Entanglement of Microwave–Optical Modes in a Strongly CoupledElectro-Optomechanical System

Changchun Zhong,1, 2, ∗ Xu Han,3, 4 Hong X. Tang,2, 4 and Liang Jiang1, 2, †

1Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA2Yale Quantum Institute, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA

3Center for Nanoscale Materials, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439, USA4Department of Electrical Engineering, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA

(Dated: January 20, 2020)

Quantum transduction between microwave and optics can be realized by quantum teleportation ifgiven reliable microwave-optical entanglement, namely entanglement-based quantum transduction.To realize this protocol, an entangled source with high-fidelity between the two frequencies is neces-sary. In this paper, we study the microwave and optical entanglement generation based on a genericcavity electro-optomechanical system in the strong coupling regime. Splittings are shown in themicrowave and optical output spectra and the frequency entanglement between the two modes isquantified. We show that entanglement can be straightforwardly encoded in the frequency-bin degreeof freedom and propose a feasible experiment to verify entangled photon pairs. The experimentalimplementation is systematically analyzed, and the preferable parameter regime for entanglementverification is identified. An inequality is given as a criterion for good entanglement verificationwith analysis of practical imperfections.

I. INTRODUCTION

Building a distributed quantum architecture, wheredistant quantum circuits are connected through low lossoptical communication channels, is a long-pursued goalin the quantum computation community [1–4]. To re-alize this goal, an essential part is to coherently trans-fer quantum states between the optical channels and thequantum circuits, which in general are in quite differentfrequency ranges, e.g., optical telecom photons at ∼ 200THz and superconducting circuits at ∼ 10 GHz micro-wave frequencies. However, a superconducting qubitdoesn’t directly interact with optical photons, a high-fidelity quantum transducer is thus in urgent need tointerface microwave and optical (M–O) photons in a co-herent way. The development of an efficient transducerwill not only greatly expand the superconducting quan-tum network but also connecting superconducting qubitswith different quantum modules [5–11].

Quantum state transduction can be realized by eitherdirect quantum transduction (DT) which linearly con-verts photons between different frequencies [12–30], orentanglement-based transduction (ET) which first gen-erates entangled photon pairs (or continuous Bosonicmodes) with different frequencies then completes thetransduction with quantum teleportation [31–33]. Re-cently, theoretical proposals given an imperfect DT trans-ducer show the possibility of achieving state transduc-tion by choosing squeezed ancillary input and perform-ing feedforward [34–36]. Experimentally, the feedforwardscheme has already shown a great enhancement of thetransducer performance [37]. Despite these encouraging

∗ zhong.changchun@uchicago.edu† liang.jiang@uchicago.edu

progress, an efficient quantum-enabled M–O transducerremains to be demonstrated, mainly due to demandingrequirements of high conversion efficiency threshold andlow added thermal noises. In contrast, ET doesn’t re-quire the threshold conversion efficiency, and thus is morecompatible with the current technological developments[31, 38, 39].

A major step in ET is to demonstrate useful entan-glement between microwave and optical photon pairs (orcontinuous modes). In Ref. [31], the M–O time-bin en-tanglement generation and detection based on a genericcavity electro-optomechanical system have been investi-gated in the weak coupling regime, where a wide rangeof feasible parameters in this regime can be used todemonstrate M–O entanglement. Especially, the verifi-cation could tolerate certain amount of thermal noises,which is compatible with recent experiments: the designof mechanical mode in contact with a 1 Kelvin thermalbath (to enhance the power handling capability [31, 40]),which is shown to be below the noise threshold.

In this paper, we propose an M–O frequency-bin en-tanglement generation and detection scheme based on ageneric electro-optomechanical system in the strong cou-pling regime. For analysis, we consider a cavity piezo-optomechanical system [39, 41]. By exploiting the strong-coupling induced hybridization between the microwaveand the mechanical modes, we discuss the frequency-entangled M–O states under an optomechanical para-metric down-conversion process. The entanglement ischaracterized by calculating the entanglement of forma-tion (EF) of the output modes. Furthermore, we de-fine an entanglement rate (ER) to quantify the over-all efficiency of entanglement generation, which reachesmaximum when the system approaches the exceptionalpoint—a well-studied concept in non-hermitian quantummechanics [42]. To observe the entanglement experimen-tally, we propose a heralded scheme that detects the en-

arX

iv:2

001.

0610

7v1

[qu

ant-

ph]

16

Jan

2020

2

TABLE I. The parameters are used in the numerical evalua-tions in the text (unless specified otherwise). To comply withthe experiment, we leave Com and κe,c tunable, which canbe realized by controlling the optical pump strength and theposition of the microwave readout probe.

gem/MHz κe,i/kHz κo,i/(GHz) κo,c κm/kHz2π × 2.0 2π × 100 2π × 0.24 κo,i 2π × 20

tangled photon pairs in the frequency-bin degree of free-dom. We map out the preferable parameter regime sat-isfying the entanglement criteria (Bell inequality viola-tion or Bell state fidelity). Moreover, the entangled M–Omode correlation function and coincidence count rate ofoutput photons are theoretically estimated. A criterionfor good entanglement verification taking into account ofdark counts, transmission loss, and detection inefficiencyis derived in the end. The entanglement analysis and pro-posed detection scheme could be generalized to quantumtransducers based on different physical platforms, thusprovide a useful framework for analyzing M–O entangle-ment in the strong coupling regime.

II. PIEZO-OPTOMECHANICAL SYSTEMWITH A BLUE-DETUNED DRIVE

Without losing generality, our discussion is basedon a piezo-optomechanical (POM) system with a blue-detuned laser pump, as shown schematically in Fig. (1),a mechanical resonator is on one side parametrically cou-pled to an optical cavity by radiation pressure, and onthe other side linearly coupled to a microwave resonator

through piezoelectric force. Denoting a, b and c as theoptical, mechanical, and microwave mode operators, re-spectively, and ωo, ωm, and ωe as the corresponding res-onant frequencies. Taking ωe = ωm, we can write downthe linearized Hamiltonian of the system with rotatingwave approximation [20, 31]

H =− ~∆oa†a+ ~ωmb

†b+ ~ωec†c

− ~gom(a†b† + ab)− ~gem(b†c+ bc†).(1)

It is worth pointing out that the above Hamiltonian isgeneral for different physical platforms, and thus the the-ory framework developed below is applicable to varioussystems [14, 19, 20, 39]. For POM system, gem is thepiezoelectrical coupling. gom :=

√nogom,0 is the opto-

mechanical coupling strength, where gom,0 denotes thesingle photon coupling. In experiment, the optical cavitywill be pumped on the blue sideband by a laser with fre-quency ωp = ωo+∆o and is populated with no photons onaverage, which can further enhance the optomechanicalcoupling. In the discussions that follow, we take the res-onance condition ∆o = ωe,m.

a b coptomechanical

couplingpiezomechanical

couplingLaser

(b) ωe = ωm ωo

Δo

ωp

ωpωo ωm ωe

SymplecticTransform

ain

bin

cin

aout

bout

cout

(c)

(a)

^^ ^

кo,c кo,iкm

кe,c кe,i

FIG. 1. (a) Schematic figure for a piezo-optomechanical sys-tem with a blue-detuned laser drive. (b) The frequencylandscape for microwave, mechanical, optical resonators andthe pump laser. (c) The Gaussian unitary transformationconnecting input and output mode operators. Take ~ain =(ain,c, ain,i), and other vectors are similarly defined.

The above system is able to generate entanglement be-tween microwave and optical modes, which is realized in-tuitively by first entangling the optical and mechanicalmodes with a two mode squeezing interaction, meanwhilethe mechanical excitation is swapped to the microwavemode by the beam-splitter type coupling. To analyzethe complete dynamics of the system, we write down thelinearized Heisenberg-Langevin equations of motion foreach mode,

˙a† = (−i∆o −κo

2)a† − igomb+

√κo,ca

†in,c +

√κo,ia

†in,i,

˙b = (−iωm −

κm

2)b+ igoma

† + igemc+√κmbin,

˙c = (−iωe −κe

2)c+ igemb+

√κe,ccin,c +

√κe,icin,i,

(2)

where we label the optical, mechanical and microwave de-cay rates by κo = κo,c+κo,i, κm, and κe = κe,c+κe,i. Thesubscripts “i” is short for internal loss port, “c” for cou-pling port, and “in” for input noise operator. Equations(2) admit a set of hermitian conjugate equations, havingessentially the same physics. All input noise operatorssatisfy [43]

[o†in(t), oin(t′)] = nδ(t− t′),

[oin(t), o†in(t′)] = (n+ 1)δ(t− t′).(3)

To comply with the experimental condition, we assumethe optical resonator and the microwave coupling portare subject to purely vacuum fluctuations n = 0, whilethe mechanical resonator and the microwave internal portcouple to a thermal bath n = nba = (e~ωm(e)/kBT − 1)−1.The output modes can be obtained by combining thecoupled Eq. (2) with the input-output formalism (takingoptical mode for example)

aout,c =√κo,ca− ain,c,

aout,i =√κo,ia− ain,i,

(4)

where the subscript “out” denotes the output mode.Thus, the system defines a Gaussian unitary channel

3

ω/2�×106 Hz

PSD (Photon)(a) (b) (c)

-4 -2 0 2 41.001.011.021.031.041.05

1.11.21.31.41.51.6

-4 -2 0 2 40.1

0.51

510

R

1.01.11.21.31.4

ω /2�×106 Hz-4 -2 0 2 4

0.1

0.51

510

ω /2�×106 Hz

1.50

2.00

2.50

1.00

opt mw

R

FIG. 2. The output power spectrum densities for (a) opticalmode and (c) microwave mode, where mode splitting of 2gemappears while decreasing the ratio R = κe/4gem. The ratioR = 1 separates the weak and the strong coupling regimes.The dashed lines in (a,c) correspond to the red and blue curvesin (b) with the ratio R = 0.2. In these plots, parameters inTab. I are used and nba = 1, Com = 1.

which is captured by a symplectic transform xout = Sxin

[44, 45], where S is the symplectic transformation matrix.xin and xout collect all the input and output quadra-tures. If we label the M–O output state quadratures asx = (xo, po, xe, pe), a covariance matrix Vout

oe with theelements defined by Vij = 1

2

⟨{xi − 〈xi〉 , xj − 〈xj〉}

⟩can

be obtained, and it can be expressed in the standard form

Voutoe =

(Vu Vw

Vw Vv

)=

u(ω) 0 −w(ω) 0

0 u(ω) 0 w(ω)−w(ω) 0 v(ω) 0

0 w(ω) 0 v(ω)

,

(5)where Vu, Vv and Vw are the corresponding two dimen-sional matrix blocks. This matrix fully characterizes theoutput M–O Gaussian state, where the diagonal elementsrepresent the corresponding output power spectrum den-sities and other elements indicate the quadrature corre-lations.

III. THE PIEZOMECHANICAL STRONGCOUPLING REGIME

Using the feasible parameters given in Tab. I, we nu-merically calculate the M–O output power spectrum den-sities with respect to the ratio R = κe/4gem, which mea-sures how much the system is strongly (R < 1) or weakly(R > 1) coupled (details shown later). As shown inFig. (2), two peaks can be clearly resolved in both theoptical and microwave output spectrum as the systemapproaches the piezomechanical strong coupling regime.Intuitively, the splitting of the microwave output mode isdue to the hybridization between the microwave and themechanical modes while the splitting in the optical moderesults from the energy conservation. This can be seenmore rigorously from the Eq. (2). To show that, we re-cast Eq. (2) into a more compact form in the microwaverotating frame (we use this frame in all later discussions)

a = Ma + Nain, (6)

where we group the operators into the following vectors

ain = (a†in,c, a†in,i, bin, cin,c, cin,i)

T, a = (a†, b, c)T. Thematrix

M =

−κo

2 −igom 0igom −κm

2 igem

0 igem −κe

2

, (7)

N =

√κo,c√κo,i 0 0 0

0 0√κm 0 0

0 0 0√κe,c

√κe,i

. (8)

The non-hermitian dynamical matrix M determines thenormal modes. Taking the approximation κo � gom (arelatively lossy optical cavity in experiments), one findsthe hybridized normal modes of microwave and mechan-ical resonator with eigenvalues

λB,C = −κe + κm

4∓

√−g2

em +

(κe − κm

4

)2

, (9)

where the subscripts B,C represent the two hybridizedmodes. When gem > |κe − κm| /4, a negative valuein the square root is achieved which corresponds toa mode splitting 2

√g2

em − ((κe − κm)/4)2. When gem

dominates gem � |κe − κm| /4, the mode splitting ap-proaches 2gem ∼ 2π × 4 MHz, which is exactly whatwe just showed in Fig. (2) in the strong coupling limit.In this limit, we can approximately define the two hy-bridized modes as [46]

B =

√2

2(b+ c),

C =

√2

2(b− c),

(10)

by which the Hamiltonian Eq. (1) can be rewritten as

H =− ~∆oa†a+ ~ωBB

†B + ~ωCC†C

−√

2~gom

2(a†B† + aB)−

√2~gom

2(a†C† + aC),

(11)

where ωB = ωm − gem and ωC = ωe + gem are thenew mode frequencies. Thus, we obtain two two-mode-squeezing interactions between the optical mode and eachof the hybridized modes, which could simultaneously gen-erate entanglement between either the modes a and B ora and C. We will show later that this enables us to con-veniently encode entangled photon pairs in the frequencydegree of freedom. It is worth noting that the above ap-proximation is not always true; however, in our calcula-tion we choose the experimentally compatible parameterswith the optomechanical cooperativity Com ∼ 1, indicat-ing a good approximation. To be theoretically complete,when gem < |κe − κm| /4, a positive value is taken in thesquare root and the system is called in the weak cou-pling regime. Especially, when gem = |κe − κm| /4, the

4

(a)

E R(e

bit·M

Hz)

Entanglement Rate(b)

Com =1

Com =5Com =10

0.1 1 50.1

1

510

50

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Com

EF (ebits)

Unstable

Stable

0.1 1 5 100.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

RR

FIG. 3. (a) EF(ω) with ω = gem = 2π × 2 MHz (inrotating frame) in terms of Com and the ratio R = κe/4gem.The dashed line separates the stable and unstable parameterregime. (b) Entanglement rate for varied Com. The greyvertical line is given by R = 1, which separates the weak andthe strong coupling regimes. In these plots, parameters inTab. I are used and nba = 1.

eigen-values as well as the eigen-vectors coincide, whichcorresponds to the exceptional point well-known in thenon-hermitian quantum physics [42, 47, 48]. We thusdefine a ratio R = κe/4gem to quantify how much thesystem is strongly (R < 1) or weakly (R > 1) coupled,as mentioned before 1, and R = 1 corresponds to theexceptional point.

IV. CHARACTERIZATION OF THE OUTPUTM–O STATE ENTANGLEMENT

Ideally, in the strong coupling regime, a product oftwo-mode squeezed vacuum state can be obtained whenanalyzing the Hamiltoian Eq. (11), written as

|Ψ〉eo '∞∑

n1=0

rn11√n1!

(a†1)n1(B†)n1 |vac〉

⊗∞∑

n2=0

rn22√n2!

(a†2)n2(C†)n2 |vac〉 ,(12)

where we define a1 and a2 as the optical modes thatmatch the frequencies of the hybridized modes B and Cdue to energy conservation. r1 and r2 are the effectivesqueezing factors, which are determined by the opticalpump strength and the interaction time before the pho-tons leak out of the cavity. Due to symmetry in our case,we have r := r1 = r2. For a weak laser pump, r � 1 andthus

|Ψ〉eo ' |vac〉+ r(a†1B† + a†2C

†) |vac〉+ o(r2). (13)

We see that a Bell state can be generated with proba-bility |r|2. When the state is coupled out of the cavity,

1 Strictly speaking, we should define R = (κe − κm)/4gem. Weleft out κm since it is relatively small.

neglecting higher order terms in r and discarding the vac-uum state (by post selection), we can get a standard Bellstate encoded in the frequency-bin degree of freedom.

In reality, due to the dissipation and thermal fluctua-tion, the M–O state is generally a mixed Gaussian state.Thus we can only obtain a mixed two mode Gaussianstate, as indicated by the output covariance matrix Eq.(5). In order to characterize the output state, we first useentanglement of formation EF to quantify its entangle-ment. For two mode Gaussian states, EF coincides withentanglement cost which quantifies how many Bell statesare needed to form a given entangled state. For an out-put state given in the form Eq. (5), EF can be evaluatedby the formula [49, 50].

EF(ω) = cosh2 r0 log2

(cosh2 r0

)−sinh2 r0 log2

(sinh2 r0

),

(14)where r0 is the minimum amount of anti-squeezingneeded to disentangled the state and it is given by

r0 =1

4ln

(γ −

√γ2 − β+β−β−

), (15)

with

γ =2(det Vout

oe + 1)− (u(ω)− v(ω))2,

β± = det Vu + det Vv − 2 det Vw + 2u(ω)v(ω)

+ 2w2(ω)± 4w(ω)(u(ω) + v(ω)).

(16)

In general, the squeezing parameter r0 is frequency de-pendent. For ω = 0 and in the low thermal noise limit,it can be simplified to

r0 =1

2ln

1 + (√Com +

√Cem)2

1 + (√Com −

√Cem)2

, (17)

where Cem is the electromechanical cooperativity. Asexpected, a bigger squeezing can be obtained whenCom ∼ Cem, which corresponds to the strong parametricdown conversion regime. By fixing the output frequencyω = 2π×2 MHz [51], we calculate EF by scanning the ra-tio R = κe/4gem (gem = 2π × 2 MHz). As shown in Fig.3(a), entanglement is generated for any non-zero squeez-ing r0 > 0 and reaches maximum along the dashed line,where the system is approaching the strong parametricdown conversion regime. Interestingly, this dashed linemarks the boundary between the system being stable andnot. By numerically checking the stability condition ofEq. (6) [52–54], the system is shown to be unstable asCom increases, shown by the area above the dashed linein Fig. 3(a). The reason is that when the blue-detunedlaser drive becomes too strong, the optomechanical para-metric gain will be too large and cause instability.

The quantity EF(ω) measures the amount of entangle-ment in the output state for a given frequency. In prac-tice, it is also important to check the entanglement withincertain bandwidth. Due to energy conservation, the over-all output state is approximately in a tensor product

5

φoD1

D2

lase

r

Fa1

Fa2fs

POM Q1

Q2

cQED1

cQED2

qubit control

QA

Q1

Q2

parityreadout

( )π2–Rφ e

B

C

FIG. 4. Schematic setup for detecting M–O Bell pairs encodedin frequency-bin degree of freedom. The optical photon is an-alyzed with a balanced Mach-Zehnder interometer, composedof two 50/50 beam splitters (light blue), two narrowband fil-ters (short black line), a phase shifter (ϕo) and a frequencyshifter fs. Two single photon detectors are used in the end.The microwave photon detection is realized by cQED sys-tems, where the microwave photon is converted into transmonqubits (Q1 or Q2) excitation by Raman absorption, followedby a partity measurement, a CNOT operation, a π/2 rotationalong the axis (sinϕe, sinϕe, 0) and a high fidelity single qubitreadout.

form of all frequency contributions, which indicates thatthe entanglement is additive. Thus we define a quantitycalled entanglement rate as

ER =1

2π

∫EF(ω)dω. (18)

Intuitively, ER tells how efficient a system is in gener-ating entanglement. In Fig. 3(b), we calculate ER forvaried optomechanical cooperativities (Com = 1, 5, 10)by scanning the ratio R = κe/4gem (fixing gem = 2π × 2MHz) such that the system goes from strong to weakcoupling regime. First, we see that the entanglementrate smoothly goes up and down and gives a maximalvalue when the system is around the exceptional pointR = 1. The rate ER reduces as we further increases ordecreases the ratio R. The reason is that a bigger Rmeans a smaller Cem, leading to further cooperativitiesmismatch and thus reducing the entanglement rate; whilea smaller R indicates a smaller microwave extraction ra-tio κe,c/κe,i, effectively decreasing the entanglement rate.Moreover, Comparing different Com in Fig. 3(b), we findthat ER is bigger in general for larger Com before the sys-tem gets unstable, and the peak values of the ER shiftto the left when increasing Com, which relates to the factthat the approximation κo � gom is getting worse, suchthat the exceptional point will shift accordingly.

V. VERIFYING BELL STATE IN FREQUENCYDEGREE OF FREEDOM

Given the output state feature in the strong couplingregime, we propose an experimental scheme of detectingentangled M–O photon pairs encoded in frequency-bindegree of freedom. As discussed previously, if we de-crease the laser pump strength, a standard Bell state infrequency bin is expected in the ideal case [55]

|Ψ〉eo =

√2

2(a†1B

† + a†2C†) |vac〉 . (19)

In practice, considering the existence of dissipation andthermal fluctuation, we could only get the output entan-gled states with certain Bell state fidelity. In this section,we discuss such an experimental scheme to verify the en-tangled state.

A. The experimental scheme for entanglementverification

As shown schematically in Fig. (4), a POM devicedriven by a blue detuned laser generates entangled M–Ostates, whose entanglement property are then detected bythe generalized optical and microwave photon detectorsshown in the light green blocks. On the optical side, theoptical photon is guided into a balanced Mach-Zehnderinterferometer with two 50/50 beam splitters. The firstbeam splitter separates the photon into two paths: onegoes through a filter [56, 57] which selects a1 mode anda phase shifter which shifts a phase ϕo; the other goesthrough a filter selecting a2 mode and a frequency shifter[58] shifting the mode by frequency 2gem. Then the pho-tons interfere at the second beam splitter. A photon clickat the single photon detectors D1 or D2 projects the op-

tical state on |ϕo〉± =√

22 (a†1 ± a

†2eiϕo) |vac〉.

On the microwave side, the possible state detectionis enabled by two circuit quantum electrodynamical(cQED) systems, each consisting of a transmon qubitwith matched dispersive coupling to the cavity modes,respectively. In detail, the microwave photon first goesthrough a circulator, where the modes B and C areguided into two different cQED systems. The cQED1and cQED2 are designed to be only resonant with modeB and mode C, respectively, such that mode B can onlybe captured by cQED1 while mode C only by cQED2.The microwave photons are then converted to qubit ex-citation with the help of stimulated Raman absorption[59]. This step effectively realizes a entanglement swap-ping from microwave photons to transmon qubits [60].Immediately after the Raman absorption, a parity mea-surement is done with the help of an ancillary qubit QA

to ensure that one and only one of the two qubits areexcited [61]. This heralding operation excludes the zerophoton and higher order events, increasing significantlythe entanglement fidelity. When an odd parity is ob-tained, we continue performing a CNOT gate to factorout Q1, then apply a π/2 rotation on Q2 along the axis(sinϕe, cosϕe, 0) defined on the Bloch sphere. At last, ahigh fidelity single qubit readout [62, 63] projects the

qubit Q2 onto the state |ϕe〉± =√

22 (|g〉 ± |e〉 e−iϕe),

which is effectively similar to detecting the microwave

state |ϕe〉± =√

22 (B† ± C†e−iϕe) |vac〉.

