arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 25 Feb 2015

Transcription

1 Nonreciprocal Photon Transmission an Amplification via Reservoir Engineering A. Metelmann an A. A. Clerk Department of Physics, McGill University, 3600 rue University, Montréal, Quebec, H3A T8 Canaa Date: February 6, 015 We iscuss a general metho for constructing nonreciprocal, cavity-base photonic evices, base on matching a given coherent interaction with its corresponing issipative counterpart; our metho generalizes the basic structure use in the theory of cascae quantum systems. In contrast to stanar interference-base schemes, our approach allows irectional behavior over a wie banwith. We show how it can be use to evise isolators an irectional, quantum-limite amplifiers. We iscuss in etail how this general metho allows the construction of a irectional, noise-free phase-sensitive amplifier which is not limite by any funamental gain-banwith constraint. Our approach is particularly well-suite to implementations using superconucting microwave circuits an optomechanical systems. arxiv: v1 [quant-ph] 5 Feb 015 PACS numbers: 4.65.Yj, Ta, 4.50.Wk, Cm I. INTRODUCTION The general esire to break time-reversal symmetry an reciprocity in engineere photonic structures has garnere an immense amount of recent interest. Recall that while timereversal symmetry is only a useful notion in non-issipative systems, reciprocity is more general: it is efine as the invariance of photon transmission amplitues uner exchange of source an etector [1]. On a funamental level, the artificial breaking of time-reversal symmetry allows the realization of truly new photonic states, such as quantum hall states an more general topological states [ 6]. On a more practical level, nonreciprocal evices can enable a number of signalprocessing applications an greatly simplify the construction of photonic networks [7]. Nonreciprocal microwave-frequency evices are also crucial to efforts at quantum-information processing with superconucting circuits. Here one necessarily nees to use near quantum-limite amplifiers to efficiently rea out qubits; nonreciprocity is crucial to ensure the qubits are protecte from unwante noise stemming from the amplifier. The conventional solution is to use circulators employing magneto-optical effects Faraay rotation to break reciprocity. These evices have many isavantages: they are bulky an cannot be implemente on-chip hinering scaling-up to multi-qubit systems, an use large magnetic fiels, which can be eleterious to superconucting evices. They are also typically plague by losses. A number of strategies have been evelope to break reciprocity without the use of magneto-optical effects in both optical systems an superconucting circuits. For nonreciprocal photon transmission, approaches base on refractive-inex moulation [8, 9] have been consiere, as well as strategies using optical non-linearity [10], optomechanical interaction [11, 1], an interfering parametric processes [13, 14]. Relate strategies where the phases of external riving fiels generate an artificial gauge fiel in a lattice or cavity array have also been iscusse [15 18], as have methos for circuit- QED lattices that instea use static external fiels [19, 0]. Nonreciprocal quantum amplifiers have also been evelope largely in the context of superconucting circuits [1 4]. They typically involve engineering complex interferences be- FIG. 1: a Basic recipe for generating irectionality: two cavities are irectly couple to one another via a coherent Hamiltonian Ĥ coh, an are also each couple to the same non-irectional issipative environment. b The issipative environment in a meiates a reciprocal issipative interaction between the two cavities. This can be moelle using a Linbla master equation an issipative superoperator L[ẑ] c.f., Eq.. By balancing the strength of coherent an bath-inuce issipative interactions between the cavities, one can break reciprocity. c Schematic cascae quantum system, where one cavity rives another via a waveguie supporting only a right-propagating moe. The effective theory use to escribe such systems correspons to b. tween parametric processes. Unerstaning how to achieve such interferences can be ifficult, though recently a graphtheory approach was formulate by Ranzani et al. [3]. In this work, we present a simple yet extremely general metho for generating nonreciprocal behavior in a photonic system, both in amplifying an non-amplifying contexts see Fig. 1. It employs reservoir engineering [5], where a structure issipative environment generates useful quantum behavior. In our approach, the issipative reservoir which coul simply be a ampe auxiliary cavity moe generates an effective issipative interaction between the moes of interest. Nonreciprocal behavior is then obtaine by balancing this inuce issipative interaction against the corresponing coherent version of the interaction. As we iscuss, this simple yet powerful trick allows one to

2 generate both isolators which only allow uniirectional transmission, as well as nonreciprocal, quantum-limite phasesensitive amplifiers which have zero ae noise an phasepreserving amplifiers which a the quantum-limite amount of noise, a half quantum at the signal frequency. While our approach uses a kin of interference, it is markely ifferent from more typical interference-base approaches, in that it allows perfect irectional behavior over a wie range of frequencies. The metho is also simple enough that it coul be implemente in a wie variety of architectures; in particular, it is extremely well suite to implementations using superconucting circuits an optomechanics. Our approach to nonreciprocity is intimately connecte to the theory of cascae quantum systems [6 8]. This is an effective theory evelope to escribe situations where a nonreciprocal element is use to couple two quantum systems e.g., such that the output fiel of one cavity rives a secon cavity, but not vice-versa, see Fig. 1c. We show that the effective interactions use in this theory have exactly the form escribe above: one balances a coherent photon tunneling interaction between the two cavities against a corresponing issipative version of this interaction. We also emonstrate that cascae quantum systems theory is not simply an effective theory for escribing nonreciprocal transmission: it also serves as a recipe for constructing nonreciprocal evices, one that can be generalize to amplifying interactions. As we iscuss, the neee issipative interactions can be obtaine by simply coupling to intermeiate ampe cavity moes; one oes not nee to start with an explicitly nonreciprocal reservoir as assume in the erivations of Refs. [6 8]. The remainer of this paper is organize as follows. In Sec. II, we introuce our basic approach of balancing coherent an issipation interactions, showing how this can be use to generate both nonreciprocal photon transmission as well as amplification. In Sec. III, we provie further etails on each of these schemes, iscussing simple 3-moe implementations, as well as issues of banwith, impeance matching an ae noise. We focus particular attention on our scheme for a nonreciprocal cavity-base phase-sensitive amplifier. In aition to being nonreciprocal an quantum-limite, we show this system can also be constructe so that there is no funamental gain-banwith limitation on its performance, an so that it is perfectly impeance matche at both its input an output i.e., there are no unwante reflections at either port of the amplifier. II. DIRECTIONALITY FROM DISSIPATIVE INTERACTIONS We consier throughout this work a generic situation where we have a pair of cavity moes annihilation operators ˆ 1, ˆ, each couple to input/output waveguies; our goal is to engineer a nonreciprocal interaction between them, thus enabling either nonreciprocal transmission or amplification of signals incient on the two moes. Our approach is sketche in Fig. 1b: we will allow both cavities to interact with one another in two istinct ways. The first is via a irect, coherent interaction escribe by an interaction Hamiltonian Ĥcoh; we will take this to be a quaratic Hamiltonian, having the general form = 1 Ĥ coh = J ˆ ˆ 1 + λ ˆ ˆ 1 + h.c., 1 where J an λ are in general complex. We will always work in a rotating frame where the two cavities are effectively resonant, an where Ĥcoh is time-inepenent. The two interactions in this Hamiltonian coul be realize in many ways; for example, one coul start with three moes an a generic threewave mixing Hamiltonian, an then isplace one of the moes with a coherent tone. The riven moe acts as a pump; by suitable choice of frequencies, one realizes the above Hamiltonian, with the amplitues an phases of the couplings J, λ being controlle by the pump moe amplitues. Such an approach has been exploite to great effect in superconucting circuits, using the Josephson parametric converter JPC geometry [9 3], as well as in quantum optomechanics [33]. The secon require interaction will involve controllably coupling both cavities to the same issipative reservoir Fig. 1a. Eliminating this reservoir will generate an effective issipative interaction between the cavities i.e., one that cannot be escribe by some irect Hamiltonian coupling. The simplest setting is where this reservoir is effectively Markovian, an hence can be escribe using issipators in a Linbla master equation for the reuce ensity matrix ˆρ of the two cavity moes. Assuming the interaction between the engineere reservoir an the two cavities are linear, we are thus left with the general master equation where ] [Ĥcoh t ˆρ = i, ˆρ + ΓL[ẑ]ˆρ + j L[ ˆ j ]ˆρ, j=1, ẑ = j=1, u j ˆj + v j ˆ j, 3 an the stanar issipative superoperator L[ô] is efine as L[ô]ˆρ =ôˆρô 1 ô ôˆρ 1 ˆρô ô. 4 The first term in Eq. escribes the coherent interaction between the two cavities, the secon the interaction with the engineere reservoir at rate Γ incluing the inuce issipative cavity-cavity interactions, an the last the coupling of the cavities to their input-output ports at rate j. The coefficients u j an v j characterize the iniviual coupling of each cavity to the engineere bath. As we will see in what follows, the engineere reservoir nee not be anything too exotic: it can simply be another ampe cavity moe, or a non-irectional transmission line. Also note that one oes not nee to be in the strict Markovian limit, though it makes it simpler to unerstan the physics. We iscuss corrections to the Markovian limit in Sec. III. With these ingreients in place, obtaining irectionality involves first constructing Ĥcoh so that it gives the esire

3 3 behavior amplification or transmission, an then precisely balancing it with the corresponing issipative interaction i.e., choice of Γ, u j an v j. In what follows, we show how this general recipe can be use to construct an isolator an nonreciprocal quantum-limite amplifiers both phasepreserving an phase-sensitive. A. Uniirectional photon hopping: issipative isolator We first iscuss how our basic recipe can be use to obtain irectional transmission between ports 1 an. We want an effective interaction between the two cavities which only allows photons to tunnel from cavity 1 to an not vice-versa. This is precisely the kin of behavior escribe by stanar cascae quantum systems theory [7, 8, 34]. We show here how this fits into our general framework where irectionality results from balancing coherent an issipative interactions. We also show how it can be simply realize using an auxiliary cavity or reciprocal transmission line, an thus oes not require an explicitly irectional reservoir. To obtain nonreciprocal tunneling between the cavities, we nee first to ientify coherent an issipative versions of a tunneling interaction. The coherent version is simple: choosing λ = 0 in Eq. 1, we obtain a stanar hopping or beamsplitter Hamiltonian, Ĥ coh J ˆ 1 ˆ + h.c. Ĥhop. 5 For the issipative version of a hopping interaction, we will nee a zero-temperature engineere reservoir which is able to absorb quanta from either cavity; crucially there nees to be coherence between absorption of a photon from cavity 1 versus cavity. The jump operator ẑ in our master equation Eq. thus nees to take the form ẑ ˆ 1 + e iϕ ˆ ẑ hop. 6 The general master equation of Eq. thus reuces to ] [Ĥhop t ˆρ = i, ˆρ + ΓL[ ˆ 1 + e iϕ ˆ ]ˆρ + j L[ ˆ j ]ˆρ. j 1, The secon term escribes the issipative hopping interaction: the engineere reservoir can absorb a photon from either cavity 1 or cavity, an there is coherence between these possibilities relative phase ϕ. The rate for this process is Γ. Note that via a gauge transformation, the phase ϕ can be shifte into the phase of J. We thus set ϕ = 0 in what follows, but keep J complex. Before iscussing how to engineer such a non-local issipator, let us iscuss the consequences. Using Eq. 7, the equations of motion for moe expectation values are ˆ1 = + Γ t ˆ t = + Γ [ ] Γ ˆ1 + ij ˆ, [ Γ ˆ + ij 7 ] ˆ1. 