You're viewing papers too quickly. Please wait a moment.<br>This helps keep the archive available for everyone.

Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Algorithms

Quantum limits to polarization measurement of classical light

arXiv
Authors: Marcin Jarzyna

Year

2021

Paper ID

40786

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

109

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Polarization of light is one of the fundamental concepts in optics. There are many ways to measure and characterise this feature of light but at the fundamental level it is quantum mechanics that imposes ultimate limits to such measurements. Here, I calculate the quantum limit to a precision of a polarization measurement of classical coherent light. This is a multiparameter estimation problem with a crucial feature of noncommuting optimal observables corresponding to each parameter which prohibits them to be measured at the same time. I explicitly minimize the quantum Holevo-Cramer-Rao bound which tackles this issue and show that it can be locally saturated by two types of conventional receivers.

Why This Paper Matters

  • It adds a 2021 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • Polarization of light is one of the fundamental concepts in optics.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #40786 #69983 Spectral Leakage and Masking Ef... #69982 Dimensionality Reduction of QAO... #69981 A Hybrid Quantum-Classical Appr... #69980 Complexity Inequalities for Qua...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.