Home | About Journal | Web Links | E-mail Alerts | RSS RSS Icon | Browse

Quantum-state preparation and macroscopic entanglement in gravitational-wave detectors

Source: Phys. Rev. A 80, 043802 (2009); doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.80.043802

Published 2 October 2009

KEYWORDS and PACS
Keywords
PACS
  • 42.50.Dv
    Quantum state engineering and measurements (quantum optics)
  • 42.50.Xa
    Optical tests of quantum theory
  • 42.50.Lc
    Quantum fluctuations, quantum noise, and quantum jumps (quantum optics)
  • 03.65.Ta
    Foundations of quantum mechanics; measurement theory
  • YEAR: 2009
RELATED DATABASES

To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.
To view database links for this article,
you need to log in.
PUBLICATION DATA
Publisher:
AIP is a member of CrossRef APS
Helge Müller-Ebhardt,1 Henning Rehbein,1 Chao Li,2 Yasushi Mino,2 Kentaro Somiya,3 Roman Schnabel,1 Karsten Danzmann,1 and Yanbei Chen2,3
1Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik (Albert-Einstein-Institut), Institut für Gravitationsphysik, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Callinstr. 38, 30167 Hannover, Germany
2California Institute of Technology, M/C 130-33, Pasadena, California 91125, USA
3Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik (Albert-Einstein-Institut), Am Mühlenberg 1, 14476 Potsdam, Germany
Long-baseline laser-interferometer gravitational-wave (GW) detectors are operating at a factor of ~10 (in amplitude) above the standard quantum limit (SQL) within a broad frequency band (in the sense that Deltaf~f). Such a low-noise budget has already allowed the creation of a controlled 2.7 kg macroscopic oscillator with an effective eigenfrequency of 150 Hz and an occupation number of ~200. This result, along with the prospect for further improvements, heralds the possibility of experimentally probing macroscopic quantum mechanics (MQM)—quantum mechanical behavior of objects in the realm of everyday experience—using GW detectors. In this paper, we provide the mathematical foundation for the first step of a MQM experiment: the preparation of a macroscopic test mass into a nearly minimum-Heisenberg-limited Gaussian quantum state, which is possible if the interferometer's classical noise beats the SQL in a broad frequency band. Our formalism, based on Wiener filtering, allows a straightforward conversion from the noise budget of a laser interferometer, in terms of noise spectra, into the strategy for quantum-state preparation and the quality of the prepared state. Using this formalism, we consider how Gaussian entanglement can be built among two macroscopic test masses and the performance of the planned Advanced LIGO interferometers in quantum-state preparation. ©2009 The American Physical Society
History: Received 28 February 2009; published 2 October 2009
Permalink: http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRA/v80/e043802

REFERENCES (68)

For access to fully linked references, you need to log in. For access to fully linked references, you need to Log in.
  1. M. Ando and The TAMA Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3950 (2001).
  2. C. M. Caves, K. S. Thorne, R. W. Drever, V. D. Sandberg, and M. Zimmermann, Rev. Mod. Phys. 52, 341 (1980).
  3. H. J. Kimble, Y. Levin, A. B. Matsko, K. S. Thorne, and S. P. Vyatchanin, Phys. Rev. D 65, 022002 (2001).
  4. J.-M. Courty, A. Heidmann, and M. Pinard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 083601 (2003).
  5. P. Purdue, Phys. Rev. D 66, 022001 (2002).
  6. P. Purdue and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 66, 122004 (2002).
  7. Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 67, 122004 (2003).
  8. J. Harms, Y. Chen, S. Chelkowski, A. Franzen, H. Vahlbruch, K. Danzmann, and R. Schnabel, Phys. Rev. D 68, 042001 (2003).
  9. S. L. Danilishin, Phys. Rev. D 69, 102003 (2004).
  10. A. Buonanno and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 69, 102004 (2004).
  11. T. Corbitt, N. Mavalvala, and S. E. Whitcomb, Phys. Rev. D 70, 022002 (2004).
  12. S. L. Danilishin and F. Y. Khalili, Phys. Rev. D 73, 022002 (2006).
  13. F. Y. Khalili, Phys. Rev. D 76, 102002 (2007).
  14. F. Y. Khalili, Phys. Rev. D 77, 062003 (2008).
  15. H. Rehbein, H. Müller-Ebhardt, K. Somiya, C. Li, R. Schnabel, K. Danzmann, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 76, 062002 (2007).
  16. H. Rehbein, H. Müller-Ebhardt, K. Somiya, S. L. Danilishin, R. Schnabel, K. Danzmann, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 78, 062003 (2008).
  17. M. Bondarescu and K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D 74, 082003 (2006).
  18. M. Evans, S. Ballmer, M. Fejer, P. Fritschel, G. Harry, and G. Ogin, Phys. Rev. D 78, 102003 (2008).
  19. H. J. Kimble, B. L. Lev, and J. Ye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 260602 (2008).
  20. P. F. Cohadon, A. Heidmann, and M. Pinard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3174 (1999).
  21. T. Corbitt, C. Wipf, T. Bodiya, D. Ottaway, D. Sigg, N. Smith, S. Whitcomb, and N. Mavalvala, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 160801 (2007).
  22. M. Poggio, C. L. Degen, H. J. Mamin, and D. Rugar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 017201 (2007).
  23. C. M. Mow-Lowry, A. J. Mullavey, S. Gossler, M. B. Gray, and D. E. McClelland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 010801 (2008).
  24. A. Vinante et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 033601 (2008).
  25. S. Mancini, D. Vitali, and P. Tombesi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 688 (1998).
  26. T. Corbitt, Y. Chen, E. Innerhofer, H. Müller-Ebhardt, D. Ottaway, H. Rehbein, D. Sigg, S. Whitcomb, C. Wipf, and N. Mavalvala, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 150802 (2007).
  27. A. C. Doherty, S. M. Tan, A. S. Parkins, and D. F. Walls, Phys. Rev. A 60, 2380 (1999).
  28. A. Hopkins, K. Jacobs, S. Habib, and K. Schwab, Phys. Rev. B 68, 235328 (2003).
  29. A. Buonanno and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 65, 042001 (2002).
  30. H. Müller-Ebhardt, H. Rehbein, R. Schnabel, K. Danzmann, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 013601 (2008).
  31. C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. D 23, 1693 (1981).
  32. W. P. Bowen, R. Schnabel, P. K. Lam, and T. C. Ralph, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 043601 (2003).
  33. G. Vidal and R. F. Werner, Phys. Rev. A 65, 032314 (2002).
  34. A. F. Pace, M. J. Collett, and D. F. Walls, Phys. Rev. A 47, 3173 (1993).
  35. A. Buonanno and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 64, 042006 (2001).
  36. A. Buonanno and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 67, 062002 (2003).
  37. W. H. Zurek, S. Habib, and J. P. Paz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1187 (1993).
ADVERTISEMENT