4.6 Article

An optomechanical platform for quantum hypothesis testing for collapse models

Journal

NEW JOURNAL OF PHYSICS
Volume 23, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/abec0d

Keywords

quantum hypothesis testing; quantum optomechanics; collapse models

Funding

  1. EU [766900]
  2. MSCA project pERFEcTO [795782]
  3. European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Action [862644]
  4. DfE-SFI Investigator Programme [15/IA/2864]
  5. Royal Society Wolfson Research Fellowship [RSWF\R3\183013]
  6. Leverhulme Trust Research Project Grant [RGP-2018-266]
  7. UK EPSRC [EP/T028106/1]
  8. COST Action [CA15220]
  9. Royal Society International Exchanges Programme [IEC\R2\192220]
  10. EPSRC [EP/T028106/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Quantum hypothesis testing applied to optomechanical systems reveals advantages in discriminating competing hypothesis, particularly in utilizing input squeezed optical noise and feasible measurement schemes on output cavity modes. This provides an advantage over classical schemes and offers possibilities for fundamental physics searches, especially in discriminating models of spontaneous collapse of the wavefunction.
Quantum hypothesis testing has shown the advantages that quantum resources can offer in the discrimination of competing hypothesis. Here, we apply this framework to optomechanical systems and fundamental physics questions. In particular, we focus on an optomechanical system composed of two cavities employed to perform quantum channel discrimination. We show that input squeezed optical noise, and feasible measurement schemes on the output cavity modes, allow to obtain an advantage with respect to any comparable classical schemes. We apply these results to the discrimination of models of spontaneous collapse of the wavefunction, highlighting the possibilities offered by this scheme for fundamental physics searches.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available