1: %\input{tcilatex}
2:
3:
4: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers]{revtex4}
5: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6: \usepackage{amsfonts}
7: \usepackage{graphicx}
8: \usepackage{bm}
9:
10: %TCIDATA{OutputFilter=LATEX.DLL}
11: %TCIDATA{Version=5.00.0.2552}
12: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="SaveForMode" CONTENT="1">}
13: %TCIDATA{LastRevised=Tuesday, November 29, 2005 17:11:51}
14: %TCIDATA{<META NAME="GraphicsSave" CONTENT="32">}
15:
16: \input{tcilatex}
17:
18: \begin{document}
19:
20: \preprint{}
21: \title{Influence of a repump laser on a nearly degenerate four-wave-mixing \\
22: spectrum in atomic vapors}
23: \author{Wei Jiang}
24: \email{jwayne@mail.ustc.edu.cn}
25: \author{Qun-feng Chen}
26: \author{Yong-sheng Zhang}
27: \author{G. -C. Guo}
28: \affiliation{Key Laboratory of Quantum Information,\\
29: University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, 230026,P. R. China}
30: \date{\today}
31: \pacs{42.65.Hw, 32.80.-t}
32:
33: \begin{abstract}
34: The influence of a repump laser on a nearly degenerate four-wave-mixing
35: (NDFWM) spectrum was investigated. We found the amplitude and line shape of
36: the NDFWM depended strongly on the detuning of the repump field. A five-peak
37: structure was observed. And at some certain repump detuning a dip appeared
38: at the central peak. A rough analysis was proposed to explain this effect.
39: \end{abstract}
40:
41: \maketitle
42:
43: \section{INTRODUCTINON}
44:
45: Nearly degenerate four-wave mixing (NDFWM) has been extensively studied
46: during last three decades, because it has many applications, such as phase
47: conjugating mirror and NDFWM spectroscopy \cite%
48: {Fisher,Liao,Bloch,Grynberg,Oria,JLiu,Zhu1,Lezama}. In the latter case
49: people are interested in the line shape of the spectrum. This spectrum can
50: provide important information about the relaxation of states due to
51: reservoir coupling. Many experiments employed alkali vapor as the nonlinear
52: medium. Various theoretical models were presented \cite{Boyd,Steel,Berman}.
53: These models were based on a two-level system (TLS) driven by a pump field.
54: However in the real case a pure TLS is hard to find, one must consider the
55: influence of Zeeman degeneracy and other effects. In this paper we report an
56: experimental study of NDFWM when a repump field is applied. We show that
57: this repump field not only increases the NDFWM signal dramatically but also
58: affects the lineshape of the NDFWM spectrum in a profound way. We present a
59: simple model to explain one single phenomenon. More efforts are still needed
60: to fully understand the phenomena that we observed.
61:
62: \section{EXPERIMENT}
63:
64: We used the D1 transition of $^{85}Rb$ to produce the NDFWM signal and a
65: repump laser was tuned to D2 line of $^{85}Rb$. Fig. 1 shows the energy
66: diagram of the atom and schematic setup of the experiment. The pump field
67: was detuned from $5S_{1/2}(F=2)\rightarrow 5P_{1/2}(F=3)$ transition. $%
68: \Delta $ is detuning of pump laser from this transition. The probe laser
69: scanned across this transition. The relative detuning of probe field to pump
70: field is $\delta .$ The repump laser was tuned near $5S_{1/2}(F=3)%
71: \rightarrow 5P_{3/2}$ manifold with detuning $\Delta _{r}$. $\Delta _{r}$ is
72: the detuning from $5S_{1/2}(F=3)\rightarrow 5P_{3/2}(F=2)$ transition. All
73: these lasers are external cavity diode laser (ECDL) and have a linewidth
74: below 1MHz. The powers of pump and probe fields are both 0.6mW. The power of
75: repump field is 3mW. In order to minimize the influence of Doppler
76: broadening, the angle between probe and pump beam were kept small (about
77: 4mrad). Diameters of the probe and pump beam are about 1mm. After passing
78: the vapor cell the forward pump beam was reflected back to form the backward
79: pump beam and overlapped with the forward pump beam. The pump and probe
80: laser were both linearly polarized. The generated NDFWM signal was pick up
81: by a 50/50 beam splitter and directed to a photodiode detector. The
82: temperature of the vapor cell was about $60^{\circ }$C, which resulted in an
83: atomic density $3.5\times 10^{11}/cm^{3}$.
84:
85: Fig. 2 shows the recorded signal without repump beam. The signal has a
86: triplet structure. This phenomenon has been reported in Ref. \cite{Zhu1},
87: but was not properly explained. In Ref. \cite{Zhu1} the three peaks were
88: said to be located at $\delta =0$ and $\delta =\pm \Omega ^{\prime },$where $%
89: \Omega ^{\prime }=\sqrt{\Delta ^{2}+\Omega ^{2}}$ is the generalized Rabi
90: frequency and $\Omega $ is Rabi frequency of the forward pump field. And a
91: picture based on dressed-state was given. However this is not correct.
92: Actually the two side peaks were located at ($\delta =\pm 2\Delta $)
93: respectively \cite{Steel}. Fig. 3 are positions of NDFWM peaks versus pump
94: detuning $\Delta $. We can see the experimental data and the theoretical
95: curve are in good agreement. Note that the produced NDFWM signal is rather
96: small. This is because of the optical pumping effect of the pump and probe
97: fields. These fields pumped most of the atoms to $5S_{1/2}(F=3)$ manifold
98: through optical pumping process. Atoms in this internal state will not
99: contribute to the NDFWM process, thus leads to a small signal. However when
100: we added a repump laser to pump these atoms back to the $5S_{1/2}(F=2)$
101: manifold, the produced NDFWM signal was dramatically changed. First the
102: signal increased significantly (Increased by a factor 20 when repump had an
103: appropriate detuning). This is easy to understand because the atoms which
104: can produce the NDFWM signal was increased due to hyperfine optical pumping
105: of the repump laser. It is more interesting that the lineshape of the NDFWM
106: signal changed dramatically too. We found this change depended sensitively
107: on the detuning of the repump laser. Fig. 4 shows the observed NDFWM signal
108: with a fixed pump detuning $\Delta \approx 105$MHz and various repump
109: detuning. The most remarkable change was that the original triplet structure
110: changed to a five-peak structure ($\Delta _{r}=-60$MHz). And at certain
111: repump detuning a dip appeared at the central peak. The relative amplitude
112: of these peaks also depended sensitively on the detuning of the repump
113: laser. The dip at the central peak appeared when the detuning of repump
114: field is about -79MHz. The FWHM of the dip was sub-Doppler and was dominated
115: by the residual Doppler width due to imperfect probe-pump aligning. As
116: pointed out in an early work by Berman \cite{Berman}, narrow structure was
117: expected to appear whenever the system did not conserve population,
118: orientation or alignment.
119:
120: \section{DISCUSSIONS}
121:
122: The five-peak structure is hard to explain although interesting. Here we
123: only give a possible explanation of these phenomena. The change of
124: amplitudes of these peaks maybe owing to the hole burning effect and the
125: energy level degeneracy. Because the linewidth of the repump laser is
126: narrow, it will burn a hole on the Maxwell velocity distribution of the
127: atoms. That is atoms with a certain velocity will experience the hyperfine
128: optical pumping effect. When the repump laser is scanned, atoms with
129: different velocity will be pumped back to $5S_{1/2}(F=2)$ manifold.
130: Consequently this will cause different lineshape of NDFWM signal at
131: different repump detuning $\Delta _{r}$. In the following we will try to
132: explain one single phenomenon that we observed. That is the dip in Fig. 4(c).
133:
134: Consider a two level system as showed in Fig. 5. $\gamma _{1}$, $\gamma _{2}$
135: are total relaxation rates of level 1 and 2 respectively. $\gamma
136: _{2\rightarrow 1}$ are spontaneous decay from level 2 to level 1. $\Delta
137: =\omega -\omega _{0}$ and $\delta =\omega _{p}-\omega $ are detunings of the
138: pump field and the probe field respectively. We adopt the treatment in Ref.~%
139: \cite{Steel}. The equation which governs the evolution of density matrix $%
140: \rho $ is given by,%
141: \begin{widetext}
142: \begin{equation}
143: i\hbar(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\vec{v}\cdot\nabla)\rho
144: =[H_{0},\rho]+[V,\rho]-\frac{i\hbar}{2}[\Gamma,\rho]+i\hbar\frac{d\rho}%
145: {dt}|_{sp}+i\hbar\frac{d\rho}{dt}|_{ph}+i\hbar\Lambda\;,
146: \end{equation}
147: where $H_{0}$ is free Hamiltonian of the system, $V$ is the interaction term,
148: $\vec{v}\cdot\nabla$ accounts for the motion of the atoms. $\Gamma$
149: represents decay to the reservoir. $\frac{d\rho}{dt}|_{sp}$ and $\frac{d\rho
150: }{dt}|_{sp}$ describe decay from 2 to 1 and decay of coherence between them
151: respectively. $\Lambda$ is the term to account for incoherent pumping. The equations for the matrix elements are,%
152: \begin{eqnarray}
153: i\hbar(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\vec{v}\cdot\nabla)\rho
154: _{11}&=&(V_{12}\rho_{21}-c.c.)-i\hbar\gamma_{1}\rho_{11}+i\hbar\gamma
155: _{2\to1}\rho_{22}+i\hbar\lambda_{1}\;, \label{de1}
156: \\%
157: i\hbar(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\vec{v}\cdot\nabla)\rho
158: _{22}&=&-(V_{12}\rho_{21}-c.c.)-i\hbar\gamma_{2}\rho_{22}+i\hbar\lambda_{2}\;,\label{de2}
159: \\%
160: i\hbar(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\vec{v}\cdot\nabla)\rho
161: _{12}&=&-\hbar\omega_{0}\rho_{12}+(V_{12}\rho_{22}-\rho_{11}V_{21})-i\hbar
162: \gamma_{ph}^{T}\rho_{12}\;, \label{de3}%
163: \end{eqnarray}
164: where $\gamma_{ph}^{T}=\frac{1}{2}(\gamma_{1}+\gamma_{2})+\gamma_{ph}$.
165:
166: The third order nonlinear polarization generated by $E_{f},$ $E_{b}$ and
167: $E_{p}$ is $P^{(3)}=\chi^{(3)}E_{f}E_{b}E_{p}^{*}$. The phase matching conditions
168: result in the signal field, $E_{s}$, counterpropagating with the probe
169: beam. If the pump fields are at frequency $\omega$ and the probe field at
170: frequency $\omega+\delta,$ then by energy conservation the frequency of the signal is $\omega-\delta$. Solving the density equations (\ref{de1}-\ref{de3}) in a perturbation manner can yield,%
171: \begin{eqnarray}
172: P^{(3)}&=&-\frac{N_{0}\mu_{12}}{4}\Omega_{f}\Omega_{b}\Omega_{p}^{\ast
173: }e^{-i[(\omega-\delta)t+\vec{k}_{p}\cdot\vec{r}]}%
174: \frac{1}{-(\Delta-\delta)-\vec k_{p}\cdot\vec
175: {v}+i\gamma_{ph}^{T}}\nonumber\\
176: &&\times[\frac{1-R}{\delta-\Delta\vec{k}%
177: \cdot\vec{v}+i\gamma_{1}}+\frac{1+R}{\delta-\Delta\vec
178: {k}\cdot\vec{v}+i\gamma_{2}}][\frac{1}{-\Delta+\vec k_{f}\cdot\vec{v}+i\gamma_{12}}+\frac{1}{(\delta+\Delta
179: )-\vec k_{p}\cdot\vec{v}+\gamma_{12}}]+c.c\;,
180: \end{eqnarray}
181: \end{widetext}where $\Omega _{i}\ (i=f,b,p)$ is the Rabi frequency $\mu
182: _{12}E_{i}/\hbar $ associated with optical field $E_{i}$. $N_{0}$ is the
183: equilibrium population difference,%
184: \begin{equation}
185: (\rho _{11}-\rho _{22})_{eq}=\frac{\lambda _{1}}{\gamma _{1}}-\frac{\lambda
186: _{2}}{\gamma _{2}}(1-\frac{\gamma _{2\rightarrow 1}}{\gamma _{1}})
187: \end{equation}
188:
189: The spectrum lineshape is determined by the decay parameters mentioned
190: above. Two situations are of special interest in our case. Fig. 6(a) and (b)
191: shows the two NDFWM spectrum without integration over velocity distribution.
192: In Fig. 6(a), where $\gamma _{1}<\gamma _{2}-\gamma _{2\to 1},$ we can see
193: the triplet structure. A narrow peak in center and two broader peaks at the
194: wings. The linewidth of the center peak is determined by $\gamma _{1}$. When
195: $\gamma _{1}>\gamma _{2}-\gamma _{2\to 1}$ the spectrum (Fig. 6(b)) is quite
196: different with the one shown in Fig. 6(a). While the essential difference is
197: that a dip appeared in the center of the spectrum. Fig. 6(c) and (d) are the
198: spectrums after integration over velocity. We can see the dip still exists
199: in Fig. 6(d), but the two side peaks are washed out by the integration.
200:
201: Compare the phenomena we observed with the theory we can see that when a
202: repump laser with appropriate detuning is added the effective decay rate $%
203: \gamma _{2}-\gamma _{2\to 1}$ is dramatically reduced. Consequently a dip
204: will appear at the center of the spectrum. However quantitatively comparison
205: between experimental data and theoretical values is impossible because the
206: model we use is overly simplified. One must take the level degeneracy into
207: account. And the hole burning effect and power broadening of the repump
208: laser should also be taken into consideration. Therefore careful and complex
209: calculation is needed to achieve this goal.
210:
211: We also changed the polarizations of pump, probe and repump beam
212: respectively. We found that the NDFWM signal was insensitive to these
213: changes. Only small variation of signal amplitude was observed.
214:
215: In order to study the influence of the repump power on the NDFWM signal, we
216: did the experiment with different repump powers. We found when we increased
217: the repump power the signal increased while showed some saturation. When the
218: repump power was high enough, the dip in the center of the spectrum
219: disappeared. This is because the power broadening caused by the repump laser
220: washed out this tiny structure.
221:
222: Finally we want to mention that we noticed there was a similar work reported
223: by Zhu \textit{et. al.} \cite{Zhu2}. But the phenomenon they observed was
224: totally different. In their work the D2 transitions of $^{85}Rb$ were used
225: to produce NDFWM signal and a repump laser was tuned to the D1 transitions.
226: They found no significant changes except the signal was amplified several
227: times. We conjecture that this is because their lasers were so strong that
228: saturation and power broadening became the dominant effects.
229:
230: \section{CONCLUSION}
231:
232: In conclusion, we have studied the influence of a repump laser on a NDFWM
233: spectrum. We found the amplitude and line shape of the NDFWM depended
234: strongly on the detuning of the repump field. A five-peak structure was
235: observed. And at a certain repump detuning a dip appeared at the central
236: peak. A rough analysis was proposed to explain this effect. More efforts are
237: still needed to fully understand the phenomena that we observed.
238:
239: \begin{acknowledgments}
240: This work was funded by National Fundamental Research Program
241: (2001CB309300), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
242: 60121503, 10304017), the Innovation funds from Chinese Academy of Sciences.
243: \end{acknowledgments}
244:
245: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
246: \bibitem{Fisher} \textit{Optical Phase Conjugation}, edited by R. Fisher
247: (Acadamic Press, New York, 1983).
248:
249: \bibitem{Liao} P. F. Liao, D. M. Bloom, and N. P. Economou, App. Phys. Lett.
250: \textbf{32}, 813 (1978).
251:
252: \bibitem{Bloch} D. Bloch, R. K. Raj, K. S. Peng, and M. Ducloy, Phys. Rev.
253: Lett. \textbf{49}, 719 (1982).
254:
255: \bibitem{Grynberg} G. Grynberg, M. Pinard, and P. Verkerk, Opt. Commun.
256: \textbf{50}, 261 (1984).
257:
258: \bibitem{Oria} M. Oria, D. Bloch, M. Fichet, and M. Ducloy, Opt. Lett.
259: \textbf{4}, 1082 (1989).
260:
261: \bibitem{JLiu} Jing Liu, D. G. Steel, Phys. Rev. A \textbf{38}, 4639 (1988).
262:
263: \bibitem{Lezama} A. Lezama, G. C. Cardoso, and J. W. Tabosa, Phys. Rev. A
264: \textbf{63}, 013805 (2000).
265:
266: \bibitem{Zhu1} Jun Lin, A. I. Rubiera, and Y. F. Zhu, Phys. Rev. A \textbf{52%
267: }, 4882 (1995).
268:
269: \bibitem{Boyd} R. W. Boyd, M. G. Raymer, P. Narum and D. J. Harter, Phys.
270: Rev. A \textbf{24}, 411 (1981).
271:
272: \bibitem{Steel} D. G. Steel, J. T. Remillard, Phys. Rev. A \textbf{36}, 4330
273: (1987).
274:
275: \bibitem{Berman} P. R. Berman, D. G. Steel, G. Khitrova and J. Liu, Phys.
276: Rev. A \textbf{38}, 252 (1988).
277:
278: \bibitem{Zhu2} Y. F. Zhu, T. N. Wasserlauf, and P. Sanchez, Phys. Rev. A
279: \textbf{55}, 668 (1997).
280: \end{thebibliography}
281:
282: \vspace*{5ex}
283:
284: \textbf{Figure Captions}
285:
286: Fig. 1 Experimental Setup. P, polarizer; BS, 50/50 beam splitter; D, photo
287: diode detector. The angle between probe and pump beam were about 4mrad.
288: Diameters of the probe and the pump beam were about 1mm. After passing the
289: vapor cell the forward pump beam was reflected back to form the backward
290: pump beam and overlapped with the forward pump beam. The pump and probe
291: beams were 795nm lasers tuned near the $5S_{1/2}(F=2)\rightarrow
292: 5P_{1/2}(F=3)$ transition of $^{85}Rb$ with detuning $\Delta $ and $\delta $
293: respectively. The repump beam was a 780 nm laser tuned near $5S_{1/2}(F=3)$ $%
294: \rightarrow $ $5P_{3/2}$ manifold with detuning $\Delta _{r}$. $\Delta _{r}$
295: is the detuning from $5S_{1/2}(F=3)\rightarrow 5P_{3/2}(F=2)$ transition.
296:
297: Fig. 2 NDFWM spectrum without repump beam. The pump detuning $\Delta =115$%
298: MHz. $\delta $ is the relative detuning from the frequency of central peak.
299:
300: Fig. 3 Peak positions of three NDFWM resonance versus pump detuning $\Delta.
301: $
302:
303: Fig. 4 NDFWM spectrum with repump field turned on and various repump
304: detuning $\Delta _{r}$. From (a) to (j) the repump detuning $\Delta _{r}$
305: are -205MHz, -132MHz, -79MHz, -60MHz, -15MHz, 93MHz, 122MHz, 163MHz, 168MHz
306: and 317 MHz respectively.
307:
308: Fig. 5 Simple two-level system. $\gamma_{1}$ and $\gamma_{2}$ are total
309: decay rate of level 1 and 2 respectively. $\gamma_{2\to1}$ is the decay rate
310: from 2 to 1.
311:
312: Fig. 6 Calculated NDFWM spectrum based on Eq.(5) with different parameters.
313: (a) $\Delta =50,\ \gamma _{1}=3,\ \gamma _{2}=6,\ \gamma _{ph}=3,\
314: \gamma_{2\to 1}=6$. (b) $\Delta =50,\ \gamma _{1}=3,\ \gamma _{2}=0.1,\
315: \gamma_{ph}=3,\ \gamma _{2\to 1}=6$. (c) the same as (a) but the spectrum
316: was integrated over velocity distribution. (d) the same as (b) but the
317: spectrum was integrated over velocity distribution.
318:
319: \end{document}
320: