text:
# Thermodynamics and tunneling spectroscopy in the pseudogap regime of the boson fermion model

## 1 Introduction

Recently there was a considerable amount of studies of the pseudogap phenomenon observed in a variety of experiments on the high temperature superconductors (HTSC) . There are two main theoretical interpretations which are presently widely considered in the literature: (i) the pseudogap as a precursor of the emerging pairing fluctuations, and (ii) the pseudogap understood in terms of some new (hidden) ordering taking place in a vicinity of the superconducting phase. Some selective overview can be found e.g. in the recent monograph .

Among theoretical attempts to explain the pseudogap effect of HTSC materials there is a model of itinerant electrons or holes which coexist and interact with the local bound pairs (hard-core bosons) . It is worth mentioning, that the pseudogap has been foreseen within this boson fermion (BF) model a long time before the convincing experimental data became available (see the last paragraph in section IV of the Ref. ).

Pseudogap phase of the BF model is a manifestation of the pairing-wise correlations which start to appear in a system when the transition temperature $`T_c`$ is approached from above (the precursor type interpretation). On a microscopic basis it means that below a certain temperature $`T^{}`$ fermions start to couple into the pairs. These are, however, weakly ordered in phase due to the small superfluid stiffness. The phase coherence sets in at a sufficiently low temperature $`T_cT^{}`$ and then the true superconducting transition occurs. Presence of the incoherent ($`T^{}<T<T_c`$) or the coherent ($`T_cT`$) fermion pairs is accompanied by either the pseudogap or the true superconducting gap formed around the Fermi energy $`\epsilon _F`$.

In general, some advanced methods of the many body theory are required to explore a pseudogap phase within any model. It is because the single-particle and the two-particle correlations are then of equal importance. They should be properly treated taking account of possible feedback effects between both channels in a controlled way. In a context of the BF model such requirements were obtained so far via: a) the selfconsistent perturbative investigation , b) the dynamical mean field theory , and c) the flow equation study . Some alternative way was studied by Micnas et al  who considered the Kosterlitz-Thouless criterion for determination of the superconducting transition $`T_c=T_{KT}`$ and identified $`T^{}`$ with the mean field estimate $`T_c^{(MF)}`$. Authors were able to reproduce qualitatively the Uemura type plots $`T_c`$ versus $`\rho _s`$.

In this short paper we extend our previous study  to analyze the pseudogap shape and its variation with temperature. Direct consequences of the particle-hole asymmetric pseudogap are illustrated on an example of the STM current conductance.

## 2 Model and the origin of correlations

We consider the BF model which is described by the following Hamiltonian

$`H^{BF}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,\sigma }{}}\left(t_{ij}\mu \delta _{i,j}\right)c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}E_0b_i^{}b_i`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`v{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\left(b_i^{}c_ic_i+b_ic_i^{}c_i^{}\right)`$
where $`E_0=\mathrm{\Delta }_B2\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$ is the boson energy, $`\mu `$ is the chemical potential. The second quantization operators $`c_{i\sigma }^{()}`$ refer to the conduction band particles (electrons or holes) and $`b_i^{()}`$ to the composite hard-core bosons (for instance they can represent the trapped electron pairs $`b_i=d_id_i`$). Itinerant fermions propagate between the lattice sites $`i`$ and $`j`$ via the hopping integral $`t_{ij}`$ whereas bosons are assumed to be infinitely heavy. The hard-core property of bosons means that either $`0`$ or $`1`$ boson is allowed to occupy a given lattice site. This local constraint can be formally expressed  through the following semi-bosonic commutation relations $`[b_i,b_j^{}]=\delta _{i,j}\left(12b_i^{}b_i\right)`$ and $`[b_i,b_j]=0=[b_i^{},b_j^{}]`$.

Mechanism of superconductivity and all the other forms of correlations in the BF model (1) are caused by the boson fermion charge exchange potential $`v`$. By decaying into the fermion pairs, bosons gain effectively some mobility. If temperature decreases below the critical value $`T_c`$ then (for $`dim>2`$) some fraction of bosons gets ”frozen” into the BE condensate $`n_0(T)=\frac{1}{N}b_{𝐪=\mathrm{𝟎}}^{}b_{𝐪=\mathrm{𝟎}}`$. For $`n_0(T)0`$, fermions are simultaneously driven into the broken symmetry superconducting state. It can be shown  that the energy gap in the superconducting fermion subsystem is $`v\sqrt{n_0(T)}`$.

For temperatures slightly higher than $`T_c`$ there exist many bosons which occupy the small momenta $`𝐪\mathrm{𝟎}`$ states. Because of the interaction $`v_{𝐤,𝐪}(b_𝐪^{}c_{𝐤+𝐪/2}c_{𝐤+𝐪/2}+h.c.)`$, these boson states $`|n_𝐪_B`$ are strongly mixed with the fermion states $`|n_{𝐤+𝐪/2}_F`$ $`|n_{𝐤+𝐪/2}_F`$ and thereby the life time of fermions might be reduced, especially for $`|𝐤|k_F`$. In consequence, we expect that the fermion density of states might be suppressed near $`\epsilon _F`$.

With the on-site boson fermion interaction given in (1) one can generate only the isotropic gap/pseudogap. Of course, the HTSC materials are characterized by the anisotropic order parameters of the $`d`$-wave symmetry with a possible admixture of the $`s`$-wave component . To capture this aspect it is enough to introduce the intersite coupling $`v_{i,j}b_i^{}\left(c_ic_j+c_jc_i\right)+h.c.`$ when both, the superconducting gap  and the pseudogap  become anisotropic. Here we only discuss the results for the isotropic case but, at a price of more difficult numerical computations, the same procedure can be easily extended to the anisotropic pairing.

## 3 The effective spectra

In order to determine the effective fermion and boson spectra of the model (1) we utilize the flow equation technique proposed by Wegner . The main idea behind is to disentangle the coupled boson and fermion subsystems via a sequence of canonical transformations $`H(l)=e^{S(l)}He^{S(l)}`$, where $`l`$ is a continuous parameter. We start at $`l=0`$ by putting $`H^{BF}H(0)`$, and proceed till $`l=\mathrm{}`$, when we want to obtain $`H(\mathrm{})=H_{eff}^F+H_{eff}^B`$. All the way, from $`l=0`$ to $`l=\mathrm{}`$, we adjust the operator $`S(l)`$ according to the Wegner’s prescription . In practice, disentangling of fermion from boson subsystem can be done within an accuracy of the order $`v^3`$ . To simplify the matters we neglect the hard-core constraint and use the pure bosonic relations $`[b_i,b_j^{}]\delta _{i,j}`$ which should be valid for small boson concentrations $`n_B=b_i^{}b_i`$.

After the disentangling procedure is finished we obtain the following structure for the boson contribution to the effective Hamiltonian $`H_{eff}^B=_𝐪\left(E_𝐪2\mu \right)`$. The initial boson energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_B`$ is thus transformed into the dispersion $`E_𝐪`$ which is characterized by the width proportional to $`v^2`$ and the effective boson mass comparable with the mass of fermions . $`H_{eff}^F`$ part, on the other hand, is given as $`H_{eff}^F=_{𝐤,\sigma }\left(\epsilon _𝐤\mu \right)c_{𝐤\sigma }^{}c_{𝐤\sigma }+\frac{1}{N}_{𝐤,𝐩,𝐪}U_{𝐤,𝐩,𝐪}c_𝐤^{}c_𝐩^{}c_𝐪c_{𝐤+𝐩𝐪}`$. Renormalization of $`\epsilon _𝐤`$ with respect to the initial dispersion $`\epsilon _𝐤^0`$ takes place mainly around $`𝐤_F`$. There is also induced the long range fermion-fermion interaction $`U_{𝐤,𝐩,𝐪}`$ which has somewhat unusual resonant-like character as shown in Figs 7 and 8 of  for the BCS $`U_{𝐤,𝐤,𝐪}`$ and for the density-density $`U_{𝐤,𝐪,𝐪}`$ channels.

Previously  we discussed the fermion spectrum only on a basis of the quasiparticle energy $`\epsilon _𝐤`$. However, in some cases, a considerable influence may also arise from the fermion-fermion interactions. These interactions are in principle small, $`|U_{𝐤,𝐩,𝐪}|`$ is of the order $`v^2`$, so we can treat them perturbatively. The effective dispersion $`\overline{\epsilon }_{𝐤\sigma }(l)`$ is for $`T>T_c`$ given by

$`\overline{\epsilon }_𝐤=\epsilon _𝐤+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}U_{𝐤,𝐪,𝐪}c_𝐪^{}c_𝐪.`$ (2)
At $`T<T_c`$ one should also consider the other contribution coming from the BCS channel $`U_{𝐤,𝐤,𝐪}`$. We restrict our attention only to the normal phase ($`T>T_c`$).

In the left h.s. panel of figure 1 we show the density of fermion states $`\rho (\omega )\frac{1}{N}_𝐤\delta \left(\omega \overline{\epsilon }_𝐤\right)`$. Note, that there appears a pseudogap which deepens with a decreasing temperature $`T`$. The pseudogap structure has a clear particle-hole asymmetry at all the temperatures. Asymmetry finally disappears at very high temperatures $`T0.1`$ (not shown here). The boson density of states $`\frac{1}{N}_𝐪\delta \left(\mathrm{\Omega }E_𝐪\right)`$ is much less affected by a varying temperature (see Fig. 4 in ). However, upon decreasing $`T`$ we observe (see the right h.s. panel of figure 1) a considerable redistribution of boson occupancy $`N_B(\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{1}{N}_𝐪\delta \left(\mathrm{\Omega }E_𝐪\right)f_{BE}(E_𝐪2\mu ,T)`$, here $`f_{BE}`$ is the Bose Einstein distribution. By comparing both the panels of figure 1 we notice that the pseudogap builds up when bosons start populating the low energy states $`E_{𝐪\mathrm{𝟎}}`$.

Asymmetry of the pseudogap structure is mainly controlled by the boson concentration $`n_B`$. Here is a simple argumentation. If the boson energy is located in a center of the fermion band ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_B=0`$), then for the exactly half-filled fermion and boson subsystems they both must have symmetric spectra. In particular, the pseudogap would then become symmetric too. For the situation presented in Fig. 1 we have $`n_F1`$, so it can only be the boson concentration $`n_B`$ responsible for the asymmetry of $`\rho (\omega )`$. A more detailed analysis will be presented in the future publication.

## 4 Single particle spectroscopy

Our results, in particular effects of the particle-hole asymmetry, can be well illustrated by calculating the single particle tunneling current $`J`$. The differential conductance $`\sigma (V)=dJ/dV`$ as a function of bias voltage $`V`$ is a direct probe of the density of states below and above the Fermi energy. We use the following expression for the STM current

$`J(V)=const{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}d\omega \rho (\omega )[f_{FD}(\omega ,T)`$
$`f_{FD}(\omega eV,T)],`$ (3)
where $`f_{FD}`$ stands for the Fermi Dirac distribution. As usually, we neglect the energy $`\omega `$ and $`𝐤`$-dependence of the tunneling matrix .

In figure 2 we show the conductance $`\sigma (V)`$ of the STM current (3) obtained for the same set of parameters as in Fig. 1. We obtain the negative-positive asymmetric characteristics because, at low T, the conductance is roughly proportional to the density of states $`\rho (\omega )`$. Our results agree very well with the experimental data reported by Renner et al . Unfortunately, we are unable to pass through $`T_c`$ (we solve the flow equations using the one dimensional tight binding dispersion $`\epsilon _𝐤^0`$  when $`T_c^{dim=1}=0`$). However, for the realistic $`dim>2`$, we expect the asymmetry to survive even at $`T<T_c`$ as seen experimentally .

Let us point out the main features of the pseudogap probed experimentally by the STM conductance : (i) it is asymmetric, (ii) its magnitude (the peak to peak distance) is almost temperature independent, and (iii) the pseudogap deepens with a decreasing temperature while the coherence peaks gradually start to appear. The BF model is capable to reproduce all these features (i)-(iii). Some other theoretical concepts discussed in the literature to explain $`\sigma (V)`$, e.g.  and references cited therein, are dealing with the physics which microscopically is very close to the BF model (1).

Acknowledgment T.D. kindly acknowledges hospitality of the J. Fourier University and Centre de Recherches sur les Très Basses Temperatures in Grenoble, where this study was carried out. The work was partly supported by the Polish State Committee for Scientific Research, grant No. 2P03B 106 18.


format: text

text:
# From Qubits to Continuous–Variable Quantum Computation

## Abstract

By encoding a qudit in a harmonic oscillator and investigating the $`d\mathrm{}`$ limit, we give an entirely new realization of continuous–variable quantum computation. The generalized Pauli group is generated by number and phase operators for harmonic oscillators.

The use of continuous–variable (CV) quantum computing allows information to be encoded and processed much more compactly and efficiently than with discrete–variable (qubit) computing. With CV realizations, one can perform quantum information processes using fewer coupled quantum systems: a considerable advantage for the experimental realization of quantum computing. The rapidly developing field of CV quantum information theory has applications to quantum error correction , quantum cryptography  and quantum teleportation , including an experimental realization of CV quantum teleportation .

At present, the proposed realization of CV quantum computation employs position eigenstates as a computational basis ; these states are approximated experimentally using highly squeezed states . Here, we introduce new CV realizations, where the generalized Pauli group is generated by the number operator $`\widehat{N}`$ and a phase operator $`\widehat{\theta }`$, and the computational basis is given either by harmonic oscillator number eigenstates or phase eigenstates. These realizations are obtained formally by taking the $`d\mathrm{}`$ limit of the qudit, the $`d`$–dimensional generalization of the qubit, and are important for four key reasons:

1. these CV realizations are entirely distinct from the position eigenstate computational basis realization, both in terms of the computational basis and in terms of the SUM gate;
2. the SUM gate employs a standard Kerr optical nonlinearity to couple two modes;
3. these realizations give natural extensions of the qubit–based (discrete–variable) Pauli group, with a well–defined limiting procedure; and
4. these realizations give a new implementation of the well–studied phase operator .

In this letter, we review the generalized Pauli group for qudits, and we construct the generators of the generalized Pauli group in $`d`$ dimensions using operators that will be shown to be expressible in terms of the SU(2) angular momentum and phase operators. This construction allows us to conveniently view the $`d`$–dimensional space of qudits as the Hilbert space of a $`d`$–dimensional irrep of SU(2). We also express the qudits in terms of harmonic oscillator states and investigate the $`d\mathrm{}`$ limit, and show that it is *not* the common generalization of the Pauli group for CV quantum information (i.e., the Heisenberg–Weyl group) with position eigenstates as the computational basis. Instead, we obtain a new CV realization, where the generalized Pauli group is generated by the number operator $`\widehat{N}`$ and a phase operator $`\widehat{\theta }`$. We also construct a second realization of qudits in terms of phase states and show that this realization is “dual” to the first realization given here. Finally, we discuss a realization of CV quantum computation in coupled harmonic oscillators. We establish a SUM gate, which serves as the CV analogue of the CNOT gate; this SUM gate employs a $`\chi ^{(3)}`$ optical nonlinearity and is distinct in operation from the SUM gate suggested  for the position–eigenstate computational basis.

We begin by reviewing the Pauli group of a qubit, and its generalization to the qudit. A qubit is realized as a state in a two–dimensional Hilbert space $`_2`$. It is customary to choose two normalized orthogonal states, $`|0`$ and $`|1`$, to serve as a computational basis for $`_2`$. The unitary operators $`\{X_2\sigma _x,Z_2\sigma _z\}`$, where the $`\sigma _i`$ are the Pauli spin matrices, generate the Pauli group using matrix multiplication. The elements of this group are known as Pauli operators and provide a basis of unitary operators on $`_2`$.

Just as a qubit is realized as a state in a Hilbert space of dimension two, a qudit is realized as a state in a $`d`$–dimensional Hilbert space $`_d`$. It is useful to choose a computational basis $`\{|s;s=0,1,\mathrm{},d1\}`$ for $`_d`$, which serves as the generalization of the binary basis $`\{|0,|1\}`$ of the qubit.

A basis for unitary operators on $`_d`$ is given by the generalized Pauli operators

$$(X_d)^a(Z_d)^b,a,b0,1,\mathrm{}d1,$$
(1)
where $`X_d`$ and $`Z_d`$ are defined by their action on the computational basis as follows:

$`X_d|s`$ $`=`$ $`|s+1(\mathrm{mod}d),`$ (2)
$`Z_d|s`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \mathrm{i}s/d)|s.`$ (3)
The operators $`X_d`$ and $`Z_d`$ generate a group under matrix multiplication, known as the generalized Pauli group. Note that $`X_d`$ and $`Z_d`$ are non–commutative and obey

$$Z_dX_d=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i/d)X_dZ_d.$$
(4)
In the following, we give a representation of $`X_d`$ and $`Z_d`$ in the $`d`$–dimensional Hilbert space of a SU(2) irrep of highest weight (angular momentum) $`j=(d1)/2`$. The relevant generalized Pauli operators can be viewed in terms of SU(2) angular momentum and phase operators .

Consider the standard basis for the su(2) algebra $`\{\widehat{J}_z,\widehat{J}_\pm =\widehat{J}_x\pm \mathrm{i}\widehat{J}_y\}`$. Let $`\{|j,m)_z;m=j,\mathrm{},j\}`$ denote the standard weight basis for the Hilbert space $`_{d=2j+1}`$ for an SU(2) irrep of highest weight (angular momentum) $`j`$. We use the simplifying notation of Vourdas  where we allow $`m`$ to take all the integer (or half–integer) values modulo $`2j+1`$, thus defining $`|j,j+1)_z=|j,j)_z`$.

With the computational basis defined to be

$$|s|j,js)_z,s=0,1,\mathrm{},d1,$$
(5)
we now write the generators of the generalized Pauli group in terms of operators that act in a natural way on our SU(2) basis states. Because the basis states are eigenstates of $`\widehat{J}_z`$, we have

$$Z_d\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi \mathrm{i}(j\widehat{J}_z)/d\right),$$
(6)
which is unitary and satisfies Eq. (3). For the generalized Pauli operator $`X_d`$, we use

$$X_d\underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}|j,m)_z(j,m+1|.$$
(7)
One can easily check that $`X_d`$ satisfies Eq. (2) under the identification of Eq. (7) and that it is unitary. The operators $`X_d`$ and $`Z_d`$ satisfy Eq. (4) and together generate a representation of the generalized Pauli group for a qudit. It is convenient to view $`X_d`$ as the exponent of a Hermitian operator $`X_d=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \mathrm{i}\widehat{\theta }_z/d)`$, just as $`Z`$ is generated by the operator $`\widehat{J}_z`$. The operator $`\widehat{\theta }_z`$ is the SU(2) phase operator of Vourdas .

It is also possible to realize the operators $`X_d`$ and $`Z_d`$ as operators that act naturally on the space $`_d`$ of dimension $`d`$ spanned by harmonic oscillator states of no more than $`d1`$ bosons. We define the computational basis to be the set of harmonic oscillator energy eigenstates

$$|s|n=s_{\mathrm{HO}},s=0,1,\mathrm{},d1,$$
(8)
where $`\widehat{N}|n_{\mathrm{HO}}=n|n_{\mathrm{HO}}`$. Again, we apply the cyclic notation $`|d=|0`$. Encoding a qudit in an oscillator is important not only for investigating the $`d\mathrm{}`$ limit, but also for realizing a qudit experimentally and for creating error–correcting codes for qudit–based computation .

In this Hilbert space, the generators $`X_d`$ and $`Z_d`$ of the generalized Pauli group for a qudit become

$$X_d\underset{s=0}{\overset{d1}{}}|s+1s|,Z_d\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \mathrm{i}\widehat{N}/d),$$
(9)
which are unitary on $`_d`$. It is convenient to view $`X_d`$ as the exponent of a Hermitian operator $`\widehat{\theta }_z`$, such that $`X_d=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \mathrm{i}\widehat{\theta }_z/d)`$; the operator $`\widehat{\theta }_z`$ is the Pegg–Barnett phase operator . We will call this representation of the generalized Pauli group the number representation.

The explicit realization of $`X_d`$ and $`Z_d`$ as unitary operators on the harmonic oscillator Hilbert space enables us to investigate the $`d\mathrm{}`$ limit; the limiting procedure for phase operators has been thoroughly investigated . In this limit, the computational basis remains the harmonic oscillator energy eigenstates (now including all states $`s=0,1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$), following Eq. (8). It is natural to generalize the operator $`X_d`$ to a continuous transformation $`X(x)`$, generated by the phase operator $`\widehat{\theta }_z`$; i.e.,

$$X(x)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}x\widehat{\theta }_z),x.$$
(10)
Similarly, the CV generalization of $`Z_d`$ is obtained by replacing the finite angle $`2\pi /d`$ in the expression for $`Z_d`$ in Eq. (9) by the continuous angle $`z`$, so that we now have the unitary transformation $`Z(z)`$ defined by

$$Z(z)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}z\widehat{N}).$$
(11)
Note that, in extending the above representation of the generalized Pauli group from qudits to CV representations, we do not obtain the usual generalization as the Heisenberg–Weyl group, with position $`\widehat{x}`$ and momentum $`\widehat{p}`$ operators as generators. Instead, the generalized Pauli operators are generated by the number operator $`\widehat{N}`$ and the phase operator $`\widehat{\theta }_z`$; these operators are in a sense “conjugate” like momentum and position, but there exist challenging problems with defining the phase operator on the infinite–dimensional Hilbert space $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ of the harmonic oscillator . It is also interesting to note that the states of the computational basis for the limiting case remain harmonic oscillator energy eigenstates, not position (or momentum) eigenstates or squeezed Gaussians as are commonly used for CV quantum computing. In what follows, we will refer to this representation as the number representation of the generalized CV Pauli group.

It is possible to construct another realization of $`X_d`$ and $`Z_d`$ in the Hilbert space $`_d`$ for an irrep of SU(2) where the computational basis is given by SU(2) phase states. This representation is “dual” to the number representation. Consider the relation $`\mathrm{i}X_2=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}(\pi /2)X_2)`$ for qubits; i.e., that

$$|1=X_2|0=(\mathrm{i})e^{\mathrm{i}(\pi /2)X_2}|0.$$
(12)
The Pauli operator $`X_2`$ has two interpretations, each of which can be generalized in a different way. In the number representation, we interpreted $`X_2`$ as a number state raising operator $`|1=X_2|0`$ and generalized this operator as such. However, using the relation (12), we can also view $`X_2`$ as a rotation. (Using the su(2) representation $`X_2=2\widehat{J}_x`$, this rotation is about the $`x`$–axis.) Thus, the state $`|1`$ is obtained (up to a phase) by rotating $`|0`$ by an angle $`\pi `$ about the $`x`$–axis. The computational basis states needed for this type of generalization to qudits are “SU(2) phase states” and have been investigated by Vourdas  (although using rotations generated by $`\widehat{J}_z`$ rather than $`\widehat{J}_x`$). These states form an orthonormal basis for the SU(2) irrep and are “dual” to the usual weight basis.

Let $`\{|j,m)_x;m=j,\mathrm{},j\}`$ be the weight basis for an SU(2) irrep of angular momentum $`j=(d1)/2`$, where $`\widehat{J}_x`$ rather than $`\widehat{J}_z`$ is diagonal; i.e., $`\widehat{J}_x|j,m)_x=m|j,m)_x`$. For this representation, we define the computational basis states to be

$`|s`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}}\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \mathrm{i}ms/d)|j,m)_x,d\mathrm{odd},`$ (13)
$`|s`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=j}{\overset{j}{}}}\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \mathrm{i}(m+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})s/d)|j,m)_x,d\mathrm{even}.`$ (14)
These states form an orthonormal basis for $`_d`$ . They are referred to as SU(2) phase states because they are eigenstates of the SU(2) phase operator, defined below.

The generalized Pauli operator $`X_d`$ on this computational basis is given by

$`X_d`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi \mathrm{i}\widehat{J}_x/d\right),d\mathrm{odd},`$ (15)
$`X_d`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\pi /d)\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi \mathrm{i}\widehat{J}_x/d\right),d\mathrm{even},`$ (16)
satisfying Eq. (2). Note that $`(X_d)^d=\widehat{𝟙}`$ for both $`j`$ integral and half–integral (i.e., spinor). The generalized Pauli operator $`Z_d`$ is given by

$$Z_d\underset{s=0}{\overset{d1}{}}\mathrm{exp}(2\pi \mathrm{i}s/d)|ss|,$$
(17)
which is unitary and satisfies Eq. (3). Note that we can express $`Z_d`$ as the exponent of a Hermitian operator,

$$Z_d=\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi \mathrm{i}\widehat{\theta }_x/d\right),\widehat{\theta }_x\underset{s=0}{\overset{d1}{}}s|ss|;$$
(18)
the operator $`\widehat{\theta }_x`$ is the SU(2) phase operator.

Note that this representation of the generalized Pauli group is “dual” to the number representation in the same sense that the position and momentum representations of the harmonic oscillator are dual. For the number representation, the computational basis states are eigenstates of $`\widehat{J}_z`$, and the phase operator $`\widehat{\theta }_z`$ generates the “ladder” transformations. In the phase representation given here, the computational basis states are eigenstates of the phase operator $`\widehat{\theta }_x`$, i.e., “phase eigenstates”, and it is $`\widehat{J}_x`$ which generates the ladder transformations via rotations about the $`x`$–axis. Both of these representations can be considered natural generalizations of the qubit case, because the standard computational basis $`|0=|\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})_z`$ and $`|1=|\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})_z`$ are both eigenstates of $`\widehat{J}_z`$ and phase eigenstates of $`\widehat{\theta }_x`$.

As with the number representation, this phase representation of the generalized Pauli group can be expressed in a harmonic oscillator Hilbert space. Again, the $`d\mathrm{}`$ limit yields challenging problems: it is well known that phase eigenstates do not exist in the infinite–dimensional Hilbert space $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ of the harmonic oscillator .

In any experimental realization, the problems associated with taking the $`d\mathrm{}`$ limit would not arise. A physically realistic system would have a finite energy cutoff (and an associated resolution in time and thus phase), and so experimental CV computation would in actuality involve qudits with finite (although possibly very large) $`d`$. As a result of our well–defined limiting procedure for qudits, the above realization of CV quantum computation is applicable to such a physically realistic system.

TO perform universal CV computation , it is necessary to be able to realize an arbitrary unitary transformation on a single qudit, and to have a controlled two–qudit interaction gate such as the SUM gate . Considering an optical realization, an arbitrary unitary transformation on a single qudit, to any desired precision, can be performed efficiently using a combination of linear optics, parametric down–conversion, and a nonlinear optical Kerr medium . By this combination, one can approximate (to arbitrary accuracy) any polynomial Hamiltonian in $`\widehat{a}^{}`$ and $`\widehat{a}`$. Of particular importance is to realize the Fourier transform operation on a single qudit, which takes number eigenstates to phase eigenstates and vice versa. This operation is the generalization of the Hadamard transformation for qubits.

For quantum computation, we must also realize a gate that performs a two–qudit interaction. Consider two oscillators coupled by the four–wave mixing interaction Hamiltonian $`\chi \widehat{N}_1\widehat{N}_2=\chi \widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2`$. This Hamiltonian for an optical system describes a four–wave mixing process in which $`\chi `$ is proportional to the third–order nonlinear susceptibility . Let oscillator $`1`$ be in a state $`|s_1_1`$ encoded in the number state basis, and let oscillator $`2`$ be in a state $`|s_2_2`$ encoded in the phase state basis. This interaction Hamiltonian generates the transformation

$$e^{\mathrm{i}\chi \widehat{N}_1\widehat{N}_2t}|s_1_1|s_2_2=|s_1_1|(\frac{\chi t}{2\pi })s_1+s_2_2.$$
(19)
Thus, with time $`t=2\pi \chi ^1`$, this Hamiltonian generates the SUM transformation $`|s_1_1|s_2_2|s_1_1|s_1+s_2_2`$.

In summary, we have presented a new form of continuous variable computation in terms of number and phase operators. This new approach has the advantage over position–eigenstate CV computation in that the computational basis states, for large but finite $`d`$, are well–defined and obtainable, and do not require “infinite–squeezing” of Gaussian wavepackets.

This project has been supported by an Australian Research Council Large Grant and by a Macquarie University Research Grant. We acknowledge helpful discussions with Samuel Braunstein.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The static potential is the object more accurately studied by (quenched) lattice simulations. This is due to its relevance in order to understand the dynamics of QCD. On the one hand, it is a necessary ingredient in a Schrödinger-like formulation of the Heavy Quarkonium. On the other hand, a linear growing behavior at long distance is signaled as a proof of confinement. Moreover, throughout the last years, lattice simulations  have improved their predictions at short distances allowing, for the first time ever, the comparison between perturbation theory and lattice simulations. Therefore, the static potential provides a unique place where to test lattice and/or perturbation theory (depending on the view of the reader), as well as an ideal place where to study the interplay between perturbative and non-perturbative physics. This is even more so since the accuracy of the perturbative prediction of the static potential has also improved significantly recently .

Let us first review the status of the art nowadays. The prediction for the perturbative static potential at two loops  indicated the failure (non-convergence) of perturbation theory at amazingly short distances. This failure of perturbation theory is not solved by the inclusion of the leading logs at three loops computed in  nor by performing a renormalization group (RG) improvement of the static potential at next-to-next-to-leading log (NNLL) .111 There also exists a computation of the running of the Coulomb potential in vNRQCD  with the same precision that disagrees with the one obtained in pNRQCD . At this respect, we would like to report on a recent computation  of the 4-loop double log term of the Coulomb potential proportional to $`C_A^3\beta _0`$ that agrees with the pNRQCD result and disagrees with the vNRQCD one.

On the other hand, it was soon realized that the static potential suffered of renormalons  and that the leading one (of $`O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}})`$) cancelled with the leading renormalon of twice the pole mass . Nevertheless, the prediction of perturbation theory for the slope of the static potential should not suffer, in principle, from this renormalon and could be compared with lattice simulations, which, indeed, only predict the potential up to a constant. This comparison was performed in Ref. , where they compared the RG improved predictions (without including ultrasoft log resummation) of perturbation theory up to next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) with lattice simulations. They indeed found that the discrepancies with lattice simulations and the lack of convergence of the perturbative series remained. They also found that the difference between perturbation theory and lattice could be parameterized by a linear potential in a certain range. Therefore, it seemed to support the claims of some groups  of the possible existence of a linear potential at short distances. Such claims contradict the predictions of the operator product expansion (OPE), which state that the leading non-perturbative corrections are quadratic in distance at short distances222This contradiction is indeed so only if one believes that perturbation theory can be applied for the shortest distances available in lattice simulations $`14`$ GeV. We thank V.I. Zakharov for stressing this point to us..

On the other hand, driven by the analysis of Refs. , it has been argued  that, within a renormalon based picture, perturbation theory agrees with the phenomenological potentials aimed to describe Heavy Quarkonium. For his study, he used the static version of the 1S mass and the upsilon expansion , which cancels the leading renormalon and relate the 1S mass to the $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass. Moreover, In Ref.  (see also ), it has been shown that perturbation theory can indeed reproduce the slope of the static potential given by lattice simulations at short distances by using the force instead of the potential as the basic tool without the need to talk about renormalons.

In this paper, we would like to try to clarify further the above issues and support the renormalon dominance picture by comparing the potential computed in lattice with the RS static potential (a renormalon free definition of the potential obtained in Ref. ).

## 2 On-shell scheme

The energy of two static sources in a singlet configuration reads (in the on-shell (OS) scheme)

$$E(r)=2m_{\mathrm{OS}}+\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{i}{T}\mathrm{ln}W_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(1)
In the situation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}1/r`$, it can be computed order by order in $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\nu )`$ ($`\nu 1/r`$) and in the multipole expansion (see )

$$E(r)=2m_{\mathrm{OS}}+V_{s,\mathrm{OS}}(r,\nu _{\mathrm{US}})+\delta E_{\mathrm{US}}(r,\nu _{\mathrm{US}}).$$
(2)
$`m_{\mathrm{OS}}`$ is the pole mass. The static potential reads ($`\alpha _\mathrm{s}\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\nu )`$)

$$V_{s,\mathrm{OS}}V_{s,\mathrm{OS}}(r,\nu _{\mathrm{US}})=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}V_n\alpha _\mathrm{s}^{n+1},$$
(3)
where $`V_nV_n(r,\nu ,\nu _{\mathrm{US}})`$. The first three coefficients $`V_0`$, $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ are known . The log-dependence on $`\nu `$ of $`V_3`$ can also be obtained by using the $`\nu `$-independence of $`V_{s,\mathrm{OS}}`$. The log-dependence on $`\nu _{\mathrm{US}}`$ of $`V_3`$ is also known . Therefore, the only unknown piece of $`V_3`$ is a $`\nu /\nu _{\mathrm{US}}`$-independent constant. Its size has been estimated in Ref.  assuming renormalon dominance. For $`n_f=0`$, it reads

$$V_3(r,1/r,1/r)=1/r\times (76.1075).$$
(4)
Leaving aside the leading-renormalon independent contributions to $`V_3`$, this number suffers from two sources of errors (see Ref.  for details). One is the error in the evaluation of the normalization factor of the renormalon, $`N_m`$, which we will discuss in the next section. The other error is due to $`O(1/n)`$ corrections ($`n=3`$ in this case), which appear to be negligible. The relative $`O(1/n)`$ corrections are -0.0264977, and the $`O(1/n^2)`$ corrections are -0.00544012. Therefore, we expect the unknown $`O(1/n^3)`$ effects to be very small. We will use Eq. (4) in the following for our estimates of $`V_3`$.

It is quite remarkable that the numbers obtained in Ref.  for $`V_3`$ are quite close to the ones obtained in Ref.  using Padé-approximants methods. This is even so if we do the Fourier transform back to momentum space. We display in Table 1 the numbers one obtains from Ref.  for the coefficient $`c_0`$ (the portion of the three-loop momentum space coefficient of the static potential independent of scale logarithms as defined in Ref. ) for different number of massless flavours. We can see that the difference with Chishtie and Elias results (see table 1 in Ref. ) is always of the order of 20-30 and roughly independent of the number of flavours. Therefore for $`n_f0`$, where the absolute value of $`c_0`$ increases, the bulk of $`c_0`$ agrees with Chishtie and Elias prediction.

The static potential is $`\nu `$-independent. By setting $`\nu =1/r`$, we could effectively resum the $`\mathrm{ln}\nu r`$ terms. The RG-improved expressions would read

$$V_{s,\mathrm{OS}}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}V_n(r,1/r,\nu _{\mathrm{US}})\alpha _\mathrm{s}(1/r)^{n+1},$$
(5)
and we would have expressions for $`n=0,1,2,3`$. In the above expression we have considered $`\mathrm{ln}r\nu _{\mathrm{US}}1`$. Since $`\mathrm{ln}r\nu _{\mathrm{US}}1`$ for some range of the parameters, one could be in the situation where one also has to resum ultrasoft logs as it has been done in Ref. . Nevertheless, explicit calculations show that, at least for the range of parameters studied in this paper, higher order ultrasoft logs are subleading even if sizable. However, for definiteness, we will work with the resummed expression (the physical picture does not change anyhow), which we will add to $`V_3(r,1/r,1/r)`$:

$$V_3(r,1/r,\nu _{\mathrm{US}})V_3(r,1/r,1/r)+\frac{C_A^3}{6\beta _0}\alpha _\mathrm{s}^3(r^1)\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{\alpha _s(r^1)}{\alpha _s(\nu _{us})}\right).$$
(6)
In principle, it could be considered to be more consistent to add the resummed expression for the ultrasoft logs to $`V_2`$. Nevertheless, we will add them to $`V_3`$ since it is the counting consistent when the leading single log gives the bulk of the correction (moreover, we will see that, even after the leading-renormalon cancellation is achieved, its effect is small333However, it remains to be seen whether, once $`V_3`$ is exactly computed and the $`O(r^2)`$ renormalon were also subtracted, the ultrasoft logs would be a subleading effect compared with finite pieces. if compared with the typical estimate of the terms of $`V_3`$).

The leading $`O(r^2)`$ non-vanishing contribution to $`\delta E_{\mathrm{US}}(r,\nu _{\mathrm{US}})`$ reads (we actually write the Euclidean expression)

$$\delta E_{\mathrm{US}}(r,\nu _{us})\frac{T_F}{3N_c}𝐫^2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{t(V_{o,\mathrm{OS}}V_{s,\mathrm{OS}})}g𝐄^a(t)\varphi (t,0)_{ab}^{\mathrm{adj}}g𝐄^b(0)(\nu _{us}).$$
(7)
At the order of interest $`V_{o,\mathrm{OS}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}}{r}}`$ and $`V_{s,\mathrm{OS}}`$ is approximated to its leading order value: $`C_F{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}}{r}}`$. This contribution cancels the leading $`\nu _{\mathrm{US}}`$ scale dependence of $`V_{s,\mathrm{OS}}`$. For the scales we will study in this paper (those accessible by lattice simulations), we will consider $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}/r`$ to be a non-perturbative scale. Therefore, Eq. (7) can not be computed perturbatively and it will not be considered in this and the following section, where we aim to a pure perturbative prediction (it will be considered, however, in sec. 4.1). Thus, our results will depend on $`\nu _{us}`$, for which we will take $`\nu _{us}=2.5r_0^1`$. We will set $`n_f=0`$ and work in lattice units: $`r_0^1`$ (with $`r_0^1400\mathrm{MeV}`$ according to lattice simulations), $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}=0.602(48)r_0^1`$ , since our aim will be to compare with lattice simulations.

Now, we want to check the convergence of the series within perturbation theory. We first consider the perturbative static potential without trying to resum $`\mathrm{ln}r\nu `$ logs, ie. for a fixed scale $`\nu `$ for $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\nu )`$ (Eq. (3)). We show our results in Fig. 1, where we have chosen $`\nu =1/0.15399r_0^1`$. We see that it does not converge to a value. We next try with $`\mathrm{ln}r\nu `$ resummation (Eq. (5)), since these logs could be large. We show our results in Fig. 2. We find the same problem and moreover the slope appears to be different in both cases. The situation appears to be puzzling.

Let us now compare with lattice simulations. These predict the energy of an static quark-antiquark system up to an $`r`$-independent constant444Therefore, due to the unknown constant it can not be related with the underlying theory (QCD) and, for instance, obtain the mass.:

$$E_{\mathrm{latt}.}(r)=k_{\mathrm{latt}.}+\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{i}{T}\mathrm{ln}W_{\mathrm{}}.$$
(8)
Therefore, the slope of the potential is a physical prediction of the lattice static potential and does not suffer from the leading renormalon. The constant is usually fixed in a way such that

$$E_{\mathrm{latt}.}(r_0)=0,$$
(9)
except in Ref.  where $`E_{\mathrm{latt}.}(r_c)=0`$ is used (for the definition of $`r_c`$ see ).

In order to compare the perturbative predictions with lattice simulations, we add a constant to the perturbative potential to fix both potentials to be equal at some scale $`r^{}`$:

$$E_{\mathrm{latt}.}(r^{})=k_{\mathrm{per}.}(r^{})+V_{s,OS}(r^{}).$$
(10)
The value of this constant varies according to the order the perturbative computation has been done, ie.

$$k_{\mathrm{pert}.}(r^{})=k_0(r^{})+k_1\alpha _\mathrm{s}(r^{})+k_2\alpha _\mathrm{s}^2(r^{})+\mathrm{}.$$
(11)
We will consider the lattice data of Refs. . They both appear to be perfectly compatible with each other for finite lattice spacings. In any case, the lattice data of Ref. , being more recent, appears to have smaller errors with a very small spread of the points around the fitted curve. Here, in order to get the highest possible precision, we will use the lattice data of Ref.  for which the continuum limit has been reached. For comparison with the lattice points at finite lattice spacing of Ref.  and for a somewhat a larger range, we refer to the 1st version of this paper sent to the web. The physical outcome is, in any case, the same.

The comparison with lattice is performed in Fig. 3 for the perturbative result without $`\mathrm{ln}(r\nu )`$ resummation ($`\nu `$ constant) and in Fig. 4 for the perturbative result with $`\mathrm{ln}(r\nu )`$ resummation ($`\nu =1/r`$). As explained above, we have added a constant to the perturbative potential (different at each order) as to make it equal to the lattice potential at $`r=0.15399r_0`$. We see a completely different behavior in both cases. Whereas for the latter, the agreement goes worse as we increase the order of our calculation, for the former the agreement with lattice improves555Usually, the comparison between lattice and perturbation theory was performed using the expressions with $`\nu =1/r`$, whereas the analysis with $`\nu `$ constant was largely unnoticed.. Indeed, it is quite remarkable that lattice simulations are precise enough to see the log behavior of $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ predicted by asymptotic freedom.

In the next section we will explain the above behavior (why sometimes perturbation theory can describe lattice data and some others not) within an controlled framework where the renormalon is taken into account.

## 3 RS scheme

The RS scheme was defined in Ref.  aiming to eliminate the renormalons of the matching coefficients appearing in Heavy Quarkonium calculations. In particular, the leading renormalon of the heavy quark mass and the static potential. We refer to Ref.  for details. Here, we just write the relevant formulas needed for our analysis.

Analogously to the OS scheme, the energy of two static sources in a singlet configuration reads

$$E_s(r)=2m_{\mathrm{RS}}(\nu _f)+\left(\underset{T\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{i}{T}\mathrm{ln}W_{\mathrm{}}2\delta m_{\mathrm{RS}}(\nu _f)\right),$$
(12)
where666Actually, we are going to use in this paper the RS’ scheme defined in Ref.  instead of the RS scheme, since we believe it has a more physical interpretation. Nevertheless, we will denote it in this paper as RS scheme in order to simplify the notation. In any case, the physical picture does not change. The results would also converge towards the result predicted by lattice simulations but with a different pattern.

$$\delta m_{\mathrm{RS}}(\nu _f)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\delta m_{\mathrm{RS},\mathrm{n}}\alpha _\mathrm{s}^{n+1}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}N_m\nu _f\left(\frac{\beta _0}{2\pi }\right)^n\alpha _\mathrm{s}^{n+1}(\nu _f)\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_k\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+1+bk)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+bk)},$$
(13)
and $`m_{\mathrm{RS}}m_{\mathrm{OS}}\delta m_{\mathrm{RS}}`$. If the beta function were known to infinity order in perturbation theory, it would be possible to obtain all the coefficients $`b`$ and $`c_k`$ . In practice, only $`b`$ and $`c_{0,1,2}`$ are known (see ). For $`N_m`$ only an approximate calculation is possible using some ideas first developed in Ref. . This computation has been done in Ref. . The result reads (for $`n_f=0`$)

$$N_m=0.424413+0.174732+0.0228905=0.622036,$$
(14)
where each term corresponds to a different power in $`u`$ (in the Borel plane) of the calculation (see Ref.  for details). We see a nice convergence. This number will be the one we will use in the following. This number should be equal to $`2N_V`$, where $`N_V`$ is the normalization factor of the renormalon of the static potential. $`N_V`$ was also approximately computed in Ref. . For $`n_f=0`$, it reads

$$N_V=1.33333+0.4994330.338437=1.17234.$$
(15)
In this case the convergence is not so good but we have an alternating series. In any case, we see that both values appear to be quite close:

$$2\frac{2N_m+N_V}{2N_mN_V}=0.059.$$
(16)
We take this as an approximate indication of the error in the evaluation of $`N_m`$.

In the situation $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}1/r`$, $`E_s(r)`$ can be factorized in the following way (with the accuracy we are working, the expression for $`\delta E_{s,\mathrm{US}}`$ will be equal in the OS and RS scheme):

$$E_s(r)=2m_{\mathrm{RS}}(\nu _f)+V_{s,\mathrm{RS}}(r;\nu _{us};\nu _f)+\delta E_{s,\mathrm{US}}(r,\nu _{us}).$$
(17)
$`V_{s,\mathrm{RS}}(r)V_{s,\mathrm{RS}}(r;\nu _{us};\nu _f)`$ was defined in Ref.  (note that we expand $`V_s`$ and $`\delta m_{\mathrm{RS}}`$ with the same $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$):

$$V_{s,\mathrm{RS}}(r)=V_s+2\delta m_{\mathrm{RS}}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(V_n+2\delta m_{\mathrm{RS},\mathrm{n}})\alpha _\mathrm{s}^n=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}V_{\mathrm{RS},\mathrm{n}}^{(0)}\alpha _\mathrm{s}^{n+1}.$$
(18)
Due to the leading renormalon, the behavior of the perturbative expansion at large orders of $`V_n`$ reads

$$V_n\stackrel{n\mathrm{}}{=}N_V\nu \left(\frac{\beta _0}{2\pi }\right)^n\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+1+b)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+b)}\left(1+\frac{b}{(n+b)}c_1+\frac{b(b1)}{(n+b)(n+b1)}c_2+\mathrm{}\right).$$
(19)
Therefore, by adding $`\delta m_{\mathrm{RS}}`$ to $`V_s`$ we expect to cancel the renormalon of the static potential. Indeed, what we want is to obtain the renormalon cancellation order by order in perturbation theory. This means to kill the $`O(n!)`$ behavior of the coefficient multiplying the $`O(\alpha _\mathrm{s}^n)`$ term of $`V_s`$ with the $`O(n!)`$ behavior that appears in $`\delta m_{\mathrm{RS}}`$ such that $`V_{\mathrm{RS}}`$ enjoys nicer convergence properties. In principle, this cancellation should hold for an arbitrary $`\nu `$ and, in particular, for $`\nu =1/r`$. This, indeed, is the key observation of this paper and it will become relevant later on in order to explain the results in the previous section as well as in the literature.

In principle, any $`\nu _f`$ should cancel the renormalon of the static potential (we have the constraint, though, that $`\nu _f`$ should be large enough to fulfill $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\nu _f)1`$). If we re-expand $`\delta m_{\mathrm{RS}}(\nu _f)`$ in terms of $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\nu )`$, the renormalon is still kept in $`\delta m_{\mathrm{RS}}(\nu _f)`$ but new terms are generated, which, nevertheless, should not belong to the renormalon. In other words

$$\delta m_{\mathrm{RS}}(\nu _f)=\delta m_{\mathrm{RS}}(\nu )+F(\nu ;\nu _f),$$
(20)
where the Borel transform of $`F(\nu ;\nu _f)`$ should be analytic at $`u=1/2`$ in the Borel plane. This can be easily seen in the large $`\beta _0`$ limit. In more formal terms what we have is

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}=constantIm[\delta m_{\mathrm{RS}}(\nu _f)],\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}=constantIm[\delta m_{\mathrm{RS}}(\nu )]$$

with the same constant by definition (indeed this is what defines the renormalon). Therefore, the conclusion is that

$$Im[F(\nu ;\nu _f)]=0$$

to the order of interest, concluding that $`F`$ does not have the closest singularity in the Borel plane. Note that in order to have the structure of Eq. (20) is necessary to have the complete renormalon contribution, ie. to all orders in perturbation theory. If we have the renormalon to some given order in perturbation theory, a change of the scale will produce large (renormalon-related) terms that would not cancel since we do not have the complete sum. Indeed, this is the explanation why in fixed order perturbation theory one has to expand on $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ at the very same scale for the renormalon and the OS result in order to achieve the renormalon cancellation order by order in $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$.

On the other hand, $`\nu _f`$ can not be arbitrarily large. Otherwise the power counting is broken. This restricts νf<

 1/rsubscript𝜈𝑓<

1𝑟\nu_{f}{\ \lower-1.2pt\vbox{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{$<$\hss}\lower 6.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}}}}\ }1/r in order to ensure the counting $`V_{\mathrm{RS}}O(\alpha _\mathrm{s}/r)`$. In our case, we will set $`\nu _f=2.5r_0^11\mathrm{GeV}`$. In any case, when studying the slope of the potential, the result should be independent on $`\nu _f`$, as $`\delta m_{\mathrm{RS}}(\nu _f)`$ is just an r-independent constant. At this respect, we should say that this is indeed so to a large extent. If we take $`\nu _f=5r_0^12\mathrm{GeV}`$ agreement with lattice is also obtained777One could say that since $`\delta m_{\mathrm{RS}}`$ starts at $`O(\alpha _\mathrm{s}^2)`$ a larger value of $`\nu _f`$ could be used and yet not to break the power counting. Nevertheless, we refrain from using $`\nu _f5r_0^1`$ since we do not understand the meaning of the results with values of $`\nu _f`$ larger than $`1/r`$. In particular, this would have a difficult explanation from an effective theory point of view, where $`\nu _f`$ is understood as an cutoff of the effective theory, which has to be smaller than $`1/r`$.. One could also think of setting $`\nu _f=1/r`$. This would mean to subtract an $`r`$-dependent constant to the static potential. This is not what it is done in lattice simulations since they are arbitrary up to a $`r`$-independent constant. Therefore, this would not agree with lattice simulations.

In conclusion, by using $`V_{\mathrm{RS}}`$, we expect the bad perturbative behavior due to the renormalon to disappear. Let us see that this is indeed so. Working analogously to the OS scheme, we consider the RS potential at different orders in perturbation theory with $`\mathrm{ln}(r\nu )`$ resummation or not. We display our results in Figs. 5 and 6. In the first case, the $`\mathrm{ln}(r\nu )`$ resummation is achieved by setting $`\nu =1/r`$ and the ultrasoft log resummation is also included. In the second case, we set $`\nu =1/0.15399r_0^1`$ and only the leading single ultrasoft log is included. We see that now we do not have the gap between different orders in the perturbative expansion (or it is dramatically reduced). Moreover, we do not have a (dramatically) different behavior of the slope of the potential; $`\mathrm{ln}(r\nu )`$ resummation or not converges to the same value.

We can now compare with lattice simulations: Figs. 3 and 7. We work analogously to the OS scheme. Now, the constant we have to add is approximately $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$-independent, reflecting that we have accurately achieved the renormalon cancellation. We see that our results are convergent to the same potential, which, as we can see, corresponds to the lattice potential.

The case without $`\mathrm{ln}(r\nu )`$ resummation is exactly equal to the OS case, ie. to Fig. 3, since it is just equivalent to add a r-independent constant at each order in $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$. This explains, within the renormalon dominance picture, the success of that specific OS scheme calculation; it is just equivalent to an specific case of the renormalon based calculation: $`\nu =constant`$. Therefore, perturbation theory without log resummation can explain lattice data up to $`r0.5r_0`$ by subtracting a r-independent constant at each order in perturbation theory. This fact is understandable if the factorization scale chosen is not very far of $`1/r`$ so that the RG does not play a decisive role plus the fact that subtracting a constant kills the renormalon. However, now, we are not restricted to take $`\nu =constant`$ but we can take $`\nu =1/r`$, which allows us to resum the $`\mathrm{ln}(r\nu )`$ terms and yet cancel the renormalon as we can nicely see in Fig. 7.

Within the renormalon dominance picture, we can also explain why perturbation theory with $`\mathrm{ln}(r\nu )`$ resummation could not explain lattice data (see Fig. 4) even if subtracting a r-independent constant at each order in perturbation theory. In particular, this would explain the disagreement found in Ref. . The explanation of this fact is that $`\mathrm{ln}(r\nu )`$ resummation is equivalent to set $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(r)`$ as the expansion parameter. Therefore, the expansion parameter is a function of $`r`$ and, consequently, the amount to be subtracted at each order in $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(r)`$ in order to cancel the renormalon is also $`r`$-dependent. It follows that the (perturbative) renormalon cancellation can not be achieved by only subtracting a $`r`$-independent constant at each order in $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(r)`$ as it was done in Fig. 4.

We would like now to understand the agreement between lattice  (or potential models ) and perturbation theory if the static potential is reconstructed from the force in the following way:

$$V(r)=_{r_0}^r𝑑r^{}F(r^{})+V(r_0)=_{r_0}^r𝑑r^{}\frac{dV(r^{})}{dr^{}}+V(r_0).$$
(21)
As far as we end up in the potential, we should have the same problems (and solutions) than in the previous sections. The point is how Eq. (21) is implemented in practice. The force also has an expansion in $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$:

$$F(r)=C_F\frac{\alpha _{qq}(1/r)}{r^2}=\frac{C_F}{r^2}\alpha _\mathrm{s}\left\{1+a_{qq}^{(1)}\alpha _\mathrm{s}+\mathrm{}\right\}.$$
(22)
In practice, the force is introduced in Eq. (21) order by order in $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$. If the expansion parameter is $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\nu )`$, the potential is reconstructed order by order in $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\nu )`$ and we are exactly in one of the situations considered in this and the previous sections (Fig. 3). If the expansion parameter in the force is $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(1/r)`$, as it was made in Refs. , we are in a new situation. The introduction of $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(1/r)`$ in the integral in Eq. (21) produces and infinite series in $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(1/r)`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(1/r_0)`$. At this respect, it is not clear what the expansion parameter is and the systematics of this procedure. In any case, here, we are just interested to see whether the renormalon cancellation is achieved for these calculations. At this respect, the point is that the expansion parameter in the potential is not $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(r)`$. From the computational point of view, all the powers in $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(1/r)`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(1/r_0)`$ are considered to be of the same order. If we consider the leading order, one loop, approximation we have $`\alpha _{qq}=\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ and $`\beta (\alpha _{qq})=\beta _0\alpha _\mathrm{s}/(2\pi )`$ and we obtain

$$_{r_0}^r𝑑r^{}F(r^{})=C_F\frac{\alpha _\mathrm{s}(1/r)}{r}\left(\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n!\left[\frac{\beta _0\alpha _\mathrm{s}(1/r)}{2\pi }\right]^n\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n!\left[\frac{\beta _0\alpha _\mathrm{s}(1/r_0)}{2\pi }\right]^n\right).$$
(23)
Both terms have the renormalon (in the large $`\beta _0`$ approximation) so that they cancel each other. We expect that higher orders computations will reconstruct the QCD renormalon but yet the renormalon cancellation should remain at any order since the same (partial) piece of the renormalon appears for $`^r𝑑r^{}F^{nloops}(r^{})`$ than for $`^{r_0}𝑑r^{}F^{nloops}(r^{})`$. This explains within a renormalon-dominance approach the convergence of computations using this framework even if no reference to renormalon was made for these calculations.

It is worth stressing that within this renormalon-based scheme calculation, we can now account for the logs correctly by setting $`\nu =1/r`$ (see Fig. 7). On the other hand, we introduce some errors when fixing $`\nu =1/r`$, since we are only able to perform an approximate computation of the renormalon, which do not exist in the calculation of the slope with $`\nu =constant`$. The two things compete with each other in the final accuracy of the result (compare Figs. 3 and 7). Indeed, once the renormalon cancellation has been achieved, the resummation of logs does not appear to be very important. At least, if we do not choose our scale very far from the typical scales at study. If we go to scales smaller than $`2.5r_0^1`$ , the calculation with $`\nu =1/r`$ appears to give better results (compatible with lattice, although with larger errors, up to amazingly long distances ($`0.8r_0`$)) than the calculation with fixed $`\nu `$ (see Fig. 8). This may signal that log resummation becomes important for these scales (note that we have chosen $`\nu =1/0.15399r_0^1`$ as the starting point of the log evolution, for a smaller value of $`\nu `$ an improvement may be obtained). It should be studied further whether perturbation theory can indeed describe lattice data in the regime $`0.50.8r_0`$, since this would support the claims of Ref.  in this direction.

The main result of this section is to show that all the different results found in the previous and this section as well as in the literature about the convergence (or not convergence) of the perturbative series can be explained by the presence of the renormalon. We have also shown that, with a renormalon-based scheme, agreement with lattice is obtained. The point is that we now know the constant to be subtracted and its dependence in $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$, therefore, we can set $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}`$ at the same scale and obtain the cancellation for any $`r`$. In this way, we obtain the log resummation and the renormalon cancellation. One potential problem is that other logs ($`\mathrm{ln}(r\nu _f)`$) appear (in the physical, finite mass, case this problem does not really show up because one usually sets νf<

 1/rsubscript𝜈𝑓<

1𝑟\nu_{f}{\ \lower-1.2pt\vbox{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{$<$\hss}\lower 6.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}}}}\ }1/r being $`r`$ the typical size of the system).

## 4 Bounds on short-distance non-perturbative potentials

We now study possible non-perturbative effects in the static potential. The first thing to notice is that any non-perturbative effects should be small and compatible with zero since perturbation theory is able to explain lattice data within errors. We can make this statement more quantitative by using the lattice data obtained in Ref.  where the continuum limit has been reached. For these lattice points the systematic and statistic errors are very small (smaller than the size of the points). Therefore, the main sources of uncertainty of our (perturbative) evaluation come from the uncertainty in the value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ ($`\pm 0.48r_0^1`$) obtained from the lattice  and from the uncertainty in higher orders in perturbation theory. We show our results in Fig. 9.888We have performed the estimation of the errors with the results of Fig. 3 ($`\nu =constant`$), since they do not introduce errors due to the evaluation of the renormalon. Nevertheless, a similar conclusion had been achieved if the analysis had been done with the results of Fig. 7 ($`\nu =1/r`$). The inner band reflects the uncertainty in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ whereas the outer band is meant to estimate the uncertainty due to higher orders in perturbation theory by allowing $`c_0`$ to change by $`\pm 146`$. This is half its value according to the estimate in Table 1. This may seem a conservative variation if we take into account that the difference with the estimate obtained using Pade-approximats  is $`\delta c_020`$.

### 4.1 Bounds on a short-distance quadratic potential

The non-perturbative effects should be encoded within Eq. (7). In general, this equation is a convolution of two scales: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ and $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}/r`$. The explicit functionality is unknown since it involves the knowledge of the details of the non-perturbative dynamics. In the formal limit $`1/r\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}\alpha _\mathrm{s}/r`$, it is possible to know the scaling of the potential in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{QCD}}`$ and $`r`$ based on dimensional arguments :

$$\delta E_{\mathrm{US}}(r,\nu _{us})\frac{T_F}{3N_c}𝐫^2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tg𝐄^a(t)\varphi (t,0)_{ab}^{\mathrm{adj}}g𝐄^b(0)(\nu _{us}).$$
(24)
This $`r^2`$ behavior for the non-perturbative potential is expected on the basis of the OPE in that limit.

The fact that we are able to put bounds on our perturbative evaluation of the potential and that the errors of the lattice simulations are very small allows us to put bounds on the non-perturbative effects. This is of utmost importance since these non-perturbative effects produce the largest errors in the determination of the bottom mass using the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$ mass. Unfortunately, even though lattice simulations of the static potential are very precise, we can not obtain strong constraints on the non-perturbative effects. The main source of error is due to the uncertainty in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$. Assuming a non-perturbative potential $`VAr^2`$, we obtain

|A|<

 0.6r03𝐴<

0.6superscriptsubscript𝑟03|A|{\ \lower-1.2pt\vbox{\hbox{\hbox to0.0pt{$<$\hss}\lower 6.0pt\vbox{\hbox{$\sim$}}}}\ }0.6\,r_{0}^{-3} (25)
from the variation of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$. If a potential $`0.6r_0^3r^2`$ were introduced as a correction in the binding energy of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$, it may induce a correction of $`100\mathrm{MeV}`$ in the mass of the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$ (however, let us also stress that lattice simulations are also compatible with $`A=0`$). Nevertheless, if lattice determinations of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ could be improved, they would provide one of the most promising ways to control the errors in the determination of the bottom $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass using the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$ mass. Let us also note that one can turn the problem around. If one assumes the non-perturbative effects to be small one can improve the lattice determination of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ from the static potential data.

### 4.2 Bounds on a short-distance linear potential

The usual confining potential, $`\delta V=\sigma r`$, goes with an slope $`\sigma =0.21\mathrm{GeV}^2`$. In lattice units we take: $`\sigma =1.35r_0^2`$. Can we discriminate such potential at short distances with the available lattice data? The answer is yes as we can see from Fig. 10.999We have used the results from Fig. 3, since they do not introduce errors due to the evaluation of the renormalon. Nevertheless, the same conclusion had been achieved with the results from Fig. 7. The introduction of a linear potential at short distances with such slope is not consistent with lattice simulations. This is even so after the errors considered in Fig. 9 have been included. This should not come as a surprise since this linear potential appears as an effect of long distance (not short distance) and it is not expected to appear from Eq. (7). Therefore, it follows that the use of the Cornell potential (with the perturbative static potential emanated from QCD instead of a pure $`1/r`$ potential times a fitted constant) as a phenomenological fit of the static potential introduces systematic errors if the typical inverse Bohr radius scale of the heavy quarkonium system to study lye in the short distance regime as it is the case, for instance, for the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$.

On the other hand, recently, there have been claims about the possible existence of a linear potential at short distances . Expected it to be of different physical origin than the long distance linear potential, it may have a different slope than the (long distance) static potential discussed above. It would be very important to discriminate its existence, since such behavior at short distances is at odds with the OPE. This is indeed possible, since the short-distance linear potential expected in Ref.  have an slope of the order of magnitude of the long-distance confining potential that we have already ruled out above. Therefore, we can conclude that no linear potential exists at short distance (with the present estimates for its slope).

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper, we have shown (Figs. 3 and 7) that perturbation theory can explain lattice simulations of the static potential up to scales of order $`2r_0^1`$ once the renormalon has been taken into account without the need of non-perturbative effects. Quite remarkable, lattice simulations are precise enough to see the scaling log behavior predicted by asymptotic freedom and not just the pure $`1/r`$ behavior of the Coulomb potential.

We have shown that the different results one may find in the literature as well as in sections 2 and 3 about the convergence (or not) of the perturbative series to the lattice result can be explained by the presence of the renormalon. In particular, we can explain why a calculation (Fig. 3) within perturbation theory can agree with lattice data, if the perturbative expansion is made with $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(\nu )`$ with $`\nu `$ constant, without an explicit reference to the renormalon, but not if the expansion is made with $`\alpha _\mathrm{s}(1/r)`$ (Fig. 4). This explanation is given in a renormalon-based approach in a unified way. Moreover, our method allows to set $`\nu =1/r`$ and, therefore, resum the $`\mathrm{ln}(r\nu )`$ logs besides of cancelling the renormalon (Fig. 7).

We have tried to find bounds on possible non-perturbative potentials at short distances. As a matter of principle, large non-perturbative effects are ruled out with the above analysis. In particular, they are compatible with zero (Fig. 9). We have shown (Fig. 10) that lattice data disfavours a linear confining potential at short distances with the usual slope ($`\sigma =1.35r_0^2`$) assigned to the confining potential at long distances. For a possible non-perturbative $`r^2`$ potential, the main source of error comes from the one associated to the determination of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}`$ in the lattice (the error due to higher order in perturbation theory appears to be less important). Therefore, we can not put very precise constraints on it in order to reduce the non-perturbative error on the determinations of the bottom $`\overline{\mathrm{MS}}`$ mass from the $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)`$ mass. Nevertheless, lattice simulations remain as one of the most promising possibilities to constraint the size of the non-perturbative effects at short distances.

Acknowledgments
We thank G.S. Bali for sharing his lattice data with us.


text:
# Measurement of the micromaser linewidth

\[

## Abstract

We propose a realistic scheme for measuring the micromaser linewidth by monitoring the phase diffusion dynamics of the cavity field. Our strategy consists in exciting an initial coherent state with the same photon number distribution as the micromaser steady-state field, singling out a purely diffusive process in the system dynamics. After the injection of a counter-field, measurements of the population statistics of a probe atom allow us to derive the micromaser linewidth. Our proposal aims at solving a classic and relevant decoherence problem in cavity quantum electrodynamics, allowing to establish experimentally the distinctive features appearing in the micromaser spectrum due to the discreteness of the electromagnetic field.

\]

The micromaser  has been the object of continuous interest as a proper tool for the investigation of fundamental questions in cavity quantum electrodynamics. For example, it has permitted the generation of highly pure Fock states , the detection of photon number trapping states , and the possibility of testing new ideas in the physics of quantum information . Nevertheless, some fundamental aspects have remained elusive to the experiments, as the measurement of the micromaser spectrum and its linewidth, whose physical origin is the decoherence of the cavity field induced by a phase diffusion process. Although different proposals have been done in the past, measurements related to the micromaser spectrum remain until now as an experimental challenge for reasons we discuss thoroughly in this work.

In Refs. , approximated analytical expressions for the phase diffusion rate were derived from the micromaser master equation (MME) , matching reasonably the numerical results. When the micromaser operates at very low temperatures, trapping states of the cavity field occur , inducing sharp minima in the mean photon number. In consequence, as the pumping rate increases, linewidth oscillations are predicted , at strong variance with the monotonical dependence of the Schawlow-Townes laser linewidth . In Refs.  a Ramsey-type interferometric scheme was proposed for an experimental measurement of the micromaser linewidth. These techniques require atoms in a coherent superposition of the ground and excited states, which needs further advances in current technology of very high-Q (closed) cavities. Other treatments approached the spectrum problem by investigating the field and atomic correlation functions . Unfortunately, in one way or another, all proposals have failed in approximating the requirements of a feasible experiment.

In this Letter, we consider a realistic measurement of the phase diffusion dynamics of the micromaser and propose different strategies for unveiling its special features.

A micromaser consists in a single quantized mode of a high-$`Q`$ cavity driven by excited two-level atoms crossing the field mode one at a time with pumping rate $`r`$. The atomic levels are long living Rydberg states that couple strongly to the cavity microwave field. The cavity is in contact with a thermal bath producing mean number of thermal photons $`\overline{n}_b`$ and has a linewidth $`\gamma =\omega /Q`$, where $`\omega `$ is the angular frequency of the cavity field. However, the decay of the field can be considered as negligible when an atom is flying through, due to its high speed. Each one of the pumping atoms interacts with the cavity field following the Jaynes-Cummings (JC) model , where the evolution of an initial atomic excited state $`|\mathrm{e}`$ and any field Fock state $`|n`$ follows

$`|\mathrm{e}|n\mathrm{cos}(g\tau \sqrt{n+1})|\mathrm{e}|n\mathrm{sin}(g\tau \sqrt{n+1})|\mathrm{g}|n+1.`$ (1)
(2)
Here, $`g`$ is the atom-field coupling strength, $`\tau `$ is the interaction time and $`|\mathrm{g}`$ is the atomic ground state. The temporal evolution of the density matrix elements $`\rho _{n,m}(t)`$ of the cavity field is ruled by the MME

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\rho _{n,m}=𝒜_{n,m}\rho _{n1,m1}+_{n,m}\rho _{n,m}+𝒞_{n,m}\rho _{n+1,m+1}`$ (3)
(4)
where

$`𝒜_{n,m}=r\mathrm{sin}(g\tau \sqrt{n})\mathrm{sin}(g\tau \sqrt{m})+\gamma \overline{n}_b\sqrt{nm}`$ (5)
$`_{n,m}=r[1\mathrm{cos}(g\tau \sqrt{n+1})\mathrm{cos}(g\tau \sqrt{m+1})]`$ (6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}(\overline{n}_b+1)(n+m){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}\overline{n}_b(n+m+2)`$ (7)
$`𝒞_{n,m}=\gamma (\overline{n}_b+1)\sqrt{(n+1)(m+1)}.`$ (8)
Here, the first term of $`𝒜_{n,m}`$ and $`_{n,m}`$ are related to the unitary contribution of the Jaynes-Cummings interaction, after tracing out the atomic degrees of freedom, and the remaining terms are associated with the incoherent processes.

In the spirit of a seminal paper on the micromaser spectrum , based on an approach successfully applied in laser theory , we consider the cavity field expectation value

$`\widehat{E}(t)\mathrm{Re}\widehat{a}(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\sqrt{n+1}\rho _{n,n+1}(t)+\mathrm{c}.\mathrm{c}.`$ (9)
This expression shows that the dynamics of the electric field is ruled by the decay of the (first) off-diagonal elements of the field density matrix, determined by the MME of Eq. (4) with $`m=n+1`$. The decay of the elements $`\rho _{n,n+1}(t)`$, while the photon number distribution remains stationary, implies the decay of the cavity field expectation value $`\widehat{E}(t)`$ by a phase diffusion process. The physical picture becomes remarkably simple if approximately all elements $`\rho _{n,n+1}(t)`$ decay exponentially with a similar rate, say $`D`$. Then,

$`\widehat{E}(t)=\widehat{E}(0)\mathrm{exp}(Dt)`$ (10)
and the micromaser spectrum, i.e., the Fourier transform of $`\widehat{E}(t)`$, has a Lorentzian profile with linewidth $`D`$. Eqs. (9) and (10) are at the heart of the phase diffusion model yielding the micromaser spectrum. In principle, it could be enough to monitor the decay of initial nonvanishing off-diagonal elements $`\rho _{n,n+1}(0)`$ of the cavity field, created by injecting atoms in a coherent superposition of $`|\mathrm{g}`$ and $`|\mathrm{e}`$ or preparing the cavity mode in a coherent state. Unfortunately, this procedure cannot be implemented, as long as we do not have direct experimental access to the cavity field. One of the features that makes the micromaser such an interesting device is that the pumping atoms that are used to build the micromaser field serve also, or could serve, as a quantum probe of the field.

The first step of our scheme is the choice of a suitable initial condition for the cavity field. The micromaser field approaches a stationary state, independent of the initial one, described by a diagonal density matrix with elements $`\rho _{n,n}^{ss}=p_n^{ss}`$ . If the cavity field is initially prepared in a coherent state $`|\alpha `$, such that $`\rho _{n,n}^\alpha (0)=p_n^\alpha =|\alpha |n|^2p_n^{ss}`$, then, for all practical purposes, the photonstatistics remains frozen during the micromaser operation. We choose this special initial condition in an effort for singling out the decay of the off-diagonal elements due to phase diffusion from other incoherent processes, allowing to establish a non dissipative decoherence dynamics. This requirement can be satisfied when the steady-state photonstatistics $`p_n^{ss}`$ has a well defined peak, as in the micromaser threshold region, where the maximum amplification of the mean photon number occurs, or to a good approximation in the neighborhood of the alternating trapping state region.

We simulate numerically the system dynamics by a Monte Carlo Wave Function technique , successfully applied to the investigation of other problems in the micromaser . In Fig. 1 we show the field density matrix $`\rho _{n,m}(0)`$ of the initial coherent state and also the diagonal form of the steady-state at the end of the diffusion process with $`\rho _{n,m}^{ss}=\delta _{n,m}p_n^{ss}`$, after the progressive vanishing of field coherences. We used typical experimental parameters and an interaction time, $`\tau `$, such that the micromaser operates near the maximum amplification region.

The expected exponential decay of $`\widehat{E}(t)`$, Eq. (10), induced by the decay of the coherences $`\rho _{n,n+1}(t)`$, Eq. (9), is well reproduced in the numerical simulations as shown in Fig. 2. Consequently, the phase diffusion rate can be easily derived; in this example $`D/\gamma 0.049`$, in good agreement with approximated analytical expressions . This behaviour, however, can be neither directly observed, nor even inferred from measurements on the populations of outgoing atoms. Actually, from the JC dynamics , exemplified in Eq. (2), the probability $`p_\mathrm{e}`$ that any excited atom, at any moment of the diffusion process, is observed out of the cavity still in the excited state is

$`p_\mathrm{e}={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}p_n^{ss}\mathrm{cos}^2(g\tau \sqrt{n+1}).`$ (11)
In conclusion, no information on field coherences can be derived from this kind of atomic population measurements, even if the field coherences are nonvanishing and evolving in time. In order to extract the required information, we suggest a strategy based on the following steps during the diffusion dynamics: i) to interrupt the flux of the pump atoms at any time $`t`$ in the transient regime; ii) to apply a ”counter-field” $`|\alpha `$; iii) to interrogate the back-shifted cavity field by a single probe atom.

The application of the counter-field is described by the unitary displacement operator , $`\widehat{𝒟}(\alpha )=\widehat{𝒟}^{}(\alpha )`$, mixing diagonal and off-diagonal elements of the diffused cavity field. Then, the new photonstatistics as a function of the diffusion time $`t`$ reads

$`\stackrel{~}{p}_n(t)=\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{n,n}(t)`$ $`=n|\widehat{𝒟}(\alpha )\rho (t)\widehat{𝒟}(\alpha )|n`$ (13)
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i,j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}n|\widehat{𝒟}(\alpha )|ij|\widehat{𝒟}(\alpha )|n\rho _{i,j}(t).`$
When $`t=0`$, the photonstatistics $`\stackrel{~}{p}_n(0)`$ is simply the one associated with the vacuum state, while, for arbitrary $`t`$, $`\stackrel{~}{p}_n(t)`$ can be obtained numerically . Now, an excited probe atom is injected in the cavity, and the probability of finding it in the excited state after a transit time $`\tau _\mathrm{p}`$ is

$`\stackrel{~}{p}_\mathrm{e}(t,\tau _\mathrm{p})={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\stackrel{~}{p}_n(t)\mathrm{cos}^2(g\tau _\mathrm{p}\sqrt{n+1}).`$ (14)
Now we are left with a kind of inverse problem in cavity quantum electrodynamics, namely, to extract from the measured atomic statistics - our scattering data \- the information on the decay of coherences $`\rho _{n,n+1}(t)`$ which is hidden in $`\stackrel{~}{p}_n(t)`$. We indicate two solutions to this problem. The first one exploits the time dependence of the photonstatistics $`\stackrel{~}{p}_n(t)`$. Eq. (13) shows that $`\stackrel{~}{p}_n(t)`$ reflects the time dependence of the unshifted field density matrix, $`\rho _{i,j}(t)`$. If the probe atom is injected in the cavity at times $`tD^1`$, all coherences $`\rho _{i,i+k}(t)`$ for $`k2`$ have already vanished. Hence, the only contributions to $`\stackrel{~}{p}_n(t)`$ in Eq. (13) are given by the terms with $`j=i`$, involving the diagonal elements $`\rho _{i,i}(t)=p_i^{ss}`$, and the terms with $`j=i\pm 1`$, involving the coherences $`\rho _{i,i+1}(t)=\rho _{i,i+1}(0)\mathrm{exp}(Dt)`$ and their complex conjugates. Hence, for times $`tD^1`$, we can rewrite the atomic probability of Eq. (14) as

$`\stackrel{~}{p}_e(t,\tau _\mathrm{p})=K_{\tau _\mathrm{p}}\mathrm{exp}(Dt)+\stackrel{~}{p}_e(\mathrm{},\tau _\mathrm{p})`$ (15)
where

$`K_{\tau _\mathrm{p}}=2Re[{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}`$ $`\rho _{i,i+1}(0)n|\widehat{𝒟}(\alpha )|ii+1|\widehat{𝒟}(\alpha )|n`$ (17)
$`\times \mathrm{cos}^2(g\tau _\mathrm{p}\sqrt{n+1})]`$
and

$`\stackrel{~}{p}_e(\mathrm{},\tau _\mathrm{p})={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}p_i^{ss}|n|\widehat{𝒟}(\alpha )|i|^2\mathrm{cos}^2(g\tau _\mathrm{p}\sqrt{n+1}).`$ (18)
(19)
Eq. (15) shows that $`\stackrel{~}{p}_e(t,\tau _\mathrm{p})`$ as a function of $`t`$ is ruled by the phase diffusion rate $`D`$, providing a simple and direct link between the experimental data and the micromaser linewidth. Remark that $`K_{\tau _\mathrm{p}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{p}_e(\mathrm{},\tau _\mathrm{p})`$ can be calculated directly from the initial conditions and experimental parameters. In Fig. 3, we show $`\stackrel{~}{p}_e(t,\tau _\mathrm{p})`$ as obtained from the numerical simulations of the whole scheme, using the MME (4), with $`\tau _\mathrm{p}=\tau `$. In this example, $`\stackrel{~}{p}_e(t)`$ shows a minimum that is followed, for $`tD^1`$, by an exponential approach to the asymptotic value $`\stackrel{~}{p}_e(\mathrm{},\tau )`$. Actually, in Fig. 3 we also show that, as predicted by Eq. (15), the behavior of $`\stackrel{~}{p}_e(t,\tau )`$ for times $`tD^1`$ is perfectly fitted by an exponential law. This allows us to derive the phase diffusion rate $`D/\gamma 0.047`$ , quite close to the value we calculated from Fig. 2.

Another solution to our problem exploits the fact that the interaction time $`\tau _\mathrm{p}`$ of the probe atom, injected in the final stage of the measurement, may be different (in fact shorter) than the interaction time $`\tau `$ of the pump atoms. The crucial point is provided by the expression of the mean photon number of the back-shifted field

$`\stackrel{~}{\widehat{N}}(t)`$ $`=\mathrm{Tr}[\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\widehat{𝒟}(\alpha )\rho (t)\widehat{𝒟}(\alpha )]`$ (22)
$`=\mathrm{Tr}[(\widehat{a}^{}\alpha ^{})(\widehat{a}\alpha )\rho (t)]`$
$`=2|\alpha |^2[1\mathrm{exp}(Dt)].`$
Here, we have used the properties of the trace and of the displacement operator $`\widehat{𝒟}`$, with the implications of our starting assumptions $`\widehat{N}(t)=\widehat{N}(0)=|\alpha |^2`$; $`\widehat{a}(t)=\widehat{a}(0)\mathrm{exp}(Dt)=\alpha \mathrm{exp}(Dt)`$. Eq. (22) shows that the mean photon number of the back-shifted field grows up exponentially just with the phase diffusion rate $`D`$. We observe that, in principle, any other displacement $`\widehat{𝒟}(\beta )`$ would lead to the same exponential time dependence as in Eq. (22). Our choice, $`\beta =\alpha `$, dictated by simplicity in the experimental implementation, here implies also a remarkably simple mathematical expression. The remaining step consists in finding a manifest dependence of the measured atomic statistics, Eq. (14), on the mean photon number of Eq. (22). We choose an interaction time of the probe atom such that all relevant Rabi frequencies are small enough, i.e., $`2g\tau _\mathrm{p}\sqrt{n+1}1`$ for any $`n`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{p}_n(t)`$ is appreciable throughout the diffusion process. In this case, the probability for the outgoing probe atom to be in the ground state, $`\stackrel{~}{p}_\mathrm{g}(t,\tau _\mathrm{p})=1\stackrel{~}{p}_\mathrm{e}(t,\tau _\mathrm{p})`$, can be well approximated by

$`\stackrel{~}{p}_\mathrm{g}(t,\tau _\mathrm{p})(g\tau _\mathrm{p})^2(\stackrel{~}{\widehat{N}}(t)+1).`$ (23)
Replacing $`\stackrel{~}{\widehat{N}}(t)`$ of Eq. (22) in Eq. (23) provides another simple and direct link between measured atomic populations and the phase diffusion rate. For example, using the same micromaser parameters as in Figs. 1 and 2, the result of Eq. (23) turns out to hold  for probe atom interaction times $`\tau _\mathrm{p}`$ on the range $`0<g\tau _\mathrm{p}<0.15`$. This means that the velocity of the probe atom should be greater than the velocity previously chosen for the micromaser operation ($`g\tau 0.5`$), so that the atomic statistics exhibit an exponential behavior that will allow to monitor the phase diffusion dynamics. We remark that the criterion based on Eq. (23) holds even in the initial stage of the diffusion process, $`t<D^1`$, where our first criterion failed.

We have presented a scheme for the measurement of the micromaser phase diffusion dynamics and its associated decay rate $`D`$, that is, the micromaser linewidth. We have shown, following two different strategies, how this dynamics can be obtained from measurable statistics of probe atoms. An experimental implementation of this scheme is currently planned. We expect that the proposed scheme helps to unveil experimentally the distinctive properties of the micromaser spectrum and phase diffusion dynamics, when compared with the conventional Schawlow-Townes laser linewidth, due to the discrete character of the quantized electromagnetic field.

E. S. is thankful to G. Marchi, T. Becker and B.-G. Englert for valuable discussions.