4.7 Article

Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometry on a biphoton beat note

期刊

NPJ QUANTUM INFORMATION
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s41534-019-0161-z

关键词

-

资金

  1. H2020 European Programme [801060 Q-MIC]
  2. Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) Projects-Agentur fur Luft-und Raumfahrt (FFG-ALR) [6238191, 866025]
  3. European Space Agency (ESA) [4000112591/14/NL/US]
  4. Austrian Academy of Sciences
  5. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017YFA0303700]
  6. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61771236, 11690030, 11690032]
  7. China Scholarship Council (CSC)
  8. program B for Outstanding PhD candidate of Nanjing University
  9. Fraunhofer Internal Programs [Attract 066-604178]
  10. Fundacio Cellex
  11. Government of Spain through the Severo Ochoa Programme for Centres of Excellence in RD [SEV-2015-0522]
  12. Generalitat de Catalunya under the program ICREA Academia
  13. Generalitat de Catalunya under the program CERCA
  14. Programme EMPIR [17FUN01 BeCOMe]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hong-Ou-Mandel interference, the fact that identical photons that arrive simultaneously on different input ports of a beam splitter bunch into a common output port, can be used to measure optical delays between different paths. It is generally assumed that great precision in the measurement requires that photons contain many frequencies, i.e., a large bandwidth. Here we challenge this well-known assumption and show that the use of two well-separated frequencies embedded in a quantum entangled state (discrete color entanglement) suffices to achieve great precision. We determine optimum working points using a Fisher Information analysis and demonstrate the experimental feasibility of this approach by detecting thermally-induced delays in an optical fiber. These results may significantly facilitate the use of quantum interference for quantum sensing, by avoiding some stringent conditions such as the requirement for large bandwidth signals.

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

4.7
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