text:
# Quantum entanglement with acousto-optic modulators: 2-photon beatings and Bell experiments with moving beamsplitters

## I Introduction

Entanglement is a basic resource for quantum information processing as well as for fundamental tests of quantum mechanics. Several types of entanglement between photons have already been demonstrated: polarization entanglement kwiat , energy-time entanglement Franson89 ; Brendel92 ; Tittel98  and time-bin entanglement Brendel ; Thew , see WeihsTittel  for a review. In this paper we present a setup based on energy-time entanglement, where we add a frequency shift in one arm of each interferometer. Experimentally the frequency shift is induced by using acousto-optic modulators (AOM) in the interferometers instead of standard beamsplitters.

The section II of this article is devoted to the effects of a frequency shift on the time dependent coincidence rate in a Franson-type Bell experiment. This effect is the equivalent for 2-photon interferences to the phenomenon of beatings for single photon interferences. As the time needed to record interference fringes can not be arbitrarily small, the measured visibility is reduced in presence of beatings. When this measurement time is only limited by energy resolution, there is a simple relation between the visibility and the which-path information. Experimentally we are far from accede to very short measurement times, therefore we propose an indirect method to show the beatings.

The section III presents the experimental setup in detail and the technics used to overcome the difficulties due to the frequency shifts. We have measured high visibility interference fringes when the beatings are canceled, and we have also measured the beatings frequency when it is not zero.

Since an AOM is equivalent to a moving beamsplitter, our setup can be used to perform experiments with apparatuses in two different relevant frames Stefanov . In the conventional experiments with all apparatuses at rest, there is only one relevant inertial frame, i.e. one inertial frame of the massive pieces of the apparatus (the laboratory frame) and, therefore, only one possible time ordering: one of the photons is always measured before the other (*before-after* situation). Using two relevant frames it is possible to create a *before-before* time ordering, in which each measuring device in its own inertial frame analyzes the corresponding photon before the other, and an *after-after* time ordering, in which each measuring device in its own inertial frame analyzes the corresponding photon after the other Maudlin ; asvs97 . Quantum Mechanics predicts correlations independently of the time ordering, between the two single-photon measurements. By contrast, Multisimultaneity as00 , a recently proposed alternative theory, casts nonlocality into a time ordered scheme and predicts disappearance of nonlocal correlations with *before-before* timing. Therefore, experiments with AOMs allow us to test a most important feature of quantum entanglement as it is the independence of the time ordering. This is the subject of the section IV.

## II two photon beatings

When two monochromatic waves of frequencies $`\omega _1`$ and $`\omega _2`$ are combined the resulting wave exhibits two frequencies, one at $`\omega _0=\left(\omega _1+\omega _2\right)/2`$ and the other at $`\delta \omega =\left(\omega _1\omega _2\right)/2.`$ This is the well known phenomenon of beatings. An application in the optical domain for classical light field is heterodyne detection HP .

Beatings can be seen as first order interferences in the time domain. For second order interferences, the same equivalence can be found. Consider the Franson-type configuration of figure 1; a source S emits energy-time entangled pairs of photons. Each photon is sent to an unbalanced interferometer. When both photons arrive in coincidence on the detectors it is impossible to distinguish between both photons passing by the short arms (ss) or both passing by the long ones (ll) because the photons emission time is undeterminated. Hence interference fringes appear when the phases $`\varphi _i`$ are changed. In our experiment, we consider not only phase changes in each interferometers but also changes of the photons frequencies. When both frequency shifts do not sum to 0 we will show that the coincidence rate between two detectors changes periodically in time. This is equivalent, for 2-photon interferences, to the phenomenon of beatings in one photon interferences, therefore we call it 2-photon beatings.

Following closely Franson’s calculation Franson89 , the wave function at detector $`D_i`$, $`i\{a,b\}`$, located at $`r_i`$, is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(r_i,t)=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Psi }_0(r_i,t)+\frac{1}{2}e^{i\varphi _i}\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{\mathrm{\Omega }_i}(r_i,t\mathrm{\Delta }t_i)$$
(1)
where $`\varphi _i`$ is the phase of interferometer $`i`$, $`c\mathrm{\Delta }t_i=\mathrm{\Delta }l_i=`$ $`l_is_i`$ is the path difference between both arms of the interferometer and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ the frequency shift in the short arm of interferometer $`i`$. The difference with Franson’s original calculation is that we consider an arbitrary frequency shift $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ in one arm of the interferometers. We can expand the wave functions in the field operators $`c_k`$

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_0(r_i,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}c_ke^{i\left(kr_i\omega _it\right)}`$
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{\mathrm{\Omega }_i}(r_i,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}c_ke^{i\left(kr_i\left(\omega _i+\mathrm{\Omega }_i\right)t\right)}`$ (2)
where $`\omega _i`$ is the frequency of the photon in interferometer $`i`$. The coincidence rate between 2 detectors is then given by

$$R=0\left|\mathrm{\Psi }^+(r_a,t)\mathrm{\Psi }^+(r_b,t)\mathrm{\Psi }(r_b,t)\mathrm{\Psi }(r_a,t)\right|0$$
(3)
Using (1) and (II) in (3) we find

$$R\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}(\omega _0\mathrm{\Delta }t+\mathrm{\Omega }^0\mathrm{\Delta }t+\varphi _1+\varphi _2\mathrm{\Omega }^0t)}{2}$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }^0=\mathrm{\Omega }_a+\mathrm{\Omega }_b`$. This corresponds to Franson’s result, when $`\mathrm{\Omega }^0=0`$, otherwise the coincidence probability is generally not constant in time.

When the entangled photons are created by downconversion down , we have to take into account the finite bandwidth of the pump laser and of the photons. We find, assuming gaussian spectral distributions, that the coincidence probability is given by

$$R=\frac{1+\chi \mathrm{cos}(\omega _0\mathrm{\Delta }t+\mathrm{\Omega }^0\mathrm{\Delta }t+\varphi _1+\varphi _2\mathrm{\Omega }^0t)}{2}$$
(5)
with

$`\chi =f({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }l_b}{c}},\delta \omega _0)f({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }l_a\mathrm{\Delta }l_b}{c}},\mathrm{\Delta })`$ (6)
where $`f(x,y)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}x^2y^2\right)`$, $`\omega _0`$ is the central frequency of the pump laser, $`\delta \omega _0`$ is the pump bandwidth and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the photons bandwidth. Hence the visibility of the interference fringes is reduced by a factor $`\chi `$. In absence of beatings ($`\mathrm{\Omega }^0=0`$), $`\chi `$ is the maximal visibility that can be measured. Equation (6) contains all the usual conditions to see high visibility interference fringes; the coherence length of the pump laser has to be greater than the path difference in one interferometer, and the photons coherence length has to be greater than the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }l_a\mathrm{\Delta }l_b`$.

An application of entangled photons, apart from fundamental tests of quantum mechanics, is quantum cryptography. Setups based on polarization, energy-time or time-bin entanglement have been proposed and realized, for a review see crypto . One the other hand only one photon schemes with frequency shifted photons have been proposed Merolla99 ; Fainman . In appendix A we propose 2 different schemes with frequency shifted entangled photons, which can be used to implement quantum cryptography, although they are not actually of practical interest, due to technology limitations.

### II.1 Frequency shift as quantum eraser

If the beating frequency is not zero, the coincidence probability changes in time, decreasing the visibility of the interference fringes. According to Feynmann ”principle” feynmann , the disappearance of the interference fringes would implies accessibility, in principle, of information about which path the photons took GHZ . The frequency shift can be used to mark the path, only if we have enough coincidence events such that the time needed to experimentally estimate the coincidence probability is smaller than the intrinsic uncertainty $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ on the time measurement given by saturating the energy-time uncertainty relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }E\mathrm{\Delta }t=\mathrm{}`$. Otherwise information about the path is lost due to imperfect experimental devices.

We can quantify this information and the corresponding loss of visibility. Contrary to schwindt  where the degree of freedom used to mark the photon (i.e. polarization) is different from the one where interferences are observed (spatial mode), we use the frequency to mark the paths. This will affect the interferences by creating beatings as we have shown before. However due to the energy-time uncertainty relation there is still a relation between interferences visibility and which-path information.

