Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:22:46.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing Optical and Radio — Quantum Issues

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2016

Rajaram Nityananda
Rajaram Nityananda*
Affiliation:
Raman Research Institute, Bangalore 560080, India

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Once upon a time, there were radio and optical astronomers, each group with its own way of detecting and thinking about radiation. In spite of the shock treatment administered by Hanbury-Brown and Twiss more than thirty five years ago, this dichotomy persists to a surprising extent even today. As new techniques emerge, we clearly need to do better. Coherent and incoherent detection, heterodyning and interferometry are all situations where a full analysis involves quantum behaviour of the radiation. This informal review covers the general approach needed and goes over some points of principle which arise.

Type
Radio/Optical comparisons
Information
Symposium - International Astronomical Union , Volume 158: Very High Angular Resolution Imaging , 1994 , pp. 11 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © Kluwer 1994 

References

1 The quantum mechanics of harmonic oscillators is reviewed in standard texts, e.g., Schiff, L.I., Quantum Mechanics Mc Graw Hill (1968). This will also supply the normalisation and units which have been ignored in equations (1) and (2) Google Scholar
2 Fermi, E., Rev. Mod. Phys., 4, 125 (1932)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Bothe, W., Z. Physik, 41, 345 (1927)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Mandel, L., Proc. Phys. Soc., 74, 233 (1959)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Hanbury-Brown, R. and Twiss, R. Q., Proc. Roy. Soc., A242, 300; A243, 291 (1957)Google Scholar
6 Sudarshan, E. C. G., Phys. Rev. Lett., 10, 277 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glauber, R. J., Phys. Rev., 131, 2766 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Wigner, E. P., Phys. Rev., 40, 749 (1932)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 ‘Coherence and Fluctuations of Light’- Mandel, L. and Wolf, E., Eds. Dover (1970) is an excellent reprint collection with many of the early and basic papers on coherence and quantum optics upto 1966 including refs. [5], [6] and [9]. In particular, one can find here a third distribution on phase space, given by Husimi and Kano, which has the virtue of not going negative.Google Scholar
9 Aharonov, Y. et al. Annals of Physics, 34, 498 (1966) Notice however that the model of a beam splitter used by these authors has no “fourth port” and this, at least in my view, makes their characterisation of coherent states more mathematical than physical.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Yamamoto, Y. et al. Progress in Optics, 28, 89, Ed. Wolf, E., North Holland (1990) - is a fascinating review article on the brave new world of quantum - limited optical measurements, squeezed states, etc., including actual experimental realisations. I cannot resist passing on a piece of Zen wisdom from this source which is relevant to reference [9] above. When one taps a waveguide to let some signal out, one inevitably lets the vacuum (i.e., mode ground state) in through the fourth port !.Google Scholar
11 Ekers, R. D. in ‘Optical Telescopes of the future’ Pacini, F., Richter, W., Wilson, R.N. eds., p.387, ESO Conference Proceedings, (1978). An early, brief comparison and contrast of optical and radio techniques.Google Scholar
12 Bell, J. S., “Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics”, Cambridge, 1987.Google Scholar
13 Peierls, R. E., “More surprises in theoretical physics”, p.6, Princeton, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar