Detection of coherent superpositions of phase states by full counting statistics in a Bose Josephson junction

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 80, Issue 4, 2009, Pages

  Ferrini, G ^a   Minguzzi, A ^a   Hekking, F W J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ JOSEPH FOURIER   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

JOSEPHSON JUNCTION DEVICES; QUANTUM OPTICS; SUPERCONDUCTING FILMS;

COHERENT SUPERPOSITIONS; DOUBLE-WELL POTENTIAL; FULL COUNTING STATISTICS; JOSEPHSON-JUNCTION; PHASE CONTENT; REPEATED MEASUREMENTS; TIME EVOLUTIONS; TOMOGRAPHIC RECONSTRUCTION;

POPULATION STATISTICS;

EID: 70350607985     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.80.043628     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. W. H. Zurek, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 715 (2003). 10.1103/RevModPhys.75.715
2. D. Leibfried, Nature (London) 438, 639 (2005). 10.1038/nature04251
3. S. Deleglise, Nature (London) 455, 510 (2008). 10.1038/nature07288
4. F. T. Arecchi, Phys. Rev. A 6, 2211 (1972). 10.1103/PhysRevA.6.2211
5. B. Yurke and D. Stoler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 13 (1986). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.57.13
6. M. Albiez, R. Gati, J. Folling, S. Hunsmann, M. Cristiani, and M. K. Oberthaler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 010402 (2005) 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.010402
7. Y. Shin, G. B. Jo, M. Saba, T. A. Pasquini, W. Ketterle, and D. E. Pritchard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 170402 (2005) 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.170402
8. S. Levy, Nature (London) 449, 579 (2007). 10.1038/nature06186
9. M. Greiner, Nature (London) 419, 51 (2002). 10.1038/nature00968
10. G. Ferrini, A. Minguzzi, and F. W. J. Hekking, Phys. Rev. A 78, 023606 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.023606
11. W. M. Zhang, D. H. Feng, and R. Gilmore, Rev. Mod. Phys. 62, 867 (1990). 10.1103/RevModPhys.62.867
12. S. Haroche and J. M. Raymond, Exploring the Quantum (Oxford Graduate Texts, Oxford, 2006).
13. F. Piazza, L. Pezzé, and A. Smerzi, Phys. Rev. A 78, 051601 (R) (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevA.78.051601
14. L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 180402 (2001). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.180402
15. L. E. Reichl, A Modern Course in Statistical Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984).
16. B. C. Sanders, Phys. Rev. A 40, 2417 (1989). 10.1103/PhysRevA.40.2417
17. F. Natterer, The Mathematics of Computerized Tomography (Wiley, Chichester, 1986).
18. K. Vogel and H. Risken, Phys. Rev. A 40, 2847 (1989). 10.1103/PhysRevA.40.2847
19. S. M. Chumakov, A. Frank, and K. B. Wolf, Phys. Rev. A 60, 1817 (1999). 10.1103/PhysRevA.60.1817
20. In typical experiments the system is destroyed after a measurement of J r. Therefore, one should model the process by a positive operator valued measure (POVM) rather than by a projective measurement [M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000)]. However, here we are only interested in the outcomes r. These are predicted to be the same for both POVM and projective measurement, even if the latter does not describe properly the state of the system after the measurement.
21. T. Kim, O. Pfister, M. J. Holland, J. Noh, and J. L. Hall, Phys. Rev. A 57, 4004 (1998). 10.1103/PhysRevA.57.4004
22. Y. P. Huang and M. G. Moore, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 250406 (2008). 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.250406
23. T. Haigh, A. Ferris, and M. Olsen, e-print arXiv:0907.1333.