Taming the Rotating Wave Approximation

Daniel Burgarth1, Paolo Facchi2, Robin Hillier3, and Marilena Ligabò4

1Department Physik, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Staudtstraße 7, 91058 Erlangen, Germany
2Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Bari, I-70126 Bari, Italy, and INFN, Sezione di Bari, I-70126 Bari, Italy
3Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YF, UK
4Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Bari, I-70125 Bari, Italy

Find this paper interesting or want to discuss? Scite or leave a comment on SciRate.

Abstract

The interaction between light and matter is one of the oldest research areas of quantum mechanics, and a field that just keeps on delivering new insights and applications. With the arrival of cavity and circuit quantum electrodynamics we can now achieve strong light-matter couplings which form the basis of most implementations of quantum technology. But quantum information processing also has high demands requiring total error rates of fractions of percentage in order to be scalable (fault-tolerant) to useful applications. Since errors can also arise from modelling, this has brought into center stage one of the key approximations of quantum theory, the Rotating Wave Approximation (RWA) of the quantum Rabi model, leading to the Jaynes-Cummings Hamiltonian. While the RWA is often very good and incredibly useful to understand light-matter interactions, there is also growing experimental evidence of regimes where it is a bad approximation. Here, we ask and answer a harder question: for which experimental parameters is the RWA, although perhaps qualitatively adequate, already not good enough to match the demands of scalable quantum technology? For example, when is the error at least, and when at most, 1%? To answer this, we develop rigorous non-perturbative bounds taming the RWA.
We find that these bounds not only depend, as expected, on the ratio of the coupling strength and the oscillator frequency, but also on the average number of photons in the initial state. This confirms recent experiments on photon-dressed Bloch-Siegert shifts. We argue that with experiments reporting controllable cavity states with hundreds of photons and with quantum error correcting codes exploring more and more of Fock space, this state-dependency of the RWA is increasingly relevant for the field of quantum computation, and our results pave the way towards a better understanding of those experiments.

► BibTeX data

► References

[1] I. I. Rabi, J. R. Zacharias, S. Millman, and P. Kusch, A New Method of Measuring Nuclear Magnetic Moment. Physical Review 53, 318 (1938).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRev.53.318

[2] I. I. Rabi, Space Quantization in a Gyrating Magnetic Field. . Physical Review 51, 652 (1937).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRev.51.652

[3] Google Scholar reports close to a million hits.

[4] F. Bloch and A. Siegert, Magnetic Resonance for Nonrotating Fields. Physical Review 57, 522 (1940).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRev.57.522

[5] J. H. Shirley, Solution of the schrödinger equation with a hamiltonian periodic in time. Physical Review 138, B979 (1965).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRev.138.B979

[6] U. Haeberlen and J. S. Waugh, Coherent Averaging Effects in Magnetic Resonance. Physical Review 175, 453 (1968).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRev.175.453

[7] G. S. Agarwal, Rotating-Wave Approximation and Spontaneous Emission. Physical Review A 7, 1195 (1973).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevA.7.1195

[8] D. Burgarth, P. Facchi, G. Gramegna, and K. Yuasa, One bound to rule them all: from Adiabatic to Zeno. Quantum 6, 737 (2022).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.22331/​q-2022-06-14-737

[9] E. Jaynes and F. Cummings, Comparison of quantum and semiclassical radiation theories with application to the beam maser. Proceedings of the IEEE 51, 89 (1963).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1109/​PROC.1963.1664

[10] J. Larson and T. Mavrogordatos, The Jaynes-Cummings model and its descendants modern research directions. IoP Publishing (2021).

[11] P. Forn-Díaz, J. Lisenfeld, D. Marcos, J. J. García-Ripoll, E. Solano, C. J. P. M. Harmans, and J. E. Mooij, Observation of the Bloch-Siegert Shift in a Qubit-Oscillator System in the Ultrastrong Coupling Regime. Physical Review Letters 105, 237001 (2010).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevLett.105.237001

[12] X. Li, M. Bamba, Q. Zhang, S. Fallahi, G. C. Gardner, W. Gao, M. Lou, K. Yoshioka, M. J. Manfra, and J. Kono, Vacuum Bloch-Siegert shift in Landau polaritons with ultra-high cooperativity. Nature Photonics 12, 324 (2018).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s41566-018-0153-0

[13] A. Frisk, A. Miranowicz, S. De Liberato, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Ultrastrong coupling between light and matter. Nature Review Physics 1, 19 (2019).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1038/​s42254-018-0006-2

[14] D. Walls, Higher order effects in the single atom field mode interaction. Physics Letters A 42, 217 (1972).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​0375-9601(72)90867-5

[15] S.-P. Wang, G.-Q. Zhang, Y. Wang, Z. Chen, T. Li, J. S. Tsai, S.-Y. Zhu, and J. Q. You, Photon-Dressed Bloch-Siegert Shift in an Ultrastrongly Coupled Circuit Quantum Electrodynamical System. Physical Review Applied 13 ,054063 (2020).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PhysRevApplied.13.054063

[16] R. R. Puri, Mathematical Methods of Quantum Optics. Springer (2011).

[17] The reason we focus on short times here is a purely technical requirement from the proof (see Appendix). Indeed, numerics shows that the errors are even larger for generic later times.

[18] D. Gottesman, Opportunities and Challenges in Fault-Tolerant Quantum Computation. arXiv:2210.15844 (2022).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.48550/​arXiv.2210.15844
arXiv:2210.15844

[19] A. Grimsmo and S. Puri, Quantum Error Correction with the Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill Code. PRX Quantum, 2, 020101 (2021).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1103/​PRXQuantum.2.020101

[20] B. Vlastakis, G. Kirchmair, Z. Leghtas, S. E. Nigg, L. Frunzio, S. M. Girvin, M. Mirrahimi, M. H. Devoret, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Deterministically Encoding Quantum Information Using 100-Photon Schrödinger Cat States. Science 342, 607 (2013).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1126/​science.1243289

[21] D. D'Alessandro, Introduction to Quantum Control and Dynamics, CRC Press (2020).

[22] T. Chambrion, Periodic excitations of bilinear quantum systems. Automatica 48, 2040 (2012).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.automatica.2012.03.031

[23] N. Augier, U. Boscain, and M. Sigalotti, Effective adiabatic control of a decoupled Hamiltonian obtained by rotating wave approximation. Automatica 136, 110034 (2022).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.automatica.2021.110034

[24] R. Robin, N. Augier, U. Boscain, and M. Sigalotti. Ensemble qubit controllability with a single control via adiabatic and rotating wave approximations. Journal of Differential Equations 318, 414 (2022).
https:/​/​doi.org/​10.1016/​j.jde.2022.02.042

[25] M. Reed and B. Simon. Methods of mathematical physics 1. Functional analysis. Academic Press (1980).

[26] M. Reed and B. Simon. Methods of mathematical physics 2. Fourier analysis, self-adjointness. Academic Press (1975).

Cited by

[1] Neil Dowling, Kavan Modi, Roberto N. Muñoz, Sukhbinder Singh, and Gregory A. L. White, "Process Tree: Efficient Representation of Quantum Processes with Complex Long-Range Memory", arXiv:2312.04624, (2023).

The above citations are from SAO/NASA ADS (last updated successfully 2024-04-12 08:38:42). The list may be incomplete as not all publishers provide suitable and complete citation data.

On Crossref's cited-by service no data on citing works was found (last attempt 2024-04-12 08:38:40).