Single-Atom Cavity QED and Opto-Micromechanics
M. Wallquist, K. Hammerer, P. Zoller
Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Innsbruck,
and Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Communication,
Austrian Academy of Sciences, Technikerstrasse 25, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria and
Norman Bridge Laboratory of Physics 12-33, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125 USA
C. Genes
Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Innsbruck,
and Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Communication,
Austrian Academy of Sciences, Technikerstrasse 25, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria
M. Ludwig, F. Marquardt
arXiv:0912.4424v1 [quant-ph] 22 Dec 2009
Department of Physics, Center for NanoScience,
and Arnold Sommerfeld Center for Theoretical Physics,
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Theresienstr. 37, D-80333 Munich, Germany
P. Treutlein
Max-Planck-Institute of Quantum Optics and Department of Physics,
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Schellingstr. 4, D-80799 Munich, Germany
J. Ye
JILA, National Institute of Standards and Technology and University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0440 USA and
Norman Bridge Laboratory of Physics 12-33, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125 USA
H. J. Kimble
Norman Bridge Laboratory of Physics 12-33, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125 USA
In a recent publication [1] we have shown the possibility to achieve strong coupling of the quantized
motion of a micron-sized mechanical system to the motion of a single trapped atom. In the proposed
setup the coherent coupling between a SiN membrane and a single atom is mediated by the field
of a high finesse cavity, and can be much larger than the relevant decoherence rates. This makes
the well-developed tools of CQED (cavity quantum electrodynamics) with single atoms available in
the realm of cavity optomechanics. In this paper we elaborate on this scheme and provide detailed
derivations and technical comments. Moreover, we give numerical as well as analytical results for a
number of possible applications for transfer of squeezed or Fock states from atom to membrane as
well as entanglement generation, taking full account of dissipation. In the limit of strong-coupling
the preparation and verification of non-classical states of a mesoscopic mechanical system is within
reach.
PACS numbers:
I.
INTRODUCTION
The quantum regime of optomechanical systems [2, 3]
– in particular micro or nanomechanical oscillators coupled to the optical field in a cavity – has recently received
considerable attention, mainly owing to the experimental progress in quantum ground state cooling [4, 5] and
strong coupling dynamics [6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. Combining
opto-micromechanics with low-loss dielectric membranes
[11, 12] on the one hand, with cavity QED [13] with single or many atoms on the other hand, a hybrid system
emerges that can be a testbed for experiments on coherent dynamics between microscopic (single atom or ensemble of atoms) and macroscopic (micro-mechanical oscillator) systems. Given the already well-developed toolbox
for the manipulation of atomic states such an interface
can be used for indirect preparation and manipulation
of quantum states of mesoscopic mechanical oscillators.
Moreover, in view of applications such as quantum information processing, it seems timely to ask for quantum
hybrid systems which combine the advantages of physically different systems, each with a unique set of properties and capabilities, in a compatible experimental setup.
A hybrid atomic-mechanical system would be one such
example.
A few recent theoretical proposals advance the possibility of coupling ensembles of atoms to mechanical resonators. Most generally the interaction is mediated by a
light field that couples the mechanical resonator via the
radiation pressure effect to either internal levels of the
atoms [14, 15, 16], or to their motional degrees of freedom
[17], which can result e.g. in cooling of the mechanical
resonator via a bath of atoms [18]. Also a direct coupling
has been proposed where a magnetic tip mounted on a
2
II.
FIG. 1: Dynamic intracavity field provides strong interface
between the motion of a single trapped atom and the vibrations of a micron-sized membrane.
cantilever provides a Zeeman coupling to the atomic spin
of the Bose-condensed [19] or ultracold [20] atoms. A
number of proposals discuss the possibility to couple the
motion of a microresonator to single two level systems,
realized e.g. in a quantum dot [21], in a nitrogen-vacancy
impurity in diamond [22], or in superconducting circuits
such as a Cooper-pair box [23, 24], a SQUID [25, 26] or
a flux qubit [27].
The direct coupling of the motion of a single microscopic body such as a single atom to a macroscopic mechanical oscillator is considerably more challenging. Typically, the interaction strength is p
governed by a small intrinsic parameter which scales as m/M ∼ 10−7 − 10−4 ,
where m and M are the masses of the atom and the mechanical oscillator. This is true e.g in [28] where the
motion of an ion in a trap is coupled to the vibrations of
nano-electrodes providing the trap potential. An alternative route is however possible, where an indirect cavitymediated coupling circumvents the limitations imposed
by the small mass ratio, as presented in our recent proposal [1]. Thereby a strong coupling is achievable between a single trapped atom and the motion of a membrane, where the coupling strength can exceed the dissipative rates by a factor of ten for present or near future
experimental parameters.
In this article we elaborate on the mechanism described
in our previous letter [1], and provide more details and
applications of the scheme. The paper is structured as
follows. Section II presents an overview and qualitative
picture of our results. In Sec. III the reduced master
equation describing the cavity-mediated membrane-atom
interaction is derived in detail, and results are presented
in particular for the dispersive regime. Sec. IV specializes
on the regime of strong membrane-atom coupling, and
examples of state transfer are presented. In addition,
we describe how to produce entanglement between atom
and membrane by modulating the input laser intensity
in time, leading to a two-mode squeezing Hamiltonian.
Sec. V discusses technical details regarding the specific
setup that we have in mind, and finally we discuss the
result and conclude in Sec. VI. Mathematical details of
the derivation are presented in Appendices.
OVERVIEW
In the setup proposed in [1], the recent development
within micromechanics with membranes in optical cavities [11] is combined with single trapped atom cavity
QED [13]. As shown in Fig. 1, we consider an optomechanical system where a micron-sized dielectric membrane is placed in a laser driven high-finesse cavity and
coupled through radiation pressure to the cavity field
quadratures, with the coupling strength controlled by
the laser power through the intracavity amplitude. In
this setup, the membrane vibration manifests itself as
a dynamic detuning of the driven cavity modes. For a
cavity mode driven by a laser detuned from the cavity
resonance this dynamic detuning translates into a dynamic intracavity field intensity. If now a single atom is
trapped in the optical dipole potential provided by the
cavity field, the membrane vibration couples via the dynamics of the optical trap to the motion of the atom,
and vice versa. This coupling is strongly enhanced by a
large steady-state field amplitude and the cavity finesse,
which is a key ingredient in achieving the strong coupling
regime.
A.
Effective Master Equation and Strong Coupling
The focus of our analysis is a configuration where the
cavity field serves merely as a quantum bus and can be
effectively eliminated from the dynamics, giving rise to a
coupled oscillator dynamics for the reduced system comprising the membrane and the atom [h̄ = 1],
H = ωm a†m am + ωat a†at aat − G(am + a†m )(aat + a†at ). (1)
In this Hamiltonian the first and second terms describe
the bare micromechanical oscillator and harmonic motion
of the trapped atom, respectively, with am (aat ) being the
mechanical (atomic motion) annihilation operator. ωm
and ωat are the respective oscillation frequencies. The
linear form of this interaction would provide a quantum
interface for coherent transfer of quantum states between
the mechanical oscillator and the atom, opening the door
to coherent manipulation, preparation and measurement
of micromechanical objects via well-developed tools of
atomic physics, as will be detailed in Sec. IV.
However, the cavity mediated, coherent dynamics will
compete with a number of dissipative processes, such that
the full dynamics will be described by a master equation,
ρ̇ = −i[H, ρ] + Lm (ρ) + Lat (ρ) + Lc (ρ).
(2)
The three Liouvillian terms describe the respective
sources of dissipation, with Lm including the thermal
heating of the membrane vibration and Lat including the
atomic momentum diffusion due to spontaneous emission. Furthermore, a cavity-mediated coupling comes
naturally at the price of cavity-induced decoherence via
photon leakage, Lc . Our goal here is to construct a setup
3
cavity response
(a)
(b)
(c)
FIG. 2: Linear atom-membrane coupling mediated by two
driven cavity modes. (a) One mode is driven on the red
side, the other on the blue side. When the mode frequencies shift due to the membrane vibration (dashed line), the
cavity response is reduced for one mode and enhanced for
the other. (b) Atom and membrane in equilibrium inside the
driven cavity. (c) When the membrane vibrates around its
equilibrium, the oppositely changing cavity response for the
respective modes shifts the equilibrium of the combined atom
potential.
obeying the master equation (2) with a Hamiltonian term
(1) where the interaction between the atom and the membrane is resonant, i.e. ωm ≃ ωat , and strong, i.e. the
coupling constant G is larger than the relevant decoherence rates Γc , Γm , Γat corresponding to the dissipative
processes described by Lc , Lm , Lat , respectively. In fact,
we will show that for state of the art experimental parameters small ratios (Γc , Γm , Γat )/G ≃ 0.1 are within
reach.
B.
that the response of the cavity field amplitude to the
atomic motion is close to maximal. Similarly, the membrane is positioned at x̄m half-way between a field node
and anti-node, where the linear opto-mechanical coupling
is maximal [11], see Fig. 2(b). The position x̄m is chosen
such that both fields have similar slope (with the same
sign), thus react equally to the membrane vibration. The
displacement of the membrane thus shifts the cavity resonances, as shown by the dashed lines in Fig. 2(a). With
the two lasers being tuned to different sides of their respective resonances, during the membrane displacement
one driving laser will come closer to resonance, with resulting enhanced intracavity field, and the other one farther off resonance with resulting reduced intracavity field.
Consequently we will find that one of the atomic lattice
potentials is getting deeper, the other one getting more
shallow, as seen in Fig. 2(c), thus shifting the atomic
trapping potential. Due to this spatial shift being proportional to xm , the result is an overall ∼ xat xm coupling
as in Eq. (1).
With this construction, the cavity field can provide
the leverage to couple two objects with mass ratio on the
order of 10−13 . Imagine for illustration that we were to
achieve a similar coupling with a mechanical device like
a seesaw: To balance the torques would require a lever
ratio of the same order of magnitude; 15 mm on one side
and the earth-sun distance on the other side.
III.
MODEL FOR CAVITY MEDIATED
MEMBRANE–ATOM COUPLING
After the qualitative description in the last section, we
move on to a detailed presentation of the system consisting of a moving atom and a vibrating membrane coupled
to driven cavity modes. Further, we will show how to
obtain the reduced atom-membrane dynamics described
by Eq. (2) by eliminating the cavity degrees of freedom,
and finally we will identify the regime of strong coupling.
Qualitative Picture of Linear Coupling
A.
A strong linear coupling as described in Eq. (1) is
obtained in a configuration involving two driven cavity
modes of frequencies ωc,1 and ωc,2 , as shown in Fig. 2(a).
The two modes are driven by lasers of frequencies ω1 and
ω2 , respectively, where the first laser is tuned to the red
side of its cavity resonance, ω1 − ωc,1 < 0, and the second
laser is tuned to the blue side, ω2 − ωc,2 > 0. By a proper
choice of cavity modes, and with an internal structure of
the specific atom as shown in Fig. 3, both lasers separately provide red-detuned optical lattices, which combine into a potential where we trap a single atom in one
of the wells, see Fig. 2(b). With wave vectors k1 6= k2
and assuming equally large intracavity amplitudes, the
two lattices have opposite slopes at the equilibrium position x̄at of the atom. Moreover, the particular well is
chosen such that the slopes are close to maximal, such
Detailed Derivation of Effective Master
Equation
1.
Full master equation
Our starting point is the complete master equation for
the density operator W describing the dynamics of cavity
modes, atom and membrane motion,
#
"
X
(3)
Li (W ),
Ẇ = −i[Hsys , W ] + Lm + Lat +
i
with the coherent dynamics contained in the system
Hamiltonian Hsys ,
Hsys = Hmotion + Hc .
4
|2>
|1>
|0>
FIG. 3: Two lasers with frequencies ω1 and ω2 respectively
drive two different internal atomic transitions with detunings
δ.
Here Hmotion takes into account the free harmonic motion
of the membrane, modeled as a single-mode oscillator,
and the kinetic energy of the atom with momentum Pat ,
2
Hmotion = ωm a†m am + Pat
/2m.
(4)
Further, Hc contains the free cavity Hamiltonian, as well
as the effect of the atomic motion and the membrane
vibration on the cavity field. We will postpone its discussion to the next section, where we give the concrete
form of Hc for various setups, and here first address the
remaining terms in the master equation (3).
The Lindblad terms in the master equation (3) describe
dissipation of the membrane (Lm ), the atom (Lat ) and
the cavity modes (Li ) respectively. Here i labels the cavity modes with photon annihilation operator Ai obeying
[Ai , A†j ] = δij . Cavity decay at an amplitude decay rate
κi is described by,
2.
Li (W ) = κi D[Ai ](W ),
where we use the shorthand notation
†
†
D[a](W ) = 2aW a − {a a, W }+
for a Lindblad term with jump operator a.
Lat describes the noise processes acting purely on the
atoms, and could also include controlled dissipation such
as Raman cooling. Here we assume each driven mode
with wave number ki to couple to a different atomic transition |0i ↔ |ii, as sketched in Fig. 3, and focus on the
photon recoil during spontaneous emission from the excited state |ii with rate γi to the common ground-state
|0i. The effect of the photon recoil on the atomic motion
is described by the following Lindblad term,
Lat (W ) =
Z
2
1
1X
γi si
2 i
dϑSi (ϑ)eiϑki xat
−1
− {ui (xat ), W }+
p
ui (xat )W e−iϑki xat
(even) geometric functions whose exact expressions depend on the chosen transitions, and ui (xat ) describe the
spatial intensity profiles of the cavity modes with xat the
atomic position in the cavity. In the next section we
will discuss this term in more detail in the Lamb-Dicke
regime, where it simplifies considerably.
Finally, Lm describes the membrane thermal contact
via the finite temperature suspension, modeled as interaction with a thermal bath,
γm
γm
Lm =
(n̄m + 1)D[am ] +
n̄m D[a†m ],
(6)
2
2
with γm the natural linewidth of the mechanical resonance, and n̄m its mean occupation in thermal equilibrium. The heating rate Γm = γm n̄m ≃ kB T /(h̄Qm ) is
related to the temperature T of the contact and the mechanical quality factor Qm . In addition to the thermal
contact, we include membrane heating due to absorption
of laser power. In fact, a fairly cautious estimate detailed
in section V shows that with standard cryogenic precooling the natural lower limit for the temperature T is set
by light absorption within the membrane.
The model presented so far makes the following assumptions: (1) atomic motion is accurately described by
a 1D model, with the transverse confinement provided by
the Gaussian intensity profile of the cavity fields, (2) internal atomic dynamics can be eliminated, assuming the
laser drive to be sufficiently detuned from the atomic resonances (cf. Fig. 3), and (3) negligible internal coupling
of the chosen membrane mode to vibrations of higher
energy, allowing a single mode approximation.
p
ui (xat )
(5)
where γi is the spontaneous emission rate and si is the
saturation parameter for transition i [33]. Si (ϑ) are
Linearization Around Equilibrium
We will now proceed to discuss the cavity and interaction Hamiltonian Hc . Note first that despite the very
different physical nature of the atom and the membrane,
their effect on the cavity field can be collected in a unified
description, where the cavity modes Ai with frequencies
ωc,i see an index of refraction which depends on the respective positions xat and xm of the atom and the membrane along the cavity axis. This description assumes a
Born-Oppenheimer type approximation, where the slow
atom/membrane motion compared to the optical cavity
frequencies allows a separation of timescales.
Single Mode Setup: We now first want to consider a
setup with only a single driven cavity mode, i = 1, in
order to illustrate a number of conceptual points. The
generalization to the two-mode setup is then immediate.
For a single mode the cavity Hamiltonian Hc in the master equation (3), taken in a frame rotating with the laser
frequency ω (dropping the index i), is
Hc = [ωc (xat , xm ) − ω] A† A + E eiφ A† + h.c. . (7)
The first term is the cavity free energy in the rotating
frame, which depends parametrically on the atom (membrane) position. The second term
p describes the laser
drive of power P , such that E = 2P κ/h̄ωc .
5
The strong drive field creates a steady-state intracavity field with amplitude α ≫ 1, which in turn provides
a trap potential for the atom at a certain equilibrium
point x̄at and mean force on the membrane, displacing
it to a slightly shifted position x̄m . We are interested
in the dynamics of the fluctuations of cavity amplitude
and atom/membrane position around these equilibrium
values. It is therefore convenient to move to a displaced
frame where the dynamics is described by the fluctuations a around the steady-state field,
The term in the second line of Eq. (12) describes
a direct linear atom-membrane coupling of the form
∼ gdirect (aat + a†at )(am + a†m ), where δxat = ℓat (aat + a†at )
and δxm = ℓm (am + a†m ). The zero point fluctuations are
given by,
A = α + a,
and am now refers to the shifted frame for the membrane.
Assuming that the cavity field provides the atomic trap
as discussed above, with a trap frequency close to that
of the membrane vibration, ωat ∼ ωm , it can be checked
easily that the direct coupling will be hampered by the
small mass ratio,
(8)
and the fluctuations δxat and δxm around the equilibrium
atom and membrane positions,
xat = x̄at + δxat ,
xm = x̄m + δxm .
(9)
Along this line, we expand the cavity mode frequency
ωc (xat , xm ) around steady-state,
ωc (xat , xm ) ≃ ωc0 + [∂at ωc ] δxat + [∂m ωc ] δxm
(10)
2
1 2 2
1 2 2
+
∂ ωc δxat +
∂ ωc δxm + ∂at,m
ωc δxat δxm
2 at
2 m
with ∂at and ∂m short for the partial derivative with respect to xat and xm , evaluated at the atom and membrane equilibrium points. When the expansions (8),(9)
and (10) are used in the full master equation (3) with
Hamiltonian (7), the steady state amplitude α and equilibrium positions of atom and membrane can be determined self-consistently by demanding that all terms vanish which are linear in fluctuation operators δxat , δxm
and a. In particular one finds for the intra-cavity amplitude (see [32] for details),
α≃
Eeiφ
.
(ω − ωc0 ) + iκ
(11)
The laser phase φ can be chosen for convenience such as
to make α real.
In the resulting Hamiltonian all linear terms are thus
systematically removed and the dynamics is governed by
an effective Hamiltonian
α2 2 2
α2 2 2
Hc ≃ (ωc0 − ω)a† a +
∂at ωc δxat +
∂m ωc δxm
2
2
2
+ α2 ∂at,m
ωc δxat δxm
α 2 2
+ α [∂m ωc ] δxm (a + a† ) +
∂ ωc δxm (a + a† )
2 m
α 2 2
∂ ωc δxat (a + a† ),
(12)
+
2 at
where terms of fourth order in fluctuations (zeroth order
in cavity amplitude) have been neglected.
In the first line we find the free energy of the cavity and
the optical potential for the atom, providing a harmonic
2
2
trap with a frequency determined by mωat
= α2 ∂at
ωc .
The corresponding term for the membrane provides a
small correction to its mechanical frequency and can be
neglected.
ℓat =
h̄
2mωat
1/2
,
ℓm =
gdirect ∼ (ℓm /ℓat )ωat ∼
h̄
2M ωm
1/2
,
p
m/M ωat ,
thus would not reach the strong coupling regime for a
single atom. We will see that the cavity-mediated, indirect coupling can be many orders of magnitude larger,
such that the direct coupling can be safely neglected in
the following.
The third line in Eq. (12) describes a membrane-cavity
interaction. As was discussed in detail in [30] a proper
choice of the membrane position along the cavity axis can
make either the first or the second term dominant. In the
later case the cavity field couples to δx2m ∼ (am + a†m )2 ,
which has interesting applications for measuring occupation numbers of the membrane. However this term is
2
typically rather small as it scales like ∂m
ωc ℓ2m ∼ (kc ℓm )2
and is thus of second order in the corresponding LambDicke parameter. In the following we will neglect this
second order term and keep only the first one, where the
cavity couples linearly to the membrane fluctuations.
The linear-coupling term for the atom vanishes, as for
a single cavity mode the atomic equilibrium position is
defined by [∂at ωc ] = 0. Thus, only the quadratic, parametric term given in the last line of Eq. (12) contributes
to the atom-cavity coupling. It is perfectly possible to
proceed from here and to derive an effective coupling of
the atom to the membrane. However, this coupling will
be ∼ xm x2at and thus not of the desired form given in
Eq. (1).
Two Mode Setup: Creating a linear atom-cavity coupling requires non-vanishing cavity field slopes at the
mean position of the atom, [∂at ωc,i ] 6= 0. To this end
one has to require an external trap for the atom shifting
it away from a lattice extremum. An elegant alternative
is to use two driven cavity modes (i = 1, 2) with the
atomic equilibrium position at an extremum of the combined optical potential, and at the same time at a point
of maximal slope of the individual cavity fields. Let us
therefore study the cavity Hamiltonian Hc in detail for
this case of two driven cavity modes. In a frame rotating
6
with the laser frequencies ωi we have
Hc =
X
i=1,2
and the trap frequency ωat of the harmonic potential at
this position is accordingly
[ωc,i (xat , xm ) − ωi ] A†i Ai
+
X
i
2
mωat
= U0 α2 k12 ζ(x̄at ),
Ei eiφi A†i + h.c. , (13)
with mode frequencies ωc,i (xat , xm ) given by,
0
ωc,i (xat , xm ) = ωc,i
− [g0,i /ℓm ]xm + U0 ui (xat ).
(14)
The second term in (14) describes the dynamic cavity
detuning due to vibrational fluctuations of the thin dielectric membrane, with single-photon coupling [11, 30]
0
g0,i = fi (ℓm /L) ωc,i
.
(15)
Here L is the cavity length and fi = 2r sin(2ki x̄m )/[1 −
r2 cos2 (2ki x̄m )]1/2 is a correction factor which takes into
account the finite amplitude reflectivity r of the membrane, as well as the distance x̄m to the cavity field node
where the field is zero and thus insensitive to the membrane motion. Note that the special case fi = 1 is familiar from optomechanics with a perfectly reflecting moving
mirror. By a proper choice of membrane location x̄m it
is possible to achieve fi ≃ 2r for both fields.
The third term in (14) describes how the driven optical
modes provide a lattice potential for the atom along the
cavity axis, with the spatial intensity profile
ui (x) = sin2 (ki x),
(16)
Here Ω0 is the vacuum Rabi frequency and δ is the detuning of the lasers from the respective atomic transitions,
assumed equal for simplicity (see Fig. 3).
The linearization of the dynamics around the equilibrium mean values is done as for the single-mode case
discussed previously. The intracavity amplitudes are
αi = Ei eiφi /(∆i + iκi ) with Ei the drive strength of
mode i, and the phase φi is chosen to make αi real.
0
∆i = ωi − ωc,i
is the laser detuning relative to the cavity mode. The following derivation is in principle general regarding the number of driven modes, the mode
parameters αi , κi and the optomechanical coupling g0,i .
Without loss of generality we will assume in the following a symmetric two-mode case with αi = α, κi = κ and
g0,i = g0 .
The expansion is again very similar to the setup for
a single mode. The main differences concern the atomic
degrees of freedom. The atomic mean position x̄at is
determined by vanishing first derivative of the total field,
u′ (x̄at ) = 0,
u(x) = u1 (x) + u2 (x).
u1(2) (xat ) ≃ u1(2) (x̄at ) ± ηθ(x̄at )(aat + a†at )
(18)
with θ(x) = u′1 (x)/k1 and Lamb-Dicke parameter η =
k1 ℓat . A significant slope θ(x̄at ) and hence significant
coupling is achieved for two modes by a careful choice of
atomic site within the cavity, far from extremum points
of the individual lattice modes, as we discuss in Sec. V.
In this way it is straightforward to expand and linearize the cavity Hamiltonian for the two mode setup in
Eq. (13). When combined with the kinetic energy of the
atom this results overall in a linearized Hamiltonian Hsys
of the full master equation in Eq. (3)
Hsys = H0 + Hint
(19)
with a free energy
X
∆i a†i ai + ωm a†m am + ωat a†at aat ,
H0 = −
i
and linear membrane-cavity and atom-cavity interaction
Hint = gm (am + a†m )[(a1 + a†1 ) + (a2 + a†2 )]
and a lattice potential strength determined by the AC
Stark shift (per photon),
U0 = Ω20 /δ.
ζ(x) = u′′ (x)/k12 .
P
Most notably the ac Stark shift term U0 i ui (xat )A† A
gives rise also to a linear atom-cavity interaction, as the
individual terms ∼ u′i (x̄at ) can be nonzero despite the
condition on vanishing derivative of the total field (17),
(17)
+ gat (aat + a†at )[(a1 + a†1 ) − (a2 + a†2 )]
with coupling strengths,
gat = U0 αηθ(x̄at ),
gm = g0 α.
(20)
In Hsys all parametric coupling terms have been neglected, as they will be smaller by the atomic Lamb-Dicke
factor η or by the much smaller Lamb-Dicke factor corresponding to the membrane motion, as discussed previously. In the limit of large cavity amplitude we also drop
all terms of zeroth order in α. For later use it will be
convenient to reexpress the interaction in the form
i
Xh
Hint = g
Fi + Fi† (ai + a†i ),
i
with operators Fi describing the forces exerted by the
atom and membrane motion on the cavity fields,
q
gat
gm
2 + g 2 . (21)
aat ,
g = gm
F1,2 = − am ±
at
g
g
Before we derive the cavity-mediated atom-membrane
coupling, we will finally discuss the atomic Lindblad term
of Eq. (5). In a Lamb-Dicke expansion around the atomic
7
equilibrium position in the optical potential this Lindblad term takes the form of a momentum diffusion master
equation
Lat (W ) =
Γat
D[aat + a†at ](W ),
2
with a diffusion rate,
Γat = η 2 se γ [2 − (4/5)u(x̄at )]
(22)
where the saturation parameter is now explicitly given by
se = [αΩ0 /δ]2 . The expression (22) in the end depends
on the particular atomic transition and the specific geometry; the factor (4/5) is specific for transitions with
∆m = 0 but for other transitions it is still of order unity.
Let us remark that in fact it is possible to solve the
master equation of the full system exactly (e.g. by means
of the methods given in Appendix B), and indeed there
can be rich physics to be explored in the regimes not
considered here. However, the focus of this paper is
the regime where the cavity modes can be eliminated,
gat , gm ≪ max{κ, ∆}, which is not only more relevant
from an experimental point of view, but also allows for
analytical, transparent results which highlight the physical properties of the system.
3.
Adiabatic Elimination of Cavity Field and Effective
Master Equation
We are now in the position to derive an effective coupling mediated by the cavity modes. The idea is to use
a parameter regime where the cavity dynamics is essentially unperturbed by the motion of the membrane and
the atom, and solely mediates interaction between the
two. The corresponding requirement is fast cavity dynamics, g ≪ κ or g ≪ |∆i ± ωm |. For optomechanical cooling the former condition is the more common
requirement, but since the resulting strong dissipation
through the cavity decay would harm the coherent cavitymediated dynamics, we choose a regime where ∆i are the
large parameters. Here fluctuations in the cavity quadratures are fast variables which adiabatically follow the dynamics of the position fluctuations of the atom and the
membrane. In order to achieve strong interaction we further assume atom and membrane to be on resonance,
ωat = ωm .
(23)
The formal procedure for eliminating the optical modes,
as described in detail in Appendix A, is to perform adiabatic elimination using standard techniques [29]. We find
that the linearized atom-membrane-cavity dynamics (19)
gives rise to the effective master equation (2) with
H = ωm a†m am + ωat a†at aat + Hat−m .
The last term Hat−m (A3) represents the cavity-induced
atom-membrane coupling and a correction to the free
motion, and can be extracted from the coherent part of
the cavity-mediated Liouvillian Lc−med (A1). In detail it
reads,
"
iX
g2
Hat−m =
Fi Fi + Fi†
2 i κ + i(∆i − ωm )
#
g2
F † Fi + Fi† − h.c. . (24)
+
κ + i(∆i + ωm ) i
The cavity decay translates into correlated decay Lc (ρ)
(A4) for atom and membrane, where in the rotating wave
approximation (RWA) each optical mode i contributes
cooling (D[Fi ]) and heating (D[Fi† ]) associated with emission of sideband photons at either side of the driving
laser, that is, at one of the two frequencies ωi ± ωm ,
"
X
g2 κ
Lc (ρ) ≃
D[Fi ](ρ)
κ2 + (∆i + ωm )2
i
#
g2 κ
†
D[Fi ](ρ) . (25)
+
κ2 + (∆i − ωm )2
An emission event is accompanied by the creation or annihilation of a quantum in either the atomic motion or
the membrane vibration. For a near resonant system
(ωm ≃ ωat ) these two possibilities are indistinguishable,
such that both processes happen in a coherent fashion.
Therefore, the jump operators Fi are linear combinations
of the corresponding annihilation operators aat and am .
4.
Coupling in the Dispersive Regime
So far, we have derived expressions for the cavitymediated interaction (24) as well as its inevitable companion, dissipation through the cavity decay (25). The
remaining challenge is to reach the strong coupling
regime for the reduced system, with effective coupling
strength G which is much larger than all decay rates,
G ≫ Γc , Γm , Γat . Let us first consider the relation to the
cavity-induced dissipation described by Lc .
Our first observation is that the atom-membrane coupling (24) is maximized for equal and opposite detunings,
∆1 = −∆2 ≡ ∆,
for which the two cavity modes respond equally and oppositely to the membrane vibration. Evaluating the effective Hamiltonian (24) for this special case we find
h
Hat−m = −G (am + a†m )(aat + a†at )
i
+ iε am aat − a†m a†at ,
where we dropped a global energy shift. The effective
coupling strength G is given by
2gm gat (∆ − ωm ) 2gm gat (∆ + ωm )
G=
.
+ 2
κ2 + (∆ − ωm )2
κ + (∆ + ωm )2
8
From the observation that the rate of cavity induced
decoherence in Lc , see Eq. (25), scales like ∼ 1/∆2
whereas the cavity mediated interaction G ∼ 1/∆, we
draw the conclusion that the dispersive limit is natural for suppressing dissipation. Focusing on the regime
where |∆| is the largest parameter, |∆| ≫ ωm , κ, the correction ε to a pure (am + a†m )(aat + a†at )-interaction is
negligible,
2κωm
ε= 2
≪ 1.
2
∆ + κ2 − ω m
Thus the coherent dynamics in the reduced master equation (2) is effectively given by the Hamiltonian H in (1).
This is the main result of our investigation. To zeroth order in κ/∆, ωm /∆ the coupling constant G has the simple
form,
G≃
4gm gat
.
∆
Regarding the cavity-induced decoherence processes described by Eq. (25), the combination of a red-detuned
(∆1 = ∆ < 0) and a blue-detuned (∆2 = −∆) laser drive
can be interpreted as simultaneous cooling and heating
processes. The rate of cooling Γ+
c via mode 1 equals the
rate of heating via mode 2, and vice versa with rate Γ−
c ,
Lc (ρ) =
Γ+
c
D[F1 ](ρ) + D[F2† ](ρ)
2
Γ−
+ c D[F1† ](ρ) + D[F2 ](ρ) , (26)
2
with the rates given by,
Γ±
c
2
2
2κ gm
+ gat
.
= 2
κ + (∆ ± ωm )2
In our attempt to minimize dissipation we additionally
note that the relation between the coupling constants
gat and gm is of importance. The ratio of dissipation to
coupling strength is proportional to,
Γ±
c /G ∝
2
2
gm
+ gat
.
gm gat
This implies that the mediated atom-membrane interaction is most efficient when the two oscillators couple
equally strongly to the cavity modes, gm = gat . Under this condition and to lowest order in κ/∆, ωm /∆ the
cooling / heating rates are in fact equal,
Γ±
c ≃ Γc = G
κ
,
∆
(27)
a factor κ/∆ ≪ 1 smaller than the coupling constant G.
B.
Alternative setups
In this section we extend the previous discussion to
give a hint about alternative mode configurations for the
proposed setup. In particular we discuss how to obtain
a time-dependent atom-membrane coupling G(t), which
can be advantageous e.g. for entanglement creation as
discussed in section IV.
1.
Single driven mode combined with external trap
As briefly mentioned previously, as an alternative to
the two-mode setup one could use a single driven mode
combined with an external atom trap. This trap would
shift the atom away from the lattice extremum, to an
equilibrium point x̄at where the cavity field has finite
slope, u′1 (x̄at ) 6= 0, which can be significant for a properly chosen atom location within the cavity. With coupling only to a single mode, the force F̂1 is given by
(21) whereas F̂2 = 0. Consequently, with only one cavity mode mediating the membrane vibration, the largest
displacement of the atomic mean position is only half as
large compared to the case when two cavity modes are
shifted out of phase. Hence the resulting coupling constant is only half of its maximum value,
Gsingle−mode ≃
2.
2gm gat
.
∆
Time-dependent coupling constant G(t)
In principle, it is possible to achieve a time-dependent
coupling constant G(t) by modulating the laser power, resulting in a time-dependent intracavity amplitude α(t).
However, the basic problem with simply introducing
time-dependent α(t) in the two-mode setup, is that the
atom potential will be time-dependent as well, which
could heat up the atomic motion. Therefore we consider
the following modified setup, where we either use an external trap for the atom as above, or use a second mode
mainly to provide the trapping potential. Either way, the
role of the first mode is to mediate the atom-membrane
interaction with modulated strength, α1 (t) = α1 c(t).
Without going into details, the idea of the two-mode
case is to drive the second mode such that the corresponding intra-cavity field becomes very strong, α2 ≫
α1 , with α1 the amplitude of the coupling mode. Due to
the very small ratio α1 /α2 ≪ 1, the first mode hardly influences the atomic potential at all, and the mean atom
position x̄at is given by u′2 (x̄at ) = 0. Furthermore the
atomic frequency is determined by the curvature of the
2
second field, mωat
= α22 u′′2 (x̄at ). Since u′2 = 0 at the
atomic equilibrium point, the second mode will not contribute to the linear atom-cavity coupling.
With the atom-membrane interaction mediated by
only a single mode, as discussed above, the coupling constant will be half of the maximum value. We find the
resulting time-dependent atom-membrane coupling,
Gtwo−mode (t) ≃
2gm gat 2
c (t).
∆
9
We will come back to this possibility of making the coupling explicitly time dependent in our discussion of coherent evolution, in particular of a protocol to generate entangled states of the atom and the membrane, see
Sec. IV E.
We will remark on yet another type of setup in the
outlook of this paper (Sec. VI), namely how to implement an optomechanical Jaynes-Cummings model where
atomic internal degrees of freedom are used instead of
the atomic motion. Together with the examples of this
section, the discussion illustrates that the present setup
actually provides a toolbox for engineering various interactions and different types of dynamics.
IV.
COHERENT EVOLUTION IN THE
STRONG COUPLING REGIME
Note that we here put the membrane heating and cooling rates equal, (n̄m + 1)γm ≃ n̄m γm = Γm , and assume the dispersive regime where Γ±
c → Γc . Our aim
is to find the acceptable noise level which still allows for
state transfer, by solving the master equation (2) with
the Hamiltonian (1) exactly. These numerical solutions
are combined with analytical calculations based on the
RWA as described above. In fact, for Gaussian states it
is straightforward to analytically solve for the time evolution; the details of the derivation are presented in Appendix B. Interestingly, with the generalized technique
presented in Appendix B 2, the impact of noise on the
evolution of Non-Gaussian states, e.g. Fock states can
be derived as well. In all three examples the noise introduces a thermal population n̄s during the time-interval
ts needed for state transfer. We find,
n̄s = πf.
In the previous section it was shown that we can implement a linear atom-membrane interaction (1) with
the proposed two-mode setup operated in the dispersive
regime, and that this interaction can be fast on the time
scale of relevant decoherence rates in this system. In this
section we will study a few applications, which become
accessible in this regime.
Note first that the coherent evolution governed by this
Hamiltonian transfers a state from the atom to the membrane, and vice versa, in a time ts given by
ts = π/(2G),
such that |ψ1 iat |ψ2 im → |ψ2 iat |ψ1 im , up to local rotations. The state swap mechanism appears naturally
in the interaction picture; for resonant coupling ωat =
ωm ≫ G the Hamiltonian takes a beam-splitter form in
the RWA,
HI ≃ G aat a†m + h.c. .
Particularly intriguing is the ability to use the state
transfer to control the mechanical state through the available atomic physics toolbox. However, as already discussed, the coherent interaction is accompanied by several sources of noise which in the end reduce the fidelity
of the state transfer. Strong coupling is therefore established by fulfilling, additionally to the resonance condition, the following set of conditions,
G ≫ Γat , Γm , Γc .
Γc
Γat
Γm
=
=
.
G
G
G
A.
(29)
Coherent state swap
Our first example is the transfer of a coherent state
|βi from the atom to the membrane. The perfect state
swap evolves a state |0im |βiat into |βeiφ(t) im |0iat with
the phase φ(t) governed by the system Hamiltonian. Here
we use the fidelity F , defined as the overlap between the
original atomic wave function and the final membrane
wave function, as a figure of merit for the effect of noise
during the state transfer. Figures 4(a,b) show the fidelity
for transfer of two different coherent states, |β = 1i and
|β = 5i. Particularly interesting is the fidelity of the state
swap, i.e. for t = ts where F is close to maximal but still
deteriorated due to dissipation. In fact, the dependence
of the state swap fidelity (at t = ts ) on the noise ratio f
follows the analytical result (B4) derived in Appendix B
in the RWA,
F (ts ) =
(28)
In section V A we will summarize and comment on the
optimization of parameters which is necessary in order
to reach the strong coupling regime, following [1]. Here
we illustrate the strong coupling in the presence of noise
with three specific examples of state transfer from atom
to membrane: coherent and squeezed state as well as a
Fock state. Aiming at a clear picture of the effect of
dissipation, we assume all dissipation rates to be equally
strong and define a ratio f ,
f=
Another interesting application is cooling of the membrane via coherent state swap, as will be presented in
subsection IV D. Finally in IV E we present a way to entangle atom and membrane, using a time-dependent coupling G(t) – as discussed in Sec. III B 2 – which enhances
exactly those terms which are neglected in the RWA.
1
.
1 + πf
(30)
This simple analytical result, which very well matches
the exact numerical solution shown in Fig. 4(c), states
that with noise levels below 10% we can expect a state
transfer fidelity above 75%.
B.
Squeezed state transfer
The second example is the transfer of an atomic
2
squeezed state |ξi with minimal variance ∆Xat
= (1/2)s;
10
1.0
(a)
F(t)
1.0
0.5
0
(b)
F(t)
1.0
2
1
t (p
/2G)
3
0
(c)
(a)
0.5
0.5
0
F(p
/2G)
0
3
2
1
t (p
/2G)
0
0
0
.
1
0.2
G
/G
-2
FIG. 4: Fidelity for transfer of coherent state |βi from atom
to membrane. (a,b) Fidelity as function of time for transfer
of a state with (a) β = 1 and (b) β = 5 for various values
of the dissipation ratio f , with fixed G/ωm = 0.034. Here
f = 0.01 (black solid line), f = 0.05 (orange dotted line)
and f = 0.10 (blue dashed line). The little wiggles are due
to counter-rotating terms. (c) Snapshot at t = π/2G: fidelity
for transfer of state with β = 1 as a function of the dissipation
ratio f .
2
′
∆ (Xm
) =
1
s(ts ),
2
with s(ts ) > s(0). Fig. 5(a) shows the minimal variance
of the membrane, reaching its lowest value after half a
period (t = ts ) when the squeezed state has been transferred from the atom to the membrane. Obviously larger
dissipation ratio f results in less squeezing transferred.
In Appendix B we derive the following analytical expression in the RWA for the dependence of the squeezing
parameter s on the dissipation rate f ,
s (ts ) = s(0) + 2πf.
Fig. 5(b) shows snapshots of the atom and membrane
Wigner functions at t = 0, t = ts and t = 2ts ; one clearly
sees how the dissipation broadens the variances. Furthermore, due to the coherent evolution, the squeezed
′
membrane quadrature Xm
is not necessarily equal to the
squeezed atom quadrature Xat .
In Fig. 5(c) we show how the membrane minimal variance increases with the noise ratio f for two specific examples of initial minimal variance of the atom. The exact
result confirms the loss of squeezing given by the expression above for s(ts ). With noise levels below f ∼ 10% an
initial atom squeezing below −4.3 dB allows for squeezing
of the membrane.
-2
-2
(c)
(b)
-2
Min[(D
Xm’)2]
here s < 1 denotes a state squeezed along the X quadrature. Such a state can be constructed using for example the parametric coupling to the cavity field, ∼
(aat + a†at )2 (ai + a†i ) which was briefly mentioned in section III. Ideally the swap operation transfers the atomic
minimal variance to the membrane state, |βim |ξiat →
|ξeiϕ im |βeiφ iat . Dissipation however broadens the variance during the swap operation,
-2
-2
-4
-6
-8
0
0
1
2
t (p
/2G)
3
FIG. 5: Transfer of squeezed atom state with initial variance
2
∆Xat
= e−2 /2 to the membrane. (a) Snapshot of Wigner
functions (upper row - atom, lower row - membrane) for
f = 0.05 at t = 0, t = π/2G and t = π/G. (b) Minimum
membrane variance as function of time for different dissipation ratios f = 0 (black solid line), f = 0.05 (orange dotted line) and f = 0.10 (blue dashed line). (c) Transferred
squeezing (in dB; S(t) = 10 log10 [s(t)](dB)) as function of
the dissipation ratio f , for fixed G/ωm = 0.034. The initial
atom squeezing is given by s(0) = e−2 (purple dashed line)
corresponding to −8.7 dB, and s(0) = e−1 (green solid line)
corresponding to −4.3 dB, respectively.
C.
Fock state transfer
The previous two sections dealt with the engineering
of Gaussian states of the mechanical resonator, while the
ultimate goal would of course be to apply these methods to create more non-classical state, e.g. states with
negative Wigner functions.
As a last example we therefore present the transfer of
a Fock state with n = 1 from the atom to the membrane.
Assuming the membrane to be ground-state cooled, the
ideal evolution reads |0im |n = 1iat → |n = 1im |0iat .
The quantum properties of the Fock state are best illustrated by the negative value of its Wigner function at the
origin. Fig. 6 shows cuts through the Wigner function
for three instants in time, t = 0, t = ts and t = 2ts .
11
Thermalization during the state transfer is reflected in
Nw(ts)
f
0.1
0
-0.1
t=p
/2G
t=0
t=p
/G
0.1
FIG. 7: Analytical result for the relative membrane Wigner
function negativity Nw at time t = ts as a function of the
dissipation ratio f .
0
-0.1
FIG. 6: Transfer of the Fock state |n = 1i from atom to
ground-state prepared membrane. Snapshot cuts through the
Wigner functions at times t = 0, t = π/2G and t = π/G, for
fixed dissipation ratio f = 0.05 and G/ωm = 0.034.
the decreasing Wigner function negativity for each state
swap. A convenient figure of merit for the thermalization
is therefore the value of the membrane Wigner function
wm (β, β ∗ , t) at β = β ∗ = 0 relative to the corresponding
(absolute) value for a Fock state wF (0, 0),
Nw (t) ≡
wm (0, 0, t)
.
|wF (0, 0)|
An analytic expression for Nw (t) in the RWA is derived
in Appendix B, see Eq. (B10). In Fig. 7 we present a
case of particular interest, namely the membrane Wigner
function negativity after the first state swap (t = ts ),
which depends on the dissipation ratio f according to,
Nw (ts ) =
−1 + 2πf
2.
(1 + 2πf )
The quantum properties of the Fock state |n = 1i are
transferred to the membrane if the dissipation ratio is
sufficiently small, 2πf < 1. For an experimentally feasible noise ratio f = 0.1, 14% of the Wigner function
negativity is preserved during the swap operation.
D.
Membrane cooling through state swap
With the present setup, we see two routes towards
preparing the membrane ground state. The first route
is along the lines of cavity cooling; for example cooling the membrane via the cavity decay, or via an externally controlled Raman atom cooling with rate ΓR in
the ground state cooling regime G ≪ ΓR ≪ ωm . The second route is to perform a state swap and hence transfer
the ground state to the membrane from the (previously
cooled) atom. Comparing the two routes, we find that
the effective rate for state swap is much higher than for
cooling, Γswap ∼ G ≫ Γcool ∼ G2 /ΓR , and that the state
swap leads to a final occupation which is a factor G/ΓR
lower than for cooling,
n̄swap
∼ πf +
f
G
2ωm
2
,
n̄cool
∼f
f
ΓR
+
G
ΓR
2ωm
2
.
Note that the expression for n̄swap
can be optimized with
f
respect to G, since a large coupling strength on one hand
decreases the noise level f but on the other hand increases
the residual final occupation in the second term. Replacing f with Γc /G and considering Γc as a fixedpparameter,
2.
one obtains the minimum n̄swap
for Gopt = 3 2πΓc ωm
f
Concluding that state swap cooling is more efficient
than indirect Raman cooling, it is still interesting to make
a comparison with typical cavity cooling in the good cavity regime where now κ ≪ ωm and in the perturbative
regime where gm ≪ κ. In this case, the cooling rate
2
scales as Γc ∼ gm
/κ and the final occupancy is
n̄cf
Γm κ
∼ 2 +
gm
κ
2ωm
2
.
We conclude that n̄swap
< n̄cf for large enough atomf
2
membrane coupling, G/π > gm
/κ.
One drawback with the state swap procedure is that it
only works for a precooled membrane; the anharmonicity of the atom well supports the transfer of only a few
quanta from the membrane, say nwell ∼ 5 − 10. The situation looks better in a generalized setup with N atoms
distributed over the lattice. In the ideal case of no atomatom interaction and identical atom site conditions,
the
√
effective coupling G is enhanced by a factor N and
the single atom operator aat can be
by the
√ substituted
PN
center-of-mass operator Acm = (1/ N ) j=1 aat,j . Here
we can consider introducing even further anharmonicity
of the atomic wells to prevent an individual atom to be
multiply excited, in which case the center-of-mass mode
can support the transfer and storage of N excitations
12
from the hot membrane, thus allowing the swap of a fairly
large thermal membrane occupation.
In this subsection we lay out the prospects of observing
entanglement between the atom and the membrane. The
major obstacle in this regard is the coupling of the system
to the environment. Even when we assume the membrane to be prepared in the ground-state initially, the
system will quickly heat up and entanglement is lost, at
least if one just considers the usual static coupling.Here
we point out, instead, a method for generating entanglement based on a time-dependent modulation of the input
laser intensity that controls the atom-membrane interaction strength. In fact, this scheme can be employed generally in optomechanically coupled mechanical systems.
The scheme turns out to be relatively robust against the
impact of the dissipation channels. By modulating the
atom-membrane coupling strength in time one can realize a non-degenerate parametric amplifier (two-mode
squeezing) which induces strong quantum correlations
between atom and membrane despite the simultaneously
occuring heating of the system. We consider the linear
membrane-atom interaction Eq. (1) with the coupling
constant modulated according to,
G(t) = G cos2 (ω̄t),
ω̄ =
ωm + ωat
.
2
In order to allow for a modulation of the coupling
strength without modulating the trapping frequency the
setup needs to be modified as discussed in Sec. III B.
Switching into the interaction picture, we find that in
contrast to the case of constant coupling G previously
discussed, the coupling term here effectively transforms
into a parametric amplifier part and a slowly oscillating
beam splitter part (in RWA),
HI ≃
G
G
[am aat + h.c.] + [a†m aat ei(ωm −ωat )t + h.c.],
4
2
and contributions that are oscillating fast with respect to
the time-scale of G, and hence have negligible influence.
It is the parametric amplifier part that can be exploited
to generate strong correlations.
As a measure of entanglement we employ the logarithmic negativity [34, 35, 36]. For a Gaussian state it can
be computed directly from the elements of the covariance matrix [36], whose time evolution was derived in
Appendix B.
Fig. (8) displays the generation of entanglement (a)
and the increase of the atomic excitation number nat =
ha†at aat i (b). This number should not exceed a threshold
value of nat ∼ 5 − 10 in order to keep the effects of the
anharmonicity of the trap negligible. Note that we chose
a relatively large difference in the oscillation frequencies,
ωat /ωm = 1.1, in order to suppress the influence of the
atomic e
excitiaton number
Entanglement
(b)
entanglement
E.