If the time needed to measure the coincidence probability is arbitrary small: $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0`$, the coincidence probability will be given by $`\frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Omega }^0t\right)}{2}`$, according to (5) where we assume $`\chi =1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\omega \mathrm{\Delta }t+\mathrm{\Omega }^0\mathrm{\Delta }t+\varphi _1+\varphi _2`$. For a finite time resolution we have to integrate this expression over a time distribution with a width $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, for example we consider a gaussian distribution:

$`p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\chi \mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Omega }^0t\right)}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{\Delta }t}}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }t^2}}\right)𝑑t`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }^0\right)^2\mathrm{\Delta }t^2\right)`$
The corresponding visibility is

$`V\left(\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_{\mathrm{max}}p_{\mathrm{min}}}{p_{\mathrm{max}}+p_{\mathrm{min}}}}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }^0\right)^2\mathrm{\Delta }t^2\right)`$
The which-path information is given by measuring the total energy of the photons $`\omega `$. This is done with a resolution $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ related to the time resolution by the energy-time uncertainty relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \mathrm{\Delta }t2\pi `$. We predict that the photons would be detected in the $`ll`$ arm if we measure $`\omega <\omega _0+\mathrm{\Omega }^0/2`$, and in the $`ss`$ arm otherwise. The which-path information $`K`$ is given by $`K=2q1`$ Jaeger  where $`q`$ is the probability of a correct prediction on the path. With our strategy we have

$`q`$ $`=`$ $`p(ll|\omega <\omega _0+\mathrm{\Omega }^0/2)`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{\Delta }\omega }}{\displaystyle _{\omega _0+\mathrm{\Omega }^0/2}^{\mathrm{}}}exp({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega \omega _0)^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }\omega ^2}})𝑑\omega `$
Hence the information is given by

$$K=2erf(\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^0\mathrm{\Delta }t}{4\sqrt{2}\pi })1$$
(10)
with $`erf(x)`$ being the error function. The extreme cases are either a perfect distinction between $`ss`$ and $`ll`$ events which requires that $`\mathrm{\Delta }E<<\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }^0`$, but this implies a measurement time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t>>1/\mathrm{\Omega }^0`$, averaging to zero the interferences; or, on the contrary, if the measuring time is short enough to measure interference, then the energy resolution is to poor to distinguish the paths. For the intermediate case we have the known relation Jaeger  $`V^2+K^21`$. The equality is not reached because of the prediction strategy is not optimal.

Let us emphasize that the preceding description does not rely on quantum mechanics but more generally on wave theory. The quantum nature appears when we assume that photons are quanta of light, and in the fact that the photon pairs we consider can not be described by classical local physics.

### II.2 Measurements of 2-photon beatings

In our experiment, when the RF drivers are not sychronized, the minimum value which can be set for $`2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }^0`$ is $`31.5`$ KHz. This is too large to directly see the beatings by recording the coincidence rate vs. time. A first possible method, is to record the time of each coincidence event and reconstruct the beatings from those datas. This requires a clock precise enough over a long time. However this requires also that the coherence of the beatings signal is much longer than the acquisition time, so that the phases of the interferometers have to be kept stable during that time. We also need to know precisely the frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }^0`$, otherwise the analysis of the datas will be much more complicated, although not impossible.

Instead of recording all the absolute times of arrival and reconstruct the beatings we could only measure the time difference between 2 successive coincidence counts and then measure the distribution of those times.

The probability density $`P(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ of having two coincidences separated by a time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ can be computed in the following way. Because the detection process is independent of time, except for a dead-time of the detectors $`\tau _d`$, the conditional probability of having a coincidence at time $`t`$ and another one in time $`t+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, knowing that a photon pair reaches the detectors at time $`t`$ and another one at time $`t+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is only dependent of the beatings signal.

$`p(t,t+\mathrm{\Delta }t|\gamma _t,\gamma _{t+\mathrm{\Delta }t})=`$
$`\{\begin{array}{c}0\text{ if }\mathrm{\Delta }t<\tau _d\\ C\frac{1+V\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }^0t\right)}{2}\frac{1+V\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }^0\left(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)\right)}{2}\text{ if }\mathrm{\Delta }t>\tau _d\end{array}`$ (13)
where $`V`$ is the visibility and $`C`$ is a normalization constant. Without loss of generality we can assume that the efficiency of the detectors is one.

However we do not access the time $`t`$ but we only measure $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. Therefore the probability of having two coincidences, knowing only that the 2nd photons comes $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ after the first is given by

$`p\left(\mathrm{\Delta }t|\gamma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^0}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Omega }^0}}}p(t,t+\mathrm{\Delta }t|\gamma _t,\gamma _{t+\mathrm{\Delta }t})𝑑t`$ (14)
$`C{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^0}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Omega }^0}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+V\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }^0t\right)}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1+V\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }^0\left(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)\right)}{2}}𝑑t`$
because typically $`\tau _d<<\frac{2\pi }{\mathrm{\Omega }^0}`$.

The integration gives

$$p\left(\mathrm{\Delta }t|\gamma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t}\right)=C\frac{1}{4}\left[1+\frac{V^2}{2}\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }^0\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)\right]$$
(15)
Finally the probability density of having 2 coincidences separated by a time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is obtained using the fact that the emission and detection are two Poissonian processes independent of the beatings. Therefore the probability $`dp_{emmission}(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ of having two emissions separated by a time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is

$$dp_{emission}\left(\gamma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t}\right)=\frac{1}{\tau }\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }t/\tau \right)d\left(\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)$$
(16)
Hence the probability density $`P(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ of having two coincidence events separated by a time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ is given by

$`dp\left(\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`p\left(\mathrm{\Delta }t|\gamma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t}\right)dp_{emission}\left(\gamma _{\mathrm{\Delta }t}\right)`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`CP\left(\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)d\left(\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)`$
with $`P\left(\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)=\frac{1}{4}\left[1+\frac{V^2}{2}\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }^0\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)\right]\frac{1}{\tau }\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }t/\tau \right).`$ We normalize this expression such that

$`1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}P\left(\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)d\left(\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`C{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left(2+{\displaystyle \frac{V^2}{1+(\mathrm{\Omega }^0)^2\tau ^2}}\right)`$
The final normalized expression is then

$$P\left(\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)=\frac{\left[1+\frac{V^2}{2}\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }^0\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)\right]\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }t/\tau \right)}{\tau \left(1+\frac{V^2}{2}\frac{1}{1+(\mathrm{\Omega }^0)^2\tau ^2}\right)}$$
(19)
Experimentally, we integrate $`P\left(t\right)`$ over a time bin $`t_b`$ so the measured probability is

$$p\left(\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)=_{\mathrm{\Delta }t}^{\mathrm{\Delta }t+t_b/2}P_N\left(t^{}\right)𝑑t^{}$$
(20)
The total counts $`N_c`$ in $`m`$ seconds in each time bin is

$$N_c\left(\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)=\frac{m}{\tau }p\left(\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)$$
(21)
The advantage of this method to see 2-photon beatings is that the interferometer have only to be stable during the time between two successive coincidences. In section III.F we present the results of the beatings frequency using this method.

## III Experimental setup

### III.1 Principle

The setup we use to test entanglement of the photon pairs with frequency shift, is based on previous Franson-type experiments TittelPRA . The main conceptual difference is the frequency shifts in one arm of the interferometers.

### III.2 Source

The photon pairs are created by parametrical down-conversion in a recently developed high efficient source. It is based on a waveguide integrated on a Periodically Poled Lithium Niobate (PPLN) substrate SebElLett . Using a pump at 657 nm, it generates degenerated photons at 1314 nm. We chose this wavelength as it corresponds to a transparency window in optical fibers. Hence it is possible to use this setup for long distance transmission. An RG1000 filter is placed after the waveguide to eliminate the pump light, and an additional interference filter is used to narrow the generated photons bandwidth. The photon pairs are coupled into a 50/50 fiber optics beam-splitter which separate the twin photons.

Violation of Bell inequality has already been demonstrated with this source PPLNQC .

### III.3 Acousto-optic modulator as a moving beam-splitter

As for Franson type experiments, we use Michelson interferometers as analyzers. We replaced in each interferometer the beam-splitters by AOM’s (Acousto-Optic Modulators, Brimrose AMF-100-1.3-2mm). They have two effects. First they induce a frequency shift equal to the acoustic wave frequency as we will see, second they can be seen as moving beamsplitter as required for a relativistic Bell experiment as00 .

An AOM is made of a piece of glass, AMTIR 1 (Amourphous Material Transmitting IR Radiation), in which an acoustic wave at frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (100 MHz in our experiment) is created by a piezo-electrical transducer photonics . As the refractive index in a material depends on the pressure, the acoustic wave will create a periodical change of the refractive index, equivalent to a diffraction grating (fig. 2). If the acoustic wave is traveling rather than stationary, it will be equivalent to a moving diffraction grating. This can be achieve if the AOM ends with a skew cut termination to damp the wave. As for a standard grating, the reflection coefficient is maximal at Bragg angle $`\theta _B`$ given by

$$2\lambda _s\mathrm{sin}\theta _B=\lambda /n$$
(22)
where $`\lambda _s`$ is the sound wavelength, $`\lambda `$ is the light wavelength in vacuum and $`n`$ the refractive index of the material. The reflection coefficient is, for small angles $`\theta _B`$ Yariv

$$R=\frac{\pi ^2}{2\lambda ^2}\left(\frac{L}{\mathrm{sin}\theta _B}\right)^2I$$
(23)
where $`I`$ is the acoustic power, $`L/\mathrm{sin}\theta _B`$ is the penetration of light through the acoustic wave, and $``$ is a material parameter. The acoustic power can be set, such that the beamsplitting ratio is 50/50.

