text:
# Dirac-Connes Operator on Discrete Abelian Groups and Lattices

## I Introduction

In a series of works, A. Dimakis and F. Müller-Hoissen(D&M) developed the noncommutative geometry(NCG) on discrete sets, whose foundation is a universal differential calculus as well as its reduction on a discrete set . When a discrete set is endowed with a group structure, D&M’s NCG coincides with the NCG devised by A. Sitarz . In this case, the differential calculus and reduction can be formulated using the left-invariant forms . With the merits being simple and intuitive mathematically, this approach of NCG is essentially a cohomological description of broken lines on discrete sets; therefore, it provides a natural framework to describe physical systems on discrete sets, i.e. classical or quantum fields on lattices . In fact, D&M deduced the correct Wilson action of gauge field on lattices within their formalism in . a)a)a)D&M applied their geometry in the exploration of integrable systems also, on which we will not touch in this article . However, neither D&M nor Sitarz paid much attention to the “fermionic” contents on discrete sets which would give some insight into the famous puzzle of chiral fermions on lattices  from a NCG point of view, though D&M have discussed the “representations” of their geometry in .

On the other hand, A. Connes finished formulating the axioms for his NCG after works  being accumulated. This approach of NCG essentially describes the classical differential geometry using the tools of operator algebra and generalizes this description into the realm of noncommutative algebras; despite of the requirement of a tremendous mathematical preparation, it has an intimate relation with “fermionic” contents of nature, for its key concept, a generalized Dirac operator to which we will refer as Dirac-Connes opertor in this paper, determines the metric structure on a noncommutative space.

In this work, we compose a kind of Dirac-Connes operator for discrete abelian groups, thus we determine a Connes’ geometry as a spinor representation of D&M-Sitarz’ geometry on these groups. This operator can be regarded as a generalization of the so-called “naturally-defined” Dirac operator for lattice fermions in our previous work . This article is organized as follows. We review briefly different versions of NCG in Section II. Then we explore our Dirac-Connes operator in Section III. The “naturally-defined” Dirac operator is introduced in Section IV. Some discussions are put in Section V. Being deserved to be mentioned, some other authors have also attempted to introduce new intuitions into solving the problem of geometric description of spinor on discrete systems from NCG point of view. J. Vaz generalized Clifford algebra to be non-diagonal in spacetime . Balachandran et al studied a solution in discrete field theories based on the fuzzy sphere and its Cartesian products .

## II Noncommutative Geometries

We first introduce the concept of universal graded differential algebra $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A)=_{k=0}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }^k(A)`$ upon a unital associative algebra $`A`$ with $`\mathrm{\Omega }^0(A)=A`$. $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A)`$ is a free algebra generated by symbols $`\{a,da:aA\}`$ subject to the relations $`d\mathrm{𝟏}=0`$, $`d(a_0a_1)da_0a_1a_0da_1=0`$. The latter will enable us to express elements in $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A)`$ as linear combinations of monomials of the form $`a_0da_1\mathrm{}da_n`$. A differential $`d`$ is defined by relations $`d(a_0da_1\mathrm{}da_n)=da_0da_1\mathrm{}da_n`$, $`d(da_0da_1\mathrm{}da_n)=0`$ which are equivalent to the requirement that $`d^2=0`$, and one can check that $`d`$ satisfies a graded Leibnitz law

$$d(\omega _p\omega ^{})=(d\omega _p)\omega ^{}+()^p\omega _p(d\omega ^{}),\omega _p\mathrm{\Omega }^p(A),\omega ^{}\mathrm{\Omega }(A)$$

### II.1 NCG on discrete sets, Reduction of Differential Calculus

Now let $`A`$ be the algebra of all complex functions on a discrete set $`S`$ whose elements are labeled by a subset of integer and denote by latin characters $`i,j,k,\mathrm{}`$. $`A`$ has a natural basis $`\{e^i;iS,e^i(j)=\delta _j^i\}`$ such that any function $`f`$ in $`A`$ can be decomposed as $`f=_{iS}f(i)e^i`$. The algebraic structure of $`A`$ can be expressed as

$$e^ie^j=e^i\delta ^{ij},i,jS$$

and the unit is $`\mathrm{𝟏}=_{iS}e^i`$. D&M proved that under this circumstance, the universal differential algebra or differential calculus $`(\mathrm{\Omega }(A),d)`$ on $`S`$ satisfies that

###### Lemma 1

1)Let $`e^{ij}=e^ide^j,ij`$, then $`\{e^{ij},ij\}`$ is a basis of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(A)`$;
2)$`e^{ij}e^{kl}=e^{ij}e^{jl}\delta ^{jk}`$;
3)$`e^{i_1\mathrm{}i_r}:=e^{i_1i_2}e^{i_2i_3}\mathrm{}e^{i_{r1}i_r},i_ki_{k+1},k=1,2,\mathrm{},r1`$ form a basis for $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{r1}(A),r=3,4,\mathrm{}`$;
4)$`e^{i_1\mathrm{}i_p}e^{i_{p+1}\mathrm{}i_r}=e^{i_1\mathrm{}i_pi_{p+2}\mathrm{}i_r}\delta ^{i_pi_{p+1}},p=1,2,\mathrm{},rp=1,2,\mathrm{}`$;
5)$`de^{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_r}=_{k=0}^{r+1}_{ji_k,ji_{k+1}}()^ke^{i_1\mathrm{}i_kji_{k+1}\mathrm{}i_r}`$, for $`r=1,2,\mathrm{}`$;
6)The cohomology groups of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }(A),d)`$ is trivial.

The geometric interpretation of $`e^{i_1\mathrm{}i_r},r=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ is the algebraic dual of a (r-1)-step broken line $`i_1\mathrm{}i_r`$; therefore, Lemma 1 has a simple and natural geometric picture on discrete sets.

A reduction or a reduced differential algebra of $`(\mathrm{\Omega }(A),d)`$ is defined to be $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A)/`$ in which the two-sided ideal $``$ is generated by a specific subset of $`\{e^{ij}\}`$; in another word, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A)`$ is reduced to a more meaningful differential calculus modulo relations generated by setting $`e^{ij}`$ in this subset to be zero.

### II.2 NCG on discrete groups, Reduction of Left-invariant 1-Forms

First we introduce some notations. We will use $`G`$ instead of $`S`$ for a discrete set equipped with a group structure, denote its elements by $`g,h,\mathrm{}`$ and write the unit of $`G`$ as $`e`$. For all $`gG`$, $`\overline{g}:=g^1`$. Let $`G^{}=G\backslash \{e\}`$, and $`_{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}:=_{gG^{}}`$. The right(left)-translations induced by group multiplications on $`A`$ are defined to be $`(R_gf)(h)=f(hg),(L_gf)(h)=f(gh)`$. Formally we write $`_gf=R_gff`$. As for abelian groups, $`R_g=L_g=:T_g`$.

Left-invariant 1-forms in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(A)`$ are defined as

$$\chi ^g=\underset{hG}{}e^hde^{hg},gG^{}$$
(1)
as well as $`\chi ^e=_{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{}\chi ^g`$ for convenience, such that

$$df=\underset{g}{}^{}_gf\chi ^g$$
(2)
###### Lemma 2

(Sitarz) Using left-invariant 1-forms only without appealing to the definition in Eq.(1), one can show that all the requirements on a differential calculus, linearity, nilpotent, graded Leibnitz rule, are guaranteed sufficiently and necessarily, if that $`\chi ^gf=(R_gf)\chi ^g`$, $`d\chi ^g+\{\chi ^e,\chi ^g\}+_{h}^{}{}_{g}{}^{}\chi ^h\chi ^{\overline{h}g}=0`$, together with Eq.(2) hold.

Hence, Eq.(2) can be written as $`df=[\chi ^e,f]`$.

A left-invariant reduction is generated by specifying a subset of $`G^{}`$ denoted as $`G^{\prime \prime }`$ and setting $`\chi ^g=0,gG^{}\backslash G^{\prime \prime }`$. Let $`_{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }:=_{gG^{\prime \prime }}`$ and still $`\chi ^e=_{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }\chi ^g`$, then Eq.(2) becomes $`df=_{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }_gf\chi ^g=[\chi ^e,f]`$.

### II.3 K-Cycles, Junk and Distance Formula

Connes defines a K-cycle to be a triple $`(A,,D)`$ consisting of a \*-algebra $`A`$, a faithful unitary representation $`\pi `$ of $`A`$ on a Hilbert space $``$ and an (unbounded) self-adjoint operator $`D`$(Dirac-Connes operator) on $``$ with compact resolvent, such that $`[D,\pi (a)]`$ is bounded for all $`aA`$. Parallel to reductions on discrete sets, an extension of $`\pi `$ to a representation of the universal differential algebra $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A)`$ on $``$ making use of Dirac-Connes operator $`D`$ is required for the purpose to introduce a meaningful differential structure on $`A`$. First, extend $`\pi `$ to be a \*-representation of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A)`$ in $``$ by defining that

$$\pi (a_0da_1\mathrm{}da_n):=\pi (a_0)[D,\pi (a_1)]\mathrm{}[D,\pi (a_n)]$$

Note that, since we do not care the involution property of differential algebra in this paper, our definition here omits a ”$`i^n`$” from the conventional one for simplicity. Second, to make $`\pi `$ be a differential representation, we define Junk ideal $`𝒥^n=ker(\pi |_{\mathrm{\Omega }^n(A)})`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_D(A)=_{n=0}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_D^n(A),\mathrm{\Omega }_D^n(A):=\pi (\mathrm{\Omega }^n(A))/\pi (d𝒥^{n1})$$

Junk ideal will become nontrivial if $`n2`$, namely that one has to consider $`\pi (d𝒥^1)=\{_j[D,\pi (a_0^j)][D,\pi (a_1^j)]:a_0^j,a_1^jA,_j\pi (a_0^j)[D,\pi (a_1^j)]=0\}`$ to define $`\mathrm{\Omega }_D^2(A)`$ well.

###### Lemma 3

(Sufficient Junk-free condition in second order)
If $`D^2\pi (A)^{}`$ where $`\pi (A)^{}`$ is the commutants of $`\pi (A)`$, then $`\pi (d𝒥^1)=\mathrm{}`$.

Proof:
The statement can be verified by two identities $`[a,b][a,c]=\{a,b[a,c]\}b\{a,[a,c]\}`$, $`\{a,[a,b]\}=[a^2,b]`$.
$`\mathrm{}`$
On the other hand, one can induce a metric $`d_D(,)`$ on the state space $`𝒮(A)`$ of $`A`$ by Connes’ distance formula

$$d_D(\varphi ,\psi )=sup\{|\varphi (a)\psi (a)|:aA,[D,\pi (a)]1\},\varphi ,\psi 𝒮(A)$$

## III Dirac-Connes Operator on Discrete Abelian Groups

In this section, we focus on discrete abelian groups $`G`$ and try to define K-cycles $`(A,,D)`$ on them. As a prescription, we suppose that the translations $`T_g,gG`$ can be induced from $`A`$ into $``$, and be denoted as $`\widehat{T_g}`$ which satisfies

$$\widehat{T_g}\pi (f)=\pi (T_gf)\widehat{T_g}$$
(3)
Note that Eq.(3) is obvious if $``$ is a free module on $`A`$. Now we point out that each reduction of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(A)`$ can be realized by a junk $`𝒥^1`$; in fact, that $`e^{gh}=0`$ can be implemented by requiring that $`\pi (e^{gh})=\pi (e^g)[D,\pi (e^h)]=0`$, a constraint on $`D`$. Notice that $`\pi (\chi ^g)=_{hG}\pi (e^h)[D,\pi (e^{hg})]=:\eta ^g`$, and implement a left-invariant reduction by setting $`\eta ^g=0,gG^{}\backslash G^{\prime \prime }`$. We will just consider finite left-invariant reductions i.e. $`\mathrm{}(G^{\prime \prime })<\mathrm{}`$.

