Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Teleportation-based Speed Meter for Precision Measurement

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A teleportation-based speed meter can beat the standard quantum limit in interferometric displacement sensing.

desk verdict The offline teleportation speed meter is a genuinely new idea, but the paper's claim that both implementations beat the SQL with losses rests on an unproven equivalence; the ideal result is sound, so it deserves a careful referee rather than a desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18111 v1 pith:YED7V2O2 submitted 2025-04-25 quant-ph astro-ph.IM

Yohei Nishino , James W. Gardner , Yanbei Chen , Kentaro Somiya This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phastro-ph.IM PACS 03.67.-a04.80.Nn42.50.Lc
keywords quantumteleportationspeedmeterstandardlimitradiationpressurenoiseback-actionevasiongravitational-wavedetectorEPRentanglementoptomechanics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes turning a conventional interferometric position meter into a quantum speed meter with continuous-variable teleportation. The probe light that first reflects from a test mass is teleported back to strike it from the opposite side, using an entangled pair and a Bell measurement, so the two radiation-pressure kicks cancel and the device effectively reads the mass's speed rather than its position. Two versions are analyzed: an online one that displaces the returning field in real time, and an offline one that performs the same cancellation by filtering the recorded data afterward. The authors claim both reach sensitivities below the standard quantum limit, the floor set by the trade-off between measurement precision and back-action noise, and that the offline version keeps this advantage with 1% input/output losses, a 30 ppm arm-cavity loss, and 15 dB of generated squeezing. Because the core interferometer optics are untouched, the scheme offers gravitational-wave detectors a practical route to back-action evasion.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the nonreciprocal Hamiltonian of Eq. (10), in which two cavity modes $\hat{A}$ and $\hat{B}$ both couple to $\hat{x}$ but with opposite signs, so their radiation-pressure forces subtract instead of adding. The teleportation chain implements this nonreciprocity: an entangled pair of optical modes, a Bell measurement on the reflected probe and one partner mode, and a displacement of the other partner mode by the measurement outcomes $\{x_-,p_+\}$ turns the second interaction into a back-action-canceling one. In the offline version the displacement is replaced by optimal filtering of the recorded quadratures, using the relation $|K_z|^2=K_{\rm sm}K_{\rm pm}$. The key performance parameter is $K_{\rm sm}=16\hbar\omega_a^2\gamma/[m(\gamma^2+\Omega^2)^2]$, which is independent of frequency for $\Omega\ll\gamma$; this flatness is what lets a fixed homodyne angle $\phi_{\rm opt}=\mathrm{arccot}(K_{\rm sm}(0))$ beat the SQL without extra filter cavities.

What would settle it

Run the offline scheme on a tabletop optomechanical setup with the optimal fixed homodyne angle, 15 dB of generated two-mode squeezing, and 1% input and output losses, and compare the measured displacement-noise spectrum to Eq. (26); a curve that fails to cross the standard quantum limit in the band where $K_{\rm sm}$ is flat would disprove the central claim. A simpler calculation would derive the full input-output map of the teleportation chain including Bell-measurement noise and check whether the back-action terms cancel before replacing the chain by Eq. (10).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that teleportation supplies the non-reciprocal coupling a speed meter requires: two cavity modes $\hat{A}$ and $\hat{B}$ couple to the same mechanical position $\hat{x}$ with opposite signs in the Hamiltonian, so the second light–mirror interaction cancels the radiation pressure of the first and the measured phase becomes proportional to $\hat{x}(t+\tau)-\hat{x}(t)\sim\tau\bar{v}$. With perfect teleportation the process is exactly the textbook speed meter; with finite squeezing the residual noise enters through a factor $e^{-2r}$, and the optimum homodyne sensitivity takes the form $S^{\rm sm}_{x,\pi/2}=(x_{\rm SQL}^2/2)(1/K_{\rm sm}+K_{\rm sm})$, which lies below the standard quantum limit because $K_{\rm sm}$ is flat at low frequencies while the position-meter coupling $K_{\rm pm}\propto\Omega^{-2}$ grows. The offline implementation recovers the same sensitivity by combining the recorded quadrature with the Bell-measurement outcomes through the optimal filters $g_1=e^{2i\beta}$ and $g_2=-K_z^{*}e^{2i\beta}$. Losses are modeled as extra vacuum modes entering the cavity and beamsplitter losses at the input and output, and the paper claims the sub-SQL enhancement survives those losses for a long-baseline gravitational-wave detector with 15 dB of generated squeezing.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a teleportation step performed with finite squeezing and losses remains exactly equivalent to routing the light to the mirror's back side, so the radiation-pressure kick from the first interaction cancels the kick from the second; if realistic teleportation noise breaks that equivalence, the predicted sub-SQL sensitivity does not survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A long-baseline gravitational-wave detector could gain roughly an order of magnitude in displacement sensitivity near 8 Hz without replacing mirrors or coatings, by adding the dark-port teleportation hardware and a second pump.
  • The offline variant means the back-action force is not canceled during the measurement; it is erased afterward in the data, shifting the experimental burden from real-time feedforward to stable readout and post-processing.
  • Two-color pumping with a detuning of order MHz is sufficient, and the required entanglement level is 15 dB of generated two-mode squeezing, so retrofitting an existing detector would be a matter of dark-port hardware plus post-processing.
  • Because $K_{\rm sm}$ is flat at low frequencies, fixed-angle homodyne readout suffices; the frequency-dependent filter cavities used in variational or frequency-dependent readout are unnecessary.
  • Even with realistic losses, the low-frequency sensitivity scales only as $\Omega^{-1}$ and remains below the SQL at the optimized readout angle, so the speed-meter advantage is not confined to the lossless ideal.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct implication the authors do not develop is that finite teleportation fidelity should be folded into the equivalence itself; adding realistic Bell-measurement noise to the derivation of Eq. (10) would produce an explicit squeezing-dependent penalty for the SQL beating.
  • The same online/offline teleportation split could in principle be borrowed for other non-reciprocal sensing tasks, such as quantum nondemolition monitoring of momentum in cavity optomechanics, where a physical optical circulator is difficult; the paper restricts itself to displacement sensing, so this is an extrapolation.
  • A tabletop experiment comparing the online and offline outputs on the same mechanical oscillator would isolate the entanglement contribution: if the filtered offline curve tracks the online curve, the tripartite correlation is doing the back-action cancellation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a continuous-variable teleportation protocol as a way to realize a speed meter for interferometric displacement sensing. It models a non-reciprocal two-mode optomechanical system in which the probe field interacts with the test mass twice with opposite radiation-pressure signs, and it shows that this can be implemented either online, by physically displacing Bob's field using the Bell-measurement outcomes, or offline, by post-processing the homodyne output with Wiener filters. Using standard input-output theory, the authors derive transfer matrices, the displacement noise spectral density, the optimal homodyne angle, and the offline filtering conditions, and they show that in the lossless case the sensitivity agrees with the known speed-meter result of Ref. [25]. They then add input, output, and arm-cavity losses, present numerical sensitivity curves with 1% losses and 15 dB of generated squeezing, and sketch an application to a LIGO-type gravitational-wave detector.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the scheme provides a conceptually new route to back-action evasion in interferometers: a teleportation-based speed meter that does not require changing the core optics or mirror coatings. The offline version is particularly attractive because it moves the displacement operation into post-processing. The paper is built on standard input-output methods, gives explicit transfer matrices, and makes a clear, falsifiable prediction of sub-SQL sensitivity in a specified loss and squeezing parameter regime. The agreement with the earlier speed-meter sensitivity of Ref. [25] in the lossless limit is a useful consistency check. The main weakness is that the lossy off-line equivalence, which is needed for the paper's advertised 'both implementations' claim, is asserted rather than demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Loss analysis] After Eq. (41), the statement 'we focus on the online approach, but we confirmed that the results are equivalent for the offline case' is unsupported. This is a load-bearing point because the abstract and the Discussion claim that both implementations beat the SQL even in the presence of losses. In the online scheme, the Bell-measurement outcomes are inserted through the displacement operation before the loss ports of Eqs. (38)-(41), whereas in the offline scheme those same outcomes are used only as classical post-processing weights on the final homodyne output. Losses are beamsplitter operations and do not trivially commute with this feedforward, so the optimal Wiener filters and the resulting S_x(Omega) need not coincide. Please provide the missing derivation for the lossy offline case, including the noise covariance of the Bell-measurement data, or explicitly restrict the lossy sub-SQL claim to the online implementation.
  2. [Discussion] The Discussion admits that the simulation 'omits some experimental details of the teleportation procedure' and that the online displacement operation 'may introduce additional losses.' This displacement operation is precisely the element that distinguishes the online approach, so the loss model in Eqs. (38)-(41) does not fully cover the online implementation as described. The quantitative statement that the online approach surpasses the SQL with losses is therefore stronger than what the simulation demonstrates. Please include a quantitative model of the displacement-operation loss, or state more cautiously that the sub-SQL result applies to the modeled input, arm, and output losses only.
  3. [State Preparation and System Dynamics] Eqs. (10)-(12) contain an apparent sign inconsistency in the optomechanical coupling terms. Equation (10) gives opposite signs for the A and B coupling terms, while Eq. (12) gives the same sign for the displacement terms in the A2 and B2 equations. Since the cancellation of radiation-pressure back action is the central mechanism of the speed meter, please reconcile the Hamiltonian, the Heisenberg equations, and the quadrature equations, or state explicitly the convention that makes the printed signs consistent.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Loss analysis, Eq. (38)] In the fourth line of Eq. (38), the loss-induced vacuum term should be b'_2, not b'_1, which appears to be a typographical error in the B2 quadrature equation.
  2. [Figure 1] The text refers to 'Fig. 1b' and to panels (b) and (c) for the online and offline approaches, but the caption lists only panels (a), (c), and (d), with online and offline described in (c) and (d). Please make the panel labels consistent between the text and the figure.
  3. [Introduction] There is a typo in the speed-meter description: 'the probe laser is coupled the the object mass twice' should read 'coupled to the object mass twice.'
  4. [General] The paper references supplementary information I and II for derivations of the position-meter noise and the loss calculation, but the supplementary material is not included in the arXiv version. Please ensure it is part of the submitted manuscript and is clearly linked from the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the sensitivity derivation follows from explicit teleportation input–output relations and is cross-checked against an independent speed-meter result, with no fitted parameter disguised as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular. The teleportation mapping is explicit: Eq. (9) defines the Bell outcomes, Eq. (15) the displacement operation, and Eq. (16) follows from the EPR spectral densities of Eq. (8), giving Bob's displaced input as Victor's outgoing field plus finite-squeezing noise. The input–output relations (17)–(24) are standard quantum Langevin algebra, and Eq. (26) is obtained in the infinite-squeezing limit. Eq. (26) is independently checked against Ref. [25] ('Eq. (26) agrees with the sensitivity shown in Ref. [25]'), so the central result has external support rather than being forced by a self-citation. The offline filter calculation is a genuine optimization: Wiener filters g1 and g2 in Eq. (34) minimize the conditioned spectral density, and the agreement with Eq. (26) is a consistency check, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Self-citations (e.g., Ref. [47] for the standard optomechanical Hamiltonian, Ref. [34] for teleportation-based squeezing) are background references and are not load-bearing. The only notable weakness is in the loss section: 'we focus on the online approach, but we confirmed that the results are equivalent for the offline case' is an omitted proof, and the Discussion admits the online displacement operation may add unmodeled losses. This is a correctness or support gap, not a circular reduction: no equation in the paper is equivalent to its input by construction, and no prediction is statistically forced by a fit.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum optics assumptions plus the paper-specific modeling assumption that the teleportation setup realizes a non-reciprocal optomechanical coupling. The assumed loss levels and squeezing strength are parameters in the simulation, not fitted values.

free parameters (4)
  • EPR squeezing factor r = 15 dB in lossy simulation; infinite in analytic limit
    Controls teleportation fidelity. In Eq. (16) residual noise scales as e^{-r}; r to infinity makes the online scheme exactly equivalent to an ideal speed meter. The 15 dB value is assumed for the lossy gravitational wave simulation.
  • Input/output power loss epsilon_in, epsilon_out = 1% each
    Assumed in the loss analysis (right panel of Fig. 6). The claim that the scheme surpasses the SQL with losses depends on these values.
  • Arm cavity round-trip loss L = 30 ppm
    Assumed in the loss analysis; sets additional damping gamma_2 = L c / (4 L_arm). Lower loss improves low-frequency sensitivity.
  • Homodyne readout angle phi_opt = arccot[Ksm(0)]
    Chosen to minimize total noise at DC. This is an optimized readout parameter, not fitted to external data.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard quantum mechanics and input-output (Heisenberg-Langevin) formalism.
    Used throughout, from Eq. (11) to Eq. (24), following Refs. [22,42,43].
  • domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation to ignore self-evolution of light modes.
    Invoked in deriving the Hamiltonian Eq. (10), standard in optomechanics when the cavity linewidth is small compared to the carrier frequency.
  • ad hoc to paper The teleportation protocol is equivalent to the non-reciprocal coupling Hamiltonian in Eq. (10) when teleportation fidelity is perfect.
    This modeling assumption connects the physical teleportation setup to the analytic speed meter model. It is argued in the section 'Nonreciprocal Coupling via Teleportation' but not proven bottom-up.
  • domain assumption The EPR state has ideal infinite squeezing in the analytic limit (r to infinity).
    Used to drop the e^{-r} noise term in Eq. (16) and derive Eq. (26). Finite-squeezing effects are only partially included via the loss analysis.
  • domain assumption Optimal Wiener filtering in the offline approach is physically realizable and the filters g1, g2 are exactly known.
    The offline cancellation relies on these filters being implemented perfectly; in practice, finite data length and estimation error would degrade the result.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Teleportation-based Speed Meter for Precision Measurement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YED7V2O2

@misc{pith2026250418111,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Teleportation-based Speed Meter for Precision Measurement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YED7V2O2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18111}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a quantum teleportation-based speed meter for interferometric displacement sensing. Two equivalent implementations are presented: an online approach that uses real-time displacement operation and an offline approach that relies on post-processing. Both implementations reduce quantum radiation pressure noise and surpass the standard quantum limit of measuring displacement. We discuss potential applications to gravitational-wave detectors, where our scheme enhances low-frequency sensitivity without requiring modifications to the core optics of a conventional Michelson interferometer (e.g., substrate or coating properties). This approach offers a new path to back-action evasion enabled by quantum entanglement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18111 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Simplified model of the speed meter as presented [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Diagram of continuous-variable teleportation. Alice [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) A mode diagram of the speed meter. (b) Input [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Enhancement in the sensitivity of the speed meter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Schematics of the teleportation-based speed meter in a Michelson-type interferometer. (a) Online approach: Victor’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Displacement sensitivity of the speed meter applied to a gravitational–wave detector. Left panel: Sensitivity in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Quantum Back Action Evasion with Reservoir Engineering

    quant-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A reservoir-engineered cavity scheme with feedforward realizes a quantum speed meter that can beat the standard quantum limit for force sensing at low frequencies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [25]

    Purdue and Y

    P. Purdue and Y. Chen, Practical speed meter designs for quantum nondemolition gravitational-wave interfer- ometers, Phys. Rev. D 66, 122004 (2002)

    2002

  2. [1]

    Additional losses occur in the detection and input op- tics

    (38) Here, the loss-induced vacuum fields (ˆaˆaˆa′ ={ˆa′ 1, ˆa′ 2}T and ˆbˆbˆb′ ={ˆb′ 1,ˆb′ 2}T ) have unit covariance, and γ2 is the mode extraction rate due to the power loss. Additional losses occur in the detection and input op- tics. The output fields become: ˆαˆαˆαL = √ 1−ϵout ˆαˆαˆα +√ϵout ˆαˆαˆα′, (39) ˆbˆbˆbL out = √ 1−ϵoutˆbˆbˆbout +√ϵoutˆbˆbˆb′...

    work page

  3. [2]

    V. B. Braginskiˇi, Classical and Quantum Restrictions on the Detection of Weak Disturbances of a Macroscopic Os- cillator, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 26, 831 (1968)

    1968

  4. [3]

    W. G. Unruh, in Quantum optics. Experimental gravity, and measurement theory (1983)

    1983

  5. [4]

    C. M. Caves, Quantum-mechanical noise in an interfer- ometer, Phys. Rev. D 23, 1693 (1981)

    1981

  6. [5]

    R. S. Bondurant and J. H. Shapiro, Squeezed states in phase-sensing interferometers, Phys. Rev. D 30, 2548 (1984)

    1984

  7. [6]

    M. T. Jaekel and S. Reynaud, Quantum limits in inter- ferometric measurements, Europhysics Letters 13, 301 (1990)

    work page 1990

  8. [7]

    H. J. Kimble, Y. Levin, A. B. Matsko, K. S. Thorne, and S. P. Vyatchanin, Conversion of conventional gravitational-wave interferometers into quantum nonde- molition interferometers by modifying their input and/or output optics, Phys. Rev. D 65, 022002 (2001)

    2001

Show all 55 references
  1. [8]

    Vyatchanin and E

    S. Vyatchanin and E. Zubova, Quantum variation mea- surement of a force, Physics Letters A 201, 269 (1995)

    1995

  2. [9]

    Julsgaard, A

    B. Julsgaard, A. Kozhekin, and E. S. Polzik, Experimen- tal long-lived entanglement of two macroscopic objects, Nature 413, 400–403 (2001)

    2001

  3. [10]

    Hammerer, M

    K. Hammerer, M. Aspelmeyer, E. S. Polzik, and P. Zoller, Establishing einstein-poldosky-rosen channels between nanomechanics and atomic ensembles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 020501 (2009)

    2009

  4. [11]

    M. J. Woolley and A. A. Clerk, Two-mode back-action- evading measurements in cavity optomechanics, Phys. Rev. A 87, 063846 (2013)

    2013

  5. [12]

    Tsang and C

    M. Tsang and C. M. Caves, Coherent quantum-noise can- cellation for optomechanical sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 123601 (2010)

    2010

  6. [13]

    C. F. Ockeloen-Korppi, E. Damsk¨ agg, J.-M. Pirkkalainen, A. A. Clerk, M. J. Woolley, and M. A. Sillanp¨ a¨ a, Quantum backaction evading measurement of collective mechanical modes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 9 140401 (2016)

    2016

  7. [14]

    C. B. Møller, R. A. Thomas, G. Vasilakis, E. Zeuthen, Y. Tsaturyan, M. Balabas, K. Jensen, A. Schliesser, K. Hammerer, and E. S. Polzik, Quantum back-action- evading measurement of motion in a negative mass ref- erence frame, Nature 547, 191–195 (2017)

    2017

  8. [15]

    F. Y. Khalili and E. S. Polzik, Overcoming the standard quantum limit in gravitational wave detectors using spin systems with a negative effective mass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 031101 (2018)

    2018

  9. [16]

    Buonanno and Y

    A. Buonanno and Y. Chen, Signal recycled laser- interferometer gravitational-wave detectors as optical springs, Phys. Rev. D 65, 042001 (2002)

    2002

  10. [17]

    H. Yu, L. McCuller, M. Tse, N. Kijbunchoo, L. Barsotti, Mavalvala., et al., Quantum correlations between light and the kilogram-mass mirrors of ligo, Nature583, 43–47 (2020)

    2020

  11. [18]

    W. Jia, V. Xu, K. Kuns, M. Nakano, L. Barsotti, M. Evans, N. Mavalvala, et al., Squeezing the quantum noise of a gravitational-wave detector below the standard quantum limit, Science 385, 1318–1321 (2024)

    2024

  12. [19]

    V. B. Braginsky, Y. I. Vorontsov, and K. S. Thorne, Quantum nondemolition measurements, Science 209, 547 (1980), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.209.4456.547

    1980 doi

  13. [20]

    V. B. Braginsky, F. Y. Khalili, and K. S. Thorne, Quantum Measurement (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

    1995

  14. [21]

    V. B. Braginsky, M. L. Gorodetsky, F. Y. Khalili, and K. S. Thorne, Dual-resonator speed meter for a free test mass, Phys. Rev. D 61, 044002 (2000)

    2000

  15. [22]

    Braginsky and F

    V. Braginsky and F. Khalili, Gravitational wave antenna with qnd speed meter, Physics Letters A147, 251 (1990)

    1990

  16. [23]

    S. L. Danilishin and F. Y. Khalili, Quantum measure- ment theory in gravitational-wave detectors, Living Re- views in Relativity 15, 10.12942/lrr-2012-5 (2012)

    2012 doi

  17. [24]

    Chen, Sagnac interferometer as a speed-meter- type, quantum-nondemolition gravitational-wave detec- tor, Physical Review D 67, 10.1103/physrevd.67.122004 (2003)

    Y. Chen, Sagnac interferometer as a speed-meter- type, quantum-nondemolition gravitational-wave detec- tor, Physical Review D 67, 10.1103/physrevd.67.122004 (2003)

    2003 doi

  18. [26]

    S. L. Danilishin, E. Knyazev, N. V. Voronchev, F. Y. Khalili, C. Gr¨ af, S. Steinlechner, J.-S. Hennig, and S. Hild, A new quantum speed-meter interferometer: measuring speed to search for intermediate mass black holes, Light: Science & Applications 7, 11 (2018), arXiv:1702.01...

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Knyazev, S

    E. Knyazev, S. Danilishin, S. Hild, and F. Khalili, Speed- meter scheme for gravitational-wave detectors based on epr quantum entanglement, Physics Letters A 382, 2219 (2018), special Issue in memory of Professor V.B. Bra- ginsky

    2018

  20. [28]

    Briegel, W

    H.-J. Briegel, W. D¨ ur, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Quan- tum repeaters: The role of imperfect local operations in quantum communication, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5932 (1998)

    1998

  21. [29]

    L.-M. Duan, M. D. Lukin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Long- distance quantum communication with atomic ensembles and linear optics, Nature 414, 413–418 (2001)

    2001

  22. [30]

    Gottesman and I

    D. Gottesman and I. L. Chuang, Demonstrating the via- bility of universal quantum computation using teleporta- tion and single-qubit operations, Nature (London) 402, 390 (1999), arXiv:quant-ph/9908010 [quant-ph]

    1999 arXiv

  23. [31]

    C. H. Bennett and G. Brassard, Quantum cryptogra- phy: Public key distribution and coin tossing, Theoreti- cal Computer Science 560, 7–11 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on bell’s the- orem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991)

    1991

  25. [33]

    Gottesman, T

    D. Gottesman, T. Jennewein, and S. Croke, Longer- baseline telescopes using quantum repeaters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 070503 (2012)

    2012

  26. [34]

    Y. Ma, H. Miao, B. H. Pang, M. Evans, C. Zhao, J. Harms, R. Schnabel, and Y. Chen, Proposal for gravitational-wave detection beyond the standard quan- tum limit through EPR entanglement, Nature Physics 13, 776 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Nishino, S

    Y. Nishino, S. Danilishin, Y. Enomoto, and T. Zhang, Frequency-dependent squeezing for gravitational-wave detection through quantum teleportation, Phys. Rev. A 110, 022601 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Somiya, Detector configuration of kagra–the japanese cryogenic gravitational-wave detector, Classical and Quantum Gravity 29, 124007 (2012)

    K. Somiya, Detector configuration of kagra–the japanese cryogenic gravitational-wave detector, Classical and Quantum Gravity 29, 124007 (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    Acernese, M

    F. Acernese, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, D. Aisa, N. Alle- mandou, et al., Advanced virgo: a second-generation in- terferometric gravitational wave detector, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 024001 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    T. L. S. Collaboration, J. Aasi, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, K. Ackley,et al., Advanced ligo, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 074001 (2015)

    2015

  31. [39]

    Hild et al., Sensitivity studies for third-generation gravitational wave observatories, Classical and Quantum Gravity 28, 094013 (2011)

    S. Hild et al., Sensitivity studies for third-generation gravitational wave observatories, Classical and Quantum Gravity 28, 094013 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Aber- nathy, et al., Exploring the sensitivity of next genera- tion gravitational wave detectors, Classical and Quantum Gravity 34, 044001 (2017)

    2017

  33. [41]

    Miao, Exploring macroscopic quantum mechanics in optomechanical devices, Springer Theses (2010)

    H. Miao, Exploring macroscopic quantum mechanics in optomechanical devices, Springer Theses (2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    S. L. Braunstein and H. J. Kimble, Teleportation of continuous quantum variables, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 869 (1998)

    1998

  35. [43]

    B. L. Schumaker and C. M. Caves, New formalism for two-photon quantum optics. ii. mathematical foundation and compact notation, Phys. Rev. A 31, 3093 (1985)

    1985

  36. [44]

    C. M. Caves and B. L. Schumaker, New formalism for two-photon quantum optics. i. quadrature phases and squeezed states, Phys. Rev. A 31, 3068 (1985)

    1985

  37. [45]

    L.-M. Duan, G. Giedke, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Insep- arability criterion for continuous variable systems, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2722 (2000)

    2000

  38. [46]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Can quantum- mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935)

    1935

  39. [47]

    C. K. Law, Interaction between a moving mirror and ra- diation pressure: A hamiltonian formulation, Phys. Rev. A 51, 2537 (1995)

    1995

  40. [48]

    Chen, Macroscopic quantum mechanics: theory and experimental concepts of optomechanics, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 46, 104001 (2013)

    Y. Chen, Macroscopic quantum mechanics: theory and experimental concepts of optomechanics, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 46, 104001 (2013)

    2013

  41. [49]

    Rehbein, H

    H. Rehbein, H. M¨ uller-Ebhardt, K. Somiya, S. L. Danil- ishin, R. Schnabel, K. Danzmann, and Y. Chen, Double optical spring enhancement for gravitational-wave detec- tors, Phys. Rev. D 78, 062003 (2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    Korobko, N

    M. Korobko, N. Voronchev, H. Miao, and F. Y. Khalili, 10 Paired carriers as a way to reduce quantum noise of mul- ticarrier gravitational-wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 91, 042004 (2015)

    2015

  43. [51]

    Furusawa, J

    A. Furusawa, J. L. Sørensen, S. L. Braunstein, C. A. Fuchs, H. J. Kimble, and E. S. Polzik, Unconditional quantum teleportation, Science 282, 706 (1998)

    1998

  44. [52]

    C. M. Caves, Quantum limits on noise in linear ampli- fiers, Phys. Rev. D 26, 1817 (1982)

    1982

  45. [53]

    Knyazev, F

    E. Knyazev, F. Y. Khalili, and M. V. Chekhova, Over- coming inefficient detection in sub-shot-noise absorption measurement and imaging, Opt. Express27, 7868 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    Frascella, S

    G. Frascella, S. Agne, F. Y. Khalili, and M. V. Chekhova, Overcoming detection loss and noise in squeezing- based optical sensing, npj Quantum Information 7, 10.1038/s41534-021-00407-0 (2021)

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    K. M. Kwan, M. J. Yap, J. Qin, D. W. Gould, S. S. Y. Chua, J. Junker, V. B. Adya, T. G. McRae, B. J. J. Slag- molen, and D. E. McClelland, Amplified squeezed states: analyzing loss and phase noise, Classical and Quantum Gravity 41, 215005 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.