text:
# Storage States in Ultracold Collective Atoms

## 1 Introduction

In the interaction between optical fields and atoms, a photon can be absorbed by an atom and then the excited atom can re-emit a photon by either spontaneous or stimulated emission. In this process the atom stores the energy of the field and releases it back to the field. Recently, theoretical and experimental studies have shown that both the quantum state and coherent information of the field can be stored in an atomic medium -. A very recent experiment witnesses that a signal pulse of light can be stored in an ultracold collective of atoms for up to a millisecond .

The basic scheme for storage of light information is carried out by electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT) ,. $`N`$ three-level atoms with one upper level $`|a`$ and two lower levels $`|b`$ and $`|c`$ interact resonantly with both the signal and the control beams. The weak signal beam and the strong control beam drive the atomic transitions $`|a|b`$ and $`|a|c`$, respectively. Early investigations have shown that EIT permits the propagation of the light signal through an otherwise opaque atomic medium and that the group velocity of the signal pulse is greatly reduced -. In a recent experiment , when the control beam is turned off, the signal pulse is stopped and stored in atomic medium. This effect can be understood in terms of dark states. Dark states are combination states of the photon state and the atomic storage state. The bosonic quasiparticles in the dark state are called polaritons. When the strength of the control field is changed adiabatically, both the quantum state and the coherent information transfer between the signal field and the collective atoms ,.

Due to the fact that dark states are eigenstates of the EIT interaction Hamiltonian, the transfer of the quantum state between the field and the atomic ensemble can be quasi-stationary in the adiabatic limit. Furthermore, mapping and storage of quantum information of light in an atomic medium may occur in a dynamical process without forming dark states. For example, Ref.  has shown that in a general Raman interaction, with a large detuning to the intermediate level, the nonclassical features of the quantum field can be mapped onto the coherence of the lower atomic doublet, distributed over the atomic cloud. However, a very recent theoretical study has shown that, in the EIT model, an adiabatic change of the control field is not necessary, and even a fast switching of the control field can be used in the writing and reading quantum information of the signal field .

In all of these models, collective atoms play the role of quantum memory. The mechanism of storage of the quantum field in a medium is based on establishing atomic storage states (or atomic memory states) which record all the information of the field. It is not surprising that photons can be transferred to atomic excitations in transition interactions. Physically, the question is how collective atoms record the coherence of an electromagnetic field. In the early theoretical work , Dicke studied the coherence and cooperation effects in atomic ensemble. He defined collective atomic operators as the sum of all the individual atomic operators, retaining the angular momentum properties. The Dicke states are the eigenstates of the angular momentum operators. In Dicke’s paper, he considered two cases: the gas volumes have dimensions either smaller or larger than the radiation wavelength. For the latter case, the spatial phase distribution of the field has been included into the collective atomic operators.

In the pioneering work contributed by M. Fleischhauer and M. D. Lukin ,,,, the theory of atomic storage states basically consists of a single-mode description. In this paper, we present a complete description of atomic storage states in a multimode framework. A preliminary version of the briefly analysis described in this paper is given in Ref. . Similarly, as in the second case of Dicke’s work, we incorporate spatial coherence into the collective atomic lower and upper operators. We indicate that, in the multimode description, atomic collective operators can behave as multimode bosonic operators, under the conditions of low atomic excitation and appropriate radiation wavelength; which is much larger than the average interval of atoms and less than the propagation length of medium. Aside from the original definition of Dicke states, we introduce atomic storage states with explicit expressions by containing spatial coherence of the radiation field, and indicate that they are Dicke states with the maximum cooperation number. The significant advance is that, under the conditions shown above, a set of multimode atomic storage states is established in correspondence with multimode Fock states of the electromagnetic field. This gives a better understanding of how both quantum and coherent information, of electromagnetic fields, can be preserved in atomic media. A detailed theoretical description of multimode dark states in the EIT model is discussed. Furthermore, parallel to the ”stationary polariton” in EIT, we show the ”dynamic polariton” formed in coupled harmonic oscillators. This illustrates the mechanism for the dynamic quantum transfer between field and macroscopic matter.

## 2 Atomic collective operators with the bosonic commutation

We consider $`N`$ ultracold collective atoms which are approximately stationary at their positions. At very low temperature close to the critical temperature for Bose-Einstein condensation, the average kinetic energy of atoms is greatly reduced. On the other hand, at low temperature, atoms are densely packed within a wavelength of optical field. The free path of an atom is much less than the wavelength, hence it confines the range of atomic motion. What the ”still atoms” means is that, in the characteristic time of the system, the scale of motion for the centre-of-mass of the atoms is much less than the wavelength of the optical electromagnetic field involved. The two levels of atoms $`|b`$ and $`|c`$ interact with some optical field of wavevector $`k`$. We assume that $`N`$ is a large number and the largest proportion of the population of the atoms is in level $`|b`$ throughout the system evolution, so that the completeness relation is given by

$$N=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}(|b_jb_j|+|c_jc_j|)\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}|b_jb_j|.$$
(1)
It is not necessary that $`|b`$ is the ground state, for instance, in the case of EIT the level $`|c`$ can be lower or equal to $`|b`$. For the sake of convenience, we call $`|b`$ the ”ground” state and $`|c`$ the ”excited” state.

In the interaction between field and atomic medium, the spatial coherence of the field affects only the local atoms. In the approximation of ”still atoms”, the $`j`$-th atom located at position $`z_j`$ suffers a local field strength with a phase $`\mathrm{exp}(ikz_j)`$. For this reason, we define the lower and the upper operators of the collective atoms as

$`\sigma _k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|b_jc_j|\mathrm{exp}(ikz_j),`$ (2a)
$`\sigma _k^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|c_jb_j|\mathrm{exp}(ikz_j),`$ (2b)
where $`k`$ is the wavevector of the optical electromagnetic field interacting with the transition $`|b|c`$. We notice that this kind of collective atomic operator, containing spatial coherence, was first introduced by Dicke, who investigated the super-radiate effect in collective atoms, in the case of medium dimensions larger than radiation wavelength . In order to avoid the difficulties of the occurrence of the center-of-mass motion of atoms which may destroy the coherence, in Dicke’s paper, he assumed the molecules are so massive that their center-of-mass coordinates will be then treated as time-independent parameter in equation. Now, this assumption can be implemented in the development of the ultracold technique.

For the purpose of controllable storage, the atomic transition $`|b|c`$ is usually a multi-photon process including signal and control photons. Equation (2a) should be replaced by

$`\sigma _k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|b_jc_j|\mathrm{exp}[i(kk_c)z_j],`$ (3a)
$`\sigma _k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|b_jc_j|\mathrm{exp}[i(k+k_c)z_j],`$ (3b)
where $`k`$ and $`k_c`$ are respectively the wavevectors for the signal field and the control field. Equation (3a) describes a Raman transition, whereas Eq. (3b) describes a two-photon cascade transition.

The commutation relations for these atomic operators are written as

$`[\sigma _k,\sigma _k^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`[\sigma _k^{},\sigma _k^{}^{}]=0,`$ (4a)
$`[\sigma _k,\sigma _k^{}^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`(1/N){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(|b_jb_j||c_jc_j|)\mathrm{exp}[i(kk^{})z_j].`$ (4b)
The exact commutation of Eq. (4b) for the same mode is readily obtained

$$[\sigma _k,\sigma _k^{}]=(1/N)\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}(|b_jb_j||c_jc_j|).$$
(5)
If $`N`$ is a very large number and most of the atomic population rests in level $`|b`$ throughout evolution, by applying Eq. (1), then Eq. (4b) is approximately reduced to

$$[\sigma _k,\sigma _k^{}^{}](1/N)\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{exp}[i(kk^{})z_j].$$
(6)
Assuming that the atoms are in a string and the average interval of the adjacent atoms is $`d`$, which is much less than the optical wavelength, i.e. $`kd<<1`$, one obtains

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{exp}[ikz_j]=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{exp}[ik(j1)d]=\frac{1\mathrm{exp}[ikNd]}{1\mathrm{exp}[ikd]}N\frac{\mathrm{exp}[ikL]1}{ikL},$$
(7)
where $`L=Nd`$ is the length of the atomic medium. However, this result is also true for a volume of atomic gas which is considered as a continuous medium

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{exp}[ikz_j]=_0^L\frac{N}{L}\mathrm{exp}[ikz]𝑑z=N\frac{\mathrm{exp}[ikL]1}{ikL}.$$
(8)
In the case that the length of the atomic medium is much larger than the optical wavelength, we obtain

$$\frac{1}{N}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{exp}[ikz_j]=\{\begin{array}{c}1(k=0),\\ 0(kL>>1).\end{array}$$
(9)
By applying the above result to Eq. (6), one obtains the bosonic commutation relation for the collective atomic operators

$$[\sigma _k,\sigma _k^{}^{}]\delta _{kk^{}},$$
(10)
where we should assume $`(kk^{})L>>1`$, or, equivalently, $`\lambda \lambda ^{}>>\lambda ^2/(2\pi L)`$. For the parameters used in the experiment , $`L=339\mu m`$ and $`\lambda =589.6nm`$, so that $`\lambda ^2/(2\pi L)0.163nm`$, Eq. (10) is a good approximation for distinguishable modes.

