In Introduction to Quantum Noise, Measurement and Amplification, on page 64 is computed the power spectral density of noise on a classical waveguide. I am really struggling to understand a step of the calculation.

We consider a classical 1D waveguide. We study the physics by looking at the fluctuations of voltage waves propagating on it. Calling $c$ the velocity of the waves, we apply periodic boundary condition, on a period $L$ and we can then write down the expression of the left & right movers. We have:

$$V_{\rightarrow}=\sqrt{\frac{1}{2 Lc}}\sum_{k>0} A_k(0)e^{i(kx-\omega_k t)} + A_k^*(0)e^{-i(kx-\omega_k t)}$$

We are interested in the spectral density of the voltage. I remind that it is defined as (because of Wiener-Khintchine theorem we can take the following as its definition here):

$$S_{V_{\rightarrow}V_{\rightarrow}}(t)=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d \omega ~ e^{i \omega t} \langle V_{\rightarrow}(t) V_{\rightarrow}(0) \rangle$$

In the paper, he finds:

$$S_{V_{\rightarrow}V_{\rightarrow}}(t)=\frac{2 \pi}{2 Lc} \sum_{k>0} \langle A_k A_k^* \rangle \delta(\omega-\omega_k) + \langle A_k^* A_k \rangle \delta(\omega+\omega_k) $$

I don't understand how he finds it.

Indeed, for example, how does his two other (non crossed) term disappear ? How does the sum on $k'$ disappear. For instance, if I do the calculation, I would have:

$$S_{V_{\rightarrow}V_{\rightarrow}}(t)=\frac{1}{2Lc} \sum_{k,k'} \langle A_k(0) A_{k'}(0) \rangle e^{i(k+k')x} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d\omega e^{i (\omega-\omega_k) t}+\text{other terms} $$ $$S_{V_{\rightarrow}V_{\rightarrow}}(t)=\frac{1}{2Lc} \sum_{k,k'} \langle A_k(0) A_{k'}(0) \rangle e^{i(k+k')x} (2 \pi \delta(\omega-\omega_k))+\text{other terms} $$

As you can see, my "non cross term" does not vanish, and I have the two sum still.

How to make sense of all this ? Are there some implicit assumption that are made ?

  • $\begingroup$ In your equations, did you lose an $\omega_{k'}$? $\endgroup$ – Daniel Jul 13 '20 at 22:40
  • $\begingroup$ @Daniel I dont think. One of the voltage must be evaluated at time $0$. There is not $\omega_{k'}$ because of that ! $\endgroup$ – StarBucK Jul 13 '20 at 22:42
  • $\begingroup$ Ah, right. In the paper, it looks like the quantity computed is not quite $S_{V_{\rightarrow}V_{\rightarrow}}$. It is $S_{V V_{\rightarrow}}$. If this is right, one of the sums includeds negative $k$. Together with the fact that $A_k^* = A_{-k}$, this might solve your problem. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Jul 14 '20 at 16:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Daniel no I don't think. It wouldn't make any sense physically to compute $S_{V V^{\rightarrow}}$. Furthermore he explicitly says that $S^{\rightarrow}_{VV}$ is the voltage spectral density for the right moving waves which is then $S_{V^{\rightarrow} V^{\rightarrow}}$ and has the definition that I wrote. There must have a physical reason why he doesn't have the same expression that I have. $\endgroup$ – StarBucK Jul 14 '20 at 16:21

In order to use Wiener-Khintchine, we assumed that the process was stationary. This implies that $ \langle A_k(0)A_{k'}(0) \rangle = \langle A_k(t)A_{k'}(t) \rangle $ - our choice of initial time was arbitrary. But $$ \langle A_k(t)A_{k'}(t) \rangle = e^{i(\omega_k + \omega_k')t}\langle A_k(0)A_{k'}(0) \rangle$$ and this equation can be satisfied only if either $\omega_k' = -\omega_k$ or $ \langle A_k(0)A_{k'}(0) \rangle = 0 $. All terms except $ \langle A_k(0)A_k^*(0) \rangle $ and $ \langle A_k^*(0)A_k(0) \rangle $ thus vanish. You can also get this result by computing the autocorrelation function directly, without using Wiener-Khintchine.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer. I will read it carefully tomorrow and comment back. $\endgroup$ – StarBucK Jul 14 '20 at 22:16
  • $\begingroup$ Well done ! Thank you very much. $\endgroup$ – StarBucK Jul 15 '20 at 17:50

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.