text:
# Quantum Zeno effect, adiabaticity and dynamical superselection rules

## 1 Introduction

The quantum Zeno effect is a direct consequence of general features of the Schrödinger equation that yield quadratic behavior of the survival probability at short times. It consists in the hindrance of the evolution of a quantum system when very frequent measurements are performed, in order to ascertain whether it is still in its initial state.

Following an interesting idea by Cook, both the experimental and theoretical investigations of the last decade have dealt with oscillating (mainly, two-level) systems. However, a few years ago, the presence of a short-time quadratic region was experimentally confirmed for an unstable quantum mechanical system and the existence of the Zeno effect (as well as its inverse) has been recently proved.

Interestingly, the quantum Zeno effect (QZE) does not necessarily freeze everything. On the contrary, for frequent projections onto a multi-dimensional subspace, the system can evolve away from its initial state, although it remains in the subspace defined by the “measurement.” This continuing time evolution within the projected subspace has been recently investigated and called quantum Zeno dynamics. It involves interesting, yet unsettled, physical and mathematical issues.

The above-mentioned investigations deal with “pulsed” measurements, according to von Neumann’s projection postulate. However, from a physical point of view, a “measurement” is nothing but an interaction with an external system (another quantum object, or a field, or simply a different degree of freedom of the very system investigated), playing the role of apparatus. In this sense von Neumann’s postulate can be considered as a useful shorthand notation, summarizing the effect of the quantum measurement.

By including the apparatus in the quantum description, several authors, during the last two decades, have demonstrated the QZE without making use of projection operators (and non-unitary dynamics). In particular, the QZE has been reformulated in terms of “continuous” measurements, obtaining the same physical effects (as well as a quantitative comparison with the “pulsed” situation) in terms of a continuous (eventually strong) coupling to an external agent.

The studies of the last few years pave the way to interesting possible applications of the QZE. Indeed, we have a physical and mathematical framework that enable us to analyze the modification of the evolution of a quantum system and possibly to tailor the interaction in order to slow the evolution down (or eventually accelerate it). The potential importance of such a scheme cannot be underestimated.

It is therefore important to understand in more details which features of the coupling between the “observed” system and the “measuring” apparatus are needed to obtain a QZE. In other words, one wants to know when an external quantum system can be considered a good apparatus and why. The purpose of the present article is to clarify these issues and cast the quantum Zeno evolution in terms of an adiabatic theorem. We will show that the evolution of a quantum system under the action of a continuous measurement process can be profoundly modified: the system is forced to evolve in a set of orthogonal subspaces of the total Hilbert space and an effective superselection rule arises in the strong coupling limit. These quantum Zeno subspaces are just the eigenspaces (belonging to different eigenvalues) of the Hamiltonian describing the interaction between the system and the apparatus: they are subspaces that the measurement process is able to distinguish.

The general ideas will be applied to some relevant examples. Some interesting issues and possible applications will be discussed in details.

## 2 Pulsed measurements

Let Q be a quantum system, whose states belong to the Hilbert space $``$ and whose evolution is described by the unitary operator $`U(t)=\mathrm{exp}(iHt)`$, where $`H`$ is a time-independent lower-bounded Hamiltonian. Let $`P`$ be a projection operator and $`\text{Ran}P=_P`$ its range. We assume that the initial density matrix $`\rho _0`$ of system Q belongs to $`_P`$:

$$\rho _0=P\rho _0P,\mathrm{Tr}[\rho _0P]=1.$$
(1)
Under the action of the Hamiltonian $`H`$ (i.e., if no measurements are performed in order to get information about the quantum state), the state at time $`t`$ reads

$$\rho (t)=U(t)\rho _0U^{}(t)$$
(2)
and the survival probability, namely the probability that the system is still in $`_P`$ at time $`t`$, is

$$p(t)=\mathrm{Tr}\left[U(t)\rho _0U^{}(t)P\right].$$
(3)
No distinction is made between one- and many-dimensional projections.

The above evolution is “undisturbed,” in the sense that the quantum systems evolves only under the action of its Hamiltonian for a time $`t`$, without undergoing any measurement process. Assume, on the other hand, that we do perform a selective measurement at time $`\tau `$, in order to check whether Q has survived inside $`_P`$. By this, we mean that we select the survived component and stop the other one. The state of Q changes (up to a normalization constant) into

$$\rho _0\rho (\tau )=PU(\tau )\rho _0U^{}(\tau )P$$
(4)
and the survival probability in $`_P`$ is

$`p(\tau )=\mathrm{Tr}\left[U(\tau )\rho _0U^{}(\tau )P\right]=\mathrm{Tr}\left[V(\tau )\rho _0V^{}(\tau )\right],V(\tau )PU(\tau )P.`$ (5)
We stress that the measurement occurs instantaneously (this is the essence of von Neumann’s projection postulate).

The QZE is the following. We prepare Q in the initial state $`\rho _0`$ at time 0 and perform a series of $`P`$-observations at time intervals $`\tau =t/N`$. The state of Q at time $`t`$ reads

$$\rho ^{(N)}(t)=V_N(t)\rho _0V_N^{}(t),V_N(t)[PU(t/N)P]^N$$
(6)
and the survival probability in $`_P`$ is given by

$$p^{(N)}(t)=\mathrm{Tr}\left[V_N(t)\rho _0V_N^{}(t)\right].$$
(7)
Equations (6)-(7) are the formal statement of the QZE, according to which very frequent observations modify the dynamics of the quantum system: under general conditions, if $`N`$ is sufficiently large, all transitions outside $`_P`$ are inhibited. Notice that the dynamics (6)-(7) is not reversible.

We emphasize that close scrutiny of the features of the survival probability has clarified that if $`N`$ is not too large the system can display an inverse Zeno effect, by which decay is accelerated. Both effects have recently been seen in the same experimental setup. We will not elaborate on this here.

### 2.1 Misra and Sudarshan’s theorem

In order to consider the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit (“continuous observation”), one needs some mathematical requirements: assume that the limit operator

$$𝒱(t)\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}V_N(t)$$
(8)
exists (in the strong sense) for $`t>0`$. The final state of Q is then

$$\rho (t)=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\rho ^{(N)}(t)=𝒱(t)\rho _0𝒱^{}(t)$$
(9)
and the probability to find the system in $`_P`$ is

$$𝒫(t)\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}p^{(N)}(t)=\mathrm{Tr}\left[𝒱(t)\rho _0𝒱^{}(t)\right].$$
(10)
By assuming the strong continuity of $`𝒱(t)`$ at $`t=0`$

$$\underset{t0^+}{lim}𝒱(t)=P,$$
(11)
one can prove that under general conditions the operators

$$𝒱(t)\text{exist for all real }t\text{ and form a semigroup.}$$
(12)
Moreover, by time-reversal invariance

$$𝒱^{}(t)=𝒱(t),$$
(13)
so that $`𝒱^{}(t)𝒱(t)=P`$. This implies, by (1), that

$$𝒫(t)=\mathrm{Tr}\left[\rho _0𝒱^{}(t)𝒱(t)\right]=\mathrm{Tr}\left[\rho _0P\right]=1.$$
(14)
If the particle is “continuously” observed, in order to check whether it has survived inside $`_P`$, it will never make a transition to $`_P^{}`$ (QZE).

Two important remarks are now in order: first, it is not clear whether the dynamics in the $`N\mathrm{}`$ limit is time reversible. Although one ends up, in general, with a semigroup, there are concrete elements of reversibility in the above equations. Second, the theorem just summarized does not state that the system remains in its initial state, after the series of very frequent measurements. Rather, the system is left in the subspace $`_P`$, instead of evolving “naturally” in the total Hilbert space $``$.

### 2.2 Complete measurements

Let us first consider the particular case of complete selective measurements. $`_P`$ has dimension 1 and the initial state is a pure (normalized) state $`|a`$:

$$P_a=|aa|,\rho _0=|aa|.$$
(15)
The time evolution operator (6) after $`N`$ measurements in a time interval $`t`$ reads

$$V_N(t)=[P_aU(t/N)P_a]^N=[P_aa|U(t/N)|a]^N=P_a𝒜(t/N)^N,$$
(16)
where $`𝒜(t)`$ is the (undisturbed) survival amplitude in state $`|a`$ at time $`t`$

$$𝒜(t)=a|e^{iHt}|a.$$
(17)
Therefore, in this case the problem of the existence of the limit operator $`𝒱(t)`$ is reduced to the existence of the limit function $`lim_N𝒜(t/N)^N`$. Let $`\tau =t/N`$ be the time interval between two successive measurements. We can write

$`𝒜\left({\displaystyle \frac{t}{N}}\right)^N`$ $`=`$ $`𝒜(\tau )^N=\mathrm{exp}\left[N\mathrm{log}𝒜(\tau )\right]=\mathrm{exp}\left[t{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}𝒜(\tau )}{\tau }}\right]`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[t\left({\displaystyle \frac{\gamma (\tau )}{2}}+i\omega (\tau )\right)\right],`$
where

$$\gamma (\tau )=\frac{1}{\tau }\mathrm{log}|𝒜(\tau )|^2,\omega (\tau )=\frac{1}{\tau }\mathrm{arg}𝒜(\tau ),$$
(19)
and the “observed” survival probability has a purely exponential decay with an effective rate $`\gamma (\tau )`$:

$$p_a^{(N)}(t)=\left|𝒜(\tau )\right|^{2N}=\mathrm{exp}[\gamma (\tau )t].$$
(20)
From (16) and (18) one sees that $`𝒱(t)`$ in (8) exists (in the strong sense), for $`t>0`$, if and only if $`\gamma (0^+)`$ and $`\omega (0^+)`$ exist and are finite \[or if $`\gamma (0^+)=+\mathrm{}`$, the existence of the limit $`\omega (0^+)`$ being in this case irrelevant\], and it reads

$$𝒱(t)=P_a\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\frac{\gamma (0^+)}{2}+i\omega (0^+)\right)t\right].$$
(21)
Notice that, for one-dimensional projections, when $`𝒱(t)`$ exists \[and $`\gamma (0^+)<\mathrm{}`$ so that $`𝒱(t)0`$\], the strong continuity in the origin $`𝒱(0^+)=P_a`$ \[see Eq. (11)\] follows from the very existence of (21) and need not be assumed as an independent hypothesis.

A sufficient condition for the existence of $`𝒱(t)`$ is that the initial state belongs to the domain of the Hamiltonian, $`|aD(H)`$. Indeed, in such a case, the first and second moment of the Hamiltonian exist,

$$a|H^2|a=H|a^2<\mathrm{},a|H|a=E_a<\mathrm{},$$
(22)
and the survival amplitude has the following asymptotic behavior at short times:111More precisely, without further information on the third moment, $`𝒜(\tau )=1iE_a\tau +\mathrm{O}(\tau ^2)`$, whence $`\gamma (\tau )=\mathrm{O}(\tau )`$.

$$𝒜(\tau )1iE_a\tau a|H^2|a\frac{\tau ^2}{2},\tau 0,$$
(23)
i.e. the survival probability exhibits a short-time quadratic behavior,

$$p_a(\tau )=|𝒜(\tau )|^21\frac{\tau ^2}{\tau _\mathrm{Z}^2},\tau 0,$$
(24)
where

$$\tau _\mathrm{Z}\frac{1}{\sqrt{a|H^2|aa|H|a^2}}$$
(25)
is called the Zeno time. Therefore, by plugging (23) into (19),

$$\gamma (\tau )\frac{\tau }{\tau _\mathrm{Z}^2},\omega (\tau )E_a,\tau 0,$$
(26)
and one gets

$$𝒱(t)=P_a\mathrm{exp}\left(iE_at\right),\rho (t)=\rho _0,𝒫_a(t)=1.$$
(27)
More and more frequent measurements hinder the evolution and eventually freeze it. This is the quantum Zeno paradox: “A watched pot never boils”.

Notice that $`𝒱(t)`$ in (27) form a strongly continuous one-parameter unitary group within $`_P`$. Therefore, starting from the dynamics (16), which is irreversible and probability-losing, one ends up with a fully reversible evolution. Reversibility is recovered in the limit.

For one-dimensional projections, interesting behaviors can be obtained (in the very limit $`N\mathrm{}`$) only by relaxing the hypothesis $`|aD(H)`$. In such a case, the survival probability, at variance with (24), can be no more quadratic at short times and one can obtain different results depending on its short-time behavior. Assume, for example, that

$$p_a(\tau )1\left(\frac{\tau }{\tau _c}\right)^\alpha ,\mathrm{for}\tau 0,$$
(28)
for some $`\alpha 0`$. The effective decay rate (19) becomes

$$\gamma (\tau )\frac{\tau ^{\alpha 1}}{\tau _c^\alpha },\mathrm{for}\tau 0.$$
(29)
When $`\alpha >1`$, $`\gamma (0^+)=0`$ and the limit (27) is recovered again. On the other hand, for $`0<\alpha <1`$, $`\gamma (0^+)=+\mathrm{}`$, and the limit operator $`𝒱(t)`$ in Eq. (21) vanishes. In such a case irreversibility “survives” the limit and probability is immediately lost. Notice that in this case the limit operator is not continuous at $`t=0`$, $`𝒱(0^+)=0𝒱(0)=P_a`$, whence Misra and Sudarshan’s theorem does not apply. \[Note: from (16), $`𝒱(0)=lim_NV_N(0)=P_a`$ .\]

An interesting case arises at the threshold value $`\alpha =1`$, when $`\gamma (0^+)=1/\tau _c0`$. Irreversibility still survives the limit, but it manifests itself in a gentler way, through the limit operator

$$𝒱(t)=P_a\mathrm{exp}(t/2\tau _c),\mathrm{for}t0:$$
(30)
probability is not conserved and the Zeno paradox does not arise. Notice that in Eq. (30) we had to assume $`\omega (0^+)<\mathrm{}`$, in order to assure the existence of $`𝒱(t)`$. Finally, the limit case $`\alpha =0`$ trivially occurs when the projection commutes with the Hamiltonian $`[H,P_a]=0`$, hence $`|a`$ is an eigenstate of $`H`$ and does not evolve.

### 2.3 Incomplete measurements

In the case of incomplete measurements some outcomes are lumped together, for example, because the experimental equipment has insufficient resolution. Therefore, the projection operator $`P`$, which selects a particular lump, is many-dimensional. Let us first consider a finite dimensional $`_P=\mathrm{Ran}P`$,

$$\mathrm{Tr}P=s,\mathrm{with}s<\mathrm{}.$$
(31)
The resulting time evolution operator is just a generalization of (16) to a finite dimensional matrix and has the explicit form \[see (27)\]

$$𝒱(t)=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}V_N(t)=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}[PU(t/N)P]^N=P\mathrm{exp}(iPHPt).$$
(32)
As shown in Sec. 2.2, if $`_PD(H)`$, then $`𝒱(t)`$ in (32) is unitary within $`_P`$ and is generated by a resulting self-adjoint Hamiltonian $`PHP`$. Again, reversibility is recovered in the limit.

For infinite dimensional projection, $`s=\mathrm{}`$, one can always formally write the limiting evolution in the form (32) but has to define the meaning of $`PHP`$. In such a case the time evolution operator $`𝒱(t)`$ may be not unitary and interesting phenomena can arise, related to the self-adjointness of the limiting Hamiltonian $`PHP`$. This an interesting problem that will not be discussed here.

In general, for incomplete selective measurements, the system Q does not remain in its initial state, after the series of very frequent measurements. Rather, the system is confined (and evolves) in the subspace $`_P`$, instead of evolving “naturally” in the total Hilbert space $``$.

### 2.4 Nonselective measurements

We will now consider the case of nonselective measurements and extend Misra and Sudarshan’s theorem in order to accomodate multiple projectors and to build a bridge for our subsequent discussion. For nonselective measurements the measuring apparatus functions, but no selection of outcomes is performed, and all “beams” go through the whole Zeno dynamics. Let $`\{P_n\}_n`$,

$$P_nP_m=\delta _{mn}P_n,\underset{n}{}P_n=1,$$
(33)
be a (countable) collection of projection operators and $`\mathrm{Ran}P_n=_{P_n}`$ the relative subspaces. This induces a partition on the total Hilbert space

$$=\underset{n}{}_{P_n}.$$
(34)
Consider the associated nonselective measurement described by the superoperator

$$\widehat{P}\rho =\underset{n}{}P_n\rho P_n.$$
(35)
The free evolution reads

$$\widehat{U}_t\rho _0=U(t)\rho _0U^{}(t),U(t)=\mathrm{exp}(iHt)$$
(36)
and the Zeno evolution after $`N`$ measurements in a time $`t`$ is governed by the superoperator

$$\widehat{V}_t^{(N)}=\widehat{P}\left(\widehat{U}\left(t/N\right)\widehat{P}\right)^{N1},$$
(37)
which yields

$$\rho (t)=\widehat{V}_t^{(N)}\rho _0=\underset{n_1,\mathrm{},n_N}{}V_{n_1\mathrm{}n_N}^{(N)}(t)\rho _0V_{n_1\mathrm{}n_N}^{(N)}(t),$$
(38)
where

$`V_{n_1\mathrm{}n_N}^{(N)}(t)=P_{n_N}U\left(t/N\right)P_{n_{N1}}\mathrm{}P_{n_2}U\left(t/N\right)P_{n_1}.`$ (39)
We follow Misra and Sudarshan and assume, as in Sec. 2.1, the existence of the strong limits ($`t>0`$)

$$𝒱_n(t)=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}V_{n\mathrm{}n}^{(N)}(t),\underset{t0^+}{lim}𝒱_n(t)=P_n,n.$$
(40)
Then $`𝒱_n(t)`$ exist for all real $`t`$ and form a semigroup, and

$$𝒱_n^{}(t)𝒱_n(t)=P_n.$$
(41)
Moreover, it is easy to show that

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}V_{n\mathrm{}n^{}\mathrm{}}^{(N)}(t)=0,\mathrm{for}n^{}n.$$
(42)
Therefore the final state is

$`\rho (t)=\widehat{𝒱}_t\rho _0={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}𝒱_n(t)\rho _0𝒱_n^{}(t),\mathrm{with}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}𝒱_n^{}(t)𝒱_n(t)={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}P_n=1.`$ (43)
The components $`𝒱_n(t)\rho _0𝒱_n^{}(t)`$ make up a block diagonal matrix: the initial density matrix is reduced to a mixture and any interference between different subspaces $`_{P_n}`$ is destroyed (complete decoherence). In conclusion,

$$p_n(t)=\mathrm{Tr}\left[\rho (t)P_n\right]=\mathrm{Tr}\left[\rho _0P_n\right]=p_n(0),n.$$
(44)
In words, probability is conserved in each subspace and no probability “leakage” between any two subspaces is possible. The total Hilbert space splits into invariant subspaces and the different components of the wave function (or density matrix) evolve independently within each sector. One can think of the total Hilbert space as the shell of a tortoise, each invariant subspace being one of the scales. Motion among different scales is impossible. (See Fig. 1 in the following.)

If $`\mathrm{Tr}P_n=s_n<\mathrm{}`$, then the limiting evolution operator $`𝒱_n(t)`$ (40) within the subspace $`_{P_n}`$ has the form (32),

$$𝒱_n(t)=P_n\mathrm{exp}(iP_nHP_nt),$$
(45)
is unitary in $`_{P_n}`$ and the resulting Hamiltonian $`P_nHP_n`$ is self-adjoint, provided that $`_{P_n}D(H)`$.

The original limit result (14) is reobtained when $`p_n=1`$ for some $`n`$, in (44): the initial state is then in one of the invariant subspaces and the survival probability in that subspace remains unity. However, even if the limits are the same, notice that the setup described here is conceptually different from that of Sec. 2.1. Indeed, the dynamics (39) allows transitions among different subspaces $`_{P_n}_{P_m}`$, while the dynamics (6) completely forbids them. Therefore, for finite $`N`$, (39) takes into account the possibility that one subspace $`_{P_n}`$ gets repopulated after the system has made transitions to other subspaces, while in (6) the system must be found in $`_{P_n}`$ at every measurement.

## 3 Dynamical quantum Zeno effect

All our discussion has dealt so far with “pulsed” measurements, according to von Neumann’s projection postulate. However, from a physical point of view, a “measurement” is nothing but an interaction with an external system (another quantum object, or a field, or simply another degree of freedom of the very system investigated), playing the role of apparatus. We emphasize that in such a case the QZE is a consequence of the dynamical features (i.e. the form factors) of the coupling between the system investigated and the external system, and no use is made of projection operators (and non-unitary dynamics). The idea of “continuous” measurement in a QZE context has been proposed several times during the last two decades, although the first quantitative comparison with the “pulsed” situation is rather recent.

We consider therefore a purely dynamical evolution, by including the detector in the quantum description. In general, one can consider the Hamiltonian

$$H_K=H+KH_{\mathrm{meas}},$$
(46)
where $`H`$ is the Hamiltonian of the system under observation (and can include the free Hamiltonian of the apparatus, $`H=H_{\mathrm{sys}}+H_{\mathrm{det}}`$) and $`H_{\mathrm{meas}}`$ is the interaction Hamiltonian between the system and the apparatus, $`K`$ representing the strength of the measurement or, equivalently, the inverse response time of the apparatus \[see examples in Sec. (4)\].

### 3.1 A theorem

We now state a theorem, which is the exact analog of Misra and Sudarshan’s theorem for a dynamical evolution of the type (46). Consider the time evolution operator

$`U_K(t)=\mathrm{exp}(iH_Kt).`$ (47)
We will prove that in the “infinitely strong measurement” (“infinitely quick detector”) limit $`K\mathrm{}`$ the evolution operator

$$𝒰(t)=\underset{K\mathrm{}}{lim}U_K(t),$$
(48)
becomes diagonal with respect to $`H_{\mathrm{meas}}`$:

$$[𝒰(t),P_n]=0,\mathrm{where}H_{\mathrm{meas}}P_n=\eta _nP_n,$$
(49)
$`P_n`$ being the orthogonal projection onto $`_{P_n}`$, the eigenspace of $`H_{\mathrm{meas}}`$ belonging to the eigenvalue $`\eta _n`$. Note that in Eq. (49) one has to consider distinct eigenvalues, i.e., $`\eta _n\eta _m`$ for $`nm`$, whence the $`_{P_n}`$’s are in general multidimensional.

Moreover, the limiting evolution operator has the explicit form

$$𝒰(t)=\mathrm{exp}[i(H^{\mathrm{diag}}+KH_{\mathrm{meas}})t],$$
(50)
where

$$H^{\mathrm{diag}}=\underset{n}{}P_nHP_n$$
(51)
is the diagonal part of the system Hamiltonian $`H`$ with respect to the interaction Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{meas}}`$.

### 3.2 Dynamical superselection rules

Before proving the theorem of Sec. 3.1 let us briefly consider its physical implications. In the $`K\mathrm{}`$ limit, due to (49), the time evolution operator becomes diagonal with respect to $`H_{\mathrm{meas}}`$, namely

$$[𝒰(t),H_{\mathrm{meas}}]=0,$$
(52)
a superselection rule arises and the total Hilbert space is split into subspaces $`_{P_n}`$ which are invariant under the evolution. These subspaces are simply defined by the $`P_n`$’s, i.e., they are eigenspaces belonging to distinct eigenvalues $`\eta _n`$: in other words, subspaces that the apparatus is able to distinguish. On the other hand, due to (51), the dynamics within each Zeno subspace $`_{P_n}`$ is governed by the diagonal part $`P_nHP_n`$ of the system Hamiltonian $`H`$. The evolution reads

$`\rho (t)=𝒰(t)\rho _0𝒰^{}(t)=e^{i(H^{\mathrm{diag}}+KH_{\mathrm{meas}})t}\rho _0e^{i(H^{\mathrm{diag}}+KH_{\mathrm{meas}})t}`$ (53)
and the probability to find the system in $`_{P_n}`$

$`p_n(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left[\rho (t)P_n\right]=\mathrm{Tr}\left[𝒰(t)\rho _0𝒰^{}(t)P_n\right]=\mathrm{Tr}\left[𝒰(t)\rho _0P_n𝒰^{}(t)\right]`$ (54)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left[\rho _0P_n\right]=p_n(0)`$
is constant. As a consequence, if the initial state of the system belongs to a specific sector, it will be forced to remain there forever (QZE):

$$\psi _0_{P_n}\psi (t)_{P_n}.$$
(55)
More generally, if the initial state is an incoherent superposition of the form $`\rho _0=\widehat{P}\rho _0`$, with $`\widehat{P}`$ defined in (35), then each component will evolve separately, according to

$`\rho (t)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒰(t)\rho _0𝒰^{}(t)={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}e^{i(H^{\mathrm{diag}}+KH_{\mathrm{meas}})t}P_n\rho _0P_ne^{i(H^{\mathrm{diag}}+KH_{\mathrm{meas}})t}`$ (56)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}e^{iP_nHP_nt}P_n\rho _0P_ne^{iP_nHP_nt}={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}𝒱_n(t)\rho _0𝒱_n^{}(t),`$
with $`𝒱_n(t)=P_n\mathrm{exp}(iP_nHP_nt)`$, which is exactly the same result (43)-(45) found for the case of nonselective pulsed measurements. This bridges the gap with the description of Sec. 2.4 and clarifies the role of the detection apparatus. In Fig. 1 we endeavored to give a pictorial representation of the decomposition of the Hilbert space as $`K`$ is increased.

### 3.3 Proof of the theorem

We will now use perturbation theory and prove that the limiting evolution operator has the form (50). From that, property (49) follows. In the next section we will give a more direct proof of (49), which relies on the adiabatic theorem.

Rewrite the time evolution operator in the form

$$U_K(t)=\mathrm{exp}(iH_Kt)=\mathrm{exp}(iH_\lambda \tau )=U_\lambda (\tau )$$
(57)
where

$$\lambda =1/K,\tau =Kt=t/\lambda ,H_\lambda =\lambda H_K=H_{\mathrm{meas}}+\lambda H,$$
(58)
and apply perturbation theory to the Hamiltonian $`H_\lambda `$ for small $`\lambda `$. To this end choose the unperturbed degenerate projections $`P_{n\alpha }`$

$$H_{\mathrm{meas}}P_{n\alpha }=\eta _nP_{n\alpha },P_n=\underset{\alpha }{}P_{n\alpha },$$
(59)
whose degeneration $`\alpha `$ is resolved at some order in the coupling constant $`\lambda `$. This means that by denoting with $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{n\alpha }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{n\alpha }`$ the eigenvalues and the orthogonal projections of the total Hamiltonian $`H_\lambda `$

$$H_\lambda \stackrel{~}{P}_{n\alpha }=\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{n\alpha }\stackrel{~}{P}_{n\alpha },$$
(60)
they reduce to the unperturbed ones when the perturbation vanishes

$$\stackrel{~}{P}_{n\alpha }\stackrel{\lambda 0}{}P_{n\alpha },\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{n\alpha }\stackrel{\lambda 0}{}\eta _n.$$
(61)
Therefore, by applying standard perturbation theory, we get the eigenvectors

$`\stackrel{~}{P}_{n\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`P_{n\alpha }+\lambda P_{n\alpha }^{(1)}+\mathrm{O}(\lambda ^2)`$ (62)
$`=`$ $`P_{n\alpha }+\lambda \left({\displaystyle \frac{Q_n}{a_n}}HP_{n\alpha }+P_{n\alpha }H{\displaystyle \frac{Q_n}{a_n}}\right)+\mathrm{O}(\lambda ^2),`$
where

$`Q_n=1P_n={\displaystyle \underset{mn}{}}P_m,{\displaystyle \frac{Q_n}{a_n}}={\displaystyle \frac{Q_n}{\eta _nH_{\mathrm{meas}}}}={\displaystyle \underset{mn}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_m}{\eta _n\eta _m}}.`$ (63)
The perturbative expansion of the eigenvalues reads

$`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{n\alpha }=\eta _n+\lambda \eta _{n\alpha }^{(1)}+\lambda ^2\eta _{n\alpha }^{(2)}+\mathrm{O}(\lambda ^3)`$ (64)
where

$`\eta _{n\alpha }^{(1)}P_{n\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`P_{n\alpha }HP_{n\alpha },\eta _{n\alpha }^{(2)}P_{n\alpha }=P_{n\alpha }H{\displaystyle \frac{Q_n}{a_n}}HP_{n\alpha },`$
$`P_{n\alpha }HP_{n\beta }`$ $`=`$ $`P_{n\alpha }H{\displaystyle \frac{Q_n}{a_n}}HP_{n\beta }=0,\alpha \beta .`$ (65)
Write now the spectral decomposition of the evolution operator (57) in terms of the projections $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{n\alpha }`$

$$U_\lambda (\tau )=\mathrm{exp}(iH_\lambda \tau )\underset{n,\alpha }{}\stackrel{~}{P}_{n\alpha }=\underset{n,\alpha }{}\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{n\alpha }\tau )\stackrel{~}{P}_{n\alpha }$$
(66)
and plug in the perturbation expansions (62), to obtain

$`U_\lambda (\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,\alpha }{}}e^{i\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{n\alpha }\tau }P_{n\alpha }`$ (67)
$`+\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{n,\alpha }{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{Q_n}{a_n}}HP_{n\alpha }e^{i\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{n\alpha }\tau }+e^{i\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{n\alpha }\tau }P_{n\alpha }H{\displaystyle \frac{Q_n}{a_n}}\right)+\mathrm{O}(\lambda ^2).`$
Let us define a new operator $`\stackrel{~}{H}_\lambda `$ as

