1: \documentstyle[aps,amsmath,latexsym,amssymb,epsfig,multicol,graphicx]{revtex}

2: \def\btt#1{{\tt$\backslash$#1}}

3: \begin{document}

4: 

5: \draft

6: \pagestyle{myheadings}

7: 

8: \newcommand{\comments}[1]{\hfill {\tt {eq:~#1}}} 

9: 

10: \def\breakon{\end{multicols}\widetext\vspace{-.2cm}

11: \noindent\rule{.48\linewidth}{.3mm}\rule{.3mm}{.3cm}\vspace{.0cm}}

12: 

13: \def\breakoff{\vspace{-.2cm}

14: \noindent

15: \rule{.52\linewidth}{.0mm}\rule[-.27cm]{.3mm}{.3cm}\rule{.48\linewidth}{.3mm}

16: \vspace{-.3cm}

17: \begin{multicols}{2}

18: \narrowtext}

19: 

20: \title{Polariton condensation and lasing in

21: optical microcavities - the decoherence driven crossover}  

22: 

23: \author{M. H. Szymanska, P. B. Littlewood, and  B. D. Simons}

24: \address{ Theory of Condensed Matter, Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge

25: CB3 0HE, UK }

26: 

27: \date{\today}

28: 

29: \maketitle

30: 

31: \begin{abstract}

32: We explore the behaviour of a system which consists of a photon mode

33: dipole coupled to a medium of two-level oscillators in a microcavity

34: in the presence of decoherence. We consider two types of

35: decoherence processes which are analogous to magnetic and non-magnetic

36: impurities in superconductors. We study different phases of this

37: system as the decoherence strength and the excitation density is

38: changed. For a low decoherence we obtain a polariton condensate with

39: comparable excitonic and photonic parts at low densities and a

40: BCS-like state with bigger photon component due to the fermionic phase

41: space filling effect at high densities. In both cases there is a large

42: gap in the density of states. As the decoherence is increased the gap

43: is broadened and suppressed, resulting in a gapless condensate and

44: finally a suppression of the coherence in a low density regime and a

45: laser at high density limit. A crossover between these regimes is

46: studied in a self-consistent way analogous to the Abrikosov and Gor'kov

47: theory of gapless superconductivity \cite{abrikosov-gorkov}.

48: 

49: \end{abstract}

50: \pacs{42.50.Fx, 03.75.Gg, 42.50.Gy, 42.55.Ah}

51: 

52: 

53: \begin{multicols}{2}

54: \narrowtext

55: 

56: \section{Introduction}

57: 

58: The miniaturisation and improvement in the quality of optical cavities

59: in recent years led to the achievement of strong-coupling regime of

60: light-matter interaction in many physical systems.  The strong

61: coupling regime is characterised by well-developed coupled modes of

62: light and electronic excitations, called polaritons.  Polariton

63: splitting has been experimentally observed for atoms \cite{atompol},

64: quantum wells \cite{cavpol} and bulk excitons \cite{bulkcavpol},

65: excitons in organic semiconductors \cite{organicpol1,organicpol2},

66: exciton complexes \cite{chargedpol} and glass spheres. The

67: strong coupling regime has also been achieved for coupled Josephson

68: junctions \cite{JJ} in a microwave cavity.

69: 

70: With well-developed modes, that are sharp and have long lifetimes, a

71: natural question becomes the existence of coherent, condensed states.

72: A theoretically constructed polariton condensate is a mixture of

73: coherent state of light and coherent state of massive particles in the

74: media. It is characterised by two order parameters: the coherent

75: polarisation and the coherent photon field and exhibit a gap in the

76: excitation spectrum \cite{paul}. Since the polariton condensate would

77: be a source of coherent light the natural question arises how it is

78: different from and how it can be connected to the traditional laser.

79: 

80: The laser is a weak-coupling phenomenon: a coherent state of photons

81: created by stimulated emission from an inverted electronic population

82: due to strong pumping. The polarisation of the medium is heavily

83: damped and the atomic coherence is practically zero.  A coherent

84: photon field, oscillating at the bare cavity mode frequency, is the

85: only order parameter in the system \cite{laser}.

86: 

87: The crossover between a polariton condensate and a laser is sometimes

88: mistakenly attributed to an increase in density and a crossover from

89: bosonic (exciton) degrees of freedom to fermionic particle-hole

90: pairs. The absence of polariton splitting is associated with

91: disappearance of coherence, which is why experiments are concentrated

92: at low densities. In this work we show that the trend is an opposite

93: one - the condensate is more robust at high densities. One needs to

94: remember that polaritons, and so polariton splitting, are normal state

95: excitation and so disappearance of polariton splitting in the normal

96: state does not indicate what would happen if the system was condensed.

97: 

98: The issue of electronic coherence in polariton condensate is

99: independent of whether the excitations are more ``excitonic'' or more

100: like a two-component plasma (ionised electron-hole pairs), or indeed

101: whether or not there is saturation (phase-space filling) of the

102: electronic states.  It has been shown \cite{paul} that although the

103: increase in the density of electronic excitation leads to

104: nonlinearities in the polariton system which cause the collapse of the

105: splitting between the two polariton peaks in the normal state it does

106: not destroy condensation even at very high excitation densities.  The

107: saturation in the fermionic space forces the condensate to become more

108: photon like as the excitation density is increased and to have more

109: BCS-like character, but nevertheless the coherence in the media and

110: the gap in the excitation spectrum are present.  The change in the

111: density of the electronic excitations leads to the crossover between

112: the regime of BEC of polaritons and collective BCS-like state

113: 

114: This article will argue that the real enemy of condensation is

115: decoherence, not density, and that it is precisely decoherence which

116: drives the polariton condensate towards the laser regime. We show that

117: only the self-consistent inclusion of decoherence processes allows to

118: establish a crossover between an isolated condensate and a laser. The

119: widely used quantum Maxwell-Bloch (Langevin) equations with constant

120: decay rate for polarisation are not correct in a regime when the

121: coherent polarisation is large and the gap in the density of states is

122: present. We develop a self-consistent method analogous to the

123: Abrikosov and Gor'kov theory of gapless superconductors, which allows

124: us to study the stability of the polariton condensate at low

125: decoherence strength and to established the crossover to laser

126: behaviour as the decoherence is increased.

127: 

128: \section{Model}

129: \label{model}

130: 

131: The model we consider in this work is schematically shown in Figure

132: \ref{fig:model}.  It consists of a set of N two-level oscillators

133: dipole coupled to a single mode of electromagnetic field confined in a

134: cavity. This system is then subject to various decoherence, pumping

135: and damping processes.  These processes can be of a different physical

136: nature, depending on the material, but their exact details are not

137: that important for a general theory. They can be described, similarly

138: to laser theory, as baths of harmonic oscillators coupled to the

139: system in a way that gives the same effect as the real physical

140: environment.

141: 

142: \breakon

143: \begin{figure}[htbp]

144: 	\begin{center}

145: \includegraphics[width=16.2cm,angle=0]{model.eps} 

146: 	\end{center}

147: 	\caption{Sketch of the model studied in this work: the system

148: 	of two-level oscillators dipole coupled to a single cavity

149: 	mode interacting with various types of environment.}

150: \label{fig:model}

151: \end{figure}

152: \breakoff

153: 

154: 

155: Our model takes into account the major Coulomb interaction between the

156: electron and hole within the exciton, the phase-space filling effect,

157: disorder in the material (inhomogeneous broadening of excitonic

158: energies) and various types of decoherence effects.  However, it does

159: not include screening and Coulomb interactions between

160: excitons. Therefore, it gives a very good description of tightly

161: bound, Frenkel - type of excitons localised by disorder or bound on

162: impurities, molecular excitons in organic materials, atoms in the

163: solid state or Josephson junctions arrays in microwave

164: microcavity. And it gives only a qualitative description within a

165: mean-field approximation for other types of excitons like Wannier

166: excitons or excitons propagating in a sample (see Section

167: \ref{aplic}).

168: 

169: The model we use is the minimal required to describe the essential

170: physics. At this stage we do not intend to model any particular medium

171: with its complex interactions which would only make the general

172: picture less clear. More specific details of the particular medium

173: could, however, be included straightforwardly into the formalism. We 

174: will discuss this possibility in the Section~\ref{aplic}.

175: 

176: In the following, we consider a system comprised of an ensemble of $N$ 

177: two-level oscillators with an energy $\epsilon_j$ dipole coupled to a 

178: single cavity mode. The corresponding microscopic Hamiltonian takes the 

179: form

180: %

181: \begin{eqnarray}

182: &&\hat{H}_S = \omega_c\psi^\dagger\psi + \sum_{j=1}^N \epsilon_j

183: (b^\dagger_jb_j-a^\dagger_ja_j)\nonumber\\ 

184: &&\qquad\qquad + \sum_{j=1}^N \frac{g_j}{\sqrt{N}}(b^\dagger_ja_j\psi 

185: +\psi^\dagger a^\dagger_jb_j)

186: \label{HS}

187: \end{eqnarray}

188: %

189: where Fermionic operators $b_j$ and $a_j$ annihilate electrons in the upper 

190: and lower states respectively, while the Bosonic operator $\psi$ annihilates 

191: the photon. Here the sum extends over the possible sites $j$ where an 

192: exciton can be present (e.g. different molecules or localised states 

193: associated with a disorder potential). Matrix elements $g_j/\sqrt{N}$ 

194: describe the interaction of the photon with the two-level oscillators. 

195: 

196: Generally, the effect of the environment on the behaviour of the system 

197: can be modelled through the interaction of the internal degrees of freedom

198: with a bath. Taking into account different physical processes, the most

199: general coupling is of the form

200: %

201: \begin{eqnarray}

202: &&\hat{H}_{SB}=\sum_{k} g_{k}(\psi^\dagger d_{k}+d_{k}^\dagger \psi)

203: \nonumber\\

204: &&\qquad\qquad + \sum_{jk} \left[b^\dagger_j a_j 

205: (g^{\gamma_+}_{jk} c_{+,k}^\dagger+

206: g^{\gamma_-}_{jk} c_{-,k})+{\rm h.c}\right]\nonumber\\

207: &&\qquad\qquad + \sum_{jk} \Gamma^{(1)}_{jk}(b^\dagger_jb_j

208: +a^\dagger_ja_j)(c_{1,k}^\dagger +c_{1,k})\nonumber\\

209: &&\qquad\qquad + \sum_{jk} \Gamma^{(2)}_{jk}(b^\dagger_jb_j

210: -a^\dagger_ja_j)(c_{2,k}^\dagger +c_{2,k}),

211: \label{eq:HSB}

212: \end{eqnarray}

213: %

214: %

215: where 

216: %

217: \begin{eqnarray*} 

218: &&\hat{H}_{B}= \sum_{k} \left[\omega_{k} d_k^{\dagger}d_k +\omega_{+,k}

219: c^\dagger_{+,k} c_{+,k}+\omega_{-,k} c^\dagger_{-,k} c_{-,k}\right.\\

220: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad \left.+ \omega_{1,k} c^\dagger_{1,k} c_{1,k} 

221: +\omega_{2,k}c^\dagger_{2,k} c_{2,k}\right]

222: \end{eqnarray*}

223: %

224: describes the Hamiltonian of the bath. Here the different modes $k$ of the 

225: bath are indexed by (independent) Bosonic field operators $d_k$, $c_{+,k}$, 

226: $c_{-,k}$, $c_{1,k}$ and $c_{2,k}$. Here the first term in (\ref{eq:HSB}) 

227: describes the decay of the photon field from the cavity. Matrix elements

228: $g^{\gamma_+}_{jk}$ describe the incoherent pumping of two-level 

229: oscillators, while the matrix elements $g^{\gamma_-}_{jk}$ contain all

230: of the higher energy processes which destroy the electronic excitations 

231: such as the radiative decay

232: into photon modes different from the cavity mode. Apart from their dephasing

233: effect, together, these processes cause a flow of energy through the system. 

234: However, in the steady state, the total number of excitations

235: %

236: \begin{equation} 

237: \label{constrain}

238: \hat{n}_{ex}=\psi^\dagger\psi + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{j}(b^\dagger_jb_j-

239: a^\dagger_ja_j), 

240: \end{equation} 

241: %

242: the sum of photons and excited two-level oscillators, is constant. Finally, 

243: the third and fourth terms describe all those lower energy dephasing 

244: processes, such as

245: collisions and interactions with phonons and impurities, which conserve

246: the total number of excitations in the cavity. Such contributions can be 

247: divided into a part which act symmetrically ($\Gamma^{(1)}$) or 

248: antisymmetrically ($\Gamma^{(2)}$) on the upper and lower levels. Altogether 

249: these four terms contain all the essential mechanisms of decoherence.

250: 

251: To assimilate the effect of the different mechanisms of decoherence, we

252: will find it useful both intuitivelty as well as techincally (see later) 

253: to draw on an analogy between the Hamiltonian of the system and that of a

254: superconductor~\cite{keldysh1,keldysh2}. Referring to 

255: the states indexed by the Fermionic operators $b_j$ as `particle-like',

256: and those indexed by $a_j$ as `hole-like', $\hat{H}_S$ can be interpreted

257: as a BCS Hamiltonian for a superconductor with an imposed homogeneous 

258: `superconducting' order parameter $\psi$. With this analogy, it is clear

259: that the second and third terms of $\hat{H}_{SB}$~(\ref{eq:HSB}) affect 

260: a mechanism of `pair-breaking', while the fourth term is compatibile with

261: the symmetry of the Cooper pairs. The former act on the system as 

262: dynamically fluctuating magnetic impurities while the latter describe

263: dynamical fluctuations of a normal non-magnetic potential providing only 

264: an inhomogeneous broadening of the energies.

265: 

266: When the pumping and photon decay rates are high, the system would be 

267: driven out of equilibrium. However, if the thermalisation rate is in 

268: excess of the speed at which the system is pumped, an equilibrium 

269: assumption can be justified. In this work we will limit our considerations

270: to this regime focussing on the effect of decoherence on the equilibrium

271: system. Choosing both the pumping and decay rates to be small --- allowing

272: thermal equilibration --- their ratio can be used to fix the total 

273: excitation density $n_{ex}$. Nevertheless, within this quasi-equilibrium 

274: regime, both the third and fourth terms in (\ref{eq:HSB}) can, in fact, be 

275: arbitrary large since they do not couple to the total density $n_{ex}$. 

276: There is no restriction on the density of excitations nor on the decoherence 

277: rate.

278: 

279: Therefore, on this background, we will consider the total Hamiltonian

280: %

281: \begin{equation} 

282: \hat{H}=\hat{H}_S+\hat{H}_{SB}+\hat{H}_{B},

283: \label{H}

284: \end{equation} 

285: %

286: where

287: %

288: \begin{eqnarray}

289: &&\hat{H}_{SB} = \sum_{jk} \Gamma^{(1)}_{jk}(b^\dagger_jb_j

290: +a^\dagger_ja_j)(c_{1,k}^\dagger +c_{1,k})\nonumber\\

291: &&\qquad\qquad+\sum_{jk} \Gamma^{(2)}_{jk}(b^\dagger_jb_j

292: -a^\dagger_ja_j)(c_{2,k}^\dagger +c_{2,k}),

293: \label{Hmag}

294: \end{eqnarray}

295: %

296: includes only the includes only the decoherence mechanisms which conserve

297: $n_{ex}$, while 

298: %

299: %

300: \begin{eqnarray*} 

301: \hat{H}_{B}= \sum_{i=1,2} \sum_{k} \omega_{i,k} c^\dagger_{ik} c_{ik}.

302: \end{eqnarray*}

303: %

304: Although, in general, the coupling constants $\Gamma^{(i)}_{jk}$ can be site

305: dependent, for simplicity, we will suppose that the modes of the bath couple 

306: with equal strength to the two-level systems setting $\Gamma^{(i)}_{jk} 

307: \mapsto \Gamma^{(i)}_k$. Similarly, in the following, we will assume that the 

308: coupling of the two-level systems to the cavity photon is independent of 

309: the site index $j$, $g_j\mapsto g$.

310: 

311: When the interactions between the environment and the system are large, the

312: Hamiltonian above provides the basis of the standard theory of lasers (see,

313: e.g., Refs.~\cite{laser,haken}). At the same time, if we set the coupling

314: constants between the system and the environment to zero, the ground state

315: of the Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_S$ forms a polariton condensate. Thus by varying 

316: the magnitude of the coupling between the system and the baths the model

317: provides the means to move smoothly between an isolated condensate and

318: other phases driven by the decoherence. This provides a means to explore

319: the stability of the polariton condensate to interactions with the outside 

320: world at a small coupling strength, and to establish the connection between 

321: polariton condensation and lasers as the decoherence is increased.

322: 

323: The standard assumption (which in many cases is physically correct) is

324: that the environment leads to rapid dephasing of the exciton polarisation 

325: (i.e. $T_2$ is very short). It is thus generally assumed that the 

326: polarisation is very small, and that the coherent photon field is the

327: dominant order parameter. In such a case the baths can be averaged out 

328: before the exciton-photon interaction is studied. This in turn leads to the 

329: well-known quantum Maxwell-Bloch (Langevin) equations for the photon 

330: field and polarisation, essentially of the form

331: %

332: \begin{equation} 

333: \label{maxwell-bloch} \frac{d}{dt}

334: \langle a^\dagger b\rangle = i\langle[\hat{H}_{S}, a^\dagger b]\rangle

335: - \frac{1}{T_2} \langle a^\dagger b \rangle \;\;\;.  

336: \end{equation}

337: %

338: Crucially, Eq.~(\ref{maxwell-bloch}) can be derived by assuming that the

339: lifetime $T_2$ for polarisation of a \emph{single} two-level oscillator is

340: the same as that of the macroscopic ensemble of two-level oscillators (which

341: would correspond to introducing a separate bath for each two-level

342: system). However, in general Eq.~(\ref{maxwell-bloch}) is not correct

343: \cite{us0}. When $T_2$ is long, the macroscopic ensemble of two-level

344: oscillators can exist in a collective state characterised by a large

345: coherent polarisation, and the assumptions which lead to

346: (\ref{maxwell-bloch}) cannot be justified. Moreover, the constant

347: decay rate $1/T_2$ in (\ref{maxwell-bloch}) is a critical parameter;

348: even at arbitrarily small decoherence it leads to completely different

349: solutions from those in the absence of an environment (as shown in

350: Ref.~\cite{us0}). This criticality is however unphysical and arises only due

351: to approximations used in deriving the Langevin equations.

352: In fact, this conclusion seems not to be widely appreciated. Indeed, in a

353: relatively recent publication~\cite{wrong} similar decay constants in

354: the equations of motion for the coherently driven excitonic insulator

355: have been used, leading to the conclusion that the excitonic insulator

356: phase cannot exist for an arbitrary small decoherence.

357: 

358: One can gain some physical insight into this problem by considering the 

359: evolution of the density of states: The ideal condensate has a gap in 

360: the density of states which would still be present for small decoherence. 

361: It is evident that the coherent fields in this regime cannot be damped 

362: just by constant decay rates independent of frequency as there are no 

363: available states in which to decay. As the decoherence is increased this 

364: gap gets smaller and finally is completely suppressed causing the coherent 

365: fields to be strongly damped, as in lasers. In this regime 

366: Eq.~(\ref{maxwell-bloch}) is perfectly valid. However to be able to study 

367: a crossover from the fully phase coherent polariton condensate to a laser 

368: one needs to include the environment in a self-consistent way in which the 

369: possible gap in excitation spectrum and a large polarisation would be taken 

370: into account.

371: 

372: The analogy between superconductivity and the excitonic insulator was

373: first noticed and exploited in a pioneering work of Keldysh

374: \cite{keldysh1,keldysh2}, and explored later by others

375: \cite{zittart,paul}. The analogy between different types of

376: decoherence processes acting on polariton condensate, and the problem of

377: magnetic and potential impurities in superconductors suggests that similar

378: methods to that used by Abrikosov and Gor'kov (AG) in their theory of

379: gapless superconductivity~\cite{abrikosov-gorkov} can be useful in

380: studying the properties of polariton condensates in the presence of

381: decoherence. This analogy is however not exact and we will discuss a

382: few essential differences between our theory and the Abrikosov and Gor'kov

383: approach at the end of Section \ref{method}. An outline of the rest of

384: the paper is as follows: In section \ref{method} we provide details of

385: the method in the path integral formulation. In section \ref{gs} we

386: discuss ground state properties of the system in the presence of two

387: different types of dephasing while in section \ref{es} we study the

388: excitation spectrum and construct a phase diagram as a function of

389: excitation density, pair-breaking decoherence strength and the

390: inhomogeneous broadening of energy levels. In section \ref{cl} we

391: discuss a crossover between an isolated condensate and a laser and in

392: section \ref{gap} the magnitude of the energy gap. In section

393: \ref{aplic} we comment on the applicability of the model and the

394: method presented in this work and indicate a few directions in which

395: the model could be easily extended. Finally, in section \ref{exp} we

396: discuss recent experiments in the light of theoretical predictions

397: presented in this work and in section \ref{sum} we briefly summarise

398: the results.

399: 

400: \section{Path Integral Formulation}

401: \label{method}

402: 

403: To construct a theory of the coupled system, we will exploit an approach

404: based on the coherent state path integral. As well as providing 

405: access to the mean-field equations of the system, such a framework provides

406: the potential to explore the influence of fluctuation phenomena. Working

407: in the grand canonical ensemble, a chemical potential $\mu$ can be used

408: to fix the total number of excitations $n_{ex}$. The quantum partition 

409: function of the system ${\cal Z}={\rm Tr}\  e^{-\beta(\hat{H}-\mu

410: \hat{n}_{ex})}$ can be expressed as a coherent state path integral over 

411: Fermionic and Bosonic fields, 

412: %

413: \begin{equation} 

414: {\cal Z}=\int D[\bar{\psi}, \psi] \prod_j

415: D[\bar{\phi}_j,\phi_j] \prod_{k,i=1,2} D[\bar{c}_{i,k}, c_{i,k}] e^{-S}.

416: \label{partition}

417: \end{equation}

418: %

419: As with the Hamiltonian, it is convenient to separate the total action

420: as $S=S_S+S_{SB}+S_{B}$ where

421: %

422: \begin{eqnarray*}

423: S_S=S_\psi-\int_0^\beta d\tau \sum_j \bar\phi_j \hat{G}_{0j}^{-1} \phi_j

424: \end{eqnarray*}

425: %

426: with $S_\psi=\int_0^\beta d\tau \bar\psi(\partial_\tau+\omega_c-\mu)\psi$

427: denotes the action of the internal electron and photon degrees of freedom

428: of the system, while the action for the coupling of the system to the bath 

429: takes the form

430: %

431: \begin{eqnarray*}

432: &&S_{SB}=\int_0^\beta d\tau \sum_{i=1,2}\left[\sum_k \bar{c}_{ik}

433: (\partial_\tau +\omega_{ik}) c_{ik}\right.\\

434: &&\qquad\qquad\qquad\left.+\sum_k

435: \Gamma_k^{(i)}\rho^{(i)}(\bar{c}_{i,k}+ c_{i,k})\right].

