# Untitled Document

A Phase in a Coherent State Wave Function – Is It Always Irrelevant?   
W. Berej and P. Rozmej   
Theoretical Physics Department, University Maria Curie-Skłodowska, Pl. M.Curie-Skłodowskiej 1, Pl-20031 Lublin, Poland   
E-mail: berej@tytan.umcs.lublin.pl, rozmej@tytan.umcs.lublin.pl   

The coherent states of a harmonic oscillator were first constructed by Schrödinger<sup>1,2</sup> as ”the most classical” states of the oscillator. The properties of these states have been studied in a systematic way by Glauber<sup>3</sup>, who showed their importance for the quantum mechanical treatment of optical coherence and who introduced the name ”coherent state”. The description of the coherent states is now a standard subject in certain textbooks on quantum mechanics<sup>4,5</sup>, monographs on quantum optics<sup>6,7,8</sup> and more specialized texts devoted to coherent states of different kinds<sup>9,10,11</sup>. They were also discussed in many articles in this journal<sup>12</sup>.

As the applications of the coherent states usually do not require the explicit introduction of coordinate variable, the wave function for the coherent state is written down only in some texts<sup>3,5,8,9,10</sup>. However, a phase factor, properly defined at the beginnig of the discussion of the coherent states, is eventually omitted in some sources<sup>3,8,10</sup>. In this note we would like to point out the circumstance in which the knowledge of this unimodular factor in the coordinate representation of the coherent state is essential.

Let’s recall first the basic facts concerning the coherent states<sup>13</sup>. Following Glauber<sup>3</sup>, the coherent state $`|\alpha `$ is conveniently defined as an eigenstate of the harmonic oscillator anihilation operator $`\widehat{a}`$ with complex eigenvalue $`\alpha `$:

$$\widehat{a}|\alpha =\alpha |\alpha .$$
(1)   
Using this definition and its adjoint form, one can calculate the expectation values of the position and momentum

$`\alpha |x|\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`(2\mathrm{}/m\omega )^{\frac{1}{2}}\text{Re}\alpha `$   
$`\alpha |p|\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`(2\mathrm{}m\omega )^{\frac{1}{2}}\text{Im}\alpha .`$ (2)   
It is also not difficult to find the Fock representation of the normalized state $`|\alpha `$ in the basis of states $`|n`$ labelled by the occupation number $`n`$:

$$|\alpha =e^{\frac{1}{2}|\alpha |^2}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\alpha ^n}{\sqrt{n!}}|n,$$
(3)   
where the phase is defined by choosing

$$0|\alpha =e^{\frac{1}{2}|\alpha |^2}.$$
(4)   
In the further discussion of the coherent states one can check their well known properties: they minimize the uncertainty relation and evolve in time, following the motion of a classical oscillator. The effect of the time evolution operator acting on the coherent state $`|\alpha `$ is easily calculated by making use of expansion (3):

$$\mathrm{exp}(iHt/\mathrm{})|\alpha =e^{\frac{1}{2}i\omega t}|\alpha e^{i\omega t},$$
(5)   
i.e. the coherent state remains coherent at all times. One can immediately see that expectation values (2) of the position and momentum in the evolving coherent state carry out a simple harmonic motion.

Property (5) allows one to write down the wave function obeying the Schrödinger equation and the initial condition $`|\psi (0)=|\alpha `$, simply adding the factor with the zero-point energy in the exponent and substituting $`\alpha e^{i\omega t}`$ for $`\alpha `$ in the coordinate representation of the coherent state $`|\alpha `$. However, to exploit this property one must know the full coherent state wave function $`\psi _\alpha (x)=x|\alpha `$ with a proper phase factor defined by condition (4). As we shall see below, the phase depends on the complex number $`\alpha `$ labelling the coherent state and the substitution $`\alpha \alpha e^{i\omega t}`$ makes it time dependent. Therefore, the omission of the phase factor leads to the wave function which is not a solution of the Schrödinger equation. During our study of the dynamics of wave packets<sup>14</sup>, among the cited references<sup>3-12</sup> we found only one text<sup>5</sup> which provides this phase with a detailed derivation<sup>15</sup>.

To the end of this note we derive the needed phase factor starting from definition (1). It is a simple exercise involving calculation of the standard integrals with the Gaussian functions in their integrands, though certain care must be taken because $`\alpha `$ is a complex number. At the same time we shall correct some errors existing in the literature. The eigenvalue problem of Eq. (1) in the coordinate representation is a first-order differential equation for the wave function $`\psi _\alpha (x)`$. Its general solution has the following form:

$$\psi _\alpha (x)=A\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\sqrt{\frac{m\omega }{2\mathrm{}}}x\alpha \right)^2\right],$$
(6)   
where $`A`$ is a normalization constant. Thus, the corresponding probability density has a familiar, Gaussian shape. The normalization condition yields<sup>16</sup>

$$A=\left(\frac{m\omega }{\pi \mathrm{}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{4}(\alpha \alpha ^{})^2+i\varphi \right\},$$
(7)   
where $`\varphi `$ is a real phase to be established from condition (4). Carrying out one more integration, in which the explicit expression for the ground state wave function of the harmonic oscillator is used, one obtains:

$$i\varphi =\frac{1}{4}(\alpha ^2\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}).$$
(8)   
Therefore, the normalized coherent state wave function with a phase factor chosen to ensure (4), may be written as:

$$\psi _\alpha (x)=\left(\frac{m\omega }{\pi \mathrm{}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^2\frac{1}{2}|\alpha |^2\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\sqrt{\frac{m\omega }{2\mathrm{}}}x\alpha \right)^2\right].$$
(9)   
After the introduction of $`\alpha =\alpha _1+i\alpha _2`$, this may be rewritten in a more readable form:

$$\psi _\alpha (x)=\left(\frac{m\omega }{\pi \mathrm{}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\alpha _1\alpha _2\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\sqrt{\frac{m\omega }{2\mathrm{}}}x\alpha _1\right)^2\right]\mathrm{exp}\left(2i\alpha _2\sqrt{\frac{m\omega }{2\mathrm{}}}x\right).$$
(10)   
Finally, one can introduce the expectation values of Eq. (2), for brevity denoted by $`x,p`$:

$$\psi _\alpha (x)=\left(\frac{m\omega }{\pi \mathrm{}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\frac{xp}{2\mathrm{}}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{m\omega }{2\mathrm{}}(xx)^2\right]\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{\mathrm{}}px\right).$$
(11)   
The above epressions may be found in some research papers<sup>17</sup>. We see that the coherent state wave function differs from a Gaussian wave packet with the mean momentum $`p`$ by the phase factor $`\mathrm{exp}\left[ixp/(2\mathrm{})\right]`$ which must be included if the quantum evolution of $`\psi _\alpha (x)`$ is considered and Eq. (5) is used. When for special initial conditions the substitution $`xx_0\mathrm{cos}\omega t,pm\omega x_0\mathrm{sin}\omega t`$ is made in Eq. (11), one immediately obtains the well known wave packet oscillating without change of its shape<sup>18</sup>:

$$\psi (x,t)=\left(\frac{m\omega }{\pi \mathrm{}}\right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{m\omega }{2\mathrm{}}(xx_0\mathrm{cos}\omega t)^2\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[i\left(\frac{1}{2}\omega t+\frac{m\omega }{\mathrm{}}x_0x\mathrm{sin}\omega t\frac{m\omega }{4\mathrm{}}x_0^2\mathrm{sin}2\omega t\right)\right].$$
(12)   
Literature

1. E. Schrödinger, ”Der Stetige Übergang von der Mikro- zur Makromechanik”, Naturwissenschaften 14, 664–666 (1926).
2. See the interesting historical paper: F. Steiner, ”Schrödinger’s Discovery of Coherent States”, Physica B 151, 323–326 (1988).
3. R.J. Glauber, ”Coherent and Incoherent States of the Radiation Field”, Phys. Rev. 131, 2766–2788 (1963).
4. E. Merzbacher, Quantum Mechanics (Wiley, New York, 1970), second edition, pp. 362–370.
5. C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu, and F. Laloe, Quantum Mechanics, Vol. 1, (Wiley, New York, 1978), Complement G<sub>V</sub>.
6. J.R. Klauder and E. Sudarshan, Fundamentals of Quantum Optics, (Benjamin, New York, 1968), Chap. 7.
7. W.H. Louisell, Quantum Statistical Properties of Radiation (Wiley, New York, 1973), pp. 104–110.
8. L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995), Chap. 11.
9. J.R. Klauder and B.-S. Skagerstam, Coherent States. Applications in Physics and Mathematical Physics (World Scientific, Singapore, 1985).
10. A.M. Perelomov, Generalized Coherent States and Their Applications (Springer, Berlin, 1986).
11. W.-M. Zhang, D.H. Feng, and R. Gilmore, ”Coherent States: Theory and Some Applications”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 62, 867–927 (1990).
12. We mention only two of them: P. Carruthers and M.M. Nieto, ”Coherent States and the Forced Harmonic Oscillator”, Am. J. Phys. 33, 537–544 (1965); S. Howard and S.K. Roy, ”Coherent States of a Harmonic Oscillator”, ibid. 55,1109–1117 (1987).
13. Sections III and IV of Glauber’s paper (Ref. 3) contain an excellent discussion of the properties of the coherent states and should be an obligatory reading for anyone interested in this subject. A complete and thorough discussion may also be found in Ref. 5. The authors of this textbook choose as the defining condition of the coherent state the requirement that the mean values $`x,p,H`$ are as close as possible to the classical values.
14. R. Arvieu, P. Rozmej, and W. Berej, ”Time-dependent partial waves and vortex rings in the dynamics of wavepackets”, J. Phys. A 30, 5381–5392 (1997) .
15. The correct phase factor is also given in Ref. 7. However, the order of the reasoning is reversed there: the phase is chosen somewhat arbitrarily and then $`x|\alpha `$ serves as the generating function for oscillator eigenfunctions.
16. The reader of Ref. 3 should be warned that the coherent state wave funcions given by the formula (3.29) of this paper are actually not normalized: the exponential present in our expression (7) is missing there. In the normalization constant written in Ref. 8 there is a sign error in the exponent.
17. For example: M.M. Nieto and L.M. Simmons Jr., ”Coherent States for General Potentials I”, Phys. Rev. D 20, 1321–1331 (1979); S.-J. Chang and K.-J. Shi, ”Evolution and Exact Eigenstates of a Resonant Quantum System”, Phys. Rev. A 34, 7–22 (1986).
18. L.I. Schiff, Quantum Mechanics (Mc-Graw Hill, New York, 1968), third edition, pp. 74–76.