Postselected weak measurement beyond the weak value

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 81, Issue 4, 2010, Pages

  Geszti, Tamás ^a  

^a EÖTVÖS LORÁND UNIVERSITY   (Hungary)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GAUSSIAN PARTICLES; NON-ORTHOGONALITY; PHASE-CONTRAST MICROSCOPY; PRE-SELECTION; QUANTUM MEASUREMENT; SIGNAL AMPLIFICATIONS; WEAK MEASUREMENTS; WEAK VALUES;

AMPLIFICATION; SIGNAL PROCESSING;

MEASUREMENTS;

EID: 77950832137     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.81.044102     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Y. Aharonov, D. Z. Albert, and L. Vaidman, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.60.1351 60, 1351 (1988). For a recent detailed discussion, see the last three chapters in
2. Y. Aharonov and D. Rohrlich, Quantum Paradoxes (Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2005); a most recent brief review is that of
3. S. Popescu, Physics PRLTAO 1943-2879 10.1103/Physics.2.32 2, 32 (2009).
4. M. V. Berry, in Quantum Coherence and Reality: In Celebration of the 60th Birthday of Yakir Aharonov, edited by, J. S. Anandan, and, J. L. Safko, (World Scientific, Singapore, 1994), p. 55.
5. N. W. M. Ritchie, J. G. Story, and R. G. Hulet, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.66.1107 66, 1107 (1991).
6. G. J. Pryde, J. L. O'Brien, A. G. White, T. C. Ralph, and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.220405 94, 220405 (2005).
7. One may find it somewhat strange that it is the two unitary steps which are usually called "Von Neumann measurements."
8. Detectors being big, what we have in mind here is a detector with a narrow slit in front, scanning together along z, or a high-resolution detector array.
9. O. Hosten and P. Kwiat, Science SCIEAS 0036-8075 10.1126/science.1152697 319, 787 (2008).
10. P. B. Dixon, D. J. Starling, A. N. Jordan, and J. C. Howell, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.173601 102, 173601 (2009).
11. It is worth mentioning that signal amplification through postselection is a genuine experimental advantage; to achieve the same enhancement of accuracy by more extensive data acquisition might require an unrealistic level of temporal stability of the measuring apparatus.
12. This is a clear case for "latent coherence," the term having been apparently first used in physics by D. M. Greenberger and A. YaSin, Found. Phys. FNDPA4 0015-9018 10.1007/BF00731905 19, 679 (1988).
13. More than a mathematical accident, there is a general algebraic reason behind this result: step Eq. (5) contains two complementary projections in the spin subspace, adding up to unity even if squared.
14. This has been already noticed by Y. Aharonov and A. Botero, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.72.052111 72, 052111 (2005), who carry on their analysis in terms of the interesting concept of "quantum averages of weak values."
15. This also indicates that measurement of z and postselection in ξ are interchangeable (L. Diósi, private communication). The nontrivial point about it is that the relative phases carried by the spin amplitudes and rendered visible by postselection, being the same for each z, are not lost upon measuring z.
16. With the factors i in Eq. (14), our definition of Δ coincides with that of Hosten and Kwiat [7].
17. L. Vaidman (private communication).
18. F. Zernike, Physica PHYSAG 0031-8914 10.1016/S0031-8914(42)80035-X 9, 686 (1942);
19. F. Zernike, Physica PHYSAG 0031-8914 10.1016/S0031-8914(42)80079-8 9, 974 (1942).
20. Alternatively, that phase difference can be interpreted in terms of a geometrical phase; see S. Tamate, H. Kobayashi, T. Nakanishi, K. Sugiyama, and M. Kitano, New J. Phys. NJOPFM 1367-2630 10.1088/1367-2630/11/9/093025 11, 093025 (2009).
21. B. Yurke and D. Stoler, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.57.13 57, 13 (1986);
22. C. Monroe, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, and D. J. Wineland, Science SCIEAS 0036-8075 10.1126/science.272.5265.1131 272, 1131 (1996);
23. M. Brune, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.4887 77, 4887 (1996).
24. Another related emblematic postselection protocol, the "quantum eraser," first proposed by M. O. Scully and K. Drühl, Phys. Rev. A PLRAAN 1050-2947 10.1103/PhysRevA.25.2208 25, 2208 (1982), acts just the opposite way. To adapt the idea to the present case, destructive interference is first made latent by spin labeling and then recovered by projecting spins onto uniform, that is, nonlabeling basis states.
25. T. Geszti (unpublished).
26. For a recent review, see K. Jacobs and D. A. Steck, Contemp. Phys. CTPHAF 0010-7514 10.1080/00107510601101934 47, 279 (2006).
27. The combination of unsharp quantum measurement and sharp postselection is analyzed in detail by L. Diósi, in Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics, edited by, J.-P. Françoise, G. L. Naber, and, S. T. Tsou, (Elsevier, Oxford, 2006), Vol. 4, p. 276.
28. N. S. Williams and A. N. Jordan, Phys. Rev. Lett. PRLTAO 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.026804 100, 026804 (2008);
29. A. Romito, Y. Gefen, and Y. M. Blanter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 0031-9007 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.056801 100, 056801 (2008).