1: %\documentclass[twocolumn,a4paper,nofootinbib,showpacs,aps,floatfix]{revtex4}
2: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,aps,floatfix,pra,superscriptaddress]{revtex4}
3: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
4: %\documentstyle[twocolumn,aps,epsf]{revtex}
5: %
6: \usepackage{graphicx}
7: \usepackage{bm}
8: \usepackage{amsmath}
9: \newcommand{\ignore}[1]{}
10: \def\half{{1 \over 2}}
11: \def\quarter{{1 \over 4}}
12: \def\beq{\begin{equation}}
13: \def\eeq{\end{equation}}
14: \def\la{\langle}
15: \def\ra{\rangle}
16: \def\wh{\widehat}
17: \def\beqa{\begin{eqnarray}}
18: \def\eeqa{\end{eqnarray}}
19: %
20: % version of August 26, 2007.
21: \begin{document}
22: \title{Disclosing hidden information in the quantum Zeno effect:\\
23: Pulsed measurement of the quantum time of arrival}
24: %
25: \author{J. Echanobe}
26: \email{javi@we.lc.ehu.es}
27: \affiliation{Departamento de Electricidad y Electr\'onica,
28: UPV-EHU, Apartado 644, 48080 Bilbao, Spain}
29: %
30: \author{A. del Campo}
31: \email{adolfo.delcampo@ehu.es}
32: \author{J. G. Muga}
33: \email{jg.muga@ehu.es}
34: \affiliation{
35: Departamento de Qu\'\i mica-F\'\i sica, UPV-EHU,
36: Apartado 644, 48080 Bilbao, Spain}
37: %
38: %\author{L. Schulman}
39: %\email{dwsprung@mcmaster.ca}
40: %\affiliation{
41: %New York\\
42: % Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4M1 Canada}
43: \pacs{03.65.Xp,03.65.Ta,06.30.Ft}
44: %\maketitle
45: %
46: \begin{abstract}
47: %
48: Repeated measurements of a quantum
49: particle to check its presence in a region of space
50: was proposed long ago (G. R. Allcock, Ann. Phys. {\bf 53}, 286 (1969))
51: as a natural way to determine the
52: distribution of times of arrival at the orthogonal subspace,
53: but the method was discarded because of the quantum Zeno effect:
54: in the limit of very frequent measurements the wave function is reflected and remains
55: in the original subspace. We show that by normalizing
56: the small bits of arriving (removed) norm, an ideal time
57: distribution emerges in correspondence with a classical local-kinetic-energy
58: distribution.
59: % but not with a time-of-arrival distribution.
60: \end{abstract}
61: %
62: \maketitle
63: %
64: %
65: %*********************************************************************
66: %
67: \section{Introduction}
68: %
69: The theoretical treatment of time observables is one of the
70: important loose ends of quantum theory. Among them the time of arrival (TOA)
71: has received much attention lately
72: \cite{dam02,rus02,alo02,ON03,gal04,rus04,
73: bon04,gdme05,LL,as06,heg06,gas06,heg07,man07,tor07,goz07},
74: for earlier reviews see \cite{ML00,MSE02}.
75: A major challenge is to
76: find the connection between {\it ideal} TOA distributions,
77: defined for the particle in isolation, formally independent of the
78: measurement method, and {\it operational}
79: ones, explicitly dependent on specific measurement models and procedures.
80: It is important to know, for example, what exactly a given operational procedure is measuring,
81: or if and how a given ideal quantity may or may not be obtained with
82: a particular experiment.
83:
84: %In this article we continue this investigation by making further
85: %connections between operational and ideal quantities, in particular,
86: %we shall provide the relation between continuous and pulsed procedures
87: %which have been proposed to measure the arrival time.
88: %
89: Modern research on the quantum TOA owes much to the
90: seminal work by Allcock \cite{Allcock}.
91: Looking for an ideal quantum arrival-time concept,
92: he considered that arrival-time
93: measuring devices
94: should rapidly transfer any probability that appears at $x>0$
95: ($x=0$ being the ``arrival position'')
96: from the incident channel into various
97: orthogonal and time-labeled measurement channels.
98: As a simple model
99: to realize this basic feature he proposed a pulsed, periodic removal,
100: at time intervals
101: $\delta t$, of the wave function for $x>0$, while the $x<0$
102: region would not be affected, see Fig. \ref{f0}.
