format: text

text:
# Electromagnetically induced transparency and reduced speeds for single photons in a fully quantized model

## I Introduction

Controlling the phase coherence in ensembles of multilevel atoms has led to the observation of many striking phenomena in the propagation of near-resonant light. These phenomena include coherent population trapping, lasing without inversion, electromagnetically induced transparency, and anomalously slow and anomalously fast pulse velocities. Resonant enhancement of the index of refraction without accompanying increased in absorption was proposed Scully (1991) and observed Boller et al. (1991); Field et al. (1991) in 1991, and drastic reductions in the group velocity of pulses were discussed shortly thereafter Harris et al. (1992). Recent experiments have taken the reduction of the speed of light to extreme limits Hau et al. (1999); Kash et al. (1999) and at the other extreme lie observations of seemingly superluminal light Wang et al. (2000); Dogariu et al. (2001). An overview of recent developments in the control of photons is presented in Ref. Lukin and Imamoğlu (2001). An earlier review of electromagnetically induced transparency was presented by Harris Harris (1997), while Lukin et al. present a overview of phase coherence in general, with an extensive list of references Lukin et al. (1999). Such effects are also discussed in a recent texts (see, for example, Ref. Scully and Zubairy (1997)). In most previous work the phenomenon of electromagnetically induced transparency and the accompanying drastic slowing of the speed of light are treated using semi-classical theory in which the atoms of the medium are treated quantum mechanically and the fields are treated classically. We use a model in which the entire system is treated quantum mechanically, and study the propagation of a field state containing a single photon. Although coherent states of a single mode quantized field are often considered as the “most classical,” the single photon states that we study exhibit striking parallels with classical fields.

We study a system of three separated atoms at fixed positions in a one-dimensional multimode optical cavity. The first atom serves as the source for a single spontaneously emitted photon; the photon scatters from a three-level $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-configuration atom which interacts with an additional single-mode field coupling two of the atomic levels; and the third atom serves as a detector of the total transmitted field. In the spirit of Feynman’s derivation of the classical index of refraction from the interaction of a field with a single oscillator Feynman et al. (1963), we infer the properties of a medium exhibiting electromagnetically induced transparency from the interaction of the spontaneously emitted quantum field with the single quantized scattering atom. We find an analytical solution for the quantum dynamics, including reradiation from the scatterer, and from this we deduce quantum delays that characterize the propagation of the field. These delays are equivalent to those predicted by semi-classical theories. In our quantum model all delays are clearly the result of interfering amplitudes that reshape the temporal envelope of the probability of detecting the transmitted photon. This effect is most clearly illustrated in the graphs of detection probability vs. time displayed in Sec. V. This work is an extension of the model we have used previously to study quantum manifestations of classical wave delays induced by scattering from simple two-level atoms Purdy et al. . We note that the analytical results obtained in this paper may be verified using the straightforward numerical techniques like those used in Refs. Taylor (2001); Ligare and Taylor (2001); Ligare and Oliveri (2002); Bužek et al. (1999).

## II Review of semi-classical theory

Electromagnetically induced transparency can be observed in the simple three-level atom illustrated in Fig. 1. A strong laser “coupling” laser with angular frequency $`\omega _c`$ is tuned to resonance with the transition between atomic levels B and C, while a weak “probe” laser with angular frequency $`\omega _p`$ excites the transition between levels A and C. In this paper we consider the simplest case in which decay from level C to B is small enough to be neglected, and the only damping is due to emission at a rate $`\gamma `$ from level C to the ground state A. (In the this paper all decay rates $`\gamma _j`$ refer to decay of probability of finding the atom in the excited state.) We also assume that there is no incoherent pumping driving population between the levels of the atom.

In the limit of a weak probe, the complex susceptibility is given by Scully and Zubairy (1997)

$$\chi =\left(\frac{N|d|^2}{\mathrm{}ϵ_0}\right)\frac{\delta }{\omega _R^2/4\delta ^2i\delta \gamma /2},$$
(1)
where $`N`$ is the density of the atoms, $`d`$ is the dipole moment of the transition between levels A and C, $`\omega _R`$ is the Rabi frequency of the coupling transition between levels B and C, and the detuning of the probe laser frequency from resonance is

$$\delta =\omega _p\omega _{AC}.$$
(2)
The real and imaginary parts of the susceptibility are illustrated in Fig. 2 for a coupling field strength such that $`\omega _R=\gamma /2`$.

The index of refraction and the absorption coefficient can be calculated from the real and imaginary parts of the complex susceptibility respectively. When the probe field is resonant with the transition between levels A and C, i.e., $`\delta =0`$, the absorption goes to zero and the index of refraction is a rapidly varying function of probe frequency.

For later comparison with the results of our quantum model, we consider a classical monochromatic plane wave of frequency $`\omega `$ which is normally incident on a thin slab containing atoms with the level structure illustrated in Fig. 1. The plane of the slab is normal to the $`z`$ axis, the thickness of the slab is $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$, and the density of the atoms is $`N`$. If the incident field is $`E_i=E_0e^{i\omega (tz/c)}`$, the transmitted field on the far side of the slab is

$$E_t=E_ie^{i\omega \chi \mathrm{\Delta }z/(2c)},$$
(3)
and for weak scattering the transmitted field is approximately

$`E_t`$ $``$ $`E_i\left(1+i{\displaystyle \frac{\omega \mathrm{\Delta }z}{2c}}\chi \right)`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`E_i\left[1+i\left({\displaystyle \frac{N\mathrm{\Delta }z|d|^2\omega }{\mathrm{}ϵ_0c\gamma }}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\delta \gamma /2}{\omega _R^2/4\delta ^2i\delta \gamma /2}}\right].`$
The scattering is characterized by the dimensionless parameter $`N\mathrm{\Delta }z|d|^2\omega /(\mathrm{}ϵ_0c\gamma )`$.

The dispersion in the response of the atoms in this model leads to delays of pulses traversing such a slab. The delay in the arrival of the peak of a modulation envelope of a quasi-monochromatic pulse that is away from a region of anomalous dispersion is determined by the group velocity $`v_g=d\omega /dk=c/(n+\omega \frac{dn}{d\omega })`$, and is given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }t_g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z}{v_g}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z}{c}}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }z}{c}}\left(n1+\omega {\displaystyle \frac{dn}{d\omega }}\right).`$
For detunings such that $`\delta \omega _{AC}`$ the group delay is

$`\mathrm{\Delta }t_g`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2N\mathrm{\Delta }z|d|^2\omega _{AC}}{\mathrm{}ϵ_0c}}\right)`$ (6)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{(\omega _R^2+4\delta ^2)\left[(\omega _R^24\delta ^2)^24\gamma ^2\delta ^2\right]}{\left[(\omega _R^24\delta ^2)^2+4\gamma ^2\delta ^2\right]^2}}.`$
The functional form of the delay when $`\omega _R=\gamma /2`$ is illustrated in Fig. 3.

When the probe field is resonant with the the transition between levels A and C, not only is the absorption zero, but the group velocity can be extremely small, and this is manifested in the large positive group delay at $`\delta =0`$ in Fig. 3. The central peak in Fig. 3 becomes taller and narrower as the strength of the coupling field is reduced. We note that for some values of the detuning $`\delta `$ the group delay is negative, which corresponds to group velocities greater than the vacuum speed of light $`c`$. Such “superluminal” velocities do not violate causality, and are an effect of pulse reshaping by the dispersive medium. Similar reshaping effects and group velocities greater than $`c`$ occur near simple two-level resonances in both classical and quantum theories Purdy et al. .

For pulses that are either not sufficiently monochromatic, or not sufficiently far away from a region of anomalous dispersion, the simple concepts of phase and group velocity are inadequate to characterize all of the effects of pulse-reshaping as a field propagates. Several other velocities and delays have been developed (see, for example, Refs. Smith (1970); Bloch (1977)) and in this paper we focus on a delay determined by the “temporal center of gravity” of the field intensity of a pulse at a fixed position $`z`$ “downstream” from the slab containing the atoms comprising the medium, i.e.,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }t_^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{t(z,t)^2𝑑t}{(z,t)^2𝑑t}}\right)_{\text{after medium}}`$ (7)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{t(z,t)^2𝑑t}{(z,t)^2𝑑t}}\right)_{\text{vacuum}}.`$
This is closely related to concepts used to define the centrovelocity in Smith (1970). We have investigated this delay in classical and quantum mechanical models of scattering from simple two-level atoms in a previous paper Purdy et al. . For quasi-monochromatic pulses far from resonance this delay is equivalent to the group delay, but in general it is necessary to calculate explicitly the field $``$ in order to determine $`\mathrm{\Delta }t_^2`$. For the specific fields considered in this paper we will show that the “temporal-center-of-gravity” delay happens to be equal to twice the group delay.

## III Quantum Mechanical Model

The quantum mechanical system we consider is illustrated in Fig. 4, and consists of three atoms in a multimode one-dimensional optical cavity that extends from $`z=0`$ to $`z=L`$. This multimode cavity is oriented horizontally in the schematic representation of Fig. 4. The middle atom has an additional interaction with a single-mode field contained in the vertical cavity. The field in the multimode (horizontal) cavity plays the role of the probe field, and the field in the single mode (vertical) cavity represents the coupling field. (The finite optical cavities do not contribute to the physical phenomena under investigation; they simply provide a convenient quantization volume for the field modes used in our calculation.) In the remainder of this section we will discuss the details of our model and the standard quantum optical Hamiltonian we use. We also present the analytical solution for the time dependence of the system.

The atom on the left (atom 1) is a two-level atom which is initially in the excited state, and will be the source of the probe field. The middle atom (atom 2) which will scatter the radiation emitted by the source is a three-level atom with the “lambda” configuration of Fig. 1, with the energy difference between levels A and C close to that of the level separation of atom 1. (The highest level of all three atoms will be labeled as C.) Levels B and C of atom 2 will interact with the single-mode coupling field which is assumed to be exactly on resonance. The coupling field will initially be in a state with a well-defined number of photons such that the Rabi frequency of the transition between levels B and C is appropriate for the observation of electromagnetically induced transparency. The two-level atom on the right (atom 3) will serve as a detector. The detector atom is assumed to have the same resonant frequency as the source atom. The relative energy levels of all three atoms are illustrated in Fig. 5.

We assume that the coupling strengths of the atoms to the probe field are all independent, so that the atoms have separate spontaneous decay rates. Although we find a solution for the dynamics for any decay rates, we focus our attention in this paper on cases in which the decay rate of atom 1 is very much smaller than the decay rate of atom 2. This condition insures that the spectrum of the radiation emitted by atom 1 will be very much narrower than the linewidth of the the scattering atom, and this allows us to compare our results from the quantum case with those of the semi-classical model which assumes that the sample is driven by a monochromatic wave. We also assume that the decay rate of the detector atom (atom 3) is very much greater than any other dynamical rates in the problem. In this limit the excitation of atom 3 will closely follow the field drives it. For simplicity we also assume that the spontaneous decay rate from level C to level B (for atom 2) is negligible.

The zero-field resonance frequencies of the A-C transitions of the atoms are labeled $`\omega _j^{(\mathrm{at})}`$, where $`j=1`$, 2, or 3, and the positions of the atoms will be labeled $`z_j`$. In the remainder of the paper we will assume that the atoms are at positions $`z_1=L/4`$, $`z_2=L/2`$, and $`z_3=3L/4`$, as illustrated in Fig. 4, although our results for delay times do not depend on the exact positions. The standing wave field modes of the probe field cavity are separated in angular frequency by the fundamental frequency

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\pi \frac{c}{L}.$$
(8)
This mode spacing may be small enough that many modes fall within the natural line-width of the atoms.

For convenience we assume that the frequency of one of the modes corresponds exactly to the resonance frequency of atom 1, the emitting atom, and that the length of the cavity is such that it contains an even number of wavelengths of this mode. We label the frequency of this mode $`\omega _0=k_0\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`k_0`$ is an integer divisible by 4. (This assumption affects the details of some of our calculations, but not our results concerning delay times.) The other mode frequencies will be enumerated from this mode so that

$$\omega _k=(k_0+k)\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(9)
where $`k=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}`$

As in the semi-classical case we wish to study the effects of the detuning of the source field on the scattering of the radiation. We use the same symbol $`\delta `$ as in the semi-classical case to represent the detuning of the field, but in the quantum case the detuning is directly tied to the properties of the source and scattering atoms:

$$\delta =\omega _1^{(\mathrm{at})}\omega _2^{(\mathrm{at})}.$$
(10)
Because the detector atom is assumed to have the same resonance frequency as the source atom we have $`\omega _1^{(\mathrm{at})}=\omega _3^{(\mathrm{at})}`$.

We use as basis states the eigenstates of the atomic plus free-field Hamiltonian

$`\widehat{H}_0`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{atoms}}+\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{field}}`$ (11)
$`=`$ $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{atoms}}+\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{probe}}+\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{coupling}}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\omega _1^{(\mathrm{at})}|C_1C_1|+\mathrm{}\omega _2^{(\mathrm{at})}|C_2C_2|+\mathrm{}(\omega _2^{(\mathrm{at})}\omega _c)|B_2B_2|+\mathrm{}\omega _3^{(\mathrm{at})}|C_3C_3|+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mathrm{}\omega _ka_k^{}a_k+\mathrm{}\omega _ca_c^{}a_c,`$
where $`a_k`$ and $`a_k^{}`$ are the lowering and raising operators for the $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$ mode of the probe field, and $`a_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`a_\mathrm{c}^{}`$ act similarly on the single mode of the coupling field. (We have re-zeroed the energy scale to remove zero-point energy of the field modes.) The basis states will be denoted as follows:

* $`|C,A,A;\mathrm{},N`$ — Atom 1 excited, atoms 2 and 3 in the ground state, no photons in the cavity modes, $`N`$ photons in the coupling mode;
* $`|A,C,A;\mathrm{},N`$ — Atom 2 in state C, atoms 1 and 3 in the ground state, no photons in the probe field, $`N`$ photons in the coupling mode;
* $`|A,A,C;\mathrm{},N`$ — Atom 3 excited, atoms 1 and 2 in the ground state, no photons in the probe field, $`N`$ photons in the coupling mode;
* $`|A,A,A;1_k,N`$ — All atoms in the ground state, one photon in the probe field mode with frequency $`(k_0+k)\mathrm{\Delta }`$, $`N`$ photons in the coupling mode;
* $`|A,B,A;\mathrm{},N+1`$ — Atom 2 in state B, atoms 1 and 3 in the ground state, $`N+1`$ photons in the coupling field.

Each atom is coupled to all of the standing wave modes of the probe field, and we use the symbol $`g_{jk}`$ to label the coefficients characterizing the strength of the coupling of the $`j^{\mathrm{th}}`$ atom to the $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$ mode of the probe field. In addition atom 2 interacts with the coupling field, and this interaction is characterized by the constant $`g_c`$. We use the standard electric-dipole and rotating-wave approximation approximations to give the following interaction Hamiltonian:

$`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\mathrm{}\left(g_{jk}a_k^{}|A_jC_j|+g_{jk}^{}a_k|C_jA_j|\right)`$ (12)
$`+\mathrm{}\left(g_\mathrm{c}a_\mathrm{c}^{}|B_2C_2|+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{c}^{}a_\mathrm{c}|C_2B_2|\right).`$
The Rabi frequency $`\omega _R`$ of the transition between levels B and C is determined by the number of photons in the coupling mode and the coupling constant $`g_c`$ as follows:

$$\omega _R=2g_c\sqrt{N+1}.$$
(13)
For convenience we assume that $`\omega _R`$ is real.

We assume that the frequencies of all atomic transitions are very much greater than the fundamental frequency of the cavity, that is $`\omega _j^{(\mathrm{at})}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for all atoms, and similarly for $`\omega _c`$. In this limit we can make the approximation that all modes that influence the dynamics of the system are near the atomic resonances, and the atom-field coupling constants can be factored into a product of a frequency-independent constant and a space-dependent coupling factor. The coupling constants $`g_{jk}`$ are given in terms of the electric dipole matrix element $`d_j`$ between the levels A and C of atom $`j`$, the effective volume of the cavity, $`V`$, and the permittivity of free space, $`ϵ_0`$, by

$`g_{jk}`$ $`=`$ $`d_j\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _j^{(\mathrm{at})}}{2\mathrm{}ϵ_0V}}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left[(k_0+k)\pi z_j/L\right]`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }_j\mathrm{sin}\left[(k_0+k)\pi z_j/L\right],`$
where in the last line we have defined the quantity

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_j=d_j\left(\frac{\omega _j^{(\mathrm{at})}}{2\mathrm{}ϵ_0V}\right),$$
(15)
which is independent of the cavity mode-frequency.

We write the state of the system as the linear combination

$`|\psi (t)`$ $`=`$ $`c_1(t)|C,A,A;\mathrm{},N+c_2(t)|A,C,A;\mathrm{},N`$ (16)
$`+c_3(t)|A,A,C;\mathrm{},N`$
$`+d(t)|A,B,A;\mathrm{},N+1`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}b_k(t)|A,A,A;1_k,N.`$
Choosing the zero of the energy scale at the level of (uncoupled) state $`|C,A,A;\mathrm{},N`$, the Schrödinger yields the following set of coupled differential equations:

$`\dot{c}_1`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}g_{1k}b_k,`$ (17)
$`\dot{c}_2`$ $`=`$ $`i\left({\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}g_{2k}b_k+\omega _Rd/2\delta c_2\right),`$ (18)
$`\dot{c}_3`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}g_{3k}b_k,`$ (19)
$`\dot{d}`$ $`=`$ $`i(\omega _Rc_2/2\delta d),`$ (20)
$`\dot{b}_k`$ $`=`$ $`i\left({\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}g_{jk}^{}c_j+k\mathrm{\Delta }b_k\right).`$ (21)
We solve this set of equations with the Laplace transform technique used by Stey and Gibberd Stey and Gibberd (1972) for a Hamiltonian similar to that for a single atom at the center of one-dimensional cavity. Laplace transforms have also been used to solve the Schrödinger equation in similar problems with two interacting atoms in three-dimensions Milonni and Knight (1974, 1975) and in our own recent work on scattering from two-level atoms Purdy et al. . Because the Laplace transform technique is not new, and because we would like to focus on analogies with the fields in the semi-classical model and physical interpretation, we leave the details of our solution to the appendix, and simply quote our results here.

The general features of the solution giving the time-dependences of the atomic excitation amplitudes are illustrated in Fig. 6. The initially excited atom decays exponentially until the time $`t=0.5L/c`$ at which scattered and reflected radiation first returns to the atom. The amplitudes to find the other atoms excited are identically zero until radiation first reaches them: the scattering atom first becomes excited at $`t=0.25L/c`$ and the detector atom is first excited at $`t=0.5L/c`$. The three decay constants which characterize the spontaneous emission rates of level C in each of the atoms emerge naturally in terms of the parameters of the Hamiltonian as

$$\gamma _k=\frac{\pi |\mathrm{\Omega }_k|^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=|\mathrm{\Omega }_k|^2\frac{L}{c}.$$
(22)
The causal nature of the dynamics is evident in that all disturbances are propagated at the speed of light $`c`$ via the quantum field. The abrupt changes in the complex amplitudes at intervals of $`0.5L/c`$ are a manifestation of the finite speed of light and the atomic spacing of $`0.25L`$.

The abrupt changes appear in our analytic solution for the complex amplitudes $`c_j(t)`$, $`d(t)`$, and $`b_k(t)`$ as sums of terms with step functions that “turn on” at successively later intervals of $`0.5L/c`$. In the following formulas giving these amplitudes we truncate the expressions so that only the first excitation of atoms 2 and 3 are included. We also note that the following equations are specific in some details to the atomic positions $`z_i`$ used in this paper. The “turn-on” times and relative phases of terms will change with different positions, but the conclusions of this paper concerning delay times are unaffected by these details. The time dependence of the system is given by the following set of amplitudes, in which we use the labels $`_i`$ as a shorthand for complicated factors that are functions of $`\gamma _i`$, $`\delta `$, $`\omega _R`$, and (in the case of $`b_k`$), $`k`$:

$`c_1(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{\gamma _1}{2}t}+\mathrm{\Theta }(t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\{e^{\frac{\gamma _1}{2}(t\frac{1}{2})}[_1+(t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})_2]`$ (23)
$`+e^{[(\gamma _2\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2})/4+i\delta ](t\frac{1}{2})}_3+e^{[(\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2})/4+i\delta ](t\frac{1}{2})}_4\}+\mathrm{}`$
$`c_2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }\left(t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right)\left\{e^{\frac{\gamma _1}{2}(t\frac{1}{4})}_5+e^{[(\gamma _2\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2})/4+i\delta ](t\frac{1}{4})}_6+e^{[(\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2})/4+i\delta ](t\frac{1}{4})}_7\right\}+\mathrm{}`$ (24)
$`c_3(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\{e^{\frac{\gamma _1}{2}(t\frac{1}{2})}_8+e^{[(\gamma _2\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2})/4+i\delta ](t\frac{1}{2})}_9+e^{[(\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2})/4+i\delta ](t\frac{1}{2})}_{10}`$ (25)
$`+e^{\frac{\gamma _3}{2}(t\frac{1}{2})}_{11}\}+\mathrm{}`$
$`d(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }\left(t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\right)\left\{e^{\frac{\gamma _1}{2}(t\frac{1}{4})}_{12}+e^{[(\gamma _2\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2})/4+i\delta ](t\frac{1}{4})}_{13}+e^{[(\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2})/4+i\delta ](t\frac{1}{4})}_{14}\right\}+\mathrm{}`$ (26)
$`b_k(t)`$ $`=`$ $`(e^{\frac{\gamma _1}{2}t}e^{ik\pi t})g_{1k}_{15}+\mathrm{\Theta }(t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}})g_{2k}\{e^{\frac{\gamma _1}{2}(t\frac{1}{4})}_{16}+e^{ik\pi (t\frac{1}{4})}_{17}`$ (27)
$`+e^{[(\gamma _2\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2})/4+i\delta ](t\frac{1}{4})}_{18}+e^{[(\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2})/4+i\delta ](t\frac{1}{4})}_{19}\}+\mathrm{}`$
Complete expressions for the factors $`_i`$ may be found in the appendix.

Four time scales are manifest in the exponential factors in these these equations: the exponential decay rate of the source atom $`\gamma _1`$, which is assumed to be small, the exponential decay rate of the detector atom $`\gamma _3`$, which is assumed to be large, and two decay rates associated with the scattering atom, $`\left(\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\right)/2`$ and $`\left(\gamma _2\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\right)/2`$. When the coupling field strength is small, the last of these rates approaches zero. This means that decay from the scattering atom can be very slow, and this slow reradiation is at the origin of the reduced velocities which characterize media with electromagnetically induced transparency.