436: \end{eqnarray*}

437: %

438: Combining the Fermionic fields of the two-level systems into a Nambu-like

439: spinor,

440: %

441: \begin{displaymath}

442: \bar{\phi}_j=\left( \begin{array}{c}

443: \bar{b}_{j}  \  \ \bar{a}_{j}

444: \end{array}

445: \right), 

446: \end{displaymath} 

447: %

448: the bare Green function assumes the matrix form

449: %

450: \begin{eqnarray*}

451: \hat{G}_{0j}^{-1}=-\partial_\tau\sigma_0-(\epsilon_j-\mu/2)\sigma_3-g\bar\psi

452: \sigma_- -g\psi\sigma_+\,.

453: \end{eqnarray*}

454: %

455: where $\sigma$ denote the Pauli spin matrices (with $\sigma_0\equiv\openone$)

456: which operate in the $(b,a)$ space (hereafter, loosely referred to as the 

457: `particle/hole' space). 

458: Finally, we have defined the symmetric and antisymmetric `densities' according 

459: to the relation $\rho(\tau)^{(1,2)}=\sum_j \bar{\phi}_j(\tau)\sigma_{(0,3)}

460: \phi_j(\tau)$.

461: 

462: Although a theory of the symmetric and antisymmetric processes can be 

463: developed in concert, for clarity we will present a detailed derivation

464: of the action of the `pair-breaking' decoherence processes imposed by 

465: $\Gamma^{(1)}$. Later, in Section \ref{saddle}, we will restore the 

466: decoherence processes affected by $\Gamma^{(2)}$. Thus, for now, we will 

467: use the following abbreviation $\Gamma_k^{(1)}\mapsto \Gamma_k$ dropping

468: the `channel' index. 

469: 

470: Being Gaussian in the Bosonic fields $c_{k}$, the degrees of freedom of the

471: bath can be integrated out leading to an effective interaction of the 

472: two-level systems which takes the form $\int D[\bar{c}_k,c_k] e^{-S_{SB}}

473: =e^{-S_{SB}'}$, where

474: %

475: \begin{equation}

476: \label{Sef}

477: S_{SB}'=\int_0^\beta d\tau d\tau' \rho(\tau) 

478: \sum_k \Gamma_k^2 D_k(\tau-\tau') \rho(\tau'),

479: \end{equation}

480: %

481: with $\hat{D}^{-1}_k=-\partial_\tau-\omega_k$ representing the free propagator 

482: of the environment. Transforming (\ref{Sef}) to the Fourier Matsubara 

483: frequency representation, and summing over the internal degrees of freedom 

484: of the bath,

485: %

486: \begin{equation}

487: \label{defgam}

488: -\sum_k \Gamma_k^2 D_k(i\nu_n)=f_{\Gamma}(i\nu_n),

489: \end{equation}

490: % 

491: where $D^{-1}_k(\nu_n)=i\nu_n-\omega_k$ and $\nu_n=2\pi n/\beta$, the 

492: induced interaction assumes the form

493: %

494: \begin{eqnarray*}

495: &&S_{SB}'=-\sum_{\nu_n} f_{\Gamma}(i\nu_n) \rho(i\nu_n)\rho(-i\nu_n)\\

496: &&=\int_0^\beta d\tau d\tau' f_{\Gamma}(\tau-\tau') \sum_{jj'} {\rm Tr}

497: \, \phi_j(\tau)\otimes\bar\phi_{j'}(\tau') \phi_{j'}(\tau') \otimes 

498: \bar\phi_j(\tau).

499: \end{eqnarray*}

500: %

501: In particular, it can be seen explicitly that the interaction with the 

502: environment introduces an effective quartic interaction between the

503: \emph{different} two-level systems. This contrasts with the Maxwell-Bloch

504: equations~(\ref{maxwell-bloch}) from which one can infer only a lifetime 

505: for excitations~\cite{us0}.

506: 

507: To develop a mean-field theory of the coupled system, it is helpful to

508: affect a Hubbard-Stratonovich decoupling of the interaction. Introducing 

509: the $2\times 2$ component matrix field $Q_{jj'}(\tau,\tau')$, which 

510: inherits the symmetry of the dyadic product $\phi_j(\tau)\otimes

511: \phi_{j'}(\tau')$, the interaction generated by the bath can be decoupled

512: as 

513: %

514: \begin{eqnarray*}

515: &&e^{-S_{SB}'}=\int DQ e^{-S_Q}\\

516: &&\times\exp\left[\int_0^\beta d\tau d\tau' f_\Gamma (\tau-\tau')

517: \sum_{jj'} \bar{\phi}_j(\tau) Q_{jj'}(\tau,\tau')\phi_{j'}(\tau')

518: \right],

519: \end{eqnarray*}

520: %

521: where

522: %

523: \begin{eqnarray*}

524: S_Q=\int_0^\beta d\tau d\tau' \sum_{jj'} f_\Gamma (\tau-\tau')

525: {\rm Tr}\ Q_{jj'}(\tau,\tau') Q_{j'j}(\tau',\tau)

526: \end{eqnarray*}

527: %

528: with trace taken in the particle-hole space. Combined with $S_S$, an

529: integration over the Fermionic degrees of freedom $\phi$ obtains the 

530: quantum partition function

531: %

532: \begin{equation} 

533: {\cal Z}=\int D[\bar{\psi}, \psi] \int DQ e^{-S}.

534: \end{equation}

535: %

536: where $S=S_Q+S_\psi-{\rm Tr}\ln \hat{G}^{-1}$, 

537: %

538: \begin{equation}

539: \label{Gtot}

540: G^{-1}_{jj'}(\tau,\tau')=G_{0j}^{-1}\delta_{jj'}\delta(\tau-\tau')-

541: f_\Gamma(\tau-\tau') Q_{jj'}(\tau,\tau').

542: \end{equation}

543: %

544: and the trace now runs over time and site indicies as well as the 

545: particle/hole space. At this level, the analysis is exact. 

546: 

547: \subsection{Saddle-point equations}

548: \label{saddle}

549: 

550: To develop the quantum partition function, further progress is possible 

551: only within a saddle-point approximation. Varying the action with respect

552: to $Q$, one finds that each electronic excitation is coupled to the average 

553: field created by all of the other excitations. In this sense, the 

554: saddle-point analysis corresponds to a mean-field treatment of the 

555: interaction between electronic excitations. This analysis becomes exact 

556: when there is a large number of electronic excitations coupled to a small 

557: number of field modes, since the fluctuations of the field are then 

558: negligible~\cite{paul}. The mean-field treatment of the interaction 

559: becomes exact in the thermodynamic limit when $N\to\infty$. The fluctuations 

560: above mean-field are of the order of $1/\sqrt{N}$. 

561: 

562: In the saddle-point approximation, it is assumed that the dominant

563: contribution to the quantum partition function (\ref{partition}) arises from

564: those configurations $\psi$ and $Q$ which minimise the total action.

565: Varying the action $S$ with respect to $Q$ one obtains the matrix equation

566: %

567: \begin{equation} 

568: Q_{jj'}(\tau,\tau')=\frac{1}{2} G_{jj'}(\tau,\tau'),

569: \label{saddlepointQ}

570: \end{equation}

571: %

572: while varying with respect to $\bar{\psi}$, the saddle-point equation 

573: takes the form

574: %

575: \begin{equation} 

576: (\partial_\tau+\omega_c-\mu)\psi(\tau)=\sum_j g {\rm Tr}\ G_{jj}(\tau,

577: \tau)\sigma_-.

578: \label{saddlepointF}

579: \end{equation}

580: %

581: Maintaining the analogy with the superconductor, the first equation 

582: which identifies $Q$ as the self-energy, describes the self-consistent 

583: Born approximation for the Green function, while the 

584: second equation represents the gap equation for the superconducting order

585: parameter. Substituting Eq.~(\ref{saddlepointQ}) into (\ref{Gtot}) the

586: saddle-point equation assumes the form of a Dyson equation

587: %

588: \begin{equation}

589: \label{Dyson}

590: G^{-1}_{jj'}(\tau,\tau')=G_{0j}^{-1}(\tau,\tau')\delta_{jj'}-

591: \Sigma_{jj'}(\tau,\tau'), 

592: \end{equation}

593: %

594: where 

595: %

596: \begin{eqnarray*}

597: \Sigma_{jj'}(\tau,\tau') =

598: \frac{1}{2}f_{\Gamma}(\tau-\tau')G_{jj'}(\tau,\tau')

599: \end{eqnarray*}

600: %

601: denotes the self-energy

602: 

603: 

604: Until now, we have focussed on the impact of the `pair-breaking' perturbation

605: affected by the matrix elements $\Gamma^{(1)}$. Consideration of the 

606: symmetric perturbation $\Gamma^{(2)}$ follows straightforwardly. In doing

607: so, it may be confirmed that the structure of the saddle-point equations

608: are maintained while the self-energy takes the form

609: %

610: \begin{eqnarray*}

611: \Sigma_{jj'}(\tau,\tau') =

612: \frac{1}{2}f_{\Gamma}(\tau-\tau')\sigma_3 G_{jj'}(\tau,\tau')\sigma_3

613: \end{eqnarray*}

614: 

615: In steady state one expects the solution of the saddle-point equations to

616: depend only on $\tau-\tau'$. In this case, a transformation to Matsubara

617: frequencies leads to the relation

618: %

619: \begin{equation}

620: \Sigma(i\nu_n) =

621: \frac{1}{2}\sum_{\nu_n'}f_{\Gamma}(i\nu_n')G(i\nu_n-i\nu_n').  

622: \label{selfen1}

623: \end{equation}

624: %

625: Generally, the solution of the saddle-point equation depends sensitively 

626: on the particular spectrum of decoherence $f_\Gamma$ and must be determined

627: self-consistently. However, an explicit solution to the saddle-point equation

628: can be established in various limits.

629: 

630: Generally, in order to determine $f_{\Gamma}$ from Eq.~(\ref{defgam}) one

631: can assume that coupling constants of the system to the bath $\Gamma_{k}$, 

632: as well as the bath density of states $N(\omega_{k})$, are continuous functions

633: of frequency. In this case, one can replace the summation over $k$ with an

634: integral over $\omega_{k}$ ($\Gamma_{k} \mapsto \Gamma(\omega_{k})

635: $, $\sum_{k} \mapsto \int d\omega_k N_k(\omega_k)$) whereupon

636: %

637: \begin{eqnarray*}

638: f_\Gamma(i\nu_n) = \int d\omega_k \frac{N_k(\omega_k)

639: \Gamma^2(\omega_k)}{-i \nu_n-\omega_k}.

640: \end{eqnarray*}

641: %

642: Now, in general $f_\Gamma$ will exhibit a particular frequency dependence 

643: determined by the density of states $N(\omega_k)$ of the bath and coupling

644: constant $\Gamma(\omega_k)$. However two special cases present themselves:

645: Firstly, if we assume that both $\Gamma(\omega_k)$ and $N(\omega_k)$ are 

646: largely independent of frequency over a wide range, one finds 

647: $f_\Gamma(i\nu_n) = i2\pi \Gamma^2 N$. This corresponds to a Markovian 

648: approximation to the bath in which $f_\Gamma(\tau)=i2\gamma^2\delta(\tau)$. 

649: In the second limit, if one assumes that the matrix elements and density

650: of states are concentrated at zero frequency, one has $f_\Gamma(i\nu_n)=

651: 2\gamma^2\delta_{\nu_n,0}$. Here, in the static limit, $f_\Gamma(\tau)=

652: 2\gamma^2$ is \emph{real}. Applied to the self-energy, the static limit 

653: leads to 

654: %

655: \begin{eqnarray*}

656: \Sigma_{jj'}(i\nu_n) = \gamma^2 G_{jj'}(i\nu_n), 

657: \end{eqnarray*}

658: %

659: while, in the Markovian approximation,

660: %

661: \begin{eqnarray*}

662: \Sigma_{jj'}(\tau,\tau) = i\gamma^2 G_{jj'}(\tau,\tau),

663: \end{eqnarray*}

664: %

665: (similarly for the perturbation $\Gamma^{(2)}$).

666: %

667: In these two limiting cases, the saddle-point equations admit a 

668: straightforward analytical solution. Here we present a detailed analysis

669: for the static limit.

670: 

671: Noting that photon field in the gap equation (\ref{saddlepointF}) couples 

672: only to the diagonal elements of the Green function, $G_{jj}$, this suggests

673: a mean-field Ansatz in which the matrix elements off diagonal in the $j$

674: space are taken to be zero, while the only time dependence of the

675: field is associated with oscillation at the chemical potential, $\mu$.

676: In this case, the coupled equations (\ref{saddlepointF}), (\ref{Dyson}) 

677: can now be solved.

678: 

679: To simplify the algebra we employ a similar mathematical trick to that

680: used by Abrikosov and Gor'kov in their theory of gapless superconductors. 

681: Since the overall phase of a coherent state is arbitrary, we can choose the 

682: mean-field $\langle \psi \rangle$ to be real and present the total Green

683: function $G$ (\ref{Dyson}) in the same form as the zero-order Green function 

684: $G_0$,

685: %

686: \begin{equation}

687: G^{-1}_{jj}(i\nu_n)=-i\tilde{\nu}_{j,n}-(\tilde{\epsilon}_j-\mu/2)\sigma_3-

688: g\langle \tilde{\psi}_j \rangle \sigma_1,

689: \label{G2}

690: \end{equation}

691: %

692: using the frequency dependent, renormalised $\tilde{\nu}_{j,n}$,

693: $\tilde{\epsilon}_j$ and $\langle \tilde{\psi}_j \rangle$.  Comparing

694: (\ref{Dyson}) with (\ref{G2}) we obtain for both type 1 and type 2

695: decoherence three equations determining the renormalised frequency,

696: energy and coherent photon field

697: %

698: \begin{align}

699: \label{eq:renorm-omega}

700: \tilde{\nu}_{j,n} &=\nu_n-\gamma_{1,2}^2 \frac{\tilde{\nu}_{j,n}}

701: {\tilde{\nu}_{j,n}^2+(\tilde{\epsilon}_j-\mu/2)^2 + g^2\langle 

702: \tilde{\psi}_j\rangle^2},\\

703: \label{eq:renorm-epsilon}

704: \tilde{\epsilon}_j &= \epsilon_j 

705: +\gamma_{1,2}^2 \frac{\tilde{\epsilon}_j}

706: {\tilde{\nu}_{j,n}^2+(\tilde{\epsilon}_j-\mu/2)^2 + g^2\langle 

707: \tilde{\psi}_j\rangle^2},\\

708: \langle \tilde{\psi}_j \rangle &=\langle \psi \rangle

709: \pm \gamma_{1,2}^2 \frac{g_j\langle \tilde{\psi}_j \rangle}

710: {\tilde{\nu}_{j,n}^2+(\tilde{\epsilon}_j-\mu/2)^2 + g^2\langle 

711: \tilde{\psi}_j\rangle^2}.

712: \label{eq:renorm-field}

713: \end{align}

714: %

715: while the gap equation (\ref{saddlepointF}) takes the form

716: %

717: \begin{equation} 

718: \langle\psi\rangle=\frac{g}{2(\omega_c-\mu)} \sum_{j} {\rm Tr} \ G_{jj}

719: \sigma_1.

720: \label{saddlepointF2}

721: \end{equation}

722: %

723: The average coherent polarisation of the medium can be determined from

724: the off-diagonal part of the Green's function $G$ (\ref{G2})

725: %

726: \begin{eqnarray}

727: &&\frac{1}{N}\langle \sum_j a^{\dagger}_jb_j \rangle = \langle P \rangle

728: \nonumber\\ 

729: &&\qquad = -\beta^{-1}\sum_{\nu_n,j} \frac{g\langle \tilde{\psi}_j \rangle}

730: {\tilde{\nu}_{j,n}^2+(\tilde{\epsilon}_j-\mu/2)^2 + g^2\langle 

731: \tilde{\psi}_j\rangle^2}.

732: \label{pol}

733: \end{eqnarray}

734: %

735: Thus, at the mean-field level, we can see from Eqs.~(\ref{saddlepointF2}) 

736: and (\ref{pol}) that the two order parameters, the coherent polarisation 

737: and the coherent photon field, are coupled according to the relation

738: %

739: \begin{equation}

740: \langle \psi \rangle= -\frac{g}{\omega_c-\mu} \langle P \rangle.

741: \label{eq:field_pol}

742: \end{equation}

743: %

744: The ratio between the two order parameters is determined

745: by the chemical potential, which in the steady state can be calculated

746: from Eq.~(\ref{constrain}). 

747: 

748: The number of electronic excitations, refered to later as inversion, can

749: be obtained from the diagonal elements of the Green's function

750: %

751: \begin{eqnarray}

752: &&\frac{1}{2}\langle \sum_j(b^{\dagger}_jb_j-a^{\dagger}_ja_j) \rangle

753: \nonumber\\ 

754: &&\qquad\qquad =-\beta^{-1}\sum_{\nu_n,j} \frac{2(\tilde{\epsilon}_j-\mu/2)}

755: {\tilde{\nu}_{j,n}^2+(\tilde{\epsilon}_j-\mu/2)^2 +

756: g^2\langle \tilde{\psi}_j \rangle^2}.

757: \label{inv}

758: \end{eqnarray}

759: 

760: Using Eqs. (\ref{eq:renorm-omega})-(\ref{eq:renorm-field}) we can

761: determine the renormalised parameters $\tilde{\nu}_{j,n}$, 

762: $\tilde{\epsilon}_j$ and $\langle \tilde{\psi}_j \rangle$ as a functions 

763: of the bare parameters $\nu_n$, $\epsilon_j$, $\langle \psi \rangle$ and 

764: $\gamma$. In the case of type 1 decoherence processes we obtain 

765: %

766: \breakon

767: \begin{equation}

768: \label{eq:last-field}

769: \langle \tilde{\psi}_j \rangle=\frac{\langle \psi \rangle}{2}+

770: \frac{\sqrt{2}\langle \psi \rangle}{4E_j}\sqrt{E_j^2-4\gamma_1^2

771: -\nu^2_n+\sqrt{-16\gamma^2_1E_j^2+(E_j^2+4\gamma^2_1+\nu^2_n)^2}},

772: \end{equation}

773: \breakoff

774: %

775: and 

776: %

777: \begin{align}

778: \label{eq:last-omega}

779: \tilde{\nu}_{j,n}&=\frac{\nu_n \langle \tilde{\psi}_j\rangle}

780: {2\langle \tilde{\psi}_j \rangle - \langle \psi \rangle}, \\

781: \label{eq:last-epsilon}

782: \tilde{\epsilon}_j&=\frac{\epsilon_j \langle \tilde{\psi}_j

783: \rangle}{\langle\psi \rangle},  

784: \end{align} 

785: %

786: while for the type 2 decoherence processes we have

787: %

788: \breakon

789: \begin{multline}

790: \label{eq:last-field2}

791: \langle \tilde{\psi}_j \rangle=\frac{\langle \psi \rangle}{2}+ \\

792: \frac{\sqrt{2}\langle \psi \rangle}{4(\nu_n^2+g^2\langle \psi\rangle^2)}

793: \sqrt{E_j^2-2(\epsilon-\mu/2)^2+4\gamma_1^2-\nu^2_n+

794: \sqrt{16\gamma^2_2(\nu_n^2+g^2\langle \psi

795: \rangle^2)+(E_j^2-4\gamma^2_1+\nu^2_n)^2}}, 

796: \end{multline}

797: \breakoff

798: %

799: and 

800: %

801: \begin{align}

802: \label{eq:last-omega2}

803: \tilde{\nu}_{j,n}&=\frac{\nu_n \langle \tilde{\psi}_j\rangle}{\langle\psi 

804: \rangle}, \\   

805: \label{eq:last-epsilon2}

806: \tilde{\epsilon}_j&=\frac{\epsilon_j \langle \tilde{\psi}_j\rangle}

807: {2\langle \tilde{\psi}_j \rangle - \langle \psi \rangle},

808: \end{align}

809: %

810: where for both cases

811: %

812: \begin{equation}

813: \label{eq:Equasip}

814: E_j=\sqrt{(\epsilon_j-\mu/2)^2+g^2\langle \psi \rangle^2}.

815: \end{equation}

816: %

817: Substituting Eqs.~(\ref{eq:last-field})-(\ref{eq:last-epsilon}) or

818: (\ref{eq:last-field2})-(\ref{eq:last-epsilon2}) into Eq.~(\ref{pol}),

819: summing over the Matsubara frequencies, and using Eq.~(\ref{eq:field_pol}) 

820: we can determine the ground state coherent polarisation $\langle P \rangle$ 

821: and the coherent photon field $\langle \psi \rangle$ as functions of the 

822: system parameters $\epsilon$, $\omega_c$, decoherence parameter 

823: $\gamma_{1,2}$ and chemical potential $\mu$. The chemical potential can be 

824: then obtained from Eq.~(\ref{constrain}). The integrals over the Matsubara 

825: frequencies at zero temperature in (\ref{pol}) and (\ref{inv}) as well as the

826: determination of the chemical potential from (\ref{constrain}) have to

827: be performed numerically.

828: 

829: \subsection{Density of states}

830: 

831: The excitation spectrum, i.e the density of states, can be obtained

832: from the diagonal part of the Green function on the real frequency

833: axis. Considering the analytical continuation of $G_{jj}(i\nu_n) \to

834: \bar G_{jj}(\nu)$, where $\nu_n$ and $\nu$ are the Matsubara and the

835: real frequencies respectively, and thus using the usual substitution

836: $i\nu_n \to -\nu +i \delta$, we obtain the relationship between the

837: Green function $G_{jj}(i \nu_n)$ and the density of states $A(\nu)$

838: %

839: \begin{equation}

840: A(\nu)=\sum_j\lim_{\delta \to 0^+}{\rm Im} G_{jj}(-\nu+i\delta+\mu),

841: \end{equation}

842: %

843: which has the following form

844: %

845: \begin{equation}

846: \label{eq:spectrum}

847: A(\nu)=\sum_j {\rm Im} \frac{\tilde{\nu}_j+(\tilde{\epsilon}_j-\mu/2)}

848: {\tilde{\nu}_j^2+(\tilde{\epsilon}_j-\mu/2)^2 +

849: g^2\langle \tilde{\psi}_j \rangle^2}.

