0 Voturi pozitive0 Voturi negative

23 (de) vizualizări9 paginiWe calculate the quasienergies and steady states of a coupled two-level atom and quantized electromagnetic
cavity mode with the cavity mode driven by a periodic classical field. The atom, the cavity
mode, and the classical field are all on resonance. The quasienergies give shifted Jaynes-Cummings level
splittings. These splittings are reduced by the interaction with the driving field and vanish at a threshold
value of the driving field strength. Above the threshold, discrete quasienergies and normalizable steady
states do not exist. Below the threshold, for weak driving fields, the steady states are squeezed and displaced
Jaynes-Cummings eigenstates. We discuss the relevance of these results to work in cavity quantum
electrodynamics.

Sep 15, 2014

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

We calculate the quasienergies and steady states of a coupled two-level atom and quantized electromagnetic
cavity mode with the cavity mode driven by a periodic classical field. The atom, the cavity
mode, and the classical field are all on resonance. The quasienergies give shifted Jaynes-Cummings level
splittings. These splittings are reduced by the interaction with the driving field and vanish at a threshold
value of the driving field strength. Above the threshold, discrete quasienergies and normalizable steady
states do not exist. Below the threshold, for weak driving fields, the steady states are squeezed and displaced
Jaynes-Cummings eigenstates. We discuss the relevance of these results to work in cavity quantum
electrodynamics.

© All Rights Reserved

23 (de) vizualizări

We calculate the quasienergies and steady states of a coupled two-level atom and quantized electromagnetic
cavity mode with the cavity mode driven by a periodic classical field. The atom, the cavity
mode, and the classical field are all on resonance. The quasienergies give shifted Jaynes-Cummings level
splittings. These splittings are reduced by the interaction with the driving field and vanish at a threshold
value of the driving field strength. Above the threshold, discrete quasienergies and normalizable steady
states do not exist. Below the threshold, for weak driving fields, the steady states are squeezed and displaced
Jaynes-Cummings eigenstates. We discuss the relevance of these results to work in cavity quantum
electrodynamics.

© All Rights Reserved

- The Law of Explosive Growth: Lesson 20 from The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership
- Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race
- Hidden Figures Young Readers' Edition
- The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and
- Micro: A Novel
- The Wright Brothers
- The Other Einstein: A Novel
- State of Fear
- State of Fear
- The Power of Discipline: 7 Ways it Can Change Your Life
- The Kiss Quotient: A Novel
- Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error
- Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
- The 6th Extinction
- The Black Swan
- The Art of Thinking Clearly
- The Last Battle
- Prince Caspian
- A Mind for Numbers: How to Excel at Math and Science Even If You Flunked Algebra
- The Theory of Death: A Decker/Lazarus Novel

Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

1 APRIL 1992

P. Alsing, D.-S. Guo,

*

and H. J. Carmichael

Department ofPhysics, Chemicai Physics Institute, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403

and Institute of TheoreticaL Science, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403

(Received 26 August 1991)

We calculate the quasienergies and steady states of a coupled two-level atom and quantized elec-

tromagnetic cavity mode with the cavity mode driven by a periodic classical field. The atom, the cavity

mode, and the classical field are all on resonance. The quasienergies give shifted Jaynes-Cummings level

splittings. These splittings are reduced by the interaction with the driving field and vanish at a threshold

value of the driving field strength. Above the threshold, discrete quasienergies and normalizable steady

states do not exist. Below the threshold, for weak driving fields, the steady states are squeezed and dis-

placed Jaynes-Cummings eigenstates. We discuss the relevance of these results to work in cavity quan-

tum electrodynamics.

PACS number(s): 42.50.Dv, 32.60.+i, 36.90.+f

I. INTRODUCTION

The Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian describes the in-

teraction of one mode of the electromagnetic field with a

two-state atom in the electric dipole and rotating-wave

approximations. This Hamiltonian is of fundamental im-

portance to the field of quantum optics; it is a central in-

gredient in the quantized description of any optical sys-

tem involving the interaction between light and atoms.

The problem of a two-state atom interacting with an

electric field is mathematically equivalent to the problem

of a spin- , particle in a magnetic field. The early history

of the Jaynes-Cummings model is therefore found in

work on magnetic resonance [1,2]. Jaynes and Cum-

mings presented their analysis in 1963 [3].

Since that

time, a large number of theoretical papers have appeared

dealing with various aspects of the Jaynes-Cummings

Hamiltonian and the evolution in time that it generates

[4,5]. For example, the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian is

used widely in quantized theories of the laser [6,7]; this

alone accounts for a vast literature on the subject. How-

ever, in spite of the extensive theoretical attention it has

received, the full, quantized Jaynes-Cummings Hamil-

tonian has had little relevance to experiments in optics

until recently. This is because most interactions between

light and atoms involve highly populated modes of the

electromagnetic field where a semiclassical treatment is

all that is required. In the semiclassical limit the electric

field enters the Hamiltonian as a c number. The evolu-

tion of the atomic state is represented by a precession on

the Bloch sphere at a frequency determined

by the

strength of the electric field. The precession

frequency

the Rabi frequency

is produced by a split-

ting of the atom's

energy levels due to its interaction with

the time-periodic field

To obtain conditions where a semiclassical treatment is

inadequate, it is necessary either that the fundamental

coupling strength (the dipole coupling strength) be large

or that many weakly coupled modes contribute to the

physics in an important way. In both situations, single-

or few-photon excitations, requiring a quantized treat-

ment, can produce observable effects. Spontaneous emis-

sion is an example of a phenomenon involving many

weakly coupled modes where a quantized treatment is

called for [9]. Photon antibunching in resonance fluores-

cence is another [10,11]. For interactions with one mode

of the electromagnetic field, the size of the dipole cou-

pling strength is important; rates of coherent evolution

(Rabi frequencies) must be comparable to dissipation

rates for the single-mode interaction to be significant.

Traditionally, coherent effects are observed in the limit of

very large photon numbers and small dipole coupling

constant. In contrast, work in cavity quantum electro-

dynamics attempts to make the dipole coupling constant

itself large [12]. When this is achieved, dynamical effects

associated with the energy spectrum of the full quantized

Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian are observable [12

16].

Usually, the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian will not,

on its own, provide a complete description of an experi-

ment, no matter how closely it approaches the two-state,

one-mode idealization of the Jaynes-Cummings model.

The Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian defines a

"mole-

cule,

"

a composite system formed from the coupling of a

two-state system and a quantized harmonic oscillator.

To interrogate the "molecule,

"

we must probe it in some

manner. The probe is a perturbation; we must analyze

the problem of "molecule"

plus probe to fully understand

the experiment. In this paper, we analyze the problem of

the Jaynes-Cummings "molecule"

probed by a classical

(external) coherent field. Recent experiments designed to

observe the so-called "vacuum"

Rabi splitting are of this

type [17,18]. Although the splitting for a single atom

coupled to an electromagnetic cavity mode has not yet

been observed, it appears that this observation is not very

far off. (Note that vacuum Rabi splitting refers to the

splitting of the first excited state of the Jaynes-Cummings

Hamiltonian. )

The complete Hamiltonian we consider consists of the

Jaynes-Cummings

Hamiltonian for a two-state atom in-

teracting on resonance with one mode of an electromag-

45 5135 1992 The American Physical Society

5136 P. ALSING, D.-S. GUO, AND H. J. CARMICHAEL 45

netic cavity

Ho

plus an interac-

tion Hamiltonian Ht(t) describing the coupling between

this system and the external field. The interaction Ham-

iltonian has an explicit periodic time dependence due to

the oscillation of the external field at the common reso-

nance frequency of the atom and cavity mode. We are

therefore interested in steady states (in the sense of

periodic states) and quasienergies rather than in energy

eigenstates and eigenvalues [19,20]. The external field

can either couple to the atom, by illumination through

the open sides of the cavity, or to the cavity mode by

il-

lumination through one of the mirrors. The most in-

teresting results are found in the latter case. For this case

we find that the resonance frequencies of the Jaynes-

Cummings

"molecule"

undergo a dynamic Stark shift; in

place of the Rabi splittings +&n

g,

we obtain quasiener-

gies

+v n

g[1

(2@/g)

],

n =0,

1, 2, . . .

where 8 is the amplitude of the external field and

g

is the

dipole coupling constant [21]. The associated steady

states are generally quite complicated. For weak excita-

tion they are squeezed and displaced Jaynes-Cummings

eigenstates. For an external field amplitude larger than

6 =g/2, no normalizable steady states exist. (Note that

8=g /2 is the threshold condition for spontaneous

dressed-state polarization [16]. )

We have used the word "molecule"

by analogy and it

becomes awkward with repetition. We therefore drop it

in the rest of the paper. We will refer to the Jaynes-

Cummings system, and the driven Jaynes-Cummings sys-

tem, when the external driving field is added.

To our knowledge, the method we use for finding the

quasienergies and steady states of the driven Jaynes-

Cummings system has never been applied before. We

therefore introduce the method in stages. In Sec. II we

derive the familiar eigenstates

the so-called dressed

states

[8]

Hamiltonian, in the absence of a driving field. In Sec. III

we treat the driven Jaynes-Cummings system with the

external field driving the atom. Here the quasienergies

are not shifted and the steady states are displaced dressed

states. We calculate the quasienergies and steady states

for the driven Jaynes-Cummings system with the external

field driving the cavity mode in Sec. IV. In Sec. V we

discuss the relevance of our results to work in cavity

quantum electrodynamics. A concluding summary is

provided in Sec. VI.

II. EIGENSTATES AND EIGENENERGIES

OF THE JAYNES-CUMMINGS SYSTEM

In this section we solve the eigenvalue problem for the

standard Jaynes-Cummings system. We formulate the

problem in the language used to treat the driven Jaynes-

Cummings system in Secs. III and IV. We therefore be-

gin with the definition of the driven Jaynes-Cummings

Hamiltonian:

dard Jaynes-Cummings system,

Ho= H

+Hg =%coo(a a+

,

'cr,

)+ifig(a cr

ao

~),

0

(2)

o

+

1Q)pt

a

e

0

ENpt

e

a

where we allow the driving field to couple either to the

atom (upper row inside the large parentheses) or to the

cavity mode (lower row inside the large parentheses). a

and a are creation and annihilation operators for the cav-

ity mode, satisfying the commutation relation

[a,

at]=1;

(4)

o.

+,

o.

,

and

o,

are atomic pseudospin operators, satisfy-

ing the commutation relations

[cr+, o

]

=2o

[oo+]

=+o+;

coo is the frequency of the driving field, in resonance with

the atom and the cavity mode; 8 is the amplitude of the

driving field; and

g

is the dipole coupling constant. Arbi-

trary phases for the driving field and the dipole coupling

constant may be absorbed into the definition of the

operators; thus, there is no loss of generality in using real

quantities 8 and g.

We will denote solutions to the Schrodinger equation

obtained from Hamiltonian (1) by ~

g'(t) ):

[H, +H, (t)]~

1(')

=

. [H. +H, +H, (t)]iq'),

where the superscript t on

g

refers to the Schrodinger

picture, the picture in which the Hamiltonian has an ex-

plicit time dependence. The Hamiltonian 0 generates

p

rotations that remove this time dependence. We there-

fore also define states

~g)

in the "interaction picture,

"

with

where the Schrodinger equation in the "interaction pic-

ture" is

=

.

(H,

+H, )~q),

dt i%

(8)

with

o+

0

H

+H@ =iong(a

cr ao+)+ifi6'

a

a

and Ht(t) is the Hamiltonian for the periodic interaction

with the driving field,

H,

(t):H~(t)

H =Ho+Ht(t),

where Ho is the (on-resonance) Hamiltonian for the stan-

We use quotes to remind us that the "interaction picture"

is defined here

by separating H and H +H@(t), rather

p

45 DYNAMIC STARK EFFECT FOR THE JAYNES-CUMMINGS. . . 5137

than

Ho

and Hl(t). Our objective is to solve the eigenval-

ue problem

EItP+)+ifigalg )

=0,

Elyz & ivigatlitz+ &

=o

.

(15a)

(15b)

lfz&=e

and solutions to the Schrodinger equation (1) in the form

lyt (r) ) e

i(zlzz

)tlat ) (12)

The states

Ilitz ) are periodic in time with period 2m/coo;

we follow Sambe

I

19] in referring to these states as steady

states. The quantities E are the quasienergies. Each

quasienergy defines a frequency shift E/A that is added

(in the Schrodinger picture) to every harmonic meio,

m =0,

1,2, ...

,

present in the periodic oscillation of the

steady state If'z).

From the definition of

Hg+H@

in Eq. (9), we write the

eigenvalue problem (10) in the form

0

i AC

a

a

+E

lyz

&

(Hg +Hz ) I yz

&

=E

lgz

&

(10)

The eigenstates

lgz

) in the "interaction picture" define

the Schrodinger picture states

i (H /A)t

(11}

atalqz

&=

E/fi

I~

)

This is the decoupled eigenvalue problem, and in this

case there is no need for further transformations to con-

vert it into an harmonic-oscillator problem. The quasien-

ergies are determined by the requirement

E/fi

=n, n =0,

1,2, . . .

which gives

ED

=0

and

(18a)

E=+&n

g

E

i

=

A&n

g

(18b)

(n =1,

2, . . .). The states

If@

) are proportional to the

Fock states

Using Eq. (15a) to substitute for

It/iz ) in Eq. (15b), we ob-

tain

'2

+

isa

+

0

+E

lli;)

I@o

&=c, lo&

~/i

)

=

I11(&=c(

n

&,

n =1,

2, . . .

(19)

iR

+

isa

t+

0

I1lz+ ) =(}, (13b)

where we have expanded the eigenstate as

I 0

&

=

I

0'

& I

+ &+

I g

& I

&; (14)

I

+ ) and

I

state atom, and

lgz

) and

lgz

) are field states normal-

ized so that

(/zlzz

)

=1. We will use the following gen-

eral approach to solve Eqs. (13). We first decouple the

equations to obtain an eigenvalue problem for

Igz

) or

Ifz

) alone in which an effective Hamiltonian appears

that is quadratic in the operators a and a. We then use

displacement and squeezing transformations (when neces-

sary) to convert the effective Hamiltonian into the Hamil-

tonian for an harmonic oscillator. From solutions to the

harmonic-oscillator problem, the solutions to Eqs. (13)

are---constructed

by inverting the transformations that

have been used.

Carrying out this program gets progressively more

diScult as we move from the standard Jaynes-Cummings

system to the driven Jaynes-Cummings system with the

external field driving the atom, and then to the driven

Jaynes-Cummings system with the external field driving

the cavity mode. We begin with the standard Jaynes-

Cuminings system where the conversion of Eqs. (13) into

an harmonic-oscillator problem is almost trivial.

For the standard Jaynes-Cummings system 8=0, and

Eqs. (13}reduce to

and corresponding to the quasienergies (18b},we obtain

Ig)

=(1W'2)(

n

1&I+ &+i In & I

&),

I q,

&

=(1W'2)(

In

1)I+ ) i ln ) I

)

)

(21b)

(n =1,

2, ...) where we have chosen the arbitrary phase for

these states by taking

c&

to be pure imaginary.

Using Eq. (11), the eigenstates (21) in the interaction

picture give steady states

(22a)

and

i [n

(1/2) ]capt

If'&)

=e

lg~),

n =1,

2, . . .

, g=u, l .

(22b)

Here the time dependence is contained in an overall

phase factor, and in the full solution to the Schrodinger

where g=u or l, and the constants

co

and

c&

will be

determined

by

the normalization. The states

lgz+)

are

obtained from Eqs. (15), (18), and (19) in the form

Iq+g&=

etc&In

1), n

=

1,2, . . .

where e&=+1,

(20), we can now construct the normalized eigenstates

I fz

) . Corresponding to the quasienergy (18a), we obtain

(21a)

5138 P. ALSING, D.-S.

GUO, AND H. J. CARMICHAEL 45

equation [Eq. (12)] the phases (n

,

'

)coot and (E/A)t add

to give (E,

/A)t

=

,

'

coot, n =0, and

(E,/A)t

=

[(n

,

'

ko0+ep'n

g]t,

n =1,

2, ,

g=u, l (e~=+1) .

This rejects the fact that Hand H commute; there-

0

fore, the states (21) are simultaneous eigenstates of both

Hamiltonians. Of course, the "quasienergy" and

"steady-state'*

language is not really necessary for treat-

ing this case. But it is needed to handle the driven

Jaynes-Cummings system. When the driving field is not

zero, H does not commute with H +H@ and we do not

0

find simultaneous eigenstates; the time dependence of the

states

I 1ltz ) will then be nontrivial.

IP&=(1/&2)(I@/g;n 1)I+ &+il@/g;n &I

&),

(29b)

I y,

& =(1/&2)(

I @/g; n

1 & I+ &

il @/g; n & I

& ),

(n=1,2,...) where

Ib/g;n

1) and Ih/g;n ) are dis-

placed Fock states:

la;n ) =D(a)ln & . (30)

Ip')= 'I

'"'@/

o&l

& (31a)

and

From Eqs. (11) and (29), the steady states of the driven

Jaynes-Cummings system with the external field driving

the atom are

III. THE DRIVEN JAYNES-CUMMINGS

SYSTEM: COUPLING TO THE ATOM

We first consider the driven Jaynes-Cummings system

with the external field driving the atom. This problem is

solved

by

a minor extension of what we have just seen.

The eigenvalue problem in the "interaction picture"

takes the form [from the upper row in Eq. (13)]

Elq;)+tA(ga

@)lq, )

=O,

EI

q

& t A(ga

4')

I

y+

&

=0

.

(23a)

(23b)

(a

@/g)(a

@/g)

If'

)

=

E/A

I ) (24)

The only change, in comparison with Eq. (16), is that

here we have the eigenvalue problem for a displaced har-

monic oscillator. We can remove the displacement by

multiplying on the left

by

D ( 8/g), where

D (a )

=

exp(aa

a'a

), (25)

We solve Eq. (23a) for

IlltE ) and substitute the solution

into Eq. (23b) to obtain

2

X(le

'

'

@/g;n

1)I+ )

+ie(Ie

'6'/g;n

&I

&),

n =1,

2, . . .

, g=u, l (e&=+1) . (31b)

These states illustrate the features of the steady states for

a time-periodic Hamiltonian in a nontrivial way. They

carry the same time-dependent phases as the states (22);

but they also carry the periodic time dependence that

enters through the displaced Fock states. The full solu-

tions

I/0(t)) and IP'&(t)) to the Schrodinger equation

[Eq. (12)] do not involve single frequencies

, 'coo and

(n

,

')coo+e&&n

g;

they involve infinite sets of frequen-

cies: (m

, ')coo, m=0,

1,2, ...

,

for the state

Igo(t))

and

(m 2)t00+

e

&&ng,

m=0, 1,2, ...

,

for the states IP' t(t)),

n=l,

2,...

,

g=u, l (e&=+1). Thus, the quasienergies

ED=0 and

E&=e&A&ng characterize the steady states

by defining frequency shifts that are applied to the whole

series of harmonically spaced frequencies (m

,

'

)~o,

m =0, 1,2, . . . . Each steady state is also distributed in a

characteristic way across the Fock states. This distribu-

tion determines the relative strengths of the different fre-

quency components in the state.

and using

D (a)aD(a)=a+a .

Then,

a

alp~

&

E/A

l~

)

g

where

I g,

&

=D'(@/g)

I y;

& .

(26)

(27)

(28)

IV. THE DRIVEN JAYNES-CUMMINGS

SYSTEM: COUPLING TO THE CAVITY MODE

We now turn to our main interest

calculation of the

quasienergies and steady states of the driven Jaynes-

Cummings system with the external field driving the cavi-

ty mode. This calculation follows the same general steps

as the calculations in Secs. II and III. However, the de-

tails are considerably more complicated. In the "interac-

tion picture" we have the eigenvalue problem [from the

lower row in Eqs. (13)]

ly, &

=

I@/g;0& I

& (29a)

and

Equation (27) is solved by Fock states as before. The

quasienergies are given by Eqs. (18), and, after inverting

the displacement, the eigenstates in the "interaction pic-

ture" are

[

iA6(at

a)+E]I

QE

) +i

Agalg~ )

=0,

[

iAC(at

a

)+E)IPE ) i Aga I fE

)

=0

.

(32a)

Our first task is to decouple these equations and obtain an

equation for

IQE

) (or

IQE

) ) alone. To this end, we mul-

tiply Eqs. (32a) and (32b) on the left by

at

and a, respec-

tively, which gi~es

45 DYNAMIC STARK EFFECT FOR THE JAYNES-CUMMINGS. . . 5139

[

i

fi@(a

a

)+E]a

lPz )+isa alga )

iAlgz )

=0,

(33a)

[

iM(a

a)+E]alga )

i

Rgaa

lPz

&

i

kelgz &=0

.

0 (E)0 (E)lyz &

=0, (40)

where O~(E) and 0 (E) commute. The general solution

will take the form

(33b)

Ip;)=c, lp;

,

)+c.

lg; .

.

), (41)

Then, from Eqs. (32) we have

alpz )

=

(6/g)(a

a)+i

E/R

l&z

(34a)

(42a}

(42b)

where

lPz.

~

) and

l gz. ) are solutions to the equations

o, (E)ly;.

,

) =0,

o (E)lit;.

&=0.

a

lpz

)

=

(@/g)(a

a)+i

+

E/A

(34b)

(v jg)(at a)+i

Ejfi

g

+ata

Using Eq. (34b) to substitute for a tl

Pz

) in Eq. (33a), and

Eq. (34a) to substitute for al

fz

) in Eq. (33b), we obtain

It may happen that there are quasienergies E for which

Eq. (42a) has a solution and Eq. (42b} does not, or vice

versa. For these quasienergies one of the constants, c or

c, will vanish. But, in general, we allow for the possibil-

ity that both of Eqs. (42) have a solution for the same

value of E. When this is the case, the constants c and c

will be determined by the requirement that Eqs. (32) are

satisfied [this is not guaranteed for arbitrary solutions to

Eqs. (40)] and by

the normalization

( 8lg)(a

a)+i

E/R

g

(@jg) I

yz+ & =0, (35a)

+aat

lgz+ )

2

+(@

jg)lyz

&=0. (35b)

&

qz I gz

& &&z l&z

&+ &

qz I gz

&

1 .

Before we can determine the constants, we must find the

state

l gz

) that corresponds to the state

l fz

) given by

Eqs. (41) and (42). For this purpose we use Eq. (35a) and

Eqs. (39) to write

We can now use Eq. (35a) to eliminate

llitz ) from Eq.

(35b). This gives

lyz

&=(e

jg)

'[0

,

'[1++1 (2ejg)']]lyz &,

[[0(E)+, '][0(E)

,

']+(8

jg)

] lPz

)

=0, (36)

(43)

where

0(E)

=

(Bjg)(a

a )+i

Ejl

g

a a+aa

(37)

2

where we indicate two alternative forms for the operator

on the right-hand side; the + sign goes with the subscript

p,

and the

sign goes with the subscript m. From Eqs.

(42) and (43) we have

+ +,

'+1

(26/ ) (39a)

Equation (36) is the desired equation for

lpga

) alone.

But it is not related in an obvious way to the eigenvalue

problem for an harmonic oscillator. In particular, Eq.

(36) is quartic, rather than quadratic in the creation and

annihilation operators. We must therefore take an addi-

tional step before we can proceed as we did in the previ-

ous calculations. We observe that the operator on the

left-hand side of Eq. (36) factorizes in the form

j

[0(E)+, '][0(E)

, ']+(8

jg)

]

=0

(E)0 (E), (38)

where

2

0 (E)=

(8/g)(a

a)+i

Ejl

P

lgz )

=

(g/26)[c [1++1

(2C/g)2]lgz. )

+c.[1

&1

(2@jg)']]lq;.

.

& .

(44)

There are two steps left in our calculation: We must

solve Eqs. (42a) and (42b} to determine the allowed

quasienergies E and the states

l gz

) and

lPz ), and we

must substitute the solutions for the states into Eqs. (32)

and

apply

the normalization condition to determine the

constants c and c . We accomplish the first task by

us-

ing displacement and squeezing transformations to con-

vert Eqs. (42a) and (42b) into eigenvalue equations for an

harmonic oscillator. We multiply Eqs. (42a) and (42b) on

the left by S (ri)D (a), where D(a) is defined in Eq. (25)

and

0 (E)= (Cjg)(a

a)+i

E/fi

+

'+1

(2A'/g)

2

2

(39b}

Now we are looking for solutions to the factorized equa-

tion

S(ri) =exp[ ,

'(riat

ri'a

)];

we transform the operators 0 (E}and 0 (E) using

S (ri)D (a)aD(a}S(7})

=(a +a)coshri+(at+a*)sinhri .

Then, if we choose

(45)

(46)

5140 P. ALSING, D.-S.

GUO, AND H. J. CARMICHAEL

45

a=P(E):i

E/fi 2@/g

1

(28/g)

ata

Iy

) [I (2g/ )2)

3/2

ri=r, e

"=+I

(2@/g)

Eqs. (42) are replaced by the equations

2

(47a)

(47b)

1

ly,

,

),

[

itic'(a

a)+E]IPE )

ih'ga

lg~ )

=

Io) . (52b)

[Note that the vacuum state IO) appears on the right-

hand side of Eq. (52b), where 0 appears in Eq. (32b).

]

It

is for this reason that the arbitrary constants c and c

appear in Eqs. (41) and (44). The ratio of these constants

is determined

by requiring that Eq. (32b) is satisfied. The

separate constants are then fixed by the normalization

(48a)

ata

IPF.

)=.

[1

(2@/g)

]

' '

IQE ),

.

(48b)

where

(q, lq,

) =(q,+l1i,

+

&+(@;I@; &

=I

.

The calculation is straightforward, but tedious, and we

therefore just quote the results. Corresponding to the

quasienergy (soa), we obtain

ly,

.

,

&=S'(r)D

(P(E))

P

.

),

Iy,

.

.

&=S (r)D (P(E))lg . ) .

(49a)

Ix, &

=

Ir, o;o& IM &, (53a)

and corresponding to the quasienergies (sob), we obtain

Equations (48) are satisfied

by Fock states when the con-

stants on the right-hand sides are the non-negative in-

tergers. Thus, the quasienergies are

IX.

..

& =(I/&2)

[lr, p(E.

..

);n

I& IP &

+ilr, P(E);n& IM & ],

Eo

=0, (soa)

ly, (

& =(1/&2)[lr,

p(E,();n

1&IP &

(53b)

which is permitted by Eq. (48b) but not

by Eq. (48a), and

E=+R&ng[1

(2@/g)

]

~

EI= fi&ng[1

(2C/g)

]

~

(50b)

(n=1,2, ...) where

ilr, P(E&);n ) IM ) ],

(n=1,2, ...) which are permitted by both Eqs. (48a) and

(48b). The corresponding states are

I&F

,

& :

If&~&.

=ln

1&, n =1,

2, . . .

,

g=u, l

(Sla)

and

IP) =(I/&2)[[1++1

(2@/g)

]'~

I+ )

[1

&I

(26/g)']' 'I

)

j,

IM )

=( I/&2)

[

[1++I

(28/g)

]'

I

)

(S4a)

Ix.

, .

&=Io&

)=

'

0

IX.

. .

&

=

In &,

n =1,2, . . .

,

g=u, l .

(5 lb)

[1

+I

(2@/g)']' 'I+

)

j;

(54b)

the states

I r, p(E&);

n

1 ) and

I r, p(E&);

n ),

g

=

u, I,

are squeezed and displaced Fock states:

(52a)

Equations (41), (44), (49), and (51) define states

lyo

)

and

ly&),

n=1,

2, ...

, g=u, l, that satisfy Eqs. (33). We

seek solutions to Eqs. (32), and while these must satisfy

Eqs. (33), the converse is not true. This follows because

we multiplied Eq. (32b) by

a to obtain Eq. (33b); there-

fore, in addition to the states that satisfy Eqs. (32), the

solutions to Eqs. (33) also include states that satisfy

[

i'd@(a

a )+E]I fE

) +i figa I fE

)

=0,

Ig,

a;n ) =D(a)S(g)ln ) . (55)

From Eqs. (11), (53), and (54), the steady states of the

driven Jaynes-Cummings system with the external field

driving the cavity mode are

lyo)

=e

'

Ie

'r,

o;0) IM, )

and

where

+exile

r, e

P(E&);n ) IM, ) ],

n =1,

2, . . .

, (=u, l (e&= 1) (56b)

IP,

&=(IW'2)[[1++1

(26/g)

]'~

I+)

e

'[1

+I

(2e/g)

)'

I

&j,

(57a)

45 DYNAMIC STARK EFFECT FOR THE JAYNES-CUMMINGS. . . 5141

~M, ) =(1/&2)[[1++1

(2C/g)

]'

~

e [1

+1

(2A/g)

]'

~+ )],

(57b)

V. DISCUSSION

The quasienergies (50) and steady states (56) are the

central results of this paper. These results have various

applications to problems in cavity quantum electro-

dynamics which we will explore in future work. In this

section we point out some of the more obvious connec-

tions with cavity quantum electrodynamics.

The quasienergies (50}define shifted Jaynes-Cummings

level splittings. The shifts are relevant to proposed spec-

troscopic measurements on the Jaynes-Cummings sys-

tem. For example, there is interest in making direct

frequency-space measurements of the Jaynes-Cummings

spectrum, with particular emphasis on the splitting of the

first excited state

Rabi split-

ting. Comparing Eqs. (18b) and (50b), we see that the size

of this splitting depends on the way it is observed; prob-

ing the atom or the cavity mode gives different results.

There are no observations yet of vacuum" Rabi splitting

for a single atom. But there are two observations in

many-atom systems [17,18]. Both of these experiments

coherently excite the cavity mode. In a single-atom ex-

periment the modulation technique used by Raizen et al.

[17] would observe the splitting 2g [1

(2g/g)2]

~,

where 8 is the amplitude of the carrier field. For a direct

transmission measurement like the one performed by Zhu

et al. [18] it is not possible to make a quantitative predic-

tion from the present results because this measurement

involves detunings that are not included in our calcula-

tion. We can say, however, that the quasienergies shift in

response to the driving field and that this shift will

change as the frequency of the driving field is swept. Of

course, in either of these methods the frequency shifts in-

duced by the driving Geld can be made small by reducing

the driving field amplitude; indeed, if 2C/g is not very

small ( &0.1), we observe numerically that spectra mea-

sured by coherent excitation include contributions from

multiphoton resonances involving states above the first

excited state.

It is interesting to compare our result for the shift of

the single-atom "vacuum"

Rabi peaks with what we

would expect for many-atom "vacuum"

Rabi splitting.

There has been some discussion of the fact that, for weak

excitation, the spectroscopic features for the single-atom

system and the many-atom system are the same and can

be understood in terms of a classical coupled harmonic-

oscillator model (linear dispersion theory) [17,18,22].

This equivalence does not extend to the frequency shifts

induced

by the driving field. For definiteness we compare

single-atom and many-atom systems with a resonant

coherent field driving the cavity mode; to probe the fre-

quency structure, this field will carry a small modulation

in the manner of the experiment of Raizen et al. [17].

We identify the quasienergies (single atom} and eigenval-

ues of linearized Bloch equations (many atoms) that

define the "vacuum"

Rabi peaks in the limit of weak

driving fields and ask how these quantities change as a

function of driving field strength. Of course, if the driv-

ing field is too strong, major differences between the spec-

tra will arise because of excitations beyond the first excit-

ed state. For a meaningful comparison, we therefore con-

sider only weak-field perturbations of the "vacuum"

Rabi

peaks (2C/g 1).

For the single-atom system, the vacuum" Rabi split-

ting changes according to the expression

(E) E,

(} lfi=2g

[1

(2@/g)

]

=2g[1

3(6'/g)

]

. (58)

For the many-atom system, we obtain the "vacuum"

Rabi peaks from eigenvalues of the linearized optical

Bloch equations. In the limit of weak driving fields, these

equations take the form of coupled oscillator equations:

a= ca+&

NgP,

P

=

(y /2)13

2&Ngm

ssa,

(59a)

(59b)

where a and

P

are the amplitudes of the field and polar-

ization oscillators, v and y/2 are the half-widths of the

cavity and atomic resonances, N is the number of atoms,

and

mss

is the steady-state inversion in the presence of

the coherent field driving the cavity. Normally, for weak

driving fields we set m

ss

=

,

',

'

then, when

&Ng a, y/2, the eigenvalues of the 2X2 matrix

defined

by the right-hand sides of Eqs. (59) give the

many-atom "vacuum"

Rabi splitting 2&Ng. The first-

order correction to this result is obtained using

mss=

,

'[1

2N '(@/v'Ng)

];

(60)

this is the saturated inversion calculated taking the intra-

cavity absorption into account (8 describes the external

field, not the field inside the cavity). The many-atom

"vacuum"

Rabi splitting is then

2&Ng+2~mss ~

=2v'Ng

[1

N'(v /v'Ng)~]

. (61)

Here the shift induced by the driving field is negligible in

the large-Nlimit. The N dependence is consistent with

the fact that the many-atom system behaves as a pair of

coupled harmonic oscillators

up to corrections of order

N

Another connection between our results and previous

work in cavity quantum electrodynamics comes from the

squeezing involved in constructing the steady states (56).

Carmichael showed that the field transmitted

by a

coherently driven atom containing a single atom is

squeezed [23). This squeezing is related to the squeezing

in absorptive optical bistability [24] which has been ob-

served in a many-atom system [25]. Rice and Carmichael

showed that the presence of squeezing induces a narrow-

ing of the "vacuum"

Rabi peaks in incoherent spectra,

replacing Lorentzians

by squared Lorentzians [26]. The

5142 P. ALSING, D.-S.

GUO, AND H. J. CARMICHAEL 45

steady states (56) provide a new view of squeezing-related

effects in the driven Jaynes-Cummings system. For ex-

ample, the "ground state" of the driven Jaynes-

Cummings system (the steady state corresponding to the

quasienergy Eo

=0) is the product of a squeezed state for

the field and the state

~M, ) for the atom. With spontane-

ous emission and cavity loss included, we can show that,

for weak driving fields, the driven Jaynes-Cummings sys-

tem settles (to lowest order) in this "ground state.

"

Thus,

our analysis of the Hamiltonian (1) identifies the basic

origin of the squeezing, and the steady states (56) provide

a natural basis for calculating effects such as squeezing-

induced linewidth narrowing [27], which is difficult to

calculate using bare-energy eigenstates (eigenstates of

H ) or standard dressed states (eigenstates of

0

Ho

=

H+Hs ).

Our results are also related to the phenomenon of

spontaneous dressed-state polarization [16]. In this

phenomenon the asymptotic quantum state of a driven

cavity mode interacting with a two-state atom undergoes

a novel symmetry-breaking transition as the strength of

the driving field is increased. Above the transition

threshold, the intracavity field shows a bimodality in

phase; the two-phase states result from a spontaneous po-

larization of the atom in one or the other of the two semi-

classical dressed states produced by the intracavity field.

To see the connection between this phenomenon and our

present work, we observe that the quasienergies (50) and

steady states (56) are only valid for 2C/g (1. For larger

values of 28/g, discrete quasienergies and normalizable

steady states do not exist, although a continuum of states

satisfying a 5-function normalization will exist [28]. The

boundary 28/g= 1 is the threshold found in our work on

spontaneous dressed-state polarization [16]. Moreover,

the atomic states

~M, ) and

~P, ) given by Eqs. (57) are

precisely the steady states found, below threshold, from

our semiclassical analysis of this phenomenon [Eqs. (24b)

and (24c) in Ref.

[16]]. In fact, when continued for

26

/g

& 1

~M, ) and

~ P, ) also reproduce the steady states

given by

our semiclassical analysis above threshold[Eqs.

(25b) and (25c) in Ref. [16]]. Thus, the basic physics

un-

derlying spontaneous dressed-state polarization is con-

tained in Hamiltonian (1) and can be understood without

considering the dissipative terms that are present in a full

treatment of this phenomenon.

Finally, we should say something about detunings.

There are two detunings that might be added to the

driven Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian: a detuning A~

between the external field and the atom, and a detuning

4C

between the external field and the cavity mode. It is

straightforward to generalize our results to include a de-

tuning b,

.

This changes E to E+A'b,

to E fih

z

in Eq.

(13b). After these changes, the

methods used to solve Eqs. (13) carry through with minor

modifications. As an example of the results, the quasien-

ergies

E&=e&fi&ng[1

(26/g)

],

g'=u, l (p&=+I)

are replaced by

Eg=EgN 1

(2@/g)2

X [(b, /2)2+ng2V 1

(2g/g)~]'~2

(62)

A detuning between the driving field and the cavity mode

is more diScult to handle. A detuning A~ changes E to

E+A'b

caa in Eqs. (13). The term fihca a does not

commute with the other field operators in Eqs. (13) and,

as a result, the methods we used to solve Eqs. (13) for

he

=0

cannot be used when b, c%0. One property of the

solution in this case does seem fairly clear, however. We

expect that a detuning b, c%0 will remove the singular

behavior at 2C/g= 1 and allow discrete quasienergies for

all driving field strengths. This follows because the boson

term ifr8(a

a)+irihca a that dominates the Hamil-

tonian in the strong-driving-field limit and does not have

a discrete spectrum for b,

z

=0

does have a discrete spec-

trum for b,

CIAO.

VI. SUMMARY

We have calculated the quasienergies and steady states

of the driven Jaynes-Cummings system

a single atom

coupled to a single electromagnetic cavity mode with ei-

ther the atom or the cavity mode driven

by a coherent

external field. When the atom is driven by the external

field, we find that the quasienergies give the usual

dressed-state level splittings +fiV n

g,

n =0, 1,2, ,

where...

g

is the dipole coupling constant and the steady states are

displaced dressed states. When the cavity mode is driven

by the external field, we find that the quasienergies give

shifted level splittings

+&ng[1

(2A'/g)

),

n =0,

1, ,

. . .

,

where

6'

is the amplitude of the driving field. In this case

the steady states are formed from superpositions of atom-

ic states multiplied by squeezed and displaced Fock

states; for weak driving fields, they are just squeezed and

displaced dressed states. Above the threshold 28/g= 1,

discrete quasienergies and normalizable steady states do

not exist.

We have given explicit results with the atom, the cavi-

ty mode, and the driving field all on resonance. The alge-

braic method used to obtain these results is easily gen-

eralized to include a detuning between the driving field

and the atom. We have not found an analytically tract-

able solution when there is a detuning between the driv-

ing field and the cavity mode.

Our results are relevant to work in cavity quantum

electrodynamics. The quasienergies have obvious

relevance to spectroscopic measurements on the Jaynes-

Cummings system [17,18] and the steady states provide a

useful basis for analytical calculations of spectra. A par-

ticular attraction of the steady states as a basis is that

45 DYNAMIC STARK EwvaCT FOR THE JAYNES-CUMMINGS. . . 5143

they automatically incorporate the squeezing

e6'ects

found in earlier work on the driven Jaynes-Cummings

system [23,26]. Our results also provide insight into the

threshold behavior found in recent numerical calcula-

tions for the driven Jaynes-Cummings system with

dissipation

spontaneous dressed-state polarization [16].

There appears to be ample scope for the application of

our results.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the National Science

Foundation under Grant No. PHY-9096137. We are

grateful to Dr. Marcus Lindberg for sending us his

derivation of the quasienergies (50b) and to Dr. Craig Sa-

vage for discussions on the subject of frequency shifts in

the driven Jaynes-Cummings system.

'Present address: Department of Physics, University of

Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada N9B 3P4.

[1]

I. I. Rabi, Phys. Rev. 51, 652 (1937).

[2]

F. Bloch, Phys. Rev. 70, 460 (1946).

[3]

E. T. Jaynes and F. W. Cummings, Proc. IEEE 51, 89

(1963).

[4]

P. L. Knight and P. W. Milonni, Phys. Rep. 66, 21 (1980).

[5]

Y. I. Yoo and J. H. Eberly, Phys. Rep. 118, 239 (1985).

[6]

M. O. Scully and W. E. Lamb, Jr.

, Phys. Rev. 159, 208

(1967); 166, 246 (1968).

[7]

H. Haken, Licht und Materie Ic, Handbuch der Physik

Vol. XXV/2c, edited

by L. Genzel (Springer, Berlin,

1970).

[8]

M. Weissbluth, Photon Atom In-teractiosn (Academic, Bos-

ton, 1989), pp.

392-395.

[9]

V. G. Weisskopf and E. Wigner, Z. Phys. 63, 54 (1930).

[10] H. J. Carmichael and D. F. Walls, J. Phys. B 9, L43

(1976); 9, 1199(1976).

[11]H. J. Kimble and L. Mandel, Phys. Rev. A 13, 2123

(1976); H. J. Kimble, M. Dagenais, and L. Mandel, Phys.

Rev. Lett. 39, 691 (1977).

[12] S. Haroche and J. M. Raimond, in Advances in Atomic and

Molecular Physics, edited by D. Bates and B. Bederson

(Academic, New York, 1985), Vol. 20, pp.

347-411.

[13]J. H. Eberly, N. B. Narozhny, and J. J. Sanchez-

Mondragon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44, 1323 (1980).

[14] J. J. Sanchez-Mondragon, N. B. Narozhny, and J. H. Eber-

ly, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 550 (1983).

[15] G. Rempe, H. Walther, and N. Klein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58,

353 (1987).

[16]

P. Alsing and H. J. Carmichael, Quantum Opt. 3, 13

(1991).

[17] M. G. Raizen, R. J. Thompson, R. J. Brecha, H. J. Kim-

ble, and H. J. Carmichael, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63,240 (1989).

[18] Y. Zhu, D. J. Gauthier, S.E. Morin, Q. Wu, H. J. Carmi-

chael, and T. W. Mossberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2499

(1990).

[19]H. Sambe, Phys. Rev. A 7, 2203 (1973).

[20] J. M. Okuniewicz, J. Math. Phys. 15, 1587 (1974).

[21]This result for the quasienergies was first derived

by M.

Lindberg using a generating function technique (private

communication).

[22] H. J. Carmichael, Phys. Rev. A 44, 4751 (1991).

[23] H. J. Carmichael, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2790 (1985).

[24] L. A. Lugiato and G. Strini, Opt. Commun. 41, 67 (1982).

[25] M. G. Raizen, L. A. Orozco, M. Xiao, T. L. Boyd, and H.

J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 198 (1987); L. A. Orozco,

M. G. Raizen, M. Xiao, R. J. Brecha, and H. J. Kimble, J.

Opt. Soc. Am. B4, 1490 (1987).

[26] P. R. Rice and H. J. Carmichael, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 5,

1661 (1988); H. J. Carmichael, R. J. Brecha, M. G. Raizen,

H.J. Kimble, and P. R. Rice, Phys. Rev. A 40, 5516 (1989).

[27] P. Alsing, Ph. D. thesis, University of Arkansas, 1991.

[28] C. F. Lo, Quantum Opt. 3, 333 (1991).

- Essay Black HoleÎncărcat deAvantikaGarde
- Scotch Yoke ExperimentÎncărcat desharjeel
- AnovaÎncărcat deanon-627186
- 20512062_CA2Încărcat deNeny Rasnyanti
- SMTP_1Încărcat deRoy Vesey
- 6135-8262-1-PB.pdfÎncărcat deLizeth Paola Tellez
- ResultsresultsÎncărcat deIsha Surmad
- Analysis of VarianceÎncărcat deHani Barjok
- Physics Set AÎncărcat deAnsari Sameer
- MIT6_441S10_lec01Încărcat deanhnhamoi
- panel.pdfÎncărcat desswibowo
- 1203.1363Încărcat deGiacomo Accorto
- YangYang StatsÎncărcat deSammy Ben Menahem
- CIA-2 TEST MARKS With 3 Subjects Model 3 19.10.2019Încărcat deanbuelectrical
- Practice_midterm_I.pdfÎncărcat deAnonymous RlaqSBvK
- Advanced Stat Methods PaperÎncărcat deAves Ahmed Khan
- menyunting dari penelitiÎncărcat deAC
- Chi SquareÎncărcat deaji
- Lab 5 Report - Ha Hoang Phuc - MANU2228Încărcat deHà Hoạch
- plasmonsÎncărcat deTruong Le Duy
- ehrenfest(2)Încărcat deakjsdnf
- Introduction to Lighting SystemÎncărcat deThivin Raj
- Quantum Mechanics notesÎncărcat deJosh
- mop.31532Încărcat deFelipe Souza
- DiffractionÎncărcat deChia Hong Chao
- Chapter 1 physiccsÎncărcat deNor Shuhada
- emfesoln_chp12.pdfÎncărcat devakilgaurangi
- Thermal ImagingÎncărcat deRutuja Patil

- John Tagg - Totalled MachinesÎncărcat deEvento Luthiers
- Tetric+EvoCeramÎncărcat depoongodikumar
- 04LA022. Supply Chain ManagementÎncărcat demesiasaaa
- CTDescrTSL4520EthnographicObservation.docxÎncărcat deJeleah Manalastas
- 342158614-1-DLL-GEN-BIO-1.docxÎncărcat demarizel salcedo
- Mcp23008 App NoteÎncărcat deHarold Lee
- DxDiagÎncărcat deabcdef55
- Civicus Report 2019Încărcat devaccideals
- Torchmate CAD 5 GuideÎncărcat deJuanLuisIglesias
- 6BI02 June 2011Încărcat deareyouthere92
- SAGE Quantitative Research MethodsÎncărcat deAdolfo Florian
- CS2302-QBÎncărcat deSathyanarayana Yogendran
- LRUT ProcedureÎncărcat deD_D1216
- 03Încărcat dePeter Szirovicza
- QA VERSES QCÎncărcat deM-Nazim
- C_TAW12_740Încărcat deasep.spdn6658
- Essay Aaron FreemanÎncărcat deAggelou Maya
- The Role of Facial Attractiveness and Facial Masculinity- Femininity in Sex Classification of FacesÎncărcat deChunHung Wong
- Resume Aug 08Încărcat demespenlaub
- Writing Task 2Încărcat denvpatel2671988
- thermsterÎncărcat deSwathy Mohan
- The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol. I Ch.pdfÎncărcat deDeevita Dv
- Supplemental Math High School Grade 7 Q1Încărcat deRiyanna Ehra Intal
- wildland fire in ecosystems - effects of fire on airÎncărcat deDaise Bernardino
- Iboc TechnologyÎncărcat deJishnu Krishnan
- 4 bba multiple intelligence.pptÎncărcat deShifa Rasool
- 36691079 Stress Management at Ntpc 2Încărcat deAditya Rana
- Baja Saeindia 2020 - Team ListÎncărcat deRavi Prakash
- Lecture17-RadioactivityandHalfLifeÎncărcat dehunter9613
- READING IIÎncărcat demudianto miden

## Mult mai mult decât documente.

Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.

Anulați oricând.