I attempt to monitor the phase of a wavevector |ψ⟩.
As I found (e.g. here ), a matrix representation for the Pegg-Barnett phase operator in Fock base can be obtained as
Φ=s∑m,n,n′=02πm(s+1)2exp[2πim(n−n′)s+1]|n⟩⟨n′|
for a particle number cutoff s. Making the indices start at one instead of zero (for implementation in matlab), this becomes
Φ=˜s∑˜n,~n′=1˜s−1∑m=02πm˜s2exp[2πim(˜n−~n′)˜s]|˜n⟩⟨~n′|
When I construct the wavefunction though of e.g. a coherent state with α=√30; ⟨α|Φ|α⟩ with ˜s=200 gives me a phase ~2.7, whereas this coherent state is located in phase-space on the positive X-axis (so that phase zero would be expected.)
What went wrong?
NOTE ADDED: by trial and error, I found that we can obtain a phase prediction of zero if the summation over m also goes up to ˜s and in addition the reference phase θ0 is chosen −π instead of zero. I don't understand why though, and if this is to be trusted as a measure of phase. At first sight, it does not seem to fullfil the small angle approximation ϕ≈PX. Any insight is still welcome.
CODE USED with the original parameters
%% Constructing the initial state
alpha=sqrt(30);Nmax=200;
a=sparse(Nmax,Nmax);for it=1:Nmax-1, a(it,it+1)=sqrt(it); end;adag=a';
%annihilation and creation operators for use in the displacement operator.
vacuumpsi=zeros(Nmax,1); vacuumpsi(1,:)=1;
largepsiinit=exp(-0.5*abs(alpha)^2)*(expm(alpha*adag)*vacuumpsi);
%% The PB operator (tildes omitted)
s=Nmax;
PBphaseop=zeros(s);
thetazero=0;
for n=1:s
for nprime=1:s
for m=0:s-1
PBphaseop(n,nprime)=PBphaseop(n,nprime)+(-
thetazero+2*pi*m/(s))/Nmax*exp(1i*(n-nprime)*2*pi*m/(s));
end
end
end
%% Calculate expectation value of phase
phaseexp=largepsiinit'*PBphaseop*largepsiinit
Answer
What works quite nicely is defining the operator from eq.33 in https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9304036.pdf .
Also, it was to be expected that the PB-phase of a coherent state on the positive real axis is not zero for reference phase θ0=0, namely the eigenvalue spectrum is bounded by 0 and 2π and as a coherent state has a finite phase uncertainty, it crosses the cut in phase.
Aside from these issues, this PB-operator used has proven useful in monitoring the phase of a numerical wavevector and gives quite intuitive results. For further improvement, one can also iteratively update the used θ0 to avoid crossing of the phase-cut.
No comments:
Post a Comment