Input-Output Theory

  • B. Yurke
Part of the Springer Series on Atomic, Optical, and Plasma Physics book series (SSAOPP, volume 27)

Abstract

In the early 1980’s calculations were performed on the degree of squeezing that could be achieved within cavity parametric amplifiers. These calculations indicated that the field inside the cavity could be squeezed by no more than a factor of two under steady state conditions [1]. As a result lore spread that cavities were bad for squeezing. It turns out, however, that because of a remarkable interference effect between the field that is reflected off of the input port mirror, and the field that — after entering the cavity — is squeezed and then re-emitted, the field external to the cavity can exhibit arbitrarily large amounts of squeezing: even though the field inside the cavity only exhibits a factor of two squeezing [2]. How to calculate the quantum statistical properties of the field exiting a cavity given the input field and the internal field had become an important issue that needed to be solved for the advancement of the squeezed state field. Works by Yurke and Denker [3], Yurke [4], and Collett and Gardner [5–7] were instrumental in showing the way. This is, in part, what input-output theory is about.

Keywords

Attenuation Propa Refraction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Refere nces

  1. 1.
    G.J. Milburn and D.F. Walls, Optics Commun. 39, 401 (1981)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Yurke, Phys. Rev. A 29, 408 (1984)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. Yurke and J.S. Denker, Phys. Rev. A 29, 1419 (1984)MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    B. Yurke, Phys. Rev. A 32, 300 (1985)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M.J. Collett and C.W. Gardiner, Phys. Rev. A 30, 1386 (1984).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    C.W. Gardiner and M.J. Collett, Phys. Rev. A 31, 3761 (1985)MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    C.W. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Quantum Noise ( Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York 2000 )MATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.M. Courty and S. Reynaud, Phys. Rev. A 46, 2766 (1992)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. Viviescas and G. Hackenbroich, Phys. Rev. A 67, 013805 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C.P. Search, S. Pötting, W. Zhang and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. A 66, 043616 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    J.N. Hollenhorst, Phys. Rev. D 19, 1669 (1979)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C.M. Caves, K.S. Thorne, R.W.P. Dreyer, V.D. Sandberg and M. Zimmermann, Rev. Mod. Phys. 52, 341 (1980)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    B. Yurke, Am. J. Phys. 52, 1099 (1984)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    B. Yurke, Am. J. Phys. 54, 1133 (1986)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    A.O. Caldeira and A.J. Leggett, Ann. Phys. 149, 374 (1983)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    C.M. Caves, Phys. Rev. D 26, 1817 (1982)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    H.P. Yuen and V.W.S. Chen, Opt. Lett. 8, 177 (1983)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J.H. Shapiro, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. QE-21, 237 (1985)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    B.L. Schumaker and C.M. Caves, Phys. Rev. A 31, 3093 (1985)MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    C.M. Caves and B.L. Schumaker, Phys. Rev. A 31, 3068 (1985)MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    B. Yurke, Phys. Rev. A 32, 311 (1985)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    M.J. Collett and R.B. Levien, Phys. Rev. A 43, 5068 (1991)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Yurke

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations