text:
# Entangled-photon ellipsometry

## I INTRODUCTION

A question that arises frequently in metrology is the following: how does one measure reliably the reflection or transmission coefficient of an unknown sample? The outcome of such a measurement depends on the reliability of both the source and the detector used to carry out the measurements. If they are each absolutely calibrated, such measurements would be trivial. Since such ideal conditions are never met in practice, and since high precision measurements are often required, a myriad of experimental techniques, such as null and interferometric approaches, have been developed to circumvent the imperfections of the devices involved in these measurements.

One optical metrology setting in which high-precision measurements are a necessity is ellipsometry , in which the polarization of light is used to study thin films on substrates, a technique established more than a hundred years ago . Ellipsometers have proven to be an important metrological tool in many arenas ranging from the semiconductor industry to biomedical applications. To carry out ideal ellipsometry one needs a perfectly calibrated source and detector. Various approaches, such as null and interferometric techniques have been commonly used in ellipsometers  to approach this ideal. Section 2 of this paper describes the basic requirements for ideal ellipsometry and reviews some of the more common techniques that have been used in conjunction with available detectors and sources.

In this paper we propose a novel technique for obtaining reliable ellipsometric measurements based on the use of twin photons produced by the process of spontaneous optical parametric downconversion (SPDC). This source has been used effectively in studies of the foundations of quantum mechanics  and in applications in quantum metrology  ; quantum information processing, such as quantum cryptography ; quantum teleportation ; and quantum imaging . We extend the use of this non-classical light source to the field of ellipsometry.

In Section 3, we propose two different experimental implementations of twin-photon ellipsometry. The first makes use of a twin-photon interferometer that has been previously used for testing the foundations of quantum mechanics. The second technique makes direct use of polarization-entangled photon pairs emitted via SPDC. This approach effectively comprises an interferometric ellipsometer, although none of the optical elements usually associated with constructing an interferometer are utilized. Instead, polarization entanglement itself is harnessed to perform interferometry, and to achieve ideal ellipsometry. The inherent limitations of the first technique are eliminated in the second.

## II IDEAL ELLIPSOMETRY

In an ideal ellipsometer, the light emitted from a reliable optical source is directed into an unknown optical system (which may simply be an unknown sample that reflects the impinging light) and thence into a reliable detector. The practitioner keeps track of the emitted and detected radiation, and from this bookkeeping (s)he can infer information about the optical system. This device may be used as an ellipsometer if the source can emit light in any specified state of polarization. The sample is characterized by two parameters: $`\psi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The quantity $`\psi `$ is related to the magnitude of the ratio of the sample’s eigenpolarization complex reflection coefficients, $`\stackrel{~}{r}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{r}_2`$, via $`\mathrm{tan}\psi =|\stackrel{~}{r}_1/\stackrel{~}{r}_2|`$; $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the phase shift between them .

Because of the high accuracy required in measuring these parameters, an ideal ellipsometric measurement would require absolute calibration of both the source and the detector. Since this is not attainable in practical settings, ellipsometry makes use of a myriad of experimental techniques developed to circumvent the imperfections of the involved devices. The most common techniques are null and interferometric ellipsometry.

In the traditional null ellipsometer , depicted in Fig. 1, the sample is illuminated with a beam of light that can be prepared in any state of polarization. The reflected light, which is generally elliptically polarized, is then analyzed. The polarization of the incident beam is adjusted to compensate for the change in the relative amplitude and phase, introduced by the sample, between the two eigenpolarizations, so that the resulting reflected beam is linearly polarized. If passed through an orthogonal linear polarizer, this linearly polarized beam will yield a null (zero) measurement at the optical detector. The null ellipsometer does not require a calibrated detector since it does not measure intensity, but instead records a null. The principal drawback of null measurement techniques is the need for a reference to calibrate the null, for example to find its initial location (the rotational axis of reference at which an initial null is obtained) and then to compare this with the subsequent location upon inserting the sample into the apparatus. Such a technique thus alleviates the problem of an unreliable source and detector, but necessitates the use of a reference sample. The accuracy and reliability of all measurements depend on our knowledge of this reference sample. In this case, the measurements are a function of $`\psi `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and the parameters of the reference sample.

Another possibility is to perform ellipsometry that employs an interferometric configuration in which the light from the source follows more than one path, usually created via beam splitters, before reaching the detector. The sample is placed in one of those paths. We can then estimate the efficiency of the detector (assuming a reliable source) by performing measurements when the sample is removed from the interferometer. This configuration thus alleviates the problem of an unreliable detector, but depends on the reliability of the source and suffers from the drawback of requiring several optical components (beam splitters, mirrors, etc.). The ellipsometric measurements are a function of $`\psi `$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, source intensity, and the parameters of the optical elements. The accuracy of the measurements are therefore limited by our knowledge of the parameters characterizing these optical components. The stability of the optical arrangement is also of importance to the performance of such a device.

## III TWIN-PHOTON ELLIPSOMETRY

All classical optical sources (including ideal amplitude-stabilized lasers) suffer from unavoidable quantum fluctuations even if all other extraneous noise sources are removed. Fluctuations in the photon number can only be eliminated by constructing a source that emits non-overlapping wave packets, each of which contains a fixed photon number. Such sources have been investigated, and indeed sub-Poisson light sources have been demonstrated .

One such source may be readily realized via the process of spontaneous parametric downconversion (SPDC) from a second-order nonlinear crystal (NLC) when illuminated with a monochromatic laser beam (pump) . A portion of the pump photons disintegrate into photon pairs. The two photons that comprise the pair, known as signal and idler, are highly correlated since they conserve the energy (frequency-matching) and momentum (phase-matching) of the parent pump photon.

In type-II SPDC the signal and idler photons have orthogonal polarizations, one extraordinary and the other ordinary. These two photons emerge from the NLC with a relative time delay due to the birefringence of the NLC . Passing the pair through an appropriate birefringent material of suitable length compensates for this time delay. This temporal compensation is required for extracting $`\psi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ from the measurements; we show subsequently that when compensation is not employed one may obtain $`\psi `$ but not $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The signal and idler may be emitted in two different directions, a case known as non-collinear SPDC, or in the same direction, a case known as collinear SPDC. In the former situation, the SPDC state is polarization entangled; its quantum state is described by

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|HV+|VH),$$
(1)
where H and V represent horizontal and vertical polarizations, respectively . It is understood that the first polarization indicated in a ket is that of the signal photon and the second is that of the idler. Such a state may not be written as the product of states of the signal and idler photons. Although Eq. (1) represents a pure quantum state, the signal and idler photons considered separately are each unpolarized . The state represented in Eq. (1) assumes that there is no relative phase between the two kets. Although the relative phase may not be zero, it can, in general, be arbitrarily chosen by making small adjustments to the NLC.

In the collinear case the SPDC state is in a polarization-product state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=|HV.$$
(2)
Because this state is factorizable (i.e., it may be written as the product of states of the signal and idler photons), it is not entangled.

We first discuss a configuration based on the use of collinear type-II SPDC, which we call a unentangled twin-photon ellipsometer. This configuration is introduced for pedagogical reasons as a precursor to the configuration of principal interest to us, called the entangled twin-photon ellipsometer, which makes use of polarization-entangled photon pairs (non-collinear type-II SPDC). Both arrangements are described using a generalization of the Jones-matrix formalism appropriate for twin-photon polarized beams.

### A UNENTANGLED TWIN-PHOTON ELLIPSOMETER

We now examine the use of collinear type-II SPDC in a standard twin-photon polarization interferometer, previously used in numerous experiments , and shown in Fig. 2. The twin photons, with the state shown in Eq. (2), impinge on the input port of a non-polarizing beam splitter, so that on 50$`\%`$ of the trials the two photons are separated into the two output ports of the beam splitter . On the remainder of the trials, the two photons emerge together from the beam splitter out of one of the ports, but such cases do not contribute to coincidence measurements and thus may be ignored. Photons emerging from the one of the output ports of the beam splitter are directed to the sample under test and are then directed to polarization analyzer A1 followed by single-photon detector D1. Photons emerging from the other output port are directed to polarization analyzer A2 followed by single-photon detector D2. A coincidence circuit registers the coincidence rate $`N_c`$ of the detectors D1 and D2, which is proportional to the fourth-order coherence function of the fields at the detectors . In this section, we demonstrate how this unentangled twin-photon polarization interferometer yields ellipsometric measurements.

We first introduce a matrix formalism that facilitates the derivation of the fields at the detectors. We begin by defining a twin-photon Jones vector that represents the field operators of the signal and idler in two spatially distinct modes. If $`\widehat{a}_s(\omega )`$ and $`\widehat{a}_i(\omega ^{})`$ are the boson annihilation operators for the signal-frequency mode $`\omega `$ and idler-frequency mode $`\omega ^{}`$, respectively, then the twin-photon Jones vector of the field following the beam splitter is

$$\widehat{\text{J}}_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}j\{\widehat{\text{A}}_s(\omega )+\widehat{\text{A}}_i(\omega ^{})\}\\ \widehat{\text{A}}_s(\omega )+\widehat{\text{A}}_i(\omega ^{})\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
where $`\widehat{\text{A}}_s(\omega )=\widehat{a}_s(\omega )\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ and $`\widehat{\text{A}}_i(\omega ^{})=\widehat{a}_i(\omega ^{})\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$ . The vectors $`\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ (horizontal) and $`\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$ (vertical) are the familiar Jones vectors representing orthogonal polarization states . The operators $`\widehat{\text{A}}_s(\omega )`$ and $`\widehat{\text{A}}_i(\omega ^{})`$ thus are annihilation operators that include the vectorial polarization information of the field mode. The first element in $`\widehat{\text{J}}_1`$, $`j\{\widehat{\text{A}}_s(\omega )+\widehat{\text{A}}_i(\omega ^{})\}`$ represents the annihilation operator of the field in beam 1, which is a superposition of signal and idler field operators. The second element in $`\widehat{\text{J}}_1`$, $`\widehat{\text{A}}_s(\omega )+\widehat{\text{A}}_i(\omega ^{})`$, is the annihilation operator of the field in beam 2.

We now define a twin-photon Jones matrix that represents the action of linear deterministic optical elements, placed in the two beams, on the polarization of the field as follows:

$$\text{T}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\text{T}_{11}& \text{T}_{12}\\ \text{T}_{21}& \text{T}_{22}\end{array}\right),$$
(4)
where $`\text{T}_{kl}(k,l=1,2)`$ is the familiar $`2\times 2`$ Jones matrix that represents the polarization transformation performed by a linear deterministic optical element. The indices refer to the spatial modes of the input and output beams. For example, $`\text{T}_{11}`$ is the Jones matrix of an optical element placed in beam 1 whose output is also in beam 1, whereas $`\text{T}_{21}`$ is the Jones matrix of an optical element placed in beam 1 whose output is in beam 2, and similarly for $`\text{T}_{12}`$ and $`\text{T}_{22}`$. In most cases, when an optical element is placed in beam 1 and another in beam 2, $`\text{T}_{12}=\text{T}_{21}=\text{0}`$. An exception is, e.g., a beam splitter with beams 1 and 2 incident on its two input ports, or other optical components that mix the spatial modes of the two beams. The twin-photon Jones matrix T transforms a twin-photon Jones vector $`\widehat{\text{J}}_1`$ into $`\widehat{\text{J}}_2`$ according to $`\widehat{\text{J}}_2=\text{T}\widehat{\text{J}}_1`$.

Applying this formalism to the arrangement in Fig. 2, assuming that beams 1 and 2 impinge on the two polarization analyzers A1 and A2 directly (in absence of the sample), the twin-photon Jones matrix is given by

$$\text{T}_p=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\text{P}(\theta _1)& \text{0}\\ \text{0}& \text{P}(\theta _2)\end{array}\right),$$
(5)
where $`\text{P}(\theta )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}^2\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta \\ \mathrm{cos}\theta \mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{sin}^2\theta \end{array}\right),`$ and $`\theta _1`$ and $`\theta _2`$ are the angles of the axes of the analyzers with respect to the horizontal direction. In this case the twin-photon Jones vector following the analyzers is therefore

$`\widehat{\text{J}}_2`$ $`=\text{T}_p\widehat{\text{J}}_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}j\text{P}(\theta _1)\{\widehat{\text{A}}_s(\omega )+\widehat{\text{A}}_i(\omega ^{})\}\\ \text{P}(\theta _2)\{\widehat{\text{A}}_s(\omega )+\widehat{\text{A}}_i(\omega ^{})\}\end{array}\right)`$ (8)
$`=\left(\begin{array}{c}j\{\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\widehat{a}_s(\omega )+\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\widehat{a}_i(\omega ^{})\}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\end{array}\right)\\ \{\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\widehat{a}_s(\omega )+\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\widehat{a}_i(\omega ^{})\}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _2\end{array}\right)\end{array}\right).`$
Using the twin-photon Jones vector $`\widehat{\text{J}}_2`$ one can obtain expressions for the fields at the detectors. The positive-frequency components of the field at detectors D1 and D2, denoted $`\widehat{\text{E}}_1^+`$ and $`\widehat{\text{E}}_2^+`$ respectively, are given by

$`\widehat{\text{E}}_1^+(t)`$ $`=j\{\mathrm{cos}\theta _1{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega e^{j\omega t}\widehat{a}_s(\omega )}+\mathrm{sin}\theta _1{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega ^{}e^{j\omega ^{}t}\widehat{a}_i(\omega ^{})}\}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\end{array}\right),`$ (9)
$`\widehat{\text{E}}_2^+(t)`$ $`=\{\mathrm{cos}\theta _2{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega e^{j\omega t}\widehat{a}_s(\omega )}+\mathrm{sin}\theta _2{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega ^{}e^{j\omega ^{}t}\widehat{a}_i(\omega ^{})}\}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _2\end{array}\right),`$ (10)
while the negative frequency components are given by their Hermitian conjugates. With these fields one can show that the coincidence rate $`N_c\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _1\theta _2)`$ using the expressions developed in the Appendix.

Consider now that the sample, assumed to have frequency-independent reflection coefficients, is placed in the optical arrangement illustrated in Fig. 2, and that the polarizations of the downconverted photons are along the eigenpolarizations of the sample. The effect of the sample, placed in beam 1, may be represented by the following twin-photon Jones matrix

$$\text{T}_s=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\text{R}& \text{0}\\ \text{0}& \text{I}\end{array}\right),$$
(11)
where

$$\text{R}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{r}_1& 0\\ 0& \stackrel{~}{r}_2\end{array}\right)$$
(12)
(the justification for using this matrix to represent the action of the sample is provided in the Appendix), I is the 2$`\times `$2 identity matrix, and $`\stackrel{~}{r}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{r}_2`$ are the complex reflection coefficients of the sample described earlier. The twin-photon Jones vector after reflection from the sample and passage through the polarization analyzers is given by

$`\widehat{\text{J}}_3`$ $`=\text{T}_p\text{T}_s\widehat{\text{J}}_1=\left(\begin{array}{c}j\{\stackrel{~}{r}_1\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\widehat{a}_s(\omega )+\stackrel{~}{r}_2\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\widehat{a}_i(\omega ^{})\}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\end{array}\right)\\ \{\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\widehat{a}_s(\omega )+\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\widehat{a}_i(\omega ^{})\}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _2\end{array}\right)\end{array}\right),`$ (13)
which results in

$`\widehat{\text{E}}_1^+(t)`$ $`=j\{\stackrel{~}{r}_1\mathrm{cos}\theta _1{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega e^{j\omega t}\widehat{a}_s(\omega )}+\stackrel{~}{r}_2\mathrm{sin}\theta _1{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega ^{}e^{j\omega ^{}t}\widehat{a}_i(\omega ^{})}\}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\\ \mathrm{sin}\theta _1\end{array}\right),`$ (14)
with $`\widehat{\text{E}}_2^+(t)`$ identical to Eq. (10), since there is no sample in this beam.

Finally, using the expressions developed in the Appendix, it is straightforward to show that

$`N_c=C[\mathrm{tan}^2\psi \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _22\mathrm{tan}\psi \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2],`$ (15)
where the constant of proportionality $`C`$ depends on the efficiencies of the detectors and the duration of accumulation of coincidences. One can obtain $`C`$, $`\psi `$, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with a minimum of three measurements with different analyzer settings, e.g., $`\theta _2=0^{}`$, $`\theta _2=90^{}`$, and $`\theta _2=45^{}`$, while $`\theta _1`$ remains fixed at any angle except $`0^{}`$ and $`90^{}`$.

If the sample is replaced by a perfect mirror, the coincidence rate in Eq. (15) becomes a sinusoidal pattern of 100$`\%`$ visibility, $`C\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta _1\theta _2)`$, as previously indicated. In practice, by judicious control of the apertures placed in the down-converted beams, visibilities close to 100$`\%`$ can be obtained.

To understand the need for temporal compensation discussed previously, we re-derive Eq. (15), which assumes full compensation, when a birefringent compensator is placed in one of the arms of the configuration:

$`N_c`$ $`=`$ $`C[\mathrm{tan}^2\psi \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2`$ (17)
$`2\mathrm{tan}\psi \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )\mathrm{cos}(\omega _o\tau )].`$
Here $`\tau `$ is the birefringent delay, $`\omega _o`$ is half the pump frequency, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\tau )`$ is the Fourier transform of the SPDC normalized power spectrum. When $`\tau =0`$ we recover Eq. (15), whereas when $`\tau `$ is larger than the inverse of the SPDC bandwidth, the third term that includes $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ becomes zero and thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ cannot be determined.

The drawback of the arrangement illustrated in Fig. is the requirement for a beam splitter, as in classical interferometric ellipsometry. Any deviation from the assumed symmetric reflectance/transmittance of this device will impair the measurements and necessitate the use of a reference sample for calibration.

### B ENTANGLED TWIN-PHOTON ELLIPSOMETER

As in classical interferometry, the configuration in the previous section uses a beam splitter as a means of creating the multiple paths that lead to interference. We now show that one can construct an interferometer that makes use of quantum entanglement, which then dispenses with the beam splitter. This has the salutary effect of keeping 100$`\%`$ of the incoming photon flux (rather than 50$`\%`$) while eliminating the requirement of characterizing it. Moreover, no other optical elements are introduced, so one need not be concerned with the characterization of any components. This is a remarkable feature of entanglement-based quantum interferometry.

The NLC is adjusted to produce SPDC in a type-II noncollinear configuration, as illustrated in Fig. 3. Following the procedure discussed in the previous section it is straightforward to show that resulting coincidence rate is given by

$`N_c`$ $`=`$ $`C[\mathrm{tan}^2\psi \mathrm{cos}^2\theta _1\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _1\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _2+2\mathrm{tan}\psi \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{cos}\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\theta _2\mathrm{sin}\theta _1\mathrm{sin}\theta _2].`$ (18)
This expression is virtually identical to the one presented in Eq. (15) (except for the substitution of the plus sign for the minus sign in the last term). An interesting feature of this interferometer is that it is not sensitive to an overall mismatch in the length of the two arms of the setup and this increases the robustness of the arrangement.

An illuminating way of representing the action of the entangled twin-photon quantum ellipsometer is readily achieved by redrawing Fig. 3 in the unfolded configuration shown in Fig. 4. Using the advanced-wave interpretation, which was suggested by Klyshko in the context of twin-photon imaging , the coincidence rate for photons at D1 and D2 may be obtained by tracing light waves originating from D2 to the NLC and then onto D1 upon reflection from the sample. With this interpretation, the configuration in Fig. 4 becomes geometrically similar to the classical ellipsometer. Although none of the optical components usually associated with interferometers (beam splitters and wave plates) are present in this scheme, interferometry is still effected via the entanglement of the source.

An advantage of this setup over its idealized null ellipsometric counterpart, discussed in section 2, is that the two arms of the ellipsometer are separate and the light beams traverse them independently in different directions. This allows various instrumentation errors of the classical setup to be circumvented. For example, placing optical elements before the sample causes beam deviation errors  when the faces of the optical components are not exactly parallel. This leads to an error in the angle of incidence and, consequently, errors in the estimated parameters. In our case no optical components are placed between the source (NLC) and the sample; any desired polarization manipulation may be performed in the other arm of the entangled twin-photon ellipsometer. Furthermore, one can change the angle of incidence to the sample easily and repeatedly.

A significant drawback of classical ellipsometry is the difficulty of fully controlling the polarization of the incoming light. A linear polarizer is usually employed at the input of the ellipsometer, but the finite extinction coefficient of this polarizer causes errors in the estimated parameters . In the entangled twin-photon ellipsometer the polarization of the incoming light is dictated by the phase-matching conditions of the nonlinear interaction in the NLC. The polarizations defined by the orientation of the optical axis of the NLC play the role of the input polarization in classical ellipsometry. The NLC is aligned for type-II SPDC so that only one polarization component of the pump generates SPDC, whereas the orthogonal (undesired) component of the pump does not (since it does not satisfy the phase-matching conditions). The advantage is therefore that the downconversion process assures the stability of polarization along a particular direction.

## IV CONCLUSION

Classical ellipsometric measurements are limited in their accuracy by virtue of the need for an absolutely calibrated source and detector. Mitigating this limitation requires the use of a well-characterized reference sample in a null configuration.

Twin-photon ellipsometry, which makes use of simultaneously emitted photon pairs, is superior because it removes the need for a reference sample. Nevertheless, the unentangled twin-photon ellipsometer requires that the optical components employed in the interferometric arrangement be well characterized.

We have demonstrated that entangled twin-photon ellipsometry is self-referencing and therefore eliminates the necessity of constructing an interferometer altogether. The underlying physics that leads to this remarkable result is the presence of fourth-order (coincidence) quantum interference of the photon pairs in conjunction with nonlocal polarization entanglement.

Our proposed entangled twin-photon ellipsometer is subject to the same shot-noise-limited, as well as angularly resolved, precision that is obtained with traditional ellipsometers (interferometric and null systems, respectively), but removes the limitation in accuracy that results from the necessity of using a reference sample in traditional ellipsometers.

Since the SPDC source is inherently broadband, narrowband spectral filters must be used to ensure that the ellipsometric data are measured at a specific frequency. Spectroscopic data can be obtained by employing a bank of such filters. Alternatively, techniques from Fourier-transform spectroscopy may be used to directly make use of the broadband nature of the source in ellipsometric measurements.

## APPENDIX

We investigate the effect that reflection from a sample has on the quantized-field operators. We model the sample as a lossless beam splitter, with complex reflection coefficient $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$, and complex transmission coefficient $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$, that transforms the input field operators $`\widehat{a}_1`$ and $`\widehat{a}_v`$ into output field operators $`\widehat{b}_1`$ and $`\widehat{b}_v`$ according to

$$\widehat{b}_1=j\stackrel{~}{r}\widehat{a}_1+\stackrel{~}{t}\widehat{a}_v,\widehat{b}_v=\stackrel{~}{t}\widehat{a}_1+j\stackrel{~}{r}\widehat{a}_v,$$
(A1)
where $`|\stackrel{~}{t}|^2+|\stackrel{~}{r}|^2=1`$ (so that the bosonic commutation relations are preserved for $`\widehat{b}_1`$ and $`\widehat{b}_v`$), $`\widehat{a}_1`$ is the annihilation operator of a single mode of the incident optical field, while $`\widehat{a}_v`$ is the annihilation operator of the vacuum entering the other port of the beam splitter.

The coincidence rate at the detectors at times $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ is given by

$$G(t_1,t_2)=\mathrm{\Psi }|\widehat{E_1}^{()}(t_1)\widehat{E_2}^{()}(t_2)\widehat{E_2}^{(+)}(t_2)\widehat{E_1}^{(+)}(t_1)|\mathrm{\Psi },$$
(A2)
where $`\widehat{E_1}^{(+)}(t)=𝑑\omega e^{j\omega t}\widehat{b}_1(\omega )`$, $`\widehat{E_2}^{(+)}(t)=𝑑\omega e^{j\omega t}\widehat{a}_2(\omega )`$, and $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the twin-photon state at the output of the NLC:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }={\displaystyle 𝑑\omega \phi (\omega ,\omega _p\omega )|1_\omega ,1_{\omega _p\omega },0_\omega }.`$ (A3)
The first element in the ket corresponds to the signal mode at frequency $`\omega `$, the second element corresponds to the idler mode at frequency $`\omega _p\omega `$ (conservation of energy ensures that the signal and idler frequencies add up to the pump frequency $`\omega _p`$), while the third element corresponds to the vacuum mode at frequency $`\omega `$ at the other input port of the beam splitter that represents the sample. The function $`\phi (\omega ,\omega _p\omega )`$ is the probability amplitude of the possible combinations of frequencies for pairs of signal and idler modes emitted by the NLC.

Inserting the identity operator $`_{n_1,n_2,n_3}|n_1,n_2,n_3n_1,n_2,n_3|`$ (represented in the Fock basis of the Hilbert space spanned by the signal, idler, and vacuum fields) into Eq. (A2) gives

$`G(t_1,t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n_1,n_2,n_3}{}}\mathrm{\Psi }|\widehat{E_1}^{()}(t_1)\widehat{E_2}^{()}(t_2)|n_1,n_2,n_3n_1,n_2,n_3|\widehat{E_2}^{(+)}(t_2)\widehat{E_1}^{(+)}(t_1)|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (A4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n_1,n_2,n_3}{}}|n_1,n_2,n_3|\widehat{E_2}^{(+)}(t_2)\widehat{E_1}^{(+)}(t_1)|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2.`$ (A5)
It is straightforward to show that using the state in Eq. (A3) results in all terms in the summation in Eq. (A4) vanishing except for the term where $`n_1=n_2=n_3=0`$, so that $`G(t_1,t_2)=|0,0,0|\widehat{E_2}^{(+)}(t_2)\widehat{E_1}^{(+)}(t_1)|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$, and also results in the terms containing $`\stackrel{~}{t}\widehat{a}_v`$ vanishing. Thus, in coincidence measurements, the effect of reflection from the sample appears as a direct multiplication of the relevant operators by the suitable complex reflection coefficient, which justifies the use of the matrix in Eq. (12) when two orthogonal polarizations of the fields (and thus two corresponding complex reflection coefficients) are taken into consideration. Note that the detectors actually record a time-averaged coincidence rate $`N_c`$ since the response time for optical detectors is usually much longer than the inverse bandwidth of the the function $`\phi (\omega ,\omega _p\omega )`$ (see Ref.  for details).

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation and by the Center for Subsurface Sensing and Imaging Systems (CenSSIS), an NSF engineering research center.

A. V. Sergienko’s e-mail address is alexserg@bu.edu.

Figure 1, A. F. Abouraddy

Figure 2, A. F. Abouraddy

Figure 3, A. F. Abouraddy

Figure 4, A. F. Abouraddy


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The announcement of high statistics atmospheric neutrino data by the SuperKamiokande collaboration  has confirmed the deficit of muon neutrinos, especially at small zenith angles, opening a new era in neutrino physics. Although there may be alternative solutions of the atmospheric neutrino anomaly  it is fair to say that the simplest interpretation of the data is in terms of $`\nu _\mu `$ to $`\nu _\tau `$ flavor oscillations with maximal mixing. This excludes a large mixing among $`\nu _\tau `$ and $`\nu _e`$ , in agreement also with the CHOOZ reactor data . On the other hand the persistent disagreement between solar neutrino data and theoretical expectations  has been a long-standing problem in physics. Recent solar neutrino data  are consistent with both vacuum oscillations and MSW conversions. In the latter case one can have either the small or the large mixing angle solutions, with the latter being clearly preferred .

Many attempts have appeared in the literature to explain the data. Here we review recent results  obtained in a model  which is a simple extension of the MSSM with bilinear R-parity violation (BRpV). This model, despite being a minimal extension of the MSSM, can explain the solar and atmospheric neutrino data. Its most attractive feature is that it gives definite predictions for accelerator physics for the same range of parameters that explain the neutrino data.

## 2 Bilinear R-Parity Violation (BRpV)

### 2.1 The Model

The superpotential $`W`$ is given by

$$W=\epsilon _{ab}\left[h_U^{ij}\widehat{Q}_i^a\widehat{U}_j\widehat{H}_u^b+h_D^{ij}\widehat{Q}_i^b\widehat{D}_j\widehat{H}_d^a+h_E^{ij}\widehat{L}_i^b\widehat{R}_j\widehat{H}_d^a\mu \widehat{H}_d^a\widehat{H}_u^b+ϵ_i\widehat{L}_i^a\widehat{H}_u^b\right]$$
(1)
while the set of soft supersymmetry breaking terms are

$`V_{soft}`$ $`=`$ $`M_Q^{ij2}\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^a\stackrel{~}{Q}_j^a+M_U^{ij2}\stackrel{~}{U}_i^{}\stackrel{~}{U}_j+M_D^{ij2}\stackrel{~}{D}_i^{}\stackrel{~}{D}_j+M_L^{ij2}\stackrel{~}{L}_i^a\stackrel{~}{L}_j^a+M_R^{ij2}\stackrel{~}{R}_i^{}\stackrel{~}{R}_j`$ (4)
$`+m_{H_d}^2H_d^aH_d^a+m_{H_u}^2H_u^aH_u^a[{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\frac{1}{2}M_i\lambda _i\lambda _i+\epsilon _{ab}(A_U^{ij}\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^a\stackrel{~}{U}_jH_u^b`$
$`+A_D^{ij}\stackrel{~}{Q}_i^b\stackrel{~}{D}_jH_d^a+A_E^{ij}\stackrel{~}{L}_i^b\stackrel{~}{R}_jH_d^aB\mu H_d^aH_u^b+B_iϵ_i\stackrel{~}{L}_i^aH_u^b)+h.c]`$
The bilinear R-parity violating term cannot be eliminated by superfield redefinition. The reason is  that the bottom Yukawa coupling, usually neglected, plays a crucial role in splitting the soft-breaking parameters $`B`$ and $`B_i`$ as well as the scalar masses $`m_{H_d}^2`$ and $`M_L^2`$, assumed to be equal at the unification scale. The BRpV model is a 1(3) parameter(s) generalization of the MSSM. It can be thought as an effective model showing the more important features of the Spontaneous Broken R-parity model (SBRP) at the weak scale. The mass matrices, charged and neutral currents, are similar to the SBRP–model if we identify

$$ϵv_Rh_\nu $$
(5)
The model has the MSSM as a limit when $`ϵ_i0`$.

### 2.2 Radiative Breaking

At $`Q=M_{GUT}`$ we assume the standard minimal supergravity unifications assumptions,

$`A_t=A_b=A_\tau A,B=B_2=A1,`$ (6)
$`m_{H_d}^2=m_{H_u}^2=M_L^2=M_R^2=M_Q^2=M_U^2=M_D^2=m_0^2,`$ (7)
$`M_3=M_2=M_1=M_{1/2}`$ (8)
In order to determine the values of the Yukawa couplings and of the soft breaking scalar masses at low energies we first run the RGE’s from the unification scale $`M_{GUT}10^{16}`$ GeV down to the weak scale. For details see .

## 3 Tree Level Neutrino Masses and Mixings

### 3.1 Neutral fermion mass matrix

In the basis $`\psi ^{0T}=(i\lambda ^{},i\lambda ^3,\stackrel{~}{H}_d^1,\stackrel{~}{H}_u^2,\nu _e,\nu _\mu ,\nu _\tau )`$ the neutral fermions mass terms in the Lagrangian are given by

$$_m=\frac{1}{2}(\psi ^0)^TMMM_N\psi ^0+h.c.$$
(9)
where the neutralino/neutrino mass matrix is

$$MMM_N=\left[\begin{array}{cc}_{\chi ^0}& m^T\\ m& 0\end{array}\right]$$
(10)
with

$$_{\chi ^0}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}M_1& 0& \frac{1}{2}g^{}v_d& \frac{1}{2}g^{}v_u\\ 0& M_2& \frac{1}{2}gv_d& \frac{1}{2}gv_u\\ \frac{1}{2}g^{}v_d& \frac{1}{2}gv_d& 0& \mu \\ \frac{1}{2}g^{}v_u& \frac{1}{2}gv_u& \mu & 0\end{array}\right];m=\left[\begin{array}{c}a_1\\ a_2\\ a_3\end{array}\right]$$
(11)
where $`a_i=(\frac{1}{2}g^{}v_i,\frac{1}{2}gv_i,0,ϵ_i)`$. This neutralino/neutrino mass matrix is diagonalized by

$$𝒩^{}MMM_N𝒩^1=\mathrm{diag}(m_{\chi _1^0},m_{\chi _2^0},m_{\chi _3^0},m_{\chi _4^0},m_{\nu _1},m_{\nu _2},m_{\nu _3})$$
(12)
### 3.2 Approximate diagonalization of mass matrices

If the $`R_p/`$ parameters are small, then

$$\xi =m_{\chi ^0}^1\xi _{ij}1$$
(13)
one can find an approximate solution for the mixing matrix $`𝒩`$. Explicit expressions can be found in Ref. . In leading order in $`\xi `$ the mixing matrix $`𝒩`$ is given by,

$$𝒩^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}N^{}& 0\\ 0& V_\nu ^T\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\frac{1}{2}\xi ^{}\xi & \xi ^{}\\ \xi & 1\frac{1}{2}\xi \xi ^{}\end{array}\right)$$
(14)
This decomposition block–diagonalizes $`MMM_N`$ approximately to the form diag($`m_{eff},_{\chi ^0}`$), where

$$m_{eff}=m_{\chi ^0}^1m^T=\frac{M_1g^2+M_2g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4det(_{\chi ^0})}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_e^2& \mathrm{\Lambda }_e\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu & \mathrm{\Lambda }_e\mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_e\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu & \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ^2& \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_e\mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau & \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau & \mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau ^2\end{array}\right).$$
(15)
The submatrices $`N`$ and $`V_\nu `$ in Eq. (14) diagonalize $`_{\chi ^0}`$ and $`m_{eff}`$

$$N^{}_{\chi ^0}N^{}=diag(m_{\chi _i^0});V_\nu ^Tm_{eff}V_\nu =diag(0,0,m_\nu ),$$
(16)
where

$$m_\nu =Tr(m_{eff})=\frac{M_1g^2+M_2g_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4det(_{\chi ^0})}|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|^2.$$
(17)
## 4 One Loop Neutrino Masses and Mixings

### 4.1 Definition

The Self–Energy for the neutralino/neutrino is

$$i\{/p[P_L\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^L+P_R\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^R][P_L\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^L+P_R\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^R]\}$$
(18)
Then

$$M_{ij}^{\mathrm{pole}}=M_{ij}^{\overline{\mathrm{DR}}}(\mu _R)+\mathrm{\Delta }M_{ij}$$
(19)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }M_{ij}=\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^V(m_i^2)+\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^V(m_j^2)\right)\frac{1}{2}\left(m_{\chi _i^0}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^V(m_i^2)+m_{\chi _j^0}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^V(m_j^2)\right)\right]_{\mathrm{\Delta }=0}$$
(20)
where

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^V=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^L+\mathrm{\Sigma }^R);\mathrm{\Pi }^V=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Pi }^L+\mathrm{\Pi }^R)$$
(21)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{2}{4d}\gamma _E+\mathrm{ln}4\pi $$
(22)
### 4.2 Diagrams Contributing

In a generic way the diagrams contributing are

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

These diagrams can be calculated in a straightforward way. For instance the $`W`$ diagram in the $`\xi =1`$ gauge gives

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ij}^V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{5}{}}}2\left(O_{Ljk}^{\mathrm{ncw}}O_{Lki}^{\mathrm{cnw}}+O_{Rjk}^{\mathrm{ncw}}O_{Rki}^{\mathrm{cnw}}\right)B_1(p^2,m_k^2,m_W^2)`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ij}^V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{5}{}}}(4)\left(O_{Ljk}^{\mathrm{ncw}}O_{Rki}^{\mathrm{cnw}}+O_{Rjk}^{\mathrm{ncw}}O_{Lki}^{\mathrm{cnw}}\right)m_kB_0(p^2,m_k^2,m_W^2)`$
where $`B_0`$ and $`B_1`$ are the Passarino-Veltman functions, and $`O^{\mathrm{cnw}}`$, $`O^{\mathrm{ncw}}`$ are coupling matrices. Explicit expressions can be found in .

### 4.3 Gauge Invariance

When calculating the self–energies the question of gauge invariance arises. We have performed a careful calculation in an arbitrary $`R_\xi `$ gauge and showed  that the result was independent of the gauge parameter $`\xi `$.

### 4.4 The One–Loop Mass Matrix

The one–loop corrected mass matrix is

$$M^{1L}=M_{diag}^{0L}+\mathrm{\Delta }M^{1L}$$
(24)
where

$$M_{diag}^{0L}=𝒩M_N𝒩^T$$
(25)
Now we diagonalize the 1–loop mass matrix

$$M_{diag}^{1L}=𝒩^{}M^{1L}𝒩_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{T}$$
(26)
Then the mass eigenstates are related to the weak basis states by

$$\chi _0^{mass}=𝒩_{i\alpha }^{1L}\chi _0^{weak}$$
(27)
with

$$𝒩^{1L}=𝒩^{}𝒩$$
(28)
The usual convention in neutrino physics

$$\nu _\alpha =U_{\alpha k}\nu _k$$
(29)
is recovered in our notation as

$$U_{\alpha k}=𝒩_{4+k,4+\alpha }^{1L}$$
(30)
### 4.5 Approximate Formulas for Masses and Mixings

#### 4.5.1 The masses

Looking at the numerical results  we found that the most important contribution came from the bottom-sbottom loop. To gain an analytical understanding of the results we expanded the exact results in the small $`R/_P`$ parameters. The result is

$$M_\nu c_0\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_1& \mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_2& \mathrm{\Lambda }_1\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_1& \mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_2& \mathrm{\Lambda }_2\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_3\mathrm{\Lambda }_1& \mathrm{\Lambda }_3\mathrm{\Lambda }_2& \mathrm{\Lambda }_3\mathrm{\Lambda }_3\end{array}\right)+c_1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}ϵ_1ϵ_1& ϵ_1ϵ_2& ϵ_1ϵ_3\\ ϵ_2ϵ_1& ϵ_2ϵ_2& ϵ_2ϵ_3\\ ϵ_3ϵ_1& ϵ_3ϵ_2& ϵ_3ϵ_3\end{array}\right)$$
(31)
where

$$c_0=\frac{M_1g^2+M_2g^2}{4det(M_{\chi ^0})};c_1=\frac{3}{16\pi ^2}m_b\mathrm{sin}2\theta _b\frac{h_b^2}{\mu ^2}\mathrm{log}\frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{b_2}}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{b_1}}^2}$$
(32)
Diagonalization of the mass matrix gives

$`m_{\nu _1}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (33)
$`m_{\nu _2}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\pi ^2}}m_b\mathrm{sin}2\theta _b{\displaystyle \frac{h_b^2}{\mu ^2}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{\stackrel{~}{b_2}}^2}{m_{\stackrel{~}{b_1}}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\stackrel{}{ϵ}\times \stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }})^2}{|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|^2}}`$ (34)
$`m_{\nu _3}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_1g^2+M_2g^2}{4det(M_{\chi ^0})}}|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|^2`$ (35)
The formula for $`m_{\nu _3}`$ is the tree-level formula that we used to fix the scale of the atmospheric neutrinos by choosing $`|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|`$. The quality of the approximation formula for $`m_{\nu _2}`$ can be seen in Fig. 1. Only for small $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and very small $`b,\stackrel{~}{b}`$ mixing the approximation can lead, in some cases, to incorrect results.

Details of the derivation can be found in Ref.  where the second most important contribution, coming from the loop with charged Higgs/charged leptons, is also discussed.

#### 4.5.2 The mixings

The atmospheric angle is easily obtained in terms of the ratio $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_3`$. For the solar angle in the same approximation we also get a simple formula ,

$$\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{sol}=\frac{2ϵ^2}{(ϵ_2+ϵ_3)^2}$$
(36)
that is also in very good agreement with the exact result.

## 5 Results for the Solar and Atmospheric Neutrinos

### 5.1 The masses

The BRpV model produces a hierarchical mass spectrum for almost all choices of parameters. The largest mass can be estimated by the tree level value using Eq. (35). Correct $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ can be easily obtained by an appropriate choice of $`|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|`$. The mass scale for the solar neutrinos is generated at 1–loop level and therefore depends in a complicated way in the model parameters. However, in most cases the result of Eq. (34) is a good approximation and there is no problem in having both $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{atm}^2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }m_{solar}^2`$ set to the correct scales.

### 5.2 The mixings

Now we turn to the discussion of the mixing angles. We have found that if $`ϵ^2/|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|100`$ then the 1–loop corrections are not larger than the tree level results and the flavor composition of the 3rd mass eigenstate is approximately given by

$$U_{\alpha 3}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha /|\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}|$$
(37)
As the atmospheric and reactor neutrino data tell us that $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ oscillations are preferred over $`\nu _\mu \nu _e`$, we conclude that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_e\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau $$
(38)
are required for BRpV to fit the data. This is sown in Fig. 2 a). We cannot get so easily maximal mixing for solar neutrinos, because in this case $`U_{e3}`$ would be too large contradicting the CHOOZ result as shown in Fig. 2 b).

We have then two scenarios. In the first one, that we call the mSUGRA case, we have universal boundary conditions of the soft SUSY breaking terms. In this case we can show  that

$$\frac{ϵ_e}{ϵ_\mu }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_e}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu }$$
(39)
Then from Fig. 2 b) and the CHOOZ constraint on $`U_{e3}^2`$, we conclude that both ratios in Eq. (39) have to be small. Then from Fig. 3 we conclude that the only possibility is the small angle mixing solution for the solar neutrino problem. In the second scenario, which we call the MSSM case, we consider non–universal boundary conditions of the soft SUSY breaking terms. We have shown that even a very small deviation from universality of the soft parameters at the GUT scale relaxes this constraint. In this case

$$\frac{ϵ_e}{ϵ_\mu }\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_e}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu }$$
(40)
Then we can have at the same time small $`U_{e3}^2`$ determined by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_e/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu `$ as in Fig. 2 b) and large $`\mathrm{tan}^2(\theta _{solar})`$ determined by $`ϵ_e/ϵ_\mu `$ as in Fig. 3 b).

## 6 Probing Neutrino Mixing via Neutralino Decays

If R-parity is broken, the neutralino is unstable and it will decay through the following channels: $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\nu _i\nu _j\nu _k,\nu _iq\overline{q},\nu _il_j^+l_k^{},l_i^\pm q\overline{q}^{},\nu _i\gamma `$. It was shown in Ref. , that the neutralino decays well inside the detectors and that the visible decay channels are quite large. This was fully discussed in Ref.  and is illustrated in Fig. 4. We have seen before that the ratios $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }_i/\mathrm{\Lambda }_j|`$ and $`|ϵ_i/ϵ_j|`$ were very important in the choice of solutions for the neutrino mixing angles. What is exciting now, is that these ratios can be measured in accelerator experiments. In Fig. 5 a) we show the ratio of branching ratios for semileptonic LSP decays into muons and taus: $`BR(\chi \mu q^{}\overline{q})/BR(\chi \tau q^{}\overline{q}`$) as function of $`\mathrm{tan}^2\theta _{atm}`$. We can see that there is a strong correlation. In Fig. 5 b) is shown the ratio of branching ratios for semileptonic LSP decays into muons and taus: $`BR(\chi eq^{}\overline{q})/BR(\chi \mu q^{}\overline{q}`$) as function of $`U_{e3}^2`$. Again we obtain a strong correlation. The spread on those figures can in fact be explained by the fact that we do not know the SUSY parameters. This is illustrated in Fig. 6 where we considered that SUSY was already discovered with the following values for the parameters,

$$M_2=120GeV,\mu =500GeV,\mathrm{tan}\beta =5,m_0=500GeV,A=500GeV$$
(41)
## 7 Conclusions

The Bilinear R-Parity Violation Model is a simple extension of the MSSM that leads to a very rich phenomenology. We have shown that the radiative breaking of the Gauge Symmetry can be achieved in this BRpV Model. We have calculated the one–loop corrected masses and mixings for the neutrinos in a completely consistent way, including the RG equations and correctly minimizing the potential. We have shown that it is possible to get easily maximal mixing for the atmospheric neutrinos and both small and large angle MSW. We emphasize that the lightest neutralino decays inside the detectors, thus leading to a very different phenomenology than the MSSM. If the model is to explain solar and atmospheric neutrino problems many signals will arise at future colliders. These will probe the neutrino mixing parameters. Thus the model is easily falsifiable!


text:
# Coupling a single atomic quantum bit to a high finesse optical cavity

## Abstract

The quadrupole S1/2 – D5/2 optical transition of a single trapped Ca+ ion, well suited for encoding a quantum bit of information, is coherently coupled to the standing wave field of a high finesse cavity. The coupling is verified by observing the ion’s response to both spatial and temporal variations of the intracavity field. We also achieve deterministic coupling of the cavity mode to the ion’s vibrational state by selectively exciting vibrational state-changing transitions and by controlling the position of the ion in the standing wave field with nanometer-precision.

The coherent coupling of a single atom or ion to one mode of the electromagnetic field inside a high finesse optical resonator is of major interest for the implementation of quantum information processing schemes: Single atoms and ions are well suited for storing quantum information in long-lived internal states, e.g. by encoding a quantum bit (qubit) of information within the coherent superposition of the S1/2 ground state and the metastable D5/2 excited state of Ca+ NaegerlQubit . On the other hand, fast and reliable transport of quantum information over long distances is most easily achieved by using photons as qubit carriers. The interface between static and moving qubits is represented by the controlled interaction of a single atom and a single cavity mode, being the basic building block for distributed quantum networks CiracNetwork . Deterministic ion-cavity coupling was demonstrated recently by using a single trapped ion as nanoscopic probe of an optical field GuthoehrleinNature . A second application of atom-cavity coupling within the field of quantum information processing is the realization of a deterministic source of single photons LawSinglePhotons ; HennrichPassage  or sequences of entangled single-photon wave packets GheriEntangledPhotons . More generally, trapped ions that are cooled to their lowest vibrational state Meekhof96 ; Roos99  and interact with a quantized cavity field might allow for entangling three quantum subsystems BuzekCavityQED ; SemiaoVibration , i.e. internal electronic states, quantum vibrational mode and single-mode cavity field. Another application of coupling a trapped ion to a cavity mode is utilizing the cavity internal standing wave (SW) field CiracStandWave  or the cavity-modified spontaneous emission CiracBadCavity  and coherent scattering VuleticCooling  for cooling the ion’s vibrational state well below the Doppler limit.

In this paper we demonstrate coherent coupling of the quadrupole S1/2 – D5/2 qubit transition of a single Ca+ ion to a mode of a high finesse optical cavity. The ion is trapped and placed with high precision at an arbitrary position in the SW field of the cavity for several hours of interaction time. We also achieve deterministic coupling of the cavity mode to the ion’s vibrational state by selectively exciting state-changing transitions with the cavity light tuned to a vibrational sideband of the S1/2 – D5/2 resonance. These demonstrations are important steps towards realization of the experiments discussed above.

The Ca+ ion is stored in a spherical Paul trap Paul  placed in the center of a near-confocal resonator. The ion is laser-cooled to the Lamb-Dicke regime, confining its spatial wave packet to a region much smaller than the optical wavelength. We detect the coupling of ion and fundamental TEM00 cavity mode by injecting an external light field at 729 nm into the cavity and recording the excitation on the S1/2 – D5/2 transition. The excitation probability is monitored via the electron shelving technique Dehmelt75 ; Roos99 , i.e. by probing the fluorescence on the S1/2 – P1/2 dipole transition (see Fig. 1).

The experimental setup is schematically shown in Fig. 1. The 3-dimensional RF-Paul trap consists of an elliptical ring electrode with average diameter of 1.4 mm and two endcaps with a spacing of 1.2 mm (material: 0.2 mm molybdenum wire). The secular frequencies $`(\omega _x,\omega _y,\omega _z)`$ are $`2\pi \times (2.9,3.9,7.4)`$ MHz at a rf drive field power of 1 W. Here, $`z`$ denotes the direction of the trap axis, which is at 45 to the cavity axis. The $`x`$ and $`y`$ radial directions both include an angle of $`45^{}`$ with the plane spanned by cavity and trap axis. A magnetic field of 3 G perpendicular to the cavity axis provides a quantization axis and a frequency splitting of Zeeman components of the S1/2 – D5/2 transition. Calcium ions are loaded into the trap from a thermal atom beam by a two-step photoionization process using diode lasers near 423 nm and 390 nm GuldePhotoion . The trap is placed in the center of a near-confocal resonator with finesse $`=35000`$ at 729 nm, waist radius $`\omega _0=54\mu `$m, mirror separation $`L=21`$ mm and radius of curvature $`R_M=25`$ mm. Cylindrical piezoceramics (PZT) allow fine-tuning of the cavity length across approx. 1.5 free spectral ranges.

The coherent coupling of the ion to the cavity field is measured in three steps:

(i) Preparation: First we use Doppler cooling on the S1/2 – P1/2 transition at 397 nm (see Fig. 1) to cool the ion into the Lamb-Dicke regime. A repumper laser at 866 nm inhibits optical pumping into the D3/2 level. From coherent dynamics (Rabi oscillations) on the carrier and first motional sidebands Roos99  we determine the mean vibrational quantum numbers after Doppler cooling to be $`(\overline{n}_x,\overline{n}_y,\overline{n}_z)=(22.9,4.3,4.9)`$. From these mean phonon numbers and the secular frequencies given above we calculate an rms extension of the ion’s motional wave packet of 26 nm in direction of the cavity axis, much smaller than the wavelength of 729 nm. After cooling, the ion is prepared in the S$`{}_{1/2}{}^{}(m=1/2)`$ substate by optical pumping with $`\sigma ^{}`$ radiation at 397 nm.

(ii) Interaction: The laser at 729 nm is set to a fixed detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ from the S1/2 – D5/2 ($`m=1/2`$ to $`m^{}=5/2`$) qubit transition. We inject the laser light into the TEM00 mode of the cavity and scan the cavity with a voltage ramp applied to one of the PZTs (scan PZT). When the cavity reaches resonance with the laser frequency it fills with light and the ion is excited. A constant voltage is applied to the other PZT (offset PZT) that determines the ion’s position relative to the SW field.

(iii) State analysis: The final step is state detection by electron shelving. Fluorescence on the S1/2 – P1/2 dipole transition at 397 nm is used to discriminate with high efficiency ($`>99\%`$) between excited state (electron shelved in D5/2, no fluorescence) and ground state (fluorescence).

In order to obtain an excitation spectrum, the 729 nm laser is tuned over the quadrupole transition in steps of about 1 kHz. For any given laser detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the sequence (i)-(iii) is repeated 100 times to determine the excitation probability.

In our first experiment we probe the ion’s response to temporal variations of the intracavity field by placing it close to a node of the SW field quadrupole  and varying the cavity scan rate. The sign of the voltage ramp applied to the scan PZT determines whether the scan mirror moves towards the offset mirror or away from it. For a negative (positive) scan rate, i.e. mirrors moving towards each other (apart), the intracavity field is Doppler blue (red) shifted and thus the excitation spectrum will be red (blue) shifted, as the excitation laser detuning has to compensate for the Doppler shift. The scan velocity is expressed in units of a normalized scan rate $`\nu _L`$ RohdeCavity ; LawrenceCavity , corresponding to the frequency shift in units of HWHM cavity linewidths per cavity storage time: $`\nu _L=2\omega \dot{L}\tau _s/\pi c`$, with laser frequency $`\omega `$, cavity length variation $`\dot{L}`$ and cavity (energy) storage time $`\tau _s=L/\pi c`$.

The experimental results for scan rates $`0.16>\nu _L>0.46`$ are shown in Fig. 2. The excitation spectra show the expected blue shift (red shift) for increasing positive (negative) scan rates and a broadening due to the Doppler effect. An excitation probability of more than 0.5 as in Fig. 2(a) clearly demonstrates that the ion is coherently interacting with the intracavity field. We theoretically model the excitation for different laser detunings $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by numerically integrating 2-level Bloch-equations using the time-dependent intracavity field calculated from the pertaining differential equations RohdeCavity ; LawrenceCavity . The results of the theoretical simulation for positive scan rates are shown as solid lines superimposed on the blue shifted spectra in Fig. 2. The calculated and experimental spectra show good agreement for small scan rates (Fig. 2(a,b)). For larger scan rates (Fig. 2(c)) the centers of the spectra are slightly shifted. We assume that this shift is caused by nonlinearities and hysteresis effects of the PZT motion. Although we kept the excitation power constant in the experiments, we left the Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{max}`$ as fit parameter to account for variations in excitation due to thermal drift of the cavity shifting the node of the SW away from the ion’s position.

The second type of experiment probes the ion’s response to spatial field variations. For this, we leave the scan rate fixed at a small value, allowing for stable scans with only little perturbations of the excitation spectrum, as in Fig. 2(a). The intensity of the 729 nm laser is adjusted such that the excitation is kept well below saturation. The offset voltage of both scan PZT and offset PZT is then varied simultaneously in such a way that the SW in the cavity is shifted longitudinally with respect to the location of the ion. The position-dependent excitation probability is determined by fitting each excitation spectrum with a Lorentzian and adopting the peak value. Fig. 3 displays these values as function of the PZT offset voltage.

Error bars given for representative data points in Fig. 3 are due to PZT hysteresis (abscissa) and the errors of the fits to the excitation spectra (ordinate). The excitation probability varies spatially with the intensity of the SW quadrupole . A theoretical Bloch-equation analysis as described above predicts a nearly pure sin2 spatial variation, deviating by less than 1%. From a sin2 fit to the data points we obtain the contrast ratio (visibility $`V`$) of the position-dependent excitation, $`V=96.3\pm 2.6\%`$. This very high visibility results from the strong confinement of the ion’s wavefunction: the laser-cooled ion, oscillating with its secular frequencies and with thermally distributed amplitudes, has a mean spatial extension along the cavity axis of $`a_c=26`$ nm. The thermal oscillations lead to a calculated reduction of the excitation contrast by a factor of $`\mathrm{exp}((2\pi a_c/\lambda )^2)=95.1\%`$, compared to the excitation contrast experienced by a point-like atom at rest. Thus, the experimentally determined visibility and the theoretical estimate agree very well.

A necessary condition for all experiments relying on ion-cavity mode coupling is the ability to place the ion at a certain position of the intracavity SW field with high precision and high reproducibility GuthoehrleinNature . In our experiment, the precision of positioning the center of the ion’s wavefunction, using a measurement as in Fig. 3, is limited by the uncertainty in the measured excitation probability. This uncertainty is due to a statistical error, i.e. the finite number of state detection measurements, and systematic errors such as fluctuations of laser intensity and wavelength, drift and jitter of scan PZT etc. EschnerBarium . From the uncertainties in excitation probability (error bars in Fig. 3) we deduce a spatial precision between 7 nm ($`\lambda /100`$) at the position of largest slope and 12 nm and 36 nm at minimum or maximum excitation, respectively. We note, however, that the precision can be enhanced by averaging over a larger number of state detection measurements.

Many schemes for quantum information processing with trapped ions rely on coherent interaction not only with the internal state but also with the motional degrees of freedom. A controlled coupling to the motional quantum state is a precondition for realizing such schemes.

In order to demonstrate this motion-dependent coupling, we recorded excitation probabilities of the ion at a fixed cavity scan rate ($`\nu _L=0.23`$), for different positions within the SW, and with the laser at 729 nm now tuned to either the carrier (no change of vibrational quantum number, $`\mathrm{\Delta }n=0`$) or the red axial sideband ($`\mathrm{\Delta }n=1`$, laser detuned by $`\omega _z`$) of the S1/2 – D5/2 transition. In both cases, the intensity of the laser was adjusted such that the excitations of carrier and sideband were comparable and were kept well below saturation. In this experiment we determine the integral excitation, i.e. the area of the respective excitation spectra, as the spectra show an asymmetric line shape (c.f. Fig. 2(b,c)). As displayed in Fig. 4, carrier and sideband excitations both map the SW spatial field variation, but the traces are shifted by a phase factor of $`\pi `$. This phase shift arises due to symmetry characteristics of the transition matrix elements of carrier and sideband transitions in a SW field CiracStandWave ; SasuraReview : The spatial part of the quadrupole transition matrix element is proportional to $`n^{}|\mathrm{exp}(ikx)|n`$ for a travelling wave (TW) and $`n^{}|\mathrm{cos}(kx)|n`$ for a SW with the electric field $`E\mathrm{sin}(kx)`$ quadrupole . Here $`n`$ and $`n^{}`$ are the vibrational quantum numbers in the S1/2 and D5/2 level, respectively, $`k`$ is the wavenumber and $`x`$ is the ion’s position in the field. For a TW, all vibrational states $`(n,n^{})`$ can be coupled as $`\mathrm{exp}(ikx)`$ contains even and odd powers of $`kx`$. In contrary, for a SW $`n^{}|\mathrm{cos}(kx)|n`$ has to be expanded into even or odd powers of $`kx`$ depending on the ion’s position, e.g. $`x=0`$ close to a node or $`x=\lambda /4`$ close to an anti-node. Thus, transitions changing the phonon number by even or odd integers can only be excited at different positions in the SW. The red sideband transition ($`\mathrm{\Delta }n=1`$) couples maximally at anti-nodes of the SW, whereas the carrier transition ($`\mathrm{\Delta }n=0`$) couples maximally at nodes.

The high-contrast orthogonal coupling of carrier and sideband transitions to the cavity mode facilitates applications such as cavity-assisted cooling in a SW CiracStandWave  or the Cirac-Zoller quantum-computing scheme CiracZoller95 . Both schemes rely on driving vibrational sideband transitions and benefit from suppressing off-resonant carrier transitions which induce motional heating or impose a limit on the attainable gate speed Steane00 , respectively. Furthermore, the ion-cavity coupling allows for demonstrating and utilizing cavity-modified spontaneous emission: we calculate the cooperativity parameter $`C=g^2/2\kappa \gamma =0.52`$, with our experimental ion-field coupling constant $`g=2\pi \times `$134 Hz, cavity decay rate $`\kappa =2\pi \times `$102 kHz and spontaneous emission rate $`\gamma =2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }\nu _{SD}=2\pi \times `$ 0.17 Hz. Due to the coupling, the spontaneous emission rate is enhanced by the Purcell factor $`F=2C+1=2.04`$ and the fraction of spontaneous emission from the D5/2 level emitted into the cavity mode is $`\beta =2C/(2C+1)=51\%`$. This is sufficient for demonstrating cavity-assisted cooling via destructive quantum interference of heating transitions CiracBadCavity , or triggered single photon emission from the D5/2 level. Improvement of the latter scheme and realization of the atom-photon interface CiracNetwork  can be readily achieved by employing an adiabatic transfer technique LawSinglePhotons ; HennrichPassage  and using a cavity with higher finesse ($`100000`$).

In summary we have demonstrated coherent coupling of electronic and motional states of a single trapped ion to a single field mode of a high finesse cavity. The position of the ion within the standing wave can be determined with a precision of up to $`\lambda /100`$. As the electronic quadrupole transition in Ca+ is one of the candidates for implementing a quantum bit, our experiments are a key step towards realization of quantum computing and communication schemes with trapped ions that require a controlled interaction of ion and cavity field.

This work is supported by the Austrian ’Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung’ (SFB15), by the European Commission (TMR networks ’QI’ and ’QSTRUCT’ (ERB-FRMX-CT96-0087 and -0077), IHP network ’QUEST’ (HPRN-CT-2000-00121) and IST/FET program ’QUBITS’ (IST-1999-13021)), and by the ”Institut für Quanteninformation GmbH”.


text:
# Schwinger, Pegg and Barnett approaches and a relationship between angular and Cartesian quantum descriptions II: Phase Spaces.

## I Introduction

In a previous work it has been shown that the usual quantum descriptions of Cartesian and angular coordinates in state space can both be seen as different limiting cases of the Schwinger program of treating quantum discrete variables . The limiting process involved reproduces the Pegg and Barnett approach to phase variables in the case of angle/angular momentum variables. The purpose of this work is to translate that discussion into a phase space point of view, which might be a way to unify under a same structure three apparently different formalisms, each one adapted to one specific kind of quantum variable, namely Cartesian, angular and discrete. In doing so, we again relate the Pegg and Barnett and Schwinger approaches, now through the phase space representatives of number and phase operators.

The phase-space picture is a well established picture of quantum mechanics , specially if one deals with degrees of freedom with classical counterpart, a situation in which the Weyl-Wigner formalism is the undisputed approach. Nevertheless, to cope with variables such as rotation angle and angular momentum, the formalism had to be adapted in order to account for the inherent periodicity involved. This was accomplished in the late seventies  and developed to full extent in . However, when one deals with degrees of freedom without classical counterpart, the formulations discussed above are not applicable. In these cases, there is a formalism completely capable to deal with the peculiarities of the finite/discrete character of the variables , much in the same spirit of the Weyl-Wigner formalism itself. Following the procedure shown in  which led from discrete variables to the cases with classical counterpart, we show that from the discrete phase space formalism naturally emerges the usual Weyl-Wigner formalism and also its rotation angle-angular momentum version. In addition, some properties of the discrete Wigner function are also discussed. From a more rigorous mathematical point of view, these limiting processes presented in this context have been also discussed in Refs. .

This paper is organized as follows. In section II we briefly present the main ideas of the discrete phase space representation drawing attention to some properties of the discrete Wigner function, while in section III we discuss the limiting processes which lead the original operator bases to the well-known Weyl-Wigner continuous case as well as the particular case of rotations. Finaly, section IV is devoted to the conclusions.

## II Discrete Phase Space

As has been already shown in the past, a discrete phase space representation of a quantum mechanical degree of freedom which is characterized by a finite number of states, therefore with no classical counterpart, can be established if we are given a basis in the corresponding operator space. One such basis has been introduced by Schwinger in his seminal paper on this subject, constructing it out of some particular unitary cyclically shifting pairs of operators, and another one has been proposed that basically considers the double Fourier transform of that of Schwinger. As was previously shown, once we are provided with such an operator basis, it is a direct task to obtain the discrete phase space representatives of the operators acting on the state space from which we started. To briefly summarize those results let us consider the operator basis and recall its main properties.

The discrete phase space formalism is set over the basis elements

$$G(j,l)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{m,n=h}{\overset{h}{}}U^mV^n\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i\pi mn}{N}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2\pi i}{N}\left(mj+nl\right)\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[i\pi \varphi (m+h,n+h;N)\right],$$
(1)
where $`(j,l)[h,h],`$ $`h=\frac{N1}{2}`$ (for simplicity, odd $`N^{}`$s will be considered, as even values only require only a little more care and a heavier notation). The modular phase $`\varphi (m,n;N)`$, included to warrant an explicit mod $`N`$ symmetry in the summing indices of the basis, is given by

$$\varphi (m,n;N)=NI_m^NI_n^NmI_n^NnI_m^N$$
(2)
with

$$I_k^N=\left[\frac{k}{N}\right]$$
(3)
standing for the integral part of $`k`$ with respect to $`N`$. The $`U`$’s and $`V`$”s are the Schwinger unitary operators, shortly reviewed in .

As a basis, the set (1) can be used to represent all linear operators acting on the given $`N`$-dimensional state space; this can be accomplished by a direct decomposition

$$\widehat{O}=\underset{m,n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}O(m,n)G(m,n),$$
(4)
where the coefficient, $`O(m,n)`$, that gives rise to the representative of the operator $`\widehat{O}`$ in the discrete phase space, is given by

$$O(m,n)=\frac{1}{N}Tr\left[G(m,n)\widehat{O}\right],$$
(5)
where we used the fact that $`G(m,n)`$ is self adjoint.

The basic properties of the basis, Eq. (1), are

$$1)Tr[G(m,n)]=1;$$
(6)
$$2)Tr[G^{}(m,n)G(r,s)]=N\delta _{m,r}^{\left[N\right]}\delta _{n,s}^{\left[N\right]};$$
(7)
$`3)Tr[G^{}(m,n)G(u,v)G(r,s)]={\displaystyle }_{a,b,c,d=h}^h{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{N}}(bcad)]`$

$$e^{\left[i\pi \varphi (a+c+h,b+d+h;N)\right]}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{2\pi i}{N}\left[a\left(mu\right)+b\left(nv\right)+c\left(mr\right)+d\left(ns\right)\right]\right\},$$
(8)
where the last expression is important for the mapping of products of operators. Particular interest resides in the mapping of the commutator of two operators, for then it is possible to study, for example, the time evolution of the density operator in the von Neumann-Liouville equation.

### A The Discrete Wigner function

The phase space representative of the density operator in the discrete approach is also referred to as (discrete) Wigner function. If the (pure) state of a given system is described by

$$|\psi =\underset{n}{}\psi _n|u_n,$$
(9)
where $`\left\{|u_n\right\}`$ is the (complete and orthonormal) set of eigenvectors of the Schwinger operator $`U`$, then the use of eq.(5) leads to a Wigner function of the form

$$\rho _w(m,n)=\frac{1}{N^2}\underset{j,l,k}{}\psi _k^{}\psi _{kl}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2\pi i}{N}\left(jk\frac{jl}{2}mjnl\right)\right],$$
(10)
or

$`\rho _w(m,n)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l,k}{}}\psi _k^{}\psi _{kl}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\left[\pi (kml/2)\right]}{\mathrm{sin}\left[\frac{\pi }{N}(kml/2)\right]}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi i}{N}}nl\right].`$

Its main properties are, in direct analogy with the usual continuous Wigner function:

* It is a real function, as it follows from the hermicity of the basis elements.
* Summing it over each one of its indices gives the probability distribution in the other. For example:

$$\underset{n}{}\rho _w(m,n)=\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{N^2}\underset{j,l,k}{}\psi _k^{}\psi _{kl}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2\pi i}{N}\left(jk\frac{jl}{2}mjnl\right)\right],$$
(11)
such that

$$\underset{n}{}\rho _w(m,n)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{j,l,k}{}\psi _k^{}\psi _{kl}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2\pi i}{N}\left(jk\frac{jl}{2}mj\right)\right]\delta _{l,0}^{[N]},$$
(12)
and so

$$\underset{n}{}\rho _w(m,n)=|\psi _m|^2.$$
(13)
And in the same way, the summation over $`\left\{m\right\}`$ would lead to the probability distribution associated to the eigenstates of the Schwinger operator $`V`$.
* It must be different from zero in at least $`N`$ sites in the discrete phase space. Writing it as

$$\rho _w(m,n)=\frac{1}{N^2}\underset{j,l}{}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2\pi i}{N}\left(mj+nl\right)\right]\underset{k}{}\psi _k^{}\psi _{kl}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2\pi i}{N}\left(jk\frac{jl}{2}\right)\right],$$
(14)
it is clear that it is the double Fourier transform of the quantity $`\rho _s(j,l)`$

$$\rho _s(j,l)=\underset{k}{}\psi _k^{}\psi _{kl}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2\pi i}{N}\left(jk\frac{jl}{2}\right)\right],$$
(15)
which, by its turn, can be seen as the inner product of two vectors $`\left\{\psi _k\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2\pi i}{N}jk\right]\right\}`$ and $`\left\{\psi _{kl}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\pi i}{N}jl\right]\right\}`$ of unity length. By the Schwarz inequality it is clear than that $`\left|\rho _s(j,l)\right|^21,`$ and from properties of the discrete Fourier transform, one can also conclude that

$$\left(\rho _w(m,n)\right)^21.$$
(16)
Now, using the property

$$Tr[\widehat{O}_1\widehat{O}_2]=\frac{1}{N}\underset{m,n}{}O_1(m,n)O_2(m,n),$$
(17)
then

$$Tr[\left(|\psi \psi |\right)^2]=\frac{1}{N}\underset{m,n}{}\left(\rho _w(m,n)\right)^2,$$
(18)
which leads to

$$1=\frac{1}{N}\underset{m,n}{}\left(\rho _w(m,n)\right)^2,$$
(19)
and considering inequality (16) we conclude that the discrete Wigner function must be different from zero in at least on $`N`$ sites in the discrete phase space.

## III The continuum limit in phase space

The continuum limit of an operator representative in phase space is to be seen as its behaviour in the infinite dimensional/continuum limit. We now follow a procedure similar to that of .

### A Cartesian coordinates

We start from the discrete space operator basis elements,

$$G(j,l)=\frac{1}{N}\underset{m,n=h}{\overset{h}{}}U^mV^n\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i\pi mn}{N}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{2\pi i}{N}\left(mj+nl\right)\right],$$
(20)
were we omit the modular phase since we will restrict ourselves to sums in the interval $`[h,h].`$ Then we introduce the scaling parameter

$$ϵ=\sqrt{\frac{2\pi }{N}},$$
(21)
which will become infinitesimal as $`N\mathrm{}`$. We also introduce two Hermitian operators $`\{P,Q\},`$

$$P=\underset{j=\frac{N1}{2}}{\overset{\frac{N1}{2}}{}}jϵ^\delta p_0|v_jv_j|Q=\underset{j^{}=\frac{N1}{2}}{\overset{\frac{N1}{2}}{}}j^{}ϵ^{2\delta }q_0|u_j^{}u_j^{}|,$$
(22)
constructed out of the projectors of the eigenstates of $`U`$ and $`V.`$ Again, $`\delta `$ is a free parameter which might assume any value in the open interval $`(0,2)`$. $`\{p_0,q_0\}`$ are real parameters that might carry units of momentum and position, respectively, and $`ϵ^\delta p_0`$ and $`ϵ^{2\delta }q_0`$ are the distance between successive eigenvalues of the $`P`$ and $`Q`$ operators. With the help of these, we can rewrite the Schwinger operators as

$$V=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{iϵ^{2\delta }P}{p_0}\right]U=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{iϵ^\delta Q}{q_0}\right].$$
(23)
and perform the change of variables

$`q`$ $`=`$ $`q_0ϵ^{2\delta }j\text{ }p=p_0ϵ^\delta l`$ (24)
$`u`$ $`=`$ $`p_0ϵ^\delta m\text{ }v=q_0ϵ^{2\delta }n.`$ (25)
With that, we arrive at a new operator basis elements that do not explicitely depend on $`\delta `$, but, at the same time, the operators $`U`$ and $`V`$ carry a particular $`ϵ`$ dependence, defined by the particular choice of $`\delta `$, namely

$$G(p,q)=\frac{1}{q_0p_0ϵ^2N}\underset{u,v=h}{\overset{h}{}}\mathrm{\Delta }u\mathrm{\Delta }v\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{iuQ}{p_0q_0}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{ivP}{p_0q_0}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2p_0q_0}uv\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i}{p_0q_0}\left(qupv\right)\right].$$
(26)
If we take the limit $`N\mathrm{},`$ it is clear that we can consider $`\mathrm{\Delta }udu`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }vdv,`$ yielding

$$G(p,q)=\frac{1}{2\pi q_0p_0}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑u𝑑v\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{iu(Qqv/2)}{p_0q_0}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{iv(Pp)}{p_0q_0}\right].$$
(27)
As we know from  that in this limit we recover the usual results for position and momentum once $`p_0q_0=\mathrm{}`$, we use the identity

$$|qq|=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{ix(Qq)}{\mathrm{}}\right],$$
(28)
and obtain

$$G(p,q)=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑v|q+v/2q+v/2|\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{iv(Pp)}{\mathrm{}}\right]$$
(29)
$$G(p,q)=\frac{1}{2\pi \mathrm{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑v|q+v/2qv/2|\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{ivp}{\mathrm{}}\right],$$
(30)
which is exactly the form of the Weyl-Wigner basis elements $`\mathrm{\Delta }(p,q).`$ It is interesting to see that, as in the state space description, the parameter $`\delta `$ doesn’t affect the final result since, in this case (any $`\delta (0,2)`$), the basis elements do not depend on it at all, but $`U`$ and $`V`$ depend on $`ϵ`$. It is now a trivial matter to prove that the decomposition coefficients are well behaved in the limit and also go to the Weyl-Wigner coefficients. From this we see that the whole mapping scheme is recovered. This result was already achieved for the particular case $`\delta =1`$ in , where the limiting process which leads to the Moyal bracket was also discussed. Moreover, it has to be stressed that, starting from the continuous family of unitary operators, Eq. (23), and realizing the independence of the basis elements on $`\delta `$, the Weyl-Wigner basis elements are overdetermined in the limiting process, since, for any $`\delta (0,2)`$ pair of operators, we always get the same final expression. This means that for the continuous family of unitary operators (except for $`\delta =0`$ or $`\delta =2`$), as proposed, the continuum limit is the Weyl-Wigner operator basis.

From these results one immediately concludes that the discrete Wigner function has the ordinary Wigner function as its continuum limit, in the sense discussed above. As we already stated, most properties of the usual Wigner function are originally present in the discrete one, and come out as the continuum limit of the latter.

In the discrete case we have seen that the Wigner function must be different from zero in at least $`N`$ sites in phase space. It is obvious that the same procedure which led to this result would lead to the well known property of the usual Wigner function that it must be different from zero in a region of the phase space of area at least $`\mathrm{}`$. This discussion illustrates somewhat quantitatively how the quantum effects become more and more drastic as the dimensionality $`N`$ gets smaller.

### B Angular coordinates

Following on our analogy with what was done in , we choose now the parameter $`\delta `$ in the extreme situation $`\delta =0`$. We expect now to obtain a phase space formalism which is consistent with angular coordinates. We start again from our discrete operator space basis elements, Eq.(20),

$`G(j^{},l^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{m^{},n^{}=h}{\overset{h}{}}}U^m^{}V^n^{}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i\pi m^{}n^{}}{N}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi i}{N}}\left(m^{}j^{}+n^{}l^{}\right)\right],`$

Rewriting the Schwinger operators as above, but with $`\delta =0`$, we now would have

$$M=\underset{j=\frac{N1}{2}}{\overset{\frac{N1}{2}}{}}jm_0|v_jv_j|\text{and }\mathrm{\Theta }=\underset{j^{}=\frac{N1}{2}}{\overset{\frac{N1}{2}}{}}j^{}ϵ^2\theta _0|u_j^{}u_j^{}|,$$
(31)
leading to

$$V=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{iϵ^2M}{m_0}\right]\text{and }U=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i\mathrm{\Theta }}{\theta _0}\right],$$
(32)
so that only $`V`$ depends now on $`ϵ`$, and changing the variables as

$`\theta `$ $`=`$ $`\theta _0ϵ^2j^{}\text{ }l=l_0l^{}`$ (33)
$`m`$ $`=`$ $`m_0m^{}\text{ }\alpha =\theta _0ϵ^2n^{},`$ (34)
we have for the basis elements

$`G(\alpha ,l)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \theta _0}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=m_0h}{\overset{m_0h}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =(\pi \frac{\pi }{N})\theta _0}{\overset{(\pi +\frac{\pi }{N})\theta _0}{}}}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{im\mathrm{\Theta }}{m_0\theta _0}}\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha M}{m_0\theta _0}}\right]`$ (36)
$`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{im\alpha }{2m_0\theta _0}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{i}{m_0\theta _0}}\left(m\theta l\alpha \right)\right].`$
Performing again the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$, the angle variables become continuous and we have

$$G(\alpha ,l)=\frac{1}{2\pi \theta _0}\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{\pi \theta _0}^{\pi \theta _0}𝑑\alpha \mathrm{exp}\left[im(\mathrm{\Theta }\theta \frac{\alpha }{2})\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{i\alpha (Ml)}{m_0\theta _0}\right].$$
(37)
The sum over $`m`$ is the projector in angle space ($`\theta _0`$ is set to 1, so the angle units are radians, and $`m_0\theta _0`$ is set to $`\mathrm{}`$), and

$$G(\alpha ,l)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_\pi ^\pi d\alpha ||\theta +\frac{\alpha }{2}\theta +\frac{\alpha }{2}|\mathrm{exp}[\frac{i\alpha (Ml)}{\mathrm{}}].$$
(38)
so that, with the use Eq.(31), we achieve the result

$$G(\alpha ,l)=\frac{1}{2\pi }_\pi ^\pi 𝑑\alpha |\theta +\frac{\alpha }{2}\theta \frac{\alpha }{2}|\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{il\alpha }{\mathrm{}}\right],$$
(39)
that is precisely the result of references . We remark that we have no need to worry about the periodicities in the angle variable as our angular states are bounded to the $`[\pi ,\pi )`$ interval by definition, and our notation has $`modN`$ periodicity ($`mod2\pi `$ in the continuum limit) by construction. It would seem at first glance that the continuum interval is $`[\pi ,\pi ],`$ but that is not the case as it can be seem from the original discrete results that the states in the extremes of the interval are not the same. We understand that, once the basis elements are recovered, the whole mapping procedure is recovered.

Again, all properties of the angular Wigner function can be obtained from its discrete counterpart by the limiting process above. It must be stated however that in a lot of cases it turns out to be easier to work with the discrete rather than in the angular case. That is particularly true in the obtention of the angular counterpart of Eq.(16), which in the angular case doesn’t lead to a condition involving a minimal area unit in phase space due to the very nature of the angular phase space.

It is interesting to note that what was considered to be conditions for the existence of the Wigner function in  are derived as properties of it in the present scheme.

### C Mapping of the Pegg and Barnett operators

The number and phase operators of Pegg and Barnett can be immediately mapped on the discrete phase space. In fact, we exactly reproduce the PB scheme if we rename the $`M`$ operator of Eq.(32) by $`N`$ and include a reference angle in the definition of $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ (which must be an integer multiple of $`\frac{2\pi }{N}`$). The phase space representatives of these operators, through direct use of Eq.(5), are seen to be

$$N(m,n)=n,\mathrm{\Theta }(m,n)=\theta _{ref}+\frac{2\pi }{N}m,$$
(40)
with obvious continuum limits.

## IV Conclusions

Motivated by the results of part I, we looked for a phase space discussion of the limits which connect discrete, angular and Cartesian coordinates. It became then clear that the Weyl-Wigner formalism, in both position-momentum and angle-angular momentum cases, can be seen as limiting elements of a discrete phase space formalism. The angle-angular momentum case is seen to be in deep connection with the Pegg and Barnett approach to the phase problem, while the Weyl-Wigner operator basis is reobtained for all the cases for which the parameter governing the unitary operators is different from zero; in this sense the Weyl-Wigner basis is overdetermined in the limiting process. An interesting by-product of this discussion is the analysis of the Wigner function, which reproduced the conditions imposed on the angular Wigner function in .

With all that in mind, one is compelled to regard this as a kind of standard, or rather ‘natural’ approach to phase space in quantum mechanics. The basic feature that pertains to all three versions of the formalism is that one constructs a basis in operator space out of the Fourier transform of the shifting operators. A one-to-one correspondence then ensures the existence of a mapping between abstract operators and functions in phase space.