# On single-photon and classical interference

Stephen M. Barnett  School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow,
Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom

###### Abstract

It has often been remarked that single-photon interference experiments,
however complicated, seem to behave very much in the same way as those
performed in the classical regime, using the field generated by a laser. This
observation has the status of being ‘well-known to those who know it’, but
perhaps mysterious to others. We discuss the reasons underlying the similarity
and also some of the limitations of this simple idea.

##  I Introduction

Modern quantum optics and quantum information have encouraged the development
of experiments using single photons or, to be more precise, in the single-
photon regime. The most popular way of generating these is to employ
spontaneous parametric downconversion, which prepares entangled photon pairs
and uses one of these to herald the presence of the other Burnham ; Friberg ;
MW . This heralded photon is then available for the desired experiment or
application. As part of the operation a laser field is often used to assist
with alignment and other practical considerations before employing the single
photon source, with the measured intensity at various output ports being
proportional to the anticipated detection probabilities in the single-photon
regime. It is noteworthy, moreover, that a number of important experiments
reporting quantum behaviour have used a laser source, sometimes attenuated,
rather than single photons, in the expectation that a single photon would
behave in the same manner. A few examples may be in order: quantum key
distribution with weak laser pulses PaulSimon ; Norbert , optimal measurements
for quantum state discrimination SarahRev , quantum walks Christine  and
demonstrations of the benefits of indefinite causal order Jacqui .

We seek to explain the reason why classical (laser-based) and single-photon
interference experiments are so similar. Our analysis is based on the
behaviour of coherent states of light, which provide the closest
approximation, within quantum theory to a classical radiation field Glauber66
; Klauder ; GlauberBook . The properties of coherent states and, in
particular, the way in which fields prepared in coherent states interfere
provide simple explanations for the similarity between classical and single-
photon interference experiments.

It is important to realise that there are distinct differences between
coherent states, even those with a very small amplitude, and genuine single
photons. We conclude with a discussion of two of these differences: photon
anti-bunching QTL3 ; Alain  and the two-photon Hong-Ou-Mandel effect MW ; HOM
.

##  II Classical and quantum theories of interference

To address our question we need to make precise a working definition of an
interferometer. We define an interferometer as a device comprising only
passive linear optical elements, principally beam splitters, mirrors and wave-
plates, with input ports into which light can be directed and output ports
which record either photocounts in the single photon regime or photocurrents
proportional to the laser intensity. It is certainly possible to construct
interferometrers that include more complicated elements, such as nonlinear
media, but including these tends to invalidate the link between laser-based
experiments and those utilising single photons. Examples of suitable devices
include the familiar Mach-Zehnder and Michelson interferometers, but also the
famous Young two-slit experiment. The components in these devices coherently
superpose light from interfering modes, redirect light and rotate
polarisations. They do not add photons to the field although lossy elements
may remove them.

Figure 1: Schematic representation of a beam splitter. In the classical
theory, input modes with complex amplitudes $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$ are superposed
to form the output amplitudes $b_{1}$ and $b_{2}$. In the quantum theory these
complex amplitudes are replaced by photon annihilation operators.

A key element in many practical interferometers is the beam splitter, depicted
in Figure 1. In the classical theory this combines two modes with complex
amplitudes $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$ to produce two output modes with amplitudes
$b_{1}$ and $b_{2}$. For simplicity we consider a symmetric beam splitter for
which the two sets of amplitudes are related by QTL3

$b_{1}=ta_{1}+ra_{2}\qquad b_{2}=ta_{2}+ra_{1}\,.$ (1)

The intensity is proportional to the modulus squared of these amplitudes and
it follows that the total output intensity is proportional to

$|b_{1}|^{2}+|b_{2}|^{2}=(|t|^{2}+|r|^{2})(|a_{1}|^{2}+|a_{2}|^{2})+(t^{*}r+r^{*}t)(a_{1}^{*}a_{2}+a_{2}^{*}a_{1})\,.$
(2)

As it stands this expression depends on the relative phase between the
amplitudes $a_{1}$ and $a_{2}$, but the values of $t$ and $r$, being fixed
properties of the beam splitter, cannot depend on this relative phase so we
can infer that $t^{*}r+r^{*}t=0$, so that $t^{*}r$ is imaginary. Conservation
of energy then requires that $|t|^{2}+|r|^{2}=1$. In the quantum theory we can
replace the field amplitudes by photon annihilation operators so that our
classical relationship in Equation 1 is replaced by the operator form

$\hat{b}_{1}=t\hat{a}_{1}+r\hat{a}_{2}\qquad\hat{b}_{2}=t\hat{a}_{2}+r\hat{a}_{1}\,.$
(3)

The same relationships between $t$ and $r$ as found in the classical theory
can now be derived from the commutation relations
$[\hat{b}_{i},\hat{b}_{j}^{\dagger}]=\delta_{ij}=[\hat{a}_{i},\hat{a}_{j}^{\dagger}]$.

Figure 2: Schematic representation of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. The input
beam splitter is as in Figure 1 with transmission and reflection coefficients
$t_{1}$ and $r_{1}$. The lengths of the two arms are $L_{1}$ and $L_{2}$ so
that propagation along the arms produces the phase shifts $kL_{1}$ and
$kL_{2}$. For completeness, we include, also an additional element in the
upper arm producing an additional phase shift $\varphi$.

As an example we consider a simple Mach-Zehnder interferometer as depicted in
Figure 2. It is straightforward to determine the forms of the output
amplitudes, $c_{1}$ and $c_{2}$ or, in quantum theory, the output annihilation
operators in terms of the input ones.

$\displaystyle c_{1}$
$\displaystyle=(t_{2}t_{1}e^{ikL_{1}}+r_{2}r_{1}e^{i\varphi}e^{ikL_{2}})a_{1}+(t_{2}r_{1}e^{ikL_{1}}+r_{2}t_{1}e^{i\varphi}e^{ikL_{2}})a_{2}$
$\displaystyle c_{2}$
$\displaystyle=(t_{2}r_{1}e^{i\varphi}e^{ikL_{2}}+r_{2}t_{1}e^{ikL_{1}})a_{1}+(t_{2}t_{1}e^{i\varphi}e^{ikL_{2}}+r_{1}r_{2}e^{ikL_{1}})a_{2}\,.$
(4)

If we input light only in mode $a_{1}$, then the intensities at the outputs
will be proportional to the quantities

$\displaystyle|c_{1}|^{2}$
$\displaystyle=|t_{2}t_{1}e^{ikL_{1}}+r_{2}r_{1}e^{i\varphi}e^{ikL_{2}}|^{2}|a_{1}|^{2}$
$\displaystyle|c_{2}|^{2}$
$\displaystyle=|t_{2}r_{1}e^{i\varphi}e^{ikL_{2}}+r_{2}t_{1}e^{ikL_{1}}|^{2}|a_{1}|^{2}\,.$
(5)

We can think of the quantity
$|t_{2}t_{1}e^{ikL_{1}}+r_{2}r_{1}e^{i\varphi}e^{ikL_{2}}|^{2}$ as the
probability that any one photon in the input emerges in mode $c_{1}$ and
$|t_{2}r_{1}e^{i\varphi}e^{ikL_{2}}+r_{2}t_{1}e^{ikL_{1}}|^{2}$ as the
probability that it emerges in mode $c_{2}$. We can check this interpretation
by turning to the quantum description, where we find that the annihilation
operators for the output modes are related to those of the input by

$\displaystyle\hat{c}_{1}$
$\displaystyle=(t_{2}t_{1}e^{ikL_{1}}+r_{2}r_{1}e^{i\varphi}e^{ikL_{2}})\hat{a}_{1}+(t_{2}r_{1}e^{ikL_{1}}+r_{2}t_{1}e^{i\varphi}e^{ikL_{2}})\hat{a}_{2}$
$\displaystyle\hat{c}_{2}$
$\displaystyle=(t_{2}r_{1}e^{i\varphi}e^{ikL_{2}}+r_{2}t_{1}e^{ikL_{1}})\hat{a}_{1}+(t_{2}t_{1}e^{i\varphi}e^{ikL_{2}}+r_{1}r_{2}e^{ikL_{1}})\hat{a}_{2}\,.$
(6)

If we have just a single photon prepared in mode $a_{1}$ and none in mode
$a_{2}$ then $\langle\hat{a}_{1}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{1}\rangle=1$ and
$\langle\hat{a}_{2}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{2}\rangle=0$. It follows that the
probabilities that the photon leaves the interferometer in mode $c_{1}$ or
$c_{2}$ are

$\displaystyle\langle\hat{c}_{1}^{\dagger}\hat{c}_{1}\rangle$
$\displaystyle=|t_{2}t_{1}e^{ikL_{1}}+r_{2}r_{1}e^{i\varphi}e^{ikL_{2}}|^{2}$
$\displaystyle\langle\hat{c}_{2}^{\dagger}\hat{c}_{2}\rangle$
$\displaystyle=|t_{2}r_{1}e^{i\varphi}e^{ikL_{2}}+r_{2}t_{1}e^{ikL_{2}}|^{2}$
(7)

respectively. These are precisely the quantities inferred from the classical
description.

In the following section we shall address the question of why the single-
photon probabilities arise so simply in the classical theory and, in doing so,
establish that the equivalence is general and may be applied to any
interferometric device. Before turning to this, it is instructive to recall
what three others (among many) have written on this point. We start with the
famous quote from Dirac Dirac :

Suppose we have a beam of light consisting of a large number of photons split
up into two components of equal intensity. On the assumption that the
intensity of a beam is connected with the probable number of photons in it, we
should have half the total number of photons going into each component. If the
two components are now made to interfere, we should require a photon in one
component to be able to interfere with one in the other. Sometimes these two
photons would have to annihilate one another and other times they would have
to produce four photons. This would contradict the conservation of energy. The
new theory, which connects the wave function with probabilities for one
photon, gets over the difficulty by making each photon go partly into each of
the two components. Each photon then interferes only with itself. Interference
between two different photons never occurs.

In the first edition of his book, The Quantum Theory of Light, Loudon writes
of Young’s interference experiment QTL1 :

Photons do not interact with each other, and any interference effects must be
sought in the process by which each single photon passes from the source to
the second screen. Quantum-mechanically, the interference occurs between the
probability amplitudes for passage from source to screen via the two different
paths corresponding to the two pinholes. The intensity on the second screen is
proportional to the square modulus of the sum of the two probability
amplitudes. The structure of the quantum-mechanical calculation is the same as
that of the classical calculation, which is also based of the sum of two
amplitudes, and the two calculations give the same intensity distribution.

Finally, in Jex’s translation of Paul’s book, Introduction to Quantum Optics,
we find Paul :

Let us note that the quantized theory of the electromagnetic field encompasses
the particle equally well as the wave aspect. In particular, beamsplitting can
be described in such a way that (in complete correspondence to classical
theory) the electric field strength - now described by an operator - of the
incident wave is decomposed into parts corresponding to the reflected wave and
the transmitted wave. We find then the surprising (at least at first glance)
result that the classical interference pattern is quantum mechanically exactly
reproducible independent of the (perhaps even non-classical) state of the
incident light.

The common point emphasised by each of these accounts is that in interference,
as we have discussed it, single photons within a beam of light behave,
individually, in the same manner as would a field in the classical theory.

##  III Interfering coherent states

The key to deriving our desired result, that single-photon interference
experiments behave precisely as do classical ones, lies in the properties of
the coherent states. For any single mode, with annihilation and creation
operators, $\hat{a}$ and $\hat{a}^{\dagger}$, the coherent state is a
displaced vacuum obtained by means of a unitary transformation MW ; Glauber66
; Klauder ; GlauberBook ; QTL3 ; Methods :

$|\alpha\rangle=\hat{D}(\alpha)|0\rangle=\exp\left(\alpha\hat{a}^{\dagger}-\alpha^{*}\hat{a}\right)|0\rangle\,.$
(8)

Two properties of the coherent states will be useful to us. The first of these
is that the coherent states are right-eigenstates of the annihilation operator
with eigenvalue $\alpha$:

$\hat{a}|\alpha\rangle=\alpha|\alpha\rangle\,.$ (9)

The second is that the coherent state is a superposition of photon number
states in the form

$|\alpha\rangle=e^{-|\alpha|^{2}/2}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{\alpha^{n}}{\sqrt{n!}}|n\rangle\,.$
(10)

From the eigenvalue property we can determine how coherent state combine when
superposed on a beam splitter. In Equation (3) we have, essentially, a
Heisenberg picture relation between the output and input modes for a simple
beam splitter. If we prepare each input mode in a coherent state,
$|\alpha_{1}\rangle$ and $|\alpha_{2}\rangle$ respectively, then it follows
that the state is a right-eigenstate of the output annihilation operators
$\hat{b}_{1}$ and $\hat{b}_{2}$:

$\displaystyle\hat{b}_{1}|\alpha_{1}\rangle|\alpha_{2}\rangle$
$\displaystyle=(t\alpha_{1}+r\alpha_{2})|\alpha_{1}\rangle|\alpha_{2}\rangle$
$\displaystyle\hat{b}_{2}|\alpha_{1}\rangle|\alpha_{2}\rangle$
$\displaystyle=(t\alpha_{2}+r\alpha_{1})|\alpha_{1}\rangle|\alpha_{2}\rangle\,.$
(11)

It follows that, in the Schrödinger picture, the states of the output modes
are also coherent states, $|\beta_{1}\rangle$ and $|\beta_{2}\rangle$
respectively, where $\beta_{1}=t\alpha_{1}+r\beta_{2}$ and
$\beta_{2}=t\alpha_{2}+r\beta_{1}$. Hence the complex amplitudes of our
coherent states combine in precisely the same manner as do the classical
amplitudes. This conclusion applies to each of our passive linear optical
elements and, indeed, to any interferometer, however complicated. This
property was first obtained in the context of coupled oscillators by Glauber
GlauberPL . It may be of interest to note that this idea can readily be
extended to any state of light by writing such states as a superposition of
coherent states JanszkySMB .

Another way to see the relationship between the coherent state amplitudes and
the amplitudes in the classical theory is to adopt the vacuum picture Mollow ;
Samson ; David ; PMRPLK . To see how this works consider a single mode of the
field in which the electric field operator has the form

$\hat{\bf E}={\bf E}_{0}u({\bf r})e^{-i\omega t}\hat{a}+{\bf
E}^{*}_{0}u^{*}({\bf r})e^{i\omega t}\hat{a}^{\dagger}\,,$ (12)

where $u({\bf r})$ is the spatial mode function. Let this mode be prepared in
the coherent state $|\alpha\rangle$. We can transform into the vacuum picture
by acting on the state with the unitary operator
$\hat{D}^{\dagger}(\alpha)=\hat{D}(-\alpha)$, which leaves the field mode in
its vacuum state, $|0\rangle$. To keep the physical situation unchanged we
need, also, to transform the operators
$\hat{O}\rightarrow\hat{D}^{\dagger}(\alpha)\hat{O}\hat{D}(\alpha)$. For our
electric field operator, this transformation produces the operator

$\hat{D}^{\dagger}(\alpha)\hat{\bf E}\hat{D}(\alpha)=\hat{\bf E}+{\bf
E}_{0}u({\bf r})e^{-i\omega t}\alpha+{\bf E}^{*}_{0}u^{*}({\bf r})e^{i\omega
t}\alpha^{*}\,,$ (13)

which is a superposition of the electric field operator and a classical field
with an amplitude proportional to $\alpha$. The passive optical elements leave
the vacuum field unchanged; zero photons in leads to zero photons out, and the
c-number amplitudes behave as do the amplitudes in the classical theory. It
follows that a coherent state input into our interferometer behaves in
precisely the same manner as the field amplitude in the classical theory.

The final step is to note that in the number-state expansion of the coherent
state, the single-photon probability amplitude is proportional to $\alpha$,
with the amplitude for higher photon numbers varying as $\alpha^{n}$. It
follows that the single-photon probability amplitude evolves on passage
through an interferometer in the same manner as the amplitude $\alpha$ and,
therefore, as does the field in the classical description. This completes our
proof that in an interferometer with single photon input, the probability
amplitude associated with any given path through the device behaves precisely
as does the amplitude of a classical field.

The simplest way to state the equivalence is that the coherent amplitude for a
coherent state, $\alpha$, behaves in the same way as does a classical field
amplitude. For a single photon, $\alpha$ is also the probability amplitude and
the detection probability is proportional to $|\alpha|^{2}$, as is the
intensity in a classical treatment.

##  IV Limitations

It is important not to push the above idea too far. What we have established
is an equivalence between the probabilities for single detection events at the
outputs of a single-photon device with the corresponding intensity measured in
the same interferometer with a laser input. We consider two quantum
interference phenomena that are not obtainable classically. These are photon
antibunching and two-photon interference in the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect, both of
which reveal themselves in the correlations between pairs of detectors.

###  IV.1 Photon antibunching

If we have just a single photon, then it cannot be detected in two separate
detectors. This means that if we place a detector in each of the outputs from
our beam splitter in Figure 1 and send a single photon in one of the input
arms then we can only get a detection event in one of the two detectors. The
transmission and reflection coefficients tell us the probability that the
photons is transmitted or reflected and then is detected in the corresponding
detector. This feature, as we have seen, is reproduced in the classical
theory.

In the classical theory if $\alpha$ is the input field amplitude then the
probability that a detection event occurs in both detectors is proportional to
$|t|^{2}|r|^{2}|\alpha|^{4}$. More precisely, the probability of detecting
light in both output detectors is always at least as big as the product of the
probabilities for detections at the individual detectors, and the
anticorrelation between detection events found for a single photon input
cannot be reproduced in the classical theory.

The anticorrelation is crucial to the demonstration of single-photon
interference. Note that the first attempt to produce single-photon
interference was probably that by Taylor in 1909, who employed a heavily
attenuated light source and very long exposure times (up to three months) in
an attempt to determine, through the loss of visibility, the size of light
quanta Taylor . We now know, as shown above, that this experiment could only
produce interference fringes however faint the input light. To demonstrate
true single-photon interference one needs a truly single-photon source and a
means of verifying this property. This was achieved nearly eighty years after
Taylor’s work Alain ; GilbertBook . A cascade emission provided a herald that
a second photon was about to be emitted and this entered either an
interferometer or a beam splitter followed by two detectors. The observation
of high visibility fringes in the interferometer but near perfect
anticorrelation in the two detectors following the beam splitter finally
confirmed the quantum prediction, noted by Dirac, that each photon interferes
only with itself.

###  IV.2 Two-photon interference

In a now classic experiment, Hong, Ou and Mandel showed that if a pair of
indistinguishable photons are incident on a beam splitter, with one photon in
each arm, then the output modes tend to produce an anticorrelation, with
detections in both detectors suppressed. It is straightforward to confirm this
using the relationships. In Equation (3), between the input and output modes:

$\displaystyle\hat{a}_{1}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{2}^{\dagger}|0\rangle$
$\displaystyle=(t\hat{b}_{1}^{\dagger}+r\hat{b}_{2}^{\dagger})(r\hat{b}_{1}^{\dagger}+t\hat{b}_{2}^{\dagger})|0\rangle$
$\displaystyle=\left[tr(\hat{b}_{1}^{\dagger 2}+\hat{b}_{2}^{\dagger
2})+(t^{2}+r^{2})\hat{b}_{1}^{\dagger}\hat{b}_{2}^{\dagger}\right]|0\rangle\,.$
(14)

Finding a photon in each output mode is suppressed owing to the phase
relationship between $t$ and $r$ footnote , but the probability for finding
two photons both in each of the output modes are equal. If the beam splitter
is balanced so that $|t|^{2}=\frac{1}{2}=|r|^{2}$, then the coefficient of the
two photon state $\hat{b}_{1}^{\dagger}\hat{b}_{2}^{\dagger}|0\rangle$ is zero
and the two photons are never found in different detectors MW ; HOM .

This feature, which like antibunching depends on correlated detections or
their absence, cannot be reproduced in the classical theory or, what comes to
the same thing, with coherent states. To see this it suffices to consider the
two-photon component of input coherent states. Let the two input modes be
prepared in the coherent states $|\alpha_{1}\rangle$ and $|\alpha_{2}\rangle$.
It follows that the two-photon component of the state is

$\displaystyle|\psi\rangle$
$\displaystyle=\frac{\alpha_{1}^{2}}{\sqrt{2}}|2\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}+\alpha_{1}\alpha_{2}|1\rangle_{1}|1\rangle_{2}+\frac{\alpha_{2}^{2}}{\sqrt{2}}|0\rangle_{1}|2\rangle_{2}$
$\displaystyle=\left(\frac{\alpha_{1}^{2}}{2}\hat{a}_{1}^{\dagger
2}+\alpha_{1}\alpha_{2}\hat{a}_{1}^{\dagger}\hat{a}_{2}^{\dagger}+\frac{\alpha_{2}^{2}}{2}\hat{a}_{2}^{\dagger
2}\right)|0\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}\,.$ (15)

The corresponding (unnormalised) state of the output modes is

$|\psi\rangle=\frac{1}{2}\left[(\alpha_{1}t+\alpha_{2}r)\hat{b}_{1}^{\dagger}+(\alpha_{1}r+\alpha_{2}t)\hat{b}_{2}^{\dagger}\right]^{2}|0\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}\,.$
(16)

The only way to remove the correlations between the two detectors, that is to
set the coefficient of
$\hat{b}_{1}^{\dagger}\hat{b}_{2}^{\dagger}|0\rangle_{1}|0\rangle_{2}$ equal
to zero, is to set either $\alpha_{1}t+\alpha_{2}r$ or
$\alpha_{1}r+\alpha_{2}t$ to be zero. In this case there is perfect
interference between the coherent state amplitudes and all of the light goes
into a just one of the two output modes. This is in sharp contrast to the
behaviour of two single photons, noted above, in which correlations between
the two detectors are suppressed, but the two photons are equally likely to be
found in either output mode.

##  V Conclusion

It has long been recognised that single-photon interference experiments
behave, essentially, in the same way as those performed with far more intense
fields such as those generated by a laser. At the heart of this is the
familiar statement by Dirac that “each photon then interferes only with
itself” Dirac . Our aim in writing this paper is to explore precisely why this
is so. We have found that, as is often the case in quantum optics, the
coherent states provide a natural way of linking single photon (quantum)
behaviour with that of laser-light (classical) behaviour. The key idea is that
the complex amplitude, $\alpha$, associated with a coherent state behaves in
precisely the same manner as does the classical, c-number, amplitude in the
quantum theory of interference. Moreover, this same amplitude is that of the
single photon component of the coherent state.

It is important to appreciate that there are limitations to the association
between single-photon and classical interference. In particular we are limited
to devices constructed from passive linear optical elements as these conserve
the photon number. The forms of measurement are also restricted; we can
compare single-photon detection events only, that is the probabilities for
detecting the single photon at any given detector, and compare these with the
fraction of the intensity recorded in the same output port in the classical
treatment. It is by observing the correlations between pairs of detectors (or
more) that quantum effects become apparent. We presented two classic examples
of this: anticorrelation at a pair of detectors in the single photon regime
and two-photon interference in the classical Hong-Ou-Mandel experiment.

We have concentrated exclusively on passive linear optical elements and by
doing so have found a very general equivalence between the behaviour of
single-photon and classical behaviours. This does not mean, however, that such
an equivalence will never hold in devices that include nonlinear optical
elements. One important example is a recent realisation of quantum
teleportation in which the state to be teleported is encoded first on a laser
field and is then teleported to a distant single photon Bereneice . One
nonlinear optical process produces a pair of entangled photons as is often the
starting point in a teleportation experiment QI . The comparison step is
achieved by a frequency conversion arrangement in which one of the entangled
photons (the local photon) interacts with the laser field to produce a new
photon carrying information from both the previously entangled photon and the
laser field. The teleportation may be viewed as the transfer of the state of
one of the laser photons to the distant and previously entangled photon. As
with single photon interference, this laser-based teleportation does not share
all of the features of a single-photon teleportation; it cannot teleport
entanglement for example. It does, nevertheless, transfer the state of the
laser photons to the distant photon and it does this without using knowledge
of the state of the laser photons and this, of course, is the key feature of
quantum teleportation.

###### Acknowledgements.

It is a pleasure to dedicate this work to my old friend and regular
collaborator Igor Jex, from whom I have learnt so much and had so much
pleasure in the process. I thank Jacquiline Romero and Jonathan Leach for
asking the questions that led me to re-explore the issues discussed in this
paper. I thank the Royal Society for the award of a Research Professorship
(RP150122).

## References

## References

  * (1) Burnham D C and Weinberg D L 1970 Observation os simultaneity in parametric production of optical photon pairs Phys. Rev. Lett. 25 84–87
  * (2) Friberg S, Hong C K and Mandel L 1985 Measurement of time delays in the parametric production of photon pairs Phys. Rev. Lett. 54 2011–2013
  * (3) Mandel L and Wolf E 1995 Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
  * (4) Phoenix S J D and Townsend P D 1995 Quantum cryptography: how to beat the code breakers using quantum mechanics Contemp. Phys. 36 165–195
  * (5) Scarani V, Bechmann-Pasquinucci H, Cerf N J, Dušek M, Lütkenhaus N and Peev M 2009 The security of practical quantum key distribution Rev. Mod. Phys. 81 1301–1350
  * (6) Barnett S M and Croke S 2008 Quantum state discrimination Adv. Opt. Photon. 1 238–278
  * (7) Schreiber A, Cassemiro K N, Potoček V, Gábris A, Mosley P J, Andersson E, Jex I and Silberhorn C 2010 Photons walking the line: a quantum walk with adjustable coin operations Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 050502
  * (8) Goswami K and Romero J 2020 Experiments on quantum causality AVS Quantum Sci 2 037101
  * (9) Glauber R J 1966 Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation field Phys. Rev. 131 2766–2788
  * (10) Klauder J R and Sudarshan E C G 1968 Fundamentals of Quantum Optics (New York: W A Benjamin Inc)
  * (11) Glauber R J 2007 Quantum Theory of Optical Coherence (Weinheim: Wiley-VCH)
  * (12) Loudon R 2000 The Quantum Theory of Light 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
  * (13) Grangier P, Roger G and Aspect A 1986 Experimental evidence for a photon anticorrelation effect on a beam splitter: a new light on single-photon interferences Europhys. Lett. 1 173–179
  * (14) Hong C K, Ou Z Y and Mandel L 1987 Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by interference Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 2044–2046
  * (15) Dirac P A M 1958 The Principles of Quantum Mechanics 4th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
  * (16) Loudon R 1973 The Quantum Theory of Light 1st ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
  * (17) Paul H 2004 Introduction to Quantum Optics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
  * (18) Barnett S M and Radmore P M 1997 Methods in Theoretical Quantum Optics (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
  * (19) Glauber R J 1966 Classical behavior of systems of quantum oscillators Phys. Lett. 21 650–652
  * (20) Barnett S M 2018 Schrödinger picture analysis of the beam splitter: an application of the Janszky representation J. Russ. Laser Res. 39 340–348
  * (21) Mollow B R 1975 Pure-state analysis of resonant light scattering: radiative damping, saturation, and multiphoton effects Phys. Rev. A 12 1919–1943
  * (22) Samson R and Ben-Reuven A 1975 The external field approximation in quantum optics Chem. Phys. Lett. 36 523–526
  * (23) Pegg D T 1980 Atomic spectroscopy: interaction of atoms with coherent fields, in Laser Physics Walls D F and Harvey J D eds. (Sydney: Academic Press)
  * (24) Knight P L and Radmore P M 1982 Quantum origin of dephasing and revivals in the coherent-state Jaynes-Cummings model Phys. Rev. A 26 676–679
  * (25) Taylor G I 1909 Interference fringes with feeble light Proc. Cam. Phil. Soc. 15 114–115: Reprinted in Knight P L and Allen L 1983 Concepts of Quantum Optics (Oxford: Pergamon Press)
  * (26) Grynberg G, Aspect A and Fabre C 2010 Introduction to Quantum Optics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
  * (27) This follows on writing  $\displaystyle t^{2}+r^{2}=t^{2}\left[1+\frac{|r|^{2}}{|t|^{2}}\exp[i\arg(t^{*2}r^{2})]\right]=\left[|t|^{2}-|r|^{2}\right]\exp[i\arg(t^{2})]\,.$
  * (28) Sephton B, Vallés A, Nape I, Cox M A, Steinlechner F, Konrad T, Torres J P, Roux F S and Forbes A 2022 High-dimensional spatial teleportation enabled by nonlinear optics arXiv:2111.13624
  * (29) Barnett S M 2009 Quantum Information (Oxford: Oxford University Press)