How to Calculate Second Order Correlation from Master Equation?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the second-order correlation (coherence) from the master equation for certain operators in quantum optics. Participants explore the implications of operator factorization, normal ordering, and the role of atomic transition operators in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the factorization of correlation terms and the implications of normal ordering, indicating that multiple competing views remain on these aspects of the problem.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the calculations depend on the specific type of light field being considered, and there are unresolved mathematical steps related to the factorization of operator expressions.

Physics news on Phys.org
This problem is not immediately clear to me. Do you want to calculate the second-order coherence for some light field?

If that is the case, I assume the operators are bosonic, but what exactly does [tex]\sigma[/tex] denote?
And how exactly do you get the [tex]\langle \hat{a} \hat{a}^\dagger \hat{a}^\dagger \hat{a} \rangle[/tex] term? Usually you consider normal-ordering of the operators to account for the effect of the measurement on the light field and get terms like [tex]\langle \hat{a}^\dagger \hat{a}^\dagger \hat{a} \hat{a} \rangle[/tex].
 
yes you right about the normal ordering, the sigma are the atomic transition operators.
the problem is that when I calculate the mean values of these operators in time, how can I know the second order coherence. can I factorize the expression <A+A+AA> (the plus is dagger) to(<n><n(t)>)? if you know on some reference I will really appreciate it too.
 
Unfortunately, the [tex]\langle \hat{a}^\dagger \hat{a}^\dagger \hat{a} \hat{a} \rangle[/tex]- term does not factorize to [tex]\langle \hat{n} \hat{n} \rangle[/tex].
Starting with the equal time correlation, you have [tex]\hat{a}^\dagger \hat{a} =\hat{a}\hat{a}^\dagger -1[/tex], so that the above term factorizes to [tex]\langle \hat{n} (\hat{n}-1) \rangle[/tex].

This makes sense as the detection of a photon changes the light field by destroying that photon. However, if you are interested in the time dependence of the correlation function, the term [tex]\hat{a}^\dagger (t+\tau) \hat{a}(t)[/tex] can be anything from [tex]\hat{a} (t) \hat{a}^\dagger(t+\tau) -1[/tex] to [tex]\hat{a} (t) \hat{a}^\dagger(t+\tau)[/tex] depending on the magnitude of [tex]\tau[/tex] compared to the coherence time of the light.

Finding a solution for this problem is rather demanding and depends on the kind of light field you are interested in. I suppose you are interested in lasers. "Classical" atom lasers are for example discussed within a birth-death model in "Photon statistics of a cavity-QED laser: A comment on the laser–phase-transition analogy" by P.R. Rice and H.J. Carmichael, Phys. Rev. A 50, 4318–4329 (1994). Semiconductor lasers are treated using the cluster expansion method in "Semiconductor model for quantum-dot-based microcavity lasers" by C. Gies et al., Phys. Rev. A 75, 013803 (2007).

If you could tell me what kind of system or light field you have in mind, I might be able to come up with more suitable references for your case.
 
Hi
thanks for the help, actually I read the papers as you suggested and I track for more and I find the thing that I want. apparently, in order to calculate the the [tex]\left\langle[/a^{+}/a^{+}aa]\right\rangle we have to use the Heisenberg equation for it which depend on the other operators, where in some place I can use factorization in order to get a solution. let's say I have to generated quantum fields a_{1},a_{2} so in order to find their cross correlation I have to calculate the \left\langle a^{+}_{1}(t)a^{+}_{2}(t+\tau)a_{2}(t+tau)a_{1}(t)\right\rangle in this case what is the difference between t and t+\tau. and maybe because of that we can factorize earlier in the derivations.<br /> thanks for your help[/tex]
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
371
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K