Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Jaynes-Cummings atoms coupled to a structured environment: Leakage elimination operators and the Petz recovery maps

Published 21 Apr 2024 in quant-ph | (2404.13762v2)

Abstract: We consider the Jaynes-Cummings (JC) model embedded in a structured environment, where the atom inside an optical cavity will be affected by a hierarchical environment consisting of the cavity and its environment. We propose several effective strategies to control and suppress the decoherence effects to protect the quantum coherence of the JC atom. We study the non-perturbative control of the system dynamics by means of the leakage elimination operators. We also investigate a full quantum state reversal scheme by engineering the system and its coupling to the bath via the Petz recovery map. Our findings conclude that, with the Petz recovery map, the dynamics of the JC atom can be fully recovered regardless of Markov or non-Markovian noises. Finally, we show that our quantum control and recovery methods are effective at protecting different aspects of the system coherence.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (76)
  1. E. Jaynes and F. Cummings, “Comparison of quantum and semiclassical radiation theories with application to the beam maser,” \JournalTitleProceedings of the IEEE 51, 89–109 (1963).
  2. B. W. Shore and P. L. Knight, “The Jaynes-Cummings Model,” \JournalTitleJournal of Modern Optics 40, 1195–1238 (1993).
  3. B. Shore and P. Knight, “Physics and Probability: Essays in Honor of Edwin T Jaynes,” (2004).
  4. Y. Zhu, D. J. Gauthier, S. E. Morin, et al., “Vacuum Rabi splitting as a feature of linear-dispersion theory: Analysis and experimental observations,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2499–2502 (1990).
  5. S. J. D. Phoenix and P. L. Knight, “Establishment of an entangled atom-field state in the Jaynes-Cummings model,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 44, 6023–6029 (1991).
  6. J. H. Eberly, N. B. Narozhny, and J. J. Sanchez-Mondragon, “Periodic Spontaneous Collapse and Revival in a Simple Quantum Model,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 44, 1323–1326 (1980).
  7. H.-I. Yoo and J. Eberly, “Dynamical theory of an atom with two or three levels interacting with quantized cavity fields,” \JournalTitlePhysics Reports 118, 239–337 (1985).
  8. M. Tavis and F. W. Cummings, “Exact Solution for an N𝑁Nitalic_N-Molecule—Radiation-Field Hamiltonian,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. 170, 379–384 (1968).
  9. I. I. Rabi, “On the Process of Space Quantization,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. 49, 324–328 (1936).
  10. D. Braak, “Integrability of the Rabi Model,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 107, 100401 (2011).
  11. T. Yu and J. H. Eberly, “Finite-Time Disentanglement Via Spontaneous Emission,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 93, 140404 (2004).
  12. T. Yu and J. H. Eberly, “Sudden Death of Entanglement,” \JournalTitleScience 323, 598–601 (2009).
  13. M. Yönaç, T. Yu, and J. H. Eberly, “Sudden death of entanglement of two Jaynes-Cummings atoms,” \JournalTitleJournal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 39, S621 (2006).
  14. I. P. Vadeiko, G. P. Miroshnichenko, A. V. Rybin, and J. Timonen, “Algebraic approach to the Tavis-Cummings problem,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 67, 053808 (2003).
  15. D. Bonatsos, C. Daskaloyannis, and G. A. Lalazissis, “Unification of Jaynes-Cummings models,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 47, 3448–3451 (1993).
  16. S. Singh, “Field statistics in some generalized Jaynes-Cummings models,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 25, 3206–3216 (1982).
  17. F. Diedrich, J. Krause, G. Rempe, et al., “Laser experiments with single atoms as a test of basic physics,” \JournalTitleIEEE Journal of Quantum Electronics 24, 1314–1319 (1988).
  18. G. Rempe, H. Walther, and N. Klein, “Observation of quantum collapse and revival in a one-atom maser,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 58, 353–356 (1987).
  19. D. Meschede, H. Walther, and G. Müller, “One-Atom Maser,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 54, 551–554 (1985).
  20. M. Brune, F. Schmidt-Kaler, A. Maali, et al., “Quantum Rabi Oscillation: A Direct Test of Field Quantization in a Cavity,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 76, 1800–1803 (1996).
  21. W. T. Strunz, L. Diósi, and N. Gisin, “Open System Dynamics with Non-Markovian Quantum Trajectories,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1801–1805 (1999).
  22. L. Diósi, N. Gisin, and W. T. Strunz, “Non-Markovian quantum state diffusion,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 58, 1699–1712 (1998).
  23. B. Bellomo, R. Lo Franco, and G. Compagno, “Non-Markovian Effects on the Dynamics of Entanglement,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 99, 160502 (2007).
  24. A. J. McKane, H. C. Luckock, and A. J. Bray, “Path integrals and non-Markov processes. I. General formalism,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 41, 644–656 (1990).
  25. P. Hänggi, “Path integral solutions for non-Markovian processes,” \JournalTitleZeitschrift für Physik B Condensed Matter 75, 275–281 (1989).
  26. J. Piilo, S. Maniscalco, K. Härkönen, and K.-A. Suominen, “Non-Markovian Quantum Jumps,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 100, 180402 (2008).
  27. W. T. Strunz and T. Yu, “Convolutionless Non-Markovian master equations and quantum trajectories: Brownian motion,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 69, 052115 (2004).
  28. J. Jing, X. Zhao, J. Q. You, and T. Yu, “Time-local quantum-state-diffusion equation for multilevel quantum systems,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 85, 042106 (2012).
  29. J. Jing and T. Yu, “Non-Markovian Relaxation of a Three-Level System: Quantum Trajectory Approach,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 105, 240403 (2010).
  30. T. Yu, L. Diósi, N. Gisin, and W. T. Strunz, “Non-Markovian quantum-state diffusion: Perturbation approach,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 60, 91–103 (1999).
  31. D.-W. Luo, C.-H. Lam, L.-A. Wu, et al., “Higher-order solutions to non-Markovian quantum dynamics via a hierarchical functional derivative,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 92, 022119 (2015).
  32. V. Vedral, “Quantum entanglement,” \JournalTitleNature Physics 10, 256–258 (2014).
  33. R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, “Quantum entanglement,” \JournalTitleRev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865–942 (2009).
  34. A. Streltsov, G. Adesso, and M. B. Plenio, “Colloquium: Quantum coherence as a resource,” \JournalTitleRev. Mod. Phys. 89, 041003 (2017).
  35. L. Viola and S. Lloyd, “Dynamical suppression of decoherence in two-state quantum systems,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 58, 2733–2744 (1998).
  36. L. Viola, E. Knill, and S. Lloyd, “Dynamical Decoupling of Open Quantum Systems,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2417–2421 (1999).
  37. K. W. Murch, U. Vool, D. Zhou, et al., “Cavity-Assisted Quantum Bath Engineering,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 109, 183602 (2012).
  38. J. F. Poyatos, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, “Quantum Reservoir Engineering with Laser Cooled Trapped Ions,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4728–4731 (1996).
  39. A. Beige, D. Braun, B. Tregenna, and P. L. Knight, “Quantum Computing Using Dissipation to Remain in a Decoherence-Free Subspace,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1762–1765 (2000).
  40. D. A. Lidar, I. L. Chuang, and K. B. Whaley, “Decoherence-Free Subspaces for Quantum Computation,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2594–2597 (1998).
  41. J. Jing, L.-A. Wu, M. Byrd, et al., “Nonperturbative Leakage Elimination Operators and Control of a Three-Level System,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 114, 190502 (2015).
  42. S. Zheng, Q. He, M. S. Byrd, and L.-A. Wu, “Nonperturbative leakage elimination for a logical qubit encoded in a mechanical oscillator,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Res. 2, 033378 (2020).
  43. D. Petz, “Sufficient subalgebras and the relative entropy of states of a von Neumann algebra,” \JournalTitleCommunications in Mathematical Physics 105, 123–131 (1986).
  44. D. Petz, “Sufficiency of channels over von Neumann algebras,” \JournalTitleThe Quarterly Journal of Mathematics 39, 97–108 (1988).
  45. P. Hausladen and W. K. Wootters, “A ‘Pretty Good’ Measurement for Distinguishing Quantum States,” \JournalTitleJournal of Modern Optics 41, 2385–2390 (1994).
  46. A. Gilyén, S. Lloyd, I. Marvian, et al., “Quantum Algorithm for Petz Recovery Channels and Pretty Good Measurements,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 128, 220502 (2022).
  47. H. K. Mishra, L. Lami, P. Mandayam, and M. M. Wilde, “Pretty good measurement for bosonic Gaussian ensembles,” (2023).
  48. H. Barnum and E. Knill, “Reversing quantum dynamics with near-optimal quantum and classical fidelity,” \JournalTitleJournal of Mathematical Physics 43, 2097–2106 (2002).
  49. A. M. Alhambra and M. P. Woods, “Dynamical maps, quantum detailed balance, and the Petz recovery map,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 96, 022118 (2017).
  50. H. Kwon, R. Mukherjee, and M. S. Kim, “Reversing Lindblad Dynamics via Continuous Petz Recovery Map,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 128, 020403 (2022).
  51. P. Taranto, F. A. Pollock, and K. Modi, “Non-Markovian memory strength bounds quantum process recoverability,” \JournalTitlenpj Quantum Information 7, 149 (2021).
  52. L. Lautenbacher, F. de Melo, and N. K. Bernardes, “Approximating invertible maps by recovery channels: Optimality and an application to non-Markovian dynamics,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 105, 042421 (2022).
  53. T. Ma, Y. Chen, T. Chen, et al., “Crossover between non-Markovian and Markovian dynamics induced by a hierarchical environment,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 90, 042108 (2014).
  54. H.-P. Breuer, “Foundations and measures of quantum non-Markovianity,” \JournalTitleJournal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 45, 154001 (2012).
  55. A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, “Quantum non-Markovianity: characterization, quantification and detection,” \JournalTitleRep. Prog. Phys. 77, 094001 (2014).
  56. X.-M. Lu, X. Wang, and C. P. Sun, “Quantum Fisher information flow and non-Markovian processes of open systems,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 82, 042103 (2010).
  57. D. Chruściński, A. Rivas, and E. Størmer, “Divisibility and Information Flow Notions of Quantum Markovianity for Noninvertible Dynamical Maps,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 121, 080407 (2018).
  58. W. Zhong, Z. Sun, J. Ma, et al., “Fisher information under decoherence in Bloch representation,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 87, 022337 (2013).
  59. D. Suess, A. Eisfeld, and W. T. Strunz, “Hierarchy of Stochastic Pure States for Open Quantum System Dynamics,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 113, 150403 (2014).
  60. E. A. Novikov, “Functionals and the random-force method in turbulence theory,” \JournalTitleSoviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 20, 1290–1294 (1965).
  61. R. Jozsa, “Fidelity for Mixed Quantum States,” \JournalTitleJournal of Modern Optics 41, 2315–2323 (1994).
  62. G. Lindblad, “On the generators of quantum dynamical semigroups,” \JournalTitleComm. Math. Phys. 48, 119–130 (1976).
  63. B. Vacchini, A. Smirne, E.-M. Laine, et al., “Markovianity and non-Markovianity in quantum and classical systems,” \JournalTitleNew Journal of Physics 13, 093004 (2011).
  64. H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and B. Vacchini, “Colloquium: Non-Markovian dynamics in open quantum systems,” \JournalTitleRev. Mod. Phys. 88, 021002 (2016).
  65. A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, “Entanglement and Non-Markovianity of Quantum Evolutions,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 105, 050403 (2010).
  66. C. Sutherland, T. A. Brun, and D. A. Lidar, “Non-Markovianity of the post-Markovian master equation,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 98, 042119 (2018).
  67. F. F. Fanchini, G. Karpat, B. Çakmak, et al., “Non-Markovianity through Accessible Information,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 112, 210402 (2014).
  68. L. Li, M. J. Hall, and H. M. Wiseman, “Concepts of quantum non-Markovianity: A hierarchy,” \JournalTitlePhysics Reports 759, 1–51 (2018).
  69. S. Milz, M. S. Kim, F. A. Pollock, and K. Modi, “Completely Positive Divisibility Does Not Mean Markovianity,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. Lett. 123, 040401 (2019).
  70. S. Wißmann, H.-P. Breuer, and B. Vacchini, “Generalized trace-distance measure connecting quantum and classical non-Markovianity,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 92, 042108 (2015).
  71. A. Smirne, H.-P. Breuer, J. Piilo, and B. Vacchini, “Initial correlations in open-systems dynamics: The Jaynes-Cummings model,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 82, 062114 (2010).
  72. D. Petz and C. Ghinea, “Introduction to quantum Fisher information,” in Quantum probability and related topics, (World Scientific, 2011), pp. 261–281.
  73. C. W. Helstrom, “Quantum detection and estimation theory,” \JournalTitleJournal of Statistical Physics 1, 231–252 (1969).
  74. J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, “Quantum Fisher information matrix and multiparameter estimation,” \JournalTitleJournal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 53, 023001 (2019).
  75. R. Gutiérrez-Jáuregui and H. J. Carmichael, “Dissipative quantum phase transitions of light in a generalized Jaynes-Cummings-Rabi model,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 98, 023804 (2018).
  76. M. Scala, B. Militello, A. Messina, et al., “Microscopic derivation of the Jaynes-Cummings model with cavity losses,” \JournalTitlePhys. Rev. A 75, 013811 (2007).
Citations (1)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up to Summarize

Paper to Video (Beta)

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up to Generate

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Generate Now

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Generate Now

Authors (2)

  1. Da-Wei Luo 
  2. Ting Yu 

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

User Circle Single Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.

User Circle Single Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Sign Up for Free