Toward Heisenberg-limited spectroscopy with multiparticle entangled states

Science

Volumn 304, Issue 5676, 2004, Pages 1476-1478

  Leibfried, D ^a   Barrett, M D ^a,b   Schaetz, T ^a   Britton, J ^a   Chiaverini, J ^a   Itano, W M ^a   Jost, J D ^a   Langer, C ^a   Wineland, D J ^a  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC NOISE; BERYLLIUM; PRECISION BALANCES; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SPECTROSCOPIC ANALYSIS;

HEISENBERG UNCERTAINITY; HEISENBERG-LIMITED SPECTROSCOPY; MULTIPARTICLE ENTANGLED STATES;

QUANTUM THEORY;

BERYLLIUM;

SPECTROSCOPY;

ACCURACY; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; ENERGY; NOISE; PARTICULATE MATTER; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTUM THEORY; SPECTROSCOPY; TIME;

EID: 2642531066     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1097576     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. N. F. Ramsey. Molecular Beams (Oxford Univ. Press, London, 1956).
2. W. M. Itano et al., Phys. Rev. A. 47, 3554 (1993).
3. D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A. 50, 67 (1994).
4. W. Heisenberg, Z. Phys. 43, 172 (1927).
5. J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, D. J. Wineland, D. J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A. 54, R4649 (1996).
6. B. Yurke, S. L. McCall, J. R. Klauder, Phys. Rev. A. 33, 4033 (1986).
7. D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, F. L. Moore, D. J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A. 46, R6797 (1992).
8. M. Kitagawa, M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. A. 47, 5138 (1993).
9. A. Kuzmich, K. Mølmer, E. S. Polzik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4782 (1997).
10. K. Mølmer, A. Soøensen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1835 (1999).
11. J. Hald, J. L. Sørensen, C. Schori, E. S. Polzik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1319 (1999).
12. G. J. Milburn, S. Schneider, D. F. V. James, in Scalable Quantum Computers, S. L. Braunstein, H. K. Lo, P. Kok, Eds. (Wiley-VCH, Berlin, 2001), pp. 31-40.
13. V. Meyer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5870 (2001).
14. J. M. Geremia, J. K. Stockton, H. Mabuchi, Science 304, 270 (2004).
15. X. Wang, A. Sørensen, K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3907 (2001).
16. D. Leibfried et al., Nature 422, 412 (2003).
17. M. J. Holland, K. Burnett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1355 (1993).
18. P. Bouyer, M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. A. 56, R1083 (1997).
19. D. H. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, A. Zeilinger, Am. J. Phys. 58, 1131 (1990).
20. C. A. Sackett et al., Nature 404, 256 (2000).
21. A. Steane, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 452, 2551 (1996).
22. H. G. Dehmelt, IEEE Trans. Inst. Meas. 31, 83 (1982).
23. M. A. Rowe et al., Quantum Inf. Comput. 2, 2S7 (2002).
24. B. E. King et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1525 (1998).
25. O.
26. D. J. Wineland et al., Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. A 361, 1349 (2003).
27. i is the optical dipole force on state |i〉. For the experiments here, F↓ = -2F↑.
28. S. F. Huelga et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3865 (1997).
29. D. J. Wineland et al. J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 103, 259 (1998).
30. A. Andre, A. S. Sorensen, M. D. Lukin, preprint available at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0401130.
31. Dipole-force phase gates have the disadvantage that they can be ineffective when, for example, implemented on magnetic field-insensitive hyperfine transitions.
32. Supported by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and Advanced Research and Development Activity (ARDA) and by NIST. We thank J. Bollinger and E. Knill. for comments on the manuscript. This paper is a contribution by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and not subject to U.S. copyright.