text:
# Coulomb Blockade in the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect Regime

## Abstract

We use chiral Luttinger liquid theory to study transport through a quantum dot in the fractional quantum Hall effect regime and find rich non-Fermi-liquid tunneling characteristics. In particular, we predict a remarkable Coulomb-blockade-type energy gap that is quantized in units of the noninteracting level spacing, new power-law tunneling exponents for voltages beyond threshold, and a line shape as a function of gate voltage that is dramatically different than that for a Fermi liquid. We propose experiments to use these unique spectral properties as a new probe of the fractional quantum Hall effect.

PACS: 73.23.Hk, 71.10.Pm, 73.40.Hm

Despite enormous theoretical and experimental effort during the past decade, the nature of transport in the fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) regime of the two-dimensional electron gas  remains uncertain. Although chiral Luttinger liquid (CLL) theory  has successfully predicted transport and spectral properties of sharply confined FQHE systems near the center of the $`\nu =1/3`$ plateau , the situation at other filling factors  and in smooth-edged geometries  is poorly understood. This has motivated us to consider a new, alternative probe of FQHE edge states.

In a certain sense, tunneling spectra of single-branch edge states are ultimately measurements of $`g`$, the dimensionless parameter characterizing a CLL that measures the degree to which it deviates from a Fermi liquid, for which $`g=1`$. In particular, the zero-temperature density-of-states (DOS) of a macroscopic CLL varies as $`ϵ^{\frac{1}{g}1},`$ which is responsible for its well-known power-law tunneling characteristics. It is not surprising (and will be established below) that transport through a large quantum dot in the FQHE regime is primarily governed by the DOS of a mesoscopic CLL. We shall show here that this finite-size DOS has a remarkable low-energy structure that depends on $`g`$ in an intricate manner. We therefore propose tunneling through a quantum dot in the FQHE regime as a new probe of edge-state dynamics.

It has been appreciated for some time that transport through a strongly correlated FQHE droplet would be interesting in its own right, and this motivated Kinaret et al. to do their work on the subject. Their work, which mostly focused on the linear response regime and on small system sizes, led to a number of proposed experiments, which have not been carried out yet. We would like to emphasize, however, that the experiments proposed by Kinaret et al., and by us in the present work, although far from routine, should be possible using current nanostructure fabrication techniques.

The main difference between our work and previous work is that we are the first to directly calculate the retarded electron propagator for a mesoscopic CLL, which has required the development of finite-size bosonization methods appropriate for the CLL. As mentioned, this Green’s function has a fascinating low-energy structure, which will be described below. This result has enabled us to map out a considerable portion of the low-temperature phase diagram for transport through a large quantum dot: In the $`\nu =1/q`$ state with $`q`$ an odd integer we predict a remarkable Coulomb-blockade-like energy gap of size $`(q1)\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ,`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ`$ is the noninteracting level spacing. Unlike a conventional Coulomb blockade , however, the energy gap here is precisely quantized. Furthermore, the low-temperature tunneling current scales nonlinearly with voltage as $`V^q`$ at a Coulomb blockade tunneling peak, as one might expect, but as the voltage is increased between these peaks to overcome the Coulomb blockade the current at the threshold varies as $`V^{q+1}.`$ The finite-bias line shape as a function of gate voltage depends nontrivially on $`q`$ and is also dramatically different than that for a Fermi liquid.

The model we adopt here for the quantum dot system is as follows: Two macroscopic $`g=1`$ edge states, L and R, are weakly coupled to a mesoscopic FQHE edge state, D, in the quantum dot, by a tunneling perturbation

$$\delta H=\underset{I=L,R}{}\gamma _\mathrm{I}\psi _\mathrm{I}(x_\mathrm{I})\psi _\mathrm{D}^{}(x_\mathrm{I})+\gamma _\mathrm{I}^{}\psi _\mathrm{D}(x_\mathrm{I})\psi _\mathrm{I}^{}(x_\mathrm{I}).$$
(1)
The edges of the two-dimensional electron gas are assumed to be sharply confined, and the interaction short-ranged (screened by a nearby gate), so that the low lying excitations consist of a single branch of edge-magnetoplasmons with linear dispersion $`\omega =v|k|`$. Although we will be working at zero-temperature, it is assumed that there is a small temperature present to help suppress coherence and resonant tunneling. Finally, the dot should be large enough (a few $`\mu m`$ in circumference) so that the charging energy is smaller than the bulk FQHE energy gap.

What property of the electron gas is probed in a measurement of tunneling through the dot? It is known that the conductance of a simple resistive barrier measures the transmission probability of that barrier, a one-particle property, along with the single-particle Green’s function of the leads, even when there is strong electron-electron interaction. In contrast, transport through a quantum dot containing other electrons generally probes two-particle (and higher order) properties of the dot, even if interactions in the leads are ignored, because the dot itself has its own internal dynamics. However, it is clear that for a large, weakly coupled dot, and small enough currents, an electron can tunnel onto the dot, dissipate energy, and then tunnel incoherently through the second barrier, and in this so-called sequential tunneling limit the resistance will probe the one-particle Green’s function of the dot.

To establish this relationship we write the current from $`L`$ to $`R`$ as

$$I=\underset{N}{}P(N)\left[w_{\mathrm{LD}}(N)w_{\mathrm{DL}}(N)\right],$$
(2)
where $`w_{\mathrm{LD}}`$ and $`w_{\mathrm{DL}}`$ are transition rates to go from $`L`$ to $`D`$ and from $`D`$ to $`L`$, given that there are $`N`$ electrons in the quantum dot, and $`P(N)`$ is the probability that the dot has $`N`$ electrons. The zero-temperature rate from an initial ground state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{N_\mathrm{L}}_\mathrm{L}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^N_\mathrm{D}`$ to final excited states of the form $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha _\mathrm{L}}^{N_\mathrm{L}1}_\mathrm{L}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha _\mathrm{D}}^{N+1}_\mathrm{D}`$ is given by

$$w_{\mathrm{LD}}(N)=2\pi |\gamma _\mathrm{L}|^2\underset{\alpha _\mathrm{L}}{}\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha _\mathrm{L}}^{N_\mathrm{L}1}\left|\psi \right|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^{N_\mathrm{L}}\right|^2\underset{\alpha _\mathrm{D}}{}\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha _\mathrm{D}}^{N+1}\left|\psi ^{}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^N\right|^2\delta \left(E_{\alpha _\mathrm{L}}^{N_\mathrm{L}1}E_0^{N_\mathrm{L}}+E_{\alpha _\mathrm{D}}^{N+1}E_0^NV_\mathrm{L}+V_\mathrm{D}\right),$$
(3)
where $`V_\mathrm{L}`$ and $`V_\mathrm{D}`$ are potential energies produced by gates above $`L`$ and $`D`$. This can be written as

$$w_{\mathrm{LD}}(N)=2\pi |\gamma _\mathrm{L}|^2\mathrm{\Theta }(V)_0^V𝑑ϵA_+^\mathrm{D}(ϵ)A_{}^\mathrm{L}(Vϵ),$$
(4)
where $`V`$ is the electrochemical potential difference between $`L`$ and $`D`$, $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is the unit step function, and

$`A_+(\omega )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{N+1}\left|\psi ^{}\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^N\right|^2\delta \left(\omega +\mu ^NE_\alpha ^{N+1}+E_0^N\right)`$ (5)
$`A_{}(\omega )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\left|\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{N1}\left|\psi \right|\mathrm{\Psi }_0^N\right|^2\delta \left(\omega \mu ^{N1}E_\alpha ^{N1}+E_0^N\right),`$ (6)
where $`\mu ^NE_0^{N+1}E_0^N.`$ The chemical potential in the quantum dot is $`N`$ dependent. With noninteracting leads,

$$w_{\mathrm{LD}}(N)=2\pi |\gamma _\mathrm{L}|^2N_\mathrm{L}(0)\mathrm{\Theta }(V)_0^V𝑑ϵA_+^\mathrm{D}(ϵ),$$
(7)
where $`N_\mathrm{L}(0)`$ is the density of states at the Fermi energy in the left lead. If we define the interacting DOS as $`N(ϵ)\frac{1}{\pi }\mathrm{Im}G(0,ϵ)`$, where $`G(x,t)i\mathrm{\Theta }(t)\{\psi _\pm (x,t),\psi _\pm ^{}(0)\}`$ is the retarded electron propagator calculated in the grand-canonical ensemble with chemical potential $`\mu `$, then for $`ϵ>0`$ it follows that $`A_+(ϵ)=N(ϵ)|_{\mu =\mu ^N}`$.

The dynamics of the mesoscopic CLL is governed by the action ($`g=1/q`$ with $`q`$ an odd integer)

$$S=\frac{1}{4\pi g}_0^L𝑑x_0^\beta 𝑑\tau \left[\pm i(_\tau \varphi _\pm )(_x\varphi _\pm )+v(_x\varphi _\pm )^2\right],$$
(8)
where $`\rho _\pm =\pm _x\varphi _\pm /2\pi `$ is the charge density fluctuation for right (+) or left (–) moving electrons. Momentum space quantization is achieved by decomposing the chiral scalar field $`\varphi _\pm `$ into a nonzero-mode contribution $`\varphi _\pm ^\mathrm{p}`$ satisfying periodic boundary conditions, and a zero-mode part $`\varphi _\pm ^0`$. The bosonized electron field is $`\psi _\pm (x)(2\pi a)^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{iq\varphi _\pm (x)}e^{\pm iq\pi x/L}`$, where $`a`$ is a microscopic cutoff length. In the presence of an Aharonov-Bohm flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\phi \mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ (with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0hc/e`$) the grand-canonical Hamiltonian corresponding to (8) is

$$H=\frac{1}{2g}(N\pm g\phi )^2\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ+\underset{k}{}\mathrm{\Theta }(\pm k)v|k|a_k^{}a_k\mu N,$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ2\pi v/L`$ is the noninteracting level spacing and $`N_0^L𝑑x\rho _\pm `$. At zero temperature,

$$G(x,t)=\frac{i}{2\pi a}\mathrm{\Theta }(t)e^{\pm iq\pi (xvt)/L}e^{iq(\varphi _\pm ^0(x,t)\varphi _\pm ^0(0))}\left(e^{\frac{1}{2}q^2[\varphi _\pm ^0(x,t),\varphi _\pm ^0(0)]}e^{q^2f_\pm (x,t)}+e^{\frac{1}{2}q^2[\varphi _\pm ^0(x,t),\varphi _\pm ^0(0)]}e^{q^2f_\pm (x,t)}\right),$$

where $`f_\pm (x,t)\varphi _\pm ^\mathrm{p}(x,t)\varphi _\pm ^\mathrm{p}(0)(\varphi _\pm ^\mathrm{p}(0))^2.`$ The time-evolution of the zero-mode field under the action of (9) is found to be $`\varphi _\pm ^0(x,t)=\pm 2\pi N(xvt)/Lg\chi +g(\mu \phi \mathrm{\Delta }ϵ)t,`$ where $`[\chi ,N]=i.`$ Then

$$G(x,t)=\pm \mathrm{\Theta }(t)(i/L)^q(\pi a)^{q1}e^{\pm iq\pi (xvt)/L}e^{i(\mu \phi \mathrm{\Delta }ϵ)t}e^{\pm 2\pi iqN(xvt)/L}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{sin}^q[\pi (xvt\pm ia)/L],$$
(10)
where $`N=q^1\mathrm{int}(\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ}\phi )`$. Here $`\mathrm{int}(x)`$ denotes the integer closest to $`x`$. The transform may be written as

$$G(x,\omega )=\frac{i}{\pi v}(\frac{i\pi a}{L})^{q1}e^{\pm 2\pi iq(N+\frac{1}{2})x/L}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t}\mathrm{Im}\left[\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}^q(t\frac{\pi x}{L}i\frac{\pi a}{L})}\right],$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }2[\frac{\omega }{\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ}q(N+\frac{1}{2})+\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ}\phi ].`$ Note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ depends on $`q`$ both explicitly and implicitly through $`N`$. To evaluate (11) we need integrals of the form $`_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{sin}^q(t+\xi i\eta )`$, which we evaluate by using the identity

$$_0^{2\pi }dte^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{sin}^q(t+\xi i\eta )=\frac{(q2)^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{(q1)(q2)}_0^{2\pi }dte^{i\mathrm{\Omega }t}\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{sin}^{(q2)}(t+\xi i\eta ).q>2$$
(12)
After considerable manipulation we obtain

$$G(x,\omega )=\frac{(i\pi a/L)^{q1}}{(q1)!}(1\mathrm{\Omega }^2)(3^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2)\times \mathrm{}\times [(q2)^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2]\times G_0(x,\omega ),$$
(13)
where $`G_0(x,\omega )`$ is the retarded propagator for the noninteracting chiral electron gas, given below. The $`q`$ dependence of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is extracted by writing $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2zq`$, where $`z\frac{\omega }{\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ}+\mathrm{frac}(\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ}\phi )`$ and $`\mathrm{frac}(x)x\mathrm{int}(x)`$. Finally, after using the identity (proved by induction) for $`q`$ an odd integer greater than one,

$`(1\mathrm{\Omega }^2)(3^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2)\times \mathrm{}\times [(q2)^2\mathrm{\Omega }^2]`$ $`=`$ $`[1(2zq)^2][3^2(2zq)^2]\times \mathrm{}\times [(q2)^2(2zq)^2]`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`(2i)^{q1}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{q1}{}}}(zj),`$ (15)
we arrive at the remarkable relation

$$G(x,\omega )=G_0(x,\omega )\times \frac{1}{(q1)!ϵ_\mathrm{F}^{q1}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{q1}{}}\left(\omega \omega _j\right),$$
(16)
where $`ϵ_\mathrm{F}v/a`$ is an effective Fermi energy and where $`\omega _j[j\mathrm{frac}(\frac{\mu }{\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ}\phi )]\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ`$ are the noninteracting energy levels. Whereas in the $`q=1`$ case the propagator has poles at each of the $`\omega _j`$, in the interacting case the first $`q1`$ poles above $`\mu `$ are removed. This effect, which leads to a Coulomb-blockade-type energy gap, is a consequence of the first term in the Hamiltonian (9). At higher frequencies or in the large $`L`$ limit where $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }ϵ,`$ the additional factor becomes $`\omega ^{q1}/(q1)!ϵ_\mathrm{F}^{q1}`$. The polynomial factor in Eqn. (16) is plotted in Fig. 1.

In (9) we have taken the single-particle dispersion to be $`ϵ_\pm (k)=\pm v(k+2\pi \phi /L)`$. The noninteracting chiral propagator is therefore $`G_0(0,\omega )=(1/2v)\mathrm{cot}[\theta (\omega )/2],`$ where $`\theta (ϵ)=2\pi (ϵ/\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ\phi )`$ is the phase subjected to an electron of energy $`ϵ`$ after going around the edge state.

Having obtained the transition rate (7) we turn to a calculation of the probability $`P(N)`$, which satisfies

$$_tP(N)=\underset{I=L,R}{}\left[w_{\mathrm{ID}}(N1)P(N1)+w_{\mathrm{DI}}(N+1)P(N+1)w_{\mathrm{ID}}(N)P(N)w_{\mathrm{DI}}(N)P(N)\right].$$
(17)
The steady-state solution of (17) yields the final result for the tunneling current. For the case $`q=3`$,

$$I=2\pi |\gamma |^2[N(0)]^2\frac{V^2(V\frac{4U^2}{V}[N_\mathrm{G}(n+\frac{1}{2})]^2)^3}{V^2+12U^2[N_\mathrm{G}(n+\frac{1}{2})]^2}\mathrm{when}V>2U|N_\mathrm{G}(n+\frac{1}{2})|,$$
(18)
and is zero otherwise. Eqn. (18) is valid for $`n<N_\mathrm{G}<n+1`$, where the gate charge $`N_\mathrm{G}`$ is the number of positive charges induced by the gate, and for symmetric leads. $`Uq\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ`$ is the quantized charging energy plus the single-particle level spacing.

The $`q=3`$ result (18) clearly exhibits the novel transport properties present at all $`q1`$. The Coulomb blockade boundary, shown as a solid line in Fig. 2, has the familiar diamond shape, but the scale $`U`$ is now quantized in units of $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ`$. It can be shown that the current in a Fermi liquid would be proportional to a term of the form $`V\frac{4U^2}{V}[N_\mathrm{G}(n+\frac{1}{2})]^2`$ alone. The additional structure present in Eqn. (18) describes how the quantum dot becomes a non-Fermi-liquid conductor when threshold is exceeded. Examples of this non-Fermi-liquid behavior are shown in Fig. 2. Along path (i) the current varies as $`V^q`$, as one might naively expect, but on (ii) it varies as $`(VU)^{q+1}`$. The line shape along (iii) depends nontrivially on $`q`$; for $`q=3`$ it varies as $`(14x^2)^3/(1+12x^2)`$, which, surprisingly, is in excellent agreement with the finite-bias numerical results for just 8 electrons. The transport properties at other values of $`q`$ can be determined from Eqn. (16).

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY94-07194, by a Research Innovation Award from the Research Corporation, and by the Swiss National Science Foundation. It is a pleasure to thank Matt Grayson and Marc Kastner for useful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Decoherence in Two Bose-Einstein Condensates

## I Introduction

Recently, much attention has been paid to experimental investigations \[1-7\] and theoretical studies \[8-15\] for systems consisting of two and multi Bose condensates since such systems give rise to a fascinating possibility of observing a rich set of new macroscopic quantum phenomena \[16-20\] which do not exist in a single condensate. Among important macroscopic quantum effects is the quantum coherent atomic tunneling (AT) between two trapped Bose condensates \[15-18\]. Several authors  showed that the AT can support macroscopic quantum self-trapping (MQST) due to the nonlinearity of atom-atom interactions in condensates. As is well known, no system can be completely isolated from its environment. In fact, in current experiments on trapped Bose condensates of dilute alkali atomic gases condensated atoms continuously interact with non-condensate atoms (environment). Interactions between a quantum system and environment cause two types of irreversible effects: dissipation and decoherence . Mathematically, the dissipation and decoherence can be understood in the following way. Let $`\widehat{H}_S`$ and $`\widehat{H}_B`$ be Hamiltonian of the system and environment (bath), respectively, and $`\widehat{H}_I`$ be interacting Hamiltonian between the system and environment. When $`[\widehat{H}_I,\widehat{H}_S]0`$, which implies that the energy of the system is not conservative, the interaction $`\widehat{H}_I`$ describes the dissipation. When $`[\widehat{H}_I,\widehat{H}_S]=0`$, the energy of the system is conservative, so the interaction $`\widehat{H}_I`$ describes the decoherence. The dissipation effect, which dissipates the energy of the quantum system into the environment, is characterized by the relaxation time scale $`\tau _r`$. In contrast, the decoherence effect, which can be regarded as a mechanism for enforcing classical behaviors in the macroscopic realm, is much more insidious because the coherence information leaks out into the environment in another time scale $`\tau _d`$, which is much shorter than $`\tau _r`$, as the quantum system evolves with time. Since macroscopic quantum phenomena in Bose condensates mainly depend on $`\tau _d`$ rather than $`\tau _r`$, the discussions in present paper only focus on the decoherence problem rather than the dissipation effect. To study the decoherence in Bose condensates is not only of theoretical interest but also importance from a practical point of view, since decohering would always be present in any Bose condensate experiments of trapped atoms.

On the aspect of modeling dissipation and decoherence in trapped Bose condensates, some progress \[9,23-26\] has been made. In particular, Anglin  derived a master equation for a trapped Bose condensate by considering a special model of a condensate confined in a deep but narrow spherical square-well potential. In his model the reservoir of non-condensate atoms consists of a continuum of unbound modes obtained by the scattering solutions of the potential well. Making use of the Anglin’s master equation, Ruostekoski and Walls  numerically simulated dissipative dynamics of a Bose condensate in a double-well potential when the condensate is in the atomic coherent states, and shown that the interactions between condensate and non-condensate atoms make the MQST decay away. For a system consisting of two trapped weakly connected Bose condensates, there is quantum coherent AT between two condensates. Questions that naturally arise are, what is the effect of decoherence on the quantum coherent AT ? Does decoherence increase or decrease the AT current between them? In this paper, we analytically study the decoherence problem in two Bose condensate, and investigate the influence of the decoherence on the quantum coherent AT between two trapped Bose condensates in terms of an exactly solvable Hamiltonian. We will present analytic expressions of the population difference (PD) and the AT current between two Bose condensates, and show that the decoherence leads to the PD decay and the suppression of the AT current.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec.II, we present an approximate analytic solution of the system consisting of two Bose condensates with a tunneling coupling without decoherence. In Sec. III, we introduce a decoherence model and apply it to the two-condensate system. we discuss the influence of decoherence the atomic tunneling. Concluding remarks are provided in the last section.

## II Two Bose-Einstein condensates with tunneling coupling

Let us consider a system of two Bose condensates with weak nonlinear interatomic interactions and the Josephson-like coupling. Such a condensate system, in principle, can be produced in a double trap with two condensates coupled by quantum tunneling and ground collisions, or in a system with two different magnetic sublevels of an atom, in which case the two species condensates correspond two electronic states involved. In the formalism of the second quantization, Hamiltonian of such a system can be written as

$$\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_1+\widehat{H}_2+\widehat{H}_{int}+\widehat{H}_{Jos},$$
(1)
$`\widehat{H}_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d𝐱\widehat{\psi }_i^{}(𝐱)[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2m}}^2+V_i(𝐱)`$ (3)
$`+U_i\widehat{\psi }_i^{}(𝐱)\widehat{\psi }_i(𝐱)]\widehat{\psi }_i(𝐱),(i=1,2),`$
$$\widehat{H}_{int}=U_{12}𝑑𝐱\widehat{\psi }_1^{}(𝐱)\widehat{\psi }_2^{}(𝐱)\widehat{\psi }_1(𝐱)\widehat{\psi }_2(𝐱),$$
(4)
$$\widehat{H}_{Jos}=\mathrm{\Lambda }𝑑𝐱[\widehat{\psi }_1^{}(𝐱)\widehat{\psi }_2(𝐱)+\widehat{\psi }_1(𝐱)\widehat{\psi }_2^{}(𝐱)].$$
(5)
Here $`i=1,2`$, $`\widehat{\psi }_i(𝐱)`$ and $`\widehat{\psi }_i^{}(𝐱)`$ are the atomic field operators which annihilate and create atoms at position $`𝐱`$, respectively. They satisfy the commutation relation $`[\widehat{\psi }_i(𝐱),\widehat{\psi }_j^{}(𝐱^{})]=\delta _{ij}\delta (𝐱𝐱^{})`$. $`\widehat{H}_1`$ and $`\widehat{H}_2`$ describe the evolution of each species in the absence of interspecies interactions. $`\widehat{H}_{int}`$ describes interspecies collisions. $`\widehat{H}_{Jos}`$ is the Josephson-like tunneling coupling term. Atoms are confined in harmonic potentials $`V_i(𝐱)(i=1,2)`$. Interactions between atoms are described by a nolinear self-interaction term $`U_i=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_i^{sc}/m`$ and a term that corresponds the nonlinear interaction between different species $`U_{12}=4\pi \mathrm{}^2a_{12}^{sc}/m`$, where $`a_i^{sc}`$ is $`s`$-wave scattering lengths of species $`i`$ and $`a_{12}^{sc}`$ that between species 1 and 2. For simplicity, throughout this paper we set $`\mathrm{}=1`$, and assume that $`a_1^{sc}=a_2^{sc}=a^{sc}`$, $`V_1(𝐱)=V_2(𝐱)`$.

It has been well known that the Hamiltonian (1) can reduce to a two-mode Hamiltonian  by the use of the approximation of the atomic field operators:$`\widehat{\psi }_i(𝐱)=\widehat{a}_i\varphi _i(𝐱)`$, where $`\widehat{a}_i=𝑑𝐱\varphi _i(𝐱)\widehat{\psi }_i(𝐱)`$ are correspondent mode annihilation operators with real distribution functions $`\varphi _i(𝐱)`$ and $`[\widehat{a}_i,\widehat{a}_i^{}]=1`$. Then the Hamiltonian (1) can be reduced to the two-mode Hamiltonian

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _0(\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1+\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2)+q(\widehat{a}_1^2\widehat{a}_1^2+\widehat{a}_2^2\widehat{a}_2^2)`$ (7)
$`+g(\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_2+\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_1)+2\chi \widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2,`$
where $`q`$, $`\chi `$ and $`g`$ are coupling constants which characterize the strength of interatomic interaction in each condensate, interspecies interaction, and the Josephson-like coupling, respectively.

The valid conditions of the two-mode approximation were demonstrated in Ref. which indicate that the two-mode approximation is valid for weak many-body interactions, i.e., for small number of condensated atoms. As shown in Ref., the two-mode approximation should be acceptable for the number of atoms $`N2000`$ if the scattering length typically taken as $`a=5nm`$ for a large trap with the size $`L=10\mu m`$.

We note that the two-mode approximate Hamiltonian has the same form of that of a two-mode nonlinear optical directional coupler . It can not be exactly solved, but a closed analytical solution can be obtained under the rotating wave approximation suggested by Alodjanc et al. . The approximate analytic solution is valid for the weak interactions between atoms, but it sheds considerable light on the AT under our consideration.

In order to obtain an approximate analytic solution of the Hamiltonian (5), we introduce a new pair of bosonic operators:

$$\widehat{A}_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\widehat{a}_1+\widehat{a}_2)e^{igt},\widehat{A}_2=\frac{i}{\sqrt{2}}(\widehat{a}_1\widehat{a}_2)e^{igt},$$
(8)
which satisfy the usual bosonic commutation relation: $`[\widehat{A}_i,\widehat{A}_j^{}]=\delta _{ij}`$. Then the Hamiltonian (5) reduces to the following form

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }\widehat{N}+g(\widehat{A}_1^{}\widehat{A}_1\widehat{A}_2^{}\widehat{A}_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}q[(3\widehat{N}^22\widehat{N})`$ (11)
$`(\widehat{A}_1^{}\widehat{A}_1\widehat{A}_2^{}\widehat{A}_2)^2]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi \widehat{N}^2`$
$`\chi \widehat{A}_1^{}\widehat{A}_1\widehat{A}_2^{}\widehat{A}_2+\widehat{H}^{},`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }=(\omega _0\frac{\chi }{2})`$, the total number operator $`\widehat{N}=\widehat{a}_1^{}\widehat{a}_1+\widehat{a}_2^{}\widehat{a}_2=\widehat{A}_1^{}\widehat{A}_1+\widehat{A}_2^{}\widehat{A}_2`$ is a conservative constant, and $`\widehat{H}^{}`$ is a nonresonant term which oscillates at the frequency $`4g`$ in the sense of the Alodjanc et al.’s proposal . The account of the fast oscillating terms results only in some additional oscillations which play no essential role in the evolution of the measurable quantities specifying the macroscopic quantum phenomena of the two-condensate system, so that the nonresonant term are fully negligible. This is the rotating wave approximation (RWA)in the sense of Ref.. After neglecting the nonresonant term $`H^{}`$, we get the following approximate Hamiltonian:

$`\widehat{H}_A`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }\widehat{N}+g(\widehat{A}_1^{}\widehat{A}_1\widehat{A}_2^{}\widehat{A}_2)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}q[(3\widehat{N}^22\widehat{N})`$ (13)
$`(\widehat{A}_1^{}\widehat{A}_1\widehat{A}_2^{}\widehat{A}_2)^2]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\chi \widehat{N}^2\chi \widehat{A}^{}_1\widehat{A}_1\widehat{A}^{}_2\widehat{A}_2.`$
It is worthwhile noting that the dynamics of the non-RWA Hamiltonian (5) is often chaotic. A detailed investigation on chaotic behaviors in the two-condensate system is beyond the scope of present paper, and will be given elsewhere. Nevertheless, the RWA Hamiltonian (8) is an integrable Hamiltonian whose dynamics is regular, does not exhibit chaos. Hence, the the terms neglected in the RWA lead to chaos when they kept in the two-condensate system. This is very analogous to the case of the Jaynes-Cummings Model (JCM)  which describes the interaction of a two-level atom with a single-mode electromagnetic field in quantum optics. It was well known that the RWA JCM is exactly solvable, but the non-RWA JCM  exhibits chaos. As shown in Ref., the chaos was a consequence of inclusion of terms normally neglected in the RWA.

Obviously, the Hamiltonian $`\widehat{H}_A`$ is diagonal in the Fock space of the ($`\widehat{A}_1`$, $`\widehat{A_2}`$) representation defined by

$$|n,m)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{n!m!}}\widehat{A}_1^n\widehat{A}_2^m|0,0),$$
(14)
where $`n`$ and $`m`$ take nonnegative integers. And we have $`\widehat{H}_A|n,m)=E(n,m)|n,m)`$ with the eigenvalues

$`E(n,m)`$ $`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{q}{2}})(n+m)+g(nm)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(3q+2\chi )`$ (16)
$`\times (n+m)^2{\displaystyle \frac{q}{4}}(nm)^2\chi nm.`$
For simplicity, all calculations below shall be carried out in the ($`\widehat{A}_1`$, $`\widehat{A}_2`$) representation with the basis: $`\{|n,m),n,m=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$, which is related to the ($`\widehat{a}_1`$, $`\widehat{a}_2`$) representation with a set of basis: $`\{|n,m=\widehat{a}_1^n\widehat{a}_2^m/\sqrt{n!m!}|0,0,n,m=0,1,2,\mathrm{}\}`$ through the following relation

$`|n,m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{s=0}{\overset{m}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{[n!m!(nr+s)!(ms+r)!]^{1/2}}{2^{(n+m)/2}(nr)!(ms)!}}`$ (18)
$`\times e^{i(2r3m)\pi /2}|nr+s,ms+r).`$
## III Influence of decoherence on atomic tunneling

We now consider the effect of the decoherence. We use a reservoir consisting of an infinite set of harmonic oscillators to model environment of condensate atoms in a trap, and we assume the total Hamiltonian to be

$`\widehat{H}_T`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{H}_A+{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\omega _k\widehat{b}_k^{}\widehat{b}_k+F(\{\widehat{S}\}){\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}c_k(\widehat{b}_k^{}+\widehat{b}_k)`$ (20)
$`+F(\{\widehat{S}\})^2{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_k^2}{\omega _k^2}},`$
where the second term is the Hamiltonian of the reservoir. The last term in Eq.(12) is a renormalization term . The third term in Eq.(12) represents the interaction between the system and the reservior with a coupling constant $`c_k`$, where $`\{\widehat{S}\}`$ is a set of linear operators of the system or their linear combinations in the same picture as that of $`\widehat{H}_A`$, $`F(\{\widehat{S}\})`$ is an operator function of $`\{\widehat{S}\}`$. In order to enable what the interaction between the system and environment describes is decoherence not dissipation, we require that the linear operator $`\widehat{S}`$ commutes with the the Hamiltonian of the system $`\widehat{H}_A`$. Then, the interaction term in Eq.(12) commutes with the Hamiltonian of the system. This implies that there is no energy transfer between the system and its environment. So that it does describe the decoherence. The concrete form of the function $`F(\{\widehat{S}\})`$, which may be considered as an experimentally determined quantity, may be different for different environment. Therefore, the decohering interaction in (12) can not only describe decoherence caused by the effect of elastic collisions between condensate and non-condensate atoms for a Bose condensate system, but also simulate decoherence caused by other decoherencing sources through properly choosing the operator function of the system $`F(\{\widehat{S}\})`$.

The Hamiltonian (12) can be exactly solved by making use of the following unitary transformation

$$\widehat{U}=\mathrm{exp}[\widehat{H}_A\underset{k}{}\frac{c_k}{\omega _k}(\widehat{b}_k^{}\widehat{b}_k)].$$
(21)
Corresponding to the Hamiltonian (12), the total density operator of the system plus reservoir can be expressed as

$`\widehat{\rho }_T(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i\widehat{H}_At}\widehat{U}^1e^{it_k\omega _k\widehat{b}_k^{}\widehat{b}_k}\widehat{U}\widehat{\rho }_T(0)\widehat{U}^1`$ (23)
$`\times e^{it_k\omega _k\widehat{b}_k^{}\widehat{b}_k}\widehat{U}e^{i\widehat{H}_At}.`$
In the derivation of the above solution, we have used $`\widehat{\rho }_T(t)=\widehat{U}^1\widehat{\rho }_T^{}(t)\widehat{U}`$, where $`\widehat{\rho }_T^{}=e^{i\widehat{H}_T^{}t}\widehat{\rho }_T^{}(0)e^{i\widehat{H}_T^{}t}`$ with $`\widehat{H}_T^{}=\widehat{U}\widehat{H}_T\widehat{U}^1`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }_T^{}(0)=\widehat{U}\widehat{\rho }_T(0)\widehat{U}^1`$, where $`\widehat{\rho }_T(0)`$ the initial total density operator.

We assume that the system and reservoir are initially in thermal equilibrium and uncorrelated, so that $`\widehat{\rho }_T(0)=\widehat{\rho }(0)\widehat{\rho }_R`$, where $`\widehat{\rho }(0)`$ is the initial density operator of the system, and $`\widehat{\rho }_R`$ the density operator of the reservoir, which can be written as $`\widehat{\rho }_R=_k\widehat{\rho }_k(0)`$ with $`\widehat{\rho }_k(0)`$ is the density operator of the $`k`$-th harmonic oscillator in thermal equilibrium. After taking the trace over the reservoir, from Eq.(14) we can get the reduced density operator of the system, denoted by $`\widehat{\rho }(t)=tr_R\widehat{\rho }_T(t)`$, its matrix elements in the ($`\widehat{A}_1`$, $`\widehat{A}_2`$) representation are explicitly written as

$`\rho _{(m^{},n^{})(m,n)}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\rho _{(m^{},n^{})(m,n)}(0)R_{(m^{},n^{})(m,n)}(t)`$ (25)
$`\times e^{i[F(\{S(m^{},n^{})\})F(\{S(m,n)\})]t},`$
where $`F(\{S(m,n)\})`$ is an eigenvalue of the operator function $`F(\{\widehat{S}\})`$ in an eigenstate of $`\widehat{H}_A`$. $`R_{(m^{},n^{})(m,n)}(t)`$ is a reservoir-dependent quantity given by

$`R_{(m^{},n^{})(m,n)}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{i[F^2(\{S(m^{},n^{})\})F^2(\{S(m,n)\})]Q_1(t)}`$ (27)
$`\times e^{[F(\{S(m^{},n^{})\})F(\{S(m,n)\})]^2Q_2(t)},`$
where the two reservoir-dependent functions are given by

$$Q_1(t)=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega J(\omega )\frac{c^2(\omega )}{\omega ^2}\mathrm{sin}(\omega t),$$
(28)
$$Q_2(t)=2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega J(\omega )\frac{c^2(\omega )}{\omega ^2}\mathrm{sin}^2(\frac{\omega t}{2})\mathrm{coth}(\frac{\beta \omega }{2}),$$
(29)
Here we have taken the continuum limit of the reservoir modes: $`_k_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\omega J(\omega )`$, where $`J(\omega )`$ is the spectral density of the reservoir, $`c(\omega )`$ is the correspondeing continuum expression for $`c_k`$, and $`\beta =1/k_BT`$ with $`k_B`$ and $`T`$ being the Boltzmann constant and temperature, respectively.

It is well known that decoherence corresponds to the decay of off-diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix of a quantum system. For the case under our consideration, the degree of decoherence is determined by the decaying factor in Eq.(16). It is interesting to note that if we choose a proper operator function $`F(\{\widehat{S}\})`$ to make $`F(\{S(m^{},n^{})\})=F(\{S(m,n)\})`$ for $`(m^{},n^{})(m,n)`$, then we find that

$$\rho _{(m^{},n^{})(m,n)}(t)=\rho _{(m^{},n^{})(m,n)}(0)$$
(30)
which indicates that the quantum system maintains its initial quantum coherence, namely, the time evolution of decoherence-free of the quantum system is realized. Therefore, we conclude that one can control decoherence by manipulating interaction function $`F(\{\widehat{S}\})`$.

Eqs.(15) and (16) indicate that the interaction between the system and its environment induces a phase shift and a decaying factor in the reduced density operator of the system. We now consider the PD between the two condensates in the presence of the decoherence, defined by $`p(t)N_1(t)N_2(t)`$ with $`N_i=\widehat{a}_i^{}\widehat{a}_i`$. We find that

$`p(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}\sqrt{s(r+1)}|\rho _{(r+1,s1)(r,s)}(0)|`$ (32)
$`\times \mathrm{sin}[\theta _{rs}v_{rs}^{}(tv_{rs}^+Q_1(t))]e^{(v_{rs}^{})^2Q_2(t)},`$
where we have introduced the symbols:

$$\rho _{(r+1,s1)(r,s)}(0)=|\rho _{(r+1,s1)(r,s)}(0)|e^{i\theta _{rs}},$$
(33)
$$v_{rs}^\pm =F(\{S(r+1,s1)\})\pm F(\{S(r,s)\}).$$
(34)
From Eq.(20) we see that if we do not take into account the influence of the decoherence, i.e., set $`Q_1(t)=Q_2(t)=0`$, then we get a expression of the PD between two condensates

$`p(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}\sqrt{s(r+1)}|\rho _{(r+1,s1)(r,s)}(0)|`$ (36)
$`\times \mathrm{sin}(\theta _{rs}v_{rs}^{}t),`$
which implies that the time evolution of the PD is periodic. In particular, if we take $`F(\{\widehat{S}\}=\widehat{H}_A`$, we find that when $`2g/(q\chi )=K`$ ( being an integer), we have a nonzero time-average value of the PD

$`\overline{p}`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}\sqrt{(rK+1)(r+1)}|\rho _{(r+1,rK)(r,rK+1)}(0)|`$ (38)
$`\times \mathrm{sin}(\theta _{rrK+1}),`$
which means that the two-condensate system under our consideration exhibits the MQST  when the decoherence is absent.

The coherent AT current between the two condensates, defined by $`I(t)\dot{N}_1(t)\dot{N}_2(t)`$, is given by

$`I(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}\sqrt{s(r+1)}v_{rs}^{}|\rho _{(r+1,s1)(r,s)}(0)|`$ (42)
$`\times \{(1v_{rs}^+\dot{Q}_1(t))\mathrm{cos}[\theta _{rs}v_{rs}^{}(tv_{rs}^+Q_1(t))]`$
$`+v_{rs}^{}\dot{Q}_2(t)\mathrm{sin}[\theta _{rs}v_{rs}^{}(tv_{rs}^+Q_1(t))]\}`$
$`\times e^{(v_{rs}^{})^2Q_2(t)}.`$
From Eqs.(18), (20) and (25) we can immediately draw one important qualitative conclusion: since $`Q_2(t)`$ is positive definite, the existence of the decoherence is always to tend to suppress the PD and the AT current between the two condensates. This answers the question: “Does the decoherence increase or decrease the AT?”.

From Eqs.(17),(18), (20) and (25) we see that all necessary information about the effects of the environment on the PD and the AT current is contained in the spectral density of the reservoir. To procced further let us now specialize to the Ohmic case  with the spectral distribution $`J(\omega )=\frac{\eta \omega }{c^2(\omega )}e^{\omega /\omega _c}`$, where $`\omega _c`$ is the high frequency cut-off, $`\eta `$ is a positive characteristic parameter of the reservoir. With this choice, at low temperature the functions $`Q_1(t)`$ and $`Q_2(t)`$ are given by the following expressions

$$Q_1(t)=\eta \mathrm{tan}^1(\omega _ct),$$
(43)
$$Q_2(t)=\eta \{\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}[1+(\omega _ct)^2]+\mathrm{ln}[\frac{\beta }{\pi t}\mathrm{sinh}(\frac{\pi t}{\beta })]\}.$$
(44)
Recent experiments  on two condensates have established a typical time scale at which the two condensates preserve coherence. The value of the typical time scale is $`t\dot{=}100ms`$. In the meaningful domain of time $`\omega _ct1`$ which requires $`\omega _c10Hz`$ which can be easily satisfied for an usual reservoir , at zero temperature, we have $`\dot{Q}_1(t)\eta /(\omega _ct^2)`$, and $`Q_2(t)\eta \mathrm{ln}(\omega _ct)`$, then we find

$`p(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}\sqrt{s(r+1)}|\rho _{(r+1,s1)(r,s)}(0)|`$ (46)
$`\times \mathrm{sin}[\theta _{rs}v_{rs}^{}(tv_{rs}^+Q_1(t))](\omega _ct)^{\eta (v_{rs}^{})^2},`$
$`I(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}\sqrt{s(r+1)}v_{rs}^{}|\rho _{(r+1,s1)(r,s)}(0)|`$ (50)
$`\times \{(1{\displaystyle \frac{\eta v_{rs}^+}{\omega _c}}t^2)\mathrm{cos}[\theta _{rs}v_{rs}^{}(tv_{rs}^+Q_1(t))]`$
$`+\eta v_{rs}^{}t^1\mathrm{sin}[\theta _{rs}v_{rs}^{}(tv_{rs}^+Q_1(t))]\}`$
$`\times (\omega _ct)^{\eta (v_{rs}^{})^2},`$
which indicate that the PD and the AT current decay away according to the “power law”, where we have noted that the decaying factors can not be taken outside the summation on the r.h.s. of Eqs.(28) and (29).

At finite temperature, we have $`\dot{Q}_1(t)\eta /(\omega _ct^2)`$, and $`Q_2(t)\eta [\mathrm{ln}(\frac{\beta \omega _c}{2\pi })+\frac{\pi t}{\beta }]`$, so that

$`p(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}\sqrt{s(r+1)}|\rho _{(r+1,s1)(r,s)}(0)|`$ (53)
$`\times \mathrm{sin}[\theta _{rs}v_{rs}^{}(tv_{rs}^+Q_1(t))]`$
$`\times ({\displaystyle \frac{\beta \omega _c}{2\pi }})^{\eta (v_{rs}^{})^2}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\eta (v_{rs}^{})^2\pi }{\beta }}t],`$
$`I(t)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{r}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}\sqrt{s(r+1)}v_{rs}^{}|\rho _{(r+1,s1)(r,s)}(0)|`$ (57)
$`\times \{(1{\displaystyle \frac{\eta v_{rs}^+}{\omega _c}}t^2)\mathrm{cos}[\theta _{rs}v_{rs}^{}(tv_{rs}^+Q_1(t))]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta \pi v_{rs}^{}}{\beta }}\mathrm{sin}[\theta _{rs}v_{rs}^{}(tv_{rs}^+Q_1(t))]\}`$
$`\times ({\displaystyle \frac{\beta \omega _c}{2\pi }})^{\eta (v_{rs}^{})^2}\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \frac{\eta (v_{rs}^{})^2\pi }{\beta }}t],`$
which indicate that at finite temperature the PD decays away according to the “exponential law”, and the decay of the AT current becomes more complicated than that of the PD due to the factor $`(\eta v_{rs}^+/\omega _c)t^2`$ before the cosine function in Eq.(31).

## IV Concluding remarks

We have present a decoherence model which is exactly solvable, and applied it to study decoherence in two Bose condensates. We have indicated that one can control decoherence by manipulating interaction between a quantum system and environment. We have investigated the influence of the decoherence on quantum coherent AT between two trapped Bose condensates with arbitrary initial states, and shown that the decoherence suppresses the PD and the AT current between two condensates. We have obtained analytic expressions of the PD and the AT current and found that for the reservoir-spectral density of the Ohmic case, the PD and the AT current decay away by the “power law” at zero temperature; at finite temperature, the PD decays away by the “exponential law” while the decay of the AT current contains both “exponential-law” and “power-law” components. It is worthwhile to note that our results are obtained for arbitrary initial states of the two condensates, our entire analysis is carried out without invoking the assumption of Bose-broken symmetry which has recently been shown to be unnecessary for a Bose condensate of trapped atoms . Also it should be pointed out that these results are obtained under the RWA in the sense of Alodjanic et al.’s proposal, they are valid for interatomic weak nonlinear interactions in two condensates. The RWA essentially changes the two-condensate system into an integrable system, hence it suppresses the chaotic behaviors of the two-condensate system.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

L. M. Kuang would like to acknowledge the Abdus Salam International Center for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy for its hospitality where part of this work was done. This work was supported in part by the climbing project of China, NSF of China, NSF of Hunan Province, special project of NSF of China via Institute of Theoretical Physics, Academia Sinica.