Adaptive Homodyne Measurement of Optical Phase

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 89, Issue 13, 2002, Pages

  Armen, Michael A ^a   Au, John K ^a   Stockton, John K ^a   Doherty, Andrew C ^a   Mabuchi, Hideo ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DECODING; ENCODING (SYMBOLS); HETERODYNING; INTERFEROMETERS; LASER PULSES; OPTICAL BEAM SPLITTERS; OPTICAL COMMUNICATION; OPTICAL VARIABLES MEASUREMENT; PHOTOCURRENTS; PHOTONS;

ADPATIVE HOMODYNE MEASUREMENT;

QUANTUM OPTICS;

EID: 0037163796     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: 10797114     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.133602     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. K. Schneider et al, Opt. Express 2, 59 (1998).
2. See special issue of Phys. Scr. T48 (1993).
3. U. Leonhardt et al, Phys. Rev. A10.1103/PhysRevA.51.84 51, 84 (1995).
4. H.M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. Lett.10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.4587 75, 4587 (1995).
5. C.M. Caves and P.D. Drummond, Rev. Mod.Phys.10.1103/RevModPhys.66.481 66, 481 (1994).
6. Y. Yamamoto et al, in Progress in Optics, edited by E. Wolf (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990), Vol.�28, p.�150.
7. For pulses with mean photon number (Formula presented), an ideal adaptive measurement would lie within 1% of the uncertainty limit. Accounting for technical noise, the varianceof the adaptive measurement could at best lie a factor of 2 belowthe noise-corrected heterodyne curve.
8. H.M. Wiseman and R.B. Killip, Phys. Rev. A10.1103/PhysRevA.57.2169 57, 2169 (1998).
9. J.K. Stockton, M. Armen, and H. Mabuchi, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B (to be published).
10. D.W. Berry and H.M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev.A 63, 013813 (2001).
11. A.C. Doherty et al, Phys. Rev. A 62, 012105 (2000).
12. C. Ahn, A.C. Doherty, and A. Landahl, Phys. Rev. A10.1103/PhysRevA.65.042301, 65, 042301 (2002).
13. W.P. Smith et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 133601 (2002).
14. H. Mabuchi and H.M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. Lett.10.1103/PhysRevLett.81.4620 81, 4620 (1998).