One can check that

$$\eta ^g\pi (f)=\pi (T_gf)\eta ^g$$
(4)
Accordingly, $`D`$ can be formally written as $`D=_{g}^{}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }\eta ^g`$ and there is

$$\pi (df)=[D,\pi (f)]=\underset{g}{}^{\prime \prime }\pi (_gf)\eta ^g$$
(5)
Inspired by Eq.(3), we require that $`\eta ^g`$ has the factorized form $`\eta ^g=\mathrm{\Gamma }^g\widehat{T_g},gG^{\prime \prime }`$(without a summation) in which $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^g\pi (A)^{}`$, thus

$$D=\underset{g}{}^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Gamma }^g\widehat{T_g}$$

and Eqs.(4)(5) hold. Moreover, we require that $`D`$ satisfies the Junk-free condition in Lemma 3, i.e. $`D^2\pi (A)^{}`$. To gain a solution, first we need partition $`G^{\prime \prime }`$ into three intersectionless subsets $`G^{\prime \prime }=\mathrm{\Sigma }T\overline{T}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ contains all 2-order elements in $`G^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`T`$, $`\overline{T}`$ contain other high order elements respecting that if $`gT`$ then $`\overline{g}\overline{T}`$; accordingly,

$$D=\underset{\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\sigma T_\sigma +\underset{tT}{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^tT_t+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\overline{t}}T_{\overline{t}})$$

###### Proposition 1

If there holds the Clifford algebra $`Cl(\mathrm{}(G^{\prime \prime }))`$

$$\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^s,\mathrm{\Gamma }^t\}=0,\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\overline{s}},\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\overline{t}}\}=0,\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^s,\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\overline{t}}\}=\delta ^{st}$$
(6)
$$\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^s,\mathrm{\Gamma }^\sigma \}=0,\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\overline{s}},\mathrm{\Gamma }^\sigma \}=0,\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^\sigma ,\mathrm{\Gamma }^\sigma ^{}\}=2\delta ^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}$$
(7)
for all $`s,tT`$, $`\overline{s},\overline{t}\overline{T}`$ and $`\sigma ,\sigma ^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, then $`D`$ is a Junk-free Dirac-Connes operator.

Proof:
A straightforward computation shows that $`D^2=(\mathrm{}(\mathrm{\Sigma })+\mathrm{}(T))\mathrm{𝟏}`$ if all $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^g`$ subject to the above Clifford relations.
$`\mathrm{}`$
Note that more general solutions can be gained by varying those non-vanishing anti-commutation relations in Eqs.(6)(7) by a scalar factor.

## IV Dirac-Connes Operator on Lattices

Let $`G`$ be a d-dimensional lattice as a discrete group $`𝒵^d`$ where $`𝒵`$ is the integer-addition group, and the elements in $`𝒵^d`$ are d-dimensional vectors whose components are integers. Define unit vectors to be $`\widehat{\mu },\widehat{\mu }(i)=\delta _{\mu i},\mu ,i=1,2,\mathrm{},d`$ and $`(T_\mu ^\pm f)(x)=f(x\pm \widehat{\mu })`$. Consider a reduction $`G^{\prime \prime }=\{\pm \mu ,\mu =1,2,\mathrm{},d\}`$, hence $`df=_{\mu =1}^d(_\mu ^+f\chi _+^\mu +_\mu ^{}f\chi _{}^\mu )`$. According to the previous Section, Dirac-Connes operator on $`𝒵^d`$ is

$$D=\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{d}{}}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_+^\mu T_\mu ^++\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^\mu T_\mu ^{})$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^\mu `$ satisfy $`Cl(2d)`$ relations

$$\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^\mu ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^\nu \}=0,\{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\pm ^\mu ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^\nu \}=\delta ^{\mu \nu },\mu ,\nu =1,2,\mathrm{},d$$

In , we called this operator(with a modification which will be pointed out in the next section) “natural-defined” Dirac operator on a lattice and proved in $`d=2`$ that $`d_D(,)`$ coincides with conventional Euclidean distance on this lattice.

## V Discussions

First, we call the Junk-free condition in second order a geometric square-root condition; for being more specific, we write it as $`D^2=N\mathrm{𝟏}`$ where $`N`$ is a normalization integer. While $`\stackrel{~}{D}^2=\mathrm{}`$ is called a physical square-root condition when a laplacian is well-defined. On lattices, they are connected by the relation

$$\stackrel{~}{D}=D\underset{g}{}^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Gamma }^g\mathrm{𝟏},\stackrel{~}{D}=\underset{g}{}^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\Gamma }^g_g$$

Second, M. Göckeler and T. Schücker pointed out that in a restricted sense, conventional lattice Dirac operator is not compatible with Connes’ geometry, due to the contradiction of first-order axiom . Our work on this aspect is in proceeding.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by Climb-Up (Pan Deng) Project of Department of Science and Technology in China, Chinese National Science Foundation and Doctoral Programme Foundation of Institution of Higher Education in China. One of the authors J.D. is grateful to Dr. L-G. Jin in Peking University and Dr. H-L. Zhu in Rutgers University for their careful reading on this manuscript.


format: text

text:
# Mimicking a Kerrlike medium in the dispersive regime of second-harmonic generation

## 1 Introduction

The superposition principle plays an essential role in understanding the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics. Stated in physical terms, it assures that we cannot speak of an objective state of a system prior to a measurement. In fact, one should admit that the system may be described as a superposition of macroscopically (or mesoscopically) distinct states, often known as Schrödinger cat states .

Therefore, the methods for the generation of such superposition states are of fundamental interest. Among other systems, vibrating molecules  or crystals , trapped ions , and Bose condensates  have been proposed as candidates for doing the task. In fact, mesoscopic Schrödinger cat states for the vibrational motion of ion traps have been experimental realized .

The issue of generating optical Schrödinger cats (namely, superpositions of distinguishable states of the electromagnetic field) has attracted as well a great deal of attention . For example, Brune et al  have shown that the conditional measurement on atoms exiting a high-$`Q`$ cavity may force the radiation inside the cavity to be in a catlike state. The same basic concept of conditional measurement has also been suggested for entangled states , nonlinear birefringence , or self-Kerr phase modulation . The state collapse due to photodetection has also been suggested as a source of cat states .

The Kerr effect provides a nonlinearity of particular interest for generating field cat states . Apart from their intrinsic simplicity, Kerr-based schemes have the specific advantage of not relying on conditional measurements. However, the realistic values of Kerr coefficients are quite small, thus requiring a large interaction length. Then, losses become significant and may destroy the very delicate quantum superpositions. In short, although very appealing from the physical viewpoint, Kerr schemes are not generally considered to be realistic. In spite of this belief, there has been a very recent proposal of generating a Kerr kitten that serves as a quantum seed for suitable amplification , that could become fully feasible.

On the other hand, it should be noted that perhaps the simplest nonlinear optical process is second-harmonic generation, which in addition exhibits a rich spectrum of nonclassical features. Considerable attention has been paid to issues such as photon antibunching, squeezing, or collapses and revivals . However, the generation of Schrödinger cat states has gone almost unnoticed. Perhaps, a relevant exception is the work of Nikitin and Masalov , showing that, at resonance, the quantum state of the fundamental mode evolves into a superposition of two macroscopically distinguishable states. This point may be considered as well rather unrealistic, because the stringent experimental constraints of having perfect phase matching and low decoherence could be rather difficult to attain.

In this paper we pursue the dispersive limit of second-harmonic generation, which seems to be almost ignored in the literature. At this respect, our main result is to show that, for detunings large enough, the dynamics can be described in terms of an effective Hamiltonian essentially identical to that governing the propagation of the fundamental mode in a Kerr medium.

Apart from its intrinsic interest, such an identification could be more than an academic curiosity: second-harmonic generation is, for a variety of reasons , more robust than the Kerr effect as for noise-limiting factors. In consequence, this scheme could be an experimentally feasible proposal to generate the yearned optical cat states.

## 2 Dynamics of second-harmonic generation in the dispersive limit

Second-harmonic generation is usually described (without assuming perfect resonance) by the following model Hamiltonian (in units $`\mathrm{}=1`$)

$$H=H_0+H_{\mathrm{int}}=\omega _aa^{}a+\omega _bb^{}b+g(a^2b^{}+a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}b),$$
(1)
where $`a`$ ($`a^{}`$) and $`b`$ ($`b^{}`$) are the annihilation (creation) operators of the fundamental mode of frequency $`\omega _a`$ and of the second-harmonic mode of frequency $`\omega _b`$, respectively. When perfect matching conditions occurs, they satisfy $`\omega _b=2\omega _a`$. The constant $`g`$, describing phenomenologically the coupling between both modes, can be always chosen as real.

Classically the above problem admits an exact solution, leading to the possibility of the energy being transferred completely into the second-harmonic mode . Unfortunately, the corresponding quantum dynamics is a touchy business, though different algebraic, semiclassical, and numerical approaches have been developed (for pertinent literature on these approximations see Ref. ).

By noting that the Hamiltonian (1) admits the constant of motion

$$N=a^{}a+2b^{}b,$$
(2)
it can be recast in the following simple form

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _b+\omega _a}{3}}N,`$
$`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{3}}(b^{}ba^{}a)+g(a^2b^{}+a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}b),`$
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\omega _b2\omega _a$$
(4)
is the detuning.

It is straightforward to check that

$$[H_0,H_{\mathrm{int}}]=0,$$
(5)
so both $`H_0`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ are constants of motion. Since $`H_0`$ determines the total energy stored in both modes, which is conserved, we can factor out $`\mathrm{exp}(iH_0t)`$ from the evolution operator and drop it altogether.

In order to examine the quantum evolution we shall use a standard numerical approach developed by Tanaś and coworkers  starting from the original one of Walls and Barakat . First, we consider the case of perfect resonance and we take the typical experimental conditions; namely, the fundamental mode in a coherent state with an average number of photons $`\overline{n}_a`$ and the harmonic mode in the vacuum.

For definiteness, we shall analyze the quantum state by computing the $`Q`$ function. In figure 1 we have plotted a gray-scale contour map of this distribution $`Q(\alpha )`$ for the fundamental mode with $`\overline{n}_a=10`$, and for different values of the dimensionless time $`\tau =gt\sqrt{2\overline{n}_a}`$. Results are in complete agreement with the previous work by Nikitin and Masalov : at the beginning of the interaction $`(\tau <2)`$ the uncertainty contour turns to an ellipse, whose long axis is perpendicular to the field vector (so the state is squeezed in amplitude). Further interaction $`(\tau 4)`$ results in a bifurcation of the $`Q`$ distribution and the formation of a superposition of two macroscopically distinguishable states. Subsequent development $`(\tau >5)`$ destroys this state as well.

Next, we consider the case when some mismatch is present. The previous numerical procedure is still valid, but one must take care of the diagonal extra terms introduced by the detuning. To check how the detuning affects the cats, in figure 2 we have plotted the contours of the $`Q`$ function at $`\tau =4`$, when the cat should appear, for different values of the dimensionless detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }/g`$. One easily notices that the cat becomes more and more blurred as the detuning increases, until $`\mathrm{\Delta }/g`$ is so large and the process is so inefficient that the fundamental mode does not feel any appreciable interaction and the cat is lost. Moreover, we have found no numerical evidence of any further cat for other times around $`\tau =4`$.

This is a reasonable result from the physical viewpoint, since one could expect some kind of continuity. However, it differs from the numerical computations of Nikitin and Masalov , who find that the cat disappears as soon as some detuning is present, irrespectively the smaller this detuning is. The reason is the way they deal with the off-resonant situation: following a classical argument, they assume that the presence of detuning translates into the fact that the coupling constant has the time dependence $`g=|g|\mathrm{exp}[(n_an_b)\omega t]`$, where $`n_a`$ and $`n_b`$ are the refractive indices of the medium at the frequencies $`\omega _a`$ and $`\omega _b`$. In such a way, the interaction Hamiltonian $`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ becomes time dependent and the numerical method becomes rather complicated, at difference of what happens with our very simple model.

From now on, we shall be interested in the dispersive limit of the model governed by the Hamiltonian (1). In other words, we shall consider the situation when

$$|\mathrm{\Delta }|g(\overline{n}_a+1)(\overline{n}_b+1),$$
(6)
where $`\overline{n}_a`$ and $`\overline{n}_b`$ denote the average photon numbers in the modes $`a`$ and $`b`$, respectively. It is worth emphasizing that this is a limit physically realizable in practice . Now, the essential point is that $`g/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be considered as a small parameter and, according to the method developed in Ref. , we can apply a unitary transformation to the interaction Hamiltonian (2)

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}=UH_{\mathrm{int}}U^{},$$
(7)
where

$$U=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{g}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(a^2b^{}a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}b)\right].$$
(8)
To gain a deeper insight into the physical ideas underlying the method we can introduce the operators

$`X_+=b^{}a^2,X_{}=a_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}b,`$
(9)
$`X_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(b^{}ba^{}a),`$
that satisfy the commutation relations

$`[X_3,X_\pm ]`$ $`=`$ $`\pm X_\pm ,`$
$`[X_+,X_{}]`$ $`=`$ $`P(X_3),`$
where $`P`$ refers to a quadratic polynomial function of the diagonal operator $`X_3`$. Then, while the first relation is the same as the corresponding one for the standard su(2) algebra, the second one defines what is called a nonlinear or polynomial deformation of su(2) . From this viewpoint, the transformation (8) can be recast as

$$U=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{g}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(X_+X_{})\right].$$
(11)
For su(2) operators this would be simply a rotation. Here, it represents a small nonlinear rotation with the parameters chosen in such a way so as to cancel \[up to order $`(g/\mathrm{\Delta })^2]`$ the nondiagonal terms appearing in the transformed Hamiltonian. Moreover, its unitary character ensures that $`H_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ has the same spectrum as $`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ (so they are physically equivalent). In consequence, by expanding Eq. (7) in a power series and keeping terms up to the order $`(g/\mathrm{\Delta })^2`$, we finally get

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{3}(b^{}ba^{}a)\lambda \left[4b^{}ba^{}a(a^{}a)^2\right],$$
(12)
with

$$\lambda =\frac{g^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}.$$
(13)
The effective Hamiltonian (12) describes the dispersive evolution of the fields, but the essential point is that it is diagonal, which implies that there is no population transfer between the modes (as it is expected in the far-off resonant limit). The first term in Eq. (12) does not affect the dynamics and just leads to a rapid oscillation of the wavefunction. It is worth noting that the small rotation generated by the transformation (8) just adds small corrections of order $`g/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to the physical observables and, thus, the state vector need not to be transformed.

Now, it is easy to find evolution of the density matrix of the fundamental mode. When the harmonic mode is initially in the vacuum, the two terms containing $`b^{}b`$ in Eq. (12) do not contribute. In addition, the linear term in $`a^{}a`$ lead just to a $`c`$-number phase shift and can be also omitted. Then, the effective Hamiltonian reduces to

$$H_K=\lambda (a^{}a)^2,$$
(14)
which is nothing but the interaction Hamiltonian that governs the state evolution of the single-mode field $`a`$ in a Kerr medium. Then, the evolution is factorized all the times (in the frame of this approximation) and, in consequence, starting from a coherent state in mode $`a`$, one will recover $`M`$ copies of this initial state at times $`\lambda t=\pi /M`$ . In particular, for $`\lambda t=\pi /2`$ the density matrix of the fundamental mode becomes

$$\rho _a(\pi /2\lambda )=|\psi _c_a_a\psi _c|,$$
(15)
where $`|\psi _c_a`$ is a superposition of two coherent states with opposite phases; i.e.,

$$|\psi _c_a=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[e^{i\pi /4}|\alpha _a+e^{i\pi /4}|\alpha _a\right].$$
(16)
To check these predictions we have numerically calculated the $`Q`$ function from the exact Hamiltonian (2) at the time $`t=\pi /(2\lambda )`$. The initial coherent state in mode $`a`$ has $`\overline{n}_a=10`$ and we have assumed a detuning $`\mathrm{\Delta }/g=50`$, which is enough to guarantee the validity of our approximation (6). In figure 3 we have plotted the results of the computation, showing an apparent excellent agreement with the expected cat. However, the $`Q`$ function by itself is not very suitable to distinguish between coherent and incoherent superpositions. To further confirm the coherent behavior we have considered the fidelity

$$(t)={}_{a}{}^{}\psi _c|\rho (t)|\psi _c_{a}^{}$$
(17)
between the ideal two-component cat density matrix and the state coming from realistic evolution. In figure 4 we have plotted the resulting fidelity as a function of the rescaled time $`gt`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }/g=50.`$ We can see the presence of small peaks corresponding to the presence of $`M`$component catlike states, as well as the strong peak at the time $`\lambda t=\pi /2`$ predicted by our theory when $`M=2`$.

When the initial state of the harmonic mode is in a superposition of number states instead of the vacuum, the dynamics of the fundamental mode is drastically affected. For simplicity, we shall take an initial coherent state in both modes, namely, $`|\alpha _a|\beta _b.`$ Then, we obtain for the density matrix of the fundamental mode the following expression

$`\rho _a(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{|\alpha |^2}{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}e^{it\lambda (n^2m^2)}\mathrm{exp}\left[|\beta |^2\left(1e^{4i\lambda t(nm)}\right)\right]`$ (18)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^n\alpha _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{m}}{\sqrt{n!m!}}}|n_a_am|.`$
The entanglement between modes $`a`$ and $`b`$ is evident, as well as the fact that only when $`\lambda t=\pi /2`$ they become disentangled and two copies of the initial coherent state in the fundamental mode will be created. Indeed, the density matrix of the total system at such time is

$$\rho (\pi /2\lambda )=|\beta _b_b\beta ||\psi _c_a_a\psi _c|,$$
(19)
and only a two-component cat can be produced in this case, although with lesser fidelity than for the vacuum. On the contrary, when $`\lambda t=\pi `$, the initial coherent state is reconstructed.

Finally, some comments concerning the physical feasibility of the proposed scheme seem in order. Of course, a simple comparison of the parameters in figures 1 and 3 clearly shows that the times required for the appearance of the cat in the dispersive limit are an order of magnitude larger than in the usual case of no detuning. The advantage of this dispersive limit is twofold: one does not need to take care about phase-matching considerations and, more important, if the process takes place in a cavity, one could expect from previous results, e.g. in cavity quantum electrodynamics , that the quantum features of the state may be undestroyed for large interaction times. In addition, the width of the peak appearing in the fidelity is of the order of 5 in units of $`gt`$, while the cat appearing in figure 1 disappears in much shorter times. Thus, the required time resolution in this dispersive limit is lesser than the one needed for the perfect frequency-matching case. In spite of these advantages, the required times are still so long that other decoherence factors could affect the final results.

The effective Hamiltonian (12) has the virtue of simplifying calculations that otherwise would be rather involved. To cite only an example, the squeezing properties of the fundamental mode are also affected by the initial state of the harmonic mode. For initial coherent states in both modes $`|\alpha _a|\beta _b`$ (for simplicity, we take $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ as real numbers) we easily get for the variance $`\sigma _x^2=x^2x^2`$ of the quadrature $`x=(a+a^{})/\sqrt{2}`$

$`\sigma _x^2(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\alpha ^2(e^{8z^2T^2}e^{4z^2T^2})\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }T`$ (20)
$``$ $`2\alpha ^2T^2(4e^{8z^2T^2}e^{4z^2T^2})\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }T`$
$``$ $`2\alpha ^2T(2e^{8z^2T^2}e^{4z^2T^2})\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Omega }T`$
$`+`$ $`\alpha ^2(1e^{4z^2T^2})\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Omega }T,`$
where $`T=\lambda t1`$, $`z^2=\alpha ^2+4\beta ^2`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=4\alpha ^28\beta ^2`$. Then, for sufficiently large values of $`\beta ^2`$ squeezing in the fundamental mode disappears, according to previous numerical studies .

One could be tempted to extend the method to other nonlinear optical process in order to get effective Hamiltonians that are diagonal in the desired basis. In fact, the program can be carried out. For example, for third-harmonic generation one obtains, after repeating the same steps as before,

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}\lambda \left\{9b^{}b\left[(a^{}a)^2+a^{}a\right](a^{}a)^36(a^{}a)^2\right\},$$
(21)
but now the final result contains a cubic nonlinearity and the problem is not facilitated at all.

## 3 Concluding remarks

What we expect to have accomplished in this paper is to present a simple model for the description of the dispersive limit of second-harmonic generation in terms of an effective Hamiltonian that is diagonal and contains Kerrlike nonlinearities. Of course, in the practice other off-resonant processes could also contribute to the third-order nonlinearity. However, our effective-Hamiltonian approach can explain (al least qualitatively) some unexpected and fascinating behaviors of the so-far unnoticed dispersive limit.

Of course, it is well known that when some interaction energy is off-resonant then, in a higher order of perturbation theory an effective interaction energy can be constructed that gives rise to resonant processes. At this respect, in Ref.  it has been shown how the method of small rotations can be used to tailor resonant interactions from nonresonant processes, just as demonstrated in this paper for the relevant case of the second-harmonic generation.

Finally, it is worth noting as well that the Hamiltonian (12) is similar to that obtained in Ref.  for the Dicke model in the large detuning limit (when the effective Hamiltonian was proportional to $`S_z^2`$).