8 FIG. : a Realization of the engineere reservoir via an auxiliary cavity moe which is ampe at a rate. For strong amping this setup correspons to a Markovian reservoir. b Implementation base on a transmission line, which supports propagation of photons in both irections. c Scattering matrix elements for the issipative isolator setup at zero frequency, as a function of the coherent hopping J; the phase of J is fixe so that argj/γ = π/. When J is tune as per Eq. 9, the system only allows irectional transmission between cavities 1 an. We have fixe the issipative coupling strength Γ to be equal to the cavity amping rate, an have taken the Markovian limit for the engineere reservoir. Scattering matrix elements as a function of frequency, when the irectionality conition of Eq. 9 is fulfille. In the Markovian limit, irectionality hols over all frequencies. Note that the engineere non-local issipation in Eq. 7 couples the two cavity lowering operators in an analogous manner to the coherent tunneling interaction J. On a heuristic level, this is because the engineere reservoir gives rise to non-local amping: the amping force on cavity 1 epens on the amplitue of cavity an vice-versa. If we only ha the coherent hopping interaction i.e., Γ = 0, or only ha the issipative interaction i.e., J = 0, the coupling between the cavities woul be reciprocal. Note however that the coherent coupling involves J in the first line of Eq. 8, an J in the secon line. The possibility thus emerges to have the two coupling terms cancel in one of the two equations. By setting, e.g., J! = i Γ, 9 we obtain a uniirectional interaction: cavity is riven by 1, but not vice-versa see Fig. c. A similar calculation shows that the evolution of quaratic expectation values are also irectional; it thus follows from the quaratic nature of the Liouvillian that the same is true for all higher moments. With this tuning of J, our master equation Eq. 7 takes the stanar form use in cascae quantum systems theory [34]: [ ] ˆρ = Γ + L ˆn t n=1, {[ ˆρ Γ ˆ, ˆ ] 1 ˆρ [ˆρ ˆ 1, ˆ ]}. 10 We are most intereste in the evolution of the extra-cavity

4 4 fiels, i.e., signals entering an leaving the two cavities via the coupling waveguies. Treating our engineere issipative reservoir using a Markovian oscillator bath which is equivalent to the above Linbla escription, one can use stanar input-output theory to calculate the relation between the input fiels incient on the two cavities, ˆ n,in, an the output fiels leaving the cavities, ˆ n,out see Sec. III A for etails. Using the input-output bounary conition ˆ n,out = ˆ n,in + ˆ n [35, 36], an letting D[ω] = ˆ1 [ω], ˆ T [ω], scattering between the cavity in/out fiels is escribe by a scattering matrix s[ω]: D out [ω] = s[ω] D in [ω] + ˆξ[ω]. 11 Here, ˆξ[ω] escribes operator-value noise incient on the cavities from the engineere reservoir, an the zero frequency i.e., on-resonance scattering matrix is Γ +Γ 0 s[0] = 4Γ +Γ Γ +Γ. 1 As expecte, there is transmission from port 1 to, but not vice versa. Note that s is in general not unitary, an hence the noise ξ must be non-vanishing in orer to preserve canonical commutators of the output fiels; we iscuss this noise in more etail in Sec. III A, showing that it can inee have the minimal amount require by quantum mechanics. We also show that the vanishing of s 1 can be mae to exten up to frequencies comparable to the relaxation rate of the engineere reservoir i.e., much larger than, see Fig.. Eq. 1 still oes not have the ieal scattering matrix of an isolator [7], as the incient signal on cavity 1 coul be partially reflecte. To suppress such reflections, we simply impeance match the system, i.e., tune Γ =. We then obtain the ieal isolator scattering matrix on resonance s[0] = On a physical level, interference causes signals incient on cavity to be perfectly umpe into the issipative reservoir. Interference also ensures that signals incient on cavity 1 never en up in this reservoir, but instea emerge from cavity. We still have not specifie how one obtains the require non-local issipator. The original works on cascae quantum systems assume an inherently nonreciprocal, uniirectional reservoir i.e., a chiral transmission line, an then erive the effective master equation of Eq. 10. However, the above ynamics can be obtaine without neeing an explicitly irectional reservoir. One simple choice woul be a oneimensional transmission line, cf., Fig. b, supporting both right-moving an left-moving moes, which couples to cavity j at position x j Ĥ SB = ΓvG j=1, ˆ j [ĉ Rx j + ĉ L x j ] + h.c., 14 where ĉ L,R x enote the left an right moving fiels in the waveguie, an v G is the waveguie velocity. For a suitable choice of x 1 x, one again obtains the master equation of Eq. with jump operator ẑ as per Eq. 6. Further etails are provie in the Appenix A. Another simple implementation involves taking a ampe auxiliary moe as the engineere reservoir annihilation operator ĉ, see Fig. a, which interacts with the two principle moes via a Hamiltonian: Ĥ SB = J ĉ ˆ1 + ˆ + h.c.. 15 As we show in Sec. III A, if the amping of the auxiliary moe is sufficiently large, it can be aiabatically eliminate, yieling the scattering matrix given above. For this particular realization, our isolator reuces to a three moe system with an asymmetric choice of amping rates. Further, the require phase of J in the irectionality matching conition of Eq. 9 correspons to having the three moe system pierce by an effective magnetic flux of a quarter flux quantum. We stress that in many physical implementations, the couplings J an J are tunable simply by controlling the amplitue an phases of the relevant pump moes. Thus, the irectional interaction we finally obtain is not the result of having use an explicitly irectional reservoir, but rather results from the control of relative phases in a riven system. Note that this three-moe realization of our issipative isolator was also iscusse by Ranzani et al. [3]. It is also interesting that this three-moe setup irectly yiels the scattering matrix of an ieal circulator see Sec. III A. B. Directional phase-preserving quantum amplifier We next use our general recipe to construct a nonreciprocal, phase-preserving amplifier, a topic that is of consierable interest to the superconucting qubit community [1 3]. We again consier a two-moe system as sketche in Fig. 1b. Our goal is a ynamics which leas to signals incient on cavity 1 emerging amplifie from cavity, while at the same time, signals an noise incient on cavity are prevente from emerging from cavity 1. Our basic recipe is the same as the previous subsection: engineer both coherent an issipative versions of the esire interaction, an then balance them to obtain irectionality. The coherent interaction neee correspons to a non-egenerate parametric amplifier NDPA, as obtaine by setting J = 0 in Eq. 1: Ĥ coh λ ˆ 1 ˆ + λ ˆ1 ˆ ĤPA. 16 This textbook interaction results in the amplification of an input signal or noise incient on either cavity, in both transmission an reflection see, e.g., Refs. 36, 37. We next nee to a the issipative version of this NDPA interaction, as meiate by an appropriately chosen issipative reservoir. This kin of issipative amplification was recently introuce in our previous work, Ref. [38]. The issipative reservoir now nees to be able to absorb photons from

5 5 one cavity an to emit photons to the other, with coherence between these possibilities. The jump operator ẑ associate with the reservoir c.f., Eq. thus nees to take the general form ẑ cos θ ˆ 1 + e iϕ sin θ ˆ ẑ PA, 17 where the angle θ parametrizes the asymmetry between the two kins of processes. The relative phase ϕ can again be gauge away into the phase of λ; we thus set it to zero in what follows. With this choice of coherent Hamiltonian an issipator, the two-cavity system is again escribe by the master equation Eq., with Γ parametrizing the strength of the coupling to the engineere reservoir, an hence of the issipative amplifier interaction. To see clearly that the issipation here leas to amplification, we consier the equations of motion for the means of lowering operators. One obtains ˆ1 = + Γ cos θ t t ˆ = Γ sin θ [ Γ ˆ1 ˆ + ] sin θ + iλ ˆ, [ Γ sin θ + iλ ] ˆ1. 18 The crucial terms behin amplification are the last term in each line, which cause ˆ 1 to be riven by ˆ an vice-versa. Again, both the coherent interaction an the issipative interaction give rise to such terms; each thus gives rise to an amplifying interaction which can be quantum limite, but which is not irectional [38]. To obtain a uniirectional interaction, we again simply tune the amplitue an phase of the coherent interaction with respect to the issipative interaction, so as to cancel the coupling term in the first equation, i.e., λ =! i Γ sin θ. 19 To see that this choice gives the esire behavior of the output fiels, we moel the issipative bath as a Markov reservoir, an calculate the scattering matrix for the system using input-output theory. Letting D in/out [ω] = T ˆ1,in/out [ω], ˆ,in/out [ω], the input-output relations take the form of Eq. 11. ˆξ again escribes noise incient from the engineere reservoir, while the scattering matrix s takes the following explicitly nonreciprocal form at zero frequency s[0] = C cos θ 1 C cos θ+1 0 4C sin θ [C cos θ+1][c sin θ 1] Here, the cooperativity is given as C = Γ. If we further tune θ so that C sin θ+1 C sin θ 1. 0 cos θ! = 1/C, 1 FIG. 3: s-matrix elements of the irectional, phase preserving amplifier, as a function of scale frequency; the cooperativity C Γ/ = 0.95, where Γ is the issipative interaction strength, an is the amping rate of cavity 1 an. a Auxiliary moe amping =, inicating a strong eviation from the Markovian limit; while perfect isolation exists at ω = 0, it is rapily lost for non-zero frequencies. b Auxiliary moe amping = 100, closer to the Markovian limit. The irectionality is much better at finite frequencies, while the gain is unchange. possible as long as C > 1/, we cancel all reflections of input signals incient on cavity 1. With this tuning, the scattering matrix becomes s[0] = 0 0, G G + 1 with G = C 1 C 1. As claime, we have a scattering matrix escribing nonreciprocal, phase-preserving amplification, with a gain that iverges as C approaches 1. Signals incient on cavity 1 are never reflecte, an emerge from cavity with an amplitue gain s 1 = G, whereas signals incient on cavity o not emerge at the output from cavity 1. The system exhibits a stanar parametric instability when C > 1 analogous to the instability in a stanar, coherent NDPA. The frequency epenence of the scattering coefficients are iscusse in Sec.III B. Strikingly, the irectionality property s 1 [ω] = 0 hols for all frequencies for which the Markovian bath approximation is vali. The system is limite by a stanar gain-banwith constraint in contrast to the purely issipative amplification process, which is has no such constraint [38]. We also iscuss the ae noise of the amplifier in Sec. III B, showing that it is quantum limite in the large gain limit as long as there is no thermal noise incient on cavity ; surprisingly, the engineere reservoir nee not be at zero-temperature. While there are many ways to realize the engineere reservoir use in this scheme, the simplest choice is a ampe thir auxiliary moe, see Sec. III B. With this particular choice, our scheme reuces to the 3-cavity amplifier iscusse by Ranzani an Aumentao in Ref. 3. Our analysis thus generalizes this scheme, an provies insight into the unerlying mechanism. It also shows the crucial importance of having the auxiliary moe amping be much larger than that of the principle moes; in this Markovian limit, one has irectionality over the full amplification banwith see Fig. 3.

