Quick Navigation
Topics
Photonic Quantum Computing
Certifying the presence of a photonic qubit by splitting it in two
arXiv
Authors: Evan Meyer-Scott, Daniel McCloskey, Klaudia Gołos, Jeff Z. Salvail, Kent A. G. Fisher, Deny Hamel, Adán Cabello, Kevin J. Resch, Thomas Jennewein
Year
2015
Paper ID
26684
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
82
Citations
N/A
Abstract
We present an implementation of photonic qubit precertification that performs the delicate task of detecting the presence of a flying photon without destroying its qubit state, allowing loss-sensitive quantum cryptography and tests of nonlocality even over long distance. By splitting an incoming single photon in two via parametric down-conversion, we herald the photon's arrival from an independent photon source while preserving its quantum information with up to 92.3pm0.6 % fidelity. With reduced detector dark counts, precertification will be immediately useful in quantum communication.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Photonic Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2015 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- We present an implementation of photonic qubit precertification that performs the delicate task of detecting the presence of a flying photon without destroying its qubit state...
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.