text:
# Trapping and cooling single atoms with far-off resonance intracavity doughnut modes

## I Introduction

Cavity quantum electrodynamics (QED) is a powerful tool for the deterministic control of atom-photon interactions at the quantum level. In fact, the strong confinement allows to achieve the strong coupling regime where single quanta can profoundly affect the atom-cavity dynamics . Many experiments have now reached this regime and interesting phenomena have been demonstrated, as a quantum phase gate , the Fock state generation in a cavity field , and quantum nondemolition detection of a single cavity photon . Moreover, cavity QED offers unique advantages for quantum communication and quantum information processing applications. In fact, atoms may act as quantum memories, while photons are flexible transporters of quantum information, and quantum networks of multiple atom-cavity systems linked by optical interconnects have been already discussed in the literature . The primary technical challenge on the road toward these applications is to trap individual neutral atoms within a high-finesse cavity for a reasonably long time. Recent experiments  have already succeeded in trapping single atoms inside an optical cavity driven at the few photon level, just using the strong coupling with the cavity QED mode for both cooling and trapping. However, the scheme of Refs.  is not entirely suitable for quantum communication purposes because it has limited operation flexibility and provides short trapping times (order of hundreds of microseconds). In fact, it employs a single cavity mode, while it is preferable to have an additional trapping mechanism which does not interfere with the cavity QED interactions able to provide the atom-photon entanglement needed for the manipulation of quantum information. With these respect, another experiment has already demonstrated significant trapping times ($`28`$ ms) of single Cs atoms within a cavity, employing an additional far-off resonance trapping (FORT) mode . Using the fact that, in the strong coupling regime, the trajectory of an individual atom can be monitored in real time by the quasi-resonant cavity QED field , the FORT beam can be turned on as soon as the atom enters the cavity in order to increase its trapping time.

Several mechanisms for cooling inside an optical resonator have been already discussed in the literature , involving either cavity mode driving, or direct atom driving via a classical laser field from the side, or even active feedback on atomic motion as in . However, only the recent paper by van Enk et al.  has discussed in detail the effects of an additional FORT beam on the cooling and trapping dynamics and its interplay with the quasi-resonant cavity QED field. Here we shall consider a situation analogous to that of Ref. , even though we shall extend our study to new FORT mode configurations. We have chosen a parameter region corresponding to the weak driving limit, with an empty-cavity mean photon number $`N_e0.01`$. We have performed full 3-D numerical simulations of the quasi-classical atomic motion, including the effects of spontaneous emission and dipole-force fluctuations.

In two-level systems, red-detuned FORT beams shift the atomic excited state $`|e`$ up and the ground state $`|g`$ down by the same quantity, and this is the most common situation, studied in great detail in . However, the most interesting situation for quantum information processing applications is when both levels are shifted down by the FORT beam: in this case, excited and ground state atoms are trapped in the same position, and this greatly simplifies the quantum manipulation of the internal state. In fact, the most flexible situation for quantum information processing is having a trapping mechanism independent of the atomic internal state. This configuration can be realized by using a FORT that is red-detuned in such a way that the excited state is relatively closer to resonance with a higher-lying excited state than with the ground state. We shall discuss in detail both situations (equal or opposite optical Stark shifts), and we shall find the interesting result that in the case of equal Stark shifts for ground and excited state, the use of doughnut modes, that is, higher-order Gauss-Laguerre modes, as FORT mode, is able to increase significantly the trapping time within the cavity.

The paper is organized as follows. In Section II we describe the physics of an atom trapped in an optical potential and strongly interacting with a cavity QED field. We also discuss the changes introduced by the FORT doughnut mode. In Section III, applying the general approach developed in Ref.  to a cavity mode configuration, we discuss the conditions under which the center-of-mass motion of the atom can be adiabatically separated from the internal and cavity mode dynamics, and treated in a quasi-classical way. The corresponding 3-D Fokker-Planck equation for the phase-space atomic motion will be derived. In Section IV, the results of the numerical simulations of the corresponding stochastic differential equations will be presented in detail, and in Section V these results will be discussed for both equal and opposite energy shifts of the $`|e`$ and $`|g`$ states. Section VI is for concluding remarks.

## II The physical problem

We consider a two level atom coupled to a quantized cavity mode and to an additional classical red-detuned FORT beam, coinciding with another longitudinal mode of the cavity, with a wavelength $`\lambda _S`$ longer than that of the quasi-resonant cavity mode, $`\lambda _g`$. The common situation is to consider lowest order Gaussian modes for both fields , having their maximum intensity along the cavity axis. Here we shall consider a different situation, where the FORT mode is a higher-order Gauss-Laguerre mode, the so-called doughnut mode, having its maximum intensity at a nonzero radial distance from the cavity axis. This means that the atoms are trapped out of the cavity axis (see Fig. 1 for a schematic description of the system). At first sight, this choice may look not optimal, because in this case the coupling with the fundamental Gaussian cavity QED field responsible for cooling is smaller. Nonetheless, we shall see that this choice is convenient in the case when the classical FORT mode shifts down both excited and ground state, which is the most interesting case for quantum information processing applications.

We recall that the Laguerre-Gauss modes LGpm are the solutions of the paraxial Helmoltz equation in cylindrical coordinates $`(\rho ,\vartheta ,x`$) . In this paper we consider the doughnut modes with radial index $`m0`$ and azimuthal index $`p=0`$, whose intensity is given by

$$I_{0m}(\rho ,x)=4P\frac{2^{m+1}}{\pi m!}\frac{\rho ^{2m}}{W^{2(m+1)}(x)}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{2\rho ^2}{W^2(x)}\right\}\mathrm{sin}^2(k_Sx),$$
(1)
where $`P`$ is the power, $`k_S=2\pi /\lambda _S`$ the wavenumber, and $`W(x)`$ the beam radius. The doughnut mode radius is given by the position of the radial maximum, given by $`\rho _{\mathrm{max}}=W(x)\sqrt{m/2}`$. We can simplify the description assuming a nearly planar cavity, so that $`W(x)W_S`$. The classical, red-detuned FORT mode induces AC Stark shifts $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_g`$ on the ground state $`|g`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_e`$ on the excited state $`|e`$ . We can distinguish two different situations: (a) $`|g`$ is shifted down and $`|e`$ is shifted up, which happens in the common situation where only the $`eg`$ transition is close to the red detuned FORT mode. In this case the two shifts are opposite. (b) Both $`|g`$ and $`|e`$ are shifted down, which happens when $`|e`$ is closer to resonance with a higher-lying excited level than with the level $`|g`$ ,,. We shall study both situations and in case (b) we shall assume that the various detunings can be chosen so that the two levels are shifted down by the same quantity. Furthermore, to simplify the comparison between the two cases, we shall assume that the two situations occur with the same wavelength $`\lambda _S`$.

Considering a frame rotating at the probe driving frequency $`\omega _p`$, the Hamiltonian of the system can be written as

$$H=\frac{|\stackrel{}{P}|^2}{2M}+\mathrm{}\omega _{ap}\sigma ^{}\sigma +\mathrm{}\omega _{gp}a^{}a+V(\stackrel{}{R})+\mathrm{}\left(Ea^{}+E^{}a\right),$$
(2)
where $`\omega _{ap}=\omega _{eg}\omega _p`$ is the detuning of the the atomic resonance from the probe frequency, $`\omega _{gp}=\omega _g\omega _p`$ is the detuning of the cavity QED mode with annihilation operator $`a`$, $`\sigma =|ge|`$, $`E`$ is the cavity driving rate, and $`\stackrel{}{R}`$, $`\stackrel{}{P}`$ are the position and momentum vector operators of the atom, having a mass $`M`$. The interaction potential $`V(\stackrel{}{R})`$ describes the interaction between the internal atomic levels, the cavity modes and the atomic center-of-mass motion, and it is given by the coupling with the quantized cavity mode and with the FORT doughnut mode. Making the usual dipole and rotating wave approximations, this interaction term can be written

$$V(\stackrel{}{R})=\mathrm{}g(\stackrel{}{R})\left(a^{}\sigma +\sigma ^{}a\right)+V^S(\stackrel{}{R}),$$
(3)
where

$$g(\rho ,x)=g_0\mathrm{sin}(k_gx)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\rho ^2}{W_g^2}\right\}$$
(4)
is the space-dependent Rabi frequency due to the coupling with the quantized mode, and the second term $`V^S(\stackrel{}{R})`$ describes the effect of the Stark shifts induced by the FORT mode, assuming the following form in the two cases, (a) and (b):

$`\text{case (a) }V^S(\stackrel{}{R})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}S(\stackrel{}{R})(\sigma ^{}\sigma \sigma \sigma ^{})`$ (5)
$`\text{case (b) }V^S(\stackrel{}{R})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}S(\stackrel{}{R}).`$ (6)
The frequency ac-Stark shift is generally given by $`S(\rho ,x)=\alpha I_{0m}(\rho ,x)/4\mathrm{}`$ , where $`\alpha `$ is the atomic polarizability and $`I_{0m}(\rho ,x)`$ is the FORT intensity of Eq. (1), so that one can write

$$S(\rho ,x)=S_0\rho ^{2m}\mathrm{sin}^2(k_Sx)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{2\rho ^2}{W_S^2}\right\},$$
(7)
with $`S_0=2^{m+1}P\alpha /\pi \mathrm{}W_S^{2m+2}`$. We have generally considered different waists $`W_g`$ and $`W_S`$ for the two modes, but they practically coincide in typical situations.

The FORT mode provides the main trapping mechanism. This means that the atom will be trapped around the anti-nodes of the red-detuned FORT field, because $`S_0>g_0`$ and the cavity QED field is weakly driven. However, due to the different wavelengths, one does not have a periodic situation, and the atom feels a different cavity QED coupling in different wells. In the experiment of Ref.  the cavity length $`L`$ is such that $`2L=104\lambda _g=102\lambda _S`$. To simplify our simulation we have however chosen $`L=16\lambda _g=15\lambda _S`$, as it has been done also in . This is equivalent to choose a fictitious larger value for $`\lambda _S`$ which however does not modify the essential physics of the problem, because the FORT mode is in any case far-off resonance. With this choice we consider only $`30`$ potential wells in the cavity, only $`8`$ of which are quantitatively different (see Ref. ).

Dissipation, diffusion and all non-conservative effects appear due to spontaneous emission and cavity losses. The quantum evolution of the atom-cavity system is therefore described by a master-equation for the atom-cavity density operator $`\rho `$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho }{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{}}}[H,\rho ]+\kappa \left(2a\rho a^{}a^{}a\rho \rho a^{}a\right)\gamma \left(\sigma ^{}\sigma \rho +\rho \sigma ^{}\sigma \right)`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\gamma }{4\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2\widehat{k}D(\widehat{k}\widehat{x})e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{R}}\sigma \rho \sigma ^{}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{R}}}`$ (9)
where $`\kappa `$ is the cavity damping rate and $`\gamma `$ is spontaneous emission decay rate. The last term describes the effects of atomic recoil, with $`\widehat{k}`$ giving the direction of emitted photon and $`D(\widehat{k}\widehat{x})=(1+(\widehat{k}\widehat{x})^2)/2`$ describing the angular pattern of dipole radiation .

## III Quasi-classical description of the atomic motion

The internal and cavity dynamics is governed by the detunings, $`\omega _{ap}`$ and $`\omega _{gp}`$, the spontaneous emission rate $`\gamma `$, the driving rate $`E`$, the cavity damping rate $`\kappa `$, the FORT shift $`S_0`$, and the coupling constant $`g_0`$. In the parameter region relevant for current experiments, this dynamics is much faster than the atomic motional dynamics, especially for heavy atoms as Cs  or Rb . Therefore, internal and cavity dynamics can be adiabatically eliminated in order to obtain a reduced effective evolution equation for the motional degrees of freedom only. This adiabatic elimination can be made in a systematic way by adapting the general approach developed for free space cooling situations in Ref.  to the present cavity scheme (see also ). One starts from the evolution equation of the Wigner operator obtained by performing the Wigner transform only on the motional Hilbert space, and writing this equation as a Taylor expansion in terms of two small parameters of the problem. Denoting with $`kk_gk_Sk_a=\omega _{eg}/c`$ the typical wavenumber of the problem, we have that one small parameter is

$$ϵ_1=\frac{\mathrm{}k}{\mathrm{\Delta }p}1,$$
(10)
showing that the motional state is characterized by a momentum spread $`\mathrm{\Delta }p`$ much larger than the momentum kicks felt by the atom during any photon emission or absorption. The second small parameter is

$$ϵ_2\frac{k\mathrm{\Delta }p}{M\gamma }\frac{k\mathrm{\Delta }p}{M\kappa }1,$$
(11)
which instead shows that the Doppler shift associated with the momentum spread is small with respect to the atomic and cavity linewidths. The two conditions set a lower and an upper bound for the momentum spread of the atom, which, thanks to the Heisenberg inequality, put also a lower and an upper bound for its position spread. These bounds allow to describe the atomic motion in classical terms, because the atom is sufficiently localized in phase space to make it possible to describe its motion in terms of trajectories, while at the same time the phase space spread always remains larger than $`\mathrm{}`$ (see ). The crucial point is that the two conditions (10) and 11) must be consistent and this happens when

$$\frac{\mathrm{}^2k^2}{2M}\mathrm{}\gamma ,\mathrm{}\kappa .$$
(12)
This means supplementing the well known necessary condition for laser cooling in free space, $`\mathrm{}^2k^2/2M\mathrm{}\gamma `$ (the atom has to be still in resonance after spontaneously emitting) , with an analogous condition for the exchange of cavity photons.

For small parameters $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$, the atomic motion is much slower than the internal one, and the adiabatic elimination of the latter is obtained if the atomic kinetic energy term is neglected in the equation for the Wigner operator, which then effectively factorizes into a product of a stationary state $`\eta \left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)`$ for the cavity and internal degrees of freedom evaluated at the fixed atomic position $`\stackrel{}{r}=(\rho ,\theta ,x)`$, and a real-valued motional Wigner function $`f(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p},t)`$. The stationary state $`\eta \left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)`$ satisfies the steady-state Bloch equation

$`L_{Bloch}(\stackrel{}{r})\eta (\stackrel{}{r})`$ $``$ $`i[\omega _{ap}\sigma ^{}\sigma +\omega _{gp}a^{}a+\left(Ea^{}+E^{}a\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{V(\stackrel{}{r})}{\mathrm{}}},\eta (\stackrel{}{r})]`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`\kappa \left(2a\eta (\stackrel{}{r})a^{}a^{}a\eta (\stackrel{}{r})\eta (\stackrel{}{r})a^{}a\right)`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`\gamma \left(2\sigma \eta (\stackrel{}{r})\sigma ^{}\sigma ^{}\sigma \eta (\stackrel{}{r})\eta (\stackrel{}{r})\sigma ^{}\sigma \right)=0,`$ (15)
where $`L_{Bloch}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ comes from a zeroth-order expansion of the master equation (9) in the small parameters $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$ of Eqs. (10) and (11).

The resulting equation for the Wigner function $`f(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ is of Fokker-Planck type and is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}f(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{M}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\stackrel{}{r}}}f(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p},t){\displaystyle \frac{}{\stackrel{}{p}}}f(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p},t)\stackrel{}{\varphi }(\stackrel{}{r})`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}^2k_a^2\gamma \sigma ^{}\sigma (\stackrel{}{r}){\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}E_{ii}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{p_i^2}}f(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p},t)+{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\eta _{ij}(\stackrel{}{r}){\displaystyle \frac{^2}{p_ir_j}}f(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}D_{ij}(\stackrel{}{r}){\displaystyle \frac{^2}{p_ip_j}}f(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p},t)+{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}(\stackrel{}{r}){\displaystyle \frac{}{p_i}}(p_jf(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p},t)).`$ (18)
All the coefficients of this Fokker-Planck equation depend upon average values and correlation functions of the internal and cavity degrees of freedom, evaluated on the stationary state at fixed atomic position $`\eta \left(\stackrel{}{r}\right)`$ of Eq. (15). An example is provided by the average value $`\sigma ^{}\sigma (\stackrel{}{r})`$ appearing in Eq. (18) in the diffusion term due to spontaneous emission, which also depends upon the diagonal matrix $`E_{ii}`$ given by $`E_{xx}=2/5`$, $`E_{yy}=E_{zz}=3/10`$ . The other atom-cavity quantities determining the Fokker-Planck equation coefficients are $`\mathrm{\Phi }a^{}\sigma +\sigma ^{}a`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }\sigma ^{}\sigma \sigma \sigma ^{}`$, whose expectation value determines the mean dipole force acting on the atom $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }(\stackrel{}{r})`$. In fact,

$$\stackrel{}{\varphi }(\stackrel{}{r})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}\frac{}{\stackrel{}{r}}g(\stackrel{}{r})\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r})\mathrm{}\frac{}{\stackrel{}{r}}S(\stackrel{}{r})\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{r})& \mathrm{case}(\mathrm{a})\\ \mathrm{}\frac{}{\stackrel{}{r}}g(\stackrel{}{r})\mathrm{\Phi }(\stackrel{}{r})+\mathrm{}\frac{}{\stackrel{}{r}}S(\stackrel{}{r})& \mathrm{case}(\mathrm{b})\end{array},$$
(19)
which is a sum of the quantized mode contribution and the FORT mode contribution. This is no more true for the friction matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ and the diffusion matrix $`D_{ij}(\stackrel{}{r})`$, which are bilinear functionals of the dipole force operator and assume different forms in the two cases $`(a)`$ and $`(b)`$. In fact, in case $`(b)`$ of equal shifts, the FORT mode simply adds a conservative potential, independent of the internal atomic state, giving no contribution to friction and diffusion (provided that the FORT beam intensity fluctuations are negligible, see ). Therefore we can write

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}(\stackrel{}{r})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{gg}(\stackrel{}{r})+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{gS}(\stackrel{}{r})+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{SS}(\stackrel{}{r})& \mathrm{case}(\mathrm{a})\\ \mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{gg}(\stackrel{}{r})& \mathrm{case}(\mathrm{b})\end{array},$$
(20)
$$D_{ij}(\stackrel{}{r})=\{\begin{array}{cc}D_{ij}^{gg}(\stackrel{}{r})+D_{ij}^{gS}(\stackrel{}{r})+D_{ij}^{SS}(\stackrel{}{r})& \mathrm{case}(\mathrm{a})\\ D_{ij}^{gg}(\stackrel{}{r})& \mathrm{case}(\mathrm{b})\end{array},$$
(21)
where the quantized mode contribution ($`gg`$), the FORT mode contribution ($`SS`$), and the cross contribution ($`gS`$) have been singled out. These terms can be then written as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{gg}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{M}}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{r_i}}(\stackrel{}{r}){\displaystyle \frac{g}{r_j}}(\stackrel{}{r})\chi ^{gg}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ (22)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{gS}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{M}}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{r_i}}(\stackrel{}{r}){\displaystyle \frac{S}{r_j}}(\stackrel{}{r})\chi ^{gS}(\stackrel{}{r})+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{M}}{\displaystyle \frac{S}{r_i}}(\stackrel{}{r}){\displaystyle \frac{g}{r_j}}(\stackrel{}{r})\chi ^{Sg}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^{SS}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{M}}{\displaystyle \frac{S}{r_i}}(\stackrel{}{r}){\displaystyle \frac{S}{r_j}}(\stackrel{}{r})\chi ^{SS}(\stackrel{}{r}),`$ (24)
and

$`D_{ij}^{gg}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{g}{r_i}}(\stackrel{}{r}){\displaystyle \frac{g}{r_j}}(\stackrel{}{r})\xi ^{gg}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ (25)
$`D_{ij}^{gS}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{g}{r_i}}(\stackrel{}{r}){\displaystyle \frac{S}{r_j}}(\stackrel{}{r})\xi ^{gS}(\stackrel{}{r})+\mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{S}{r_i}}(\stackrel{}{r}){\displaystyle \frac{g}{r_j}}(\stackrel{}{r})\xi ^{Sg}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ (26)
$`D_{ij}^{SS}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}^2{\displaystyle \frac{S}{r_i}}(\stackrel{}{r}){\displaystyle \frac{S}{r_j}}(\stackrel{}{r})\xi ^{SS}(\stackrel{}{r}),`$ (27)
where

$`\chi ^{gg}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau \tau [\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\tau \right),\mathrm{\Phi }\left(0\right)]`$ (28)
$`\chi ^{gS}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau \tau [\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\tau \right),\mathrm{\Psi }\left(0\right)]`$ (29)
$`\chi ^{Sg}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau \tau [\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\tau \right),\mathrm{\Phi }\left(0\right)]`$ (30)
$`\chi ^{SS}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau \tau [\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\tau \right),\mathrm{\Psi }\left(0\right)],`$ (31)
and

$`\xi ^{gg}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\tau \right),\mathrm{\Phi }\left(0\right)\}\mathrm{\Phi }^2\right]`$ (32)
$`\xi ^{gS}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\tau \right),\mathrm{\Psi }\left(0\right)\}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Psi }\right]`$ (33)
$`\xi ^{Sg}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\tau \right),\mathrm{\Phi }\left(0\right)\}\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }\right]`$ (34)
$`\xi ^{SS}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau \left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\mathrm{\Psi }\left(\tau \right),\mathrm{\Psi }\left(0\right)\}\mathrm{\Psi }^2\right].`$ (35)
The cross diffusion term proportional to $`\eta _{ij}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is usually much smaller than the diffusion terms due to the dipole force fluctuations $`D_{ij}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ and due to spontaneous emission $`E_{ij}`$ , and we shall neglect it. Using this approximation and the above expression for the diffusion matrix, the six-dimensional phase space diffusion matrix of the Fokker-Planck equation (18) becomes semipositive-definite. This means that it can be associated to a classical phase space stochastic process, describing the stochastic trajectories of the atomic center-of-mass within the cavity. Consistently with the adiabatic and quasi-classical description discussed above, the motional Wigner function $`f(\stackrel{}{r},\stackrel{}{p},t)`$ becomes therefore a nonnegative, classical phase space probability distribution . Our numerical analysis is based just on the simulation of these stochastic 3-D trajectories, which are obtained as solutions of the Itô stochastic equations associated to the Fokker-Planck equation (18). Moreover, as it can be easily seen from Eq. (4), (7), and Eqs. (22)-(27), one has $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xx}\lambda _g^2\lambda _S^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xy}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xz}\lambda _g^1W_g^1\lambda _S^1W_S^1`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{yy}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{zz}W_S^2`$, and the same is true for the diffusion matrix $`D_{ij}`$. Since it is always $`\lambda _g,\lambda _SW_g,W_S`$, it is evident that the only relevant term in the friction and diffusion matrices is the $`xx`$ component along the cavity axis, where both the quantized field and the FORT mode show the largest spatial gradients . In our numerical simulations, we have therefore considered both the friction force and the dipole force contribution to diffusion, only along the cavity axis $`x`$, while we have kept the spontaneous emission diffusion terms in all three directions.

Taking into account Eq. (18), and the above approximations, we have therefore numerically solved the following Itô-equations :

$`d\stackrel{}{r}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{M}}dt`$ (36)
$`d\stackrel{}{p}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }(\stackrel{}{r})dt\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xx}(\stackrel{}{r})& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}p_x\\ p_y\\ p_z\end{array}\right)dt+\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{D_{xx}(\stackrel{}{r})}dW_1\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ (37)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}k_a\sqrt{\gamma \sigma ^{}\sigma (\stackrel{}{r})}\left(\begin{array}{c}\sqrt{E_{xx}}dW_x\\ \sqrt{E_{yy}}dW_y\\ \sqrt{E_{zz}}dW_z\end{array}\right)`$ (38)
where $`dW_1`$ and $`d\stackrel{}{W}(dW_x,dW_y,dW_z)`$ are four independent, zero mean, Wiener increments with the property $`dW_idW_j=2\delta _{ij}dt`$, $`(i,j=1,x,y,z)`$. The quantities $`\stackrel{}{\varphi }(\stackrel{}{r})`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xx}(\stackrel{}{r})`$, $`D_{xx}(\stackrel{}{r})`$, $`\sigma ^{}\sigma (\stackrel{}{r})`$ in Eq. (37) have been determined by numerically solving Eq. (15) in the atom-cavity Hilbert space truncated at $`n=4`$ photons (see  for details). We have also checked that these numerical solutions reproduce the results of the analytical approach of  in the weak-driving limit.

## IV Numerical results

In the next subsections we present and discuss the results of the numerical simulations in both cases, (a) and (b). We have chosen equivalent conditions for the two cases, so that the corresponding numerical results are directly comparable.

### A Study of case (a)

We consider parameter values referred to the experiment of Ref. . In fact, we consider the Cs transition at $`\lambda _a=2\pi /k_a=852.4`$ nm between the ground state $`|g=|6S_{1/2},F=4,m_F=4`$ and the excited state $`|e=|6P_{3/2},F=5,m_F=5`$, and a cavity mode resonant with it, i.e., $`\omega _{ap}=\omega _{gp}=\mathrm{\Delta }_p=2\pi \times 10`$ MHz ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$ is the probe detuning from resonance). The spontaneous emission rate is $`\gamma =2\pi \times 2.6`$ MHz, while the other quantized mode parameters are $`g_0=2\pi \times 30\sqrt{e}`$ MHz, $`\kappa =2\pi \times 4`$ MHz, $`W_g=20`$ $`\mu `$m, and $`E=6.77`$ MHz, so that the empty cavity mean photon number is $`N_e=E^2/\left(\kappa ^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_p^2\right)=0.01`$. Since it is $`g_0>\gamma ,\kappa `$, we are therefore in the strong coupling regime of cavity QED. Then we use a LG01 doughnut mode as red-detuned FORT field, with parameter values $`W_S=20`$ $`\mu `$m, $`S_0=\pi e/2`$ MHz/$`\mu \mathrm{m}^2`$. These choices give $`\rho _{\mathrm{max}}14.1`$ $`\mu `$m for the doughnut radius, and the maximum Stark shift given by the FORT mode, achieved at $`\rho _{\mathrm{max}}`$, is $`S_{\mathrm{max}}=2\pi \times 50`$ MHz.

As discussed above and in , we have chosen a fictitious large value of $`\lambda _S`$, so that $`L=15\lambda _S=16\lambda _g`$ ($`\lambda _g=\lambda _a`$) in order to simplify the simulation, without however changing the physics because the exact value of $`\lambda _S`$ is unimportant as long as it is far-off resonance. The dominant potential is the one due to the FORT and therefore the atomic equilibrium positions will be situated at the FORT antinodes $`x_n^e=(n1/2)\lambda _S/2`$, $`n=1,\mathrm{}\mathrm{},`$ along the axial direction and at the nonzero radial distance from the cavity axis $`\rho _{\mathrm{max}}14.1`$ $`\mu `$m. Because of the sharp radial potential well of the doughnut mode, the atom will experience a sharp radial confinement around $`\rho _{\mathrm{max}}`$ besides the axial confinement around an antinode.

The superposition of the two modes with different wavelengths determines a spatially aperiodic situation within the cavity. The above choice gives $`8`$ not equivalent potential wells in which the atom is subject to different couplings with the quantized cavity mode. This aperiodic situation is shown in Figs. 2 and 3, where the axial friction coefficient $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xx}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ of Eqs. (20) and (22)-(24), and the dipole contribution to the axial diffusion coefficient $`D_{xx}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ of Eqs. (21) and (25)-(27), at fixed radial distance $`\rho =\rho _{\mathrm{max}}`$ (bottom of the radial well), and as a function of the axial coordinate $`x`$, are plotted.

#### 1 Simulation results

To characterize the trapping and cooling dynamics, we have carried out a quantitative study inside a central well, the one centered in $`x_5^e=2.25\lambda _S`$ and ranging from $`2\lambda _S`$ to $`2.5\lambda _S`$. In order to simulate the typical experimental condition, we have chosen proper initial conditions, considering that, in the experimental procedure, the FORT field is switched on only when the laser probe transmission exceeds a fixed threshold indicating the presence of the atom inside the cavity. The initial position has been taken axially $`\lambda _S/8`$ away from equilibrium point $`x_5^e`$ (then $`x_0=2.125\lambda _S`$), radially along the doughnut maximum $`\rho _0=\rho _{\mathrm{max}}`$, and uniformly distributed over the polar angle $`\theta `$. For what concerns the initial velocity, it is reasonable to choose a vertical velocity with components $`v_{x0}=v_{y0}=0`$, $`v_{z0}=10`$ cm/s.

In order to examine qualitatively the typical atomic motion, we report some snapshots from two simulated trajectories with slightly different initial conditions: one describes a tangential incidence of the atom along the doughnut perimeter ($`x_0=2.125\lambda _S`$, $`y_0=\rho _{\mathrm{max}}`$, $`z_0=0`$, $`v_{x0}=v_{y0}=0`$, $`v_{z0}=10`$ cm/s) (see Figs. 4-6); the other instead describes an orthogonal incidence with respect to the doughnut mode ($`x_0=2.125\lambda _S`$, $`y_0=0`$, $`z_0=\rho _{\mathrm{max}}`$, $`v_{x0}=v_{y0}=0`$, $`v_{z0}=10`$ cm/s) (see Fig. 7).

The trajectory is well confined, axially around a FORT antinode, and radially around the maximum $`\rho _{\mathrm{max}}`$: the 3D atomic motion occurs substantially on a plane orthogonal to the cavity axis, with the trajectory drawing just the shape of the doughnut mode. From Figs. 4-7 one can recognize that the atomic motion is characterized by three different time scales:

1. The fastest timescale is given by the axial oscillations, which have, for our parameter values, a time period $`2\mu `$s (see Fig. 4).
2. A slower timescale is associated with the radial oscillations, characterized by a time period $`100`$ $`\mu `$s (see Fig. 5); these oscillations become wider in the case of orthogonal incidence with respect to the doughnut mode, since, in this case, the atom probes more the doughnut radial elasticity (compare, in fact, Fig. 6 where the oscillation amplitude is $`1`$ $`\mu `$m with Fig. 7, where the amplitude is $`4`$ $`\mu `$m).
3. The third and slowest timescale is given by the atomic rotations around the cavity axis. For tangential incidence, the initial angular momentum is large and the rotation period is $`1`$ ms while, for orthogonal incidence, the atom acquires a nonzero angular momentum only because of radial diffusion, and the rotation period is larger, $`10`$ ms.

The final escape of the atom from the cavity is practically always along the axial direction, and this is due to the heating provided by the strong axial diffusion, which prevails with respect to the radial diffusion, determined only by the spontaneous emission.

To determine the mean trapping times, we have defined as trapping time $`T`$ the time spent by the atom inside a single potential well, $`\lambda _S/2`$ wide along the axial direction, and with a radius equal to $`2W_S`$. Sampling about 400 simulated trajectories, we have found the results displayed in Figs. 8 and 9.

In Fig. 8 we have displayed the root mean square velocity along the cavity axis $`v_x^{rms}`$ as a function of the trapping time $`T`$ for each simulated trajectory. We can see a clear separation of simulated points. In fact, about $`60\%`$ of atoms are not trapped at all: they correspond to the upper set of points in Fig. 8, having a velocity $`v_x^{rms}>20`$ cm/s, and for which the trapping time is below $`2`$ ms. These are not cooled via the cavity QED interaction, and the velocity $`v_x^{rms}28`$ cm/s is mainly a result due to the initial conditions. These uncooled atoms are those more influenced by the spatial region where the axial friction is negative (see Fig. 2), where atoms can be accelerated. The remaining $`40\%`$ of atoms (the points below the threshold of $`20`$ cm/s in Fig. 8) are trapped: their velocity $`v_x^{rms}`$ of about $`14`$ cm/s is a result of the cooling provided by the exchange of cavity photons. These atoms reach thermal equilibrium and have trapping times greater than $`2`$ ms.

Considering only the subset of trapped atoms, they have a probability $`P(t)`$ to be trapped for a time greater than $`t`$. The trapping time statistics is shown in Fig. 9, where it is also compared with a decaying fitting curve $`P^{th}`$ (full line in Fig. 9). The best fitting mean trapping time is $`\tau =_0^{\mathrm{}}t\left(dP^{th}/dt\right)𝑑t=(17\pm 1)`$ ms, which is comparable to the experimental value obtained using a fundamental Gaussian FORT mode in Ref.  and with the numerical simulations performed in , again for a fundamental Gaussian FORT mode. This is not surprising because, except for the fact that the atom is now trapped at a nonzero distance from the cavity axis, the physics of cooling is similar to that occurring in a lowest-order Gaussian FORT mode, and the analysis of Ref.  can be essentially repeated.

### B Study of case (b)

We consider the same parameter values of case (a), except that we slightly adapt the probe detuning and choose a value $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p=2\pi \times 35`$ MHz. As a consequence, we then set $`E=22.13`$ MHz, in order to keep the same empty-cavity mean photon number $`N_e=0.01`$ of case (a).

The situation is in many respects very similar to the preceding one: the atomic equilibrium positions are again situated at the FORT antinodes $`x_n^e=(n1/2)\lambda _S/2`$, $`n=1,\mathrm{}`$ along the axial direction and at the nonzero radial distance from the cavity axis $`\rho _{\mathrm{max}}14.1`$ $`\mu `$m. There is still an aperiodic situation with $`8`$ not equivalent wells within the cavity. However, for equal atomic shifts, the FORT does not affect both friction and diffusion (it does not affect the force fluctuations, see Eqs. (20) and (21)) and therefore, for what concern friction and diffusion, an axially periodic situation is restored in this case, with a spatial period set by the cavity QED mode. The periodic friction and diffusion spatial variations are shown in Figs. 10 and 11, where the axial friction coefficient $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{xx}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ of Eqs. (20) and (22)-(24), and the dipole contribution to the axial diffusion coefficient $`D_{xx}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ of Eqs. (21) and (25)-(27), at fixed radial distance $`\rho =\rho _{\mathrm{max}}`$, and as a function of the axial coordinate $`x`$, are plotted.

If we compare Figs. 2 and 3 with Figs. 10 and 11 we see that in case (b) the maxima of the axial friction and diffusion coefficients are lower, but one has the advantage that now the friction coefficient is always positive, while in case (a) it may assume very large negative values, yielding heating rather than cooling. This always positive friction implies that all atoms falling in the cavity are now cooled and trapped, while in case (a), a fraction of the atoms can be heated and are not trapped.

#### 1 Simulation results

In order to calculate the mean trapping time in case (b), we have carried out a computer simulation considering the same initial condition of case (a) (see section IV A 1). Sampling about 400 simulated trajectories, we have found the results shown in Figs. 12 and 13.

In Fig. 12 we have displayed the root mean square velocity along the cavity axis $`v_x^{rms}`$ as a function of trapping time $`T`$ for each simulated trajectory. At variance with case (a), now all atoms are trapped, with trapping times greater than $`1`$ ms. This is due the fact that axial friction is always positive and atoms are cooled everywhere. In this case the probability $`P(t)`$ to be trapped for a time greater than $`t`$ (shown in Fig. 13) is computed considering all simulated points. The data are again fitted by a decaying fitting function $`P^{th}(t)`$ (full line in Fig. 13), yielding a mean lifetime $`\tau =_0^{\mathrm{}}t\left(dP^{th}/dt\right)𝑑t=(44\pm 3)`$ ms.

This is the most relevant result of our investigation, showing that using a doughnut mode as FORT mode allows to achieve significant trapping times in the case (b), when the FORT induces equal Stark shifts on the atomic levels. In fact, we get a mean trapping time larger than that obtained, in the same situation, with a red-detuned fundamental Gaussian mode (see the numerical analysis of Ref. , Section IVF, where $`\tau =(28\pm 2)`$ ms). This shows that, in the case of equal Stark shifts, the radial confinement at a nonzero distance from the cavity axis provided by the doughnut FORT mode is preferable with respect to the radial trapping along the cavity axis provided by the TEM0,0 FORT mode. The improvement provided by doughnut mode is useful for quantum information processing applications in cavity QED systems, because when the FORT mode induces equal shifts on the ground and excited state, the two states are trapped at the same positions within the cavity, and the internal state can be manipulated independently of its center-of-mass state. In quantum information applications, it is important to evaluate the variation of the cavity-QED coupling $`\mathrm{\Delta }g`$. In our parameters’ regime it is $`\mathrm{\Delta }g16\%`$, which is worser than that for a TEM0,0 FORT mode under the same conditions ($`\mathrm{\Delta }g6\%`$). However the problem associated with such a variation of the coupling can be circumvented if one adopts an adiabatic transfer scheme such as the one suggested in  for quantum information processing with hot trapped atoms. In such a case, the operation time $`T_{op}`$ for the adiabatic transformations must satisfy the conditions $`2\mu s\nu _{axial}^1<T_{op}\nu _{radial}^1100\mu s`$, where $`\nu _{axial,radial}`$ are the axial or radial oscillation frequencies.

An interesting alternative to the configuration studied here is to replace the TEM0,0 cavity QED mode with the higher order LG0,1 cavity QED mode, having the same coupling $`g`$ at $`\rho _{\mathrm{max}}`$. In this way we achieve a better overlap between the FORT mode and cavity QED one, which leads to a smaller variation of coupling $`\mathrm{\Delta }_g`$, and therefore also to a better cooling configuration. In fact, repeating the simulations with the LG0,1 cavity QED mode we have seen a slight improvement of the trapping time.

It is clear that the additional practical difficulty of using another LG mode makes the experimental realization even harder; however this should be very challenging since, extending the configuration from one LG cavity-QED mode to many degenerate LG cavity-QED modes, one has new possibilities, as following atomic motion in detail , or increasing the cooling effect as shown in .

## V Discussion of the results

Let us now discuss in detail which are the main features of using red-detuned doughnut modes as FORT fields. The atom-cavity dressed picture provides an intuitive way to understand the advantages brought by the use of the doughnut mode. In the present case of very weak driving ($`N_e=0.01`$ in our case), the cooling mechanism is well described in terms of the eigenstates of the atom-cavity system (the dressed states) containing at most one excitation (see also ). The state with no excitation is the ground state $`|0`$, with energy $`E_0=\mathrm{}S(\stackrel{}{r})`$, while the first two dressed states with one excitation $`|\pm `$ have energies

$$E_\pm =\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}\omega _a\pm \mathrm{}\sqrt{g^2(\stackrel{}{r})+S^2(\stackrel{}{r})}& \mathrm{case}(\mathrm{a})\\ \mathrm{}\omega _a\mathrm{}S(\stackrel{}{r})\pm \mathrm{}g(\stackrel{}{r})& \mathrm{case}(\mathrm{b})\end{array},$$
(39)
so that the transition frequencies (relative to $`\omega _a`$) from the ground state $`|0`$ to excited states $`|\pm `$ have the expressions

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm \frac{(E_\pm E_0)}{\mathrm{}}\omega _a=\{\begin{array}{cc}S(\stackrel{}{r})\pm \sqrt{g^2(\stackrel{}{r})+S^2(\stackrel{}{r})}& \mathrm{case}(\mathrm{a})\\ \pm g(\stackrel{}{r})& \mathrm{case}(\mathrm{b})\end{array}.$$
(40)
The spatial variation of these transition frequencies along the axial direction (and at the radial position $`\rho =\rho _{max}`$) is shown in Fig. 14 for the case (a) of opposite Stark shifts, and in Fig. 15 for the case (b) of equal Stark shifts.

The patterns of spatial variation of the transition frequency allow to understand the difference between cases (a) and (b). The cooling mechanism provided by the cavity QED interaction in the weak driving limit, can be understood in analogy with Doppler cooling. In fact, by tuning below resonance, stimulated absorption of a probe photon followed by spontaneous emission or cavity decay leads to a loss of energy. The maximum cooling rate is achieved when the excitation rate times the detuning is maximum. If the detuning turns from red to blue, cooling is replaced by heating, while if the detuning becomes more red, the atom is still cooled, but at a lower rate. In case (a) (Fig. 14), it is better to tune the probe to the lower dressed state because it has smaller spatial variations (see the straight line in Fig. 14) and it is easier to reach a compromise between having cavity regions with an optimal cooling rate (red detuning) and not too large regions with heating (blue detuning). However, as the atom moves radially from the doughnut intensity maximum at $`\rho =\rho _{max}`$, the situation rapidly worsens, either if the atom moves towards the center (the FORT beam decreases while the quantized field increase and the blue detuned region increases) or if tends to leave the cavity (the detuning becomes more red and the cooling rate decreases).

In case (b), one tunes again to the lowest dressed state in order to have red detuning, and therefore cooling, throughout the cavity, when the atom is at the radial equilibrium position $`\rho _{max}`$ (see the straight line in Fig. 15). From Eq. (40) we see that the probe detuning decreases (becomes less red) when the atom moves radially towards the center, while it becomes more red if the atom moves away radially. However, the probe detuning can be chosen so to remain always red: in this way the atom is cooled everywhere, and is never accelerated. For this reason the doughnut FORT mode provides longer trapping times in case (b) of equal Stark shifts rather than in case (a) of opposite shifts. What is more important is that, in case (b), the doughnut FORT mode provides longer trapping times than a fundamental Gaussian FORT mode (see , Section IVF). In fact, in the latter case, the probe detuning would be tuned so to have optimal cooling on the cavity axis, where the atoms will be now trapped. However, because of radial diffusion (due to spontaneous emission) which also leads to an increasing angular momentum and the consequent rising of a centrifugal potential, the atom tends to move radially away from the cavity axis, so that the optimal cooling condition is rapidly lost. In fact, for increasing $`\rho `$, the axial pattern of Fig. 15 rapidly vanishes, the driving probe becomes too far-off resonance and the cooling efficiency is lost.

The advantage of the doughnut FORT with respect to the TEM0,0 FORT is that it imposes a much sharper radial well around the equilibrium position corresponding to the optimum cooling condition. The atom is less free to move radially, and moreover is subject to a smaller centrifugal force because it is trapped by the doughnut at a larger radial distance from the cavity axis. In other words, the radial potential well provided by the doughnut FORT mode is more suitable to counteract the radial departure of the atom and so to preserve the optimal cooling condition.

The importance of a strong radial confinement to optimize cooling and trapping in the case of equal Stark shifts can be illustrated also checking that when the width of the radial well is decreased, the trapping time increases. To this purpose, we have carried out a simulation where a higher order Laguerre-Gauss FORT mode, LG0,12, is used instead of the LG0,1 FORT mode, keeping the other conditions unchanged. To be more specific, we have considered the same experimental parameters of the case with the LG0,1 FORT mode in case (b), in such a way that the LG0,12 mode gives the same Stark shift $`S_{\mathrm{max}}=2\pi \times 50`$ MHz at the same radial distance $`\rho _{\mathrm{max}}14.1`$ $`\mu m`$. This means adapting both the incident FORT power and the doughnut mode waist, so that the only difference with the case studied in the preceding Section is the smaller width of the radial well (see Fig. 16, where the radial profile of the Stark shift induced by the LG0,12 FORT mode is compared with that of the LG0,1 mode). The chosen parameters are the same as above except that now the spatial dependence of the Stark shift (equal for both ground and excited state) is

$$S(\rho ,x)=S_0\rho ^{24}\mathrm{sin}^2(k_Sx)\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{2\rho ^2}{W_S^2}\right\},$$
(41)
with $`W_S=20/\sqrt{12}5.77`$ $`\mu `$m and $`S_01.2\times 10^{20}`$ MHz$`/\mu `$m24.

Considering again the initial conditions specified in Section IV A 1 and sampling about 400 simulated trajectories, we have found the results shown in Figs. 17 and 18.

In Fig. 17 we have displayed the root mean square velocity along the cavity axis $`v_x^{rms}`$ as a function of trapping time $`T`$ for each simulated trajectory. All atoms are again trapped, with trapping times greater than $`1`$ ms. The probability $`P(t)`$ to be trapped for a time greater than $`t`$ (shown in Fig. 18) is computed considering all simulated points. The data are again fitted by a decaying fitting function $`P^{th}(t)`$ (full line in Fig. 18), yielding a mean lifetime $`\tau =_0^{\mathrm{}}t\left(dP^{th}/dt\right)𝑑t=(64\pm 5)`$ ms.

This significant improvement in the mean trapping time, provided by the LG0,12 FORT mode with respect to the LG0,1 one, is due to the strongest radial confinement achieved (see Fig. 16). The atom stays closer to the radial potential minimum where cooling conditions are optimized and the probability to leave the cavity decreases. This is a further argument showing that the main advantage of using a doughnut FORT mode instead of a TEM0,0 FORT mode for atom trapping in the case of equal Stark shifts is just the stronger radial confinement which makes easier to optimize the cooling conditions. The more the atom is radially confined, the longer is trapped.

Here we have decreased the width of the radial well by choosing a higher order doughnut mode and by simultaneously adjusting its waist, so to have an unchanged radial equilibrium position $`\rho _{max}`$. This solution may be practically difficult to implement because one would need different cavity mirrors for this high-order doughnut FORT mode. Anyway, even though the implementation of the trapping scheme with a higher-order doughnut mode is difficult, the latter numerical results clearly show the importance of the radial confinement, and the direction one has to follow in order to increase the trapping time of neutral atoms in cavities in the case of equal Stark shifts induced by the FORT mode.

A possible solution to overcome the practical difficulties of a LG0,12 experimental set-up can be the following one, provided that one has enough power and stability for the laser driving the FORT mode. The same radial potential around $`\rho _{\mathrm{max}}`$ as that created by the LG0,12 FORT mode can be achieved using a very intense LG0,1 FORT mode. One can take $`S_0=4\pi e`$ MHz/$`\mu `$m2, leading to $`S_{max}=2\pi \times 400`$ MHz, and leave all the other parameters unchanged (see IV.B for the parameters of the LG0,1 FORT mode in case (b)). In this new configuration, both the radial and the axial wells are 8 times deeper, and therefore, together with the desired strong radial confinement (substantially the same as that of LG0,12 FORT mode), we have a strong axial confinement. Both these facts lead to a considerable increase of trapping time, up to $`2`$ seconds (a result of the same order as the one recently reported in ), as demonstrated by the numerical simulation of some trajectories which we show in the following table:

| trapping time $`\tau `$ $`(ms)`$ | eq. temp. $`v_x^{rms}`$ $`(cm/s)`$ | type of escape |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 157 | 29.4 | axial |
| 432 | 20.2 | axial |
| 556 | 16.1 | axial |
| 684 | 13.7 | radial |
| 1107 | 10.5 | radial |
| 1108 | 11.4 | radial |
| 1177 | 10.7 | radial |
| 2141 | 10.4 | radial |

(42)
According to table (42), the atom is so strongly confined axially that in some cases (those with the longer trapping times), it leaves the cavity radially, due to the effect of spontaneous emission. In these cases, an additional radial cooling mechanism would be helpful as, for instance, that achieved via an additional transverse free-space cooling (see ) or via an active feedback on radial motion .

## VI Conclusions

We have investigated trapping of single atoms in high finesse optical cavities using both a quasi-resonant cavity QED field and an intense classical FORT mode. In particular we have considered the case of doughnut FORT modes, and we have compared them to the most common case of a fundamental Gaussian FORT mode (see for example the experiment of Ref. ). Performing full 3-D numerical simulations of the quasi-classical center-of-mass motion of the atom, we have shown that a doughnut FORT mode is more suitable than a fundamental Gaussian FORT mode to trap the atom, in the case when the FORT mode shifts both the excited and the ground state down. This happens when the FORT mode is red-detuned in such a way that the excited state is relatively closer to resonance with a higher-lying excited state than with the ground state. This case, even though more difficult to realize than the standard two-level case where the two Stark shifts are opposite, is of particular interest for quantum information applications of cavity-QED systems, where it is important to trap the atom at a given position, independently of its internal state, so that the quantum manipulation of the internal state can be easily performed. The advantage of using a doughnut FORT mode instead of a TEM0,0 one is due to the stronger radial confinement, achieved at a nonzero distance from the cavity axis. In this way the FORT mode is more suitable to counteract the unavoidable radial departure caused by the centrifugal potential and by diffusion, by keeping the atom close to its equilibrium position where the cooling provided by the quantized cavity mode is optimal.

## VII Acknowledgments

This work has been partially supported by the European Union through the IHP program “QUEST”.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

Berry’s phase in noncommutative spaces

S. A. Alavi

High Energy Physics Division, Department of Physics, University of Helsinki
and
Helsinki Institute of Physics, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland.
On leave of absence from : Department of Physics, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, P. O. Box 1436, Iran
E-mail: $`Ali.Alavi\mathrm{@}Helsinki.fi`$
$`s_{}alialavi\mathrm{@}hotmail.com`$

1 Abstract. We introduce the perturbative aspects of noncommutative quantum mechanics. Then we study the Berry’s phase in the framework of noncommutative quantum mechanics. The results show deviations from the usual quantum mechanics which depend on the parameter of space/space noncommtativity.

1 Introduction.

Noncommutative quantum mechanics have received a wide attentian once it was realized that they could be obtained as low energy limit of string theory in the presence of a $`B`$ field . In field theories the noncommutativity is introduced by replacing the standard product by the star product. for a manifold parameterized by the coordinates $`x_i`$, the noncommutative relation can be written as :

$$[\widehat{x}_i,\widehat{x}_j]=i\theta _{ij}[\widehat{x}_i,\widehat{p}_i]=i\delta _{ij}[\widehat{p}_i,\widehat{p}_j]=0.$$
(1)
Many physical problems have been studied in the framework of the noncommutative quantum mechanics (NCQM), see e.g. \[6-19\]. NCQM is formulated in the same way as the standard quantum mechanics SQM (quantum mechanics in commutative spaces), that is in terms of the same dynamical variables represented by operators in a Hilbert space and a state vector that evolves according to the Schroedinger equation :

$$i\frac{d}{dt}|\psi >=H_{nc}|\psi >,$$
(2)
we have taken in to account $`\mathrm{}=1`$. $`H_{nc}H_\theta `$ denotes the Hamiltonian for a given system in the noncommutative space. In the literatures two approaches have been considered for constructing the NCQM :
a) $`H_\theta =H`$, so that the only difference between SQM and NCQM is the presence of a nonzero $`\theta `$ in the commutator of the position operators i.e. equ.(1).
b) By deriving the Hamiltonian from the moyal analog of the standard Schroedinger equation :

$$i\frac{}{t}\psi (x,t)=H(p=\frac{1}{i},x)\psi (x,t)H_\theta \psi (x,t),$$
(3)
where $`H(p,x)`$ is the same Hamiltonian as in the standard theory, and as we observe the $`\theta `$ \- dependence enters now through the star product . In , it has been shown that these two approaches lead to the same physical theory. For the Hamiltonian of the type :

$$H(\widehat{p},\widehat{x})=\frac{\widehat{p}^2}{2m}+V(\widehat{x}).$$
(4)
The modified Hamiltonian $`H_\theta `$ can be obtained by a shift in the argument of the potential  :

$$x_i=\widehat{x}_i+\frac{1}{2}\theta _{ij}\widehat{p}_j\widehat{p}_i=p_i.$$
(5)
which lead to

$$H_\theta =\frac{p^2}{2m}+V(x_i\frac{1}{2}\theta _{ij}p_j).$$
(6)
The variables $`x_i`$ and $`p_i`$ now, satisfy in the same commutation relations as the usual case :

$$[x_i,x_j]=[p_i,p_j]=0[x_i,p_j]=\delta _{ij}.$$
(7)
Topological effects are among the most important quantum phenomena discovered since the creation of the quantum mechanics. The Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect , was the first such effect which changed basic assumptions about the role of the potentials in physics. There is also a geometric effect discovered by Berry , almost two decades later. Berry investigated quantum systems that undergo an adiabatic evolution goverened by several changing parameters. When these parameters return to their initial values, quantum systems return to their initial states up to a phase. Berry found that the phase contains a geometric part, which depends on the path in the space of the parameters, but not on the rate evolution of the system along the path. Aharonov and Anandan subsequently generalized Berry’s phase to nonadiabatic evolution . The AB effect in noncommutative spaces has been studied in  and . In this paper we study the Berry’s phase in noncommutative spaces.

2 Perturbation aspects of noncommutative dynamics.

In this section we discuss the ”perturbation aspects of noncommutative dynamics”. The perturbation aspects of $`q`$-deformed dynamics in one dimensional $`q`$-spaces has been studied in  and . Using

$$U(x+\mathrm{\Delta }x)=U(x)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{U^{(n)}(x)}{n!}(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^n,$$
(8)
and equ.(6) for small $`\theta `$ we have :

$$H_{nc}=\frac{p^2}{2m}+V(x_i)+\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{V^{(n)}(x_i)}{n!}(\mathrm{\Delta }x_i)^n,$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_i=\frac{1}{2}\theta ϵ_{ij}p_j`$ and $`H=\frac{p^2}{2m}+V(x)`$ is the Hamiltonian in ordinary(commutative) space. To the first order we have :

$$H_{nc}=\frac{p^2}{2m}+V(x_i)+\mathrm{\Delta }x_i\frac{V}{x_i}=H+\mathrm{\Delta }x_i\frac{V}{x_i}=H+\theta H_I.$$
(10)
We can use perturbation theory to obtain the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of $`H_{nc}`$ :

$$E_n=E_n^0+\mathrm{\Delta }E_n^0=E_n^0+\theta E_n^{(1)}+\theta ^2E_n^{(2)}+\mathrm{}.$$
(11)
$$\psi _n=\varphi _n+\underset{kn}{}C_{nk}(\theta )\varphi _k.$$
(12)
where :

$$C_{nk}(\theta )=\theta C_{nk}^{(1)}+\theta ^2C_{nk}^{(2)}+\mathrm{}.$$
(13)
To the first order in perturbation theory we have :

$$\theta E_n^{(1)}=<\varphi _n|\theta H_I|\varphi _n>,$$
(14)
$$\psi _n=\varphi _n+\theta \underset{kn}{}C_{nk}^{(1)}\varphi _k,$$
(15)
$$\theta C_{nk}^{(1)}=\frac{<\varphi _k|\theta H_I|\varphi _n>}{E_n^0E_k^0},$$
(16)
where $`E_n^0`$ and $`\varphi _n`$ are the $`n`$th eigenvalue and eigenfunction of the Hamiltonian $`H`$. $`E_n`$ and $`\psi _n`$ are the $`n`$th eigenvalue and eigenfunction of $`H_{nc}`$. For example for the Hydrogen atom :

$$V(r)=\frac{ze^2}{r}=\frac{ze^2}{\sqrt{\widehat{x}\widehat{x}}}.$$
(17)
and we have :

$$\theta H_I=\frac{1}{2}\theta ϵ_{ij}p_j(\frac{x^ize^2}{r^3})=ze^2\theta \frac{x_iϵ_{ij}p_j}{2r^3}.$$
(18)
which is in agreement with the result of Ref. . Using (15) and (16) we can find the eigenfunctions for the Hydrogen atom in noncommutative spaces.

$$\psi _n^{Hydrogen}=\varphi _n+\underset{kn}{}\frac{<\varphi _k|\theta H_I|\varphi _n>}{E_n^0E_k^0}\varphi _k,$$
(19)
where $`\theta H_I`$ is given by equ.(18).

2 Berry’s phase in noncommutative spaces.

Now the Hamiltonian $`H_{nc}`$, its eigenfunctions $`\psi _n`$ and eigenvalues $`E_n`$ are known (equs. (11)-(13)) and we can calculate the Berry’s phase in noncommutative case. suppose a quantum system is in $`n`$th eigenstate :

$$H_{nc}|\psi _n>=E_n\psi _n.$$
(20)
If $`H_{nc}`$ is slowly changed, then according to the adiabatic theorem the system remains in the $`n`$th eigenstate of the slowly-changing Hamiltonian $`H_{nc}`$. If at time $`\tau `$ it returns to its initial form $`H_{nc}(\tau )=H_{nc}(t=0)`$, it follows that the system must return to its initial state up to a phase factor, and we have :

$$|\psi _n(\tau )>=e^{i_0^\tau E_n(t^{})𝑑t^{}}e^{i\eta _n(\tau )}|\psi _n>.$$
(21)
¿From the Schroedinger equation we have :

$$i\frac{|\psi _n>}{t}=E_n(t)|\psi _n(t)>.$$
(22)
Differentiating eq.(21) at time $`t`$, and plugging in to the Schroedinger equation, we obtain :

$$\frac{}{t}|\psi _n(t)>+i\frac{d\eta _n(t)}{dt}|\psi _n(t)>=0.$$
(23)
Multiplying on the left by $`<\psi _n(t)|`$, we have :

$$\eta _n(\tau )=i_0^\tau <\psi _n(t)|\frac{}{t}|\psi _n(t)>𝑑t.$$
(24)
If the time dependence of the Hamiltonian arises because we are changing some prameters $`R`$ with time, then we may write

$$\eta _n(\tau )=i_0^\tau <\psi _n(t)|\frac{}{t}|\psi _n(t)>𝑑t=i𝑑R<\psi _n(R)|_R\psi _n(R)>.$$
(25)
By substituting for $`\psi _n(t)`$ for a given time $`t`$ :

$$|\psi _n(t)>=|\varphi _n(t)>+\underset{kn}{}C_{nk}(\theta )|\varphi _k(t)>.$$
(26)
we have :

$`<\psi _n(t)|\frac{}{t}|\psi _n(t)>=`$

$$[<\varphi _n(t)|+\underset{kn}{}C_{nk}(\theta )<\varphi _k(t)|]\frac{}{t}[|\varphi _n(t)>+\underset{\mathrm{}n}{}C_n\mathrm{}(\theta )|\varphi _{\mathrm{}}(t)>].$$
(27)
which leads to :

$`\eta _n(\tau )=i_0^\tau 𝑑t<\varphi _n(t)|\frac{}{t}|\varphi _n(t)>+`$

$`i_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}\theta ^i_0^\tau dt\{_\mathrm{}nC_n\mathrm{}^{(i)}<\varphi _n(t)|\frac{}{t}|\varphi _{\mathrm{}}(t)>+_{kn}C_{nk}^{(i)}<\varphi _k(t)|\frac{}{t}|\varphi _n(t)>`$

$$+\underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}n}{}\underset{kn}{}\theta ^rC_n\mathrm{}^{(i)}C_{nk}^{(r)}<\varphi _{\mathrm{}}(t)|\frac{}{t}|\varphi _k(t)>\}.$$
(28)
or :

$`\eta _n=i𝑑R<\varphi _n(R)|_R\varphi _n(R)>+`$

$`i_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}\theta ^idR\{_\mathrm{}nC_n\mathrm{}^{(i)}<\varphi _n(R)|_R\varphi _{\mathrm{}}(R)>+_{kn}C_{nk}^{(i)}<\varphi _k(R)|_R\varphi _n(R)>`$

$$+\underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}n}{}\underset{kn}{}\theta ^rC_n\mathrm{}^{(i)}C_{nk}^{(r)}<\varphi _{\mathrm{}}(R)|_R\varphi _k(R)>\}.$$
(29)
The first term is Berry’s phase in commutative space and the second term gives the correction to the Berry’s phase due to the noncommtativity of space. If the parameter $`\theta `$ is small, the higher order terms (higher powers in $`\theta `$) are very small and we have :

$`\eta _n=i𝑑R<\varphi _n(R)|_R\varphi _n(R)>+`$

$$i\theta 𝑑R\{\underset{\mathrm{}n}{}C_n\mathrm{}^{(1)}<\varphi _n(R)|_R\varphi _{\mathrm{}}(R)>+\underset{kn}{}C_{nk}^{(1)}<\varphi _k(R)|_R\varphi _n(R)>\}+O(\theta ^2).$$
(30)
As we mentioned above the argument can be generalized to nonadiabatic evolution.
Let us consider the case of a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle in a magnetic field. If the magnetic field $`𝐁(t)`$ initially lie along the $`z`$-direction $`𝐁(t=0)=𝐁\widehat{z}`$, then the initial Hamiltonian is given by :

$$H(t=0)=𝐌.𝐁=\frac{eg}{4mc}\sigma .𝐁=\frac{eg}{2mc}BS_z.$$
(31)
Assume that the particle initially starts out in an eigenstate of $`S_z`$, we want to determine what happens to the particle if the direction of the $`B`$-field is rotated in some matter such that at time $`t=\tau `$, the field again lines up with the $`z`$\- axis. If the $`B`$-field doesn’t depend on the coordinates i.e. it is constant in space, then $`H_I=0`$ and we have :

$$H_{nc}=H.$$
(32)
This means that for a spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle at the presence of constant magnetic field in a noncommutative space, the correction to the Berry’s phase vanishes.
Acknowledgment.
I would like to thank Professor Masud Chaichian for his warm hospitality during my visit to the university of Helsinki. I am very grateful to M. M. Sheikh- Jabbari for his useful comments. I acknowledge S. M. Harun-or-Rashid for his help on preparation of the manuscript. This work is partialy supported by the Ministry of Scince, Research and Technology of Iran.
References.
1. N. Seiberg and E. Witten, JHEP9909, 032(1999).
2. D. Bigahil, L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D, 62 (2000)066004.
3. Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 11, (1959) 485.
4. M. V. Berry, Proc. Roy. Soc. A392, 45 (1984).
5. Y. Aharonov and J. Anandan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1593 (1987).
6. M. Chaichian, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari and A. Tureanu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2716 (2001).
7. M. Chaichian, A. Demichev, P. Pre$`\stackrel{˘}{s}`$najder, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and A. Tureanu, Phys. Lett. B 527 (2002) 149.
8. M. Chaichian, A. Demichev, P. Pre$`\stackrel{˘}{s}`$najder, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, and A. Tureanu, Nucl. Phys. B611(2001) 383.
9. A. Smailagic and E. Spallucci, Phys. Rev. D 65, 107701 (2002).
10. $`\ddot{O}`$. Dayi and A. Jellal, Phys. Lett. A 287, 349 (2001).
11. P-M Ho and H-C Kao, Phys. Rev. Lett 88, 151 602 (2001).
12. R. Banerjee, hep-th/0106280.
13. J. Gamboa, F, M$`\stackrel{´}{e}`$ndez, M. Loewe and J. C. Rojac, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 16, 2075 (2001).
14. V. P. Nair and A. P. Polychronakos, Phys. Lett. B 505, 267 (2001).
15. B. Muthukamar and R. Mitra, hep-th/0204149.
16. D. Kochan and M. Demetrian, hep-th/0102050.
17. L. Mezincesu, hep-th/0007046.
18. Y. Zunger, JHEP 0104, 039 (2001).
19. O. Espinosa and P. Gaete, hep-th/0206066.
20. Jian-zu Zhang and P. Osland. Eur. Phys. J. C20(2001) 393
21. S. A. Alavi, hep-th/0205229


text:
# Spin Splitting Induced Photogalvanic Effect in Quantum Wells

## I Introduction

Spin properties of carriers attract great attention in recent years due to rapidly developed spintronics dealing with manipulation of spin in electronic devices. spintronics  The first idea has been put forward by Datta and Das, who proposed a spin field-effect transistor. spin\_transistor  Its work is based on a change of the Rashba field in semiconductor heterostructures, caused by structure inversion asymmetry (SIA).

The promising materials for spintronics are III-V semiconductor quantum wells (QWs) whose spin properties are well documented and can be controlled by advanced technology. However, in addition to the Rashba spin-orbit interaction, another effective magnetic field acts on carriers in zinc-blende heterostructures. This is the so-called Dresselhaus field caused by bulk inversion asymmetry (BIA). Silva92

Both BIA and SIA give rise to many spin-dependent phenomena in QWs, such as an existence of beats in the Shubnikov-de Haas oscillations, SdHspin  spin relaxation, DK  splitting in polarized Raman scattering spectra, Jusserand92  and positive anomalous magnetoresistance. WLspin  Spin splittings and relaxation times have been extracted from these experiments. However, in  QWs, the BIA and SIA spin-orbit interactions result in the same dependences of spin splittings and spin relaxation times on the wave vector. Therefore it is impossible to determine the nature for the spin splitting. Only in the simultaneous presence of both BIA and SIA of comparable strengths, one can observe new effects, see Ref. Review,  and references therein. However the latter situation is rare in real systems because it requires a special structure design.

In this work, the other spin-dependent phenomenon is investigated which is essentially different from the mentioned above. This is the circular photogalvanic effect which is a conversion of photon angular momentum into a directed motion of charge carriers. This leads to an appearance of electric current under absorption of a circularly-polarized light.ELGE  The photocurrent reverses its direction under inversion of the light helicity. Microscopically, the circular photocurrent appears owing to a coupling between orbital and spin degrees of freedom. In semiconductors the coupling is a consequence of the spin-orbit interaction. In two-dimensional systems, the circular photogalvanic effect can be caused by both Rashba and Dresselhaus effective magnetic fields. In this paper we show that SIA and BIA result in experimentally distinguishable photocurrents.

Recently started activity on circular photogalvanics in QWs attracted big attention. Ganichev\_last ; Ganichev\_Nature  The photocurrents induced by both BIA and SIA have been investigated. The circular photocurrent has been mostly studied under intraband optical transitions induced by infrared or far-infrared excitations. However it is important to extend the studies on the optical range where the effect is expected to be much stronger. In this case, the photocurrent appears due to interband transitions.

In the present work, the theory of the interband circular photogalvanic effect in QWs is developed, and the photocurrent spectra are calculated.

## II Theory

Spin splittings of electron or hole subbands give rise to the circular photogalvanic effect. In order to obtain non-zero photocurrent, it is enough to include spin-orbit interaction for only one kind of carriers. Here we take into account spin-orbit splitting in the conduction band. In QWs, the spin-orbit interaction is described by the linear in the wave vector Hamiltonian

$$H(𝒌)=\beta _{il}\sigma _ik_l,$$
(1)
where $`\sigma _i`$ are the Pauli matrices.

Tensor $`\beta `$ is determined by the symmetry of the QW. As mentioned in Introduction, in structures with a zinc-blende lattice, there is a contribution due to BIA known as the Dresselhaus term. For  QWs, it has two non-zero components, namely

$$\beta _{xx}=\beta _{yy}\beta _{\mathrm{BIA}},$$
(2)
where $`x||[100],y||[010]`$, and the $`z`$-axis coincides with the growth direction.

SIA appears due to inequivalence of the right and left interfaces of the QW, electric fields applied along $`z`$ direction, etc. It leads to an additional contribution to the spin-orbit Hamiltonian, the so-called Rashba term:

$$\beta _{xy}=\beta _{yx}\beta _{\mathrm{SIA}}.$$
(3)
In the presence of the spin-orbit interaction (1), the two electron states with a given wave vector $`𝒌`$ have a splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2\sqrt{(\beta _{xl}k_l)^2+(\beta _{yl}k_l)^2}`$. We denote these states by the index $`m=\pm `$. Their envelope functions in size-quantized subbands can be chosen in the form

$$|m=\mathrm{exp}(i𝒌𝝆)\phi (z)[\frac{m}{\sqrt{2}}\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒌)+\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}],$$
(4)
where the phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒌`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{tan}\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒌=\frac{\beta _{xl}k_l}{\beta _{yi}k_i},$$

$``$ and $``$ are the spin-up and spin-down states, and $`𝝆`$ is the electron position in the plane of QW. For odd (even) subbands of size-quantization, $`\phi (z)=\pm \phi (z)`$, respectively.

The two hole states in the same subband and with the same $`𝒌`$ are assumed to be degenerate. We denote their dispersion, calculated in the spherical approximation, as $`E_h(k)`$. The states can be chosen as symmetrical ($`s`$) and antisymmetrical ($`a`$) in relation to the mirror reflection in the plane located in the middle of the QW. The corresponding wave functions have the form MPP

$`|s=\mathrm{exp}(i𝒌𝝆)`$ (5)
$`\times N\{[u_{3/2}+\sqrt{3}W_+\mathrm{exp}(2i\varphi _𝒌)u_{1/2}]C(z)`$
$`+i\zeta [\mathrm{exp}(3i\varphi _𝒌)u_{3/2}+\sqrt{3}W_{}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi _𝒌)u_{1/2}]S(z)\},`$
and $`|a`$ can be obtained from $`|s`$ by applying the operations of time- and space-inversion. Here $`u_{\pm 3/2}`$, $`u_{\pm 1/2}`$ are the Bloch functions at the top of the valence band, $`C`$ and $`S`$ are, respectively, even and odd functions of coordinate $`z`$zeta  and $`\varphi _𝒌`$ is the angle between  and $`𝒌`$:

$$\mathrm{tan}\varphi _𝒌=k_y/k_x.$$

Let us now consider optical excitation of a QW by circularly-polarized light (see Fig. 1).

Here we investigate the photocurrent arising due to asymmetry of the carrier distribution in $`𝒌`$-space at the moment of creation. It is different from another photocurrent caused by carrier momentum re-distribution during the process of spin relaxation. The latter, so-called spin-galvanic effect, was considered in Refs. IL-GP\_JETP,  and Ganichev\_Nature, . These two photocurrents can be separated in the time-resolved experiments: after switching-off the light source, the former decays with the momentum relaxation time while the latter disappears within the spin relaxation time.

The electric current is expressed in terms of the velocity operators and spin density matrices for electrons and holes as follows

$$𝒋=e\underset{𝒌}{}\mathrm{Tr}\left[𝒗^{(e)}(𝒌)\rho ^{(e)}(𝒌)𝒗^{(h)}(𝒌)\rho ^{(h)}(𝒌)\right],$$
(6)
where $`e`$ is the electron charge.

The velocity matrix elements calculated on the wave functions (4), (5) taking into account the spin-orbit corrections (1), are given by

$`\left(v_i^{(e)}\right)_{mm^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}k_i}{m_e}}+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\mathrm{}}}(\beta _{xi}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒌+\beta _{yi}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒌)\right]\delta _{mm^{}}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{im}{\mathrm{}}}(\beta _{yi}\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒌\beta _{xi}\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒌)(1\delta _{mm^{}}),`$
$`v_i^{(h)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_i}{k}}v_h(k),v_h(k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dE_h(k)}{dk}},`$ (7)
where $`m_e`$ is the electron effective mass.

Density-matrix equations taking into account both direct optical transitions and elastic scattering give the following expressions for linear in the light intensity values entering into Eq.(6)

$`\rho _{nn^{}}^{(e,h)}=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{\mathrm{}}}\tau _{e,h}{\displaystyle \underset{\overline{n}}{}}M_{n\overline{n}}M_{\overline{n}n^{}}`$ $`[\delta (E_n+E_{\overline{n}}\mathrm{}\omega )`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`\delta (E_n^{}+E_{\overline{n}}\mathrm{}\omega )]`$ $`.`$
Here $`\tau _e`$ and $`\tau _h`$ are the relaxation times of electrons and holes (here we assume isotropic scattering), $`\mathrm{}\omega `$ is the photon energy, $`M_{n\overline{n}}(𝒌)`$ is the matrix element of the direct optical transition between the subbands $`n`$ and $`\overline{n}`$, and the energy dispersions $`E_{e,h}(𝒌)`$ are reckoned inside the bands.

