Laser Physics Letters

LETTER You may also like

- Omnidirectional photonic bangap in
Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen steering and coherence dielectric mirrors: a comparative study
David Ariza-Flores, L M Gaggero-Sager
in structured environments and V Agarwal

- Geometric stability, electronic structure,

and intercalation mechanism of Co adatom
To cite this article: K Berrada and H Eleuch 2023 Laser Phys. Lett. 20 085201 anchors on graphene sheets
Yanan Tang, Weiguang Chen, Chenggang
Li et al.

- The features of band structures for

woodpile three-dimensional photonic
View the article online for updates and enhancements. crystals with plasma and function dielectric
constituents
Haifeng ZHANG, , Hao ZHANG et al.

This content was downloaded from IP address 194.170.95.212 on 23/08/2023 at 16:31

 Astro Ltd Laser Physics Letters

Laser Phys. Lett. 20 (2023) 085201 (6pp) https://doi.org/10.1088/1612-202X/acde73

Letter

Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen steering and

coherence in structured environments
K Berrada1,∗ and H Eleuch2,3
1
Department of Physics, Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic University (IMSIU), College of Science,
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2
Department of Applied Physics and Astronomy, University of Sharjah, Sharjah PO Box 27272, United
Arab Emirates
3
College of Arts and Sciences, Abu Dhabi University, Abu Dhabi 59911, United Arab Emirates

E-mail: [email protected]

Received 24 April 2023

Accepted for publication 30 May 2023
Published 26 June 2023

Abstract
We examine the quantum steering and coherence for two qubits that are immersed in an
isotropic (I) and anisotropic (A) photonic band-gab (PBG) crystal. We show how the steerability
and coherence of the qubits’ state depends on the essential parameters of the model and initial
state setting of the qubits. We find that the prevention of the amount of quantum steering and
coherence can be achieved in the presence of PBG materials by a considerable choice of the
system parameters. Furthermore, we show that the quantum steering and coherence can resist
the degradation during the dynamics in IPBG more than in APBG according to the same
physical conditions. Finally, we illustrate the relationship between the quantum steering and
coherence with respect to the system parameters under the decoherence effect. These obtained
results reveal that quantum systems in PBG materials are very useful to implement diverse
applications of quantum technology with optimal performance.
Keywords: solid state system, EPR steering, coherence, photonic band gab, quantum dynamics

(Some figures may appear in colour only in the online journal)

1. Introduction phenomenon as the potential for local measurements to

influence (known as quantum steering or EPR steering) a
Nonlocal correlations may be found in correlations res- distant quantum subsystem without having access to it [4].
ulting from local measurements conducted on separated In the area of contemporary quantum information theory,
entangled systems [1]. The violation of the Bell inequal- quantum steering is typically employed as a quantifier of
ity highlights the fact that the local hidden variable model quantum correlation strong enough to explain the EPR para-
cannot be utilized to replicate the observed data [2]. The dox and is thought of as an intermediate sort of nonclas-
‘Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) paradox’ has allowed for sical correlation between quantum entanglement and Bell
the development of nonlocality as a significant aspect [3]. nonlocality. The steerable quantum states can be regarded
The paradox refutes the idea that the concept of ‘spooky as a subset of the entangled states [5]. Quantum steering
action at a distance’ may be produced by the theory has attracted a lot of attention recently in both theoret-
of quantum mechanics. After, Schrödinger explained this ical and experimental investigations [6–10]. Quantum key
distribution [11], channel discrimination [12], and secure
teleportation [13] all use steerable states. Additionally, the
∗
Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed. distribution of entanglement by an untrustworthy party was

1612-202X/23/085201+6$33.00 Printed in the UK 1 © 2023 Astro Ltd

Laser Phys. Lett. 20 (2023) 085201 K Berrada and H Eleuch

offered as an operational explanation for quantum steering In section 2, we display the quantum model. Section 3 illus-
[14]. The entropy uncertainty relation may be used to trates the dependence of the quantumness measures on the
obtain several quantum steering inequalities for both con- input parameters. Section 4 displays the obtained results and
tinuous and discrete systems [15–17]. To investigate steer- discussions. We summarize the work in the last section.
ing in many aspects, several promising criteria for EPR
steering have been found [18, 19].
2. Model and quantum dynamics
Every quantum system interacts with its surroundings.
Therefore, understanding the dynamics of various physical
Our quantum system consists of two identical independ-
quantities of an open quantum system, and the interplay
ent qubits (two-level atoms), with transition frequency ω12 ,
between a composite quantum system and the environment has
each embedded in a PBG material for isotropic and aniso-
gained increased attention. This interaction causes ‘quantum
tropic models at zero temperature. The two atoms are
noise’ in the system, which manifests as oscillations, decoher-
considered to be sufficiently separated in order to ignore
ence, and potentially irreversible dissipative dynamics. Since
the dipole–dipole interaction. In this context, it has been
dissipation is always present in any experiment, we need
proved that the dynamics of two atoms can be determ-
to consider it in our model. The dissipation is significant
ined through the knowledge of that of a single atom [33].
from both a theoretical and practical standpoint. The inter-
Here, each atom is coupled to a surrounding radiation field
action of an open quantum system with an external reser-
in three-dimensional periodic dielectric structure [32, 34,
voir includes energy losses, the system dissipates energy by
35]. Under this situation, the Hamiltonian of the single
creating a quantum bath [20–23]. The Hamiltonian operator
atom-environment system in the interaction picture takes the
that describes the interaction between the bath and the system
form
does not commute with the system Hamiltonian in this type of
damping. Typically, this causes the system to thermalize after X X  
H = h̄ ωk â†k âk + h̄ω12 â22 + h̄ fk â21 âk + â†k â12 , (1)
a certain time. In composite systems, this causes decoherence, k k
or the progressive loss of a coherent superposition and the sub-
sequent transition to a statistical mixture. where âk (â†k ) defines the annihilation (creation) operator of
The spontaneous emission rate has a significant impact the field. ωk designs the field frequency of mode k in the
on how well photonic devices operate in various fields. For reservoir. σ̂lm = |l⟩⟨m| (l, m = 1, 2) represents the operators of
instance, spontaneous emission from light-emitting diodes and the atom for the excited state |2⟩ and ground state |1⟩. The
lasers which is not extracted from the devices may contribute parameter fk describes the constant of the field-atom coup-
to noise and loss [24]. In these fields, it is crucial to prevent 1
ling equals to (ω12 d12 /h̄) [h̄/ (2∈0 ωk V)] 2 êk .ûd with the dipole
unwanted spontaneous light emission and redistribute energy
into beneficial forms [25]. Theoretically and empirically, it has moment ⃗d12 = d12 ûd . Here V defines a sample volume, ∈0 is
been shown that photonic band-gab (PBG) materials can be the Coulomb constant and êk represents the polarization vec-
employed to efficiently reduce spontaneous emission [26]. It tor of the mode reservoir k. The whole state vector can be
has demonstrated that the structures of PBG can lead to light given as
localization [27] via a proper interplay between scattering res- −iω12 t X −iωk t

onances and coherent interference of light [28]. Since the dis- |Ψ (t)⟩ = q1 e |Ψ 1 ⟩ + qk e |Ψ 1 ⟩, (2)
k
covery of PBGs [29], PBG materials displaying photon local-
ization have been created at microwave frequencies [30], and where
lately two-dimensional PBG systems can been created in the
Y
near-infrared [30]. For laser applications, a complete three- |Ψ k ⟩ = |2⟩ ⊗ |0k ⟩
dimensional PBG at optical frequencies is the ultimate goal k
[31]. Qubits are frequently imitated in experiments by artifi-
Y
cial atoms made of quantum dot structures placed in the solid |Ψ k ⟩ = |1⟩⊗|1k ⟩ |0k ′ ⟩. (3)
portion of the PBG materials [32]. k ′ ̸=k
In this manuscript, we examine the quantum steering and
coherence for two qubits that are immersed in isotropic PBG Here, the vector |0k ⟩ represents the vacuum state and |1k ⟩
(IPBG) and IPBG crystals. We show how the steerability and is the first excited state for the field mode k. The Hamiltonian
coherence of the qubits’ state depend on the main parameters of two atoms is the sum of the Hamiltonian of each one.
of the model and initial state setting of the qubits. We find that According to the states defined in (3) and employing the
the prevention of the amount of quantum steering and coher- Schrödinger equation, we get the system of coupled equations
ence can be achieved in the present PBG materials by a con-
siderable choice of the system parameters. Furthermore, we
dq1 X
illustrate how the quantum steering and coherence can res- = −i fk e−iΩk t qk (4)
ist against the degradation during the dynamics in IPBG and dt k
anisotropic PBG (APBG). Finally, we display the relationship
between the quantum steering and coherence with respect to dqk
= −ifk e−iΩk t q1 . (5)
the system parameters under the decoherence effect. dt

