Quantum metrology: dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

27
Quantum metrology: dynamics vs. entanglement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh, 2009 March 16 I. Ramsey interferometry and cat states II. Quantum information perspective III.Beyond the Heisenberg limit IV. Two-component BECs Appendix. Quantum metrology and resources Carlton M. Caves University of New Mexico http://info.phys.unm.edu/~caves Quantum circuits in this presentation were set using the LaTeX package Qcircuit, developed at the University of New Mexico by Bryan Eastin and Steve Flammia. The package is available at http://info.phys.unm.edu/Qcircuit/ .

description

Quantum metrology: dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16 Ramsey interferometry and cat states Quantum information perspective Beyond the Heisenberg limit Two-component BECs Appendix. Quantum metrology and resources Carlton M. Caves - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Quantum metrology: dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

Page 1: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

Quantum metrology: dynamics vs. entanglement

APS March MeetingPittsburgh, 2009 March 16

I. Ramsey interferometry and cat states

II. Quantum information perspectiveIII. Beyond the Heisenberg limit

IV. Two-component BECs

Appendix. Quantum metrology and resources

Carlton M. CavesUniversity of New Mexico

http://info.phys.unm.edu/~cavesQuantum circuits in this presentation were set using the LaTeX package Qcircuit, developed at the University of New Mexico by

Bryan Eastin and Steve Flammia. The package is available at http://info.phys.unm.edu/Qcircuit/ .

Page 2: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

Herod’s Gate/King David’s PeakWalls of Jerusalem NP

Tasmania

I. Ramsey interferometry and cat states

Page 3: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

Ramsey interferometry

N independent “atoms”

Frequency measurementTime measurementClock synchronizationShot-noise limit

Page 4: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

Cat-state Ramsey interferometry

J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, and D. J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A 54, R4649 (1996).

Fringe pattern with period 2π/N

N cat-state atoms

It’s the entanglement, stupid.

Heisenberg limit

Page 5: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

II. Quantum information perspective

Cable BeachWestern Australia

Page 6: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

Heisenberg limit

Quantum information version of

interferometryShot-noise

limit

cat stateN = 3

Fringe pattern with period 2π/N

Page 7: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

Cat-state interferometer

Single-parameter estimation

State preparation Measurement

Page 8: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

Heisenberg limit

S. L. Braunstein, C. M. Caves, and G. J. Milburn, Ann. Phys. 247, 135 (1996).V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, PRL 96, 041401 (2006).

Generalized uncertainty principle

(Cramér-Rao bound)

Separable inputs

Page 9: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

Achieving the Heisenberg limit

cat state

Page 10: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

Is it entanglement?

It’s the entanglement, stupid.

But what about?

We need a generalized notion of entanglement that includes information about the physical situation, particularly the relevant Hamiltonian.

Page 11: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

III. Beyond the Heisenberg limit

Echidna Gorge Bungle Bungle Range

Western Australia

Page 12: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

Beyond the Heisenberg limitThe purpose of theorems in

physics is to lay out the assumptions clearly so one

can discover which assumptions have to be

violated.

Page 13: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

Improving the scaling with N

S. Boixo, S. T. Flammia, C. M. Caves, and JM Geremia, PRL 98, 090401 (2007).

Metrologically relevant k-body

coupling

Cat state does the job. Nonlinear Ramsey interferometry

Page 14: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

Improving the scaling with N without entanglement

S. Boixo, A. Datta, S. T. Flammia, A. Shaji, E. Bagan, and C. M. Caves, PRA 77, 012317 (2008).

Productinput

Productmeasurement

Page 15: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

S. Boixo, A. Datta, S. T. Flammia, A. Shaji, E. Bagan, and C. M. Caves, PRA 77, 012317 (2008); M. J. Woolley, G. J. Milburn, and C. M. Caves, arXiv:0804.4540 [quant-ph].

Improving the scaling with N without entanglement. Two-body couplings

Page 16: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

Improving the scaling with N without entanglement. Two-body couplings

S. Boixo, A. Datta, M. J. Davis, S. T. Flammia, A. Shaji, and C. M. Caves, PRL 101, 040403 (2008).

Super-Heisenberg scaling from nonlinear dynamics, without any

particle entanglement

Scaling robust against decoherence

Page 17: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

Pecos WildernessSangre de Cristo RangeNorthern New Mexico

IV. Two-component BECs

Page 18: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

Two-component BECs

Page 19: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

Two-component BECs

Different spatial wave functions

J. E. Williams, PhD dissertation, University of Colorado, 1999.

Page 20: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

Two-component BECs

Different spatial wave functions

Renormalization of scattering strengths

Let’s start over.

Page 21: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

Two-component BECs

Renormalization of scattering strengths

Different spatial wave functions

Page 22: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

Two-component BECs

Two-body elastic losses

Imprecise determination of N

? Perhaps ?With hard, low-dimensional trap

Page 23: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

Cape HauyTasman Peninsula

Appendix. Quantum metrology and resources

Page 24: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

Making quantum limits relevant

The serial resource, T, and the parallel resource, N, are

equivalent and interchangeable, mathematically.

The serial resource, T, and the parallel resource, N, are

not equivalent and not interchangeable, physically.

Information science perspective

Platform independence

Physics perspectiveDistinctions between different

physical systems

Page 25: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

Making quantum limits relevant. One metrology story

A. Shaji and C. M. Caves, PRA 76, 032111 (2007).

Page 26: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

One metrology story

Page 27: Quantum metrology:  dynamics vs. entang lement APS March Meeting Pittsburgh , 2009 March 16

One metrology story