Arxiv:Quant-Ph/0412078V1 10 Dec 2004 Lt Eemnto Fteps-Esrmn Tt.When State

Home , Quantum limit

arXiv:quant-ph/0412078v1 10 Dec 2004 lt eemnto fteps-esrmn tt.When state. post-measurement the so-called of com- (the a determination produces case plete measurement) extreme projective most or Neumann out- the von measurement example, after the For configuration to by system come. determined rise the is give which measurement can in the system effect the a feedback from a action’: information back of ‘quantum so-called extraction the the is perform measurement to hand at energy, of measurement. amount e.g. how the resources, on given as quantities physical limits measure (such impose can evolution we [2]) accurately of theorem other speed with Margolus-Levitin the together the on relations uncertainty constraints system: the quantum quantum result, Second, a a itself 1). as the is (Fig. of apparatus object measurement components rotating every a different of the posi- momentum or as angular momentum, such observables and measure- complementary tion of values of [1] the take results relation in ment accuracy uncertainty uncertainty intrinsic to Heisenberg an the limits imposes First, These measure- which forms. performed. to two mechan- accuracy be quantum the can on of ments at limits laws systems place the of which by behavior ics, governed the is particular, scales the In small by governed physics. is of performed laws be can measurements which Giovannetti Vittorio Limit Quantum Standard the Beating Measurements: Quantum-Enhanced inipsdb unu ehnc,‘unu rcs r oft are tricks’ ‘quantum required. mechanics, quantum by imposed sion ot” nvri` iPva i .Bsi6I210 Pavia, I-27100, 6 Bassi A. via Pavia, Università di Volta”, U 02139, MA Cambridge, 3 Ave., Massachusetts 77 Engineering, 2 Italy. Pisa, I-56126, 1 UT-QatmIfrainTer ru,Dp iFsc “A. Fisica di Dip. Group, Theory Information Quantum - QUIT Mechan of Dept. and Electronics of Laboratory Research MIT, Cavalieri dei Piazza Superiore, Normale Scuola & NEST-INFM n motn osqec ftepyia aueof nature physical the of consequence important One to accuracy the and process, physical a is Measurement n etnesummary: sentence One htepo qatmtik’sc ssueigand squeezing as strategies such entanglement. quantum tricks’ using ‘quantum beaten employ Heisenberg quan- that the be standard as can the fundamental and as or limits, not limit are noise limit measurements shot tum of the precision as Con- the such limits. to these bounds reach ventional to fail measurement typically Conventional techniques measurement. pre- the of to cision limits imposes principle, uncertainty berg Abstract: unu ehnc,truhteHeisen- the through mechanics, Quantum oati h iist esrmn preci- measurement to limits the attain To 1 ehLloyd Seth , 2 oez Maccone Lorenzo , Italy. SA. ical 7, 3 en 1 u pis h observables the optics, tum fapyia quantity physical a of iue1 h esnegucranyrelation. outcomes uncertainty the Heisenberg mechanics tum The 1: Figure h esnegrltosaesilvld hyaeenforced are They mechanics. quantum valid. of still complementarity the are relations but Heisenberg negligible, totally the devis is to disturbance possible the is where it periments measuremen [3]: a wrong by proven dynami system experimentally was a a pos- on of measurement induced formulation necessarily the Heisenberg’s disturbance of quant Moreover, consequence modern [1]. in a principle tulate is on a it called not since is so mechanics, it is reasons: principle historical Heisenberg for The i “quadratures”. field, its electromagnetic the of amplitudes out-of-phase and hnsmlaeul esrn noptbeosralss position observables as incompatible measuring simultaneously when egrlto ttsta h e ra ntepos(ie by (given plots the in Heise areas ∆ red The product the other. that the states in relation fluctuations berg increased of expense the itiue codn oaGusa rbblt ihstand with probability ∆ Gaussian deviation a to a according of distributed “sharpness” ∆ the in spread given of is the measure example by A given system. is the measurement of state determ probability the a by to according distributed randomly are oe one:∆ bounded: lower itdtruhisWge ucin:i a h aespreads same ∆ the momentum has and it position function): Wigner its through picted ttsaeson hyhv eue utain noeo the of one in [i.e. fluctuations observables reduced incompatible have two they shown: are states h aei rewe esrn n fteosrals(say observables the of one measuring when x true is same The bevbe I h eea aewe eaemauigtwo measuring are we when case general observables the [In observable. invleo h omttrbtenteqatmoperators quantum the between to commutator associated the of value tion nasto atce rprdwt ped∆ spread a with prepared particles of set a on ) D C A x x x ∆ x x A h esnegucranyrlto ttsthat states relation uncertainty Heisenberg The . p n momentum and A and uthv ufc agrthan larger surface a have must ) and x B (A) ∆ h oe on sgvnb h expecta- the by given is bound lower the , ∆ B p x x hr h ucms(iytinls are triangles) (tiny outcomes the where , ]In .] ≥ r ttsia aibe;ta s they is, that variables; statistical are ~ p p x x / x ,where 2, ∆ = and (B) x p 1 , B h rdc ftesrasis spreads the of product the p p x eseachrn tt (de- state coherent a see we In . x 2 x r elcdb h in-phase the by replaced are , for etc. ∆ ~ x (C) x stePac constant. Planck the is (C) fteotoe:An outcomes: the of ftemeasurements the of and and ∆ p (D) p ~ p / nteother the on .I quan- In 2. for squeezed , p nquan- In (D) where e by .e. ex- e ined uch at ] ard the um cal by n- in ly t performing successive measurements, quantum back ac- known physical laws. A caveat is in order: this review tion can be detrimental, as earlier measurements can nega- cannot be in any way be viewed as complete because the tively influence successive ones. A common strategy to get improvement of interferometry and measurements through around the negative effect of back action and of Heisen- non-classical light is at the heart of modern quantum op- berg uncertainty is to design an experimental apparatus tics. Many more ideas and experiments have been devised that monitors only one out of a set of incompatible observ- than can be possibly reported here. ables: ‘less is more’ [4]. This strategy— called quantum non-demolition measurement [4, 5, 6, 7]— is not as simple C as it sounds: one has to account for the system’s interac- ϕ tion with the external environment, which tends to extract and disperse information, and for the system dynamics, B' D which can combine the measured observable with incompatible ones. Another strategy to get around the Heisen- berg uncertainty is to employ a quantum state in which A the uncertainty in the observable to be monitored is very A' small (at the cost of a very large uncertainty in the complementary observable). The research on quantum-enhanced B measurements was spawned by the invention of such techniques [4, 8, 9] and by the birth of more rigorous treatments of quantum measurements [10]. Figure 2: Mach-Zehnder interferometer. The light field en- Most standard measurement techniques do not account ters the apparatus through the input ports A and B of the for these quantum subtleties, so that their precision is lim- first beam splitter and leaves it through the output ports C ited by otherwise avoidable sources of errors. Typical ex- and D of the second beam splitter. By measuring the inten- amples are the environment induced noise from vacuum sities (photon number per second) of the output beams one fluctuations (the so-called shot noise) that affects the mea- can recover the phase difference ϕ between the two internal surement of the electromagnetic field amplitude, and the optical paths A’ and B’. Formally, the input-output rela- dynamically-induced noise in the position measurement of tion of the apparatus is completely characterized by assign- a free mass (the so-called standard quantum limit [11]). ing the transformations of the annihilation operators a, b, c These sources of imprecision are not as fundamental as the and d associated to the fields at A, B, C and D, respectively. ′ iϕ ′ ′ iϕ ′ unavoidable Heisenberg uncertainty relations, as they orig- These are c (a + ie b )/√2 and d (ia + e b )/√2 with a′ (a≡+ ib)/√2 and b′ (ia + b≡)/√2 the annihila- inate only from a non-optimal choice of measurement strat- ≡ ≡ egy. However, the shot-noise and standard quantum limits tion operators associated to the internal paths A’ and B’, set important benchmarks for the quality of a measure- respectively. ment, and they provide an interesting challenge to devise quantum strategies that can defeat them. It is intrigu- ing that almost thirty years after its introduction [11], the Interferometry: beating the shot noise limit standard quantum limit has not yet been beaten experimentally in a repeated measurement of a test mass. In the In this section we focus on the issues arising in ultra- meantime, a paradigm shift has occurred: quantum me- precise interferometric measurements. A prototypical ap- chanics, which used to be just the object of investigation, paratus is the Mach-Zehnder interferometer (Fig. 2). It is now viewed as a tool, a source of exotic and funky effects acts in the following way. A light beam impinges on a that can be used to our benefit. In measurement and else- semi-transparent mirror (i.e. a beam splitter), which di- where, we are witnessing the birth of quantum technology. vides it into a reflected and a transmitted part. These two We describe some of the techniques that have been re- components travel along different paths and then are re- cently developed to overcome the limitations of classical combined by a second beam splitter. Information on the measurement strategies. We start with a brief overview of phase difference ϕ between the two optical paths of the in- some techniques to beat the shot noise limit in interfer- terferometer can be extracted by monitoring the two out- ometry. In the process, we provide a simple example that put beams, typically by measuring their intensity (i.e. the explains the idea behind many quantum-enhanced mea- photon number). To see how this works, suppose that a surement strategies. We then give an overlook on some classical coherent beam with N average photons enters the of the most promising quantum-technology proposals and interferometer through the input A. If there is no phase analyze the standard quantum limit on repeated position difference ϕ, all the photons will exit the apparatus at out- measurements. Finally, we show the ultimate resolution put D. On the other hand, if ϕ = π radians, all the pho- achievable in measuring time and space according to the tons will exit at output C. In the intermediate situations, a

2 2 fraction cos (ϕ/2) of the photons will exit at the output D ton number difference is equal to M = N+ sin ϕ and its 2 2 h2 i 2 − and a fraction sin (ϕ/2) at the output C. By measuring variance is ∆ M = cos(2ϕ)+ N+ sin ϕ. The error ∆ϕ the intensity at the two output ports one can estimate the on the estimated phase can be obtained from error prop- value of ϕ with a statistical error proportional to 1/√N. ∂hMi agation, ∆ϕ = ∆M/ ∂ϕ , and for ϕ 0, it is easy to This is a consequence of the quantized nature of electro- ≃ see that it scales as 1/N [13]. Even though this procedure magnetic field and of the Poissonian statistics of classical achieves good precision only for small values of ϕ, other light, which, in some sense, prevents any cooperative be- schemes exist that show the same high sensitivity for all havior among the photons. In fact, the quantity cos2(ϕ/2) values of this parameter [14]. Many quantum procedures can be experimentally obtained as the statistical average that achieve the same 1/N sensitivity have been proposed N x /N, where x takes the value 0 or 1 depending j=1 j j that do not make explicit use of entangled inputs. For ex- Pon whether the jth photon in the beam was detected at ample, one can inject into both interferometer inputs A output C or D respectively. Because the x s are indepen- j and B squeezed states and then measure the intensity dif- dent stochastic variables (photons in the classical beam are ference at C and D [15, 16] or inject Fock states at A and B, uncorrelated), the variance associated with their average is and then evaluate the photon-counting probability at the the average of the variances (central limit theorem): the er- output [17], or, finally, measure the de Broglie wavelength ror associated with the measurement of cos2(ϕ/2) is given of the radiation [18]. One may wonder if this 1/N preci- N N 2 by ∆( xj /N) ∆ xj /N = ∆x/√N, where sion can be further increased, but in line with the time- Pj=1 ≡ qPj=1 ∆xj is the spread of the jth measurement (the spreads energy Heisenberg relation [19] and the Margolus-Levitin ∆xj s are all equal to ∆x: they refer to the same experi- theorem [2], it appears that this is a true quantum limit ment). Notice that the same √N dependence can be ob- and there is no way that it can be beaten [20, 21]: it is tained if, instead of using a classical beam with N average customarily referred to as the Heisenberg limit to interfer- photons, we use N separate single-photon beams: in this ometry. case cos2(ϕ/2) is the probability of the photon exiting at output D and sin2(ϕ/2) is the probability of the photon exiting at output C. The 1/√N bound on the precision (N Quantum-enhanced parameter estimation being the number of photons employed) is referred to as the shot noise limit. It is not fundamental and is only a Some of the above interferometric techniques have found consequence of the employed classical detection strategy, applications also outside the context of optics, such as in where neither the state preparation nor the readout takes spectroscopy [20] or in atomic interferometry [22]. In this advantage of quantum correlations. section we point out a general aspect of the quantum es- Carefully designed quantum procedures can beat the timation theory on which most of the quantum strategies 1/√N limit. For example, injecting squeezed vacuum in presented in this review are based, i.e. the fact that typ- the normally unused port B of the interferometer allows ically a highly correlated input is used and a collective to achieve a sensitivity of 1/N 3/4 [8, 12]. Other strate- measurement is performed (see Fig. 3). A simple exam- gies can do even better, reaching an 1/N sensitivity with ple [23] may help: consider a qubit, i.e. a two-level quan- a √N improvement over the classical strategies detailed tum system which is described by the two states 0 and 1 and their superpositions. Suppose that the dynam-| i above. The simplest example employs as the input to the | i interferometer the following entangled state [13, 9] ics leaves the state 0 unchanged and adds a phase ϕ to 1 , i.e. 1 eiϕ 1| .i If we want to estimate this phase, 1 we| i can use| i a→ strategy| i analogous to Ramsey interferome- Ψ = N+ A N− B + N− A N+ B , | i √2| i | i | i | i try by preparing the system in the quantum superposition √ where N (N 1)/2 and where the subscripts A and B ψin ( 0 + 1 )/ 2, which is transformed by the system ± | i≡ | i | i iϕ √ label the input≡ ports.± This is a highly non-classical signal dynamics into ψout = ( 0 + e 1 )/ 2. The probability p(ϕ) that the output| i state| iψ is| i equal to the input ψ where the correlations between the inputs at A and B can- | outi | ini not be described by a local statistical model. As before, allows to evaluate ϕ as the phase ϕ can be evaluated by measuring the photon 2 p(ϕ)= ψ ψ = cos2(ϕ/2) . number difference between the two interferometer outputs, h in| outi i.e. by evaluating the expectation value of the operator M d†d c†c = (a†a b†b)cos ϕ + (a†b + b†a) sin ϕ, where This quantity can be estimated with a statistical error ≡ − − ∆2p(ϕ)= ψ ( ψ ψ )2 ψ p2(ϕ)= p(ϕ) p2(ϕ). a, b, c, and d are the annihilation operators of the optical h out| | inih in| | outi− − modes at the interferometer ports A, B, C, and D respec- If we evaluate a parameter ϕ from a quantity p(ϕ), error tively (see Fig. 2). This scheme allows a sensitivity of the propagation theory tells us that the error associated with ∂p(ϕ) order 1/N for the measurements of small phase differences, the former is given by ∆ϕ = ∆p(ϕ)/ ∂ϕ , which in this i.e. ϕ 0. In fact, the expectation value of the output pho- case gives ∆ϕ = 1. We can improve such an error by ≃

3 repeating the experiment N times. This introduces a fac- state preparation detection tor 1/√N in the standard deviation (again as an eﬀect ϕ of the central limit theorem) and we ﬁnd an overall error ∆ϕ =1/√N. (It is the same sensitivity achieved by the ex- ϕ periment of a single photon in the interferometer described above: these two procedures are essentially equivalent.) As ϕ in the case of the interferometer, a more sensitive quantum strategy exists. In fact, instead of employing N times the state ψin , we can use the following entangled state that still uses| Ni qubits, ϕ 1 φin = 0 0 + 1 1 ϕ | i √2 | i···| i | i···| i N times N times measurement NON−LOCAL

| {z } | {z } ENTANGLER ϕ Now the tensor product structure of quantum mechanics helps us, as the eiϕ phase factors gained by the 1 s combine so that the corresponding output state is | i

1 iNϕ Figure 3: Comparison between classical and quantum φout = 0 0 + e 1 1 . | i √2| i···| i | i···| i strategies. In conventional measurement schemes (upper panel), N independent physical systems are separately pre-

The probability q(ϕ) that φout equals φin is pared and separately detected. The final result comes | i | i from a statistical average of the N outcomes. In quantum- q(ϕ) = cos2(Nϕ/2), enhanced measurement schemes (lower panel), the N physical systems are typically prepared in a highly correlated that, as before, can be estimated with an error ∆2q(ϕ) = configuration (i.e. an entangled or a squeezed state), and q(ϕ) q2(ϕ). This means that ϕ will have an error ∆ϕ = are measured collectively with a single non-local measure- − ment that encompasses all the systems. ∂q(ϕ) √ ∆q(ϕ)/ ∂ϕ = 1/N. This is a N enhancement over the precision of N measurements on unentangled qubits, which has been achieved by employing an entangled input Quantum technology and performing a collective non-local measurement on the output, i.e. the measurement of the probability q(ϕ). The quantum-enhanced parameter estimation presented A generalization of the parameter estimation presented above has found applications in the most diverse fields. here is the estimation of the input-output relations of an In this section we give an overview of some of them, leav- unknown quantum device. A simple strategy would be to ing aside all the applications that quantum mechanics has feed the device with a “complete” collection of independent found in communication and computation [27], which are states and measure the resulting outputs. More efficiently, not directly connected with the subject of this review. one can use entangled inputs: one half of the entangled Quantum frequency standards [20, 28]. A typical state is fed into the device and a collective measurement issue in metrology and spectroscopy is to measure time or is performed on the other half and on the device’s out- frequency with very high accuracy. This requires a very put [24, 25]. As in the case discussed above, the quantum precise clock, i.e. an oscillator. Atomic transitions are so correlations between the components of the entangled state useful to this aim that the very definition of second is based increase the precision and hence reduce the number of mea- on them. To measure time or frequency accurately, we can surements required. A similar strategy permits to improve start with N cold ions in the ground state 0 and ap- the precision in the estimation of a parameter of an ap- ply an electromagnetic pulse that creates independently| i in paratus, or to increase the stability of measurements [26]: each ion an equally weighted superposition ( 0 + 1 )/√2 part of an entangled state is fed into the apparatus to be of the ground and of an excited state 1 . A| i subsequent| i probed and an appropriate collective measurement is per- free evolution of the ions for a time t introduces| i a phase formed on the output together with the other part of the factor between the two states that can be measured at the entangled state. This permits, for example, to discriminate end of the interval by applying a second, identical, electro- among the four Pauli unitary transformations applying the magnetic pulse and measuring the probability that the final transformation only on a single qubit probe. It would be state is 0 (Ramsey interferometry). This procedure is just impossible without entanglement. a physical| i implementation of the qubit example described

4 above, but here the phase factor is time dependent and is proportional to 1/(∆ω√N), where ∆ω is the signal band- equal to ϕ = ωt, where ω is the frequency of the transition width which induces a minimum time-duration of 1/∆ω for 0 1 . Hence the same analysis applies: from the N each photon, i.e. the times of arrival of each of the pho- independent| i ↔ | i ions we can recover the pursued frequency ω tons will have a spread 1/∆ω. The accuracy of the travel (from the phase factor ϕ) with an error ∆ϕ = 1/√N, i.e. time measure thus depends on the spectral distribution of ∆ω =1/(√Nt). the employed signal. The reader will bet that a quantum Instead of acting independently on each ion, one can strategy allows to do better with the same resources. In start from the entangled state φin introduced above. In fact, by entangling N photons in frequency, we can create this case, the error in the determination| i of the frequency is a “super-photon” whose bandwidth is still ∆ω (i.e. it em- ∆ω = 1/(Nt), i.e. there is an enhancement of the square ploys the same energetic resources as the N photon signal root of the number N of entangled ions over the previous employed above), but whose mean effective frequency is N strategy. times higher, as the entanglement causes the N photons to have the same frequency. This means that the super- Quantum lithography and two-photon mi- photon allows us to achieve N times the accuracy of a single croscopy [29, 30, 31, 32, 33]. When we try to resolve photon with the same bandwidth. To be fair, we need to objects smaller than the wavelength of the employed light, compare the performance of the super-photon with that of the wave nature of radiation becomes important: the light a classical signal of N photons, so that the overall gain of tends to scatter around the object, limiting the achievable the quantum strategy is √N [35]. resolution. This defines the Rayleigh diffraction bound, which restricts many optical techniques: it is not always The problem of localization is intimately connected with practical to reduce the wavelength. Quantum effects can the problem of synchronizing distant clocks. In fact, by help by decreasing the wavelength of the light while keep- measuring the time it takes for a signal to travel to known ing the wavelength of the radiation field constant. How locations, it is possible to synchronize clocks at these loca- can this, apparently paradoxical, effect come about? The tions. This immediately tells us that the above quantum basic idea is to employ physical devices that are sensitive protocol can give a quantum improvement in the precision to the de Broglie wavelength: in quantum mechanics to ev- of distant clocks synchronization. Moreover, quantum ef- ery object we can associate wavelength λ = 2π~/p where fects can be also useful in avoiding the detrimental effects of p is the object’s momentum (for radiation p is the energy dispersion [38]. The speed of light in dispersive media has E divided by the speed of light c). Obviously the wave- a frequency dependence, so that narrow signals (which are length of a single photon λ = 2π~c/E = 2πc/ω is the constituted by many frequencies) tend to spread out dur- wavelength of its radiation field. But what happens if we ing their travel. This effect ruins the sharp timing signals are able to employ a “biphoton” (i.e. a single entity con- transmitted. Using the non-local correlations of entangled stituted by two photons)? In this case we find that its signals, we can engineer frequency-entangled pulses that wavelength is 2π~c/(2E) = λ/2: half the wavelength of are not affected by dispersion and that allow clock syn- a single photon, or equivalently half the wavelength of its chronization [36]. radiation field. Of course, using “triphotons”, “quadripho- Quantum imaging [39, 40]. A large number of appli- tons”, etc. would result in further decreases of wavelengths. cations based on the use of quantum effects in spatially Experimentalists are able to measure the de Broglie wave- multimode light can be grouped under the common label lengths of biphotons [34, 32, 18], so that theoreticians have of quantum imaging. concocted useful ways to employ them: the most impor- The most famous quantum imaging experiment is the tant applications are quantum lithography [29, 31], where reconstruction of the so called “ghost images” [41], where smaller wavelengths help to etch smaller integrated circuit non-local correlations between spatially entangled two- elements on a two-photon sensitive substrate, and two- photon states are used to create the image of an object photon microscopy [33], where they produce less damage without directly looking at it. The basic idea is to illumi- to the speciments. Also in this context, entanglement is a nate an object with one of the twin photons which is then useful resource as it is instrumental in creating the required absorbed by a “bucket” detector (it has no spatial reso- biphotons and in enhancing the cross-section of two-photon lution but is just able to tell whether the photon crossed absorption [30]. the object or whether it was absorbed by it). The other Quantum positioning and clock synchroniza- entangled photon is shone onto an imaging array and the tion [35, 36, 37]. To find out the position of an object, procedure is repeated many times. Correlating the image one can measure the time it takes for some light signals on the array with the coincidences between the arrival of to travel from that object to some known reference points. one photon at the bucket detector and the other at the The best classical strategy is to measure the travel times of imaging array, the shape of the object can be determined. the single photons in the beam and to calculate their aver- This is equivalent to the following scenario: use a device age. This allows to determine the travel time with an error that shoots two pebbles in random but exactly opposite

5 directions. When one of the pebbles overshoots an object, “super-resolution” techniques are known that can be used it hits a bell. The other pebble instead hits a soft wall, to beat the Rayleigh diffraction limit, these are ultimately where it remains glued to it. By shooting many pebbles limited by the quantum fluctuations that introduce unde- and marking on the wall the pebble’s position every time sired quantum noise in the reconstructed image. By illu- we hear the bell ring, we will project the outline of the ob- minating the object with bright multimode squeezed light ject on the wall. The fact that such an intuitive description and by replacing the part which the finite dimensions of the exists should make us queasy on the real quantum nature of device cuts away with squeezed vacuum, we can increase the ghost image experiment and, in fact, it was shown that the resolution of the reconstructed image [46], at least in even if it makes use of highly non-classical states of light, the case of weakly absorbing objects (opaque objects would it is an essentially classical procedure [42]. The quantum degrade the squeezed light shining on them). nature of such an experiment lies in the fact that, using the Coordinate transfer [50, 47, 48, 49]. A peculiar ex- same apparatus, both the near-field and the far-field plane ample of quantum enhanced strategy arises in the context can be perfectly imaged. Classical correlations do not allow of communicating a direction in space [50] or a reference this, even though classical thermal light can approximate frame [47, 48, 49] (composed by three orthogonal direc- it [43]. A related subject is the creation of noiseless im- tions). If there is no prior shared reference, it requires ages or the noiseless image amplification [40, 39], i.e. the some sort of parallel transport such as exchanging gyro- formation of optical images whose amplitude fluctuations scopes (which in quantum mechanical jargon are called are reduced below the shot-noise and can be, in principle, spins). Quantum mechanics imposes a bound on the preci- suppressed completely. sion with which the axis of a gyroscope can be measured, as Many applications require us to measure very accurately the different components of the angular momentum are in- the direction in which a focused beam of light is shining: compatible observables: unless one knows the rotation axis a typical example is atom-force microscopy, where the de- a priori, it is impossible to measure exactly the total angu- flection of a light beam reflected from a cantilever that lar momentum. Gisin and Popescu found the baffling result feels the atomic force can achieve nanometric resolution. that sending two gyroscopes pointing in the same direction As a light beam is, ultimately, composed of photons, the is less efficient (i.e. allows a less accurate determination best way to measure its direction is apparently to shine of this direction) than sending two gyroscopes pointing in the beam on an infinitely resolving detector, to measure opposite directions [50]. The reason is that the most effi- where each of the photon is inside the beam and to take cient measurement to recover an unknown direction from the average of the positions. This strategy will estimate a couple of spins is an entangled measurement, i.e. a mea- the position of the beam with an accuracy that scales as surement that has operators with entangled eigenvectors ∆d/√N, where ∆d is the beam width and N is the number associated to it. Such a detection strategy cannot be sepa- of detected photons. Analogously as for the shot-noise, this rated in different stages, so that it is not possible to rotate limit derives from the quantized nature of light and from the apparatus before the measurement on the second spin the statistical distribution of the photons inside the beam. which would imply the equivalence of the two scenarios. As in interferometry, also here quantum effects can boost The two scenarios could be shown equivalent also if it were the sensitivity up to 1/N [44, 12, 45]. In fact, consider the possible to flip the direction of the second spin without following simple example, in which the beam shines along knowing its rotation axis, but this is impossible (it is an the z direction and is deflected only along the x direction. anti-unitary transformation whereas quantum mechanics We can measure such a deflection by shining it exactly be- is notably unitary). Elaborating on this idea, many quan- tween two perfectly adjacent detectors and measuring the tum enhanced coordinate transfer strategies [47, 48, 49] photon number difference between them. If we expand the have been found. spatial modes of the light beam into the sum of an “even” mode which is symmetrical in the x direction and an “odd” mode which changes sign at x = 0 (between the two de- Repeated position measurements: beating tectors), we see that the beam is perfectly centered when the standard quantum limit only the even mode is populated and the odd mode is in the vacuum. Borrowing from sub-shot noise interferometry, we 3/4 The continuous measure of the position of a free mass see that we can achieve a 1/N sensitivity by populating is a paradigmatic example of how classical strategies the odd mode with squeezed vacuum instead. Moreover, are limited in precision. This experiment is typical of we can achieve the Heisenberg limit of 1/N by populating gravitational-wave detection, where the position of a test both modes with a Fock state N/2 [12]. | i mass must be accurately monitored. The standard quan- Any object that creates an image (e.g. a microscope tum limit [11, 51, 4, 7] arises in this context by directly or a telescope) is necessarily limited by diffraction, due applying the Heisenberg relation to two consecutive mea- to its finite transverse dimensions. Even though classical surements of the position of the free mass, without tak-

6 ing into account the possibility that the first measurement ter. The movement of the mirror introduces a phase differ- can be tuned to change appropriately the position config- ence between the arms of the interferometer (see Fig. 2). To uration of the mass. The original argument was the fol- achieve high measurement precision, one is hence tempted lowing: suppose that we perform the first position mea- to feed the interferometer with electromagnetic signals that surement at time t = 0 with an uncertainty ∆x(0). This posses a well defined phase. However, the phase and the corresponds (via the Heisenberg uncertainty relation —see intensity of the electromagnetic field are in some sense Fig. 1) to an uncertainty in the initial momentum p at complementary and a well defined phase corresponds to least equal to ∆p(0) = ~/[2∆x(0)]. The dynamics of an a highly undetermined intensity. At first sight this seems unperturbed the free mass m is governed by the Hamilto- without consequences, but any mirror feels a force depen- nian H = p2/2m, which evolves at time t the position as dent on the intensity of the light shining on it, through the x(t)= x(0)+p(0)t/m. This implies that the uncertainty in mechanism of radiation pressure. Hence, the fluctuations the initial momentum p(0) transfers into an uncertainty in in intensity of a signal with well-defined phase induce a fluc- the position x(t). The net effect appears to be that a small tuating random force on the mirror which ultimately spoils initial uncertainty ∆2x(0) produces a big final uncertainty the precision of the measurement setup. Using sufficiently ∆2x(t) ∆2x(0) + ∆2p(0) t2/m2 2∆x(0)∆p(0) t/m intense coherent light and optimizing the phase and in- ~t/m. In≃ this derivation there is an≥ implicit assumption≥ tensity fluctuations, one finds that the attainable precision that the final uncertainty ∆x(t) cannot be decreased by is again the standard quantum limit [51, 55]. Apparently, the correlations between the position and the momentum this derivation of the standard quantum limit is completely that build up during the unitary evolution after the first independent from the one given above starting from the measurement. This is unwarranted: Yuen showed that an Heisenberg relation. However, also here there is an unwar- exotic detection strategy exists which, after the first mea- ranted assumption, i.e. the treatment of phase and inten- surement, leaves the mass in a “contractive state” [52], i.e. sity fluctuations as independent quantities. Caves showed whose position uncertainty decreases for a certain period that, by dropping this premise, one can do better [8]. In of time. [The time t for which a mass in such a state has fact, a squeezed input signal (see Fig. 1) where the am- a spread in position ∆2x(t) below a level 2δ2~/m satis- plitude quadrature has less quantum fluctuations than the fies t 4δ2]. The standard quantum limit is beaten, i.e. phase quadrature produces a reduced radiation pressure ∆2x(t≤) ~t/m, if the second measurement is performed noise at the expense of an increased photon-counting noise, soon enough.≤ The debate evolved then to ascertaining and vice-versa. This balance allows to fine-tune the param- wether two successive measurements at times 0 and t can eters so that the standard quantum limit can be reached be performed both of which beat the standard quantum with much lower light intensity. Refinements of this tech- limit [53]. In fact, a simple application of the Heisenberg re- nique allows to even beat the standard quantum limit by 1 ~ lation gives ∆x(0)∆x(t) 2 [x(0), x(t)] = t/2m, from tailoring appropriate squeezed states [56, 15, 57, 58, 7] or which it seems impossible≥ that|h both measurementsi| have a by employing quantum non-demolition measurements [4]. spread ~t/2m. However, ∆x(0) is the variance of the p state immediately≤ after the first measurement, which does The standard quantum limit is not a fundamental preci- not necessarily coincide with the variance of the results of sion threshold. However, at present its conquest is still the first measurement. In fact, it is possible [54] to mea- an open experimental challenge. In fact, on one hand, sure the position accurately and still leave the mass in a most of the above theoretical proposals are quite impracti- contractive state with initial variance ∆x(0) ~t/2m, cal and should be seen only as proofs of principle and, on p so that the standard quantum limit can be≫ beaten also the other hand, many competing sources of noise become repeatedly. important when performing very precise measures. The most important is, of course, the thermal fluctuations in Notice that the back-action introduced in the derivation the mass to be monitored, but the shot noise at the de- of the standard quantum limit would not occur if one were tection stage or the dissipative part of the mirror response to measure the momentum instead of the position, since the are also big limitations [4, 59, 60, 61]. Various techniques above Hamiltonian conserves the momentum, p(t)= p(0), to beat this threshold have been proposed. Among others which is independent of the position. The momentum mea- (by necessity the following list is incomplete), we can cite sure is an example of a quantum non-demolition detection the techniques to employ feedback techniques to enforce a scheme [4, 5, 7, 6], in which one removes any feed-back in positive back-action [62, 63, 64, 65], or the huge number of the detection by focusing on those observables which are techniques to perform quantum non-demolition measure- not coupled by the dynamics to their incompatible coun- ments [4, 66, 5, 67, 68], or to build contractive states, or terparts. to build speed-meters [69]. At the present stage, the most The standard quantum limit arises also in the context of promising seem the use of nanotechnologies, where tiny interferometric measurements of position [51, 55, 7], where mechanical oscillators are coupled to high sensitivity elec- the mass is typically one of the mirrors of the interferome- tronics [60, 61], or the new generations of gravitational

7 wave detectors [70]. mentary events that can occur in the volume of spacetime is no greater than

N π−1(T/t )(R/l ). [1] Quantum limits to the measurement of ≡ P P spacetime geometry This quantum geometric limit can also be formulated in a covariant fashion. The maximum number of ticks and Quantum effects can be used to increase the accuracy of clicks in a volume is a scalar quantity proportional to the many different kinds of measurements, but which are the integral of the trace of the energy-momentum tensor over ultimate limits to the resolution that the physical laws al- the four volume; and 2T R can be identified with the area of low? Attempts to derive quantum limits to the accuracy an extremal world sheet contained within the four volume. of measuring the geometry of spacetime date back at least The quantum geometric limit of Eq. [1] was derived without to Wigner [71, 72]. As the preceding discussions show, any recourse to quantum gravity: the Planck scale makes however, care must be taken in applying non-fundamental its appearance simply from combining quantum limits to bounds such as the standard quantum limit. Fortunately, measurement with the requirement that a region not itself the Margolus-Levitin [2] theorem and techniques from the be a black hole. (If the region is at or above its critical physics of computation [73, 74] can be used to derive limits density, then Eq. [1] still holds if R is the radius of the to the accuracy with which quantum systems can be used horizon of the region as measured by an external observer.) to measure spacetime geometry. The quantum geometric limit is consistent with and The first question is that of minimum distance and complementary to the Bekenstein bound, the holographic time. One can increase the precision of clocks used to bound, and the covariant entropy bound [76, 77, 78, 79], measure time by increasing their energy: the Margolus- all of which limit the number of bits that can be contained Levitin theorem implies that the minimum ‘tick length’ within a region. [It also confirms Ng’s prediction [80] for ~ of a clock with energy E is ∆t = π /2E. Similarly, the the scale of spacetime foam.] For example, the argument wavelength of the particles used to map out space can that leads to Eq. [1] also implies that maximum number of be decreased by increasing their energy. There appears quanta of wavelength λ 2R that can be packed into a vol- to be no fundamental physical limit to increasing the en- ume of radius R without≤ turning that volume into a black ergy of the clocks used to measure time and the particles 2 2 hole is bounded by R /πlP [81], in accordance with the used to measure space, until one reaches the Planck scale, Bekenstein bound and holography. Because it bounds the ~ 5 −44 tP = G/c = 5.391 10 seconds, ℓP = ctP . At number of elementary events or ‘ops,’ rather than the num- p × ~ this scale, the Compton wavelength 2π /mc of the clocks ber of bits, the quantum geometric limit [1] implies a trade- and particles is on the same order of magnitude as their off between the accuracy with which one can measure time, 2 Schwarzschild radius 2mG/c , and quantum gravitational and the accuracy with which one can measure space: the effects come into play [75]. The second question is that maximum spatial resolution can only be obtained by relax- of the accuracy to which one can map out the large-scale ing the temporal resolution and having each clock tick only structure of spacetime. One way to measure the geometry once in time T . This lack of temporal resolution is char- of spacetime is to fill space with a ‘swarm’ of clocks, ex- acteristic of systems, like black holes, that attain the holo- changing signals with the other clocks and measuring the graphic bound [73]. By contrast, if the events are spread signals’ times of arrival. In this picture, the clocks could out uniformly in space and time, the number of cells within be as large as GPS satellites, or as small as elementary 3/2 the spatial volume goes as (R/lP ) – less than the holo- particles. graphic bound– and the number of ticks of each clock over 1/2 Let’s look at how accurately this swarm of clocks can time T goes as (T/tP ) . This is the accuracy to which map out a volume of spacetime with radius R over time T . ordinary matter such as radiation and massive particles Every tick of a clock or click of a detector is an elementary map out spacetime. Because it is at or close to its critical event in which a system goes from a state to orthogonal density, our own universe maps out the geometry of space- state. Accordingly, the total number of ticks and clicks time to an accuracy approaching the absolute limit given that can take place within the volume is a scalar quantity 2 2 2 123 by R /πlP : there have been no more than (T/tP ) 10 limited by the Margolus-Levitin theorem: it is less than ‘ticks and clicks’ since the big bang [74]. ≈ 2ET/π~, where E is the energy of the clocks within the volume. If we pack the clocks too densely, they will form a black Conclusion hole and be useless for the measurement of spacetime outside their horizon. To prevent black hole formation, the Quantum mechanics governs every aspect of the physical energy of clocks within a spacelike region of radius R must world, including the measuring devices we use to obtain be less than Rc4/2G. As a result, the total number of ele- information about that world. Quantum mechanics limits

8 the accuracy of such devices via the Heisenberg uncertainty [12] S. M. Barnett, C. Fabre, A. Maître, Eur. Phys. J. D principle and the Margolus-Levitin theorem; but it also 22, 513 (2003). supplies quantum strategies for surpassing semi-classical limits such as the standard quantum limit and the shot [13] J. P. Dowling, Phys. Rev. A 57, 4736 (1998). noise limit. Starting from strategies to enhance the sensi- [14] B. C. Sanders and G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, tivity of interferometers and position measurements, scien- 2944 (1995). tists and engineers have developed quantum technologies that employ effects such as squeezing and entanglement to [15] R. S. Bondurant and J. H. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D 30, improve the accuracy of a wide variety of measurements. 2548 (1984). Some of these quantum techniques are still futuristic: at present, methods for creating and manipulating entangled [16] M. Xiao, L. Wu, and H. J. Kimble Phys. Rev. Lett. states are still in their infancy. As we saw, quantum ef- 59, 278 (1987). fects usually allow a precision enhancement equal to the 71 square root of the number N of employed particles; but it [17] M. J. Holland and K. Burnett, Phys. Rev. Lett. , is usually very complicated to entangle as few as N = 5 1355 (1993). or 6 particles. In contrast, it is typically rather simple to [18] J. Jacobson, G. Björk, I. Chuang, and Y. Yamamoto, employ millions of particles to use the classical strategy of Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4835 (1995). plain averaging. As quantum technologies improve, however, the use of entanglement and squeezing to enhance pre- [19] L. Mandelstam and I. G. Tamm, J. Phys. USSR 9, cision measurements is likely to become more wide spread. 249 (1945). Meanwhile, as the example of quantum limits to measuring spacetime geometry shows, examining the quantum limits [20] J. J . Bollinger, Wayne M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, to measurement can give insight into the workings of the D. J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A 54, R4649 (1996). universe at its most fundamental levels. [21] Z. Y. Ou, Phys. Rev. A 55, 2598 (1997).

[22] J. Jacobson, G. Bjork, Y. Yamamoto, Appl. Phys. B 60 [1] H. P. Robertson, Phys. Rev. 34, 163 (1929). , 187 (1995). [2] N. Margolus and L. B. Levitin, Physica D 120, 188 [23] P. Kok, S. L. Braunstein, and J. P. Dowling, eprint (1998). quant-ph/0402083 (2004). [3] M. O. Scully, B.-G. Englert, and H. Walther, Nature [24] G. M. D’Ariano and P. Lo Presti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 351, 111 (1991). 047902 (2003). [4] C. M. Caves, K. S. Thorne, R. W. P. Drever, V. D. [25] F. De Martini, A. Mazzei, M. Ricci, and G. M. Sandberg, and M. Zimmermann, Rev. Mod. Phys. 52, D’Ariano, Phys. Rev. A 67, 062307 (2003). 341 (1980). [26] G. Mauro D’Ariano, P. Lo Presti, and M. G. A. Paris, [5] K. Bencheikh, J. A. Levenson, P. Grangier, O. Lopez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 270404 (2001). Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3422 (1995). [27] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Compu- [6] G. J. Milburn and D. F. Walls, Phys. Rev. A 28, 2065 tation and Quantum Information (Cambridge Univer- (1983). sity Press, Cambridge, 2000).

[7] V.B. Braginsky and F. Ya Khalili, Quantum Mea- [28] S. F. Huelga, C. Macchiavello, T. Pellizzari, A. K. surements (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Ekert, M. B. Plenio, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1992). 79, 3865 (1997). 23 [8] C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. D , 1693 (1981). [29] U. W. Rathe and M. O. Scully, Lett. Math. Phys. 34, [9] B. Yurke, S. L. McCall, and J. R. Klauder, Phys. Rev. 297 (1995). A 33, 4033 (1986). [30] H.-B. Fei, B. M. Jost, S. Popescu, B. E. A. Saleh, and [10] C. W. Helstrom Quantum detection and estimation M. C. Teich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 1679 (1997). theory (Academic Press, New York, 1976). [31] A. N. Boto, P. Kok, D. S. Abrams, S. L. Braunstein, [11] V. B. Braginsky and Y. I. Vorontsov, Sov. Phys. Usp. C. P. Williams, and J. P. Dowling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17, 644 (1975). 85, 2733 (2000).

9 [32] M. D’Angelo, M. V. Chekhova, and Y. Shih, Phys. [54] M. Ozawa Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 385 (1988). Rev. Lett. 87, 013602 (2001). [55] C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 75 (1980). [33] J. N. Gannaway and C. J. R. Sheppard, Opt. Quan- tum Electron. 10, 435 1978. [56] W. G. Unruh, in: Quantum optics, experimental gravitation and measurement theory, eds. P. Meystre and [34] E. J. S. Fonseca, C. H. Monken, and S. Pádua, Phys. M.O. Scully (Plenum, New York, 1983) p. 647. Rev. Lett. 82, 2868 (1999). [57] M. T. Jaekel, S. Reynaud, Europhys. Lett. 13 301 [35] V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nature (1990). 412, 417 (2001). [58] A. F. Pace, M. J. Collett, and D. F. Walls, Phys. Rev. [36] V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, L. Maccone, and F. N. C. A 47, 3173 (1993). Wong, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 117902 (2001). [37] R. Jozsa, D. S. Abrams, J. P. Dowling, and C. P. [59] M. F. Bocko, R. Onofrio, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 755 Williams, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2010 (2000). (1996). [38] J. D. Franson, Phys. Rev. A 45, 3126 (1992). [60] R. G. Knobel and A. N. Cleland, Nature 424, 291 (2003). [39] M. I. Kolobov, Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 1539 (1999). [61] M. D. LaHaye, O. Buu, B. Camarota, and K. C. [40] L. A. Lugiato, A. Gatti, E. Brambilla, J. Opt. B: Schwab, Science 304, 74 (2004). Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 4, S176 (2002). [62] H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. A 51, 2459 (1995). [41] T. B. Pittman, Y. H. Shih, D. V. Strekalov, and A. V. Sergienko, Phys. Rev. A 52, R3429 (1995). [63] S. Mancini, D. Vitali, and P. Tombesi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 688 (1998). [42] R. S. Bennink, S. J. Bentley, and R. W. Boyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 113601 (2002). [64] P. F. Cohadon, A. Heidmann, and M. Pinard, Phys. [43] A. Gatti, E. Brambilla, M. Bache, and L. A. Lugiato, Rev. Lett. 83, 3174 (1999). eprint quant-ph/0307187 (2003). [65] G. M. D’Ariano, M. Sacchi, R. Seno, Nuovo Cimento [44] C. Fabre, J. B. Fouet, A. Matre, Opt. Lett. 25, 76 B 114, 775 (1999). (2000). [66] N. Imoto, H. A. Haus, Y. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. A [45] N. Treps, U. Andersen, B. Buchler, P. K. Lam, A. 32, 2287 (1985). Maître, H.-A. Bachor, and C. Fabre, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 203601 (2002). [67] G. Nogues, A. Rauschenbeutel, S. Osnaghi, M. Brune, J. M. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Nature 400, 239 [46] M. I. Kolobov and C. Fabre, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3789 (1999). (2000). [68] P. Grangier, J. A. Levenson, and J.-P. Poizat, Nature [47] A. Peres and P. F. Scudo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 167901 396, 537 (1998). (2001). [69] V. B. Braginsky and F. Ya. Khalili, Phys. Lett. A 147, [48] E. Bagan, M. Baig and R. Muñoz-Tapia, Phys. Rev. 251 (1990). Lett. 87, 257903 (2001). [70] A. Buonanno and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 64, 042006 [49] G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, P. Perinotti, and M. (2001). F. Sacchi, eprint quant-ph/0405095 (2004). 29 [50] N. Gisin and S. Popescu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 432 [71] E.P. Wigner, Rev. Mod. Phys. , 255 (1957). (1999). [72] B. S. DeWitt, in Gravitation: an Introduction to [51] W. A. Edelstein, J. Hough, J. R. Pugh and W. Martin, Current Research, L. Witten ed., (Wiley, New York, J. Phys. E: Sci. Instrum. 11, 710 (1978). 1962). [52] H. P. Yuen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 719 (1983). [73] S. Lloyd, Nature 406, 1047 (2004). [53] C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 2465 (1985). [74] S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 237901 (2002).

10 [75] C. Callender, N. Huggett, eds., Physics Meets Phi- losophy at the Planck Scale: Contemporary Theories in Quantum Gravity (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cam- bridge, 2001). [76] J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 23 287 (1981). [77] G. ’t Hooft, in Basics and Highlights in Fun- damental Physics, The Subnuclear series, 37, 72 (World Scientiﬁc, Erice, 2001), A. Zichichi ed., eprint hep-th/0003004. [78] L. Susskind, J. Math. Phys. 36, 6377 (1995). [79] R. Bousso, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 000825 (2002). [80] Y. J. Ng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2946 (2001), and erra- tum: ibid. 88, 139902(E) (2002). [81] U. Yurtsever, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 041302 (2003).

Acknowledgements: VG acknowledges financial support by EC contracts IST-SQUIBIT, IST-SQUBIT2, and RTN- Nanoscale Dynamics. SL was supported by DARPA, ARDA and ARO via a MURI program. LM acknowledges financial support by EC ATESIT project IST-2000-29681 and MIUR Cofinanziamento 2003.