2
Laser Phys. Lett. 20 (2023) 085201 K Berrada and H Eleuch

Here Ωk = ωk − ω12 represents the detuning frequency. By We introduce the entropic uncertainty relation (EUR) steer-
making the integration of equation (5) with the condition qk (0) ing inequality for studying the quantum steering of the two-
and the substitution of the result into equation (4), the time- atom state under the PBG effect. If the atoms’ state violates
evolution equation of the amplitude of excited state probability the EUR steering inequality, the atoms’ state is steerable [16,
is given by 17, 36]. In the basis {|00⟩,| 01⟩, |10⟩,| 11⟩} for the case of the
X-state of the two-qubit system, and by considering unitary
ˆ∞ transformations with Bloch decomposition of the density oper-
dq1
= dτ F (t − τ ) q1 (τ ) , (6) ator with Bloch vectors ⃗r = (0, 0, r) and ⃗s = (0, 0, s), the EUR
dt
0 steering inequality is
P X
where F (t − τ ) = k f 2k e−iΩk (t−τ ) is the memory Kernel that [(1 + bl ) log2 (1 + bl ) + (1 − bl ) log2 (1 − bl )]
describes the delay Green’s function. Consequently, the l=1,2
reduced density operator of the atomic is written as
− (1 + r) log2 (1 + r) − (1 − r) log2 (1 − r)
 
ϖ 22 (0) |q (t) | 2
ϖ 21 (0) q (t) 1

+ (1 + b3 + r + s) log2 (1 + b3 + r + s)
ϖ̂ S (t) =  ϖ 12 (0) q* (t) ϖ 11 (0) + ϖ 22 (0) 1 − |q (t) |2  . 2
1
+ (1 + b3 − r − s) log2 (1 + b3 − r − s)
(7) 2
1
The time evolution of the two-level atom depends on the + (1 − b3 − r + s) log2 (1 − b3 − r + s)
2
function q (t) that includes the influence of the coupling con- 1
stant and spectral density of environment. Then, the dynam- + (1 − b3 + r − s) log2 (1 − b3 + r − s) ⩽ 2, (11)
2
ical behavior of the EPR steering and coherence depend on
the initial state setting and the Hamiltonian model. To exam- where
ine the influence of PBG on the quantumness measures, we
b1 = 2 (ϖ 23 + ϖ 14 )
need the density matrix of two atoms. This density matrix can
by obtained by knowing the time evolution of the density mat- b2 = 2 (ϖ 23 − ϖ 14 )
rix of one atom (7), using the standard procedure [33]. In the b3 = ϖ 11 − ϖ 22 − ϖ 33 + ϖ 44
standard basis {|00⟩,| 01⟩, |10⟩,| 11⟩}, the matrix elements of r = ϖ 11 + ϖ 22 − ϖ 33 − ϖ 44
the atoms’ density operator are given by
s = ϖ 11 − ϖ 22 + ϖ 33 − ϖ 44 (12)
ϖ 11 (t) = ϖ 11 (0) |q (t) | 4

with ϖ ij being the matrix elements of the two qubits.
ϖ 22 (t) = ϖ 22 (0) q (t) |2 + ϖ 11 (0) q (t) |2 1 − |q (t) |2 It is preferable to measure a quantum state’s coherence in


ϖ 33 (t) = ϖ 33 (0) q (t) |2 + ϖ 11 (0) q (t) |2 1 − |q (t) |2 terms of how far away the nearest incoherent state is from it.
The diagonal elements of a quantum state’s density operator
ϖ 44 (t) = 1 − (ϖ 11 (t) + ϖ 22 (t) + ϖ 33 (t)) ,
with respect to a chosen reference basis are typically used to
(8)
describe the coherence properties for that quantum state. The
with the off-diagonal elements
absolute value of non-diagonal elements is taken into account
ϖ 12 (t) = ϖ 12 (0) q (t) q (t) |2 , ϖ 13 (t) = ϖ 13 (0) q (t) q (t) |2 when calculating the L1 norm of coherence, which quantifies
the quantum coherence. The L1 norm of quantum coherence is
ϖ 14 (t) = ϖ 14 (0) q(t)2 , ϖ 23 (t) = ϖ 23 (0) |q (t) |2 introduced by


ϖ 24 (t) = ϖ 24 (0) q (t) + ϖ 13 (0) q (t) 1 − |q (t) |2 X

CL 1 = |ϖ mn | , (13)
ϖ 34 (t) = ϖ 34 (0) q (t) + ϖ 12 (0) q (t) 1 − |q (t) |2 ,
m̸=n
(9)
where ϖ ij (t) = ϖ *ji (t)
with ϖ̂ (t) is a Hermitian matrix. where m and n are the row and column index, respectively.
We assume that the two atoms are initially prepared in Bell-
like state described by the one-parameter ket
4. Quantum steering and coherence in IPBG and
p
|Ψ A ⟩ = ζ| 01⟩ + 1 − ζ 2 |10⟩, (10) APBG crystals
√
which exhibits a maximally entangled state for ζ = 1/ 2. Firstly, we consider the case of zero-temperature three-
dimensional dielectric as an environment with isotropic
photon dispersion relation ωk [32, 34]. Near the band edge ωc ,
3. Quantumness measures the dispersion relation has the form
In the present section, we define the expressions used to detect ωk − ωc = G(k̄ − k)2 , (14)
quantum steering and coherence in the state of atoms under
the influence of PBG in terms of the matrix elements given in where G ∼ = ωc /k̄2 . The dispersion relation defined in
equations (8) and (9). equation (14) is said to be isotropic because it depends only

3
Laser Phys. Lett. 20 (2023) 085201 K Berrada and H Eleuch

on the wave-vector magnitude. In this situation, the explicit

form of q (t) is given by
2 2
q (t) = 2a1 ϑ1 eβϑ1 t+i∆t + a1 (ϑ2 + υ2 ) eβϑ2 t+i∆t
X
l=1  q 
2
− al υl 1 − Φ βϑ2l t eβϑl t+i∆t , (15)
3

where

ϑ1 = eiπ /4 (F+ + F− ) (16)

 
ϑ2 = e−iπ /4 F+ e−iπ /6 − F− eiπ /6 (17)

 
ϑ3 = ei3π /4 F+ eiπ /6 − F− eiπ /6 (18) Figure 1. Quantum steering for initial like-Bell state versus the time
βt with different values of detuning from the PBG edge in the IPBG
case with ζ 2 = 1/2. Solid curve is for the case of ∆ = −10β,
  1 ! 13 dash-dotted curve displays the case of ∆ = −8β, dashed curve
1 1 4 ∆3 2

