Moving atom-field interaction: Quantum motional decoherence and relaxation

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 68, Issue 1, 2003, Pages

  Shresta, S ^a   Hu, B L ^a  

^a Bldg 142   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

APPROXIMATION THEORY; ELECTRODYNAMICS; ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD EFFECTS; EQUATIONS OF MOTION; HAMILTONIANS; MARKOV PROCESSES; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; NATURAL FREQUENCIES; NUMERICAL ANALYSIS; RELAXATION PROCESSES;

ADIABATIC MOTION; ATOMIC QUBIT; QUANTUM MOTIONAL DECOHERENCE;

QUANTUM THEORY;

EID: 0141684711     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. C. Cohen-Tannoudji, Atomic Motion in Laser Light, edited by J. Dalibard, J. M. Ramond, and J. Zinn-Justin, Les Houches, Session LIII, 1990 (Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1991).
2. C. Cohen-Tannoudji and W. D. Phillips, Phys. Today 43(10), 33 (1990).
3. W. D. Phillips, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 721 (1998).
4. C. Cohen-Tannoudji, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 707 (1998).
5. T. Calarco, H. -J. Briegel, D. Jaksch, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Fortschr. Phys. 48, 945 (2000).
6. G. K. Brennen, C. M. Caves, P. S. Jessen, and I. H. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1060 (1999).
7. I. H. Deutsch and G. K. Brennen, Fortschr. Phys. 48, 925 (2000).
8. G. J. Milburn, Fortschr. Phys. 48, 957 (2000).
9. D. Jaksch, H.-J. Briegel, J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1975 (1999).
10. J. F. Poyatos, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Fortschr. Phys. 48, 785 (2000).
11. B. Dubetsky and P. R. Berman, Phys. Rev. A 53, 390 (1996).
12. M. Wilkens, Z. Bialynicka-Birula, and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. A 45, 477 (1992).
13. W. Ren and H. J. Carmichael, Phys. Rev. A 51, 752 (1995).
14. D. W. Vernooy and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. A 56, 4287 (1997).
15. Robert Graham, Daniel F. Walls, and Peter Zoller, Phys. Rev. A 45, 5018 (1992).
16. A. Anderson and J. J. Halliwell, Phys. Rev. D 48, 2753 (1993)
17. C. Anastopoulos and J. J. Halliwell, ibid. 51, 6870 (1995)
18. C. Anastopoulos, Phys. Rev. E 53, 4711 (1996).
19. R. P. Feynman and A. R. Hibbs, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965)
20. R. P. Feynman and F. L. Vernon, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 24, 118 (1963).
21. J. Schwinger, J. Math. Phys. 2, 407 (1961)
22. L. V. Keldysh, Zh. Éksp. Teor. Fiz. 47, 1515 (1964) [Sov. Phys. JETP 20, 1018 (1965)]
23. G. Zhou, Z. B. Su, B. Hao, and L. Yu, Phys. Rep. 118, 1 (1985)
24. Z. B. Su, L. Y. Chen, X. T. Yu, and K. C. Chou, Phys. Rev. B 37, 9810 (1988)
25. E. Calzetta and B. L. Hu, Phys. Rev. D 40, 656 (1989).
26. C. Anastopoulos and B. L. Hu, Phys. Rev. A 62, 033821 (2000).
27. Y. Ohnuki and T. Kashiwa, Coherent States of Fermi Operators and the Path Integral, Coherent States: Applications in Physics and Mathematical Physics, edited by J. Klauder and B. Skagerstam (World Scientific, Singapore, 1978), pp. 449-465.
28. A. Perelomov, Generalized Coherent States and their Applications (Springer, Berlin, 1986).
29. D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Optics (Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1994).
30. O. Scully and M. Suhail Zubairy, Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997).
31. M. Weissbluth, Photon-Atom Interactions (Academic Press, San Diego, 1988).
32. G. Compagno, R. Passante, and F. Persico, Atom-Field Interactions and Dressed Atom (Cambridge University, Cambridge, 1995).
33. B. W. Shore, P. Meystre, and S. Stenholm, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 8, 903 (1991).
34. A familiar example is a thermal bath: when characterized only by its temperature, one ignores its dynamical response to the system in question.
35. A familiar example is given by Zwanzig in his discussion of the projection operator approach: one can write down two differential equations for two interacting subsystems which make up the total system, but if one decides to focus only on one of these subsystems, its dynamics is governed by an integro-differential equation with nonlocal kernels, signifying memory effects. Note that the Markov approximation underlies many common treatments of quantum systems, such as the Fermi Golden Rule, the Wigner-Weisskopf form, the Pauli master equation, to name a few. It clamps down on the dynamical interactions which may result in the violation of the consistency requirement described above, and hence could yield inadequate or erroneous results pertaining to issues of quantum coherence and entanglement in certain circumstances, such as under strong interaction, at low temperature, or for a supra-Ohmic environment.