6 6 C. Directional phase-sensitive amplifier As a thir application of our recipe for nonreciprocity, we construct a phase-sensitive amplifier. Phase-sensitive amplifiers only measure a single quarature of an incient signal; as a result, quantum mechanics allows them to amplify without aing any ae noise [36, 39]. Our general approach allows one to construct a nonreciprocal an noiseless version of such an amplifier, again using the two-cavity-plus-reservoir setup in Fig. 1b. The resulting amplifier has another striking avantage over a stanar paramp: it oes not suffer from any funamental gain-banwith limitation, a point we iscuss more fully in Sec. III C. As before, the first step is to construct a coherent interaction which gives the esire amplification. The stanar choice woul be a egenerate parametric amplifier DPA Hamiltonian involving just a single moe, of the form Ĥint = λ ˆ ˆ + λ ˆ ˆ. In contrast, to be able to implement our recipe for irectionality, we want an interaction which couples two moes. Surprisingly, there is a simple coherent two-moe interaction which oes the job an which yiels ieal amplification properties zero ae noise, no gain-banwith limitation. One nees to use the kin of quantum non-emolition QND interaction iscusse extensively in the context of Gaussian cluster-state generation [40 4]. Suppose we want to amplify the P quarature of cavity 1, i.e., the operator ˆP 1 = i ˆ 1 ˆ 1 /. We will then use an interaction Hamiltonian with commutes with this operator, but which takes information in the P 1 quarature an umps it into a cavity quarature i.e., P. The require coherent Hamiltonian is obtaine by setting J = λ = iλ QND / λ QND R in Eq. 1, i.e., Ĥ coh λ QND ˆP1 ˆX ĤQND, 3 with ˆX = ˆ + ˆ /. It is straightforwar to see from the Heisenberg equations of motion that Ĥ QND causes P to be riven by P 1, an hence P will contain information on P 1 see Fig. 4. The same hols for the extra-cavity fiels: the P quarature of a signal incient on cavity 1 will emerge in the P quarature of signal leaving cavity. Note ˆP 1 an ˆX are QND variables: they commute with the Hamiltonian in Eq. 3, an are unisturbe by the amplification process. It follows that there is no possibility of feeback in this system, an hence the system is stable irrespective of the value of λ QND. By increasing λ QND, one can thus achieve increasing amounts of phase-sensitive gain. Further, as the amplification mechanism here oes not involve coming close to an instability, the amplification banwith is always, irrespective of the gain. Following our recipe for irectionality, we next nee to construct the issipative counterpart to the coherent interaction in Eq. 3. We will nee the jump operator ẑ characterizing the engineere reservoir to also preserve the QND structure of the coherent Hamiltonian. Taking u 1 = u = v = an v 1 = in Eq. 3 yiels ẑ ˆX + i ˆP 1 ẑ QND. 4 FIG. 4: Schematic illustrating the irectional phase-sensitive amplifier. The coherent QND Hamiltonian of Eq. 3 causes the cavity-1 P quarature to rive the cavity- P quarature, an the cavity- X quarature to rive the cavity-1 X quarature blue arrows; there is gain associate with each of these rivings, c.f., Eqs. 5. The engineere reservoir jump operator escribe by Eq. 4 also meiates the same rivings green an magenta arrows, again with gain. By balancing these interactions, one can cancel the X X 1 riving, resulting in irectional amplification. This issipative interaction is the counterpart of the coherent interaction in Eq. 3: with this choice of ẑ, the issipative terms in Eq. alone lea to amplification of the P quarature of signals incient on cavity 1. The heuristic interpretation of this issipative amplification is similar to that presente in Ref. 38 for the phase-preserving case: the engineere reservoir measures the QND quarature ˆP 1, an then umps this information into the non-qnd quarature ˆP see Fig. 4, as well as Sec. III C. With these choices for Ĥcoh an ẑ in Eq., we have both coherent an issipative phase-sensitive amplifying interactions between the cavities. Using this master equation, the equations of motions for the quarature means have the expecte form: ˆP1 = ˆP1, t ˆX = ˆX, t ˆX1 = ˆX1 + [λ QND Γ] ˆX, t ˆP = ˆP [λ QND + Γ] ˆP1. 5 t P 1 an X are QND variables an thus unisturbe by either interaction. In contrast, both interactions cause P to become an amplifie copy of P 1. We can now finally apply the last step of our general recipe: balance the issipative an coherent interactions to break reciprocity. This simply involves setting Γ! = λ QND, 6 which ensures that cavity 1 is insensitive to the state of cavity. Finally, we are as usual intereste in the behavior of the output fiels from the cavity. Treating the engineere reservoir as a Markovian bath an using input-output theory, we can again calculate the scattering matrix of the system. Writing this matrix in a quarature representation, we fin that on-resonance

7 7 III. NOISE, BANDWIDTH AND THREE-CAVITY IMPLEMENTATION A. Dissipative isolator: aitional etails 1. Auxiliary-cavity implementation of the engineere reservoir FIG. 5: Gain G φ [ω] an reverse gain Ḡφ[ω] of the irectional phasesensitive amplifier, plotte as a function of signal frequency ω an coherent coupling strength λ QND c.f., Eq. 3, assuming that the issipative coupling Γ always satisfies the matching conition Γ = λ QND c.f., Eq. 6. G φ [ω] escribes the amplification in transmission of signals incient on the cavity-1 P quarature, while Ḡφ[ω] escribes the amplification in transmission of signals incient on the cavity- X quarature. We have taken the engineere reservoir to be an auxiliary cavity moe with amping rate / = 100 see Sec. III C. In this limit, eviations from the Markovian-reservoir approximation are small. i.e., at zero-frequency Z out = s Z in + ˆξ with s[0] = G φ 0 1, Z = ˆX 1 ˆP 1 ˆX ˆP. 7 Here, the zero-frequency amplitue gain is given by G φ = 8λ QND. The input-output relations in Eqs. 7 escribe an ieal irectional egenerate amplifier: the P quarature of signals incient on cavity 1 emerge with gain from cavity, whereas signals or noise incient on cavity never emerge from cavity 1. Note further that there is no unwante amplification in reflection of incient signals an noise. The amplifier also has several other remarkable properties: it is quantum limite i.e. no ae noise in the large gain limit, an oes not suffer from any funamental gain-banwith limitation. The irectionality is also maintaine over a large range of frequencies see Fig. 5. These properties along with the possibility of eliminating unwante reflections are iscusse in more etail in Sec. III C. To emystify the engineere reservoirs use in our schemes, we provie more etails here on the simplest possible realization: a ampe auxiliary cavity moe. In the limit where the amping rate of this auxiliary moe is large, this moel escribes a general Markovian reservoir. We stress that this setup is just one of many ways to implement the necessary issipative ynamics. In the Appenix, we explicitly show how coupling two cavities to a non-irectional oneimensional transmission line or waveguie also generates the neee issipative ynamics. Consier the issipative isolator escribe by the master equation in Eq. 7, an take the engineere reservoir to be an auxiliary moe with lowering operator ĉ which is ampe at rate by a coupling to a Markovian reservoir. 1/ will act as the correlation time of our engineere reservoir. As iscusse in Sec. II A, we nee this auxiliary moe i.e., the engineere reservoir to interact with the principle moes via the interaction Hamiltonian in Eq. 15. The simplest limit is where is much larger than all other frequency scales; in this limit, the ĉ moe will itself act as a Markovian reservoir for the system moes ˆ 1, ˆ. One coul then recover the master equation of Eq. 7 using stanar aiabatic elimination techniques [34]. Alternatively, one can eliminate the auxiliary moe within a Heisenberg-Langevin formalism, using the coherent Hamiltonian Ĥ = Ĥhop + ĤSB. Solving the equation of motion for ĉ in the large-amping aiabatic limit yiels ĉ = ĉin i J ˆ1 + ˆ, 8 where all operators are evaluate at the same time, an ĉ in escribes thermal an vacuum fluctuations stemming from the moe s internal issipation. Substituting this equation into the equations of motion for the principle cavity operators ˆ j then yiels: t ˆ 1 = + Γ ˆ 1 ˆ 1,in + i Γĉ in t ˆ = + Γ ˆ ˆ,in + i Γĉ in [ ] Γ + ij ˆ, [ ] Γ + ij ˆ 1, 9 where we take J R without loss of generality, an efine Γ 4J /. Taking average values, we recover the masterequation result of Eq. 8. Using the Heisenberg-Langevin approach, we can now calculate the full scattering matrix for the system which inclues the scattering of noise incient from the engineere reservoir. Letting Y[ω] = ˆ1 [ω], ˆ T [ω], ĉ[ω], the full scattering relations take the form Y out [ω] = s[ω] Y in [ω]. Consier first

8 8 the Markovian limit, where ω,, Γ. Assuming that the system has been tune to satisfy both the irectionality conition J = i Γ c.f., Eq. 9 an the impeance matching conition = Γ, the full scattering matrix in this limit is s[ω] = i ω 1 i ω 1 1 i ω ω 1 i ω 0 i 1 i ω i ω 1 i ω i 1 i ω ω 1 i ω ω 1 i ω [ ] 1 + O. 30 The upper left matrix is the scattering matrix s for the reuce, two-moe system, cf., Eq.1. The elements s 13 an s 3 escribe the scattering of noise from the engineere reservoir to the main cavity moes. This then explicitly yiels the noise operator in Eq. 11 as ˆξ = [ s13, s 3 ] T ĉ in. We see that irectionality hols for all frequencies in this Markovian limit, i.e., s 1 [ω] = 0. In contrast, the impeance matching which ensures no reflections at the input of cavity 1 only hols for ω. Finally, note that at zero frequency, the full scattering matrix becomes: s[0] = 0 0 i i In this ieal case, signals incient on cavity are perfectly transmitte to the engineere reservoir, while the input fiel on the reservoir i.e., the ĉ moe is perfectly transmitte to moe 1. If the engineere reservoir is at zero temperature, we see that the output from cavity 1 is simply vacuum noise. Amusingly, the above unitary scattering matrix is that of a perfect circulator: the effective magnetic fiel associate with the phase of J breaks the egeneracy of right an left circulating eigenmoes of the coherent three-moe hopping Hamiltonian.. Non-Markovian corrections We can also consier eviations from the Markovian limit, where the internal amping rate of the engineere reservoir is not arbitrarily large. The scattering matrix follows simply from solving the full linear Langevin equations without any aiabatic assumption. We quote only the results for the forwar an reverse transmission probabilities, again assuming that the irectionality an impeance matching conitions have been met. We fin s 1 [ω] = s 1 [ω] = 1 + ω [ ω ], 1 + ω [ ω 1 + ω ω ]. 3 One clearly sees that the irectionality only hols for frequencies small compare to the inverse correlation time 1/ of the reservoir: for small ω, s 1 [ω] ω /. For non-zero ω/, the engineere reservoir gives rise to both issipative an coherent interactions. The extra inuce coherent interaction ruins the irectionality matching conition of Eq. 9, leaing to a lack of perfect isolation. B. Directional phase-preserving amplifier: aitional etails 1. Banwith an non-markovian effects We return now to the setup presente for irectional amplification in Sec. II B. As in the previous section, we will investigate the frequency-epenent behavior of the system using an auxiliary ampe cavity moe ĉ to represent the engineere reservoir. With this choice, the system is analogous to that stuie in Ref. 3. We emphasize the importance of having a large amping rate of the auxiliary moe, thus complementing the iscussion in Ref. 3. For phase-preserving amplification, the coherent interaction between the principle moes ˆ 1, ˆ has the NDPA form of Eq. 16. To obtain the correct issipative interaction, the coupling ĤSB between the principle cavity moes an the auxiliary moe shoul have the form Ĥ SB = λ ĉ cos θ ˆ 1 + sin θ ˆ + h.c.. 33 Taking the large limit an using stanar aiabatic elimination techniques, one recovers the master equation escribe by Eqs. an 17, with Γ = 4λ /. One can again solve the full Heisenberg-Langevin equations to obtain the full 3 3 scattering matrix for the system at all frequencies. If we tune the couplings to satisfy the irectionality conition of Eq. 19 an the impeance matching conition of Eq. 1, the forwar photon number gain of the amplifier takes the form G[ω] s 1 [ω] = C 1 [ ω ] [ ω + 1 ] [ ] + O C 1 + ω. 34 The corresponing reverse photon number gain which we ieally want to have vanish is given by Ḡ[ω] s 1 [ω] = G[ω] ω + O [ ω 3 3 ]. 35 Consier first the limit where the engineere reservoir is effectively Markovian, ω/ 0. The reverse gain always vanishes, while the zero frequency forwar gain G[0] is controlle by C, an iverges as C 1; the system is unstable for larger C. In the large gain limit, G[ω] is a Lorentzian as a function of frequency, with a banwith ω = 1 C that vanishes the larger the gain. The amplifier has a finite gainbanwith limitation just like a stanar cavity-base NDPA

