1: %% This document created by Scientific Word (R) Version 2.5
2:
3:
4: \documentstyle[aps]{revtex}
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6: %TCIDATA{TCIstyle=article/art2.lat,aps,revtex}
7:
8: %TCIDATA{Created=Tue Feb 11 09:20:21 2003}
9: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Fri Aug 15 16:42:10 2003}
10: %TCIDATA{Language=American English}
11:
12: \begin{document}
13: \title{Entangled two atoms through different couplings and the thermal noise }
14: \author{L. Zhou, X. X. Yi, H. S. Song and Y. Q. Guo.}
15: \address{{\small Department of Physics, Dalian University of Technology,}\\
16: Dalian,116024, P. R. China.}
17: \maketitle
18:
19: \begin{abstract}
20: The entanglement of two atoms is studied when the two atoms are coupled to a
21: single-mode thermal field with different couplings. The different couplings
22: of two atoms are in favor of entanglement preparation: it not only makes the
23: case of absence entanglement with same coupling appear entanglement, but
24: also enhances the entanglement with the increasing of the relative
25: difference of two couplings. We also show that the diversity of coupling can
26: improved the critical temperature. If the optical cavity is leaky during the
27: time evolution, the dissipative thermal environment is benefit to produce
28: the entanglement.
29:
30: PACS numbers: 03.67-a, 03.67.Mn, 42.50.-p
31: \end{abstract}
32:
33: \section{Introduction}
34:
35: Environment noise can result in decoherence of quantum system. In order to
36: overcome the decoherence, some authors proposed a number of approaches such
37: as a quantum error correction\cite{quco} and a decoherence-free subspace\cite
38: {dfre}. Another direct method is to employ the environment noise to produce
39: entanglement [3-12]. In solid state system, the thermal entanglement in
40: Heisenberg model is a example of using the thermal environment [3-6]. It has
41: been found that the anisotropy in XY Heisenberg chain can be used to
42: increase the critical temperature\cite{GL}. In cavity QED, the cavity loss
43: or the thermal field can also induce entangment between two atoms [7-11]. In
44: Ref.\cite{plenio}, using quantum jump approach, the authors described a
45: scenario where entanglement between two atomic systems can be induced via
46: continous observation of the cavity loss. Working in different initinal
47: state (different from Ref. \cite{plenio}) and employing a master equation,
48: in Ref. \cite{xxy}, the author proposed a sheme to prepare two atomic
49: entanglement. Two two-level atoms can be entangled through interacting with
50: a single-mode thermal field \cite{kim} \cite{zl}. But in the studies on
51: cavity QED\cite{bose }\cite{kim} \cite{zl} , for simplicity of the
52: calculation , the couplings $g_{_i}(i=1,2)$ between the two atoms and the
53: field are assumed equal. Although, in Ref.\cite{plenio}\cite{xxy}, their
54: calculation also applied to $g_{_1}\neq g_{_2}$, they just had discussed the
55: equal couplings in their plots and had not discussed the effect of two atoms
56: with different couplings. In fact, the coupling rate $g$ depends on the atom
57: position ${\bf r}$ ; due to the randomness of the atom position ${\bf r}$,
58: it is very difficult to control the same couplings between different atom
59: \cite{duan}. The truth that the anisotropy in two-qubit Heisenberg model can
60: increase the critical temperature motivate us to consider whether different
61: couplings $g$ of the two atoms result in some novel properties in cavity QED.
62:
63: In this paper, we study the system that the two atoms with different
64: coupling constants are coupled to the optical cavity which is initinally in
65: thermal field state. When the atoms are initially in $|ee\rangle $ and the
66: cavity is initially in a single-mode thermal field, with the same coupling
67: constant they are not entangled \cite{kim} but if with different coupling
68: constant they can be entangled. We analyse the dependence of the relative
69: difference of two couplings on the entanglement. We find that there is a
70: possiblity to obtian more entanglement through increasing the relative
71: difference of two couplings. We show that the diversity of coupling can
72: improved the critical temperature at which entanglement disappears. We also
73: study the case of a cavity with a steady leak during the time evolution, it
74: is found that the dissipative cavity field is benefit to produce the
75: entanglement.\smallskip
76:
77: \section{The effect of the diversity coupling of the two-atom}
78:
79: In order to make clear the function of different couplings, we first
80: consider a quantum system composed of two two-level atoms interacting with a
81: single-mode thermal field, which can be produced by a leaky cavity in
82: thermal equilibrium at temperature $T$. After preparation the initial cavity
83: field, the cavity stop to leak. The cavity mode is assumed to be resonant
84: with the atomic transition frequency. Under the rotating wave approximation,
85: the Hamiltonian in the interacting picture is
86: \begin{equation}
87: H_I=g_{_1}(a\sigma _1^{+}+a^{+}\sigma _1^{-})+g_{_2}(a\sigma
88: _2^{+}+a^{+}\sigma _2^{-})
89: \end{equation}
90: where $a$ $(a^{+})$ denotes annihilation (creation) operator of the cavity
91: field; the atomic transition operators are $\sigma _i^{-}=|g\rangle
92: _i\langle e|$ and $\sigma _i^{+}=|e\rangle _i\langle g|;$ $g_{_1}$ and $%
93: g_{_2}$ are the two coupling constants for the atom $i$ $(i=1,2)$. For
94: expression the diversity of the two couplings, we let
95: \begin{equation}
96: g=\frac{g_{_1}+g_{_2}}2,\text{ }\gamma =\frac{g_{_1}-g_{_2}}{g_{_1}+g_{_2}}
97: \end{equation}
98: where $g$ denote average coupling and $\gamma $ express the relative
99: difference of the two atomic couplings. Because of the identity of the two
100: atoms, the range of $\gamma $ is between $0$ and $1$. The Hamiltonian can be
101: rewritten as
102: \begin{equation}
103: H_I=g(1+\gamma )(a\sigma _1^{+}+a^{+}\sigma _1^{-})+g(1-\gamma )(a\sigma
104: _2^{+}+a^{+}\sigma _2^{-})
105: \end{equation}
106: The single-mode thermal field with its mean photon number $\bar{n}$ is a
107: mixture of Fock states. It take the form
108:
109: \begin{equation}
110: \rho _{c}=\sum_{n}\frac{\bar{n}^{n}}{(1+\bar{n})^{n+1}}|n\rangle \langle n|,
111: \end{equation}
112: and $\bar{n}=(e^{\frac{\hbar \omega }{k_{B}T}}-1)^{-1}$ relates to the
113: environment temperature. Entanglement of two atoms can be measured by
114: concurrence $C$ which is written as\cite{chb}\cite{sh}
115:
116: \begin{equation}
117: C=\max (0,2\max \{\lambda _i\}-\sum_{i=1}^4\lambda _i),
118: \end{equation}
119: where $\lambda _i$ is the square roots of the eigenvalues of the matrix $%
120: R=\rho S\rho ^{*}S$, $\rho $ is the density matrix, $S=\sigma _1^y\otimes
121: \sigma _2^y$ and $*$ stands for complex conjugate. The concurrence is
122: available no matter what $\rho $ is pure or mixed. We will numerical
123: calculate the entanglement between the two atoms.
124:
125: In Ref. \cite{kim}\cite{zl}, for simplicity they assumed the atoms 1 and 2
126: couple to a single-mode thermal field with the same coupling constant. They
127: found that if the two atoms initially are both in excited states, the two
128: atoms could not be entangled neither in one-photon process nor in two-photon
129: process. In our simulation, if $\gamma =0,$ we also can not find
130: entanglement. But when we chose $\gamma =0.4$ , the result is reversed which
131: is shown in Fig. 1. It is obvious that under the condition of different
132: couplings the two atoms (initial in $|ee\rangle $ ) can be entangled. This
133: is contrary to the case of the same coupling constants\cite{kim}\cite{zl}.
134: When the two atoms initially are both in excited state, it had been shown
135: that the atom and the field are always entangled despite of the presence of
136: the other atom\cite{kim}. It is the atom-field entanglement that result in
137: the decoherence between the two atoms. We can understand it from the same
138: couplings: becasuse their couplings are the same, their rabi oscillation
139: also have the same steps, so the two atoms have no correlation, i.e., there
140: is no entanglement between them. If the couplings are not the same, when
141: they resonate with the cavity, they are no longer with the same step.
142: Through interacting with cavity, the two atoms are entangled. As we state
143: above, the different couplings are more closely to experiments. So, the
144: existing entanglement with different couplings maybe more easy achieved.
145: Fig. 1 also show that the vacuum state ( $\bar{n}=0$) induces the maximum
146: entanglement. With the increase of the mean photon number, the entanglement
147: between two atoms decreases. At a certain value of $\bar{n}$, the
148: entanglement disappears; we call that $\bar{n}$ as critical average photon
149: number and the temperature ( corresponding to the $\bar{n})$ is called as
150: critical temperature.
151:
152: Increasing $\gamma $ to $0.8$, we plot the entanglement of two-atom in
153: Fig.1b. Comparing Fig.1a with Fig.1b, one can find that the maximum
154: entanglement of Fig. 1b is larger than that of Fig. 1a, that is, one can
155: obtain much more strong entanglement with $\gamma =0.8$. On the other hand,
156: in Fig. 1a the critical average photon number is below 4 and in Fig.1b when $%
157: \bar{n}=5$, the maximum entanglement is about 0.15, that is, the critical
158: average photon number is larger than 5. So, the critical temperature of Fig.
159: 1b is larger than that of Fig.1a. Whether can we conclude from Fig.1 that
160: the larger the relative difference of two couplings, the larger the critical
161: average photon number, the larger the critical temperature? The answer is
162: no. Because the rabi oscillation of the atoms is relevant to the couplings,
163: the entanglement is not a monotonic function of $\gamma $ . It will be shown
164: in Fig. 2 and we will analyse it laterly. But at least in some ranges we can
165: say that through increasing $\gamma $, the critical temperature can be
166: improved. The conclusion, in a certain extent, is similar to that the
167: anisotropy in Heisenberg XY chain can increase critical temperature of the
168: thermal entanglement \cite{GL}. The difference is that there, the critical
169: temperature of the thermal entanglement is monotonously increased with the
170: increasing of the anisotropy parameter, here due to the rabi oscillation,
171: the critical temperature is not a monotonous function of the two couplings.
172: But with the increasing of $\gamma $ , there are the possiblity and the
173: tendency to increasing the critical temperature (we will explain it next).
174:
175: Because every atom periodically entangles and disentangles with the cavity
176: field, and the periodicity relates to the coupling, so the entanglement
177: between two atoms also exhibit periodicity and its periods are also related
178: to the two couplings. We can observe this periodicity in Fig.1. For make
179: clear the dependence of the entanglement on $\gamma ,$ we plot the
180: entanglement as a function of $\gamma $ and $t$ in Fig. 2 for the atomic
181: initial state $|ee\rangle $, where the average photon number $\bar{n}=1$. We
182: can see that for $\gamma =0$ no entanglement exist which is coincident with
183: the Ref.\cite{kim}. But with the increasing of $\gamma $, in som time
184: intervals one can see the large entanglement. Of cause, due to existing many
185: peaks (existing up the hill and down the hill) , there are either the extent
186: in which entanglement is increased with the increasing of $\gamma $ or the
187: extent in which the entanglement is decreased with the increasing of $\gamma
188: .$ Although the relation between the entanglement and $\gamma $ is not
189: monotonous, the main trend of entanglement is increased with the increasing
190: of $\gamma $. In other word, the maxima values of entanglement is increased
191: with the increasing of $\gamma .$ Thus, if we can keep the relative large $%
192: \gamma $, even the two atoms interact with thermal field, we can also obtain
193: relative large entanglement. On the other hand, since the average photon
194: number is a measure of the cavity classicality, the larger it is, the
195: smaller the entanglement, i.e., with the increase of the mean photon number,
196: the entanglement gradually decreases to zero. If in the extent in which
197: entanglement is increased with the increasing of $\gamma ,$ we can reckon
198: the critical average photon number is increased with the increasing of $%
199: \gamma $, thus the critical temperature is increased. If the span of $\gamma
200: $ is relative large such as $\gamma $ from 0.4 to 0.8, the maxima
201: entanglement is increased, the critical temperature, of cause, is increased.
202:
203: The two atoms with initial state $|ee\rangle $, which can not be entangled
204: if they have the same coupling constants \cite{kim}\cite{zl}, can be
205: entangled when they are different in coupling constant. The initial state $%
206: |eg\rangle $ is the best case which the entanglemet could be the relative
207: best but is far smaller than 1\cite{kim}\cite{zl}. If the coupling constants
208: are different, what will happen ? We directly numerical simulate the
209: entanglement as a function of $\gamma $ and $t$ in Fig. 3. In Fig. 2 and
210: Fig. 3, we both can see that when $\gamma =1$ the entanglement do not exist.
211: For $\gamma =1$, only the one atom interact with the cavity and the other
212: atom has no coupling with the field, so, there is no entanglement between
213: them. When the two-atom is initially in the state $|eg\rangle $ with $\gamma
214: =0$ is exact the case which had been discussed in Ref.\cite{kim}. From Fig.
215: 3, we can observe entanglement when $\gamma =0,$ and it is different from
216: the case of initial state $|ee\rangle $ with $\gamma =0$. But the
217: entanglement in Fig. 3 when $\gamma =0$ is not the largest. With the
218: increasing of $\gamma ,$ the maximum values of entanglement are also
219: increased. There are still existing many ''hills'', that is, there are
220: either the extent in which entanglement is increased with the increasing of $%
221: \gamma $ or the extent in which the entanglement is decreased with the
222: increasing of $\gamma .$ Therefore, we can also obtain strong entanglement
223: and improve the critical temperature through increasing $\gamma $ in some
224: extent. Thus, although Fig. 3 is obvirously different from Fig. 2, the
225: effects of $\gamma $ on increasing critical temperature and improved
226: entanglement are exactly the same in these two kinds of initial states.
227:
228: \section{The influence of thermal noise on the atom-atom entanglement}
229:
230: When the single-mode cavity is in thermal equilibrium with its environment
231: due to the leakage, the cavity is in thermal field \cite{gardiner}. In
232: section ${\it 2}$ and in Ref.\cite{kim}\cite{zl}, the thermal field is just
233: as initial cavity state; in the process of evolution, the cavity stop
234: leaking. Since the cavity is leaky, why we assumed it stop to leaking? Now,
235: we let it continue to leak in the later time evolution. \
236:
237: The master equation governing the time evolution of the global system is
238: given by ($\hbar =1$)
239: \begin{equation}
240: \dot{\rho}=i[\rho ,H]+{\cal L}(\rho ),
241: \end{equation}
242: where the Hamiltonian still have the form of Eq.(3). The Liouvillean is
243: given by
244: \begin{equation}
245: {\cal L}(\rho )=\kappa (\bar{n}+1)(2a\rho a^{+}-a^{+}a\rho -\rho
246: a^{+}a)+\kappa \bar{n}(2a^{+}\rho a-aa^{+}\rho -\rho aa^{+}
247: \end{equation}
248: We chose $\kappa =0.4$, $\gamma =0.4$ and simulate the case of which the two
249: atoms are initially in $|ee\rangle $ and the cavity is initially in the
250: thermal state. Figure 4 show the entanglement as a function of average
251: photon number and time $t$. We notice that the critical average photon
252: number is larger than 5, and in Fig. 1 $\bar{n}$ is smaller than 5. To a
253: thermal field state, the dissipative environment can increase the critical
254: average photon number. Furthermore, \smallskip with the time evolution, the
255: entanglement is no longer periodic appearing zero but gradually reaches
256: their asymptotic values, and the asymptotic values decrease with the
257: increasing of $\bar{n}$. When the cavity field initially is in thermal
258: state, the dissipation of the cavity virtually can be considered as a driver
259: of the \smallskip cavity, so, with the evolution the entanglement is
260: gradually increased. This is contrary to the general case in which the
261: entanglement is destroyed by environment due to the decoherence. After all
262: the system is a open one, so the entanglement is no longer periodic
263: appearing zero but gradually reaches their asymptotic values. So, after long
264: time evolution, we can obtain a strong and steady entanglement. Therefore,
265: as long as the evolution time is enough, it is not necessary to precise
266: control the interaction time. In experiment, precise control of the
267: interacting time is very difficult to achieve \cite{browne}. We summarize
268: that the dissipative environment not only improved th critical temperature
269: but also provide us a steady entanglement.
270:
271: \section{Conclusion}
272:
273: We discuss the entanglement induced by a single-mode heat environment when
274: the two atoms are coupled to the optical cavity with different coupling
275: constants. When the atoms are initially in $|ee\rangle $, with the same
276: coupling constant they could not be entangled \cite{kim} but if with
277: different coupling constant they can be entangled. Even to the initial state
278: $|eg\rangle $ in which the two atoms can be entangled with the same
279: coupling, the different couplings are avail to produce atom-atom
280: entanglement. Through the analysis about the dependence of entanglement on
281: the relative difference of two couplings $\gamma $, we find that by
282: increasing $\gamma $ we can obtain strong entanglement. We also show that
283: the diversity of coupling can improved the critical temperature, which is
284: very similar to that the anisotropy in Heisenberg XY chain can increase the
285: critical temperature of thermal entanglement \cite{GL}. We study the leak of
286: the cavity on the entanglement during the time evolution. It is found that
287: the keeping on leaking is benefit to produce the entanglement. \smallskip It
288: not only can improves the critical temperature but also provid us a relative
289: steady and strong entangled state.
290:
291: Figure captions:
292:
293: Fig.1. Entanglement as a function of average photon number $\bar{n}$ and $t$
294: when the pair of atoms is initially prepared in the state $|ee\rangle $%
295: \smallskip and the field is initially in the thermal state, where (a) : $%
296: \gamma =0.4,$ (b):$\smallskip \gamma =0.8$; for all plots $g=1$.
297:
298: Fig. 2. The dependence of entanglement on the relative difference of the two
299: atomic couplings $\gamma $ and time $t$ for the initial atomic state $%
300: |ee\rangle $ when $g=1$, $\bar{n}=1.$
301:
302: Fig. 3. The same as Fig. 2 but for the initial atomic state $|eg\rangle .$
303:
304: Fig. 4. The effect of dissipative environment on the atom-atom entanglement
305: when the atoms are initially in $|eg\rangle $ for $\kappa =0.4$, $g=1$.
306:
307: \begin{references}
308: \bibitem{quco} P. W. Shor, Phys. Rev. A 52, R2493 (1995); A.M. Steane,
309: Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 793 (1996).
310:
311: \bibitem{dfre} D. A. Lidar, I. L. Chuang, and K.B. Whaley , Phys. Rev.
312: Lett. 81, 2594 (1998); A. Beige, D. Braun, B. Tregenna, and P. L. Knight,
313: Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1762 (2000).
314:
315: \bibitem{wxg3} X. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 64, 012313 (2001); X. Wang, Phys. Rev.
316: A 66,034302 (2002);X. Wang, Phys. Rev. A 66,044305 (2002).
317:
318: \bibitem{MC} M. C. Arnesen, S. Bose and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87,
319: 017901 (2001).
320:
321: \bibitem{GL} G. L. Kamta and A. F. Starace, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88,
322: 107901(2002).
323:
324: \bibitem{zl1} L. Zhou, H. S. Song, Y. Q. Guo and C. Li, Phys. Rev. A 68,
325: 024301 (2003)
326:
327: \bibitem{plenio} M. B. Plenio, S. F. Huelga, A. Beige, and P. L. Knight,
328: Phys. Rev. A 59, 2468 (1999); A. Beige, H. Cable, and P.L. Knight,
329: quant-ph/0303151.
330:
331: \bibitem{bose } S. Bose, I. Fuentes-Guridi, P. L. Knight, and V. Vedral,
332: Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 050401 (2001)
333:
334: \bibitem{kim} M. S. Kim , Jinhyoung Lee, D. Ahn and P. L. Knight, Phys.
335: Rev. A 65, 040101(2002)
336:
337: \bibitem{zl} L. Zhou, H. S. Song, and C. Li, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass.
338: Opt. 4, 425 (2002).
339:
340: \bibitem{xxy} X. X. Yi, C. S. Yu, L. Zhou, and H. S. Song,
341: quant-ph/0306091(to appear in Phys. Rev. A).
342:
343: \bibitem{braun} D. Braun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 277901 (2002).
344:
345: \bibitem{duan} L. M. Duan, A. Kuzmich, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. A 67,
346: 032305 (2003).
347:
348: \bibitem{chb} C. H. Bennett, D. P. DiVincenzo, J. A. Smolin and W. K.
349: Wootters, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824 (1996)
350:
351: \bibitem{sh} S. Hill and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 5022 (1997).
352:
353: \bibitem{gardiner} C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Quantum Noise (spinger
354: 2000).
355:
356: \bibitem{browne} D. E. Browne and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. A 67, 012325
357: (2003).
358: \end{references}
359:
360: \end{document}
361: