1: \documentclass[a4paper,pra,showpacs,twocolumn]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{amsfonts}
3: \usepackage{amssymb}
4: \usepackage{amsmath}
5: \usepackage{calc}
6: \usepackage{graphicx}
7: \begin{document}
8: \title{Adiabatic creation of coherent superposition states via multiple
9: intermediate states}
10:
11: \author{A. Karpati and Z. Kis}
12:
13: \affiliation{
14: Department of Nonlinear and Quantum Optics, \\
15: Research Institute for Solid State Physics and Optics, \\
16: Hungarian Academy of Sciences, P.O. Box 49, H-1525 Budapest, Hungary\\
17: }
18:
19: \date{\today}
20:
21: \begin{abstract}
22: We consider an adiabatic population transfer process that resembles the well
23: established stimulated Raman adiabatic passage (STIRAP). In our system, the
24: states have nonzero angular momentums $J$, therefore, the coupling laser
25: fields induce transitions among the magnetic sublevels of the states. In
26: particular, we discuss the possibility of creating coherent superposition
27: states in a system with coupling pattern $J=0\Leftrightarrow J=1$ and
28: $J=1\Leftrightarrow J=2$. Initially, the system is in the $J=0$ state. We
29: show that by two delayed, overlapping laser pulses it is possible to create
30: any final superposition state of the magnetic sublevels $|2,-2\rangle$,
31: $|2,0\rangle$, $|2,+2\rangle$. Moreover, we find that the relative phases
32: of the applied pulses influence not only the phases of the final
33: superposition state but the probability amplitudes as well. We show that if
34: we fix the shape and the time-delay between the pulses, the final state
35: space can be entirely covered by varying the polarizations and relative
36: phases of the two pulses. Performing numerical simulations we find that our
37: transfer process is nearly adiabatic for the whole parameter set.
38: \end{abstract}
39:
40: \pacs{42.50.Hz, 42.65.Dr, 32.80.Bx}
41:
42: \maketitle
43:
44: \section{Introduction}
45:
46: % adiabatic methods in general: level crossing,
47: Adiabatic methods in quantum mechanics play a fundamental role in the
48: treatment of level crossing problems. The famous Landau-Zener system \cite{LZ}
49: has been followed by several other models which were defined in two-level
50: systems \cite{Rosen,Demkov,Hioe,Suominen}. These models induced many
51: applications in atomic and molecular physics, for recent review see Ref.
52: \cite{vita}.
53:
54: It is common in all of the adiabatic systems that the Hamiltonian is
55: time-dependent. The instantaneous eigenstates define an adiabatic basis.
56: Suppose that at the initial time, one of the adiabatic states coincides with
57: the initial state of the system. In most cases the adiabatic state that
58: belongs to the eigenvalue zero is utilized for the transfer. If the system
59: varies with time slowly enough, then its state vector follows adiabatically
60: the adiabatic eigenstate and it will go over smoothly to the desired final
61: state. The adiabaticity of the process guarantees its robustness with respect
62: to fluctuations in the parameters of the couplings. In the limit of ideal
63: adiabatic transfer, the other eigenstates are not invoked in the evolution and
64: their population remains zero throughout the whole time. The non-adiabatic
65: corrections tend to involve these states, but the magnitudes of such couplings
66: are supposed to be small compared with their energy separation from the
67: adiabatic states.
68:
69: During the last decade, a promising new population transfer technique was
70: introduced: the stimulated Raman adiabatic passage (STIRAP) process realizes
71: efficient population transfer in three-level systems, see Ref. \cite{vitb}
72: and references therein. Moreover, it turned out that this scheme can be
73: applied successfully to the problem of manipulating and creating coherent
74: state superpositions. Such superpositions are the desired initial states for
75: many modern quantum applications including information processing and
76: communication. The original STIRAP process has thus been utilized to create
77: coherent superpositions in three- and four-level systems
78: \cite{marte,una1,theuer,una2,Chang} and to prepare $N$-component maximally
79: coherent superposition states \cite{una3}. The four-level (tripod) STIRAP
80: establishes such applications as qubit rotation \cite{kisc} and density-matrix
81: measurement \cite{kisd}.
82:
83: Recently, a multilevel STIRAP scheme has been proposed \cite{kisa, kisb} to
84: create $N-$level coherent superposition states. This model is particularly
85: interesting, since the Hamiltonian has several adiabatic eigenstates which
86: belong to the eigenvalue zero. The diabatic couplings among these eigenstates
87: influence significantly the dynamics of the system. However, the eigenstates
88: in the zero eigenvalue subspace are decoupled from the eigenstates belonging
89: to nonzero eigenvalues provided the time-evolution is adiabatic. In Ref.
90: \cite{kisa} the Optimal Control Theory has been applied to find the optimal
91: pulse sequences which create a prescribed final superposition state. It has
92: also been verified that the transfer process occurs in the zero-eigenvalue
93: subspace. In a subsequent work \cite{kisb} an analytic solution has been
94: presented for a five-level system.
95:
96: When the STIRAP concept is realized in atoms or molecules one encounters that
97: the quantum states with angular momentum $J$ have magnetic sublevels and these
98: sublevels are coupled by the applied laser pulses, and a rather complicated
99: coupling-pattern may occur. This situation has been studied in Refs.
100: \cite{Shore,Martin1,Martin2}. In these papers the authors have discussed the
101: possibility of transferring population from a well defined initial state to a
102: single but arbitrarily chosen magnetic sublevel.
103:
104: An other realistic problem is the presence of multiple or continuum
105: intermediate states \cite{Carroll,Nakajima,vitc,Yatsenko, vitd, Paspalakis,
106: una4, una5}. In Ref. \cite{Carroll} the continuum has been modeled by
107: infinite number of equidistant discrete levels which were coupled by unique
108: couplings to a single initial and final state. Later, it has been shown that
109: the previous model is too simple, the physics is more complicated in a
110: realistic situation \cite{Nakajima}. A detailed study of the discrete model
111: has been presented in Ref. \cite{vitc}. It has also been shown that efficient
112: population transfer is indeed possible through a continuum \cite{Yatsenko,
113: vitd, Paspalakis, una4, una5}.
114:
115: In this paper we will study a multilevel $\Lambda$ scheme similar to the one
116: discussed in Refs. \cite{Shore,Martin1,Martin2}. However, in contrast with the
117: previous works where the population transfer took place between a single
118: initial and a single final state, our aim is to create a multilevel final
119: superposition state. In our model, the initial state has angular momentum
120: $J\smash{=}0$, the intermediate state has $J\smash{=}1$ and the final
121: superposition state is formed from the magnetic sublevels of a state
122: $J\smash{=}2$. We will design a STIRAP-like process, i.e. the population
123: transfer is realized by delayed, overlapping laser pulses. We define the
124: Hamiltonian corresponding to the process, separate the adiabatic states
125: belonging to the eigenvalue zero and find the conditions for the successful
126: population transfer. We will study how does the final state depend on the
127: relative phases of the applied laser pulses. The robustness of the transfer
128: process will also be discussed.
129:
130: The organization of the paper is as follows: In Section \ref{model} the
131: physical model of our six-level STIRAP is presented and the corresponding
132: Hamiltonian is introduced. The Hilbert space is separated to a
133: zero-eigenvalue subspace and to a nonzero-eigenvalue subspace. The eigenstates
134: belonging to the zero eigenvalue are determined explicitly. In Section
135: \ref{poptrans} we study the possibility of population transfer by means of
136: delayed laser pulses. We show numerically that nearly adiabatic evolution is
137: possible. We also discuss the robustness of the transfer process. We summarize
138: the results in Section \ref{sum}.
139:
140:
141:
142:
143: \section{Six-level system}\label{model}
144: Let us consider the six-level $\Lambda$ configuration shown in Fig.
145: \ref{fig:levels}. The system consists of the magnetic sublevels of states
146: with total angular momentum $J\smash{=}0$, $J\smash{=}1$ and $J\smash{=}2$.
147: The $J\smash{=}1$ states have higher energy than the $J\smash{=}0$ and
148: $J\smash{=}2$ states. Initially, only the $J\smash{=}0$ state is populated.
149: Our goal is to transfer this population to the sublevels of the $J\smash{=}2$
150: state and to obtain a prescribed final superposition state. We are going to
151: design a STIRAP-like population transfer process. To this end, we apply two
152: sets of laser pulses, the corresponding Rabi frequencies are denoted by
153: $\Omega_{S\pm}$ and $\Omega_{p\pm}$. The subscripts $S$ and $p$ refer to
154: ``Stokes'' and ``pulse'', while the indices $+/-$ correspond to right- and
155: left-hand circular polarizations, respectively. Obviously, in this
156: configuration only the sublevels with $m\smash{=}-2, 0, +2$ can be populated
157: in the final state. This linkage can be realized experimentally in Neon atoms,
158: see Ref.~\cite{Martin2}. The more general case, where all magnetic sublevels
159: of the $J\smash{=}2$ state are included into the final superposition state
160: will be discussed elsewhere. The frequency and the phase of the laser pulses
161: are kept constant during the interaction, only their amplitudes are
162: time-dependent.
163:
164:
165: In our model we have to determine the Rabi frequencies in an angular-momentum
166: basis \cite{bruce}. According to the Wigner-Eckart theorem, the general
167: formula for the Rabi frequency between two levels of angular momenta $J_1$ and
168: $J_2$ and magnetic quantum numbers $M_1$ and $M_2$ is given by
169: \begin{eqnarray}\label{Rabi}
170: \hbar\Omega(J_1 M_1; J_2 M_2)\!&=&\!-{\cal E}^*(-1)^{J_1-M_1}
171: (J_1||\hat{d}||J_2) \nonumber\\
172: &\times&\!\!\sum_{s=-1}^{+1} (-1)^s \epsilon_{-s}\left[
173: \begin{array}{ccc}
174: J_1 & 1 & J_2 \\
175: -M_1 & s & M_2
176: \end{array}
177: \right]\,,
178: \end{eqnarray}
179: where the electric field strength is ${\cal E}$, the reduced dipole matrix
180: element is given by $(J_1||\hat{d}||J_2)$, $\epsilon_s$ are the irreducible
181: tensor operator components of the polarization vector of the field, and
182: $[\dots]$ denotes the $3-j$ symbol. We apply left- and right-hand circularly
183: polarized light, therefore, in the summation $s=\pm1$ and $\epsilon_{\pm1}=1$.
184:
185: The two pump pulses couple the level $|00\rangle$ to the levels
186: $|1,\pm1\rangle$. The corresponding Rabi frequencies can be expressed as
187: $\Omega_{p\pm}= {\rm const}_1\times {\cal E}_{p\pm}^*$. The right-hand
188: circularly polarized Stokes pulse couple the levels
189: $|1,-1\rangle\Leftrightarrow |2,-2\rangle$ and $|1,+1\rangle\Leftrightarrow
190: |2,0\rangle $. For the Rabi frequencies we obtain
191: \begin{subequations}
192: \begin{eqnarray}
193: \Omega_{S+}(1, -1; 2, -2)&=& q\times {\rm const}_2\times {\cal E}_{S+}^*
194: \,,\\
195: \Omega_{S+}(1, +1; 2, 0)&=& {\rm const}_2\times {\cal E}_{S+}^* \,,
196: \end{eqnarray}
197: \end{subequations}
198: where $q$ is the ratio of the corresponding $3-j$ symbols. In our case
199: $q=\sqrt{6}$. Similarly, the left-hand circularly polarized Stokes pulse couple
200: the levels $|1,-1\rangle\Leftrightarrow |2,0\rangle$ and
201: $|1,+1\rangle\Leftrightarrow |2,+2\rangle $, and the Rabi frequencies are
202: given by
203: \begin{subequations}
204: \begin{eqnarray}
205: \Omega_{S-}(1, -1; 2, 0)&=& {\rm const}_2\times {\cal E}_{S-}^* \,,\\
206: \Omega_{S-}(1, +1; 2, +2)&=& q \times{\rm const}_2\times {\cal E}_{S-}^* \,.
207: \end{eqnarray}
208: \end{subequations}
209:
210: In summary, the Rabi frequencies can be expressed as
211: \begin{subequations}
212: \begin{eqnarray}
213: \Omega_{p+}(0, 0; 1, -1)&=& A \,\exp{i\varphi_A}\,, \\
214: \Omega_{p-}(0, 0; 1, +1)&=& B \,\exp{i\varphi_B}\,, \\
215: \Omega_{S+}(1, -1; 2, -2)&=& q\, C \,\exp{i\varphi_C}\,, \\
216: \Omega_{S+}(1, +1; 2, 0)&=& C \,\exp{i\varphi_C}\,, \\
217: \Omega_{S-}(1, -1; 2, 0)&=& D \,\exp{i\varphi_D}\,, \\
218: \Omega_{S-}(1, +1; 2, +2)&=& q \, D \,\exp{i\varphi_D}\,.
219: \end{eqnarray}
220: \end{subequations}
221: The phases $\varphi_X$ are constants, and the envelope functions $X$ are
222: non-negative. The laser pulses may be detuned from resonance by a frequency
223: $\Delta$, but we require that they are at multi-photon resonance. The
224: interaction Hamiltonian in the basis $\big\{ |0, 0\rangle$, $|1, -1\rangle$,
225: $|1, +1\rangle$, $|2, -2\rangle$, $|2, 0\rangle$, $|2, +2\rangle \big\}$ reads
226: \begin{widetext}
227: \begin{equation}
228: \label{eq:H}
229: H={1\over 2}\hbar\left[
230: \begin{array}{cccccc}
231: 0&A\exp i\varphi_A&B\exp i\varphi_B&0&0&0\\
232: A\exp -i\varphi_A&\Delta&0&qC\exp i\varphi_C&D\exp i\varphi_D&0\\
233: B\exp -i\varphi_B&0&\Delta&0&C\exp i\varphi_C&qD\exp i\varphi_D\\
234: 0&qC\exp -i\varphi_C&0&0&0&0\\
235: 0&D\exp -i\varphi_D&C\exp -i\varphi_C&0&0&0\\
236: 0&0&qD\exp -i\varphi_D&0&0&0\\
237: \end{array}
238: \right]\,.
239: \end{equation}
240: \end{widetext}
241: The time-evolution of the system is governed by the Schr\" odinger equation
242: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Sch}
243: i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}|\psi\rangle = H |\psi\rangle\,.
244: \end{equation}
245:
246: In a STIRAP process, the Hilbert space is split to dark and bright subspaces
247: and the system evolves in the dark subspace. These subspaces are formed of
248: the instantaneous eigenstates of the time-dependent Hamiltonian. The dark
249: states belong to the eigenvalue zero and they do not have projection to the
250: excited state(s) \cite{arimondo}. The bright states belong to nonzero
251: eigenvalues and they overlap with the excited state(s). In the adiabatic
252: limit, the system evolves entirely in the dark subspace. Now we continue the
253: analysis of the Hamiltonian Eq.~(\ref{eq:H}) in this direction. First, we
254: determine the dark and bright subspaces of the Hilbert space. By applying a
255: diagonal unitary transformation $U_1$ to the system, the number of independent
256: phases in the Hamiltonian can be reduced to one:
257: \begin{equation}
258: \label{eq:H1}
259: H_1 = U_1 H U_1^\dagger = {1\over 2}\hbar\left[
260: \begin{array}{cccccc}
261: 0&A&Be^{i\varphi}&0&0&0\\
262: A&\Delta&0&qC&D&0\\
263: Be^{-i\varphi}&0&\Delta&0&C&qD\\
264: 0&qC&0&0&0&0\\
265: 0&D&C&0&0&0\\
266: 0&0&qD&0&0&0\\
267: \end{array}
268: \right],
269: \end{equation}
270: where
271: \begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:U1def}
272: U_1&=&\textrm{diag}\big[e^{-i(\varphi_A+\varphi_C)}, e^{-i\varphi_C},
273: e^{i(\varphi_D-2\varphi_C)}, 1, \nonumber \\
274: &&\qquad\,\, e^{i(\varphi_D-\varphi_C)}, e^{i(2\varphi_D-2\varphi_C)}\big]
275: \,,
276: \end{eqnarray}
277: and the remaining phase factor
278: \begin{equation}\label{eq:phidef}
279: \varphi=\varphi_B-\varphi_A+\varphi_C-\varphi_D \,.
280: \end{equation}
281: It will turn out that this phase factor is indeed relevant, since it affects
282: the probability amplitudes of the final state.
283:
284: As a next step we are going to find a time-dependent unitary transformation
285: that defines a new basis, in which the dark and bright subspaces of the
286: Hilbert space are separated. By applying rotations and diagonal unitary
287: transformations in a well-chosen order we arrive at the following unitary
288: transformation:
289: \begin{equation}
290: U=U_4 U_3 U_2,
291: \label{eq:Udef}
292: \end{equation}
293: where
294: \begin{equation}
295: U_2=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}
296: 1&0&0&0&0&0\\
297: 0&1&0&0&0&0\\
298: 0&0&1&0&0&0\\[3pt]
299: 0&0&0&-{y\over qx}&{yk\over x}&-{yk^2\over qx}\\[5pt]
300: 0&0&0&{y^2k\over qx}&{1\over x}&{y^2k^3\over qx}\\[5pt]
301: 0&0&0&{yk^2\over q}&0&-{y\over q}\\[5pt]
302: \end{array}\right]\,,
303: \end{equation}
304: and
305: \begin{equation}
306: U_3=\textrm{diag}[\exp i\xi,1,1,1,\exp i\zeta,1]\,,
307: \end{equation}
308: \begin{equation}
309: U_4=\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}
310: \cos\alpha&0&0&0&0&\sin\alpha\\
311: 0&1&0&0&0&0\\
312: 0&0&1&0&0&0\\
313: 0&0&0&1&0&0\\
314: -\sin\beta\sin\alpha&0&0&0&\cos\beta&\sin\beta\cos\alpha\\
315: -\cos\beta\sin\alpha&0&0&0&-\sin\beta&\cos\beta\cos\alpha
316: \end{array}\right]\,,
317: \end{equation}
318: where we made use of the definitions
319: \begin{subequations}
320: \label{eq:params}
321: \begin{eqnarray}
322: k&=&C/D\,, \label{eq:kdef} \\
323: x&=&\sqrt{k^4+k^2q^2+1}/\sqrt{k^4+1}\,,\\
324: y&=&-q/\sqrt{k^4+1}\,,\\
325: \tan\alpha&=&{
326: (k^4+1)yD
327: \over \sqrt{A^2k^2+B^2-2ABk\cos\varphi}}\,,\\
328: \tan\beta&=&-{y\over x}\cos\alpha\sqrt{{A^2+B^2k^6+2ABk^3
329: \cos\varphi\over A^2k^2+B^2-2ABk\cos\varphi}}\,,
330: \label{eq:params:beta}
331: \\
332: \xi&=&\arctan\left(\frac{B\sin\varphi}{Ak-B\cos\varphi}\right)\,,\\
333: \zeta&=&\xi+\arctan\left(\frac{Bk^3\sin\varphi}{A+Bk^3\cos\varphi}\right)\,.
334: \end{eqnarray}
335: \end{subequations}
336:
337: If we transform the Hamiltonian Eq.~(\ref{eq:H1}) with the unitary
338: transformation $U$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Udef}) we obtain
339: \begin{equation} \label{eq:tH1}
340: \tilde{H}_1 = UH_1U^{\dag}\,,
341: \end{equation}
342: which has two rows and two columns with zero elements. This means that the
343: unitary transformation $U$ defines two dark states. The first one is given by
344: the fourth row of $U_2$
345: \begin{equation}\label{eq:D1}
346: |D_1\rangle = {1\over\sqrt{C^4+D^4+q^2C^2D^2}}\left[
347: \begin{array}{c}
348: 0 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ D^2 \\ -qCD \\ C^2
349: \end{array}
350: \right]\,.
351: \end{equation}
352: The one-dimensional subspace corresponding to that dark state is not altered
353: by the other unitary transformations $U_3$ and $U_4$, and it is a
354: superposition of the levels with $J\smash{=} 2$. The sixth row of the matrix $U$
355: defines the second dark state
356: \begin{equation}\label{eq:D2}
357: |D_2\rangle = \left[\begin{array}{c}
358: -\cos\beta\sin\alpha\exp i\xi\\
359: 0\\
360: 0\\
361: -{y^2k\over qx}\sin\beta\exp i\zeta +{yk^2\over
362: q}\cos\beta\cos\alpha\\[5pt]
363: -{1\over x}\sin\beta\exp i\zeta\\[5pt]
364: -{y^2k^3\over qx}\sin\beta\exp i\zeta - {y\over q} \cos\beta\cos\alpha
365: \end{array}
366: \right]\,.
367: \end{equation}
368: The states $|D_1\rangle$ and $|D_2\rangle$ are indeed dark states, since they
369: do not have components among the $J\smash{=}1$ levels.
370:
371: To complete the study of the dark and bright subspaces of our system we should
372: diagonalize completely the Hamiltonian $\tilde{H}_1$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:tH1}).
373: This leads to rather involved formulae, however, for our purposes it is enough
374: to show that the eigenvalues of the $4\times4$ nonzero block of $\tilde{H}_1$
375: are nonzero and the corresponding eigenstates are bright states. We have
376: verified numerically using Maple \cite{maple} that the previous assumptions
377: are true. We conclude that the states given by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:D1}) and
378: (\ref{eq:D2}) are the two dark states of our system and it has four bright
379: states. The dark subspace is degenerate, so particular attention should be
380: payed when one studies the time-evolution of the system \cite{una1,kisb,kisa}.
381: In general, for time-dependent dark states there appear a nonadiabatic
382: coupling term in the transformed Hamiltonian which couple the dark states. We
383: will return to this issue in the Sec.~\ref{poptrans}. We can transform the
384: Schr\" odinger equation (\ref{eq:Sch}) to the time-dependent basis defined by
385: $U_1$ and $U$ in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:U1def}) and (\ref{eq:Udef})
386: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Schad}
387: i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}|\tilde{\psi}\rangle = \tilde{H}
388: |\tilde{\psi}\rangle\,,
389: \end{equation}
390: through the relations
391: \begin{eqnarray}\label{schad}
392: |\tilde{\psi}\rangle & = & U U_1 |\psi\rangle\,, \nonumber \\
393: \tilde{H} & = & \tilde{H}_1 + i \dot{U}U^{\dag}\,,
394: \end{eqnarray}
395: where $\tilde{H}_1$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:tH1}). In this form the dark and
396: bright subspaces are separated. Since we want to design a STIRAP-like
397: population transfer process, in the following we focus our attention to the
398: dark states. The bright states are needed when one wants to study the
399: coupling between the dark and bright subspaces, but since the formulae for the
400: bright states are too complicated, we shall do it in an other way.
401:
402:
403: \section{Adiabatic population transfer} \label{poptrans}
404:
405: Now we make a further assumption: We assume that the ratios $A/B$ and $C/D$
406: are constant during the time-evolution, i.e. the envelope function of the two
407: pump pulses are the same, only their amplitudes and phases are different.
408: Similarly for the Stokes pulses. Consequently, the parameter $k$ defined in
409: Eq.~(\ref{eq:kdef}) is constant. Therefore, the dark state $|D_1\rangle$ is
410: constant throughout the whole time. This simplifies considerably the further
411: analysis. It follows immediately, that though the dark subspace is degenerate,
412: the two dark states do not mix with each-other during the interaction, since
413: $\langle D_2|\dot{D}_1\rangle\!=\!0$. Therefore, the Hamiltonian $\tilde{H}$
414: has a $2\times2$ zero matrix block acting on the dark subspace.
415:
416: The dark state $|D_2\rangle$ has components among the $J\smash{=}0$ and
417: $J\smash{=}2$ states as well. Hence, it is a good candidate to realize the
418: transfer process under consideration. Initially the system is in the state
419: $|0, 0\rangle$. For implementing a STIRAP process, that state should be a dark
420: state of the system. Since the state $|D_1\rangle$ cannot participate in a
421: superposition forming the initial state, we require $|D_2\rangle$ to coincide
422: with the state $|0, 0\rangle$ at early times. This condition is
423: satisfied if $C^2+D^2 \gg A^2+B^2$, which means that the pulses $C$ and $D$
424: arrive before $A$ and $B$. Though we have not presented explicitly the bright
425: states of our system, it is sure that they have no projection to the initial
426: state, since they are always orthogonal to the dark states and
427: $|D_2\rangle\equiv|0, 0\rangle$ initially, if the above condition is
428: fulfilled. This argument ensures that the initial state of the system lays in
429: the dark subspace which is necessary for a STIRAP process.
430:
431: We have required that the final state of the system is a linear combination of
432: the levels with $J\smash{=} 2$ and $m\smash{=} -2, 0, +2$. The dark state
433: $|D_2\rangle$ has these components as well, so the previous condition is true
434: only if the first element of the state $|D_2\rangle$ is zero at the end of the
435: adiabatic evolution. Consequently, at late times it is eligible that $C^2+D^2
436: \ll A^2+B^2$, therefore, the pulses $C$ and $D$ terminate before $A$ and $B$.
437:
438: The previous conditions suggest that for successful population transfer we
439: need counterintuitive time ordering of the pump and Stokes pulses, similarly
440: to the original STIRAP. Now we consider the possibility of adiabatic
441: population transfer using the connectivity argument of Ref.~\cite{Martin1}:
442: The system Hamiltonian has a constant zero eigenvalue which is degenerate.
443: However, as we have shown in the beginning of this Section, the nonadiabatic
444: coupling between the two degenerate dark states vanishes because one of them
445: is constant. As we have seen in the previous paragraphs, the time dependent
446: dark state coincides with the initial state of the system at the beginning of
447: the process when only the Stokes pulse is present. Similarly, this dark state
448: lays in the required final state subspace at the end of the process when only
449: the pump pulse is present. Therefore, the connectivity requirements are
450: satisfied \cite{Martin1}, we have got a dark state that connects smoothly the
451: initial state of the system with the final state. However, besides these
452: conditions we have to fulfill adiabaticity as well. We will discuss this
453: issue below.
454:
455: The considered six-level system can be regarded as four coupled three-level
456: systems: For $A=0$ and $C=0$ the pulses $B$ and $D$ define a three-level
457: STIRAP process between the levels $|0, 0\rangle$, $|1, +1\rangle$ and $|2,
458: 0\rangle$. For $A=0$ and $D=0$ the pulses $B$ and $C$ define a three-level
459: STIRAP process between the levels $|0, 0\rangle$, $|1, +1\rangle$ and $|2,
460: +2\rangle$. For $B=0$, $C=0$ and $B=0$, $D=0$ the situation is similar. The
461: envelopes $A$, $B$, $C$, $D$ can be parametrized in a form that emphasizes the
462: presented qualitative picture:
463: \begin{subequations}
464: \begin{eqnarray}
465: A&=&R_p\cos\eta\,,\\
466: B&=&R_p\sin\eta\,,\\
467: C&=&{R_S\over \sqrt{1+q^2}}\cos\nu\,,\\
468: D&=&{R_S\over \sqrt{1+q^2}}\sin\nu\,,
469: \end{eqnarray}
470: \end{subequations}
471: where the constant angles $\eta$ and $\nu$ are in the interval $[0,\pi/2]$.
472: These angles define the polarization of the laser pulses. The six-level
473: system simplifies to a three-level $\Lambda$ system when $\eta,\nu = 0,
474: \pi/2$. For arbitrary constant angles $\eta$ and $\nu$ fixed couplings exist
475: between the individual three-level STIRAP processes.
476:
477: If the time-evolution is adiabatic, then the dark and bright subspaces do not
478: mix during the whole interaction time \cite{una1,kisb,kisa}. Therefore, if the
479: initial state of the system lays in the dark subspace, it will remain there.
480: The physical consequence of the adiabatic evolution is that the excited states
481: $|1, \pm 1\rangle$ are only minimally populated throughout the transfer
482: process. As we saw in the previous paragraph, when $\eta, \nu = 0, \pi/2$ the
483: system reduces to the ordinary three-level STIRAP. In this case the
484: adiabaticity constraints are simple: Let us take $\eta, \nu = 0, \pi/2$, then
485: adiabaticity requires
486: \begin{equation}\label{adia1}
487: \left|\dot{\vartheta}\frac{\sin^2\varrho}{\cos\varrho}\right|\ll
488: \frac{1}{2} \Omega\,,\qquad
489: \left|\dot{\vartheta}\frac{\cos^2\varrho}{\sin\varrho}\right|\ll
490: \frac{1}{2} \Omega\,,
491: \end{equation}
492: where $\Omega = \sqrt{\Omega_p^2+\kappa^2\, \Omega_S^2}$, $\tan\vartheta =
493: \Omega_p/\kappa \Omega_S$, ($\kappa = 1, q$), and $\tan2\varrho =
494: \Omega/\Delta$. These conditions say that we need large pulse amplitudes and
495: smooth, long pulses. For a complete study we would need the explicit form of
496: the bright states $|B_k\rangle, k=1\hdots4$ of the Hamiltonian in
497: Eq.~(\ref{eq:H1}). Then, adiabaticity requires to satisfy the following four
498: equations:
499: \begin{equation}\label{adia2}
500: |\langle D_2|\dot{B}_k\rangle|\ll|\varepsilon_k - \varepsilon_0|\,,
501: \qquad k=1\hdots4\,,
502: \end{equation}
503: where $\varepsilon_k$ is the adiabatic eigenenergy associated with
504: $|B_k\rangle$, and $\varepsilon_0=0$ belongs to the dark state $|D_2\rangle$.
505: These equations yield the {\em necessary} and {\em sufficient} conditions for
506: the pulses to be fulfilled in order that the evolution satisfy adiabaticity.
507: Although the bright states $|B_k\rangle$ are not available analytically, these
508: equations can be used to test adiabaticity numerically for a certain choice of
509: the pulses. In the numerical simulations presented below we used these
510: equations to test adiabaticity. Besides these conditions, below we show that a
511: simplified approach is also possible: we formulate a {\em sufficient}
512: condition for adiabatic evolution in the six-level system.
513:
514: Our physical intuition suggests that if the three-level STIRAP processes for
515: the special polarizations $\eta,\nu = 0, \pi/2$~ are adiabatic, then the
516: six-level STIRAP process will also be adiabatic for constant angles $\eta$ and
517: $\nu$. This is a {\em sufficient} condition for adiabaticity. It is
518: independent of the polarization of the pulses, in fact, we apply the
519: adiabaticity condition of the original three-level STIRAP to our six-level
520: scheme. We have performed numerical simulations to reveal whether this
521: assumption is valid or not.
522:
523: In Figs. \ref{fig:timeevol1} and \ref{fig:timeevol2}
524: the numerically calculated time evolution of the populations are shown for
525: two different parameter sets. The pulses are Gaussian. The two parameter sets
526: differ only in the phase $\varphi$. The final populations, denoted by $f_1$,
527: $f_2$ and $f_3$ in the figures, are different, hence the phase $\varphi$ has
528: indeed impact on the magnitude of the probability amplitudes in the final
529: state. We interpret this phase dependence as a manifestation of quantum
530: interference among the rivaling coupled population transfer processes.
531:
532: To test adiabaticity in the previous examples, we evaluated Eqs.~(\ref{adia2})
533: for the parameters of Fig.~\ref{fig:timeevol1}. The results are shown in
534: Fig.~\ref{fig:adia1}. It can be seen that for that time-interval when
535: adiabaticity is expected the conditions are well fulfilled. The
536: non-adiabaticity of our six-level STIRAP process can be also quantified by the
537: maximum population of the bright subspace during time-evolution. This
538: non-adiabaticity is $0.014$ and $0.011$ for the two presented processes. The
539: small values show that the mixing between the dark and bright subspaces is
540: negligible, therefore, the time-evolution of the system is adiabatic. The
541: efficiency of the population transfer can be defined as the sum of the norm of
542: the final states with $J=2$. For the two presented processes it is found to
543: be $99.98\%$ and $99.97\%$, showing that it is possible to perform a STIRAP
544: process in the considered six-level system.
545:
546: The final state of the system in the adiabatic limit can be obtained
547: analytically from the expressions of the unitary transformations $U$ and
548: $U_1$ at the beginning and at the end of the population transfer
549: \begin{equation}\label{eq:psif}
550: |\psi_f\rangle=U_1^\dagger U^\dagger_f U_i U_1| \psi_i\rangle\,,
551: \end{equation}
552: provided that $| \psi_i\rangle$ lays in the dark subspace. In our case the
553: initial state of the system is $|\psi_i\rangle=|0, 0\rangle$. After some
554: calculation we obtain
555: \begin{equation}\label{eq:psife}
556: |\psi_f\rangle=\left[\begin{array}{c}
557: 0\\
558: 0\\
559: 0\\
560: (-{y^2k\over qx}\sin\beta e^{-i\zeta}+{yk^2\over q}\cos\beta)
561: e^{-i(\varphi_A+\varphi_C-\xi)}
562: \\
563: {1\over x}\sin\beta e^{-i(\varphi_A+\varphi_D-\xi)}
564: \\
565: (-{y^2k^3\over qx}\sin\beta e^{-i\zeta}-{y\over q}\cos\beta)
566: e^{-i(\varphi_A-\varphi_C+2\varphi_D-\xi)}
567: \end{array}\right],
568: \end{equation}
569: where the parameters $k$, $x$, $y$, $\beta$, $\zeta$, $\xi$ are defined by
570: Eqs. (\ref{eq:params}), and the parameters $\beta$, $\zeta$, and $\xi$ are
571: evaluated at the final time. The equations (\ref{eq:psif}) and
572: (\ref{eq:psife}) together with (\ref{eq:params}) show that our population
573: transfer process is robust with respect to small fluctuations of the
574: experimental parameters such as pulse shapes and pulse areas. However, the
575: relative phases of the pulses influence not only the phases in the final
576: superposition state but the probability amplitudes as well.
577:
578: It is necessary to verify that all possible linear combinations of the states
579: with $J \smash{=} 2$ and $m\smash{=} -2, 0, +2$ can be created by the considered STIRAP
580: process. Suppose, we have a prescribed final state
581: \begin{equation}
582: |\psi_c\rangle=\left[\begin{array}{c}
583: 0\\
584: 0\\
585: 0\\
586: c_1 e^{i\varphi_1}\\
587: c_2 e^{i\varphi_2}\\
588: c_3 e^{i\varphi_3}\\
589: \end{array}\right],
590: \end{equation}
591: and we have found a pulse set with $\varphi_A=0$, $\varphi_B=\varphi$,
592: $\varphi_C=0$, $\varphi_D=0$ for which the final populations of the state
593: $|\psi_f\rangle$ are the same as in the prescribed state, and the equation
594: \begin{eqnarray}
595: \varphi_1+\varphi_3 - 2\varphi_2 &\equiv& \arg |\psi_f\rangle_4+\arg
596: |\psi_f\rangle_6-\nonumber\\
597: &&-2\arg |\psi_f\rangle_5 \mod 2\pi
598: \end{eqnarray}
599: holds. By adjusting the phases of the pulses to
600: \begin{subequations}
601: \label{eq:trans}
602: \begin{eqnarray}
603: \varphi_A&=&\arg|\psi_f\rangle_5-\varphi_2,\\
604: \varphi_B&=&\varphi+\arg|\psi_f\rangle_6-\varphi_3,\\
605: \varphi_C&=&\arg|\psi_f\rangle_5-\arg|\psi_f\rangle_6+\varphi_3-\varphi_2,\\
606: \varphi_D&=&0,
607: \end{eqnarray}
608: \end{subequations}
609: the phases of the final state change to the phases of the prescribed state.
610: The phase $\varphi$ defined by Eq.~(\ref{eq:phidef}) is invariant under the
611: presented phase adjustment, so the final populations remain the same. It
612: follows that for deciding whether all prescribed final states can be reached,
613: it is enough to show that all possible amplitudes $(c_1, c_2, c_3)$ and all
614: possible values of
615: \begin{equation}
616: \delta=\varphi_1+\varphi_3-2\varphi_2\mod 2\pi,
617: \end{equation}
618: can be reached by pulse sets with $\varphi_B=\varphi$ and
619: $\varphi_A=\varphi_C=\varphi_D=0$.
620:
621: The amplitudes $(c_1, c_2, c_3)$ satisfy $c_1^2+c_2^2+c_3^2=1$. This triplet
622: defines a point on the one-eights of the surface of the unit sphere, since the
623: restriction $c_1,c_2,c_3\geq0$ must be satisfied. The surface points can be
624: parametrized by two polar angles $\theta\in[0,\pi/2]$ and $\chi\in[0,\pi/2]$,
625: therefore we have
626: \begin{subequations}
627: \begin{eqnarray}
628: c_1&=&\cos\theta \,,\\
629: c_2&=&\sin\theta\cos\chi \,,\\
630: c_3&=&\sin\theta\sin\chi \,.
631: \end{eqnarray}
632: \end{subequations}
633:
634: If we fix the shape of the pulses and the time-delay between them, then we
635: have three independent parameters which can be adjusted freely: the
636: polarizations $\eta$ and $\nu$ and the combination $\varphi$ of their relative
637: phases. The final state can be characterized by the triplet $(\theta, \chi,
638: \delta)$. Mathematically, our population transfer process assigns to each
639: triplet $(\eta,\nu,\varphi)$ a triplet $(\theta, \chi, \delta)$. If these
640: points fill the cube $[0\ldots\pi/2,0\ldots\pi/2,0\ldots2\pi]$, then all
641: prescribed states can be reached by choosing a corresponding triplet
642: $(\eta,\nu,\varphi)$ and performing the transformation defined in Eq.
643: (\ref{eq:trans}) on the initial phases of the pulses.
644:
645: We have performed numerical simulations in order to answer the above question.
646: The angles $\eta$, $\nu$ and $\varphi$ were incremented by 0.022 in their
647: domain range. We have used the envelope functions
648: $R_p=15\exp[-((t-1.8)/2.82)^2]$ and $R_S=15\sqrt{1+q^2}\exp[-((t+1.8)/2.82)^2]$ for the
649: pump and Stokes pulses, respectively. We have verified that these pulses
650: fulfill the adiabaticity conditions Eq.~(\ref{adia1}) for the field
651: polarizations $\eta, \nu=0, \pi/2$. The resulting triplet set was divided into
652: slices of width 0.1 in $\delta$. Each slice was checked whether it is filled
653: with points. Some of the slices are shown in Figs. \ref{fig:num0.30},
654: \ref{fig:num2.40}, \ref{fig:num3.20}, \ref{fig:numa3.20}, \ref{fig:num4.50},
655: \ref{fig:num6.00}. We have found that each slice is equally and quite
656: uniformly filled with points.
657:
658: We have compared the numerical results with the analytical solution given by
659: Eq. (\ref{eq:psif}). Note that the analytical solution is valid in the
660: adiabatic limit. In this case the increments of the parameters $\eta$, $\nu$
661: and $\varphi$ were 0.015, giving a more detailed picture about the
662: distribution of the resulting points $(\theta,\chi,\delta)$. The differences
663: between the numerical simulation and analytical solution were small, below one
664: percent, showing that the chosen pulse-sets realized a nearly adiabatic
665: evolution. In Fig. \ref{fig:numa3.20} we show a slice of the distribution for
666: the same parameter set as in Fig. \ref{fig:num3.20}.
667:
668: The maximum non-adiabaticity, that we measure as the maximum population of the
669: bright subspace, encountered during the simulation was 0.006. We have also
670: verified that the adiabaticity conditions Eq.~(\ref{adia2}) are fulfilled for
671: the whole parameter range. Therefore, our assumption is indeed true: if the
672: population transfer process is adiabatic for some special polarizations of the
673: pulses $\eta, \nu=0, \pi/2$, i.e. we have an effective three-level system,
674: then it remains adiabatic for arbitrary polarizations, i.e. all the six states
675: are coupled. This is a {\em sufficient} condition for the pulses to satisfy
676: adiabaticity. Based on the results of the numerical simulation and the
677: analytical solution, we conclude that all prescribed states can be reached by
678: the presented STIRAP-like population transfer process and the evolution is
679: adiabatic.
680:
681:
682:
683: \section{Summary}\label{sum}
684: In this paper we have discussed a STIRAP-like population transfer process in a
685: six-level $\Lambda$ system. The initial state has angular momentum $J=0$, the
686: excited state has $J=1$ and the final state has $J=2$. Our aim is to create
687: coherent superposition states on the magnetic sublevels of the final state.
688: Similarly to the original STIRAP, the couplings are realized by a pump and a
689: Stokes laser pulse, which are elliptically polarized in our case. The shape of
690: the pulses and the time-delay between them are fixed. However, their
691: polarizations and the relative phases are freely adjustable but also fixed
692: throughout the whole time. We have defined the Hamiltonian of this system in
693: the RWA approximation. We have found that by time-independent unitary
694: transformations not all the phases can be eliminated from the Hamiltonian,
695: there remains one. This phase factor proved to be indeed relevant, since it
696: influences the probability amplitudes in the final superposition state. We
697: have determined the dark and bright subspaces of our system and we have given
698: explicitly the two dark states. We have shown that the desired population
699: transfer can be realized by a counterintuitive pulse sequence similarly to the
700: original STIRAP. We have studied the conditions for adiabatic evolution in our
701: system: In the case of special polarizations of the pulses the coupling
702: pattern reduces to a simple three-level system. The adiabaticity conditions
703: are well known for this case. We have shown numerically that the system
704: evolves adiabatically for general polarizations as well if adiabaticity
705: prevails for the special choice of the polarizations. We have compared the
706: results of the simulation with the analytically calculated final states in the
707: adiabatic limit, and an excellent agreement has been found. We have verified
708: numerically that the whole final state space can be covered by varying the
709: relative phases and the polarizations of the two exciting pulses, while the
710: pulse shapes and the time-delay between them are fixed.
711:
712: As we mentioned before, the probability amplitudes in the final state depend
713: on the relative phases of the laser pulses. This is unusual in case of the
714: STIRAP process, up to our knowledge that is the first time when the relative
715: phases do matter. The phase dependence results from quantum interference,
716: because the coupling pattern can be considered as a coupled set of three-level
717: STIRAP systems. Therefore, the final state emerges from the rivaling STIRAP
718: processes.
719:
720: Finally, we comment briefly the experimental realization of our scheme: It
721: seems easy to find an atomic system where the coupling pattern can be
722: attained. Two elliptically polarized pulses are required, however, the phase
723: shift between the left- and right-rotating components should be adjustable.
724: Practically this seems the only additional experimental effort to be done
725: compared with the realization of the traditional three-level STIRAP process.
726:
727: \acknowledgments
728:
729: This work was supported by the European Union Research and Training Network
730: COCOMO, contract HPRN-CT-1999-00129. Z.K. acknowledges the support of the
731: J\'anos Bolyai program of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. A.K. acknowledges
732: the support of the Research Fund of Hungary under contract No. T034484.
733:
734: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
735: %
736: \bibitem{LZ}{ L.D. Landau, Phys. Z. Sowjetunion {\bf 2}, 46 (1932); C. Zener,
737: Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A {\bf 137}, 696 (1932).}
738: \bibitem{Rosen}{ N. Rosen and C. Zener, Phys. Rev. {\bf 40}, 502 (1932).}
739: %
740: \bibitem{Demkov}{ Yu.N. Demkov and M. Kunike, Vestn
741: Leningr. Univ. Fis. Khim. {\bf 16}, 39 (1969).}
742: %
743: \bibitem{Hioe}{ F.T. Hioe, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 30}, 2100 (1984).}
744: %
745: \bibitem{Suominen}{ K.-A. Suominen, B.M. Garraway, and S. Stenholm,
746: Opt. Commun. {\bf 82}, 260 (1991).}
747: %
748: \bibitem{vita}{ N.V. Vitanov, T. Halfmann, B.W. Shore, and K. Bergmann,
749: Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem. {\bf 52}, 763 (2001).}
750: %
751: \bibitem{vitb}{ N.V. Vitanov, M. Fleischauer, B.W. Shore and K. Bergmann,
752: Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. {\bf 46}, 55 (2001).}
753: %
754: \bibitem{marte}{ P.~Marte, P.~Zoller and J.L.~Hall, Phys. Rev. A {\bf
755: 44}, R4118 (1991).}
756: %
757: % Tripod: theory
758: \bibitem{una1}{ R.G. Unanyan, M. Fleischhauer, B.W. Shore, and K.
759: Bergmann, Opt. Commun. {\bf 155}, 144 (1998).}
760: %
761: % Tripod: experiment
762: \bibitem{theuer}{ H. Theuer, R.G. Unanyan, C. Habscheid, K. Klein, and
763: K. Bergmann, Opt. Express {\bf 4}, 77 (1999).}
764: %
765: \bibitem{una2}{ R.G. Unanyan, B.W. Shore, and K. Bergmann, Phys. Rev. A
766: {\bf 59}, 2910 (1999).}
767:
768: \bibitem{Chang} B.Y. Chang, I.R. Sol\'a, V.S. Malinovsky, and J. Santamar{\'
769: \i}a, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 64}, 033420 (2001).
770: %
771: %
772: % Preparation of an N-component maximal coherent superposition state ...
773: \bibitem{una3}{ R.G. Unanyan, B.W. Shore, and K. Bergmann, Phys. Rev. A
774: {\bf 63}, 043401 (2001).}
775: %
776: % applications for tripod
777: \bibitem{kisc}{ Z. Kis and F. Renzoni, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 65}, 032318 (2002).}
778: %
779: \bibitem{kisd}{ Z. Kis and S. Stenholm, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 64}, 065401 (2001).}
780: %
781: % multistate superposition
782: %
783: \bibitem{kisa}{ Z. Kis and S. Stenholm, special issue of J. Mod.
784: Optics {\bf 49}, 111 (2002).}
785: %
786: \bibitem{kisb}{ Z. Kis and S. Stenholm, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 64}, 063406 (2001).}
787: %
788: %
789: \bibitem{Shore} B.W. Shore, J. Martin, M.P. Fewell, and K. Bergmann,
790: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 52}, 566 (1995).
791:
792: \bibitem{Martin1} J. Martin, B.W. Shore, and K. Bergmann,
793: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 52}, 583 (1995).
794:
795: \bibitem{Martin2} J. Martin, B.W. Shore, and K. Bergmann,
796: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 54}, 1556 (1996).
797:
798: \bibitem{Carroll} C.E. Carroll and F.T. Hioe, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 68}, 3523
799: (1992).
800:
801: \bibitem{Nakajima} T. Nakajima, M. Elk, J. Zhang, and P. Lambropoulos,
802: Phys. Rev. A {\bf 50}, R913 (1994).
803:
804: \bibitem{vitc} N.V. Vitanov and S. Stenholm, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 60}, 3820
805: (1999).
806:
807: \bibitem{Yatsenko} L.P. Yatsenko, R.G. Unanyan, K. Bergmann, T. Halfmann, and
808: B.W. Shore, Opt. Commun. {\bf 135}, 406 (1997).
809:
810: \bibitem{vitd} N.V. Vitanov and S. Stenholm, Phys. Rev. A {\bf 56}, 741
811: (1997).
812:
813: \bibitem{Paspalakis} E. Paspalakis, M. Protopapas, and P.L. Knight,
814: Opt. Commun. {\bf 142}, 34 (1997).
815:
816: \bibitem{una4} R.G. Unanyan, N.V. Vitanov, and S. Stenholm, Phys. Rev. A {\bf
817: 57}, 462 (1998).
818:
819: \bibitem{una5} R.G. Unanyan, N.V. Vitanov, B.W. Shore, and K. Bergmann, Phys.
820: Rev. A {\bf 61}, 043408 (2000).
821:
822: \bibitem{bruce} B.W. Shore, {\em The theory of coherent atomic excitation}
823: (Wiley, New York, 1990).
824:
825: \bibitem{arimondo}{ E. Arimondo, in Progress in Optics ed. E. Wolf,
826: XXXV, p. 257 (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1996).}
827: %
828: %
829: \bibitem{maple}{ Maple is a symbolic computer algebra software, a product of
830: Waterloo Maple Inc.}
831: %
832: %
833: \end{thebibliography}
834:
835: \begin{figure}
836: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth/2-1cm]{fig1}
837: \caption{The six-level $\Lambda$ system. The levels $|2,\pm1\rangle$
838: and $|1,0\rangle$ are not coupled to other levels. The remaining levels form
839: the six-level $\Lambda$ configuration. Levels with $J\smash{=} 0$ and
840: $J\smash{=} 2$ are coupled through the levels with $J\smash{=}1$ by the pump
841: (p) and Stokes (S) laser pulses with right- and left-hand circular
842: polarization $(+/-)$. The corresponding Rabi frequencies are
843: $\Omega_{S\pm}$ and $\Omega_{p\pm}$, respectively. The pulses are at
844: two-photon resonance, but may be detuned from the $J\smash{=}1$ levels by a
845: certain detuning $\Delta$. Only the level $|0,0\rangle$ is populated
846: initially. }
847: \label{fig:levels}
848: \end{figure}
849: \begin{figure}
850: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth/2-1cm]{fig2}
851: \caption{The numerically computed time evolution of the populations are
852: shown for a set of Gaussian pulses. The pulse shapes are the following:
853: $R_p=10\exp[-((t-1.6)/2.8)^2]$, $R_S=10\sqrt{1+q^2}\exp[-((t+1.6)/2.8)^2]$;
854: the polarizations are characterized by the angles $\eta=0.5$, $\nu=1.04$;
855: finally $\varphi=3.34$. The excitation is resonant $\Delta=0$. Time is
856: measured in arbitrary units.}
857: \label{fig:timeevol1}
858: \end{figure}
859: \begin{figure}
860: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth/2-1cm]{fig3}
861: \caption{The numerically computed time evolution of the populations are
862: shown for another set of Gaussian pulses. The pulse shapes are the same as
863: in Fig. \ref{fig:timeevol1}, only the phase $\varphi$ is changed to $4.74$.}
864: \label{fig:timeevol2}
865: \end{figure}
866: \begin{figure}
867: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth/2-1cm]{fig4a}\\
868: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth/2-1cm]{fig4b}
869: \caption{The adiabaticity of the process shown in
870: Fig.~\ref{fig:timeevol1}. The upper plot shows the pulses, in the lower
871: figure the ratios $|\varepsilon_k-\varepsilon_0|/|\langle
872: D_2|\dot{B}_k\rangle|\,,\, k=1\hdots4$ are plotted. Note that two pairs of
873: the eigenstates and matrix elements coincide, hence only two curves can be
874: distinguished. Time and frequency are measured in arbitrary units.}
875: \label{fig:adia1}
876: \end{figure}
877: \begin{figure}[p]
878: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth/2-1cm]{fig5}
879: \caption{The slice with $\delta=0.30\pm0.05$ of the cube filled by the
880: points $(\theta,\chi,\delta)$ which result from the numerical solution of
881: the Scr{\" o}dinger equation (\ref{eq:Sch}). We have fixed the shape of the
882: pulses and the time delay between them, only their polarizations and
883: relative phases were varied. }
884: \label{fig:num0.30}
885: \end{figure}
886: \begin{figure}[p]
887: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth/2-1cm]{fig6}
888: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:num0.30} but $\delta=2.4$. }
889: \label{fig:num2.40}
890: \end{figure}
891: \begin{figure}[p]
892: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth/2-1cm]{fig7}
893: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:num0.30} but $\delta=3.2$. }
894: \label{fig:num3.20}
895: \end{figure}
896: \begin{figure}[p]
897: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth/2-1cm]{fig8}
898: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:num3.20} but the points are computed from the
899: analytical solution Eq.~(\ref{eq:psife}). }
900: \label{fig:numa3.20}
901: \end{figure}
902: \begin{figure}[p]
903: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth/2-1cm]{fig9}
904: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:num0.30} but $\delta=4.5$. }
905: \label{fig:num4.50}
906: \end{figure}
907: \begin{figure}[p]
908: \includegraphics[angle=-90,width=\textwidth/2-1cm]{fig10}
909: \caption{Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:num0.30} but $\delta=6.0$. }
910: \label{fig:num6.00}
911: \end{figure}
912:
913: \end{document}
914: