0
$\begingroup$

Assume a Hilbert space that is (i) truncated to at most one photon, and (ii) is path-encoded such that $(1,0)^T$ and $(0,1)^T$ represent the photon in two separate optical modes, respectively. Here, these could be the upper $|u\rangle$ and lower $|l\rangle$ arms incident on a beam splitter. If this beam splitter is symmetric, it would be written as \begin{equation} \hat{B} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 1 \\ 1 & -1 \end{pmatrix}. \end{equation}

My problem is with the representation of the vacuum $|0\rangle$. I could write it as $(0,0)^T$ and the effect of the beam splitter would indeed be to leave it unchanged. However this can't be a valid representation of the vacuum state since it's not normalized. I then thought of extending the Hilbert space by including an extra dimension at the beginning of the state vector such that $(a,b,c)^T$ would be equivalent to $a|0\rangle + b|u\rangle + c|l\rangle$.

The question is then, how would the beam splitter look like in this three-dimensional Hilbert space? In order to capture the fact that the beam splitter leaves the vacuum unchanged, I tried \begin{equation} \hat{B} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \begin{pmatrix} 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 1 & 1 \\ 0& 1 & -1 \end{pmatrix}, \end{equation} but this doesn't satisfy the unitarity of the beam splitter. What am I missing?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Why is the vacuum not normalized? Isn't it just a problem with the mathematical representation? $\endgroup$ Nov 8, 2023 at 3:46
  • $\begingroup$ It is. My question is then how to represent the vacuum and the beam splitter in such a way that they are normalized and unitary, respectively. $\endgroup$
    – Tfovid
    Nov 8, 2023 at 11:35
  • $\begingroup$ You could make the matrix $\hat{B}$ unitary by only having the factor of $1/\sqrt{2}$ in the lower-right block. I will add though that generally you don't want your description of an optical element to depend on the number of photons. One therefore typically uses the transformation of the creation/annihilation operators and not states in the Fock space. $\endgroup$
    – fulis
    Nov 8, 2023 at 14:18
  • $\begingroup$ @fulis Agreed, but the ladder operators are unwieldy when one needs to use matrix operations. $\endgroup$
    – Tfovid
    Nov 8, 2023 at 14:51

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

To leave the vacuum unchanged, you need to put a $\sqrt{2}$ in the top left corner.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

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

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