Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 667

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Conversion of conventional gravitational-wave interferometers into quantum nondemolition interferometers by modifying their input and/or output optics

Open access
Kimble, H. J., Levin, Yuri, Matsko, Andrey B., Thorne, Kip S., Vyatchanin, Sergey P.·2001·Physical Review D
DOI 10.1103/physrevd.65.022002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The LIGO-II gravitational-wave interferometers (ca. 2006--2008) are designed to have sensitivities near the standard quantum limit (SQL) in the vicinity of 100 Hz. This paper describes and analyzes possible designs for subsequent LIGO-III interferometers that can beat the SQL. These designs are identical to a conventional broad band interferometer (without signal recycling), except for new input and/or output optics. Three designs are analyzed: (i) a squeezed-input interferometer (conceived by Unruh based on earlier work of Caves) in which squeezed vacuum with frequency-dependent (FD) squeeze angle is injected into the interferometer's dark port; (ii) a variational-output interferometer (conceived in a different form by Vyatchanin, Matsko and Zubova), in which homodyne detection with FD homodyne phase is performed on the output light; and (iii) a squeezed-variational interferometer with squeezed input and FD-homodyne output. It is shown that the FD squeezed-input light can be produced by sending ordinary squeezed light through two successive Fabry-P\'erot filter cavities before injection into the interferometer, and FD-homodyne detection can be achieved by sending the output light through two filter cavities before ordinary homodyne detection. With anticipated technology (power squeeze factor ${e}^{\ensuremath{-}2R}=0.1$ for input squeezed vacuum and net fractional loss of signal power in arm cavities and output optical train ${\ensuremath{\epsilon}}_{*}=0.01)$ and using an input laser power ${I}_{o}$ in units of that required to reach the SQL (the planned LIGO-II power, ${I}_{\mathrm{SQL}}),$ the three types of interferometer could beat the amplitude SQL at 100 Hz by the following amounts $\ensuremath{\mu}\ensuremath{\equiv}\sqrt{{S}_{h}}/\sqrt{{S}_{h}^{\mathrm{SQL}}}$ and with the following corresponding increase $\mathcal{V}=1/{\ensuremath{\mu}}^{3}$ in the volume of the universe that can be searched for a given noncosmological source: $\mathrm{Squeezed}\mathrm{input}---\ensuremath{\mu}\ensuremath{\simeq}\sqrt{{e}^{\ensuremath{-}2R}}\ensuremath{\simeq}0.3$ and $\mathcal{V}\ensuremath{\simeq}{1/0.3}^{3}\ensuremath{\simeq}30$ using ${I}_{o}{/I}_{\mathrm{SQL}}=1.$ $Variational\ensuremath{-}output---\ensuremath{\mu}\ensuremath{\simeq}{\ensuremath{\epsilon}}_{*}^{1/4}\ensuremath{\simeq}0.3$ and $\mathcal{V}\ensuremath{\simeq}30$ but only if the optics can handle a ten times larger power: ${I}_{o}{/I}_{\mathrm{SQL}}\ensuremath{\simeq}1/\sqrt{{\ensuremath{\epsilon}}_{*}}=10.$ $\mathrm{Squeezed}\mathrm{varational}---\ensuremath{\mu}{=1.3(e}^{\ensuremath{-}2R}{\ensuremath{\epsilon}}_{*}{)}^{1/4}\ensuremath{\simeq}0.24$ and $\mathcal{V}\ensuremath{\simeq}80$ using ${I}_{o}{/I}_{\mathrm{SQL}}=1;$ and $\ensuremath{\mu}\ensuremath{\simeq}{(e}^{\ensuremath{-}2R}{\ensuremath{\epsilon}}_{*}{)}^{1/4}\ensuremath{\simeq}0.18$ and $\mathcal{V}\ensuremath{\simeq}180$ using ${I}_{o}{/I}_{\mathrm{SQL}}=\sqrt{{e}^{\ensuremath{-}2R}/{\ensuremath{\epsilon}}_{*}}\ensuremath{\simeq}3.2.$

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevd.65.022002

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 667

Metadata

Authors
Kimble, H. J., Levin, Y., Matsko, A. B., Thorne, K. S., & Vyatchanin, S. P.
Venue
Physical Review D
Publisher
American Physical Society (APS)
Published
2001-12-26
Volume
65
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
  • 1089-4918
DOI
10.1103/physrevd.65.022002
OpenAlex
W2103682879
Cited by
667
References
30
FWCI
9.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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.