5 Free quantum radiation

In this chapter we shall be using the formalism of Chapter 4 to describe some properties of
the quantized free electromagnetic field, emphasizing the analogies and differences with
classical electromagnetism. The analogies explain why classical optics was so successful,
to the extent that, even though light was not quantized, it was able to describe almost all
known optical phenomena up until the 1970s. The differences highlight typical quantum
behaviour, with no classical equivalent, which lies at the heart of modern quantum optics.
The chapter begins by presenting formal ways of describing the main components of
quantum optics experiments, namely, photodetectors and semi-reflecting mirrors. One can
then understand homodyne detection, used to measure field quadrature components, even
at optical frequencies for which no detector is fast enough to follow the oscillations of the
field itself.
Section 5.2 deals with the quantum vacuum where, in contrast to the classical vacuum,
radiation has properties, in particular, fluctuations, with which one can associate physical
effects.
We then discuss in Section 5.3 some quantum radiation states in the simple case where
a single mode ℓ of the field is excited (non-vacuum). We introduce the idea of a quasi-
classical state, or coherent state, used to make the link with classical optics. We shall
also study other states, those with a definite number of photons, or squeezed states, which
exhibit typically quantum properties, quite inconceivable in classical electromagnetism,
and we shall show how these properties can be understood by reference to the Heisenberg
relations, with an extremely useful graphical representation.
We then discuss multimode states (Section 5.4). It is still possible to define quasi-
classical states to make a link with classical optics in the general case. We also describe a
state containing a single multimode photon, which has no classical equivalent. There is a
very large class of other non-classical multimode states called entangled states. We shall
only outline their definition, leaving explicit examples to the complements.
Returning to the one-photon and quasi-classical multimode states, Section 5.5 contains
a detailed examination of the behaviour of these states in an interferometer. This case study
will help us to understand why classical optics has been so successful, while at the same
time illustrating the need for quantum optics in order to account for phenomena observed
with non-classical states. After tackling the question of a possible wavefunction for the
photon (Section 5.6), we end this chapter by stressing the strength of the quantum optics
formalism, which provides a unified description of both particle and wave aspects of light,
and which lies at the heart of applications of optics to the field of quantum information.
This chapter is rather long, but the issues discussed here are key to the study of quan-
tum optics, and the reader who wishes to get to grips with this field is encouraged to
!
342 Free quantum radiation

neglect none of them. However, for a first reading, Section 5.4 on multimode states could
be skipped. On the other hand, it will be absolutely essential to attend to this section before
moving on to the complements and subsequent chapters.
The ideas introduced in this chapter, and in particular the typically quantum properties
of various non-classical states, are exemplified in several complements. Complement 5A
is devoted to squeezed states. These allow one to carry out measurements with better accu-
racy than would be possible according to the ‘standard quantum limits’. Squeezed states
are likely to considerably increase the range of large gravitational wave interferometers.
Complement 5B develops the quantum formalism for both quasi-classical and one-photon
wave packets. Some of the results in this complement are used in Sections 5.4 and 5.5 of
this chapter. There is also a description of a remarkable two-photon quantum effect: the
coalescence of two one-photon wave packets on a semi-reflecting mirror.
Complement 5C gives a simple but striking example of an entangled state, namely, two
photons with entangled polarizations. This type of state has been used experimentally
to resolve the problem known as the ‘Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox’. By observ-
ing a violation of Bell’s inequalities for pairs of photons prepared in such a state, the
long-standing disagreement between Einstein and Bohr, running since 1935, was finally
decided. Complement 5D describes another striking example of entangled states, namely
the two-mode states, which are formally rather simple, but have intriguing properties.
Finally, Complement 5E turns to a very active field of research, quantum information,
where entanglement is exploited in new ways of processing and transmitting data.

5.1 Photodetectors and semi-reflecting mirrors. Homodyne

detection of the quadrature components

The formalism set up in the last chapter can be used to describe quantized radiation in a
homogeneous space and to determine the result of measurements of the various fields A
(in Coulomb gauge), E or B at the point r. But this formalism is inadequate to describe a
standard optical experiment, where the space is not uniform but contains elements like mir-
rors or semi-reflecting mirrors able to reflect all or part of the incident waves. Furthermore,
in contrast to Hertzian waves where the field detected by an antenna can be visualized on
an oscilloscope, there is still no detector fast enough to measure the fields of visible light,
which oscillate at frequencies greater than 1014 Hz, as a function of time. However, there
are photodetectors sensitive to the average of the square of the electric field. In order to
handle quantum optics experiments, we explain in this section how to describe both pho-
todetectors and semi-reflecting mirrors in the framework of quantum optics. We then apply
these new elements of the formalism to a technique known as homodyne detection, used
to determine the quadrature components of the electric field, even when the detectors are
too slow to monitor the oscillations of the field itself. This section appeals to some results
established later in the chapter, and while the reader might return to this after reading the
whole chapter, it is not recommended to skip it on a first reading.
!
343 5.1 Photodetectors and semi-reflecting mirrors

5.1.1 Photodetection

Photocurrent and count rate. Classical radiation

Photodetectors available at the present time, e.g. the eye, photographic plates, photodiodes,
photomultipliers and CCD cameras, all measure a ‘light intensity’, i.e. the time average of
the square of the electric field. A classical model of photodetection, in which the detector is
quantized but the light is described by a classical electromagnetic field (Chapter 2), shows
that the signal appears in the form of an electric current i(r, t), the ‘photocurrent’, with
average value equal to

i(r, t) = sd |E(+) (r, t)|2 = sd E(−) (r, t) E(+) (r, t). (5.1)

The quantity E(+) (r, t) is the analytic signal (or complex amplitude, see Section 4.3.4) of
the classical electric field and, for a monochromatic wave, E(−) E(+) is the time average
of the square of the field, up to a factor of 2. The detector, assumed very small, is placed
at point r. It is characterized by the sensitivity sd , which depends on the kind of detec-
tor and its size. The average indicated by the overbar must be understood in a statistical
sense, imagining the experiment repeated many times, fluctuations being inherent in the
photoelectric detection process.
At low intensities, photodetectors like photomultipliers or avalanche photodiodes with
very low intrinsic noise can operate in another way. Very short surges of current with a
random distribution are observed, like the ones appearing on a particle counter. These are
isolated events, or ‘clicks’, that can be counted, and this is known as the photon counting
regime. Despite the name, this regime can still be described semi-classically by classical
radiation interacting with a quantum detector, e.g. an ionizable atom placed at point r (see
Complement 2E). The electron released by this process triggers a cascade that can build up
to a detectable macroscopic pulse. Using the Fermi golden rule, the ionization probability
of the atom per unit time is found to be

w(r, t) = s E(−) (r, t)·E(+) (r, t). (5.2)

The quantity w(r, t)dt is the probability of detecting a click near point r, between t and
t + dt. It is equal to the average number of pulses counted between t and t + dt, with the
average being taken over a large number of identical experiments. The sensitivity s in
the counting regime is equal to sd /qe , where qe is the charge on the electron, and sd is

!
the sensitivity of the detector when there is no cascade process (see 5.1).

Comments (i) In the semi-classical model, the fluctuations between successive outcomes are due to the quan-
tum nature of the detector. For a given electromagnetic field, the probability per unit time (5.2)
of producing a charge qe at any point of the detector can be calculated. This is used to find the
average current over the whole surface of the detector, i.e.
!
i = qe d2 r w(r, t). (5.3)
det
!
344 Free quantum radiation

Since the precise moments when the charges are produced have a random distribution, the current
fluctuates, and these fluctuations are modelled by taking into account the fact that the elementary
detectors are quantum and independent.
(ii) If the field has spectral components distributed over a band "ω, the photocurrent i(r, t) and the
photodetection rate w(r, t) vary with a characteristic time that cannot be shorter than 1/"ω.
These variations appear in the product E(−) (r, t)E(+) (r, t). We assume that the detector is fast
enough to monitor these variations. If not, a time average must be taken over a window equal to
the response time of the detector.

Quantized radiation
The above model (a detector atom with a tendency to ionize under the effect of the radia-
tion, together with a cascade process allowing detection of individual photoelectrons) can
be adapted to the case of quantized radiation. The interaction with the detector is described
with the formalism to be discussed in Chapter 6, and it is found that the average count rate
at time t for a detector at r is given by1

w(r, t) = s⟨ψ(t)|Ê(−) (r) · Ê(+) (r)|ψ(t)⟩, (5.4)

where |ψ(t)⟩ is the radiation state at time t, the operator Ê(+) (r) is the positive frequency
part of the electric field observable, and Ê(−) (r) is the Hermitian conjugate. This formula
is clearly the quantum analogue of the semi-classical result (5.2). There are analogous
expressions for more sophisticated quantities. One very important quantity is the probabil-
ity of two simultaneous detections at points r1 and r2 at time t (the double or coincidence
click), given by
" (−) (−) (+) (+)
w (2) (r1 , r2 , t) = s2 ⟨ψ(t)|Êi (r1 )· Êj (r2 )· Êj (r2 )· Êi (r1 )|ψ(t)⟩. (5.5)
i,j=x,y,z

More precisely, w(2) (r1 , r2 , t)dt1 dt2 gives the probability of recording a click at r1 between
times t and t + dt1 and also a click at r2 between times t and t + dt2 . This probability can
be measured with two photodetectors and an electronic circuit working as a coincidence

!
counter.

Comments (i) If the radiation is intense enough, the pulses will overlap and one detects a photocurrent i(r, t)
with average value given by (5.4) up to a multiplicative factor. For its part, expression (5.5)
is replaced by the correlation function i(r1 , t) i(r2 , t), where the overbar indicates a statistical
average over a large number of runs.
(ii) For quantized radiation and an ideal detector, the randomness is related to the quantum nature of
the radiation. There are in fact detectors with quantum efficiency close to 100%, which transform
each photon into an elementary charge with absolute certainty. In this case, the fluctuations in
the current correspond to situations where the number of photons interacting with the detector is
fluctuating (see, for example, Section 5.3.4).

1 See for example CDG II, Complement A .

II