Generalized constraints on quantum amplification

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 93, Issue 25, 2004, Pages

  Gavish, U ^a   Yurke, B ^b   Imry, Y ^c  

^a ECOLE NORMALE SUPÉRIEURE   (France)

^b LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES   (United States)

^c WEIZMANN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANONICAL VARIABLES; FERMION CURRENTS; HEISENBERG OPERATORS; QUANTUM CONSTRAINTS;

AMPLIFICATION; BANDWIDTH; FERMIONS; LASERS; LIGHT AMPLIFIERS; MAGNETOELECTRIC EFFECTS; MATHEMATICAL OPERATORS; MATHEMATICAL TRANSFORMATIONS; NATURAL FREQUENCIES; SIGNAL PROCESSING; SPURIOUS SIGNAL NOISE;

QUANTUM THEORY;

EID: 42749099844     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.250601     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. K. Shimoda et al., J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 12, 686 (1957).
2. H. Heffner and G. Wade, J. Appl. Phys. 29, 1262 (1958).
3. W. H. Louisell et al., Phys. Rev. 124, 1646 (1961).
4. H. A. Haus and S. A. Mullen, Phys. Rev. 128, 2407 (1962).
5. H. Takahasi, Advances in Communication Systems, edited by A. V. Balakrishnan (Academic, New York, 1965).
6. C. M. Caves et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 52, 341 (1980).
7. C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. D 26, 1817 (1982).
8. See, e.g., M. H. Devoret and R. J. Schoelkopf, Nature (London) 406, 1039 (2000), and references therein.
9. D. V. Averin, cond-mat/0301524.
10. A. A. Clerk et al., Phys. Rev. B 67, 165324 (2003).
11. A. A. Clerk, Phys. Rev. B 70, 245306 (2004).
12. B. Yurke and J. S. Denker, Phys. Rev. A 29, 1419 (1984).
13. H. P. Yuen, Phys. Rev. A 13, 2226 (1976).
14. J. N. Hollenhorst, Phys. Rev. D 19, 1669 (1979).
15. For example, W. Louisell, Radiation and Noise in Quantum Electronics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964), Sec. 4.3.
16. See, e.g., Sec. II in [12].
17. The Norton equivalent is a representation of an output-port of a system that could be arbitrarily complex inside and could contain power sources such as batteries. The system could thus be out of equilibrium, in which case the current source of the Norton equivalent need not have equilibrium noise statistics. See, e.g., Sec. V in [12].
18. R. Kubo, Can. J. Phys. 34, 1274 (1956); J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 12, 570 (1957).
19. R. Kubo, Can. J. Phys. 34, 1274 (1956); J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 12, 570 (1957).
20. L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Statistical Physics Part 1 (Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, 1997), 3rd ed., Sec. 126.
21. U. Gavish, Y. Levinson, and Y. Imry, in Proceedings of Recontres de Moriond 2001: Electronic Correlations: from Meso- to Nanophysics, T. Martin et al. (EDPScience, Les Arcs, 2001).
22. U. Gavish, Y. Imry, and B. Yurke, in Fluctuations and Noise in Materials, edited by D. Popovic et al., Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. Vol. 5449 (SPIE-International Society for Optical Engineering, Bellingham, WA, 2004), p. 257.
23. In fact, the Kubo formula holds even for a broader class of states. See D. Cohen, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 283, 175 (2000).
24. Under non-impedance-matched conditions the analysis is more complicated since some of the input-port backaction noise is returned to the amplifier and delivered to the output port and thus cannot be ignored. Moreover, in practice, correlations exist between input-port and output-port noise, requiring noise matching rather than impedance matching to achieve full performances.
25. U. Gavish et al., cond-mat/0407544.