103: A similar particle removal would provide the
104: distribution of first arrivals
105: %at a certain region in $\delta t$
106: for an ensemble of classical, freely-moving particles as $\delta t\to 0$.
107:
108: The difficulties to solve the corresponding mathematical
109: problem lead Allcock to study instead a different, continuous model with an
110: absorbing imaginary potential in the right half-line, $-iV_0\Theta(x)$,
111: $V_0>0$,
112: to simulate the detection.
113: He argued that the two models should lead to
114: similar conclusions with a time resolution of the order
115: $\delta t$ in the chopping model
116: or $\hbar/2V_0$ in the complex potential model.
117: He then solved the Schr\"odinger equation with the complex potential
118: and noticed that for $V_0\gg|E|_{max}$,
119: where $E_{max}$ is a maximum
120: relevant energy in the wave packet,
121: %------------------------------------------------------
122: \begin{figure}
123: %\epsfysize=7.6cm
124: %\centerline{\epsfbox{Zeno.eps}}
125: \includegraphics[width=6cm]{figz1.eps}
126: \caption[]{Schematic representation of the time of arrival measurement by
127: periodic projection of the wave function onto the subspace $x<0$
128: at times $t_j$, $j=..,-1,0,1,..$ separated by $\delta t$.
129: Figures (a) and (b) represent two instants immediately before
130: and after the elimination of norm at $x>0$.
131: \label{f0}}
132: \end{figure}
133: %-----------------------------------------------------------
134: %\footnote{He considered ``source'' boundary
135: %conditions instead of standard initial value boundary conditions,
136: %so that negative energies were allowed in the formalism,
137: %but the negative energy contribution
138: %vanishes if the source is far away.
139: %His analysis may be repeated with standard initial value
140: %conditions without altering the results.})
141: the apparatus
142: response vanishes, $-\delta N/\delta t\to 0$, with $N=\la \psi|\psi\ra$,
143: because of quantum mechanical reflection. This is one of the first
144: discussions of the quantum Zeno effect, although it was not known by
145: this name at that time. Eight years later Misra and Sudarshan
146: \cite{MS77} generalized this result studying the passage of a system
147: from one predetermined subspace to its orthogonal subspace:
148: the periodic projection method in the limit $\delta t\to 0$
149: was presented as a natural way to model a continuous measurement,
150: however it did not lead to a time distribution of the passage but to its
151: suppression \cite{MS77}.
152: This lack of a ``trustworthy algorithm''
153: to compute TOA and related distributions prompted them
154: to put in doubt the completeness of quantum theory and
155: has been much debated since then, see
156: \cite{hom97,fac01,kos05} for review.
157: For the specific case of a projection onto a region of space, as in the
158: TOA procedure proposed by Allcock, several works have
159: later emphasized
160: %with various degrees of mathematical rigour
161: that, in the limit of infinitely frequent measurements,
162: the resulting
163: ``Zeno dynamics'' in the original subspace corresponds to hard wall (Dirichlet) boundary
164: conditions \cite{fac01a,fac04,exn05}.
165:
166: Allcock discarded the short $\delta t$ (or high $V_0$) limit as useless,
167: and examined the other limit where the measurement may
168: be expected to be $V_0$-independent, $V_0\ll|E_{min}|$, later on.
169: We shall not treat this limit hereafter but, for completeness, let us
170: briefly recall that he got the current density $J(t)$ by deconvolution of the
171: absorbed norm with the apparatus response function,
172: %
173: \begin{equation}
174: J(t) = \frac{\hbar}{2m} \la{\psi_f(t)}| (\widehat{k}\delta(\widehat{x}) +
175: \delta(\widehat{x})\widehat{k}) |{\psi_f(t)}\ra,
176: \end{equation}
177: %
178: where $\wh{k}$ and $\wh{x}$ are the wavenumber and position operators, $m$
179: is the mass, and
180: the average is computed with the freely moving wave function
181: $\psi_f$.
182: This result makes sense classically,
183: but in quantum mechanics $J(t)$ is not positive semidefinite even for
184: states composed only by positive momenta \cite{Allcock,ML00}.
185: He also got, within some
186: approximation, a positive distribution,
187: $\Pi_K(t)$, which has been later known as ``Kijowski's distribution''
188: \cite{Kijowski74,ML00,ON03},
189: %
190: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Kijowski}
191: \Pi_K(t) = \frac{\hbar}{m} \la{\psi_f(t)}| \widehat{k}^{1/2}
192: \delta(\widehat{x}) \widehat{k}^{1/2} |{\psi_f(t)}\ra.
193: \end{equation}
194: %
195: In this paper, instead of disregarding the
196: Zeno limit because of
197: reflection, as it is customary, we shall
198: look at the small amount of norm $\delta N$ detected, i.e., eliminated
199: in the projection process, and normalize,
200: %
201: \beq
202: \label{PiZeno}
203: \Pi_{Zeno}=\lim_{\delta t\to 0}\frac{-\delta N/\delta t}{1-N(\infty)}.
204: \eeq
205: %
206: In this manner, a rather simple ideal quantity will emerge:
207: %(It turns out that the method does not really provide a time-of-arrival distribution
208: %but a local-kinetic energy distribution.)
209: there is, in other words, interesting
210: physical information hidden behind the Zeno effect,
211: which can be disclosed by normalization.
212: %Another recent positive use of the Zeno
213: %effect has been described recently \cite{NTY}, see also Ketterle \cite{ket07}.
214: %When this is done, it is possible to extract two different ideal quantities,
215: %$J$ and $\Pi_{Zeno}$ in the two limits considered by Allcock
216: %(strong and weak $V_0$).
217: %In parallel, it is possible to obtain these quantities in different
218: %parameter regimes of the atom-laser fluorescence experiment.
219: %
220: To fulfill this program we shall put the parallelism
221: hinted by Allcock between the pulsed measurement
222: and the continuous measurement on a firmer, more quantitative
223: basis.
224:
225: %removal and the
226: %In other words, we shall first show the relation
227: %between the pulsed procedure and the continuous one. Since the continuous method
228: %is mathematically simpler, we shall thus be able to get the physical meaning of the
229: %periodic removal process in the fast chopping limit.
230: %in the limit of a strong absorbing potential.
231: %Because of the existence of the mentioned regime where the atom-laser complex
232: %potential models coincide, we are actually providing an especific
233: %physical content to the use of complex potentials.
234:
235:
236: \section{Zeno time distribution}
237: %
238: %{\it Zeno time distribution.}
239: %
240: We shall now define formally the pulsed and continuous measurement models
241: mentioned above and also an intermediate auxiliary model
242: \cite{alo02} that will be a useful bridge between the two.
243: Ref. \cite{mug06} is followed initially
244: although the analysis and conclusions will be quite different.
245:
246: %{\it{The pulsed model.}}
247: The ``chopping process'' amounts to a periodic projection of the wave
248: function onto the
249: $x<0$ region at instants separated by a time interval $\delta t$.
250: There is nothing here beyond standard measurement theory \cite{vN}. Each chopping step
251: eliminates interference terms in the density operator between right and left components,
252: and the right component is separated from the ensamble (detected)
253: so that it cannot come back to the left.
254: The wave functions
255: immediately after and before
256: the projection at the instant $t_j$, are related by
257: %
258: %
259: %\beq
260: $
261: \psi(x,{t_j}_+)=\psi(x,{t_j}_-)\Theta(-x).
262: $
263: %\eeq
264: %
265:
266: %{\it{The kicked model.}}
267: %
268: The wave at $x>0$ may also be canceled with a
269: ``kicked'' imaginary potential
270: %
271: %\beq
272: %\label{kick}
273: $
274: \wh{V}_k=\wh{V}\delta t\, F_{\delta t}(t),
275: $
276: %\eeq
277: %
278: where the subscript ``k'' stands for ``kicked'' and
279: %
280: %\beqa
281: $F_{\delta t}(t)=\sum_{j=-\infty}^{\infty} \delta(t-j\delta t)
282: $,
283: %
284: \beq
285: \wh{V}=-i\wh{V}_I=-iV_0\Theta(\wh{x}),
286: \label{v}
287: \eeq
288: %
289: provided
290: %
291: \beq
292: \label{V0t}
293: V_0\delta t \gg \hbar.
294: \eeq
295: %
296: The general (and exact) evolution operator
297: is obtained by repetition of the basic unit
298: %
299: \beq\label{ue}
300: \wh{U}_k(0,\delta t)=
301: e^{-i \wh{H}_0\delta t/\hbar}e^{-i\wh{V}\delta t/\hbar},
302: \eeq
303: %
304: where $\wh{H}_0=-(\hbar^2/2m)\partial^2/\partial x^2$.
305: %is the kinetic energy operator.
306: %The reason for having introduced $\delta t$ (and no other quantity with
307: %dimensions of time)
308: %in Eq. (\ref{kick}) should now become clear.
309:
310: For the continuous model, the evolution
311: under the imaginary potential (\ref{v})
312: is given by
313: %
314: %\beq
315: %{V}=-iV_0\Theta(x-X_c),
316: %\eeq
317: %
318: \beqa\label{uot}
319: \wh{U}(0,\delta t)&=&
320: e^{-i(\wh{H}_0+\wh{V})\delta t/\hbar}=e^{-i\wh{H}_0\delta t/\hbar}
321: e^{-i\wh{V}\delta t/\hbar}
322: \nonumber\\
323: &+&{\cal O}(\delta t^2[\wh{V},\wh{H}_0]/\hbar^2).
324: \label{condi}
325: \eeqa
326: %
327: %The infinitesimal evolution operators converge,
328: %and in fact the same happens for
329: %an arbitrary evolution interval by Trotter's formula,
330: %
331: %\beq
332: %\wh{U}_k(0,t)\to\wh{U}(0,t),\;
333: %{\rm when} \Delta\to 0,\, {\rm or}\, V\, {\rm fixed},
334: %\eeq
335: %
336: %where $t=N\Delta t$ is kept fixed and finite.
337: Comparing with Eq. (\ref{ue}) we see that the kicked and continuous models
338: agree when
339: %
340: \beq
341: \delta t^2|\la[\wh{V},\wh{H}_0]\ra|/\hbar^2 \ll 1.
342: \label{kc}
343: \eeq
344: %
345: At first sight a large $V_0\delta t/\hbar$, see Eq. (\ref{V0t}), seems
346: to be incompatible with this condition so that the three models
347: would not agree \cite{mug06}.
348: %:
349: %by satisfying one of the inequalities
350: %connecting between two models,
351: %say kicked and chopping in Eq. (\ref{V0t}),
352: %Eq. (\ref{kc} that relate kicked and complex potential would not be
353: %satisfied.
354: % Thus for chopping intervals below $1/V_0$
355: %chopping and complex
356: %potential models will generally disagree,
357: %whereas for chopping intervals above $1/V_0$
358: %the two complex potential models
359: %(kicked and continuous)
360: %will also disagree.''
361: In fact the numerical calculations give a different result
362: and show a better and better agreement between
363: the continuous and pulsed models as $V_0\to \infty$
364: when $\delta t$ and $V_0$ are linked by some predetermined
365: (large) constant $\alpha$,
366: %
367: %\beq
368: $\delta t=\alpha\hbar/V_0.$
369: %\label{al}
370: %\eeq
371: %----------------------------------------------------------------------------
372: \begin{figure}
373: %\epsfysize=7.6cm
374: %\centerline{\epsfbox{Zeno.eps}}
375: \includegraphics[height=6.4cm]{figz2.eps}
376: \caption[]{Average absorption times evaluated from $-dN/dt$ (normalized)
377: for the projection method and the continuous (complex potential) model.
378: The initial state is a minimum uncertainty product Gaussian for $^{23}$Na atoms
379: centered at $x_0=-500\mu$m with $\Delta x=23.5\mu$m and average velocity $0.365$
380: cm.
381: In all numerical examples negative momentum components of the initial state
382: are negligible.
383: \label{f1}}
384: \end{figure}
385: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
386: \begin{figure}
387: %\epsfysize=7.6cm
388: %\centerline{\epsfbox{Zeno.eps}}
389: \includegraphics[height=6.2cm]{figz3.eps}
390: \caption[]{Time-of-arrival distributions: Flux $J$ (dashed line),
391: $\Pi_K$ (solid line),
392: $\Pi_{Zeno}$ (big sparse dots), and $\Pi_{chopping}$ (for pulses separated by
393: $\delta t=0.266$ ns, dotted line).
394: The initial wave packet is
395: a combination $\psi=2^{-1/2}(\psi_1+\psi_2)$
396: of two Gaussian states for the center-of-mass motion of a single Caesium atom
397: that become separately minimal uncertainty packets (with
398: $\Delta x_1=\Delta x_2=0.021\,\mu$m,
399: and average velocities
400: $\la v\ra_1=18.96$ cm/s,
401: $\la v \ra_2 =5.42$ cm/s) at $x=0$ and $t=0\,\,\mu$s.
