2021
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-83214-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Avoiding gauge ambiguities in cavity quantum electrodynamics

Abstract: Systems of interacting charges and fields are ubiquitous in physics. Recently, it has been shown that Hamiltonians derived using different gauges can yield different physical results when matter degrees of freedom are truncated to a few low-lying energy eigenstates. This effect is particularly prominent in the ultra-strong coupling regime. Such ambiguities arise because transformations reshuffle the partition between light and matter degrees of freedom and so level truncation is a gauge dependent approximation… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

4
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 65 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The optical spectral density is more subtle, depending on the gauge in which the Hamiltonian is derived [50][51][52].…”
Section: Displacement Energymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The optical spectral density is more subtle, depending on the gauge in which the Hamiltonian is derived [50][51][52].…”
Section: Displacement Energymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The former form is usually favoured semi-classically as well as in the context of macroscopic QED [5,24], whereas the latter is more common in cavity and molecular QED [21]. This has naturally caused some confusion over which field to use, resolved by Ackerhalt and Milonni [25], although it has once more come to the forefront of research as this choice (commonly controlled by a gauge choice [3] but not necessarily [26]) re-distributes the energy between matter and field components -something that can lead to gauge ambiguous predictions if energy-dependent approximations are made further along the calculation [27][28][29][30][31]. Regardless, in the context of macroscopic QED, we would like to note that the 'electric' field usually [5] referred to when writing H int = − d • E is, in fact, a type of displacement field.…”
Section: An Argument For a Dual Symmetric Couplingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The former form is usually favoured semi-classically as well as in the context of macroscopic QED [5,24], whereas the latter is more common in cavity and molecular QED [21]. This has naturally caused some confusion over which field to use, resolved by Ackerhalt and Milonni [25], although it has once more come to the forefront of research as this choice (commonly controlled by a gauge choice [3] but not necessarily [26]) re-distributes the energy between matter and field components -something that can lead to gauge ambiguous predictions if energy-dependent approximations are made further along the calculation [27][28][29][30][31]. Regardless, in the context of macroscopic QED, we would like to note that the 'electric' field usually [5] referred to when writing…”
Section: An Argument For a Dual Symmetric Couplingmentioning
confidence: 99%