1: %

2: % Choose preprinttrue for something readable.

3: % Set it false for two columns.

4: %

5: 

6: %\documentstyle[prl,aps,epsfig,preprint]{revtex}

7: \documentstyle[prl,aps,epsfig,twocolumn]{revtex}

8: 

9: \draft

10: 

11: \newlength{\textwidthm}

12: \setlength{\textwidthm}{\columnwidth}

13: \addtolength{\textwidthm}{-\parindent}

14: \addtolength{\textwidthm}{-\parindent}

15: \begin{document}

16: \title{Atom correlations and spin squeezing near the Heisenberg limit:

17: finite size effect and decoherence}

18: \author{A. Andr\'e and M.D. Lukin}

19: \address{Physics Department, Harvard University and \\ 

20: ITAMP, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Cambridge, MA~~02138}

21: \date{\today}

22: \maketitle

23: \begin{abstract}

24: 

25: We analyze a model for spin squeezing based on the so-called counter-twisting

26: Hamiltonian, including the effects of dissipation and finite system size. 

27: We discuss the conditions under which the Heisenberg limit, i.e. phase 

28: sensitivity $\propto 1/N$, can be achieved.

29: A specific implementation of this model based on atom-atom

30: interactions via quantized photon exchange is presented in detail.

31: The resulting

32: excitation corresponds to the creation of spin-flipped atomic pairs

33: and can be used for

34: fast generation of entangled  atomic ensembles, spin squeezing and

35: applications in quantum information processing.

36: The conditions for achieving strong spin squeezing with this mechanism are

37: also analyzed.

38: 

39: \end{abstract}

40: 

41: \pacs{PACS numbers 03.67.-a, 42.50.-p, 42.50.Gy}

42: 

43: %\nobreak

44: %\begin{twocolumn}

45: 

46: \section{Introduction}

47: 

48: Interacting quantum systems that start in uncorrelated states generally

49: evolve towards entangled states due to quantum correlations building up in

50: time. These correlations and the form they take depend crucially on the

51: interaction that gives rise to them. For example in parametric down

52: conversion or in the optical parametric oscillator (OPO) pairs of photons

53: can be created in distinct modes of the electromagnetic field. The fact

54: that {\it pairs} of photons are generated leads to quantum correlations

55: between the two modes. Since each mode is described by a harmonic

56: oscillator, one can think of the state of the field as the quantum state

57: of two fictitious particles in harmonic oscillator potentials. The

58: quantum correlations correspond to e.g. the positions of the particles

59: being strongly correlated, in the ideal case $\Delta

60: (X_1-X_2)^2\rightarrow 0$ and their

61: momenta being anticorrelated $\Delta (P_1+P_2)^2\rightarrow 0$. For the

62: electromagnetic field modes, the position and momenta correspond to

63: quadratures of the field modes and it is between these that correlations

64: are produced \cite{Kimble-Houches,Walls-Milburn}.

65: These correlations

66: are essential to quantum communication e.g. quantum teleportation of 

67: information from one location to another \cite{Q-teleport}. 

68: Entanglement is also crucial for many schemes in quantum cryptography and

69: for long-distance quantum communication through lossy channels 

70: \cite{Longdist}. 

71: 

72: Since the mechanism for producing correlations in electromagnetic field

73: modes is at the fundamental level so simple (photons created in pairs) it

74: is natural to wonder if such a simple mechanism may lead to entanglement

75: of atoms interacting in a similar manner. In complete analogy to the OPA

76: mechanism, a process that transfers {\it pairs} of atoms from their ground

77: state to two well defined final states also gives rise to quantum

78: correlations between atoms. When a collection of $N$ two level atoms is

79: thought of as an ensemble of effective spin ${\tiny \frac{1}{2}}$

80: particles with total pseudo-angular momentum $J=N/2$, it turns out

81: \cite{Ueda} that the quantum correlations produced by an interaction that

82: transfers atoms in pairs from the lower state to the upper state shows up

83: as reduced fluctuations in a component of the angular momentum e.g.

84: $\Delta J_x^2 \rightarrow 0$. 

85: We will discuss entanglement of atoms with

86: one another in an atomic ensemble for which an effective interaction

87: leads to the transfer of atoms in pairs to well defined final states and

88: we will use the concept of spin squeezing to quantify the amount of

89: quantum correlations produced in such a case. As for squeezed states of

90: light, decoherence mechanisms and dissipation are acting in such a way as

91: to destroy or limit the amount of squeezing achievable in practice. We

92: also analyze the influence of such dissipation mechanisms and

93: find relations between the spin squeezing interaction rate, the

94: dissipation rate and the amount of squeezing achievable in the presence of

95: damping mechanisms.

96: The coherent control of the dynamical evolution of complex systems such as

97: atomic ensembles may lead to the

98: production of entangled non-classical states such as spin squeezed states

99: \cite{Ueda} (analogous to squeezed states of light \cite{Walls-Milburn})

100: and correlated collective atomic modes (similar to twin

101: photons generated by a non-degenerate OPO). 

102: 

103: The main result of this paper is that for a collection of $N$ atoms with

104: average single atom nonlinearity $\chi$ (two atom interaction energy) and

105: with single atom loss rate $\Gamma$, the condition for achieving some

106: spin squeezing is that $N\chi > \Gamma$.

107: In order to achieve reduction of uncertainty in say $J_x$ compared to the

108: uncertainty in the Bloch state $|J=N/2,J_z=N/2\rangle$ for which $(\Delta

109: J_x)^2=N/4$ by an amount $s$ (i.e. $(\Delta J_x)^2=N/(4s)$)

110: with $1\leq s \leq N$, one requires that $N\chi>s\Gamma$ and the

111: interaction time needed scales as $t\sim (\log{s})/(N\chi)$ while the

112: maximum number of atoms than can be lost without destroying the squeezing

113: scales as $\Delta N\sim (N/s)\log{s}$.

114: To achieve Heisenberg limited precision (i.e. maximum

115: spin squeezing $s\sim N$), one needs a large single atom nonlinearity

116: $\chi>\Gamma$. This means that the interaction time needed to achieve this

117: strongly correlated state is $t\sim (\log{N})/(N\chi)$ and the maximum

118: number of atoms that can be

119: lost without compromising this optimal squeezing is $\Delta N\sim

120: \log{N}$ i.e. a very small number of atoms lost may prevent reaching the

121: Heisenberg limit. This analysis remains valid and agrees with a specific

122: implementation

123: based on an effective atom-atom interaction via quantized photon

124: exchange in a cavity, for which the decoherence mechanism corresponds to

125: spontaneous emission and leakage of photons from the cavity.  

126: 

127: The possibility of coherently controlling interacting quantum systems

128: has lead to many new developments in the field of quantum information 

129: science \cite{Bouwmeester}.

130: These are expected to have an impact in a broad area ranging from quantum

131: computation and quantum communication \cite{Nielsen-Chuang} to precision

132: measurements \cite{Wineland} and controlled modeling of complex quantum

133: phenomena \cite{Sachdev}.

134: Entangled systems realized in the laboratory range in size from few qbits

135: \cite{Wineland2}, to macroscopic ensemble of particles \cite{Polzik}.

136: Controllable coherent interactions between atoms \cite{Lloyd,Meystre} may

137: also open the 

138: way for modelling of complex quantum phenomena such as quantum phase 

139: transitions \cite{Sachdev} in which quantum correlations play a crucial role.

140: 

141: Entanglement of a single atomic ensemble, i.e. quantum correlations between

142: atoms in the same ensemble, has been shown to be potentially very 

143: useful in the field of precision measurements \cite{Wineland}. 

144: Certain types of interactions between atoms lead to 

145: entanglement and spin squeezing, 

146: characterized by reduced variance in an

147: observable and increased fluctuations in the canonically conjugate observable.

148: This reduction of fluctuations directly translates into an improved

149: accuracy for

150: measurements sensitive to that observable. A typical figure of merit for spin

151: squeezed states is the phase accuracy $\delta\phi$ on 

152: estimating accumulated dynamical phase in the Ramsey interferometric 

153: experiment. With all experimental uncertainties controlled below this noise 

154: level, the dominant source of noise in such experiments is the ``quantum 

155: projection noise'' \cite{Wineland} associated with e.g. the noise in

156: measurements of the 

157: x-component of the spin of an ensemble of two-level atoms (effective spin 

158: ${\tiny \frac{1}{2}}$) all

159: prepared in the lower level (the $|\downarrow\rangle$ state). This noise leads

160: to a lower limit on phase accuracy $\delta\phi=1/\sqrt{N}$ called the 

161: standard quantum limit (SQL), where $N$ is 

162: the number of atoms in the ensemble. 

163: The Heisenberg uncertainty principle 

164: however allows for phase accuracies consistent with the basic principles of

165: quantum mechanics that are as low as $\delta\phi=1/N$, called the

166: Heisenberg limit.

167: 

168: We also discuss in more detail a technique \cite{Paper1} based on a

169: resonantly enhanced

170: nonlinear process involving Raman scattering into a 

171: ``slow'' optical mode \cite{slow-light}, which creates a 

172: pair of spin-flipped atom and slowly propagating coupled excitation

173: of light and matter (dark-state  polariton). When the group

174: velocity of the polariton is reduced to zero \cite{stop-light,darkpolar}, 

175: this results in pairs of spin flipped atoms. 

176: The dark-state polariton can be easily converted into  corresponding states 

177: of photon wavepackets ``on demand'' \cite{darkpolar}, 

178: which makes  the present approach most suitable for implementing protocols 

179: in quantum information  processing that require a combination of 

180: deterministic sources of entangled states and 

181: long-lived quantum memory \cite{Longdist,Q-mem}.   

182:  

183: 

184: 

185: This paper is divided into V sections. In Section II, we discuss Ramsey 

186: spectroscopy and the use of spin-squeezed states in precision

187: measurements.

188: In particular we analyze the situation where $N$ two level atoms with levels

189: $|g\rangle$ and $|e\rangle$ are prepared in a correlated state and 

190: subsequently

191: probed by separated fields of frequency $\omega$ in the Ramsey

192: interferometric configuration, which we review in Appendix A.

193: We also discuss spin-squeezed states and develop pictorial

194: representation of those states which we compare to squeezed states of

195: light and in appendix B we introduce the Wigner representation for a

196: particular class of spin squezed states.

197: 

198: In Section III, we analyze a model for spin squeezing based on the analogy

199: with 

200: the optical parametric oscillator. We also seek to understand the influence of 

201: loss processes on the coherent spin-squeezing interaction and the way in which 

202: it limits the correlations achievable for a given interaction rate. The

203: model 

204: consists of two bosonic modes (a ``spin up'' state and a ``spin down'' state) 

205: with loss

206: rates and a coherent interaction that transfers pairs of atoms from one mode

207: to the other.

208: For our simple model, analytical results can be obtained

209: in the perturbative regime of small number of excitations (most atoms in the

210: lower state) and low loss rate. We estimate the

211: conditions for which Heisenberg-limited spin squeezed states can be

212: produced.

213: 

214: 

215: In Section IV, we present a scheme for inducing effective coherent

216: interactions 

217: between atoms in an atomic ensemble. These coherent interactions 

218: lead to massive entanglement of the ensemble and to characterize the degree 

219: of entanglement thus obtained, we calculate the squeezing or reduction in 

220: fluctuations of one particular observable. The coherent interaction is based

221: on Raman scattering into a cavity mode for which the atomic medium is made 

222: transparent by Electromagnetically Induced Transparency (EIT). The slowly

223: propagating mode is then best described by a polariton: a collective

224: excitation that is partly photonic and partly ``spin'' excitation of the atomic

225: ensemble (the up and down states of the spin being two metastable states). 

226: The overall process leads to the creation of pairs of

227: excitations, one being a ``spin flip'' created by Raman scattering, the other 

228: being a polariton which can be ``steered'' into a photon or spin flip

229: excitation ``on demand''. We find that substantial spin squeezing can be 

230: obtained for atomic ensembles in low finesse cavities, without the

231: strong coupling requirement

232: of cavity QED. In the limit of unity finesse this corresponds to free-space 

233: configuration and substantial correlations can still be produced in this

234: case. In the 

235: opposite limit of high finesse, very strong correlations are obtained and 

236: in particular we estimate the regime for which Heisenberg limited spin-squeezed

237: states are produced. 

238: 

239: 

240: \section{Ramsey spectroscopy with correlated atoms}

241: 

242: In appendix A, Ramsey spectroscopy is reviewed and in particular 

243: we show how

244: the phase accuracy in phase estimation based on the Ramsey fringe signal is,

245: at the maximum sensitivity point, given by

246: 

247: \begin{equation}

248: \delta\phi=\frac{\Delta J_x}{|\langle \hat{J}_z \rangle|}

249: \end{equation}

250: 

251: where $\Delta J_x$ is the variance in the x-component of the pseudo angular 

252: momentum (of length $J=N/2$)

253: representing the state of $N$ two-level atoms and $\langle \hat{J}_z \rangle$

254: is the expectation value of the z-component of the pseudo angular momentum

255: (both the variance and the expectation value are

256: calculated in the initial state). 

257: 

258: For an uncorrelated state of atoms e.g. with all atoms in their lower

259: state so that the state of the ensemble is described by

260: $|J_z=-N/2\rangle$, it is found that 

261: $\Delta J_x=\sqrt{J/2}$ and $\langle \hat{J}_z \rangle=-J$ so that 

262: $\delta\phi=\sqrt{1/N}$.

263: In order to improve the phase accuracy, one must use

264: a state for which the variance in

265: $\hat{J}_x$ is reduced while $\langle \hat{J}_z \rangle$ is little

266: changed. 

267: Consider therefore a state such as an 

268: eigenstate of $\hat{J}_x$, for example $|J_x=0\rangle$. Calculating the

269: expectation values and variances we find $\langle

270: \hat{J}_x \rangle = 

271: \langle \hat{J}_y \rangle = \langle \hat{J}_z \rangle = 0$, $\Delta J_x = 0$ 

272: and $\Delta J_y = \Delta J_z = \sqrt{J(J+1)/2}$. However the Ramsey signal

273: has amplitude proportional to $\langle J_z \rangle$ and therefore vanishes

274: for all phase angles $\phi$, which means that even though the noise or

275: fluctuation properties of the signal may be improved, its average is zero.

276: Note that this is

277: because we have chosen $\hat{J}_z(\phi)$ as our observable, other

278: observables such as $\hat{J}_z^2(\phi)$ for example may lead to non-zero 

279: average signal together with reduced variance

280: \cite{Kasevich,Holland}. However, it turns out their signal to noise ratio

281: is very much reduced compared to that of the Ramsey scheme \cite{Holland}. 

282: It is thus necessary to consider

283: states that lead to a reduced variance $\Delta J_x$ while maintaining a large 

284: signal amplitude, i.e. a large $\langle \hat{J}_z \rangle$. We therefore 

285: consider states such as 

286: 

287: \begin{equation}

288: |\psi(a)\rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+a^2}}(i|J_x=0\rangle + 

289: a\frac{|J_x=+1\rangle - |J_x=-1\rangle}{\sqrt{2}})

290: \label{psia}

291: \end{equation}

292: 

293: where $a$ is a real number parametrizing the state $|\psi(a)\rangle$.

294: It is straightforward to calculate the expectation values 

295: \begin{eqnarray}

296: \langle \hat{J}_x \rangle &=& 0 \nonumber \\

297: \langle \hat{J}_y \rangle &=& 0 \nonumber \\

298: \langle \hat{J}_z \rangle &=& \frac{2a}{1+a^2} \sqrt{\frac{J(J+1)}{2}}

299: \end{eqnarray}

300: 

301: and the variances 

302: \begin{eqnarray}

303: \Delta J_x &=& \frac{a}{\sqrt{1+a^2}} \nonumber \\

304: \Delta J_y &=& \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+a^2}}\sqrt{\frac{J(J+1)}{2}} \nonumber \\

305: \Delta J_z &=& \sqrt{\frac{J(J+1)}{2}}\left[1-\frac{4a^2}{(1+a^2)^2}\right]

306: ^{1/2} .

307: \label{varpsia}

308: \end{eqnarray}

309: 

310: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

311: 

312: \begin{figure}[ht]

313: \begin{center}

314: \epsfig{file=fig1.eps,width=8.5cm}

315: \leavevmode

316: \end{center}

317: \vspace*{2ex}

318: \caption{Number of atoms detected in the upper state ($N_e$) relative

319: to total number of atoms (the total number is $N=N_e+N_g$

320: and thus $N_e/(N_e+N_g)=(N/2+\langle J_z(\phi) \rangle )/N$) 

321: vs. accumulated phase 

322: $\phi=(\omega-\omega_0)T$ for a) uncorrelated atoms and b) correlated atoms in

323: a spin-squeezed state $|\psi(a)\rangle$, for $N=100$ and $a=-1.1$ (note

324: that error bars have been magnified by a factor of $10$ for clarity). 

325: Note how squeezing of the variance improves the phase accuracy.

326: }

327: \end{figure}

328: 

329: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

330: 

331: The signal amplitude which depends on $\langle \hat{J}_z \rangle$ can thus

332: be rather large ($O[N]$) while the noise amplitude characterized by 

333: $\Delta J_x$ is minimized ($O[1]$). 

334: The Ramsey signal and phase accuracy for such a state is shown in Fig. 1b,

335: compared 

336: to the case of uncorrelated atoms (Fig. 1a).

337: 

338: These states are minimum uncertainty states i.e. 

339: $(\Delta J_x)(\Delta J_y)={\tiny \frac{1}{2}}|\langle \hat{J}_z \rangle |$ 

340: for all values of the parameter $a$. Also, their phase accuracy is given by 

341: 

342: \begin{equation}

343: \delta\phi(\pm\pi/2) = \sqrt{\frac{1+a^2}{2}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{J(J+1)}} 

344: \end{equation}

345: 

346: which is of order $1/N$.

347: The best phase accuracy is obtained for $a\rightarrow 0$ in which case the

348: optimal phase accuracy is $\delta\phi(\pm\pi/2)=\sqrt{2}/N$. Note that in

349: this case the signal amplitude ($\propto \langle\hat{J}_z\rangle$) becomes

350: vanishingly small ($\langle\hat{J}_z(\phi)\rangle\rightarrow 0$ for all

351: $\phi$) and also the

352: range of values of $\phi$ for which improved phase accuracy is achieved

353: becomes vanishingly small around $\phi=\pm\pi/2$. For these reasons, the

354: optimally spin squeezed state $|\psi(a=0)\rangle$ may prove impractical.

355: Note however that for finite $a$ i.e. for $|a|=1$, the signal amplitude is

356: large ($\sim N/\sqrt{8}$) and 

357: the phase accuracy is independent of $\phi$

358: 

359: \begin{equation}

360: \delta\phi(\phi)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{J(J+1)}}\simeq\frac{2}{N}

361: \end{equation}

362: 

363: i.e. twice the Heisenberg limit. 

364: 

365: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

366: 

367: \begin{figure}[ht]

368: \begin{center}

369: \epsfig{file=fig2.eps,width=8.5cm}

370: \leavevmode

371: \end{center}

372: \vspace*{2ex}

373: \caption{Number of atoms detected in the upper state vs. accumulated phase 

374: $\phi=(\omega-\omega_0)T$ for correlated atoms in various spin-squeezed states

375: $|\psi(a)\rangle$, for $N=100$ and $a=-0.9$, $a=-1$ and $a=-1.1$. 

376: Also shown is the phase accuracy $\delta\phi(\phi)$ vs. accumulated phase

377: (the dashed line represents the standard quantum limit

378: $\delta\phi=1/\sqrt{N}$). 

379: Note how $\delta\phi(\phi)$ gets to a minimum value of order $2/N=0.02$.

380: }

381: \end{figure}

382: 

383: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

384: 

385: In Fig. 2 we show the signal and variance for various spin squeezed states 

386: along with the phase accuracy $\delta\phi(\phi)$.

387: 

388: We can gain a better understanding of the squeezing in the states 

389: (\ref{psia})

390: $|\psi(a)\rangle$ by looking at various representations of them. 

391: The simplest representation is to project the state onto eigenstates of the

392: three components of the angular momentum

393: 

394: \begin{equation}

395: P_i(m) = |\langle J_i=m|\psi(a)\rangle |^2

396: \end{equation}

397: 

398: where $|J_i=m\rangle$ is the eigenstate of the i-component of angular momentum

399: with eigenvalue $m$. 

400: 

401: From Fig. 3 it is clear that the expectation value of $\hat{J}_x$ and

402: $\hat{J}_y$ are zero in such a state, whereas (for $a=-1$) the expectation 

403: value of $\hat{J}_z$ is large and negative, the variances are clearly given by

404: (\ref{varpsia}). It is interesting to note the similarity of these angular

405: momentum squeezed states and those of a harmonic oscillator (i.e. 

406: squeezed states of light). In both cases, the probability distributions vanish

407: for odd number of quanta (note that for simplicity we consider only $N$ even 

408: here). 

409: 

410: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

411: 

412: \begin{figure}[ht]

413: \begin{center}

414: \epsfig{file=fig3.eps,width=8.5cm}

415: \leavevmode

416: \end{center}

417: \vspace*{2ex}

418: \caption{Projection of the state $|\psi(a)\rangle$ onto eigenstates of the

419: angular momentum operators $\hat{J}_x$, $\hat{J}_y$ and $\hat{J}_z$ for 

420: $J=N/2=20$ and $a=-1$. The $P_x(m)$ distribution is sharply peaked since

421: the 

422: state $|\psi(a)\rangle$ is a superposition of the $m_x=-1,0,+1$ components

423: only;

424: the $P_y(m)$ distribution is broad and symmetric; the $P_z(m)$ distribution

425: vanishes for $m$ odd and the even components decrease roughly exponentially

426: with $m$.} 

427: \end{figure}

428: 

429: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

430: 

431: For even number of quanta, the behaviour is 

432: nearly exponential $P_z(m)\propto e^{-c(m+j)}$ for some constant $c$.

433: A mechanism for generating such states starting from the uncorrelated state 

434: $|J_z=-J\rangle$ must therefore be one in which atoms are excited in pairs, 

435: i.e.

436: two atoms in the ground state are transferred to the excited state 

437: $|g\rangle |g\rangle \rightarrow |e\rangle|e\rangle$.

438: Consider the similarities with squeezed states of light: in particular the

439: photon number distribution vanishes 

440: for odd photon number in the case of squeezed vacuum due to the form of the

441: squeezing Hamiltonian $\hat{H}=-i\chi [\hat{a}^{\dagger 2}-\hat{a}^2]$, which 

442: creates and destroys photons in pairs. Since we find a similar cancellation

443: of the probability of there being odd number of excitations for the states 

444: $|\psi(a)\rangle$, the interaction giving rise to such states starting from

445: all atoms in their lower states must likewise create and destroy excitations 

446: in pairs and thus be of the form 

447: $\hat{H}=-i\hbar\chi[\hat{L}_+^2-\hat{L}_-^2]$.

448: This process can 

449: also be viewed as a coherent collision mechanism. Moreover, for the whole

450: atomic ensemble to become entangled (not just particular atom pairs), this

451: process must occur completely symmetrically for all atoms. It should

452: not be two particular atoms that get transferred to the excited state, 

453: rather it should be two collective excitations that get created

454: 

455: \begin{eqnarray}

456: |g_1\cdots g_N\rangle & \rightarrow & \sqrt{\frac{2}{N(N-1)}}\sum_{i>j}\left[

457: |g\cdots e_i \cdots e_j \cdots g\rangle\right]

458: \end{eqnarray}

459: 

460: which is the state obtained by letting $\hat{J}_+^2$ operate on 

461: $|J_z=-J\rangle$. The simplest Hamiltonian giving rise to this type of

462: interaction is analyzed in section III to quantify the squeezing generated by 

463: this mechanism.

464: This form of interaction was considered by Kitegawa and Ueda \cite{Ueda} in 

465: their classic study of spin squeezing and was dubbed the ``two axis 

466: countertwisting'' interaction.

467: 

468: \section{Two axis counter twisting model}

469: 

470: We now turn to the analysis of the two axis countertwisting 

471: Hamiltonian \cite{Ueda}

472: 

473: \begin{eqnarray}

474: \hat{H} &=& -i\frac{\hbar\chi}{2}\left( \hat{L}_+^2-\hat{L}_-^2 \right)

475: \nonumber \\

476: &=& \hbar\chi \left(\hat{L}_x\hat{L}_y+\hat{L}_y\hat{L}_x\right).

477: \label{ctham}

478: \end{eqnarray}

479: 

480: As argued in last section it is this type of Hamiltonian that most 

481: closely parallels squeezed state generation for light. 

482: 

483: We now present a general theory that allows to quantify atom correlations

484: and takes into account decoherence and finite system size.

485: Specifically, we consider two bosonic modes (such as for a two 

486: component Bose-Einstein condensate or for an atomic ensemble with two relevant

487: atomic levels) with annihilation 

488: operators $\hat{a}_1$ 

489: and $\hat{a}_2$. The system is also subject to damping i.e. loss of atoms at 

490: rates which may depend on the internal state. 

491: The equations of motion for the two modes are

492: then (with $\hat{L}_+=\hat{a}_2^\dagger\hat{a}_1$ and 

493: $\hat{L}_-=\hat{a}_1^\dagger\hat{a}_2$)

494: 

495: \begin{eqnarray}

496: \dot{\hat{a}}_1 = -\gamma_1 \hat{a}_1 + \chi\hat{a}_1^\dagger\hat{a}_2^2 + 

497: \hat{F}_1(t) \nonumber \\

498: \dot{\hat{a}}_2 = -\gamma_2 \hat{a}_2 - \chi\hat{a}_2^\dagger\hat{a}_1^2 + 

499: \hat{F}_2(t)

500: \end{eqnarray}

501: 

502: where $\hat{F}_j(t)$ are delta-correlated Langevin noise forces with 

503: appropriate diffusion coefficients 

504: $D_{ij}=\langle \hat{F}_i(t)\hat{F}_j(t) \rangle$.

505: 

506: 

507: In order to discuss spin squeezing, it is easier to rewrite the equations of

508: motion in terms of the Stokes parameters

509: 

510: \begin{eqnarray}

511: \hat{L}_0 &=& \hat{N} = \hat{a}_1^\dagger\hat{a}_1+\hat{a}_2^\dagger\hat{a}_2 \nonumber \\

512: \hat{L}_x &=& (\hat{a}_2^\dagger\hat{a}_1+\hat{a}_1^\dagger\hat{a}_2)/2 \nonumber \\

513: \hat{L}_y &=& (\hat{a}_2^\dagger\hat{a}_1-\hat{a}_1^\dagger\hat{a}_2)/2i \nonumber \\

514: \hat{L}_z &=& (\hat{a}_2^\dagger\hat{a}_2-\hat{a}_1^\dagger\hat{a}_1)/2

515: \end{eqnarray}

516: for which the equations are

517: 

518: \begin{eqnarray}

519: \dot{\hat{L}}_0 &=& -2\Gamma\hat{L}_0+4\gamma\hat{L}_z+\hat{F}_0(t) 

520: \nonumber \\

521: \dot{\hat{L}}_x &=& -2\Gamma\hat{L}_x+\chi(\hat{L}_x\hat{L}_z+

522: \hat{L}_z\hat{L}_x)+\hat{F}_x(t) \nonumber \\

523: \dot{\hat{L}}_y &=& -2\Gamma\hat{L}_y-\chi(\hat{L}_y\hat{L}_z+

524: \hat{L}_z\hat{L}_y)+\hat{F}_y(t) \nonumber \\

525: \dot{\hat{L}}_z &=& -2\Gamma\hat{L}_z+\gamma\hat{L}_0-2\chi(\hat{L}_x^2-

526: \hat{L}_y^2)+\hat{F}_z(t) 

527: \label{fullqmeqns}

528: \end{eqnarray}

529: 

530: where $\Gamma=(\gamma_1+\gamma_2)/2$, $\gamma=(\gamma_1-\gamma_2)/2$ and 

531: $\hat{F}_j(t)$ are new delta-correlated noise forces associated with the 

532: damping.

533: 

534: Since (\ref{fullqmeqns}) are non-linear operator equations,

535: in the equations of motion for the first order moments 

536: $\langle \hat{L}_i \rangle$ there are terms that depend on those first order

537: moments but also terms depending on the second order moments  

538: $\langle \hat{L}_i\hat{L}_j \rangle$. Similarly the equations of

539: motion for the second order

540: moments depend on themselves and also on the third order moments, and so

541: on, leading to

542: the BBGKY hierarchy of equations of motion for the expectation values of 

543: operator products.

544: In order to solve this set of equations, the hierarchy must be truncated

545: at some order \cite{Vardi}. Keeping the first and second order

546: moments, 

547: we truncate the BBGKY hierarchy by the approximation

548: 

549: \begin{eqnarray}

550: \langle\hat{L}_i\hat{L}_j\hat{L}_k\rangle & \approx & 

551: \langle\hat{L}_i\hat{L}_j\rangle\langle\hat{L}_k\rangle +

552: \langle\hat{L}_j\hat{L}_k\rangle\langle\hat{L}_i\rangle +

553: \langle\hat{L}_k\hat{L}_i\rangle\langle\hat{L}_j\rangle \nonumber \\

554: & - & 2\langle\hat{L}_i\rangle\langle\hat{L}_j\rangle\langle\hat{L}_k\rangle .

555: \end{eqnarray}

556: 

557: The equations of motion for the expectation values $l_i\equiv \langle \hat{L}_i

558: \rangle$ and the second order moments $\Delta_{ij}\equiv \langle 

559: \hat{L}_i\hat{L}_j + \hat{L}_j\hat{L}_i \rangle - 2\langle\hat{L}_i\rangle

560: \langle\hat{L}_j\rangle$ 

561: are then obtained from (\ref{fullqmeqns}). We are interested in the case

562: when all atoms start in mode $1$, i.e.

563: $l_0(0)=N,l_x(0)=l_y(0)=0,l_z(0)=-N/2$ and

564: $\Delta_{xx}(0)=\Delta_{yy}(0)=N/2$ (all other second moments vanish) and

565: for simplicity we take $\gamma_1=\gamma_2=\Gamma$, $\gamma=0$.

566: Writing only the relevant equations and omitting vanishing terms (such as those

567: proportional to $\Delta_{xz}$ and $\Delta_{yz}$ which are zero for all times),

568: we have (after some algebra)

569: 

570: \begin{eqnarray}

571: \dot{l}_0 &=& -2\Gamma l_0 \nonumber \\

572: \dot{l}_z &=& -2\Gamma l_z -\chi(\Delta_{xx}-\Delta_{yy}) \nonumber \\

573: \dot{\Delta}_{xx} &=& -4\Gamma\Delta_{xx}+\Gamma l_0 +4\chi l_z\Delta_{xx}

574: \nonumber \\

575: \dot{\Delta}_{yy} &=& -4\Gamma\Delta_{yy}+\Gamma l_0 -4\chi l_z\Delta_{yy}

576: \label{bbgky1}

577: \end{eqnarray}

578: 

579: and $l_x(t)=l_y(t)=0$. These equations are non-linear and cannot be solved

580: analytically nor perturbatively in $\Gamma/\chi$. For short enough times,

581: the number of excitations into mode $2$ is small and $l_z\simeq -N/2$, so

582: that plugging this in (\ref{bbgky1}) we have

583: 

584: \begin{eqnarray}

585: \Delta_{xx}(t) &\simeq& {\tiny \frac{N}{2}}e^{-2N\chi t}+O[\Gamma/\chi]

586: \nonumber \\

587: \Delta_{yy}(t) &\simeq& {\tiny \frac{N}{2}}e^{2N\chi t}+O[\Gamma/\chi]

588: \end{eqnarray}

589: 

590: i.e. the variance of the x-component of the pseudo-angular momentum is

591: squeezed while

592: that of the y-component is anti-squeezed. Plugging these back in the equation 

593: of motion of $l_z$, we obtain $l_z(t)\simeq -N/2+(\cosh{2N\chi t}-1)/2+

594: O[\Gamma/\chi]$. This equation predicts growth of $l_z$ without bound, however

595: we know that because $l_z$ is the z-component of an angular momentum vector, 

596: we must have $|l_z|\leq N/2$. The phase space of this angular momentum vector 

597: is the Bloch sphere and in essence we have neglected the small

598: curvature of the Bloch sphere (of radius $R=N/2$) and have approximated

599: the 

600: phase space 

601: by the flat planar phase space of a harmonic oscillator. We call this 

602: approximation the bosonic approximation, since it predicts infinite

603: squeezing in the long time limit and in the absence of dissipation,

604: similar to the case of squeezed light. 

605: Formally this is equivalent to assuming

606: 

607: \begin{eqnarray}

608: [\hat{a}_2^\dagger \hat{a}_1,\hat{a}_1^\dagger\hat{a}_2] &=& 

609: \hat{a}_2^\dagger\hat{a}_2-\hat{a}_1^\dagger\hat{a}_1 \nonumber \\

610: &\simeq& -N

611: \end{eqnarray}

612: 

613: i.e. the operator $\hat{S}_+=\hat{a}_2^\dagger \hat{a}_1/\sqrt{N}$ obeys 

614: bosonic commutation relations. Under this approximation the Hamiltonian 

615: (\ref{ctham}) becomes $\hat{H}=-i(\hbar\chi N/2)(\hat{S}_+^2-\hat{S}_-^2)$

616: which

617: is identical to the Hamiltonian describing squeezing of light 

618: \cite{Walls-Milburn}.

619: 

620:   

621: In order to take into account the curvature of phase space and the non-bosonic

622: nature of the angular momentum operators, we use the following

623: transformation

624: 

625: \begin{eqnarray}

626: \hat{N} &=& N \hat{h}_0 \nonumber \\

627: \hat{L}_x &=& \sqrt{N} \hat{h}_x \nonumber \\

628: \hat{L}_y &=& \sqrt{N} \hat{h}_y \nonumber \\

629: \hat{L}_z &=& \hat{h}_z-\frac{N}{2}\hat{h}_0 

630: \label{groupcon}

631: \end{eqnarray}

632: 

633: in terms of which the commutation relations become

634: 

635: \begin{eqnarray}

636: \left[ \hat{h}_{x,y,z},\hat{h}_0 \right] & = & 0 \nonumber \\

637: \left[ \hat{h}_z,\hat{h}_{\pm} \right] & = & \pm \hat{h}_{\pm} \nonumber \\

638: \left[ \hat{h}_+,\hat{h}_- \right] & = & 2\frac{\hat{h}_z}{N}-\hat{h}_0

639: \end{eqnarray}

640: 

641: where $\hat{h}_\pm=\hat{h}_x\pm i\hat{h}_y$. In the limit $N\rightarrow \infty$

642: these commutation relations become those of bosonic operators i.e. 

643: $\lim_{N\rightarrow\infty}[\hat{h}_0,\hat{h}_z,\hat{h}_+,\hat{h}_-]=[\hat{1},

644: \hat{a}^\dagger\hat{a},\hat{a}^\dagger,\hat{a}]$, a process formally known as a

645: group contraction \cite{Courtens}. The linear transformation of operators

646: (\ref{groupcon}) does not introduce any extra approximation.

647:  

648: The Hamiltonian (\ref{ctham}) can be re-expressed as 

649: 

650: \begin{eqnarray}

651: \hat{H} &=& \hbar\chi N\left(\hat{h}_x\hat{h}_y+\hat{h}_y\hat{h}_x\right)

652: \nonumber \\

653: &=& -i\frac{\hbar\xi}{2}\left(\hat{h}_+^2-\hat{h}_-^2\right)

654: \end{eqnarray}

655: 

656: where we have defined $\xi=\chi N$.

657: We can now obtain equations of motion for the expectation

658: values $h_j=\langle \hat{h}_j \rangle$ and the second order moments 

659: $\delta_{ij}=\langle \hat{h}_i\hat{h}_j \rangle -2 \langle \hat{h}_i \rangle

660: \langle \hat{h}_j \rangle$ from (\ref{bbgky1}). Letting $\tau=N\chi

661: t=\xi t$ be a rescaled time, $\kappa=\Gamma/(N\chi)=\Gamma/\xi$ be

662: the rescaled dissipation rate and writing $\epsilon=1/N$ and $\dot{x}={\rm

663: d}x/{\rm d\tau}$, 

664: we have 

665: 

666: \begin{eqnarray}

667: \dot{h}_0 &=& -2\kappa h_0 \nonumber \\

668: \dot{h}_z &=& -2\kappa h_z -(\delta_{xx}-\delta_{yy}) \nonumber \\

669: \dot{\delta}_{xx} &=& -4\kappa\delta_{xx}+\kappa h_0-2h_0\delta_{xx}+4\epsilon 

670: h_z\delta_{xx} \nonumber \\

671: \dot{\delta}_{yy} &=& -4\kappa\delta_{yy}+\kappa h_0+2h_0\delta_{yy}-4\epsilon 

672: h_z\delta_{yy}. 

673: \label{bbgky2}

674: \end{eqnarray}

675: 

676: Note that these equations are formally equivalent to (\ref{bbgky1}), no 

677: approximation has been made from (\ref{bbgky1}) to (\ref{bbgky2}). Letting

678: $\epsilon\rightarrow 0$ reproduces the results of the bosonic

679: approximation obtained

680: above in the limit of $l_z\simeq -N/2$. Terms of order $\epsilon$ and higher

681: represent corrections to the bosonic approximation and, as shown below,

682: they give rise to a limit to the amount of squeezing achievable. 

683: 

684: Solving (\ref{bbgky2}) to first order in $\epsilon$ and $\kappa$ we

685: obtain, writing only the relevant terms,

686: 

687: \begin{eqnarray}

688: \delta_{xx}(\tau) &=& \frac{1}{2}\left[e^{-2\tau}+(\kappa+\epsilon/2)+\cdots

689: \right]

690: \label{squbbgky}

691: \end{eqnarray}

692: 

693: which shows that the variance $\Delta J_x=\sqrt{(N/2)\delta_{xx}}$ is squeezed.

694:  Second order terms in $\kappa$ and $\epsilon$ come multiplied by an

695: exponentially 

696: growing term $e^{2\tau}$ so that as a function of time, the variance reaches 

697: a minimum value $\delta_{xx}\sim {\rm max}[\kappa,\epsilon]$ at a time 

698: $e^{-\tau_*}\sim {\rm max}[\kappa,\epsilon]$, after which it grows 

699: exponentially and the squeezing is lost. Note that this behaviour

700: ($\delta_{xx}(t)$ reaches a minimum value and then increases again) also

701: occurs when $\kappa\rightarrow 0$, indicating that it is a generic feature

702: of the finite system size.

703: This model predicts that

704: a variance $\delta_{xx}\sim \epsilon=1/N \rightarrow \Delta J_x^2\sim 1$

705: is achievable as long as losses are small enough, i.e.

706: $\kappa\sim\epsilon$, 

707: which in terms of $\chi$ and $\Gamma$ means

708: 

709: \begin{equation}

710: \chi \sim \Gamma\;\;\;{\rm or}\;\;\xi \sim N\Gamma

711: \label{heislimit}

712: \end{equation}

713: 

714: where $\chi$ corresponds to the single-atom nonlinear interaction rate and

715: $\Gamma$ represents the single-atom loss rate.

716: 

717: In order to achieve any squeezing ($\delta_{xx}\leq 1/2$) it is

718: necessary to have $\kappa<1$ i.e. $N\chi > \Gamma$. 

719: In the regime $N\chi \gg \Gamma$ very

720: strong correlations can be obtained. Note that the single-atom

721: nonlinearity can still be relatively weak compared to the single particle

722: loss rate ($\chi\ll\Gamma$). 

723: For example when the dissipation rate is such that

724: $\kappa\sim\sqrt{\epsilon}$ i.e. $\sqrt{N}\chi\sim\Gamma$, the amount of

725: squeezing obtained (\ref{squbbgky}) is $\delta_{xx}\sim 1/\sqrt{N}$. It

726: takes a time $e^{-2\tau}\sim\sqrt{\epsilon}$ to reach this state and the

727: number of particles lost during that time is $\Delta N\sim N\times

728: 2\kappa\tau\sim\sqrt{N}\log{N}$. 

729: This number can therefore also be thought of

730: as the maximum number of particles that can be lost from the ensemble

731: without destroying squeezing beyond $\delta_{xx}\sim 1/\sqrt{N}$.

732: 

733: In order to reach the Heisenberg limit it is required that the

734: single atom nonlinearity $\chi$ be larger than the decay rate $\Gamma$. 

735: Note that in this case, the number of atoms lost by the time optimal

736: squeezing is achieved is $\Delta N\sim\log{N}$

737: which indicates that a very small number of atoms is lost. This

738: number also corresponds to the maximum number of particles that can be

739: lost from the ensemble and not destroy squeezing at the Heisenberg limit

740: level. Clearly the more squeezed the state of the atoms is, the more

741: sensitive it becomes to atom loss and in general to any form of

742: dissipation.

743: 

744: 

745: \section{Coherent atom interactions via slow light}

746: 

747: We now describe a technique to induce effective coherent 

748: interactions between atoms in metastable states \cite{Paper1}. 

749: The technique is based on a resonantly enhanced

750: nonlinear process involving Raman scattering into a 

751: ``slow'' optical mode \cite{slow-light}, which creates a 

752: pair of spin-flipped atom and slowly propagating coupled excitation

753: of light and matter (dark-state  polariton). When the group

754: velocity of the polariton is reduced to zero \cite{stop-light,darkpolar}, 

755: this results in pairs of spin flipped atoms. 

756: The fact that pairs of atomic excitations are created in this

757: process can also be viewed as a coherent interaction between atoms, i.e. a 

758: controlled ``collision'' leading to entanglement of the state of each atom 

759: with that of every other atom in the ensemble. 

760: 

761: A number of proposals 

762: have been made for generating entangled states of atomic ensembles 

763: and resulting in so-called spin squeezed states.  Some are based 

764: on interatomic interactions at ultra-cold temperatures \cite{squ-cold}, whereas

765: others involve  mapping the states of non-classical light fields into 

766: atoms \cite{squ-Polzik}, QND measurements of spins \cite{squ-Bigelow} with 

767: light or dipole blockade for Rydberg atoms \cite{Bouchoule}. 

768: In contrast to some of these mechanisms the present approach does not require  

769: coherence of the atomic motion or sources of non-classical light 

770: and  is completely deterministic thereby 

771: significantly simplifying possible experimental realizations. 

772: We further show that the present technique can be made robust with 

773: respect to realistic decoherence processes such as spontaneous emission 

774: and leakage of slow photons from the medium.

775: 

776: We consider a system of $N$ atoms (Fig. 4a) interacting with two 

777: classical driving fields $\Omega_{1,2}$ and

778: one quantized mode $\hat{a}$ of a running wave cavity that is initially in a 

779: vacuum state. Note that we consider a cavity configuration for ease of 

780: theorerical treatment, the results of this analysis however remain valid in the

781: limit of unity finesse, i.e. in free space configuration.

782: Relevant atomic sublevels

783: include two manifolds of metastable states (e.g hyperfine sublevels of 

784: electronic ground state) and excited states that may be accessed by optical 

785: transitions. The atoms are initially prepared in their ground states 

786: $|g\rangle$. One of the classical fields, of Rabi frequency $\Omega_1$, 

787: is detuned from the atomic resonance by an amount roughly equal to the 

788: frequency splitting between ground state manifolds. 

789: The other field of Rabi frequency $\Omega_2$ is resonant with an atomic 

790: transition $|b_2\rangle\rightarrow|a_2\rangle$. 

791: The quantized field can be involved in two Raman transitions 

792: corresponding to Stokes and anti-Stokes processes. Whereas the former

793: corresponds to the usual Stokes scattering in the forward direction, the 

794: latter establishes an Electromagnetically Induced Transparency (EIT) and 

795: its group velocity is therefore substantially reduced.

796: 

797: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

798: 

799: \begin{figure}[ht]

800: \begin{center}

801: \epsfig{file=fig4.eps,width=8.5cm}

802: \leavevmode

803: \end{center}

804: \vspace*{2ex}

805: \caption{

806: Energy levels scheme for the effective coherent interaction leading to creation

807: of pairs of atoms a) in different final states (``non-degenerate'' scheme) and

808: b) in identical final states(``degenerate'' version).}

809: \end{figure}

810: 

811: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

812: 

813: The pair excitation can be viewed as resulting from quantized photon 

814: exchange between atoms (Fig. 5) in a two-step process.  The first flipped

815: spin is created due to  Stokes Raman scattering, which also results in 

816: photon emission in a corresponding Stokes mode. In the presence of EIT,

817: this photon is directly converted into a dark-state polariton which becomes 

818: purely atomic  when the group velocity is reduced to zero.  

819: This implies that atomic spins are always flipped in pairs. 

820: In Fig. 4a the two final states involved in Raman 

821: transitions are different and atomic pairs in different states

822: are created. In Fig. 4b the final states of the two Raman processes are 

823: identical, in which case  atomic pairs in the same state result. The analysis

824: of this ``degenerate'' version of the scheme is similar to the 

825: ``non-degenerate'' case and we will consider only the latter case 

826: here.

827: 

828: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

829: 

830: \begin{figure}[ht]

831: \begin{center}

832: \epsfig{file=fig5.eps,width=6.0cm}

833: \leavevmode

834: \end{center}

835:  \vspace*{2ex}

836:  \caption{Diagram illustrating coherent atom-atom interaction mediated by

837: dark-state polariton, leading to the creation of a pair of spin-flipped atoms.}

838: \end{figure}

839: 

840: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

841: 

842: For conceptual simplicity we assume that the quantized field 

843: corresponds to  a single mode  of a running-wave cavity with a creation 

844: operator $\hat{a}^\dagger$ and atom-field coupling constants $g_1$ and

845: $g_2$.  

846: The interaction

847: Hamiltonian for the system of N atoms and light can be split into two 

848: parts $H = H_{Ram} + H_{res}$ corresponding to the Stokes Raman process and the

849: anti-Stokes process respectively:

850:  

851: \begin{eqnarray}

852: H_{Ram}&=&-\hbar\Delta \Sigma_{a1a1} - \hbar\delta_1 \Sigma_{b_1b_1} 

853: \nonumber \\

854: &+&[\hbar\Omega_1 \Sigma_{a_1g} 

855: + \hbar g_1 a \Sigma_{a_1b_1} + {\rm

856: h.c.}], \label{hamram} \\

857: H_{res}&=&\hbar\delta_2 \Sigma_{b_2b_2} + \hbar\delta_2 \Sigma_{a_2a_2} 

858: \nonumber \\

859: &+& [\hbar g_2 a \Sigma_{a_2g} + \hbar\Omega_2 \Sigma_{a_2b_2} + {\rm h.c.}], \label{hamres}

860: \end{eqnarray}

861: 

862: where $\Sigma_{\mu\nu} = \sum_i 

863: |\mu\rangle_{ii}\langle \nu|$ are collective atomic operators corresponding to 

864: transitions between atomic states $|\mu\rangle,|\nu\rangle$, $\Delta$ is the

865: detuning of the classical field $\Omega_1$ from the single-photon transition 

866: $|g\rangle \rightarrow |a_1\rangle$, $\delta_1$ and $\delta_2$ are the 

867: two-photon detunings from the $|g\rangle \rightarrow |b_1\rangle$ and

868: $|g\rangle \rightarrow |b_2\rangle$ transitions respectively as shown in

869: Fig. 4.

870: 

871: In the limit of large detuning $\Delta$ and ignoring two-photon detunings for 

872: the moment, the Hamiltonian $H_{Ram}$ describes

873: off-resonant Raman scattering. 

874: We take into account realistic decoherence

875: mechanisms such as spontaneous emission from the 

876: excited states in all directions and decay of the cavity mode 

877: with a rate $\kappa$. The evolution of atomic operators is then described 

878: by Heisenberg-Langevin equations:

879: \begin{eqnarray}

880: {\dot \Sigma}_{\mu\nu} = -\gamma_{\mu\nu} \Sigma_{\mu\nu} + {i \over \hbar}

881: [H, \Sigma_{\mu\nu}] + F_{\mu\nu}, 

882: \end{eqnarray}

883: where $\gamma_{\mu\nu}$ is a  decay rate of coherence $\mu\rightarrow \nu$

884: and $F_{\mu\nu}$ are associated noise forces. The latter have zero average 

885: and are $\delta$-correlated with associated diffusion coefficients that 

886: can be found using the Einstein relations. 

887: 

888: After a canonical transformation corresponding to adiabatic  elimination of

889: the excited state (see Appendix C for details), $H_{Ram}$ becomes equivalent

890: to the effective Hamiltonian

891: 

892: \begin{equation}

893: {\tilde H}_{Ram} = \hbar\chi\hat{a}^\dagger\hat{S}_1^\dagger

894: + {\rm h.c.}

895: \label{hamrameff}

896: \end{equation}

897: 

898: where $\hat{S}_1=\Sigma_{gb_1}/\sqrt{N}$ and 

899: $\chi=g_1\sqrt{N}\Omega_1^*/\Delta$.

900: This effective hamiltonian thus describes the process in which a Stokes

901: photon is emitted necessarily accompanied by a spin flip. The quantum

902: state of the Stokes mode is thus perfectly correlated with the state of

903: the atomic spin flip mode.

904: 

905: The resonant part of 

906: the Hamiltonian $H_{res}$ is best analyzed in terms of dark and bright-state 

907: polaritons \cite{brightpolar}

908: \begin{eqnarray}

909: P_D &=& {\Omega_2 a - g_2 \sqrt{N} S_2 \over \sqrt {g_2^2 N + \Omega_2^2}}, \nonumber \\

910: P_B &=& {g_2 \sqrt{N} a + \Omega_2 S_2 \over \sqrt {g_2^2 N + \Omega_2^2}},  

911: \label{polaritons}

912: \end{eqnarray}

913: which are superpositions of photonic and atomic excitations $\hat{a}$ and 

914: $S_2=\Sigma_{gb_2}/\sqrt{N}$.. 

915: In particular, $H_{res}$

916: has an important family of dark-states: 

917: \begin{eqnarray}

918: |D^n\rangle \sim (P_D^\dagger)^n |g\rangle|{\rm vac}\rangle

919: \label{dark}

920: \end{eqnarray}

921: with zero eigenenergies. This means that once in the dark state, the system 

922: stays in the dark state. Note that all other eigenstates of $H_{res}$ 

923: have, in general, non-vanishing interaction energy.

924: Under conditions of Raman resonance and sufficiently slow excitation 

925: (``adiabatic condition'', see Appendix D for details) 

926: the Stokes photons emitted by Raman scattering, Eq.(\ref{hamrameff}),  will 

927: therefore couple  solely to the dark-states (\ref{dark}). In this case

928: the coherent part of the evolution of the entire system is described by an

929: effective 

930: Hamiltonian: 

931: \begin{eqnarray}

932: H_{eff} = -i \hbar \xi (P_D^\dagger S_1^\dagger - S_1 P_D), 

933: \label{eff} 

934: \end{eqnarray}

935: with $\xi = \Omega_1 \Omega_2/ \Delta  \times g_1 \sqrt{N}/  

936: \sqrt{g_2^2 N + \Omega_2^2}$ (without loss of generality, $\xi$ was chosen

937: imaginary here for simplified calculations). 

938: The Hamiltonian (\ref{eff}) describes the coherent

939: process of generation of pairs of excitations involving polaritons and 

940: spin-flipped atoms. 

941: Note that for small number of excitations the spin waves and

942: polaritons obey bosonic commutation relations and this Hamiltonian is formally 

943: equivalent to that describing optical parametric amplification (OPA) of two

944: modes \cite{Walls-Milburn}. 

945: In the non-bosonic limit, this Hamiltonian is also analogous to the 

946: ``counter-twisting'' model of (\ref{ctham}).

947: In appendix D we show that the coupled equations for the polariton $P_D$

948: and the spin flip $S_1$ are given by 

949: 

950: \begin{eqnarray}

951: \dot{S}_1^\dagger &=& (\frac{|g_1|^2}{|g_2|^2}\gamma_L-\gamma_L-i\delta_1)

952: S_1^\dagger + \xi P_D +{\tilde F}_{S_1}^\dagger(t) 

953: \label{finspin}

954: \\

955: \dot{P}_D &=& -(\kappa/\eta+\gamma_L+i\delta_2)P_D +\xi S_1^\dagger +

956: {\tilde F}_D(t)

957: \label{finpol}

958: \end{eqnarray}

959: 

960: where the polariton decay rate includes an atomic part $\gamma_L$ and a

961: photonic part $\kappa/\eta$ due to leakage of photons out of the medium

962: (at a rate reduced by the factor $\eta=|g_2|^2N/|\Omega_2|^2$ equal to  

963: the ratio of vacuum light velocity to the group

964: velocity of slowly propagating Stokes photons). 

965: The spin flip operator

966: equation (\ref{finspin}) is seen to

967: contain both a decay term and a gain term due to spontaneous emission into 

968: the bright polariton mode. Note that this apparent decrease in dissipation

969: is however accompanied by increased fluctuations denoted by the new noise

970: force operator ${\tilde F}_{S_1}(t)$.

971: The effective detuning between

972: the polariton and spin flip mode is seen to correspond to the difference

973: in two-photon detunings

974: $\delta_1-\delta_2$.

975: 

976: We now consider the scenario in which the system is evolving for a time $\tau$ 

977: under the Hamiltonian $H_{eff}$, after which both fields are turned off. 

978: If the  procedure is adiabatic  upon turn-off of the coupling fields 

979: $\Omega_{1,2}$ the polaritons are converted into pure spin excitations 

980: $P_D \rightarrow S_2$. Hence the entire procedure will correspond to the 

981: following state of the system:

982: \begin{eqnarray}

983: |\Psi\rangle = && { 1\over \cosh\xi\tau} \sum_n (\tanh\xi\tau)^n {1 \over n!}

984: (P_D^\dagger)^n (S_1^\dagger)^n |g\rangle|{\rm vac}\rangle \nonumber \\

985:  && \rightarrow 

986: { 1\over \cosh\xi\tau} \sum_n (\tanh\xi\tau)^n |n_{b_1},n_{b_2} \rangle|{\rm vac}\rangle.

987: \end{eqnarray}

988: Here $|n_{b_1},n_{b_2} \rangle = 1/n! (S_2^+)^n (S_1^+)^n |g\rangle$ are 

989: Dicke-like 

990: symmetric states of atomic ensemble and we assumed $n_{b_1,b_2} \ll N$.

991: For non-zero $\xi \tau$ this state describes an entangled state, 

992: for which relative fluctuations between the two modes 

993: decreases exponentially to values well below the standard quantum limit 

994: (SQL) corresponding to uncorrelated atoms.

995: 

996: The present technique can also be viewed as a new mechanism for 

997: coherent ``collisions'' \cite{Meystre}

998: between atoms mediated by light. In particular, the case when 

999: atomic pairs are excited into two different levels 

1000: (as e.g. in Fig. 4a) closely resembles coherent spin-changing 

1001: interactions that occur in degenerate atomic samples \cite{Ketterle}, 

1002: whereas the case

1003: when atomic pairs are stimulated into the identical state (Fig. 4b) 

1004: is reminiscent of dissociation of a molecular condensate 

1005: \cite{Heinzen}. 

1006: To put this analogy in perspective we note 

1007: that the rate of the present optically induced process can exceed that of 

1008: weak interatomic interactions by orders of magnitude. Therefore the 

1009: present work may open up interesting new possibilities 

1010: for studying  many-body phenomena of strongly interacting atoms. 

1011: 

1012: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1013: 

1014: \begin{figure}[ht]

1015: \centerline{\epsfig{file=fig6.eps,width=8.5cm}}

1016:  \vspace*{2ex}

1017:  \caption{(a) Quadrature variance $\Delta Y_+^2$ vs. single-photon detuning

1018: $\Delta$ and interaction time $\xi t$, (b) same for $\Delta=\Delta_{opt}$ and

1019: $\delta_1=\delta_2$ showing maximum squeezing $\Delta Y_+^2\simeq 0.02$

1020: (for $\sqrt{g^2N/\gamma\kappa}=100$), (c) Number of excitations pumped

1021: in the system vs. time (same conditions as in b) and (d) $\Delta Y_+(t^*)^2$

1022: vs. two-photon detuning ${\bar \delta}\equiv (\delta_1-\delta_2)/2$ for

1023: $\Delta=\Delta_{opt}$ and where $t^*$ gives maximum squeezing.}

1024: \end{figure}

1025: 

1026: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1027: 

1028: To quantify the resulting correlations established between the polariton mode

1029: $P_D$ and the pure spin flip mode $S_1$, we introduce the quadratures of both

1030: modes (which are bosonic for small number of excitations) in direct analogy to

1031: the optical parametric case. We define 

1032: the quadratures $X_1=(S_1+S_1^+)/\sqrt{2}$, $Y_1=i(S_1-S_1^+)/\sqrt{2}$

1033: and similarly for the polarition mode;

1034: these can be measured e.g. by converting spin excitations to light. 

1035: Correlations between the modes appear due to dynamical evolution and 

1036: squeezing is found in certain quadratures of the sum and difference modes 

1037: $X_-=(X_1-X_D)/\sqrt{2}$ and $Y_+=(Y_1+Y_D)\sqrt{2}$. In the language of

1038: harmonic oscillators, the positions in mode $1$ and $2=D$ are correlated 

1039: ($X_1\simeq X_D$), while the momenta are anti-correlated ($Y_1\simeq -Y_D$).

1040: For small number 

1041: of excitations the sum and difference modes obey standard commutation 

1042: relations $\left[X_\alpha,Y_\beta\right]=-i\delta_{\alpha,\beta}$ 

1043: where $\alpha,\beta=+,-\,{\rm or}\,1,D$. A quadrature $Y_\pm$ is squeezed 

1044: when  $\Delta Y_\pm(t)^2<1/2$ and the Heisenberg limit corresponds to

1045: $\Delta Y_\pm(t)^2\sim 1/N$.  

1046: 

1047: We find that squeezing is optimal under 

1048: conditions of four-photon resonance 

1049: ($\delta_1=\delta_2$) and in the limit of $\eta\gg 1$ (Fig. 6).   

1050: Evolution leads to squeezing of $Y_+$ and $X_-$, anti-squeezing of $Y_-$

1051: and 

1052: $X_+$. The squeezing in $Y_+$ reaches a minimum value at $t=t^*$ after 

1053: which the growing fluctuations in $X_+$ give rise to increased noise in 

1054: $Y_+$. 

1055: Note that the total number of excitations (both modes) in the system, 

1056: equal to $\langle X_+^2+X_-^2+Y_+^2+Y_-^2 \rangle$,

1057: grows exponentially with time (Fig. 6c). 

1058: Specifically, in the case $g_1=g_2=g$ and thus

1059: $\gamma_1=\gamma_2\equiv\gamma$, for $\xi t>1$, we have:

1060: 

1061: \begin{eqnarray}

1062: \left(\Delta Y_+(t)\right)^2 &=&1/2\left\{e^{-2\xi t} + 

1063: \frac{3\gamma_L+\kappa/\eta}{2\xi}\right. \\ \nonumber

1064: &+& \left. \left(\frac{\gamma_L+\kappa/\eta}{2\xi}\right)^2e^{2\xi t}\right\}

1065: \label{quadt}

1066: \end{eqnarray}

1067: 

1068: where we have neglected terms of higher order in $\gamma_L/\xi$ and 

1069: $\kappa/(\eta\xi)$.

1070: The maximum amount of squeezing is obtained after an interaction time 

1071: $t^*$ such that $e^{-2\xi t^*}=(\gamma_L+\kappa/\eta)/2\xi$ and is given by 

1072: 

1073: \begin{equation}

1074: (\Delta Y_+)^2=\frac{5\gamma_L+3\kappa/\eta}{4\xi}

1075: \label{squeez1}

1076: \end{equation}

1077: 

1078: i.e. of the order of the damping rate divided by the coherent interaction rate.

1079: 

1080: Since both the interaction parameter $\xi$ and the relaxation rate of the

1081: polariton $\gamma_D=\gamma_L+\kappa/\eta$ depend on the single photon

1082: detuning $\Delta$ (Fig. 6a), we find that squeezing is optimized for 

1083: \begin{equation}

1084: \Delta_{opt}=\gamma\sqrt{\frac{5|\Omega_1|^2}{3|\Omega_2|^2}\frac{|g|^2N}

1085: {\gamma\kappa}}

1086: \end{equation}

1087: and with this optimal value of the detuning, the squeezing reaches a minimum

1088: value of  

1089: \begin{equation}

1090: \left(\Delta Y_{+opt}\right)^2 = \frac{\sqrt{15/4}}

1091: {\sqrt{|g|^2N/\gamma\kappa}}.

1092: \label{maxsqueez}

1093: \end{equation} 

1094: Note that the denominator is equal to the atomic

1095: density-length product multiplied by the empty cavity finesse and can

1096: easily 

1097: exceed $10^4$ even for modest values of the density-length product and

1098: cavity finesse. We further emphasize that typical generation rate 

1099: resulting in such optimal squeezing

1100: $\Omega_1\Omega_2/\Delta_{opt}$ can easily be on the order of fraction of

1101: MHz.  In such a case other decoherence mechanisms are negligible.    

1102: Doppler shifts can also be disregarded as long as all fields are 

1103: co-propagating. 

1104: 

1105: For the ``degenerate'' version of the interaction (i.e. with identical final 

1106: states for the spin flips, see Fig. 4b), the effective hamiltonian can be

1107: written as

1108: 

1109: \begin{equation} 

1110: H_{eff} = i\hbar\xi(\hat{S}^{\dagger 2}-\hat{S}^2)

1111: \end{equation}

1112: 

1113: where the limit $\eta\gg 1$ has been used to write $P_D\simeq -S$, with

1114: $S=1/\sqrt{N}\Sigma_{gb}$ the spin flip operator. In this 

1115: case the correlations lead to squeezing of $X=(S+S^\dagger)/\sqrt{2}$ and

1116: anti-squeezing of $Y=i(S-S^\dagger)/\sqrt{2}$. The analysis for this

1117: configuration is

1118: very similar to the non-degenerate version, in particular the maximum amount

1119: of squeezing achievable is also given by an expression of the form 

1120: (\ref{maxsqueez}).

1121: 

1122: We can now obtain a condition for achieving Heisenberg-limited spin

1123: squeezed

1124: states, i.e. $\left(\Delta Y_{+opt}\right)^2\simeq 1/N$. We see from 

1125: (\ref{squeez1}) that this requires

1126: 

1127: \begin{equation}

1128: \xi \sim N\Gamma

1129: \end{equation}

1130: 

1131: where $\Gamma=(5\gamma_L+4\kappa/\eta)/4$ is the effective damping rate of the

1132: system. This is in complete agreement with the estimate based on our

1133: simple bosonic model of section III (\ref{heislimit}). 

1134: In terms of the single photon Rabi

1135: frequency $g$, the cavity decay rate $\kappa$, the spontaneous emission rate 

1136: $\gamma$ and the number of atoms $N$, the condition for achieving some

1137: squeezing i.e. $(\Delta Y_+)^2<1/2$ is

1138: 

1139: \begin{equation}

1140: |g|^2N > \kappa\gamma

1141: \end{equation}

1142: 

1143: which can be easily achieved in the laboratory since it simply

1144: corresponds to the condition that the

1145: density length product multiplied by the cavity finesse be larger than 

1146: one. 

1147: In the cavity QED regime of strong coupling $|g|^2\sim\kappa\gamma$, very

1148: strong quantum correlations i.e. $(\Delta Y_+)^2\sim 1/\sqrt{N}$

1149: between atoms can be produced. 

1150: In order to obtain Heisenberg limited spin squeezed states i.e.

1151: $(\Delta Y_+)^2 \sim 1/N$, one requires a more stringent condition

1152: 

1153: \begin{equation}

1154: |g|^2\sim N\kappa\gamma

1155: \end{equation}

1156: 

1157: which can be fulfilled only in the strong coupling regime of cavity QED

1158: for a limited number of atoms. Note that this regime has been achieved

1159: experimentally by

1160: several groups \cite{cavityQED} and would allow for Heisenberg limited

1161: spin squeezing for as many as $\sim 10^3$ atoms.

1162: We have analyzed in this paper the situation of a running-wave

1163: cavity, so that all atoms couple equally apart from a possible phase to

1164: the cavity mode irrespective of their position.

1165: In order to fulfill the cavity QED regime, small cavity volume is needed

1166: i.e. standing wave cavities.

1167: For atoms in such a cavity the coupling to the cavity mode is position

1168: dependent and it becomes necessary to localize atoms accurately at the 

1169: antinodes of a trapping mode. Note that significant experimental progress

1170: has been made towards this direction by several groups \cite{1atom}. 

1171: Once the atoms are well localized in the cavity,

1172: the interaction can proceed via a neighbouring mode $b$ (e.g. different

1173: from the trapping mode $a$) so that

1174: for atoms localized within a small region in the cavity the two modes have

1175: essentially the same wavelength and atoms would therefore couple equally

1176: to the $b$ mode as well, irrespective of their position. 

1177: 

1178: \section{Discussion and Conclusion}

1179: 

1180: We have reviewed Ramsey spectroscopy and the use of spin squeezed states

1181: in precision measurements of this type. With the experimental motivation

1182: of minimizing the phase accuracy in phase estimation with Ramsey

1183: fringes, we introduced a particular class of squeezed states. These states

1184: lead to Heisenberg limited phase accuracy and we developed various

1185: pictorial representations for them. The strong similarities of these

1186: representations of spin squeezed states to those of squeezed states of

1187: light suggests an analogy extending to the type of interaction that gives

1188: rise to squeezing. We are thus lead to consider the so-called "counter

1189: twisting" Hamiltonian, which has been shown to lead to maximal spin

1190: squeezing. We have studied this model for spin squeezing in the presence

1191: of a dissipation mechanism and analyzed the effect of damping and finite

1192: system size on the amount of squeezing achievable with such an

1193: interaction. The analysis was based on a decorrelation approximation to

1194: the BBGKY hierarchy of equations of motion, followed by the use of a

1195: linear transformation which in the limit of large number of atoms

1196: $1/N\rightarrow 0$ "contracts" the angular momentum operators onto bosonic

1197: operators. This allows for the systematic inclusion of finite system

1198: size effects. It appears that Heisenberg limited spin squeezed states may

1199: be produced when the single atom nonlinearity exceeds the single atom loss

1200: rate. In this case the maximum number of atoms that can be lost before

1201: quantum correlations are destroyed to the point of compromising the spin

1202: squeezing is of the order $\Delta N\sim\log{N}$. For spin squeezing at a

1203: more modest level than the Heisenberg limit, larger number of atoms may be

1204: lost without compromising the squeezing, indicating the stronger 

1205: sensitivity of spin squeezed states to dissipation for larger amounts of

1206: squeezing. 

1207: 

1208: We have also presented in detail a scheme based on the interaction of

1209: coherent classical light with an optically dense ensemble of atoms that

1210: leads to an effective coherent spin-changing interaction involving pairs

1211: of atoms. Atoms may be transferred to the same final state leading to spin

1212: squeezing (analogous to squeezing of light by degenerate OPO) or to

1213: different final states in this case leading to quantum correlations

1214: between

1215: different atomic modes (analogous to quantum correlations between

1216: electromagnetic modes by non-degenerate OPO). 

1217: We have shown that this process is robust with respect to realistic 

1218: decoherence mechanisms and can result in rapid generation of correlated 

1219: (spin squeezed) atomic ensembles. 

1220: The amount of correlations created by this effective interaction can be

1221: simply expressed in terms of the single photon Rabi frequency $g$, the

1222: atomic spontaneous emission rate $\gamma$ and the cavity decay rate

1223: $\kappa$. 

1224: We find that

1225: the generation of spin squeezed states requires $g^2N\sim\kappa\gamma$,

1226: which can easily be achieved in low finesse cavities with e.g. room

1227: temperature atomic vapours. Very strongly correlated states can be

1228: produced when the strong coupling regime $g^2\sim\kappa\gamma$ of cavity

1229: QED is achieved and the generation of Heisenberg limited spin squeezed

1230: states requires $g^2\sim N\kappa\gamma$.

1231: The effective interaction rate $\xi=\Omega_1\Omega_2/\Delta$ which depends

1232: on the Rabi-frequency of two applied classical fields $\Omega_{1,2}$ and a

1233: detuning from an atomic transition $\Delta$ can be fast and is

1234: controllable.

1235: Furthermore, the resulting spin excitations can be easily converted into 

1236: photons on demand, which facilitates applications in quantum information

1237: processing. 

1238: Possible applications involving high-precision measurements in atomic clocks 

1239: can be also foreseen.

1240: 

1241: We thank M.Fleischhauer, J.I.Cirac, V.Vuletic, S.Yelin and P.Zoller 

1242: for helpful  discussions. 

1243: This work was supported by the NSF through the grant to the ITAMP. 

1244: 

1245: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1246: 

1247: \appendix

1248: 

1249: \section{Ramsey Spectroscopy}

1250: 

1251: In Ramsey spectroscopy \cite{Wineland}, a collection of $N$ two-level atoms 

1252: are made to interact 

1253: with two separated fields (in time or in space). The lower and upper 

1254: states (refered to as ground and excited state) have

1255: an energy difference $\hbar\omega_0$ and atoms will thus acquire a different 

1256: dynamical phase $e^{-i E t/\hbar}$ depending on which state they are in. 

1257: The effect of properly chosen electromagnetic fields is to perform a 

1258: transformation that prepares the atoms 

1259: in a superposition of the two states $|g\rangle$ and $|e\rangle$. 

1260: The different

1261: parts of the wavefunction of atoms (corresponding to the ground and excited

1262: state) acquire a relative phase due to dynamical evolution and when the 

1263: inverse transformation is applied, an interference effect is obtained.  

1264: An exact parallel with the Mach-Zender interferometer can be drawn

1265: \cite{Dowling}: 

1266: the transformation preparing atoms in a superposition of ground and excited 

1267: states

1268: is equivalent to the transformation that lets a photon incident 

1269: on a beam splitter

1270: explore the two arms of an interferometer. The relative phase acquired in

1271: the two atomic states during free evolution of duration $T$ is the equivalent 

1272: of the relative phase acquired by photons travelling in the arms of the 

1273: interferometer.

1274: Finally, the second pulse that performs the inverse

1275: transformation on atoms is the equivalent of the recombination of signals from 

1276: the two interferometer arms on a beam splitter. 

1277: At the end of this sequence, the

1278: number of atoms in either states, equivalent to the number of photons

1279: from either output of the final beam splitter, is measured. 

1280: In this way, the signal 

1281: measured depends on the acquired relative phase which can thus be estimated 

1282: with some accuracy.

1283: 

1284: We will now quantify this more precisely: let the frequency of the applied 

1285: electromagnetic pulses be $\omega$, 

1286: and the time delay between the two zones of interaction be $T$. 

1287: The duration and strength of the applied fields are

1288: chosen so as to lead to $\pi/2$ pulses, i.e. transformation of the

1289: atomic state according to

1290: 

1291: \begin{eqnarray}

1292: |e\rangle & \rightarrow & \frac{|e\rangle -i |g\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}

1293: \nonumber \\

1294: |g\rangle & \rightarrow & \frac{|e\rangle +i |g\rangle}{\sqrt{2}}.

1295: \label{pi2pulse}

1296: \end{eqnarray}

1297: 

1298: During their free evolution between the two zones, atoms in the ground and

1299: excited states acquire a relative phase $\phi$ which, in a frame rotating

1300: with the frequency of the applied field, is $\phi=(\omega-\omega_0)T$.

1301: 

1302: Before entering the first interaction zone, the atoms are prepared in

1303: their lower state $|g\rangle$ and at the exit of the second zone, the

1304: number of atoms in states $|e\rangle$ and $|g\rangle$ is measured. 

1305: 

1306: For simplicity, we consider the case when the first zone leads to a $\pi/2$

1307: pulse and the second one a $-\pi/2$ pulse. 

1308: The picture of angular momentum is particularly well suited to discuss the

1309: Ramsey interferometric scheme and leads to an intuitive pictorial 

1310: representation of the scheme.

1311: The Schwinger angular momentum operators are defined as

1312: 

1313: \begin{eqnarray}

1314: \hat{J}_x & = & (\hat{\Sigma}_{eg}+\hat{\Sigma}_{ge})/2 \nonumber \\

1315: \hat{J}_y & = & (\hat{\Sigma}_{eg}-\hat{\Sigma}_{ge})/2i \nonumber \\

1316: \hat{J}_z & = & (\hat{\Sigma}_{ee}-\hat{\Sigma}_{gg})/2

1317: \end{eqnarray}

1318: 

1319: where $\hat{\Sigma}_{\mu\nu}=\sum_{j=1}^{N}|\mu\rangle_{jj}\langle \nu|$

1320: are collective operators. In terms of these, a single $\pi/2$ pulse

1321: (\ref{pi2pulse}) is

1322: represented by a rotation of the pseudo angular momentum vector around the 

1323: x-axis

1324: by an angle $\pi/2$. For a single atom we have the correspondence 

1325: $|\uparrow\rangle=|e\rangle$ and $|\downarrow\rangle=|g\rangle$. Under a 

1326: $\pi/2$ rotation about the x-axis, the state $\uparrow\rangle$ transforms

1327: to $|J_y=-1/2\rangle=(|\uparrow\rangle-i|\downarrow\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ as

1328: indicated in (\ref{pi2pulse}). For $N$ atoms, we can think of the $N$ 

1329: individual spin ${\tiny \frac{1}{2}}$ particles combining to form a pseudo 

1330: angular momentum 

1331: vector of length $J=N/2$. The state of the collection of $N$ atoms can then be 

1332: represented by appropriate superpositions of the states $|J,M\rangle$ where 

1333: $-J\leq M\leq J$. Of course, only states within the completely symmetric 

1334: subspace of the full $2^N$-dimensional Hilbert space can be represented in 

1335: this way, which is justified since the coherent interaction of the 

1336: electromagnetic fields with the atoms couple only to this symmetric subspace

1337: (i.e. all atoms couple equally to the fields).

1338: 

1339: 

1340: Free evolution in the rotating frame corresponds to

1341: rotation of the angular momentum around the z-axis at an angular velocity

1342: $\omega-\omega_0$. The whole Ramsey scheme can then be 

1343: represented by the sequence: $\pi/2$ rotation about x-axis, $\phi$ rotation

1344: about the z-axis and $-\pi/2$ rotation about the x-axis. This is the 

1345: transformation perfomed by the unitary operator

1346: 

1347: \begin{equation}

1348: \hat{U}(\phi)=e^{i \pi/2 \hat{J}_x}e^{-i\phi \hat{J}_z}e^{-i \pi/2

1349: \hat{J}_x}

1350: \end{equation}

1351: 

1352: where $\phi=(\omega-\omega_0)T$ as before.

1353: At the end of the scheme, the number of atoms in states $|e\rangle$ and

1354: $|g\rangle$ is measured, or equivalently their difference $\hat{J}_z(\phi)$ 

1355: where

1356: 

1357: \begin{eqnarray}

1358: \hat{J}_z(\phi) &=& \hat{U}(\phi)^\dagger\hat{J}_z\hat{U}(\phi) \nonumber

1359: \\

1360: &=& \hat{J}_z\cos\phi-\hat{J}_x\sin\phi .

1361: \end{eqnarray}

1362: 

1363: The Ramsey signal is thus

1364: 

1365: \begin{equation}

1366: \langle \hat{J}_z(\phi)\rangle = \langle \hat{J}_z \rangle \cos\phi - 

1367: \langle \hat{J}_x \rangle\sin\phi

1368: \label{jzphi}

1369: \end{equation}

1370: 

1371: and its variance $\Delta J_z(\phi)$ is

1372: 

1373: \begin{eqnarray}

1374: \Delta J_z(\phi) &=& \left[(\Delta J_z)^2\cos^2\phi+(\Delta J_x)^2\sin^2\phi

1375: \right.

1376: \nonumber \\

1377: &-& \left. \cos\phi\sin\phi(\langle \hat{J}_x \hat{J}_z+\hat{J}_z \hat{J}_x \rangle -2 \langle \hat{J}_z \rangle 

1378: \langle \hat{J}_x \rangle) \right]^{1/2} 

1379: \end{eqnarray}

1380: 

1381: where the variance is defined as $(\Delta A)^2=\langle \hat{A}^2 \rangle - 

1382: \langle \hat{A} \rangle^2$.

1383: From the signal one wants

1384: to estimate the phase $\phi$ and thus the frequency difference 

1385: $\omega-\omega_0$. The phase

1386: accuracy achievable from such a measurement is related to the signal

1387: variance (the ``noise'') by

1388: 

1389: \begin{equation}

1390: \delta\phi(\phi)=\frac{\Delta J_z(\phi)}{|\frac{\partial \langle 

1391: \hat{J}_z(\phi)

1392: \rangle}{\partial\phi}|} .

1393: \end{equation}

1394: 

1395: For states such that $\langle \hat{J}_x \rangle =0$ (all the states we

1396: will consider in this paper are of this type), the sensitivity 

1397: $|\partial \langle \hat{J}_z(\phi) \rangle /\partial\phi|$ is maximal for 

1398: $\phi=\pm\pi/2$ and the phase accuracy can be expressed as

1399: 

1400: \begin{equation}

1401: \delta\phi(\pm\pi/2) = \frac{\Delta J_x}{|\langle \hat{J}_z \rangle |}.

1402: \label{dphimin}

1403: \end{equation}

1404: 

1405: Since $\Delta J_x$ and $\langle \hat{J}_z \rangle$ depend on the initial

1406: state,

1407: we see that different initial states lead to different phase accuracies. 

1408: Of particular importance is the accuracy achievable when all atoms are prepared

1409: in the same initial state. In this case the state of the atomic ensemble is a 

1410: pure state, but it is however an uncorrelated state 

1411: of the atomic ensemble (i.e. it can be

1412: factorized $|\Psi\rangle = \prod_{j=1}^{N} |\psi\rangle_j$). 

1413: 

1414: 

1415: Consider the case of uncorrelated atoms for which all atoms have been 

1416: prepared in the lower state $|g\rangle$, 

1417: sometimes called a Bloch state.

1418: The state of the atomic ensemble can thus be expressed in terms of 

1419: eigenstates of the collective angular momentum operators as

1420: 

1421: \begin{equation}

1422: \prod_{j=1}^{N}|g\rangle_j = |J=N/2,J_z=-N/2\rangle

1423: \label{uncostate}

1424: \end{equation}

1425: 

1426: where $J=N/2$ since there are $N$ $2$-level atoms, equivalent to $N$ spin 

1427: ${\tiny \frac{1}{2}}$ particles.

1428: For such a state, the expectation value of the angular momentum operators and

1429: their variances are calculated to be 

1430: $\langle \hat{J}_x \rangle = \langle \hat{J}_y \rangle = 0$, $\langle \hat{J}_z \rangle = -J$,

1431: $\Delta J_x = \Delta J_y = \sqrt{J/2}$ and $\Delta J_z = 0$. The signal and 

1432: its variance are thus

1433: 

1434: \begin{eqnarray}

1435: \langle \hat{J}_z(\phi) \rangle &=& -J\cos\phi \nonumber \\

1436: \Delta J_z(\phi) &=& \sqrt{J/2}\sin\phi .

1437: \end{eqnarray}

1438: 

1439: The maximum sensitivity is achieved at $\phi=\pm\pi/2$

1440: 

1441: \begin{equation}

1442: \delta\phi(\pm\pi/2) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2J}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}

1443: \end{equation}

1444: 

1445: which is the standard quantum limit (SQL). Performing the

1446: experiment on $N$ independent atoms all prepared in the same initial

1447: state is thus equivalent to repeating the experiment on one atom $N$ times and

1448: leads to an expected $1/\sqrt{N}$ factor of improvement in accuracy

1449: over the one atom result $\Delta S_x/\langle \hat{S}_z \rangle =1$. This

1450: is the best accuracy achievable with atoms all prepared in the same

1451: initial pure quantum state. The number of atoms detected in the upper state, 

1452: given by $\langle \hat{N}_+(\phi) \rangle=N/2+\langle \hat{J}_z(\phi) \rangle$,

1453: and its variance are shown in Fig.1a.

1454: 

1455: There is a lower bound on the phase accuracy, set by Heisenberg's

1456: uncertainty principle, $\Delta J_i \Delta J_j \geq {\tiny 

1457: \frac{1}{2}}|\langle [\hat{J}_i,\hat{J}_j]\rangle |$ where $i,j=x,y,z$. It

1458: is straightforward to show that 

1459: 

1460: \begin{equation}

1461: \delta\phi\geq\frac{1}{N}

1462: \end{equation}

1463: 

1464: which is known as the Heisenberg limit. 

1465: 

1466: We now see from (\ref{dphimin})

1467: that in order to surpass the SQL, the atomic ensemble must be 

1468: prepared in a state such that 

1469: $\Delta J_x/|\langle J_z \rangle | \leq 1/\sqrt{N}$, which is a necessary and

1470: sufficient condition for entanglement of an atomic ensemble 

1471: \cite{squ-cold}. It is thus important to have a state for which the 

1472: variance $\Delta J_x$ is reduced compared to its value for the uncorrelated 

1473: state (\ref{uncostate}) while maintaining a large value for 

1474: $\langle J_z \rangle$

1475: so that the amplitude of the signal $\langle \hat{J}_z(\phi) \rangle =

1476: \langle \hat{J}_z \rangle \cos\phi$ is not compromised \cite{Holland}. 

1477: Such states which have reduced uncertainty in one observable $\Delta

1478: J_x$ (at the expense of the conjugate observable $\Delta J_y$ having

1479: increased fluctuations) have been called spin-squeezed states \cite{Ueda}. 

1480: 

1481: 

1482: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1483: 

1484: \section{Spin squeezed states - Wigner function representation}

1485: 

1486: We now consider the Wigner function representation of the states 

1487: $|\psi(a)\rangle$. The Wigner distribution of general angular-momentum states

1488: \cite{Agarwal} is obtained from an expansion of the density operator in terms

1489: of the multipole operators

1490: 

1491: \begin{equation}

1492: \hat{\rho}=\sum_{k=0}^{2J}\sum_{q=-k}^{+k}\rho_{kq}\hat{T}_{kq}

1493: \end{equation}

1494: 

1495: where the multipole operators are

1496: 

1497: \begin{eqnarray}

1498: \hat{T}_{kq} & = & \sum_{m=-J}^{+J}\sum_{m'=-J}^{+J}(-1)^{J-m}\sqrt{2k+1}

1499: \left(\begin{array}{ccc}J & k & J \\ -m & q & m' \end{array}\right) 

1500: \nonumber \\

1501: & \times & |J,m\rangle\langle J,m'|

1502: \end{eqnarray}

1503: 

1504: and $\left(\begin{array}{ccc}J & k & J \\ -m & q & m' \end{array}\right)$ is

1505: the usual Wigner $3j$ symbol. The wigner distribution is then given by

1506: 

1507: \begin{eqnarray}

1508: W(\theta,\phi) &=& \sum_{k=0}^{2J}\sum_{q=-k}^{+k}Y_k^q(\theta,\phi)\rho_{kq}

1509: \end{eqnarray}

1510: 

1511: where 

1512: $\rho_{kq}=\langle \hat{T}_{kq} \rangle = {\rm Tr}[\hat{\rho}\hat{T}_{kq}]$ and

1513: $Y_k^q(\theta,\phi)$ are the spherical harmonics.

1514: In Fig. 7, the Wigner function for the state $|\psi(-1)\rangle$ clearly

1515: shows 

1516: the way in which this state has a large negative expectation value for 

1517: $\hat{J}_z$, reduced variance in $\hat{J}_x$ and increased variance in 

1518: $\hat{J}_y$. 

1519: 

1520: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1521: 

1522: \begin{figure}[ht]

1523: \begin{center}

1524: \epsfig{file=figB1.eps,width=8.5cm}

1525: \leavevmode

1526: \end{center}

1527: \vspace*{2ex}

1528: \caption{Wigner function representation of the state $|\psi(a)\rangle$ with 

1529: $a=-1)$. Plotted is the surface $r(\theta,\phi)=W(\theta,\phi)$, showing the

1530: large and negative value of $\langle \hat{J}_z \rangle$, reduced variance 

1531: $\Delta J_x$ and correspondingly increased variance $\Delta J_y$.}

1532: \end{figure}

1533: 

1534: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1535: 

1536: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1537: 

1538: \section{Adiabatic elimination of excited state in Raman scattering}

1539: 

1540: From the Hamitonian (\ref{hamram}), we obtain the equations of motion for

1541: the cavity mode and the ground state coherence $\Sigma_{gb_1}$

1542: 

1543: \begin{eqnarray}

1544: \dot{a} &=& -\kappa a -i g_1^* \Sigma_{b_1a_1} -i g_2^*\Sigma_{ga_2}+F_a(t)

1545: \\

1546: \dot{\Sigma}_{gb_1} &=& -(\gamma_0-i\delta_1)\Sigma_{gb_1}+i\Omega_1

1547: \Sigma_{a_1b_1}-i g_1^*a^\dagger \Sigma_{ga_1} \nonumber \\

1548: &+& F_{gb_1}(t)

1549: \label{c2}

1550: \end{eqnarray}

1551: 

1552: and the optical polarizations associated with Stokes emission evolve according

1553: to

1554: 

1555: \begin{eqnarray}

1556: \dot{\Sigma}_{b_1a_1} &=& -[\gamma-i(\Delta-\delta_1)]\Sigma_{b_1a_1}

1557: -i\Omega_1\Sigma_{b_1g}\nonumber \\

1558: &-& i g_1 a(\Sigma_{b_1b_1}-\Sigma_{a_1a_1})+

1559: F_{b_1a_1}(t) \\

1560: \dot{\Sigma}_{a_1g} &=& -(\gamma+i\Delta)\Sigma_{a_1g}-i\Omega_1^*

1561: (\Sigma_{a_1a_1}-\Sigma_{gg})\nonumber \\

1562: &+& i g_1^*a^\dagger\Sigma_{b_1g}+F_{a_1g}(t)

1563: \end{eqnarray}

1564: 

1565: where we assume that population in the excited state $|a_1\rangle$ decays 

1566: towards $|b_1\rangle$ at a rate $\gamma_1$, towards $|g\rangle$ at a rate 

1567: $\gamma_2$ and we assume a dephasing rate $\gamma_0$ for ground state 

1568: coherences ($\gamma=(\gamma_1+\gamma_2)/2$ and $\gamma\gg\gamma_0$).

1569: 

1570: 

1571: We proceed by adiabatic elimination of optical polarizations associated with

1572: Stokes emission. To this end we assume large single-photon 

1573: detuning $\Delta \gg \gamma$ and to first order in

1574: $\hat{a}$ we obtain ($\Sigma_{gg}\sim N$)

1575: \begin{eqnarray}

1576: \Sigma_{b_1a_1} &=& \frac{\Omega_1}{\Delta}(1-i\frac{\gamma}{\Delta})

1577: \Sigma_{b_1g}+i\frac{F_{b_1a_1}(t)}{\Delta} \\

1578: \Sigma_{a_1g} &=& \frac{\Omega_1^*}{\Delta}N(1+i\frac{\gamma}{\Delta})-i

1579: \frac{F_{a_1g}(t)}{\Delta}

1580: \end{eqnarray}

1581: 

1582: which we substitute in (\ref{c2}) and obtain for the ground state spin

1583: flip operator

1584: $S_1=\Sigma_{gb_1}/\sqrt{N}$

1585: 

1586: \begin{eqnarray}

1587: \dot{S_1} &=& -\left[(\gamma_0+\gamma_L)-i(\delta_1+\delta_L)\right] S_1

1588: -i\frac{g_1^*\sqrt{N}\Omega_1}{\Delta}a^\dagger \nonumber \\

1589: &+& {\bar F}_{S_1}(t)

1590: \end{eqnarray}

1591:  

1592: where $\gamma_L=\gamma|\Omega_1|^2/\Delta^2$ is an optical pumping rate,

1593: $\delta_L=|\Omega_1|^2/\Delta$ is the light shift and ${\bar F}_{S_1}(t)$

1594: is a modified noise force. Light shifts can be 

1595: incorporated in a redefinition of the energies and we ignore them in the 

1596: remainder of this paper. Since the ground state decoherence rate is typically

1597: very small, we also assume $\gamma_L\gg\gamma_0$ and in that limit the new

1598: $\delta$-correlated noise forces have correlations 

1599: 

1600: \begin{eqnarray}

1601: \langle {\bar F}_{S_1}(t){\bar F}_{S_1}^\dagger(t') \rangle &=& 2\gamma_L

1602: \frac{\gamma_2}{\gamma}\delta(t-t') \\

1603: \langle {\bar F}_{S_1}^\dagger(t){\bar F}_{S_1}(t') \rangle &=& 2\gamma_L

1604: \frac{\gamma_1}{\gamma}\delta(t-t')

1605: \end{eqnarray}

1606: 

1607: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1608: 

1609: \section{Adiabatic elimination of bright polariton}

1610: 

1611: After adiabatic elimination of the excited state $|a_1\rangle$, the

1612: relevant equations of motion are

1613: 

1614: \begin{eqnarray}

1615: \dot{S}_1^\dagger &=& -(\gamma_L+i\delta_1)S_1^\dagger+i\chi a + 

1616: {\bar F}_{S_1}^\dagger(t)

1617: \nonumber \\

1618: \dot{a} &=& -\kappa a-i\chi^*S_1^\dagger-ig_2^*\Sigma_{ga_2}+F_a(t)

1619: \nonumber \\

1620: \dot{S}_2 &=& -(\gamma_L+i\delta_2)S_2-i\frac{\Omega_2^*}{\sqrt{N}}

1621: \Sigma_{ga_2}+{\bar F}_{S_2}(t)

1622: \nonumber \\

1623: \dot{\Sigma}_{ga_2} &=& -(\gamma+i\delta_2)\Sigma_{ga_2}-i\Omega_2\sqrt{N}S_2

1624: -ig_2N a \nonumber \\

1625: &+& F_{ga_2}(t)

1626: \label{spineqns}

1627: \end{eqnarray}

1628: 

1629: where $S_2 = \Sigma_{gb_2}/\sqrt{N}$.

1630: 

1631: From (\ref{spineqns}) and (\ref{polaritons}) and in the limit of large

1632: ratio of 

1633: speed of light in vacuum to group velocity of Stokes photons 

1634: $\eta=|g_2|^2N/|\Omega_2|^2\gg1$, we obtain the equations of motion in terms

1635: of bright and dark polaritons

1636: 

1637: \begin{eqnarray}

1638: \dot{S}_1^\dagger &=& -(\gamma_L+i\delta_1)S_1^\dagger+

1639: i\chi(\frac{P_D}{\eta}+P_B) +F_{S_1}^\dagger(t) 

1640: \label{eqspinflip}

1641: \\

1642: \dot{P}_D &=& -(\kappa/\eta+\Gamma_2)P_D-i\frac{\chi^*}{\sqrt{\eta}}S_1^\dagger

1643: -\frac{\kappa-\Gamma_2}{\sqrt{\eta}}P_B\nonumber \\

1644: &+& F_D(t)

1645: \label{eqdarkpol}

1646: \\

1647: \dot{P}_B &=& -(\kappa+\Gamma_2/\eta)P_B-i\chi^*S_1^\dagger-ig_2\sqrt{N}

1648: {\tilde \Sigma}_{ga_2}\nonumber \\

1649: &+&F_B(t)

1650: \label{eqpolb} \\

1651: \dot{{\tilde \Sigma}}_{ga_2} &=& -\Gamma{\tilde \Sigma}_{ga_2}-ig_2\sqrt{N}P_B

1652: +{\tilde F}_{ga_2}(t)

1653: \label{eqoptcoh}

1654: \end{eqnarray}

1655: 

1656: where $\Gamma_2=\gamma_L+i\delta_2$, $\Gamma=\gamma+i\delta_2$ and 

1657: ${\tilde \Sigma}_{ga_2}=\Sigma_{ga_2}/\sqrt{N}$ and noise forces were

1658: modified

1659: appropriately. Note that in the picture of dark and bright polaritons,

1660: only

1661: the bright polariton is coupled to the excited state through the optical

1662: coherence $\Sigma_{ga_2}$.

1663: 

1664: Under adiabatic conditions, the bright polariton evolves slowly (on a typical

1665: timescale $T$) and we can solve perturbatively in $1/T$. The equations 

1666: (\ref{eqpolb}) and (\ref{eqoptcoh}) are of the form $\dot{{\bf x}}=

1667: -{\bf M}.{\bf x}+{\bf y}$, where ${\bf x}$ is the vector $(P_B,{\tilde

1668: \Sigma}_{ga_2})$, ${\bf M}$ is a $2\times 2$ matrix and ${\bf y}$ is a 

1669: source term 

1670: 

1671: \begin{eqnarray}

1672: \frac{d}{dt}

1673: \left[\begin{array}{c}P_B \\ {\tilde \Sigma}_{ga_2}\end{array}\right]

1674: &=&-\left(\begin{array}{cc}\kappa & ig_2\sqrt{N} \\ ig_2\sqrt{N} &

1675: \Gamma\end{array}\right)

1676: \left[\begin{array}{c}P_B \\ {\tilde \Sigma}_{ga_2}\end{array}\right]

1677: \nonumber \\

1678: &+&

1679: \left[\begin{array}{c}-i\chi^*S_1^\dagger-\frac{\kappa}{\eta}P_D+F_B(t) \\ 

1680: {\tilde F}_{ga_2}(t)\end{array}\right]

1681: \label{mateqn}

1682: \end{eqnarray}

1683: 

1684: where we have used $\kappa\gg\gamma_L$ and where $F_B(t)$ and ${\tilde

1685: F}_{ga_2}(t)$ are appropriate noise forces. 

1686: These equations can be solved 

1687: easily to first order by ${\bf x}^{(0)}(t)={\bf M}^{-1}.{\bf y}$, higher

1688: order approximations yielding ${\bf x}^{(n)}(t)={\bf M}^{-1}.[{\bf y}-

1689: \dot{{\bf x}}^{(n-1)}(t)]$.

1690: 

1691: We can rewrite 

1692: \begin{equation}

1693: \frac{|g_2|^2N}{\kappa\gamma} \sim 3\pi\times\left(\frac{N}{V}L\lambda^2\right)

1694: \times{\mathcal F}

1695: \end{equation}

1696: 

1697: i.e. the density length product multiplied by the cavity finesse, so 

1698: that with densities corresponding to room temperature atomic vapours, optical

1699: wavelengths and finesse of order $100$ this quantity is already of order  

1700: $\sim 10^4$.

1701: We can thus assume that $|g_2|^2N/(\kappa\gamma)\gg 1$ and solve in powers

1702: of $\kappa\gamma/(|g_2|^2N)$. 

1703: 

1704: We see from (\ref{mateqn}) that ${\bf x}^{(n)}(t)$ is of order

1705: $[\kappa\gamma/(|g_2|^2N)]^{(n+1)}$ and thus solving to lowest order we

1706: find

1707: 

1708: \begin{eqnarray}

1709: P_B &=& \frac{1}{|g_2|^2N}[-i\Gamma\chi^*S_1^\dagger-

1710: \frac{\kappa\Gamma}{\sqrt{\eta}}P_D+\Gamma F_B(t) \nonumber \\

1711: &-& ig_2F_{ga_2}(t)]

1712: \end{eqnarray}

1713: 

1714: so that when $\eta\gg 1$,

1715: 

1716: \begin{eqnarray}

1717: a &\simeq& \frac{P_D}{\eta}+P_B \nonumber \\

1718: &\simeq& \frac{P_D}{\eta}+\frac{1}{|g_2|^2N}[-i\Gamma\chi^*S_1^\dagger

1719: +\Gamma F_B(t) \nonumber \\

1720: &-& ig_2F_{ga_2}(t)].

1721: \end{eqnarray}

1722: 

1723: The coupled equations of motion for the dark state polariton (\ref{eqdarkpol})

1724: and the spin flip (\ref{eqspinflip}) then become

1725: 

1726: \begin{eqnarray}

1727: \dot{S}_1^\dagger &=& (\frac{|g_1|^2}{|g_2|^2}\gamma_L-\gamma_L-i\delta_1)

1728: S_1^\dagger + i\frac{\chi}{\sqrt{\eta}}P_D +{\tilde F}_{S_1}^\dagger(t) 

1729: \label{eqfinspin}

1730: \\

1731: \dot{P}_D &=& -(\kappa/\eta+\gamma_L+i\delta_2)P_D-i\frac{\chi^*}{\sqrt{\eta}}

1732: S_1^\dagger + {\tilde F}_D(t)

1733: \label{eqfinpol}

1734: \end{eqnarray}

1735: 

1736: where ${\tilde F}_{S_1}^\dagger(t)$ and ${\tilde F}_D(t)$ are modified noise

1737: forces with correlations

1738: 

1739: \begin{eqnarray}

1740: \langle {\tilde F}_D(t){\tilde F}_D^\dagger(t') \rangle &=& \frac{\kappa}{\eta}

1741: +2\gamma_L\frac{\gamma_2}{\gamma} \\

1742: \langle {\tilde F}_D^\dagger(t){\tilde F}_D(t') \rangle &=& 2\gamma_L\frac{\gamma_1}{\gamma} \\

1743: \langle {\tilde F}_{S_1}(t){\tilde F}_{S_1}^\dagger(t') \rangle &=& 2\gamma_L\frac{\gamma_2}{\gamma} \\

1744: \langle {\tilde F}_{S_1}^\dagger(t){\tilde F}_{S_1}(t') \rangle &=& 2\gamma_L\frac{\gamma_1}{\gamma} \\

1745: \end{eqnarray}

1746: 

1747: and all other correlations can be neglected. The coherent part of the 

1748: interaction can thus be obtained from an effective hamiltonian 

1749: 

1750: \begin{equation}

1751: H_{eff} = \frac{\hbar\chi}{\sqrt{\eta}}S_1P_D+{\rm h.c.}

1752: \end{equation}

1753: 

1754: where the interaction rate is $\chi/\sqrt{\eta}=g_1\Omega_1^*|\Omega_2|/(|g_2|

1755: \Delta)$.

1756: 

1757: We note (\ref{eqfinpol}) that cavity losses are strongly suppressed in the 

1758: limit $\eta \gg 1$.

1759: Indeed, subsequent to the large group velocity reduction \cite{slow-light}, 

1760: the polariton is almost purely atomic and the excitation leaks very slowly 

1761: out of the medium. 

1762: The equation of motion for coherence $S_1^+$ (\ref{eqfinspin}) contains 

1763: a loss term 

1764: (due to isotropic spontaneous emission) and a linear gain term (due to emission

1765: into bright polariton). 

1766: The two can compensate each other. However the linear phase-insensitive 

1767: amplification is also accompanied by

1768: correspondingly increased fluctuations, represented by new Langevin forces 

1769: $\tilde{F}_D(t),\tilde{F}_{S_1}^+(t)$. 

1770: In the case that $g_1=g_2$ and when all Rabi frequencies are taken to be

1771: real, we have the interaction rate

1772: $\xi=\chi/\sqrt{\eta}=\Omega_1\Omega_2/\Delta$.

1773: 

1774: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1775: 

1776: \def\etal{\textit{et al.}}

1777: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1778: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1779: 

1780: \bibitem{Kimble-Houches} H.J. Kimble, in {\it Fundamental systems in

1781: quantum optics}, edited by J. Dalibard, J.-M. Raimond and J. Zinn-Justin 

1782: (North-Holland 1990).

1783: 

1784: \bibitem{Walls-Milburn} D.F. Walls and G.J. Milburn, {\it Quantum Optics} (Springer, Berlin, 1994).

1785: 

1786: \bibitem{Q-teleport}

1787: K. Mattle {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76} 4656, (1996); 

1788: Z.Y.Ou {\it et. al}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 68} 

1789: 3663 (1992)

1790: 

1791: \bibitem{Longdist} L.-M. Duan, M.D. Lukin, J.I. Cirac and P. Zoller,

1792: quant-ph/0105105.

1793: 

1794: \bibitem{Ueda} M. Kitagawa and M. Ueda, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 47}, 5138 (1993).

1795: 

1796: \bibitem{Bouwmeester} D. Bouwmeester, A.K. Ekert, A. Zeilinger (eds.), 

1797: {\it The physics of quantum information}, (Springer , New York, 2000).

1798: 

1799: \bibitem{Nielsen-Chuang}  M.A. Nielsen and I.L. Chuang., {\it Quantum computation and quantum information}, (Cambridge University Press, New York, 2000). 

1800: 

1801: \bibitem{Wineland} D.J. Wineland, {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 46}, R6797 

1802: (1992); {\it ibid} {\bf 50}, 67 (1994); J.J. Bollinger {\it et al.}

1803: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 54} R4649 (1996); 

1804: S. F. Huelga {\it et al.} Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 3865 (1997); V.

1805: Meyer {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86} 5870 (2001).

1806: 

1807: \bibitem{Sachdev} S.Sachdev,  {\it Quantum phase transitions},  

1808: (Cambridge University Press, New York, 1999). 

1809: 

1810: \bibitem{Wineland2} C.A. Sackett {\it et al.}, Nature {\bf 404}, 256

1811: (2000).

1812: 

1813: \bibitem{Polzik} B. Julsgaard, A. Kozhekin and E. Polzik, Nature 

1814: {\bf 413} 400 (2001).

1815: 

1816: \bibitem{Lloyd} H. Touchette and S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84},

1817: 1156 (2000).

1818: 

1819: \bibitem{Meystre} P.Meystre, {\it Atom Optics},  (Springer , New York, 

1820: 2001).

1821: 

1822: \bibitem{Paper1} A. Andr\'e, L.-M. Duan and M.D. Lukin, quant-ph/0107075

1823: 

1824: \bibitem{slow-light} L.\ V.\ Hau {\it et al.},

1825:     Nature \textbf{397}, 594 (1999); M. Kash {\it et al.}

1826: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 82}, 5229 (1999); D. Budker {\it et al.},

1827: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 1767 (1999).

1828: 

1829: \bibitem{stop-light} C. Liu, Z. Dutton, C.H. Behroozi and L. Hau, Nature {\bf 409}, 490 (2001); D.F. Phillips {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86}, 783 (2001).

1830: 

1831: \bibitem{darkpolar} M.D. Lukin, S.F. Yelin and M. Fleischhauer, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 4232 (2000); M. Fleischhauer and M.D. Lukin, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 5094 (2000).

1832: 

1833: \bibitem{Q-mem} J.I. Cirac, P. Zoller, H.J. Kimble and H. Mabuchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 78}, 3221 (1997); S.J. Enk, J.I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Science {\bf 279}, 205 (1998).

1834: 

1835: \bibitem{Kasevich} P. Bouyer and M.A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 56}

1836: R1083 (1997).

1837: 

1838: \bibitem{Holland} T. Kim {\it et al.} Phys. Rev. A {\bf 57}, 4004 (1998).

1839: 

1840: \bibitem{Vardi}J.R. Anglin and A. Vardi, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 64}, 013605

1841: (2001)

1842: 

1843: \bibitem{Courtens} F.T. Arecchi {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 6} 2211 (1972).

1844: 

1845: \bibitem{squ-cold} L.-M. Duan, A. S\o rensen, J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 3991 (2000); A. S\o rensen, L.-M. Duan, J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Nature {\bf 409},63 (2001).

1846: 

1847: \bibitem{squ-Polzik} A.~Kuzmich, K.~M\o lmer, and E.~S.~Polzik, 

1848: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 79}, 4782 (1997); 

1849: J.~Hald, {\it et al.}, {ibid} 1319 (1999).

1850: 

1851: \bibitem{squ-Bigelow} 

1852: A. Kuzmich, L. Mandel and N.P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 1594 (2000).

1853: 

1854: \bibitem{Bouchoule} I.~Bouchoule and K.~M\o lmer, quant-ph/0105144

1855: 

1856: \bibitem{brightpolar} M. Fleischhauer and M.D. Lukin, quant-ph/0106066

1857: 

1858: \bibitem{Ketterle} J. Stenger {\it et al.}, Nature {\bf 396}, 345

1859: (1998).

1860: 

1861: \bibitem{Heinzen} D.J. Heinzen, R. Wynar, P.D. Drummond and K.V. Kheruntsyan, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 84}, 5029 (2000).

1862: 

1863: \bibitem{cavityQED} P.W.H. Pinkse {\it et al.}, J. Mod. Opt. {\bf 47},

1864: 2769

1865: (2000); C.J. Hood {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 64}, 033804 (2001).

1866: 

1867: \bibitem{1atom} J. Ye {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 4987

1868: (1999); P.W.H. Pinkse {\it et al.}, Nature {\bf 404}, 365 (2000). 

1869: 

1870: \bibitem{Dowling} J.P. Dowling, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 57} 4736 (1998).

1871: 

1872: \bibitem{Agarwal} J.P. Dowling, G.S. Agarwal and W.P. Schleich, Phys. Rev. A

1873: {\bf 49}, 4101 (1994).

1874: 

1875: 

1876: \end{thebibliography}

1877: 

1878: 

1879: \end{document}

1880: 

1881: 

1882: 

1883: