On Faithful Matrix Representations of <i>q</i>-Deformed Models in Quantum Optics

Hanna, Latif A -M.; Alazemi, Abdullah; Al-Dhafeeri, Anwar

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6737287

International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical Sciences

On this page

Abstract Introduction Preliminaries Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 6737287 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6737287

On Faithful Matrix Representations of q-Deformed Models in Quantum Optics

Latif A -M. Hanna,¹Abdullah Alazemi,¹and Anwar Al-Dhafeeri¹

Academic Editor: Maria A. Lledo

Received25 Mar 2022

Revised14 May 2022

Accepted31 May 2022

Published19 Sept 2022

Abstract

Consider the -deformed Lie algebra, , , and , where , subject to the physical properties: and are real diagonal operators, and , ( is for Hermitian conjugation). The -deformed Lie algebra, is introduced as a generalized model of the Tavis–Cummings model (Tavis and Cummings 1968, Bashir and Sebawe Abdalla 1995), namely, , and , which is subject to the physical properties and are real diagonal operators, and . Faithful matrix representations of the least degree of are discussed, and conditions are given to guarantee the existence of the faithful representations.

1. Introduction

In the field of quantum optics, the Tavis–Cummings (TC) model [1] involves the multiphoton interaction of 2-level atoms with a single mode quantized field, in the absence of any radiation damping. It is a generalization of the Jaynes–Cummings (JC) model [2] of a single 2-level atom interacting via single photon transition with a single quantized field mode. The Lie algebra approach in [3–5] was employed in [6], where the Hamiltonian description of the the TC model of a coupled system of a boson (single mode of the radiation field) and fermions ( two-level atoms) is given by , where and are the boson field annihilation and creation operators satisfying , while are the usual collective angular momentum operators, with and denoting the field and atomic frequencies, while and are the coupling constant and the number of photons, respectively. Using the transformation in [7–9], , and the operators and are boson operators satisfying the commutation relation , and the functions are real functions of the number operator given by , and on using the Holstien–Primakoff transformation [10], , and , where the phase is an arbitrary function of time, the Hamiltonian becomeswhere . On approximating and by their -number time-dependent functions and , then the Hamiltonian (1) is bilinearized and has the formwhere , . In this case, the Hamiltonian (2) can be regarded as that of two-mode coupled oscillators with a time-dependent pumping and phase [11–15].

As in [4, 5], define operators as follows: , which satisfy the following commutation relations:

Then, the Hamiltonian (2) becomes

In [6], a matrix representation for the operators and satisfying (3) is found to be .

In [16], two optical atom models were introduced, namely, the model of the two-level optical atom as follows:and the model of a light amplifier, which corresponds to the algebra

The Hamiltonian of these two coupled quantized harmonic oscillators models is of the following form:where is an arbitrary time-dependent coupling parameter, and the Boson operators of the two-level optical atom obey the commutation relations:

As a combination of the three operators, namely, , the Hamiltonian can be written aswhere , and , with must be real to satisfy the Hermiticity of the Hamiltonian . In [17], it was shown that the Lie algebra generated by the three operators, is the algebra. In [18, 19], faithful matrix representations of the least degree for the two-level optical atom were found to bewhile the model of a light amplifier has no faithful representation satisfying the physical requirements.

In fact, faithful matrix representations of optical models give more understanding of such models. They are also useful to visualize its properties in algebraic ways. The least degree faithful representation is an ideal tool to handle such models. Steinberg, in [3, 20], introduced a method to solve partial differential equations. The method utilizes faithful matrix representation of the least degree. The method was applied in [21] to solve the Schrödinger’s wave equation of the -deformed coupled quantized oscillator. The -deformed Lie algebras are introduced for more essential generalizations in quantum mechanics. For instance, [22], where in [23–26], it was considered for to be in , for the particular model of Fermion oscillators.

Definition 1. Let and be matrices. The -deformed Lie bracket of and is defined to beOn generalizing such optical models, the given representation matrices cover more models. Particularly, when they share the same mathematical properties. For instance, the TC model (3), and satisfy the same commutation relations of and , respectively, of the models in (5) and (6), apart from the scalar coefficients, which will be considered by , and , in the general case. Also, the -deformed Lie algebras offer more generalization.
In this paper, the -deformed Lie algebra, is introduced as a generalization of the Tavis–Cummings model in (3), namely,subject to the physical requirements, , and and are real diagonal operators.
The main purpose of this paper is to construct matrices of the least degree faithfully representing the -deformed Lie algebra in (12). The -deformed Lie algebra in (12) is chosen as a generalization of the TC model in (3). In abstract point of view, (3) can be considered as an extension of the models of (5) and (6), by the operator . Throughout this paper, , and are the representation matrices of and , respectively, of the model (12), with and as real diagonal matrices. On the other hand, , and can represent , and , respectively, in models (5) and (6), where is the real diagonal matrix.
So, the main objective of this paper is to provide, if any, linearly independent matrices , and , satisfyingFaithful matrix representations of degree 2 were proved to be the least degree. Also, was given as an extension of the generalized model of the -deformed couple quantized harmonic oscillator by the operator .
The representation matrices, for , of degree 2 as the least degree, which satisfy the physical conditions, are given in Theorem 5 as follows.
For , and , such that , we haveThe special cases where and are given in Theorems 5 and 6, respectively.

2. Preliminaries

Let and be matrices. The -deformed Lie bracket of and is defined, [11] to be , for . It should be noticed that for , the -deformed Lie bracket is the ordinary matrix multiplication of and , whereas for , it is the ordinary Lie bracket. Thus, we always write as , whenever needed. The matrix representation of the TC model were given for in [24]. So, the cases where will always be in our interest.

Unless otherwise stated, the square matrices and denote the representation matrices of the operators and , respectively, of the model (12), and is the zero square matrix of an appropriate size. The set denotes the set for positive integer . All representations are supposed to satisfy the physical requirements that and are real diagonal operators. Also, such that .

3. Basic Properties of the -Deformed Lie Bracket

For , let be the matrix unit, which is an matrix whose element in the row and column is and zero elsewhere. In other words, the are the elements of the standard basis of , the set of all matrices over the field of complex numbers. Sincewhere is the Kronecker delta, we have the following lemma.

Lemma 1. Consider the matrix units, for , then for , we have(1)If and , then .(2)If , then .(3)If , then .(4)If , then .(5)If , then .(6).

Proof. From (11) and (15), we have . Other parts are easily driven from (16).
To be self-contained, we copy the following properties of the -deformed Lie bracket from [25] in Theorem 1. We also, add other properties in Lemma 2.

Theorem 1. Let be the set of all matrices over a field and . Let . Then, for and in , we have(1).(2).(3).(4).(5).(6).(7).(8).(9).(10)

Part 10 is the -deformed version of the Jacobi identity. So, we add here the following properties.

Lemma 2. Let be the set of all matrices over and . Let . Then, for , and in , we have(1) and also,(2).(3) and also,(4).(5).

Proof. For part (1), we have . Also, . For part (2), .
. Similarly, for parts (3) and (4), Part (5) is the -deformed version of the Jacobi identity that can be easily driven from the definition (11).

4. Properties of the Representation Matrices

Suppose that has a faithful matrix representation of degree , where the matrices and are representation matrices of and , respectively, of the model (12). Thus, and are linearly independent with and as real diagonal matrices.

Lemma 3. Let , and be a transposition. The representation obtained by applying to the rows as well as to the columns of matrices and is a conjugate representation for and satisfies the physical requirements.

Proof. Let be the elementary matrix obtained by applying to the rows of . Since , then , and are representation matrices for , and , respectively, of the model (12), satisfying . Similarly, and . Also, .
As is defined to be a generalization of the Tavis–Cummings model in (3), it should be pointed out that the -deformed commutator cannot be equal to for .

Theorem 2. The matrix product Moreover, the commutator if .

