text:
# The stellar content of brightest cluster galaxies

## 1 Introduction

Elliptical or cD Brightest Cluster Galaxies (BCGs) have long been used as cosmological probes, in attempts to determine parameters such as H0 and q0 (Sandage 1972; Sandage & Hardy 1973; Hoessel, Gunn & Thuan 1980; Sandage & Tammann 1990). These studies make use of the ease of selection of such objects at cosmological distances, which is a result of their bright optical luminosities and privileged locations defined by other galaxies and by the centroids of cluster X-ray emission. They also appeal to another, more surprising property of BCGs: they appear to be excellent standard candles, with Sandage & Hardy  finding a scatter of only 0.28 mag in visual absolute magnitude, after correction for cluster Bautz-Morgan  and richness class. Lauer & Postman , in a study using more modern CCD techniques, found a scatter of 0.33 mag in R-band absolute magnitudes of BCGs. They were able to reduce this scatter to 0.25 mag by using the relation of absolute magnitude with the ‘Structure Parameter’ $`\alpha `$ of Hoessel , which is defined as

$$\alpha =\frac{d\mathrm{log}L_m}{d\mathrm{log}r}|_{r_m}$$

where $`r_m`$ is a metric radius of 9.6 kpc and $`L_m`$ is the luminosity within that metric radius. Hoessel  explains $`\alpha `$ as being a dimensionless parametrization of galaxy size, and empirically it is found to increase with BCG luminosity. Indeed he found a scatter in $`\alpha `$-corrected BCG absolute magnitudes of just 0.21 mag, even lower than that of Lauer & Postman .

This uniformity in BCG luminosities remains something of a mystery. There is indeed good reason for expecting a wider disparity in BCG properties than in those of other galaxy types. Hoessel  and Lauer  showed that $``$30% of BCGs have multiple nuclei, a frequency which is greater than would be predicted by chance superpositions, and which indicates that galactic cannibalism is very common in BCGs at the present epoch. The continued accretion of cluster members would seem to ensure that BCGs as a population should have diverse properties, and it would seem probable that this should be reflected both in their total luminosity and in their composition. One motivation for the present paper is to test whether BCGs are more homogeneous or more diverse than the general population of elliptical galaxies.

In this paper, we look at the stellar populations of BCGs, by measuring the strength of the 2.293$`\mu `$m CO absorption feature for 21 BCGs, and comparing the distribution of values with similar measurements for a large sample of field, group and cluster ellipticals (Mobasher & James 1996; James & Mobasher 1999; Mobasher & James 2000). CO strength contains information on recency of star formation, since it is very strong in supergiants (present 107–108 years after a burst of star formation), strong in the cool AGB stars which contribute significantly to the near-IR light after 108–109 years (Renzini & Buzzoni 1986; Oliva et al. 1995), and somewhat weaker in older populations. It also displays some metallicity dependence, being weak in very low metallicity globular clusters . This dependence was quantified by Doyon, Joseph & Wright , and further studied in Mobasher & James .

Such studies of BCGs are particularly significant considering the apparent large-scale velocity flow found by Lauer & Postman . Using a sample of 119 BCGs out to a redshift of 15000 kms-1, they found the restframe defined by the galaxies to differ from that of the Cosmic Microwave Background by almost 700 kms-1. This result has been interpreted as evidence for a cosmological streaming flow, but an alternative explanation would be that BCG properties vary systematically around the sky, for example due to stellar population changes from galaxy to galaxy. This provides a further motivation for the present study.

The organisation of this paper is as follows. Section 2 describes the selection of target galaxies, the observations, and the data reduction. Section 3 contains the main results, including a comparison of CO absorption strengths of BCGs and other elliptical galaxies, and correlations of CO strengths with other galaxy parameters. Section 4 summarises the main conclusions.

## 2 Sample Selection, Observations and Data Reduction

The galaxy sample was selected from the BCG list of Lauer & Postman . All have measured recession velocities less than 15,000 kms-1, with R band photometry presented in Lauer & Postman . The observations presented here were carried out using the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope (UKIRT) during the 4 nights of 21–24 February 1999. The instrument used was the long-slit near-IR spectrometer CGS4, with the 40 line mm-1 grating and the long-focal-length (300 mm) camera. The 4-pixel-wide slit was chosen, corresponding to a projected width on the sky of 2.4 arcsec. Working in 1st order at a central wavelength of 2.2 $`\mu m`$, this gave coverage of the entire K window. The CO absorption feature, required for this study, extends from 2.293 $`\mu m`$ (rest frame) into the K-band atmospheric cut-off. The principal uncertainty in determining the absorption depth comes from estimating the level and slope of the continuum shortward of this absorption which requires wavelength coverage down to at least 2.2 $`\mu m`$ and preferably to shorter wavelengths. There are many regions of the continuum free from lines even at this relatively low resolution. The effective resolution, including the degradation caused by the wide slit, is about 230.

For each observation, the galaxy was centred on the slit by maximising the IR signal, using an automatic peak-up facility. Total on-chip integration times of 12 minutes were used for the brightest and most centrally-concentrated ellipticals while an integration time of 24 minutes was more typically required. During this time, the galaxy was slid up and down the slit at one minute intervals by 22 arcsec, giving two offset spectra which were subtracted to remove most of the sky emission. Moreover, the array was moved by 1 pixel in the spectral direction between integrations to enable bad pixel replacement in the final spectra. Stars of spectral types A0–A6, suitable for monitoring telluric absorption, were observed in the same way before and after each galaxy, with airmasses matching those of the galaxy observations as closely as possible. Flat fields and argon arc spectra were taken using the CGS4 calibration lamps. A total of 21 brightest cluster galaxies was observed.

The data reduction was performed using the FIGARO package in the STARLINK environment. The spectra were flatfielded and polynomials fitted to estimate and remove the sky background. These spectra were then shifted to the rest frame of the galaxy, using redshifts from Lauer & Postman . The atmospheric transmissions were corrected by dividing each spectrum with the spectrum of the star observed closely in time to the galaxy, and at a similar airmass. The resulting spectrum was converted into a normalised, rectified spectrum by fitting a power-law to featureless sections of the continuum and dividing the whole spectrum by this power-law, extrapolated over the full wavelength range. Two rectified spectra are shown in Fig. 1. The apparent emission features at 2.14 $`\mu `$m and 2.10 $`\mu `$m are artefacts caused by absorptions in the A stars used for atmospheric transmission correction, and appear in different positions because of the restframe corrections.

To measure the depth of the CO absorption feature, the procedure outlined in James & Mobasher  is used. The restframe, rectified spectra were rebinned to a common wavelength range and number of pixels, to avoid rounding errors in the effective wavelength range sampled by a given number of pixels. The CO strength for each spectrum was determined using the method of Puxley, Doyon & Ward . They advocate the use of an equivalent width, COEW, which is determined within the CO absorption feature between rest-frame wavelengths of 2.293 $`\mu `$m and 2.320 $`\mu `$m. This wavelength range was found by Puxley et al.  to give maximum sensitivity to stellar population variations, and can be used for galaxies with recession velocities of up to $``$18000 kms-1 before the spectral region of interest shifts out of the usable K window. This is not the case for the CO index COsp used by Doyon et al. , which extends over a restframe wavelength range of 2.320–2.400 $`\mu `$m and would have been affected by large and uncertain telluric absorption and emission for the highest redshift galaxies in the present sample. Thus we only present COEW values in this paper.

A further advantage of the COEW definition of Puxley et al.  is that it is almost completely unaffected by velocity dispersion effects, due to the wide range of wavelength over which the absorption is measured. Puxley et al.  find the velocity dispersion corrections to be insignificant, which we confirmed by smoothing low-velocity-dispersion galaxy spectra to an effective velocity dispersion of 500 kms-1. The resulting change in COEW was $``$0.25%, very much smaller than the random errors.

The errors on the COEW values include three components. The first was calculated from the standard deviation in the fitted continuum points, on the assumption that the noise level remains constant through the CO absorption, giving an error on both the continuum level and on the mean level in the CO absorption, which were added in quadrature. The second error component comes from the formal error provided by the continuum fitting procedure. This procedure could leave a residual tilt or curvature in the spectrum, and the formal error was used to quantify this contribution. The final component was an estimate of the error induced by redshift and wavelength calibration uncertainties. All three errors were of similar sizes, with only the first varying from spectrum to spectrum, as a result of signal-to-noise variations (see Fig. 1), and all three were added in quadrature to give the value quoted in Table 1.

## 3 Results

The equivalent widths of CO absorption features for the sample of BCGs observed in this study are presented in Table 1. The data included in this table are Abell  catalogue numbers (column 1), BCG names (column 2), COEW values with 1–$`\sigma `$ errors (column 3), recession velocity in kms-1 (column 4), absolute R-band magnitude corresponding to the metric luminosity $`L_m`$ (column 5), structure parameter ($`\alpha `$) (column 6) and the magnitude residual relative to the best-fit $`L_m`$$`\alpha `$ relation (column 7), (columns 4–7 are all taken from Lauer & Postman , who assumed a Hubble constant of 80 kms-1Mpc-1). Columns 8 and 9 contain velocity dispersions and Mg2 metallicity indices, where available, from Faber et al. .

We find the mean COEW value for the 21 BCGs (3.35$`\pm `$0.03) to be effectively identical to that of the Coma cluster ellipticals (3.37$`\pm `$0.04) , and to that of the 31 ellipticals from a range of clusters discussed by James & Mobasher  (3.29$`\pm `$0.06). The cluster and BCG distributions lie between the distributions of ‘isolated’ and ‘group’ field ellipticals discussed by James & Mobasher  and shown in Fig. 2a. The major difference between the BCG COEW values and those of other ellipticals is the remarkably small range in the former: the standard deviation for BCGs is 0.156, compared to 0.240 for Coma ellipticals, 0.337 for general cluster galaxies, and 0.422 for cluster plus field ellipticals. Indeed, the scatter in BCG CO absorption strengths is that predicted from the error estimates on the individual COEW values, and so the intrinsic scatter may be much smaller still. Given the small number of BCG galaxies, a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test cannot distinguish between the distributions of BCG and cluster or Coma galaxies in Figs. 2b and 2c, but there is less than 10% chance that the BCGs are drawn from the same parent population as all the non-BCG ellipticals, and less than 1% chance that they are from the same population as field ellipticals (Fig. 2a).

The BCGs are drawn from a much narrower region of the galaxy luminosity function than are the comparison samples in Fig. 2, which could affect the interpretation of this result. The 21 BCGs have a range in MR of -22.0 to -23.1, little more than a magnitude. R-band photometry is not available for all the comparison galaxies, but good estimates can be made from published optical and near-IR photometry, leading to an estimated range of MR of -19.4 to -22.8 for the Coma cluster ellipticals, and -19.8 to -22.5 for the field and cluster ellipticals discussed by James and Mobasher . We investigated whether the differences in COEW scatter shown in Fig. 2 result from these differences in luminosity range by regressing COEW on absolute magnitude, and studying the distributions of COEW residuals about the best-fit lines. The distributions of these residuals are shown in Fig. 3. The dashed, diagonally shaded columns represent the residuals for the BCGs; the thick, dotted columns are those for the Coma cluster galaxies; and the solid lines represent the residuals for the field, group and cluster galaxies from James and Mobasher . The standard deviations of the COEW residuals are 0.133 nm for the BCGs, 0.221 nm for the Coma ellipticals, and 0.419 nm for the cluster plus field ellipticals. This reinforces the conclusion from Fig. 2 that the BCGs have substantially more homogeneous CO strengths than the other elliptical galaxies studied, and this result does not appear to be a selection effect caused by the small luminosity range of the BCGs.

This uniformity in COEW values is the main result of this paper, and it is important to consider what it implies in terms of differences between BCGs and other ellipticals. Both high metallicity and recency of star formation are expected to increase COEW values. The effect of metallicity on COEW values can be estimated for the galaxies with measured Mg2 indices, using the following method. From Fig. 37 of Worthey , a change in \[Fe/H\] from -0.25 to 0.00 changes the Mg2 index from 0.216 to 0.258, and the change is approximately linear over the modelled range. Thus we infer a relation of the form

$$\delta Mg_2=0.168\delta [Fe/H].$$

Doyon et al.  find a relation between \[Fe/H\] and their CO index COsp,

$$\delta CO_{sp}=0.11\delta [Fe/H],$$

and from the definitions in Puxley et al.  it is straightforward to convert from the index COsp to COEW. Then, the measured scatter in Mg2 index of 0.029 for the BCGs should cause a scatter of 0.060 nm in COEW, 38% of the observed scatter. For Coma ellipticals, the measured Mg2 scatter is 0.024, equivalent to a scatter of 0.049 nm in COEW, 20% of that observed, and for the field and cluster sample, the Mg2 scatter is 0.030, and the predicted COEW scatter 0.062 nm, 15% of that observed. Note also that the scatters in Mg2 values are very similar in the three subsamples, whereas they have very different COEW distributions. Thus, we conclude that metallicity differences have little effect on the measured COEW values for the elliptical galaxies studied here, and propose that star formation history is the dominant factor causing the larger scatter for non-BCG ellipticals. If so, the differences in the distributions of COEW, shown in Fig. 2 would be the result of wider variations in star formation history for general field and cluster ellipticals than for the BCGs. This indicates that BCGs formed their stars very early; if there has been more recent star formation in these galaxies then the rate of star formation as a function of epoch must have been very uniform from galaxy to galaxy.

Given the narrow range in BCG COEW values, it is unrealistic to expect very strong correlations with other BCG parameters. Nevertheless, Fig. 4 does show a good correlation with absolute R-band magnitude in a 10 kpc metric aperture, MR, with a correlation coefficient of 0.51 and a probability of 98.4% that this represents a true correlation (i.e. 1.6% probability that it could arise by chance). This is significant enough to be useful as a distance indicator: the scatter in MR for the 21 galaxies observed is 0.326 mag, which reduces to 0.280 mag when the MR values are corrected for the COEW effect. The slope of the regression line of MR on COEW is somewhat smaller than that for the trend in MK (total K-band absolute magnitude) vs COEW for Coma cluster ellipticals , at -1.1$`\pm `$0.5 mag/nm c.f. -1.6$`\pm `$0.7 mag/nm for the Coma galaxies. However, this difference is not statistically significant ($``$0.6$`\sigma `$). It is not possible to determine whether the absolute magnitude–COEW relations are consistent for the various samples because of the lack of homogeneous photometry, and the consequent need for large and uncertain colour and aperture corrections.

Similarly, there is a strong correlation between COEW and residuals (dMα) about the relation of MR with structure parameter $`\alpha `$  (Fig. 5), in the sense that galaxies with high COEW tend to be bright relative to the mean relation (correlation coefficient 0.60, significance 99.6%). The residuals (dMα) are reduced from 0.243 mag to 0.195 mag by correcting for the trend with COEW shown in Fig. 5. There is no correlation between COEW and the structure parameter $`\alpha `$ itself.

Given the trends found in Figs. 4 & 5, it is instructive to explore if these effects could cause the putative streaming flow signal detected by Lauer & Postman  using the full sample of BCGs. However, we find no significant correlation between COEW and direction on the sky (Fig. 6). This implies that the Lauer & Postman  apparent detection of a bulk flow was not an artefact of differing stellar populations between sample galaxies, although we have of course only looked at a small fraction (18%) of their sample.

The trends in figures 4 & 5 are both in the sense that brighter galaxies have higher indices: that in Fig. 4 could be a consequence of a metallicity–absolute magnitude relation, and there is indeed evidence of a weak correlation of COEW with metallicity (Fig. 7). The correlation coefficient here is 0.52, but the relation has only 80% significance due to only 8 BCGs having tabulated Mg2 values. Fig. 7 also shows the trend in COEW with metallicity for 31 Coma cluster galaxies . The BCGs clearly lie at higher mean metallicity than do the Coma cluster ellipticals (mean Mg2 values 0.328 for the BCGs and 0.294 for the Coma ellipticals). Using the relation between Mg2 and \[Fe/H\] from Worthey , and that between \[Fe/H\] and CO absorption strength found by Doyon et al. , this predicts a difference in mean COEW of 0.05 nm, compared to the observed difference of 0.04$`\pm `$0.07 nm in the same sense. The small variation found here confirms the weakness of the dependence of COEW on metallicity, as found by Doyon et al. , at least at the high metallicity values typical of centres of bright galaxies, and also confirms our earlier conclusion that star formation history is the dominant effect in determining COEW strength. This is further confirmed by the wide spread in the COEW values of isolated and group ellipticals , with no corresponding change in their metallicity.

Finally, we find a weak correlation of COEW with velocity dispersion for 14 galaxies with data in Table 1 (Fig. 8). This corresponds to a correlation coefficient of 0.294, and is significant at the 69% level. The slope and correlation coefficient are the same as was found for 31 Coma cluster ellipticals, also plotted in Fig. 8, but the mean correlation for the BCGs is again offset, to higher velocity dispersion at a given COEW. The mean COEW is almost identical for the two samples, whilst the BCGs have a much higher average velocity dispersion, and hence mass, as expected.

## 4 Conclusions

We find that BCGs are much more homogeneous in evolved red stellar content than ellipticals overall, and BCGs are somewhat more homogeneous than Coma cluster ellipticals. The measured scatter in the COEW indices for BCGs is comparable to the measurement errors. We interpret this as implying a more uniform and probably earlier star formation history for BCGs than for normal ellipticals. Metallicity does not appear to be the controlling parameter of CO absorption strength for elliptical galaxies.

Absolute magnitudes, and magnitude residuals relative to the structure parameter relation of Hoessel  correlate well with CO absorption depth. This may imply the presence of an additional intermediate-age population, or a higher metallicity population, in the galaxies which are over-luminous relative to the mean relation. However, this effect is very small and such populations, if present, must be weaker than in most field and cluster ellipticals, given the high degree of homogeneity in BCG COEW values.

It may be possible to use these correlations to define higher precision distance indicators for BCGs, which could be used for galaxies with redshifts up to 18,000 kms-1, as is indicated by the reduced scatter in R-band absolute magnitude, and the reduced scatter about the structure parameter relation after correction for the correlation with COEW, discussed in section 3.

Recent ROSAT observations reveal that a significant number of the Lauer & Postman  galaxies do not lie at the X-ray centroids of their clusters (Paul Lynam, private communication), and there may be better candidates for the dominant central cluster galaxy. Thus our conclusions may refer more generally to bright galaxies towards cluster centres than to individual BCGs inhabiting the very centre of the cluster potential.

## 5 Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the anonymous referee for many useful suggestions. The United Kingdom Infrared Telescope is operated by the Joint Astronomy Centre on behalf of the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council.


format: text

text:
# Amenable actions and exactness for discrete groups

## Abstract.

It is proved that a discrete group $`G`$ is exact if and only if its left translation action on the Stone-Čech compactification is amenable. Combining this with an unpublished result of Gromov, we have the existence of non exact discrete groups.

The author is supported by JSPS

In \[KW\], Kirchberg and Wassermann discussed exactness for groups. A discrete group $`G`$ is said to be exact if its reduced group $`C^{}`$-algebra $`C_\lambda ^{}(G)`$ is exact. Throughout this paper, $`G`$ always means a discrete group and we identify $`G`$ with the corresponding convolution operators on $`\mathrm{}_2(G)`$.

Amenability of a group action was discussed by Anantharaman-Delaroche and Renault in \[ADR\]. The left translation action of a group $`G`$ on its Stone-Čech compactification $`\beta G`$ was considered by Higson and Roe in \[HR\]. This action is amenable if and only if the uniform Roe algebra

$$UC^{}(G):=C^{}(\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}(G),G)=\overline{span}\{s\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}(G):sG\}𝔹(\mathrm{}_2(G))$$

is nuclear. Since a $`C^{}`$-subalgebra of an exact $`C^{}`$-algebra is exact, $`C_\lambda ^{}(G)`$ is exact if $`UC^{}(G)`$ is nuclear. In this article, we will prove the converse.

A function $`u:G\times G`$ is called a positive definite kernel if the matrix $`[u(s_i,s_j)]𝕄_n`$ is positive for any $`n`$ and $`s_1,\mathrm{},s_nG`$. If $`u`$ is a positive definite kernel on $`G\times G`$ such that $`u(s,s)1`$ for all $`sG`$, then the Schur multiplier $`\theta _u`$ on $`𝔹(\mathrm{}_2(G))`$ defined by

$$\theta _u(x)=[u(s,t)x_{s,t}]_{s,tG}$$

for $`x=[x_{s,t}]𝔹(\mathrm{}_2(G))`$ is a completely positive contraction. (See the section 3.6 in \[Pa\].)

###### Lemma 1 (Section 5 in \[Pa\]).

Let $`B`$ be a $`C^{}`$-algebra and $`n`$. Then, the map

$$\mathrm{CP}(B,𝕄_n)\varphi f_\varphi (𝕄_n(B))_+^{}$$

defined by

$$f_\varphi (X)=\underset{i,j}{}\varphi (x_{ij})_{ij}$$

for $`X=[x_{ij}]𝕄_n(B)`$ gives a bijective correspondence between the set of all completely positive maps $`\mathrm{CP}(B,𝕄_n)`$ from $`B`$ to $`𝕄_n`$ and the set of all positive linear functionals $`(𝕄_n(B))_+^{}`$ on $`𝕄_n(B)`$.

For vectors $`\xi `$ and $`\eta `$ in a Hilbert space $``$, we define a linear functional $`\omega _{\xi ,\eta }`$ on $`𝔹()`$ by $`\omega _{\xi ,\eta }(x)=(x\xi ,\eta )`$ for $`x𝔹()`$. For a subset $`_0`$ in $``$, we denote by $`𝒱(_0)`$ the (possibly non-closed) linear span of $`\{\omega _{\xi ,\eta }:\xi ,\eta _0\}`$.

The following is a variation of Kirchberg’s theorem.

###### Lemma 2.

Let $`A`$ be a unital exact $`C^{}`$-subalgebra of $`𝔹()`$ and let $`_0`$ be a total subset in $``$. Then, for any finite subset $`EA`$ and $`\epsilon >0`$, we have $`\theta :A𝔹()`$ such that

1. $`\theta `$ is of finite rank and unital completely positive,
2. $`\theta (x)x<\epsilon `$ for all $`xE`$,
3. there are $`f_k𝒱(_0)`$ and operators $`y_k`$ in $`𝔹()`$ such that

$$\theta (x)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{d}{}}f_k(x)y_k$$

for $`xA`$.

###### Proof.

We may assume that $`1E`$. Since $`A`$ is exact, it follows from Kirchberg’s theorem \[K, W\] that the inclusion map of $`A`$ into $`𝔹()`$ is nuclear. Thus, there are $`n`$ and unital completely positive maps $`\varphi :𝔹()𝕄_n`$ and $`\psi :𝕄_n𝔹()`$ such that

$$\psi \varphi (x)x<\epsilon /2\text{ for all }xE.$$

Let $`f_\varphi (𝕄_n(𝔹()))^{}=𝔹(^n)^{}`$ be the corresponding linear functional defined as in Lemma 1. Since $`𝒱(_0^n)𝔹(^n)_+^{}`$ is weak dense in $`𝔹(^n)_+^{}`$, we can approximate $`f_\varphi `$ by linear functionals in $`𝒱(_0^n)𝔹(^n)_+^{}`$ in the weak-topology. It follows that we can approximate $`\varphi `$ in the point-norm topology by completely positive maps $`\varphi ^{}`$ such that $`\varphi ^{}()_{ij}`$ is in $`𝒱(_0)`$. Thus, for arbitrary $`0<\delta <1`$, we may find such $`\varphi ^{}`$ with

$$\varphi ^{}(x)\varphi (x)<\delta \text{ for all }xE.$$

Let $`p=\varphi ^{}(1)`$. Since $`1E`$ and $`0<\delta <1`$, $`p`$ is invertible. Thus, we can define a unital completely positive map $`\varphi ^{\prime \prime }:A𝕄_n`$ by

$$\varphi ^{\prime \prime }(x)=p^{1/2}\varphi ^{}(x)p^{1/2}$$

for $`xA`$. Taking $`\delta >0`$ sufficiently small, we have

$$\varphi ^{\prime \prime }(x)\varphi (x)<\epsilon /2\text{ for all }xE.$$

Finally, put $`\theta =\psi \varphi ^{\prime \prime }`$ and we are done. ∎

The following was inspired by the work of Guentner and Kaminker \[GK\].

###### Theorem 3.

For a discrete group $`G`$, the following are equivalent.

1. The reduced group $`C^{}`$-algebra $`C_\lambda ^{}(G)`$ is exact.
2. For any finite subset $`EG`$ and any $`\epsilon >0`$, there are a finite subset $`FG`$ and a positive definite kernel $`u:G\times G`$ such that

$$u(s,t)0\text{ only if }st^1F$$

and that

$$|1u(s,t)|<\epsilon \text{ if }st^1E.$$
3. The uniform Roe algebra $`UC^{}(G)`$ is nuclear.

###### Proof.

(i)$``$(ii). We follow the proof of Theorem 3.1 in \[GK\]. We give ourselves a finite subset $`EG`$ and $`\epsilon >0`$. By the assumption, there is $`\theta :C_\lambda ^{}(G)𝔹(\mathrm{}_2(G))`$ satisfying the conditions in Lemma 2 for $`E_\lambda ^{}(G)`$, $`\epsilon `$ and $`_0=\{\delta _s:sG\}`$. If

$$\theta =\underset{k=1}{\overset{d}{}}\omega _{\delta _{p(k)},\delta _{q(k)}}y_k$$

for $`p(k),q(k)G`$, then we put $`F=\{q(k)p(k)^1:k=1,\mathrm{},d\}`$.

We define $`u:G\times G`$ by

$$u(s,t)=(\delta _s,\theta (st^1)\delta _t)$$

for $`s,t\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. It is not hard to check that $`u`$ has the desired properties.

(ii)$``$(iii). Let $`\{E_i\}_{iI}`$ be an increasing net of finite subsets of $`G`$ containing the unit $`e`$. By the assumption, there are finite subsets $`F_iG`$ and a net of positive definite kernels $`\{u_i\}_{iI}`$ such that

$$u_i(s,t)0\text{ only if }st^1F_i$$

and that

$$|1u_i(s,t)|<|E_i|^1\text{ if }st^1E_i.$$

We may assume that $`u(s,s)1`$ for all $`sG`$. Let $`\theta _i:𝔹(\mathrm{}_2(G))𝔹(\mathrm{}_2(G))`$ be the Schur multiplier associated with the positive definite kernel $`u_i`$. Then, $`\theta _i`$’s are completely positive contractions and it can be seen that

$$ran\theta _ispan\{s\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}(G):sF_i\}UC^{}(G)$$

and that

$$\underset{iI}{lim}\theta _i(x)x=0\text{ for all }xUC^{}(G).$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be the restriction map from $`𝔹(\mathrm{}_2(G))`$ onto $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}(G)`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)(s)=(x\delta _s,\delta _s)`$ for $`x𝔹(\mathrm{}_2(G))`$. For $`iI`$ and $`sF_i`$, we define a complete contraction $`\sigma _i^s:𝔹(\mathrm{}_2(G))\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}(G)`$ by

$$\sigma _i^s(x)=\mathrm{\Phi }(s^1\theta _i(x))$$

for $`x𝔹(\mathrm{}_2(G))`$. Then, we have $`\theta _i(x)=_{sF_i}s\sigma _i^s(x)`$ for $`iI`$ and $`x𝔹(\mathrm{}_2(G))`$.

To prove that $`UC^{}(G)`$ is nuclear, we take a unital $`C^{}`$-algebra $`B`$. It suffices to show that $`UC^{}(G)_{\mathrm{min}}B=UC^{}(G)_{\mathrm{max}}B`$. Let

$$Q:UC^{}(G)_{\mathrm{max}}BUC^{}(G)_{\mathrm{min}}B$$

be the canonical quotient map. Since $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}(G)`$ is nuclear, we observe that

$$\sigma _i^s\mathrm{id}_B:UC^{}(G)_{\mathrm{min}}B\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}(G)_{\mathrm{min}}BUC^{}(G)_{\mathrm{max}}B$$

is a well-defined contraction. Since $`\theta _i`$’s are completely positive contractions, so are

$$\theta _i\mathrm{id}_B:UC^{}(G)_{\mathrm{max}}BUC^{}(G)_{\mathrm{max}}B$$

(see Theorem 10.8 in \[Pa\]) and we have

$$\underset{iI}{lim}\theta _i\mathrm{id}_B(z)z=0\text{ for all }zUC^{}(G)_{\mathrm{max}}B.$$

Combining this with the factorization

$$\theta _i\mathrm{id}_B(z)=\underset{sF_i}{}(s1)(\sigma _i^s\mathrm{id}_B(Q(z))),$$

we see that $`\mathrm{ker}Q=\{0\}`$.

(iii)$``$(i). This is obvious. ∎

###### Remark 4.

Recently, Gromov found examples of finitely presented groups which are not uniformly embeddable into Hilbert spaces \[G\]. As it was suggested in \[GK\], these examples of Gromov are indeed not exact since the condition (ii) in Theorem 3 assures uniform embeddings.

Our definition of exactness for discrete groups is different from the original one \[KW\], but this is justified by Theorem 5.2 in \[KW\]. Also, we can reprove this using Theorem 3. Indeed, for a closed 2-sided ideal $`I`$ in a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$, the corresponding sequence

$$0UC^{}(G;I)UC^{}(G;A)UC^{}(G;A/I)0$$

is exact if the condition (ii) in Theorem 3 holds, where for a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`B𝔹()`$, we set

$$UC^{}(G;B)=C^{}(\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{}}(G;B),1_{}\lambda (G))𝔹(_2\mathrm{}_2(G)).$$

Our definition of amenable action is different from Definition 2.2 in \[HR\] and there is a delicate problem when we are dealing with non second countable space, but this is justified when $`G`$ is countable. Indeed, let $`u`$ be a positive definite kernel as in the condition (ii) in Theorem 3. We may assume that $`u(s,s)=1`$ for all $`sG`$. Regarding $`u`$ as a positive element in $`UC^{}(G)`$, we let $`\xi _s=u^{1/2}\delta _s\mathrm{}_2(G)`$. Then, we have $`(\xi _t,\xi _s)=u(s,t)`$ for $`s,tG`$. Now, define $`\mu :G\mathrm{}_1(G)`$ by $`\mu _s(t)=|\xi _s(t^1s)|^2`$ for $`s,tG`$. It can be verified that $`\mu _s_1=\xi _s_2^2=1`$ and that

$$s\mu _t\mu _{st}_1=|\xi _t|^2|\xi _{st}|^2_1|\xi _t||\xi _{st}|_2|\xi _t|+|\xi _{st}|_22\sqrt{2\epsilon }$$

for all $`sE`$ and $`tG`$. We observe that the range of $`\mu `$ is relatively weak compact in $`\mathrm{}_1(G)`$ since $`u^{1/2}`$ is in $`UC^{}(G)`$. Thus, we can extend $`\mu `$ on the Stone-Čech compactification $`\beta G`$ by continuity. This completes the proof of our claim.

From the theory of exact operator spaces developed by Pisier \[Pi\], it is enough to check the condition (ii) in Theorem 3 for finite subsets $`E`$ that contain the unit $`e`$ and are contained in a given set of generators of $`G`$.

See \[Y, H, HR, GK\] for the connection to the Novikov conjecture.


text:
# Coexistence of thermal noise and squeezing in the intensity fluctuations of small laser diodes

## I Introduction

In the early days of laser physics, one of the most fundamental properties attributed to lasers was the reduction of photon number fluctuations below thermal levels at threshold . More recently, the possibility to reduce the intensity noise of semiconductor laser diodes even below the shot noise limit has once again drawn attention to the photon number statistics of light emitted by laser devices . However, in the case of semiconductor lasers, the microscopic laser dynamics depends sensitively on the charge carrier densities which provide the optical gain. Quantum theories of laser light often fail to include this dynamical degree of freedom. In particular, the theories which show the reduction of photon number fluctuations in the laser cavity below thermal noise usually rely on the adiabatic elimination of the carrier dynamics . In the following, it is shown that, without this elimination of the carrier relaxation dynamics, small semiconductor lasers may exhibit thermal noise even far above threshold. In particular, the photon number fluctuation inside the cavity may even be thermal at quantum efficiencies grater than 50 %, allowing a suppression of the low frequency intensity fluctuations below the shot noise limit. This coexistence of thermal noise and squeezing can be derived theoretically from the same photon number rate equations as the thermal noise. It is therefore necessary to distinguish the photon number statistics at short times from the time integrated statistics of the low frequency noise component. Specifically, the low frequency noise is not associated with any well defined mode, but represents a collective property of many modes due to the limited temporal coherence of the emitted light. This implies that even an ideal single mode laser exhibits the anti-correlated intensity statistics observed in multi-mode lasers . Even the squeezing observed in a perfect single mode laser can therefore include a large amount of thermal noise and does not usually correspond to the generation of a minimum uncertainty state.

The paper is organized as follows: In section II, the rate equations are formulated. Within this framework we present our definition of the laser threshold. In the subsequent section III, the photon number fluctuations are determined which allow the definition of a noise threshold. In section IV, the low frequency limit of intensity noise is derived and the squeezing threshold is defined. In section V, the results are summarized and the conditions for a coexistence of squeezing and thermal noise is obtained. In section VI, the nature of collective multi-mode squeezing is discussed and limitations of quantum optical applications are pointed out.

## II Rate equations for the energy flow in lasers

A laser device converts the energy injected into the gain medium into laser light by means of light field amplification inside the laser cavity. Since the energy in the gain medium and the energy of the light field are both quantized, the energy flow cannot be entirely smooth and continuous. Instead, it is described by transition rates. Figure 1 illustrates the transition rates between the two energy reservoirs and the environment. Note that the rates given pertain to a single mode laser under the assumption of a linear carrier density dependence for gain and spontaneous emission. The laser device is thus characterized by the spontaneous emission factor $`\beta `$, the excitation lifetime $`\tau `$, the excitation number at transparency $`N_T`$ and the cavity loss rate $`\kappa `$. The rate equations for the excitation number $`N`$ and the cavity photon number $`n`$ at an injection rate $`j`$ may be formulated according to figure 1 as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}N`$ $`=`$ $`j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }}N2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\tau }}(NN_T)n+q_N(t)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}n`$ $`=`$ $`2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\tau }}(NN_T)\kappa \right)n+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\tau }}N+q_n(t),`$ (1)
where $`q_N(t)`$ and $`q_n(t)`$ represent the shot noise terms corresponding to the respective transitions into and out of the gain medium excitation $`N`$ and the cavity photon number $`n`$, respectively. Note that equation (II) corresponds to the rate equation of Lax and Louisell . Although a precise quantum mechanical treatment would require the solution of a master equation for both the light field and the gain medium, it is possible to reduce this equation to the diagonal elements in photon and excitation number. The statistical equations then correspond to those of a classical particle flow, allowing a formulation of both rate equations and shot noise terms.

The noise terms are zero on average. However, their fluctuations and correlations are given by the transition rates associated with the respective energy reservoir,

$`q_N(t)q_N(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\sigma j+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\tau }}(n+1)N+2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\tau }}N_Tn+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\tau }}N\right)\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$
$`q_n(t)q_n(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2\kappa n+2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\tau }}N_Tn+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\tau }}N\right)\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$
$`q_N(t)q_n(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\tau }}N_Tn+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\tau }}N\right)\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t).`$ (2)
Pump noise suppression is described by the pump noise factor $`\sigma `$. For the purpose of describing the possibility of squeezing, only the ideal case of $`\sigma =0`$ will be considered. Moreover, it should be noted that the actual output intensity $`I(t)`$ of the laser device is a fluctuating quantity given by

$$I(t)=2\kappa n+q_I(t),$$
(3)
where the quantum noise statistics of $`q_I(t)`$ read

$`q_I(t)q_I(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ $`=`$ $`2\kappa n\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$
$`q_n(t)q_I(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ $`=`$ $`2\kappa n\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$
$`q_N(t)q_I(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (4)
Within the framework of our general laser model, equations (II) to (II) provide a complete description of the fluctuating laser intensity $`I(t)`$ for all time-scales and frequencies. The characteristics of a specific device are determined by only four device parameters, i.e. the spontaneous emission factor $`\beta `$, the excitation lifetime $`\tau `$, the excitation number at transparency $`N_T`$ and the cavity loss rate $`\kappa `$. In general, these parameters are given by the gain medium and the cavity design. For semiconductor lasers with an active volume of $`V`$, typical material properties are

$`\beta V`$ $``$ $`10^{14}\text{cm}^3`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N_T}{V}}`$ $``$ $`10^{18}\text{cm}^3`$
$`\tau `$ $``$ $`3\times 10^9\text{s}.`$ (5)
The cavity loss rate $`\kappa `$ should be smaller than the maximal gain in order to achieve lasing. For the parameters above, this corresponds to the condition that

$$\kappa <\frac{\beta N_T}{\tau }3.33\times 10^{12}\text{s}^1.$$
(6)
Usually, the quality of a laser cavity will not be much higher than needed, so the loss rate for semiconductor laser cavities is typically around $`10^{12}\text{s}^1`$. Consequently, the main device parameter for semiconductor laser diodes is the size as given by $`V`$ or, alternatively, by the spontaneous emission factor $`\beta `$. Since the size of typical laser diodes is in the micrometer range, spontaneous emission factors for standard diodes range from $`\beta =10^3`$ for small vertical cavity surface emitting lasers to about $`\beta =10^6`$ for edge emitters. Although larger devices are possible, it becomes increasingly difficult to stabilize a single mode. Consequently, a single mode theory will tend to underestimate the laser noise observed in large semiconductor laser diodes.

The light-current characteristic of a laser device described by equation (1) may be obtained from the time averaged energy flow given by the stationary solution of the rate equations. The stationary carrier number average $`\overline{N}`$ and the stationary photon number average $`\overline{n}`$ read

$`\overline{N}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\frac{1}{2n_T}}{1+\frac{1}{2\overline{n}}}}N_T`$
$`\overline{n}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{jj_{th}}{4\kappa }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+\sqrt{({\displaystyle \frac{jj_{th}}{4\kappa }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{j_{th}}{4\kappa }}},`$ (7)
where the photon number at transparency $`n_T`$ and the threshold current $`j_{th}`$ are given by

$`n_T`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta N_T}{2\kappa \tau }}`$
$`j_{th}`$ $`=`$ $`lim_{\overline{n}\mathrm{}}(1\beta ){\displaystyle \frac{\overline{N}}{\tau }}=2\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{1\beta }{\beta }}\left(n_T+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right).`$ (8)
The threshold current is defined by extrapolating the asymptotic linear increase of $`\overline{n}(j)`$ far above threshold to the threshold region. Since the excitation number $`\overline{N}`$ is pinned for $`\overline{n}\mathrm{}`$, the extrapolated threshold current is equal to the constant loss rate far above threshold.

In the following, the noise properties of the light field will be discussed with respect to the light field intensity given in terms of the average photon number $`\overline{n}`$. It is therefore useful to define the photon number at threshold by

$$n_{th}=\overline{n}(j_{th})=\sqrt{\frac{1}{16}+\frac{j_{th}}{4\kappa }}\frac{1}{4}.$$
(9)
Note that the order of magnitude for both threshold current $`j_{th}`$ and threshold photon number $`n_{th}`$ is defined by the spontaneous emission factor $`\beta `$. For $`\beta 1`$ and $`n_T=3/2`$, the threshold current $`j_{th}`$ given by equation (II) is equal to $`4\kappa /\beta `$ and the photon number at threshold is $`\beta ^{1/2}`$. In terms of electrical currents, $`\kappa =10^{12}\text{s}^1`$ corresponds to $`1.6\times 10^7\text{A}`$. Therefore, the approximate electrical threshold current $`\text{I}_{th}`$ of a typical semiconductor laser diode is related to the spontaneous emission factor $`\beta `$ by $`2\beta \text{I}_{th}10^6\text{A}`$. This formula allows a simple quantitative estimate of the spontaneous emission factor from the threshold current. For example, a threshold current of 5 mA indicates a spontaneous emission factor of $`\beta =10^4`$. The noise properties discussed in the following can thus be related directly to the electrical threshold current observed in the light-current characteristics of laser diodes.

## III Photon number fluctuations

The noise characteristics of laser light can be investigated by solving the linearized Langevin equations near the stationary solution. The linearization neglects the bilinear modification of the transition rate given by $`2\beta \tau ^1\delta N\delta n`$. This modification may become relevant for large correlated fluctuations in both $`n`$ and $`N`$. However, even for large $`\delta n`$, the smallness of $`\delta N`$ and the lack of correlation between $`\delta n`$ and $`\delta N`$ usually justify the linear approximation. The linearized dynamics of the fluctuations $`\delta N=N\overline{N}`$ and $`\delta n=n\overline{n}`$ read

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\delta N`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N\delta Nr\omega _R\delta n+q_N(t)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\delta n`$ $`=`$ $`r^1\omega _R\delta N\gamma _n\delta n+q_n(t),`$ (10)
where the relevant time-scales are given by the electronic relaxation rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$, the optical relaxation rate $`\gamma _n`$, and the coupling frequency $`\omega _R`$. The hole-burning ratio $`r`$ scales the interaction between photon fluctuations and excitation fluctuations. The four parameters characterizing the fluctuation dynamics are functions of the device properties and the average photon number $`\overline{n}`$, which read

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }}(1+2\beta \overline{n})`$
$`\gamma _n`$ $`=`$ $`2\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{n_T+\frac{1}{2}}{\overline{n}+\frac{1}{2}}}`$
$`\omega _R`$ $`=`$ $`2\kappa \sqrt{\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\overline{n}n_T}{\kappa \tau }}}`$
$`r`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \tau }{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{n}n_T)}{(\overline{n}+\frac{1}{2})^2}}}.`$ (11)
The complete set of two time correlation functions describing the temporal fluctuations may now be derived analytically by obtaining the response function of the linear dynamics and applying it to the statistics of the noise input components $`q_N(t)`$ and $`q_n(t)`$. However, it is usually possible to identify the major dynamical processes observable in the fluctuation dynamics by concentrating only on the fastest time-scales. In particular, three regimes may be distinguished:

* Relaxation oscillations, $`\omega _R\mathrm{\Gamma }_N+\gamma _n`$
If the coupling frequency $`\omega _R`$ is much larger than the relaxation rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$ and $`\gamma _n`$, the fluctuation dynamics is described by relaxation oscillations with a frequency of $`\omega _R`$ and a relaxation rate of $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_N+\gamma _n)/2`$.
* Optical relaxation, $`\gamma _n\mathrm{\Gamma }_N+\omega _R`$
If the optical relaxation rate $`\gamma _n`$ is much larger than the electronic relaxation rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$ and the coupling frequency $`\omega _R`$, the excitation dynamics has no significant effect on the fluctuation dynamics of the light field. The fluctuation dynamics is then approximately described by thermal fluctuations with a coherence time of $`\gamma _n^1`$.
* Adiabatic hole-burning, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N\gamma _n+\omega _R`$
If the electronic relaxation rate $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$ is much larger than the optical relaxation rate $`\gamma _n`$ and the coupling frequency $`\omega _R`$, the excitation number quickly relaxes to the stationary value defined by the much slower photon number fluctuations. This stationary value of the excitation number acts back on the photon number fluctuation through the coupling rate $`\omega _R`$, increasing the relaxation rate in the light field by $`\omega _R^2/\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$. The fluctuation dynamics is then given by exponentially damped fluctuations which are thermal for $`\gamma _n\mathrm{\Gamma }_N>\omega _R^2`$ and become sub-thermal for $`\gamma _n\mathrm{\Gamma }_N<\omega _R^2`$. In large lasers, this solution is typically valid close to threshold.

Figure 2 shows the operating regimes corresponding to the three cases given above as a function of spontaneous emission factor $`\beta `$ and average photon number $`\overline{n}`$.

Since quantum optics textbooks often characterize the light field not by two time correlations but by the stationary photon number distribution in the laser cavity, it is interesting to analyze the magnitude of the fluctuations given by the variance $`\delta n^2`$. Using equations (II) and (III), an analytical expression can be derived for the photon number fluctuations. For $`\beta 1`$ and $`\overline{n}n_T`$, it reads

$$\frac{\overline{\delta n^2}}{\overline{n}^2}\left(1+\frac{2\beta \overline{n}^3(2\beta \overline{n}+1)}{(n_T+\frac{1}{2})(4\beta (\kappa \tau +1)\overline{n}^2+\overline{n}+2\kappa \tau (n_T+\frac{1}{2}))}\right)^1.$$
(12)
Figure 3 shows a contour plot of the fluctuations as a function of spontaneous emission factor $`\beta `$ and photon number $`\overline{n}`$ for $`3\kappa \tau =10^4`$ and $`n_T=3/2`$. It should be noted that the thermal noise region with $`\delta n^2\overline{n}^2`$ extends far beyond the laser threshold for $`\beta >10^6`$. If the photon number noise threshold $`n_\delta `$ is defined as the point at which the photon number fluctuations drop to one half of the thermal noise level, this threshold is given by

$$\frac{2\beta n_\delta ^3(2\beta n_\delta +1)}{(n_T+\frac{1}{2})(4\beta (\kappa \tau +1)n_\delta ^2+n_\delta +2\kappa \tau (n_T+\frac{1}{2}))}=1.$$
(13)
This definition of the threshold may be approximated by distinguishing three types of laser devices, depending on the magnitude of the spontaneous emission factor $`\beta `$. The three laser types are

* Macroscopic lasers, defined by $`\beta ^1>2(2\kappa \tau )^2(n_T+1/2)`$, with a noise threshold $`n_\delta =n_{th}`$ identical with the laser threshold given by equation (9).
* Mesoscopic lasers, defined by $`4\kappa \tau (n_T+1/2)<\beta ^1<2(2\kappa \tau )^2(n_T+1/2)`$, with a noise threshold $`n_\delta =2\kappa \tau (n_T+1/2)>n_{th}`$ slightly above the laser threshold given by equation (9).
* Microscopic lasers, defined by $`\beta ^1<4\kappa \tau (n_T+1/2)`$, with a noise threshold $`n_\delta =(\kappa \tau /2)n_{th}`$, significantly higher than the laser threshold given by equation (9).

Mesoscopic and microscopic lasers therefore have thermal photon number statistics even above threshold. Recent experimental studies conducted independently on a solid state laser system seem to confirm this result . Note that almost all semiconductor laser diodes fall into these two categories, since the parameters given by equation (II) indicate that macroscopic semiconductor lasers must have a spontaneous emission factor $`\beta `$ smaller than $`10^8`$, which corresponds to a threshold current of no less than 50 A. The borderline between mesoscopic and microscopic semiconductor laser devices is found at around $`\beta =10^4`$ or 5 mA threshold current. Thus, most modern semiconductor laser devices should exhibit thermal photon number fluctuations even above the laser threshold.

Microscopic lasers show thermal fluctuations even above quantum efficiencies greater than 50% ($`2\kappa \overline{n}=j_{th}`$). Since high quantum efficiency is the key to squeezing the laser output by suppressing the pump noise, such devices can produce a squeezed light output even in the presence of thermal photon number fluctuations in the laser cavity.

## IV Low frequency noise

Naturally, it is not possible to measure the light field inside the cavity. Nevertheless most quantum theories tend to concentrate on the state of the cavity field modes without any realistic assumptions on the emission process. It is one of the merits of the original work on squeezing the laser output  that it points out the practical relevance of distinguishing between the light inside the cavity and the light emitted by the laser device. On short time-scales, this difference may seem to be irrelevant, because the emission process only adds some partition noise for times shorter than $`\kappa ^1`$ and otherwise produces the same type of statistics as the field inside the cavity. However, energy conservation introduces a constraint at longer time-scales. Because of this external constraint, the fluctuations of the photon current outside the cavity may actually be lower than the photon number fluctuations inside . If the excitation dynamics are eliminated, this constraint affects both the photon number fluctuations inside the cavity and the low frequency noise equally . If the excitations in the gain medium provide an additional energy reservoir, however, care must be taken to distinguish the long term effects of such energy storage on the low frequency noise from the short term effects of energy exchange between the gain medium and the light field on the photon number fluctuations.

The field outside the cavity represents energy lost from the laser device, while a time average over the field inside the cavity does not have this meaning. In particular, a single photon might stay inside the cavity for a long time or for a short time - in the field outside, it will only appear once. In order to describe the low frequency part of intensity fluctuations, it is therefore necessary to discuss the output intensity $`I(t)`$ introduced in equation (3).

The fluctuations of the average intensity $`\overline{I}=2\kappa \overline{n}`$ are given by

$$\delta I(t)=I(t)\overline{I}=2\kappa \delta n+q_I(t).$$
(14)
The two time correlation function of the intensity fluctuation is then given by

$$\delta I(t)\delta I(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)=4\kappa ^2\delta n(t)\delta n(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)+2\kappa q_I(t)\delta n(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)+q_I(t)q_I(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t).$$
(15)
The last term represents the shot noise level $`L_{\text{SN}}`$ induced by quantum fluctuations at the cavity mirrors. It is therefore convenient to use this term as a normalization term when performing the time average representing the limit of low frequencies,

$$\frac{\overline{\delta I^2}(\omega 0)}{L_{\text{SN}}}=\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau \left(4\kappa ^2\delta n(t)\delta n(t+\tau )+2\kappa q_I(t)\delta n(t+\tau )\right)}{_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau q_I(t)q_I(t+\tau )}+1.$$
(16)
Using this normalization to the shot noise level, the low frequency limit of the intensity noise can be calculated using the linearized Langevin equation (III) with the noise terms given by equations (II) and (II). For $`\beta 1`$ and $`\overline{n}n_T`$, the result reads

$$\frac{\overline{\delta I^2}(\omega 0)}{L_{SN}}\frac{(n_T+\frac{1}{2})\left(4\beta \overline{n}^3+2\overline{n}^2+(n_T+\frac{1}{2})\right)}{\left(2\beta \overline{n}^2+(n_T+\frac{1}{2})\right)^2}+\sigma \frac{4\beta ^2\overline{n}^4+4\beta (n_T+\frac{1}{2})\overline{n}^3}{\left(2\beta \overline{n}^2+(n_T+\frac{1}{2})\right)^2}.$$
(17)
Figure 4 illustrates the low frequency noise characteristics for various levels of pump noise suppression $`\sigma `$. Note that the low frequency noise below about two times threshold current ($`2\kappa \overline{n}=j_{th}`$) does not depend very much on pump noise suppression. Moreover, the peak value of low frequency noise always coincides with the laser threshold. Above two times threshold, however, the squeezing obtained for $`\overline{n}\mathrm{}`$ is given by $`\sigma `$. In the following, the maximal squeezing potential represented by the $`\sigma =0`$ result will be investigated.

Since squeezing is defined by intensity noise below the shot noise limit, the squeezing threshold $`n_{sq}`$ for $`\sigma =0`$ can be defined as the point at which $`\overline{\delta I^2}(\omega 0)=L_{SN}`$. Using $`\beta 1`$ and $`n_T>1/2`$, this threshold is found to be given by

$$n_{sq}=\frac{1}{2\beta }\left((n_T+\frac{1}{2})+\sqrt{(n_T+\frac{1}{2})^2+(n_T+\frac{1}{2})}\right)\frac{n_T+\frac{1}{2}}{\beta }\frac{j_{th}}{2\kappa }.$$
(18)
The squeezing threshold is thus found at two times threshold current, corresponding to a quantum efficiency of 50%.

## V Coexistence of squeezing and thermal noise

Above two times threshold ($`2\kappa \overline{n}=j_{th}`$), the low frequency noise component of a semiconductor laser device may be squeezed below the shot noise level by suppressing the noise in the injected current. All the same, microscopic devices with spontaneous emission factors $`\beta `$ above $`10^4`$ and corresponding threshold currents below 5 mA still exhibit thermal photon number fluctuations on short time-scales. Therefore, an operating regime exists in which squeezing and thermal noise coexist in the same light field emission. This regime is defined as the region between the squeezing threshold given in equation (18) and the noise threshold given in equation (13). The laser threshold and the two fluctuation thresholds are shown in figure 5. At about $`\beta =10^3`$, the two thresholds cross. Therefore, coexistence of thermal noise and squeezing can be observed in devices with $`\beta >10^3`$. Figure 6 shows the photon number fluctuations and the low frequency noise for a mesoscopic ($`\beta =10^4`$) and a microscopic ($`\beta =10^2`$) laser device. In the microscopic device, coexistence of thermal noise and squeezing is clearly observable just above two times threshold ($`2\kappa \overline{n}=j_{th}`$).

What is the relationship between the thermal photon number fluctuations inside the cavity observed on picosecond time-scales and the suppression of noise below the shot noise limit on time-scales longer than the relaxation rates of the laser dynamics? An attempt to visualize this relationship is shown in figure 7. The short term fluctuations average out as the temporal average is taken. This effect is due to the anti-correlation of fluctuations at intermediate time differences. In the case of over-damped relaxation oscillations, the short term fluctuations are given by a fast optical relaxation $`\gamma _n`$ and a much slower relaxation of the carrier system $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$. At a quantum efficiency of 50 % ($`2\kappa \overline{n}=j_{th}`$), the two time correlations of $`I(t)`$ is approximately given by

$$\delta I(t)\delta I(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)2\kappa \overline{n}\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }t)+4\kappa ^2\overline{n}^2\mathrm{exp}\left(\gamma _n\mathrm{\Delta }t\right)4\kappa ^2\overline{n}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_N}{\gamma _n}\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_N\mathrm{\Delta }t\right).$$
(19)
While the time integrated contribution of the short time bunching is exactly equal to the time integrated contribution of the long time anti-bunching, the thermal bunching contributions dominate near $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=0`$ by a ratio equal to the time-scale ratio $`\gamma _n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_N1`$. The total low frequency noise is then equal to the shot noise term only, because the thermal fluctuations are anti-correlated on a time-scale of $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_n\tau `$ by the slow relaxation dynamics of the excitations in the gain medium. Figure 8 illustrates this transition from bunching to anti-bunching in the two time correlation of the laser output.

Note that the optical coherence time is equal to or even smaller than $`1/\gamma _n`$. In particular, the line-width enhancement effects described by the $`\alpha `$ factor and the Peterman factor, respectively, are known to cause an additional reduction of the phase coherence not related to the photon number relaxation. Therefore, the first order coherence time will be much shorter than the time during which thermal bunching is observed in the photon number statistics. This lack of first order coherence suggests that the squeezing of low frequency intensity noise below the shot noise limit is only obtained by a summation of the light field intensities of many modes with independent phase fluctuations. This type of collective squeezing cannot be attributed to a single coherent light field mode. Instead, it should be considered a multi-mode property.

## VI Implications for quantum optics

The light emitted by a laser propagates in the multi-mode continuum of the unconfined electromagnetic field. It is therefore difficult to describe it in terms of a discrete mode structure. As a result, photon number measurements cannot be assigned to well defined modes. The randomness of photon detection events is a consequence of this conceptual difficulty. Nevertheless, time integrated measurements of photon number can provide precise information about the number of photons within a given volume. It is tempting to associate this collective information directly with the single mode photon number. However, the lack of information available about the actual photon number distribution among the many modes within the observed volume should be considered as well. In particular, if all possible photon number distributions of $`n`$ photons among $`M`$ modes are considered to be equally likely, the situation corresponds to the micro-canonical ensemble of thermodynamics . The density matrix of any mode $`i`$ which is an arbitrary superposition of the $`M`$ modes then reads

$$\widehat{\rho }=\frac{N!(M1)}{(N+M1)!}\underset{n=0}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{(M+N2n)!}{(Nn)!}nn\frac{M}{N+M}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(1+\frac{M}{N}\right)^nnn,$$
(20)
where the approximation is for large $`M`$ and $`N`$. The photon number distribution of every single mode corresponds to a thermal distribution at a temperature proportional to the inverse logarithm of $`1+M/N`$ even though the total photon number in the $`M`$ modes is given precisely by $`N`$. While the photon number in each mode fluctuates thermally, the fluctuations in the total photon number are suppressed by anti-correlations between the modes. Such anti-correlations have been described theoretically  and observed experimentally between different longitudinal modes  and between orthogonal polarizations  in the squeezed light emission from semiconductor lasers. As the discussion in this paper indicates, it should be observable in the temporal mode structure as well. For the case of over-damped relaxation oscillations, equation (19) shows the anti-correlations between emission modes separated by a time roughly equal to the excitation lifetime $`1/\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$. If the coherence length is assumed to be about $`1/\gamma _n`$, the intensity distribution given by equation (19) might be interpreted according to equation (20) with $`M=\gamma _n/\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$ and $`N=2\kappa \overline{n}/\mathrm{\Gamma }_N`$. Thus the light field statistics given by equation (19) suggest that not a single mode of the total light field emission is in a squeezed state. If the low frequency noise is squeezed below the shot noise limit, this effect can be explained as a purely collective property without implications for any particular mode. Specifically, the slight anti-correlation in photon number between different modes shown by the two time correlation function given in equation (19) above does not represent quantum mechanical entanglement, since there is virtually no phase correlation between the respective modes. A semi-classical interpretation of the intensity noise is therefore sufficient to explain the squeezing properties of the laser field.

## VII Conclusions

We have shown that thermal noise in laser cavities may coexist with squeezing in the low frequency intensity fluctuations. The reason for this coexistence is that squeezing is caused by the long term anti-correlation of fluctuations caused by the slow loss rate of excitations from the gain medium, while the light field fluctuations within the optical coherence time are dominated by stimulated emission and photon bunching. Consequently, squeezing the low frequency intensity fluctuations of a semiconductor laser diode does not usually reduce the photon number fluctuations of any single mode. Instead, only the total photon number of a large number of modes is controlled. This type of collective squeezing should be distinguished from the single mode squeezing obtained e.g. by optical parametric amplification. While squeezing in semiconductor laser diodes represents a significant achievement in controlling the energy flow of light on the quantum level, it does not produce the entanglement properties which are typically observed in the single mode squeezing of optical parametric amplifiers. This limitation severely restricts the use of collectively squeezed light in quantum optical applications.

## Acknowledgements

One of us (HFH) would like to acknowledge support from the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science, JSPS.


text:
# Phase properties of a new nonlinear coherent state

## 1 Introduction

Coherent states are important in different branches of physics particularly in quantum optics. Historically coherent state of the harmonic oscillator (which is the coherent state corresponding to the Heisenberg-Weyl algebra) was first constructed by Schrödinger . Subsequently coherent states corresponding to various Lie algebras like Su(1,1), Su(2) etc. have also been constructed and has been shown to play important roles in the description of various quantum optical processes .

Recently another type of coherent states called the nonlinear coherent states  or the f-coherent states  have been constructed. In contrast to the coherent states mentioned above these are coherent states corresponding to nonlinear algebras. However nonlinear coherent states are not mere mathematical objects. It has been shown  that nonlinear coherent states are useful in connection with the motion of a trapped ion.

We note that unlike Lie algebras,the commutators of the generators of nonlinear algebras is a nonlinear function of the generators. As a consequence it is difficult to apply the BCH disentangling theorem  to construct displacement operator coherent states corresponding to nonlinear algebras. To avoid this difficulty nonlinear coherent states were constructed as eigenstates of a generalised annihilation operator . However,nonlinear coherent states can still be constructed using a displacement operator,albeit, a modified one  and it has been shown that such states exhibit nonclassical behaviour . In the present paper we shall study phase properties of such a nonlinear coherent state. In particular we shall obtain the Pegg-Barnett phase distribution and compare it with the phase distributions associated with Q-function and the Wigner function. We shall also evaluate the number-phase uncertainty relation and examine number-phase squeezing of the nonlinear coherent state. The organisation of the paper is as follows: in section 2 we derive phase distributions and number-phase uncertainty relation for displacement operator nonlinear coherent states; in section 3 we discuss numerical results obtained using the results of section 2; finally section 4 is devoted to a conclusion.

## 2 New nonlinear coherent states and their phase distributions

To begin with we note that the generalised creation and annihilation operators associated with nonlinear cohrent states are of the form

$$A^{}=f(N)a^{},A=af(N),N=a^{}a$$
(1)
where $`a^{}`$ and $`a`$ are standard harmonic oscillator creation and annihilation operators and $`f(x)`$ is a reasonably well behaved real function,called the nonlinearity function. From the relations (1) it follows that $`A`$, $`A^{}`$ and $`N`$ satisfy the following closed algebraic relations:

$$[A,A^{}]=f^2(N)(N+1)f^2(N1)N,[N,A]=A,[N,A^{}]=A^{}$$
(2)
Thus (2) represent a deformed Heisenberg algebra whose nature of deformation depends on the nonlinearity function $`f(n)`$. Clearly for $`f(n)=1`$ we regain the Heisenberg algebra. Nonlinear coherent states $`|\chi >`$ are then defined as right eigenstates of the generalised annihilation operator $`A`$ and in a number state basis is given by :

$$|\chi >=C\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d_n}{\sqrt{n}!}\chi ^n|n>$$
(3)
where $`C`$ is a normalisation constant and the coefficients $`d_n`$ are given by

$$d_0=1,d_n=[\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^nf(i)]^1$$
(4)
We note that the canonical conjugate of the generalised annihilation and creation operator $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$ are given by

$$B=a\frac{1}{f(N)},B^{}=\frac{1}{f(N)}a^{}$$
(5)
Thus $`A`$ and $`B^{}`$ and their hermitian conjugates satisfy the algebras

$$[A,B^{}]=1,[B,A^{}]=1$$
(6)
Now following ref  we consider the operators $`(\alpha =|\alpha |e^{i\varphi })`$

$$D_1(\alpha )=exp(\alpha B^{}\alpha ^{}A)$$

$$D(\alpha )=exp(\alpha A^{}\alpha ^{}B)$$
(7)
and note that for two operators $`X`$ and $`Y`$ such that $`[X,Y]=1`$ the BCH disentangling theorem  is of the form

$$exp(\alpha X\alpha ^{}Y)=exp(\frac{\alpha \alpha ^{}}{2})exp(\alpha X)exp(\alpha ^{}Y)$$
(8)
Then the nonlinear coherent state corresponding to the first of the two algebras in (6) is defined as $`|\alpha >_1=D_1(\alpha )|0>`$. Now applying (8) we obtain

$$|\alpha >_1=c_1\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d_n}{\sqrt{n}!}\alpha ^n|n>$$
(9)
Comparing this with the nonlinear coherent state $`|\chi >`$(see (3)) we find that both are exactly the same(provided of course we use the same nonlinearity function in both the cases).

The new nonlinear coherent state is then defined as $`|\alpha >=D(\alpha )|0>`$ i.e, it is the coherent state corresponding to the second algebra in (6). As before using the relation (8) we obtain

$$|\alpha >=c\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d_n^1}{\sqrt{n}!}\alpha ^n|n>$$
(10)
where $`c`$ is a normalisation constant which can be determined from the condition $`<\alpha |\alpha >=1`$ and is given by

$$c^2=[\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{d_n^2}{n!}(\alpha ^{}\alpha )^n]^1$$
(11)
We now consider the phase probability distributions for the new nonlinear coherent state (10). According to the Pegg-Barnett formalism  a complete set of $`(s+1)`$ orthonormal phase states $`\theta _p`$ are defined by

$$|\theta _p>=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(s+1)}}\underset{n=0}{\overset{s}{}}exp(in\theta _p)|n>$$
(12)
where $`|n>`$ are the number states which spans the $`(s+1)`$ dimensional state space and $`\theta _p`$ are given by

$$\theta _p=\theta _0+\frac{2\pi p}{s+1},p=0,1,2,\mathrm{},s$$
(13)
In (13) $`\theta _0`$ is arbitrary and indicates a particular basis in the phase space. The hermitian phase operator is then defined as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_\theta =\underset{p=0}{\overset{s}{}}\theta _p|\theta _p><\theta _p|$$
(14)
The expectation value of the phase operator with respect to the new nonlinear state $`|\alpha >`$ is given by

$$<\alpha |\mathrm{\Phi }_\theta |\alpha >=\underset{p=0}{\overset{s}{}}\theta _p|<\theta _p|\alpha >|^2$$
(15)
where $`|<\theta _p|\alpha >|^2`$ is the probability of being in the state $`|\theta _p>`$. Then in the limit $`s\mathrm{}`$ we get from (15)

$$<\alpha |\mathrm{\Phi }_\theta |\alpha >=_{\theta _0}^{\theta _0+2\pi }\theta P(\theta )𝑑\theta $$
(16)
where the continuous probability distribution $`P(\theta )`$ is given by

$$P(\theta )=lim_s\mathrm{}\frac{s+1}{2\pi }|<\theta _p|\alpha >|^2$$
(17)
Now choosing $`\theta _0`$ as

$$\theta _0=\varphi \frac{\pi s}{s+1}$$
(18)
and using (17) we obtain the Pegg-Barnett phase probability distribution for the new nonlinear coherent states (10):

$$P_{PB}(\theta )=\frac{1}{2\pi }\left[1+2c^2\underset{n>k}{}\frac{d_n^1d_k^1}{\sqrt{n!k!}}cos[(nk)\theta ]\right],\pi \theta \pi $$
(19)
With the phase probability distribution known various quantum mechanical averages in the phase space can be obtained using this function. For example the phase variance is given by

$$<(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_\theta )^2>=_\pi ^\pi \theta ^2P(\theta )𝑑\theta =\frac{\pi ^2}{3}+4c^2\underset{n>k}{}\frac{d_n^1d_k^1}{\sqrt{n!k!}}\frac{(1)^{nk}}{(nk)^2}$$
(20)
It may be noted that since $`N`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\theta `$ are canonically conjugate operators they obey the uncertainty relation

$$<(\mathrm{\Delta }N)^2><(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_\theta )^2>\frac{1}{4}|<[N,\mathrm{\Phi }_\theta ]>|^2$$
(21)
where $`<(\mathrm{\Delta }X)^2>=<X^2><X>^2`$ and the right hand side of (21) is given by

$$[N,\mathrm{\Phi }_\theta ]=i[12\pi P(\theta _0)]$$
(22)
Now to examine number-phase squeezing we introduce the following squeezing parameters:

$$S_N=\frac{2<(\mathrm{\Delta }N)^2>}{|<[N,\mathrm{\Phi }_\theta ]>|}1,S_\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{2<(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_\theta )^2>}{|<[N,\mathrm{\Phi }_\theta ]>|}1$$
(23)
If $`S_N<0`$ ($`S_\mathrm{\Phi }<0`$) then the nonlinear coherent state is number(phase) squeezed.

We note that the phase quasiprobability distributions $`P_{Q,W}(\theta )`$ associated with the Husimi Q-function and the Wigner function can be obtained by integrating these functions over the radial variable $`|\beta |`$. The forms of these distributions are given by

$$P_{Q,W}(\theta )=\frac{1}{2\pi }\left[1+2c^2\underset{n>k}{}\frac{d_n^1d_k^1}{\sqrt{n!k!}}cos[(nk)\theta ]F(n,k)\right],\pi \theta \pi $$
(24)
where the coefficients $`F(n,k)`$ in the case of Q-function are given by

$$F(n,k)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n+k}{2}+1)}{\sqrt{n!k!}}$$
(25)
while in the case of Wigner function they are given by

$$F(n,k)=2^{(nk)/2}\sqrt{\frac{k!}{n!}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n}{2}+1)}{(\frac{k}{2})!},\mathrm{n}\mathrm{even}$$

$$=2^{(nk)/2}\sqrt{\frac{k!}{n!}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{n+1}{2})}{(\frac{k1}{2})!},\mathrm{n}\mathrm{odd}$$
(26)
## 3 Phase properties

We shall now analyse various phase distributions for the nonlinear coherent state. However,before we do this it is necessary to specify a nonlinearity function $`f(n)`$. It is clear that for different choices of the nonlinearity function we shall get different nonlinear coherent states. In the present case we choose a nonlinearity function which has been used in the description of the motion of a trapped ion :

$$f(n)=L_n^1(\eta ^2)[(n+1)L_n^0(\eta ^2)]^1$$
(27)
where $`\eta `$ is known as the Lamb-Dicke parameter and $`L_n^m(x)`$ are generalised Lagurre polynomials. We shall now evaluate the distribution functions (19) and (24) with the nonlinearity function given by (27).

In fugure 1 we plot Pegg-Barnett phase distribution $`P_{PB}(\theta )`$ against $`\theta `$ keeping $`\alpha `$ fixed and using different values of $`\eta `$ for the three curves. From figure 1 we find that for lower values of $`\eta `$ the distribution is broad at the top. However as $`\eta `$ increases peaks begin to develop slowly and for a reasonably large value of $`\eta `$ there are two well developed peaks at $`\theta =\pm \pi /2`$. The appearence of the peaks is an indication of quantum interference.

In figure 1a we plot the Pegg-Barnett phase distribution keeping $`\eta `$ fixed at $`.8`$ and varying $`\alpha `$. From the figures it is seen that the qualitative features of the distribution remains essentially the same when one of the parameters is kept fixed while the other varies. However it may be noted that as $`\alpha `$ increases the peak structure becomes more and more prominent. Interestingly for $`\alpha =.37`$(it is the value where the phase variance is minimum, see below) the distribution shows practically no bifurcation.

In figure 2 we plot the three distributions $`P_{PB}(\theta )`$ and $`P_{Q,W}(\theta )`$ for the same values of the parameters. From the figure we find that although the distributions are of the same form they are not quite the same. It is seen that $`P_{PB}`$ is roughly intermediate between $`P_Q`$ and $`P_W`$. Also the Wigner distribution $`P_W`$ has the sharpest peaks while the Husimi Q distribution $`P_Q`$ is the broadest. However in the present case $`P_W`$ does not assume any negative value.

In figure 3 we have plotted phase variance against $`\alpha `$ for $`\eta =.8`$. From the figure we find that phase variance decreases upto a certain value of $`\alpha `$ and then again starts increasing. From the figure we find that phase variance assumes the minimum value at $`\alpha =.37`$. Thus for $`\alpha =.37`$ and around this value of $`\alpha `$ the best measurement of phase is possible. We note that the parameter values are not special but the phase variance shows the same pattern for other parameter values too.

In figure 4 we plot the squeezing parameters $`S_N`$ and $`S_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. From the figure we find that $`S_N<0`$ for a considerable range of $`\alpha `$. This implies that the nonlinear coherent state exhibits squeezing in the N component. However, $`S_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is always positive implying absence of squeezing in the $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ component.

We note that it is interesting to compare the squeezing behaviour of the new coherent state (10) and the one given by (3). In figure 5 we plot the graphs of $`S_N`$ corresponding to these states. From the figure it is seen that while for low values of $`\alpha `$ the coherent state (3) is more squeezed than (10),for larger values as well as a larger range of $`\alpha `$,the coherent state (10) remains squeezed while (3) does not remain so.

Now we compare the phase squeezing of the nonlinear coherent states (3) and (10). From fig 6 we find that $`S_\mathrm{\Phi }<0`$ for (3) while $`S_\mathrm{\Phi }>0`$ for (10). Thus from (23) it follows that the nonlinear coherent state (3) exhibits phase squeezing while (10) does not.

Finally to examine the number-phase uncertainty relation (21),we consider the quantity $`F(\alpha )=\sqrt{<(\mathrm{\Delta }N)^2><(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Phi }_\theta )^2>}\frac{1}{2}|<[N,\mathrm{\Phi }_\theta ]>|`$. Thus $`F(\alpha )0`$ and $`F(\alpha )=0`$ would imply that the state is an intelligent state. On the other hand a nonzero value of $`F(\alpha )`$ is a measure which indicates how much the state is away from being an intelligent state. In figure 7 we plot $`F(\alpha )`$ against $`\alpha `$ for $`\eta =.8`$. From the figure it is seen that $`F(\alpha )`$ is nonzero and has an increasing trend. The maximum in fig 7 indicates how much the nonlinear coherent state (10) can be different from an intelligent state. Thus we conclude that the nonlinear coherent state (10) is not an intelligent state.

## 4 Conclusion

In this article we have considered a class of nonlinear coherent states constructed using an operator similar to the displacement operator. We have examined a number of their phase properties. In particular we have computed various phase distributions and compared them. Also it has been shown that the states (10) exhibit number squeezing.