* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download PDF
Quantum group wikipedia , lookup
Quantum computing wikipedia , lookup
Path integral formulation wikipedia , lookup
Bohr–Einstein debates wikipedia , lookup
Quantum machine learning wikipedia , lookup
EPR paradox wikipedia , lookup
Bell test experiments wikipedia , lookup
History of quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Interpretations of quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Density matrix wikipedia , lookup
Boson sampling wikipedia , lookup
Quantum state wikipedia , lookup
Bell's theorem wikipedia , lookup
Double-slit experiment wikipedia , lookup
Hidden variable theory wikipedia , lookup
Probability amplitude wikipedia , lookup
Wheeler's delayed choice experiment wikipedia , lookup
Wave–particle duality wikipedia , lookup
Quantum teleportation wikipedia , lookup
Canonical quantization wikipedia , lookup
Quantum electrodynamics wikipedia , lookup
Coherent states wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia , lookup
X-ray fluorescence wikipedia , lookup
Quantum key distribution wikipedia , lookup
Quantum entanglement wikipedia , lookup
Quantum positioning system V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd∗ , and L. Maccone Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Research Laboratory of Electronics ∗ Department of Mechanical Engineering MIT 3-160, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. Abstract: We show how quantum entanglement and squeezing can be employed in measuring a position in space, gaining an accuracy increase over classical localization procedures. We develop a positioning protocol based on frequency-entanglement of number-squeezed pulses, which may be used also for synchronizing the clocks of distant parties, and show how the accuracy increase scales with the system resources and how it compares with analogous, but classical, protocols. c 2004 Optical Society of America OCIS codes: (030.1670) Coherent optical effects; (270.6570) Squeezed states Quantum entanglement and squeezing have been exploited in the context of interferometry, frequency measurements, lithography, and algorithms (see for example Refs. [1]) in order to beat classical limitations. In this paper, we show that entanglement and squeezing can also be used to increase the accuracy of positioning measurements. Typically, such measurements can be performed by sending M pulses (each composed of N photons in average) from the party that is to be localized to M receiving stations and measuring their times of arrival. We will show that, √by using entangled-squeezed light, it is possible to obtain an accuracy enhancement of M N over the classical case. A detailed derivation of the methods described here can be found in [2]. Consider the frequency-entangled state Z |Ψi ≡ dω φω |Nω i1 |Nω i2 · · · |Nω iM , (1) where φω is a spectral envelope function, and |Nω ii is the N -photons Fock state (number squeezed) of frequency ω, directed towards the i-th receiving station. In the case of ideal detectors, the probability to detect all the photons is given by [3] * M N + Y Y (−) (+) p({ti,k }) ∝ : Ei (ti,k )Ei (ti,k ) : , (2) i=1 k=1 where ti,k is the detection time of the k-th photon at the i-th receiving station. In R (−) Eq. (2), the signal field at the i-th detector position is Ei (t) ≡ dω a†i (ω) eiωt and † (+) (−) Ei ≡ Ei , where ai (ω) is the field annihilator of a quantum of frequency ω. The calculation of this probability with the state |Ψi yields !2 M X N X (3) p({ti,k }) ∝ g ti,k , i=1 k=1 where g(t) is the Fourier transform of φω . The uncertainty ∆t in the mean time of arrival hti = M N 1 XX ti,k M N i=1 k=1 (4) can be immediately obtained from Eq. (3), resulting in ∆t = ∆τ , MN (5) where ∆τ 2 is the variance of the distribution g(t). This result must be compared to what one would obtain in the classical case where one employs M unentangled pulses each in a coherent state with N average photons. For a fair comparison with the state |Ψi, we must consider the situation in which all the photons are described by the same bandwidth function φω of Eq. (1). In this case, because of the Poissonian statistics, the times of arrival of each photon are independent. One can thus apply the central limit theorem, obtaining an accuracy ∆τ ∆t & √ , MN (6) where, by using Eq. (2), it is possible to show that time of arrival uncertainty of the single photon ∆τ is the same as in Eq. (5). The comparison between (5) and (6) shows that entanglement and number-squeezing can increase the accuracy of the mean time √ of arrival (and hence of positioning) by a factor M N . Using experimental techniques analogous as the ones described in [4], at least the simple case of M = 2 detectors and N = 1 photons per pulse can be implemented in practice. Assuming that the distance between different parties is known, the same protocol can also be employed to enhance the accuracy of the synchronization of their clocks. Namely, they have to exchange entangled and squeezed pulses while measuring the pulses transit times. In addition to the difficulty of creating the requisite entanglement, the primary drawback of this scheme is the sensitivity to loss. However, for this same reason, the procedure exhibits improved security: because the timing information resides in the correlations between pulses, an eavesdropper who intercepts some but not all of the photons obtains no timing information. Finally, the frequency entanglement allows similar schemes to be highly robust against pulse broadening due to transit through dispersive media as experimentally shown in [5]. Since dispersion is one of the main limiting factors in employing classical narrow pulses, this is a very attractive characteristic for practical applications. This work was funded by the ARDA, NRO, and by ARO under a MURI program. References and links 1. C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. D 23, 1693 (1981); R. S. Bondurant and J. H. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D 30, 2548 (1984); B. Yurke, S. L. McCall, and J. R. Klauder, Phys. Rev. A 33, 4033 (1986); J. J. Bollinger, et al., Phys. Rev. A 54, R4649 (1996); A. N. Boto, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2733 (2000); L. K. Grover, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 325 (1997). 2. V. Giovannetti, S. Lloyd, and L. Maccone, Nature 412, 417 (2001), Eprint quant-ph/0103006. 3. R. J. Glauber, Phys. Rev. 130, 2529 (1963). 4. C. K. Hong, Z. Y. Ou, and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2044 (1987). 5. A. M. Steinberg, P. G. Kwiat, and R. Y. Chiao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2421 (1992).