850: \end{equation}

851: %

852: Generally, $\tilde{\nu}_j$, $\tilde{\epsilon}_j$ and $\langle

853: \tilde{\psi}_j \rangle$ are functions of $\nu$, $\epsilon_j$, $\langle

854: \psi \rangle$ and $\gamma$ which can be determined from Eqs.

855: (\ref{eq:last-field})-(\ref{eq:last-epsilon}) or

856: (\ref{eq:last-field2})-(\ref{eq:last-epsilon2}) by the following

857: substitution $i\nu_n \to -\nu +i \delta$. It can be shown 

858: from Eq.~(\ref{eq:spectrum}) that the system of 

859: two-level oscillators with uniform energies, $\epsilon_j=\epsilon$, in

860: the presence of the type 1 processes has a gap, $\Delta$, in the

861: density of states of magnitude

862: %

863: \begin{equation}

864: \Delta=2\sqrt{(\epsilon-\mu/2)^2+g^2\langle \psi \rangle^2}-4\gamma_1.

865: \label{eq:gap}

866: \end{equation}

867: %

868: At very high excitation densities the gap is proportional to the

869: coherent field amplitude $\Delta \approx 2g\langle \psi \rangle

870: -4\gamma_1$. At very low excitation densities, when $\langle \psi

871: \rangle \to 0$, we recover conventional polaritons for

872: which the chemical potential is $2\epsilon-\mu \to g$ and the gap

873: $\Delta \to g-4\gamma_1$.

874: 

875: 

876: The major difference between this work and the AG theory

877: \cite{abrikosov-gorkov} is that the system studied here has two order

878: parameters connected through the chemical potential which needs to be

879: determined. We use a different form of the density of states for the

880: two-level oscillators than in their theory. Instead of a flat

881: distribution of energies from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$ used in the AG

882: method we first perform the calculations for the degenerate case where

883: all two-level oscillators have the same energy $\epsilon$ and then we

884: use a realistic Gaussian distribution of energies, present in the real

885: microcavities. To account for these differences we need to include the

886: additional, third equation for renormalised $\tilde{\epsilon}$ not

887: present in the original Abrikosov and Gor'kov method and the

888: constraint equation for $n_{ex}$. In the Abrikosov and Gor'kov theory

889: they consider free propagating electrons with momentum {\bf k} over

890: which all the summations are performed. In our model of the localised

891: two-level systems the summations are performed over the sites where

892: the two-level oscillators can be present. Dynamic impurities can

893: easily be included in our formalism.

894: 

895: 

896: To perform the calculations we rescale the coherent fields by

897: $\sqrt{N}$ and consequently the inversion and the number of

898: excitations by $N$ introducing the excitation density

899: $\rho_{ex}=n_{ex}/N$. In this terminology the minimum $\rho_{ex}=-0.5$

900: corresponds to no photons and no electronic excitations in the

901: system. The condition $\rho_{ex}=0.5$ in the absence of photons would

902: correspond to all two-level oscillators in excited states, thus to the

903: maximum inversion.

904: 

905: We calculate first the ground state coherent field $\langle \psi

906: \rangle$, the coherent polarisation $\langle P \rangle$, the inversion

907: and the chemical potential as functions of the decoherence strength

908: $\gamma$ and the excitation density $\rho_{ex}$ for different

909: distributions of excitonic energies. Then we study the excitation

910: spectrum of the system for different regimes. The ground state

911: properties and the excitation spectrum allow us to obtain a phase

912: diagram for different excitation densities and decoherence

913: strengths. We consider the influence of both type 1 and type 2

914: decoherence processes as well as inhomogeneous broadening of exciton

915: energies.

916: 

917: \section{The Ground State --- Coherent Fields}

918: \label{gs}

919: 

920: \subsection{Type 1 (Pair-Breaking) Decoherence Processes}

921: \label{type1}

922: 

923: To examine the ground state properties of the system in the presence

924: of the type 1 decoherence processes we study the mean value of the

925: annihilation operator of the field and the polarisation. This mean is

926: non-zero only in a coherent state.  Figure \ref{fig:phot} (upper

927: panel) shows the behaviour of the coherent part of the photon field

928: $\langle \psi \rangle$ as the decoherence strength $\gamma$ is changed

929: for different excitation densities $\rho_{ex}$ and different

930: inhomogeneous broadenings of exciton energies.

931: 

932: For small values of $\gamma/g$, up to some critical value

933: $\gamma_{C1}$, $\langle \psi\rangle$ is practically unchanged while

934: for $\gamma/g>\gamma_{C1}$ the coherent field is damped quite rapidly

935: with increasing decoherence. This critical value of the

936: decoherence strength, $\gamma_{C1}$ is proportional to $\rho_{ex}$,

937: suggesting that for higher excitation densities the system is more

938: resistant to dephasing. At low excitation densities, where

939: $\rho_{ex}<0$, there is a second critical value of the decoherence

940: strength, $\gamma_{C2}$, where both coherent fields are sharply damped

941: to zero. As the excitation density is increased, precisely at

942: $\rho_{ex}=0$, $\gamma_{C2}$ diverges and does not exist

943: for $\rho_{ex}>0$ --- coherent fields although reduced are never

944: completely suppressed.

945: 

946: The behaviour of the electronic inversion, which is a measure of the

947: excitonic density given by Eq.~(\ref{inv}), is presented in

948: Fig. \ref{fig:phot} (middle panel). In our terminology an inversion

949: of -0.5 corresponds to no excitons while an inversion equal to zero means 

950: that the excitonic system is half occupied (roughly 0.5 per Bohr radius in a

951: model where double occupation of excitonic sites is not

952: allowed). Inversion of 0.5 would then correspond to 1 exciton per Bohr

953: radius. In this region of the decoherence strength where $\langle \psi

954: \rangle$ is damped, the inversion increases. At low excitation

955: densities ($\rho_{ex}<0$) the inversion approaches $\rho_{ex}$ for

956: $\gamma/g=\gamma_{C2}$ and stays constant as $\gamma$ is further

957: increased. At high excitation densities ($\rho_{ex}>0$) the inversion

958: asymptotically approaches zero with increasing dephasing.  The maximum

959: value of electronic inversion, for any exciton density and decoherence

960: strength, is zero, which corresponds to a half filled excitonic

961: system. This is a consequence of our assumption of thermal equilibrium in the 

962: exciton-photon system.

963: 

964: The ratio of coherent polarisation to coherent field $\langle

965: P \rangle/\langle \psi \rangle$ is presented in Fig. \ref{fig:phot}

966: (lower panel). For an isolated system, where $\gamma=0$, this ratio

967: depends on the excitation density. The condensate becomes more

968: photon like as $\rho_{ex}$ is increased due to the phase space filling

969: effect. For finite $\gamma$, at a given excitation density, this ratio

970: decreases with increasing $\gamma$ meaning that the coherent

971: polarisation is more heavily damped than the coherent photon field by

972: the type 1 decoherence processes. At $\rho_{ex}<0$ this ratio becomes

973: undefined for $\gamma/g>\gamma_{C2}$ when both coherent fields vanish.

974: 

975: In order to study the system of realistic, inhomogeneously broadened

976: two-level oscillators we have replaced the summations over sites with

977: integrals over the energy distribution. We have assumed this

978: distribution to be a Gaussian with mean $\epsilon_0$ and variance

979: $\sigma $. Our results, presented as dashed and dashed-dotted lines in

980: Fig \ref{fig:phot} show that a Gaussian broadening of energies does

981: not make any qualitative difference to the degenerate case. The coherent

982: fields and the critical values of decoherence strength, $\gamma_{C1}$

983: and $\gamma_{C2}$ are, as expected, slightly smaller than in the

984: degenerate case but all the regimes are analogous.

985: 

986: \begin{figure}[htbp]

987: 	\begin{center}

988: \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,angle=0]{ph_inv_ratio.eps}

989: 	\end{center} 

990: 	\caption{Coherent photon field $\langle \psi \rangle$ (upper

991: 	panel), inversion (middle panel) and ratio between coherent

992: 	photon field and coherent polarisation $\langle P

993: 	\rangle/\langle \psi \rangle$ (lower panel) as functions of

994: 	the pair-breaking decoherence strength, $\gamma/g$ for

995: 	different excitation densities, $\rho_{ex}$ and variances of

996: 	inhomogeneous broadening $\sigma=0$ (solid lines), $\sigma=0.5$

997: 	(dashed lines) and $\sigma=1.0$ (dotted lines). }

998: 

999: \label{fig:phot}

1000: \end{figure}

1001: %

1002: 

1003: \subsection{Type 2 (Non-Pair-Breaking) Decoherence Processes}

1004: \label{type2}

1005: 

1006: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1007: 	\begin{center} 

1008: \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,angle=0]{magnonmag2.eps}

1009: 	\end{center} 

1010: 	\caption{Comparison between the influence of a

1011: 	pair-breaking (solid line) and a non-pair-breaking (dotted

1012: 	line) decoherence processes on $\langle \psi \rangle$ (upper

1013: 	panel), inversion (middle panel) and $\langle P

1014: 	\rangle/\langle \psi \rangle$ (lower panel) for three different

1015: 	values of $\rho_{ex}$.}

1016: \label{fig:photnonm}

1017: \end{figure}

1018: 

1019: We now repeat the analysis for type 2 decoherence processes

1020: (\ref{Hmag}), which act in an exactly the same way on the upper and

1021: the lower levels of the two-level oscillator. Recall that such processes

1022: mirror the effects of non-magnetic impurities in the superconductor.

1023: 

1024: In Fig. \ref{fig:photnonm} we present for comparison the coherent

1025: photon field (upper panel), the inversion (middle panel), and the

1026: ratio between the coherent polarisation and the coherent photon field

1027: (lower panel) in the presence of the type 1 (solid line) and the type

1028: 2 (dotted line) decoherence processes for three excitation densities

1029: $\rho_{ex}=-0.4$, $\rho_{ex}=-0.2$ and $\rho_{ex}=0.2$. It is evident

1030: that the singular behaviour at $\gamma_{C1}$ and $\gamma_{C2}$

1031: discussed for the type 1 decoherence processes is not present for the

1032: case of the type 2 processes. With an increase of the decoherence

1033: strength from zero the coherent fields are slightly reduced and they

1034: slowly decrease, asymptotically approaching zero at low excitation

1035: densities ($\rho_{ex}<0$) or a constant value at high densities

1036: ($\rho_{ex}>0$). Although both coherent fields are reduced the

1037: behaviour of their ratio strongly depends on the excitation

1038: density. We will show in Section \ref{nonmagnetic} that the type 2

1039: processes give rise to the broadening of energies and then the

1040: behaviour of the ratio $\langle P \rangle/\langle \psi \rangle$

1041: depends on the position of the chemical potential with respect to the

1042: energy distribution.  The type 2 processes can make the condensate

1043: more photon or more exciton like depending on the parameters of the

1044: system. The two different cases are presented in

1045: Fig. \ref{fig:photnonm} (lower panel).

1046: 

1047: \section{Excitation Spectrum and the Phase Diagram}

1048: \label{es}

1049: To understand the behaviour of the coherent fields we study the

1050: excitation spectrum of the system in different regimes.  The density

1051: of states of the system with uniform energy distribution for six

1052: different values of $\gamma$ at low excitation density

1053: $\rho_{ex}=-0.4$ is presented in Fig. \ref{fig:green-0.4} while at

1054: high excitation density $\rho_{ex}=-0.2$ in Fig. \ref{fig:green0.2}.

1055: %

1056: 

1057: 

1058: \subsection{Type 1 (Pair-Breaking) Decoherence Processes}

1059: In the absence of decoherence (Fig. \ref{fig:green-0.4} a and

1060: \ref{fig:green0.2} a) we have two sharp peaks at two quasi-particle

1061: energies, $\pm E$, given by equation (\ref{eq:Equasip}) for the

1062: degenerate case ($E_j=E$). As $\gamma$ increases these two peaks broaden,

1063: which causes a decrease in the magnitude of the energy gap

1064: (Fig. \ref{fig:green-0.4} b, c and \ref{fig:green0.2} b, c, d ). The

1065: magnitude of the energy gap in the degenerate case is equal to

1066: $2E-4\gamma$, which is given in more detail in equation

1067: (\ref{eq:gap}). Finally, precisely at $\gamma_{C1}$ (shown in Fig.

1068: \ref{fig:phot}), these two broadened peaks join together and the gap

1069: closes (Fig. \ref{fig:green-0.4} d and \ref{fig:green0.2} e). When the

1070: decoherence strength is increased further (Fig. \ref{fig:green-0.4} e)

1071: these two peaks overlap more and the shape of the gapless density of

1072: states changes. For $\gamma/g>\gamma_{C2}$ at low densities the

1073: coherent fields are suppressed, thus Fig \ref{fig:green-0.4} f shows

1074: the normal state density of states in the absence of coherence.  Finally, 

1075: at high densities (Fig. \ref{fig:green0.2} f), as one would expect for a 

1076: laser system, the coherent field is present without a sign of a gap.

1077: 

1078: %

1079: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1080: 	\begin{center}

1081: \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,angle=0]{green-0.4.eps} 

1082: 	\end{center}

1083: 	\caption{Density of states for $\rho_{ex}=-0.4$ and different

1084:   	decoherence strengths, $\gamma/g$ for a pair-breaking (solid

1085:   	line) and a non-pair-breaking (dotted line) decoherence

1086:   	processes.}

1087: \label{fig:green-0.4}

1088: \end{figure}

1089: 

1090: Fig \ref{fig:greenb} shows the density of states for the system of the

1091: inhomogeneously broadened two-level oscillators with standard

1092: deviation $\sigma=0.5g$ for different values of the type 1 decoherence

1093: strength at two different excitation densities.  The broadening of the

1094: density of states and the suppression of the energy gap can be

1095: observed as $\gamma$ is increased. The last curve in the Fig

1096: \ref{fig:greenb} (left panel) shows the normal state density 

1097: where the coherent fields are suppressed. In the Fig \ref{fig:greenb}

1098: (right panel) where the coherent fields are present for all the values

1099: of $\gamma$ the last curve has no sign of a gap.

1100: 

1101: There are clearly three different phases depending on the decoherence

1102: strength, $\gamma$ (homogeneous broadening), inhomogeneous broadening,

1103: $\sigma$ and the excitation density $\rho_{ex}$. In the Fig.

1104: \ref{fig:phase} we present a phase diagram for the system.  The phase

1105: boundaries are defined by $\gamma_{C1}$ and $\gamma_{C2}$ for

1106: different values of $\rho_{ex}$ and $\sigma$.

1107: 

1108: Below the white surface, for small decoherence, we have a phase in

1109: which both coherent fields and an energy gap in the density of states

1110: are present. In this region coherent fields are protected by the

1111: energy gap and remain practically unchanged while the energy gap

1112: narrows as the decoherence is increased. At low densities within this

1113: phase we have a BEC of polaritons with the electronic and photonic

1114: parts comparable in size. At high densities we have a BCS-type of

1115: condensate with photon component increasing with the excitation

1116: density. Despite the predominantly photon-like character of this phase

1117: at very high densities, the coherence of the medium is still large and

1118: this phase can be distinguished from a laser by the presence of a gap in

1119: the density of states (Fig \ref{fig:greenb} - right panel). The

1120: crossover between high and low densities is a smooth evolution and

1121: there are no rapid phase transitions.

1122: 

1123: %

1124: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1125: 	\begin{center}

1126: \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,angle=0]{green0.2.eps}

1127: 	\end{center}

1128: 	\caption{Density of states for $\rho_{ex}=0.2$ and different

1129:   	decoherence strengths, $\gamma/g$ for a pair-breaking (solid

1130:   	line) and a non-pair-breaking (dotted line) decoherence

1131:   	processes.}

1132: \label{fig:green0.2}

1133: \end{figure}

1134: 

1135: 

1136: 

1137: Inhomogeneous broadening has some influence on this phase mainly at low

1138: excitation densities. The critical decoherence $\gamma_{C1}$, which

1139: defines a boundary between gapped and gapless phases, decreases with an

1140: increase in the inhomogeneous broadening $\sigma$. At high excitation

1141: densities inhomogeneous broadening has very weak influence on the

1142: system.   

1143: %

1144: 

1145: Between the white and gray surfaces there is a phase where the

1146: coherent fields are present without an energy gap in the density of

1147: states. This phase exists for all values of the decoherence parameter

1148: at high excitation densities $\rho_{ex} >0$. The coherent fields are no

1149: longer protected by the gap and get reduced as the decoherence is

1150: increased. The coherent polarisation is more heavily damped than the

1151: coherent field.  Within this phase we have at low densities a gapless,

1152: light-matter condensate, analogous to gapless superconductivity, whilst

1153: at very high densities we have essentially the laser system.

1154: Finally, above the dashed line there is a phase where the coherent

1155: fields are completely suppressed.

1156: 

1157: 

1158: %

1159: \breakon

1160: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1161: 	\begin{center}

1162: \includegraphics[width=16.2cm,angle=0]{green3D.eps}

1163: 	\end{center}

1164: 	\caption{Density of states for the Gaussian broaden case

1165: 	with $\sigma=0.5$ for different values of the pair-breaking

1166: 	decoherence strength at $\rho_{ex}=-0.3$ (left panel) and

1167: 	$\rho_{ex}=0.2$ (right panel). }

1168: \label{fig:greenb}

1169: \end{figure}    

1170: \breakoff

1171: %

1172: 

1173: %

1174: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1175: 	\begin{center}

1176: \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,angle=0]{phase.eps}

1177: 	\end{center}

1178: 	\caption{Phase diagram. The phase boundaries $\gamma_{C1}$ and

1179: 	$\gamma_{C2}$ as marked in Fig \ref{fig:phot}.  }

1180: \label{fig:phase}

1181: \end{figure}

1182: %

1183: 

1184: \subsection{Type 2 (Non-Pair-Breaking) Decoherence Processes}

1185: \label{nonmagnetic} 

1186: 

1187: The density of states in the presence of type 2 processes is shown in

1188: Figs \ref{fig:green-0.4} and \ref{fig:green0.2} (dotted lines). It can

1189: be seen that, although the two quasiparticle peaks get very broad,

1190: the gap is only slightly affected by the type 2 processes and is

1191: always present. Even for much larger values of $\gamma$ than presented

1192: in Figs \ref{fig:green-0.4} and \ref{fig:green0.2} the gap is not

1193: suppressed. The gap in the density of states is present until the

1194: coherent fields get completely suppressed. At high excitation

1195: densities ($\rho_{ex}>0$) coherent fields are always present and thus

1196: the density of states will have a gap for all values of the

1197: decoherence strength.

1198: 

1199: The type 2 processes give a similar effect as the inhomogeneous

1200: broadening of energy levels in the case of an isolated system (see Ref.

1201: \cite{paul}). The difference is that the density of states in the

1202: presence of the type 2 processes has sharp boundaries. This is a

1203: result of the method which is used to perform the calculations. It can

1204: be seen that if the bath operators for the type 2 processes,

1205: $c_2$'s in expression (\ref{Hmag}), were just numbers, this

1206: term could have been included into the second term in equation

1207: (\ref{HS}) and would had just given a random $\epsilon_i$. In our

1208: calculations the $c_2$'s are operators and we use a

1209: self-consistent Born approximation, which is not exact, and does

1210: not correctly reproduce the tail of the distribution. Thus, because 

1211: of the way the

1212: calculations are done, the density of states produced always has sharp

1213: boundaries.

1214: 

1215: In the Abrikosov and Gor'kov theory, due to the flat density of states

1216: used in the calculations, the non-magnetic impurities do not influence

1217: the superconducting state at all. In the case of degenerate or realistic,

1218: Gaussian distributed energies of the two level oscillators the type 2

1219: processes have some quantitative influence on the coherent fields and

1220: the gap but cannot cause any phase transitions.

1221: 

1222: \section{Crossover to Laser}

1223: \label{cl}

1224: 

1225: The features of the second phase (between the white and the gray

1226: surfaces) in Fig. \ref{fig:phase} at high $\rho_{ex}$ are essentially

1227: the same as those of the laser system. The laser operates in the

1228: regime of a very strong decoherence, comparable with the light-matter

1229: interaction itself. In the presence of such a large decoherence laser

1230: action can be observed only for a sufficiently large excitation

1231: density.  The coherent polarisation in a laser system is much more

1232: heavily damped than the photon field and the gap in the density of

1233: states is not observed. Thus the laser is a regime of our system for

1234: very large $\rho_{ex}$ and $\gamma$.

1235: 

1236: Laser theories, due to the approximations on which they are based, can

1237: only be valid in a regime where the gap in the density of states is

1238: suppressed and thus for a large decoherence. At the time when these

1239: theories were proposed they were deemed sufficient as most lasers

1240: operate in such a regime. Miniaturisation and improvements in the

1241: quality of optical cavities in recent years can lead to a large

1242: suppression of decoherence in laser media. For small decoherence and

1243: very small pumping in comparison to decay processes, when $\rho_{ex}$

1244: is much smaller then $0$, the laser theories would predict a lack of

1245: coherence while the real ground state of the system would be a more

1246: matter-like condensate. Thus an extension of laser theories to account

1247: for the gap in the excitation spectrum and coherence in a media is

1248: necessary. In our theory the laser emerges from the polariton

1249: condensate at high densities when the gap in the density of states

1250: closes for large decoherence and thus is analogous to a gapless

1251: superconductor.

1252: 

1253: When both the gap and the coherence in a media are taken into account,

1254: in contrast to a traditional laser, the coherent photon field can be

1255: present without the population inversion in the media. The polariton

1256: condensate is thus an example of a laser without inversion.

1257: 

1258: However, it has to be pointed out that there is no formal distinction

1259: between a laser and a Bose condensate of polaritons.  In the laser,

1260: coherence in the medium (manifested by the coherent polarisation)

1261: although small, is not completely suppressed so the laser can be seen

1262: as a gapless condensate with a more photon-like character. One of the

1263: possible distinctions between BEC and laser could be an existence of

1264: an energy gap in the excitation spectrum.

1265: 

1266: \section{The gap}

1267: \label{gap}

1268: \begin{figure}[htbp]

1269: 	\begin{center}

1270:  \includegraphics[width=8.8cm,angle=0]{del00.eps}	

1271: 	\end{center}

1272: 	\caption{Energy gap $\Delta_0$ in the units of g in the

1273: 	absence of decoherence as a function of excitation density

1274: 	$\rho_{ex}$, and Gaussian broadening, $\sigma$.}

1275: \label{fig:del0}

1276: \end{figure}

1277: 

1278: In the degenerate case the magnitude of the gap in the density of states

1279: is given by (\ref{eq:gap})  If we consider an inhomogeneous broadening

1280: of excitonic energies with a Gaussian distribution then there will always

1281: be some oscillators with energies which make the term $(\epsilon -

1282: \mu/2)^2$ vanish and thus, strictly, the magnitude of the gap would be

1283: $2g\langle \psi \rangle-4\gamma_1$ at all excitation densities. This

1284: means that the gap would vanish at $\langle \psi \rangle \to 0$ in

1285: contrast to degenerate case in which its magnitude would be $g - 4

1286: \gamma_1$. However, the contribution of these states, arising only from

1287: the tails of the Gaussian distribution, would be very small

1288: essentially leading to a soft gap of the magnitude of $g - 4

1289: \gamma_1$ at very low densities as in degenerate case. 

1290: 

1291: We call $\Delta_0$ the gap in the absence of decoherence when

1292: $\gamma_1=0$. Omitting the case when $n_{exc}=0$, discussed above, we

1293: calculate numerically the magnitude of the gap, in the units of the

1294: dipole coupling $g$, for a wide range of excitation densities and

1295: inhomogeneous broadening $\sigma>0$. $\Delta_0$ very much depends on

1296: the excitation density. The Gaussian broadening of energies decreases

1297: the gap at low densities but has almost no influence at high

1298: excitation densities. In the presence of the decoherence (homogeneous

1299: broadening) the actual gap $\Delta$ would be

1300: %

1301: \begin{equation} 

1302: \Delta = \Delta_0-4\gamma_1

1303: \label{totgap}

1304: \end{equation} 

1305: %

1306: Fig. \ref{fig:del0} and equation (\ref{totgap}) can be used to

1307: estimate the magnitude of the gap in particular experimental systems

1308: in which the values of broadenings, density and the dipole coupling is

1309: known.  Some estimates of the magnitude of the energy gap in

1310: particular materials and conditions were reported in a brief report

1311: \cite{us}.

1312: 

1313: \section{Applicability of the model and the method}

1314: \label{aplic}

1315: 

1316: As already stated in Section \ref{model}, the model of two-level

1317: systems interacting only via cavity photon field gives a reliable

1318: description of  tightly bound, Frenkel-type excitons localised

1319: by disorder or bound on impurities, molecular excitons in organic

1320: materials, atoms in the solid state or Josephson junctions arrays in

1321: microwave microcavities. In the classical limit $lim_{N \rightarrow

1322: \infty} (\langle n_{ex}\rangle /N) = \rho \rightarrow const.$ it has 

1323: an exact solution of the mean-field form

1324: %

1325: \begin{equation}

1326: \label{varwfn3}

1327: |\lambda,u,v\rangle = e^{\lambda \psi^\dagger }

1328: \prod_{j} ( v_{j} b_j^{\dagger} + u_{j} a_j^{\dagger} )|0\rangle.

1329: \end{equation}

1330: %

1331: However, the case of Wannier excitons propagating in the sample,

1332: present in some clean semiconductors (for example GaAs quantum wells), is

1333: conceptually not very different. The sums over sites in the microscopic

1334: Hamiltonian would have to be replaced with sums over momentum

1335: states and Coulomb interactions between electrons and holes would have

1336: to be included. Such a model without photons was studied by Keldysh

1337: and Kopaev \cite{keldysh1} and for coherently driven semiconductor by

1338: Schmitt-Rink et al. \cite{schmitt}. If we treat the Coulomb

1339: interaction on the mean-field level then the natural extension of the

1340: Keldysh mean-field wave-function to account for photons will be

1341: %

1342: \begin{equation} 

1343: \label{varwfn2} 

1344: |\Psi_0> = e^{\lambda 

1345: \psi_0^\dagger}\prod_{\vec k} [ u_{\vec k} + v_{\vec k} b^\dagger_{k}

1346: a_{k} ]|0\rangle \;\;\;,  

1347: \end{equation}

1348: %

1349: which is of analogous form to that for the two-level systems case

1350: (\ref{varwfn3}). Then the influence of the various decoherence

1351: processes can be included in exactly the same way as described in

1352: Section \ref{model}.

1353: 

1354: At the level of mean-filed, we do not expect that the change of the 

1355: model from that of two-level oscillators to free electron and holes with a 

1356: Coulomb interaction would cause any dramatic differences. It was

1357: shown within the mean-field techniques of Keldysh

1358: \cite{keldysh1,keldysh2,nozieresex1} that the Coulomb interaction has

1359: a pairing effect and leads to a formation of a coherent excitonic

1360: insulator phase and this would only be enhanced by the dipole

1361: coupling.

1362: 

1363: At high excitation densities (large photon fields) the dipole

1364: interaction between excitons and photons is the dominant

1365: interaction. In the case of a driven excitonic system Schmitt-Rink

1366: {\it at al} \cite{schmitt} pointed out that for a very large pumping,

1367: and thus high excitation densities, the Coulomb interaction is just a

1368: very minor correction to the dominant dipole coupling. They also state

1369: that, in the absence of the Coulomb interaction, their results for

1370: propagating electrons and holes are equivalent to those obtained for

1371: an ensemble of independent two-level oscillators as optical

1372: transitions with different {\bf k} decouple.

1373: 

1374: The Coulomb interaction would be more important at low densities.

1375: However, in this case, the dominant contribution arising from the 

1376: interaction between an electron and hole within the same

1377: exciton, is taken into account in model studied in this work. All

1378: other Coulomb interactions are much weaker and, as with the dipole

1379: coupling, favour condensation. 

1380: 

1381: Although we do not expect qualitative differences, it would be

1382: interesting, especially at low excitation densities, to perform similar

1383: calculations in the momentum representation with the Coulomb

1384: interaction. This would allow one to study the relative influence of the

1385: two independent pairing mechanisms, namely the dipole coupling and

1386: Coulomb interactions, on the condensate.

1387: 

1388: Summarising, our method of including and studying the decoherence

1389: effects is general and can be applied in the same way as in this work

1390: to propagating excitons as well as to coherently driven

1391: condensates. The coherent photon field in the driven system is an

1392: external, fixed, parameter and not a self-consistent field satisfying

1393: equation (\ref{saddlepointF2}). In contrast the gap in the density of

1394: states, proportional to the coherent field amplitude, is present

1395: exactly as for an equilibrium condensate.  The model can be applied to

1396: obtain a qualitative description of the physical behaviour even for

1397: propagating or weakly bound excitons. It would give similar

1398: predictions to the model based on propagating electrons and holes with

1399: Coulomb interactions treated within the mean-field approximation. It

1400: does not, however, include screening and other non mean-fields

1401: effects.

1402: 

1403: If the microscopic origins of the decoherence processes are known for

1404: a particular experimentally studied system, the theory could be

1405: extended to include this information. The detailed account of the

1406: coupling constants and the density of states for the environment can

1407: be easily included within this framework. In this work we have assumed

1408: a static bath or Markovian (Ohmic) bath but in general the bath

1409: propagators are frequency dependent and thus $\langle \psi \rangle$

1410: would depend on frequency as in the Eliashberg theory of gapless

1411: superconductors \cite{eliash,scalapino}. The phenomenological

1412: constants $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$ can thus be, in principle,

1413: obtained from this microscopic calculation for a particular system.

1414: 

1415: The results presented in this work are performed at zero temperature

1416: for which the summations over the Matsubara frequencies in

1417: (\ref{saddlepointF2}), (\ref{pol}) and (\ref{inv}) become integrals

1418: and are performed numerically. The extension to finite temperatures is

1419: straightforward. At finite temperatures the summations over a discrete

1420: $\nu_n$ can be performed using the standard techniques

1421: \cite{green} and thus finite temperatures could be easily studied.

1422: 

1423: A much more important extension than the finite temperature case is

1424: the problem of non-equilibrium systems. For a system with very strong

1425: pumping and decay processes the thermal distribution of the relevant

1426: quasiparticles cannot be assumed. The influence of non-equilibrium

1427: distributions on the polariton condensate will be published elsewhere.

1428: 

1429: \section{Remarks on Experimental Realisation of BEC of polaritons}

1430: \label{exp}

1431: 

1432: While stimulated scattering into the lower polariton branch (reminiscent

1433: of Bose statistics) was clearly observed and reported by several groups

1434: \cite{dang,senbloch,boef,alex,bulkboser,deng,baumberg,angleboser,angle-cw-stimscat,nature},

1435: there is still no evidence of excitonic coherence, and therefore BEC of

1436: polaritons. The experiments that have been performed fall into two 

1437: categories. In the first, 

1438: polaritons are pumped coherently, with a laser having an angle of

1439: incidence chosen at a ``magic angle'' close to the bottom of the lower

1440: polariton branch. In the second set of experiments the pumping is

1441: incoherent. The laser pumping is tuned to be well above the ground

1442: state so that polaritons have to undergo several inelastic scattering

1443: events before reaching the ground state and thus loosing the initial

1444: coherence of the pump.

1445: 

1446: Although not yet measured, the potential coherence of polaritons in the

1447: experiments of the first category would be inherited from the pump and

1448: the behaviour could be explained in terms of parametric

1449: oscillation. Experiments of the second category could be potential

1450: candidates for spontaneous BEC of polaritons but evidence for it are

1451: very sparse. The coherence of the photon field

1452: emitted at polariton frequency has recently been measured in one

1453: experiment \cite{deng} but this alone does not prove that there is a

1454: coherence in the excitonic part. A laser is an example where coherent

1455: photon field is generated without large excitonic coherence. A more

1456: direct evidence of excitonic coherence is necessary. Large excitonic

1457: coherence would map to a large gap in the excitation spectrum which

1458: should be seen in the the incoherent luminescence.

1459: 

1460: Experiments on cavity polaritons which report the stimulated

1461: scattering into the lower polariton branch are performed at low

1462: densities to avoid the fermionic phase space filling effect, so that

1463: two clear polariton peaks could be seen.  For such densities the gap

1464: in the excitation spectrum would be very small and easily suppressed

1465: by the decoherence processes in the sample. Indeed such a gap has

1466: never been observed in the photoluminescence spectrum. The attempt to

1467: increase the density of polaritons in these experiments results not in

1468: the formation of the condensate but in a switching into the

1469: weak-coupling regime and lasing.

1470: 

1471: This is not surprising since the increase in the density of polaritons

1472: in these experiments is obtained by increasing the pumping of

1473: excitons. Incoherent pumping is a pair-breaking decoherence process

1474: and thus the increase in the pumping intensity results in the increase

1475: of not only the density of excitons but also decoherent scattering. As

1476: shown by Eastham and Littlewood \cite{paul}, the fermionic structure

1477: of excitons does not prevent condensation, even at very high

1478: densities. Thus, in the current experiments, we suggest that it is not

1479: a phase-space filling effect which lead to a laser as the pump

1480: intensity is increased, but the increase in the decoherence

1481: strength. If the polariton condensate is ever to be observed an

1482: increase in density without an increase in decoherence is necessary.

1483: 

1484: Localised and tightly bound excitons, such as excitons in disordered

1485: quantum wells or Frenkel-type excitons in organic compands, seem to be

1486: better candidates for observing a polariton condensate than the

1487: high-quality GaAs quantum wells with weakly bound, delocalised

1488: excitons. Static disorder is not a pair-breaking effect and would have

1489: a weaker influence on the condensate than screening and ionisation in

1490: the case of delocalised or weakly bound excitons.  Additionally the

1491: polariton splitting reported in organic materials is as large as 80

1492: meV \cite{organicpol1,organicpol2} in comparison to the upper bound of

1493: 20 meV in GaAs. Another very good candidate for observation of

1494: effects described in this work would be atoms in solid state, glass

1495: spheres, dilute atomic gases in which the dephasing is particularly

1496: weak in comparison to the dipole coupling.

1497: 

1498: \section{Summary}

1499: \label{sum}

1500: 

1501: We have studied the equilibrium Bose condensation of cavity polaritons

1502: in the presence of decoherence. It has been shown \cite{us0} that the

1503: widely used 

1504: Langevin equations with the constant, frequency independent decay

1505: rates are not valid for systems with large polarisation in which the

1506: gap in the density of states is present. In the regime of weak

1507: decoherence these processes have to be treated

1508: self-consistently, in such a way that the gap in the density of states is

1509: taken into account. We have proposed a self-consistent method

1510: analogous to the Abrikosov and Gor'kov theory of gapless

1511: superconductivity \cite{abrikosov-gorkov} which allow us to study all

1512: regimes of the system as the decoherence is changed from zero to large

1513: values and for a wide range of excitation densities.

1514: 

1515: We have found that at small decoherence the polariton condensate is

1516: protected by the energy gap in the excitation spectrum. The gap is

1517: proportional to the coherent field amplitude and thus the excitation

1518: density, so the condensate, unlike the excitonic insulator

1519: \cite{nozieresex1}, is more robust at high densities. This gap gets

1520: smaller and eventually is completely suppressed as the decoherence is

1521: increased.  We have shown that there is a regime, analogous to the

1522: gapless superconductor, when the coherent fields are present without

1523: an energy gap. This regime, at very high excitation densities, has

1524: most of the features of a photon laser.

1525: 

1526: We have studied the influence of two different types of processes,

1527: both pair-breaking and non-pair-breaking ones as well as inhomogeneous

1528: broadening of the energy levels. We have shown that only the

1529: pair-breaking processes can lead to phase transitions.

1530: Non-pair-breaking processes and inhomogeneous broadening of energies

1531: can quantitatively change the behaviour of the system but cannot

1532: prevent condensation.

1533: 

1534: We have studied a general form of the interactions, introducing

1535: pair-breaking and non-pair-breaking processes and thus our theory is

1536: applicable to a wide range of systems. For more detailed results, the

1537: particular origin of the interactions and thus the particular density

1538: of states for the baths have to be taken into account.

1539: 

1540: We have studied the whole phase diagram of the system given by the

1541: Hamiltonian (\ref{H}) for different values of the decoherence

1542: strength, inhomogeneous broadening and the excitation densities and

1543: established the crossover between an isolated polariton condensate and

1544: a photon laser as the decoherence strength is increased.

1545: 

1546: Our results suggest that, in contrast to traditional lasers, 

1547: coherent light can be generated without a population inversion. This

1548: work generalised the existing laser theories to include the gap in the

1549: excitation spectrum caused by the coherence in a media in the low

1550: decoherence regime.

1551: 

1552: \section{Acknowledgement}

1553: We would like to thanks F. M. Marchetti and P. R. Eastham for helpful

1554: discussions concerning mathematical techniques. 

1555: MHS acknowledge the support of research fellowship from Gonville and

1556: Caius College, Cambridge.

1557: 

1558: \begin{references}

1559: 

1560: \bibitem{abrikosov-gorkov}

1561: A.~A.~Abrikosov, L.~P.~Gor'kov, JETP {\bf 12}, 1243 (1960)

1562: 

1563: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1564: \bibitem{atompol} 

1565: M.~G. Raizen, R.~J. Thompson, R.~J. Breccha, H.~J. Kimble, and H.~J.  

1566: Carmichael, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 63}, 240 (1989).

1567: 

1568: \bibitem{cavpol}

1569: C. Weisbuch, M. Nishioka, A.Ishikawa, and Y.Arakawa, {\em

1570: Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 69}, 3314 (1992).

1571: 

1572: \bibitem{bulkcavpol} 

1573: A. Tedicucci, Y. Chen, V. Pellegrini, M. Borger, L. Sorba, F. Beltram,

1574: and F. Bassani, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 75}, 3906 (1995).

1575: 

1576: \bibitem{organicpol1} 

1577: D.~G. Lidzey, D.~D.~C. Bradley, M.~S. Skolnick, T.~Virgili, S.~Walker,

1578: and D.~M. Whittaker, {\em Nature} {\bf 395}, 53 (1998).

1579: 

1580: \bibitem{organicpol2}

1581: D.~G. Lidzey, D.~D.~C. Bradley, T.~Virgili, A.~Armitage,

1582: M.~S. Skolnick, and S.~Walker, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 82}, 3316 (1999).

1583: 

1584: \bibitem{chargedpol}

1585: R. Rapaport, R. Harel, E. Cohen, A. Ron, and E. Linder,

1586: {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 84}, 1607 (2000).

1587: 

1588: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1589: \bibitem{JJ}

1590: P. Barbara, A. B. Cawthorne, S. V. Shitov, and C. J. Lobb, 

1591: { \em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 82}, 1963 (1999).

1592: 

1593: \bibitem{paul} 

1594: P.~R. Eastham, P.~B. Littlewood, {\em Solid State Commun.} {\bf

1595: 116}, 357 (2000), { \em Phys. Rev. B} {\bf 64}, 235101 (2001). 

1596: 

1597: 

1598: \bibitem{laser} 

1599: For the quantum theory of the laser developed by

1600: Haken, Risken, Lax, Louisell, Scully and Lamb see M.~O. Scully and

1601: M.~S. Zubairy, {\em Quantum Optics} (Cambridge University Press,

1602: Cambridge, U.K., 1997).

1603: 

1604: 

1605: \bibitem{haken}

1606: H.~Haken, {\em Rev. Mod. Phys.} {\bf 47}, 67 (1975); 

1607: {\em Laser Theory}, Springer-Verlag 1984.

1608: 

1609: \bibitem{us0} 

1610: 

1611: M.~H.~Szymanska, P.~B. Littlewood, unpublished.  In

1612: (\ref{maxwell-bloch}) the life-time for a single two-level oscillator

1613: is generalised to many two-level systems without taking into account

1614: any collective effects. It can be shown that if we couple every

1615: two-level system to its own distinct bath we recover Equation

1616: (\ref{maxwell-bloch}). Such a method and so (\ref{maxwell-bloch}) is

1617: unphysical if the interactions between two-level system generated for

1618: example by the photon field is substantial. The environment needs to

1619: be coupled to the whole ensemble of two-level oscillators and averaged

1620: out in the selfconsistent way.

1621: 

1622: 

1623: \bibitem{wrong}

1624: K. Hannewald, S Glutsch and F. Bechstedt, {\em

1625: J. Phys. Condens. Matter} {\bf 13}, 275 (2001)  

1626: 

1627: \bibitem{keldysh1}

1628: L. V. Keldysh and Y. V. Kopaev, { \em Fiz. Tverd. Tela} {\bf 6}, 2791

1629: (1964), [Sov. Phys. Solid State {\bf 6}, 2219, (1965)].

1630: 

1631: \bibitem{keldysh2}

1632: L. V. Keldysh and A. N. Kozlov, {\em Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.}  

1633: {\bf 54}, 978 (1968), [Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 27}, 521 (1968)].

1634: 

1635: \bibitem{zittart}

1636: J.~Zittartz, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf 164}, 575 (1967)

1637: 

1638: \bibitem{us}

1639: M.~H.~Szymanska,  P.~B. Littlewood,

1640: { \em Solid State Commun.} {\bf 124}, 103 (2002)

1641: 

1642: \bibitem{schmitt}

1643: S. Schmitt-Rink, D.~S. Chemla, and H. Haug, { \em Phys. Rev. B} {\bf

1644: 37}, 941 (1988).

1645: 

1646: \bibitem{nozieresex1}

1647: C. Comte and P. Nozi{\`{e}}res, {\em J. Phys.} (Paris) {\bf 43}, 1069

1648: (1982).

1649: 

1650: \bibitem{eliash}

1651: G. M. Eliashberg, {\em Zh. Eksperim. i Teor. Fiz.} {\bf 38}, 966

1652: (1960), [Sov. Phys. JETP {\bf 11}, 696 (1960)].

1653: 

1654: \bibitem{scalapino}

1655: D.~J.~Scalapino, in {\em Superconductivity}, edited by R.~D. Parks,

1656: volume~1, chapter~10, pages 449--560, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York,

1657: 1969.

1658: 

1659: \bibitem{green} 

1660: G. Rickayzen, {\em Green's Functions and Condensed Matter}

1661: (Academic Press Inc., London, 1987).

1662: 

1663: 

1664: \bibitem{dang}

1665: L.~S. Dang, D.~Heger, R.~Andr{\'{e}}, F.~B{\oe}uf, and R.~Romestain,

1666: { \em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 81}, 3920 (1998).

1667: 

1668: \bibitem{senbloch}

1669: P. Senellart and J. Bloch, { \em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 82},  1233  (1999).

1670: 

1671: \bibitem{boef} F. Boef, R. Andre, R. Romestain, L. S. Dang, {\em Phys. Rev. B}

1672: {\bf 62}, R2279 (2000).

1673: 

1674: \bibitem{alex} A. Alexandrou, G. Bianchi, E. Peronne, B. Halle, F. Boeuf,

1675: R. Andre, R. Romestain, L. S. Dang, {\em Phys. Rev. B}

1676: {\bf 64}, 233318 (2001).

1677: 

1678: \bibitem{bulkboser}

1679: V. Pellegrini, R. Colombelli, L. Sorba, and F. Beltram, { \em Phys. Rev. B}

1680: {\bf 59}, 10059 (1999).

1681: 

1682: \bibitem{deng} H. Deng, G. Weihs, C. Santori, J. Bloch, Y. Yamamoto, { \em

1683: Science} {\bf 298}, 199 (2002).

1684: 

1685: \bibitem{baumberg} 

1686: J. J. Baumberg, P. G. Savvidis, R. M. Stevenson, A. I. Tartakovskii,

1687: M. S. Skolnick, D. M. Whittaker, and J. S. Roberts, { \em

1688: Phys. Rev. B} {\bf 62}, R16247 (2000).

1689: 

1690: \bibitem{angleboser}

1691: P.~G. Savvidis, J.~J. Baumberg, R.~M. Stevenson, M.~S. Skolnick, D.~M.

1692: Whittaker, and J.~S. Roberts, { \em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 84}, 1547

1693: (2000).

1694: 

1695: \bibitem{angle-cw-stimscat} 

1696: R.~M. Stevenson, V.~N. Astratov, M.~S. Skolnick, D.~M. Whittaker,

1697: E.~Emam-Ismail, A.~I. Tartakovskii, P.~G. Savvidis, J.~J. Baumberg,

1698: and J.~S.  Roberts, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 85}, 3680 (2000).

1699: 

1700: \bibitem{nature} 

1701: M. Saba, C. Ciuti, J. Bloch, V. Thierry-Mieg, R. Andre, Le Si Dang,

1702: S. Kundermann, A. Mura, G. Bongiovanni, J. L. Staehli, B. Deveaud,

1703: {\em Nature} {\bf 414}, 731 (2001)

1704: 

1705: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1706: \bibitem{atoms}

1707: C. Liu, Z. Dutton, C. H. Behroozi, L. V. Hau, {\em Nature} {\bf 409},

1708: 490 (2001) 

1709: 

1710: 

1711: 

1712: 

1713: \end{references}

1714: \end{multicols}

1715: 

1716: \end{document} 

1717:    

1718: 

1719: 

1720: 

1721: 

1722: 

1723: