arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 1 Apr 2015

Transcription

1 Theory of Quantum Imaging with Undetected Photons Mayukh Lahiri, 1, Radek Lapkiewicz, 1 Gariela Barreto Lemos, 1 and Anton Zeilinger 1, 2 1 Vienna Center for Quantum cience and Technology (VCQ), Faculty of Physics, Boltzmanngasse 5, University of Vienna, Vienna A-19, Austria. 2 Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information, Austrian Academy of ciences, Boltzmanngasse 3, Vienna A-19, Austria. Astract: A novel quantum imaging technique has recently een demonstrated in an experiment, where the photon used for illuminating an oect is not detected; the image is otained y interfering two eams, none of which ever interacts with the oect. Here we present a detailed theoretical analysis of the experiment. We show that the oect information is present only in the interference term and not in the individual intensities of the interfering eams. We also theoretically estalish that the magnification of the imaging system depends on two wavelengths: the average wavelength of the photon that illuminates the oect and the average wavelength of the photon that is detected. Our analysis affirms that the imaging process is ased on the principle that quantum interference occurs when interferometric path information is unavailale. arxiv:154.42v1 quant-ph 1 Apr 215 I. INTRODUCTION According to Bohr, comprehending the nature of a quantum system requires a comined use of the contrasting pictures of a classical particle and a classical wave 1. Bohr s complementarity principle 2 implies that the complete particle ehavior and the complete wave ehavior of a quantum system or entity are mutually exclusive. In other words, if a quantum entity ehaves completely like a particle (wave) under certain experimental conditions, it does not display its wave (particle) ehavior under the same conditions. To avoid confusion, we do not refer to a quantum entity as either particle or wave ; instead, we use the term quanton (see, for example, 3). The wave-particle duality can e illustrated y a lowest-order 4 interference experiment (e.g., Young s doule-slit experiment, Mach-Zehnder interferometer, etc.), in which a single quanton (e.g., photon, electron, etc.) is sent into a two-way interferometer (see, for example, 5). If the quanton ehaves completely like a particle, no interference can e oserved at the output of the interferometer. It turns out that in this case it is possile to determine with complete certainty via which path the quanton has traversed. On the other hand, when there is asolutely no information on the path traveled y the quanton, perfect interference occurs a ehavior that characterizes waves. The relationship etween interference and path information (wave-particle duality) has drawn the attention of several researchers (see, for example, 6 1). The imaging process 11 of our interest is related to the wave-particle duality of photons. Let us consider two spatially separated identical light sources, 1 and 2, each of which has the aility of producing two photons at a time. These two photons are, in general, not identical Electronic address: mayukh.lahiri@univie.ac.at with each other and we lael them y a and. uppose now that we select the a-photons from the oth sources and send them into a two-arm interferometer under the following conditions: 1) photons from a particular source can travel through only one of the arms; 2) the sources emit at the same rate ut in such a way that there is never more than one photon present in the interferometer at a time. In this case, although the a-photons are identical with each other, one can partially or fully extract the interferometric path information y interacting with a -photon that is not sent into the interferometer. In such a situation, it is, therefore, possile to control the interference of a photon sent into the interferometer y using a photon that is not sent into the interferometer. This phenomenon has een experimentally demonstrated and discussed in Refs. 12, 13 and is often referred to as induced coherence without induced emission. The essence of our imaging technique 11 lies in the fact that the effect of interaction with -photons is oserved in the first-order interference fringe pattern produced y the a-photons. As for sources, we use two identical nonlinear crystals which generate photons y spontaneous parametric down-conversion. In ection II, we riefly recapitulate some asic results relating to the theory of spontaneous parametric down-conversion. In ection III, we then present a detailed analysis of the imaging method. Finally, we summarize our results in ection IV. II. ELEMENT OF THE THEORY OF PONTANEOU PARAMETRIC DOWN-CONVERION We mostly follow the theory of the process of spontaneous parametric down-conversion developed y Hong and Mandel 14. In this process a nonlinear crystal converts a photon (pump) into two photons (signal and idler) each of which has energy lower than that of the pump-photon. The comined energy of the signal and the idler photons is equal to the energy of the pump-photon.

2 2 When the pump eam is highly coherent and the downconversion does not ring any oservale change in the pump intensity, one can represent the pump y a classical electric field E P (r, t). In this case, the interaction Hamiltonian associated with the process of parametric down-conversion can e expressed in the interaction picture as (cf. 13, 14) Ĥ in (t) = d 3 r χ lmq E P l (r, t)ê( ) m (r, t)ê( ) Iq (r, t) + H.c., D (1) where χ represents the nonlinear electric susceptiility tensor of the crystal, Ê ( ) (r, t) and Ê( ) I (r, t) are the negative frequency parts of the quantized electric fields associated with the signal and idler, respectively, D is the volume of the crystal, H.c. implies Hermitian conugation, and there is summation over the repeated indices l, m, q which lael three mutually orthogonal directions in space. The pump, the signal and the idler fields may oscillate at different optical frequencies. In general, the susceptiility of the crystal depends on these frequencies. The Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) is therefore often expressed y decomposing the optical fields into several modes (see, for example, 14). The positive frequency part of a quantized electric field inside the crystal can e represented y the expression 15 Ê (+) (r, t) = k,σ α(k, σ) exp i(k r ωt) e k,σ â(k, σ), (cf. 16) Ĥ in (t) = d 3 r D k P,σ P k,σ k I,σ I (e kp,σ P ) l ( e k,σ ) { χlmq (ω P, ω, ω I )V P (k P, σ P ) m ( e ki,σ I ) q α (k, σ )α (k I, σ I ) exp i(ω + ω I ω P )t exp i(k P k k I ) r } â (k, σ ) â I (k I, σ I ) + H.c., (4) where the suscripts P, and I refer to pump, signal and idler, respectively. The quantum state of light generated y down-conversion at the crystal is given y the well known formula ψ(t ) = exp 1 i t dt Ĥin(t) vac, (5) where vac is the vacuum state and t is the interaction time. By expanding the exponential, Eq. (5) can e expressed in the form ψ(t 1 t ) = vac + dt i Ĥin(t) vac (6) III. IMAGING Let us consider a situation in which two identical nonlinear crystals NL1 and NL2 are pumped y optical eams P 1 and P 2, respectively, generated y the same laser source (Fig. 1). The idler eam, I 1, generated y NL1 (2) where σ = 1, 2, laels two directions of polarization, ω is the frequency, k is the wave vector, e k,σ represents two generally complex, mutually orthogonal unit vectors such that e k,σ k =, α(k, σ) = i ω/(2ɛ n 2 (k, σ)l 3 ), ɛ is the electric permittivity of free space, n(k, σ) is the refractive index of the anisotropic, nonlinear crystal, L 3 is the quantization volume, and â(k, σ) is the photon annihilation operator for the mode laeled y (k, σ). Let us also decompose the pump field inside the crystal into plane wave modes and express it in the form E P (r, t) = k P,σ P V P (k P, σ P ) exp i(k P r ω P t) e kp,σ P. (3) The Hamiltonian, given y Eq. (1), now takes the form FIG. 1: Illustrating the principle of the experiment. A laser eam (lue) is split into two eams P 1 and P 2 which pump the nonlinear crystals NL1 and NL2. The crystals produce signal (green) and idler (red) eams. The idler eam I 1 is aligned with the idler eam I 2. The signal eams 1 and 2 are superposed y the eam splitter B and one of the outputs of B is detected y a camera. D1, D2, D3 are dichroic mirrors. is transmitted through NL2 and is aligned with the idler eam, I 2, generated y the latter. The signal eams 1

3 3 and 2 from the crystals NL1 and NL2, respectively, are superposed y a eam-splitter, B. One of the outputs of the eam-splitter is detected y an EMCCD camera. uppose that the pump fields at the two crystals are given y the complex electric field vectors EP1 (r1, t2 ) and EP2 (r2, t2 ), expanded in the form given y Eq. (3). From Eqs. (2), (3), (4) and (6) it follows that the quantum state of light generated y each individual crystal is given y the formula (cf. 17) ψ (t )i = vaci + t D i~ X X h X χlmq (ωp ; ω, ωi ) kp,σp k,σ ki,σi VP (kp, σp ) α (k, σ )α (ki, σi ) ekp,σp l exp i(ω + ωi ωp )t /2 eki,σi ek,σ m q sinc(ω + ωi ωp )t /2 exp i(kp k ki ) r 3 ny sinc(kp k ki )n ln /2 are appropriate to our experiment. Let us assume that the signal and the idler can e treated as eams with uniform linear polarization oth inside and outside of the crystals. In such a situation, we can drop the summation over the polarization indices σp, σ, σi and can also write α(k, σ ) u α (ω ), α(ki, σi ) u αi (ωi ), (9) One can now replace the annihilation operator a(k, σ) with a(k), the numer state k, σi with ki and the susceptiility tensor χlmq with a scalar quantity χ. Furthermore, the alignment condition given y Eq. (8) reduces to the form ei ) expiφi (k ei ). ai2 (ki ) = ai1 (k (1) ei and ki It is to e noted that the relationship etween k depends on the optical system used for aligning the idler eams. o n=1 k, σ ki, σi i I +..., (7) where = 1, 2 laels the two crystals, k, σ a (k, σ ) vaci, = a I (ki, σi ) vacii, ki, σi I = the volume integration has een carried out assuming the crystal to e a rectangular parallelepiped 18 of sides l1, l2, l3 with its center located at the point r, and sincx = sin x/x; the sinc terms lead to the two well known phase matching conditions associated with the process of spontaneous parametric down-conversion. A. Alignment of Idler Beams If the eam I1 is perfectly aligned with the eam I2, for (+) of I1 there each mode present in the quantized field E I1 exists an equally populated mode in the quantized field (+) of I2. The perfect alignment of the idler eams E I2 can, therefore, e analytically expressed y the following formula: ai2 (ki, σi ) = ai1 (k ei ) expiφi (k ei ), (8) where the mode (k ei ) is generated at NL1 and is aligned with the mode (ki, σi ) that is generated at NL2; φi (k ei ) is a phase factor which can e interpreted as the phase gained y the mode (k ei ) due to propagation from NL1 to NL2. The Hamiltonian given y Eq. (4) and, consequently, the state in Eq. (7) are expressed in quite general forms. We now simplify them using certain assumptions which FIG. 2: chematics of the imaging experiment. Positive lenses L1 and L2 (oth of focal length fi ), placed in the path of I1, form a 4-f system that images NL1 on NL2. An identical 4-f system, consisting of positive lenses L3 and L4, is placed in the path of 1. A thin oect is placed on a plane which is the ack focal plane of L1 and the front focal plane of L2. One of the outputs of B is focused y a positive lens L of focal length f into a camera. NL2 and the ack focal plane, Γ, of L4 are located at the front focal plane of L. The lenses are assumed to e thin and ideal. The superposed signal eam is passed through a narrow-and filter, F, efore entering the camera. In the experiment the two idler eams are aligned y the use of a 4-f lens system that images a central plane of NL1 onto a central plane of NL2 (Fig. 2). We assume the idler eam axis to e along the optical axis of the lens system. A thin oect which is intended to e imaged is placed at the ack focal plane of the first positive lens, L1, of the 4-f system; this plane is also the front focal plane of the second positive lens, L2, of the same 4-f system. Clearly, the oect is illuminated only y the idler eam that is generated y the first crystal. ei If a plane wave characterized y the wave vector k is incident on L1, it gets converted into a spherical wave that converges to a point ρ kei, say, on the ack focal plane of L1 Fig. 3(a). It then reemerges from this point as a

4 4 B. (a) () FIG. 3: Illustrating notations: (a) ρ kei is a two-dimensional position vector lying on the oect plane. The origin is chosen at the point O where the optical axis z meets the oect plane. We neglect the limits due to diffraction. () The wave vectors ei and ki are mirror images of each other with respect to the k optical axis z. θi is the asolute value of the angle they make with the optical axis. diverging spherical wave. The amplitude of the diverging spherical wave can e determined from the amplitude of the incident wave and the complex transmission coefficient T (ρρkei ) of the oect at point ρ kei. The diverging spherical wave gets reconverted into a plane wave y the positive lens L2. This plane wave is characterized y a ei, unless k ei is wave vector ki which is different from k along the optical axis z of the lens system. If one neglects the limits due to diffraction, one can say that a plane wave emerging from L2 contains information aout one specific point of the oect. Although the discussion of the previous paragraph is applicale to a classical field, it provides a guideline for treating the prolem quantum mechanically. ince a quantized field is represented y decomposing it into several plane wave modes, one can say that one point on the oect can transmit and reflect only one specific mode of the quantized idler field. Hence a single point on the oect acts as a eam splitter only on one particular idler mode. Using the quantum mechanical treatment of a eam splitter (19, sec ), one can now write the alignment condition Eq. (1) in the following form: h i ei ) + R (ρρ e ) ei ) ai2 (ki ) = T (ρρkei ) ai1 (k a ( k ki ei ), expiφi (k (11) where T (ρρkei ) is the transmission coefficient of the oect at the point ρ ki, R (ρρkei ) is the reflection coefficient at the same point when illuminated from the opposite direction, a represents the vacuum field at the unused port ei ) is the of the eam splitter (a point on the oect), φi (k 2 2 phase term mentioned earlier and T + R = 1. It is evident that in asence of the oect, i.e., when T = 1 and R =, Eq. (11) reduces to Eq. (1). If one neglects the limits due to diffraction, there is an ei, i.e., for one-to-one correspondence etween ki and k ei. When every choice of ki there is one and only one k ei are the focal lengths of L1 and L2 are equal, ki and k mirror images of each other with respect to the optical axis z see Fig. 3(). Detection ystem Let us now consider the detection system used in the experimental setup. The signal eams generated y the two crystals are superposed y a 5 : 5 eam splitter (B) and one of the outputs of the eam splitter is focused on an EMCCD camera y a positive lens L (Fig. 2). A filter, F, is placed in front of the camera so that the light entering the camera has a narrow frequency and of mean frequency ω. FIG. 4: Illustrating notations relating to the detection system: ρ k is a two-dimensional position vector lying on the image plane (camera screen). The origin is chosen at the point O where the optical axis (also the eam axis) z meets the image plane. The wave vector k makes an angle θ with the optical axis. In asence of limits due to diffraction, L would focus a plane wave with wave vector k at a point ρ k, say, on the camera screen (Fig. 4). Hence the positive frequency part of the quantized field at the camera can e expressed as 2 (+) (ρρk, t) E L1 (k ) a1 (k ) exp iω t c L2 (k ) a2 (k ), + i exp ik r iω t c (12) where L (k ) is the optical path traveled y the mode laeled y k from the nonlinear crystal to the camera (propagation inside the crystals has een neglected), k = ω /c and we have chosen r1 =, r2 r1 = r. C. Formation of an Image For the sake of simplicity, we assume that the pump eams are well collimated, uniformly polarized and narrow-and with mean frequency ω P. In this case, the pump field at the crystal can e represented y VP expi(kp r ω P t). We choose the direction of kp to e along the direction of the optical axis. Using Eqs. (7), (9) and (11) one can show (see Appendix 1) that the quantum state of the field in this system can e approx-

5 5 imated y Ψ vac + t D i k 1 k I1 g(ω 1, ω I1 )V P1 { 3 sinc(k P k 1 k I1 ) n l n /2 } n=1 sinc(ω 1 + ω I1 ω P )t /2 k 1 1 k I1 I1 2 + t D i k 2 k I2 g(ω 2, ω I2 )V P2 exp i(k P k 2 k I2 ) r exp iφ I ( k I2 )sinc(ω 2 + ω I2 ω P )t /2 { 3 sinc(k P k 2 k I2 ) n l n /2 } n=1 (T (ρ ki2 ) 1 ki2 I 1 k R (ρ ki2 ) 1 I1 k 2 2 ki2 ), (13) where g(ω, ω I ) = χ(ω, ω I )α (ω )αi (ω I ) expi(ω + ω I ω P )t /2, k I2 is the mirror image of k I2 with respect to the optical axis (eam axis) of the 4-f system and we have suppressed the normalization coefficients. In the experiment, we choose crystals whose sides are approximately 1 3 m of length; since the wave vectors are characterized y corresponding optical wavelengths, the terms sinc(k P k k I ) n l n /2 in Eq. (7) contriute only when k P k k I. This implies that the spatial phase matching condition k P k + k I holds to a very good accuracy. Furthermore, the term sinc(ω + ω I ω P )t /2 leads to the temporal phase matching condition ω P ω + ω I. The photon counting rate 21 at a point ρ k in the camera is given y R(ρ k ) Ψ Ê( ) (ρ k, t)ê(+) (ρ k, t) Ψ, (14) where Ψ is given y Eq. (13) and the quantized field is given y Eq. (12). It follows from a long ut straightforward calculation that apart from a proportionality constant R(ρ k ) is given y R(ρ k ) V P1 2 + V P V P1 V P2 T ) (ρ ki cos φ 2 (k ) φ 1 (k ) φ I ( k I ) argt (ρ ki ) + φ P + k r + C, (15) where k I denotes a wave vector that is the mirror image of the wave vector k I = k P k with respect to the optical axis Fig. 3(), k P = ω P /c, k = ω /c, k I = ω I /c, is the point on the oect that is illu- ρ ki minated y the idler mode k I, φ (k ) = ω L (k )/c, φ P = argv P2 argv P1, and C includes all other phase terms. Equation (15) is the key equation of the theory of imaging. Let us first consider the situation in which no oect is placed in the idler s path, i.e., when T = 1 and argt =. We have already mentioned in ection III B that a point on the image plane (camera) has contriution only from one signal mode k. ince the diameter of the signal eam cross-section in the camera is much smaller in dimension than the optical paths L (k ) and the distance r etween the two crystals, the terms k r and φ (k ) can e treated as a slowly varying function of k. imilarly, since the diameter of the first idler eam inside NL2 is much smaller than the distance etween the two crystals, one can also neglect the k I dependence of φ I ( k I ). These allow us to write φ 2 (k ) φ 1 (k ), φ I ( k I ) φ I and k r + C C, where, φ I and C are constants. Equation (15) now reduces to R(ρ k ) V P1 2 + V P V P1 V P2 cos φ I + φ P + C. (16) ince the right-hand side of Eq. (16) does not have any k dependence, it is clear that an almost uniformly illuminated eam cross-section would e oserved in the camera. The phase term φ P can e controlled in the experiment and y doing so one can modulate the intensity of the eam spot. It is evident from Eq. (16) that y changing the value of φ P, one can achieve conditions oth of constructive and of destructive interference, which are given y the following equations, respectively: φ I + φ P C + C = 2Nπ, φ I + φ P D + C = (2N + 1)π, (17a) (17) where φ P C and φ P D are values of φ P for constructive and destructive interferences 22, respectively, and N is an integer. Thus we have estalished the relations φ 2 (k ) φ 1 (k ) φ I ( k I ) + φ P C + C 2Nπ, (18a) φ 2 (k ) φ 1 (k ) φ I ( k I ) + φ P D + C (2N + 1)π. (18) When the oect is inserted in the idler s path, it follows from Eqs. (15) and (18) that the photon counting rates at a point in the camera under the conditions of constructive and destructive interference are, respectively, given y the formulas R (+) (ρ k ) V P1 2 + V P V P1 V P2 T (ρ ki ) cos(argt (ρ ki )), (19a) R ( ) (ρ k ) V P1 2 + V P2 2 2 V P1 V P2 T (ρ ki ) cos(argt (ρ ki )). (19)

6 6 Equations (19) imply that an image of an asorptive oect (argt (ρ ki ) = ) and as well as of a phase oect ( T (ρ ki ) = 1) would appear in the camera for oth constructive and destructive interferences (see 11, Fig. 3a). It further follows from Eqs. (19) that apart from a proportionality constant R (+) (ρ k ) R ( ) (ρ k ) T (ρ ki ) cos(argt (ρ ki )), (2) implying the ackground effect due to presence of the terms V P1 2 and V P2 2 can e eliminated y sutracting the photon counting rate otained with destructive interference from that otained with constructive interference (see 11, Fig. 3d). It also follows from Eqs. (19) that R (+) (ρ k ) + R ( ) (ρ k ) 2( V P1 2 + V P2 2 ). (21) This means that summing up the photon counting rates otained y constructive and destructive interferences removes the image (see 11, Fig. 3c). Clearly, even if one uses an asorptive oect that completely locks the eam I 1, the summation of the photon counting rates does not change. The fact that the information of the oect appears only in the interference term shows that the imaging process is purely quantum mechanical in nature; this point is discussed later in further details. It is clear from the preceding discussion that a point in the oect plane is imaged at the point ρ ρ ki k in the image plane, where is the point at which a classical ρ ki plane wave with wave vector k I would e focused y the lens L1 see Fig. 3(a) and ρ k is the point where the plane wave characterized y k would e focused y L. ince k I is the mirror image of the wave vector k I with respect to the optical axis see Fig. 3() and k I is related to k y the phase matching condition k I k P k, the image that appears on the camera is not inverted 23. D. Image Magnification o far we have neglected the effect of refraction at the crystal surface. However, one needs to consider this effect in order to otain a correct value of the magnification. The wave vectors k and k I used thus far represent plane waves outside the crystals. The mirror image of k I with respect to the optical axis z is k I Fig. 3(). uppose that the plane waves with wave vectors k and k I are represented inside the crystal y k and k I, respectively. The phase matching condition can now e expressed as k + k I k P, (22) where k P is the wave vector of the pump field inside the crystal. If k and k I make angles θ and θ I, respectively, with k P which is along the optical axis, it follows from Eq. (22) that ω n sin θ ω I n I sin θ I. (23) Let us choose two points on the oect which are represented y two-dimensional position vectors ρ ki and ρ k I. uppose that their images at the camera are represented y the two-dimensional position vectors ρ k and ρ k, respectively. The magnification is defined y the well known formula M = ρ k ρ k ρ ρ ki k, (24) I where its positive sign implies that the image is not inverted. As already mentioned, the origins in the oect and the image planes are chosen at the points O and O where the corresponding optical axes (eam axes) meet the respective planes see Figs. 3(a) and 4. It readily follows from the theory presented in ection III C that O is the image of O. By choosing the points ρ k and I ρ k at O and O respectively, we reduce Eq. (24) to the simplified form M = ρ k ρ ki. (25) If the signal plane wave k, which is focused y the lens L1 at the point ρ k, makes an angle θ with the optical axis z (Fig. 4), one has in the small-angle approximation ρ k = f tan θ f θ. imilarly, one can show that ρ ki f I θ I, where θ I is the angle made y the wave vector k I with the optical axis Fig. 3(a). It now follows from Eq. (25) that M = f θ f I θ I. (26) ince k and k I are related to k and k I, respectively, y refraction at the crystal surface, using nell s law one otains n sin θ = n sin θ, n I sin θ I = n sin θ I, (27) where we have used the fact that k I and k I make the same angle with the optical axis Fig. 3() and the refractive index of air (n ) has practically the same value for signal and idler. From Eqs. (23) and (27), it immediately follows that ω sin θ ω I sin θ I. In the small-angle limit, we thus otain ω θ ω I θ I. (28) From Eqs. (26) and (28) one finds that M = f ω I f I ω = f λ f I λi. (29) Clearly, magnification of the imaging system depends on the ratio of the average wavelength of the signal to that of the idler. The dependence of the magnification on oth wavelengths is a remarkale feature of our imaging process.

7 7 IV. CONCLUION Acknowledgements We have theoretically analyzed a recently demonstrated 11 quantum imaging technique. Although the experimental setup resemles an ordinary two-arm interferometer, the principle ehind the imaging is purely quantum mechanical. If one imagines a classical two-arm interferometer in one of whose arms an asorptive oect is placed, oth the interference term and the intensity contriution from the arm containing the oect would depend on the transmissivity of the oect. In our experiment, on the other hand, the intensity contriution from any of the crystals does not depend on the transmissivity of the oect. It is evident from Eqs. (19) that the information of the oect is present only in the interference term. This also shows that the interference of signal eams is not due to the effect of induced emission (see also 12, 24). This interference can only e explained y indistinguishaility of the signal photon paths and hence the imaging process is directly related to wave-particle duality of photons. In this context, let us also have a close look at Eq. (13), which provides us with an expression for the quantum state Ψ that has een used for explaining the imaging process. ince the pump source used in the experiment is a narrow-and laser, this state is otained (see Appendix 1) from the tensor product of the individual states, ψ 1 and ψ 2, generated y the crystals under the alignmentcondition imposed y Eq. (11). This tensor product together with the alignment-condition implies the effect of induced emission. However, when the higher order terms present in ψ 1 and ψ 2 can e neglected, the state Ψ ecomes identical with a state otained y linear superposition of ψ 1 and ψ 2 under the same alignmentcondition (see Appendix 1). ince such a superposition is only allowed when there is no effect of induced emission, it is clear that photons generated y spontaneous parametric down conversion play the key role in our imaging process 25. Finally, although it is ovious, we would like to point out that the principle of our imaging also works if an entirely different lens system (or no lens system) is used in the experiment. A different lens system would only lead to a different value of the image magnification. Equation (29) shows that this magnification is equal to the product of two ratios: the ratio of focal lengths (f /f I ) and the ratio of wavelengths ( λ / λ I ). The most remarkale feature of this result is the presence of two mean wavelengths in the formula of magnification. This is a consequence of (a) the fact that the oect is illuminated y photons of one mean wavelength while the camera detects photons of the other wavelength and () the phase-matching condition see Eq. (23). The use of a different lens system in the setup might lead to a different expression for the image magnification; however, a dependence on two average wavelengths would always e present. The authors thanks M. Horne for many discussions. This proect was supported y ÖAW, the European Research Council (ERC Advanced grant no QIT4QAD, and IQ grant no EU-FP7-ICT), and the Austrian cience Fund (FWF) with FB F4 (FOQU) and W121-2 (CoQus). Appendix 1 In this appendix, we illustrate the procedure used for otaining Eq. (13). We present a single-mode analysis, ecause the procedure does not change when all the modes present in the quantized fields are considered. The singlemode and scalar version of Eq. (7) can e represented in the form ψ = vac + G 1 1 I +..., (3) where = 1, 2, the time dependence is suppressed, the coefficients are collectively denoted y G and the dots represent higher order terms containing higher powers of G. The single-mode version of Eq. (11) is given y â I2 = T â I1 + R â e iφ I. (31) From Eq. (31), one immediately otains that 1 I2 = T + R I1 1 e iφ I. (32) Now using Eqs. (3) and (32), one can write ψ 1 = vac + G (33a) ψ 2 = vac + G 2 e iφ I T 1 + R 1 I (33) ince oth crystals are pumped y eams generated y a laser source (not a single photon source), the quantum state of light in the system is given y Ψ = ψ 1 ψ 2, i.e., y Ψ = vac + G I2 + G 2 e iφ I T 1 + R 1 I1 1 + higher order terms, (34) where the higher order terms contains higher second or higher powers of the coefficients G. ince the rate of down conversion is very small, the these higher order terms can e neglected. Hence the state Ψ can e approximated y (neglecting the normalization coefficients) Ψ vac + G I2 + G 2 e iφ I T 1 + R 1 I1 1. (35)

8 8 Equation (13) is the multi-mode version of Eq. (35). It is to e noted that the form of Ψ given y Eq. (35) can also e otained y linear superposition of the states given y Eqs. (33a) and (33a), if one neglects the higher order terms. It is thus clear that if the experimental conditions are such that the contriution of these higher order terms is much smaller than that of the first order terms to a measurement of our interest, the measurement would yield the same result as in a case when the state Ψ must e otained y superposing ψ 1 and ψ 2. References and Notes 1 N. Bohr, Discussion with Einstein on epistemological prolems in atomic physics, Alert Einstein: Philosopher cientist, vol. 1, P. A. chilpp Ed. (1949). 2 N. Bohr, Das Quantenpostulat und die neuere Entwicklung der Atomistik, Naturwissenschaften 16, (1928). 3 J.-M. Le vy-lelond, A Quantum Credo, Physica B 151, (1988). 4 The lowest-order interference has een referred to as oth second-order 19 and first-order 21 in the literature. 5 R. P. Feynman, R. B. Leighton and M. ands, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol. III, (Addison-Wesley Pulishing Company, New York, UA 1966). 6 D. M. Greenerger and A. Yasin, imultaneous wave and particle knowledge in a neutron interferometer, Phys. Lett. A 128, (1988). 7 L. Mandel, Coherence and indistinguishaility, Opt. Lett. 16, 1882 (1991). 8 G. Jaeger, A. himony and L. Vaidman, Two interferometric complementarities, Phys. Rev. A 51, 54 (1995). 9 B-G. Englert, Fringe visiility and which-way information: an inequality, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2154 (1996). 1 M. Arndt, O. Nairz, J. Vos-Andreae, C. Keller, G. v.d. Zouw and A. Zeilinger, Waveparticle duality of C 6 molecules, Nature 41, (1999). 11 G. B. Lemos, V. Borish, G. D. Cole,. Ramelow, R. Lapkiewicz and A. Zeilinger, Quantum imaging with undetected photons, Nature 512, (214). 12 X. Y. Zou, L. J. Wang and L. Mandel, Induced Coherence and Indistinguishaility in Optical Interference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, (1991). 13 L. J. Wang, X. Y. Zou and L. Mandel, Induced Coherence without Induced Emission, Phys. Rev. A 44, (1991). 14 C. K. Hong and L. Mandel, Theory of parametric down conversion of light, Phys. Rev. A 31, (1985). 15 Quantization of electromagnetic fields inside a nonlinear crystal is a non-trivial prolem. However, when the nonlinearities are not high, the field is often represented in a form which is analogous to that of the free quantized field (see, for example, 19, Ch. 22). 16 R. Ghosh, C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou and L. Mandel, Interference of two photons in parametric down conversion, Phys. Rev. A 34, (1985). 17. P. Walorn, C. H. Monken,. Pádua and P. H. outo Rieiro, patial correlations in parametric downconversion, Phys. Rep. 495, (21). 18 We assume that almost the entire volume of each crystal is illuminated y the pump eam. 19 L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Camridge, Camridge University Press, 1995). 2 The photons are detected outside the crystals, whereas the phase matching conditions represent criteria inside the crystals. Hence the signal wave vectors used in Eq. (12) are related to the ones used in Eq. (13) y the refraction that occurs at the crystal surface. In this susection, we neglect the effect of this refraction for simplicity. This effect is considered in ection III D, where we determine the image magnification. 21 R. J. Glauer, The quantum theory of optical coherence Phys. Rev. 13, 2529 (1963). 22 When constructive interference is oserved in one of the outputs of the eam splitter, destructive interference occurs in the other output. Because of this changing values of φ P from φ P C to φ P D can e avoided during the experiment y collecting oth outputs of the eam splitter. However, it must e noted that coincidence counts are never detected in this experiment. Detection of coincidence counts are required for investigating higher order interference phenomena (see, for example, 13, 26). 23 It is to e noted that y changing the lens system in the experimental setup, it is possile to change the relation etween k I and k I ut not the phase matching condition. In principle, it is thus possile to otain an inverted image y using a different lens system. 24 H. M. Wiseman and K. Mølmer, Induced coherence with and without induced emission, Phys. Lett. A 27, (2). 25 The higher order terms present in ψ 1 and ψ 2 contain higher (4 or more) photon states. Because of this the effect of induced emission can e oserved in certain phenomena (see, for example, 27) where the lower photon-numer states do not contriute (i.e., one can no longer neglect the higher order terms). 26 A. V. Burlakov, D. N. Klyshko,. P. Kulik and M. V. Chekhova, Fourth-order interference etween independent iphotons, JETP Lett. 69, (1999). 27 B. H. Liu, F. W. un, Y. X. Gong, Y. F. Huang, Z. Y. Ou and G. C.Guo, Investigation of the role of indistinguishaility in photon unching and stimulated emission, Phys. Rev. A 79, (29).