Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Science

Quantum Nondemolition Measurements

Vladimir B. Braginsky, Yurii I. Vorontsov, Kip S. Thorne

Published Aug 1, 1980• 797 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Some future gravitational-wave antennas will be cylinders of mass approximately 100 kilograms, whose end-to-end vibrations must be measured so accurately (10(-19) centimeter) that they behave quantum mechanically. Moreover, the vibration amplitude must be measured over and over again without perturbing it (quantum nondemolition measurement). This contrasts with quantum chemistry, quantum optics, or atomic, nuclear, and elementary particle physics, where one usually makes measurements on an ensemble of identical objects and does not care whether any single object is perturbed or destroyed by the measurement. This article describes the new electronic techniques required for quantum nondemolition measurements and the theory underlying them. Quantum nondemolition measurements may find application elsewhere in science and technology.

DOI
10.1126/science.209.4456.547

Related papers

The challenge of detecting gravitational radiation is creating a new chapter in quantum electronics: Quantum nondemolition measurements

Vladimir B. Braginsky, Yurii I. Vorontsov, K. S. Thorne

Future gravitational wave antennas will be approximately 100 kilogram cylinders, whose end-to-end vibrations must be measured so accurately (10 to the -19th power centimeters) that they behave quantum mechanically. Moreover, the vibration amplitude must be measured over and over again without perturbing it (quantum nondemolition measurement). This contrasts with quantum chemistry, quantum optics, or atomic, nuclear, and elementary particle physics where measurements are usually made on an ensemble of identical objects, and care is not given to whether any single object is perturbed or destroyed by the measurement. Electronic techniques required for quantum nondemolition measurements are described as well as the theory underlying them.

Unknow•Jan 1, 1979•0 citations

Decoherence and Quantum Nondemolition Measurements in the LIGO Project

Vladimir B. Braginsky

The goal of the LIGO project (as well as projects VIRGO and GEO-600) is to create terrestrial gravitational wave antennae which will detect bursts of gravitational radiation from astrophysical catastrophies. The sensitivity of the antennae to record the perturbations of the metric (the gravitational wave) has to be at such a level when the quantum behavior of macroscopic test masses (the key elements in the antennae) becomes essential. Therefore experimentalists have to invent and realize technologies which allow to reduce the decoherence of these test masses due to the heat bath and independently to create new methods of quantum measurements which will allow to beat certain limits of sensitivity (the so-called Standard Quantum Limits). These methods may be based on principles of Quantum-Non-Demolition measurements.

Physica Scripta•Jan 1, 1998•4 citations

On measurement and quantum nondemolition

H. D. Zeh

In his letter, Christopher Monroe recommends that the term “quantum nondemolition” be abandoned (PHYSICS TODAY, January 2011, page 8). I agree, but for somewhat different reasons. Quantum measurement theory has always used the concept of ideal measurements, or “measurements of the first kind,” in which the state of the measured system does not change—that is, it is not “demolished”—if it is already in an eigenstate of the observable. Although an ideal measurement is often a good approximation when dealing with conserved particles, its realization requires special effort in the case of photons, which are usually absorbed while being measured. The concept of ideal measurements is certainly meaningful, but I do not agree with the suggestion that the repeated preparation of the same photon state should be regarded as being equivalent to its nondemolition during a measurement. The term nondemolition may be quite useful in photon experiments or in the construction of gravitational-wave antennae, where it was first used, as far as I know. But in a general context, the traditional terminology would be more to the point, since nonabsorption of the measured photon does not necessarily define an ideal measurement.Much of the confusion originates in the abridged description of a measurement as a stochastic jump from a superposition a∣0〉 + b∣1〉 of a microscopic system into ∣0〉 or ∣1〉 with probabilities ∣a∣2 or ∣b∣2, respectively. That description is a relic from the times when quantum theory was expected to apply only to isolated atoms, electrons, and so forth. (It does not seem to be a genuine part of the Copenhagen interpretation, which describes measurement outcomes in classical terms and often assumes that the wavefunction loses its meaning thereafter.) In most situations, though, one has to include other interacting systems in the unitary description. In fact, all of the much-discussed weirdness of quantum theory has been derived by using entangled quantum states for all involved systems. Therefore, most of the inflationary confusing vocabulary of quantum weirdness—including spooky action, quantum teleportation, quantum eraser, quantum Darwinism, sudden death, quantum information, and even quantum jumps—could be abandoned if one used instead a consistent description in terms of entangled wavefunctions, at least as far as this entanglement remains relevant.11. See, for example, H. D. Zeh, Foundations of Physics 40 9-10 1476 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-009-9383-9 Usually this is so until irreversible decoherence, which was itself derived from unitary interaction with the environment, has occurred in the chain of interactions leading to observation. However, I think it is definitely wrong to say that decoherence theory allows us to “think of any measurement as a [quantum nondemolition] measurement plus a possible interaction with a reservoir.” Although I personally prefer the assumption that unitary dynamics is universal, I agree that some stochastic dynamics has to be used somewhere along the chain of interactions that ends at the observer. It does not matter whether you describe this observed indeterminism in terms of a collapse or a branching of a universal wavefunction into dynamically autonomous components (unlike the collapse, the branching does not require any new dynamical postulate; it is a consequence of the Schrödinger equation with local interactions). Such a real or apparent collapse is an important part of the effective dynamics of “our quantum world”—our “branch,” if you like—that should be carefully analyzed rather than being used ad hoc in a pragmatic and confusing manner. In neither case would it describe a mere increase of information about an initially incompletely known quantum state of the involved systems; the indeterminism is described by a change of a state, which is known to be different from an ensemble of potential states.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. See, for example, H. D. Zeh, Foundations of Physics 40 9-10 1476 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-009-9383-9 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI© 2011 American Institute of Physics.

Physics Today•Jul 1, 2011•2 citations

Quantum Measurement

Giacomo Mauro D’Ariano

In recent years advances in technology, especially in the field of quantum optics, have made possible repetitive quantum measurements on a single quantum object, an issue that remained an academic curiosity until 25 years ago. This book, first published in 1992, provides a tutorial introduction to this field. The book is coauthored by an experimentalist and a theorist: the former - Braginsky - was the first experimentalist after Weber to develop techniques for gravitational-wave detection; the latter - Khalili - contributed with Braginsky to develop the formal apparatus to describe the experimental devices for measurement schemes. After the first part, intended as a pedagogical appendix of a standard textbook, and devoted to the modern approach to quantum measurement, the second part is a review of some new methods of quantum measurements for macroscopic objects. The central problem is the detection of a small time-dependent classical force that acts on a quantum probe. This is the typical situation that occurs in gravitational-wave detection, where the probe is a macroscopic moving mass weakly coupled to a classical wave. The problem of gravitational-wave detection and the limitation to accuracy of measurement of position of a moving mass - the so-called standard quantum limit (SQL), which is a consequence of the random back-action of the measuring device on the mass - triggered the development of new quantum nondemolition (QND) measurements, i.e. measurements where the measured quantity is left unperturbed after the measurement. SQL and QND measurements (both Braginsky inventions) permeate the whole book as a transversal chapter. The aim is to give simple criteria and recipes to design a measuring device in order to optimize the accuracy of the measurement, and, at the same time, to minimize the perturbation that the device exerts on the measured object, so that it will not interfere with successive measurements on the same object. The continuous measurements are regarded as the limiting case of a sequence of repeated discrete measurements, when the interval between the measurements is much smaller than the characteristic time-scale on which the measured quantity changes. The analysis of continuous measurements give to the authors the opportunity to illustrate the watchdog effect and the quantum Zeno paradox (real effect), while deriving the master equation for the evolution of the object state. Then, an entire chapter is devoted to the analysis of devices for continuous measurement of small mechanical displacements. The book is easy to understand, and can serve as a complementary reading for graduate level courses in quantum mechanics. The material of the book can be useful for all scientists and engineers involved in researches related to high-sensitive quantum measurements, quantum information theory and quantum computation. The reader, however, should be aware that this book presents a very particular point of view, with no room left to very relevant concepts in quantum measurement theory, as, for example, squeezing, quantum amplification, joint-measurements of non-commuting observables and phase-measurements. More regrettably, the list of references is unsatisfactorily incomplete, with no mention of alternative developments, for example, regarding the SQL for measuring the position of a free mass. Here, schemes to breach the SQL have been proposed in the literature (Yuen H P 1983 Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 719, Ozawa M 1988 Phys. Rev. Lett. 60 385), whereas from the book one could conclude that such SQL would be unsurpassable. Also, a criticism is in order of the way of deriving some SQL's, based solely on the Heisenberg relation, even in consideration that the aim of such derivations is mostly pedagogical.

Measurement Science and Technology•Jul 1, 1997•0 citations

Quantum Nondemolition Measurements of Harmonic Oscillators

Kip S. Thorne, Ronald W. P. Drever, Carlton M. Caves +2 more

The complex amplitude ${X}_{1}+i{X}_{2}\ensuremath{\equiv}(x+\frac{\mathrm{ip}}{m\ensuremath{\omega}}){e}^{i\ensuremath{\omega}t}$ of a harmonic oscillator is constant in the absence of driving forces. Although the uncertainty principle forbids precise measurements of ${X}_{1}$ and ${X}_{2}$ simultaneously ($\ensuremath{\Delta}{X}_{1}\ensuremath{\Delta}{X}_{2}>~\frac{\ensuremath{\hbar}}{2m\ensuremath{\omega}}$), ${X}_{1}$ alone can be measured precisely and continuously ("quantum nondemolition measurement"). Examples are given of measuring systems that do this job. Such systems might play a crucial role in gravitational-wave detection and elsewhere.

Physical Review Letters•Mar 13, 1978•248 citations

Quantum nondemolition measurements

Philippe Grangier

Summary form only given. The present techniques allow one to perform continuous or discrete quantum measurements at or even beyond the standard "quantum noise" level, even on single quantum objects. In this context, Kip Thorne and Vladimir Braginsky introduced in the seventies the concept of "Quantum Non Demolition (QND) measurement", which was initially meant to be applied to mechanical harmonic oscillators designed for detecting gravitational waves, the so-called "Weber's bars". But the QND ideas encountered a real success in quantum optics, where quantum fluctuations are readily accessible, and can also be circumvented. We review the state of the art of QND measurements, in this broad sense of sub-shot-noise optical information processing. Most of the initial objectives of QND measurements have now been successfully reached through proof-of-principle experiments. The domain is now opening on future perspectives related to quantum information processing (e.g. quantum cryptography), either with "discrete" or "continuous" quantum variables. In this context the close relationship between QND measurements and controlled-NOT (CNOT) gates are discussed and illustrated.

Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics Europe & European Quantum Electronics Conference (CLEO/Europe-EQEC)•Nov 11, 2002•0 citations
Some future gravitational-wave antennas will be cylinders of mass approximately 100 kilograms, whose end-to-end vibrations must be measured so accurately (10(-19) centimeter) that they behave quantum mechanically. Moreover, the vibration amplitude must be measured over and over again without perturbing it (quantum nondemolition measurement). This contrasts with quantum chemistry, quantum optics, or atomic, nuclear, and elementary particle physics, where one usually makes measurements on an ensemble of identical objects and does not care whether any single object is perturbed or destroyed by the measurement. This article describes the new electronic techniques required for quantum nondemolition measurements and the theory underlying them. Quantum nondemolition measurements may find application elsewhere in science and technology.
Future gravitational wave antennas will be approximately 100 kilogram cylinders, whose end-to-end vibrations must be measured so accurately (10 to the -19th power centimeters) that they behave quantum mechanically. Moreover, the vibration amplitude must be measured over and over again without perturbing it (quantum nondemolition measurement). This contrasts with quantum chemistry, quantum optics, or atomic, nuclear, and elementary particle physics where measurements are usually made on an ensemble of identical objects, and care is not given to whether any single object is perturbed or destroyed by the measurement. Electronic techniques required for quantum nondemolition measurements are described as well as the theory underlying them.
The goal of the LIGO project (as well as projects VIRGO and GEO-600) is to create terrestrial gravitational wave antennae which will detect bursts of gravitational radiation from astrophysical catastrophies. The sensitivity of the antennae to record the perturbations of the metric (the gravitational wave) has to be at such a level when the quantum behavior of macroscopic test masses (the key elements in the antennae) becomes essential. Therefore experimentalists have to invent and realize technologies which allow to reduce the decoherence of these test masses due to the heat bath and independently to create new methods of quantum measurements which will allow to beat certain limits of sensitivity (the so-called Standard Quantum Limits). These methods may be based on principles of Quantum-Non-Demolition measurements.
In his letter, Christopher Monroe recommends that the term “quantum nondemolition” be abandoned (PHYSICS TODAY, January 2011, page 8). I agree, but for somewhat different reasons. Quantum measurement theory has always used the concept of ideal measurements, or “measurements of the first kind,” in which the state of the measured system does not change—that is, it is not “demolished”—if it is already in an eigenstate of the observable. Although an ideal measurement is often a good approximation when dealing with conserved particles, its realization requires special effort in the case of photons, which are usually absorbed while being measured. The concept of ideal measurements is certainly meaningful, but I do not agree with the suggestion that the repeated preparation of the same photon state should be regarded as being equivalent to its nondemolition during a measurement. The term nondemolition may be quite useful in photon experiments or in the construction of gravitational-wave antennae, where it was first used, as far as I know. But in a general context, the traditional terminology would be more to the point, since nonabsorption of the measured photon does not necessarily define an ideal measurement.Much of the confusion originates in the abridged description of a measurement as a stochastic jump from a superposition a∣0〉 + b∣1〉 of a microscopic system into ∣0〉 or ∣1〉 with probabilities ∣a∣2 or ∣b∣2, respectively. That description is a relic from the times when quantum theory was expected to apply only to isolated atoms, electrons, and so forth. (It does not seem to be a genuine part of the Copenhagen interpretation, which describes measurement outcomes in classical terms and often assumes that the wavefunction loses its meaning thereafter.) In most situations, though, one has to include other interacting systems in the unitary description. In fact, all of the much-discussed weirdness of quantum theory has been derived by using entangled quantum states for all involved systems. Therefore, most of the inflationary confusing vocabulary of quantum weirdness—including spooky action, quantum teleportation, quantum eraser, quantum Darwinism, sudden death, quantum information, and even quantum jumps—could be abandoned if one used instead a consistent description in terms of entangled wavefunctions, at least as far as this entanglement remains relevant.11. See, for example, H. D. Zeh, Foundations of Physics 40 9-10 1476 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-009-9383-9 Usually this is so until irreversible decoherence, which was itself derived from unitary interaction with the environment, has occurred in the chain of interactions leading to observation. However, I think it is definitely wrong to say that decoherence theory allows us to “think of any measurement as a [quantum nondemolition] measurement plus a possible interaction with a reservoir.” Although I personally prefer the assumption that unitary dynamics is universal, I agree that some stochastic dynamics has to be used somewhere along the chain of interactions that ends at the observer. It does not matter whether you describe this observed indeterminism in terms of a collapse or a branching of a universal wavefunction into dynamically autonomous components (unlike the collapse, the branching does not require any new dynamical postulate; it is a consequence of the Schrödinger equation with local interactions). Such a real or apparent collapse is an important part of the effective dynamics of “our quantum world”—our “branch,” if you like—that should be carefully analyzed rather than being used ad hoc in a pragmatic and confusing manner. In neither case would it describe a mere increase of information about an initially incompletely known quantum state of the involved systems; the indeterminism is described by a change of a state, which is known to be different from an ensemble of potential states.REFERENCESSection:ChooseTop of pageREFERENCES <<1. See, for example, H. D. Zeh, Foundations of Physics 40 9-10 1476 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-009-9383-9 , Google ScholarCrossref, ISI© 2011 American Institute of Physics.
In recent years advances in technology, especially in the field of quantum optics, have made possible repetitive quantum measurements on a single quantum object, an issue that remained an academic curiosity until 25 years ago. This book, first published in 1992, provides a tutorial introduction to this field. The book is coauthored by an experimentalist and a theorist: the former - Braginsky - was the first experimentalist after Weber to develop techniques for gravitational-wave detection; the latter - Khalili - contributed with Braginsky to develop the formal apparatus to describe the experimental devices for measurement schemes. After the first part, intended as a pedagogical appendix of a standard textbook, and devoted to the modern approach to quantum measurement, the second part is a review of some new methods of quantum measurements for macroscopic objects. The central problem is the detection of a small time-dependent classical force that acts on a quantum probe. This is the typical situation that occurs in gravitational-wave detection, where the probe is a macroscopic moving mass weakly coupled to a classical wave. The problem of gravitational-wave detection and the limitation to accuracy of measurement of position of a moving mass - the so-called standard quantum limit (SQL), which is a consequence of the random back-action of the measuring device on the mass - triggered the development of new quantum nondemolition (QND) measurements, i.e. measurements where the measured quantity is left unperturbed after the measurement. SQL and QND measurements (both Braginsky inventions) permeate the whole book as a transversal chapter. The aim is to give simple criteria and recipes to design a measuring device in order to optimize the accuracy of the measurement, and, at the same time, to minimize the perturbation that the device exerts on the measured object, so that it will not interfere with successive measurements on the same object. The continuous measurements are regarded as the limiting case of a sequence of repeated discrete measurements, when the interval between the measurements is much smaller than the characteristic time-scale on which the measured quantity changes. The analysis of continuous measurements give to the authors the opportunity to illustrate the watchdog effect and the quantum Zeno paradox (real effect), while deriving the master equation for the evolution of the object state. Then, an entire chapter is devoted to the analysis of devices for continuous measurement of small mechanical displacements. The book is easy to understand, and can serve as a complementary reading for graduate level courses in quantum mechanics. The material of the book can be useful for all scientists and engineers involved in researches related to high-sensitive quantum measurements, quantum information theory and quantum computation. The reader, however, should be aware that this book presents a very particular point of view, with no room left to very relevant concepts in quantum measurement theory, as, for example, squeezing, quantum amplification, joint-measurements of non-commuting observables and phase-measurements. More regrettably, the list of references is unsatisfactorily incomplete, with no mention of alternative developments, for example, regarding the SQL for measuring the position of a free mass. Here, schemes to breach the SQL have been proposed in the literature (Yuen H P 1983 Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 719, Ozawa M 1988 Phys. Rev. Lett. 60 385), whereas from the book one could conclude that such SQL would be unsurpassable. Also, a criticism is in order of the way of deriving some SQL's, based solely on the Heisenberg relation, even in consideration that the aim of such derivations is mostly pedagogical.
The complex amplitude ${X}_{1}+i{X}_{2}\ensuremath{\equiv}(x+\frac{\mathrm{ip}}{m\ensuremath{\omega}}){e}^{i\ensuremath{\omega}t}$ of a harmonic oscillator is constant in the absence of driving forces. Although the uncertainty principle forbids precise measurements of X1{X}_{1}X1​ and X2{X}_{2}X2​ simultaneously ($\ensuremath{\Delta}{X}_{1}\ensuremath{\Delta}{X}_{2}>~\frac{\ensuremath{\hbar}}{2m\ensuremath{\omega}}$), X1{X}_{1}X1​ alone can be measured precisely and continuously ("quantum nondemolition measurement"). Examples are given of measuring systems that do this job. Such systems might play a crucial role in gravitational-wave detection and elsewhere.
Summary form only given. The present techniques allow one to perform continuous or discrete quantum measurements at or even beyond the standard "quantum noise" level, even on single quantum objects. In this context, Kip Thorne and Vladimir Braginsky introduced in the seventies the concept of "Quantum Non Demolition (QND) measurement", which was initially meant to be applied to mechanical harmonic oscillators designed for detecting gravitational waves, the so-called "Weber's bars". But the QND ideas encountered a real success in quantum optics, where quantum fluctuations are readily accessible, and can also be circumvented. We review the state of the art of QND measurements, in this broad sense of sub-shot-noise optical information processing. Most of the initial objectives of QND measurements have now been successfully reached through proof-of-principle experiments. The domain is now opening on future perspectives related to quantum information processing (e.g. quantum cryptography), either with "discrete" or "continuous" quantum variables. In this context the close relationship between QND measurements and controlled-NOT (CNOT) gates are discussed and illustrated.