Arxiv:2009.10662V2 [Quant-Ph] 10 Feb 2021 3

Implications of gauge-freedom for nonrelativistic quantum electrodynamics

Adam Stokes∗ and Ahsan Nazir† Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom

We review gauge-freedom in quantum electrodynamics (QED) outside of textbook regimes. We emphasise that QED subsystems are defined relative to a choice of gauge. Each definition uses different gauge-invariant observables. We show that this relativity is only eliminated if a sufficient number of Markovian and weak-coupling approximations are employed. All physical predictions are gauge-invariant, including subsystem properties such as photon number and entanglement. However, subsystem properties naturally differ for different physical subsystems. Gauge-ambiguities arise not because it is unclear how to obtain gauge-invariant predictions, but because it is not always clear which physical observables are the most operationally relevant. The gauge-invariance of a prediction is necessary but not sufficient to ensure its operational relevance. We show that in controlling which gauge-invariant observables are used to define a material system, the choice of gauge affects the balance between the material system’s localisation and its electromagnetic dressing. We review various implications of subsystem gauge-relativity for deriving effective models, for describing time- dependent interactions, for photodetection theory, and for describing matter within a cavity.

Contents B. gauge-ambiguities and gauge-invariance 23 C. Definition of subsystem gauge-relativity 24 I. Introduction 2 D. Implications 24 E. Gauge-freedom and duality symmetry 25 II. Gauge-freedom and gauge-fixing 3 F. Modal restrictions and transversality 26 A. Single-particle description in standard gauges3 1. Significance of transversality 26 B. Generalisation to many charges6 2. Modal restriction 27 1. Charge distributions6 G. Simple extension to superconducting circuits 28 2. Lattice systems8 C. Local U(1)-phase invariance9 IV. Material truncation and 1. Material wavefunction 10 gauge-noninvariance 29 2. Electromagnetic wavefunctional 10 A. Single dipole interacting with a single cavity D. The gauge-principle and gauge-freedom 11 mode: the Hamiltonian via unitary E. Hamiltonian in gauge g 13 transformations 29 F. Re-emergence of the scalar potential 14 B. Material truncation 30 G. Relation to the particle-based description 15 C. Phase invariance with respect to truncated H. Electric dipole approximation 15 position 32 D. Relating models belonging to different I. Physical nature of the gauge function gT 15 J. Sharing out the constrained degrees of equivalence classes 32 freedom: Regularisation and localisation 16 E. Misidentification of gauge transformations 33 K. Discussion: gauge-fixing, forms of rotation, F. Optimality of truncations 34 forms of coupling, and common pitfalls 18 G. Gauge-ambiguities versus 1. Gauge-freedom and gauge-fixing 18 gauge-noninvariance 35 2. Proof that multipolar and Poincarégauges are identical: Resolution of controversy 18 V. Time-dependent interactions and adiabatic switching 36 arXiv:2009.10662v2 [quant-ph] 10 Feb 2021 3. Dipolar coupling 20 4. Active and passive perspectives of unitary A. Adiabatic switching and a unique invariance rotations 20 property of the S-matrix 37 5. Gauge symmetry transformations versus B. Quantum optical approximations: Mimicking gauge-fixing transformations 21 the S-matrix 38 6. Minimal-coupling 21 1. Toy model: material oscillator and a single mode 38 III. Subsystem gauge-relativity 22 2. Quantum optical master equation 39 A. Quantum subsystem relativity 22 C. Time-dependent interactions and ground state photons 42

VI. Measurements 44 ∗Electronic address: [email protected] A. Conventional photodetection theory and its †Electronic address: [email protected] limitations 44 2

1. Real excitations 45 is, we always know which prediction is relevant. This is 2. Virtual excitations 46 determined by the rest frame of the clock, i.e., it is deter- 3. Discussion 49 mined by the apparatus. Suppose however, that we did B. Localisation and causality 49 not know which prediction matched which experiment. 1. Electromagnetic source-fields in an We would then have encountered an ambiguity. arbitrary gauge 49 In the same way that intervals in space and time can 2. Source-detector-field system 51 only be defined relative to an inertial frame in Minkowski 3. Discussion: Localisation and dressing 51 spacetime, light and matter quantum subsystems can C. Local densities 52 only be defined relative to a gauge-frame in Hilbert 1. Non-local connections between free space. Traditional weak-coupling regimes are gauge- photonic fields 52 nonrelativistic, such that the gauge-relativity of quantum 2. Second-order energy-densities 52 subsystems can be eliminated completely therein, using 3. Discussion 57 standard approximations. We demonstrate this directly D. Cavity QED beyond weak-coupling in Sec.V. Outside of these regimes there are many im- approximations 57 plications of QED’s subsystem gauge-relativity, not only 1. Intra-cavity fields 57 the breakdown of gauge-invariance due to truncating the 2. Weak-measurements 60 material subsystem to a finite number of energy levels [4– 3. Ground state superradiance 61 13]. Gauge-ambiguities have also been discussed in the 4. Extra-cavity fields 63 context of time-dependent interactions [5,7, 10], Dicke- model superradiance [6, 11], and photodection theory VII. Conclusions 64 [10]. Unlike in special relativity, where it is straightforward References 65 to identify which predictions of space and time intervals are relevant in which situations, in QED there are a number of conceptual subtleties regarding the identification I. INTRODUCTION of the most relevant theoretical subsystems. The problem is closely related to the interpretation of virtual processes Extreme light-matter interaction regimes have become and particles, an aspect of light-matter physics that al- an important topic in both applied and fundamental ready possesses a long history of theoretical studies pre- physics. Recent reviews [1–3] have focussed on effective dominantly confined so far to the weak-coupling regime. models and new theoretical methods, which are required Such studies possess significant overlap with the quan- because standard weak-coupling quantum optics cannot tum theory of measurement [14–22] as well as with the be applied. Despite new methods, our understanding identification of local fields and causal signal propagation continues to be based on processes involving real and [23–32]. virtual bare quanta, which can vary significantly with The primary purpose of the present article is to iden- the form of the model considered. Non-standard regimes tify what gauge-ambiguities occur beyond the regimes are precisely where effective models that are only super- traditionally considered in quantum optics and to clar- ficially motivated are liable to fall short. This necessi- ify how they arise. In Sec.II we begin with a peda- tates an appraisal of the fundamental physics within such gogical introduction to gauge-freedom. We then pro- regimes via first principles, as will be the focus of the cur- vide a rigorous derivation of arbitrary gauge (nonrela- rent article. We focus specifically on the implications of tivistic) QED using the principles of modern gauge-field QED’s gauge-theoretic aspects. theory, showing that the implications of gauge-freedom Gauge-freedom in ultrastrong and deep-strong cou- discussed in Secs.IIK onward are a fundamental feature. pling QED has recently been investigated in a number They are not in any way an artefact of approximations or of contexts [4–13]. Its importance lies in the fact that simplifications. In particular, we emphasise that gauge- the fundamental gauge-relativity of QED subsystems can ambiguities arise not because it is unclear how to obtain only be ignored in traditional regimes. This linear-space gauge-invariant predictions, but because it is not always relativity is akin to that encountered in theories of space clear which gauge-invariant subsystems are operationally and time. For example, the time interval ∆tA between relevant. In Sec.IIK we address a number of common two events x and y, as measured by a clock at rest in pitfalls related to gauge-freedom in QED. In particular, frame A does not predict the outcome ∆tB of measur- we provide resolution of recent controversy concerning ing the time between x and y in a co-moving frame B. QED in multipolar form [33–36]. This is only so if the relativistic mixing incurred by the In Sec.III we introduce the notion of subsystem gauge- Lorentz transformation from A to B can be ignored so relativity. We explain its relation to gauge-invariance, that ∆tA ∆tB. Otherwise, we have two different pre- identify the regimes within which it is important, and ≈ dictions, ∆tA and ∆tB, for two different experiments; one discuss its implications. An analysis of these implications in frame A and one in frame B. We do know however, makes up the remaining sections. In Sec.IV we briefly which prediction corresponds to which experiment, that review theoretical background for the implementation of 3 material level truncations [4–9, 12, 13], noting that the re- tremely broad and diverse range of natural and artificial sulting gauge-noninvariance is prosaic, because it can al- systems with numerous interactions that span a large pa- ways be avoided by avoiding the truncation. We empha- rameter space. The accessible regime now stretches far sis the important difference between gauge-noninvariance past the traditional weak, Markovian, and resonant in- and gauge-ambiguities. We review various proposals for teraction regime to which simple atoms in free space are obtaining two-level models, along with their varying de- restricted (Fig.1). gree of accuracy in different regimes, as well as their sig- Dividing composite systems into quantum subsystems nificance for understanding gauge-ambiguities. that emit, absorb and exchange photons, remains the In Sec.V we discuss time-dependent interactions. We basic conceptual framework used to understand light- first review the QED S-matrix formalism, noting that matter physics, but beyond traditional regimes and for subsystem gauge-relativity can be completely ignored highly complex composite systems, new challenges arise, therein due to the adiabatic interaction-switching con- both conceptual and technical. QED’s gauge-freedom dition within its definition. This condition implies the becomes highly significant, because the choice of gauge strict conservation of the bare-energy h where H = h+V controls the physical nature of the adopted theoretical is the full Hamiltonian and where the interaction V is quantum subsystem decomposition. defined as the component that vanishes for vanishing In order to identify and understand the challenges coupling-strength. We show directly that conventional faced we revisit the simple, but general situation, of weak-coupling and Markovian approximations mimic the elementary charged particles interacting with an arbi- S-matrix by enforcing the conservation of h. They trary electromagnetic field. We begin with a pedagog- thereby eliminate subsystem gauge-relativity. In con- ical derivation of nonrelativistic Hamiltonian QED in an trast, it is shown that when describing non-Markovian arbitrary gauge, which serves to illustrate key basic con- and strong-coupling effects subsystem gauge-relativity cepts. Sound developments of nonrelativistic QED can cannot be ignored. The remainder of the article focusses be found in various textbooks (e.g. Refs. [24, 41]). How- on the important implications of this fact. ever, the role and significance of gauge-freedom is less In Sec.VI we consider photodetection theory. We widely understood and has been debated recently [33– emphasise that gauge-ambiguities arise because it is not 36]. This motivates a collation of present understanding always clear that any one definition of “photon” is al- and the provision of a coherent overview. ways the most operationally relevant. For example, the We provide a rigorous derivation of nonrelativistic Coulomb-gauge definition, which uses the transverse elec- QED in an arbitrary gauge according to the principles tric field ET, has recently been adopted in ultrastrong- of modern gauge-field theory. We define the gauge- coupling light-matter physics literature [7, 10]. However, principle, gauge-freedom, gauge symmetry transforma- as has been known for some time, the natural lineshape tions, and gauge-fixing transformations. We identify the prediction has been found to be closer to experiment if theory’s physical degrees of freedom and show that all photons are defined relative to the multipolar-gauge [37– physical predictions are gauge-invariant. Conceptual is- 40]. This definition uses the gauge-invariant transverse sues and common pitfalls are identified and addressed. displacement field DT, which equals the total electric field E away from the source and is therefore local, unlike ET [24–32]. A. Single-particle description in standard gauges We identify how the definitions of the subsystems, as controlled by the choice of gauge, are related to photode- Consider a single charge q with position r bound to tection divergences [14, 15]. We calculate various local a fixed charge q at the origin 0 of our chosen inertial energy-densities, including virtual contributions, in the frame. The charge− and current densities are vicinity of a dipole, and determine the relation between subsystem gauge-relativity and electromagnetic dressing. ρ(x) = qδ(x) + qδ(x r), (1) We extend these considerations to cavity QED beyond − − J(x) = qr˙δ(x r), (2) standard regimes, and discuss how subsystem gauge- − relativity relates to weak-measurements of intra-cavity such thatρ ˙ = J. Note that in quantum theory subsystems and to ground state superradiance. We [r , r˙ ] = 0, so−∇ the expression· for the current must be briefly mention outlook for predictions regarding extra- i j symmetrised,6 J(x) = q[r˙δ(x r) + δ(x r)r˙]/2. For con- cavity fields. Finally, we summarise in Sec.VII. venience, throughout this work− we will− exhibit particle currents in classical form as in Eq. (2). The above fields together with electric and magnetic fields E and B, ex- II. GAUGE-FREEDOM AND GAUGE-FIXING haustively assign material and electromagnetic properties to each event x = (t, x) in spacetime. Gauge-freedom can Quantum electrodynamics is the underpinning theory be understood as a many-to-one correspondence between that describes all physical interactions occurring from the auxiliary mathematical objects used to express the the- atomic scale upwards, until gravitation becomes signifi- ory and the physical observables ρ, J, E, B. It is hailed cant. Modern light-matter physics encompasses an ex- by the occurrence of non-dynamical constraints, B = 0 ∇· 4

(ϕ − ∂t χ[AT], AT + ∇χ[AT]) Driving One-to-one Gauge-fixing χ (ρ, J, E, B) AL = ∇ [AT] Light-matter coupling Many-to-one

ϕ χ χ . . . (ϕ − ∂t χ, AT + ∇χ) . . . (ϕ, AT) . . . ( − ∂t ′, AT + ∇ ′) . . .

(A0, A)

FIG. 2: A schematic representation of gauge-redundancy in electrodynamics. The central potential pair is (φ, AT) (Coulomb-gauge). The blue band represents an uncount- Vibrations able infinity of potential pairs all of which produce the same Losses physical fields, and all of which are related to each other by gauge transformation. Gauge-fixing can be achieved by setting the redundancy that causes this many-to-one correspondence, A , equal to a known functional, χ, of the fixed and FIG. 1: Material systems, such as atoms or molecules, con- L gauge-invariant object A = (∇×)−1B. Afterwards, the map fined within an electromagnetic cavity, which enhances the T between the chosen fixed potential pair and the physical fields light-matter coupling. Internal vibrational interactions may is invertible (one-to-one). The fixed potentials can be written also be strong and non-Markovian. Driving via laser light as known functions of (ρ, J, E, B), while E and B are also may take many forms including the use of ultrafast and strong known functions of the fixed potentials [Eqs. (3) and (4)]. pulses. Losses within such systems may be complex including direct emission to external modes, as well as leakage through the cavity mirrors. The process of gauge-fixing eliminates the mathemati- and E = ρ, which imply redundancy within the formal- cal redundancy within the formalism by specifying all ∇· freely choosable objects as known functions of objects ism. Scalar and vector potentials A0 and A are defined by that cannot be freely chosen (Fig.2). Since the curl of the gradient is identically zero, the transverse vector po- 0 E = A0 A˙ , (3) tential AT is gauge-invariant, that is, if A = A + χ −∇ − 0 ∇ B = A, (4) then AT AT, which cannot be freely chosen. Gauge- ∇ × freedom is≡ therefore the freedom to choose the longitu- which imply that the inhomogeneous Maxwell equations, dinal vector potential AL = χ where A = AT + χ. ∇ ∇ B = 0 and B˙ = E, are automatically satisfied. The Coulomb-gauge is defined by the choice AL = 0, ∇ · −∇ × The inhomogeneous constraint E = ρ (Gauss’ law) such that A = AT. From Gauss’ law E = ρ and ∇ · must be imposed within the theory∇ · while the remaining Eq. (3) it follows that in the Coulomb-gauge the scalar inhomogeneous equation is dynamical E˙ = B J potential A0 coincides with the Coulomb potential (Maxwell-Ampere law). This is an equation∇ of × motion− Z ρ(x0) that must be produced by any satisfactory Lagrangian φ(x) = d3x0 . (8) 4π x x0 or Hamiltonian description. | − | The electric and magnetic fields are invariant under Specifying A = AT and A0 = φ is an example of gauge- the gauge transformation fixing. The other commonly chosen gauge in nonrelativistic A0 = A + χ, (5) electrodynamics is the Poincaré(multipolar) gauge de- 0 ∇ A = A0 ∂ χ (6) 0 − t fined by x A(x) = 0. This is the Coulomb-gauge condition applied· in reciprocal space. More generally, we may where χ is arbitrary. An unconstrained Hamiltonian de- define the arbitrary-gauge potential scription in terms of potentials requires elimination of this redundancy. Recall that the Helmholtz decomposi- Z 1 tion of a vector-field V into transverse and longitudinal Aα(x) = AT(x) α dλ x AT(λx) (9) − ∇ 0 · fields, V = VT + VL, is unique. The transverse and longitudinal components satisfy VT = 0 and VL = 0. where the value of α selects the gauge by specifying AL. Transverse and longitudinal delta-functions∇· (dyadics)∇× are The Coulomb and multipolar-gauges are now simply spe- defined by the non-local conditions cial cases given by α = 0 and α = 1 respectively [4–6]. Z Eq. (9) can be written 3 0 L,T 0 0 VL,T(x) = d x δ (x x ) V(x ). (7) − · Aα = AT + χα (10) ∇ 5 where where ET = A˙ T and − Z Z Z 3 0 0 0 1 3 2 1 3 2 χα(x) = d x gTα(x , x) AT(x ) (11) U(r) + Vself = d x E d x P . (17) · 2 L ≡ 2 L Z 1 0 T 0 2 gTα(x , x) = α dλ x δ (x λx). (12) Here U(r) = q /(4π r ) is the Coulomb energy binding − 0 · − − | | the charges q and q and Vself is the sum of the infinite − For each value of α, all freely choosable objects are known Coulomb self-energies of each individual charge. Eq. (17) is obtained by solving Gauss’ law E = ρ, which yields functions of objects that cannot be freely chosen. More ∇ · precisely, the theory has been expressed entirely in terms EL = PL = φ with φ defined in Eq. (8). We− now assume−∇ that the canonical operators y = of AT (Fig.2), which serves as an elementary dynamical coordinate. Different values of α provide different choices r, AT, p, Π in terms of which we will express the the- {ory, satisfy } of AL as different fixed functionals of the coordinate AT. It is useful to define the polarisation field P by the [ri, pj] = iδij, (18) equation P = ρ, which specifies PL uniquely, but −∇ · 0 T 0 leaves PT an essentially arbitrary transverse field. We [AT (x), ΠT (x )] = iδ (x x ). (19) ,i ,j ij − are free to define the field Pα := PL + PTα where PTα is called the α-gauge transverse polarisation defined by the All other commutators between canonical operators are condition assumed to vanish. Since energy generates translations Z Z in time, the Hamiltonian that we seek must equal the 3 3 total energy expressed in terms of the canonical oper- d x ρ(x)χα(x) = d x PTα(x) AT(x). (13) − · ators; H(y) = E. Given this constraint we must now make suitable ansatzes for the velocities r˙ r˙(y) and It follows from Eqs. (11) and (12) that we may set ≡ A˙ T A˙ T(y). We require that upon substitution into Z the≡ right-hand-side of Eq. (16) our ansatzes define a 3 0 0 0 PT (x) = d x gT (x, x )ρ(x ) α − α Hamiltonian H(y), which yields the correct Maxwell- 1 Lorentz equations when using the Heisenberg equation Z ˙ = r T(x r) = P (x) (14) O = i[O,H] together with Eqs. (18) and (19). αq dλ δ λ α T , − 0 · − Since we wish to provide a Hamiltonian description in an arbitrary gauge we make the arbitrary-gauge minimal- where P := P is the multipolar transverse polari- T T1 coupling ansatzes sation. According to these definitions, in the Coulomb- gauge we have PT0 = 0 and therefore P0 = PL. In the mr˙ = p qAα(r), (20) multipolar-gauge we have − ˙ AT = Π + PTα. (21) Z 1 P1(x) := PT1 + PL = q dλ rδ(x λr). (15) Note that minimal-coupling is not synonymous with − 0 any one gauge, and in particular it is not synony- This field specifies a straight line of singular dipole mo- mous with the Coulomb-gauge despite that the Coulomb- ment density, that stretches from the charge q at 0 to gauge Hamiltonian is often called the minimal-coupling the dynamical charge q at r. − Hamiltonian. This point is discussed in more detail in We now provide a canonical (Hamiltonian) quantum Sec. IIK6. From Eqs. (16), (20), and (21) we then ob- description. Typically this would be derived from a suit- tain able Lagrangian and the gauge would be fixed from the 1 2 outset. However, our only requirement is that the theory E = [p qA (r)] + U(r) + Vself 2m − α produces the correct Maxwell-Lorentz system of equa- Z 1 3 2 2 tions and it can therefore be obtained through a series + d x (Π + PTα) + ( AT) =: Hα(y). of ansatzes. A rigorous and more general derivation of 2 ∇ × arbitrary-gauge QED is given using modern gauge-field (22) theory in Secs.IID-IIF. This defines the arbitrary gauge Hamiltonian Hα, which We proceed by writing down the total energy of the coincides with the one derived in Refs. [4–6]. The CCR system as the sum of kinetic and electromagnetic ener- algebra giving Eqs. (18) and (19) provides an algebraic gies; representation of differentiation, implying that 1 1 Z E = mr˙ 2 + d3x E2 + B2 p qA (r) = im [r,H ] , (23) 2 2 − α − α Z Π(x) + PTα(x) = i[AT(x),Hα]. (24) 1 2 1 3 2 2 − = mr˙ + U(r) + Vself (r) + d x ET + B , 2 2 This shows that the ansatzes in Eqs. (20) and (21) are (16) self-consistent, because they are re-obtained using the 6

Heisenberg equation. It is a straightforward exercise to molecules. The formalism above describes a single hy- verify that Hα does indeed yield the correct Maxwell- drogen atom in which the positive charge q is assumed Lorentz system of equations for any choice of gauge α. fixed (non-dynamical). This is equivalent− to describing It is readily verified that Hamiltonians of different fixed the system using relative and centre-of-mass coordinates gauges α and α0 are unitarily equivalent; instead of the charge coordinates themselves, and assuming that the centre-of-mass is fixed, all centre-of-mass H = R H R† (25) couplings being ignored. The atom is then described us- α0 αα0 α αα0 ing the single coordinate r, which is the position of charge where Rαα0 is called a gauge-fixing transformation and is q relative to the charge q. defined by [4,6, 31, 42, 43] The extension to an− arbitrary fixed neutral atom is Z straightforward. The nuclear charge at 0 is Zq, Z = 3 1, 2, 3, .... There are also Z charges q with positions− r Rαα := exp i d x [PTα(x) PTα (x)] AT(x) µ 0 − 0 · relative to the nucleus. The charge density, current den- = exp ( iq[χ (r) χ (r)]) (26) sity and α-gauge transverse polarisation field are − α − α0 Z Z in which the second equality follows from Eq. (13). We X X ρ(x) = ρn(x) + ρ (x) = Zqδ(x) + q δ(x r ), emphasise that the definition of gauge-freedom contin- µ µ − µ µ=1 µ=1 ues to be the freedom to choose α, which specifies AL. It therefore constitutes the freedom to transform be- (29) tween distinct minimal-coupling prescriptions within the Z Z X X Hamiltonian; J(x) = J (x) = q r˙ δ(x r ), (30) µ µ µ − µ µ=1 µ=1 † Rαα [p qAα(r)] R = p qAα (r) (27) Z 0 − αα0 − 0 X (Π + P ) † = Π + P (28) PTα(x) = PTαµ(x) Rαα0 Tα Rαα Tα0 0 µ=1 Eq. (25) follows from these equations. The effect of the Z Z 1 X T transformation has been the replacement (A , PT ) = α qµ dλ rµ δ (x λrµ) (31) α α → · − µ=1 0 (Aα0 , PTα0 ), which clearly constitutes a gauge transformation from the fixed gauge α to the fixed gauge α0. The reason Eq. (28) occurs is that in Eq. (9) we chose where in the present case of a single fixed neutral atom we have = for all = 1 . to fix the gauge AL as a functional of AT, which gener- qµ q µ , ..., Z ates translations in Π. The gauge-freedom already inher- The total energy of the atom in the Maxwell field is ent in the polarisation field will be discussed further in † † Z Z Sec.IIC2. Note that since Uf(O)U = f(UOU ) for any X 1 2 1 3 2 2 E = m r˙ + d x E + B unitary transformation U, suitably well-defined function 2 µ µ 2 µ=1 f, and operator O, Eqs. (27) and (28) are necessary and Z sufficient to define how arbitrary functions of the canon- X 1 1 Z = mr˙ 2 + V + d3x E2 + B2 (32) ical operators transform under a gauge transformation. 2 µ 2 T We remark that in order to implement the gauge trans- µ=1 formation p qA(r) p q[A(r) + χ(r)] the canon- − → − ∇iqχ(r) −iqχ(r) where for all µ, mµ = m is the bare electronic mass. The ical momentum must transform as e pe = Coulomb energy p q χ(r), which states that r generates translations in p.− This∇ property relies upon the canonical commutation 1 Z V = d3x E (x)2 relation in Eq. (18). Eq. (27) in particular, features the 2 L −iq[χα(r)−χ (r)] gauge-fixing transformation R = e α0 . αα0 Z 2 Z 2 The CCR algebra cannot be supported by a finite- X Zq X q = Vself + (33) dimensional Hilbert space. Thus, retaining only a fi- − 4π rµ 8π rµ rν µ=1 µ6=ν nite number of material energy levels will ruin gauge- | | | − | invariance. Material truncation is discussed in detail in includes the infinite Coulomb self-energies, as well as Sec.IV. the the attractive electron-nucleus and repulsive electron- electron electrostatic interaction energies. Canonical momenta are defined as before by mr˙ µ = B. Generalisation to many charges p q A (r ) and A˙ T = Π + PT with the material µ − µ α µ α canonical commutation relation now being [rµ,i, pν,j] = 1. Charge distributions iδµν δij. The gauge-fixing transformation Rαα0 is again given by Eq. (26) but with PTα defined in Eq. (31). In nonrelativistic QED it is useful to partition the col- The transformation of the material canonical momenta lection of charges into certain groups called atoms and in Eq. (27) now holds for each charge µ and Eq. (28) 7 continues to hold for Π. The α-gauge Hamiltonian is (a) (c) again the energy expressed in terms of canonical operators; Hα(y) = E. Hamiltonians belonging to different q Rζ P ′′ gauges are unitarily related as in Eq. (25). T1 0 Rather than an atom, we may also consider a molecule defined as the grouping of arbitrary charges qµ with { } Rζ qζμ positions rµ in the vicinity of a single fixed point 0. Often (b) 0 this point is assumed to coincide with a fixed molecular PT1ζμ

ζ centre-of-mass [41]. A given subset of positive charges 0 PT1μ R ′ may be assumed to be coincident at a fixed point and PT1ν qμ thereby define an atomic nucleus within the molecule [41]. If relative and centre-of-mass coordinates are intro- qν duced rigorously in terms of the charge coordinates, then the centre-of-mass is an independent dynamical variable FIG. 3: (a) A single-electron atom is described by the theory and it is necessary to introduce equations of constraint in of Sec.IIA. The multipolar polarisation PT1 refers the dy- order to preserve the number of degrees of freedom [44]. namical charge q to the fixed centre 0. (b) A single molecule The theory can be developed along these general lines consisting of charges with values ±q. The multipolar polarisa- allowing centre-of-mass motion and also accommodating tion refers each charge to a fixed centre at 0. The system can non-neutral charge distributions [44]. Here however, we be described using a single Poincaré-gauge-fixingcondition. will confine our attention to neutral charge-distributions (c) A collection of molecules consisting of charges ±q in the vicinity of several fixed points Rζ , R , ... defining distinct in the vicinity of non-dynamical fixed points in space. ζ0 If we consider a single fixed point 0, then the expres- molecules. The multipolar polarisation refers each charge to one of these fixed points. Each centre R now corresponds to sions given above remain valid [45], but with now de- ζ Z a different ζ-Poincaré-gauge-fixingcondition. noting the total number of charges and with the charge density and Coulomb energies now reading

Z Z X X ρ(x) = q δ(x r ) = ρ (x), (34) call the ζ-Poincaré-gaugecondition. The fixed potentials µ − µ µ µ=1 µ=1 obtained from these conditions are different for different Z Z ζ. In general, i.e., for N > 1, multipolar electrodynam- 1 3 2 X qµqν V = d x EL(x) = Vself + . (35) ics constitutes a framework in which the gauge of the 2 8π rµ rν potential to which the distribution couples within the µ6=ν | − | ζ Hamiltonian, is the ζ-Poincaré-gauge,as will be shown The dynamical charges are now not identical, instead below. mµ = m+ or mµ = m− corresponding to charges ⊥ PN q = q. We note that in Ref. [45] the notation E We consider a total of Zζ charges with each µ ± ζ=1 is used for the canonical momentum Π, but it should ζ = 1, ..., N labelling a molecule comprised of Zζ charges − be noted that Π represents the observable ET + PT qµ, µ = 1, ..., Zζ . The charge and current densities are as − α where ET is the transverse electric field. This point is above but with summations over all charges now entailing especially important in applications and is discussed in a partition into separate molecules; more detail from Sec.IIJ onward. In its full generality, multipolar electrodynamics is designed to describe an arbitrary number of molecular N N Zζ charge distributions each localised in the vicinity of a X X X ρ(x) = ρζ (x) = ρζµ(x) different fixed-point Rζ where ζ = 1, ..., N with N the total number of molecules (Fig.3). Whether or not the ζ=1 ζ=1 µ=1 N Zζ multipolar framework defines a choice of gauge for N > 1 X X has been the subject of discussion and is related to con- = qζµδ(x rζµ), (36) − troversy surrounding the nature and validity of the mul- ζ=1 µ=1 tipolar framework in general [33–36]. The relation of the N N Zζ X X X multipolar framework to the Poincarégauge will now be J(x) = Jζ (x) = Jζµ(x) clarified. ζ=1 ζ=1 µ=1 In the above development of the theory the multipo- N Zζ lar formalism is obtained from the Poincarégauge choice X X = q r˙ δ(x r ). (37) x A(x) = 0. This condition can obviously also be written ζµ ζµ − ζµ =1 µ=1 (x· 0) A(x) = 0, an expression intended to signify the ζ importance− · of the fixed distribution centre 0 on the left- hand-side. More generally, we may specify a ζ-dependent gauge-fixing condition (x R ) A(x) = 0, which we may The additional partitioning becomes significant with the − ζ · 8 introduction of the α-gauge transverse polarisation the α = 1 potentials satisfy the ζ-Poincaré-gaugecondi- tions (x Rζ ) A1ζ (x) = 0. More generally, whenever N Zζ − · X X α = 0 the α-gauge coupling involves potentials specified PTα(x) = PTαζµ(x) by6 N distinct gauge-fixing conditions. The single stan- ζ=1 µ=1 dard Poincaré-gaugechoice is obtained when α = 1 and PTαζµ(x) N = 1 and the standard Coulomb-gauge choice is ob- Z 1 tained for any N when α = 0. T = αqζµ dλ (rζµ Rζ ) δ (x Rζ λ[rζµ Rζ ]) The multipolar framework is obviously an equivalent 0 − · − − − formulation to the Coulomb-gauge theory, but in the gen- (38) eral case of arbitrary N, this equivalence is often viewed as distinct to equivalence under gauge transformations in which P (α = 1) is the transverse part of a con- T1ζµ [34, 35]. Clearly gauge-fixing transformations comprise tinuous line of singular dipole moment density stretching only a subgroup of the unitary group, but evidently the from the molecular centre R to the charge ζµ at r . ζ ζµ potentials A are all gauge transformations of A and, The Coulomb-gauge Hamiltonian is independent of the ζα T therefore, of one another. Thus, the freedom to trans- transverse polarisation and is therefore identical to the form from the Coulomb-gauge to the equivalent multipo- α = 0 case of the Hamiltonian for a single fixed-centre at lar framework can be viewed as gauge-freedom. We are 0. The difference is purely superficial in that summations not required however, to gauge transform every charge’s over all charges are now simply arbitrarily subdivided interaction in an identical way, as exemplified by R in as P = PN PZζ . The Coulomb-gauge theory 0α charges ζ=1 µ=1 Eq. (39). does not provide any a priori grouping of charges into lo- Recognition that the multipolar framework results calised distributions. The notions of atom and molecule from gauge transformations possesses the advantage of are made concrete via the multipolar framework, which making clear that the Coulomb-gauge and multipolar is defined by transforming the Coulomb-gauge theory us- frameworks differ only in how they eliminate inherent ing the α = 1 case of the α-generalised Power-Zienau- mathematical redundancy that occurs within the formal- Woolley transformation ism through AL and PT. We view gauge-freedom and Z gauge-fixing in the generalised sense of being nothing less 3 R0α := exp i d x PTα(x) AT(x) . (39) than the occurrence and elimination of such mathemati- − · cal redundancy. Conversely, the physical differences be- This transformation is identical in form to that given tween the Coulomb-gauge and multipolar canonical mo- by the top line of Eq. (26), but PTα is now defined by menta are well-known and these differences therefore im- Eq. (38). It is instructive to write the generator in terms mediately exemplify the impact of gauge-freedom. This of the molecular charge densities as is discussed in detail from Sec.III onward.

Z Z N 3 3 X d x PT (x) AT(x) = d x ρ (x)χ (x) 2. Lattice systems α · − ζ αζ ζ=1 (40) We brieﬂy review here the description of electrons within a crystal lattice in terms of the so-called Peierls where substitution [46–48]. The formalism closely resembles the Z 1 multipolar framework for N separate charge distributions χ (x) = α dλ (x R ) A (R + λ[x R ]). αζ ζ T ζ ζ in which lattice vectors replace the molecular centres Rζ . − 0 − · − (41) The thermodynamic phases of strongly correlated electron systems and their description via the Peierls substi-

We see therefore, that R0α in Eq. (39) is a product of dis- tution is a topic of current interest in cavity QED [49–54]. tinct local gauge transformations acting on each distribu- The significance of gauge-freedom when describing the tion ζ separately, rather than producing a global gauge thermodynamic limits of cavity QED systems has been transformation of all distributions by the same gauge the subject of perennial debate, as is briefly reviewed in function. The ζµ’th material momentum mζµr˙ ζµ = Sec. VI D 3. pζµ qζµAT(rζµ) of the Coulomb-gauge transforms as For simplicity we consider a single electron confined − within an N-site lattice and we will restrict the elec- † R0 [p q AT(r )] R = p q A (r ) (42) tronic excitations to a single-band. Each lattice site is α ζµ − ζµ ζµ 0α ζµ − ζµ αζ ζµ labelled by a position Rl , l = 1, .., N. The free material where Hamiltonian is [47]

2 Aαζ (x) = AT(x) + χαζ (x). (43) p ∇ H = + V (r) (44) m 2m The transformation of the canonical momentum Π continues to be given by Eq. (28). It is easily veriﬁed that where V (r) is the periodic potential provided by the lat- 9 tice. The orthonormal electronic energy eigenfunctions where are Bloch functions labelled by a single reciprocal lattice index k; A1l (r) = AT(r) + χ1l (r) 0 ∇ 0 Z 1 Hmψk(r) = Ekψk(r). (45) = dλ λ(r Rl0 ) B(Rl0 + λ[r Rl0 ]) − 0 − × − A localised Wannier function can be deﬁned for each lat- (54) tice site as 0 1 is the multipolar potential referred to the l ’th site. Ne- X −ik·Rl wl = w(r Rl) = ψk(r)e . (46) glecting this potential is an electric dipole approximation − √N k that assumes AT does not vary appreciably over the extent of (r R ). We then have [ ] = , i.e., the These functions are orthonormal in the sense that w l0 m A1l0 Hm multipolar-gauge− mechanical energyH is the bare material wl wl0 = δll0 where denotes the usual inner-product h | 2 i 3 h·|·i energy, and Eq. (53) becomes on L (R ). The matrix representation of Hm in the site basis is denoted t, viz., − w¯l m[AT] w¯l0 X h Z| H | i Hm = tll0 wl wl0 , tll0 = wl Hm wl0 . 3 iq[χ1l(r)−χ (r)] ∗ 1l0 − | i h | − h | | i = d r e w (r Rl)Hmw(r Rl0 ). l,l0 − − (47) (55)

Introducing coupling to the transverse vector potential iq[χ1l(r)−χ (r)] The phase e 1l0 can be simplified by noting via p p qA (r) in H gives the Coulomb-gauge T m that the magnetic flux threading the loop C = r R mechanical→ energy− l R r, is negligible over the extent of the→ Wannier→ l0 → 1 2 functions, which are localised at the lattice sites. We [AT] = [p qAT(r)] + V (r). (48) Hm 2m − therefore have The Peierls substitution is a matrix transformation of t I Z Rl that gives an approximation of the corresponding matrix 0 = ds AT(s) = χ1l(r) χ1l0 (r) ds AT(s) C · − − R · for [A ]. It makes use of the existence of alternative l0 m T (56) choicesH of free basis states w¯ and w that are defined | li | li to be related by a PZW transformation in which the vec- and so Eq. (55) can be written tor Rl acts as a multipole centre [47]; R Rl − (r) iq R ds·AT(s) iqχ1l l w¯l = e wl (49) w¯l m[AT] w¯l0 = e 0 tll0 . (57) | i Z r | i Z h | H | i 3 qχ1l(r) = q ds AT(s) = d x PT1l(x) AT(x) Substituted into Eq. (52) this yields − Rl · − · (50) R Rl X iq R ds·AT(s) [AT] = e l0 t w¯ w¯ . (58) Hm − ll0 | li h l0 | where l,l0 Z 1 Thus, we see that the Coulomb-gauge Hamiltonian can PT1 (x) = q dλ (r R ) δT(x R λ[r R ]) l − l · − l − − l 0 be obtained by making the Peierls substitution tll0 R Rl → (51) iq R ds·AT(s) e l0 tll within the free Hamiltonian Hm = P 0 is the transverse multipolar polarisation connecting the tll w¯l w¯l . The substitution has been derived − l,l0 0 | i h 0 | l’th lattice site vector Rl to the charge position r. via the PZW transformation and the EDA. It closely re- We can represent the Hamiltonian [AT] in the basis sembles the means by which lattice gauge-field theories Hm w¯l as are defined and understood in terms of Wilson’s parallel | i transport operator [55, 56]. X [AT] = w¯ [AT] w¯ w¯ w¯ . (52) Hm h l| Hm | l0 i | li h l0 | l,l0 C. Local U(1)-phase invariance The matrix elements are computed as The connection between gauge-invariance and local w¯l m[AT] w¯l0 = hZ | H | i U(1)-phase invariance of a material wavefunction was 3 iqχ1l(r) ∗ −iqχ1l (r) d r e w (r Rl) m[AT]e 0 w(r Rl ) first recognised in the context of nonrelativistic wave me- − H − 0 Z chanics by Fock [57] and was firmly established by Weyl 3 iq[χ1l(r)−χ1l (r)] ∗ = d r e 0 w (r Rl) m[A1l ]w(r Rl ) [58]. This important connection now forms the basis for − H 0 − 0 the modern development of gauge-field theories, as will (53) be seen in Sec.IID. Much less well-known however, is 10

0 the application of the local phase invariance principle to where Aµ = Aµ ∂µχ. Thus, requiring local phase the wavefunctional of the free electromagnetic field and invariance implies− the existence of the electromagnetic it’s connection to gauge redundancy in auxiliary material gauge field and dictates how it couples to the charge potentials. q, such that the correct Heisenberg equation of motion Recently, attempts have been made to establish gauge- for the quantum charge coupled to the external field is invariant approximate models within the ultrastrong- obtained. Moreover, this is ensured in any gauge be- 0 coupling regime based on variants of the local phase in- cause the Hamiltonians Hm(A) and Hm(A ) are unitarily variance principle [7, 13] (Sec.IV). This motivates our equivalent; brief consideration now of the connection between local 0 † ˙ † phase invariance and gauge-freedom. We consider the Hm(A ) = Rχ(t)Hm(A)Rχ(t) + iRχ(t)Rχ(t) (64) case of matter interacting with an external electromagnetic field and then we consider an electromagnetic field interacting with external matter. Altogether, this en- 2. Electromagnetic wavefunctional ables us to understand the gauge-freedoms in both AL and PT in terms of local U(1)-phases. A gauge-freedom occurs when expressing the physical material charge and current densities ρ and J in terms of the auxiliary polarisation P and magnetisation M. These 1. Material wavefunction fields are defined by the inhomogeneous Maxwell equations; The nonrelativistic energy of charge q with mass m is 2 Hm = p /(2m) where p admits the representation i ρ = P, J = P˙ + M. (65) when acting on a position-space wavefunction ψ(−t, r∇). −∇ · ∇ × Predictions are invariant under a phase transformation In the absence of any accompanying homogenous ψ eiqχψ where χ C is arbitrary. However, the Maxwell equations the fields P and M are not unique. Schrödingerequation→ is∈ not invariant under a local-phase Specifically, the physical charge and current densities transformation are invariant under a transformation by pseudo-magnetic and pseudo-electric fields as iqχ(t,r) ψ(t, r) e ψ(t, r) Rχ(t)ψ(t, r), (59) → Z ≡ ˙ 3 P P + U, M M U0 U (66) Rχ(t) = exp i d xχ(t, x)ρ(x) . (60) → ∇ × → − ∇ − where U is an arbitrary pseudo-four-potential. The po- Physical invariance of the theory under such a transfor- larisation and magnetisation fields are in turn invariant mation requires the introduction of an external poten- under a gauge transformation U U ∂ χ where χ µ → µ − µ tial A with components (Aµ) = (A0, A) such that A is arbitrary. Since ML does not contribute to either ρ 0 − 0 is physically equivalent to A with components Aµ = or J, only the transverse freedom in P and M is non- A ∂ χ. This is precisely the property held by an elec- trivial. Defining XT = M we see that ρ and J are µ − µ ∇ × tromagnetic potential. The Hamiltonian for the charge invariant under the transformations PT PT + UT and → in the presence of the external electromagnetic field is XT XT U˙ T where UT is arbitrary. In→ the same− way that the gauge-freedom in an external 1 2 Hm(A) = [p qA(t, r)] + qA0(t, r). (61) potential A can be related to the local phase of the ma- 2m − terial wavefunction, it is possible to relate the freedom Since we have already dealt with the coupling of matter in external material potentials PT and XT to the local to the quantised field in Sec.IIA, the minimal-coupling phase of the electromagnetic wavefunctional. The func- replacement p p qA(r) in Eq. (61) is familiar. The tional Schrödingerpicture of quantum field theory [59] is → − additional scalar potential interaction qA0 is necessary much less often employed than the Heisenberg picture, when the electromagnetic field is external. An exam- but it has the advantage of revealing useful structural ple is the electrostatic potential energy V = qA0 due analogies with wave-mechanics, as will be seen in the fol- to an external nucleus. It is easily verified that in the lowing. Heisenberg picture one obtains the Lorentz force law Consider the free electromagnetic field. The electric m¨r = q[E(t, r) + r˙ B(t, r) B(t, r) r˙ /2] where and magnetic fields are transverse, and are fully specified { × − × } E = A0 ∂ A and B = A. in terms of the gauge-invariant transverse potential AT −∇ − t ∇ × If we now define a local phase-transformed wavefunc- by E = ET = A˙ T and B = AT. The energy of the tion, ψ0(t, r) = eiqχ(t,r)ψ(t, r), then we see that field is − ∇ × ˙ 1 Z iψ(t, r) = Hm(A)ψ(t, r) (62) 3 2 2 Hph = d x Π + [ AT] (67) 2 ∇ × if and only if where the momentum Π = ET can be taken to ad- iψ˙ 0(t, r) = H (A0)ψ0(t, r) (63) − m mit the representation Π = iδ/δAT when acting on − 11 configuration-space wavefunctionals ψ[t, AT]. Predic- Maxwell-Ampere Law; E˙ T = B JT. Since we have tions are invariant under a phase transformation ψ already dealt with the interaction∇ × of− the electromagnetic → eiqχψ where χ C is arbitrary. However, the Schrödinger field with quantised matter in Sec.IIA, the coupling via ∈ equation is not invariant under a local-phase transforma- the replacement Π Π + PT in Eq. (75) is familiar. → R 3 tion The additional magnetic interaction d x XT AT = R 3 − · Z d x M B is necessary when the material field is ex- 3 − · ψ[t, AT] exp i d x χ[t, x, AT]ρ(t, x) ψ[t, AT] ternal. → If we now define a local phase-transformed wavefunc- 0 R (t)ψ[t, AT] (68) tional, ψ [t, AT] = R (t)ψ[t, AT] where R is defined in ≡ χ χ χ Eq. (68) and χ is a linear functional of AT, then we see where ρ(t, x) is an external charge density and χ is an that in the Schrödingerpicture arbitrary functional. Physical invariance of the theory ˙ under such a transformation when χ is linear in AT, can iψ[t, AT] = Hph(PT, XT)ψ[t, AT] (76) be ensured via the introduction of transverse potentials (PT, XT) such that JT(t, x) = P˙ T(t, x)+XT(t, x). These if and only if potentials are physically equivalent to (P0 , X0 ) where T T ˙ 0 0 0 0 iψ [t, AT] = Hph(PT, XT)ψ [t, AT] (77) 0 P (t, x) = PT(t, x) + UT(t, x), (69) T 0 0 0 where (PT, XT) and (PT, XT) are related as in Eqs. (69) X (t, x) = XT(t, x) U˙ T(t, x). (70) T − and (70). Thus, requiring local (linear) phase invari- in which ance implies the existence of the external material gauge field and dictates how it couples to the electromagnetic Z 0 3 0 δχ[t, x , AT] 0 field, such that the correct Heisenberg equation of motion UT(t, x) := d x ρ(t, x ) (71) − δAT(x) for the quantum field coupled to the external matter is obtained. Moreover, this is ensured in any gauge be- is determined by the functional χ. Note that the trans- 0 0 cause the Hamiltonians Hph(PT, XT) and Hph(PT, XT) formation of PT in Eq. (69) can be written are unitarily equivalent;

δF (t) 0 0 0 χ Hph(P , X ) PT(t, x) = PT(t, x) + i (72) T T δAT(x) † ˙ † = Rχ(t)Hph(PT, XT)Rχ(t) + iRχ(t)Rχ(t) . (78) where F (t) is defined by R (t) = eFχ(t). This is analo- χ χ We have therefore shown that the gauge-freedom in the gous to the gauge transformation material potentials can be related to U(1)-phase invariance in a way that closely resembles the relation be- 0 ∂Gχ(t) qA (t, r) = qAL(t, r) + i (73) − L − ∂r tween gauge-freedom in the electromagnetic potentials and U(1)-phase invariance. Gχ(t) where Gχ(t) is defined by Rχ(t) = e with Rχ(t) given in Eq. (60). The freely choosable polarisation PT and coordinate AT in Eq. (72) are respectively analogous D. The gauge-principle and gauge-freedom to the freely choosable potential qAL and coordinate r − in Eq. (73). We note however, that in order that JT(t, x) We now provide a rigorous derivation of arbitrary is an external current, i.e., does not explicitly depend on gauge nonrelativistic QED using the principles of mod- AT, it must be the case that the potentials do not depend ern gauge-field theory. Our purpose is to show that the on AT. Therefore χ must be a linear functional of AT; implications of gauge-freedom that will be discussed in Z Secs.IIK onward are a fundamental feature of QED, and 0 3 0 χ[t, x , AT] = d x χ(t, x , x) AT(x) (74) not in any way an artefact of approximations or simpli- · fications. This derivation also shows that gauge-freedom 0 0 is much more general than the one-parameter freedom where χ(t, x , x) = δχ[t, x , AT]/δAT(x) is independent introduced in Sec.IIA. The reader more interested in of AT but otherwise arbitrary. If the Hamiltonian for the electromagnetic field in the applications and implications of the arbitrary-gauge for- presence of external matter is defined as malism may proceed directly to Sec.IIK. We derive the theory of an atom within the quantised Z 1 3 2 2 electromagnetic field. The Lagrangian is defined over Hph(PT, XT) = d x [Π + PT(t)] + [ AT] 2 ∇ × Minkowski spacetime E1,3. With respect to the atomic Z rest frame a vector v E1,3 has components vµ = (v , v). 3 0 d x XT(t) AT (75) We assume a nonrelativistic∈ (Schrödinger)matter-field − · ψ with charge q and without spin. The formalism is easily then it is easily verified that in the Heisenberg-picture extended to include spin and is equally applicable to the we obtain the expected transverse component of the relativistic Dirac-field [31]. The four-current density j 12 has components jµ = (ρ, J) where ρ = qψ†ψ and for a The naive equal-time canonical brackets are [43, 45, 63, free material field J = iq(ψ† ψ ( ψ†)ψ)/2m with m 64] the electronic mass. − ∇ − ∇ ψ(x), ψ†(x0) = δ(x x0), (81) Let be a (Lie) group called the gauge group and let { } − g : E1,3G . The gauge-principle asserts that: [A (x), Π (x0)] = iδ δ(x x0). (82) → G µ ν µν − • The form of electromagnetic and other interactions The constraints Π0 and G = Π + ρ generate trans- should be invariant under the local action of on formations between the redundant∇ · degrees of freedom. 0 G the matter field ψ, written ψ (x) = g(x) ψ(x). In More specifically, the infinitesimal generator G[χ] of a 0 ( ) · QED = U(1) and ψ (x) = eiqχ x ψ(x) where χ is U(1) gauge symmetry transformation S = e−iG[χ] is G χ arbitrary. given by The definition of group action is textbook group theory Z 3 G[χ] = d x [Π0χ˙ + ( Π + ρ)χ] . (83) [60]. In electrodynamics the above requirement is ful- ∇ · filled if the matter-field interacts with a gauge field via the replacement i∂ i∂ + qA made for each µ As is easily verified using Eqs. (81) and (82), Sχ trans- − µ → − µ µ within the material Lagrangian. Here Aµ = (A0, A) forms the matter-field as are the components of the gauge-potential A and− any 0 † iqχ(x) two potentials A and A such that Sχψ(x)Sχ = e ψ(x) (84)

iqA0(x) = g(x)iqA(x)g(x)−1 + g(x)dg(x)−1 and the gauge-potential as = iq[A(x) dχ(x)] (79) S A(x)S† = A(x) dχ(x). (85) − χ χ − are physically equivalent, where d denotes the exterior According to the naive Hamiltonian defined using L derivative [61, 62]. the scalar potential acts as a Lagrange multiplier [64]. 1,3 Mathematically, the classical field ψ : E C is The time evolution of A0 is completely arbitrary and is 1,3 → a section of the trivial bundle E = E C and the restricted to the non-physical subspace, so A0 can be ( ) × phases eiqχ x are identifiable as transition maps on the removed immediately. The constrained degrees of free- 1,3 intersections of open regions in E meaning that the dom AL and A0 will later be seen to emerge in terms of gauge group is the structure group of the bundle gauge-invariant quantities within the final unconstrained G 1 3 [61, 62]. The gauge-potential A is an E , -valued connec- theory. The Hamiltonian-density is now given by tion one-form mapping from the tangent bundle TE1,3 0 [62]. The potentials and are said to be related by 1 † † A A H = (i qA)ψ [( i qA)ψ] + ψ Uψ a gauge symmetry transformation. The spatial replace- 2m ∇ − · − ∇ − ment i i qA is called the minimal-coupling 1 2 2 − ∇ → − ∇ − + Π + ( A) (86) replacement and the gauge-principle asserts that within 2 ∇ × this replacement the longitudinal potential A can be L and gauge symmetry transformations are given by [42] freely chosen. In this sense AL is superfluous, i.e., redundant. A choice of AL fixes the gauge. Z A suitable Lagrangian-density is [24] S = exp i d3x Gχ . (87) χ − i † ˙ ˙ † † 1 2 2 L = ψ ψ ψ ψ (U + qA0)ψ ψ + (E B ) Since G commutes with the Hamiltonian the subspace 2 − − 2 − defined by G is dynamically invariant. The procedure 1 ( i qA)ψ† [( i qA)ψ] (80) for obtaining the unconstrained theory is now given. − 2m − ∇ − · − ∇ − A realization of the algebra of the canonical Maxwell operators A and Π is given on using the representa- where U is an external potential due for example to H nuclei, and where E and B are the electric and mag- tions netic fields. The Lagrangian is degenerate due to gauge- δϕ[A] redundancy, which is implied by the occurrence of non- (Aˆ ϕ)[A] = Aϕ[A], (Πˆ ϕ)[A] = i (88) − δA dynamical constraints C [63, 64]. The Hamiltonian description must therefore{ be} obtained by Dirac’s method where ϕ is a wavefunctional of A and where we have in- [63]. The naive Hamiltonian acts within a space con- troduced hats to distinguish between operators and clas- H taining the physical state space as a proper sub- sical vector fields. Letting AL = χ, we can vary the p ∇ space comprised of vectors ψ suchH that C ψ = 0. wave functional ϕ with respect to χ and make use of | i | i The momentum Π0 conjugate to A0 vanishes identically, Eq. (88) to obtain while the momentum conjugate to A is Π = E, where − δϕ δϕ δϕ E = ET + EL is the total electric field. i = i = i = Πˆ Lϕ = Πˆ ϕ. δχ − ∇ · δ χ − ∇ · δAL ∇ · ∇ · Altogether there are three constraints, which are Π0, ∇ ρ+ Π, (A) where (A) is a gauge-fixing constraint.{ (89) ∇· F } F 13

Using the constraint G a physical state ϕp is therefore labelled by the gauge g. Evidently g is dynamically seen to be such that invariant. A generic element of is H Hg δϕp Z i = ρϕp. (90) 3 δχ − (Ugϕp)[A] = exp i d x χg(x, AT)ρ(x) ϕp[AT]

Solving this equation gives the general form of a physical = ϕ [AT + χ ] =: ϕ [AT] . (97) p ∇ g g ∈ Hg state ϕp [31, 42, 43]; The vector potential operator in the gauge g is defined Z ˆ ˆ ˆ 3 by Ag(x) := AT(x) + χg(x, AT) such that ϕp[A] = exp i d x χ(x)ρ(x) ϕp[AT]. (91) ∇ ˆ (Agϕg)[AT] = (AT + χg)ϕg[AT]. (98) We note that in a similar fashion, had we initially em- ∇ ployed the representation Π0 = iδ/δA0 we would have The unitary transformation from the fixed gauge g to the − 0 immediately found that ϕp does not depend on A0 by fixed gauge g is [31, 43] solving the equation Π ϕ = 0 [43]. 0 p Z In Ref. [42] a unitary gauge-fixing transformation 3 ˆ ˆ Ugg := exp i d x χg(x, AT) χg (x, AT) ρ(x) , yielding the Coulomb-gauge theory is given as 0 − − 0 (99) Z U exp i d3x χˆ(x)ρ(x) (92) ≡ − an example of which is the well known Power-Zienau- Woolley transformation. These transformations are where (ˆχϕ)[A] = χϕ[A] for all ϕ[A]. In the present clearly distinct from the gauge symmetry transforma- context we see clearly that U eliminates the dependence tions Sχ of the original (constrained) theory in that they of the physical state on AL; do not directly transform Ag, with which they commute. It is therefore evident that within Hamiltonian QED the (Uϕp)[A] = ϕp[AT]. (93) single label “gauge transformation” is semantically inad- equate, because transforming to a new gauge requires us This corresponds to choosing the constraint (AL) = AL F to use different mathematical generators depending on for which the physical subspace is such that AL ψ = 0. | i the stage of development of the theory. Before any con- More generally, we can use the transverse vector po- straints are imposed a gauge symmetry transformation tential to specify any other vector potential [31, 43]. S is required whereas in the final unconstrained theory This results from employing the gauge-fixing constraint χ a gauge-fixing transformation Ugg0 is required. The sig- (AL) = AL(x) χ (x, AT) such that on the physical F − ∇ g nificance of this distinction is discussed in further detail subspace; in Sec.IIK.

AL = χ (x, AT) (94) ∇ g where we could, for example, follow Ref. [45] by setting E. Hamiltonian in gauge g Z 3 0 0 0 To obtain the Hamiltonian in the gauge g we simply χg(x, [AT]) = d x g(x , x) AT(x ) (95) · need to determine the effect of Ug on the remaining operators of the theory, namely ψ, ψ† and Π. In so doing in which g is the green’s function for the divergence op- we will resume denoting operators without hats. To find 0 0 erator; g(x, x ) = δ(x x ). The gauge is now set by the transformation of Π it is convenient to define the po- a choice∇ of · transverse green’s− function, which beyond a larisation field Pg such that Pg = ρ. As was seen requirement of sensible mathematical behaviour, is com- −∇ · in Sec.IIC2, the longitudinal part of Pg is unique being pletely arbitrary, but is also non-dynamical and classical. given by PL = φ where φ is defined in Eq. (8), whereas We refer to a specific choice of g as selecting the gauge ∇ T the transverse part PTg is completely arbitrary and is g. The above form of gauge function χg is sufficiently defined by general to yield the standard Coulomb and multipolar- Z 0 gauge descriptions of nonrelativistic QED as special cases 3 0 δχg(x , [AT]) 0 PTg(x) = d x ρ(x ). (100) [45]. − δAT(x) A general unitary gauge-fixing transformation Ug is defined by [31, 42] In particular, choosing χg as in Eq. (95) gives Z Z 3 3 0 0 0 U := exp i d x χˆ(x) χ (x, Aˆ T) ρ(x) . (96) P (x) = d x g(x, x )ρ(x ) (101) g − − g g −

0 0 The physical subspace can be realised as any of the iso- where g = gL+gT with gL(x, x ) = (1/4π x x ) and † 0 −∇ | − | morphic spaces = ψ U : U GU ψ = 0 gT(x, x ) arbitrary. Using Π = iδ/δA = iδ/δAT Hg {| i ∈ gH g g | i } − − − 14 iδ/δAL it is easily verified that for Ug defined in Eq. (96), of the other. The transformations are implemented via we have the canonical momenta ψ†( i )ψ and Π as − ∇ † † † † UgΠUg = Π + Pg (102) Ugg ψ ( i qAg)ψU = ψ ( i qAg )ψ, (108) 0 − ∇ − gg0 − ∇ − 0 † U (Π + PT )U = Π + PT , (109) where Pg = PL + PTg with PTg defined by Eq. (100). gg0 g gg0 g0 The constraint G and the residual gauge transformation S therefore transform as; which generalise Eqs. (27) and (28) respectively. The χ Hamiltonians of different gauges are related by † UgGUg = Π, (103) † ∇ · Hg = Ugg HgU . (110) Z 0 0 gg0 † 3 UgSχU = exp i d x Π χ , (104) g · ∇ The Hamiltonian Hg can be partitioned in a number of illuminating ways. Noting that i qAg is the single- which are both independent of g. The constraint particle mechanical momentum− operator,∇ − the first term † UgGUg ψ = 0 implies that the longitudinal canonical on the top line of Eq. (107) is the material kinetic energy- | i † momentum ΠL vanishes on , i.e., that Π = ΠT such density EKE, while the second term EU := ψ Uψ is the Hg that Π admits the representation Π = iδ/δAT. It also potential energy-density due to the external potential U. − follows that Sχ is the identity on g. Thus, all gauge- Since on g we have E = Π Pg, the term on the redundancy within the state spaceH has been eliminated. second lineH in Eq. (107) is the− electromagnetic− energy- 2 2 Before transformation by Ug the operator Π repre- density EEM := (E + B )/2. The Hamiltonian therefore sented the field E, which implies that in the gauge g represents the total energy in any gauge [31]; − † the operator UgΠU = Π + Pg represents E. Since on g − = = + + (111) we have Π = ΠT, it follows that Hg E EKE EU EEM. Hg • In the gauge g the operator Π represents the field Furthermore, on the space g we have Π = E Pg and Π = 0, so the longitudinalH field E =− P− is E Pg = ET PTg. L L L − − − − uniquely specified as a function of ρ. Thus, the− electro- We will see that in applications this is an especially im- magnetic energy EEM can be partitioned into transverse portant feature of the theory. Hereafter we use sub- and Coulomb components as scripts to denote contravariant indices. The commutator 0 [AT,i(x), Πj(x )] follows from the naive commutator in EEM = VCoul + ETEM (112) Eq. (82); R 3 2 where VCoul = d x : EL : /2 is the Coulomb energy- 0 [AT,i(x), Πj(x )] density, which we have assumed is normally-ordered, and 2 2 Z where ETEM := (ET + B )/2. = d3y δT (x y) [A (y), Π (x0)] = iδT (x x0). ik − k j ij − (105) F. Re-emergence of the scalar potential

Finally, the transformation of ψ by Ug is easily found to be Since we have now fixed AL as AL = χg and we have ∇ also identified that the electric field is E = Π Pg † iq(χ−χg ) − − UgψUg = e ψ. (106) we can identify, up to a constant, the scalar potential φg within the gauge g from its fundamental definition Like Π the fermionic operator ψ is implicitly different in ˙ φg = E Ag. We use this equality and the definition each gauge g. ∇ − − of Ag together with E = Π Pg and PL = EL = φ Having determined all operators in the gauge g we can where φ is the Coulomb-gauge− − scalar potential− (Coulomb∇ now write the Hamiltonian density H in the gauge g as potential) given in Eq. (8), to obtain

1 † † ˙ H = (i qA )ψ [( i qA )ψ] + ψ Uψ φg = (φ ∂tχg) AT + Π + PTg. (113) g 2m ∇ − g · − ∇ − g ∇ ∇ − − 1 2 2 † Thus, we see that φg is fully determined in terms of + : (Π + P ) + ( A ) : = U H U 2 g ∇ × g g g the transverse canonical operators and the matter field. (107) Moreover, from the Hamiltonian Hg we easily find that where we have adopted a normal-ordering of the final ˙ AT = i[AT,Hg] = Π + PTg = ET (114) term and it is understood that H is defined over . − − g Hg Both the longitudinal part of Ag and the transverse part as expected, and using this result together with Eq. (113) of Pg are arbitrary. Within the Hamiltonian a gauge we find that up to a constant transformation of either one of these quantities using Ugg 0 φ = φ ∂ χ , (115) necessarily incurs an accompanying gauge transformation g − t g 15 which is the expected result for the scalar potential cor- The transverse field PT is unaffected. The Hamiltonian responding to the vector potential A = AT + χ . H with density in Eq. (107) can now be written g ∇ g g It is instructive to calculate in the arbitrary gauge g, the equation of motion for the Schrödingeroperator ψ, 1 2 Hg = [p qAg(r)] + U(r) + Vself which should be the Schrödinger equation in the presence 2m − Z of the Maxwell field and the external potential U.A 1 3 2 2 + d x (Π + PTg) + ( AT) (121) straightforward calculation yields the correct result 2 ∇ ×

where, assuming χ as in Eq. (95), we have ˙ 1 2 g iψ = [ψ, Hg] = ( i qAg) + U + qφg ψ. 2m − ∇ − Z 3 0 0 0 (116) A (x) = AT(x) + d x g(x , x) AT(x ), (122) g ∇ · Z Under the local phase transformation 3 0 0 0 PT (x) = d x gT(x, x )ρ(x ). (123) g − −iq(χ −χg ) ψ e g0 ψ, (117) → The theory is simplified further by restricting gT via the Schrödinger equation is unchanged in form but as Eq. (12) in terms of the gauge-parameter α. These sim- required by the gauge-principle the potentials therein are plifications are not approximations, so the theory remains replaced with the gauge-transformed potentials exact and it becomes the theory presented in Sec.IIA. Therein gauge-freedom is the freedom to choose the parameter α which specifies PTα and Aα as in Eqs. (14) φg0 = φg ∂t(χg0 χg), (118) − − and (9) respectively [4–6]. The Hamiltonian Hg in Eq. Ag = Ag + (χg χg). (119) 0 ∇ 0 − (121) becomes Hα given in Eq. (22) and the gauge-fixing

transformation Ugg0 in Eq. (99) becomes Rαα0 in Eq. (26). Eq. (116) reproduces as special cases the Schrödinger Hamiltonians belonging to different gauges are unitarily equations given by Power and Thirunamachandran in related as in Eq. (25). Ref. [65], which were derived from the Coulomb-gauge and multipolar-gauge Hamiltonians, but which were not expressed in terms of the corresponding potentials. We H. Electric dipole approximation have shown that these Schrödingerequations are particular fixed-gauge cases of the expected general result that must be obtained according to the gauge-principle, and The electric-dipole approximation (EDA) of the theory that they are related by a gauge transformation. presented in Sec.IIA can be performed preserving all kinematic and algebraic relations of the theory such that gauge-invariance is also preserved. Considering a dipole centred at the origin 0 the EDA is defined by G. Relation to the particle-based description

χ (r) αr AT(0), (124) α ≈ − · In the nonrelativistic setting where matter is described Aα(r) (1 α)AT(0), (125) by a Schrödinger field rather than a Dirac field there is ≈ − PT (x) αqr δ (x). (126) no anti-matter, so the total material number operator is α,i ≈ j ij a conserved quantity [24]. One can therefore employ an When these approximate equalities are substituted into equivalent description to the field-theoretic description Eq., (22) the α-gauge Hamiltonian in EDA is obtained. derived above, whereby each electron is described using Similarly, the unitary gauge-fixing transformation Rαα0 single-particle canonical position and momentum opera- in Eq. (26) becomes tors r and p such that [ri, pj] = iδij. For a given number of electrons the descriptions are strictly equivalent, but 0 Rαα = exp [i(α α )qr AT(0)] . (127) the particle-based description may be less cumbersome 0 − · when dealing with simple systems. Since unitarity is preserved, so too is gauge-invariance [cf. The field density ρ = qψ†ψ corresponds to the single- Sec.IIIB]. Hamiltonians belonging to different gauges electron density qδ(x r). In Sec.IIA we considered a continue to be unitarily equivalent as in Eq. (25). single-electron atom with− nucleus fixed at the origin such that the charge density is ρ(x) = qδ(x)+qδ(x r). The − − nuclear potential U(x)/q = q/4π x is therefore now I. Physical nature of the gauge function gT included in the longitudinal− electric| field| energy along R 3 with the infinite self-energies Vself = d xV ; Looking toward applications of the formalism so far Z Z developed, we now seek to understand the ways in which 1 3 2 1 3 2 different fixed-gauge formulations of QED differ. The d x EL = d x PL = U(r) + Vself . (120) 2 2 gauge is selected by choosing χg. If χg is restricted in 16 form as in Eq. (95) then the gauge is selected by choos- which from Eqs. (95) and (123) yields ing a concrete transverse function g . The gauge choice T Z directly specifies two basic quantities, A and PT . This 3 X ∗ g g χ (x) = d k α(k)e (k) A˜ T(k)e (k) G˜ 1(k, x) , in turn specifies the physical nature of the canonical mo- g σ · σ · σ menta p and Π, which together with r and AT define (132) the quantum subsystems conventionally termed “matter” Z ∗ 3 X ∗ and “light”. The importance of this fact is the main topic P˜ T (k) = d x α(k)e (k)e (k) G˜ 1(k, x) ρ(x) g − σ σ · of the present article and will be described in detail in σ the remainder of this section (Secs.IIJ-IIIC). (133) To better understand the full scope of the gauge- ˜ freedom we first restrict our attention to gauges of the where G1 is given in Eq. (129). The field χg depends on ˜ form in Eq. (95). It is convenient to introduce the uncon- photonic degrees of freedom through AT and couples to strained function G, which is essentially completely ar- the material momentum p within the Hamiltonian, while ˜ bitrary (not necessarily transverse in the first argument), the field PTg depends on the material degrees of freedom such that through ρ and couples to the photonic momentum Π˜ within the Hamiltonian. Thus, Eq. (131) enables broad X control over the physical nature of the light-matter cou- g˜T(k, x) = e (k)[e (k) G˜ (k, x)] (128) σ σ · pling, because while it is restricted in its x-dependence, σ α(k) = α( k)∗ is essentially arbitrary. As an example, − we will see in Sec.VI that the gauge α(k) = ωm/(ω+ωm) where tildes denote Fourier transforms and where where ωm is a material frequency, is noteworthy. It can eσ(k), σ = 1, 2 are orthonormal vectors spanning the be interpreted as defining a canonical harmonic dipole plane orthogonal to k. It is instructive to consider how that automatically subsumes the virtual photons dress- the present arbitrary-gauge formalism is related to exist- ing the system ground state [4, 14, 15]. It is clear that gT ing fixed-gauge formulations of QED. We have already may be yet more general than those above and further- seen that the two most commonly chosen gauges of non- more, the gauge function χg need not even be restricted relativistic QED can be linearly interpolated between via as in Eq. (95). This broad generality warrants further a parameter α. This amounts to restricting G as study, but will not be considered here.

Z 1 αx −ik·λx G˜ (k, x) = αG˜ 1(k, x) = dλ e α p 3 J. Sharing out the constrained degrees of freedom: − (2π) 0 Regularisation and localisation (129) The choice of G determines the physical meaning of where now only the parameter α is freely choosable. The the canonical degrees of freedom. To see how, we will fo- multipolar-gauge α = 1 specifies a singular polarisation cus on the simple choices given by Eqs. (129) and (130). PT1, which is often regularised at small distances [24, Let us first consider the simple “unregularised” one- 66, 67]. This is achieved through the introduction of a parameter gauges whereby Gα is defined by Eq. (129). Lorentzian with frequency cut-off kM as First we consider the vector potential Aα and the momentum p determined physically by Aα. According to −1 αx k2 Z 1 Eq. (9) Aα is a function of A0 = AT = ( ) B, so it G˜ (k, x) = M dλ e−ik·λx. (130) can be expressed as a convex sum of the extremal∇× poten- αM p 3 2 2 − (2π) k + kM 0 tials A0 and A1;

For finite the field P is no longer singular at 0. Aα(x) = (1 α)A0(x) + αA1(x) kM Tα − If PL is similarly regularised then for α = 1 the ensuing Z 0 0 Z 1 3 0 (1 α) B(x ) total polarisation P1 is no longer point-localised, but ex- = d x − ∇ × 0 α dλ λx B(λx). 4π x x − 0 × ponentially localised instead. Our treatment shows that | − | (134) this regularisation of PTα actually constitutes a choice of gauge, that is, we now have a two-parameter gauge func- Eq. (134) shows that the potential Aα(r), as appears tion uniquely specified by a gauge vector (α, kM ). Only in the Hamiltonian, is non-local in any gauge, but it is for α = 0 do we have PTα = 0 and χ0 = 0, such that most localised in the multipolar-gauge, α = 1, because all regularisation of P has no effect on the Hamiltonian. T points x for which A1(r) depends on the local field B(x) More generally, we may simply let are inside the atom; x r . More precisely, A1(r) depends on B only at points| | ≤ on | | the straight line connecting ∗ Z 1 0 to r. The value of α within the vector potential Aα, dic- ˜ α(k) x −ik·λx G{ }(k, x) = dλ e , (131) tates the balance between this local contribution and the α p 3 − (2 ) 0 0 π non-local contribution (1 α)A0 given by the x integral − 17 in Eq. (134). Note that the quantity qA0(r) = qAT(r) is P1(x) = qrδ(x) where qr is the dipole moment. Within the momentum associated with the longitudinal electric the fixed gauge α, the field canonical momentum operator field of the charge q at r, viz. [24] is defined by Π = ET αPT1 = ET αEL where the second equality holds− for− x = 0.− Thus,− the value of α Z 6 3 controls the extent to which the canonical pair AT, Π , Klong := d x ELr B = qAT(r) (135) { } × includes the electrostatic field EL = E ET. For α = 0 − −1 we have Π = ET, so EL is completely absent from the where ELr(x) := q (4π x r ) , consistent with field canonical− degrees of freedom. For α = 1 we have Eq. (134). − ∇ | − | Π = E for x = 0, so the situation is reversed; EL is To see most clearly how Aα determines the physical fully included− in6 the field canonical degrees of freedom nature of p, which defines the canonical atom, we make for all x = 0. the EDA 6 Having determined both Aα and PTα and both mo- ˜ αr menta p and Π, we see clearly that the gauge α controls Gα(k, r) p , (136) ≈ − (2π)3 the weight with which the field EL is shared between the two canonical pairs AT, Π and r, p . For α = 1 the which implies static field is fully included{ in} the field{ canonical} subsystem and the dipole is “bare”. It should be noted that this Z 1 is only true at dipole order. For α = 0 the dipole is fully Aα(r) := AT(r) α r dλ r AT(λr) − ∇ 0 · dressed by EL and the field is purely transverse. This A (0) α [r A (0)] = (1 α)A (0). holds beyond the EDA, but the condition x = 0 must T r T T 6 ≈ − ∇ · − (137) be replaced by x > r specifying all points outside the | | | | atom. The field EL has been constrained by Gauss’ law According to Eq. (137), the multipolar vector poten- which is what implied gauge-redundancy; EL is shared tial at the position of the dipole, A1(0), vanishes at out differently for different choices of gauge α. This dipole order. The dipole canonical momentum is defined field lies at the heart of gauge-ambiguities in ultrastrong by p = mr˙ + qAα(0) where Aα(0) = (1 α)AT(0) coupling QED. For example, the relation of electrostatic [Eq. (137)]. For α = 1 we have p = mr˙,− such that dressing to localisation and causality is discussed in the EL makes no contribution to the canonical pair r, p , context of photodetection theory in Sec.V. which is therefore “bare”. For α = 0, the momentum{ } We can also consider the regularisation of the above p = mr˙ + Klong is fully dressed by ELr. Thus, the gauge theory at short distances around the distribution centre α controls the extent to which the canonical dipole is 0 using GαM in Eq. (130), which within the EDA is dressed by the electrostatic field of the dynamical charge at r. αr k2 q G˜ (k, r) M . (139) αM p 3 2 2 Let us now repeat the above analysis in the case of ≈ − (2π) k + kM the other quantity that is determined by the gauge α, namely PTα. We will then see how this quantity de- The transverse (α, kM )-gauge polarisation within the termines the second canonical momentum Π. The to- EDA is therefore tal -gauge polarisation is P = P + P , where α α L α T1 T PT (x) = αqr δ (x) (140) PL = EL = P0 defines the non-local Coulomb-gauge αM · M polarisation− and where P is the transverse part of the T1 T multipolar polarisation. The total multipolar polarisa- where δM (x) denotes the regularised transverse delta- function [24] tion P1 is given in Eq. (15), showing that it is a line integral that vanishes at all points x not on the straight 2 β(x) line that connects 0 to r. Therefore, outside the atom δT (x) = δ δ(x) (δ 3ˆx xˆ ), (141) M,ij 3 ij − 4πx3 ij − i j ( x > r ) we have PT1 = PL = EL. The α-gauge | | | | − 1 polarisation can be written analogously to Eq. (134) as a 2 2 −kM x β(x) = 1 1 + kM x + kM x e . (142) convex sum of local and non-local extremal polarisations − 2 P and P ; 0 1 The function β(x) controls the singularity at 0, but is unity for 1 . The transverse delta-function Pα = (1 α)P0 + αP1. (138) x /kM T − δ (x) is strictly recovered in the limit kM . More The polarisation P is non-local in any gauge, but it is generally, the previous α-gauges constitute→ the ∞ (α, ) α ∞ most localised in the multipolar-gauge, α = 1, because subset of the (α, kM )-gauges. In the (α, kM )-gauge the all points x for which P1(x) = 0 are inside the atom; parameter α functions as before while the additional 6 x r . Within Pα, the value of α dictates the bal- gauge-parameter kM controls the rate of exponential lo- ance| | ≤ between | | this local contribution and the non-local calisation of what was previously the singular point- contribution (1 α)P0 = (1 α)EL. like multipolar dipole. It is now the case that only for − − − As before, we can approximate the stationary atom x 1/kM do we have P1(x) = 0. Thus, there are now as a dipole at the origin 0 using Eq. (136) to obtain many “multipolar-gauges” specified by the gauge vectors 18

(1, kM ), each of which possesses a different degree of ex- one prefers to express the Hamiltonian in terms of elec- ponential dipolar localisation. tric and magnetic fields, but retain its dependence on p, The (α, k )-gauge vector potential is within the EDA this is also easily done, because Π = ET PT . In par- M − − α ticular, the Coulomb-gauge theory for which Π = ET Z 3 2 − d k kM can be expressed solely in terms of electric and magnetic A (r) AT(0) α A˜ T(k), αM p 3 2 2 fields, r and p. The latter property is not unique to the ≈ − (2π) k + kM (143) multipolar theory. such that A (0) = 0 is recovered in the limit k . 1 M 2. Proof that multipolar and Poincarégauges are identical: More generally, vanishing of A (r) to dipole order→ ∞ re- 1M Resolution of controversy quires that A˜ T(k) 0 for k k . In order for this ≈ ≥ M to be the case the modes k kM must not be populated. This is the case if the≥ bare atom (as occurs in QED in multipolar form and its relation to the the free theory) is small compared to the characteristic Poincarégauge has been a recent topic of debate [33– wavelengths of the populated modes. In other words, the 36]. Ref. [33] by Rousseau and Felbacq employs Dirac’s constrained quantisation procedure to derive the nonrela- EDA places a lower bound on the cut-off k in order M tivistic QED Hamiltonian in the Poincarégauge. The au- that gauges (1, kM ) possess the property A1M (0) = 0 that at dipole order characterises the usual multipolar- thors claim that the multipolar Hamiltonian will not produce the same results as the Coulomb-gauge Hamiltonian gauge (α, k ) = (1, ). M ∞ and that it does not coincide with the correct Poincaré- gauge Hamiltonian. Refs. [35] and [34] dispute this, con- cluding that criticisms of the multipolar framework in K. Discussion: gauge-fixing, forms of rotation, forms of coupling, and common pitfalls Ref. [33] are not valid. A reply to Ref. [35] is offered by Rousseau and Felbacq in Ref. [36], which argues that the conclusions of Ref. [35] are not correct, maintaining their 1. Gauge-freedom and gauge-fixing conclusion that the Poincaré-gauge Hamiltonian does not coincide with the multipolar Hamiltonian. We have defined the gauge-principle according to mod- We have clarified the relation between the multipo- ern gauge-field theory and we have given a formulation lar theory and the Poincarégauge in Sec. IIB1. We of canonical (Hamiltonian) nonrelativistic QED in an ar- showed in Sec.IID that Dirac’s quantisation procedure bitrary gauge. One of the main objectives of the present does yield the well-known multipolar theory. We also article is to clarify what gauge-freedom, gauge-fixing, and showed that the latter can be viewed as a gauge trans- gauge-ambiguities are, within this theory: formation of the Coulomb-gauge theory, and that even in the case of multiple charge distributions, the multipolar • Gauge-freedom in electrodynamics is a freedom to theory is obtained by choosing ζ-Poincaré-gauge-fixing choose AL. Once AL is fixed then the correspond- conditions. Complete reconciliation of our results with ing scalar potential is also fixed up to a con- φAL those of Refs. [33–36] is now provided through the constant by φA = EL + A˙ L. Gauge fixing means −∇ L struction of Dirac Brackets within the classical theory of specifying AL in terms of gauge-invariant quanti- a single electron atom. This resolves any apparent dis- ties. agreement between Refs. [33, 36] and Refs. [34, 35] by revealing precisely where misunderstanding has occurred, We have provided a formulation of QED in which A is L while also fully clarifying the status of the multipolar fixed by Eq. (94) as A (x) = (x A ) meaning it is L χg , T (Poincaré-gauge)theory. fixed up to a choice of the non-operater-valued∇ function The procedure we follow closely resembles that in g . The corresponding vector and scalar potentials are T Sec.IID. The mechanical momentum appearing in given in accordance with their fundamental definitions by Eq. (16) is given in terms of the canonical momen- A = AT + χ and φ = φ ∂ χ where EL = φ. g ∇ g g − t g −∇ tum p via minimal-coupling; mr˙ = p qA(r). As in Confusion often arises in nonrelativistic QED, due to − Refs. [33, 36] and as in Sec.IID, the momentum Π˜ con- claims that the multipolar theory is preferable, because it jugate to A is E, noting that here we will use the nota- can be expressed solely in terms of gauge-invariant elec- tion Π˜ for the− field canonical momentum conjugate to tric and magnetic fields. However, the latter property µ . The naive Hamiltonian is the total energy holds in any gauge, by definition of gauge-fixing. We Aµ have already seen that the Hamiltonian always repre- 1 1 Z h i H = [p qA(r)]2 + d3x Π˜ 2 + B2 . (144) sents the total energy [Eqs. (111) and (16)] [4]. If one 2m − 2 prefers to eliminate only Aα from the expression for the Hamiltonian, but retain its explicit dependence on the The Poisson brackets of the naive theory are canonical momenta, then this is easily achieved in any ri, pj =δij, (145) gauge α, using Eq. (134). Elimination of Aα does not { } A (x), Π˜ (x0) =δ δ(x x0), (146) eliminate Π from the expression for the Hamiltonian. If { µ ν } µν − 19 which can be used to determine the naive time evolution EL = PL is fully determined by r, while C2 = 0 implies of any classical observable written as function of canoni- that− A can be written [45] cal variables. The infinitesimal generator of gauge trans- Z formations G[χ] is defined in Eq. (83) and is such that 3 0 0 0 A(x) = AT(x) + d x g(x , x) AT(x ) (153) G[χ], A = χ and G[χ],A0 = χ˙. There are three ∇ · { } ∇ { } − constraints; = Π˜ = + Π˜ , and a gauge-fixing C0 0,C1 ρ and so it is fully determined by A and g . We define constraint = ( ). Following∇ · Woolley, we take the T T C2 A the field Π by general gauge-fixingF constraint [45] ˜ ˜ Z Π = Π Pg = ΠT PTg 3 0 0 0 − − C2 := d x g(x , x) A(x ) (147) = E P = ET PT , (154) · − − g − − g in which g is the green’s function for the divergence op- where Pg is defined by Eq. (101) and where the second, 0 0 third, and fourth equalities hold for C1 = 0. Since imme- erator; g(x, x ) = δ(x x ). r ∇ · − diately we have pi,Pg,j(x) D = i Pg,j(x), it follows Since C0,C1 = 0 and C0,C2 = 0, the constraint { } −∇ { } { } from Eq. (152) that C0 = 0 can be imposed immediately, which removes A0 and Π˜ from the formalism completely. The Poisson 0 p , Π (x) = p , Π˜ (x) p ,P (x) = 0. brackets (x x0) := (x) (x0) of the remaining i j D i j D i g,j D Cij , Ci ,Cj { } { } − { } (155) two constraints form a{ matrix with inverse} Thus, the only non-zero Dirac Brackets of the canonical −1 0 0 0 1 C (x, x ) = δ(x x ) . (148) pairs (r, p) and (AT, Π) are − 1 0 − r , p = δ , (156) The equal-time Dirac bracket is defined by { i j}D ij 0 T 0 AT (x), Π (x ) = δ (x x ), (157) { ,i j }D ij − , D := , {· Z·} Z{· ·} where the second bracket follows immediately from 3 3 0 −1 0 0 Eq. (151). The theory can be expressed entirely in terms d x d x ,Ci(x) Cij (x, x ) Cj(x ), . (149) − {· } { ·} of these canonical pairs, which respectively define matter and light quantum subsystems upon quantisation. If we Like the Poisson bracket the Dirac bracket is a Lie 0 R 1 0 T 0 let gT(x, x ) = α dλ x δ (x λx ) then the theory bracket, but unlike the Poisson bracket, it will yield the − 0 · − correct equations of motion when used in conjunction expressed in this way, coincides with the α-gauge theory derived in Sec.IIA. In the Poincaré-gauge( α = 1) in with the Hamiltonian, even once the constraints Ci = 0 particular, we have Π = DT := ET PT1, which is have been imposed. − − − Hereafter we denote contravariant indices with sub- the well-known momentum conjugate to AT within mul- scripts. The nonzero Dirac brackets between the dynam- tipolar QED [24, 41]. ical variables are [45] Refs. [33, 36] conclude that when written in terms of AT and Π˜ = ET EL, the Poincaré-gaugeHamiltonian − − ˜ ri, pj D = δij, (150) is not the multipolar Hamiltonian, because ΠT equals { } ET rather than DT and so the momentum Π˜ T is A (x), Π˜ (x0) = δ δ(x x0) + xg (x0, x), (151) − − { i j }D ij − ∇i j not the well-known canonical momentum encountered in p , Π˜ (x) = q rg (x, r) = rP (x) (152) textbook multipolar theory. However, what is required in { i j }D ∇i j −∇i g,j order that the two theories coincide is that ΠT = DT, − where Pg is defined by Eq. (101). These Dirac brack- and this is the case. Indeed, as we have shown, this ets are consistent with those given in Ref. [33]. Quan- equality is implied by the equality Π˜ T = ET, which tisation of the theory may now be carried out via the therefore proves that the two theories are identical− rather replacement , D i[ , ]. The construction of the than disparate. quantum theory{· ·} is complete.→ − · · However, so far only the The misunderstanding stems from a one-to-two usage Dirac brackets of A and Π˜ have been determined and as of the name “canonical momentum”. In multipolar QED operators these fields provide an inconvenient expression we call Π = DT the canonical momentum, because in − of the quantum theory, because of Eq. (152). This fea- the final unconstrained theory it is conjugate to AT [in ture is noted in Ref. [35] and its response Ref. [36]. The the sense of Eq. (157)] and it commutes with r and p. On ensuing lack of commutativity between p and Π˜ within the other hand, when we follow Dirac’s method of quan- the final quantum theory, implies that the canonical pairs tisation (as is done in Refs. [33, 36]) the object termed (r, p) and (A, Π˜ ) do not define separate (“matter” and “canonical momentum” is Π˜ = E, because in the start- “light”) quantum subsystems therein. ing naive (constrained) theory this− momentum is conju- It is straightforward to construct canonical operator gate to A [in the sense of Eq. (146)] and it commutes pairs that define quantum subsystems by imposing the with r and p. Thus, the same name “canonical momen- constraints. The constraint C1 = 0 implies that Π˜ L = tum” has been used for distinct fields that are not equal 20 but that are instead related by Eq. (154). Both of these qr E(0) are correct interactions, and neither is it true − · nomenclatures are reasonable, but misunderstanding re- that ET = E whereas it is true that DT = E but only for sults from attempting to adopt them simultaneously. We x = 0. In the weak-coupling regime one can often afford 6 must recognise that neither Π˜ nor Π˜ T equals Π in gen- to misidentify the physical fields involved in light-matter eral. interactions, but this may lead to erroneous results in Refs. [33, 36] express the Poincaré-gauge theory in sufficiently strong-coupling regimes. terms of the Poincaré-gaugepotential A1 and the momentum Π˜ (see for example Eq. (12) of Ref. [36]). The multipolar framework is the same theory expressed in 4. Active and passive perspectives of unitary rotations terms of different fields AT and Π, which are more convenient for use within the quantum theory. We A generic feature of linear spaces is that rotations have now verified this via three separate derivations in therein may be implemented in an active or passive way. Secs.IIA,IIE, and again above via the construction of A vector v = P e within hermitian inner-product Dirac Brackets. Before now this latter demonstration i vi i space may be actively rotated by a unitary transforma- had not been clearly provided within the literature. In- V tion into a new vector v0 = v = P 0e . Expressed deed, as well as being unrecognised in Ref. [33], the dis- R R i vi i in the same basis e the new vector has components tinction between Π˜ and Π is perhaps also obfuscated i v0 = P R v where{ R} = e ,Re . Alternatively, the elsewhere. For example, the constraint used above i j ij j ij i j C2 original vector v may be expressedh i in a rotated basis was first employed by Woolley in Ref. [45], who then also e0 = R†e to give v = P v0e0 . In both cases the same constructs the Dirac brackets for the theory, but chooses i i i i i numerical{ components,} v0 , are obtained from the rota- the notation E⊥ for Π, despite that Π does not rep- i tion. Note that the passive{ } rotation R† of basis vectors resent the transverse− electric field except− when g = 0 T e is opposite to the active rotation R of v. (Coulomb-gauge). We emphasise that the distinction be- i The same considerations apply when unitarily rotat- tween Coulomb-gauge and multipolar QED is no more or ing a Hamiltonian expressed in a canonical operator “ba- less than a distinction between gauge choices. sis”. In Secs.IIA andIIE an active perspective of unitary rotations has been adopted, whereby the canonical operators y = (ψ, ψ†, A , Π) are viewed as fixed, 3. Dipolar coupling T while the Hamiltonian can be rotated to a new but equivalent form using a gauge-fixing transformation as Another aspect of light-matter interactions, which is † Hg (y) = Ugg Hg(y)U (in the particle-based α-gauge especially poorly understood, concerns the field that a 0 0 gg0 formalism of Sec.IIA we instead have y = (r, p, AT, Π) dipole couples to within the multipolar-gauge. Common † and Hα (y) = Rαα Hα(y)R ). The transformation misidentifications are exacerbated by the development of 0 0 αα0 the theory via semi-classical treatments as features heav- of the Hamiltonian can of course be implemented via ily in textbook quantum optics (e.g. textbooks [68–70]). transformation of the canonical operators in the sense that U H (y)U † = H (U yU † ) [cf. Eqs. (108) and In such treatments the gauge-principle implies that the gg0 g gg0 g gg0 gg0 EDA of the semi-classical PZW transformation applied (109) and also Eqs. (27) and (28)]. to p qAT(0) within the Scrödingerequation yields the The active perspective is commonly found, and is − adopted for example in the textbook by Cohen-Tannoudji bilinear coupling qr ET(0) where ET = A˙ T [68–70]. However, according− to· the fully quantum description− the et al. [24]. From this point of view, any operator that does not commute with gauge-fixing transformations, correct bilinear component of the coupling is qr DT(0) − · such as Π, will represent a different physical observable where DT = ET + PT. The field PT is singular at 0 so the fully quantum description provides a coupling that before and after such a transformation [24]. Conversely, is infinitely different to the result of a semi-classical ap- a given physical observable will be represented by a different operator before and after transformation. For ex- proach. Nevertheless, the notation qr ET(0) remains prevalent even in textbooks that employ− · fully quantum ample, the energy E is represented by Hg(y) in gauge and by (y) in gauge 0. The eigenvalue equation treatments (e.g. [71]). Further confusion stems from the g Hg0 g (y) n = n n implies that the vector n repre- fact that ET is often simply written as E even when Hg Eg E Eg Eg sents, within| i the gauge| i , the physical state |n ini which EL = 0, such that the notation qr E(0) is also en- g n S countered6 in textbooks (e.g. [72])− and· more recently, in the system definitely possesses energy E . Meanwhile, 0 n ultrastrong coupling light-matter physics literature (e.g. in the gauge g the same state is represented by the different vector n = nS , because the energy is Ref. [10]). Eg Ugg0 Eg | 0 i | i Further still, it is not commonly recognised that within represented by the different operator Hg0 (y). the EDA DT = E, but only for x = 0 (see Sec.IIJ). Alternatively, a passive perspective of rotations may be 6 The unfortunate interchanging of fields DT, ET, and E, adopted whereby different canonical operators are asso- which are related but not equal, may lead to the misiden- ciated with different gauges as y = U y U † . Notice g gg0 g0 gg0 tification of fields both at, and away from the dipole’s that the rotation between canonical operators associated 0 position. We emphasise that neither qr ET(0) nor with different gauges g and g is opposite to the rotation − · 21

0 between the Hamiltonians associated with g and g ob- ten in terms of (φg, Ag), are the same for every possible tained via tha active perspective. Nevertheless, the same concrete choice of gT (gauge). Thus, in the final uncon- relationship between Hamiltonian functions is obtained strained theory: within the passive viewpoint by noting that Hg(yg) = † † • Gauge-freedom is the freedom to transform be- Hg(Ugg yg U ) = Ugg Hg(yg )U = Hg (yg ). The 0 0 gg0 0 0 gg0 0 0 tween different Hamiltonians H and H resulting passive perspective is also commonly found within the lit- g g0 from different fixed choices of gauge g and g0 . erature, for example, in the works of Power and Thiruna- T T machandran [28, 29, 41, 65, 73–76]. Therein, the Hamil- gauge-invariance means that formulations corresponding tonian (y ) = (y ) is unique and it uniquely rep- Hg g Hg0 g0 to different choices of gT must be physically equivalent. resents the energy . Similarly, the eigenvector n E E The unitarity of gauge-fixing transformations Ugg en- n | i 0 uniquely represents the physical state of definite ensures that this is the case, because the quantum-theoretic n S ergy E . Conversely, each different set of canonical op- definition of physical equivalence is unitary equivalence erators yg explicitly represents a different set of physical (cf. Sec.IIIA). observables. This again contrasts the active perspective wherein the physical difference between the same canonical operators y in different gauges was implicit. 6. Minimal-coupling Obviously, either an active or a passive perspective can be chosen, but the associations between operators and A final common pitfall that we wish to address con- observables and between vectors and states will gener- cerns the nature of the minimal-coupling prescription ally depend on the perspective adopted. The importance and its relation to the Coulomb-gauge. In Sec.IIA we of such associations and their relation to gauge-freedom saw that Rαα0 implements a gauge change within the is discussed in Secs.IIIA andIIIB. Here, unless other- Hamiltonian by transforming between distinct minimal- wise stated, we adopt an active perspective of unitary coupling prescriptions [Eqs. (27) and (28)]. This shows rotations. that the minimal-coupling replacement is not synonymous with the Coulomb-gauge. It is unfortunate that the term “minimal-coupling” has 5. Gauge symmetry transformations versus gauge-fixing so often been reserved exclusively for the Coulomb-gauge transformations Hamiltonian H0, because this nomenclature is in direct opposition to the fundamental meaning of minimal- Confusion can stem from the fact that the PZW trans- coupling. The gauge-principle implies the existence of a formation R01 commutes with A0 = φ and A0 = AT, potential whose gauge AL can be chosen freely. Differ- so it cannot directly implement a gauge transformation ent fixed gauges correspond to different fixed minimal- as defined in Eqs. (118) and (119), as noted, for ex- coupling replacements, as is clearly shown by Eqs. (22) ample, in Ref. [34]. The situation becomes clear upon and (27). This fact is obscured by the almost univer- recognising that the PZW transformation is not a gauge- sal practice of expressing the multipolar potential A1 symmetry transformation Sχ, but an example of a gauge- in terms of B within the Hamiltonian via Eq. (134).

fixing transformation Ugg0 . The distinction between these It is then not obvious that the multipolar Hamilto- types of gauge transformation has been known for a long nian does result from the minimal-coupling replacement time in relativistic physics [42], but is perhaps less well- p p qA1(r). Meanwhile, despite it being possi- → − known in quantum optics and atomic physics. Within ble to express the Coulomb-gauge potential A0 in terms the final unconstrained theory all gauge-symmetry trans- of B, the Coulomb-gauge Hamiltonian is nearly always formations have been reduced to the identity, expressing left as a function of A0. The minimal-coupling prescrip- the fact that once the gauge has been fixed there is no tion p p qA0(r) is therefore immediately apparent longer any redundancy within the state space or opera- therein.→ The− combined effect of these conventions may be tor algebra. The redundant degrees of freedom AL have the false impression that only the Coulomb-gauge Hamil- been fixed as known functions of the gauge-invariant de- tonian results from minimal-coupling replacement. In grees of freedom. The gauge-fixing transformation Ugg0 fact, in any gauge α, the Hamiltonian includes a minimal- transforms between alternative isomorphic realisations of coupling replacement p p qAα(r). the physical state space that result from different choices Yet further obfuscation→ occurs− within the EDA which of gauge A = and A = . L χg L χg0 states that AT(x) AT(0) whenever x r . This im- Although ∇ cannot transform∇ ( A ) directly, it ≈ | | ≤ | | Ugg0 φg, g plies that χα in Eq. (11) is approximated as in Eq. (124). does so indirectly. To see this note that Hg(y) is short- Thus, choosing the multipolar-gauge, A1, means choos- hand for H(gT, y) where the function H is unique. The ing AL = χ1 such that AL(r) = AT(r) within the ∇ − concrete choice of function gT used to evaluate H is EDA, giving A1(r) 0 [cf. Eq. (137)]. The position r left open. In other words, (y) defined by (y) := ≈ Hg0 Hg0 is of course where the potential A1 is evaluated within U H (y)U † is given by H (y) H(g0 , y). By con- the Hamiltonian [cf. Eq. (22)]. Thus, the dipole ap- gg0 g gg0 g0 T struction the functional form of the≡ Hamiltonian in terms proximation of the kinetic energy part of the multipolar- of gT, as well as all resulting dynamical equations writ- gauge Hamiltonian is independent of the potential and 22 the canonical momentum p becomes purely mechanical; Quantum subsystems defined mathematically using , p = mr˙. This again, may lead to the false impres- are inherently relative. To see how, consider a com-⊗ sion that the multipolar Hamiltonian is not a minimal- posite system of two spins A and B. We denote the coupling Hamiltonian. spin observables in some specified directions for A and Crucially, according to the gauge-principle all Hamil- B by A and B and we let these observables be rep- O O tonians Hα are equally valid, and any one of them can be resented by operators σA and σB respectively. The taken as the starting point for a canonical description of (eigen)state ± in which observables A and B simul- QED. It is certainly not the case that only one particular taneously possessS value 1 is representedO by theO vector ± gauge’s Hamiltonian, such as H0, is compatible with the A B =: A, B where σX X = X with gauge-principle. Indeed, such a conclusion would contra- |±X =i ⊗A, |±B.i Consider|± ± thei unitary transformation|± i ± |± iU for dict the gauge-principle. In particular, it is not the case which that H0(t) is a fundamentally preferable starting point 1 0 0 when considering time-dependent interactions and that U +A, +B = ( +A, +B + A, B ) =: +A, +B any other Hamiltonian must be obtained from it via a | i √2 | i |− − i | i time-dependent gauge transformation. This fact appears (159) to contradict recent articles [7, 10]. Time-dependent in- 0 0 0 0 † where σX X = X in which σA := UσAU and teractions are discussed in detail in Sec.V. 0 |± †i ± |± i σB := UσBU . The operator U consists of a Hadamard transformation on spin A, HA IB, followed by a CNOT ⊗ III. SUBSYSTEM GAUGE-RELATIVITY operation involving A and B, and so it does not have the form UA UB. The product therefore refers to different abstract⊗ tensor-product structures⊗ within the Quantum theory provides postulates for the associa- primed and unprimed bases specifed by Eq. (159). Nev- tion of physical states and observables with their math- ertheless, we are free to suppose that the observables ematical representatives, and for the calculation of pre- A and are represented by the operators σ0 and σ0 Ore- dictions of observable properties. The notion of quantum B A B spectively,O such that the states are represented by the system is an inherently relative one [77–82]. Understand- ± vectors 0 , 0 . Afterwards theS operators σ = σ0 and ing quantum subsystem properties in light of this remains A B A A σ = σ0|±evidently± i do not represent the observables6 a topic of current interest (e.g. [83]). The partition of B B A and6 . We let the observables represented by σ andO a quantum system into subsystems is dictated by the B A σ beO denoted O and O . set of operationally accessible interactions and measure- B A B We can now ask; is the physical state , which is ments [78]. The importance of this fact in QED beyond + represented by the vector ( + , + + ,S )/√2 =: traditional regimes is addressed in this section. A B A B +0 , +0 in Eq. (159), an entangled| i state?|− − Thei answer | A Bi is yes it is entangled with respect to the observables OA A. Quantum subsystem relativity and OB, and no it is not entangled with respect to the observables A and B. Importantly, this is a physical statement regardingO Ostates and observables, which does The different ways of sharing out the constrained de- not rely upon reference to vectors and operators. The grees of freedom in QED has important implications state is simultaneously entangled and not entangled when using the theory. To show this we first exam- + becauseS subsystems are relative. The term “entangle- ine fundamental concepts relating to composite quantum ment” is referring to different physical observable prop- systems and subsequently relate them to gauge-freedom. erties within the two different answers to the question. In quantum theory all predictions are obtained from Of course, both answers are correct and certainly not in- the inner-product, therefore the following associations compatible. We can further ask; is the entanglement in physical state vector ψ the state + physically relevant? The answer is yes if S ↔ | i S physical observable operator O we are able to access observables OA and OB, and the O ↔ answer is no if we are only able to access the observables are equivalent to the associations A and B. This again, is a statement about physical O O physical state vector ψ0 = U ψ states and observables without reference to vectors and S ↔ | i | i operators. It also concerns what is actually measurable. physical observable operator O0 = UOU † We initially assumed that A and B were represented O ↔ O O where is any unitary operator [84]. The definition by σA IB and IA σB, which after transformation by U, U ⊗ ⊗ of a composite quantum system uses the tensor-product were used to represent OA and OB. Thus, we have repre- , which extends the inner-product in the way that sented two distinct operational subsystems using the same is⊗ required in order that probabilities associated with mathematical subsystems. Operational subsystems are independent subsystems are statistically independent. defined by their observables independent of how the lat- Specifically, ter are represented using operators, whereas mathematical subsystems are determined by the form that opera- ( ψA ψB )( ϕA ϕB ) ψA ϕA ψB ϕB . (158) h | ⊗ h | | i ⊗ | i ≡ h | i h | i tors take with respect to a Hilbert space tensor-product 23 structure, which is not left invariant by a transformation used to define O. It happens then that the observable U = UA UB. The same mathematical subsystems can O is represented by the operator Π. We emphasise that represent6 ⊗ two distinct operational subsystems. gauge-freedom is not a freedom to define O. It is a freedom to decide whether the parameter that fixes the redundancy AL within our description, equals the number B. gauge-ambiguities and gauge-invariance α that defines O. If the gauge parameter is instead chosen to have value Quantum theory provides predictions for observables α0 = α, then O is not represented by Π, which in- 6 and the unitarity of gauge-fixing transformations Ugg stead represents the gauge-invariant physical observable 0 0 0 0 (Rαα ) guarantees the gauge-invariance of these predic- O := ET α PT. Hence, in the gauge α the phys- 0 − − 0 tions. We define gauge-invariance as follows: ical observable O is represented by the operator Π = Π † = Π ( 0)P . A physical state is Rαα0 Rαα α α T • A prediction is gauge-invariant if it is indepen- 0 − − 0 S represented by the vectors ψ and ψ = Rαα0 ψ in the dent of the gauge in which it is calculated. If all gauges α and α0 respectively.| i Thus,| i the averages| i of O predictions pertaining to an observable are gauge- and O0 in the state are invariant then the observable is gauge-invariant. S O = ψ Π ψ , (161) In general, an observable is represented in the fixed- h iS h | | i O O0 = ψ0 Π ψ0 . (162) gauge α by a generally α-dependent function oα of the h iS h | | i canonical operators y = r, A , p, Π . A physical state T The same operator Π represents different observables O is represented by an α{-dependent vector} ψ . In the α and O0 in the two averages, whereas different vectors rep- Sgauge α0, the same observable is represented| byi the op- † O † resent the same physical state . Of crucial importance erator oα(Rαα yR ) Rαα oα(y)R =: oα (y) and S 0 αα0 0 αα0 0 is to recognise that both of the above predictions are the same state is represented≡ by the vector ψ = S | α0 i examples of predictions that satisfy gauge-invariance as R ψ . Clearly the average S can be calculated in αα0 | αi hOi defined by Eq. (160). However, they are clearly different any gauge physical predictions even though both are averages of an operator Π, which defines the “light” quantum subsys- ψ o (y) ψ = S = ψ o (y) ψ . (160) h α| α | αi hOi h α0 | α0 | α0 i tem. For fixed α the combination Π = ET αPT is a This gauge-invariance holds as a consequence of the uni- − − tarity of gauge-fixing transformations and so it should be gauge-invariant observable, but by definition of Π, here α clear that it will hold independently of any restriction on is the gauge parameter. Thus, while it is true that in each the form of the gauge. Thus: gauge Π represents a physical observable and while it is also true that every observable possesses unique physical • In canonical nonrelativistic QED, all physical ob- predictions that can be calculated in any gauge, it is not servables and predictions are gauge-invariant. true that the operator Π represents the same physical observable in any two different gauges, and naturally: An example of a gauge-invariant observable is the total energy = E, which in the gauge α is represented by • Different observables have different predictions. O the Hamiltonian function Hα(y). Although QED is fundamentally gauge-invariant, the The task remains of determining which gauge-invariant task remains of deciding which observables are relevant predictions are relevant in which situations. As will be discussed throughout the present article, this task is in- to us. The transformation Ugg does not have the form 0 timately related to the interpretation of virtual particles Ugg0 = UA UB with respect to any tensor-product structure that can⊗ be imposed on the theory’s Hilbert space. and processes, and to locality [5]: Thus, different gauges do not produce equivalent math- • gauge-ambiguities arise not because it is unclear ematical subsystems. To understand the implications of how to obtain gauge-invariant predictions, but be- this let us consider the observables ET and PT where cause it is not always clear which gauge-invariant hereafter we use PT PT1 to denote the multipolar ≡ observables are operationally relevant. The gauge- transverse polarisation and correspondingly we use P to invariance of a prediction is necessary but not suf- denote the total multipolar polarisation. The transfor- ficient to ensure its operational relevance. mation Rαα0 commutes with PT, so this observable possesses the same operator representation in every gauge On a practical level, simply verifying the fundamen- [24]. The same is not true for ET. tal gauge-invariance of predictions does not imply that Let α denote a fixed real number that has nothing to gauge-freedom can be ignored. For example, Ref. [10] do with the choice of gauge. Now consider the physi- (Sec. V) notes that “of course detectable subsystem exci- cal observable O := ET αPT, which as a fixed linear tations and correlations have to be gauge-invariant, since combination of gauge-invariant− − observables is also gauge- the results of experiments cannot depend on the gauge. invariant. Finally, let us suppose that we choose our On this basis we can define gauge-invariant excitations gauge-parameter to have the same fixed value α as was and qubit-field entanglement”. We note however, that 24 providing gauge-invariant definitions is straightforward and this has never been a problem. Indeed, given the unitarity of gauge-fixing transformations, gauge-invariance TimeB Lightα′ R is automatic. “Ambiguities” occur not because gauge- Λ αα′ invariance breaks down, but because there are many B SpaceB Matterα′ different gauge-invariant definitions of “excitations and qubit-field entanglement”. The latter can be defined rel- α′ ative to any gauge (see Sec.IIIC). Gauge-invariance is Lightα necessary, but it is not a sufficient “basis” for provid- TimeA ing physically relevant theoretical definitions. Any con- A SpaceA Matterα ceptual ambiguities that result from the availability of α many different physical definitions can be called “gauge- ambiguities”, but they are not due to a breakdown of FIG. 4: The analogy between the relativity of space and time gauge-invariance, which is a fundamental requirement. when partitioning spacetime, and the relativity of QED subsystems when partitioning the QED Hilbert space. Left: The Lorentz transformation Λ mixes spaceA and timeA in transforming to the co-moving frame B. The relevant definition of C. Definition of subsystem gauge-relativity time for the prediction of time intervals measured by a clock at rest in frame X, is timeX . Right: The unitary gauge-fixing We adopt the viewpoint that the relevant definition transformation R mixes matter and light in moving to αα0 α α of any system is determined by experimental capability. frame α0. As in special relativity, the most relevant definitions Operationally, a “system” comprises a set of observable will generally depend on the experiment being considered. properties that can be measured. On the other hand, theoretically there exists a continuous infinity of differ- • QED subsystems are defined relative to a choice of ent gauge-invariant transverse fields, all of which are rep- gauge [4]. resented by the operator Π. Any of these fields can be used to define a spin-1 massless boson called a photon. Although subsystems are gauge-relative, physical predic- Mathematically, “photons” are defined directly in terms tions will always be gauge-invariant if they are calcu- of Π via lated properly [cf. Eq. (160)] and approximations that ruin gauge-invariance are avoided. For example, to ob- 1 ˜ ˜ aλ(k) := eλ(k) [ωAT(k) + iΠ(k)] (163) tain gauge-invariant predictions when dealing with time- √2ω · dependent interactions one must of course take into account the time-dependence of gauge transformations, as where ω := k and e (k) is a unit polarisation vector λ noted in Refs. [5, 10]. orthogonal to| |k (Fourier transforms are denoted with a tilde). From Π˜ = E˜ T αP˜ T, it is clear that for − − each different fixed value of α the photon number oper- D. Implications P † ator n = kλ aλ(k)aλ(k) represents a different gauge- invariant observable: The subsystem gauge-relativity of canonical QED is a • Photons defined using the gauge-invariant observ- form of linear-space relativity analogous to that encountered in theories of space and time (Fig.4). The def- able O = ET αPT, which in the gauge α is − − represented by the operator Π, are said to be de- inition lightα is not directly relevant for predicting the fined relative to the gauge α. outcome of a measurement of the photons that define light except in a regime where the mixing of “light” α0

The eigenstates of the corresponding number operator n and “matter” due to the gauge transformation Rαα0 can are a basis for the “light” Hilbert space. Thus, the math- be ignored. This latter situation is often encountered ematical “light” subsystem is defined relative to a choice in the regime of weakly-coupled, nearly-resonant, and of gauge. We can express this relativity symbolically by Markovian systems [5], as will be demonstrated directly writing the subsystem label “light” as a function of the in Sec.V. Within sufficiently strong-coupling regimes, observable that defines it, for instance, in the gauge α the task of determining which gauge-invariant mathemat- “light”=light(ET + αPT) =: lightα. As an example, sup- ical definition of “photon” is most relevant for predicting pose that in a given experiment the observable ET is the outcome of an actual photon measurement, is not measurable, then evidently light0 is at least one relevant necessarily straightforward. mathematical subsystem for describing this experiment. Ref. [10], for example, assumes that a photodetector To summarise, according to the postulates of quantum registers photons defined by the gauge-invariant trans- theory, QED subsystems are mathematically defined us- verse electric field ET. Given this assumption about ing the tensor-product, and therefore by the canonical which physical observable is relevant, one can of course operators, which represent different physical observables calculate the rate of photodetection as a unique physi- in each different gauge [4]. It follows that cal prediction in any gauge for both time-dependent and 25 time-independent interactions. In Glauber’s original the- E. Gauge-freedom and duality symmetry ory however, the total electric field E = ET + EL was used [26, 85]. The total field is only transverse when Recently a novel derivation of the multipolar Hamilto- there are no charges present. As we have already noted, nian has been provided using a dual potential as coordi- recognising the distinction between ET and E is essen- nate with the aim of addressing certain gauge-ambiguities tial and lies at the heart of gauge-ambiguities. It has [87]. We briefly review this approach. The dual-potential been argued in the past that the transverse displace- CT is such that ment field D = E + P provides the relevant defi- T T T Z 0 0 nition, because its source-component equals the source- −1 3 0 Π(x ) CT(x) = ( ) Π(x) = d x ∇ × . component of E away from the source, and it is there- − ∇× − 4π x x0 | − | fore local, unlike ET [24–31]. It has been known for six (164) decades that photons defined relative to the multipolar- In the same way that AT is conjugate to Π the poten- gauge, i.e., in terms of DT, provide a natural lineshape tial CT can be viewed as a coordinate conjugate to the prediction that are in sufficient agreement with early ex- magnetic field B, because as is easily verified periments to rule out the prediction for the same exper- 0 T 0 iments when photons are defined using ET [37–40]. For [CT,i(x),Bj(x )] = iδij(x x ). (165) these specific experiments the multipolar-gauge subsys- − tems are evidently more operationally relevant than the Due to the non-existence of magnetic charge, as specified by B = 0, the magnetic quantities AT and Coulomb-gauge subsystems. ∇ · B = AT are physically unique. In contrast, due to Gauss’∇ × law E = ρ, which generates gauge symme- ∇ · However, in QED one typically views physical particles try transformations [Eq. (83)], the electric quantities CT and Π = CT represent different observables in dif- as being dressed by virtual photons and this is more con- −∇ × sistent with definitions provided by α = 1 whereby the ferent gauges. The field canonical subsystem is defined quantum dipole is not purely “bare” and6 localised, but using (AT, Π) or equivalently using (CT, B). Since the curl operator, , is invertible on the space of transverse is instead a delocalised dressed object. Conversely, only ∇× the multipolar-gauge provides a definition of the dipole fields [cf. Eq. (164)], any function of (AT, Π) can instead to which a test charge placed away from the dipole cen- be written as a function of (CT, B) and vice versa. The tre at 0 does not respond instantaneously [24–31]. In α-gauge Hamiltonian given in Eq. (22) can be written in terms of CT and B using Π = CT and Eq. (134). gauges α = 1 the extent of the apparently instantaneous, −∇ × but typically6 small response of a test charge distribution Choosing the multipolar-gauge, α = 1, then gives the to the field of the α-gauge dipole could simply be inter- result of Ref. [87]. preted as a measure of the dressed dipole’s delocalisation Ref. [87] refers to gauge-freedom as a freedom to choose due to its own virtual cloud of photons [86]. These points CL. This freedom has no non-trivial consequences in the are discussed in the context of photodetection theory in absence of magnetic charge, and it is independent of the Sec.VI. gauge-freedom in AL. The latter freedom is highly non- trivial and it is necessarily present as a fundamental feature of QED. An expression of the theory in terms of For given values of the remaining model parameters, (CT, B) is always possible, but this cannot circumvent it is always possible to choose an intermediate value of α gauge-freedom in AL. However, when written in terms denoted αJC, which lies between 0 and 1, and for which of dual coordinates the dependence of the theory on AL ground state virtual photons are highly suppressed [4]. is no longer explicit. The freedom within the theory is This can be interpreted as identifying a representation in understood in terms of the “polarisation” P and the ac- which such photons have been absorbed into the defini- companying “magnetisation” M as defined in Sec.IIC2. tions of the quantum subsystems. The physical meanings Ref. [87] argues that the potentials P and M may offer of the different mathematical definitions of “light” and a more intuitive way to understand the relativity within “matter” are evidently closely related to virtual photons the light-matter subsystem decomposition. It must how- and processes. ever be noted that PT is completely arbitrary and once fixed determines M, in the same way that AL is completely arbitrary and once fixed determines A0. As noted Finally we note that a prosaic implication of subsystem in Sec.IIE, a gauge transformation of PT as defined in gauge-relativity is that approximations performed on the Eq. (109) is necessarily accompanied by a gauge trans- subsystems can ruin the gauge-invariance of the theory. formation in AL [Eq. (108)]. A well-known example is the truncation of the material Ref. [87] concludes that approximations within the system to a finite number of levels [4,7–9]. Because multipolar-gauge, α = 1, will typically most accurately “matter” is defined differently in different gauges, the represent the physics of small, bound dipoles interact- truncation generally constitutes a significantly different ing with a single mode. A wide range of system types is physical procedure in different gauges. This is discussed considered along with the effects of both material trunca- in detail in Sec.IV. tion and the EDA. However, it has been noted elsewhere 26 that while the multipolar-gauge may often be optimal Gauss’ law generates gauge symmetry transformations (or very close to optimal) for performing material level and its derivative in time is the continuity equation for truncations, this is not always the case when considering electric charge, which is the conserved quantity associ- low energy properties involving more than one radiation ated with gauge symmetry. Gauss’ law specifies EL as mode or less anharmonic material dipoles [4,8]. a function of ρ, which tells us that longitudinal photons Most importantly, it is essential to recognise that are not independent. Specifically, an analog of Eq. (163) gauge-ambiguities are much broader than the gauge- may be written noninvariance resulting from approximations, which are i ˆ ρ˜(k) always avoidable in principle. As we have shown the aL(k) := k E˜(k) = . (166) canonical dipole defined by (r, p) possesses a continu- −√2ω · −√2ω3 ously varying level of localisation directly controlled by Although ET is the part of the electric field not con- the gauge. The strict multipolar dipole is unphysical due strained by Gauss’ law, it is by fundamental assump- to its singular nature. The interplay between localisation tion that the total electric field E is local. It follows and dressing is directly relevant in determining measur- that the fields EL and notably ET = E EL, are both able properties. In particular, the distinction between non-local [cf. Eq. (7)] and away from a localised− source real and virtual photons is important and is intimately they respond instantaneously to changes in the source related to the choice of gauge. These points are discussed [24, 41]. The multipolar-gauge momentum Π = DT of- in detail in the context of time-dependent interactions in fers the best possible representation of the non-transverse− Sec.V and photodetection theory in Sec.VI. It is shown local field E by an unconstrained transverse field that that the multipolar-gauge may yield especially unphysi- can then be used to define unconstrained photons [24]. cal results in photodetection theory. Specifically, PL = EL implies that D := E + P = − (ET + EL) + (PT EL) DT and since P vanishes out- − ≡ side of a charge distribution we have D DT = E at ≡ F. Modal restrictions and transversality all such points. It is certainly not the case however that E = ET nor that P = PT. In the case of a dipole at 0 we have P = qrδ(x) whereas Restrictions on the number of photonic modes are ex- T T PT(x) = qr δ (x). The transverse dyadic δ (x) is not tremely common in light-matter physics. However, re- · 3 taining all modes is necessary to properly maintain cer- purely singular, rather it decays as 1/x away from 0. From elementary electrostatics we know that EL decays tain spacetime properties such as localisation and causal 3 wave propagation [88]. In particular, the green’s function as 1/x away from a dipole at 0 and for a dipole we do for the wave operator receives contributions from all k- indeed have PT = EL for x = 0 (i.e., P(x) = qrδ(x) = 0 for x = 0). For any α the6 field Π can be expanded in space-modes. Thus, a modal restriction should only be 6 understood as a statement about which particular fre- terms of photons using Eq. (163). Crucially however, for quencies are dominant within a given light-matter inter- different α these fields are related by the non-local field action Hamiltonian. We briefly discuss the implementa- PT. tion of such restrictions here. For a transverse field, the mode functions fλ(k, x) = ik·x p 3 eλ(k)e / (2π) of a canonical mode-expansion are not complete with respect to the usual inner-product in 2 3 L (R ), because eλ(k) is an orthonormal basis in the 1. Significance of transversality two-dimensional{ plane orthogonal} to k. They instead furnish a representation of the transverse delta function; We begin by noting that the transversality of canon- Z X ical fields is an important aspect of Hamiltonian QED d3k f (k, x)∗f (k, x0) = δT(x x0). (167) λ λ − closely related to gauge-freedom. Only transverse fields λ=1,2 can be used to define unconstrained physical photons as in Eq. (163). This feature is fundamental and it persists To obtain a representation of δ(x x0) one must add kˆ − in a generalised sense in the presence of background me- to the 3-dimensional basis kˆ, e (k) . If the longitudi- { λ } dia, as are relevant in numerous artificial photonic sys- nal eigenfrequency is set to vanish ωL 0 then one can tems that realise strong-coupling [89–94]. All massless expand Π using the complete set of mode≡ functions as representations of the Lorentz group result in fields with Z r only two independent degrees of freedom. In particu- 3 X ωλ Π(x) = i d k lar, the massless spin-1 Maxwell field supports the two 2 λ=1,2,L independent polarisations of a photon. Scalar and longi- h ∗ † i tudinal photons can also be defined, as in the Lorentz- fλ(k, x) aλ(k) + fλ(k, x)aλ(k) (168) gauge (also called Lorenz-gauge), but such photons are × not unconstrained, they must satisfy a non-dynamical where ω1,2 ω. However, the operators aL(k) have constraint (Lorentz subsidiary condition), whose deriva- completely arbitrary≡ definition and cannot contribute to tive in time is Gauss’ law [24]. physical predictions. 27

2. Modal restriction [4,6]

1 α † Ultrastrong-coupling between light and matter arises Aα = (1 α)A = − (a + a) (176) in artificial systems in which the set of photonic modes is − √2ωv αqx altered and often restricted. Theoretically, care must be PTα = . (177) taken when carrying out such restrictions. To demon- v strate this we choose the multipolar-gauge, such that Here x = ε r and A = ε AT(0) where ε is the unit po- Π = DT, implying that the Coulomb-gauge momen- · · − 0 larisation vector of the single transverse mode retained. tum ET is represented by the operator Π = ET = − † − Within these approximations the Hamiltonian reduces to R10ΠR10 = Π + PT. Coulomb and multipolar-gauge the simple form that has now been used in a number of 0 transverse photonic operators aλ(k) and aλ(k) are de- works [4–8]. The gauge-fixing transformations in 0 Rαα0 fined as in Eq. (163) using Π = ET and Π = DT Eq. (127) remain unitary and are given by [4,5] respectively. They are therefore related− by − 0 Rαα0 = exp(i[α α ]qxA). (178) 0 † qr fλ(k, 0) − aλ(k) = R10aλ(k)R10 = aλ(k) + i · . (169) √2ωλ The approximation of restricting to a finite-number of modes within the Hamiltonian of a light-matter system For the unphysical longitudinal mode operators any re- must be understood as an assumption about which modes lation can be specified. We note however, that the right- are dominant within the dipole-field interaction. Such hand-side of Eq. (169) would be undefined for λ = L, an approximation as given above in the form V(0) = P because ωL 0. The total electric field is given by Vk(0) Vk(0) could be valid at the position of the ≡ 0 k E = DT P = Π P = Π PL and P(x) = qrδ(x) is dipole, 0, which≈ is where any field is evaluated within − − − − − fully localised. E is completely independent of the aL(k), the interaction Hamiltonian. However, this is also where as any physical field must be. the field cannot be measured by an external detector. By discretising the modes in a volume v the mode func- For any x the field Ek equals neither ETk nor DTk. − − tions become discrete fλ(k, x) fkλ(x) such that factors Due to Gauss’ law the electric-field, whether restricted of (2π)3 are replaced by v. For→λ = 1, 2 the fields associ- or not, cannot be expressed solely in terms of physical ated with the wavevector k are (transverse) photons. In particular, since Πk is orthogonal to k, one cannot obtain Ek by means of a unitary r X ω ∗ † operator acting on Πk. Πk(x) = DTk(x) = i fkλ(x) a H.c. − 2 kλ − Obviously the fully localised physical polarisation λ=1,2 P 0 P(x) = k Pk(x) cannot be elicited in a restricted =Πk(x) PTk(x), (170) space of wave-vectors. A modal restriction at an ar- − r 0 X ω ∗ 0† bitrary point x = 0 will therefore violate the prop- Πk(x) = ETk(x) = i fkλ(x) a H.c. 6 − 2 kλ − erty PT = PL of the full theory. Naively restricting λ=1,2 Eqs. (174) and− (175) to only one transverse mode kλ (171) 0 means PLk(x) 0 and we obtain Ekλ(x) Πkλ(x) = ekλ r Π (x) P ≡ (x). This yields a theory≡ without − E , PTk(x) =qekλ · cos k x. (172) kλ Tkλ L v · −that can− therefore only be valid in the far-field. Of course, in the far-field where EL = PT vanishes, we have Meanwhile for λ = L we have 0 Π = ET E = Π whether or not the modes are − ≈ − ˆ restricted. If we instead use the fact that Π(x) = E(x) ˆ (k r) − ELk(x) = qk · cos k x = PLk(x). (173) for x = 0 and then restrict our attention to one trans- − v · − 6 verse mode, we obtain the different result Ekλ(x) 0 ≡ The corresponding restricted total polarisation and total Πkλ(x) = Πkλ(x)+PTkλ(x). This single-mode limit − − 0 electric fields are respects the equalities E = Π = Π + PT holding for x = 0 in the unrestricted theory.− − We note that within qr the6 light-matter interaction Hamiltonian, physical fields Pk(x) = PTk(x) + PLk(x) = cos(k x), (174) v · are evaluated at x = 0 so the above considerations do 0 Ek(x) = Πk(x) PLk(x) = Πk(x) Pk(x). (175) not apply. − − − − Evidently, different implementations of a modal re- The above single-mode restriction can be implemented striction can result in altogether different identifications at the position 0 of a single dipole via the α-gauge the- of the same physical field, such that care must be taken ory presented in Secs.III andIIH. Since all algebraic in restricting the modes. In the above case of the elec- and kinematic relations are preserved so too is gauge- tric field E we have fundamentally that at all points x invariance. The dipole approximated fields in Eqs. (125) outside of a charge distribution, which is where the field and (126) are assumed to point in the direction ε of the can be measured by an external detector, the multipo- mode polarisation and in this direction have components lar polarisation vanishes, implying that at such points 28

Π(x) = E(x) in and only in the multipolar-gauge. We should not− expect a modal restriction in which this is no m g′ longer the case to oﬀer a generally robust approximation L L of the unrestricted theory for describing measurements in C c C c L m L m the vicinity of x. In particular, the Glauber intensity at m c m c′ (t, x) is given within the single-mode limit that respects Cc Cc the fundamental equalities of the multi-mode theory by g m′

(−) (+) ω † (a) (b) E (t, x) E (t, x) = a (t)ak (t) (179) h kλ · kλ i 2v h kλ λ i FIG. 5: Circuit diagram for a parallel LC-oscillator coupled where akλ is the multipolar-gauge photonic operator. Ir- respective of modal restrictions, the Glauber intensity to a series LC-oscillator. There are three nodes within the cir- is not proportional to the photon number operator de- cuit. The subfigures each provide a different labelling of the fined relative to the Coulomb-gauge except in the far-field nodes corresponding to different specifications of the ground flux. As a result, they depict two different divisions of the cir- where we have E ET. Photodetection is discussed in ≈ cuit into subsystems. Specifically, these are the two extreme detail in Sec.V. We note that the considerations of this cases of (a) fully inductive coupling whereby the ground flux section also apply in the case of dispersive and absorbing is specified as the flux associated with the node that is labelled media important for polaritonic systems that realise ul- g, and (b) fully capacitive coupling whereby the ground flux is trastrong light-matter interactions. In this case canonical specified as the flux associated with the node that is labelled fields remain transverse [95]. by g0.

LC-oscillator circuit depicted in Fig.5. As basic dynam- G. Simple extension to superconducting circuits ical variables we take the node fluxes denoted φk. The current into node k through a branch j k with an in- → ductor connecting node k to node j is I → = (φ φ )/L The arbitrary-gauge formalism is readily adapted to j k k − j describe circuit QED systems. We briefly review this where L is the inductance of the inductor. The current here, including how gauge-freedom manifests. Conven- into node k through a branch j k with a capacitor → ¨ ¨ connecting node k to node j is I → = C(φ φ ) where tional descriptions of superconducting circuits employ j k k − j the lumped-element model, which results from Kirchoff’s C is the capacitance of the capacitor. Since only flux dif- assumptions applied to Maxwell theory. Consider a ferences are of importance we can specify the flux zero- node defined as the meeting point of N conducting wire point arbitrarily. This is the so-called ground flux such branches outside of which there is no current. Bounding that φg = 0. As particular special cases, we can choose the node is a closed surface S containing a region v with this flux zero-point to be the flux of one of the circuit ν nodes depicted in Fig.5 wherein subfigures ( a) and (b) outward normal nˆ. The continuity equation ∂ν j = 0 and divergence theorem yield give two different specifications of which node possesses the ground flux. N N In the circuit of Fig.5( a) there are two non-ground X X Z dQ(t) I (t) dS nˆ J(t, x) = , (180) nodes labelled m and c. Kirchoff’s law, Eq, (182), yields µ ≡ · − dt µ=1 µ=1 Sµ the equations of motion Z 3 Q(t) = d x ρ(t, x), (181) ¨ φm φm φc v 0 = Ig→m + Ic→m = Cmφm + + − , (183) Lm Lc where Sµ is the subsurface of S intersecting the µ’th ¨ φc φm 0 = Ig→c + Im→c = Ccφc + − . (184) wire, Iµ is the current entering v through the µ’th wire, Lc and Q(t) is the total charge within the region v containing the node. Eq. (180) assumes that J(t, x) = 0 for all These equations of motion are obtained from the La- x S / S S (there is no current outside the conduct- grangian ∈ µ µ ing wires). Kirchoff assumed further a local steady-state 2 2 1 ˙2 φm ˙2 (φc φm) current condition within v, namely, dQ(t)/dt = 0, yield- L = Cmφm + Ccφc − (185) ing the current law 2 − Lm − Lc

N or corresponding Hamiltonian X I (t) = 0. (182) µ 1 φ2 (φ φ )2 µ=1 2 m 2 c m H = Cmqm + + Ccqc + − (186) 2 Lm Lc Arbitrary lumped-element circuits can be considered ˙ as collections of nodes joined by (super)conducting where qx = ∂L/∂φx are the node charges conjugate to the branches, with Kirchoff’s law, Eq, (182), satisfied at each φx with x = m, c. A node flux and its conjugate charge node. As a non-trivial example we consider the coupled satisfy a canonical Lie bracket relation, which generates 29 the dynamics in conjunction with the Hamiltonian. In ground node g to the node m in Fig.5, one obtains the particular, in the quantum theory, [φx, qx0 ] = iδxx0 . light-matter Hamiltonian Let us now consider a relabelling of the nodes as de- 0 = cos[2 ] (194) picted in Fig.5( b). The ground node has flux φg0 = 0 H H EJ qφm and the non-ground nodes m0 and c0 are now connected − by the capacitance Cc rather than by the inductance Lc. where the additional term EJ cos[2qφm] is the Joseph- − 0 Since the physical currents through the branches must son potential with energy EJ . The Hamiltonian H pos- stay the same we obtain the coordinate relations sesses the same structure as the cavity QED Hamiltonian considered in Sec.IIA in which the material potential is

φm0 = φm, (187) arbitrary. − We have seen that the choice of gauge is determined φc = φc φm. (188) 0 − by the choice of ground flux, and that arbitrary choices of gauge selected by a parameter may be considered. Either φm or φm0 can be used as a coordinate with φc0 . α We choose φm. The sum of Eqs. (183) and (184) can be Gauge-fixing transformations are directly analogous to expressed as those encountered in conventional QED, and as such, they are non-local with respect to Hilbert space tensor- ¨ ¨ ¨ φm product structure. A circuit may be dividing into phys- 0 = Cmφm + Cc(φm + φc0 ) + , (189) Lm ically distinct canonical sub-circuits arbitrarily and this division is directly controlled by the choice of gauge. and this equation together with Eq. (184) is obtained from the Lagrangian (185) or Hamiltonian (186) with φm and φ taken as dynamical coordinates. At the Hamilto- c0 IV. MATERIAL TRUNCATION AND nian level the primed and unprimed canonical operators GAUGE-NONINVARIANCE are related by a gauge-fixing transformation as

q = R q R† , (190) Material energy level truncation is a commonly m0 10 m 10 adopted procedure, that nevertheless breaks the gauge- † φc0 = R10φcR10 (191) invariance of QED by fundamentally modifying the algebra of material operators. This has been discussed in where the context of strong and ultrastrong-coupling in Refs. [4–13]. Here we review the implications of the result- −iqcφm R10 := e . (192) ing gauge-noninvariances, which as was explained in Sec.IIIB are not synonymous with gauge-ambiguities. This is analogous to the PZW transformation between We review various proposed theoretical approaches for the charge (Coulomb)-gauge and the flux (multipolar)- obtaining truncated models. gauge. Note that within the above derivation we have adopted a passive view of rotations within the operator algebra, by which we mean that the same Hamiltonian has been A. Single dipole interacting with a single cavity expressed in terms of alternative canonical operators that mode: the Hamiltonian via unitary transformations belong to different gauges. Equivalently, we may adopt an active perspective as in previous sections, whereby Ref. [7] noted that in the case of a single atom and the Hamiltonian H is actively rotated using gauge-fixing a single radiation mode in one spatial dimension, within transformations yielding new Hamiltonians which are all the EDA the Hamiltonian can be obtained by combining expressed in terms of the same canonical operators. The unitary transformations of the free material and photonic extension to arbitrary gauges is straightforward via the Hamiltonians. This property was then used to derive the gauge-fixing transformation a certain class of two-level models. We review various classes of two-level model in Sec.IVB. −i(α−α0)qcφm The EDA and single-mode approximation can be per- Rαα0 := e . (193) formed preserving all algebraic properties of the theory, We note that gauges specified by α = 0, 1 do not cor- thereby preserving gauge-invariance [4–6]. The dipole is respond to a definite specification of6 one of the nodes assumed to be located at the origin 0 and for simplicity within Fig.5 as possessing the ground flux φg = 0. In- the canonical operators are assumed to point in the di- stead the ground flux is specified as some combination of rection ε of polarisation of the the single mode. They are the fluxes associated with the three nodes. specified entirely by scalar operator components in this The basic non-linear element in superconducting cir- direction. We define x = ε r and A = ε AT and denote cuits is the Josephson Junction. The formalism above by p and Π the corresponding· dipole and· cavity canoni- is easily extended to arbitrary circuits constructed from cal momenta, such that [x, p] = i and [A, Π] = i/v with v capacitors, inductors and Josephson junctions. For ex- the cavity volume. Details of the EDA and single-mode ample, by adding a Josephson junction connecting the restriction are given in Secs.IIH andIIIF2 respectively. 30