F± = ± 1+ , (19) shows the case of ∆ = −4β and dotted curve represents the case of
2 2 27 β 3 ∆ = 0.
q
υl = ϑ2l , l = 1, 2, 3, (20)
∆ = ω12 − ωc according to the frequency of the band edge. In
7/2
this situation, the explicit form of q (t) is given by
where β 3/2 = d2 ω12 /6h̄π ∈0 c3 . nh  √ i 2
We now display the time variation of quantum steering of q (t) = ε 1 + Θ χ + eiπ /4 t χ + eiχ + t
the qubits’ state in the IPBG as characterized by the disper- h  √ i 2
o
sion relation of equation (14) with respect to the detuning − 1 + Θ χ − eiπ /4 t χ − eiχ − t , (22)
∆ = ω12 − ωc , where ω12 is the transition frequency of qubit
and ωc represents the frequency of the band edge. In figure 1, where
we display the measure of EPR steering against dimensionless
ei∆t
time βt for different values of the parameter ∆. The qubits’ fre- ε= √
quency is inside the band gab when ∆ < 0. The blue solid line α2 − 4∆
is for ∆ = −10β, red dash-dotted solid line is for ∆ = −8β, p 
green dashed line is for ∆ = −4β, and blue dotted line is χ+ = α2 − 4∆ − α /2
for ∆ = 0. Figures 1(a) and (b) are ζ 2 = 1/2 and ζ 2 = 1/3,
 p 
respectively. In general, we can observe that the preservation
χ − = − α2 − 4∆ − α /2,
and delay of the measure of EPR steering depends on the para-
meters ∆ and ζ. The figures show the trapping phenomenon of 3/2
the quantum measure of EPR steering. In the ω12 ≤ ωc limit, with α ≈ d2 ω122
/[8(π A) ωc ∈0 ] as a constant which is related
the qubits’ state is steerable during the evolution and the meas- to the nature of the singularity of the band edge and Θ is the
ure of quantum steering oscillates in a periodic manner with error function.
the time. When the qubit frequency gets far from the band edge The measure of EPR steering corresponding to the case of
(ω12 ≪ ωc ), the measure of quantum steering is nearer to its APBG, is displayed in figure 2 versus the time α2 t for different
maximal initial value with perfect steering of the qubits’ state. values of detuning ∆. The blue solid line is for ∆ = −10α2 ,
On the other side, we can protect the measure of EPR steering red dash-dotted solid line is for ∆ = −8α2 , green dashed line
by a proper choice of the parameter ζ. is for ∆ = −4α2 , and blue dotted line is for ∆ = 0. We can
Let us now consider the environment in the case of APBG observe that the measure of quantum steering decreases with
crystals. In the model of anisotropic dispersion, the band edge time and goes to attain a steady value providing that the qubits’
is associated with a definite point in k-space. In this situation, state is steerable as the frequency of the qubit is largely inside
the dispersion relation has the form [35] the gap ∆ ≪ 0. Furthermore, the quantum measure of EPR
steering decreases with time providing an unsteerable state of
ωk − ωc ≈ C(k − k0 ) ,
2
(21) two qubits in the limits ∆ ⩾ 0 (the frequency of the qubit is
detuned outside the band gap) and ∆ < 0 (the frequency of
where C is a constant that depends on the model, ωc represents the qubit is inside the gap). The larger the detuning of the qubit
the upper band-edge frequency and k0 describes the wave vec- frequency inside the gab according to the APBG, the larger the
tor associated with the point-group symmetry for the dielec- steady value with a smaller sudden drop of the EPR steering
tric material. Here, the detuning of the atomic frequency is with the steerable state of two qubits.

4
Laser Phys. Lett. 20 (2023) 085201 K Berrada and H Eleuch

Figure 2. EPR steering for initial like-Bell state versus the time α2 t Figure 4. Quantum coherence for initial like-Bell state versus the
with different values of the detuning from the PBG edge in the time α2 t with different values of detuning from the PBG edge in the
APBG case with ζ 2 = 1/2. Solid curve is for the case of APBG case with ζ 2 = 1/2. Solid curve illustrates the case of
∆ = −10α2 , dash-dotted curve displays the case of ∆ = −8α2 , ∆ = −10α2 , dash-dotted curve displays the case of ∆ = −8α2 ,
dashed curve shows the case of ∆ = −4α2 and dotted curve dashed curve shows the case of ∆ = −4α2 and dotted curve
represents the case of ∆ = 0. represents the case of ∆ = 0.

can violate the quantum steering inequality as the frequency

of the qubit is largely inside the gap, and not every state of the
qubits’ is steerable as the frequency of a qubit is detuned out-
side the band gap. The obtained results here demonstrate that
the amount of EPR steering and coherence for the IPBG case
is more easily protected than in the case of APBG.

5. Conclusion

In conclusion, we have examined the quantum steering and

coherence for two qubits that are immersed in an IPBG and
APBG crystal. We have shown in detail how the steerability
and coherence of the qubits’ state depend on the main paramet-
ers of the model and initial state setting of the qubits. We have
Figure 3. Quantum coherence for initial like-Bell state versus the found that the prevention of the amount of quantum steering
time βt with different values of the detuning from the PBG edge in and coherence can be achieved in the presence of PBG mater-
the IPBG case with ζ 2 = 1/2. Solid curve is for the case of ials by a considerable choice of the system parameters. We
∆ = −10β, dash-dotted curve displays the case of ∆ = −8β, have obtained that the quantum steering and coherence can res-
dashed curve shows the case of ∆ = −4β and dotted curve
represents the case of ∆ = 0. ist the degradation during the dynamics in IPBG more than in
APBG according to the same physical conditions. Finally, we
have displayed the relationship between the quantum steering
In figures 3 and 4, the quantum coherence for the dispersion and coherence with respect to the system parameters under the
relations (14) and (21) are displayed versus the dimensionless decoherence effect. These results show that quantum systems
time for various values of detuning. Generally, we find that the in PBG materials are very useful to implement diverse applic-
quantum coherence behaves in a similar way as the measures ations of quantum technology with optimal performance.
of EPR steering with respect to the values of the detuning. It The validity of the findings achieved here for ideal PBG
can be found for negative values of detuning, i.e. the trans- materials raises the question of how well they apply to real
ition frequency of the qubit takes far from the band edge and crystals. A pseudo gap is frequently created in real crystals
it is inside the gab, the amount of the qubits’ coherence can be with limited dimensions where the density of states is sig-
largely preserved during the dynamics. Under the same con- nificantly lower than that of empty space but not vanishing.
dition, the preservation of coherence for the dispersion (14) is However, in such gaps, the local density of states can be so
larger than that of (21). This means that the qubits’ coherence low that it is possible to successfully prevent an excited emitter
in the IPBG is more robust than that in the APBG and show- from spontaneously decaying by judiciously placing it inside
ing the PBG can be utilized to restrain the coherence’s sud- the PBG material [37, 38]. Thus, memory and coherent con-
den drop. Also, we show that the qubits’ state with coherence trol effects exist and are comparable to those in an ideal PBG.

