1: %--------------------------------------------------------

2: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

3: %\documentstyle[aps]{revtex}

4: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

5: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,groupedaddress]{revtex4}

6: %\documentclass[aps,prl,preprint,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}

7: \documentclass[aps,prl,twocolumn,showpacs,groupedaddress]{revtex4}

8: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities

9: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}

10: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}

11: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B

12: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

13: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point

14: \usepackage{bm}% bold math

15: \usepackage{psfig,graphics}

16: %\usepackage{psfig,pstricks,pst-grad,fancybox,graphics}

17: \usepackage{latexsym}

18: \usepackage{amsmath}

19: \usepackage{amssymb}

20: \usepackage{enumerate}

21: \usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}

22: \usepackage{bbm}

23: %-----------------begin new commands ------------

24: \newcommand{\C}{\ensuremath{\mathbbm C}}

25: \newcommand{\R}{\ensuremath{\mathbbm R}}

26: \newcommand{\rot}{{\cal R}}

27: \newcommand{\OO}{{\cal O}}

28: \newcommand{\Bra}[1]{\ensuremath{\langle#1|}}

29: \newcommand{\bra}[1]{\ensuremath{\langle#1|}}

30: \newcommand{\Ket}[1]{\ensuremath{|#1\rangle}}

31: \newcommand{\ket}[1]{\ensuremath{|#1\rangle}}

32: \newcommand{\BraKet}[2]{\ensuremath{\langle #1|#2\rangle}}

33: \newcommand{\braket}[2]{\ensuremath{\langle #1|#2\rangle}}

34: \newcommand{\KetBra}[1]{\ensuremath{| #1 \rangle \langle #1 |}}

35: \newcommand{\ketbra}[1]{\ensuremath{| #1 \rangle \langle #1 |}}

36: \newcommand{\KetBraO}[3]{\ensuremath{| #1 \rangle_{#3}\langle #2 |}}

37: \newcommand{\Eins}{\ensuremath{\mathbbm 1}}

38: \newcommand{\eins}{\ensuremath{\mathbbm 1}}

39: \newcommand{\HH}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{H}}}

40: \newcommand{\WW}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{W}}}

41: \newcommand{\HS}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{HS}}}

42: \newcommand{\BH}{\ensuremath{\mathcal{B(H)}}}

43: \newcommand{\kommentar}[1]{}

44: \newcommand{\HSNorm}[2]{\ensuremath{\langle #1|#2\rangle_{HS}}}

45: \newcommand{\Mean}[1]{\ensuremath{\langle #1 \rangle}}

46: \newcommand{\mean}[1]{\ensuremath{{\langle #1 \rangle}}}

47: \newcommand{\qed}{\ensuremath{\hfill \Box}}

48: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

49: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

50: \newcommand{\ben}{\begin{displaymath}}

51: \newcommand{\een}{\end{displaymath}}

52: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

53: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

54: \newcommand{\bean}{\begin{eqnarray*}}

55: \newcommand{\eean}{\end{eqnarray*}}

56: \newcommand{\bc}{\begin{center}}

57: \newcommand{\ec}{\end{center}}

58: \newcommand{\bi}{\begin{itemize}}

59: \newcommand{\ei}{\end{itemize}}

60: \newcommand{\vecb}[1]{{\bf #1}}

61: \newcommand{\cf}{cf.}

62: 

63: %--------------------end new commonds

64: 

65: \bibliographystyle{apsrev}

66: 

67: \begin{document}

68: 

69: \title{Differential atom interferometry beyond the standard quantum limit}

70: 

71: \author{K. Eckert\mbox{$^{1}$}, P. Hyllus\mbox{$^{1,2}$},

72: D. Bru{\ss}\mbox{$^{1,3}$}, U.V. Poulsen\mbox{$^{1,4,5}$}, 

73: M.~Lewenstein\mbox{$^{1,6,}$}\footnote{also at Instituci\'o

74: Catalana de recerca i estudis avan\c cats.}, 

75: C. Jentsch\mbox{$^{7}$}, T.

76: M{\"u}ller\mbox{$^{7}$}, E.M. Rasel\mbox{$^{7}$}, and W.

77: Ertmer\mbox{$^{7}$}} 

78: \affiliation{ \mbox{$^{1}$}Institut f{\"u}r Theoretische Physik, Universit\"at Hannover, D-30167 Hannover, Germany.\\

79: \mbox{$^{2}$} The Blackett Lab -- QOLS, Imperial College London, London SW7 2BW, United Kingdom.\\

80: \mbox{$^{3}$}Institut f{\"u}r Theoretische Physik III, Universit{\"a}t D{\"u}sseldorf, D-40225 D{\"u}sseldorf, Germany.\\

81: \mbox{$^{4}$}Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit{\`a} di Trento, I-38050 Povo (TN), Italy;

82: and ECT$^*$, I-38050 Villazzano (TN), Italy.\\

83: \mbox{$^{5}$}Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Aarhus, DK-8000 Aarhus C., Denmark.\\

84: \mbox{$^{6}$}ICFO - Institut de Ci\`encies Fot\`oniques, 08034 Barcelona, Spain.\\

85: \mbox{$^{7}$}Institut f\"ur Quantenoptik, Universit{\"a}t Hannover, D-30167 Hannover, Germany. }

86: 

87: \date{\today}

88: 

89: \begin{abstract}

90: We analyze methods to go beyond the standard quantum limit for a class

91: of atomic interferometers, where the quantity of interest is the

92: difference of phase shifts obtained by two independent atomic

93: ensembles. An example is given by an atomic Sagnac interferometer,

94: where for two ensembles propagating in opposite directions in the

95: interferometer this phase difference encodes the angular velocity of the

96: experimental setup.

97: We discuss methods of squeezing separately or jointly

98: observables of the two atomic ensembles, and compare in detail

99: advantages and drawbacks of such schemes. In particular we show that the method of

100: joint squeezing may improve the variance by up to a factor of 2. We take into account

101: fluctuations of the number of atoms in both the preparation and the

102: measurement stage, and obtain bounds on the difference of

103: the numbers of atoms in the two ensembles, as well as on the detection

104: efficiency, which have to be fulfilled in order 

105: to surpass the standard quantum limit. 

106: Under realistic conditions,

107: the performance of both schemes can be improved

108: significantly by reading out the phase difference {\em via} a 

109: quantum non-demolition (QND) measurement.

110: Finally, we discuss a scheme using macroscopically entangled

111: ensembles.

112: 

113: \end{abstract}

114: 

115: \pacs{42.50.St, 42.50.Ct, 95.75.Kk, 42.81.Pa}

116: 

117: \maketitle

118: \date{\today}

119: \newpage

120: 

121: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% the beginning %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

122: \section{I. Introduction}

123: 

124: Comparing the phase shifts obtained in two independent interferometric

125: setups has several applications, prominent examples being the comparison of

126: atomic clocks \cite{atomicclocks}, and Sagnac interferometry to discriminate

127: between rotations and accelerations \cite{jentsch}. In addition, the 

128: comparison of gravitational forces at different points in space or for

129: different atomic species \cite{weitz} allows to test predictions of possible

130: violations of Einstein's general relativity \cite{snadden:1998,kasevich:2002}.

131: For such {\em differential interferometers}, the

132: quantity of interest is encoded in either the difference, or the sum

133: of the individual phase shifts. 

134: 

135: Especially for the measurement of inertial forces, atom interferometers

136: promise high resolution. Here atom optical elements like beam splitters

137: and mirrors can be realized using Raman transitions between two

138: atomic ground state levels \cite{KasevichChu}.

139: The accumulated phase difference

140: between the interferometer paths is encoded in the number

141: difference of atoms in the exit ports labeled by different

142: internal states. For example, this can be measured by state

143: selective fluorescence detection. Such schemes have already been

144: successfully implemented to measure inertial forces and the

145: earth's gravity with a high accuracy~\cite{KasevichChu,peters}. In

146: Sagnac atom interferometry, the goal is to measure the phase shift

147: which occurs when the laser setup (laboratory frame) is rotating

148: relative to the frame of the freely flying atomic ensembles. This phase shift is given by

149: $\phi^{\rm at} =4\pi{\bf A}\;\mbox{\boldmath $\Omega$}\;m_{\rm

150: at}/h$ as compared to $\phi^{\rm light}=4\pi{\bf A}\;

151: \mbox{\boldmath $\Omega$}/(\lambda c)$ for laser interferometers,

152: where $m_{\rm at}$ is the mass of the atoms, ${\bf A}$ is the

153: oriented enclosed area of the interferometer, \mbox{\boldmath

154: $\Omega$} is the vector of angular velocity, and $\lambda$ is the wavelength of

155: the light. For an atomic gyroscope working with $^{87}$Rb, the phase

156: $\phi^{\rm at}$ is $10^{11}$ times larger than the corresponding phase

157: $\phi^{\rm light}$ of a light interferometer enclosing the

158: same area and operating at $\lambda=10^3\;$nm. Hence, atom

159: interferometers promise an enormously improved resolution for rotation

160: measurements as compared to ``classical'' photonic devices.

161: 

162: The Sagnac phase can be measured by letting two

163: ensembles of atoms pass through the interferometer from

164: opposite sides. They obtain then phase shifts $\pm\phi$

165: due to the rotation of the laboratory frame, where the sign depends

166: on the direction of propagation of the ensembles, and 

167: a common phase shift $\theta$ due to effects such as 

168: %to environmental noise, 

169: an acceleration of the setup. 

170: Subtracting the phases of the two ensembles yields the desired phase

171: $2\phi$, which encodes the rotation of the setup around an axis perpendicular

172: to the plane of the interferometer. 

173: Collisions between the two ensembles in the

174: interferometer can safely be neglected due

175: to the low atomic densities of the ensembles.

176: 

177: In the standard quantum limit for phase measurements in atomic

178: interference experiments, the variance of the phase due

179: to quantum projection noise is given by 

180: $(\Delta\phi)^2_{\rm SQL}=1/N,$ where $N$ is the number of 

181: atoms in a sample. By

182: feeding the interferometer with non-classical states of atoms, the

183: so-called squeezed states, this limit can be surpassed,

184: with a fundamental bound given by

185: $(\Delta\phi)^2_{\rm H}=1/N^2,$ the so-called

186: Heisenberg limit \cite{inter,heisenberg,oblak}. 

187: Squeezed atomic states can be produced by a quantum non-demolition

188: (QND) interaction of the atoms with a light beam \cite{QND}, or by 

189: absorption of non-classical

190: states of the light \cite{absorbnonclassical}. 

191: Squeezed states of atomic ensembles might also be useful as

192: quantum memory for states of light \cite{memory}. 

193: %The QND scheme has been studied

194: %also with respect to the resistance to noise \cite{recent,kuzmichPRL}.

195: 

196: It has been shown that for such squeezed states atoms within an ensemble are

197: entangled with each other \cite{Soerensen}. In addition to this

198: entanglement on a microscopic level, it is also possible to

199: entangle macroscopic degrees of freedom of two atomic ensembles

200: with a similar interaction \cite{Duan1,Polzik}. This in principle

201: enables teleportation of the macroscopic state of an ensemble.

202: Furthermore, it has been shown recently that such macroscopically

203: entangled ensembles can improve the efficiency of measurements 

204: of the components of a magnetic field \cite{Vivi}. 

205: Here, we try to exploit microscopic as well as macroscopic 

206: entanglement between two atomic ensembles in the context 

207: of differential interferometry, where we focus especially on an 

208: atomic Sagnac interferometer setup.

209: 

210: In Section II we calculate the phase variance for a differential

211: interferometer using non-squeezed coherent states in order to

212: introduce our methodology. We show also how to include number

213: fluctuations into the calculations. These will turn out to be important later.

214: In Section III we show that the phase uncertainty can be reduced by

215: feeding the interferometer with individually squeezed ensembles. In

216: Section IV we consider squeezing of a joint observable of both ensembles.

217: In Section V we discuss how decoherence affects the interferometer,

218: and in Section VI we compare the variances of the

219: schemes discussed so far for realistic parameters. Finally, in

220: Section VII the use of macroscopically entangled states in the

221: interferometer is discussed.

222: 

223: %==========================================================

224: \section{II. Coherent input states}

225: For a single atom we define a pseudo spin-$1/2$ through two ground state

226: atomic hyperfine levels $\ket{1}$ and $\ket{2}$ \cite{jentsch,kasevich:2002} 

227: by introducing the relevant spin operators as

228: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eqs:defsigma}

229: \hat{\sigma}_z&=&\frac{1}{2}\left(\ket{1}\bra{1}-\ket{2}\bra{2}\right)\;,

230: \quad

231: \hat{\sigma}_x=\frac{1}{2}\left(\ket{1}\bra{2}+\ket{2}\bra{1}\right)\:,

232: \nonumber\\

233: \hat{\sigma}_y&=&\frac{1}{2i}\left(\ket{1}\bra{2}-\ket{2}\bra{1}\right).

234: \end{eqnarray}

235: We will subsequently only consider the collective spin

236: $\hat{\bf J}=\sum_{i=1}^{N_J}\hat{\mbox{\boldmath $\sigma$}}{\,(i)}$

237: for the first, and in analogy $\hat{\bf L}$ for the second ensemble;

238: $N_{J,L}$ are the number of atoms in the ensembles $J$ and $L$, respectively.

239: The measurements that can typically be performed

240: in atom interferometry are population measurements

241: of the levels $\ket{1}$ and $\ket{2}$ by fluorescence

242: techniques \cite{Kasevich}. Hence, only the $z$

243: components of the collective spin vectors can be

244: measured directly.

245: 

246: \subsection{II.A. Description of the interferometer}

247: 

248: Initially, all the atoms are assumed to be prepared in the

249: state $\ket{1}$, leading to the following expectation

250: value and variance of the collective spin vector:

251: \bea

252:     \mean{\hat{\bf J}}=\frac{N_J}{2}\hat{\bf z},\quad

253:     (\Delta \hat{J}_z)^2=0,\quad (\Delta \hat{J}_{x,y})^2=\frac{N_J}{4},

254:     \label{eqs:Jin}

255: \eea

256: Analogous values are obtained for the ensemble $\hat{\bf L}$.

257: %%The state from

258: %%Eq.~\ref{eqs:Jin} can be represented by a cone in three

259: %%dimensional space, see Fig.~\ref{fig:Jin}.

260: Corresponding to the

261: definitions in Eq.~(\ref{eqs:defsigma}), the $z$ axis denotes the

262: difference of the number of atoms in states $\ket{1}$ and

263: $\ket{2}$, whereas the phase difference between these two states

264: is encoded in the $x-y$ plane. The uncertainties stem from

265: the single particle uncertainties, and correspond to a state with a {\em fixed}

266: number of atoms.

267: %

268: %%\begin{figure}[h]

269: %%\includegraphics[width=4cm]{Jin}

270: %%\caption{Initial state of the atomic ensembles.}

271: %%\label{fig:Jin}

272: %%\end{figure}

273: %

274: 

275: A typical interferometer sequence used for the measurement of

276: inertial forces consists of three atom--light interactions as

277: shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:AI}. The first beam splitting %$\pi/2$

278: Raman pulse transfers all the atoms from the ground state

279: $\ket{1}$ to the superposition

280: $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\ket{1}+\ket{2})$. Atoms transfered to state

281: $\ket{2}$ obtain a momentum kick of two photon recoil

282: if the two Raman lasers are counter-propagating, so

283: that the partial waves delocalize, as depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:AI}. The

284: second pulse exchanges the populations,

285: $\ket{1}\leftrightarrow\ket{2}$, and deflects the partial waves.

286: Finally, they are recombined  in the last interaction zone, acting as a

287: beam splitter. %again a $\pi/2$

288: %pulse.

289: %

290: \begin{figure}[th]

291: \includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{AI_bw}

292: \caption{Scheme of the atom interferometer. $\frac{\pi}2$ and $\pi$

293: label the beamsplitting and the mirror pulses, respectively. The populations

294: in the two exit ports are detected state-selectively {\it via} fluorescence

295: measurements.

296: }

297: \label{fig:AI}

298: \end{figure}

299: %

300: These pulses can be represented as rotations of the collective

301: spin vectors $\mean{\hat{\bf J}}$ and $\mean{\hat{\bf L}}$ around an axis in the $x-y$

302: plane, the angle being given by $\pi/2$ for beam splitters and by

303: $\pi$ for mirrors. For a fixed coordinate system the angle between

304: the $x$ axis and the rotation axis is given by the laser phase

305: \cite{atominterferometry}. The laser phases change if the setup (laboratory frame)

306: rotates with respect to the path of the freely flying ensembles,

307: which causes the Sagnac phase shift. This

308: change corresponds to a rotation of the collective spin vectors in

309: the $x-y$ plane around the $z$ direction.

310: 

311: In order to make the scheme applicable to a more general scenario for

312: differential interferometers, we model it as follows for each of the

313: ensembles labeled by $\hat{\bf J}$ and $\hat{\bf L}$, respectively:

314: the first beam splitter rotates each collective spin

315: vector by $\pi/2$ around the $y$ axis, then we collect all the

316: phase shifts occurring in the interferometer in rotations around $z$

317: of $\hat{\vecb{J}}$ and $\hat{\vecb{L}}$ by $\Phi_J$ and $\Phi_L$,

318: respectively. Finally, a $\pi$ and a $\pi/2$ pulse, both 

319: around $x$, implement the mirror and the final

320: beam splitter, respectively. These last two pulses can

321: be combined to a single rotation around the $x$ axis by $-\pi/2$.

322: %

323: \begin{figure}[h]

324: %\includegraphics[width=7cm]{CS}

325: \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{CS_bunt}

326: \caption{(Color online) Interferometric scheme for a coherent input state:

327: (a) collective spin after the first beam splitter, (b) the total phase $\phi$

328: accumulated in the interferometer results in a rotation around $z$,

329: before (c) a final rotation around $x$ by $-\pi/2$ implements the 

330: mirror and the final beam splitter, encoding the phase in the 

331: $z$ direction.}

332: \label{fig:CS}

333: \end{figure}

334: %

335: All relevant interferometric steps are described in Fig.~\ref{fig:CS},

336: where the atomic spin vector is depicted together with a disc 

337: representing the corresponding uncertainties of the spin operators.

338: To simplify notation we will take the state after

339: the first beam splitter as the initial state:

340: $\hat{\vecb{J}}^{\rm in}=\rot_y(\pi/2)\hat{\vecb{J}}$, see Fig. \ref{fig:CS}(a).

341: Here $\rot_{i}(\alpha)$, $i\in\{x,y,z\}$, is the matrix rotating a vector

342: by the angle $\alpha$ around the direction $\hat{\bf e}_i$. 

343: In the Heisenberg picture, and neglecting collisions between the atoms

344: within the ensemble, the spin operator changes according to 

345: $\hat{{\bf J}}^{\rm out}=\rot_x(-\pi/2)\rot_z(\Phi_J)\hat{{\bf J}}^{\rm in}$.

346: This leads to

347: \be

348:     \hat{{\bf J}}^{\rm out}=\left(

349:     \begin{array}{c}

350:         \hat{J}_x^{\,\rm in}\cos\Phi_J -\hat{J}_y^{\,\rm in}\sin\Phi_J \\

351:         \hat{J}_z^{\rm in}\\

352:         -\hat{J}_x^{\,\rm in}\sin\Phi_J -\hat{J}_y^{\,\rm in}\cos\Phi_J 

353:     \end{array}

354:     \right).

355: \ee

356: It is also possible to consider a balanced atom interferometer

357: in which all rotations are around the $x$ axis. In this

358: case, an extra $\pi/2$ shift around $z$ leads to the same result.

359: The advantage of the extra pulse is that for the initial state of

360: Eq.~(\ref{eqs:Jin})

361: \be

362:     \mean{\hat{J}_z^{\rm out}}=-\frac{N_J}{2}\sin\Phi_J\approx-\frac{N_J}{2}\Phi_J

363: \ee

364: for small angles $\Phi_J$, while with the unmodified balanced

365: scheme $\mean{\hat{J}_z^{\rm out}}$ would be proportional

366: to $\cos\Phi_J$, and hence sensitive to $\Phi_J$ 

367: only in second order around $\Phi_J=0$.

368: 

369: As explained in the introduction, the phase

370: will be given by $\Phi_J=\phi+\theta$ for $\hat{\bf J}$

371: and by $\Phi_L=-\phi+\theta$ for $\hat{\bf L}$, because the

372: Sagnac phase $\phi$ takes a different sign, depending on

373: direction in which the ensemble passes the interferometer.

374: We define the phase operator for the

375: case of coherent states (cs) as

376: \be

377:     \hat{\phi}_{\rm cs}=-\frac{\hat{J}_z^{\rm out}}{N_J}+\frac{\hat{L}_z^{\rm out}}{N_L}

378:     \label{eqs:phiCS}

379: \ee

380: and obtain to the first order in $\phi$ and $\theta$

381: \bea

382:     \mean{\hat{\phi}_{\rm cs}}&=&\phi \\

383:     (\Delta\hat{\phi}_{\rm cs})^2&=&\frac{1}{4N_J}+\frac{1}{4N_L}.

384: \eea

385: The variance of $\hat{\phi}_{\rm cs}$ corresponds to

386: the standard quantum limit. Note that

387: $\theta$ can be obtained in an analogous way.

388: %the same way merely by changing a sign.

389: From the definition it is obvious that determining the

390: number of atoms is important for the calculation of the

391: phase shift. A major source of error will come from fluctuations

392: in the number of atoms of the ensembles and hence we will discuss

393: how to include this process into the calculations in the next section.

394: 

395: %----------------------------------------------------------------

396: \subsection{II.B. Number fluctuations}

397: There are two sources of deviations of the number of atoms:

398: the preparation process and the number measurement process. The atomic

399: ensembles produced from the source are best described as a statistical mixture

400: of states with different atom numbers, but we will assume that the 

401: final number measurement projects

402: onto a number state with $N_J$ and $N_L$ atoms in the two

403: ensembles. Defining $\bar{N}=(N_J+N_L)/2$, we assume that

404: $|N_J-N_L|=\gamma\sqrt{\bar{N}}$, which reflects the variances of

405: the number operators $\hat{N}_{J,L}$ of the ensembles after the

406: production. Thus, $\gamma$ is the parameter which describes how 

407: well the atom numbers in the two ensembles match.

408: 

409: We treat the number measurements by introducing operators

410: $\delta \hat{N}$ with

411: \be

412:     \mean{\delta \hat{N}}=0,\quad [\Delta(\delta \hat{N})]^2=\alpha N,

413: \ee where $\alpha$ describes the quality of the number

414: measurement. For fluorescence measurements, $\alpha^{-1}$ is given

415: by the mean number of times an atom goes through the fluorescence

416: cycle and scatters a photon which subsequently is registered in the detectors

417: \cite{numbers}. Typical values in nowadays experiments 

418: are $\alpha^{-1}\approx 50\ldots100$. We replace $N_J$ by

419: $N_J^0+\delta \hat{N}_{J}^{(1)}+\delta \hat{N}_{J}^{(2)}$ and $\hat{J}_z^{\rm out}$ by

420: $\hat{J}_z^{{\rm out},0}+(\delta \hat{N}_{J}^{(1)}-\delta \hat{N}_{J}^{(2)})/2$. $N_J^0$

421: refers to the actual number that would have been

422: measured in perfect number projection measurements, and in $\delta\hat{N}_J^{(i)}$

423: the index $i$ corresponds to the atomic levels $\ket{i}$.

424: 

425: With these substitutions, we obtain

426: \bea

427:     \mean{\hat{\phi}_{\rm cs}}&=&\phi

428:         -\alpha\Big(\frac{1}{N_J^0}+\frac{1}{N_L^0}\Big)\\

429:     (\Delta\hat{\phi}_{\rm cs})^2&=&\frac{1}{4N_J^0}+\frac{1}{4N_L^0}

430:         +\alpha\Big(\frac{1}{N_J^0}+\frac{1}{N_L^0}\Big),

431: \eea

432: where terms of higher order have been neglected.

433: The contribution from the number fluctuations is in

434: agreement with Ref.~\cite{numbers}.

435: The expectation value of $\hat{\phi}_{\rm cs}$

436: is shifted for $\alpha\neq 0$. As this shift is 

437: of the order of the second term in 

438: $(\Delta\hat{\phi}_{\rm cs})^2$, it is of second order 

439: of the standard deviation only, 

440: and can thus safely be neglected. 

441: From the expressions it is clear that $\alpha\ll 1$ is 

442: required in order to reach the fundamental limit 

443: for the phase resolution using coherent input states.

444: 

445: In the following, we will drop the superscript $0$ on the

446: atom number, as long as there is no danger of confusion.

447: 

448: %================================================================

449: \section{III. Separately squeezed ensembles}

450: 

451: It is known that by taking squeezed input states

452: it is possible to surpass the standard quantum limit

453: in interferometry \cite{inter}. In this section, we

454: consider the case where both ensembles are squeezed

455: separately with the method introduced in \cite{QND},

456: {\it i.e.}, by a QND interaction with a laser beam shortly

457: after the first beam splitter.

458: 

459: \subsection{III.A. Squeezing a single ensemble}

460: 

461: We assume to have the situation of Fig.~\ref{levels},

462: {\em i.e.}, the electromagnetic field mode $a_{1}$

463: couples states $\ket{1}$ and $\ket{3}$,

464: and $a_{2}$

465: couples states $\ket{2}$ and $\ket{4}$.

466: Here transitions $\ket{1}\leftrightarrow\ket{4}$

467: and $\ket{2}\leftrightarrow\ket{3}$

468: have to be suppressed to the first order in the

469: coupling constant (\cite{QND}, see also the discussion

470: in Section V).

471: %[Here we follow the

472: %first calculation of \cite{QND} which is for

473: %an ensemble in a running mode cavity. The second

474: %approach deals with flying ensembles through

475: %which a laser is sent. Effectively, both approaches

476: %should reach the same result except for a $Q$ factor

477: %from the cavity somewhere is the formulas.]

478: \begin{figure}[h]

479: \includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{levels2}

480: \caption{For the QND interaction, the levels $\ket{1}$ and $\ket{2}$

481: 	are coupled off-resonantly to states $\ket{3}$ and $\ket{4}$.}

482: \label{levels}

483: \end{figure}

484: For the light, an effective spin vector can be defined, the so-called

485: Stokes vector. Its components are given by

486: %The light can also be described by a spin vector through

487: \begin{eqnarray}

488: \hat{S}_z&=&\frac{1}{2}\left(\hat{a}_1^{\dagger}\hat{a}_1-\hat{a}_2^{\dagger}\hat{a}_2\right),

489: \ 

490: \hat{S}_x=\frac{1}{2}\left(\hat{a}_1^{\dagger}\hat{a}_2+\hat{a}_2^{\dagger}\hat{a}_1\right),

491: \\

492: \hat{S}_y&=&\frac{1}{2i}\left(\hat{a}_1^{\dagger}\hat{a}_2-\hat{a}_2^{\dagger}\hat{a}_1\right),

493: \end{eqnarray}

494: where $\hat{a}_1^{\dagger}$ and $\hat{a}_2^{\dagger}$ create a photon in mode $a_1$ and $a_2$,

495: respectively.

496: %If $a_1$ and $a_2$ correspond to orthogonal linearly

497: %polarized modes,

498: $\hat{S}_z$ measures the difference of photons in the two modes.

499: %$S_x$ the difference of photons with $45^{\circ}$ or

500: %$135^{\circ}$ linear polarization, and $S_y$ the difference

501: %of photons with orthogonal circular polarization.

502: By an appropriate choice of the parameters, the

503: Hamiltonian describing the interaction of the light with the

504: first atomic

505: ensemble can be brought to the form \cite{QND}

506: \begin{equation}

507:   \hat{H}=\hbar\Omega_J \hat{S}_z \hat{J}_z,

508:   \label{HQND}

509: \end{equation}

510: with a frequency $\Omega_J$.

511: Due to the interaction, the collective spin vector of the

512: atoms is rotated around the $z$ axis by $\chi_J \hat{S}_z$,

513: %	$\rot_z(\chi_J \hat{S}_z)$

514: %=\left(

515: %		\begin{array}{ccc}

516: %			\cos(\chi_J \hat{S}_z) & - \sin(\chi_J \hat{S}_z) & 0\\

517: %			\sin(\chi_J \hat{S}_z) & \cos(\chi_J \hat{S}_z) & 0\\

518: %			0 & 0 & 1	

519: %		\end{array}

520: %	\right), 

521: %\ee

522: with the atom--photon coupling $\chi_J=\Omega_J t$ and the effective interaction

523: time $t$.

524: The Stokes vector undergoes the same variation with

525: $\chi_J \hat{S}_z$ replaced by $\chi_J \hat{J}_z$. This 

526: rotation of the Stokes vector is due to the Faraday effect of the light 

527: passing the atoms, while the rotation of the atomic spin vector is due

528: to an AC Stark shift originating from the light field. The coupling

529: $\chi_J$ is given by \cite{QND}

530: \be

531: \chi_J=2 g^2\frac{L}{c}\frac{\Delta}{\frac14\Gamma^2+\Delta^2},

532: \quad g=\sqrt{\frac{\omega d^2}{2\hbar\epsilon_0 A L}},

533: \label{eq:chi}

534: \ee

535: where $A$ and $L$ are cross section and length of the atomic

536: sample, $\Gamma$ and $d$ are line-width and dipole moment 

537: of the atomic transition, respectively,

538: and $\Delta$ is the detuning from

539: the atomic resonance frequency $\omega$.

540: 

541: After the interaction,

542: \be

543:     \hat{S}_y^{\rm out}=\sin(\chi_J \hat{J}_z)\hat{S}_x^{\rm in}+\cos(\chi_J \hat{J}_z)\hat{S}_y^{\rm in},

544: \ee

545: and if initially

546: \bea

547:     \mean{\hat{\bf S}^{\rm in}}=\frac{n_{\! J}}{2}\hat{\bf x},\quad

548:     (\Delta \hat{S}_x^{\rm in})^2=0,\quad (\Delta \hat{S}_{y,z}^{\rm in})^2

549: 	=\frac{n_{\! J}}{4},

550:     \label{eqs:Sin}

551: \eea

552: where $n_{\! J}$ is the number of photons in the ensemble $\hat{\vecb{J}}$,

553: then we can effectively replace $\hat{S}_x^{\;\rm in}$ by its macroscopic

554: expectation value $n_{\! J}/2$. Furthermore, developing the

555: trigonometric expressions and assuming that

556: $N_J\chi_J^2\ll 1$, we obtain in leading order

557: \be

558:     \hat{S}_y^{\rm out}\approx\frac{n_{\! J}\chi}{2}\hat{J}_z^{\rm in}+\hat{S}_y^{\rm in}.

559: \ee

560: Hence a measurement of the $y$ component of the

561: outgoing light vector gives information about $\mean{\hat{J}_z}$,

562: while $\hat{J}_z$ itself is not affected by the rotation around

563: the $z$ axis. 

564: 

565: If such a QND measurement is performed after the 

566: first beam splitter of the interferometer, then the operator

567: \be

568: 	\hat{J}'_z\equiv\hat{J}_z^{\rm out}

569: 		-\frac{2}{n_{\! J}\chi_J}\hat{S}_y^{\rm out}

570: \ee

571: measures the difference between the $z$ component of

572: the ensemble's atomic spin vector after the 

573: second beam splitter and the estimated value after the 

574: first one. The fluctuations of this operator are 

575: reduced as compared to $\hat{J}_z^{\rm out}$ \cite{QND},

576: while the fluctuations of $\hat{J}_y$ are enlarged,

577: which is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:SS}. Hence,

578: the state of the atomic spin vector is squeezed

579: in the $z$ direction.

580: 

581: %In effect, this knowledge can be used by replacing

582: %$\hat{J}_z^{\rm out}\to \hat{J}_z^{\rm out}

583: %-\frac{2}{n_J\chi_J}\hat{S}_y^{\rm out}$,

584: %because only the difference between the $z$ component 

585: %$\frac2{n_J\chi_J}\hat{S}_y^{\rm out}$

586: %of the atomic spin vector after the projection measurement of the light 

587: %directly before the interferometer, and $\hat{J}_z^{\rm out}$ is of 

588: %interest to the phase measurement.

589: 

590: \subsection{III.B. Modified interferometric scheme}

591: 

592: We modify the scheme introduced in Section II by 

593: inserting the QND interaction shortly after the first

594: beam splitter, followed by an extra rotation

595: around $x$ by $\pi/2$, which rotates the

596: uncertainty ellipse such that the phase uncertainty is reduced

597: as desired, cf. Fig. \ref{fig:SS}.

598: In the experiment, the latter pulse must not transfer

599: momentum to the particles, which can be achieved

600: by using co-propagating Raman lasers for this step,

601: provided that the two transition frequencies are 

602: approximately equal, so that the two recoil momenta

603: cancel in the transitions.

604: %by shining in the two lasers from the same side.

605: \begin{figure}[h]

606: %\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{SS}

607: \includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{SS_bunt}

608: \caption{(Color online) The interferometric scheme for squeezed input states:

609: (a) collective spin after the first beam splitter, (b) the 

610: QND measurement prepares a spin squeezed state which (c) is rotated

611: around $x$ by $\pi/2$; step (d)$\to$(e) as step (b)$\to$(c) in 

612: Fig.~\ref{fig:CS}.}

613: \label{fig:SS}

614: \end{figure}

615: 

616: The outgoing spin vector now is calculated as

617: $\hat{\bf J}^{\rm out}=\rot_x(-\pi/2)\rot_z(\Phi_J)\rot_x(\pi/2)

618: \rot_z(\chi \hat{S}_z)\hat{\bf J}^{\rm in}$,

619: %where ${\bf J}^{\rm in}$

620: %is again assumed to be the state of Eq.~(\ref{eqs:Jin})

621: %rotated by $\rot_y(\pi/2)$ to point along the $x$ axis,

622: and in analogy for the second ensemble $\hat{\bf L}$, with

623: corresponding Stokes vector $\hat{\bf T}$.

624: 

625: In comparison to Eq.~(\ref{eqs:phiCS}), $\hat{J}_z^{\rm out}$

626: now has to be corrected to incorporate the spin squeezing (ss)

627: as described above:

628: \bea

629:     \hat{\phi}_{\rm ss}&=&-\frac{1}{N_J}\Big(\hat{J}_z^{\rm out}

630:         -\frac{2}{n_{\! J}\chi_J}\hat{S}_{y}^{\rm out}\Big)\nonumber\\

631:     &&+\frac{1}{N_L}\Big(\hat{L}_z^{\rm out}

632:         -\frac{2}{n_{\! L}\chi_L}\hat{T}_{y}^{\rm out}\Big).

633:     \label{eqs:phiSS}

634: \eea

635: Calculating the expectation value and variance as

636: before yields

637: \bea

638:     \mean{\hat{\phi}_{\rm ss}}&=&\phi

639:         -\alpha\Big(\frac{1}{N_J}+\frac{1}{N_L}\Big)

640: 		\label{eqn:meansepsq} \\

641:     (\Delta\hat{\phi}_{\rm ss})^2&=&\frac{1}{n\chi^2}

642:     \Big(\frac{1}{N_J^2}+\frac{1}{N_L^2}\Big)

643:         +\alpha\Big(\frac{1}{N_J}+\frac{1}{N_L}\Big).

644:         \label{eqn:varsepsq}

645: \eea

646: Here it has been assumed $n_J=n_L=:n$ and $\chi_J=\chi_L=:\chi$.

647: Deviations from these assumptions enter the variance only in higher

648: order terms as long as $||\chi_J|-|\chi_L||/(|\chi_J|+|\chi_L|)\ll1$,

649: and similar for $n_J$.

650: Further assumptions leading to these expressions are \mbox{$\bar{N}\chi^2\ll 1$}

651: as mentioned before, as well as \mbox{

652: $n\chi^2\ll \sqrt{8}\cdot[\sqrt{\bar{N}}(\theta^2+\phi^2)]^{-1}$}.

653: Now, provided that $\alpha$ is small enough, the variance is dominated

654: by the first two terms scaling as $N_{J/L}^{-2}$. They originate from the 

655: projection noise of the light, and in principle allow

656: to improve the resolution below the standard quantum limit. However, 

657: $n\chi^2$ equals, except for a factor of order unity, the fraction of

658: atoms which are lost due to spontaneous processes during the squeezing 

659: process, \cf~Section V. Thus,

660: $n\chi^2\ll1$ is necessary, and even though we obtained a Heisenberg-like

661: scaling $(\Delta\hat{\phi}_{\rm ss})^2\sim 1/N_{J,L}^2$,

662: we are far from reaching the Heisenberg limit.

663: 

664: Furthermore, as it becomes clear from the second term, the resolution

665: is limited by the accuracy of the fluorescence number measurements.

666: These measurements are necessary in any case to determine the 

667: phase, because $\mean{\hat{J}_z^{\rm out}}$ and $\mean{\hat{L}_z^{\rm out}}$

668: have to be rescaled properly. However, $\hat{J}_z$ and $\hat{L}_z$ itself

669: can be measured using another QND interaction. As will be shown in the next

670: section, this reduces the dependence on the quality of 

671: the number measurements.

672: 

673: %--------------------------------------------------------------------

674: \subsection{III.C. QND output measurement}

675: Let us consider now a modification of the scheme using 

676: squeezed states, where a second QND laser beam is sent

677: through each ensemble shortly after the last beam splitter. 

678: We define

679: \bea

680:     \hat{\phi}_{\rm ss+}=-\frac{1}{N_J}\frac{2}{n\chi}

681:     \Big(\hat{S}_{y,r}^{\rm out}-\hat{S}_{y}^{\rm out}\Big)\nonumber\\

682:     +\frac{1}{N_L}\frac{2}{n\chi}\Big(\hat{T}_{y,r}^{\rm out}

683:     -\hat{T}_{y}^{\rm out}\Big)

684:     \label{eqs:phiSSQ},

685: \eea

686: where the extra index $+$ is supposed to indicate the 

687: additional QND measurement. Furthermore, $\hat{\vecb{S}}_r$ and 

688: $\hat{\vecb{T}}_r$ correspond to individually 

689: prepared light pulses used to read out $\hat{J}_z$ and $\hat{L}_z$,

690: respectively.

691: The resulting expectation value and variance in leading order are

692: \bea

693:     \mean{\hat{\phi}_{\rm ss+}}&=&\phi

694:         +\alpha\theta\Big(\frac{1}{N_J}+\frac{1}{N_L}\Big) \\

695:     (\Delta\hat{\phi}_{\rm ss+})^2&=&\frac{2}{n\chi^2}

696:     \Big(\frac{1}{N_J^2}+\frac{1}{N_L^2}\Big)

697:     \nonumber

698:     \\

699:     & & +\alpha(\theta^2+\phi^2)\Big(\frac{1}{4N_J}+\frac{1}{4N_L}\Big).

700:     \label{eqs:varSSQ}

701: \eea

702: Let us compare the modified scheme including an additional 

703: QND measurement with the scheme using squeezed states.

704: The magnitude of $\alpha$ in the variance of the modified scheme

705: is effectively reduced for small $\theta$ and $\phi$,

706: $\alpha\to\alpha(\theta^2+\phi^2)/4$, 

707: as compared to Eq.~(\ref{eqn:varsepsq}). Hence, the dependence 

708: on the number measurement is reduced. 

709: Furthermore, the leading term shifting the expectation value 

710: from the desired result $\phi$ is smaller by a factor $\theta$ as 

711: compared to Eq.~(\ref{eqn:meansepsq}). 

712: 

713: As a further possible advantage, the effect of a non-symmetric 

714: atom-light interaction is compensated if the coupling of the read-out

715: QND pulse is similar to the coupling of the squeezing pulse \cite{kuzmichPRL}. 

716: However, this advantage is probably not very relevant 

717: for the Sagnac interferometer considered here due to the 

718: long time-of-flight of the ensembles in the interferometer

719: between the two QND pulses.

720: 

721: A disadvantage of this scheme is that the first term of the variance 

722: of Eq.~(\ref{eqs:varSSQ}) comes with

723: a factor of $2$ because of the two projection measurements of the light

724: necessary per atomic ensemble. It is possible, although technically demanding,

725: to reduce this contribution by re-using the light from the first QND 

726: interaction for the read-out. In this case,

727: $\chi\to-\chi$ is needed in the second interaction

728: in order to obtain the difference

729: $\hat{J}_z^{\rm out}-\hat{J}_z^{\rm in}$ \cite{kuzmichPRL},

730: and in analogy for the second ensemble.

731: The  sign can also be achieved by a $\pi$ rotation of the 

732: atom spin vector around the $x$ axis in between the final beam splitter 

733: and the QND read-out pulse.

734: 

735: %This scheme is compared to the previous ones in Section VI.

736: 

737: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

738: \section{IV. Jointly squeezed ensembles}

739: 

740: In the preceding section we have seen that the $1/(n\chi^2N_J^2)$ term in the

741: variance comes with a factor given by the number of QND interactions 

742: with \emph{different} ensembles of light, \cf~Eq.~(\ref{eqs:varSSQ}). 

743: For this reason let us consider the case of preparing

744: the initial state of the two atomic ensembles with only

745: a single QND pulse that interacts with both ensembles consecutively.

746: The first interaction (with ensemble $\hat{\vecb{J}}$) transforms

747: $\hat{\vecb{J}}^{\text{in}}\rightarrow\rot_z(\chi \hat{S}_z^{\rm in})\hat{\vecb{J}}^{\text{in}}$,

748: the second interaction (with ensemble $\hat{\vecb{L}}$) transforms

749: $\hat{\vecb{L}}^{\text{in}}\rightarrow\rot_z(\chi \hat{S}_z^{\rm in})\hat{\vecb{L}}^{\text{in}}$, 

750: because $\hat{S}_z^{\rm in}$ itself remains unchanged during the QND interaction. The

751: Stokes vector $\hat{\vecb{S}}$ transforms as

752: $\hat{\vecb{S}}^{\text{out}}=\rot_z(\chi \hat{L}_z^{\rm in})

753: \rot_z(\chi \hat{J}_z^{\rm in})\hat{\vecb{S}}^{\text{in}}$,

754: and the $y$ component of the outgoing light is given by

755: \bea

756: 	\hat{S}_y^{\text{out}}&=&\cos(\chi \hat{L}_z^{\rm in})

757: 	\left[\cos(\chi \hat{J}_z^{\,\rm in})\hat{S}_y^{\,\rm in} + \sin(\chi \hat{J}_z^{\,\rm in})\hat{S}_x^{\,\rm in}\right]+\nonumber\\

758: 	&&\,\sin(\chi \hat{L}_z^{\rm in})

759: 	\left[\cos(\chi \hat{J}_z^{\,\rm in})\hat{S}_x^{\,\rm in} - \sin(\hat{J}_z^{\,\rm in}\chi)\hat{S}_y^{\,\rm in}\right],

760: \eea

761: such that for $N\chi^2\ll1$, and $\hat{\vecb{S}}$ initially prepared as in

762: Eq.~(\ref{eqs:Sin}), we have

763: \be

764: \hat{S}_y^{\text{out}}\approx\frac{n\chi}2(\hat{J}_z^{\,\rm in}+\hat{L}_z^{\rm in})+\hat{S}_y^{\,\rm in}.

765: \label{eqn:Syjs}

766: \ee

767: Measuring $\hat{S}_y^{\text{out}}$ thus reveals information about $\hat{J}_z^{\rm in}+\hat{L}_z^{\rm in}$

768: and performs a squeezing operation on this joint operator. Now we

769: apply the same operations as before to the ensemble $\hat{\vecb{J}}$,

770: but for the ensemble $\hat{\vecb{L}}$ we perform a rotation by $\pi$

771: around the $x$ axis before the final measurement. After the extra pulse,

772: the Sagnac shift $\phi$ is effectively encoded

773: in the sum of the $z$ components instead of into the

774: difference.

775: 

776: %I HAVE TAKEN OUT FIGURE 6!

777: %\begin{figure}[h]

778: %\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Joint}

779: %\caption{The interferometric scheme for squeezing $J_z+L_z$.

780: %    Due to the extra $\pi$ pulse on $\hat{\bf L}$, the last

781: %    pulse is converted to a $+\pi/2$ pulse.}

782: %\label{fig:JS}

783: %\end{figure}

784: 

785: We define the phase operator for the scheme employing 

786: jointly squeezed (js) ensembles as

787: \be 

788: 	\hat{\phi}_{\rm js}=-\Big(\frac1{N_J}\hat{J}_z^{\,\text{out}}

789: 	+\frac1{N_L}\hat{L}_z^{\text{out}}-

790: 	\frac{2}{n\chi\bar{N}}\hat{S}_y^{\,\text{out}}\Big).

791: \ee

792: Note that in this definition $\hat{J}_z^{\,\text{out}}$ and 

793: $\hat{L}_z^{\text{out}}$ are divided by the atom numbers of 

794: the respective ensembles as before, while the QND measurement 

795: yields an estimate of $\hat{J}_z^{\,\text{out}}+\hat{L}_z^{\text{out}}$

796: without such a correction, \cf~Eq.~(\ref{eqn:Syjs}).

797: %

798: %Note that the

799: %operator \mbox{$4\hat{S}_y^{\text{out}}/(n\chi(N_J+N_L))$} is

800: %\emph{not}, as before, exactly the estimation of

801: %\mbox{$\hat{J}_z^{\text{out}}/N_J+\hat{L}_z^{\text{out}}/N_L$}, as the former

802: %does not contain the weights $N_{J/L}^{-1}$. 

803: %

804: As a consequence we expect that we loose the advantages of squeezing if the

805: numbers of atoms in the two ensembles differ strongly, {\it i.e.}, if

806: $\gamma\gg1$. We find in leading order \bea

807:     \mean{\hat{\phi}_{\rm js}}&=&\phi

808:         -\frac{2\alpha}{\bar{N}}\\

809:     (\Delta\hat{\phi}_{\rm js})^2&=&\frac{1}{n\chi^2\bar{N}^2}

810:         +\frac{2\alpha}{\bar{N}}+

811:         \frac{\gamma^2}{8\bar{N}^2}.

812: 	\label{eqn:jsvar}

813: \eea

814: The importance of the number fluctuations at the preparation stage

815: is reflected in the fact that in order to arrive at these equations,

816: the assumption 

817: \be 

818: 	\gamma\sqrt{\bar{N}}(n\chi^2)^2(\theta^2+\phi^2)\ll 1

819: 	\label{eqn:cond2}

820: \ee

821: is necessary in addition to the assumptions leading 

822: to Eq.~(\ref{eqn:varsepsq}). Furthermore, now $1/(n\chi^2\bar{N}^2)$ 

823: is the leading term only if $n\chi^2\gamma^2/8\ll1$.

824: 

825: A QND measurement could also be used after the interferometer

826: to directly read out the joint observable $\hat{J}^{\text{out}}_z+\hat{L}_z^{\text{out}}$

827: by defining

828: \be

829: 	\hat{\phi}_{\rm js+}=-\frac{2}{n\chi}\frac{1}{\bar{N}}

830: 	\left(\hat{S}_{y,r}^{\text{out}}-\hat{S}_{y}^{\text{out}}\right),

831: \ee

832: where again the indices $r$ refers to the read-out QND measurement.

833: %labels the Stokes vector $\hat{\vecb{S}}$

834: %distinguish the light ensembles used for squeezing and for read-out, respectively.

835: Notice that in this way it is not possible to measure the

836: correct rescaled observable \mbox{$\hat{J}_z^{\text{out}}/N_J+\hat{L}_z^{\text{out}}/N_L$},

837: and consequently there is an important contribution from the difference

838: of the atom numbers in the expectation value already:

839: \be

840: \mean{\hat{\phi}_{\rm js+}}=\phi+

841: %\frac{\gamma}{\sqrt{\bar{N}}}\frac{\theta}{2}+

842: \frac{N_L-N_J}{N_L+N_J}\theta+

843: \frac{\alpha\phi}{2\bar{N}}.\label{eqn:phijsexp}

844: \ee

845: Compared to the variance of the scheme using jointly squeezed ensembles 

846: without the QND read-out measurement, Eq.~(\ref{eqn:jsvar}),

847: the dependence of the variance on the number measurements and on the atom 

848: number difference in the two ensembles is reduced for small $\theta,\,\phi$:

849: \bea

850: (\Delta\hat{\phi}_{\rm js+})^2&=&\frac{2}{n\chi^2\bar{N}^2}

851:         +\frac{\alpha}{2\bar{N}}(\theta^2+\phi^2)+\nonumber\\

852:         & & \,\,+\frac{\gamma^2}{8\bar{N}^2}\alpha(\theta^2+\phi^2).

853: \eea

854: However, the $\gamma$-dependent correction to the

855: expectation value $\mean{\hat{\phi}_{\rm js+}}$ is only negligible 

856: compared to the standard deviation

857: $\Delta\phi_{\rm js+}$ if $\gamma^2\bar{N}n\chi^2\theta^2/8\ll1$. This is

858: generally a stronger criterion than the limit on $\gamma$ 

859: encountered without the QND read-out, \cf Eq.~(\ref{eqn:cond2}).

860: 

861: The offset can be compensated by using an estimate for $\theta$ from the

862: final fluorescence measurement

863: \be

864: \hat{\theta}=-\frac1{N_J}\hat{J}_z^{\text{out}}+\frac1{N_L}\hat{L}_z^{\text{out}},

865: \ee

866: to define a corrected phase operator

867: \be

868: \hat{\phi}^c_{js+}=

869: \hat{\phi}_{js+}-\frac{N_L-N_J}{N_L+N_J}\hat{\theta}

870: \ee

871: which takes into account the bias of $\mean{\hat{\phi}_{\rm js+}}.$

872: We find that to leading order

873: \bea

874: \mean{\hat{\phi}^c_{\rm js+}} &=& \phi +\frac{\alpha\phi}{2\bar{N}}-

875: \frac{\gamma^2\alpha}{2\bar{N}^2}\\

876: \left(\Delta\hat{\phi}^c_{\rm js+}\right)^2 &=&

877: \frac{2}{n\chi^2\bar{N}^2}+\frac{\alpha\phi^2}{2\bar{N}}+\frac{\gamma^2}{8\bar{N}^2}.

878: \eea

879: Hence, the $\gamma$-dependent bias in the expectation value is reduced

880: by a factor $\alpha\gamma/(\bar{N}^{3/2}\theta)\ll1$, while

881: the $1/\bar{N}$ term in the variance still has a factor $\alpha\phi^2$.

882: 

883: These are the same advantages that we also found in the case of separately

884: squeezed ensembles with QND read-out, cf.~Eq.~(\ref{eqs:varSSQ}). However,

885: the contribution of the term proportional to $1/n\chi^2\bar{N}^2$

886: is reduced by a factor of $2$ in $(\Delta\hat{\phi}^c_{\rm js+})^2$,

887: because only two instead of four projective measurements of the 

888: light are necessary in this case.

889: 

890: %apart from a factor $2$ by which the variance

891: %$\Delta\hat{\phi}_{\rm jsC}^2$ is reduced in the first term,

892: %because only two light-atom interactions are necessary here as

893: %compared to four in the case of separately squeezed ensembles.

894: 

895: %This problem would obviously be avoided, if $\theta$ would be known,

896: %as then $\mean{\hat{\phi}}$ could be corrected because $\gamma$ and $\bar{N}$ are

897: %determined through the final measurement.

898: %For this reason we will know try to identify a scheme

899: %which allows to extract $\theta$ and $\phi$ and performs still better than

900: %just squeezing both ensembles separately.

901: 

902: \section{V. Decoherence}

903: 

904: The attainable squeezing is limited by the absorption

905: of photons during the interaction between light and atoms \cite{squeezingGaussian}.

906: Each atom which absorbs and subsequently spontaneously emits a photon

907: is no longer correlated to the rest of the atoms, but still adds to the

908: variance. We estimate the number of atoms contributing to such an uncorrelated

909: background as the number of scattered photons $n\kappa$,

910: where $\kappa=N_J\chi\Gamma/\Delta$ is the optical density.

911: %, and $\Gamma$ and $\Delta$ are the line width of the

912: %transition and the detuning from resonance, respectively. 

913: Then, in the limit of $\kappa\ll 1$ and for just a single

914: ensemble, one finds \cite{squeezingGaussian}

915: \bea

916: \mean{J_z^{\,\rm out}}&\rightarrow&\mean{J_z^{\,\rm out}}\left(1-\frac{n\chi\Gamma}{\Delta}\right),\label{eqn:dec_ew}\\

917: \mean{\left(J_z^{\,\rm out}\right)^2}&\rightarrow&\left(1-\frac{n\chi\Gamma}{\Delta}\right)^2\mean{\left(J_z^{\,\rm out}\right)^2}+\frac{n N_J\chi\Gamma}{2\Delta}

918: \eea

919: for the collective atomic spin vector and

920: \bea

921: \mean{S_z^{\,\rm out}}&\rightarrow&\mean{S_z^{\,\rm out}}\left(1-\frac{N_J\chi\Gamma}{\Delta}\right),\\

922: \mean{\left(S_z^{\,\rm out}\right)^2}&\rightarrow&\left(1-\frac{N_J\chi\Gamma}{\Delta}\right)^2\mean{\left(S_z^{\,\rm out}\right)^2}+

923: \frac{N_J^2\chi\Gamma}{4\Delta}

924: \eea

925: for the Stokes vector. 

926: The leading order corrections to the variance $(\Delta\hat{\phi}_{\rm ss})^2$

927: given in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:varsepsq}) for the case of separately squeezed

928: ensembles reads

929: \bea

930: (\Delta\hat{\phi}_{\rm ss})^2&\rightarrow&

931: (\Delta\hat{\phi}_{\rm ss})^2+\frac{n\chi\Gamma}{\Delta}\frac1{\bar{N}}+

932: \frac{2\Gamma}{n^2\chi\Delta},\label{eq:dec}

933: \eea

934: and similarly for the other schemes. We will

935: use this estimate in the following discussion and leave an in-depth analysis

936: of decoherence processes, e.g., following the lines of \cite{squeezingGaussian},

937: to further investigations. Generally, according to Eq. (\ref{eqn:dec_ew})

938: also the expectation value changes due to decoherence. This can be

939: accounted for by rescaling, and doing so gives only

940: higher-order corrections to Eq.~(\ref{eq:dec}).

941: 

942: For usual choices of parameters, the last term 

943: in Eq. (\ref{eq:dec}) is negligible, while the contribution

944: proportional to $\bar{N}^{-1}$ is comparable in size to the terms

945: in Eq.~(\ref{eqn:varsepsq}). This limits the coupling $\chi$ and thus

946: the achievable squeezing. For all other experimental parameters

947: fixed, there exists an optimal choice for the detuning $\Delta$

948: and thus for $\chi$ [see Eq. (\ref{eq:chi})]

949: which minimizes the variance. Taking into account only the first term in

950: Eq.~(\ref{eqn:varsepsq}), and in the limit $\Delta\gg\Gamma$,

951: this optimal choice of $\Delta$ leads to a minimal value for

952: $(\Delta\hat{\phi}_{\rm ss})^2$:

953: \be

954: \min_{\Delta}\left[(\Delta\phi_{\rm ss})^2\right]=

955: \frac{2}{N^{\frac32}\,d}\sqrt{\frac{2\epsilon_0\hbar c A \Gamma}{\omega}}.

956: \label{eqn:minvardec}

957: \ee

958: The scaling is thus no longer as in the Heisenberg limit,

959: but it is still better than in shot-noise limited measurements

960: (see also \cite{auzinsh:2004}). 

961: 

962: In addition, the decay of the states $\ket{1}$ and $\ket{2}$ 

963: during the interferometer step has to be taken into account.

964: Choosing long-lived hyperfine

965: ground-state levels to implement $\ket{1}$ and $\ket{2}$ minimizes this decay. Also,

966: spin squeezed states have been shown to be robust with respect to both, particle

967: loss and dephasing \cite{stockton:2003}, in contrast to, e.g., GHZ states,

968: which are maximally fragile under particle losses. 

969: %We will

970: %leave an in-depth analysis of decoherence in this step to further investigations.

971: 

972: %Thus $\mean{J_z}\rightarrow\mean{J_z}(1-\eta)$, and in the limit of 

973: %the probability $\eta$ to absorb a photon being small, 

974: %$\mean{J_z^2}\rightarrow(1-\eta)^2\mean{J_z^2}+\eta N_J/2$ \cite{squeezingGaussian}.

975: %As each absorbed photon does no longer contributes to the collective Stokes vector, also

976: %$\mean{S_z^2}\rightarrow(1-\kappa)^2\mean{S_z^2}+\kappa N_J/4$ with the optical

977: %density $\kappa$. Estimating $\eta N_J\backsimeq n\kappa$, and

978: %using $\kappa=\chi N_J\Gamma/\Delta$, where $\Gamma$ and $\Delta$ are the

979: %line width and the the detuning from resonance, respectively, we find

980:  

981: 

982: 

983: 

984: %=============================================================

985: \section{VI. Comparison of the schemes}

986: 

987: \begin{figure*}[pt]

988: %\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{scaling_incl_dec4}

989: \includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{optimizedchi}

990: \caption{

991: Double-logarithmic plot of the variances

992: $(\Delta\phi)^2$ for the methods discussed in the text normalized

993: to the variance for coherent states $(\Delta\phi_{\rm cs})^2$,

994: as a function of the mean number of atoms $\bar{N}$. The scale on the right

995: hand site gives the noise reduction in dB.

996: In both figures $n=10^{11}$, and we fixed $\theta=\phi=0.01$

997: in order to operate close to the point of maximal sensitivity of

998: the interferometer. In (a) we consider the close-to-ideal scenario with 

999: $\alpha=2\times10^{-7}$, $\gamma=10$, and decoherence is not included.

1000: $\chi=3.23\times10^{-10}$ is used, corresponding

1001: to a detuning $\Delta=2.28\times10^{10}\;$s$^{-1}$ for the Rb D$_2$ line

1002: and a cross section $A=0.3\;$mm$^2$ of the laser beam.

1003: In this close-to-ideal scenario, the scaling as $\bar{N}^{-2}$ is visible for all

1004: the methods employing squeezing. The graphs for separately squeezed

1005: ensembles (without QND read-out) and for jointly squeezed ensembles

1006: with QND read-out and corrected expectation value lie on top of each other.

1007: In the case of a joint QND read-out,

1008: failing to correct the expectation value for the contribution from $\theta$ results in a

1009: scaling as $1/\bar{N}$ for $\bar{N}\gtrsim10^9$.

1010: (b) Realistic scenario with $\alpha=2\times10^{-2}$, $\gamma=10^4$,

1011: and including decoherence. In each case and for each value of $\bar{N}$

1012: the detuning has been adjusted to

1013: minimize the variance \cite{parameters}. The inset shows the 

1014: corresponding optimal values of the coupling parameter $\chi$.

1015: For large atom numbers it is clearly seen that the schemes

1016: which do not employ a final QND measurement are strongly

1017: affected by the limitations from the fluorescence detection. The curve for

1018: jointly squeezed ensembles using a joint QND readout lies outside the range of

1019: the figure.

1020: %

1021: %in all the schemes the variance

1022: %scales as $\bar{N}^{-1}$ due to decoherence, but the schemes

1023: %employing a final QND measurement (including, if necessary, a

1024: %correction of the expectation value), are less effected

1025: %by the limits of the fluorescence detection.

1026: }

1027: \label{fig:scaling_all}

1028: \end{figure*}

1029: %

1030: 

1031: To analyze the performance of the schemes discussed in the

1032: preceding sections we will fix the number of photons as

1033: $n=10^{11}$ and take $\bar{N}=10^{10}$ as a reasonable

1034: parameter for the mean atom number per ensemble.

1035: We will first consider a close-to-ideal scenario and 

1036: assume that the noise from the fluorescence measurements

1037: can be neglected by setting $\alpha=2\times10^{-7}$. Also, we

1038: will set $\gamma=10$, which for $\bar{N}=10^{10}$ atoms corresponds to

1039: $|N_J-N_L|=10^{-4}\bar{N}$, and we will initially not include decoherence.

1040: Fig.~\ref{fig:scaling_all} (a) shows the scaling with $\bar{N}$ of

1041: $(\Delta\phi)^2/(\Delta\phi_{\rm cs})^2$, {\it i.e.}, of the various variances

1042: normalized to the case of

1043: coherent ensembles. For all the methods involving squeezing of

1044: some observable a Heisenberg like scaling is visible.

1045: The offsets of these curves are given by the

1046: numbers of QND measurements performed, {\it i.e.}, by the factor multiplying 

1047: the $1/(n\chi^2\bar{N}^2)$ term in the variance of each of the considered

1048: schemes that involve squeezing. For the measurement of 

1049: $\phi$ {\em via} reading out $\hat{J}_z+\hat{L}_z$ through

1050: a QND interaction, the term proportional to $\theta$

1051: shifting the expectation value [see Eq.~(\ref{eqn:phijsexp})]

1052: has been included into the variance, in order to

1053: allow for a fair comparison. It is

1054: this term which makes the variance scale only proportional to $1/\bar{N}$

1055: for $\bar{N}\gtrsim10^9$. 

1056: Obviously, correcting this contribution of $\theta$ as described 

1057: in Section IV avoids this term and maintains 

1058: the improvement by a factor of $2$ compared to the

1059: case of squeezing and QND measuring both ensembles separately.

1060: %\begin{figure}[t]

1061: %\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{alphagammasmall}

1062: %\caption{Double-logarithmic plot of the variances $(\Delta\phi)^2$

1063: %as a function of the mean number of atoms $\bar{N}$

1064: %for the methods discussed in the text.

1065: %The parameters have been chosen as $n=10^{10}$, $\chi=2\cdot10^{-8}$, $\theta=\phi=0.01$,

1066: %$\alpha=10^{-7}$ and $\gamma=10$. The latter two correspond to 

1067: %a close to ideal scenario. The graphs for separately squeezed

1068: %ensembles (without QND read-out) and for jointly squeezed ensembles

1069: %with QND read-out and corrected expectation value lie on top of each other.

1070: %The scaling as $\bar{N}^{-2}$ is visible for all the methods employing squeezing.

1071: %In the case of a joint QND read-out, failing to correct the expectation

1072: %value for $\theta$ results in a scaling as $1/\bar{N}$ for $\bar{N}\gtrsim10^9$.

1073: %}

1074: %\label{fig:alphagammasmall}

1075: %\end{figure

1076: %

1077: %

1078: %

1079: %

1080: %Now let us consider realistic conditions for the ensemble

1081: %preparation process. A parameter $\gamma=100$ corresponds to

1082: %a difference of the number of atoms in the two ensembles of

1083: %$\sim1$\% of the mean number $\bar{N}$ (at $\bar{N}=10^8$),

1084: %which should be achievable experimentally \cite{collisions}.

1085: %The results are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:gamma100}.

1086: %The only curve which is affected

1087: %In the other cases, the variance is

1088: %not affected significantly.

1089: %\begin{figure*}[t]

1090: %\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{graphs/gamma100bw.eps}

1091: %\caption{The variances $(\Delta\phi)^2$ as a function of $\bar{N}$ for

1092: %$\gamma=100$ and all the other parameters

1093: %as in Fig.~\ref{fig:alphagammasmall}.

1094: %\label{fig:gamma100}

1095: %\end{figure*}

1096: 

1097: In Fig.~\ref{fig:scaling_all} (b), the relative variances are plotted for

1098: realistic experimental parameters and including decoherence. 

1099: $\alpha=2\times10^{-2}$ corresponds to $50$ fluorescence cycles per atom,

1100: and $\gamma=10^4$ is

1101: equivalent to a difference of the number of atoms in the two

1102: ensembles of $10$\% of the mean number $\bar{N}$ at

1103: $\bar{N}=10^{10}$.

1104: With all other parameters fixed, for each value of $\bar{N}$ the interaction

1105: strength $\chi$ is determined by choosing the detuning $\Delta$ from

1106: atomic resonance such that the variance $(\Delta \phi)^2$

1107: is minimized, see Eq.~(\ref{eqn:minvardec}) \cite{parameters}.

1108: 

1109: As can be seen from Fig.~\ref{fig:scaling_all} (b), in such a realistic 

1110: scenario the noise reduction obtained from

1111: squeezing decreases for all methods. For large atom numbers, in all cases

1112: the variance scales as $1/\bar{N}$ due to decoherence and the noise from the

1113: fluorescence measurements. For all the procedures not involving a QND read-out, 

1114: the strong influence of the latter contribution can be observed, though 

1115: for $\bar{N}=10^{10}$ atoms the total noise still is reduced by

1116: around $7\;$dB with respect to the limit set by quantum projection noise. 

1117: On the other hand, the read-out {\it via} QND measurements allows to reduce the

1118: noise by more than $10\;$dB compared to this limit, while this method does not require an

1119: additional experimental setup as compared to the scheme where QND measurements

1120: are performed only on the incoming atomic ensembles.

1121: 

1122: While in the close-to-ideal case

1123: squeezing of a joint observable gives an advantage of a factor of $2$ in the variance

1124: compared to individual squeezing and read-out (corresponding to a $3\;$dB noise

1125: reduction), for an experimental reasonable scenario this advantage reduces to 

1126: about $1.5\;$dB. Of course the method of squeezing a joint observable

1127: of both ensembles has a basic advantage since it only needs a single squeezing

1128: operation instead of two, and thus less technical effort is necessary.

1129: 

1130: %\begin{figure*}[pt]

1131: %\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{optimizedchi}

1132: %\caption{Same as \ref{fig:scaling_all}, but $\Delta$ has

1133: %been adapted for {\it every} $\bar{N}$ to yield the

1134: %minimal variance.

1135: %}

1136: %\label{fig:scaling_all_optimized}

1137: %\end{figure*}

1138: 

1139: 

1140: 

1141: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1142: \section{VII. Entangled ensembles}\label{sec:entangled}

1143: 

1144: Julsgaard {\it et al.}~demonstrated experimentally in Ref.~\cite{Polzik}

1145: the generation of macroscopic entanglement between two

1146: atomic ensembles. The scheme to generate such a macroscopically entangled state,

1147: described first in Ref.~\cite{Duan1}, is motivated by

1148: the fact that under the ideal condition of $\gamma=0$

1149: two commuting joint observables can be constructed from $\hat{\vecb{J}}$

1150: and $\hat{\vecb{L}}$:

1151: \begin{equation}

1152:   \mean{[\hat{J}_y-\hat{L}_y,\hat{J}_z+\hat{L}_z]}\propto(N_J-N_L)=0,

1153:   \label{commute}

1154: \end{equation}

1155: {\it i.e.}, $\hat{J}_y-\hat{L}_y$ can be measured without affecting $\hat{J}_z+\hat{L}_z$,

1156: and vice versa. This can be seen directly from

1157: \be

1158: (\rot_z(\chi \hat{S}_z)\hat{\vecb{J}}^{\text{in}}-\rot_z(\chi \hat{S}_z)\hat{\vecb{L}}^{\text{in}})_y=

1159: \hat{J}_y^{\text{in}}-\hat{L}_y^{\text{in}},

1160: \ee

1161: {\it i.e.}, the first QND interaction leaves the difference of

1162: the $y$ components unaffected.

1163: Thus after squeezing the sum $\hat{J}_z+\hat{L}_z$, also the 

1164: difference $\hat{J}_y-\hat{L}_y$ can be squeezed 

1165: without loosing the information gained in the first

1166: measurement. To realize this experimentally in the interferometer,

1167: after the first squeezing

1168: interaction $\hat{\bf J}$ is rotated by a classical $\pi/2$ pulse

1169: around the $x$ axis so that $\hat{J}_y\to \hat{J}_z$ while $\hat{\bf L}$ is

1170: rotated by $-\pi/2$ around $x$ giving $-\hat{L}_y\to \hat{L}_z$. Then a second

1171: laser pulse, prepared again as in Eq. (\ref{eqs:Sin}), interacts consecutively

1172: with both ensembles and thus finally carries information

1173: about $\hat{J}_y-\hat{L}_y$. The outgoing state corresponds to a macroscopically

1174: entangled EPR state \cite{Duan1}.

1175: It is now a natural question to ask whether entangled atomic

1176: ensembles are of use in Sagnac atom interferometry.

1177: 

1178: For the schemes discussed so far, the collective spin vectors

1179: lie in the $x-z$ plane after the last step of the interferometer.

1180: Therefore always $\mean{\hat{J}_y-\hat{L}_y}=0$,

1181: and an additional operation is necessary in order to

1182: encode phase information in the $y$ components as well.

1183: This can be achieved by rotating both ensemble vectors $\hat{\vecb{J}}$

1184: and $\hat{\vecb{L}}$ by an angle $\varphi$ and $-\varphi$

1185: around the $x$ axis before and after the interferometric phase is applied, respectively.

1186: In this way the plane of rotation of the phase shift is effectively

1187: tilted by $\varphi$ around the $x$ axis.

1188: 

1189: The measurement process now consists of 

1190: first rotating $\hat{\vecb{J}}$ and $\hat{\vecb{L}}$ by $\pm\pi/2$ and

1191: using another QND interaction to measure the sum of the $z$ components.

1192: This measurement, scaled correctly by a $\varphi$-dependent factor,

1193: reveals $\phi$. To be more explicit, the corresponding operator 

1194: for entangled ensembles (EE) reads

1195: \be

1196: \hat{\phi}_{\rm EE}=\frac1{\cos\varphi}\frac2{\bar{N} n\chi^2}

1197: \left(\hat{S}^{\rm out}_{y,r}-\hat{S}^{\rm out}_{y}\right).

1198: \ee

1199: A measurement of the sum of the $y$ components

1200: can be realized after another rotation around $x$ by either

1201: a QND or a projection measurement. In the former case

1202: \be

1203: \hat{\theta}_{\rm EE}=\frac1{\sin\varphi}\frac2{\bar{N} n\chi^2}

1204: \left(\hat{T}_{y,r}^{\rm out}-\hat{T}^{\rm out}_{y}\right).

1205: \ee

1206: These measurements yield both angles:

1207: \begin{eqnarray}

1208: \mean{\hat{\phi}_{\rm EE}} & = & \phi+

1209: %\frac{\gamma}{\sqrt{\bar{N}}}\frac{\theta}2+

1210: \frac{N_L-N_J}{N_L+N_J}\theta+

1211: \frac{\alpha\;\phi}{2\bar{N}}\\

1212: \mean{\hat{\theta}_{\rm EE}} & = & \theta+

1213: %\frac{\gamma}{\sqrt{\bar{N}}}\frac{\phi}2+

1214: \frac{N_L-N_J}{N_L+N_J}\phi+

1215: \frac{\alpha\;\theta}{2\bar{N}},

1216: \end{eqnarray}

1217: where the offsets can be corrected as above.

1218: For parameters as in Section V. the leading terms

1219: of the corresponding variances read (at $\theta=0$ and $\phi=0$)

1220: \begin{eqnarray}

1221: (\Delta\hat{\phi}_{\rm EE})^2&=&\frac1{\cos^2\varphi}\frac{2}{\bar{N}^2 n\chi^2}+

1222: \frac{\gamma^2\;n\chi^2}{8 \bar{N}}.\label{eqn:sagnac:propop_ent}\\

1223: (\Delta\hat{\theta}_{\rm EE})^2&=&\frac1{\sin^2\varphi}\frac{2}{\bar{N}^2 n\chi^2}+

1224: \frac{\gamma^2\;n\chi^2}{8 \bar{N}}.

1225: \label{eqn:sagnac:trestop_ent}

1226: \eea

1227: Changing $\varphi$ allows to trade in

1228: a lower variance of one component for a higher variance of the other. But

1229: these variances are only scaling with $1/\bar{N}^2$ if $\gamma$ is close to zero,

1230: %XXX

1231: otherwise the last term $\propto \gamma^2n\chi^2/\bar{N}$ in Eqs.

1232: (\ref{eqn:sagnac:propop_ent}) and (\ref{eqn:sagnac:trestop_ent}) is dominating

1233: the scaling. However, 

1234: $\gamma\approx0$ is an obvious requirement in this case, as

1235: otherwise the commutator does not vanish in Eq. (\ref{commute}), and thus

1236: the two squeezing operations are not compatible.

1237: 

1238: %The measurement process now consists of 

1239: %first rotating $\hat{\vecb{J}}$ and $\hat{\vecb{L}}$ by $\pm\pi/2$ and

1240: %using another QND interaction to measure the sum of the $z$ components.

1241: %This measurement, scaled correctly by a $\varphi$ dependent factor,

1242: %reveals $\phi$. To be more explicit, the corresponding operator reads

1243: %\be

1244: %\hat{\phi}_{\rm ent}=\frac1{\cos\varphi}\frac2{\bar{N} n\chi^2}

1245: %\left(\hat{S}^{\rm out}_{y,2}-\hat{S}^{\rm out}_{y}\right),

1246: %\ee

1247: %and find

1248: %\begin{eqnarray}

1249: %\mean{\hat{\phi}_{\rm ent}} & = & \phi+\frac{\gamma}{\sqrt{\bar{N}}}\frac{\theta}2+

1250: %\frac{\alpha\;\phi}{2\bar{N}}\\

1251: %(\Delta\hat{\phi}_{\rm ent})^2&=&\frac1{\cos^2\varphi}\frac{2}{\bar{N}^2 n\chi^2}+

1252: %\frac{\alpha\;\theta^2}{2\bar{N}}+\nonumber\\

1253: %&&+\frac{\gamma^2\alpha(\theta^2-\phi^2)}{8n\bar{N}}+

1254: %\frac{\gamma^2\;n\chi^2}{16 \bar{N}\cos^2\varphi}.\label{eqn:sagnac:propop_ent}

1255: %\end{eqnarray}

1256: %A measurement of the sum of the $y$ components

1257: %can be realized after another rotation around $x$ by either

1258: %a QND or a projection measurement. In the former case

1259: %\be

1260: %\hat{\theta}_{\rm ent}=\frac1{\sin\varphi}\frac2{\bar{N} n\chi^2}

1261: %\left(\hat{T}_y^{\rm out}-\hat{T}^{\rm out}_{y,2}\right),

1262: %\ee

1263: %and

1264: %\bea

1265: %\mean{\hat{\theta}} & = & \theta+\frac{\gamma}{\sqrt{\bar{N}}}\frac{\phi}2+

1266: %\frac{\alpha\;\theta}{2\bar{N}}\\

1267: %(\Delta\hat{\theta}_{\rm ent})^2&=&\frac1{\sin^2\varphi}\frac{2}{\bar{N}^2 n\chi^2}+

1268: %\frac{\alpha\;\theta^2}{2\bar{N}}+\nonumber\\

1269: %&&+\frac{\gamma^2\alpha(\theta^2-\phi^2)}{8n\bar{N}}+\frac{\gamma^2\;n\chi^2}{16 \bar{N} \sin^2\varphi}.

1270: %\label{eqn:sagnac:trestop_ent}

1271: %\eea

1272: %From these two measurements thus $\phi$ and $\theta$ can be inferred by correcting

1273: %the expectation values as above. Changing $\varphi$ allows to trade in

1274: %a lower variance of one component for a higher variance of the other. But

1275: %these measurements are only at the Heisenberg limit if $\gamma$ is close to zero,

1276: %otherwise the last term $\propto \gamma^2n\chi^2/\bar{N}^2$ in Eqs.

1277: %(\ref{eqn:sagnac:propop_ent}) and (\ref{eqn:sagnac:trestop_ent}) is dominating

1278: %the scaling. But $\gamma\approx0$ is an obvious requirement in this case, as

1279: %otherwise the commutator does not vanish in Eq. (\ref{commute}), and thus

1280: %the two squeezing operations are not compatible.

1281: 

1282: 

1283: 

1284: %=============================================================

1285: \section{VIII. Conclusion and outlook}

1286: 

1287: We have presented and compared in detail several methods to improve the

1288: detection of a differential phase shift of two atomic

1289: interferometers beyond the standard quantum limit, having in mind

1290: especially the application to Sagnac interferometry. For this

1291: purpose, we have analyzed the squeezing of individual and joint

1292: observables and, in both cases, the read-out of the interferometer

1293: {\em via} fluorescence detection of the atoms only or by an additional

1294: QND interaction. 

1295: 

1296: If decoherence and measurement imperfections

1297: are neglected, all the methods of squeezing improve

1298: the behavior of the variance of 

1299: %XXX

1300: the differential phase to a $1/\bar{N}^2$ scaling, modified 

1301: by a factor $k/(n\chi^2)\gg1$, 

1302: which is determined by the number $k$ of QND interactions

1303: involved, by the number of photons $n$, and by the coupling $\chi$

1304: between atoms and photons. In the case of jointly squeezed

1305: observables, we found that this limit can only be attained if some

1306: constraints on the difference of the number of atoms in both

1307: ensembles can be fulfilled. In all cases, the achievable

1308: squeezing is limited by decoherence due to the absorption

1309: of photons during the QND measurement.

1310: 

1311: Using fluorescence measurements to

1312: read out the atomic spins after the interferometer always produces

1313: additional noise scaling as $1/\bar{N}$ due to the photon shot

1314: noise. As an alternative method, a QND measurement can be

1315: employed to read out the final state of the interferometer. Although in

1316: this case fluorescence measurements are still necessary to determine the number

1317: of atoms in the two ensembles, their contribution to

1318: the noise is reduced to a large extent. We have shown that

1319: the best method to achieve this is to perform squeezing and read-out

1320: {\em via} a QND measurement of a joint observable of the two ensembles,

1321: provided that the difference between the number of atoms in the

1322: two ensembles can be made smaller than approximately $10$\% of

1323: the mean number of atoms. This procedure

1324: minimizes the number of QND interactions necessary, thereby minimizing 

1325: the factor multiplying the $1/\bar{N}^2$ term in the variance,

1326: and it reduces the experimental effort. 

1327: 

1328: Finally, we considered the creation of a macroscopically entangled state

1329: of the two atomic ensembles {\it via} squeezing of two non-local, commuting

1330: observables. We showed that in this case both the sum and the difference

1331: of the phase shifts can be measured with a variance scaling with

1332: $1/\bar{N}^2$, and that  

1333: the relative uncertainty can be shifted between both quantities. However,

1334: %XXX

1335: this scaling can only be reached here if the number

1336: difference between the two ensembles can be made very small.

1337: %, which

1338: %makes this approach a challenge for future experiments.

1339: %renders this scheme rather impractical in current experimental setups.

1340: Therefore, it would be desirable to identify methods to

1341: control the numbers of atoms in the ensembles, for instance by

1342: employing the superfluid -- Mott insulator transition in an

1343: optical lattice embedded in a weakly confining harmonic potential

1344: \cite{micirac,mibloch}. Controlling

1345: this confinement, which plays the role of a local chemical potential, the number

1346: of atoms in the Mott phase at $T>0$ can be controlled and should only depend

1347: mildly on the total number of atoms in the system. 

1348: A detailed analysis of this idea is left for future investigations.

1349: %This idea however needs

1350: %further theoretical investigation.

1351: 

1352: \section{VIII. Acknowledgments}

1353: It is a pleasure to thank H.A. Bachor, M. Drewsen, J.~Eschner, 

1354: P. Grangier, O.~G{\"u}hne, K.~M{\o}lmer, and A.~Sanpera for 

1355: illuminating discussions.

1356: %This work has been supported by the DFG (Schwerpunktprogramme

1357: %'Quanteninformationsverarbeitung' and 

1358: %'Wechselwirkung in ultrakalten Atom- und Molekülgasen' 

1359: %and SFB 407), by the EC (QUPRODIS, FINAQS, and QUDEDIS).

1360: This work has been supported by the DFG (SPP 1116, SPP 1078, GRK 282, POL 436, CRK, and SFB 407),

1361: by the EC (QUPRODIS, FINAQS), and by the ESF (QUDEDIS).

1362: UVP acknowledges support from the Danish Natural Science Research Council.

1363: 

1364: 

1365: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1366: 

1367: \bibitem{atomicclocks} R. Bluhm, V.A. Kostelecky, C.D. Lane, and N. Russell,

1368: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 88}, 090801 (2002).

1369: 

1370: \bibitem{jentsch} C. Jentsch, T. M{\"u}ller, E. Rasel, and W. Ertmer,

1371: Gen. Rel. Grav. {\bf 36}, 2197 (2004).

1372: 

1373: \bibitem{weitz} S. Fray, C. Alvarez-Diez, T.W. H{\"a}nsch, and M. Weitz,

1374: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 240404 (2004).

1375: 

1376: \bibitem{snadden:1998}

1377: M.J.~Snadden, J.M.~McGuirk, P.~Bouyer, K.G.~Haritos, and M.A.~Kasevich,

1378: %"Measurement of the Earth's gravity gradient with an atom interferometer-based gravity gradiometer",

1379: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 971 (1998).

1380: 

1381: \bibitem{kasevich:2002}

1382: J.M.~McGuirk, G.T.~Foster, J.B.~Fixler, M.J.~Snadden, and M.A.~Kasevich,

1383: %title = "Sensitive absolute-gravity gradiometry using atom interferometry",

1384: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 65}, 033608 (2002).

1385: 

1386: \bibitem{KasevichChu} M.A. Kasevich and S. Chu, Phys. Rev. Lett.

1387: {\bf 67}, 181 (1991)

1388:     

1389: \bibitem{peters} A. Peters, K.Y. Chung, and S. Chu,

1390:     Metrologia {\bf 38}, 25 (2001).    

1391: 

1392: \bibitem{inter} B. Yurke, S.L. McCall, and J.R. Klauder,

1393:     Phys. Rev. A {\bf 33}, 4033 (1986).

1394: 

1395: \bibitem{heisenberg} P. Kok, S.L. Braunstein, and J.P. Dowling,

1396: 	Jour. Opt. B {\bf 6}, 811 (2004).

1397: 

1398: \bibitem{oblak} D. Oblak, J.K. Mikkelsen, W. Tittel, A.K. Vershovski, J.L. S{\o}rensen, 

1399: 	P.G. Petrov, C.L. Garrido Alzar, and E.S. Polzik, preprint: quant-ph/0312165 (2003).

1400: 

1401: \bibitem{QND} A. Kuzmich, N.P. Bigelow, and L. Mandel,

1402:     Europhys. Lett. {\bf 42}, 481 (1998).

1403: 

1404: \bibitem{absorbnonclassical}

1405: A.~Kuzmich, K.~M{\o}lmer, and E.S.~Polzik,

1406: %title = "Spin Squeezing in an Ensemble of Atoms Illuminated with Squeezed Light",

1407: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 4782 (1997);

1408: J.~Hald, J.L.~S{\o}rensen, C.~Schori, and E.S.~Polzik,

1409: %title = "Spin Squeezed Atoms: A Macroscopic Entangled Ensemble Created by Light",

1410: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 1319 (1999).    

1411: 

1412: %\bibitem{recent} A. Andr{\'e}, A.S. S{\o}rensen, and M.D. Lukin,

1413: %	Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 230801 (2004).

1414: 

1415: 

1416: %    A. Kuzmich and T.A.B. Kennedy, 

1417: %	Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 030407 (2004).

1418: 

1419: \bibitem{memory} C. Mewes and M. Fleischhauer, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 66},

1420:     033820 (2002); H. Kaatuzian, A.~Rostami, A.A.~Oskouei, preprint: quant-ph/0402057 (2004);

1421:     D.N. Matsukevich and A. Kuzmich, Science {\bf 306}, 663 (2004);

1422:     B. Julsgaard, J. Sherson, J.I. Cirac, J. Fiur{\'a}\v{s}ek, and E.S. Polzik,

1423:     Nature {\bf 432}, 482 (2005).

1424: 

1425: \bibitem{Soerensen} A. S. S{\o}rensen and K. M{\o}lmer, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86},

1426: 4431 (2001).

1427: 

1428: \bibitem{Duan1} L.M. Duan, J.I. Cirac, P. Zoller, and E.S. Polzik,

1429:     Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 5643 (2000).

1430: 

1431: \bibitem{Polzik} B. Julsgaard, A. Kozhekin, and E. Polzik,

1432:     Nature {\bf 413}, 400 (2001).

1433: % ; D. Oblak {\em et al.}, quant-ph/0312165.

1434: 

1435: \bibitem{Vivi} V. Petersen, L.B. Madsen, and K. M{\o}lmer,

1436: 	Phys. Rev. A {\bf 71}, 012312 (2005).

1437: 

1438: \bibitem{Kasevich} T.L. Gustavson, A. Landragin, and M.A. Kasevich,

1439:     Class. Quantum Grav. {\bf 17}, 2385 (2000).    

1440: 

1441: \bibitem{atominterferometry} B. Young, M. Kasevich, and S. Chu,

1442: \emph{Precision Atom Interferometry with Light Pulses}, in:

1443:     Atom interferometry, ed. by P.R. Berman, Academic Press 1997.

1444: 

1445: \bibitem{numbers} G. Santarelli {\em et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett.

1446:     {\bf 82}, 4619 (1999).

1447: 

1448: \bibitem{kuzmichPRL} A. Kuzmich and T. A. B. Kennedy,

1449: 	Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 92}, 030407 (2004).

1450: 

1451: \bibitem{squeezingGaussian}

1452: L.B. Madsen and K. M{\o}lmer, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 70}, 052324 (2005).

1453: 

1454: %\bibitem{fluorescence} Reference on fluorescence. Todo! Necessary?

1455: %    Oder: see \cite{Kasevich,atominterferometry}.

1456: 

1457: \bibitem{auzinsh:2004}

1458: M. Auzinsh, D. Budker, D.F. Kimball, S.M. Rochester, J.E. Stalnaker, A.O. Sushkov, and V.V. Yashchuk,

1459: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 173002 (2004).

1460: 

1461: \bibitem{stockton:2003}

1462: J.K.~Stockton, J.M.~Geremia, A.C.~Doherty, H.~Mabuchi,

1463: %Characterizing the entanglement of symmetric many-particle spin-(1/2) systems

1464: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 67}, 022112 (2003).

1465: 

1466: \bibitem{parameters}

1467: For the parameters in the figure, the optimal values for the detuning

1468: $\Delta$ and the interaction parameter $\chi$ are (at $\bar{N}=10^{10}$ atoms

1469: for the Rb D$_2$ line and a laser beam cross section of $0.3\;$mm$^2$):

1470: separately squeezed ensembles $\Delta=2.45\times10^{10}$s$^{-1}$, $\chi=3.01\times10^{-10}$;

1471: separately squeezed ensembles (QND readout) $\Delta=2.07\times10^{10}$s$^{-1}$, $\chi=3.56\times10^{-10}$;

1472: joint squeezing $\Delta=3.01\times10^{10}$s$^{-1}$, $\chi=2.44\times10^{-10}$;

1473: joint squeezing (QND readout and correction) $\Delta=2.53\times10^{10}$s$^{-1}$, $\chi=2.91\times10^{-10}$.

1474: 

1475: 

1476: \bibitem{micirac} D. Jaksch, C. Bruder, J.I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller,

1477: Phys.~Rev.~Lett.~{\bf 81}, 3108 (1998).

1478: 

1479: \bibitem{mibloch} M.~Greiner, O.~Mandel, T.~Esslinger, T.W. H{\"a}nsch, and I.~Bloch,

1480: Nature {\bf 415}, 39 (2002).

1481: 

1482: \end{thebibliography}

1483: 

1484: \end{document}

1485: 

1486: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% FINITO %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%