Quick Navigation

Topics

Trapped Ion Quantum Computing

Superradiant LIDAR

arXiv
Authors: T. Kullick, M. Bojer, J. von Zanthier, G. S. Agarwal

Year

2026

Paper ID

68176

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

137

Citations

N/A

Abstract

In recent years, light detection and ranging (LIDAR) has seen a steep rise in the sensitivity of measuring the distances of remote objects. Here, we propose to enhance the sensitivity of LIDAR even further by exploiting Dicke's concept of superradiance, i.e., the collective light emission of statistically independent light sources. By using N thermal light sources (TLS) and measuring intensity correlations of order m geq 2 instead of m=1, i.e., the intensity, we show that the Cramér-Rao bound on the measurement of the distance of a remote object undercuts that of traditional LIDAR by a factor of N, and can be reduced further with increasing correlation order m. Our numerical calculations are supported by analytical expressions for the special cases of two and three TLS and a general approximate expression for any number of TLS.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2026 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • In recent years, light detection and ranging (LIDAR) has seen a steep rise in the sensitivity of measuring the distances of remote objects.

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 #68176

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.