Abstract
We propose how to achieve quantum nonreciprocity via unconventional photon blockade (UPB) in a compound device consisting of an optical harmonic resonator and a spinning optomechanical resonator. We show that, even with very weak single-photon nonlinearity, nonreciprocal UPB can emerge in this system, i.e., strong photon antibunching can emerge only by driving the device from one side but not from the other side. This nonreciprocity results from the Fizeau drag, leading to different splitting of the resonance frequencies for the optical counter-circulating modes. Such quantum nonreciprocal devices can be particularly useful in achieving back-action-free quantum sensing or chiral photonic communications.
© 2019 Chinese Laser Press
1. INTRODUCTION
Photon blockade (PB) [1–5], i.e., the generation of the first photon in a nonlinear cavity, diminishes to almost zero the probability of generating another photon in the cavity; it plays a key role in single-photon control for quantum technology applications nowadays [6–8]. In experiments, PB has been demonstrated in cavity-QED or circuit-QED systems [4,5,9–12]. It has also been predicted in various nonlinear optical systems [13–15] and optomechanical (OM) devices [16–20]. Conventional PB occurs under the stringent condition of strong single-photon nonlinearities, which is highly challenging in practice.
To overcome this obstacle, coupled-resonator systems, with destructive interferences of different dissipative pathways [21–24], have been proposed to achieve unconventional PB (UPB) even for arbitrarily weak nonlinearities [23–37]. UPB provides a powerful tool to generate optimally sub-Poissonian light and also a way to reveal quantum correlations in weakly nonlinear devices [33,34]. Recently, UPB was demonstrated experimentally in coupled optical [36] or superconducting resonators [37].
It should be stressed that PB and UPB are very different phenomena, and, thus, their nonreciprocal generalizations are different as well. Indeed PB refers to a process where a single photon is blocking the entry (or generation) of more photons in a strongly nonlinear cavity. Thus, PB refers to state truncation, also referred to as nonlinear quantum scissors [38,39]. PB can be used as a source of single photons, since the PB light is sub-Poissonian (or photon antibunched) in second and higher orders, as characterized by the correlation functions for . By contrast to PB, UPB refers to the light that is optimally sub-Poissonian in the second order, , and is generated in a weakly nonlinear system allowing multi-path interference (e.g., two linearly coupled cavities, when one of them is also weakly coupled to a two-level atom). Thus, PB and UPB are induced by different effects: PB due to a large system nonlinearity and UPB via multipath interference even assuming extremely weak system nonlinearity. Note that light generated via UPB can exhibit higher-order super-Poissonian photon-number statistics, for some . Thus, UPB is, in general, not a good source of single photons. This short comparison of PB and UPB indicates that the term UPB, as coined in Ref. [40] and now commonly accepted, is fundamentally different from PB, concerning their physical mechanisms and the properties of the light generated in them.
Here, we propose achieving and controlling nonreciprocal UPB with spinning devices. Nonreciprocal devices allow the flow of light from one side but block it from the other. Thus, such devices can be applied in noise-free quantum information signal processing and quantum communication for canceling interfering signals [41]. Nonreciprocal optical devices have been realized in OM devices [41–43], Kerr resonators [44–46], thermo systems [47–49], devices with temporal modulation [50,51], and non-Hermitian systems [52–54]. In a very recent experiment [55], 99.6% optical isolation was achieved in a spinning resonator based on the optical Sagnac effect. By using the spinning resonators, optomechanically induced transparency [56] and ultrasensitive nanoparticle sensing [57] have also been studied. However, these studies have mainly focused on the classical regimes, i.e., unidirectional control of transmission rates instead of quantum noises. We also note that in recent works, single-photon diodes [58–60], unidirectional quantum amplifiers [61–65], and one-way quantum routers [66] have been explored. In particular, nonreciprocal PB was predicted in a Kerr resonator [67] or a quadratic OM system [68], which, however, relies on the conventional condition of strong single-photon nonlinearity. These quantum nonreciprocal devices have potential applications for quantum control of light chiral and topological quantum technologies [69].
We also note that coupled-cavity systems have been studied extensively in experiments [37,70–72], providing a unique way to achieve not only UPB, but also phonon laser [72–76], slow light [77], and force sensing [70,71,78]. Here, we study nonreciprocal UPB in a coupled system with an optical harmonic cavity and a spinning OM resonator. We find that, by the spinning of an OM resonator, UPB can emerge nonreciprocally even with weak single-photon nonlinearity; that is, strongly antibunched photons can emerge only when the device is driven from one side but not the other side. Our work opens up a new route to engineer quantum chiral UPB devices, which can have practical applications in achieving, for example, photonic diodes or circulators, and nonreciprocal quantum communications at the few-photon level.
2. MODEL AND SOLUTIONS
We consider a compound system consisting of an optical harmonic resonator (with a resonance frequency of the cavity field and a decay rate of ) and a spinning anharmonic resonator (with a resonance frequency of the cavity field and a decay rate of ), as shown in Fig. 1. External light is coupled into and out of the resonator through a tapered fiber of frequency and these two whispering-gallery-mode resonators are evanescently coupled to each other with a coupling strength of [79]. Note that the required strong Kerr nonlinearity, (where is the cavity linewidth), in the previous proposal [67] is challenging for the current experiments. Here, we can use an experimentally feasible Kerr-nonlinear strength to realize nonreciprocal PB, i.e., [37], which is two orders of magnitude smaller than that in the former work [67]. Weak Kerr couplings can be achieved in cavity-atom systems [80], magnon devices [81], and OM systems [82], on which we focus here. We consider a weak OM coupling strength () in an auxiliary cavity that is well within the current experimental abilities [83–85]. In a spinning resonator, the refractive indices associated with the clockwise () and anticlockwise () optical modes are given as , where is the tangential velocity with an angular velocity of and radius [55]. For light propagating in the spinning resonator, the optical mode experiences a Fizeau shift [86], that is, , with
where is the optical resonance frequency of the nonspinning OM resonator, () is the speed (wavelength) of light in vacuum, and is the refractive index of the cavity. The dispersion term , characterizing the relativistic origin of the Sagnac effect, is relatively small in typical materials () [55,86]. For convenience, we always assume counterclockwise rotation of the resonator. Hence, denote light propagating against () and along () the direction of the spinning OM resonator, respectively.In a rotating frame with respect to , the effective Hamiltonian of the system can be written as (see Appendix A for more details)
where () and () are the photon annihilation (creation) operators for the cavity modes of the optical cavity (denoted with the subscript ) and the OM cavity (denoted with the subscript ), respectively. () is the annihilation (creation) operator for the mechanical mode of the OM cavity. The frequency detuning between the cavity field in the left (right) cavity and the driving field is denoted as , where . The parameter denotes the strength of the photon hopping interaction between the two cavity modes, and describes the radiation-pressure coupling between the optical and vibrative modes in the OM resonator with frequency and effective mass . denotes the driving strength that is coupled into the compound system through the optical fiber waveguide with a cavity loss rate of and driving power .The Heisenberg equations of motion of the system are then written as
where and are dimensionless canonical position and momentum, with and , respectively. and , and () is the dissipation rate and () is the quality factor of the left (right) cavity. is the damping rate with the quality factor of the mechanical mode. Moreover, is the zero-mean Brownian stochastic operator, , resulting from the coupling of the mechanical resonator with the corresponding thermal environment and satisfying the correlation function [87] where is effective temperature of the environment of the mechanical resonator, and is the Boltzmann constant. The annihilation operators and are, respectively, the input vacuum noise operators of the optical cavity and the OM cavity with zero mean value, i.e., , and they comply with the time-domain correlation functions [88,89] for . Because the whole system interacts with a low-temperature environment (here we consider 0.1 mK), we neglect the mean thermal photon numbers at optical frequencies in the two cavities. In order to linearize the dynamics around the steady state of the system, we expend the operators as the sum of its steady-state mean values and a small fluctuation with zero mean value around it; that is, , , , and . By neglecting higher-order terms, , the linearized equations of the fluctuation terms can be written as These equations can be solved in the frequency domain (see Appendix B). In particular, we find where and where we introduced the auxiliary functions3. NONRECIPROCAL OPTICAL CORRELATIONS
Now, we focus on the statistical properties of photons in an optical cavity, which are described quantitatively via the normalized zero-time-delay second-order correlation function [29,89]. By taking the semi-classical approximation, i.e., , the correlation function can be given as [29]
where , , and .From Eq. (8), the correlation between and can be calculated as
where To obtain more accurate results, we introduce the density operator and numerically calculate the normalized zero-time-delay second-order correlation by the Lindblad master equation [90]: where are the Lindblad super-operators [89], for , , , and , and is the mean thermal phonon number of the mechanical mode at temperature .The second-order correlation function is shown in Fig. 2 as a function of optical detuning and angular velocity . We assume and and use experimentally feasible parameters [53,83,91–95], that is, , , , , , and . is typically [92,94,95], is typically [83,91,92] in optical microresonators, and [36,37] was achieved experimentally. can be adjusted by changing the distance of the double resonators [72]. In a recent experiment, autocorrelation measurements ranging from to 2 were achieved with an average fidelity of 0.998 in a photon-number-resolving detector [96]. Moreover, we set , which is experimentally feasible. The resonator with a radius of can spin at an angular velocity of [55]. Using a levitated OM system [97,98], can be increased even up to GHz values.
Our analytical results agree well with the numerical one. In the case of a nonspinning resonator, as shown in Fig. 2(a), is reciprocal regardless of the direction of the driving light, and always has a dip at and a peak at , corresponding to strong photon antibunching and photon bunching, respectively [29]. The physical origin of the strong photon antibunching is the destructive interference between the direct and indirect paths of two-photon excitations, i.e.,
In contrast, for a spinning device, exhibits giant nonreciprocity, which can be seen in Fig. 2(b). The PB can be generated, i.e., , for , whereas it is significantly suppressed, i.e., , for ; this can be seen more clearly in Fig. 2(c). Nonreciprocal UPB induced by the Fizeau light-dragging effect, with difference in up to two orders of magnitude for opposite directions, can be achieved even with weak nonlinearity and, to our knowledge, has not been studied previously. Furthermore, in Fig. 2(b), we use two sets of parameters for solid (case 1) and dashed curves (case 2), respectively. It can be seen that nonreciprocity still exists in a parameter range closer to that in the experiment.Since the anharmonicity of the system is very small, destructive quantum interference (rather than anharmonicity) is responsible for observing strong photon antibunching (referred to as UPB) and photon bunching (referred to as photon-induced tunneling) in the spinning devices, as shown in Fig. 1 and confirmed by our analytical calculations. Note that the role of complete (incomplete) destructive quantum interference is the same in both spinning and non-spinning UPB systems, and, thus, we refer to Ref. [24] where this interference-based mechanism was first explained in detail. Spinning the OM resonator results in different Fizeau drag for the counter-circulating whispering-gallery modes of the resonator. By driving the system from the left-hand side, direct excitation from state to state will be forbidden by destructive quantum interference with the indirect paths of two-photon excitations, leading to photon antibunching. In contrast, photon bunching occurs when the system is driven from the right side, due to lack of complete destructive quantum interference between the indicated levels [99]. Increasing the angular velocity results in an opposing frequency shift of for light coming from opposite directions. also shifts linearly with , but with different directions for and ; that is, we observe either a blue shift [see Fig. 3(a)] or a red shift [see Fig. 3(b)] with or , respectively. A highly tunable nonreciprocal UPB device is thus achievable, by flexible tuning of and . In addition, since is sensitive to , this may also indicate a way for accurate measurements of velocity.
4. OPTIMAL PARAMETERS FOR STRONG ANTIBUNCHING
As discussed above, UPB can be generated nonreciprocally. In this section, we analytically derive the optimal conditions for strong antibunching. Here we apply the method described in Ref. [24], which is based on the evolution of a complex non-Hermitian Hamiltonian, as given in Appendix C. Thus, our solution corresponds to only a semi-classical approximation of the solution of the quantum master equation, given in Eq. (15), where the terms corresponding to quantum jumps are ignored.
Since the phonon states can be decoupled from the photon states by using the unitary operator , the states of the system can be expressed as , where and are the photon states and phonon states, respectively. Under the weak-driving condition, we make the ansatz [24]
and consider that for , , and the condition of ; the optimal conditions are given by fixing and (see Appendix C): the signal function , , and , which are defined in Appendix C, are related to the Fizeau drag . Physically, this means that the position of the minimum of is determined by the detuning between the two cavity fields. Thus, can lead to a shift of the minimum of to achieve nonreciprocity.In order to visualize UPB more clearly, we show the contour plots of in logarithmic scale [i.e., ] as a function of and in Fig. 4(a). By fixing , we obtain the function of in logarithmic scale versus the coupling strengths and of the resonators, as shown in Fig. 4(b). These plots show that strong photon antibunching occurs exactly at the values predicted by our analytical calculations in Eq. (17). Moreover, by computing as a function of and with different mean thermal phonon numbers th, as shown in Fig. 5, we confirm that rotation-induced nonreciprocity can still exist by considering thermal phonon noises. We note that thermal phonons greatly affect the correlation of photons and tend to destroy PB. Thus, to show this effect, in Fig. 6(a) we plot the correlation as a function of temperature for various Fizeau shifts. We see that nonreciprocal UPB can be observed below the critical temperature (5 mK) for the spinning frequency of () [see Fig. 6(b)]. By further increasing the optical dissipation of the OM cavity, as shown in Fig. 6(d), the critical temperature can be made to reach a value of 10 mK.
Finally, we note that a state (generated via UPB or another effect) with vanishing (or almost vanishing) second-order photon-number correlations, , is not necessarily a good single-photon source, i.e., the state might not be a (partially incoherent) superposition of only the vacuum and single-photon states. A good single-photon source is characterized not only by , but also by vanishing higher-order photon-number correlation functions, for . In UPB, for can be greater than , or even greater than 1 [100]. Indeed, a standard analytical method for analyzing UPB, as proposed by Bamba et al. [24] and applied here, is based on expanding the wave function of a two-resonator system in the power series up to the terms () only, as given in Eq. (16). To obtain the optimal system parameters, which minimize in UPB, this method requires setting as set in Appendix C. Actually, the same expansion of and the same ansatz are made in Ref. [24]. These assumptions imply that higher-order correlation functions with vanish too. However, the truncation of the above expansion at the terms is often not justified for a system exhibiting UPB. Indeed, we find parameters for our system for which and, simultaneously, . We have confirmed this by precise numerical calculation of the steady states of our system based on the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian, given in Eq. (C1), in a Hilbert space larger than .
5. CONCLUSIONS
In summary, we studied nonreciprocal UPB in a system consisting of a purely optical resonator and a spinning OM resonator. Due to interference between two-photon excitation paths and the Sagnac effect, UPB can be generated nonreciprocally in our system; that is, UPB can occur when the system is driven from one direction but not from the other, even under weak OM interactions. The optimal conditions for one-way UPB were presented analytically. Moreover, we found that this quantum nonreciprocity can still exist by considering thermal phonon noises.
Concerning a possible experimental implementation of nonreciprocal UPB, it is worth noting that UPB for non-spinning devices has already been demonstrated experimentally in two recent works [36,37]. A number of experiments (including a very recent work [55]) have shown nonreciprocal quantum effects in spinning devices. So the main experimental task for achieving nonreciprocal UPB in a spinning device would be to combine the experimental setups of, e.g., Refs. [36,37,55] into a single spinning UPB setup.
Our proposal provides a feasible method to control the behavior of one-way photons, with potential applications in achieving, e.g., photonic diodes or circulators, quantum chiral communications, and nonreciprocal light engineering in the deep quantum regime.
APPENDIX A: DERIVATION OF EFFECTIVE HAMILTONIAN
The coupled system can be described by the Hamiltonian
where () and () are the photon annihilation (creation) operators for the cavity modes of the optical cavity (denoted with the subscript ) and the OM cavity (denoted with the subscript ), respectively. () is the annihilation (creation) operator for the mechanical mode of the OM cavity. The frequencies of the cavity fields are denoted with and . is the coupling strength between the two resonators, and is the OM coupling strength between the optical mode and the mechanical mode in the OM cavity. denotes the driving strength that is coupled into the compound system through the optical fiber waveguide.Using the unitary operator for the Hamiltonian (A1), we obtain a Kerr-type Hamiltonian [82]
where . Under the conditions and , the Hamiltonian (A2) can be read asAPPENDIX B: FOURIER ANALYSIS OF FLUCTUATION TERMS
According to the Heisenberg equations of motion of Hamiltonian (2), and using the semi-classical approximation method, i.e., , , , and , the steady-state values of the system satisfy the equations
Then we obtain where The fluctuation terms of the system can be written as where we have neglected higher-order terms, . Here, the steady-state mean value is numerically solved from Eqs. (B2) and (B3).By introducing the Fourier transform to the fluctuation equations, we find
where ; then we obtain where Substituting Eq. (B6) into Eq. (B5), we have where According to Eq. (B5), we obtain then we have where From Eq. (B10), we have where . Substituting Eq. (B13) into Eq. (B11), we find where . Substituting Eq. (B14) into Eq. (B8), we obtain where the auxiliary function is . Substituting Eq. (B15) into Eq. (B5), we have where Then we find According to similar calculations, we find Using the Fourier transform, we obtain andAPPENDIX C: DERIVATION OF OPTIMAL PARAMETERS
According to the quantum-trajectory method [101], the non-Hermitian Hamiltonian of the system containing the optical decay and mechanical damping terms is given by [101]
where .Under the weak-driving conditions, we can make the ansatz [24]
Then we substitute the Hamiltonian [Eq. (C1)] and the general state [Eq. (C2)] into the Schrödinger equation and then we have where the auxiliary functions are and , and we have ignored the effects of the mechanical model because the phonon states are decoupled from the photon states [see Eq. (C1)]. By comparing the coefficients, we have Then the steady-state coefficients of the one- and two-particle states are given as and where we have introduced the dissipative terms (proportional to and ) and neglected the higher-order terms, as justified under the weak-driving conditions.When we consider , , , and the condition of , we have
By eliminating , we obtain where then we find the optimal conditions where andFunding
National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (11474087, 11774086).
REFERENCES
1. L. Tian and H. J. Carmichael, “Quantum trajectory simulations of two-state behavior in an optical cavity containing one atom,” Phys. Rev. A 46, R6801–R6804 (1992). [CrossRef]
2. W. Leoński and R. Tanaś, “Possibility of producing the one-photon state in a kicked cavity with a nonlinear Kerr medium,” Phys. Rev. A 49, R20–R23 (1994). [CrossRef]
3. A. Imamoḡlu, H. Schmidt, G. Woods, and M. Deutsch, “Strongly interacting photons in a nonlinear cavity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1467–1470 (1997). [CrossRef]
4. K. M. Birnbaum, A. Boca, R. Miller, A. D. Boozer, T. E. Northup, and H. J. Kimble, “Photon blockade in an optical cavity with one trapped atom,” Nature (London) 436, 87–90 (2005). [CrossRef]
5. K. Müller, A. Rundquist, K. A. Fischer, T. Sarmiento, K. G. Lagoudakis, Y. A. Kelaita, C. S. Muñoz, E. del Valle, F. P. Laussy, and J. Vučković, “Coherent generation of nonclassical light on chip via detuned photon blockade,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 233601 (2015). [CrossRef]
6. X. Gu, A. F. Kockum, A. Miranowicz, Y.-X. Liu, and F. Nori, “Microwave photonics with superconducting quantum circuits,” Phys. Rep. 718–719, 1–102 (2017). [CrossRef]
7. V. Scarani, H. Bechmann-Pasquinucci, N. J. Cerf, M. Dušek, N. Lütkenhaus, and M. Peev, “The security of practical quantum key distribution,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1301–1350 (2009). [CrossRef]
8. I. Buluta, S. Ashhab, and F. Nori, “Natural and artificial atoms for quantum computation,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 74, 104401 (2011). [CrossRef]
9. T. Peyronel, O. Firstenberg, Q.-Y. Liang, S. Hofferberth, A. V. Gorshkov, T. Pohl, M. D. Lukin, and V. Vuletić, “Quantum nonlinear optics with single photons enabled by strongly interacting atoms,” Nature (London) 488, 57–60 (2012). [CrossRef]
10. C. Lang, D. Bozyigit, C. Eichler, L. Steffen, J. M. Fink, A. A. Abdumalikov, M. Baur, S. Filipp, M. P. da Silva, A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, “Observation of resonant photon blockade at microwave frequencies using correlation function measurements,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 243601 (2011). [CrossRef]
11. A. J. Hoffman, S. J. Srinivasan, S. Schmidt, L. Spietz, J. Aumentado, H. E. Türeci, and A. A. Houck, “Dispersive photon blockade in a superconducting circuit,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 053602 (2011). [CrossRef]
12. A. Faraon, I. Fushman, D. Englund, N. Stoltz, P. Petroff, and J. Vučković, “Coherent generation of non-classical light on a chip via photon-induced tunnelling and blockade,” Nat. Phys. 4, 859–863 (2008). [CrossRef]
13. S. Ferretti, L. C. Andreani, H. E. Türeci, and D. Gerace, “Photon correlations in a two-site nonlinear cavity system under coherent drive and dissipation,” Phys. Rev. A 82, 013841 (2010). [CrossRef]
14. J.-Q. Liao and C. K. Law, “Correlated two-photon transport in a one-dimensional waveguide side-coupled to a nonlinear cavity,” Phys. Rev. A 82, 053836 (2010). [CrossRef]
15. A. Miranowicz, M. Paprzycka, Y.-X. Liu, J. Bajer, and F. Nori, “Two-photon and three-photon blockades in driven nonlinear systems,” Phys. Rev. A 87, 023809 (2013). [CrossRef]
16. P. Rabl, “Photon blockade effect in optomechanical systems,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 063601 (2011). [CrossRef]
17. A. Nunnenkamp, K. Børkje, and S. M. Girvin, “Single-photon optomechanics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 063602 (2011). [CrossRef]
18. J.-Q. Liao and F. Nori, “Photon blockade in quadratically coupled optomechanical systems,” Phys. Rev. A 88, 023853 (2013). [CrossRef]
19. H. Xie, G.-W. Lin, X. Chen, Z.-H. Chen, and X.-M. Lin, “Single-photon nonlinearities in a strongly driven optomechanical system with quadratic coupling,” Phys. Rev. A 93, 063860 (2016). [CrossRef]
20. C. Zhai, R. Huang, B. Li, H. Jing, and L.-M. Kuang, “Mechanical engineering of photon blockades in a cavity optomechanical system,” arXiv:1901.07654 (2019).
21. W. Leoński and A. Miranowicz, “Kerr nonlinear coupler and entanglement,” J. Opt. B 6, S37–S42 (2004). [CrossRef]
22. A. Miranowicz and W. Leoński, “Two-mode optical state truncation and generation of maximally entangled states in pumped nonlinear couplers,” J. Phys. B 39, 1683–1700 (2006). [CrossRef]
23. T. C. H. Liew and V. Savona, “Single photons from coupled quantum modes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 183601 (2010). [CrossRef]
24. M. Bamba, A. Imamoğlu, I. Carusotto, and C. Ciuti, “Origin of strong photon antibunching in weakly nonlinear photonic molecules,” Phys. Rev. A 83, 021802(R) (2011). [CrossRef]
25. A. Majumdar, M. Bajcsy, A. Rundquist, and J. Vučković, “Loss-enabled sub-Poissonian light generation in a bimodal nanocavity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 163601 (2012). [CrossRef]
26. S. Ferretti, V. Savona, and D. Gerace, “Optimal antibunching in passive photonic devices based on coupled nonlinear resonators,” New J. Phys. 15, 025012 (2013). [CrossRef]
27. P. Kómár, S. D. Bennett, K. Stannigel, S. J. M. Habraken, P. Rabl, P. Zoller, and M. D. Lukin, “Single-photon nonlinearities in two-mode optomechanics,” Phys. Rev. A 87, 013839 (2013). [CrossRef]
28. V. Savona, “Unconventional photon blockade in coupled optomechanical systems,” arXiv:1302.5937 (2013).
29. X.-W. Xu and Y.-J. Li, “Antibunching photons in a cavity coupled to an optomechanical system,” J. Phys. B 46, 035502 (2013). [CrossRef]
30. X.-W. Xu and Y. Li, “Strong photon antibunching of symmetric and antisymmetric modes in weakly nonlinear photonic molecules,” Phys. Rev. A 90, 033809 (2014). [CrossRef]
31. W. Zhang, Z. Y. Yu, Y. M. Liu, and Y. W. Peng, “Optimal photon antibunching in a quantum-dot-bimodal-cavity system,” Phys. Rev. A 89, 043832 (2014). [CrossRef]
32. H. Z. Shen, Y. H. Zhou, and X. X. Yi, “Tunable photon blockade in coupled semiconductor cavities,” Phys. Rev. A 91, 063808 (2015). [CrossRef]
33. H. Flayac and V. Savona, “Unconventional photon blockade,” Phys. Rev. A 96, 053810 (2017). [CrossRef]
34. H. Flayac and V. Savona, “Nonclassical statistics from a polaritonic Josephson junction,” Phys. Rev. A 95, 043838 (2017). [CrossRef]
35. F. Zhou, D.-G. Lai, and J.-Q. Liao, “Photon blockade effect in a coupled cavity system,” arXiv:1803.06642 (2018).
36. H. J. Snijders, J. A. Frey, J. Norman, H. Flayac, V. Savona, A. C. Gossard, J. E. Bowers, M. P. van Exter, D. Bouwmeester, and W. Löffler, “Observation of the unconventional photon blockade,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 043601 (2018). [CrossRef]
37. C. Vaneph, A. Morvan, G. Aiello, M. Féchant, M. Aprili, J. Gabelli, and J. Estève, “Observation of the unconventional photon blockade in the microwave domain,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 043602 (2018). [CrossRef]
38. A. Miranowicz, W. Leoński, and N. Imoto, “Quantum-optical states in finite-dimensional Hilbert space. I. General formalism,” in Modern Nonlinear Optics (Wiley, 2001), Vol. 119, pp. 195–213.
39. W. Leoński and A. Miranowicz, “Quantum-optical states in finite-dimensional Hilbert space. II. State generation,” Adv. Chem. Phys. 119, 155–193 (2003). [CrossRef]
40. I. Carusotto and C. Ciuti, “Quantum fluids of light,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 299–366 (2013). [CrossRef]
41. S. Manipatruni, J. T. Robinson, and M. Lipson, “Optical nonreciprocity in optomechanical structures,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 213903 (2009). [CrossRef]
42. Z. Shen, Y.-L. Zhang, Y. Chen, C.-L. Zou, Y.-F. Xiao, X.-B. Zou, F.-W. Sun, G.-C. Guo, and C.-H. Dong, “Experimental realization of optomechanically induced non-reciprocity,” Nat. Photonics 10, 657–661 (2016). [CrossRef]
43. N. R. Bernier, L. D. Tóth, A. Koottandavida, M. A. Ioannou, D. Malz, A. Nunnenkamp, A. K. Feofanov, and T. J. Kippenberg, “Nonreciprocal reconfigurable microwave optomechanical circuit,” Nat. Commun. 8, 604 (2017). [CrossRef]
44. Q.-T. Cao, H. Wang, C.-H. Dong, H. Jing, R.-S. Liu, X. Chen, L. Ge, Q. Gong, and Y.-F. Xiao, “Experimental demonstration of spontaneous chirality in a nonlinear microresonator,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 033907 (2017). [CrossRef]
45. L. D. Bino, J. M. Silver, M. T. M. Woodley, S. L. Stebbings, X. Zhao, and P. Del’Haye, “Microresonator isolators and circulators based on the intrinsic nonreciprocity of the Kerr effect,” Optica 5, 279–282 (2018). [CrossRef]
46. Y. Shi, Z. Yu, and S. Fan, “Limitations of nonlinear optical isolators due to dynamic reciprocity,” Nat. Photonics 9, 388–392 (2015). [CrossRef]
47. L. Fan, J. Wang, L. T. Varghese, H. Shen, B. Niu, Y. Xuan, A. M. Weiner, and M. Qi, “An all-silicon passive optical diode,” Science 335, 447–450 (2012). [CrossRef]
48. S. Zhang, Y. Hu, G. Lin, Y. Niu, K. Xia, J. Gong, and S. Gong, “Thermal-motion-induced non-reciprocal quantum optical system,” Nat. Photonics 12, 744–748 (2018). [CrossRef]
49. K. Y. Xia, F. Nori, and M. Xiao, “Cavity-free optical isolators and circulators using a chiral cross-Kerr nonlinearity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 203602 (2018). [CrossRef]
50. D. L. Sounas and A. Alù, “Non-reciprocal photonics based on time modulation,” Nat. Photonics 11, 774–783 (2017). [CrossRef]
51. C. Caloz, A. Alù, S. Tretyakov, D. Sounas, K. Achouri, and Z.-L. Deck-Léger, “Electromagnetic nonreciprocity,” Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 047001 (2018). [CrossRef]
52. N. Bender, S. Factor, J. D. Bodyfelt, H. Ramezani, D. N. Christodoulides, F. M. Ellis, and T. Kottos, “Observation of asymmetric transport in structures with active nonlinearities,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 234101 (2013). [CrossRef]
53. B. Peng, S. K. Özdemir, F. Lei, F. Monifi, M. Gianfreda, G. L. Long, S. Fan, F. Nori, C. M. Bender, and L. Yang, “Parity-time-symmetric whispering-gallery microcavities,” Nat. Phys. 10, 394–398 (2014). [CrossRef]
54. L. Chang, X. Jiang, S. Hua, C. Yang, J. Wen, L. Jiang, G. Li, G. Wang, and M. Xiao, “Parity-time symmetry and variable optical isolation in active-passive-coupled microresonators,” Nat. Photonics 8, 524–529 (2014). [CrossRef]
55. S. Maayani, R. Dahan, Y. Kligerman, E. Moses, A. U. Hassan, H. Jing, F. Nori, D. N. Christodoulides, and T. Carmon, “Flying couplers above spinning resonators generate irreversible refraction,” Nature (London) 558, 569–572 (2018). [CrossRef]
56. H. Lü, Y. Jiang, Y. Z. Wang, and H. Jing, “Optomechanically induced transparency in a spinning resonator,” Photon. Res. 5, 367–371 (2017). [CrossRef]
57. H. Jing, H. Lü, S. K. Özdemir, T. Carmon, and F. Nori, “Nanoparticle sensing with a spinning resonator,” Optica 5, 1424–1430 (2018). [CrossRef]
58. K. Y. Xia, G. W. Lu, G. W. Lin, Y. Q. Cheng, Y. P. Niu, S. Q. Gong, and J. Twamley, “Reversible nonmagnetic single-photon isolation using unbalanced quantum coupling,” Phys. Rev. A 90, 043802 (2014). [CrossRef]
59. L. Tang, J. S. Tang, W. D. Zhang, G. W. Lu, Y. Zhang, K. Y. Xia, and M. Xiao, “An on-chip chiral single-photon interface: isolation and unidirectional emission,” arXiv:1811.02957 (2018).
60. M. Scheucher, A. Hilico, E. Will, J. Volz, and A. Rauschenbeutel, “Quantum optical circulator controlled by a single chirally coupled atom,” Science 354, 1577–1580 (2016). [CrossRef]
61. B. Abdo, K. Sliwa, S. Shankar, M. Hatridge, L. Frunzio, R. Schoelkopf, and M. Devoret, “Josephson directional amplifier for quantum measurement of superconducting circuits,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 167701 (2014). [CrossRef]
62. A. Metelmann and A. A. Clerk, “Nonreciprocal photon transmission and amplification via reservoir engineering,” Phys. Rev. X 5, 021025 (2015). [CrossRef]
63. D. Malz, L. D. Tóth, N. R. Bernier, A. K. Feofanov, T. J. Kippenberg, and A. Nunnenkamp, “Quantum-limited directional amplifiers with optomechanics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 023601 (2018). [CrossRef]
64. Z. Shen, Y.-L. Zhang, Y. Chen, F.-W. Sun, X. B. Zou, G. C. Guo, C.-L. Zou, and C. H. Dong, “Reconfigurable optomechanical circulator and directional amplifier,” Nat. Commun. 9, 1797 (2018). [CrossRef]
65. A. Y. Song, Y. Shi, Q. Lin, and S. Fan, “Direction-dependent parity-time phase transition and non-reciprocal directional amplification with dynamic gain–loss modulation,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 013824 (2019). [CrossRef]
66. S. Barzanjeh, M. Aquilina, and A. Xuereb, “Manipulating the flow of thermal noise in quantum devices,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 060601 (2018). [CrossRef]
67. R. Huang, A. Miranowicz, J.-Q. Liao, F. Nori, and H. Jing, “Nonreciprocal photon blockade,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 153601 (2018). [CrossRef]
68. X.-W. Xu, Y.-J. Zhao, H. Wang, H. Jing, and A.-X. Chen, “Nonreciprocal photon blockade via quadratic optomechanical coupling,” arXiv:1809.07596 (2018).
69. P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, S. Stobbe, A. Rauschenbeutel, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, H. Pichler, and P. Zoller, “Chiral quantum optics,” Nature 541, 473–480 (2017). [CrossRef]
70. V. V. Konotop, J. K. Yang, and D. A. Zezyulin, “Nonlinear waves in PT-symmetric systems,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 035002 (2016). [CrossRef]
71. R. El-Ganainy, K. G. Makris, M. Khajavikhan, Z. H. Musslimani, S. Rotter, and D. N. Christodoulides, “Non-Hermitian physics and PT symmetry,” Nat. Phys. 14, 11–19 (2018). [CrossRef]
72. J. Zhang, B. Peng, S. K. Özdemir, K. Pichler, D. O. Krimer, G. M. Zhao, F. Nori, Y.-X. Liu, S. Rotter, and L. Yang, “A phonon laser operating at an exceptional point,” Nat. Photonics 12, 479–484 (2018). [CrossRef]
73. I. S. Grudinin, H. Lee, O. Painter, and K. J. Vahala, “Phonon laser action in a tunable two-level system,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 083901 (2010). [CrossRef]
74. H. Jing, S. K. Özdemir, X.-Y. Lü, J. Zhang, L. Yang, and F. Nori, “PT-symmetric phonon laser,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 053604 (2014). [CrossRef]
75. H. Lü, S. K. Özdemir, L.-M. Kuang, F. Nori, and H. Jing, “Exceptional points in random-defect phonon lasers,” Phys. Rev. Appl. 8, 044020 (2017). [CrossRef]
76. Y. Jiang, S. Maayani, T. Carmon, F. Nori, and H. Jing, “Nonreciprocal phonon laser,” Phys. Rev. Appl. 10, 064037 (2018). [CrossRef]
77. H. Zhang, F. Salf, Y. Jiao, and H. Jing, “Loss-induced transparency in optomechanics,” Opt. Express 26, 25199–25210 (2018). [CrossRef]
78. Z.-P. Liu, J. Zhang, S. K. Özdemir, B. Peng, H. Jing, X.-Y. Lü, C.-W. Li, L. Yang, F. Nori, and Y.-X. Liu, “Metrology with PT-symmetric cavities: enhanced sensitivity near the PT-phase transition,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 110802 (2016). [CrossRef]
79. S. M. Spillane, T. J. Kippenberg, O. J. Painter, and K. J. Vahala, “Ideality in a fiber-taper-coupled microresonator system for application to cavity quantum electrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 043902 (2003). [CrossRef]
80. H. Schmidt and A. Imamoḡlu, “Giant Kerr nonlinearities obtained by electromagnetically induced transparency,” Opt. Lett. 21, 1936–1938 (1996). [CrossRef]
81. Y.-P. Wang, G.-Q. Zhang, D. Zhang, T.-F. Li, C.-M. Hu, and J. Q. You, “Bistability of cavity magnon polaritons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 057202 (2018). [CrossRef]
82. Z. R. Gong, H. Ian, Y.-X. Liu, C. P. Sun, and F. Nori, “Effective Hamiltonian approach to the Kerr nonlinearity in an optomechanical system,” Phys. Rev. A 80, 065801 (2009). [CrossRef]
83. L. Ding, C. Baker, P. Senellart, A. Lemaitre, S. Ducci, G. Leo, and I. Favero, “Wavelength-sized GaAs optomechanical resonators with gigahertz frequency,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 98, 113108 (2011). [CrossRef]
84. H. Snijders, J. A. Frey, J. Norman, M. P. Bakker, E. C. Langman, A. Gossard, J. E. Bowers, M. P. Van Exter, D. Bouwmeester, and W. Löffler, “Purification of a single-photon nonlinearity,” Nat. Commun. 7, 12578 (2016). [CrossRef]
85. G. Enzian, M. Szczykulska, J. Silver, L. Del Bino, S. Zhang, I. A. Walmsley, P. Del’Haye, and M. R. Vanner, “Observation of Brillouin optomechanical strong coupling with an 11 GHz mechanical mode,” Optica 6, 7–14 (2019). [CrossRef]
86. G. B. Malykin, “The Sagnac effect: correct and incorrect explanations,” Phys. Usp. 43, 1229–1252 (2000). [CrossRef]
87. G. W. Ford, J. T. Lewis, and R. F. O’Connell, “Quantum Langevin equation,” Phys. Rev. A 37, 4419–4428 (1988). [CrossRef]
88. C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Quantum Noise (Springer, 2000).
89. D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Optics (Springer, 1994).
90. J. R. Johansson, P. D. Nation, and F. Nori, “Qutip 2: a Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems,” Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1234–1240 (2013). [CrossRef]
91. E. Verhagen, S. Deléglise, S. Weis, A. Schliesser, and T. J. Kippenberg, “Quantum-coherent coupling of a mechanical oscillator to an optical cavity mode,” Nature (London) 482, 63–67 (2012). [CrossRef]
92. M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, “Cavity optomechanics,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 1391–1452 (2014). [CrossRef]
93. J. D. Teufel, T. Donner, D. Li, J. W. Harlow, M. S. Allman, K. Cicak, A. J. Sirois, J. D. Whittaker, K. W. Lehnert, and R. W. Simmonds, “Sideband cooling of micromechanical motion to the quantum ground state,” Nature (London) 475, 359–363 (2011). [CrossRef]
94. K. J. Vahala, “Optical microcavities,” Nature (London) 424, 839–846 (2003). [CrossRef]
95. V. Huet, A. Rasoloniaina, P. Guillemé, P. Rochard, P. Féron, M. Mortier, A. Levenson, K. Bencheikh, A. Yacomotti, and Y. Dumeige, “Millisecond photon lifetime in a slow-light microcavity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 133902 (2016). [CrossRef]
96. J. Hloušek, M. Dudka, I. Straka, and M. Ježek, “Accurate detection of arbitrary photon statistics,” arXiv:1812.02262 (2018).
97. R. Reimann, M. Doderer, E. Hebestreit, R. Diehl, M. Frimmer, D. Windey, F. Tebbenjohanns, and L. Novotny, “GHz rotation of an optically trapped nanoparticle in vacuum,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 033602 (2018). [CrossRef]
98. J. Ahn, Z. Xu, J. Bang, Y.-H. Deng, T. M. Hoang, Q. Han, R.-M. Ma, and T. Li, “Optically levitated nanodumbbell torsion balance and GHz nanomechanical rotor,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 033603 (2018). [CrossRef]
99. F. Reiter, T. L. Nguyen, J. P. Home, and S. F. Yelin, “Cooperative breakdown of the oscillator blockade in the Dicke model,” arXiv:1807.06026 (2018).
100. M. Radulaski, K. A. Fischer, K. G. Lagoudakis, J. L. Zhang, and J. Vučković, “Photon blockade in two-emitter-cavity systems,” Phys. Rev. A 96, 011801(R) (2017). [CrossRef]
101. M. B. Plenio and P. L. Knight, “The quantum-jump approach to dissipative dynamics in quantum optics,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 101–144 (1998). [CrossRef]