* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Photon localizability - Current research interest: photon position
Coupled cluster wikipedia , lookup
Hidden variable theory wikipedia , lookup
Dirac equation wikipedia , lookup
Topological quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Ensemble interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Casimir effect wikipedia , lookup
Noether's theorem wikipedia , lookup
Quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
EPR paradox wikipedia , lookup
Bell's theorem wikipedia , lookup
Aharonov–Bohm effect wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization group wikipedia , lookup
Quantum state wikipedia , lookup
Bra–ket notation wikipedia , lookup
Particle in a box wikipedia , lookup
Copenhagen interpretation wikipedia , lookup
Path integral formulation wikipedia , lookup
Renormalization wikipedia , lookup
History of quantum field theory wikipedia , lookup
Wave function wikipedia , lookup
Coherent states wikipedia , lookup
Scalar field theory wikipedia , lookup
Density matrix wikipedia , lookup
Symmetry in quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Relativistic quantum mechanics wikipedia , lookup
Matter wave wikipedia , lookup
Canonical quantization wikipedia , lookup
Double-slit experiment wikipedia , lookup
Quantum key distribution wikipedia , lookup
Wave–particle duality wikipedia , lookup
Bohr–Einstein debates wikipedia , lookup
X-ray fluorescence wikipedia , lookup
Delayed choice quantum eraser wikipedia , lookup
Probability amplitude wikipedia , lookup
Ultrafast laser spectroscopy wikipedia , lookup
Wheeler's delayed choice experiment wikipedia , lookup
Quantum electrodynamics wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical and experimental justification for the Schrödinger equation wikipedia , lookup
Photon Position Margaret Hawton, Lakehead University Thunder Bay, Canada It has long been claimed that there is no photon position operator with commuting components and, as a consequence, no basis of localized states and no position space wave function, just fields and energy density. In this talk I will argue that all of these limitations can be overcome! This conclusion is supported by our position operator publications starting in 1999. Localizability The literature starts before 1930 and is sometimes confusing, in part because there are really 3 problems: 1) For any quantum particle ψ~e-iwt with +ve w= c k k and localizability is limited by FT theorems. 2) If all k's are equally weighted to localize the number probability density, then energy density (and fields in the case of photons) are not localized. 3) For 3D localization of the photon, transverse fields don’t allow separation of spin and orbital AM and this is reflected in the complexity of the r-operator. Classical versus quantum For a classical field one can take the real part which is equivalent to including +ve and –ve w's. Thus (1) does not limit localizability of a classical pulse, but the math of (2) and (3) are relevant to localizability of a classical field. 1) Localizability of quantum particles For positive energy particles the wave function ψ~e-iwt where w must be positive. Fourier transform theory then implies that a particle can be exactly localized at only one instant. This has been interpreted as a violation of causality. Also, the Paley-Wiener theorem limits localizability if only +ve (or –ve) k's are included. Paley-Wiener theorem The Fourier transform g(r) of a square-integrable function h(k) that vanishes for all negative values of k (i.e. +ve k or +ve w only) must obey: | log | g (r ) || hk dr 2 1 r This does not allow exact localization of a pulse travelling in a well defined direction but does allow exponential and algebraic localization, for example (Iwo Bialynicki-Birula, PRL 80, 5247 (1998)) g (r ) ~ exp( Ar ) with 1 Hegerfeldt theorem For a particle localized at a k, l a, l 0l k eik.a where depends on scalar product. In field theory 0l k ~ k. Consider a photon, helicity l, localized at r=0 at time t=0. The probability amplitude to find it at a at time t is: 2 i 3 1 l a, l 0,l t d k k 0 0 e 2 k m 2 ct eik.a FT theory implies that an initially localized particle immediately develops tails that are nonzero everywhere. Hegerfeldt causality paradox wave fronts red particle localized at r=0 (or in any finite region) at t=0 can be found anywhere in space at all other times. propagation direction These problems are not unique to 3D. I’ll first consider the 1D analog of the Hegerfeldt causality problem. As an example consider an ultrafast photon pulse whose description requires only one spatial variable, z, if length<<area. In 1D there is no problem to define a photon position operator, it the same as for an electron. zˆ a a a a, t a t The probability density that particle is at a is |(a,t)|2. Representations of the (1D) position operator are: zˆ z in coordinate space i k in k - space The exactly localized states are Dirac d-functions in position space and equally weighted in k-space: z a d z a k a 1 exp ika ; k a constant 2 Exactly localized states cannot be realized numerically or experimentally so I’ll include a factor e-ek: d e z 1 2 e e ikz e k dk d z but for ve k's only z e e 0 ikz e k iz e we get e dk 2 which is not localizabl e. 2 0 z e 2 2 Consider a traveling pulse with peak at Dz=0, center wave vector k0 and width ~1/e: f n (Dz ) k n exp[ ikDz e (k k0 )]dk 0 If k0=0 we get the simple forms (PV is the principal value): localized f 0 (Dz ) 1 / e iDz e iPV 1 / Dz d Dz 0 f1/ 2 (Dz ) / e iDz 1/ 2 is not localizabl e A pair of pulses, one initially at –a travelling to the right (k's>0), and the other at a travelling to the left (k's<0) is : Fn ( z, t ) f n ( z a ct ) f n ( z a ct ). 1D ultrafast pulse l0/2≈1 real part (localizable) pulse propagation (k>0 only) peak at z=-a+ct imaginary part (tails go to 0 as 1/Dz) Causality paradox in 1D: photon at a=0 time t=0 can immediately be found anywhere in space (dark blue imaginary part). Resolution of the “causality paradox” in the recent literature is localizable states are not physically realizable, but is this the case? nonlocalizable PVs cancel (interfere destructively) when coincident. localizable (d-function) nonlocalizable PV~1/Dz At any t ≠ 0 the probability to find the photon anywhere is space in nonzero. Due to interference there exists a single instant when QM says that the photon can be detected at only one place. But this is just familiar spooky quantum mechanics, and I think the effect is physically real. Let’s have a closer look as the pulses collide. nonlocalizable PV tails →0 as pulses collide, a QM interference effect Have total destructive interference of nonlocalizable part when counter propagating pulses peaks are coincident. Back to 3D (or 2D beam) causality paradox: wave fronts red particle localized at r=0 at t=0 can be found any where in space at all other times. propagation direction . Assume 0,l (0) 0, l at t 0, rl | 0,l (t ) d 3 keik r e ikct i 1 3 ik ( r ct ) ik ( r ct ) ~ d k e e r r 1 1 1 ~ r r r ct r ct There is an outgoing plus an incoming wave. In 3D have sum of incoming and outgoing spherical pulses: e ik ( r ct ) e e i ( k r kct ) ik ( r ct ) Conclusion 1 A single quantum mechanical pulse is not localizable. For a pair of counter propagating pulses the probability to detect the photon can be exactly localized at the instant when their peaks collide. This gives a physical interpretation to photon localizability, it implies that we don’t know whether the photon is arriving or departing. 2) Fields versus probability amplitudes Recall that pulses were described by f n (Dz ) k exp[ ikDz e (k k0 )]dk n 0 and a pair of pulses initially at –a travelling to the right (k's>0) and at a travelling to the left (k's<0) is Fn ( z, t ) f n ( z a ct ) f n ( z a ct ). If n=0 (an integer in general) we get localizability. For a monochromatic wave energy density number density w but this is ambiguous for a localized pulse that incorporates all frequencies, for which number and energy density have a different functional form. f1/ 2 (Dz) / e iDz 1/ 2 f 0 (Dz ) 1 / e iDz iPV 1 / Dz d Dz e 0 I.Based on photodetection theory,the photon wave function is sometimes defined as the expectation value of the +ve energy field operator as below where |> is a 1-photon state and |0> the vacuum: 0 E ( ) ( z , t ) F1/ 2 ( z , t ) if k ' s have equal weight F0 ( z , t ) if weights go as k 1/ 2 II.If we consider instead the probability amplitude to find a photon at z the interpretation is: position prob. ampl. z t F0 ( z , t ) for equal weights. The important role of the position operator is to define the z basis and the prob ampl to detect a photon. Energy density If E(z±ct) is LP along x, dtBy=-dzEx the magnetic field has the opposite sign for pulses travelling in the positive and negative directions. Thus if the nonlocalizable (PV) part of the E contributions cancel, the nonlocalizable contributions to B add. In a QM description, the photon energy density is not localizable. We have a localizable position probability amplitude if k's equally weighted, electric field if weighted as k -1/2. What “wave function” should we consider? The important thing is what can be produced and detected. And does a photodetector see just the electric field? I don’t know, really, but consider the E-field due to a planar current source localized in z and approximately localized in t. The source is localized in space but can’t be current exactlysource localized in time since w>0. QED is required to do a proper job. 2z A c12 t2 A d z f t In kw - space k A w A 2 2 1 e -w 2 2 1 iw -it w ikz E ( z, t ) t A dkd w e e 2 2 2 2 kc w the residue contributi on is 1 1 E a ct z i far field a ct z i This gives the same simple solution in the far field that I have been plotting and has a localized E-field. Plots with near field + far field t 60 2 50 40 30 20 10 -10 -5 5 -10 -20 source 10 Plots with near field + far field t 2 60 50 40 30 20 10 -10 -5 5 -10 -20 10 In far field, get propagating pulses i/Dz as previously plotted. t 4 60 50 40 30 20 10 -10 -5 5 -10 -20 10 detector propagating free photon source emission/absorption should 2nd quantize detector Conclusion 2 Photon position probability amplitude and fields are not simultaneously exactly localizable. Exponential localization of both is possible, but what matters is the field/probability amplitude that can be produced and detected. A localized current source in 1D produces a localizable E in the far field. Photon energy density is not localizable. 3) Transverse fields in 3D It has long been claimed that there is no hermitian photon position operator with commuting components, and hence there is not a basis of localized eigenvectors. However, we have recently published papers where it is demonstrated that a family of position operators exists. Since a sum over all k’s is required, we need to define 2 transverse directions for each k. One choice is the spherical polar unit vectors in k-space. ẑ kz or z q f kx φˆ ~ zˆ kˆ ; θˆ ~ φˆ kˆ Use CP basis vectors : k̂ θ̂ ky φ̂ el (0) 1 2 θˆ ilφˆ e ( 0 ) kˆ is the k - space gradient More generally can use any Euler angle basis De kz φ̂ q k f kx θ̂ ky iS p e iS zf e iS yq O DOD 1 F DF i r( ) D i D1 Position operator with commuting components r ( ) kˆ S cos q ˆ ik k S k k sin q A unique direction in space and jz is specified by the operator so it is rather complicated. It does not transform like a vector and nonexistence proofs in the literature do not apply. e ( ) l e e is rotation by l about pˆ : θˆ ilφˆ cos f il sin f cos fθˆ sin fφˆ ˆ il sin f θˆ cos f φ e(lf ) il (0) l 1 2 1 2 q 1 2 Rotated about zˆ by f pˆ .zˆ f cos q f at q =0, =f at q = φ̂ f q0 θ̂ Topology: You can’t comb the hair on a fuzz ball without creating a screw dislocation. Phase discontinuity at origin gives d-function string when differentiated. Is the physics -dependent? Localized basis states depend on choice of , e.g. el(0) or el(-f) localized eigenvectors look physically different in terms of their vortices. This has been given as a reason that our position operator may be invalid. The resolution lies in understanding the role of angular momentum (AM). Note: orbital AM rxp involves photon position. Optical angular momentum (AM) Helicity l: e(l ) Spin sz : e(l ) ~ 1 2 xˆ isz yˆ 2 1 Usual orbital AM: Lz i If coefficient f p ~ e ˆ e il θˆ il φ p z i f ilzf Lz eilzf lz eilzf and lz is OAM Interpretation for helicity l1, single valued, dislocation -ve z-axis, =-f ( f ) 1 e cos q 1 xˆ iyˆ 2 sz=1, lz= 0 2 cos q 1 xˆ iyˆ exp 2 2 1 2 sin q zˆ exp if 2if sz= -1, lz= 2 sz=0, lz= 1 Basis has uncertain spin and orbital AM, definite jz=1. Position space e ipr / 2 0 imf ;l pr 4 i Yl , Yl q , f jl l 0;n l l n n* Yl n* q , f eimf df ~ d n,m eim im e dependence in p-space e in r-space There is a similar transfer of q dependence, and the factor jl (pr / ) is picked up. Beams Any Fourier expansion of the fields must make use of some transverse basis to write Fl r, t 3 d p 2 3 f p el e ( ) i p.r pct / and the theory of geometric gauge transformations presented so far in the context of exactly localized states applies - in particular it applies to optical beams. Some examples involving beams follow: Bessel beam, fixed q 0 , azimuthal and radial (jz =0): Volke-Sepulveda et al, J. Opt. B 4 S82 (2002). A has zˆ and zˆ terms. e1(0) e(0) 1 φˆ i 2 xˆ iyˆ if 1 xˆ iyˆ if 1 2 e 2 e 2 2 i i ˆθ 1 cos q xˆ iyˆ eif 1 cos q xˆ iyˆ e if sin q zˆ 2 2 2 2 The basis vectors contribute orbital AM. e1( f ) and e(f1) have same lz 1 Nonparaxial optical beams Barnett&Allen, Opt. Comm. 110, 670 (1994) get xˆ iyˆ 1 zˆ sin q eif co s q 2 2 1 2if ( f ) ( f ) cos q 1 cos q e1 + e e 1 2 2 Elimination of e2if term requires linear combination of RH and LH helicity basis states. Conclusion 3 A transverse basis is required for the general . description of pulses and beams, for example spherical polars. This necessarily singles out some direction in space, call it z. The transverse vectors form a screw dislocation with an associated definite total angular momentum, jz, which can’t in general be separated into spin and orbital AM. Summary • Unidirectional pulses are not localizable, but counter propagating pulses can be constructed such that when they collide the particle can be detected in only one place. • Relevance of field or energy density or probability amplitude depends on the experiment. • Localized photons are not just fuzzy balls, they contain a screw phase dislocation. This applies quite generally, e.g. to optical beam AM.