We summarize the conditions for the collective atomic operators satisfying the multimode bosonic commutation as

$`N`$ $``$ $`n,`$ (11a)
$`\lambda ,L`$ $``$ $`d,`$ (11b)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda /\lambda `$ $``$ $`\lambda /L,`$ (11c)
where $`n`$ is the number of atomic excitations and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\lambda `$ is the mode interval. The low excitation limit (11a) has already been shown in the previous paper . The other two conditions imposed on the radiation wavelength, Eqs. (11b) and (11c), assure the atomic ensemble containing and distinguishing the coherence, respectively. We will see in the next section that the atomic collective operators behave similarly to the creation and annihilation operators of the electromagnetic field.

## 3 Single-mode atomic storage states

The ”ground-level” state of the atoms can be compared with the ”vacuum” state, symbolized in Ref.  as

$$|C^0|b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_N.$$
(12)
When the single-mode creation operators of the collective atoms are applied to the ”vacuum”state, one obtains

$`(\sigma _k^{})^n|C^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N^n}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|c_jb_j|\mathrm{exp}(ikz_j)\right)^n|b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_N`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N^n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{i_n\}}{}}{}_{}{}^{}|c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}b_{i_1}\mathrm{}b_{i_n}|b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_N\mathrm{exp}[ik(z_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+z_{i_n})]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N^n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{i_n\}}{}}{}_{}{}^{}|b_1\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N\mathrm{exp}[ik(z_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+z_{i_n})]`$
where $`_{\{i_n\}}^{}`$ designates that, in the summation, any two indices cannot be equal, because $`(|c_jb_j|)^2|b_j=0`$. We note that some states in the summation of Eq. (3), for which the sequence in the index set $`\{i_n\}`$ is exchanged, are the same and should be put together. For example, $`(i_1=1,i_2=2,i_3,\mathrm{},i_n)`$ and $`(i_1=2,i_2=1,i_3,\mathrm{},i_n)`$ represent the same state. For an ensemble $`\{i_n\}`$ of $`n`$ elements, there are $`n!`$ permutations which form the same state. By eliminating these repeated terms in the summation, Eq. (3) can be replaced by

$$(\sigma _k^{})^n|C^0=\frac{n!}{\sqrt{N^n}}\underset{\{i_n\}}{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }|b_1\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N\mathrm{exp}[ik(z_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+z_{i_n})],$$
(14)
where $`_{\{i_n\}}^{\prime \prime }`$ is defined as

$$\underset{\{i_n\}}{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }\underset{\{i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_{n1}<i_n\}}{\underset{}{\underset{i_1=1}{\overset{Nn+1}{}}\underset{i_2=2}{\overset{Nn+2}{}}\mathrm{}\underset{i_{n1}=n1}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{i_n=n}{\overset{N}{}}}}.$$
(15)
The summation of Eq. (14) includes $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{n}\right)=N(N1)\mathrm{}(Nn+1)/n!`$ terms. Now, we define a normalized atomic storage state

$`|C_k^n`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{N(N1)\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\{i_n\}}{}}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }|b_1\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N\mathrm{exp}[ik(z_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+z_{i_n})].`$
Obviously, the atomic storage states with a different number of excitations are orthogonal to each other

$$C_k^n|C_k^m=\delta _{nm}.$$
(17)
In this definition, the superposition state of $`N`$ collective atoms includes any possible combination of $`n`$ atoms being in the level $`|c`$, while the corresponding spatial coherence is recorded in the phase of the wavefunction. Physically, it means that $`n`$ photons can be stored by any combination of excited $`n`$ atoms with an equal possibility, in correspondence with the nonlocality for photons. However, the coherent information of the field has been retained in the probability amplitudes. Note that the atomic storage state, with a definite wavevector $`k,`$ is independent of position $`z,`$ which disappears in the summation.

By using definition (3), Eq. (14) becomes

$$(\sigma _k^{})^n|C^0=\sqrt{\frac{N(N1)\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}{N^n}}\sqrt{n!}|C_k^n.$$
(18)
It is easy to check that

$$\sigma _k^{}|C_k^n=\sqrt{1\frac{n}{N}}\sqrt{n+1}|C_k^{n+1}.$$
(19)
The above two equations are exact. However, in the limit $`N>>n`$, the corresponding approximate expressions are

$$(\sigma _k^{})^n|C^0\sqrt{n!}|C_k^n,$$
(20)
and

$$\sigma _k^{}|C_k^n\sqrt{n+1}|C_k^{n+1}.$$
(21)
The annihilation operator is applied to the ”vacuum”state

$$\sigma _k|C^0=0.$$
(22)
In Appendix A, the general formula for the annihilation operator is proved as

$$\sigma _k|C_k^n=\sqrt{1\frac{n1}{N}}\sqrt{n}|C_k^{n1}\sqrt{n}|C_k^{n1}.$$
(23)
Equations (19) and (23) give immediately

$`\sigma _k^{}\sigma _k|C_k^n`$ $`=`$ $`(1{\displaystyle \frac{n1}{N}})n|C_k^nn|C_k^n,`$ (24a)
$`\sigma _k\sigma _k^{}|C_k^n`$ $`=`$ $`(1{\displaystyle \frac{n}{N}})(n+1)|C_k^n(n+1)|C_k^n.`$ (24b)
The approximations in Eqs. (23) and (3) are valid in the limit $`N>>n`$. Equation (3) verifies again the bosonic commutation in this limit. If one admits both the bosonic commutation (10) and Eq. (21), by using the commutation

$$[\sigma _k,(\sigma _k^{})^n]n(\sigma _k^{})^{n1},$$
(25)
it can also obtain

$$\sigma _k|C_k^n\sqrt{n}|C_k^{n1}.$$
(26)
The atomic storage states are also the eigenstates of the population operators

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(|b_jb_j|C_k^n`$ $`=`$ $`(Nn)|C_k^n,`$ (27a)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(|c_jc_j|C_k^n`$ $`=`$ $`n|C_k^n.`$ (27b)
(see Appendix A)

According to Dicke’s definition ( Eq. (47) in Ref.  ), the total angular momentum operators of the atomic ensemble can be described as

$`R_{k1}`$ $`=`$ $`(\sqrt{N}/2)(\sigma _k^{}+\sigma _k),`$ (28a)
$`R_{k2}`$ $`=`$ $`(i\sqrt{N}/2)(\sigma _k^{}\sigma _k),`$ (28b)
$`R_3`$ $`=`$ $`(N/2)(\sigma _k^{}\sigma _k\sigma _k\sigma _k^{}),`$ (28c)
$`R^2`$ $`=`$ $`R_{k1}^2+R_{k2}^2+R_3^2`$
$`=`$ $`(N/2)(\sigma _k^{}\sigma _k+\sigma _k\sigma _k^{})+(N^2/4)(\sigma _k^{}\sigma _k\sigma _k\sigma _k^{})^2.`$
Using the exact relations of Eqs. (19) and (23), one obtains

$`R_3|C_k^n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2nN)|C_k^n,`$ (29a)
$`R^2|C_k^n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}N+1)|C_k^n.`$ (29b)
Therefore, the atomic storage state defined in Eq. (3) is the right Dicke state with the maximum cooperation number $`r=N/2`$. The discussion in this section exploits a new feature of Dicke state. The Dicke states with the maximum cooperation number play the role of number states in front of the collective lower and upper atomic operators.

## 4 Multimode atomic storage states

The multimode case is concerned with how the information of the multimode photons is distributed in the local atomic excitations $`|c_j.`$ To see it, we firstly consider a simple case — the multimode single-excitation atomic storage state; that is, each mode contains only one excitation. We apply the multimode creation operators to the ”vacuum” state

$`\sigma _{k_1}^{}\mathrm{}\sigma _{k_n}^{}|C^0`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N^n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i_1=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|c_{i_1}b_{i_1}|\mathrm{exp}(ik_1z_{i_1})\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{i_n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|c_{i_n}b_{i_n}|\mathrm{exp}(ik_nz_{i_n})|b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_N`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N^n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{i_n\}}{}}{}_{}{}^{}|b_1\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N\mathrm{exp}[i(k_1z_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+k_nz_{i_n})].`$
This equation is apparently different to Eq. (3) by the phase factors. Indeed, the exchanges of the indices in the summation contribute to the same atomic state, but, with different phase distributions. For example, $`(i_1=1,i_2=2,i_3,\mathrm{},i_n)`$ and $`(i_1=2,i_2=1,i_3,\mathrm{},i_n)`$ display the same state $`|c_1c_2b_3\mathrm{}c_{i_3}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N`$ , but with the phase factors $`\mathrm{exp}[i(k_1z_1+k_2z_2+k_3z_{i_3}+\mathrm{}+k_nz_{i_n})]`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}[i(k_1z_2+k_2z_1+k_3z_{i_3}+\mathrm{}+k_nz_{i_n})]`$, respectively. Mathematically, for a given atomic collective state $`|b_1\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N`$, it allocates $`n!`$ phase factors due to $`n!`$ permutations for $`n`$ elements. This means that an atom in the level $`|c_j`$, located at position $`z_j`$, records the information of all the modes. Because the field is global, each atom in the medium experiences the field coherence of all the modes, and, vice versa, the field of each mode affects all the excited atoms.