In the following sections we will focus on two quantities: $`c_3(t)`$, the amplitude to find the detector atom excited, and $`\widehat{}^2`$ the expectation value of the square of the electric field operator, which is proportional to the field intensity. (The expectation value of the field operator itself is $`0`$ for any single-photon state.) In our investigation of $`c_3(t)`$ we will consider only the first term in Eq. (25) describing the initial excitation of the detector atom. Similarly, we will investigate $`\widehat{}^2`$ in regions to the right the scattering atom, and at times that exclude multiple scattering effects.

It is useful to rewrite $`c_3(t)`$ as the sum of two pieces, the amplitude $`c_3^0(t)`$ for atom 3 to be excited in the absence of the scattering atom (or, equivalently, when $`\gamma _2=0`$), plus $`c_3^s(t)`$, the amplitude that is attributable to scattering:

$$c_3(t)c_3^0(t)+c_3^s(t).$$
(28)
Setting $`\gamma _2=0`$ in Eq. (25) gives

$`c_3^0(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }\left(t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\gamma _1\gamma _3}}{\gamma _1\gamma _3}}`$ (29)
$`\times \left(e^{\frac{\gamma _1}{2}(t\frac{1}{2})}e^{\frac{\gamma _3}{2}(t\frac{1}{2})}\right),`$
and subtracting this from Eq. (25) gives

$`c_3^s(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }(t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\{e^{\frac{\gamma _1}{2}(t\frac{1}{2})}_{20}+e^{[(\gamma _2\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2})/4+i\delta ](t\frac{1}{2})}_{21}+e^{[(\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2})/4+i\delta ](t\frac{1}{2})}_{22}`$ (30)
$`+e^{\frac{\gamma _3}{2}(t\frac{1}{2})}_{23}\}`$
where

$`_{20}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\gamma _1\gamma _3}}{\gamma _1\gamma _3}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _2(\gamma _1+i2\delta )}{\gamma _1^2\gamma _1\gamma _24\delta ^2+\omega _R^2+i2\delta (2\gamma _1\gamma _2)}}`$ (31)
$`_{21}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{\gamma _1\gamma _3}}{\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _2\left(\gamma _2\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\right)}{\left(2\gamma _1\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}+i4\delta \right)\left(2\gamma _3\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}+i4\delta \right)}}`$ (32)
$`_{22}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{\gamma _1\gamma _3}}{\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _2\left(\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\right)}{\left(2\gamma _1\gamma _2\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}+i4\delta \right)\left(2\gamma _3\gamma _2\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}+i4\delta \right)}}`$ (33)
$`_{23}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\gamma _1\gamma _3}}{\gamma _1\gamma _3}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _2(\gamma _3+i2\delta )}{\gamma _3^2\gamma _2\gamma _34\delta ^2+\omega _R^2+i2\delta (2\gamma _3\gamma _2)}}`$ (34)
In our investigations of the quantum field itself we use the electric field operator in the form given by Meystre and Sargent Meystre and Sargent (1999), and write the expectation value of the square of the field as

$$\widehat{}^2=\psi (t)|\left\{\underset{k}{}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _k}{ϵ_0V}}\left(a_k+a_k^{}\right)\mathrm{sin}\left[(k_0+k)\frac{\pi z}{L}\right]\right\}^2|\psi (t).$$
(35)
In the limit considered in this paper we can replace the frequencies $`\omega _k`$ under the radical with the constant $`\omega _1^{(\mathrm{at})}`$. After expanding the state vector as in Eq. (16) and evaluating the sums, the expectation value can be written in terms of the amplitudes $`b_k(t)`$ to find the photon in the various cavity modes:

$$\widehat{}^2=2\left(\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _1^{(\mathrm{at})}}{ϵ_0V}\right)\left|\underset{k}{}b_k(t)\mathrm{sin}\left[(k_0+k)\frac{\pi z}{L}\right]\right|^2.$$
(36)
(In this expression we have dropped the infinite term arising from vacuum expectation value of $`\widehat{}^2`$.) Evaluation of $`\widehat{}^2`$ gives a space- and time-dependent representation of the localization of the energy of the photon Bužek et al. (1999); Ligare and Oliveri (2002); Purdy et al. .

The expression for $`\widehat{}^2`$ in Eq. (36) is the square of a complex number that is analogous to the complex analytic signal describing the classical field. We label this quantity $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{q}.\mathrm{m}}`$, i.e.,

$$\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{q}.\mathrm{m}.}=\sqrt{\frac{2\mathrm{}\omega _1^{(\mathrm{at})}}{ϵ_0V}}\underset{k}{}b_k(t)\mathrm{sin}\left[(k_0+k)\frac{\pi z}{L}\right].$$
(37)
We note that the quantity $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{q}.\mathrm{m}.}`$ is effectively equivalent to $`0|\widehat{E}^{(+)}|\psi _\gamma `$, where $`\widehat{E}^{(+)}`$ is the positive frequency part of the field quantized in terms of traveling wave modes, which has been identified as “the ‘electric field’ associated with \[a\] single photon state” by Scully and Zubairy Scully and Zubairy (1997). In a previous paper Purdy et al.  we extended the quantum-classical correspondence embodied in this quantity to fields that include scattering from two-level atoms, and here we extend it to include scattering from three-level atoms that make up a medium that exhibits electromagnetically induced transparency.

For ease of comparison with previous results for the detector atom, we calculate the field at the fixed position $`z=3L/4`$ in a cavity that does not contain the detector atom. With no scattering atom present we find Purdy et al.

$$\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{q}.\mathrm{m}.}^0=i\mathrm{\Theta }\left(t\frac{1}{2}\right)\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{}\omega _1^{(\mathrm{at})}\gamma _1}{2ϵ_0V}}e^{\frac{\gamma _1}{2}(t\frac{1}{2})}.$$
(38)
The energy density passing the point $`z=3L/4`$ exhibits an abrupt turn-on (because of the initial conditions we have chosen) followed by exponential decay Bužek et al. (1999); Scully and Zubairy (1997); Ligare and Oliveri (2002); Purdy et al. . With a three-level scattering atom present at $`z=L/2`$ we find

$`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{q}.\mathrm{m}.}`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{\Theta }(t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}\omega _1^{(\mathrm{at})}\gamma _1}{2ϵ_0V}}}\{e^{\frac{\gamma _1}{2}(t\frac{1}{2})}+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _2(\gamma _1+i2\delta )e^{\frac{\gamma _1}{2}(t\frac{1}{2})}}{\gamma _1^2\gamma _1\gamma _24\delta ^2+\omega _R^2+i2\delta (2\gamma _1\gamma _2)}}`$ (39)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _2\left(\gamma _2\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\right)e^{[(\gamma _2\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2})/4+i\delta ](t\frac{1}{2})}}{\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\left(2\gamma _1\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}+i4\delta \right)}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _2\left(\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\right)e^{[(\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2})/4+i\delta ](t\frac{1}{2})}}{\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\left(2\gamma _1\gamma _2\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}+i4\delta \right)}}\}.`$
The first term in curly brackets is just the previous result with no scattering atom present; the effect of the scattering is contained in the remaining terms. The steady state scattering is contained in the second term in curly brackets. This term decays at the slow rate $`\gamma _1`$ reflecting the envelope of the incident radiation. We claimed previously that for large $`\gamma _3`$ the detector atom response reflects the field incident upon it, and comparison of Eq. (30), which gives the probability amplitude due to scattering for the detector atom, with Eq. (39), justifies this claim. In the limit $`\gamma _3\gamma _2,\gamma _1`$ the factors $`_{20}`$ through $`_{23}`$ that arise in Eq. (30) are proportional to the the coefficients in front of the corresponding exponential terms in Eq. (39).

The quantum pulse of Eq. (38) has the classical analog

$$\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{cl}.}^0=\mathrm{\Theta }\left(t\frac{1}{2}\right)Ce^{(\frac{\gamma _1}{2}+i\omega _1)(t\frac{1}{2})},$$
(40)
where $`C`$ is a constant. If such classical pulses are incident on a thin slab of material with thickness $`\mathrm{\Delta }z`$, density $`N`$, and classical susceptibility $`\chi `$ given by Eq. (1), then the classical transmitted field $`_{\mathrm{cl}.}`$ is identical in form to Eq. (39), except that the terms due to scattering (i.e., those proportional to $`\gamma _2`$) have a magnitude characterized by the small dimensionless factor $`N\mathrm{\Delta }z|d|^2\omega /(\mathrm{}ϵ_0c\gamma _2)`$. A derivation of this result is included in an appendix.

## IV Comparison of semi-classical and quantum mechanical scattering

In the semi-classical model the result of weak scattering of a monochromatic field is contained in Eq. (4). In the limit of narrow bandwidth probe ($`\gamma _1\gamma _2`$) and rapid detector atom response ($`\gamma _3\gamma _1,\gamma _2`$) our quantum probability for the detector atom to be excited by the scattered field is approximated by the first term of Eq. (30),

$`c_3^s(t)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }\left(t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)e^{\frac{\gamma _1}{2}(t\frac{1}{2})}_{20}`$ (41)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }\left(t{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\right)e^{\frac{\gamma _1}{2}(t\frac{1}{2})}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1}{\gamma _3}}}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{i\delta \gamma _2/2}{\omega _R^2/4\delta ^2i\delta \gamma _2/2}}`$
$``$ $`c_3^0(t){\displaystyle \frac{i\delta \gamma _2/2}{\omega _R^2/4\delta ^2i\delta \gamma _2/2}}`$
This is exactly the same functional form as the term due to scattering in the formula for the classical field, Eq. (4). In the classical formula the dimensionless factor $`N\mathrm{\Delta }z|d|^2\omega /(\mathrm{}ϵ_0c\gamma )`$ is assumed to be small. In our quantum model the magnitude of the scattering is determined by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ (or equivalently $`\gamma _2`$), which characterizes the coupling of atom 2 to the probe field. In our one-dimensional model the coupling to the incident field and the decay rate of atom 2 are both completely determined by the single parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$, which means that it is not possible to make the effect of the scattering small without simultaneously making the linewidth of atom 2 very narrow. In a fully three-dimensional model the decay rate of atom 2 would be the result of the atom’s coupling to many more modes, and not just those containing the incident field. This scattering into other modes would reduce the scattering in the forward direction (the direction of the detector) from the amount predicted in our simple model. If the forward scattering is reduced by a factor $`f`$, then a more realistic expression for the excitation of the detector atom is

$$c_3(t)=c_3^0(t)+fc_3^s(t).$$
(42)
In this formula $`f`$ plays a role analogous to the dimensionless factor $`N\mathrm{\Delta }z|d|^2\omega /(\mathrm{}ϵ_0c\gamma )`$ in the formulas for the transmitted field derived from semi-classical theory.

## V Temporal-center-of-gravity delay

The group velocity of a classical field has a clear interpretation for quasi-monochromatic pulses whose central frequency is far from a region of anomalous dispersion: it is the speed at which the peak of the modulation envelope travels. Group delays refer to the delay in the arrival of the peak of a pulse compared to the time expected for propagation through a vacuum. The pulses investigated in this paper have sharp leading edges, and this lack of a smooth modulation envelope means that the results of simple classical theory for quasi-monochromatic pulses should not be expected to be a sufficient guide to full understanding. In this section we will investigate “temporal-center-of-gravity” delays in several classical and quantum mechanical quantities.

The first delay we investigate is derived from $`c_3(t)`$, the amplitude for the detector atom to be excited. As we have argued previously, this amplitude reflects the strength of the incident field in the limit that the response time of this atom is very short compared with other time scales, i.e., $`\gamma _3\gamma _1,\gamma _2`$. The effect of the scattering on this amplitude is evident in Fig. 7, in which $`|c_3(t)|^2`$, the probability for the detector atom to be excited, is plotted for three values of the detuning $`\delta `$, and also for the case in which no scattering atom is present. (The results are plotted for the specific case in which $`\omega _R=\gamma _2/2.`$)

For all detunings, $`c_3(t)=0`$ for all times earlier than $`t=0.5L/c`$, as is expected; all effects on the detector atom occur at times that preserve causality. The qualitative shapes of the detector response depend critically on the detuning $`\delta `$. For $`\delta =0`$ the steady-state absorption coefficient is zero, and this is reflected in the fact that at large times there is little effect of the scattering on the probability. At shorter times the effect of transient oscillations have a pronounced affect, and he temporal center of gravity of the response is clearly shifted toward later times relative to that of the response with no scattering atom present. The temporal center of gravity shifts to earlier times as the detuning is increased, and for values in the vicinity $`\delta =\gamma _2/2`$ it occurs earlier than the in the case of no scattering. This is the region in which negative values of the group delay occur, as is illustrated in Fig. 3. The finite response time of the medium results in large brief transmission of leading edge of the pulse of the field before the high attenuation of the steady state sets in. (A similar effect occurs in scattering from simple two-level atoms Purdy et al. .) At larger values of the detuning, such as the case $`\delta =\gamma _2`$ illustrated in the bottom graph of Fig. 7, most of the probability is again removed at early times, shifting the temporal center of mass back to later times.

We quantify the ideas illustrated in Fig. 7 by identifying an effective arrival time of the photon with the temporal center of gravity of the probability that the detector atom is excited, i.e.,

$$t_{\mathrm{arrival}}=\frac{t|c_3(t)|^2𝑑t}{|c_3(t)|^2𝑑t}.$$
(43)
(In evaluating the integrals in this equation, we use only the first term in the series of Eq. (25), and assume that the decay rates and distances are such that the effect of multiple scattering is negligible.) The delay imposed by the medium is then just the difference in the arrival times calculated with and without a scattering atom present,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t_{c_3}=\frac{t|c_3(t)|^2𝑑t}{|c_3(t)|^2𝑑t}\frac{t|c_3^0(t)|^2𝑑t}{|c_3^0(t)|^2𝑑t}.$$
(44)
To explore the effect of weak scattering we rewrite $`c_3(t)`$ in the form of Eq. (42), and assume that $`f1`$. Our quantum mechanical delay becomes, to first order in $`f`$,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }t_{c_3}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t|c_3^0(t)+fc_3^s(t)|^2𝑑t}{|c_3^0(t)+fc_3^s(t)|^2𝑑t}}{\displaystyle \frac{t|c_3^0(t)|^2𝑑t}{|c_3^0(t)|^2𝑑t}}`$ (45)
$``$ $`2f[{\displaystyle \frac{t\text{Re}\left[c_3^0(t)c_3^s(t)^{}\right]𝑑t}{|c_3^0(t)|^2𝑑t}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{t|c_3^0(t)|^2𝑑t\text{Re}\left[c_3^0(t)c_3^s(t)^{}\right]𝑑t}{\left(|c_3^0(t)|^2𝑑t\right)^2}}].`$
It is straightforward (but involved) to evaluate the integrals in Eq. (45) using the expressions for $`c_3^0(t)`$ and $`c_3^s(t)`$ from Eqs. (29) and (30). After taking the limit $`\gamma _3\mathrm{}`$ and then letting $`\gamma _10`$ we arrive at the following expression for the quantum time delay:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t_{c_3}=4f\gamma _2\frac{(\omega _R^2+4\delta ^2)\left[(\omega _R^24\delta ^2)^24\gamma ^2\delta ^2\right]}{\left[(\omega _R^24\delta ^2)^2+4\gamma ^2\delta ^2\right]^2}.$$
(46)
Recalling that the parameter $`f`$ characterizes the magnitude of the scattering in the forward direction in the same way that the quantity $`N\mathrm{\Delta }z|d|^2\omega /(\mathrm{}ϵ_0c\gamma )`$ does in the semi-classical case, we see that our “temporal-center-of-gravity” delay time for this specific pulse is identical in functional form to the expression for the group delay of the classical field given in Eq. (6). The magnitude of the temporal-center-of-gravity, however, is twice that given by the group delay, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }t_{c_3}=2(\mathrm{\Delta }t_g)_{\mathrm{classical}}.$$
(47)
The difference in the classical group delay and the temporal-center-of-mass delay should not be surprising, because the pulses studied in this paper do not satisfy the quasimonochromatic condition. The delay in the arrival time that we have defined is the result of the reshaping of the “pulse” of excitation of the detector atom. The effect of scattering in the region of resonance is effectively to redistribute (in time) the probability that the detector atom will be excited. The atom can rapidly absorb energy from the probe field, and the coupling field creates a state of the system which can then return energy to the probe field at a rate which can be adjusted, via the Rabi frequency $`\omega _R`$, to be arbitrarily slow. Although we have not demonstrated it explicitly in this work, we are confident that delays of quasi-monochromatic quantum pulses with smooth envelopes can be explained in the same manner.

Because $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{cl}.}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{q}.\mathrm{m}.}`$, and $`c_3(t)`$ all have the same functional form (in the large $`\gamma _3`$ limit), it is easy to see that equivalent delays can be derived from the classical field using Eq. (7), or from the quantum field using the analogous equation

$`\mathrm{\Delta }t_^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{t\widehat{}(z=3L/4)^2𝑑t}{\widehat{}(z=3L/4)^2𝑑t}}\right)_{\mathrm{with}\mathrm{scatterer}}`$ (48)
$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{t\widehat{}(z=3L/4)^2𝑑t}{\widehat{}(z=3L/4)^2𝑑t}}\right)_{\mathrm{no}\mathrm{scatterer}}.`$
## VI Conclusion

We have considered a fully quantized model of scattering by three-level atoms which can exhibit electromagnetically induced transparency. Our model is simple enough that we are able to find an analytical solution describing the complete dynamics of the system. Using this model we have investigated propagation of single spontaneously emitted photons through a medium exhibiting electromagnetically induced transparency, and have defined an effective time of arrival at a detector atom. We have also calculated the expectation value of the field intensity operator, and identified a quantum analog to the complex analytic signal describing the classical field. These quantum mechanical quantities exhibit delays that are clearly the result of pulse reshaping effects. We have compared our delays for quantized one-photon fields with those calculated for classical fields using the index of refraction determined from semi-classical theory, and find them to be in agreement.

## Appendix A Solution using Laplace Transforms

Before solving the coupled differential equations resulting from the Schrödinger equation, Eqs. (17-21), we re-zero the energy scale and measure all energies relative to the energy of the initial state $`|e,g,g;\mathrm{}`$ (ignoring $`\widehat{H}_{\mathrm{interaction}}`$). Taking the Laplace transform of this set of coupled differential equations gives a set of coupled algebraic equations,

$`i\left(s\stackrel{~}{c}_1(s)1\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}g_{1k}\stackrel{~}{b}_k(s),`$ (49)
$`(is+\delta )\stackrel{~}{c}_2(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}g_{2k}\stackrel{~}{b}_k(s)+\omega _R\stackrel{~}{d}(s)/2,`$ (50)
$`is\stackrel{~}{c}_3(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}g_{3k}\stackrel{~}{b}_k(s),`$ (51)
$`is\stackrel{~}{d}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _R\stackrel{~}{c}_2(s)/2\delta \stackrel{~}{d}(s),`$ (52)
$`is\stackrel{~}{b}_k(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}g_{jk}^{}\stackrel{~}{c}_j(s)+k\mathrm{\Delta }\stackrel{~}{b}_k(s).`$ (53)
We solve these algebraic equations for the quantities $`\stackrel{~}{c}_j(s)`$, $`\stackrel{~}{d}(s)`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_k(s)`$, and then perform an inverse Laplace transform to recover the time dependence of $`c_j(t)`$, $`d(t)`$, and $`b_k(t)`$. The details of carrying out such calculations are quite involved, and were completed with the aid of a computer algebra system LIG . In this appendix we outline our approach and present some of our intermediate results.

We begin by solving Eq. (52) for $`\stackrel{~}{d}(s)`$ and Eq. (53) for $`\stackrel{~}{b}_k(s)`$, and substitute the results in the first three equations, giving

$`s\stackrel{~}{c}_11`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{\Delta }\left(f_{11}\stackrel{~}{c}_1+f_{12}\stackrel{~}{c}_2+f_{11}\stackrel{~}{c}_3\right),`$ (54)
$`\stackrel{~}{c}_2`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{\Delta }\left(f_{12}\stackrel{~}{c}_1+f_{22}\stackrel{~}{c}_2+f_{23}\stackrel{~}{c}_3\right)`$ (55)
$`\times \left[{\displaystyle \frac{4(si\delta )}{4(si\delta )^2+\omega _R^2}}\right],`$
$`s\stackrel{~}{c}_3`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{\Delta }\left(f_{13}\stackrel{~}{c}_1+f_{23}\stackrel{~}{c}_2+f_{33}\stackrel{~}{c}_3\right),`$ (56)
in which we have defined the dimensionless sums

$$f_{lm}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\underset{k}{}\frac{g_{lk}g_{mk}^{}}{\frac{is}{\mathrm{\Delta }}k}.$$
(57)
In the limit in which the atomic resonance frequencies are very much greater than the fundamental frequency of the cavity, i.e., $`\omega _j^{(\mathrm{at})}\mathrm{\Delta }`$, these sums may be approximated by extending the range for $`k`$ from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$, in which case the sums have relatively simple representations in terms of trigonometric functions. Explicit expressions for these sums are given in the Appendix of Ref. Purdy et al. .

After solving Eqs. (54-56) for the quantities $`\stackrel{~}{c}_j(s)`$ in terms of the sums $`f_{jk}`$, we rewrite the hyperbolic trigonometric functions resulting from the sums in terms of exponential functions, and expand the resulting expressions in powers of $`\mathrm{exp}(s/2)`$ or $`exp(s/4)`$. We also let $`c/L=1`$ at this point in the calculation. The time dependence of the system is recovered by a term-by-term inverse Laplace transform of the expansion. The step function turn-on of the resulting time dependence arises because of the factors $`\mathrm{exp}(ns/4)`$ in the expansion. The lowest order terms in our expansions of the Laplace transforms are given here:

$`\stackrel{~}{c}_1(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{2s+\gamma _1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2e^{s/2}\gamma _1\left[4s^2+4s\gamma _24\delta ^2+\omega _R^24i\delta (2s+\gamma _2)\right]}{(2s+\gamma _1)^2\left[4s^2+2s(\gamma _2i4\delta )i2\gamma _2\delta 4\delta ^2+\omega _R^2\right]}}+\mathrm{}`$ (58)
$`\stackrel{~}{c}_2(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4e^{s/4}\sqrt{\gamma _1\gamma _2}(si\delta )}{(2s+\gamma _1)\left[4s^2+2s\gamma _24\delta ^2+\omega _R^2i2\delta (4s+\gamma _2)\right]}}+\mathrm{}`$ (59)
$`\stackrel{~}{c}_3(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2e^{s/2}\sqrt{\gamma _1\gamma _3}(4s^24\delta ^2+\omega _R^2i8s\delta )}{(2s+\gamma _1)(2s+\gamma _3)\left[4s^2+2s\gamma _24\delta ^2+\omega _R^2i2\delta (4s+\gamma _2)\right]}}+\mathrm{}`$ (60)
$`\stackrel{~}{d}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i2e^{s/4}\sqrt{\gamma _1\gamma _2}\omega _R}{(2s+\gamma _1)\left[4s^2+2s\gamma _24\delta ^2+\omega _R^2i2\delta (4s+\gamma _2)\right]}}+\mathrm{}`$ (61)
$`\stackrel{~}{b}_k(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i2g_{1k}}{(s+ik\pi )(2s+\gamma _1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i4e^{s/4}\sqrt{\gamma _1\gamma _2}(si\delta )g_{2k}}{(s+ik\pi )(2s+\gamma _1)\left[4s^2+2s\gamma _24\delta ^2+\omega _R^2i2\delta (4s+\gamma _2)\right]}}+\mathrm{}`$ (62)
The inverse Laplace transform of these expressions gives Eqs. (2327).

## Appendix B Coefficients in Analytical Solution

The coefficients that appear in Eqs. (23-27) are given by the following expressions:

$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1\gamma _2\left(\gamma _1^2+4\delta ^2+\omega _R^2i4\gamma _1\delta \right)}{\left[\gamma _1^2\gamma _1\gamma _24\delta ^2+\omega _R^2+i2\delta (2\gamma _1\gamma _2)\right]}}`$ (63)
$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _1\left[\gamma _1^2\gamma _1\gamma _24\delta ^2+\omega _R^2+i2\delta (2\gamma _1\gamma _2)\right]\left[\gamma _1^22\gamma _1\gamma _24\delta ^2+\omega _R^2+i4\delta (\gamma _1\gamma _2)\right]}{2\left[\gamma _1^2\gamma _1\gamma _24\delta ^2+\omega _R^2+i\delta (2\gamma _1\gamma _2)\right]}}`$ (64)
$`_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma _1\gamma _2(\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2})}{\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\left(2\gamma _1\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}+i4\delta \right)^2}}`$ (65)
$`_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma _1\gamma _2(\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2})}{\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\left(2\gamma _1+\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}i4\delta \right)^2}}`$ (66)
$`_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\gamma _1\gamma _2}(\gamma _1+i2\delta )}{\gamma _1^2\gamma _1\gamma _24\delta ^2+\omega _R^2+i2\delta (2\gamma _1\gamma _2)}}`$ (67)
$`_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\gamma _1\gamma _2}\left(\gamma _2\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\right)}{\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}(2\gamma _1\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}+i4\delta )}}`$ (68)
$`_7`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\gamma _1\gamma _2}\left(\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\right)}{\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}(2\gamma _1+\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}i4\delta )}}`$ (69)
$`_8`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{\gamma _1\gamma _3}(\gamma _1^24\delta ^2+\omega _R^2+i4\gamma _1\delta )}{(\gamma _3\gamma _1)\left(2\gamma _1\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}+i4\delta \right)\left(2\gamma _1+\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}i4\delta \right)}}`$ (70)
$`_9`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{\gamma _1\gamma _3}\gamma _2\left(\gamma _2\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\right)}{\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\left(2\gamma _1\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}+i4\delta \right)\left(\gamma _2+2\gamma _3+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}+i4\delta \right)}}`$ (71)
$`_{10}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{2\gamma _1\gamma _3}\gamma _2\left(\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\right)}{\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\left(2\gamma _1+\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}i4\delta \right)\left(\gamma _22\gamma _3+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}i4\delta \right)}}`$ (72)
$`_{11}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{\gamma _1\gamma _3}\left[\gamma _3+i(2\delta +\omega _R)\right]\left[\gamma _3+i(2\delta \omega _R)\right]}{(\gamma _3\gamma _1)\left(\gamma _2+2\gamma _3+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}+i4\delta \right)\left(\gamma _22\gamma _3+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}i4\delta \right)}}`$ (73)
$`_{12}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\gamma _1\gamma _2}\omega _R}{\gamma _1^2\gamma _1\gamma _24\delta ^2+\omega _R^2+i2\delta (2\gamma _1\gamma _2)}}`$ (74)
$`_{13}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{\gamma _1\gamma _2}\omega _R}{\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\left(2\gamma _1\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}+i4\delta \right)}}`$ (75)
$`_{14}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{2\sqrt{\gamma _1\gamma _2}\omega _R}{\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\left(2\gamma _1+\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}i4\delta \right)}}`$ (76)
$`_{15}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\gamma _1i2k\pi }}`$ (77)
$`_{16}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{8\sqrt{\gamma _1\gamma _2}(\gamma _1+i2\delta )}{(\gamma _1i2k\pi )\left(2\gamma _1\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}+i4\delta \right)\left(2\gamma _1+\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}i4\delta \right)}}`$ (78)
$`_{17}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16\sqrt{\gamma _1\gamma _2}(\delta +k\pi )}{(\gamma _1i2k\pi )\left[\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}+i4(\delta +k\pi )\right]\left[\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}i4(\delta +k\pi )\right]}}`$ (79)
$`_{18}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{\gamma _1\gamma _2}\left(\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\right)}{\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\left[\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}+i4(\delta +k\pi )\right](2\gamma _1\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}+i4\delta )}}`$ (80)
$`_{19}`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{4\sqrt{\gamma _1\gamma _2}\left(\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\right)}{\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\left[\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}i4(\delta +k\pi )\right](2\gamma _1+\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}i4\delta )}}`$ (81)
## Appendix C Classical scattering of exponential pulses

A general pulse $`E(z,t)`$ may be written in terms of its Fourier transform as

$$E(z,t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}A(\omega )e^{i(k(\omega )z\omega t)}𝑑\omega ,$$
(82)
where

$$A(\omega )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}E(0,t)e^{i\omega t}𝑑t.$$
(83)
We consider an incident pulse like that of Eq. (40) which for convenience we consider to arrive at the origin $`z=0`$ at $`t=0`$. The Fourier transform of this pulse is

$$A(\omega )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\frac{1}{\left[\gamma _1/2i(\omega \omega _1)\right]}.$$
(84)
The effect of weak scattering on a Fourier component of a plane wave is contained in Eq. (4), and we construct the transmitted pulse to the right of the scattering region from the original Fourier components appropriately modified according to this equation. Weak scattering means that the dimensionless parameter $`N\mathrm{\Delta }z|d|^2\omega /(\mathrm{}ϵ_0c\gamma _2)`$ is small, and for convenience we label this parameter $`f`$. The transmitted field is thus

$`E_t(z,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}A(\omega )e^{i\omega (z/ct)}\left[1+if{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \gamma _2/2}{\omega _R^2/4\delta ^2i\delta \gamma _2/2}}\right]𝑑\omega `$ (85)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[\gamma _1/2i(\omega \omega _1)\right]}}e^{i\omega (z/ct)}\left[1+if{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega \omega _2)\gamma _2/2}{\omega _R^2/4(\omega \omega _2)^2i(\omega \omega _2)\gamma _2/2}}\right]𝑑\omega `$
$`=`$ $`E_i(z,t)+{\displaystyle \frac{Cif\gamma _2}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[\gamma _1/2i(\omega \omega _1)\right]}}e^{i\omega (z/ct)}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(\omega \omega _2)}{\omega _R^2/4(\omega \omega _2)^2i(\omega \omega _2)\gamma _2/2}}\right]𝑑\omega .`$
The integral in the last line above gives the scattered field $`E_s(z,t)`$. We evaluate the integral using contour integration, and note that all three poles are in the lower half of the complex plane. For $`(z/ct)>0`$ the integration along the real axis is closed in the upper-half plane, giving a result of zero; for $`(z/ct)<0`$ the contour is closed in the lower half plane encircling the poles. Evaluating this integral gives

$`E_s(z,t)`$ $`=`$ $`Cf\gamma _2e^{i\omega _1t}\{{\displaystyle \frac{(\gamma _1+i2\delta )e^{\frac{\gamma _1}{2}(tz/c)}}{\left[\gamma _1^2\gamma _1\gamma _24\delta ^2+\omega _R^2+i2\delta (2\gamma _1\gamma _2)\right]}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\gamma _2\sqrt{\gamma _24\omega _R^2})e^{[(\gamma _2\sqrt{\gamma _24\omega _R^2})/4+i\delta ](tz/c)}}{\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\left(2\gamma _1\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}+i4\delta \right)}}`$ (86)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _24\omega _R^2})e^{[(\gamma _2+\sqrt{\gamma _24\omega _R^2})/4+i\delta ](tz/c)}}{\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}\left(2\gamma _1\gamma _2\sqrt{\gamma _2^24\omega _R^2}+i4\delta \right)}}\}`$
This is identical in form to the terms describing the scattered field in the quantum mechanical expression Eq. (39). (The factor $`e^{i\omega _1t}`$ does not appear in Eq. (39) because of the zero chosen for the energy scale in the quantum calculations.)

###### Acknowledgements.

One of us (T.P.) would like to acknowledge support from Bucknell Physics Department Research Experiences for Undergraduates Program (NSF Grant Number PHY-0097424).


text:
# Motion of a condensate in a shaken and vibrating harmonic trap

## Abstract

The dynamics of a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) in a time-dependent harmonic trapping potential is determined for arbitrary variations of the position of the center of the trap and its frequencies. The dynamics of the BEC wavepacket is soliton-like. The motion of the center of the wavepacket, and the spatially and temporally dependent phase (which affects the coherence properties of the BEC) multiplying the soliton-like part of the wavepacket, are analytically determined.

Bose-Einstein condensates of dilute atomic gases in magnetic traps provide a simple many-body system in which to investigate the evolution of a macroscopic coherent quantum system under the influence of external forces . Analytic mean-field solutions for these systems exist even for time dependent external forces . The special scaling properties of the harmonic potential, created by the interaction of the atomic magnetic moments and the average magnetic field of the trap which has a quadratic spatial form, makes it easy to determine the evolution of the condensate even under temporal variations of the frequency of the trap . Moreover, Kohn  and Dobson  have shown that, for any many-body system in an arbitrarily changing harmonic potential, the motion of the center-of-mass of the system is decoupled from the motion of other degrees of freedom of the system.

Here we present an exact solution for the motion of a Bose-Einstein condensate under the influence of a harmonic magnetic field whose center moves as an arbitrary function of time and whose frequency varies arbitrarily with time. When the frequency of the harmonic trap is constant in time, the motion of the condensate is as a rigid body whose shape is not changed as the potential moves, the motion of the center of the condensate is analytically determined, and the time dependence of the phase of the condensate is also analytically obtained. We stress that this result applies not only at the mean-field level of approximation, as described by the Gross-Pitaevskii equation , but quite generally at the field-theory level. Hence, upon shaking a harmonic potential, no matter how vigorously or quickly, a condensate does not develop an above-the-mean-field component, and does not develop a temperature. No amount of shaking will yield a thermal cloud in such a system. When the frequency of the harmonic potential also varies, the center of mass motion of the condensate and its phase can still be analytically determined, and the condensate shape is obtained by solving the Gross-Pitaevskii equation for a harmonic potential whose center is not moving.

We consider a general system of N mutually interacting identical Bosonic particles of mass $`m`$ in an external time-dependent harmonic potential. The Hamiltonian for the system is given by

$$H=\underset{\alpha }{}\left[\frac{𝐩_\alpha ^2}{2m}+\frac{1}{2}m\underset{i=x,y,z}{}\omega _i^2(t)(x_{\alpha i}x_{0i}(t))^2\right]+\underset{\alpha ,\beta \alpha }{}U(𝐱_\beta 𝐱_\alpha ).$$
(1)
Here $`x_{0i}(t)`$ is the $`i`$th component of the time-dependent position vector of the center of the harmonic trap and $`x_{\alpha i}`$ is the $`i`$th component of the $`\alpha `$th Boson. Let us make the coordinate transformation to a new system of coordinates comprising $`𝐗=_\alpha 𝐱_\alpha /N`$ and $`𝐪_\alpha =𝐱_\alpha 𝐗`$ for $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},N1`$. Note that $`𝐪_N=𝐱_N𝐗`$ is a dependent variable equal to $`_{\alpha =1}^{N1}𝐪_\alpha `$, and $`_{\alpha =1}^N𝐪_\alpha =0`$. We can write the quadratic term of the harmonic potential using these variables as:

$$\frac{1}{2}m\underset{i=x,y,z}{}\omega _i^2(t)[\underset{\alpha }{}q_{\alpha i}+X_ix_{0i}(t)]^2=\underset{i=x,y,z}{}\omega _i^2(t)\left(\frac{1}{2}M[X_ix_{0i}(t)]^2+\frac{1}{2}m\underset{\alpha }{}q_{\alpha i}^2\right),$$
(2)
where we have defined $`M=Nm`$ and we used the relation $`_{\alpha =1}^Nq_{\alpha i}=0`$. If, for simplicity of notation, we drop the indices $`i`$ that specify the different components of the harmonic frequency and position variables, the above Hamiltonian now reads

$$H=[P^2/2M+\frac{1}{2}M\omega ^2(t)(Xx_0(t)^2]+\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{N1}{}}[\frac{p_\alpha ^2}{2m}+\frac{1}{2}m\omega ^2(t)q_\alpha ^2+\underset{\beta \alpha }{}U(q_\beta q_\alpha )].$$
(3)
Hence, the general wavefunction $`\psi (x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_N,t)`$ may be written in product form, $`\psi (x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_N,t)=\psi _{CM}(X,t)\psi _{rel}(q_1,q_2,\mathrm{},q_{N1})`$, where the relative part of the wave function does not depend explicitly on time, the effect of the motion (time dependence) of the harmonic potential is only on the center of mass part of the wave function, and this dependence is given via the the quantity $`𝐱_0(t)`$. Thus, the motion relative to the center of mass is decoupled from the motion of the center of mass, and only the latter is influenced by the shaking. This is true at the field-theory level.

At the mean-field theory level, the harmonic potential appearing in the Gross-Pitaevskii equation is of the form

$$V(𝐱,t)=\frac{m}{2}\underset{i=x,y,z}{}\omega _i(t)^2[x_ix_{i0}(t)]^2V_0(𝐱𝐱_0(t),t),$$
(4)
where $`𝐱_0(t)=(x_0(t),y_0(t),z_0(t))`$ is an arbitrary time-dependent displacement of the center of the trap and $`(\omega _x(t),\omega _y(t),\omega _z(t))`$ are the (perhaps time-dependent) trap frequencies. Under the action of a potential of the form (4), the internal dynamics of a system of particles is not affected by an arbitrary motion of the center of the potential. This follows from the fact that a quadratic potential of the form (4) can be expanded at any instant of time around the mean value $`𝐑(t)(R_x(t),R_y(t),R_z(t))`$ of the center-of-mass of the system as

$$V(𝐱,t)=V_0(𝐱𝐑)+m\underset{i}{}\omega _i^2(R_ix_{i0})x_i+\frac{m}{2}\underset{i}{}\omega _i^2(x_{i0}^2R_i^2).$$
(5)
The second term in Eq. (5) corresponds to a homogeneous time-dependent force acting on the system of particles and it can therefore be responsible only for a global shift of the wavefunction in position and momentum space. The third term is coordinate-independent and can therefore be responsible only for a global phase shift of the wavefunction.

We demonstrate this general principle by considering a condensate of alkali atoms in a time-dependent harmonic magnetic trap as given by Eq. (4); we produce the general form for the condensate wavefunction. The following is thereby a generalization of the result of Heller for time-dependent harmonic potentials to the case of interacting many-body boson systems. For simplicity we assume that the condensate can be described by a single mean-field wavefunction $`\psi (𝐱,t)`$, but this assumption is not necessary because the following treatment can be automatically applied if $`\psi (𝐱,t)`$ is regarded as a field operator. In mean-field, the dynamics of a condensate of weakly interacting atoms is determined by the time-dependent Gross-Pitaevskii equation,

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{\psi }{t}=\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2^2}{2m}+V(𝐱,t)+U_0|\psi (𝐱,t)|^2\right]\psi (𝐱,t),$$
(6)
where $`U_0=\frac{4\pi \mathrm{}^2}{m}Na_0`$ is proportional to the number of atoms in the condensate and $`a_0`$ is the $`s`$-wave scattering length for collisions between the atoms. Under the influence of the potential of the form (4), the solution of this equation can be written as

$$\psi (𝐱,t)=\psi _0(𝐱𝐑(t),t)\mathrm{exp}\left\{i[𝐏(t)𝐱/\mathrm{}\varphi (t)]\right\},$$
(7)
where $`\psi _0(𝐱,t)`$ satisfies the time-dependent Gross-Pitaevskii equations with $`𝐱_0(t)=0`$, and the $`i`$th component of the vector $`𝐑(t)`$ satisfies the equation of motion

$$\ddot{R}_i+(\omega _i(t))^2(R_ix_{i0}(t))=0.$$
(8)
In Eq. (7) the momentum $`𝐏(t)=m\dot{𝐑}(t)`$, and the phase $`\varphi (t)=_i\varphi _i(t)`$ is given by

$$\varphi (t)=\frac{m}{2\mathrm{}}\underset{i}{}\left\{_0^t\omega _i^2(t^{})[R_i^2(t^{})x_{i0}^2(t^{})]+[\dot{R}_i(t^{})]^2dt^{}\right\}.$$
(9)
The proof is straight-forward. Assume that $`\psi _0(𝐱,t)`$ satisfies Eq. (6) with $`𝐱_0=0`$, then substitute the solution (7) into Eq. (6) for arbitrarily varying $`𝐱_0(t)`$ to obtain

$$m\ddot{𝐑}𝐱+\mathrm{}\dot{\varphi }=\frac{m}{2}\dot{𝐑}^2+\frac{1}{2}m\underset{i}{}\omega _i^2[(x_ix_{i0})^2(x_iR_i)^2]\psi _0.$$
(10)
It is easy to verify that this is indeed satisfied for $`R_i(t)`$ and $`\varphi (t)`$ given above.

Note that the phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}\left\{i[𝐏(t)𝐱/\mathrm{}\varphi (t)]\right\}`$ in Eq. (7) affects the coherence properties of the condensate wavepacket, which are given in terms of the coherence function $`C(\rho ,\tau ;t)=d^3x\psi ^{}(𝐱+\rho ,t+\tau )\psi (𝐱,t)`$ .

As an example, let us first consider the solution in the case where $`\omega _x(t)=\omega _x=\mathrm{const}`$ and determine $`R_x(t)`$ and $`\varphi _x(t)`$. In this case $`\psi _0(𝐱)`$ may be taken as the ground-state solution of the time-independent Gross-Pitaevskii equation, which is obtained by replacing the time derivative on the left-hand side of Eq. (6) by $`\mu \psi _0`$, where $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential of the condensate. In this case the solution (7) is a solitary solution, namely, the condensate moves as a rigid body without changing its shape. The general solution for $`R_x(t)`$ in Eq. (8) is then given by

$$R_x(t)=\mathrm{cos}\omega _xtR_x(0)+\frac{\mathrm{sin}\omega _xt}{\omega _x}\dot{R}_x(0)+\omega _x_0^t𝑑t^{}\mathrm{sin}\omega _x(tt^{})x_0(t^{}).$$
(11)
In what follows we give some examples for the dynamics in different shaking schemes. For a periodically shaken trap, such that $`x_0(t)=x_0\mathrm{sin}\omega t`$ and $`R_x(0)=0`$,$`\dot{R}_x(0)=0`$ we obtain the following solution

$$R_x(t)=\frac{\omega _x}{\omega _x^2\omega ^2}\left[\omega _x\mathrm{sin}\omega t\omega \mathrm{sin}\omega _xt\right]x_0,$$
(12)
so the instantaneous difference of the center of the wavepacket from the center of the potential is given by

$$R_x(t)x_0(t)=\frac{\omega }{\omega _x^2\omega ^2}\left[\omega \mathrm{sin}\omega t\omega _x\mathrm{sin}\omega _xt\right]x_0.$$
(13)
The expression for the phase $`\varphi _x(t)`$ can be easily obtained analytically in terms of simple trigonometric functions using Eq. (9).

We identify three different regimes for this solution:

1. The adiabatic regime: When $`\omega \omega _x`$, the motion of the condensate will adiabatically follow the motion of the center of the trap. We can then approximate

$$R_x(t)x_0(t)\frac{\omega }{\omega _x}[\frac{\omega }{\omega _x}\mathrm{sin}\omega t\mathrm{sin}\omega _xt]x_0,$$
(14)
whose maximal value is $`\mathrm{max}\{|R_x(t)x_0(t)|\}x_0\omega /\omega _x`$. The adiabatic approximation is justified if this is much smaller than the spatial width $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ of the condensate wavefunction $`\psi _0`$, i.e., $`\omega /\omega _x\mathrm{\Delta }x/2x_0`$.
2. Resonance: If $`\omega =\omega _x`$, then

$$R_x(t)=\frac{x_0}{2}\left[\mathrm{sin}\omega _xt\omega _xt\mathrm{cos}\omega _xt\right],$$
(15)
and the amplitude grows linearly with time.
3. Averaged effective potential: When $`\omega \omega _x`$,

$$R_x(t)x_0\frac{\omega _x}{\omega }\mathrm{sin}\omega _xt,$$
(16)
and the motion of the center of the condensate is only slightly affected by the shaken trap.

Fig. 1 plots $`R_x(t)`$ versus $`t`$ for four different values of the ratio $`\omega /\omega _x`$. In Fig. 1a, $`\omega /\omega _x=0.3`$ and the small deviation of $`R_x(t)`$ from $`x_0(t)`$ is evident. In Fig. 1b, $`\omega /\omega _x=0.8`$ and a substantial overshoot of $`R_x(t)`$ relative to $`x_0(t)`$ is obtained. The linear growth of $`R_x(t)`$ is clearly seen for $`\omega /\omega _x=0.99`$ in Fig. 1c, and the small oscillation of $`R_x(t)`$ is evident for $`\omega /\omega _x=5`$ in Fig. 1d.

For two dimensional motion corresponding to an ellipsoidal rotation of the center of the trap, $`x_0(t)=x_0\mathrm{sin}\omega t`$ and $`y_0(t)=y_0[1\mathrm{cos}\omega t]`$, the solution for $`R_x`$ is given by Eq. (12) and $`R_y`$ is

$$R_y(t)=\frac{1\mathrm{cos}\omega _yt}{\omega _y}+\frac{\omega _y}{\omega _y^2\omega ^2}[\mathrm{cos}\omega _yt\mathrm{cos}\omega t].$$
(17)
The phase $`\varphi (t)`$ is again simple to calculate.

If the trap is periodically shaken in the $`x`$ direction for a finite duration $`t_0`$ and then the shaking is stopped, then the solution for the center of the wavepacket for $`0<t<t_0`$ is given by Eq. (12), and for $`t>t_0`$,

$$R_x(t>t_0)=\frac{\omega _x}{\omega _x^2\omega ^2}x_0\left\{\left[\omega _x\mathrm{sin}\omega t_0\omega \mathrm{sin}\omega _xt_0\right]\mathrm{cos}\omega _xt+\omega \left[\mathrm{cos}\omega t_0\mathrm{cos}\omega _xt_0\right]\mathrm{sin}\omega _xt\right\}.$$
(18)
Analytic solutions to Eq. (8) for arbitrary $`\omega _i(t)`$ are not known. Even for harmonically varying $`\omega _i(t)`$ and $`x_{i0}(t)`$, where Eq. (8) corresponds to a driven Mathieu equation , analytic solutions are not available. In this case, depending on the ratio of the frequencies for the variation of $`\omega _i(t)`$ and $`x_{i0}(t)`$, regular bounded motion or unbounded motion of $`R_i(t)`$ may result. Nevertheless, Eq. (7) with central wavepacket coordinate $`𝐑(t)`$ and phases $`\varphi _i(t)`$ given by Eqs. (8) (9) gives the analytic form for the wavefunction.

The following numerical example illustrates the nature of the analytic solution for a shaken vibrating trap. Fig. 2 plots $`R_x(t)`$ versus $`t`$ for a periodically varying trap frequency $`\omega _x(t)=\omega _x(0)[1+\delta \mathrm{sin}(\omega _vt)]`$. where $`\delta `$ and $`\omega _v`$ are the amplitude and frequency of the vibration. Unbounded motion is expected when either the shaking or the vibration frequencies are resonant with the basic trap frequency $`\omega _x(0)`$ (Fig. 2b), or if the sum of the vibration frequency and shaking frequency, or the sum of integers times these frequencies, is resonant with $`\omega _x(0)`$ (Fig. 2c,d). Unbounded solutions for the volume of the condensate are expected even in the absence of shaking when the vibration frequency is resonant with the trap frequency . However, the motion of the center of the trap causes the center of mass of the condensate to move with respect to the center of the trap, and the amplitude of this motion may be amplified by a resonant change of the trapping frequency.

We stress that the main result of this paper is valid for any system of interacting particles in a harmonic potential. Multi-component BECs with harmonic potentials have solutions which also have the properties discussed above, provided that the time-dependent harmonic potentials for the various components are exactly the same. Since the magnetic moments of atoms in different Zeeman levels, or different isotopic species of the same element, or of different elements (for mixed species BECs) are in general not identical, our solution will in general not be relevant for these cases.

In practice, magnetic traps for BEC alkali atoms are harmonic only near their center within a range $`r_h`$, which is typically a few tens of microns. If such a magnetic trap is shaken, the condensate may enter a region where the true potential is anharmonic. In this case the shape of the condensate may change and the motion of its center of mass may deviate from the solutions given above. The maximal velocity that can be achieved by accelerating a condensate within the harmonic range $`r_h`$ is roughly given by $`v_{max}=\omega _{trap}r_h`$, which is typically of the order of a few cm/sec. By shaking a magnetic trap using a time-dependent gradient magnetic field it is possible to boost condensates in a controlled manner to this range of velocities without changing their shape. This method can also be used in conjunction with other methods of optically output coupling high momentum wavepackets  to create novel wavepackets.

To summarize, quite generally, shaking a a harmonic trap will not cause a thermal cloud of atoms to develop from a condensate state; only the center of mass motion of the condensate is affected. This is true even at the field theory level. We determined analytic solutions for the dynamics of Bose-Einstein condensates of dilute atomic gases in shaken and vibrating harmonic traps as described by the Gross-Pitaevskii equation (the mean-field level of approximation). One potential application of relevance for the field of atom optics is to boost BECs to desired velocities.

Y.J. acknowledges financial support from EC-TMR grants. This work was supported in part by grants from the US-Israel Binational Science Foundation (grant No. 98-421), Jerusalem, Israel, the Israel Science Foundation (grant No. 212/01), the Israel MOD Research and Technology Unit, and the National Science Foundation through a grant for the Institute for Theoretical Atomic and Molecular Physics at Harvard University and Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (Y.B.B.).


text:
# Sublinear and continuous order-preserving functions for noncomplete preorders

## 1. Introduction

Necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a continuous linear order-preserving function for a complete preorder on a topological real vector space are already found in the literature (see e.g. Candeal and Induráin  and Neuefeind and Trockel ). It is well known that there are important applications of such results in expected utility theory and collective decision making. A characterization of the existence of a continuous linear utility function for a complete preorder on a convex set in a normed real vector space was presented by Bültel . Further, some authors were concerned with the existence of a homogeneous of degree one and continuous order-preserving function for a complete preorder on a real cone in a topological real vector space (see e.g. Bosi , Bosi, Candeal and Induráin , and Dow and Werlang ). More recently, Bosi and Zuanon  presented a characterization of the existence of a nonnegative, homogeneous of degree one and continuous order-preserving function for a noncomplete preorder on a real cone in a topological real vector space. In a different context, other authors were concerned with the existence of an additive order-preserving function on a completely preordered semigroup (see e.g. Allevi and Zuanon , and Candeal, de Miguel and Induráin ). Bosi and Zuanon  presented a characterization of the existence of a Choquet integral representation for a complete preorder on the space of all continuous real-valued functions on a compact topological space.

In this paper we provide an axiomatization of the existence of a nonnegative, sublinear and continuous order-preserving function for a not necessarily complete preorder on a real convex cone in a topological real vector space. All the results we present are based upon the notion of a decreasing scale (or linear separable system) which was introduced by Herden  in order to characterize the existence of a continuous order-preserving function for a preorder on a topological space (see also Burgess and Fitzpatrick , and Mehta ).

It should be noted that such a topic can be of some interest in the applications to economics. Consider the following example concerning decision theory under uncertainty. Let $`𝐌=\{\mu _n:n\{1,\mathrm{},n^{}\}\}`$ be a finite family of concave capacities on a measurable space $`(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒜)`$, with $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ the state space, and $`𝒜`$ a $`\sigma `$-algebra of subsets of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. We recall that a capacity $`\mu `$ on $`𝒜`$ (i.e., a function from $`𝒜`$ into $`[0,1]`$ such that $`\mu (\mathrm{})=0`$, $`\mu (\mathrm{\Omega })=1`$, and $`\mu (A)\mu (B)`$ for all $`AB`$, $`A,B𝒜`$) is said to be concave if for all sets $`A,B𝒜`$,

$$\mu (AB)+\mu (AB)\mu (A)+\mu (B)$$

(see e.g. Chateauneuf ). Let $`X`$ be a real convex cone of nonnegative real random variables (i.e., measurable real functions) on $`(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒜)`$, and assume that $`X`$ is contained in $`L^1(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒜,\mu _n)`$ for every $`n\{1,\mathrm{},n^{}\}`$, where $`L^1(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒜,\mu )`$ stands for the normed space of all the real random variables $`x`$ such that the Choquet integral

$$_\mathrm{\Omega }x𝑑\mu =_0^{\mathrm{}}\mu (\{xt\})𝑑t+_{\mathrm{}}^0(\mu (\{xt\})1)𝑑t$$

is finite (see e.g. Denneberg ). Define a binary relation $``$ on $`X`$ as follows:

$$xy\text{ if and only if }_\mathrm{\Omega }x𝑑\mu _n_\mathrm{\Omega }y𝑑\mu _n\text{ for all }n\{1,\mathrm{},n^{}\}.$$

It is clear that $``$ is a preorder on $`X`$, and that $``$ is not complete in general. For every $`n\{1,\mathrm{},n^{}\}`$, denote by $`\tau _n`$ the norm topology on $`X`$ which is associated to $`\mu _n`$, and let $`\tau `$ be any (vector) topology on $`X`$ which is stronger than $`\tau _n`$ for all $`n\{1,\mathrm{},n^{}\}`$ (i.e., $`\tau _n\tau `$ for all $`n\{1,\mathrm{},n^{}\}`$). Then the real-valued function $`u`$ on $`X`$ defined by

$$u(x)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{n^{}}{}}_\mathrm{\Omega }x𝑑\mu _n(xX)$$

is a nonnegative, sublinear and $`\tau `$-continuous order-preserving function for $``$. Indeed, it is clear that $`xy`$ implies $`u(x)u(y)`$ for all $`x,yX`$. If $`xy`$, then we have $`u(x)<u(y)`$, since $`_\mathrm{\Omega }x𝑑\mu _n_\mathrm{\Omega }y𝑑\mu _n`$ for all $`n\{1,\mathrm{},n^{}\}`$, and there exists at least one index $`\overline{n}\{1,\mathrm{},n^{}\}`$ such that $`_\mathrm{\Omega }x𝑑\mu _{\overline{n}}<_\mathrm{\Omega }y𝑑\mu _{\overline{n}}`$. Further, $`u`$ is sublinear since the functional $`x_\mathrm{\Omega }x𝑑\mu _n`$ is sublinear for all $`n\{1,\mathrm{},n^{}\}`$. Finally, $`u`$ is $`\tau `$-continuous since the functional $`x_\mathrm{\Omega }x𝑑\mu _n`$ is $`\tau _n`$-continuous, and therefore $`\tau `$-continuous for all $`n\{1,\mathrm{},n^{}\}`$ (see Denneberg \[12, Proposition 9.4\]).

## 2. Notation and preliminaries

A preorder $``$ on an arbitrary set $`X`$ is a reflexive and transitive binary relation on $`X`$. The strict part and the symmetric part of a given preorder $``$ will be denoted by $``$, and respectively $``$. A preorder $``$ on a set $`X`$ is said to be complete if for any two elements $`x,yX`$ either $`xy`$ or $`yx`$.

If $``$ is a preorder on a set $`X`$, then the pair $`(X,)`$ will be referred to as a preordered set. Define, for every $`xX`$, $`L_{}(x)=\{zX:zx\}`$, $`U_{}(x)=\{zX:xz\}`$.

Given a preordered set $`(X,)`$, a real-valued function $`u`$ on $`X`$ is said to be

1. increasing if $`u(x)u(y)`$ for every $`x,yX`$ such that $`xy`$;
2. order-preserving if it is increasing and $`u(x)<u(y)`$ for every $`x,yX`$ such that $`xy`$.

If $`(X,)`$ is a preordered set, and $`\tau `$ is a topology on $`X`$, then the triple $`(X,\tau ,)`$ will be referred to as a topological preordered space. If $`(X,\tau ,)`$ is a topological completely preordered space, then the complete preorder $``$ is said to be continuous if $`L_{}(x)`$ and $`U_{}(x)`$ are open subsets of $`X`$ for every $`xX`$.

Given a preordered set $`(X,)`$, a subset $`A`$ of $`X`$ is said to be decreasing if $`yA`$ whenever $`yx`$ and $`xA`$.

In the sequel, the symbol $`^{++}`$ ($`^{++}`$) will stand for the set of all positive rational (real) numbers. If $`(X,\tau )`$ is a topological space, then denote by $`\overline{A}`$ the topological closure of any subset $`A`$ of $`X`$.

We say that a family $`𝒢=\{G_r:r^{++}\}`$ is a countable decreasing scale (countable linear separable system) in a topological preordered space $`(X,\tau ,)`$ if

1. $`G_r`$ is an open decreasing subset of $`X`$ for every $`r^{++}`$;
2. $`\overline{G_{r_1}}G_{r_2}`$ for every $`r_1,r_2^{++}`$ such that $`r_1<r_2`$;
3. $`{\displaystyle \underset{r^{++}}{}}G_r=X`$.

If $`E`$ is a real vector space, then define, for every subset $`A`$ of $`E`$ and any real number $`t`$, $`tA=\{ta:aA\}`$. Further, if $`A`$ and $`B`$ are any two subsets of a (real) vector space $`E`$, then define $`A+B=\{a+b:aA,bB\}`$.

A subset $`X`$ of a real vector space $`E`$ is said to be

1. a real cone if $`txX`$ for every $`xX`$ and $`t^{++}`$;
2. a real convex cone if it is a real cone and $`x+yX`$ for every $`x,yX`$.

A real-valued function $`u`$ on a real cone $`X`$ in a real vector space $`E`$ is said to be homogeneous of degree one if $`u(tx)=tu(x)`$ for every $`xX`$ and $`t^{++}`$.

A real-valued function $`u`$ on a real convex cone $`X`$ in a real vector space $`E`$ is said to be sublinear if it is homogeneous of degree one and subadditive (i.e., $`u(x+y)u(x)+u(y)`$ for every $`x,yX`$).

Given a topological real vector space $`E`$, denote by $`\tau `$ the vector topology for $`E`$ (i.e., the topology on $`E`$ which makes the vector operations continuous).

If $`X`$ is any subset of a topological real vector space $`E`$, denote by $`\tau _X`$ the topology induced on $`X`$ by the vector topology $`\tau `$ on $`E`$.

If $`(X,)`$ is a preordered real cone in a topological real vector space $`E`$, then we say that a countable decreasing scale $`𝒢=\{G_r:r^{++}\}`$ in $`(X,\tau _X,)`$ is homogeneous if $`qG_r=G_{qr}`$ for every $`q,r^{++}`$.

If $`(X,)`$ is a preordered real convex cone in a topological real vector space $`E`$, then we say that a countable decreasing scale $`𝒢=\{G_r:r^{++}\}`$ in $`(X,\tau _X,)`$ is subadditive if $`G_q+G_rG_{q+r}`$ for every $`q,r^{++}`$.

## 3. Existence of a sublinear continuous order-preserving function

In the following theorem we characterize the existence of a nonnegative, sublinear and continuous order-preserving function for a not necessarily complete preorder on a real convex cone in a topological real vector space.

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $``$ be a preorder on a real convex cone $`X`$ in a topological real vector space $`E`$. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

1. There exists a nonnegative, sublinear and continuous order-preserving function $`u`$ for $``$.
2. There exists a homogeneous and subadditive countable decreasing scale $`𝒢=\{G_r:r^{++}\}`$ in $`(X,\tau _X,)`$ such that for every $`x,yX`$ with $`xy`$ there exist $`r_1,r_2^{++}`$ with

$$r_1<r_2,xG_{r_1}\text{and}yG_{r_2}.$$

###### Proof.

(1) $``$ (2). Assume that there exists a nonnegative, sublinear and continuous order-preserving function $`u`$ for $``$. Define $`G_r=u^1([0,r[)`$ for every $`r^{++}`$. Let us show that $`𝒢=\{G_r:r^{++}\}`$ is a homogeneous and subadditive countable decreasing scale satisfying condition (2). Using the fact that $`u`$ is nonnegative and order-preserving, we have that for every $`x,yX`$ such that $`xy`$, there exist $`r_1,r_2^{++}`$ such that $`u(x)<r_1<r_2<u(y)`$, and therefore $`xG_{r_1}`$, $`yG_{r_2}`$. Further, since $`u`$ is homogeneous of degree one,

$$qG_r=qu^1([0,r[)=u^1([0,qr[)=G_{qr}\text{for every }q,r^{++}\text{.}$$

Hence, $`𝒢`$ is homogeneous. It only remains to show that $`𝒢`$ is subadditive. To this aim, consider any two rational numbers $`q,r^{++}`$, and let $`zG_q+G_r`$. Then there exist two elements $`x,yX`$ such that $`z=x+y`$, $`u(x)<q`$, $`u(y)<r`$. Hence, using the fact that $`u`$ is subadditive, we have $`u(z)=u(x+y)u(x)+u(y)<q+r`$, and therefore $`zG_{q+r}`$.

(2) $``$ (1). Define, for every $`xX`$,

$$u(x)=inf\{r^{++}:xG_r\}.$$

Then $`u`$ is a nonnegative continuous order-preserving function for $``$. Indeed, by using the fact that $`G_r`$ is a decreasing set for every $`r^{++}`$, it is easily seen that $`u`$ is increasing. Further, $`u`$ is order-preserving by condition (2) above, and $`u`$ is continuous since $`u(x)=inf\{r^{++}:x\overline{G_r}\}`$ (see e.g. Theorem 1 in Bosi and Mehta  for details). In order to show that $`u`$ is homogeneous of degree one, it suffices to prove that for no $`r^{++}`$, and $`xX`$ it is $`u(rx)ru(x)`$. Then the thesis follows by a standard continuity argument. This part of the proof is already found in Bosi and Zuanon \[5, Theorem 1\]. Nevertheless, we present all the details here for reader’s convenience. By contradiction, assume that there exist $`r^{++}`$, and $`xX`$ such that $`u(rx)<ru(x)`$. Then, from the definition of $`u`$, there exists $`r^{}^{++}`$ such that $`u(rx)<r^{}<ru(x)`$, $`rxG_r^{}`$. Since $`u(x)>\frac{r^{}}{r}`$, it follows that $`xG_{\frac{r^{}}{r}}=\frac{1}{r}G_r^{}`$, and therefore we arrive at the contradiction $`rxG_r^{}`$. Analogously it can be shown that for no $`r^{++}`$, and $`xX`$ it is $`ru(x)<u(rx)`$. It remains to prove that $`u`$ is subadditive. By contradiction, assume that there exist two elements $`x,yX`$ such that $`u(x)+u(y)<u(x+y)`$. Then, from the definition of $`u`$, there exist two rational numbers $`q,r^{++}`$ such that $`u(x)+u(y)<q+r<u(x+y)`$, $`xG_q`$, $`yG_r`$. Since the countable decreasing scale $`𝒢=\{G_r:r^{++}\}`$ is subadditive, we have $`x+yG_{q+r}`$, and therefore $`q+r<u(x+y)`$ is contradictory from the definition of $`u`$. This consideration completes the proof. ∎

If $``$ is a homothetic complete preorder on a real cone $`X`$ in a real vector space $`E`$ (i.e., $`xy`$ entails $`txty`$ for every $`x,yX`$, and $`t^{++}`$), then consider the following subcones of $`X`$:

$$X_0=\{xX:xtx\text{ for some positive real number }t1\};$$

$$X_+=\{xX:xtx\text{ for some real number }t>1\};$$

$$X_{}=\{xX:txx\text{ for some real number }t>1\}.$$

In the following corollary, we present a characterization of the existence of a nonnegative, sublinear and continuous order-preserving function for a complete preorder on a real convex cone in a topological real vector space. We recall that, given a preordered set $`(X,)`$, a subset $`A`$ of $`X`$ is said to be an order-dense subset of $`(X,)`$ if for every $`x,yX`$ such that $`xy`$ there exists $`aA`$ such that $`xay`$.

###### Corollary 3.2.

Let $``$ be a complete preorder on a real convex cone $`X`$ in a topological real vector space $`E`$, and assume that $`X_0`$ and $`X_+`$ are both nonempty, while $`X_{}`$ is empty. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

1. There exists a nonnegative, sublinear and continuous order-preserving function $`u`$ for $``$.
2. The following conditions are satisfied:

1. $``$ is homothetic;
    2. $``$ is continuous;
    3. The set $`\{qx_+:q^{++}\}`$ is an order-dense subset of $`(X_+,)`$ for every element $`x_+X_+`$;
    4. $`xy`$ for every $`x,yX_0`$;
    5. $`xx_+`$ for every $`xX_0`$, $`x_+X_+`$;
    6. $`x+y(q+r)x_+`$ for every $`x,yX`$, $`x_+X_+`$, $`q,r^{++}`$ such that $`xqx_+`$, $`yrx_+`$.

###### Proof.

(1) $``$ (2). Assume that there exists a nonnegative, sublinear and continuous order-preserving function $`u`$ for $``$. Then it is clear that $``$ is homothetic and continuous. If we consider any element $`x_+X`$ such that $`x_+tx_+`$ for some real number $`t>1`$, then it is necessarily $`u(x_+)>0`$, and therefore, using the fact that $`u`$ is homogeneous of degree one, condition (2c) easily follows. Finally, it is easily seen that conditions (2d), (2e) and (2f) are verified.

(2) $``$ (1). Consider any element $`x_+X`$ such that $`x_+tx_+`$ for some real number $`t>1`$, and let $`G_r=L_{}(rx_+)`$ for every $`r^{++}`$. Then it is easy to check that the family $`𝒢=\{G_r:r^{++}\}`$ is a countable decreasing scale satisfying condition (2) of Theorem 3.1. Indeed, by homotheticity of $``$, $`xrx_+`$ is equivalent to $`qxqrx_+`$ ($`q^{++}`$), and therefore $`𝒢`$ is homogeneous (see Bosi and Zuanon \[5, Corollary 2\]). Further, $`𝒢`$ is subadditive by condition (2f) since, for every $`q,r^{++}`$, and $`x,yX`$, $`xG_q`$ and $`yG_r`$ is equivalent to $`xqx_+`$ and $`yrx_+`$, which implies $`x+y(q+r)x_+`$ or equivalently $`x+yG_{q+r}`$. Finally, by condition (2c) above, for every $`x,yX`$ such that $`xy`$ there exist $`r_1,r_2^{++}`$ such that

$$r_1<r_2,xr_1x_+r_2x_+y,$$

or equivalently

$$xL_{}(r_1x_+),yL_{}(r_2x_+).$$

So the proof is complete. ∎

Denote by $`\overline{0}`$ the zero vector in a real vector space $`E`$. In the following corollary we are concerned with a sublinear representation of a complete preorder on a real convex cone containing the zero vector.

###### Corollary 3.3.

Let $``$ be a complete preorder on a real convex cone $`X`$ in a topological real vector space $`E`$, and assume that $`X_+`$ is nonempty, while $`X_{}`$ is empty. If in addition $`\overline{0}`$ belongs to $`X`$, then there exists a nonnegative, sublinear and continuous order-preserving function $`u`$ for $``$ if and only if $``$ is homothetic and continuous, and it satisfies condition (2f) of Corollary 3.2.

###### Proof.

From the corollary in Bosi, Candeal and Induráin , there exists a nonnegative, homogeneous of degree one and continuous order-preserving function $`u`$ for $``$. Indeed, the complete preorder $``$ on the real (convex) cone $`X`$ is homothetic and continuous, and we have in addition $`\overline{0}X`$. Let us show that $`u`$ must be subadditive as a consequence of condition (2f) of Corollary 3.2. Assume by contraposition that there exist $`x,yX`$ such that $`u(x)+u(y)<u(x+y)`$, and consider any element $`x_+X_+`$. Then it must be $`u(x_+)>0`$ since $`u`$ is a homogeneous of degree one utility function for $``$, and there exist two positive rational numbers $`q`$ and $`r`$ such that

$$u(x)+u(y)<(q+r)u(x_+)<u(x+y),xqx_+,yrx_+.$$

But here we have a contradiction since it should be $`u(x+y)<(q+r)u(x_+)`$ by condition (2f) of Corollary 3.2. So the proof is complete. ∎