Letter | Published:

Entanglement-free Heisenberg-limited phase estimation

Nature volume 450, pages 393396 (15 November 2007) | Download Citation

Abstract

Measurement underpins all quantitative science. A key example is the measurement of optical phase, used in length metrology and many other applications. Advances in precision measurement have consistently led to important scientific discoveries. At the fundamental level, measurement precision is limited by the number N of quantum resources (such as photons) that are used. Standard measurement schemes, using each resource independently, lead to a phase uncertainty that scales as 1/—known as the standard quantum limit. However, it has long been conjectured1,2 that it should be possible to achieve a precision limited only by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, dramatically improving the scaling to 1/N (ref. 3). It is commonly thought that achieving this improvement requires the use of exotic quantum entangled states, such as the NOON state4,5. These states are extremely difficult to generate. Measurement schemes with counted photons or ions have been performed with N ≤ 6 (refs 6–15), but few have surpassed the standard quantum limit12,14 and none have shown Heisenberg-limited scaling. Here we demonstrate experimentally a Heisenberg-limited phase estimation procedure. We replace entangled input states with multiple applications of the phase shift on unentangled single-photon states. We generalize Kitaev’s phase estimation algorithm16 using adaptive measurement theory17,18,19,20 to achieve a standard deviation scaling at the Heisenberg limit. For the largest number of resources used (N = 378), we estimate an unknown phase with a variance more than 10 dB below the standard quantum limit; achieving this variance would require more than 4,000 resources using standard interferometry. Our results represent a drastic reduction in the complexity of achieving quantum-enhanced measurement precision.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Quantum-mechanical noise in an interferometer. Phys. Rev. D 23, 1693–1708 (1981)

  2. 2.

    , & SU(2) and SU(1,1) interferometers. Phys. Rev. A 33, 4033–4054 (1986)

  3. 3.

    , & Quantum-enhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit. Science 306, 1330–1336 (2004)

  4. 4.

    , , & Optimal frequency measurements with maximally correlated states. Phys. Rev. A 54, R4649–R4652 (1996)

  5. 5.

    , & A quantum Rosetta stone for interferometry. J. Mod. Opt. 49, 2325–2338 (2002)

  6. 6.

    et al. Two-photon interference in a Mach-Zehnder interferometer. Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1348–1351 (1990)

  7. 7.

    , & Measurement of the de Broglie wavelength of a multiphoton wave packet. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2868–2871 (1999)

  8. 8.

    , & Measurement of the photonic de Broglie wavelength of entangled photon pairs generated by spontaneous parametric down-conversion. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 213601 (2002)

  9. 9.

    et al. De Broglie wavelength of a non-local four-photon state. Nature 429, 158–161 (2004)

  10. 10.

    , & Super-resolving phase measurements with a multiphoton entangled state. Nature 429, 161–164 (2004)

  11. 11.

    , , & Multiphoton path entanglement by nonlocal bunching. Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 090502 (2005)

  12. 12.

    et al. Creation of a six-atom ‘Schrödinger cat’ state. Nature 438, 639–642 (2005)

  13. 13.

    , , , & Observation of the four-photon de Broglie wavelength by state-projection measurement. Phys. Rev. A 74, 033812 (2006)

  14. 14.

    , , , & Beating the standard quantum limit with four-entangled photons. Science 316, 726–729 (2007)

  15. 15.

    et al. Time-reversal and super-resolving phase measurements. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 223601 (2007)

  16. 16.

    Quantum measurements and the Abelian stabilizer problem. Electr. Coll. Comput. Complex. 3, article no. 3 (1996)

  17. 17.

    Adaptive phase measurements of optical modes: Going beyond the marginal Q distribution. Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4587–4590 (1995)

  18. 18.

    & Optimal states and almost optimal adaptive measurements for quantum interferometry. Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5098–5101 (2000)

  19. 19.

    , , , & Adaptive homodyne measurement of optical phase. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 133602 (2002)

  20. 20.

    , & Optical coherent state discrimination using a closed-loop quantum measurement. Nature 446, 774–777 (2007)

  21. 21.

    Metrology with entangled states. Proc. SPIE 5893, 589310 (2005)

  22. 22.

    & Quantum Computation and Quantum Information (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000)

  23. 23.

    & Quantum communication complexity of establishing a shared reference frame. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 217905 (2003)

  24. 24.

    & Quantum methods for clock synchronization: beating the standard quantum limit without entanglement. Phys. Rev. A 72, 042301 (2005)

  25. 25.

    , & Quantum metrology. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 010401 (2006)

  26. 26.

    , , , & Optimal quantum circuits for general phase estimation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 090501 (2007)

  27. 27.

    & Semiclassical Fourier transform for quantum computation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3228–3231 (1996)

  28. 28.

    & Adaptive single-shot phase measurements: a semiclassical approach. Phys. Rev. A 56, 944–957 (1997)

  29. 29.

    et al. Quantum phase in interferometry. Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 4295–4298 (1996)

  30. 30.

    & Bootstrap Methods and Their Application Ch. 5 Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK. (1997)

  31. 31.

    Qualms about bootstrap confidence intervals. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 80, 360–361 (1985)

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Mitchell, D. Bulger and S. Lo for discussions. This work was supported by the Australian Research Council and the Queensland State Government.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Centre for Quantum Dynamics, Griffith University, Brisbane 4111, Australia

    • B. L. Higgins
    • , H. M. Wiseman
    •  & G. J. Pryde
  2. Centre for Quantum Computer Technology, Macquarie University, Sydney 2109, Australia

    • D. W. Berry
  3. School of Physics, University of Sydney, Sydney 2006, Australia

    • S. D. Bartlett
  4. Centre for Quantum Computer Technology, Griffith University, Brisbane 4111, Australia

    • H. M. Wiseman

Authors

  1. Search for B. L. Higgins in:

  2. Search for D. W. Berry in:

  3. Search for S. D. Bartlett in:

  4. Search for H. M. Wiseman in:

  5. Search for G. J. Pryde in:

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. J. Pryde.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06257

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.