Entanglement between Distant Macroscopic Mechanical and Spin Systems ; Rodrigo A. Thomas,∗ Michał Parniak,∗ Christoffer Østfeldt,∗ Chistoffer B. Møller,∗ y Christian Bærentsen, Yeghishe Tsaturyan,z Albert Schliesser, Jürgen Appel,x Emil Zeuthen, and Eugene S. Polzik{ Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark Entanglement is a vital property of multipartite quantum systems, characterised by the insepara- bility of quantum states of objects regardless of their spatial separation. Generation of entanglement between increasingly macroscopic and disparate systems is an ongoing effort in quantum science which enables hybrid quantum networks [1,2], quantum-enhanced sensing [3], and probing the fun- damental limits of quantum theory [4,5]. The disparity of hybrid systems and the vulnerability of quantum correlations have thus far hampered the generation of macroscopic hybrid entangle- ment. Here we demonstrate, for the first time, generation of an entangled state between the motion of a macroscopic mechanical oscillator and a collective atomic spin oscillator, as witnessed by an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen variance below the separability limit [6], 0:83 ± 0:02 < 1. The mechanical oscillator is a millimeter-size dielectric membrane [7] and the spin oscillator is an ensemble of 109 atoms in a magnetic field [8]. Light propagating through the two spatially separated systems gener- ates entanglement due to the collective spin playing the role of an effective negative-mass reference frame [9–12] and providing, under ideal circumstances, a backaction-free subspace [13]; in the exper- iment, quantum backaction is suppressed by 4:6 dB. Our results pave the road towards measurement of motion beyond the standard quantum limits of sensitivity with applications in force, acceleration, and gravitational wave detection [14, 15], as well as towards teleportation-based protocols [16] in hybrid quantum networks. Entanglement is a key resource for quantum informa- Here we report an experimental implementation of tion processing. In particular, entangled states of mo- Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) entanglement in a hy- tional and spin degrees of freedom have played a promi- brid system consisting of a mechanical oscillator and a nent role in quantum computing and simulation with spin oscillator [10], as depicted schematically in Fig.1a. trapped ions and atoms [17–19]. There, entanglement be- An out-of-plane vibrational mode of a soft-clamped, tween motion and spin is generated by short-range inter- highly stressed dielectric membrane [7], which is embed- actions between individual atoms positioned at micron- ded in a free-space optical cavity, constitues the mechani- scale distances, with motional and spin degrees of free- cal subsystem. The spin subsystem is prepared in a warm dom associated with the same atoms. ensemble of optically pumped caesium atoms confined in a spin-preserving microcell [8]. The two oscillators are A very different regime, focused on long-range macro- coupled to an itinerant light field and optically read out scopic entanglement between the motion of one object in a cascaded fashion. and a spin of another, has been proposed in Ref. [10]. ^ PN ^(i) The key idea is that an atomic spin in a magnetic field The collective macroscopic spin Jx = i=1 Fx of 9 acts as a negative-mass oscillator, permitting travelling N 10 atoms, each with total angular momentum com- ≈ ^(i) ^(i) ^(i) light to generate entanglement between the two objects. ponents (Fx ; Fy ; Fz ), is optically pumped in the di- The negative-mass idea, which has been implicitly used rection x of the magnetic bias field B. In the limit where ^ in earlier experiments with two atomic ensembles [9, 20– the magnitude of the mean longitudinal spin Jx = Jx jh ^ij 22], has been further developed in Refs. [23–26] and far exceeds the transverse collective spin components, Jy ^ has become the basis for quantum-mechanics-free sub- and Jz, the latter can be mapped to the harmonic os- ^ ^ ^ ^ spaces [27]. cillator variables XS = Jz=p~Jx and PS = Jy=p~Jx, − arXiv:2003.11310v1 [quant-ph] 25 Mar 2020 [X^ ; P^ ] = Negative-mass-enabled instability [28] and quantum satisfying the canonical commutation relation S S i backaction (QBA) evasion [12] have been recently demon- [36]. The transverse components precess around the ! B strated using the coupling of a motional degree of free- magnetic field at the Larmor frequency S accord- ^ ^ / ^ 2 ^2 ing to HS = ~!SJx ~!SJx + (~!S=2)(XS + PS ), dom to a spin system. In Refs. [29, 30] sympathetic − ≈ − cooling of a mechanical oscillator optically coupled to where the first term is a constant offset. atoms have been shown. The negative-mass reference Since the optical pumping prepares the collective frame idea has also been utilized in proposals [31, 32] spin near the energetically highest Zeeman state, the by using an auxiliary mechanical system and multiple collective spin realises a negative-mass oscillator, i.e., drive tones. In this way, entanglement has been gen- !S < 0 [11], with a counter-rotating trajectory (see erated between two micromechanical oscillators embed- Fig.1a). The “negative mass” terminology arises by ded in a common microwave cavity [33]. An approach analogy to the standard harmonic oscillator Hamiltonian to mechanical-mechanical entanglement based on single- H^ = m!2X^ 2=2 + P^2=(2m), in which the sign of the mass photon detection was demonstrated in Refs. [34, 35]. m determines that of both the potential and kinetic en- 2 ^ ergies, as does the sign of !S in HS. a Fundamentally, the non-commuting quadratures of ^ ^ motion [Xj(t); Pj(t)] = i for the individual systems (where j S,M labels spin and mechanics) cannot 2 f g be known simultaneously with arbitrary precision due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle; in particular, Var[X^ ]+Var[P^ ] 1. This limit is enforced by the QBA j j ≥ of the meter field (e.g., light) on the measured oscillator. b c Separable states Such a limit does not apply to a commuting com- 2 5 ^ ^ ^ bination of variables such as [XEPR; PEPR] [(XM 1 Far-detuned ^ p ^ ^ p ≡ − c XS)= 2; (PM + PS)= 2] = 0, i.e., the sum of vari- V √Vu V = 2 Resonant c 0 ances is no longer bounded from below. In fact, EPR ˜ ^ ^ P Var[XEPR] + Var[PEPR] < 1 [6] implies entanglement be- –1 Variance Ground state tween systems S and M, which is analogous to violating √Vc 1 the single-system limit with the EPR variables. Since the V (t ) –2 c →∞ Entangled states EPR variables describe spatially separated systems, this 0.5 effective oscillator is non-local. –2 –1 0 1 2 101 103 ˜ c We entangle the two oscillators by a backaction- XEPR Conditioning time t (µs) evading collective position measurement. For matched frequencies, !S = !M ! > 0, the negative-mass spin Figure 1. Tracking of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen os- − ≡ oscillator’s response to the perturbing optical field hap- cillator. a, A simplified schematic of the entangled system, pens with a phase opposite to that of the positive-mass consisting of an atomic spin ensemble and a mechanical os- oscillator. The resulting information written onto the op- cillator in a cavity, separated from the atoms by a one meter P^out X^ (t) = cos !tX^ (0) + distance, and probed by light in a cascaded manner. The tical meter phase is L EPR EPR measurement photocurrent i(t) is convolved with a Wiener ^ / 0 sin !tPEPR(0), and thus only depends on the initial val- filter K(t ; t) (approximate envelope shown in the inset), to ^ ^ ues of Xj and Pj, in the absence of damping and in- yield a conditional trajectory. b, Quantum phase-space tra- trinsic oscillator noise. Thus, under ideal conditions, jectory of an EPR-entangled oscillator pair along with de- the joint measurement on an EPR-entangled system pro- terministic variance of the estimate Vu = 1:91 ± 0:05 for t = 0 duces a noiseless trajectory of one oscillator in the refer- (red), and the approximately final conditional vari- ance of Vc = 0:83 ± 0:02 at t = 110 µs (blue). c, Evolution of ence frame of the other [11]. the conditional variance Vc for the resonant (red to blue) and In quantum theory, those trajectories arise as the ex- far-detuned (green), i.e., for a joint and spectrally separated pectation values of the dynamical variables with respect oscillators, respectively. The circle marks the variance at the to the conditional quantum state ρ^c(t), i.e., incorporating end of the trajectory in b. The shaded areas mark the 1σ the information contained in the measurement record ob- uncertainty of Vc. tained at times t0 < t. Tracking the conditional state evo- lution is relatively straightforward in the present case of ^out Gaussian states, dynamics, and measurements (see Meth- the homodyne detection of the optical quadrature PL (t) odsC), where ρ^c(t) is characterized solely by its first and of the transmitted light. To obtain the exact Wiener fil- second moments, which may be extracted by linear fil- ter, we solve the Wiener-Hopf equations (see MethodsC), tering of past measurement outcomes [37, 38]. Optimal which involve the cross-correlation CXi(t) between the ^ filter functions are determined from the equations of mo- oscillator signal XEPR and i(t) as well as Cii(t), the auto- tion, noise statistics, and the input-output relations for correlation of i(t). the light fields. The optimal filter that takes into account The variance of the conditional state, the residual un- ^ data from a time period [0; t] to estimate, e.g., XEPR is certainty in our knowledge about the system, is deter- ^ ^ called the Wiener filter, a version of the Kalman filter ministic and given by Varc[XEPR](t) Var[XEPR(t) c ^ c ≡ − X (t)] = Var[XEPR] Var[X (t)], i.e., the differ- widely used for state estimation [39].