Arxiv:1507.02540V2 [Quant-Ph] 27 May 2016

Heralded entangled coherent states between spatially separated massive resonators

Ali Asadian1 and Mehdi Abdi2 1Naturwissenschaftlich-Technische Fakultät,UniversityätSiegen, Walter-Flex-Straße 3, 57068 Siegen, Germany 2Physik Department, Technische UniversitätMünchen,James-Franck-Straße, 85748 Garching, Germany (Dated: September 2, 2021) We put forward an experimentally feasible scheme for heralded entanglement generation between two distant macroscopic mechanical resonators. The protocol exploits a hybrid quantum device, a qubit interacting with a mechanical resonator as well as a cavity mode, for each party. The cavity modes interfere on a beam-splitter followed by suitable heralding detections which post-select a hybrid entangled state with success probability 1/2. Subsequently, by local measurements on the qubits a mechanical entangled coherent state can be achieved. The mechanical entanglement can be further verified via monitoring the entanglement of the qubit pair. The setup is envisioned as a test bench for sensing gravitational effects on the quantum dynamics of gravitationally coupled massive objects. As a concrete example, we illustrate the implementation of our protocol using the current circuit QED architectures.

PACS numbers: 03.65.Ud, 42.50.Pq, 85.40.Xx, 03.65.Yz

I. INTRODUCTION thus is fundamentally inconsistent with any classical de- scription. An interesting scenario here could be to con- Experimental creations of nonclassical states of macro- sider the entanglement between two test masses which scopic continuous variable systems have been motivated are only gravitationally interacting with each other and from different perspectives. long-term motivations are to to track a genuine gravitational decoherence on the en- explore the limits of the standard quantum mechanics tanglement dynamics [20]. Furthermore, the setup is use- and perhaps observe possible corrections at scales where ful for Bell test performed on remote macroscopic sub- collapse phenomena [1–4] or gravitational effects become systems [5, 21–23]. We show that the proposed protocol significant to fully account for the quantum dynamics in is experimentally feasible with the current technology of table-top quantum optics experiments [5]. A particularly the so-called circuit QED devices [24]. interesting case of nonclassical states are entangled states between different modes [6]. There are several proposals for entangling two mechanical oscillators either in a sys- II. MODEL tem interacting with a common field [7–9] or two distant resonators without direct interaction [10, 11]. Recently, We use a particular hybrid quantum device for imple- a scheme for generating Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen entan- menting our entangling protocol. The hybrid device is gled state of two mechanical systems has been proposed composed of a mechanical oscillator with frequency ωm, [12]. These schemes mainly deal with creation of bipar- a photonic cavity mode with frequency ωc, and a qubit tite Gaussian entanglement demonstrated by the second system made up of ground |gi and excited |ei energy lev- moments of the phase space quadratures. els. We also need an extra, auxiliary, excited state |fi for Heralded entanglement generation is tailored to en- conditionally entangling the qubit with an emitted cav- tangle two remote particles where the entanglement is ity photon. Solid-state qubits such as spin of a nitrogen- produced conditionally based on measurement outcomes vacancy center [25] or superconducting transmon qubits without any direct interactions between the particles [13]. [26] have such a structure. The qubit strongly interacts This method has been proposed for entangling distant with both the mechanical and the electromagnetic modes,

arXiv:1507.02540v2 [quant-ph] 27 May 2016 qubits and recently has been implemented in a num- i.e., its coupling rates to these modes are greater than the ber of different systems [14–18]. It would be intrigu- respective decoherence and damping rates of the system. ing to extend such technique for creating remote entan- The mechanical resonator is pre-cooled to its motional glement between macroscopic mechanical resonators. In ground state which can be achieved by sideband cooling this work, we propose a protocol for generating entan- of the mechanical resonators via its coupling to the qubit gled states of two well-separated noninteracting macro- [27]. Since typically the thermal excitation numbers of scopic mechanical resonators. Our heralding technique the cavity and qubit itself are very small at cryogenic am- is useful for preparing entangled coherent states [19], bient temperatures, this way one could practically pre- i.e. N±(|αi|βi ± |βi|αi), between massive objects (see, pare the system very close to its ground state. In order Fig. 1) indicating entanglement between first moments to create a mechanical entangled coherent state we are (centers of mass) of the resonators. This type of contin- specifically interested in a qubit–mechanics interaction of P uous variable entanglement is non-Gaussian which is— the form j λjxˆ|jihj| with j = {g, e, f} andx ˆ being po- unlike Gaussian entangled states—characterized by neg- sition of the resonator. This describes a state-dependent ative Wigner function in phase space representation, and force generating a time evolution of state-dependent dis- 2

(a) (b) distinguishability of the two mechanical coherent states. Thus, one needs to increase it by enhancing the qubit– mechanical coupling rate which is actually very demand- ing from a technical point of view though notable efforts for attaining it [28]. Instead, the long coherence time of the current technology of qubits allows for exploiting the method proposed in Ref. [29] to increase this distance. The idea is to apply a sequence of [π]g↔e pulses to flip the qubit periodically synchronized with the resonator frequency. By choosing an odd number of such pulses Alice read out (c) cavity at half mechanical period time intervals π/ωm the state prepared at the end of this stage will be √1 [|g, α, 0i + 2 |e, −α, 0i]A(B), where α = (Np +1)(λe −λg)/ωm with Np the number of pulses. (3) Conditional photon emission. We now ‘copy’ the BS qubit excitations into the cavity photons by employing their third state |fi. One first applies a [π]e↔f pulse to bring up the qubit from |ei to |fi. Once being back in |ei, due to relaxation or other mechanism, a single detector qubit photon will be emitted conditioned on the state of the Bob qubit prior to the [π]e↔f pulse. This, therefore, results in the following state at each party FIG. 1. (color online) (a) and (b) Schematic representation 1 √ of different types of entangled cat states of two suspended |g, α, 0i + |e, −α, 1i A(B), (1) masses moving harmonically along x-axis. α is the displace- 2 ment amplitude from the equilibrium position. (c) Sketch of already indicating a local three-body entangled state be- a possible experimental implementation with quantum electromechanical circuit. tween, the qubit, mechanical resonator and cavity photon. (4) Heralded hybrid entanglement. The cavity placement of the resonator. In this model the cavity modes of the parties A and B interfere on a 50:50 beam- mode resonantly interacts with the qubit described by splitter resulting in the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian χ(|fihe|aˆ + |eihf|aˆ†), 1h wherea ˆ is the cavity field annihilation operator. This |g, αiA|g, αiB|0, 0iD leads to oscillatory |ei ↔ |fi transition which can be 2 exploited to entangle the qubit with a traveling photon. |2, 0iD + |0, 2iD +|e, −αiA|e, −αiB √ 2 |g, αiA|e, −αiB + |e, −αiA|g, αiB III. PROTOCOL + √ |1, 0iD 2 |g, αiA|e, −αiB − |e, −αiA|g, αiB i Having the above system in two remote sites, the fol- + √ |0, 1iD lowing protocol can be applied for entangling their dis- 2 tant mechanical resonators: where | , i ≡ | i | i denotes the state of the output (1) Initialization. The separated parties A and B D D1 D2 modes after the action of the beam-splitter. An essen- prepare their system in the ground state: |g, 0, 0i ⊗ A tial feature appearing here is Hong-Ou-Mandel effect in |g, 0, 0i , where within each ‘ket’ the first argument B the second line. This effect has been recently realized stands for the qubit, the second for the mechanical mode in microwave regime [30] This arises due to the indistin- being in ground state, and the third argument denotes guishability of the two input mode photons interfering on the vacuum mode of the cavity. Immediately after- the beam-splitter. Therefore, generation of indistinguish- wards a [π/2] pulse is applied to each qubit giving g↔e able photons at the input ports is crucial for successful |+, 0, 0i ⊗ |+, 0, 0i where |±i = √1 (|gi ± |ei). A B 2 heralded entanglement. The first two lines show no en- (2) Displacing the resonators. After the state ini- tanglement while the third and forth lines contain hybrid tialization, the qubit and its respective mechanical mode entanglements. By inspecting the above expression, we interact for a time duration of τ. For a coupling rate realize that the projection onto an entangled state in a 2λj λj the maximum achievable displacement is αj = − ωm single shot measurement can be achieved by adopting a which is obtained when τ = π/ωm. Therefore, the me- suitable photon detection scheme. Here, we choose it chanical modes will be conditionally displaced in their to be the photon-number parity detection at the beam- phase space. The distance |αe − αg| determines the splitter output modes. This can be done by placing a ‘de- 3 tector’ qubit at each output port j ∈ {1, 2} and perform- higher levels, thus giving us the three-level ladder system † iπaˆD aˆDj for producing cavity photons from the qubit excitations. ing a controlled-phase gate Cπ = |gihg| + e j |eihe| causing a bit flip |±i → |∓i in the corresponding qubit The Hamiltonian of the system at site A (similarly at site conditioned on the arrival of odd number (here, only one B) reads [34, 35] photon) of photons. Therefore, we can map the photon 1 Hˆ = ω aˆ† aˆ + ω (ˆp2 +x ˆ2 ) − E cosϕ ˆ parity of the output modes onto the qubit states and s c A A 2 m A A J A serve as parity detectors. The bit flip can be detected in † 2 +4EC(ˆxA) nÂ − η(âA +a Â) , (3) a Ramsey measurement by inserting Cπ between two π/2 pulses on the detector qubits. Accordingly, detection of where, EJ and EC are Josephson and charging energy a bit flip in either output port heralds the corresponding of the superconducting qubit, respectively. Here,a Â is qubit-mechanical entangled state the annihilation operator of the microwave photons inside cavity A, whilex ˆ andp ˆ are respectively the normal- |g, αi |e, −αi ± |e, −αi |g, αi A A A B√ A B . (2) ized mechanical position and momentum operators with 2 commutation relation [ˆxA, pÂ] = i. Also,n Â andϕ Â are The above state involves superposition of the two res- the superconducting charge number and phase operators, onators being in different relative distances (see, Fig. 1a). satisfying the commutation relation [ϕ Â, nÂ] = i and η Another form of entangled state can be created by sim- is the Lamb-Dicke parameter. Since the charging en- ply overturning the direction of the state-dependent force ergy of the qubit depends on the position of the mechan- dEC 2 in one of the qubit devices giving superposition of the ical resonator, one arrives at 4 dx nˆ xˆ for the transmon– center-of-mass in different locations (see, Fig. 1b). mechanical mode interaction featuring state-dependent P (5) Entangled cat state. Finally, in order to disentan- force on the mechanical mode. Here,n ˆ = n n|nihn| gle the mechanics from the qubits and obtain a purely where n is the number of exchanged Cooper pairs with mechanical entanglement, each site applies a [π/2]g↔e corresponding eigenstate |ni. By writing this in energy pulse to its qubit resulting in: eigenstates of the transmon Hamiltonian one retrieves the interaction given above. The influence of the num- |giA|giB − |eiA|eiB |ψ+i + |eiA|giB − |giA|eiB |ψ−i ber of transferred cooper pairs by the cavity field also √ 2 2 results in a Jaynes-Cummings interaction between the qubit transitions and the cavity mode with Rabi fre- Here, we have defined the state |ψ i = | − αi |αi ± ± A B quency χ = 8ECηhf|nˆ|ei [see Appendix A]. This can be |αiA| − αiB for the mechanical parties which already ex- employed for coherently converting the qubit excitations hibits entanglement between the first moments of the into the cavity photons as explained below. two distant mechanical resonators. The users now can In such devices, an external magnetic field applied to read out their qubit and post-select |ψ±i with probabil- the Cooper pair box tunes the transition frequencies of 1 −4|α|2 ity p± = 2 (1 ± e ) according to the measurement the qubit. Thus, bringing either of the transmon tran- outcomes. sitions into resonance or taking them off-resonance from the cavity mode frequency. In the third step of the protocol, we specifically are interested in the situation where IV. IMPLEMENTATION frequency of the cavity matches qubit’s first to second excited state transition: ωc = Ωf −Ωe. To make a travelling Here, we focus on a specific implementation of our microwave photon conditioned on the state of the qubit, protocol. High controllability and tunability of super- one first applies a π-pulse which flips the qubit from |ei conducting qubits makes them a versatile tool for engi- to |fi then takes the state transfer interaction between neering different regimes of interactions and control over transmon and cavity into resonance for half period of a photonic and mechanical systems [31, 32]. There are im- Rabi oscillation π/2χ. This brings the qubit into its first portant achievements in fabricating such hybrid devices excited state accompanied with emission of a microwave where a vibrational mode of a mechanical resonator is photon. We remind that high fidelity single-qubit gate coupled to a superconducting qubit and at the same time operations can be performed by properly shaped disper- the qubit strongly interacts with a coplanar microwave sive microwave pulses which can be used for controlled resonator [28, 33]. These make the hybrid circuit quan- flipping of the qubit in either of its transitions [36, 37]. tum electrodynamical devices a promising framework for Emitting indistinguishable photons from each cavity is implementing our protocol. We consider, in particular, a essential for a faithful projection onto an entangled state. recently proposed hybrid electromechanical circuit which Indistinguishability of the photons can indeed be guaran- can basically be fabricated and employed by the current teed by employing two low finesse microwave resonators technology [34]. on the sites. This leads to a broad wave-packet which The device consists of a transmon qubit capacitively increases overlap of the photonic wavepackets, and there- coupled to a microwave coplanar waveguide and a me- fore, their indistinguishability. Its other consequence is chanical resonator (see Fig. 1). The reduced anharmonic- lowering emission time of the photons which basically ity of a transmon qubit makes it possible to access its makes them travelling photons. Therefore, reducing the 4 protocol run time. (a) Moreover, the controlled phase gate performed on detector qubits discussed in the fourth step of the protocol can also be realized using superconducting qubits dispersively coupled to a coplanar microwave resonator at the output of the beam-splitter. The Hamiltonian of this part of the system is that of a qubit dispersively coupled to a cavity with frequency ωc, the same frequency of the site cavities (see below) (b) 2 2 χp † χp Hˆp = ωc + |eihe| aˆ aˆD + Ωe + |eihe|, (4) ∆ Dj j ∆ where ∆ = Ωe −ωc is the qubit-cavity detuning. Because of this dispersive coupling the unitary time evolution operator of the detector qubits in a frame rotating at the χ2 qubit and cavity frequencies is exp{i p t aˆ† aˆ |eihe|}. ∆ Dj Dj Our goal is to have a conditional π-phase shift given that the photon number in the cavity is odd. Therefore, the interaction time of the qubit and the photons must satisfy FIG. 2. (color online) (a) Periodic revival of the concurrence, χ2 t/∆ = π. By storing the incident photons in a high p undergoing decoherence, signifies the entangled superposition finesse cavity the interaction time between photons and between the masses for small (dashed line) and large (full line) the detector qubits can be increased sufficiently large. displacement amplitudes. For larger amplitudes the decay of Therefore, after arrival of the photons to these secondary entanglement revival under decoherence occurs with a higher 2 cavities one waits for π∆/χp seconds then measures the rate. (b) Preparation of large entangled superposition using parity by performing a Ramsey pulse sequence on detec- [π]g↔e pulse sequence, and monitor the concurrence after- tor qubits [38]. Today’s experiments are able to measure wards without decoherence (full line) and with decoherence the parity of the storage microwave cavity with fideli- (dashed line). ties above 90% via another read out cavity coupled to a transmon superconducting qubit [23]. It worth mentioning here that to maximize the absorp- their respective resonators. Since ±α in Eq. (2) is pe- tion of these photons (after mixing at the beam-splitter) riodic in time it becomes zero at some points at which into the detecting cavities two conditions must be met: the mechanical part is disentangled from the qubit part, First, the resonance frequency of the cavities must match, and thus leaving the qubit pair in a maximally entangled their linewidth must be close to each other. The former state. This is manifested in the entanglement revival in condition, in principle, is easily met by employing equal the qubit pair which can be considered as a signature frequency cavities, while the latter sounds contradictory. of the entangled superposition state between the masses On the one hand, in the detection parts, we need to em- and qubits, i.e., Eq. (2), at intermediate times. A sim- ploy high finesse cavities in order to store the arrived ilar consideration has been used previously for probing photons and give them enough time to rotate the qubit macroscopic superposition states in Refs. [40, 41]. In our states. On the other hand, as discussed above, site cavi- case this feature can point to even a stronger indication ties must have high decay rates to ensure indistinguisha- of nonclassicality. Monotonicity of the entanglement al- bility of the outgoing photons. This can be resolved by lows the entanglement revival if and only if the qubit employing a cavity with tunable decay rate in the detect- pair has access to a global coherent operation (e.g. di- ing parts [39]. These cavities are designed such that can rect interaction) inducing this entanglement. Since there be tuned in situ to different decay rates for the purpose is no direct interaction between the qubits this revival of maximal capture, storing, and retrieving microwave has to be provided by the dynamics of the resonators be- photons. In our case, the detecting cavities can be first ing in an entangled superposition with the pair prior to tuned to a linewidth which allows for maximal capture of the revival time. This is an unambiguous way of veri- the incoming photon(s), then the photon(s) can be stored fying entangled superposition including the mechanical for performing the parity measurement. parts. Because the action of separable resonators on the qubits fall under the local operation and classical commu- nication (LOCC) operations which cannot increase the V. DISCUSSION entanglement. For this purpose, one should use an entanglement monotone such as concurrence [42] or nega- The question of how to verify the nonlocal coherence tivity [43] for monitoring the entanglement. Concurrence involving the mechanical parts can be approached by has already been measured experimentally on supercon- looking into the dynamics of the two qubits coupled to ducting qubits with high fidelity using state tomography 5

[44, 45]. In Fig. 2 we plot time evolution of the con- and M.A. by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation currence of the two qubits for two different displacement via a postdoctoral fellowship. amplitudes and the effect of decoherence on this evilu- tion. The detailed analytical and numerical analyses are presented in Appendix B. Appendix A: Implementation Hamiltonian Information transmission about mass’ positions due to, for instance, the interaction with the environment sup- The Hamiltonian describing the device we are consid- presses the magnitude of the entanglement revival and ering in this paper is composed of the transmon qubit the state evolves towards statistical mixture with the coupled to the mechanical resonator via its charging en- same rate regardless of which form of mechanical entan- ergy, that is (~ = 1) glement (a) or (b) shown in figure 1 was created [see Appendix C]. However, if we think of an unconventional 1 Hˆ = ω aˆ†aˆ + ω (ˆp2 +x ˆ2) − E cos(πΦ/Φ ) cosϕ ˆ situation in which the two masses gravitationally inter- s c 2 m J 0 act with each other, then the masses’ configuration in † 2 +4EC(ˆx) nˆ − ng − η(â +a ˆ ) , (A1) the mechanical parts of the entanglement becomes im- portant. One model of gravitational decoherence is pre- Cg 1 where η = (~ωc/2C) 2 is the circuit QED Lamb-Dicke sented in Ref. [46] which is equivalent to a different for- 2e parameter and ng is the induced dc gate charge. Here, Φ mulation proposed in Ref. [20]. In these models the deco- is the externally applied magnetic flux through the super- herence rate is completely determined by the gradient of conducting loop and Φ0 = h/2e is the superconducting the gravitational force between the masses. The gradient flux quantum. The operatorsn ˆ andϕ ˆ denote the number of the gravitational forces in the two types of entangle- of Cooper pairs transferred between the islands and the ment shown in Fig. 1(a) and (b) are different. Therefore, gauge-invariant phase difference between the supercon- adding this new source of noise may lead to a detectable ductors, respectively. gap in the decay of entanglement between the two cases Since in transmon qubits EJ/EC 1, the nonlinearity undergoing identical environmental decoherence, yet dif- of the qubit is reduced such that the higher levels play a ferent gravitational decoherence rates. This gap then can role in its dynamics. We simplify the above Hamiltonian be attributed to a genuine gravitational effect. This is an by first Taylor expanding the EC(ˆx) and keeping only to intriguing strategy. Because, the main challenge in ob- the first order inx ˆ. Then applying rotating wave approx- servation of gravitational effects is that it is hard to dis- imations and truncating the transmon Hilbert space to tinguish the intrinsic gravitational field effects from those its first three levels. This brings us to of environmental (conventional) decoherence in quantum dynamics as both these sources of noise leads to similar 1 X Hˆ = ω aˆ†aˆ + ω (ˆp2 +x ˆ2) + (Ω + λ xˆ)|jihj| reduction of the superposition states. s c 2 m j j j h 1 i +χ √ |eihg| + |fihe|aˆ + H.c. , (A2) VI. CONCLUSION 2 with j = {g, e, f}. Here,a ˆ is the annihilation oper- In this work we proposed an experimentally feasible ator of the microwave photons inside the cavity, while protocol for creating heralded entangled cat states be- xˆ andp ˆ are respectively the normalized mechanical po- tween spatially separated mechanical resonators. The sition and momentum operators with commutation re- scheme can be implemented in currently available cir- lation [ˆx, pˆ] = i. The Hamiltonian (A2), already fea- cuit QED architectures. We expect that the setup will tures a state-dependent force on the mechanics via the provide a useful platform for experimentally probing the qubit which is crucial in our protocol. The second line interface between gravity and quantum physics where the of the Hamiltonian is the generalized Jaynes-Cummings mechanical resonators in the present scenario serve as transmon-cavity interaction. test masses undergoing gravitational decoherence. Fi- The probe qubits discussed in the fourth step of the nally, we think that going beyond a single particle super- protocol could be realized by superconducting qubits dis- position, and monitoring the dynamics of ‘gravitation- persively coupled to the coplanar microwave transmission ally’ different types of entangled states may provide a line at the output of the beam-splitter. Here, the goal is more visible test of gravitational decoherence models in to have a parity flip in the qubits conditioned on the odd a new regime of gravitational sensing. incident photon numbers. Therefore, the interaction time 2 of the qubit and the photons must satisfy χpt/∆ = π. The pulse duration of the incident single-photon states ACKNOWLEDGMENTS is roughly the same as the time it has taken to be emitted in the sites, i.e. π/2χ. Therefore, one needs to fulfil 2 The authors are grateful of O. Gühneand G. J. Mil- χp = 2χ∆ for getting a half rotation about the z-axis for burn for useful comments. A.A. acknowledges the sup- every photon. Since we have ∆ χp from the dispersive port by Erwin Schrödinger Stipendium No. J3653-N27 coupling regime, this can be achieved only for χp χ. 6

This looks, however, impractical for a waveguide because describes qubit dephasing acting locally with dephasing of the finite coherence time of the qubits. By storing time T2 = 1/γ˜q and the incident photons in a high finesse superconducting resonator the interaction time between photons and the probe qubits can be significantly increased. γ L ρ = m (¯n + 1)(2ˆb ρˆb† − ˆb†ˆb ρ − ρˆb†ˆb ) mj 2 j j j j j j γ + m n¯(2ˆb†ρˆb − ˆb ˆb†ρ − ρˆb†), (B3) Appendix B: Monitoring the entanglement dynamics 2 j j j j j under the influence of decoherence

We aim to monitor the entanglement dynamics of the describes the mechanical dissipation within a single res- two-qubit system in which the qubits and their respec- onator, where γ = ω /Q is the mechanical damp- tive resonator evolve under the inﬂuence of the interac- m m m ing rate for mechanical resonator with quality factor Q tion with the environment. Here, we use the Wooter’s m √ andn ¯ = 1/(e~ωm/kBT − 1) is the equilibrium occupa- concurrence, which is deﬁned as C(ρ) = max{0, λ − √ √ √ 1 tion number (identical resonators and dissipation is as- λ − λ − λ } where λ are the eigenvalues of the 2 3 4 i sumed). In the high temperature limitn ¯ 1 we obtain matrix ρρ˜ = ρσ ⊗ σ ρ∗σ ⊗ σ and λ is the maximum y y y y 1 Γ = γ n¯ ' k T/( Q ) as the relevant mechanical eignevalue. th m B ~ m decoherence rate.

Let us now consider the effect of decoherence on the 1. Environmental decoherence: Analytic treatment entanglement dynamics of the qubit pair after the preparation of the hybrid entangled state ρ(t0) obtained by As an illustration, in this section we treat a simple sce- the heralded detection. The state at later time t after a nario of probing the entanglement dynamics under deco- period of τ = t − t0 obtained from Liouville superoper- Lτ herence in which the qubits coupled with constant cou- ator of the time evolution ρ(t) = e ρ(t0) which is the pling strengths to their respective mechanical resonators. solution to Eq. (B1). In particular we are interested in We evaluate the effect of qubit decoherence and mechan- the dynamics of the off-diagonal term of the qubit pair’s ical decoherence due to a weak coupling of the resonator reduced state to a finite temperature bath where the Markovian master equation of a Lindblad form is applied. Therefore, we model these decoherence processes by a master equation ρ (t) = hg|he|ρ(t)|ei|gi = hg, e|ρ (t)|e, giρge,eg (t). of the form ge,eg qAqB mAmB ˆ X X ρ˙ = Lρ = −i[H, ρ] + Lqj ρ + Lmj ρ, (B1) j=A,B j=A,B Now, let us analyze a scenario in which after a fast preparation of the hybrid entangled state at time t the system where 0 undergos decoherence processes according to Eq.(B1) at ! the later time t (t t0) For the expectation value at γ˜q X L ρ = |kihk| ρ|kihk| − ρ , (B2) t = t + τ we need to solve qj 2 j j 0 k

ρ (t) = hg, e| eLτ |g, eihe, g|hg, e|ρ (t )|e, giρge,eg (t ) |e, gi. (B4) ge,eg qAqB 0 mAmB 0 According to the master equation (B1) and Hamiltonian (1) in the main text this operator evolves as X n ˆ†ˆ o ˆ† ˆ ˆ† ˆ ρ˙ge,eg = − iωm[bjbj, ρge,eg] + Lmj ρge,eg + Lqj ρge,eg − iλe,A(bA + bA)ρge,eg + iλe,B(bB + bB)ρge,eg. (B5) j=A,B

We have assumed λg = 0 for both of the systems. From above we can obtain the time evolution of an entanglement monotone for the two-qubit system. In the special case we consider, concurrence simpliﬁes to

C(ρ(t)) = 2 |TrmA,mB {ρge,eg(t)}| . (B6) Note that, the concurrence is completely characterized by the oﬀ-diagonal term of the qubit pair’s state in which the qubits undergo only dephasing and the mechanical resonators interact with a ﬁnite temperature bath. The plot is shown in Fig. 2(a). In the absence of the resonator decoherence 1 Tr {ρ (t)} = ± e−2˜γq τ hD [α (τ)]i hD [α (τ)]i . mA,mB ge,eg 2 A e mA B e mB 7

−iωmτ The displacement amplitude is αe(τ) = λe/ωm(e − 1) which is periodic in time, and thus the concurrence demonstrates collapse and revival. Here, we have taken λe,A = λe,B = λe. Concurrence is the same regardless of which state 1 √ (|g, αiA|e, −αiB ± |e, −αiA|g, αiB) (B7) 2 or 1 √ (|g, −αiA|e, −αiB ± |e, αiA|g, αiB) (B8) 2 was prepared at time t0. For entangled state (B8) the exerted force from the second qubit is reverted with respect to the x-axis. Therefore, the associate configuration indicate superposition between two different relative distance between the resonators. mA mB Equivalently, we can define the Wigner characteristic function χeg (βA, t) = hD(βA)imA and χge (βB, t) = hD(βB)imB and write 1 Tr {ρ (t)} = ± e−2˜γq τ χ (β , t)χ (β , t). (B9) mAmB ge,eg 2 ge A eg B The evolution of the characteristic function is given by the Fokker-Planck equation

∂ ∂ γ χ˙ (β) = i Ωβ − Ω∗β∗ χ (β) − m (2¯n + 1)|β|2χ (β) (B10) eg ∂β ∂β∗ eg 2 eg β + β∗ ∂ ∂ + iλ χ (β) − iλ − χ (β), e 2 eg e ∂β ∂β∗ eg where Ω = ωm + iγm/2. We solve this equation in three steps. First, we make the ansatz

iφ(t) βκ∗(t)−β∗κ(t) χeg(β, t) = e e χI (β, t), (B11)

˙ ∗ whereκ ˙ = −iΩκ − iλe/2, and φ = −λe(κ(t) + κ (t)). For the remaining equation for χI (β, t) we have

∂ ∂ γ χ˙ (β, t) = i (Ωβ − λ ) − (Ω∗β∗ − λ ) χ (β, t) − m (2¯n + 1)|β|2χ (β, t). (B12) I e ∂β e ∂β∗ I 2 I

We now make the second ansatz

−(¯n+ 1 )(|β|2−βκ˜∗(t)−β∗κ˜(t)+ζ(t)) χI (β, t) = e 2 χII (β, t), (B13)

˙ ∗ where κ˜˙ = −iΩ˜κ − iλe, and ζ = −iλe(˜κ − κ˜ ). This leaves us with the remaining equation for χII (β, t), which is given by

∂ ∂ χ˙ (β, t) = i (Ωβ − λ ) − i (Ω∗β∗ − λ ) χ (β, t). (B14) II e ∂β e ∂β∗ II

This equation is solved by a function of the form In the limit γm ω where the dissipative part of the master equation is valid we obtain Z t χ (β, t) ≡ χ x = eiΩtβ − iλ eiΩsds , (B15) II II e 2λ2 γ t 0 e −γmt/2 m ζ(t) ' 2 (1 − cos(ωmt)e ) + . (B18) ωm 2 and the speciﬁc expression for χII (x) is determined by the initial conditions This shows that for λe ∼ ωm the signal of a sin- (2¯n+1)|x|2/2 gle measurement decays with a total decoherence rate χII (x) = e χeg(x, t = 0). (B16) Γdec = (2¯n + 1) γm. For kBT ~ωm we obtainnγ ¯ m ' For an initial thermal state χII (x) = 1 and therefore kBT/~Qm. Similar conclusions are obtain, when starting from a precooled state or for λe ωm, when a π-pulse −(¯n+ 1 )ζ(t) χge(β = 0, t) = e 2 . (B17) sequence is obtained to amplify the displacement ampli- 8 tude. by

(a) (b)

FIG. 3. (a) Time evolution of entanglement of two qubits in terms of concurrence with (dashed line) and without (full line) decoherence, and (b) probability of ﬁnding the A qubit in its ground state and the B qubit in its ﬁrs excited state. This quantity is obtained by simulating the protocol and the evolution of the prepared state using the parameters listed in Table I.

(2) will be obtained. However, this cannot be done by the available computational resources because of the very TABLE I. Parameters of the system. large system size. Instead, we turn to simulate the pro- Quantity Symbol Value tocol step by step. Therefore, we first solve the master Mechanical mass m 3 pg equation for each local site coupled the waveguide at the Mechanical frequency ωm/2π 1 MHz output which at the end of the third step of the proto- 5 Mechanical quality factor Qm 10 col gives %j with j = A, B, then we merge their photon parties by assuming a perfect 50:50 beam-splitter. In the Transmon-mechanics coupling rate λe/2π 50 kHz next step, the dynamics in the probe cavities are simu- Josephson energy EJ/2π 35–55 GHz lated with the initial separable quadripartite qubit-cavity Charging energy EC/2π 0.5 GHz state %0 ⊗|+ih+|D1 ⊗|+ih+|D2 , where %0 = Trq,m{U(%A ⊗ Transmon relaxation rate γq/2π 5 kHz † %B)U } is the photonic party of the state mixed at the Transmon pure dephasing rateγ ˜q/2π 20 kHz π † † beam-splitter. Here U = exp{ 4 (âAaˆB − aÂaˆB)} ex- Transmon-cavity coupling rate χ/2π 45 MHz presses the beam-splitters unitary operation, while %A Cavity frequency ωc/2π 11 GHz and %B are the outputs of the first stage of the simula- Cavity decay rate κs/2π 200 kHz tions. The measurements are simulated as perfect pro- jections. Therefore, the post-selected state according to the parity of the detecting qubits and state of the site qubits gives us the final state which turns out to be an conditions must be met: First, the resonance frequency entangled coherent state. of the cavities must match, their linewidth must be close In Fig. 3 we plot the evolution of the probability of to each other. The former condition, in principle, is eas- simultaneously finding the A and B qubits in the ground ily met by employing equal frequency cavities. However, state and excited state, respectively. The parameters the second condition requires κp ≈ κs, which is in con- used here are feasible with the current technology [see tradiction with our requirements of the parity measure- Table I]. In the detection section, a microwave resonator ment. This can be resolved by employing a cavity with tunable decay rate in the detecting parts [39]. These are with κp/2π = 20 kHz is considered. The detector qubits are transmon qubits with the same properties as the site designed such that can be tuned in situ to different decay rates with three orders of magnitude difference. In our qubits and operated at EJ/EC = 40 which makes them case the difference between κs and κp is only one order well away from the cavity resonance (χp/∆ ≈ 0.02). This −7 −6 2 of magnitude: 1/κs ≈ 8 × 10 s and 1/κp ≈ 8 × 10 s means having π∆/χp ≈ 1/4κs giving enough time for changing the qubit parity. The ambient temperature is within the reported cavity lifetimes in Ref. [39]. taken to be T = 25 mK. It worth to mention here that in the detection parts, we need to employ high-Q cavities in order to store the Appendix C: Gravitational decoherence of collective arrived photons and give them enough time to rotate modes of two gravitationally coupled harmonic the qubit states and thus perform the parity measure- oscillators ment. On the other hand, the photons leaving the A and B cavities must have broader band to ensure indis- For the sake of gaining more insight into the idea distinguishability, the key point for Hong-Ou-Mandel effect. cussed in the main text let us focus on a simple and To maximize the absorption of these photons (after mix- ideal example. An interesting scenario happens if the ing at the beam-splitter) into the detecting cavities two two mechanical resonators are gravitationally coupled to 10 each other for sufficiently large gravitational coupling oscillating with normal mode frequency ω−. strength. In this case dynamics of the two resonators is described by two independent collective modes of os- Therefore, in this representation we can think of a sin- √ gle massive system being in a harmonic potential oscillat- cillations with coordinatesx ˆ+ = (ˆxA +x ˆB)/√2, for the center of mass mode, andx ˆ = (ˆx − xˆ )/ 2, for the ing with frequency ω±. Environmental noise as described − A B by (B3) is coupled locally to each resonator’s coordi- breathing mode, at corresponding frequency ω±. For further detail on the model see Ref. [20]. nate, and therefore qubit pair entanglement, according to the definition (B6), undergoes the same decoherence The inter-mode interaction is Hˆ = 2Kxˆ xˆ ≈ I A B rate regardless of the collective mode. In the presence of K(ˆb ˆb† + ˆb† ˆb ), where K = Gm/ω d3 is the coupling A B A B m large enough normal mode spitting , due to gravitational rate with G the universal gravitational constant and d force between the mechanical resonators, the collective the distance between the mechanical resonators. One mechanical modes undergo different gravitational deco- then diagonalizes the total Hamiltonian by applying the ˆ ˆ ˆ† ˆ† ˆ herence rates. The difference in the decoherence gen- unitary operator U = exp{(π/4)(bAbB − bAbB)}. The erates a gap in the amount of entanglement revival per effect of Gravitational coupling will appear in the free single oscillation period. The effect of normal mode fre- evolution part of Eq. (B5) and after applying the above quency splitting, i.e. the gap in the entanglement revival, unitary transformation the equation reads becomes more pronounced for larger λe/ωm. The decoherence channel opens up by the gravitational interaction ˙ X ˆ†ˆ ρ˜ge,eg = − i[ωjbjbj, ρ˜ge,eg] may captured by j=+,− λe,A ˆ ˆ† ˆ ˆ† − i √ (b+ + b+ + b− + b−)˜ρge,eg 2 ± ± Lgravρ = −Γgrav[x±, [x±, ρ]]. (C2) λe,B ˆ ˆ† ˆ ˆ† + i √ ρ˜ge,eg(b+ + b − b− − b ) 2 + − X X This form of master equation leads to the suppression of + Lmj ρ˜ge,eg + Lqj ρ˜ge,eg, (C1) j=+,− j=1,2 superposition in the position coordinate of a collective mode. This effect can also be easily seen by rewriting √ ˆ ˆ ˆ the double commutator in the position space, where b± = (bA ± bB)/ 2 are the normal annihilation † operators andρ ˜ge,eg = Uρˆ ge,egUˆ . The initial conditions (the coupling signs to the qubits ± ± 0 2 0 and the initial positions) are fixed such that only one nor- Γgrav[x±, [x±, ρ(t)]] −→ Γgrav(x± − x±) ρ(x±, x±, t), mal mode is excited and put into a superposition via heralded technique. In realistic situation the normal mode splitting is expected to be small, and thus is approxi- describing in particular the spatial collapse of the oscil- 3 mated to be ∆ = ω− − ω+ ≈ 2Gm/ωd [20]. In the first lating mode due to gravitational decoherence. The grav- scenario we imagine that only the center-of-mass mode itational decoherence is proportional to the inverse of the ˆb with frequency ω is excited by the proper constant ± ± + + normal mode frequency, i.e., Γgrav ∝ 1/ω [20]. There- coupling strength to the qubit: λe,A = −λe,B = λe. This fore, unlike environmental decoherence gravitational de- corresponds to Eq.(B8) and gives coherence attribute different decoherence rates for the two collective modes which can be manifested in the gap 1 √ −2˜γq τ in the amount of the entanglement revival between the TrmA,mB {ρge,eg(t)} = ± e Trm+ {D+[ 2αe(τ)]ρ(t0)}. 2 two scenarios. This is a preliminary illustration of how

√ √ † √ ∗ non-Gaussian entangled state might be useful for probing 2αeˆb − 2α ˆb+ Here, D+( 2αe) = e + e = DA(αe)DB(αe). quantum dynamical phenomena which are of purely grav- While for the second scenario where only breathing mode itational effect. This leads us to ask, can non-Gaussian b− is excited with the proper coupling strength to the mechanical entanglement provide us a sensitive detection qubits: λe,A = λe,B = λe. This corresponds to Eq.(B7). of the genuine effect of gravitational decoherence? To es- Therefore, we have timate this effect in real experimental situation one need 1 √ to take into account all the practical limitations which is Tr {ρ (t)} = ± e−2˜γq τ Tr {D [ 2α (τ)]ρ(t )}. a challenging issue but not impossible. mA,mB ge,eg 2 m− − e 0

[1] M. Arndt and K. Hornberger, Nature Phys. 10, 271 [3] A. Asadian, C. Brukner, and P. Rabl, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2014). 112, 190402 (2014). [2] Y. Chen, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 46, 104001 [4] O. Gittsovich, T. Moroder, A. Asadian, O. G¨uhne, and (2013). P. Rabl, Phys. Rev. A 91, 022114 (2015). 11

[5] C. Pfister, J. Kaniewski, M. Tomamichel, A. Mantri, jer, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, R. Schmucker, N. McMahon, G. Milburn, and Nature 449, 328 (2007). S. Wehner, arXiv:1503.00577 [quant-ph] (2015). [27] P. Rabl, Phys. Rev. B 82, 165320 (2010). [6] T. A. Palomaki, J. D. Teufel, R. W. Simmonds, and [28] J.-M. Pirkkalainen, S. U. Cho, F. Massel, J. Tuorila, K. W. Lehnert, Science 342, 710 (2013). T. T. Heikkilä,P. J. Hakonen, and M. A. Sillanpää, [7] S. Mancini, V. Giovannetti, D. Vitali, and P. Tombesi, Nat. Commun. 6, 6981 (2015). Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 120401 (2002). [29] L. Tian, Phys. Rev. B 72, 195411 (2005). [8] F. Xue, Y. xi Liu, C. Sun, and F. Nori, Phys. Rev. B [30] C. Lang, C. Eichler, L. Steffen, J. M. Fink, M. J. Woolley, 76, 064305 (2007). A. Blais, and A. Wallraff, Nature Phys. 9, 345 (2013). [9] M. J. Hartmann and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, [31] Z.-L. Xiang, S. Ashhab, J. Q. You, and F. Nori, Rev. 200503 (2008). Mod. Phys. 85, 623 (2013). [10] S. Pirandola, D. Vitali, P. Tombesi, and S. Lloyd, Phys. [32] G. Kurizki, P. Bertet, Y. Kubo, K. Mølmer, D. Pet- Rev. Lett. 97, 150403 (2006). rosyan, P. Rabl, and J. Schmiedmayer, Proc. Natl. Acad. [11] M. Abdi, S. Pirandola, P. Tombesi, and D. Vitali, Phys. Sci. 112, 3866 (2015). Rev. Lett. 109, 143601 (2012). [33] F. Lecocq, J. D. Teufel, J. Aumentado, and R. W. Sim- [12] R. Schnabel, Phys. Rev. A 92, 012126 (2015). monds, Nature Phys. 11, 635 (2015). [13] S. D. Barrett and P. Kok, Phys. Rev. A 71, 060310(R) [34] M. Abdi, M. Pernpeintner, R. Gross, H. Huebl, and M. J. (2005). Hartmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 173602 (2015). [14] S. Barz, G. Cronenberg, A. Zeilinger, and P. Walther, [35] J. Koch, T. Yu, J. Gambetta, A. Houck, D. Schus- Nat. Photon. 4, 553 (2010). ter, J. Majer, A. Blais, M. Devoret, S. Girvin, and [15] I. Usmani, C. Clausen, F. Bussieres, N. Sangouard, R. Schoelkopf, Phys. Rev. A 76, 042319 (2007). M. Afzelius, and N. Gisin, Nat. Photon. 6, 234 (2012). [36] F. Motzoi, J. M. Gambetta, P. Rebentrost, and F. K. [16] H. Bernien, B. Hensen, W. Pfaff, G. Koolstra, M. S. Wilhelm, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 110501 (2009). Blok, L. Robledo, T. H. Taminiau, M. Markham, D. J. [37] J. M. Chow, L. DiCarlo, J. M. Gambetta, F. Motzoi, Twitchen, L. Childress, and R. Hanson, Nature 497, 86 L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Phys. (2013). Rev. A 82, 040305 (2010). [17] A. Roy, L. Jiang, A. D. Stone, and M. Devoret, [38] L. Sun, A. Petrenko, Z. Leghtas, B. Vlastakis, G. Kirch- arXiv:1505.01178 [quant-ph] (2015). mair, K. M. Sliwa, A. Narla, M. Hatridge, S. Shankar, [18] J. Hofmann, M. Krug, N. Ortegel, L. Gérard,M. We- J. Blumoff, L. Frunzio, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, ber, W. Rosenfeld, and H. Weinfurter, Science 337, 72 and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature 511, 444 (2014). (2012). [39] M. Pierre, I. M. Svensson, S. Raman Sathyamoorthy, [19] B. C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. A 45, 6811 (1992). G. Johansson, and P. Delsing, App. Phys. Lett. 104, [20] D. Kafri, J. M. Taylor, and G. J. Milburn, New J. Phys. 232604 (2014). 16, 065020 (2014). [40] W. Marshall, C. Simon, R. Penrose, and [21] S. G. Hofer, K. W. Lehnert, and K. Hammerer, D. Bouwmeester, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 130401 (2003). arXiv:1506.08097 [quant-ph] (2015). [41] A. D. Armour, M. P. Blencowe, and K. C. Schwab, Phys. [22] V. C. Vivoli, T. Barnea, C. Galland, and N. Sangouard, Rev. Lett. 88, 148301 (2002). arXiv:1506.06116 [quant-ph] (2015). [42] W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2245 (1998). [23] B. Vlastakis, A. Petrenko, N. Ofek, L. Sun, Z. Legh- [43] G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032314 tas, K. Sliwa, Y. Liu, M. Hatridge, J. Blumoff, L. Frun- (2002). zio, M. Mirrahimi, L. Jiang, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. [44] L. DiCarlo, J. M. Chow, J. M. Gambetta, L. S. Bishop, Schoelkopf, arXiv:1504.02512 [quant-ph] (2015). B. R. Johnson, D. I. Schuster, A. B. J. Majer, L. Frunzio, [24] A. Wallraff, D. I. Schuster, A. Blais, L. Frunzio, R.-S. S. M. Girvin, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature 460, 240 Huang, J. Majer, S. Kumar, S. M. Girvin, and R. J. (2009). Schoelkopf, Nature 431, 162 (2004). [45] D. Ristè, M. Dukalski, C. A. Watson, G. de Lange, [25] K. Iakoubovskii, G. J. Adriaenssens, and M. Nesladek, M. J. Tiggelman, Y. M. Blanter, K. W. Lehnert, R. N. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 12, 189 (2000). Schouten, and L. DiCarlo, Nature 502, 350 (2013). [26] A. A. Houck, D. I. Schuster, J. M. Gambetta, J. A. [46] L. Diosi, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser 306, 012006 (2011). Schreier, B. R. Johnson, J. M. Chow, L. Frunzio, J. Ma- [47] C. W. Gardiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2269 (1993). [48] H. J. Carmichael, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2273 (1993).