Modern Group Theoretical Methods in Physics pp 211-220 | Cite as
Spectra and Generalized Eigenfunctions of the One- and Two-Mode Squeezing Operators in Quantum Optics
Abstract
In recent years the concept of squeezed state has become central in quantum optics both from the theoretical and experimental point of view [1]. In the simplest one-mode case a squeezed state is defined here as a displaced squeezed vacuum of the form |α, ς) = D(α)S(ς)|0> obtained by applying the squeezing operator S(ς) = exp[(ς *a 2 — ς a +2 ) 12] [2] and the displacement operator D(α) = exp( α a + — α * a) on the vacuum state |0> (i e the ground state of the one-dimensional harmonic oscillator), ς = re 12θ and α = |α| e iß are complex numbers, and a = (q + ip)/√2, a + =(q-ip)/ √ 2 in terms of the normalized coordinate and momentum operators q and p , where [q, p] = iI The term “squeezing” comes from the fact that for cos 2θ > tanh r (> 0) the dispersion Δq of the coordinate operator in the squeezed state is smaller than the vacuum state value 1/√2 : the uncertainty of the value of q is squeezed compared to the vacuum value. If one performs a rotation in the qp-plane (“phase space”) to new canonically conjugate operators q θ = cos θ q + sin θ p , p θ = sin θ q + cos θ p the dispersions Δ q θ and Δ p θ will be equal to e -r / √2 and e r √2, respectively, and the correlation Δ (q θ p θ ) [3] is zero. This implies that the variance matrix of the original set qp (a symmetric 2x2 matrix with the variances (Δq)2 and ( Δ p) 2 as diagonal elements and Δ (qp) as off diagonal elements) has its determinant equal to the minimum allowed value 1/4 . This can actually be taken as a characteristic property of squeezed states: they are the states (amongst a priori even mixed states) that give equality in the relation ( Δ q) 2 ( Δ p) 2 — [ Δ (qp)] 2 ≥ 1 / 4 (sometimes called the Schrödinger-Robertson uncertainty relation).
Keywords
Coherent State Eigenvalue Equation Completeness Relation Canonical Commutation Relation Isotropy VectorPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.See e.g J Modern Optics 34 (1987), No 6/7. Special issue on squeezed states, esp. article by R. Loudon, and P.L. Knight; Mandel, P. (Ed.), Quantum Optics, Solvay Conference Nov. 1991 Proa, Physics Reports 219 (1992), Nos 3–6; Walls, D.F. and Milburn, G.J.: Quantum Optics, Chapters 2 and 8, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1994.Google Scholar
- 2.We follow the convention used e.g. in the first and third in [1]; sometimes the squeezing operator is defined with the opposite signs in the exponent.Google Scholar
- 3.We use the notation A(AB) = <(A’B’+B’A’)/2>, where A’ = A- <A> etc.; A(AA) = (AA)2.Google Scholar
- 4.Lo, C.F.: Eigenfunctions and eigenvalues of squeeze operators, Phys.Rev. A 42, (1990), 6752–6754ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Lindblad, G., and Nagel, B.: Continuous bases for unitary irreducible representations of SU(1, 1), Ann. Inst. Henri PoincaréXm (1910), Section A, 27–56.Google Scholar
- 6.See e.g Perelomov, A.: Generalized Coherent States and Their Applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1986;MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6a.Garcia-Bullé, M., Lassner, W., and Wolf, K.B.: The metaplectic group within the Heisenberg-Weyl ring, J. Math. Phys. 27, (1986), 29–36.MathSciNetADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Erdelyi, A., (Ed.) Higher Transcendental Functions, Vol. 1, p. 103, 2.8. (31), McGraw-Hill, New York, 1953.Google Scholar
- 8.Erdelyi, A., (Ed.) Higher Transcendental Functions, Vol. 2, p. 220, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1953, and there to the original articles. Our normalization of the Pollaczek polynomials is different from the one given in Erdelyi, but is the correct one resulting in an orthonormal set of polynomials.Google Scholar