4.8 Article

Reduced spin measurement back-action for a phase sensitivity ten times beyond the standard quantum limit

期刊

NATURE PHOTONICS
卷 8, 期 9, 页码 731-736

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/NPHOTON.2014.151

关键词

-

资金

  1. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Quantum Assisted Sensing and Readout project (DARPA QuASAR)
  2. Army Research Office (ARO)
  3. National Science Foundation Physics Frontier Center (NSF PFC)
  4. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
  5. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (NSF GRF)
  6. National Defense Science and Engineering Fellowship (NDSEG)
  7. National Science Foundation [1125844]
  8. Division Of Physics
  9. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1125844] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fundamental quantum noise limits the precision of quantum-based detectors, for example limiting the ultimate precision of atomic clocks, which have applications in communication, navigation and tests of fundamental physics. Collective measurements of many quantum spins can project the ensemble into an entangled, spin-squeezed state with improved quantum-limited measurement resolution. However, measurement back-action has limited previous implementations of collective measurements to only modest observed enhancements in precision. Here, we experimentally demonstrate a collective measurement with reduced measurement back-action to produce and directly observe, with no background subtraction, a spin-squeezed state with phase resolution improved by a factor of 10.5(1.5) in variance, or 10.2(6) dB, compared to the initially unentangled ensemble of N=4.8x10(5) Rb-87 atoms. The measurement uses a cavity-enhanced probe of an optical cycling transition, mitigating back-action associated with state-changing transitions induced by the probe. This work establishes collective measurements as a powerful technique for generating useful entanglement for precision measurements.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据