A.A. Clerk,
1
M.H. Devoret,
2
S.M. Girvin,
3
Florian Marquardt,
4
and R.J. Schoelkopf
2
1
Department of Physics, McGill University, 3600 rue University
Montreal, QC Canada H3A 2T8
2
Department of Applied Physics, Yale University
PO Box 208284, New Haven, CT 065208284
3
Department of Physics, Yale University
PO Box 208120, New Haven, CT 065208120
4
Department of Physics, Center for NanoScience, and Arnold Sommerfeld Center for Theoretical Physics,
LudwigMaximiliansUniversitat M unchen
Theresienstr. 37, D80333 M unchen, Germany
(Dated: April 15, 2010)
The topic of quantum noise has become extremely timely due to the rise of quantum informa
tion physics and the resulting interchange of ideas between the condensed matter and atomic,
molecular, opticalquantum optics communities. This review gives a pedagogical introduction to
the physics of quantum noise and its connections to quantum measurement and quantum ampli
cation. After introducing quantum noise spectra and methods for their detection, the basics of
weak continuous measurements are described. Particular attention is given to the treatment of
the standard quantum limit on linear ampliers and position detectors within a general linear
response framework. This approach is shown how it relates to the standard HausCaves quantum
limit for a bosonic amplier known in quantum optics and its application to the case of electrical
circuits is illustrated, including mesoscopic detectors and resonant cavity detectors.
Contents
I. Introduction 2
II. Quantum Noise Spectra 6
A. Introduction to quantum noise 6
B. Quantum spectrum analyzers 7
III. Quantum Measurements 9
A. Weak continuous measurements 10
B. Measurement with a parametrically coupled resonant
cavity 11
1. QND measurement of the state of a qubit using a
resonant cavity 13
2. Quantum limit relation for QND qubit state
detection 15
3. Measurement of oscillator position using a
resonant cavity 16
IV. General Linear Response Theory 19
A. Quantum constraints on noise 19
1. Heuristic weakmeasurement noise constraints 20
2. Generic linearresponse detector 21
3. Quantum constraint on noise 22
4. Evading the detector quantum noise inequality 24
B. Quantum limit on QND detection of a qubit 24
V. Quantum Limit on Linear Ampliers and
Position Detectors 25
A. Preliminaries on amplication 26
B. Standard HausCaves derivation of the quantum
limit on a bosonic amplier 27
C. Nondegenerate parametric amplier 28
1. Gain and added noise 28
2. Bandwidthgain tradeo 29
3. Eective temperature 30
dtf(t)e
it
(Note that for operators, we use the convention
f
[] =
_
dt
(t)e
it
, implying
f
[] =
_
f[]
_
)
SFF [] Classical noise spectral density or power spectrum: SFF [] =
_
+
dt e
it
F(t)F(0))
SFF [] Quantum noise spectral density: SFF [] =
_
+
dt e
it
F(t)
F(0))
dt e
it

F(t),
F(0))
AB(t) General linear response susceptibility describing the response of A to a perturbation which couples to B;
in the quantum case, given by the Kubo formula AB(t) =
i
(t)[
A(t),
B(0)]) [Eq. (2.14)]
A Coupling constant (dimensionless) between measured system and detector/amplier,
e.g.
V = AF(t) x,
V = A x
F, or
V = Ac z a
a
M, Mass and angular frequency of a mechanical harmonic oscillator.
xZPF Zero point uncertainty of a mechanical oscillator, xZPF =
_
2M
.
0 Intrinsic damping rate of a mechanical oscillator due to coupling to a bath via
V = A x
F :
0 =
A
2
2M
(SFF [] SFF []) [Eq. (2.12)]
c Resonant frequency of a cavity
, Qc Damping, quality factor of a cavity: Qc = c/
Sec. II Quantum noise spectra
T
e
[] Eective temperature at a frequency for a given quantum noise spectrum, dened via
S
FF
[]
S
FF
[]
= exp
_
k
B
T
eff
[]
_
[Eq. (2.8)]
Fluctuationdissipation theorem relating the symmetrized noise spectrum to the dissipative part
for an equilibrium bath:
SFF [] =
1
2
coth(
2k
B
T
)(SFF [] SFF []) [Eq. (2.16)]
Sec. III Quantum Measurements
Numberphase uncertainty relation for a coherent state:
N
1
2
[Eq. (3.6), (G12)]
=
1
4
[Eq. (3.8), (G21)]
S
0
xx
() symmetrized spectral density of zeropoint position uctuations of a damped harmonic oscillator
Sxx,tot() total output noise spectral density (symmetrized) of a linear position detector, referred back to the oscillator
S
xx,add
() added noise spectral density (symmetrized) of a linear position detector, referred back to the oscillator
Sec. IV: General linear response theory
5
TABLE I: Table of symbols and main results.
Symbol Denition / Result
x Input signal
SII[]
SFF []
SIF []
IF
[]
2
2
_
1 +
_
S
IF
[]
[]/2
__
[Eq. (4.11)]
where IF [] IF [] [FI[]]
and [z] = (
1 +z
2
_
1 +[z[
2
_
)/2.
[Note: 1 + [z] 0 and = 0 in most cases of relevance, see discussion around Eq. (4.17)]
Complex proportionality constant characterizing a quantumideal detector:
[[
2
=
SII/
S
II
[]
S
FF
[]
[Eqs. (4.18,I17)]
meas Measurement rate (for a QND qubit measurement) [Eq. 4.24]
Dephasing rate (due to measurement backaction) [Eqs. (3.27),(4.19)]
Constraint on weak, continuous QND qubit state detection :
=
meas
1 [Eq. (4.25)]
Sec. V: Quantum Limit on Linear Ampliers and Position Detectors
G Photon number (power) gain, e.g. in Eq. (5.7)
Inputoutput relation for a bosonic scattering amplier:
b
G a
+
T
[Eq.(5.7)]
(a)
2
Symmetrized eld operator uncertainty for the scattering description of a bosonic amplier:
(a)
2
1
2
_
 a, a
_
[a)[
2
Standard quantum limit for the noise added by a phasepreserving bosonic scattering amplier
in the highgain limit, G 1, where (a)
2
)ZPF =
1
2
:
(b)
2
G
(a)
2
+
1
2
[Eq. (5.10)]
GP [] Dimensionless power gain of a linear position detector or voltage amplier
(maximum ratio of the power delivered by the detector output to a load, vs. the power fed into signal source):
GP [] =

IF
[]
2
4Im
FF
[]Im
II
[]]
[Eq. (5.52)]
For a quantumideal detector, in the highgain limit: GP
_
Im

4k
B
T
eff
_
2
[Eq. (5.57)]
0
+[A
opt
]
=
Im
G
P
[]
=
4k
B
T
eff
1 [Eq. (5.69)]
Standard quantum limit for the added noise spectral density of a linear position detector (valid at each frequency ):
S
xx,add
[] limT0 Sxx,eq[w, T] [Eq. (5.62)]
Eective increase in oscillator temperature due to coupling to the detector backaction,
for an ideal detector, with /kB T
bath
T
e
:
Tosc
T
eff
+
0
T
bath
+
0
4k
B
+T
bath
[Eq. (5.70)]
Zin, Zout Input and output impedances of a linear voltage amplier
Zs Impedance of signal source attached to input of a voltage amplier
V Voltage gain of a linear voltage amplier
Va(
V
b
) Voltage at the input (output) of the amplier
Relation to bosonic mode operators: Eq. (6.2a)
Ia(
I
b
) Current drawn at the input (leaving the output) of the amplier
6
TABLE I: Table of symbols and main results.
Symbol Denition / Result
Relation to bosonic mode operators: Eq. (6.2b)
I
Reverse current gain of the amplier
s[] Inputoutput 2 2 scattering matrix of the amplier [Eq. (6.3)]
Relation to opamp parameters V ,
I
, Zin, Zout: Eqs. (6.7)
V (
Ta[],
T
b
[] Input (output) port noise operators in the scattering description [Eq. (6.3)]
Relation to opamp noise operators
V,
I: Eq. (6.9)
II. QUANTUM NOISE SPECTRA
A. Introduction to quantum noise
In classical physics, the study of a noisy time
dependent quantity invariably involves its spectral den
sity o[]. The spectral density tells us the intensity of
the noise at a given frequency, and is directly related to
the autocorrelation function of the noise.
2
In a similar
fashion, the study of quantum noise involves quantum
noise spectral densities. These are dened in a manner
which mimics the classical case:
S
xx
[] =
_
+
dt e
it
x(t) x(0). (2.1)
Here x is a quantum operator (in the Heisenberg rep
resentation) whose noise we are interested in, and the
angular brackets indicate the quantum statistical aver
age evaluated using the quantum density matrix. Note
that we will use o[] throughout this review to denote
the spectral density of a classical noise, while S[] will
denote a quantum noise spectral density.
As a simple introductory example illustrating impor
tant dierences from the classical limit, consider the po
sition noise of a simple harmonic oscillator having mass
M and frequency . The oscillator is maintained in equi
librium with a large heat bath at temperature T via some
innitesimal coupling which we will ignore in considering
the dynamics. The solutions of the Heisenberg equations
of motion are the same as for the classical case but with
the initial position x and momentum p replaced by the
corresponding quantum operators. It follows that the
position autocorrelation function is
G
xx
(t) = x(t) x(0) (2.2)
= x(0) x(0) cos(t) + p(0) x(0)
1
M
sin(t).
Classically the second term on the RHS vanishes be
cause in thermal equilibrium x and p are uncorrelated
random variables. As we will see shortly below for the
quantum case, the symmetrized (sometimes called the
2
For readers unfamiliar with the basics of classical noise, a com
pact review is given in Appendix A.
classical) correlator vanishes in thermal equilibrium,
just as it does classically: x p + p x = 0. Note how
ever that in the quantum case, the canonical commu
tation relation between position and momentum implies
there must be some correlations between the two, namely
x(0) p(0) p(0) x(0) = i. These correlations are easily
evaluated by writing x and p in terms of harmonic oscil
lator ladder operators. We nd that in thermal equilib
rium: p(0) x(0) = i
2
and x(0) p(0) = +i
2
. Not only
are the position and momentum correlated, but their cor
relator is imaginary!
3
This means that, despite the fact
that the position is an hermitian observable with real
eigenvalues, its autocorrelation function is complex and
given from Eq. (2.2) by:
G
xx
(t) = x
2
ZPF
_
n
B
()e
+it
+ [n
B
() + 1]e
it
_
,
(2.3)
where x
2
ZPF
/2M is the RMS zeropoint uncer
tainty of x in the quantum ground state, and n
B
is the
BoseEinstein occupation factor. The complex nature of
the autocorrelation function follows from the fact that
the operator x does not commute with itself at dierent
times.
Because the correlator is complex it follows that the
spectral density is not symmetric in frequency:
S
xx
[] = 2x
2
ZPF
(2.4)
n
B
()( + ) + [n
B
() + 1]( )
In contrast, a classical autocorrelation function is always
real, and hence a classical noise spectral density is always
symmetric in frequency. Note that in the high tempera
ture limit k
B
T we have n
B
() n
B
() + 1
kBT
V = A
F
x
, (2.5)
where A is a coupling constant, and the operator
F rep
resents the external noise source. The coupling Hamil
tonian
V can lead to the exchange of energy between
the twolevel system and noise source, and hence tran
sitions between its two eigenstates. The corresponding
Fermi Golden Rule transition rates can be compactly ex
pressed in terms of the quantum noise spectral density of
F, S
FF
[]:
=
A
2
2
S
FF
[
01
] (2.6a)
=
A
2
2
S
FF
[+
01
]. (2.6b)
Here,
= e
01
, where = 1/k
B
T.
This in turn implies that in thermal equilibrium, the
quantum noise spectral density must satisfy:
S
FF
[+
01
] = e
01
S
FF
[
01
]. (2.7)
The more general situation is where the noise source is
not in thermal equilibrium; in this case, no general de
tailed balance relation holds. However, if we are con
cerned only with a single particular frequency, then it is
always possible to dene an eective temperature T
e
for the noise using Eq. (2.7), i.e.
k
B
T
e
[]
log
_
S
FF
[]
S
FF
[]
_ (2.8)
8
Note that for a nonequilibrium system, T
e
will in gen
eral be frequencydependent. In NMR language, T
e
will
simply be the spin temperature of our TLS spectrom
eter once it reaches steady state after being coupled to
the noise source.
Another simple quantum noise spectrometer is a har
monic oscillator (frequency , mass M, position x) cou
pled to a noise source (see e.g. Dykman (1978); Schwinger
(1961)). The coupling Hamiltonian is now:
V = A x
F = A
_
x
ZPF
( a + a
F (2.9)
where a is the oscillator annihilation operator,
F is the
operator describing the uctuating noise, and A is again
a coupling constant. We see that (A
2
(S
FF
[] S
FF
[]) (2.12)
The two terms in Eq. (2.10) describe, respectively, heat
ing and damping of the oscillator by the noise source.
The heating eect of the noise is completely analogous to
what happens classically: a random force causes the os
cillators momentum to diuse, which in turn causes E
to grow linearly in time at rate proportional to the force
noise spectral density. In the quantum case, Eq. (2.11)
indicates that it is the symmetricinfrequency part of the
noise spectrum ,
S
FF
[], which is responsible for this ef
fect, and which thus plays the role of a classical noise
source. This is another reason why
S
FF
[] is often re
ferred to as the classical part of the noise.
4
In contrast,
we see that the asymmetricinfrequency part of the noise
4
Note that with our denition,
F
2
=
(d/2)
S
FF
[]. It is
common in engineering contexts to dene socalled onesided
classical spectral densities, which are equal to two times our def
inition.
spectrum is responsible for the damping. This also has a
simple heuristic interpretation: damping is caused by the
net tendency of the noise source to absorb, rather than
emit, energy from the oscillator.
The damping induced by the noise source may equiv
alently be attributed to the oscillators motion inducing
an average value to F which is outofphase with x,
i.e. A F(t) = M x(t). Standard quantum linear
response theory yields:
A
F(t) = A
2
_
dt
FF
(t t
) x(t
) (2.13)
where we have introduced the susceptibility
FF
(t) =
i
(t)
_
[
F(t),
F(0)]
_
(2.14)
Using the fact that the oscillators motion only involves
the frequency , we thus have:
=
2A
2
x
2
ZPF
[Im
FF
[]] (2.15)
A straightforward manipulation of Eq. (2.14) for
FF
shows that this expression for is exactly equivalent to
our previous expression, Eq. (2.12).
In addition to giving insight on the meaning of the sym
metric and asymmetric parts of a quantum noise spec
tral density, the above example also directly yields the
quantum version of the uctuationdissipation theorem
(Callen and Welton, 1951). As we saw earlier, if our noise
source is in thermal equilibrium, the positive and nega
tive frequency parts of the noise spectrum are strictly
related to one another by the condition of detailed bal
ance (cf. Eq. (2.7)). This in turn lets us link the classical,
symmetricinfrequency part of the noise to the damping
(i.e. the asymmetricinfrequency part of the noise). Let
ting = 1/(k
B
T) and making use of Eq. (2.7), we have:
S
FF
[]
S
FF
[] +S
FF
[]
2
=
1
2
coth(/2) (S
FF
[] S
FF
[])
= coth(/2)
M
A
2
[] (2.16)
Thus, in equilibrium, the condition that noiseinduced
transitions obey detailed balance immediately implies
that noise and damping are related to one another via the
temperature. For T , we recover the more familiar
classical version of the uctuation dissipation theorem:
A
2
S
FF
[] = 2k
B
TM (2.17)
Further insight into the uctuation dissipation theorem
is provided in Appendix C.3, where we discuss it in the
simple but instructive context of a transmission line ter
minated by an impedance Z[].
We have thus considered two simple examples of how
one can measure quantum noise spectral densities. Fur
ther details, as well as examples of other quantum noise
spectrum analyzers, are given in Appendix B.
9
III. QUANTUM MEASUREMENTS
Having introduced both quantum noise and quantum
spectrum analyzers, we are now in a position to intro
duce the general topic of quantum measurements. All
practical measurements are aected by noise. Certain
quantum measurements remain limited by quantum noise
even though they use completely ideal apparatus. As we
will see, the limiting noise here is associated with the fact
that canonically conjugate variables are incompatible ob
servables in quantum mechanics.
The simplest, idealized description of a quantum mea
surement, introduced by von Neumann (Bohm, 1989;
Haroche and Raimond, 2006; von Neumann, 1932;
Wheeler and Zurek, 1984), postulates that the mea
surement process instantaneously collapses the systems
quantum state onto one of the eigenstates of the observ
able to be measured. As a consequence, any initial super
position of these eigenstates is destroyed and the values
of observables conjugate to the measured observable are
perturbed. This perturbation is an intrinsic feature of
quantum mechanics and cannot be avoided in any mea
surement scheme, be it of the projectiontype described
by von Neumann or rather a weak, continuous measure
ment to be analyzed further below.
To form a more concrete picture of quantum measure
ment, we begin by noting that every quantum measure
ment apparatus consists of a macroscopic pointer cou
pled to the microscopic system to be measured. (A spe
cic model is discussed in Allahverdyan et al. (2001).)
This pointer is suciently macroscopic that its position
can be read out classically. The interaction between the
microscopic system and the pointer is arranged so that
the two become strongly correlated. One of the simplest
possible examples of a quantum measurement is that of
the SternGerlach apparatus which measures the projec
tion of the spin of an S = 1/2 atom along some chosen
direction. What is really measured in the experiment is
the nal position of the atom on the detector plate. How
ever, the magnetic eld gradient in the magnet causes
this position to be perfectly correlated (entangled) with
the spin projection so that the latter can be inferred from
the former. Suppose for example that the initial state of
the atom is a product of a spatial wave function
0
(r)
centered on the entrance to the magnet, and a spin state
which is the superposition of up and down spins corre
sponding to the eigenstate of
x
:
[
0
=
1
2
[ +[ [
0
. (3.1)
After passing through a magnet with eld gradient in the
z direction, an atom with spin up is deected upwards
and an atom with spin down is deected downwards. By
the linearity of quantum mechanics, an atom in a spin
superposition state thus ends up in a superposition of
the form
[
1
=
1
2
[ [
+
+[ [
, (3.2)
+d
z z
FIG. 2 (Color online) Schematic illustration of position dis
tributions of an atom in the detector plane of a SternGerlach
apparatus whose eld gradient is in the z direction. For small
values of the displacement d (described in the text), there is
signicant overlap of the distributions and the spin cannot be
unambiguously inferred from the position. For large values of
d the spin is perfectly entangled with position and can be in
ferred from the position. This is the limit of strong projective
measurement.
where r[
=
1
(r d z) are spatial orbitals peaked in
the plane of the detector. The deection d is determined
by the device geometry and the magnetic eld gradient.
The zdirection position distribution of the particle for
each spin component is shown in Fig. 2. If d is su
ciently large compared to the wave packet spread then,
given the position of the particle, one can unambiguously
determine the distribution from which it came and hence
the value of the spin projection of the atom. This is the
limit of a strong projective measurement.
In the initial state one has
0
[
x
[
0
= +1, but in
the nal state one has
1
[
x
[
1
=
1
2
[
+
+
+
[
(3.3)
For suciently large d the states
1
[
x
[
1
0. (3.4)
This is what we mean by projection or wave function col
lapse. The result of measurement of the atom position
will yield a random and unpredictable value of
1
2
for the
z projection of the spin. This destruction of the coher
ence in the transverse spin components by a strong mea
surement of the longitudinal spin component is the rst of
many examples we will see of the Heisenberg uncertainty
principle in action. Measurement of one variable destroys
information about its conjugate variable. We will study
several examples in which we understand microscopically
how it is that the coupling to the measurement appara
tus causes the backaction quantum noise which destroys
our knowledge of the conjugate variable.
In the special case where the eigenstates of the observ
able we are measuring are also stationary states (i.e. en
ergy eigenstates), measuring the observable a second time
would reproduce exactly the same measurement result,
thus providing a way to conrm the accuracy of the mea
surement scheme. These optimal kinds of repeatable mea
surements are called Quantum NonDemolition (QND)
measurements (Braginsky and Khalili, 1992, 1996; Bra
ginsky et al., 1980; Peres, 1993). A simple example would
be a sequential pair of SternGerlach devices oriented in
10
the same direction. In the absence of stray magnetic
perturbations, the second apparatus would always yield
the same answer as the rst. In practice, one terms a
measurement QND if the observable being measured is
an eigenstate of the ideal Hamiltonian of the measured
system (i.e. one ignores any couplings between this sys
tem and sources of dissipation). This is reasonable if
such couplings give rise to dynamics on timescales longer
than what is needed to complete the measurement. This
point is elaborated in Sec. VII, where we discuss prac
tical considerations related to the quantum limit. We
also discuss in that section the fact that the repeatabil
ity of QND measurements is of fundamental practical im
portance in overcoming detector ineciencies (Gambetta
et al., 2007).
A common confusion is to think that a QND measure
ment has no eect on the state of the system being mea
sured. While this is true if the initial state is an eigen
state of the observable, it is not true in general. Consider
again our example of a spin oriented in the x direction.
The result of the rst
z
measurement will be that the
state randomly and completely unpredictably collapses
onto one of the two
z
eigenstates: the state is indeed al
tered by the measurement. However all subsequent mea
surements using the same orientation for the detectors
will always agree with the result of the rst measure
ment. Thus QND measurements may aect the state of
the system, but never the value of the observable (once it
is determined). Other examples of QND measurements
include: (i) measuring the electromagnetic eld energy
stored inside a cavity by determining the radiation pres
sure exerted on a moving piston (Braginsky and Khalili,
1992), (ii) detecting the presence of a photon in a cav
ity by its eect on the phase of an atoms superposition
state (Haroche and Raimond, 2006; Nogues et al., 1999),
and (iii) the dispersive measurement of a qubit state
by its eect on the frequency of a driven microwave res
onator (Blais et al., 2004; Lupascu et al., 2007; Wallra
et al., 2004), which is the rst canonical example we will
describe below.
In contrast to the above, in nonQND measurements,
the backaction of the measurement will aect the ob
servable being studied. The canonical example we will
consider below is the position measurement of a harmonic
oscillator. Since the position operator does not commute
with the Hamiltonian, the QND criterion is not fullled.
Other examples of nonQND measurements include: (i)
photon counting via photodetectors that absorb the pho
tons, (ii) continuous measurements where the observable
does not commute with the Hamiltonian, thus inducing
a timedependence of the measurement result, (iii) mea
surements that can be repeated only after a time longer
than the energy relaxation time of the system (e.g. for a
qubit, T
1
) .
A. Weak continuous measurements
In discussing real quantum measurements, another
key notion to introduce is that of weak, continuous mea
surements (Braginsky and Khalili, 1992). Many mea
surements in practice take an extended timeinterval to
complete, which is much longer than the microscopic
time scales (oscillation periods etc.) of the system. The
reason may be quite simply that the coupling strength
between the detector and the system cannot be made
arbitrarily large, and one has to wait for the eect of
the system on the detector to accumulate. For example,
in our SternGerlach measurement suppose that we are
only able to achieve small magnetic eld gradients and
that consequently, the displacement d cannot be made
large compared to the wave packet spread (see Fig. 2).
In this case the states
/t, where S
is the spectral
density of the white noise. Comparison with Eq. (3.5)
yields
S
=
1
4
N
. (3.7)
The results above lead us to the fundamental
wave/particle relation for ideal coherent beams
_
S
N
N
S
=
1
2
(3.8)
Before we study the role that these uncertainty rela
tions play in measurements with high Q cavities, let us
consider the simplest case of reecting light from a mir
ror without a cavity. The phase shift of the beam (hav
ing wave vector k) when the mirror moves a distance
x is 2kx. Thus, the uncertainty in the phase measure
ment corresponds to a position imprecision which can
again be represented in terms of a noise spectral density
S
I
xx
= S
/4k
2
. Here the superscript I refers to the fact
that this is noise representing imprecision in the mea
surement, not actual uctuations in the position. We
also need to worry about backaction: each photon hit
ting the mirror transfers a momentum 2k to the mirror,
so photon shot noise corresponds to a random backac
tion force noise spectral density S
FF
= 4
2
k
2
S
N
N
Mul
tiplying these together we have the central result for the
product of the backaction force noise and the imprecision
S
FF
S
I
xx
=
2
S
N
N
S
=
2
4
(3.9)
or in analogy with Eq. (3.6)
_
S
FF
S
I
xx
=
2
. (3.10)
Not surprisingly, the situation considered here is as ideal
as possible. Thus, the RHS above is actually a lower
bound on the product of imprecision and backaction
noise for any detector capable of signicant amplication;
we will prove this rigorously in Sec. IV.A. Eq. (3.10) thus
represents the quantumlimit on the noise of our detector.
As we will see shortly, having a detector with quantum
limited noise is a prerequisite for reaching the quantum
limit on various dierent measurement tasks (e.g. contin
uous position detection of an oscillator and QND qubit
state detection). Note that in general, a given detector
will have more noise than the quantumlimited value; we
will devote considerable eort in later sections to deter
mining the conditions needed to achieve the lower bound
of Eq. (3.10).
We now turn to the story of measurement using a high
Q cavity; it will be similar to the above discussion, except
that we have to account for the ltering of the noise by
the cavity response. We relegate relevant calculational
details related to Appendix E. The cavity is simply de
scribed as a single bosonic mode coupled weakly to elec
tromagnetic modes outside the cavity. The Hamiltonian
of the system is given by:
H = H
0
+
c
(1 +A z) a
a +
H
envt
. (3.11)
Here, H
0
is the unperturbed Hamiltonian of the system
whose variable z (which is not necessarily a position) is
being measured, a is the annihilation operator for the
cavity mode, and
c
is the cavity resonance frequency
in the absence of the coupling A. We will take both A
and z to be dimensionless. The term
H
envt
describes the
electromagnetic modes outside the cavity, and their cou
pling to the cavity; it is responsible for both driving and
damping the cavity mode. The damping is parameterized
by rate , which tells us how quickly energy leaks out of
the cavity; we consider the case of a high qualityfactor
cavity, where Q
c
c
/ 1.
Turning to the interaction term in Eq. (3.11), we see
that the parametric coupling strength A determines the
change in frequency of the cavity as the system variable
13
z changes. We will assume for simplicity that the dy
namics of z is slow compared to . In this limit the
reected phase shift simply varies slowly in time adia
batically following the instantaneous value of z. We will
also assume that the coupling A is small enough that the
phase shifts are always very small and hence the measure
ment is weak. Many photons will have to pass through
the cavity before much information is gained about the
value of the phase shift and hence the value of z.
We rst consider the case of a onesided cavity where
only one of the mirrors is semitransparent, the other
being perfectly reecting. In this case, a wave incident
on the cavity (say, in a onedimensional waveguide) will
be perfectly reected, but with a phase shift determined
by the cavity and the value of z. The reection coecient
at the bare cavity frequency
c
is simply given by (Walls
and Milburn, 1994)
r =
1 + 2iAQ
c
z
1 2iAQ
c
z
. (3.12)
Note that r has unit magnitude because all photons
which are incident are reected if the cavity is lossless.
For weak coupling we can write the reection phase shift
as r = e
i
, where
4Q
c
A z = (A
c
z)t
WD
(3.13)
We see that the scattering phase shift is simply the fre
quency shift caused by the parametric coupling multi
plied by the Wigner delay time (Wigner, 1955)
t
WD
= Im
ln r
= 4/. (3.14)
Thus the measurement imprecision noise power for a
given photon ux
N incident on the cavity is given by
S
I
zz
=
1
(A
c
t
WD
)
2
S
. (3.15)
The random part of the generalized backaction force con
jugate to z is from Eq. (3.11)
F
z
H
z
= A
c
n (3.16)
where, since z is dimensionless,
F
z
has units of energy.
Here n = n n = a
a a
t.
The mean photon number in the cavity is found to be
n =
Nt
WD
, where again
N the mean photon ux incident
on the cavity. From this it follows that
S
FzFz
= (A
c
t
WD
)
2
S
N
N
. (3.19)
Combining this with Eq. (3.15) again yields the same
result as Eq. (3.10) obtained without the cavity. The
parametric cavity detector (used in this way) is thus a
quantumlimited detector, meaning that the product of
its noise spectral densities achieves the ideal minimum
value.
We will now examine how the quantum limit on the
noise of our detector directly leads to quantum limits
on dierent measurement tasks. In particular, we will
consider the cases of continuous position detection and
QND qubit state measurement.
1. QND measurement of the state of a qubit using a resonant
cavity
Here we specialize to the case where the system oper
ator z =
z
represents the state of a spin1/2 quantum
bit. Eq. (3.11) becomes
H =
1
2
01
z
+
c
(1 +A
z
) a
a +
H
envt
(3.20)
We see that
z
commutes with all terms in the Hamilto
nian and is thus a constant of the motion (assuming that
H
envt
contains no qubit decay terms so that T
1
= ) and
hence the measurement will be QND. From Eq. (3.13) we
see that the two states of the qubit produce phase shifts
0
where
0
= A
c
t
WD
. (3.21)
As
0
1, it will take many reected photons before
we are able to determine the state of the qubit. This
is a direct consequence of the unavoidable photon shot
noise in the output of the detector, and is a basic feature
14
of weak measurements information on the input is only
acquired gradually in time.
Let I(t) be the homodyne signal for the wave reected
from the cavity integrated up to time t. Depending on the
state of the qubit the mean value of I will be I =
0
t,
and the RMS gaussian uctuations about the mean will
be I =
t (3.22)
which can be used to dene the measurement rate via
meas
SNR
2
=
2
0
2S
=
1
2S
I
zz
. (3.23)
There is a certain arbitrariness in the scale factor of 2
appearing in the denition of the measurement rate; this
particular choice is motivated by precise information the
oretic grounds (as dened,
meas
is the rate at which the
accessible information grows, c.f Appendix F).
While Eq. (3.20) makes it clear that the state of the
qubit modulates the cavity frequency, we can easily re
write this equation to show that this same interaction
term is also responsible for the backaction of the mea
surement (i.e. the disturbance of the qubit state by the
measurement process):
H =
2
_
01
+ 2A
c
a
a
_
z
+
c
a
a +
H
envt
(3.24)
We now see that the interaction can also be viewed as
providing a light shift (i.e. ac Stark shift) of the qubit
splitting frequency (Blais et al., 2004; Schuster et al.,
2005) which contains a constant part 2A nA
c
plus a ran
domly uctuating part
01
= 2
F
z
/ which depends on
n = a
e
i
_
=
_
e
i
t
0
d 01()
_
. (3.25)
For weak coupling the dephasing rate is slow and thus we
are interested in long times t. In this limit the integral
is a sum of a large number of statistically independent
terms and thus we can take the accumulated phase to be
gaussian distributed. Using the cumulant expansion we
then obtain
e
i
_
= exp
_
1
2
_
__
t
0
d
01
()
_
2
__
= exp
_
2
S
FzFz
t
_
. (3.26)
Note also that the noise correlator above is naturally
symmetrized the quantum asymmetry of the noise plays
no role for this type of coupling. Eq. (3.26) yields the de
phasing rate
=
2
2
S
FzFz
= 2
2
0
S
N
N
. (3.27)
Using Eqs. (3.23) and (3.27), we nd the interest
ing conclusion that the dephasing rate and measurement
rates coincide:
meas
=
4
2
S
I
zz
S
FzFz
= 4S
N
N
S
= 1. (3.28)
As we will see and prove rigorously, this represents the
ideal, quantumlimited case for QND qubit detection: the
best one can do is measure as quickly as one dephases. In
keeping with our earlier discussions, it represents the en
forcement of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The
faster you gain information about one variable, the faster
you lose information about the conjugate variable. Note
that in general, the ratio
/
meas
will be larger than
one, as an arbitrary detector will not reach the quantum
limit on its noise spectral densities. Such a nonideal
detector produces excess backaction beyond what is re
quired quantum mechanically.
In addition to the quantum noise point of view pre
sented above, there is a second complementary way in
which to understand the origin of measurement induced
dephasing (Stern et al., 1990) which is analogous to our
description of loss of transverse spin coherence in the
SternGerlach experiment in Eq. (3.3). The measurement
takes the incident wave, described by a coherent state
[, to a reected wave described by a (phase shifted)
coherent state [r
or [r
, where r
/
is the qubit
dependent reection amplitude given in Eq. (3.12). Con
sidering now the full state of the qubit plus detector,
measurement results in a state change:
1
2
_
[ +[
_
[
1
2
_
e
+i01t/2
[ [r
+ e
i01t/2
[ [r
_
(3.29)
As [r
, = [r
Tr
detector
[[ (3.30)
=
e
+i01t
2
r
[r
(3.31)
=
e
+i01t
2
exp
_
[[
2
_
1 r
_
(3.32)
In Eq. (3.31) we have used the usual expression for the
overlap of two coherent states. We see that the measure
ment reduces the magnitude of
: this is dephasing.
The amount of dephasing is directly related to the over
lap between the dierent detector states that result when
the qubit is up or down; this overlap can be straightfor
wardly found using Eq. (3.32) and [[
2
=
N =
Nt, where
exp
_
[[
2
_
1 r
= exp
_
2
N
2
0
exp [
t]
(3.33)
with the dephasing rate
= 2
2
0
N (3.34)
in complete agreement with the previous result in
Eq.(3.27).
2. Quantum limit relation for QND qubit state detection
We now return to the ideal quantum limit relation of
Eq. (3.28). As previously stated, this is a lower bound:
quantum mechanics enforces the constraint that in a
QND qubit measurement the best you can possibly do is
measure as quickly as you dephase (Averin, 2003, 2000b;
Clerk et al., 2003; Devoret and Schoelkopf, 2000; Ko
rotkov and Averin, 2001; Makhlin et al., 2001):
meas
(3.35)
While a detector with quantum limited noise has an
equality above, most detectors will be very far from this
ideal limit, and will dephase the qubit faster than they
acquire information about its state. We provide a proof of
Eq. (3.35) in Sec. IV.B; for now, we note that its heuris
tic origin rests on the fact that both measurement and
dephasing rely on the qubit becoming entangled with the
detector. Consider again Eq. (3.29), describing the evo
lution of the qubitdetector system when the qubit is ini
tially in a superposition of and . To say that we have
truly measured the qubit, the two detector states [r
and [r
= 0,
just as we saw in Eq. (3.4) in the SternGerlach example.
Thus, measurement implies dephasing. The opposite is
not true. The two states [r
and [r
could in princi
ple be orthogonal without them corresponding to dier
ent values of the detector output (i.e. ). For example,
the qubit may have become entangled with extraneous
microscopic degrees of freedom in the detector. Thus, on
a heuristic level, the origin of Eq. (3.35) is clear.
Returning to our onesided cavity system, we see from
Eq. (3.28) that the onesided cavity detector reaches
the quantum limit. It is natural to now ask why this
is the case: is there a general principle in action here
which allows the onesided cavity to reach the quantum
limit? The answer is yes: reaching the quantum limit
requires that there is no wasted information in the de
tector (Clerk et al., 2003). There should not exist any
unmeasured quantity in the detector which could have
been probed to learn more about the state of the qubit.
In the singlesided cavity detector, information on the
state of the qubit is only available in (that is, is entirely
encoded in) the phase shift of the reected beam; thus,
there is no wasted information, and the detector does
indeed reach the quantum limit.
To make this idea of no wasted information more con
crete, we now consider a simple detector which fails to
reach the quantum limit precisely due to wasted infor
mation. Consider again a 1D cavity system where now
both mirrors are slightly transparent. Now, a wave in
cident at frequency
R
on one end of the cavity will be
partially reected and partially transmitted. If the ini
tial incident wave is described by a coherent state [,
the scattered state can be described by a tensor product
of the reected waves state and the transmitted waves
state:
[ [r
[t
(3.36)
where the qubitdependent reection and transmission
amplitudes r
and t
=
1
1 + 2iAQ
c
(3.37)
r
=
2iQ
c
A
1 + 2iAQ
c
(3.38)
with t
= (t
and r
= (r
[
2
=
1 O(AQ
c
)
2
.
Similar to the onesided case, the twosided cavity
could be used to make a measurement by monitoring the
phase of the transmitted wave. Using the expression for
t
/
=
0
= 2AQ
c
(3.39)
where again the two signs correspond to the two dierent
qubit eigenstates. The phase shift for transmission is
only half as large as in reection so the Wigner delay
time associated with transmission is
t
WD
=
2
. (3.40)
16
Upon making the substitution of
t
WD
for t
WD
, the one
sided cavity Eqs. (3.15) and (3.17) remain valid. However
the internal cavity photon number shot noise remains
xed so that Eq. (3.18) becomes
S
nn
= 2 n
t
WD
. (3.41)
which means that
S
nn
= 2
N
t
2
WD
= 2S
N
N
t
2
WD
(3.42)
and
S
FzFz
= 2
2
A
2
2
c
t
2
WD
S
N
N
. (3.43)
As a result the backaction dephasing doubles relative to
the measurement rate and we have
meas
= 2S
N
N
S
=
1
2
. (3.44)
Thus the twosided cavity fails to reach the quantum
limit by a factor of 2.
Using the entanglement picture, we may again alterna
tively calculate the amount of dephasing from the overlap
between the detector states corresponding to the qubit
states and (cf. Eq. (3.31)). We nd:
e
t
=
[t
[r
(3.45)
= exp
_
[[
2
(1 (t
(r
(3.46)
Note that both the change in the transmission and reec
tion amplitudes contribute to the dephasing of the qubit.
Using the expressions above, we nd:
t = 4(
0
)
2
[[
2
= 4(
0
)
2
N = 4(
0
)
2
Nt = 2
meas
t.
(3.47)
Thus, in agreement with the quantum noise result, the
twosided cavity misses the quantum limit by a factor of
two.
Why does the twosided cavity fail to reach the quan
tum limit? The answer is clear from Eq. (3.46): even
though we are not monitoring it, there is information on
the state of the qubit available in the phase of the re
ected wave. Note from Eq. (3.38) that the magnitude
of the reected wave is weak ( A
2
), but (unlike the
transmitted wave) the dierence in the reection phase
associated with the two qubit states is large (/2). The
missing information in the reected beam makes a di
rect contribution to the dephasing rate (i.e. the second
term in Eq. (3.46)), making it larger than the measure
ment rate associated with measurement of the transmis
sion phase shift. In fact, there is an equal amount of
information in the reected beam as in the transmitted
beam, so the dephasing rate is doubled. We thus have
a concrete example of the general principle connecting
a failure to reach the quantum limit to the presence of
wasted information. Note that the application of this
principle to generalized quantum point contact detectors
is found in Clerk et al. (2003).
Returning to our cavity detector, we note in closing
that it is often technically easier to work with the trans
mission of light through a twosided cavity, rather than
reection from a onesided cavity. One can still reach the
quantum limit in the twosided cavity case if on uses an
asymmetric cavity in which the input mirror has much
less transmission than the output mirror. Most photons
are reected at the input, but those that enter the cav
ity will almost certainly be transmitted. The price to be
paid is that the input carrier power must be increased.
3. Measurement of oscillator position using a resonant cavity
The qubit measurement discussed in the previous sub
section was an example of a QND measurement: the
backaction did not aect the observable being measured.
We now consider the simplest example of a nonQND
measurement, namely the weak continuous measurement
of the position of a harmonic oscillator. The detector
will again be a parametricallycoupled resonant cavity,
where the position of the oscillator x changes the fre
quency of the cavity as per Eq. (3.11) (see, e.g., Tittonen
et al. (1999)). Similar to the qubit case, for a suciently
weak coupling the phase shift of the reected beam from
the cavity will depend linearly on the position x of the
oscillator (cf. Eq. (3.13)); by reading out this phase, we
may thus measure x. The origin of backaction noise is
the same as before, namely photon shot noise in the cav
ity. Now however this represents a random force which
changes the momentum of the oscillator. During the
subsequent time evolution these random force perturba
tions will reappear as random uctuations in the position.
Thus the measurement is not QND. This will mean that
the minimum uncertainty of even an ideal measurement
is larger (by exactly a factor of 2) than the true quantum
uncertainty of the position (i.e. the ground state uncer
tainty). This is known as the standard quantum limit on
weak continuous position detection. It is also an exam
ple of a general principle that a linear phasepreserving
amplier necessarily adds noise, and that the minimum
added noise exactly doubles the output noise for the case
where the input is vacuum (i.e. zeropoint) noise. A more
general discussion of the quantum limit on ampliers and
position detectors will be presented in Sec. V.
We start by emphasizing that we are speaking here of a
weak continuous measurement of the oscillator position.
The measurement is suciently weak that the position
undergoes many cycles of oscillation before signicant in
formation is acquired. Thus we are not talking about the
instantaneous position but rather the overall amplitude
and phase, or more precisely the two quadrature ampli
tudes describing the smooth envelope of the motion,
x(t) =
X(t) cos(t) +
Y (t) sin(t). (3.48)
One can easily show that for an oscillator, the two
quadrature amplitudes
X and
Y are canonically conju
17
gate and hence do not commute with each other
[
X,
Y ] =
i
M
= 2ix
2
ZPF
. (3.49)
As the measurement is both weak and continuous, it will
yield information on both
X and
Y . As such, one is eec
tively trying to simultaneously measure two incompatible
observables. This basic fact is intimately related to the
property mentioned above, that even a completely ideal
weak continuous position measurement will have a total
uncertainty which is twice the zeropoint uncertainty.
We are now ready to start our heuristic analysis of po
sition detection using a cavity detector; relevant calcula
tional details presented in Appendix E.3. Consider rst
the mechanical oscillator we wish to measure. We take it
to be a simple harmonic oscillator of natural frequency
and mechanical damping rate
0
. For weak damping, and
at zero coupling to the detector, the spectral density of
the oscillators position uctuations is given by Eq. (2.4)
with the delta function replaced by a Lorentzian
5
S
xx
[] = x
2
ZPF
_
n
B
()
0
( + )
2
+ (
0
/2)
2
+ [n
B
() + 1]
0
( )
2
+ (
0
/2)
2
_
. (3.50)
When we now weakly couple the oscillator to the cavity
(as per Eq. (3.11), with z = x/x
ZPF
) and drive the cavity
on resonance, the phase shift of the reected beam will
be proportional to x (i.e. (t) = [d/dx] x(t)). As such,
the oscillators position uctuations will cause additional
uctuations of the phase , over and above the intrinsic
shotnoise induced phase uctuations S
. We consider
the usual case where the noise spectrometer being used
to measure the noise in (i.e. the noise in the homo
dyne current) measures the symmetricinfrequency noise
spectral density; as such, it is the symmetricinfrequency
position noise that we will detect. In the classical limit
k
B
T , this is just given by:
S
xx
[]
1
2
(S
xx
[] +S
xx
[])
k
B
T
2M
2
0
([[ )
2
+ (
0
/2)
2
(3.51)
If we ignore backaction eects, we expect to see this
Lorentzian prole riding on top of the background im
precision noise oor; this is illustrated in Fig. 4.
Note that additional stages of amplication would also
add noise, and would thus further augment this back
ground noise oor. If we subtract o this noise oor, the
5
This form is valid only for weak damping because we are as
suming that the oscillator frequency is still sharply dened. We
have evaluated the BoseEinstein factor exactly at frequency
and we have assumed that the Lorentzian centered at positive
(negative) frequency has negligible weight at negative (positive)
frequencies.
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
O
u
t
p
u
t
N
o
i
s
e
S
(
)
(
a
r
b
.
u
n
i
t
s
)
2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0
Frequency
area prop. to T
measurement
imprecision
/
FIG. 4 (Color online) Spectral density of the symmetrized
output noise
S
d
2
S
xx
[] =
k
B
T
M
2
(3.52)
measures the temperature. What the experimentalist
actually plots in making such a curve is the output of
the entire detectorplusfollowingamplier chain. Impor
tantly, if the temperature is known, then the area of the
measured curve can be used to calibrate the coupling
of the detector and the gain of the total overall amplier
chain (see, e.g., FlowersJacobs et al., 2007; LaHaye et al.,
2004). One can thus make a calibrated plot where the
measured output noise is referred back to the oscillator
position.
Consider now the case where the oscillator is at zero
temperature. Eq. (3.50) then yields for the symmetrized
noise spectral density
S
0
xx
[] = x
2
ZPF
0
/2
([[ )
2
+ (
0
/2)
2
. (3.53)
One might expect that one could see this Lorentzian
directly in the output noise of the detector (i.e. the
noise), sitting above the measurementimprecision noise
oor. However, this neglects the eects of measurement
backaction. From the classical equation of motion we ex
pect the response of the oscillator to the backaction force
F = F
z
/x
ZPF
(cf. Eq. (3.16)) at frequency to produce
18
an additional displacement x[] =
xx
[]F[], where
xx
[] is the mechanical susceptibility
xx
[]
1
M
1
2
i
0
. (3.54)
These extra oscillator uctuations will show up as ad
ditional uctuations in the output of the detector. For
simplicity, let us focus on this noise at the oscillators res
onance frequency . As a result of the detectors back
action, the total measured position noise (i.e. inferred
spectral density) at the frequency is given by:
S
xx,tot
[] =
S
0
xx
[] +
[
xx
[][
2
2
[S
FF
[+] +S
FF
[]]
+
1
2
_
S
I
xx
[+] +S
I
xx
[]
(3.55)
=
S
0
xx
[] +
S
xx,add
[] (3.56)
The rst term here is just the intrinsic zeropoint noise
of the oscillator:
S
0
xx
[] =
2x
2
ZPF
0
= [
xx
[][. (3.57)
The second term
S
xx,add
is the total noise added by the
measurement, and includes both the measurement impre
cision S
I
xx
S
I
zz
x
2
ZPF
and the extra uctuations caused
by the backaction. We stress that
S
xx,tot
corresponds to
a position noise spectral density inferred from the output
of the detector: one simply scales the spectral density of
total output uctuations
S
,tot
[] by (d/dx)
2
.
Implicit in Eq. (3.57) is the assumption that the back
action noise and the imprecision noise are uncorrelated
and thus add in quadrature. It is not obvious that this is
correct, since in the cavity detector the backaction noise
and output shot noise are both caused by the vacuum
noise in the beam incident on the cavity. It turns out
there are indeed correlations, however the symmetrized
(i.e. classical) correlator
S
F
does vanish for our choice
of a resonant cavity drive. Further, Eq. (3.55) assumes
that the measurement does not change the damping rate
of the oscillator. Again, while this will not be true for
an arbitrary detector, it is the case here for the cav
ity detector when (as we have assumed) it is driven on
resonance. Details justifying both these statements are
given in Appendix E; the more general case with nonzero
noise correlations and backaction damping is discussed
in Sec. V.E.
Assuming we have a quantumlimited detector that
obeys Eq. (3.9) (i.e. S
I
xx
S
FF
=
2
/4) and that the
shot noise is symmetric in frequency, the added position
noise spectral density at resonance (i.e. second term in
Eq. (3.56)) becomes:
S
xx,add
[] =
_
[[][
2
S
FF
+
2
4
1
S
FF
_
. (3.58)
Recall from Eq. (3.19) that the backaction noise is pro
portional to the coupling of the oscillator to the detec
tor and to the intensity of the drive on the cavity. The
10
8
6
4
2
S
x
x
,
a
d
d
[
(
x
Z
P
T
)
2
/
!
0
]
0.1 1 10
Coupling S
FF
/ S
FF,opt
Total added position noise
Measurement imprecision
Contribution from backaction
FIG. 5 (Color online) Noise power of the added position noise
of a linear position detector, evaluated at the oscillators reso
nance frequency (
S
xx,add
[]), as a function of the magnitude
of the backaction noise spectral density SFF . SFF is pro
portional to the oscillatordetector coupling, and in the case
of the cavity detector, is also proportional to the power in
cident on the cavity. The optimal value of SFF is given by
SFF,opt = M0/2 (cf. Eq. (3.59)). We have assumed that
there are no correlations between measurement imprecision
noise and backaction noise, as is appropriate for the cavity
detector.
added position uncertainty noise is plotted in Fig. 5 as
a function of S
FF
. We see that for high drive intensity,
the backaction noise dominates the position uncertainty,
while for low drive intensity, the output shot noise (the
last term in the equation above) dominates.
The added noise (and hence the total noise
S
xx,tot
[])
is minimized when the drive intensity is tuned so that
S
FF
is equal to S
FF,opt
, with:
S
FF,opt
=
2[
xx
[][
=
2
M
0
. (3.59)
The more heavily damped is the oscillator, the less sus
ceptible it is to backaction noise and hence the higher is
the optimal coupling. At the optimal coupling strength,
the measurement imprecision noise and backaction noise
each make equal contributions to the added noise, yield
ing:
S
xx,add
[] =
M
0
=
S
0
xx
[] (3.60)
Thus, the spectral density of the added position noise is
exactly equal to the noise power associated with the os
cillators zeropoint uctuations. This represents a mini
mum value for the added noise of any linear position de
tector, and is referred to as the standard quantum limit
on position detection. Note that this limit only involves
19
the added noise of the detector, and thus has nothing to
do with the initial temperature of the oscillator.
We emphasize that to reach the above quantum limit
on weak continuous position detection, one needs the
detector itself to be quantum limited, i.e. the product
S
FF
S
I
xx
must be as small as is allowed by quantum me
chanics, namely
2
/4. Having a quantumlimited detec
tor however is not enough: in addition, one must be able
to achieve suciently strong coupling to reach the opti
mum given in Eq. (3.59). Further, the measured output
noise must be dominated by the output noise of the cav
ity, not by the added noise of following amplier stages.
A related, stronger quantum limit refers to the total
inferred position noise from the measurement,
S
xx,tot
[].
It follows from Eqs. (3.60),(3.56) that at resonance, the
smallest this can be is twice the oscillators zero point
noise:
S
xx,tot
[] = 2
S
0
xx
[]. (3.61)
Half the noise here is from the oscillator itself, half is from
the added noise of the detector. Reaching this quantum
limit is even more challenging: one needs both to reach
the quantum limit on the added noise and cool the oscil
lator to its ground state.
Finally, we emphasize that the optimal value of the
coupling derived above was specic to the choice of min
imizing the total position noise power at the resonance
frequency. If a dierent frequency had been chosen, the
optimal coupling would have been dierent; one again
nds that the minimum possible added noise corresponds
to the ground state noise at that frequency. It is inter
esting to ask what the total position noise would be as
a function of frequency, assuming that the coupling has
been optimized to minimize the noise at the resonance
frequency, and that the oscillator is initially in the ground
state. From our results above we have
S
xx,tot
[]
= x
2
ZPF
0
/2
([[ )
2
+ (
0
/2)
2
+
2
_
[
xx
[][
2
[
xx
[][
+[
xx
[][
_
x
2
ZPF
0
_
1 + 3
(
0
/2)
2
([[ )
2
+ (
0
/2)
2
_
(3.62)
which is plotted in Fig. 6. Assuming that the detector is
quantum limited, one sees that the Lorentzian peak rises
above the constant background by a factor of three when
the coupling is optimized to minimize the total noise
power at resonance. This represents the best one can do
when continuously monitoring zeropoint position uctu
ations. Note that the value of this peaktooor ratio is
a direct consequence of two simple facts which hold for
an optimal coupling, at the quantum limit: i) the total
added noise at resonance (backaction plus measurement
imprecision) is equal to the zeropoint noise, and ii) back
action and measurement imprecision make equal contri
butions to the total added noise. Somewhat surprisingly,
the same maximum peaktooor ratio is obtained when
one tries to continuously monitor coherent qubit oscilla
tions with a linear detector which is transversely coupled
to the qubit (Korotkov and Averin, 2001); this is also
a nonQND situation. Finally, if one only wants to de
tect the noise peak (as opposed to making a continuous
quantumlimited measurement), one could use two in
dependent detectors coupled to the oscillator and look
at the crosscorelation between the two output noises: in
this case, there need not be any noise oor (Doiron et al.,
2007; Jordan and B uttiker, 2005a).
In Table III, we give a summary of recent experiments
which approach the quantum limit on weak, continu
ous position detection of a mechanical resonator. Note
that in many of these experiments, the eects of detec
tor backaction were not seen. This could either be the
result of too low of a detectoroscillator coupling, or due
to the presence of excessive thermal noise. As we have
shown, the backaction force noise serves to slightly heat
the oscillator. If it is already at an elevated temperature
due to thermal noise, this additional heating can be very
hard to resolve.
In closing, we stress that this subsection has given only
a very rudimentary introduction to the quantum limit on
position detection. A complete discussion which treats
the important topics of backaction damping, eective
temperature, noise crosscorrelation and power gain is
given in Sec. V.E.
IV. GENERAL LINEAR RESPONSE THEORY
A. Quantum constraints on noise
In this section, we will further develop the connection
between quantum limits and noise discussed in previ
ous sections, focusing now on a more general approach.
As before, we will emphasize the idea that reaching
the quantum limit requires a detector having quantum
ideal noise properties. The approach here is dierent
from typical treatments in the quantum optics litera
ture (Gardiner and Zoller, 2000; Haus, 2000), and uses
nothing more than features of quantum linear response.
Our discussion here will expand upon Clerk (2004); Clerk
et al. (2003); somewhat similar approaches to quantum
measurement are also discussed in Braginsky and Khalili
(1992) and Averin (2003).
In this subsection, we will start by heuristically sketch
ing how constraints on noise (similar to Eq. (3.9) for the
cavity detector) can emerge directly from the Heisenberg
uncertainty principle. We then present a rigorous and
general quantum constraint on noise. We introduce both
the notion of a generic linear response detector, and the
basic quantum constraint on detector noise. In the next
subsection (C), we will discuss how this noise constraint
leads to the quantum limit on QND state detection of a
qubit. The quantum limit on a linear amplier (or a po
sition detector) is discussed in detail in the next section.
20
TABLE III Synopsis of recent experiments approaching the quantum limit on continuous position detection of a mechanical
resonator. The second column corresponds to the best measurement imprecision noise spectral density
S
I
xx
achieved in the
experiment. This value is compared against the zeropoint position noise spectral density
S
0
xx
, calculated using the total
measured resonator damping (which may include a backaction contribution). All spectral densities are at the oscillators
resonance frequency . As discussed in the text, there is no quantum limit on how small one can make
S
I
xx
; for an ideal
detector, one needs to tune the detectorresonator coupling so that
S
I
xx
=
S
0
xx
/2 in order to reach the quantum limit on
position detection. The third column presents the product of the measured imprecision noise (unless otherwise noted) and
measured backaction noises, divided by /2; this quantity must be one to achieve the quantum limit on the added noise.
Experiment Mechanical Imprecision noise Detector Noise Product
a
frequency [Hz] vs. zeropoint noise
_
S
I
xx
SFF /(/2)
/(2)
_
S
I
xx
/
S
0
xx
[]
Cleland et al. (2002) (quantum point contact) 1.5 10
6
4.2 10
4
Knobel and Cleland (2003) (singleeletron transistor) 1.2 10
8
1.8 10
2
LaHaye et al. (2004) (singleelectron transistor) 2.0 10
7
5.4
Naik et al. (2006) (singleelectron transistor) 2.2 10
7
5.3
b
8.1 10
2
(if
S
I
xx
had been limited by SET shot noise) 1.5 10
1
Arcizet et al. (2006) (optical cavity) 8.1 10
5
0.87
FlowersJacobs et al. (2007) (atomic pointcontact) 4.3 10
7
29 1.7 10
3
Regal et al. (2008) (microwave cavity) 2.4 10
5
21
Schliesser et al. (2008) (optical cavity) 4.1 10
7
0.50
Poggio et al. (2008) (quantum point contact) 5.2 10
3
63
Etaki et al. (2008) (d.c. SQUID) 2.0 10
6
47
Groblacher et al. (2009) (optical cavity) 9.5 10
2
0.57
Schliesser et al. (2009) (optical cavity) 6.5 10
7
5.5 1.0 10
2
Teufel et al. (2009) (microwave cavity) 1.0 10
6
0.63
a
A blank value in this column indicates that backaction was not
measured in the experiment.
b
Note that backaction eects dominated the mechanical Q in
this measurement, lowering it from 1.2 10
5
to 4.2 10
2
. If
one compares the imprecision against the zeropoint noise of the
uncoupled mechanical resonator, one nds
S
I
xx
/
S
0
xx
[] 0.33.
1. Heuristic weakmeasurement noise constraints
As we already stressed in the introduction, there is no
fundamental quantum limit on the accuracy with which a
given observable can be measured, at least not within the
framework of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics. For
example, one can, in principle, measure the position of a
particle to arbitrary accuracy in the course of a projec
tion measurement. However, the situation is dierent
when we specialize to continuous, nonQND measure
ments. Such a measurement can be envisaged as a series
of instantaneous measurements, in the limit where the
spacing between the measurements t is taken to zero.
Each measurement in the series has a limited resolution
and perturbs the conjugate variables, thereby aecting
the subsequent dynamics and measurement results. Let
us discuss this briey for the example of a series of posi
tion measurements of a free particle.
After initially measuring the position with an accuracy
x, the momentum suers a random perturbation of size
p /(2x). Consequently, a second position mea
surement taking place a time t later will have an addi
tional uncertainty of size t(p/m) t/(mx). Thus,
when trying to obtain a good estimate of the position by
averaging several such measurements, it is not optimal
to make x too small, because otherwise this additional
perturbation, called the backaction of the measure
ment device, will become large. The backaction can be
described as a random force F = p/t. A meaningful
limit t 0 is obtained by keeping both x
2
t
S
xx
and p
2
/t
S
FF
xed. In this limit, the deviations
x(t) describing the nite measurement accuracy and
the uctuations of the backaction force F can be de
scribed as white noise processes, x(t)x(0) =
S
xx
(t)
and F(t)F(0) =
S
FF
(t). The Heisenberg uncertainty
relation px /2 then implies
S
xx
S
FF
2
/4 (Bra
ginsky and Khalili, 1992). Note this is completely analo
gous to the relation Eq. (3.9) we derived for the resonant
cavity detector using the fundamental numberphase un
certainty relation. In this section, we will derive rigor
ously more general quantum limit relations on noise spec
tral densities of this form.
21
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1.2 0.8 0.4 0.0
Frequency /
equilibrium
noise (T=0)
eq. + back
action noise
total noise
S
x
x
,
t
o
t
[
]
/
S
0x
x
[
]
FIG. 6 (Color online) Spectral density of measured position
uctuations of a harmonic oscillator,
Sxx,tot[], as a function
of frequency , for a detector which reaches the quantum
limit at the oscillator frequency . We have assumed that
without the coupling to the detector, the oscillator would be
in its ground state. The yaxis has been normalized by the
zeropoint positionnoise spectral density
S
0
xx
[], evaluated at
= . One clearly sees that the total noise at is twice the
zeropoint value, and that the peak of the Lorentzian rises
a factor of three above the background. This background
represents the measurementimprecision, and is equal to 1/2
of
S
0
xx
().
2. Generic linearresponse detector
To rigorously discuss the quantum limit, we would like
to start with a description of a detector which is as gen
eral as possible. To that end, we will think of a detector
as some physical system (described by some unspecied
Hamiltonian
H
det
and some unspecied density matrix
0
) which is timeindependent in the absence of coupling
to the signal source. The detector has both an input
port, characterized by an operator
F, and an output
port, characterized by an operator
I (see Fig. 7). The
output operator
I is simply the quantity which is read
out at the output of the detector (e.g., the current in a
singleelectron transistor, or the phase shift in the cavity
detector of the previous section). The input operator
F is
the detector quantity which directly couples to the input
signal (e.g., the qubit), and which causes a backaction
disturbance of the signal source; in the cavity example
of the previous section, we had
F = n, the cavity pho
ton number. As we are interested in weak couplings, we
will assume a simple bilinear form for the detectorsignal
input output
operator
detector
signal
source
"load"
FIG. 7 (Color online) Schematic of a generic linear response
detector.
interaction Hamiltonian:
H
int
= A x
F (4.1)
Here, the operator x (which is not necessarily a position
operator) carries the input signal. Note that because x
belongs to the signal source, it necessarily commutes with
the detector variables
I,
F.
We will always assume the coupling strength A to be
small enough that we can accurately describe the output
of the detector using linear response.
6
We thus have:
I(t) =
I
0
+A
_
dt
IF
(t t
) x(t
), (4.2)
where
I
0
is the inputindependent value of the detector
output at zerocoupling, and
IF
(t) is the linearresponse
susceptibility or gain of our detector. Note that in Clerk
et al. (2003) and Clerk (2004), this gain coecient is
denoted . Using standard timedependent perturba
tion theory in the coupling
H
int
, one can easily derive
Eq. (4.2), with
IF
(t) given by a Kubolike formula:
IF
(t) =
i
(t)
__
I(t),
F(0)
__
0
(4.3)
Here (and in what follows), the operators
I and
F are
Heisenberg operators with respect to the detector Hamil
tonian, and the subscript 0 indicates an expectation value
with respect to the density matrix of the uncoupled de
tector.
As we have already discussed, there will be unavoidable
noise in both the input and output ports of our detector.
6
The precise conditions for when linear response breaks down will
depend on specic details of the detector. For example, in the
cavity detector discussed in Sec. III.B, one would need the di
mensionless coupling A to satisfy A 1/(Qc z) to ensure that
the nonlinear dependence of the phase shift on the signal z
is negligible. This translates to the signal modulating the cavity
frequency by an amount much smaller than its linewidth .
22
This noise is subject to quantum mechanical constraints,
and its presence is what limits our ability to make a mea
surement or amplify a signal. We thus need to quantita
tively characterize the noise in both these ports. Recall
from the discussion in Sec. II.B that it is the symmetric
infrequency part of a quantum noise spectral density
which plays a role akin to classical noise. We will thus
want to characterize the symmetrized noise correlators of
our detector (denoted as always with a bar). Redening
these operators so that their average value is zero at zero
coupling (i.e.
F
F
F
0
,
I
I
I
0
), we have:
S
FF
[]
1
2
_
dte
it
F(t),
F(0)
0
(4.4a)
S
II
[]
1
2
_
dte
it
I(t),
I(0)
0
(4.4b)
S
IF
[]
1
2
_
dte
it
I(t),
F(0)
0
(4.4c)
where , indicates the anticommutator,
S
II
represents
the intrinsic noise in the output of the detector, and
S
FF
describes the backaction noise seen by the source of the
input signal. In general, there will be some correlation
between these two kinds of noise; this is described by the
crosscorrelator
S
IF
.
Finally, we must also allow for the possibility that our
detector could operate in reverse (i.e. with input and
output ports playing opposite roles). We thus intro
duce the reverse gain
FI
of our detector. This is the
response coecient describing an experiment where we
couple our input signal to the output port of the detector
(i.e.
H
int
= A x
F(t) =
F
0
+A
_
dt
FI
(t t
) x(t
) (4.5)
with:
FI
(t) =
i
(t)
_
F(t),
I(0)
_
0
(4.6)
Note that if our detector is in a timereversal symmet
ric, thermal equilibrium state, then Onsager reciprocity
relations would imply either
IF
=
FI
(if I and F have
the same parity under timereversal) or
IF
=
FI
(if I
and F have the opposite parity under timereversal) (see,
e.g. Pathria (1996)). Thus, if the detector is in equilib
rium, the presence of gain necessarily implies the pres
ence of reverse gain. Nonzero reverse gain is also found
in many standard classical electrical ampliers such as
op amps (Boylestad and Nashelsky, 2006).
The reverse gain is something that we must worry
about even if we are not interested in operating our detec
tor in reverse. To see why, note that to make a measure
ment of the output operator
I, we must necessarily couple
to it in some manner. If
FI
,= 0, the noise associated
with this coupling could in turn lead to additional back
action noise in the operator
F. Even if the reverse gain
did nothing but amplify vacuum noise entering the out
put port, this would heat up the system being measured
at the input port and hence produce excess backaction.
Thus, the ideal situation is to have
FI
= 0, implying
a high asymmetry between the input and output of the
detector, and requiring the detector to be in a state far
from thermodynamic equilibrium. We note that almost
all mesoscopic detectors that have been studied in detail
(e.g. single electron transistors and generalized quantum
point contacts) have been found to have a vanishing re
verse gain:
FI
= 0 (Clerk et al., 2003). For this reason,
we will often focus on the ideal (but experimentally rel
evant) situation where
FI
= 0 in what follows.
Before proceeding, it is worth emphasizing that there
is a relation between the detector gains
IF
and
FI
and the unsymmetrized IF quantum noise correlator,
S
IF
[]. This spectral density, which need not be sym
metric in frequency, is dened as:
S
IF
[] =
_
dte
it
I(t)
F(0)
0
(4.7)
Using the denitions, one can easily show that:
S
IF
[] =
1
2
[S
IF
[] +S
IF
[]
] (4.8a)
IF
[]
FI
[]
=
i
[S
IF
[] S
IF
[]
] (4.8b)
Thus, while
S
IF
represents the classical part of the IF
quantum noise spectral density, the gains
IF
,
FI
are
determined by the quantum part of this spectral density.
This also demonstrates that though the gains have an
explicit factor of 1/ in their denitions, they have a
well dened 0 limit, as the asymmetricinfrequency
part of S
IF
[] vanishes in this limit.
3. Quantum constraint on noise
Despite having said nothing about the detec
tors Hamiltonian or state (except that it is time
independent), we can nonetheless derive a very general
quantum constraint on its noise properties. Note rst
that for purely classical noise spectral densities, one al
ways has the inequality:
S
II
[]
S
FF
[]
S
IF
[]
2
0 (4.9)
This simply expresses the fact that the correlation be
tween two dierent noisy quantities cannot be arbitrarily
large; it follows immediately from the Schwartz inequal
ity. In the quantum case, this simple constraint becomes
modied whenever there is an asymmetry between the
detectors gain and reverse gain. This asymmetry is pa
rameterized by the quantity
IF
[]:
IF
[]
IF
[] (
FI
[])
(4.10)
23
We will show below that the following quantum noise in
equality (involving symmetrized noise correlators) is al
ways valid (see also Eq. (6.36) in Braginsky and Khalili
(1996)):
S
II
[]
S
FF
[]
S
IF
[]
IF
[]
2
2
_
1 +
_
S
IF
[]
IF
[]/2
__
(4.11)
where
[z] =
1 +z
2
_
1 +[z[
2
_
2
, (4.12)
To interpret the quantum noise inequality Eq. (4.11),
note that 1+[z] 0. Eq. (4.11) thus implies that if our
detector has gain and does not have a perfect symmetry
between input and output (i.e.
IF
,=
FI
), then it must
in general have a minimum amount of backaction and
output noise; moreover, these two noises cannot be per
fectly anticorrelated. As we will show in the following
sections, this constraint on the noise of a detector directly
leads to quantum limits on various dierent measurement
tasks. Note that in the zerofrequency limit,
IF
and
S
IF
are both real, implying that the term involving in
Eq. (4.11) vanishes. The result is a simpler looking in
equality found elsewhere in the literature (Averin, 2003;
Clerk, 2004; Clerk et al., 2003).
While Eq. (4.11) may appear vaguely reminiscent to
the standard uctuation dissipation theorem, its ori
gin is quite dierent: in particular, the quantum noise
constraint applies irrespective of whether the detector
is in equilibrium. Eq. (4.11) instead follows directly
from Heisenbergs uncertainty relation applied to the fre
quency representation of the operators
I and
F. In its
most general form, the Heisenberg uncertainty relation
gives a lower bound for the uncertainties of two observ
ables in terms of their commutator and their noise cor
relator (Gottfried, 1966):
(A)
2
(B)
2
1
4
__
A,
B
__
2
+
1
4
__
A,
B
__
2
. (4.13)
Here we have assumed
A =
A
_
2
T
_
T/2
T/2
dt cos(t +)
I(t) (4.14a)
B
_
2
T
_
T/2
T/2
dt cos(t)
F(t) (4.14b)
Note that we have phase shifted the transform of
I rela
tive to that of
F by a phase . In the limit T we
nd, at any nite frequency ,= 0:
(A)
2
=
S
II
[], (B)
2
=
S
FF
[] (4.15a)
__
A,
B
__
= 2Re e
i
S
IF
[] (4.15b)
__
A,
B
__
=
_
+
dt cos(t +)
__
I(t),
F(0)
__
= iRe
_
e
i
_
IF
[] (
FI
[])
_
(4.15c)
In the last line, we have simply made use of the
Kubo formula denitions of the gain and reverse gain
(cf. Eqs. (4.3) and (4.6)). As a consequence of
Eqs. (4.15a)(4.15c), the Heisenberg uncertainty relation
(4.13) directly yields:
S
II
[]
S
FF
[]
_
Re
_
e
i
S
IF
[]
_
2
+ (4.16)
2
4
_
Re e
i
_
IF
[] (
FI
[])
_
2
Maximizing the RHS of this inequality over then yields
the general quantum noise constraint of Eq. (4.11).
With this derivation, we can now interpret the quan
tum noise constraint Eq. (4.11) as stating that the noise
at a given frequency in two observables,
I and
F, is
bounded by the value of their commutator at that fre
quency. The fact that
I and
F do not commute is neces
sary for the existence of linear response (gain) from the
detector, but also means that the noise in both
I and
S
II
[]
S
FF
[]
S
IF
[]
2
= (4.17)
IF
[]
2
2
_
1 +
_
S
IF
[]
IF
[]/2
__
where [z] is given in Eq. (4.12). Again, as we will
discuss below, in most cases of interest (e.g. zero fre
quency and/or large amplier power gain), the last term
on the RHS will vanish. In the following sections, we
will demonstrate that the ideal noise requirement of
Eq. (4.17) is necessary in order to achieve the quantum
limit on QND detection of a qubit, or on the added noise
of a linear amplier.
Before leaving our general discussion of the quantum
noise constraint, it is worth emphasizing that achieving
Eq. (4.17) places a very strong constraint on the prop
erties of the detector. In particular, there must exist a
24
tight connection between the input and output ports of
the detector in a certain restricted sense, the operators
I
and
F must be proportional to one another (see Eq. (I13)
in Appendix I.1). As is discussed in Appendix I.1, this
proportionality immediately tells us that a quantumideal
detector cannot be in equilibrium. The proportionality
exhibited by a quantumideal detector is parameterized
by a single complex valued number [], whose magni
tude is given by:
[[][
2
=
S
II
[]/
S
FF
[] (4.18)
While this proportionality requirement may seem purely
formal, it does have a simple heuristic interpretation;
as is discussed in Clerk et al. (2003), it may be viewed
as a formal expression of the principle that a quantum
limited detector must not contain any wasted informa
tion (cf. Sec. III.B.2).
4. Evading the detector quantum noise inequality
We now turn to situations where the RHS of Eq. (4.11)
vanishes, implying that there is no additional quantum
constraint on the noise of our detector beyond what ex
ists classically. In such situations, one could have a de
tector with perfectly correlated backaction and output
noises (i.e.
S
FF
S
II
= [
S
IF
[
2
), or even with a vanishing
backaction
S
FF
= 0. Perhaps not surprisingly, these sit
uations are not of much utility. As we will now show, in
cases where the RHS of Eq. (4.11) vanishes, the detector
may be low noise, but will necessarily be decient in an
other important regard: it will not be good enough that
we can ignore the extra noise associated with the mea
surement of the detector output
I. As we have already
discussed, readingout
I will invariably involve coupling
the detector output to some other physical system. In the
ideal case, this coupling will not generate any additional
backaction on the system coupled to the detectors in
put port. In addition, the signal at the detector output
should be large enough that any noise introduced in mea
suring
I is negligible; we already came across this idea in
our discussion of the resonant cavity detector (see com
ments following Eq. (3.60)). This means that we need
our detector to truly amplify the input signal, not sim
ply reproduce it at the output with no gain in energy.
As we now show, a detector which evades the quantum
constraint of Eq. (4.11) by making the RHS of the in
equality zero will necessarily fail in one or both of the
above requirements.
The most obvious case where the quantum noise con
straint vanishes is for a detector which has equal forward
and reverse gains,
FI
=
IF
. As we have already men
tioned, this relation will necessarily hold if the the detec
tor is timereversal symmetric and in equilibrium, and
I and
F have the same parity under timereversal. In
this case, the relatively large reverse gain implies that in
analyzing a given measurement task, it is not sucient
to just consider the noise of the detector: one must nec
essarily also consider the noise associated with whatever
system is coupled to
I to readout the detector output,
as this noise will be fed back to the detector input port,
causing additional backaction; we give an explicit ex
ample of this in the next subsection, when we discuss
QND qubit detection. Even more problematically, when
FI
=
IF
, there is never any amplication by the detec
tor. As we will discuss in Sec. V.E.3, the proper metric
of the detectors ability to amplify is its dimensionless
power gain: what is the power supplied at the output of
the detector versus the amount of power drawn at the
input from the signal source? When
FI
=
IF
, one has
negative feedback, with the result that the power gain
cannot be larger than 1 (cf. Eq. 5.53). There is thus no
amplication when
FI
=
IF
. Further, if one also in
sists that the noise constraint of Eq. (4.11) is optimized,
then one nds the power gain must be exactly 1; this is
explicitly demonstrated in Appendix I.2. The detector
thus will simply act as a transducer, reproducing the in
put signal at the output without any increase in energy.
We have here a specic example of a more general idea
that will be discussed extensively in Sec. V: if a detector
only acts as a transducer, it need not add any noise.
At nite frequencies, there is a second way to make
the RHS of the quantum noise constraint of Eq. (4.11)
vanish: one needs the quantity
S
IF
[]/
IF
to be purely
imaginary, and larger in magnitude than /2. In this
case, it would again be possible to have the LHS of the
noise constraint of Eq. (4.11) equal to zero. However,
one again nds that in such a case, the dimensionless
power gain of the detector is at most equal to one; it thus
does not amplify. This is shown explicitly in Appendix
I.2. An important related statement is that a quantum
limited detector with a large power gain must have the
quantity
S
IF
/
IF
be real. Thus, at the quantum limit,
correlations between the backaction force and the intrin
sic output noise uctuations must have the same phase
as the gain
IF
. As we discuss further in Sec. V.F, this
requirement can be interpreted in terms of the principle
of no wasted information introduced in Sec. III.B.2.
B. Quantum limit on QND detection of a qubit
In Sec. III.B, we discussed the quantum limit on QND
qubit detection in the specic context of a resonant cavity
detector. We will now show how the full quantum noise
constraint of Eq. (4.11) directly leads to this quantum
limit for an arbitrary weaklycoupled detector. Similar
to Sec. III.B, we couple the input operator of our generic
linearresponse detector to the
z
operator of the qubit
we wish to measure (i.e. we take x =
z
in Eq. (4.1));
we also consider the QND regime, where
z
commutes
with the qubit Hamiltonian. As we saw in Sec. III.B,
the quantum limit in this case involves the inequality
meas
, where
meas
is the measurement rate, and
=
2A
2
S
FF
(4.19)
We omit frequency arguments in this subsection, as it
is always the zerofrequency susceptibilities and spectral
densities which appear.
The measurement rate (the rate at which information
on the state of qubit is acquired) is also dened in com
plete analogy to what was done for the cavity detector.
We imagine we turn the measurement on at t = 0 and
start to integrate up the output I(t) of our detector:
m(t) =
_
t
0
dt
I(t
) (4.20)
The probability distribution of the integrated output
m(t) will depend on the state of the qubit; for long times,
we may approximate the distribution corresponding to
each qubit state as being gaussian. Noting that we have
chosen
I so that its expectation vanishes at zero coupling,
the average value of m(t) corresponding to each qubit
state is (in the long time limit of interest):
m(t)
= A
IF
t, m(t)
= A
IF
t (4.21)
The variance of both distributions is, to leading order,
independent of the qubit state:
m
2
(t)
/
m(t)
2
/
m
2
(t)
/
=
S
II
t (4.22)
For the last equality above, we have taken the longtime
limit, which results in the variance of m being determined
completely by the zerofrequency output noise
S
II
[ = 0]
of the detector. The assumption here is that due to
the weakness of the measurement, the measurement time
(i.e. 1/
meas
) will be much longer than the autocorrela
tion time of the detectors noise.
We can now dene the measurement rate, in complete
analogy to the cavity detector of the previous section
(cf. Eq. (3.23)), by how quickly the resolving power of
the measurement grows:
7
1
4
[ m(t)
m(t)
]
2
m
2
(t)
+ m
2
(t)
meas
t. (4.23)
7
The strange looking factor of 1/4 here is purely chosen for con
venience; we are dening the measurement rate based on the
information theoretic denition given in Appendix F. This fac
tor of four is consistent with the denition used in the cavity
system.
This yields:
meas
=
A
2
(
IF
)
2
2
S
II
(4.24)
Putting this all together, we nd that the eciency
ratio =
meas
/
is given by:
meas
=
2
(
IF
)
2
4
S
II
S
FF
(4.25)
In the case where our detector has a vanishing reverse
gain (i.e.
FI
= 0), the quantumlimit bound 1 fol
lows immediately from the quantum noise constraint of
Eq. (4.11). We thus see that achieving the quantum
limit for QND qubit detection requires both a detec
tor with quantumideal noise properties, as dened by
Eq. (4.17), as well as a detector with a vanishing noise
crosscorrelator:
S
IF
= 0.
If in contrast
FI
,= 0, it would seem that it is possi
ble to have 1. This is of course an invalid inference:
as discussed,
FI
,= 0 implies that we must necessarily
consider the eects of extra noise injected into detectors
output port when one measures
I, as the reverse gain
will bring this noise back to the qubit, causing extra de
phasing. The result is that one can do no better than
= 1. To see this explicitly, consider the extreme case
IF
=
FI
and
S
II
=
S
FF
= 0, and suppose we use
a second detector to readout the output
I of the rst
detector. This second detector has input and output op
erators
F
2
,
I
2
; we also take it to have a vanishing reverse
gain, so that we do not have to also worry about how its
output is readout. Coupling the detectors linearly in the
standard way (i.e. H
int,2
=
I
F
2
), the overall gain of the
two detectors in series is
I2F2
IF
, while the backaction
driving the qubit dephasing is described by the spectral
density (
FI
)
2
S
F2F2
. Using the fact that our second de
tector must itself satisfy the quantum noise inequality,
we have:
_
(
FI
)
2
S
F2F2
_
S
I2I2
2
4
(
I2F2
IF
)
2
(4.26)
Thus, the overall chain of detectors satises the usual,
zeroreverse gain quantum noise inequality, implying that
we will still have 1.
V. QUANTUM LIMIT ON LINEAR AMPLIFIERS AND
POSITION DETECTORS
In the previous section, we established the fundamen
tal quantum constraint on the noise of any system ca
pable of acting as a linear detector; we further showed
that this quantum noise constraint directly leads to the
quantum limit on nondemolition qubit detection us
ing a weaklycoupled detector. In this section, we turn
to the more general situation where our detector is a
phasepreserving quantum linear amplier: the input to
26
the detector is described by some timedependent oper
ator x(t) which we wish to have amplied at the output
of our detector. As we will see, the quantum limit in
this case is a limit on how small one can make the noise
added by the amplier to the signal. The discussion in
this section both furthers and generalizes the heuristic
discussion of position detection using a cavity detector
presented in Sec. III.B.
In this section, we will start by presenting a heuris
tic discussion of quantum constraints on amplication.
We will then demonstrate explicitly how the previously
discussed quantum noise constraint leads directly to the
quantum limit on the added noise of a phasepreserving
linear amplier; we will examine both the cases of a
generic linear position detector and a generic voltage am
plier, following the approach outlined in Clerk (2004).
We will also spend time explicitly connecting the linear
response approach we use here to the bosonic scattering
formulation of the quantum limit favoured by the quan
tum optics community (Caves, 1982; Courty et al., 1999;
Grassia, 1998; Haus and Mullen, 1962), paying particular
attention to the case of twoport scattering amplier. We
will see that there are some important subtleties involved
in converting between the two approaches. In particular,
there exists a crucial dierence between the case where
the input signal is tightly coupled to the input of the
amplier (the case usually considered in the quantum
optics community), versus the case where, similar to an
ideal opamp, the input signal is only weakly coupled to
the input of the amplier (the case usually considered in
the solid state community).
A. Preliminaries on amplication
What exactly does one mean by amplication ? As
we will see (cf. Sec. V.E.3), a precise denition requires
that the energy provided at the output of the amplier
be much larger than the energy drawn at the input of
the amplier the power gain of the amplier must
be larger than one. For the moment, however, let us
work with the cruder denition that amplication in
volves making some timedependent signal larger. To
set the stage, we will rst consider an extremely sim
ple classical analogue of a linear amplier. Imagine the
signal we wish to amplify is the coordinate x(t) of a
harmonic oscillator; we can write this signal as:
x(t) = x(0) cos(
S
t) +
p(0)
M
S
sin(
S
t) (5.1)
Our signal has two quadrature amplitudes, i.e. the am
plitude of the cosine and sine components of x(t). To
amplify this signal, we start at t = 0 to parametrically
drive the oscillator by changing its frequency
S
periodi
cally in time:
S
(t) =
0
+ sin(
P
t), where we assume
0
. The wellknown physical example is a swing
whose motion is being excited by eectively changing the
length of the pendulum at the right frequency and phase.
For a pump frequency
P
equalling twice the signal
frequency,
P
= 2
S
, the resulting dynamics will lead
to an amplication of the initial oscillator position, with
the energy provided by the external driving:
x(t) = x(0)e
t
cos(
S
t) +
p(0)
M
S
e
t
sin(
S
t) (5.2)
Thus, one of the quadratures is amplied exponen
tially, at a rate = /2, while the other one decays.
In a quantummechanical description, this produces a
squeezed state out of an initial coherent state. Such
a system is called a degenerate parametric amplier,
and we discuss its quantum dynamics in more detail in
Sec. V.H. We will see that such an amplier, which only
amplies a single quadrature, is not required quantum
mechanically to add any noise (Braginsky and Khalili,
1992; Caves, 1982; Caves et al., 1980).
Can we now change this parametric amplication
scheme slightly in order to make both signal quadratures
grow with time? It turns out this is impossible, as long
as we restrict ourselves to a driven system with a sin
gle degree of freedom. The reason in classical mechanics
is that Liouvilles theorem requires phase space volume
to be conserved during motion. More formally, this is
related to the conservation of Poisson brackets, or, in
quantum mechanics, to the conservation of commutation
relations. Nevertheless, it is certainly desirable to have
an amplier that acts equally on both quadratures (a
socalled phasepreserving or phaseinsensitive am
plier), since the signals phase is often not known be
forehand. The way around the restriction created by
Liouvilles theorem is to add more degrees of freedom,
such that the phase space volume can expand in both
quadratures (i.e. position and momentum) of the inter
esting signal degree of freedom, while being compressed
in other directions. This is achieved most easily by cou
pling the signal oscillator to another oscillator, the idler
mode. The external driving now modulates the cou
pling between these oscillators, at a frequency that has to
equal the sum of the oscillators frequencies. The result
ing scheme is called a phasepreserving nondegenerate
parametric amplier (see Sec. V.C).
Crucially, there is a price to pay for the introduction of
an extra degree of freedom: there will be noise associated
with the idler oscillator, and this noise will contribute
to the noise in the output of the amplier. Classically,
one could make the noise associated with the idler os
cillator arbitrarily small by simply cooling it to zero tem
perature. This is not possible quantummechanically;
there are always zeropoint uctuations of the idler oscil
lator to contend with. It is this noise which sets a funda
mental quantum limit for the operation of the amplier.
We thus have a heuristic accounting for why there is a
quantumlimit on the added noise of a phasepreserving
linear amplier: one needs extra degrees of freedom to
amplify both signal quadratures, and such extra degrees
of freedom invariably have noise associated with them.
27
B. Standard HausCaves derivation of the quantum limit
on a bosonic amplier
We now make the ideas of the previous subsection
more precise by quickly sketching the standard deriva
tion of the quantum limit on the noise added by a phase
preserving amplier. This derivation is originally due
to Haus and Mullen (1962), and was both claried and
extended by Caves (1982); the amplier quantum limit
was also motivated in a slightly dierent manner by
Hener (1962).
8
While extremely compact, the Haus
Caves derivation can lead to confusion when improperly
applied; we will discuss this in Sec. V.D, as well as in
Sec. VI, where we apply this argument carefully to the
important case of a twoport quantum voltage amplier,
and discuss the connection to the general linearresponse
formulation of Sec. IV.
The starting assumption of this derivation is that both
the input and output ports of the amplier can be de
scribed by sets of bosonic modes. If we focus on a nar
row bandwidth centered on frequency , we can describe
a classical signal E(t) in terms of a complex number a
dening the amplitude and phase of the signal (or equiva
lently the two quadrature amplitudes) (Haus, 2000; Haus
and Mullen, 1962)
E(t) i[ae
it
a
e
+it
]. (5.3)
In the quantum case, the two signal quadratures of E(t)
(i.e. the real and imaginary parts of a(t)) cannot be mea
sured simultaneously because they are canonically conju
gate; this is in complete analogy to a harmonic oscillator
(cf. Eq. (3.48)). As a result a, a
.
Consider the simplest case, where there is only a single
mode at both the input and output, with corresponding
operators a and
b.
9
It follows that the input signal into
the amplier is described by the expectation value a,
while the output signal is described by
b. Correspond
ingly, the symmetrized noise in both these quantities is
described by:
(a)
2
1
2
a, a
_
[ a[
2
(5.4)
with an analogous denition for (b)
2
.
To derive a quantum limit on the added noise of the
amplier, one uses two simple facts. First, both the input
8
Note that Caves (1982) provides a thorough discussion of why
the derivation of the amplier quantum limit given in Hener
(1962) is not rigorously correct
9
To relate this to the linear response detector of Sec. IV.A, one
could naively write x, the operator carrying the input signal, as,
e.g., x = a + a
= 1,
_
b,
_
= 1 (5.5)
Second, the linearity of the amplier and the fact that it
is phase preserving (i.e. both signal quadratures are am
plied the same way) implies a simple relation between
the output operator
b and the input operator a:
b =
G a,
b
G a
(5.6)
where Gis the dimensionless photon number gain of the
amplier. It is immediately clear however this expression
cannot possibly be correct as written because it violates
the fundamental bosonic commutation relation [
b,
] =
1. We are therefore forced to write
b =
G a +
T,
b
G a
+
T
(5.7)
where
T is an operator representing additional noise
added by the amplier. Based on the discussion of the
previous subsection, we can anticipate what
T repre
sents: it is noise associated with the additional degrees
of freedom which must invariably be present in a phase
preserving amplier.
As
T represents noise, it has a vanishing expectation
value; in addition, one also assumes that this noise is
uncorrelated with the input signal, implying [
T, a] =
[
T, a
] = 0 and
T a =
T a
= 0. Insisting that
[
b,
] = 1 thus yields:
_
T,
T
_
= 1 G (5.8)
The question now becomes how small can we make the
noise described by
T? Using Eqs. (5.7), the noise at the
amplier output b is given by:
(b)
2
= G(a)
2
+
1
2
_
T,
T
_
G(a)
2
+
1
2
_
[
T,
T
]
_
G(a)
2
+
[G1[
2
(5.9)
We have used here a standard inequality to bound the
expectation of
T,
T
T =
G1
,
T
G1
d (5.11)
where
d and
d
T =
G1(cosh
1
+ sinh
d
2
) (5.12)
it is straightforward to show that the added noise is in
evitably larger than the minimum. This again can be
interpreted in terms of wasted information, as the extra
degrees of freedom are not being monitored as part of the
measurement process and so information is being lost.
C. Nondegenerate parametric amplier
1. Gain and added noise
Before we start our discussion of how the HausCaves
formulation of the quantum limit connects to the general
linearresponse approach of Sec. IV, it is useful to con
sider a specic example. To that end, we analyze here
a nondegenerate parametric amplier, a linear, phase
preserving amplier which reaches the quantum limit on
its added noise (Gordon et al., 1963; Louisell et al., 1961;
Mollow and Glauber, 1967a,b) and directly realizes the
ideas of the previous subsection. One possible realiza
tion (Yurke et al., 1989) is a cavity with three internal
resonances that are coupled together by a nonlinear el
ement (such as a Josephson junction) whose symmetry
permits threewave mixing. The three modes are called
the pump, idler and signal and their energy level struc
ture (illustrated in Fig. 8) obeys
P
=
I
+
S
. The
system Hamiltonian is then
H
sys
=
_
P
a
P
a
P
+
I
a
I
a
I
+
S
a
S
a
S
_
+ i
_
a
S
a
I
a
P
a
S
a
I
a
P
_
. (5.13)
We have made the rotating wave approximation in the
threewave mixing term, and without loss of generality,
we take the nonlinear susceptibility to be real and posi
tive. The system is driven at the pump frequency and the
three wave mixing term permits a single pump photon to
split into an idler photon and a signal photon. This pro
cess is stimulated by signal photons already present and
leads to gain. A typical mode of operation would be the
negative resistance reection mode in which the input
signal is reected from a nonlinear cavity and the re
ected beam extracted using a circulator (Bergeal et al.,
2008; Yurke et al., 1989).
The nonlinear EOMs become tractable if we assume
the pump has large amplitude and can be treated classi
cally by making the substitution
a
P
=
P
e
iPt
=
P
e
i(I+S)t
, (5.14)
where without loss of generality we take
P
to be real
and positive. We note here the important point that if
this approximation is not valid, then our amplier would
in any case not be the linear amplier which we seek.
With this approximation we can hereafter forget about
the dynamics of the pump degree of freedom and deal
with the reduced system Hamiltonian
H
sys
=
_
I
a
I
a
I
+
S
a
S
a
S
_
+i
_
a
S
a
I
e
i(I+S)t
a
S
a
I
e
+i(I+S)t
_
(5.15)
where
P
. Transforming to the interaction repre
sentation we are left with the following timeindependent
quadratic Hamiltonian for the system
V
sys
= i
_
a
S
a
I
a
S
a
I
_
(5.16)
29
To get some intuitive understanding of the physics, let
us temporarily ignore the damping of the cavity modes
that would result from their coupling to modes outside
the cavity. We now have a pair of coupled EOMs for the
two modes
a
S
= + a
I
= + a
S
(5.17)
for which the solutions are
a
S
(t) = cosh(t) a
S
(0) + sinh(t) a
I
(0)
a
I
(t) = sinh(t) a
S
(0) + cosh(t) a
I
(0) (5.18)
We see that the amplitude in the signal channel grows ex
ponentially in time and that the eect of the time evolu
tion is to perform a simple unitary transformation which
mixes a
S
with a
I
in such a way as to preserve the commu
tation relations. Note the close connection with the form
found from very general arguments in Eqs. (5.7)(5.11).
We may now tackle the full system which includes the
coupling between the cavity modes and modes external
to the cavity. Such a coupling is of course necessary in
order to feed the input signal into the cavity, as well as ex
tract the amplied output signal. It will also result in the
damping of the cavity modes, which will cut o the expo
nential growth found above and yield a xed amplitude
gain. We will present and motivate the main results in
this subsection, relegating details to how one treats the
bath modes (socalled inputoutput theory (Walls and
Milburn, 1994)) to Appendix E. Working in the stan
dard Markovian limit, we obtain the following EOMs in
the interaction representation:
a
S
=
S
2
a
S
+ a
b
S,in
,
I
=
I
2
a
I
+ a
S
I,in
. (5.19)
Here
S
and
I
are the respective damping rates of the
cavity signal mode and the idler mode. The coupling to
extracavity modes also lets signals and noise enter the
cavity from the baths: this is described by the bosonic
operators
b
S,in
and
b
I,in
which drive (respectively) the
signal and idler modes.
b
S,in
describes both the input
signal to be amplied plus vacuum noise entering from
the bath coupled to the signal mode, whereas
b
I,in
simply
describes vacuum noise.
10
Let us x our attention on signals inside a frequency
window centered on
S
(hence zero frequency in the
interaction representation). For simplicity, we will rst
consider the case where the signal bandwidth is al
most innitely narrow (i.e. much much smaller than the
10
Note that the
b operators are not dimensionless, as
b
b represents
a photon ux. This is discussed fully in Appendix E.
damping rate of the cavity modes). It then suces to
nd the steady state solution of these EOMs
a
S
=
2
S
a
I
2
b
S,in
(5.20)
a
I
=
2
I
a
S
I,in
. (5.21)
The output signal of the nondegnerate paramp is
the signal leaving the cavity signal mode and entering
the external bath modes; it is described by an oper
ator
b
S,out
. The standard inputoutput theory treat
ment of the extracavity modes (Walls and Milburn,
1994), presented in Appendix E, yields the simple re
lation (cf. Eq. (E37)):
b
S,out
=
b
S,in
+
S
a
S
. (5.22)
The rst term corresponds to the reection of the signal
and noise incident on the cavity from the bath, while
the second term corresponds to radiation from the cavity
mode into the bath. Using this, we nd that the output
signal from the cavity is given by
b
S,out
=
Q
2
+ 1
Q
2
1
b
S,in
+
2Q
Q
2
1
I,in
, (5.23)
where Q
2
IS
is proportional to the pump amplitude
and inversely proportional to the cavity decay rates. We
have to require Q
2
< 1 to make sure that the parametric
amplier does not settle into selfsustained oscillations,
i.e. it works below threshold. Under that condition, we
can dene the photonnumber gain G
0
via
_
G
0
= (Q
2
+ 1)/(Q
2
1), (5.24)
such that
b
S,out
=
_
G
0
b
S,in
_
G
0
1
I,in
. (5.25)
In the ideal case, the noise associated with
b
I,in
,
b
S,in
is simply vacuum noise. As a result, the inputoutput
relation Eq. (5.25) is precisely of the HausCaves form
Eq. (5.11) for an ideal, quantumlimited amplier. It
demonstrates that the nondegenerate parametric ampli
er reaches the quantum limit for minimum added noise.
In the limit of large gain the output noise (referred to the
input) for a vacuum input signal is precisely doubled.
2. Bandwidthgain tradeo
The above results neglected the nite bandwidth
of the input signal to the amplier. The gain G
0
given
in Eq. (5.24) is only the gain at precisely the mean sig
nal frequency
S
; for a nite bandwidth, we also need to
understand how the power gain varies as a function of
frequency over the entire signal bandwidth. As we will
see, a parametric amplier suers from the fact that as
30
S
FIG. 8 (Color online) Energy level scheme of the non
degenerate (phase preserving) parametric oscillator.
one increases the overall magnitude of the gain at the
center frequency
S
(e.g. by increasing the pump ampli
tude), one simultaneously narrows the frequency range
over which the gain is appreciable. Heuristically, this
is because parametric amplication involves using the
pump energy to decrease the damping and hence increase
the quality factor of the signal mode resonance. This in
crease in quality factor leads to amplication, but it also
reduces the bandwidth over which a
S
can respond to the
input signal
b
S,in
.
To deal with a nite signal bandwidth, one simply
Fourier transforms Eqs. (5.19). The resulting equations
are easily solved and substituted into Eq. (5.22), result
ing in a frequencydependent generalization of the input
output relation given in Eq. (5.25):
b
S,out
[] = g[]
b
S,in
[] g
[]
I,in
[]
(5.26)
Here, g[] is the frequencydependent gain of the ampli
er, and g
[] satises [g
[][
2
= [g[][
2
1. In the rele
vant limit where G
0
= [g[0][
2
1 (i.e. large gain at the
signal frequency), one has to an excellent approximation:
g[] =
G
0
i
_
SI
I+S
_
(/D)
1 i(/D)
, (5.27)
with
D =
1
G
0
S
+
I
. (5.28)
As always, we work in an interaction picture where the
signal frequency has been shifted to zero. D represents
the eective operating bandwidth of the amplier. Com
ponents of the signal with frequencies (in the rotating
frame) [[ D are strongly amplied, while components
with frequencies [[ D are not amplied at all, but
can in fact be slightly attenuated. As we already antici
pated, the amplication bandwidth D becomes progres
sively smaller as the pump power and G
0
are increased,
with the product
G
0
D remaining constant. In a para
metric amplier increasing the gain via increasing the
pump strength comes with a price: the eective operat
ing bandwidth is reduced.
3. Eective temperature
Recall that in Sec. II.B, we introduced the concept
of an eective temperature of a nonequilibrium system,
Eq. (2.8). As we will discuss, this concept plays an impor
tant role in quantumlimited ampliers; the degenerate
paramp gives us a rst example of this. Returning to the
behaviour of the paramp at the signal frequency, we note
that Eq. (5.25) implies that even for vacuum input to
both the signal and idler ports, the output will contain
a real photon ux. To quantify this in a simple way, it
is useful to introduce temporal modes which describe the
input and output elds during a particular time interval
[jt, (j + 1)t] (where j is an integer):
B
S,in,j
=
1
t
_
(j+1)t
jt
d
b
S,in
(), (5.29)
with the temporal modes
B
S,out,j
and
B
I,in,j
being de
ned analogously. These temporal modes are discussed
further in Appendix D.2, where we discuss the windowed
Fourier transform (cf. Eq. (D18)).
With the above denition, we nd that the output
mode will have a real occupancy even if the input mode
is empty:
n
S,out
= 0[
S,out,j
B
S,out,j
[0
= G
0
0[
S,in,j
B
S,in,j
[0 +
(G
0
1)0[
B
I,in,j
B
I,in,j
[0
= G
0
1. (5.30)
The dimensionless mode occupancy n
S,out
is best thought
of as a photon ux per unit bandwidth (cf. Eq.(D26)).
This photon ux is equivalent to the photon ux that
would appear in equilibrium at the very high eective
temperature (assuming large gain G
0
)
T
e
S
G
0
. (5.31)
This is an example of a more general principle, to be
discussed in Sec. V.E.4: a high gain amplier must have
associated with it a large eective temperature scale. Re
ferring this total output noise back to the input, we have
(in the limit G
0
1):
T
e
G
0
=
S
2
+
S
2
=
S
2
+T
N
. (5.32)
This corresponds to the half photon of vacuum noise as
sociated with the signal source, plus the added noise of
a half photon of our phase preserving amplier (i.e. the
noise temperature T
N
is equal to its quantum limited
value). Here, the added noise is simply the vacuum noise
associated with the idler port.
The above argument is merely suggestive that the out
put noise looks like an eective temperature. In fact,
it is possible to show that the photon number distribu
tion of the output is precisely that of a BoseEinstein
31
distribution at temperature T
e
. From Eq. (5.13) we see
that the action of the paramp is to destroy a pump pho
ton and create a pair of new photons, one in the signal
channel and one in the idler channel. Using the SU(1,1)
symmetry of the quadratic hamiltonian in Eq. (5.16) it
is possible to show that, for vacuum input, the output
of the paramp is a socalled twomode squeezed state
of the form (Caves and Schumaker, 1985; Gerry, 1985;
Knight and Buzek, 2004)
[
out
= Z
1/2
e
b
S
b
I
[0 (5.33)
where is a constant related to the gain and, to simplify
the notation, we have dropped the out labels on the
operators. The normalization constant Z can be worked
out by expanding the exponential and using
(b
S
)
n
[0, 0 =
n![n, 0 (5.34)
to obtain
[
out
= Z
1/2
n=0
n
[n, n (5.35)
and hence
Z =
1
1 [[
2
(5.36)
so the state is normalizable only for [[
2
< 1.
Because this output is obtained by unitary evolution
from the vacuum input state, the output state is a pure
state with zero entropy. In light of this, it is interesting
to consider the reduced density matrix obtain by tracing
over the idler mode. The pure state density matrix is:
= [
out
out
[
=
m,n=0
[n, n
m
Z
m, m[ (5.37)
If we now trace over the idler mode we are left with the
reduced density matrix for the signal channel
S
= Tr
Idler
=
nS=0
[n
S
[[
2nS
Z
n
S
[
1
Z
e
Sa
S
aS
(5.38)
which is a pure thermal equilibrium distribution with ef
fective Boltzmann factor
e
S
= [[
2
< 1. (5.39)
The eective temperature can be obtained from the re
quirement that the signal mode occupancy is G
0
1
1
e
S
1
= G
0
1 (5.40)
which in the limit of large gain reduces to Eq. (5.31).
a
out
a
in
b
in
b
out
input line output line
amplifier
FIG. 9 (Color online) Schematic of a twoport bosonic ampli
er. Both the input and outputs of the amplier are attached
to transmission lines. The incoming and outgoing wave am
plitudes in the input (output) transmission line are labelled
ain, aout (
bin,
Va,
V
b
) are linear combinations of incoming and
outgoing wave amplitudes.
TABLE IV Two dierent amplier modes of operation.
Mode Input Signal Output Signal
s(t) o(t)
Scattering s(t) = ain(t) o(t) = bout(t))
(ain indep. of aout) (bout indep. of bin)
Opamp s(t) = Va(t) o(t) = V
b
(t)
(ain depends on aout) (bout depends on bin)
This appearance of nite entropy in a subsystem even
when the full system is in a pure state is a purely quan
tum eect. Classically the entropy of a composite system
is at least as large as the entropy of any of its compo
nents. Entanglement among the components allows this
lower bound on the entropy to be violated in a quantum
system.
11
In this case the twomode squeezed state has
strong entanglement between the signal and idler chan
nels (since their photon numbers are uctuating identi
cally).
D. Scattering versus opamp modes of operation
We now begin to address the question of how the stan
dard HausCaves derivation of the amplier quantum
limit presented in Sec. V.B relates to the general linear
response approach of Sec. IV. Recall that in Sec. III.B.3,
we already used this latter approach to discuss position
detection with a cavity detector, reaching similar conclu
sions (i.e. at best, the detector adds noise equal to the
zeropoint noise). In that linearresponsebased discus
sion, we saw that a crucial aspect of the quantum limit
was the tradeo between backaction noise and measure
11
This paradox has prompted Charles Bennett to remark that a
classical house is at least as dirty as its dirtiest room, but a
quantum house can be dirty in every room and still perfectly
clean over all.
32
a
out
a
in
b
in
b
out
cold
load
input line
output line
u
in
u
out
vacuum noise
amplifier
circulator
FIG. 10 Illustration of a bosonic twoport amplier used in
the scattering mode of operation. The signal is an incoming
wave in the input port of the amplier, and does not depend
on what is coming out of the amplier. This is achieved by
connecting the input line to a circulator and a cold load
(i.e. a zero temperature resistor): all that goes back towards
the source of the input signal is vacuum noise.
ment imprecision noise. We saw that reaching the quan
tum limit required both a detector with ideal noise, as
well as an optimization of the detectoroscillator coupling
strength. Somewhat disturbingly, none of these ideas ap
peared explicitly in the HausCaves derivation; this can
give the misleading impression that the quantum limit
never has anything to do with backaction. A further
confusion comes from the fact that many detectors have
input and outputs that cannot be described by a set of
bosonic modes. How does one apply the above arguments
to such systems?
The rst step in resolving these seeming inconsisten
cies is to realize that there are really two dierent ways
in which one can use a given amplier or detector. In de
ciding how to couple the input signal (i.e. the signal to be
amplied) to the amplier, and in choosing what quan
tity to measure, the experimentalist essentially enforces
boundary conditions; as we will now show, there are in
general two distinct ways in which to do this. For con
creteness, consider the situation depicted in Fig. 9: a two
port voltage amplier where the input and output ports
of the amplier are attached to onedimensional trans
mission lines (see App. C for a quick review of quantum
transmission lines). Similar to the previous subsection,
we focus on a narrow bandwidth signal centered about a
frequency . At this frequency, there exists both a right
moving and a leftmoving wave in each transmission line.
We label the corresponding amplitudes in the input (out
put) line with a
in
, a
out
(b
in
, b
out
), as per Fig. 9. Quantum
mechanically, these amplitudes become operators, much
in the same way that we treated the mode amplitude a
as an operator in the previous subsection. We will ana
lyze this twoport bosonic amplier in detail in Sec. VI;
here, we will only sketch its operation to introduce the
two dierent amplier operation modes. This will then
allow us to understand the subtleties of the HausCaves
quantum limit derivation.
In the rst kind of setup, the experimentalist arranges
things so that a
in
, the amplitude of the wave incident on
the ampliers input port, is precisely equal to the signal
to be amplied (i.e. the input signal), irrespective of the
amplitude of the wave leaving the input port (i.e. a
out
).
Further, the output signal is taken to be the amplitude
of the outgoing wave exiting the output of the amplier
(i.e. b
out
), again, irrespective of whatever might be en
tering the output port (see Table IV). In this situation,
the HausCaves description of the quantum limit in the
previous subsection is almost directly applicable; we will
make this precise in Sec. VI. Backaction is indeed ir
relevant, as the prescribed experimental conditions mean
that it plays no role. We will call this mode of oper
ation the scattering mode, as it is most relevant to
timedependent experiments where the experimentalist
launches a signal pulse at the input of the amplier and
looks at what exits the output port. One is usually only
interested in the scattering mode of operation in cases
where the source producing the input signal is matched
to the input of the amplier: only in this case is the input
wave a
in
perfectly transmitted into the amplier. As we
will see in Sec. VI, such a perfect matching requires a rel
atively strong coupling between the signal source and the
input of the amplier; as such, the amplier will strongly
enhance the damping of the signal source.
The second mode of linear amplier operation is what
we call the opamp mode; this is the mode one usu
ally has in mind when thinking of an amplier which
is weakly coupled to the signal source, and will be the
focus of the next two subsections. The key dierence
from the scattering mode is that here, the input sig
nal is not simply the amplitude of a wave incident on
the input port of the amplier; similarly, the output sig
nal is not the amplitude of a wave exiting the output
port. As such, the HausCaves derivation of the quan
tum limit does not directly apply. For the bosonic ampli
er discussed here, the opamp mode would correspond
to using the amplier as a voltage opamp. The input
signal would thus be the voltage at the end of the input
transmission line. Recall that the voltage at the end of a
transmission line involves the amplitude of both left and
right moving waves, i.e. V
a
(t) Re [a
in
(t) +a
out
(t)]. At
rst, this might seem quite confusing: if the signal source
determines V
a
(t), does this mean it sets the value of both
a
in
(t) and a
out
(t)? Doesnt this violate causality? These
fears are of course unfounded. The signal source enforces
the value of V
a
(t) by simply changing a
in
(t) in response
to the value of a
out
(t). While there is no violation of
causality, the fact that the signal source is dynamically
responding to what comes out of the ampliers input
port implies that backaction is indeed relevant.
The opamp mode of operation is relevant to the typ
ical situation of weak coupling between the signal
source and amplier input. By weak coupling, we mean
here something stronger than just requiring that the am
plier be linear: we require additionally that the ampli
er does not appreciably change the dissipation of the sig
nal source. This is analogous to the situation in an ideal
voltage opamp, where the amplier input impedance is
33
much larger than the impedance of the signal source. We
stress the opamp mode and this limit of weak coupling
is the relevant situation in most electrical measurements.
Thus, we see that the HausCaves formulation of the
quantum limit is not directly relevant to ampliers or de
tectors operated in the usual opamp mode of operation.
We clearly need some other way to describe quantum
ampliers used in this regime. As we will demonstrate in
the remainder of this section, the general linearresponse
approach of Sec. IV is exactly what is needed. To see
this, we will have to expand the discussion of Sec. IV to
include the concepts of input and output impedance, as
well as power gain. The linear response approach will
allow us to see (similar to Sec. III.B.3) that reaching the
quantum limit in the opamp mode does indeed require a
tradeo between backaction and measurement impreci
sion, and requires use of an amplier with ideal quantum
noise properties (cf. Eq. 4.11). This approach also has
the added benet of being directly applicable to systems
where the input and output of the amplier are not de
scribed by bosonic modes.
12
In the next section (Sec. VI),
we will return to the scattering description of a twoport
voltage amplier (Fig. 10), and show explicitly how an
amplier can be quantumlimited when used in the scat
tering mode of operation, but miss the quantum limit
when used in the opamp mode of operation.
E. Linear response description of a position detector
In this subsection, we will examine the amplier quan
tum limit for a twoport linear amplier in the usual weak
coupling, opamp regime of operation. Our discussion
here will make use of the results we have obtained for the
noise properties of a generic linear response detector in
Sec. IV, including the fundamental quantum noise con
straint of Eq. (4.11). For simplicity, we will start with
the concrete problem of continuous position detection of
a harmonic oscillator. Our discussion will thus generalize
the discussion of position detection using a cavity detec
tor given in Sec. III.B.3. We start with a generic detector
(as introduced in Sec. IV.A) coupled at its input to the
position x of a harmonic oscillator (cf. Eq. (4.1)).
13
We
would like to understand the total output noise of our
amplier in the presence of the oscillator, and, more im
portantly, how small we can make the ampliers contri
bution to this noise. The resulting lower bound is known
as the standard quantum limit (SQL) on position detec
tion, and is analogous to the quantum limit on the added
12
Note that the HausCaves derivation for the quantum limit of a
scattering amplier has recently been generalized to the case of
fermionic operators (Gavish et al., 2004).
13
For consistency with previous sections, our coupling Hamiltonian
does not have a minus sign. This is dierent from the conven
tion of Clerk (2004), where the coupling Hamiltonian is written
H
int
= A x
F.
noise of a voltage amplier (to be discussed in Sec. V.F).
1. Detector backaction
We rst consider the consequence of noise in the detec
tor input port. As we have already seen in Sec. II.B, the
uctuating backaction force
F acting on our oscillator
will lead to both damping and heating of the oscillator.
To model the intrinsic (i.e. detectorindependent) heating
and damping of the oscillator, we will also assume that
our oscillator is coupled to an equilibrium heat bath. In
the weakcoupling limit that we are interested in, one
can use lowestorder perturbation theory in the coupling
A to describe the eects of the backaction force
F on
the oscillator. A full quantum treatment (see Appendix
I.4) shows that the oscillator is described by an eective
classical Langevin equation:
14
M x(t) = M
2
x(t) M
0
x(t) +F
0
(t)
MA
2
_
dt
(t t
) x(t
) A F(t) (5.41)
The position x(t) in the above equation is not an op
erator, but is simply a classical variable whose uctua
tions are driven by the uctuating forces F(t) and F
0
(t).
Nonetheless, the noise in x calculated from Eq. (5.41)
corresponds precisely to
S
xx
[], the symmetrized quan
tum mechanical noise in the operator x. The uctuating
force exerted by the detector (which represents the heat
ing part of the backaction) is described by A F(t) in
Eq. (5.41); it has zero mean, and a spectral density given
by A
2
S
FF
[] in Eq. (4.4a). The kernel (t) describes
the damping eect of the detector. It is given by the
asymmetric part of the detectors quantum noise, as was
derived in Sec. II.B (cf. Eq. (2.12)).
Eq. (5.41) also describes the eects of an equilibrium
heat bath at temperature T
0
which models the intrin
sic (i.e. detectorindependent) damping and heating of
the oscillator. The parameter
0
is the damping aris
ing from this bath, and F
0
is the corresponding uc
tuating force. The spectral density of the F
0
noise is
determined by
0
and T
0
via the uctuationdissipation
theorem (cf. Eq. (2.16)). T
0
and
0
have a simple phys
ical signicance: they are the temperature and damping
of the oscillator when the coupling to the detector A is
set to zero.
To make further progress, we recall from Sec. II.B that
even though our detector will in general not be in equi
librium, we may nonetheless assign it an eective tem
perature T
e
[] at each frequency (cf. Eq. (2.8)). The
14
Note that we have omitted a backaction term in this equation
which leads to small renormalizations of the oscillator frequency
and mass. These terms are not important for the following dis
cussion, so we have omitted them for clarity; one can consider
M and in this equation to be renormalized quantities. See
Appendix I.4 for more details.
34
eective temperature of an outofequilibrium detector
is simply a measure of the asymmetry of the detectors
quantum noise. We are often interested in the limit where
the internal detector timescales are much faster than the
timescales relevant to the oscillator (i.e.
1
,
1
,
1
0
).
We may then take the 0 limit in the expression for
T
e
, yielding:
2k
B
T
e
S
FF
(0)
M(0)
(5.42)
In this limit, the oscillator position noise calculated from
Eq. (5.41) is given by:
S
xx
[] =
1
M
2(
0
+)k
B
(
2
2
)
2
+
2
( +
0
)
2
0
T +T
e
0
+
(5.43)
This is exactly what would be expected if the oscillator
were only attached to an equilibrium Ohmic bath with a
damping coecient
=
0
+ and temperature
T =
(
0
T +T
e
)/
.
2. Total output noise
The next step in our analysis is to link uctuations
in the position of the oscillator (as determined from
Eq. (5.41)) to noise in the output of the detector. As
discussed in Sec. III.B.3, the output noise consists of the
intrinsic output noise of the detector (i.e. measurement
imprecision noise) plus the amplied position uctua
tions in the position of the oscillator. The latter contains
both an intrinsic part and a term due to the response of
the oscillator to the backaction.
To start, imagine that we can treat both the oscillator
position x(t) and the detector output I(t) as classically
uctuating quantities. Using the linearity of the detec
tors response, we can then write I
total
, the uctuating
part of the detectors output, as:
I
total
[] = I
0
[] +A
IF
[] x[] (5.44)
The rst term (I
0
) describes the intrinsic (oscillator
independent) uctuations in the detector output, and
has a spectral density
S
II
[]. If we scale this by [
IF
[
2
,
we have the measurement imprecision noise discussed in
Sec. III.B.3. The second term corresponds to the ampli
ed uctuations of the oscillator, which are in turn given
by solving Eq. (5.41):
x[] =
_
1/M
(
2
2
) +i/Q[]
_
(F
0
[] A F[])
xx
[](F
0
[] A F[]) (5.45)
where Q[] = /(
0
+ []) is the oscillator quality fac
tor. It follows that the spectral density of the total noise
in the detector output is given classically by:
o
II,tot
[] = o
II
[]
+ [
xx
[]
IF
[][
2
_
A
4
o
FF
[] +A
2
o
F0F0
[]
_
+ 2A
2
Re [
xx
[]
IF
[]o
IF
[]] (5.46)
I
x y
F
A B
g
0
+
Ag
A Bg
y
F
D
out
+
ld
FIG. 11 (Color online) Schematic of a generic linearresponse
position detector, where an auxiliary oscillator y is driven by
the detector output.
Here, o
II
, o
FF
and o
IF
are the (classical) detector noise
correlators calculated in the absence of any coupling to
the oscillator. Note importantly that we have included
the fact that the two kinds of detector noise (in
I and in
int
= B
I y,
where B is a coupling strength. The oscillations in I(t)
will now act as a driving force on the auxiliary oscillator
y (see Fig 11). We can consider the auxiliary oscillator y
as a load we are trying to drive with the output of our
detector.
To nd the power gain, we need to consider both P
out
,
the power supplied to the output oscillator y from the de
tector, and P
in
, the power fed into the input of the ampli
er. Consider rst P
in
. This is simply the timeaveraged
power dissipation of the input oscillator x caused by the
backaction damping []. Using a bar to denote a time
average, we have:
P
in
M[] x
2
= M[]
2
[
xx
[][
2
F
2
D
(5.47)
Note that the oscillator susceptibility
xx
[] depends on
both the backaction damping [] as well as the intrinsic
oscillator damping
0
(cf. Eq. (5.45)).
Next, we need to consider the power supplied to the
load oscillator y at the detector output. This oscilla
tor will have some intrinsic, detectorindependent damp
ing
ld
, as well as a backaction damping
out
. In the
same way that the backaction damping of the input
oscillator x is determined by the quantum noise in
F
(cf. Eq. (2.14)(2.12)), the backaction damping of the
load oscillator y is determined by the quantum noise in
the output operator
I:
out
[] =
B
2
M
[Im
II
[]]
=
B
2
M
_
S
II
[] S
II
[]
2
_
(5.48)
where
II
is the linearresponse susceptibility which de
termines how
I:
II
[] =
i
_
0
dt
__
I(t),
I(0)
__
e
it
(5.49)
As the oscillator y is being driven on resonance, the rela
tion between y and I is given by y[] =
yy
[]I[] with
yy
[] = i[M
out
[]]
1
. From conservation of energy,
we have that the net power ow into the output oscillator
from the detector is equal to the power dissipated out of
the oscillator through the intrinsic damping
ld
. We thus
have:
P
out
M
ld
y
2
= M
ld
2
[
yy
[][
2
[BA
IF
xx
[]F
D
[
2
=
1
M
ld
(
ld
+
out
[])
2
[BA
IF
xx
[]F
D
[
2
(5.50)
Using the above denitions, we nd that the ratio be
tween P
out
and P
in
is independent of
0
, but depends on
ld
:
P
out
P
in
=
1
M
2
2
A
2
B
2
[
IF
[][
2
out
[][]
ld
/
out
[]
(1 +
ld
/
out
[])
2
(5.51)
We now dene the detector power gain G
P
[] as the value
of this ratio maximized over the choice of
ld
. The max
imum occurs for
ld
=
out
[] (i.e. the load oscillator is
matched to the output of the detector), resulting in:
G
P
[] max
_
P
out
P
in
_
=
1
4M
2
2
A
2
B
2
[
IF
[
2
out
=
[
IF
[][
2
4Im
FF
[] Im
II
[]
(5.52)
In the last line, we have used the relation between the
damping rates [] and
out
[] and the linearresponse
susceptibilities
FF
[] and
II
[] (cf. Eqs. (2.15) and
(5.48)). We thus nd that the power gain is a simple di
mensionless ratio formed by the three dierent response
coecients characterizing the detector, and is indepen
dent of the coupling constants A and B. As we will see
in subsection V.F, it is completely analogous to the power
gain of a voltage amplier, which is also determined by
three parameters: the voltage gain, the input impedance
and the output impedance. Note that there are other
important measures of power gain commonly in use in
the engineering community: we will comment on these
in Sec. VII.B.
Finally, the above results are easily generalized to
the case where the detectors reverse gain
FI
is non
vanishing. For simplicity, we present results for the case
where = Re (
IF
FI
) /[
IF
[
2
0, implying that there
is no positive feedback. Maximizing the ratio of P
out
/P
in
over choices of
ld
now yields
G
P,rev
=
2G
P
1 + 2G
P
+
1 + 4G
P
1/. (5.53)
36
Here, G
P,rev
is the power gain in the presence of reverse
gain, while G
P
is the zeroreverse gain power gain given
by Eq. (5.52). One can conrm that G
P,rev
is a mono
tonic increasing function of G
P
, and is bounded by 1/.
As we have previously noted in Sec.IV.A.4, if
FI
=
IF
,
there is no additional quantum noise constraint on our
detector beyond what exists classically (i.e. the RHS of
Eq. (4.11) vanishes). We now see explicitly that when
FI
=
IF
, the power gain of our detector can be at
most 1, as = 1. Thus, while there is no minimum
backaction noise required by quantum mechanics in this
case, there is also no amplication: at best, our detec
tor would act as a transducer. Note further that if the
detector has
FI
=
IF
and optimizes the inequality of
Eq. (4.11), then one can show G
P,rev
must be one (cf. Ap
pendix I.2): the detector is simply a transducer. This
is in keeping with the results obtained using the Haus
Caves approach, which also yields the conclusion that a
noiseless detector is a transducer.
4. Simplications for a quantumideal detector
We now consider the important case where our detec
tor has no reverse gain (allowing it to have a large power
gain), and also has ideal quantum noise (i.e. it satises
the ideal noise condition of Eq. (4.17)). Fullling this
condition immediately places some powerful constraints
on our detector.
First, note that we have dened in Eq. (5.42) the eec
tive temperature of our detector based on what happens
at the input port; this is the eective temperature seen
by the oscillator we are trying to measure. We could also
consider the eective temperature of the detector as seen
at the output (i.e. by the oscillator y used in dening
the power gain). This output eective temperature is
determined by the quantum noise in the output operator
I:
k
B
T
e,out
[]
log (S
II
[+]/S
II
[])
(5.54)
For a general outofequilibrium amplier, T
e,out
does
not have to be equal to the input eective temperature
T
e
dened by Eq. (2.8). However, for a quantumideal
detector, the eective proportionality between input and
output operators (cf. Eq. (I13)) immediately yields:
T
e,out
[] = T
e
[] (5.55)
Thus, a detector with quantumideal noise necessarily
has the same eective temperature at its input and its
output. This is all the more remarkable given that a
quantumideal detector cannot be in equilibrium, and
thus T
e
cannot represent a real physical temperature.
Another important simplication for a quantumideal
detector is the expression for the power gain. Using
the proportionality between input and output operators
(cf. Eq. (I13)), one nds:
G
P
[] =
(Im )
2
coth
2
_
2kBT
eff
_
+ (Re )
2
[[
2
(5.56)
where [] is the parameter characterizing a quantum
limited detector in Eq. (4.18); recall that [[][
2
deter
mines the ratio of S
II
and S
FF
. It follows immediately
that for a detector with ideal noise to also have a large
power gain (G
P
1), one absolutely needs k
B
T
e
:
a large power gain implies a large eective detector tem
perature. In the large G
P
limit, we have
G
P
_
Im
[[
k
B
T
e
/2
_
2
(5.57)
Thus, the eective temperature of a quantumideal detec
tor does more than just characterize the detector back
action it also determines the power gain.
Finally, an additional consequence of the large G
P
[],
large T
e
limit is that the gain
IF
and noise cross
correlator
S
IF
are in phase:
S
IF
/
IF
is purely real, up to
corrections which are small as /T
e
. This is shown ex
plicitly in Appendix I.3. Thus, we nd that a large power
gain detector with ideal quantum noise cannot have sig
nicant outofphase correlations between its output and
input noises. This last point may be understood in terms
of the idea of wasted information: if there were signi
cant outofphase correlations between
I and
F, it would
be possible to improve the performance of the amplier
by using feedback. We will discuss this point more fully
in Sec. VI. Note that as
S
IF
/
IF
is real, the last term
in the quantum noise constraint of Eq. (4.11) vanishes.
5. Quantum limit on added noise and noise temperature
We now turn to calculating the noise added to our
signal (i.e. x(t)) by our generic position detector. To
characterize this added noise, it is useful to take the total
(symmetrized) noise in the output of the detector, and
refer it back to the input by dividing out the gain of the
detector:
S
xx,tot
[]
S
II,tot
[]
A
2
[
IF
[][
2
(5.58)
S
xx,tot
[] is simply the frequencydependent spectral
density of position uctuations inferred from the output
of the detector. It is this quantity which will directly
determine the sensitivity of the detector given a certain
detection bandwidth, what is the smallest variation of x
that can be resolved? The quantity
S
xx,tot
[] will have
contributions both from the intrinsic uctuations of the
input signal, as well as a contribution due to the detector.
We rst dene
S
xx,eq
[, T] to be the symmetrized equi
librium position noise of our damped oscillator (whose
damping is
0
+) at temperature T:
S
xx,eq
[, T] = coth
_
2k
B
T
_
[Im
xx
[]] (5.59)
37
where the oscillator susceptibility
xx
[] is dened in
Eq. (5.45). The total inferred position noise may then
be written:
S
xx,tot
[]
_
0
0
+
_
S
xx,eq
[, T
0
] +
S
xx,add
[] (5.60)
In the usual case where the detector noise can be approx
imated as being white, this spectral density will consist of
a Lorentzian sitting atop a constant noise oor (cf. Fig. 6)
The rst term in Eq. (5.60) represents position noise aris
ing from the uctuating force F
0
(t) associated with the
intrinsic (detectorindependent) dissipation of the oscil
lator (cf. Eq. (5.41)). The prefactor of this term arises
because the strength of the intrinsic Langevin force act
ing on the oscillator is proportional to
0
, not to
0
+.
The second term in Eq. (5.60) represents the added
position noise due to the detector. It has contributions
from both from the detectors intrinsic output noise
S
II
as well as from the detectors backaction noise
S
FF
, and
may be written:
S
xx,add
[] =
S
II
[
IF
[
2
A
2
+A
2
[
xx
[
2
S
FF
+
2Re
_
IF
(
xx
)
S
IF
[
IF
[
2
(5.61)
For clarity, we have omitted writing the explicit fre
quency dependence of the gain
IF
, susceptibility
xx
,
and noise correlators; they should all be evaluated at the
frequency . Note that the rst term on the RHS cor
responds to the measurement imprecision noise of our
detector,
S
I
xx
().
We can now nally address the quantum limit on the
added noise in this setup. As discussed in Sec. V.D,
the HausCaves derivation of the quantum limit (cf.
Sec. V.B) is not directly applicable to the position de
tector we are describing here; nonetheless, we may use
its result to guess what form the quantum limit will take
here. The HausCaves argument told us that the added
noise of a phasepreserving linear amplier must be at
least as large as the zero point noise. We thus anticipate
that if our detector has a large power gain, the spectral
density of the noise added by the detector (i.e.
S
xx,add
[])
must be at least as big as the zero point noise of our
damped oscillator:
S
xx,add
[] lim
T0
S
xx,eq
[w, T] = [Im
xx
[][ (5.62)
We will now show that the bound above is rigorously
correct at each frequency .
The rst step is to examine the dependence of the
added noise
S
xx,add
[] (as given by Eq. (5.61)) on the
coupling strength A. If we ignore for a moment the
detectordependent damping of the oscillator, the sit
uation is the same as the cavity position detector of
Sec. III.B.3: there is an optimal value of the coupling
strength A which corresponds to a tradeo between
imprecision noise and backaction (i.e. rst and second
terms in Eq. (5.61)). We would thus expect
S
xx,add
[] to
attain a minimum value at an optimal choice of coupling
A = A
opt
where both these terms make equal contribu
tions (see Fig. 5). Dening [] = arg
xx
[], we thus
have the bound:
S
xx,add
[] 2[
xx
[][
_
S
II
S
FF
[
IF
[
2
+
Re
_
IF
e
i[]
S
IF
[
IF
[
2
_
(5.63)
where the minimum value at frequency is achieved
when:
A
2
opt
=
S
II
[]
[
IF
[]
xx
[][
2
S
FF
[]
(5.64)
Using the inequality X
2
+ Y
2
2[XY [ we see that this
value serves as a lower bound on
S
xx,add
even in the pres
ence of detectordependent damping. In the case where
the detectordependent damping is negligible, the RHS of
Eq. (5.63) is independent of A, and thus Eq. (5.64) can
be satised by simply tuning the coupling strength A; in
the more general case where there is detectordependent
damping, the RHS is also a function of A (through the re
sponse function
xx
[]), and it may no longer be possible
to achieve Eq. (5.64) by simply tuning A.
15
While Eq. (5.63) is certainly a bound on the added
displacement noise
S
xx,add
[], it does not in itself rep
resent the quantum limit. Reaching the quantum limit
requires more than simply balancing the detector back
action and intrinsic output noises (i.e. the rst two terms
in Eq. (5.61)); one also needs a detector with quantum
ideal noise properties, that is a detector which satis
es Eq. (4.17). Using the quantum noise constraint of
Eq. (4.11) to further bound
S
xx,add
[], we obtain:
S
xx,add
[] 2
xx
[]
IF
_
[
IF
[
2
_
2
_
1 +
_
2
S
IF
IF
__
+
S
IF
2
+
Re
_
IF
e
i[]
S
IF
[
IF
[
_
(5.65)
where the function [z] is dened in Eq. (4.12). The
minimum value of
S
xx,add
[] in Eq. (5.65) is now achieved
when one has both an optimal coupling (i.e. Eq. (5.64))
and a quantum limited detector, that is one which satis
es Eq. (4.11) as an equality.
Next, we consider the relevant case where our detector
is a good amplier and has a power gain G
P
[] 1 over
the width of the oscillator resonance. As we have dis
cussed, this implies that the ratio
S
IF
/
IF
is purely real,
15
Note that in the heuristic discussion of position detection using
a resonant cavity detector in Sec. III.B.3, these concerns did not
arise as there was no backaction damping.
38
up to small /(k
B
T
e
) corrections (see Sec. (IV.A.4)
and Appendix I.3 for more details). This in turn implies
that [2
S
IF
/
IF
] = 0; we thus have:
S
xx,add
[]
2[
xx
[][
_
_
2
_
2
+
_
S
IF
IF
_
2
+
cos [[]]
S
IF
IF
_
_
(5.66)
Finally, as there is no further constraint on
S
IF
/
IF
(be
yond the fact that it is real), we can minimize the expres
sion over its value. The minimum
S
xx,add
[] is achieved
for a detector whose crosscorrelator satises:
S
IF
[]
IF
optimal
=
2
cot [], (5.67)
with the minimum value being given by:
S
xx,add
[]
min
= [Im
xx
[][ = lim
T0
S
xx,eq
[, T]
(5.68)
where
S
xx,eq
[, T] is the equilibrium contribution to
S
xx,tot
[] dened in Eq. (5.59). Thus, in the limit of
a large power gain, we have that at each frequency, the
minimum displacement noise added by the detector is pre
cisely equal to the noise arising from a zero temperature
bath. This conclusion is irrespective of the strength of
the intrinsic (detectorindependent) oscillator damping.
We have thus derived the amplier quantum limit (in
the context of position detection) for a twoport ampli
er used in the opamp mode of operation. Though we
reached a conclusion similar to that given by the Haus
Caves approach, the linearresponse, quantum noise ap
proach used is quite dierent. This approach makes ex
plicitly clear what is needed to reach the quantum limit.
We nd that to reach the quantumlimit on the added
displacement noise
S
xx,add
[] with a large power gain,
one needs:
1. A quantum limited detector, that is a detec
tor which satises the ideal noise condition of
Eq. (4.17), and hence the proportionality condition
of Eq. (I13).
2. A coupling A which satises Eq. (5.64).
3. A detector crosscorrelator
S
IF
which satises
Eq. (5.67).
Recall that condition (1) is identical to what is required
for quantumlimited detection of a qubit; it is rather de
manding, and requires that there is no wasted informa
tion about the input signal in the detector which is not
revealed in the output (Clerk et al., 2003). Also note that
cot changes quickly as a function of frequency across
the oscillator resonance, whereas
S
IF
will be roughly
constant; condition (2) thus implies that it will not be
possible to achieve a minimal
S
xx,add
[] across the en
tire oscillator resonance. A more reasonable goal is to
optimize
S
xx,add
[] at resonance, = . As
xx
[] is
imaginary, Eq. (5.67) tells us that
S
IF
should be zero.
Assuming we have a quantumlimited detector with a
large power gain (k
B
T
e
), the remaining condition
on the coupling A (Eq. (5.64)) may be written as:
[A
opt
]
0
+[A
opt
]
=
Im
1
2
_
G
P
[]
=
4k
B
T
e
(5.69)
As [A] A
2
is the detectordependent damping of
the oscillator, we thus have that to achieve the quantum
limited value of
S
xx,add
[] with a large power gain,
one needs the intrinsic damping of the oscillator to be
much larger than the detectordependent damping. The
detectordependent damping must be small enough to
compensate the large eective temperature of the detec
tor; if the bath temperature satises /k
B
T
bath
T
e
, Eq. (5.69) implies that at the quantum limit, the
temperature of the oscillator will be given by:
T
osc
T
e
+
0
T
bath
+
0
4k
B
+T
bath
(5.70)
Thus, at the quantum limit and for large T
e
, the detec
tor raises the oscillators temperature by /4k
B
.
16
As
expected, this additional heating is only half the zero
point energy; in contrast, the quantumlimited value of
S
xx,add
[] corresponds to the full zeropoint result, as
it also includes the contribution of the intrinsic output
noise of the detector.
Finally, we return to Eq. (5.65); this is the constraint
on the added noise
S
xx,add
[] before we assumed our de
tector to have a large power gain, and consequently a
large T
e
. Note crucially that if we did not require a
large power gain, then there need not be any added noise.
Without the assumption of a large power gain, the ratio
S
IF
/
IF
can be made imaginary with a large magni
tude. In this limit, 1 + [2
S
IF
/
IF
] 0: the quan
tum constraint on the amplier noises (e.g. the RHS of
Eq. (4.11)) vanishes. One can then easily use Eq. (5.65)
to show that the added noise
S
xx,add
[] can be zero. This
conrms a general conclusion that we have seen several
times now (cf. Secs. IV.A.4, V.B): if a detector does not
amplify (i.e. the power gain is unity), it need not produce
any added noise.
F. Quantum limit on the noise temperature of a voltage
amplier
We now turn attention to the quantum limit on the
added noise of a generic linear voltage amplier used in
the opamp mode of operation (see, e.g. , Devoret and
16
If in contrast our oscillator was initially at zero temperature (i.e.
T
bath
= 0), one nds that the eect of the backaction (at the
quantum limit and for G
P
1) is to heat the oscillator to a
temperature /(k
B
ln 5).
39
input output
Z
in
Z
out
Z
S
v
in
Z
L
I
L
V
out
V
I
V
~
I
~
FIG. 12 Schematic of a linear voltage amplier, including a
reverse gain I.
V and
I represent the standard voltage and
current noises of the amplier, as discussed further in the text.
The case with reverse gain is discussed in detail in Sec. VI.
Schoelkopf (2000)). For such ampliers, the added noise
is usually expressed in terms of the noise temperature
of the amplier; we will dene this concept, and demon
strate that, when appropriately dened, this noise tem
perature must be bigger than /(2k
B
), where is the
signal frequency. Though the voltage amplier is closely
analogous to the position detector treated in the previ
ous section, its importance makes it worthy of a separate
discussion. Similar to the last subsection, our discussion
here will use the general linearresponse approach. In
contrast, in Sec. VI, we will present the bosonic scatter
ing description of a twoport voltage amplier, a descrip
tion similar to that used in formulating the HausCaves
proof of the amplier quantum limit. We will then be
in a good position to contrast the linearresponse and
scattering approaches, and will clearly see there that the
scattering mode of operation and the opamp mode of
operation discussed here are not equivalent. We stress
that the general treatment presented here can also be
applied directly to the system discussed in Sec. VI.
1. Classical description of a voltage amplier
Let us begin by recalling the standard schematic de
scription of a voltage amplier, see Fig. 12. The in
put voltage to be amplied v
in
(t) is produced by a cir
cuit which has a Theveninequivalent impedance Z
s
, the
source impedance. We stress that we are considering the
opamp mode of amplier operation, and thus the in
put signal does not correspond to the amplitude of a
wave incident upon the amplier (see Sec. V.D). The
amplier itself has an input impedance Z
in
and an out
put impedance Z
out
, as well as a voltage gain coecient
V
: assuming no current is drawn at the output (i.e.
Z
load
in Fig. 12), the output voltage V
out
(t) is sim
ply
V
times the voltage across the input terminals of
the amplier.
The added noise of the amplier is standardly repre
sented by two noise sources placed at the amplier input.
There is both a voltage noise source
V (t) in series with
the input voltage source, and a current noise source
I(t)
in parallel with input voltage source (Fig. 12). The volt
age noise produces a uctuating voltage
V (t) (spectral
density o
V
V
[]) which simply adds to the signal voltage
at the amplier input, and is amplied at the output; as
such, it is completely analogous to the intrinsic detector
output noise o
II
of our linear response detector. In con
trast, the current noise source of the voltage amplier
represents backaction: this uctuating current (spectral
density o
I
[]) ows back across the parallel combination
of the source impedance and amplier input impedance,
producing an additional uctuating voltage at its input.
The current noise is thus analogous to the backaction
noise o
FF
of our generic linear response detector.
Putting the above together, the total voltage at the
input terminals of the amplier is:
v
in,tot
(t) =
Z
in
Z
in
+Z
s
_
v
in
(t) +
V (t)
_
Z
s
Z
in
Z
s
+Z
in
I(t)
v
in
(t) +
V (t) Z
s
I(t) (5.71)
In the second line, we have taken the usual limit of
an ideal voltage amplier which has an innite input
impedance (i.e. the amplier draws zero current). The
spectral density of the total input voltage uctuations is
thus:
o
V V,tot
[] = o
vinvin
[] +o
V V,add
[]. (5.72)
Here o
vinvin
is the spectral density of the voltage uc
tuations of the input signal v
in
(t), and S
V V,add
is the
ampliers contribution to the total noise at the input:
o
V V,add
[] = o
V
V
+[Z
s
[
2
o
I
2Re [Z
s
o
V
I
]
(5.73)
For clarity, we have dropped the frequency index for the
spectral densities appearing on the RHS of this equation.
It is useful to now consider a narrow bandwidth input
signal at a frequency , and ask the following question: if
the signal source was simply an equilibrium resistor at a
temperature T
0
, how much hotter would it have to be to
produce a voltage noise equal to o
V V,tot
[]? The result
ing increase in the source temperature is dened as the
noise temperature T
N
[] of the amplier and is a conve
nient measure of the ampliers added noise. It is stan
dard among engineers to dene the noise temperature as
suming the initial temperature of the resistor T
0
.
One may then use the classical expression for the thermal
noise of a resistor, which yields the denition:
2Re Z
s
k
B
T
N
[] o
V V,tot
[] (5.74)
Writing Z
s
= [Z
s
[e
i
, we have:
2k
B
T
N
=
1
cos
_
o
V
V
[Z
s
[
+[Z
s
[o
I
2Re
_
e
i
o
V
I
_
_
(5.75)
It is clear from this expression that T
N
will have a mini
mum as a function of [Z
s
[. For [Z
s
[ too large, the back
action current noise of the amplier will dominate T
N
,
while for [Z
s
[ too small, the voltage noise of the ampli
er (i.e. its intrinsic output noise will dominate). The
40
situation is completely analogous to the position detec
tor of the last section; there, we needed to optimize the
coupling strength A to balance backaction and intrinsic
output noise contributions, and thus minimize the to
tal added noise. Optimizing the source impedance thus
yields a completely classical minimum bound on T
N
:
k
B
T
N
_
o
V
V
o
I
[Im o
V
I
]
2
Re o
V
I
(5.76)
where the minimum is achieved for an optimal source
impedance which satises:
[Z
s
[][
opt
=
V
V
[]
o
I
[]
Z
N
(5.77)
sin []
opt
=
Im o
V
I
[]
_
S
V
V
[]o
I
[]
(5.78)
The above equations dene the socalled noise impedance
Z
N
. We stress again that the discussion so far in this
subsection has been completely classical.
2. Linear response description
It is easy to connect the classical description of a volt
age amplier to the quantum mechanical description of a
generic linear response detector; in fact, all that is needed
is a relabeling of the concepts and quantities we in
troduced in Sec. V.E when discussing a linear position
detector. Thus, the quantum voltage amplier will be
characterized by both an input operator
Q and an out
put operator
V
out
; these play the role, respectively, of
F and
I in the position detector.
V
out
represents the
output voltage of the amplier, while
Q is the operator
which couples to the input signal v
in
(t) via a coupling
Hamiltonian:
H
int
= v
in
(t)
Q (5.79)
In more familiar terms,
I
in
d
Q/dt represents the cur
rent owing into the amplier.
17
The voltage gain of our
amplier
V
will again be given by the Kubo formula of
Eq. (4.3), with the substitutions
F
Q,
I
V
out
(we
will assume these substitutions throughout this section).
We can now easily relate the uctuations of the in
put and output operators to the noise sources used to
describe the classical voltage amplier. As usual, sym
metrized quantum noise spectral densities
S[] will play
the role of the classical spectral densities o[] appearing
17
Note that one could have instead written the coupling Hamil
tonian in the more traditional form
H
int
(t) = (t)
I
in
, where
=
dt
v
in
(t
I
[]
2
S
QQ
[]. (5.80)
Similarly, the uctuations in the operator
V
out
, when re
ferred back to the amplier input, will correspond to the
voltage noise
V (t) discussed above:
o
V
V
[]
S
VoutVout
[]
[
V
[
2
(5.81)
A similar correspondence holds for the crosscorrelator of
these noise sources:
o
V
I
[] +i
S
VoutQ
[]
V
(5.82)
To proceed, we need to identify the input and output
impedances of the amplier, and then dene its power
gain. The rst step in this direction is to assume that the
output of the amplier (
V
out
) is connected to an external
circuit via a term:
int
= q
out
(t)
V
out
(5.83)
where
i
out
= dq
out
/dt is the current in the external
circuit. We may now identify the input and output
impedances of the amplier in terms of the damping at
the input and output. Using the Kubo formulae for
conductance and resistance yields (cf. Eq. (2.12) and
Eq. (5.48), with the substitutions
F
Q and
I
V ):
1/Z
in
[] = i
QQ
[] (5.84)
Z
out
[] =
V V
[]
i
(5.85)
i.e.
I
in
=
1
Zin[]
v
in
[] and V
= Z
out
[]
i
out
[],
where the subscript indicates the Fourier transform of
a timedependent expectation value.
We will consider throughout this section the case of no
reverse gain,
QVout
= 0. We can dene the power gain
G
P
exactly as we did in Sec. V.E.3 for a linear position
detector. G
P
is dened as the ratio of the power delivered
to a load attached to the amplier output divided by
the power drawn by the amplier, maximized over the
impedance of the load. One nds:
G
P
=
[
V
[
2
4Re (Z
out
)Re (1/Z
in
)
(5.86)
Expressing this in terms of the linear response coecients
V V
and
QQ
, we obtain an expression which is com
pletely analogous to Eq. (5.52) for the power gain for a
position detector:
G
P
=
[
V
[
2
4Im
QQ
Im
V V
(5.87)
41
Finally, we may again dene the eective tempera
ture T
e
[] of the amplier via Eq. (2.8), and dene a
quantumlimited voltage amplier as one which satises
the ideal noise condition of Eq. (4.17). For such an am
plier, the power gain will again be determined by the
eective temperature via Eq. (5.56).
Turning to the noise, we can again calculate the to
tal symmetrized noise at the output port of the amplier
following the same argument used to the get the out
put noise of the position detector (cf. Eq. (5.46)). As
we did in the classical approach, we will again assume
that the input impedance of the amplier is much larger
that source impedance: Z
in
Z
s
; we will test this as
sumption for consistency at the end of the calculation.
Focusing only on the amplier contribution to this noise
(as opposed to the intrinsic noise of the input signal), and
referring this noise back to the amplier input, we nd
that the symmetrized quantum noise spectral density de
scribing the added noise of the amplier,
S
V V,add
[], sat
ises the same equation we found for a classical voltage
amplier, Eq. (5.73), with each classical spectral density
o[] being replaced by the corresponding symmetrized
quantum spectral density
S[] as per Eqs. (5.80)  (5.82).
It follows that the amplier noise temperature will
again be given by Eq. (5.75), and that the optimal
noise temperature (after optimizing over the source
impedance) will be given by Eq. (5.76). Whereas classi
cally nothing more could be said, quantum mechanically,
we now get a further bound from the quantum noise con
straint of Eq. (4.11) and the requirement of a large power
gain. The latter requirement tells us that the voltage gain
V
[] and the crosscorrelator
S
VoutQ
must be in phase
(cf. Sec. (IV.A.4) and Appendix I.3). This in turn means
that
S
V
I
must be purely imaginary. In this case, the
quantum noise constraint may be rewritten as:
V
V
[]
I
[]
_
Im
S
V
I
2
_
2
(5.88)
Using these results in Eq. (5.76), we nd the ultimate
quantum limit on the noise temperature:
18
k
B
T
N
[]
2
(5.89)
Similar to the case of the position detector, reaching the
quantum limit here is not simply a matter of tuning the
18
Note that our denition of the noise temperature T
N
conforms
with that of Devoret and Schoelkopf (2000) and most electrical
engineering texts, but is slightly dierent than that of Caves
(1982). Caves assumes the source is initially at zero temperature
(i.e. T
0
= 0), and consequently uses the full quantum expression
for its equilibrium noise. In contrast, we have assumed that
k
B
T
0
. The dierent denition of the noise temperature
used by Caves leads to the result k
B
T
N
/(ln 3) as opposed
to our Eq. (5.89). We stress that the dierence between these
results has nothing to do with physics, but only with how one
denes the noise temperature.
coupling (i.e. tuning the source impedance Z
s
to match
the noise impedance, cf. Eq. (5.77)  (5.78)); one also
needs to have an amplier with ideal quantum noise,
that is an amplier satisfying Eq. (4.17).
Finally, we need to test our initial assumption that
[Z
s
[ [Z
in
[, taking [Z
s
[ to be equal to its optimal value
Z
N
. Using the proportionality condition of Eq. (I13)
and the fact that we are in the large power gain limit
(G
P
[] 1), we nd:
Z
N
[]
Re Z
in
[]
Im
4k
B
T
e
=
1
2
_
G
P
[]
1 (5.90)
It follows that [Z
N
[ [Z
in
[ in the large power gain, large
eective temperature regime of interest, thus justifying
the form of Eq. (5.73). Eq. (5.90) is analogous to the
case of the displacement detector, where we found that
reaching the quantum limit on resonance required the
detectordependent damping to be much weaker than the
intrinsic damping of the oscillator (cf. Eq. (5.69)).
Thus, similar to the situation of the displacement de
tector, the linear response approach allows us both to
derive rigorously the quantum limit on the noise tempera
ture T
N
of an amplier, and to state conditions that must
be met to reach this limit. To reach the quantumlimited
value of T
N
with a large power gain, one needs both a
tuned source impedance Z
s
, and an amplier which pos
sesses ideal noise properties (cf. Eq. (4.17) and Eq. (I13)).
3. Role of noise crosscorrelations
Before leaving the topic of a linear voltage amplier,
we pause to note the role of crosscorrelations in current
and voltage noise in reaching the quantum limit. First,
note from Eq. (5.78) that in both the classical and quan
tum treatments, the noise impedance Z
N
of the amplier
will have a reactive part (i.e. Im Z
N
,= 0) if there are
outofphase correlations between the ampliers current
and voltage noises (i.e. if Im S
V I
,= 0). Thus, if such
correlations exist, it will not be possible to minimize the
noise temperature (and hence, reach the quantum limit),
if one uses a purely real source impedance Z
s
.
More signicantly, note that the nal classical expres
sion for the noise temperature T
N
explicitly involves the
real part of the S
V I
correlator (cf. Eq. (5.76)). In con
trast, we have shown that in the quantum case, Re
S
V I
must be zero if one wishes to reach the quantum limit
while having a large power gain (cf. Appendix I.3); as
such, this quantity does not appear in the nal expres
sion for the minimal T
N
. It also follows that to reach the
quantum limit while having a large power gain, an ampli
er cannot have signicant inphase correlations between
its current and voltage noise.
This last statement can be given a heuristic explana
tion. If there are outofphase correlations between cur
rent and voltage noise, we can easily make use of these by
appropriately choosing our source impedance. However,
if there are inphase correlations between current and
42
voltage noise, we cannot use these simply by tuning the
source impedance. We could however have used them by
implementing feedback in our amplier. The fact that we
have not done this means that these correlations repre
sent a kind of missing information; as a result, we must
necessarily miss the quantum limit. In Sec. VI.B, we
explicitly give an example of a voltage amplier which
misses the quantum limit due to the presence of inphase
current and voltage uctuations; we show how this am
plier can be made to reach the quantum limit by adding
feedback in Appendix H.
G. Near quantumlimited mesoscopic detectors
Having discussed the origin and precise denition of
the quantum limit on the added noise of a linear, phase
preserving amplier, we now provide a brief review of
work examining whether particular detectors are able (in
principle) to achieve this ideal limit. We will focus on
the opamp mode of operation discussed in Sec. V.D,
where the detector is only weakly coupled to the system
producing the signal to be amplied. As we have repeat
edly stressed, reaching the quantum limit in this case
requires the detector to have quantum ideal noise, as
dened by Eq. (4.17). Heuristically, this corresponds to
the general requirement of no wasted information: there
should be no other quantity besides the detector output
that could be monitored to provide information on the in
put signal (Clerk et al., 2003). We have already given one
simple but relevant example of a detector which reaches
the amplier quantum limit: the parametric cavity de
tector, discussed extensively in Sec. III.B. Here, we turn
to other more complex detectors.
1. dc SQUID ampliers
The dc SQUID (superconducting quantum interference
device) is a detector based on a superconducting ring hav
ing two Josephson junctions. It can in principle be used
as a near quantumlimited voltage amplier or uxto
voltage amplier. Theoretically, this was investigated us
ing a quantum Langevin approach (Danilov et al., 1983;
Koch et al., 1980), as well as more rigorously by using
perturbative techniques (Averin, 2000b) and mappings
to quantum impurity problems (Clerk, 2006). Experi
ments on SQUIDS have also conrmed its potential for
near quantumlimited operation. M uck et al. (2001) were
able to achieve a noise temperature T
N
approximately
1.9 times the quantum limited value at an operating fre
quency of = 2 519 MHz. Working at lower fre
quencies appropriate to gravitational wave detection ap
plications, Vinante et al. (2001) were able to achieve a
T
N
approximately 200 times the quantum limited value
at a frequency = 2 1.6 kHz; more recently, the
same group achieved a T
N
approximately 10 times the
quantum limit at a frequency = 2 1.6 kHz (Falferi
et al., 2008). In practice, it can be dicult to achieve
the theoreticallypredicted quantumlimited performance
due to spurious heating caused by the dissipation in the
shunt resistances used in the SQUID. This eect can be
signicantly ameliorated, however, by adding cooling ns
to the shunts (Wellstood et al., 1994).
2. Quantum point contact detectors
A quantum point contact (QPC) is a narrow conduct
ing channel formed in a twodimensional gas. The cur
rent through the constriction is very sensitive to nearby
charges, and thus the QPC acts as a chargetocurrent
amplier. It has been shown theoretically that the QPC
can achieve the amplier quantum limit, both in the
regime where transport is due to tunneling (Gurvitz,
1997), as well as in regimes where the transmission is not
small (Aleiner et al., 1997; Clerk et al., 2003; Korotkov
and Averin, 2001; Levinson, 1997; Pilgram and B uttiker,
2002). Experimentally, QPCs are in widespread use as
detectors of quantum dot qubits. The backaction de
phasing of QPC detectors was studied in (Buks et al.,
1998; Sprinzak et al., 2000); a good agreement was found
with the theoretical prediction, conrming that the QPC
has quantumlimited backaction noise.
3. Singleelectron transistors and resonantlevel detectors
A metallic singleelectron transistor (SET) consists of
a small metallic island attached via tunnel junctions to
larger source and drain electrodes. Because of Coulomb
blockade eects, the conductance of a SET is very sen
sitive to nearby charges, and hence it acts as a sensitive
chargetocurrent amplier. Considerable work has inves
tigated whether metallic SETs can approach the quan
tum limit in various dierent operating regimes. The
oretically, the performance of a normalmetal SET in
the sequential tunneling regime was studied by Aassime
et al. (2001); Devoret and Schoelkopf (2000); Johans
son et al. (2003, 2002); Makhlin et al. (2000); Shnirman
and Schon (1998). In this regime, where transport is
via a sequence of energyconserving tunnel events, one
is far from optimizing the quantum noise constraint of
Eq. (4.17), and hence one cannot reach the quantum
limit (Korotkov, 2001b; Shnirman and Schon, 1998). If
one instead chooses to work with a normalmetal SET in
the cotunneling regime (a higherorder tunneling process
involving a virtual transition), then one can indeed ap
proach the quantum limit (Averin, 2000a; van den Brink,
2002). However, by virtue of being a higherorder pro
cess, the related currents and gain factors are small, im
pinging on the practical utility of this regime of opera
tion. It is worth noting that while most theory on SETs
assume a dc voltage bias, to enhance bandwidth, experi
ments are usually conducted using the rfSET congura
tion (Schoelkopf et al., 1998), where the SET changes the
43
damping of a resonant LC circuit. Korotkov and Paala
nen (1999) have shown that this mode of operation for
a sequential tunneling SET increases the measurement
imprecision noise by approximately a factor of 2. The
measurement properties of a normalmetal, sequential
tunneling rfSET (including backaction) were studied
experimentally in Turek et al. (2005).
Measurement using superconducting SETs has also
been studied. Clerk et al. (2002) have shown that so
called incoherent Cooperpair tunneling processes in a su
perconducting SET can have a noise temperature which
is approximately a factor of two larger than the quantum
limited value. The measurement properties of a super
conducting SET biased at a point of incoherent Cooper
pair tunneling have been probed recently in experiment
(Naik et al., 2006; Thalakulam et al., 2004).
The quantum measurement properties of phase
coherent, noninteracting resonant level detectors have
also been studied theoretically (Averin, 2000b; Clerk and
Stone, 2004; Gavish et al., 2006; Mozyrsky et al., 2004).
These systems are similar to metallic SET, except that
the central island only has a single level (as opposed to
a continuous density of states), and Coulombblockade
eects are typically neglected. These detectors can reach
the quantum limit in the regime where the voltage and
temperature are smaller than the intrinsic energy broad
ening of the level due to tunneling. They can also reach
the quantum limit in a largevoltage regime that is analo
gous to the cotunneling regime in a metallic SET (Averin,
2000b; Clerk and Stone, 2004). The inuence of dephas
ing processes on such a detector was studied in Clerk and
Stone (2004).
H. Backaction evasion and noisefree amplication
Having discussed in detail quantum limits on phase
preserving linear ampliers (i.e. ampliers which measure
both quadratures of a signal equally well), we now return
to the situation discussed at the very start of Sec. V.A:
imagine we wish only to amplify a single quadrature of
some timedependent signal. For this case, there need
not be any added noise from the measurement. Unlike
the case of amplifying both quadratures, Liouvilles the
orem does not require the existence of any additional
degrees of freedom when amplifying a single quadrature:
phase space volume can be conserved during amplica
tion simply by contracting the unmeasured quadrature
(cf. Eq. 5.2). As no extra degrees of freedom are needed,
there need not be any extra noise associated with the
amplication process.
Alternatively, singlequadrature detection can take a
form similar to a QND measurement, where the back
action does not aect the dynamics of the quantity be
ing measured (Bocko and Onofrio, 1996; Braginsky and
Khalili, 1992; Braginsky et al., 1980; Caves, 1982; Caves
et al., 1980; Thorne et al., 1978). For concreteness, con
sider a highQ harmonic oscillator with position x(t) and
resonant frequency . Its motion may be written in
terms of quadrature operators dened as in Eq. (3.48):
x(t) =
X
(t) cos (t +) +
Y
(t) sin (t +)
(5.91)
Here, x(t) is the Heisenbergpicture position operator of
the oscillator. The quadrature operators can be written
in terms of the (Schrodingerpicture) oscillator creation
and destruction operators as:
(t) = x
ZPF
_
ce
i(t+)
+ c
e
i(t+)
_
(5.92a)
(t) = ix
ZPF
_
ce
i(t+)
c
e
i(t+)
_
(5.92b)
As previously discussed, the two quadrature ampli
tude operators
X
and
Y
.
However, due to the dynamics of a harmonic oscillator,
this disturbance will not aect the measured quadrature
at later times. One can already see this from the classical
equations of motion. Suppose our oscillator is driven by
a timedependent force F(t) which only has appreciable
bandwidth near . We may write this as:
F(t) = F
X
(t) cos(t +) +F
Y
(t) sin(t +) (5.93)
where F
X
(t), F
Y
(t) are slowly varying compared to .
Using the fact that the oscillator has a highquality factor
Q = /, one can easily nd the equations of motion:
d
dt
X
(t) =
2
X
(t)
F
Y
(t)
2m
, (5.94a)
d
dt
Y
(t) =
2
Y
(t) +
F
X
(t)
2m
. (5.94b)
Thus, as long as F
Y
(t) and F
X
(t) are uncorrelated and
suciently slow, the dynamics of the two quadratures are
completely independent; in particular, if Y
is subject to
a narrowbandwidth, noisy force, it is of no consequence
to the evolution of X
. An ideal measurement of X
will
result in a backaction force having the form in Eq. (5.93)
with F
Y
(t) = 0, implying that X
(i.e. neg
ligible added noise). We would then have no uncertainty
44
as to the value of this quadrature. Consequently, we
would expect the quantum state of our oscillator to be
a squeezed state, where the uncertainty in X
is much
smaller than x
ZPF
. However, if there is no backaction
acting on X
.
Ampliers or detectors which treat the two signal
quadratures dierently are known in the quantum op
tics literature as phase sensitive; we prefer the desig
nation phasenonpreserving since they do not preserve
the phase of the original signal. Such ampliers invari
ably rely on some internal clock (i.e. an oscillator with a
well dened phase) which breaks timetranslation invari
ance and picks out the phase of the quadrature that will
be amplied (i.e. the choice of used to dene the two
quadratures in Eq. (5.91)); we will see this explicitly in
what follows. This leads to an important caveat: even
in a situation where the interesting information is in a
single signal quadrature, to benet from using a phase
nonpreserving amplier, we must know in advance the
precise phase of this quadrature. If we do not know this
phase, we will have either to revert to a phasepreserving
amplication scheme (and thus be susceptible to added
noise) or we would have to develop a sophisticated and
high speed quantum feedback scheme to dynamically
adapt the measurement to the correct quadrature in real
time (Armen et al., 2002). In what follows, we will make
the above ideas concrete by considering a few examples
of quantum, phase nonpreserving ampliers.
19
19
One could in principle generalize the linear response approach
of Sec. IV to deal with phase nonpreserving detectors. How
ever, as such detectors are not timetranslational invariant, such
a description becomes rather cumbersome and is not particularly
helpful. We prefer instead to present concrete examples.
1. Degenerate parametric amplier
Perhaps the simplest example of a phase non
preserving amplier is the degenerate parametric ampli
er; the classical version of this system was described at
the start of Sec. V.A (cf. Eq. 5.2). The setup is similar
to the nondegenerate parametric amplier discussed in
Sec. V.C, except that the idler mode is eliminated, and
the nonlinearity converts a single pump photon into two
signal photons at frequency
S
=
P
/2. As we now show,
the resulting dynamics causes one signal quadrature to
be amplied, while the other is attenuated, in such a way
that it is not necessary to add extra noise to preserve the
canonical commutation relations.
The system Hamiltonian is
H
sys
=
_
P
a
P
a
P
+
S
a
S
a
S
_
+ i
_
a
S
a
S
a
P
a
S
a
S
a
P
_
. (5.95)
Treating the pump classically as before, the analog of
Eq. (5.16) is
V
sys
= i
2
_
a
S
a
S
a
S
a
S
_
, (5.96)
where /2 =
P
, and the analog of Eq. (5.19) is:
a
S
=
S
2
a
S
+ a
b
S,in
(5.97)
The dimensionless quadrature operators corresponding
to the signal mode are:
x
S
=
1
2
_
a
S
+ a
S
_
, y
S
=
i
2
_
a
S
a
S
_
(5.98)
which obey [ x
S
, y
S
] = i. We can dene quadrature oper
ators
X
S,in/out
,
Y
S,in/out
corresponding to the input and
output elds in a completely analogous manner.
The steady state solution of Eq. (5.97) for the output
elds becomes
X
S,out
=
G
X
S,in
,
Y
S,out
=
1
Y
S,in
, (5.99)
where the number gain G is given by
G =
_
+
S
/2
S
/2
_
2
. (5.100)
We thus see clearly that the amplier treats the two
quadratures dierently. One quadrature is amplied, the
other attenuated, with the result that the commutation
relation can be preserved without the necessity of extra
degrees of freedom and added noise. Note that the large
amplitude pump mode has played the role of a clock in
the degenerate paramp: it is the phase of the pump which
picks out which quadrature of the signal will be amplied.
Before ending our discussion here, it is important to
stress that while the degenerate parametric amplier is
45
phasesensitive and has no added noise, it is not an ex
ample of backaction evasion (see Caves et al. (1980),
footnote on p. 342). This amplier is operated in the
scattering mode of amplier operation, a mode where (as
discussed extensively in Sec. V.D) backaction is not at all
relevant. Recall that in this mode of operation, the am
plier input is perfectly impedance matched to the signal
source, and the input signal is simply the amplitude of an
incident wave on the amplier input. This mode of oper
ation necessarily requires a strong coupling between the
input signal and the amplier input (i.e.
b
S,in
). If one
instead tried to weakly couple the degenerate parametric
amplier to a signal source, and operate it in the op
amp mode of operation (cf. Sec. V.D), one nds that
there is indeed a backaction disturbance of the measured
quadrature. We have yet another example which demon
strates that one must be very careful to distinguish the
opamp and scattering mode of amplier operation.
2. Doublesideband cavity detector
We now turn to a simple but experimentallyrelevant
detector that is truly backaction evading. We will take
as our input signal the position x of a mechanical oscilla
tor. The amplier setup we consider is almost identical
to the cavity position detector discussed in Sec. III.B.3:
we again have a singlesided resonant cavity whose fre
quency depends linearly on the oscillators position, with
the Hamiltonian being given by Eq. (3.11) (with z =
x/x
ZPF
). We showed in Sec. III.B.3 and Appendix E.3
that by driving the cavity on resonance, it could be used
to make a quantum limited position measurement: one
can operate it as a phasepreserving amplier of the me
chanicals oscillators position, and achieve the minimum
possible amount of added noise. To use the same system
to make a backaction free measurement of one oscillator
quadrature only, one simply uses a dierent cavity drive.
Instead of driving at the cavity resonance frequency
c
,
one drives at the two sidebands associated with the me
chanical motion (i.e. at frequencies
c
, where is
as always the frequency of the mechanical resonator). As
we will see, such a drive results in an eective interaction
which only couples the cavity to one quadrature of the
oscillators motion. This setup was rst proposed as a
means of backaction evasion in Braginsky et al. (1980);
further discussion can be found in Braginsky and Khalili
(1992); Caves et al. (1980), as well as in Clerk et al.
(2008), which gives a fully quantum treatment and con
siders conditional aspects of the measurement. In what
follows, we sketch the operation of this system following
Clerk et al. (2008); details are provided in Appendix E.4.
We will start by requiring that our system be in the
goodcavity limit, where
c
( is the damp
ing of the cavity mode); we will also require the mechan
ical oscillator to have a high Qfactor. In this regime, the
two sidebands associated with the mechanical motion at
c
are wellseparated from the main cavity resonance
at
c
. Making a singlequadrature measurement requires
that one drives the cavity equally at the two sideband fre
quencies. The amplitude of the driving eld
b
in
entering
the cavity will be chosen to have the form:
b
in
(t) =
i
_
N
4
_
e
i
e
i(c)t
e
i
e
i(c+)t
_
=
_
N
2
sin(t +)e
ict
. (5.101)
Here,
N is the photon number ux associated with the
cavity drive (see Appendix E for more details on how
to properly include a drive using inputoutput theory).
Such a drive could be produced by taking a signal at the
cavity resonance frequency, and amplitude modulating it
at the mechanical frequency.
To understand the eect of this drive, note that it sends
the cavity both photons with frequency (
c
) and
photons with frequency (
c
+). The rst kind of drive
photon can be converted to a cavity photon if a quanta is
absorbed from the mechanical oscillator; the second kind
of drive photon can be converted to a cavity photon if a
quanta is emitted to the mechanical oscillator. The result
is that we can create a cavity photon by either absorb
ing or emitting a mechanical oscillator quanta. Keeping
track that there is a welldened relative phase of e
i2
between the two kinds of drive photons, we would expect
the doublesideband drive to yield an eective cavity
oscillator interaction of the form:
V
e
_
N
_
a
_
e
i
c +e
i
c
_
+ h.c.
(5.102a)
_
N( a + a
)
X
(5.102b)
This is exactly what is found in a full calculation (see Ap
pendix E.4). Note that we have written the interaction
in an interaction picture in which the fast oscillations of
the cavity and oscillator operators have been removed.
In the second line, we have made use of Eqs. (5.92) to
show that the eective interaction only involves the
X
oscillator quadrature.
We thus see from Eq. (5.102b) that the cavity is only
coupled to the oscillator X
, but not of
Y
.
Further, Eq. (5.102b) implies that the cavity operator
_
N
_
a + a
_
will act as a noisy force on the Y
quadra
ture. While this will cause a backaction heating of Y
,
it will not aect the measured quadrature X
. We thus
have a true backaction evading amplier: the cavity out
put light lets one measure X
. As a result, one
cannot make the added noise arbitrarily small, as too
large a cavity drive will heat the measured quadrature.
Nonetheless, for a suciently small ratio /
M
, one can
still beat the standard quantum limit on the added noise
(Clerk et al., 2008).
3. Stroboscopic measurements
With suciently high bandwidth it should be able to
do stroboscopic measurements in sync with the oscillator
motion which could allow one to go below the standard
quantum limit in one of the quadratures of motion (Bra
ginsky and Khalili, 1992; Caves et al., 1980). To under
stand this idea, imagine an extreme form of phase sen
sitive detection in which a Heisenberg microscope makes
a strong highresolution measurement which projects the
oscillator onto a state of well dened position X
0
at time
t = 0:
X0
(t) =
n=0
a
n
e
i(n+1/2)t
[n , (5.103)
where the coecients obey a
n
= n[X
0
. Because the
position is welldened the momentum is extremely un
certain. (Equivalently the momentum kick delivered by
the backaction of the microscope makes the oscillator
momentum uncertain.) Thus the wave packet quickly
spreads out and the position uncertainty becomes large.
However because of the special feature that the har
monic oscillator levels are evenly spaced, we can see from
Eq. (5.103) that the wave packet reassembles itself pre
cisely once each period of oscillation because e
int
= 1
for every integer n. (At half periods, the packet re
assembles at position X
0
.) Hence stroboscopic mea
surements made once (or twice) per period will be back
action evading and can go below the standard quantum
limit. The only limitations will be the nite anharmonic
ity and damping of the oscillator. Note that the possi
bility of using mesoscopic electron detectors to perform
stroboscopic measurements has recently received atten
tion (Jordan and B uttiker, 2005b; Ruskov et al., 2005).
VI. BOSONIC SCATTERING DESCRIPTION OF A
TWOPORT AMPLIFIER
In this section, we return again to the topic of Sec. V.F,
quantum limits on a quantum voltage amplier. We now
discuss the physics in terms of the bosonic voltage ampli
er rst introduced in Sec. V.D. Recall that in that sub
section, we demonstrated that the standard HausCaves
derivation of the quantum limit was not directly relevant
to the usual weakcoupling opamp mode of amplier
operation, a mode where the input signal is not simply
the amplitude of a wave incident on the amplier. In this
section, we will expand upon that discussion, giving an
explicit discussion of the dierences between the opamp
description of an amplier presented in Sec. V.E, and the
scattering description often used in the quantum optics
literature (Courty et al., 1999; Grassia, 1998). We will
see that what one means by backaction and added
noise are not the same in the two descriptions! Further,
even though an amplier may reach the quantum limit
when used in the scattering mode (i.e. its added noise
is as small as allowed by commutation relations), it can
nonetheless fail to achieve the quantum limit when used
in the opamp mode. Finally, the discussion here will also
allow us to highlight important aspects of the quantum
limit not easily discussed in the more general context of
Sec. IV.
A. Scattering versus opamp representations
In the bosonic scattering approach, a generic linear
amplier is modeled as a set of coupled bosonic modes.
To make matters concrete, we will consider the specic
case of a voltage amplier with distinct input and output
ports, where each port is a semiinnite transmission line
(see Fig. 9). We start by recalling that a quantum trans
mission line can be described as a set of noninteracting
bosonic modes (see Appendix D for a quick review). De
noting the input transmission line with an a and the out
put transmission line with a b, the current and voltage
operators in these lines may be written:
V
q
(t) =
_
0
d
2
_
V
q
[]e
it
+h.c.
_
(6.1a)
I
q
(t) =
q
_
0
d
2
_
I
q
[]e
it
+h.c.
_
(6.1b)
with
V
q
[] =
_
2
Z
q
( q
in
[] + q
out
[]) (6.2a)
I
q
[] =
2Z
q
( q
in
[] q
out
[]) (6.2b)
Here, q can be equal to a or b, and we have
a
= 1,
b
=
1. The operators a
in
[], a
out
[] are bosonic annihila
tion operators; a
in
[] describes an incoming wave in the
input transmission line (i.e. incident on the amplier)
having frequency , while a
out
[] describes an outgoing
wave with frequency . The operators
b
in
[] and
b
out
[]
describe analogous waves in the output transmission line.
We can think of
V
a
as the input voltage to our amplier,
47
and
V
b
as the output voltage. Similarly,
I
a
is the current
drawn by the amplier at the input, and
I
b
the current
drawn at the output of the amplier. Finally, Z
a
(Z
b
) is
the characteristic impedance of the input (output) trans
mission line.
As we have seen, amplication invariably requires ad
ditional degrees of freedom. Thus, to amplify a signal at
a particular frequency , there will be 2N bosonic modes
involved, where the integer N is necessarily larger than
2. Four of these modes are simply the frequency modes
in the input and output lines (i.e. a
in
[], a
out
[],
b
in
[]
and
b
out
[]). The remaining 2(N 2) modes describe
auxiliary degrees of freedom involved in the amplica
tion process; these additional modes could correspond to
frequencies dierent from the signal frequency . The
auxiliary modes can also be divided into incoming and
outgoing modes. It is thus convenient to represent them
as additional transmission lines attached to the amplier;
these additional lines could be semiinnite, or could be
terminated by active elements.
1. Scattering representation
In general, our generic twoport bosonic amplier will
be described by a N N scattering matrix which deter
mines the relation between the outgoing mode operators
and incoming mode operators. The form of this matrix
is constrained by the requirement that the output modes
obey the usual canonical bosonic commutation relations.
It is convenient to express the scattering matrix in a form
which only involves the input and output lines explicitly:
_
a
out
[]
b
out
[]
_
=
_
s
11
[] s
12
[]
s
21
[] s
22
[]
__
a
in
[]
b
in
[]
_
+
_
T
a
[]
T
b
[]
_
(6.3)
Here
T
a
[] and
T
b
[] are each an unspecied linear
combination of the incoming auxiliary modes introduced
above. They thus describe noise in the outgoing modes of
the input and output transmission lines which arises from
the auxiliary modes involved in the amplication pro
cess. Note the similarity between Eq. (6.3) and Eq. (5.7)
for the simple oneport bosonic amplier considered in
Sec. V.B.
In the quantum optics literature, one typically views
Eq. (6.3) as the dening equation of the amplier; we will
call this the scattering representation of our amplier.
The representation is best suited to the scattering mode
of amplier operation described in Sec. V.D. In this mode
of operation, the experimentalist ensures that a
in
[] is
precisely equal to the signal to be amplied, irrespective
of what is coming out of the amplier. Similarly, the
output signal from the amplier is the amplitude of the
outgoing wave in the output line,
b
out
[]. If we focus on
b
out
, we have precisely the same situation as described in
Sec. 5.10, where we presented the HausCaves derivation
of the quantum limit (cf. Eq. (5.7)). It thus follows that
in the scattering mode of operation, the matrix element
s
21
[] represents the gain of our amplier at frequency ,
[s
21
[][
2
the corresponding photon number gain, and
T
b
the added noise operator of the amplier. The opera
tor
T
a
represents the backaction noise in the scattering
mode of operation; this backaction has no eect on the
added noise of the amplier in the scattering mode.
Similar to Sec. V.B, one can now apply the standard
argument of Haus and Mullen (1962) and Caves (1982)
to our amplier. This argument tells us that since the
out operators must have the same commutation rela
tions as the in operators, the added noise
T
b
cannot be
arbitrarily small in the large gain limit (i.e. [s
21
[ 1).
Note that this version of the quantum limit on the added
noise has nothing to do with backaction. As already
discussed, this is perfectly appropriate for the scatter
ing mode of operation, as in this mode, the experimen
talist ensures that the signal going into the amplier is
completely independent of whatever is coming out of the
amplier. This mode of operation could be realized in
timedependent experiments, where a pulse is launched
at the amplier. This mode is not realized in most weak
coupling amplication experiments, where the signal to
be amplied is not identical to an incident wave ampli
tude.
2. Opamp representation
In the usual opamp amplier mode of operation (de
scribed extensively in Sec. IV), the input and output sig
nals are not simply incoming/outgoing wave amplitudes;
thus, the scattering representation is not an optimal de
scription of our amplier. The system we are describing
here is a voltage amplier: thus, in the opamp mode,
the experimentalist would ensure that the voltage at the
end of the input line (
V
a
) is equal to the signal to be
amplied, and would read out the voltage at the end of
the output transmission line (
V
b
) as the output of the
amplier. From Eq. (6.1a), we see that this implies that
the amplitude of the wave going into the amplier, a
in
,
will depend on the amplitude of the wave exiting the am
plier, a
out
.
Thus, if we want to use our amplier as a voltage am
plier, we would like to nd a description which is more
tailored to our needs than the scattering representation
of Eq. (6.3). This can be found by simply reexpressing
the scattering matrix relation of Eq. (6.3) in terms of
voltages and currents. The result will be what we term
the op amp representation of our amplier, a repre
sentation which is standard in the discussion of classical
ampliers (see, e.g., Boylestad and Nashelsky (2006)).
In this representation, one views
V
a
and
I
b
as inputs
to the amplier:
V
a
is set by whatever we connect to
the amplier input, while
I
b
is set by whatever we con
nect to the amplier output. In contrast, the outputs
48
of our amplier are the voltage in the output line,
V
b
,
and the current drawn by the amplier at the input,
I
a
.
Note that this interpretation of voltages and currents is
identical to how we viewed the voltage amplier in the
linearresponse/quantum noise treatment of Sec. V.F.
Using Eqs. (6.1a) and (6.1b), and suppressing fre
quency labels for clarity, Eq. (6.3) may be written ex
plicitly in terms of the voltages and current in the input
(
V
a
,
I
a
) and output (
V
b
,
I
b
) transmission lines:
_
V
b
I
a
_
=
_
V
Z
out
1
Zin
I
__
V
a
I
b
_
+
_
V
I
_
(6.4)
The coecients in the above matrix are completely deter
mined by the scattering matrix of Eq. (6.3) (see Eqs. (6.7)
below); moreover, they are familiar from the discussion of
a voltage amplier in Sec. V.F.
V
[] is the voltage gain
of the amplier,
I
[] is the reverse current gain of the
amplier, Z
out
is the output impedance, and Z
in
is the
input impedance. The last term on the RHS of Eq. (6.4)
describes the two familiar kinds of amplier noise.
V is
the usual voltage noise of the amplier (referred back to
the amplier input), while
I
a
indicates a current owing into the
amplier at its input, while a positive
I
b
indicates a
current owing out of the amplier at its output. Also
note that the operators
V
a
and
I
b
on the RHS of Eq. (6.4)
will have noise; this noise is entirely due to the systems
attached to the input and output of the amplier, and as
such, should not be included in what we call the added
noise of the amplier.
Additional important properties of our amplier follow
immediately from quantities in the opamp representa
tion. As discussed in Sec. V.E, the most important mea
sure of gain in our amplier is the dimensionless power
gain. This is the ratio between power dissipated at the
output to that dissipated at the input, taking the output
current I
B
to be V
B
/Z
out
:
G
P
(
V
)
2
4
Z
in
Z
out
_
1 +
V
I
2
Z
in
Z
out
_
1
(6.5)
Another important quantity is the loaded input
impedance: what is the input impedance of the ampli
er in the presence of a load attached to the output? In
the presence of reverse current gain
I
,= 0, the input
impedance will depend on the output load. Taking the
load impedance to be Z
load
, some simple algebra yields:
1
Z
in,loaded
=
1
Z
in
+
V
Z
load
+Z
out
(6.6)
It is of course undesirable to have an input impedance
which depends on the load. Thus, we see yet again that
it is undesirable to have appreciable reverse gain in our
amplier (cf. Sec. IV.A.2).
3. Converting between representations
Some straightforward algebra now lets us express the
opamp parameters appearing in Eq. (6.4) in terms of the
scattering matrix appearing in Eq. (6.3):
V
= 2
_
Z
b
Z
a
s
21
D
(6.7a)
I
= 2
_
Z
b
Z
a
s
12
D
(6.7b)
Z
out
= Z
b
(1 +s
11
)(1 +s
22
) s
12
s
21
D
(6.7c)
1
Z
in
=
1
Z
a
(1 s
11
)(1 s
22
) s
12
s
21
D
(6.7d)
where all quantities are evaluated at the same frequency
, and D is dened as:
D = (1 +s
11
)(1 s
22
) +s
12
s
21
(6.8)
Further, the voltage and current noises in the opamp
representation are simple linear combinations of the
noises
T
a
and
T
b
appearing in the scattering representa
tion:
_
V
Z
a
I
_
=
_
2Z
a
_
1
2
1+s11
2s21
s221
D
s12
D
__
T
a
T
b
_
(6.9)
Again, all quantities above are evaluated at frequency .
Eq. (6.9) immediately leads to an important conclusion
and caveat: what one calls the backaction and added
noise in the scattering representation (i.e. T
a
and T
b
)
are not the same as the backaction and added noise
dened in the usual opamp representation. For example,
the opamp backaction
I and
V . We thus see
explicitly something already discussed in Sec. V.D: it is
very dangerous to make conclusions about how an ampli
er behaves in the opamp mode of operation based on
its properties in the scattering mode of operation. As we
49
will see, even though an amplier is ideal in the scatter
ing mode (i.e. T
a
as small as possible), it can nonetheless
fail to reach the quantum limit in the opamp mode of
operation.
In what follows, we will calculate the opamp noises
V
and
I
, Z
in
and Z
out
using
Kubo formulas (cf. Eqs. (5.84), (5.85) and the discussion
following Eq. (5.79)). These in turn would involve corre
lation functions of
I
a
and
V
b
evaluated at zero coupling
to the amplier input and output. Zero coupling means
that there is no input voltage to the amplier (i.e. a short
circuit at the amplier input,
V
a
= 0) and there is noth
ing at the amplier output drawing current (i.e. an open
circuit at the amplier output,
I
b
= 0). Eq. (6.4) tells
us that in this case,
V
b
and
I
a
reduce to (respectively)
the noise operators
V
V and
b
out
_
=
_
0 0
G 0
__
a
in
b
in
_
+
_
T
a
T
b
_
(6.10)
where we have dened
G s
21
. All quantities above
should be evaluated at the same frequency ; for clarity,
we will omit writing the explicit dependence of quan
tities throughout this section.
Turning to the opamp representation, the above equa
tion implies that our amplier has no reverse gain, and
that the input and output impedances are simply given
by the impedances of the input and output transmission
lines. From Eqs. (6.7), we have:
V
= 2
_
Z
b
Z
a
G (6.11a)
I
= 0 (6.11b)
Z
out
= Z
b
(6.11c)
1
Z
in
=
1
Z
a
(6.11d)
We immediately see that our amplier looks less ideal
as an opamp. The input and output impedances are
the same as those of the input and output transmission
line. However, for an ideal opamp, we would have liked
Z
in
and Z
out
0.
Also of interest are the expressions for the amplier
noises in the opamp representation:
_
V
Z
a
I
_
=
_
2Z
a
_
1
2
1
2
G
1 0
__
T
a
T
b
_
(6.12)
As s
12
= 0, the backaction noise is the same in both the
opamp and scattering representations: it is determined
completely by the noise operator
T
a
. However, the volt
age noise (i.e. the intrinsic output noise) involves both
T
a
and
T
b
. We thus have the unavoidable consequence that
there will be correlations in
I and
I and
V if there is to be
gain (i.e.
V
is given by a Kubo formula involving these
operators, cf. Eq. (4.3)).
To make further progress, we note again that commu
tators of the noise operators
T
a
and
T
b
are completely
determined by Eq. (6.10) and the requirement that the
output operators obey canonical commutation relations.
We thus have:
_
T
a
,
T
a
_
= 1 (6.13a)
_
T
b
,
T
b
_
= 1 [G[ (6.13b)
_
T
a
,
T
b
_
=
_
T
a
,
T
b
_
= 0 (6.13c)
We will be interested in the limit of a large power
gain, which requires [G[ 1. A minimal solution to the
above equations would be to have the noise operators de
termined by two independent (i.e. mutually commuting)
auxiliary input mode operators u
in
and v
in
:
T
a
= u
in
(6.14)
T
b
=
_
[G[ 1 v
in
(6.15)
Further, to minimize the noise of the amplier, we take
the operating state of the amplier to be the vacuum for
both these modes. With these choices, our amplier is in
50
a
out
a
in
b
in
b
out
ideal
1port
amp.
cold
load
input line
output line
c
in
c
out
=G
1/2
c
in
+(G1)
1/2
v
in
u
in
u
out
v
in
vacuum noise
vacuum noise v
out
FIG. 13 Schematic of a minimal twoport amplier which
reaches the quantum limit in the scattering mode of operation,
but misses the quantum limit when used as a weaklycoupled
opamp. See text for further description
exactly the minimal form described by Grassia (1998): an
input and output line coupled to a negative resistance box
and an auxiliary cold load via a fourport circulator
(see Fig. 13). The negative resistance box is nothing but
the singlemode bosonic amplier discussed in Sec. V.B;
an explicit realization of this element would be the para
metric amplier discussed in Sec. V.C. The cold load
is a semiinnite transmission line which models dissipa
tion due to a resistor at zerotemperature (i.e. its noise
is vacuum noise, cf. Appendix D).
Note that within the scattering picture, one would con
clude that our amplier is ideal: in the large gain limit,
the noise added by the amplier to
b
out
corresponds to a
single quantum at the input:
__
T
b
,
T
b
__
[G[
=
[G[ 1
[G[
__
v
in
, v
in
__
1 (6.16)
This however is not the quantity which interests us: as
we want to use this system as a voltage opamp, we would
like to know if the noise temperature dened in the op
amp picture is as small as possible. We are also usually
interested in the case of a signal which is weakly cou
pled to our amplier; here, weakcoupling means that
the input impedance of the amplier is much larger than
the impedance of the signal source (i.e. Z
in
Z
s
). In
this limit, the amplier only slightly increases the total
damping of the signal source.
To address whether we can reach the opamp quan
tum limit in the weakcoupling regime, we can make use
of the results of the general theory presented in Sec. V.F.
In particular, we need to check whether the quantum
noise constraint of Eq. (5.88) is satised, as this is a pre
requisite for reaching the (weakcoupling) quantum limit.
Thus, we need to calculate the symmetrized spectral den
sities of the current and voltage noises, and their cross
correlation. It is easy to conrm from the denitions of
Eq. (6.1a) and (6.1b) that these quantities take the form:
S
V V
[] =
__
V [],
)
__
4(
)
(6.17a)
S
II
[] =
__
I[],
)
__
4(
)
(6.17b)
S
V I
[] =
__
V [],
)
__
4(
)
(6.17c)
The expectation values here are over the operating state
of the amplier; we have chosen this state to be the vac
uum for the auxiliary mode operators u
in
and v
in
to min
imize the noise.
Taking [s
21
[ 1, and using Eqs. (6.14) and (6.15), we
have
S
V V
[] =
Z
a
4
(
uu
+
vv
) =
Z
a
2
(6.18a)
S
II
[] =
Z
a
uu
=
Z
a
(6.18b)
S
V I
[] =
2
uu
=
2
(6.18c)
where we have dened:
ab
_
a
a
_
(6.19)
and have used the fact that there cannot be any correla
tions between the operators u and v in the vacuum state
(i.e. u v
= 0).
It follows immediately from the above equations that
our minimal amplier does not optimize the quantum
noise constraint of Eq. (5.88):
S
V V
[]
S
II
[]
_
Im
S
V I
2
= 2
_
2
_
2
. (6.20)
The noise product
S
V V
S
II
is precisely twice the
quantumlimited value. As a result, the general the
ory of Sec. V.F tells us if one couples an input signal
weakly to this amplier (i.e. Z
s
Z
in
), it is impossible
to reach the quantum limit on the added noise. Thus,
while our amplier is ideal in the scattering mode of op
eration (cf. Eq. (6.16)), it fails to reach the quantum
limit when used in the weakcoupling, opamp mode of
operation. Our ampliers failure to have ideal quan
tum noise also means that if we tried to use it to do
QND qubit detection, the resulting backaction dephas
ing would be twice as large as the minimum required by
quantum mechanics (cf. Sec. IV.B).
One might object to the above conclusions based on
the classical expression for the minimal noise tempera
ture, Eq. (5.76). Unlike the quantum noise constraint
51
of Eq. (5.88), this equation also involves the real part
of
S
V I
, and is optimized by our minimal amplier.
However, this does not mean that one can achieve a
noise temperature of /2 at weak coupling! Recall
from Sec. V.F that in the usual process of optimizing
the noise temperature, one starts by assuming the weak
coupling condition that the source impedance Z
s
is much
smaller than the amplier input impedance Z
in
. One
then nds that to minimize the noise temperature, [Z
s
[
should be tuned to match the noise impedance of the
amplier Z
N
_
S
V V
/
S
II
. However, in our mini
mal bosonic amplier, it follows from Eqs. (6.18) that
Z
N
= Z
in
/
2 Z
in
: the noise impedance is on the
order of the input impedance. Thus, it is impossible to
match the source impedance to the noise impedance while
at the same time satisfying the weak coupling condition
Z
s
Z
in
.
Despite its failings, our amplier can indeed yield a
quantumlimited noise temperature in the opamp mode
of operation if we no longer insist on a weak coupling
to the input signal. To see this explicitly, imagine we
connected our amplier to a signal source with source
impedance Z
s
. The total output noise of the amplier,
referred back to the signal source, will now have the form:
V
tot
=
_
Z
s
Z
a
Z
s
+Z
a
_
I +
V (6.21)
Note that this classicallooking equation can be rigor
ously justied within the full quantum theory if one starts
with a full description of the amplier and the signal
source (e.g. a parallel LC oscillator attached in parallel
to the amplier input). Plugging in the expressions for
I
and
V , we nd:
V
tot
=
_
2
_
_
Z
s
Z
a
Z
s
+Z
a
__
2
Z
a
u
in
_
_
Z
a
( u
in
v
in
)
_
=
_
Z
a
2
__
Z
s
Z
a
Z
s
+Z
a
_
u
in
v
in
_
(6.22)
Thus, if one tunes Z
s
to Z
a
= Z
in
, the mode u
in
does not
contribute to the total added noise, and one reaches the
quantum limit. Physically speaking, by matching the
signal source to the input line, the backaction noise
described by
T
a
= u
in
does not feed back into the input
of the amplier. Note that achieving this matching ex
plicitly requires one to be far from weak coupling! Having
Z
s
= Z
a
means that when we attach the amplier to the
signal source, we will dramatically increase the damping
of the signal source.
2. Why is the opamp quantum limit not achieved?
Returning to the more interesting case of a weak
ampliersignal coupling, one might still be puzzled as
to why our seemingly ideal amplier misses the quantum
limit. While the mathematics behind Eq. (6.20) is fairly
transparent, it is also possible to understand this result
heuristically. To that end, note again that the amplier
noise crosscorrelation
S
IV
does not vanish in the large
gain limit (cf. Eq. (6.18c)). Correlations between the two
amplier noises represent a kind of information, as by
making use of them, we can improve the performance of
the amplier. It is easy to take advantage of outofphase
correlations between
I and
V (i.e. Im
S
V I
) by simply
tuning the phase of the source impedance (cf. Eq. (5.75)).
However, one cannot take advantage of inphase noise
correlations (i.e. Re
S
V I
) as easily. To take advantage
of the information here, one needs to modify the ampli
er itself. By feeding back some of the output voltage
to the input, one could eectively cancel out some of the
backaction current noise
I and thus reduce the over
all magnitude of
S
II
. Hence, the unused information in
the crosscorrelator Re
S
V I
represents a kind of wasted
information: had we made use of these correlations via
a feedback loop, we could have reduced the noise tem
perature and increased the information provided by our
amplier. The presence of a nonzero Re
S
V I
thus corre
sponds to wasted information, implying that we cannot
reach the quantum limit. Recall that within the linear
response approach, we were able to prove rigorously that
a largegain amplier with ideal quantum noise must have
Re
S
V I
= 0 (cf. the discussion following Eq. (5.57)); thus,
a nonvanishing Re
S
V I
rigorously implies that one can
not be at the quantum limit. In Appendix H, we give
an explicit demonstration of how feedback may be used
to utilize these crosscorrelations to reach the quantum
limit.
Finally, yet another way of seeing that our amplier
does not reach the quantum limit (in the weak coupling
regime) is to realize that this system does not have a
well dened eective temperature. Recall from Sec.V.F
that a system with ideal quantum noise (i.e. one that
satises Eq. (5.88) as an equality) necessarily has the
same eective temperature at its input and output ports
(cf. Eq. (5.55)). Here, that implies the requirement:
[
V
[
2
S
V V
Z
out
= Z
in
S
II
2k
B
T
e
(6.23)
In contrast, our minimal bosonic amplier has very dif
ferent input and output eective temperatures:
2k
B
T
e,in
= Z
in
S
II
=
2
(6.24)
2k
B
T
e,out
=
[
V
[
2
S
V V
Z
out
= 2[G[ (6.25)
This huge dierence in eective temperatures means that
it is impossible for the system to possess ideal quan
52
tum noise, and thus it cannot reach the weakcoupling
quantum limit.
While it implies that one is not at the quantum limit,
the fact that T
e,in
T
e,out
can nonetheless be viewed
as an asset. From a practical point of view, a large T
e,in
can be dangerous. Even though the direct eect of the
large T
e,in
is oset by an appropriately weak coupling
to the amplier (see Eq. (5.70) and following discussion),
this large T
e,in
can also heat up other degrees of freedom
if they couple strongly to the backaction noise of the am
plier. This can in turn lead to unwanted heating of the
input system. As T
e,in
is usually constant over a broad
range of frequencies, this unwanted heating eect can be
quite bad. In the minimal amplier discussed here, this
problem is circumvented by having a small T
e,in
. The
only price that is payed is that the added noise will be
2
the quantum limit value. We discuss this issue further in
Sec. VII.
VII. REACHING THE QUANTUM LIMIT IN PRACTICE
A. Importance of QND measurements
The fact that QND measurements are repeatable is of
fundamental practical importance in overcoming detec
tor ineciencies (Gambetta et al., 2007). A prototypical
example is the electron shelving technique (Nagourney
et al., 1986; Sauter et al., 1986) used to measure trapped
ions. A related technique is used in present implementa
tions of iontrap based quantum computation. Here the
(extremely longlived) hyperne state of an ion is read
out via statedependent optical uorescence. With prop
erly chosen circular polarization of the exciting laser, only
one hyperne state uoresces and the transition is cy
cling; that is, after uorescence the ion almost always re
turns to the same state it was in prior to absorbing the ex
citing photon. Hence the measurement is QND. Typical
experimental parameters (Wineland et al., 1998) allow
the cycling transition to produce N 10
6
uorescence
photons. Given the photomultiplier quantum eciency
and typically small solid angle coverage, only a very small
number n
d
will be detected on average. The probability
of getting zero detections (ignoring dark counts for sim
plicity) and hence misidentifying the hyperne state is
P(0) = e
n
d
. Even for a very poor overall detection ef
ciency of only 10
5
, we still have n
d
= 10 and nearly
perfect delity F = 1 P(0) 0.999955. It is important
to note that the total time available for measurement
is not limited by the phase coherence time (T
2
) of the
qubit or by the measurementinduced dephasing (Gam
betta et al., 2006; Korotkov, 2001a; Makhlin et al., 2001;
Schuster et al., 2005), but rather only by the rate at
which the qubit makes real transitions between measure
ment (
z
) eigenstates. In a perfect QND measurement
there is no measurementinduced state mixing (Makhlin
et al., 2001) and the relaxation rate 1/T
1
is unaected
by the measurement process.
B. Power matching versus noise matching
In Sec. V, we saw that an important part of reach
ing the quantum limit on the added noise of an amplier
(when used in the opamp mode of operation) is to op
timize the coupling strength to the amplier. For a po
sition detector, this condition corresponds to tuning the
strength of the backaction damping to be much smaller
than the intrinsic oscillator damping (cf. Eq. (5.69)). For
a voltage amplier, this condition corresponds to tuning
the impedance of the signal source to be equal to the
noise impedance (cf. Eq. (5.77)), an impedance which is
much smaller than the ampliers input impedance (cf.
Eq. (5.90)).
In this subsection, we make the simple point that opti
mizing the coupling (i.e. source impedance) to reach the
quantum limit is not the same as what one would do to
optimize the power gain. To understand this, we need to
introduce another measure of power gain commonly used
in the engineering community, the available power gain
G
P,avail
. For simplicity, we will discuss this quantity in
the context of a linear voltage amplier, using the nota
tions of Sec. V.F; it can be analogously dened for the
position detector of Sec.V.E. G
P,avail
tells us how much
power we are providing to an optimally matched output
load relative to the maximum power we could in principle
have extracted from the source. This is in marked con
trast to the power gain G
P
, which was calculated using
the actual power drawn at the amplier input.
For the available power gain, we rst consider P
in,avail
.
This is the maximum possible power that could be deliv
ered to the input of the amplier, assuming we optimized
both the value of the input impedance Z
in
and the load
impedance Z
load
while keeping Z
s
xed. For simplicity,
we will take all impedances to be real in our discussion.
In general, the power drawn at the input of the amplier
is given by P
in
= v
2
in
Z
in
/ (Z
s
+Z
in
)
2
. Maximizing this
over Z
in
, we obtain the available input power P
in,avail
:
P
in,avail
=
v
2
in
4Z
s
(7.1)
The maximum occurs for Z
in
= Z
s
.
The output power supplied to the load P
out
=
v
2
load
/Z
load
is calculated as before, keeping Z
in
and Z
s
distinct. One has:
P
out
=
v
2
out
Z
load
_
Z
load
Z
out
+Z
load
_
2
=
2
v
2
in
Z
out
_
Z
in
Z
in
+Z
s
_
2
Z
load
/Z
out
(1 +Z
load
/Z
out
)
2
(7.2)
As a function of Z
load
, P
out
is maximized when Z
load
=
Z
out
:
P
out,max
=
2
v
2
in
4Z
out
_
Z
in
Z
in
+Z
s
_
2
(7.3)
53
The available power gain is now dened as:
G
P,avail
P
out,max
P
in,avail
=
2
Z
s
Z
out
_
Z
in
Z
in
+Z
s
_
2
= G
P
4Z
s
/Z
in
(1 +Z
s
/Z
in
)
2
(7.4)
We see that G
P,avail
is strictly less than or equal to the
power gain G
P
; equality is only achieved when Z
s
= Z
in
(i.e. when the source impedance is power matched to
the input of the amplier). The general situation where
G
P,avail
< G
P
indicates that we are not drawing as much
power from the source as we could, and hence the actual
power supplied to the load is not as large as it could be.
Consider now a situation where we have achieved the
quantum limit on the added noise. This necessarily
means that we have noise matched, i.e. taken Z
s
to be
equal to the noise impedance Z
N
. The available power
gain in this case is:
G
P,avail
2
Z
N
Z
out
2
_
G
P
G
P
(7.5)
We have used Eq. (5.90), which tells us that the noise
impedance is smaller than the input impedance by a large
factor 1/(2
G
P
). Thus, as reaching the quantum limit
requires the use of a source impedance much smaller than
Z
in
, it results in a dramatic drop in the available power
gain compared to the case where we power match (i.e.
take Z
s
= Z
in
). In practice, one must decide whether it
is more important to minimize the added noise, or max
imize the power provided at the output of the amplier:
one cannot do both at the same time.
VIII. CONCLUSIONS
In this review, we have given an introduction to quan
tum limits for position detection and amplication, lim
its which are tied to fundamental constraints on quantum
noise correlators. We wish to end by briey emphasiz
ing notable current developments and pointing out future
perspectives in the eld.
As we have repeatedly emphasized, much of our dis
cussion has been directly relevant to the measurement
of mechanical nanoresonators, a topic of considerable re
cent attention. These nanoresonators are typically stud
ied by coupling them either to electrical (often super
conducting) circuits or to optical cavities. A key goal is
to achieve quantumlimited continuous position detection
(cf. Sec. V.E); current experiments are coming tantalyz
ingly close to this limit (cf. Table III). Although being
able to follow the nanoresonators motion with a precision
set by the quantum limit is in principle independent from
being at low temperatures, it becomes interesting only
when the systems are near their ground state; one could
then, e.g., monitor the oscillators zeropoint uctuations
(cf. Sec. III.B.3). Given the comparatively small values
of mechanical frequencies (mostly less than GHz), this
calls for the application of nonequilibrium cooling tech
niques which exploit backaction to reduce the eective
temperature of the mechanical device, a technique that
has been demonstrated recently both in superconducting
circuits and optomechanical setups (see Marquardt and
Girvin (2009) for a review).
The ability to do quantum limited position detection
will in turn open up many new interesting avenues of re
search. Among the most signicant, it will allow the pos
sibility of doing quantum feedback control (Wiseman and
Milburn, 1993, 1994), where one uses the continuously
obtained measurement output to tailor the state of the
mechanical resonator. The relevant theoretical frame
work is that of quantum conditional evolution and quan
tum trajectories (see e.g. Brun, 2002; Jacobs and Steck,
2006), where one tracks the state of a measured quan
tum system in a particular run of the experiment. The
application of these ideas has only recently been explored
in condensed matter contexts (Bernad et al., 2008; Goan
and Milburn, 2001; Goan et al., 2001; Korotkov, 1999,
2001b; Oxtoby et al., 2008, 2006). Fully understanding
the potential of these techniques, as well as dierences
that occur in condensed matter versus atomic physics
contexts, remains an active area of research. Other im
portant directions in nanomechanics include the possi
bility of detecting quantum jumps in the state of a me
chanical resonator via QND measurement of its energy
(Jayich et al., 2008; Santamore et al., 2004a,b; Thomp
son et al., 2008), as well as the possibility of making
backaction evading measurements (cf. Sec. V.H). Back
action evasion using a microwave cavity detector cou
pled to a nanomechanical resonator was recently reported
(Hertzberg et al., 2010).
Another area distinct from nanomechanics where rapid
progress is being made is the readout of solid state qubits
using microwave signals sent through cavities whose
transmission properties are controlled by the qubit. At
the moment, one is close to achieving good delity single
shot QND readout, which is a prerequisite for a large
number of applications in quantum information process
ing. The gradually growing information about the qubit
state is extracted from the measured noisy microwave sig
nal trace, leading to a corresponding collapse of the qubit
state. This process can also be described by conditional
quantum evolution and quantum trajectories.
A promising method for superconducting qubit read
out currently employed is a socalled latching mea
surement, where the hysteretic behaviour of a strongly
driven anharmonic system (e.g. a Josephson junction) is
exploited to toggle between two states depending on the
qubit state (Lupascu et al., 2006; Siddiqi et al., 2004).
Although this is then no longer a linear measurement
scheme and therefore distinct from what we have dis
cussed in this review, it can be turned into a linear am
plier for a suciently weak input signal. An interesting
and important open question is whether such a setup can
reach the quantum limit on linear amplication.
Both qubit detection and mechanical measurements
54
in electrical circuits would benet from quantumlimited
onchip ampliers. Such ampliers are now being devel
oped using the tools of circuit quantum electrodynamics,
employing Josephson junctions or SQUIDs coupled to mi
crowave transmission line cavities (Bergeal et al., 2008;
CastellanosBeltran et al., 2008). Such an amplier has
already been used to perform continuous position detec
tion with a measurement imprecision below the SQL level
(Teufel et al., 2009).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported in part by NSERC, the Cana
dian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR), NSA
under ARO contract number W911NF0510365, the
NSF under grants DMR0653377 and DMR0603369, the
David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the W.M. Keck
Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. We ac
knowledge the support and hospitality of the Aspen Cen
ter for Physics where part of this work was carried out.
F.M. acknowledges support via DIP, GIF and through
SFB 631, SFB/TR 12, the Nanosystems Initiative Mu
nich, and the EmmyNoether program. S. M. G. acknowl
edges the support of the Centre for Advanced Study at
the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters where
part of this work was carried out.
Appendix A: Basics of Classical and Quantum Noise
1. Classical noise correlators
Consider a classical random voltage signal V (t). The
signal is characterized by zero mean V (t) = 0, and
autocorrelation function
G
V V
(t t
) = V (t)V (t
) (A1)
whose sign and magnitude tells us whether the voltage
uctuations at time t and time t
T
_
+T/2
T/2
dt e
it
V (t), (A2)
where T is the sampling time. In the limit T
c
the
integral is a sum of a large number N
T
c
of random
uncorrelated terms. We can think of the value of the
integral as the end point of a random walk in the complex
plane which starts at the origin. Because the distance
traveled will scale with
secs which is
usually denoted volts/
Hz.
The spectral density (or power spectrum) of the noise
is dened to be the ensemble averaged quantity
o
V V
[] lim
T
[V
T
[][
2
= lim
T
V
T
[]V
T
[] (A3)
The second equality follows from the fact that V (t) is
real valued. The WienerKhinchin theorem (derived in
Appendix A.2) tells us that the spectral density is equal
to the Fourier transform of the autocorrelation function
o
V V
[] =
_
+
dt e
it
G
V V
(t). (A4)
The inverse transform relates the autocorrelation func
tion to the power spectrum
G
V V
(t) =
_
+
d
2
e
it
o
V V
[]. (A5)
We thus see that a short autocorrelation time implies
a spectral density which is nonzero over a wide range of
frequencies. In the limit of white noise
G
V V
(t) =
2
(t) (A6)
the spectrum is at (independent of frequency)
o
V V
[] =
2
(A7)
In the opposite limit of a long autocorrelation time, the
signal is changing slowly so it can only be made up out
of a narrow range of frequencies (not necessarily centered
on zero).
Because V (t) is a realvalued classical variable, it natu
rally follows that G
V V
(t) is always real. Since V (t) is not
a quantum operator, it commutes with its value at other
times and thus, V (t)V (t
) = V (t
e
i(tt
)
V (t)V (t
)
=
1
T
_
T
0
dt
_
+2B(t)
2B(t)
d e
i
V (t +/2)V (t /2)
(A13)
where
B(t) = t if t < T/2
= T t if t > T/2.
If T greatly exceeds the noise autocorrelation time
c
then it is a good approximation to extend the bound B(t)
in the second integral to innity, since the dominant con
tribution is from small . Using time translation invari
ance gives
o
V V
[] =
1
T
_
T
0
dt
_
+
d e
i
V ()V (0)
=
_
+
d e
i
V ()V (0) . (A14)
This proves the WienerKhinchin theorem stated in
Eq. (A4).
A useful application of these ideas is the following.
Suppose that we have a noisy signal V (t) =
V + (t)
which we begin monitoring at time t = 0. The integrated
signal up to time t is given by
I(T) =
_
T
0
dt V (t) (A15)
and has mean
I(T) =
V T. (A16)
Provided that the integration time greatly exceeds the
autocorrelation time of the noise, I(T) is a sum of a large
number of uncorrelated random variables. The central
limit theorem tells us in this case that I(t) is gaussian
distributed even if the signal itself is not. Hence the
probability distribution for I is fully specied by its mean
and its variance
(I)
2
=
_
T
0
dtdt
(t)(t
). (A17)
From the denition of spectral density above we have the
simple result that the variance of the integrated signal
grows linearly in time with proportionality constant given
by the noise spectral density at zero frequency
(I)
2
= o
V V
[0] T. (A18)
As a simple application, consider the photon shot noise
of a coherent laser beam. The total number of photons
detected in time T is
N(T) =
_
T
0
dt
N(t). (A19)
The photodetection signal
N(t) is not gaussian, but
rather is a point process, that is, a sequence of delta func
tions with random Poisson distributed arrival times and
mean photon arrival rate
N. Nevertheless at long times
the mean number of detected photons
N(T) =
NT (A20)
will be large and the photon number distribution will be
gaussian with variance
(N)
2
= S
N
N
T. (A21)
Since we know that for a Poisson process the variance is
equal to the mean
(N)
2
= N(T), (A22)
it follows that the shot noise power spectral density is
S
N
N
(0) =
N. (A23)
Since the noise is white this result happens to be valid at
all frequencies, but the noise is gaussian distributed only
at low frequencies.
56
3. Square law detectors and classical spectrum analyzers
Now that we understand the basics of classical noise,
we can consider how one experimentally measures a clas
sical noise spectral density. With modern high speed
digital sampling techniques it is perfectly feasible to di
rectly measure the random noise signal as a function of
time and then directly compute the autocorrelation func
tion in Eq. (A1). This is typically done by rst per
forming an analogtodigital conversion of the noise sig
nal, and then numerically computing the autocorrelation
function. One can then use Eq. (A4) to calculate the
noise spectral density via a numerical Fourier transform.
Note that while Eq. (A4) seems to require an ensemble
average, in practice this is not explicitly done. Instead,
one uses a suciently long averaging time T (i.e. much
longer than the correlation time of the noise) such that
a single timeaverage is equivalent to an ensemble aver
age. This approach of measuring a noise spectral density
directly from its autocorrelation function is most appro
priate for signals at RF frequencies well below 1 MHz.
For microwave signals with frequencies well above 1
GHz, a very dierent approach is usually taken. Here, the
standard route to obtain a noise spectral density involves
rst shifting the signal to a lower intermediate frequency
via a technique known as heterodyning (we discuss this
more in Sec. B.3.c). This intermediatefrequency signal
is then sent to a lter which selects a narrow frequency
range of interest, the socalled resolution bandwidth.
Finally, this ltered signal is sent to a squarelaw detector
(e.g. a diode), and the resulting output is averaged over
a certain timeinterval (the inverse of the socalled video
bandwidth). It is this nal output which is then taken
to be a measure of the noise spectral density.
It helps to put the above into equations. Ignoring for
simplicity the initial heterodyning step, let
V
f
[] = f[]V [] (A24)
be the voltage at the output of the lter and the input
of the square law detector. Here, f[] is the (ampli
tude) transmission coecient of the lter and V [] is the
Fourier transform of the noisy signal we are measuring.
From Eq. (A5) it follows that the output of the square
law detector is proportional to
I =
_
+
d
2
[f[][
2
o
V V
[]. (A25)
Approximating the narrow band lter centered on fre
quency
0
as
20
[f[][
2
= (
0
) +( +
0
) (A26)
20
A linear passive lter performs a convolution Vout(t) =
dt
F(t t
)V
in
(t
e
(t)
_
. (B1)
In the interaction representation, rstorder time
dependent perturbation theory gives
[
I
(t) = [(0)
i
_
t
0
d
V ()[(0). (B2)
If we initially prepare the twolevel system in its ground
state, the amplitude to nd it in its excited state at time
t is from Eq. (B2)
e
=
iA
_
t
0
d e[
x
()[gF(),
=
iA
_
t
0
d e
i01
F(). (B3)
Since the integrand in Eq. (B3) is random,
e
is a sum
of a large number of random terms; i.e. its value is the
57
endpoint of a random walk in the complex plane (as dis
cussed above in dening the spectral density of classical
noise). As a result, for times exceeding the autocorre
lation time
c
of the noise, the integral will not grow
linearly with time but rather only as the square root of
time, as expected for a random walk. We can now com
pute the probability
p
e
(t) [
e
[
2
=
A
2
2
_
t
0
_
t
0
d
1
d
2
e
i01(12)
F(
1
)F(
2
)
(B4)
which we expect to grow quadratically for short times
t <
c
, but linearly for long times t >
c
. Ensemble
averaging the probability over the random noise yields
p
e
(t) =
A
2
2
_
t
0
_
t
0
d
1
d
2
e
i01(12)
F(
1
)F(
2
)
(B5)
Introducing the noise spectral density
S
FF
() =
_
+
d e
i
F()F(0), (B6)
and utilizing the Fourier transform dened in Eq. (A2)
and the WienerKhinchin theorem from Appendix A.2,
we nd that the probability to be in the excited state
indeed increases linearly with time at long times,
21
p
e
(t) = t
A
2
2
S
FF
(
01
) (B7)
The time derivative of the probability gives the transition
rate from ground to excited states
=
A
2
2
S
FF
(
01
) (B8)
Note that we are taking in this last expression the spec
tral density on the negative frequency side. If F were a
strictly classical noise source, F()F(0) would be real,
and S
FF
(
01
) = S
FF
(+
01
). However, because as we
discuss below F is actually an operator acting on the en
vironmental degrees of freedom,
_
F(),
F(0)
_
,= 0 and
S
FF
(
01
) ,= S
FF
(+
01
).
Another possible experiment is to prepare the twolevel
system in its excited state and look at the rate of decay
into the ground state. The algebra is identical to that
above except that the sign of the frequency is reversed:
=
A
2
2
S
FF
(+
01
). (B9)
21
Note that for very long times, where there is a signicant de
pletion of the probability of being in the initial state, rstorder
perturbation theory becomes invalid. However, for suciently
small A, there is a wide range of times c t 1/ for which
Eq. B7 is valid. Eqs. (2.6a) and (2.6b) then yield welldened
rates which can be used in a master equation to describe the full
dynamics including long times.
We now see that our twolevel system does indeed act as a
quantum spectrum analyzer for the noise. Operationally,
we prepare the system either in its ground state or in its
excited state, weakly couple it to the noise source, and
after an appropriate interval of time (satisfying the above
inequalities) simply measure whether the system is now
in its excited state or ground state. Repeating this pro
tocol over and over again, we can nd the probability
of making a transition, and thereby infer the rate and
hence the noise spectral density at positive and nega
tive frequencies. Naively one imagines that a spectrom
eters measures the noise spectrum by extracting a small
amount of the signal energy from the noise source and
analyzes it. This is not the case however. There must
be energy owing in both directions if the noise is to be
fully characterized.
We now rigorously treat the quantity
F() as a quan
tum Heisenberg operator which acts in the Hilbert space
of the noise source. The previous derivation is unchanged
(the ordering of
F(
1
)
F(
2
) having been chosen cor
rectly in anticipation of the quantum treatment), and
Eqs. (2.6a,2.6b) are still valid provided that we interpret
the angular brackets in Eq. (B5,B6) as representing a
quantum expectation value (evaluated in the absence of
the coupling to the spectrometer):
S
FF
() =
_
+
d e
i
F()[[
F(0)[.
(B10)
Here, we have assumed a stationary situation, where
the density matrix of the noise source is diagonal in
the energy eigenbasis (in the absence of the coupling to
the spectrometer). However, we do not necessarily as
sume that it is given by the equilibrium expression. This
yields the standard quantum mechanical expression for
the spectral density:
S
FF
() =
_
+
d e
i
e
i
()
[[
F[[
2
= 2
[[
F[[
2
(
). (B11)
Substituting this expression into Eqs. (2.6a,2.6b), we de
rive the familiar Fermi Golden Rule expressions for the
two transition rates.
In standard courses, one is not normally taught that
the transition rate of a discrete state into a continuum
as described by Fermis Golden Rule can (and indeed
should!) be viewed as resulting from the continuum act
ing as a quantum noise source which causes the am
plitudes of the dierent components of the wave func
tion to undergo random walks. The derivation presented
here hopefully provides a motivation for this interpreta
tion. In particular, thinking of the perturbation (i.e. the
coupling to the continuum) as quantum noise with a
small but nite autocorrelation time (inversely related
to the bandwidth of the continuum) neatly explains why
58
the transition probability increases quadratically for very
short times, but linearly for very long times.
It it is important to keep in mind that our expressions
for the transition rates are only valid if the autocorrela
tion time of our noise is much shorter that the typical
time we are interested in; this typical time is simply the
inverse of the transition rate. The requirement of a short
autocorrelation time in turn implies that our noise source
must have a large bandwidth (i.e. there must be large
number of available photon frequencies in the vacuum)
and must not be coupled too strongly to our system. This
is true despite the fact that our nal expressions for the
transition rates only depend on the spectral density at
the transition frequency (a consequence of energy con
servation).
One standard model for the continuum is an innite
collection of harmonic oscillators. The electromagnetic
continuum in the hydrogen atom case mentioned above is
a prototypical example. The vacuum electric eld noise
coupling to the hydrogen atom has an extremely short
autocorrelation time because the range of mode frequen
cies
is signicant) is
extremely large, ranging from many times smaller than
the transition frequency to many times larger. Thus, the
autocorrelation time of the vacuum electric eld noise is
considerably less than 10
15
s, whereas the decay time of
the hydrogen 2p state is about 10
9
s. Hence the inequal
ities needed for the validity of our expressions are very
easily satised.
2. Harmonic oscillator as a spectrum analyzer
We now provide more details on the system described
in Sec. II.B, where a harmonic oscillator acts as a spec
trometer of quantum noise. We start with the coupling
Hamiltonian givein in Eq. (2.9). In analogy to the TLS
spectrometer, noise in
F at the oscillator frequency
can cause transitions between its eigenstates. We as
sume both that A is small, and that our noise source
has a short autocorrelation time, so we may again use
perturbation theory to derive rates for these transitions.
There is a rate for increasing the number of quanta in
the oscillator by one, taking a state [n to [n + 1:
nn+1
=
A
2
2
_
(n + 1)x
2
ZPF
S
FF
[] (n + 1)
(B12)
As expected, this rate involves the noise at , as en
ergy is being absorbed from the noise source. Similarly,
there is a rate for decreasing the number of quanta in the
oscillator by one:
nn1
=
A
2
2
_
nx
2
ZPF
_
S
FF
[] n
(B13)
This rate involves the noise at +, as energy is being
emitted to the noise source.
Given these transition rates, we may immediately write
a simple master equation for the probability p
n
(t) that
there are n quanta in the oscillator:
d
dt
p
n
= [n
p
n1
+ (n + 1)
p
n+1
]
[n
+ (n + 1)
] p
n
(B14)
The rst two terms describe transitions into the state [n
from the states [n + 1 and [n 1, and hence increase
p
n
. In contrast, the last two terms describe transitions
out of the state [n to the states [n +1 and [n 1, and
hence decrease p
n
. The stationary state of the oscillator
is given by solving Eq. (B14) for
d
dt
p
n
= 0, yielding:
p
n
= e
n/(kBT
eff
)
_
1 e
/(kBT
eff
)
_
(B15)
where the eective temperature T
e
[] is dened in
Eq. (2.8). Eq. (B15) describes a thermal equilibrium
distribution of the oscillator, with an eective oscillator
temperature T
e
[] determined by the quantum noise
spectrum of
F. This is the same eective temperature
that emerged in our discussion of the TLS spectrum an
alyzer. As we have seen, if the noise source is in thermal
equilibrium at a temperature T
eq
, then T
e
[] = T
eq
.
In the more general case where the noise source is not
in thermal equilibrium, T
e
only serves to characterize
the asymmetry of the quantum noise, and will vary with
frequency
22
.
We can learn more about the quantum noise spectrum
of
F by also looking at the dynamics of the oscillator.
In particular, as the average energy E of the oscillator
is just given by E(t) =
n=0
_
n +
1
2
_
p
n
(t), we can
use the master equation Eq. (B14) to derive an equa
tion for its time dependence. One thus nds Eq. (2.10).
By demanding dE/dt = 0 in this equation, we nd
that the combination of damping and heating eects
causes the energy to reach a steady state mean value
of E = P/. This implies that the nite ground state
energy E = /2 of the oscillator is determined via the
balance between the heating by the zeropoint uctua
tions of the environment (described by the symmetrized
correlator at T = 0) and the dissipation. It is possible to
take an alternative but equally correct viewpoint, where
only the deviation E = E /2 from the ground
state energy is considered. Its evolution equation
d
dt
E = E(
) +
(B16)
only contains a decay term at T = 0, leading to E 0.
22
Note that the eective temperature can become negative if the
noise source prefers emitting energy versus absorbing it; in the
present case, that would lead to an instability.
59
3. Practical quantum spectrum analyzers
As we have seen, a quantum spectrum analyzer can
in principle be constructed from a two level system (or
a harmonic oscillator) in which we can separately mea
sure the up and down transition rates between states
diering by some precise energy > 0 given by the
frequency of interest. The down transition rate tells us
the noise spectral density at frequency + and the up
transition rate tells us the noise spectral density at .
While we have already discussed experimental implemen
tation of these ideas using twolevel systems and oscilla
tors, similar schemes have been implemented in other sys
tems. A number of recent experiments have made use of
superconductorinsulatorsuperconductor junctions (Bil
langeon et al., 2006; Deblock et al., 2003; Onac et al.,
2006) to measure quantum noise, as the currentvoltage
characteristics of such junctions are very sensitive to
the absorption or emission of energy (socalled photon
assisted transport processes). It has also been suggested
that tunneling of ux in a SQUID can be used to measure
quantum noise (Amin and Averin, 2008).
In this subsection, we discuss additional methods for
the detection of quantum noise. Recall from Sec. A.3 that
one of the most basic classical noise spectrum analyzers
consists of a linear narrow band lter and a square law
detector such as a diode. In what follows, we will consider
a simplied quantum treatment of such a device where we
do not explicitly model a diode, but instead focus on the
energy of the lter circuit. We then turn to various noise
detection schemes making use of a photomultiplier. We
will show that depending on the detection scheme used,
one can measure either the symmetrized quantum noise
spectral density
S[], or the nonsymmetrized spectral
density S[].
a. Filter plus diode
Using the simple treatment we gave of a harmonic os
cillator as a quantum spectrum analyzer in Sec. B.2, one
can attempt to provide a quantum treatment of the clas
sical lter plus diode spectrum analyzer discussed in
Sec. A.3. This approach is due to Lesovik and Loosen
(1997) and Gavish et al. (2000). The analysis starts by
modeling the spectrum analyzers resonant lter circuit
as a harmonic oscillator of frequency weakly coupled
to some equilibrium dissipative bath. The oscillator thus
has an intrinsic damping rate
0
, and is initially at
a nite temperature T
eq
. One then drives this damped
oscillator (i.e. the lter circuit) with the noisy quantum
force
F(t) whose spectrum at frequency is to be mea
sured.
In the classical lter plus diode spectrum analyzer,
the output of the lter circuit was sent to a square law
detector, whose timeaveraged output was then taken as
the measured spectral density. To simplify the analy
sis, we can instead consider how the noise changes the
average energy of the resonant lter circuit, taking this
quantity as a proxy for the output of the diode. Sure
enough, if we subject the lter circuit to purely classical
noise, it would cause the average energy of the circuit
E to increase an amount directly proportional to the
classical spectrum o
FF
[]. We now consider E in the
case of a quantum noise source, and ask how it relates to
the quantum noise spectral density S
FF
[].
The quantum case is straightforward to analyze using
the approach of Sec. B.2. Unlike the classical case, the
noise will both lead to additional uctuations of the lter
circuit and increase its damping rate by an amount
(c.f. Eq. (2.12)). To make things quantitative, we let n
eq
denote the average number of quanta in the lter circuit
prior to coupling to
F(t), i.e.
n
eq
=
1
exp
_
k
B
Teq
_
1
, (B17)
and let n
e
represent the BoseEinstein factor associated
with the eective temperature T
e
[] of the noise source
F(t),
n
e
=
1
exp
_
k
B
T
eff
[]
_
1
. (B18)
One then nds (Gavish et al., 2000; Lesovik and Loosen,
1997):
E =
0
+
(n
e
n
eq
) (B19)
This equation has an extremely simple interpretation:
the rst term results from the expected heating eect
of the noise, while the second term results from the
noise source having increased the circuits damping by
an amount . Reexpressing this result in terms of the
symmetric and antisymmetric in frequency parts of the
quantum noise spectral density S
FF
[], we have:
E =
S
FF
()
_
n
eq
+
1
2
_
(S
FF
[] S
FF
[])
2m(
0
+)
(B20)
We see that E is in general not simply proportional
to the symmetrized noise
S
FF
[]. Thus, the lter plus
diode spectrum analyzer does not simply measure the
symmetrized quantum noise spectral density. We stress
that there is nothing particularly quantum about this re
sult. The extra term on the RHS of Eq. (B20) simply
reects the fact that coupling the noise source to the l
ter circuit could change the damping of this circuit; this
could easily happen in a completely classical setting. As
long as this additional damping eect is minimal, the
second term in Eq. (B20) will be minimal, and our spec
trum analyzer will (to a good approximation) measure
the symmetrized noise. Quantitatively, this requires:
n
e
n
eq
. (B21)
60
We now see where quantum mechanics enters: if the noise
to be measured is close to being zero point noise (i.e.
n
e
0), the above condition can never be satised, and
thus it is impossible to ignore the damping eect of the
noise source on the lter circuit. In the zero point limit,
this damping eect (i.e. second term in Eq. (B20)) will
always be greater than or equal to the expected heating
eect of the noise (i.e. rst term in Eq. (B20)).
b. Filter plus photomultiplier
We now turn to quantum spectrum analyzers involving
a square law detector we can accurately model a photo
multiplier. As a rst example of such a system, consider a
photomultiplier with a narrow band lter placed in front
of it. The mean photocurrent is then given by
I =
_
+
d [f[][
2
r[]S
VV
[], (B22)
where f is the lter (amplitude) transmission function
dened previously and r[] is the response of the pho
todetector at frequency , and S
VV
represents the elec
tric eld spectral density incident upon the photodetec
tor. Naively one thinks of the photomultiplier as a square
law detector with the square of the electric eld repre
senting the optical power. However, according to the
Glauber theory of (ideal) photodetection (Gardiner and
Zoller, 2000; Glauber, 2006; Walls and Milburn, 1994),
photocurrent is produced if, and only if, a photon is
absorbed by the detector, liberating the initial photo
electron. Glauber describes this in terms of normal or
dering of the photon operators in the electric eld auto
correlation function. In our language of noise power at
positive and negative frequencies, this requirement be
comes simply that r[] vanishes for > 0. Approximat
ing the narrow band lter centered on frequency
0
as
in Eq. (A26), we obtain
I = r[
0
]S
VV
[
0
] (B23)
which shows that this particular realization of a quantum
spectrometer only measures electric eld spectral density
at negative frequencies since the photomultiplier never
emits energy into the noise source. Also one does not
see in the output any vacuum noise and so the output
(ideally) vanishes as it should at zero temperature. Of
course real photomultipliers suer from imperfect quan
tum eciencies and have nonzero dark current. Note
that we have assumed here that there are no additional
uctuations associated with the lter circuit. Our re
sult thus coincides with what we found in the previous
subsection for the lter plus diode spectrum analyzer
(c.f. Eq. (B20), in the limit where the lter circuit is ini
tially at zero temperature (i.e. n
eq
= 0).
c. Double sideband heterodyne power spectrum
At RF and microwave frequencies, practical spectrome
ters often contain heterodyne stages which mix the initial
frequency down to a lower frequency
IF
(possibly in the
classical regime). Consider a system with a mixer and lo
cal oscillator at frequency
LO
that mixes both the upper
sideband input at
u
=
LO
+
IF
and the lower sideband
input at
l
=
LO
IF
down to frequency
IF
. This
can be achieved by having a Hamiltonian with a 3wave
mixing term which (in the rotating wave approximation)
is given by
V = [ a
IF
a
l
a
LO
+ a
IF
a
l
a
LO
] +[ a
IF
a
u
a
LO
+ a
IF
a
u
a
LO
]
(B24)
The interpretation of this term is that of a Raman pro
cess. Notice that there are two energy conserving pro
cesses that can create an IF photon which could then
activate the photodetector. First, one can absorb an LO
photon and emit two photons, one at the IF and one at
the lower sideband. The second possibility is to absorb
an upper sideband photon and create IF and LO photons.
Thus we expect from this that the power in the IF chan
nel detected by a photomultiplier would be proportional
to the noise power in the following way
I S[+
l
] +S[
u
] (B25)
since creation of an IF photon involves the signal source
either absorbing a lower sideband photon from the mixer
or the signal source emitting an upper sideband photon
into the mixer. In the limit of small IF frequency this
expression would reduce to the symmetrized noise power
I S[+
LO
] +S[
LO
] = 2
S[
LO
] (B26)
which is the same as for a classical spectrum analyzer
with a square law detector (c.f. Appendix A.3). For equi
librium noise spectral density from a resistance R
0
de
rived in Appendix D we would then have
S
VV
[] +S
VV
[] = 2R
0
[[[2n
B
([[) + 1], (B27)
Assuming our spectrum analyzer has high input
impedance so that it does not load the noise source, this
voltage spectrum will determine the output signal of the
analyzer. This symmetrized quantity does not vanish at
zero temperature and the output contains the vacuum
noise from the input. This vacuum noise has been seen
in experiment. (Schoelkopf et al., 1997)
Appendix C: Modes, Transmission Lines and Classical
Input/Output Theory
In this appendix we introduce a number of important
classical concepts about electromagnetic signals which
are essential to understand before moving on to the study
of their quantum analogs. A signal at carrier frequency
61
can be described in terms of its amplitude and phase
or equivalently in terms of its two quadrature amplitudes
s(t) = X cos(t) +Y sin(t). (C1)
We will see in the following that the physical oscillations
of this signal in a transmission line are precisely the sinu
soidal oscillations of a simple harmonic oscillator. Com
parison of Eq. (C1) with x(t) = x
0
cos t+(p
0
/M) sin t
shows that we can identify the quadrature amplitude X
with the coordinate of this oscillator and thus the quadra
ture amplitude Y is proportional to the momentum con
jugate to X. Quantum mechanically, X and Y become
operators
X and
Y which do not commute. Thus their
quantum uctuations obey the Heisenberg uncertainty
relation.
Ordinarily (e.g., in the absence of squeezing), the phase
choice dening the two quadratures is arbitrary and so
their vacuum (i.e. zeropoint) uctuations are equal
X
ZPF
= Y
ZPF
. (C2)
Thus the canonical commutation relation becomes
[
X,
Y ] = iX
2
ZPF
. (C3)
We will see that the fact that X and Y are canoni
cally conjugate has profound implications both classically
and quantum mechanically. In particular, the action of
any circuit element (beam splitter, attenuator, amplier,
etc.) must preserve the Poisson bracket (or in the quan
tum case, the commutator) between the signal quadra
tures. This places strong constraints on the properties
of these circuit elements and in particular, forces every
amplier to add noise to the signal.
1. Transmission lines and classical inputoutput theory
We begin by considering a coaxial transmission line
modeled as a perfectly conducting wire with inductance
per unit length of and capacitance to ground per unit
length c as shown in Fig. 14. If the voltage at position x
at time t is V (x, t), then the charge density is q(x, t) =
cV (x, t). By charge conservation the current I and the
charge density are related by the continuity equation
t
q +
x
I = 0. (C4)
The constitutive relation (essentially Newtons law) gives
the acceleration of the charges
t
I =
x
V. (C5)
We can decouple Eqs. (C4) and (C5) by introducing left
and right propagating modes
V (x, t) = [V
+V
] (C6)
I(x, t) =
1
Z
c
[V
] (C7)
where Z
c
_
/c is called the characteristic impedance
of the line. In terms of the left and right propagating
modes, Eqs. (C4) and C5 become
v
p
x
V
+
t
V
= 0 (C8)
v
p
x
V
t
V
= 0 (C9)
where v
p
1/
(x, t) = V
out
(t
x
v
p
) (C10)
V
(x, t) = V
in
(t +
x
v
p
), (C11)
where V
in
and V
out
are arbitrary functions of their argu
ments. For an innite transmission line, V
out
and V
in
are
completely independent. However for the case of a semi
innite line terminated at x = 0 (say) by some system S,
these two solutions are not independent, but rather re
lated by the boundary condition imposed by the system.
We have
V (x = 0, t) = [V
out
(t) +V
in
(t)] (C12)
I(x = 0, t) =
1
Z
c
[V
out
(t) V
in
(t)], (C13)
from which we may derive
V
out
(t) = V
in
(t) +Z
c
I(x = 0, t). (C14)
Z
c
, v
p
0
d
x
V
I
V
in
V
out
V
(x,t)
V
(x,t)
I(x,t)
V(x,t)
a)
c)
L
a
b)
L L
C C C
FIG. 14 a) Coaxial transmission line, indicating voltages and
currents as dened in the main text. b) Lumped element
representation of a transmission line with capacitance per unit
length c = C/a and inductance per unit length = L/a. c)
Discrete LC resonator terminating a transmission line.
62
If the system under study is just an open circuit so
that I(x = 0, t) = 0, then V
out
= V
in
, meaning that the
outgoing wave is simply the result of the incoming wave
reecting from the open circuit termination. In general
however, there is an additional outgoing wave radiated
by the current I that is injected by the system dynamics
into the line. In the absence of an incoming wave we have
V (x = 0, t) = Z
c
I(x = 0, t), (C15)
indicating that the transmission line acts as a simple re
sistor which, instead of dissipating energy by Joule heat
ing, carries the energy away from the system as propa
gating waves. The fact that the line can dissipate energy
despite containing only purely reactive elements is a con
sequence of its innite extent. One must be careful with
the order of limits, taking the length to innity before
allowing time to go to innity. In this way the outgoing
waves never reach the far end of the transmission line and
reect back. Since this is a conservative Hamiltonian sys
tem, we will be able to quantize these waves and make a
quantum theory of resistors (Caldeira and Leggett, 1983)
in Appendix D. The net power ow carried to the right
by the line is
P =
1
Z
c
[V
2
out
(t) V
2
in
(t)]. (C16)
The fact that the transmission line presents a dissipa
tive impedance to the system means that it causes damp
ing of the system. It also however opens up the possibility
of controlling the system via the input eld which par
tially determines the voltage driving the system. From
this point of view it is convenient to eliminate the output
eld by writing the voltage as
V (x = 0, t) = 2V
in
(t) +Z
c
I(x = 0, t). (C17)
As we will discuss in more detail below, the rst term
drives the system and the second damps it. From
Eq. (C14) we see that measurement of the outgoing eld
can be used to determine the current I(x = 0, t) injected
by the system into the line and hence to infer the system
dynamics that results from the input drive eld.
As a simple example, consider the system consisting of
an LC resonator shown in Fig. (14 c). This can be viewed
as a simple harmonic oscillator whose coordinate Q is the
charge on the capacitor plate (on the side connected to
L
0
). The current I(x = 0, t) =
Q plays the role of the
velocity of the oscillator. The equation of motion for the
oscillator is readily obtained from
Q = C
0
[V (x = 0
+
, t) L
0
I(x = 0
+
, t)]. (C18)
Using Eq. (C17) we obtain a harmonic oscillator damped
by the transmission line and driven by the incoming
waves
Q =
2
0
Q
Q
2
L
0
V
in
(t), (C19)
where the resonant frequency is
2
0
1/
L
0
C
0
. Note
that the term Z
c
I(x = 0, t) in Eq. (C17) results in the
linear viscous damping rate Z
c
/L
0
.
If we solve the equation of motion of the oscillator, we
can predict the outgoing eld. In the present instance of
a simple oscillator we have a particular example of the
general case where the system responds linearly to the
input eld. We can characterize any such system by a
complex, frequency dependent impedance Z[] dened
by
Z[] =
V (x = 0, )
I(x = 0, )
. (C20)
Note the peculiar minus sign which results from our def
inition of positive current owing to the right (out of the
system and into the transmission line). Using Eqs. (C12,
C13) and Eq. (C20) we have
V
out
[] = r[]V
in
[], (C21)
where the reection coecient r is determined by the
impedance mismatch between the system and the line
and is given by the well known result
r[] =
Z[] Z
c
Z[] +Z
c
. (C22)
If the system is constructed from purely reactive (i.e.
lossless) components, then Z[] is purely imaginary and
the reection coecient obeys [r[ = 1 which is consistent
with Eq. (C16) and the energy conservation requirement
of no net power ow into the lossless system. For exam
ple, for the series LC oscillator we have been considering,
we have
Z[] =
1
jC
0
+jL
0
, (C23)
where, to make contact with the usual electrical engi
neering sign conventions, we have used j = i. If the
damping of the oscillator induced by coupling it to the
transmission line is small, the quality factor of the reso
nance will be high and we need only consider frequencies
near the resonance frequency
0
1/
L
0
C
0
where the
impedance has a zero. In this case we may approximate
Z[]
2
jC
0
2
0
[
0
] = 2jL
0
(
0
) (C24)
which yields for the reection coecient
r[] =
0
+j/2
0
j/2
(C25)
showing that indeed [r[ = 1 and that the phase of the
reected signal winds by 2 upon passing through the
resonance.
23
23
For the case of resonant transmission through a symmetric cav
ity, the phase shift only winds by .
63
Turning to the more general case where the system
also contains lossy elements, one nds that Z[] is no
longer purely imaginary, but has a real part satisfying
Re Z[] > 0. This in turn implies via Eq. (C22) that
[r[ < 1. In the special case of impedance matching
Z[] = Z
c
, all the incident power is dissipated in the
system and none is reected. The other two limits of in
terest are open circuit termination with Z = for which
r = +1 and short circuit termination Z = 0 for which
r = 1.
Finally, if the system also contains an active device
which has energy being pumped into it from a separate
external source, it may under the right conditions be de
scribed by an eective negative resistance Re Z[] < 0
over a certain frequency range. Eq. (C22) then gives
[r[ 1, implying [V
out
[ > [V
in
[. Our system will thus act
like the oneport amplier discussed in Sec. V.D: it am
plies signals incident upon it. We will discuss this idea
of negative resistance further in Sec. C.4; a physical real
ization is provided by the twoport reection parametric
amplier discussed in Appendix V.C.
2. Lagrangian, Hamiltonian, and wave modes for a
transmission line
Prior to moving on to the case of quantum noise it
is useful to review the classical statistical mechanics of
transmission lines. To do this we need to write down
the Lagrangian and then determine the canonical mo
menta and the Hamiltonian. Very conveniently, the sys
tem is simply a large collection of harmonic oscillators
(the normal modes) and hence can be readily quantized.
This representation of a physical resistor is essentially the
one used by Caldeira and Leggett (Caldeira and Leggett,
1983) in their seminal studies of the eects of dissipation
on tunneling. The only dierence between this model
and the vacuum uctuations in free space is that the rel
ativistic bosons travel in one dimension and do not carry
a polarization label. This changes the density of states as
a function of frequency, but has no other essential eect.
It is convenient to dene a ux variable (Devoret, 1997)
(x, t)
_
t
d V (x, ), (C26)
where V (x, t) =
t
(x, t) is the local voltage on the trans
mission line at position x and time t. Each segment of
the line of length dx has inductance dx and the voltage
drop along it is dx
x
t
(x, t). The ux through this
inductance is thus dx
x
(x, t) and the local value of
the current is given by the constitutive equation
I(x, t) =
1
x
(x, t). (C27)
The Lagrangian for the system is
L
g
_
0
dx/(x, t) =
_
0
dx
_
c
2
(
t
)
2
1
2
(
x
)
2
_
,
(C28)
The EulerLagrange equation for this Lagrangian is sim
ply the wave equation
v
2
p
2
x
2
t
= 0. (C29)
The momentum conjugate to (x) is simply the charge
density
q(x, t)
/
= c
t
= cV (x, t) (C30)
and so the Hamiltonian is given by
H =
_
dx
_
1
2c
q
2
+
1
2
(
x
)
2
_
. (C31)
We know from our previous results that the charge
density consists of left and right moving solutions of ar
bitrary xed shape. For example we might have for the
right moving case
q(tx/v
p
) =
k
cos[k(xv
p
t)]+
k
sin[k(xv
p
t)]. (C32)
A confusing point is that since q is real valued, we see
that it necessarily contains both e
ikx
and e
ikx
terms
even if it is only right moving. Note however that for
k > 0 and a right mover, the e
ikx
is associated with the
positive frequency term e
i
k
t
while the e
ikx
term is
associated with the negative frequency term e
+i
k
t
where
k
v
p
[k[. For left movers the opposite holds. We can
appreciate this better if we dene
A
k
1
L
_
dxe
ikx
_
1
2c
q(x, t) i
_
k
2
2
(x, t)
_
(C33)
where for simplicity we have taken the elds to obey pe
riodic boundary conditions on a length L. Thus we have
(in a form which anticipates the full quantum theory)
H =
1
2
k
(A
k
A
k
+A
k
A
k
) . (C34)
The classical equation of motion (C29) yields the simple
result
t
A
k
= i
k
A
k
. (C35)
Thus
q(x, t)
=
_
c
2L
k
e
ikx
_
A
k
(0)e
i
k
t
+A
k
(0)e
+i
k
t
(C36)
=
_
c
2L
k
_
A
k
(0)e
+i(kx
k
t)
+A
k
(0)e
i(kx
k
t)
_
.
(C37)
We see that for k > 0 (k < 0) the wave is right (left)
moving, and that for right movers the e
ikx
term is asso
ciated with positive frequency and the e
ikx
term is as
sociated with negative frequency. We will return to this
in the quantum case where positive (negative) frequency
will refer to the destruction (creation) of a photon. Note
that the right and left moving voltages are given by
64
V
=
_
1
2Lc
k>0
_
A
k
(0)e
+i(kx
k
t)
+A
k
(0)e
i(kx
k
t)
_
(C38)
V
=
_
1
2Lc
k<0
_
A
k
(0)e
+i(kx
k
t)
+A
k
(0)e
i(kx
k
t)
_
(C39)
The voltage spectral density for the right moving waves is thus
S
V V
[] =
2
2Lc
k>0
A
k
A
k
(
k
) +A
k
A
k
( +
k
) (C40)
The left moving spectral density has the same expression but k < 0.
Using Eq. (C16), the above results lead to a net power ow (averaged over one cycle) within a frequency band
dened by a pass lter G[] of
P = P
=
v
p
2L
k
sgn(k) [G[
k
]A
k
A
k
+G[
k
]A
k
A
k
] . (C41)
3. Classical statistical mechanics of a transmission line
Now that we have the Hamiltonian, we can consider
the classical statistical mechanics of a transmission line in
thermal equilibrium at temperature T. Since each mode
k is a simple harmonic oscillator we have from Eq. (C34)
and the equipartition theorem
A
k
A
k
= k
B
T. (C42)
Using this, we see from Eq. (C40) that the right moving
voltage signal has a simple white noise power spectrum.
Using Eq. (C41) we have for the right moving power in
a bandwidth B (in Hz rather than radians/sec) the very
simple result
P
=
v
p
2L
k>0
G[
k
]A
k
A
k
+G[
k
]A
k
A
=
k
B
T
2
_
+
d
2
G[]
= k
B
TB. (C43)
where we have used the fact mentioned in connection
with Eq. (A26) and the discussion of square law detec
tors that all passive lter functions are symmetric in fre
quency.
One of the basic laws of statistical mechanics is Kirch
hos law stating that the ability of a hot object to emit
radiation is proportional to its ability to absorb. This
follows from very general thermodynamic arguments con
cerning the thermal equilibrium of an object with its ra
diation environment and it means that the best possible
emitter is the black body. In electrical circuits this princi
ple is simply a form of the uctuation dissipation theorem
which states that the electrical thermal noise produced
by a circuit element is proportional to the dissipation it
introduces into the circuit. Consider the example of a ter
minating resistor at the end of a transmission line. If the
resistance R is matched to the characteristic impedance
Z
c
of a transmission line, the terminating resistor acts
as a black body because it absorbs 100% of the power
incident upon it. If the resistor is held at temperature T
it will bring the transmission line modes into equilibrium
at the same temperature (at least for the case where the
transmission line has nite length). The rate at which the
equilibrium is established will depend on the impedance
mismatch between the resistor and the line, but the nal
temperature will not.
A good way to understand the uctuationdissipation
theorem is to represent the resistor R which is terminat
ing the Z
c
line in terms of a second semiinnite trans
mission line of impedance R as shown in Fig. (15). First
consider the case when the R line is not yet connected to
the Z
c
line. Then according to Eq. (C22), the open termi
nation at the end of the Z
c
line has reectivity [r[
2
= 1
so that it does not dissipate any energy. Additionally
of course, this termination does not transmit any sig
nals from the R line into the Z
c
. However when the
two lines are connected the reectivity becomes less than
unity meaning that incoming signals on the Z
c
line see
a source of dissipation R which partially absorbs them.
The absorbed signals are not turned into heat as in a
true resistor but are partially transmitted into the R line
which is entirely equivalent. Having opened up this port
for energy to escape from the Z
c
system, we have also
allowed noise energy (thermal or quantum) from the R
line to be transmitted into the Z
c
line. This is completely
equivalent to the eective circuit shown in Fig. (16 a) in
which a real resistor has in parallel a random current
generator representing thermal noise uctuations of the
electrons in the resistor. This is the essence of the uc
tuation dissipation theorem.
65
In order to make a quantitative analysis in terms of
the power owing in the two lines, voltage is not the best
variable to use since we are dealing with more than one
value of line impedance. Rather we dene incoming and
outgoing elds via
A
in
=
1
Z
c
V
c
(C44)
A
out
=
1
Z
c
V
c
(C45)
B
in
=
1
R
V
R
(C46)
B
out
=
1
R
V
R
(C47)
Normalizing by the square root of the impedance allows
us to write the power owing to the right in each line in
the simple form
P
c
= (A
out
)
2
(A
in
)
2
(C48)
P
R
= (B
in
)
2
(B
out
)
2
(C49)
The out elds are related to the in elds by the s matrix
_
A
out
B
out
_
= s
_
A
in
B
in
_
(C50)
Requiring continuity of the voltage and current at the
interface between the two transmission lines, we can solve
for the scattering matrix s:
s =
_
+r t
t r
_
(C51)
where
r =
R Z
c
R +Zc
(C52)
t =
2
RZ
c
R +Zc
. (C53)
Note that [r[
2
+[t[
2
= 1 as required by energy conserva
tion and that s is unitary with det (s) = 1. By moving
the point at which the phase of the B
in
and B
out
elds
are determined onequarter wavelength to the left, we
can put s into dierent standard form
s
=
_
+r it
it +r
_
(C54)
which has det (s
) = +1.
As mentioned above, the energy absorbed from the Z
c
line by the resistor R is not turned into heat as in a
true resistor but is is simply transmitted into the R line,
which is entirely equivalent. Kirchhos law is now easy
to understand. The energy absorbed from the Z
c
line by
V
R
V
c
V
R
V
c
R Z
c
FIG. 15 (Color online) Semiinnite transmission line of
impedance Zc terminated by a resistor R which is represented
as a second semiinnite transmission line.
R
I
N
S
II
S
VV
R
V
N
a) b)
FIG. 16 Equivalent circuits for noisy resistors.
R, and the energy transmitted into it by thermal uctua
tions in the R line are both proportional to the absorption
coecient
A = 1 [r[
2
= [t[
2
=
4RZ
c
(R +Z
c
)
2
. (C55)
The requirement that the transmission line Z
c
come to
equilibrium with the resistor allows us to readily compute
the spectral density of current uctuations of the random
current source shown in Fig. (16 a). The power dissipated
in Z
c
by the current source attached to R is
P =
_
+
d
2
S
II
[]
R
2
Z
c
(R +Z
c
)
2
(C56)
For the special case R = Z
c
we can equate this to the
right moving power P
= V
= 2V
(C59)
and thus using Eqs. (C40) and (C42) we nd
o
V V
= 4o
V V
= 2Rk
B
T (C60)
which is equivalent to Eq. (C57).
4. Amplication with a transmission line and a negative
resistance
We close our discussion of transmission lines by fur
ther expanding upon the idea mentioned at the end of
App. C.1 that one can view a oneport amplier as a
transmission line terminated by an eective negative re
sistance. The discussion here will be very general: we will
explore what can be learned about amplication by sim
ply extending the results we have obtained on transmis
sion lines to the case of an eective negative resistance.
Our general discussion will not address the important is
sues of how one achieves an eective negative resistance
over some appreciable frequency range: for such ques
tions, one must focus on a specic physical realization,
such as the parametric amplier discussed in Sec. V.C.
We start by noting that for the case Z
c
< R < 0 the
power gain G is given by
G = [r[
2
> 1, (C61)
and the s
=
_
G
G1
G1
G
_
(C62)
where the sign choice depends on the branch cut chosen
in the analytic continuation of the odiagonal elements.
This transformation is clearly no longer unitary (because
there is no energy conservation since we are ignoring the
work done by the amplier power supply). Note however
that we still have det (s
=
_
_
_
_
_
+cosh +sinh 0 0
+sinh +cosh 0 0
0 0 +cosh sinh
0 0 sinh +cosh
_
_
_
_
_
.
(C72)
If one takes cosh =
can describe
amplication. Unlike the beam splitter scattering ma
trix s above, s
= 1).
Unitarity would correspond to power conservation. Here,
power is not conserved, as we are not explicitly tracking
the power source supplying our active system.
The form of the negativeresistance amplier scattering
matrix s
)] = i(x x
) (D1)
from which it follows that the mode amplitudes dened
in Eq. (C33) become quantum operators obeying
[
A
k
,
A
k
] =
k
kk
(D2)
and we may identify the usual raising and lowering oper
ators by
A
k
=
_
b
k
(D3)
where
b
k
destroys a photon in mode k. The quantum
form of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (C34) is thus
H =
k
_
b
k
+
1
2
_
. (D4)
For the quantum case the thermal equilibrium expression
then becomes
A
k
=
k
n
B
(
k
), (D5)
which reduces to Eq. (C42) in the classical limit
k
k
B
T.
We have seen previously in Eqs. (C6) that the volt
age uctuations on a transmission line can be resolved
into right and left moving waves which are functions of a
combined spacetime argument
V (x, t) = V
(t
x
v
p
) +V
(t +
x
v
p
). (D6)
Thus in an innite transmission line, specifying V
ev
erywhere in space at t = 0 determines its value for all
times. Conversely specifying V
(t) =
_
1
2Lc
k>0
_
k
_
b
k
e
i
k
t
+h.c.
_
=
_
0
d
2
_
Z
c
2
_
[]e
it
+h.c.
_
(D7)
In the second line, we have dened:
[] 2
_
v
p
L
k>0
b
k
(
k
) (D8)
68
In a similar fashion, we have:
(t) =
_
0
d
2
_
Z
c
2
_
[]e
it
+h.c.
_
(D9)
[] 2
_
v
p
L
k<0
b
k
(
k
) (D10)
One can easily verify that among the
b
[],
[] opera
tors and their conjugates, the only nonzero commutators
are given by:
_
[],
_
]
_
_
=
_
[],
_
]
_
_
= 2(
)
(D11)
We have taken the continuum limit L here, allowing
us to change sums on k to integrals. We have thus ob
tained the description of a quantum transmission line in
terms of left and rightmoving frequency resolved modes,
as used in our discussion of ampliers in Sec. VI (see
Eqs. 6.2). Note that if the rightmoving modes are fur
ther taken to be in thermal equilibrium, one nds (again,
in the continuum limit):
_
_
[]
_
]
_
= 2(
)n
B
() (D12a)
_
[]
_
]
_
_
= 2(
) [1 +n
B
()]
. (D12b)
We are typically interested in a relatively narrow band
of frequencies centered on some characteristic drive or
resonance frequency
0
. In this case, it is useful to work
in the timedomain, in a frame rotating at
0
. Fourier
transforming
24
Eqs. (D8) and (D10), one nds:
(t) =
_
v
p
L
k>0
e
i(
k
0)t
b
k
(0), (D13a)
(t) =
_
v
p
L
k<0
e
i(
k
0)t
b
k
(0). (D13b)
These represent temporal right and left moving modes.
Note that the normalization factor in Eqs. (D13) has been
chosen so that the right moving photon ux at x = 0 and
time t is given by
N =
(t)
(t) (D14)
In the same rotating frame, and within the approxima
tion that all relevant frequencies are near
0
, Eq. (D7)
becomes simply:
(t)
_
0
Z
c
2
_
(t) +
(t)
_
(D15)
24
As in the main text, we use in this appendix a convention which
diers from the one commonly used in quantum optics: a[] =
dt e
+it
a(t) and a
[] = [ a[]]
dt e
+it
a
(t).
We have already seen that using classical statistical
mechanics, the voltage noise in equilibrium is white.
The corresponding analysis of the temporal modes using
Eqs. (D13) shows that the quantum commutator obeys
[
(t),
(t
)] = (t t
). (D16)
In deriving this result, we have converted summations
over mode index to integrals over frequency. Further,
because (for nite time resolution at least) the integral is
dominated by frequencies near +
0
we can, within the
Markov (Wigner Weisskopf) approximation, extend the
lower limit of frequency integration to minus innity and
thus arrive at a delta function in time. If we further take
the right moving modes to be in thermal equilibrium,
then we may similarly approximate:
(t
(t) = n
B
(
0
)(t t
) (D17a)
(t)
(t
) = [1 +n
B
(
0
)] (t t
). (D17b)
Equations (D15) to (D17b) indicate that
V
(t) can be
treated as the quantum operator equivalent of white
noise; a similar line of reasoning applies mutatis mutan
dis to the left moving modes. We stress that these re
sults rely crucially on our assumption that we are dealing
with a relatively narrow band of frequencies in the vicin
ity of
0
; the resulting approximations we have made
are known as the Markov approximation. As one can al
ready see from the form of Eqs. (D7,D9), and as will be
discussed further, the actual spectral density of vacuum
noise on a transmission line is not white, but is linear in
frequency. The approximation made in Eq. (D16) treats
it as a constant within the narrow band of frequencies
of interest. If the range of frequencies of importance is
large then the Markov approximation is not applicable.
2. Modes and the windowed Fourier transform
While delta function correlations can make the quan
tum noise relatively easy to deal with in both the time
and frequency domain, it is sometimes the case that it
is easier to deal with a smoothed noise variable. The
introduction of an ultraviolet cuto regulates the math
ematical singularities in the noise operators evaluated at
equal times and is physically sensible because every real
measurement apparatus has nite time resolution. A sec
ond motivation is that real spectrum analyzers output a
time varying signal which represents the noise power in
a certain frequency interval (the resolution bandwidth)
averaged over a certain time interval (the inverse video
bandwidth). The mathematical tool of choice for dealing
with such situations in which time and frequency both
appear is the windowed Fourier transform. The win
dowed transform uses a kernel which is centered on some
frequency window and some time interval. By summa
tion over all frequency and time windows it is possible
to invert the transformation. The reader is directed to
(Mallat, 1999) for the mathematical details.
69
For our present purposes where we are interested in
just a single narrow frequency range centered on
0
, a
convenient windowed transform kernel for smoothing the
quantum noise is simply a box of width t representing
the nite integration time of our detector. In the frame
rotating at
0
we can dene
j
=
1
t
_
tj+1
tj
d
b
() (D18)
where t
j
= j(t) denotes the time of arrival of the jth
temporal mode at the point x = 0. Recall that
b
has
a photon ux normalization and so
B
j
is dimensionless.
From Eq. (D16) we see that these smoothed operators
obey the usual bosonic commutation relations
[
B
j
,
B
k
] =
jk
. (D19)
The state B
j
[0 has a single photon occupying basis
mode j, which is centered in frequency space at
0
and in
time space on the interval jt < t < (j + 1)t (i.e. this
temporal mode passes the point x = 0 during the jth
time interval.) This basis mode is much like a note in a
musical score: it has a certain specied pitch and occurs
at a specied time for a specied duration. Just as we
can play notes of dierent frequencies simultaneously, we
can dene other temporal modes on the same time in
terval and they will be mutually orthogonal provided the
angular frequency spacing is a multiple of 2/t. The
result is a set of modes B
m,p
labeled by both a frequency
index m and a time index p. p labels the time interval as
before, while m labels the angular frequency:
m
=
0
+m
2
t
(D20)
The result is, as illustrated in Fig. (17), a complete lat
tice of possible modes tiling the frequencytime phase
space, each occupying area 2 corresponding to the time
frequency uncertainty principle.
We can form other modes of arbitrary shapes centered
on frequency
0
by means of linear superposition of our
basis modes (as long as they are smooth on the time scale
t). Let us dene
=
j
B
j
. (D21)
This is also a canonical bosonic mode operator obeying
[,
] = 1 (D22)
provided that the coecients obey the normalization con
dition
j
[
j
[
2
= 1. (D23)
We might for example want to describe a mode which is
centered at a slightly higher frequency
0
+ (obeying
area = 2
t
t
2/t
B
mp
B
mp
=
0
m
m
p
FIG. 17 (Color online) Schematic gure indicating how the
various modes dened by the windowed Fourier transform tile
the timefrequency plane. Each individual cell corresponds to
a dierent mode, and has an area 2.
()(t) << 1) and spread out over a large time interval
T centered at time T
0
. This could be given for example
by
j
= Ae
(jtT
0
)
2
4T
2
e
i()(jt)
(D24)
where A is the appropriate normalization constant.
The state having n photons in the mode is simply
1
n!
_
_
n
[0. (D25)
The concept of wave function of the photon is fraught
with dangers. In the very special case where we re
strict attention solely to the subspace of single photon
Fock states, we can usefully think of the amplitudes
j
has a wave
function
1
(q) q
0
(q) proportional to the coordinate
times the same gaussian. In the general case is a wave
functional of the charge distribution q(x) over the entire
transmission line.
Using Eq. (D17a) we have
k
= n
B
(
0
)
jk
(D26)
independent of our choice of the coarsegraining time win
dow t. This result allows us to give meaning to the
phrase one often hears bandied about in descriptions of
70
ampliers that the noise temperature corresponds to a
mode occupancy of X photons. This simply means that
the photon ux per unit bandwidth is X. Equivalently
the ux in bandwidth B is
N =
X
t
(Bt) = XB. (D27)
The interpretation of this is that X photons in a tempo
ral mode of duration t pass the origin in time t. Each
mode has bandwidth
1
t
and so there are Bt inde
pendent temporal modes in bandwidth B all occupying
the same time interval t. The longer is t the longer it
takes a given mode to pass the origin, but the more such
modes t into the frequency window.
As an illustration of these ideas, consider the following
elementary question: What is the mode occupancy of a
laser beam of power P and hence photon ux
N =
P
0
?
We cannot answer this without knowing the coherence
time or equivalently the bandwidth. The output of a
good laser is like that of a radio frequency oscillatorit
has essentially no amplitude uctuations. The frequency
is nominally set by the physical properties of the oscilla
tor, but there is nothing to pin the phase which conse
quently undergoes slow diusion due to unavoidable noise
perturbations. This leads to a nite phase coherence time
and corresponding frequency spread 1/ of the laser
spectrum. (A laser beam diers from a thermal source
that has been ltered to have the same spectrum in that
it has smaller amplitude uctuations.) Thus we expect
that the mode occupancy is X =
N. A convenient ap
proximate description in terms of temporal modes is to
take the window interval to be t = . Within the jth
interval we take the phase to be a (random) constant
j
so that (up to an unimportant normalization constant)
we have the coherent state
j
e
Xe
i
j
B
j
[0 (D28)
which obeys
k
=
Xe
i
k
(D29)
and
k
= X. (D30)
3. Quantum noise from a resistor
Let us consider the quantum equivalent to Eq. (C60),
o
V V
= 2Rk
B
T, for the case of a semiinnite transmis
sion line with open termination, representing a resistor.
From Eq. (C27) we see that the proper boundary con
dition for the eld is
x
(0, t) =
x
(L, t) = 0. (We
have temporarily made the transmission line have a large
but nite length L.) The normal mode expansion that
satises these boundary conditions is
(x, t) =
_
2
L
n=1
n
(t) cos(k
n
x), (D31)
where
n
is the normal coordinate and k
n
n
L
. Sub
stitution of this form into the Lagrangian and carrying
out the spatial integration yields a set of independent
harmonic oscillators representing the normal modes.
L
g
=
n=1
_
c
2
2
n
1
2
k
2
n
2
n
_
. (D32)
From this we can nd the momentum operator p
n
canon
ically conjugate to the coordinate operator
n
and quan
tize the system to obtain an expression for the operator
representing the voltage at the end of the transmission
line in terms of the mode creation and destruction oper
ators
V =
n=1
_
n
Lc
i(
b
n
). (D33)
The spectral density of voltage uctuations is then found
to be
S
VV
[] =
2
L
n=1
n
c
_
n
B
(
n
)( +
n
)
+[n
B
(
n
) + 1](
n
)
_
, (D34)
where n
B
() is the Bose occupancy factor for a photon
with energy . Taking the limit L and converting
the summation to an integral yields
S
VV
() = 2Z
c
[[
_
n
B
([[)()+[n
B
([[)+1]()
_
,
(D35)
where is the step function. We see immediately that
at zero temperature there is no noise at negative frequen
cies because energy can not be extracted from zeropoint
motion. However there remains noise at positive frequen
cies indicating that the vacuum is capable of absorbing
energy from another quantum system. The voltage spec
tral density at both zero and nonzero temperature is
plotted in Fig. (1).
Eq. (D35) for this twosided spectral density of a re
sistor can be rewritten in a more compact form
S
VV
[] =
2Z
c
1 e
/kBT
, (D36)
which reduces to the more familiar expressions in various
limits. For example, in the classical limit k
B
T the
spectral density is equal to the Johnson noise result
25
S
VV
[] = 2Z
c
k
B
T, (D37)
in agreement with Eq. (C60). In the quantum limit it
reduces to
S
VV
[] = 2Z
c
(). (D38)
25
Note again that in the engineering convention this would be
S
VV
[] = 4Zck
B
T.
71
Again, the step function tells us that the resistor can only
absorb energy, not emit it, at zero temperature.
If we use the engineering convention and add the noise
at positive and negative frequencies we obtain
S
VV
[] +S
VV
[] = 2Z
c
coth
2k
B
T
(D39)
for the symmetric part of the noise, which appears in the
quantum uctuationdissipation theorem (cf. Eq. (2.16)).
The antisymmetric part of the noise is simply
S
VV
[] S
VV
[] = 2Z
c
, (D40)
yielding
S
VV
[] S
VV
[]
S
VV
[] +S
VV
[]
= tanh
2k
B
T
. (D41)
This quantum treatment can also be applied to any
arbitrary dissipative network (Burkhard et al., 2004; De
voret, 1997). If we have a more complex circuit con
taining capacitors and inductors, then in all of the above
expressions, Z
c
should be replaced by Re Z[] where Z[]
is the complex impedance presented by the circuit.
In the above we have explicitly quantized the stand
ing wave modes of a nite length transmission line. We
could instead have used the running waves of an innite
line and recognized that, as the in classical treatment in
Eq. (C59), the left and right movers are not independent.
The open boundary condition at the termination requires
V
= V
and hence b
= b
. We then obtain
S
V V
[] = 4S
V V
[] (D42)
and from the quantum analog of Eq. (C40) we have
S
V V
[] =
4[[
2cv
p
()(n
B
+ 1) + ()n
B
= 2Z
c
[[ ()(n
B
+ 1) + ()n
B
(D43)
in agreement with Eq. (D35).
Appendix E: Back Action and InputOutput Theory for
Driven Damped Cavities
A high Q cavity whose resonance frequency can be
parametrically controlled by an external source can act
as a very simple quantum amplier, encoding informa
tion about the external source in the phase and ampli
tude of the output of the driven cavity. For example,
in an optical cavity, one of the mirrors could be move
able and the external source could be a force acting on
that mirror. This denes the very active eld of optome
chanics, which also deals with microwave cavities cou
pled to nanomechanical systems and other related setups
(Arcizet et al., 2006; Brown et al., 2007; Gigan et al.,
2006; Harris et al., 2007; HohbergerMetzger and Kar
rai, 2004; Marquardt et al., 2007, 2006; Meystre et al.,
1985; Schliesser et al., 2006; Teufel et al., 2008; Thomp
son et al., 2008; WilsonRae et al., 2007). In the case of a
microwave cavity containing a qubit, the statedependent
polarizability of the qubit acts as a source which shifts
the frequency of the cavity (Blais et al., 2004; Schuster
et al., 2005; Wallra et al., 2004).
The dephasing of a qubit in a microwave cavity and
the uctuations in the radiation pressure in an optical
cavity both depend on the quantum noise in the number
of photons inside the cavity. We here use a simple equa
tion of motion method to exactly solve for this quantum
noise in the perturbative limit where the dynamics of the
qubit or mirror degree of freedom has only a weak back
action eect on the cavity.
In the following, we rst give a basic discussion of
the cavity eld noise spectrum, deferring the detailed
microscopic derivation to subsequent subsections. We
then provide a review of the inputoutput theory for
driven cavities, and employ this theory to analyze the
important example of a dispersive position measurement,
where we demonstrate how the standard quantum limit
can be reached. Finally, we analyze an example where
a modied dispersive scheme is used to detect only one
quadrature of a harmonic oscillators motion, such that
this quadrature does not feel any backaction.
1. Photon shot noise inside a cavity and back action
Consider a degree of freedom z coupled parametrically
with strength A to the cavity oscillator
H
int
=
c
(1 +A z) [ a
a a
a] (E1)
where following Eq. (3.11), we have taken A to be dimen
sionless, and use z to denote the dimensionless system
variable that we wish to probe. For example, z could
represent the dimensionless position of a mechanical os
cillator
z
x
x
ZPF
. (E2)
We have subtracted the a
a in the cavity,
S
nn
(t) = a
(t) a(t) a
(0) a(0) a
(t) a(t)
2
. (E3)
For the case of continuous wave driving at frequency
L
=
c
+ detuned by from the resonance, the
cavity is in a coherent state [ obeying
a(t) = e
iLt
[ a +
d(t)] (E4)
72
where the rst term is the classical part of the mode am
plitude (t) = ae
iLt
determined by the strength of the
drive eld, the damping of the cavity and the detuning
, and d is the quantum part. By denition,
a[ = [ (E5)
so the coherent state is annihilated by
d:
d[ = 0. (E6)
That is, in terms of the operator
d, the coherent state
looks like the undriven quantum ground state . The dis
placement transformation in Eq. (E4) is canonical since
[ a, a
] = 1 [
d,
d
] = 1. (E7)
Substituting the displacement transformation into
Eq. (E3) and using Eq. (E6) yields
S
nn
(t) = n
d(t)
(0), (E8)
where n = [ a[
2
is the mean cavity photon number. If we
set the cavity energy damping rate to be , such that the
amplitude damping rate is /2, then the undriven state
obeys
d(t)
(0) = e
+it
e
2
t
. (E9)
This expression will be justied formally in the subse
quent subsection, after introducing inputoutput theory.
We thus arrive at the very simple result
S
nn
(t) = ne
it
2
t
. (E10)
The power spectrum of the noise is, via the Wiener
Khinchin theorem (Appendix A.2), simply the Fourier
transform of the autocorrelation function given in
Eq. (E10)
S
nn
[] =
_
+
dt e
it
S
nn
(t) = n
( + )
2
+ (/2)
2
.
(E11)
As can be seen in Fig. 18a, for positive detuning =
L
c
> 0, i.e. for a drive that is bluedetuned with
respect to the cavity, the noise peaks at negative . This
means that the noise tends to pump energy into the de
gree of freedom z (i.e. it contributes negative damping).
For negative detuning the noise peaks at positive cor
responding to the cavity absorbing energy from z. Basi
cally, the interaction with z (three wave mixing) tries to
Raman scatter the drive photons into the high density of
states at the cavity frequency. If this is uphill in energy,
then z is cooled.
As discussed in Sec. B.2 (c.f. Eq. (2.8)), at each fre
quency , we can use detailed balance to assign the noise
an eective temperature T
e
[]:
S
nn
[]
S
nn
[]
= e
/k
B
T
eff
[]
k
B
T
e
[]
log
_
Snn[]
Snn[]
_ (E12)
N
o
i
s
e
p
o
w
e
r
(a)
Frequency
(b)
N
o
i
s
e
t
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(c)
Frequency
4
2
0
6 0 6
6 0 6
4
0
4
3
2
1
5 6
0
0 1 2 3 4

FIG. 18 (Color online) (a) Noise spectrum of the photon num
ber in a driven cavity as a function of frequency when the
cavity drive frequency is detuned from the cavity resonance
by = +3 (left peak) and = 3 (right peak). (b) Ef
fective temperature T
e
of the low frequency noise, 0,
as a function of the detuning of the drive from the cavity
resonance. (c) Frequencydependence of the eective noise
temperature, for dierent values of the detuning.
or equivalently
S
nn
[] S
nn
[]
S
nn
[] +S
nn
[]
= tanh(/2). (E13)
If z is the coordinate of a harmonic oscillator of frequency
(or some nonconserved observable of a qubit with level
splitting ), then that system will acquire a temperature
T
e
[] in the absence of coupling to any other environ
ment. In particular, if the characteristic oscillation fre
quency of the system z is much smaller than , then we
have the simple result
1
k
B
T
e
= lim
0
+
2
S
nn
[] S
nn
[]
S
nn
[] +S
nn
[]
= 2
d ln S
nn
[]
d
=
1
2
+ (/2)
2
. (E14)
73
As can be seen in Fig. 18, the asymmetry in the noise
changes sign with detuning, which causes the eective
temperature to change sign.
First we discuss the case of a positive T
e
, where this
mechanism can be used to laser cool an oscillating me
chanical cantilever, provided T
e
is lower than the in
trinsic equilibrium temperature of the cantilever. (Ar
cizet et al., 2006; Brown et al., 2007; Gigan et al., 2006;
Harris et al., 2007; HohbergerMetzger and Karrai, 2004;
Marquardt et al., 2007; Schliesser et al., 2006; Thompson
et al., 2008; WilsonRae et al., 2007). A simple classical
argument helps us understand this cooling eect. Sup
pose that the moveable mirror is at the right hand end
of a cavity being driven below the resonance frequency.
If the mirror moves to the right, the resonance frequency
will fall and the number of photons in the cavity will rise.
There will be a time delay however to ll the cavity and
so the extra radiation pressure will not be fully eective
in doing work on the mirror. During the return part of
the oscillation as the mirror moves back to the left, the
time delay in emptying the cavity will cause the mirror to
have to do extra work against the radiation pressure. At
the end of the cycle it ends up having done net positive
work on the light eld and hence is cooled. The eect can
therefore be understood as being due to the introduction
of some extra optomechanical damping.
The signs reverse (and T
e
becomes negative) if the
cavity is driven above resonance, and consequently the
cantilever motion is heated up. In the absence of in
trinsic mechanical losses, negative values of the eective
temperature indicate a dynamical instability of the can
tilever (or population inversion in the case of a qubit),
where the amplitude of motion grows until it is nally
stabilized by nonlinear eects. This can be interpreted
as negative damping introduced by the optomechanical
coupling and can be used to create parametric amplica
tion of mechanical forces acting on the oscillator.
Finally, we mention that cooling towards the quantum
ground state of a mechanical oscillator (where phonon
numbers become much less than one), is only possible
(Marquardt et al., 2007; WilsonRae et al., 2007) in the
fardetuned regime, where = (in contrast
to the regime discussed above).
2. Inputoutput theory for a driven cavity
The results from the previous section can be more for
mally and rigorously derived in a full quantum theory
of a cavity driven by an external coherent source. The
theory relating the drive, the cavity and the outgoing
waves radiated by the cavity is known as inputoutput
theory and the classical description was presented in Ap
pendix C. The present quantum discussion closely fol
lows standard references on the subject (Walls and Mil
burn, 1994; Yurke, 1984; Yurke and Denker, 1984). The
crucial feature that distinguishes such an approach from
many other treatments of quantumdissipative systems
is the goal of keeping the bath modes instead of trac
ing them out. This is obviously necessary for the situa
tions we have in mind, where the output eld emanating
from the cavity contains the information acquired during
a measurement of the system coupled to the cavity. As
we learned from the classical treatment, we can elimi
nate the outgoing waves in favor of a damping term for
the system. However we can recover the solution for the
outgoing modes completely from the solution of the equa
tion of motion of the damped system being driven by the
incoming waves.
In order to drive the cavity we must partially open one
of its ports which exposes the cavity both to the external
drive and to the vacuum noise outside which permits en
ergy in the cavity to leak out into the surrounding bath.
We will formally separate the degrees of freedom into in
ternal cavity modes and external bath modes. Strictly
speaking, once the port is open, these modes are not dis
tinct and we only have the modes of the universe (Gea
Banacloche et al., 1990a,b; Lang et al., 1973). However
for high Q cavities, the distinction is welldened and we
can model the decay of the cavity in terms of a spon
taneous emission process in which an internal boson is
destroyed and an external bath boson is created. We
assume a singlesided cavity. For a high Q cavity, this
physics is accurately captured in the following Hamilto
nian
H =
H
sys
+
H
bath
+
H
int
. (E15)
The bath Hamiltonian is
H
bath
=
b
q
(E16)
where q labels the quantum numbers of the independent
harmonic oscillator bath modes obeying
[
b
q
,
q
] =
q,q
. (E17)
Note that since the bath terminates at the system, there
is no translational invariance, the normal modes are
standing not running waves, and the quantum numbers
q are not necessarily wave vectors.
The coupling Hamiltonian is (within the rotating wave
approximation)
H
int
= i
q
_
f
q
a
b
q
f
q
a
_
. (E18)
For the moment we will leave the system (cavity) Hamil
tonian to be completely general, specifying only that it
consists of a single degree of freedom (i.e. we concentrate
on only a single resonance of the cavity with frequency
c
) obeying the usual bosonic commutation relation
[ a, a
] = 1. (E19)
(N.B. this does not imply that it is a harmonic oscilla
tor. We will consider both linear and nonlinear cavities.)
74
Note that the most general linear coupling to the bath
modes would include terms of the form
b
q
a
and
b
q
a but
these are neglected within the rotating wave approxima
tion because in the interaction representation they os
cillate at high frequencies and have little eect on the
dynamics.
The Heisenberg equation of motion (EOM) for the
bath variables is
b
q
=
i
[
H,
b
q
] = i
q
b
q
+f
q
a (E20)
We see that this is simply the EOM of a harmonic oscil
lator driven by a forcing term due to the motion of the
cavity degree of freedom. Since this is a linear system,
the EOM can be solved exactly. Let t
0
< t be a time in
the distant past before any wave packet launched at the
cavity has reached it. The solution of Eq. (E20) is
b
q
(t) = e
iq(tt0)
b
q
(t
0
) +
_
t
t0
d e
iq(t)
f
q
a().
(E21)
The rst term is simply the free evolution of the bath
while the second represents the waves radiated by the
cavity into the bath.
The EOM for the cavity mode is
a =
i
[
H
sys
, a]
q
f
q
b
q
. (E22)
Substituting Eq. (E21) into the last term above yields
q
f
q
b
q
=
q
f
q
e
iq(tt0)
b
q
(t
0
)
+
q
[f
q
[
2
_
t
t0
d e
i(qc)(t)
[e
+ic(t)
a()], (E23)
where the last term in square brackets is a slowly varying
function of . To simplify our result, we note that if
the cavity system were a simple harmonic oscillator of
frequency
c
then the decay rate from the n = 1 single
photon excited state to the n = 0 ground state would be
given by the following Fermi Golden Rule expression
(
c
) = 2
q
[f
q
[
2
(
c
q
). (E24)
From this it follows that
_
+
d
2
(
c
+)e
i(t)
=
q
[f
q
[
2
e
i(qc)(t)
.
(E25)
We now make the Markov approximation which assumes
that () = is a constant over the range of frequencies
relevant to the cavity so that Eq. (E25) may be repre
sented as
q
[f
q
[
2
e
i(qc)(t)
= (t ). (E26)
Using
_
x0
dx(x x
0
) =
1
2
(E27)
we obtain for the cavity EOM
a =
i
[
H
sys
, a]
2
a
q
f
q
e
iq(tt0)
b
q
(t
0
). (E28)
The second term came from the part of the bath motion
representing the wave radiated by the cavity and, within
the Markov approximation, has become a simple linear
damping term for the cavity mode. Note the important
factor of 2. The amplitude decays at half the rate of the
intensity (the energy decay rate ).
Within the spirit of the Markov approximation it is
further convenient to treat f
_
[f
q
[
2
as a constant and
dene the density of states (also taken to be a constant)
by
=
q
(
c
q
) (E29)
so that the Golden Rule rate becomes
= 2f
2
. (E30)
We can now dene the socalled input mode
b
in
(t)
1
q
e
iq(tt0)
b
q
(t
0
) . (E31)
For the case of a transmission line treated in Appendix
D, this coincides with the eld
b
a =
i
[
H
sys
, a]
2
a
b
in
(t). (E32)
Note that when a wave packet is launched from the bath
towards the cavity, causality prevents it from knowing
about the cavitys presence until it reaches the cavity.
Hence the input mode evolves freely as if the cavity were
not present until the time of the collision at which point
it begins to drive the cavity. Since
b
in
(t) evolves under
the free bath Hamiltonian and acts as the driving term in
the cavity EOM, we interpret it physically as the input
mode. Eq. (E32) is the quantum analog of the classi
cal equation (C19), for our previous example of an LC
oscillator driven by a transmission line. The latter would
also have been rst order in time if as in Eq. (C35) we
had worked with the complex amplitude A instead of the
coordinate Q.
Eq. (E31) for the input mode contains a time label
just as in the interaction representation. However it is
best interpreted as simply labeling the particular linear
combination of the bath modes which is coupled to the
system at time t. Some authors even like to think of
75
the bath modes as nonpropagating while the cavity ies
along the bath (taken to be 1D) at a velocity v. The
system then only interacts briey with the local mode
positioned at x = vt before moving on and interacting
with the next local bath mode. We will elaborate on this
view further at the end of this subsection.
The expression for the power P
in
(energy per time)
impinging on the cavity depends on the normalization
chosen in our denition of
b
in
. It can be obtained, for
example, by imagining the bath modes
b
q
to live on a one
dimensional waveguide with propagation velocity v and
length L (using periodic boundary conditions). In that
case we have to sum over all photons to get the average
power owing through a crosssection of the waveguide,
P
in
=
q
q
(v
p
/L)
_
b
q
_
. Inserting the denition for
b
in
, Eq. (E31), the expression for the input power carried
by a monochromatic beam at frequency is
P
in
(t) =
_
in
(t)
b
in
(t)
_
(E33)
Note that this has the correct dimensions due to our
choice of normalization for
b
in
(with dimensions
). In
the general case, an integration over frequencies is needed
(as will be discussed further below). An analogous for
mula holds for the power radiated by the cavity, to be
discussed now.
The output mode
b
out
(t) is radiated into the bath and
evolves freely after the system interacts with
b
in
(t). If
the cavity did not respond at all, then the output mode
would simply be the input mode reected o the cav
ity mirror. If the mirror is partially transparent then
the output mode will also contain waves radiated by the
cavity (which is itself being driven by the input mode
partially transmitted into the cavity through the mirror)
and hence contains information about the internal dy
namics of the cavity. To analyze this output eld, let
t
1
> t be a time in the distant future after the input
eld has interacted with the cavity. Then we can write
an alternative solution to Eq. (E20) in terms of the nal
rather than the initial condition of the bath
b
q
(t) = e
iq(tt1)
b
q
(t
1
)
_
t1
t
d e
iq(t)
f
q
a().
(E34)
Note the important minus sign in the second term as
sociated with the fact that the time t is now the lower
limit of integration rather than the upper as it was in
Eq. (E21).
Dening
b
out
(t)
1
q
e
iq(tt1)
b
q
(t
1
), (E35)
we see that this is simply the free evolution of the bath
modes from the distant future (after they have interacted
with the cavity) back to the present, indicating that it is
indeed appropriate to interpret this as the outgoing eld.
Proceeding as before we obtain
a =
i
[
H
sys
, a] +
2
a
b
out
(t). (E36)
Subtracting Eq. (E36) from Eq. (E32) yields
b
out
(t) =
b
in
(t) +
a(t) (E37)
which is consistent with our interpretation of the out
going eld as the reected incoming eld plus the eld
radiated by the cavity out through the partially reecting
mirror.
The above results are valid for any general cavity
Hamiltonian. The general procedure is to solve Eq. (E32)
for a(t) for a given input eld, and then solve Eq. (E37)
to obtain the output eld. For the case of an empty cav
ity we can make further progress because the cavity mode
is a harmonic oscillator
H
sys
=
c
a
a. (E38)
In this simple case, the cavity EOM becomes
a = i
c
a
2
a
b
in
(t). (E39)
Eq. (E39) can be solved by Fourier transformation, yield
ing
a[] =
i(
c
) +/2
b
in
[] (E40)
=
c
[
c
]
b
in
[] (E41)
and
b
out
[] =
c
i/2
c
+i/2
b
in
[] (E42)
which is the result for the reection coecient quoted in
Eq. (3.12). For brevity, here and in the following, we will
sometimes use the susceptibility of the cavity, dened as
c
[
c
]
1
i(
c
) +/2
(E43)
For the case of steady driving on resonance where =
c
,
the above equations yield
b
out
[] =
2
a[]. (E44)
In steady state, the incoming power equals the outgoing
power, and both are related to the photon number inside
the singlesided cavity by
P =
_
out
(t)
b
out
(t)
_
=
(t) a(t)
_
(E45)
Note that this does not coincide with the naive expecta
tion, which would be P =
a
_
. The reason for this
discrepancy is the the interference between the part of the
76
incoming wave which is promptly reected from the cav
ity and the eld radiated by the cavity. The naive expres
sion becomes correct after the drive has been switched o
(where ignoring the eect of the incoming vacuum noise,
we would have
b
out
=
R
(where =
L
+
R
), the incoming power sent into
the left port is related to the photon number by
P =
2
/(4
L
)
a
_
. (E46)
Here for
L
=
R
the interference eect completely elim
inates the reected beam and we have in contrast to
Eq. (E45)
P =
a
_
. (E47)
Eq. (E39) can also be solved in the time domain to
obtain
a(t) = e
(ic+/2)(tt0)
a(t
0
)
_
t
t0
d e
(ic+/2)(t)
b
in
(). (E48)
If we take the input eld to be a coherent drive at fre
quency
L
=
c
+ so that its amplitude has a classical
and a quantum part
b
in
(t) = e
iLt
[
b
in
+
(t)] (E49)
and if we take the limit t
0
so that the initial tran
sient in the cavity amplitude has damped out, then the
solution of Eq. (E48) has the form postulated in Eq. (E4)
with
a =
i +/2
b
in
(E50)
and (in the frame rotating at the drive frequency)
d(t) =
_
t
d e
+(i/2)(t)
(). (E51)
Even in the absence of any classical drive, the input
eld delivers vacuum uctuation noise to the cavity. No
tice that from Eqs. (E31, E49)
[
b
in
(t),
in
(t
)] = [
(t),
(t
)]
=
1
2
q
e
i(qL)(tt
)
= (t t
), (E52)
which is similar to Eq. (D16) for a quantum transmission
line. This is the operator equivalent of white noise. Using
Eq. (E48) in the limit t
0
in Eqs. (E4,E51) yields
[ a(t), a
(t)] = [
d(t),
d
(t)]
=
_
t
d
_
t
e
(i+/2)(t)
e
(+i+/2)(t
)
(
)
= 1 (E53)
as is required for the cavity bosonic quantum degree of
freedom. We can interpret this as saying that the cavity
zeropoint uctuations arise from the vacuum noise that
enters through the open port. We also now have a simple
physical interpretation of the quantum noise in the num
ber of photons in the driven cavity in Eqs. (E3,E8,E11).
It is due to the vacuum noise which enters the cavity
through the same ports that bring in the classical drive.
The interference between the vacuum noise and the clas
sical drive leads to the photon number uctuations in the
cavity.
In thermal equilibrium,
also contains thermal radi
ation. If the bath is being probed only over a narrow
range of frequencies centered on
c
(which we have as
sumed in making the Markov approximation) then we
have to a good approximation (consistent with the above
commutation relation)
(t)
(t
) = N(t t
) (E54)
(t)
(t
) = (N + 1)(t t
) (E55)
where N = n
B
(
c
) is the thermal equilibrium occupa
tion number of the mode at the frequency of interest. We
can gain a better understanding of Eq. (E54) by Fourier
transforming it to obtain the spectral density
S[] =
_
+
dt
(t)
(t
)e
i(tt
)
= N. (E56)
As mentioned previously, this dimensionless quantity is
the spectral density that would be measured by a photo
multiplier: it represents the number of thermal photons
passing a given point per unit time per unit bandwidth.
Equivalently the thermally radiated power in a narrow
bandwidth B is
P = NB. (E57)
One often hears the confusing statement that the noise
added by an amplier is a certain number N of photons
(N = 20, say for a good cryogenic HEMT amplier op
erating at 5 GHz). This means that the excess output
noise (referred back to the input by dividing by the power
gain) produces a ux of N photons per second in a 1 Hz
bandwidth, or 10
6
N photons per second in 1 MHz of
bandwidth (see also Eq. (D27)).
We can gain further insight into inputoutput theory
by using the following picture. The operator
b
in
(t) repre
sents the classical drive plus vacuum uctuations which
are just about to arrive at the cavity. We will be able
to show that the output eld is simply the input eld
a short while later after it has interacted with the cav
ity. Let us consider the time evolution over a short time
period t which is very long compared to the inverse
bandwidth of the vacuum noise (i.e., the frequency scale
beyond which the vacuum noise cannot be treated as con
stant due to some property of the environment) but very
short compared to the cavity systems slow dynamics. In
77
this circumstance it is useful to introduce the quantum
Wiener increment related to Eq. (D18)
d
W
_
t+t
t
d
() (E58)
which obeys
[d
W, d
] = t. (E59)
In the interaction picture (in a displaced frame in
which the classical drive has been removed) the Hamilto
nian term that couples the cavity to the quantum noise
of the environment is from Eq. (E18)
V = i
( a
). (E60)
Thus the time evolution operator (in the interaction pic
ture) on the jth short time interval [t
j
, t
j
+ t] is
U
j
= e
( a d
W)
(E61)
Using this we can readily evolve the incoming temporal
mode forward in time by a small step t
d
=
U
W
U d
W +
t a. (E62)
Recall that in inputoutput theory we formally dened
the outgoing eld as the bath eld far in the future prop
agated back (using the free eld time evolution) to the
present, which yielded
b
out
=
b
in
+
a. (E63)
Eq. (E62) is completely equivalent to this. Thus we con
rm our understanding that the incoming eld is the bath
temporal mode just before it interacts with the cavity and
the outgoing eld is the bath temporal mode just after it
interacts with the cavity.
This leads to the following picture which is especially
useful in the quantum trajectory approach to conditional
quantum evolution of a system subject to weak continu
ous measurement (Gardiner et al., 1992; Walls and Mil
burn, 1994). On top of the classical drive
b
in
(t), the bath
supplies to the system a continuous stream of fresh har
monic oscillators, each in their ground state (if T = 0).
Each oscillator with its quantum uctuation d
W inter
acts briey for a period t with the system and then
is disconnected to propagate freely thereafter, never in
teracting with the system again. Within this picture it
is useful to think of the oscillators arrayed in an innite
stationary line and the cavity ying over them at speed
v
p
and touching each one for a time t.
3. Quantum limited position measurement using a cavity
detector
We will now apply the inputoutput formalism intro
duced in the previous section to the important example
of a dispersive position measurement, which employs a
cavity whose resonance frequency shifts in response to
the motion of a harmonic oscillator. This physical sys
tem was considered heuristically in Sec. III.B.3. Here we
will present a rigorous derivation using the (linearized)
equations of motion for the coupled cavity and oscillator
system.
Let the dimensionless position operator
z =
1
x
ZPF
x = [ c
+ c] (E64)
be the coordinate of a harmonic oscillator whose energy
is
H
M
=
M
c
c (E65)
and whose position uncertainty in the quantum ground
state is x
ZPF
=
_
0[ x
2
[0.
This Hamiltonian could be realized for example by
mounting one of the cavity mirrors on a exible cantilever
(see the discussion above).
When the mirror moves, the cavity resonance fre
quency shifts,
c
=
c
[1 +A z(t)] (E66)
where for a cavity of length L, A = x
ZPF
/L.
Assuming that the mirror moves slowly enough for the
cavity to adiabatically follow its motion (i.e. ), the
outgoing light eld suers a phase shift which follows the
changes in the mirror position. This phase shift can be
detected in the appropriate homodyne set up as discussed
in Sec. III.B, and from this phase shift we can determine
the position of the mechanical oscillator. In addition to
the actual zeropoint uctuations of the oscillator, our
measurement will suer from shot noise in the homodyne
signal and from additional uncertainty due to the back
action noise of the measurement acting on the oscillator.
All of these eects will appear naturally in the derivation
below.
We begin by considering the optical cavity equation
of motion based on Eq. (E32) and the optomechanical
coupling Hamiltonian in Eq. (E1). These yield
a = i
c
(1 +A z) a
2
a
b
in
. (E67)
Let the cavity be driven by a laser at a frequency
L
=
c
+ detuned from the cavity by . Moving to a frame
rotating at
L
we have
a = +i(A
c
z) a
2
a
b
in
. (E68)
and we can write the incoming eld as a constant plus
white noise vacuum uctuations (again, in the rotating
frame)
b
in
=
b
in
+
(E69)
78
and similarly for the cavity eld following Eq. (E4)
a = a +
d. (E70)
Substituting these expressions into the equation of mo
tion, we nd that the constant classical elds obey
a =
/2 i
b
in
(E71)
and the new quantum equation of motion is, after ne
glecting a small term
d z:
d = +i
d iA
c
a z
2
. (E72)
The quantum limit for position measurement will be
reached only at zero detuning, so we specialize to the
case = 0. We also choose the incoming eld amplitude
and phase to obey
b
in
= i
_
N, (E73)
so that
a = +2i
, (E74)
where
N is the incoming photon number ux. The quan
tum equation of motion for the cavity then becomes
d = +g z
2
, (E75)
where the optomechanical coupling constant is propor
tional to the laser drive amplitude
g 2A
c
= A
c
n. (E76)
and
n = [ a[
2
= 4
(E77)
is the mean cavity photon number. Eq. (E75) is easily
solved by Fourier transformation
d[] =
1
[/2 i]
_
g z[]
[]
_
. (E78)
Let us assume that we are in the limit of low mechan
ical frequency relative to the cavity damping, ,
so that the cavity state adiabatically follows the motion
of the mechanical oscillator. Then we obtain to a good
approximation
d[] =
2
_
g z[]
[]
_
(E79)
[] =
2
_
g z[]
[]
_
(E80)
The mechanical oscillator equation of motion which is
identical in form to that of the optical cavity
t
c = [
0
2
+i] c
0
(t) +
i
[
H
int
, c(t)], (E81)
where
H
int
is the Hamiltonian in Eq. (E1) and is
the mechanical vacuum noise from the (zero tempera
ture) bath which is causing the mechanical damping at
rate
0
. Using Eq. (E70) and expanding to rst order
in small uctuations yields the equation of motion lin
earized about the steady state solution
t
c = [
0
2
+i] c
0
(t) +2
g
(t)
(t)]. (E82)
It is useful to consider an equivalent formulation in
which we expand the Hamiltonian in Eq. (E1) to second
order in the quantum uctuations about the classical so
lution
H
int
c
d
d + x
F, (E83)
where the force (including the coupling A) is (up to a
sign)
F = i
g
x
ZPF
[
d
d
]. (E84)
Note that the radiation pressure uctuations (photon
shot noise) inside the cavity provide a forcing term. The
state of the eld inside the cavity in general depends on
the past history of the cantilever position. However for
this special case of driving the cavity on resonance, the
dependence of the cavity eld on the cantilever history is
such that the latter drops out of the radiation pressure.
To see this explicitly, consider the equation of motion for
the force obtained from Eq. (E75)
F =
F +i
g
x
ZPF
]. (E85)
Within our linearization approximation, the position of
the mechanical oscillator has no eect on the radiation
pressure (photon number in the cavity), but of course it
does aect the phase of the cavity eld (and hence the
outgoing eld) which is what we measure in the homo
dyne detection.
Thus for this special case z does not appear on the
RHS of either Eq. (E85) or Eq. (E82), which means that
there is no optical renormalization of the cantilever fre
quency (optical spring) or optical damping of the can
tilever. The lack of backaction damping in turn implies
that the eective temperature T
e
of the cavity detector
is innite (cf. Eq. (2.8)). For this special case of zero
detuning the back action force noise is controlled by a
single quadrature of the incoming vacuum noise (which
interferes with the classical drive to produce photon num
ber uctuations). This is illustrated in the cavity ampli
tude phasor diagram of Fig. (19). We see that the vac
uum noise quadrature
+
conjugate to
F controls the
79
FIG. 19 (Color online) Phasor diagram for the cavity ampli
tude showing that (for our choice of parameters) the imag
inary quadrature of the vacuum noise
interferes with the
classical drive to produce photon number uctuations while
the real quadrature produces phase uctuations which lead to
measurement imprecision. The quantum uctuations are il
lustrated in the usual fashion, depicting the Gaussian Wigner
density of the coherent state in terms of color intensity.
phase noise which determines the measurement impreci
sion (shot noise in the homodyne signal). This will be
discussed further below.
The solution for the cantilever position can again be
obtained by Fourier transformation. For frequencies
small on the scale of the solution of Eq. (E85) is
F[] =
2ig
x
ZPF
[]
[]
_
(E86)
and hence the back action force noise spectral density is
at low frequencies
S
FF
[] =
4
2
g
2
x
2
ZPF
(E87)
in agreement with Eq. (3.17).
Introducing a quantity proportional to the cantilever
(mechanical) susceptibility (within the rotating wave ap
proximation we are using)
M
[ ]
1
i( ) +
0
2
, (E88)
we nd from Eq. (E82)
z[] = z
0
[]
i
x
ZPF
M
[ ]
M
[ + ]
F[],
(E89)
where the equilibrium uctuations in position are given
by
z
0
[]
0
_
M
[ ] [] +
M
[ + ]
[]
_
.
(E90)
We can now obtain the power spectrum S
zz
describing
the total position uctuations of the cantilever driven by
the mechanical vacuum noise plus the radiation pressure
shot noise. From Eqs. (E89, E90) we nd
S
xx
[]
x
2
ZPF
= S
zz
[]
=
0
[[ ][
2
(E91)
+
x
2
ZPF
2
[
M
[ ]
M
[ + ][
2
S
FF
.
Note that (assuming high mechanical Q, i.e.
0
) the
equilibrium part has support only at positive frequencies
while the back action induced position noise is symmetric
in frequency reecting the eective innite temperature
of the back action noise. Symmetrizing this result with
respect to frequency (and using
0
) we have
S
xx
[]
S
0
xx
[]
_
1 +
S
0
xx
[]
S
FF
_
, (E92)
where
S
0
xx
[] is the symmetrized spectral density for posi
tion uctuations in the ground state given by Eq. (3.53).
Now that we have obtained the eect of the back action
noise on the position uctuations, we must turn our at
tention to the imprecision of the measurement due to shot
noise in the output. The appropriate homodyne quadra
ture variable to monitor to be sensitive to the output
phase shift caused by position uctuations is
I =
b
out
+
out
, (E93)
which, using the inputoutput results above, can be writ
ten
I = (
) + x. (E94)
We see that the cavity homodyne detector system acts
as a position transducer with gain
=
4g
x
ZPF
. (E95)
The rst term in Eq. (E94) represents the vacuum noise
that mixes with the homodyne local oscillator to produce
the shot noise in the output. The resulting measurement
imprecision (symmetrized) spectral density referred back
to the position of the oscillator is
S
I
xx
=
1
2
. (E96)
Comparing this to Eq. (E87) we see that we reach the
quantum limit relating the imprecision noise to the back
action noise
S
I
xx
S
FF
=
2
4
(E97)
80
in agreement with Eq. (3.9).
Notice also from Eq. (E94) that the quadrature of the
vacuum noise which leads to the measurement impreci
sion is conjugate to the one which produces the back
action force noise as illustrated previously in Fig. (19).
Recall that the two quadratures of motion of a harmonic
oscillator in its ground state have no classical (i.e., sym
metrized) correlation. Hence the symmetrized cross cor
relator
S
IF
[] = 0 (E98)
vanishes. Because there is no correlation between the
output imprecision noise and the forces controlling the
position uctuations, the total output noise referred back
to the position of the oscillator is simply
S
xx,tot
[] =
S
xx
[] +
S
I
xx
(E99)
=
S
0
xx
[]
_
1 +
S
0
xx
[]
S
FF
_
+
2
4
S
FF
.
This expression again clearly illustrates the competition
between the back action noise proportional to the drive
laser intensity and the measurement imprecision noise
which is inversely proportional. We again emphasize that
all of the above relations are particular to the case of zero
detuning of the cavity drive eld from the cavity.
The total output noise at some particular frequency
will be a minimum at some optimal drive intensity. The
precise optimal value depends on the frequency chosen.
Typically this is taken to be the mechanical resonance
frequency where we nd that the optimal coupling leads
to an optimal back action noise
S
FF,opt
=
2
2
S
0
xx
[]
=
2
0
4x
2
ZPF
. (E100)
This makes sense because the higher the damping the less
susceptible the oscillator is to back action forces. At this
optimal coupling the total output noise spectral density
at frequency referred to the position is simply twice
the vacuum value
S
xx,tot
[] = 2
S
0
xx
[], (E101)
in agreement with Eq. (3.61). Evaluation of Eq. (E100)
at the optimal coupling yields the graph shown in
Fig. (6). The background noise oor is due to the
frequency independent imprecision noise with value
1
2
S
0
xx
[]. The peak value at = rises a factor of three
above this background.
We derived the gain in Eq. (E95) by direct solution
of the equations of motion. With the results we have de
rived above, it is straightforward to show that the Kubo
formula in Eq. (4.3) yields equivalent results. We have
already seen that the classical (i.e. symmetrized) correla
tions between the output signal
I and the force
F which
couples to the position vanishes. However the Kubo for
mula evaluates the quantum (i.e. antisymmetric) corre
lations for the uncoupled system (A = g = 0). Hence we
have
IF
(t) =
i
(t)
__
(t t) +
(t t)
_
,
2ig
x
ZPF
(0)
(0)
_
__
0
, (E102)
where t is a small (positive) time representing the delay
between the time when the vacuum noise impinges on
the cavity and when the resulting outgoing wave reaches
the homodyne detector. (More precisely it also compen
sates for certain small retardation eects neglected in the
limit used in several places in the above deriva
tions.) Using the fact that the commutator between the
two quadratures of the vacuum noise is a delta function,
Fourier transformation of the above yields (in the limit
t 1 the desired result
IF
[] = . (E103)
Similarly we readily nd that the small retardation
causes the reverse gain to vanish. Hence all our results
are consistent with the requirements needed to reach the
standard quantum limit.
Thus with this study of the specic case of an oscillator
parametrically coupled to a cavity, we have reproduced
all of the key results in Sec. V.E derived from completely
general considerations of linear response theory.
4. Backaction free singlequadrature detection
We now provide details on the cavity singlequadrature
detection scheme discussed in Sec. V.H.2. We again con
sider a highQ cavity whose resonance frequency is mod
ulated by a highQ mechanical oscillator with coordinate
x (cf. Eqs. (E1) and (E64)). To use this system for ampli
cation of a single quadrature, we will consider the typi
cal case of a fast cavity (
c
), and take the good cav
ity limit, where . As explained in the main text,
the crucial ingredient for singlequadrature detection is
to take an amplitudemodulated cavity drive described
by the classical input eld
b
in
given in Eq. (5.101). As
before (cf. Eq. (E4)), we may write the cavity annihila
81
tion operator a as the sum of a classical piece a(t) and a
quantum piece
d; only
d is inuenced by the mechanical
oscillator. a(t) is easily found from the classical (noise
free) equations of motion for the isolated cavity; making
use of the conditions
c
, we have
a(t)
_
N
2
cos (t +) e
ict
(E104)
To proceed with our analysis, we work in an interac
tion picture with respect to the uncoupled cavity and
oscillator Hamiltonians. Making standard rotatingwave
approximations, the Hamiltonian in the interaction pic
ture takes the simple form corresponding to Eq. (5.102b):
H
int
=
A
_
d +
d
_
_
e
i
c +e
i
c
_
=
A
_
d +
d
_
X
x
ZPF
, (E105)
where
A = A
c
_
N
4
, (E106)
and in the second line, we have made use of the denition
of the quadrature operators
X
,
Y
t
d =
(t)e
ict
i
A
_
e
i
c +e
i
c
_
(E107a)
t
c =
0
2
c
0
(t)e
it
ie
i
_
A
_
d +
d
_
f(t)
_
(E107b)
As before,
(t) represents the unavoidable noise in the
cavity drive, and (t),
0
are the noisy force and damp
ing resulting from an equilibrium bath coupled to the
mechanical oscillator. Note from Eq. (E107a) that as an
ticipated, the cavity is only driven by one quadrature of
the oscillators motion. We have also included a driving
force F(t) on the mechanical oscillator which has some
narrow bandwidth centered on the oscillator frequency;
this force is parameterized as:
F(t) =
2
x
ZPF
Re
_
f(t)e
it
e
i
(E108)
where f(t) is a complex function which is slowly varying
on the scale of an oscillator period.
The equations of motion are easily solved upon Fourier
transformation, resulting in:
[] = x
ZPF
M
[]
_
i (f
[] f[]) (E109a)
+
0
_
e
i
( + ) +e
i
( )
_
_
[] = ix
ZPF
M
[]
_
(i) (f[] +f
[]) (E109b)
+
0
_
e
i
( + ) e
i
( )
_
2i
A
c
[]
( +
c
) +
(
c
)
_
_
where the cavity and mechanical susceptibilities
c
,
M
are dened in Eqs. (E43) and (E88).
As anticipated, the detected quadrature
X
is com
pletely unaected by the measurement: Eq. (E109a) is
identical to what we would have if there were no coupling
between the oscillator and the cavity. In contrast, the
conjugate quadrature
Y
b
out
[] =
b
out
[] +
_
i(
c
) /2
i(
c
) +/2
_
[]
i
x
ZPF
c
[
c
]
X
(
c
)
(E110)
The rst term on the RHS simply represents the output
eld from the cavity in the absence of the mechanical
oscillator and any uctuations. It will yield sharp peaks
at the two sidebands associated with the drive, =
c
2S
t
exp
_
(I
0
t)
2
2S
t
_
. (F1)
Based on knowledge of this conditional distribution, we
now present two distinct but equivalent approaches to
giving an information theoretic basis for the denition of
the measurement rate.
1. Method I
Suppose we start with an initial qubit density matrix
0
=
_
1
2
0
0
1
2
_
. (F2)
After measuring for a time t, the new density matrix
conditioned on the results of the measurement is
1
=
_
p
+
0
0 p
_
(F3)
where it will be convenient to parameterize the two prob
abilities by the polarization m Tr(
z
1
) by
p
=
1 m
2
. (F4)
The information gained by the measurement is the en
tropy loss
26
of the qubit
J = Tr(
1
ln
1
0
ln
0
). (F5)
We are interested in the initial rate of gain of information
at short times
2
0
t S
p([I). (F7)
From Bayes theorem we can express this in terms of
p(I[), which is the quantity we know,
p([I) =
p(I[)p()
p(I[
)p(
)
. (F8)
26
It is important to note that we use throughout here the physi
cists entropy with the natural logarithm rather than the log base
2 which gives the information in units of bits.
Using Eq. (F1) the polarization is easily evaluated
m
I
= tanh
_
I
0
S
_
. (F9)
The information gain is thus
J
I
=
1
2
tanh
2
_
I
0
S
I
2
2
_
0
S
_
2
(F10)
where the second equality is only valid for small [m[.
Ensemble averaging this over all possible measurement
results yields the mean information gain at short times
J
1
2
2
0
S
t (F11)
which justies the denition of the measurement rate
given in Eq. (3.23).
2. Method II
An alternative information theoretic derivation is to
consider the qubit plus measurement device to be a sig
naling channel. The two possible inputs to the channel
are the two states of the qubit. The output of the chan
nel is the result of the measurement of I. By toggling
the qubit state back and forth, one can send information
through the signal channel to another party. The chan
nel is noisy because even for a xed state of the qubit,
the measured values of the signal I have intrinsic uctu
ations. Shannons noisy channel coding theorem (Cover
and Thomas, 1991) tells us the maximum rate at which
information can be reliably sent down the channel by tog
gling the state of the qubit and making measurements of
I. It is natural to take this rate as dening the measure
ment rate for our detector.
The reliable information gain by the receiver on a noisy
channel is a quantity known as the mutual information
of the communication channel (Clerk et al., 2003; Cover
and Thomas, 1991)
R =
_
+
dI
_
p(I) ln p(I)
)
2
S
t
=
2
0
2S
t
=
meas
t (F13)
83
exactly the same result as Eq. (F11). (Here I(t)
is the
mean value of I given that the qubit is in state .)
Appendix G: Number Phase Uncertainty
In this appendix, we briey review the numberphase
uncertainty relation, and from it we derive the relation
ship between the spectral densities describing the photon
number uctuations and the phase uctuations. Con
sider a coherent state labeled by its classical amplitude
[ = exp
_
[[
2
2
_
exp a
[0. (G1)
This is an eigenstate of the destruction operator
a[ = [. (G2)
It is convenient to make the unitary displacement trans
formation which maps the coherent state onto a new vac
uum state and the destruction operator onto
a = +
d (G3)
where d annihilates the new vacuum. Then we have
N =
N = 0[(
+
d
)( +
d)[0 = [[
2
, (G4)
and
(N)
2
= (
N
N)
2
= [[
2
0[
[0 =
N. (G5)
Now dene the two quadrature amplitudes
X =
1
2
( a + a
) (G6)
Y =
i
2
( a
a). (G7)
Each of these amplitudes can be measured in a homodyne
experiment. For convenience, let us take to be real and
positive. Then
X =
2 (G8)
and
Y = 0. (G9)
If the phase of this wave undergoes a small modulation
due for example to weak parametric coupling to a qubit
then one can estimate the phase by
=
X
. (G10)
This result is of course only valid for small angles, 1.
For
N 1, the uncertainty will be
()
2
=
Y
2
X)
2
=
1
2
0[
[0
2
N
=
1
4
N
. (G11)
Thus using Eq. (G5) we arrive at the fundamental quan
tum uncertainty relation
N =
1
2
. (G12)
Using the inputoutput theory described in Ap
pendix E we can restate the results above in terms of
noise spectral densities. Let the amplitude of the eld
coming in to the homodyne detector be
b
in
=
b
in
+
(t) (G13)
where
(t) is the vacuum noise obeying
[
(t),
(t
)] = (t t
). (G14)
We are using a ux normalization for the eld operators
so
N =
in
b
in
= [
b
in
[
2
(G15)
and
N(t)
N(0)
N
2
= 0[(
in
+
(t))(
b
in
+
(t))(
in
+
(0))(
b
in
+
(0))[0
b
in
4
=
N(t). (G16)
From this it follows that the shot noise spectral density
is
S
N
N
=
N. (G17)
Similarly the phase can be estimated from the quadra
ture operator
=
i(
in
b
in
)
in
+
b
in
+i
(
)
2
b
in
(G18)
84
which has noise correlator
(t)
(0) =
1
4
N
(t) (G19)
corresponding to the phase imprecision spectral density
S
=
1
4
N
. (G20)
We thus arrive at the fundamental quantum limit relation
_
S
S
N
N
=
1
2
. (G21)
Appendix H: Using feedback to reach the quantum limit
In Sec. (VI.B), we demonstrated that any two port am
plier whose scattering matrix has s
11
= s
22
= s
12
= 0
will fail to reach quantum limit when used as a weakly
coupled opamp; at best, it will miss optimizing the quan
tum noise constraint of Eq. (5.88) by a factor of two.
Reaching the quantum limit thus requires at least one
of s
11
, s
22
and s
12
to be nonzero. In this subsection,
we demonstrate how this may be done. We show that
by introducing a form of negative feedback to the min
imal amplier of the previous subsection, one can take
advantage of noise correlations to reduce the backaction
current noise S
II
by a factor of two. As a result, one is
able to reach the weakcoupling (i.e. opamp) quantum
limit. Note that quantum ampliers with feedback are
also treated in Courty et al. (1999); Grassia (1998).
On a heuristic level, we can understand the need for
either reections or reverse gain to reach the quantum
limit. A problem with the minimal amplier of the
last subsection was that its input impedance was too low
in comparison to its noise impedance Z
N
Z
a
. From
general expression for the input impedance, Eq. (6.7d),
we see that having nonzero reverse gain (i.e. s
12
,= 0)
and/or nonzero reections (i.e. s
11
,= 0 and/or s
22
,= 0)
could lead to Z
in
Z
a
. This is exactly what occurs
when feedback is used to reach the quantum limit. Keep
in mind that having nonvanishing reverse gain is danger
ous: as we discussed earlier, an appreciable nonzero
I
can lead to the highly undesirable consequence that the
ampliers input impedance depends on the impedance
of the load connected to its output (cf. Eq. (6.6)).
1. Feedback using mirrors
To introduce reverse gain and reections into the min
imal twoport bosonic amplier of the previous subsec
tion, we will insert mirrors in three of the four arms lead
ing from the circulator: the arm going to the input line,
the arm going to the output line, and the arm going to
the auxiliary cold load (Fig. 20). Equivalently, one
could imagine that each of these lines is not perfectly
b
z,out
b
z,in
a
z,in
a
z,out
ideal
1port
amp.
cold
load
input line output line
c
in
c
out
=G
1/2
c
in
+(G1)
1/2
v
in
v
in
v
out
a
x,out
b
x,in
b
y,out
b
y,in
a
y,in
a
y,out
a
x,in
b
x,out
X
Z
Y mirror
FIG. 20 Schematic of a modied minimal twoport amplier,
where partially reecting mirrors have been inserted in the
input and output transmission lines, as well as in the line
leading to the cold load. By tuning the reection coecient
of the mirror in the cold load arm (mirror Y ), we can in
duce negative feedback which takes advantage of correlations
between current and voltage noise. This then allows this sys
tem to reach the quantum limit as a weakly coupled voltage
op amp. See text for further description
impedance matched to the circulator. Each mirror will
be described by a 2 2 unitary scattering matrix:
_
a
j,out
b
j,out
_
= U
j
_
b
j,in
a
j,in
_
(H1)
U
j
=
_
cos
j
sin
j
sin
j
cos
j
_
(H2)
Here, the index j can take on three values: j = z for the
mirror in the input line, j = y for the mirror in the arm
going to the cold load, and j = x for the mirror in the
output line. The mode a
j
describes the internal mode
which exists between the mirror and circulator, while the
mode b
j
describes the external mode on the other side
of the mirror. We have taken the U
j
to be real for con
venience. Note that
j
= 0 corresponds to the case of no
mirror (i.e. perfect transmission).
It is now a straightforward though tedious exercise to
construct the scattering matrix for the entire system.
From this, one can identify the reduced scattering matrix
s appearing in Eq. (6.3), as well as the noise operators
T
j
. These may then in turn be used to obtain the opamp
description of the amplier, as well as the commutators
of the added noise operators. These latter commutators
85
determine the usual noise spectral densities of the ampli
er. Details and intermediate steps of these calculations
may be found in Appendix I.6.
As usual, to see if our amplier can reach the quantum
limit when used as a (weaklycoupled) opamp , we need
to see if it optimizes the quantum noise constraint of
Eq. (5.88). We consider the optimal situation where both
the auxiliary modes of the amplier ( u
in
and v
in
) are in
the vacuum state. The surprising upshot of our analysis
(see Appendix I.6) is the following: if we include a small
amount of reection in the cold load line with the correct
phase, then we can reach the quantum limit, irrespective
of the mirrors in the input and output lines. In particular,
if sin
y
= 1/
G is exactly what is
needed to have
S
V I
vanish. Also note from Eq. (I65a)
that this special tuning of
y
decreases the backaction
current noise precisely by a factor of two compared to
its value at
y
= 0. A clear physical explanation now
emerges. Our original, reectionfree amplier had cor
relations between its backaction current noise and out
put voltage noise (cf. Eq. (6.18c)). By introducing nega
tive feedback of the output voltage to the input current
(i.e. via a mirror in the coldload arm), we are able to
use these correlations to decrease the overall magnitude
of the current noise (i.e. the voltage uctuations
V par
tially cancel the original current uctuations
I). For an
optimal feedback (i.e. optimal choice of
y
), the current
noise is reduced by a half, and the new current noise is
not correlated with the output voltage noise. Note that
this is indeed negative (as opposed to positive) feedback
it results in a reduction of both the gain and the power
gain. To make this explicit, in the next section we will
map the amplier described here onto a standard opamp
with negative voltage feedback.
2. Explicit examples
To obtain a more complete insight, it is useful to go
back and consider what the reduced scattering matrix of
our system looks like when
y
has been tuned to reach
the quantum limit. From Eq. (I58), it is easy to see that
at the quantum limit, the matrix s satises:
s
11
= s
22
(H3a)
s
12
=
1
G
s
21
(H3b)
The second equation also carries over to the opamp pic
ture; at the quantum limit, one has:
I
=
1
G
V
(H4)
One particularly simple limit is the case where there
are no mirrors in the input and output line (
x
=
z
= 0),
only a mirror in the coldload arm. When this mirror is
tuned to reach the quantum limit (i.e. sin
y
= 1/
G),
the scattering matrix takes the simple form:
s =
_
0 1/
G 0
_
(H5)
In this case, the principal eect of the weak mirror in
the coldload line is to introduce a small amount of re
verse gain. The amount of this reverse gain is exactly
what is needed to have the input impedance diverge
(cf. Eq. (6.7d)). It is also what is needed to achieve an
optimal, noisecanceling feedback in the amplier. To
see this last point explicitly, we can rewrite the ampli
ers backaction current noise (
I
I
0
+
2
G r
1
G r
V
0
Z
a
(H6)
As claimed, the presence of a small amount of reection
r sin
y
in the cold load arm feedsback the original
voltage noise of the amplier
V
0
into the current. The
choice r = 1/
I
1/
I
, the ampliers input impedance is
strongly reduced in the presence of a load (cf. Eq. (6.6)).
There is a second simple limit we can consider which is
more practical. This is the limit where reections in the
inputline mirror and outputline mirror are both strong.
Imagine we take
z
=
x
= /2 /G
1/8
. If again
we set sin
y
= 1/
G):
s =
_
+1 0
2
G
1/4
2
1
_
(H7)
86
V
a
V
b
R
1
R
2
+

G
f
FIG. 21 Schematic of a voltage opamp with negative feed
back.
In this case, we see that at the quantum limit, the reec
tion coecients s
11
and s
22
are exactly what is needed
to have the input impedance diverge, while the reverse
gain coecient s
12
plays no role. For this case of strong
reections in input and output arms, the voltage gain is
reduced compared to its zeroreection value:
V
_
Z
b
Z
a
_
2
_
2
G
1/4
(H8)
The power gain however is independent of
x
,
z
, and is
still given by G/2 when
y
is tuned to be at the quantum
limit.
3. Opamp with negative voltage feedback
We now show that a conventional opamp with feed
back can be mapped onto the amplier described in
the previous subsection. We will show that tuning the
strength of the feedback in the opamp corresponds to
tuning the strength of the mirrors, and that an optimally
tuned feedback circuit lets one reach the quantum limit.
This is in complete correspondence to the previous sub
section, where an optimal tuning of the mirrors also lets
one reach the quantum limit.
More precisely, we consider a scattering description of
a noninverting opamp amplier having negative voltage
feedback. The circuit for this system is shown in Fig. 21.
A fraction B of the output voltage of the amplier is fed
back to the negative input terminal of the opamp. In
practice, B is determined by the two resistors R
1
and R
2
used to form a voltage divider at the opamp output. The
opamp with zero feedback is described by the ideal
amplier of Sec. VI.B: at zero feedback, it is described
by Eqs. (6.11a) (6.11d). For simplicity, we consider the
relevant case where:
Z
b
R
1
, R
2
Z
a
(H9)
In this limit, R
1
and R
2
only play a role through the
feedback fraction B, which is given by:
B =
R
2
R
1
+R
2
(H10)
Letting G
f
denote the voltage gain at zero feedback
(B = 0), an analysis of the circuit equations for our op
amp system yields:
V
=
G
f
1 +B G
f
(H11a)
I
=
B
1 +B G
f
(H11b)
Z
out
=
Z
b
1 +B G
f
(H11c)
Z
in
= (1 +B G
f
)Z
a
(H11d)
G
P
=
G
2
f
/2
B G
f
+ 2Z
b
/Z
a
(H11e)
Again, G
f
represents the gain of the amplier in the ab
sence of any feedback, Z
a
is the input impedance at zero
feedback, and Z
b
is the output impedance at zero feed
back.
Transforming this into the scattering picture yields a
scattering matrix s satisfying:
s
11
= s
22
=
BG
f
(Z
a
(2 +BG
f
)Z
b
)
BG
f
Z
a
+ (2 +BG
f
)
2
Z
b
(H12a)
s
21
=
2
Z
a
Z
b
G
f
(1 +BG
f
)
BG
f
Z
a
+ (2 +BG
f
)
2
Z
b
(H12b)
s
12
=
B
G
f
s
21
(H12c)
Note the connection between these equations and the nec
essary form of a quantum limited smatrix found in the
previous subsection.
Now, given a scattering matrix, one can always nd a
minimal representation of the noise operators T
a
and T
b
which have the necessary commutation relations. These
are given in general by:
T
a
=
_
1 [s
11
[
2
[s
12
[
2
+[l[
2
u
in
+l v
in
(H13)
T
b
=
_
[s
21
[
2
+[s
22
[
2
1 v
in
(H14)
l =
s
11
s
21
+s
12
s
22
_
[s
21
[
2
+[s
22
[
2
1
(H15)
Applying this to the s matrix for our opamp, and then
taking the auxiliary modes u
in
and v
in
to be in the vac
uum state, we can calculate the minimum allowed
S
V V
and
S
II
for our noninverting opamp amplier. One can
then calculate the product
S
V V
S
II
and compare against
the quantumlimited value (
S
IV
is again real). In the
case of zero feedback (i.e. B = 0), one of course nds
that this product is twice as big as the quantum limited
value. However, if one takes the large G
f
limit while
keeping B nonzero but nite, one obtains:
S
V V
S
II
()
2
_
1
2B
G
f
+O
_
1
G
f
_
2
_
(H16)
Thus, for a xed, nonzero feedback ratio B, it is possible
to reach the quantum limit. Note that if B does not tend
87
to zero as G
f
tends to innity, the voltage gain of this
amplier will be nite. The power gain however will be
proportional to G
f
and will be large. If one wants a
large voltage gain, one could set B to go to zero with
G
f
i.e. B
1
G
f
. In this case, one will still reach
the quantum limit in the large G
f
limit, and the voltage
gain will also be large (i.e.
_
G
f
). Note that in all
these limits, the reection coecients s
11
and s
22
tend
to 1 and 1 respectively, while the reverse gain tends
to 0. This is in complete analogy to the amplier with
mirrors considered in the previous subsection, in the case
where we took the reections to be strong at the input
and at the output (cf. Eq. (H7)). We thus see yet again
how the use of feedback allows the system to reach the
quantum limit.
Appendix I: Additional Technical Details
This appendix provides further details of calculations
presented in the main text.
1. Proof of quantum noise constraint
Note rst that we may write the symmetrized
I and
F
noise correlators dened in Eqs. (4.4a) and (4.4b) as sums
over transitions between detector energy eigenstates:
S
FF
[] =
i,f
i[
0
[i [f[
F[i[
2
[(E
f
E
i
+ ) +(E
f
E
i
)] (I1)
S
II
[] =
i,f
i[
0
[i [f[
I[i[
2
[(E
f
E
i
+ ) +(E
f
E
i
)] (I2)
Here,
0
is the stationary density matrix describing the
state of the detector, and [i ([f) is a detector energy
eigenstate with energy E
i
(E
f
). Eq. (I1) expresses the
noise at frequency as a sum over transitions. Each
transition starts with an an initial detector eigenstate
[i, occupied with a probability i[
0
[i, and ends with a
nal detector eigenstate [f, where the energy dierence
between the two states is either + or . Further,
each transition is weighted by an appropriate matrix el
ement.
To proceed, we x the frequency > 0, and let the
index label each transition [i [f contributing to the
noise. More specically, indexes each ordered pair of
detector energy eigenstates states [i, [f which satisfy
E
f
E
i
[, + d] and i[
0
[i , = 0. We can now
consider the matrix elements of
I and
F which contribute
to
S
II
[] and
S
FF
[] to be complex vectors v and w.
Letting be any real number, let us dene:
[ w]
= f()[
F[i() (I3)
[v]
=
_
e
i
f()[
I[i() if E
f()
E
i()
= +,
e
i
f()[
I[i() if E
f()
E
i()
= .
(I4)
Introducing an inner product ,
via:
a,
i()[
0
[i() (a
, (I5)
we see that the noise correlators
S
II
and
S
FF
may be
written as:
S
II
[]d = v, v
(I6)
S
FF
[]d = w, w
(I7)
We may now employ the CauchySchwartz inequality:
v, v
w, w
[v, w
[
2
(I8)
A straightforward manipulation shows that the real
part of v, w
= Re
_
e
i
S
IF
[]
d (I9)
In contrast, the imaginary part of v, w
is independent
of
S
IF
; instead, it is directly related to the gain
IF
and
reverse gain
FI
of the detector:
Im v, w
=
2
Re
_
e
i
_
IF
[] [
FI
[]]
_
d (I10)
Substituting Eqs. (I10) and (I9) into Eq. (I8), one im
mediately nds the quantum noise constraint given in
Eq. (4.16). As in the main text, we let
IF
=
IF
FI
.
Maximizing the RHS of this inequality with respect to
the phase , one nds that the maximum is achieved for
=
0
= arg(
IF
) +
0
with
tan 2
0
=
[
S
IF
[ sin 2
(/2)[
IF
[ +[
S
IF
[ cos 2
(I11)
where = arg(
S
IF
IF
). At =
0
, Eq. (4.16) becomes
the nal noise constraint of Eq. (4.11).
88
The proof given here also allows one to see what must
be done in order to achieve the ideal noise condition
of Eq. (4.17): one must achieve equality in the Cauchy
Schwartz inequality of Eq. (I8). This requires that the
vectors v and w be proportional to one another; there
must exist a complex factor (having dimensions [I]/[F])
such that:
v = w (I12)
Equivalently, we have that
f[I[i =
_
e
i
f[F[i if E
f
E
i
= +
e
i
f[F[i if E
f
E
i
= .
(I13)
for each pair of initial and nal states [i, [f contributing
to
S
FF
[] and
S
II
[] (cf. Eq. (I1)). Note that this not
the same as requiring Eq. (I13) to hold for all possible
states [i and [f. This proportionality condition in turn
implies a proportionality between the input and output
(unsymmetrized) quantum noise spectral densities:
S
II
[] = [[
2
S
FF
[] (I14)
It thus also follows that the imaginary parts of the input
and output susceptibilities are proportional:
Im
II
[] = [[
2
Im
FF
[], (I15)
as well as the symmetrized input and output noise (i.e.
Eq. (4.18)). Finally, one can also use Eq. (I13) to relate
the unsymmetrized IF quantum noise correlator S
IF
[]
to S
FF
[]: (cf. Eq. (4.7)):
S
IF
[] =
_
e
i
S
FF
[] if > 0,
e
i
S
FF
[] if < 0
(I16)
Note that S
FF
[] is necessarily real and positive.
Finally, for a detector with quantumideal noise prop
erties, the magnitude of the constant can be found from
Eq. (4.18). The phase of can also be determined from:
Im
[[
=
[
IF
[/2
_
S
II
S
FF
cos
0
(I17)
For zero frequency or for a large detector eective tem
perature, this simplies to:
Im
[[
=
IF
/2
_
S
II
S
FF
(I18)
Note importantly that to have a nonvanishing gain
and power gain, one needs Im ,= 0. This in turn places
a very powerful constraint on a quantumideal detectors:
all transitions contributing to the noise must be to nal
states [f which are completely unoccupied. To see this,
imagine a transition taking an initial state [i = [a to
a nal state [f = [b makes a contribution to the noise.
For a quantumideal detector, Eq. (I13) will be satised:
b[
I[a = e
i
b[
F[a (I19)
where the plus sign corresponds to E
b
> E
a
, the mi
nus to E
a
> E
b
. If now the nal state [b was also oc
cupied (i.e. b[
0
[b , = 0), then the reverse transition
[i = b [f = a) would also contribute to the noise.
The proportionality condition of Eq. (I13) would now re
quire:
a[
I[b = e
i
a[
F[b (I20)
As
I and
F are both Hermitian operators, and as must
have an imaginary part in order for there to be gain, we
have a contradiction: Eq. (I19) and (I20) cannot both be
true. It thus follows that the nal state of a transition
contributing to the noise must be unoccupied in order
for Eq. (I13) to be satised and for the detector to have
ideal noise properties. Note that this necessary asym
metry in the occupation of detector energy eigenstates
immediately tells us that a detector or amplier cannot
reach the quantum limit if it is in equilibrium.
2. Proof that a noiseless detector does not amplify
With the above results in hand, we can now prove as
sertions made in Sec. IV.A.4 that detectors which evade
the quantum noise constraint of Eq. (4.11) and simply
satisfy
S
FF
S
II
= [
S
IF
[
2
(I21)
are at best transducers, as their power gain is limited to
being at most one.
The rst way to make the RHS of Eq. (4.11) vanish is
to have
IF
=
FI
. We have already seen that when
ever this relation holds, the detector power gain cannot
be any larger than one (c.f. Eq. (5.53)). Now, imagine
that the detector also has a minimal amount of noise,
i.e. Eq. (I21) also holds. This latter fact implies that the
proportionality condition of Eq. (I13) also must hold. In
this situation, the detector must have a power gain of
unity, and is thus a transducer. There are two possibil
ities to consider here. First,
S
FF
and
S
II
could both
be nonzero, but perfectly correlated: [
S
IF
[
2
=
S
FF
S
II
.
In this case, the proportionality constant must be real
(c.f. Eq. (I17)). Using this fact along with Eqs. (I16) and
(4.8b), one immediately nds that S
FF
[] = S
FF
[].
This implies the backaction damping associated with
the detector input vanishes (c.f. Eq. (2.12)). It thus fol
lows immediately from Eq. (5.52) and Eq. (5.53) that the
power gain G
P,rev
(dened in a way that accounts for the
reverse gain) is exactly one. The detector is thus simply a
transducer. The other possibility here is that
IF
=
FI
and one or both of
S
II
,
S
FF
are equal zero. Note that if
the symmetrized noise vanishes, then so must the asym
metric part of the noise. Thus, it follows that either the
damping induced by the detector input, , or that in
duced by the output,
out
(c.f. Eq. (5.48)) (or both) must
be zero. Eqs. (5.52) and (5.53) then again yield a power
gain G
P,rev
= 1. We thus have shown that any detector
89
which has
FI
=
IF
and satises
S
FF
S
II
= [
S
IF
[
2
must
necessarily be a transducer, with a power gain precisely
equal to one.
A second way to make the RHS of Eq. (4.11) vanish is
to have
S
IF
/
IF
be purely imaginary and larger in mag
nitude than /2. Suppose this is the case, and that the
detector also satises the minimal noise requirement of
Eq. (I21). Without loss of generality, we take
IF
to be
real, implying that
S
IF
is purely imaginary. Eqs. (I10)
and (I11) then imply that the phase factor e
i
appear
ing in the proportionality relation of Eq. (I16) is purely
imaginary, while the constant is purely real. Using this
proportionality relation in Eq. (4.8b) for
IF
yields:
IF
=
(S
FF
[] S
FF
[])
= 2[Im
FF
[]] (I22)
Using this result and the relation between
FF
and
II
in Eq. (I15), we can write the power gain in the absence
of reverse gain, G
P
(c.f. Eq. (5.52)), as
G
P
= 1/ [1
FI
/
IF
[
2
(I23)
If the reverse gain vanishes (i.e.
FI
= 0), we immedi
ately nd that G
P
= 1: the detector has a power gain of
one, and is thus simply a transducer. If the reverse gain
is nonzero, we must take the expression for G
P
above
and plug it into Eq. (5.53) for the power gain with re
verse gain, G
P,rev
. Some algebra again yields that the
full power gain is at most unity. We again have the con
clusion that the detector does not amplify.
3. Simplications for a quantumlimited detector
In this appendix, we derive the additional constraints
on the property of a detector that arise when it satises
the quantum noise constraint of Eq. (4.17). We focus on
the ideal case where the reverse gain
FI
vanishes.
To start, we substitute Eq. (I16) into Eqs. (4.8b)
(4.8a); writing S
FF
[] in terms of the detector eective
temperature T
e
(cf. Eq. (2.8)) yields:
[]
2
= e
i
[Im
FF
[]] (I24)
_
(Im ) coth
_
2k
B
T
e
_
+i (Re )
_
S
IF
[] = e
i
[Im
FF
[]] (I25)
_
(Re ) coth
_
2k
B
T
e
_
i (Im )
_
To proceed, let us write:
e
i
=
[[
e
i
(I26)
The condition that [[ is real yields the condition:
tan
=
Re
Im
tanh
_
2k
B
T
e
_
(I27)
We now consider the relevant limit of a large detector
power gain G
P
. G
P
is determined by Eq. (5.56); the only
way this can become large is if k
B
T
e
/() while
Im does not tend to zero. We will thus take the large
T
e
limit in the above equations while keeping both and
the phase of xed. Note that this means the parameter
S
IF
[] = 2e
i
k
B
T
e
[] (Re )
_
1 +O
_
k
B
T
e
__
(I29)
Thus, in the large powergain limit (i.e. large T
e
limit), the gain and the noise crosscorrelator
S
IF
have
the same phase:
S
IF
/ is purely real.
4. Derivation of nonequilibrium Langevin equation
In this appendix, we prove that an oscillator weakly
coupled to an arbitrary outofequilibrium detector is de
scribed by the Langevin equation given in Eq. (5.41), an
equation which associates an eective temperature and
damping kernel to the detector. The approach taken here
is directly related to the pioneering work of Schwinger
(Schwinger, 1961).
We start by dening the oscillator matrix Keldysh
green function:
G(t) =
_
G
K
(t) G
R
(t)
G
A
(t) 0
_
(I30)
where G
R
(t t
) = i(t t
)[ x(t), x(t
)], G
A
(t t
) =
i(t
)], and G
K
(t t
) = i x(t), x(t
).
At zero coupling to the detector (A = 0), the oscillator
is only coupled to the equilibrium bath, and thus
G
0
has
the standard equilibrium form:
G
0
[] =
m
_
2Im g
0
[] coth
_
2kBT
bath
_
g
0
[]
g
0
[]
0
_
(I31)
where:
g
0
[] =
1
2
+i
0
/m
(I32)
and where
0
is the intrinsic damping coecient, and
T
bath
is the bath temperature.
We next treat the eects of the coupling to the detector
in perturbation theory. Letting
denote the correspond
ing selfenergy, the Dyson equation for
G has the form:
_
G[]
1
=
_
G
0
[]
_
0
A
[]
R
[]
K
[]
_
(I33)
90
To lowest order in A,
[] is given by:
[] = A
2
D[] (I34)
A
2
_
dt e
it
(I35)
_
0 i(t)[
F(t),
F(0)]
i(t)[
F(t),
F(0)] i
F(t),
F(0)
_
Using this lowestorder self energy, Eq. (I33) yields:
G
R
[] =
m(
2
2
) A
2
Re D
R
[] +i(
0
+[])
(I36)
G
A
[] =
_
G
R
[]
(I37)
G
K
[] = 2iIm G
R
[]
0
coth
_
2kBT
bath
_
+[] coth
_
2kBT
eff
_
0
+[]
(I38)
where [] is given by Eq. (2.12), and T
e
[] is dened by
Eq. (2.8). The main eect of the real part of the retarded
F Green function D
R
[] in Eq. (I36) is to renormalize the
oscillator frequency and mass m; we simply incorporate
these shifts into the denition of and m in what follows.
If T
e
[] is frequency independent, then Eqs. (I36)
 (I38) for
G corresponds exactly to an oscillator cou
pled to two equilibrium baths with damping kernels
0
and []. The correspondence to the Langevin equa
tion Eq. (5.41) is then immediate. In the more general
case where T
e
[] has a frequency dependence, the cor
relators G
R
[] and G
K
[] are in exact correspondence
to what is found from the Langevin equation Eq. (5.41):
G
K
[] corresponds to symmetrized noise calculated from
Eq. (5.41), while G
R
[] corresponds to the response co
ecient of the oscillator calculated from Eq. (5.41). This
again proves the validity of using the Langevin equation
Eq. (5.41) to calculate the oscillator noise in the presence
of the detector to lowest order in A.
5. Linearresponse formulas for a twoport bosonic amplier
In this appendix, we use the standard linearresponse
Kubo formulas of Sec. V.F to derive expressions for
the voltage gain
V
, reverse current gain
I
, input
impedance Z
in
and output impedance Z
out
of a twoport
bosonic voltage amplier (cf. Sec. VI). We recover the
same expressions for these quantities obtained in Sec. VI
from the scattering approach. We stress throughout this
appendix the important role played by the causal struc
ture of the scattering matrix describing the amplier.
In applying the general linear response formulas, we
must bear in mind that these expressions should be ap
plied to the uncoupled detector, i.e. nothing attached to
the detector input or output. In our twoport bosonic
voltage amplier, this means that we should have a
short circuit at the amplier input (i.e. no input voltage,
V
a
= 0), and we should have open circuit at the out
put (i.e. I
b
= 0, no load at the output drawing current).
These two conditions dene the uncoupled amplier. Us
ing the denitions of the voltage and current operators
(cf. Eqs. (6.2a) and (6.2b)), they take the form:
a
in
[] = a
out
[] (I39a)
b
in
[] =
b
out
[] (I39b)
The scattering matrix equation Eq. (6.3) then allows us
to solve for a
in
and a
out
in terms of the added noise
operators
T
a
and
T
b
.
a
in
[] =
1 s
22
D
T
a
[]
s
12
D
T
b
[] (I40a)
b
in
[] =
s
21
D
T
a
[] +
1 +s
11
D
T
b
[] (I40b)
where D is given in Eq. (6.8), and we have omitted writ
ing the frequency dependence of the scattering matrix.
Further, as we have already remarked, the commutators
of the added noise operators is completely determined by
the scattering matrix and the constraint that output op
erators have canonical commutation relations. The non
vanishing commutators are thus given by:
_
T
a
[],
T
a
(
)
_
= 2(
)
_
1 [s
11
[
2
[s
12
[
2
_
(I41a)
_
T
b
[],
T
b
(
)
_
= 2(
)
_
1 [s
21
[
2
[s
22
[
2
_
(I41b)
_
T
a
[],
T
b
(
)
_
= 2(
) (s
11
s
21
+s
12
s
22
)
(I41c)
The above equations, used in conjunction with
Eqs. (6.2a) and (6.2b), provide us with all all the infor
mation needed to calculate commutators between current
and voltage operators. It is these commutators which en
ter into the linearresponse Kubo formulas. As we will
see, our calculation will crucially rely on the fact that
the scattering description obeys causality: disturbances
at the input of our system must take some time before
they propagate to the output. Causality manifests itself
in the energy dependence of the scattering matrix: as a
function of energy, it is an analytic function in the upper
half complex plane.
a. Input and output impedances
Eq. (5.84) is the linear response Kubo formula for
the input impedance of a voltage amplier. Recall
that the input operator
Q for a voltage amplier is re
lated to the input current operator
I
a
via d
Q/dt =
I
a
(cf. Eq. (5.83)). The Kubo formula for the input
91
impedance may thus be rewritten in the more familiar
form:
Y
in,Kubo
[]
i
_
0
dt[
I
a
(t),
I
a
(0)]e
it
_
(I42)
where Y
in
[] = 1/Z
in
[],
Using the dening equation for
I
a
(Eq. (6.1b)) and
Eq. (I39a) (which describes an uncoupled amplier), we
obtain:
Y
in,Kubo
[] = (I43)
2
Z
a
_
0
dte
it
_
0
d
aa
(
)
_
e
i
t
e
i
t
_
where we have dened the real function
aa
[] for > 0
via:
_
a
in
[], a
in
(
)
_
= 2(
)
aa
[] (I44)
It will be convenient to also dene
aa
[] for < 0
via
aa
[] =
aa
[]. Eq. (I43) may then be written as:
Y
in,Kubo
[] =
2
Z
a
_
0
dt
_
aa
(
)e
i(
)t
=
aa
[]
Z
a
+
i
T
_
aa
(
)/Z
a
(I45)
Next, by making use of Eq. (I40a) and Eqs. (I41) for
the commutators of the added noise operators, we can
explicitly evaluate the commutator in Eq. (I44) to cal
culate
aa
[]. Comparing the result against the result
Eq. (6.7d) of the scattering calculation, we nd:
aa
[]
Z
a
= Re Y
in,scatt
[] (I46)
where Y
in,scatt
[] is the input admittance of the ampli
er obtained from the scattering approach. Returning to
Eq. (I45), we may now use the fact that Y
in,scatt
[] is
an analytic function in the upper half plane to simplify
the second term on the RHS, as this term is simply a
KramersKronig integral:
1
T
_
aa
(
)/Z
a
=
1
T
_
Re Y
in,scatt
(
= Im Y
in,scatt
[] (I47)
It thus follows from Eq. (I45) that input impedance cal
culated from the Kubo formula is equal to what we found
previously using the scattering approach.
The calculation for the output impedance proceeds in
the same fashion, starting from the Kubo formula given
in Eq. (5.85). As the steps are completely analogous to
the above calculation, we do not present it here. One
again recovers Eq. (6.7c), as found previously within the
scattering approach.
b. Voltage gain and reverse current gain
Within linear response theory, the voltage gain of the
amplier (
V
) is determined by the commutator between
the input operator
Q and
V
b
(cf. Eq. (4.3); recall that
Q is dened by d
Q/dt =
I
a
. Similarly, the reverse
current gain (
I
) is determined by the commutator be
tween
I
a
and
, where
is dened via d
/dt =
V
b
(cf. Eq. (4.6)). Similar to the calculation of the input
impedance, to properly evaluate the Kubo formulas for
the gains, we must make use of the causal structure of
the scattering matrix describing our amplier.
Using the dening equations of the current and volt
age operators (cf. Eqs. (6.1a) and (6.1b)), as well as
Eqs. (I39a) and (I39b) which describe the uncoupled am
plier, the Kubo formulas for the voltage gain and reverse
current gain become:
V,Kubo
[] = 4
_
Z
b
Z
a
(I48)
_
0
dt e
it
Re
__
0
d
2
ba
(
)e
i
t
_
I,Kubo
[] = 4
_
Z
b
Z
a
(I49)
_
0
dt e
it
Re
__
0
d
2
ba
(
)e
i
t
_
where we dene the complex function
ba
[] for > 0
via:
_
b
in
[], a
in
(
)
_
(2(
))
ba
[] (I50)
We can explicitly evaluate
ba
[] by using Eqs. (I40a)
(I41) to evaluate the commutator above. Comparing the
result against the scattering approach expressions for the
gain and reverse gain (cf. Eqs. (6.7a) and (6.7b)), one
nds:
ba
[] =
V,scatt
[]
_
I,scatt
[]
(I51)
Note crucially that the two terms above have dierent
analytic properties: the rst is analytic in the upper half
plane, while the second is analytic in the lower half plane.
This follows directly from the fact that the scattering
matrix is causal.
At this stage, we can proceed much as we did in the
calculation of the input impedance. Dening
ba
[] for
< 0 via
ba
[] =
ba
[], we can rewrite Eqs. (I48)
and (I49) in terms of principle part integrals.
V,Kubo
[] =
Z
b
Z
a
_
ba
[] +
i
T
_
ba
(
I,Kubo
[] =
Z
b
Z
a
_
ba
[] +
i
T
_
ba
(
)
+
_
(I52)
Using the analytic properties of the two terms in Eq. (I51)
for
ba
[], we can evaluate the principal part integrals
92
above as KramersKronig relations. One then nds that
the Kubo formula expressions for the voltage and cur
rent gain coincide precisely with those obtained from the
scattering approach.
While the above is completely general, it is useful to
go through a simpler, more specic case where the role of
causality is more transparent. Imagine that all the energy
dependence in the scattering in our amplier arises from
the fact that there are small transmission line stubs of
length a attached to both the input and output of the
amplier (these stubs are matched to the input and out
put lines). Because of these stubs, a wavepacket incident
on the amplier will take a time = 2a/v to be either
reected or transmitted, where v is the characteristic ve
locity of the transmission line. This situation is described
by a scattering matrix which has the form:
s[] = e
2ia/v
s (I53)
where s is frequencyindependent and real. To further
simplify things, let us assume that s
11
= s
22
= s
12
= 0.
Eqs. (I51) then simplies to
ba
[] = = s
21
[] = s
21
e
i
(I54)
where the propagation time = 2a/v We then have:
V
[
0
] = 2
_
Z
b
Z
a
s
21
_
0
dt e
i0t
(t ) (I55)
I
[
0
] = 2
_
Z
b
Z
a
s
21
_
0
dt e
i0t
(t +) (I56)
If we now do the time integrals and then take the limit
0
+
, we recover the results of the scattering approach
(cf. Eqs. (6.7a) and (6.7b)); in particular,
I
= 0. Note
that if we had set = 0 from the outset of the calculation,
we would have found that both
V
and
I
are nonzero!
6. Details for the twoport bosonic voltage amplier with
feedback
In this appendix, we provide more details on the calcu
lations for the bosonicamplierplusmirrors system dis
cussed in Sec. H. Given that the scattering matrix for
each of the three mirrors is given by Eq. (H2), and that
we know the reduced scattering matrix for the mirrorfree
system (cf. Eq. (6.10)), we can nd the reduced scattering
matrix and noise operators for the system with mirrors.
One nds that the reduced scattering matrix s is now
given by:
s =
1
M
(I57)
_
sin
z
+
Gsin
x
sin
y
cos
x
cos
z
sin
y
Gcos
x
cos
z
sin
x
+
Gsin
y
sin
z
_
where the denominator M describes multiple reection
processes:
M = 1 +
Gsin
x
sin
z
sin
y
(I58)
Further, the noise operators are given by:
_
T
a
T
b
_
=
1
M
_
cos
y
cos
z
G1 cos
z
sin
x
sin
y
Gcos
x
cos
y
sin
z
G1 cos
x
__
u
in
v
in
_
(I59)
The next step is to convert the above into the opamp
representation, and nd the gains and impedances of the
amplier, along with the voltage and current noises. The
voltage gain is given by:
V
=
_
Z
B
Z
A
2
G
1
Gsin
y
1 + sin
x
cos
x
1 sin
z
cos
z
(I60)
while the reverse gain is related to the voltage gain by
the simple relation:
I
=
sin
y
V
(I61)
The input impedance is determined by the amount of
reection in the input line and in the line going to the
cold load:
Z
in
= Z
a
1
Gsin
y
1 +
Gsin
y
1 + sin
z
1 sin
z
(I62)
Similarly, the output impedance only depends on the
amount of reection in the output line and the in the
coldload line:
Z
out
= Z
b
1 +
Gsin
y
1
Gsin
y
1 + sin
x
1 sin
x
(I63)
Note that as sin
y
tends to 1/
y
(I64)
Note that at the special value sin
y
= 1
G (which
allows one to reach the quantum limit), the power gain
93
is reduced by a factor of two compared to the reection
free case (i.e.
y
= 0).
Turning to the noise spectral densities, we assume the
optimal situation where both the auxiliary modes u
in
and
v
in
are in the vacuum state. We then nd that both
I
and
S
II
=
2
Z
a
_
1 sin
z
1 + sin
z
_
_
_
_
Gsin
2
y
+ cos(2
y
)
_
Gsin
y
1
_
2
_
_
_ (I65a)
S
V V
= Z
a
_
1 + sin
z
1 sin
z
_
_
3 + cos(2
y
)
4
1
2G
_
(I65b)
S
V I
=
y
1
Gsin
y
(I65c)
As could be expected, introducing reections in the input
line (i.e.
z
,= 0) has the opposite eect on
S
II
versus
S
V V
: if one is enhanced, the other is suppressed.
It thus follows that the product of noise spectral
densities appearing in the quantum noise constraint of
Eq. (5.88) is given by (taking the largeG limit):
S
II
S
V V
()
2
=
_
2 sin
2
y
_
1 +Gsin
2
y
_
1
Gsin
y
_
2
(I66)
Note that somewhat amazingly, this product (and hence
the amplier noise temperature) is completely indepen
dent of the mirrors in the input and output arms (i.e.
z
and
x
). This is a result of both
S
V V
and
S
II
having
no dependence on the output mirror (
x
), and their hav
ing opposite dependencies on the input mirror (
z
). Also
note that Eq. (I66) does indeed reduce to the result of
the last subsection: if
y
= 0 (i.e. no reections in the
line going to the cold load), the product
S
II
S
V V
is equal
to precisely twice the quantum limit value of ()
2
. For
sin(
y
) = 1/
Bien plus que des documents.
Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.
Annulez à tout moment.