(a)
time
time
FIG. 8: Generation of entanglement between atom and membrane by modulating the coupling strength. (a) Logarithmic
negativity as a function of time for different values of the
dissipation ratio f = 0.1 (blue curve), f = 0.05 (red curve)
and f = 0.01 (black curve). (b) Corresponding increase of
the atomic excitation number nat = ha†at aat i. For these plots
we chose G/ωm = 0.034 and ωat /ωm = 1.1 and assume the
membrane to be in the ground state initially.
beam splitter interaction. As indicated by this numerical example, driving the system with time-modulated
driving strength provides a useful method for generating entanglement in a quantum system that is in contact
with a thermal bath.
For the parameters discussed here, the rates of the
optomechanical cooling and heating processes are equal
(Γ±
c ≃ Γc ), and these processes reduce the entanglement.
We note, however, that the optomechanical damping can
in principle also be used to generate entanglement in a
steady-state situation (i.e. for fixed coupling G) by reducing the effective occupation numbers of the mechanical oscillators as discussed in [37].
V.
TECHNICAL DETAILS REGARDING THE
EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
In this section we discuss technical issues regarding the
specific setup that we have in mind, namely the optimal
atom location within the cavity field, and the membrane
heating due to power absorption.
A.
Optimization of parameters
Demanding strong atom-membrane coupling, i.e. fulfilling the conditions G ≫ Γc , Γat , Γm (28), in the end
boils down to satisfying constraints on the cavity and
membrane geometry, choosing the proper detunings and
finding suitable atomic transitions. In the following we
will therefore go through the set of conditions G ≫
Γc , Γat , Γm and ωat = ωm (23) in detail.
In order to obtain weak cavity-induced decay Γc ≪ G,
we concluded in Sec. III that it is necessary to drive the
cavity far off resonance
∆ ≫ κ, ωm ,
(31)
13
and to keep at the same time a balanced atom–cavity and
membrane–cavity coupling gm ≃ gat , which is equivalent
to demanding
First of all, we use the condition on the coupling constants gat ≃ gm to write the inequality (33) in terms of
atomic parameters,
g0 α ≃ U0 αηθ(x̄at ).
4 (U0 αη)
≪ η 2 pe γ.
∆
Here we first note that the intracavity amplitude α drops
out. For simplicity we estimate fi ≃ 2r and θ(x̄at ) ≃ 1.
In the following we insert the respective definitions of g0
(15) and U0 (16) and use that ωc ≃ ck1 , and find
The Lamb-Dicke parameter η drops out. Furthermore,
with pe = α2 U0 /δ, the intracavity field amplitude α also
drops out, and what remains is a condition on the cooperativity parameter,
2r
2
c
Ω2
ℓm ≃ 0 ℓat .
κL
κδ
C≫
The difference in zero-point fluctuations between
p membrane and atom will give a factor ℓm /ℓat =
m/M .
Moreover, on the left side, we introduce the cavity finesse
F,
F=
πc
2κL
and on the right side the cooperativity parameter,
C=
Ω20
.
κγ
This way, the ratio of the coupling constants gm /gat turns
into a ratio of the cavity finesse F to the reduced singleatom cooperativity (γ/δ) C, which must be balanced by
the mass ratio m/M ,
γ
4r
F/ C
π
δ
r
m
≃ 1.
M
(32)
The equality (32) does not only put a condition for weak
cavity-induced decay, but will also be useful in the following to connect the respective parameters related to
the membrane-cavity and atom-cavity coupling.
Here we should comment on the dependence of the ratio F/C on the cavity geometry. At first glance it may
seem like this ratio can be controlled through the cavity
length L, with F/C ∼ (c/L)(γ/Ω20 ). This is however not
the case. Keeping p
in mind that the electric field strength
is proportional to 1/V , with the mode volume V = AL
and A the beam cross section, the dependence on the cavity length L in the cooperativity C through the relation
Ω20 ∼ 1/(AL) in fact cancels the length dependence in F,
assuming fixed cross section A. We find that the relevant geometric parameter for this ratio is the beam cross
section,
F
∼ A.
C
Next we require small decoherence due to atomic momentum diffusion, Γat /G ≪ 1, which gives the condition,
4gat gm
≪ η 2 pe γ.
∆
(33)
∆
,
4κ
(34)
which has to be very large, taking into account the condition (31).
Finally, thermal decoherence depends on the ambient
temperature T of the membrane. As we will discuss in
more detail further below (see Sec. V C), it is reasonable
to assume that heating of the membrane is in fact caused
dominantly by absorption of laser power, which depends
in particular on the thermal link κth of the membrane to
its support. The condition of small thermal decoherence
Γm /G ≪ 1 reads in detail,
4gat gm
γm 2π ωc cα2
kB T
=
≫
.
∆
h̄Qm
ωm κth F L
(35)
First of all, we use the condition on the coupling constants gat ≃ gm to write the inequality (35) without
atomic parameters. Using also that ωm = h̄/(2M ℓ2m ),
we arrive at,
M ℓ2m γm π h̄ωc cα2
(2r)2 ℓ2m ωc2 α2
≫
.
L2 ∆
L
h̄2 κth F
The amplitude α and the zero-point fluctuation ℓm drop
out of the inequality. In the same fashion as for the
condition (34), we rewrite the inequality with respect to
∆/κ,
8r2 F 2 κth h̄ωc
∆
≫ ,
2
2
π
γm M c
κ
(36)
with the first factor related to the properties of the membrane in the cavity, the second factor comparing the thermal link of the membrane to its natural linewidth, and
the third factor comparing the energy of a single cavity
photon to the effective “rest energy” of the membrane.
Remarkably, this condition is independent of the laser
power, and the left-hand side depends only on parameters fixed at fabrication.
Together, Eqs. (31), (32), (34) and (36) ensure the set
of conditions for strong coupling in (28). Note that the
intracavity amplitude α dropped out in all cases. The
absolute timescale of the system is thus not fixed by
Eqs. (31), (32), (34) and (36), but by the resonance condition ωm = ωat which fixes the cavity amplitude α,
ωm ≃ η 2 α 2
Ω20
.
δ
14
The membrane frequency ωm is fixed by construction,
whereas the intracavity amplitude depends on the laser
power P ,
tan(kx) = −
κ 2 2P
α2 ≃
.
∆ κh̄ωc
B.
the potential wells determined by u′ (x) = 0. If we take
k1(2) = (k ± δk)/2 then this condition is equivalent to
Details of ac Stark shift potential
Let us first discuss briefly how the various requirements on the AC Stark potential generated by the two
cavity modes can be met. These requirements are as follows: (i) Above we have assumed for the atom-cavity
coupling gat = U0 αηθ(x̄at ) and for the diffusion rate
g2
Γat = γ Ωat2 ξ(x̄at ) that both geometrical factors, θ(x̄at )
δk
tan(δkx).
k
In Fig. 9b, c and d we show exemplarily the values
of the parameters θ, ξ and ζ for the possible potential
wells, i.e. for the solutions to the last equation. As can
be seen the intensity maxima which exhibit the desired
properties lie close to points where the cavity modes are
almost completely out of phase, that is at points where
δkx = nπ for some natural number n ≤ q.
C.
Membrane heating due to laser absorption
0
and ξ(x̄at ) = [2 − (4/5)u(x̄at )]/θ2 (x̄at ) (for ∆m = 0), can
be of order one for a proper choice of the atomic mean
position x̄at along the cavity axis. Moreover, it is desirable to keep the value of ζ(x), which enters the atomic
trap frequency, as well close to one. (ii) The two modes
have to couple, respectively, to the D1 and D2 lines of
the chosen atomic species. For a micro-cavity this implies
that the two modes have to be separated by a couple (say
q) of free spectral ranges (FSRs) only. A typical intensity profile is shown in Fig. 9a for a mode separation of
q = 5 FSRs. (iii) The atom has to be located in one of
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
FIG. 9: (a) Spatial dependence u(x) of the AC Stark potential along the cavity axis for a cavity length L ≃ 53µm. The
two driven modes are at λ1 ≃ 852nm and λ2 ≃ 888nm. Their
separation is q=5 FSRs. Both the parameter θ(x̄at ) (b) entering the atom-cavity coupling gat and the parameter ξ(x̄at ) (c)
entering the atomic dephasing rate Γat can be kept close to
1 at potential wells around the points where δkx = nπ with
δk = k1 − k2 and n ≤ q. In (d) the parameter ζ(x) is shown,
which can be well around 50% while θ, ξ ≃ 1. The resulting
loss in trap frequency can be easily compensated for by an
increased intracavity amplitude.
Thermal decoherence depends on the ambient temperature T of the membrane. It can be reduced by precooling the membrane with a cryostat. However, it is important to note that there is a natural lower limit for T
which is set by absorption of laser light inside the membrane. The intracavity light hits the membrane in its
center, where a fraction a = Pa /Pc of the overall cir2
culating power Pc = h̄ωcLcα in the two cavity modes is
absorbed. If the cavity finesse F is limited by absorption
inside the membrane, we can estimate a ≃ 2π
F . The absorbed power Pa causes an increase of the temperature of
the membrane center by ∆T ≃ kB1κth Pa , where κth is the
thermal link of the membrane center to the membrane
supporting frame [39]. κth depends on the specific geometry and the material properties and is chosen here such
as to have dimensions of Hz. While it is not entirely clear
how the resulting inhomogeneous temperature distribution exactly affects the vibrational mode in question, a
safe assumption is an increase of the ambient temperature by ∆T .
In [39], experiments on heat transport inside SiN membranes at cryogenic temperatures were performed. By
rescaling the thermal link measured in [39] at a temperature of ≃ 2 K to our geometry, kB κth ≃ 10 nW/K is obtained. We furthermore use our parameters Pc = 850 µW
and F = 2 × 105 , noting that this value for F is consistent with an imaginary part of the refractive index of the
membrane of Im(n) ≃ 1 × 10−5 [12]. With these parameters, we obtain ∆T ≃ 2.5 K. Cryogenic precooling of the
membrane frame to T0 < ∆T thus allows one to obtain
membrane temperatures of the order of T ≃ ∆T .
To gain further insight into the temperature distribution inside the membrane, we simulate heat transport in
the membrane by solving the heat equation in 2D with
the finite elements method. We assume that the absorbed
power Pa is homogeneously distributed over an area
A = πw02 in the membrane center, where w0 = 10 µm
is the beam waist of the cavity mode, and that the membrane frame is held at a fixed temperature of T0 = 2 K.
At this temperature, the thermal conductivity of SiN is
kth = 0.05 W/m K [39].
15
Figure 10 shows the steady-state temperature distribution T (y, z) in the membrane obtained from the simulation. The peak temperature in the membrane center
is T (0, 0) = 5.8 K. The average temperature obtained
by integrating T (y, z) over the membrane cross sectional
area is T̄ = 2.8 K. We note that our simulation overestimates the temperature increase, because a constant value
for kth is used, while in reality kth increases rapidly with
temperature [39]. In summary, we conclude that membrane heating due to laser absorption sets a lower limit
on the attainable T , but for our parameters still allows
for cryogenic precooling to T of a few kelvin.
Cummings form,
gat (âσ+ + ↠σ− ),
gat = U0 α.
From this brief derivation we learn that by coupling directly to the internal levels one wins a Lamb-Dicke parameter η ≪ 1 in the coupling constant, compared to
coupling to the atomic motion. However, this comes at
the prize of an increased dissipation rate, as the spontaneous emission from excited states with rate γ translates
into ground-state dephasing (Γat /2)D[σz ](ρ) with rate
Γat ∼ γpe
which is a factor 1/η 2 larger, compared to the momentum diffusion. In order to profit from the increased coupling strength, it would thus be crucial to further suppress spontaneous emission by techniques such as e.g.
coherent population trapping. Our main point here is
however not to declare a winning model class, but rather
to point out the various types of interaction which can
be implemented with the present setup. Realizing the
Jaynes-Cummings model as described above allows for
experiments along the lines of microwave CQED [38].
Overall, our results illustrate that the present setup
actually provides a toolbox for engineering various interactions and different types of dynamics, which pave
the way towards quantum state engineering of and full
quantum control over massive micromechanical systems.
FIG. 10: Finite elements simulation of membrane heating due
to laser absorption. The steady-state temperature distribution T (y, z) in the membrane is shown for the experimental
parameters considered in this paper. The laser spot of radius
w0 = 10 µm is indicated by the black circle. The membrane
frame is held at fixed T0 = 2 K.
VI.
OUTLOOK AND CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we have discussed the coupling of the
motion of a single atom and a mesoscopic mechanical oscillator, giving rise to a coupled oscillator dynamics. As
an outlook, we want to indicate how the present setup
could in principle also be used for implementing a JaynesCummings model by coupling the membrane vibrations
to the internal atomic degrees of freedom. Consider an
atom with two stable ground states trapped by an external potential inside the cavity. Let both levels be Starkshifted by the cavity mode, but in opposite directions.
The coupling of the cavity field quadrature to the two
level system is then given by
Ω20
α(â + ↠)σz .
δ
Changing basis and doing the rotating wave approximation, we find an atom-cavity interaction of Jaynes-
Acknowledgement
Support by the Austrian Science Fundation through
SFB FOQUS, by the IQOQI, by the European Union
through project EuroSQIP, by NIST and NSF, and by
the DFG through NIM, SFB631, and the Emmy-Noether
program is acknowledged. C.G. is thankful for support
from Euroquam Austrian Science Fund project I1 19 N16
CMMC. M.W., K.H., P.Z. and J.Y. thank H.J.K. for hospitality at CalTech.
APPENDIX A: ADIABATIC ELIMINATION OF
THE CAVITY MODES
In this section we present details of the adiabatic elimination of the (independent) cavity modes, starting from
the linearized master equation in the interaction picture
w.r.t. H0 ,
#
"
X
Li (W ),
Ẇ = −i[Hint (t), W ] + Lm + Lat +
i
and further assuming atom and mirror to be on resonance, ωat = ωm . The method we employ here is the
projection technique [29] which assumes separation of
timescales; that the fast cavity dynamics on the time
16
scale of the interaction allows us to approximate the density operator as W ≃ ρ0c ⊗ ρ for times t > 1/∆i . Here
ρ0c = ⊗i |0ii h0|i is the steady-state of the shifted cavity
modes, and ρ = Trc (W ) is the reduced density operator
for atom and membrane motion. Furthermore, the influence of the cavity on the membrane-atom dynamics,
i.e. the correction in ρ to the free dynamics, is included
through second-order perturbation expansion in the interaction term, using gi /(∆i ± ωm ) ≪ 1. Finally the
expressions are simplified using the Born-Markov approximation. A crucial point is the assumption that the cavity dynamics dominates over the independent dissipation
mechanisms of membrane and atom, |∆±ωm | ≫ Γat , Γm ,
which would otherwise complicate the cavity-mediated
dynamics considerably. The result of the adiabatic elimination is an effective master equation for the atommembrane system,
with A =
P
i
h−,i Fi + h+,i Fi†
Fi + Fi† . Reading off
from the commutator that Hat−m = (i/2)(A − A† ), we
find the cavity-mediated coherent dynamics,
i
i X h
Hat−m =
h−,i Fi + h+,i Fi† Fi + Fi† − h.c. .
2 i
(A3)
The anti-commutator from the second line of (A1) combined with the sandwich terms in the first line of (A1)
describes correlated decay of membrane and atomic motion through the cavity,
P h
Lc (ρ) = i 21 2 Fi + Fi† ρ h−,i Fi + h+,i Fi†
n
o i
− h−,i Fi + h+,i Fi† Fi + Fi† , ρ
+ h.c..
+
(A4)
ρ̇ = (Lm + Lat + Lc−med ) (ρ),
When written in this form the decay is not manifestly on
Lindblad form D[a](ρ) = 2aρa† − {a† a, ρ}+ . However, it
is possible to diagonalize the Liouvillian (A4) and write
it as a sum of 2 independent jump processes (k = 1, 2)
for each cavity mode i,
with cavity-mediated atom-membrane dynamics,
Z ∞
Lc−med (ρ) = −
dτ Trc
0
Hint (t), ⊗i eLi τ Hint (t − τ ), ρ0c ⊗ ρ(t)
.
Lc (ρ) =
After tracing over the cavity modes, we find that due to
the independence of the cavity modes (only combinations
of the form Trc {a†i ai ρ0c } contribute) the cavity-mediated
Liouvillian is a sum of contributions from the different
modes i,
X Z ∞
gi2
dτ e−(κ+i∆i )τ
Lc−med (ρ) =
i
h
0
i
Fi (t) + Fi† (t) , ρ(t) Fi (t − τ ) + Fi† (t − τ ) + h.c. .
Performing the integrals and returning to the lab frame,
we find
i
P h
Lc−med (ρ) = i Fi + Fi† ρ h−,i Fi + h+,i Fi† + h.c.
i
P h
(A1)
− i ρ h−,i Fi + h+,i Fi† Fi + Fi† + h.c.
with the constants h±,i = g 2 /[κ + i(∆i ± ωm )] .
We expect the cavity-mediated dynamics to be described by
Lc−med (ρ) = −i [Hat−m , ρ] + Lc (ρ),
(A2)
with cavity-mediated interaction Hat−m (including corrections to the free dynamics) and cavity-mediated decay
Lc (ρ). In order to compare the expectation (A2) with the
result (A1), we split the second line of (A1) into commutator and anticommutator parts,
i
1
− (ρA + h.c.) = −i
A − A† , ρ −
A + A† , ρ
,
2
2
+
X γ (i)
k
i,k
2
i
h
(i)
D Jk (ρ),
(i)
with the jump operators Jk ,
T F
i
(i)
(i)
,
Jk = m
~k
Fi†
(i)
which are described by the eigenvectors m
~ k of the 2 × 2
matrices M̂i ,
2Re{h+,i }
h−,i + h∗+,i
M̂i =
.
(A5)
∗
2Re{h−,i }
h−,i + h∗+,i
(i)
The corresponding decay rates γk are given by the eigenvalues of M̂i . However in view of the fast rotations of
(i)
terms of the form Fi ρFi for ωm ≫ γk , we perform the
rotating wave approximation (RWA), which here corresponds to omitting the off-diagonal terms in M̂i , leading
to (25).
APPENDIX B: TIME EVOLUTION AND STATE
TRANSFER
The reduced atom-membrane master equation (2) can
be written on the general form
i Xγ
h
i
h
k
~ T ĤR,
~ ρ +
~ (ρ)
ρ̇ = −i R
(B1)
D ~LTk R
2
k
with the matrix Ĥ describing the Hamiltonian dynamics
and the vectors ~Lk describing the jump operators of the
17
dissipation processes. At this point it is convenient to
switch to the dimensionless {X, P } language, and thereby
~ = [Xm , Pm , Xat , Pat ]T with
introduce the basis√vector R
√
†
Xat = (aat + aat )/ 2 and Xm = (am + a†m )/ 2 and the
commutation relations collected in a matrix σ̂,
0 1
−1 0
.
[Ri , Rj ] = iσij ,
σ̂ =
0 1
−1 0
The time evolution of a Gaussian state is fully described
by its covariance matrix γ̂(t) and displacement vector
~d(t), which are defined as the first and second moments,
respectively,
~d = hRi,
~
γ̂ij =
1
hRi Rj + Rj Ri i − hRi ihRj i.
2
From the general master equation (B1) one can derive
the equations of motion for the moments,
˙
~d(t)
= Q̂d̃(t),
˙
γ̂(t)
= Q̂γ̂(t) + γ̂(t)Q̂T + N̂,
with the matrices Q̂ and N̂ given by,
h
i
Q̂ = 2σ̂ Ĥ + Im{Γ̂} ,
N̂ = 2σ̂ Re{Γ̂} σ̂ T . (B2)
Here the matrix Γ̂ collects the information about the various dissipation channels,
X γk
Γ̂mn =
L∗k,m Lk,n .
2
k
Using this technique, we can solve for the time evolution
of Gaussian states. In particular the solution for the time
evolution of the covariance matrix reads,
Z t
T
T
dτ eQ̂(t−τ ) N̂eQ̂ (t−τ ) . (B3)
γ̂(t) = eQ̂t γ̂(0)eQ̂ t +
0
We now go on to present the analytical results for
state transfer which will be used in section IV, based
on the calculations in App. B. Along the lines of section IV we consider
the symmetric two-mode setup with
√
gm = gat (= g/ 2), assuming the rotating wave approxi(i)
mation ωm ≫ G, Γat , γk and the large detuning regime,
|∆| ≫ ωm , κ, and neglecting the difference in membrane
heating and cooling, 1/n̄m ≪ 1. For this special case,
the jump operators form cooling/heating pairs with equal
rate Γ; if a cooling channel is described by some vector
~L, then the corresponding heating channel is described
∗
by its complex conjugate ~L ,
h ∗ i
Γ h~ T ~ i
~ (ρ) .
D L R (ρ) + D ~LT R
2
Thus, in this particular case, the sum of the respective
contributions to the dissipation matrix Γ̂ from the cooling
and the heating processes is by definition real,
ρ̇ ∼
Im{Γ̂} = 0.
Hence dissipation does not enter the matrix Q̂ (B2). Consequently the time evolution of the displacement vector
~d(t) is completely coherent, and the effect of dissipation
on the state can only be seen in the evolution of the covariance matrix γ̂(t).
1.
Transfer of coherent or squeezed states
The thermalization of a coherent state during the
atom-membrane interaction is here studied by solving the
equations of motion (B3) for the covariance matrix γ̂(t).
For an initial coherent state,
!
1 1
γ̂(0) =
2
1
we find the following evolution
1
γ̂ (t) = [1 + 2n̄(t)]
2
1
1
!
+ γ̂corr (t)
describing a thermal state with dissipation-induced population
n̄(t) =
1
(2Γc + Γm + Γat ) t.
2
The second part of the covariance matrix, γ̂corr , describes
oscillating atom-membrane correlations which are only
present when atom and membrane dissipate with different rates,
s1 (t)
s2 (t)
Γm − Γat
s1 (t) −s2 (t)
γ̂corr =
,
2G
−s2 (t) −s1 (t)
s2 (t)
−s1 (t)
with s1 (t) = sin[2Gt] and s2 (t) = sin2 [Gt]. Due to thermalization the fidelity of the state transfer decreases with
time from F (0) = 1 according to
F (t) = p
1
det (γ̂m (t) + γ̂at (0))
(B4)
as presented for a state swap (t = π/2G) in Eq. (30)
and Fig. 4(c). Note that this measure does not take
into account the (coherent) rotation of the displacement
vector.
For the transfer of a squeezed state we see a similar
thermalization, as is clear from Fig. 5, where we study
swap of a state with an initial atomic quadrature squeezing of e−2
!
1 e−2
γ̂at (0) =
.
2
e2
18
In this case the covariance matrix evolves according to
!
1
−2
π
e
+
2n̄
swap
′
.
=
t=
γ̂m
2G
2
e2 + 2n̄swap
(B5)
′
Here γ̂m
(t) is the diagonalized membrane covariance matrix, and the thermal population is given by
π
π
n̄swap ≡ n̄
=
(2Γc + Γm + Γat ) .
(B6)
2G
4G
2.
Transfer of a Fock state
Our figure of merit for the thermalization of a Fock
state during state transfer to the membrane, is the negativity of the membrane Wigner function wm (β, β ∗ , t) at
the origin β = β ∗ = 0 relative to the (absolute) negativity of the Fock state Wigner function wF (0, 0),
Z
1
wm (0, 0, t)
Nw (t) ≡
=
d2 ξm χm (ξm , t).
(B7)
|wF (0, 0)|
4π
Here χm (ξm , t) is the characteristic function of the membrane state, which is derived from the characteristic function of the total atom-membrane state,
Our next attempt is to use the result for coherent states
to simplify the description of the evolution of a Fock
state; here we focus on the state |1i. We note that by
expressing the Fock state in terms of coherent states,
2
|1i = ∂α e|α| /2 |αi
α=0
,
the characteristic function χ1 (ξ) for |1i can be written in
terms of corresponding functions for coherent states,
∗
2
.
(B8)
χ1 (ξ) = ∂α,α
eαα χα (ξ)
∗
α=0
Consequently, for an initial density matrix ρ(0) =
|0ih0|m |1ih1|at we derive the initial characteristic function χ(ξm , ξat , 0),
χ(ξm , ξat , 0) =
1 ~T
αα∗
2
~
~
~
exp − ξ γ̂(0)ξ + id(0)ξ
∂α,α∗ e
2
α=0
(B9)
with initial conditions
γ̂(0) =
χm (ξm , t) = χm,at (ξm , ξat = 0, t).
1
2
1 0
0 1
!
,
0
√ 0
~d(0) = 2
.
Re(α)
Im(α)
In order to evaluate this expression we need the time evolution of the full characteristic function, which is defined
in terms of the density operator ρm,at (t),
Using the linear properties of the time evolution map ǫt ,
χm,at (ξm , ξat , t) = Tr {ρm,at (t)Dm (ξm )Dat (ξat )}
with D(ξ) = exp ξ↠− ξ ∗ â the displacement operator.
Let us first consider the coherent membrane-atom state,
for which the time evolution is described by the covariance matrix γ̂(t) and the displacement vector ~d(t),
1
χα,β (ξm , ξat , t) = exp − ξ~T γ̂(t)ξ~ + i~d(t)ξ~
2
we find that the time evolution of the full characteristic
function is given by
with
Re(ξm )
√
Im(ξm )
ξ~ = 2σ̂
.
Re(ξat )
Im(ξat )
[1] K. Hammerer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 063005 (2009).
[2] T. J. Kippenberg and K. J. Vahala, Science 321, 1172
(2008).
[3] F. Marquardt and S. M. Girvin, Physics 2, 40 (2009).
[4] S. Groeblacher et al., Nat. Phys. 5, 485 (2009).
[5] A. Schliesser et al., Nat. Phys. 5, 509 (2009).
[6] F. Marquardt et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 093902 (2007)
[7] J. M. Dobrindt and I. Wilson-Rae and T. J. Kippenberg,
ρ(t) = ǫt (ρ(0))
χ(ξm , ξat , t) =
1 ~T
αα∗
2
~
~
~
e
exp
−
∂α,α
ξ
γ̂(t)
ξ
+
i
d(t)
ξ
,
∗
2
α=0
from which we derive the membrane Wigner function
negativity (B7); for this specific case it reads,
Nw (t) =
2n̄(t) + cos[2Gt] + sin[2Gt](Γm − Γat )/2G
2
(1 + 2n̄(t) + sin[2Gt](Γm − Γat )/2G)
.
(B10)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 263602 (2008).
[8] I. Wilson-Rae et al., New J. Phys. 10, 095007 (2008).
[9] S. Groeblacher et al., Nature 460, 724 (2009).
[10] S. Huang and G. S. Agarwal, Phys. Rev. A 80, 033807
(2009).
[11] J. D. Thompson et al., Nature 452, 72 (2008).
[12] D. J. Wilson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 207204 (2009).
[13] R. Miller et al., Journal of Physics B 38, S551 (2005).
19
[14] C. Genes, D. Vitali, and P. Tombesi, Phys. Rev. A 77,
050307 (2008).
[15] H. Ian et al., Phys. Rev. A 78, 013824 (2008).
[16] K. Hammerer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 020501 (2009).
[17] D. Meiser and P. Meystre, Phys. Rev. A 73, 033417
(2006).
[18] C. Genes, H. Ritsch, and D. Vitali, arXiv:0906.3621v1
(2009).
[19] P. Treutlein et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 140403 (2007).
[20] A. A. Geraci and J. Kitching, Phys. Rev. A 80, 032317
(2009).
[21] I. Wilson-Rae, P. Zoller, and A. Imamoglu, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 92, 075507 (2004).
[22] P. Rabl et al., Phys. Rev. B 79, 041302 (2009).
[23] A. D. Armour et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 148301 (2002).
[24] K. Jaehne, K. Hammerer and M. Wallquist, New J. Phys.
10, 095019 (2008).
[25] X. Zhou and A. Mizel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 267201(2006).
[26] E. Buks and M. P. Blencowe, Phys. Rev. B 74,
174504(2006).
[27] F. Xue et al., New J. Phys. 9, 35 (2007).
[28] L. Tian and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 266403 (2004).
[29] C. Gardiner and P. Zoller, ’Quantum Noise’, Springer
(2000).
[30] A. M. Jayich et al., New J. Phys. 10, 095008 (2008).
[31] B. L. Zink et al., Rev. of Scientific Instruments 76,
024901 (2005).
[32] I. Wilson-Rae et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 093901 (2007).
[33] J. I. Cirac, R. Blatt, P. Zoller and W. D. Phillips, Phys.
Rev. A 46, 2668 (1992).
[34] J. Eisert and M. B. Plenio, J. Mod. Opt 46, 145 (1999).
[35] R. Simon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2726 (2000).
[36] G. Vidal and R. F. Werner , Phys. Rev. A 65, 032314
(2002).
[37] M. Ludwig, K. Hammerer and F. Marquardt, in preparation (2009).
[38] S. Haroche and J. M. Raimond, ’Exploring the quantum:
Atoms, Cavities, and Photons’, Oxford University Press
(2006).
[39] B. L. Zink and F. Hellman, Solid State Communications
129, 199 (2004).