text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Variable-Speed-of-Light (VSL) cosmological models were proposed  as an alternative to inflation  for solving the cosmological problems of the Standard Big Bang (SBB) model. VSL models assume that the speed of light initially took a larger value and then decreased to the present value at an early time. Although the basic idea may be controversial and the theoretical foundation is not yet well-developed, VSL models are appealing in that not only the cosmological problems solved by the inflationary models but also the cosmological constant problem can be solved . The claim in Ref.  of the experimental evidence for a time-varying fine structure constant $`\alpha =e^2/(4\pi \mathrm{}c)`$ suggests that the speed of light may indeed vary with time 222Other possibility of time-varying electric charge $`e`$ was considered in Ref. .. More recent observational evidence for a time-varying fine structure constant can be found, for example, in Refs. . Furthermore, the recent works  on the Lorentz violation in the brane world scenario hint at the possibility of naturally realizing VSL models within brane world scenario.

In the original models by Moffat  and by Albrecht and Magueijo , the speed of light (in the action), a fundamental constant of nature, is just assumed to vary with time during an early period of cosmic evolution and thereby the Lorentz symmetry becomes explicitly broken. It is therefore assumed in such models that there exists a preferred frame in which the laws of physics take standard forms (of the Lorentz invariant theories) with the constant speed of light $`c`$ replaced by a field $`c=c(x^\mu )`$, the so-called principle of minimal coupling. Although many cosmological problems can be solved through such approach, such radical modification of standard physics may be questionable. In the previous paper , we applied the approach of Refs.  to the cosmological models of the Randall-Sundrum (RS) scenario  for the purpose of studying its consequences.

Clayton and Moffat  proposed an ingenious dynamical mechanism by which the speed of light can vary with time in a diffeomorphism invariant manner and without explicitly breaking the Lorentz symmetry. (See also Ref.  for an independent development.) Their models therefore avoid the need to introduce a global preferred frame into spacetime. They introduce two metrics into the spacetime manifold, one being associated with gravitons and the other providing the geometry on which matter fields, including photons, propagate. These two metrics are nonconformally related by a scalar field (called a biscalar) or a vector field (called a bivector). The causal structures determined by the two metrics are therefore different, thereby photons propagate at different speed from that of gravitons.

In this paper, we argue that the bimetric mechanism by Clayton and Moffat can be naturally realized within the brane world scenarios. If we define the radion as the distance between the two branes, rather than in terms of the extra spatial component of the bulk metric, then the radion nonconformally relates the induced metric on the TeV brane, to which matter fields on the TeV brane are minimally coupled, to the gravity metric of the TeV brane in the same manner in which a biscalar does, while the radion varies with time. So, the radion can be regarded as a biscalar. Since the biscalar term in the induced metric comes with the opposite sign from that of Ref. , gravitons rather appear to propagate faster than photons on the TeV brane before the radion is stabilized, rather than photons traveling faster than gravitons, as was the case in Ref. . This difference allows the bimetric model resulting from the brane world scenario to solve the flatness and the cosmological constant problems (which the original bimetric models were not able to solve by itself), provided that the radion potential has an appropriate form giving rise to rapid enough decrease of the speed of gravitons to the present value. When the speed of a graviton does not decrease rapidly enough, the quasi flatness and the quasi cosmological constant problems are expected to be solved instead. On the other hand, since the speed of a photon remains constant with the natural choice of the time coordinate for the TeV brane observer (or decreases with the choice of the comoving time coordinate of the gravity metric), our bimetric model cannot by itself solve other cosmological problems, such as the horizon problem and the monopole problem, which the original VSL models can solve. To solve such problems, our brane world bimetric model has to be supplemented by inflation. Provided the radion potential has a region satisfying the slow-roll approximation, the radion may also be used as an inflaton. Although our bimetric model may turn out to be insufficient for solving the cosmological problems, it can at least provide with a brane world scenario explanation for a time-varying fine structure constant observed in our universe.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we derive the effective Friedmann equations for cosmological model of the RS1 model and show that gravitons and photons travel at different speeds while the radion varies with time. In sections 3 and 4, we argue that our bimetric model can solve the flatness and the cosmological constant problems, provided the speed of gravitons decreases to the present value rapidly enough. In section 5, we comment on other cosmological problems.

## 2 Effective Friedmann Equations with Time-Varying Radion

In this section, we obtain the effective Friedmann equations on the TeV brane while the radion varies with time. The details on derivation can be found in Ref.  (see also Ref. ), which we follow closely. However, we rederive the equations since we choose to define the radion differently from Ref. .

We define the extra spatial coordinate $`y`$ such that one of the branes, which we choose to be the Planck brane, is at rest at $`y=0`$. In such coordinate system, the TeV brane moves along the $`y`$-direction before the radion gets stabilized. We choose to encode the distance between the two branes entirely with the location $`y=R(t)`$ of the TeV brane. With this convention, the radion is defined as the relative distance $`R(t)`$ between the two branes instead of the metric component along the extra dimension. Namely, the time evolution of the size of the extra space is described not by that of the extra spatial component of the bulk metric, but by that of the location $`y=R(t)`$ of the TeV brane. This coordinate choice was also previously considered in Ref.  for the purpose of studying the radion dynamics in brane cosmology.

The general Ansatz for the bulk metric describing the expanding brane universe in our convention is given by

$$\widehat{g}_{MN}dx^Mdx^N=n^2(t,y)c^2dt^2+a^2(t,y)\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j+dy^2,$$
(1)
where $`\gamma _{ij}`$ is the metric for the maximally symmetric three-dimensional space given in the Cartesian and the spherical coordinates by

$$\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j=\left(1+\frac{k}{4}\delta _{mn}x^mx^n\right)^2\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j=\frac{dr^2}{1kr^2}+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2),$$
(2)
with $`k=1,0,1`$ for the three-dimensional space with the negative, zero and positive spatial curvature, respectively. The tensions of the Planck and the TeV branes are respectively denoted as $`\sigma _1`$ and $`\sigma _2`$. The Planck and the TeV branes contain matter fields with the Lagrangian densities $`_1`$ and $`_2`$, respectively. We assume that the radion potential $`V_r(R)`$ has been generated through some mechanism such as the Goldberger-Wise mechanism .

When there is no matter on the branes, the equations of motion are solved by the static brane solution  with the metric components

$$n(y)=a(y)=e^{m_0|y|},\gamma _{ij}=\delta _{ij}.$$
(3)
The brane tensions take the fine-tuned values given by

$$\sigma _1=\frac{3c^4m_0}{4\pi G_5}=\sigma _2,\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{3c^4m_0^2}{4\pi G_5}.$$
(4)
When matter fields are included on the branes, the brane universe undergoes cosmological evolution. Since the solution for the expanding brane universe should reduce to the static solution (3) in the limit of vanishing mass densities $`\varrho _{1,2}`$ and pressures $`\mathrm{}_{1,2}`$ of the matter fields, it is reasonable to parametrize the solution in terms of the linear expansion around the static solution in the following way:

$`n(t,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }(y)\left(1+\delta n(t,y)\right),`$ (5)
$`a(t,y)`$ $`=`$ $`a(t)\mathrm{\Omega }(y)\left(1+\delta a(t,y)\right),`$ (6)
with the perturbations $`\delta n`$ and $`\delta a`$ assumed to be of the order of $`\varrho _{1,2}`$. Here, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(y)e^{m_0|y|}`$. To obtain the effective Friedmann equations describing the expanding brane universe as observed on the brane, we either take the averages of the Einstein’s equations as $`_0^{R(t)}𝑑y\mathrm{\Omega }^4𝒢_N^M=\frac{8\pi G_5}{c^4}_0^{R(t)}𝑑y\mathrm{\Omega }^4𝒯_N^M`$ or compute the four-dimensional effective action, with the linear perturbations (6) substituted . In doing so, we keep only terms leading order in $`\varrho _{1,2}`$.

Following the section 4.1 of Ref. , we drop the $`\delta n`$ and $`\delta a`$ perturbations when calculating the effective action, as they contribute at $`𝒪(\varrho _{1,2}^2)`$. Namely, we consider the following form for the bulk metric:

$$n(y)=e^{m_0|y|},a(t,y)=a(t)e^{m_0|y|}.$$
(7)
The induced metrics on the Planck and the TeV branes are then respectively

$$g_{1\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =c^2dt^2+a^2(t)\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j,$$
(8)
$$g_{2\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2c^2\dot{R}^2\right]dt^2+a^2(t)\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j,$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_R\mathrm{\Omega }(R(t))=e^{m_0R(t)}`$ and the overdot stands for derivative w.r.t. $`t`$. The four-dimensional effective action therefore takes the form

$`S_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3c^3}{8\pi G_5m_0}}{\displaystyle 𝑑x^0\sqrt{\gamma }a^3(1\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2)\left[\frac{\dot{a}^2}{a^2}+\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\frac{kc^2}{a^2}\right]}+c{\displaystyle 𝑑x^0\sqrt{\gamma }a^3V_r(R)}`$ (11)
$`+c{\displaystyle 𝑑x^0\sqrt{\gamma }a^3_1}+c{\displaystyle 𝑑x^0\sqrt{\gamma }a^3\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2\dot{R}^2/c^2}\mathrm{\Omega }_R^3_2},`$
where $`x^0=ct`$ and $`\gamma \mathrm{det}\gamma _{ij}`$. Noting that the Ricci scalar for the four-dimensional Robertson-Walker metric $`g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =c^2dt^2+a(t)^2\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j`$ is given by

$$=\frac{6}{c^2}\left[\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}+\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+\frac{kc^2}{a^2}\right],$$
(12)
we can put the above effective action in a conventional looking form:

$$S_{eff}=𝑑x^0\sqrt{g}\left[\frac{c^4}{16\pi G_{eff}}+V_r(R)+_1+\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2\dot{R}^2/c^2}\mathrm{\Omega }_R^3_2\right],$$
(13)
where $`g=detg_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`G_{eff}m_0G_5/(1\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2)`$. Therefore, we see that $`a(t)`$ will satisfy the four-dimensional Friedmann equations with the contribution to the mass density and the pressure coming from $`_{1,2}`$.

To obtain the effective Friedmann equations satisfied by $`a(t)`$ from the effective action (13), we have to define the mass densities $`\varrho _{1,2}`$ and the pressures $`\mathrm{}_{1,2}`$ of the matter fields (described by the Lagrangian densities $`_{1,2}`$) on the Planck and the TeV branes. The energy-momentum tensors for the matter fields on the branes are defined as

$$𝒯_{1,2}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{2}{\sqrt{g_{1,2}}}\frac{\delta (\sqrt{g_{1,2}}_{1,2})}{\delta g_{1,2\mu \nu }},$$
(14)
where $`g_{1,2}`$ are determinants of the induced metrics (8, 9) on the Planck and the TeV branes. Note, we defined the energy-momentum tensors in terms of the induced metrics $`g_{1,2\mu \nu }`$, since the induced metrics are the physical metrics for the matter fields on the branes. Modeling the matter fields as perfect-fluid, we can put these energy-momentum tensors into the following standard forms:

$$𝒯_{1,2}^{\mu \nu }=\left(\varrho _{1,2}+\frac{\mathrm{}_{1,2}}{c^2}\right)U_{1,2}^\mu U_{1,2}^\nu +\mathrm{}_{1,2}g_{1,2}^{\mu \nu }.$$
(15)
Since the four-velocities $`U_{1,2}^\mu `$ of the fluid on the Planck and the TeV branes are normalized as $`g_{1,2\mu \nu }U_{1,2}^\mu U_{1,2}^\nu =c^2`$, the nonzero components of $`U_{1,2}^\mu `$ in the comoving coordinates are given by

$$U_1^t=1,U_2^t=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2\dot{R}^2/c^2}}.$$
(16)
So, the nonzero components of the energy-momentum tensors for the matter fields on the Planck and the TeV branes are respectively

$$𝒯_1^{tt}=\varrho _1,𝒯_1^{ij}=\frac{\mathrm{}_1}{a^2}\gamma ^{ij},$$
(17)
$$𝒯_2^{tt}=\frac{\varrho _2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2\dot{R}^2/c^2},𝒯_2^{ij}=\frac{\mathrm{}_2}{a^2\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2}\gamma ^{ij}.$$
(18)
For the purpose of putting the Friedmann equations into simple and suggestive forms, we reparametrize the mass density and the pressure of the matter fields on the Planck brane in the following way:

$$\varrho _1=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varrho }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_R}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2\dot{R}^2/c^2}},\mathrm{}_1=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_1\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2\dot{R}^2/c^2}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_R}.$$
(19)
After the radion is stabilized, i.e., $`\dot{R}=0`$, we have $`\stackrel{~}{\varrho }_1=\varrho _1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_1=\mathrm{}_1`$. Making use of these facts, we obtain the following effective Friedmann equation:

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\right)^2+\frac{kc^2}{a^2}=\frac{8\pi m_0G_5}{3(1\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2)}\left[\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varrho }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_R+\varrho _2\mathrm{\Omega }_R^5}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2\dot{R}^2/c^2}}+V_r/c^2\right].$$
(20)
Note, the physical metric for the matter fields on the TeV brane, on which we are assumed to live, is given by the induced metric (9). So, the cosmic scale factor on the TeV brane is actually given by $`a_R=a\mathrm{\Omega }_R`$. In terms of the physical cosmic scale factor $`a_R`$, the effective Friedmann equation (20) takes the form:

$$\left(\frac{\dot{a}_R}{a_R}\right)^2+2m_0\dot{R}\frac{\dot{a}_R}{a_R}+m_0^2\dot{R}^2+\frac{kc^2\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2}{a_R^2}=\frac{8\pi m_0G_5}{3(1\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2)}\left[\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varrho }_1\mathrm{\Omega }_R+\varrho _2\mathrm{\Omega }_R^5}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2\dot{R}^2/c^2}}+V_r/c^2\right].$$
(21)
By defining the cosmic time $`\tau `$ of the TeV brane in the following way,

$$d\tau ^2\left[\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2\dot{R}^2/c^2\right]dt^2,$$
(22)
we can bring the induced metric (9) on the TeV brane into the following standard comoving frame form for the Robertson-Walker metric:

$$g_{2\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =c^2d\tau ^2+a_R^2(\tau )\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j.$$
(23)
In terms of the cosmic time $`\tau `$, the effective Friedmann equation (21) takes the form:

$`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}_R}{a_R}}\right)^2+2m_0\dot{R}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{a}_R}{a_R}}+m_0^2\dot{R}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{k(c^2+\dot{R}^2)}{a_R^2}}=`$ (24)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi m_0G_5(1+\dot{R}^2/c^2)^{3/2}}{3\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2(1\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2)}}\left[\stackrel{~}{\varrho }_1+\varrho _2\mathrm{\Omega }_R^4+{\displaystyle \frac{V_r}{c^2\sqrt{1+\dot{R}^2/c^2}}}\right],`$ (25)
where the overdot now stands for derivative w.r.t. $`\tau `$.

We have to keep in mind that the parameter $`c`$ appearing in the conventional Friedmann equations (through the terms $`kc^2/a^2`$ and $`\mathrm{}/c^2`$) corresponds to the speed of gravitons for the obvious reason that the metric, in which the same $`c`$ appears, describes the geometry on which gravitons propagate. So, we see from Eq. (25) that the effective speed of gravitons $`c_4`$, as well as the effective four-dimensional Newton’s constant $`G_4`$, is observed to change with time on the TeV brane in the following way:

$$c_4=\sqrt{c^2+\dot{R}^2},G_4=\frac{m_0G_5(1+\dot{R}^2/c^2)^{3/2}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2(1\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2)}.$$
(26)
The speed of a graviton is therefore observed on the TeV brane to take a larger value than the present day value while the radion varies with time. So, there will be a time lag between transmission of gravitational waves and that of photons along the null surfaces of their respective physical metrics, while the radion varies with time. After the radion is stabilized, the speed of a graviton decreases to the present value, coinciding with the speed of a photon. This is expected to be a generic feature of any brane world scenarios involving two branes.

In the Friedmann equation (25), the radion $`R`$ is mixed with the massless graviton through the interaction term $`\dot{R}\dot{a}_R`$. To separate the fields, we perform the conformal transformation on the metric:

$$a_R(\tau )=e^{m_0(R_0R)}\overline{a}_R,d\tau =e^{m_0(R_0R)}d\overline{\tau },$$
(27)
where $`R_0`$ denotes the present day value of $`R`$. The difference between the new frame and the original frame is important only for large departure of $`R`$ from $`R_0`$. In this new frame, the effective Friedmann equation (25) on the TeV brane takes the form:

$$\left(\frac{\dot{\overline{a}}_R}{\overline{a}_R}\right)^2+\frac{k(c^2+R_\tau ^2)}{\overline{a}_R^2}=\frac{8\pi m_0e^{2m_0R_0}G_5(1+R_\tau ^2/c^2)^{3/2}}{3(1\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2)}\left[\stackrel{~}{\varrho }_1+\varrho _2\mathrm{\Omega }_R^4+\frac{V_r}{c^2\sqrt{1+R_\tau ^2/c^2}}\right],$$
(28)
where the overdot from now on stands for derivative w.r.t. $`\overline{\tau }`$ and the subscript $`\tau `$ denotes derivative w.r.t. $`\tau `$. So, in this new frame the effective speed of gravitons $`\overline{c}_4`$ remains the same but the effective Newton’s constant $`\overline{G}_4`$ is rescaled:

$$\overline{c}_4=\sqrt{c^2+R_\tau ^2},\overline{G}_4=\frac{m_0e^{2m_0R_0}G_5(1+R_\tau ^2/c^2)^{3/2}}{1\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2},$$
(29)
which is expected as properties of conformal transformation. The other Friedmann equation in this new frame is given by

$$\frac{\ddot{\overline{a}}_R}{\overline{a}_R}=\frac{4\pi \overline{G}_4}{3}\left[\varrho +\frac{3}{\overline{c}_4^2}\mathrm{}\frac{2V_r}{c^2\sqrt{1+R_\tau ^2/c^2}}\right],$$
(30)
where

$$\varrho \stackrel{~}{\varrho }_1+\varrho _2\mathrm{\Omega }_R^4,\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{}}_1+\mathrm{}_2\mathrm{\Omega }_R^4.$$
(31)
From now on, for the purpose of simplifying the equations, we shall assume that the radion potential terms in the above effective Friedmann equations are absorbed into $`\varrho `$ and $`\mathrm{}`$, i.e., $`\varrho \varrho +V`$ and $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}V/\overline{c}_4^2`$ ($`VV_r/(c^2\sqrt{1+R_\tau ^2/c^2})`$), and the radion $`R`$ varies with time as specified by the radion potential.

We have therefore shown that the speed of gravitons, as well as the Newton’s constant, is observed to vary with time on the TeV brane while the radion field varies with time. This fact can be understood as follows. Gravitons propagate in the bulk whose geometry is described by the bulk metric $`\widehat{g}_{MN}`$ given by Eq. (1). Therefore, on the TeV brane, gravitons are observed to propagate on the geometry described by

$$g_{\mu \nu }^{grav}dx^\mu dx^\nu =\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }|_{y=R(t)}dx^\mu dx^\nu \mathrm{\Omega }_R^2c^2dt^2+a^2\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j.$$
(32)
On the other hand, the physical metric to which matter fields, including photons, on the TeV brane are minimally coupled is given by the induced metric (9) on the TeV brane. These two metrics are nonconformally related when $`\dot{R}0`$ and coincide when $`\dot{R}=0`$. Thereby, the four-dimensional universe on the TeV brane takes bimetric structure, proposed by Clayton and Moffat , with the radion $`R`$ identified as a biscalar. The four-velocity vector $`v^\nu `$ of a photon, which is null w.r.t. the induced metric $`g_{2\mu \nu }`$, i.e., $`g_{2\mu \nu }v^\mu v^\nu =0`$, is timelike 333Note, for the bimetric models of Refs.  the four-velocity vector of a photon is spacelike w.r.t. the gravitational metric, because of the difference in the sign in the biscalar term of the matter metric. w.r.t. the gravitational metric, i.e., $`g_{\mu \nu }^{grav}v^\mu v^\nu =(v^t_tR)^2<0`$ when $`_tR0`$. Gravitons therefore appear to propagate faster than photons on the TeV brane before the radion is stabilized. As pointed out in the above, the parameter $`c`$ appearing in the conventional Friedmann equations corresponds to the speed of gravitons. On the other hand, $`c`$ appearing in the Robertson-Walker metric (23) corresponds rather to the speed of a photon, because this metric describes geometry on which matter fields, including photons, on the TeV brane propagates. This $`c`$ is the same $`c`$ that appears in the effective Friedmann equations (28,30). Since the four-velocity vectors $`v_g^\mu `$ and $`v_p^\mu `$ for a graviton and a photon are null w.r.t. $`g_{\mu \nu }^{grav}`$ and $`g_{2\mu \nu }`$, respectively, the ratio of the speed of a graviton $`c_g`$ to the speed of a photon $`c_p`$ is

$$\frac{c_g}{c_p}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_R}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2(_tR)^2/c^2}}=\sqrt{1+(_\tau R)^2/c^2},$$
(33)
which leads to the same expression for the effective speed of a graviton on the TeV brane given in Eqs. (26,29) upon identifying $`c_p=c`$. Indeed, the gravitational metric (32) expressed in terms of the cosmic time $`\tau `$ for the matter metric (23) takes the following comoving coordinate form with the time-varying speed of a graviton $`c_g=c_4`$ given by Eq. (26):

$$g_{\mu \nu }^{grav}dx^\mu dx^\nu =c_4^2(\tau )d\tau ^2+a_R^2(\tau )\gamma _{ij}dx^idx^j.$$
(34)
Note that having a constant speed of a photon but a time-varying speed of a graviton is a frame-dependent statement. Since we choose to measure speeds with the time coordinate $`\tau `$ or $`\overline{\tau }`$, for which the constant $`c`$ corresponds to the speed of a photon, we should regard the speed of a graviton as changing with time and taking larger value than the speed of a photon before the radion is stabilized. Had we chosen to use the time coordinate (defined by $`d\tau ^2\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2dt^2`$) which brings the gravity metric (32) to the comoving frame form to measure speeds, the constant $`c`$ would have corresponded to the speed of a graviton, and the speed of a photon should be regarded as changing with time and taking smaller value than the speed of graviton before the radion is stabilized. Indeed, with a choice of such time coordinate the resulting effective Friedmann equations will have constant speed of graviton.

We have mapped the bimetric model resulting from the brane world scenario to a model with varying fundamental constants proposed in Refs. , in the sense that the parameter $`c`$ in the Friedmann equations that is assumed to take a large value at an early period in Refs.  is actually the speed of a graviton, not the speed of a photon. So, our bimetric model can resolve the flatness and the cosmological constant problems, which are shown to be resolved in Refs.  through rapid enough decreasing $`c`$ in the Friedmann equations. On the other hand, the resolution of some of cosmological problems, such as horizon problem, through the VSL models requires a larger value of the speed of a photon at an early period of cosmic evolution. So, strictly speaking, the bimetric VSL models cannot by itself solve all the cosmological problems that were originally claimed  to be solved by the VSL models with time-varying fundamental constants, since resolution of some of the problems requires faster speed of a graviton (namely, a larger $`c`$ in the Friedmann equations) and the others faster speed of a photon. Nevertheless, our bimetric model has an advantage over the previous bimetric models, in the sense that the only cosmological problem that the VSL models are claimed to solve but inflaton cannot is the cosmological constant problem, which requires larger value of speed of a graviton at an early time. When supplemented with inflation, our bimetric model therefore has potential of solving all the cosmological problems that are originally claimed to be solved by VSL models.

In Ref.  it was pointed out that the VSL cosmology  has limited ability to resolve the Planck problem and can make it worse, because a variable speed of light affects the Planck scale. Strictly speaking, $`c`$ appearing in the Planck mass $`m_{pl}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}c/G}`$, the Planck length $`l_{pl}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}G/c^3}`$ and the Planck time $`t_{pl}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}G/c^5}`$ are speed of graviton, because these quantities have to do with the quantum gravity effect. In our bimetric model, also the speed of graviton varies with time, taking larger value than the (constant) speed of photon, while the radion varies with time. However, for our case, the effective four-dimensional Newton’s constant, given in Eq. (29), also varies with time, taking larger value than the present value. With the effective four-dimensional speed of graviton and Newton’s constant given in Eq. (29) substituted, the Planck mass $`m_{pl}`$ takes smaller value than the present value, the Planck length $`l_{pl}`$ remains constant and the decrease in the Planck time $`t_{pl}`$ becomes less severe than the previous VSL cosmological models with varying fundamental constants, while the radion varies with time. So, first of all, our bimetric model does not make the hierarchy problem worse, unlike the previous VSL models with varying fundamental constants. However, the Planck density $`m_{pl}/l_{pl}^3`$ rather decreases in our case, so our bimetric model by itself cannot resolve the Planck density problem.

From the effective Friedmann equations (28,30) (of course, with the radion potential terms absorbed into $`\varrho `$ and $`\mathrm{}`$), we obtain the following generalized conservation equations:

$$\dot{\varrho }+3\left(\varrho +\frac{\mathrm{}}{\overline{c}_4^2}\right)\frac{\dot{\overline{a}}_R}{\overline{a}_R}=\varrho \frac{\dot{\overline{G}}_4}{\overline{G}_4}+\frac{3k\overline{c}_4\dot{\overline{c}}_4}{4\pi \overline{G}_4\overline{a}_R^2}.$$
(35)
So, with the time-varying radion field $`R`$, which causes the time-variation of the effective speed of gravitons and the effective Newton’s constant, mass is not conserved on the TeV brane, implying that matter is created in the brane universe. Even if the comoving time coordinate for the gravitational metric $`g_{\mu \nu }^{grav}`$ were chosen, the mass appears to be not conserved on the TeV brane due to the time variation of the effective Newton’s constant. This result is in contrast with the bimetric models of Refs. , for which the mass density of the ordinary matter is conserved. This difference may be attributed to the following reason. In Refs. , it is assumed from the outset that the energy-momentum tensor for the ordinary matter satisfies the conservation law (w.r.t. the matter metric) and then shown that the conservation law is consistent with the field equations and the Bianchi identities. In our case, the conservation law for the matter fields on the branes is not compatible with the four-dimensional effective theory while the radion field varies with time. This is due to the fact that the four-dimensional effective Newton’s constant (and the speed of gravitons with a suitable choice of frame) in the four-dimensional effective action is time-dependent while the radion varies with time. As was elaborated in Refs. , the energy-momentum tensor conservation law is incompatible with the Bianchi identities $`𝒢_{;\nu }^{\mu \nu }=0`$ of the Einstein tensor when $`\kappa G/c^4`$ is time-dependent.

## 3 The Flatness Problem

In this section, we examine whether the flatness problem can be resolved by the bimetric model resulting from the brane world cosmology with the time-varying radion field. The critical density $`\varrho _c`$, the mass density that gives rise to the flat universe ($`k=0`$) for a given $`\dot{\overline{a}}_R/\overline{a}_R`$, of the brane universe is given by

$$\varrho _c=\frac{3}{8\pi \overline{G}_4}\left(\frac{\dot{\overline{a}}_R}{\overline{a}_R}\right)^2.$$
(36)
We define the deviation of $`\varrho `$ from $`\varrho _c`$ as $`ϵ\varrho /\varrho _c1`$. Then, the $`ϵ<0`$, $`ϵ=0`$, and $`ϵ>0`$ cases respectively correspond to the open ($`k=1`$), flat ($`k=0`$) and closed ($`k=1`$) universes. In order for the flatness problem to be resolved, $`ϵ=0`$ therefore has to be a stable attractor. The time derivative of $`ϵ`$ is

$$\dot{ϵ}=2ϵ\left(\frac{\dot{\overline{c}}_4}{\overline{c}_4}\frac{\ddot{\overline{a}}_R}{\dot{\overline{a}}_R}\right),$$
(37)
where $`\dot{\overline{c}}_4/\overline{c}_4=e^{2m_0(R_0R)}R_\tau R_{\tau \tau }/(c^2+R_\tau ^2)`$. So, the rapid enough decrease of the speed of a graviton (29) to the present value $`c`$ makes the terms in the bracket to be negative, causing $`ϵ=0`$ to be an attractor. This can be achieved by the radion potential with very steep region around the minimum, which allows rapid settling down of the radion to the minimum of the potential, causing sudden decrease of the speed of a graviton from a very large value to the present value.

We now comment on the important difference of our case from Refs. . It is claimed in Refs.  that any bimetric implementation of cosmological models does not by itself solve the flatness problem. The claim in Refs.  is based on the fact that the speed of gravitons in their bimetric cosmological models is assumed to be constant (while the speed of photons varies with time) and therefore the first term in the bracket of Eq. (37) vanishes. So, in their bimetric models, the flatness problem can be solved only when $`\ddot{\overline{a}}_R>0`$, i.e., when the universe inflates by violating the strong energy condition. Another important difference of the bimetric models considered in Refs.  from our bimetric model is that, as we mentioned previously, in their case the speed of a photon varies with time, taking larger value than the speed of a graviton, or the speed of a graviton varies with time, taking smaller value than the speed of a photon, depending on the choice of the time coordinate, while the biscalar field varies with time. So, in their case the speed of a graviton increases to the present day value while the biscalar field settles down to the minimum of the biscalar potential, causing the terms in the bracket of Eq. (37) to be always positive unless the universe inflates rapidly enough. This fact is in accordance with the claim in Refs.  that the bimetric models of Refs.  can solve the flatness problem only when the strong energy condition is violated 444On the other hand, it is claimed in Refs.  that the flatness problem can be resolved because of the inflationary behavior of the bimetric models not due to an inflaton potential but due to the fact that the light cone of the matter metric was initially wider than that of the gravity metric and then contracted. However, for our bimetric model, the light cone for the matter metric was initially narrower, so our bimetric model cannot solve the flatness problem in the manner described in Refs. .. To sum up, the reason why our bimetric cosmological model resulting from the brane world scenario can solve the flatness problem, contrary to the negative claim in Refs. , is that in our case the speed of gravitons varies with time (unlike the models considered in ) and becomes larger than the speed of photons (unlike the models considered in Refs. ) while the biscalar or the radion varies with time.

## 4 The Cosmological Constant Problem

In this section, we examine whether our bimetric model can solve the cosmological constant problem. First of all, it is important to keep in mind that unlike the case of the conventional cosmology the mass density satisfying $`\varrho =\mathrm{}/\overline{c}_4^2`$ is not directly related to the cosmological constant of the brane universe but rather to the brane tension. However, if we assume that the brane tensions initially took the fine-tuned values which give rise to zero effective four-dimensional cosmological constant and thereby the effective Friedmann equations of the forms (28,30) without cosmological constant term (of course, except for the radion potential term), then we can regard the nonzero mass density $`\varrho _{\delta \sigma }`$ satisfying $`\varrho _{\delta \sigma }=\mathrm{}_\delta \mathrm{}/\overline{c}_4^2`$ as being due to the correction $`\delta \sigma `$ to the fine-tuned brane tensions which gives rise to nonzero effective four-dimensional cosmological constant in the brane universe.

We now express the total mass density of the brane universe as the sum $`\varrho =\varrho _m+\varrho _{\delta \sigma }`$ of the mass density $`\varrho _m`$ of the ordinary matter fields on the brane and $`\varrho _{\delta \sigma }=\delta \sigma /\overline{c}_4^2`$. Then, the generalized conservation equation (35) is modified to

$$\dot{\varrho }_m+3\left(\varrho _m+\frac{\mathrm{}_m}{\overline{c}_4^2}\right)\frac{\dot{\overline{a}}_R}{\overline{a}_R}=\dot{\varrho }_{\delta \sigma }\varrho \frac{\dot{\overline{G}}_4}{\overline{G}_4}+\frac{3k\overline{c}_4\dot{\overline{c}}_4}{4\pi \overline{G}_4\overline{a}_R^2}.$$
(38)
The time derivative of the ratio $`ϵ_{\delta \sigma }=\varrho _{\delta \sigma }/\varrho _m`$ of $`\varrho _{\delta \sigma }`$ to $`\varrho _m`$ is given by

$$\dot{ϵ}_{\delta \sigma }=ϵ_{\delta \sigma }\left(\frac{\dot{\varrho }_{\delta \sigma }}{\varrho _{\delta \sigma }}\frac{\dot{\varrho }_m}{\varrho _m}\right).$$
(39)
Assuming that the brane matter satisfies the equation of state of the form $`\mathrm{}_m=w\varrho _m\overline{c}_4^2`$ with a constant $`w`$, we obtain

$$\frac{\dot{\varrho }_{\delta \sigma }}{\varrho _{\delta \sigma }}=2\frac{\dot{\overline{c}}_4}{\overline{c}_4},$$
(40)
$$\frac{\dot{\varrho }_m}{\varrho _m}=3\frac{\dot{\overline{a}}_R}{\overline{a}_R}(1+w)2\frac{\dot{\overline{c}}_4}{\overline{c}_4}\frac{\varrho _c}{\varrho _m}+2\frac{\dot{\overline{c}}_4}{\overline{c}_4}\frac{\varrho +\varrho _{\delta \sigma }}{\varrho _m}\frac{\varrho }{\varrho _m}\frac{\dot{\overline{G}}_4}{\overline{G}_4}.$$
(41)
Therefore, Eq. (39) takes the form

$$\dot{ϵ}_{\delta \sigma }=ϵ_{\delta \sigma }\left[3\frac{\dot{\overline{a}}_R}{\overline{a}_R}(1+w)+2\frac{\dot{\overline{c}}_4}{\overline{c}_4}\frac{1+ϵ_{\delta \sigma }}{1+ϵ}+\left(\frac{\dot{\overline{G}}_4}{\overline{G}_4}4\frac{\dot{\overline{c}}_4}{\overline{c}_4}\right)(1+ϵ_{\delta \sigma })\right].$$
(42)
With the effective four-dimensional speed of a graviton and Newton’s constant given in Eq. (29), we have

$$\frac{\dot{\overline{c}}_4}{\overline{c}_4}=e^{2m_0(R_0R)}\frac{R_\tau R_{\tau \tau }}{c^2+R_\tau ^2},$$
(43)
$$\frac{\dot{\overline{G}}_4}{\overline{G}_4}=e^{2m_0(R_0R)}\frac{R_\tau \left[3(\mathrm{\Omega }_R^21)R_{\tau \tau }+2m_0\mathrm{\Omega }_R^2(c^2+R_\tau ^2)\right]}{(\mathrm{\Omega }_R^21)(c^2+R_\tau ^2)}.$$
(44)
Making use of approximations $`\mathrm{\Omega }_R0`$ and $`e^{2m_0(R_0R)}1`$ assumed in the RS models, we can put Eq. (42) into the form:

$`\dot{ϵ}_{\delta \sigma }`$ $``$ $`ϵ_{\delta \sigma }\left[3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\overline{a}}_R}{\overline{a}_R}}(1+w)+(1+ϵ_{\delta \sigma }){\displaystyle \frac{1ϵ}{1+ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{R_\tau R_{\tau \tau }}{c^2+R_\tau ^2}}\right]`$ (45)
$``$ $`ϵ_{\delta \sigma }\left[3{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\overline{a}}_R}{\overline{a}_R}}(1+w)+(1+ϵ_{\delta \sigma }){\displaystyle \frac{1ϵ}{1+ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\overline{c}}_4}{\overline{c}_4}}\right].`$ (46)
So, as long as $`ϵ<1`$, the rapid enough decrease of the speed of a graviton to the present value will cause the correction $`\delta \sigma `$ to the fine-tuned brane tensions to be driven to zero rapidly, thereby the brane tensions being pushed back to the fine-tuned values giving rise to zero cosmological constant in the brane universe. For the case when the speed of a graviton does not decease rapidly enough, $`\delta \sigma `$ is expected to approach a small constant value (while the radion is being stabilized) that gives rise to a small effective four-dimensional cosmological constant, solving the quasi cosmological constant problem in the manner proposed in Ref. . Our bimetric model thereby can be used to bring the quantum corrections to the fine-tuned brane tensions after the SUSY breaking under control, just like the mechanism for self-tuning brane tension . In this process, the correction $`\delta \sigma `$ to the fine-tuned to brane tensions is converted into ordinary matter.

Once again it is essential in this mechanism that the speed of a graviton varies with time, taking the value larger than the present value, while the radion varies with time. The reason why the bimetric models in Refs.  cannot solve the cosmological constant problem is that in their case the speed of a graviton either remains constant or takes smaller value than the present value while the biscalar varies with time.

## 5 Other Cosmological Problems

The cosmic microwave background data indicates that photons emitted from the opposite sides of the sky appear to be in thermal equilibrium, although according to the SBB model those regions are out of causal contact at the time of last scattering, the so-called the horizon problem of the SBB model. The horizon problem is solved in inflationary models with sufficient amount of inflation, since the Hubble length measured in the comoving coordinates decreases during inflation. The VSL models proposed in Refs.  also solve the horizon problem, since the particle horizon scale at the last time of scattering $`t_{}`$, given by

$$d_H(t_{})=_0^t_{}\frac{c_p(t)dt}{a(t)},$$
(47)
can become larger than the coordinate distance to the last scattering, given by

$$d_H(t_{},t_0)=_t_{}^{t_0}\frac{c_p(t)dt}{a(t)},$$
(48)
where $`t_0`$ denotes the present epoch, if the speed of a photon $`c_p`$ were large enough during an initial period of cosmic evolution. We have to keep in mind that the horizon scale is defined in terms of the speed of a photon $`c_p`$, instead of the speed of a graviton $`c_g`$, since we are considering the distance over which photons travel and transport energy. Unfortunately, our bimetric model cannot solve the horizon problem through the mechanism proposed in Refs. , because the speed of a photon $`c_p`$ always remains constant with the choice of the time coordinate $`\overline{\tau }`$ or takes smaller value than the present day value $`c`$ with the choice of the comoving time coordinate for the gravity metric $`g_{\mu \nu }^{grav}`$, while the radion varies with time. Therefore, we have to incorporate inflation into our bimetric model in order to solve the horizon problem. Although an extra scalar field can be introduced as an inflaton, the radion may be used as an inflaton, if the radion potential has a region satisfying the slow-roll approximation.

Modern particle theory models predict unwanted relics such as magnetic monopoles, domain walls, moduli fields, etc, during very early stage of cosmological evolution. Since these relics get diluted more slowly than the (relativistic) ordinary matter as the universe expands, they become the dominant component of our present universe, which is in contraction with the observational data. The problem of unwanted relics is solved in inflationary models if the temperature of the universe during the reheating was not high enough to produce the relics, because the relics, as well as matter, get diluted to the negligible level compared to the inflationary potential during the rapid expansion of the inflationary stage. The VSL models can also solve the problem for the following reason. According to the Kibble mechanism, topological defect densities are inversely proportional to powers of the correlation length of the Higgs fields, which are generally bounded above by the Hubble distance $`c_p/H`$. So, if topological defects were created before the speed of a photon $`c_p`$ decreased to the present value, the upper bound on the densities of topological defects is weakened at the time of their production due to very large Hubble distance. Since the mechanism for resolving the problem of the unwanted relics in the VSL models involves a larger value of speed of a photon during an early period, once again our bimetric model cannot by itself solve the problem. The resolution of the problem therefore necessitates incorporation of other mechanism such as inflation.

Finally, we comment on the explanation for the huge amount of entropy appears to be present in our universe. The inflationary model explains the entropy problem by assuming that the adiabaticity condition is violated during the inflation: While the universe supercools (due to the inflation) to some temperature $`T_s`$ and then reheats to $`T_r`$, the entropy density is increased by a factor of $`(T_r/T_s)^3`$. In the case of the VSL models, the large production of entropy can be achieved through creation of particles while the speed of light, as well as the Newton’s constant, changes to the present value, due to the nonconservation of the energy-momentum tensor (cf. see Refs. ). In order for particles to be created while the radion varies with time, the RHS of the generalized conservation equation (35) has to be positive. Certainly, this can be achieve by the flat ($`k=0`$) and the open ($`k=1`$) universes. However, if the universe were closed ($`k=1`$) while the radion varies with time, particles would be take away, thereby entropy decreasing. The production of sufficient amount of entropy may require the supplementation of our bimetric model by inflation.


format: text

text:
# Comprehensive theory of the relative phase in atom-field interactions

## I Introduction

The problem of the interaction of an atomic system with a radiation field is a keystone of quantum optics. Needless to say, it is impossible to obtain exact solutions to this problem and some approximations must be used; the most common being that the radiation field is quasimonochromatic and its frequency coincides almost exactly with one of the transition frequencies of the atoms (supposed identical and with no direct interaction between them).

The two-level atom is the natural consequence of this hypothesis . Such an object is an important tool because it allows us to describe the matter-field interaction in a very simple way, and the results constitute a first step to deal with more realistic situations that could include losses, broadening of the atomic lines, etc. To put it bluntly, we can replace the whole atomic system by an effective two-level system that accounts for all the relevant details of the interaction. The Dicke model , describing the interaction of $`A`$ identical two-level atoms with a single-mode field in a perfect cavity, is perhaps the archetype of this situation.

In the semiclassical version of this Dicke model, correlations are safely ignored and the field is interpreted to be a purely classical electric field . Such an approximation has proven to be very successful and has the virtue of reducing the problem to the exclusive knowledge of the atomic dynamics, which is studied in terms of the inversion and the components of the atomic dipole in-phase and in-quadrature with the field (i.e., the Bloch vector). These quadratures are the dispersive and absorptive components of the dipole moment effective in coupling to the field.

For some phenomena, such as spontaneous emission by a fully excited atomic system, the quantization of the field is required. Then, one must take care also of the evolution of the field amplitudes, but the atomic dynamics is still explained in terms of inversion and dipole quadratures.

Classically, the interaction of matter with light is usually treated within the framework of the Lorentz model , which assumes that each electron-ion pair behaves as a single harmonic oscillator that couples to the field through its electric dipole moment. In spite of its simplicity, it is extraordinarily helpful in developing an intuitive feeling for the physical mechanisms involved. Although the dynamics of this model is sometimes expressed in quadrature components , the natural way of understanding its resonant behavior is in terms of the relative phase between the field and the atomic dipole .

While the quantum quadratures are well known, and so are the associated eigenstates, the operator for this relative phase has resisted a quantum description. At this respect, we think that, in spite of its maturity and success, the Dicke model is apparently incomplete since it lacks a satisfactory description in terms of this relative phase, indispensable to compare with the classical world. The main goal of this paper is precisely the general description of that variable.

When focusing on the relative phase between two subsystems, we think the best way to proceed, much in the spirit of our previous work in the subject , is to try a polar decomposition of the quantum amplitudes, which parallels as much as possible the corresponding classical factorization. For the relative phase between two harmonic oscillators, this is a quite straightforward procedure and leads to a unitary solution .

For the Dicke model, this polar decomposition seems to be more involved, mainly because, unlike for the case of two harmonic oscillators, the Hamiltonian cannot be cast in terms of su(2) operators, but rather in terms of some polynomial deformation of su(2). These nonlinear algebras have been examined very recently in quite different physical contexts , and, by exploiting these results, it is possible to perform such a decomposition in an elegant way, obtaining a bona fide Hermitian operator representing the relative phase we wish to examine.

In this paper we use this operator to introduce the associated probability distribution and, then, the most relevant dynamical features of the Dicke model can be easily explained using this relevant variable.

## II Quantum dynamics of the Dicke model

The Dicke model describes the interaction of a collection of $`A`$ identical two-level atoms with a quantum single-mode field in a lossless cavity. The spatial dimensions of the atomic system are smaller than the wavelength of the field, so all the atoms feel the same field. However, the model neglects the dipole-dipole interaction between atoms (i.e., their wavefunctions do not overlap in the evolution).

The Hamiltonian for this model in the electric-dipole and rotating-wave approximations reads as (in units $`\mathrm{}=1`$)

$$H=H_0+H_{\mathrm{int}},$$
(1)
with

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _\mathrm{f}N,`$ (2)
$`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_3+g\left(a^{}S_{}+aS_+\right).`$ (4)
Here

$$N=a^{}a+S_3$$
(5)
is the excitation number operator, $`g`$ is the coupling constant (which in this approximation is the same for all the atoms and can be chosen as real), and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\omega _\mathrm{f}\omega _\mathrm{a}`$ is the detuning between the atomic and field frequencies. The field mode is described by the annihilation and creation operators $`a`$ and $`a^{}`$, while the collective atomic operators are defined by

$$S_{\pm ,3}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{A}{}}\sigma _{\pm ,3}^j,$$
(6)
and obey the commutation relations

$$[S_3,S_\pm ]=\pm S_\pm ,[S_+,S_{}]=2S_3.$$
(7)
Since all the atoms have the same coupling constant, we need to consider only symmetrical atomic states. Then, let us introduce the atomic Dicke states as

$$|M_\mathrm{a}=\sqrt{\frac{M!(AM)!}{A!}}\underset{p}{}|+_{j_1}\mathrm{}|+_{j_M}|_{j_{M+1}}\mathrm{}|_{j_A},$$
(8)
where $`|\pm _j`$ are the eigenstates of the $`j`$th atom and the sum runs over all possible manners of choosing $`M`$ indistinguishable atoms from the group of $`A`$ atoms. In the space spanned by these Dicke states, the action of the collective atomic operators is

$`S_+|M_\mathrm{a}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{(M+1)(AM)}|M+1_\mathrm{a},`$ (9)
$`S_{}|M_\mathrm{a}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{M(AM+1)}|M1_\mathrm{a},`$ (10)
$`S_3|M_\mathrm{a}`$ $`=`$ $`(MA/2)|M_\mathrm{a},`$ (11)
where the label $`M`$ ($`0MA`$) denotes the number of excited atoms and $`A/2`$ represents the bottom energy level of the atomic system. Therefore, the collective atomic operators form a $`(A+1)`$-dimensional representation of the algebra su(2) corresponding to a spin $`A/2`$. The case of a single resonant atom $`(A=1)`$ corresponds to the well-known Jaynes-Cummings model.

For simplicity we shall restrict henceforth our attention to case of exact resonance between the atomic and the field frequency $`\omega _\mathrm{a}=\omega _\mathrm{f}\omega `$. Since the field mode is described in the usual Fock space $`|n_\mathrm{f}`$, the natural bare basis for the total system is $`|n,M|n_\mathrm{f}|M_\mathrm{a}`$. However, it is straightforward to check that

$$[H_0,H_{\mathrm{int}}]=0,$$
(12)
so both are constants of motion. The Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ (or, equivalently, the excitation number $`N`$) determines the total energy stored by the radiation field and the atomic system, which is conserved by the interaction. This means that the appearance of $`M`$ excited atoms requires the annihilation of $`M`$ photons. This allows us to factor out $`\mathrm{exp}(iH_0t)`$ from the evolution operator and drop it altogether. Hence, we can relabel the total basis as

$$|NM,M|NM_\mathrm{f}|M_\mathrm{a}.$$
(13)
In such a basis, the interaction Hamiltonian, for a fixed value of $`N`$, is represented by the tridiagonal matrix

$$H_{\mathrm{int}}^{(N)}=g\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}0& h_0& 0& .& \hfill \mathrm{}\\ h_0& 0& h_1& 0& \hfill \mathrm{}\\ 0& h_1& 0& h_2& \hfill \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \hfill \mathrm{}\end{array}\right),$$
(14)
with

$$h_M=\sqrt{(M+1)(NM)(AM)}.$$
(15)
The dimension of this matrix depends on whether $`A>N`$ or $`A<N`$, which are situations essentially different and must be handled separately.

Let us assume that $`A>N`$ and initially all the atoms are unexcited. Then, $`M=0`$ and the conservation of the number of excitations implies that only the states (13) with $`0MN`$ take part in the dynamics. Thus, the dimension of the subspace is $`N+1`$.

On the contrary, when $`A<N`$ the number of initial photons is greater than the number of atoms and only the states (13) with $`0MA`$ are involved in the evolution. The dimension is now $`A+1`$

It is easy to check that, due to the properties of the tridiagonal matrices, the eigenvalues are distributed symmetrically with respect to zero, with one eigenvalue equal to zero if there are an odd number of them .

To find the state evolution we shall need the following matrix elements of the evolution operator

$$C_{M^{}M}^N(t)=NM^{},M^{}|\mathrm{exp}[iH_{\mathrm{int}}^{(N)}t]|NM,M,$$
(16)
which can be written as

$$C_{M^{}M}^N(t)=\underset{J=0}{\overset{𝒟}{}}U_{MJ}U_{M^{}J}^{}\mathrm{exp}[i\epsilon _J^{(N)}t],$$
(17)
where $`U`$ is the unitary matrix that diagonalizes the Hamiltonian and $`\epsilon _I^{(N)}`$ are the corresponding eigenvalues. In what follows we shall use the convention of denoting the dimension of the Hamiltonian matrix $`H_{\mathrm{int}}^{(N)}`$ by $`𝒟+1`$, that is,

$$𝒟=\mathrm{min}(N,A).$$
(18)
Now, let us assume that the initial field is taken to be in a coherent state $`|\alpha _\mathrm{f}`$ and that the atomic state is initially prepared in an atomic coherent state $`|\zeta _\mathrm{a}`$ ; i.e.,

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=|\alpha _\mathrm{f}|\zeta _\mathrm{a},$$
(19)
where

$$|\alpha _\mathrm{f}=\underset{n}{}Q_n|n_\mathrm{f},$$
(20)
$`Q_n`$ being the Poissonian weighting factor of the coherent state (with zero phase) with mean number of photons $`\overline{n}`$

$$Q_n=\sqrt{e^{\overline{n}}\frac{\overline{n}^n}{n!}};$$
(21)
and

$`|\zeta _\mathrm{a}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left(1+|\zeta |^2\right)^{A/2}}}{\displaystyle \underset{M=0}{\overset{A}{}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{A!}{M!(AM)!}}}\zeta ^M|M_\mathrm{a}`$ (22)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{M=0}{\overset{A}{}}}A_M|M_\mathrm{a},`$ (23)
where the parameter $`\zeta `$ is normally rewritten in terms of the spherical angles as

$$\zeta =\mathrm{tan}(\vartheta /2)e^{i\phi }.$$
(24)
In other words, the initial state can be rewritten, taking into account (13), as

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)=\underset{N,M}{}Q_{NM}A_M|NM,M.$$
(25)
With this initial condition the resulting state can be recast as

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(iH_{\mathrm{int}}t)|\mathrm{\Psi }(0)`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{M^{},M=0}{\overset{𝒟}{}}}Q_{NM}A_MC_{M^{}M}^N(t)|NM^{},M^{}.`$ (27)
If the initial state is not of the same form, but it has a decomposition with different amplitudes $`A_M`$ or $`Q_n`$, equation (26) is still valid when the appropriate coefficients are taken.

## III Relative-phase operator for the Dicke model

In the spirit of our previous work on the relative phase for the Jaynes-Cummings model , we shall describe the atom-field relative phase in terms of a polar decomposition of the complex amplitudes. To this end, let us introduce the operators

$`X_+=aS_+,X_{}=a^{}S_{},`$ (28)
(29)
$`X_3=S_3.`$ (30)
These operators maintain the first commutation relation of su(2) in (7), $`[X_3,X_\pm ]=\pm X_\pm `$, but the second one is modified in the following way:

$$[X_{},X_+]=P(X_3),$$
(31)
where $`P(X_3)`$ represents a second-order polynomial function of the operator $`X_3`$. This is a typical example of the so-called polynomial deformations of the algebra su(2). Without embarking us in mathematical subtleties, the essential point for our purposes here is that one can develop a theory in a very close analogy with the standard su(2) algebra. In particular, it is clear that the state $`|N,0`$ plays the role of a vacuum state, since

$$X_{}|N,0=0.$$
(32)
Then, we can construct invariant subspaces, as in the usual theory of angular momentum, by

$$|NM,M=\frac{1}{𝒩}X_+^M|N,0,$$
(33)
where $`𝒩`$ is a normalization constant. One can check that

$$X_+^{𝒟+1}|N,0=0,$$
(34)
confirming that the number of accessible states is $`𝒟+1`$.

In consequence, the whole space of the system can be split as the direct sum $`=_{N=0}^{\mathrm{}}_N`$ of subspaces invariant under the action of the operators $`(X_+,X_{},X_3)`$ and each one of them having a fixed number of excitations. These independent subspaces do not overlap in the evolution, in such a way that if the initial state belongs to one of them, it will remain in that subspace for all the evolution.

In each one of these invariant subspaces the operator $`X_3`$ is diagonal, while $`X_+`$ and $`X_{}`$ are ladder operators represented by finite-dimensional matrices. This suggests to introduce a polar decomposition in the form

$`X_+`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{X_+X_{}}E`$ (35)
$`X_{}`$ $`=`$ $`E^{}\sqrt{X_+X_{}},`$ (37)
where the radial operator $`\sqrt{X_+X_{}}`$ is diagonal in the basis $`|NM,M`$:

$$\sqrt{X_+X_{}}|NM,M=\sqrt{M(NM+1)(AM+1)}|NM,M,$$
(38)
and

$$[X_3,E]=E.$$
(39)
We can guarantee now that the operator $`E=\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Phi })`$, representing the exponential of the relative phase, is unitary and commutes with the excitation number

$`EE^{}=E^{}E=I,`$ (40)
(41)
$`[E,N]=0.`$ (42)
Thus, we may rather study its restriction to each invariant subspace $`_N`$, we shall denote by $`E^{(N)}`$. It is easy to check that the action of the operator $`E^{(N)}`$ in each subspace is given by

$`E^{(N)}|NM,M`$ $`=`$ $`|N(M+1),M+1,`$ (43)
$`E_{}^{(N)}{}_{}{}^{}|NM,M`$ $`=`$ $`|N(M1),M1.`$ (45)
Obviously, the action of $`E^{(N)}`$ and $`E_{}^{(N)}{}_{}{}^{}`$ becomes undefined on the marginal states $`|N𝒟,𝒟`$ and $`|N,0`$. Therefore, it is necessary to add some conventions for closing the actions of these operators on the subspace $`_N`$. By analogy once again with the usual su(2) algebra, we shall use standard cyclic conditions and impose (up to global phase factors)

$`E^{(N)}|N𝒟,𝒟`$ $`=`$ $`|N,0,`$ (46)
$`E_{}^{(N)}{}_{}{}^{}|N,0`$ $`=`$ $`|N𝒟,𝒟.`$ (48)
With these conditions, the operator $`E^{(N)}`$ can be expressed as

$`E^{(N)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{M=0}{\overset{𝒟}{}}}|N(M+1),M+1NM,M|`$ (49)
$`+`$ $`e^{i(𝒟+1)\varphi ^{(N)}}|N,0N𝒟,𝒟|,`$ (50)
$`\varphi ^{(N)}`$ being an arbitrary phase. Note that the crucial extra term in this equation, which establishes the unitarity of $`E^{(N)}`$, is precisely based on the finite number of states. Therefore, in each invariant subspace $`_N`$ there are $`𝒟+1`$ orthonormal states satisfying

$$E^{(N)}|\varphi _r^{(N)}=e^{i\varphi _r^{(N)}}|\varphi _r^{(N)},$$
(51)
with $`r=0,\mathrm{},𝒟`$. These states can be expressed as

$$|\varphi _r^{(N)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{𝒟+1}}\underset{M=0}{\overset{𝒟}{}}e^{iM\varphi _r^{(N)}}|NM,M,$$
(52)
and, by taking the same $`2\pi `$ window in each subspace, we have

$$\varphi _r^{(N)}=\varphi _0+\frac{2\pi r}{𝒟+1},$$
(53)
and $`\varphi _0`$ is a fiducial or reference phase shift that can be arbitrarily chosen. The expression for $`E`$ on the whole space is

$$E=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}E^{(N)}=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{r=0}{\overset{𝒟}{}}|\varphi _r^{(N)}e^{i\varphi _r^{(N)}}\varphi _r^{(N)}|,$$
(54)
and, since $`E`$ is unitary, it defines a Hermitian relative-phase operator

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{(N)}=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\underset{r=0}{\overset{𝒟}{}}|\varphi _r^{(N)}\varphi _r^{(N)}\varphi _r^{(N)}|,$$
(55)
that, obviously, has discrete eigenvalues. In the limit $`𝒟1`$, this spectrum becomes dense, as it might be expected. But, on the opposite limit, one may be surprised to find that the state $`|0,0`$ is a relative-phase eigenstate (with arbitrary eigenvalue $`\varphi _0`$). While this may provide a convincing argument that the theory is unreasonable, we think that is not the case. The value of $`\varphi _0`$ will not lead to any contradictions, because any choice will lead to a consistent theory. Our choice of this parameter says nothing about Nature, it only makes a statement about our individual preference .

Note as well, that the relative-phase eigenstates are maximally entangled states. This has the consequence that the relative-phase operator has no classical correspondence in the general case, not even for highly excited states.

## IV Atom-field relative phase in terms of absolute phases

In the previous Section we have shown a clear way of obtaining ab initio the atom-field relative phase. In spite of this, one could still insist in describing this variable in terms of the absolute phases of each subsystem. One must start then from previous descriptions of the field and atomic phases and manage them until getting the probability distribution for their difference. The goal of this section is to show that this way of proceeding leads naturally to a positive operator-valued measure (POVM) , and how such a POVM is precisely generated by the eigenstates of the relative-phase operator.

To this end, we shall adopt the elegant axiomatic approach developed by Leonhardt et al  to describe the phase properties of both subsystems we are dealing with. To make the discussion as selfcontained as possible, we first briefly recall the essential ingredients of the general formalism.

When dealing with generic angle-action variables, one imposes that the complex exponential of the angle (denoted by $`E`$) and the action variable (denoted by $`L_z`$) satisfy \[compare with Eq. (39)\]

$$[L_z,E]=E.$$
(56)
If $`E`$ were unitary, its action on the basis of eigenstates of $`L_z`$ (denoted by $`|m`$) will be as a ladder operator

$$E|m=|m+1.$$
(57)
The eigenstates of $`E`$ (denoted by $`|\theta `$) provide then an adequate description of the quantum angle . However, realistic measurements always involve extra noise beyond that due to the intrinsic quantum fluctuations described by canonical conjugation and it is essential to extend the canonical formalism by including fuzzy or unsharp generalizations of the ideal description provided by $`E`$ . To this end we shall use POVMs, that are a set of linear operators $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )`$ furnishing the correct probabilities in any measurement process through the fundamental postulate that

$$P(\theta )=\mathrm{Tr}[\rho \mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )].$$
(58)
The reality, positiveness, and normalization of $`P(\theta )`$ impose

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{}(\theta )=\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta ),\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )0,_{2\pi }𝑑\theta \mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )=I,$$
(59)
but, in general, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )`$ are not orthogonal projectors like in the standard measurements described by selfadjoint operators.

In addition to these basic statistical conditions, some other requirements must be imposed to ensure that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )`$ provides a meaningful description of the angle as a canonically conjugate variable with respect $`L_z`$ (even in the sense of a weak Weyl relation ). Then, we require

$$e^{i\theta ^{}L_z}\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )e^{i\theta ^{}L_z}=\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta +\theta ^{}),$$
(60)
which reflects nothing but the basic feature that an angle shifter is an angle-distribution shifter. This condition restricts the form of the POVM to

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{n,m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_{n,m}e^{i(mn)\theta }|mn|.$$
(61)
We must take also into account that a shift in $`L_z`$ should not change the angle distribution. A shift in $`L_z`$ is expressed by the operator $`E`$, since it shifts the distribution of $`L_z`$ by one step. Therefore, we require as well

$$E\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )E^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta ),$$
(62)
which, loosely speaking, is the physical translation of the fact that angle should be complementary to the action variable. This implies the invariance

$$b_{n,m}=b_{nm},$$
(63)
that allows us to recast Eq. (61) as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{\nu }{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_\nu e^{i\nu \theta }E^\nu ,$$
(64)
while conditions (59) read now as now

$$|b_\nu |1,b_\nu ^{}=b_\nu .$$
(65)
Expressing $`E`$ in terms of its eigenvectors $`|\theta `$, we finally arrive at the general form of a POVM describing the angle variable and fulfilling the natural requirements (60) and (62):

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )=_{2\pi }𝑑\theta ^{}B(\theta ^{})|\theta +\theta ^{}\theta +\theta ^{}|,$$
(66)
where

$$B(\theta )=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{\nu =0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_\nu e^{i\nu \theta }.$$
(67)
This convolution shows that this effectively represents a noisy measurement, the function $`B(\theta )`$ giving the resolution provided by this POVM .

Let us now focus on the phase properties of our two subsystems. Concerning the field phase, the question has attracted the attention of physicists for almost as long as quantum mechanics has existed as a physical theory (for recent reviews see Ref. ). Nowadays, it seems indisputable that an operator representing the phase of a single-mode field in a infinite-dimensional Hilbert space cannot exist  and the proper way to face up the problem involves the use of a relative-state formalism. In spite of this serious drawback, a variety of solutions have been proposed to circumvent the difficulties. Virtually all of them can be formulated within the POVM formalism discussed before, but with the role of $`L_z`$ being played by the number operator $`a^{}a`$. Then a number-shifter is expressed by the Susskind-Glogower phase operator  (note that we are not concerned about the problems of $`E`$ as a phase operator here, we only use the number-shifter property) and the phase states are

$$|\theta _\mathrm{f}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{in\theta _\mathrm{f}}|n_\mathrm{f}.$$
(68)
On the other hand, the difficulties with hermiticity that phase operators encounter in the case of a single-mode field disappear for a two-level system. In general, for the group SU(2) it is possible, by working in the standard $`(A+1)`$-dimensional Hilbert space associated with the usual angular-momentum operators, to find a truly phase operator from a polar decomposition of the amplitudes $`S_\pm `$ . The procedure is quite similar to that followed in Sec. III for the relative phase and, perhaps, the most striking consequence of this approach is that the atomic-dipole phase can take only $`A+1`$ different values, due to the dimension of the atomic-state space.

Because of this particular behavior, one may think rather preferable to describe the dipole phase by a POVM taking continuous values in a $`2\pi `$ interval, even though this cannot lead to a standard operator description. To this end, it suffices to note that the general properties (60) and (62) still hold, but the role of $`L_z`$ is played now by $`S_3`$, and the “Susskind-Glogower” eigenstates of the shifter are now

$$|\theta _\mathrm{a}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi }}\underset{M=0}{\overset{A}{}}e^{iM\theta _\mathrm{a}}|M_\mathrm{a}.$$
(69)
The joint probability distribution for atomic and field phases can be defined in a very natural way as

$$P(\theta _\mathrm{a},\theta _\mathrm{f})=\mathrm{Tr}[\rho \mathrm{\Delta }(\theta _\mathrm{a},\theta _\mathrm{f})],$$
(70)
with

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta _\mathrm{a},\theta _\mathrm{f})=\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{a}(\theta _\mathrm{a})\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{f}(\theta _\mathrm{f}).$$
(71)
Our remaining task is to consistently derive a POVM for the relative phase $`\varphi =\theta _\mathrm{a}\theta _\mathrm{f}`$ from these expressions. This goal can be achieved in many ways : for example, one can perform a change of variables to express $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta _\mathrm{a},\theta _\mathrm{f})`$ in terms of the phase sum and phase difference and then remove the phase-sum dependence by simple integration . Another possibility is to directly define the probability distribution for the relative phase as

$$P(\varphi )=_{2\pi }𝑑\theta P(\theta ,\theta +\varphi )=\mathrm{Tr}[\rho \mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )],$$
(72)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )=_{2\pi }𝑑\theta \mathrm{\Delta }(\theta ,\theta +\varphi ).$$
(73)
For our purposes here, it is sufficient to note that we must get the same values for any periodic function of the relative phase whether we use the variable $`\varphi `$ or $`(\theta _\mathrm{a},\theta _\mathrm{f})`$. In consequence, we can impose that

$$_{2\pi }𝑑\varphi P(\varphi )e^{i\nu \varphi }=_{2\pi }𝑑\theta _\mathrm{a}𝑑\theta _\mathrm{f}P(\theta _\mathrm{a},\theta _\mathrm{f})e^{i\nu (\theta _\mathrm{a}\theta _\mathrm{f})}.$$
(74)
To proceed with we need to take a definite choice for the corresponding POVMs. Concerning the field phase, we recall that the Pegg-Barnett formalism and many others embodying the concept of phase as an observable canonically conjugate to photon number, lead to the POVM induced by the Susskind-Glogower phase states, namely

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{f}(\theta _\mathrm{f})=|\theta _\mathrm{f}\theta _\mathrm{f}|.$$
(75)
Motivated by this choice, we can use for the atomic phase the finite-dimensional translation of this POVM; i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^\mathrm{a}(\theta _\mathrm{a})=|\theta _\mathrm{a}\theta _\mathrm{a}|,$$
(76)
with $`|\theta _\mathrm{a}`$ given in Eq. (69). A simple calculation shows then that

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|\varphi ^{(N)}\varphi ^{(N)}|,$$
(77)
where

$$|\varphi ^{(N)}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{M=0}{\overset{𝒟}{}}e^{iM\varphi }|NM,M.$$
(78)
Therefore, we conclude that the POVM generated by the eigenstates of our relative phase operator is just the induced by other absolute-phase approaches (such as Susskind-Glogower or Pegg-Barnett), when cast to the appropriate $`2\pi `$ range. This is, in our view, another confirmation that the theory proposed works correctly.

## V Relative-phase distribution function

For any state, the information one can reap using a measurement of some observable is given by the statistical distribution of the measurement outcomes. For the relative phase, it seems natural to define the probability distribution function of a state described by the density matrix $`\rho `$ as

$$P(N,\varphi _r,t)=\varphi _r^{(N)}|\rho (t)|\varphi _r^{(N)}.$$
(79)
However, for physical states  (i.e., states for which finite moments of the number operator are bounded) this expression will converge to a simpler form involving a continuous probability density we shall write as

$$P(N,\varphi ,t)=\varphi ^{(N)}|\rho (t)|\varphi ^{(N)},$$
(80)
where the vectors $`|\varphi ^{(N)}`$ defined in (78) lie in the subspace $`_N`$ with total number of excitations $`N`$. In fact, this expression can be interpreted as a joint probability distribution for the relative phase and the total number of excitations. From it, we can derive the distribution for the relative phase as

$$P(\varphi ,t)=\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}P(N,\varphi ,t),$$
(81)
while

$$P(N,t)=_{2\pi }𝑑\varphi P(N,\varphi ,t)$$
(82)
can be viewed as the probability distribution of having $`N`$ excitations in the system. These factorizations are an obvious consequence of the fact that the relative phase and the excitation number are compatible.

For the general initial state of Eq. (25) and the evolution given by Eq. (26) we have

$$P(N,\varphi ,t)=|\varphi ^{(N)}|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|^2,$$
(83)
which, through direct calculation, gives

$$P(N,\varphi ,t)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\left|\underset{M^{},M=0}{\overset{𝒟}{}}Q_{NM}A_MC_{M^{}M}^N(t)e^{iM^{}\varphi }\right|^2,$$
(84)
and then we arrive at the total relative-phase probability distribution:

$$P(\varphi ,t)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left|\underset{M^{},M=0}{\overset{𝒟}{}}Q_{NM}A_MC_{M^{}M}^N(t)e^{iM^{}\varphi }\right|^2.$$
(85)
This is our basic and compact result which we use to analyze the evolution of the phase properties of the Dicke model.

In Fig. 1 we have numerically evaluated this distribution $`P(\varphi ,t)`$ as a function of $`\varphi `$ and the rescaled adimensional time $`gt`$, for the case when all the atoms are initially unexcited and the field is in a coherent state with various values of the mean number of photons $`\overline{n}`$. In all the cases, when $`\tau =0`$ we have that $`C_{M^{}M}^N(0)=\delta _{M^{}M}`$ and therefore

$$P(\varphi ,t=0)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left|\underset{M=0}{\overset{𝒟}{}}Q_{NM}A_Me^{iM\varphi }\right|^2.$$
(86)
In particular, when all the atoms are initially unexcited only the coefficient $`A_0`$ survives and the previous expression reduces to

$$P(\varphi ,t=0)=\frac{1}{2\pi }.$$
(87)
This flat distribution reflects the fact that the random phase of the dipole in such states induces a uniform distribution centred at $`\varphi _0`$. At this respect, it is interesting to notice that classically the Lorentz model at resonance predicts for the relative phase values of $`\pm \pi /2`$. It turns out that this is also a possible choice to fix the reference phase $`\varphi _0`$ in the quantum description. For simplicity, in all the graphics we have chosen $`\varphi _0`$ as the origin $`0`$.

Two quite different behaviors are evident from these graphics. The first occurs in the weak-field region , when the number of excitations in the system is much smaller than the number of the atoms, $`NA`$. If, for simplicity, we assume that all the atoms are unexcited and the average number of photons in the initially coherent field is small, say $`\overline{n}1`$, then we can retain only the dominant terms in Eq. (85), getting

$$P(\varphi ,t)\frac{1}{2\pi }\{1+\overline{n}[|C_{00}^1|^2+|C_{01}^1|^2+2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(C_{00}^1C_{01}^{1}{}_{}{}^{}e^{i\varphi })]\}e^{\overline{n}}.$$
(88)
We see that, due to the periodic temporal dependence of the terms $`C_{M^{}M}^N(t)`$, this distribution is oscillatory for all times, which is corroborated numerically in Fig. 1.a.

The second (and perhaps more interesting) case corresponds to the strong-field region , when the initial number of photons is much larger than the number of atoms $`AN`$. Then, following the ideas of Ref.  one can show that the coefficients $`C_{M^{}M}^N(t)`$ can be approximated, up to order $`A/\sqrt{\overline{n}}`$, by

$$C_{M^{}M}^N(t)d_{M^{}M}^A(\mathrm{\Omega }_Nt),$$
(89)
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_N=2g\sqrt{NA/2+1/2},$$
(90)
and $`d_{M^{}M}^A`$ are Wigner $`d`$ functions , which are defined as the matrix elements for finite rotations by operators from SU(2) group representations

$$d_{M^{}M}^A(\vartheta )=d_{MM^{}}^A(\vartheta )=M^{}|e^{i\vartheta S_x}|M,$$
(91)
where $`M,M^{}=0,1,\mathrm{},A`$. The point now is that essentially only one subspace of dimension $`A+1`$ dominates the dynamics. Moreover, a simple calculation using the explicit form of these $`d`$ functions, gives

$$P(\varphi ,t)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}Q_N^2\left|\underset{M=0}{\overset{A}{}}\sqrt{\frac{A!}{(AM)!M!}}\mathrm{tan}^M(\mathrm{\Omega }_Nt/2)e^{iM(\varphi \pi /2)}\right|^2\mathrm{cos}^{2A}(\mathrm{\Omega }_Nt/2),$$
(92)
where we have assumed that all the atoms are initially unexcited. When $`A1`$ and when oscillations are well resolved, one can perform an expansion of the square root getting

$$P(\varphi ,t)=\sqrt{\frac{A}{2\pi }}\underset{N}{}\mathrm{\Phi }_N(t)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{A}{2}(\varphi \pi /2+\delta _N)^2\right],$$
(93)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N(t)`$ is a function of time of complicated structure that accounts for the collapses and revivals and that is of little interest for our purposes here, and $`\delta _N=\mathrm{arg}[\mathrm{tan}(\mathrm{\Omega }_Nt/2)]`$. Now, it is clear that, since $`\delta _N`$ takes only the values $`0`$ and $`\pi `$, the previous Gaussian distributions tend to have two peaks at $`\varphi =\pm \pi /2`$, in agreement with the classical expectations. The presence of collapses and revivals are evident in Fig. 1.b, which confirms previous numerical and analytical evidence. The well-known nearly time-independent behavior in the time windows between collapse and revival is also clear. As we can see, the distribution tends to be randomized in the evolution, although keeping these two peaks at $`\pm \pi /2`$.

In the intermediate region, when $`NA`$, the behavior is more complex, as shown in Fig. 1.c, and no analytical approximations are available.

For the particular case of the Jaynes-Cummings model one can diagonalize exactly the Hamiltonian in each subspace $`_N`$, obtaining the well-known dressed states , that turn to be trapping states ; i.e., the atomic population $`S_3(t)`$ remains constant in spite of the existence of both the radiation field and atomic transitions . These states play a fundamental role in that model, so it seems interesting to analyze the corresponding problem for the case of the Dicke model. In the strong-field limit one can make the replacement $`a\alpha =\sqrt{\overline{n}}e^{i\theta }`$ and the interaction Dicke Hamiltonian becomes proportional to the operator

$$H_{\mathrm{cl}}=\left(e^{i\theta }S_++e^{i\theta }S_{}\right),$$
(94)
where the phase of the classical field has been chosen to coincide with the phase of the initial coherent state of the field. The semiclassical atomic states are defined now as eigenstates of $`H_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ taking this phase as zero:

$$2S_x|\underset{¯}{P}_\mathrm{a}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_P|\underset{¯}{P}_\mathrm{a},$$
(95)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_P=A2P`$ and $`P=0,1,\mathrm{},A`$.

Following Ref. , we shall call factorized states those states for which the initial field is taken to be in a strong coherent state $`|\alpha _\mathrm{f}`$ and the atomic system is initially prepared in a semiclassical atomic state $`|\underset{¯}{P}_\mathrm{a}`$. For such states, the total wavefunction of the system can be approximately written as a product of its field and atomic parts

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)|\underset{¯}{P}(t)_\mathrm{a}|\alpha (t)_\mathrm{f}$$
(96)
with

$`|\underset{¯}{P}(t)_\mathrm{a}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_P(S_3+A/2)}{2\sqrt{\overline{n}A/2+1/2}}}gt\right]|\underset{¯}{P}_\mathrm{a}`$ (97)
$`|\alpha (t)_\mathrm{f}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left[i\mathrm{\Lambda }_P\sqrt{a^{}aA/2+1/2}gt\right]|\alpha _\mathrm{f},`$ (99)
and one can verify that they are also (approximately) trapping states. For these states, one can find after a simple calculation,

$$P(\varphi ,t)=\frac{1}{A+1}|\underset{M}{}{}_{\mathrm{a}}{}^{}M|\underset{¯}{P}_{\mathrm{a}}^{}e^{iM\varphi }|^2.$$
(100)
The probability distribution is time independent due to the factorization (96). From the arguments in Ref. , one infers that this factorization holds up to times $`gt\sqrt{\overline{n}}`$ (which can be very long times, in this limit) and with an accuracy in the coefficients of the order of $`A/\sqrt{\overline{n}}`$.

Moreover, using the properties of the semiclassical atomic states and assuming $`A1`$, one can replace the sum by an integral, obtaining finally

$$P(\varphi ,t)\sqrt{\frac{A}{2\pi }}e^{A\varphi ^2/2};$$
(101)
i.e., a Gaussian independent of time. In Fig. 2 we have plotted the probability distribution obtained from a numerical computation of Eq. (85), showing this quite remarkable behavior, except for the presence of very small (almost inappreciable) oscillations superimposed.

To gain more physical insight in these behaviors, in Fig. 3 we have plotted the evolution of the mean value of $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for various values of $`N`$, confirming the previous physical discussion.

To conclude, let us consider the Dicke model in the large-detuning limit; which is usually known as the dispersive limit. More specifically, we are in the case when

$$\mathrm{\Delta }g\sqrt{\overline{n}+1}A.$$
(102)
Then, following the procedure developed in Ref. , the interaction Hamiltonian in Eq. (2) cn be replaced by the effective Hamiltonian

$$H_{\text{eff}}=\mathrm{\Delta }S_3+\lambda (2a^{}a+1)S_3+\lambda (CS_3^2),$$
(103)
where

$$C=\frac{A}{2}\left(\frac{A}{2}+1\right),\lambda =\frac{g^2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}.$$
(104)
The obvious advantage of this Hamiltonian is that it is diagonal and allows for a compact analytical expression for the coefficients $`C_{M^{}M}^N(t)`$ as

$`C_{M^{}M}^N(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{M^{}M}\mathrm{exp}(it\{\mathrm{\Delta }(MA/2)+\lambda [2(NM)+1](MA/2)`$ (105)
$`+`$ $`\lambda [C(MA/2)^2]\}).`$ (106)
When the atoms are initially unexcited or excited (or, more generally, when $`A_M=\delta _{MK}`$) and for any initial state of field, we have

$$P(\varphi ,t)=\frac{1}{2\pi },$$
(107)
for all the times.

For an arbitrary initial state of the atomic system and the field we get

$$P(\varphi ,t)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{N=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left|\underset{M=0}{\overset{A}{}}Q_{NM}A_Me^{if_M^Nt}e^{iM\varphi }\right|^2,$$
(108)
with

$$f_M^N=2NM\lambda +[\mathrm{\Delta }+\lambda (2A+1)]M3\lambda M^2.$$
(109)
Since (103) is quadratic in the population inversion operator $`S_3`$ and is, therefore, analogous to the Hamiltonian quadratic in the number operator of a single-mode field propagating through a Kerr medium, one could expect  that the evolution of coherent atomic states in the dispersive limit of the Dicke model leads to the generation of Schrödinger cat states. This superposition reaches the most pure form for initial number field states (in particular, the vacuum state minimizes the atomic entropy ).

The situation with the relative-phase distribution is quite different. It is easy to see, for example, that if the field is prepared initially in a number state $`|k`$ then $`Q_n=\delta _{kn}`$ and the relative phase distribution is flat. Nevertheless, for initial atomic and field coherent states the relative-phase distribution splits for some special times into several humps. These catlike states, according to (109), appear at times $`\tau =\lambda t=\pi /6(mod2\pi )`$. To confirm analytically this behavior, we expand Eq. (108) when initially we have strong coherent states for both field and atoms, with $`\overline{n}A1`$. By replacing once again the sum by integrals, one easily gets

$$P(\varphi ,t=\pi /6\lambda )=\sqrt{\frac{A}{8\pi }}\left\{e^{\left[\varphi \pi \varphi _{\overline{n}}/(3\lambda )\right]^2A/2}+e^{\left[\varphi +\pi \pi \varphi _{\overline{n}}/(3\lambda )\right]^2A/2}\right\},$$
(110)
where

$$\varphi _{\overline{n}}=2\overline{n}\lambda +A+\lambda (2A+1),$$
(111)
and all the phases must be understood $`mod(2\pi )`$. The two separated Gaussians indicates the presence of two humps and, therefore, the presence of catlike states. To further confirm this, in Fig. 4 we have computed numerically the distribution function $`P(\varphi ,t=\pi /6\lambda )`$ at the times predicted by the theory. The graphic clearly demonstrates the presence of the two-component state, according to our previous considerations.

## VI Conclusions

In this paper we have investigated an appropriate operator for the quantum description of the relative phase in the Dicke model. We have used a proper polar decomposition of the corresponding field amplitudes, much in the spirit of our previous work on the subject. This polar decomposition has been justified on physical grounds, as well as using the theory of polynomial deformations of su(2).

The eigenvalue spectrum of this operator is discrete, as it happens for the polar decomposition corresponding to two field modes. From these eigenstates we have obtained the probability distribution for the relative phase and we have studied its time evolution. For the weak-field region, the behavior is essentially oscillatory, while for the strong-field region, the relative phase tends to be randomized in the evolution, although showing collapses and revivals. For both limiting regions, we have developed analytical approximations that have allowed us an easy physical interpretation of some remarkable phenomena.