You're viewing papers too quickly. Please wait a moment.<br>This helps keep the archive available for everyone.

Quick Navigation

Topics

Spin Qubits Silicon Quantum Computing

Interference of Single Photons from Two Separate Semiconductor Quantum Dots

arXiv
Authors: Edward B. Flagg, Andreas Muller, Sergey V. Polyakov, Alex Ling, Alan Migdall, Glenn S. Solomon

Year

2010

Paper ID

9092

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

83

Citations

N/A

Abstract

We demonstrate and characterize interference between discrete photons emitted by two separate semiconductor quantum dot states in different samples excited by a pulsed laser. Their energies are tuned into resonance using strain. The photons have a total coalescence probability of 18.1% and the coincidence rate is below the classical limit. Post-selection of coincidences within a narrow time window increases the coalescence probability to 47%. The probabilities are reduced from unity because of dephasing and the postselection value is also reduced by the detector time response.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Spin Qubits & Silicon Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2010 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • We demonstrate and characterize interference between discrete photons emitted by two separate semiconductor quantum dot states in different samples excited by a pulsed laser.

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

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #9092

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

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.