What Is the Coherent State for This EM Field?

Raz91
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
\Huge

Homework Statement



Consider a state of the EM field which satisfies
\left\langle \textbf{E}_x(\vec{r})\right\rangle =f(\vec{r})

Find a coherent state which satises these expectation values.

Homework Equations



\textbf{E}(\textbf{r})=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2 V}}\sum _{\textbf{k},\lambda } \sqrt{\omega _k}\left(e^{-i \textbf{k}\textbf{ r}} a^{\dagger }{}_{\textbf{k},\lambda } \hat{\epsilon }^*{}_{\textbf{k},\lambda }+e^{-i \textbf{k}\textbf{r}} a_{\textbf{k},\lambda } \hat{\epsilon }_{\textbf{k},\lambda }\right)

Coherent State :

a|\alpha \rangle =\alpha |\alpha \rangle

The Attempt at a Solution



I tried to calculate this , but i just don't understand what am I suppose to prove here?
isn't it trivial that the expectation value will be a function of r (vector) ?

I've got this :
<br /> \left\langle \textbf{E}_x(r)\right\rangle =\sum _{k,\lambda } \sqrt{\frac{2 \omega _k}{V}} \textbf{Im}\left(\alpha e^{-i k r} \epsilon _{x_{k,\lambda }}\right)Thank you !
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The point is to find a coherent state such that the expectation value of the electric-field components (operators) take the given (classical) field f.
 
I still don't understand where is it given ?
it's just a "new name" for <Ex> , isn't it?

of course the expectation value won't be an operator... so I don't see what's so special here or what should I do ...

or f(r) is a known function in Electrodynamics that i should know ?

Thank u ...
 
No, it's not a known function. You just assume a function \vec{f}(t,\vec{x}) and look for a coherent state |\psi of the electromagnetic field such that
\langle \psi | \hat{\vec{E}}|\psi \rangle=\vec{f}(t,\vec{x}).
 
but according to the defination of the electric field , any coherent state will lead to such an expectation value because it's an eigen-state of the annihilation operator.
 
Last edited:
As u can see , my result is depended on r (vector) for an arbitrary coherent state |alpha>...
 
To solve this, I first used the units to work out that a= m* a/m, i.e. t=z/λ. This would allow you to determine the time duration within an interval section by section and then add this to the previous ones to obtain the age of the respective layer. However, this would require a constant thickness per year for each interval. However, since this is most likely not the case, my next consideration was that the age must be the integral of a 1/λ(z) function, which I cannot model.
Back
Top