To simplify the sign, we define

$$\{k_n\}\{z_{i_n}\}_l(k_1z_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+k_nz_{i_n})_l,$$
(31)
where $`\{z_{i_n}\}_l`$ stands for the $`l`$-th sequence of all the $`n!`$ permutations for $`n`$ elements. Accordingly, Eq. (4) can be written as

$$\sigma _{k_1}^{}\mathrm{}\sigma _{k_n}^{}|C^0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N^n}}\underset{\{i_n\}}{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }|b_1\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N_{l=1}^{n!}\mathrm{exp}[i\{k_n\}\{z_{i_n}\}_l],$$
(32)
where $`_{\{i_n\}}^{\prime \prime }`$ has already been defined in Eq. (15). In comparison with the single mode case, shown in Eq. (14), $`n`$-excitations in Eq. (32) share the phases of $`n`$ modes. We define a multimode single-excitation atomic storage state as

$`|C_{k_1}^1\mathrm{}C_{k_n}^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N(N1)\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}}}`$ (33)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\{i_n\}}{}}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }|b_1\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N{\displaystyle }_{l=1}^{n!}\mathrm{exp}[i\{k_n\}\{z_{i_n}\}_l],`$
which has been normalized, as shown in Appendix B. With the combination of Eqs. (32) and (33), we obtain

$$\sigma _{k_1}^{}\mathrm{}\sigma _{k_n}^{}|C^0=\sqrt{\frac{N(N1)\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}{N^n}}|C_{k_1}^1\mathrm{}C_{k_n}^1|C_{k_1}^1\mathrm{}C_{k_n}^1.$$
(34)
Now, we discuss the general case of multimode atomic storage states. $`s`$ modes containing total $`n`$ excitations can be generated by

$`(\sigma _{k_1}^{})^{m_1}\mathrm{}(\sigma _{k_s}^{})^{m_s}|C^0`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N^n}}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|c_jb_j|\mathrm{exp}(ik_1z_j)\right)^{m_1}\mathrm{}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|c_jb_j|\mathrm{exp}(ik_sz_j)\right)^{m_s}|b_1b_2\mathrm{}b_N`$
where $`m_1+\mathrm{}+m_s=n`$. By defining an index set as

$$\{i_n\}(i_1,\mathrm{},i_{m_1},i_{m_1+1},\mathrm{},i_{m_2},\mathrm{},i_{nm_s+1},\mathrm{},i_n),$$
(36)
Eq. (4) can be written as

$`(\sigma _{k_1}^{})^{m_1}\mathrm{}(\sigma _{k_s}^{})^{m_s}|C^0`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N^n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{i_n\}}{}}{}_{}{}^{}|b_1\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}[ik_1(z_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+z_{i_{m_1}})+\mathrm{}+ik_s(z_{i_{nm_s+1}}+\mathrm{}+z_{i_n})].`$
Similarly, as in the previous cases, any particular atomic collective state $`|b_1\mathrm{}c_{j_1}\mathrm{}c_{j_n}\mathrm{}b_N`$ is related to $`n!`$ terms in the summation throughout all indices. But, among these $`n!`$ terms, the phase factor of each term will repeatedly appear $`m_1!\mathrm{}m_s!`$ times because exchanges of indices within a mode cause no difference. As a result, the remaining non-repeated phase factors terms are $`n!/(m_1!\mathrm{}m_s!)`$. We define again

$$\{k_s^{(m_s)}\}\{z_{i_n}\}_l\left(k_1(z_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+z_{i_{m_1}})+\mathrm{}+k_s(z_{i_{nm_s+1}}+\mathrm{}+z_{i_n})\right)_l$$
(38)
as one of these combinations with index $`l`$. Equation (4) is written as

$`(\sigma _{k_1}^{})^{m_1}\mathrm{}(\sigma _{k_s}^{})^{m_s}|C^0`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_1!\mathrm{}m_s!}{\sqrt{N^n}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{i_n\}}{}}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }|b_1\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N{\displaystyle }_{l=1}^{n!/(m_1!\mathrm{}m_s!)}\mathrm{exp}[i\{k_s^{(m_s)}\}\{z_{i_n}\}_l].`$
A general multimode atomic storage state can be defined as

$`|C_{k_1}^{m_1}\mathrm{}C_{k_s}^{m_s}`$
$``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m_1!\mathrm{}m_s!}{N(N1)\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\{i_n\}}{}}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }|b_1\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N{\displaystyle }_{l=1}^{n!/(m_1!\mathrm{}m_s!)}\mathrm{exp}[i\{k_s^{(m_s)}\}\{z_{i_n}\}_l],`$
which has been normalized (see Appendix B). Finally, Eq. (4) becomes

$`(\sigma _{k_1}^{})^{m_1}\mathrm{}(\sigma _{k_s}^{})^{m_s}|C^0`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N(N1)\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}{N^n}}}\sqrt{m_1!\mathrm{}m_s!}|C_{k_1}^{m_1}\mathrm{}C_{k_s}^{m_s}`$
$``$ $`\sqrt{m_1!\mathrm{}m_s!}|C_{k_1}^{m_1}\mathrm{}C_{k_s}^{m_s},`$
where the approximation is valid in the limit$`N>>n`$. In this limit, the creation of an excitation of mode $`l`$ for a multimode storage state is written as

$$\sigma _{k_l}^{}|C_{k_1}^{m_1}\mathrm{}C_{k_l}^{m_l}\mathrm{}C_{k_s}^{m_s}\sqrt{m_l+1}|C_{k_1}^{m_1}\mathrm{}C_{k_l}^{m_l+1}\mathrm{}C_{k_s}^{m_s}.$$
(42)
Similarly, as in the single mode case, by considering the bosonic commutation (10) and Eq. (4), the annihilation of an excitation of mode $`l`$ is written as

$$\sigma _{k_l}|C_{k_1}^{m_1}\mathrm{}C_{k_l}^{m_l}\mathrm{}C_{k_s}^{m_s}\sqrt{m_l}|C_{k_1}^{m_1}\mathrm{}C_{k_l}^{m_l1}\mathrm{}C_{k_s}^{m_s}.$$
(43)
Equations (18), (34) and (4) imply that the state $`|C^0`$ defined in Eq. (12) represents a vacuum state not only for a single mode but also for a multimode. Physically, it shows that the ultracold collective atoms are able to store a multimode field. As a result, we may derive

$$\sigma _{k_2}^{}|C_{k_1}^{m_1}|C_{k_2}C_{k_1}^{m_1},$$
(44)
where $`|C_{k_1}^{m_1}`$ can be understood as either a single mode state or a multimode state with the vacuum for those modes other than mode $`k_1`$.

In the above theoretical description, we have shown that the atomic storage states are a duplicate of the Fock states of the electromagnetic field. The explicit expressions of atomic storage states Eqs. (3) and (4) display duality of particle and coherence. The excitations may appear everywhere with an equal probability in the medium, corresponding with the nonlocality for photons. However, each excitation takes the local phase factors of the single-mode, or multimode, fields as the quantum probability amplitude, therefore recording the coherence. Consequently, it may establish the correspondence of two quantum system, the field and the atomic ensemble. This provides the basis for complete storage of quantum information of the bosonic field in an atomic medium.

## 5 Dark states in EIT

In the EIT configuration, the weak signal field interacting resonantly with the atomic transition $`|a|b`$ is described by the field operator

$`E_s(z,t)`$ $`=`$ $`(1/2)_0a(z)\mathrm{exp}[i(k_sz\omega _st)]+\text{h.c.}`$
$`=`$ $`(1/2)_0{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}a(q)\mathrm{exp}[iqz]\mathrm{exp}[i(k_sz\omega _st)]+\text{h.c.},`$
where $`_0`$ is the field amplitude per photon and $`\omega _s=ck_s`$. $`c`$ is the speed of light in a vacuum. The strong control field, resonantly driving the atomic transition $`|a|c`$ is assumed as classical

$$E_c(z,t)=\frac{\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\mathrm{}_{ac}}\mathrm{exp}[i(k_cz\omega _ct)]+\text{c.c.,}$$
(46)
where $`\mathrm{}_{ac}`$ is the dipole moment of the transition $`|a|c`$ and $`\omega _c=ck_c`$. In the interaction picture, the interaction Hamiltonian is described as

$`H_I`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\omega _qa^{}(q)a(q)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\left\{g{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}a(q)|a_jb_j|\mathrm{exp}[i(k_s+q)z_j]+\mathrm{\Omega }|a_jc_j|\mathrm{exp}[ik_cz_j]+\text{h.c.}\right\},`$
where $`\omega _q=cq`$ is the detuning of mode $`q`$ with respect to the resonant frequency $`\omega _s`$ of the signal field. By defining the atomic collective operators

$`\rho _{ab}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|a_jb_j|\mathrm{exp}[i(k_s+q)z_j],`$ (48a)
$`\rho _{ac}(q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|a_jc_j|\mathrm{exp}[i(k_c+q)z_j],`$ (48b)
the Hamiltonian (5) is written as

$$H_I=\mathrm{}\underset{q}{}\omega _qa^{}(q)a(q)\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}\left\{gN\underset{q}{}a(q)\rho _{ab}(q)+\mathrm{\Omega }N\rho _{ac}(0)+\text{h.c.}\right\}.$$
(49)
The new quantum field operator defined in Ref.  is written as

$$\psi _q=\mathrm{cos}\theta a_q\mathrm{sin}\theta \sigma _q,$$
(50)
where

$$\mathrm{cos}\theta =\mathrm{\Omega }/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }^2+g^2N},\mathrm{sin}\theta =g\sqrt{N}/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }^2+g^2N}.$$
(51)
The transition $`|b|c`$ concerns both the absorption of a signal photon and the emission of a driving photon. Replacing $`k`$ by $`(k_s+q)k_c`$ in Eq. (2), one obtains the annihilation operator $`\sigma _q`$ of the collective atoms in EIT

$$\sigma _q=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}|b_jc_j|\mathrm{exp}[i(k_s+qk_c)z_j].$$
(52)
Correspondingly, $`k`$ should also be replaced by $`k_s+qk_c`$ in the atomic storage states. $`\psi _q`$ satisfies the bosonian commutation relation as long as $`\sigma _q`$ does

$$[\psi _q,\psi _q^{}^{}]=\mathrm{cos}^2\theta [a_q,a_q^{}^{}]+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta [\sigma _q,\sigma _q^{}^{}]\delta _{qq^{}}.$$
(53)
It has been shown in Eq. (51), that the parameter $`\theta `$ is related to the strength of the control field. In the strong and weak limits of the control field, $`\psi _q`$ tends to $`a_q`$ and $`\sigma _q`$, respectively.

According to Ref. , the dark state is defined as

$$|D_q^n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}(\psi _q^{})^n|0|C^0,$$
(54)
where $`|0`$ is the vacuum state of the signal field. The lowest dark state is designated as $`|D^0|0|C^0`$. The quasi-particle in the dark state is called a polariton .

Using Eq. (18), one obtains the exact expression of the dark state

$`|D_q^n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}}(1)^m\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)\mathrm{}(nm+1)}{m!}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N(N1)\mathrm{}(Nm+1)}{N^m}}}`$
$`\times \mathrm{cos}^{nm}\theta \mathrm{sin}^m\theta |nm|C_q^m`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)\mathrm{}(nm+1)}{m!}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N(N1)\mathrm{}(Nm+1)}{N^m}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{nm}(g\sqrt{N})^m}{(\mathrm{\Omega }^2+g^2N)^{n/2}}}|nm|C_q^m.`$
The dark states described above are orthogonal to each other since they have different quasiparticle numbers, but are not normalized. Under the condition $`N>>n`$, the dark state can be approximately written as

$`|D_q^n`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}}(1)^m\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)\mathrm{}(nm+1)}{m!}}}\mathrm{cos}^{nm}\theta \mathrm{sin}^m\theta |nm|C_q^m`$ (56)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)\mathrm{}(nm+1)}{m!}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{nm}(g\sqrt{N})^m}{(\mathrm{\Omega }^2+g^2N)^{n/2}}}|nm|C_q^m.`$
The above expression of the dark state satisfies the normalized orthogonal relation

$$D_q^n|D_q^m=\delta _{nm}.$$
(57)
Eq. (56) shows that when the parameter $`\theta `$ is taken to be $`0`$ and $`\pi /2`$, the summation in the dark states reduces to only the first and the last term

$`|D_q^n`$ $`=`$ $`|n|C^0\text{for }\theta =0,`$ (58a)
$`|D_q^n`$ $`=`$ $`(1)^n|0|C_q^n\text{for }\theta =\pi /2,`$ (58b)
respectively. Therefore, by varying $`\theta `$ adiabatically, the quasi-particles can be transferred between the photon state and the atomic storage state.

According to definition (54), one can obtain the exact expression

$$\psi _q^{}|D_q^n=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!}}(\psi _q^{})^{n+1}|0|C^0=\sqrt{n+1}|D_q^{n+1}.$$
(59)
It is easy to check

$$\psi _q|D^0=0.$$
(60)
As the same for the operator $`\sigma _q`$, with the help of the bosonic commutation relation (53), one obtains for the dark state (56)

$$\psi _q|D_q^n\sqrt{n}|D_q^{n1}.$$
(61)
Moreover, the multimode dark state can be generated by

$$|D_{q_1}^{n_1}\mathrm{}D_{q_s}^{n_s}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n_1!\mathrm{}n_s!}}(\psi _{q_1}^{})^{n_1}\mathrm{}(\psi _{q_s}^{})^{n_s}|0|C^0.$$
(62)
They can be treated just like the multimode photon number states.

In Appendix C, we have proven that, at the exact resonance, both the exact expression (5) and the approximate expression (56) of the dark states are the eigenstates of the interaction Hamiltonian (49) with a null eigenvalue. A pulse of monochromatic light has a narrow bandwidth, and the detuning $`\omega _q`$ from the carrier frequency $`\omega _s`$ is small. If we omit the first term in the Hamiltonian (49), the multimode dark states consisting of the pulse are the eigenstates of the interaction Hamiltonian.

Assume that, at the initial time, a signal pulse is at a multimode state

$$\underset{\{q_s\}}{}\alpha (q_1,\mathrm{},q_s)|n_1\mathrm{}n_s,$$
(63)
while the cold collective atoms are, approximately, in the ground state $`|C^0`$. The combined system of the signal field and the atoms is in the state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=\underset{\{q_s\}}{}\alpha (q_1,\mathrm{},q_s)|n_1\mathrm{}n_s|C^0=\underset{\{q_s\}}{}\alpha (q_1,\mathrm{},q_s)|D_{q_1}^{n_1}\mathrm{}D_{q_s}^{n_s}_{\theta =0}.$$
(64)
When the control field is strong enough, the signal pulse can maintain and transmit through the medium. Note that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)`$ is also the eigenstate of the interaction Hamiltonian with a null eigenvalue. If the control field is changed adiabatically to a very small level at a later time $`t_1`$, the state of the system is also changed adiabatically to

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t_1)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\{q_s\}}{}}\alpha (q_1,\mathrm{},q_s)|D_{q_1}^{n_1}\mathrm{}D_{q_s}^{n_s}_{\theta =\pi /2}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\{q_s\}}{}}(1)^{n_1+\mathrm{}+n_s}\alpha (q_1,\mathrm{},q_s)|0|C_{q_1}^{n_1}\mathrm{}C_{q_s}^{n_s}.`$
It forms an associate state for $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)`$. The whole of the quantum information of the signal pulse has been stored in the atomic medium, in the form of a ”negative copy”, in which each excitation changes a $`\pi `$-phase. As soon as the control field returns to the previous level, the state (64) is recovered. Conversely, if Eq. (5) is an initial state generated in other model, by turning on the control field, it will be converted to the corresponding optical field, enabling it to be seen.

## 6 Dynamic quantum transfer in macroscopic matter

Due to the fact that the dark states are eigenstates of the EIT interaction, quantum transfer processes between field and matter are quasi-stationary by adiabatically changing the control field. On the other hand, the transfer can be performed in a dynamic way, which has been described in the literature , . In this section, we study a general description for dynamic transfer of quantum state between field and ultracold matter. The interaction configuration can be designed as, either, the parametric process or the Raman transition , in which both a weak signal beam and a strong control beam interact resonantly with two levels of atoms.

For simplicity, we consider a single-mode interaction. In the interaction picture, the effective interaction Hamiltonian is written as

$$H_I=\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Omega }(a\sigma ^{}+a^{}\sigma ),$$
(66)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the Rabi frequency of the control beam, assumed as classical. The collective atomic operator $`\sigma `$ is defined by Eq. (2) and behaves boson-like in the low excitation limit. The model is well known as a coupled harmonic oscillator, and can be solved exactly. Here we illustrate this model again from a new viewpoint by introducing a very simple method for the exact solution of the state-vector evolution. For this model, it is easy to obtain the evolution of the operators in the Heisenberg picture,

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a(t)}{\sigma (t)}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t& i\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t\\ i\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t& \mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t\end{array}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a(0)}{\sigma (0)}\right).$$
(67)
With this method, if the initial state can be written as $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=f(a(0),\sigma (0))|\mathrm{\Theta }(0),`$ while the evolution of the state $`|\mathrm{\Theta }(0)`$ is already known to be $`|\mathrm{\Theta }(t),`$ we obtain

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`U(t)|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=U(t)f(a(0),\sigma (0))|\mathrm{\Theta }(0)`$
$`=`$ $`U(t)f(a(0),\sigma (0))U^1(t)U(t)|\mathrm{\Theta }(0)=f(a(t),\sigma (t))|\mathrm{\Theta }(t),`$
where $`U(t)=\mathrm{exp}(iH_It/\mathrm{})`$. An initial Fock state for the signal photons $`m`$ and the atomic collective excitations $`n`$ is represented by $`|m,C^n=(1/\sqrt{m!n!})[a^{}(0)]^m[\sigma ^{}(0)]^n|0,C^0`$. Since the evolution of the vacuum state, as $`|\mathrm{\Theta }(0)`$ in Eq. (6), is known to be $`|\mathrm{\Theta }(t)=\mathrm{exp}(iH_It/\mathrm{})|0,C^0=|0,C^0,`$ we obtain the evolution for an initial Fock state $`|m,C^n`$

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{mn}(t)=(1/\sqrt{m!n!})[a^{}(t)]^m[\sigma ^{}(t)]^n|0,C^0,$$
(69)
where the dynamical operators are written as

$`a^{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`U(t)a^{}U^1(t)=a^{}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }ti\sigma ^{}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t,`$ (70a)
$`\sigma ^{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`U(t)\sigma ^{}U^1(t)=\sigma ^{}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }tia^{}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t,`$ (70b)
where $`a^{}a^{}(0)`$ and $`\sigma ^{}\sigma ^{}(0)`$. According to Eq. (69), the exact evolution for an arbitrary initial state $`\xi _{mn}|m,C^n`$ is therefore $`\xi _{mn}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{mn}(t).`$

The state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{mn}(t)`$ described by Eq. (69) evolves periodically with the fundamental frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and conserves the total particle number. For example, in the simplest case of only a single excitation $`|1,C^0`$, the time evolution is $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{10}(t)=\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t|1,C^0i\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t|0,C^1`$. The entanglement between two subsystems increases in time and reaches a maximum at $`\mathrm{\Omega }t=\pi /4`$. Then, the entanglement decreases and the excitation transfers completely from one subsystem to another at $`\mathrm{\Omega }t=\pi /2`$. In general, if the initial state has $`m`$ signal photons and no excitation for atoms $`|m,C^0`$, the time evolution is written as

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{m0}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`(1/\sqrt{m!})[a^{}(t)]^m|0,C^0=(1/\sqrt{m!})[a^{}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }ti\sigma ^{}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t]^m|0,C^0`$ (71)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{m}{}}}(i)^j\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{m!}{j!(mj)!}}}(\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }t)^{mj}(\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }t)^j|mj,C^j.`$
The evolution states can be called ”dynamic polaritons”, since they are compatible with the ”stationary polaritons” defined by Eq. (56). At the times $`\mathrm{\Omega }t=(1/2)\pi ,`$ $`\pi `$ and $`(3/2)\pi `$, the evolution state has been de-entangled to $`(i)^m|0,C^m`$, $`(1)^m|m,C^0,`$ and $`i^m|0,C^m`$, respectively. This means, at certain times, the entanglement formed in the dynamical process can be cancelled and the excitations are transferred completely from one subsystem to another. When an initial state is an arbitrary superposition of Fock states for the signal beam and the ”vacuum” for the ultracold atoms, i. e. $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=|\mathrm{\Phi },C^0`$ where $`|\mathrm{\Phi }=\alpha _m|m`$, it evolves to the states $`|0,\mathrm{\Phi }^{(i)},|\mathrm{\Phi }^{()},C^0,`$ and $`|0,\mathrm{\Phi }^{(i)}`$ at the times $`\mathrm{\Omega }t=(1/2)\pi ,`$ $`\pi `$ and $`(3/2)\pi `$, respectively, and comes back to the original at $`\mathrm{\Omega }t=2\pi .`$ Here we define three states associated with $`|\mathrm{\Phi }=\alpha _m|m`$

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\pm i)}=(\pm i)^m\alpha _m|m,|\mathrm{\Phi }^{()}=(1)^m\alpha _m|m.$$
(72)
Obviously, these associate states have the same particle distribution, but with different phase shifts in amplitudes. As a matter of fact, the phase factor in the superposition can be observed macroscopically. For instance, if $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a coherent state $`|\alpha `$, one obtains the coherent states again for the associate states with a particular phase shift, i. e. $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\pm i)}=|\pm i\alpha `$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{()}=|\alpha .`$ As for an arbitrary state, it is also true by means of the expectation value of the amplitude operator, such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\pm i)}|a|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\pm i)}=\pm i\mathrm{\Phi }|a|\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{()}|a|\mathrm{\Phi }^{()}=\mathrm{\Phi }|a|\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Though, in general, these associate states are not identical to the original, owing to a phase shift; the quantum information of the original state can still be faithfully preserved. It looks like a photograph and the corresponding negative copy. The associate states $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{(\pm i)}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{()}`$ can be seen as ”orthogonal” and ”negative” copies of a quantum ”picture” $`|\mathrm{\Phi }`$.

In the dynamic quantum transfer, a quantum state of the signal field can be stored in and then retrieved from a medium by turning off and on the control field at a certain time. Because the dynamic polariton state defined by Eq. (71) is the eigenstate of the free Hamiltonian, it will be preserved while the interaction is turning off. Similarly, the model can be extended to the multimode case provided the conditions for the radiation wavelength Eq. (2) is satisfied. Thus, coherent information of the optical field can be transferred simultaneously.

Finally, we indicate that, for a proper transfer in this model, collective atoms must be prepared in an atomic storage state. For ultracold matter, its initial state can be considered as the vacuum state $`|C^0`$ approximately. If, at the initial time, the field is at an arbitrary state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ while collective atoms have been prepared in a superposition state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_2=\beta _m|C^m`$, $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_1,\mathrm{\Phi }_2`$ will evolve to the corresponding states $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(i)},\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(i)},|\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{()},\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{()}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_2^{(i)},\mathrm{\Phi }_1^{(i)}`$ at the certain times mentioned above. It displays a complete swapping of quantum states for the coupled harmonic oscillators.

## 7 Conclusion

In conclusion, we define collective atomic operators and atomic storage states by containing spatial coherence and illustrate the conditions under which the multimode collective atomic lower and upper operators are boson-like. We indicate the fact that the atomic storage states shown by definition (3) are Dicke states with the maximum cooperation number. The new feature for these Dicke states is that, in the low excitation limit for a large number of atoms, they behave as the Fock states of an electromagnetic field. The complete description and the deductive explicit expressions for the atomic storage states present better physical understanding of why the atomic ensemble can record fully the quantum information, both the excitation and the coherence, of an optical electromagnetic field. In addition to adiabatic quantum transfer by means of dark states in EIT, we discuss the mechanism of dynamic quantum transfer via dynamic polaritons which is formed by the fundamental interaction between the field and ultracold matter. A combination of adiabatic and dynamic schemes may find more applications in quantum information technology.

## Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Fundamental Research Project (973) No. 2001CB309310 and the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Project No. 10074008.

## Appendix A

First, we derive the exact equation (23). By applying definitions (2) and (3), it gives

$`\sigma _k|C_k^n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|b_lc_l|\mathrm{exp}[ikz_l]\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{N\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\{i_n\}}{}}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }|b_1\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N\mathrm{exp}[ik(z_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+z_{i_n})].`$
When the operator $`_{l=1}^N|b_lc_l|`$ applies to a particular state $`|b_1\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N`$, it produces a superposition of $`n`$ states in which $`|c_{i_k}`$ is sequentially replaced by $`|b_{i_k}`$. After this operation, Eq. (Appendix A) is a summation of $`n\times \left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{N}{n}\right)=N(N1)\mathrm{}(Nn+1)/(n1)!`$ states, in which $`n1`$ atoms are populated in the level $`|c`$. It is in fact $`Nn+1`$ times $`|C_k^{n1}`$. For example, a particular state in $`|C_k^{n1}`$, say, $`|c_1\mathrm{}c_{n1}b_n\mathrm{}b_N,`$ comes from $`N(n1)`$ states, $`|c_1\mathrm{}c_{n1}c_nb_{n+1}\mathrm{}b_N,`$ $`|c_1\mathrm{}c_{n1}b_nc_{n+1}\mathrm{}b_N,`$ $`\mathrm{},`$ $`|c_1\mathrm{}c_{n1}b_nb_{n+1}\mathrm{}c_N,`$ in $`|C_k^n.`$ Thus, Eq. (Appendix A) is written as

$`\sigma _k|C_k^n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{N\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}}}(Nn+1)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{\{i_{n1}\}}{}}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }|b_1\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_{n1}}\mathrm{}b_N\mathrm{exp}[ik(z_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+z_{i_{n1}})]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{N\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}}}(Nn+1)\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N\mathrm{}(Nn+2)}{(n1)!}}}|C_k^{n1}`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{Nn+1}{N}}}\sqrt{n}|C_k^{n1}.`$
Then, we prove Eqs. (26). Equation (27a) is written as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(|b_lb_l|C_k^n`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{N\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{i_n\}}{}}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }|b_lb_l|b_1\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N\mathrm{exp}[ik(z_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+z_{i_n})]`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{N\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{i_n\}}{}}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }|b_1\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}[ik(z_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+z_{i_n})](1\delta _{li_1})\mathrm{}(1\delta _{li_n}).`$
Because all the indices of $`i_k`$ are not equal to one another, one has

$$(1\delta _{li_1})\mathrm{}(1\delta _{li_n})=1(\delta _{li_1}+\mathrm{}+\delta _{li_n})+(\delta _{li_1}\delta _{li_2}+\mathrm{})\mathrm{}=1(\delta _{li_1}+\mathrm{}+\delta _{li_n}).$$
(A4)
Substituting Eq. (A4) into Eq. (Appendix A), one obtains

$$\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}(|b_lb_l|C_k^n=(Nn)|C_k^n.$$
(A5)
Eq. (27b) is proved as

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(|c_lc_l|C_k^n`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{N\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{i_n\}}{}}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }|c_lc_l|b_1\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N\mathrm{exp}[ik(z_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+z_{i_n})]`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{N\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{i_n\}}{}}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }|b_1\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N\mathrm{exp}[ik(z_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+z_{i_n})](\delta _{li_1}+\mathrm{}+\delta _{li_n})`$
$`=`$ $`n|C_k^n.`$
## Appendix B

In this appendix, we calculate the normalized coefficient of the multimode storage states. A multimode single-excitation state is defined as

$$|C_{k_1}^1\mathrm{}C_{k_n}^1\alpha \underset{\{i_n\}}{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }|b_1\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N_{l=1}^{n!}\mathrm{exp}[i\{k_n\}\{z_{i_n}\}_l].$$
(B1)
The probability of each state in the above superposition is

$`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n!}{}}}\mathrm{exp}[i\{k_n\}\{z_{i_n}\}_l]\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l,j}{\overset{n!}{}}}\mathrm{exp}[i\{k_n\}(\{z_{i_n}\}_l\{z_{i_n}\}_j)]`$
$`=`$ $`n!+{\displaystyle \underset{lj}{\overset{n!}{}}}\mathrm{exp}[i\{k_n\}(\{z_{i_n}\}_l\{z_{i_n}\}_j)].`$
Then, we sum all these probabilities. For the first term of Eq. (Appendix B), it is simply

$$\underset{\{i_n\}}{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }n!=n!\frac{N(N1)\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}{n!}=N(N1)\mathrm{}(Nn+1).$$
(B3)
In the multimode case, one must find a mode with $`k_j0`$. By using Eq. (9), the summation $`_{\{i_n\}}^{\prime \prime }`$ to the second term of Eq. (Appendix B) vanishes. Therefore, we obtain

$$\alpha =\frac{1}{\sqrt{N(N1)\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}}.$$
(B4)
Similarly, for a general multimode storage state defined by Eq. (4), the probability of finding a single state is

$`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n!/(m_1!\mathrm{}m_s!)}{}}}\mathrm{exp}[i\{k_s^{(m_s)}\}\{z_{i_n}\}_l]\right|^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l,j}{\overset{n!/(m_1!\mathrm{}m_s!)}{}}}\mathrm{exp}[i\{k_s^{(m_s)}\}(\{z_{i_n}\}_l\{z_{i_n}\}_j)]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{m_1!\mathrm{}m_s!}}+{\displaystyle \underset{lj}{\overset{n!/(m_1!\mathrm{}m_s!)}{}}}\mathrm{exp}[i\{k_s^{(m_s)}\}(\{z_{i_n}\}_l\{z_{i_n}\}_j)].`$
The summation to the first term of the above equation gives

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\{i_n\}}{}}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{m_1!\mathrm{}m_s!}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{m_1!\mathrm{}m_s!}}{\displaystyle \frac{N(N1)\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}{n!}}={\displaystyle \frac{N(N1)\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}{m_1!\mathrm{}m_s!}}.`$
With the same reason, the summation to the second term vanishes. The normalized coefficient is therefore

$$\alpha =\sqrt{\frac{m_1!\mathrm{}m_s!}{N(N1)\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}}.$$
(B7)
## Appendix C

We define a new collective atomic state in which $`n`$ atoms are in the level $`|c`$ whereas one atom is in the level $`|a`$

$`|A_q^1,C_q^n`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{N(N1)\mathrm{}(Nn)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l\{i_n\}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{i_n\}}{}}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }|b_1\mathrm{}a_l\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N`$ (C1)
$`\times \mathrm{exp}[i(k_s+qk_c)(z_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+z_{i_n})]\mathrm{exp}[i(k_s+q)z_l],`$
where $`_{l\{i_n\}}`$ designates the summation for index $`l`$ which cannot be taken as $`i_1,\mathrm{}i_n`$. We have already indicated that, the state $`|C_q^n`$ is a superposition of $`N(N1)\mathrm{}(Nn+1)/n!`$ possible states $`|b_1\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N`$ in which $`n`$ atoms are in the level $`|c`$ whereas the remaining $`Nn`$ atoms are in the level $`|b`$. For one of these states, each of the $`Nn`$ atoms being in the level $`|b`$ can be excited to the level $`|a`$. So the state $`|A_q^1,C_q^n`$ includes $`N(N1)\mathrm{}(Nn)/n!`$ such possible states $`|b_1\mathrm{}a_l\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N`$ with equal possibility. The state $`|A_q^1,C_q^n`$ has been normalized. The phase factor related to the excited atom $`l`$ being in level $`|a`$ is $`\mathrm{exp}[i(k_s+q)z_l]`$, because the transition of the level $`|a`$ to the ground level $`|b`$ is connected with the signal field of the wavevector $`k_s+q`$. State (C1) can be obtained by the following operation

$`N\rho _{ac}(0)|C_q^n`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|a_lc_l|\mathrm{exp}[ik_cz_l]\right)|C_q^n`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{N\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{i_n\}}{}}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }|a_lc_l|b_1\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}[i(k_s+qk_c)(z_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+z_{i_n})]\mathrm{exp}[ik_cz_l]`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{N\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l\{i_{n1}\}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{i_{n1}\}}{}}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }|b_1\mathrm{}a_l\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_{n1}}\mathrm{}b_N`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}[i(k_s+qk_c)(z_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+z_{i_{n1}})]\mathrm{exp}[i(k_s+q)z_l]`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{N\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}{(n1)!}}}|A_q^1,C_q^{n1}`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{n}|A_q^1,C_q^{n1},`$
where the atomic operator $`\rho _{ac}(0)`$ has been defined in Eq. (48b). Similarly, we have

$`N\rho _{ab}(q)|C_q^n`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}}|a_lb_l|\mathrm{exp}[i(k_s+q)z_l]\right)|C_q^n`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{N\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{i_n\}}{}}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }|a_lb_l|b_1\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}[i(k_s+qk_c)(z_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+z_{i_n})]\mathrm{exp}[i(k_s+q)z_l]`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{N\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l\{i_n\}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\{i_n\}}{}}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }|b_1\mathrm{}a_l\mathrm{}c_{i_1}\mathrm{}c_{i_n}\mathrm{}b_N`$
$`\times \mathrm{exp}[i(k_s+qk_c)(z_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+z_{i_n})]\mathrm{exp}[i(k_s+q)z_l]`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n!}{N\mathrm{}(Nn+1)}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N\mathrm{}(Nn)}{n!}}}|A_q^1,C_q^n`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{Nn}|A_q^1,C_q^n.`$
The two interactions induced by two fields in the interaction Hamiltonian interfere destructively for the dark state. Using Eqs. (Appendix C) and (Appendix C), for the exact expression of the dark state Eq. (5), one obtains

$`\mathrm{\Omega }N\rho _{ac}(0)|D_q^n`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }N\rho _{ac}(0){\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}}(1)^m\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)\mathrm{}(nm+1)}{m!}}}`$
$`\times \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N(N1)\mathrm{}(Nm+1)}{N^m}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{nm}(g\sqrt{N})^m}{(\mathrm{\Omega }^2+g^2N)^{n/2}}}|nm|C_q^m`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(1)^m\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)\mathrm{}(nm+1)}{(m1)!}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N(N1)\mathrm{}(Nm+1)}{N^m}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{nm+1}(g\sqrt{N})^m}{(\mathrm{\Omega }^2+g^2N)^{n/2}}}|nm|A_q^1,C_q^{m1}.`$
and

$`gNa(q)\rho _{ab}(q)|D_q^n`$
$`=`$ $`gNa(q)\rho _{ab}(q){\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}}(1)^m\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)\mathrm{}(nm+1)}{m!}}}`$
$`\times \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N(N1)\mathrm{}(Nm+1)}{N^m}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{nm}(g\sqrt{N})^m}{(\mathrm{\Omega }^2+g^2N)^{n/2}}}|nm|C_q^m`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}(1)^m\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)\mathrm{}(nm)}{m!}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N(N1)\mathrm{}(Nm)}{N^{m+1}}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^{nm}(g\sqrt{N})^{m+1}}{(\mathrm{\Omega }^2+g^2N)^{n/2}}}|nm1|A_q^1,C_q^m,`$
If we set index $`mm+1`$ in Eq. (Appendix C), it is the exact same as Eq. (Appendix C) but with an opposite sign. Therefore, one obtains

$$[gNa(q)\rho _{ab}(q)+\mathrm{\Omega }N\rho _{ac}(0)]|D_q^n=0.$$
(C6)
Resulting in, for the exact resonant mode $`q=0`$, the dark states $`|D_{q=0}^n`$ being the eigenstates with the null eigenvalue of the interaction Hamiltonian (49). We note that Eqs. (Appendix C) – (C6) hold exactly for the exact expression of the dark state (5). For the approximate expression of the dark state (56), Eqs. (Appendix C) – (C6) are also satisfied as long $`N>>n`$.


format: text

text:
# References

Gravitational lenses magnify up to

one third of the most distant quasars

Astronomy Dept., Harvard University, 60 Garden Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

Exceptionally bright quasars with redshifts up to z=6.28 have recently been discovered1 . Quasars are thought to be powered by the accretion of gas onto supermassive black holes at the centres of galaxies. Their maximum (Eddington) luminosity is proportional to the mass of the black hole, and so these bright quasars are inferred to have black holes with masses of more than a few billion solar masses. The existence of such massive black holes poses a challenge to models for the formation of structures in the early Universe, as it requires that the black holes would grow so massive in less than a billion years after the Big Bang. Here we show that up to a third of known quasars with z$``$6 will have their observed flux magnified by a factor of 10 or more through gravitational lensing by galaxies along the line of sight. The inferred abundance of quasar host galaxies, as well as the luminosity density provided by the quasars, are therefore substantially overestimated.

The four highest redshift quasars known1  with $`z5.8`$ (SDSS 1044-0125 was later found4  to have $`z=5.73`$), were selected in the SDSS photometric system to have magnitudes $`z^{}<20.2`$ and colors $`i^{}z^{}>2.2`$. The masses of the black holes powering these quasars are estimated to be $`3\times 10^9M_{}`$, implying3  that the mass of their host galaxies is $`10^{13}M_{}`$. Such massive hosts lie on the steep exponential tail of the Press-Schechter5  mass function, so that a correction to the inferred black-hole mass severely impacts the estimated cosmological density of galaxy halos which are sufficiently massive to host the observed quasars.

Gravitational lensing leads to a magnification by a factor $`\mu `$ of the apparent source luminosity. Let us first consider the implications of this magnification for the inferred properties of the massive quasar systems within structure formation theory. Using the Eddington luminosity to set a lower limit on the inferred black hole mass3 , one finds that the inclusion of the magnification due to lensing lowers the minimum black hole mass by a factor of $`\mu `$. This, in turn, implies that the black hole can form in a lower mass galaxy. Figure 1 shows the resulting enhancement factor in the space density of galaxy halos that could host the observed SDSS quasars at $`z=6`$. The inclusion of lensing has a dramatic effect (by orders of magnitude) on the expected abundance of such hosts at early cosmic times. The prominence and duty cycle of such hosts has important implications7 ,8  with respect to the question of whether the cosmic neutral hydrogen, a cold remnant from the big bang, was re-ionized by star light or by quasars9 ,10 .

To calculate the probability of gravitational lensing in a quasar sample we need to specify the luminosity function (number per comoving volume per unit luminosity) that describes the quasar population. At $`z3`$ this function is well described by a double power-law whose shape does not evolve with redshift11 ,

$$\varphi (L,z)=\frac{\varphi _{}/L_{}(z)}{[L/L_{}(z)]^{\beta _l}+[L/L_{}(z)]^{\beta _h}}.$$
(1)
The observed evolution of the break luminosity $`L_{}`$ is described by the dependence9

$$L_{}(z)=L_{}(0)(1+z)^{(1+\alpha _q)}e^{\zeta z}\frac{1+e^{\xi z_{}}}{e^{\xi z}+e^{\xi z_{}}}.$$
(2)
We find that an intrinsic luminosity function having the parameters $`\varphi _{}=624\mathrm{Gpc}^3`$, $`\beta _l=1.64`$, $`\beta _h=3.43`$, $`L_{}(0)=1.5\times 10^{11}L_{}`$, $`\alpha _q=0.5`$, $`z_{}=1.45`$, $`\xi =2.9`$, $`\zeta =2.7`$, and the inclusion of gravitational lensing (described below) adequately describes three observables, namely the luminosity function at $`z3`$, and the number density of quasars with absolute B-magnitude $`M_B<26`$ at $`z4.3`$ (measured by SDSS from a catalog of 39 quasars12  with a median redshift of $`z4.3`$) and $`M_B<27.6`$ at $`z6.0`$. The parameter $`\alpha _q`$ is the slope assumed for the typical quasar continuum $`L(\nu )L^{\alpha _q}`$. We are interested in the number of quasars with luminosities higher than the limiting magnitude $`z_{\mathrm{lim}}^{}=20.2`$, which is $`N(>L_{\mathrm{lim}},z)=_{L_{\mathrm{lim}}}^{\mathrm{}}dL\varphi (L,z)`$ where $`L_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ is the luminosity of a quasar at redshift $`z`$ corresponding to an apparent magnitude $`z_{\mathrm{lim}}^{}`$. $`L_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ was determined from $`z_{\mathrm{lim}}^{}`$ using a luminosity distance and a $`k`$-correction computed from a model quasar spectrum including the mean absorption by the intergalactic medium13 .

Gravitational lensing is expected to be highly probable for very luminous quasars14 . To illustrate this point, we consider a fictitious gravitational lens that always produces a magnification of $`\mu =4`$ for the sum of multiple images \[the average value for a singular isothermal sphere (SIS)\] but $`\mu =1`$ otherwise. We define $`\tau _{mult}`$ as the probability that a random quasar selected in the source plane will be multiply imaged15 , and $`F_{MI}`$ to be the magnification biased probability that an observed quasar will be multiply imaged. Surveys for quasars at $`z<3`$ have limiting magnitudes fainter than the break magnitude ($`m_B19`$). While $`\tau _{mult}0.002`$ at $`z2`$, a survey for quasars to a limit $`L_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ will find a number of lensed sources that is larger by a bias factor of $`N(<L_{\mathrm{lim}}/\mu ,z)/N(<L_{\mathrm{lim}},z)`$. At $`z=2`$, $`L_{\mathrm{lim}}(z)L_{}(z)`$ and for $`\beta _l=1.6`$ the magnification bias factor is $`2.3`$, resulting in $`F_{MI}0.005`$. At $`z=6`$, $`\tau _{mult}0.008`$ is significantly higher16 . Furthermore, the limiting magnitude of the $`z5.8`$ survey is significantly brighter than the break magnitude and so $`\beta _h=3.4`$ and the bias factor rises to $`28`$. Under these circumstances, $`F_{MI}`$ rises to $`0.22`$. These simple arguments are consistent with previous estimates of the lensing rate at high redshift17  and demonstrate that lensing has a strong effect on observations of the bright SDSS quasars at $`z5.8`$.

To find the magnification bias more accurately, we have computed the probability distributions $`\frac{dP_{\mathrm{sing}}}{d\mu }`$ and $`\frac{dP_{\mathrm{mult}}}{d\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}}`$ for the magnification $`\mu `$ of randomly positioned singly-imaged sources, and for the sum of magnifications $`\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}`$ of randomly positioned multiply-imaged sources due to gravitational lensing by foreground galaxies. We assume that the lens galaxies have a constant co-moving density \[as the lensing rate for an evolving (Press-Schechter) population of lenses differs only by $`10\%`$ from this case17 \] and are primarily early-type (E/S0) SIS galaxies18  whose population is described by a Schechter function with parameters19  $`n_{}=0.27\times 10^2\mathrm{Mpc}^3`$ and $`\alpha _s=0.5`$. We assume the Faber-Jackson relation $`(L_g/L_g)=(\sigma _g/\sigma _{})^4`$ where $`\sigma _g`$ is the velocity dispersion of the lens galaxy, with $`\sigma _{}=220\mathrm{km}\mathrm{sec}^1`$ and a dark matter velocity dispersion that equals the stellar velocity dispersion18 . We ignore dust extinction by the lens galaxy, which mainly arises in the much rarer spiral galaxy lenses. Potential lens galaxies must not be detectable in the survey data used to select the objects. Galaxies having $`i^{}<22.2`$ (around 30% of the potential lens population) are not considered part of the lens population. To compute $`i^{}`$ for a galaxy having velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$ at redshift $`z`$, we use $`L_g`$ from the 2dF early-type galaxy luminosity function19 , the Faber-Jackson relation, color transformations with a $`k`$-correction20 ,21 , and the evolution of the rest-frame B-band mass-to-light ratio22 .

Our lens model includes microlensing by the population of galactic stars which is modeled as a de Vaucouleurs profile of point masses embedded in the overall SIS mass distribution. The surface mass density in stars for galaxies at $`z=0`$ is normalized so that the total cosmological density parameter of stars23  equals $`0.005`$. At $`z>0`$ the total mass density in stars is assumed to be proportional to the cumulative star-formation history24 ,25 . The parameters of the de Vaucouleurs profiles are taken from a study of the fundamental plane26 , the microlens mass is chosen as 0.1$`M_{}`$ and the source size as $`10^{15}`$cm (corresponding to ten Schwarzschild radii of a $`3\times 10^8M_{}`$ black hole). The probabilities $`\frac{dP_{\mathrm{sing}}}{d\mu }`$ and $`\frac{dP_{\mathrm{mult}}}{d\mu _{\mathrm{tot}}}`$ closely resemble the standard form for the *SIS* and were computed27  by combining numerical magnification maps with the distribution of microlensing optical depth and shear along lensed lines of sight, and the distribution $`\left[\tau _{\mathrm{mult}}\frac{dP_{\mathrm{mult}}}{d\mu }+(1\tau _{\mathrm{mult}})\frac{dP_{\mathrm{sing}}}{d\mu }\right]`$ was normalized to have unit mean.

The fraction of sources which are multiply imaged due to gravitational lensing is

$$F_{\mathrm{MI}}(z)=\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}d\mu ^{}\tau _{\mathrm{mult}}\frac{dP_{\mathrm{mult}}}{d\mu ^{}}N(>\frac{L_{\mathrm{lim}}}{\mu ^{}},z)}{_0^{\mathrm{}}d\mu ^{}[\tau _{\mathrm{mult}}\frac{dP_{\mathrm{mult}}}{d\mu ^{}}+(1\tau _{\mathrm{mult}})\frac{dP_{\mathrm{sing}}}{d\mu ^{}}]N(>\frac{L_{\mathrm{lim}}}{\mu ^{}},z)},$$
(3)
where $`\tau _{\mathrm{mult}}=0.0059`$. We find a value of $`F_{\mathrm{MI}}0.30`$ for the color-selected, flux-limited $`z5.8`$ sample. This value is higher by two orders of magnitude than the lens fraction at low redshifts and demonstrates that lensing must already be considered in a sample with only 4 objects. For comparison, our model (including the entire lens population of lens galaxies) predicts $`F_{MI}0.01`$ at $`z2`$ for $`m_B<20`$. These calculations do not include selection effects for flux ratios (though the large magnification bias will favor flux ratios near 1) or image separations which may serve to lower $`F_{MI}`$.

A sub arc-second resolution K-band image has been obtained for the $`z=5.80`$ quasar1 , and it was found to be an unresolved point source. To our knowledge this is the only $`z5.8`$ quasar for which sub arc-second resolution optical imaging is currently available. However a program to image these quasars with the Hubble Space Telescope which will determine the multiple-image fraction, is expected to begin within the coming year (X. Fan private communication). Note though that single image quasars might still be magnified by a factor of $`2`$. Recent Chandra observations28  of the $`z=6.28`$ quasar show photons detected on the edge of the extraction (1.2”) circle, offering a hint that this quasar may be lensed.

We have computed the distribution of magnifications observed for a sample of quasars brighter than $`L_{\mathrm{lim}}`$ at redshift $`z`$,

$$\frac{dP}{d\mu _{\mathrm{obs}}}=\frac{\left[\tau _{\mathrm{mult}}\frac{dP_{\mathrm{mult}}}{d\mu }|_{\mu =\mu _{\mathrm{obs}}}+(1\tau _{\mathrm{mult}})\frac{dP_{\mathrm{sing}}}{d\mu }|_{\mu =\mu _{\mathrm{obs}}}\right]N(>\frac{L_{\mathrm{lim}}}{\mu _{\mathrm{obs}}})}{_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\mu ^{}\left[\tau _{\mathrm{mult}}\frac{dP_{\mathrm{mult}}}{d\mu }|_{\mu =\mu ^{}}+(1\tau _{\mathrm{mult}})\frac{dP_{\mathrm{sing}}}{d\mu }|_{\mu =\mu ^{}}\right]N(>\frac{L_{\mathrm{lim}}}{\mu ^{}})}.$$
(4)
In Figure 2 we show the probability that the magnification of a quasar is higher than $`\mu _{\mathrm{obs}}`$, assuming that the quasar belongs to a sample at a redshift $`z6`$ with the SDSS magnitude limit of $`z^{}<20.2`$. The plotted distribution is highly skewed; the median magnification is $`med(\mu _{obs})1.2`$ while the mean magnification is as high as $`\mu =24`$. Thus, one or more of the $`z5.8`$ quasars are likely to be highly magnified while most should be magnified at a low level.

The large values of the magnifications and the highly skewed shape of the distributions in Figure 2 suggest that lensing must alter the observed luminosity function. Indeed, we find that the space density of quasars with $`M_B<27.6`$ is increased by 40%, and that the slope is decreased by 0.15. A quasar magnified by $`\mu `$ is detectable to luminosities as low as $`L_{lim}/\mu `$ and has its luminosity, $`L`$, overestimated by $`\mu `$. The factor $`R_{LD}`$ by which the luminosity density of quasars brighter than $`L_{lim}`$ is overestimated due to lensing is therefore

$$R_{LD}=\frac{_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\mu ^{}\left[\tau _{\mathrm{mult}}\frac{dP_{\mathrm{mult}}}{d\mu ^{}}+(1\tau _{\mathrm{mult}})\frac{dP_{\mathrm{sing}}}{d\mu ^{}}\right]_{L_{lim}/\mu ^{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑L^{}\mu ^{}L^{}\varphi (L^{})}{_{L_{lim}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑L^{}L^{}\varphi (L^{})}$$
(5)
We find $`R_{LD}2`$, implying that naive computation of the quasar luminosity density from the $`z5.8`$ sample might significantly overestimate its true value. Magnification bias also affects quasars that are not multiply imaged. We therefore predict an enhanced angular correlation on the sky between $`z6`$ quasars and foreground galaxies.

The high source redshifts imply image separations that are slightly larger than usual17 , $`1`$–2′′. Furthermore, the lenses are likely to be found at higher redshift17  due in part to the higher source redshifts but also because bright (low-$`z`$) lenses are excluded. Lensing of high-redshift quasars allows measurement of the masses of the lens galaxies22  at redshifts higher than currently possible. Furthermore, quasar microlensing should be common over a ten year baseline27 . This offers the exciting possibility of measuring the source size, and hence black-hole mass, which in turn yields the ratio between quasar luminosity and its Eddington value, a quantity that will be useful in constraining models of structure formation3 .

The recently published spectra of the highest redshift quasar 8 ,29  limit the flux in the Gunn-Peterson30  trough to less than $`3\times 10^{19}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{sec}^1`$Å-1. Given the importance of this first observation of the re-ionization epoch and of future complimentary observations, we are motivated to ask whether or not lens galaxy light will contaminate deep observations of the Gunn-Peterson trough in the quasar spectrum, even though such a galaxy is not detected in the initial imaging survey. We have computed the flux of lens galaxies at redshift $`z`$ with velocity dispersion $`\sigma `$, and convolved the results with the joint probability distribution for the lens galaxy redshift and velocity dispersion. We find that $`40\%`$ of multiple image lens galaxies ($`i^{}<22.2`$) will contribute flux in the Gunn-Peterson trough above a level of $`3\times 10^{19}\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{sec}^1`$Å-1. For some quasars the contamination of the Gunn-Peterson trough by flux from lens galaxies may limit the ability of deep spectroscopic observations to probe the evolution of the neutral hydrogen fraction during the epoch of reionization.

Correspondence and requests for materials to Abraham Loeb.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. The authors would like to thank Ed Turner and Josh Winn and Rennan Barkana for helpful comment and discussion. This work was supported in part by grants from the NSF and NASA. J.S.B.W. is supported by a Hubble Fellowship.