JID:PLA AID:24500 /SCO Doctopic: Quantum physics [m5G; v1.216; Prn:16/05/2017; 13:21] P.

1 (1-7)
Physics Letters A ••• (••••) •••–•••

1 67
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
2 68
3 69
4 Physics Letters A 70
5 71
6 72
7 www.elsevier.com/locate/pla 73
8 74
9 75
10 76
11 77
12
Unified quantum density matrix description of coherence 78
13 and polarization 79
14 80
15 a,b,∗ 81
Bertúlio de Lima Bernardo
16 82
17 a 83
Departamento de Física, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, 50670-901 Recife, PE, Brazil
b
18 Departamento de Física, Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, Caixa Postal 10071, 58109-970 Campina Grande, PB, Brazil 84
19 85
20 86
21 a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t 87
22 88
Article history: The properties of coherence and polarization of light has been the subject of intense investigations
23 89
Received 7 February 2017 and form the basis of many technological applications. These concepts which historically have been
24 Received in revised form 29 March 2017 90
treated independently can now be formulated under a single classical theory. Here, we derive a quantum
25 Accepted 10 May 2017 91
counterpart for this theory, with basis on a density matrix formulation, which describes jointly the
26 Available online xxxx 92
Communicated by A. Eisfeld
coherence and polarization properties of an ensemble of photons. The method is used to show how
27 the degree of polarization of a specific class of mixed states changes on propagation in free space, and 93
28 how an interacting environment can suppress the coherence and polarization degrees of a general state. 94
Keywords:
29 Density matrix This last application can be particularly useful in the analysis of decoherence effects in optical quantum 95
30 Polarization of light information implementations. 96
31 Coherence properties © 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V. 97
Entanglement
32 98
Decoherence
33 99
34 100
35 101
36 102
37 1. Introduction veloped independently [16–18]. However, since the last decade the 103
38 study of these two apparently distinct properties could be estab- 104
39 Coherence and polarization are undoubtedly two of the most lished into a single formulation through the unified theory of co- 105
40 important properties of light. In general terms, the coherence of herence and polarization introduced by Wolf [19]. In this seminal 106
41 an optical field can be understood as the ability to produce in- work, it was shown that both coherence and polarization of a ran- 107
42 terference, as remarkably demonstrated by Young in his famous dom electromagnetic beam could be understood as manifestations 108
43 double-slit experiment, and theoretically developed by the works of the correlations between fluctuations of the optical field. In this 109
44 of Fresnel in the context of waves [1]. Another important devel- respect, coherence manifests itself from correlations between fluc- 110
45 opment in the coherence theory was the one made by Glauber tuations of the electric field of a light beam at two or more points 111
46 and Sudarshan, which established the connections about the coher- in space, whereas polarization arises from the correlations of the 112
47 ence properties of light with the concept of photon statistics in a optical field components at a single point in space [20]. 113
48 quantum mechanical scenario [2–4]. Conversely, the modern study Since the publication of the unified theory, many other ad- 114
49 of the polarization properties was introduced by Stokes, who pro- vances have been made towards a complete understanding of this 115
50 posed a set of parameters to completely describe the polarization problem. For example, the introduction of the generalized Stokes 116
51 state of a random electromagnetic wave; the so-called Stokes pa- parameters [21], the description of the polarization change of par- 117
52 rameters [5,6], that can also be extended to the quantum realm [7]. tially coherent electromagnetic beam upon propagation in free 118
53 Together, these two concepts form the basis of numerous appli- space [22,23], and in the turbulent atmosphere [24,25], just to 119
54 cations of light in microscopy [8], cryptography [9,10], metrology mention a few. Nevertheless, almost all these works have been lim- 120
55 [11], astronomy [12,13], as well as in future quantum information ited to the scope of the classical electromagnetic theory [26,27]. In 121
56 technologies [14,15]. fact, there have been some recent works extending the classical 122
57 Although the importance of the theories of coherence and po- unification theory to the realm of quantum mechanics by direct 123
58 larization, their theoretical descriptions have historically been de- quantization of the electromagnetic field [28,29]. So far, this ex- 124
59 tension did not provide a significant clarification of the problem, 125
60 when compared to the classical counterpart, maybe because the 126
61 state of the field is characterized in the Fock space, which some- 127
*
Correspondence to: Departamento de Física, Universidade Federal de Pernam-
times makes the physical intuition less precise and, depending on
62 buco, 50670-901 Recife, PE, Brazil. 128
63 E-mail address: bertulio.fisica@gmail.com. the environment in which the system is inserted, it is difficult to 129
64 130
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2017.05.018
65 131
0375-9601/© 2017 Published by Elsevier B.V.
66 132
 JID:PLA AID:24500 /SCO Doctopic: Quantum physics [m5G; v1.216; Prn:16/05/2017; 13:21] P.2 (1-7)
2 B. de Lima Bernardo / Physics Letters A ••• (••••) •••–•••

1 in mind that horizontally polarized photons do not interfere with 67

2 vertically polarized ones, we have that 68
3 69
4 ρ ( P ) =  H , P |ρ | H , P  +  V , P |ρ | V , P , (3) 70
5 where | H , P  and | V , P  represent the states of photons local- 71
6 ized at P with horizontal and vertical polarizations, respectively. 72
7 Assuming that the size of the slits is much smaller than the wave- 73
8 length of the photons, we can consider that after passing through 74
9 a given slit the wavefunction of the photons are spherical waves. 75
10 Therefore, the probability amplitudes of finding a photon at P with 76
11 Fig. 1. (Color online.) Scheme of the double-slit experiment. An ensemble of photons horizontal (vertical) polarization which passed through the slit Q 0 77
12 impinges a mask containing two slits, Q 0 and Q 1 , rendering two possible paths to 78
( Q 1 ) are given, respectively, by
13 each of them, which are afterwards detected on the screen. 79
14 (P ) e ikr0 80
15 write an appropriate Hamiltonian to account for the time evolution ψ H , V (r0 ) =  H , P | H , 0 =  V , P | V , 0 = (4) 81
r0
16 of the system [30]. 82
17 In this work, we derive a unified quantum mechanical descrip- and 83
tion of coherence and polarization from first principles, that is to
18
(P ) e ikr1 84
19 say, without direct reference to the classical theory. As we shall ψ H , V (r1 ) =  H , P | H , 1 =  V , P | V , 1 = , (5) 85
see, the central element in this formalism is the density matrix r1
20 86
21 of the system written directly in terms of the position and polar- with i and k being the imaginary unity and the wavenumber, re- 87
22 ization Hilbert spaces. This last point is the responsible for mak- spectively. The parameters r0 and r1 are the distances from the 88
23 ing the method relatively simple when describing the behavior of slits Q 0 and Q 1 to the point P , respectively. By substitution of 89
24 a general ensemble of photons on propagation in free space, as Eqs. (4) and (5) into Eq. (3), and cancelling out terms with inner 90
25 well as under the action of an interacting environment. Indeed, products between horizontal and vertical polarization states, we 91
26 we provide some applications of the model to demonstrate how a obtain that 92
partially coherent ensemble of photons change the degree of po-
27 ρ11 + ρ33 ρ22 + ρ44 93
28 larization when propagating in free space, and how decoherence ρ(P ) = + 94
29 and depolarization take place when photons are subjected to an r02 r12 95
environment whose constituents can be refractive and birefrin- ik(r0 −r1 )
30 2Re [(ρ21 + ρ34 )e ] 96
31 gent. Since all these examples are presented by means of simple + , (6) 97
r0 r1
32 quantum-mechanical arguments, the present description can be 98
where we used the fact that ρ is Hermitian, ρmn = ρnm ∗ , and Re
33 particularly valuable in the study of environmental disturbance in 99
34 optical quantum information processes, in which the properties of denotes the real part. 100
35 coherence and polarization play a fundamental role. Let us visualize Eq. (6) under a different perspective. Observe 101
36 that if the slit Q 1 is closed, the amplitudes b and d are null in 102
37 2. Theory Eq. (1), therefore, Eq. (6) reduces to 103
38 ρ11 + ρ33 104
39 To start with, we derive an expression for the degree of spatial ρ0 ( P ) = , (7) 105
coherence of light in a context similar to the one used to derive the r02
40 106
classical theory [19]. In doing so, let us consider a Young’s double-
41 which represents the probability density of finding a photon that 107
slit experiment which consists in an ensemble of photons propa-
42 emerged exclusively from Q 0 at P . Similarly, the probability den- 108
gating close to the z-axis which are mostly blocked by a mask with
43 sity of finding a photon that emerged from Q 1 at P is given by 109
44 two small openings on it. After this stage, the positions of the pho- 110
tons that passed through the slits are permanently registered by a ρ22 + ρ44
45 ρ1 ( P ) = . (8) 111
46 distant detection screen, as shown in Fig. 1. Let |0 and |1 denote r12 112
47 the quantum states of the photons which passed through the slits 113
Q 0 and Q 1 , respectively, and | H  and | V  the states of the photons In this context, Eq. (6) can be rewritten as
48 114
linearly polarized along the horizontal (x-axis) and vertical (y-axis)  
49
directions, respectively. In this scenario, we can write the general
ρ ( P ) = ρ0 ( P ) + ρ1 ( P ) + 2 ρ0 ( P ) ρ1 ( P ) Re[μe ik(r0 −r1 ) ], (9) 115
50 116
51 quantum state of the photons in the form where the parameter μ is given by 117
52 |ψ = a| H , 0 + b| H , 1 + c | V , 0 + d| V , 1, (1) ρ12 + ρ34 118
53 μ= √ √ . (10) 119
54 with |a|2 + |b|2 + |c |2 + |d|2 = 1, in order to specify simultaneously ρ11 + ρ33 ρ22 + ρ44 120
55 both the slit in which the photon passes through and the state of The first two terms in Eq. (9) correspond to the sum of the indi- 121
56 polarization. Also, we can write the density matrix for this sys- vidual probability densities of the photons which passed through 122
57 tem as ρ̂ = |ψψ|, which provides a 4 × 4 matrix in the following each slit, and the last term is responsible for the interference pat- 123
58 format: tern on the detection screen. Note that the parameter that dictates 124
⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞
59
ρ11 ρ12 ρ13 ρ14 |a|2 ab∗ ac ∗ ad∗ the prominence of the interference pattern in this system is μ, 125
60 ⎜ ρ21 ρ22 ρ23 ρ24 ⎟ ⎜ ∗ |b|2 bc ∗ bd∗ ⎟ which we define as the degree of coherence. Therefore, this parame- 126
ρ̂ = ⎜ ⎟ = ⎜ ba ⎟, (2)
61
⎝ ρ31 ρ32 ρ33 ρ34 ⎠ ⎝ ca∗ cb∗ |c |2 cd∗ ⎠ ter can be measured by detecting the patterns due to the photons 127
62 which emerge from each slit separately, and the pattern formed 128
ρ41 ρ42 ρ43 ρ44 da∗ db∗ dc ∗ |d|2
63 when both slits are open, by means of Eq. (9). 129
64 where the asterisk denotes complex conjugation. By substitution of the amplitudes a, b, c and d in Eq. (10), 130
65 Now, if we are interested in computing the probability density and using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, it is easy to show that 131
66 ρ ( P ) to find a photon at a point P on the detection screen, keeping 0 ≤ |μ| ≤ 1. Since the interference term is maximum when |μ| = 1, 132
 JID:PLA AID:24500 /SCO Doctopic: Quantum physics [m5G; v1.216; Prn:16/05/2017; 13:21] P.3 (1-7)
B. de Lima Bernardo / Physics Letters A ••• (••••) •••–••• 3

 
1 we say that the ensemble of photons is completely coherent with ρ̂ = w i ρ (i ) = w i |ψ (i ) ψ (i ) |, (18) 67
2 respect to the slits Q 0 and Q 1 . On the other hand, for μ = 0, the i i 68
3 interference pattern is completely destroyed and we say that the 69
4 ensemble of photons is completely incoherent with respect to the with w i as the fractional populations of each pure state ρ (i ) con- 70
5 slits. In the intermediate cases, 0 < |μ| < 1, we say that the pho- tained in the ensemble of photons, we can write the density ma- 71
6 tons are partially coherent. Despite the fact that we used a purely trix for the system as 72
7 quantum mechanical method to derive the expression for the de- ⎛ ⎞ 73
8 gree of coherence, Eq. (10), it has an interesting mathematical ρ11 ρ12 ρ13 ρ14 74
⎜ ρ21 ρ22 ρ23 ρ24 ⎟
9 similarity with the one found in the classical theory (see Eq. (8) ⎜
ρ̂ = ⎝ ⎟, (19)
75
10 in Ref. [19]). ρ31 ρ32 ρ33 ρ34 ⎠ 76
11 Now we turn to the analysis of the polarization in this system, ρ41 ρ42 ρ43 ρ44 77
12 and to the derivation of an expression for the degree of polar-  78
(i )
13 ization. Initially, let us concentrate only on the photons emerging with each element given by ρnm = i w i ρnm . In this form, all the 79
14 from the slit Q 0 . At this point, we can define the quantum ver- derivations developed above are equally valid for a mixed density 80
15 sion of the Stokes parameters as given by (see a similar analysis in matrix, including the expressions for the degree of coherence and 81
16 Ref. [31]) polarization of Eqs. (10), (16) and (17). 82
17 Now we present some applications of the equations derived 83
( 0)
18 S 0 = tr [| H , 0 H , 0|ρ ] + tr [| V , 0 V , 0|ρ ] = ρ11 + ρ33 , (11) above in order to elucidate their physical meaning. Consider, for 84
19 ( 0) example, a pure ensemble of horizontally polarized photons with 85
20
S 1 = tr [| H , 0 H , 0|ρ ] − tr [| V , 0 V , 0|ρ ] = ρ11 − ρ33 , (12) equivalent probabilities of passing through both slits. This is de- 86
21 ( 0)
S 2 = tr [| H , 0 V , 0|ρ ] + tr [| V , 0 H , 0|ρ ] = ρ31 + ρ13 , (13) scribed by the state |ψ = √1 (| H , 0 + | H , 1, such that the degrees 87
2
22 of coherence as well as polarization are found to reach their maxi- 88
( 0)
S 3 = i {tr [| V , 0 H , 0|ρ ] + tr [| H , 0 V , 0|ρ ]} = i (ρ13 − ρ31 ),
23 mum value, namely, μ = 1, p 0 = 1 and p 1 = 1. These are expected 89
24 results since we have no information about which slit the photons 90
(14)
25 passed, and all of them have a well defined polarization. In fact, 91
26 where tr denotes the trace. Observe that, contrary to the second for a general pure state described by Eq. (1), the two aspects that 92
27 quantization formalism, in which the Stokes parameters are op- determine the degree of coherence are: (i) the relation between 93
28 erators [7,32,33], here they appear simply as numbers playing a the probabilities of a photon to emerge from Q 0 and Q 1 , and (ii) 94
29 role similar to that of the classical electromagnetic theory. Physi- the similarity between horizontally and vertically polarized pho- 95
30 cally, the Stokes parameters above represent the ensemble average tons with respect to the phase relation of the passage through the 96
31 of the identity operator and the three Pauli operators in the basis two slits. In the first case, the more distributed the probabilities of 97
32 {| H , | V } [34], but only for the photons which emerge from slit the photon to pass through each slit, the larger the degree of co- 98
33 Q 0 . In this form, they can be measured with an appropriate com- herence. In the second case, the closer the relative phases between 99
34 bination of linear polarizers and a π /2 phase shifter (see Refs. [35] the passage through Q 0 and Q 1 for photons with polarization hor- 100
35 and [31] for a classical and quantum approach to this problem, re- izontal and vertical, the larger the degree of coherence. In regards 101
36 spectively). to the degrees of polarization, it is easy to see that they reach their 102
Accordingly, the degree of polarization at Q 0 can be defined,
37
maximum for a pure state, p 0 = p 1 = 1. This is also expected since, 103
38 and measured, in agreement with the following relation [36,37]: 104
independent of the amplitudes a, b, c and d, we always have a well
39 defined polarization in the H-V basis for the state |ψ in Eq. (1). 105
40 ( S 1(0) )2 + ( S 2(0) )2 + ( S 3(0) )2 Note that the present discussion is also valid for states whose 106
41 p0 = , (15) 107
S0
( 0) coherent properties are entangled with the polarization proper-
42
ties. For instance, the state |ψ = a| H , 0 + d| V , 1 provides μ = 0, 108
43
which is a real quantity and its range is 0 ≤ p 0 ≤ 1 [20]. After p 0 = 1 and p 1 = 1. The reason why the degree of coherence is null 109
44 110
substitution of Eqs. (11), (12), (13) and (14) into Eq. (15), and some is because the polarization gives information about the path of the
45 111
algebra, it can be written as photons, eliminating the interference pattern. The degree of polar-
46

ization is maximum because the polarization is completely defined
112
47 4(ρ11 ρ33 − ρ13 ρ31 ) at each opening, namely, horizontal at Q 0 and vertical at Q 1 .
113
48 p0 = 1− , (16) 114
49
(ρ11 + ρ33 )2 The situation is much richer for mixed states. Here, we want to
115
analyze two particular examples. First, consider the mixed state
50 which is our final expression for the degree of polarization. With 116
51 this definition, we have that: (i) if 0 < p 0 < 1, the ensemble is said 117
ρ̂ = 1/4[| H , 0 H , 0| + | V , 0 V , 0| (20)
52 to be partially polarized; (ii) if p 0 = 0, the ensemble is unpolarized, 118
53 and (iii) if p 0 = 1, the ensemble is totally polarized. In a similar + | H , 1 H , 1| + | V , 1 V , 1|], 119
54 fashion, one can show that the degree of polarization of the pho- 120
55 which represents a completely random ensemble of photons with 121
tons which pass through the slit Q 1 is given by
equal probability of being horizontally and vertically polarized, and
56
122
passing through the slits Q 0 and Q 1 . Then, for obvious reasons, the
57 4(ρ22 ρ44 − ρ24 ρ42 ) 123
58 p1 = 1− . (17) degrees of coherence and polarization are null: μ = 0, p 0 = 0 and 124
(ρ22 + ρ44 )2 p 1 = 0. The next example is particularly interesting. It represents a
59 125
60 Again, we call attention to the mathematical similarity between mixed state whose coherence and polarization degrees of freedom 126
61 the expression of the degree of polarization derived here, with ba- are separable: 127
62 sis only on a quantum mechanical background, and the one found 128
63 by means of classical methods [19]. ρ̂ = ρ̂ p ⊗ ρ̂c (21) 129
64 So far, we have discussed the properties of coherence and po- 130
= 1/2[| H  H | + | V  V |]
65 larization based on the pure state of Eq. (1). However, for a general 131
66 mixed state ⊗ 1/2[|00| + |11| + |01| + |10|]. 132
 JID:PLA AID:24500 /SCO Doctopic: Quantum physics [m5G; v1.216; Prn:16/05/2017; 13:21] P.4 (1-7)
4 B. de Lima Bernardo / Physics Letters A ••• (••••) •••–•••

1 Thus, the degrees of polarization at the points Q 0 and Q 1 are 67

2 given by: 68
3
69
4 4w 1 ( z) w 2 ( z) 70
p0 = p1 = p = 1− . (26)
5
[ w 1 ( z) + w 2 ( z)]2 71
6 72
7 At this point we call attention to the fact that the fractional popu- 73
8 lations w 1 (0) and w 2 (0) to find each subensemble at Q 0 and Q 1 , 74
9 at z = 0, introduced in Eq. (22) are numbers which are determined 75
10 at the moment of the creation of the ensemble. Then, it should 76
11 be clear that the dependence on z shown in Eq. (25) reflects that 77
12 Fig. 2. (Color online.) Propagation of an ensemble of photons composed of two the probabilities to obtain a photon from each group changes upon 78
subensembles with orthogonal linear polarization states. The spatial wavefunctions
13 propagation because of the independent evolution of ψ1 ( y , z) and 79
of both have a Gaussian profile with different widths, which evolve independently.
14 The dashed lines indicate the points in which both subensembles are equally prob- ψ2 ( y , z ) . 80
15 able to be detected. In order to estimate the probabilities to obtain each group of 81
16 photons, we will assume that the subensembles comprise two 82
17 The degrees of coherence and polarization for this state satisfy Gaussian beams whose intensity profiles (probability density) are 83
18 μ = 1, p 0 = 0 and p 1 = 0. That is, the ensemble of photons is given by [18,39]: 84
19 completely unpolarized at each slit; however, it is completely co- 2   85
20 herent with respect to them. Wolf called attention to this unusual σ1 (0) 2 y2 86
W 1 ( y , z) = exp − , (27)
21 behavior when the classical theory was developed [19]. σ1 ( z ) σ12 (z) 87
22 88
23 3. Polarization change on propagation in free space and 89
24 2   90
σ2 (0) 2 y2
25 In this section, we use the theory that we developed to show W 2 ( y , z) = exp − , (28) 91
26 how the degree of polarization of a mixed ensemble of photons is σ2 ( z ) σ22 (z) 92
27 changed upon propagation along the z direction. Let us consider 93
where σ1 (0) and σ2 (0) are the minimum widths of ψ1 (r , z) and
28 the ensemble initially prepared (at z = 0) in the following mixed 94
ψ2 (r , z), respectively, which
we assume to be at z = 0. We also
29 state: 95
30 have that σ j (z) = σ j (0) 1 + (z/z j )2 , with j = 1, 2. The parameters 96
31 ρ̂ (0) = w 1 (0)ρ̂1 + w 2 (0)ρ̂2 (22) z j are the Rayleigh lengths of the beams described by ψ1 (r , z) and 97
32 ψ2 (r , z). 98
= w 1 (0)|ψ1 ψ1 | + w 2 (0)|ψ2 ψ2 |,
33 For the sake of simplicity, let us assume that the distance be- 99
34 with |ψ1  = √1 (| H , 0 + | H , 1) and |ψ2  = √1 (| V , 0 + | V , 1), tween the points Q 0 and Q 1 and the z-axis are much smaller than 100
2 2
35
which is composed of two groups of pure states that we assume to the minimum width of the beams, such that we can write 101
36
be, in the beginning, equally probable to be detected at the points 2   2  −1 102
37
Q 0 and Q 1 . Namely, w 1 (0) = w 2 (0) = 1/2 [38]. The first group is
σ j (0) z 103
38
W j ( z) ≈ = 1+ , (29) 104
horizontally polarized, with equal probability of detecting a pho- σ j ( z) zj
39 105
ton at Q 0 and Q 1 . The second is vertically polarized, but also
40 which after normalization we find that the matrix elements in 106
with equal probability of detecting a photon at the two referred
41 Eq. (25) are given by 107
points. Moreover, let us assume that the spatial wavefunctions of
42
each group perpendicular to the direction of propagation, y, are   2 − 1 108
43 z 109
Gaussians with different widths, which spread on propagation due 1+ zj
44 110
to diffraction (see Fig. 2): w j ( z) = 
45
  2 − 1 . (30) 111
1   z
46
1 2 y 2 j =1,2 1+ zj
112
47 ψ1 ( y , z ) = √ exp − 2
, (23) 113
48 2πσ1 ( z) 4σ 1 ( z) Observe that w j (0) = 1/2, which are the fractional populations 114
49
and that we defined at the ensemble creation. Finally, if we substitute 115
50
  Eq. (30) into Eq. (26), we can find how the degree of polariza- 116
1 2
51
1 2 y tion changes as the photons propagate along the z-axis. Fig. 3 117
