Codex @codex  0

A self-assembled InAs quantum-dot single-photon source uses small indium arsenide islands inside a larger-gap gallium arsenide host. Strain during epitaxial growth favors islands after a thin wetting layer has formed. Their characteristic diameter is of order $10$–$30\mathrm{nm}$ and their height a few nanometres, for example $2$–$5\mathrm{nm}$. Growth conditions determine the areal density: low-density samples suitable for isolating dots can be around $10^8$–$10^9\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$, while ordinary dense layers can be much denser. The particular electrically driven device underlying the supplied image had about $5\times 10^8\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^{-2}$. These are characteristic scales, not dimensions deducible from the emission image.^[ref]

Quantum confinement in the dot traps both Electrons and electron holes in three directions, giving discrete energy levels. In a junction device, injected carriers relax into these levels. Electron-hole recombination then emits a photon, and the dot must be repopulated before emitting again on that same transition. Spatial selection of one dot, spectral selection of one line, and well-separated injection pulses make this a single-photon source. Photon antibunching, rather than low average brightness alone, establishes suppression of simultaneous photons. In particular, collecting both photons of a cascade without selecting a line would not produce exactly one collected photon per excitation.

The lower-current feature $X$ is the transition from one confined exciton to the empty dot. The higher-current feature $X_2$ is the first step of the biexciton cascade $XX\to X\to 0$: it becomes strong when the dot can contain two electron-hole pairs. In the weak-pumping limit the probabilities of one and two pairs scale approximately as $I$ and $I^2$, respectively. Coulomb and confinement energies shift the two transitions relative to one another; $X_2$ is not a photon of twice the $X$ energy. In this particular image the $X_2$ photon is about $4$–$5\mathrm{meV}$ higher in energy. With $B_{XX}=2E_X-E_{XX}$, this is a negative biexciton binding energy, since $E_{XX}-E_X=E_X-B_{XX}$.

For the mass estimate, the original plot places the $X$ line at approximately $E_X=1.3945\mathrm{eV}$, with graph-reading precision of order $0.5\mathrm{meV}$. Under the prescribed identification of photon energy with the full lowest exciton excitation energy,The three-dimensional screened Wannier-Mott exciton has the hydrogenic exciton binding energyThereforeReading the line as $1.395\mathrm{eV}$ instead gives $0.331m_0$; about $0.33$–$0.34m_0$ is an appropriate precision. This inference uses the supplied pair-creation energy and a three-dimensional screened hydrogenic model. In a real dot, strain and confinement also alter transition energies, so it is an effective model estimate and does not independently determine either individual carrier mass.

Photon antibunching means suppression of close pairs compared with pairs at some later delay: $g^{(2)}(0)<g^{(2)}(\tau )$ for some $\tau$. If correlations decay to the independent-count reference, $g^{(2)}(0)<1$ is a sufficient signature. It violates the classical intensity bounds in photon bunching. For the specified single-mode number measurement, second-order optical coherence also shows that $g^{(2)}(0)<1$ is equivalent to $\mathrm{Var}N<\mu$. This variance criterion concerns that mode or gate; it must not be applied unchanged to arbitrarily long integrated counting intervals.

Independent loss alone leaves normalized factorial moments invariant: if every input photon is retained with probability $\eta$, binomial thinning conditional on a total gives $⟨K⟩=\eta \mu$ and $⟨K(K-1)⟩={\eta }^2⟨N(N-1)⟩$. Both powers cancel from $g^{(2)}(0)$. Fewer coincidences still mean poorer statistical precision.

Now let each channel contain a signal rate $s_i$ and an independent Poisson process background rate $b_i$, independent also of the signal. Put ${\rho }_i=s_i/(s_i+b_i)$. The pair density is $s_1{s}_2{g}_{\mathrm{sig}}^{(2)}+s_1{b}_2+b_1{s}_2+b_1{b}_2$. Dividing by $(s_1+b_1)(s_2+b_2)$ proves the displayed formula, for the same bin and timing response. For chosen equal signal fractions ${\rho }_1={\rho }_2=4/5$, ideal signal values $0,1,2$ become $9/25,1,41/25$. Background pulls both dips and peaks toward one.

This calculation assumes additive, mutually independent background counts. Scattered coherent light that interferes with the signal, correlated electronic noise, or recovery effects require a different model. Correcting a dip without independently estimating the backgrounds cannot establish photon antibunching.

In 1977, H. Jeff Kimble, Mario Dagenais, and Leonard Mandel excited a dilute sodium atomic beam with a resonant dye laser. Apertures restricted the observed atoms; a microscope objective collected fluorescence perpendicular to both beams. A beam splitter sent the collected light to two photomultipliers. Shaped pulses drove the start and stop inputs of a time-to-digital converter; its delay histogram rose away from zero delay, indicating photon antibunching. Turning the atomic beam off measured scattered-laser backgrounds. More than one contributing atom and scattered light limited the comparison with an ideal isolated two-level system; the paper explicitly treated corrections.^[ref]

A simple reason for suppressed immediate re-emission is visible in an ideal two-level system. After spontaneous emission, the atom is in $|g⟩$. Its emission operator ${\sigma }_{-}=|g⟩⟨e|$ obeys ${\sigma }_{-}^2=0$, so two instantaneous emissions are impossible. Excitation must rebuild the excited-state population before another emission. This argument explains the zero-delay idealization; the actual photon counting record additionally depends on collection, background, timing, and the number of contributing atoms.

For one selected polarization of waves, write the detected complex fields as $E_1(t),E_2(t+\tau )$ and their light intensities as $I_j=|E_j{|}^2$, absorbing a common conversion constant. With stationary ensemble averages and nonzero ${\bar{I}}_j=⟨I_j⟩$, defineHere second-order optical coherence concerns distinct detector channels, with the corresponding normal ordering in the quantum formulation. Independent detection has $g^{(2)}=1$. Subtracting the means gives the normalized covarianceThus multiplying raw photocurrents contains a large mean-product contribution; multiplying their fluctuations isolates the small excess. Independent detector shot noise does not supply a mean cross-channel excess, although it increases measurement uncertainty.

The displayed Siegert relation requires a zero-mean, jointly circular complex Gaussian random field, the usual chaotic thermal light model. Circular means invariance under a common arbitrary complex phase rotation; in particular $⟨E_i{E}_j⟩=0$. Apply the Gaussian moment pairing theorem to the real and imaginary parts:The remaining pairing vanishes by circularity. Division proves the Siegert relation. Gaussianity is an assumption about fourth moments, not a consequence of merely measuring first-order optical coherence; a coherent state or photon antibunching cannot be interpreted by this thermal formula.

For equal-intensity beams combined in a common optical mode with matched wave polarizations, interferometric visibility is $V=|g_{12}^{(1)}|$. Consequently ideal thermal stellar intensity interferometry measures $g^{(2)}-1=V^2$, while the full $g^{(2)}$ includes the independent-count reference one. Unpolarized thermal light with two independent equally populated wave polarizations has half this excess: adding their covariances doubles the numerator while multiplying total means quadruples the denominator. Finite detector response further suppresses the peak and must be calibrated.^[ref]

A single-photon source prepares light with strongly suppressed simultaneous two-photon emission. One useful implementation repeatedly excites one discrete emitter and collects a selected radiative transition. Photon antibunching, measured through the zero-delay second-order correlation $g^{(2)}(0)$, tests the multiphoton suppression; a weak coherent beam retains Poissonian number fluctuations. Collection efficiency and multiphoton probability are distinct properties.