5
Laser Phys. Lett. 20 (2023) 085201 K Berrada and H Eleuch

Significant suppression of spontaneous emission of up to 30% [10] Wittmann B, Ramelow S, Steinlechner F, Langford N K,
has been reported for quantum dots contained within real PBG Brunner N, Wiseman H M, Ursin R and Zeilinger A 2012
material [26]. In several studies, ‘artificial atoms’ made of New J. Phys. 14 053030
[11] Branciard C, Cavalcanti A G, Walborn S P, Scarani V and
quantum dot structures ensconced in the solid fraction of the Wiseman H M 2012 Phys. Rev. A 85 010301
PBG material serve as qubits [35]. With the technical advant- [12] Piani M and Watrous J 2015 Phys. Rev. Lett. 114 060404
ages of solid-state systems, quantum dots enable coherent [13] He Q, Rosales-Zárate L, Adesso G and Reid M D 2015 Phys.
manipulation of a single localized quantum system. The Stark Rev. Lett. 115 180502
effect may be used to adjust the energy levels in the quantum [14] Jones S J, Wiseman H M and Doherty A C 2007 Phys. Rev. A
76 052116
dots situation as well, with typical shifts of 1 − −10 GHz [15] Skrzypczyk P, Navascués M and Cavalcanti D 2014 Phys. Rev.
[39, 40], in order to create the necessary conditions for qubit Lett. 112 180404
coherent operations. These characteristics enable the incorpor- [16] Walborn S P, Salles A, Gomes R M, Toscano F and Souto
ation of quantum dots into a PBG material suitable for estab- Ribeiro P H 2011 Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 130402
lishing different quantum computing and coherent informa- [17] Zhen Y-Z, Zheng Y-L, Cao W-F, Li L, Chen Z-B, Liu N-L and
Chen K 2016 Phys. Rev. A 93 012108
tion processing. Entangled independent atoms in PBG mater- [18] Zukowski M, Dutta A and Yin Z 2015 Phys. Rev. A
ials can be generated through a three-dimensional photonic 91 032107
crystal single-mode cavity with a high-quality factor where [19] Girdhar P and Cavalcanti E G 2016 Phys. Rev. A 94 032317
the Rydberg atoms can freely travel via the void regions [41]. [20] Sete E A and Eleuch H 2010 Phys. Rev. A 82 043810
Here, the atoms change photons with the cavity, characterized [21] Eleuch H, Ben Nessib N and Bennaceur R 2004 Eur. Phys. J.
D 29 391
by the defect mode of crystal resonant with the atomic fre- [22] Eleuch H and Bennaceur R 2003 J. Opt. A: Pure Appl. Opt.
quency. In this case, the atoms are considered to be independ- 5 528
ent since their transition frequency is inside the PBG and their [23] Eleuch H, Guerin S and Jauslin H R 2012 Phys. Rev. A
relative distance permits neglect of the dipole–dipole interac- 85 013830
tion. Our present study from a phenomenological perspective [24] Cheng S-C, Jing-Nuowu M-R T, Hsieh W-F and Hsieh W-F
2009 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 21 015503
may provide a clearer explanation of the experimental results [25] Saleh B E A and Teich M C 1991 Fundamentals of Photonics
of the dissipation on the EPR steering and coherence. (New York: Wiley)
[26] Lodahl P, Van Driel A F, Nikolaev I S, Irman A, Overgaag K,
Vanmaekelbergh D and Vos W L 2004 Nature 430 654
Acknowledgment [27] John S 1984 Phys. Rev. Lett. 53 2169
[28] John S 1996 Photonic Band Gap Materials (NATO ASI Series
The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of vol E315) (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic)
Scientific Research at Imam Mohammad Ibn Saud Islamic [29] John S 1987 Phys. Rev. Lett. 58 2486
[30] Yablonovich E, Gmitter T J and Leung K M 1991 Phys. Rev.
University (IMSIU) for funding and supporting this work
Lett. 67 2295
through Research Partnership Program No. RP-21-09-42. [31] Vlasov Y A, Luterova K, Pelant I, Honerlage B and
Astratov V N 1997 Appl. Phys. Lett. 71 1616
[32] Bellomo B, Lo Franco R, Maniscalco S and Compagno G
References 2008 Phys. Rev. A 78 060302(R)
[33] Bellomo B, Lo Franco R and Compagno G 2007 Phys. Rev.
[1] Bell J S 1964 Physics 1 195 Lett. 99 160502
[2] Horodecki R, Horodecki P, Horodecki M and Horodecki K [34] John S and Quang T 1994 Phys. Rev. A 50 1764
2009 Rev. Mod. Phys. 81 865 [35] Woldeyohannes M and John S 1999 Phys. Rev. A
[3] Einstein A, Podolsky B and Rosen N 1935 Phys. Rev. 47 777 60 5046
[4] Schrödinger E 1936 Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 32 446 [36] Schneeloch J, Broadbent C J, Walborn S P, Cavalcanti E G and
[5] Wiseman H M, Jones S J and Doherty A C 2007 Phys. Rev. Howell J C 2013 Phys. Rev. A 87 062103
Lett. 98 140402 [37] Sprik R, van Tiggelen B A and Lagendijk A 1996 Europhys.
[6] Saunders D J, Jones S J, Wiseman H M and Pryde G J 2010 Lett. 35 18
Nat. Phys. 6 845 [38] Busch K and John S 1998 Phys. Rev. E 58 3896
[7] Wollmann S, Walk N, Bennet A J, Wiseman H M and [39] Aln B, Bickel F, Karraib K, Warburton R J and Petroff P M
Pryde G J 2016 Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 160403 2003 Appl. Phys. Lett. 83 2235
[8] Gehring T, Händchen V, Duhme J, Furrer F, Franz T, Pacher C, [40] Warburton R J, Schulhauser C, Haft D, Schäflein C, Karrai K,
Werner R F and Schnabel R 2015 Nat. Commun. 6 8795 Garcia J M, Schoenfeld W and Petroff P M 2002 Phys. Rev.
[9] Cavalcanti E G, Jones S J, Wiseman H M and Reid M D 2009 B 65 113303
Phys. Rev. A 80 032112 [41] Guney D O and Meyer D A 2007 J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 24 283