52 ψ2 ( y , z ) = √ exp − 2
, (24) shows the degree of polarization of Eq. (26), with w j ( z) as given in 118
2πσ2 ( z) 4σ 2 ( z)
53 Eq. (30), as a function of the propagation direction z, for z2 = 2z1 . 119
54
where σ1 ( z) and σ2 ( z) are the respective widths of the wavefunc- The behavior is similar to the one found by using the classical 120
55
tions. Note that, for a given point along the y direction the relative theory applied to the Gaussian Schell-model [40]. In this regard, 121
56
probabilities to find a photon described by ψ1 (with horizontal it is important to emphasize that despite the similarity between 122
57
polarization) or ψ2 (with vertical polarization) change on propa- the results obtained from the classical formalism and the quantum 123
58
gation. This, as we shall see, is the physical reason for which the treatment, only the latter was able to clarify the physical reason of 124
59
degree of polarization varies with z. the polarization change effect in free space. Namely, the different 125
60
The z-dependent density matrix of this system in the basis evolutions of two independent subensembles contained in a pho- 126
61
{| H , 0; | H , 1; | V , 0; | V , 1} is given by: tonic mixed state. This result is being presented here for the first 127
62
⎛ ⎞ time. 128
63 w 1 ( z) w 1 ( z) 0 0 At this stage, we can point out that the unified theory of polar- 129
64 1 ⎜ w 1 ( z) w 1 ( z) 0 0 ⎟ ization and coherence was fundamental in the present description 130
ρ̂ (z) = ⎜ ⎟. (25)
65
2⎝ 0 0 w 2 ( z) w 2 ( z) ⎠ in the sense that, to completely describe the dynamics of the de- 131
66
0 0 w 2 ( z) w 2 ( z) gree of polarization of the photons upon propagation, information 132
 JID:PLA AID:24500 /SCO Doctopic: Quantum physics [m5G; v1.216; Prn:16/05/2017; 13:21] P.5 (1-7)
B. de Lima Bernardo / Physics Letters A ••• (••••) •••–••• 5

    
1  67
†
2 ρ̂ S (t ) = T r E Û (t ) ρ̂ S (0) ⊗ w i | E i  E i | Û (t ) , (32) 68
3 i 69
4 70
where T r E denotes the partial trace over the states of the environ-
5 71
ment. This equation can be written as
6 72
 †
7
ρ̂ S (t ) = K̂ i j ⊗ ρ̂ S ⊗ K̂ i j , (33) 73
8 74
ij
9 75
10 76
where K̂ i j are the so-called Kraus operators, which are given by
11 77
√
12
K̂ i j = w i  E j |Û (t )| E i . (34) 78
13 79
14 It is easy to show that the Kraus operators obey the relation 80
Fig. 3. (Color online.) Degree of polarization p as a function of the propagation dis-  †
i j K̂ i j K̂ i j = I, where I is the identity matrix in the Hilbert space
15 tance z (in unities of z1 ), with z2 = 2z1 , for the ensemble of photons described 81
16 by Eqs. (25) and (30). Observe that p = 0 for z = 0 because the fractional probabili- 82
of the system S.
17 ties to find each (orthogonal) subensemble is equal, which characterizes unpolarized 83
light. On the other hand, for z > 7z1 the degree of polarization converges asymp- Now, for us to proceed, it is necessary to describe the charac-
18 84
totically to 0.6. This is because, after the evolution, the fractional probabilities are teristics of the environment to be experienced by the photons. As
19 different, but the ratio between them converges to a fixed value. This is a charac- 85
a first example, let us assume that the photons propagate through
20 teristic of partially polarized light. 86
a region in space composed of many small transparent particles,
21 87
randomly distributed in space, with an index of refraction differ-
22 about the influence of the dynamics of the phase relation between ent from that of vacuum. This type of environment, which could 88
23 the two subensembles, which is related the (spatial) coherence 89
simulate the lower atmosphere [48], as well as impurities in op-
24 properties of the whole ensemble, has to be taken into account. 90
tical fibers [49], causes random, uncorrelated phase shifts in the
25 In this regard, the density matrix of Eq. (25) is the mathematical 91
photon quantum state at both points Q 0 and Q 1 . Each possible
26 entity capable of providing such complete knowledge, in a similar 92
single interaction of this type can be described by a unitary trans-
27 fashion to that expected from the cross-spectral density matrix in 93
formation that modifies uniquely the state of the environment in
28 the unified classical theory [19]. 94
the following form:
29 95
30 √ √ 96
4. Decoherence and depolarization due to environmental | H , 0| E 0  → 1 − P | H , 0| E 0  +
P | H , 0| E 1 , (35)
31
interactions √ √ 97
32 | H , 1| E 0  → 1 − P | H , 1| E 0  + P | H , 1| E 2 , (36) 98
33 √ √ 99
34 In this section we analyze the effects of the correlations nat- | V , 0| E 0  → 1 − P | V , 0| E 0  + P | V , 0| E 1 , (37) 100
urally created between the ensemble of photons and the envi- √ √
35
| V , 1| E 0  → 1 − P | V , 1| E 0  + P | V , 1| E 2 . (38) 101
36 ronment constituents that may take place upon propagation. This 102
37 effect, so-called environment induced decoherence, has been rec- The parameter P in the above equations represent the probability 103
38 ognized as the responsible for the emergence of the classical be- for an interaction between a photon and an environment con- 104
39 havior of light and matter from the underlying quantum substrate stituent to occur during a given time interval, t. The states | E 0 , 105
40 [41–44]. In this sense, as we shall see, the decay of the coherence | E 1  and | E 2  represent the initial state of the environment, and 106
41 and polarization degrees due to the interaction with the environ- the states of the environment after the interaction with one pho- 107
42 ment appears to be a natural and irreversible process. In mathe- ton at Q 0 and at Q 1 , respectively. Note that, in the present case, 108
43 matical terms, the characteristic trait of decoherence is the decay the change of the states of the environment does not depend on 109
44 of the off-diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix of the the polarization of the photon, but only on the localization of the 110
45 system obtained from the partial trace of the system-environment interaction. Physically, we can attribute the change of the environ- 111
46 density matrix with respect to the environmental states [45,46]. mental state upon interaction to the momentum imparted to the 112
47 In order to account for this effect on the photonic states de- atoms of the environment due to either the scattering of the pho- 113
48 scribed here, we will describe the decoherence process in the for- ton or absorption and reemission of it. Also, note that this kind of 114
49 malism of quantum channels [14,47]. One of the advantages of the interaction is unable to cause a transition in the basis {|0, |1}, i.e., 115
50 method, also called operator-sum formalism, is that the influence a photon at Q 0 cannot be sent to Q 1 due to the environment, and 116
51 of the environment on the photons can be described without spe- vice-versa. 117
52 cific reference to the interaction Hamiltonian. Thus, we initiate this Before evaluating the Kraus operators of Eq. (34),we call atten- 118
53 study by defining the system-environment density matrix under tion to the fact that in the present example ρ̂ E (0) = i w i | E i  E i | = 119
54 the assumption that they are initially uncorrelated. In this form, | E 0  E 0 |. Then, from Eqs. (33) and (34) we have that the time- 120
55 dependent density matrix can be simplified to 121
56 ρ̂ (0) = ρ̂ S (0) ⊗ ρ̂ E (0), (31) 122
57 
2
†
123
58 where the density matrix of the system ρ S (0) contains informa- ρ̂ S (t ) = K̂ j ⊗ ρ̂ S ⊗ K̂ j (39) 124
59 tion of both coherence and polarization, as in Eq. (19), and the j =0 125
60 density matrix of the environment
 can be written in the diagonal 126
with
61 decomposition as ρ E (0) = i w i | E i  E i |, with w i as the fractional 127
62 populations of the environmental states in the basis {| E i }. If we K̂ j =  E j |Û (t )| E 0 . (40)
128
63 consider that the photons and the environment form an isolated 129
64 system, they necessarily evolve under an unitary operation Û (t ). Accordingly, by using Eqs. (35) to (38) we find that the three pos- 130
65 Then, the evolution of the reduced density matrix of the photons sible Kraus operators in the {| H , 0; | H , 1; | V , 0; | V , 1} basis are 131
66 is given by given by 132
 JID:PLA AID:24500 /SCO Doctopic: Quantum physics [m5G; v1.216; Prn:16/05/2017; 13:21] P.6 (1-7)
6 B. de Lima Bernardo / Physics Letters A ••• (••••) •••–•••

√
1 K̂ 0 = 1 − P [| H , 0 H , 0| + | H , 1 H , 1| Thus, by substitution of Eqs. (52) to (55) into the time dependent 67
2 expression for the density matrix, 68
+ | V , 0 V , 0| + | V , 1 V , 1|], (41)
3
√ 69
4 K̂ 1 = P [| H , 0 H , 0| + | V , 0 V , 0|], (42) 
4
† 70
5 √ ρ̂ S (t ) = K̂ j ⊗ ρ̂ S ⊗ K̂ j , (56) 71
6 K̂ 2 = P [| H , 1 H , 1| + | V , 1 V , 1|]. (43) j =0 72
7 Then, by using these results in Eq. (39) we have that the evolution we have that
73
8 of the density matrix after a time t is given by 74
⎛ ⎞
9 ⎛ ⎞ ρ11 (1 − P )ρ12 (1 − P )ρ13 (1 − P )ρ14 75
ρ11 (1 − P )ρ12 ρ13 (1 − P )ρ14 ⎜ (1 − P )ρ
10
⎜ (1 − P )ρ21 ⎟ ⎜ ρ22 (1 − P )ρ23 (1 − P )ρ24 ⎟
⎟
76
ρ22 (1 − P )ρ23 ρ24 ρ̂ S = ⎜
21
⎟,
11
ρ̂ S = ⎜
⎝
⎟.
⎝ (1 − P )ρ31 (1 − P )ρ32 (1 − P )ρ34 ⎠
77
12 ρ31 (1 − P )ρ32 ρ33 (1 − P )ρ34 ⎠ ρ33 78
13 (1 − P )ρ41 ρ42 (1 − P )ρ43 ρ44 (1 − p )ρ41 (1 − P )ρ42 (1 − P )ρ43 ρ44 79
14 80
(44) (57)
15 81
16 If this operation is applied n times in succession, the (1 − P ) terms which, similar to the previous example, if we assume that the in- 82
17 in the matrix above become (1 − P )n . Also, if we assume that the teraction probability is linear with time, P (t ) = t, after many 83
18 interaction probability P in the time interval t is of the form interactions the terms (1 − P ) becomes approximately e −t , with t 84
19 t, with  as the probability of an interaction between a photon as the time elapsed by the interactions. In this case, the evolution 85
20 and an environment constituent per unit time, then, after a time of the density matrix is given by 86
t = nt, we have that (1 − P )n = (1 − t /n)n . Thus, for n → ∞ we
21 ⎛ ⎞ 87
22 obtain (1 − P )n ≈ e −t [50]. Therefore, the time evolution of the ρ11 ρ12 e −t ρ13 e −t
ρ14 e −t 88
density matrix can be written as ⎜ ρ e −t ρ22 ρ23 e − t
ρ24 e−t ⎟
ρ̂ S (t ) = ⎜ ⎟
23 89
⎛ ⎞ ⎜
21
⎟. (58)
24 ρ11 ρ12 e −t ρ13 ρ14 e −t ⎝ ρ31 e −t ρ32 e − t
ρ33 ρ34 e−t ⎠ 90
25 ⎜ ρ21 e −t ρ22 ρ23 e−t ρ24 ⎟ 91
ρ̂ S (t ) = ⎜
⎝ ρ31
⎟. (45) ρ41 e−t ρ42 e−t ρ43 e−t ρ44
26
ρ32 e − t
ρ33 ρ34 e−t ⎠ 92
27 93
28
ρ41 e−t ρ42 ρ43 e−t ρ44 Therefore, given the temporal evolution of the density matrix, with
94
the formalism introduced here we can evaluate the evolution of
29 Now, from Eq. (10), we obtain that the degree of coherence of the 95
the degrees of coherence and polarization with time. In this case,
30 ensemble of photons under the interaction with the environment 96
one can easily see from equation Eq. (10) that the degree of co-
decays in the following form:
herence has an exponential decay, μ(t ) = μ(0)e −t , similar to the
31 97
32 98
(ρ12 + ρ34 )e −t previous case, Eq. (46). Nevertheless, from Eqs. (16) and (17), we
33 μ(t ) = √ √ = μ(0)e −t . (46) can verify that the degrees of polarization also decay with time
99
34 ρ11 + ρ33 ρ22 + ρ44 100
according to
35 On the other hand, it is easy to see that the degrees of polarization,

101
36 p 0 and p 1 , given by Eqs. (16) and (17) remain constant. This was 4(ρ11 ρ33 − ρ13 ρ31 e −2  t )
102
37 expected, since the environment only disturbs the relative phase p0 = 1− (59) 103
38 of the state of the photons with respect to the points Q 0 and Q 1 . (ρ11 + ρ33 )2 104
39 As a last example, we analyze the decoherence effect on the and
105
40 photons due to an environment whose constituents, besides caus-
106
41 ing random phase shifts to the photonic states as in the previous 4(ρ22 ρ44 − ρ24 ρ42 e −2t ) 107
42 case, are also birefringent, i.e., the phase shifts now depend on the p1 = 1− . (60) 108
(ρ22 + ρ44 )2
43 polarization state of the photon. In this case, after interaction, the 109
44 photons modify the environment state in a form that depends both In this case, in which the light-environment interaction is ruled 110
45 on the localization, |0 and |1, and the polarization state, | H  and by Eqs. (47) to (50), we have a polarization-dependent decoher- 111
46 | V . Under these assumptions, each possible single interaction can ence, i.e., contrary to case of the last section, now the polarization 112
47 be described by a unitary transformation that changes the initial properties cause influence on the coherence of the photons. This 113
48 state of the environment as is where the importance of the unified theory comes into play. It 114
49 √ √ would also be interesting to analyze the case in which an ensem- 115
50 | H , 0| E 0  → 1 − P | H , 0| E 0  +
P | H , 0| E 1 , (47) ble of photons in a mixed state like that of Eq. (22) propagates 116
√ √
51
| H , 1| E 0  → 1 − P | H , 1| E 0  + P | H , 1| E 2 , (48) in the medium described by Eqs. (47) to (50), instead of in free 117
52 √ √ space. In such scenario, one has interplay between the coherence 118
53 | V , 0| E 0  → 1 − P | V , 0| E 0  + P | V , 0| E 3 , (49) and polarization properties of light. Such cross influence could be 119
√ √
54
| V , 1| E 0  → 1 − P | V , 1| E 0  + P | V , 1| E 4 . (50) depicted under the perspective of the present unified framework. 120
55 We want to call attention to the fact that we have provided a 121
56 Again, P is the interaction probability. In this form, from Eq. (40) simplified model for the interactions by assuming ideal (orthonor- 122
57 we can find the five possible Kraus operators related to this case mal) environmental states to illustrate the validity of the present 123
58 √ model. In fact, as indicated above, the simplicity of the method 124
K̂ 0 = 1 − P [| H , 0 H , 0| + | H , 1 H , 1|
59 lies in accounting for the evolution of the reduced density matrix 125
60 + | V , 0 V , 0| + | V , 1 V , 1|], (51) of the system without specifying the interaction Hamiltonian with 126
61 √ the environment. This approach delivers a compact and practical 127
K̂ 1 = P | H , 0 H , 0|, (52)
62
√ description for the dynamics of open quantum systems [43]. How- 128
63 K̂ 2 = P | H , 1 H , 1|, (53) ever, it is not difficult to imagine a situation in which the states 129
64 √ | E j  obtained after the interactions in Eqs. (35) to (38), as well as 130
K̂ 3 = P | V , 0 V , 0|, (54)
65
√ in Eq. (47) to (50), are not orthonormal as we assumed. If we re- 131
66 K̂ 4 = P | V , 1 V , 1|. (55) lax this condition, it can be shown that the decay rate  in the 132
 JID:PLA AID:24500 /SCO Doctopic: Quantum physics [m5G; v1.216; Prn:16/05/2017; 13:21] P.7 (1-7)
B. de Lima Bernardo / Physics Letters A ••• (••••) •••–••• 7

1 elements of Eqs. (45) and (58) are not necessarily the same, which References 67
2 would provide more interesting time evolutions for the degrees of 68
3 coherence and polarization. [1] E. Hecht, Optics, 4th ed., Addison–Wesley, San Francisco, 2002. 69
4 The knowledge about the dynamical properties of a light beam [2] R.J. Glauber, Phys. Rev. 130 (1963) 2529. 70
[3] R.J. Glauber, Phys. Rev. 131 (1963) 2766.
5 which propagates through a disturbing environment is very im- 71
[4] E.C.G. Sudarshan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 (1963) 277.
6 portant and finds application in many fields, such as optical com- [5] W.H. McMaster, Am. J. Phys. 22 (1954) 351.
72
7 munications, remote sensing and radar systems [51]. However, the [6] W.H. McMaster, Rev. Mod. Phys. 8 (33) (1961). 73
8 usual classical description of this problem may be cumbersome, es- [7] G. Agarwal, Quantum Optics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013. 74
9 pecially when the environment is turbulent [52]. We believe that [8] W.E. Moerner, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87 (2015) 1183. 75
[9] C.H. Bennett, G. Brassard, in: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on
10 the quantum density matrix approach developed in this section 76
Computers, Systems and Signal Processing, vol. 175, 1984, p. 8.
11 opens a new avenue for investigations of the coherence and po- [10] A. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 (1991) 661.
77
12 larization properties of light under the action of many types of [11] H. Katori, Nat. Photonics 5 (2011) 2013. 78
13 environments, once we know the quantum state transformations [12] R.H. Brown, R.Q. Twiss, Nature 177 (1956) 27. 79
14 which rule the interactions of the photons with the environment [13] B.P. Abbott, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 061102. 80
[14] M.A. Nielsen, I.L. Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information,
15 constituents. Furthermore, as well known from decoherence the- 81
1st ed., Cambridge University Press, 2000.
16 ory, depending on the type of environment interacting with the [15] P. Kok, B.W. Lovett, Introduction to Optical Quantum Information Processing,
82
17 system, the master equation formalism can also be applied [53, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010. 83
18 54]. Here, we also have this option since our formalism stand on [16] M. Born, E. Wolf, Principles of Optics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 84
19 the density matrix of the system as the fundamental element. 1999. 85
[17] C. Brosseau, Prog. Opt. 54 (2010) 149.
20 Finally, we want to point out that, contrary to the classical 86
[18] L. Mandel, E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics, Cambridge Univer-
21 framework, our quantum description of the problem can depict the sity Press, Cambridge, 1995.
87
22 coherence and polarization properties of a subensemble of photons [19] E. Wolf, Phys. Lett. A 312 (2003) 263. 88
23 which composes, for example, one party of an entangled multipar- [20] E. Wolf, Introduction to the Theory of Coherence and Polarization of Light, 89
24 tite system, e.g., one of the constituents emitted from a EPR or a Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007. 90
[21] O. Korotkova, E. Wolf, Opt. Lett. 30 (2005) 198.
25 GHZ source [55]. In this case, our four-dimensional density ma- 91
[22] O. Korotkova, E. Wolf, Opt. Commun. 246 (35) (2005).
26 trix used to obtain information about coherence and polarization [23] M. Salem, E. Wolf, Opt. Lett. 30 (2005) 198.
92
27 would be the reduced density matrix of the subensemble of pho- [24] O. Korotkova, M. Salem, E. Wolf, Opt. Commun. 233 (2004) 255. 93
28 tons, which provides all the measurement statistics. As a matter [25] H. Roychowdhurya, S.A. Ponomarenkob, E. Wolf, J. Mod. Opt. 52 (2005) 1611. 94
29 of fact, the quantum density matrix method accounts for entan- [26] J. Lindberg, T. Setälä, M. Kaivola, A.T. Friberg, Opt. Commun. 283 (2010) 4452. 95
glement in the multipartite system both in the position of the [27] L.-P. Leppänen, K. Saastamoinen, A.T. Friberg, T. Setälä, New J. Phys. 16 (2014)
30 96
113059.
31 photons and the polarization degree of freedom. 97
[28] M. Lahiri, E. Wolf, Phys. Rev. A 82 (2010) 043805.
32 [29] M. Lahiri, E. Wolf, Phys. Rev. A 82 (2010) 043837. 98
33 5. Conclusion [30] G.S. Agarwal, R.R. Puri, Phys. Rev. A 40 (1989) 5179. 99
34 [31] J.B. Altepeter, E.R. Jeffrey, P.G. Kwiat, Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 52 (2005) 105. 100
35 In conclusion, we have proposed a new unified theory of co- [32] A. Luis, Prog. Opt. 61 (2016) 283.
101
herence and polarization based solely on first-principles quantum [33] A. Luis, Phys. Rev. A 66 (2002) 013806.
36 102
[34] C. Brosseau, A. Dogariu, Prog. Opt. 49 (2006) 315.
37 mechanical arguments. The theory relies on a density matrix writ- 103
[35] B. Schaefer, E. Collett, R. Smyth, D. Barrett, B. Fraher, Am. J. Phys. 75 (2007)
38
ten in terms of position and polarization states of an ensemble of 163. 104
39
photons, from which we derived expressions for the degrees of co- [36] C. Brosseau, Fundamentals of Polarized Light: A Statistical Optics Approach, Wi- 105
40
herence and polarization of the system. To confirm the validity and ley, New York, 1998.
106
efficiency of the model, it was applied to show how the degree of [37] G. Björk, J. Söderholm, L.L. Sánchez-Soto, A.B. Klimov, I. Ghiu, P. Mariand, T.A.
41 Marian, Opt. Commun. 283 (2010) 4440. 107
42
polarization of a mixed ensemble of photons varies on propagation 108
[38] These fractional populations concern the probabilities to find photons from
43
in free space; a problem that, to our knowledge, has been studied each subensemble at the points Q 0 and Q 1 , (at z = 0), not the probabilities 109
44
only with basis on the classical electromagnetic theory. Further- to find them in the whole volume which contains the ensemble. 110
45
more, we successfully used our method to describe the behavior [39] A.E. Siegman, Lasers, University Science Books, Mill Valley, 1986.
111
of the coherence and polarization properties of a generic ensemble [40] D.F.V. James, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 11 (1994) 1641.
46 [41] W.H. Zurek, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75 (2003) 715–775. 112
of photons subjected to interactions with an external environment.
47 [42] M. Schlosshauer, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76 (2005) 1267–1305. 113
In this case, we showed two examples of interacting environ- [43] M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence and the Quantum to Classical Transition, 1st ed.,
48 114
ments: one causing random phase shifts at two different points Springer, 2007.
49 115
perpendicular to the propagation direction, and another causing [44] B. de Lima Bernardo, Braz. J. Phys. 44 (2014) 202.
50 116
polarization-dependent phase shifts. In this context, we used the [45] W.H. Zurek, Phys. Today 67 (44) (2014).
51 [46] W.H. Zurek, Nat. Phys. 5 (2009) 181. 117
operator-sum representation to unveil the temporal evolution of
52 [47] K. Kraus, Effects, and Operations: Fundamental Notions in Quantum Theory, 118
the system. However, it is important to emphasize that, depending Lect. Notes Phys., vol. 190, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1983.
53 119
on the type of interaction in which the photonic system is submit- [48] H. Weichel, Laser Beam Propagation in the Atmosphere, SPIE Optical Engineer-
54 120
ted, the master equation formalism can also be used to describe ing Press, Bellingham, 1990.
55 121
the dynamics. In future works, we intend to use the present study [49] P.K.A. Wai, C.R. Menyuk, Opt. Lett. 19 (1994) 1517.
56 [50] J.P. Preskill, Quantum computation, Lecture Notes for Physics 219/Computer 122
to investigate the action of other types of environment by using
57 Science 219, http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/ph229/. 123
master equations. [51] F. Wang, X. Liu, Y. Cai, Prog. Electromagn. Res. 150 (2015) 123.
58 124
59 [52] M. Salem, O. Korotkova, A. Dogariu, E. Wolf, Waves Random Media 14 (2004) 125
Acknowledgements 513.
60 126
[53] H.-P. Breuer, F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems, Oxford Uni-
61 versity Press, Oxford, 2002. 127
The author is grateful to A. S. L. Gomes and Cid B. de Araújo
62 [54] A. Rivas, A.D.K. Plato, S.F. Huelga, M.B. Plenio, New J. Phys. 12 (2010) 113032. 128
for their hospitality at Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, and
63 [55] J.-W. Pan, Z.-B. Chen, C.-Y. Lu, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, M. Zukowski, Rev. 129
to the financial support from the Brazilian funding agency CNPq, Mod. Phys. 84 (2012) 777.
64 130
Grant Number 309292/2016-6.
65 131
66 132