- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review A

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Optimized laser models with Heisenberg-limited coherence and sub-Poissonian beam photon statistics

L. A. Ostrowski*, T. J. Baker, S. N. Saadatmand, and H. M. Wiseman†

  • Centre for Quantum Dynamics, Griffith University, Yuggera Country, Brisbane, Queensland 4111, Australia

  • *lucas.ostrowski@griffithuni.edu.au
  • †h.wiseman@griffith.edu.au
PDF

Phys. Rev. A 107, 053702 – Published 3 May, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.107.053702

Abstract

Recently it has been shown that it is possible for a laser to produce a stationary beam with a coherence (quantified as the mean photon number at spectral peak) which scales as the fourth power of the mean number of excitations stored within the laser, this being quadratically larger than the standard or Schawlow-Townes limit [Baker et al., Nat. Phys. 17, 179 (2021)]. Moreover, this was analytically proven to be the ultimate quantum limit (Heisenberg limit) scaling under defining conditions for CW lasers, plus a strong assumption about the properties of the output beam. In our related work [Ostrowski et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 183602 (2023)] we show that the latter can be replaced by a weaker assumption, which allows for highly sub-Poissonian output beams, without changing the upper bound scaling or its achievability. In this paper we provide details of the calculations given in our related paper and introduce three families of laser models which may be considered as generalizations of those presented in that work. Each of these families of laser models is parameterized by a real number, p, with p=4 corresponding to the original models. The parameter space of these laser families is numerically investigated in detail, where we explore the influence of these parameters on both the coherence and photon statistics of the laser beams. Two distinct regimes for the coherence may be identified based on the choice of p, where for p>3, each family of models exhibits Heisenberg-limited beam coherence, while for p<3, the Heisenberg limit is no longer attained. Moreover, in the former regime, we derive formulas for the beam coherence of each of these three laser families which agree with the numerics. We find that the optimal parameter is in fact p≈4.15, not p=4.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

See Also

No Tradeoff between Coherence and Sub-Poissonianity for Heisenberg-Limited Lasers

L. A. Ostrowski, T. J. Baker, S. N. Saadatmand, and H. M. Wiseman
Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 183602 (2023)

Article Text

References (77)

  1. K. S. Chou, J. Z. Blumoff, C. S. Wang, P. C. Reinhold, C. J. Axline, Y. Y. Gao, L. Frunzio, M. H. Devoret, L. Jiang, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Deterministic teleportation of a quantum gate between two logical qubits, Nature (London) 561, 368 (2018).
  2. C. Sayrin, I. Dotsenko, X. Zhou, B. Peaudecerf, T. Rybarczyk, S. Gleyzes, P. Rouchon, M. Mirrahimi, H. Amini, M. Brune et al., Real-time quantum feedback prepares and stabilizes photon number states, Nature (London) 477, 73 (2011).
  3. K. C. McCormick, J. Keller, S. C. Burd, D. J. Wineland, A. C. Wilson, and D. Leibfried, Quantum-enhanced sensing of a single-ion mechanical oscillator, Nature (London) 572, 86 (2019).
  4. K. A. Gilmore, M. Affolter, R. J. Lewis-Swan, D. Barberena, E. Jordan, A. M. Rey, and J. J. Bollinger, Quantum-enhanced sensing of displacements and electric fields with two-dimensional trapped-ion crystals, Science 373, 673 (2021).
  5. F. Arute, K. Arya, R. Babbush, D. Bacon, J. C. Bardin, R. Barends, R. Biswas, S. Boixo, F. G. S. L. Brandao, D. A. Buell et al., Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor, Nature (London) 574, 505 (2019).
  6. H.-S. Zhong, H. Wang, Y.-H. Deng, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y.-H. Luo, J. Qin, D. Wu, X. Ding, Y. Hu et al., Quantum computational advantage using photons, Science 370, 1460 (2020).
  7. Y. Wu, W.-S. Bao, S. Cao, F. Chen, M.-C. Chen, X. Chen, T.-H. Chung, H. Deng, Y. Du, D. Fan et al., Strong Quantum Computational Advantage Using a Superconducting Quantum Processor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 180501 (2021).
  8. H.-S. Zhong, Y.-H. Deng, J. Qin, H. Wang, M.-C. Chen, L.-C. Peng, Y.-H. Luo, D. Wu, S.-Q. Gong, H. Su et al., Phase-Progammable Gaussian Boson Sampling Using Stimulated Squeezes Light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 180502 (2021).
  9. Q. Zhu, S. Cao, F. Chen, M.-C. Chen, X. Chen, T.-H. Chung, H. Deng, Y. Du, D. Fan, M. Gong et al., Quantum computational advantage via 60-qubit 24-cycle random circuit sampling, Sci. Bull. 67, 240 (2022).
  10. J. Preskill, Quantum Computing in the NISQ era and beyond, Quantum 2, 79 (2018).
  11. T. Baker, S. Saadatmand, D. Berry, and H. Wiseman, The Heisenberg limit for laser coherence, Nat. Phys. 17, 179 (2021).
  12. D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Quantum dynamics of single trapped ions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 281 (2003).
  13. I. Bloch, Quantum coherence and entanglement with ultracold atoms in optical lattices, Nature (London) 453, 1016 (2008).
  14. J. Hecht, Short history of laser development, Optical Eng. 49, 091002 (2010).
  15. A. Schawlow and C. Townes, Infrared and optical masers, Phys. Rev. 112, 1940 (1958).
  16. P. Bürgisser and F. Cucker, Condition: The Geometry of Numerical Algorithms (Springer, Berlin, 2013).
  17. C. Liu, M. Mucci, X. Cao, G. Dutt, M. Hatridge, and D. Pekker, Proposal for a continuous wave laser with linewidth well below the standard quantum limit, Nat. Commun. 12, 5620 (2021).
  18. L. A. Ostrowski, T. J. Baker, S. N. Saadatmand, and H. M. Wiseman, No Tradeoff between Coherence and Sub-Poissonianity for Heisenberg-Limited Lasers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 183602 (2023).
  19. L. Davidovich, Sub-Poissonian processes in quantum optics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 68, 127 (1996).
  20. M. I. Kolobov and I. V. Sokolov, Interference of light waves possessing sub-Poissonian statistics and the sensitivity of laser gravitational observations, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 90, 1889 (1986) [Sov. Phys. JETP 63, 1105 (1986)].
  21. Y. Yamamoto and H. Haus, Preparation, measurement and information capacity of optical quantum states, Rev. Mod. Phys. 58, 1001 (1986).
  22. E. S. Polzik, J. Carri, and H. J. Kimble, Spectroscopy with Squeezed Light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3020 (1992).
  23. T. Ralph and H. Bachor, Noiseless amplification of the coherent amplitude of bright squeezed light using a standard laser amplifier, Opt. Commun. 119, 301 (1995).
  24. T. Golubeva, D. Ivanov, and Y. Golubev, Broadband squeezed light from phase-locked single-mode sub-poissonian lasers, Phys. Rev. A 77, 052316 (2008).
  25. D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Optics (Springer, Berlin, 2008).
  26. S. Korolev, A. Dobrotvorskaia, T. Golubeva, and Y. Golubev, Quantum computations on the ensemble of two-node cluster states obtained by sub-poissonian lasers, Laser Phys. Lett. 16, 075204 (2019).
  27. J. Mork and K. Yvind, Squeezing of intensity noise in nanolasers and nonoLEDs with extreme dielectric confinement, Optica 7, 1641 (2020).
  28. A. Z. Goldberg and A. M. Steinberg, Transcoherent states: Optical states for maximal generation of atomic coherence, PRX Quantum 1, 020306 (2020).
  29. N. Hosseinidehaj, M. S. Winnel, and T. C. Ralph, Simple and loss-tolerant free-space quantum key distribution using a squeezed laser, Phys. Rev. A 105, 032602 (2022).
  30. S. Zhao and F. Grillot, Modeling of amplitude squeezing in a pump-noise-suppressed interband cascade laser, IEEE Photon. J. 14, 1924208 (2022).
  31. Y. M. Golubev and I. V. Sokolov, Photon antibunching in a coherent light source and suppression of the photorecording noise, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 87, 408 (1984) [Sov. Phys. JETP 60, 234 (1984)].
  32. S. Machida, Y. Yamamoto, and Y. Itaya, Observation of Amplitude Squeezing in a Constant-Current-Driven Semiconductor Laser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1000 (1987).
  33. W. H. Richardson and R. M. Shelby, Nonclassical Light from a Semiconductor Laser Operating at 4K, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 400 (1990).
  34. W. Choi, J.-H. Lee, K. An, C. Fang-Yen, R. R. Dasari, and M. S. Feld, Observation of Sub-Poissonian Photon Statistics in the Cavity-QED Microlaser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 093603 (2006).
  35. M. Koppenhöfer and M. Marthaler, Creation of a squeezed photon distribution using artificial atoms with broken inversion symmetry, Phys. Rev. A 93, 023831 (2016).
  36. M. Koppenhöfer, J. Leppäkangas, and M. Marthaler, Creating photon-number squeezed strong microwave fields by a Cooper-pair injection laser, Phys. Rev. B 95, 134515 (2017).
  37. V. S. C. Canela and H. J. Carmichael, Bright Sub-Poissonian Light through Intrinsic Feedback and External Control, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 063604 (2020).
  38. S. Barnett and D. Pegg, On the Hermitian optical phase operator, J. Mod. Opt. 36, 7 (1989).
  39. D. T. Pegg and S. M. Barnett, Phase properties of the quantized single-mode electromagnetic field, Phys. Rev. A 39, 1665 (1989).
  40. J. Bergou, L. Davidovich, M. Orszag, C. Benkert, M. Hillery, and M. O. Scully, Role of pumping statistics in maser and laser dynamics: Density-matrix approach, Phys. Rev. A 40, 5073 (1989).
  41. C. Benkert, M. O. Scully, J. Bergou, L. Davidovich, M. Hillery, and M. Orszag, Role of pumping statistics in laser dynamics: Quantum Langevin approach, Phys. Rev. A 41, 2756 (1990).
  42. H. M. Wiseman, Stochastic quantum dynamics of a continuously monitored laser, Phys. Rev. A 47, 5180 (1993).
  43. T. Ralph, in Squeezing from Lasers—Quantum Squeezing, edited by P. Drummond and Z. Ficek (Springer, Berlin, 2004), pp. 141–170.
  44. H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Noise reduction in a laser by nonlinear damping, Phys. Rev. A 44, 7815 (1991).
  45. R. Glauber, The quantum theory of optical coherence, Phys. Rev. 130, 2529 (1963).
  46. W. Louisell, Quantum Statistical Properties of Radiation (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1973).
  47. M. Sargent, M. Scully, and W. Lamb, Laser Physics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1974).
  48. H. Carmichael, Statistical Methods in Quantum Optics 1: Master Equations and Fokker-Planck Equations (Springer, Berlin, 1999).
  49. J. A. Vaccaro, F. Anselmi, H. M. Wiseman, and K. Jacobs, Tradeoff between extractable mechanical work, accessible entanglement, and ability to act as a reference system, under arbitrary superselection rules, Phys. Rev. A 77, 032114 (2008).
  50. T. Baumgratz, M. Cramer, and M. B. Plenio, Quantifying Coherence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 140401 (2014).
  51. A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 041003 (2017).
  52. L. Mandel, Sub-Poissonian photon statistics in resonance fluorescence, Opt. Lett. 4, 205 (1979).
  53. L. Mandel, Non-classical states of the electromagnetic field, Phys. Scr. T12, 34 (1986).
  54. X. T. Zou and L. Mandel, Photon-antibunching and sub-Poissonian photon statistics, Phys. Rev. A 41, 475 (1990).
  55. H. Wiseman, How many principles does it take to change a light bulb...into a laser? Phys. Scr. 91, 033001 (2016).
  56. A. Bandilla, H. Paul, and H. Ritze, Realistic quantum states of light with minimum phase uncertainty, Quantum Opt. 3, 267 (1991).
  57. H. Wiseman and G. Milburn, Quantum Measurement and Control (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009).
  58. R. Orús, A practical introduction to tensor networks: Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states, Ann. Phys. 349, 117 (2014).
  59. J.I. Cirac, D. Pérez-García, N. Schuch, and F. Verstraete, Matrix product states and projected entangled pair states: Concepts, symmetries, theorems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 93, 045003 (2021).
  60. C. Schön, E. Solano, F. Verstraete, J. I. Cirac, and M. M. Wolf, Sequential Generation of Entangled Multiqubit States, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 110503 (2005).
  61. C. Schön, K. Hammerer, M. M. Wolf, J. I. Cirac, and E. Solano, Sequential generation of matrix-product states in cavity QED, Phys. Rev. A 75, 032311 (2007).
  62. H. Wiseman, Defining the (atom) laser, Phys. Rev. A 56, 2068 (1997).
  63. J. Gertler, B. Baker, J. Li, S. Shirol, J. Koch, and C. Wang, Protecting a bosonic qubit with autonomous quantum error correction, Nature (London) 590, 243 (2021).
  64. Y. Yamamoto, S. Machida, and O. Nilsson, Amplitude squeezing in a pump-noise-suppressed laser oscillator, Phys. Rev. A 34, 4025 (1986).
  65. F. Haake, S. M. Tan, and D. F. Walls, Photon noise reduction in lasers, Phys. Rev. A 40, 7121 (1989).
  66. M. M. Marte and P. Zoller, Lasers with sub-Poissonian pump, Phys. Rev. A 40, 5774 (1989).
  67. Y. Yamamoto, S. Machida, and W. Richardson, Photon number squeezed states in semiconductor lasers, Science 255, 1219 (1992).
  68. M. Scully and W. Lamb, Quantum theory of an optical maser. I. General theory, Phys. Rev. 159, 208 (1967).
  69. T. Ralph and C. Savage, Squeezed light from conventionally pumped multilevel lasers, Opt. Lett. 16, 1113 (1991).
  70. H. Ritsch, P. Zoller, C. Gardiner, and D. Walls, Sub-Poissonian laser light by dynamic pump-noise suppression, Phys. Rev. A 44, 3361 (1991).
  71. L. Susskind and J. Glogower, Quantum mechanical phase and time operator, Phys. Phys. Fiz. 1, 49 (1964).
  72. H. M. Wiseman, Light amplification without stimulated emission: Beyond the standard quantum limit to the laser linewidth, Phys. Rev. A 60, 4083 (1999).
  73. A. Holevo, Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory, Statistics and Probability, Vol. 1 (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1982).
  74. H. M. Wiseman and J. A. Vaccaro, Inequivalence of Pure State Ensembles for Open Quantum Systems: The Preferred Ensembles Are Those That Are Physically Realizable, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 240402 (2001).
  75. R. Byrd, M. Hribar, and J. Nocedal, An interior point algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming, SIAM J. Optim. 9, 877 (1999).
  76. R. Byrd, J. Gilbert, and J. Nocedal, A trust region method based on interior point techniques for nonlinear programming, Math. Program. 89, 149 (2000).
  77. R. Waltz, J. Morales, J. Nocedal, and D. Orban, An interior algorithm for nonlinear optimization that combines line search and trust region steps, Math. Program. 107, 391 (2006).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. A 107, 053702– Published 3 May, 2023
  • Received 6 September 2022
  • Revised 24 March 2023
  • Accepted 28 March 2023
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2023 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation