Phase Control of Spontaneous Emission - Semantic Scholar

VOLUME 81, NUMBER 2

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

13 JULY 1998

Phase Control of Spontaneous Emission E. Paspalakis and P. L. Knight Optics Section, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial College, London SW7 2BZ, United Kingdom (Received 17 November 1997) We use the phase difference of two lasers with equal frequencies for the control of spontaneous emission in a four-level system. Effects such as extreme spectral narrowing and selective and total cancellation of fluorescence decay are shown as the relative phase is varied. [S0031-9007(98)06540-5] PACS numbers: 32.80.Qk, 32.50. + d

The control of spontaneous emission has attracted much attention for many years. For atoms in free space, atomic coherence and quantum interference are the basic phenomena for controlling spontaneous emission [1– 3]; these have potential applications to lasing without inversion [4–10]. Zhu, Scully, and co-workers have studied the quenching of spontaneous emission using an open V-type atom [11], and gave an experimental verification of their predictions [12]. Here, we study the potential for coherent control in a driven quantum system, using the relative phase between two lasers with equal frequencies va ­ vb ­ v which couple the ground state with the two excited states (see Fig. 1). These laser fields may be distinguished by their different transition characteristics [13,14]. In this way we can obtain efficient control, spectral narrowing, and quenching of spontaneous emission even if we have nontrapping conditions that do not allow control when a single laser is used. The use of two lasers makes the system independent of restrictions involving matrix elements to satisfy the trapping condition of Ref. [11]. Phase dependent effects in spontaneous emission spectra were recently studied in a L-type atom [15] and for an atom near the edge of a photonic band gap [16]. The effects of strong bichromatic excitation in the fluorescence spectrum from a two-level atom have also been studied [17,18]. We use here the wave function approach, and assume that the atom is excited to a superposition of states j0l, j1l, j2l. We apply the Weisskopf-Wigner theory [2,19] and obtain the resulting equations for the probability amplitudes (h¯ ­ 1), i cÙ 0 std ­ V01 c1 std 1 V02 c2 std , √ ! G1 i cÙ 1 std ­ V10 c0 std 1 d1 2 i c1 std 2 p G1 G2 2 ip c2 std , 2 p G1 G2 i cÙ 2 std ­ V20 c0 std 2 ip c1 std 2 ! √ G2 c2 std , 1 d2 2 i 2

i cÙ k std ­ dk ck std 2 igk1 c1 std 2 igk2 c2 std . p Vm0

a idf V0m e

(4)

b V0m

l ­ 1 with Vnm the Here, V0m ­ Rabi frequency for the jnl ! jml transition due to laser l, which we assume to be real and df ­ fa 2 fb is the phase difference of the two lasers, which is used to control the system. Also, dm ­ vm 2 v0 2 v is the detuning from state jml sm ­ 1, 2d where the radiative shifts have been omitted, dk ­ vk 2 v 1 v3 2 v0 , and Gm ­ 2pjgkm j2 Dsvm3 d is the spontaneous decay rate of state jml sm ­ 1, 2d, where k denotes both the momentum vector and the polarization of the emitted photon. Dsvm3 d denotes the mode density at frequency vm3 sm ­ 1, 2d; p denotes the alignment of the two dipole moment matrix $ 13 ? m $ 32 yjm $ 13 j jm $ 32 j), and plays an $ nm (p ; m elements m important role in spontaneous emission cancellation [11]. For the (long time) spontaneous emission spectrum Ssdk d we calculate ck st ! `d, as Ssdk d ­ Gm jck st ! `dj2 y2pjgkm j2 sm ­ 1, 2d. We use the Laplace transform method [19] and the final value theorem to obtain

ck st ! `d ­

2gk1 Ksdk d 2 gk2 Lsdk d , Dsdk d

(5)

where

(1)

(2)

(3)

0031-9007y98y81(2)y293(4)$15.00

FIG. 1. The system under consideration. The ground state j0l is coupled to the excited states j1l, j2l by two lasers of equal frequencies. The excited states decay solely to a common state j3l.

© 1998 The American Physical Society

293

VOLUME 81, NUMBER 2

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

13 JULY 1998

! # ! # " √ p G2 G2 G1 G2 2 iV20 p 1 ic1 s0d dk dk 2 d2 1 i 2 jV02 j2 Ksdk d ­ ic0 s0d V10 dk 2 d2 1 i 2 2 2 # " p G1 G2 2 ic2 s0d idk p 2 V10 V02 , 2 # # " " √ ! p p G1 G1 G2 G1 G2 2 ic1 s0d idk p 2 iV10 p 2 V01 V20 Lsdk d ­ ic0 s0d V20 dk 2 d1 1 i 2 2 2 # ! " √ G1 2 jV01 j2 , 1 ic2 s0d dk dk 2 d1 1 i 2 !√ ! "√ # G1 G2 2 dk 2 d2 1 i 1 p G1 G2 y4 Dsdk d ­ dk dk 2 d1 1 i 2 2 ! !# √ √ " p G2 G1 G1 G2 2 2 1 jV02 j dk 2 d1 1 i 1 ip 2 jV01 j dk 2 d2 1 i fV10 V02 1 V01 V20 g . 2 2 2 √

a 2 b 2 a b G2 sV01 d 1 G1 sV02 d 2 2pG1 G2 V01 V02 cosfdfg ­ 0 .

(10) These are obtained by setting the constant part of the characteristic equation to zero. From Eq. (10) we obtain p p a b G2 V01 ­ 6 G1 V02 . (11) p cosfdfg ­ 61, The second part of Eq. (11) can be satisfied by p approprip ately the laser intensities such that Ia y Ib ­ p choosing p p l 6 G1 A02 y G2 A01 , as Vnm ; Anm Il , where Il is the intensity of laser vl (or its generalization for a multiphoton transition). The first part of Eq. (11) is both p and phase dependent and is satisfied only if p ­ 61 and df ­ 0, p. Substituting Eq. (11) into Eq. (9), with the addition that d2 2 d1 ­ v21 ­ v2 2 v1 we find that, if Eq. (11) is satisfied, the zero root of the characteristic equation occurs when the lasers are tuned such that d1 ­ 2G1 v21 ysG1 1 G2 d and d2 ­ G2 v21 ysG1 1 G2 d. This condition, Eq. (11), will lead to steady state population trapping in the system. If the system is initially in the ground state [a0 s0d ­ 1, a1 s0d ­ a2 s0d ­ 0] then the asymptotic populations as t ! ` are given by 4 2 2 2 ysv21 1 8V 2 d2 , P1 ­ P2 ­ 4V 2 v21 ysv21 1 P0 ­ v21 a b 8V 2 d2 , when V01 ­ V02 ­ V, G1 ­ G2 . Related results have been obtained with a single laser excitation [11]; however, in that case Eq. (11) is more restrictive since 294

(7)

(8)

(b)

(a) 6

0.2

Spectrum

(9)

0.15 0.1 0.05

5 4 3 2 1

0 -4

-2

0

2

Detuning

0

4

-4

-2

(c)

0

2

4

2

4

Detuning (d)

0.8

Spectrum

b 2 a 2 d 1 d2 sV01 d ­ 0, d1 sV02

(6)

it does not depend on the laser intensity. In Fig. 2 we show the spontaneous emission spectrum of an atom initially in the ground state for four different phase values with atomic parameters that satisfy Eq. (11). The importance of the relative phase in the control of spontaneous emission is now obvious, as the spectrum is clearly double peaked for df ­ 0, but for df ­ py10 a very narrow central peak appears. Increasing the phase difference df, the spectrum becomes clearly triple peaked for df ­ py2. However, for df ­ p the central peak is suppressed. The cancellation of the central peak for df ­ 0 is an effect of quantum interference [11]. However, in this case, by changing the phase difference df, we can produce extreme spectral narrowing for phases around df ­ 0 and strong suppression of the central peak for df ­ p. The extreme narrowing of the central peak, as observed in Fig. 2(b), occurs for parameters which slightly differ from those which satisfy the trapping condition (11). This is associated with the slow decay of

Spectrum

Initially, we suppose laser va drives only the j0l $ j1l transition and laser vb drives only the j0l $ j2l b a transition, so that V01 ­ V02 ­ 0. We are interested in conditions that will trap population in the system. The usual approach is to diagonalize the Hamiltonian of Eqs. (1)–(3) and search for positive (or zero) solutions of its characteristic equation fDsld ­ 0g. There are two distinct conditions for population trapping. The first gives a zero root to the characteristic equation and occurs if

Spectrum

"

0.3 0.2 0.1

0.6 0.4 0.2

0

0 -4

-2

0

2

Detuning

4

-4

-2

0

Detuning

FIG. 2. The spontaneous emission spectra Ssdk d (in arbitrary a b a b units) for V10 ­ V20 ­ G2 ­ G1 , V20 ­ V10 ­ 0, v21 ­ 2G1 , d1 ­ 2d2 ­ 2G1 , and p ­ 1. In (a) df ­ 0, ( b) df ­ 0.1p, (c) df ­ 0.5p, and (d ) df ­ p.

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

and can be byp choosing p the laser intensities p satisfied p such that Ia y Ib ­ 7 G2 A02 y G1 A01 . In Fig. 3 we present the fluorescence spectra for atomic parameters that satisfy Eq. (12) and the atom initially in the ground state. For these parameters, the spectrum is double peaked for df ­ 0, but for df ­ py2 a zero value appears for dk ­ 0. Furthermore, the system shows extreme linewidth narrowing for phases around p, and complete spontaneous emission cancellation for every vacuum mode due to total population trapping for df ­ p. In Fig. 3(c) the widths of the two dressed states responsible for the two side peaks are found to be the same and scale as sp 2 dfd2 when df ø p which explains the narrowing. From Eqs. (5)–(8) with p ­ 1 and the atom initially in the ground state we can easily obtain an analytical formula for ck st ! `d. Then, in the nondegenerate casep if df ­ 0 the value for dk ­ p spectrum phas a azero p b a b sd1 G2 V02 1 d2 G1 V01 dys G1 V01 1 G2 V02 d and spontaneous emission is completely cancelled for this specific vacuum mode. An exception is a b ­ V02 , the case when d2 ­ 2d1 ­ v21 y2, V01 and G1 ­ G2 , where the dk term factors from both numerator and denominator and cancels [see Fig.p2(a)]. If now p pthe zero appears at dk ­ p df ­ p b a b a sd G V 2 d G V dys G V 2 G V 2 02 1 01 d (for p 1 2b 02 p 2 a 1 01 G2 V02 fi G1 V01 ), with the exception when a b d2 ­ 2d1 ­ v21 y2, V01 ­ 2V02 , and G1 ­ G2 . In the degenerate case d1 ­ d2 ­ d, a zero always appears in the spectrum at dk ­ d, independent of the values of the Rabi frequencies, decay rates, and relative phase. An example of this is Fig. 3(b) where the zero

13 JULY 1998 (b)

(a) 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0

0.8

Spectrum

Spectrum

0.6 0.4 0.2

-4

-2

20

0

2

Detuning (c)

0

4

-4

-2

-4

-2

0

2

4

0

2

4

Detuning (d)

0.4

Spectrum

one of the dressed states of the atom, as analyzed by Zhou and Swain in the context of resonance fluorescence using a closed V-type atom [9]. In the dressed state picture the scheme of Fig. 1 can be seen as being three different dressed states decaying to state j3l. The widths of these dressed states depend crucially on the relative phase df. In particular, for Fig. 2(b) the width of the dressed state which is responsible for the central peak scales as sdfd2 in the regime of df ø 0, a result that is obtained after making a Taylor expansion about df ­ 0, explaining the extreme narrowing observed. In the above case the two excited states were well separated sv21 fi 0d. In the case that the upper states are degenerate sv21 ­ 0d there is a second, new, condition for population trapping. This condition will produce two real roots for the characteristic equation of the Hamiltonian and lead the system to total population trapping, if the atom is initially in the ground state. In this case the atom will oscillate in a superposition of states j0l, j1l, j2l totally immune to any decay to state j3l due to total destructive quantum interference between the two transition paths sj0l v!a j1l ! j3ld and sj0l v!b j2l ! j3ld. This condition is p p a b p cosfdfg ­ 61, G1 V01 ­ 7 G2 V02 , (12)

Spectrum

VOLUME 81, NUMBER 2

15 10

0.2 0

-0.2

5

-0.4 0 -4

-2

0

2

Detuning

4

Detuning

FIG. 3. The same as Fig. 2 but with d1 ­ d2 ­ v21 ­ 0. In (a) df ­ 0, (b) df ­ 0.5p, (c) df ­ 0.9p, and (d ) df ­ p.

appears at dk ­ 0. An exception is the case when a b V01 ­ V02 and G1 ­ G2 [see Fig. 3(a)]. Let us now suppose that each of the lasers can couple both of the excited states. Trapping conditions similar to Eqs. (11) and (12) can be derived but this will be discussed elsewhere. In Fig. 4 we show the phase dependence of the spontaneous emission spectrum for two values of p fi 1, and the system initially in the ground state. The parameters chosen lead to steady state population trapping in the system if df ­ 0 and p ­ 1 [extension of condition Eq. (11)]. The behavior of the atom is similar in both cases as the spectrum is triple peaked for df ­ 0 but as the phase increases towards p the central peak dominates and the spectrum becomes single peaked. If a single laser is used for the excitation [11], for p ­ 0 (orthogonal matrix elements) no cancellation of spontaneous emission is observed. However, in this case the two side peaks for df ­ 0 disappear towards df ­ p. Obviously, in the case when a b a b ­ V01 , V02 ­ V02 , and df ­ p there is no net V01 field applied to the atom. Then, the atom will remain in the ground state if it is initially in the ground state or will behave as Agarwal [2] and others [3,20] described if it is initially in a superposition of the two excited states. Furthermore, in Fig. 5 we plot the spontaneous emission spectrum for arbitrary atomic parameters and p ­ 1 for two different values of df. The phase effect is also obvious here. The zeros in

a b FIG. 4. Ssdk d as a function of df for V10 ­ V20 ­ G2 ­ a b G1 , V20 ­ V10 ­ 0.75G1 , v21 ­ 2G1 , and d1 ­ 2d2 ­ 2G1 . In (a) p ­ 0.5 and (b) p ­ 0.

295

VOLUME 81, NUMBER 2

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS (b)

(a) 8

Spectrum

Spectrum

0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1

4 2

0.05 0 -10

6

-5

0

Detuning

5

10

0 -10

-5

0

Detuning

5

10

a FIG. 5. The same as Fig. 5 for G2 ­ 2G1 , V10 ­ 1.5G1 , b a b V20 ­ G1 , V20 ­ 1.75G1 , V10 ­ 2G1 , v21 ­ 2G1 , d1 ­ 0, d2 ­ 2G1 , and p ­ 1. In (a) df ­ 0 and ( b) df ­ p.

the spectra appear at values of similar form to those we have predicted above: e.g., if df ­ p 0 the zero p a b a 1 V d 1 d appears pat dk ­ fd1 G2 sV02 2 G1 sV01 1 02 p b a b a b as V01 dgyf G1 sV01 1 V01 d 1 G2 sV02 1 V02 dg, shown in Fig. 5(a). In summary, we have demonstrated that spontaneous emission from an open V-type atom can be controlled via the phase difference of the two lasers used for the excitation. Effects such as partial cancellation, extreme linewidth narrowing, and complete cancellation of the fluorescence of such an atom have been predicted, even in nontrapping conditions. For an experimental realization of this proposal, the successful experiment of Xia et al. [12] in sodium dimers should be modified only by the addition of another laser which will couple the system with a four-photon transition. The phase of the two commensurate frequencies can be varied using standard phase control techniques [13]. We should also note that, as Fig. 5 indicates, this scheme is quite robust and large modification of spontaneous emission can be achieved even in the case that the atomic and laser parameters do not satisfy any of the population trapping conditions. This work was funded in part by the U.K. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the European Community.

[1] G. Alzetta et al., Nuovo Cimento Soc. Ital. Fis. 36B, 5 (1974); E. Arimondo, in Progress in Optics, edited by E. Wolf (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1996), Vol. XXXV, p. 257. [2] G. S. Agarwal, Quantum Optics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1974).

296

13 JULY 1998

[3] H. R. Gray et al., Opt. Lett. 6, 218 (1978); P. L. Knight, J. Phys. B 12, 3297 (1979); D. A. Cardimona et al., J. Phys. B 15, 55 (1982); D. Agassi, Phys. Rev. A 30, 2449 (1984). [4] O. Kocharovskaya and Ya. I. Khanin, JETP Lett. 48, 630 (1988); S. E. Harris, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 1033 (1989); M. O. Scully et al., ibid. 62, 2813 (1989); A. Imamo¯glu, Phys. Rev. A 40, 2835 (1989); S. E. Harris and J. J. Macklin, ibid. 40, 4135 (1989); G. S. Agarwal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 980 (1991); M. Fleischhauer et al., Opt. Commun. 94, 599 (1992); J. Javanainen, Europhys. Lett. 17, 407 (1992); C. H. Keitel et al., Phys. Rev. A 48, 3196 (1993). [5] L. M. Narducci et al., Phys. Rev. A 42, 1630 (1990); D. J. Gauthier et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 2460 (1991); C. H. Keitel et al., Appl. Phys. B 60, S153 (1995). [6] G. C. Hegerfeldt and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. A 46, 373 (1992); 47, 2186 (1993). [7] S. Schiemann et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3637 (1993); J. Martin et al., Phys. Rev. A 54, 1556 (1996). [8] S.-Y. Zhu et al., Phys. Rev. A 52, 4791 (1995). [9] P. Zhou and S. Swain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3995 (1996); Phys. Rev. A 56, 3011 (1997). [10] G. S. Agarwal, Phys. Rev. A 54, R3734 (1996); 55, 2457 (1997). [11] S.-Y. Zhu and M. O. Scully, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 388 (1996); H. Huang et al., Phys. Rev. A 55, 744 (1997); H. Lee et al., ibid. 55, 4454 (1997). [12] H.-R. Xia et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1032 (1996). [13] C. Chen and D. S. Elliott, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1737 (1990); L. Zhu et al., Science 270, 77 (1995). [14] M. Shapiro et al., Chem. Phys. Lett. 149, 451 (1988); T. Nakajima and P. Lambropoulos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1081 (1993); M. Protopapas and P. L. Knight, J. Phys. B 28, 4459 (1995). [15] M. A. G. Martinez et al., Phys. Rev. A 55, 4483 (1997). [16] T. Quang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 5238 (1997). [17] Q. Wu et al., Phys. Rev. A 49, R1519 (1994); 50, 1474 (1994). [18] Z. Ficek and H. S. Freedhoff, Phys. Rev. A 48, 3092 (1993); H. S. Freedhoff and Z. Ficek, ibid. 55, 1234 (1997). [19] S. M. Barnett and P. M. Radmore, Methods in Theoretical Quantum Optics (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997). [20] S.-Y. Zhu et al., Phys. Rev. A 52, 710 (1995); P. Zhou and S. Swain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 832 (1997).