9 9 i.e., the prouct G[0] ω is fixe [3]. Note that the issipative parametric interaction on its own suffers from no such limitation [38], but is of course not irectional. Directionality is thus obtaine by introucing a coherent NDPA interaction, with the price that this interaction naturally leas to a conventional gain-banwith limit. Turning to the non-markovian effects, we see from Eq. 35 that for finite ω/, the reverse gain is non-zero, implying that irectionality is lost; this is also epicte in Fig. 3. The loss of irectionality here is analogous to what happens in the irectional isolator, an occurs for the same basic physical reason: for finite ω/, the engineere reservoir also inuces a coherent interaction between the two moes, an hence the perfect matching of coherent an issipative interactions neee for irectionality is lost.. Ae noise an quantum-limite behavior In aition to irectionality, for many applications it is crucial that our amplifier reaches the funamental quantum limit on its ae noise. This limit correspons to aing noise equivalent to half a quanta at the input, n a 1/ [39]. The ae noise follows irectly from the full scattering matrix s, an will have contributions both from noise incient on cavity that is reflecte, an noise emerging from the engineere reservoir i.e., the auxiliary ĉ moe. Assuming that the impeance matching an irectionality conitions have been fulfille, an letting n T an n T c represent the thermal occupancies respectively of these two noise sources, we fin: n a [0] = 1 + nt [ G[0] ]. 36 Thus, in the large gain limit, the ae noise is quantum limite as long as there is no thermal noise incient upon cavity i.e., n T = 0 [3]. Remarkably, thermal noise in the engineere reservoir oes not prevent one from reaching the quantum limit; similar behavior is foun in a purely issipative non-irectional phase-preserving amplifier [38]. While not relevant to the quantum limit, from a practical stanpoint one also wants the noise leaving cavity 1 to be small so as not to amage the signal source. Using our scattering matrix, it is straightforwar to calculate the noise of the output fiel from cavity one. Characterizing this noise by an effective thermal occupancy n T 1,out, we fin at zero frequency: n T 1,out = n T c. 37 Thus, while thermal noise in the engineere reservoir oes spoil quantum limite performance, this noise oes show up in the output of cavity 1. C. Directional phase sensitive amplifier: aitional etails 1. Full scattering matrix an impeance matching We now turn attention to our scheme of Sec. II C for irectional an noiseless single-quarature amplification. As iscusse in that section, we nee to combine the coherent QND interaction of Eq. 3 QND variables X an P 1 with the corresponing issipative interaction; this issipative interaction requires the jump operator ẑ = ˆX + i ˆP 1, as given in Eq. 4. To generate the require issipation, we again take the engineere reservoir to be a ampe auxiliary moe ĉ amping rate. Writing this operator in terms of quaratures as ĉ = Û + i ˆV /, the require system-bath bath interaction has the form [ ] Ĥ SB = Λ ˆP1 ˆV + ˆX Û. 38 This interaction preserves the QND structure in the coherent interaction, as it also commutes with ˆX an ˆP 1. One can again confirm that in the Markovian limit of a large, one recovers the master equation escription, with the issipative rate Γ in Eq. being given by Γ = Λ. The issipative interaction on its own generates phasesensitive amplification that can be quantum limite. Heuristically, this can be unerstoo as arising from a kin of transuction meiate by the reservoir. From Eq. 38 information in the P 1 quarature of cavity-1 rives the auxiliary moe U quarature. The U quarature in turn rives the cavity- P quarature, effectively letting P 1 rive P. As P 1 an X are QND variables, increasing Λ simply increases the gain associate with this process, with no possibility of instability. An analogous argument of course shows that one obtains reverse gain: signals incient on X will emerge amplifie in X 1. Thus, the issipative amplification here is not irectional; irectionality is only obtaine when this process is matche against its coherent counterpart, as escribe in Sec. II C. The only small non-ieality left in the irectional phasesensitive amplifier of Sec. II C is the presence of reflections at the input c.f., Eq. 7. Even though there is no gain associate with these, one woul ieally want them to be exactly zero to protect the signal source. We now show that this can be easily accomplishe by moifying both the coherent an issipative interactions use in the scheme, so as to slightly eviate the QND structure iscusse above. This moification also allows one to cancel reflections of signals an noise at the amplifier output. To impeance match, we first moify the system-bath Hamiltonian in Eq. 38 to now take the more general form Ĥ SB Λ U Û sin θ ˆX 1 + cos θ ˆX + Λ V ˆV cos θ ˆP 1 + sin θ ˆP. 39 For θ = 0 an Λ U = Λ V = Λ/ we recover Eq. 38. By allowing Λ U Λ V, we moify the relative strength of the two QND interactions. By letting θ eviate slightly from zero, we break the QND structure of Eq. 38; this will allow us to cancel the unwante reflections from both cavities. For what follows, it will be useful to parameterize the system-bath couplings in terms of a cooperatvity C an asymmetry parameter

10 10 α: C = 4Λ U Λ V /, 40 α = Λ V /Λ U, 41 The general structure of Eq. 39 implies that once the auxiliary moe is eliminate, the cavity X j moes will rive one another in a non-irectional way; the same goes with the cavity P j quaratures. This is epicte schematically in Fig. 6a. To obtain irectionality, we nee to cancel the ability of the cavity quaratures to rive the corresponing cavity 1 quaratures. We o this in the usual manner: we will balance the issipative quarature-quarature interactions generate by Eq. 39 by the coherent versions of these interactions. This will require a coherent Hamiltonian of the form: Ĥ coh λ 1 ˆP1 ˆX + λ ˆP ˆX1. 4 The secon term here is new compare to Eq. 3, an breaks its QND-structure. As usual, we will balance the above coherent interactions against their issipative counterparts as generate by Eq. 39 so that the cavity-1 quaratures are not riven by the cavity quaratures. Working through the equations of motion, an focusing on the Markovian limit, this leas to the conitions: λ 1 = C cos θ, λ = C sin θ. 43 Using a stanar Heisenberg-Langevin analysis, we can fin the full scattering matrix of the system; tuning the coherent interactions as per Eqs. 43, the scattering will inee be irectional. Insisting further that there are no reflections of signals an noise incient on either cavity i.e., impeance matching leas to an aitional conition on the angle θ: sin θ = 1/ C. 44 Note that for a large cooperativity C, the angle θ is very close to zero, implying that one is very close to our original scheme where ˆP 1 an ˆX are QND variables. Even after satisfying the above conitions, the cooperativity C an the asymmetry parameter α remain unspecifie; they will control the final form of the impeance-matche, irectional scattering matrix. Using the above conitions, the full scattering matrix of the system escribing both the principle moes an the auxiliary moe ĉ takes a simple form. Introucing the vector W = ˆX1 ˆP1 ˆX ˆP Û ˆV T, 45 the scattering relations at each frequency then take the form W out = s W in. At zero frequency, the scattering matrix is s = [αg φ ] Gφ [ ] 1 4 α G φ 0 0 ] [αg φ ] Gφ [ Gφ α 46 G φ escribes the zero-frequency phase-sensitive photon number gain of our amplifier, an is given by Gφ = C C. 47 The upper 4 4 block escribes an ieal, irectional phasepreserving amplifier. As for the full 6 6 scattering matrix, it escribes a kin of squeezing circulator, where the input on port j emerges from port j + 1 after having unergone a squeezing transformation. Crucially, the squeezing parameter or gain for each of these transformations are not all equal. While a squeezing circulator may have interesting applications, if the goal is amplification, it represents a potential hazar. As inicate by Eq. 46, incient noise from the auxiliary moe will emerge from the output of cavity 1, having unergone a squeezing transformation with gain αg φ. To protect the signal source at the amplifier input, we o not want to amplify any fluctuations emerging from the auxiliary moe. Hence, the ieal choice is null this effective gain by tuning the asymmetry α to satisfy α = 1/G φ, 48 Tuning the asymmetry of the couplings to the auxiliary cavity in this manner ensures that one can have large, irectional gain, without having unuly large amounts of noise emerge from the amplifier input port.. Frequency-epenence The full scattering matrix can also be easily calculate at non-zero frequencies. The relevant forwar gain of the amplifier escribes signals incient in the P quarature of cavity- 1 emerging in the P quarature of the output from cavity-. Assuming that we chose parameters to impeance match as escribe, an further tune the asymmetry parameter α to minimize noise as per Eq. 48, the forwar photon number gain is given by: G φ 1 + ω G φ [ω] s 4 = 1 + ω ω

11 11 FIG. 6: Properties of the irectional phase-sensitive amplifier. a Sketch of couplings an rivings use to impeance match the amplifier. b Reverse gain Ḡφ[ω] for ω set to half of the amplification banwith ω, for various choices of the auxiliary-moe amping rate. On resonance we always have perfect irectionality: Ḡ φ [0] = 0. c Amplification banwith ω as a function of zero-frequency forwar gain G φ for various values of. The amplifier oes not suffer from a stanar gain-banwith constraint. As iscusse, the zero-frequency gain G φ can be mae arbitrarily large by simply increasing the various couplings i.e., C; the linear system never exhibits any instability. In the Markovian limit ω, the frequency-epenence of the gain is extremely simple: it is simply a Lorentzian-square, with a banwith ω which is inepenent of the zerofrequency gain. Thus, this amplifier is not constraine by any funamental gain-banwith limitation. Incluing non-markovian effects i.e., finite ω/, the frequency epenence is slightly more complex, but the ultimate banwith is still set by, irrespective of the size of the zerofrequency gain. While eviations from the Markovian limit o not egrae amplification, they impact the irectionality of the amplifier. In the ieal Markovian limit, signals incient on cavity in either quarature never emerge from cavity 1. For finite ω/, this is no longer true: now, the reverse-gain scattering matrix element s 13 becomes non-zero, implying that incient signals on ˆX can emerge from ˆX 1. We fin: ω G φ Ḡ φ [ω] s 13 = 1 + ω ω As expecte, the optimal situation is clearly to be in the Markovian limit where. In this limit, one has purely irectional amplification over the full banwith of the principle cavity moes. 3. Ae noise for finite frequency An ieal phase-preserving amplifier can amplify a single quarature without aing any ae noise [39]. From the scattering relations of Eq. 46 it immeiately follows that our scheme reaches this quantum limit on resonance. For completeness, we also present the ae noise at finite frequency, again focusing on the impeance-matche version of the amplifier. We calculate the ae noise of our amplifier in the stanar manner [36], by calculating the noise in the cavity- output P quarature symmetrize spectral ensity S P [ω], an then referring this back to the input. Expressing this ae noise as an effective number of thermal quanta, an focusing on the Markovian limit, we fin n P,a[ω] = ω n T c + 1 [ ] Gφ α ω T n + 1 G φ [ ω ] + O. 51 Note that we have left the asymmetry parameter α c.f., Eq. 41 unspecifie here. The ae noise always vanishes at ω = 0, irrespective of the gain. Further, for a fixe value of α the ae noise vanishes at all frequencies in the large gain limit, implying that one is quantum limite at all frequencies. If however one tunes α = 1/G φ to minimize the noise hitting the input port, then the ae noise is non-zero at finite frequencies even in the large gain limit. IV. CONCLUSION We have presente an extremely general yet simple metho for achieving irectional behavior in couple photonic systems, base on matching a given reciprocal coherent interaction with the corresponing issipative version of the interaction. We emonstrate how this principle coul be use to construct both isolators an irectional, quantum-limite amplifiers. In particular, our approach allows the construction of a irectional phase-sensitive amplifier which is not limite by a stanar gain-banwith constraint. The recipe we present is not tie to a particular realization, an coul be implemente in photonic systems, microwave superconucting circuits, an optomechanical systems. Finally, while our focus here has been on interactions between two principle cavity moes, a similar approach of balancing coherent an issipative interactions coul be use in more complex cavity lattice structures. Unerstaning how this form of reciprocity breaking leas to useful functionalities an possibly new photonic states in such systems will be the subject of future work. Acknowlegments We thank Joe Aumentao, Michel Devoret, Archana Kamal an Leonaro Ranzani for useful conversations. This work