1
$\begingroup$

in the paper Nonlinear Interaction Effects in a Strongly Driven Optomechanical Cavity, the authors diagonalize the Hamiltonian (equation (2) in the paper)

$$H_1=−Δd^†d+ω_Mb^†b+G(d+d^†)(b+b^†)$$

in the appendix (equations S1-S3). First they define the vector $\vec X =[b\,d\,b^†\,d^†]^T$, and then say it can be done "by standard means". I assumed they would mean writing the Hamiltonian as

$$H=\vec X^TM\vec X,\quad M=\left(\begin{matrix}\omega_M&0&0&0\\G&-\Delta&G&0\\0&0&0&0\\G&0&G&0\end{matrix}\right)$$

but M is not diagonalisable according to WolframAlpha.

What am I missing here?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

Actually the form you are looking for is
$$ H = X^\dagger M X = \left[\begin{array}{cccc}b^\dagger & d^\dagger & b & d\end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\alpha_1 & \beta_1 & \gamma_1 & \delta_1 \\ \alpha_2 & \beta_2 & \gamma_2 & \delta_2 \\ \alpha_3 & \beta_3 & \gamma_3 & \delta_3 \\ \alpha_4 & \beta_4 & \gamma_4 & \delta_4 \end{array}\right)\left[\begin{array}{c}b\\ d\\ b^\dagger\\d^\dagger\end{array}\right] $$ For the matrix $M$ try $$ M = \frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\omega_M & G & 0 & G\\ G & -\Delta & G & 0 \\ 0 & G & \omega_M &G \\ G & 0 & G & -\Delta \end{array}\right) $$ Indeed, $$ H = \frac{1}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}b^\dagger & d^\dagger & b & d\end{array}\right] \left(\begin{array}{cccc}\omega_M & G & 0 & G\\ G & -\Delta & G & 0 \\ 0 & G & \omega_M &G \\ G & 0 & G & -\Delta \end{array}\right)\left[\begin{array}{c}b\\ d\\ b^\dagger\\d^\dagger\end{array}\right] = \\\; \\ = \frac{1}{2}\left[\begin{array}{cccc}b^\dagger & d^\dagger & b & d\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}\omega_M b + Gd + Gd^\dagger\\ Gb - \Delta d + Gb^\dagger\\ Gd + \omega_Mb^\dagger + Gd^\dagger\\Gb + Gb^\dagger - \Delta d^\dagger \end{array}\right] = \\\; \\ = \frac{1}{2}\left[ \omega_Mb^\dagger b + Gb^\dagger d + Gb^\dagger d^\dagger + Gd^\dagger b - \Delta d^\dagger d + G d^\dagger b^\dagger +\\ Gbd + \omega_M bb^\dagger + Gbd^\dagger + Gdb + Gdb^\dagger - \Delta dd^\dagger + Gb^\dagger d \right] $$ Summing up and rearranging, $$ H = \frac{\omega_M}{2}\left( b^\dagger b + bb^\dagger\right) - \frac{\Delta}{2}\left( d^\dagger d + dd^\dagger\right) + G\left( b^\dagger d + b^\dagger d^\dagger + bd + bd^\dagger \right) $$ and finally, $$ H = \frac{\omega_M - \Delta}{2} - \Delta d^\dagger d + \omega_M b^\dagger b + G\left(b + b^\dagger \right)\left(d + d^\dagger \right) $$ where I assumed the canonical commutation relations (bosons).

All looks good and matrix $M$ is symmetric and diagonalizable.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you urdv, that was exactly what I was looking for! I wonder why I didn't have that idea myself.. $\endgroup$
    – Daniel
    Oct 29, 2015 at 8:24
  • $\begingroup$ Welcome. As a general recipe, always look for a symmetric or hermitian matrix, unless you know the overall result is not self-adjoint. The matrix elements follow by identification when you expand the explicit expression. $\endgroup$
    – udrv
    Oct 29, 2015 at 11:45
  • $\begingroup$ I'm afraid I'm not convinced that this is the correct answer. The matrix $M$ here given has four distinct eigenvalues and so does not give a diagonalisation into two bosonic modes (two polaritons). Perhaps I misunderstand something. $\endgroup$
    – P. Plowman
    Oct 29, 2015 at 13:16
  • $\begingroup$ @P.Plowman It is true that $M$ has 4 distinct eigenvalues. However, its form is unique if we demand both that $H = X^\dagger M X$ and that $H = Y^\dagger D Y$ for some $Y=[c_-\;c_+\;c_-^\dagger\;c_+^\dagger]^T$ and $D = (\Lambda \;\;O\;/ O\;\; \Lambda)$ a diagonal matrix with only two distinct eigenvalues ($\Lambda =(\lambda_1\;\;0\;/0\;\;\lambda_2$)). It is sufficient to assume $Y = UX$ for some invertible $U$ that is compatible with the structure of $X$ and $Y$, and the form in the answer follows. $\endgroup$
    – udrv
    Oct 30, 2015 at 15:36
  • $\begingroup$ @P.Plowman But since $M$ has 4 distinct eigenvalues, while $D$ has 2, $U$ cannot be unitary. Although we do get $M = U^\dagger D U$, I think this is a pseudo-diagonalization, not a regular diagonalization. $\endgroup$
    – udrv
    Oct 30, 2015 at 15:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.