In this graph, it is shown the two double-slit conditional interference
pattern [34, 35], i. e., the fringe pattern depends on the position of both photon detectors. In the
closed circles graph, detector Di is fixed at xi = 0, while for the open circles, detector Di is fixed
at xi = 250µ m (the position of the first minimum in the closed circles interference pattern). We
can see that the interference pattern changes drastically: a maximum in the first measurement
transforms to a minimum, in the second one. The closed circles plot is shown in every graph
of the figure for comparison purposes. In Fig. 3 (b) and Fig. 3 (c), we show the interferences
patterns obtained when two different gray levels are generated at the SLM, each in one of the
two regions at the signal side where the signal photon is reflected. By choosing the right gray
levels and polarizer angles we are able to implement the maps E1 (∆φ = 0) and E2 (∆φ = π
rad), respectively, as given in Eq. (1). In the plots of Fig. 3 (b) and Fig. 3 (c), the same gray
levels are applied to the two-regions of the SLM in the idler side (path phase difference equal
300
(a)
250
200
150
100
Coin iden es
50
c
0
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
300 160 300 200
c
(b) (c)
250 250
120 150
200 200
150 80 150 100
100 100
40 50
50 50
0 0 0 0
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
x s osition
p (mm)
Fig. 3. Double slit interference patterns. In (a), the conditional interference pattern is pre-
sented. Idler detector is kept fixed at xi = 0 (closed circles) or at xi = 250 µ m (open circles),
while signal detector is scanned. This result is obtained with the SLM turned off. Graphs
(b) and (c), show the patterns obtained for phase differences of 0 and π rad, added by the
SLM, between states |0i and |1i, respectively, and the relative amplitude ratio necessary
for implementing the evolution maps. Plot with closed circles in (a) is reproduced in (b)
and (c), as a reference.
to zero) and the idler detector is kept fixed at xi = 0 while signal detector is scanned.
Our SLM was not able to implement maps E3 and E4 , directly. To avoid this problem, we
have used a alternative experimental approach. Different gray levels at the SLM and " angles of
#
1 0
the input and output polarizers were chosen to implement the evolution map E ′ =
0 √12
in the signal and idler sides. On the other hand the detectors were not kept fixed at x = 0 as
above but at the position x = ±125µ m in order to implement the detector projector P±π /2 =
|±π /2i h±π /2| with |±π /2i = √12 (|0i ± i |1i). It can be shown that Π j = 23 E ′† P±π /2 E ′ , with
j = 3 for plus and j = 4, for the minus sign.
The relative phase difference, in the signal beam, was verified fitting the experimental data.
This fitting is shown as solid lines in each graph of Fig. 3. For the closed circles data of Fig. 3(a),
which is our reference measurement and has no additional phase imposed by the SLM, we have
found a phase difference of ∆φ = (−0.8 ± 0.2) rad, in the experimental fit. Using the same
procedure for Figs. 3 (b) and (c), we obtain ∆φ0 = (−1.0±0.3) rad and ∆φπ = (−4.0±0.2) rad,
when external phases of zero and π rad are added by the SLM, respectively. In this way, one
can see that the SLM can provide these two phases presented in our evolution maps, within the
experimental error, and together with the alternative experimental approach, described in the
previous paragraph, we are able to obtain each of the necessary phases for the evolution maps.
4
4.0x10
(a) 80
4
3.0x10
60
4
2.0x10
40
4
1.0x10 20
Single Counts
Coin iden es
0.0 0
c
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
4
2.5x10 4 70
3.0x10
50
(b)
c
(c) 60
4 4
2.0x10 2.5x10
40 50
4
4 2.0x10
1.5x10
40
30
4
1.5x10
4 30
1.0x10
20 4
1.0x10
20
3
5.0x10 10 3
5.0x10 10
0.0 0 0.0 0
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
x s osition
p (mm)
Fig. 4. Double slit images recorded with the idler detector Di fixed at xi = 0, while Ds is
scanned in the x direction. Lenses Li2 and Ls2 , described in the experimental apparatus,
were used. In (a), we have the same experimental parameters used to obtain the conditional
interference patterns, shown in Fig. 3(a). The phase difference imposed, by the SLM, on
states |0i and |1i were: (b) 0, (c) π rad The states relative probability attenuation, imposed
by the SLM and the polarizers was one half. Closed circles are single counts, and open
circles coincidence detections.
In Eq. (1), we see that besides the phase control, we need to modify the relative amplitude
between the basis states in order to produce the evolution maps. Notice that in all maps, in
this equation, there is a relative probability attenuation of one-half between these states. As
mentioned above, different gray scales for each slit path and polarizer angles are carefully
chosen, in a way that the necessary phase difference and amplitude attenuation are added to
the photon paths. Fig. 4 shows double-slit’s images, with the same experimental parameters
used in Fig. 3, except that in order to obtain the images, we changed the lenses Li1 and Ls1
to Li2 and Ls2 , in the experimental apparatus. The closed circles in the graphs, refers to single
counts, while the open circles are coincidence counts. Again, the idler detector was fixed in
xi = 0. All measurements were made in 10 seconds. The left peak (negative position values in
the xs scan) corresponds to the base state |0i, while state |1i is characterized by the right side
peak in the graphs. In this figure, we verify the amplitude control necessary to implement the
maps described by Eq. (1). In Fig. 4 (a), the SLM was turned off, which corresponds to the
same experimental conditions used in Fig. 3 (a). The area under each peak was obtained using
a double gaussian fit and has a value of A0 = (27 ± 1) in arbitrary units for the |0i state, while
|1i state has a area of A1 = (28 ± 1) in arbitrary units. Since no relative attenuation is added by
the SLM, this measurement shows that the prepared photon path base state in the signal side
are balanced. A similar graph is obtained for the idler side. Fig. 4 (b) and (c) show the signal
double-slit images when we employ the same gray levels as the ones used to obtain the phase
difference of 0 and π rad, respectively. The areas in the coincidence plot of Fig. 4 (b) were
A0 = (15 ± 1) and A1 = (9 ± 1), while in Fig. 4 (c), A0 = (22 ± 1) and A1 = (13 ± 1), all areas
are in arbitrary units.
In order to prepare the spatially entangled two-qubit states, the pump beam was focused in
the double-slit’s plane [36], using a lens with 300 mm of focal distance, shown in Fig. 2 as
L1 . Double slit’s image measurements, shown in Fig. 5 (a) and (b), were done for testing the
state preparation. Closed circles corresponds to single counts, and open circles to coincidences.
All measurements were made in 10 seconds. Once again detector Di is kept fixed, while the
detector Ds is scanned in the x direction. On Fig. 5 (a), the idler detector position is fixed in
xi = 120 µ m, which corresponds to the central position of the superior slit image, and on (b)
in xi = -120 µ m, that corresponds to the central position of the inferior slit image. L. Neves et
al. showed that the twin-photon state in spatial variables prepared with an analogous experi-
mental setup is correlated, in a way that if the idler photon passes through one of the slits, the
signal photon will pass through the symmetrically opposite one [7, 37]. In our case, as we are
dealing with a double slit, it indicates that if idler photon passes through the superior (inferior)
slit, the signal photon will pass through the inferior (superior) one. Fig. 5 (a) and (b) shows the
results. In these measurements, the SLM’s gray level was the same in all regions of the SLM
display behind the slits. This correlation, known as conditional images, together with the condi-
tional fringes, shown in Fig. 3 (a), are usually considered as entanglement signatures [34–36].
However, each result can be, independently, simulated with separable states. This reinforces
the utility of quantum state tomography, as a tool, for unambiguously decision on entanglement
issues. To verify the conditional aspect of this measurement, we have calculated the areas under
each peak of Fig. 5. In Fig. 5 (a), the peak in the coicidence plot that corresponds to state |0i
has an area of A0C = (43.8 ± 0.1), while state |1i has an area of A1C = (0.4 ± 0.1). In Fig. 5 (b)
the areas are A0C = (0.9 ± 0.1) and A1C = (46.3 ± 0.1). Once again the areas are in arbitrary
units.
4 4
8.0x10 8.0x10
500
4 500 4
7.0x10 (a) 7.0x10 (b)
Single Counts
Coin iden es
4 4 400
6.0x10 400 6.0x10
4 4
5.0x10 5.0x10
300
c
4
300 4
4.0x10 4.0x10
4 4
3.0x10 3.0x10 200
200
c
4 4
2.0x10 2.0x10
100 100
4 4
1.0x10 1.0x10
0.0 0 0.0 0
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
x s osition
p (mm)
Fig. 5. Double slit conditional images. Closed circles are single counts, and open circles
are coincidence detections. In (a) detector Di is fixed in the superior slit, in (b) Di is fixed
in the inferior slit, while detector Ds is scanned in the x-direction at the image plane. In
these measurements the SLM was turned off.
We finally turn to the tomographic measurements. In order to obtain the to-

mographic reconstruction of a two-qubit state, we must be able to implement the
sixteen measurement operators, given by Πi ⊗ Π j , as discussed in section 2.
This is done implementing the evolution maps, in both signal and idler photons
paths. Our measured coincidence vector was given by: ~VC = (c1,1 , c1,2 , ..., c4,4 ) =
(921, 475, 102, 921, 271, 1332, 700, 404, 229, 392, 634, 108, 843, 513, 69, 875), the experi-
mental errors associated with the measured coincidences given by the square root. In the calcu-
lation used to obtain the density matrix, we have subtracted the accidental coincidences counts,
which has the maximum value of 5, for each ~VC element. The obtained density matrix for the
two-qubit state, on the {|00i , |01i , |10i , |11i} basis, is:
 
0.063 0.131 + i0.039 0.139 − i0.017 −0.010 − i0.003
 0.131 − i0.039 0.480 0.388 − i0.051 −0.034 + i0.001 
ρ̂ = 
 0.139 + i0.017
. (3)
0.388 + i0.051 0.455 −0.027 − i0.004 
−0.010 + i0.003 −0.034 − i0.001 −0.027 + i0.004 0.002
Fig. 6 shows, schematically, the modulus of the real and imaginary parts of ρ̂ elements. All
the measurements, for two-qubits, were made using 1500 seconds as the acquisition time.
Re Im
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0
Fig. 6. (Color online) Tomographic reconstruction of the output state for two-qubits. The
figure represents the modulus of the real and imaginary parts of each density matrix meas-
ured element.
5. Discussion
We begin this section with a brief discussion regarding the robustness of the experimentally
implemented maps, in comparison with the theoretical ones, shown in Eq. (1). To perform the
operators Πi we have used the SLM to implement the maps Ei . We construct the experimental
maps using the relative attenuation and phases for the photon paths, shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4.
One way of quantifying q the √robustness of the technique is to calculate the fidelity, which is
√
defined by F (σ , ρ ) = Tr σ ρ σ , between theoretical and implemented operators:
1 , Π1
F(Πexp 2 , Π2
theory
) = 0.991 & F(Πexp theory
) = 0.995. (4)
Since the projector implementation P and P±π is well established [36], the experimentally
implemented and theoretical operators Πi differ mainly because of the maps. The operators Π3
′
and Π4 use the map E to be implemented and the fidelities are equal to F(Πexp 1 , Π1
theory
). In
this way, we see that the fidelity between our experimental and theoretical maps are very close
to one, which ensures the technique robustness.
We now turn our discussion to the tomographic result in itself, namely the state density matrix
presented in Eq. (3). The state fidelity, associated with the Bell state |Ψ+ i is 0.86. We can see,
that the population elements, corresponding to states |00i and |11i, are close to, but different
from zero. This can be visualized experimentally, if one looks at the conditional image results
in Fig. 5. The areas A1C in Fig. 5 (a) and A0C in Fig. 5 (b), should be zero in the ideal case.
But our experimental setup was not able to provide this, so we have population reminiscences,
which is consistent with the non-nullity of terms ρ11 e ρ44 , in the density matrix Eq. (3).
The state obtained has purity P (ρ ) = Tr[(ρ̂ )2 ] = 0.83, and concurrence [38] C = 0.80, which
certifies it’s entanglement.
6. Conclusion
In this work, we demonstrated that spatial light modulators can be used to perform quantum
state tomography in the transverse path degree of freedom of the photon pairs, prepared when
photon pairs generated by spontaneous parametric down conversion cross a double-slit. In par-
ticular, we have used the minimal tomographic technique in spatial variables, which reduces
the number of measurements required to reconstruct the state’s density matrix.
The experimental apparatus is easy to manipulate, and can be used in fundamental tests
of quantum mechanics, such as Bell’s inequalities violations, and characterization and quan-
tification of entanglement. The SLM can be used to manipulate and control photon pairs in
hyperentangled states or hybrid states, which gives us the perspective of doing a quantum state
tomography of hyperentangled system in polarization and transverse path, for example. An-
other application of this experimental setup is in quantum computation. In [39], the authors
reveled a redundancy in the existing form of the Deutsch-Jozsa algorithm. Our experimental
setup was used to implement the suggested scheme, and in doing so, we have confirmed its
validity [40].
Acknowledgements
This work is part of the Brazilian National Institute for Science and Technology for Quantum
Information and was supported by the Brazilian agencies CNPq, CAPES, and FAPEMIG. We
acknowledge the EnLight group for very useful discussions.

Oe 18 024423

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oe 18 024423

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oe 18 024423

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Minimal state tomography of spatial

qubits using a spatial light modulator

W. M. Pimenta,1 B. Marques,1 M. A. D. Carvalho,1 M. R. Barros,1

caixa postal 702, 30161-970, Belo Horizonte, MG - Brazil

Abstract: We report minimal quantum state tomography with spatial

References and links

which can be rewritten using Π j = 23 E †j PE j , as

Fig. 1. Schematic vector representation of the tomographic strategy. Measurement opera-

Again, state reconstruction is straightforward, in the ideal case.

150 80 150 100

We finally turn to the tomographic measurements. In order to obtain the to-

You might also like