# Rigorous justification for rotating wave approximation

+ 8 like - 0 dislike
687 views

Whenever I have encountered the rotating wave approximation, I have seen "the terms that we are neglecting correspond to rapid oscillations in the interaction Hamiltonian, so they will average to 0 in a reasonable time scale" as the justification for its use. However, it is not completely clear to me why does this justify that the Hamiltonian that we obtain is a good approximation of the original one, and I was wondering if there is a more rigorous version of the justification, whether it is for a particular system, or in a more general case.

As an example, something that would be a satisfying answer would be a result of the form "If you consider an arbitrary state of the system and any time t large enough, and evolve the system according to the RWA Hamiltonian, we obtain with high probability a state close to the one we would obtain under evolution of the original Hamiltonian". "t large enough", "close" and "high probability" would preferably have some good quantitative description.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-05 16:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user Abel Molina

+ 7 like - 0 dislike

The rotating wave approximation (RWA) is well justified in a regime of a small perturbation. In this limit you can neglect the so-called Bloch-Siegert and Stark shifts. You can find an explanation in this paper. But, in order to make this explanation self-contained, I will give an idea with the following model

$$H=\Delta\sigma_3+V_0\sin(\omega t)\sigma_1$$

being, as usual $\sigma_i$ the Pauli matrices. You can easily work out a small perturbation series for this Hamiltonian working in the interaction picture with

$$H_I=e^{-\frac{i}{\hbar}\sigma_3t}V_0\sin(\omega t)\sigma_1e^{\frac{i}{\hbar}\sigma_3t}$$

producing, with a Dyson series, the following next-to-leading order correction

$${\cal T}\exp\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_0^tH_I(t')dt'\right]=I-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_0^t dt' V_0\sin(\omega t')\sigma_1e^{\frac{2i}{\hbar}\Delta\sigma_3t'}+\ldots.$$

Now, let us suppose that your system is in the eignstate $|0\rangle$ of the unperturbed Hamiltonian. You will get

$$|\psi(t)\rangle=|0\rangle-\frac{i}{\hbar}\int_0^t dt' V_0\sin(\omega t')e^{-\frac{2i}{\hbar}\Delta t'}\sigma_1|0\rangle+\ldots$$ $$=|0\rangle-\frac{1}{2\hbar}\int_0^t dt' V_0\left(e^{i\omega t'-\frac{2i}{\hbar}\Delta t'}-e^{-i\omega t'-\frac{2i}{\hbar}\Delta t'}\right)\sigma_1|0\rangle$$

Now, very near the resonance $\omega\approx2\Delta$, one term is overwhelming large with respect to the other and one can write down

$$|\psi\rangle\approx|0\rangle-\frac{V_0}{2\hbar}t\sigma_1|0\rangle+\ldots.$$

but in the original Hamiltonian this boils down to

$$H_I=V_0\sigma_1\sin(\omega t)\left(\cos(2\Delta t)+i\sigma_3\sin(2\Delta t)\right)$$ $$=\frac{V_0}{2}\sigma_1\left(\sin((\omega-2\Delta)t)+\sin((\omega+2\Delta)t)\right)$$ $$+\frac{V_0}{2}\sigma_2\left(\cos((\omega-2\Delta)t)-\cos((\omega+2\Delta)t)\right)$$ $$\approx \frac{V_0}{2}\sigma_2$$

with all the counter-rotating terms properly neglected with the condition $\omega\approx 2\Delta$ applied. It is essential to emphasize that, as the applied field increases, this approximation becomes even less reliable and it is just the leading order of a perturbation series in a near-resonance regime.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-05 16:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user Jon
answered Nov 30, 2011 by (345 points)
Good ol' fashioned quantum optics experiments like the micromaser sat comfortably in the safe zone with the RWA. However, newer systems such as superconducting quantum circuits live in a much more strongly coupled domain. We have to be more and more careful about how we apply the RWA, and I find that I can only use it as a rule of thumb, or that an RWA provides rather stringent inequalities required to be satisfied before a system behaves in a useful way to me (on paper).

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-05 16:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user qubyte
Good answer overall, but it has to be said that $\omega \approx 2\Delta$ doesn't make sense --- how close do they have to be? My understanding is that it depends on how long you observe it for, i.e. you need $(\omega-2\Delta)t \ll 1$. In practice this time is actually something like the coherence time for the system, which is why @MarkS.Everitt mentioned the SC quantum circuits as a system where the coherence time is much longer.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-05 16:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user genneth
@Jon: perhaps I'm not clear, but the reason I say it doesn't make sense is because they're dimensional quantities; you're going to have to multiply by some time scale to get something to compare to a "natural" number like one.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-05 16:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user genneth
@genneth: I think you should really be looking at something like $\omega/2\Delta \approx 1$, which is dimensionless.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-05 16:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user qubyte
(Very belatedly) Thanks for your answer! Your paper looks interesting as well, it is encouraging to see that people have considered these issues before. There are still a few things that are unclear to me:

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-05 16:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user Abel Molina
No problem. Which one is the "oscillating and bounder" term, then?

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-05 16:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user Abel Molina
@AbelMolina: Near the reasonance you will get a term increasing linearly with time: In $|\psi\rangle$, after performing integration near the resonance, this will go like $V_0\sigma_1t|0\rangle$ while for the other you will get $(e^{4i\Delta t}-1)/4\Delta$. Clearly, the term linear in time will become overwhelming large as time increases with respect to the other.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-05 16:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user Jon
+ 1 like - 0 dislike

I'm completely agree with you both, to invoke the RWA it is mandatory a driving close to resonance, and consider a weak driving strength (weak in comparison with the proper frequency of the system). However, how close? it's a good question. What we need is just consider a detuning which leads to a quasi time-independent behaviour for the propagating terms (for the counter-propagating ones... you already know), it means the detuning should be bounded as: $\delta < 2\Delta$.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-05 16:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user V. Leyton
answered Feb 7, 2012 by (10 points)
As it is, this is not really an answer. At least define the terms in your inline equation please.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-05 16:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user qubyte
I did not want to answer the original question, sorry for that, I should clicked on the comments bottom. I wanted to make a comment to the point 2, where the user genneth brought the point about the bound condition on the detuning. For me Jon's answer was OK, and the initial statement of genneth as well ($(\omega - 2\Delta)t < 1$), but the conclusion $\omega \approx 2\Delta$ is not correct at all. It is clear from Jon's answer the condition &\delta < 2\Delta& to invoke the RWA.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-05 16:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user V. Leyton
Since this is not an answer, please consider placing the content into a comment as originally intended, and then remove this original.

This post imported from StackExchange Physics at 2014-08-05 16:17 (UCT), posted by SE-user qubyte

 Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my answer is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ysi$\varnothing$sOverflowThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.