format: text

text:
# Towards the Unified Theory of Galactic Bar-Modes

## 1 Introduction

It is commonly supposed that a galactic bar can belong to one of two types — either common fast bars or Lynden-Bell slow bars (see, e.g., Sellwood 1993, Polyachenko 1994). The distinction between them is drawn along a number of lines. Firstly, bars with different rotation velocities have considerably different sizes: while the common bars end up at the corotation or 4:1 resonance, the Lynden-Bell bars end up in the vicinity of the inner Lindblad resonance. Secondly, it is believed that these bars are produced by entirely different formation mechanisms. For the slow Lynden-Bell bars, the physical mechanism is absolutely clear — this is the mutual attraction and “sticking” together of the slowly precessing orbits. Note, that in application to galactic bars, the idea of axis alignment was first suggested by Lynden-Bell (1979).

Yet for the fast bars the situation remains vague and debatable. The fast bars were long thought to be generated due to the fast rotation in much the same way as in the classical incompressible Maclaurin spheroids being they are strongly oblate and rapidly rotating. It was shown by Toomre (1981) that in reality the galactic bar-modes have little in common with incompressible edge modes. Accordingly, they should have another formation mechanism. Toomre (1981) offered the so-called swing amplification mechanism, which currently is generally accepted for the explanation of the normal SA spirals. We think, however, that a simple extension of the Toomre mechanism to the SB galaxies can hardly be done. In particular, it is difficult to suspect the existence of the running spiral waves, necessary for the swing amplification, which takes place outside the bar near the corotation. The specific attempt made by Athanassoula and Sellwood (1986) to demonstrate the validity of the swing amplification mechanism on some some models of stellar disks appears to be somewhat artificial.

In our opinion, it is more preferably to find such a mechanism of the common bar formation, which is directly linked to the instability of the central part of the galactic disk itself.

Contopoulos (1975, 1977) has pointed out that the properties of the families of the periodic orbits in the rotating bar potentials play the fundamental role in the theory of the galactic bars. This is especially true for the so-called $`x_1`$ family of orbits, which is elongated along the bar inside the corotation circle. It is plausible to assume that these periodic and close non-periodic orbits make up the galactic bar. One should note, however, that the preceding is relevant to the theory of the already existing bars, and in the strict sense cannot be applied the the bar formation mechanism itself111This is especially true for the linear stage of the bar-forming instability (if the bar arose due to the growth of the instability): the orbits considered by Contopoulos are obviously trapped by the potential of the bar. The trapping process is, of course, the non-linear phenomenon..

Nevertheless, from the described picture of orbits constituting the bar, it is customary to make a “reasonable” conclusions about the mechanisms of bar formation, including the possible instability at the linear stage. The fast bar angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ is greater (sometimes substantially greater) than the maximum precession velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{\mathrm{max}}`$. Meanwhile, it is intuitively suggested that the angular modulation of the precessing orbit distribution (i.e., a figure of the bar) should rotate with the velocity of about mean precession velocity of the orbits. Such a conclusion would have meant the uselessness of the Lynden-Bell mechanism for describing the fast bar formation. So, it is generally agreed that in reality the growing bar forces the orbits to change their shape and tune to the strengthening and narrowing bar. Moreover, it is assumed that this effect can be significant even at the linear stage. It is justified on the example of weak bars in the framework of the linear theory (Sellwood 1993): the theory shows that initially circular orbits change into slightly elongated ovals, with orientation relative to the bar just as the orbits of the $`x_1`$-family.

However, one can adduce two important objections as to the said in the last paragraph.

1. The circular orbits cannot be the typical sample orbits of the undisturbed disk (excepting for a cold disk model, which is of little interest in this case) until the bar-induced perturbed velocities do not exceed the velocity dispersion in the original axisymmetric disk. It is clear that this condition should be met first at the initial stage of the instability development.

2. The intuitive conclusion mentioned above (that the velocity of the wave density in the system of precessing orbits, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, cannot exceed the maximum precession velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{\mathrm{max}}`$) is supported by the results of computations of the unstable modes in numerous models of galactic disks. These computations show that in all cases the pattern speed $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ is smaller than the maximum star angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{max}}`$ in the disk222Note that this property of the oscillation frequency spectrum of the gravitating disk is not yet found for the general case.. But this analogy appears to be somewhat loosely after the discovering of the possible “donkey” behavior of the star orbits by Lynden-Bell and Kalnajs (1972), when the orbit accelerates when held back and slows down when urged forward. Such a behavior takes place under the Lynden-Bell condition, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}/L|_{J_f}<0`$ (Lynden-Bell 1979), where $`L`$ is the star angular momentum, $`J_f=J_r+L/2`$ is the Lynden-Bell adiabatic invariant , $`J_r`$ is the radial action. As it is shown below, if the orbits with a “donkey” behavior play an active role in the bar-forming instability, the bar angular velocity can exceed $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{\mathrm{max}}`$.

The last argument allows to treat the fast bar-modes as the corresponding density waves of the precessing orbits, in the full correspondence with the theory of the Lynden-Bell bars. Note that Kalnajs (1973) was first who called attention to the possibility of the freely precessing orbit alignment (and thus the bar formation). The important point in his theory of kinematic waves in the case of near-circular orbits was the independence of the precession velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}(r)=\mathrm{\Omega }(r)\kappa (r)/2`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }(r)`$ from radius (here $`\kappa (r)`$ is the epicyclic frequency, $`\kappa ^2=4\mathrm{\Omega }^2+rd\mathrm{\Omega }^2/dr`$). Note that the same condition $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}(r)\mathrm{const}`$ is required in the Lynden-Bell (1979) more general consideration of the problem.

In reality different stars precessing with different velocities. But only important point is that the angular precession velocities (and also the pattern speeds of bars ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$) in the majority of cases) are substantially smaller than the typical star azimuthal frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ and especially the radial frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$. If for some orbit the inequality

$$|\mathrm{\Omega }_p\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}|/\mathrm{\Omega }_11$$
(1)
holds, this whole orbit (not individual stars) can be considered as an elementary object in the interaction with the bar gravitational field. If the condition (1) holds for the majority of disk orbits, participating in the bar formation, we can consider the processes (e.g., bar-instability) in the model disk, consisting of the set of the precessing stars. As it is noted by Lynden-Bell (1979), the condition (1) means the conservation of the adiabatic invariant $`J_f=J_r+L/2`$, that reduces the problem of the bar-instability to the one dimensional problem: one have to follow only the variation of the azimuthal positions of the orbit major axes under the action of the gravitational attraction from the bar.

Actually, we solve the problem of bar density wave of orbits with different precession velocities, that is quite analogous to more familiar problem of the star density waves (e.g., of the bar-like shape) in the differentially rotating disks. Seemingly, not all the orbits participating in the bar-mode formation, meet the condition (1) with margin, especially for the fast bars. But even for the latter usually $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_p\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}|\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}\omega _G`$, where $`\omega _G\sqrt{GM_d/a^3}`$ is the characteristic gravitational (Jeans) frequency ($`G`$ is the gravitational constant, $`M_d`$ is the mass of the active disk, $`a`$ is its radius). Then when $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}/\mathrm{\Omega }_11`$ we are still within the bounds of the condition (1). Even in case of more weak inequality $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}/\mathrm{\Omega }_1<1`$ (e.g., several times smaller but not at some orders) the suggested model will likely provide the correct qualitative answer. This is at any case not worse than, for example, the analysis of the spiral structure of the galaxy M 33 by Shu et al. (1971) by using the WKB formulae from the well-known theory of Lin and Shu, applicable, strictly speaking, to the tightly wound multi-turn spirals.

A few words about the content of the paper. In the Section 2, we descibe in the general form a model of the precessing orbits and derive the basic equations for the model, useful for the analysis of the disk low frequency modes of interest for us. The use of the action–angle variables $`I_1`$, $`I_2=L`$ and $`w_1`$, $`w_2`$ is the easiest way for derivation of these equations from the general kinetic equation. The substantial simplification appears with introducing a slow angular variable $`\overline{w}_2=w_2w_1/2`$ and averaging over the fast angle variable $`w_1`$ (i.e., over the radial stellar oscillations). In the simplest cases, the problem can be reduced to the analysis of a rather simple dispersion relations. In some more general cases, we obtain the integral equations of different degrees of complexity. But even in the most general form, the obtained integral equations for this model is much simpler that the immense integral equations for the normal modes of the stellar disk, obtained by Kalnajs (1965) and Shu (1970). Remind that the use of these general integral equations (not counting the $`N`$-body methods) was the only possibility for analysis of large-scale modes, as opposed to incomparably simpler problem of tightly-wound spirals . This is especially true in regard to the bar-mode. As discussed above, the real simplification has come through the analysis of low-frequency modes. Note that the resulting description of gravitating systems is similar to the drift approximation in the plasma physics (see, e.g., Chew et. al., 1956), but for orbits of essentially more general type. In our opinion, the most important advantage of our approach consists in the fact that it makes clear the simple physical mechanisms of the instability processes developing in a disk. Unfortunately, a possibility of revealing these physical mechanisms under the use of the general integral equations by Kalnajs or Shu would be practically impossible, and the same is true for the $`N`$-body simulations.

In Sec. 3, we analyze the dispersion relation for a model disk consisting of orbits of two different types that differ by their precessing speeds ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{(1)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{(2)}`$; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{(2)}>\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{(1)}`$) and, generally speaking, also by a sign of the Lynden-Bell derivative $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}/L)_{J_f}\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{}`$ .For the case when the derivatives $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{})^{(1)}`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{})^{(2)}`$ have opposite signs (i.e., a disk contains both “attracting” and “repelling” orbits), the pattern speed of the unstable modes $`\mathrm{R}e\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ may be more than $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr})^{(2)}`$, i.e. the maximum orbit precessing speed in a disk. We show that at the same time $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{(1)}<\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Omega }_p<\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{(1)}`$ when $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{})^{(1)}`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{})^{(2)}`$ have the same sign (positive for instability). We consider this result as the important argument in favor of the unified formation mechanism both for slow and fast bars.

In Sec. 4, the results of computation of the precessing speeds $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}`$ and the most important for the theory quantity, the Lynden-Bell derivative $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{}`$, are given for a number of typical potentials. In particular, the regions on the Lynden-Bell $`J_f,L`$ plane where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{}>0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{}<0`$ are found. The natural suggestion is made that a bar forms by “attracting” orbits with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{}>0`$333Note that in the formation process for all the mode, i.e. both the bar and adjacent spirals, and not just the central bar, the “repelling” orbits with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{}<0`$ may also take part. Moreover, this may be important to explain the fast bar phenomenon (as discussed above).. Then the bar length (more exactly, the radius of the bar’s end) should be equal to the maximum of the apogee radii ($`r_{\mathrm{max}}`$), among the sufficiently occupied orbits from the region where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{}>0`$. So, for calculation of $`l_b`$, one should know not only the general pattern of orbit precessions determined by the potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(r)`$ but a specific equilibrium distribution function as well. As a first approximation, one can take the estimate $`l_br_c`$, where $`r_c`$ is the radius of the circular orbit at which $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{}=0`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{}>0`$ for $`r<r_c`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{}<0`$ for $`r>r_c`$, at the circular orbits). These radii $`r_c`$ are computed for all the potentials considered. Note that our determination of the bar length has nothing to do with common determinations that link this length with a location of one of the resonances (CR, ILR or 4:1). It is clear that our bar length may take a great variety of values depending on the specific potential and distribution function (accidentally, they may fall near one of resonances).

In Sec. 5, we shortly formulate the most important conclusions and discuss some immediate prospects for a work in this field.

## 2 Basic equations for the low-frequency modes

For derivation of the basic equations of the theory, it is most conveniently to use the action-angle variables $`𝐈=(I_1,I_2)`$ and $`𝐰=(w_l,w_2)`$, which suitably takes account of the double periodicity of stellar motion in the equilibrium potential. Note that $`I_1=I_r`$ ($`I_r`$ is the radial action), $`I_2=L`$ ($`L`$ is the angular momentum). We start out with the linearized kinetic equation in its usual form (see, e.g., Fridman and Polyachenko 1984):

$$\frac{f_1}{t}+\mathrm{\Omega }_1\frac{f_1}{w_1}+\mathrm{\Omega }_2\frac{f_1}{w_2}=\frac{f_0}{I_1}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_1}{w_1}+\frac{f_0}{I_2}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_1}{w_2},$$
(2)
where $`f_0(𝐈)`$ and $`f_1(𝐈,𝐰,t)`$ are the unperturbed and perturbed distribution functions, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1`$ is the perturbation of the gravitational potential, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ are the frequencies of the radial and azimuthal oscillations of stars in the equilibrium potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(r)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i=E(𝐈)/I_i`$ ($`E`$ is the energy in terms of $`𝐈`$, $`i=1,2`$). The change of variables $`\overline{w}_2=w_2w_1/2`$, $`\overline{w}_1=w_1`$ in (2) yields

$$\frac{f}{t}+im\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}f+\mathrm{\Omega }_1\frac{f}{w_1}=\frac{f_0}{I_1}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{w_1}+im\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{f_0}{I_2}\frac{1}{2}\frac{f_0}{I_1}\right),$$
(3)
where we have assumed that the perturbations are proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}(im\overline{w}_2)`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1=\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{exp}(im\overline{w}_2),f_1=f\mathrm{exp}(im\overline{w}_2),$$

$`m`$ is the azimuthal index (an even integer), and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}(E,L)=\mathrm{\Omega }_2\mathrm{\Omega }_1/2`$ is the precessing speed of an orbit with energy $`E`$ and angular momentum $`L`$. If we also transform from the action ($`I_1`$, $`I_2`$) to ($`E`$, $`L`$) (the equilibrium distribution function is usually given just in the variables $`E`$, $`L`$), we obtain the linearized kinetic equation in the form

$$\frac{F}{t}+im\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}F+\mathrm{\Omega }_1\frac{F}{w_1}=\mathrm{\Omega }_1\frac{F_0}{E}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{w_1}+im\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{F_0}{L}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}\frac{F_0}{E}\right),$$
(4)
where $`F_0(E,L)=F_0(I_1,I_2)`$. Note that in this form, Eq. (4) also holds for a quasi-Coulomb potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$, i.e., one that is due principally to a large central mass. All that is necessary then is to redefine $`\overline{w}_2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}`$: $`\overline{w}_2=w_2w_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}=\mathrm{\Omega }_2\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$.

Then, neglecting self-gravitation of the system and the quadrupole moment of the central object, we have $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}=0`$, as it should be for closed Keplerian orbits. Here the azimuthal index $`m`$ can be either odd or even.

As it is shown by Lynden-Bell (1979) (see details in the Introduction) the most adequate variables that should be used instead ($`I_1`$, $`I_2`$) or ($`E`$, $`L`$) are $`J_f=I_1+I_2/2`$ and $`L=I_2`$. Changing in (3) to these variables, we obtain the kinetic equation in the most convenient form for studying the low-frequency modes:

$$\frac{f}{t}+im\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}f+\mathrm{\Omega }_1\frac{f}{w_1}=\frac{_0}{J_f}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{w_1}+im\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{_0}{L},$$
(5)
where $`_0(J_f,L)=f_0(I_1,I_2)`$ and taken into account that $`f_0/I_2\frac{1}{2}f_0/I_1=F_0/L`$.

We assume that the rms deviation of the precession rates about the mean $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{pr}`$, given by $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}=[\overline{(\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{pr})^2}]^{1/2}`$ and the typical gravitational frequency $`\omega _G`$ are both small, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{pr}`$$`\omega _G\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$. Note that $`\omega _G`$ is of the order of the mean Jeans frequency of the system: $`\omega _G\sqrt{GM_d/a^3}`$, where $`M_d`$ and $`a`$ is the mass and the radius of the active disk, respectively. The above inequalities can be justified, e.g., if one assume that we are dealing with a system of stars, that have close precession speeds, within a massive halo which, while remaining unpertubed itself, furnishes the dominant contribution to the equilibrium potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$. However, it should be remembered that the role of halo should not be played only by the real massive spherical component of the galaxy. Indeed, since in general the extent to which different groups of orbits are involved into the instability process can differ greatly, one can consider as the first approximation that the active group of stars is immersed in the massive halo of other disk stars. Under these circumstances, then, there may exist a low-frequency mode ($`\mathrm{exp}(i\overline{\omega }t)`$, with $`\overline{\omega }\omega m\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{pr}\omega _G`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}`$) in a coordinate system rotating at angular velocity $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{pr}`$ such that the slow precessional dispersal of orbits is canceled by their mutual gravitational attraction. It would be natural to suppose that if self-gravitation were to win out over the dispersion in orbital precession speeds, an instability should develop that could eventually deform the system (under the influence of the largest-scale growing modes). It is clear, however, that even in a system with essentially radial orbits, this holds true only if the torque that alters the orbital angular momentum of the stars forces their orbital precession speeds to change in the same direction (see the Introduction and, e.g., the formula (19) below).

We use the perturbation theory to derive the desired solution for the low-frequency modes. Let $`=^{(1)}+^{(2)}`$, where $`^{(1)}`$ corresponds to the permutational mode obtained from (5) by neglecting terms proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }G`$: $`\omega =0`$ (or $`\omega =m\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{pr}`$ when $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{pr}0`$), $`^{(1)}/w_1=0`$, i.e. $`^{(1)}=^{(1)}(J_f,L)`$ is an as-yet arbitrary function of the integrals of motion, which we will subsequently specify by requiring that the solution of the next approximation be periodic. The equation for $`^{(2)}`$ takes the form

$$im^{(1)}+im\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{(1)}+\mathrm{\Omega }_1\frac{^{(2)}}{w_1}=\frac{_0}{J_f}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{w_1}+im\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{_0}{L}.$$
(6)
Averaging (6) over $`w_1`$, from $`0`$ to $`2\pi `$, and bearing in mind the periodicity of the functions $`^{(2)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, we have

$$(\overline{\omega }m\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_{pr})^{(1)}\frac{_0}{L}\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}\mathrm{\Phi }𝑑w_1,$$
(7)
where $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{pr}`$.

Invoking the Poisson equation, some minor manipulations yield

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=G𝑑𝐉^{}^{(1)}(𝐉^{})𝑑𝐰^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }(r,r^{},\phi ^{}varphi)\mathrm{exp}[im(\overline{w}_2^{}\overline{w}_2)],$$
(8)
where $`d𝐉^{}=dJ_f^{}dL^{}`$, $`d𝐰^{}=dw_1^{}dw_2^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is the Green function:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{r_{12}},r_{12}=[r^2+r^22rr^{}\mathrm{cos}(\phi ^{}\phi )]^{1/2}.$$
(9)
Equation (8) is an integral equation for the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐉,w_1)`$,) if one takes into account the expression (7) for $`^{(1)}`$ through $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. The coordinates of stars $`r`$, $`\phi `$, $`r^{}`$, $`\phi ^{}`$ in (8) and (9) must be expressed in terms of $`𝐉`$, $`𝐉^{}`$, $`𝐰`$, $`𝐰^{}`$, where

$$r=r(𝐉,w),r^{}=r^{}(𝐉,w_1^{}),\overline{w}_2^{}\overline{w}_2=(w_2^{}w_2)(w_1^{}w_1)/2,$$

$$\phi ^{}\phi \delta \phi =w_2^{}w_2+\varphi (𝐉,𝐉^{},w_1,w_1^{})$$

and we refrain from writing out the expression for $`\varphi `$. Since the perturbed potential can always be written out as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1(r,\phi )=\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1(r)\mathrm{exp}(im\phi )=\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{exp}(im\overline{w}_2),$$

we have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(r,\phi )=\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_1(r)\mathrm{exp}[im\delta (𝐉,w_1)],$$

($`\delta =\phi \overline{w}_2`$ is a known function of $`𝐉`$ and $`w_1`$). In actual fact, then, (8) is an integral equation for the unknown function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(r)`$ of only one variable. This equation can be rewritten in more symmetric form. The right-hand side of (8) depends on $`w_1`$ only through $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{exp}[im(\overline{w}_2^{}\overline{w}_2)]`$. So, by averaging (8) over $`w_1`$, we obtain for the function

$$\chi (𝐉)=\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}\mathrm{\Phi }𝑑w_1$$

the following integral equation

$$\chi (𝐉)=\frac{1}{2\pi }𝑑𝐉^{}\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐉,𝐉^{})\frac{_0(𝐉^{})/L^{}}{\omega m\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}(𝐉^{})}\chi (𝐉^{})$$
(10)
where

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐉,𝐉^{})=𝑑w_1𝑑w_1^{}𝑑\delta w_2\mathrm{\Gamma }(r,r^{},\delta \phi )\mathrm{exp}(im\delta w_2)\mathrm{exp}[im(w_1^{}w_1)/2],$$
(11)
and $`\delta w_2w_2^{}w_2`$.

Physically, $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐉,𝐉^{})`$ is proportional to the torque $`\delta M`$ acting upon some selected (test) orbit with the action $`𝐉`$ resulting from all orbits with fixed action $`𝐉^{}`$; these all have the same shape, but their major axes are oriented in all possible directions:

$$\delta MimG\mathrm{exp}(im\overline{w}_2)\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐉,𝐉^{})^{(1)}(𝐉^{})d𝐉^{}.$$
(12)
For a quasi-Coulomb field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(r)`$, instead of the Lynden-Bell integral $`J_f=I_1+I_2/2`$ we have to use $`J_f^C=I_1+I_2`$ in (10) and instead of $`\mathrm{exp}[im(w_1^{}w_1)/2]`$ (with $`m`$ required to be even) in (11) we have to use $`\mathrm{exp}[im(w_1^{}w_1)]`$ (with arbitrary $`m`$).

One might hope to reduce (10) to one-dimensional integral equations in two limiting cases: 1) when the distribution function $`_0(𝐉)`$ is close to a delta function in $`L`$ near some value $`L_0`$; we will be commenting on this circumstance, writing $`_0=\mathrm{\Delta }_1(J_f,LL_0)\delta (LL_0)\phi _0(J_f)`$; 2) for the systems with near-circular orbits, whereupon $`f_0=\mathrm{\Delta }_2(I_1,I_2)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_2\delta (I_1)\overline{\phi }_0(I_2)`$. Below we will restrict ourselves mainly with the first case. The second case is technically somewhat more complicated; we will study this important case elsewhere.

Thus we assume $`_0=\mathrm{\Delta }_1(J_f,LL_0)`$. Using the fact that $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ and $`\chi `$ vary in $`L^{}`$ only a little over the characteristic scale length of the function ($`_0/L)/[\overline{\omega }m\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}(J_f^{},L^{})]`$, we can reduce Eq.(10) to an integral equation for the function of one variable $`\psi (J)\chi (J,L^{}=L_0)`$; for brevity, hereafter we omit the index “$`f`$” in the Lynden-Bell integral $`J_f`$:

$$\psi (J)=\frac{Gm}{2\pi }𝑑J^{}P(J,J^{})S_0(J^{})\psi (J^{}),$$
(13)
where

$$P(J,J^{})=\mathrm{\Pi }(J,J^{},L=L_0,L^{}=L_0),$$
(14)
$$S_0(J)=𝑑L^{}\frac{_0(J^{},L^{})/L^{}}{\overline{\omega }m\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}(J^{},L^{})}.$$
(15)
More convenient form for the function $`S_0(J^{})`$ is obtained after integration (14) by parts

$$S_0(J^{})=m𝑑L^{}\frac{_0(J^{},L^{})\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}(J^{},L^{})/L^{}}{[\overline{\omega }m\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}(J^{},L^{})]^2},$$
(16)
where the derivative $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}/L^{}`$ can be taken at $`L^{}=L_0`$.

If we are dealing with near radial orbits, we can put $`L_0=0`$ when we calculate $`P(J,J^{})`$. Furthermore,$`\delta \phi \phi ^{}\phi \overline{w}_2^{}\overline{w}_2`$ for such orbits, so the function $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ can then be substantially simplified:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐉,𝐉^{})=𝑑w_1𝑑w_1^{}J_m[r(𝐉,w_1),r(𝐉^{},w_1^{})],$$
(17)
where

$$J_m(r,r^{})=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{2\pi }{}}𝑑\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }(r,r^{},\alpha )\mathrm{cos}m\alpha .$$
(18)
When the orbits are exactly radial (“cold” system), i.e., $`_0=\delta (L)\phi _0(J)`$,

$$S_0(J^{})=\frac{m}{\overline{\omega }^2}A(J^{})\phi _0(J^{}),$$
(19)
where

$$A(J^{})=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}(J^{},L^{})}{L^{}}|_{L^{}=0}.$$
(20)
Accordingly, the integral equation (13), which then describes the radial orbit instability in a cold system, is

$$\psi (J)=\frac{Gm^2}{2\pi \omega ^2}𝑑J^{}P(J,J^{})A(J^{})\phi _0(J^{})\psi (J^{}).$$
(21)
It can easily be shown that $`J_m(r,r^{})`$ defined by (18) is a positive function. Consequently, so is $`\mathrm{\Pi }(𝐉,𝐉^{})`$ from (17), and most importantly, so is $`P(J,J^{})`$ from (14) when $`L_0=0`$; just the function $`P(J,J^{})`$ enters into the derived equation (21). This can be made explicitly by expanding the function $`(r^2+r^22rr^{}\mathrm{cos}\alpha )^{1/2}`$ in a harmonic series, we obtain

$$J_m(r,r^{})=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F_n(r,r^{})\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}𝑑\alpha P_n(\mathrm{cos}\alpha )\mathrm{cos}m\alpha ,$$

where

$$F_n(r,r^{})=r_<^n/r_>^{n+1},r_<\mathrm{min}(r,r^{}),r_>\mathrm{max}(r,r^{}),$$
(22)
and the $`P_n`$ are Legendre polynomials. Now the positive definiteness of $`J_m`$ follows from the fact that $`P_n(\mathrm{cos}\alpha )`$ can in turn be expanded in cosines of multiples of the angle, with positive coefficients (Gradshtein, Ryzhik 1965):

$$P_n(\mathrm{cos}\alpha )=\frac{(2n1)!!}{2^{n1}n!}\left[\mathrm{cos}n\alpha +\frac{1}{1}\frac{n}{2n1}\mathrm{cos}(n2)\alpha +\mathrm{}\right]\underset{k}{}^{}A_k^{(n)},\mathrm{cos}k\alpha $$

with all $`A_k^{(n)}>0`$ (a prime indicates that the parity of $`k`$ and $`n`$ must be the same), and from

$$\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{\pi }{}}𝑑\alpha \mathrm{cos}m\alpha \mathrm{cos}n\alpha =\frac{\delta _{mn}}{2}.$$

We finally obtain a convenient representation for $`J_m(r,r^{})`$ in simple series form:

$$J_m(r,r^{})=\frac{1}{2}\underset{nm}{}^{}F_n(r,r^{})A_m^{(n)}>0.$$

Given the positivity of $`P(J,J^{})`$, the sign of the integrand in (21), and therefore the sign of $`\omega ^2`$ (i.e., the stability or instability of a system with purely radial orbits), will depend on the sign of $`A(J^{})`$ as defined by (19). If $`A>0`$ for all orbits in the system under consideration (in other words, for all values of $`J`$ or what amounts to he same thing in the present case, for any value of the energy $`E`$ of radial stellar oscillations), then $`\omega ^2<0`$. As a result, radial orbits are unstable with $`A>0`$. On the other hand, provided that $`A<0`$, it is the purely oscillatory mode. The most compact formula for computing $`A(E)`$ is

$$A(E)=\frac{1}{(2E)^{1/2}}\frac{\underset{r_00}{lim}\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{r_0}{\overset{r_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x^2[1\mathrm{\Phi }_0(x)/E]^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_0}}\right\}}{{\displaystyle \underset{0}{\overset{r_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{[2E2\mathrm{\Phi }_0(x)]^{1/2}}}}$$

The inequality $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}/L)|_{L=0}>0`$ is merely a necessary (and in no way sufficient) condition for the radial orbit instability, and in particular, for the formation of a bar. The insufficiency of this criterion is immediately obvious from the fact that the retarding torque due to the bar can turn out to be ineffectual in the face of large orbital precession speeds. To derive valid conditions for bar formation, it is necessary to solve the problem of stabilization of the radial orbit instability by some finite dispersion of the orbit precession speeds \[having demonstrated once again the predominance of the bar mode ($`m=2`$)\]. The bar formation criterion is in fact none other than the condition for the bar-mode instability of the type under consideration. We therefore now proceed to derive the stabilization conditions for systems with near-radial orbits.

For definiteness, we assume the Maxwellian distribution in $`L`$

$$f_0=\frac{1}{\pi ^{1/2}L_T}\mathrm{exp}(L^2/L_T^2)\phi _0(J),$$
(23)
where $`L_T`$ is the thermal spread. If we then assume in (15) that $`\overline{\omega }=\omega =0`$, $`L_0=0`$, $`\delta \mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}A(J)L`$, we will then have for the system’s stability boundary

$$S_0(J^{})=2\phi _0(J^{})/mL_2^2A(J^{})$$

so that the integral equation (13) becomes

$$\psi (J)=\frac{G}{\pi L_T^2}𝑑J^{}P(J,J^{})\frac{\phi _0(J^{})}{A(J^{})}\psi (J^{}).$$
(24)
This equation is almost the same as Eq. (21). A comparison of these two equations suggests a simple relationship between the instability growth rate $`\gamma `$ for a system with purely radial orbits, $`\gamma ^2=\omega ^2`$, and the minimum dispersion in orbital angular momentum required to supress that instability:

$$(L_T)_{\mathrm{min}}=2^{1/2}\gamma /m\overline{A},$$
(25)
where $`\overline{A}`$ is some mean over the stellar orbits with different energies $`E`$.

The relation (25) acquires a precisely defined meaning when all stars have almost the same energy, $`EE_0`$, since we can then take $`\overline{A}=A(E_0)`$. If in (23) we go to the distribution over precession speeds, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}=AL`$, we then obtain a more obvious relation in place of (25):

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr})_T=2^{1/2}\gamma /m,$$
(26)
where $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr})_T`$ denotes the thermal spread in precession speeds, and the growth rate $`\gamma `$ is given in the form $`\gamma (m)`$ to emphasize that in general it depends on the azimuthal index $`m`$. Since $`\gamma (m)`$ is only a weak function of $`m`$444For example, we have $`\gamma (m)m^{1/2}`$ for $`m1`$. Then, the equation (17) is simplified since $`J_m2\delta (rr^{})/m`$ for $`m1`$. Thus, one of the integrations in (17) can be performed. The asymptotic expression for $`J_m`$ is most conveniently derived directly from Poisson’s equation, assuming that $`m^2\mathrm{\Phi }_1/r^2|d^2\mathrm{\Phi }_1/dr^2|`$, $`|r^1d\mathrm{\Phi }_1/dr|`$ in the latter., it follows from (26) that the most difficult modes to stabilize (and in that sense, the most unstable) are those with the smallest possible $`m`$. For almost radial orbits, we have $`m_{\mathrm{min}}=2`$, which corresponds precisely to formation of an elliptical bar out of an initially circular disk. All the modes with odd $`m`$, particularly the $`m=1`$ mode, are suppressed in this case, as two oppositely directed (but equal) moments of forces would act on the two halves of an elongated orbit. The forces break, but do not rotate such “needle” orbits.

For near-circular orbits in a potential close to that produced by a central point mass, however, the $`m=1`$ mode is immediately become dominating.

In conclusion to this Section, we give the integral equation of a type (13) in a form, suitable for computation of the eigen frequencies of the low-frequency modes of a stellar disk with the equilibrium distribution function $`f_0(E,L)`$, provided that a disk contains substantial fraction of elongated orbits:

$$f(E_1)=\underset{E_{\mathrm{min}}}{\overset{E_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}K(E_1,E_2)f(E_2)𝑑E_2,$$
(27)
where the kernel is equal to

$$K(E_1,E_2)=\frac{\pi }{M_1(E_1)}\underset{0}{\overset{L_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}\frac{f_0(E_1,L_1)}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_p\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{(1)})^2}\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{}(E_1,L_1)𝑑L_1\underset{0}{\overset{a}{}}\underset{0}{\overset{a}{}}𝑑x𝑑y\rho ^{(E_1)}(x)\rho ^{(E_2)}(y)J_m(x,y),$$
(28)
Such a form of the integral equation suggests that the torque of forces produced by attraction of two elongated orbits can be approximated by considering each real oval precessing orbit as a “needle”, which coincides with a major oval axis; the linear density of a needle is $`\rho _l^{(E)}=1/v_r(E)=1/\sqrt{2E2\mathrm{\Phi }_0(r)}`$, $`E`$ is the star energy, $`v_r`$ is the star radial velocity, $`M_1(E)=\underset{0}{\overset{a}{}}\rho _l^{(E)}(r)𝑑r`$ is the half of needle mass, $`2a`$ is the needle length, and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{}(E,L)=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}}{L}|_{J_f}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}}{L}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}}{E}.$$

By using the equation (27) Polyachenko (1992) had computed the “abnormally” low-frequency bar-modes, which were found by Athanassoula and Sellwood (1986) in their $`N`$-body study of the linear stability of some exact phase models of stellar disks. Those frequencies were “abnormally” low compared to the frequencies of “standard” fast bars, obtained by them for the majority of the models studied. Actually, the pattern speeds of the low-frequency modes are approximately equal to mean orbit precession speeds in a central disk region. Hence it follows that the instability of elongated orbits occurs. Figs. 1a, a show a typical orbit participating in the slow bar-mode instability; this orbit corresponds to mean values of energy and angular momentum of stars over the region of the bar location. As one can see, the orbit is strongly elongated; this fact justifies the use of the equation (27) with the kernel (28). The computed growth rates (Polyachenko 1992) are in good agreement with those obtained in the paper by Athanassoula and Sellwood (1986). On the other side, Figs. fig1b, b show the analogous typical orbit for the models in which only the fast bar mode developed. This orbit is substantially more round, than the orbit in Figs. 1a, a. So, for obtaining the low-frequency eigen modes in such models, the use of the general integral equations (8) or (10) seems to be more adequate. However, we think that even the integral equation (27), being certainly a rough approximation for these models, can provide a satisfactory numerical agreement with $`N`$-body results of Athanassoula and Sellwood (1986). We plan to study all these problems elsewhere.

## 3 Bar-mode in the model two-component disk

Let us represent the dispersion relation that can be derived from (27) for “one-component” system with the equilibrium distribution function $`f_0=A\delta (EE_0^{(1)})\delta (LL_0^{(1)})`$, in the following form:

$$1+\frac{g_1}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_p\mathrm{\Omega }_1)^2}=0,$$
(29)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}(E_0^{(1)},L_0^{(1)})`$ and $`g_1\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{}(E_0^{(1)},L_0^{(1)})`$ denotes the corresponding coefficient; its explicit expression can be easily obtained from (27) after substituting a given $`\delta `$–distribution function. In (29), the instability corresponds to $`g_1<0`$.

Below we consider the case of the two-component system, with the distribution function $`f_0=A\delta (EE_0^{(1)})\delta (LL_0^{(1)})+B\delta (EE_0^{(2)})\delta (LL_0^{(2)})`$. Then some simple manipulations with the equation that is obtained after substituting this distribution function into (27) lead to the dispersion relation:

$$1+\frac{g_1}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_p\mathrm{\Omega }_1)^2}+\frac{g_2}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_p\mathrm{\Omega }_2)^2}+\alpha \frac{g_1g_2}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_p\mathrm{\Omega }_1)^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_p\mathrm{\Omega }_2)^2}=0,$$
(30)
where $`g_2\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{}(E_0^{(2)},L_0^{(2)})`$ is analogous to the coefficient $`g_2`$ for the first component introduced earlier, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}(E_0^{(2)},L_0^{(2)})`$, and the designations are used:

$$\alpha =1\frac{I_0^2(E_0^{(1)},E_0^{(2)})}{I_0(E_0^{(1)},E_0^{(1)})I_0(E_0^{(2)},E_0^{(2)})}$$
(31)
$$I_0(E_0^{(i)},E_0^{(j)})\underset{0}{\overset{a_i}{}}\underset{0}{\overset{a_j}{}}𝑑x𝑑y\rho ^{(E_i)}(x)\rho ^{(E_j)}(y)J_m(x,y),$$
(32)
It turns out that the possible locations of $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ for the unstable roots ($`\gamma =\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Omega }_p>0`$) essentially depends on the signs of the coefficients $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$.

Let us prove first of all that for positive $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ the inequalities $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1<\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Omega }_p<\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ occur. To do this, it is sufficient to calculate the imaginary part of the left side of the dispersion relation (23). We have

$$A_{1,2}\mathrm{Im}\frac{g_{1,2}}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_p\mathrm{\Omega }_{1,2})^2}=\frac{2g_{1,2}\gamma \mathrm{\Delta }_{1,2}}{(\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,2}^2+\gamma ^2)^2},\mathrm{\Delta }_{1,2}\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Omega }_p\mathrm{\Omega }_{1,2};$$

$$B\mathrm{Im}\frac{\alpha g_1g_2}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_p\mathrm{\Omega }_1)^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_p\mathrm{\Omega }_2)^2}=\frac{2g_1g_2\alpha \gamma }{(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\gamma ^2)^2(\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\gamma ^2)^2}[(\mathrm{\Delta }_2^2+\gamma ^2)\mathrm{\Delta }_1+(\mathrm{\Delta }_1^2+\gamma ^2)\mathrm{\Delta }_2],$$

Assuming $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Omega }_p>\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1>0,\mathrm{\Delta }_2>0`$. So in this case the imaginary part of the left side of the dispersion relation (23) would be negative:

$$A_1+A_2+B<0,$$

if one takes into account that $`\gamma >0`$ for the unstable roots of interest and, besides, $`\alpha >0`$ as it follows from the Cauchi–Bunyakovsky inequality (positive definiteness of the weight function $`J_2(x,y)`$ was proved in the preceding section).

Similarly, for $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Omega }_p<\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ all inequalities are reversed (of course, except for $`\alpha >0`$): $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1<0,\mathrm{\Delta }_2<0`$, so

$$A_1+A_2+B>0.$$

A completely different type of situation occurs for the case when the signs of $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ are opposite, i.e. the disk contains the orbits with a “donkey” behavior; for definiteness, we assume that $`g_2>0`$, $`g_1<0`$. Fig. 2 show the trajectories of motion of the unstable root on the complex plane $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, for a fixed $`g_2=0.05^2>0`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_1=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2=0.25`$ are also fixed) and negative $`g_1`$ that vary along each trajectory from $`g_1=0`$ to some $`(g_1)_{\mathrm{min}}`$, at which this root become stable too. Different trajectories correspond to different values of the parameter $`\alpha `$. The most important fact following from these calculations is that the excess of $`\mathrm{Re}\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ over $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ can be quite significant (about 1.5 times in a given example).

## 4 The patterns of orbit precessions in some typical potentials

Fig. 3a–6a show, on the Lynden-Bell plane $`(J_f,L)`$, the constant value curves for the derivative $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}/L)_{J_f}`$, for a number of the commonly occuring potentials $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(r)`$. In the parallel Figs. 3b–6b, we give, for the same potentials, the angular velocities of stars at the circular orbits $`\mathrm{\Omega }(r)`$, tthe rotation curves $`V_0(r)=r\mathrm{\Omega }(r)`$ and the precession speeds of the nealy-circular orbits $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}(r)=\mathrm{\Omega }(r)\kappa (r)/2`$ ($`\kappa (r)`$ is the epicyclic frequency).

The first pair of these figures (Figs. 3a, b) correspond to the isochrone potential

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0(r)=\frac{1}{1+\sqrt{1+r^2}}.$$

This case was earlier considered by Lynden-Bell (1979). For this potential, the frequencies $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1(J_f,L)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2(J_f,L)`$ as well as the quantities of interest $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}(J_f,L)=\mathrm{\Omega }_2(J_f,L)\mathrm{\Omega }_1(J_f,L)/2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{}(J_f,L)`$ can be obtained analytically. We used the example of the isochrone potential as a test model for our general scheme of computation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{}`$ for the arbitrary potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(r)`$.

Apart from the isochrone model, we carried out the computations for the Shuster potential

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0(r)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+r^2}}$$

(Figs. 4a, b),the logarithmic potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(r)=\mathrm{ln}r`$, corresponding to the flat rotation curve $`V_0=\mathrm{const}`$ (Figs. 5a, b), and for the potential of the exponential disk,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_0(r)=rI_1(r/2)K_0(r/2),$$

where $`I_1`$ and $`K_0`$ are the corresponding Bessel functions (Figs. 6a, b). Qualitatively, Figs. 3a, 4a, 6a and 3b, 4b, 6b are similar, but they differ greatly from Figs. 5a, b for the logarithmic potential (and it is not unreasonable). In our opinion, the most interesting information that one can extract from Figs. 3a, 4a, 6a are the critical values of the angular momentum ($`L_c`$) that separate the regions of “attracting” (when $`L<L_c`$) and “repelling” (when $`L>L_c`$) near-circular orbits.The critical radii ($`r_c`$) corresponding to these values of $`L_c`$ are shown in 3b, 4b, 6b. It is natural to take $`r_c`$ as an estimate for a bar length $`l_b`$ that forms as a result of the bar-instability under consideration (a least at the linear stage). As one can see, $`r_c`$ is always more than the radii corresponding to maxima of the rotation curve $`V_0(r)`$ or the function $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}(r)`$. Under the condition commonly used that a fast bar ends near the corotation, we obtain from $`l_br_c`$ such an estimate of the bar pattern speed, for the Shuster potential: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p0.23`$ (see Fig. 4b). The corresponding eigen frequency $`\omega =2\mathrm{\Omega }_p0.46`$ is typical for the majority of models studied by Athanassoula and Sellwood (1986), just for the Shuster potential. Note that these bars are traditionally considered as “fast” ones, keeping in mind their non-Lynden-Bell formation mechanism. We see, however, that the fast bars can likely be formed by the same mechanism as for the slow bars. Let us point out some other interesting regularities that are common for the patterns of the orbit precessions in potentials $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0(r)`$ of a type corresponding to Figs. 3a, 4a, 6a:

1. The precession speed $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{\mathrm{max}})`$ corresponding to the maximum of the curve $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}(r)`$ (at the circular orbits) is the absolute maximum for the precession speeds $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}(J_f,L)`$ of arbitrary orbits; $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{\mathrm{max}})`$ for three models are given in the first line of the table.

Isochrone Shuster $`\mathrm{exp}`$ disk    $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{\mathrm{max}})`$ $`0.058`$ $`0.13`$ $`0.087`$  $`r_c`$ $`3.7`$ $`2.4`$ $`4.3`$  $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{}{}_{pr}{}^{\mathrm{max}})`$ $`0.3÷0.35`$ $`0.4÷0.45`$ $`0.35`$  $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{}{}_{pr}{}^{\mathrm{min}})`$ $`0.0105`$ $`0.021`$ $`0.025`$

2. $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{}{}_{pr}{}^{\mathrm{max}})`$ are approached at the circular orbits in the disk center ($`J_fJ_r0`$, $`L0`$); the values of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{}{}_{pr}{}^{\mathrm{max}})`$ for three models are given in the third line of the table.

3. $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{}{}_{pr}{}^{\mathrm{min}})`$ are approached in some points at the circular orbits; the values of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_{}^{}{}_{pr}{}^{\mathrm{min}})`$ are given in the fourth line of the table.

The pattern of the orbit precession in the logarithmic potential (typical for the major parts of many spiral galaxies) is entirely different from the other cases considered (see Fig. 5a). The most interesting fact here is that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{}<0`$ only within a rather narrow sector of the ($`J_f`$, $`L`$)-plane, adjacent to the line of circular orbits $`J_f=L/2`$.

The massives of the values of functions $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}(J_f,L)`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{}(J_f,L)`$ obtained above will be used later under studying the integral equations (8), (10) for deriving the eigen bar-modes (first of all, the stellar models in the Shuster potential).

## 5 Conclusion

Let us formulate and discuss some conclusions from the theory above.

1. We advanced a number of arguments in favor of universality of the mechanism that may be responsible for formation of both the slow and fast bars. The essence of this mechanism is naturally formulated on the basis of representing a stellar disk as a set of precessing orbits. Such a concept is adequate to the problem under consideration since the bar pattern speeds (including “fast bars”) are significantly less than the characteristic frequencies of oscillations of individual stars ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$), but they are just of order of the orbit precession speeds ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}`$). In such a disk, we seek the unstable normal modes (first of all the bar-mode) as the density wave of precessing orbits that runs with some speed $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ without any deformations despite the fact that different orbits precess with different speeds (analogously to differentiability of a disk rotation when the usual concept of a galactic disk as a set of individual stars is used).

The unstable bar-mode forms if a central region of a disk (a location of a future bar) contains a sufficiently massive group of “attracting” orbits that satisfy the Lynden-Bell condition $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{}>0`$, and, besides, the precession speed dispersion of these active orbits are not too large (otherwise, the orbits will run away from the region of perturbation under the influence of the “thermal” motion). The last condition is natural for the Jeans nature of the instability under consideration. The exact criteria of instability can be obtained by solution of the basic equations derived in Sec. 2; for some simple cases, the corresponding dispersion relations are given in an explicit form. The pattern speed of a bar $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ depends significantly on the extent to which the “repelling” orbits with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{}<0`$ (the orbits with a “donkey” behavior) take part in the bar-formation process. If such orbits are hardly dragged in the bar-formation process, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{pr}`$; just such bars would naturally be named as the “slow” bars. But if the role of the “repelling” orbits is essential, we can obtain the “fast” bars with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ that significantly exceeds $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{pr}`$(just the same, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ should be of order of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{pr}`$ as before — if we want to remain within the framework of our theory). In Sec. 3, such a possibility is demonstrated on the simplest example of a two-component disk model. Thus, from the point of view under consideration, distinctions between the slow and fast bars are mainly quantitative, but they do not differ fundamentally from each other: both bars form under the action of the same physical mechanism. It is worth noting that the Jeans mechanism (including one under consideration) is always best natural and suited to the gravitational problems.

2. So far the theory above was confirmed only by the calculations of the lowest-frequency modes of the disk models in the Shuster potential when the results are compared with the $`N`$-body results by Athanassoula & Sellwood (1986). These modes obviously correspond to the slow bars: for them, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{pr}`$. The most interesting prediction of the theory (its validity for the fast bars) would be tested if we shall be able to prove that the eigen frequencies of the modes computed from our integral equations (see Sec. 2) coincide with the frequencies of the fast bars derived from the $`N`$-body simulations (in particular, with the majority of bar-modes from the paper by Athanassoula & Sellwood cited above. This problem will be the subject of study in the immediate future. In the present paper, we restricted ourselves only to some positive facts that result from the general analysis of orbit precessions for a number of potentials (Sec. 4). These facts correlate with a possibility of the fast bar formation by alignment of “attracting” orbits. First of all we noted that the maximum radius of nearly-circular orbits ($`r_c`$) with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{pr}^{}>0`$ ($`r_c`$ may be taken as a natural estimate for a bar end $`l_b`$) is significantly more than a size ($`r_m`$) of the solid rotation region, for all the reasonable models. Moreover, if one takes (as it usually does) that $`l_br_{CR}`$ (where $`r_{CR}`$ is the corotation radius), then for $`l_br_c`$ one can obtain the estimate $`\omega 0.46`$ for a typical eigen frequency $`\omega `$ of bar-modes in the Shuster potential; this estimate is in good agreement with the corresponding results of Athanassoula & Sellwood (1986).


text:
# Coupling of effective one-dimensional two-level atoms to squeezed light

## 1 Introduction

The interaction of squeezed light and atoms is a problem of fundamental interest in quantum optics . Of particular interest to us here is the prediction by Gardiner in 1986  that an atom interacting exclusively with squeezed light would display an inhibited phase decay rate for one of the atomic polarization quadratures. This inhibited phase decay results in a feature with sub-natural linewidth in the fluorescent spectrum that is a direct indication of the noise reduction in one quadrature of the squeezed light field.

Unfortunately, to date, there has only been limited experimental investigation of the alteration of the fundamental radiative processes of atoms when interacting with squeezed light . This is in part due to the difficulty of coupling the atom exclusively to squeezed modes of the incident light field. Here we analyze a scheme to create an effective two-level atom that can be considered to be *one-dimensional* , i.e., it couples predominantly to a single field mode of a high-finesse optical cavity. Under appropriate conditions the damped cavity provides the dominant input and output channel to the atom. For the atom to interact primarily with squeezed modes then requires that only the external field modes which couple strongly to the cavity mode must be squeezed.

Experiments in cavity QED involve either beams of atoms traversing the cavity, or single atoms trapped within it. The major difficulty associated with the use of an atomic beam is the resulting uncertainty in the number of atoms interacting with the cavity mode. This was a major limiting factor in the squeezed excitation experiment of . Fortunately, there have been dramatic recent advances in the field of single-atom trapping in optical cavities ; these advances provide motivation for this paper.

A single 3-level atom in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-configuration, trapped in a high-finesse optical cavity, with a Raman transition between the ground states that is driven by a coupling laser and by the cavity mode is recognized as a possible implementation of a qubit (see, e.g.,  for a proposed use of such systems in a quantum network). This system is shown schematically in figure 1.

The aim of this paper is to establish parameter regimes under which a three-level atom in a squeezed optical cavity undergoes the same dynamics as a two-level atom in free space interacting exclusively with a squeezed vacuum.

The 3-level $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-atom in a cavity may be analyzed by adiabatically eliminating first the excited state of the atom and then the cavity mode to obtain a reduced master equation governing just the evolution of the atomic ground states. It is in this context that we may refer to it as an effective two-level atom. The adiabatic elimination of the excited state of the atom may be easily performed by assuming a large detuning of the light fields driving the Raman transition. After this step we obtain an effective Jaynes-Cummings interaction between the ground states of the atom and the cavity mode. The adiabatic elimination of the cavity mode may then be undertaken under the assumption that the cavity decay rate dominates the characteristic rate associated with this interaction.

Two major differences arise between our 3-level $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-system and an actual two-level atom. The elimination of the atomic excited state creates level shifts in the two atomic ground states caused both by the driving laser field and by intra-cavity photons. These two level shifts are not present in the two-level atom in free space and must be made identical to keep the atomic quadratures at a constant phase with respect to the external squeezing. In addition, the level shift in the atomic ground state that couples to the cavity mode causes a detrimental phase decay due to a coherent scattering process between the effective two-level atomic system and the intra-cavity photons.

Both of these differences must be made negligible to create an equivalence in the dynamics between the 3-level $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-atom in a cavity and a two-level atom in free space (in the presence of squeezed light). We shall show that there is insufficient flexibility in the coupling and driving parameters to minimize the undesirable phase decay and simultaneously equalize the level shifts of the atomic ground states. Thus the three-level system driven by squeezed light in a cavity is not suitable for simulating the dynamics of a two-level atom interacting exclusively with squeezed light.

This problem may be overcome by making a small extension to employ a fourth atomic level and an additional driving laser to virtually excite it. In this new four-level atomic system we may minimize the effect of the coherent scattering process and simultaneously balance the level shifts in the two atomic ground states. Therefore, in the appropriate parameter regime, we show that this four-level system can be used to reproduce the dynamics of the simpler two-level atom, including the linewidth narrowing associated with reduced quadrature fluctuations.

It is also pertinent to note that the results in this paper may be straightforwardly extended to systems containing multiple atoms. It has been shown that the interaction of squeezed light with multiple two-level atoms can lead to entangled pure atomic states  which have possible applications in quantum teleportation and quantum computation; this is also a reason for our interest in realising an effective two-level system with a pair of stable (long-lived) atomic ground states. Note that squeezed light beams have in fact already been used to induce weak spin-squeezing of large atomic ensembles .

The structure of this paper is as follows. In section 2 we briefly review the theoretical prediction of inhibited quadrature decay for a two-level atom interacting exclusively with a broadband squeezed vacuum. In section 3 we consider the dynamics of a three-level atom in a cavity and show that there is insufficient freedom in the choice of coupling and driving parameters to faithfully simulate an equivalent two-level atom interacting with a broadband squeezed light field. To provide more flexibility, we introduce in section 4 a slightly more complex four-level atomic scheme. A parameter regime is then identified in which this configuration has the required dynamics. For this system we include the effects of atomic spontaneous emission in our analysis and also demonstrate a technique, involving a pair of probe fields, to identify a particular atomic quadrature decay rate in the probe transmission spectrum.

## 2 Two-level atom and broadband squeezed light

The master equation for the density operator $`\rho `$ describing a two-level atom with linewidth $`\gamma `$, interacting resonantly (and exclusively) with a broadband squeezed vacuum characterized by the standard squeezing parameters $`N`$ and $`M`$ ($`\left|M\right|=\sqrt{N(N+1)}`$ for ideal squeezing), is

$`\dot{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}\left(N+1\right)\left(2\sigma ^{}\rho \sigma ^+\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\rho \rho \sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\right)`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}N\left(2\sigma ^+\rho \sigma ^{}\sigma ^{}\sigma ^+\rho \rho \sigma ^{}\sigma ^+\right)`$
$`\gamma M\sigma ^+\rho \sigma ^+\gamma M^{}\sigma ^{}\rho \sigma ^{},`$
where $`\sigma ^+`$ ($`\sigma ^{}`$) is the atomic raising (lowering) operator. Defining $`\sigma _x=\sigma ^++\sigma ^{}`$, $`\sigma _y=i\left(\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\right)`$ and $`\sigma _z=\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\sigma ^{}\sigma ^+`$, the equivalent Bloch equations are (taking $`M`$ to be real)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\sigma _x`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _x\sigma _x,`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\sigma _y`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _y\sigma _y,`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\sigma _z`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma \gamma _z\sigma _z,`$ (4)
with decay rates

$`\gamma _x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}(2N+1+2M),`$ (5)
$`\gamma _y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma }{2}}(2N+12M),`$ (6)
$`\gamma _z`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma (2N+1).`$ (7)
The decay rate of the $`\sigma _y`$ quadrature may be strongly inhibited when squeezing parameters are chosen so that $`N`$ is large and $`M=\sqrt{N(N+1)}N+\frac{1}{2}`$. The Bloch equations that we obtain for the cavity QED systems considered in sections 3 and 4 will be compared to equations (24) to see if they have the same form.

## 3 Three-level $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-system in a cavity

In this section we examine the properties of a three-level $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-atom trapped in a high-finesse optical cavity of (field) decay rate $`\kappa `$ and frequency $`\omega `$ (see figure 2).

The annihilation (creation) operator for the quantized cavity mode is denoted $`a`$ ($`a^{}`$). The cavity is driven by squeezed light characterized by the parameters $`N`$ (real) and $`M`$ (complex). The atom is assumed to have two stable ground states, $`|0`$ and $`|1`$, which, for simplicity, are taken to be degenerate in energy. A third excited state $`|r`$, at an energy of $`\omega _r`$, mediates a Raman transition between the two ground states. In particular, the transition $`|1|r`$ is driven by a highly detuned laser of frequency $`\omega _{L_r}`$ (detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }_r=\omega _{L_r}\omega _r`$), phase $`\varphi `$ and Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$ (taken real), while the other transition $`|0|r`$ is driven by the cavity mode. The total spontaneous emission rate from the excited atomic state $`|r`$ is $`\gamma _r`$. The driving laser is detuned from the cavity by an amount $`\delta =\omega _{L_r}\omega `$. The squeezed light driving the cavity has a central (or *carrier*) squeezing frequency of $`\omega _{L_r}`$, i.e., the same as the driving laser.

### 3.1 Master equation

Setting the zero of energy to be the energy of the (degenerate) ground states $`|1`$ and $`|0`$, we may write the master equation for this system, in a non-rotating frame, as

$`\dot{\rho }=i[H,\rho ]+_{cav}\rho +_{spon}\rho ,`$ (8)
where

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_{cav}+H_{atom}+H_{atom/laser}+H_{atom/cav},`$ (9)
$`H_{cav}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega a^{}a,`$ (10)
$`H_{atom}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _r|rr|,`$ (11)
$`H_{atom/laser}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_r}{2}}\left(e^{i\varphi }e^{i\omega _{L_r}t}|r1\left|+e^{i\varphi }e^{i\omega _{L_r}t}\right|1r|\right),`$ (12)
$`H_{atom/cav}`$ $`=`$ $`g|r0\left|a+g\right|0r|a^{},`$ (13)
and

$`_{cav}\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\kappa (1+N)\left(2a\rho a^{}a^{}a\rho \rho a^{}a\right)`$ (14)
$`+\kappa N\left(2a^{}\rho aaa^{}\rho \rho aa^{}\right)`$
$`+\kappa Me^{2i\omega _{L_r}t}\left(2a^{}\rho a^{}a^{}a^{}\rho \rho a^{}a^{}\right)`$
$`+\kappa M^{}e^{2i\omega _{L_r}t}\left(2a\rho aaa\rho \rho aa\right).`$
Note that throughout this paper we use natural units such that $`\mathrm{}=1`$. Here we assume that the squeezing bandwidth dominates the decay rate $`\kappa `$ of the cavity, enabling us to write the damping of the cavity in the standard form of (14). For clarity, we will assume in this section that the term $`_{spon}\rho `$ describing atomic spontaneous emission may be neglected. In section 4 the effects of spontaneous emission will be included.

### 3.2 Adiabatic elimination of excited states

To investigate the essential dynamics of this system, we assume that the detuning of the light field from the excited atomic state is very large, i.e.,

$`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }_r\right|\kappa ,\left|\mathrm{\Omega }_r\right|,\left|g\right|,\gamma _r,`$ (15)
so that the state $`|r`$ may be adiabatically eliminated. This results in a master equation (with the cavity in a frame rotating at the laser frequency) of the form

$`\dot{\rho }=i[H,\rho ]+_{cav}\rho ,`$ (16)
where

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_{atom}+H_{cav}+H_{atom/cav},`$ (17)
$`H_{atom}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_r^2}{4\mathrm{\Delta }_r}}\sigma ^+\sigma ^{},`$ (18)
$`H_{cav}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta a^{}a,`$ (19)
$`H_{atom/cav}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g\mathrm{\Omega }_r}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_r}}\left(e^{i\varphi }\sigma ^+a+e^{i\varphi }\sigma ^{}a^{}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_r}}\sigma ^{}\sigma ^+a^{}a,`$ (20)
and

$`_{cav}\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\kappa (1+N)\left(2a\rho a^{}a^{}a\rho \rho a^{}a\right)`$ (21)
$`+\kappa N\left(2a^{}\rho aaa^{}\rho \rho aa^{}\right)`$
$`+\kappa M\left(2a^{}\rho a^{}a^{}a^{}\rho \rho a^{}a^{}\right)`$
$`+\kappa M^{}\left(2a\rho aaa\rho \rho aa\right).`$
Note that the “raising” and “lowering” operators between the atomic ground states are defined as $`\sigma ^+=|10|`$ and $`\sigma ^{}=|01|`$.

With the excited state eliminated we have an effective two-level system whose interaction with the cavity mode is characterized by the parameters

$`\beta _r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g\mathrm{\Omega }_r}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_r}},`$ (22)
$`\eta _r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_r}}.`$ (23)
Here $`\beta _r`$ is the coupling constant of the effective two-level system to the cavity mode and $`\eta _r`$ is the ac-Stark shift induced in ground state $`|0`$ per cavity photon.

### 3.3 Adiabatic elimination of cavity

Examining (20) we now see that the interaction between the cavity mode and the atom is nearly in the Jaynes-Cummings form, except for the presence of an extra term $`\eta _r\sigma ^{}\sigma ^+a^{}a`$. To understand the effect of this term on the atomic ground states we adiabatically eliminate the cavity mode by assuming that its decay rate $`\kappa `$ is larger than its coupling to the effective two-level atomic system. The time-scale assumptions we have made are now

$`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }_r\right|`$ $``$ $`\kappa ,\left|\mathrm{\Omega }_r\right|,\left|g\right|,\gamma _r,`$ (24)
$`\kappa `$ $``$ $`\left|\beta _r\right|,\left|\eta _r\right|.`$ (25)
To simplify the adiabatic elimination, we ensure that all of the cavity operators coupling to the atom have zero mean by defining a new operator

$`\stackrel{˘}{n}`$ $`=`$ $`a^{}aN.`$ (26)
In order to eliminate systematic motion of the cavity mode at frequency $`\delta `$, and also of the atomic ground states due to their effective level shifts, we make a further transformation to a new interaction picture relative to the Hamiltonian term:

$`H_0=\delta a^{}a+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_r^2}{4\mathrm{\Delta }_r}}\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}+\eta _rN\sigma ^{}\sigma ^+.`$ (27)
After these minor transformations, the new master equation becomes

$`\dot{\rho }=i[H_{atom/cav},\rho ]+_{cav}\rho ,`$ (28)
with

$`H_{atom/cav}=\beta _r\left(e^{i\varphi }e^{i\delta t}e^{i\alpha t}\sigma ^+a+e^{i\varphi }e^{i\delta t}e^{i\alpha t}\sigma ^{}a^{}\right)+\eta _r\sigma ^{}\sigma ^+\stackrel{˘}{n},`$ (29)
and

$`_{cav}\rho `$ $`=`$ $`\kappa (1+N)\left(2a\rho a^{}a^{}a\rho \rho a^{}a\right)`$ (30)
$`+\kappa N\left(2a^{}\rho aaa^{}\rho \rho aa^{}\right)`$
$`+\kappa Me^{2i\delta t}\left(2a^{}\rho a^{}a^{}a^{}\rho \rho a^{}a^{}\right)`$
$`+\kappa M^{}e^{2i\delta t}\left(2a\rho aaa\rho \rho aa\right).`$
We have introduced a new parameter

$`\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_r^2}{4\mathrm{\Delta }_r}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2N}{\mathrm{\Delta }_r}}={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\eta _r}}\eta _rN,`$ (31)
which describes the difference in the level shifts experienced by the ground states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$.

We may now perform the adiabatic elimination of the cavity (following the method used, e.g., in ) to obtain a master equation for the atomic ground states alone:

$`\dot{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`+\beta _r^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{N+1}{\kappa i\alpha i\delta }}\right)\left\{\sigma ^{}\rho \sigma ^+\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\rho \right\}`$ (32)
$`+\beta _r^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{N+1}{\kappa +i\alpha +i\delta }}\right)\left\{\sigma ^{}\rho \sigma ^+\rho \sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\right\}`$
$`+\beta _r^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{N}{\kappa +i\alpha +i\delta }}\right)\left\{\sigma ^+\rho \sigma ^{}\sigma ^{}\sigma ^+\rho \right\}`$
$`+\beta _r^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{N}{\kappa i\alpha i\delta }}\right)\left\{\sigma ^+\rho \sigma ^{}\rho \sigma ^{}\sigma ^+\right\}`$
$`+\beta _r^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa M}{\kappa i\delta }}\right){\displaystyle \frac{e^{2i\varphi }e^{2i\alpha t}}{\kappa +i\alpha i\delta }}\left\{2\sigma ^+\rho \sigma ^+\right\}`$
$`+\beta _r^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa M^{}}{\kappa +i\delta }}\right){\displaystyle \frac{e^{2i\varphi }e^{2i\alpha t}}{\kappa i\alpha +i\delta }}\left\{2\sigma ^{}\rho \sigma ^{}\right\}`$
$`+\eta _r^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}\right)\left(N(N+1)+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2MM^{}}{\kappa ^2+\delta ^2}}\right)`$
$`\left\{2\sigma ^{}\sigma ^+\rho \sigma ^{}\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\sigma ^+\rho \rho \sigma ^{}\sigma ^+\right\}.`$
### 3.4 Comparison to two-level atom

We are now in a position to analyze the differences between a two-level atom in a squeezed vacuum and the three-level $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-system interacting with squeezed light driving the cavity.

First of all we may compare the master equations (32) and (1). There is a time dependence in master equation (32), which can only be removed when parameters are chosen such that $`\alpha =0`$. This is a prerequisite for keeping the phase of the atomic quadratures constant with respect to the phase of the squeezed light. We see that the detuning $`\delta `$ between the cavity and the laser has not provided a degree of freedom to cancel with $`\alpha `$ as we might have hoped.

Even if we choose parameters such that $`\alpha `$ and $`\delta `$ are zero we still do not have a master equation of the appropriate form (1) due to the term that is proportional to $`\eta _r^2`$. This term may be interpreted as phase damping of the qubit caused by a coherent scattering process between the atom and the intra-cavity photons.

To understand further the effect of the term containing $`\eta _r^2`$ in (32) it is informative to compare the Bloch equations for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-system with those for a two-level atom in a broadband squeezed vacuum. Taking $`\alpha =0`$, and choosing for clarity $`\delta =0`$ and $`M`$ real, the reduced master equation for the three-level $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-system simplifies to

$`\dot{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\kappa }}(N+1)\left\{2\sigma ^{}\rho \sigma ^+\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\rho \rho \sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\right\}`$ (33)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\kappa }}N\left\{2\sigma ^+\rho \sigma ^{}\sigma ^{}\sigma ^+\rho \rho \sigma ^{}\sigma ^+\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\kappa }}M\left\{2\sigma ^+\rho \sigma ^++2\sigma ^{}\rho \sigma ^{}\right\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\kappa }}P\left\{2\sigma ^{}\sigma ^+\rho \sigma ^{}\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\sigma ^+\rho \rho \sigma ^{}\sigma ^+\right\},`$
where we have defined the constant

$`P={\displaystyle \frac{N(N+1)+M^2}{2N}}.`$ (34)
The Bloch equations derived from (33) are then

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\sigma _x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\kappa }}(2N+1+2M+P)\sigma _x,`$ (35)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\sigma _y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\kappa }}(2N+12M+P)\sigma _y,`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\sigma _z`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\kappa }}2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\kappa }}(2N+1)\sigma _z.`$ (37)
These equations may be compared to the Bloch equations (24) for a single two-level atom in squeezed vacuum. We see that the two sets of Bloch equations are of the same form (up to an overall rate) except for the extra term $`P`$ present in the phase decay terms for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-atom in a cavity. This extra factor causes enhanced phase decay in both quadratures but does not affect the populations or their decay rates.

Full equivalence between the Bloch equations (24) and (3537) would be realised if we could choose parameters such that $`P2N+12M`$. However, investigation of this inequality reveals that, at best, $`P`$ can be reduced to approximately $`20\%`$ of the value of $`2N+12M`$, and then only for very small values of $`M`$. Hence, there is always significant phase decay in each quadrature and we conclude that it is not possible to choose a parameter regime which permits the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-atom in a cavity to have similar phase decay dynamics to the equivalent two-level atom. In addition, it is easy to establish that it is not possible to choose values of $`N`$ and $`M`$ such that $`2N+12M+P<1`$. Thus, with the three-level $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-system, it is not possible to reduce phase damping to a degree which permits a quadrature decay rate lower than that obtained when the cavity is damped by ordinary vacuum.

## 4 Four-level $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-system

The time dependence in (32) arises from the differing level shifts experienced by states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ in our effective two level system. This suggests that the addition of another level shift into one of these ground states could provide a degree of freedom with which to cancel the time dependence. A technique to achieve this is to virtually excite a fourth atomic level by driving it selectively from one of the ground states via a second laser field.

A new atomic level scheme to achieve this is shown in figure 3.

This configuration has the same basic structure as that shown in figure 2, except for the addition of a new excited state $`|s`$ and a second laser field coupling it to level $`|0`$. We saw in section 3 that driving the system off Raman resonance ($`\delta 0`$) was not an effective approach for cancelling the time dependence introduced by the level shifts. Therefore, we now take $`\delta =0`$ (i.e. drive the transition $`|0|1`$ on Raman resonance). The state $`|s`$ is virtually excited from $`|0`$ by a second strongly detuned laser with Rabi frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_s`$ and detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$. It has a spontaneous emission rate $`\gamma _s`$. We expect that the laser field $`\mathrm{\Omega }_s`$ driving the transition $`|0|s`$ will add an additional ac-Stark shift to the ground state $`|0`$.

We saw for the three-level $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-atom that the phase $`\varphi `$ of the laser $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$ was only of relevance when compared to the phase of the squeezed light, as seen in (32). Thus, for clarity, this phase factor could have been included in $`M`$ from the outset and otherwise not considered. We take this approach in our analysis of the four-level $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-system. Also the phase of the laser $`\mathrm{\Omega }_s`$ is of no relevance and has been neglected.

For the four-level $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-atom we analyze the effects of atomic spontaneous emission (neglected in section 3). We take the spontaneous emission term from excited state $`|r`$ to be described by

$`_{spon}\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _r}{2}}b_0^2\left\{2|0r\left|\rho \right|r0||rr\left|\rho \rho \right|rr|\right\}`$ (38)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _r}{2}}b_1^2\left\{2|1r\left|\rho \right|r1||rr\left|\rho \rho \right|rr|\right\}.`$
Spontaneous emission from the excited level $`|r`$ can proceed via two channels $`|r|0`$ and $`|r|1`$ with branching ratios $`b_0`$ and $`b_1`$ respectively, such that $`b_0^2+b_1^2=1`$. We shall see that we are free to increase $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ so long as the ratio $`\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_s}{\mathrm{\Delta }_s}`$ is kept the same. This means that spontaneous emission from the excited level $`|s`$ can be made arbitrarily small and may safely be neglected.

### 4.1 Adiabatic elimination of excited states

Following the same approach as for the three-level $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-system we may again adiabatically eliminate the excited states of the atoms with the timescale conditions

$`\left|\mathrm{\Delta }_r\right|,\left|\mathrm{\Delta }_s\right|`$ $``$ $`\kappa ,\left|\mathrm{\Omega }_r\right|,\left|\mathrm{\Omega }_s\right|,\left|g\right|,\gamma _r,\gamma _s,`$ (39)
leading to the master equation for the cavity and the atomic ground states (in a frame rotating at the cavity frequency) of

$`\dot{\rho }=i\left(H_{eff}\rho H_{eff}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\right)+_{spon}\rho +_{cav}\rho ,`$ (40)
where

$`H_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_ri\frac{\gamma _r}{2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_r^2}}\right)\left\{g^2a^{}a\sigma ^{}\sigma ^++{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_r^2}{4}}\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\right\}`$ (41)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_ri\frac{\gamma _r}{2}}{\mathrm{\Delta }_r^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{g\mathrm{\Omega }_r}{2}}\left(a\sigma ^++a^{}\sigma ^{}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_s^2}{4\mathrm{\Delta }_s}}\sigma ^{}\sigma ^+.`$
The form of $`L_{cav}\rho `$ is here identical to (21).

After the adiabatic elimination of the excited states the effect of spontaneous emission from the excited state $`|r`$ is now described by

$`_{spon}\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _r}{\mathrm{\Delta }_r^2}}\left(D_0\rho D_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+D_1\rho D_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\right),`$ (42)
$`D_0`$ $`=`$ $`b_0\left(ga\sigma ^{}\sigma ^++{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_r}{2}}\sigma ^{}\right),`$ (43)
$`D_1`$ $`=`$ $`b_1\left(ga\sigma ^++{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_r}{2}}\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\right),`$ (44)
and is comprised of three varieties of spontaneous emission, characterized by the rates

$`\gamma _r{\displaystyle \frac{g^2N}{\mathrm{\Delta }_r^2}},\gamma _r{\displaystyle \frac{g\sqrt{N}\mathrm{\Omega }_r}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_r^2}},\gamma _r{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_r^2}{4\mathrm{\Delta }_r^2}}.`$ (45)
To simplify the analysis we make the assumption that

$`\left|g\right|\sqrt{N}\left|\mathrm{\Omega }_r\right|,`$ (46)
and keep only the terms in (42) that depend on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r^2`$. This leads to the master equation

$`\dot{\rho }=i[H,\rho ]+L_a\rho +L_{cav}\rho ,`$ (47)
where

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`H_a+H_{ac},`$ (48)
$`H_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_r}}N\sigma ^{}\sigma ^++{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_r^2}{4\mathrm{\Delta }_r}}\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_s^2}{4\mathrm{\Delta }_s}}\sigma ^{}\sigma ^+,`$ (49)
$`H_{ac}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_r}}\stackrel{˘}{n}\sigma ^{}\sigma ^++{\displaystyle \frac{g\mathrm{\Omega }_r}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_r}}\left(a\sigma ^++a^{}\sigma ^{}\right),`$ (50)
and

$`_a\rho `$ $`=`$ $`b_0^2{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _r}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_r^2}{4\mathrm{\Delta }_r^2}}\left(2\sigma ^{}\rho \sigma ^+\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\rho \rho \sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\right)`$ (51)
$`+b_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _r}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_r^2}{4\mathrm{\Delta }_r^2}}\left(2\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\rho \sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\rho \rho \sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\right).`$
Note that the action of the second driving laser has been to add an additional level shift into the ground state $`|0`$, given by the third term in (49).

### 4.2 Adiabatic elimination of cavity

The further adiabatic elimination of the cavity requires parameters satisfying the bad-cavity limit

$`\kappa `$ $``$ $`\left|\beta _r\right|,\left|\eta _r\right|.`$ (52)
Again we ensure that $`\alpha =0`$ in order to balance the level shifts in the effective ground states and to ensure significant atomic squeezing. The definition of $`\alpha `$ is modified somewhat from (31) and becomes

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_r^2}{4\mathrm{\Delta }_r}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_s^2}{4\mathrm{\Delta }_s}}{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }_r}}N.`$ (53)
With the condition $`\alpha =0`$, the adiabatic elimination of the cavity leads to a master equation for the atomic system alone

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\kappa }}\left(N+1+{\displaystyle \frac{b_0^2}{2C}}\right)\left\{2\sigma ^{}\rho \sigma ^+\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\rho \rho \sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\right\}`$ (54)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\kappa }}N\left\{2\sigma ^+\rho \sigma ^{}\sigma ^{}\sigma ^+\rho \rho \sigma ^{}\sigma ^+\right\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\kappa }}M\left\{2\sigma ^+\rho \sigma ^+\right\}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\kappa }}M^{}\left\{2\sigma ^{}\rho \sigma ^{}\right\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\kappa }}P\left\{2\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\rho \sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\rho \rho \sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\right\},`$
where we have defined the constants

$`C`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{\kappa \gamma _r}},`$ (55)
$`P`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2g^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_r^2}}\left\{N(N+1)+M^2\right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{b_1^2}{2C}}.`$ (56)
We may make some observations from this master equation. First of all, the overall rate of the evolution of the density matrix is set by the value of $`\beta _r^2/\kappa `$. Therefore increasing the detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }_r`$ merely serves to slow the evolution to the steady state, but does not otherwise change the overall dynamics. Also, the last line of the master equation represents phase damping due both to spontaneous emission (from $`|r`$ to $`|1`$) and to elastic photon scattering into the cavity mode. This scattering is naturally dependent both on the degree of squeezing $`M`$ as well as the mean photon number $`N`$ as seen in (56).

### 4.3 Comparison to two-level atom

The Bloch equations for this master equation, taking $`M`$ to be real, are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\sigma _x`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_x\sigma _x,`$ (57)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\sigma _y`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_y\sigma _y,`$ (58)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\sigma _z`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_z\sigma _z,`$ (59)
with damping constants

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\kappa }}\left(2N+1+2M+D\right),`$ (60)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_y`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\kappa }}\left(2N+12M+D\right),`$ (61)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_z`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\kappa }}\left\{2N+1+{\displaystyle \frac{b_0^2}{2C}}\right\},`$ (62)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\kappa }}\left\{1+{\displaystyle \frac{b_0^2}{2C}}\right\},`$ (63)
and where we have additionally defined

$`D={\displaystyle \frac{2g^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_r^2}}\left\{N(N+1)+M^2\right\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2C}}.`$ (64)
The conditions under which these Bloch equations have a similar form (up to an overall rate) as equations (24) are that a) $`D`$ is much less than $`2N+12M`$, and b) the first term dominates the second term in (63). These conditions may be written as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_r^2}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N+\frac{1}{2}M}{N(N+1)+M^2}},`$ (65)
$`C`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\left(2N+12M\right)}},`$ (66)
$`C`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b_0^2}{2}}.`$ (67)
Note that (66) and (67) amount to the condition of strong coupling in cavity QED, made somewhat more stringent due to the inhibited atomic decay rate associated with the squeezed reservoir interaction (i.e., due to the factor $`2N+12M<1`$).

The addition of the fourth level has led to a significant improvement. It is now possible to satisfy the condition $`\alpha =0`$, while simultaneously satisfying conditions (39, 52, 65, 66, 67). In particular, this may be achieved with the following steps:

1. Choose basic cavity QED parameters $`g`$, $`\kappa `$ and $`\gamma `$ such that the strong coupling conditions (66) and (67) are satisfied for the desired values of $`N`$ and $`M`$.
2. Choose a value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$ sufficiently large that the phase damping is negligible and that spontaneous emission arises predominantly from the laser excitation of the atom rather than from cavity excitation (i.e. choose $`\mathrm{\Omega }_r`$ to satisfy both equations (65) and (46)).
3. Choose $`\mathrm{\Delta }_r`$ so that our condition (52) for the adiabatic elimination of the cavity is satisfied.
4. Finally, choose $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_s`$ so that $`\alpha =0`$ (as is required to balance the level shifts in the ground states). Note that spontaneous emission from the excited state $`|s`$ occurs at a rate of $`\gamma _s\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_s^2}{4\mathrm{\Delta }_s^2}`$, whereas $`\alpha `$ depends on the term $`\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_s^2}{4\mathrm{\Delta }_s}`$, so spontaneous emission from $`|s`$ can always be neglected with a sufficiently large choice of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$.

With these choices of parameters we can make the behaviour of the ground states of a 4-level $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-system in a cavity driven by squeezed light identical to the behaviour of a free two-level atom interacting exclusively with squeezed light. This is the main result of this paper.

### 4.4 Probe transmission spectrum

An identifiable signature of inhibited atomic phase decay is a feature of subnatural linewidth in the spectrum of a weak coherent probe field transmitted through the cavity . When using a single probe field, the probe transmission spectrum is a function of both quadrature decay rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_y`$. This can to some extent diminish the contribution from the particular quadrature that has reduced noise.

Therefore, in this section we introduce a technique employing a pair of probe fields which are symmetrically distributed about the cavity frequency. By using two probe fields we can cancel the contribution from the noisy quadrature and measure a probe transmission spectrum which depends only upon the quadrature with reduced fluctuations (e.g. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_y`$ when $`M`$ is real and positive). We consider the mean field amplitude transmitted through the cavity when driven by a pair of weak probe fields, i.e.,

$`H_{probe}`$ $`=`$ $`i\left\{(t)a^{}^{}(t)a\right\},`$ (68)
$`(t)`$ $`=`$ $`_+e^{i\left(\omega +\nu \right)t}+_{}e^{i\left(\omega \nu \right)t}.`$ (69)
Here $`\omega `$ is the cavity frequency, and $`_+`$ and $`_{}`$ are the weak complex driving amplitudes of the two probe fields which are offset by frequencies $`\nu `$ and $`\nu `$ respectively from $`\omega `$. Of course, the normal transmission spectrum for a single probe field can be recovered from the more general case that we consider by taking $`_{}=0`$.

We assume here that $`\alpha =0`$ and that equations (39, 52, 65, 66, 67) are satisfied. Then, the field amplitude is given by (see Appendix for details of derivation)

$`a(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\nu t}A_p^+(\nu )+e^{i\nu t}A_p^{}(\nu ),`$ (70)
$`A_p^+(\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_+}{\kappa i\nu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{2\kappa ^2}}\sigma _z\left({\displaystyle \frac{_++_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_xi\nu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{_+_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_yi\nu }}\right),`$ (71)
$`A_p^{}(\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{_{}}{\kappa +i\nu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{2\kappa ^2}}\sigma _z\left({\displaystyle \frac{_{}+_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_x+i\nu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{_{}_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_y+i\nu }}\right).`$ (72)
Here we have defined probe transmission amplitudes for the upper and lower sidebands as $`A_p^+(\nu )`$ and $`A_p^{}(\nu )`$, respectively.

In practice, these amplitudes can be measured precisely using heterodyne detection . We can see from equations (71) and (72) that variation of the relative phase of $`_+`$ and $`_{}`$, while keeping $`\left|_+\right|=\left|_{}\right|`$, results in the transmission spectrum for both the upper and lower sidebands being selectively sensitive to only one of the quadrature decay rates $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_x`$ or $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_y`$. In particular, for $`_+=_{}=`$, we have

$`A_p^\pm (\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\kappa i\nu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\kappa ^2}}\sigma _z{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_xi\nu }},`$ (73)
while for $`_+=_{}=`$,

$`A_p^\pm (\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pm }{\kappa i\nu }}\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\kappa ^2}}\sigma _z{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_yi\nu }}.`$ (74)
We demonstrate this effect by plotting the upper sideband probe transmission spectrum in figures 4 and 5. To generate these figures we have used realistic parameters for $`g`$, $`\kappa `$ and $`\gamma _r`$ obtained in a recent cavity-QED single-atom trapping experiment . Our use of a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-system means that the characteristic rate $`\beta _r^2/\kappa `$ for the evolution of the system is substantially smaller than $`\kappa `$. This means that the dip in the transmission spectrum around $`\nu =0`$ is a narrow feature compared to the broad transmission spectrum that would be seen for the cavity alone (topmost line in figures 4 and 5). With a modest amount of ideal squeezing ($`N=0.5`$, $`M=\sqrt{0.75}`$) we see a significant narrowing of the central feature in the probe spectrum (for $`_+=_{}`$) as a result of the quadrature noise reduction.

It may also be seen from equations (7072) that when the incident probe field contains only the upper sideband (i.e., when $`_+0`$, $`_{}=0`$) then, provided $`M0`$, a finite amplitude lower sideband develops in the transmission. In particular, if $`_{}=0`$, and $`_+=_{+}^{}{}_{}{}^{}=`$, then

$`A_p^{}(\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{2\kappa ^2}}\sigma _z\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_x+i\nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_y+i\nu }}\right)`$ (75)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{2\kappa ^2}}\sigma _z\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_y\mathrm{\Gamma }_x}{\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_x+i\nu \right)\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_y+i\nu \right)}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^4}{\kappa ^3}}\sigma _z{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_x+i\nu \right)\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_y+i\nu \right)}},`$
since

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_y\mathrm{\Gamma }_x={\displaystyle \frac{4\beta _r^2M}{\kappa }}.`$ (76)
The dependence on $`M`$ indicates that this effect is a consequence of correlations in the input squeezed light. Examples of the lower sideband transmission spectrum for this case are shown in figure 6. Importantly, the width of the spectral feature is again subnatural (compared to the “ordinary vacuum” width $`\frac{2\beta _r^2}{\kappa }/(2\pi )=0.17`$ MHz).

Finally, for completeness, in figure 7 we plot the standard probe transmission spectrum, i.e., $`\left|A_p^+(\nu )\right|^2`$ for $`_+0`$ and $`_{}=0`$. The structure of the central feature is now determined by both $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_y`$, but again the narrowing due to quadrature noise reduction is clearly visible.

## 5 Conclusions

We have proposed a simple system, based on a 4-level $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-atom in a cavity, which has the same interaction with squeezed light driving the cavity as a free 2-level atom interacting exclusively with broadband squeezed light.

We have identified two major conditions that must be satisfied for this equivalence to be established. Firstly, the level shifts which are induced in the two atomic ground states by the laser driving the Raman transition and by the intra-cavity photons must be balanced. This keeps the quadratures of the atomic ground states in phase with the squeezing incident on the cavity. The fourth atomic level and its associated driving laser are used to achieve this balancing. Secondly, a parameter regime must also be chosen in which phase-damping of the atoms is negligible. The level shift associated with intra-cavity photons causes this phase-damping, which may be considered as a two-photon elastic scattering process between the atomic ground state and the photons in the cavity. With only a 3-level atomic system there is not sufficient flexibility to simultaneously satisfy both these conditions.

An optical cavity is used, in the (“effective”) bad-cavity limit, to create an atom that is effectively one-dimensional. Therefore, we need only squeeze the modes into which the cavity mode decays and do not need to squeeze the full 4$`\pi `$ of modes with which an atom in free space interacts. The bandwidth of the squeezing must only exceed the bandwidth of the cavity. These are substantially simpler technical challenges.

The 4-level system considered in this paper might be used to demonstrate the inhibited quadrature decay rates associated with atomic squeezing. Therefore, we have considered a technique to assist in the detection of the line-narrowing which is the direct signature of atomic squeezing. By employing an appropriate pair of probe fields that are symmetrically placed around the resonant frequency of the cavity we may measure a probe transmission spectrum that is dependent only on the reduced atomic quadrature decay rate.

Finally, we note that the basic conditions elucidated in this paper are also applicable to systems containing more than one atom. The requirements to balance the level shifts of the effective ground states and to minimize phase-damping should persist when attempting to create spin-squeezing in larger atomic ensembles. The squeezing created in the atomic ground states is in principle long-lived and will endure when all of the light sources are turned off, making systems of more than one atom particularly suitable for the creation of entangled states of multiple atoms.

This work was supported in part by the Marsden Fund of the Royal Society of New Zealand.

## Appendix. Probe transmission spectrum

In this appendix we outline the approach taken to calculate the probe transmission spectrum for the 4-level $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-atom in a cavity, when driven by squeezed light and by a pair of weak coherent probe fields symmetrically distributed about the cavity frequency.

The interaction-picture perturbation of our system from its steady-state value $`\rho _{eq}`$ is given by

$`\rho (t)=\rho _{eq}i{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}𝑑t^{}[H_{probe}\left(t^{}\right),\rho _{eq}],`$ (77)
where the interaction of the two probe fields with the cavity mode is described by

$`H_{probe}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`i\left\{(t)a^{}^{}(t)a\right\},`$ (78)
$`(t)`$ $`=`$ $`_+e^{i\nu t}+_{}e^{i\nu t}.`$ (79)
From this it may be shown that

$`a(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\nu t}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau e^{i\nu \tau }A(\tau )+e^{i\nu t}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau e^{i\nu \tau }B(\tau ),`$ (80)
$`A(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`_+[a(\tau ),a^{}]_{}^{}[a(\tau ),a],`$ (81)
$`B(\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`_{}[a(\tau ),a^{}]_+^{}[a(\tau ),a].`$ (82)
We must now evaluate the commutators of the two-time correlation functions of the cavity modes. The quantum Langevin equation for the evolution of $`a(t)`$ is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}a(t)=\kappa a(t)+g\sigma ^{}(t)+\sqrt{2\kappa }a_{in}(t),`$ (83)
where $`a_{in}(t)`$ is a quantum noise operator satisfying

$`[a_{in}(t),a_{in}^{}(t^{})]=\delta \left(tt^{}\right).`$ (84)
The formal solution to (83), in the limit of $`\kappa `$ large and $`\sigma ^{}`$ slowly varying, is

$`a(t)={\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r}{\kappa }}\sigma ^{}(t)+\sqrt{2\kappa }{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t^{}e^{\kappa (tt^{})}a_{in}(t^{}).`$ (85)
Evaluation of the commutators in (81) and (82), using (85), gives

$`[a(t),a(t^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\kappa ^2}}[\sigma ^{}(t),\sigma ^{}(t^{})]`$ (86)
$`+\beta _r\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa }}}{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\tau e^{\kappa (t\tau )}[a_{in}(\tau ),\sigma ^{}(t^{})]`$
$`+\beta _r\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa }}}{\displaystyle _0^t^{}}𝑑\tau ^{}e^{\kappa (t^{}\tau ^{})}[\sigma ^{}(t),a_{in}(\tau ^{})]`$
and

$`[a(t),a^{}(t^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\kappa ^2}}[\sigma ^{}(t),\sigma ^+(t^{})]`$ (87)
$`+\beta _r\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa }}}{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\tau e^{\kappa (t\tau )}[a_{in}(\tau ),\sigma ^+(t^{})]`$
$`+\beta _r\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa }}}{\displaystyle _0^t^{}}𝑑\tau ^{}e^{\kappa (t^{}\tau ^{})}[\sigma ^{}(t),a_{in}^{}(\tau ^{})].`$
We may now use the standard input and output relation, which holds for any atomic operator $`x(t)`$,

$`[x(t),a_{in}(t^{})]=u(tt^{})\beta _r\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\kappa }}}[x(t),\sigma ^{}(t^{})],`$ (88)
to express the expectation values of two-time correlations of the cavity operator $`a`$ in terms of atomic correlations:

$`[a(\tau ),a]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\kappa ^2}}[\sigma ^{}(\tau ),\sigma ^{}],`$ (89)
$`[a(\tau ),a^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\kappa \tau }{\displaystyle \frac{\beta _r^2}{\kappa ^2}}[\sigma ^{}(\tau ),\sigma ^+].`$ (90)
These in turn may be calculated from (5759) to be

$`[\sigma ^{}(\tau ),\sigma ^{}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _z\left(e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_x\tau }e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_y\tau }\right),`$ (91)
$`[\sigma ^{}(\tau ),\sigma ^+]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sigma _z\left(e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_x\tau }+e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_y\tau }\right).`$ (92)
Substituting equations (8992) into (8082) leads to equations (7072).

## References