Application of quantum inequalities to quantum optics

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 66, Issue 5, 2002, Pages

  Marecki, Piotr ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CALCULATIONS; ELECTRIC FIELDS; FOURIER TRANSFORMS; GROUND STATE; INTEGRAL EQUATIONS; LIGHT POLARIZATION; PHOTONS; PROBABILITY;

BALANCED HOMODYNE DETECTOR; ELECTRIC FIELD FLUCTUATION; QUANTUM INEQUALITY; QUANTUM-FIELD THEORY;

QUANTUM OPTICS;

EID: 4243829389     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. †(k)|Ω>, where for simplicity the polarization was disregarded.
2. L. Ford, Phys. Rev. D 43, 3972 (1991).
3. C.J. Fewster and E. Teo, Phys. Rev. D 59, 104016 (1999).
4. R. Verch, J. Math. Phys. 41, 206 (2000).
5. M.J. Pfenning, Phys. Rev. A 65, 024009 (2002).
6. C.J. Fewster and R. Verch, Commun. Math. Phys. 225, 331 (2002).
7. Ling-An Wu, H.J. Kimble, J.L. Hall, and Huifa Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 2520 (1986).
8. G. Breitenbach, F. Illuminati, S. Schiller, and J. Mlynek, Europhys. Lett. 44, 192 (1998).
9. This surprising conclusion is absolute certain, as the squeezed states even allowed for spectroscopic measurements [22] that exhibit spectral lines narrower than the natural line width.
10. K. Schneider, M. Land, J. Mlynek, and S. Schiller, Opt. Express 4, 59 (1998).
11. A connection between negative-energy densities and the squeezed states has already been mentioned in a popular article by L. Ford and T. Raman [23].
12. 2(x) is not an operator-valued distribution.
13. 0-xy.
14. 0→0 the sensitivity function becomes the δ distribution δ(t).
15. 0→0 for arbitrary time-probe functions. Indeed this would be equivalent to givig a meaning to the square root of the δ distribution which, however, we fear of.
16. H.P. Yuen and V.W. Chan, Opt. Lett. 8, 177 (1983).
17. K.S. Zhang, T. Coudreau, M. Martinelli, A. Maitre, and C. Fabre, Phys. Rev. A 64, 033815 (2001).
18. If the local oscillator were e.g., pulsed [24,25] than θ would move (delay) the pulse back and forth in time further strenghthening our interpretation.
19. C.W. Gardiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1917 (1986).
20. In the calculation one first splits the expressions into two equal parts and than performs ω→-ω in one of the parts, which after subsequent exchange p↔k allows to stretch the ω integration to the whole ℝ.
21. 0. This assumption allows us to derive explicit result but is by no means necessary.
22. E.S. Polzik, J. Carri, and H.J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3020 (1992).
23. L. Ford and T. Raman, Scientific American, January 2000, p. 30.
24. H. Hansen, T. Aichele, C. Hettich, P. Lodahl, A.I. Lvovsky, J. Mlynek, and S. Schiller, Opt. Lett. 26, 1430 (2001).
25. D.F. McAlister and M.G. Raymer, Phys. Rev. A 55, R1609 (1997).