SU(1,1) interferometry

Last updated September 04, 2024

SU(1,1) interferometry is a technique that uses parametric amplification for splitting and mixing of electromagnetic waves for precise estimation of phase change and achieves the Heisenberg limit of sensitivity with fewer optical elements than conventional interferometric techniques.

Introduction

Interferometry is an important technique in the field of optics that have been utilised for fundamental proof of principles experiments and in the development of new technologies. This technique, primarily based on the interference of electromagnetic waves, has been widely explored in the field of quantum metrology and precision measurements for achieving sensitivity in measurements beyond what is possible with classical methods and resources. Interferometry is a desired platform for precise estimation of physical quantities because of its ability to sense small phase changes. One of the most prominent examples of the application of this property is the detection of gravitational waves (LIGO).

Conventional interferometers are based on the wave nature of the light and hence the classical interference of electromagnetic waves. Although the design and layout for these types of interferometers can vary depending upon the type of application and corresponding suitable scheme, they all can be mapped to an arrangement similar to that of a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. In this type of interferometry, the input field is split into two by a beam splitter which then propagates along different paths and acquires a relative phase difference (corresponding to a path length difference). Considering one of the beams undergoing a phase change as the probe and the other beam as the reference, the relative phase is estimated after the two beams interfere at another beam splitter. The estimation of the phase difference is done through the detection of the intensity change at the output after the interference at the second beam splitter.

These standard interferometric techniques, based on beam-splitters for the splitting of the beams and linear optical transformations, can be classified as SU(2) interferometers as these interferometric techniques can be naturally characterized by SU(2) (Special Unitary(2)) group. Theoretically, the sensitivity of conventional SU(2) interferometric schemes are limited by the vacuum fluctuation noise, also called the shot-noise limit which scales as $1/{\sqrt {N}}$ , where $N$ is the mean number of particles (photons for electromagnetic waves) entering the input port of the interferometer. The shot noise limit can be overcome by using light that utilizes quantum properties such as quantum entanglement (e.g. squeezed states, NOON states), at the unused input port. In principle, this can achieve the Heisenberg limit of sensitivity which scales as $1/N$ with the change in the mean number of photons entering the input port.^[1]

SU(1,1) interferometers were first proposed by Yurke et al.^[2] in which the beam splitters in conventional interferometers were replaced by optical parametric amplifiers. The advantage that comes with the parametric amplifiers is that the input fields can be coherently split and interfere that would be fundamentally quantum in nature. This is attributed to the nonlinear processes in parametric amplifiers such as four-wave mixing. Theoretically, SU(1,1) interferometers can achieve the Heisenberg limit of sensitivity with fewer optical elements than conventional interferometers.^[2]

Theory

To briefly understand the benefit of using a parametric amplifier, a balanced SU(1,1) interferometer can be considered. Treating the input fields as quantum fields described by operators $a_{1}^{in}$ , $a_{2}^{in}$ , the output quantum fields from a parametric amplifier can be written as:^[1]

$a_{1}^{o}=Ga_{1}^{in}+ga_{2}^{in}$

$a_{2}^{o}=ga_{1}^{in}+Ga_{2}^{in}$

where $G$ is the amplitude gain and $\left\vert G\right\vert ^{2}-\left\vert g\right\vert ^{2}=1$ .

For a coherent state input $|\alpha \rangle$ at the first parametric amplifier with initial input intensity $I_{0}=\left\vert \alpha \right\vert ^{2}$ , the output intensities will be:^[3]

$I_{1}^{o}=2G^{2}g^{2}I_{0}(1+\cos \phi )$ (for $\left\vert \alpha \right\vert ^{2}>>1$ )

$I_{2}^{o}=(2G^{2}g^{2}+1)(\left\vert \alpha \right\vert ^{2})(1+\nu \cos \phi )$ (for $\left\vert \alpha \right\vert ^{2}>>1$ )

where $\nu ={\frac {2G^{2}g^{2}}{2G^{2}g^{2}+1}}$ is the visibility.

This shows two main distinguishing features of an SU(1,1) interferometer from SU(2) interferometers:^[1]

$1.$ The two output intensities of an SU(1,1) interferometer are in phase whereas in a SU(2) interferometer the two outputs are out of phase.

$2.$ The outputs are amplified as compared to that of a SU(2) interferometer when the gain $G$ is large.

The first feature indicates a high correlation of the output photon numbers (intensities) and the second feature shows that there is an enhancement of the signal strength for a small phase change as compared to SU(2) interferometers.

From these properties, the signal to noise ratio $R_{SU(1,1)}$ for an SU(1,1) interferometer compared to the signal to noise ratio $R_{SU(2)}$ of a SU(2) interferometer is calculated to be (see Ref. ^[4] for detailed calculation):

$R_{SU(1,1)}/R_{SU(2)}\approx 2G^{2}$ (for $\left\vert \alpha \right\vert ^{2}>>1$ )

This means that the sensitivity in phase measurements is improved by a factor of $2G^{2}$ in an SU(1,1) interferometer and hence can achieve the sub-shot noise limit of sensitivity in conditions where a SU(2) interferometer approaches the shot-noise limit.^[4] It is also shown in Ref. ^[5] that with no coherent state injection, the SU(1,1) interferometer approaches the Heisenberg limit of sensitivity.

Noise performance

The improvement of phase measurement sensitivity in an SU(1,1) interferometer is not by a $2G^{2}$ amplification at the second parametric amplifier. Similar amplification could also be implemented in a SU(2) interferometer where both the signal and the noise (vacuum quantum fluctuations) gets amplified. However, the difference comes in the noise performance of an SU(1,1) interferometer.

A quantum amplifier (in this case a parametric amplifier) can utilize quantum entanglement for effective noise cancellation. For an input state with a strong correlation with the internal modes of an amplifier, the quantum noise can be cancelled at the output through destructive quantum interference.^[6] This is the principle behind noise reduction in an SU(1,1) interferometer. The first parametric amplifier produces two quantum entangled fields that are used for phase sensing and are the input to the second parametric amplifier where the amplification takes place. In a scenario of no internal losses inside the interferometer, the output noise for a destructive quantum interference is still similar to the case of a SU(2) interferometer. Overall, there is an amplification in the signal with no change in the noise (as compared to SU(2) interferometer). This leads to the improvement in phase sensitivity over SU(2) interferometry.

Effect of losses

The reduced sensitivity of an interferometer can be mainly due to two types of losses. One of the sources of losses is the inefficient detection protocol. Another type of loss affecting the sensitivity is the internal loss of an interferometer. Theoretical studies by Marino et al.^[5] inferred that an SU(1,1) interferometer is robust against losses due to inefficient detectors because of the disentanglement of states at the second parametric amplifier before the measurements. However, the internal losses in an SU(1,1) interferometer limit its sensitivity below the Heisenberg limit during its physical implementation.

The original scheme for an SU(1,1) interferometer proposed by Yurke et al.^[2] did not take into account the internal losses and for a moderate gain of the parametric amplifier produced a low number of photons which made it difficult for its experimental realization. Marino et al.^[5] showed that in the presence of any internal losses, an SU(1,1) interferometer could not achieve the Heisenberg limit for configurations with no input fields at both the ports or a coherent state input in one of the ports (this configuration was considered for the Theory section above). For a case with coherent state input at both the input ports, it was shown that the interferometer is robust against internal losses and is one of the ideal schemes for achieving the Heisenberg limit.

Experiments

The originally proposed configuration of an SU(1,1) interferometer by Yurke et al. was challenging to realize experimentally due to very low photon numbers expected at the output (for ideal sensitivity) and also the theory did not take into account the internal losses that could affect the phase change sensitivity of the interferometer. Subsequently, modifications to the scheme were studied taking into account the losses and other experimental imperfections. Some of the initial experiments proving the predicted scaling of the SU(1,1) interferometer and other experiments modifying the scheme are discussed below.

Coherent state boosted SU(1,1) interferometer

The boost in the photon numbers from a coherent state injection was proposed and studied by Plick et al..^[7] Such a scheme was experimentally implemented by Jing et al.^[8] with Rb-85 vapor cells for parametric amplification. The experiment verified the increase in the fringe size due to the amplification of the signal. Later, experiments performed by Hudelist et al.^[9] showed that there is an enhancement in the signal by a factor of $2G^{2}$ with SU(1,1) interferometry over the conventional SU(2) interferometry.

Modified SU(1,1) interferometers

Modifications to SU(1,1) interferometers have been proposed and studied with the goal of finding an experimentally ideal scheme with the desired characteristics of SU(1,1) interferometry. Some of the schemes explored include:

1. SU(1,1) interferometry with one parametric amplifier and a beam splitter replacing the second amplifier:^[1] The signal to noise ratio improvement in this configuration was found to be essentially the same as that of the original SU(1,1) interferometry sensitivity improvement over conventional interferometers. This study showed that the improvement is mainly due to the entangled fields generated at the first parametric amplifier.

2. “Truncated” SU(1,1) interferometer with no second parametric amplifier and rather using a photocurrent mixer to realize the superposition of the fields.^[10] Such a configuration opens the possibility to implement SU(1,1) interferometry in experiments where fewer optical elements help minimize the error due to experimental imperfections.

Related Research Articles

An optical amplifier is a device that amplifies an optical signal directly, without the need to first convert it to an electrical signal. An optical amplifier may be thought of as a laser without an optical cavity, or one in which feedback from the cavity is suppressed. Optical amplifiers are important in optical communication and laser physics. They are used as optical repeaters in the long distance fiber-optic cables which carry much of the world's telecommunication links.

Noise figure (NF) and noise factor (F) are figures of merit that indicate degradation of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) that is caused by components in a signal chain. These figures of merit are used to evaluate the performance of an amplifier or a radio receiver, with lower values indicating better performance.

Coherence expresses the potential for two waves to interfere. Two monochromatic beams from a single source always interfere. Wave sources are not strictly monochromatic: they may be partly coherent. Beams from different sources are mutually incoherent.

The Mach–Zehnder interferometer is a device used to determine the relative phase shift variations between two collimated beams derived by splitting light from a single source. The interferometer has been used, among other things, to measure phase shifts between the two beams caused by a sample or a change in length of one of the paths. The apparatus is named after the physicists Ludwig Mach and Ludwig Zehnder; Zehnder's proposal in an 1891 article was refined by Mach in an 1892 article. Mach–Zehnder interferometry with electrons as well as with light has been demonstrated. The versatility of the Mach–Zehnder configuration has led to its being used in a range of research topics efforts especially in fundamental quantum mechanics.

In physics, a squeezed coherent state is a quantum state that is usually described by two non-commuting observables having continuous spectra of eigenvalues. Examples are position $and momentum of a particle, and the (dimension-less) electric field in the amplitude and in the mode of a light wave. The product of the standard deviations of two such operators obeys the uncertainty principle:$

Spontaneous parametric down-conversion is a nonlinear instant optical process that converts one photon of higher energy into a pair of photons of lower energy, in accordance with the law of conservation of energy and law of conservation of momentum. It is an important process in quantum optics, for the generation of entangled photon pairs, and of single photons.

An optical parametric amplifier, abbreviated OPA, is a laser light source that emits light of variable wavelengths by an optical parametric amplification process. It is essentially the same as an optical parametric oscillator, but without the optical cavity.

In physics, the Hanbury Brown and Twiss (HBT) effect is any of a variety of correlation and anti-correlation effects in the intensities received by two detectors from a beam of particles. HBT effects can generally be attributed to the wave–particle duality of the beam, and the results of a given experiment depend on whether the beam is composed of fermions or bosons. Devices which use the effect are commonly called intensity interferometers and were originally used in astronomy, although they are also heavily used in the field of quantum optics.

An optical parametric oscillator (OPO) is a parametric oscillator that oscillates at optical frequencies. It converts an input laser wave with frequency $into two output waves of lower frequency by means of second-order nonlinear optical interaction. The sum of the output waves' frequencies is equal to the input wave frequency: . For historical reasons, the two output waves are called "signal" and "idler", where the output wave with higher frequency is the "signal". A special case is the degenerate OPO, when the output frequency is one-half the pump frequency,, which can result in half-harmonic generation when signal and idler have the same polarization.$

Quantum noise is noise arising from the indeterminate state of matter in accordance with fundamental principles of quantum mechanics, specifically the uncertainty principle and via zero-point energy fluctuations. Quantum noise is due to the apparently discrete nature of the small quantum constituents such as electrons, as well as the discrete nature of quantum effects, such as photocurrents.

Quantum metrology is the study of making high-resolution and highly sensitive measurements of physical parameters using quantum theory to describe the physical systems, particularly exploiting quantum entanglement and quantum squeezing. This field promises to develop measurement techniques that give better precision than the same measurement performed in a classical framework. Together with quantum hypothesis testing, it represents an important theoretical model at the basis of quantum sensing.

In quantum optics, a NOON state or N00N state is a quantum-mechanical many-body entangled state:

In physics, a quantum amplifier is an amplifier that uses quantum mechanical methods to amplify a signal; examples include the active elements of lasers and optical amplifiers.

Quantum imaging is a new sub-field of quantum optics that exploits quantum correlations such as quantum entanglement of the electromagnetic field in order to image objects with a resolution or other imaging criteria that is beyond what is possible in classical optics. Examples of quantum imaging are quantum ghost imaging, quantum lithography, imaging with undetected photons, sub-shot-noise imaging, and quantum sensing. Quantum imaging may someday be useful for storing patterns of data in quantum computers and transmitting large amounts of highly secure encrypted information. Quantum mechanics has shown that light has inherent “uncertainties” in its features, manifested as moment-to-moment fluctuations in its properties. Controlling these fluctuations—which represent a sort of “noise”—can improve detection of faint objects, produce better amplified images, and allow workers to more accurately position laser beams.

The Hong–Ou–Mandel effect is a two-photon interference effect in quantum optics that was demonstrated in 1987 by three physicists from the University of Rochester: Chung Ki Hong (홍정기), Zheyu Ou (区泽宇), and Leonard Mandel. The effect occurs when two identical single-photons enter a 1:1 beam splitter, one in each input port. When the temporal overlap of the photons on the beam splitter is perfect, the two photons will always exit the beam splitter together in the same output mode, meaning that there is zero chance that they will exit separately with one photon in each of the two outputs giving a coincidence event. The photons have a 50:50 chance of exiting (together) in either output mode. If they become more distinguishable, the probability of them each going to a different detector will increase. In this way, the interferometer coincidence signal can accurately measure bandwidth, path lengths, and timing. Since this effect relies on the existence of photons and the second quantization it can not be fully explained by classical optics.

Self-mixing or back-injection laser interferometry is an interferometric technique in which a part of the light reflected by a vibrating target is reflected into the laser cavity, causing a modulation both in amplitude and in frequency of the emitted optical beam. In this way, the laser becomes sensitive to the distance traveled by the reflected beam thus becoming a distance, speed or vibration sensor. The advantage compared to a traditional measurement system is a lower cost thanks to the absence of collimation optics and external photodiodes.

A parametric process is an optical process in which light interacts with matter in such a way as to leave the quantum state of the material unchanged. As a direct consequence of this there can be no net transfer of energy, momentum, or angular momentum between the optical field and the physical system. In contrast a non-parametric process is a process in which any part of the quantum state of the system changes.

Linear optical quantum computing or linear optics quantum computation (LOQC), also photonic quantum computing (PQC), is a paradigm of quantum computation, allowing (under certain conditions, described below) universal quantum computation. LOQC uses photons as information carriers, mainly uses linear optical elements, or optical instruments (including reciprocal mirrors and waveplates) to process quantum information, and uses photon detectors and quantum memories to detect and store quantum information.

In quantum optics, correlation functions are used to characterize the statistical and coherence properties – the ability of waves to interfere – of electromagnetic radiation, like optical light. Higher order coherence or n-th order coherence extends the concept of coherence to quantum optics and coincidence experiments. It is used to differentiate between optics experiments that require a quantum mechanical description from those for which classical fields are sufficient.

In quantum physics, light is in a squeezed state if its electric field strength Ԑ for some phases $has a quantum uncertainty smaller than that of a coherent state. The term squeezing thus refers to a reduced quantum uncertainty. To obey Heisenberg's uncertainty relation, a squeezed state must also have phases at which the electric field uncertainty is anti-squeezed, i.e. larger than that of a coherent state. Since 2019, the gravitational-wave observatories LIGO and Virgo employ squeezed laser light, which has significantly increased the rate of observed gravitational-wave events.$

References

1 2 3 4 Ou, Z. Y.; Li, Xiaoying (1 August 2020). "Quantum SU(1,1) interferometers: Basic principles and applications". APL Photonics. 5 (8): 080902. arXiv: 2004.12469 . Bibcode:2020APLP....5h0902O. doi:10.1063/5.0004873. S2CID 216553469.
1 2 3 Yurke, Bernard; McCall, Samuel L.; Klauder, John R. (1 June 1986). "SU(2) and SU(1,1) interferometers". Physical Review A. 33 (6): 4033–4054. Bibcode:1986PhRvA..33.4033Y. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.33.4033. PMID 9897145.
↑ Chekhova, M. V.; Ou, Z. Y. (31 March 2016). "Nonlinear interferometers in quantum optics". Advances in Optics and Photonics. 8 (1): 104–155. Bibcode:2016AdOP....8..104C. doi:10.1364/AOP.8.000104.
1 2 Ou, Z. Y. (14 February 2012). "Enhancement of the phase-measurement sensitivity beyond the standard quantum limit by a nonlinear interferometer". Physical Review A. 85 (2): 023815. Bibcode:2012PhRvA..85b3815O. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.85.023815.
1 2 3 Marino, A. M.; Corzo Trejo, N. V.; Lett, P. D. (24 August 2012). "Effect of losses on the performance of an SU(1,1) interferometer". Physical Review A. 86 (2): 023844. Bibcode:2012PhRvA..86b3844M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.86.023844.
↑ Kong, Jia; Hudelist, F.; Ou, Z. Y.; Zhang, Weiping (18 July 2013). "Cancellation of Internal Quantum Noise of an Amplifier by Quantum Correlation". Physical Review Letters. 111 (3): 033608. Bibcode:2013PhRvL.111c3608K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.033608. PMID 23909323.
↑ Plick, William N; Dowling, Jonathan P; Agarwal, Girish S (6 August 2010). "Coherent-light-boosted, sub-shot noise, quantum interferometry". New Journal of Physics. 12 (8): 083014. arXiv: 0911.5714 . Bibcode:2010NJPh...12h3014P. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/8/083014. S2CID 4980455.
↑ Jing, Jietai; Liu, Cunjin; Zhou, Zhifan; Ou, Z. Y.; Zhang, Weiping (4 July 2011). "Realization of a nonlinear interferometer with parametric amplifiers". Applied Physics Letters. 99 (1): 011110. Bibcode:2011ApPhL..99a1110J. doi: 10.1063/1.3606549 .
↑ Hudelist, F.; Kong, Jia; Liu, Cunjin; Jing, Jietai; Ou, Z.Y.; Zhang, Weiping (May 2014). "Quantum metrology with parametric amplifier-based photon correlation interferometers". Nature Communications. 5 (1): 3049. Bibcode:2014NatCo...5.3049H. doi:10.1038/ncomms4049. PMC 3916837 . PMID 24476950.
↑ Gupta, Prasoon; Schmittberger, Bonnie L.; Anderson, Brian E.; Jones, Kevin M.; Lett, Paul D. (8 January 2018). "Optimized phase sensing in a truncated SU(1,1) interferometer". Optics Express. 26 (1): 391–401. arXiv: 1802.04314 . Bibcode:2018OExpr..26..391G. doi:10.1364/OE.26.000391. PMID 29328316. S2CID 25337227.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

[nature_review-1] 1 2 3 4 Ou, Z. Y.; Li, Xiaoying (1 August 2020). "Quantum SU(1,1) interferometers: Basic principles and applications". APL Photonics. 5 (8): 080902. arXiv: 2004.12469 . Bibcode:2020APLP....5h0902O. doi:10.1063/5.0004873. S2CID 216553469.

[yurke-2] 1 2 3 Yurke, Bernard; McCall, Samuel L.; Klauder, John R. (1 June 1986). "SU(2) and SU(1,1) interferometers". Physical Review A. 33 (6): 4033–4054. Bibcode:1986PhRvA..33.4033Y. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.33.4033. PMID 9897145.

[old_review-3] Chekhova, M. V.; Ou, Z. Y. (31 March 2016). "Nonlinear interferometers in quantum optics". Advances in Optics and Photonics. 8 (1): 104–155. Bibcode:2016AdOP....8..104C. doi:10.1364/AOP.8.000104.

[Ou-4] 1 2 Ou, Z. Y. (14 February 2012). "Enhancement of the phase-measurement sensitivity beyond the standard quantum limit by a nonlinear interferometer". Physical Review A. 85 (2): 023815. Bibcode:2012PhRvA..85b3815O. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.85.023815.

[Lett-5] 1 2 3 Marino, A. M.; Corzo Trejo, N. V.; Lett, P. D. (24 August 2012). "Effect of losses on the performance of an SU(1,1) interferometer". Physical Review A. 86 (2): 023844. Bibcode:2012PhRvA..86b3844M. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.86.023844.

[kong-6] Kong, Jia; Hudelist, F.; Ou, Z. Y.; Zhang, Weiping (18 July 2013). "Cancellation of Internal Quantum Noise of an Amplifier by Quantum Correlation". Physical Review Letters. 111 (3): 033608. Bibcode:2013PhRvL.111c3608K. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.033608. PMID 23909323.

[7] Plick, William N; Dowling, Jonathan P; Agarwal, Girish S (6 August 2010). "Coherent-light-boosted, sub-shot noise, quantum interferometry". New Journal of Physics. 12 (8): 083014. arXiv: 0911.5714 . Bibcode:2010NJPh...12h3014P. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/12/8/083014. S2CID 4980455.

[8] Jing, Jietai; Liu, Cunjin; Zhou, Zhifan; Ou, Z. Y.; Zhang, Weiping (4 July 2011). "Realization of a nonlinear interferometer with parametric amplifiers". Applied Physics Letters. 99 (1): 011110. Bibcode:2011ApPhL..99a1110J. doi: 10.1063/1.3606549 .

[9] Hudelist, F.; Kong, Jia; Liu, Cunjin; Jing, Jietai; Ou, Z.Y.; Zhang, Weiping (May 2014). "Quantum metrology with parametric amplifier-based photon correlation interferometers". Nature Communications. 5 (1): 3049. Bibcode:2014NatCo...5.3049H. doi:10.1038/ncomms4049. PMC 3916837 . PMID 24476950.

[10] Gupta, Prasoon; Schmittberger, Bonnie L.; Anderson, Brian E.; Jones, Kevin M.; Lett, Paul D. (8 January 2018). "Optimized phase sensing in a truncated SU(1,1) interferometer". Optics Express. 26 (1): 391–401. arXiv: 1802.04314 . Bibcode:2018OExpr..26..391G. doi:10.1364/OE.26.000391. PMID 29328316. S2CID 25337227.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]