2
$\begingroup$

Im dealing with an exercise on the Jaynes Cummings model in a resonat single mode approximation. The interaction Hamiltonian in rotating wave approximation is

$$H_{int}=g\, \sigma_+\,a\,+g^*\,\sigma_-\,a^\dagger \tag{I}$$

where $a$ and $a^\dagger$ are the annihilation and creation operators for the bosonic state, which is assumed to be in a coherent state $|\alpha\rangle$. $\sigma_+$ and $\sigma_-$ are the raising and lowering operators for the atom in the cavity.

Now im required to do some calculations and for that I get the hint that $H_{int}$ can be replaced by the expectation value $$H_{int}\to H_c=\langle\alpha|H_{int}|\alpha\rangle=g\, \sigma_+\,\alpha\,+g^*\,\sigma_-\,\alpha^* \tag{II}$$

in the classical limit $|\alpha|>>1 $.

I want to know why this approximation of the Hamiltonian is justified (Why we can take (II) instead of (I) for our Hamiltonian), in this limit.

My thoughts: Since $a|\alpha\rangle=\alpha|\alpha\rangle $, our exact interaction Hamiltonian differs from the approximation only by the fact that $a^\dagger $ has been replaced by $a^*$. This seems not too far fetched since this is just the complex conjugate of the eigenvalue that we get by applying the annihilation operator on $|\alpha\rangle$. Then I think we can somehow argue that since $|\alpha|>>1 $, the creation operator will not change the coherent state much. But I cannot really cook up a solid argument and the mathematics.

EDIT

I was thinking that maybe in the classical limit, the standard deviation of $\alpha^\dagger$ is neglectable vs. the mean value. But if I havnt done a mistake, we have

$$SD_\alpha(a^\dagger)=\sqrt{\langle\alpha|a^\dagger a^\dagger|\alpha\rangle-\langle\alpha|a^\dagger|\alpha\rangle^2}=\sqrt{a^*a^*-(a^*)^2}=0, \tag{III}$$

independent of the value of $|\alpha|$. Which confuses me even more.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What are you actually trying to calculate? It's unclear when it would be possible to replace a hamiltonian by a particular matrix element without knowing the context in which you're applying the hamiltonian. $\endgroup$ – d_b Oct 28 at 0:29
0
$\begingroup$

Since $a\vert \alpha \rangle=\alpha\vert \alpha \rangle$ for the coherent state, it follows that \begin{align} \langle \alpha \vert a\vert\alpha\rangle=\alpha \tag{1} \end{align} by normalization and that (as you suspect) by taking the complex conjugate: $$ \alpha^*=\langle \alpha \vert a\vert \alpha\rangle^*=\langle \alpha \vert a^\dagger\vert\alpha\rangle \tag{2} $$ which is true for any $\alpha$. The condition $\vert\alpha\vert\gg 1$ must enter elsewhere since (1) and (2) are exact, irrespective of $\vert \alpha\vert$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ive clarified the question a bit. I know why the expectation value is equal to the expression (II). But im wondering why we can use (II) instead of (I). This must invole the classical limit, since $ a^\dagger|α⟩$ is not $a^*|α⟩$ right? $\endgroup$ – curio Jul 22 '18 at 8:06
  • $\begingroup$ @curiosity no but the point is $\langle \alpha\vert a^\dagger=\alpha^*\langle \alpha \vert$. The approximation is in replacing some operators by their averages, not in the way the averages are calculated. $\endgroup$ – ZeroTheHero Jul 22 '18 at 8:25
  • $\begingroup$ I know that. What I want to know is why we are allowed to do this replacement. There has to be some way to see that the action of $a^\dagger|\alpha\rangle \to \alpha^*|\alpha\rangle$ in the limit $|\alpha| \to \infty$. $\endgroup$ – curio Jul 22 '18 at 10:52
  • $\begingroup$ It seems to me that the classical limit is the justification for this approximation but i fail to see the connection. $\endgroup$ – curio Jul 22 '18 at 11:00
  • $\begingroup$ @curiosity : $a^\dagger\vert\alpha\rangle \ne \alpha^* \vert\alpha\rangle$ in any limit. The coherent state is not an eigenstate of $a^\dagger$, period. By taking the average value, you are not doing any "replacement" of the ket but you are instead doing a replacement of the bra $\langle\alpha\vert a^\dagger\to \alpha^*\langle\alpha\vert$. That's the key: you never have $a^\dagger$ acting on a ket, but you have it acting on a bra; To "generate" a bra you need to take the average value. $\endgroup$ – ZeroTheHero Jul 22 '18 at 12:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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