DOCSLIB.ORG

Quantum Noise Properties of Non-Ideal Optical Amplifiers and Attenuators

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. We validate this model by showing that it reproduces the known predictions of two models of non-ideal amplifiers: a laser amplifier with incomplete inversion and a cascade of alternating ideal amplifiers and ideal attenuators. We also describe implications of this model for practical devices. Keywords: quantum noise, optical amplifiers (Some figures may appear in colour only in the online journal) 1. Introduction noise can be attributed mainly to the beating between the amplified signal field and the amplified vacuum fluctuations. Optical amplification is required for the operation of many A non-ideal amplifier or attenuator is a device that optical systems, including those used in telecommunica- introduces more noise than that required by the laws of tions, optical information processing, and quantum optics. quantum mechanics. Non-ideal amplifiers or attenuators have Examples of optical amplifiers include erbium doped fiber been treated theoretically by considering them to be comprised amplifiers [1, 2], semiconductor optical amplifiers [3], and of alternating pairs of ideal amplifiers and attenuators [8], by surface plasmon amplifiers [4]. Optical systems also often means of a three-dimensional quantum beam splitter model [9], contain loss elements, which are present either by design or by explicit consideration of the propagation of light through or because of the inability to fabricate perfectly transmitting a not-totally-inverted laser gain medium [10]. optical components. It is well known that both gain and loss introduce noise into an optical system, and this noise can be In this paper, we present a generalization of Caves’s [5] highly undesirable under many circumstances. treatment of the noise properties of linear amplifiers by In many cases of interest, the noise generated by an allowing for non-ideal behavior. We find that a broad class amplifier or attenuator can be ascribed to a purely quantum- of amplifiers and attenuators can be treated by making just mechanical origin. Indeed, the quantum-mechanical properties one additional assumption, namely that the internal quantum of the electromagnetic field pose a fundamental limit to the noise source of the device is not in its ground state. We noise level of an optical beam. An ideal phase-insensitive begin with a brief summary of the usual treatments for ideal optical amplifier can be treated by a quantum model that amplifiers or attenuators in section 2. Our new model is assumes the presence of two input ports, one for the signal introduced in section 3 and applied specifically to several types field and another that represents the internal noise source of of practical amplifiers. The paper concludes with a discussion the amplification process [5–7]. In these models, the amplifier and summary in section 4. 2040-8978/11/125201+07$33.00 1 © 2011 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK & the USA J. Opt. 13 (2011) 125201 ZShiet al Here, the first term represents the amplification of the fluctuations present in the input field, and the second term represents the added noise. The noise properties of an amplifier are often character- ized by a noise figure [14], defined as Figure 1. Quantum model of an ideal linear amplifier (a) and an attenuator (b). Here and in figure 2, we use the symbol vˆ to designate (SNR) F ≡ in , an internal noise source cˆ that is in the vacuum state. (7) (SNR)out where (SNR)in and (SNR)out are the signal-to-noise ratios 2. Quantum model of an ideal linear amplifier or (SNRs) of the input and output fields, respectively, which are attenuator defined as follows: ˆn 2 Let us first summarize the quantum description of the noise (SNR) ≡ a , (8) in ˆ2 properties of an ideal amplifier for the case of a single-mode na input field propagating through an ideal linear amplifier with G2ˆn 2 intensity gain G. We adopt the standard model shown in (SNR) ≡ a . (9) out ˆ2 figure 1(a) which was introduced by earlier workers [5, 11–13]. nb This model ascribes the noise properties of the amplifier to an Note that in (SNR)out we use Gˆna for the amplified internal quantum noise source that represents the fluctuations signal field, not the total output field that includes the noise that must (by means of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem) contributions. accompany any gain or loss mechanism. The noise figure of an ideal optical amplifier is then found The strength of this noise source is adjusted to ensure that from the expressions given above to be the field operator of the output mode possesses standard boson commutation relations. Specifically, the photon annihilation 1 ˆn +1 F = 1 + 1 − a . (10) operators for the input and output fields are denoted by aˆ ˆ2 G na and bˆ, respectively, and are assumed to satisfy the standard commutation relations When the fluctuations of the input field follow Poisson statistics, so that nˆ2 =ˆn , one sees that the value of the [ˆ, ˆ †]=[ˆ, ˆ†]= . a a a a b b 1 (1) noise figure F of an ideal quantum amplifier approaches the ˆ The annihilation operator for the output field is expressed in value 2 (or 3 dB) when both G and na are much greater than terms of that of the input field and of a Langevin noise source unity [15]. as follows [5]: This same model can be used to describe an ideal attenuator of intensity transmission T . We again model this / / bˆ = G1 2aˆ + (G − 1)1 2cˆ†. (2) device in terms of an input signal field aˆ, an output field bˆ,and an internal noise field cˆ, as shown in figure 1(b). In order to ˆ Here c is a boson operator, denoting the internal noise field, preserve the commutation relations for the output field bˆ,we [ˆ, ˆ†]= which also must satisfy the relation c c 1. The internal express it as noise field is assumed to be uncorrelated from the input field, bˆ = T 1/2aˆ + (1 − T )1/2cˆ. (11) that is, [ˆa, cˆ†]=[ˆa, cˆ]=0. (3) Here, the Langevin operator is again assumed to be uncorrelated from the input operator: It is straightforward to verify that under these circumstances ˆ ˆ† the commutation relation [b, b ]=1 is satisfied. For the case [ˆa, cˆ†]=[ˆa, cˆ]=0. (12) of an ideal amplifier, one assumes that the internal noise field is in the vacuum state, that is, For an ideal attenuator, we again assume that cˆ denotes a † vacuum state input, i.e., ˆnc=ˆc cˆ=0. (4) ˆn =ˆc†cˆ=0. (13) Consequently, the expectation value of the photon number of c the output field is given by The expected photon number for the output field and its ˆ† ˆ variance are then given by ˆnb=b b=Gˆna+(G − 1), (5) ˆ† ˆ † ˆn =b b=T ˆn (14) where ˆna =ˆa aˆ is the average photon number of the b a input field. One sees that, in addition to the input field being and amplified by a factor of G, (G − 1) noise photons are added to ˆ2≡ˆ2−ˆ 2 the output field. The variance of the output photon number is nb nb nb similarly given by = 2ˆ2+ ( − )ˆ , T na T 1 T na (15) ˆ2≡ˆ2−ˆ 2 nb nb nb respectively, for such an ideal attenuator. Here, the first term = 2ˆ2+ ( − )(ˆ + ). G na G G 1 na 1 (6) represents the attenuation of the fluctuations present in the 2 J. Opt. 13 (2011) 125201 ZShiet al input beam, and the second term represents the noise added due to the random loss of photons from the signal field. The noise figure of the ideal attenuator is then found to be 1 ˆna F = 1 + − 1 . (16) ˆ2 T na Note that this noise figure can become arbitrarily large as the transmission of the attenuator approaches zero, which can be attributed to the random loss of photons from the signal field. Figure 2. One can describe a non-ideal amplifier using (a) a series of 3. Generalized model for a non-ideal linear amplifier alternating ideal amplifiers and attenuators, or (b) a generalized or attenuator quantum beam splitter model.
Recommended publications
  • Arxiv:1206.1084V3 [Quant-Ph] 3 May 2019

    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.
  • S Theorem by Quantifying the Asymmetry of Quantum States

    S Theorem by Quantifying the Asymmetry of Quantum States

    ARTICLE Received 9 Dec 2013 | Accepted 7 Apr 2014 | Published 13 May 2014 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms4821 Extending Noether’s theorem by quantifying the asymmetry of quantum states Iman Marvian1,2,3 & Robert W. Spekkens1 Noether’s theorem is a fundamental result in physics stating that every symmetry of the dynamics implies a conservation law. It is, however, deficient in several respects: for one, it is not applicable to dynamics wherein the system interacts with an environment; furthermore, even in the case where the system is isolated, if the quantum state is mixed then the Noether conservation laws do not capture all of the consequences of the symmetries. Here we address these deficiencies by introducing measures of the extent to which a quantum state breaks a symmetry. Such measures yield novel constraints on state transitions: for non- isolated systems they cannot increase, whereas for isolated systems they are conserved. We demonstrate that the problem of finding non-trivial asymmetry measures can be solved using the tools of quantum information theory. Applications include deriving model-independent bounds on the quantum noise in amplifiers and assessing quantum schemes for achieving high-precision metrology. 1 Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, 31 Caroline St. N, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 2Y5. 2 Institute for Quantum Computing, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave. W, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1. 3 Center for Quantum Information Science and Technology, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to I.M. (email: [email protected]).
  • Two-Boson Quantum Interference in Time

    Two-Boson Quantum Interference in Time

    Two-boson quantum interference in time Nicolas J. Cerfa,1 and Michael G. Jabbourb aCentre for Quantum Information and Communication, Ecole polytechnique de Bruxelles, Universite´ libre de Bruxelles, 1050 Bruxelles, Belgium; and bDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0WA, United Kingdom Edited by Marlan O. Scully, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, and approved October 19, 2020 (received for review May 27, 2020) The celebrated Hong–Ou–Mandel effect is the paradigm of two- time could serve as a test bed for a wide range of bosonic trans- particle quantum interference. It has its roots in the symmetry of formations. Furthermore, from a deeper viewpoint, it would be identical quantum particles, as dictated by the Pauli principle. Two fascinating to demonstrate the consequence of time-like indistin- identical bosons impinging on a beam splitter (of transmittance guishability in a photonic or atomic platform as it would help in 1/2) cannot be detected in coincidence at both output ports, as elucidating some heretofore overlooked fundamental property confirmed in numerous experiments with light or even matter. of identical quantum particles. Here, we establish that partial time reversal transforms the beam splitter linear coupling into amplification. We infer from this dual- Hong–Ou–Mandel Effect ity the existence of an unsuspected two-boson interferometric The HOM effect is a landmark in quantum optics as it is effect in a quantum amplifier (of gain 2) and identify the underly- the most spectacular manifestation of boson bunching. It is a ing mechanism as time-like indistinguishability.
  • 16 Quantum Computing and Communications

    16 Quantum Computing and Communications

    16 Quantum Computing and Communications We've seen many ways in which physical laws set profound limits: messages can't travel faster than the speed of light; transistors can't be shrunk below the size of an atom. Conventional scaling of device performance, which has been based on increasing clock speeds and decreasing feature sizes, is already bumping into such fundamental constraints. But these same laws also contain opportunities. The universe offers many more ways to communicate and manipulate information than we presently use, most notably through quantum coherence. Specifying the state of N quantum bits, called qubits, requires 2N coefficients. That's a lot. Quantum mechanics is essential to explain semiconductor band structure, but the devices this enables perform classical functions. Perfectly good logic families can be based on the flow of a liquid or a gas; this is called fluidic logic [Spuhler, 1983] and is used routinely in automobile transmissions. In fact, quantum effects can cause serious problems as VLSI devices are scaled down to finer linewidths, because small gates no longer work the same as their larger counterparts do. But what happens if the bits themselves are governed by quantum rather than classical laws? Since quantum mechanics is so important, and so strange, a number of early pioneers wondered how a quantum mechanical computer might differ from a classical one [Benioff, 1980; Feynman, 1982; Deutsch, 1985]. Feynman, for example, objected to the exponential cost of simulating a quantum system on a classical computer, and conjectured that a quantum computer could simulate another quantum system efficiently (i.e., with less than exponential resources).
  • Quantum Noise and Quantum Measurement

    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.
  • Beyond the Shot-Noise and Diffraction Limit

    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.
  • Quantum Noise

    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.
  • Quantum Noise Spectroscopy

    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
  • Efficient Framework for Quantum Walks and Beyond

    Efficient Framework for Quantum Walks and Beyond

    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2015-12-22 Efficient Framework for Quantum Walks and Beyond Dohotaru, Catalin Dohotaru, C. (2015). Efficient Framework for Quantum Walks and Beyond (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/25844 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/2700 doctoral thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Efficient Framework for Quantum Walks and Beyond by Cat˘ alin˘ Dohotaru A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN COMPUTER SCIENCE CALGARY, ALBERTA December, 2015 c Cat˘ alin˘ Dohotaru 2015 Abstract In the first part of the thesis we construct a new, simple framework which amplifies to a constant the success probability of any abstract search algorithm. The total query complexity is given by the quantum hitting time of the resulting operator, which we show that it is of the same order as the quantum hitting time of the original algorithm. As a major application of our framework, we show that for any reversible walk P and a single marked state, the quantum walk corresponding to P can find the solution using a number of queries that is quadratically smaller than the classical hitting time of P.
  • The Emergence of Classical Dynamics in a Quantum World

    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.
  • Quantum Limits on Measurement

    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.
  • A Quantum Noise Approach to Quantum NEMS

    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