SciPost Submission Page
Strengthening the atomfield coupling through the deepstrong regime via pseudoHermitian Hamiltonians
by M. A. de Ponte, F. Oliveira Neto, P. M. Soares, and M. H. Y. Moussa
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
Authors (as registered SciPost users):  Miled Moussa 
Submission information  

Preprint Link:  scipost_202206_00010v1 (pdf) 
Date submitted:  20220609 20:06 
Submitted by:  Moussa, Miled 
Submitted to:  SciPost Physics 
Ontological classification  

Academic field:  Physics 
Specialties: 

Approach:  Theoretical 
Abstract
We present a strategy for strengthening the atomfield interaction through a pseudoHermitian JaynesCummings Hamiltonian. Apart from the engineering of an effective nonHermitian Hamiltonian, our strategy also relies on the accomplishment of shorttime measurements on canonically conjugate variables. The resulting fast Rabi oscillations may be used for many quantum optics purposes and specially to shorten the processing time of quantum information.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Report #2 by Shunyu Yao (Referee 2) on 2023521 (Invited Report)
 Cite as: Shunyu Yao, Report on arXiv:scipost_202206_00010v1, delivered 20230520, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.7223
Report
The authors proposed a way to enhance atomfield coupling via nonhermitian generalization of JaynesCummings model. The technical details are valid and the idea of using nonhermitian systems to enhance quantum informational process worth further pursue. Thus I recommended this paper to be published.
However I strongly recommend the following few modifications the authors should consider, in order to improve the readability of the paper.
1.The author discussed construction of pseudohermitian Hamiltonian, following ref.7. These are surely correct, however, if I understand correctly, a easier way to conclude Eq.(3)Eq.(4) and discussion related to those, is just saying you construct your Hamiltonian $H_{eff}$, such that it equal to an hermitian Hamiltonian $h$ via a similarity transformation $\eta$. And the inner product defined in Eq.(4), is just $\langle \Psi(t)O\Psi(t)\rangle$.
(And the right eigenstate for $H_{eff}$ are related to eigenstate of $h$ via $\Psi_{n,R}\rangle=\eta^{1} \psi_n\rangle$, while left eigenvector is $\langle\Psi_{n,L}= \langle\psi_n\eta$. Actually these are more widely used way of describing nonhermitian systems, based on development of recent years. )
2. I would like the authors to clarify Eq.(12a,12b), where the operator has a large coefficient $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$, in the untransformed basis. I understand this does not necessarily cause a problem, because that coefficients are not necessarily connects to physical quantities, but can the author comments more on how experimentally feasible for measuring this operator? Does measuring this operator cost a high energy?
Author: Miled Moussa on 20230621 [id 3747]
(in reply to Report 2 by Shunyu Yao on 20230521)
To the Editorincharge of our submitted manuscript, entitled "Strengthening the atomfield coupling through the deepstrong regime via pseudoHermitian Hamiltonians", authored by M.A. de Ponte, F. de Oliveira Neto, and M.H.Y. Moussa.
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your message of Jun 21, regarding our submitted manuscript. We also thank Dr. Yao for his constructive Report 2 on 20230521, that helped us eliminate an incorrect statement that was in the first version of the manuscript. Finally we thank the Anonymous referee for his equally constructive Report 1 on 20230120. Below we first present our responses to Dr. Yao, and then to the Anonymous referee (Report 1).
Our answers to Report 2, by Dr. Yao:
The first comment made by Dr. Yao is the following:
1.The author discussed construction of pseudoHermitian Hamiltonian, following ref.7. These are surely correct, however, if I understand correctly, a easier way to conclude Eq.(3)Eq.(4) and discussion related to those, is just saying you construct your Hamiltonian H_{eff}, such that it equal to an Hermitian Hamiltonian h via a similarity transformation η. And the inner product defined in Eq.(4), is just <Ψ(t)OΨ(t)>.
(And the right eigenstate for H_{eff}, are related to eigenstate of h via Ψ_{n,R}>=η⁻¹ψ_{n}>, while left eigenvector is <Ψ_{n,R}=<ψ_{n}η. Actually these are more widely used way of describing nonHermitian systems, based on development of recent years.)
We fully agree with this observation. We can indeed construct the effective Hamiltonian H_{eff}, such that it equal to a Hermitian Hamiltonian h via a similarity transformation η, where the nonunitary operator η defines a new metric Θ=η^{†}η, through which we redefine the inner product. In our manuscript, however, we chose to closely follow the usual form presented by Mostafazadeh in Ref. [7].
The second comment made by Dr. Yao is:
2. I would like the authors to clarify Eq.(12a,12b), where the operator has a large coefficient A and B, in the untransformed basis. I understand this does not necessarily cause a problem, because that coefficients are not necessarily connects to physical quantities, but can the author comments more on how experimentally feasible for measuring this operator? Does measuring this operator cost a high energy?
The simultaneous measurements of canonically conjugated variables seem to be perfectly feasible in conventional quantum optics. As noted by U. Leonhardt and H Paul, in Ref. [14], these measurements are supported by "wellknown schemes (...) based on beamsplitting, amplification and heterodyning." These measurements are really a sensitive issue in our scheme, and in the manuscript we limit ourselves to drawing attention to the fact. Equally difficult as engineering a Hamiltonian with a significantly small degree of Hermiticity is to carry out these measurements of canonically conjugated variables. We hope that these difficulties have been properly highlighted in the manuscript.
Regarding the other question very appropriately raised by the referee: "Does measuring this operator cost a high energy?", we note that we have completely modified the discussion on this topic presented in the manuscript. In fact, we cannot make the claim found in the manuscript: "The higher the Rabi frequencies, the higher the energies required for measuring properties of the radiation field, as higher as the lower the error tolerances." For an indepth discussion of this topic, we refer to the wellknown works on the relationship between energytime uncertainty and quantum measurements:
V. Fock and N. Krylov, J. Phys., USSR, 11, 112 (1947);
Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 122, 1649 (1961);
V.A. Fock, Sov. Phys.  JETP 15,784 (1962);
Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 134B, 1417 (1964);
Y. Aharonov and J. L. Sajko, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 91, 279 (1975);
Yu. I. Vorontsov, Sov. Phys.  Uspekhi 24, 150 (1981);
M. Moshinsky, Am. J.Phys. 44, 1037 (1976);
J. Rayski and J. M. Rayski, Jr., "On the meaning of the timeenergy uncertainty relation", in The Uncertainty Relation and Foundations of
Quantum Mechanic, edited by W. C. Price and S. S. Chissick (John Wiley, New York, 1971).
In the new version of the manuscript we have modified the sentence correctly questioned by the referee, replacing it with the paragraph:
"Regarding achieving faster than Hermitian quantum mechanics, we note that the effective coupling strength G defines a typical time 1/G to carry out an elementary logical operation. The minimum energy required for this operation, over a given error tolerance ε, is estimated to be E_{min}≈ℏG/ε [13]. The higher the Rabi frequencies, the higher the energies required for this fast than Hermitian quantum operation, as higher as the lower the error tolerances."
"We mention here a recently presented result [14], where it is demonstrated that the construction of coherent manybody Rabi oscillations, through the coherent interaction of an atomic sample with a field mode, allows increasing the Rabi frequency g by the factor √N, where N is the number of atoms in the sample. In this case, the typical time to carry out an elementary logical operation decreases from 1/g to 1/√Ng. Therefore, in addition to the gain in computational time that results from the quantum nature of the operation, i.e., from the use of qubits as information carriers [15], we have here the gain that results from the collective nature of the radiationmatter interaction. In the present proposal, the gain in computational time comes from strengthening the Rabi frequency through pseudoHermiticity instead of taking advantage of collective effects in the coherent interaction between atomic samples and cavity fields."
Our answers to Report 1, by the anonymous referee:
We begin by addressing the first weakness of the manuscript pointed out by anonymous referee:
1) It was not clear to me how the authors arrived at their expression for the η in (5). A brief explanation, followed by the appropriate reference would greatly help the reader to understand the motivation behind this particular choice for η.
The Dyson map in Eq. (5) is just an appropriate ansatz for the problem. We would not be able to obtain the results presented in the manuscript considering for example a linear Dyson map, of the type of a displacement operator for the radiation field. Regarding the atomic subspace, it was not necessary to consider anything other than the identity operator.
Therefore, as usual, we made an ansatz for the Dyson map, and then we calculated the parameters involved in it (as established in Eq. (7)), in order to ensure the validity of the pseudoHermiticity relation. In the new version of the manuscript we have now rewritten the paragraph above Eq. (5), pointing out that our Dyson map was an ansatz for the hermitization of the JaynesCummings nonHermitian Hamiltonian (2): "We next outline our protocol starting from the engineered Hamiltonian H_{eff} to construct its pseudoHermitian counterpart h through the ansatz for the nonunitary Dyson map...".
We also observe that we do not present any reference about the Dyson map as we know of no other work about the hermitization of the nonHermitian JaynesCummimgs Hamiltonian.
More importantly, we observe that, for a proper choice of the initial state of the system, it is not necessary to engineer a Dyson map in the laboratory. All that the Dyson map defines are the new observables, establishing the new metric of the problem. These new observables, as in Eq. (12), thus impose the task of measuring superpositions of canonically conjugate variables, a problem that has long been addressed in the literature as indicated by the Refs. [16,17].
The second weakness of the manuscript pointed out by anonymous referee, is:
2) Some assumptions are made but poorly justified. For instance, just before (7), by assuming φ_{β}+φ_{α}=0.
The assumption that φ_{β}+φ_{α}=0, must be fulfilled when engineering the nonHermitian Hamiltonian defined in Eq. (2). The parameters alpha and beta that appear in this equation must consider that φ_{β}+φ_{α}=0. In the new version of the manuscript we have now rewritten the paragraph above Eq. (7) to: "Assuming α=αe^{iϕ_{α}} and β=βe^{iϕ_{β}} with ϕ_{β}=ϕ_{α}, a condition that must be imposed when engineering the Hamiltonian <ref>H</ref>, the Hermiticity of h demands the relations...".
The third weakness of the manuscript pointed out by anonymous referee, is:
3) Although the figures are explained in the text, the lack of captions make it significantly harder.
On this regards, we note that Caption Figures were provided in the manuscript.
The anonymous referee has also requested some changes in the manuscript, starting with: the clarification of "the motivation to propose the Dyson map (5)". We believe that this point has been properly addressed in item 1) of our response to the anonymous referee: the Dyson map we used was an anstatz that proved to be suitable for our problem.
The anonymous referee also requested us to "include verifications on the hypothesis, whether they have been upheld or not". On this regard we note that the Mostafazadeh's method (Ref. [7]) used in our manuscript is standard for aaproaching nonHermitian Hamiltonians. Therefore, all that our proposal requires for its implementation is the engineering of the effective nonHermitian Hamiltonian (2), which together with the measurements of canonically conjugated variables, are the main challenges of our proposal as we clarify in the conclusions.
The anonymous referee also observe that "I got a bit lost at first because it was not explained why H_{eff} would have the form (2). It only became clear around the middle of section III". We observe that the introduction of the parameters α and β into both terms of the JaynesCummings Hamiltonian is just the simplest way to make it nonHermitian.
Then, the anonymous referee requests that we use Caption Figures in our manuscript, which we have already done. And finally, the referee observes that "The authors should profit from the broader audience of SciPost and expand a bit on possible applications in other areas." This point raised by the anonymous referee is really essential. In the conclusions, we just limit ourselves to writing that "apart from the prospects for the implementation of the present method in platforms of radiationmatter interaction, we cannot but speculate on the impacts that the possible adaptation of the present method would bring to the field of highenergy experimental physics." Maybe our method can be used in high energy physics, but It is still premature to make any statement about this. For this reason, we decided to better analyze the topic before anticipating possible other applications beyond the field of radiationmatter interaction.
We again thank the referees for the positive criticisms that helped us to improve our manuscript, making its new version clearer and more complete.
Best regards,
Flavio de Oliveira Neto, Mickel de Ponte and Miled Moussa.
Attachment:
Report #1 by Anonymous (Referee 1) on 2023120 (Contributed Report)
 Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_202206_00010v1, delivered 20230120, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.6574
Strengths
1/ The paper addresses a strategy to build a pseudoHermitian Hamiltonian with enhanced control of atomfield interactions. In general, doing so is not easy because the utility of the method, expressed by (4), relies on obtaining the Dyson map.
2/ An explicit expression for the Dyson map $\eta$ is proposed, and the requirements to ensure a Hermitian $h$ for each parameter are clearly outlined.
3/ The authors also explain in details how the nonHermitian Hamiltonian is obtained in first place, making the paper selfcontained and far more readable.
Weaknesses
1/ It was not clear to me how the authors arrived at their expression for the $\eta$ in (5). A brief explanation, followed by the appropriate reference would greatly help the reader to understand the motivation behind this particular choice for $\eta$.
2/ Some assumptions are made but poorly justified. For instance, just before (7), by assuming $\varphi_\beta +\varphi_\alpha = 0$.
3/ Although the figures are explained in the text, the lack of captions make it significantly harder.
Report
The authors explored the framework of pseudoHermitian Hamiltonians to improve the coupling between radiation and matter fields. The advantages and disadvantages of the method were discussed in a clear and simple manner.
The authors started by showing how to obtain a simple Hermitian operators starting from a nonHermitian one, with the basic ingredients of the JaynesCummings model. Then, they explain the effect of the Dyson map $\eta$ and the requirements to ensure $h$ remains real. Finally, the authors explain the steps to derive the pseudoHermitian Hamiltonian.
The paper is well written and I could not detect any error. For practical purposes, the paper reaches the standards for publication in SciPost with minimal changes .
Requested changes
1 / Clarify, even if briefly, the motivation to propose the Dyson map (5)
2/ Include verifications on the hypothesis, whether they have been upheld or not
3 / I got a bit lost at first because it was not explained why $H_{\textrm{eff}}$ would have the form (2). It only became clear around the middle of section III
4 / Please consider using captions for figures. It also odd to have a single subsection in section III.
5 / The authors should profit from the broader audience of SciPost and expand a bit on possible applications in other areas.
Author: Miled Moussa on 20230622 [id 3750]
(in reply to Report 1 on 20230120)
To the Editorincharge of our submitted manuscript, entitled "Strengthening the atomfield coupling through the deepstrong regime via pseudoHermitian Hamiltonians", authored by M.A. de Ponte, F. de Oliveira Neto, and M.H.Y. Moussa.
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your message of Jun 21, regarding our submitted manuscript. We also thank the anonymous referee for his constructive Report 1 on 20230120, which helped us to clarify the new version of the manuscript. Below we present our answeres to the anonymous referee.
We begin by addressing the first weakness of the manuscript pointed out by anonymous referee:
1) It was not clear to me how the authors arrived at their expression for the η in (5). A brief explanation, followed by the appropriate reference would greatly help the reader to understand the motivation behind this particular choice for η.
The Dyson map in Eq. (5) is just an appropriate ansatz for the problem. We would not be able to obtain the results presented in the manuscript considering for example a linear Dyson map, of the type of a displacement operator for the radiation field. Regarding the atomic subspace, it was not necessary to consider anything other than the identity operator.
Therefore, as usual, we made an ansatz for the Dyson map, and then we calculated the parameters involved in it (as established in Eq. (7)), in order to ensure the validity of the pseudoHermiticity relation. In the new version of the manuscript we have now rewritten the paragraph above Eq. (5), pointing out that our Dyson map was an ansatz for the hermitization of the JaynesCummings nonHermitian Hamiltonian (2): "We next outline our protocol starting from the engineered Hamiltonian H_{eff} to construct its pseudoHermitian counterpart h through the ansatz for the nonunitary Dyson map...".
We also observe that we do not present any reference about the Dyson map as we know of no other work about the hermitization of the nonHermitian JaynesCummimgs Hamiltonian.
More importantly, we observe that, for a proper choice of the initial state of the system, it is not necessary to engineer a Dyson map in the laboratory. All that the Dyson map defines are the new observables, establishing the new metric of the problem. These new observables, as in Eq. (12), thus impose the task of measuring superpositions of canonically conjugate variables, a problem that has long been addressed in the literature as indicated by the Refs. [16,17].
The second weakness of the manuscript pointed out by anonymous referee, is:
2) Some assumptions are made but poorly justified. For instance, just before (7), by assuming ϕ_{β}+ϕ_{α}=0.
The assumption that ϕ_{β}+ϕ_{α}=0, must be fulfilled when engineering the nonHermitian Hamiltonian defined in Eq. (2). The parameters alpha and beta that appear in this equation must consider that ϕ_{β}+ϕ_{α}=0. In the new version of the manuscript we have now rewritten the paragraph above Eq. (7) to: "Assuming α=αe^{iϕ_{α}} and β=βe^{iϕ_{β}} with ϕ_{β}=ϕ_{α}, a condition that must be imposed when engineering the Hamiltonian <ref>H</ref>, the Hermiticity of h demands the relations...".
The third weakness of the manuscript pointed out by anonymous referee, is:
3) Although the figures are explained in the text, the lack of captions make it significantly harder.
On this regards, we note that Caption Figures were provided in the manuscript.
The anonymous referee has also requested some changes in the manuscript, starting with: the clarification of "the motivation to propose the Dyson map (5)". We believe that this point has been properly addressed in item 1) of our response to the anonymous referee: the Dyson map we used was an anstatz that proved to be suitable for our problem.
The anonymous referee also requested us to "include verifications on the hypothesis, whether they have been upheld or not". We are not sure that we fully understand this question raised by the referee. In our manuscript we have basically considered a nonHermitian Hamiltonian and used the Mostafazadeh's method to derive the experimentally verifiable physical consequences that follow from it. These physical consequences result from the new metric we have used, which stems from the Dyson map in the form Θ=η^{†}η. This new metric translates into the new observables from which we define the physical quantities associated with the system described by our Hamiltonian. All that our proposal requires for its implementation is the engineering of the effective nonHermitian Hamiltonian (2), which together with the measurements of canonically conjugated variables, are the main challenges of our proposal as we clarify in the conclusions. Therefore, considering that the measurement of canonically conjugated variables is something already established in the literature, the only hypothesis that we made in our manuscript, so that we can experimentally prove the feasibility of our method, is that of the possibility of engineering Hamiltonians sufficiently far from hermiticity.
The anonymous referee also observe that "I got a bit lost at first because it was not explained why H_{eff} would have the form (2). It only became clear around the middle of section III". On this regard we just note that the introduction of the parameters α and β into both terms of the JaynesCummings Hamiltonian is just the simplest way to make it nonHermitian.
Then, the anonymous referee requests that we use Caption Figures in our manuscript, which we have already done. And finally, the referee observes that "The authors should profit from the broader audience of SciPost and expand a bit on possible applications in other areas." This point raised by the anonymous referee is really essential. In the conclusions, we just limit ourselves to writing that "apart from the prospects for the implementation of the present method in platforms of radiationmatter interaction, we cannot but speculate on the impacts that the possible adaptation of the present method would bring to the field of highenergy experimental physics." Maybe our method can be used in high energy physics, but It is still premature to make any statement about this. For this reason, we decided to better analyze the topic before anticipating possible other applications beyond the field of radiationmatter interaction.
We again thank the anonymous referees for the positive criticisms that helped us to improve our manuscript, making its new version clearer and more complete.
Best regards,
Flavio de Oliveira Neto, Mickel de Ponte and Miled Moussa.
Author: Miled Moussa on 20230622 [id 3751]
(in reply to Report 2 by Shunyu Yao on 20230521)To the Editorincharge of our submitted manuscript, entitled "Strengthening the atomfield coupling through the deepstrong regime via pseudoHermitian Hamiltonians", authored by M.A. de Ponte, F. de Oliveira Neto, and M.H.Y. Moussa.
Attachment:
GGrandeNovo130_cBu5Vb5.pdf