In summary, the experimental setup allows us to di-rectly measure any states on the equator plane definedon the optical and microwave Bloch spheres. Given twofixed phases ϕo and ϕe, repeated measurements could

6

π 4 3π 4 5π4 7π4-2 2

-2

0

22 2

φe

SCHSH Violation

0.1

0.51

510

50100

C om

nba0 1

2 4

Phase diagram(a) (b)

0.05 0.1 0.5 1

> 0.5Flb

Smax > 2

R

FIG. 5. (a) The S correlation curves in terms of phase angleϕe with varied thermal bath, taking R = κe/4gem = 0.26 andCom = 1. (b) The “phase diagram” for the CHSH inequalityviolation and the Bell state fidelity bigger than 1/2 in thestrong coupling regime with R < 1. nba = 1.

yield the average value

E(ϕo, ϕe) =p+,+ϕ0,ϕe

+ p−,−ϕ0,ϕe− p+,−

ϕ0,ϕe− p−,+ϕ0,ϕe

, (20)

where each p denotes the probability of coincident count-ing clicks for the corresponding state projections, e.g.,p+,+ϕ0,ϕe

= p(|ϕ0〉+ , |ϕe〉+) . Each probability can be the-oretically calculated and the details are put in the Ap-pendix.

B. CHSH inequality violation and Bell statefidelity lower bound

The Bell inequality provides a strong manifestation forentanglement, whose violation excludes the possibility ofall local hidden variable theory. We use the CHSH-typeBell inequality (|S| < 2), which can be tested in our pro-posed experimental setup by measuring the correlation[64]

S = E(ϕo, ϕe)+E(ϕ′o, ϕ′e)+E(ϕ′o, ϕe)−E(ϕo, ϕ

′e). (21)

In Fig. 5(a), we simulate the typical correlation curveby fixing ϕo = 0 and varying the phase ϕe (choseϕ′o = ϕo+π/2, ϕ′e = ϕe+π/2). First, a clear Bell inequal-ity violation is observed |S| > 2 for low thermal noise,indicating the existence of strict entanglement. Also, theviolation becomes less obvious as we increase the ther-mal excitation and the threshold is about two thermalphotons. In Fig. 5(b), we map out the parameter regime(in orange) that violates the Bell inequality. We see suchregime doesn’t overlap the regime where EF maximizes,because the regime with maximized EF is around thesystem unstable area, where extremely mixed entangledstates is generated that could be unsuitable for Bell testusing the proposed experimental setup.

A less demanding evidence for entanglement is givenby a Bell state fidelity, which physically measures thecloseness between a given state and a standard Bell state.The fidelity being larger than 1/2 indicates entanglement.

t2

t1

{

Ƭb= tRaman

{tRepetition

Ƭ=t1-t2

(a)

Coincidence

MW

Opt

Correlation function

8

6

420

-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

(b)

Ƭ/µs

Ƭb

Ƭb

Ƭb

= 0.25 µs= small

= 0.5 µs

g(2) (Ƭ

)

FIG. 6. (a) Schematic plot for M–O photon coincidencecounting measurement. The microwave measurement repe-tition time is several micro-seconds which includes the qubitpreparation, operation and the Raman absorption time thatsets the detection time window τb. (b) The second ordercorrelation function for three different detection time resolu-tions, shown by the blue, red and green lines. For these lines,we have Com = 1, κe,c/κe,i = 20 and nba = 1. The dashedhorizontal line is determined by 2 + ξo + ξe + ξoξe.

In experiment, a quantity easier to measure is the fidelitylower bound, which is given by

Flb =1

2(p+,+

0,0 + p−,−0,0 + p+,+π2 ,π2

+ p−,−π2 ,π2

− p+,−π2 ,π2− p−,+π

2 ,π2− 2√p+,−

0,0 p−,+0,0 ).

(22)

In Fig. 5(b), we also delineate the parameter regimewhere the fidelity lower bound is bigger than 1/2 (in lightyellow). As expected, such regime is much broader thanthat of CHSH violation since an entangled state is notnecessary Bell nonlocal. Due to the reason of easier tobe measured, the fidelity lower bound could be a first ex-periment in the M–O entangled photon pair verifications.

VI. M–O STATE CORRELATION FUNCTIONAND COINCIDENCE COUNTING RATE

We start from the well known second order correlationfunction [65]

g(2)(τ) =〈a†out,c(t+ τ)c†out,c(t)cout,c(t)aout,c(t+ τ)〉〈a†out,c(t+ τ)aout,c(t+ τ)〉 〈c†out,c(t)cout,c(t)〉

,

(23)where τ denotes the time delay between the opticaland microwave photon detection. Using the quantummoment-factoring theorem [66], we rewrite the functionas

g(2)(τ) = 1 +Roe(τ)Reo(τ)

RoRe(24)

where Ro and Re are the optical and microwave photongeneration rate

Ro = 〈a†out,c(t)aout,c(t)〉 =1

2π

∫〈a†out,c(−ω)aout,c(−ω)〉 dω,

Re = 〈c†out,c(t)cout,c(t)〉 =1

2π

∫〈c†out,c(ω)cout,c(ω)〉 dω.

(25)

7

Roe(τ) and Reo(τ) are called the M–O correlation rates

Roe(τ) = 〈a†out,c(t+ τ)c†out,c(t)〉

=1

2π

∫〈a†out,c(−ω)c†out,c(ω)〉 e−iωτdω,

Reo(τ) = 〈cout,c(t)aout,c(t+ τ)〉

=1

2π

∫〈cout,c(ω)aout,c(−ω)〉 eiωτdω.

(26)

Equation (24) assumes an infinite time resolution of thephoton detector. However, as shown in Fig. 6(a), thephoton detector in practice can only resolve photon ina finite time window τb. For the optical detector, thetime resolution is generally within nanosecond. Whilein the microwave detection, the Raman absorption is onthe order of microsecond, within which the arrival time ofthe microwave photon can’t be distinguished, and it setsthe length of detection time window. Due to this finitetime resolution, the measured second order correlationfunction is generally a piecewise function

g(2)(τi) = 1 +

∫ τi+τbτi

Roe(τ)Reo(τ)dτ

RoReτb, (27)

in which τi+1 = τi + τb. With this formula, we plotthe g(2)(τ) functions with varied detection resolutions inFig. 6(b). The blue curve gives the ideal case where thedetector has infinite time resolution. First, we see anoscillation structure with a period around 0.25 µs, whichis due to frequency beating in the strong coupling regimeand it matches exactly with the mode splitting 2gem =2π×4 MHz. Second, the g(2)(τ) is not symmetric and themaximal value is not happening at the zero time delay.The reason is that the optical and microwave photon havedifferent time profiles, thus their convolution generally isasymmetric.

TABLE II. Feasible parameters of the photon transmissioncoefficients, the detector dark count rates and the detectorefficiencies.

ηo ηe Do De Te To

0.8 0.9 ∼ 20 Hz ∼ 103 Hz 0.5 10−3

Equation (27) can be rewritten as

g(2)(τi) :=Rcc(τi)

Rac=RoReτb +

∫ τi+τbτi

Roe(τ)Reo(τ)dτ

RoReτb,

(28)

where the numerator defines the coincidence countingrate, and we see it contains two parts: the first one isthe accidental coincidence rate Rac = RoReτb, while wecall the second as the correlated coincidence rate. Withthe parameters in Tab. I and take τb = 0.5 µs, Com = 1,R = 0.26, nba = 1, we find the coincidence counting rateis on the order of Rcc ∼ 104 Hz.

In practice, the experiment also suffers from the pho-ton transmission loss, and detector dark counts and inef-ficiencies. To give a general model, we denote To, Te asthe optical, microwave transmission coefficients, Do, De

as the optical, microwave detector dark count rates, andηo, ηe as the optical and microwave detector efficiencies,respectively. Taking into account of all these influencesand requiring the correlated coincidence rate much largerthan the accidental coincidence rate, a simple inequalitycan be obtained

g(2)(τi) > 2 + ξo + ξe + ξoξe, (29)

which acts as an useful criterion of ensuring a successfulentanglement verification. The quantities ξo = Do

ηoToRo,

ξe = De

ηeTeRe, which obviously mean the ratio of dark

count rate to photon detection rate. The smaller ξo andξe are, the better the performance of the experiment willbe. With the feasible parameters given in Tab. II, thecoincidence counting rate is reduced to the order of 10Hz. Also, we show the quantity 2 + ξo + ξe + ξoξe ' 2.37,which is depicted by a dashed purple line in Fig. 6(b).We see the inequality Eq. (29) can be indeed satisfied aslong as the photon detectors have good enough time reso-lutions. It is worth pointing out that the numerical eval-uation is based on current state-of-the-art technologicalparameters [39]. Given the fast development in this field,we anticipate that the correlated coincidence rate will beeven better. In summary, when designing experiments,all these factors, together with the transmission coeffi-cients and detector efficiencies, must be optimized si-multaneously, and the theoretical framework given aboveprovides a useful guide in experimentally manifesting theM–O entanglement.

VII. DISCUSSION

The entanglement generated from a generic electro-optomechanics can also be investigated in the time-bindegree of freedom, where two short pump pulses withfixed time separation should be applied [31]. In com-parison, this time-bin encoding is suitable for a weaklycoupled system, while a strong coupled system is conve-nient to encode frequency-bin entanglement. Althoughwe can also study frequency-bin entanglement with aweakly coupled system, it generally involves multiple me-chanical or microwave modes which would complicate theexperimental design. Also, frequency-bin encoding usesa continuous laser drive, which is simpler to implementcompare to the time-separated-pulse control in the time-bin encoding.

Demonstrating the M–O entanglement is the first andimportant step in DT. Once an entangled source withhigh-fidelity can be provided, we can then adopt thewell-developed teleportation scheme [67, 68] for quan-tum transductions. More broadly, the M–O entangle-ment can also be used to directly entangle distant micro-wave nodes by adopting the well-known DLCZ scheme

8

[69]. As mentioned in the beginning, ET is compatiblewith the state-of-the-art technological development, andthus is much less demanding in the experimental imple-mentation. The discussions in this paper thus provide atimely guide for pursuing this direction.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We acknowledge support from the ARL-CDQI(W911NF-15-2-0067, W911NF-18-2-0237), ARO(W911NF-18-1-0020, W911NF-18-1-0212), ARO MURI(W911NF-16-1-0349), AFOSR MURI (FA9550-14-1-0052, FA9550-15-1-0015), DOE (DE-SC0019406),NSF (EFMA-1640959), and the Packard Foundation.This work was performed, in part, at the Center forNanoscale Materials, a U.S. Department of EnergyOffice of Science User Facility, and supported by theU.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, underContract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357.

Appendix A: Coincidence counting probability

For given output M–O modes with frequency ω, thecoincidence counting probability can be theoretically cal-culated by modeling the optical and microwave detectionas an on/off photon detector, which is described by a setof positive operator-valued measurements [70]

Πoff =

∞∑n=0

(1− η)n |n〉 〈n| , (A1)

Πon = I− Πoff , (A2)

in which |n〉 is photon number state of the mode be-ing detected and η models the detector efficiency. Thus,the joint probability is given by P o,e

on (ω) = tr(ρΠoon(ω)⊗

Πeon(ω)), where ρ is the M–O output state density ma-

trix. Since we are dealing with Gaussian states, it isconvenient to express ρ in the Wigner function

W (x) =exp(− 1

2xTV−1x)

(2π)2√

detV, (A3)

where V = Voutoe (ω) is the corresponding covariance ma-

trix. The coincidence counting probability can be evalu-ated by

P o,eon (ω) =

∫W (x)Πo,e

on (x) dx. (A4)

Πo,eon (x) is Weyl transform of Πo

on ⊗ Πeon defined by

Πo,eon (x) =

∫ ⟨q +

q′

2

∣∣∣∣ Πoon ⊗ Πe

on

∣∣∣∣q− q′

2

⟩eip

Tq′dq′.

(A5)where we denote (q,p) = (xo, xe, po, pe). With this for-mula and taking into account the beam splitter, phaseshifter in the experiment, we obtain

P+,+ϕo,ϕe

(ω) =1− 2

(2− ηo)√

detΣa

− 2

(2− ηe)√

detΣc

+4

(2− ηo)(2− ηe)√

detΣac

(A6)

for detecting the states |ϕo〉+ and |ϕe〉+ simultaneously.The parameters ηo and ηe are the generalized optical andmicrowave detector efficiencies and

Σu =ηo

2− ηoVu + I2, (A7)

Σv =ηe

2− ηeVv + I2, (A8)

Σw = V ·(

ηo

2− ηoI2 ⊕

ηe

2− ηeI2

)+ I4. (A9)

Further, the total joint detection rate can be obtained byintegrate all frequency contributions,

P+,+ϕo,ϕe

=

∫ ω2

ω1

P+,+ϕo,ϕe

(ω)dω. (A10)

The detection rate for other state projections can be de-rived similarly. In the main text, we use the normalizedprobability

p+,+ϕo,ϕe

=P+,+ϕo,ϕe

P+,+ϕo,ϕe + P−,−ϕo,ϕe + P+,−

ϕo,ϕe + P−,+ϕo,ϕe

(A11)

which corresponds to the physical procedure of post-selecting coincidence counting events based on theheralding signals.

[1] J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, H. J. Kimble, and H. Mabuchi,Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3221 (1997).

[2] H. J. Kimble, Nature 453, 1023 (2008).[3] L. Jiang, J. M. Taylor, A. S. Sørensen, and M. D. Lukin,

Phys. Rev. A 76, 062323 (2007).[4] C. Monroe, R. Raussendorf, A. Ruthven, K. R. Brown,

P. Maunz, L.-M. Duan, and J. Kim, Phys. Rev. A 89,022317 (2014).

[5] D. N. Matsukevich and A. Kuzmich, Science 306, 663(2004).

[6] B. B. Blinov, D. L. Moehring, L.-M. Duan, and C. Mon-roe, Nature 428, 153 (2004).

9

[7] E. Togan, Y. Chu, A. S. Trifonov, L. Jiang, J. Maze,L. Childress, M. V. G. Dutt, A. S. Sørensen, P. R. Hem-mer, A. S. Zibrov, and M. D. Lukin, Nature 466, 730(2010).

[8] W. F. Koehl, B. B. Buckley, F. J. Heremans, G. Calusine,and D. D. Awschalom, Nature 479, 84 (2011).

[9] W. B. Gao, P. Fallahi, E. Togan, J. Miguel-Sanchez, andA. Imamoglu, Nature 491, 426 (2012).

[10] K. De Greve, L. Yu, P. L. McMahon, J. S. Pelc, C. M.Natarajan, N. Y. Kim, E. Abe, S. Maier, C. Schneider,M. Kamp, S. Hofling, R. H. Hadfield, A. Forchel, M. M.Fejer, and Y. Yamamoto, Nature 491, 421 (2012).

[11] C. Li and P. Cappellaro, arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.01556(2019).

[12] M. Hafezi, Z. Kim, S. L. Rolston, L. A. Orozco, B. L. Lev,and J. M. Taylor, Phys. Rev. A 85, 020302(R) (2012).

[13] B. T. Gard, K. Jacobs, R. McDermott, and M. Saffman,Phys. Rev. A 96, 013833 (2017).

[14] R. Hisatomi, A. Osada, Y. Tabuchi, T. Ishikawa,A. Noguchi, R. Yamazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura,Phys. Rev. B 93, 174427 (2016).

[15] M. Tsang, Phys. Rev. A 81, 063837 (2010).[16] C. Javerzac-Galy, K. Plekhanov, N. R. Bernier, L. D.

Toth, A. K. Feofanov, and T. J. Kippenberg, Phys. Rev.A 94, 053815 (2016).

[17] L. Fan, C.-L. Zou, R. Cheng, X. Guo, X. Han,Z. Gong, S. Wang, and H. X. Tang, Sci. Adv.Vol. 4, no. 8, eaar4994 (2018).

[18] L. A. Williamson, Y.-H. Chen, and J. J. Longdell, Phys.Rev. Lett. 113, 203601 (2014).

[19] C. O’Brien, N. Lauk, S. Blum, G. Morigi, and M. Fleis-chhauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 063603 (2014).

[20] R. W. Andrews, R. W. Peterson, T. P. Purdy, K. Cicak,R. W. Simmonds, C. A. Regal, and K. W. Lehnert, Nat.Phys. 10, 321 (2014).

[21] C. A. Regal and K. W. Lehnert, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 264,012025 (2011).

[22] J. Bochmann, A. Vainsencher, D. D. Awschalom, andA. N. Cleland, Nat. Phys. 9, 712 (2013).

[23] J. M. Taylor, A. S. Sørensen, C. M. Marcus, and E. S.Polzik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 273601 (2011).

[24] S. Barzanjeh, D. Vitali, P. Tombesi, and G. J. Milburn,Phys. Rev. A 84, 042342 (2011).

[25] Y.-D. Wang and A. A. Clerk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108,153603 (2012).

[26] L. Tian and H. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 82, 053806 (2010).[27] L. Midolo, A. Schliesser, and A. Fiore, Nat. Nanotech.

13, 11 (2018).[28] T. Bagci, A. Simonsen, S. Schmid, L. G. Villanueva,

E. Zeuthen, J. Appel, J. M. Taylor, A. Sørensen, K. Us-ami, A. Schliesser, and E. S. Polzik, Nature 507, 81(2014).

[29] M. Winger, T. D. Blasius, T. P. M. Alegre, A. H.Safavi-Naeini, S. Meenehan, J. Cohen, S. Stobbe, andO. Painter, Opt. Express 19, 24905 (2011).

[30] A. Pitanti, J. M. Fink, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, J. T. Hill,C. U. Lei, A. Tredicucci, and O. Painter, Opt. Express23, 3196 (2015).

[31] C. Zhong, Z. Wang, C. Zou, M. Zhang, X. Han, W. Fu,M. Xu, S. Shankar, M. H. Devoret, H. X. Tang, andL. Jiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 010511 (2020).

[32] S. Barzanjeh, M. Abdi, G. J. Milburn, P. Tombesi, andD. Vitali, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 130503 (2012).

[33] A. Rueda, W. Hease, S. Barzanjeh, and J. M. Fink, npj

Quantum Information 5, 1 (2019).[34] A. A. Rakhubovsky, N. Vostrosablin, and R. Filip, Phys-

ical Review A 93, 033813 (2016).[35] M. Zhang, C.-L. Zou, and L. Jiang, Physical review let-

ters 120, 020502 (2018).[36] H.-K. Lau and A. A. Clerk, npj Quantum Information 5,

31 (2019).[37] A. P. Higginbotham, P. S. Burns, M. D. Urmey, R. W. Pe-

terson, N. S. Kampel, B. M. Brubaker, G. Smith, K. W.Lehnert, and C. A. Regal, Nat. Phys. 14, 1038-1042(2018).

[38] A. Vainsencher, K. J. Satzinger, G. A. Peairs, and A. N.Cleland, Appl. Phys. Lett. 109, 033107 (2016).

[39] X. Han, C. Xiong, K. Y. Fong, X. Zhang, and H. X.Tang, New J. Phys. 16, 063060 (2014).

[40] M. Xu, X. Han, C.-L. Zou, W. Fu, Y. Xu,C. Zhong, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, arXiv preprintarXiv:1910.01203 (2019).

[41] C.-L. Zou, X. Han, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Phys. Rev.A 94, 013812 (2016).

[42] N. Moiseyev, Non-Hermitian quantum mechanics (Cam-bridge University Press, 2011).

[43] A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt,and R. J. Schoelkopf, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1155 (2010).

[44] C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garcıa-Patron, N. J.Cerf, T. C. Ralph, J. H. Shapiro, and S. Lloyd, Rev.Mod. Phys. 84, 621 (2012).

[45] M. A. De Gosson, Symplectic geometry and quantum me-chanics, Vol. 166 (Springer Science & Business Media,2006).

[46] In general, the hybridized modes is not orthogonal toeach other due to the matrix M being non-hermitian.

[47] C. M. Bender and S. Boettcher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5243(1998).

[48] W. Chen, S. K. Ozdemir, G. Zhao, J. Wiersig, andL. Yang, Nature 548, 192 (2017).

[49] P. Marian and T. A. Marian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101,220403 (2008).

[50] S. Tserkis and T. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. A 96, 062338(2017).

[51] A single output frequency corresponds to using a filterwith infinite small bandwidth.

[52] E. X. DeJesus and C. Kaufman, Phys. Rev. A 35, 5288(1987).

[53] Y.-D. Wang, S. Chesi, and A. A. Clerk, Phys. Rev. A91, 013807 (2015).

[54] L. Tian, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 233602 (2013).

[55] Strictly, the a1, a2, B and C mode operators here shouldrepresent the output modes. We left out the subscript“out” for simplicity.

[56] The filter should have bandwidth in several MHz. Thisextremely narrow band filter has been demonstrated withrare-earth ion doped crystals.

[57] S. E. Beavan, E. A. Goldschmidt, and M. J. Sellars, J.Opt. Soc. Am. B 30, 1173 (2013).

[58] X. Guo, Y. Mei, and S. Du, Optica 4, 388 (2017).[59] P. Campagne-Ibarcq, E. Zalys-Geller, A. Narla,

S. Shankar, P. Reinhold, L. Burkhart, C. Axline,W. Pfaff, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. De-voret, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 200501 (2018).

[60] The swap realizes |1〉B |g〉Q1→ |0〉B |e〉Q1

and

|1〉C |g〉Q2→ |0〉C |e〉Q2

, which gives an entangledstate between optical photons and the transmon qubits

10

√2

2(|1〉a1

|e〉Q1+ |1〉a2

|e〉Q2).

[61] M. A. Nielsen and I. Chuang, Quantum computation andquantum information (AAPT, 2002).

[62] S. Shankar, M. Hatridge, Z. Leghtas, K. M. Sliwa,A. Narla, U. Vool, S. M. Girvin, L. Frunzio, M. Mir-rahimi, and M. H. Devoret, Nature 504, 419 (2013).

[63] M. Hatridge, S. Shankar, M. Mirrahimi, F. Schackert,K. Geerlings, T. Brecht, K. M. Sliwa, B. Abdo, L. Frun-zio, S. M. Girvin, R. J. Schoelkopf, and M. H. Devoret,Science 339, 178 (2013).

[64] J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt,Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969).

[65] R. J. Glauber, Phys. Rev. 130, 2529 (1963); Phys. Rev.131, 2766 (1963).

[66] J. H. Shapiro and K.-X. Sun, JOSA B 11, 1130 (1994).[67] C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crepeau, R. Jozsa,

A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70,1895 (1993).

[68] D. Bouwmeester, J.-W. Pan, K. Mattle, M. Eibl, H. We-infurter, and A. Zeilinger, Nature 390, 575 (1997).

[69] L.-M. Duan, M. D. Lukin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller,Nature 414, 413 (2001).

[70] A. Ferraro, S. Olivares, and M. G. Paris, arXiv:quant-ph/0503237.