The reflected wave undergoes a frequency shift of $`+\mathrm{\Omega }`$ if it hits the acoustic wave in the same direction as figure 2, in the opposite case the frequency shift is $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

The reflection on a moving mirror produces a frequency change of the light as00 , due to the Doppler effect, given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =\frac{2nv\mathrm{sin}\theta }{c}\nu $$
(24)
where $`v`$ is the mirror velocity and $`\theta `$ the angle between the incident light and the plane of reflection. Within an AOM the reflected light is also frequency shifted and the frequency shift is equal to the acoustic wave frequency:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\nu =\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(25)
Using $`\lambda _s\mathrm{\Omega }=v_s`$, $`\theta =\theta _b`$ and equations (22) and (25) we find that the frequency shift induced by the AOM is the same as the one induced by a mechanical grating traveling at speed $`v_s`$. The velocity of sound in the AMTIR 1 can be computed from the mechanical parameters of the material. The velocity for primary sound waves sound\_speed  is given by

$$v_s=\sqrt{\frac{\lambda +2\mu }{\rho }}$$
(26)
where $`\mu =\frac{E}{2\left(1+\nu \right)}`$ and $`\lambda =\frac{E\nu }{\left(1+\nu \right)\left(12\nu \right)}`$, $`E`$ is the Young modulus and $`\nu `$ is the Poisson ratio. For AMTIR 1 we have handbook  $`E=21.910^9`$ Pa, $`\nu =0.266`$ and $`\rho =4.4110^3`$ kg/m<sup>3</sup>, hence $`v_s=2480`$ m/s. This corresponds to the manufacturer value of $`v_s=2500`$ m/s.

The phase of the reflected wave is also shifted by a value $`\phi `$ which is the phase of the acoustic wave at the time when the light is reflected.

### III.4 2-photon interferometry with frequency shifts

We have built two bulk Michelson interferometers using AOM’s instead of beamsplitters. The light is coupled out of the fiber using an APC connector to avoid backreflection at the fiber’s end. Because of the small deviation angle $`2\theta _b`$ (about 5) we collect only the light coming back into the input port by using a fiber optical circulator (fig. 3). Due to imperfect overlap of the modes, the transmission through each interferometer is about 45%, with monochromatic light. The transmission through the reflected arm is reduced for large bandwidth photons, because the deviation angle depends of the light wavelength. Hence an AOM will act as a band-pass filter for the reflected beam with a measured bandwidth of about 30 nm. To minimize this effect which could reduce the fringes visibility we have to insure that the bandwidth of the photons is smaller by placing after the source a spectral filter (11 nm bandwidth).

The condition to observe interferences is given by equation (6). It is the usual condition for 2-photon correlations, the path differences $`\mathrm{\Delta }l_i`$ between the short and the long arm of the interferometers have to be equal within the coherence length of the photons. Without frequency shifts ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_a=\mathrm{\Omega }_b=0`$) the equalization of the paths of both interferometers can be done by putting them in serie TittelPRA  (fig. 4) and looking for the interferences between the $`s_a`$$`l_b`$ and $`l_a`$$`s_b`$ paths. Using a low coherence light, interferences appears only when $`s_a+l_b`$ is equal to $`l_a+s_b`$ within the coherence length of the light. This implies that $`\mathrm{\Delta }l_a=\mathrm{\Delta }l_b`$ (in our interferometers $`\mathrm{\Delta }l_i/c1.5ns`$). Unfortunately this method can not directly work when there is a frequency shift. Indeed when we put our interferometers in serie, with the AOM’s oriented as for the 2-photon experiment, the frequency shifts do not cancel anymore but beatings appear between the $`s_a`$$`l_b`$ and $`l_a`$$`s_b`$ paths at the frequency of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_a\mathrm{\Omega }_b=400`$ Mhz. In order to observe those beatings we use a fast PIN detector (2 Ghz bandwidth) connected to an electrical spectrum analyzer. As such a detector is not very sensitive, we use a very bright LED source (Opto Speed SA SLED 1300-D10A). With this setup it is easy to scan the long path of one of the interferometers until we see classical beatings.

Once the path length differences are equalized we can look for 2-photon interference with the setup of (fig. 3). Therefore the frequency shifts have to cancel each other such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^0=0`$ (eq. 4). We orient the AOM as described such that the frequency shifts are of opposite signs (fig. 3). Hence we have $`\mathrm{\Omega }_a=200`$ Mhz (because we pass 2 times through each AOM) and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_b=200`$ Mhz.

Experimentally we can only specify an upper bound on $`|\mathrm{\Omega }^0|`$. The requirement is given by the fact that we have to integrate over times much larger than $`1/\mathrm{\Omega }^0`$ to estimate the coincidence probability with small statistical error (typically 10-20 s). Therefore, even if the temporal resolution of the detectors would have been good enough to see interference fringes in principle (eq. 8), the integration cancels them. Hence we can only see interference fringes if $`\mathrm{\Omega }^0<10^2`$. Otherwise we have to use an indirect means of observing the beatings, as described in the next section.

Finally one should note that if the frequency shift $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is greater than the photon bandwidth $`\delta \omega _0`$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\delta \omega _0$$
(27)
it will be possible to distinguish the path by measuring only the energy of one photon. In that case the correlations disappear because the phase shift on the reflected wave will not be well defined as the mirror is moving. More precisely this phase change due to the change of the mirror position during the coherence time $`\delta \tau `$ of the photon is given by

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{\delta \tau v_s}{\lambda _s}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\delta \omega _0}$$
(28)
Interference fringes can be seen only if $`\mathrm{\Phi }1`$, which is in contradiction with equation (27).

### III.5 Synchronization

Each AOM is driven by a Radio-Frequency driver (Brimrose FFF-100-B2-V0.8-E) which generates a 100 Mhz. As we have seen we need to synchronize the Radio-Frequency drivers with a frequency difference smaller than $`10^2`$ Hz. This is done by using the fact that the 100 MHz frequency is generated in each driver by multiplying a 1 MHz signal from an oscillator with a phase locked loop (PLL). The synchronization is achieved by using the same oscillator for both drivers. In practice we send the signal from one of the driver’s oscillator to the other driver through a coaxial cable. The ratio of the frequencies, measured with a frequency-meter, is $`1\pm 10^{11}`$, so that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^0<10^2`$ Hz. Another point to look at is the shape of the electrical spectrum on both sides. We verified with a spectrum analyzer that both spectrum widths are smaller that the resolution of the analyzer (100 Hz).

Once the synchronization is correctly done we observe interference fringes with high visibility (fig. 5). The vivibility after subtracting the accidental coincidences is about 97%. The visibility without subtracting the noise is about 45%.

We have verified that the visibility is reduced when the electrical spectrums of the drivers are slightly different. The frequency of one of the drivers can be changed by steps of 15625 Hz. Due to beatings, no interference fringes can be observed when the drivers are set at different frequencies.

The phase difference $`\varphi _{AOM}`$ between the 2 synchronized acoustic waves induces the same phase change in the 2-photon interference fringes. $`\varphi _{AOM}`$ depends on the length $`l`$ of the synchronization cable

$$\varphi _{AOM}=\alpha l+\varphi _0$$
(29)
where

$$\alpha =\frac{2\pi }{\lambda _{synch}}\frac{\nu _{AOM}}{\nu _{synch}}$$
(30)
with $`\lambda _{synch}`$ and $`\nu _{synch}`$ being the wavelength and frequency of the 1 MHz synchronization signal. Hence we have

$$\alpha =\frac{2\pi \nu _{AOM}}{v_{synch}}$$
(31)
with $`v_{synch}`$ the speed of the synchronization signal. We can measure $`\alpha `$ by changing the length of the synchronization cable and measuring the induced phase shift on the interference fringes. We clearly observe a frequency shift when we add or remove 0.53 m or 1.03 m of cable (fig. 6). The mean phase shift per meter $`\alpha `$ of cable added on 5 measurements is $`6.97\pm 0.09`$ rad/m. Hence, with $`\nu _{AOM}=210^8`$ Hz, $`v_{synch}=0.60c\pm 0.01c`$. This is compatible with the speed of signal propagation in coaxial cables.

### III.6 Experimental evidence of 2-photon beatings

We use the procedure described previously to experimentally show 2-photon beatings, when the difference of frequencies $`2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }^0`$ is 31250 Hz. We have measured the time difference between successive coincidences and we plot the histogram of those measurements. The time bins of the histogram are of $`410^6`$ s and we plot it for times between 0 s and 0.1 s. The figure 7 shows the exponential decrease, as expected for random events. However at a closer look we see that the exponential decay is modulated by a cosinus (fig. 8). We fit an approximation of equation (21)

$`N_c\left(t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\tau }}p\left(t\right)`$ (32)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\tau }}t_B{\displaystyle \frac{\left[1+\frac{V^2}{2}\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }t\right)\right]\mathrm{exp}\left(t/\tau \right)}{\tau \left(1+\frac{V^2}{2}\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{\Omega }^2\tau ^2}\right)}}`$
because the width of the histogram time bins is small enough ( $`t_B<<1/\mathrm{\Omega }`$).

The visibility given by the fit is compatible with the direct measurements of visibility and the frequency we found is $`\omega =31250.0\pm 1.6`$ Hz, as expected. Another measurement with a frequency shift of 62.5 KHz gives similar results.

## IV Multisimultaneity

### IV.1 Motivation

Classically, correlations between separated events can be explained by two different mechanisms: either both events have a common cause in the past, e.g. two separate TV apparatuses showing the same images because connected to the same channel; or one event has a direct influence on the other, e.g. dialing number on my phone makes the phone of my colleague ring. In both cases there is a time-ordered causal relation.

Quantum correlations, on the other hand, are of very different nature. Quantum Mechanics predicts correlated outcomes in space-like separated regions for experiments using pairs of entangled particles. Many experiments have demonstrated such quantum correlations, under several conditions Tittel98 ; exp , in perfect concordance with the quantum mechanical predictions. The existence of correlations shows that the outcomes of the two measurements are not independent. However, in that case, violation of Bell’s inequality rules out the common cause explanation jb64 .

To explain the correlations one could invoke a possible influence of one outcome on to the other. Since the correlated events lie in space-like separated regions, such a direct influence would have to be superluminal. Moreover this would define a preferred frame, because the time-ordering between two space-like separated events is not relativistically covariant.

One could imagine a unique preferred frame which is relevant for all the quantum measurements. The pilot-wave model of de Broglie and Bohm dbbh  assumes such a preferred frame. This model perfectly reproduces the results of Quantum Mechanics, and the assumed connections, though superluminal, cannot be used for faster than light communication faster-light . Moreover, since Quantum Mechanics is independent of the timing, Bohm’s preferred frame is experimentally indistinguishable. Another theory assuming a unique preferred frame has been proposed by Eberhard Eberhart . In this model the connection between the events is not only superluminal but it propagates at a finite speed, and leads to faster than light communication. If, in the preferred frame, both choices occur in a time interval short enough, the correlations would disappear as the influences would not have the time to propagate. However, experimentally this theory cannot be refuted, because the speed of the influence can be arbitrary large and is not specified by the theory.

A different natural possibility would be to assume that the relevant reference frame for each measurement is the inertial frame of the massive apparatus, and to define a time-ordered dependence by means of several preferred frames. This possibility has been developed within a theory called Multisimultaneity asvs97 . More specifically, Multisimultaneity assumes that the relevant frame is determined by the analyzer’s inertial frame (e.g. a polarizer or a beam-splitter in our case). Paraphrasing Bohr, one could say that the relevant frame, hence the relevant time ordering, depends on the very condition of the experiment Bohr .

In Multisimultaneity, as in the pilot-wave model, each particle emerging from a beam-splitter follows one (and only one) outgoing mode, hence particles are always localized, although the guiding wave (i.e. the usual quantum state $`\psi `$) follows all paths, in accordance with the usual Schrödinger equation. When all beam-splitters are at relative rest, this model reduces to the pilot-wave model and has thus precisely the same predictions as quantum mechanics. However, when two beam-splitters move apart, then there are two relevant reference frames, each defining a time ordering, hence the name of Multisimultaneity. In such a configuration it is possible to arrange the experiment in such a way that each of the two beam-splitters in its own reference frame analyzes a particle from an entangled pair before the other. Each particle has then to ”decide” where to go before its twin particle makes its choice (even before the twin is forced to make a choice). Multisimultaneity predicts that in such a before-before configuration, the correlations disappear, in contrary to the quantum predictions.

Whereas quantum mechanics is nonlocal and independent of the time ordering, Multisimultaneity assumes a nonlocal but time-ordered dependence between the events. Nevertheless, this alternative model is not in contradiction with any existing experimental data prior to the present experiment. Furthermore, it has the nice feature that it can be tested using existing technology. This means that *before-before* experiments are capable of acting as standard of time-ordered nonlocality (much as Bell’s experiments act as standard of locality).

Since it would have been very difficult to put conventional beamsplitters in motion, we used traveling acoustic waves as beamsplitters to realize a before-before configuration. It has been argued that the state of motion of the moving acoustic wave defines the rest frame of the beam-splitters as00 . We would like to stress that a before-before experiment using detectors in motion has already been performed confirming quantum mechanics, i.e. the correlations didn’t disappear Zbinden01 .

### IV.2 Experiment

As we have seen, an AOM is a realization of a moving beam-splitter. We can then use our interferometers to perform a Bell experiment with moving beam-splitters (fig. 9) in order to confront quantum mechanics predictions with multisimultaneity. We need to perform the experiment in the so called before-before condition. The criterion given by special relativity for the change in time ordering of two events in two reference frames counterpropagating at speed $`v`$ (fig. 10) reads

$$\left|\mathrm{\Delta }t\right|<\frac{v}{c^2}d$$
(33)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and $`d`$ are respectively the time difference and distance between the two events in the laboratory frame asvs97 . This criterion is much more stringent than the spacelike separation condition $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }t\right|<\frac{d}{c}`$. Due to the high speed of the acoustic wave (2500 m/s), a distance of 55 m between the interferometers is enough, and allows us to realize the experiment inside our building. The permitted discrepancy on the time of arrival of the photons in the AOM is then, according to (33), $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }t\right|_{max}=1.53`$ ps, corresponding to a distance of $`0.46`$ mm in air.

#### IV.2.1 Dispersion

To observe the predicted disappearance of the correlations, the spreading of the wave-packet due to the finite bandwidth of the photons combined with the chromatic dispersion of the optical fibers has to be smaller than $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$.

First, the coherence length of the single photons is determined by the filter after the source. With a 11 nm filter the photons coherence length is about 0.15 mm. Next, the chromatic dispersion spreads the photon wave packet. However, thanks to the energy correlation, the dispersion can be almost canceled. The requirement for the 2-photon dispersion cancellation Steinberg92  is that the center frequency of the 2 photon is equal to the zero dispersion frequency of the fibers. We measured this value on a 2km fiber with a commercial apparatus (EG&G) which uses the phase shift method. We found a value of $`1313.2`$ nm for $`\lambda _0`$. We use 100 m of the same fiber assuming that the dispersion is constant along the fiber. We set the laser wavelength at half this value. Knowing the chromatic dispersion and conservatively assuming a 1 nm difference between the laser wavelength and $`\lambda _0/2`$, the pulse spreading over 100m can be computed and is 0.2 ps (for more detail see Zbinden01 ). This corresponds to a length of 0.06 mm in air, which is much smaller than the permitted discrepancy. The total spread is given by $`\sqrt{0.15+0.06^2}=0.152`$ mm.

#### IV.2.2 Path length alignment

The length difference between the fibers joining the source to two the interferometers can be measured with a precision of 0.1 mm using a low coherence interferometry method TittelPRA . The error on the interferometers’ path lengths is measured manually with a precision smaller than 0.5 mm. However, as the error is of the order of $`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }t\right|_{max}`$, we scan the path length difference by pulling on a 1 m long fiber. One end of the fiber is fixed on a rail as the other one is fixed to a translation stage which is fixed to the rail. The fiber can be elongated over a range of about 10 mm in the elastic region. As the refractive index changes with the stress we need to calibrate the effective change in the optical path vs. the fiber elongation (fig. 11). We measure the visibility of the interference fringes for each step of 0.10 mm corresponding to a change of the path in air of 0.11 mm as given by the calibration. This insure that for some of the scanning steps we are in the before-before situation.

#### IV.2.3 Results

The theory predicts a disappearance of the correlations in the before-before case. The visibility depending on the paths difference would be given by the function

$$V=\{\begin{array}{c}0\text{ if }\left|x\right|<\mathrm{\Delta }t\\ 1\text{ otherwise}\end{array}$$
(34)
However as the photons have a non-zero coherence length and are subject to spreading due to the dispersion, the correlations would vanish smoothly. For a path difference of $`x`$ the distribution of the times of arrival of the photons is given by

$$f\left(t\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }\sigma }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\left(tx/c\right)^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right)$$
(35)
Hence the visibility is given by the convolution of both functions:

$$V_{true}(x)=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi }\sigma }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\left(tx/c\right)^2}{2\sigma ^2}\right)V(t)𝑑t$$
(36)
In our case $`\sigma =0.076`$ mm due to dispersion and the photon coherence length. The figure 12 shows the measured visibility for different path difference and the expected curve according to multisimultaneity. It is clear that there is no disappearance of the correlations in the before-before situation.

Another intriguing situation is the opposite, where each measurement device is analyzing its photon in its own reference frame after the other analyzer photons. We call it after-after situation, for which Multisimultaneity also makes predictions conflicting with Quantum Mechanics, and in our particular case disappearance of the correlations, as in the before-before situation as97 ; as00 .

Experimentally, the *after-after* situation is done by inverting the direction of the acoustic waves, without changing the other adjustments of the experiment. Figure 13 shows a measurement of the visibility in function of the path difference. No change larger than the experimental fluctuations can be observed around the 0 difference point.

## V Conclusion

We have modified the usual 2-photon Franson interferometry scheme by using AOM’s instead of standard beamsplitters. Adding a new degree of freedom to the state of entangled photons leads to new effects, in particular 2-photon beatings. These are equivalent for the 2-photon interferences to the usual 1-photon beatings. We have experimentally demonstrated 2-photon intereferences when the beating frequency is 0. In the other case when it is not null we have measured the beatings.

As the reflection on an acoustic wave is equivalent to the reflection on a moving mirror we have used our interferometers to test non-local correlations under different time orderings. In the *before-before* situation, each ”choice-device” is the first to analyze its photon in its own reference frame. In this situation the correlation would disappear if they where due to some time-ordered influence between the events, as Multisimultaneity assumes. Experimentally, we don’t see any vanishing of the correlations. Hence, not only, the quantum correlations cannot be explained by local common causes as demonstrated by violating Bell’s inequality, but moreover one cannot maintain any causal explanation in which an earlier event influences a later one by arbitrarily fast communication.

In conclusion, correlations reveal somehow dependence between the events. But regarding quantum correlations, our experiment shows that this dependence does not correspond to any real time ordering. Quantum entanglement cannot be cast into any relativistic scheme.

## Acknowledgments

This work would not have been possible without the financial support of the ”Fondation Odier de psycho-physique” and the Swiss National Science Foundation. We thank Valerio Scarani and Wolfgang Tittel for very stimulating discussions and François Cochet from Alcatel Cable Suisse SA for having placed at our disposal the chromatic dispersion measurement instrument.

## Appendix A Frequency shift 2-photon quantum cryptography

The quantum theory has allowed to develop new cryptographic protocols, in particular quantum key distribution. Two people, Alice and Bob, can create a shared secret key by exchanging quantum particles. Coding bits into photons whose states are randomly chosen between non-orthogonal bases prevent any effective attack by a third person. A similar protocol based on the quantum correlations between entangled particles has been proposed Ekert91 . In this appendix we present two schemes for quantum cryptography using 2-photon correlations. The first one uses the phenomenon of beatings as described in section 2, to simulate two basis at $`45^{}`$. The second is the analogous with 2 photon of the interferometric scheme with frequency separation Merolla99 .

### A.1 Cryptography with pseudo-complementary basis

First, we briefly review the principle of 2-photon quantum cryptography with phase coding Ekert91 ; crypto ; Ribordy00 . It is based on Franson 2-photon interferences (fig. 14). Alice and Bob chose a phase in their respective interferometers (corresponding to the choice of a basis). When the bases are compatible ($`\varphi _1+\varphi _2=0`$) there is a perfect correlation between the outputs of both interferometers, the correlation coefficient $`E`$ is equal to 1. When the basis are incompatible ($`\varphi _1+\varphi _2=\pm \pi /2`$) the correlation coefficient vanishes, the outcomes are completly independant and random. This is sumarized by the following table.

| Alice $`\varphi _1`$ | Bob $`\varphi _2`$ | $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2`$ | $`E`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`1`$ |
| $`0`$ | $`\pi /2`$ | $`\pi /2`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`\pi /2`$ | $`0`$ | $`\pi /2`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`\pi /2`$ | $`\pi /2`$ | $`0`$ | $`1`$ |

Those correlations can be used to create a secret key between Alice and Bob. This scheme could be implemented with our setup if Alice and Bob set their frequency shifts such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^0=0`$. They can change their respective phases by modulating the phase in one arm (i.e. by changing the length). However they can also change the phases by changing the phase of the synchronisation signal on each sides as we have seen in section III E.

Instead of changing the phase Alice and Bob can change the frequency of the photons. As they are looking for interferences between the short-short and long-long paths, beatings will appear if the sum of the frequency shift is not zero (section III F). The probability coincidences are given by equation 4 where the global phase is fixed to $`0`$.

$`p_{++}`$ $`=`$ $`p_{++}={\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\left(\varphi _1+\varphi _2+(\mathrm{\Omega }_1+\mathrm{\Omega }_2)t\right)}{4}}`$ (37)
$`p_+`$ $`=`$ $`p_+={\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}\left(\varphi _1+\varphi _2+(\mathrm{\Omega }_1+\mathrm{\Omega }_2)t\right)}{4}}`$ (38)
Putting $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1+\mathrm{\Omega }_2=0`$ we find the previous table. But we could change $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1+\mathrm{\Omega }_2=\mathrm{\Omega }^0`$ without changing $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2`$. Hence if we set $`\varphi _1+\varphi _2=0`$ we have

$`p_{++}`$ $`=`$ $`p_{}={\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }t\right)}{4}}`$ (39)
$`p_+`$ $`=`$ $`p_+={\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }t\right)}{4}}`$ (40)
If $`\mathrm{\Omega }^0=0`$ we find the perfectly correlated case, otherwise they will be an additional phase of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^0t`$ which is not equal to $`\pm \pi /2`$, as in the phase coding. However, as the emission time of the photons is not known, the $`\mathrm{\Omega }^0t`$ value is uniformly distributed,. So the mean value of $`\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }^0t\right)`$ averaged over time is equal to $`0`$, corresponding to the non correlated case. We can then write a similar table as the previous one but with the phases $`\varphi _i`$ replaced by the frequency shifts $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$:

| Alice $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ | Bob $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ | $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1+\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ | $`E`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ | $`1`$ |
| $`0`$ | $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ | $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ | $`0`$ | $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ | $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ | $`0`$ | $`1`$ |

We should keep in mind that the correlation value in this table is only a mean value, therefore we call it pseudo-complementary basis. If Eve knows the detection time of a photon she could follow the beatings, she will always know the value of $`\mathrm{cos}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }^0t\right)`$ and can wait for a time $`t_{Eve}=2\pi n/\mathrm{\Omega }^0`$, such that $`p_{++}=p_{}=1/2`$, so to know which detector clicked on Alice side. Therefore the detection time should be kept secret as long as the photon didn’t reach Bob side. However, Alice and Bob have to perform a coincidence detection to select only the short-short and long-long events. In order to discriminate these events, the time uncertainty $`\delta t`$ on the coincidence has to be smaller than the time difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }l/c`$ between short and long arms. Moreover, if the uncertainty on the detection time send by Alice is greater than the beatings period, Eve can not extract any information on the timing. This requires $`1/2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }^0<\delta t`$. For example if $`\mathrm{\Omega }^0=400`$ Mhz we have $`\delta t>0.4`$ ns so $`\mathrm{\Delta }l/c`$ should be greater than 04 ns, which is the case in our experiment ($`\mathrm{\Delta }l/c1.5`$ ns).

Finally, if we imagine that Eve is able to measure when the photon passes (by quantum non-demolition measurement), she can again follow the beatings and set her measurement time such that she is in perfect correlation with Alice. To avoid this attack Alice should changed at random at which time she sent the photon to Bob. Again, the uncertainty on the emission time $`\delta t`$ has to be greater than $`1/2\pi \mathrm{\Omega }^0`$.

Such scheme of quantum key distribution would not be easy to implement, because it requires stabilisation of the interferometers as for the phase coding. Moreover fast changes of the frequencies of the AOM’s are needed, but this is not the case with today’s modulators.

### A.2 2-photon quantum cryptography with phase modulation

In contrary to the preceding scheme, where one photon interferences occur between two spatially separated paths, a scheme where the paths are frequency separated has been proposed and realized in Merolla99 ; Duraffourg . The experimental setup was done using faint laser pulses, which, for this purpose, is equivalent to a single photon scheme. It has the advantage of not requiring an interferometers stabilization. We will see that this one photon scheme can be generalized to a 2-photon one. But first, we briefly review the original scheme. Alice creates a photon in a superposition of two states of different frequencies by modulating light at frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (fig 15) and by applying a phase difference $`\phi _a`$. Hence the state of a photon at frequency $`\omega `$ becomes

$$|\omega |\omega +e^{i\phi _a}|\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(41)
Bob analyzes the photon by applying a similiar operation with a phase $`\phi _b`$

$`|\omega +e^{i\phi _a}|\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }`$ $``$ $`|\omega +e^{i\phi _a}|\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }+e^{i\phi _b}|\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (42)
$`+e^{i(\phi _a+\phi _a)}|\omega +2\mathrm{\Omega }`$
and selecting only the $`\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }`$ frequency. The remaining state is

$$\left(e^{i\phi _a}+e^{i\phi _b}\right)|\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }\left(1+e^{i\left(\phi _a\phi _b\right)}\right)|\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(43)
Such state can be used to implement quantum key distribution with the B92 protocol Bennett92 .

The generalization to 2-photon interferometry can be done because each single photon cryptographic scheme is equivalent to a 2-photon scheme up to local unitary transformation crypto . In this case, the equivalent scheme consists in a source emitting a state

$$|\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }|\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }+|\omega |\omega $$
(44)
When Alice and Bob apply the transformation given by eq. (41) one their side, the state becomes

$`|\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }|\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }+|\omega |\omega `$ $``$ $`|\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }|\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }+e^{i\phi _a}|\omega +2\mathrm{\Omega }|\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }+e^{i\phi _b}|\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }|\omega +2\mathrm{\Omega }`$ (45)
$`+e^{i\left(\phi _a+\phi _b\right)}|\omega +2\mathrm{\Omega }|\omega +2\mathrm{\Omega }+|\omega |\omega +e^{i\phi _a}|\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }|\omega `$
$`+e^{i\phi _b}|\omega |\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }+e^{i\left(\phi _a+\phi _b\right)}|\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }|\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }`$
In order to create the state of eq. (44) by downconversion, the laser pump has to be in the state

$$|\omega _p+|\omega _p+\mathrm{\Omega }/2$$
(46)
It will generate the state

$$|\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }+\delta \omega |\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }\delta \omega +|\omega _p+\delta \omega |\omega _p\delta \omega $$
(47)
which doesn’t need to be filter right after the pump, as the photons with another energy than $`\omega `$ will not contribute to the key exchange (they will be filtered on each sides).

