DOCSLIB.ORG

A Quantum Noise Approach to Quantum NEMS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Quantum Noise Approach to Quantum NEMS A Quantum Noise Approach to Quantum NEMS Aashish Clerk McGill University S. Bennett (graduate student) Collaborators: K. Schwab, S. Girvin, A. Armour, M. Blencowe • Quantum noise as a route to understanding quantum NEMS… Quantum NEMS: Interesting Issues • How does the conductor affect the oscillator? • Non-trivial dissipative quantum mechanics… the oscillator sees a non-Gaussian, non-equilibrium “bath” ! Systematic way of describing non-equilibrium systems as effective equilibrium baths • Non-equilibrium cooling • strong-feedback “lasing” instabilities,… Quantum NEMS: Interesting Issues • How does the oscillator affect the conductor? • Possibility for quantum limited position detection… opens door to doing quantum control ! Rigorous bound on quantum noise of a detector ! Reaching the quantum limit requires a conductor (detector) with ideal quantum noise properties Non-equilibrium baths? F Problem: the “bath” produced by the conductor is non-equilibrium and non-Gaussian! However: for several systems, theory shows that the conductor acts as an effective equilibrium bath! Point contact: Mozyrsky & Martin, 02; Smirnov, Mourokh & Horing, 03; !cond A.C. & Girvin, 04 Normal-metal SET: Armour & Blencowe, 04 kBTeff " eVDS Quantum dot: Mozyrsky, Martin & Hastings, 04 • Generic way of seeing this? • What in general determines Teff? Effective bath descriptions • If oscillator-conductor coupling is weak, we can rigorously derive a Langevin equation! damping kernel random force • Langevin equation determined by the quantum noise of the conductor: n~F ">0: absorption of h" by bath "<0: emission of h" by bath A.C., Phys. Rev. B 70 (2004) (see also J. Schwinger, J. Math Phys. 2 (1960); Mozyrsky, Martin & Hastings, PRL 92 (2004)) Effective temperature n~F ">0: absorption of h" by bath "<0: emission of h" by bath • Not in equilibrium ! no fluctuation dissipation theorem! Effective temperature n~F ">0: absorption of h" by bath "<0: emission of h" by bath • Use FDT to define the effective temperature of the detector Effective temperature n~F ">0: absorption of h" by bath "<0: emission of h" by bath • Use FDT to define the effective temperature of the detector Teff in a non-equilibrium system set by the asymmetry between absorption and emission Sequential Tunneling • Incoherent tunneling on and off the island: F~n #+ #- •Form of #’s? V • depend on what is tunneling (electrons, DS quasiparticles, ...) and where (metallic SET, quantum dot, ...). • “effective bath” determined by sensitivity of tunnel rates to the addition or subtraction of energy Sequential Tunneling (2) #+ #- VDS Normal Metal SET #(E) E More energy, more available states for tunneling…. Superconducting SET #(E) E Sharp turn-on of rates… Cooper Pairs as an Effective Bath (Bennett, AC, NJP, 2005; Imbers, Blencowe & Armour, NJP, 2005) • Josephson-quasiparticle process in a superconducting SET EJ # EJ $ = Efinal - Einitial # # Vosc b a $ = detuning of Cooper-pair resonance n Cooper Pairs as an Effective Bath (2) • Force from conductor? V Number of electrons n on the SET island osc • Calculate the quantum noise in n (A.C., Girvin, Nguyen & Stone, PRL 02) n EJ # EJ • Teff can be as small as h#a/4!! #b #a • Teff and ! can be negative! $ = E2 - E0 Negative Damping & Temperature? EJ ($ = E2 - E0) #b #a • $ > 0? • Cooper pairs move closer to resonance E if they absorb energy 2 • Net tendency to absorb energy from oscillator… %, Teff > 0 E0 • $ < 0 • Cooper pairs move closer to resonance E0 if they emit energy • Net tendancy to emit energy to the oscillator… negative damping and Teff! E2 (First discussed for qubits: % Unstable regime!! A.C., Girvin, Nguyen & Stone, PRL 02) See also Blencowe, Imbers & Armour 2005: master equation approach Ground state cooling using Cooper Pairs? EJ Vosc #b #a n • Calculate Teff as a function of frequency… Ground state cooling using Cooper Pairs? EJ Vosc #b #a n • Calculate Teff as a function of frequency… Ground state cooling using Cooper Pairs EJ Vosc #b #a n • Calculate Teff as a function of frequency… • If $ = h&, h& >> #? • In principle, ground-state cooling possible (reality: need to worry about cotunneling processes) (see also Martin, Shnirman & Tian, 2004) Equivalence to Optical Cavity Cooling • Cooper-pair cooling identical in many ways to cavity cooling: • Teff(",$) same. • Response time (as a function of $) same • BUT: • Driven cavity is a many-state (figure courtesy Jack Harris, Yale) system • SSET is a driven 3-state system In our system, Cooper-pairs play the role of photons… Strong Feedback Effects (AC & Bennet, NJP 2005; Bennett & AC, PRB(R) 2006) • What happens when the total oscillator damping is negative? !weak coupling theory is unstable! small x large x • Oscillator motion becomes large ! Strongly modifies behaviour of the SET Strong Feedback Effects (AC & Bennet, NJP 2005; Bennett & AC, PRB(R) 2006) • What happens when the total oscillator damping is negative? !weak coupling theory is unstable! small x large x • Oscillator motion becomes large ! Strongly modifies behaviour of the SET • Result? Amplitude-dependent damping… !(E) Similar to a laser! 0 Tunneling Cooper-pairs ' act as the gain medium… Strong Feedback Effects (AC & Bennet, NJP 2005; Bennett & AC, PRB(R) 2006) small x large x • Make this picture rigorous using the fact that the SET is much faster than the oscillator • At each instant, the properties of the effective bath depend on the oscillator’s position • Langevin & Fokker-Planck equation • Weak damping limit: average over phase (Kramers) Strong Feedback Effects (AC & Bennet, NJP 2005; Bennett & AC, PRB(R) 2006) small x large x • Get an energy diffusion equation for the oscillator: Energy-dependent damping and diffusion! • Similar physics in a normal SET: Blanter, Usmani & Nazarov, PRL 2006 • Negative damping & non-linear friction: Dykman, 87 Stationary State - Bistability small x large x • Stationary state of the oscillator determined by an “energy- dependent” temperature! Optimal Coupling & Scaling (Bennett & AC, PRB(R) 2006) small x large x • Tuning coupling voltage ' tuning atom-field coupling… • There is an optimal coupling to maximize effect… • ( & #? • Can get number squeezing! (Rodrigues, Imbers & Armour, 2006) Enhanced Shot Noise small x large x • Slows dynamics in oscillator leads to long-time correlations in Cooper pair tunneling… enhanced current noise. SI / 2e Imax See also: Blanter, Usmani & Nazarov, PRL 2006 Critical Slowing Down (Bennett & AC, PRB(R) 2006) small x large x • Current noise also sensitive to critical slowing down at the “lasing” bifurcation… From Quantum Noise to the Quantum Limit Ideal: Reality: Added noise S ("): SI(") x,add Quantum limit? MHz Quantum Constraint on Noise AC, Girvin & Stone, PRB 67 (2003) Averin, cond-mat/031524 • Reaching quantum limit requires a detector with “ideal” quantum noise: • A detector where the product SI SF reaches a minimum. • For such a detector, the power gain GP is simply Teff! • Heuristic interpretation: no wasted information… Ideality of Cooper-Pair Tunneling Other “ideal” detectors: • Tunnel junction • Adiabatic QPC • Normal SET in cotunneling regime Conclusions • For weak coupling, the conductor in a NEMS system acts as an “effective thermal bath” • Damping and Teff determined by conductor’s ability to emit and absorb energy • Tunneling Cooper pairs as a bath • Non-equilibrium cooling • analogy to optical cavity cooling… Cooper pairs ' cavity photons! • Unstable negative damping regime characterized by strong feedback (like a laser!) A. Clerk & S. Bennett, New. J. Phys. (2005) A. Naik et. al, Nature (2006) S. Bennett & A. Clerk, cond-mat/0609329 Future Challenges • What can we do with a quantum limited detector? • Quantum control? Feedback cooling? Squeezing? • Only a few proposals (Korotkov; Jacobs & Habib) • Need more thought here! • Strongly-coupled NEMS? • Can we get into a regime where the non-Gaussian nature of the conductor’s noise is important? • Quantum oscillators? • Reaching quantum limit on position sensitivity has nothing do to with the quantum nature of the oscillator…..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Arxiv:1206.1084V3 [Quant-Ph] 3 May 2019
    Overview of Bohmian Mechanics Xavier Oriolsa and Jordi Mompartb∗ aDepartament d'Enginyeria Electr`onica, Universitat Aut`onomade Barcelona, 08193, Bellaterra, SPAIN bDepartament de F´ısica, Universitat Aut`onomade Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, SPAIN This chapter provides a fully comprehensive overview of the Bohmian formulation of quantum phenomena. It starts with a historical review of the difficulties found by Louis de Broglie, David Bohm and John Bell to convince the scientific community about the validity and utility of Bohmian mechanics. Then, a formal explanation of Bohmian mechanics for non-relativistic single-particle quantum systems is presented. The generalization to many-particle systems, where correlations play an important role, is also explained. After that, the measurement process in Bohmian mechanics is discussed. It is emphasized that Bohmian mechanics exactly reproduces the mean value and temporal and spatial correlations obtained from the standard, i.e., `orthodox', formulation. The ontological characteristics of the Bohmian theory provide a description of measurements in a natural way, without the need of introducing stochastic operators for the wavefunction collapse. Several solved problems are presented at the end of the chapter giving additional mathematical support to some particular issues. A detailed description of computational algorithms to obtain Bohmian trajectories from the numerical solution of the Schr¨odingeror the Hamilton{Jacobi equations are presented in an appendix. The motivation of this chapter is twofold.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Noise and Quantum Measurement
    Quantum noise and quantum measurement Aashish A. Clerk Department of Physics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2T8 1 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 Quantum noise spectral densities: some essential features 2 2.1 Classical noise basics 2 2.2 Quantum noise spectral densities 3 2.3 Brief example: current noise of a quantum point contact 9 2.4 Heisenberg inequality on detector quantum noise 10 3 Quantum limit on QND qubit detection 16 3.1 Measurement rate and dephasing rate 16 3.2 Efficiency ratio 18 3.3 Example: QPC detector 20 3.4 Significance of the quantum limit on QND qubit detection 23 3.5 QND quantum limit beyond linear response 23 4 Quantum limit on linear amplification: the op-amp mode 24 4.1 Weak continuous position detection 24 4.2 A possible correlation-based loophole? 26 4.3 Power gain 27 4.4 Simplifications for a detector with ideal quantum noise and large power gain 30 4.5 Derivation of the quantum limit 30 4.6 Noise temperature 33 4.7 Quantum limit on an \op-amp" style voltage amplifier 33 5 Quantum limit on a linear-amplifier: scattering mode 38 5.1 Caves-Haus formulation of the scattering-mode quantum limit 38 5.2 Bosonic Scattering Description of a Two-Port Amplifier 41 References 50 1 Introduction The fact that quantum mechanics can place restrictions on our ability to make measurements is something we all encounter in our first quantum mechanics class. One is typically presented with the example of the Heisenberg microscope (Heisenberg, 1930), where the position of a particle is measured by scattering light off it.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Noise Properties of Non-Ideal Optical Amplifiers and Attenuators
    Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience Quantum noise properties of non-ideal optical amplifiers and attenuators This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article. 2011 J. Opt. 13 125201 (http://iopscience.iop.org/2040-8986/13/12/125201) View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more Download details: IP Address: 128.151.240.150 The article was downloaded on 27/08/2012 at 22:19 Please note that terms and conditions apply. IOP PUBLISHING JOURNAL OF OPTICS J. Opt. 13 (2011) 125201 (7pp) doi:10.1088/2040-8978/13/12/125201 Quantum noise properties of non-ideal optical amplifiers and attenuators Zhimin Shi1, Ksenia Dolgaleva1,2 and Robert W Boyd1,3 1 The Institute of Optics, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA 2 Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada 3 Department of Physics and School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, K1N 6N5, Canada E-mail: [email protected] Received 17 August 2011, accepted for publication 10 October 2011 Published 24 November 2011 Online at stacks.iop.org/JOpt/13/125201 Abstract We generalize the standard quantum model (Caves 1982 Phys. Rev. D 26 1817) of the noise properties of ideal linear amplifiers to include the possibility of non-ideal behavior. We find that under many conditions the non-ideal behavior can be described simply by assuming that the internal noise source that describes the quantum noise of the amplifier is not in its ground state.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the Shot-Noise and Diffraction Limit
    Quantum plasmonic sensing: beyond the shot-noise and diffraction limit Changhyoup Lee,∗,y,z Frederik Dieleman,{ Jinhyoung Lee,y Carsten Rockstuhl,z,x Stefan A. Maier,{ and Mark Tame∗,k,? yDepartment of Physics, Hanyang University, Seoul, 133-791, South Korea zInstitute of Theoretical Solid State Physics, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 76131 Karlsruhe, Germany {EXSS, The Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College London, Prince Consort Road, SW7 2BW, United Kingdom xInstitute of Nanotechnology, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany kUniversity of KwaZulu-Natal, School of Chemistry and Physics, Durban 4001, South Africa ?National Institute for Theoretical Physics (NITheP), KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract Photonic sensors have many applications in a range of physical settings, from mea- suring mechanical pressure in manufacturing to detecting protein concentration in biomedical samples. A variety of sensing approaches exist, and plasmonic systems in particular have received much attention due to their ability to confine light below the diffraction limit, greatly enhancing sensitivity. Recently, quantum techniques have been identified that can outperform classical sensing methods and achieve sensitiv- ity below the so-called shot-noise limit. Despite this significant potential, the use of 1 definite photon number states in lossy plasmonic systems for further improving sens- ing capabilities is not well studied. Here, we investigate the sensing performance of a plasmonic interferometer that simultaneously exploits the quantum nature of light and its electromagnetic field confinement. We show that, despite the presence of loss, specialised quantum resources can provide improved sensitivity and resolution beyond the shot-noise limit within a compact plasmonic device operating below the diffraction limit.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Noise
    C.W. Gardiner Quantum Noise With 32 Figures Springer -Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York London Paris Tokyo Hong Kong Barcelona Budapest Contents 1. A Historical Introduction 1 1.1 Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle 1 1.1.1 The Equation of Motion and Repeated Measurements 3 1.2 The Spectrum of Quantum Noise 4 1.3 Emission and Absorption of Light 7 1.4 Consistency Requirements for Quantum Noise Theory 10 1.4.1 Consistency with Statistical Mechanics 10 1.4.2 Consistency with Quantum Mechanics 11 1.5 Quantum Stochastic Processes and the Master Equation 13 1.5.1 The Two Level Atom in a Thermal Radiation Field 14 1.5.2 Relationship to the Pauli Master Equation 18 2. Quantum Statistics 21 2.1 The Density Operator 21 2.1.1 Density Operator Properties 22 2.1.2 Von Neumann's Equation 24 2.2 Quantum Theory of Measurement 24 2.2.1 Precise Measurements 25 2.2.2 Imprecise Measurements 25 2.2.3 The Quantum Bayes Theorem 27 2.2.4 More General Kinds of Measurements 29 2.2.5 Measurements and the Density Operator 31 2.3 Multitime Measurements 33 2.3.1 Sequences of Measurements 33 2.3.2 Expression as a Correlation Function 34 2.3.3 General Correlation Functions 34 2.4 Quantum Statistical Mechanics 35 2.4.1 Entropy 35 2.4.2 Thermodynamic Equilibrium 36 2.4.3 The Bose Einstein Distribution 38 2.5 System and Heat Bath - 39 2.5.1 Density Operators for "System" and "Heat Bath" 39 2.5.2 Mutual Influence of "System" and "Bath" 41 XIV Contents 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Noise Spectroscopy
    Quantum Noise Spectroscopy Dartmouth College and Griffith University researchers have devised a new way to "sense" and control external noise in quantum computing. Quantum computing may revolutionize information processing by providing a means to solve problems too complex for traditional computers, with applications in code breaking, materials science and physics, but figuring out how to engineer such a machine remains elusive. [8] While physicists are continually looking for ways to unify the theory of relativity, which describes large-scale phenomena, with quantum theory, which describes small-scale phenomena, computer scientists are searching for technologies to build the quantum computer using Quantum Information. The accelerating electrons explain not only the Maxwell Equations and the Special Relativity, but the Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation, the Wave-Particle Duality and the electron’s spin also, building the Bridge between the Classical and Quantum Theories. The Planck Distribution Law of the electromagnetic oscillators explains the electron/proton mass rate and the Weak and Strong Interactions by the diffraction patterns. The Weak Interaction changes the diffraction patterns by moving the electric charge from one side to the other side of the diffraction pattern, which violates the CP and Time reversal symmetry. The diffraction patterns and the locality of the self-maintaining electromagnetic potential explains also the Quantum Entanglement, giving it as a natural part of the Relativistic Quantum Theory and making possible
    [Show full text]
  • The Emergence of Classical Dynamics in a Quantum World
    The Emergence of Classical Dynamics in a Quantum World Tanmoy Bhattacharya, Salman Habib, and Kurt Jacobs ver since the advent of quantum mechanics in the mid 1920s, it has been clear that the atoms composing matter Edo not obey Newton’s laws. Instead, their behavior is described by the Schrödinger equation. Surprisingly though, until recently, no clear explanation was given for why everyday objects, which are merely collections of atoms, are observed to obey Newton’s laws. It seemed that, if quantum mechanics explains all the properties of atoms accurately, everyday objects should obey quantum mechanics. As noted in the box to the right, this reasoning led a few scientists to believe in a distinct macro- scopic, or “big and complicated,” world in which quantum mechanics fails and classical mechanics takes over although there has never been experimental evidence for such a failure. Even those who insisted that Newtonian mechanics would somehow emerge from the underlying quantum mechanics as the system became increasingly macroscopic were hindered by the lack of adequate experimental tools. In the last decade, however, this quantum-to-classical transition has become accessible to experimental study and quantitative description, and the resulting insights are the subject of this article. 110 Los Alamos Science Number 27 2002 A Historical Perspective The demands imposed by quantum mechanics on the the façade of ensemble statistics could no longer hide disciplines of epistemology and ontology have occupied the reality of the counterclassical nature of quantum the greatest minds. Unlike the theory of relativity, the other mechanics. In particular, a vast array of quantum fea- great idea that shaped physical notions at the same time, tures, such as interference, came to be seen as everyday quantum mechanics does far more than modify Newton’s occurrences in these experiments.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Limits on Measurement
    Quantum Limits on Measurement Rob Schoelkopf Applied Physics Yale University Gurus: Michel Devoret, Steve Girvin, Aash Clerk And many discussions with D. Prober, K. Lehnert, D. Esteve, L. Kouwenhoven, B. Yurke, L. Levitov, K. Likharev, … Thanks for slides: L. Kouwenhoven, K. Schwab, K. Lehnert,… Noise and Quantum Measurement 1 R. Schoelkopf Overview of Lectures Lecture 1: Equilibrium and Non-equilibrium Quantum Noise in Circuits Reference: “Quantum Fluctuations in Electrical Circuits,” M. Devoret Les Houches notes Lecture 2: Quantum Spectrometers of Electrical Noise Reference: “Qubits as Spectrometers of Quantum Noise,” R. Schoelkopf et al., cond-mat/0210247 Lecture 3: Quantum Limits on Measurement References: “Amplifying Quantum Signals with the Single-Electron Transistor,” M. Devoret and RS, Nature 2000. “Quantum-limited Measurement and Information in Mesoscopic Detectors,” A.Clerk, S. Girvin, D. Stone PRB 2003. And see also upcoming RMP by Clerk, Girvin, Devoret, & RS Noise and Quantum Measurement 2 R. Schoelkopf Outline of Lecture 3 • Quantum measurement basics: The Heisenberg microscope No noiseless amplification / No wasted information • General linear QND measurement of a qubit • Circuit QED nondemolition measurement of a qubit Quantum limit? Experiments on dephasing and photon shot noise • Voltage amplifiers: Classical treatment and effective circuit SET as a voltage amplifier MEMS experiments – Schwab, Lehnert Noise and Quantum Measurement 3 R. Schoelkopf Heisenberg Microscope ∆p Measure position of free particle: ∆x ∆x = imprecision of msmt. wavelength of probe photon: λ = hc / Eγ ∆p = backaction due to msmt. momentum “kick” due to photon: ∆pE= / c hc E ∆x∆p = ∼ h E c Only an issue if: 1) try to observe both x,p or 2) try to repeat measurements of x Uncertainty principle: ∆x∆p ≥ /2 Noise and Quantum Measurement 4 R.
    [Show full text]
  • Quantum Information Tapping Using a Fiber Optical Parametric Amplifier
    Quantum information tapping using a fiber optical parametric amplifier with noise figure improved by correlated inputs Xueshi Guo1, Xiaoying Li1*, Nannan Liu1 and Z. Y. Ou2,+ 1 College of Precision Instrument and Opto-electronics Engineering, Tianjin University, Key Laboratory of Optoelectronics Information Technology, Ministry of Education, Tianjin, 300072, P. R. China 2 Department of Physics, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA Corresponding authors: *[email protected] and + [email protected] Abstract One of the important function in optical communication system is the distribution of information encoded in an optical beam. It is not a problem to accomplish this in a classical system since classical information can be copied at will. However, challenges arise in quantum system because extra quantum noise is often added when the information content of a quantum state is distributed to various users. Here, we experimentally demonstrate a quantum information tap by using a fiber optical parametric amplifier (FOPA) with correlated inputs, whose noise is reduced by the destructive quantum interference through quantum entanglement between the signal and the idler input fields. By measuring the noise figure of the FOPA and comparing with a regular FOPA, we observe an improvement of 0.7± 0.1dB and 0.84± 0.09 dB from the signal and idler 1 outputs, respectively. When the low noise FOPA functions as an information splitter, the device has a total information transfer coefficient of TTsi+=1.47 ± 0.2 , which is greater than the classical limit of 1. Moreover, this fiber based device works at the 1550 nm telecom band, so it is compatible with the current fiber-optical network.
    [Show full text]
  • Superconducting Qubits: Dephasing and Quantum Chemistry
    UNIVERSITY of CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara Superconducting Qubits: Dephasing and Quantum Chemistry A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Physics by Peter James Joyce O'Malley Committee in charge: Professor John Martinis, Chair Professor David Weld Professor Chetan Nayak June 2016 The dissertation of Peter James Joyce O'Malley is approved: Professor David Weld Professor Chetan Nayak Professor John Martinis, Chair June 2016 Copyright c 2016 by Peter James Joyce O'Malley v vi Any work that aims to further human knowledge is inherently dedicated to future generations. There is one particular member of the next generation to which I dedicate this particular work. vii viii Acknowledgements It is a truth universally acknowledged that a dissertation is not the work of a single person. Without John Martinis, of course, this work would not exist in any form. I will be eter- nally indebted to him for ideas, guidance, resources, and|perhaps most importantly| assembling a truly great group of people to surround myself with. To these people I must extend my gratitude, insufficient though it may be; thank you for helping me as I ventured away from superconducting qubits and welcoming me back as I returned. While the nature of a university research group is to always be in flux, this group is lucky enough to have the possibility to continue to work together to build something great, and perhaps an order of magnitude luckier that we should wish to remain so. It has been an honor. Also indispensable on this journey have been all the members of the physics depart- ment who have provided the support I needed (and PCS, I apologize for repeatedly ending up, somehow, on your naughty list).
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Photon Statistics at Beam Splitters: an Essential Tool in Quantum Information and Teleportation
    1 Photon statistics at beam splitters: an essential tool in quantum information and teleportation GREGOR WEIHS and ANTON ZEILINGER Institut f¨ur Experimentalphysik, Universit¨at Wien Boltzmanngasse 5, 1090 Wien, Austria 1.1 INTRODUCTION The statistical behaviour of photons at beam splitters elucidates some of the most fundamental quantum phenomena, such as quantum superposition and randomness. The use of beam splitters was crucial in the development of such early interferometers as the Michelson-Morley interferometer, the Mach- Zehnder interferometer and others for light. The most generally discussed beam splitter is the so-called half-silvered mirror. It was apparently originally considered to be a mirror in which the reflecting metallic layer is so thin that only half of the incident light is reflected, the other half being transmitted, splitting an incident beam into two equal parts. Today beam splitters are no longer constructed in this way, so it might be more appropriate to call them semi-reflecting beam splitters. Unless otherwise noted, we always consider in this paper a beam splitter to be semi-reflecting. While from the point of view of classical physics a beam splitter is a rather simple device and its physical understanding is obvious, its operation becomes highly non-trivial when we consider quantum behaviour. Therefore the questions we ask and discuss in this paper are very simply as follows: What happens to an individual particle incident on a semi-reflecting beam splitter? What will be the behaviour of two particle incidents simultaneously on a beam splitter? How can the behaviour of one- or two-particle systems in a series of beam splitters like a Mach-Zehnder interferometer be understood? i ii Rather unexpectedly it has turned out that, in particular, the behaviour of two-particle systems at beam splitters has become the essential element in a number of recent quantum optics experiments, including quantum dense coding, entanglement swapping and quantum teleportation.
    [Show full text]
  • NOISE in MESOSCOPIC PHYSICS T. Martin
    NOISE IN MESOSCOPIC PHYSICS T. Martin Centre de Physique Théorique et Université de la Méditerranée case 907, 13288 Marseille, France 1 Photo: width 7.5cm height 11cm Contents 1. Introduction 5 2. Poissonian noise 7 3. The wave packet approach 9 4. Generalization to the multi–channel case 12 5. Scattering approach based on operator averages 13 5.1. Average current 14 5.2. Noise and noise correlations 17 5.3. Zero frequency noise in a two terminal conductor 17 5.3.1. General case 17 5.3.2. Transition between the two noise regimes 18 5.4. Noise reduction in various systems 19 5.4.1. Double barrier structures 19 5.4.2. Noise in a diffusive conductor 20 5.4.3. Noise reduction in chaotic cavities 21 6. Noise correlations at zero frequency 22 6.1. General considerations 22 6.2. Noise correlations in a Y–shaped structure 23 7. Finite frequency noise 25 7.1. Which correlator is measured ? 25 7.2. Noise measurement scenarios 26 7.3. Finite frequency noise in point contacts 28 8. Noise in normal metal-superconducting junctions 28 8.1. Bogolubov transformation and Andreev current 29 8.2. Noise in normal metal–superconductor junctions 31 8.3. Noise in a single NS junction 34 8.3.1. Below gap regime 34 8.3.2. Diffusive NS junctions 35 8.3.3. Near and above gap regime 37 8.4. Hanbury-Brown and Twiss experiment with a superconducting source of electrons 39 8.4.1. S–matrix for the beam splitter 40 8.4.2.
    [Show full text]