format: text

text:
# Contextual Realization of the Universal Quantum Cloning Machine and of the Universal-NOT gate by Quantum Injected Optical Parametric Amplification

## I Introduction

Classical information is represented by bits which can be either 0 or 1. Quantum information is represented by quantum-bits, or ”qubits” which are two-dimensional quantum systems. A qubit unlike a classical bit can exist in a state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }>`$ that is a superposition of two orthogonal basis states $`\{|>;|>\}`$, i.e. $`|\mathrm{\Psi }>=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|>+\stackrel{~}{\beta }|>`$. The fact that qubits can exist in these superposition states gives quantum information unusual properties. Specifically, information encoded in quantum system has to obey rules of quantum physics which impose strict bounds on possible manipulations with quantum information. The common denominator of these bounds is that all quantum-mechanical transformations have to be represented by completely positive (CP) maps  which in turn impose a constraint on the fidelity of quantum-mechanical measurements. That is, an unknown state of a qubit cannot be precisely determined (or reconstructed) from a measurement performed on a finite ensemble of identically prepared qubits . In particular, the mean fidelity of the best possible (optimal) state estimation strategy based on the measurement of $`N`$ identically prepared qubits is $`F=(N+1)/(N+2)`$. One of the obvious consequences of this bound on the fidelity of estimation is that unknown states of quantum systems cannot be cloned, viz. copied perfectly , namely the perfect cloning map of the form $`|\mathrm{\Psi }>|\mathrm{\Psi }>|\mathrm{\Psi }>`$ is not permitted by the rules of quantum mechanics. Certainly if this would be possible, then one would be able to violate the bound on the fidelity of estimation. Moreover, this possibility would trigger more dramatic changes in the present picture of the physical world, e.g. it would be possible to utilize quantum nonlocality for superluminal signaling . Another map which cannot be performed perfectly on an unknown state of a qubit is the spin-flip or the universal-NOT , i.e. the operation $`|\mathrm{\Psi }>|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}>`$, where the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}>`$ is orthogonal to the original $`|\mathrm{\Psi }>`$ . Spin-flipping is indeed an anti-unitary, i.e. time reversal map $`T=i\sigma _yK`$ which realizes for any input qubit the inversion over the Bloch Sphere, as shown in Figure1. Precisely, the phase-conjugation operator $`K`$is responsible for anti-unitarity since $`K|\mathrm{\Psi }>=|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}>`$, the complex conjugate of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }>`$.

In spite of the fact that some quantum-mechanical transformations on unknown states of qubits cannot be performed perfectly one still may ask that within the given structure of quantum theory, i.e. which is linear and where all maps are CP maps , what are the best possible approximations of these maps. Namely, in the present context, what is the optimal Universal Cloning and the optimal Universal-NOT (U-NOT) gate. The universality condition is required to ensure that all unknown inputs states, i.e. all points on the Bloch Sphere, are transformed with the same ”Quantum Efficiency$`(QE)`$ viz. ”fidelity”. Investigation of these universal optimal transformations, which are also called universal quantum machines  is extremely important since it reveals bounds on optimal manipulations with quantum information. Consequently, in recent years theoretical investigation on the Universal Optimal Quantum Cloning Machine (UOQCM), and on the U-NOT gate has been very thorough. In spite all the success in the theoretical analysis of the bounds on optimal manipulations with individual qubits, it is extremely difficult to realize experimentally universal quantum machines. In the domain of quantum optics this is possible by associating a cloning machine with a photon amplification process, e.g. involving inverted atoms in a laser amplifier or a nonlinear (NL) medium in a quantum-injected optical parametric amplifier (QIOPA) . This can be done in virtue of the existing isomorphism between any logic state of a qubit and the polarization state of the photon qubit. In the case of the mode non degenerate QIOPA  it is generally supposed that $`N`$ photons, prepared identically in an arbitrary quantum state (qubit) $`|\mathrm{\Psi }>`$ of linear- polarization ($`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$) are injected into the amplifier on the input mode $`k_1`$. The amplifier then generates on the same output ”cloning mode” (C) $`M>N`$ copies, or ”clones” of the input qubit $`|\mathrm{\Psi }>`$. Correspondingly, the OPA amplifier generates on the output ”anticloning mode” (AC), $`MN`$ states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}>`$, thus realizing a quantum NOT gate.

The work is organized as follows. In Section II the general theory of quantum injected amplification is reviewed with emphasis on the dynamical conditions apt to ensure, in the present context, the universality property of the device, i.e. implying equal quantum efficiencies for any arbitrary input $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$-state. Furthermore, the multiparticle superposition state (or Schroedinger Cat state) of the amplified field on modes C and AC will be investigated on the basis of the Wigner function of the state. In Section III the achievement of the universality property will be tested experimentally by injection of a ”classical”, Glauber coherent field. Details of the overall experiment will be given in this Section. In Section IV the theory of the optimal no-cloning process and NOT gate will be outlined in a unitary and consistent fashion for the $`N=1,M=2`$ case and applied to the QIOPA scheme operating in a $`\stackrel{}{\pi }entangled`$ configuration . In Section V the experimental demonstration for both optimal processes are reported, the values of the corresponding ”fidelity” evaluated and found in good agreement with the theoretical ones . For the sake of completeness, in Section V the universality of the QIOPA apparatus will tested again under the quantum injection of a single qubit: $`N=1`$. In conclusion, Section VI will be devoted to a theoretical discussion over the inner connections existing between the two basic quantum information processes, here investigated contextually by the same overall dynamical process.

## II Quantum Injected Optical Parametric Amplifier

In the present work the quantum information carriers or qubits are assumed to represent states of polarization $`(\stackrel{}{\pi })`$, and QE is expressed by the OPA parametric ”gain”: $`g`$. Let us investigate theoretically the dynamics of the QIOPA apparatus making reference to Figure 2 and to Ref.12. The active element of the device is a Type II nonlinear (NL) crystal slab operating in non-collinear configuration. In these conditions the overall amplification taking place over the coupled electromagnetic (e.m.) modes $`k_j`$ $`(j=1,2)`$ is contributed by two equal and independent parametric amplifiers: OPA $`A`$ and OPA $`A^{^{}}`$inducing uncorrelated unitary transformations respectively on two couples of (time) t-dependent field operators $`\widehat{a}_1(t)\widehat{a}_{1h}(t),\widehat{a}_2(t)\widehat{a}_{2v}(t)`$ and $`\widehat{a}_1^{}(t)\widehat{a}_{1v}(t),\widehat{a}_2^{}(t)\widehat{a}_{2h}(t)`$ acting on the output modes $`j=1,2`$ along the horizontal (H) and vertical (V) directions in the $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$ plane. The interaction Hamiltonian may be expressed in the general form:

$$\widehat{H}_I=i\mathrm{}\chi [\widehat{A}e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }}\widehat{A}^{^{}}]+h.c.$$
(1)
where: $`\widehat{A}`$ $`\widehat{a}_1(t)\widehat{a}_2(t)`$, $`\widehat{A}^{^{}}\widehat{a}_1^{^{}}(t)\widehat{a}_2^{^{}}(t)`$, and $`g\chi t`$ is a real number expressing the amplification gain proportional to and the NL coupling term $`\chi .`$ The dynamics of OPA $`A`$ and OPA $`A^{^{}}`$ is expressed correspondingly by the mutually commuting unitary squeeze operators: $`\widehat{U}_A(t)=exp[g(\widehat{A}^{}\widehat{A})]`$ and $`\widehat{U}_A^{^{}}(t)=exp[g(e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }}\widehat{A}^{{}_{}{}^{}}e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }}\widehat{A}^{^{}})]`$ implying the following Bogoliubov transformations :

$$\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}_1(t)}{\widehat{a}_2(t)^{}}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}C& S\\ S& C\end{array}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}_1}{\widehat{a}_2^{}}\right];\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}_1^{}(t)}{\widehat{a}_2^{}(t)^{}}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}C& \stackrel{~}{S}\\ \stackrel{~}{S}^{}& C\end{array}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}_1^{}}{\widehat{a}_2^{}}\right]$$
(2)
where: $`Ccosh(g)`$, $`Ssinh(g)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{S}ϵS`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }S/C`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=ϵ\mathrm{\Gamma }`$,$`\epsilon e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }}`$and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an externally adjustable intrinsic phase existing between the $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$OPA devices. These transformations imply the time invariance of the interaction Hamiltonian and of the field commutors, i.e. $`\widehat{H}_I(t)=\widehat{H}_I(0)`$, $`[\widehat{a}_i(t),\widehat{a}_j^{}(t)]=[\widehat{a}_i,\widehat{a}_j^{}]=\delta _{ij}`$, $`[\widehat{a}_i^{^{}}(t),\widehat{a}_j^{{}_{}{}^{}}(t)]=[\widehat{a}_i^{^{}},\widehat{a}_j^{{}_{}{}^{}}]=\delta _{ij}`$, $`[\widehat{a}_i^{^{}}(t),\widehat{a}_j^{}(t)]=0`$ being $`i,j=1,2`$ and $`\widehat{a}_{i,j}\widehat{a}_{i,j}(0)`$ , $`\widehat{a}_{i,j}^{^{}}\widehat{a}_{i,j}^{^{}}(0)`$ the input fields at the initial time $`t=0`$ i.e. before the OPA interaction. The evolution in the Schroedinger picture of the state acted upon by the OPA system is determined by the overall operator $`\widehat{U}=\widehat{U}_A\widehat{U}_A^{}`$ expressed in terms of the operators evaluated at $`t=0`$:

$$\widehat{U}_A=\mathrm{exp}[g(\widehat{\sigma }_++\widehat{\sigma }_{})];\widehat{U}_A^{}=\mathrm{exp}[g(\widehat{\sigma }_+^{}+\widehat{\sigma }_{}^{})];$$
(3)
by adopting the definitions: $`\widehat{\sigma }_+`$=$`\widehat{A}^{}`$,$`\widehat{\sigma }_{}`$=$`\widehat{A},\widehat{\sigma }_z`$=$`(1+\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1+\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2)(1+\widehat{n}_1+\widehat{n}_2)`$,$`\widehat{\sigma }_+^{}=ϵ\widehat{A}^{}`$,$`\widehat{\sigma }_{}^{}=ϵ^{}\widehat{A}^{}`$;$`\widehat{\sigma }_z=(1+\widehat{n}_1^{}+\widehat{n}_2^{})`$. In virtue of Eq.(2) the following commutation properties for the sets of the $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ and $`\widehat{\sigma }^{}`$pseudo-spin operators hold: $`[\widehat{\sigma }_+,\widehat{\sigma }_{}]=\widehat{\sigma }_z`$; $`[\widehat{\sigma }_z,\widehat{\sigma }_\pm ]=\pm 2\widehat{\sigma }_\pm `$and: $`[\widehat{\sigma }_+^{},\widehat{\sigma }_{}^{}]=\sigma _z^{}`$;$`[\widehat{\sigma }_z^{},\widehat{\sigma }_\pm ^{}]=\pm 2\widehat{\sigma }_\pm ^{}`$, $`[\widehat{\sigma }_\pm ,\widehat{\sigma }_{}^{}]=[\widehat{\sigma }_\pm ,\widehat{\sigma }_z^{}]=0`$. By further adopting the definitions: $`\widehat{\sigma }_x2^{1/2}(\widehat{\sigma }_++i\widehat{\sigma }_{})`$, $`\widehat{\sigma }_y2^{1/2}(\widehat{\sigma }_+i\widehat{\sigma }_{})`$, the following relevant commutors: $`[\widehat{\sigma }_x,\widehat{\sigma }_y]=i\widehat{\sigma }_z`$, $`[\widehat{\sigma }_x^{},\widehat{\sigma }_y^{}]=i\widehat{\sigma }_z^{}`$ are recognized as those belonging to the symmetry group SU(1,1) . The output field may be expressed, in virtue of an appropriate ”operator disentangling theorem” in the following form :

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\{\mathrm{exp}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\widehat{\sigma }_++\widehat{\sigma }_+^{})\times \mathrm{exp}[\mathrm{ln}C(\widehat{\sigma }_z+\widehat{\sigma }_z^{})]\times \mathrm{exp}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\widehat{\sigma }_{}+\widehat{\sigma }_{}^{})\}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{IN}.$$
(4)
Take as input state into the QIOPA system the general qubit : $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{IN}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|\mathrm{\Psi }_{IN}^\alpha +\stackrel{~}{\beta }|\mathrm{\Psi }_{IN}^\beta )`$, $`\left|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\right|^2+\left|\stackrel{~}{\beta }\right|^2=1`$, defined in the $`2\times 2`$-dimensional Hilbert space of polarizations $`(\stackrel{}{\pi })`$ on the $`2`$ interacting modes $`k_1`$and $`k_2`$ with basis vectors: $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{IN}^\alpha =|1_{1h}|0_{1v}|0_{2h}|0_{2v}|1,0,0,0`$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{IN}^\beta =|0,1,0,0`$. Here the general product state $`|x_{1h}|y_{1v}|z_{2h}|t_{2v}`$ has been, and shall be henceforth, expressed by the shorthand: $`|x,y,z,t`$. In virtue of the general information preserving property of any nonlinear (NL) transformation of parametric type, the output state is again expressed by a ”massive qubit”: $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha +\stackrel{~}{\beta }|\mathrm{\Psi }^\beta )`$. This (pure) state is indeed a Schroedinger-Cat (S-Cat) state implying the quantum superposition of the orthonormal multiparticle states :

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha C^3\underset{i,j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{i+j})ϵ^j\sqrt{i+1}|i+1,j,j,i;|\mathrm{\Psi }^\beta C^3\underset{i,j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{i+j})\epsilon ^j\sqrt{j+1}|i,j+1,j,i$$
(5)
Consider the density operator $`\rho |\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }|`$and his reductions over the $`\stackrel{}{\pi }vector`$ spaces relative to the spatial modes $`k_1`$and $`k_2`$: $`\rho _1=Tr_2\rho `$;$`\rho _2=Tr_1\rho `$. These ones may be expanded as a weighted superpositions of $`psquare`$ matrices of order $`p=(n+2)`$, the relative weight $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=\mathrm{tanh}^2g`$of each two successive matrices being determined by the parametric ”gain”. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=0`$ for $`g=0`$ and approaches asymptotically the unit value for large $`g`$. In turn, the $`psquare`$ matrices may be expressed as sum of $`2\times 2`$ matrices as shown by the following expressions:

$$\rho _1=C^6\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{2n}\times \underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}\left[\begin{array}{cc}\left|\stackrel{~}{\beta }\right|^2(ni+1)& \stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{}\stackrel{~}{\beta }\sqrt{(i+1)(ni+1)}\\ \stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }^{}\sqrt{(i+1)(ni+1)}& \left|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\right|^2(i+1)\end{array}\right]$$
(6)
written in terms of the Fock basis: $`\left\{|i_{1h}|ni+1_{1v}\text{}|i+1_{1h}|ni_{1v}\right\}`$. Correspondingly:

$$\rho _2=C^6\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{2n}\times \underset{i=0}{\overset{n+1}{}}\left[\begin{array}{cc}\left|\stackrel{~}{\beta }\right|^2(ni+1)& ϵ^{}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }^{}\stackrel{~}{\beta }\sqrt{(ni+1)i}\\ ϵ\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }^{}\sqrt{(ni+1)i}& \left|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\right|^2i\end{array}\right]$$
(7)
in terms of the Fock basis:$`\left\{|ni_{2h}|i_{2v}\text{}|ni+1_{2h}|i1_{2v}\right\}`$. Interestingly enough, the value $`n`$ of the sum indices appearing in Eqs. 6 and 7 coincides with the number of photon pairs generated by the QIOPA amplification. Note that all the $`2\times 2`$ matrices in Eqs. 6, 7 and then the $`psquare`$ matrices resulting from their sums over the $`iindex`$, are non-diagonal as implied by the quantum superposition property of any Schroedinger-Cat state. Note also that the OPA intrinsic phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$only affects the anticloning channel (AC), i.e. the mode $`k_2`$.

Wigner Function. In order to inspect at a deeper lever the S-Cat condition, consider the Wigner function of the output field for the QIOPA apparatus shown in Figure 1. Evaluate first the symmetrically-ordered characteristic function of the set of complex variables $`(\eta _j,\eta \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{j},\xi _j,\xi \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{j})\{\eta ,\xi \}`$, $`(j=1,2)`$: $`\chi __S\{\eta ,\xi \}\mathrm{\Psi }_0\left|D[\eta _1(t)]D[\eta _2(t)]D[\xi _1(t)]D[\xi _2(t)]\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ expressed in terms of the displacement operators: $`D[\eta _j(t)]`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[\eta _j(t)\widehat{a}_j^{}\eta _j^{}(t)\widehat{a}_j]`$, $`D[\xi _j(t)]`$ $`\mathrm{exp}[\xi _j(t)\widehat{a}_j^{}\xi _j^{}(t)\widehat{a}_j^{}]`$ where: $`\eta _1(t)(\eta _1C\eta \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{2}S)`$; $`\eta _2(t)(\eta _2C\eta \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{1}S)`$; $`\xi _1(t)(\xi _1C\xi \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{2}S)`$; $`\xi _2(t)(\xi _2C\xi \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{1}S)`$. The Wigner function, expressed in terms of the corresponding complex phase-space variables $`(\alpha _j`$, $`\alpha _j^{}`$, $`\beta _j`$, $`\beta _j^{})\{\alpha ,\beta \}`$ is the eight-dimensional Fourier transform of $`\chi __S\{\eta ,\xi \}`$, namely:

$$W\{\alpha ,\beta \}=\pi ^8d^2\eta _1d^2\eta _2d^2\xi _1d^2\xi _2\chi __S\{\eta ,\xi \}\mathrm{exp}\underset{j}{}[(\eta \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{j}\alpha _j+\xi \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{j}\beta _j)c.c.]$$
(8)
where $`d^2\eta _jd\eta _jd\eta \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{}{j}`$, etc. By a lengthy application of operator algebra and integral calculus, reported in , we could evaluate analytically in closed form either $`\chi __S\{\eta ,\xi \}`$ and $`W\{\alpha ,\beta \}`$.The exact expression of the Wigner function is found:

$$W\{\alpha ,\beta \}=\overline{W_A}\left\{\alpha \right\}\overline{W}_A^{}\left\{\beta \right\}\left[1\left|e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Delta }_A\left\{\alpha \right\}+\mathrm{\Delta }_A^{}\left\{\beta \right\}\right|^2\right]$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A\left\{\alpha \right\}2^{\frac{1}{2}}(\gamma _{A+}i\gamma _A)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A^{}\left\{\beta \right\}2^{\frac{1}{2}}(\gamma _{A^{}+}i\gamma _A^{})`$ are expressed in terms of the squeezed variables: $`\gamma _{A+}(\alpha _1+\alpha _2^{})e^g`$; $`\gamma _Ai(\alpha _1\alpha _2^{})e^{+g}`$; $`\gamma _{A^{}+}(\beta _1+\beta _2^{})e^g`$; $`\gamma _A^{}i(\beta _1\beta _2^{})e^{+g}`$. The Wigner functions $`\overline{W_A}\left\{\alpha \right\}4\pi ^2\mathrm{exp}\left(\left[\left|\gamma _{A+}\right|^2+\left|\gamma _A\right|^2\right]\right)`$; $`\overline{W_A^{}}\left\{\beta \right\}4\pi ^2\mathrm{exp}\left(\left[\left|\gamma _{A^{}+}\right|^2+\left|\gamma _A^{}\right|^2\right]\right)`$ definite positive over the 4 - dimensional spaces $`\left\{\alpha \right\}`$ and $`\left\{\beta \right\}`$represent the effect of squeezed-vacuum, i.e. emitted respectively by OPAA and OPA$`_A^{}`$ in absence of any injection. Inspection of Equation 9 shows that precisely the quantum superposition character of the injected state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{IN}`$ determines the dynamical quantum superposition of the devices $`OPA_A`$and $`OPA_A^{},`$ the ones that otherwise act as uncoupled and independent objects. In other words, the quasi-probability functions $`\overline{W_A}\left\{\alpha \right\}`$, $`\overline{W_A^{}}\left\{\beta \right\}`$corresponding to the two macrostates $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha `$and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^\beta `$in absence of quantum superposition are defined in two totally separated and independent spaces $`\left\{\alpha \right\}`$ and$`\left\{\beta \right\}`$. The link between these spaces is provided by the superposition term in Equation 9: $`2Re[e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Delta }_A\left\{\alpha \right\}\mathrm{\Delta }_A^{}^{}\left\{\beta \right\}]`$. This term provides precisely the first-order quantum interference of the macrostates $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha `$and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^\beta `$. In addition, and most important, Equation 9 shows the non definite positivity of $`W\{\alpha ,\beta \}`$ over its definition space. This assures the overall quantum character of our multiparticle, injected amplification scheme .

Universality. A necessary common property of the QIOPA system in the context of the present work is its universality (U), i.e. implying the same quantum efficiency (QE) of the amplifying apparatus for any input, unknown qubit. That is, for a qubit spanning the entire Bloch sphere. In our experiment the qubits are assumed to represent states of polarization $`(\stackrel{}{\pi })`$, as said, and QE is expressed by the QIOPA parametric gain: $`g`$. We shall find that universality implies an important symmetry property, namely the invariance of the coupling Hamiltonian $`H_{int}`$ under simultaneous general $`SU(2)`$ transformations on the polarization $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$ on the spatial modes $`k_j`$ $`(j=1,2)`$ . Assume that under a simultaneous general $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$ rotation $`R`$of $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$ on both modes $`k_j`$, the field set $`\{\widehat{a}_j,\widehat{a}_j^{^{}}\}`$ is changed into the set $`\{\widehat{a}_{Rj},\widehat{a}_{Rj}^{^{}}\}`$ $`(j=1,2)`$. A general $`R(\vartheta ,\xi )`$ transformation, expressed in terms of complex parameters for which: $`\left|\vartheta \right|^2+\left|\zeta \right|^2=1`$, relates the two field sets as follows:

$$\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}_{R1}}{\widehat{a}_{R1}^{}}\right]=R^{}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}_1}{\widehat{a}_1^{}}\right]R=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\vartheta & \zeta \\ \zeta ^{}& \vartheta ^{}\end{array}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}_1}{\widehat{a}_1^{}}\right];\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}_{R2}^{}}{\widehat{a}_{R2}}\right]=R^{}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}_2^{}}{\widehat{a}_2}\right]R=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\vartheta & \zeta \\ \zeta ^{}& \vartheta ^{}\end{array}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}_2^{}}{\widehat{a}_2}\right]$$
(10)
It can be easily checked that Eq. 1 can be re-expressed in terms of the new field set into the invariant form: $`\widehat{H}_{RI}=i\mathrm{}\chi [\widehat{A}_R\widehat{A}_R^{}]+h.c.`$ , where $`\widehat{A}_R`$ $`\widehat{a}_{R1}\widehat{a}_R`$, $`\widehat{A}_R^{}`$ $`\widehat{a}_{R1}^{}\widehat{a}_{R2}^{}`$, only by setting the OPA intrinsic phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$, i.e. $`\epsilon =1`$. Interestingly, note that the same dynamical condition $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ implies the well known $`SU(2)`$ invariance of the $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$-entangled ”singlet states” generated by Spontaneous Parametric Down Conversion (SPDC), that is by the OPA when is not quantum-injected (or, when it is only ”injected” by the vacuum field on both input modes $`k_j`$).

Since, in general the input $`N1`$ qubits injected into the amplifier are quantum superpositions of $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$-states, the dynamical condition $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ finally implies the universality (U) of the overall cloning and U-NOT transformations. For the sake of a clearness in the future discussions, we find convenient to re-cast the invariant Hamiltonian with $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$, in the following form:

$$\widehat{H}_{int}=i\mathrm{}\chi \left(\widehat{a}_\pi \widehat{b}_\pi \widehat{a}_\pi \widehat{b}_\pi \right)+h.c.$$
(11)
where $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{b}`$ are the overall field operators acting respectively on the output modes $`k_1`$and $`k_2`$. For reasons that will become clear in the following Sections these modes are referred to as the cloning (C) and the anticloning (AC) modes, respectively. Furthermore, since $`g=\chi t`$ is independent of any unknown polarization state of the injected field, we have denoted the creation $`\widehat{a}^{}`$,$`\widehat{b}^{}`$ and annihilation $`\widehat{a}`$ ,$`\widehat{b}`$ operators of a single photon in modes $`k_1`$ , $`k_2`$ with subscripts $`\pi `$ or $`\pi ^{}`$ to indicate the invariance of the process with respect to the polarization states of the input particles. Of course, the $`SU(2)`$ transformation for the fields $`\widehat{a}`$ is again expressed as follows:

$$\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}_{R\pi }}{\widehat{a}_{R\pi }}\right]=R^{}\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}_\pi }{\widehat{a}_\pi }\right]R=\left[\begin{array}{cc}\vartheta & \zeta \\ \zeta ^{}& \vartheta ^{}\end{array}\right]\left[\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\widehat{a}_\pi }{\widehat{a}_\pi }\right]$$
(12)
and: $`\left|\eta \right|^2+`$ $`\left|\zeta \right|^2=1`$. The same R-transformation is valid for the fields $`\widehat{b}`$. The polarization conditions $`\pi `$ and $`\pi ^{}`$ will be expressed respectively by the field state vectors $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ on the C and AC output modes of the apparatus.

## III Test of the ”universality” condition

As already remarked, the universality (U) condition implies for the OPA amplifier the $`SU(2)`$ invariance of $`\widehat{H}_{int}`$ when the spatial orientation of the OPA crystal makes it available for SPDC creation of 2-photon entangled singlet states. Indeed the U-condition in amplifying physical devices is quite a peculiar property that can only be realized by a very small number of arrangements set in very special conditions . Luckily enough the QIOPA apparatus has been found to possess this property. In facts the OPA application represents the first actual realization of the U-condition for $`\stackrel{}{\pi }qubits`$ . In spite of the ”microscopic” quantum theoretical approach adopted in the previous Section theory we should note that in the present context the universality property is indeed a ”macroscopic” classical feature of the OPA device. Thus it can be tested equally well either by injection of a quasi-classical, e.g. a coherent (Glauber) field, or by injection of a quantum state, e.g. a Fock state. Because of the relevance of the U property, we shall undertake the experimental demonstration in both ways. The ”classical” test will be described in the present Section while analogous tests carried out by single-photon Fock states will be reported later in the paper. In order to do that, let us first venture into a detailed description of the excitation laser and of the QIOPA apparatus adopted throughout the present work: Figure 3.

Apparatus. The main source of all experiments reported by this work was a Ti:Sa mode-locked pulsed laser (Coherent MIRA) providing by Second Harmonic Generation (SHG) the ”pump” field for the quantum-injected optical parametric amplifier QIOPA associated with the spatial mode having wave-vector (wv) $`k_p`$ and wavelength (wl) $`\lambda _p=397.5nm`$, i.e. in the ultraviolet (UV) range of the spectrum. The average UV power was 0.25 W, the pulse repetition rate was 76 MHz and the time duration of each UV pulse was $`\tau =140`$ femtoseconds (fs). The OPA active element, consisting of a 1.5 mm thick nonlinear (NL) crystal of $`\beta `$-barium borate (BBO) cut for Type II phase-matching, was able to generate by SPDC $`\stackrel{}{\pi }entangled`$ pairs of photons. Precisely, the OPA intrinsic phase was set as to generate by SPDC ”singlet” entangled states on the output optical modes: $`\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$. The photons of each pair were emitted with equal wls $`\lambda =795nm`$ over two spatial modes $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ making an internal angle = 8. In all experiments the time (t) optical walk-off effects due to the birefringence of the NL crystal were compensated by inserting in the modes $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ fixed X-cut, 4.8 mm thick quartz plates. All adopted photodetectors ($`D`$), but $`D_2^{}`$ (Figure 3) were equal SPCM-AQR14 Si-avalanche nonlinear single photon units with nearly equal $`QE^{}s0.55`$. One interference filter with bandwidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =6nm`$ was placed in front of each detector $`D`$. Only the detector $`D_2^{}`$ was a linear Si photodiode SGD100. Polarizing beam-splitters (PBS) in Figures 3 and 5 were adopted as measurement devices providing the polarization analysis.

Universality test by ”classical” field injection: The U-test was carried out by injection of the strongly attenuated laser beam, with wl $`\lambda =795nm,`$ contributed via a beam-splitter by the main mode-locked source and directed along the OPA injection mode, $`k_1`$: Figure 3. The parametric amplification, with ”gain” $`g=0.11`$ was detected at the OPA output mode $`k_2`$ by the linear Si photodiode SGD100 $`(D_2)`$, filtered by an interference filter with bandwidth $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda =3nm`$. The time t-superposition in the NL crystal of the ”pump” and of the ”injection” pulses was assured by micrometric displacements (Z) of a two-mirror optical ”trombone”. The pulse shapes shown by the coincidence data reported as function of Z in Figure 3, as well as in Figures 4 and 5 later, are indeed the signature for actual amplification, i.e. arising from the effective time and space superposition in the NL crystal of the UV ”pump” pulse and of the optical pulses with $`\lambda =795nm`$ injected into the OPA. Different $`\stackrel{}{\pi }states`$ of the injected field, formally expressed also by the captions of the inset of Figure 3, were prepared by a single wave-plate $`WP_1^{}`$, corresponding to a suitable optical retardation, equal to $`\lambda /2`$ and $`\lambda /4`$ between the two orthogonal basis-states, i.e. horizontal (H) and vertical (V). The OPA amplified output states were detected by an apparatus inserted on mode $`k_2`$ and consisting of the set ($`WP_2^{}`$\+ $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$-analyzer), the last device being provided by the polarizing beam splitter $`PBS_2^{}`$.

The universality condition is demonstrated by the plots of Figure 4 showing the amplification pulses detected by D’2 on the OPA output (AC) mode, $`k_2`$. Each plot corresponds to a definite state of polarization ($`\pi `$) of the field injected on mode $`k_1`$: $`[cos(\theta /2)|H>+\mathrm{exp}(i\phi )\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)|V>]`$. Precisely, the polarization was set to be either linear (that is: $`\theta `$ $`=\pi /2,\pi ;\phi =0)`$, or circular (that is: $`\theta =\pi /2;\phi =\pi /2)`$, or very generally elliptical: $`\theta =5\pi /18,\phi =\pi /2`$. We may check in Figure 4 that, in spite of the quite different injected states, the amplification curves are almost identical. Each coherent pulse injected on the mode $`k_1`$ was amplified into an average photon number $`M^{}=5\times 10^3`$ on the output mode $`k_2`$.

## IV Universal Optimal Quantum Cloning Machine and U-NOT gate

The first machine which has been investigated theoretically was the optimal universal quantum cloner of qubits. In the simple case investigated by the present work, namely of cloning $`N=1`$ input into $`M=2`$ output $`qubits`$, the action of the cloner can be described by a simple covariant transformation :

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }>|>_C|>_{AC}\sqrt{2/3}|\mathrm{\Psi }>|\mathrm{\Psi }>|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}>_{AC}\sqrt{1/3}|\{\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\}>|\mathrm{\Psi }>_{AC}$$
(13)
where the first (unknown) state vector in the left-hand side of Equation 13 corresponds to the system to be cloned, the second state vector describes the system on which the information is going to be copied (”blank” qubit), represented by the ”cloning channel” (C), the mode $`k_1`$, while the third state vector represents the cloner. The state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}>`$ is the antipode of $`|\mathrm{\Psi }>`$ on the Bloch sphere. In the present work the ”cloner” is a qubit, associated with the anti-cloning channel (AC). The blank qubit and the cloner are initially in the known state $`|>`$. At the output of the cloner we find two qubits (the original and the copy) in the state $`\rho =`$ $`2/3|\mathrm{\Psi }>|\mathrm{\Psi }><\mathrm{\Psi }|<\mathrm{\Psi }|+`$ $`1/3|\{\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\}><\{\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\}|`$ where $`|\{\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\}>`$ is the completely symmetric state of two qubits. The density operator $`\rho `$ describes the best possible approximation of the perfect cloning process, i.e. the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }>|\mathrm{\Psi }>`$. The fidelity of this transformation does not depend on the state of the input and reads $`F=`$ $`Tr(\rho _1\widehat{n}_{1\pi })/Tr(\rho _1\widehat{n}_1)`$ $`=5/60.833`$. The cloner itself after the cloning transformation is in the state $`\rho _{AC}=`$ $`2/3|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}><\mathrm{\Psi }^{}|+`$ $`1/3\times 𝐈`$ , where $`𝐈`$ is the unity operator. This last density operator is the best possible approximation of the action of the spin-flip (U-NOT) operation permitted by the quantum mechanics. As we shall see in the next Sections, for $`N=1`$ input states the fidelity of the U-NOT transformation is $`F^{}=Tr(\rho _2\widehat{n}_2)/Tr(\rho _2\widehat{n}_2)=2/30.666`$ and is equal to the fidelity of estimation . As we shall see, the universal quantum machines have been subsequently generalized for the case of multi-qubit inputs, when the machines takes as an input $`N>1`$ identically prepared qubits and generates either $`M>N`$ clones or otherwise transformed qubits.

We may establish a close connection of the above results for ”cloning” with the adopted universal QIOPA system, by considering for instance the simple case of a linearly polarized single-photon $`N=1`$ injected into the OPA on the input mode $`k_1`$ with horizontal (H) polarization, $`\stackrel{}{\pi }=`$h. In virtue of the universality this very particular injection condition indeed expresses the general behaviour of the amplifier. By the analysis reported in Section 2, the amplification leads to the output state: $`|\mathrm{\Psi }>=\widehat{U}|\mathrm{\Psi }>_{IN}=\widehat{U}|1>_{1h}|0>_{1v}|0>_{_{2h}}|0>_{2v}\widehat{U}|1,0,0,0>.`$ This last expression implies one photon on the input $`k_{1h}mode`$ with $`\stackrel{}{\pi }=`$h and zero photons on the three other input modes $`k_{1v}`$, $`k_{2h}`$, $`k_{2v}`$. Let’s adopt the isomorphism: $`|\mathrm{\Psi }>|>=|1>_{1h}|0>_{1v}`$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}>|>=|0>_{1h}|1>_{1v}`$and $`|\{\mathrm{\Psi },\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\}>=|1>_{1h}|1>_{1v}`$, we shall find that the output state of the OPA amplifier $`|\mathrm{\Psi }>_{out}`$expressed by Equation 5 is identical, in the first order of the small parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, to the output of the cloner transformation expressed by Equation 13. Indeed the input mode $`|1,0,0,0`$evolves into the first order state:

$$\widehat{U}|1,0,0,0|1,0,0,0\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\sqrt{2}|2,0_{k_1}|0,1_{k_2}|1,1_{k_1}|1,0_{k_2}\right)$$
(14)
where for clarity we set: $`|x,y_{k_j}|x_{jh}|y_{jv}`$ and $`j=1,2`$. The approximation for the state vector describing the two $`k_j`$-$`mod`$es at times $`t>0`$ is sufficient in all cases in which the coupling value is small, as in our experiment: $`g0.11`$. The two addenda at the right-hand side of Equation 14 represent respectively the process when the input photon in the mode $`k_1`$ did not interact in the nonlinear medium, followed by the first order amplification process in the OPA. Here the state $`|2,0_{k_1}`$ describing two photons of the cloning mode $`k_1`$ in the polarization state $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$ corresponds to the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }`$. This state-vector describes the $`12\mathrm{𝑐𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔}`$ of the original injected photon. The vector $`|0,1_{k_2}`$ describes the state of the anticloning mode $`k_2`$ with a single photon with the polarization $`\pi ^{}`$ corresponding to the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}>_{AC}`$. This state vector represents the flipped version of the input. To see that the stimulated emission is indeed responsible for creation of the flipped qubit, let us compare the result above with the output of the OPA when the vacuum is injected into the nonlinear crystal, i.e. the SPDC process. In this case, we obtain to the same order of approximation:

$$\widehat{U}|0,0,0,0|0,0,0,0_{k_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(|1,0_{k_1}|0,1_{k_2}|0,1_{k_1}|1,0_{k_2}\right)$$
(15)
We see that the flipped qubit described by the state vector $`|0,1_{k_2}`$ in the right-hand sides of Equations 14 and 15 do appear with different amplitudes corresponding to the ratio of the probabilities to be equal to: $`R=2:1`$. Our experiment, which deals with the injection of $`N=1`$ photon, indeed consists of the measurement of $`R`$, as we shall see. According to the analysis reported in Section 2 the cloning and the U-NOT operations are not altered by the multiplication of $`\widehat{H}_I`$ by any overall phase factor.

As anticipated in Section 1, it is well known that a method for flipping qubits alternative to the present U-NOT gate consists on manufacturing the orthogonal qubits on the basis of the result of the measurement on the input qubits. The fidelity $`F^{}`$of the two alternative methods is indeed the same . However, in the U-NOT gate the information encoded in the input qubit is not lost in the irreversible state reduction implied by the measurement. It is just redistributed into several qubits at the output. Since this information redistribution is governed by a unitary transformation, the process is in principle reversible which is definitely not true in the case of measurement-based flipping operation. We also want to stress that, to the best of our knowledge the recent U-NOT experiment reported by us in , and the present one are the first systematic attempts to realize an anti-unitary gate. Obviously, the fidelity of the gate is strictly determined by the structure, i.e. rules of quantum mechanics, as shown. This stresses the fundamental importance to understand the action of the U-NOT gate in view of a clarification of the structure of quantum mechanics in connection with the CP-map topology, as we shall see .

A more general analysis can be undertaken by extending the isomorphism discussed above to a larger number of input and output particles $`N`$ and $`M`$. In this case too it is found that the QIOPA amplification process $`\widehat{U}_{AA^{}}`$ in each order of the decomposition into the parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ corresponds to the $`NM`$cloning process. Precisely, in this case $`MN`$ output particles are detected over the output cloning (C) mode, $`k_1`$. Correspondingly, $`MN`$ particles are detected over the output anticloning (AC) mode, $`k_2`$. Indeed the optimum cloning output state determined by the theory of the quantum-injected OPA is found

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_N>_M=\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{MN}{m=0}(1)^mP\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M}{N}(m)|Mm,m,m,MNm>$$
(16)
where: $`P\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M}{N}`$ $`(m)=\left[\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{Mm}{N}\right)/\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M+1}{N+1}\right)\right]^{1/2}`$. By a simple re-arrangement of the Fock state degeneracies, Equation 16 is found to agree exactly with the general expression of the output state of the QIOPA given by Equation 5 . In this general case optimal cloning fidelity is found : $`F=(NM+M+N)/(MN+2M)`$. For $`N=1`$, $`M=2`$ is $`F=5/60.833`$. It appears clear from the above analysis that the effect of the input vacuum field, which is necessarily injected in any universal optical amplifier, is indeed responsible to reduce the ”fidelity” of the quantum machines at hand. More generally the vacuum field is in exact correspondence with, and must be interpreted as the amount of quantum fluctuations that determines the upper bounds to the Fidelity determined by the very CP-map structure of quantum mechanics.

At last note that, luckily enough, the QIOPA apparatus is found to be an ideal system to demonstrate, in a peculiar unifying manner, the relevant features of the most interesting machines investigated thus far: the UOQCM and the U-NOT gate. The present work also establishes an interesting connection between the technical engineering of parametric amplifiers and the abstract quantum measurement theory.

## V Experimental UOQCM and U-NOT gate

The main laser apparatus and the basic structure of the NL parametric amplifier was already described in Section 3. Figure 5 shows the QIOPA apparatus, arranged in a self-injected configuration and adopted to realize simultaneously the Universal Optimal Quantum Cloning Machine (UOQCM) and the Universal Optimal NOT gate. The UV pump beam, back reflected by a spherical mirror $`M_p`$ with 100% reflectivity and micrometrically adjustable position $`𝐙`$, excited the NL OPA crystal amplifier in both directions $`k_p`$ and $`k_p`$, i.e. correspondingly oriented towards the Right (R) and the Left (L) sides of the figure. A SPDC process excited by the $`k_p`$ pump mode created single pairs of photons with equal wls $`\lambda =795nm`$ in entangled singlet-states of linear polarization, $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$. One photon of each pair, emitted over $`k_1`$ was reflected by a spherical mirror $`M`$ into the NL crystal where it provided the $`N=1`$ quantum injection into the OPA excited by the UV-pump beam associated with the back reflected mode $`k_p`$. Because of the low pump intensity, the probability of the unwanted $`N=2`$ photon injection has been evaluated to be $`10^2`$ smaller than the one for $`N=1`$. The twin SPDC generated photon emitted over $`k_2`$ was selected by the devices (Wave-Plate + Polarizing Beam Splitter: $`WP_T`$\+ $`PBS_T`$), detected by $`D_T`$ and provided the ”trigger” of the overall conditional experiment. Because of the EPR non-locality implied by the SPDC emitted singlet state, the selection on mode $`k_2`$ provided the realization on $`k_1`$ of the polarization states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{IN}`$ of the injected photon. By adopting $`\lambda /2`$ or $`\lambda /4`$ Wave-Plates (WP) with different orientations of the optical axis, the following states were injected:$`|H`$, $`2^{1/2}(|H+|V)`$, and $`2^{1/2}(|H+i|V)`$. The three fixed quartz plates $`(Q)`$ inserted on the modes $`k_1`$, $`k_2`$ and $`k_2`$ provided the compensation for the unwanted walk-off effects due to the birefringence of the NL crystal. An additional walk-off compensation into the BBO crystal was provided by the $`\lambda /4`$ WP exchanging on the mode $`k_1`$the $`|H`$ and $`|V`$ $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$ components of the injected photon.

As we shall see, the goal of the present cloning experiment was to measure, under injection of the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, the OPA amplification $`R`$on the output C mode carrying the same $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$ condition corresponding of the input state. Contextually, no amplification should affect the output state corresponding to the polarization $`\stackrel{}{\pi }^{}`$ orthogonal to $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$. In order to perform this task, the $`PBS_2`$ was removed on the mode $`k_2`$ and the photons on the same mode detected by a single detector: $`D_2`$. The two-cloning photons associated with the C mode, $`k_1`$ were separated by means of a $`50:50`$ conventional Beam Splitter (BS) and their polarization states were analyzed by the combinations of $`WP_1`$ and of $`PBS_{1a}`$ and $`PBS_{1b}`$. For each injected state of polarizations $`|\mathrm{\Psi },`$ $`WP_1`$ was set in order to detect $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ by detectors $`D_a`$ and $`D_b`$ and to detect the state orthogonal to $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$, viz. $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ by $`D_b^{}.`$ Hence any coincidence event detected by $`D_a`$ and $`D_b`$ corresponded to the realization of the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ over the C mode, while a coincidence detected by $`D_a`$ and $`D_b^{}`$ corresponded to the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_1`$.

The measurement of $`R`$ was carried out by 4-coincidence measurements involving simultaneously the detectors of the set $`[D_2,D_T,D_a,D_b]`$ and the one of the set: $`[D_2,D_T,D_a,D_b^{}]`$. The adopted 4-coincidence electronic apparatus had a time resolution $`\tau =3`$ nsec.

The experimental data reported on the left column of Figure 6 correspond to the 4-coincidence measurement by $`[D_2,D_T,D_a,D_b],`$ that is, to the emission over the C-mode of the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_1`$ under injection of the input state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{IN}`$. As for all experiments reported in Figures 4, 6, 7, the resonance peaks found by this last measurement identified the position $`Z`$ of the UV retro-reflecting mirror for which the spatial and temporal superposition of the UV-pump pulses and of the injected single photon pulses was realized. In other words the peaks identified the actual realization of the quantum injected amplification of the OPA apparatus. The right hand side (r.h.s.) column of Figure 5 reports the corresponding 4-coincidence data obtained by the set $`[D_2,D_T,D_a,D_b^{}]`$, i.e. implying the realization on the C mode of the state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_1`$. As expected from theory no amplification peaks are present in this case, here referred to as ”noise”. The value of the signal-to-noise ratio $`R`$ determined by the data shown in the left and right sides of Figure 6 in correspondence with each injection condition $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{IN}`$ was adopted to determine the corresponding value of the cloning fidelity $`F=Tr(\rho _1\widehat{n}_{1\pi })/Tr(\rho _1\widehat{n}_1)`$=$`(2R+1)/(2R+2)`$ implied by Eqs. 14, 15 with the definitions: $`\widehat{n}_1=\widehat{n}_{1\pi }+\widehat{n}_1`$, $`\widehat{n}_{1\pi }\widehat{a}_\pi ^{}\widehat{a}_\pi `$, $`\widehat{n}_1\widehat{a}_\pi ^{}\widehat{a}_\pi `$. Precisely, the values of the signal-to-noise ratio $`R`$ were determined as the ratio of the peak values of the plots on the left hand side (l.h.s.) of Figure 6 and of the values of the corresponding plots on the r.h.s. measured at the same value of $`𝐙`$. The results are: $`F_H=0.812\pm 0.007`$;$`F_{H+V}=0.812\pm 0.006`$; $`F_{left}=0.800\pm 0.007`$, to be compared with the theoretical ”optimal” value: $`F_{th}=5/60.833`$ corresponding to the limit value of the amplification ratio: $`R=2:1`$ .

The U-NOT gate operation has been demonstrated by restoring the $`PBS_2`$ on the AC-mode, $`k_2`$ coupled to the detectors $`D_2`$, $`D_2^{}`$, via the $`WP_2`$, as shown in Figure 5. The $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$-analyzer consisting of $`(PBS_2+WP_2)`$ is set as to reproduce the same filtering action of the analyzer $`(PBS_T+WP_T)`$ for the ”trigger” signal. On the C channel, $`k_1`$, the devices $`PBS_{1a}`$ and $`PBS_{1b}`$ were removed and the field was simply coupled by the normal Beam Splitter $`(BS_1)`$to the detectors $`D_a`$ and $`D_b`$. A coincidence event involving these ones was the signature for a cloning event. The values of the signal-to-noise ratio $`R^{}`$ evaluated on the basis of the data of the 4-coincidence experiments involving the sets $`[D_2,D_T,D_a,D_b]`$ and $`[D_2^{},D_T,D_a,D_b]`$ and reported in Figure 7, were adopted to determine the corresponding values of the U-NOT fidelity $`F^{}=Tr(\rho _2\widehat{n}_2)/Tr(\rho _2\widehat{n}_2)=R^{}/(R^{}+1)`$ implied by Eqs 14, 15 and: $`\widehat{n}_2=\widehat{n}_{2\pi }+\widehat{n}_2`$, $`\widehat{n}_{2\pi }\widehat{b}_\pi ^{}\widehat{b}_\pi `$, $`\widehat{n}_2\widehat{b}_\pi ^{}\widehat{b}_\pi `$. The results are: $`F_H^{}=0.630\pm 0.008`$;$`F_{H+V}^{}=0.625\pm 0.016`$;$`F_{left}^{}=0.618\pm 0.013`$ to be compared with the theoretical ”optimal” value: $`F^{}=2/30.666`$ again corresponding to the limit value: $`R=2:1`$. The 4-coincidence method was adopted in all experiments described in this Section because it allowed a better spatial mode filtering of the system, leading to a larger experimental value of $`R`$. A 3-coincidence cloning experiment involving the sets $`[D_2,D_T,D_b]`$ and $`[D_2,D_T,D_b^{}]`$ was also carried out successfully but attaining a small amplification ratio: $`R=1.18:1`$. An analogous result was obtained by a 3-coincidence U-NOT gate experiment. Note also that the height of the amplification peak in Figures 6,7 does not decrease towards zero for large values of $`𝐙`$, as expected. This effect is attributable entirely to the limited time resolution of the 4-coincidence apparatus. The effect would disappear if the resolution could be pushed into the sub-picosecond range, precisely of the order of the time duration of the interacting pump and injection pulses: $`\tau ^{}140`$f$`\mathrm{sec}`$. Such a resolution is hardly obtainable with the present technology.

Universality test by quantum injection. As concluding remark, note that all experimental results reported in the left columns of Figures 6 and 7 show an amplification efficiency, viz a value of the signal-to-noise ratio $`R`$ which is almost identical for the adopted different $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$ conditions corresponding to the input state: $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{IN}`$. This very significant result represents the first demonstration of the ”universality” of the QIOPA system carried out by quantum injection of a single qubit. It is alternative to the classical field universality test reported earlier in Section 3 and in .

## VI Interpretation

A remarkable, somewhat intriguing aspect of the present work is that both processes of quantum cloning and the U-NOT gate are realized contextually by the same physical apparatus, by the same unitary transformation and correspondingly by the same quantum logic network. To the best of our knowledge it is not well understood yet why these ”forbidden” processes can be so closely related. We may try to enlighten here at least one formal aspect of this correlation.

Remind first that the two processes are detected in our experiment over the two $`\stackrel{}{\pi }`$entangled output (C) and (AC) channels, physically represented by the two corresponding wavevectors $`\stackrel{}{k_j}`$ $`(j=1,2)`$. In addition, the overall output vector state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ given by Eq. 5 is a pure state since the unitary evolution operator $`\widehat{U}=\widehat{U}_A\widehat{U}_A^{}`$ (Eq. 3) acts on a pure input state. As a consequence, the reduced density matrices $`\rho _1`$and $`\rho _2`$ have the same eigenvalues  and the entanglement of the bi-partite state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$can be conveniently measured by the entropy of entanglement:

$$E(\mathrm{\Psi })=S(\rho _1)=S(\rho _2)$$
(17)
where $`S(\rho _j)=Tr\rho _j\mathrm{log}_2\rho _j`$ is the Von Neumann entropy of the either (C) or (AC) subsystem: $`j(j=1,2)`$. Let’s consider the approximate cloning process performed by our universal optimal machine (UOQCM) acting on the C channel, $`k_1`$. What has been actually realized in the experiment was a procedure of ”linearization” of the cloning map which is nonlinear and, as such cannot be realized exactly by Nature . By this procedure a mixed-state condition of the output state$`\rho _1`$ was achieved corresponding to the optimal limit value of the entropy $`S(\rho _1)>0`$. In virtue of Eq. 17 the same mixing condition, with the same entropy $`S(\rho _2)`$is shared by the state $`\rho _2`$ on the AC channel leading to the noisy measurement process for the flipped-qubit $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}>`$. Note also that the present argument relies only on the map-linearity without accounting explicitly for the non complete-positivity of the time reversal map $`T`$, the one which is actually responsible for the flipping dynamics . The presence of the quoted unavoidable quantum noise is shown by the experimental plots in the r.h.s. of Fig. 7. Furthermore, in Section 5 is shown that the measurement process implied by the investigation on qubit-flipping on the AC-channel parallels almost identically the one realized to investigate cloning on the C-channel.

Very interestingly the above argument could be reversed, as the mixed-state condition $`S(\rho _2)>0`$ imposed by the $`T`$ map on the AC channel is transferred to the C channel, in virtue of Eq. 17, and accounts for the unavoidable quantum noise affecting the cloning results shown in Fig. 6. In summary, Equation 17 appears to establish, in the context of the present experiment an unexpected, perhaps deeply significant symmetry condition between two distinct, fundamental constituents of axiomatic quantum theory .

Note in this connection that the adoption of the classical OPA apparatus within an investigation pushed at the extreme quantum measurement limits, enlightened the conceptual significance of the quantum noise, originating in this case from the QED vacuum field. We remind here that the failure of an old proposal for superluminal signaling by an amplified EPR scheme was attributed to the impossibility of realizing a single photon ideal amplifier, i.e.one for which the signal-to-noise ratio would be: $`R>2`$ .
For the sake of further clarification, let’s analyze the simple case of a mode-degenerate QIOPA amplifier in which only two e.m. modes, $`k_{}`$and $`k_{}`$ with the same wavelength $`\lambda =2\lambda _p`$, interact in the NL crystal. In work  this case has been realized by a Type II BBO crystal cut for collinear emission over a single wavevector $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ and the modes $`k_{}`$and $`k_{}`$express two orthogonal states of polarization, e.g. of linear $`(\stackrel{}{\pi })`$. This condition is still represented by the device shown in Figure 2 in which the modes $`k_1`$and $`k_2`$ are made to collapse into a single $`k`$. In general the quantum injection is still provided there by a qubit encoded in a single photon: $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{IN}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|1,0+\stackrel{~}{\beta }|0,1)`$ where again$`\left|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\right|^2+\left|\stackrel{~}{\beta }\right|^2=1`$ and: $`|x,y|x_{}|y_{}`$. For the present purpose the problem may be simplified, with no loss of generality by assuming: $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=0`$. Applying the theory given in Section 2, we get the output state to the first order of approximation:

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }|1,0\sqrt{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }|2,1$$
(18)
to be compared with Eq.14. Likewise, the no-injection condition leads to the output state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0|0,0\mathrm{\Gamma }|1,1`$, to be compared with Eq.15. The ”no-interaction” first term is easily discarded by a coincidence measurement . The second term consists of a pure state realizing both exact cloning and qubit-flipping on the output modes. Thus means that any test aimed at the detection of the two processes is not affected by quantum noise. However, the device works just for one particular input qubit, i.e. for one particular choice of the parameters $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$. Any other choice would lead to a different amplification quantum efficiency. In other words, the device is not a universal machine. In analogy with the theoretical results of Section 2, this may be attributed to the fact the interaction hamiltonian of the present OPA system $`\widehat{H}_I=i\mathrm{}\chi \widehat{A}+h.c.`$, $`\widehat{A}`$ $`\widehat{a}_{}\widehat{a}_{}`$ cannot be made formally invariant under displacements of the injected qubit over the entire Bloch sphere, Figure 1. Indeed at least four nonlinearly interacting e.m. modes are needed to attain such invariance of the optical amplifier/squeezing hamiltonian. All these results are fully consistent with the general theory of the ”optimal quantum machines”.

In summary, the present work shows experimentally in a unifying manner, and perhaps for the first time, that the concepts of no-signaling, i.e. causality, linearity and complete-positivity have yet little explored inter-connections within the inner structure of quantum mechanics . We do believe that the actual results, the suggestions and the open problems contributed by the present work could be useful by setting measurement bounds and fundamental performance limitations in the domain of Quantum Information. Furthermore they should somewhat contribute to a clarification of some deep structural aspects of axiomatic quantum theory.

We are indebted with Vladimir Buzek, Sandu Popescu, Christoph Simon and Mauro D’Ariano for enlightening discussions and suggestions. This work has been supported by the FET European Network on Quantum Information and Communication (Contract IST-2000-29681: ATESIT), by PRA-INFM ”CLON” and by PAIS-INFM 2002 (QEUPCO).

Figure Captions

Figure.1. Bloch sphere, the state space of a quantum-bit (qubit). Pure-states are represented by points on the sphere while statistical-mixtures are points inside the sphere. The universal-NOT gate operation corresponds to the inversion of the sphere, i.e. states $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ are antipodes.

Figure.2. Schematic diagram of the Quantum Injected Optical Parametric Amplifier (QIOPA) in entangled configuration. The injection is provided by an external Spontaneous Parametric Down Conversion source (SPDC) of polarization $`(\stackrel{}{\pi })`$ entangled photon states.

Figure.3. Injection apparatus of attenuated coherent optical pulses into a QIOPA to demonstrate the universality of the parametric amplification.

Figure.4. Experimental verification of the universality of the OPA system by injection of $`\stackrel{}{\pi }qubits`$ represented by several significant points on the Bloch sphere. The injected state is encoded in a very attenuated coherent laser beam.

Figure.5. Schematic diagram of the universal optimal cloning machine (UOQCM) realized on the cloning (C) channel (mode $`k_1`$) of a self-injected OPA and of the Universal NOT (U-NOT) gate realized on the anticloning (AC) channel, $`k_2`$. Micrometric adjustments of the coordinate Z of the UV mirror $`M_p`$ ensured the time superposition in the active NL crystal of the UV 150 femtosecond pump pulses and of the single photon pulse injected via back reflection by the fixed mirror $`M`$.

Figure.6. Demonstration of the UOQCM by single photon qubit self-injection and 4-detector coincidences. The plots on the left-hand-side (l.h.s) and on the r.h.s of the figure mutually correspond. The values of the ”fidelity” of the process $`F`$ evaluated by each test are expressed in the upper side of the l.h.s. plots while the corresponding test qubits are expressed in r.h.s. plots.

Figure.7. Demonstration of the Universal Optimal NOT-gate by single photon qubit self-injection and 4-detector coincidences. The plots on the l.h.s. and on the r.h.s of the figure mutually correspond. The values of the fidelity of the process, $`F^{}`$and the expression of the corresponding test qubits are shown as for figure 6.