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n,\alpha }{}}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{n\alpha }P_{n\alpha }`$ (68)
$`=`$ $`H_{\mathrm{meas}}+\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}P_nHP_n+\lambda ^2{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}P_nH{\displaystyle \frac{Q_n}{a_n}}HP_n+\mathrm{O}(\lambda ^3),`$
where Eqs. (64)-(65) were used. By plugging Eq. (68) into Eq. (67) and making use of the property

$$\underset{n}{}P_nH\frac{Q_n}{a_n}=\underset{n}{}\frac{Q_n}{a_n}HP_n,$$
(69)
we finally obtain

$`U_\lambda (\tau )=\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{~}{H}_\lambda \tau )+\lambda [{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q_n}{a_n}}HP_n,\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{~}{H}_\lambda \tau )]+\mathrm{O}(\lambda ^2),`$ (70)
Now, by recalling the definition (58), we can write the time evolution operator $`U_K(t)`$ as the sum of two terms

$$U_K(t)=U_{\mathrm{ad},K}(t)+\frac{1}{K}U_{\mathrm{na},K}(t),$$
(71)
where

$`U_{\mathrm{ad},K}(t)=e^{i\left(KH_{\mathrm{meas}}+_nP_nHP_n+\frac{1}{K}_nP_nH\frac{Q_n}{a_n}HP_n+\mathrm{O}\left(K^2\right)\right)t}`$ (72)
is a diagonal, adiabatic evolution and

$$U_{\mathrm{na},K}(t)=[\underset{n}{}\frac{Q_n}{a_n}HP_n,U_{\mathrm{ad},K}(t)]+\mathrm{O}\left(K^1\right)$$
(73)
is the off-diagonal, nonadiabatic correction. In the $`K\mathrm{}`$ limit only the adiabatic term survives and one obtains

$$𝒰(t)=\underset{K\mathrm{}}{lim}U_K(t)=\underset{K\mathrm{}}{lim}U_{\mathrm{ad},K}(t)=e^{i\left(KH_{\mathrm{meas}}+_nP_nHP_n\right)t},$$
(74)
which is formula (50) \[and implies also (49)\]. The proof is complete. As a byproduct we get the corrections to the exact limit, valid for large, but finite, values of $`K`$.

### 3.4 Zeno evolution from an adiabatic theorem

We now give an alternative proof \[and a generalization to time-dependent Hamiltonians $`H(t)`$\] of Eq. (49). The adiabatic theorem deals with the time evolution operator $`U(t)`$ when the Hamiltonian $`H(t)`$ depends slowly on time. The traditional formulation replaces the physical time $`t`$ by the scaled time $`s=t/T`$ and considers the solution of the scaled Schrödinger equation

$$i\frac{d}{ds}U_T(s)=TH(s)U_T(s)$$
(75)
in the $`T\mathrm{}`$ limit.

Given a family $`P(s)`$ of smooth spectral projections of $`H(s)`$

$$H(s)P(s)=E(s)P(s),$$
(76)
the adiabatic time evolution $`U_\mathrm{A}(s)=lim_T\mathrm{}U_T(s)`$ has the intertwining property

$$U_\mathrm{A}(s)P(0)=P(s)U_\mathrm{A}(s),$$
(77)
that is, $`U_\mathrm{A}(s)`$ maps $`_{P(0)}`$ onto $`_{P(s)}`$.

Theorem (49) and its generalization,

$$𝒰(t)P_n(0)=P_n(t)𝒰(t),$$
(78)
valid for generic time dependent Hamiltonians,

$$H_K(t)=H(t)+KH_{\mathrm{meas}}(t),$$
(79)
are easily proven by recasting them in the form of an adiabatic theorem. In the $`H`$ interaction picture, given by

$$i\frac{d}{dt}U_\mathrm{S}(t)=HU_\mathrm{S}(t),H_{\mathrm{meas}}^\mathrm{I}(t)=U_\mathrm{S}^{}(t)H_{\mathrm{meas}}U_\mathrm{S}(t),$$
(80)
the Schrödinger equation reads

$$i\frac{d}{dt}U_K^\mathrm{I}(t)=KH_{\mathrm{meas}}^\mathrm{I}(t)U_K^\mathrm{I}(t).$$
(81)
The Zeno evolution pertains to the $`K\mathrm{}`$ limit. And in such a limit Eq. (81) has exactly the same form of the adiabatic evolution (75): the large coupling $`K`$ limit corresponds to the large time $`T`$ limit and the physical time $`t`$ to the scaled time $`s=t/T`$. Therefore, let us consider a spectral projection of $`H_{\mathrm{meas}}^\mathrm{I}(t)`$,

$$P_n^\mathrm{I}(t)=U_\mathrm{S}^{}(t)P_n(t)U_\mathrm{S}(t),$$
(82)
such that

$$H_{\mathrm{meas}}^\mathrm{I}(t)P_n^\mathrm{I}(t)=\eta _n(t)P_n^\mathrm{I}(t),H_{\mathrm{meas}}(t)P_n(t)=\eta _n(t)P_n(t).$$
(83)
The limiting operator

$$𝒰^\mathrm{I}(t)=\underset{K\mathrm{}}{lim}U_K^\mathrm{I}(t)$$
(84)
has the intertwining property (77)

$$𝒰^\mathrm{I}(t)P_n^\mathrm{I}(0)=P_n^\mathrm{I}(t)𝒰^\mathrm{I}(t),$$
(85)
i.e. maps $`_{P_n^\mathrm{I}(0)}`$ onto $`_{P_n^\mathrm{I}(t)}`$:

$$\psi _0^\mathrm{I}_{P_n^\mathrm{I}(0)}\psi ^\mathrm{I}(t)_{P_n^\mathrm{I}(t)}.$$
(86)
In the Schrödinger picture the limiting operator

$$𝒰(t)=\underset{K\mathrm{}}{lim}U_\mathrm{S}(t)U_K^\mathrm{I}(t)=U_\mathrm{S}(t)𝒰^\mathrm{I}(t)$$
(87)
satisfies the intertwining property (78) \[see (82)\]

$`𝒰(t)P_n(0)`$ $`=`$ $`U_\mathrm{S}(t)𝒰^\mathrm{I}(t)P_n(0)=U_\mathrm{S}(t)𝒰^\mathrm{I}(t)P_n^\mathrm{I}(0)`$ (88)
$`=`$ $`U_\mathrm{S}(t)P_n^\mathrm{I}(t)𝒰^\mathrm{I}(t)=P_n(t)U_\mathrm{S}(t)𝒰^\mathrm{I}(t)=P_n(t)𝒰(t),`$
and maps $`_{P_n(0)}`$ onto $`_{P_n(t)}`$:

$$\psi _0_{P_n(0)}\psi (t)_{P_n(t)}.$$
(89)
The probability to find the system in $`_{P_n(t)}`$,

$`p_n(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left[P_n(t)𝒰(t)\rho _0𝒰^{}(t)\right]=\mathrm{Tr}\left[𝒰(t)P_n(0)\rho _0𝒰^{}(t)\right]`$ (90)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}\left[P_n(0)\rho _0\right]=p_n(0),`$
is constant: if the initial state of the system belongs to a given sector, it will be forced to remain there forever (QZE).

For a time independent Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{meas}}(t)=H_{\mathrm{meas}}`$, the projections are constant, $`P_n(t)=P_n`$, hence Eq. (78) reduces to (49) and the above property holds a fortiori and reduces to (54).

### 3.5 Generalizations

The formulation of a Zeno dynamics in terms of an adiabatic theorem is powerful. Indeed one can use all the machinery of adiabatic theorems in order to get results in this context. An interesting extension would be to consider time-dependent measurements

$$H_{\mathrm{meas}}=H_{\mathrm{meas}}(t),$$
(91)
whose spectral projections $`P_n=P_n(t)`$ have a nontrivial time evolution. In this case, instead of confining the quantum state to a fixed sector, one can transport it along a given path (subspace) $`_{P_n(t)}`$, according to Eqs. (89)-(90). One then obtains a dynamical generalization of the process pioneered by Von Neumann in terms of projection operators.

## 4 Applications

As a first example, consider the Hamiltonian

$$H_{3\mathrm{l}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{v}}=H+KH_{\mathrm{meas}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \mathrm{\Omega }& 0\\ \mathrm{\Omega }& 0& K\\ 0& K& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(92)
describing a two-level system, with Hamiltonian

$$H=\mathrm{\Omega }(|12|+|21|)=\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(93)
coupled to a third one, that plays the role of measuring apparatus:

$$H_{\mathrm{meas}}=|23|+|32|=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(94)
This example was considered by Peres. One expects the third level to perform better as a measuring apparatus when the coupling $`K`$ becomes larger. Indeed, if initially the system is in state $`|1`$, the survival probability reads

$$p_0(t)=\frac{1}{K_1^4}\left[K^2+\mathrm{\Omega }^2\mathrm{cos}(K_1t)\right]^2\stackrel{K\mathrm{}}{}1,K_1=\sqrt{K^2+\mathrm{\Omega }^2}.$$
(95)
In spite of its simplicity, this model clarifies the physical meaning of a “continuous” measurement performed by an “external apparatus” (which can even be another degree of freedom of the system investigated). Also, it captures many interesting features of a Zeno dynamics. Indeed, as $`K`$ is increased, the Hilbert space is split into three invariant subspaces $`=_{P_n}`$, the three eigenspaces of $`H_{\mathrm{meas}}`$:

$$_{P_0}=\{|1\},_{P_1}=\{(|2+|3)/\sqrt{2}\},_{P_1}=\{(|2|3)/\sqrt{2}\},$$
(96)
corresponding to projections

$$P_0=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),P_1=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 1\\ 0& 1& 1\end{array}\right),P_1=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\end{array}\right),$$
(97)
with eigenvalues $`\eta _0=0`$ and $`\eta _{\pm 1}=\pm 1`$. Therefore the diagonal part of the system Hamiltonian $`H`$ vanishes, $`H^{\mathrm{diag}}=P_nHP_n=0`$, the Zeno evolution is governed by

$$H^{\mathrm{diag}}+KH_{\mathrm{meas}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& K\\ 0& K& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(98)
and any transition between $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ is inhibited: a watched pot never boils.

Second example: consider

$$H_{4\mathrm{l}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{v}}=\mathrm{\Omega }\sigma _1+K\tau _1+K^{}\tau _1^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \mathrm{\Omega }& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{\Omega }& 0& K& 0\\ 0& K& 0& K^{}\\ 0& 0& K^{}& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(99)
where states $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ make Rabi oscillations,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\sigma _1=\mathrm{\Omega }(|21|+|12|)=\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(100)
while state $`|3`$ “observes” them,

$$K\tau _1=K(|32|+|23|)=K\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(101)
and state $`|4`$ “observes” whether level $`|3`$ is populated,

$$K^{}\tau _1^{}=K^{}(|43|+|34|)=K^{}\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(102)
If $`K\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`K^{}`$, then the total Hilbert space is split into the three eigenspaces of $`\tau _1`$ \[compare with (96)\]:

$$_{P_0}=\{|1,|4\},_{P_1}=\{(|2+|3)/\sqrt{2}\},_{P_1}=\{(|2|3)/\sqrt{2}\},$$
(103)
the Zeno evolution is governed by

$$H_{4\mathrm{l}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{v}}^{\mathrm{diag}}=K\tau _1=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& K& 0\\ 0& K& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(104)
and the Rabi oscillations between states $`|1`$ and $`|2`$ are hindered. On the other hand, if $`K^{}K\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the total Hilbert space is instead divided into the three eigenspaces of $`\tau _1^{}`$ \[notice the differences with (103)\]:

$$_{P_0^{}}=\{|1,|2\},_{P_1^{}}=\{(|3+|4)/\sqrt{2}\},_{P_1^{}}=\{(|3|4)/\sqrt{2}\},$$
(105)
the Zeno Hamiltonian reads

$$H_{4\mathrm{l}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{v}}^{\mathrm{diag}}=\mathrm{\Omega }\sigma _1+K^{}\tau _1^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& \mathrm{\Omega }& 0& 0\\ \mathrm{\Omega }& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& K^{}\\ 0& 0& K^{}& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(106)
and the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ oscillations are fully restored (in spite of $`K\mathrm{\Omega }`$). A watched cook can freely watch a boiling pot.

Third example (decoherence-free subspaces in quantum computation). The Hamiltonian

$$H_{\mathrm{meas}}=ig\underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}\left(b|2_{ii}1|b^{}|1_{ii}2|\right)i\kappa b^{}b$$
(107)
describes a system of two ($`i=1,2`$) three-level atoms in a cavity. The atoms are in a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ configuration with split ground states $`|0_i`$ and $`|1_i`$ and excited state $`|2_i`$, while the cavity has a single resonator mode $`b`$ in resonance with the atomic transition 1-2. Spontaneous emission inside the cavity is neglected, but a photon leaks out through the nonideal mirrors with a rate $`\kappa `$.

The excitation number $`𝒩`$,

$$𝒩=\underset{i=1,2}{}|2_{ii}2|+b^{}b,$$
(108)
commutes with the Hamiltonian,

$$[H_{\mathrm{meas}},𝒩]=0.$$
(109)
Therefore we can solve the eigenvalue equation inside each eigenspace of $`𝒩`$.

A comment is now in order. Strictly speaking, the Hamiltonian (107) is non-Hermitian and we can not apply directly the theorem of Sec. 3.1. (Notice that the proof of the theorem heavily hinges upon Hermiticity of Hamiltonians and unitarity of evolutions.) However, we can enlarge our Hilbert space $``$, by including the photon modes outside the cavity $`a_\omega `$ and their coupling with the cavity mode $`b`$. The enlarged dynamics is generated by the Hermitian Hamiltonian

$`\stackrel{~}{H}_{\mathrm{meas}}`$ $`=`$ $`ig{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{2}{}}}\left(b|2_{ii}1|b^{}|1_{ii}2|\right)`$ (110)
$`+{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega \omega a_\omega ^{}a_\omega }+\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{\pi }}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\omega \left[a_\omega ^{}b+a_\omega b^{}\right]}.`$
It is easy to show that the evolution engendered by $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{\mathrm{meas}}`$, when projected back to $``$, is given by the effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian (107), provided the field outside the cavity is initially in the vacuum state. Notice that any complex eigenvalue of $`H_{\mathrm{meas}}`$ engenders a dissipation of $``$ into the enlarged Hilbert space embedding it. On the other hand, any real eigenvalue of $`H_{\mathrm{meas}}`$ generates a unitary dynamics which preserves probability within $``$. Hence it is also an eigenvalue of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{\mathrm{meas}}`$ and its eigenvectors are the eigenvectors of the restriction $`\stackrel{~}{H}_{\mathrm{meas}}|_{}`$. Therefore, as a general rule, the theorem of Sec. 3.1 can be applied also to non-Hermitian measurement Hamiltonians $`_{\mathrm{meas}}`$, provided one restricts one’s attention only to their real eigenvalues.

The eigenspace $`𝒮_0`$ corresponding to $`𝒩=0`$ is spanned by four vectors

$$𝒮_0=\{|000,|001,|010,|011\},$$
(111)
where $`|0j_1j_2`$ denotes a state with no photons in the cavity and the atoms in state $`|j_1_1|j_2_2`$. The restriction of $`H_{\mathrm{meas}}`$ to $`𝒮_0`$ is the null operator

$$H_{\mathrm{meas}}|_{𝒮_0}=0,$$
(112)
hence $`𝒮_0`$ is a subspace of the eigenspace $`_{P_0}`$ of $`H_{\mathrm{meas}}`$ belonging to the eigenvalue $`\eta _0=0`$

$$𝒮_0_{P_0},H_{\mathrm{meas}}P_0=0.$$
(113)
The eigenspace $`𝒮_1`$ corresponding to $`𝒩=1`$ is spanned by eight vectors

$$𝒮_1=\{|020,|002,|100,|110,|101,|021,|012,|111\},$$
(114)
and the restriction of $`H_{\mathrm{meas}}`$ to $`𝒮_1`$ is represented by the 8-dimensional matrix

$$H_{\mathrm{meas}}|_{𝒮_1}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccccc}0& 0& 0& ig& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& ig& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& i\kappa & 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ ig& 0& 0& i\kappa & 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& ig& 0& 0& i\kappa & 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& ig\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& ig\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& ig& ig& i\kappa \end{array}\right).$$
(115)
The eigenvector $`(|021|012)/\sqrt{2}`$ has eigenvalue $`\eta _0=0`$ and all the others have eigenvalues with negative imaginary parts. Moreover, all restrictions $`H_{\mathrm{meas}}|_{𝒮_n}`$ with $`n>1`$ have eigenvalues with negative imaginary parts. Indeed they are spanned by states containing at least one photon, which dissipates through nonideal mirrors, according to $`i\kappa b^{}b`$ in (107). The only exception is state $`|0,2,2`$ of $`𝒮_2`$, but also in this case it easy to prove that all eigenstates of $`H_{\mathrm{meas}}|_{𝒮_2}`$ dissipate. Therefore the eigenspace $`_{P_0}`$ of $`H_{\mathrm{meas}}`$ belonging to the eigenvalue $`\eta _0=0`$ is 5-dimensional and is spanned by

$$_{P_0}=\{|000,|001,|010,|011,(|021|012)/\sqrt{2}\},$$
(116)
If the coupling $`g`$ and the cavity loss $`\kappa `$ are sufficiently strong, any other weak Hamiltonian $`H`$ added to (107) reduces to $`P_0HP_0`$ and changes the state of the system only within the decoherence-free subspace (116).

Fourth example. Let

$$H_{\mathrm{decay}}=H+KH_{\mathrm{meas}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& \tau _\mathrm{Z}^1& 0\\ \tau _\mathrm{Z}^1& i2/\tau _\mathrm{Z}^2\gamma & K\\ 0& K& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(117)
This describes the spontaneous emission $`|1|2`$ of a system into a (structured) continuum, while level $`|2`$ is resonantly coupled to a third level $`|3`$. This case is also relevant for quantum computation, if one is interested in protecting a given subspace (level $`|1`$) from decoherence by inhibiting spontaneous emission. Here $`\gamma `$ represents the decay rate to the continuum and $`\tau _\mathrm{Z}`$ is the Zeno time (convexity of the initial quadratic region).

Notice that, in a certain sense, this situation is complementary to that in (107); here the measurement Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{meas}}`$ is Hermitian, while the system Hamiltonian $`H`$ is not. Again, we have to enlarge our Hilbert space, apply the theorem to the dilation and project back the Zeno evolution. As a result one can simply apply the theorem to the original Hamiltonian, for, in this case, $`H_{\mathrm{meas}}`$ has a complete set of orthogonal projections that univocally defines a partition of $``$ into quantum Zeno subspaces. We shall elaborate further on this interesting aspect in a future work.

As the Rabi frequency $`K`$ is increased one is able to hinder spontaneous emission from level $`|1`$ (to be protected) to level $`|2`$. However, in order to get an effective “protection” of level $`|1`$, one needs $`K>1/\tau _\mathrm{Z}`$. More to this, when the presence of the inverse Zeno effect is taken into account, this requirement becomes even more stringent and yields $`K>1/\tau _\mathrm{Z}^2\gamma `$. Both these conditions can be very demanding for a real system subject to dissipation. For instance, typical values for spontaneous decay in vacuum are $`\gamma 10^9`$s-1, $`\tau _\mathrm{Z}^210^{29}`$s2 and $`1/\tau _\mathrm{Z}^2\gamma 10^{20}`$s-1.

## 5 Conclusions

If very frequent measurements are performed on a quantum system, in order to ascertain whether it is still in its initial state, transitions to other states are hindered and the QZE takes place. This formulation of the QZE hinges upon the notion of pulsed measurements, according to von Neumann’s projection postulate. However, as we have seen by means of several examples, a “measurement” is nothing but an interaction with an external system (another quantum object, or a field, or simply another degree of freedom of the very system investigated), playing the role of apparatus. This enables one to reformulate the QZE in terms of a (strong) coupling to an external agent and to cast the quantum Zeno evolution in terms of an adiabatic theorem. There are many interesting examples, varying from quantum computation to decoherence-free subspaces to “protection” from decoherence. Additional work is in progress, also in view of possible practical applications.

## Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Saverio Pascazio for helpful discussions.


format: text

text:
# A geometrical setting for the classification of multilayers

## I Introduction

Layered media play an important role in many applications in modern optics, especially in relation to optical filters and the like. Therefore, it is not surprising that the topics covered in most of the textbooks on the subject use a mixture of design, manufacture, and applications; dealing only with the basic physics needed to carry out practical computations MA86 .

However, for a variety of reasons, layered media have physical relevance on their own YE88 ; LE87 . As any linear system with two input and two output channels, any multilayer can be described in terms of a $`2\times 2`$ transfer matrix. In fact, it has been recently established that for a lossless multilayer this transfer matrix is an element of the group SU(1,1) MO99a ; MO99b . From this perspective, it is precisely the abstract composition law of SU(1,1) the ultimate responsible for the curious composition law of the reflection and transmission coefficients MO99c ; MO01a .

This purely algebraic result is certainly remarkable. But, as soon as one realizes that SU(1,1) is also the basic group of the hyperbolic geometry CO68 , it is tempting to look for an enriching geometrical interpretation of the multilayer action. Moreover, given the role played by geometrical ideas in all branches of physics, particularly in special relativity, it is easy to convince oneself that this approach might provide deeper insights into the behavior of a multilayer in a wider unifying framework that can put forward fruitful analogies with other physical phenomena.

Accordingly, we have proposed MO02  to view the action of any lossless multilayer as a bilinear transformation on the unit disk, obtained by stereographic projection of the unit hyperboloid of SU(1,1). This kind of bilinear representations have been discussed in detail for the Poincaré sphere in polarization optics AZ87 ; HA96 , for Gaussian beam propagation KO65 , and are also useful in laser mode-locking and optical pulse transmission NA98 .

In spite of these achievements, the action of an arbitrary lossless stack could still become cumbersome to interpret in physical terms. In fact, in practice it is usual to work directly with the numerical values of a matrix obtained from the experiment, which cannot be directly related to the inner multilayer structure. To remedy this situation, we have resorted recently MO01b  to the Iwasawa decomposition, which provides a remarkable factorization of the matrix representing any multilayer (no matter how complicated it could be) as the product of three matrices of simple interpretation.

At the geometrical level, such a decomposition translates directly into the classification of three basic actions in the unit disk, which are studied in this paper, that can be considered as the basic bricks for understanding multilayers. Moreover, we have also shown MO01c  that the trace of the transfer matrix allows for a classification of multilayers in three different types with properties very close to those appearing in the Iwasawa decomposition.

In this paper we go one step further and exploit this new classification to study several practical examples that are representatives of each type. This shows the power of the method and, at the same time, allows for a deeper understanding of layered media. As a direct application, we treat the outstanding case of symmetric multilayers, finding a precise criterion for zero-reflectance conditions. Nevertheless, we stress that the benefit of this formulation lies not in any inherent advantage in terms of efficiency in solving problems in layered structures. Rather, we expect that the formalism presented here could provide a general and unifying tool to analyze multilayer performance in an elegant and concise way that, additionally, is closely related to other fields of physics, which seems to be more than a curiosity.

## II Transfer matrix for a lossless multilayer

We first briefly summarize the essential ingredients of multilayer optics we shall need for our purposes AZ87 . The configuration is a stratified structure, illustrated in Fig. 1, that consists of a stack of $`1,\mathrm{},j,\mathrm{},m`$, plane–parallel lossless layers sandwiched between two semi-infinite ambient ($`a`$) and substrate ($`s`$) media, which we shall assume to be identical, since this is the common experimental case. Hereafter all the media are supposed to be lossless, linear, homogeneous, and isotropic.

We consider an incident monochromatic linearly polarized plane wave from the ambient, which makes an angle $`\theta _0`$ with the normal to the first interface and has amplitude $`E_a^{(+)}`$. The electric field is either in the plane of incidence ($`p`$ polarization) or perpendicular to the plane of incidence ($`s`$ polarization). We consider as well another plane wave of the same frequency and polarization, and with amplitude $`E_s^{()}`$, incident from the substrate at the same angle $`\theta _0`$Snell

As a result of multiple reflections in all the interfaces, we have a backward-traveling plane wave in the ambient, denoted $`E_a^{()}`$, and a forward-traveling plane wave in the substrate, denoted $`E_s^{(+)}`$. If we take the field amplitudes as a vector of the form

$$𝐄=\left(\begin{array}{c}E^{(+)}\\ E^{()}\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
which applies to both ambient and substrate media, then the amplitudes at each side of the multilayer are related by the $`2\times 2`$ complex matrix $`𝖬_{as}`$, we shall call the multilayer transfer matrix, OH00  in the form

$$𝐄_a=𝖬_{as}𝐄_s.$$
(2)
The matrix $`𝖬_{as}`$ can be shown to be of the form MO99c

$$𝖬_{as}=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1/T_{as}& R_{as}^{}/T_{as}^{}\\ R_{as}/T_{as}& 1/T_{as}^{}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}\alpha & \beta \\ \beta ^{}& \alpha ^{}\end{array}\right],$$
(3)
where the complex numbers

$$R_{as}=|R_{as}|\mathrm{exp}(i\rho ),T_{as}=|T_{as}|\mathrm{exp}(i\tau ),$$
(4)
are, respectively, the overall reflection and transmission coefficients for a wave incident from the ambient. Note that we have $`det𝖬_{as}=+1`$, which is equivalent to $`|R_{as}|^2+|T_{as}|^2=1`$, and then the set of lossless multilayer matrices reduces to the group SU(1,1), whose elements depend on three independent real parameters.

The identity matrix corresponds to $`T_{as}=1`$ and $`R_{as}=0`$, so it represents an antireflection system without transmission phase shift. The matrix that describe the overall system obtained by putting two multilayers together is the product of the matrices representing each one of them, taken in the appropriate order. So, two multilayers, which are inverse, when composed give an antireflection system.

If we denote by $`R_{sa}`$ and $`T_{sa}`$ the overall reflection and transmission coefficients for a wave incident from the substrate (physically this corresponds to the same multilayer taken in the reverse order) one can check that MO99a

$`T_{as}T_{sa}R_{as}R_{sa}=\mathrm{exp}(i2\tau ),`$
(5)
$`R_{sa}=R_{as}^{}\mathrm{exp}(i2\tau ),`$
which is a generalization of the well-known Stokes relations LE87  for the overall stack.

On the other hand, it is worth noting that, while the picture of a multilayer taken in the reverse order is clear, at first sight it is not so easy to imagine the inverse of that multilayer. However, using Eqs. (II), one can obtain that

$$𝖬_{as}^1=𝖬_{sa}^{},$$
(6)
which remedies this drawback.

## III A basic factorization for multilayers: the Iwasawa decomposition

Many matrix factorizations have been considered in the literature AR83 ; AB94 ; SH95 , the goal of all of them being to decompose a matrix as a unique product of other matrices of simpler interpretation. Particularly, given the essential role played by the Iwasawa decomposition, both in fundamental studies and in applications to several fields (especially in optics), one is tempted to investigate also its role in multilayer optics.

Without embarking us in mathematical subtleties, the Iwasawa decomposition is established as follows HE78 : any element of a (noncompact semi-simple) Lie group can be written as an ordered product of three elements, taken one each from a maximal compact subgroup $`𝖪`$, a maximal Abelian subgroup $`𝖠`$, and a maximal nilpotent subgroup $`𝖭`$. Furthermore, such a decomposition is global and unique.

For a lossless multilayer matrix $`𝖬_{as}`$ SU(1,1), the decomposition reads as MO01b

$$𝖬_{as}=𝖪(\varphi )𝖠(\xi )𝖭(\nu ),$$
(7)
where

$`𝖪(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)\end{array}\right],`$ (10)
$`𝖠(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}(\xi /2)& i\mathrm{sinh}(\xi /2)\\ i\mathrm{sinh}(\xi /2)& \mathrm{cosh}(\xi /2)\end{array}\right],`$ (13)
$`𝖭(\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}1i\nu /2& \nu /2\\ \nu /2& 1+i\nu /2\end{array}\right].`$ (16)
The parameters $`\varphi ,\xi `$, and $`\nu `$ are given in terms of the elements of the multilayer matrix by

$`\varphi /2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arg}(\alpha +i\beta ),`$
$`\xi /2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}(1/|\alpha +i\beta |),`$ (17)
$`\nu /2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Re}(\alpha \beta ^{})/|\alpha +i\beta |^2,`$
and their ranges are $`\xi ,\nu `$ and $`2\pi \varphi 2\pi `$. Therefore, given a priori limits on $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ (i.e., on $`T_{as}`$ and $`R_{as}`$), one could easily establish the corresponding limits on $`\varphi `$, $`\xi `$ and $`\nu `$, and vice versa.

Now, we can interpret the physical action of the matrices appearing in Eq. (7). $`𝖪(\varphi )`$ represents the free propagation of the fields $`𝐄`$ in the ambient medium through an optical phase thickness of $`\varphi /2`$, which reduces to a mere shift of the origin of phases. Alternatively, this can be seen as an antireflection system. The second matrix $`𝖠(\xi )`$ represents a symmetric multilayer with real transmission coefficient $`T_𝖠=\mathrm{sech}(\xi /2)`$ and reflection phase shift $`\rho _𝖠=\pm \pi /2.`$ There are many ways to get this performance, perhaps the simplest one is a Fabry-Perot system composed by two identical plates separated by a transparent spacer. By adjusting the refractive indices and the thicknesses of the media one can always get the desired values (see Section 7). Finally, the third matrix, $`𝖭(\nu )`$, represents a system having $`T_𝖭=\mathrm{cos}(\tau _𝖭)\mathrm{exp}(i\tau _𝖭)`$ and $`R_𝖭=\mathrm{sin}(\tau _𝖭)\mathrm{exp}(i\tau _𝖭)`$, with $`\mathrm{tan}(\tau _𝖭)=\nu /2`$. The simplest way to accomplish this task is by an asymmetrical two-layer system.

## IV A remarkable case: symmetric multilayers

So far, we have discussed various properties of arbitrary lossless multilayers. However, the particular case of symmetric structures has deserved a lot of attention. In this Section, we wish to show how the Iwasawa decomposition provides a nice tool to deal with them.

We recall that for a symmetric stack the reflection and transmission coefficients are the same whether light is incident on one side or on the opposite side of the multilayer. In consequence, one has $`R_{as}=R_{sa}`$ and the generalized Stokes relations (II) give then the well-known result GI80 ; ZE81 ; OU89

$$\rho \tau =\pm \pi /2.$$
(18)
This implies that the element $`\beta `$ in the transfer matrix (3) is a pure imaginary number. Therefore, the matrix $`𝖬_{as}`$ depends only on two real parameters, which translates into the fact that $`\varphi `$, $`\xi `$, and $`\nu `$ \[see Eqs. (III)\] are not independent. In fact, a straightforward calculation shows that they must fulfill the constraint

$$\nu =(e^\xi 1)\mathrm{tan}(\varphi /2);$$
(19)
and thus $`R_{as}`$ can be written as

$$R_{as}=e^{i\varphi }\frac{\mathrm{tanh}(\xi /2)[\mathrm{tan}(\varphi /2)i]}{1i\mathrm{tanh}(\xi /2)\mathrm{tan}(\varphi /2)}.$$
(20)
Particular care has been paid to the characterization of zero reflectance conditions for these symmetrical systems LE89 ; LE90 . Equation (20) allows us to express the locii of zero $`R_{as}`$ by the simple condition

$$\xi =0,$$
(21)
which, by Eq. (19) implies $`\nu =0`$ and imposes that in this case $`𝖬_{as}`$ reduces trivially to a matrix $`𝖪(\varphi )`$.

The stability of these nonreflecting configurations has been studied by Lekner LE90 . Indeed, by using a continuity argument, he has shown that “almost all partial reflectors with symmetric profiles which are close in parameter space to a profile which has reflectivity zeros, will also have reflectivity zeros”. We intend to show how our formalism allows for a more precise criterion.

To this end, let us assume a symmetric multilayer satisfying initially the condition (21). Now, suppose that some parameter(s) (refractive index, thickness, angle of incidence, …), we shall generically denote by $`\mathrm{}`$, is varied. Obviously, admissible variations must preserve the symmetry of the system.

The variation of $`\mathrm{}`$ induces changes in $`R_{as}`$, and so in $`\varphi `$ and $`\xi `$. The new multilayer will have also zero $`R_{as}`$ if the parameters satisfy $`dR_{as}/d\mathrm{}=0`$; that is,

$$\frac{dR_{as}}{d\mathrm{}}=\frac{R_{as}}{\varphi }|_{\xi =0}\frac{d\varphi }{d\mathrm{}}+\frac{R_{as}}{\xi }|_{\xi =0}\frac{d\xi }{d\mathrm{}}=0.$$
(22)
Using Eq. (20), one gets that $`R_{as}/\varphi |_{\xi =0}`$ is identically zero, while $`R_{as}/\xi |_{\xi =0}`$ never vanishes. We conclude then that the condition we are looking for is

$$\frac{d\xi }{d\mathrm{}}=0.$$
(23)
This result fully characterizes the partial reflectors invoked by Lekner, and can be of practical importance for the design of robust antireflection systems.

## V Multilayer transfer function in the unit disk

In many instances (e.g., in polarization optics AZ87 ), we are interested in the transformation properties of quotients of variables rather than on the variables themselves. In consequence, it seems natural to consider the complex numbers

$$z=\frac{E^{()}}{E^{(+)}},$$
(24)
for both ambient and substrate. From a geometrical viewpoint, Eq. (2) defines a transformation of the complex plane $``$, mapping the point $`z_s`$ into the point $`z_a`$, according to

$$z_a=\mathrm{\Phi }[𝖬_{as},z_s]=\frac{\beta ^{}+\alpha ^{}z_s}{\alpha +\beta z_s}.$$
(25)
Thus, the action of the multilayer can be seen as a function $`z_a=f(z_s)`$ that can be appropriately called the multilayer transfer function MO02 . The action of the inverse matrix $`𝖬_{as}^1`$ is $`z_s=\mathrm{\Phi }[𝖬_{as}^1,z_a]`$.

These bilinear transformations define an action of the group SU(1,1) on the complex plane $``$. The complex plane appears then decomposed in three regions that remain invariant under the action of the group: the unit disk, its boundary and the external region. PE86

The Iwasawa decomposition has an immediate translation in this geometrical framework, and one is led to treat separately the action of each one of the matrices appearing in this decomposition. To this end, it is worth noting that the group SU(1,1) that we are considering appears always as a group of transformations of the complex plane. The concept of orbit is especially appropriate for obtaining an intuitive picture of the corresponding action. We recall that, given a point $`z`$, its orbit is the set of points $`z^{}`$ obtained from $`z`$ by the action of all the elements of the group. In Fig. 2 we have plotted some typical orbits for each one of the subgroups of matrices $`𝖪(\varphi )`$, $`𝖠(\xi )`$, and $`𝖭(\nu )`$. For matrices $`𝖪(\varphi )`$ the orbits are circumferences centered at the origin and passing by $`z`$. For $`𝖠(\xi )`$, they are arcs of circumference going from the point $`+i`$ to the point $`i`$ through $`z`$. Finally, for the matrices $`𝖭(\nu )`$ the orbits are circumferences passing through the point $`+i`$ and joining the points $`z`$ and $`z^{}`$.

## VI Trace criterion for classification of multilayers

To go beyond this geometrical picture of multilayers, let us introduce the following classification: a matrix is of type $`K`$ when $`[\mathrm{Tr}(𝖬_{as})]^2<4`$, is of type $`A`$ when $`[\mathrm{Tr}(𝖬_{as})]^2>4`$, and finally is of type $`N`$ when $`[\mathrm{Tr}(𝖬_{as})]^2=4`$. To gain insight into this classification, let us also introduce the fixed points BA47  of a transfer matrix as the points in the complex plane that are invariant under the action of $`𝖬_{as}`$; i.e.,

$$z=\mathrm{\Phi }[𝖬_{as},z],$$
(26)
whose solutions are

$$z=\frac{i\mathrm{Im}(\alpha )\pm \sqrt{[\mathrm{Re}(\alpha )]^21}}{\beta }.$$
(27)
Since we have

$$\mathrm{Tr}(𝖬_{as})=2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(\alpha )=\frac{2\mathrm{cos}\tau }{|T_{as}|},$$
(28)
one can easily check that the matrices of type $`K`$ have two fixed points, one inside and other outside the unit disk, both related by an inversion; the matrices of type $`A`$ have two fixed points both on the boundary of the unit disk and, finally, the matrices of type $`N`$ have only one (double) fixed point on the boundary of the unit disk.

Now the origin of the notation for these types of matrices should be clear: if one consider the Iwasawa decomposition (7), one can see that the matrices $`𝖪(\varphi )`$ are of type $`K`$ with the origin as the fixed point in the unit disk, matrices $`𝖠(\xi )`$ are of type $`A`$ with fixed points $`+i`$ and $`i`$ and matrices $`𝖭(\nu )`$ are of type $`N`$ with the double fixed point $`+i`$. Of course, this is in agreement with the orbits shown in Fig. 2.

To proceed further let us note that by taking the conjugate of $`𝖬_{as}`$ with any matrix $`𝖢`$ SU(1,1) we obtain another multilayer matrix; i.e.,

$$\widehat{𝖬}_{as}=𝖢𝖬_{as}𝖢^1,$$
(29)
such that $`\mathrm{Tr}(\widehat{𝖬}_{as})=\mathrm{Tr}(𝖬_{as})`$. The fixed points of $`\widehat{𝖬}_{as}`$ are then the image by $`𝖢`$ of the fixed points of $`𝖬_{as}`$. If we write the matrix $`𝖢`$ as

$$𝖢=\left[\begin{array}{cc}𝔠_1& 𝔠_2\\ 𝔠_2^{}& 𝔠_1^{}\end{array}\right],$$
(30)
the matrix elements of $`\widehat{𝖬}_{as}`$ (denoted by carets) and those of $`𝖬_{as}`$ are related by

$`\widehat{\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha |𝔠_1|^2\alpha ^{}|𝔠_2|^22i\mathrm{Im}(\beta 𝔠_1𝔠_2^{}),`$
$`\widehat{\beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\beta 𝔠_1^2\beta ^{}𝔠_2^22i𝔠_1𝔠_2\mathrm{Im}(\alpha ).`$
For our classification viewpoint it is essential to remark that if a multilayer has a transfer matrix of type $`K`$, $`A`$, or $`N`$, one can always find a family of matrices $`𝖢`$ such that $`\widehat{𝖬}_{as}`$ in Eq. (29) is just a matrix $`𝖪(\varphi )`$, $`𝖠(\xi )`$, or $`𝖭(\nu )`$, respectively. The explicit construction of this family of matrices is easy: it suffices to impose that $`𝖢`$ transforms the fixed points of $`𝖬_{as}`$ into the corresponding fixed points of $`𝖪(\varphi )`$, $`𝖠(\xi )`$, or $`𝖭(\nu )`$. By way of example, let us consider the case when $`𝖬_{as}`$ is of type $`K`$ and its fixed point inside the unit disk is $`z_f`$. Then, one should have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }[\mathrm{𝖢𝖬}_{as}𝖢^1,0]=\mathrm{\Phi }[\mathrm{𝖢𝖬}_{as},z_f]=\mathrm{\Phi }[𝖢,z_f]=0.$$
(32)
Solving this equation one gets directly

$$𝔠_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1|z_f|^2}}\mathrm{exp}(i\delta ),𝔠_2=𝔠_1z_f^{},$$
(33)
where $`\delta `$ is a real free parameter. The same procedure applies to the other two cases.

Since the matrix $`\widehat{𝖬}_{as}`$ belongs to one of the subgroups $`𝖪(\varphi )`$, $`𝖠(\xi )`$, or $`𝖭(\nu )`$ of the Iwasawa decomposition, and all these subgroups are, in our special case, Abelian and uniparametric, we have that

$$\widehat{𝖬}_{as}(\mu _1)\widehat{𝖬}_{as}(\mu _2)=\widehat{𝖬}_{as}(\mu _1+\mu _2),$$
(34)
where $`\mu `$ represent the adequate parameter $`\varphi `$, $`\xi `$, or $`\nu `$. Therefore, when dealing with a periodic layered system, whose matrix is obtained as the $`N`$th power of the basic period, we have

$$𝖬_{as}^N=𝖢^1\widehat{𝖬}_{as}^N(\mu )𝖢=𝖢^1\widehat{𝖬}_{as}(N\mu )𝖢,$$
(35)
where $`𝖬_{as}`$ is now the matrix of the basic period. This is a remarkable result BO99 , and our procedure highlights that it does not depend on the explicit form of the basic period.

We wish to point out that the trace criterion has been previously introduced LE94 ; LE00  to treat the light propagation in periodic structures. In fact, in that approach the values of the trace separate the band-stop from the band-pass regions of a period stratification.

Finally, in order to broaden the physical picture of this classification, let us transform Eq. (2) by the unitary matrix

$$𝒰=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& i\\ i& 1\end{array}\right].$$
(36)
Then, we can rewrite it alternatively as

$$𝓔_a=_{as}𝓔_s,$$
(37)
where the new field vectors $`𝓔`$ and the new multilayer matrix $`_{as}`$ are obtained by conjugation by $`𝒰`$.

One can easily check that $`det_{as}=+1`$ and all its elements are real numbers. Therefore, $`_{as}`$ belongs to the group SL(2,$``$) that underlies the structure of the celebrated $`ABCD`$ law in first-order optics geom1 ; geom2 ; geom3 ; geom4 .

By transforming by $`𝒰`$ the Iwasawa decomposition (7), we get the corresponding one for SL(2,$``$), which has been previously worked out Iwasl2r :

$$_{as}=𝒦(\varphi )𝒜(\xi )𝒩(\nu ),$$
(38)
where

$`𝒦(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi /2)& \mathrm{sin}(\varphi /2)\\ \mathrm{sin}(\varphi /2)& \mathrm{cos}(\varphi /2)\end{array}\right],`$ (41)
$`𝒜(\xi )`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}(\xi /2)& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{exp}(\xi /2)\end{array}\right],`$ (44)
$`𝒩(\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ \nu & 1\end{array}\right].`$ (47)
The physical action of these matrices is clear. Let us consider all of them as $`ABCD`$ matrices in geometrical optics that apply to position $`𝐱`$ and momentum $`𝐩`$ (direction) coordinates of a ray in a transverse plane. These are the natural phase-space variables of ray optics. Then $`𝒦(\varphi )`$ would represent a rotation in these variables, $`𝒜(\xi )`$ a magnifier that scales $`𝐱`$ up to the factor $`m=\mathrm{exp}(\xi /2)`$ and $`𝐩`$ down by the same factor, and $`𝒩(\nu )`$ the action of a lens of power $`\nu `$ geom3 .

In the multilayer picture, $`^{(+)}`$ can be seen as the corresponding $`𝐱`$, while $`^{()}`$ can be seen as the corresponding $`𝐩`$. Then, the key result of this discussion is that when the multilayer transfer matrix has $`[\mathrm{Tr}(𝖬_{as})]^2`$ lesser than, greater than or equal to 4 one can find in a direct way a family of matrices that gives a new vector basis such that the action of the multilayer, when viewed in such a basis, is exclusively rotationlike, or magnifierlike, or lenslike MO01c .

## VII Simple examples and concluding remarks

It seems pertinent to conclude by showing how our approach works in some practical examples. Perhaps, the best way of starting is to consider the simplest layered structure one can imagine: a single film sandwiched between the same ambient and substrate media. In spite of its simplicity, it contains the essential physical ingredients of multilayer optics.

In consequence, we consider a single transparent film (medium 1) of refractive index $`n_1`$ and thickness $`d_1`$ embedded in air (medium 0). For this system we have AZ87

$$T_{as}T_{010}=\frac{(1r_{01}^2)\mathrm{exp}(i\beta _1)}{1r_{01}^2\mathrm{exp}(i2\beta _1)},$$
(48)
where $`r_{01}`$ is the Fresnel reflection coefficient at the interface 01 and $`\beta _1=(2\pi n_1d_1\mathrm{cos}\theta _1)/\lambda `$ is the plate phase thickness (here $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength in vacuo of the incident light and $`\theta _1`$ is the refraction angle). Accordingly, we get

$$[\mathrm{Tr}(𝖬_{010})]^2=4\mathrm{cos}^2\beta _14,$$
(49)
and the equality holds only in resonance conditions; i.e., when $`|T_{010}|=|\mathrm{cos}\beta _1|=1`$. In consequence, the matrix of a single film is always of type $`K`$.

Let us consider now two films (1 and 2) described by the matrices $`𝖬_{010}`$ and $`𝖬_{020}`$, respectively. The compound system obtained by putting them together is described by the product of these matrices $`𝖬_{010}𝖬_{020}`$ MO99a ; MO99c ; AZ87 . In conclusion, since any layered stack can be viewed as the composition of single films, this shows that any multilayer matrix is generated by the product of matrices of type $`K`$. Take into account that the product of two matrices of type $`K`$ (or $`A`$ or $`N`$) can have trace lesser than, greater than or equal to 4.

On the other hand, as we have stated at the end of Section 3, to get a pure matrix $`𝖠(\xi )`$ one should consider a Fabry-Perot–like system formed by two identical plates (each one of them with phase thickness $`\beta _1`$) separated by a spacer of air with phase thickness $`\beta _2`$. If we take as initial condition that in the substrate $`z_s=0.4\mathrm{exp}(i\pi /3)`$, then a standard calculation gives $`T_{as}`$ and $`R_{as}`$, and from them we obtain the value $`z_a=0.44+0.49i,`$ with the parameters indicated in Fig. 3. Obviously, from these (experimental) data alone we cannot infer at all the possible path for this discrete transformation.

However, the Iwasawa decomposition remedies this serious drawback: from the geometrical meaning discussed before, and once we know the values of $`\varphi `$, $`\xi `$, and $`\nu `$ \[that are easily computed from Eqs. (III)\] we get, by the ordered application of the matrices $`𝖪(\varphi )`$, $`𝖠(\xi )`$, and $`𝖭(\nu )`$, that the trajectory from $`z_s`$ to $`z_a`$ is well defined through the corresponding orbits, as shown in Fig. 3.

Moreover, and this is the important moral we wish to extract from this simple example, if in some experiment the values of $`z_s`$ and $`z_a`$ are measured, one can find, no matter how complicated the multilayer is, in a unique way, the three arcs of orbits that connect the initial and final points in the unit disk.

In Fig. 4 we have plotted the values of the parameters $`\varphi `$, $`\xi `$, and $`\nu `$ for this system when $`\beta _2`$ is varied between 0 and $`\pi `$. We have also plotted the values of $`[\mathrm{Tr}(𝖬_{as})]^2`$. It is evident that the system can be of every type depending on the value of $`\beta _2`$. The marked points determine special behaviors in agreement with Eq. (19) for symmetrical systems: for the left one, $`\varphi =\nu =0`$ and the system is represented by a pure matrix $`𝖠(\xi )`$; in the right one, $`\xi =\nu =0`$ and then it is represented by a matrix $`𝖪(\varphi )`$; i.e., it is antireflection stack with $`T_{as}=\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)`$. Note that this system can never be represented by a matrix $`𝖭(\nu )`$, because it is symmetric.

To show the characteristic properties of an asymmetric system, we consider, as indicated in Section 3, the simplest one constituted by a two-layer stack made of a glass plate (with phase thickness $`\beta _1`$) coated with a film of zinc sulphide (with phase thickness $`\beta _2`$). In Fig. 5 we have plotted the values of $`\varphi `$, $`\xi `$, and $`\nu `$, as well as $`[\mathrm{Tr}(𝖬_{as})]^2`$, when $`\beta _1`$ is fixed and $`\beta _2`$ is varied between 0 and $`\pi `$. From our previous analysis it is clear that only in the marked point we have $`\varphi =\xi =0`$ and $`[\mathrm{Tr}(𝖬_{as})]^2=4`$, so the system is represented by a pure matrix $`𝖭(\nu )`$. Contrary to the previous example, this system can never be represented by a matrix $`𝖠(\xi )`$, because it is asymmetric.

In summary, we expect that the geometrical scenario presented here could provide an appropriate tool for analyzing and classifying multilayer performance in an elegant and concise way that, additionally, could be closely related to other fields of physics.

Luis L. Sánchez-Soto’s e-mail address is lsanchez@eucmax.sim.ucm.es