1:
2: \documentclass{article}
3: \begin{document}
4:
5: \begin{center}
6: \centerline{\large \bf Time reversal noninvariance}
7: \centerline{\large \bf in quantum mechanics and in nonlinear optics.}
8: \end{center}
9:
10: \vspace{3 pt}
11: \centerline{\sl V.A.Kuz'menko\footnote{Electronic
12: address: kuzmenko@triniti.ru}}
13:
14: \vspace{5 pt}
15: \centerline{\small \it Troitsk Institute for Innovation and Fusion
16: Research,}
17: \centerline{\small \it Troitsk, Moscow region, 142190, Russian
18: Federation.}
19: \vspace{5 pt}
20: \begin{abstract}
21:
22: The experimental proofs of strong time invariance violation in optics are
23: discussed. Time noninvariance is the only real physical base for explanation
24: the origin of the most phenomena in nonlinear optics. The experimental study
25: of forward and reversed transitions in oriented in uniform electric field
26: molecules is proposed.
27:
28:
29: \vspace{5 pt}
30: {PACS number: 33.80.Rv, 42.50.Hz}
31: \end{abstract}
32:
33: \vspace{12 pt}
34:
35: \centerline{\bf Introduction}
36:
37: The idea of the arrow of time is quite natural and recognized in biology,
38: chemistry and other fields [1]. However, its recognition in the physics
39: unexpectedly turns out to be rather problematical because of the dynamical
40: equations of the basic laws of physics are time reversal invariant. In
41: classical theories the arrow of time is introduced as a result of time
42: asymmetric boundary conditions with time symmetric dynamical equations
43: [2, 3]. But for the full recognition of this concept the introduction of
44: time asymmetry into the dynamical equations is a more preferable way [1].
45: And the nature gives us the grounds for such idea. However, this process,
46: probably, will be rather long and hard [4, 5].
47:
48: From our point of view the mistake of physicists is based on the two myths.
49: The first myth is the opinion about absence of any experimental evidences
50: of time invariance violation in electromagnetic interactions [1, 3, 6].
51: Below we shall discuss the three known for present day direct and
52: independent experimental proofs of strong time invariance violation in
53: optics. The second myth is the supposition about the existence of the
54: so-called quantum coherent states [7]. This concept has now extremely wide
55: spreading in physics. However, it turned out, that the concept of coherent
56: states does not have any real physical base [8].
57:
58: \vspace{5 pt}
59:
60: \centerline{\bf First myth }
61:
62: The interaction of polarized laser radiation with the specific non-magnetic
63: metallic planar chiral nanostructures was studied in [9]. The authors
64: believe that these experimental results unambiguously show the evidence of
65: broken time reversal symmetry in such unusual object.
66:
67: In other experiments the splitting and mixing of photons were studied
68: [10, 11]. On the first stage the narrowband ($\sim 0,01 nm $) radiation of
69: nanosecond laser was transformed through down-conversion in the nonlinear
70: crystal into two intense broadband beams (each spectral width
71: $ \sim 100 nm $ ). On the second stage this two broadband beams were mixed
72: in the sum frequency generator [10] or in the process of two photon
73: excitation of rubidium atoms [11]. The reversed process in these cases
74: corresponds to mixing of the so-called entangled photons and leads to
75: regeneration of the initial narrowband radiation. In contrast, the mixing of
76: non-entangled photons should give broadband radiation and is the example of
77: again only the forward process. Both experiments show the same results: the
78: efficiency of reversed process is much greater, than the efficiency of
79: forward process.
80:
81: In the next case the forward and reversed transitions in $ SF_6 $ molecules
82: were studied [12]. In those experiments the authors deal with such specific
83: object as the so-called wide component of line in a spectrum of polyatomic
84: molecules [13]. The forward transition ($CO_2$- laser photon absorption
85: process) in this case has extremely high spectral width ($\sim 150 GHz$)
86: and relatively small cross-section ($\sim 10^{-19} cm^2 $). In contrast,
87: the reversed into the initial state transition (stimulated emission)
88: has very small spectral width ($\sim 450 kHz$). The difference in spectral
89: widths of forward and reversed transitions exceeds five orders of magnitude.
90: Accordingly, the cross-section of the reversed process turns out to be in
91: several orders of magnitude greater, than the cross-section of forward
92: process.
93:
94: So, for the present day we have quite sufficient quantity of direct
95: experimental proofs of a strong time invariance violation in optics. We have
96: also enormous quantity of indirect experimental evidences, which are
97: connected with the second myth about the existence of coherent states.
98:
99: \vspace{5 pt}
100:
101: \centerline{\bf Second myth }
102:
103: The concept of coherent states appeared and became all pervasive in quantum
104: optics during last several decades. The coherent states usually are
105: interpreted as specific states of atoms or molecules after its interaction
106: with a coherent laser radiation. Most phenomena in nonlinear optics are
107: usually explained as a result of interference of the coherent states [15, 16].
108:
109: However, the close theoretical analysis of this concept in [8] has shown
110: that the inability to measure the absolute phase of an electromagnetic field
111: prohibits the existence of quantum coherent states [7, 17]. It deprives
112: the concept of coherent states any real physical sense. The concept of
113: coherent states is only a "convenient fiction" for physicists in the field
114: of quantum optics [8].
115:
116: \vspace{5 pt}
117:
118: \centerline{\bf Physical origin }
119:
120: We believe that the only real physical base of observed phenomena in
121: nonlinear optics is the time reversal noninvariance in electromagnetic
122: interactions or inequality of forward and reversed processes in the optics.
123: So, most phenomena, which are explained now as the interference of the
124: coherent states, are really a manifestation of the time reversal
125: noninvariance. However, time noninvariance manifests itself usually only
126: in indirect way and this is the main reason why the concept of coherent
127: states is popular till now.
128:
129: What is the usual origin of inequality of forward and reversed processes
130: in optics? The discussed above experiments show extremely high efficiency of
131: the reversed process. However, for experiments with splitting and mixing of
132: photons the origin of this efficiency is not clear as a whole. It is
133: connected with the subtle concept of entanglement and it is the problem for
134: future studies.
135:
136: For optical transitions in atoms and molecules the high efficiency of the
137: reversed process is unambiguously connected with its high cross-section.
138: However, we do not need to have a doubt in equality of the Einstein's
139: coefficients for forward and reversed transitions [18]. The equality of
140: Einstein's coefficients means only the equality of integral cross-sections
141: of the opposite processes and does not prohibit the inequality of
142: differential cross-sections. Such possibility is well illustrated by the
143: discussed above experiments with $ SF_6$ molecules [12]. In this case the
144: high cross-section of reversed optical transition is connected with its
145: extremely small spectral width in contrast to the forward transition.
146:
147: The wide component of line is rather specific object and it exists only in
148: the large polyatomic molecules. In small molecules and in atoms the line
149: wings of such kind are absent. What is the reason in these cases of high
150: differential cross-section of the reversed optical transition?
151:
152: Here we should pay attention to the quantum mechanical averaging process
153: of some parameters of vibrational and rotational motions, which manifests
154: itself in a molecule absorption spectrum. The lines in absorption spectrum
155: of small molecules are very narrow. Its frequency allows calculating the
156: moment of inertia of molecule with precision $\sim 0,0001 \%$. From other side
157: the temporal change of moment of inertia during the period of vibrational
158: motion of the atoms in molecule usually exceeds the value of $ 1\%$ [19].
159: This inevitably means that there exists some quantum mechanical process of
160: averaging of moment of inertia during the period of vibration of the atoms
161: in molecule. It is worth to mention that for polyatomic molecules this
162: process of averaging, obviously, can undergo some short reversible
163: violations even for the forward transition, which lead to appearance in
164: absorption spectrum of the so-called line clumps [20].
165:
166: The time asymmetry may consist in the difference between the averaging
167: processes for forward and reversed transitions. For the forward transition
168: the absorption cross-section does not depend from the phase of vibration
169: motion. In contrast, for the reversed transition such dependence may exist.
170: If the molecule has the phase of vibration motion, which allows it to return
171: exactly into the initial state, then the backward transition will be reversed
172: and its differential cross-section will be much higher than the averaged
173: cross-section of the forward transition. In other cases the differential
174: cross-section of the backward transition will be relatively small and such
175: transition should be called over again only as the forward one. Inequality
176: of forward and reversed processes in a natural way supposes the existence
177: of the memory of atoms and molecules about the initial state. In some
178: sense such memory can correspond to the entropy of quantum system.
179:
180: So, the discussed above supposition is a good physical base for explanation
181: of the origin of experimental study of the dynamics of vibration motion of
182: atoms in molecule [21].
183:
184: \vspace{5 pt}
185:
186: \centerline{\bf Oriented molecules}
187:
188: The similar quantum mechanical process of averaging of cross-section,
189: probably, takes place for the rotational motion also. The rather common
190: opinion exists, that the cross-section of interaction between the molecules
191: and radiation should depend from orientation of molecules with respect
192: to laser beam [22]. Some experiments with the anisotropy of fluorescence or
193: with the successive transitions confirm this supposition. However, as a
194: whole this is rather knotty problem. Practically all experiments in this
195: field are carried out only with the linearly polarized laser radiation.
196: Some authors even talk about the absorption of a linearly polarized photon
197: [23]. Such photon, of course, is absent in nature. The linearly polarized
198: light is a complex object and consists of the equal quantity of photons with
199: different spins. So, we believe, that for the first stage of experiments
200: with oriented molecules the more simple circularly polarized light should be
201: preferably used.
202:
203: The process of orientation averaging of absorption cross-section is well
204: illustrated, for example, by the experimental results of work [24],
205: where the absorption of laser radiation by the hydrogen cyanide trimer
206: molecules in the static electric field was studied. The external static
207: electric field interacts with the dipole moment of molecule and tries to
208: orientate it in the space. The experiments show, that when the energy of
209: this interaction is smaller, than the energy of rotation motion, the
210: perturbation of rotation motion practically does not manifest itself in
211: the absorption spectrum. In the opposite case the molecules turn into
212: the so-called pendular states and the absorption spectrum dramatically
213: changes.
214:
215: The inequality of forward and reversed transitions, again, may be the result
216: of different character of quantum mechanical processes of orientational
217: averaging of cross-section of molecule interaction with laser field.
218: For simplified illustration the Fig.1 shows the assumed dependence
219: of transition's cross-section from the angle between the molecule axis and
220: the direction of laser beam for forward (1) and reversed (2) transitions.
221: The integral cross-sections of both transitions are equal. If the molecule
222: is oriented in the space so that the backward process returns it exactly
223: into the initial state, then the differential cross-section will be very
224: large and such transition is reversed. In other orientation of molecule the
225: backward process has relatively small differential cross-section and it
226: should be called again only as the forward transition. In this case the
227: molecule remains the memory about its initial state. So, in such way the
228: origin of the so-called rotational coherency may be explained [25].
229:
230: The other indirect evidence of inequality of forward and reversed transitions
231: is the numerous experiments with degenerated or nondegenerated four photon
232: mixing in the so-called folded boxcars arrangement [21]. Here the three
233: laser beams of different directions are crossed in common point in a liquid,
234: gas or in a molecular beam. The appearance of the superfluorescence in the
235: new direction is observed. The cross-section of transition for such
236: superfluorescence should be extraordinarily high. The direction and
237: temporal characteristics of appearance of superfluorescence correspond to
238: such orientation and phase of vibrational motion, which allow molecules to
239: return exactly into the initial states.
240:
241: New and detailed information about the orientational dependence of
242: cross-sections of forward and reversed transitions may, probably, be
243: obtained in the experiments on the existent apparatus, which uses the static
244: electric fields and molecular beam with cryogenic bolometer [12, 24, 26].
245: The Fig.2 shows the simplified arrangement for suggested experiments. The
246: radiation of infrared laser is split on the two beams (pump and probe).
247: The interaction regions are placed between the flat electrodes, which have
248: slits for laser radiation and can be independently rotated round the
249: molecular beam. As the object for experimental study the stable linear
250: molecules with large dipole moment and small rotational constant well suit.
251: There are, for example, $ HCCCN $ or $ H(CC)_n X$ molecules, were n=1--3
252: and X - is the halogen. The low rotational states of such molecules may be
253: easily turned into the pendular states at a relatively weak electric field.
254: For the reversed optical transition we can expect, that the experimental
255: dependence of its cross-section from the angle between the pairs of electrodes
256: will be rather similar to the dependence on Fig.5 in work [12]. As a whole,
257: such experiments can give important information about the orientational
258: dependence of cross-sections for forward and reversed optical transitions.
259:
260: \vspace{5 pt}
261:
262: \centerline{\bf Conclusion}
263:
264: Time reversal noninvariance is the only real physical base for explanation
265: the origin of the most phenomena in nonlinear optics. For present day we
266: have quite sufficient quantity of the direct experimental proofs of the
267: strong time invariance violation in optics. This is a good reason to
268: introduce the time asymmetry into the dynamical equations of the basic
269: laws of physics. The corresponding asymmetric equations for description
270: the dynamics of optical transitions will substitute for the famous Bloch
271: equations, which are widely and successfully used in optics now [15],
272: but which does not have any clear physical sense. The experiments for the
273: study of orientational inequality of forward and reversed transitions in
274: molecules are proposed.
275:
276: \vspace{5 pt}
277:
278:
279: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
280: \bibitem{1} I.Prigogine, \emph {From being to becoming: time and complexity
281: in the physical sciences}, Ed. Yu.L.Klimontovich, Editorial URSS, Moscow,
282: p.262, (2002), in Russian.
283: \bibitem{2} A.Bohm and N.L.Harshman, E-print, quant-ph/9805063.
284: \bibitem{3} R.J.Creswick, Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 93}, 100601 (2004).
285: \bibitem{4} A.R.Bohm, M.Loewe and B.Van de Ven, E-print, quant-ph/0212130 v2.
286: \bibitem{5} A.T.Holster, New J.Phys. {\bf 5}, 130 (2003).
287: \bibitem{6} V.B.Berestetsky, E.M.Lifshits and L.P.Pitaevsky,
288: \emph {Relativistic Quantum Theory} part1, Nauka, Moscow, p.66 (1968),
289: in Russian.
290: \bibitem{7} K.Nemoto and S.L.Braunstein, E-print, quant-ph/0312108.
291: \bibitem{8} K.Molmer, Phys.Rev.A {\bf 55}, 3195 (1997).
292: \bibitem{9}A.S.Schwanecke, A.Krasavin, D.M.Bagnall, A.Potts, A.V.Zayats
293: and N.I.Zheludev, Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 91}, 247404 (2003).
294: \bibitem{10} B.Dayan, A.Pe'er, A.A.Friesem and Y.Silberberg, E-print,
295: quant-ph/0302038.
296: \bibitem{11} B.Dayan, A.Pe'er, A.A.Friesem and Y.Silberberg,
297: Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 93}, 023005 (2004).
298: \bibitem{12} C.Liedenbaum, S.Stolte and J.Reuss, Chem.Phys.
299: {\bf 122}, 443 (1988).
300: \bibitem{13} V.A.Kuz'menko, E-print, physics/0204003.
301: \bibitem{14} V.A.Kuz'menko, E-print, physics/0306148.
302: \bibitem{15} E.A.Korsunsky and M.Fleischhauer, Phys.Rev.A, {\bf 66},
303: 033808 (2002).
304: \bibitem{16} A.K.Popov, S.A.Myslivets and T.F.George, E-print,
305: quant-ph/0501001.
306: \bibitem{17} T.Rudolph and B.C.Sanders, Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 87}, 077903 (2001).
307: \bibitem{18} M.Xiaochan, E-print, physics/0308037.
308: \bibitem{19} S.J.Cyvin, \emph {Molecular Vibrations and Mesn Square
309: Amplitudes}, Oslo, (1968).
310: \bibitem{20} V.A.Kuz'menko, E-print, physics/0207111.
311: \bibitem{21} M.Schmitt, G.Knopp, A.Materny and W.Kiefer,
312: J.Phys.Chem.A, {\bf 102}, 4059 (1998).
313: \bibitem{22} J.S.Baskin and A.Zewail, J.Phys.Chem.A, {\bf 105}, 3680 (2001).
314: \bibitem{23} M.J.Weida and C.S.Parmenter, J.Chem.Phys. {\bf 107}, 7138 (1997).
315: \bibitem{24} P.A.Block, E.J.Bohac and R.E.Miller, Phys.Rev.Lett.
316: {\bf 68}, 1303 (1992).
317: \bibitem{25} P.M.Felker, J.Phys.Chem., {\bf 96}, 7844 (1992).
318: \bibitem{16} L.Oudejans and R.E.Miller, J.Phys.Chem. {\bf99}, 13670 (1995).
319: \end{thebibliography}
320: \end{document}
321:
322:
323: