Use of the Beam Splitter Operator

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the application and decomposition of the beam splitter operator in quantum optics, particularly in the context of sending a coherent state and a squeezed vacuum state through a beam splitter. Participants explore the mathematical formulation and implications of the operator, as well as its specific configurations, such as the lossless 50/50 beam splitter.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes their approach to decomposing the beam splitter operator using the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff relation, expressing concern about the non-commutation of the operators involved.
  • Another participant suggests starting with the standard lossless 50/50 beam splitter to gain a clearer understanding before tackling the general case, providing a specific form of the operator for this scenario.
  • A participant offers to share their LaTeX work privately for further review, indicating ongoing exploration of the topic.
  • There are mentions of missing posts and references to a manuscript that discusses relevant approximations, with one participant noting that the approximation is commonly accepted in the field.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing approaches to the problem, with some advocating for a simpler model while others pursue a more complex understanding. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the best method to decompose the beam splitter operator.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of missing assumptions and unresolved mathematical steps in the decomposition of the beam splitter operator. The discussion also highlights the dependence on specific configurations of the beam splitter.

BeyondBelief96
Messages
14
Reaction score
2
TL;DR
Want to understand how to properly apply or decompose the beam splitter operator.
Hello, I am a senior undergrad doing research in quantum optics, and I am trying to work out at the moment the output state of sending a coherent state through one input port and a squeezed vacuum state through the other, just to see what happens tbh. The problem I have constantly been running into is how to properly decompose the beam splitter operator to apply it to the input states.

The beam splitter operator has the form: ## \hat{B} = e^{\frac{\theta}{2}(\hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{b}e^{i\phi} - \hat{a}\hat{b}^{\dagger}e^{-i\phi})} ##

I have tried using the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff Relation that says:

## e^{\hat{X} + \hat{Y}} = e^{\hat{X}}e^{\hat{Y}}e^{-\frac{1}{2}[\hat{X},\hat{Y}]} ##

If and only if ## [\hat{X}, \hat{Y}] ## also commutes with ## \hat{X}## and ## \hat{Y} ##

The way I have tried to decompose this operator is letting ##\hat{X} = \frac{\theta}{2}e^{i\phi}\hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{b}##

and ## \hat{Y} = \frac{\theta}{2}e^{-i\phi}\hat{a}\hat{b}^{\dagger} ##

however when doing so I find that the commutator ## [\hat{X},\hat{Y}] = [ \frac{\theta}{2}e^{i\phi}\hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{b}, \frac{\theta}{2}e^{-i\phi}\hat{a}\hat{b}^{\dagger}] = \frac{\theta^2}{4}(\hat{a}^{\dagger}\hat{a} - \hat{b}^{\dagger}\hat{b}) ##

which doesn't seem to commute with either of my original operators. So I dont' think this is the right way to go? Unless I have made a mistake. Any help would be appreciated. I am using a and b to denote the two different input ports. Also, I'm wanting to apply this beam splitter operator to the input state:

##\left|\Psi_I\right> = \hat{B} \left|\alpha\right>_a \left|\xi\right>_b = \hat{B}\hat{D}_a(\alpha)\hat{S}_b(\xi)\left|0 \right>_a \left|0\right>_{b} ##

where ##\hat{D}(\alpha)## is the displacement operator for generating coherent states,and ##\hat{S}(\xi)## is the squeezing operator, and that I can express both of them acting on the vacuum state in terms of photon number states. Thank you
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you really interested in the full beam splitter operator that might describe any possible beam splitter one might build? Otherwise, you might be better off to investigate the standard lossless 50/50 beam splitter first to roughly understand how things work and to consider the general operator afterwards.

For the lossless 50/50 beam splitter, \phi=90^\circ, so you get something like \hat{B}=\exp({i\Theta (\hat{a}^\dagger \hat{b} + \hat{a} \hat{b}^\dagger)}), where \Theta=\frac{\pi}{4}.

The usual approach would now be to expand the operator around unity. So you have an operator of the type \hat{B}=\exp{i \Theta \hat{J}} and expand it as \hat{B}=\hat{I}+i\Theta\hat{J}+... and check how many orders of the expansion you need. In many cases the first order in \hat{J} is already completely sufficient.
 
If you would like to see my work so far, I have a LaTeX file and I can send you the file in a PM if you would like to look carefully at my work.
 
Is there some post missing? The text of your post does not correspond to the one in my notification mail.

Anyway, the stuff you are interested in is discussed in reference 11 of the the manuscript you are interested in, which also makes use of the approximation I made (which is so standard that most prople do not even mention it).
 
Cthugha said:
Is there some post missing? The text of your post does not correspond to the one in my notification mail.

Anyway, the stuff you are interested in is discussed in reference 11 of the the manuscript you are interested in, which also makes use of the approximation I made (which is so standard that most prople do not even mention it).

I had written a post but the format got messed up after posting it for some reason. So I had to delete it and since I am at work did not have time to rewrite the text.

I will look into the reference.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
534
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K