Jaynes-Cummings model with quasiclassical fields: The effect of dissipation (original) (raw)

Abstract

An approximate solution is given for the Jaynes-Cummings model with cavity losses, i.e. , the problem of a two-level atom interacting with a single mode of the quantized radiation field, in the rotating-wave approximation, when the field is damped by a reservoir at zero temperature. The approximate solution is derived for initial coherent field states with moderately large numbers of photons. It is simpler in form than earlier results derived by other authors and, over the appropriate parameter range, substantially more accurate than some of them, as shown by direct numerical integration of the master equation. In particular, it is found that an earlier treatment of this problem based on a secular approximation is seriously Qawed, in that the conditions for its validity are much more restrictive than was previously believed. Among the results derived it is shown that, just as for the lossless case, when the atom is initially prepared in one of the semiclassical eigenstates the evolution is very simple, with the field and the atomic dipole drifting together in phase. For moderate losses this leads, as in the lossless case, to a "state preparation"; i.e. , to a good approximation, the state of the atom at a specific time can be made independent of its initial state. The e6'ect of losses on the recently discovered "Schrodinger cat" state of the field is also analyzed. It is found that, although the dissipation destroys the coherence of the macroscopic superposition very rapidly, preparation and observation of the "cat" should be possible with the cavity quality factors reported in recent micromaser experiments.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (34)

  1. E. T. Jaynes and F. W. Cummings, Proc. IEEE 51, 89 (1963).
  2. J. Gea-Banacloche, Phys. Rev. A 44, 5913 (1991).
  3. J. Gea-Banacloche, Opt. Commun. 88, 531 (1992).
  4. J. R. Ackerhalt, Ph. D. thesis, University of Rochester, 1974 (unpublished);
  5. J. R. Ackerhalt and K. Rzazewski, Phys. Rev. A 12, 2549 (1975), Sec. IV D.
  6. For a review, see H. Walther, Phys. Scr. T23, 165 (1988);
  7. F. Diedrich, J. Krause, G. Rempe, M. O. Scully, and H. Walther, IEEE J. Quantum Electron QE-24, 1314 (1988). More recent results are reported in [23] below.
  8. See, e.g. , the recent review by S. E. Morin, Q. Wu, and T. W. Mossberg, Opt. Photon. News 3, 8 (1992), and refer- ences therein. See also G. Rempe, R. J. Thompson, R. J. Brecha, W. D. Lee, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 1727 (1991).
  9. Tran Quang, P. L. Knight, and V. Buzek, Phys. Rev. A 44, 6092 (1991).
  10. S. M. Barnett and P. L. Knight, Phys. Rev. A 33, 2444 (1986).
  11. R. R. Puri and G. S. Agarwal, Phys. Rev. A 35, 3433 (1987).
  12. J. Eiselt and H. Risken, Opt. Commun. 72, 351 (1989);
  13. Phys. Rev. A 43, 346 (1991).
  14. J. Gea-Banacloche, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 3385 (1990).
  15. S. J. D. Pheonix and P. L. Knight, Phys. Rev. A 44, 6023 (1991).
  16. M. Orszag, J. C. Retamal, and C. Saavedra, Phys. Rev. A 45, 2118 (1992).
  17. J. Gea-Banacloche, in Foundations of Quantum Meehan ics, edited by T. D. Black, M. Nieto, H. S. Pilloff', M. O. Scully, and R. M. Sinclair (World Scientific, Singapore, 1992), p. 248. See also V. Buick, M. Moya-Cessa, P. L. Knight, and S. J. D. Phoenix, Phys. Rev. A 45, 8190 (1992).
  18. B. Sherman and G. Kurizki, Phys. Rev. A 45, 7674 (1992).
  19. W. Schleich, M. Pernigo, and Fam Le Kien, Phys. Rev. A 44, 2172 (1991).
  20. V. Buzek, A. Vidiella Baranco, and P. L. Knight, Phys. Rev. A 45, 6570 (1992).
  21. J. Gea-Banacloche, M. O. Scully, and M. S. Zubairy, Phys. Scr. T21, 81 (1988).
  22. J. Gea-Banacloche, Phys. Rev. A 46, 7307 (1992).
  23. There is no need here to go into the various definitions proposed for phase operators in quantum optics, since they are all equivalent in the limit considered here (coherent states with moderately large number of pho- tons), and hence the simplest form has been chosen, which may be found in R. Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1983), Sec. 4.8.
  24. Especially relevant to the present problem are the results of D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn, Phys. Rev. A 31, 2403 (1985); see also [17] above.
  25. L. E. Ballentine, Phys. Rev. A 44, 4126 (1991); 44, 4133 (1991).
  26. G. Rempe, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and H. Walther, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2783 (1990).
  27. A. Vourdas, Opt. Commun. 91, 236 (1992).
  28. J. J. Slosser, P. Meystre, and S. L. Braunstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 934 (1989);
  29. J. J. Slosser, P. Meystre, and E. M. Wright, Opt. Lett. 15, 233 (1990);
  30. J. J. Slosser and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. A 41, 3867 (1990).
  31. For example, there seems to be a strong relationship be- tween the results reported here and the recent study of P. Alsing and H. J. Carmichael, Quantum Opt. 3, 13 (1991).
  32. S. Haroche and J. M. Raimond, in Aduances in Atomic and Molecular Physics, edited by D. R. Bates and B. Bederson (Academic, New York, 1985), Vol. 20, p. 347.
  33. W. H. Press, B. P. Flannery, S. A. Teulosky, and W. T. Vetterling, Numerical Recipes in C (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1988).
  34. B. Daeubler, H. Risken, and L. Schoendorff, Phys. Rev. A 46, 1654 (1992).