Asian Journal of Physics Vol. 33, No 11 (2024) 721-740

Atomic inversion and entanglement dynamics in the mixed squeezed coherent state version of the Jaynes-Cummings interaction

Koushik Mandal, Pooja Jethwani, and M V Satyanarayana
Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600 036, India

Coherent signal containing squeezed noise in a mixed state of radiation field is considered here as a non-Gaussian mixture of a coherent state density operator and as queezed state density operator, as opposed  to the usual  well known squeezed coherent state. Both these states are ‘quantum’ noise-included signal states. Effects of these two distinct ways of adding squeezing to a coherent state are compared and contrasted. The main objective of  this work  is to study the mixed state version of the Jaynes-Cummings model in the context of a two-level atom interacting with a mixed field state of a squeezed vacuum and a coherent state. The pure squeezed coherent state (PSCS) and the mixed squeezed coherent state (MSCS) are used as the states of the radiation field. The photon-counting distribution (PCD), the atomic inversion and the entanglement dynamics of atom-field interaction for both the radiation fields are investigated and compared with each other. We observe that depending on the state of the field, squeezing has very different effects on coherent photons. Mild squeezing on the coherent photons strongly localizes the PCD for PSCS; however, for MSCS there is no such localization observed-instead squeezing manifests for MSCS as oscillations in the PCD. The effects of squeezing on the atomic inversion and the entanglement dynamics for MSCS are contrasting in comparison with the corresponding quantities associated with PSCS. It is well known in the literature that for PSCS, increasing the squeezing increases the well-known ringing revivals in the atomic inversion, and also increases irregularity in the entanglement dynamics. However, increasing the squeezing in MSCS very signifcantly alters the collapse-revival pattern in the atomic inversion and the entanglement dynamics of the Jaynes-Cummings model. For MSCS, the effect of squeezing on Mandel’s Q parameter and Wigner functions are also presented. © Anita Publications. All rights reserved.
Doi: 10.54955/AJP.33.11.2024.721-740
Keywords: Pure squeezed coherent state (PSCS), Mixed squeezed coherent state (MSCS), Jaynes-Cummings interaction, Mandel’s Q parameter, Wigner distribution function.

Peer Review Information
Method: Single- anonymous; Screened for Plagiarism? Yes
Buy this Article in Print © Anita Publications. All rights reserve

References

  1. Horodecki R, Horodecki P, Horodecki M, Horodecki K, Quantum entanglement, Rev Mod Phys, 81(2009)865–942.
  2. Ekert A K, Quantum cryptography based on bell’s theorem, Phys Rev Lett, 67(1991)661–663.
  3. Bennett C H, Brassard G, Crépeau C, Jozsa R, Peres A, Wootters W K, Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels, Phys Rev Lett, 70,1993)1895–1899.
  4. Bennett C H, Wiesner S J, Communication via one-and two-particle operators on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen states, Phys Rev Lett, 69(1992)2881–2884.
  5. Nielsen M A, Chuang I, Quantum computation and quantum information, (American Association of Physics Teachers), 2002.
  6. Wiseman H M, Milburn G J, Quantum measurement and control, (Cambridge University Press), 2009.
  7. Lewenstein M, Kraus B, Horodecki P, Cirac J I, Characterization of separable states and entanglement witnesses, Phys Rev A, 63(2001)044304; doi.10.1103/PhysRevA.63.044304.
  8. Schirmer S G, Solomon A I, Quantum control of dissipative systems, In Proceedings of the MTNS, (2002).
  9. Solomon A I, Schirmer S G, Dissipative quantum control, arxiv.org.
  10. Schmid C, Kiesel N, Wieczorek W, Weinfurter H, Mintert F, A Buchleitner A, Experimental direct observation of mixed state entanglement, Phys Rev Lett, 101(2008)260505; doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.101.260505.
  11. Elben A, Kueng R, Huang H Y, van Bijnen R, Kokail C, Dalmonte M, Calabrese P, Kraus B, Preskill J, Zoller P, Vermersch B, Mixed-state entanglement from local randomized measurements, Phys Rev Lett, 125,(2020)200501; doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.125.200501.
  12. Murciano S, Vitale V, Dalmonte M, Calabrese P, Negativity Hamiltonian: An operator characterization of mixed-state entanglement, Phys Rev Lett, 128(2022)140502; doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.140502.
  13. Zhuang Q, Zhang Z, Shapiro J H, Optimum mixed-state discrimination for noisy entanglement-enhanced sensing, Phys Rev Lett, 118(2017)040801; doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.040801.
  14. Xiang G Y, Li J,Yu B, Guo G C, Remote preparation of mixed states via noisy entanglement, Phys Rev A, 72(2005)012315; doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.72.012315.
  15. Datta A, Vidal G, Role of entanglement and correlations in mixed-state quantum computation, Phys Rev A, 75(2007) 042310; doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.75.042310.
  16. Sivakumar S, Effect of thermal noise on atom-field interaction:Glauber-lachs versus mixing, Eur Phys J D, 66(2012); doi.1140/epjd/e2012-30399-2.
  17. Rastegar N, Baghshahi H R, Mirafzali S Y, Atomic coherence in the nonresonant Jaynes–Cummings model with thermocoherent field, Laser Phys, 26(2016)115201;org/10.1088/1054-660X/26/11/115201.
  18. Yamamoto Y, Haus H A, Preparation, measurement and information capacity of optical quantum states, Rev Mod Phys, 58(1986)1001–1020.
  19. Kitagawa M, Ueda M, Squeezed spin states, Phys Rev A, 47(1993)5138; doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.47.5138.
  20. Ralph T C, Continuous variable quantum cryptography, Phys Rev A, 61(1999)010303; doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.61.010303.
  21. Hillery M, Quantum cryptography with squeezed states, Phys Rev A, 61(2000)022309; doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.61.022309.
  22. Braunstein S L, Kimble H J, Teleportation of continuous quantum variables, Phys Rev Lett, 80(1998)869; doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.80.869.
  23. Milburn G J, Braunstein S L, Quantum teleportation with squeezed vacuum states, Phys Rev A, 60(1999)937–942.
  24. Mouloudakis G, Lambropoulos P, Squeezed Coherent States in Double Optical Resonance, Photonics, 8(2021)72; doi.org/10.3390/photonics8030072.
  25. Hu L.-Y, Zhang Z.-M, Statistical properties of coherent photon-added two-mode squeezed vacuum and its inseparability, J Opt Soc Am B, 30(2013)518–529.
  26. Israel Y, Cohen L, Song X B, Joo J, Eisenberg H S, Y Silberberg Y, Entangled coherent states created by mixing squeezed vacuum and coherent light, Optica, 6(2019)753–757.
  27. Podoshvedov S A, Building of one-way hadamard gate for squeezed coherent states, Phys Rev A, 87(2013)012307; doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.87.012307.
  28. Podoshvedov S A, Single qubit operations with base squeezed coherent states, Opt Commun, 290(2013)192–201.
  29. Larson J, Mavrogordatos T, The Jaynes–Cummings model and its descendants: modern research directions, (IoP Publishing), 2021.
  30. Baghshahi H R, Tavassoly M K, Entanglement, quantum statistics and squeezing of two Ξ-type three-level atoms interacting nonlinearly with a single-mode field, Phys Scr, 89(2014)075101; doi. 10.1088/0031-8949/89/7/075101.
  31. Faraji E, Baghshahi H R, Tavassoly M K, The influence of atomic dipole–dipole interaction on the dynamics of the population inversion and entanglement of two atoms interacting non-resonantly with two coupled modes field, Mod Phys Lett B, 31(2017)1750038; doi.org/10.1142/S0217984917500385.
  32. Baghshahi H, Tavassoly M K, Akhtarshenas S J, Generation and nonclassicality of entangled states via the interaction of two three-level atoms with a quantized cavity field assisted by a driving external classical field, Quantum Inf Process, 14(2015)1279–1303.
  33. Baghshahi H R, Tavassoly M K, Faghihi M J, Entanglement criteria of two two-level atoms interacting with two coupled modes, Int J Theor Phys, 54(2015)2839–2854.
  34. Mandal, Radhakrishnan C, Satyanarayana M V, The role of thermal and squeezed photons in the entanglement dynamics of the double Jaynes–Cummings model, Phys Scr, 99(2024)075121; doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/ad5913.
  35. Mandal K, Satyanarayana M V,Atomic inversion and entanglement dynamics for squeezed coherent thermal states in the jaynes-cummings model, Int J Theor Phys, 62(2023)1–19.
  36. Subeesh T, Sudhir V, Ahmed A B M, Satyanarayana M V, Effect of squeezing on the atomic and the entanglement dynamics in the jaynes-cummings model, Nonlinear Opt Quantum Opt, 44(2012); arxiv.org/abs/1203.4792.
  37. Loudon R, Knight P L, Squeezed light, J Mod Opt, 34(1987)709–759.
  38. Yuen H P, Two-photon coherent states of the radiation field, Phys Rev A, 13(1976)2226–2243.
  39. Jethwani P, Signal to noise approach to mixed squeezed coherent states and mixed thermal squeezed states, M Sc Dissertation, Department of Physics, IIT Madras, India, (2017).
  40. Satyanarayana M V, Rice P,Vyas R, Ringing revivals in the interaction of a two-level atom with squeezed light, J Opt Soc Am B, 6(1989)228–237.
  41. Jaynes E T, Cummings F W, Comparison of quantum and semiclassical radiation theories with application to the beam maser, Procd IEEE, 51(1963)89–109.
  42. Gerry C, Knight P, Knight P L, Introductory Quantum Optics, (Cambridge University Press), 2005.
  43. Ghoshal A, Das S, Sen A, Sen U, Population inversion and entanglement in single and double glassy Jaynes-Cummings models, Phys Rev A, 101(2020)053805(2020); doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.101.053805.
  44. Wang J, Fang H, Xu X, Two-photon Jaynes–Cummings model interacting with the squeezed vacuum state solved by dressed-state method, Optik, 169(2018)180–189.
  45. Obada A S F, Khalil E, Ahmed M, Elmalky M, Influence of an external classical field on the interaction between a field and an atom in presence of intrinsic damping, Int J Theor Phys, 57(2018)2787–2801.
  46. Ali S, Some Statistical Properties for Interacting Between a Two Two-Level Atoms and the Electromagnetic Fields in Present of Converter Terms, Int J Theor Phys, 55(2016)161–175.
  47. Liao Q, Yuan L, Fu Y, Zhou N, Properties of entanglement between the J C model and atom-cavity-optomechanical system, Int J Theor Phys, 58(2019)2641–2653.
  48. Alotaibi M F, Khalil E, Abd-Rabbou M Y, Dynamics of an atomic system associated with a cavity-optomechanical system, Results Phys, 37,(2022) 105540; doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2022.105540. .
  49. Yonac M, Yu T, Eberly J, Sudden death of entanglement of two jaynes-cummings atoms, J Phys B: At Mol Opt Phys, 39(2006)S621; doi.10.1088/0953-4075/39/15/S09.
  50. Pandit Das, Roy S, Dhar H S, Sen U, Effects of cavity–cavity interaction on the entanglement dynamics of a generalized double Jaynes–Cummings model, J Phys B: At Mol Opt Phys, 51(2018)045501; doi.org/10.1088/1361-6455/aaa2cf.
  51. Wei T-C, Nemoto K, Goldbart P M, Kwiat P G, Munro W J, Verstraete F, Maximal entanglement versus entropy for mixed quantum states, Phys Rev A, 67(2003)022110; doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.67.
  52. Loudon R, The Quantum Theory of Light, (Oxford University Press), 2000.
  53. Leonard Mandel, Wolf E, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics, (Cambridge University Press), 1995.
  54. Glauber R J, The quantum theory of optical coherence, Phys Rev, 130(1963)2529–2539.
  55. Mandel L, Sub-Poissonian photon statistics in resonance fluorescence, Opt Lett, 4(1979)205–207.
  56. Hillery M, O’Connell R, Scully M, Wigner E, Distribution functions in physics: Fundamentals, Phys Rep, 106(1984)121–167.
  57. Lee H.-W, Theory and application of the quantum phase-space distribution functions, Phys Rep, 259(1995)147–211.
  58. Schleich W P, Quantum Optics in Phase Space, (Wiley-VCH, 2001.
  59. Agarwal G S, Quantum Optics, (Cambridge University Press), 2013.
  60. Goswami A, Quantum Mechanics, (Waveland Press), 2003.

Related Posts