After the filters the following state remains

$$\left(1+e^{i\left(\phi _a+\phi _b\right)}\right)|\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }|\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }$$
(48)
This state can be used to implement 2-photon quantum key distribution. Moreover this scheme as only one output. It can be generalized to a system with 2 outputs (BB84) by doing the following frequency transformation

$$|\omega |\omega +e^{i\phi _a}|\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }+e^{i\phi _a}|\omega \mathrm{\Omega }$$
(49)


format: text

text:
# Neutrino Factories: Physics Potential

## 1 Introduction

The recent evidence for neutrino oscillations  opens a new and exciting era in neutrino physics. We now know that neutrinos of one flavor can transform themselves into neutrinos of a different flavor. The atmospheric– and solar–neutrino results from the Super-Kamiokande (Super-K) and Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO) experiments suggest that all three known flavors participate in neutrino oscillations. Within the framework of three-flavor mixing, the oscillation probabilities are determined by three mixing angles ($`\theta _{12},\theta _{23}`$, $`\theta _{13}`$), one complex phase ($`\delta `$), and two mass splittings ($`\mathrm{\Delta }`$m$`{}_{32}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$m$`{}_{21}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$m$`{}_{ij}{}^{2}`$ m$`{}_{i}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ \- m$`{}_{j}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$, the difference between the squares of the masses of the neutrino mass eigenstates). The Super-K and SNO data suggest that (i) $`|\mathrm{\Delta }`$m$`{}_{32}{}^{2}|2\times 10^3`$ eV2, (ii) sin$`{}_{}{}^{2}2\theta _{23}1`$, and if the LMA MSW solution is confirmed, (iii) $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$m$`{}_{21}{}^{2}5\times 10^5`$ eV2, and (iv) sin$`{}_{}{}^{2}2\theta _{12}0.87`$. In addition, the CHOOZ reactor $`\nu _e`$ disappearance search result implies (v) sin$`{}_{}{}^{2}2\theta _{13}<O(0.1)`$. However, there is a lot we don’t know:

* Does three-flavor mixing provide the right framework, or are there also contributions from additional sterile neutrinos, neutrino decay, CPT-violation … ?
* Is sin$`{}_{}{}^{2}2\theta _{13}`$ small, tiny, or zero ?
* Is $`\delta `$ non-zero ? Is there CP-violation in the lepton sector, and does it contribute significantly to baryogenesis via leptogenesis ?
* What is the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$m$`{}_{32}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$ (which determines the neutrino mass hierarchy) ?
* Is sin$`{}_{}{}^{2}2\theta _{23}`$ maximal (= 1) ?

The answers to these questions may lead us towards an understanding of the origin of flavor. However, getting the answers will require the right tools, and a neutrino factory  appears to be the tool that we will ultimately require.

## 2 Beam properties

In a neutrino factory muons are stored in a ring with long straight sections. Muon decays generate a neutrino beam downstream of each straight section. If $`\mu ^+`$ are stored $`\mu ^+e^+\nu _e\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ decays generate a beam consisting of 50% $`\nu _e`$ and 50% $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$. If $`\mu ^{}`$ are stored the beam consists of 50% $`\nu _\mu `$ and 50% $`\overline{\nu }_{\mathrm{}}`$. Design studies  suggest that neutrino factories can provide O(1020) useful muon decays per year. Since the kinematics of muon decay is well known, we expect minimal systematic uncertainties on the neutrino flux and spectrum. Hence, compared to conventional neutrino beams made using a $`\pi ^\pm `$ decay channel, neutrino factories provide $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ beams in addition to $`\nu _\mu `$ and $`\overline{\nu }_\mu `$ beams, with small systematic uncertainties on the beam flux and spectrum.

### 2.1 $`\nu _\mu `$ beam properties

At a high performance 20 GeV neutrino factory providing $`2\times 10^{20}`$ useful muon decays/yr the $`\nu _\mu `$ beam flux is about an order of magnitude larger than the anticipated future NuMI beam flux at Fermilab. Eventually superbeams (very high intensity conventional neutrino beams driven by MW-scale primary proton beams) may also be able to achieve beam fluxes that are about a factor of 10 greater than the NuMI flux. However, with higher energy neutrino factories the event rate at a distant detector increases like $`E^3`$, rapidly exceeding any corresponding rate we can imagine at a superbeam. This is not the whole story. The beam energy distributions are also different. The neutrino factory beam has a sharp cut-off at the energy of the stored muons. In a conventional neutrino beam there is an annoying high-energy tail which gives rise to backgrounds from neutral current (NC) events in which a leading $`\pi ^0`$ is misinterpreted as an electron, faking a $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ signal. This background source is absent at a neutrino factory.

### 2.2 $`\nu _e`$ beam properties

Although the $`\nu _\mu `$ beam properties are interesting, the main reason for wanting a neutrino factory is that it would also provide $`\nu _e`$ and $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ beams, enabling very sensitive searches for $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ oscillations. The resulting $`\nu _\mu `$ component can interact in the far detector via the charged current (CC) interaction to produce a muon with a charge of opposite sign to that of the muons stored in the neutrino factory. The experimental signature is therefore the appearance of a wrong-sign muon, for which backgrounds are expected to be at the $`10^4`$ level or lower. In contrast to this, the equivalent $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ oscillation search using a superbeam suffers from background levels that are at about the $`10^2`$ level. To compare signal and background rates it is useful to consider some explicit examples  corresponding to entry-level and high-performance neutrino facilities:

* Entry-Level Superbeam (JHF $``$ Super-K). Running period = 5 years, detector mass = 22.5 kt, proton beam power = 0.75 MW.
* High-Performance Superbeam (Super-JHF $``$ Hyper-K). Running period = 8 years, detector mass = 1000 kt, proton beam power = 4 MW.
* Entry-Level Neutrino Factory (NUFACT I): $`1\times 10^{19}`$ useful muon decays / year at 50 GeV. Running period = 5 years, detector mass = 100 kt.
* High-Performance Neutrino Factory (NUFACT II): $`2.6\times 10^{20}`$ useful muon decays / year at 50 GeV. Running period = 8 years, detector mass = 100 kt.

For these four examples, the signal and background rates are compared in Table 1. Based on the signal to background (S/B) ratios we might expect that the sensitivity at a neutrino factory will ultimately be about two orders of magnitude better than at a high-performance superbeam. More detailed studies  suggest that this naive conclusion is not far from the truth although the full story is much more complicated.

## 3 Physics reach

Neutrino factory data can be separated into 6 subsamples with events tagged by the appearance of (i) a right-sign muon, (ii) a wrong-sign muon, (iii) an $`e^+`$ or $`e^{}`$, (iv) a $`\tau ^+`$, (v) a $`\tau ^{}`$, or (vi) the absence of a lepton. Measurements can be made with $`\mu ^+`$ and then with $`\mu ^{}`$ stored in the ring. Hence there are 12 event energy distributions that can be simultaneously fit to obtain the oscillation parameters. Since neutrino factories provide intense high energy beams, oscillation baselines can be long, or very long (thousands of km). With multiple experiments, measurements can be checked with a wide range of baselines. Recent studies have suggested that this wealth of information will be necessary to pin down the oscillation parameters and provide sufficient redundancy to ensure we have the right oscillation framework.

To better understand this it is instructive to expand the expressions for the oscillation probabilities in terms of small quantities, keeping just the leading order terms. We already know that $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ is small. We can construct a second small quantity $`\alpha \mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2/\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$. Defining $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2L/(4E_\nu )`$, to leading order in $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ and $`\alpha `$, the oscillation probabilities in vacuum are given by:

$`P_{\mu \mu }`$ $`=`$ $`1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Delta }+2\alpha \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{13}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{12}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{23}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }`$
$`P_{e\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Delta }+\alpha ^2\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{12}\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$
$`\alpha \mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}\delta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{23}\mathrm{sin}^3\mathrm{\Delta }`$
$`\alpha \mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}\mathrm{cos}\delta \mathrm{cos}\theta _{13}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{12}\mathrm{sin}2\theta _{23}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{sin}^2\mathrm{\Delta }`$
where the $``$ sign in the expression for $`P_{e\mu }`$ corresponds to neutrino/antineutrino oscillations. Examining the leading order oscillation expressions we note that:

i) We can replace $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{31}^2`$ without changing $`P_{e\mu }`$ since vacuum oscillations do not depend upon the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For sufficiently long (neutrino factory) baselines within the Earth this degeneracy is broken by matter effects.

ii) For non-maximal mixing we can replace $`\theta _{23}`$ with $`\pi /2\theta _{23}`$ and compensate the change in the predicted oscillation probabilities by changing $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$.

iii) We expect a strong correlation between the fitted values for $`\delta `$ and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$. In many cases the best fit combination $`(\delta ,\theta _{13})`$ is accompanied by another pair $`(\delta ^{},\theta _{13}^{})`$ that yields the same predicted leading order oscillation probabilities.

Hence, we can expect strong correlations between the values of the oscillation parameters extracted from fits to the data. In addition we can expect degenerate solutions (alternative regions in parameter space that are consistent with the data). To understand the physics capabilities of neutrino factories (or superbeams) we must take into account the impact of these correlations and degeneracies.

### 3.1 $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$

Consider first the smallest value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ that will yield a $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ signal. We will begin by ignoring effects of the all important correlations and degeneracies. The value of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ that will yield a significant appearance signal is shown as a function of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ in Fig. 1 for the JHF $``$ Super-K superbeam and for neutrino factories with energies between 20 GeV and 50 GeV. Superbeams can probe values of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ an order of magnitude below the present limit. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ is very small, so that the sub-leading scale does not contribute to the appearance signal, a high-performance neutrino factory would improve on the superbeam sensitivity by more than another order of magnitude. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$ is in the upper half of the presently allowed region (spanned by the figure) then neutrino factory experiments will measure an appearance signal even if $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}=0`$, enabling oscillations generated by the sub-leading scale to be directly measured.

We must now consider the impact of correlations and degeneracies. The calculated $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ sensitivities (90% CL) from ref.  are shown in Fig. 2 for the superbeam and neutrino factory scenarios listed in Section 2.2. The leftmost end of the bars indicate the sensitivities in the absence of correlations, degeneracies, and systematic uncertainties. The impact of each of these effects on the sensitivity is indicated by the shaded sub-bars. Systematic uncertainties degrade the sensitivity by a modest amount. With a baseline of 3000 km, the impact of correlations and degeneracies limits the high-performance neutrino factory $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ sensitivity to O($`10^3`$). We can fight correlations and degeneracies by using a longer baseline, or multiple baselines. In fact with a baseline of $`8000`$ km the sensitivity is expected to have improved to a few $`\times 10^5`$ (Fig. 3).

### 3.2 CP Violation and the neutrino mass hierarchy

If present, CP violation (CPV) and matter effects will modify the measured $`\nu _e\nu _\mu `$ oscillation probabilities. These modifications are different for neutrinos and antineutrinos. The predicted ratio of events $`N(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_\mu )/N(\nu _e\nu _\mu )`$ at a neutrino factory experiment with equal $`\mu ^+`$ and $`\mu ^{}`$ running is shown as a function of baseline in Fig. 4. With no CPV and no matter effects (L = 0) the ratio is 0.5, reflecting the different neutrino and antineutrino cross-sections. As L increases the ratio is enhanced (suppressed) by matter effects if the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ is negative (positive). At sufficiently long baselines the matter effects are much larger than effects due to possible CPV (indicated by the bands in the figure). The sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ and the CP phase $`\delta `$ can therefore be determined by precise measurements of $`N(\overline{\nu }_e\overline{\nu }_\mu )`$ and $`N(\nu _e\nu _\mu )`$. However, in this simple picture we have fixed the values of $`|\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2|`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$, and $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$. If we now allow all of these parameters to vary in our fit to the data we must deal will the resulting correlations and ambiguities. The impact of these complications on the sensitivities of neutrino factory and superbeam experiments can be seen in Fig. 5, which shows the minimum values of $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ for which the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$, and hence the neutrino mass hierarchy, can be determined. With a single experiment at one baseline, correlations and degeneracies can degrade the expected sensitivities by orders of magnitude. It is believed that at a high-performance neutrino factory, with two experiments having very different baselines, the sign can probably be determined provided $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ exceeds O($`10^4`$) or perhaps a few $`\times 10^5`$. Further study is needed to understand this better, and to understand how the picture is improved by combining superbeam and neutrino factory measurements. The sensitivity to CPV has also been studied and found to be very dependent on $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$. If $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^24\times 10^5`$ eV2, in the center of the presently favored LMA parameter space, maximal CPV would be observed at a high performance neutrino factory if $`\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _{13}`$ exceeds a few $`\times 10^4`$. In the next few years KamLAND is expected to improve our knowledge of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{21}^2`$, allowing us to sharpen our understanding of the CPV capabilities of superbeams and neutrino factories.

### 3.3 If LSND is confirmed

If the LSND oscillation result is confirmed, the simple three-flavor mixing framework will need to be modified to include, for example, additional light neutrinos that are sterile and/or CPT violation. We will already have some knowledge of $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$ and $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations. It seems likely that there will be a premium on searching for and measuring $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$ oscillations, a program unique to neutrino factories. It has been shown  that there are viable regions of four-neutrino mixing parameter space in which both CPV and thousands of $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$ events could be seen at a neutrino factory delivering only O($`10^{18}`$) decays/yr. Hence, if the LSND result is confirmed, a very low intensity neutrino factory might provide a well motivated first (fast and cheap ?) step towards the high-performance facility we will ultimately want.

### 3.4 Non-oscillation physics

Finally, we must not forget the extensive non-oscillation physics program at a neutrino factory facility. A high-performance 50 GeV neutrino factory can provide $`10^610^7`$ neutrino events per kg per year, enabling highly instrumented detectors to obtain data samples of unprecedented magnitude. Experiments that might benefit from these intense beams include (i) precise neutrino cross-section measurements, (ii) structure function measurements (with no nuclear corrections), in which individual quark-flavor parton distributions can be extracted, (iii) precise $`\alpha _S`$ measurements from non-singlet structure functions, (iv) studies of nuclear effects (e.g. shadowing) separately for valence and sea quarks, (v) spin structure functions, (vi) tagged single charm meson and baryon production ( a 1 ton detector could yield $`10^8`$ flavor-tagged charm hadrons / yr), (vii) electroweak tests ($`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ and $`\sigma (\nu e)`$), (viii) exotic interaction searches, (ix) neutral heavy lepton searches, and (x) searches for anomalous neutrino interactions in EM fields. This is only a representative list, to which would be added the possible physics programs that exploit very intense cold muon beams and the very intense primary proton beams that would also be available at a neutrino factory complex.

## 4 Summary

Neutrino factories seem to offer a way to probe $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}`$ and determine the sign of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{32}^2`$ provided $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{13}`$ exceeds a few $`\times 10^5`$. Neutrino factories would also enable $`\nu _e\nu _\tau `$ oscillation searches. No other candidate future facility has these capabilities. Should the LMA solar neutrino solution be confirmed, sensitive CPV searches would also be possible. This would either extend the reach that would already have been obtained at superbeams, or possibly follow up an initial indication of CPV with a precise measurement of the phase $`\delta `$. In addition, an extensive non-oscillation physics program would enable neutrino factories to serve a broad community.

## Acknowledgements

Our understanding of the physics capabilities of neutrino factories is based on the work of many groups over several years. This brief summary is indebted to all those that have contributed. I am particularly indebted to M. Lindner for Figs. 2,3, and 5.

## References


text:
# Dynamics of trapped two-component Fermi gas: temperature dependence of the transition from collisionless to collisional regime

## The model and its solution.

Here we write the VLE for two interacting Fermi gases and describe the algorithm used in their numerical solution. We summarize some points which have been made in more detail in Ref.  and point out how the difficulties raised by Fermi statistics are handled in our method.

The two fermionic components in external potentials $`V_{ext}^{(j)}(𝐫)`$ are described by the distribution functions $`f^{(j)}(𝐫,𝐩,t)`$ with $`j=1`$ or 2. These obey the kinetic equations

$$_tf^{(j)}+\frac{𝐩}{m}_𝐫f^{(j)}_𝐫U^{(j)}_𝐩f^{(j)}=C_{12}[f^{(j)}]$$
(1)
where the mean-field Hartree-Fock (HF) effective potential is $`U^{(j)}(𝐫,t)V_{ext}^{(j)}(𝐫)+gn^{(\overline{j})}(𝐫,t)`$ with $`\overline{j}`$ denoting the species different from $`j`$. Here we have set $`\mathrm{}=1`$, $`g=2\pi a/m_r`$ with $`a`$ being the $`s`$-wave scattering length between two atoms and $`m_r`$ the reduced mass, and $`n^{(j)}(𝐫,t)`$ is the spatial density given by integration of $`f^{(j)}(𝐫,𝐩,t)`$ over momentum.

Collisions between atoms of the same spin can be neglected at low temperature, so that in Eq. (1) the term $`C_{12}`$ involves only collisions between particles with different polarizations:

$`C_{12}[f^{(j)}]2(2\pi )^4g^2/V^3`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩_2,𝐩_3,𝐩_4}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon [\overline{f}^{(j)}\overline{f}_2^{(\overline{j})}f_3^{(j)}f_4^{(\overline{j})}f^{(j)}f_2^{(\overline{j})}\overline{f}_3^{(j)}\overline{f}_4^{(\overline{j})}]`$ (3)
with $`f^{(j)}f^{(j)}(𝐫,𝐩,t)`$, $`\overline{f}^{(j)}1f^{(j)}`$, $`f_i^{(j)}f^{(j)}(𝐫,𝐩_i,t)`$, $`\overline{f}_i^{(j)}1f_i^{(j)}`$. $`V`$ is the volume occupied by the gas and the factors $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝐩`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\epsilon `$ are the usual delta functions accounting for conservation of momentum and energy, with the energies given by $`p_i^2/2m_j+U^{(j)}(𝐫,t)`$.

The numerical procedure by which the VLE is advanced in time consists of three basic steps: (i) initialization of the fermionic distributions, (ii) propagation in phase space, and (iii) collisional interactions.

The initial distributions in equilibrium at the bottom of a harmonic trap are generated by using the HF expression

$$f_{eq}^{(j)}(𝐫,𝐩)=\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta \left(\frac{p^2}{2m_j}+U^{(j)}(𝐫)\mu ^{(j)}\right)\right]+1\right\}^1,$$
(4)
where $`\beta =1/k_BT`$ and $`\mu ^{(j)}`$ is the chemical potential of species $`j`$ . The particle densities entering $`U^{(j)}(𝐫)`$ are to be determined self-consistently by integration over momenta, and the momentum distributions of the two clouds need generating.