Calculations show that all odd harmonics of $`\rho ^{(e,h)}(𝒌)`$ entering into (6) are proportional to the following part of the sum

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=s,a}{}}M_{ml}M_{lm^{}}P_{circ}\left({\displaystyle \frac{epA_0}{m_0c}}\right)^2\mathrm{sin}\theta (NQ_\pm )^2m`$ (9)
$`\times \{\delta _{mm^{}}[W_\pm \mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒌2\varphi _𝒌+\varphi )+W_\pm ^2\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒌\varphi )]`$
$`+i(1\delta _{mm^{}})`$
$`\times [W_\pm \mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒌2\varphi _𝒌+\varphi )+W_\pm ^2\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒌\varphi )]\}.`$
Here $`P_{circ}`$ is the circular polarization degree, $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are the spherical angles of the light polarization vector (see Fig. 1), $`p`$ is the interband momentum matrix element, $`A_0`$ is the light wave amplitude, $`m_0`$ is the free electron mass, and

$$Q_+=\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑z\phi (z)C(z),Q_{}=\zeta \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑z\phi (z)S(z).$$
(10)
The upper (lower) sign in Eq. (9) corresponds to excitation into the odd (even) electron subbands. zeta

The characteristic spin splittings are usually very small, therefore we consider a linear in $`\beta `$ regime. In this approximation, SIA and BIA give independent contributions into the photocurrent

$$𝒋(\omega )=𝒋_{\mathrm{SIA}}(\omega )+𝒋_{\mathrm{BIA}}(\omega ),$$
(11)
where $`𝒋_{\mathrm{SIA}}`$ and $`𝒋_{\mathrm{BIA}}`$ are linear in $`\beta _{\mathrm{SIA}}`$ and $`\beta _{\mathrm{BIA}}`$, respectively. Assuming the splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$ and calculating the reduced density of states, we obtain from Eqs. (6) - (10) the expressions for the interband circular photocurrents:

$$j_i(\omega )=\beta _{li}\widehat{o}_lP_{circ}\left(\frac{epA_0}{m_0\mathrm{}c}\right)^2\frac{e}{\mathrm{}}G(k_\omega ).$$
(12)
Here $`i,l=x,y`$, and $`\widehat{𝒐}`$ is a projection of the unit vector along the light propagation direction on the QW plane (see Fig. 1). The wave vector of the direct optical transition, $`k_\omega `$, satisfies the energy conservation low

$$E_e(k_\omega )+E_h(k_\omega )=\mathrm{}\omega E_g,$$
(13)
where $`E_e(k)`$ is the parabolic electron dispersion without spin-orbit corrections. We study the effects linear in $`\beta `$, therefore Eq. (12) is valid at $`\mathrm{}\omega E_g^{QW}\beta k_\omega `$, where $`E_g^{QW}=E_g+E_{e1}(0)+E_{h1}(0)`$ is the fundamental energy gap corrected for the energies of size-quantization. However for real systems, the theory is valid even near the absorption edge.

The frequency dependence of the photocurrent is given by the function $`G(k)`$

$$G(k)=\frac{k}{v(k)}\frac{d}{dk}\left[\frac{F(k)u(k)}{v(k)}\right]\frac{F(k)}{v(k)}\left[2\frac{u(k)}{v(k)}\right],$$
(14)
where

$`F(k)=k[N(k)Q_\pm (k)W_\pm (k)]^2\tau _e(k),`$ (15)
$`v(k)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}k}{m_e}}+v_h(k),u(k)=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}k}{m_e}}+v_h(k){\displaystyle \frac{\tau _h(k)}{\tau _e(k)}}\right]\xi (k).`$
The first term in Eq. (14) appears because the direct transitions to the upper (lower) spin branch take place at a wave vector slightly smaller (larger) than $`k_\omega `$, and the second term occurs because the two electron spin states with the same $`𝒌`$ have different velocities.

The factor $`\xi (k)`$ depends on the form of a spin-orbit interaction. It follows from Eqs. (2), (3) that, for the BIA-induced spin-orbit interaction, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒌=\varphi _𝒌`$, while, for SIA-dominance, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝒌=\varphi _𝒌\pi /2`$. Therefore one has

$$\xi _{\mathrm{BIA}}=1,\xi _{\mathrm{SIA}}=11/W_\pm (k).$$
(16)
The difference appears because in the BIA-case the terms with $`W_\pm `$ in Eq. (9) are the third harmonics of $`\varphi _𝒌`$ and, hence, do not contribute to the current. This means that BIA and SIA create different current distributions of optically-generated electrons.

This difference gives rise to non-equal frequency dependences of the photocurrent. It is dramatic at the absorption edge, when $`\mathrm{}\omega E_g^{QW}`$. For the ground hole subband $`W_+(k)k^2`$, and hence

$$j_{\mathrm{BIA}}(\mathrm{}\omega E_g^{QW})^2,j_{\mathrm{SIA}}\mathrm{}\omega E_g^{QW}.$$
(17)
This conclusion opens a possibility to distinguish experimentally which kind of asymmetry, BIA or SIA, is dominant in the structure under study. This could be done by studying the power, quadratic or linear, in the dependence of the circular photocurrent on the light frequency near the absorption edge. At higher photon energies, the spectra are also different due to $`k`$-dependence of the functions $`W_\pm `$ \[see Eq. (16)\].

## III Results and Discussion

Eqs. (11 \- 16) describe the contributions to the circular photocurrent due to interband optical transitions. It is seen that the symmetry of the system determines the direction of the current. Indeed, according to Eq. (12), $`j_i(\omega )\beta _{li}\widehat{o}_l`$, i.e. (i) the current appears only under oblique light incidence and (ii) for SIA the current $`𝒋`$ is perpendicular to $`\widehat{𝒐}`$, while for BIA the angle between $`𝒋`$ and $`\widehat{𝒐}`$ is twice larger than the angle between the axis  and $`\widehat{𝒐}`$, see Fig. 1.

The spectrum of the photocurrent is determined by the function $`G(k_\omega )`$. Fig. 2 presents the partial contributions to this function for both SIA and BIA calculated for a 100-Å wide QW with infinitely-high barriers. The interband transitions between the $`h1`$, $`h2`$, $`l1`$ and $`h3`$ hole subbands and the ground electron subband, $`e1`$, are taken into account. The effective masses of the electron, heavy- and light-holes are chosen to correspond to GaAs: $`m_e=0.067m_0`$, $`m_{hh}=0.51m_0`$, $`m_{lh}=0.082m_0`$. The momentum relaxation times are assumed to be related by $`\tau _h=2\tau _e`$ and independent of the carrier energies. tau

The edge behavior of the photocurrent is due to the $`h1e1`$ transitions. One can see the linear and quadratic raising of the current near the absorption edge in accordance to Eq. (17). At higher energies, the spectra are determined mainly by the $`h1e1`$ and $`h2e1`$ transitions. The difference between BIA and SIA spectra is crucial: although in both cases the current for the $`h2e1`$ transitions is mainly negative and has a minimum, in the BIA-induced photocurrent these transitions give twice smaller contribution than $`h1e1`$, while for SIA-dominance they give the main contribution.

The total circular photocurrent caused by the four kinds of optical transitions is presented in Fig. 3. Arrows in Fig. 3 indicate the points where the transitions start. One can see that the BIA-induced circular photocurrent has a peak in the spectrum, while in the SIA case the dip is present around the same point. This photon energy corresponds to excitation of carriers with $`k2/a`$, where $`a`$ is the quantum well width. At this point the $`h1`$ and $`h2`$ energy dispersions have an anti-crossing. This results in a transformation of the hole wave functions and, hence, substantial changes in the dependence $`G(k)`$ Eq. (14).

The main feature of Fig. 3 is that the BIA-photocurrent has no sign change in the given energy domain, while in the SIA-case it has a sign-variable spectrum. This makes possible to determine the structure symmetry by means of the photogalvanic measurements.

## IV Concluding Remarks

The situations are possible when the both types of asymmetry are present. The absolute value of the current in the case $`\beta _{\mathrm{SIA}}\beta _{\mathrm{BIA}}0`$ is given by

$$j(\omega )=\sqrt{j_{\mathrm{BIA}}^2(\omega )+j_{\mathrm{SIA}}^2(\omega )2j_{\mathrm{BIA}}(\omega )j_{\mathrm{SIA}}(\omega )\mathrm{sin}2\varphi },$$
(18)
where $`\varphi `$ is the angle between $`\widehat{𝒐}`$ and the axis . The upper (lower) sign in Eq. (18) corresponds to $`\beta _{\mathrm{BIA}}\beta _{\mathrm{SIA}}>0`$ ($`<0`$). The direction of the photocurrent is given by the angle $`\chi `$ between $`[1\overline{1}0]`$ and $`𝒋`$:

$$\mathrm{tan}\chi =\frac{j_{\mathrm{SIA}}(\omega )+j_{\mathrm{BIA}}(\omega )}{j_{\mathrm{SIA}}(\omega )j_{\mathrm{BIA}}(\omega )}\mathrm{tan}(\varphi \pi /4).$$
(19)
The angular dependence (18) occurs due to simultaneous presence of Rashba and Dresselhaus fields ($`\beta _{\mathrm{SIA}}\beta _{\mathrm{BIA}}0`$) by analogy with the $`\varphi _𝒌`$-dependence of the spin splitting. It should be noted that $`j_{\mathrm{SIA}}`$ and $`j_{\mathrm{BIA}}`$ have different excitation spectra that causes complicated $`\omega `$-dependences of the total photocurrent absolute value and direction, Eqs. (1819).

The analysis shows that, under anisotropic scattering, the “interference” terms $`\beta _{\mathrm{BIA}}\beta _{\mathrm{SIA}}/(\beta _{\mathrm{BIA}}^2+\beta _{\mathrm{SIA}}^2)`$ appear in the total photocurrent Eq. (11) even in the linear in $`\beta `$’s regime. This is caused by coupling of the Fourier harmonics of the velocity operator and density matrix in Eq. (6).

In conclusion, we have developed a theory of the interband circular photogalvanic effect in QWs. The two cases when either BIA or SIA dominates have been considered. It is shown that BIA and SIA result in different photocurrents in QWs. The difference is dramatic at the interband absorption edge, where the photocurrent raises linearly or quadratically with increasing the photon energy under the SIA or BIA dominance, respectively. At higher $`\mathrm{}\omega `$, the photocurrent excitation spectra also have absolutely different shapes. This makes the interband circular photogalvanic effect a unique high-sensitive tool for investigation of symmetry and spin properties of QWs.

## Acknowledgments

Author thanks E.L. Ivchenko for helpful discussions and S.D. Ganichev for critical reading of the manuscript. This work is financially supported by the RFBR, DFG, INTAS, and by the Programmes of Russian Ministry of Science and Presidium of RAS.