402: \label{f2}}
403: \end{figure}
404: %------------------------------------------------------------------------
405: \begin{figure}
406: %\epsfysize=7.6cm
407: %\centerline{\epsfbox{Zeno.eps}}
408: \includegraphics[height=6.2cm]{figz4.eps}
409: \caption[]{Diminishing ratio $\Delta H_0/V_0$ with increasing $V_0$ versus time
410: for the same initial wave function as in Fig. 2 ($^{23}$Na atoms.)
411: $E_0$ is the initial kinetic energy.
412: \label{f3}}
413: \end{figure}
414: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------
415: %
416: Figures \ref{f1} and \ref{f2} illustrate this agreement:
417: in Fig. \ref{f1} (inset) the average absorption time,
418: $\la t\ra=\int^\infty_0 (-dN/dt)t dt/[1-N(\infty)]$, is shown versus $\delta t$ and
419: $10\hbar/V_0$ for a Gaussian wave packet sent from the left
420: towards the origin.
421: %, the edge point
422: %where chopping or absorption by $-iV_0\Theta(x)$ takes place.
423: %Note the convergence of the two straight lines as $\delta t$
424: %and $\hbar/V_0\to 0$.
425: %Not only the mean values but also the variances
426: %(not shown) tend to agree as $\delta t\to 0$.
427: The main figure shows the time averages versus $\delta t$ (chopping)
428: and $\hbar/2V_0$ (continuous). The lines bend at high coupling
429: because of reflection.
430: The normalized absorption distribution as $V_0\to \infty$
431: was derived in
432: \cite{ked05} by making explicit use of the known stationary
433: scattering wave-functions,
434: %
435: \begin{equation}
436: \Pi_N(t) =
437: \frac{\hbar}{mk_0}\la{\psi_f(t)}|
438: \widehat{k}\delta(\widehat{x})\widehat{k}|{\psi_f(t)}\ra,
439: \label{pz}
440: \end{equation}
441: %
442: where $k_0\hbar$ is the initial average momentum.
443: Fig. \ref{f2} shows for a more challenging state,
444: a combination of two
445: Gaussians,
446: that this ideal distribution
447: becomes indistinguable from the normalized chopping distribution
448: when $\delta t$ is small enough. Even the minor details are reproduced, and
449: differ from $J$ and $\Pi_k$, also shown.
450:
451: To understand the compatibility ``miracle'' of
452: the inequalities (\ref{V0t}) and (\ref{kc}), we apply
453: the Robertson-Schr\"odinger
454: (generalized uncertainty principle) relation,
455: %
456: \beq
457: \left|\la [\wh{V},\wh{H}_0]\ra\right|\le 2 |\Delta V_I| \Delta H_0,
458: \eeq
459: %
460: where $\Delta$ denotes the standard deviation.
461: Since $|\Delta V_I|$ is rigorously bounded at all times by
462: $V_0/2$ \footnote{If $N_+$ is the norm in
463: $x>0$, $|\Delta V|=V_0(N_+-N_+^2)^{1/2}$ which is maximal at
464: $N_+=1/2$.},
465: imposing $\delta t V_0=\alpha\hbar$ with $\alpha\gg 1$,
466: a sufficient condition for dynamical agreement among the models
467: is
468: %
469: \beq
470: %\frac{V_0}{\Delta H_0}>>\alpha.
471: V_0\gg\Delta H_0.
472: \label{condi3}
473: \eeq
474: %
475: For large $V_0$ the packet is basically reflected by the wall so that
476: $\Delta H_0$ tends to retain its initial value and
477: Eq. (\ref{condi3}) will be satisfied during the whole propagation.
478: Fig. \ref{f3} shows the ratio $\Delta H_0/V_0$ for three values of $V_0$ as
479: a function of time.
480:
481: This implies in summary that $\Pi_{Zeno}=\Pi_N$,
482: Eq. (\ref{pz}), a very remarkable result, which illustrates
483: that an active intervention on the system dynamics may
484: after all provide an ideal
485: quantity defined for the system in isolation.
486:
487:
488:
489: %
490: %
491: %
492: %
493: %
494: %
495: %
496: %\section{A more general relation between pulsed
497: %and continuous measurements}
498: %
499: %
500: %
501: %
502: %
503: %
504: %
505: %
506: %
507: \section{An approximate relation between pulsed
508: and continuous measurements}
509: %
510: So far we have discussed the limits
511: $\delta t,\hbar/V_0\to 0$ in order to find the
512: corresponding time distribution.
513: In fact a very simple argument relates
514: the pulsed and continuous measurements {\em{approximately}} for finite,
515: non-zero values of $\delta t$ and $\hbar/V_0$, when
516: they are sufficiently large to make reflection negligible:
517: the average detection time is delayed with respect to the ideal limit
518: corresponding to $\Pi_{Zeno}$ as
519: %
520: \beq
521: \la t\ra \approx \la t\ra_{Zeno}+\delta t/2\approx
522: \la t\ra_{Zeno}+\frac{\hbar}{2V_0},
523: \eeq
524: %
525: see Fig. \ref{f1}, since, once a particle is in $x>0$,
526: $\frac{\hbar}{2V_0}$ and $\delta t/2$ are precisely the average life times
527: in the continuous and discrete measuring models, respectively \footnote{The origin ordinate would be slightly above $\la t\ra_{Zeno}$ for
528: optimized straight lines. Reflection
529: at small $\delta t$ (or high $V_0$)
530: favors the detection of faster particles and bends the
531: $\la t\ra$ lines towards shorter times,
532: as in Fig. \ref{f1}.}.
533: This suggests an approximate agreement between projection
534: and continuous dynamics provided that the relation
535: %
536: %\beq
537: $\delta t\approx\hbar/V_0$
538: %\label{sch}
539: %\eeq
540: %
541: is satisfied.
542: For large $V_0$, this is asymptotically not in contradiction with the
543: requirement of a large $\alpha$ since
544: $V_0^{-1}-(\alpha V_0)^{-1}\to 0$ as $V_0\to\infty$; in any case
545: quantum reflection breaks down the linear dependence,
546: see Fig. \ref{f1}.
547:
548: A similar relation between pulsed and continuous measurements
549: was described by Schulman \cite{Schulman98} and has been tested
550: experimentally \cite{ket07}. The simplest model in \cite{Schulman98} may be reinterpreted
551: as a two-level atom in a resonant laser field, with the excited state
552: decaying away from the 2-level subspace at a rate $\gamma$ \cite{mug06},
553: $\widehat{H}=\frac{\hbar}{2}\left({0\atop \Omega} {\Omega\atop{-i\gamma}}\right)$.
554: The relation between pulsed and continuous measurements
555: follows by comparing the exponential decay
556: for the effective 2-level Hamiltonian
557: with Rabi frequency $\Omega$ and excited state lifetime $1/\gamma$, with the
558: decay dynamics when $\gamma=0$ and the system is projected every $\delta t$ into
559: the ground state.
560: It takes the form \cite{Schulman98}
561: %
562: %\beq
563: $\delta t =\frac{4}{\gamma}$
564: %\label{sr}
565: %\eeq
566: %
567: for $\gamma/\Omega\ll 1$ (weak driving).
568: %Note that $1/\gamma$ is the life time for an excited atom, but
569: %for an atom starting in the ground state the lifetime in the 2-level subspace
570: %is in fact $\gamma/\Omega^2$ because of the slow pumping to the excited state.
571: In our TOA model we have a different set of parameters but a comparison
572: is possible by taking into account that the imaginary potential (\ref{v}) may be
573: physically interpreted as the effective interaction for the ground state
574: in the weak driving regime, for a localized resonant laser excitation
575: with subsequent decay, $\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_0+\frac{\hbar}{2}\left({0\atop \Omega\Theta(\widehat{x})} {\Omega\Theta(\widehat{x})\atop{-i\gamma}}\right)$.
576: This gives \cite{ON03,rus04}
577: %
578: %\beq
579: $V_0=\frac{\hbar\Omega^2}{2\gamma}$,
580: %\eeq
581: %
582: so that $\delta t\approx\hbar/V_0$
583: %Eq. (\ref{sch})
584: becomes
585: %
586: \beq
587: \delta t \approx 2\frac{\gamma}{\hbar\Omega^2},
588: \eeq
589: %
590: different from Schulman's relation, as it may be expected since
591: the pulsed evolution depends on $\Omega$ in Schulman's model
592: but not in our case, where it is only driven by the kinetic energy
593: Hamiltonian $\wh{H}_0$.
594:
595: \section{Discussion}
596: %
597: %{\it Discussion.}
598: %
599: The first discussions of the Zeno effect, understood as
600: the hindered passage of the system between orthogonal subspaces because of
601: frequent instantaneous measurements,
602: emphasized its problematic status and regarded it as a failure
603: to simulate or define quantum passage-time distributions.
604: We have shown here
605: that in fact there is a ``bright side'' of the effect:
606: by normalizing the little bits of norm removed at each projection
607: step, a physical time distribution defined for the freely moving system
608: emerges. (There are other
609: ``positive'' uses of the Zeno effect, such as reduction of decoherence in quantum computing, see e.g. \cite{NTY,f05}.) In the case of the projection measurements to determine
610: the TOA, this distribution is given by Eq. (\ref{pz}).
611: This result is fundamentally different from
612: the current density
613: %
614: or from Kijowski's TOA distribution,
615: (operational approaches to measure them by fluorescence are described in
616: \cite{dam02, ON03})
617: and corresponds to a classical time-distribution of local
618: kinetic energy density \cite{coh79,ked05}, rather than
619: a classical TOA distribution \footnote{$\Pi_K$ could in principle
620: be obtained in the Zeno limit for states with positive momentum support
621: by transforming the initial state
622: $\la k|\psi_f\ra\to k^{1/2}\la k|\psi_f\ra/C$, with $C$ a constant,
623: as in the Operator Normalization technique \cite{ON03}.}.
624:
625: %The Zeno distribution is
626: %thus not in correspondence with a classical time-of-arrival.
627:
628: Experimental realizations of repeated measurements will rely on
629: projections with a finite frequency and pulse duration
630: that provide approximations
631: to the ideal result. Feasible schemes may be based on
632: pulsed localized resonant-laser excitation \cite{ket07}, or
633: sweeping with a detuned laser \cite{sweep}.
634: A challenging open question for further research is the possibility to devise
635: alternative (non periodic) pulse sequences to enhance the robustness
636: of the Zeno effect in a TOA measurement, similar in spirit to the ones proposed in the
637: context of quantum information processing \cite{Lidar}.
638: Nevertheless, the ordinary (periodic) sequence has successfully been
639: applied in quantum optical realizations of the quantum Zeno effect \cite{ket07}.
640:
641: The proposed normalization method may be applied to other
642: measurements as well, i.e. not only for a TOA of
643: freely moving particles, but in general
644: to first passages between orthogonal subspaces,
645: and it will be interesting to find out in each
646: case the ideal time distribution brought out by normalization.
647:
648: \begin{acknowledgments}
649: This work has been supported by Ministerio de Educaci\'on y Ciencia (BFM2003-01003), and UPV-EHU (00039.310-15968/2004). A. C. acknowledges
650: financial support by the Basque Government (BFI04.479).
651: %
652: %
653: \end{acknowledgments}
654:
655:
656:
657: %\begin{references}
658: \begin{thebibliography}{10}
659:
660:
661: \bibitem{dam02} J. A. Damborenea, I. L. Egusquiza, G. C. Hegerfeldt, and
662: J. G. Muga,
663: %Measurement-based approach to quantum arrival times
664: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 66}, 052104 (2002).
665:
666: \bibitem{rus02} J. Ruseckas and B. Kaulakys,
667: %Weak measurement of arrival time
668: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 66}, 052106 (2002).
669: %Times Cited: 5
670:
671: \bibitem{alo02} D. Alonso, R. S. Mayato, C. R. Leavens,
672: %First-arrival-time distributions for a Dirac electron in 1+1 dimensions
673: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 66}, 042108 (2002).
674:
675: \bibitem{ON03} G. C. Hegerfeldt,
676: D. Seidel, and J. G. Muga,
677: %Quantum arrival times and operator normalization
678: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 68}, 022111 (2003).
679:
680: \bibitem{gal04} E.A. Galapon, R.F. Caballar, and R.T. Bahague,
681: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 93}, 180406 (2004).
682:
683: \bibitem{rus04} A. Ruschhaupt, J. A. Damborenea, B. Navarro B, J. G. Muga,
684: and G. C. Hegerfeldt,
685: %Exact and approximate complex potentials for modelling time observables
686: Europhys. Lett. {\bf 67}, 1 (2004).
687: %Times Cited: 12
688:
689: \bibitem{bon04} R. S. Bondurant,
690: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 69}, 062104 (2004).
691:
692: \bibitem{gdme05} E. A. Galapon, F. Delgado, J. G. Muga, and I. Egusquiza,
693: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 74}, 042107 (2005).
694:
695: \bibitem{LL} L. Lamata and J. Le\'on, Concepts Phys. {\bf 2}, 49 (2005).
696:
697: \bibitem{as06} Ch. Anastopoulos and N. Savvidou,
698: J. Math. Phys. {\bf 47}, 122106 (2006).
699:
700: \bibitem{heg06} G. C. Hegerfeldt, J. T. Neumann, and L. S. Schulman,
701: J. Phys. A {\bf 39}, 14447 (2006).
702:
703: \bibitem{gas06} O. del Barco O, M. Ortu\~no, and V. Gasparian,
704: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 74}, 032104 (2006).
705:
706: \bibitem{heg07} G. C. Hegerfeldt, J. T. Neumann, and L. S. Schulman,
707: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 75}, 012108 (2007).
708:
709: \bibitem{man07} M. M Ali, D. Home, A. S. Majumdar, A. K. Pan,
710: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 75}, 042110 (2007).
711:
712: \bibitem{tor07} G. Torres-Vega, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 75}, 032112 (2007).
713:
714: \bibitem{goz07} A. Gozdz and M. Debicki, Physics of Atomic Nuclei
715: {\bf 70}, 529 (2007).
716:
717: \bibitem{ML00}J. G. Muga and C. R. Leavens,
718: Phys. Rep. {\bf 338}, 353 (2000).
719:
720: \bibitem{MSE02} J. G. Muga, R. Sala and I. L. Egusquiza (eds.),
721: {\it Time in Quantum Mechanics} (Springer, Berlin, 2002).
722:
723: \bibitem{Allcock}
724: G. R. Allcock, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) {\bf 53}, 253 (1969); {\bf 53}, 286
725: (1969); {\bf 53}, 311 (1969).
726:
727:
728: \bibitem{MS77} B. Misra and E. C. G. Sudarshan, J. Math. Phys. {\bf 18},
729: 756 (1977).
730: \bibitem{hom97} D. Home and A. Whitaker, Ann. Phys. {\bf 258}, 237 (1997).
731: \bibitem{fac01} P. Facchi and S. Pascazio, Prog. in Optics {\bf 42}, 147 (2001).
732: \bibitem{kos05} K. Koshino and A. Shimizu, Phys. Rep. {\bf 412}, 191 (2005).
733: \bibitem{fac01a} P. Facchi, S. Pascazio, A. Scardicchio, and L. S. Schulman,
734: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 65}, 012108 (2001).
735:
736: \bibitem{fac04} P. Facchi, G. Marmo, S. Pascazio, A. Scardicchio, and
737: E. C. G. Sudarshan, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. {\bf 6}, S492 (2004).
738:
739: \bibitem{exn05} P. Exner and T. Ichinose, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar\'e {\bf 6}, 195 (2005).
740:
741: \bibitem{Kijowski74}
742: J. Kijowski, Rep. Math. Phys. {\bf 6}, 361 (1974).
743: %CITATION = RMHPB,6,361;%%
744: \bibitem{mug06} F. Delgado, J. G. Muga, and G. Garc\'\i a-Calder\'on,
745: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 74}, 062102 (2006).
746:
747: \bibitem{vN} J. von Neumann, ``Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics'', Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1955.
748:
749: \bibitem{Schulman98} L. S. Schulman, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 57}, 1509 (1998).
750:
751: \bibitem{ket07}
752: %Continuous and Pulsed Quantum Zeno Effect
753: E. W. Streed, J. Mun, M. Boyd, G. K. Campbell, P. Medley, W. Ketterle, and D. E. Pritchard,
754: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97}, 260402 (2006).
755: %
756: \bibitem{NTY} H. Nazakato, T. Takazawa, and K. Yuasa,
757: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 90}, 060401 (2003).
758:
759: \bibitem{f05} P. Facchi, S. Tasaki, S. Pascazio, H. Nakazato, A. Tokuse, and D. A. Lidar,
760: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 71}, 022302 (2005).
761:
762: \bibitem{ked05}
763: J. G. Muga, D. Seidel, and G. C. Hegerfeldt, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 122}, 154106 (2005).
764:
765: \bibitem{coh79} L. Cohen, J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 70}, 788 (1979).
766:
767: \bibitem{sweep} C. S. Chuu, F. Schreck, T. P. Meyrath, J. L. Hanssen, G. N. Price, and M. G. Raizen,
768: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 260403 (2005).
769:
770: \bibitem{Lidar}K. Khodjasteh and D. A. Lidar, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 95}, 180501
771: (2005).
772:
773: \end{thebibliography}
774:
775: \end{document}
776:
777:
778:
779: