The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Squeezed states in phase-sensing interferometers
Abstract
The performance of phase-sensing interferometers employing squeezed states and homodyne detection is analyzed and compared to the performance of systems employing direct detection. Standard differenced direct-detection Michelson and Mach-Zehnder interferometers are shown to be suboptimal in the sense that an observation/measurement-noise coupling occurs, which can degrade performance. Homodyne-detection interferometers in which the phase shift in one arm is the conjugate of that in the other arm do not suffer from the preceding drawback. Overall, however, the performance of differenced direct-detection and homodyne-detection interferometers is similar in single-frequency operation. In particular, both detection schemes reach the standard quantum limit on position-measurement sensitivity in single-frequency interferometric gravity-wave detectors at roughly the same average photon number. This limit arises from back action in the form of radiation pressure fluctuations entering through the energy-phase uncertainty principle. Multifrequency devices can circumvent this uncertainty principle, as illustrated by the conceptual design given for a two-frequency interferometer which can greatly surpass the standard quantum limit on position sensing. This configuration assumes that ideal photodetectors respond to photon flux rather than energy flux.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Quantum-mechanical noise in an interferometer
Caves, C. M. (1981) · Physical Review D · doi:10.1103/physrevd.23.1693 · Cited by 3,202
Cited by
Observation of Squeezed States Generated by Four-Wave Mixing in an Optical Cavity
Slusher, R. E., Hollberg, L. W., Yurke, B., Mertz, J. C., & Valley, J. F. (1985) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.55.2409 · Cited by 1,905
SU(2) and SU(1,1) interferometers
Yurke, B., McCall, S. L., & Klauder, J. R. (1986) · Physical Review A · doi:10.1103/physreva.33.4033 · Cited by 1,366
Flow regimes in a circular Couette system with independently rotating cylinders
Andereck, C. D., Liu, S. S., & Swinney, H. L. (1986) · Journal of Fluid Mechanics · doi:10.1017/s0022112086002513 · Cited by 1,202
Interferometric detection of optical phase shifts at the Heisenberg limit
Holland, M. J., & Burnett, K. (1993) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.71.1355 · Cited by 868
Quantum metrology from a quantum information science perspective
Tóth, G., & Apellaniz, I. (2014) · Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical · doi:10.1088/1751-8113/47/42/424006 · Cited by 862
Metadata
- Authors
- Bondurant, R. S., & Shapiro, J. H.
- Venue
- Physical Review D
- Publisher
- American Physical Society (APS)
- Published
- 1984-12-15
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2548-2556
- ISSN
- 0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1986076284
- Cited by
- 298
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 19.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.