Abstract
Quantum optical coherence can be quantified only by accounting for both the particle and wavenature of light. For an ideal laser beam^{1,2,3}, the coherence can be thought of roughly as the number of photons emitted consecutively into the beam with the same phase. This number, \({\mathfrak{C}}\), can be much larger than the number of photons in the laser itself, μ. The limit for an ideal laser was thought to be of order μ^{2} (refs. ^{4,5}). Here, assuming only that a laser produces a beam with properties close to those of an ideal laser beam and that it has no external sources of coherence, we derive an upper bound on \({\mathfrak{C}}\), which is of order μ^{4}. Moreover, using the matrix product states method^{6}, we find a model that achieves this scaling and show that it could, in principle, be realized using circuit quantum electrodynamics^{7}. Thus, \({\mathfrak{C}}\) of order μ^{2} is only a standard quantum limit; the ultimate quantum limit—or Heisenberg limit—is quadratically better.
Your institute does not have access to this article
Relevant articles
Open Access articles citing this article.

Continuous Bose–Einstein condensation
Nature Open Access 08 June 2022

Proposal for a continuous wave laser with linewidth well below the standard quantum limit
Nature Communications Open Access 23 September 2021
Access options
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to the entire Nature family of 50+ journals
$29.99
monthly
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
$99.00
only $8.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
$32.00
All prices are NET prices.
Data availability
All data that support the plots within this paper and other findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Source data are provided with this paper.
Code availability
The iMPS codes used in this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.
References
McClung, F. J. & Hellwarth, R. W. Giant optical pulsations from ruby. J. Appl. Phys. 33, 828–829 (1962).
Glauber, R. J. The quantum theory of optical coherence. Phys. Rev. 130, 2529 (1963).
Carmichael, H. Statistical Methods in Quantum Optics 1 (Springer, 1999).
Schawlow, A. L. & Townes, C. H. Infrared and optical masers. Phys. Rev. 112, 1940–1949 (1958).
Wiseman, H. M. Light amplification without stimulated emission: beyond the standard quantum limit to the laser linewidth. Phys. Rev. A 60, 4083–4093 (1999).
PerezGarcia, D., Verstraete, F., Wolf, M. M. & Cirac, J. I. Matrix product state representations. Quantum Info. Comput. 7, 401–430 (2007).
Haroche, S., Brune, M. & Raimond, J. M. From cavity to circuit quantum electrodynamics. Nat. Phys. 16, 243–246 (2020).
Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S. & Maccone, L. Quantumenhanced measurements: beating the standard quantum limit. Science 306, 1330–1336 (2004).
Caves, C. M. Quantummechanical noise in an interferometer. Phys. Rev. D 23, 1693 (1981).
Yurke, B., McCall, S. L. & Klauder, J. R. SU(2) and SU(1,1) interferometers. Phys. Rev. A 33, 4033 (1986).
Berry, D., Hall, M. & Wiseman, H. Stochastic Heisenberg limit: optimal estimation of a fluctuating phase. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 113601 (2013).
Sayrin, C. et al. Realtime quantum feedback prepares and stabilizes photon number states. Nature 477, 73–77 (2011).
Chou, K. S. et al. Deterministic teleportation of a quantum gate between two logical qubits. Nature 561, 368–373 (2018).
Bartlett, S. D. & Wiseman, H. M. Entanglement constrained by superselection rules. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 097903 (2003).
Bartlett, S. D., Rudolph, T. & Spekkens, R. W. Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum information. Rev. Mod. Phys. 79, 555–609 (2007).
McCulloch, I. P. Infinite size density matrix renormalization group, revisited. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/pdf/0804.2509.pdf (2008).
Orús, R. A practical introduction to tensor networks: matrix product states and projected entangled pair states. Ann. Phys. 349, 117–158 (2014).
Schollwock, U. The densitymatrix renormalization group in the age of matrix product states. Ann. Phys. 326, 96–192 (2011).
Meiser, D., Ye, J., Carlson, D. R. & Holland, M. J. Prospects for a millihertzlinewidth laser. Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 163601 (2009).
Ketterle, W. When atoms behave as waves: Bose–Einstein condensation and the atom laser. Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 1131–1151 (2002).
Louisell, W. H. Quantum Statistical Properties of Radiation (Wiley, 1973).
Sargent, M., Scully, M. O. & Lamb, W. E. (eds) Laser Physics (AddisonWesley, 1974).
Vitiello, M. S. et al. Quantumlimited frequency fluctuations in a terahertz laser. Nat. Photon. 6, 525–528 (2012).
Åberg, J. Catalytic coherence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 150402 (2014).
Wiseman, H. M. & Milburn, G. J. Quantum Measurement and Control (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010).
Bandilla, A., Paul, H. & Ritze, H. H. Realistic quantum states of light with minimum phase uncertainty. Quantum Opt. J. Eur. Opt. Soc. B 3, 267–282 (1991).
Schön, C., Solano, E., Verstraete, F., Cirac, J. I. & Wolf, M. M. Sequential generation of entangled multiqubit states. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 110503 (2005).
Schön, C., Hammerer, K., Wolf, M. M., Cirac, J. I. & Solano, E. Sequential generation of matrixproduct states in cavity qed. Phys. Rev. A 75, 032311 (2007).
Jarzyna, M. & DemkowiczDobrzański, R. Matrix product states for quantum metrology. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 240405 (2013).
Manzoni, M. T., Chang, D. E. & Douglas, J. S. Simulating quantum light propagation through atomic ensembles using matrix product states. Nat. Commun. 8, 1743 (2017).
Streltsov, A., Adesso, G. & Plenio, M. B. Colloquium: quantum coherence as a resource. Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 041003 (2017).
Vaccaro, J. A., Anselmi, F., Wiseman, H. M. & Jacobs, K. Tradeoff between extractable mechanical work, accessible entanglement, and ability to act as a reference system, under arbitrary superselection rules. Phys. Rev. A 77, 032114 (2008).
Wiseman, H. M. How many principles does it take to change a light bulb … into a laser? Phys. Scr. 91, 033001 (2016).
Hughes, B. L. & Cooper, A. B. Nearly optimal multiuser codes for the binary adder channel. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 42, 387–398 (1996).
Gradshteyn, I. S. & Ryzhik, I. M. Table of Integrals, Series and Products 571 (Academic Press, 2014).
Sidje, R. Expokit: a software package for computing matrix exponentials. ACM Trans. Math. Softw. 24, 130–156 (1998).
D’Alessandro, D. Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics (CRC Press, 2007).
Acknowledgements
We thank I. Cirac, H. Carmichael, M. Mirrahimi, I. McCulloch, M. Hall and A. Tilloy for useful discussions. This work was supported by ARC Discovery Projects DP170101734, DP160102426 and DP190102633 and an Australian Government RTP Scholarship.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
H.M.W. conceived, acquired funding for and directed the project. D.W.B. had the key idea for Theorem 1. All authors contributed to the analytics. S.N.S. carried out the numerics. T.J.B. produced the figures. H.M.W. drafted the manuscript and T.J.B. and S.N.S. drafted the Supplementary Information. All authors contributed to revisions.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Illustration of the method for deriving the upper bound \({\mathfrak{C}}=\Theta ({\mu }^{4})\).
Time increases from the top to the bottom but is branched. Initially, we consider the cavity at time T in steady state, and the segment of the beam emitted since time T − τ. At an immediately following time T^{+} > T, we suppose an observer, Effie, can perform heterodyne filtering over the beam emitted in the interval [T − τ, T), to obtain a phase estimate ϕ_{F} of the cavity at time T. The state of the cavity, conditioned on her measurement is \({\rho }_{{\rm{c}}}^{{\phi }_{F}}\). Now, there are two ways a second observer, Rod, could measure the phase of the cavity (green arrows). The first method allowing the cavity to emit the beam up until time T^{+} + τ, upon which heterodyne retrofiltering could be performed over the interval (T^{+}, T^{+} + τ], yielding an estimate ϕ_{R} at time T^{+} + τ^{+}. The second would consist of a canonical phase measurement performed directly on the cavity at time T^{++} immediately following T^{+}, with outcome ϕ_{D}. Since the result ϕ_{R} cannot be better than ϕ_{D} as a phase estimate of ϕ_{F}, the upper bound on \({\mathfrak{C}}\) follows from known results on optimal covariant phase estimation.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Conceptual diagram of our laser model.
From the upper figure to the lower, one time step has passed, converting one pair of input qubits (pump and vacuum) into a new pair of output qubits (beam and sink), with position label q_{0} + 1. The indefinite length string of pairs of output qubits is described by an iMPS of bonddimension D, equal to the Hilbert space dimension of the laser cavity.
Extended Data Fig. 3 iMPS optimization results when the limit of a maximum \({\mathfrak{C}}\) is achieved.
We show the profiles of nonzero diagonals of iMPS matrices for D = 50 (left) and D = 100 (right), when the ansätze \({A}_{mn}^{[2]}=0\) and \({A}_{mn}^{[0]}=\,\text{const.}\,\) (for their allowed nonzero elements) are placed as constraints. The solid lines display an ansatz for the steadystate presented in the main text, \({\rho }_{m}^{{\rm{ansatz}}}\propto {\sin }^{4}(\pi \frac{m+1}{D+1})\).
Extended Data Fig. 4 Deviations from the ideal laser model (a coherent state with its phase undergoing pure diffusion) of the firstorder Glauber coherence function for our laser model.
For \({\mathcal{N}}=1\), the magnitude of the quantity \(\delta {g}_{{\rm{model}}{\rm{ideal}}}^{(1)}(s,t)\) (with t = 0 without loss of generality) is shown over ten coherence times. For increasing D, we see this difference is converging toward zero like a power law, which implies G^{(1)}ideality is satisfied for our laser model.
Extended Data Fig. 5 Deviations from the ideal laser model (a phasediffusing coherent state) of the secondorder Glauber coherence function for our laser model.
The global maxima of \(\delta {g}_{{\rm{ideal}}}^{(2)}(\tau ,s^{\prime} ,t^{\prime} ,t)\) versus the coherence (black diamonds) calculated for \(\{s^{\prime} ,t^{\prime} ,t\}\in [\tau ,\tau ]\). These were calculated employing interiorpoint optimizations of the iMPS forms for bond dimensions up to 250, where the iMPS forms of Glauber coherence functions can be found in the Methods. Some examples for \(\delta {g}_{{\rm{ideal}}}^{(2)}\), for particular choices of time arguments, are also presented for comparison for bond dimensions up to 1000, where one of these choices (blue circles) is indistinguishable from the numerically found maximum. Error bars are smaller than the symbol size for the black diamonds. Coloured lines are powerlaw fits to largeD points of these examples and the black line is \({{\mathfrak{C}}}^{1/2}\) for comparison purposes, showing that our definition of G^{(2)}ideality is satisfied.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Figs 1 and 2 and discussion.
Source data
Source Data Fig. 1
x–y data for main and inset plots in Fig. 1.
Source Data Fig. 2
Source data for the results in Fig. 2. Here, the first column always represents the t and the second represents \(\delta {G}_{{\rm{model}}1}^{(2)}\) in the first tab, \(\delta {G}_{{\rm{ideal}}1}^{(2)}\) in the second tab and \(\delta {G}_{{\rm{model}}{\rm{ideal}}}^{(2)}\) in the last tab.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 3
Multicolumn data for the iMPS matrices of the cases D = 50, 100 in Extended Data Fig. 3. Here the first column always represents the row index of the nonzero diagonal, the second represents A^{[0]}, the third represents A^{[1]}, the fourth represents A^{[3]}, and the fifth represents ρ_{ss}.
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 4
Source data for the D = 50, 100, 200 results in Extended Data Fig. 4. Here the first column always represents the time s and the second represents \(\delta {g}_{{\rm{model}}{\rm{ideal}}}^{(1)}(s,0)\).
Source Data Extended Data Fig. 5
Multicolumn data for the results in Extended Fig. 5. Here the first column always represents \({\mathfrak{C}}\), the second represents \(\delta {g}_{{\rm{model}}{\rm{ideal}}}^{(2)}(\tau ,\tau ,\tau ,\tau )\) (while the third column is its standard error), the fourth represents \(\delta {g}_{{\rm{model}}{\rm{ideal}}}^{(2)}(\tau ,(1\epsilon )\tau ,(1\epsilon )\tau ,\tau )\) (while the fifth column is its standard error), and the last represents \(\max [\delta {g}_{{\rm{model}}{\rm{ideal}}}^{(2)}]\).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Baker, T.J., Saadatmand, S.N., Berry, D.W. et al. The Heisenberg limit for laser coherence. Nat. Phys. 17, 179–183 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567020010493
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567020010493
Further reading

A step closer to atom lasers that stay on
Nature (2022)

Continuous Bose–Einstein condensation
Nature (2022)

Proposal for a continuous wave laser with linewidth well below the standard quantum limit
Nature Communications (2021)