format: text

text:
# Testing Bell’s inequality and measuring the entanglement using superconducting nanocircuits

## I Introduction

Recently, with the development of experimental techniques and the growing interest in quantum information, more and more attention has been devoted to experimentally testing the violation of Bell’s inequalityBell , as well as measuring the amount of entanglement of entangled particles. Entanglement of particles, an idea introduced in physics by the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) gedanken experiment EPR , is one of the most strikingly nonclassical features of quantum theory. In quantum mechanics, particles are called entangled if their states can not be factored into single-particle states. This inseparability leads to a stronger correlation between entangled quantum systems than classical ones. Since Bell’s pioneering workBell  that EPR’s implication to explain the correlations using hidden parameters would contradict the predictions of quantum physics, a number of experimental tests have been performedAspect ; Shih ; Ou ; Tittel ; Weihs ; Rowe . Many of these experiments Aspect ; Shih ; Ou ; Tittel ; Weihs  have been done by using photons to prepare EPR pairs. Very recently, trapped atoms were also used in the experimentRowe  for testing Bell’s inequality to raise the efficiency when reading out the state. The violation of Bell’s inequality may be considered as a manifestation of the irreconcilability of quantum mechanics and “local realism”, and all recent experiments have agreed with the predictions of quantum mechanics.

Nevertheless, two important experimental loopholes mean that the evidence reported in the previous experiments was inclusiveloophole ; Grangier . The first of these loopholes is the so-called locality loophole: whenever measurements are performed on two spatially separated particles, any possibility of signals propagating with a speed equal to or less than the velocity of light between the two parts of the apparatus must be excluded. This loophole was closed in the experiments reported in Refs.Tittel ; Weihs . The second one is referred to as the detection-efficiency loophole, which argues that in most optical experiments, only a very small fraction of the particles generated are actually detected. So it is possible that for each measurement, the statistical sample provided by the detector is biased. Since improving the detection efficiency in experiments with pairs of entangled photons is found to be more difficult than expected, closing this loophole experimentally is achieved by using two massive entangled trapped ionsRowe , where the states are easier to be detected than those of photons. But the experimentRowe  does not close the locality loophole. To close both loopholes in the same experiment remains to be a big challenge at presentGrangier .

In this paper, we propose a scheme to test Bell’s inequality in the Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt (CHSH)Clauser  type and to measure the entanglement in superconducting nanocircuits. At first glance, the possibility of testing Bell’s inequality in this system may seem to be a trivial generalization of the corresponding tests by using photonsAspect ; Shih ; Ou ; Tittel ; Weihs  or trapped ionsRowe . However, we show that the experiment proposed here has its own advantages. First, it is possible that both loopholes mentioned above may be closed in the same experiment. Thus, the loophole-free experiment proposed here may lead to a full logically consistent rejection of any local realistic hypothesisGrangier . Recently, very promising development was reported for Josephson-junction qubits under controlJosephson ; Nakamura ; Pashkin ; Zhu\_prl2002 . The charge state in a superconducting box may be considered as a qubit system. We first address how to prepare a pair of entangled charge qubits in a sufficiently long distanceZhu , which fully enforces the requirement for strict relativistic separation between measurements. Contrary to the experiments using photons, where many photon pairs are missed, the charge states in the superconducting boxes may be detected in every measurement, thus the data in Bell’s experiments are obtained using the outcome of every experiment, thereby no fair-sampling hypothesis is required. Consequently, both the locality loophole and the efficiency loophole should be closed in the same experiment proposed here. Second, quantum mechanics violates Bell’s inequality for a state of $`N`$-qubit system by an amount that grows exponentially with $`N`$Mermin . The nature of being solid-state based makes Josephson junction system large-scalable, that is, the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) state \[the maximally entangled states of $`N(>2)`$ particles \]GHZ  may be achieved, in principle, in superconducting nanocircuits. However, due to experimental techniques, it is very hard to obtain many-particle entangled states in realistic experiments with photons or trapped atoms. Last, but not the least, the Josephson junction system proposed here is a mesoscopic system. Comparing with the systems consisting of a small number of microscopic particles, such as photons or trapped ions, where quantum entanglement is generally believed to exist, the superconducting box considered here involves a huge number of Cooper pairs. To test the nonlocality of a system containing a large number of particles is attractive for research on the border between classical and quantum physics. Furthermore, since the CHSH type of Bell’s inequality is not very efficient for demonstrating nonlocality and all entangled states would violate a kind of Bell’s inequalityCapasso , detection of the amount of entanglement is also proposed here.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we demonstrate that the three basic ingredients required by Bell’s experiment are experimentally feasible in Josephson charge qubit systems. In Sec. III, an experimental scheme for testing the Bell’s inequality is proposed. In Sec. IV, measuring the entanglement based on concurrence in the Josephson junction systems is studied. The paper ends with a brief summary.

## II Entangled states in Josephson Junctions

A Bell’s experiment suggested by CHSH Clauser  consists of three basic ingredientsRowe . The first one is the preparation of a pair of entangled particles in a repeatable way, with the two particles being separated with a sufficiently long distance. Second, each particle can be manipulated by any rotation operations (single-qubit gates). Finally, a classical property with two possible outcomes may be detected for each particle. We now show that all these three ingredients are feasible in superconducting nanocircuits.

The charge qubits in Josephson junctions. The systems we considered are shown in Fig. 1. A single Josephson-junction qubit consists of a superconducting electron box formed by a symmetric superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) with Josephson couplings $`E_J^0`$, pierced by a magnetic flux $`\varphi _x`$ and subject to an applied gate voltage $`V_x=2en_x/C_x`$ \[$`2en_x`$ is the offset charge, see Fig.1(a)\]. In the charging regime \[where $`E_J^0E_{ch}`$ with $`E_{ch}=e^2/2(C_x+2E_J^0)`$ being the single-electron charging energy\] and at low temperatures, the system behaves as an artificial spin-1/2 particle in a magnetic field, and the Hamiltonian may be expressed as Josephson

$$H=\frac{1}{2}E_J\sigma _xE_{ch}(12n_x)\sigma _z,$$
(1)
where $`E_J=2E_J^0\mathrm{cos}(\pi \varphi _x/\varphi _0)`$ with $`\varphi _0=\pi \mathrm{}/e`$ is a tunable effective Josephson coupling parameter, whose value can be controlled by external flux $`\varphi _x`$. $`\sigma _{x,z}`$ are the Pauli matrices. In Eq.(1), we have chosen that charge states $`n=0`$ and $`n=1`$ (here $`n`$ is the number of excess Cooper-pair charges on the box) correspond to spin basis states $`|\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ and $`|\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$, respectively. A series of $`N`$ such qubits may be coupled through an inductor $`L`$ \[see Fig.1(b)\]. An effective interaction is given byJosephson

$$H_{int}=\underset{i<j}{}\frac{E_J^{(i)}E_J^{(j)}}{E_L}\sigma _y^{(i)}\sigma _y^{(j)},$$
(2)
where $`E_L=[\varphi _0^2/(\pi ^2L)](1+2C_J^0/C_x)^2`$ and $`\sigma _y^{(j)}`$ is the $`y`$-component of Pauli matrices of the $`j`$th qubit. Then the total Hamiltonian of the system is equivalent to

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(\sigma _x^{(i)}B_x^{(i)}+\sigma _z^{(i)}B_z^{(i)})+\underset{i<j}{}J^{(ij)}\sigma _y^{(i)}\sigma _y^{(j)},$$
(3)
where $`B_x^{(i)}E_J(\varphi _x^{(i)})`$, $`B_z^{(i)}2E_{ch}(12n_x^{(i)})`$, and $`J^{(ij)}E_J^{(i)}E_J^{(j)}/E_L`$. It is worth pointing out that all parameters in Eq. (3) are experimentally controllable by external classical variables $`\varphi _x^{(i)}`$ and $`n_x^{(i)}`$. Thereby, any entangled state as well as single qubit gates required in Bell’s experiment is feasible.

The preparation of a pair of entangled qubits. For simplicity, but without loss of generality, we consider the two-qubit case. By taking $`B_z^{(i)}=0`$, $`B=E_J^{(i)}/2`$ for each single Josephson qubit, and $`JE_J^2/E_L`$, the Hamiltonian may be rewritten as

$$H=B(\sigma _x^{(1)}+\sigma _x^{(2)})+J\sigma _y^{(1)}\sigma _y^{(2)}.$$
(4)
The exact solution may be obtained when parameters $`B`$ and $`J`$ are time-independent. Note that any entangled state may be generated even if the initial state is a product state. For example, in terms of computational basis $`\{|00,|01,|10,|11\}`$, with the initial state being chosen as $`|\psi (t=0)=|00`$, the state of the system at time $`t`$ is found to be

$$|\psi (t)=\left[\begin{array}{c}\frac{1}{2}e^{iJt}+\frac{\alpha J}{4\alpha }e^{i\alpha t}+\frac{\alpha +J}{4\alpha }e^{i\alpha t}\\ i\frac{B}{\alpha }\mathrm{sin}(\alpha t)\\ i\frac{B}{\alpha }\mathrm{sin}(\alpha t)\\ \frac{1}{2}e^{iJt}+\frac{\alpha J}{4\alpha }e^{i\alpha t}+\frac{\alpha +J}{4\alpha }e^{i\alpha t}\end{array}\right],$$
(5)
where $`\alpha \sqrt{4B^2+J^2}`$. Besides, when $`t=n\pi /\alpha `$, $`J=(m+1/2)\alpha /n`$ ($`m`$, $`n`$ are both integers and $`n0`$), we have

$$|\psi (t)=\frac{(1)^ni(1)^m}{2}|00+\frac{(1)^n+i(1)^m}{2}|11.$$
(6)
This is the maximally entangled state for a pair of qubits \[as the concurrence of this state defined in Eq. (17) below is $`1`$\], and thus, four Bell’s states may be derived from it by simply rotating one of the qubits. In the following discussions we assume $`|\psi `$ in Eq. (5) as our starting point for the test.

The entanglement between two distant Josephson junction qubits may be created by the cavity quantum electrodynamic (QED) techniques. A simple configuration of quantum transmission between two nodes consists of two Josephson charge qubits $`1`$ and $`2`$ which are strongly coupled to their respective cavity modes with the same frequency $`\nu `$, as shown in Fig. 1(c). The Hamiltonian describing the interaction of the qubit with the cavity mode isZhu

$`H_j`$ $`=\mathrm{}\nu (a_j^{}a_j+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})+E_{ch}(2n_x^{(j)}1)\sigma _j^z`$ (7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}E_J(\varphi _j)(e^{i[g(a+a^{})]}\sigma _j^++H.c)(j=1,2),`$
where $`a_j^{}`$ and $`a_j`$ are the creation and annihilation operators, respectively, for cavity mode $`j`$, $`\sigma _j^\pm =(\sigma _j^x\pm i\sigma _j^y)/2`$, and $`g`$ is the coupling constant between the junctions and the cavity. Based on this kind of coupling and following the method described in Ref. Cirac , we may transfer the quantum state in one qubit to another separated far away. Moreover, by using quantum repeatersBriegel , any long-distance entanglement may be realized, at least in principle. Therefore, a possible scenario to generate an entangled state of long-distant qubits required by nonlocally testing Bell’s inequality is as follows: we may first create an initial entangled state \[as Eq. (5)\] of two charge qubits in one node, and then transfer the state of one of the pair to another node by the cavity QED technique.

A universal set of single-qubit gates is feasible in the systems. The coupling between charge qubits should be switched off by setting $`J=0`$ in single-qubit gates. Parameters $`\varphi _x`$ and $`n_x`$ in Eq.(1) are experimentally controllable. By assuming $`\varphi _x=\varphi _0/2`$ and $`n_x`$ time-independent, the evolution operator is derived as

$$U_z(\theta _z)=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta _z\sigma _z/2)$$
(8)
with $`\theta _z=2E_{ch}(12n_x)t/\mathrm{}`$. Similarly, by assuming $`n_x=1/2`$ and $`\varphi _x`$ time-independent, we have

$$U_x(\theta _x)=\mathrm{exp}(i\theta _x\sigma _x/2)$$
(9)
with $`\theta _x=2E_J(\varphi _x)t/\mathrm{}`$. The gates described by Eqs.(8) and (9) are a well-known universal set of single-qubit gates: any unitary rotation can be decomposed into a product of successive gates in this set. The gates described by Eqs.(8) and (9) may be referred to as dynamic gatesZhu\_pra2003 . It is worth pointing out that a universal set of quantum gates in this system may also be realized by using pure geometric phasesZhu\_prl2002 .

The detection method. The population of qubits in states $`|0`$ or $`|1`$ may be experimentally measured by the dc currents through the probe junctionsNakamura . Putting a probe junction in each qubit, as described in Ref.Nakamura , the measurable dc currents through the probe junction are generated by the following process: $`|1`$ emits two electrons to the probe, while $`|0`$ does nothing. Consequently, a classical property with two possible outcomes as required by Bell’s experiments, may be detected. The advantage of the above detection technique lies in that a measured outcome may be recorded for every experiment, thereby closing the detection loophole in the same experiment.

All in all, the three basic ingredients required by CHSH type Bell’s experiment are, in principle, feasible in superconducting nanocircuits presented here.

## III Testing Bell’s inequality

The detection method addressed above provides a convenient way to experimentally measure the population of the Josephson qubit in state $`|0`$ or $`|1`$, and hence is sufficient for testing the Bell inequalityBrif . We show here that the CHSH combinationClauser  can be presented by a useful phase-space distribution function Q for the qubits, which can be calculated through the probabilities of finding certain qubits in state $`|0`$ or $`|1`$. Assuming that two distant qubits described by Eq. (5) have been created, and each qubit can be manipulated by unitary operators $`U_{x,z}`$ in Eqs.(8) and (9), a new state given by

$$|\psi (𝐧_1,𝐧_2)=g_1^+(𝐧_1)g_2^+(𝐧_2)|\psi $$
(10)
is derived by rotating separately each qubit in $`|\psi `$ describe by Eq. (5). Evolution operator $`g_j(𝐧_j)=U_z(\varphi _j)U_x(\theta _j)`$ with a unit vector $`𝐧_j=(\mathrm{sin}\theta _j\mathrm{cos}\varphi _j,\mathrm{sin}\theta _j\mathrm{sin}\varphi _j,\mathrm{cos}\theta _j)`$ and $`j`$ $`(=1,2)`$ denoting qubit $`j`$. When measuring state $`|\psi (𝐧_1,𝐧_2)`$, the probability to find the $`j`$th qubit in state $`|0`$ is

$$Q_j(𝐧_j)=0_j|Tr_{ij}\{|\psi (𝐧_1,𝐧_2)\psi (𝐧_1,𝐧_2)|\}|0_j,$$
(11)
and the probability to find both qubits in state $`|0`$ is

$$Q_{12}(𝐧_1,𝐧_2)=|0_1|0_2|\psi (𝐧_1,𝐧_2)|^2.$$
(12)
On the other hand, we may write

$`|𝐧_j`$ $`=`$ $`g_j(𝐧_j)|0_j`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{cos}(\theta _j/2)e^{i\varphi _j/2}|0_ji\mathrm{sin}(\theta _j/2)e^{i\varphi _j/2}|1_j,`$
which can be understood as the qubit state in the phase space. Then we find that Eq.(11) can be rewritten as

$$Q_j(𝐧_j)=𝐧_j|\rho _j|𝐧_j,$$
(13)
which is just the Q function for the $`j`$th qubit, where $`\rho _j=Tr_{ij}\{|\psi \psi |\}`$ denotes the reduced density matrix of the $`j`$th qubit. Equation (12) can also be rewritten as

$$Q_{12}(𝐧_1,𝐧_2)=|𝐧_1|𝐧_2|\psi |^2,$$
(14)
which is just the joint Q function for the system of two qubits. Thus the CHSH combination is given by Brif ; Banaszek

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }=`$ $`Q_{12}(0,0)+Q_{12}(𝐧,0)+Q_{12}(0,𝐧^{})Q_{12}(𝐧,𝐧^{})`$ (15)
$`Q_1(0)Q_2(0),`$
which must satisfy inequality $`1\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$ for local theories.

We now consider a two-qubit system. Substituting the state described by Eq.(5) into Eq. (15), we have

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{sin}^4{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}+\mathrm{cos}\alpha t\mathrm{cos}Jt{\displaystyle \frac{J}{\alpha }}\mathrm{sin}\alpha t\mathrm{sin}Jt`$ (16)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\mathrm{cos}\alpha t\mathrm{sin}Jt+{\displaystyle \frac{J}{\alpha }}\mathrm{sin}\alpha t\mathrm{cos}Jt)\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{sin}(\varphi _1+\varphi _2)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{\alpha ^2}}\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha t(24\mathrm{sin}^4{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi _1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{B}{\alpha }}\mathrm{sin}\alpha t\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}^2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}[\mathrm{sin}Jt(\mathrm{sin}\varphi _1+\mathrm{sin}\varphi _2)`$
$`+\mathrm{cos}\alpha t(\mathrm{cos}\varphi _1+\mathrm{cos}\varphi _2)].`$
For simplicity, but without loss of generality, we here have chosen $`\theta _1=\theta _2=\theta `$ for $`|𝐧_1`$ and $`|𝐧_2`$ in the calculation. In Fig.2, we plot $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ as a function of $`t`$ and $`\theta `$ when $`B=J=1`$ and $`\varphi _1=\varphi _2=0`$. It is seen clearly that the violation of Bell’s inequality for both $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }>0`$ may appear in this system. In fact, with other choices for parameters $`B`$, $`J`$, $`\varphi _1`$, and $`\varphi _2`$, function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ will still have a similar shape and the violation can easily be found. Therefore, the system presented here may be a promising candidate for testing Bell’s inequality.

## IV Measuring the entanglement of formation

On the other hand, it is well-known that Bell’s inequality is not very efficient for demonstrating nonlocality, and a better parameter to characterize nonlocality should be the amount of entanglement. Thus it is also highly desirable to develop a feasible method to measure the latter. We now show that the entanglement based on concurrence can also be represented by the phase-space Q function and thus can be experimentally detected.

If we write a state in the form as

$$|\psi =a_0|00+a_1|01+a_2|10+a_3|11,$$

then concurrence $`C`$ of state $`|\psi `$ is defined asWootters

$$C^2(|\psi )=|\psi |\sigma _y\sigma _y|\psi ^{}|^2=4|a_0a_3a_1a_2|^2,$$
(17)
and the amount of entanglement can be expressed as

$`E(|\psi )`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\sqrt{1C^2}}{2}}\right)\mathrm{log}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\sqrt{1C^2}}{2}}\right)`$ (18)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\sqrt{1C^2}}{2}}\right)\mathrm{log}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\sqrt{1C^2}}{2}}\right).`$
Substituting Eq. (5) into Eq. (17), the concurrence of the state in Eq. (5) is derived as

$`C^2(|\psi )=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{J^4}{\alpha ^4}}\mathrm{sin}^4(\alpha t)+{\displaystyle \frac{J^2}{4\alpha ^2}}[\mathrm{sin}^2(2\alpha t)8\mathrm{sin}^2(\alpha t)\mathrm{sin}^2(Jt)]`$ (19)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{J}{2\alpha }}\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha t)\mathrm{sin}(2Jt)+\mathrm{sin}^2(Jt).`$
Let $`P_0`$, $`P_1`$, $`P_2`$ and $`P_3`$ denote the four probabilities associated with outcomes ($`|00`$, $`|01`$, $`|10`$, and $`|11`$) when measuring $`\sigma _zI`$ and $`I\sigma _z`$, and $`P_{++}`$, $`P_+`$, $`P_+`$, and $`P_{}`$ denote the four corresponding probabilities when measuring $`\sigma _zI`$ and $`I\sigma _x`$. The concurrence in Eq.(17) is found to satisfyentangle

$$C^2=4[P_1P_2+P_0P_32\sqrt{P_0P_1P_2P_3}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha +\beta )],$$
(20)
with

$`\mathrm{cos}\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2P_{++}P_0P_1}{2\sqrt{P_0P_1}}},`$
$`\mathrm{cos}\beta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2P_++P_0+P_11}{2\sqrt{P_2P_3}}}.`$
The concurrence of a pure two-qubit state may be measured by detection of the Q function defined in Eqs.(11) and (12) since all variables in Eq. (20) are determined by them. By choosing

$`𝐧_a`$ $`=`$ $`(0,0,1),`$
$`𝐧_b`$ $`=`$ $`(0,1,0),`$
$`𝐧_c`$ $`=`$ $`(0,1,0),`$
which correspond to

$`g^+(𝐧_a)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\pi \sigma _x/2},`$
$`g^+(𝐧_b)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\pi \sigma _x/4}e^{i\pi \sigma _z/4},`$
$`g^+(𝐧_c)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\pi \sigma _x/4}e^{i\pi \sigma _z/4},`$
we find that the probabilities appeared in Eq.(20) are related to the Q function by

$`P_0=Q_{12}(0,0),P_1=Q_{12}(0,𝐧_a),`$
$`P_2=Q_{12}(𝐧_a,0),P_3=Q_{12}(𝐧_a,𝐧_a),`$
$`P_{++}=Q_{12}(0,𝐧_b),P_+=Q_{12}(0,𝐧_c),`$
$`P_+=Q_{12}(𝐧_a,𝐧_b),P_{}=Q_{12}(𝐧_a,𝐧_c).`$
Thus the concurrence as well as the amount of entanglement can be deduced by detecting the probabilities of qubits in state $`|0`$.

A theoretical result for the amount of entanglement calculated from Eq.(19) is plotted in Fig.3. We can see that $`E(|\psi )`$ does not dependent on $`\theta `$. This illustrates that unlike the violation of the Bell’s inequality, the entanglement will not be affected by local transformations. Therefore, the amount of entanglement for the states given by Eqs.(5) and (10) are the same. This also implies that in the sense of characterization of the nonlocal properties, the amount of entanglement defined by Eq. (18) is better than the CHSH combination described by Eq. (15). Thus it is desirable to work out a feasible method to measure the amount of entanglement.

## V Conclusions

In conclusion, we proposed a scheme to test Bell’s inequality and to measure the entanglement of two charge qubits in superconducting nanocircuits. We demonstrated that the parameters for these experiments are determined from the Q functions in phase space, which can be measured by the dc currents through the probe junctions. The outcome for every experiment may be recorded, and thus the issue of detection efficiency is replaced by detecting accuracyRowe . By using the cavity QED technique, the entangled state of two charge qubits separated far away may be created. Consequently, it is quite possible that both of the locality loophole and the efficiency loophole can be closed in the same experiment proposed here.

Finally, we wish to make a few remarks on the difficulties of experimental implementation of the scheme. (1) Designing the cavity QED to couple the charge qubits is necessary. The entanglement between two charge qubits was demonstrated in a recent experimentPashkin , and a few quantum phenomena, such as stimulated emission and amplification in Josephson junction arrays within the same high-Q oscillators, were also reported Barbara . However, it is still awaited to make the entangled state between the charge qubit and the single cavity mode. (2) The distance between two cavities is enforced by the strict relativistic separation. Since the measurement time is $`64`$ns in the experiment reported in Ref.Pashkin  or may, in principle, be even shorter with one order of the magnitudeJosephson , it is estimated that the two cavities would have to be physically separated by $`220m`$, which can be realized with current technology if the cavities are connected by a (microwave) transmission fibreZhu ; Cirac ; the transmission of entangled state with the distance of a few kilometers was already realized in quantum telepotationMarcikic . However, it is still very subtle and challenging to couple the (microwave) fibre to the cavity QED experimentally.

## VI Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the RGC grant of Hong Kong under Grant No. HKU7114/02P and the URC fund of HKU. G. P. H. was supported in part by the NSF of Guangdong Province under Contract No. 011151 and the Foundation of Zhongshan University Advanced Research Centre under Contract No. 02P2. S. L. Z was supported in part by SRF for ROCS, SEM, the NSF of Guangdong province under Grant No. 021088, and the NNSF of China under Grant No. 10204008.


text:
# A Hierarchically-Organized Phase Diagram near a Quantum Critical Point in URu2Si2

\[

## Abstract

A comprehensive transport study, as a function of both temperature and magnetic field in continuous magnetic fields up to 45 T reveals that URu2Si2 possesses all the essential hallmarks of quantum criticality at temperatures above 5.5 K and fields around 38 T, but then collapses into multiple low temperature phases in a hierarchically-organized phase diagram as the temperature is reduced. Although certain generic features of the phase diagram are very similar to those in the cuprates and heavy fermion superconductors, the existence of multiple ordered hysteretic phases near the field-tuned quantum critical point is presently unique to URu2Si2. This finding suggests the existence of many competing order parameters separated by small energy difference in URu2Si2.

\] A common picture emerging in strongly correlated metals is that exotic superconductivity may have as much to do with quantum criticality  as with unconventional pairing mechanisms . In our modern understanding of phase transitions, *criticality* refers to the characteristic (often power-law) temperature dependences of physical properties that occur in the vicinity of phase transitions and arise from thermal fluctuations. *Quantum criticality* refers to our emerging understanding of phase transitions that occur at zero temperature (quantum critical points) in which quantum fluctuations play an important role. The abundance of low energy excitations that persist near quantum critical points provide a perfect recipe for instability, even in the limit of zero temperature. This provides extra opportunities to form new phases that would otherwise not exist.

Quantum criticality can be explicitly produced by depressing a phase transition toward absolute zero, by tuning an external control parameter, such as hydrostatic pressure  or chemical composition  or, as in our experiments, magnetic field. The physical properties of the system can then be dominated by the critical fluctuations associated with this quantum phase transition, or quantum critical point (QCP), even at very high temperatures up to and above room temperature . Furthermore, proximity to a QCP is known to give rise to novel ground states, such as magnetism  and unconventional forms of superconductivity . It might also explain high temperature superconductivity and non-Fermi liquid behaviour observed in the cuprates . Since quantum criticality is becoming increasingly recognized as a universal phenomenon in condensed matter physics, it is of paramount importance to categorize and understand how QCPs can stabilize new phases .

Recently, a magnetic field-tuned QCP was identified in the ruthenate metal Sr3Ru2O7 as an anomalous resistivity deviating from the standard quadratic temperature-dependence seen in conventional metals . While this work establishes magnetic fields ($`H`$) as a powerful tuning parameter for revealing QCPs in correlated metals, a low-temperature ordered phase was not identified near the QCP of Sr3Ru2O7. The discovery of an example of a magnetic-field-tuned QCP that actually gives rise to new ordered phases would help firmly establish quantum fluctuations as a critical factor in low-temperature phase formation. In this letter, we show that URu2Si2 exhibits clear signs of quantum criticality upon applying intense magnetic fields of $``$ 40T. Under such extreme conditions, rather than giving rise to superconductivity, the quantum criticality in URu2Si2 gives rise to a plethora of previously-unknown low-temperature phases, arranged in a hierarchically-organized phase diagram.

These conclusions follow as the result of a comprehensive transport study as a function of both temperature (T) and H performed in the 45 T hybrid magnet at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory in Tallahassee. During the field sweeps, $`H`$ is swept mostly at a rate of 2 T/min. This is reduced to 0.1 T/min between $`\mu _0H`$ =33 and 40 T in order to confirm the integrity of the $`H`$-dependent hysteresis. Resistivity ($`\rho `$) is measured using the standard four-probe method with the current and $`H`$ applied along the c-axis of an oriented bar-like URu2Si2 single crystal, while $`T`$ is measured using a precalibrated capacitance sensor.

Figure 1(a) depicts the phase diagram of the heavy fermion system URu2Si2 which we propose to be the first such example of order created at a magnetic-field-tuned QCP. The data in Figs. 1(a) and (b) reveal that URu2Si2 possesses all the essential hallmarks of quantum criticality at $`T`$6 K and magnetic fields $`H`$ around 38 T. Most striking, however, is that this quantum critical region then collapses into a multiplicity of low temperature phases as the temperature is reduced.

Region I in Fig. 1(a) identifies the upper field limit of the enigmatic hidden order (HO) phase . Specific heat studies  recently revealed the transition temperature $`T_0`$ 17 K into this phase to be suppressed with increasing field, terminating at a critical field $`\mu _0H_I=35.0\pm 0.3`$ T. This was then shown to be followed by a new ordered phase, region III, at slightly higher magnetic fields, which was subsequently found to lie below a metamagnetic crossover field at higher temperatures, indicated by solid squares in Fig. 1(a). Region IV was proposed to be a field-induced recovery of the normal metallic phase, with some or all of the $`f`$-electrons aligned by $`H`$. Each of the previously-known  phase boundaries into phases I and III are reproduced in the current study by plotting extremities in the derivatives of $`\rho /H`$ and $`\rho /T`$ (solid coloured circles in Fig. 1(a)). Examples of raw $`\rho (H)`$ and $`\rho (T)`$ data, from which these phase boundaries are extracted, are shown in Figs. 2 and 3 respectively. The high sensitivity of $`\rho `$ to changes in the ground state of URu2Si2 enables us to identify another phase, II, recently detected in ultrasound velocity measurements. Most strikingly, however, our resistivity measurements also find a complex series of first order phase transitions (orange lines) and an all-new ordered phase, V, revealing the hierarchical structure of the phase diagram. Finally, all phase transitions are found to become hysteretic as a function of $`H`$ for $`T<`$3 K, clearly establishing them to be first order. Open and solid circles in the inset to Fig. 2 depict increasing and decreasing $`H`$ respectively.

It was conjectured on the basis of a magnetization study that phase III is created in the vicinity of a quantum critical end point. Although the evidence was limited, if this holds true, phases II and V could also be the product of quantum criticality. We will now demonstrate that the present study reveals evidence for quantum criticality in URu2Si2 that is as compelling as reported for any other strongly correlated metal. We begin by considering the broad resistivity maximum centered on $``$ 34 T at 12 K in Figs. 1(a) and 2. If we discount the region occupied by the HO phase (below $``$ 17 K and $``$ 35 T), this maximum (indicated by + symbols) narrows and systematically shifts to higher fields as the temperature is reduced down to $``$ 6 K. Its location extrapolates to $`\mu _0H37.0\pm 0.4`$ T in Fig. 1(a) upon fitting a third order polynomial. Similar resistivity maxima occur in Sr3Ru2O7 and CeRu2Si2 near their itinerant metamagnetic transitions; however, they persist down to the lowest temperature of $``$ 0.1 K without any signs of order, in contrast to our URu2Si2 results.

More definitive evidence for quantum criticality is found at fields greater than 39 T within region IV. While at low temperatures, region IV can be characterized as a good metal (see Fig. 3) for which $`\rho =\rho _0+AT^n`$ with $`n`$ 2, typical of a normal Fermi liquid  (see Fig. 1(b) for low temperature values of $`A`$ and $`n`$), above 6 K the exponent switches to $`n`$1, which is atypical of a Fermi liquid at these low temperatures. This crossover gives rise to a broad maximum in $`\rho /T`$ which we denote as a characteristic temperature $`T^{}`$, delineated by black triangles in Fig. 1(a). A third order polynomial fit to the field dependence of $`T^{}`$ extrapolates to intercept the field axis at $`\mu _0H37.1\pm `$ 0.5 T inside phase III. Furthermore, the field-dependence of the Fermi liquid parameter $`A`$ below $`T^{}`$ also appears to be rising to a maximum within phase III in Fig. 1(b). These observations evidence what is now emerging as a universal behaviour in correlated metals:*a quantum phase transition in the Fermi liquid state stabilizes a new ordered phase, most likely through quantum fluctuations.* The persistent metallic behaviour within the various ordered phases provides a unique opportunity for the effect of critical fluctuations on the quasi-particles to be studied in the presence of ordering. Such a study cannot be done in systems where the ordered phase is superconducting, as is the case in heavy fermion metals, tuned by external pressure, or the high-temperature superconductors, tuned by doping. Fits of $`\rho =\rho _0+AT^n`$ over the temperature interval between $`0.6T`$3 K at many different fields in URu2Si2, reveal a continuous drop in $`n`$ from $``$ 1.5 at 30 T to $``$ 1.1 at $``$38 T. The normal Fermi liquid value of $`n=2`$ is recovered in a discontinuous fashion only when $`\mu _0H>`$ 39 T.

Exponents that depart significantly from $`n=2`$ at low temperatures are generally interpreted as evidence for non-Fermi liquid behaviour . The continuous trend in $`n`$ for $`\mu _0H<`$39 T suggests that the nature of the order parameter in all of the ordered phases is related. The presence of the anomalous resistivity exponent $`n`$1 centered on 38 T further suggests that, rather than being completely quelled by ordering, quantum critical fluctuations continue to play a role in URu2Si2 at low temperatures. Whether this finding is linked to the existence of only a partially gapped Fermi surface, or whether it is generic property of ordered phases near QCPs, is a pivotal question that remains to be answered. Such behaviour is reminiscent of the situation in the high-temperature superconductors, where spin-fluctuation effects persist inside the superconducting phase .

Collectively, all of the above findings (as summarized in Fig. 1(a)) firmly establish the existence of a field-induced quantum critical point in URu2Si2 at $`\mu _0H=37\pm `$1 T. These findings can be listed as follows: (i) a single metamagnetic transition observed at temperatures above $``$ 6 K at $``$37.9 T (solid squares); (ii) a single broad maximum in $`\rho (H)`$ above $``$6 K (+) that appears to converge with the metamagnetic transition upon extrapolation to $`T=0`$; (iii) a crossover temperature $`T^{}`$ (from $`n`$ 1 to 2) at fields above the metamagnetic transition that appears to converge with both the metamagnetic transition and the magnetoresistance maximum upon extrapolation to $`T=0`$ (solid triangles); (iv) a steep increase in the Fermi liquid parameter $`A`$ as $`H`$ approaches phase III from within region IV; and (v) a gradual reduction of the resistivity exponent $`n`$ from $``$1.5 to $``$1 as $`H`$ is swept through successive phases, reaching its lowest value at $``$38 T in Fig. 1(b).

By opening an energy gap over nearly the entire Fermi surface, superconductivity is one of the most efficient means of lowering the total energy of a metal. However, in spite of the close similarity of certain generic features of the phase diagram to those in the cuprates and heavy fermion superconductors, *the creation of multiple phases near a QCP is presently unique to URu2Si2* This may be a simple consequence of the fact that superconductivity is not favoured because $`H`$ is difficult for superconductors to accommodate. What is clear is that the existence of many rival phases over a small interval of field indicates many competing ordering mechanisms with similar energy scales. This eliminates the possibility of there being a single dominant mechanism; something that may be equally true in the cuprates as well as the heavy fermion superconductors . Our ability to resolve competing mechanisms in the present study might result from the quantized manner in which $`H`$ couples to the various orbital and spin degrees of freedom in URu2Si2.

Experiments performed at the NHMFL are supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation through Cooperative Grant No. DMR 9016241, the State of Florida and the U.S. Department of Energy. We specially thank B. Brandt for helps in experiments.