To exploit the axial symmetry of the system, we first define the angularly integrated particle densities $`𝒩^{(j)}(r,z)=2\pi rn^{(j)}(r,z)`$ on a $`\{r,z\}`$ grid in cylindrical coordinates and we move to a particles-in-cell description by locating a number $`𝒩^{(j)}(r,z)\mathrm{\Delta }r\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ of fermions in each cell of volume $`\mathrm{\Delta }r\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ . A momentum distribution with low statistical noise is generated by representing each fermion by means of $`N_q`$ computational particles (“quarks”). The $`i`$-th quark is located at point $`\{p_{ir},p_{i\theta },p_{iz}\}`$ in momentum space by using a Monte Carlo sampling and making sure that each cell of volume $`h^3`$ is occupied by no more than $`N_q`$ quarks. This control in 3D phase space is transferred to 2D by imposing a maximum number $`wN_q`$ of quarks in the 2D cell $`\{\mathrm{\Delta }r,\mathrm{\Delta }z,\mathrm{\Delta }p_r,\mathrm{\Delta }p_z\}`$ of volume $`h^2`$. Here the weight $`w=\mathrm{int}(2p_Fr/\mathrm{})`$ takes into account that the number of available cells in 2D depends on the radial position and on the number of particles through the Fermi momentum $`p_F=\sqrt{2m\mathrm{}k_BT_F}`$.

In the propagation step the two clouds are rigidly displaced from the center of the trap along the $`z`$ direction and start evolving in time in the $`\{r,z\}`$ plane by performing oscillations at their respective frequencies. We exploit the fact that by symmetry the average value of $`p_\theta `$ for each value of $`r`$ is zero and does not change in time, to decouple the variable $`p_\theta `$ from the equations of motion. We make the approximation that the angular momentum of each quark is left unchanged by the collisional events and take into account the third dimension in the exclusion principle by suppressing collisions whose final states are occupied by more than $`wN_q`$ quarks. At each time step the quarks are moved by the confinement and the mean-field forces by using a Verlet algorithm on a grid of mesh spacing $`dx>vdt`$, where $`v`$ is a typical particle velocity and $`dt`$ the time step. This inequality is dictated by accuracy and stability of the propagation step . No exclusion constraint is applied during this step: this does not lead to any appreciable deviation from Fermi statistics down to 0.2 $`T_F`$, where the system is still sufficiently dilute. This has been checked by monitoring violations of the Pauli principle at each time step.

Finally we come to the collision step, which involves most of the innovative aspects of our scheme. Collisions are tracked on a grid of mesh spacing $`\delta x`$ of the order of the de Broglie wavelength $`\lambda _B`$, which is smaller than the particle mean free path $`l`$ and larger than the spacing $`dx`$ of the propagation mesh ($`l>\delta x\lambda _B>dx`$). The first inequality enhances the statistical accuracy of the collision step, whereas coarse graining with respect to the propagation step avoids the need for Pauli-principle constraints, at least down to 0.2 $`T_F`$.

Before turning to the results we add some technical details on how a speed-up of the code by several orders of magnitude has been achieved. The number of probable collisions between all possible pairs of quarks belonging to the two species in each cell of volume $`h^2`$ is evaluated at each computational time step as $`dN_{coll}=dt\sqrt{N_1N_2}_{ij}v_{ij}\sigma _{ij}`$. Here $`v_{ij}`$ is the magnitude of the relative speed of particle $`i`$ of species $`1`$ and particle $`j`$ of species $`2`$, $`\sigma _{ij}`$ is the corresponding differential cross section, and $`N_1`$ ($`N_2`$) is the number of particles of species $`1`$ ($`2`$) in the given spatial cell. If $`dN_{coll}<1`$, the collision probability is accumulated over the subsequent time steps until an integer number $`dI_{coll}\mathrm{int}(dN_{coll})`$ of collisions occurs. Within each spatial cell the pairs of particles are ordered according to the value of their classical collision probability, from largest to smallest. The acceptance rate of the MonteCarlo sampling is enhanced by two-three orders of magnitude at each step by filtering out pairs with classical probability smaller than a given threshold. This is a form of importance sampling and the threshold is dynamically adjusted cell-by-cell in such a way as to guarantee the correct supply of $`dI_{coll}`$ collisions at each time step. The collision probability becomes smaller than the classical one after multiplication by the quantum suppression factor $`1N(r,z,p_r,p_z)/(wN_q)`$ due to the occupancy of the final state, and consequently the selection of the most likely pairs to collide becomes essential. To this purpose each particle is allowed to collide only with the partner which maximizes the product $`v_{ij}\sigma _{ij}`$. The original pool of $`N_1N_2`$ collisions is cut down to $`N_1`$ collisions only, with a resulting additional speed-up of at least one order of magnitude.

## Results.

As a first application of the numerical method we have considered 200 magnetically trapped 40K atoms, which are represented by a total number of 4$`\times 10^3`$ quarks. As in the JILA experiments , the atoms are equally shared among two different spin states ($`m_f=9/2`$ and $`m_f=7/2`$) in harmonic traps with slightly different longitudinal frequencies ($`\omega _{9/2}=2\pi \times 19.8`$s-1 and $`\omega _{7/2}=2\pi \times 17.46`$s$`{}_{}{}^{1})`$. When the two clouds after initialization are rigidly displaced from the center of the traps, in the absence of interactions they would keep oscillating at their respective trap frequencies without damping.

The collision rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$ is independently varied by changing the scattering length $`a`$, thus mimicking the exploitation of a suitable Feshbach resonance . To offset the difference between the number of atoms used in the simulation ($`N=200`$) and that in the experiments ($`N_{exp}10^6`$), the reference value of the off-resonant scattering length is scaled by a factor $`(N_{exp}/N)^{1/2}10^2`$, thus producing a system with essentially the same collision rate and mean field potential as in Ref . The transition from the collisionless to the collisional regime, as driven by varying the scattering length at various temperatures, is shown both in the plot of the frequency of the dipole mode for the two components in Fig. 1(a) and in the plot of the damping rate $`\gamma =1/\tau `$ of the axial motion of the centers of mass $`z_{\mathrm{cm}}^{(j)}(t)`$ in Fig. 2.

In Fig. 1(a) the oscillation frequencies $`\omega _j`$ at $`T=T_F`$ and $`T=0.2T_F`$, with $`k_BT_F=\mathrm{}\omega _{9/2}(6N_{9/2})^{1/3}`$, are evaluated by fitting $`z_{\mathrm{cm}}^{(j)}(t)`$ with the functions $`z_0\mathrm{cos}(\omega _jt)e^{\gamma t}`$. At very low $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$ the dipole mode frequencies are given by the corresponding trap frequencies with a shift due to the mean-field potential. At intermediate values of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$ the data points show large fluctuations, due to the fact that in this region just a few collisions can drastically alter the motion of the clouds. However, the trend towards a locking of the two dipole mode frequencies at large $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$ is very clear and the location of the locking is identified with reasonable accuracy.

The main new physical result of this study is the shift of the locking transition to lower $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$ as temperature is decreased. This is shown in Fig. 1(b). This effect is related to Fermi statistics: at low temperature the collisions involve particles on a narrower region around the Fermi level and have a greater impact on the global dynamics of the gas. A smaller number of collisions is needed to produce locking of the two interacting species.

The damping rate $`\gamma `$ obtained from the fit of $`z_{cm}^{(j)}(t)`$ is essentially the same for the two components and is shown in Fig.2. We have also evaluated the correlation function $`\varphi (t)=<|𝒵_{\mathrm{cm}}^{(j)}(t^{})||𝒵_{\mathrm{cm}}^{(j)}(t^{}+t)|>`$ between the magnitude of the turning points $`𝒵_{\mathrm{cm}}^{(j)}`$, which decays exponentially as $`\mathrm{exp}(\gamma t)`$ at large $`t`$. This estimate of $`\gamma `$ is in good agreement with that obtained from the center-of-mass motions, but yields a less noisy signal in the intermediate region. In the collisionless regime the damping rate increases linearly with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$, while in the collisional one it scales like $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q^1`$. This is seen in Fig. 2, which also shows again that the hydrodynamic regime is reached at lower $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$ as $`T`$ is lowered.

The collision rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_q`$ can be driven by cooling at fixed scattering length, as is seen from Fig. 3. The various curves, after scaling by a factor proportional to the classical cross-section, show a residual weak dependence on $`a`$, which is due to the mean-field interaction between the two overlapping fermionic components. The trend of these curves is mostly classical and only at very low temperature ($`T=`$0.3-0.2 $`T_F`$) Pauli blocking becomes manifest, as signalled by the collapse of the curves into a single one. Our results thus suggest new experiments, in which the collision rate is changed via a thermal drive.

The implication of the results shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 is that this thermal drive rests upon the increasing importance of a decreasing set of “strategic” collisions involving particles in states clustered around the Fermi level. Our data also indicate that thermal cooling will need to reach temperatures below $`0.2T_F`$ in order to see the complete transition from the collisional to the collisionless regime. Efforts to develop a concurrent code, including the Pauli principle in the Lagrangian evolution to treat the collisional Fermi gas well below $`0.2T_F`$, are currently under way.

Acknowledgement: We thank Dr. A. Minguzzi for helpful discussions and acknowledge support from INFM through the PRA2001 Program.