Proof. Let and be representation matrices of and , respectively, in (3). Suppose that , and . Since and are diagonal, then if . Thus, if , then for . Using Lemma 3, to rearrange such that, , where is an nonsingular diagonal matrix, and matrix, while , for some .
Since the diagonal elements of are all zeros for each ; we have . So, for . Similarly, since for each ; we have . Hence, for . Thus, all diagonal elements of are zeros.
Since otherwise the representation is not faithful, then for some , there is an . If , then the row and the column of are zero row and zero column, respectively. As then, contradicting that , as . Similarly, if , then the row and the column of are zero row and zero column, respectively, and as , then contradicting that , as .
As and are diagonal matrices, then their commutator is too trivial to be included in the defining relations of . Then, we have the following theorem.

Theorem 3. The defining relations of can be eitheror

Subject to the physical conditions: and are real diagonal operators.

Proof. From part 2 of Theorem 1, we have , which implies that . Similarly, taking the Hermitian conjugate of both sides of the commutator, , we get .

5. Least Degree Faithful Matrix Representation of the -Deformed Tavis–Cummings Model

We first try to investigate whether has faithful representations of degree 2. In this section, unless otherwise stated, let , and be representation matrices of and respectively in (12), where and , satisfying that for ,where the matrix units ’s are matrices for .

Theorem 4. Consider the matrix units, and . Let , and be representation matrices of and , respectively, where and . Then, for , we have(1),(2),(3),(4)(5)(6),(7),(8),(9),(10),(11),(12).

Proof. Using parts (3) and (4) of Theorem 1 and using Lemma 1, in (19), and from the linear independence of the matrix units, we get parts (1)–(3). Similarly, from (20), we get parts (5)–(8). From (21), we get parts (9) and (12) in the same way. From parts (2) and (3) of the theorem, we get part (4).
Now, we use Theorem 4, in order to build the representation matrices for and give conditions to guarantee the faithful representations. But first we consider the special cases when and in Theorems 5 and 6, respectively.

Theorem 5. If , then the 0-deformed Lie algebra has faithful representations of degree 2, as the least degree. The representation matrices of the generators and are, respectively, for , such that and ,(1), and , or(2), and .

Proof. Let . If , then from part (5) in Theorem 4, we have , then we get from part (2) that . Thus, if , then . Thus, . For faithful representation, take . Cases, if or lead to representations where and are represented by scalar matrices, and hence, the representations are not faithful. If , then the representation is conjugate to either of the given representations.
A real representation can be obtained by taking in Theorem 5. A practically useful representation is when is a nilpotent matrix, i.e., the case when . So, we have the following corollary.

Corollary 1. If , then the 0-deformed Lie algebra is isomorphic to and has faithful representations of degree 2 as the least degree if and only if . The representation matrices of the generators and in (12), are, respectively, for any ,

Theorem 6. If , then the -deformed Lie algebra has faithful representations of degree 2 as the least degree. The representation matrices of the generators and in (12), are, respectively,where , and such that .

Proof. Let . We claim that we should have . The case where and leads to the representation matrix is diagonal and then, the representation is not faithful.
If , then from part (5) of Theorem 4, we have that , while from part (7), we have . Then, is a scalar matrix, while from parts (9) and (11), we get . Thus, is also a scalar matrix. Therefore, the representation is not faithful. Also, if , then from parts (5) and (8), we get and from parts (9) and (12), we get . Therefore, the representation is not faithful. Similarly, if , then from parts (5) and (6), such that and from parts (9) and (10), we have . Therefore, we must have . In a similar argument, one must have .
Now, from part (7), we have and in part (4), we get . Then, , if we let .
A real representation can be obtained by taking in Theorem 6. A practically useful representation is when is a nilpotent matrix, i.e., the case when . So, we have the following corollary.

Corollary 2. If , then the -deformed Lie algebra is isomorphic to and has faithful representations of degree 2 as the least degree if and only if . The representation matrices of the generators and in (12), are, respectively, for real .

Assuming that and using a similar technique as that of the proof of Theorems 5 and 6, we have the following theorem.

Lemma 4. Let . In a 2-dimensional representation, the representation matrix of is a triangular nilpotent matrix. Its degree of nilpotency equals 2.

Proof. If , then from parts (5) and (7) of Theorem 4, we have ; hence, as . And from parts (9) and (11), we have , then . Therefore, the representation matrices of and are scalar matrices, which are linearly dependent, and the representation is not faithful.
If , then from parts (5) and (8) of Theorem 4, we have , which implies that . Similarly, from parts (9) and (12), we conclude that .
Thus, if , we get , which causes the representation matrix , of , to be diagonal as and . This leads to a representation which is not faithful.
Therefore, for a faithful representation of , if , then one mus have. A similar argument shows that also one should have .
Now, if , then from parts (7) and (8) of Theorem 4, we have ; hence, and since , then . And from parts (11) and (12), , then , then .
Therefore, has at most one nonzero element, which cannot be a diagonal element otherwise the representation is not faithful.
Now, we come to the general case, where .

Theorem 7. For , the -deformed Lie algebra has faithful matrix representations of degree 2, as the least degree, where the representation matrices are for , such that , and , we have

Moreover, is a necessary condition for the representation.

Proof. From Lemma 4, let the representation matrices of and , be, respectively, the matrices and , where . So, in Theorem 4, let , and . Thus, from parts (2) and (3) of Theorem 4, we have thatThis shows that . From part (7) of Theorem 4, and by using (26), we getThus, we should have .
Also, from (27), solving for , we haveTherefore,Now, from (21) and part (11) of Theorem 4, we have . Taking , then . For the linear independence of and , it can be shown that . For, if for some , we have , then one should have , which implies that .
Taking , we obtain a real representation. In such a case, is, actually, the whole general linear algebra, .
As special cases, the obtained results agree with the previous cases when .

Corollary 3. The light amplifier model, namely, has no faithful matrix representation.

Proof. In the light amplifier model (6), since and , then contradicting the necessary condition of Theorem 7.

Corollary 4. The two optical atom models, namely, has the faithful matrix representation

Proof. In this model, we have, , and . Take and .

Corollary 5. The representation matrices of the Tavis–Cummings model in (3) and , for such that , which generalize those representation matrices of the (TC) model which were given in [21], when taking and .

Proof. In this model, we have and . Take .
We conclude with the following summary.

6. Summary

Our main purpose in this work is to find, if any, the possible faithful matrix representations of the least degree, satisfying physical conditions, for , given in (12), as a generalized model of , that is, when , given in (3).

It was recommended in Theorem 2, that the commutation relation not to be included in (3), the defining relations of . Also, for need not to be included in (12), the defining relations of .

The faithful representations of , for the special cases, namely, and are discussed in Theorems 5 and 6, respectively, where the field of consideration is . The real representations of both special cases are given in Corollarys 1 and 2, respectively.

The faithful matrix representation of , for the general cases, are given for in Theorem 7. In Corollary 3, the real representation matrices for the generators of are given.

Data Availability

No data were used to support this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to Prof. S. S. Hassan of the University of Bahrain for fruitful discussions and reading the manuscript. The undeniable support of Kuwait University is very much appreciated.

References

M. Tavis and F. W. Cummings, “Exact solution for anN-molecule—radiation-field Hamiltonian,” Physics Reviews, vol. 170, no. 2, pp. 379–384, 1968.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. T. Jaynes and F. W. Cummings, “Comparison of quantum and semiclassical radiation theories with application to the beam maser,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 89–109, 1963.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Steinberg, “Applications of the Lie algebraic formulas of Baker, Campbell, Hausdorff, and Zassenhaus to the calculation of explicit solutions of partial differential equations,” Journal of Differential Equations, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 404–434, 1977.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Dattoli, M. Richetta, G. Schettini, and A. Torre, “Lie algebraic methods and solutions of linear partial differential equations,” Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 2856–2863, 1990.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Dattoli, J. C. Gallardo, and A. Torre, “An algebraic view to the operatorial ordering and its applications to optics,” La Rivista Del Nuovo Cimento Series 3, vol. 11, pp. 1–79, 1988.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. Bashir and M. Sebawe Abdalla, “The most general solution for the wave equation of the transformed Tavis–Cummings model,” Physics Letters A, vol. 204, no. 1, pp. 21–25, 1995.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Schwinger, Quantum Theorey of Angular Momentum, Academic Press, New York, NY, USA, pp. 229–279, 1965.
M. S. Abdalla, S. S. Hassan, A.-S. F. Obada, and H. A. Batarfi, “Phys. Rev. A 34,” Journal of Modern Optics, vol. 40, p. 1351, 1993.
View at: Google Scholar
M. S. Abdalla, “Physica A,” Journal of Modern Optics, vol. 179, p. 131, 1991.
View at: Google Scholar
T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, “Field dependence of the intrinsic domain magnetization of a ferromagnet,” Physical Review, vol. 58, no. 12, pp. 1098–1113, 1940.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A.-M. Hanna, “A deformed Tavis-Cummings model and its matrix representation,” JP Journal of Algebra, Number Theory and Applications, vol. 35, pp. 49–65, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
V. P. Karassiov, “New Lie-algebraic structures in nonlinear problems of quantum optics and laser physics,” Journal of Soviet Laser Research, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 188–195, 1992.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. P. Karassiov, “-invariant polynomial extensions of Lie algebras in quantum many-body physics,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, vol. 27, pp. 153–165, 1994.
View at: Google Scholar
V. P. Karassiov and A. B. Klimov, “An algebraic approach to solving evolution problems in some nonlinear quantum models,” Physics Letters A, vol. 189, no. 1-2, pp. 43–51, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Narayana Swamy, “Interpolating statistics and -deformed oscillator algebras,” International Journal of Modern Physics B, vol. 20, pp. 697–713, 2006.
View at: Google Scholar
J. C. Spreeuw and J. P. Woerdman, “Optical Atoms,” Progress in Optics, vol. 31, pp. 263–319, 1993.
View at: Google Scholar
L. A.-M. Hanna, “On the classification of the Lie algebras Lrs,” Linear Algebra and Its Applications, vol. 370, pp. 251–256, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A.-M. Hanna, M. E. Khalifa, and S. S. Hassan, “On representations of Lie algebras for quantized Hamiltonians,” Linear Algebra and Its Applications, vol. 266, pp. 69–79, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A.-M. Hanna and S. S. Hassan, “On matrix representations of deformed Lie algebras,” Int. J. Theol. Phys., Group Th. and Nonlinear Opt., vol. 13, pp. 137–143, 2010.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Steinberg, “Lie series, Lie transformations, and their applications, Lie methods in optics,” Lecture Notes in Physics, Springer, León, Spain, pp. 45–103, 1986.
View at: Google Scholar
L. Hanna, R. Alharbey, S. Abdalla, and S. Hassan, “Algebraic method of solution of Schrödinger’s equation of a quantum model,” WSEAS Transactions on Mathematics, vol. 19, no. 43, pp. 421–429, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. S. Chung and H. Hassanabadi, “-deformed quantum mechanics based on the -addition,” Advanced Science News, Fortschr. Phys. 1800111, WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, Germany, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Algin, “A comparative study on -deformed Fermion oscillators,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol. 50, pp. 1554–1568, 2011.
View at: Google Scholar
L. A.-M. Hanna, “On representations of Lie algebras of a generalized Tavis–Cummings model,” Journal of Applied Mathematics, vol. 2003, pp. 55–64, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. A.-M. Hanna, “On faithful matrix representations of -deformed Lie algebra for coupled quantized oscillators,” International Journal of Applied Mathematics, IJAM, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1083–1098, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
A. B. Klimov and J. L. Romero, “An algebraic solution of Lindblad-type master equations,” Journal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. S316–S321, 2003.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Latif A -M. Hanna et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

144

Downloads

339

Citations