Open Quantum System Studies of Optical Lattices andNonlinear Optical Cavities:
A Comprehensive Development of Atomtronics
byRonald A. Pepino
B.S., University of Connecticut, 2003

A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillmentof the requirements for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy
Department of Physics
2011This thesis entitled:Open Quantum System Studies of Optical Lattices and Nonlinear Optical Cavities:
A Comprehensive Development of Atomtronics
written by Ronald A. Pepino
has been approved for the Department of Physics

Murray Holland

Ana Maria Rey

Date

The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both thecontent and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above
mentioned discipline.

iii
Pepino, Ronald A. (Ph.D., Physics)
Open Quantum System Studies of Optical Lattices and Nonlinear Optical Cavities:
A Comprehensive Development of Atomtronics
Thesis directed by Prof. Murray Holland

A generalized open quantum theory that models the transport properties of bosonic systems
is derived from first principles. This theory is shown to correctly describe the long-time behavior ofa specific class of non-Markovian system-reservoir interactions. Starting with strongly-interacting
bosons in optical lattices, we use this theory to construct a novel, one-to-one analogy with electronic systems, components, and devices. Beginning with the concept of a wire, we demonstrate
theoretically the ultracold boson analog of a semiconductor diode, a field-effect transistor, anda bipolar junction transistor. In a manner directly analogous to electronics, we show that it ispossible to construct combinatorial logic structures from the fundamental electronic-emulating devices just described. In this sense, our proposal for atomtronic devices is a useful starting point
for arrangements with more complex functionality. In addition we show that the behavior of the
proposed diode should also be possible utilizing a weakly-interacting, coherent bosonic drive.
After demonstrating the formal equivalence between systems comprised of bosons in opticallattices and photons in nonlinear cavity networks, we use the formalism to extend the ideas andconcepts developed earlier in ultracold boson systems to nonlinear optical systems. We adapt the
open quantum system theory to this new physical environment, and demonstrate theoretically how
a few-photon optical diode can be realized in a coupled nonlinear cavity system. An analysis ofdifferent practical cavity quantum electrodynamics systems is presented and experimentally-viablecandidates are evaluated.

Dedication

To my family, including Jen and Scooter, with much love.

Acknowledgements

Although some people do perform science in vacuum. Science—in general—is not done in a
vacuum. It would be hard for me to imagine completing this work with out the good fortune tohave interacted with the following people.
First, I would like to thank my brilliant, talented, and charismatic high school physics teacher
Dr. James Volo. This man introduced me to the discipline of physics as well as ignited in me thepassion that kept me in the field for the last thirteen years.
Next, I would like to thank my professors/mentors/friends at the University of Connecticut.
From these faculty members, I acquired the fundamental skills needed to think about and analyze
physical problems.
I would also like to thank Vasili Kharchenko and Alex Dalgarno at ITAMP. Under theirguidance, I honed my research skills, learned how to program, as well as write scientific papers.
I would like to thank the faculty here at the University of Colorado. The outstanding facultythat I had a chance to overlap with have all been great educators/mentors. I am especially gratefulto Paul Beale, Ana Maria Rey, Dana Anderson and Robert Parson for sitting on my dissertationcommittees. Poor Professor Beale also suffered through my second comprehensive exam process,where he was very helpful in guiding my learning of renormalization group methods in understanding
critical phenomena.
I am grateful to have met so many talented, interesting, and fun colleagues and friends here
at CU, especially my fellow members of the Holland group: Rajiv, Brian, Jochen, Brandon, Merit,Jami, Boris, Sarah, David, and Dominic. These people have all contributed to this thesis in some

vi
way.
I owe much gratitude to John (a.k.a. Jinks) Cooper. From the very beginning of my work in
Murray’s group, Jinks has always made himself available to me. I was a great benefactor of Jinks’piercing physical intuition. Despite the fact that Jinks would probably regard myself as a Markov
process from time to time, he has patiently remained a pain in the ass, who refused to settle for
an imprecise explanation on just about anything. He also saw to it that I left Colorado knowing
many of the standard quantum optics analytical ‘tricks of the trade’. Our interaction, has helped
make me a better, more careful, and thorough scientist.
Finally—and most of all—I would like to thank (full) Professor Murray Holland, who allowed
me be part of his group, financially supported me (even over himself when funding became an issue),and provided me with intellectual freedom, as well as guidance, when I needed it. Equipped witha wealth of creative scientific ideas, as well as keen physical insight, Murray has been an excellent
scientific mentor to me over the past few years. He is also one of the best public speakers/lecturersthat I have ever seen. Observing him, as well as listening to his suggestions regarding my own
presentations, I feel that my own lecture style has improved greatly. Additionally, in Brandon’sabsence, Murray became the editor-in-chief for this thesis. And, although Murray loves atomtronics,
I have a sneaking suspicion that upon the third read/overhaul of this work, his enthusiasm wasstarting to fade a bit. On top of all of these things, Murray has also been a good friend as well as
an exceptional scientific and personal role model.

Contents

Chapter
1 Introduction

1

2 Background and Physical Concepts

7

2.1

2.2

2.3

Atoms in Optical Lattices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

2.1.1

Interaction of an atom with a standing electromagnetic wave . . . . . . . . . 10

2.1.2

The Bose-Hubbard model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Photons in coupled optical cavities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.1

Simple cavity theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.2.2Classical treatment of cavity input-output theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.2.3

Cascaded optical cavities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.2.4

Effect of a nonlinear media in a cavity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2.2.5

The effective system Hamiltonian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2.2.6

Cavity QED experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Electromagnetically-induced transparency and the giant Kerr nonlinearity . . . . . . 25
2.3.1

EIT Kerr nonlinearity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2.3.2

Giant EIT-like Kerr nonlinearity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3 Open Quantum Systems and the Master Equation Formalism

33

3.1

The master equation formalism under the Born and Markov approximations . . . . . 34

3.2

A memory kernel approach to the master equation formalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

viii
3.3

Equivalence of the two formalisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3.4

Time-dependent master equation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3.5

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4 Non-Markovian Open Quantum Systems

46

4.1

Coupling an atom to the vacuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.2

Sharp reservoirs: a non-Markovian situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4.3

Fourth-order estimate of the full memory kernel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.3.1

The physical interpretation of η . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

4.4

Closed system model estimate for η . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4.5

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

5 Atomtronics with Atoms in Optical Lattices

63

5.1

Calculating atomic current through a custom optical lattice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

5.2

A strongly-interacting boson reservoir model (fermionized bosons) . . . . . . . . . . 67

5.3

5.4

5.2.1

The atomtronic wire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

5.2.2

The atomtronic diode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

5.2.3

The atomtronic field-effect transistor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

5.2.4

The atomtronic bipolar junction transistor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

5.2.5

Discrete atomtronics logic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Weakly-interacting boson reservoir model (BEC reservoir) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
5.3.1

The BEC reservoir model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

5.3.2

The BEC-driven atomtronic diode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

6 Time-Dependent Open Quantum Systems

89

6.1

Bistable circuitry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

6.2

Transport enhancement via tunneling barrier modulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

ix
6.3

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

7 Atomtronics with Photons in Optical Cavities

97

7.1

Driving the few-photon optical diode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

7.2

Theoretical prediction of the photon diode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

7.3

Exploring experimental realizations of the photon diode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

7.4

7.3.1

Single atom EIT cavity QED as a few photon diode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

7.3.2

Toroidal microcavities as a few photon diode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

7.3.3

Photonic band-gap cavities as a few photon diode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

8 Conclusion
8.1

115

Future work and outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

Bibliography

117

Appendix
A Master Equation Solution Methods

125

x

Tables

Table
4.1

Closed system verification of η . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

5.1

AND gate truth table and atomtronic device response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

6.1

Truth table for the set-reset flip-flop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Figures

Figure1.1

Illustrations of Micheli’s and Stickney’s atomtronic transistor devices . . . . . . . . .

2

1.2

Illustration of the atomtronics analogy of a simple circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

2.1

Illustration of a BEC trapped confined in a 2-D and 3-D optical lattice potential . .

8

2.2

Mott insulator-to-superfluid phase transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

2.3

Experimental image of single atoms in a 640 nm optical lattice . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.4

Illustration of an etalon and a plot of its frequency response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2.5

Illustration of an etalon cavity with characteristic mode waist w0 . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.6

Illustration of a driven, coupled etalon system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2.7

Illustration of a driven, coupled etalon system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2.8

Illustration of a finite width dielectric boundary and its infinitely-thin counterpart . 21

2.9

Schematic of a three-level EIT atom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

2.10 χ(1) responses as a function of probe laser detuning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.11 Giant Kerr four-level atom and corresponding cavity QED experiment schematic . . 30
3.1

Graphical representation of the integration domain of the t1 and τ integrals . . . . . 38

4.1

Schematic of a two-level atom coupled to the vacuum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4.2

Two-level atom coupled to the standard vacuum and a vacuum with a hard edge . . 50

4.3

Analytic verification of our non-Markovian master equation model . . . . . . . . . . 56

4.4

Illustration of a numerical test of large closed quantum system . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

xii
4.5

Demonstration of the calculation of a η/ωc for a large closed quantum system . . . . 59

4.6

Plots verifying predicted value of η . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

5.1

Illustration of an optical lattice coupled to the environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

5.2

Analysis of terms in the master equation in the n-particle manifold . . . . . . . . . . 66

5.3

Illustration of the atomtronics analogy of a simple circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

5.4

Current response of the atomtronic wire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

5.5

Energy schematic and dynamics of the atomtronic diode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

5.6

Four site diode schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

5.7

Comparison of the current responses of the two and four site diodes . . . . . . . . . 76

5.8

Current response of the atomtronic FET as a function of the chemical potential . . . 80

5.9

Illustration and energy schematic for the atomtronic BJT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

5.10 BJT current response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
5.11 Electronic and atomtronic AND gate circuit schematic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
5.12 Illustration of an atomtronic wire coupled to a BEC drive as well as the vacuum . . 86
5.13 Current response of the BEC-driven diode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
6.1

Illustration of an atomtronic bistable circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

6.2

Numerical simulation of effective transport enhancement by an oscillating barrier . . 95

7.1

Illustration of a nonlinear coupled cavity array . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

7.2

Numerical experiment of the few-photon optical diode (case 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

7.3

Numerical experiment of the few-photon optical diode (case 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

7.4

Numerical experiment of the few-photon optical diode (case 3) . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

7.5

Images and illustrations of toroidal microcavity experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

7.6

Images of photonic band-gap nanocavities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Chapter 1
Introduction

The advent of laser cooling and trapping of neutral atoms and ions [1] has revolutionized
the field of atomic physics in several ways. From the standpoint of spectroscopy, the absorption
lines of trapped, virtually stationary ultracold atoms or ions can be resolved without spectral lines
undergoing shifts or broadening due to time dilation and Doppler effects. Additionally, the extended observation times allow the unshifted, unbroadened features to be resolved with greater
precision. These ultracold, trapped atomic systems, along with our improved spectroscopic knowledge of them, have led to great advances in the field of metrology as well. For example, thistechnology has allowed improvement in the accuracy of atomic clocks by orders of magnitude, andmatter-wave interferometry of ultracold atomic beams has made ultrasensitive accelerometers andthus gravimeter and gravity gradient detectors. The impact that laser cooling has had on atomic
physics as a field of research goes well-beyond enhancements in high-resolution spectroscopy, timestandards, and metrological technologies.
Today, cold atoms can be prepared (via optical pumping techniques for example) in specificquantum states, precisely manipulated, and even entangled [2]. Entanglement, manipulation, andstorage of quantum states in atomic systems has played a significant role in the emergence of the
field of quantum information science.
Ultracold atomic systems have also proven to be effective quantum simulators: many-bodyquantum phase transitions such as Bose-Einstein condensation (BEC) [3] and the Bose-Einsteincondensation to Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BEC-BCS) cross-over [4] have been demonstrated and2studied in these systems. The fact that ultracold atoms can be stored in virtually defect-free crystals
known as optical lattices [5] also makes them great quantum simulators for condensed matter models
such as the Bose-Hubbard model [6]. Perhaps the most striking demonstration of applying BoseHubbard physics to ultracold gases was the recent observation of the Mott insulator-to-superfluid
phase transition [7].
Over the past two decades, our ability to manipulate and control quantum systems has
increased profoundly. This precise level of control has inspired the idea of atomtronics, which is
the topic of this thesis. The goal of atomtronics is to realize the behavior of electronic components
and devices in atom-optical systems. Micheli et al. originally proposed the idea of a single atomtransistor [8], where the transport of bosons in an optical lattice can be allowed, or inhibited,based on the spin orientation of a single fermion ‘impurity’ atom. This system is illustrated in
Figure 1.1(a). Stickney, Anderson and Zozuya [9] proposed transistor-like behavior in a different
system, consisting of a BEC trapped in the left most well of a three-well system. In their model,
depicted in Figure 1.1(b-c), the transport of atoms from the left well to the right well is controlled

Figure 1.1: (a) The single atom transistor, proposed by Micheli et al. involves a BEC trapped on
the left side of an optical lattice where its transport to the right side of the lattice is controlled by asingle fermionic atom (labeled as q). If q is spin down, then the BEC remains fully on the left-handside where quantum interference effects inhibit the wave function from existing on the right-handside of the lattice. If q is spin up, there is no interference, and the BEC can traverse the lattice.
Reprinted with permission from reference [8]. (b) A three well BEC transistor device, proposed by
Stickney et al. Here a BEC is stored in the left well of the three well system. If no atoms are in
the middle well, then there is a chemical potential mismatch between the central and the first wellcontaining the atoms. The mismatch prevents the atoms from tunneling to the third well. (c) On
the other hand, in this configuration, adding atoms to the middle well raises the chemical potential,
bringing it closer to the chemical potential of the left well. When a resonance is achieved between
the left and middle wells, the atoms can cross and populate the right-most well.

3by the chemical potential of the middle well. If atoms are added to the middle well, its chemical
potential is raised. As the chemical potential of the middle well approaches the chemical potential of
the well containing the BEC, a resonance is enabled, allowing atoms in the BEC to tunnel throughto the right well in the system. The general qualitative behavior of both of these proposed devices
is consistent with the device characteristics exhibited by a conventional electronic semiconductortransistor.
In this thesis, we present a different approach to atomtronics. We consider a much closer
analog to electronic circuitry than the systems mentioned above. Our approach involves atomtronic
devices composed of optical lattices that are driven by reservoirs of ultracold, neutral atomic gases.
These systems are direct analogs of traditional electronic components driven by a voltage source,
where the atoms traversing the lattice resemble electrons moving in a semiconductor crystal.
(a)

(b)

µL

µR

Figure 1.2: Illustration of the analogy between (a) the electronic circuit of a wire (with someinherent resistance) connected to a battery and (b) its atomtronic counterpart.

The analogy is illustrated in Figure 1.2, where we have the simple circuit of a resistive wire
connected to a battery. In this example, the electric potential difference between the two battery
terminals that is responsible for generating an electronic flux through the wire is replaced bya chemical potential difference between two reservoirs, which enable an atomic flux through thesystem. The wire itself, which could be for example a copper lattice where electrons hop from atomto-atom, is replaced by an optical lattice with finite site-to-site tunneling. The electronic current
measured in amperes is replaced by an atomic flux measured in particles per second through theoptical lattice system. The motivation to construct and study these particular atomtronic analogsof electronic systems comes from several directions.

4First, the experimental atomtronic realizations promise to be extremely clean. Imperfections
such as lattice defects or phonons can be essentially eliminated if desired. This allows one to study
an idealized system from which all inessential complications have been stripped. Interest in suchcomplexity-reduced systems lies parallel to the recent research efforts in single electron transistors
in mesoscopic systems [10] and molecules [11], where many themes common with atomtronics
emerge. A consequence of the near ideal experimental conditions for optical lattice systems is thattheoretical descriptions for atomtronic systems can be developed from first principles. This allows
theorists to develop detailed models that can reliably predict the properties of devices.
Second, atomtronics systems are intrinsically richer than their electronic counterparts because
atoms can possess more complex internal structure than electrons. Whereas electrons can only be
spin-up or spin-down, atoms can be either bosons or fermions, possessing many internal states,
and the interactions between atoms can be widely varied from short to long range, from strong toweak, and from isotropic to anisotropic. This can lead to behavior that is qualitatively different tothat of electronics [12, 13, 14, 15]. Consequently, one can study repulsive, attractive, or even noninteracting atoms in the same experimental setup. Additionally, current experimental techniques
allow for the detection of atoms with fast, state-resolved meters that operate at near unit quantum
efficiency [16]. Thus it is possible, in principle, to follow the dynamics of an atomtronic system inreal time.
Third, neutral atoms in optical lattices can be well-isolated from the environment, reducing
the negative effects of decoherence. They combine a powerful means of state readout and preparation with methods for entangling atoms [17]. Such systems have all the necessary ingredients to be
the building blocks of quantum signal processors. The close analogies with electronic devices canserve as a guide in the search for new quantum information architectures, including novel types ofquantum logic gates that are closely tied with the conventional architecture in electronic computers.
Fourth and finally, recent experiments studying transport properties of ultracold atoms in
optical lattices [18, 19, 20] can be discussed in the context of the atomtronics framework. In
particular, one can model the short-time transport properties of an optical lattice with the open5
quantum system formalism discussed here.
This thesis is structured as follows. In Chapter 2, we review background physical concepts
used throughout this work. We discuss the basic physics involved in trapping atoms in opticallattices, and consider how the system of ultracold bosonic atoms trapped in an optical lattice isrelated to the Bose-Hubbard model. We then derive a simple coupled cavity quantum electrodynamics (QED) model and discuss the implication of inserting a nonlinear Kerr medium into thecavity. As we see, this system is an alternative physical realization of the Bose-Hubbard model.
We conclude this chapter with a review of electromagnetically-induced transparency (EIT) and an
extension thereof. Such systems are shown to exhibit large Kerr nonlinear response with minimal
absorption.
In Chapter 3, we review the master equation treatment of open quantum systems. We
derive the standard second-order Born-Markov master equation as well as an all-orders kinetic
theory description of the formalism. After demonstrating that under the same approximations,the two formalisms are equivalent, we generalize the kinetic theory description to model system
Hamiltonians that are time-dependent.
In Chapter 4, we demonstrate the possible breakdown of the Born-Markov formalism when
the reservoirs in the model have sharp boundaries in their density of states. We then derive a
non-Markovian master equation that is capable of modeling these exotic reservoirs. The validity ofthis non-Markovian theory is confirmed by comparing its behavior at a sharp reservoir boundary
to the behavior of a large, closed quantum system model that can be solved exactly.
In Chapter 5, we develop atomtronics components in the context of bosonic atoms trapped in
optical lattices. Assuming a fermionized bosonic reservoir model, we propose a series of atomtronic
devices that emulate the electronic behavior of a semiconductor diode, field-effect transistor, andbipolar junction transistor. We show that basic discrete logic behavior can be realized in thesesystems. Afterwords, an alternative reservoir model, where the lattice system is driven by a coherent
BEC is considered. Assuming this reservoir model, the basic atomtronic diode behavior is recovered.
In Chapter 6 we discuss the progress that we have made to extending the atomtronics theory

6
to encompass sequential logic devices. After the set-reset flip-flop is reviewed, the time-dependent
master equation is used to demonstrate the enhancement of transport across off-resonant lattices.
This is done in the context of developing and understanding bistable atomtronic circuitry, which isat the heart of implementing sequential logic behavior.
In Chapter 7 we discuss a distinct realization of the atomtronic components in a nonlinear
optical cavity context. We present models for various driving mechanisms, and perform simulations
that evaluate the parameter regime where the characteristics of the diode could potentially berealized. We then explore possible experimental implementations of this device in high-finesse
etalon cavities, toroidal microcavities, and photonic band-gap nanocavities.
Finally, in Chapter 8 we draw conclusions, and consider potential avenues for future research
directions.

Chapter 2
Background and Physical Concepts

Our goal in this thesis is to realize electronic behavior in atom-optical systems, specificallyatoms in optical lattices and photons in optical cavities. Here we provide a brief review of established physical concepts that will be utilized throughout this thesis. We first discuss opticallattices and their connection to the Bose-Hubbard model. Afterwords we derive a simple coupledcavity theory consisting of cascaded one-dimensional etalons containing a nonlinear χ(3) material.
We find that the Hamiltonian for this nonlinear etalon cavity theory, in second-quantized form,
amounts to another realization of the Bose-Hubbard model with on-site interactions. For this reason, the Bose-Hubbard model plays a central role throughout this thesis. Finally, we review thebasic characteristics of three-level and four-level electromagnetically-induced transparency (EIT)
systems. These systems have the capability of generating large Kerr nonlinearities with minimal
dissipation.

2.1

Atoms in Optical Lattices
Optical lattices, in the simplest sense, are periodic crystals of light created by interfering coun-

terpropagating laser beams. The resulting standing-wave is a spatially-periodic array of strong andweak electric and magnetic fields. Single atoms predominantly interact with the electric componentof this light field, where they can either be attracted to the field maxima or minima depending onwhether the wavelength of the light field is detuned to a frequency either above or below the atomic
transition. If the potential energy of the atom-lattice coupling is large compared to the thermal

8energy of the atoms themselves, the atoms become localized on the lattice sites, with the ability totunnel to neighboring sites. In the limit that the lattice potential goes towards infinity, the atoms
lose the ability to tunnel even to nearest neighboring sites, and thus remain frozen in place.
Optical lattices are near-perfect crystal structures. They are free of lattice vibrations, they
can be perfectly regular, i.e. defect-free structures, and, if desired, they can be constructed with
precisely-located ‘defect’ features. They are also energy-conserving systems, which makes themsuitable for quantum information applications. Furthermore, these lattices can be constructed in
one-dimension, two-dimensions, or three-dimensions by utilizing the appropriate number of counterpropagating pairs of lasers in orthogonal directions. This is illustrated schematically in Figure 2.1.

Figure 2.1: Illustration of a BEC confined by (a) two orthogonal sets of counterpropagating lasers,
which generate a two-dimensional lattice of tube-like BEC distributions (b). (c) The addition ofa third mutually orthogonal set of counterpropagating lasers generates a three-dimensional light
crystal, confining the atoms to point-like sites (d). Reprinted with permission from reference [21].

Jaksch et al. [22] suggested that the dynamics of an ultracold gas of bosons trapped in an
optical lattice could be well-described by the Bose-Hubbard model [6]. The Bose-Hubbard modelutilizes a Hamiltonian that describes a system of bosons confined to sites of a crystal lattice, where
the bosons can interact with each other, and can tunnel in the lowest band to the nearest neighboring9sites. This minimalistic model exhibits a quantum phase transition as a function of the lattice depth
known as the Mott insulator-to-superfluid phase transition. In their work, Jaksch et al. proposedthat this quantum phase transition could be realized in this atom-optical system. These ideas
were subsequently experimentally implemented and confirmed by Greiner et al. in 2002 [7]. The
success of this experiment, depicted in Figure 2.2, demonstrated that optical lattice systems can beideal realizations for a variety of strongly-correlated condensed matter models. Among many other
implementations, these lattices are currently used in both theoretical and experimental contexts tostudy analogs of high-temperature superconductivity via the so-called t-J-U Hamiltonian [23], andTonks-Girardeau gases, where a strongly-interacting one-dimensional Bose gas can exhibit somefermionic properties [24].

Figure 2.2: Experimental realization of the Mott insulator-to-superfluid quantum phase transition.
Reprinted with permission from reference [21].

Experimentalists have made great strides in their ability to create, manipulate, and resolve
the behavior of ultracold gasses trapped in optical lattices. Today, instead of simply using counterpropagating lasers to obtain a uniform lattice structure, site-by-site custom optical lattices can beconstructed with great precision by illuminating a holographic mask with a light source [25, 26]. As
can be seen in Figure 2.3, cutting-edge experimental technology also makes it possible to resolve single atoms in the lattice [25, 27, 28] as well as to address single sites at the sub-micron level [29, 30].
The lack of energetic dissipation, the extreme tunability of the Bose-Hubbard systems, and theability to resolve single atoms, make optical lattices excellent candidates for the study and possible

10

Figure 2.3: An actual experimental image of site-resolved 640 nm optical lattice. Here, single
atoms, holes, and even adjacent atoms are resolved. Reprinted with permission from reference [16].

realization of the atomtronic components, as we propose in this thesis.
In this section, we introduce the basic physics behind trapping atoms in optical lattices, andprovide a brief derivation of the Bose-Hubbard model for atoms in optical lattices. For simplicity,
these calculations are performed in one-dimension. In principle at least, extending these ideas tohigher dimensions is straightforward.

2.1.1

Interaction of an atom with a standing electromagnetic wave

Consider the one-dimensional problem of a two-level atom interacting with the electromagnetic field that is generated by two counter-propagating lasers that are both characterized by thewave vector k. The electric field for this system can be written as
E(t) = E0 (cos(kx − ωt) + cos(kx + ωt))
= E0 cos(kx) eiωt + e−iωt



(2.1)

where E0 is the magnitude of the electric field and ω is the frequency of the laser field. The
atoms interact with the electric field through their electric dipole moment µ. The corresponding

11
Hamiltonian for a two-level atom interacting with this electric field isĤ = ~ω0 |1ih1| + µE0 cos(kx) |0ih1| + |1ih0| eiωt + e−iωt .

(2.2)

Transforming into an interaction picture that rotates with the frequency of the laser field, thecorresponding Hamiltonian in the interaction picture H̃ isH̃ = ~∆|1ih1| + µE0 cos(kx) |0ih1|e−iωt + |1ih0|eiωt e−iωt + eiωt≃ ~∆|1ih1| + µE0 cos(kx) |0ih1| + |1ih0|(2.3)

where ∆ = ω0 − ω, and we have made the rotating wave approximation by dropping the rapidlyoscillating terms of frequency ≃ 2ω. This approximation is justified since, for optical frequencies∼ 1015 Hz, these terms average to zero rapidly compared to their stationary counterparts.
If |~∆| ∼ |µE0 |, the atom may absorb photons from the laser field, and then spontaneously
emit them. Such dissipative dynamics can be suppressed by working in the regime where |~∆| ≫|µE0 |, which causes the atom to essentially remain in its ground state. Additionally, this regime
allows us to treat the dipole term perturbatively since, by construction, it is much smaller inmagnitude than ~∆. Perturbation theory gives the following second order correction to the groundstate energy:(2)

ε0 (x) = −µ2 E02cos2 (kx)~∆≡ V0 cos2 (kx)(2.4)

This is known as the alternating current (AC) Stark shift. From this energetic correction, we seethat the atom experiences a spatially periodic potential through its interaction with the oscillating
electric component of the standing wave. It is through this potential that the atom becomesconfined to sites on the optical lattice. For ω > ω0 , i.e. ‘blue-detuning’, the atoms experience a
potential minimum whenever cos2 (kx) = 0. Alternatively, when ω < ω0 , i.e. ‘red-detuning’, theatoms experience a minimum whenever cos2 (kx) = 1. Since the atoms will localize at the potential
minima, blue detuning localizes the atoms at the field minima, while red detuning localizes atoms
at the field maxima.

12
2.1.2

The Bose-Hubbard model

In recent experiments, the relative minima of individual lattice sites can be shifted up or
down in energy with respect to one another. We can include this effect in our model by adding asite-dependent energy term ǫ(x) to the Hamiltonian, which defines the relative local minima of thelattice. Using the AC-Stark shift result from Section 2.1.1, the corresponding Hamiltonian for a
two-level atom trapped in a three-dimensional optical lattice can be written as
H̃ =


p̂2
+ V0 cos2 (kx) + cos2 (ky) + cos2 (kz) + ǫ(x).
2m

(2.5)

where p̂ is the kinematic momentum, m is the mass, and we have assumed the the frequency
and intensity of all of the counterpropagating laser beams are identical for simplicity. If ǫ(x) isneglected, then the periodicity of V0 cos2 (kx) implies that the complete set of wave functions thatare eigenmodes of the Hamiltonian are Bloch functions. These Bloch functions can be expressed
as a site-localized set of orthonormal basis states known as Wanier states. Assuming that all of
the atoms are in the lowest band, and that their kinetic energies are much smaller than the second
band excitation energies, we can expand the wave function solutions in the lowest band Wanier
states alone. In a second quantized description, the field operators are thenψ̂(x) =

Xjâj w0 (x − xj )(2.6)

where âj annihilates an atom on site j and w0 (x − xj ) is the lowest band Wanier state centered onsite j.
Assuming that the ultracold atoms interact with each other through an s-wave scattering
contact potential, the atom-atom interaction can be written as [31]U (xj , xk ) ≃4π~2 asδ(xj − xk )
m

(2.7)

where as is the scattering length and xj and xk are the positions of atoms indexed by j and k.
The second quantized Hamiltonian for the many atom system [32] is then

13
Ĥ =

Z

dx ψ̂ † (x)





p̂2
2
2
2
+ V0 cos (kx) + cos (ky) + cos (kz) + ǫ(x) ψ̂(x)2mZ
2π~2 asdxψ̂ † (x)ψ̂ † (x)ψ̂(x)ψ̂(x)
+
m

 2
X † Z

p
2
2
2
+ V0 cos (kx) + cos (ky) + cos (kz) + ǫ(x) w0 (x − xk )=âj âk dx w0 (x − xj )2mj,kZ
2π~2 as X † †+âj âk âl âm dx w0 (x − xj )w0 (x − xk )w0 (x − xl )w0 (x − xm ).
m
jklm

(2.8)

Restricting ourselves to the tight-binding regime, where the magnitude of the lattice potential
guarantees that a non-negligible overlap of Wanier states occurs for nearest neighbor lattice sites
alone, we get XXUj † ††â â âj âj −Jjk â†j âkĤ =~ωj âj âj +
2 j j
j

(2.9)

hj,ki

where
~ωj =

Z

dx w(x − xj )2 ǫ(x),4π~2 asUj =mZdx w0 (x − xj )4 ,(2.10)(2.11)

andJjk = −

Zdx w0 (x − xj )





−~2 2
∇ + V0 cos2 (kx) + cos2 (ky) + cos2 (kz) w0 (x − xk ).
2m(2.12)The sum hj, ki is exclusively taken over nearest neighboring sites.
Equation (2.9) is known as the the Bose-Hubbard model. The parameters ~ωj and Uj are
the zero point and on-site interaction energies for lattice site j, and Jjk is the tunneling energy
between sites j and k. In this thesis, we will make great use of this Hamiltonian in a variety of open
quantum system settings. The definition of an ‘open quantum system’, as well as the mathematical
apparatus needed to describe them, is provided in detail in the following chapter.

2.2

Photons in coupled optical cavities
An alternative system to atoms in optical lattices is coupled arrays of high quality opticalcavities. In this section, we provide a classical field analysis of such coupled etalons. Quantization

14of the cavity mode field is straightforward [33, 34, 35] and implemented afterwords. We show that
this simple system is all that’s needed to introduce the cavity parameters that will be discussed
later in this thesis.
We then consider the effect of inserting a material with a Kerr nonlinearity into the cavity.
This material generates an effective nonlinear photon-photon interaction. This interaction term, ina second-quantized representation, is formally equivalent to the on-site interaction energy of two
atoms trapped on the same lattice site. With the inclusion of the Kerr-type material in the cavity,
the resulting second quantized form of this cavity QED system Hamiltonian is another realizationof the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian.

2.2.1

Simple cavity theory

We first consider a single etalon cavity comprised of two parallel mirrors driven by electro(+)

magnetic plane waves. Figure 2.4(a) depicts this scenario where an incident wave Ei

approaches

the etalon from the left side. For simplicity, we assume that the mirrors have the same transmission
and reflection coefficients (t, r). The field inside the cavity as a function of frequency can be determined from the continuity of the boundary conditions as the field propagates through the etalon

HbL
Ha L
H+L

Ei

t ,r

H+L

Ec

t ,r

H+L

Eo

G

Ic Ii

Ω ax

H-L

Ec

2Ω0

Ω0

3Ω0

Ω
Figure 2.4: (a) An illustration of light incident, inside and leaving an etalon with reflection andtransmission coefficients r and t. (b) The generic response of an etalon driven by a laser withfrequency ω and fundamental cavity mode ω0 . The axial mode spacing ωax and linewidth Γ arelabeled.

15
system:(+)

Ec(+) = itEi

ϕ+ rEc(−) ei 2ϕEc(−) = rEc(+) ei 2

(2.13)(2.14)

ϕEo(+) = itEc(+) ei 2

(2.15)

where the sign designates the field traveling in the positive or negative direction for the incident
field Ei , the cavity field Ec , and the field transmitted through the cavity Eo . The reflection andtransmission coefficients r and t are constrained by |r|2 + |t|2 = R + T = 1, where R and T
are the reflectance and transmittance of the cavity, and ϕ is the round trip phase shift that theelectromagnetic wave acquires in the cavity. From these expressions, the ratio of the intensity of
the field inside the cavity to the input intensity is
(+)

Ic

(+)
Ii

=
=

T
1 − 2Rcos(ϕ) + R2
T(1−R)24R
2
1 + (1−R)
2 sin

ϕ.
2

(2.16)

This function is plotted in Figure 2.4(b), where we have labeled the axial mode spacing by ωax andthe cavity bandwidth (or linewidth) by Γ. From equation (2.16), the axial mode spacing (or free
spectral range) can be determined:
ϕ = 2π = k · l = ωax

λ0c(2.17)

where l = λ0 is the round trip path length, or fundamental wavelength of the cavity and c is the
speed of light. The cavity linewidth, which is the full-width half maximum (FWHM) of the periodic
peaks of equation (2.16), can be obtained by asserting
 
4R
2 ϕ
= 1.
sin
(1 − R)22(2.18)

Here ϕ corresponds to the half width half maximum (HWHM) of the linewidth. Assuming thatR ≃ 1, it follows from equation (2.18) thatϕ = k · λ0 = ωHWHM

2ωHWHM
Γ
1−R
λ0
=π
≡π
≃ √
c
ωax
ωax
R

(2.19)

16
or simply
ωax
F(2.20)

√
π R
F≡
1−R

(2.21)

Γ=
whereis the finesse of the cavity. Since T = 1 − R is the fractional power loss in the cavity, the cavity
linewidth is directly related to the cavity decay rate. Since R → 1, implies F → ∞, more reflective
cavity mirrors lead to a higher value of finesse. For this reason, finesse is a common cavity parameterused to characterize how ‘good’ a cavity is. In modern cavity QED experiments, finesse values
greater than 4 × 105 have been achieved [36, 37]. An alternative way to quantify the quality of acavity is through its quality factor, or Q factor. The Q factor of a cavity is defined as the ratio of
the cavity driving frequency over the cavity linewidth. Thus
F=

ωax
Q
ω0

(2.22)

where ω0 is the frequency of the driven cavity mode.
For high finesse cavities, the axial modes are well-separated, and a single mode descriptionof the cavity field is possible. The corresponding Hamiltonian for a particular cavity mode withenergy ω1 can be expressed in the following second quantized form:Ĥcav = ~ω1 â† â.

(2.23)

The cavity field amplitude for this mode isÊ(z) = εω1 â + â† sin (k1 z)(2.24)

where z is the direction of propagation of the field, k1 = ω1 /c, and
εω1 =

r

~ω1
ǫ0 V

(2.25)

is the electric field per photon in the cavity, where ǫ0 is the permittivity of free space and V is theeffective mode volume [34].

17
The mirrors that make up the cavity in practice are typically spherical mirrors as illustrated in
Figure 2.5. The cavity mode within the Rayleigh range and under the paraxial approximation [38]is a Gaussian standing wave of the form222

ψ(x, y, z) = sin(k1 z)e−(x +y )/w0

(2.26)

where the standing wave is in the z-direction, and w0 is the cavity mode waist [38]. The cavity
waist, depicted in Figure 2.5, is an important cavity parameter as it restricts the effective mode
volume of the cavity. As the effective mode volume is reduced, the electric field per photon isenhanced. Since the atom-cavity field coupling is proportional to the electric field, smaller cavity
mode volumes lead to greater atom-field coupling strengths.
2w 0

Figure 2.5: An illustration of a driven etalon cavity with characteristic mode waist w0 .

2.2.2

Classical treatment of cavity input-output theory

Here we relate the classical input-output parameters of a cavity to its quantum mechanicalcounterpart. This is achieved by comparing the response of a driven classical oscillator to the
response of a driven cavity mode. This comparison allows us to determine which etalon parameters
correspond to the oscillator damping and detuning. As we see, the etalon result in this form agrees
exactly with the quantum input-output theory of Gardiner and Collett [39]. This is not surprisingsince the quantized cavity mode is merely an oscillator itself.
To start with, consider a classically driven damped harmonic oscillator whose equation of
motion is
dX1
d2 X1
+β
+ ω12 X1 = Ae−iωtdt2dt(2.27)

18
where X1 is the position of the oscillator, β is the damping coefficient, ω1 is the oscillator frequency,
A is the driving strength, and ω is the driving frequency. A particular solution to equation (2.27)
is
X1 (t) = αe−iωt(2.28)

with
α=

A
.
(ω1 − ω)(ω1 + ω) − iβω1(2.29)For near resonant driving, ω1 ≃ ω, this reduces toα≃A−δ1 2ω1 − iβω1(2.30)

where δ1 = ω − ω1 . The ratio of the oscillator excitation to the drive is then,i 2ω1 1X1 (t)= β.
Ae−iωt− iδ1(2.31)

2

We now use these results for a mechanical oscillator to assist with understanding the analogous optical system. Consider a near-perfect etalon cavity whose mirrors have different reflection
coefficients r1 = 1 − ǫ1 and r2 = 1 − ǫ2 where 0 < ǫ1,2 ≪ 1. Performing the same analysis as in
Section 2.2.1, we find
(+)

Ec

(+)
Ei

=i

t1
.
1 − r1 r2 eiϕ(2.32)

where ω is the frequency of the driving laser, ωax is the axial mode spacing of of the cavity andδ = ω − ω1 is the detuning of the driving laser from the cavity mode ω1 . If the driving field isnear-resonant to the N th mode of the cavity, then
2π

2πω

2π

eiϕ = ei ωax = ei ωax (N ωax +δ) = ei ωax δ ≃ 1 + i
Since the transmission coefficient t1 =
ǫ1 , and ǫ2 , implies(2.33)

p√1 − r12 ≃ 2ǫ1 , taking equation (2.32) to first order in φ,

(+)

Ec

(+)

Ei

2π
δ.
ωax

≃ i ωax

p ǫ1

π ωax

2π (ǫ1 + ǫ2 ) − iδ√ √γ1 ωax= i1.
2 (γ1 + γ2 ) − iδ

(2.34)

19
Since the cavity decay rate is equal to the cavity linewidth, equation (2.20) implies γx = ǫx ωax /π.
This is the decay rate out of mirror x. Comparing the denominators of this expression to thatof equation (2.31) we see that the oscillator decay rate β corresponds to the etalon decay rate
γ1 + γ2 [35].

2.2.3

Cascaded optical cavities

When two cavities are coupled together, as depicted in Figure 2.6, a photon in one cavity
can tunnel to the other. Here we characterize that tunneling rate by performing the same classicalanalysis above. We call this coupling parameter J because it is analogous to the hopping parameterin the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian.

Figure 2.6: Illustration of a driven, coupled etalon system.

Here we consider two coupled oscillators with different damping rates and frequencies, where
oscillator 1 is driven at frequency ω and coupled to oscillator 2. The equations of motion for the
coupled system are
dX1
d2 X1
+ ω12 X1 = Ae−iωt + ω1 JX2
+ β1
2
dt
dt
dX2
d2 X2
+ β2
+ ω22 X2 = ω2 JX1 .
2dt
dt(2.35)(2.36)

Particular solutions to these equations are X1 (t) = α1 e−iωt and X2 (t) = α2 e−iωt . Substituting
these solutions into the equations of motion yields for the excitation amplitude of oscillator 2
α2 =
≃

AJω1
[(ω1 − ω)(ω1 + ω) − iβ1 ω] [(ω2 − ω)(ω2 + ω) − iβ2 ω] − ω1 ω2 J 2−A 4ωJ 22( β21 − iδ1 )( β22 − iδ2 ) + J4

Here we have assumed that δ1 ≪ ω, and δ2 ≪ ω.

(2.37)

20
The ratio of the excitation of oscillator 2 to the drive of oscillator 1 is then
− 4ωJ 2X2 (t)=
2 .
Ae−iωt( β1 − iδ1 )( β2 − iδ2 ) + J
22(2.38)

4

We now consider two coupled etalons as shown in Figure 2.7. Matching boundary conditions
for this system yields= it1 Ei(−)

= itE2 ei 2 + rE1 ei 2(+)

= itE1 ei 2 + rE2 ei 2(−)

= r2 E2 ei 2

E1
E2

E2

(+)

(−)

ϕ1

(+)

E1

+ r1 E1 ei 2(2.39)

(−)

ϕ2

(+)

ϕ1

(+)

ϕ1

(−)

ϕ2

(+)

ϕ2

(+)

ϕ2

(2.40)(2.41)(2.42)

Eo(+) = it2 E2 ei 2(2.43)

where t1 (r1 ), t (r), and t2 (r2 ) are the transmission (reflection) coefficients for the left, center, andright mirrors respectively, Ei , E1 , E2 , and Eo are the electric fields that are incident on the left
cavity mirror, inside cavity 1, inside cavity 2, and exiting cavity 2 from the right. The corresponding
sign determines the direction of propagation, and φ1 and φ2 are the round trip phases in cavity 1
and 2. Here, we get
(+)

E2

=
(+)

Ei

t1 teiϕ1(1 − rr1 eiϕ1 )(1 − rr2 eiϕ2 ) + t2 r1 r2 ei(ϕ1 +ϕ2 )(2.44)

Since equation (2.38) is second order in δ and β, we take equation (2.44) to second order in δ1,2
and ǫ1,2 . As we demonstrate here, second order in ǫ1,2 implies first order in ǫ.

H+LEit 1 ,r1

H+L
E1

H-L

E1

t ,r

H+L
E2

t 2 ,r2

H+L

Eo

H-L

E2

Figure 2.7: Illustration of a driven, coupled etalon system. The electric fields propagating in both
directions that are incident on the system, in cavity 1, in cavity 2 and leaving the system labeled
as well as the transmission and reflection coefficients for all three mirrors.

21

HaL t 1 ,r 1 t 2 ,r 2
H+L

Ei

H-L

H+L

Em

H-L

HbL
H+L

t ,r
H+L

Eo

Ei

H-L

H-L

H+L

Eo

H-L

Ei

Em

Eo

Ei

Eo

n1

n2

n1

n1

n1

Figure 2.8: (a) Illustration of a finite width dielectric boundary with index of refraction n2 , andtransmission and reflection coefficients t̃1 , r̃1 , and t̃2 , r̃2 four boundaries 1 and 2 respectively. All
propagating fields are labeled, and it is assumed that n2 > n1 . (b) The infinitely-thin counterpart
to the finite width dielectric with effective transmission and reflection coefficients t and r.

The infinitely-thin central barrier in Figure 2.7 with coefficients r and t is a schematic for adielectric barrier with a finite width (Figure 2.8(a)). The effective coefficients r and t actually correspond to the net reflection and transmission through this barrier (Figure 2.8(b)). Here we derive
the effective transmission and reflection coefficients by solving the continuity boundary conditionsin the three regions of space depicted in Figure 2.8(a), and map them onto the infinitely thin system reflection and transmission coefficients depicted in Figure 2.8(b). The incident electromagnetic
wave passes through a medium with index of refraction n2 > n1 with entry and exit coefficients ofreflection and transmission (r̃1 , t̃1 ) and (r̃2 , t̃2 ).
The boundary conditions for the finite width boundary with n2 > n1 are
(−)

Ei

ϕ

(+)

(−)
+ it̃1 ei 2 Em

(+)

(−)
− ir̃1 ei 2 Em

= r̃1 Ei(+)
Em
= t̃1 Ei

ϕ

ϕ

(+)
(−)
Em
= t̃2 Eo(−) − ir̃2 ei 2 Em
ϕ(+)Eo(+) = it̃2 ei 2 Em
+ r̃2 Eo(−) ,(2.45)(2.46)(2.47)(2.48)

where Ei , Em , and Eo are the incident, intra-medium and outgoing fields in regions traveling in thepositive or negative directions, (r̃1 , t̃1 ) and (r̃2 , t̃2 ) are the reflection and transmission coefficientsof the left and right sides of the barrier, and ϕ is the round-trip phase shift that the light wave
acquires from traveling inside the barrier.

22
We guarantee that no field is stored in the medium by asserting φ = π. Eliminating theintra-medium field in terms of the incident and outgoing field yields
(−)

Ei

Eo(+)

r̃1 + r̃2 (+)
(+)
E
≡ rEi
1 + r̃1 r̃2 it̃1 t̃2
(+)
(+)
= −i
Ei ≡ itEi .
1 + r̃1 r̃2=(2.49)(2.50)

From equation (2.50), given t ≃ t̃1 t̃2 we conclude that second order in t̃1 , t̃2 implies first order in t.
Taking equation (2.44) to second order in δ1,2 , second order in ǫ1,2 , and first order in ǫ,
(+)

E2

(−)

Ei

≃
=

≡

t1 teiϕ1
2ǫ + (ǫ1 − iϕ1 )(ǫ2 − iϕ2 )q√ q ωax1 ωax2 ωax2
γ1 t
2π
(2π)2
ω

ω

1 ax2
( γ21 − iδ1 )( γ22 − iδ2 ) + t2 ax
(2π)2
q
√
ωax2 Jγ1 t
2π 22( γ21 − iδ1 )( γ22 − iδ2 ) + J4

where comparison with equation (2.38) implies√ √√2ǫ ωax1 ωax2
t ωax1 ωax2
J=
≃
.
π
π

(2.51)(2.52)

This is our classical estimate for the second quantized photon tunneling rate through two coupledcavities. This rate is Hermitian: the rate of tunneling out of cavity 1 into cavity 2 is equal to therate of tunneling out of cavity 2 into cavity 1, and the phase shifts are conjugate. The corresponding
second quantized coupled cavity interaction Hamiltonian term is then simply given by~J(â†1 â2 + â1 â†2 ).

(2.53)

Utilizing equation (2.20), we see that for two identical coupled cavities
Γ≃J(2.54)

where Γ is the individual cavity linewidth.
For the etalon cavity system modeled here J is fixed and unalterable. In alternative cavity
systems discussed in later chapters, such as toroidal microcavities coupled with a tapered fiber
via evanescent waves, and photonic band gap nanocavities, the value of J becomes potentiallymodifiable, allowing a range of parameter values to be explored.

23
2.2.4

Effect of a nonlinear media in a cavity

If a nonlinear medium is inserted into the cavity, the cavity, in general, experiences a shift ofthe mode frequency, and the light inside the cavity picks up a nonlinear phase shift that depends
on the mode intensity. Here we derive the second quantized description of the cavity mode field
when such a medium is present.
Consider a classical nonlinear material with first and third order contributions to the polarization
P = ǫ0 χ(1) + |E|2 χ(3) E.

(2.55)

Here E is the electric field vector with magnitude |E|. The total energy generated from the interaction of the medium with the light field inside the cavity would then be
Hint = V P · E= ǫ0 V χ(1) |E|2 + χ(3) |E|4

(2.56)

where we have assumed that the nonlinear material fills the cavity mode volume for simplicity.
Since the electric field amplitude in the cavity is defined by equation (2.24), Ĥint generates terms in
the cavity Hamiltonian proportional to â† â and â† â† ââ [35]. A lossless χ(1) medium, induces a shiftof the cavity resonance, while a lossless χ(3) medium causes an effective photon-photon nonlinear
interaction exactly of the collisional type given in the Bose-Hubbard form. In Section 2.3, we will
derive in detail these terms in a second quantized framework. For now, we acknowledge that theeffect of including a χ(3) medium in the cavity can yield the following Hamiltonian termU † †â â ââ,2where U is determined by properties of the medium and the cavity geometry.

(2.57)

24
2.2.5

The effective system Hamiltonian

Putting everything from this section together, we obtain the following Hamiltonian for N
coupled, nonlinear cavities:
ĤS =

N
X
j

~ωj â†j âj +X
Uj † †âj âj âj âj +~Jjk â†j âk + âj â†k ,2(2.58)

hj,kiwhich is, again, the Bose-Hubbard model. The qualitative difference here being the operators âjannihilate photons in a mode defined by the cavity boundaries. Here Uj and ~Jjk are the interactionenergy per photon pair, and the photon hopping matrix element respectively.

2.2.6

Cavity QED experiments

Recently, the field of cavity QED has been spurred on by a growing interest in experiments
involving toroidal microresonators coupled to atoms [40, 41, 42]. The toroidal microcavity system
has a few advantages over standard etalon cavities. First, the effective mode volume of the microcavity can be ∼ 50 µm3 , which is ∼ 500 times smaller than its etalon counterpart. This leads
to an increase in the atom-field coupling strength by a factor ∼ 20. Second, it is the whispering
gallery mode of the cavity that is excited. This can lead to extraordinarily high Q-factors, whichhave exceeded 1010 . Finally, improved development techniques have made the fabrication of many
identical toroidal microcavities relatively easy compared to the construction of just one etalon.
Obviously cascaded identical, multi-layer dielectric etalon cavities are even more difficult to make.
Another contemporary avenue of cavity QED research involves photonic crystal nanocavities [43]. These cavities are constructed in semiconductor slabs where etching or lithography areused to isolate their relative location and size. The finesse of these cavities is not as impressive asthat of the toroidal cavities. Nanocavities, however, can have mode volumes ∼ 0.03 µm3 . These
nanocavities are also easy to consistently fabricate. It is even possible to enhance the χ(3) characteristics of the cavities by doping them with quantum dots [44], or possibly electromagneticallyinduced transparency (EIT) atoms, which have been successfully embedded into semiconductor
crystals while maintaining their EIT characteristics [45, 46].

25

2.3

Electromagnetically-induced transparency and the giant Kerr nonlinearity
There is a major issue with bulk nonlinear media: the third order χ(3) nonlinear response isgenerally dwarfed by the first order χ(1) linear response. If the χ(1) response was purely real, thiswould not be such a problem, since the term would merely shift the cavity’s resonant mode. In
practice, the imaginary component of χ(1) dominates the χ(3) nonlinearity [47], which leads to loss
and absorption. As an alternative to obtaining a Kerr nonlinearity from bulk material. We examine
systems that acquire their nonlinear response using electromagnetically-induced transparency (EIT)
atoms and also quantum dots.
In the 1990s, the pioneering work of researchers such as Harris and Imamoğlu led to an
extensive understanding of EIT [48, 49, 50, 51]. One of the remarkable properties of the EIT
system, is that a χ(3) ≫ χ(1) is obtainable. Later, Schmidt and Imamoğlu [47] demonstrated that aslightly more exotic atomic system can yield a ‘giant’ Kerr nonlinearity, where χ(3) is predicted to benine orders of magnitude greater than the original EIT scheme while maintaining a negligible χ(1)response. This theoretical effort was instrumental to the success of the slow light experiments [52].
This work was later extended to cavity QED systems [53, 54, 55, 56, 57], where a ‘photon blockade’
effect was predicted. Roughly ten years later, in an experiment using a high finesse multi-layer
dielectric cavity, the photon blockade effect was realized [37]. In this section, we review the physics
behind EIT and the giant Kerr nonlinearity.

2.3.1

EIT Kerr nonlinearity

EIT involves an ensemble of three-level atoms prepared in their ground state. A possible EITlevel structure, known as the lambda structure, is illustrated in Figure 2.9 with states |1i (ground),|2i, and |3i. The transitions |1i → |3i and |2i → |3i are dipole allowed transitions while the|1i → |2i transition is forbidden. If a probe laser incident on the otherwise undisturbed ensemble isresonant with the |1i → |3i transition, the light is efficiently absorbed and scattered by the atomic

26

È3\
Ωc

Ωp

È2\
È1\
Figure 2.9: Schematic of a three-level EIT atom with |1i → |3i and |2i → |3i dipole-allowedtransitions with corresponding frequencies ωp and ωc .

sample. However, if a coupling laser resonant with the |2i → |3i transition is also applied, then aquantum mechanical interference phenomenon can lead to the probe laser passing straight throughwith minimal absorption i.e. with virtually Im χ(1) = 0. In other words, the coupling laser makes
the once opaque sample transparent to the probe laser. This general behavior is the fundamental
concept behind EIT.
For the system described above, the Hamiltonian for the doubly-driven three-level system
under the rotating wave approximation isĤ = ~ ω21 σ̂22 + ω31 σ̂33 + g σ̂13 eiωp t + σ̂31 e−iωp t + Ωc σ̂23 eiωc t + σ̂32 e−iωc t(2.59)

where σ̂nm = |nihm|, ωnm = ωn − ωm is the frequency difference between states |ni and |mi, g istwice the Rabi frequency (taken to be real) of the probe field with frequency ωp , and Ωc (also taken
to be real) is twice the Rabi frequency of the coupling field with frequency ωc .
Transforming to an interaction picture that rotates with the drive frequencies ωp and ωc , atransformation defined by the unitary operatorÛ (t) = e−i(ωp σ̂33 +(ωp −ωc )σ̂22 )t ,(2.60)

yieldsH̃ = ~ [(ω21 − ωp + ωc )σ̂22 + (ω31 − ωp )σ̂33 + g (σ̂13 + σ̂31 ) + Ωc (σ̂23 + σ̂32 )] .

(2.61)

27
Letting δ = ω31 − ωp and taking ωc to be resonant with the |2i → |3i transition leads toH̃ = ~ [δσ̂22 + δσ̂33 + g (σ̂13 + σ̂31 ) + Ωc (σ̂23 + σ̂32 )] .

(2.62)In order to correctly include dissipation from level |3i to levels |2i and |1i, we need toconstruct a quantum master equation for this system. This formalism is described in detail in thenext chapter. Here we ascribe ρ̂S to be the reduced density operator of the three-level system, andthen the inclusion of decay from state |3i to states |2i and |1i gives rise to the following masterequation:
dρ̂S
dt

i
γ1
= − [H̃, ρ̂S ] −(σ̂31 σ̂13 ρ̂S + ρ̂S σ̂31 σ̂13 − 2σ̂13 ρ̂S σ̂31 )~2γ2− (σ̂32 σ̂23 ρ̂S + ρ̂S σ̂32 σ̂23 − 2σ̂23 ρ̂S σ̂32 )2i= − [Ĥ, ρ̂S ] − γ (σ̂33 ρ̂S + ρ̂S σ̂33 ) + γ1 σ̂13 ρ̂S σ̂31 + γ2 σ̂23 ρ̂S σ̂32 ,~(2.63)

where γ1 , γ2 are the decay rates from |3i → |1i, |2i respectively, and γ = (γ1 + γ2 )/2.
As discussed in references [58, 59, 60, 61], this master equation can be unraveled into wave
functions (or trajectories) which evolve under an effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian, undergoing‘quantum jumps’ according to the Monte Carlo wave function method. Such trajectories can beaveraged over to reconstruct the proper evolution of the master equation. The non-Hermitian
Hamiltonian for this particular EIT case would beĤeff = ~ [δσ̂22 + (δ − iγ)σ̂33 + g (σ̂13 + σ̂31 ) + Ωc (σ̂23 + σ̂32 )](2.64)In the perturbative limit, where Ωc ≫ g, a system that is initially in its ground state, for themost part, does not undergo quantum jumps. As a result, in this limit, we can use the effective
non-Hermitian Hamiltonian to extract the relevant information to explain EIT [48]. As discussed in
the next chapter, this is a special case—dissipation cannot universally be introduced into quantum
mechanical situations by compromising the Hermiticity of the Hamiltonian. The validity here relieson the property that any particular trajectory has a low probability for undergoing quantum jumps.
Assuming that the system is in its ground state, and that Ωc ≫ g, we look for steady-state28
solutions to the Schrödinger equation involving Ĥeff :i~∂|ψi = Ĥeff |ψi.
∂t(2.65)

Since |ψi is going to remain in its ground state with near-unit probability, we seek out solutions of
the form|ψi ≃ |1i + c2 |2i + c3 |3i.

(2.66)In steady-state
0 = δc2 + Ωc c3
0 = (δ − iγ)c3 + g + Ωc c2 ,(2.67)

which implies
c2 =

gΩc
,
2
δ − Ω2c − iγδgδc3 = − 2.
δ − Ω2c − iγδ

(2.68)

Note that the normalization condition on |ψi gives 1 + c22 + c23 ≃ 1, asserting that |c2,3 | ≪ 1. This
constraint is consistent with the approximation made above, namely |g|/|Ωc | ≪ 1. Once |ψi isknown, the density matrix for a single atom in the Schrödinger picture can be constructed,
ρ̂(t) = Û(t)|ψihψ|Û † (t)(2.69)

where Û (t) is defined by equation (2.60). The polarization P(t) can be expressed as
P(t) =

N
Tr{ρ̂(t) (µ13 σ̂13 + µ23 σ̂23 + H.c)} = ǫ0 χ(1) E(t)V

(2.70)

where N is the number of atoms in the volume V , and ~g = Ep · µ13 and ~Ωc = Ec · µ23 . Keeping
track of the terms that rotate with e−iωp t implies
χ(1) = −N ~g2
δ
.
V ǫ0 |E|2 δ2 − Ω2c − iγδ

(2.71)The real (blue, solid) and imaginary (red, dashed) parts of χ(1) are plotted in Figure 2.10, where
it is seen that both go to zero as the detuning δ → 0.

29

ΧH1L
4
2
-4

-2

2

4

∆ W c

-2
-4
-6
-8
- 10

Figure 2.10: The real (solid blue) and imaginary (dashed red) χ(1) responses of an EIT atom as afunction of probe laser detuning in the presence of a resonant coupling drive.

For EIT systems in the δ → 0 limit, the probe laser experiences a maximum χ(3) phaseshift [48] of the form
χ(3) (δ → 0) ∝

N
1
2g
.
V 3ǫ0 ~3 |E|2 Ω2(2.72)

Thus, one can use EIT atoms to generate χ(3) nonlinear media with a vanishing χ(1) at the resonant
driving frequency.

2.3.2

Giant EIT-like Kerr nonlinearity

In 1996 Schmidt and Imamoğlu [47] suggested that much larger χ(3) nonlinearities can beachieved by adding an additional atomic level to the EIT scheme. This four-level system, depicted
in Figure 2.11(a), still has a virtually zero χ(1) component, allowing photons to experience a large
effective Kerr interaction with minimal energetic shift and loss.
Since we are ultimately concerned with a nonlinear cavity, we derive this theory for a cavity
containing a single atom. We consider a cavity whose driven mode is detuned from the |1i → |3i
atomic transition by δ. The coupling laser drives the atom in a direction orthogonal to the cavity mode as illustrated in Figure 2.11(b), and is resonant with the |2i → |3i transition. The

30

HaL

HbL
È4\

D

È3\
Ω0

Ωc

Ω0

Ω0
Ωc

È2\
È1\

Figure 2.11: (a) The level structure and allowed dipole transitions of a four-level giant Kerr nonlinearity scheme. (b) An experimental schematic of the driven four-level system, where the coupling
laser is driven orthogonal to the cavity mode/probe field.

Hamiltonian for this scenario under the rotating wave approximation ishĤ = ~ (ω0 − δ)â† â + ω21 σ̂22 + ω0 σ̂33 + (ω21 + ω0 + ∆)σ̂44 + g13 (â† σ̂13 + âσ̂31 )i+ g24 (â† σ̂24 + âσ̂42 ) + Ωc σ̂32 e−iωc t + σ̂23 eiωc t(2.73)

where ω0 − δ is the cavity mode frequency, ω21 , ω31 = ω0 , and ω42 = ω21 + ω0 + ∆ are the frequency
differences between states |1i and |2i, |1i and |3i, and |2i and |4i, and finally, g13 , Ωc , and g24 are
twice the Rabi frequencies for the |1i → |3i, |2i → |3i, and |2i → |4i transitions. Transforming
into an interaction picture withÛ (t) = e−i((ω0 −δ)â â+(ω21 −δ)σ̂22 +(ω0 −δ)σ̂33 +(ω21 +ω0 −2δ)σ̂44 )†(2.74)

yieldshiH̃ = ~ δσ̂22 + δσ̂33 + (2δ + ∆)σ̂44 + g13 (â† σ̂13 + âσ̂31 ) + g24 (â† σ̂24 + âσ̂42 ) + Ωc (σ̂32 + σ̂23 ) .

(2.75)

Similar to the EIT system described above, this system will be operating in the perturbative regime
g13 , g24 ≪ Ωc , and the effects of atomic relaxation can be included in this model by means of the31effective non Hermitian Hamiltonian
H̃eff

h
γ42
)σ̂44 + g13 (â† σ̂13 + âσ̂31 )= ~ δσ̂22 + (δ − iγ3 )σ̂33 + (2δ + ∆ − i
2i+ g24 (â† σ̂24 + âσ̂42 ) + Ωc (σ̂32 + σ̂23 )(2.76)

where γ3 = (γ31 + γ32 )/2 is the average decay rate out of state |3i, and γ42 is the decay rate fromstate |4i to |2i. Here we look for steady-state solutions of the atom in the n-photon manifold of
the cavity:|ψin = |ni|1i + c2 |n − 1i|2i + c3 |n − 1i|3i + c4 |n − 2i|4i(2.77)

where, once again, we have asserted that the system approximately remains in the ground state|ni|1i. In steady-state, we get the following system of equations from the Heff Schrödinger equation:
0 = δc2 + Ωc c3 +n − 1 g24 c4(2.78)

n g13 + Ωc c2(2.79)√
γ24)c4 + n − 1 g24 c2 ,2(2.80)

0 = (δ − iγ3 )c3 +0 = (2δ + ∆ − i√√which yields√

ng13 Ωc (i γ242 − 2δ − ∆)c2 = − 2
g24 (n − 1)(iγ3 − δ) + (i γ242 − 2δ − ∆) ((iγ3 − δ)δ + Ω2c )√g 2 (n−1)
ng13 Ωc (i γ242 − 2δ − ∆) Ωδc + Ω (i γ2442 −2δ−∆)c2c3 =
2 (n − 1)(iγ − δ) + (i γ42 − 2δ − ∆) ((iγ − δ)δ + Ω2 )
g24
3
3
c
2
√ √
n n − 1g13 g24 Ωcc4 =2 (n − 1)(iγ − δ) + (i γ42 − 2δ − ∆) ((iγ − δ)δ + Ω2 )
g24
3
3
c
2

(2.81)(2.82)(2.83)

Since the time-independent Schrödinger equation determines the eigenenergy E by E|ψi = Ĥ|ψi,the energy for this system in the n-photon manifold is√
En ≃ ~ ng13 c3 .

(2.84)In the limit where the detuning δ → 0,
En = ~

2 g2
g13
24
2 (n − 1) + Ω2 (i γ42 − ∆) n(n − 1).
iγ3 g24c2(2.85)

32
Thus,
En |ψin = ~
= ~

2 g2
g13
24
2 (n − 1) + Ω2 (i γ42 − ∆) n(n − 1)|ψiniγ3 g24
c
2
2 g2
g13
24
â† â† ââ|ψin
γ42
2
2
iγ3 g24 (n − 1) + Ωc (i 2 − ∆)≡ Ĥχ(3) |ψin

(2.86)

where Ĥχ(3) is our effective photon-photon interaction Hamiltonian under the constraint that|c2 |2 , |c3 |2 , |c4 |2 ≪ 1. Our assertion that the atom remains effectively in its ground state eliminates the atomic degrees of freedom from the problem. In the limit that the atomic decays are
negligible compared to Ωc and ∆, the validity conditions for this system are


g13
Ωc

2

g24
≤1,
∆

≪1,

2
g24
≤1
∆Ωc

(2.87)

where we are assuming that the cavity is operating in the few photon regime. Assuming g24 ≪ Ωc ,equation (2.86) implies that the effective Kerr nonlinearity is thenĤχ(3)g2 g2≃ −~ 132 24 â† â† ââΩc ∆≡ U â† â† ââ.

(2.88)

2 ≪ Ω2 , this four-level system exhibits a high nonlinear response
Therefore, for δ = 0 and g24cwith χ(1) = 0. Furthermore,Re χ(3)
∆

 =
.
(3)
γ42
Im χ

(2.89)For typical alkali atoms, ∆ ∼ 109 rad/sec and γ42 ∼ 107 rad/sec [55]. That is, the nonlinearity is∼ 100 times the absorption for the system.

Chapter 3
Open Quantum Systems and the Master Equation Formalism

In quantum mechanics, the state of the system |ψi evolves under the Schrödinger equationi~∂|ψi= Ĥ|ψi,∂t(3.1)

where the Hermitian Hamiltonian Ĥ describes an isolated (closed) quantum system. The Hermiticity of Ĥ is crucial to the theory of quantum mechanics: It guarantees that the prediction of thequantum state energies are real, and that |ψi evolves under a unitary transformation with a norm
|ψi that is preserved. Consequently, the dynamical evolution of |ψi under the Schrödinger equationis completely reversible. That is, Schrödinger’s equation describes the dynamics of dissipation-free,energy-conserving systems. Trying to incorporate a loss mechanism into quantum mechanics bycompromising the Hermiticity of Ĥ can ultimately lead to a state |ψi whose norm is not preserved.
This could imply that after some time T , the system has zero probability to be in any state. Thisoutcome indicates that attempting to include damping in a quantum mechanical framework by
constructing a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian is, in general, incomplete. One consistent method of
including dissipative effects into quantum mechanics is to couple the isolated Hermitian quantum
system to a comparably vast reservoir. This approach is known as the quantum master equation
formalism [34, 35, 62], which we derive here. Under the assumptions that the reservoir is in thermal
equilibrium and is very large compared to the system, it is diagonal in its energy basis, and resides ina steady-state. If this reservoir is weakly-coupled to the small system, the small perturbations thatit experiences via the coupling negligibly affect its thermal equilibrium [63, 64]. As we demonstrate

34
below, these simple and reasonable assumptions alone allow us to develop a theory that introducesdissipative, irreversible behavior into a quantum mechanical framework that is consistent with allof the fundamental postulates of quantum mechanics.
Since Schrödinger-type evolution is in general incapable of correctly describing dissipative
processes, we derive the master equation from the density matrix representation. This construction
leads to a theory where the trace of the reduced density matrix, and therefore the total probabilityof the mixed quantum state, is preserved.
In Section 3.1, we derive the master equation in a quantum optics theoretical framework.
This derivation provides a general discussion of the key approximations that are necessary. The
logical structure of this derivation follows that of reference [62]. In the following section, we discussa kinetic theory approach to the master equation. This alternative method yields an all-orders formof the master equation that illuminates a way to relax major approximations that are commonly
made. In doing so, we enable the formalism to accommodate the parameter regime of ultracold
atom systems. After demonstrating that the two theoretical descriptions are equivalent when thesame approximations are applied, we conclude this chapter by extending our open quantum systemtheory to model time-dependent system Hamiltonians.

3.1

The master equation formalism under the Born and Markov approximations
We start with the full detailed quantum mechanical description of a small system coupled to areservoir. We assume that the reservoir is much larger than the system and in thermal equilibrium,
so that it is diagonal in its energy basis and in steady-state. Finally, we assume that the interaction
between the system and reservoir is weak.
The Hamiltonian for the full quantum mechanical system isĤ = ĤS + ĤR + ĤV ,(3.2)

where ĤS is the Hamiltonian for the isolated system, ĤR is the Hamiltonian for the isolated reservoir

35
and ĤV is the system-reservoir interaction Hamiltonian. The generic interaction ĤV in a second
quantized framework involves the product of a creation operator of the system with an annihilation
operator of one of the many modes of the reservoir plus the Hermitian conjugate term. Here, wedenote the annihilation operator corresponding to the kth reservoir mode as R̂k . The two-time
average correlation functions for each mode k of the reservoir hR̂k† (τ )R̂k (0)i, and hR̂k (τ )R̂k† (0)idecay on a timescale τc that is determined by the inverse bandwidth of the reservoir spectrum. In
the limit that the reservoir modes form a near-continuum, τc becomes considerably smaller than
the timescale of appreciable evolution of the system, defined here as Tsys .
The corresponding von Neumann equation of motion for the density operator ρ̂ isdρ̂i= − [Ĥ, ρ̂].
dt
~

(3.3)

We transform the equations of motion of ρ̂(t) into the interaction picture, effectively rotating out
the free rapid rotation arising from the free energies of the system and reservoir. Defining the free
Hamiltonian as Ĥ0 = ĤS + ĤR yields the following equation of motion in the interaction picture:idρ̃= − [H̃V (t), ρ̃]
dt
~

(3.4)

where
i

i

ρ̃ = e ~ Ĥ0 t ρ̂e− ~ Ĥ0 t ,

(3.5)

and
i

i

H̃V (t) = e ~ Ĥ0 t ĤV e− ~ Ĥ0 t .

(3.6)

If the interaction HV is sufficiently weak, then the evolution of ρ̃S (t) is slow compared to its
Schrödinger picture counterpart. Under this condition, we can approximate the time derivative ofρ̃S asρ̃(t + ∆t) − ρ̃(t)
∆ρ̃
dρ̃
≃
≡
.
dt
∆t
∆t

(3.7)

where τc ≪ ∆t ≪ Tsys . This is known as coarse-graining, where the microscopic evolution on
the timescale τc is averaged over. Coarse-graining the equations of motion simplifies the system

36
dynamics, yielding an analytic open quantum system model. For this reason, we construct theequations of motion for the coarse-grained density matrix.
We begin the derivation of the coarse-grained equations of motion by integrating equation (3.3), and iterating to yield the first two terms of the Dyson expansion. Since ĤV is weak, it
is generally sufficient to truncate the expansion at second order,i∆ρ̃(t) ≃ −~Z t+∆tt1
dt1 [H̃V (t1 ), ρ̃(t)] − 2~Z t+∆t
t

dt1

Z t1
t


h
i
dt2 H̃V (t1 ), H̃V (t2 ), ρ̃(t)(3.8)

where ∆ρ̃(t) ≡ ρ̃(t + ∆t) − ρ̃(t). This weak-coupling approximation is known as the Born approximation.
It should be noted that we are typically interested in the dynamics of the small system only.
Consequently, we are concerned with observables that are solely functions of system variables.
This simplifies the calculation immensely. Consider the expectation value of any particular systemobservable Θ̂S . Assuming that we have the solution for the full density matrix ρ̂,nohΘ̂S i = TrSR Θ̂S ρ̂no= TrS TrR Θ̂S ρ̂

(3.9)(3.10)

where the trace is taken over the variables of the system and reservoir. Since Θ̂S is not a functionof the reservoir degrees of freedom,nohΘ̂S i = TrS Θ̂S TrR {ρ̂}no
= TrS Θ̂S ρ̂S(3.11)(3.12)

where ρ̂S ≡ TrR {ρ̂} is known as the reduced density matrix of the system. Tracing over the
reservoir degrees of freedom of equation (3.3), yields the equation of motion for ρ̂S . This equationof motion is a function of the system degrees of freedom alone, greatly reducing the complexity ofthe problem.
We assume the reservoir and system are initially uncorrelated. The reservoir’s interaction
with the system induces correlations as time evolves. However, these correlations decay on a

37timescale of τc ≪ ∆t. Consequently, for resolving times ∼ ∆t, the reservoir’s reduced density
operator effectively remains independent of the system evolution albeit coupled to it. Thus, forthe coarse-grained equations of motion, the density operator can be approximately factorized at all
times asρ̃(t) ≃ ρ̃S (t) ⊗ ρ̃R (t).

(3.13)

where ρ̃R = TrS {ρ̃} is the reduced density operator for the reservoir. This is known as the decorellation assumption and is equivalent to assuming that the system and reservoir degrees of freedom
do not become entangled. The assumptions that the reservoir is vast, in thermal equilibrium, andweakly-coupled to the system, also imply that it approximately remains in its initial state, despite
the system-reservoir interaction; i.e.
ρ̃(t) ≃ ρ̃S (t) ⊗ ρ̃R (0).

(3.14)

Tracing over the reservoir degrees of freedom of equation (3.8) and changing the variable ofintegration from t2 → t1 − τ yields
1∆ρ̃S (t) ≃ − 2~

Z t+∆tdt1

t

Z t1 −t
0


h
i 
dτ TrR H̃V (t1 ), H̃V (t1 − τ ), ρ̃S (t)ρ̃R (0).

(3.15)The trace of the single commutator term in equation (3.8) is equal to zero due to the fact that ρ̂R
is diagonal and that H̃V is proportional to R̂k and R̂k† .
Noting the geometry of the integration domain shown in Figure 3.1, the order of integration
can be switched, implying
1∆ρ̃S (t) ≃ − 2
~

Z ∆t
0

dτ

Z t+∆t
τ +t


h
i 
dt1 TrR H̃V (t1 ), H̃V (t1 − τ ), ρ̃S (t)ρ̃R (0).

(3.16)

Anticipating that the correlation functions that arise from the trace over the double commutatorof the form hR̂(t1 )R̂† (t1 − τ )i = hR̂(τ )R̂† (0)i, and hR̂(t1 )R̂(t1 − τ )i = hR̂† (τ )R̂† (0)i will decay on
a timescale τc ≪ Tsys , without consequence we can remove the negligibly-small τ dependence ofthe t1 integral limit. The rapid decay of the reservoir correlation functions compared to Tsys will
additionally allow us to take the upper limit of the τ integral to infinity without compromising our38Τ
Τ=t 1 -t

t

t1

t+Dt

-t
Figure 3.1: Graphical representation of the integration domain of the t1 and τ integrals

result:1∆ρ̃S (t) ≃ − 2
~

Z ∞

dτ

0

Z t+∆tthi 
dt1 TrR H̃V (t1 ), H̃V (t1 − τ ), ρ̃S (t)ρ̃R (0).

(3.17)

This approximation is known as the Markov approximation. Physically, the rapid decay of thereservoir correlation functions imply that the system-reservoir interaction is effectively memoryless.
Coarse-graining is consistent with the Markov approximation since time-averaging in steps ∆T ≫ τcleads to system evolution which lacks information of its past.
The rapid decay of the reservoir correlation functions imply that the remaining system operators in equation (3.17) can be removed from the τ integral retaining their initial value of τ = 0.
Additionally, since ∆t ≪ Tsys , we can approximate the remaining system variables, now solely afunction of t1 , as a constant over the interval [t, t + ∆t]. Thus,
1∆ρ̃S (t) ≃ − 2 ∆t~

Z ∞dτ TrR

0


h
i 
H̃V (t), H̃V (t − τ ), ρ̃S (t)ρ̃R (0).

(3.18)

Equation (3.7) implies that the coarse-grained equation of motion for the reduced density operator
in the interaction picture is
dρ̃S
1
≃− 2
dt
~

Z ∞
0


h
i 
dτ TrR H̃V (t), H̃V (t − τ ), ρ̃S (t)ρR (0),(3.19)

or equivalently in the Schrödinger picture
i
1
ih
dρ̂S
= − ĤS , ρ̂S − 2
dt
~
~

Z ∞
0

dτ TrRh−iĤ0 τĤV , eiĤ0 τ

ĤV ei , ρ̂S (t)ρ̂R (0).

(3.20)

39
This result is known as the master equation under the Born and Markov approximations. Thisequation is suitable for modeling a wide variety of quantum optics phenomena, such as the spontaneous emission of photons from atoms and molecules, and the emission of photons from an opticalcavity.

3.2

A memory kernel approach to the master equation formalism
In this section we discuss the master equation from a kinetic theory standpoint where theequation of motion for ρ̂S is derived in a Liouville representation. The formal solution that we
obtain from this approach proves to be of critical importance in the next chapter when we examinereservoirs with a non-Markovian character.
For each part of Ĥ = ĤS + ĤR + ĤV we introduce the Liouville operation Lˆx , defined by its
action on an arbitrary operator Θ̂ asiLˆx Θ̂ =1[Θ̂, Ĥx ],
i~

where

x ∈ {S, R, V}.

(3.21)

Additionally, we define the projection operator P̂ byP̂Θ̂ ≡ ρ̂R ⊗ TrR {Θ̂}

(3.22)and its compliment by Q̂ = 1̂ − P̂. Under these definitions, P̂ and Q̂ satisfy the usual projection
operator relationships P̂2 Θ̂ = P̂Θ̂, Q̂2 Θ̂ = Q̂Θ̂, and P̂Q̂Θ̂ = Q̂P̂Θ̂ = 0. Using the projection
operators, the reduced density matrix for the system can be written asρ̂S = TrR {P̂ρ̂}.

(3.23)

To find the equation of motion for ρ̂S , we start from the evolution of the full density matrix:dρ̂= −iLˆρ̂,dt
where Lˆ = LˆS + LˆR + LˆV . Noting that P̂ + Q̂ = 1̂, this equation can be written as



 

d P̂ + Q̂ ρ̂
= −i P̂ + Q̂ Lˆ P̂ + Q̂ ρ̂.
dt(3.24)(3.25)

40
Acting on this equation with P̂ and Q̂ yields the the following coupled equations
dP̂ρ̂
dt
dQ̂ρ̂
dt

h

i
ˆ
ˆ
= −i P̂L P̂ρ̂ + P̂L Q̂(Q̂ρ̂) ,hi= −i Q̂LˆP̂ρ̂ + Q̂LˆQ̂(Q̂ρ̂) ,(3.26)(3.27)

where we have used the fact that Q̂2 Θ̂ = Q̂Θ̂. Equation (3.27) can be simplified since
Q̂LˆS Q̂ρ̂ = (1̂ − P̂)LˆS (1̂ − P̂)ρ̂
HH
X

X
ˆS
ˆS

X
= LˆS ρ̂ − Lˆs P̂ρ̂ − P̂Lρ̂ + 
P̂L
P̂ρ̂
X
H

= LˆS Q̂ρ̂

(3.28)

where the last two terms cancel since LˆS is not a function of reservoir observables, and
*0

:0


ˆR
ˆRP̂ρ̂
Q̂LˆR Q̂ρ̂ = LˆR Q̂ − P̂Lρ̂ + 
P̂L(3.29)

due to the diagonal and stationary assumptions respectfully. Therefore,
Q̂LˆQ̂ρ̂ = LˆS + LˆR + Q̂LˆV Q̂.

(3.30)

The formal solution of equation (3.27) is thenQ̂ρ̂ = −i

Z t
0

ˆ
ˆ
ˆ
e−i(LS +LR +Q̂LV Q̂)τ Q̂LˆP̂ρ̂(t − τ )dτ.

(3.31)

where we have assumed that the system and reservoir are initially uncorrelated, i.e. Q̂ρ̂(0) = 0.
Using this result to eliminate Q̂ρ̂ in equation (3.26), we getdP̂ρ̂= −iP̂LˆP̂ρ̂ − P̂LˆQ̂
dt

Z t
0

ˆ

ˆ

ˆ

e−i(LS +LR +Q̂LV Q̂)τ Q̂LˆP̂ρ̂(t − τ )dτ.

(3.32)

This equation can be simplified by considering the action of the projection operators. The operatorsP̂ and Q̂ operate on everything to their right. Therefore, we apply the right-most P̂ and Q̂ first,
and work our way through them from right to left. Here we do so term-by-term. Consider theP̂LˆP̂ρ̂ term in equation (3.32), the definition of P̂ implies
P̂LˆP̂ρ̂ = P̂(LˆS + LˆR + LˆV )ρ̂S ρ̂R .

(3.33)

41
The fact that ρ̂R is stationary also impliesdρ̂R= −iLˆR ρ̂R = 0,dt

(3.34)

while the diagonal assumption of ρ̂R gives
P̂LˆV ρ̂R = ρ̂R hLˆV ρ̂R i = 0.

(3.35)

P̂LˆP̂ρ̂ = ρ̂R LˆS ρ̂S .

(3.36)

Therefore,

Consider nowˆP̂LˆQ̂e−iQ̂L Q̂τ Q̂LˆP̂ρ̂.

(3.37)

This term is a bit more complicated. Here we break it down by first noting the fact that
Q̂LˆP̂ρ̂ = (1̂ − P̂)(LˆS + LˆR + LˆV )ρ̂S ρ̂R

:0

:0

:0
XX


XˆX



ˆ
ˆS
ˆRρ̂
ˆVρ̂
X



= 
L
Lˆ
P̂L
ρ̂SXρ̂X
P̂L
P̂L
X
X
S ρ̂X
S ρ̂
R +
R ρ̂S ρ̂R + LV ρ̂S ρ̂R − 
R −S ρ̂R − S ρ̂R= LˆV ρ̂S ρ̂R(3.38)

where we have used equation (3.34) and equation (3.35). Now consider an arbitrary function F̂ ofsystem and reservoir variables.
P̂LˆQ̂F̂ ρ̂R = P̂(LˆS + LˆR + LˆV )(1̂ − P̂)F̂ ρ̂R= P̂LˆS F̂ ρ̂R + P̂LˆR F̂ ρ̂R + P̂LˆV F̂ ρ̂R − P̂LˆS P̂F̂ ρ̂R − P̂LˆS P̂F̂ ρ̂R − P̂LˆS P̂F̂ ρ̂R

:0
0
:0

XX 

XˆX

:
ˆRF̂ˆSX
ˆRρ̂
ˆVρ̂
= L
F̂Xi + P̂Lρ̂R + P̂LˆV F̂ ρ̂R − P̂Lρ̂RXhXF̂Xi − 
P̂L
P̂L



S ρ̂X
R hX
R hF̂i − 
R hF̂ i (3.39)= P̂LˆV F̂ .

(3.40)The second term in equation (3.39) goes to zero sinceP̂LˆR F̂ ρ̂R = ρ̂R Tr[ĤR F̂ ρ̂R ] − Tr[F̂ ρ̂R ĤR ]= ρ̂R Tr[ĤR F̂ ρ̂R ] − Tr[ĤR F̂ ρ̂R ]= 0.

(3.41)

42
Putting everything together we get,
dP̂ρ̂
dt

Z t
ˆ
e−iQ̂L Q̂τ Q̂LˆP̂ρ̂(t − τ )dτ= −iP̂LˆP̂ρ̂ − P̂LˆQ̂
0Z tˆ= ρ̂R LˆS ρS −P̂LˆV e−iQ̂L Q̂τ LˆV ρ̂S (t − τ )ρ̂R dτ.

(3.42)

0

Finally, tracing over the reservoir degrees of freedom yieldsdρ̂S (t)= −iLˆS ρ̂S (t) +dt

Z tR(τ )ρ̂S (t − τ )dτ,(3.43)noˆˆˆR(τ ) = −TrR LˆV e−i(LS +LR +Q̂LV Q̂)τ LˆV ρ̂R .

(3.44)

0where we have defined the memory kernel

The first term on the right hand side of equation (3.43) is the free system evolution while the second
term describes the irreversible contribution due to the system-reservoir interaction.
Equation (3.43) is the exact master equation under the sole condition that the system andreservoirs are initially uncorrelated. All the dynamics due to the coupling to the reservoirs is
encapsulated in R(τ ). Once the memory kernel is known, we can calculate the evolution of the
reduced density matrix of the system. However, it turns out in general to be impossible to solve forthe memory kernel exactly except for the most trivial situations, so approximations must be madeto continue from this point.

3.3

Equivalence of the two formalisms
In this framework, we can recover the master equation under the Born and Markov approxi-

mations in two simple steps. First, the Born approximation can be made by taking equation (3.43)
to second order in ĤV . This amounts to eliminating the Q̂LˆV Q̂ term from the exponential in equation (3.44). Second, the memoryless (Markovian) nature can be asserted by taking the τ integral
to infinity as well as assuming that, on the time scale of the rapid decay of the memory kernel, thebackwards evolution of ρ̂S is determined solely by the system evolution, i.e.
ˆρ̂S (t − τ ) ≃ eiLS τ ρ̂S (t).

(3.45)

43
Then,dρ̂S (t)dt= −iLˆS ρ̂S (t) −≃ −iLˆS ρ̂S (t) −

Z ∞

Z0 ∞

Z0 ∞

n
o
ˆ
ˆ
ˆ
TrR LˆV e−i(LS +LR +Q̂LV Q̂)τ LˆV ρ̂R ρ̂S (t − τ )dτ
n
o
ˆ
ˆ
ˆ
TrR LˆV e−i(LS +LR )τ LˆV ρ̂R e−iLS τ dτ ρ̂S (t)

n
o
ˆ
ˆ
ˆ
TrR LˆV e−i(LS +LR )τ LˆV ρ̂R e−iLS τ dτ ρ̂S (t)
0
nh
h
h
iio
i Z ∞
TrR ĤV , e−iĤ0 τ ĤV eiĤ0 τ , ρ̂S (t)ρ̂R (0)= −i ĤS , ρ̂S (t) −dτ ρ̂S (t) (3.46)= −iLˆS ρ̂S (t) −0which is in agreement with equation (3.20).

3.4

Time-dependent master equation
We conclude our formal discussion of the master equation by considering the possibility of atime-dependent system Hamiltonian in an open quantum system setting. Later in this work, we use
the results derived here to explore the properties of specific time-dependent Bose-Hubbard systems
coupled to the environment. We perform this derivation using the projection operator method aswell, and it follows closely the master equation derivation in Section 3.2. Due to this similarity,
we go through this derivation rather quickly, taking for granted mathematical details establishedin Section 3.2.
Given a time dependent system, the full equation of motion for the density matrix for thesystem and reservoir isdρ̂= −i(LˆS (t) + LˆR + LˆV )ρ̂,dt

(3.47)

which yields
dP̂ρ̂
dt
dQ̂ρ̂
dt

h
i
= −i P̂Lˆ(t)P̂ρ̂ + P̂Lˆ(t)Q̂(Q̂ρ̂)hi= −i Q̂LˆP̂ρ̂ + Q̂LˆQ̂(Q̂ρ̂) .

(3.48)(3.49)

The formal solution of equation (3.49) isQ̂ρ̂ = −i

Z t
0

”
“ R
t
i T t 2 LˆS (t1 )dt1 +LˆR (t2 −t)+Q̂LˆV Q̂(t2 −t)eLˆV ρ̂S (t2 )ρ̂R dt2(3.50)

44
where the T signifies time-ordering for the integral in the exponential, and we have once again
made the assumption that the system and reservoir are initially uncorrelated. Substituting thisresult into equation (3.48) yieldsdP̂ρ̂= −iP̂Lˆ(t)P̂ρ̂ −
dt

Z t

“ R
t2

i T t
LˆV e

”
LˆS (t1 )dt1 +LˆR (t2 −t)+Q̂LˆV Q̂(t2 −t)

LˆV ρ̂S (t2 )ρ̂R dt2 .

(3.51)

0We make the Born approximation by taking the LˆV term in the exponent to be zero. Since[LˆS (t1 ), LˆR ] = 0,
“ R”t
i T t 2 LˆS (t1 )dt1 +LˆR (t2 −t)

e

R t2

= eiT tLˆS (t1 )dt1 iLˆR (t2 −t)e.

(3.52)

LˆV ρ̂S (t − τ )ρ̂R dτ

(3.53)

Changing the variable of integration to τ = t − t2 impliesdP̂ρ̂= −iP̂Lˆ(t)P̂ρ̂ −
dt

Z t
0

R t−τ

LˆV eiT t

LˆS (t1 )dt1 −iLˆR τeFinally, making the Markov approximation, and tracing over the reservoir degrees of freedom, wearrive at the master equationdρ̂Sdt= −iLˆS (t)ρ̂S
Z ∞ hh R t−τii
R
iT t
ĤS (t1 )dt1 −iĤR τ−iT tt−τ ĤS (t1 )dt1 −iLˆR τ
ĤV , eeĤV ee, ρ̂R ρ̂S (t)
dτ
−TrR
0

(3.54)

This equation is identical to equation (3.46), but with a time-ordered propagator for the system
Hamiltonian. As we see later in this work when specific models are adopted for the system andreservoir, under the Markov approximation the rapid decay of the correlation functions in thememory kernel lead to a time-independent expression for the kernel. Under this condition, the only
difference between equation (3.46), and equation (3.54) is LˆS ρ̂S → LˆS (t)ρ̂S .

3.5

Conclusion
In this chapter, we reviewed the master equation formalism under the Born and Markov ap-

proximations. Afterwords, an all-orders kinetic theory approach was presented. In the next chapter
we will use this theory to make approximations that go beyond the standard approximation. After45
demonstrating that the two formalisms are equivalent when the Born and Markov approximations
are made to the memory kernel, we derived a generalized master equation that is capable of treatingtime-dependent system Hamiltonians. This equation will find use in Chapter 6, when we discuss
the progress that we have made in understanding sequential logic in atomtronic systems.

Chapter 4
Non-Markovian Open Quantum Systems

Most of the atomtronic systems that we apply the master equation approach to in thisthesis involve reservoirs where zero-temperature Fermi-Dirac equilibrium statistics are assumed.
At the start of this research effort, however, we found that such reservoir assumptions lead tovarious mathematical divergences when the standard Born-Markov master equation framework is
employed. Here, in the context of a two-level atom coupled to a distribution of vacuum modes,
we discuss the origin of these divergences, as well as derive a non-Markovian master equation
theory to rectify the theoretical inconsistencies. As we demonstrate, the divergence only arises
when system energy differences directly overlap with a sharp boundary in the reservoir structure.
In order to properly quench this divergence, we go beyond the standard approximations. Using
the memory kernel formulation derived in Section 3.2, we derive a modified master equation byintroducing an ansatz for the full memory kernel. The resulting model is free of all divergences thatare induced by the reservoir structure discontinuity. Our analysis reveals that the divergence is aconsequence of the breakdown of the Markov assumption. We conclude this chapter by comparing
the behavior of our modified master equation to exact results from a closed, isolated quantum
system. These simulations confirm that our model correctly captures the steady-state dynamics
around the quenched divergence.

47

4.1

Coupling an atom to the vacuum
Consider a two level atom coupled to the zero-temperature vacuum environment schematically

depicted in Figure 4.1. The Hamiltonians for the system, reservoir and interaction are
ĤS
ĤR

1
~ω0 σ̂ (z)2X=~ω̄j R̂j† R̂j
=

(4.1)
(4.2)

j

ĤV

=


X 
~ gk R̂k† σ̂ (−) + gk∗ R̂k σ̂ (+)

(4.3)

k

where σ̂ (z) , σ̂ (−) , and σ̂ (+) are the Pauli spin matrices, ~ω0 is the energy of the two level atom, R̂k†
and R̂k create and annihilate an excitation in the reservoir with energy ~ω̄k , and gk is the complex
coupling between cavity mode k and the two level atom.
The standard Born Markov master equation is given by

Z ∞
i
h
i 
1
ih
dρ̂S
−iĤ0 τiĤ0 τĤV e, ρ̂S (t)ρ̂R (0).
= − ĤS , ρ̂S − 2dτ TrR ĤV , e
dt
~
~ 0

(4.4)

Here we examine in detail the integral
Z ∞
n
o
−
dτ TrR ĤV e−iĤ0 τ ĤV eiĤ0 τ ρ̂S (t)ρ̂R .

(4.5)

0

The divergence that we discuss directly below is common to all four integrals in the second-orderkernel that arise when the commutators are expanded. The remaining three integrals are treated in
Ha L

HbL
Ωc

Èe\
Èg\

0

Ω0

Èe\
Èg\

Figure 4.1: (a) Illustration of a two-level atom radiating a photon into the vacuum. (b) Schematicof a two-level atom coupled to a near-continuum of modes, which gives the atom the ability to
decay into the vacuum.

48
exactly the same manner. The simple form of Ĥ0 = ĤS + ĤR has the following two consequences:ie− 2 ω0 σ̂

(z) τ

i

σ̂ (−) e 2 ω0 σ̂(z) τe−iĤR τ R̂j eiĤR τ= σ̂ (−) eiω0 τ ,(4.6)= R̂j eiω̄j τ .

(4.7)

Thus,
− ~i Ĥ0 τ

e

ĤV e

i
Ĥ τ
~ 0

− ~i Ĥ0 τ

= e

~

X

gk R̂k† σ̂ (−) + gk∗ R̂k σ̂ (+)

k

= ~

X

!

i

e ~ Ĥ0 τ

gk R̂k† σ̂ (−) ei(ω0 −ω̄k )τ + gk∗ R̂k σ̂ (+) e−i(ω0 −ω̄k )τ .

(4.8)
(4.9)

k

When the assumption is made that the reservoir is in thermal equilibrium, the trace over the
diagonal reservoir reduces the two sums over the reservoir degrees of freedom to one, and eliminatesterms that are not of the form hR̂k† R̂k i or hR̂k R̂k† i. Thusno
TrR ĤV e−iĤ0 τ ĤV eiĤ0 τ ρ̂S (t)ρ̂R
X|gk |2 hR̂k† R̂k iσ̂ (−) σ̂ (+) ρ̂S e−i(ω0 −ω̄k )τ + hR̂k R̂k† iσ̂ (+) σ̂ (−) ρ̂S ei(ω0 −ω̄k )τ .
= ~2

(4.10)k

Since we are assuming a zero temperature vacuum reservoir, hR̂k† R̂k i = 0, and hR̂k R̂k† i = 1 for allmodes k. Therefore,
−

Z ∞
0

Z ∞
n
o
X
2
−iĤ0 τiĤ0 τ
2 (+) (−)
dτ TrR ĤV edτ ei(ω0 −ω̄k )τ
ĤV e
ρ̂S (t)ρ̂R = −~|gk | σ̂ σ̂ ρ̂Sk(4.11)

0

Assuming that the system is coupled to a dense collection of reservoir modes, we may replace thesummation over the reservoir modes by an integral. Therefore
2

−~

X

2 (+) (−)σ̂ρ̂S

= −~2 σ̂ (+) σ̂ (−) ρ̂S lim

Z ∞k|gk | σ̂Z ∞dτ ei(ω0 −ω̄k )τ

0

ε→0+

0

dτ

Z ∞

dω̄D(ω̄)|g(ω̄)|2 ei(ω0 −ω̄)τ −ετ(4.12)

0where D(ω̄) is the density of states for the reservoir modes, g(ω̄) is the continuum counterpart ofgk , and the convergence factor ε → 0+ selects the appropriate handedness for the contour aroundthe pole in the ω̄ complex plane [32].

49
Assuming that D(ω̄) is slowly-varying about ω0 , and that the coupling can be expressed asg(ω̄) = g(ω0 )θ(ωc − ω̄) where θ is the Heaviside function, an assumption that asserts the Markov
approximation, the integration of equation (4.12) yields
2 (+) (−)

−~ σ̂

σ̂

ρ̂S lim

ε→0+

Z ∞
0

= −~2 D(ω0 )|g(ω0 )|2 lim

ε→0+

dτ
(

Z ∞
0

dω̄D(ω̄)|g(ω0 )|2 θ(ωc − ω̄)ei(ω0 −ω̄)τ −ετarctanωc − ω0ε+ arctan ω 
0

ε

i
+ ln
2



ω02 + ε2(ω0 − ωc )2 + ε2

),

(4.13)

where we have additionally assumed that the density of states is slowly-varying to derive theimaginary part. The limit of ε → 0+ implies
Z ∞

Z ∞

dω̄D(ω̄)|g(ω0 )|2 θ(ωc − ω̄)ei(ω0 −ω̄)τ −ετ
0
0

i
ω0
2
2
= −π~ D(ω0 )|g(ω0 )| 1 + ln.
π
ω0 − ωc2 (+) (−)

−~ σ̂

σ̂

ρ̂S limε→0+dτ

(4.14)

From this expression it is clear that taking the limit of ωc to infinity would cause the imaginary
component of the integral to diverge. This behavior is known as the ultraviolet divergence. There
are rigorous treatments of this divergence, such as electron mass renormalization in the context
of quantum electrodynamics [33]. If ωc were to be taken to infinity, the divergence would arise
directly from the erroneous assumption that the density of states and atom-reservoir coupling
could be treated as constants for all frequencies from zero to infinity. Assuming that the system
couples to a resonant vacuum mode in the exact same manner that it does to a vacuum mode thatis infinitely higher in energy is clearly incorrect. In quantum optics, the cut-off is typically taken
to be the frequency ωc for which a photon would have a wavelength equal to the size of the atom.
Under this assumption, the imaginary term leads to a small energetic shift, analogous to the Lamb
shift [33, 34], and is generally neglected since it is orders of magnitude less than optical systemfrequencies. Alternatively, it can also be incorporated in the definition of the resonant frequency.
Neglecting this small energetic shift, we get

50
−~2

X
k

|gk |2 σ̂ (+) σ̂ (−) ρ̂SZ ∞0dτ ei(ω0 −ω̄k )τ = π~2 |g(ω0 )|2 D(ω0 )σ̂ (+) σ̂ (−) ρ̂S .

(4.15)

Similar mathematical manipulations on equation (4.4) yield the following result for the masterequation of a two level atom coupled to a zero temperature vacuum:

i Γ
dρ̂S
ih
σ̂ (+) σ̂ (−) ρ̂S + ρ̂S σ̂ (+) σ̂ (−) − 2σ̂ (−) ρ̂S σ̂ (+) ,= − ĤS , ρ̂S (t) −dt~
2(4.16)

where Γ = 2π|g(ω0 )|2 D(ω0 ) is the decay rate for the excited two level atom. This decay rate agrees
with the expression calculated with Fermi’s golden rule [65].

4.2

Sharp reservoirs: a non-Markovian situation
Suppose instead of an atom being coupled to a continuum of modes up to ωc such thatωc ≫ ω0 , as illustrated in Figure 4.2(a), the atom is coupled to modes up to ωc = ω0 as in
Figure 4.2(b). This reservoir model was analyzed in detail in Pepino et al. [66]. Mathematically,
this can be done by including the Heaviside function in our definition of the coupling constant,density of states, or vacuum mode occupancy. Regardless of the choice taken, the modification
would take the integral in equation (4.12) and augment its form to the following:
Ha L

Ωc

HbL

E

Èe\
Ω0
0

Èg\

Ωc
0

Èe\
Ω0
Èg\

Figure 4.2: (a) A two-level atom coupled to a near-continuum of modes whose upper energy levelωc ≫ ω0 . (b) A two-level atom couple to an exotic reservoir whose maximum energy ωc = ω0 . The
latter reservoir model leads to divergences in the standard Born-Markov open quantum systemtreatment.

51

Z ∞

Z ∞

dω̄θ(ωc − ω̄)D(ω̄)|g(ω̄)|2 ei(ω0 −ω̄)τ −ετ
lim
dτ
0
0
(

)
2
ω
i
π
0
.
(4.17)+ ln= −~2 D(ω0 )|g(ω0 )|2 lim
ωc →ω02 2(ω0 − ωc )22

2−~ D(ω0 )|g(ω0 )| lim

ε→0+ ωc →ω0

Recall, in the previous model, the energy shift was a negligibly-small quantity. However, as ωc approaches ω0 , the energy shift not only becomes non-negligible, it diverges! This infrared divergenceoccurs for all surviving integral terms in equation (4.4).
This result shows that we cannot simply employ the second-order Born-Markov approximations when the hard edge overlaps with system eigenenergies, as the resulting theory is mathematically undefined. The divergence is caused by a violation of our time scale assumption, where wehave assumed τc ≪ Tsys . As we see in Section 4.3, the sharp cut-off must impart a correlation timeon the system-reservoir interaction on the order of, or greater than, the system response time.

4.3

Fourth-order estimate of the full memory kernel
In this section we derive a higher-order treatment of the master equation formalism. A

property of memory kernels that model relaxation processes is that they exhibit exponential decay [63]. Here, we estimate the all orders exponential decay by expanding the memory kernel of
equation (3.44) to fourth-order in LˆV . This order of expansion involves 256 possible terms. Here
we focus on the fourth-order correction to the σ̃ (−) (t)ρ̃S (τ )σ̃ (+) (τ ) term for two-level atom coupled
to the zero-temperature vacuum, and expand the kernel about the divergence.
Transforming equation (3.44) into the interaction picture yields [67]
d
ρ̃S
dt

Z t

Rt

′

ˆ

′

dτ hLˆV (t)e−i τ dτ Q̂LV (τ ) LˆV (τ )iρ̃S (τ )0Z t dτ hLˆV (t)LˆV (τ )i
≃ −
0
Z t
Z τ1
dτ1
dτ2 hLˆV (t)LˆV (τ1 )Q̂LˆV (τ2 )LˆV (τ )i
−
τ
τ

Z t
Z τ1
dτ1
dτ2 hLˆV (t)LˆV (τ1 )ihQ̂LˆV (τ2 )LˆV (τ )i ρ̃S (τ ).
−

= −

τ

τ

(4.18)(4.19)

52
Expanding the second-order expectation value, and acting with the Liouvillian operators on ρ̃S (τ ),the zero-temperature reservoir assumption implies

53
hLˆV (t)LˆV (τ )iρ̃S (τ ) =|gk |2 hR̃k (t)R̂k† (τ )iσ̃ (+) (t)σ̃ (−) (τ )ρ̃S (τ )Xk−hR̃k (τ )R̂k† (t)iσ̃ (−) (t)ρ̃S (τ )σ̃ (+) (τ )−hR̃k (t)R̂k† (τ )iσ̃ (−) (τ )ρ̃S (τ )σ̃ (+) (t)

†
(+)
(−)
+hR̃k (τ )R̂k (t)iρ̃S (τ )σ̃ (τ )σ̃ (t)

= −

X
k

|gk |2 hR̃k (τ )R̂k† (t)iσ̃ (−) (t)ρ̃S (τ )σ̃ (+) (τ ) ± · · · ,(4.20)(4.21)

where we will compare the matching fourth-order term to the second-order term of equation (4.21).
The fourth-order term in equation (4.19) can be expanded most simply by an application of
Wick’s theorem [67] along with the knowledge that the reservoir is in the zero-temperature vacuum
state. Then, utilizing the fact that σ̂ (−) · σ̂ (−) = σ̂ (+) · σ̂ (+) = 0 leaves only four surviving terms.
Of those four, only the following two are relevant for comparison with equation (4.21):
Z τ1

Z t


ˆ
ˆ
ˆ
ˆ
dτ2 hLV (t)LV (τ1 )ihQ̂LV (τ2 )LV (τ )i ρ̃S (τ )
dτ1
−
τ
τ
Z τ1
Z t


XX
2
2
=
dτ2 hR̂l (τ1 )R̂l† (τ2 )ihR̃k (τ )R̂k† (t) + hR̂l (τ2 )R̂l† (t)ihR̃k (τ1 )R̂k† (τ )i|gl | |gk |
dτ1
l

k
(−)

×σ̃

τ

τ

(t)σ̃ (+) (τ1 )σ̃ (−) (τ2 )ρ̃S (τ )σ̃ (+) (τ ) ± · · ·(4.22)Since
XX|gl |2 |gk |2

XX|gl |2 |gk |2

l

=

l

k

k

4 2

Z t
τ

Z t
2

= |g(ω0 )|4 π 2 D(ω0 )2

equation (4.22) becomes

Z τ1
τ

dτ1

Z τ1
τ

τ

≃ |g(ω0 )| π D(ω0 )

= 0,

dτ1

Z ω0

−∞
Z t

dωl

dτ1

τ

dτ2 hR̂l (τ2 )R̂l† (t)ihR̃k (τ1 )R̂k† (τ )idτ2 hR̂l R̂l† ihR̃k R̂k† ieiωl (t−τ2 ) eiωk (τ −τ1 )

Z ω0

−∞
Z τ1
τ

dωk

Z t
τ

dτ1

Z τ1

dτ2 eiωl (t−τ2 ) eiωk (τ −τ1 )τdτ2 δ(t − τ2 )δ(τ − τ1 )54
πD(ω0 )|g(ω0 )|2Xk|gk |2

Z t

dτ1

Z τ1

dτ2

τ

τ




δ(τ2 − τ1 )hR̃k (τ )R̂k† (t)iσ̃ (−) (t)σ̃ (+) (τ1 )σ̃ (−) (τ2 )ρ̃S (τ )σ̃ (+) (τ ) ± · · ·XπD(ω0 )|g(ω0 )|2|gk |2 (t − τ )hR̃k (τ )R̂k† (t)iσ̃ (−) (t)σ̂ (+) σ̂ (−) ρ̃S (τ )σ̃ (+) (τ ) ± · · · (4.23)
2
k
X
π
2
=
D(ω0 )|g(ω0 )||gk |2 (t − τ )hR̃k (τ )R̂k† (t)iσ̃ (−) (t)ρ̃S (τ )σ̃ (+) (τ ) ± · · ·
2
k
X
2
≡ η
|gk | (t − τ )hR̃k (τ )R̂k† (t)iσ̃ (−) (t)ρ̃S (τ )σ̃ (+) (τ ) ± · · · .
(4.24)=kwhere we defineη=ΓπD(ω0 )|g(ω0 )|2 = .
24(4.25)

Here Γ, defined by equation (4.16), has already been introduced as the decay rate of the two levelatom. The fact that hR̃k (τ )R̃k† (t)i = hR̃k (0)R̃k† (t − τ )i means equation (4.19) can be simplified to
!
Z t


X
d
dτ
ρ̃S =
|gk |2 hR̃k (0)R̃k† (t − τ )iσ̃ (−) (t − τ )ρ̃S (τ )σ̃ (+) (0) ± · · ·1 − η(t − τ )
dt
0
k
!
Z t
X
†
2
(−)
(+)
dτ
≃
|gk | hR̃k (0)R̃k (t − τ )iσ̃ (t − τ )ρ̃S (τ )σ̃ (0) ± · · · e−η(t−τ )(4.26)
0k

for ηt ≪ 1. Thus, the master equation in the interaction picture is
d
ρ̃S
dt

= −
≃ −

Z t
0

Z t
0

Rt

′
′
ˆ
dτ hLˆV (t)e−i τ dτ Q̂LV (τ ) LˆV (τ )iρ̃S (τ )(4.27)dτ hLˆV (0)e−η(t−τ ) LˆV (t − τ )iρ̃S (τ ).

(4.28)

Since the transformation from the Schrödinger picture to the interaction picture is
Z t0

R(τ )ρ̂(t − τ )dτ →Z t
0R̃(t − τ )ρ̃(τ )dτ,

(4.29)

the master equation in the Schrödinger picture is given bydρ̂S ≃ −iLˆs ρ̂s −
dt

Z t
0

ˆ
dτ hLˆV e−iL0 τ e−ητ LˆV iρ̂S (t − τ ).

(4.30)

Physically, the new parameter η that we have introduced in this theory is the inverse of the finite
correlation time that the system-reservoir interaction acquires when a sharp reservoir boundary
overlaps with system eigenenergy differences. This accounts for the violation of the separation of

55
time scales assumption, since η ∼ Γ implies τc ∼ Tsys . Thus, the Markov approximation cannot
be made in this case since the correlation function does not decay rapidly compared to the systemtime scale. If we are solely concerned with steady-state solutions of the master equation, long times
t imply ρ̂S (t − τ ) ≃ ρ̂S (t). Therefore, in this case ρ̂s can be removed from the integral, whose upper
limit goes to infinity:dρ̂S ≃ −iLˆs ρ̂s −
dt

Z ∞
0

dτ e−ητ hLˆV e−iĤ0 τ LˆV eiĤ0 τ iρ̂S (t).

(4.31)

In taking t → ∞ we lose the ability to resolve the short-time characteristics of the evolutionof the density operator. Since we will generally be concerned with the steady-state behavior of
atomtronic systems in this thesis, this is a justified approximation. Equation (4.31) is the modified
master equation we implement whenever there exists sharp reservoir boundaries that could overlap
with system energy levels.

4.3.1

The physical interpretation of η

Here we compare the standard Born-Markov master equation to our non-Markovian model inorder to illuminate the modification that η induces on a simple system. Consider a two-level atomwith frequency ω0 coupled to an exotic reservoir that is comprised solely of ground state two-levelatoms with transition energies ranging from 0 to ωµ , and excited two-level atoms with transitionenergies greater than ωµ .
We can calculate the steady-state population as a function of the system frequency ω0 bytaking the trace of the product of the Born-Markov master equation with σ̂ (+) σ̂ (−) . Since ∂t ρ̂S = 0,
and TrS {[ĤS , ρ̂S ]σ̂ (+) σ̂ (−) } = 0, we get
0 = TrS



lim

Z ∞

ǫ→0 0

−ǫτ

dτ e

h

h

ĤV , ĤV (−τ ), ρ̂Siiσ̂(+) (−)σ̂,(4.32)

which yields a steady-state value for the average system excitation ofhσ̂ (+) σ̂ (−) i = θ(ω0 − ωµ ).

(4.33)

56
This step function about the reservoir boundary is what one might expect from such a model since,
ω0 < ωµ couples the system solely to vacuum modes while ω0 > ωµ drives the system with theexcited reservoir.
The limit ǫ → 0 is convergent in this case due to a cancellation of the imaginary terms that
occur by taking the trace of ρ̂S with the observable σ̂ (+) σ̂ (−) .
Employing our non-Markovian model to the same system,
0 = TrS

Z ∞
0


h
h
ii
dτ e−ητ ĤV , ĤV (−τ ), ρ̂S σ̂ (+) σ̂ (−) ,(4.34)

which yields a steady-state value for the average system excitation ofhσ̂ (+) σ̂ (−) i =1 1− arctan2 πωµ − ω0η.

(4.35)

This expression is very similar to the one obtained from the Born-Markov model. The only difference
here is a population transition region broadened by η, as shown in Figure 4.3. Interestingly, in thecase of a Fermi-Dirac reservoir, the finite correlation time acquired by the system-reservoir coupling
is directly analogous to including a finite temperature in the reservoir structure.
This result also makes sense from a perturbative standpoint, where one would expect thata higher-order treatment of the memory kernel would mix the otherwise sharp distribution of thereservoir modes. Since η = Γ/4 = |g(ω0 )|2 D(ω0 )π/2 = π|g(ω0 )|2 /(2∆ω), the broadening is directly` H+L `XΣ ΣH-L \
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
Η
0.2

ΩΜ

Ω0

Figure 4.3: The analytic comparison of the Born-Markov master equation to our non-Markovian
master equation applied to a two-level atom coupled to a reservoir with a sharp boundary.

57
proportional to the reservoir square of the coupling, and inversely proportional to the energetic
spacing. This might have been anticipated since our perturbative expansion of the memory kernel
was taken to second order.

4.4

Closed system model estimate for η
In this section we present a simple model calculation that clearly confirms our prediction of

the higher-order behavior of the memory kernel for a structured reservoir with a hard edge. Here
we test our estimation of η by performing full calculations on reasonably large, closed quantum
systems. The closed system we consider is again a single excited two-level atom ‘system’, but thistime coupled to N energetically equally-spaced ground state ‘reservoir’ two-level atoms as illustrated
in Figure 4.4. We take the energy spacing of the reservoir modes to be ∆ω. The Hamiltonian thatmodels this system is

N


X
1
1
(z)
(+) (−)(−) (+) (z)ωj σ̂j + g σ̂j σ̂0 + σ̂j σ̂0,Ĥ = ~  ω0 σ̂0 +
2
2


(z)

(4.36)

j=1

where ω0 and σ̂0 are the frequency and Pauli spin matrix of the system two level atom, ωj = j∆ωis the energy level of the jth ‘vacuum mode’ and g is the coupling of the jth mode to the system,taken to be uniform. Here ωc = N ∆ω, and the uniform spacing of the j modes implies that the
Ha L

HbL
Ωc

Ωc

Ω0

Ω0
DΩ 8

DΩ 8

0

0

Figure 4.4: The illustration of a numerical experiment consisting of a large closed system consistingof a single two level atom coupled to a finite collection of equally-spaced reservoir modes. The
population of the single two-level atom is recorded as its frequency ω0 scans through the reservoir
frequencies starting from (a) the middle where ω0 < ωc to (b) ω0 > ωc .

58
density of states for the reservoir is D(ω0 ) = 1/∆ω.
Ideally, we would like to configure the reservoir with a sharp boundary ωµ between excited andground state two-level atoms to match the model described above. Unfortunately, the N +1 coupledatomic system has a Hilbert space with dimension 2N +1 , which grows exponentially, becoming
numerically-unmanageable as a function of N very quickly. Instead, we consider conditions where
the system is initially excited, and the reservoir solely consists of ground state two-level atoms
with energies ranging from 0 to ωc . This allows us two work in the single excitation manifold
whose dimension is merely N + 1. In doing so, we are able to model much larger systems that,in turn, approximate system-reservoir dynamics more accurately. This model is sufficient for ourcomparison with the non-Markovian model but, the lack of an excited two-level atom drive withenergies above ωc , restricts the validity of the model to the regime where ω0 ≤ ωc . The reservoir(+)

boundary ωc in this case models the reservoir edge ωµ , since σ̂0 |ei = 0, where |ei is the excitedstate of the atom.
In the limit where D(ω0 ) ≪ 1/g, the system effectively couples to a single mode, and Rabi
flops between the system and reservoir modes. Therefore, in order to approximate system-reservoir
behavior, we require D(ω0 ) > 1/g, which guarantees that the system interacts with several modesof the reservoir. Since the major feature that the non-Markovian model added was a broadeningof the system population transition as a function of the system frequency ω0 , here we record theaverage population P̄0 of this closed system as a function of ω0 − ωc . We then measure the widthof the population transition as ω0 approaches ωc from below.
For fixed D(ω0 ) and g, we simulate the model described above by time evolving the excitationof the two-level atom system as a function of ωc − ω0 . Since this is a closed quantum system, theexcitation of the atom system undergoes collapses and revivals due to the fact that there is notrue steady-state for the Hamiltonian system. We calculate the average excitation of the systemin the region precisely between consecutive revivals. Obtaining a series of these average system
excitations as a function of ωc − ω0 , we can numerically construct the average population functionP̄0 (ωc − ω0 ). The half width at half maximum of P̄0 (ωc − ω0 ) is determined from the fall-off of

59
the excitation as a function of ωc − ω0 about the 50% occupancy level. This broadened populationtransition as a function of frequency is then directly comparable to η.
Figure 4.5 demonstrates this process for the case where ∆ω/ωc = 0.005 and g/ωc = 0.015
are fixed. Figure 4.5(a) is a plot of the population of the system as a function of time whereHa L

P 0 HtL 1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

1

2

3

t@2ΠDHΩ0 LD

4

P 0 HtL

HbL

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

HcL

P 0 HΩL
0.5
0.25

0

1

2

3

t@2ΠDHΩ0 LD-0.1 0Ω0 -ΩcFigure 4.5: A demonstration of the calculation of a η/ωc for a large closed quantum system. For
fixed ∆ω/ωc and g/ωc , time evolution of this as a function of ω0 − ωc exhibits collapses and revivals
due to the fact that it is a closed quantum system. (a) The time evolution for ω0 − ωc = −ωc . (b)The time evolution for ω0 ≃ ωc . We record the collapsed population value as a function of ω0 − ωc ,and then plot them (c). The half width at half maximum is the value η.

ω0 ≪ ωc . For a given ∆ω, the revival time is approximately equal to 2πD(ω0 ) as can be observedon the plot. The quasi-steady-state can thus be calculated by time-averaging about πD(ω0 ). The
quasi-steady-state for this case is approximately zero, since the system frequency is covered aboveand below by vacuum modes. Figure 4.5(b) is a plot of the population of the system as a functionof time where ω0 < ωc , but ≃ 8% of its value. Here the revival time is the same, since the density ofstates is unchanged, and the quasi-steady-state is now a nonzero value. Figure 4.5(c) is the functionP̄0 (ωc − ω0 ) obtained from data obtained in the manner just described. This particular numericalexperiment yields ≃ 0.09, where the theoretically-predicted broadening is η ≃ 0.07. The procedure
is repeated for a variety of values of g and D(ω0 ). The resulting data is given in Table (4.4).
Since we are checking the claim that η = g2 D(ω0 )π/2, in Figure 4.6 we plot η × 2/(gD(ω0 )π)
as a function of g. In doing so, if η accurately models the system broadening, the slope of this line
should be ≃ 1. The top (blue), middle (red), and bottom (yellow) points and lines correspond to
the data and linear fit for D(ω0 )ωc = 100, D(ω0 )ωc = 200, and D(ω0 )ωc = 500 respectively. The

D(ω0 )ωc = 100
g/ωc
η/ωc
0.020
0.081
0.022
0.096
0.025
0.121
0.027
0.138

D(ω0 )ωc = 200
g/ωc
η/ωc
0.010
0.044
0.012
0.060
0.015
0.090
0.017
0.113
0.020
0.148

60

D(ω0 )ωc = 500
g/ωc
η/ωc
0.006
0.040
0.008
0.067
0.010
0.099
0.012
0.136
0.014
0.176

Table 4.1: A table of half width at half maxima as a function of D(ω0 ) and g for a large-closed
quantum system. The standard Born-Markov theory predicts that these values should be zero. We
can check the validity of our non-Markovian theory against these values to see if it characterizes
the broadening correctly.

linear fits for D(ω0 )ωc = 100, D(ω0 )ωc = 200, and D(ω0 )ωc = 500 are
2πgD(ω0 )2
η×πgD(ω0 )2
η×πgD(ω0 )η×

0.6,
D(ω0 )
0.8≃ 0.972 g +,D(ω0 )
1.5≃ 0.940 g +.
D(ω0 )≃ 0.972 g +(4.37)(4.38)(4.39)In order to make the closed system model comparable to the theory presented in Section 4.2,
we require that g ≫ 1/D(ω0 ), or equivalently g2 D(ω0 ) ≫ g. Under this condition, the nonzero

0.030
0.025
Π

0.020

Η@ gDHΩ0LD
0.015
2
0.010
0.005
0.000
0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

g
Figure 4.6: A plot of the data in Table 4.4 where the top (blue), middle (red), and bottom (yellow)
lines correspond to D(ω0 ) = 100ωc , D(ω0 )ωc = 200, and D(ω0 )ωc = 500 respectively. From theselines, the extrapolated equations, and given the fact that we require g ≫ D(ω0 ), we confirm ourprevious definition of η.

61intercept is negligible. From this large closed system model, we conclude thatη≃π 2
g D(ω0 ),2(4.40)

which is in direct agreement with the non-Markovian correction calculated in Section 4.2.

4.5

Conclusion
In this chapter, we derived the decay of a two level atom that agreed with the decay obtained

from Fermi’s golden rule. After coupling the system to an exotic reservoir whose cut-off energeticallymatched the frequency of the atom, the standard Born-Markov master equation formalism acquireda diverging energy shift. This divergence was an artifact of the approximations that are typicallymade. By choosing the sharp reservoir boundary close to relevant system energies, we inadvertently
contradicted the separation of time scales that we required in the original derivation of our coarsegrained master equation. This led to a violation of the Markov approximation.
To treat this problem correctly, we referred to the all-orders memory kernel form of themaster equation. Observing the form of this expression and being aware of the long-time behaviorof relaxation processes, we estimated the all-orders behavior by expanding the kernel to fourthorder, deriving an estimate for the decay of the kernel, which we referred to as 1/η. Here wefound that η was equal to one fourth of the decay rate of the two-level system coupled to thereservoir. The proximity of the Tsys and τc implied by η ∼ Γ indicates that this specific type ofsystem-reservoir interaction is non-Markovian. The implication of the higher order correction in
the formalism is that the sharp bare reservoir levels are broadened and mixed by their interaction
with the system. In other words, the resolution of the levels of the reservoir get smeared by anamount ≃ η due to their interaction with a common system. This is what one might expect from a
perturbation theory standpoint. The resulting expression that we obtained was a solvable masterequation with higher-order behavior accounted for. In its form, this master equation is incapableof resolving short times. Since we will be solely concerned with steady-state system behavior, theloss of the ability to model short times is not necessarily of major consequence.

62
We tested our all-orders approximate memory kernel model against a large, closed quantum
system. Varying parameters such as the density of states and the couping strength of this closed
system, we were able to verify that our model encapsulates the all-orders behavior of the large
closed system quite well.

Chapter 5
Atomtronics with Atoms in Optical Lattices

The atomtronic systems we consider in this chapter involve bosonic atoms traversing opticallattice potentials. Here we employ a novel application of the master equation approach to open
quantum systems where the reservoirs act as ‘sources’ and ‘sinks’. We monitor the current response
across the lattice as atoms move across from a high chemical potential reservoir to a low chemical
potential reservoir. This concept is illustrated in Figure 5.1.
After quantifying our measure of atomic current, we examine the behavior of specific systems
coupled to two different types of reservoirs: strongly-interacting and weakly-interacting bosonicreservoirs. In the limit of very strong atom-atom interactions, the zero-temperature bosons in thereservoir fermionize and map onto a zero-temperature, non-interacting fermion system with an equilibrium characterized by a Fermi-Dirac distribution with chemical potential µR that separates vac-

Figure 5.1: Illustration of an optical lattice coupled to two different reservoirs of ultracold atoms
with chemical potentials µL and µR . As depicted in the figure, when µL > µR , a current of atoms
in induced across the system from left to right.

64
uum states from occupied states. In the limit of weak atom-atom interactions, the zero-temperature
atoms can Bose-condense, and the ‘reservoir’ becomes a superfluid that is the matter analog of asingle coherent driving field. As we shall see, the strongly-interacting and weakly-interacting reservoirs lead to very different system responses. The systems and computational methods we develop
in this section are also suitable for the generic study of transport properties of atoms throughcustomized optical lattices.
In this chapter, we demonstrate theoretically a variety of highly customized optical lattices
that mimic the behavior of a semiconductor diode, field-effect transistor (FET), and bipolar junction
transistor (BJT) when driven by atomic reservoirs with chemical potential differences. We showthat these fundamental electronic-like elements can be cascaded, leading to the the developmentof more complex logic components. The resulting atomtronics technology proposed in this work is
intended to be a one-to-one analogy of traditional electronic systems.

5.1

Calculating atomic current through a custom optical lattice
Given a specific system and reservoir, we derive and solve the appropriate master equation

for the evolution of the reduced system density operator ρ̂S . One ρ̂S is known, the expectation
value of any system observable can be obtained by taking the trace of the product of ρ̂S with theobservable in question. The observable that we are concerned with here is the atomic current that
corresponds to atoms moving into or out of the system via the reservoir channels. In this section,
we derive the operator whose expectation value is this current.
Consider a system coupled to many reservoirs. The modified master equation (4.31) for sucha system-reservoir interaction is given by
XZ ∞
h
h
ii 
i
1
d
−ητ
dτ e
V̂κ , V̂κ (−τ ), ρ̂R ρ̂Sρ̂S = − [HS , ρ̂S ] − 2 TrR
dt
~
~
0
κ

(5.1)

where,V̂κ =X†~gκ,j (â†κ R̂κ,j + âκ R̂κ,j
)

(5.2)

j

≡ ~(â†κ Ĝκ + âκ Ĝκ† )

(5.3)

65
and gκ,j is the coupling constant for the reservoir mode j coupled to the lattice site κ, â†κ createsa particle on system site κ, and R̂κ,j annihilates a particle from the mode j of the reservoir that isconnected to lattice site κ.
Here we examine how a particular reservoir coupled to lattice site q affects the populationof system eigenstates |βn i; each |βn i being an eigenstate in the n-particle manifold of the system.
The evolution of the population of this state is given by

XZ ∞
h
h
ii
d
i
1
−ητ
dτ e hβn | V̂κ , V̂κ (−τ ), ρ̂R ρ̂S |βn i
hβn |ρ̂S |βn i = − hβn | [HS , ρ̂S ] |βn i − 2 TrR
dt
~
~
0
κ


Z ∞
ii
h h
1
−ητ
dτ e
TrR hβn | V̂q , V̂q (−τ ), ρ̂R ρ̂S |βn i
= − 2
~ 0
XZ ∞

h
h
ii
−ητ
−TrR
dτ e
hβn | V̂κ , V̂κ (−τ ), ρ̂R ρ̂S |βn i
(5.4)
κ6=q

0

where [HS , ρ̂S ] = 0 since |βn i is an eigenstate of HS . Since we are interested in the influence on
the population of state |βn i solely due to the action of reservoir q, we focus our attention on theterms in equation (5.4) involving V̂q alone. Expanding these terms, we get

=

1
− 2
~
Z ∞

Z ∞

dτ e

0

−ητ

dτ e

0



ii
h h
TrR hβn | V̂q , V̂q (−τ ), ρ̂R ρ̂S |βn i
"

−ητ

hβn |



â†q (−τ )ρ̂S âq hĜq† Ĝq (−τ )i + â†q ρ̂S âq (−τ )hĜq† (−τ )Ĝq i#− âq â†q (−τ )ρ̂S hĜq† Ĝq (−τ ) + ρ̂S âq (−τ )a†q hĜq† (−τ )Ĝq i |βn i
+

Z ∞
0

"

−ητ
†
†
†
†
dτ e
hβn | âq (−τ )ρ̂S âq hĜq Ĝq (−τ )i + âq ρ̂S âq (−τ )hĜq (−τ )Ĝq i#− â†q âq (−τ )ρ̂S hĜq Ĝq† (−τ ) + ρ̂S â†q (−τ )aq hĜq (−τ )Ĝq† i |βn i(5.5)

where the first terms in the brackets (i.e. those proportional to hĜq† Ĝq i) add atoms into the system,and the second terms in the brackets (i.e. those proportional to hĜq Ĝq† i) remove atoms out of thesystem.
The positive terms on proportional to hĜq† Ĝq i in equation (5.5), responsible for supplying
population to the |βn i state, are proportional to hβn |â†q ρ̂S âq |βn i = hbn−1 |ρ̂S |bn−1 i, where |bn−1 i is aquantum state that belongs to the (n − 1)-atom manifold. Therefore, as illustrated in Figure 5.2(a),

aL

66

bL
Hn +1L-m an ifold` `Ö` ` ` `Öa a ΡS , ΡS a an -m an ifold`Ö` `a ΡS aHn -1L-m an ifold

Hn +1L-m an ifold` ` `Ö
a ΡS an -m an ifold`Ö` ` ` `Ö`a a ΡS , ΡS a a
Hn -1L-m an ifold

Figure 5.2: An analysis of how the terms in the master equation contribute to population in the
n-particle manifold. (a) The action of a reservoir adding particles to the system. The operatorâ† ρ̂S â, linking manifolds n and (n − 1), increases the n-particle manifold, promoting atoms fromthe (n − 1) manifold. The number-conserving operators ââ† ρ̂S and ρ̂S ââ† decrease population in
the n-particle manifold as the system is promoted to the (n + 1) manifold. (b) The action of areservoir removing particles from the system. The operator âρ̂S â† , linking manifolds n and (n + 1)
increases population in the n-particle manifold as particles are removed from (n + 1). The numberconserving operators â† âρ̂S and ρ̂S â† â decrease population from the n-particle manifold as thereservoir removes a particle.

the |βn i state receives population from the manifold below it as a particle enters the system. The
negative terms proportional to hĜq† Ĝq i in this equation, responsible for depleting population fromthe |βn i, are proportional to either hβn |âq â†q ρ̂S |βn i or hβn |ρ̂S âq â†q |βn i. Since âq â†q preserves particle
number, these terms generate population loss out of the n-atom manifold: the |βn i state loses
population as the system is promoted to a state in the (n + 1)-particle manifold as a particle isadded to the system. This behavior is also illustrated in Figure 5.2(a).
In contrast, the other terms in equation (5.5) behave as follows. The positive terms proportional to hĜq Ĝq† i, responsible for removing atoms from the system, are proportional tohβn |âq ρ̂S â†q |βn i =hbn+1 |ρ̂S |bn+1 i where |bn+1 i belongs to the (n + 1)-atom manifold. Thus,

the state |βn i receives population from above as particles leave the system. The negative terms
proportional to hĜq Ĝq† i, responsible for depleting population from |βn i, are proportional to either
hβn |â†q âq ρ̂S |βn i or hβn |ρ̂S â†q âq |βn i. Since â†q âq preserves particle number, population is lost out of
the |βn i state, where it goes to a state in the (n − 1)-manifold as a particle is removed from thesystem. These actions are illustrated in Figure 5.2(b).
To find the net current observable for the state |βn i, we take the sum of positive contributions

67
from the influx terms and the negative contributions from the outflux terms, i.e.
"


Z ∞
†
†
†
†
−ητ
ˆ
hβn | âq (−τ )ρ̂S âq hĜq Ĝq (−τ )i + âq ρ̂S âq (−τ )hĜq (−τ )Ĝq i |βn idτ ehJq (βn )i =0#−hβn | â†q âq (−τ )ρ̂S hĜq Ĝq† (−τ ) + ρ̂S âq (−τ )a†q hĜq† (−τ )Ĝq i |βn i .

(5.6)

Under this convention, a positive value for hJˆq i corresponds to current entering the system. Alternatively, we could have taken the sum of the negative contributions from the influx terms and positive
contributions from the outflux terms. In which case, a positive value for hJˆq i would correspond tocurrent exiting the system.
The total current into, or out of, the system lattice site q can be obtained by summing the net
current of all of the eigenstates |βn i. This sum is equivalent to a trace over the system eigenstates.
Using the cyclic property of the trace, we obtain
( Z

∞
−ητ
ˆ
dτ e
hJq i = TrSâq â† (−τ )hĜ † Ĝq (−τ )i + âq (−τ )â† hĜ † (−τ )Ĝq i|i
0

q

q

q



−â†q âq (−τ )hĜq Ĝq† (−τ ) + âq (−τ )a†q hĜq† (−τ )Ĝq i

ρ̂S

q

)

n
o
≡ TrS Jˆq ρ̂S

(5.7)
(5.8)

where we identify Jˆq as the system current operator at the system-reservoir junction q. We use thiscurrent operator throughout the remainder of the thesis to analyze effective transport through our
proposed devices.

5.2

A strongly-interacting boson reservoir model (fermionized bosons)A zero temperature strongly-interacting boson reservoir is comprised of a near-continuumof occupied levels up to some energy ωµ , above which the modes are assumed to be in vacuum.
When ωµ lies above a system energy difference, sufficient energy is available for the system to be
excited. The sharpness in the number distribution of the zero temperature Fermi-Dirac distribution
implies that we need to use the non-Markovian master equation (4.31), to model this particularsystem-reservoir interaction. In a manner analogous to Pauli blocking, the atom-atom repulsion of

68
the strongly-interacting reservoir model has the desirable feature that atoms that enter the systemcannot go back. They are forced to exit the system through the reservoir channel corresponding
to the lower chemical potential. This characteristic makes this reservoir model an ideal model tostudy transport properties of custom optical lattices. We use this model to construct the majorityof our proposed atomtronic components. Here we derive the master equation for an optical latticesystem whose site q is coupled to a single reservoir in detail. Additional reservoirs can be addedby following the same steps outlined here.
The starting point for this derivation is equation (4.31). Expanding the Liouvillians, we get
Z ∞
nh
h
iio
i
1
dρ̂S
dτ e−ητ TrR ĤV , ĤV (−τ ), ρ̂R ρ̂S= − [ĤS , ρ̂S ] − 2
(5.9)
dt
~
~ 0

where η = Γ/4, the system decay rate Γ is derived below, LˆV (−τ ) = e−iĤ0 τ /~LˆV eiĤ0 τ /~,Ĥ0 = ĤS + ĤR , and the averaging is performed over the reservoir degrees of freedom. For
an N -site Bose-Hubbard system, the Hamiltonian is
 NX
N 
−1


X
Uj † ††ĤS =~ωj âj âj +Jj â†j âj+1 + âj â†j+1
âj âj âj âj +2
j=1(5.10)

j=1

where ωj and Uj are the oscillator frequency and on-site interaction energy for site j, and Jj is thetunneling energy between sites j and j + 1. The reservoir consists of a near-continuum ensembleof non-interacting oscillators whose Hamiltonian is
ĤR =

X

~ω̄k R̂k† R̂k .

(5.11)kwhere ω̄k is the frequency of reservoir mode k. The zero temperature Fermi-Dirac distribution ischaracterized by a reservoir frequency ω̄µ such that for ω̄k ≤ ω̄µ ,hR̂k† R̂k i = 1

hR̂k R̂k† i = 0(5.12)hR̂k† R̂k i = 0hR̂k R̂k† i = 1.

(5.13)

and for ω̄k > ω̄µ ,The Hamiltonian that describes the system-reservoir interaction is
!
X
†
∗
†
ĤV = ~
gq,k R̂k âq + gq,k R̂k âq
k(5.14)

69
where gq,k is the complex coupling constant that couples the oscillator to the mode k of the reservoir
that is coupled to the system site q. Expanding the commutators of equation (5.9), we get

Z ∞
i
1
dρ̂S
−ητ
= − [ĤS , ρ̂S ] − 2dτ e Tr ĤV ĤV (−τ )ρ̂R ρ̂S − ĤV (−τ )ρ̂R ρ̂S ĤV
dt
~
~ 0

−ĤV ρ̂R ρ̂S ĤV (−τ ) + ρ̂R ρ̂S ĤV (−τ )ĤV .
(5.15)
Inserting equation (5.14) yields

X
Z ∞
dρ̂S
i
2
−ητ
|gq,k | R̂k† R̂k (−τ )âq â†q (−τ )ρ̂S ρ̂Rdτ e
Tr= − [ĤS , ρ̂S ] −
dt
~
0

k
†
†
+ R̂k R̂q,k (−τ )âq âq (−τ )ρ̂S ρ̂R + ρ̂S ρ̂R R̂k† (−τ )R̂k âq (−τ )â†q + ρ̂S ρ̂R R̂k (−τ )R̂k† â†q (−τ )âq

− R̂k† âq ρ̂S ρ̂R R̂k (−τ )â†q (−τ ) − Rk â†q ρ̂S ρ̂R R̂k† (−τ )âq (−τ ) − R̂k† (−τ )âq (−τ )ρ̂S ρ̂R R̂k â†q
− R̂k (−τ )â†q (−τ )ρ̂S ρ̂R R̂k† âq

Z ∞
i
h
X
2
−ητ
|gq,k | hR̂k† R̂k (−τ )i âq â†q (−τ )ρ̂S − â†q (−τ )ρ̂S âqdτ e= −i[ĤS , ρ̂S ] −
0

k

i
h
+ hR̂k† (−τ )R̂k i ρ̂S âq (−τ )â†q − â†q ρ̂S âq (−τ )hi+ hR̂k (−τ )R̂k† i ρ̂S â†q (−τ )âq − âq ρ̂S â†q (−τ )(5.16)h+ hR̂k R̂k† (−τ )i â†q âq (−τ )ρ̂S − âq (−τ )ρ̂S â†qiwhere we have simplified the expression by taking advantage of the fact that the reservoir is diagonalin its energy eigenbasis, and then we have used the cyclic property of the trace operation.
Next we project this equation onto the system energy eigenbasis:

Z ∞
h
X
d
2
−ητ
|gq,k | hR̂k† R̂k ieiω̄k t Âan Â†nm e−iωnm τ σ̂mbdτ e
σ̂ab = −iωab σ̂ab −
dt
0
k
h
i
i
† −iωan τ− Âan eσ̂nm Âmb + hR̂k R̂k† ie−iω̄k t Â†an Ânm e−iωnm τ σ̂mb − Âan e−iωan τ σ̂nm Â†mbhi+ hR̂k† R̂k ie−iω̄k t σ̂an Ânm e−iωnm τ Â†mb − Â†an σ̂nm Âmb e−iωmb τhi
† iω̄k t††−iωnm τ−iωmb τσ̂an Ânm e+ hR̂k R̂k ie
Âmb − Âan σ̂nm Âmb e

Z ∞
h
X
dτ e−ητ= −iωab σ̂ab −|gq,k |2 hR̂k† R̂k i Âan Â†nm e−i(ωnm −ω̄k )τ σ̂mb
0ki
− Â†an e−i(ωan −ω̂k )τ σ̂nm Âmb + σ̂an Ânm e−i(ωnm +ω̄k )τ Â†mb − Â†an σ̂nm Âmb e−i(ωmb +ω̄k )τ
h+ hR̂k R̂k† i Â†an Ânm e−i(ωnm +ω̄k )τ σ̂mb − Âan e−i(ωan +ω̄k )τ σ̂nm Â†mbi
†−i(ωnm −ω̄k )τ
†−i(ωmb −ω̄k )τ
+ σ̂an Ânm e
Âmb − Âan σ̂nm Âmb e(5.17)

70
where we have defined σ̂ab = ha|ρ̂S |bi, Âab = ha|âq |bi, and Â†ab = ha|a†q |bi to simplify the notation,and ωab = ωa −ωb is the frequency difference of states |ai and |bi. Converting the sum over reservoir
modes to an integral, and asserting the reservoir statistics defined in equation (5.13), we getdσ̂ab = −iωab σ̂ab −
dt

Z ∞

−ητ

dτ e

Z ω̄µ

h
dω̄D(ω̄)|gq (ω̄)|2 Âan Â†nm e−i(ωnm −ω̄)τ σ̂mb

00i
† −i(ωan −ω̂)τ
− Âan eσ̂nm Âmb + σ̂an Ânm e−i(ωnm +ω̄)τ Â†mb − Â†an σ̂nm Âmb e−i(ωmb +ω̄)τ

−

Z ∞

−ητ

dτ e

Z ω̄c
ω̄µ

0

−i(ωan +ω̄)τ

− Âan ehdω̄D(ω̄)|gq (ω̄)|2 Â†an Ânm e−i(ωnm +ω̄)τ σ̂mb

σ̂nm Â†mb + σ̂an Â†nm e−i(ωnm −ω̄)τ Âmb − Âan σ̂nm Â†mb e−i(ωmb −ω̄)τ

i(5.18)
where D(ω̄) is the density of reservoir modes and gq (ω̄) is the continuous analog of gq,k . The upper
limit on the second ω̄ integral goes to ω̄c instead of to infinity to avoid the ultraviolet divergence aspreviously discussed in Section 4.1. If we assume that the density of states and coupling function
are slowly-varying about ωnm , we can define the n, m matrix elements of


(±)
Gin

nm

Z ∞

Z ω̄µ

dω̄|gq (ω̄)|2 D(ω̄)e−i(ωnm ±ω̄)τ −ητ
0
0
"




ωnm ± ω̄µ
ωnm2
= ±|gq (ω̄0 )| D(ω̄0 ) arctan− arctanηη#(ωnm ± ω̄µ )2 + η 2i− ln
2 + η22
ωnm=dτ

(5.19)

and


(±)
Gout

nm

=

Z ∞
0

dτ

Z ω̄c
ω̄µ

"



ω̄c ± ω̄µ= ±|gq (ω̄0 )| D(ω̄0 ) arctanη#(ω̄c ± ω̄µ )2 + η 2
i
− ln
.
2
(ωnm ± ω̄µ )2 + η 22This impliesdω̄D(ω̄)e−i(ωnm ±ω̄)τ −ητ− arctanωnm ± ω̄µη

(5.20)

71




d
Γh
(−)
(−)
σ̂nm Âmb
σ̂mb − Â†an Gin
Âan Â†nm Gin
σ̂ab = −iωab σ̂ab −
dt
2π
an
nm

 i


(+)
(+)
+ σ̂an Ânm Gin
Â†mb − Â†an σ̂nm Âmb Gin
nm
mb




Γh †
(+)
(+)
−
σ̂nm Â†mb
σ̂mb − Âan GoutÂ Ânm Gout
2π an
an
nm

 i


(−)
(−)
Âmb − Âan σ̂nm Â†mb Gout+ σ̂an Â†nm Goutnmmb

(5.21)

where the decay rate, or linewidth, Γ = 2π|gq (ω̄0 )|2 D(ω̄0 ) is equal to what one acquires from Fermi’s
golden rule.
This is the complete master equation for a Bose-Hubbard system that has site q coupled
to a reservoir characterized by ω̄µ . In atomtronics applications, we require at least two reservoirs
to drive current through the system in steady-state. Other reservoirs can be added in a similarmanner to equation (5.21) where they may be characterized by their own system-reservoir decayrate and chemical potential.

5.2.1

The atomtronic wire

Here we begin the analysis of atomtronics components by considering the atomtronics counterpart to a simple circuit of a battery connected to a resistive wire. As seen in Figure 5.3, theanalogy of a wire is an energetically-flat optical lattice, with uniform tunneling and interaction energies ( ǫj ≡ ǫ, Uj ≡ U , and Jjk ≡ J for all neighboring sites). For this system, and all atomtronics
systems discussed in this thesis, we assume U ≫ J. The corresponding Bose-Hubbard model for
(a)

(b)

µL

µR

Figure 5.3: Illustration of the analogy between (a) the electronic circuit of a wire (with someinherent resistance) connected to a battery and (b) its atomtronic counterpart.

72
this N -site system is
ĤS =

N 
X
j=1

U
~ωâ†j âj + â†j â†j âj âj
2



+J

N
−1 
X
j=1


â†j âj+1 + âj â†j+1 .

(5.22)

where ~ω = ǫ. For this system, we assume weak reservoir coupling and calculate the atomic current
as a function of chemical potential difference. This numerical experiment is carried out by initiallysetting both left and right chemical potentials (µL and µR ) to zero, and then raising µL so thatan atomic current response is induced across the system from left to right. Using the analysis
outlined in Appendix A, solve for ρ̂S in steady-state. We then compute the current hJR i out of
the right side of the system. This data is presented in Figure 5.4. Here we see that the current
increases with the chemical potential difference, but in quantized steps that correspond directly
to the left chemical potential overcoming multiples of the on-site interaction energy. This is theenergy needed to increase the number of atoms on the left site by one. A closer examination of thenumerical simulation implemented in Figure 5.4 reveals two subtle features. Moving from left toright across graph in Figure 5.4, the first current jump occurs at (µL − ǫ)/U = 0, and the current
increases in two steps. One might have expected to observe a single jump, since the condition to
put a particle in the lattice is µL ≥ ǫ. This is a result of the fact that the degeneracy of the Fockstates in the one-particle manifold is split by 2J in the system state eigenbasis due to tunneling.

Figure 5.4: Current of the atomtronic wire (in units of Γ0 ), in the case of weak coupling to thereservoirs, as a function of the left chemical potential. The current monotonically increases inquantized jumps as the on-site interaction energy to put on an additional particle is overcome. The
parameters used to model the atomtronic wire in this simulation are ǫ/U = 3, J/U = 3 × 10−2 ,and ~Γ0 /U = 10−6 .

73
In addition, the jump in current is broadened slightly by both the nonzero η and by the systemreservoir coupling. This broadening, which makes the jump in current a smooth transition rather
than a discontinuous step is even more apparent in the atomtronic devices presented below, where
the system reservoir-coupling is taken to be orders of magnitude larger. Although the exact details
for the second and third jumps are more complicated, the reasoning is the same: the eigenenergies
are split by approximately 2J, and the overall jump is smoothed out by η. These general properties
hold for many of the numerical experiments that follow.

5.2.2

The atomtronic diodeA diode is a device with an approximately unidirectional current characteristic. The basic
behavior is that a voltage bias across the diode yields a current in one direction, but if the voltage
bias is reversed the current response is negligible. Such behavior can be realized in an opticallattice by creating an energy shift in half of the lattice with respect to the other as we now show.
We find that the diode characteristic persists as the number of lattice sites is increased so we may
anticipate the result to hold in the mesoscopic limit. For simplicity, here we illustrate the ideaof the atomtronic diode in a double well lattice system. For the simulations for the rest of thischapter, we assume J/U = 3 × 10−2 , ~Γ0 /U = 10−2 .
In the Fock basis for a two site system, there exist three states in the two-particle manifold:|20i, |11i, and |02i, where |nmi refers to n particles on the left site and m particles on the right.
The external energies of the two sites (ǫ1 and ǫ2 ) can be chosen so that the eigenstates |20i and|11i are approximately degenerate, leaving both states far detuned from |02i. This configuration of
the site energies is given by ǫ1 = ǫ and ǫ2 = ǫ1 + U . We refer to this as the “resonance condition”.
The corresponding Hamiltonian for this two-site system is
ĤS = ~ω1 â†1 â1 + (~ω1 + U ) â†2 â2 +U † †â1 â1 â1 â1 + â†2 â†2 â2 â2 + J â†1 â2 + â1 â†2
2

(5.23)

Figure 5.5 illustrates how the resonance condition generates reverse-bias and forward-bias
behavior in a two-site optical lattice. As seen in Figure 5.5(a), if one holds the left reservoir

74

(a)

(b)

Figure 5.5: (a) Energy schematic of the reverse bias dynamics of the two site atomtronic diode.
The red arrows represent the system transitions from an initially empty system. The gray (dotted)
arrows represent all other possible transitions. Regardless of which state the system starts in, it
evolves almost entirely to the |02i state. (b) Energy schematic of the forward-bias dynamics of thetwo-site atomtronic diode. Blue arrows illustrate transitions into current-bearing cycles, while gray(dotted) arrows represent all other possible transitions.

chemical potential at µL = 0 and raises the right reservoir chemical potential µR , the system will
undergo a transition from |00i to |01i. The states |01i and |10i are separated in energy by U . As
a result, most of the population remains in the |01i state. Increasing µR above the point where
the transition from |01i to |02i is allowed, the system remains almost completely settled in the |02i
state.
As seen in the Figure 5.5(b), if one holds µR = 0 and raises µL , the system first undergoes
a transition from |00i to |10i. However, increasing µL so the system evolves to |20i leads to avery different situation than in the above case: since |20i is resonant with |11i, both states are
simultaneously populated. Since µR = 0 takes all particles out of the site on the right, the system
can make a transition from |11i back to |10i. The combined effect of setting µL and µR to thesevalues is to force the system to undergo a closed cycle of transitions between |10i, |20i and |11i.
The result is a net atomic transport (or current flow) across the system. A second contributor to
the net current through the system is the fact that µL allows transitions from |11i to |21i. Thus,an additional current-generating cycle exists: |11i to |21i to |20i and back to |11i. Both cycles
contribute positively to a net current flow across the system.
For systems consisting of N lattice sites, the diode configuration is composed of two con-

75
nected, energetically-flat lattices whose energy separation is ∆ǫ = U . The basic dynamical response seen for two sites holds also for larger systems due to the fact that the flat lattice allows
for effective transport. This is because adding a particle to the left site of the left half of thelattice is energetically degenerate with adding a particle to any sites up to, and including, the left
site of the junction. Therefore, there exist current cycles initially generated from the degenerate|222...2i⊗|0...000i to |222...1i⊗|1...000i transition. Going the other direction, one can, in principle,
go to |0...000i ⊗ |222...2i but, as is seen for the double well model, conditions are not energeticallyfavorable, and atomic transport across the junction is greatly suppressed. Figure 5.6 is a schematicof a four-site atomtronic diode in the forward-biased direction.

µLµR

Figure 5.6: Schematic of the four-site optical lattice atomtronic diode.

In support of the fact that the dynamics of the diode are qualitatively-independent of theoverall size of the lattice, we model a four-site diode here. The Hamiltonian for this system is
ĤS





= ~ω1 â†1 â1 + â†2 â2 + (~ω1 + U ) â†3 â3 + â†4 â4
+

4

3

j=1

j=1


X †
UX † †âj âj+1 + âj â†j+1 .
âj âj âj âj + J
2(5.24)

Figures 5.7(a-b) and Figures 5.7(c-d) are numerical simulations of the current responses of the twosite diode Hamiltonian, and four site diode Hamiltonian, respectively. The general features of both
diodes are qualitatively identical.

76

Figure 5.7: Current responses (in units of Γ0 ) of (a) forward-bias two site diode, (c) the four site
diode as a function of µL (with µR = 0); current response of (b) the reverse-bias two site diodeand (d) four site diode as a function of µR (with µL = 0). The chemical potentials of all figures
are normalized to the resonance condition, and the currents normalized to Γ0 .

5.2.2.1

Noise analysis of the atomtronic diodeGiven the current characteristics of the diode, one might ask how much does the signal
fluctuate about its steady-state value. Quantifying the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is an importantmeasure of the functionality of any device. A time-averaged SNR can be obtained by constructing
the power noise density function, convolving it with a filter, and then integrating over all frequencies.
For the current operator Jˆq , the corresponding S0 (ω) is1
S0 (ω) = lim
T →∞ TZ T
02

hJˆq (t)ie−iωt dt ,(5.25)

77
Given a system steady-state time t0 , the Wiener-Khintchine theorem can be stated as

 Z ∞
2
−iωτ ˆ
ˆdτ ehJq (t0 + τ )Jq (t0 )i .
S0 (ω) = Re
π 0(5.26)

since the function is hJˆq (t0 + τ )Jˆq (t0 )i is a real-valued function [68].
Propagation of hJˆq (t0 + τ )Jˆq (t0 )i becomes tractable under the quantum regression theorem,
which asserts that this correlation function evolves under the same equation of motion as ρ̂S (t). We
can confirm this by considering the correlation function for the full system and reservoir problem.
In this case,hJˆq (t0 + τ )Jˆq (t0 )i = TrSR

o


n
eiĤ(t0 +τ )/~Jˆq e−iĤ(t0 +τ )/~ eiĤt0 /~Jˆq e−iĤt0 /~ e−iĤt0 /~ρ̂eiĤt0 /~(5.27)

where Ĥ = ĤS + ĤR + ĤV , ρ̂(t0 ) is in steady-state and the trace is over the system and reservoir
degrees of freedom. The cyclic property of the trace impliesonhJˆq (t0 + τ )Jˆq (t0 )i = TrSR Jˆq e−iĤτ /~Jˆq e−iĤ2t0 /~ρ̂eiĤ2t0 /~ eiĤτ /~nhoi= TrSR Jˆq e−iĤτ /~ Jˆq ρ̂(t0 ) eiĤτ /~

h
o
n
i
−i
Ĥτ
/~
i
Ĥτ
/~
Jˆq ρ̂(t0 ) e= TrS Jˆq TrR e(5.28)

where we have used ρ̂(2t0 ) = ρ̂(t0 ) since ρ̂ is in steady-state, and the fact that Jˆq is a systemobservable. The evolution of the full density operator isρ̂(τ ) = e−iĤτ /~ρ̂eiĤτ /~,(5.29)

implying that the evolution of the reduced density operator isonρ̂S (τ ) = TrR e−iĤτ /~ρ̂eiĤτ /~ .

(5.30)

hiComparing equation (5.28) with equation (5.30), we see that ρ̂S and Jˆq ρ̂(t0 ) evolve in the exacthisame manner. Since ρ̂S evolves under the master equation, it follows that Jˆq ρ̂(t0 ) evolves underthe master equation as well.

78hi
In the Liouville representation, we can express the equation of motion for Jˆq ρ̂S (t0 ) as
h
i
i
d hˆ
Jq ρ̂(t0 ) = LˆMEq Jˆq ρ̂S (t0 ) (t)dt(5.31)

where LˆMEq is the super operator that defines the master equation for ρ̂S . This equation can be
Laplace transformed intohihiJˆq ρ̂S (t0 ) (s) = (s1̂ − LˆMEq )−1 Jˆq ρ̂S (t0 ) (t0 )(5.32)

From Equation (5.26), taking s → iω in Equation (5.32) implies
 Z ∞

2
−iωτ ˆˆS0 (ω) = Redτ ehJq (t0 + τ )Jq (t0 )iπ Z0 ∞
n
o
2
−iωτ
ˆ
ˆ
= Re
dτ e
TrS Jq [Jq ρ̂S (t0 )](τ )
π 0


 
−1
2
ˆ
ˆ
ˆ
[Jq ρ̂S (t0 )](t0 ).
= Re
TrS Jq iω 1̂ − LMEq
π(5.33)

We simulate time-averaging by convolving this expression with an exponential filter
F (t) =

1 −t/TeT(5.34)

where T is the time the current measurement is averaged over. The convolution theorem thenimplies
S(T, ω) = Re S0 (ω)

1
1 + iωT

.

(5.35)

Since S0 (ω) is a real-valued function due to the fact that the correlation function is both real andsymmetric,
1.
1 + (ωT )2(5.36)S0 (ω)dω.

(5.37)

S(T, ω) = S0 (ω)
In this convention,hJˆq2 i =Z ∞0Therefore the time-averaged SNR is
RSN (T ) = qR

hJˆq i∞ˆ2
0 S(T, ω)dω − hJ i.

(5.38)

79
where hJˆq i is the expectation value of current. For values of 1/T that are small compared toappreciable changes of S0 (ω),
RSN (T ) =
≃
=

qR

s

r

hJˆq i∞0 S(T, ω)dω

1
hJˆ i
R∞ q1
S0 (0) 0 1+(ωT )2

hJˆi

√

o T
n
ˆ
ˆ
ˆ
Re limω→0 TrS {J (iω 1̂ − LM Eq )(J ρ̂S )}(5.39)

Typical optical lattice experiments can achieve an on-site interaction energy U/~ ∼ 1 kHz. For theparameters used for the diode, we find√ √RSN ≃ 8.9 Hz T .

(5.40)

Therefore, a signal-to-noise ratio of ∼ 10 can be achieved by averaging the atomic current for
1 second. Gillen has reported having atoms trapped in Markus Greiner’s customized optical latticeexperiments for up to 17 seconds [25], which would seem to make the proposed diode system
experimentally accessible. We note this ratio is certainly parameter-sensitive, and could perhaps
be improved upon in a different regime.

5.2.3

The atomtronic field-effect transistor

A field-effect transistor (FET) is a device that allows an externally-applied field to control theamount of current that flows through the device. This characteristic allows the FET to be utilized
as a voltage-to-current amplifier. Since the diode is optimized when the resonance condition is
imposed on the optical lattice, small deviations from the resonance condition lead to large changes
in the maximum current propagating across the lattice. These changes in the relative zero-point
energies can be brought on by changes in an external field that is applied to the lattice. This isprecisely the behavior of a FET where a current is controlled by an applied voltage. In Figure 5.8,
we plot several current results for the forward-bias configuration as the separation in the externalenergy of the second site is raised past the resonance condition by fractions of J, the smallest

80

4
ǫ1 + Uǫ1 + U + 1/2J

I (|gq |2 D(ω)/h̄2 )3

ǫ1 + U + J

2

ǫ1 + U + 3/2J
ǫ1 + U + 2J

1

0
0.7

0.8

0.9
µL /(ǫ + U )

1

1.1

1.2

Figure 5.8: Current response of the atomtronic FET as a function of the chemical potential: smallchanges in ǫ2 lead to appreciable changes in the current response. That is, as the system is detuned
from its resonance condition, there is a fall off of the net current value across the device. The
legend in this figure indicates the colored curves that correspond to particular values of ǫ2 .

system parameter in the model. In doing so, we successfully recover the FET-like behavior where
small changes in an external field lead to appreciable changes in the current response of the device.
Along this line of reasoning, external fields can also be used to switch the atomic current
completely off by either shifting the sites well out of resonance or by exchanging their value, changing
the lattice from the forward-bias configuration to the reverse-bias. Such a switch might be useful
if one desired a control of the atomic transport that was function of time.

5.2.4

The atomtronic bipolar junction transistor

A bipolar junction transistor (BJT) is a three terminal device in which the overall current
across the emitter and collector is controlled by a much weaker current via the base. Two practicalapplications of the BJT are signal amplification and switching (on and off) of the emitter current.
Realization of BJT-like behavior in atomtronic systems requires at least three sites connected81
to three different reservoirs. If the atomtronic diode is considered to be an atomtronic p-n junction,
one might guess that the atomtronic n-p-n transistor would entail raising the external energy ofthe left and right (collector and emitter) sites higher than the middle (base) site by the on-site
interaction energy. This configuration is illustrated in Figure 5.9(a). The reason this configuration
yields BJT-like behavior is due to the approximate degeneracy between the Fock states |110i, |020i,
and |011i.
We implement numerical simulations of this lattice configuration by fixing a chemical potential difference across the lattice. The left reservoir chemical potential µL is set to maintain one
particle on the left site and the chemical potential of the right reservoir µR is set to zero. The
atomic current is measured as a function of µM .
When there are no atoms on the middle site, the configuration of the reservoirs pump thesystem into the |100i Fock state (as seen in Figure 5.9(b)). The |100i and the |001i states aredegenerate with each other, but the system must undergo a second-order, off-resonant transition
via the |010i state in order to transition from |100i to |001i. Such transitions are suppressed by

(b)

(a)

2ǫ + U
|110i
µL

µR
µM

ǫ+U
|100i

2ǫ + U 2ǫ + U|020i |011i

ǫ
|010i

ǫ+U
|001i

0
|000i

Figure 5.9: (a) An illustration of the BJT lattice-reservoir system. (b) The energy schematic of thethree-site optical lattice under the extended resonance condition. Here the left reservoir is set tomaintain an occupancy of one atom on the left site and the right is set to remove all atoms. If the
middle reservoir is set to remove all particles, then the system evolves to the |100i state (red dottedarrow). If the middle reservoir is set to maintain an occupancy of one atom on the middle site,then the degeneracy between states |110i, |020i, and |011i allows current to traverse the system.

82
a factor of (J/U )2 and thus become less likely as the energy difference between |100i and |010i
increases. Thus, when the middle reservoir is set to maintain zero atoms on the middle site, the net
current out of what would correspond to the emitter lead of a conventional transistor is minimal.
When the middle reservoir’s chemical potential is increased to allow a single atom into the
middle site of the system, the degeneracy between the |110i, |020i, and |011i states is accessed,
which allows atoms to travel across the system. One issue with this configuration is the following:in order to get to |011i, the system has to make a transition through the |020i state. Since themiddle reservoir is set to maintain an occupancy of one, but not two, atoms on the middle site,
one of the atoms can be lost to the middle reservoir, leading to a loss of emitter current out of
the base. If the couplings of all three reservoirs to the system are equal, then the result is thecurrent measured passing through the base turns out to be greater than the current measured outof the emitter. Thus, the system represents an inefficient transistor realization. On the other hand,
if the middle reservoir were to be coupled weakly compared to the other reservoirs, then current
predominantly leaves the system via the emitter, which is the desired behavior.
Figure 5.10(a) is a numerical simulation of the current out of the emitter and the base as afunction of the base chemical potential. The coupling strength of the base connected to the reservoir
is one fifth the collector and emitter reservoir coupling. It should be noted that the region where
the proposed atomtronic transistor mimics the electronic BJT is limited to the transition region, or
current jump. One can increase the length of this region by increasing the overall system-reservoir
coupling strength. Figure 5.10(b) shows that the gain of this device is fairly linear.

5.2.5

Discrete atomtronics logic

Integrated circuits are designed with a very large number of transistor elements to perform
a desired function. The demonstrated ability to realize atomtronic diodes and transistors thus
motivates the question as to whether higher functionality can be realized with these ultracold
atomic systems. Here we look at the most fundamental of these, the atomtronic AND logic gate.
A traditional logic element is a device with a given number of inputs and outputs, composed

83

Figure 5.10: Characteristics of the atomtronic BJT. (a) For a fixed collector-emitter voltage bias,
the current response measured through the base leg (green, dashed curve) and the emitter leg (bluecurve) are plotted as a function of the base chemical potential. (b) The current out of the emitteris plotted vs. the current out of the base. Here a large linear gain is observed.

of switches, that generates a series of logical responses. Such logical behavior can be expressed in atruth table composed of 1’s and 0’s (‘ons’ and ‘offs’). Logic elements are the fundamental building
blocks of computing and discrete electronics. In Table 5.1(a) the truth table for the AND logic gate
is given as an example. The next level of complexity in emulating electronic systems is to create
logic elements from the atomtronic components.
An AND gate is a device with two inputs (A and B), and one output (O). As illustrated inTable 5.1(a), the device characteristic of the AND gate is that O remains off unless both A and B
are on. In electronics, such a device can be constructed by connecting two transistors in series (asillustrated in Figure 5.11(a)). By direct analogy, the atomtronic AND gate can be constructed byconnecting two atomtronic BJTs in series as illustrated in Figure 5.11(b).
When constructing practical logic circuits, the logical values of the 1s and 0s are mapped toa given energetic range. The data in Table 5.1(b) has been generated in a numerical experimentof the optical lattice configuration depicted in Figure 5.11(b). For this particular experiment,
the maximal current out of the device is at least a factor of 6 greater than any other measured
current. Thus a discernible difference between ‘on’ and ‘off’ is observed and the output currents
reproduce the AND gate truth table to reasonable fidelity. Such a difference can also be enhanced
by increasing the on-site interaction energy U of the lattice.

84

(a)
AND Gate
A B O
0 0 0
1 0 0
0 1 0
1 1 1

(b)
Atomtronic AND Gate Simulation
A
B
O
0
0
0.00
3.2 0
0.01
0 3.2
0.16
3.2 3.2
1.00

Table 5.1: AND gate truth table where the two inputs are labeled by A and B, the output labeled
by O, and the 1 or 0 entries represent ‘on’ and ‘off’. (a) Truth table describing the device characteristics. (b) Numerical simulation of the atomtronic AND gate normalized to the maximal output
current ‘O’. Here, the inputs A and B are the respective chemical potentials measured with respect
to the on-site interaction energy (µA /U µB /U ) and the output is the atomic current normalized
by the maximum output current (I/Imax ). In practice, the logical ‘ins’ and ‘outs’ are mapped tophysical currents by setting threshold ranges. Since the maximal output current is larger than allother output values by at least a factor of 6, we can conclude that there exists logic gate behavior
in this optical lattice setup.

85
(a)

Out

A

B

(b)
µL

µR

µA

µB

Figure 5.11: (a) Electronic schematic for the AND logic gate, a device constructed by cascading
two transistors in series. (b) Atomtronics AND schematic. The atomtronic AND logic gate isconstructed exactly like its electronic counterpart, i.e. by cascading two transistors in series. A
chemical potential bias µL − µR across the device attempts to drive a current across the device.
No substantial current is observed, however, unless both µA and µB supply atoms onto the baseterminals of their respective transistors.

5.3

Weakly-interacting boson reservoir model (BEC reservoir)
Up to this point, our reservoir models have all been of the strongly-interacting type. However,in this section we consider the driving mechanism for the system to be a near-zero temperature
weakly-interacting trapped Bose gas. In other words, we take the reservoir drive to be a BoseEinstein Condensate (BEC) in a superfluid state. Here, we develop the theory, and examine thecurrent characteristics, for a one-dimensional lattice driven by a BEC on one end, while coupled to
the zero-temperature vacuum on the other as depicted in Figure 5.12.
In contrast to the Fermi-Dirac type drive that we’ve used previously, the BEC drives thesystem with a monochromatic coherent frequency. This causes the system to exhibit resonantcurrent responses as the BEC energy scans past the system energies. Additionally, once the BEC
drive deposits an atom into the system, it cannot block the atom from going back in the same
way as was observed for the Fermi-Dirac reservoir. For these reasons, one may anticipate that theoverall measured current that flows through the system will be less.

86

Figure 5.12: An illustration of an atomtronic wire coupled to a BEC drive as well as the vacuum.

5.3.1

The BEC reservoir model

We model the non-interacting BEC as a classical drive, since its interaction with the system
is coherent, and we treat it as part of the closed system. The system Hamiltonian is comprised ofa Bose-Hubbard lattice model whose site q is coherently driven by the BEC. Under the rotating
wave approximation, this is given by


 X

U
~ωj â†j â + â†j â†j âj âj − J â†j âj+1 + âj â†j+1
ĤS = ~ΩB â†q e−iωB t + âq eiωB t +2(5.41)jwhere ΩB and ~ωB are the coupling strength and ground state energy of the BEC coupled to thesystem, ωj is the trap frequency of lattice site j, and U and J are the the on-site interaction andtunneling energies, and are assumed here to be uniform and real.
The time-dependence of ĤS can be eliminated by transforming to an interaction picture thatrotates with the BEC frequency ωB yielding
 X



U
(~ωj − ωB ) â†j â + â†j â†j âj âj − J â†j âj+1 + âj â†j+1 .
H̃s = ~ΩB â†q + âq +2(5.42)

j

When the lattice site l is coupled to the zero temperature vacuum, the master equation forthis open quantum system becomesdρ̂SiΓ0  †âl âl ρ̂S + ρ̂S â†l âl − 2âl ρ̂S â†l
= − [H̃S , ρ̂S ] −dt~
2where Γ0 is the standard system-reservoir decay rate.

(5.43)

87
5.3.2

The BEC-driven atomtronic diode

Here we use Equation (5.43) to examine the current characteristics of an optical lattice in thediode configuration. Assuming ~ω2 = ~ω1 + U , coupling the BEC to site 1 and the vacuum to site 2
would drive the system in the forward-bias direction. Conversely, coupling the BEC and vacuum
modes to 2 and 1 respectively drives the system in the reverse-bias direction. Taking ~ΩB /U = 0.4,
J/U = 3 × 10−2 , and ~Γ0 /U = 10−2 , we plot the expectation value of the forward-bias current, thereverse-bias current, and the current asymmetry as a function of the BEC frequency in Figure 5.13.

`
XJ\FWD`XJ\REV

0.5``
XJ\FWD XJ\REV
400

0.4

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Ω1

Ω1 +U

ΩB

0.3

300

0.2

200

0.1

100
Ω1

Ω1 +U

ΩB

Ω1

Ω1 +U

ΩB

Figure 5.13: The current response of the BEC-driven diode in the (a) forward-bias configurationand (b) reverse-bias configuration (in arbitrary units). (c) The asymmetric current response of thesystem.

We first note the resonant nature of the current response in the forward-bias direction, where
the maximal current peaks at the resonance condition ω̄B = ~ω1 + U . The reverse-bias current
has a resonant peak at ωB = ω1 . This is a second-order, off-resonant process since the BEC
in this case is resonant with the first site frequency. For the chosen parameter set, we achievea maximum asymmetric current response of hJˆiFWD /hJˆiREV ≃ 420. An analysis of the Fockstate populations for the forward-bias and reverse-bias system driven by a BEC characterized by afrequency ~ωB = ~ω1 + U also confirms that the dynamics are in general agreement with the given
physical interpretation.
Performing the same signal-to-noise ratio implemented in Section 5.2.2.1, and assumingU/~ ∼ 103 Hz, we obtain√ √RSN (t) ≃ 18 Hz t

(5.44)

88
for the long-time-averaged behavior. This implies that a signal-to-noise ratio of 10 can be achievedby time-averaging for ≃ 300 ms, and a ratio of 18 by time-averaging for one second. Since theupper limit on the lifetime of a BEC experiment is on the order of a second, we anticipate that thediode behavior should be observable and resolvable in an experiment.

5.4

Conclusion
In this chapter, we applied the mathematical tools that we developed in the previous chapters

to fabricate theoretically optical lattice atomtronics systems in an open quantum system setting.
In this novel approach to atomtronics, the coupling of multiple reservoirs with different chemical
potentials induced an atomic current across the optical lattice in question. After deriving thesystem current operator, we introduced a strongly-interacting boson reservoir model. With thismodel, we studied a variety of highly-customized optical lattices. In doing so, we were able torecover the electronic-like behavior of a semiconductor diode, FET, and BJT in these systems. A
SNR analysis was performed for the atomtronic diode using the quantum regression theorem where
we concluded that an SNR of ∼ 10 should be achievable by time-averaging the current for about
one second. This implied that the functionality of the diode should be observable given the current
state of experiments in this field. Afterwords, we demonstrated that these components could be
used to build basic logic structures such as the AND gate.
We then implemented a weakly-interacting boson reservoir model, where the optical latticeis driven by a coherent BEC. The resonant nature of the BEC interacting with the system led
to resonant responses in the current dynamics. Applying this reservoir model to the atomtronic
diode, we were able to recover an asymmetric response. However, the resonant response was a sharp
feature peaked about the resonance condition. The SNR of the BEC-driven diode at its maximal
current response was larger by a factor of two when compared to the strongly-interacting reservoir
model.

Chapter 6
Time-Dependent Open Quantum Systems

In the previous chapter, we demonstrated how the steady-state behavior of diodes and transistors can be realized utilizing atoms in optical lattices. Following the development of traditional
electronics, we were able to recover elementary logic gates from the atomtronic transistors. We
illustrated the AND gate in the last chapter. By similar simulations, we have also verified the behavior of the NOT, OR and NAND gates in optical lattice systems. From an electronics standpoint,
the verification of these devices ends the discussion of steady-state, or combinatorial, logic behavior
since, in principle, any universal computation can be constructed out of NAND and NOR gatesalone. The next level of complexity in electronic circuitry involves the sequential logic components.
These are pulse-driven devices that add the potential for memory and storage of information.
Similar to the NAND and NOR gates in combinatorial logic, an SR flip-flop is a fundamentalbuilding block for all sequential logic circuits. This device can be utilized as a memory element,
where a bit of information can be stored or cleared. It is a four port device with inputs S, R andoutputs Q, Q̄. This device is a pulse-driven, as opposed to a steady-state, device. Its basic function
is to set a signal Q by sending an electronic pulse through the S channel. This stored signal canthen be reset by sending an electronic pulse through R, which changes the signal from Q to Q̄. The
truth table for a set-reset device is provided in Table 6.1. The functionality of this device cruciallyrelies on the hysteresis behavior that when both S and R are on at the same time, the final stateremains as it was before and is thus nondeterministic. That is, S = 1, R = 1 has two valid solutions
where the state can either be Q or Q̄. The specific solution depends on the condition of the system

SR Flip Flop Truth Table
State S R Q Q̄Action1 0 1 0Set
Set
1 1 1 0 No change
0 1 0 1Reset
Reset
1 1 0 1 No change
Invalid 0 0 × ××90

Table 6.1: The truth table for the SR flip-flop. This device, which exhibits a bistability for s = 1
and R = 1, is capable of storing state information.

before S and R were simultaneously on. The overview of the SR flip-flop makes clear importantrole that bistabilities play in the functionality of this class of devices. Investigating the bistablebehavior of a cross-coupled transistor circuit reveals that the atomtronic analogs of this class ofdevices require effective atomic transport across off-resonant system junctions.
In this chapter, after discussing basic atomtronic bistable circuitry, we conclude our open
quantum system treatment of atomtronics in optical lattices by demonstrating how effective atomic
transport can be achieved across energy-shifted lattices by modulating the barrier in between sites.
This topic makes extensive use of the time-dependent master equation formalism described in
Section 3.4.

6.1

Bistable circuitry
In order to understand and develop a synchronous device that functions like a flip-flop, we

first need to consider the role that bistabilities play in atomtronic circuits. In this section, we
initiate the study of bistable atomtronic circuitry. The goal of this work is to ultimately construct
and simulate the SR flip-flop.
The bistable circuit we study here is a cross-coupled transistor circuit illustrated in Figure 6.1(a). This circuit is a two input, two output device. When current simultaneously drives
both inputs, the system responds with one of two steady-state solutions: the current is measured either through output A, or output B. The atomtronics analog to this bistable circuit is illustrated in91
Figure 6.1(b) where two driven atomtronic transistors are cross-coupled. A topologically-equivalent,
simpler version of this bistable circuit is illustrated in Figure 6.1(c).
There is an overarching theme that goes along with all of the atomtronics components that
we have developed thus far, but also encompasses the devices under consideration: atomic transport can either be facilitated, or halted, by the strategic placement of energetic resonances andmismatches. Immediately from this diagram we see a significant problem in the direct realizationof this device using the same general approach as before, since it requires atomic transport byhopping between sites that are not degenerate in energy. It appears that our immediate problem indeveloping the flip-flop, and thus the problem of understanding the functionality of bistable circuits

Figure 6.1: (a) Electronic schematic of a simple bistable circuit composed of two cross-coupledtransistors. If the cross couplings are highly resistive (not shown here), then when current isintroduced into the circuit, it either flows through transistor A or transistor B. (b) The equivalent
atomtronics circuit bistable. Here, the dotted lines represent couplings between the two transistors.
These couplings join together sites that are off-resonant. (c) A simpler, topologically-equivalentbistable circuit to that of (b).

92
is to resolve the question as to how one may obtain effective transport across non-resonant latticesites. In the following section, we show that effective atomic transport across an energetically-offset
lattice can be enhanced by modulating the tunneling barrier at the offset frequency difference.

6.2

Transport enhancement via tunneling barrier modulation
We can understand how atomic current can be enhanced across an off-resonant lattice bystudying a simple double well system with infinite on-site repulsion. Infinite repulsion allows us tomake the two-state approximation for the lattice site occupancy.
For a fixed complex tunneling rate J, a double well system exhibits a maximal current
response when the site energies are the same, i.e. ǫ1 = ǫ2 = ǫ. The Hamiltonian for this isolated
quantum system isĤ0 = ǫâ†1 â1 + ǫâ†2 â2 + J â†1 â2 + J ∗ â1 â†2 .

(6.1)

For a system with a frequency difference ∆ between the two sites, the Hamiltonian isĤ1 = ǫâ†1 â1 + (ǫ + ~∆)â†2 â2 + J â†1 â2 + J ∗ â1 â†2 .

(6.2)

If we transform this Hamiltonian into an interaction picture that rotates with ~∆â†2 â2 , then theinteraction picture Hamiltonian isH̃1 = ǫâ†1 â1 + ǫâ†2 â2 + Je−i∆t â†1 â2 + J ∗ ei∆t â1 â†2 .

(6.3)

H̃1 = ǫâ†1 â1 + ǫâ†2 â2 + J â†1 â2 + J ∗ â1 â†2 .

(6.4)

Now, if J → Jei∆t , thenThat is, modulating the tunneling rate J at the gap frequency ∆, makes H̃1 = Ĥ0 . Thus theeffective transport of the gapped system will exhibit the same current response of the energeticallyflat system if the barrier modulates at the gap frequency.
To verify this claim that modulating the barrier does, in fact, create the desired effect inan open quantum system setting, we derive the corresponding time-dependent master equation.
We consider a reservoir which does not have any discontinuities that directly overlap with system

93energy differences. In doing so, the standard Born-Markov rules apply. Recalling from Section 3.4
that the time-dependent master equation is
(Z
∞
1
dρ̂S
dτ
= −iLˆS (t)ρ̂S − 2 TrR
dt
~
0
h

h

R t−τ

× ĤV , eiT t

ĤS (t1 )dt1 /~ −iĤR τ /~

e

R t−τ

ĤV e−iT t)ii
ĤS (t1 )dt1 /~ −iĤR τ /~e
, ρ̂R ρ̂S (t)
.

(6.5)

Due to the fact that the mathematical operations on all of the terms in the memory kernel are thesame, and the similarity of these operations to those performed in Section 5.2, we go through asingle term here at an accelerated pace.
Assuming the interaction Hamiltonian that couples a reservoir to system lattice site q isĤV = ~

X
(gk â†q R̂k + gk∗ âq R̂k† ),

(6.6)

k

we examine the term,
)
(
Z ∞
R t−τ
R t−τ
X
2 † −iĤR τ /~iĤR τ /~|gk | R̂k e
R̂k e
ρ̂R âq eiT t ĤS (t1 )dt1 /~â†q e−iT t ĤS (t1 )dt1 /~ρ̂s . (6.7)
dτ TrR
0k

Momentarily shifting our focus to the trace,

94
TrR

(
X
k

|gk |2 R̂k† e−iĤR τ /~R̂k eiĤR τ /~ρ̂R

)

=

X
k

=

X
k

|gk |2 hR̂k† R̂k e−iĤR τ /~R̂k eiĤR τ /~i|gk |2 hR̂k† R̂k ieiω̄k τ
2≃ lim |g(ω̄0 )| D(ω̄0 )
ǫ→0

Z ∞

eiω̄τ −ǫτ dω̄0= 2π|g(ω̄0 )|2 D(ω̄0 )δ(τ )= Γδ(τ )(6.8)

where D(ω̄0 ) is the density of states and |g(ω̄0 )| is the system-reservoir coupling. Both are taken
to be constant about the system transition frequencies. Here we have taken ωµ to be much larger
than the system transition frequencies. Putting this back in equation (6.7), we get
Γ

Z ∞
0

R t−τ

dτ δ(τ )âq eiT tR
ĤS (t1 )dt1 † −iT tt−τ ĤS (t1 )dt1
âq e
ρ̂s

=
=

Γ iT R t ĤS (t1 )dt1 † −iT R t ĤS (t1 )dt1tâq e t
âq e
ρ̂s
2
Γ
(6.9)
âq â†q ρ̂s .
2That is, under the Markov approximation, the time-ordered unitary operators become unity. Thisis due to the fact that in the Markovian limit, the memory kernel is effectively delta-correlated.
Thus, it is guaranteed to decay on a much more rapid timescale than the system. As a result,despite the fact that there is a time-dependence in the system Hamiltonian, the memory kernel
remains time-independent. Thus, the master equation for a time-dependent two-site lattice, wheresite 1 is being driven by an atomic reservoir and site 2 is coupled to the zero temperature vacuum
is
i
Γ1
Γ2
dρ̂S
= − [ĤS (t), ρ̂S ] − (â1 â†1 ρ̂S + ρ̂S â1 â†1 − 2â†1 ρ̂S â1 ) − (â†2 â2 ρ̂S + ρ̂S â†2 â2 − 2â2 ρ̂S â†2 ) (6.10)
dt
~
2
2
where
ĤS (t)= ω1 â†1 â1 + ω2 â†2 â2 + Jeiδt â†1 â2 + Jeiδt â1 â†2 .
~(6.11)

We solve equation (6.10) numerically, propagating ρ̂S (t) as a function of time. To show thatthe full solutions are, in fact, identical, we plot the populations of the four states of the system(|00i, |01i, |10i, and |11i) as a function of time. Figures 6.2(a-c) are plots of the populations

95
HaL
Po p u latio n
1.0

È00\

0.8

È01\

0.6

È10\

0.4

È11\

0.2

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

t

Hb L
Po p u latio n
1.0

È00\

0.8

È01\

0.6

È10\

0.4

È11\

0.2

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

t

HcL
Po p u latio n
1.0

È00\

0.8

È01\

0.6

È10\

0.4

È11\

0.2

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

t

Figure 6.2: Numerical verification that oscillating an off resonant junction at the gap frequency
enhances the effective transport. (a) Population as a function of time for a flat, two-site lattice. (b)Population as a function of time for a two-site lattice with zero-point frequencies ω1 and ω2 + ∆.
(c) Population as a function of time for the two-site lattice defined in (b), but with a tunnelingrate that oscillates at frequency ∆. The evolution of the gapped, oscillatory system (c) is identicalto the evolution of the flat, stationary lattice (a). As a result, current flows through the systems
modeled in (a) and (c) in the exact same manner.

96of the system’s four Fock states as a function of time (in arbitrary units). Figure 6.2(a) tracks
the populations for the case where ω1 = ω2 with δ = 0, i.e. the resonant lattice with constant
J. The system starts in the initial Fock state |00i and decays to a specific mixture of all fourstates. The current is proportional to the average number of atoms on the right lattice site. HerehN2 i ≃ 0.48. Figure 6.2(b) are plots of the system populations given ω2 = ω2 + ∆ with δ = 0(the off-resonant lattice with constant J) starting with the same initial condition. Here the system
relaxes predominantly to the |10i state. The average number occupancy hN2 i ≃ 0.0002 confirmsthat atomic transport across is significantly reduced in the off-resonant lattice system. Figure 6.2(c)are plots of the system Fock states given ω2 = ω1 + ∆ with δ = ∆ (the off-resonant lattice, gapmodulated J). Here the evolutions of the populations are identical to the evolutions in Figure 6.2(a).
As a result, hN2 i calculated here is identical to hN2 i when ∆ = δ = 0.
Therefore, we conclude that effective transport can be achieved through intra-system offresonant junctions by modulating the corresponding barrier at the gap frequency.

6.3

Conclusion
In this chapter we reviewed classical sequential logic behavior and discussed the importanceof bistabilities in these systems. Realizing such behavior in an optical lattice requires effective
transport across off-resonant junctions. Using the time-dependent master equation formalism, we
demonstrated how modulating the tunneling barrier at a frequency corresponding to the energy
difference allows for effective transport in a well system with an energy gap.

Chapter 7
Atomtronics with Photons in Optical Cavities

Now we discuss the possible realization of atomtronics components in an entirely different
physical system—photons in nonlinear cavities. This nonlinear optical system, illustrated in Figure 7.1, has a few significant advantages over the neutral atom counterpart. First, a ‘current’signal comprised of photons tunneling through nonlinear cavity networks can be many orders ofmagnitude faster than an atomic current tunneling through optical lattice barriers [69]. The faster
dynamics allow for a respectable signal-to-noise ratio to be achieved in a much shorter time interval.
Second, the site-by-site optical lattice systems proposed in the previous two chapters are difficult
to realize experimentally; at the moment, there are only a handful of labs in the world that areable to precisely construct and manipulate the lattices needed to realize the proposed devices. In
contrast, coupled cavity arrays could potentially be easier to independently fabricate. Finally, froma practical device standpoint, photons can travel through optical networks with less dissipation,
scattering, and thermal loss than is possible with their electronic counterparts. Consequently, these

Figure 7.1: Illustration of a driven nonlinear coupled cavity array coupled to the environment at
both ends.

98devices could potentially find application in optical computing and signal processing.
As demonstrated in Section 2.2.4, recovering the dynamics of the atomtronic systems in an
optical framework is possible when a χ(3) nonlinear material is introduced to the cavities. In asecond quantized form, the nonlinear cavity network represents an alternative realization of the
Bose-Hubbard model. With that in mind, and derived from our results for the atomtronic systems,
these systems will only recover the desired current dynamics if they are capable of physicallysupporting the parameter regime where U ≫ J, ~Γ.
We begin this chapter by presenting our model system driven by a continuous wave (CW)
laser, as well as a stochastic pulse laser. The system responses to these two driving mechanisms
are then explored through numerical experiments. From these experiments, we locate parameter
regimes where the system exhibits large asymmetric current responses. Afterwords, we review
possible experimental implementations of the atomtronics diode in coupled high Q etalon cavities,
toroidal microcavities, and photonic bandgap nanocavities.

7.1

Driving the few-photon optical diodeIf the coupled cavity system is driven by a continuous wave (CW) laser, the driving field canbe treated classically. For driving frequency ωL , and under the rotating wave approximation, theHamiltonian for a system whose cavity q is coherently driven is
ĤS =

N
X

~ωj â†j âj +

j



X
Uj † †∗âj â†k + ~ΩL â†q e−iωL t + âq eiωL t ,âj âj âj âj +Jjk â†j âk + Jjk
2

(7.1)

hj,ki

Transforming into an interaction picture that rotates with the driving field, a transformation definedby the unitary operatorÛ (t) = e−iP†j ωL âj âj t(7.2)

yields
H̃S =

N
X
j

~(ωj − ωL )â†j âj +X
Uj † †∗âj âj âj âj +Jjk â†j âk + Jjkâj â†k + ~ΩL â†q + âq ,2hj,kiwhich is a simpler equation to solve numerically.

(7.3)

99
In addition to the continuous wave laser drive, a system under the influence of a series ofrandom laser pulses can be modeled by substitutingΩL → ΩL (t) = Ω0Xjθ(t − tj )e−ξ(t−tj )(7.4)

where ξ is the uniform pulse width, Ω0 is the pulse strength, θ(t − tj ) is the Heaviside function
centered at tj , and the pulses are assumed have a Poissonian spectrum with pulse number density N/T = λ, where T defines the time-averaging of the classical correlation function. For thisstochastic drive, the classical field-field correlation function isZ
1 T∗
hE (τ )E(0)i =dtE ∗ (τ + t)E(t)
T 0
N Z T
X
21
dtθ(t + τ − tj )θ(t − tk ).
∝ Ω0
T
0

(7.5)

j,k

Assuming that ξ ≫ λ,hE ∗ (τ )E(0)i ∝ θ(t − tk )e−ξ(τ +2t−tj −tk )Z T −tk
N
X
21
−ξτ
= Ω0
e
dte−2ξt
T
0
k=1

=

N

i
1 X −ξτ h
1 − e−2ξ(T −tk )
e
T 2ξ

1
Ω20

(7.6)

k=1

In the limit that T → ∞,hE ∗ (τ )E(0)i ∝Ω20 λ −ξτ
e .
2ξ

(7.7)

This also happens to be the classical correlation function for coherent drives undergoing phase diffusion [51] as well as other stationary Markov processes such as Gaussian amplitude fluctuations [70].
Thus, the stochastic pulse drive model encompasses the physics of a larger class of driving fields.

7.2

Theoretical prediction of the photon diode
From equation (7.3), the forward-biased coherently driven system Hamiltonian for the optical

diode isU † †â1 â1 â1 â1 + â†2 â†2 â2 â2H̃S = ~(ω1 − ωL )â†1 â1 + (~ω1 + U − ~ωL )â†2 â2 +
2




+J â†1 â2 + â1 â†2 + ~ΩL â†1 + â1 ,

(7.8)

100
where ω1 is the frequency of cavity 1, ω2 = ω1 + U/~ is the frequency of cavity 2, U is the effective
photon-photon interaction energy, taken to be the same for the two cavities, J is the tunnelingrate between cavities and ΩL is the Rabi frequency of the laser driving cavity 1. The reverse bias
Hamiltonian is the same, except with the laser coupled to cavity 2, i.e.
U † †â1 â1 â1 â1 + â†2 â†2 â2 â2H̃S = ~(ω1 − ωL )â†1 â1 + (~ω1 + U − ~ωL )â†2 â2 +
2




†
†
†
+J â1 â2 + â1 â2 + ~ΩL â2 + â2 .

(7.9)

We use the Fock state notation |n, mi to denote n photons in the left cavity and m photons in theright, so that the analysis runs parallel to our previous discussions of the atomtronic diode.
In our model, we couple both ends of the cavity array to a broad continuum of zerotemperature vacuum modes. Since there are no discontinuities in the reservoir structure, we can
employ the standard Born-Markov result. The equation of motion for the reduced density operatorof the system is then
i Γ 
 Γ 

dρ̂S
ih
1
2
â†1 â1 ρ̂S + ρ̂s â†1 â1 − 2â†1 ρ̂S â1 −â†2 â2 ρ̂S + ρ̂s â†2 â2 − 2â†2 ρ̂S â2 (7.10)= − H̃S , ρ̂S −dt~
22
where Γ1,2 are the decay rates out of cavities 1 and 2.
Below we present simulations of this Hamiltonian. We calculate the occupancy of site 2 forthe forward-bias and reverse-bias driven Hamiltonians as a function of the drive frequency andamplitude. It is sufficient to calculate the occupancy of site 2 in order to characterize the system’s
current response since the current out of the system is directly proportional to this value. The ratioof forward-bias to reverse-bias site occupancies is then equal to the system’s asymmetric current
response. For the constant drive we perform the steady-state analysis laid out in appendix A. The
asymmetry turns out to be fairly sensitive to both the drive frequency and strength. Therefore, inorder to find the maximum asymmetric device response, we generate a surface plot of the system’s
response as a function of the driving laser’s frequency and strength.
The data for the first numerical experiment in this series is displayed in Figure 7.2 and uses
parameters ~Γ1 = ~Γ2 = J = 10−2 U , which satisfy U ≫ J, ~Γ. Figure 7.2(a) shows the system’s101

Figure 7.2: Here we find the maximum asymmetric current response for the few-photon optical
diode under a CW laser drive assuming ~Γ1 = ~Γ2 = J = 10−2 U . (a) A surface plot of the current
asymmetry as a function of ωL and Ω. The current response is nonlinear with respect to bothparameters, but the surface plot allows us to find a parameter set that generates an asymmetriccurrent response of over 7000 for these parameters. Using the optimal choice of ωc , we plot (b)the asymmetric response as a function of ωL , the average number occupancy of site 2 in the (c)forward-bias direction and (d) reverse-bias direction.

asymmetric response as a function of the drive strength and frequency. This graph shows a nonlinear
response of the hN2 i as a function of both ωL , and ΩL . Figures 7.2(b-d) show the asymmetric,
forward-bias, and reverse-bias responses as a function of drive frequency for ΩL ≃ 0.07U/~, the valueof the drive strength that yields the maximal asymmetry. An interesting feature in Figures 7.2(b-c)
is the location of the resonance response.
There is a dwarfed peak at ω = ω1 + U/~. This peak is small due to the fact that the drive
is solely resonant with the |1, 0i → |2, 0i transition. If the system is initially empty however, the|0, 0i → |1, 0i transition is necessarily off-resonant to the drive field. An analysis of the Fock state
population reveals that for ΩL = ω1 + U/~, there is virtually no population in the |2, 0i, and |1, 1i

102sites; the population is mainly found in the |0, 0i and |0, 1i states. This implies that the asymmetricresponse for this driving frequency is actually due to a second-order, off-resonant transition where
the drive field finds itself resonant with the |0, 1i state.
There is a comparably much larger response that occurs at ωL = ω1 + U/(2~). This isexactly half the energy needed for two photons to excite the system. When the system is driven
at this two-photon transition, the Fock state analysis confirms that the system is being excited
into the two-photon manifold with nonnegligible occupancies of states |2, 0i and |1, 1i. Thus theasymmetric current characteristic in this case is due to a similar mechanism to that responsible forthe atomtronic diode to operate. The maximal asymmetric response observed in this system ishIˆF W D i≃ 7.2 × 103 .
ˆ
hIREV i(7.11)

This value improves as U is increased and J is decreased, since both actions suppress second ordertunneling events.
For the next numerical experiment presented in Figure 7.3, we use the parameters~Γ1 = ~Γ2 = 5 × 10−2 U , and J = 10−2 U . As seen in these plots, the greater cavity decayrate (or smaller cavity finesse) yields similar features, with an asymmetric value ofhIˆF W D i≃ 4.5 × 102 ,hIˆREV i(7.12)

i.e. more than an order of magnitude less. The reduction in overall cavity finesse can be interpreted
to cause more photons to leak out of cavity 1 before they have the opportunity to tunnel into cavity
2, from where they can be lost and contribute to the photon current. Thus the current value that
we measure here is less in magnitude than the earlier case.
Finally, we investigate the system’s response to a pulse drive. The results are illustrated in
Figure 7.4 where we drive the system with a single pulse. As discussed in Section 7.1, this resultmodels a low density chain of pulses, but could equally well represent a drive of constant intensitywith phase diffusion, as well as a drive with amplitude fluctuations. Here the parameters we useare ~Γ1 = ~Γ2 = J = 10−2 U , with the pulse width ~η = 2 × 10−2 U . Since the parameters are the103

Figure 7.3: Here we find the maximum asymmetric current response for the few-photon optical
diode under a CW laser drive assuming ~Γ1 = ~Γ2 = 5U 10−2 , and J = U 10−2 . (a) A surface
plot of the current asymmetry as a function of ωL and Ω. The current response is nonlinear withrespect to both parameters, but the surface plot allows us to find a parameter set that generates
an asymmetric current response is reduced from 7000 to ∼ 450 due to the larger cavity decay rate.
Using the optimal choice of ωc , we plot (b) the asymmetric response as a function of ωL , the average
number occupancy of site 2 in the (c) forward-bias direction and (d) reverse-bias direction.

same as in the first numerical experiment, these results can be compared to those in the first set.
As can be seen in Figure 7.4, the main effect of the pulse drive is a broadening of the response ∼ ξat the expense of the overall magnitude of the asymmetry. Here the maximal current asymmetryishIˆF W D i≃ 3 × 103 ,ˆ
hIREV iwhich is approximately half the value seen for the continuous laser drive earlier.

(7.13)

104

Figure 7.4: Here we find the maximum asymmetric current response for the few-photon optical
diode under a pulsed laser drive assuming ~Γ1 = ~Γ2 = J = U 10−2 . (a) A surface plot of thecurrent asymmetry as a function of ωL and Ω. The current response is nonlinear with respect toboth parameters, but the surface plot allows us to find a parameter set that generates an asymmetriccurrent response of ≃ 3000. Using the optimal choice of ωc , we plot (b) the asymmetric response
as a function of ωL , the average number occupancy of site 2 in the (c) forward-bias direction and(d) reverse-bias direction.

7.3

Exploring experimental realizations of the photon diodeIn this section we investigate specific possible realizations of our photon diode. We firstconsider experiments that involve single to many EIT atoms coupled to high finesse etalon cavities.
Afterwords, we examine systems comprised of single EIT atoms coupled to toroidal microcavities.
Finally, we conclude this section with a discussion of single quantum dot-doped photonic band-gap
nanocavities. The advantages and shortcomings of each of these systems is discussed.

105
7.3.1

Single atom EIT cavity QED as a few photon diodeWe can determine whether or not it is possible to realize the few-photon optical diode in an
etalon cavity QED experiment involving a single EIT atom by checking if such systems support theparameter regime J, ~Γ ≪ U . Here we take optimistic cavity QED parameters from Kampschulte
et al. [71], where the cavity has a mode waist of w0 = 23 µm, a length of l = 150 µm, a finesse of
F = 1.2 × 106 , we also take (g, Γ, γ)=2π(120, 40, 2.6) MHz, where g is the atom-field coupling, Γ isthe decay rate of the cavity and γ is the decay rate of the atom.
From equation (2.88), the EIT generated Kerr nonlinearity is
g2
U = −~ 24
∆



g13
Ωc

2

.

(7.14)Taking (g13 /Ωc )2 = 0.1, which satisfies the validity conditions in equation (2.87) and assuming∆ ∼ 109 Hz, which is an approximate value for experiments using alkali atoms [55] , we see thatg2
U
≃ − 24 10−1 ∼ 1MHz.
~∆(7.15)

Since this implies ~Γ/U ∼ 40, which is far from ~Γ ≪ U , it seems like the diode cannot be realized
in such a cavity QED system. Reducing the length of the cavity may help, since it leads to a greater
atom-cavity coupling term. Here we look at the ratio Γ/U in greater detail to see if that is thecase. We first note that
Γ=

ωax
2πc
2πc
=
∼
F
λax F
lF

(7.16)

where c is the speed of light, λax is the wavelength of the axial mode and l is the length of thecavity. Noting that|U |g2µ224 ω0µ224 ω0
10−1 ,≃ 10−1 24 =10−1 ≃~∆
2πǫ0 ~V ∆2πǫ0 ~lw02 ∆(7.17)

where µ24 is the dipole moment of the |2i → |4i transition,V = lw02 is the effective mode volume of
the cavity ǫ0 is the permittivity of free space, and ω0 is the frequency resonant with the |1i → |3i
atomic transition (in rad/sec). Therefore~Γ∼ (40π 2 ~cǫ0 )
U



∆
2
µ24 ω0



w02
F



.

(7.18)

106
From this expression, we conclude that the ratio is independent in the length of the cavity. Setting
the atomic parameters aside, this ratio can be reduced by decreasing the mode waist of the cavity,and increasing the cavity finesse. However, for ∆ ∼ 109 Hz, µ24 ∼ 10−29 Cm, and ω0 ∼ 2π×1014 Hz,
and w0 ∼ 10−5 m, we would need F ∼ 1010 in order to achieve a ratio of ~Γ/U ∼ 10−2 . Such afinesse lies well beyond what is experimentally obtainable in modern state-of-the-art experiments.

7.3.1.1

Many atom EIT cavity QED as a few photon diodeIt was originally proposed by Imamoğlu et al. that adding more identically prepared EIT
atoms to the cavity would linearly increase the magnitude of U . If this was true, than an arbitrarily
large Kerr nonlinearity could be achieved in the cavity [55]. This is, however, not the case if
one is concerned with working in the few-photon regime. As pointed out by others [53, 54, 56],
and explained later by Fleischhaur, Imamoğlu, and Marangos [48], in the few-photon regime, thesystem undergoes a collective enhancement. This enhancement modifies the validity condition from√|g13 |/|Ωc | ≪ 1 to N |g13 |/|Ωc | ≪ 1 where N is the number of atoms. This new validity condition
places an upper bound on the overall magnitude of the nonlinearity. The argument provided inreference [48] basically goes as follows. The non-interacting effective Hamiltonian for the N -atomsystem is
(N )
H̃eff

" N
X (j)
γ42 (j)(j)(j)(j))σ̂ + g13 (â† σ̂13 + âσ̂31 )δσ̂22 + (δ − iγ3 )σ̂33 + (2δ + ∆ − i
= ~
2 44
j=1
#
(j)

(j)

(j)

(j)

+g24 (â† σ̂24 + âσ̂42 ) + Ωc (σ̂32 + σ̂23 )(7.19)(j)where σ̂nm is the atomic operator for atom j, and we have assumed all of the atoms to be coupled
to the cavity in exactly the same way. This is the Tavis-Cummings Hamiltonian. Assuming that
there is only one photon in the cavity, the N -atom ground state|1N i ≡ |1, 1, ..., 1i
couples only to the following symmetric states via the N -atom Hamiltonian:(7.20)

107
N
X

1
√
|1, ..., 2j , ..., 1i
N j=1|1N −1 2i ≡(7.21)

N

N −1

|1

1 X
√
|1, ..., 3j , ..., 1i.
N j=1

3i ≡

(7.22)Taking matrix elements of the N -atom Hamiltonian we get√(N )h1N |H̃eff |1N −1 3i = ~ N g13(N )h1N −1 2|H̃eff |1N −1 3i = ~Ωc .

(7.23)(7.24)

Thus, following the procedure outlined in Section 2.3.1 were we look for steady-state solutions of
the N -atom system in the 1-photon manifold of the cavity:|Ψ(N ) i1 = |n = 1i|1N i + c2 |n = 0i|1N −1 2i + c3 |n = 0i|1N −1 3i,(7.25)

we conclude thatĤχ(3)

g2 g2≃ −~N 132 24 â† â† ââΩc ∆≡ U â† â† ââ,

but under the restriction that

√

N g13
Ωc

!2

(7.26)≪ 1.

(7.27)

Therefore, the overall magnitude of χ(3) cannot be enhanced if we work in this approximation,
while simultaneously restricting ourselves to few photon cavity QED. The few photon regime is ofparticular interest for realizing our atomtronic components in this new system.
There is an additional, possibly helpful, effect that occurs for many-atom cavity QED systems.
As originally pointed out independently by Müller et al. [72] and Lukin et al. [73], the many atom
EIT media leads to a reduction in the cavity linewidth. Since we require U ≫ ~Γ, J and, recallingfrom Section 2.2.3 that J ∼ ~Γ, the reduction in the linewidth Γ might help us achieve thisparameter hierarchy in this EIT cavity QED system.
Recall from equation (2.16) and equation (2.21) thatTIc
(1−R)2=2
Ii
1 + 4F2 sin2πϕ2(7.28)

108
implies that the linewidth can be determined from
π
≃ ϕ.
F

(7.29)

ωax.
F(7.30)For an index of refraction n = 1, we foundΓ0 =From equation (2.71) |δ| ≪ |Ωc |, |γ| implies
χ

(1)

1
(δω) = N
ω0



g13
Ωc

2

δω

(7.31)

where ω0 is the cavity resonance. Thus, the index of refractionn = (1 + χ(1) 1/2)

1
N 1≃ 1 + χ(1) = 1 +
2
2 ω0



g13
Ωc

2

δω ≡ 1 +Dδωω0(7.32)

where, from our EIT validity condition,
N
D=
2



g13
Ωc

2

≪ 1.

(7.33)For this index of refraction,πFω0 + δω1/2
ω
1≃ φ = 2πn ≃ 2π
1 + Dδω1/2
ωax
ωax
ω0


2π
D
2
=
ω0 + Dδω1/2 + δω1/2 + (δω1/2 )
ωax
ω0
2π
δω ωax (1 + D)≃
ωax 1/2(7.34)(7.35)

where we have taken ω0 to be a harmonic of ωax . The first and fourth terms of equation (7.34) areneglected because the first was equal to a phase shift of 2π and the fourth term is much smaller than
the rest due to the optical frequency in the denominator. Expressing this new linewidth Γ = 2δω1/2
in terms of the empty cavity line with Γ0 we get
Γ=

Γ0
.
1+D

(7.36)

We conclude that there is a narrowing of the cavity linewidth. However, since we must bein the few-photon regime for the atomtronic components to function, the linewidth narrowing is109negligible since the magnitude of D is restricted by equation (7.33). Note that, since the Finesse
is solely related to the reflectivity of the cavity, the axial mode spacing gets reduced by a factor of
1/(1 + D) as well.
From the fact that the Kerr nonlinearity obtains only a limited enhancement from the inclusion of several atoms in the cavity, and the fact that the linewidth does not get significantly
reduced in the few photon regime, we conclude that etalon cavity QED systems are probably notsuitable for the experimental realization of the few photon optical diode.

7.3.2

Toroidal microcavities as a few photon diodeIn the context of realizing the few photon diode, coupled toroidal microcavities have a majoradvantage over their etalon counterpart: the cavities are coupled together via evanescent couplingwith a tapered fiber. As a result, the effective cavity-cavity coupling rate can be easily tuned bychanging the relative distance between the cavity and the fiber.
Recently Aoki et al. have observed strong coupling between single atoms and these microcavities [40], thus EIT atoms could provide these cavities with a Kerr nonlinearity. Here we examine
the suitability of toroidal cavities for the realization of the few photon diode by using the theoreticalestimates provided by Spillane et al. [42]. The analysis they provide is for toroidal cavities that are
driven by a laser with wavelength λ = 852 nm, which is the relevant transition for strong-couplingcesium, and is a relevant transition for EIT. We assume a toroidal cavity with principal diameter of
20 µm, and minor diameter of 1 µm. According to Spillane, this cavity can have an effective mode
volume of V = 50 µm3 , a quality factor Q = 1010 , and it is possible to acquire an atom-cavity
coupling rate of g ≃ 420 MHz. Since the corresponding driving frequency is ν0 ≃ 3.5 × 1014 Hz,
this cavity has a linewidth of Γ ≃ 3.5 × 104 Hz, which is quite narrow compared to the best highfinesse etalon cavity linewidth achievable. For a single atom interacting with the cavity, recall thatg2
U = −~ 24
∆



g13
Ωc

2

.

(7.37)

Assuming ∆ = −1.5 × 109 s−1 [75], and taking (g13 /Ωc )2 = 0.1, and assuming g24 = g13 , we get a

110

Figure 7.5: (a) An illustration of an experiment involving the coupling of a microtoroid to a single
atom. Reprinted with permission from reference [40]. (b) An illustration of a silica toroid coupled
to a tapered fiber waveguide as well as an image of an actual toroidal cavity. Reprinted withpermission from reference [74].

nonlinear interaction of U ≃ 1.8 × 107 . Therefore,Γ< 0.002.
U(7.38)

Using this ratio in our simulation of the asymmetric current response for the few photon diode, we
obtain current asymmetries greater than 3 × 105 .
The fact that the tapered fiber coupled cavities make J a tunable parameter, it is possible
for the system to be in the regime where J ≪ U as well. This puts toroidal cavities coupled tocesium atoms well within the required parameter regime to realize the few photon diode.
It should be noted that state-of-the-art experiments have fallen appreciably short of the
projected values used above. For pure silica toroids, Q ∼ 108 is closer to the current experimental
upper bound than 1010 . Since the ratio Γ/U is proportional to 1/Q, this seems to pose a problem

111
for immediate realization of the diode. However, Hartmann and coworkers [76] have suggested analternative three-level, standard lambda scheme where the atoms are prepared in an antisymmetricmetastable state. These single atoms have roughly the same nonlinear response as Imamoğlu’s fourlevel scheme, but the multiple-atom situation is predicted to be quite different. Brandão, Hartmann
and Plenio [77] claim that, unlike the four-level scheme where collective enhancement prevented
the number of atoms from increasing the magnitude of the nonlinearity for the four-level atom,
their scheme experiences appreciable enhancement with the number of atoms. Their prediction isthat many-atom cavities can experience at least a two order of magnitude improvement over theequivalent four-level scheme. Therefore, a loss in currently achievable Q could be compensated bya gain in χ(3) from an alternative three-level scheme.

7.3.3

Photonic band-gap cavities as a few photon diodePhotonic crystals are constructed out of dielectric semiconductor slabs, where a periodic arrayof holes are ‘drilled’ into the dielectric material allowing only a specific mode of light to propagate
through it. Cavities, even arrays of cavities, on the order of one micron or smaller can be formedin these materials by surrounding unperforated slabs of dielectric in the crystal with lattice ‘defect’holes. Due to their size, these cavities are called nanocavities.
This system is another potential candidate for realization of the few photon diode for thefollowing reasons: First, cavity arrays can be constructed and individually-tailored without muchdifficulty. Post-fabrication cavity mode tuning is even possible [44] for these systems. Second, fora fixed cavity mode and Q, the photon tunneling rate J is tunable as it is related to the spatial
separation of adjacent cavities [80]. Third, EIT atoms have been successfully embedded in rareearth crystals, where they have maintained their EIT characteristics [45]. As an alternative to an
EIT-generated Kerr nonlinearity, quantum dots can be embedded in the nanocavity. They cansignificantly increase the Kerr nonlinear response [81] of the cavity. Fourth, the effective mode
volumes of these cavities can be ∼ 0.03 µm. This leads to a dramatic enhancement of the couplingof the EIT atom or quantum dot to the cavity. Finally, quality factors have been observed to be

112

Figure 7.6: (a) (Top) Actual image of a ∼ 1 µm nanocavity housing a single quantum dot.
(a)(Bottom) Calculation of the electromagnetic mode inside the cavity and its overlap with thequantum dot. Reprinted with permission from [78]. (b)(Top) The composition of a the quantum
dot. (b)(Bottom left) Actual image of a ∼ 0.5 µm nanocavity. (b)(Bottom right) Calculation of
the electromagnetic mode inside the cavity and its overlap with the quantum dot. Reprinted withpermission from reference [79]∼ 1.4 × 105 for GaAs-based microcavities [82], and even larger for Si cavities, whose theoretical
upper limit was reported to be∼ 7 × 107 [83]. These observed and projected Q values do not reachthe level achieved by toroidal cavities, but the enhanced atom/dot-cavity coupling can make up forthe loss in Q.

7.3.3.1

The giant Kerr EIT nanocavity

Here we compare Imamoğlu’s giant Kerr nonlinearity scheme for the etalon cavity to the same
system in a nanocavity. Assuming a reasonable, but optimistic value of Q ∼ 106 , the wavelengthof light of the cavity resonance λ = 850 nm, and a mode volume of the nanocavity that is V = λ3 ,113
we obtain a cavity linewidth Γ ∼ 3.5 × 108 Hz and a nonlinear interaction U ∼ 9 × 108 Hz leading
to a ratio of Γ/U ∼ 0.4. This ratio is much better than it was for the etalon cavity, but still at
least an order of magnitude away from putting the system in a parameter regime where it can act
as a few photon diode.

7.3.3.2

The quantum dot Kerr nanocavity

For the quantum dot-doped nanocavity, we carry out a semiclassical analysis using the parameters from Fushman et al. [81]. In their article, a quantum dot was strongly-coupled to asilicon-based two-dimensional nanocavity. This system, with a resonant wavelength of λ ∼ 10−6 m
and Q = 104 achieved a χ(3) = 2.4 × 10−10 (m2 /Volt2 ).
The quantum dot decay rate was reported to be on the order 102 less in magnitude, whichmakes it irrelevant for this analysis. The interaction energy (in units of Hz) generated by this Kerr
nonlinearity is
UKerr =

12π~Zǫ0 χ(3) E 4 dVQD =VQD
ǫ0 χ(3) E 4
2π~(7.39)

where VQD = 10−3 V is the assumed volume of the quantum dot, and V is the volume of the cavity.
If we assume that V = λ3 , using equation (2.25), we getU=χ(3) 2πc2 −3
10 .
ǫ0 λ5

(7.40)

where c is the speed of light.
The decay rate of this system (in Hz) is
Γ=

c
.
λQ

(7.41)

Therefore,Γǫ0 λ4 110−3 ∼ 0.02.
=U
2π~c Q χ(3)(7.42)

These results indicate that it appears that quantum dot nanocrystal cavities should also be able tofunction as a few photon diode device.

114

7.4

Conclusion
In this chapter, with the observation that coupled nonlinear cavity arrays can also be mod-eled by the Bose-Hubbard model, we demonstrated how a few photon diode can be realized. We
performed theoretical analyses showing that, under a variety of qualitatively-different driving fields,
there exist parameter regimes where a two coupled cavity system exhibits a large asymmetry in
its photon current response. Following this, we examined three different systems in which the few
photon diode might be realized: high-finesse coupled etalon cavities, toroidal microcavities andphoton bandgap nanocavity systems. After determining that realization of the few photon diode in
an etalon cavity experiment was unlikely, we demonstrated that there is a strong possibility that it
can be realized in both toroidal cavities with EIT-generated Kerr interactions, as well as a quantum
dot-doped nanocavity.

Chapter 8
Conclusion

In this thesis, an open quantum system theory to study transport properties of atoms in
optical lattices, and photons in nonlinear cavities has been constructed.
In the field of open quantum systems, it is typically uncommon to come across systemreservoir interactions where the spectral properties of the reservoir vary so strongly that they play
an important role in the problem. Since we chose to model fermionized boson reservoirs, which earlyon yielded unphysical-diverging energy shifts, it was necessary for us to derive a non-Markovian
master equation treatment from first principles in order to formulate a satisfactory theory.
After confirming that our theory correctly modeled the behavior of these exotic systemreservoir interactions for certain situations in which comparison with exact results was possible,
we applied the approach to generate a complete analogy of boson reservoir-driven optical lattices
with semiconductor electronic systems. The theories describing weakly-interacting and stronglyinteracting boson reservoir sources were described, and the device behavior of a diode, FET, BJT,
and AND gate were demonstrated theoretically.
In the context of understanding and developing an atom-optical analog of a fundamental
sequential logic gate known as a SR flip-flop, a time-dependent system analysis was performed toconfirm that effective transport across off-resonant lattice junctions could be achieved by modulating the tunneling barrier at the corresponding junction gap frequency.
Finally, the principles developed with ultracold atoms in optical lattices were applied tononlinear cavity QED environments. In these systems we discovered a parameter regime that is116capable of realizing a few photon optical diode. An analysis of contemporary cavity QED systems
revealed that such a parameter regime lay within a region that is accessible experimentally.

8.1

Future work and outlook
Our work towards developing sequential atomtronic behavior has established the foundation,

concepts, and ideas of sequential logic. This is thus just the starting point from which a next
generation research program could be launched. The next step would likely involve the theoreticalmodeling of the bistable BJT circuit in Section 6.1. The difficulty that must be overcome is theexistance of two off-resonant couplings, whose energetic gaps are not equal to each other. As
we have seen several times in this thesis, a single frequency can always be rotated out of thesystem Hamiltonian making it effectively a time-independent problem. In general, for two unequal
frequencies, new theoretical techniques, such as an extension of Floquet theory, must be utilized in
the analysis.
The work presented here could be extended to study fundamental transport properties acrosscustom lattice structures, as well as to control the dynamics of such transport. Experimental techniques are advancing rapidly in this field and it is important that the fundamental theoreticalframework advances at an equal pace in order that the dynamics and observables can be modeled and understood. The rich potential for novel quantum signal processing with atoms, with
their comparatively complex internal level structure (when compared to electronics), and stronglyinteracting photons, which can rapidly transition through components generating comparatively
minimal heat, motivates future work in these areas.

Bibliography[1] W. D. Phillips. Nobel lecture: Laser cooling and trapping of neutral atoms. Rev. Mod. Phys.,
70:721, 1998.
[2] C. E. Wieman, D. E. Pritchard, and D. J. Wineland. Atom cooling, trapping, and quantum
manipulation. Rev. Mod. Phys., 71:S253, 1999.
[3] M. H. Anderson, J. R. Ensher, M. R. Matthews, C. E. Wieman, and E. A. Cornell. Observation of bose-einstein condensation in a dilute atomic vapor. Science, 269:198, 1995.
[4] M. Greiner, C. A. Regal, and D. S. Jin. Emergence of a molecular bose–einstein condensate
from a fermi gas. Nature, 1, 2003.
[5] O. Morsch and M. Oberthaler. Dynamics of bose-einstein condensates in optical lattices. Rev.
Mod. Phys., 78:179, 2006.
[6] M. P. A. Fisher, P. B. Weichman, G. Grinstein, and D. S. Fisher. Boson localization and thesuperfluid-insulator transition. Phys. Rev. B, 40:546, 1989.
[7] M. Greiner, O. Mandel, T. Esslinger, T. W. Hänsch, and I. Bloch. Quantum phase transition
from a superfluid to a mott insulator in a gas of ultracold atoms. Nature, 415:39, 2002.
[8] A. Micheli, A. J. Daley, D. Jaksch, and P. Zoller. Single atom transistor in a 1d opticallattice. Phy. Rev. Lett., 93:140408, 2004.
[9] J. A. Stickney, D. Z. Anderson, and A. A. Zozulya. Transistorlike behavior of a bose-einsteincondensate in a triple-well potential. Phys. Rev. A, 75:013608, 2007.
[10] D. M. Cardamone, C. A. Stafford, and S. Mazumdar. Controlling quantum transport througha single molecule. Nano Lett., 6:2422, 2006.
[11] C. A. Stafford, D. M. Cardamone, and S. Mazumdar. The quantum interference effect transistor. Nanotechnology, 18:424014, 2007.
[12] M. Theis, G. Thalhammer, K. Winkler, M. Hellwig, G. Ruff, and R. Grimm. Tuning thescattering length with an optically induced feshbach resonance. Phys. Rev. Lett., 93:123001,
2004.
[13] S. Inouye, M. R. Andrews, J. Stenger, H. J. Miesner, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, and W. Ketterle.
Observation of feshbach resonances in a bose-einstein condensate. Nature, 392:151, 1998.

118[14] S. Inouye, J. Goldwin, M. L. Olsen, C. Ticknor, J. L. Bohn, and D. S. Jin. Observation ofheteronuclear feshbach resonances in a mixture of bosons and fermions. Phys. Rev. Lett.,
93:183201, 2004.
[15] C. A. Stan, M. W. Zwierlein, C. H. Schunck, S. M. F. Raupach, and W. Ketterle. Obersveration of feshbach resonances between two different atomic species. Phys. Rev. Lett., 93:143001,
October 2004.
[16] W. S. Bakr, J. I. Gillen, A. Peng, S. Fölling, and M. Greiner. A quantum gas microscope fordetecting single atoms in a Hubbard-regime optical lattice. Nature, 462:74, 2009.
[17] O. Mandel, M. Greiner, A. Widera, T. Rom, T. W. Hänsch, and I. Bloch. Controlled collisions
for mulit-particle entanglement of optically trapped atoms. Nature, 425:937, 2003.
[18] N. Strohmaier, Y. Takasu, K. Gunter, R. Jordens, M. Kohl, H. Moritz, and T. Esslinger.
Interaction-controlled transport of an ultracold Fermi gas. Phys. Rev. Lett., 99:220601, 2007.
[19] K. Henderson, H. Kelkar, B. Gutiérrez-Medina, T. C. Li, and M. G. Raizen. Experimental
Study of the Role of Atomic Interactions on Quantum Transport. Phys. Rev. Lett., 96:150401,
2006.
[20] J. H. Denschlag, J. E. Simsarian, H. Haeffner, C. McKenzie, A. Browaeys, D. Cho, K. Helmerson, S. L. Rolston, and W. D. Phillips. A Bose-Einstein condensate in an optical lattice. J.
Phys. B, 35:3095, 2002.
Ultracold Quantum Gases in Three-Dimensional Optical Lattice Potentials.
[21] M. Greiner.
PhD thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, 2003.
[22] D. Jaksch, C. Bruder, J. I. Cirac, C. W. Gardiner, and P. Zoller. Cold bosonic atoms in
optical lattices. Phys. Rev. Lett., 81:3108, 1998.
[23] A. Klein and D. Jaksch. Simulating high-temperature superconductivity model hamiltonians
with atoms in optical lattices. Phys. Rev. A, 73:053613, 2006.
[24] B. Paredes, A. Widera, V. Murg, O. Mandel, S. Fölling, I. Cirac, G. V. Shlyapnikov, T. W.
Hänsch, and I. Bloch. Tonks–girardeau gas of ultracold atoms in an optical lattice. Nature,
429:277, 2004.
[25] J. I. Gillen. The Quantum Gas Microscope. PhD thesis, Harvard University, 2009.
[26] M. Pasienski and B. DeMarco. A high-accuracy algorithm for designing arbitrary holographic
atom traps. Optics Express, 16:2176, 2008.
[27] W. S. Bakr, A. Peng, M. E. Tai, R. Ma, J. Simon, J. I. Gillen, S. Foelling, L. Pollet, and
M. Greiner. Probing the superfluid–to–mott insulator transition at the single-atom level.
Science, 329:547, 2010.
[28] J. F. Sherson, C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, M. Cheneau, I. Bloch, and S. Kuhr. Single-atomresolved fluorescence imaging of an atomic mott insulator. Nature, 2010.
[29] C. Weitenberg, M. Endres, J. F. Sherson, M. Cheneau, P. Schauß, T. Fukuhara, I. Bloch, andS. Kuhr. Single-spin addressing in an atomic mott insulator. Nature, 471:319, 2011.

119[30] P. Würtz, T. Langen, T. Gericke, A. Koglbauer, and H. Ott. Experimental demonstration of
single-site addressability in a two-dimensional optical lattice. Phys. Rev. Lett., 103(8):80404,
2009.
[31] W. Zwerger. Mott–hubbard transition of cold atoms in optical lattices. Journal of Optics B,
5:S9, 2003.
[32] A. L. Fetter and J. D. Walecka. Quantum Theory of Many-Particle Systems. Dover, 2003.
[33] W. H. Louisell. Quantum Statistical Properties of Radiation. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,New York, 1973.
[34] P. Meystre and M. Sargent. Elements of Quantum Optics. Springer Verlag, 2007.
[35] D. F. Walls, G. J. Milburn, and J. C. Garrison. Quantum Optics. Springer, 1995.
[36] C. J. Hood, H. J. Kimble, and J. Ye. Characterization of high-finesse mirrors: Loss, phaseshifts, and mode structure in an optical cavity. Phys. Rev. A, 64:033804, 2001.
[37] K. M. Birnbaum, A. Boca, R. Miller, A. D. Boozer, T. E. Northup, and H. J. Kimble. Photon
blockade in an optical cavity with one trapped atom. Nature, 436:87, 2005.
[38] A. E. Siegman. Lasers. University Science Books, 1986.
[39] C. W. Gardiner and M. J. Collett. Input and output in damped quantum systems: Quantum
stochastic differential equations and the master equation. Phys. Rev. A, 31:3761, Jun 1985.
[40] T. Aoki, B. Dayan, E. Wilcut, W. P. Bowen, A. S. Parkins, T. J. Kippenberg, K. J. Vahala, and H. J. Kimble. Observation of strong coupling between one atom and a monolithic
microresonator. Nature, 443:671, 2006.
[41] S. M. Spillane, T. J. Kippenberg, O. J. Painter, and K. J. Vahala. Ideality in a fiber-tapercoupled microresonator system for application to cavity quantum electrodynamics. Phys.
Rev. Lett., 91:43902, 2003.
[42] S. M. Spillane, T. J. Kippenberg, K. J. Vahala, K. W. Goh, E. Wilcut, and H. J. Kimble.
Ultrahigh-Q toroidal microresonators for cavity quantum electrodynamics. Phys. Rev. A,
71:013817, 2005.
[43] J. Sweet, B. C. Richards, J. D. Olitzky, J. Hendrickson, G. Khitrova, H. M. Gibbs, D. Litvinov,
D. Gerthsen, D. Z. Hu, D. M. Schaadt, et al. GaAs photonic crystal slab nanocavities:
Growth, fabrication, and quality factor. Photonics and Nanostructures-Fundamentals andApplications, 8:1, 2009.
[44] K. Hennessy, A. Badolato, A. Tamboli, P. M. Petroff, E. Hu, M. Atatüre, J. Dreiser, and
A. Imamoğlu. Tuning photonic crystal nanocavity modes by wet chemical digital etching.
App. Phys. Lett., 87:021108, 2005.
[45] B. S. Ham, P. R. Hemmer, and M. S. Shahriar. Efficient electromagnetically induced transparency in a rare-earth doped crystal. Opt. Commun., 144:227, 1997.

120[46] A. V. Turukhin, V. S. Sudarshanam, M. S. Shahriar, J. A. Musser, B. S. Ham, and P. R.
Hemmer. Observation of ultraslow and stored light pulses in a solid. Phys. Rev. Lett.,
88:23602, 2002.
[47] H. Schmidt and A. Imamoğlu. Giant Kerr nonlinearities obtained by electromagneticallyinduced transparency. Opt. Lett., 21:1936, 1996.
[48] M. Fleischhauer, A. Imamoğlu, and J. P. Marangos. Electromagnetically induced transparency: Optics in coherent media. Rev. Mod. Phys., 77:633, 2005.
[49] S. E. Harris. Electromagnetically induced transparency. Phys. Today, 50:36, 1997.
[50] S. E. Harris, J. E. Field, and A. Imamoğlu. Nonlinear optical processes using electromagnetically induced transparency. Phys. Rev. Lett., 64:1107, 1990.
[51] M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy. Quantum Optics. Cambridge University Press, 1997.
[52] L. V. Hau, S. E. Harris, Z. Dutton, and C. H. Behroozi. Light speed reduction to 17 metres
per second in an ultracold atomic gas. Nature, 397:594, 1999.
[53] K. M. Gheri, W. Alge, and P. Grangier. Quantum analysis of the photonic blockade mechanism. Phys. Rev. A, 60:2673, 1999.
[54] P. Grangier, D. F. Walls, and K. M. Gheri. Comment on “Strongly interacting photons in anonlinear cavity”. Phys. Rev. Lett., 81:2833, 1998.
[55] A. Imamoğlu, H. Schmidt, G. Woods, and M. Deutsch. Strongly interacting photons in anonlinear cavity. Phys. Rev. Lett., 79:1467, 1997.
[56] S. Rebic, S. M. Tan, A. S. Parkins, and D. F. Walls. Large Kerr nonlinearity with a single
atom. Journal of Optics B, 1:490, 1999.
[57] M. J. Werner and A. Imamoğlu. Photon-photon interactions in cavity electromagneticallyinduced transparency. Phys. Rev. A, 61:011801, 1999.
[58] J. Dalibard, Y. Castin, and K. Mølmer. Wave-function approach to dissipative processes inquantum optics. Phys. Rev. Lett., 68:580, 1992.
[59] R. Dum, P. Zoller, and H. Ritsch. Monte carlo simulation of the atomic master equation for
spontaneous emission. Phys. Rev. A, 45:4879, 1992.
[60] C. W. Gardiner, A. S. Parkins, and P. Zoller. Wave-function quantum stochastic differential
equations and quantum-jump simulation methods. Phys. Rev. A, 46:4363, 1992.
[61] K. Mølmer and Y. Castin. Monte carlo wavefunctions in quantum optics. Quantum andSemiclassical Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B, 8:49, 1996.
[62] C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg. Atom-Photon Interactions. WileyInterscience, 1998.
[63] C.W. Gardiner and P. Zoller. Quantum Noise. Springer, 1991.
[64] D. N. Zubarev, V. A. Morozov, and G. Röpke. Relaxation and Hydrodynamic Processes Vol. 2.
Akademie Verlag, Berlin, 1997.

121[65] R. Shankar. Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Springer, 1994.
[66] R. A. Pepino, J. Cooper, D. Meiser, D. Z. Anderson, and M. J. Holland. Open quantum
systems approach to atomtronics. Phys. Rev. A, 82:013640, 2010.
[67] S. Jang, J. Cao, and R. J. Silbey. Fourth-order quantum master equation and its Markovian
bath limit. J. Chem. Phys., 116:2705, 2002.
[68] M. J. Buckingham. Noise in Electronic Devices and Systems. JOHN WILEY & SONS, 1983.
[69] B. T. Seaman, M. Krämer, D. Z. Anderson, and M. J. Holland. Atomtronics: Ultracold-atom
analogs of electronic devices. Phys. Rev. A, 75:023615, 2007.
[70] A. T. Georges. Resonance fluorescence in Markovian stochastic fields. Phys. Rev. A, 21:2034,
1980.
[71] M. Khudaverdyan, W. Alt, I. Dotsenko, T. Kampschulte, K. Lenhard, A. Rauschenbeutel,
S. Reick, K. Schörner, A. Widera, and D. Meschede. Controlled insertion and retrieval ofatoms coupled to a high-finesse optical resonator. New J. Phys., 10:073023, 2008.
[72] G. Müller, M. Müller, A. Wicht, R. H. Rinkleff, and K. Danzmann. Optical resonator withsteep internal dispersion. Phys. Rev. A, 56:2385, 1997.
[73] M. D. Lukin, M. Fleischhauer, M. O. Scully, and V. L. Velichansky. Intracavity electromagnetically induced transparency. Opt. Lett., 23:295, 1998.
[74] K. J. Vahala. Optical microcavities. Nature, 424:839, 2003.
[75] M. J. Hartmann and M. B. Plenio. Strong photon nonlinearities and photonic Mott insulators.
Phys. Rev. Lett., 99:103601, 2007.
[76] M. J. Hartmann, F. G. S. L. Brandao, and M. B. Plenio. Quantum many-body phenomena
in coupled cavity arrays. Laser & Photonics Reviews, 2:527, 2008.
[77] F. G. S. L. Brandao, M. J. Hartmann, and M. B. Plenio. Light-shift-induced photonic
nonlinearities. New Journal of Physics, 10:043010, 2008.
[78] K. Hennessy, A. Badolato, M. Winger, D. Gerace, M. Atatüre, S. Gulde, S. Fält, E. L. Hu,
and A. Imamoğlu. Quantum nature of a strongly coupled single quantum dot–cavity system.
Nature, 445:896, 2007.
[79] A. Badolato, K. Hennessy, M. Atat”ure, J. Dreiser, E. Hu, P. M. Petroff, and A. Imamoğlu. Deterministic coupling of single
quantum dots to single nanocavity modes. Science, 308:1158, 2005.
[80] M. Bayindir, B. Temelkuran, and E. Ozbay. Tight-binding description of the coupled defectmodes in three-dimensional photonic crystals. Phys. Rev. Lett., 84:2140, 2000.
[81] I. Fushman, D. Englund, A. Faraon, N. Stoltz, P. Petroff, and J. Vučković. Controlled phaseshifts with a single quantum dot. Science, 320:769, 2008.
[82] E. Weidner, S. Combrié, A. De Rossi, J. Nagle, S. Cassette, A. Talneau, and H. Benisty.
Achievement of ultrahigh quality factors in GaAs photonic crystal membrane nanocavity.
App. Phys. Lett., 89:221104, 2006.

122[83] E. Kuramochi, M. Notomi, S. Mitsugi, A. Shinya, T. Tanabe, and T. Watanabe. Ultrahigh-q
photonic crystal nanocavities realized by the local width modulation of a line defect. App.
Phys. Lett., 88:041112, 2006.
[84] C. W. Gardiner. Handbook of Stochastic Methods. Springer Berlin, 1985.
[85] P. Bermel, A. Rodriguez, S. G. Johnson, J. D. Joannopoulos, and M. Soljačić. Singlephoton all-optical switching using waveguide-cavity quantum electrodynamics. Phys. Rev.
A, 74:043818, 2006.
[86] S. E. Harris and L. V. Hau. Nonlinear optics at low light levels. Phys. Rev. Lett., 82:4611,
1999.
[87] H. Kang and Y. Zhu. Observation of large Kerr nonlinearity at low light intensities. Phys.
Rev. Lett., 91:93601, 2003.
[88] D. Roy. Few-photon optical diode. Phys. Rev. B, 81:155117, 2010.
[89] P. B. Deotare, M. W. McCutcheon, I. W. Frank, M. Khan, and M. Lončar. Coupled photonic
crystal nanobeam cavities. App. Phys. Lett., 95:031102, 2009.
[90] N. Na, S. Utsunomiya, L. Tian, and Y. Yamamoto. Strongly correlated polaritons in a
two-dimensional array of photonic crystal microcavities. Phys. Rev. A, 77:031803, 2008.
[91] A. D. Greentree, C. Tahan, J. H. Cole, and L. C. L. Hollenberg. Quantum phase transitionsof light. Nature Physics, 2:856, 2006.
[92] C. J. Hood, M. S. Chapman, T. W. Lynn, and H. J. Kimble. Real-time cavity QED withsingle atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett., 80:4157, 1998.
[93] M. J. Hartmann, F. G. S. L. Brandão, and M. B. Plenio. Strongly interacting polaritons incoupled arrays of cavities. Nat. Phys., 2:849, 2006.
[94] D. Jaksch and P. Zoller. The cold atom hubbard toolbox. Ann. Phys., 315:52, 2005.
[95] S. G. Bhongale, R. Walser, and M. J. Holland. Memory effects and conservation laws in thequantum kinetic evolution of a dilute bose gas. Phys. Rev. A, 66:043618, 2002.
[96] K. Burnett, J. Cooper, R. J. Ballagh, and E. W. Smith. Collisional redistribution of radiation.
i. the density matrix. Phys. Rev. A, 22:2005, 1980.
[97] D. N. Zubarev and V. P. Kalashnikov. The derivation of time-irreversible generalized masterequation. Physica, 56:345, 1971.
[98] Q. Shi and E. Geva. A new approach to calculating the memory kernel of the generalized
quantum master equation for an arbitrary system–bath coupling. J. Chem. Phys., 119:12063,
2003.
[99] U. Fano. Pressure broadening as a prototype of relaxation. Phy. Rev., 131:259, 1963.
[100] W. Min, G. Luo, B. J. Cherayil, S. C. Kou, and X. S. Xie. Observation of a power-law
memory kernel for fluctuations within a single protein molecule. Phys. Rev. Lett., 94:198302,
2005.

123
[101] E. W. Smith, J. Cooper, and C. R. Vidal. Unified classical-path treatment of stark broadening
in plasmas. Phys. Rev., 185:140, 1969.
[102] T. Stöferle, H. Moritz, C. Schori, M. Köhl, and T. Esslinger. Transition from a stronglyinteracting 1d superfluid to a mott insulator. Phys. Rev. Lett., 92:130403, 2004.
[103] R. Walser, J. Cooper, and M. Holland. Reversible and irreversible evolution of a condensed
bosonic gas. Phys. Rev. A, 63:013607, 2000.
[104] H. A. Kim, H. S. Moon, J. B. Kim, A. S. Choe, and J. Lee. Expanded concept of the adiabatic
population transfer using dressed states. Phys. Rev. A, 59:1404, 1999.
[105] A. Aspect, E. Arimondo, R. Kaiser, N. Vansteenkiste, and C. Cohen-Tannoudji. Laser cooling below the one-photon recoil energy by velocity-selective coherent population trapping:theoretical analysis. JOSA B, 6:2112, 1989.
[106] W. S. Bakr, J. I. Gillen, A. Peng, S. Fölling, and M. Greiner. A quantum gas microscope fordetecting single atoms in a hubbard-regime optical lattice. Nature, 462:74, 2009.
[107] M. B. Plenio and P. L. Knight. The quantum-jump approach to dissipative dynamics inquantum optics. Rev. Mod. Phys., 70:101, 1998.
[108] G. Nienhuis. Time-dependent spectra of colliding atoms in an intense radiation field. J. Phys.
B, 16:2677, 1983.
[109] G. Nienhuis. Time and frequency dependence of nearly resonant light scattered from collisionally perturbed atoms. Physica B+C, 96:391, 1979.
[110] J. H. Eberly and K. Wodkiewicz. The time-dependent physical spectrum of light. JOSA,
67:1252, 1977.
[111] V. G. Morozov and G. Röpke. Non-markovian quantum kinetics and conservation laws. J.
Stat. Phys., 102:285, 2001.
[112] R. Zwanzig. On the identity of three generalized master equations. Physica, 30:1109, 1964.
[113] H. Haug and L. Banyai. Improved spectral functions for quantum kinetics. Solid State
Commun., 100:303, 1996.
[114] J. Wong. Results on certain non-hermitian hamiltonians. J. Math. Phys., 8:2039, 1967.
[115] L. Armstrong Jr and H. C. Baker. An adiabatic and near-adiabatic model of multiphoton
ionisation. J. Phys. B, 13:4727, 1980.
[116] M. Baranger. Problem of overlapping lines in the theory of pressure broadening. Phys. Rev.,
111:494, 1958.
[117] M. Elk and P. Lambropoulos. Spontaneous emission in a cavity driven by a strong bichromaticfield. Phys. Rev. A, 50:1490, 1994.
[118] J. Cooper, A. Charlton, D. R. Meacher, P. Ewart, and G. Alber. Revised theory of resonant
degenerate four-wave mixing with broad-bandwidth lasers. Phys. Rev. A, 40:5705, 1989.

124[119] M. Antezza, L. P. Pitaevskii, and S. Stringari. New asymptotic behavior of the surface-atom
force out of thermal equilibrium. Phys. Rev. Lett., 95:113202, 2005.
[120] S. Raghavan, A. Smerzi, S. Fantoni, and S. R. Shenoy. Coherent oscillations between two
weakly coupled bose-einstein condensates: Josephson effects, π oscillations, and macroscopic
quantum self-trapping. Phys. Rev. A, 59:620, 1999.
[121] S. Haroche and J. M. Raimond. Exploring the Quantum: Atoms, Cavities, and Photons.
Oxford University Press, New York, 2007.
[122] R. A. Pepino, J. Cooper, D. Z. Anderson, and M. J. Holland. Atomtronic Circuits of Diodes
and Transistors. Phys. Rev. Lett., 103:140405, 2009.
[123] D. K. Armani, T. J. Kippenberg, S. M. Spillane, and K. J. Vahala. Ultra-high-q toroid
microcavity on a chip. Nature, 8:37, 2003.

Appendix A
Master Equation Solution Methods

In this appendix we present our method for solving for the matrix elements of the steady-statesystem reduced density operator. For simplicity, we develop the technique from a master equationin the standard Lindblad form. Consider the following master equation:

dρ̂S
i
Γ †
â âρ̂S + ρ̂S â† â − 2âρ̂S â† .
= − [ĤS , ρ̂S ] −
dt
~
2

(A.1)

Projecting this equation the system eigenbasis, the ha|ρ̂S |bi matrix element becomesΓ †dÂan Ânm hm|ρ̂S |bi + ha|ρ̂S |niÂ†nm Âmb − 2Âan hn|ρ̂S |miÂ†mbha|ρ̂S |bi = −iωab ha|ρ̂S |bi −
dt
2

(A.2)

where |ai, |bi, |ni, and |mi are all eigenstates of ĤS , Ânm = hn|â|mi, and ωab = ωa − ωb are
eigenenergies of ĤS .
In matrix form, we get the following system of equations:dΓ †Â ÂP̂ + P̂Â† Â − 2ÂP̂Â†P̂ = −iΩ ∗ P̂ −
dt
2

(A.3)

where ha|P̂|bi = ha|ρ̂S |bi, ha|Ω|bi = ωab , ha|Â|bi = ha|â|bi and Ω ∗ P̂ is understood to be elementby-element multiplication of Ω and P̂, i.e. ha|Ω ∗ P̂|bi = ωab ha|ρ̂S |bi.
We are concerned with steady-state behavior of equation (A.3). Thus we need to solve
0 = −iΩ ∗ P̂ −Γ †Â ÂP̂ + P̂Â† Â − 2ÂP̂Â† .
2

(A.4)

Let’s assume that the dimensionality of the Hilbert space is n. Then, all of these matrices aren × n. Instead of ‘brute force’ solving this system of equations for P̂, we move into a Liouville126
ˆ . In thisrepresentation where the n × n matrix P̂ is stretched to an n2 × 1 vector denoted as P̂ˆ whose dimension is n2 × n2 such that equation (A.4) canframework, we derive a super operator M̂
be written asˆ P̂
ˆ
0 = M̂

(A.5)

Then, we can employ standard linear algebra tricks to solve this equation. Namely, the eigenvector
that corresponds to the zero eigenvalue is the steady-state solution. Once this is found, we canˆ → P̂, the n × n density matrix, and normalize it, yielding
repack P̂
1
n o P̂,Tr P̂

which is the density matrix solution.

(A.6)

This method is much more numerically efficient than solving for the coupled system directly
due to the fact that the matrices that we’re dealing with are typically sparse. The trick is toˆ properly, which we derive below.
generate M̂We first define our unpacking algorithm. Given the density operator with elements P̂bc , we
map it onto the super operator space byˆ = P̂
ˆP̂β[n(b−1)+c] = P̂bc

(A.7)

ˆ consists of taking the rows of matrix P̂, transposing them, and thenThat is, the column vector P̂
stacking them on top of each other in order. In this appendix, we use Roman letters for Hilbert
space elements and Greek letters for Liouville space elements throughout this derivation.
ˆ in place, we can construct M̂ˆ , which we do term-by-term. Consider
With the definition of P̂
the first term of equation (A.4).
ˆ P̂
ˆ
−iΩab ∗ P̂ab = −iΩ̂β βˆ δ P̂
ˆ= −iΩ̂
α αβ β
ˆ P̂
ˆ
≡ M̂
1

(A.8)

where δαβ is the Kronecker delta, or identity matrix for the n2 × n2 Liouville space. Therefore,
ˆ = −iΩ̂
ˆ δ
M̂
1
α αβ

(A.9)

127
Since the Kronecker tensor product is needed for the remaining terms, we define it here asˆ = Û ⊗ V̂Ŵ(A.10)ˆˆŴ
αβ = Ŵ[n(a−1)+c][n(b−1)+d] = Ûab V̂cd

(A.11)

such thatIn this convention, the tensor product multiplies every element of Û by the matrix V̂.
Now consider second term of equation (A.4), which is of the form X̂P̂ where X̂ is the combined
matrix of all the operators on the left. Then,ˆ P̂ˆX̂ab P̂bc = X̂αβ β(A.12)

where β = n(b − 1) + c implies that α = n(a − 1) + c. Therefore
ˆ = X̂ˆX̂
αβ[n(a−1)+c][n(b−1)+c] = X̂ab δcd = X̂ ⊗ 1̂.

(A.13)

Thus



Γ †
Â Â ⊗ 1̂.
2(A.14)ˆ P̂ˆP̂X̂ = P̂ab X̂bc = X̂αβ β .

(A.15)ˆ =−M̂
2
Next, consider the form

This time β = n(a − 1) + b and α = n(a − 1) + c. Consequently,Tˆ = X̂ˆX̂
αβ[n(a−1)+c][n(a−1)+b] = δad X̂cb = δad X̂bc = 1̂ ⊗ (X̂ ),(A.16)

where (X̂T ) is the transpose of X̂. Thereforeˆ = −1̂ ⊗
M̂
3



Γ †
Â Â
2

T !

.

(A.17)ˆ P̂ˆX̂P̂Ŷ = X̂ab P̂bc Ŷcd = Ẑαβ β .

(A.18)

Finally, we consider the expression of the form

The implication of β = n(b − 1) + c and α = n(a − 1) + d isTT
ˆ = Ẑ
ˆ
=
X̂
⊗
Ẑ
=
X̂
Ŷ
=
X̂
Ŷ
Ŷ
αβ
ab dc
ab cd
[n(a−1)+d][n(b−1)+c](A.19)

128Thus,
ˆ = ΓÂ ⊗M̂
4  
T
Â†.

(A.20)

Putting everything together, we get the following superoperator matrix equation:
ˆ P̂
ˆ
0 = M̂

(A.21)

ˆ = M̂
ˆ + M̂
ˆ + M̂
ˆ + M̂
ˆ .
where M̂12
3
4
ˆ is constructed, its zero eigenvalue corresponds to the eigenvector
Once the super operator M̂
ˆ . P̂
ˆ can then be repacked P̂
ˆ → P̂, and then normalized as describedthat is the steady-state of P̂
above to yield the steady-state solution to ρ̂S projected onto the system eigenbasis. Once this isdone relevant observables can be calculated by tracing over the system degrees of freedom. For
example, the expectation value of system observable Θ̂S is thenhΘ̂i = Trs [Θ̂ρ̂S ](A.22)