Fast photon-mediated entanglement of continuously-cooled trapped ions
for quantum networking
Abstract
We entangle two co-trapped atomic barium ion qubits by collecting single visible photons from each ion through in-vacuo 0.8 NA objectives, interfering them through an integrated fiber-beamsplitter and detecting them in coincidence. This projects the qubits into an entangled Bell state with an observed fidelity lower bound of . We also introduce an ytterbium ion for sympathetic cooling to remove the need for recooling interruptions and achieve a continuous entanglement rate of s-1.
Photonic interconnects between quantum processing nodes may be the only way to achieve large-scale quantum computers, and such an architecture has been proposed for the leading qubit platforms Duan and Monroe (2010); Bernien et al. (2013); Axline et al. (2018); Young et al. (2022). Using these connections to distribute remote entanglement between computing modules with high rates and near-unit fidelity should enable universal and fully-connected control over a substantially larger Hilbert space, greatly increasing the collective power of the quantum processors Gottesman and Chuang (1999); Jiang et al. (2007); Monroe et al. (2014). Interconnects between quantum memories, even without multi-qubit universal control, also offer diverse opportunities in quantum sensing Komar et al. (2014); Nichol et al. (2022), communication Nadlinger et al. (2022), and quantum simulation.
Trapped ions are attractive candidates for both quantum computing and networking due to their natural homogeneity, isolation from their environment, and indefinite idle coherence times Bruzewicz et al. (2019). These advantages, along with decades of technological development, have led to demonstrations of the highest-fidelity state preparation and measurement (SPAM) Ransford et al. (2021) and coherent operations Ballance et al. (2016); Srinivas et al. (2021); Clark et al. (2021), all performed in small systems of just one or two ions. Low errors have also been achieved in medium-sized chains Cetina et al. (2022); Chen et al. (2023), with limits due to weaker trap confinement and resulting motional mode-crowding and crosstalk concerns. Alternatively, smaller ion chains can be shuttled between interaction zones Kielpinski et al. (2002); Pino et al. (2021), but transport already dominates the time budget of current systems with up to 32 qubits Moses et al. (2023).
Photonic interconnects can avoid the overhead associated with controlling larger chains and finite shuttling speeds, but they rely on probabilistic excitation and photon emission protocols and photon collection efficiencies that have thus far been limited to a few percent. The current state-of-the-art photon-mediated entangling rate between trapped ion qubits is 182 s-1 Stephenson et al. (2020), on par with the mean entanglement rate in shuttling architectures Moses et al. (2023) but much slower than typical local entangling rates of 10-100 kHz Egan et al. (2021); Postler et al. (2023). This demonstration was mainly limited by a success probability of in each attempt Stephenson et al. (2020) where the leading inefficiency is the use of 0.6 numerical aperture (NA) objectives that only collect of the photons from each ion. A higher success probability of has been achieved by surrounding ions with optical cavities, but the requirement of a much lower attempt rate led to a success rate of just 0.43 s-1 Krutyanskiy et al. (2023). In these experiments, the attempt rate is limited by initialization steps, including periodic interruptions to recool the ions, as heating from photon recoil can reduce the collection efficiency and cause state measurement errors Drmota et al. (2023).
![Refer to caption](x1.png)
In this work, we utilize two 0.8 NA objectives to demonstrate photon-mediated entanglement between 138Ba+ ions with a success probability of and a fidelity . Then, we introduce 171Yb+ as a sympathetic coolant to achieve an uninterrupted attempt rate of 1 MHz and an ion-ion qubit entanglement rate of s-1. We choose to work with 138Ba+because it offers the longest-wavelength dipole transition of the commonly-trapped ion species at 493 nm and is similar in mass to 171Yb+, a well-established species for quantum computing Cetina et al. (2022); Moses et al. (2023); Chen et al. (2023). Photons at 493 nm can also be converted to telecom wavelengths for long-distance networking Hannegan et al. (2021).
We begin by trap** two 138Ba+ ions in a four-rod rf Paul trap and Doppler-cooling them with 493 and 650 nm light. Two 0.8 NA in-vacuo objectives collect the ion fluorescence with each lens aligned to a different ion and crosstalk after coupling into single-mode optical fibers (see Figure 1(a)). The trap** and imaging systems are described in more detail in Ref. Carter et al. (2024). The fiber positions are optimized for maximum coupling before each measurement and are typically stable across multiple hours.
To generate entanglement between each ion and its emitted photon, we begin by optically pum** each 138Ba+ ion to and then exciting to with near-unit probability using a 3 ps pulse of 493 nm light produced by a frequency-doubled mode-locked Ti:Sapphire laser Moehring et al. (2007) (see Supplemental Material .1). When the ion returns to the state after spontaneous emission (lifetime ns), it can decay to either or , correlated with the photon polarization. When a 493 nm photon is collected perpendicular to the magnetic field axis and coupled into a single-mode fiber, the photon and its parent ion are projected to the state
(1) |
where and represent orthogonal polarizations. The static phase of the above superposition is set to zero for convenience and without loss of generality.
If a single photon is detected during the 50 ns photon detection window after excitation, we proceed to state analysis and detection. Otherwise, we either repeat the attempt or break for 100 s of Doppler cooling after 50 successive attempts, for a duty cycle of . Each attempt takes 1 s, dominated by AOM latency and state preparation, and has independent single-photon success probabilities of and (see Supplemental Material .2) through each of the two ion imaging systems (hereafter labelled and ). The full experimental sequence is displayed in Figure 1(c), which is not to scale.
After the photon exits the fiber, it passes through a quarter-wave plate (QWP) to compensate for any ellipticity. Then, we examine the ion-photon correlations (Figs. 2a,c) by scanning the angle of a half-wave plate (HWP) in the beam path and measuring both the photon polarization and the parent ion qubit state (see Supplemental Material .3). The resulting contrast in the correlation sets an upper bound on the fidelity overlap with Eq. 1 of and , which we attribute to residual polarization mixing in the imaging systems. We perform the measurements for each imaging system by physically blocking the other.
![Refer to caption](x2.png)
To establish a lower bound for the fidelity of each ion-photon pair, we shrink the photon detection window to 3 ns and rotate each HWP by so that single photon detections herald each parent ion into the equal superposition states
(2) |
where the sign depends on which detector the photon hits and the phase is given by static polarization rotations in the fiber. Then, we use a pair of 532 nm Raman beams to drive a rotation of the atomic qubit with variable phase (Figs. 2b,d) Crocker et al. (2019). The contrast of the qubit state population with this phase sets a lower bound on the ion-photon fidelities of and Auchter et al. (2014). We also measure unmatched superposition phases of rad and rad caused by different uncompensated birefringence along the two photon paths.
Based on the measured qubit coherence time of s, limited by magnetic field fluctuations, we attribute of each infidelity to decoherence during the 40 s before the analysis pulse. Another comes from averaging over different ion qubit phases at the start of the analysis pulse due to the spread of photon detection times within the detection window. We bound errors from double excitations, crosstalk between the imaging systems, and excitation laser background to the level by measuring the ratio between one and two photon events.
Having established ion-photon entanglement through each imaging system, we can now entangle the two ions by sending both photons into a Bell state analyzer as shown in Figure 1, thereby performing entanglement swap**. An in-fiber 50:50 beamsplitter erases the “which-path” information, so if we detect one and one photon in the same trial the ions are ideally heralded into the entangled state
(3) |
Here, the sign is determined by whether a coincident detection occurred on the same or opposite sides of the beamsplitter Simon and Irvine (2003), Hz is the qubit frequency difference between the ions, is the time elapsed after coincidence detection, and . This state suppresses the effect of common-mode noise Lidar et al. (1998); Monz et al. (2009) and we indeed measure an extended Bell state coherence time of ms.
For this experiment, we measure the probability to generate one of the above maximally-entangled states to be , which is consistent with the product of the measured ion-photon efficiencies above: , with the factor of 1/2 stemming from heralding only two of the four Bell states. The effective attempt rate of 333 kHz is the same as in the individual ion-photon measurements above, so the ion-ion entanglement rate is s-1.
We measure both the populations and coherences of the heralded state of the ions by applying appropriate qubit rotations to both ions, as described in Supplemental Material .4. We measure the populations of the odd parity states to be with coherences Sackett et al. (2000); Slodička et al. (2013). Bounding the other possible coherence terms results in a SPAM-corrected fidelity with respect to Eq. 3 of Casabone et al. (2013). These results are based on the data displayed in Fig. 3.
![Refer to caption](x3.png)
Based on the measured finite contrast of the spin-polarization correlations, we expect an infidelity of , which is consistent with the measured populations. The extended two-qubit coherence is expected to contribute and other sources including temporal mismatch and dark counts account for . The total predicted infidelity of (see Table 1) is thus within error of our measured infidelity. Notably, using an in-fiber beamsplitter avoids the percent-level error induced by imperfect free-space photon spatial mode overlap in prior experiments Hucul et al. (2015); Stephenson et al. (2020).
Error source | Infidelity () |
---|---|
Polarization errors | |
Ion decoherence ( ms) | |
Timing mismatch ( ps) | |
Imperfect splitting ratio () | |
Dark counts and double excitations | |
Total |
![Refer to caption](x4.png)
Over the course of many consecutive entanglement generation attempts, recoil from optical pum** and pulsed excitation heats the ions, reducing the heralded success probability, as shown in Figure 4(b). Above, we capped the number of attempts without cooling at 50 to avoid this decay and to maintain high-fidelity state detection. We avoid these issues while maximizing the entanglement attempt rate by co-trap** a 171Yb+ ion for continuous sympathetic cooling.
We Doppler cool the 171Yb+ ion using 370 and 935 nm light, with sufficient spectral isolation as not to degrade the 138Ba+ state detection, cooling, or coherent operations. The relatively similar masses of barium and ytterbium and the small ratio of radial to axial confinement in the trap enable significant coupling between the radial modes of the different species Sosnova et al. (2021), which in turn allows for efficient sympathetic cooling Sakrejda et al. (2021).
With continuous sympathetic cooling, we are able to perform entanglement attempts without stop** for recooling, recovering our full attempt rate of 1 MHz. Although our hardware counter resets at attempts, we estimate an average success probability of when allowing a maximum of attempts, corresponding to an entanglement rate of s-1. After 20,000 attempts, the cumulative success probability of heralding an entanglement event is (see Supplemental Material .6).
This rate, made possible by increased numerical aperture and the introduction of sympathetic cooling, surpasses any previous mark in a system with Bell state fidelities above Stockill et al. (2017). It could be improved by almost a factor of three by replacing AOMs with electro-optic control to reduce latency and by another factor of two by switching to an atomic species with a larger branching ratio to the ground state Hucul et al. (2015); Stephenson et al. (2020). Building a duplicate of this system and using both imaging systems of each chamber to collect light from a single ion would again double the success probability reported here, providing a road map to kHz-level remote entanglement rates between atomic memories. Further increases could be achieved using Purcell enhancement in short optical cavities or large-scale spatial multiplexing with integrated optics Ghadimi et al. (2017).
Achieving a better understanding of polarization map** errors will require a more careful study of imaging aberrations and inhomogeneous birefringence in the lenses and vacuum window. This will be enabled by performing full tomography of the entangled ion-photon and ion-ion states. The dominance of imperfect polarization encoding in our error budget suggests that alternative photonic-qubit encodings, such as frequency Maunz et al. (2009) and time-bin Ward and Keller (2022); Tchebotareva et al. (2019), may be beneficial for short and medium-distance networking in addition to their usual application across longer distances Bersin et al. (2024). The former could be available using the 137Ba+ or 133Ba+ isotopes while the latter benefits from the long state lifetimes in any barium isotope.
The continued maturation of photonic interconnects will enable a wide variety of quantum technologies including scalable ion-trap quantum computers Monroe et al. (2014), quantum-limited sensing networks Komar et al. (2014); Nichol et al. (2022), secure communication Nadlinger et al. (2022), and blind quantum computation Fitzsimons (2017). Many of these applications will require the integration of remote and local entangling operations, both of which benefit from the introduction of sympathetic cooling. Dual-species or omg Allcock et al. (2021) operation is already necessary in most trapped-ion computing and networking architectures and has been demonstrated in numerous experiments Cetina et al. (2022); Drmota et al. (2023); Moses et al. (2023), but the integration of these techniques into a multi-node network, with demonstrations of quantum repeaters and entanglement distillation, remains outstanding.
This work is supported by the DOE Quantum Systems Accelerator (DE-FOA-0002253) and the NSF STAQ Program (PHY-1818914). J.O. is supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (DGE 2139754).
References
- Duan and Monroe (2010) L.-M. Duan and C. Monroe, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1209 (2010).
- Bernien et al. (2013) H. Bernien, B. Hensen, W. Pfaff, G. Koolstra, M. S. Blok, L. Robledo, T. H. Taminiau, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, L. Childress, and R. Hanson, Nature 497, 86 (2013).
- Axline et al. (2018) C. J. Axline, L. D. Burkhart, W. Pfaff, M. Zhang, K. Chou, P. Campagne-Ibarcq, P. Reinhold, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, L. Jiang, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature Physics 14, 705 (2018).
- Young et al. (2022) C. B. Young, A. Safari, P. Huft, J. Zhang, E. Oh, R. Chinnarasu, and M. Saffman, Applied Physics B: Lasers and Optics 128 (2022), 10.1007/s00340-022-07865-0.
- Gottesman and Chuang (1999) D. Gottesman and I. L. Chuang, Nature 402, 390 (1999).
- Jiang et al. (2007) L. Jiang, J. M. Taylor, A. S. Sørensen, and M. D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. A 76, 062323 (2007).
- Monroe et al. (2014) C. Monroe, R. Raussendorf, A. Ruthven, K. R. Brown, P. Maunz, L. M. Duan, and J. Kim, Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics 89, 022317 (2014).
- Komar et al. (2014) P. Komar, E. M. Kessler, M. Bishof, L. Jiang, A. S. Sørensen, J. Ye, and M. D. Lukin, Nature Physics 10, 582 (2014).
- Nichol et al. (2022) B. C. Nichol, R. Srinivas, D. P. Nadlinger, P. Drmota, D. Main, G. Araneda, C. J. Ballance, and D. M. Lucas, Nature 609, 689 (2022).
- Nadlinger et al. (2022) D. P. Nadlinger, P. Drmota, B. C. Nichol, G. Araneda, D. Main, R. Srinivas, D. M. Lucas, C. J. Ballance, K. Ivanov, E. Y. Tan, P. Sekatski, R. L. Urbanke, R. Renner, N. Sangouard, and J. D. Bancal, Nature 607 (2022), 10.1038/s41586-022-04941-5.
- Bruzewicz et al. (2019) C. D. Bruzewicz, J. Chiaverini, R. McConnell, and J. M. Sage, Applied Physics Reviews 6 (2019), 10.1063/1.5088164.
- Ransford et al. (2021) A. Ransford, C. Roman, T. Dellaert, P. McMillin, and W. C. Campbell, Physical Review A 104, 060402 (2021).
- Ballance et al. (2016) C. J. Ballance, T. P. Harty, N. M. Linke, M. A. Sepiol, and D. M. Lucas, Physical Review Letters 117, 060504 (2016).
- Srinivas et al. (2021) R. Srinivas, S. C. Burd, H. M. Knaack, R. T. Sutherland, A. Kwiatkowski, S. Glancy, E. Knill, D. J. Wineland, D. Leibfried, A. C. Wilson, D. T. Allcock, and D. H. Slichter, Nature 597, 209 (2021).
- Clark et al. (2021) C. R. Clark, H. N. Tinkey, B. C. Sawyer, A. M. Meier, K. A. Burkhardt, C. M. Seck, C. M. Shappert, N. D. Guise, C. E. Volin, S. D. Fallek, H. T. Hayden, W. G. Rellergert, and K. R. Brown, Physical Review Letters 127, 130505 (2021).
- Cetina et al. (2022) M. Cetina, L. N. Egan, C. Noel, M. L. Goldman, D. Biswas, A. R. Risinger, D. Zhu, and C. Monroe, PRX Quantum 3, 010334 (2022).
- Chen et al. (2023) J.-S. Chen, E. Nielsen, M. Ebert, V. Inlek, K. Wright, V. Chaplin, A. Maksymov, E. Páez, A. Poudel, P. Maunz, and J. Gamble, arXiv 2308.05071 (2023).
- Kielpinski et al. (2002) D. Kielpinski, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, Nature 417, 709 (2002).
- Pino et al. (2021) J. M. Pino, J. M. Dreiling, C. Figgatt, J. P. Gaebler, S. A. Moses, M. S. Allman, C. H. Baldwin, M. Foss-Feig, D. Hayes, K. Mayer, C. Ryan-Anderson, and B. Neyenhuis, Nature 592, 209 (2021).
- Moses et al. (2023) S. A. Moses et al., Phys. Rev. X 13, 041052 (2023).
- Stephenson et al. (2020) L. J. Stephenson, D. P. Nadlinger, B. C. Nichol, S. An, P. Drmota, T. G. Ballance, K. Thirumalai, J. F. Goodwin, D. M. Lucas, and C. J. Ballance, Physical Review Letters 124, 110501 (2020).
- Egan et al. (2021) L. Egan, D. M. Debroy, C. Noel, A. Risinger, D. Zhu, D. Biswas, M. Newman, M. Li, K. R. Brown, M. Cetina, and C. Monroe, Nature 598, 281 (2021).
- Postler et al. (2023) L. Postler, F. Butt, I. Pogorelov, C. D. Marciniak, S. Heußen, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, M. Rispler, M. Müller, and T. Monz, arXiv 2312.09745 (2023).
- Krutyanskiy et al. (2023) V. Krutyanskiy, M. Galli, V. Krcmarsky, S. Baier, D. A. Fioretto, Y. Pu, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 050803 (2023).
- Drmota et al. (2023) P. Drmota, D. Main, D. P. Nadlinger, B. C. Nichol, M. A. Weber, E. M. Ainley, A. Agrawal, R. Srinivas, G. Araneda, C. J. Ballance, and D. M. Lucas, Physical Review Letters 130, 090803 (2023).
- Carter et al. (2024) A. L. Carter, J. O’Reilly, G. Toh, S. Saha, M. Shalaev, I. Goetting, and C. Monroe, Review of Scientific Instruments 95, 033201 (2024).
- Simon and Irvine (2003) C. Simon and W. T. M. Irvine, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 110405 (2003).
- Hannegan et al. (2021) J. Hannegan, U. Saha, J. D. Siverns, J. Cassell, E. Waks, and Q. Quraishi, Applied Physics Letters 119 (2021), 10.1063/5.0059966.
- Moehring et al. (2007) D. L. Moehring, P. Maunz, S. Olmschenk, K. C. Younge, D. N. Matsukevich, L.-M. Duan, and C. Monroe, Nature 449, 68 (2007).
- Crocker et al. (2019) C. Crocker, M. Lichtman, K. Sosnova, A. Carter, S. Scarano, and C. Monroe, Optics Express 27, 28143 (2019).
- Auchter et al. (2014) C. Auchter, C.-K. Chou, T. W. Noel, and B. B. Blinov, Journal of the Optical Society of America B 31, 1568 (2014).
- Lidar et al. (1998) D. A. Lidar, I. L. Chuang, and K. B. Whaley, “Decoherence-free subspaces for quantum computation,” (1998).
- Monz et al. (2009) T. Monz, K. Kim, A. S. Villar, P. Schindler, M. Chwalla, M. Riebe, C. F. Roos, H. Häffner, W. Hänsel, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 200503 (2009).
- Sackett et al. (2000) C. A. Sackett, D. Kielpinski, B. E. King, C. Langer, V. Meyer, C. J. Myatt, M. Rowe, Q. A. Turchette, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and C. Monroe, Nature 404, 256 (2000).
- Slodička et al. (2013) L. Slodička, G. Hétet, N. Röck, P. Schindler, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 083603 (2013).
- Casabone et al. (2013) B. Casabone, A. Stute, K. Friebe, B. Brandstätter, K. Schüppert, R. Blatt, and T. E. Northup, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 100505 (2013).
- Hucul et al. (2015) D. Hucul, I. V. Inlek, G. Vittorini, C. Crocker, S. Debnath, S. M. Clark, and C. Monroe, Nature Physics 11, 37 (2015).
- Sosnova et al. (2021) K. Sosnova, A. Carter, and C. Monroe, Physical Review A 103, 012610 (2021).
- Sakrejda et al. (2021) T. P. Sakrejda, L. A. Zhukas, and B. B. Blinov, Quantum Information Processing 20, 162 (2021).
- Stockill et al. (2017) R. Stockill, M. J. Stanley, L. Huthmacher, E. Clarke, M. Hugues, A. J. Miller, C. Matthiesen, C. Le Gall, and M. Atatüre, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 010503 (2017).
- Ghadimi et al. (2017) M. Ghadimi, V. Blums, B. G. Norton, P. M. Fisher, S. C. Connell, J. M. Amini, C. Volin, H. Hayden, C. S. Pai, D. Kielpinski, M. Lobino, and E. W. Streed, npj Quantum Information 3, 4 (2017), arXiv: 1607.00100.
- Maunz et al. (2009) P. Maunz, S. Olmschenk, D. Hayes, D. N. Matsukevich, L. M. Duan, and C. Monroe, Physical Review Letters 102, 250502 (2009).
- Ward and Keller (2022) T. Ward and M. Keller, New Journal of Physics 24 (2022), 10.1088/1367-2630/aca9ee.
- Tchebotareva et al. (2019) A. Tchebotareva, S. L. N. Hermans, P. C. Humphreys, D. Voigt, P. J. Harmsma, L. K. Cheng, A. L. Verlaan, N. Dijkhuizen, W. de Jong, A. Dréau, and R. Hanson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 063601 (2019).
- Bersin et al. (2024) E. Bersin, M. Grein, M. Sutula, R. Murphy, Y. Q. Huan, M. Stevens, et al., Phys. Rev. Appl. 21, 014024 (2024).
- Fitzsimons (2017) J. F. Fitzsimons, npj Quantum Information 3, 23 (2017).
- Allcock et al. (2021) D. T. C. Allcock, W. C. Campbell, J. Chiaverini, I. L. Chuang, E. R. Hudson, I. D. Moore, A. Ransford, C. Roman, J. M. Sage, and D. J. Wineland, Applied Physics Letters 119, 1 (2021).
- De Munshi et al. (2015) D. De Munshi, T. Dutta, R. Rebhi, and M. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. A 91, 040501(R) (2015).
- Dietrich et al. (2009) M. R. Dietrich, A. Avril, R. Bowler, N. Kurz, J. S. Salacka, G. Shu, and B. B. Blinov (2009) pp. 25–30.
- Keselman et al. (2011) A. Keselman, Y. Glickman, N. Akerman, S. Kotler, and R. Ozeri, New Journal of Physics 13 (2011), 10.1088/1367-2630/13/7/073027.
- Shen and Duan (2012) C. Shen and L. M. Duan, New Journal of Physics 14 (2012), 10.1088/1367-2630/14/5/053053.
- Seif et al. (2018) A. Seif, K. A. Landsman, N. M. Linke, C. Figgatt, C. Monroe, and M. Hafezi, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 51 (2018), 10.1088/1361-6455/aad62b.
- James (1998) D. James, Appl. Phys. B 66, 181 (1998).
- Sørensen and Mølmer (2000) A. Sørensen and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. A 62, 022311 (2000).
- Schmidt-Kaler et al. (2003) F. Schmidt-Kaler, H. Häffner, M. Riebe, S. Gulde, G. P. Lancaster, T. Deuschle, C. Becher, C. F. Roos, J. Eschner, and R. Blatt, Nature 422, 408 (2003).
- Home (2013) J. P. Home, “Quantum science and metrology with mixed-species ion chains,” (Academic Press Inc., 2013) pp. 231–277.
Supplemental Material
.1 Pulsed excitation
To produce pulsed 493 nm light, we use a mode-locked Coherent Mira 900P Ti:Sapphire laser at 986 nm and subsequently frequency-double the light using second harmonic generation (SHG) to make 493 nm. The laser generates 3 ps pulses with a repetition rate of 76 MHz. The train of 986 nm pulses enters an electro-optic pulse picker, which transmits single, on-demand pulses with an extinction ratio of about 500:1. After frequency doubling with a MgO-doped, periodically-poled lithium niobate crystal, this extinction ratio increases to ¿100,000:1. Finally, we send the pulses through an AOM for further extinction and power control before routing them to the vacuum chamber via polarization-maintaining optical fiber.
.2 Photon collection efficiencies
In each attempt, we pump to with fidelity and excite an average of of the population to . Based on the branching ratio back to , a 493 nm photon is emitted in De Munshi et al. (2015) of decay events. The photons are collected by a 0.8 NA objective that covers of the emission solid angle, but within that area only of the photons make it past the trap rods and the lens has a transmission of Carter et al. (2024). We measure a fiber coupling efficiency of Carter et al. (2024) and detect photons with avalanche photo-detectors that have specified quantum efficiencies of . In total, from either imaging system, we expect a single photon detection in of trials, which is consistent with our measured values of and . We believe that the measured values are a bit lower due to ion recoil heating and additional photonic losses from polarizers, waveplates, and optical filters.
.3 Two-ion state detection
We detect the state of the qubit(s) at the end of an experiment by shelving the population in the state. We shelve using 1762 nm light produced by a thulium-doped fiber laser and fiber amplifier. This system produces 450 mW of 1762 nm light and is stabilized to Hz by locking to a high-finesse optical cavity with an ultra-low expansion (ULE) glass spacer. After shelving, we apply all polarizations of 493 and 650 nm light, which causes unshelved ions in to fluoresce while shelved ions remain dark in the metastable manifold, see Figure 5(a-b). We collect and detect these fluorescence photons using the imaging system shown in Figure 1 in the main text Dietrich et al. (2009); Keselman et al. (2011). For the one-ion case, as in the ion-photon measurements, we achieve an average ion qubit detection fidelity of .
![Refer to caption](x5.png)
Collecting fluorescence for 1 ms provides well-resolved photon number histograms for the cases of no bright ions, one bright ion, and two bright ions, as shown in Figure 5(c). Imperfect shelving reduces the no-bright detection fidelity to with erroneous events predominantly registering as one-bright events. The decay of fiber coupling due to heating during experiments reduces the two-bright average fidelity to . We correct for these and their corresponding single-ion errors by applying the inverse transformations to the data Shen and Duan (2012); Seif et al. (2018).
.4 Ion-ion entanglement fidelity bound
The global nature of our Raman addressing system limits us to analyzing the state fidelity relative to the state
(4) |
because the singlet state is invariant under global rotations. We begin this process by measuring the state populations . After waiting 210 s for , we apply a global rotation that converts into followed by a second pulse with varying phase . The maximum of the parity of the rotated state in this scan, shown in Figure 3 in the main text, corresponds to Sackett et al. (2000). We measure by scanning the phase of a single pulse Slodička et al. (2013), which allows us to calculate an ion-ion fidelity lower bound of Casabone et al. (2013).
.5 Yb-Ba-Ba collective motional modes
Coulomb forces between ions co-trapped in a harmonic potential lead to collective motional modes that are often used as an information bus for local entangling gates in trapped ion systems James (1998); Sørensen and Mølmer (2000); Schmidt-Kaler et al. (2003). In our application, the collective nature allows us to cool the barium ions via their coupling to the ytterbium ion’s motion. Using our measured secular frequencies for a single barium ion Carter et al. (2024), we can find the structure of the modes in our Yb-Ba-Ba chain by solving
(5) |
where is the position of ion , is the secular frequency of mode , and is the participation eigenvector of ion in mode with and .
171Yb+ | 138Ba+ | 138Ba+ | (kHz) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Axial Mode 1 | 0.614 | 0.640 | 0.300 | 353 |
Axial Mode 2 | 0.567 | -0.126 | -0.840 | 604 |
Axial Mode 3 | 0.549 | -0.758 | 0.453 | 872 |
Radial Mode 1 | 0.178 | 0.412 | 0.847 | 868 |
Radial Mode 2 | 0.587 | 0.672 | -0.512 | 737 |
Radial Mode 3 | 0.790 | -0.615 | 0.144 | 606 |
The excitation and pum** beams are delivered at relative to the trap axis and emission is isotropic, so we need to sympathetically cool both the radial and axial directions. Multi-species ion traps often suffer from weak radial coupling between the species Home (2013); Sosnova et al. (2021), but this is circumvented by using a high ratio of axial to radial confinement (see Table 2).
.6 Deriving
In a system where the probability of success on the trial is constant Drmota et al. (2023), we expect an exponential distribution of required trials before success each time we attempt to generate entanglement: PDF. Instead, we observe a success probability that decays to a steady-state value (Fig. 4(b) in the main text), stemming from the increased Doppler temperature of the high-intensity optical pum** beam. In this case, we extend the trial number as a continuous variable and use
(6) |
to find
(7) |
Integrating this from 0 to , we find the cumulative density function, or the probability of success up through trials,
(8) |
Finally, we arrive at the average success probability by dividing the probability of success up through trials by the total attempts that have been executed up to the in each loop, resulting in
(9) |
While we could not find an analytic solution for the integral, we were able to fit the blue data points in Figure 4(c) in the main text to this equation by integrating numerically.