The α-gauge continues to be specified by its vector po- where, due to the EDA (A1) = H . The trans- Hm m tential Aα = εAα and material polarisation PTα = εPTα verse electromagnetic energy, ph,α can be written sim- which are given by Eqs. (176) and (177) respectively. The †H ilarly as ph,α = R0αHphR0α where Hph = ph,0 = unitary gauge-fixing transformation Rαα between gauges v 2 H2 2 H 0 2 (Π + ω A ). We see therefore that within the present α and α0 is given by Eq. (178). The definition of gauge- simplified setting the Hamiltonian can be written freedom given by Eqs. (27) and (28) now reads † † Hα = R1αHmR1α + R0αHphR0α. (203) † 0 Rαα pR = p (α α )qA, (195) 0 αα0 − − This is an approximate special case of the more general † 0 qx Rαα ΠR = Π (α α ) . (196) fundamental expression 0 αα0 − − v † † Hα = Rα α m(Aα )R + Rα α ph,α R , (204) Since gauge-fixing transformations remain unitary the 0 H 0 α0α 00 H 00 α00α gauge-invariance of the theory is preserved. The Hamil- which follows immediately from Eqs. (27) and (28). tonian is as ever the total energy [4,5]; Eq. (204) reduces to Eq. (203) when we choose α0 = 1 00 and α = 0, and we make use of ph,0 = Hph and Hα = m(Aα) + ph,α (197) H H H m(A1) = Hm, which holds only because of the approxi- 1 2 1 2 mationsH and simplifying assumptions made. It should be m(Aα) := mx˙ + V (x) = (p qAα) + V (x), H 2 2m − noted that without the latter, the derivation of (A ) (198) Hm α via unitary transformation of Hm is impossible. v 2 2 v 2 2 2 ph := (E + ωA ) = (Π + PT ) + ω A , H ,α 2 T 2 α (199) B. Material truncation ˙ wherex ˙ = i[x, Hα] and ET = AT = i[AT,Hα]. The Let us now consider truncating the material Hilbert material and− transverse field energies− in Eqs. (198) and space [4–13]. Since the canonical momentum p repre- (199) are both gauge-invariant; sents a different physical observable for each different value of α, the same is true of H . Therefore, projecting ( ) = ( ) † (200) m m Aα0 Rαα0 m Aα Rαα , H H 0 onto a finite number of eigenstates of Hm is a gauge- = † (201) dependent procedure. Eigenvalues of are denoted ph,α0 Rαα0 ph,αRαα . Hm H H 0 0 1 n. The projection P onto the first two-levels , + − | i | xi Hamiltonians of different gauges continue to be unitarily of Hm gives PHmP = ωmσ σ + 0 and P qxP = dσ related as in Eq. (25). where σ+ = 1 0 , σ− = 0 1 and σx = σ+ + σ−. | i h | | i h | In addition, certain non-fundamental properties of the The first transition energy is denoted ωm = 1 0, and Hamiltonian in Eq. (197) now hold due to the simplifi- the transition dipole moment d = 0 qx 1 is− assumed cations that have been made [12]. In particular, within to be real. More generally, one canh define| | Pi as the pro- the EDA the gauge function χα in Eq. (11) becomes that jection onto any finite number of levels. in Eq. (124), which gives χ1(r) = AT(0), and so as There are many ways to define two-level models using ∇ − noted in Sec.IIK one obtains p qA1(r) p. Thus, the projection P . In general, a two-level truncation of H − ≈ α letting α = 1 on the left-hand-side of Eq. (27) we obtain is a P -dependent map MP : Hα MP (Hα), such that † → R1 pR = p qA where A := (1 α)AT(0) is the MP (Hα): P P is an Hermitian operator on P α 1α − α α − H → H H EDA of Aα(r). In other words, within (and only within) [12]. If, unlike the Hα, the MP (Hα) are not equivalent the EDA the α-gauge mechanical momentum may be for different α, then truncation has broken the gauge- obtained from the canonical momentum p using R1α. invariance of the theory. To obtain what we will refer to Within the full 3-dimensional setting and without the as the standard α-gauge two-level model one replaces x EDA this is impossible, because for any differentiable and p with their projected counterparts P xP and P pP function f we have e−if(r)peif(r) = p + f(r). The to obtain ∇ gradient f is a longitudinal field therefore we cannot 2 α ∇ MP (Hα) = H = PHmP + PHphP + V (P xP, P pP ) have f(r) = qA(r) for all r, because AT(r) is non- α vanishing.∇ What− is fundamental and completely general (205) iqf(r) −iqf(r) is the gauge transformation e [p qA(r)]e = α where V (x, p) = H H Hph is the interaction − † α − m − p q[A + f(r)], which yields the result R1αpR1α = Hamiltonian. The terminology “standard” is used be- − ∇ p qAα as an approximate special case in which we let cause this definition of is capable of yielding the − MP f = χα χ1, and perform the EDA. standard quantum Rabi model (QRM) that is ubiquitous − As noted in Ref. [7], for α = 1, Eq. (200) has the in light-matter physics. Specifically, a standard QRM is appearance of a unitary transformation applied to the obtained by choosing α = 1 in Eq. (205). More gener- free material Hamiltonian; 2 ally, for distinct values of α the Hamiltonians Hα are not † equivalent to each other [4,5,9]. This is because physi- (A ) = R1 H R (202) Hm α α m 1α cally, P represents a different projection in each different 31 gauge. The gauge-invariance of the theory has now been where the second equality shows that these models are 2 broken. equivalent to the standard multipolar-gauge QRM H1 . 2 2 Of crucial importance when defining two-level models In particular, h1(1) = H1 . Unlike the transformations is recognition that for a Hermitian operator O, projection αα0 the αα0 do not possess the defining properties of P = I, and non-linear function f we have aG gauge transformationT (see Sec.IVE). We note that 6 2 the difference between the model h1(α) and the standard P f(O)P = f(POP ). (206) 2 model Hα in Eq. (205) stems entirely from the first term 6 † 1 PH P in Eq. (212). Thus, for a general material operator O(x, p) we have T α m T1α ( ) = ( ) with this inequality becom- PO x, p P O P xP, P pP Although it is clear that = it is instruc- ing an equality6 if and only if is linear in and [4]. αα0 αα0 O x p tive to consider how the associatedT 6 two-levelG models in Due to this, various alternative truncating maps have Eqs. (210) and (212) differ. Defining dimensionless cou- been identified within the literature [4,7,9–13]. pling parameter = √2 , and ¯ = 0 1 = , Two further methods have been proposed in Ref. [7] η d/ ωv x x d/q if we assume that where h =| | i , such (see also Ref. [13]). Both methods require the EDA and P xQ P xP Q I P that terms and can be neglected in− the expo- involve deriving two-level models from the free theory by P xQ QxP nent of R10 then we obtain replacing the unitary transformation Rαα0 in Eq. (203) with a two-level model counterpart. Due to Eq. (206) there are two different two-level model versions of Rαα0 : x † , which are defined as 10 P exp iη(σ + QxQ/x¯)(a + a) P H → H G ≈ x † = PR P = P exp[iq(α α0)xA]P (207) = P exp iησ (a + a) P = 10 (213) Gαα0 αα0 − T = exp[iq(α α0)P xP A] = (208) Tαα0 − 6 Gαα0 where the final inequality holds because as noted above However, as already noted, such a naive approximation eP xP = P exP [cf. Eq. (206)]. Moreover, we cannot 6 cannot be justified, even for a sufficiently anharmonic expect this inequality to become an approximate equality material system. To see this note that by employing the even for highly anharmonic material systems. The first of approximation and following exactly the same steps as the above transformations is not unitary. However, αα0 above one obtains . From this one ob- G αα0 PRαα0 it does implement a gauge change in a projected operator 2 2 T ≈ tains H0 h1(0) where the left-hand-side is the standard because if we let POP = F (p), where O is arbitrary, then Coulomb-gauge≈ Rabi model and the right-hand-side is we have equivalent to the standard multipolar-gauge Rabi model 2. Since it is known that the spectra of 2 and 2 F (p) = PF (p (α α0)qA)P, (209) H1 H0 H1 Gαα0 Gαα0 − − are markedly different [4,7,9], it follows that in gen- which follows immediately from Eq. (195). In words, eral, one cannot neglect terms P xQ and QxP in the exponent of even for highly anharmonic material αα implements a gauge transformation within a pro- Rαα0 G 0 ˜ 2 jected operator and then re-projects the result. By re- systems. The Hamiltonian H0 is indeed very different to 2 the multipolar-gauge models h1(α)[12], exemplifying the placing Rαα0 in Eq. (203) [or (204)] with αα0 one obtains a new kind of two-level model G importance of inequality (206). ˜ 2 † † The approximate equality does result if Hα = 1αPHmP 1α + 0αPHphP 0α. (210) αα0 αα0 G G G G the exponentials on both sidesT are expanded≈ G to linear or- These models are not equivalent for different . ˜ 2 α der in q. In this case the two-level models Hα are then 2 The other two-level model transformation αα which the same as the models h (α) and they must be equiv- T 0 1 is given in Eq. (208) is clearly unitary (unlike αα0 ), but alent to each other for different α. However, a first or- G 2 it does not implement a gauge change even in a projected der expansion of the model h1(α) simply gives back the operator ( ) = ; 2 F p POP standard two-level model Hα but with quadratic terms 0 neglected. It follows that in the weak-coupling regime all αα F (p) αα = PF (p (α α )qA)P. (211) ˜ 2 2 2 T 0 T 0 6 − − two-level models are the same Hα = h1(α) = Hα. This is the only regime in which such an equivalence can gener- Indeed, a two-level model unitary transformation cannot ally be obtained. As the coupling-strength increases the implement the minimal-coupling replacement p p qA, first order expansion in becomes progressively worse, so because the required operator algebra cannot→ be− sup- q and become progressively different. Thus, if a ported by the truncated space. By replacing R in αα0 αα0 αα0 particularT G model H2 were found to be accurate for some Eq. (203) [or (204)] with one obtains the two-level α1 αα0 particular observable in some particular situation, then models T as the coupling increases any other model 2 = Hα2 , α2 α1 2 † † 6 h (α) = 1 PH P + 0 PHphP can be expected to become progressively less accurate by 1 T α m T1α T α T0α 2 † comparison. The relative optimality of different two-level = 1 H (212) T α 1 T1α models is discussed in SecIVF. 32

C. Phase invariance with respect to truncated the truncated transverse electromagnetic energy H 2 ph,α0 position may be defined as " # v α0dσx 2 Supplementary Note 1 of Ref. [7] provides an al- H 2 := Π + + ω2A2 ternative derivation of the multipolar equivalence class ph,α0 2 v 2 0 h1(α ) as resulting from the imposition of a phase in- 2 † † { } = αα Hph = 0α Hph . (218) variance principle defined using the truncated position T 0 ,αTαα0 T 0 T0α0 operator xP := P xP . More generally, as shown in The second equality in Eq. (218) follows from the fact Ref. [12], this principle can be applied in any gauge α that unlike when acting on p, the transformation αα has and it yields the equivalence class h2 (α0) . T 0 { α } the same effect as a gauge transformation when acting In the first quantised-setting the gauge-principle as- on Π, because truncation does not alter the algebra of serts that the mechanical energy (A ) in Eq. (198) Hm α photonic operators. Combining Eqs. (215) and (218) we satisfies local phase invariance (gauge-invariance) may now define the full α0-dependent two-level model as 0 0 0 the total energy ψ m(Aα) ψ = ψ m(Aα) ψ (214) h | H | i h | H | i 2 0 2 2 2 † h (α ) = H (Aα ) + H = αα H . (219) 0 iqχ 0 α m,α 0 ph,α0 0 α αα0 where ψ = e ψ and Aα = Aα + χ. In particular, T T | i | i ∇ 2 0 the equality ψα m(Aα) ψα = ψα m(Aα ) ψα Thus, the equivalence class h (α ) can be obtained as h | H | i h 0 | H 0 | 0 i { α } in which ψα = Rαα ψα , expresses gauge-invariance the class of Hamiltonians satisfying x -phase invariance | 0 i 0 | i P within the α-gauge framework and is a special case of after truncation within the α-gauge. The particular class Eq. (214) obtained by letting = . 2 χ χα0 χα h1(α) derived in Refs. [7, 10, 13] is the special case re- 2 − To define the class h (α) , the gauge-fixing transfor- sulting{ } when the x -phase invariance principle is applied { 1 } P mation R1 was replaced with 1 in Eq. (202) and the specifically within the multipolar-gauge truncated the- α T α multipolar-gauge mechanical energy (A1) = H was ory. This has the appearance of an application to the Hm m replaced with its projection P (A1)P . More generally free theory only due to approximations that have im- Hm however, Eqs. (202) and m(A1) = Hm are special cases plied that A1 0 so that p qA1 = p, and therefore that of Eqs. (200) and (198) respectively.H If we replace ≡ † − † Rαα0 m(Aα) R1α m(A1)R = R1αHmR . 2 H ≡ H 1α 1α with αα0 and m,α(A) with m(Aα) := P m(Aα)P on the right-hand-sideT H of Eq. (200H), then we obtainH a truncated α0-“gauge” mechanical energy; D. Relating models belonging to different equivalence classes H 2 (A ) := 2 (A ) † . (215) m,α α0 αα0 m α αα0 T H T 2 0 Further insight into the nature of the models hα(α ) This truncated energy satisfies a form of phase invari- may be obtained by asking how any given standard two- ance analogous to Eq. (214) but defined with respect to level model must be modified in order that it coincides the truncated position operator xP := P xP . The phase with the standard two-level model found using a different transformation is defined by gauge. For example, let us consider the term q2A2/2m of 2 x the Coulomb-gauge Hamiltonian. The coefficient q /2m U = eiqχ(xP ) = eiβeidΛσ (216) xP is related to the material dipole moment and transition frequencies by the TRK sum rule as where β and Λ are constants depending on the choice of function χ. The global phase eiβ can be ignored. Letting 2 2 X i j e l l q ψ = P ψ denote an arbitrary truncated state we have ωnld d = i [pi, rj] = δij . (220) 2 nl ln 2m h | | i 2m | i | i n 2 0 2 0 0 ψ2 Hm,α(Aα0 ) ψ2 = ψ2 Hm,α(Aα ) ψ2 (217) h | | i h | 0 | i This result rests directly on the CCR algebra [ri, pj] = 0 0 iδij which as already noted, can only be supported in where Aα = Aα0 + ∂xP χ(xP ) = Aα0 + Λ and ψ2 = 0 2 | i an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. Eq. (220) is inde- U ψ2 . Thus, we see that H (A ) is the me- xP m,α α0 pendent of the level l appearing on the left-hand-side. chanical| i energy of the α0-“gauge” where here the term However, if on the left-hand-side we restrict ourselves to “gauge” does not possess the same meaning as in the two levels n, l = 0, 1 with energy difference ω , then for non-truncated theory but instead refers to x -phase in- m P l = 1 Eq. (220) reads variance within the α-gauge truncated mechanical en- X ergy. Subsequently, a “gauge”-transformation of Aα0 un- i j i j 0 ωn1dn1d1n = ωmd10d01 (221) der this principle is A = Aα + Λ. − α0 0 n To obtain the complete α0-dependent Hamiltonian one whereas for = 0 Eq. (220) reads adds the transverse electromagnetic energy, ph,α0 , de- l fined in Eq. (199), to the mechanical energy.H This gives 0 x X i j i j the total energy. Noting that ET = Π α dσ /v = ωn0d 0d0 = +ωmd10d01. (222) − − n n Π PT is the transverse electric field after truncation, n − − α0 33

AAAB73icbVBNS8NAEJ3Ur1q/qh69LBbBU0lE0WPRizcr2A9oQ9lsN+3SzSbuToQS+ie8eFDEq3/Hm//GbZuDtj4YeLw3w8y8IJHCoOt+O4WV1bX1jeJmaWt7Z3evvH/QNHGqGW+wWMa6HVDDpVC8gQIlbyea0yiQvBWMbqZ+64lrI2L1gOOE+xEdKBEKRtFK7azLqCR3k1654lbdGcgy8XJSgRz1Xvmr249ZGnGFTFJjOp6boJ9RjYJJPil1U8MTykZ0wDuWKhpx42ezeyfkxCp9EsbalkIyU39PZDQyZhwFtjOiODSL3lT8z+ukGF75mVBJilyx+aIwlQRjMn2e9IXmDOXYEsq0sLcSNqSaMrQRlWwI3uLLy6R5VvUuqu79eaV2ncdRhCM4hlPw4BJqcAt1aAADCc/wCm/Oo/PivDsf89aCk88cwh84nz+3c4/B The result obtained now clearly depends on whether Observable l is the ground or excited state. As first noted in α O α′ Refs. [4, 96], if one takes the two-level projection of the AAAB+nicbVBNS8NAEJ34WetXqkcvwSJ6Kokoeix68VjFfkAbwmS7bZduNmF3o5TYn+LFgyJe/SXe/Ddu2xy09cEMj/dm2NkXJpwp7brf1tLyyuraemGjuLm1vbNrl/YaKk4loXUS81i2QlSUM0HrmmlOW4mkGIWcNsPh9cRvPlCpWCzu9SihfoR9wXqMoDZSYJfugqyDPBngrB+PA7vsVtwpnEXi5aQMOWqB/dXpxiSNqNCEo1Jtz020n6HUjHA6LnZSRRMkQ+zTtqECI6r8bHr62DkyStfpxdKU0M5U/b2RYaTUKArNZIR6oOa9ifif105179LPmEhSTQWZPdRLuaNjZ5KD02WSEs1HhiCRzNzqkAFKJNqkVTQhePNfXiSN04p3XnFvz8rVqzyOAhzAIZyABxdQhRuoQR0IPMIzvMKb9WS9WO/Wx2x0ycp39uEPrM8fJv+T7Q== R↵↵0 Coulomb-gauge self-energy term, namely, q2A2( 0 0 + Operator O O 1 1 )/2m, and one applies Eqs. (221) and (222| )i to h the| ′ | i h | 2 1 1 excited state projection q /2m and the ground Truncation M state projection q2 0 0 /|2mi hrespectively,| then one ar- P rives at the following| i modified h | term, which now consti- Operator 2 2′ ′2 tutes a non-trivial light-matter interaction; O AAACAXicbVDLSsNAFJ34rPUVdSO4GSyiq5KIosuiG5cV+oImhJvppB06mYSZiVBC3fgrblwo4ta/cOffOG2z0NYD93I4515m7glTzpR2nG9raXlldW29tFHe3Nre2bX39lsqySShTZLwRHZCUJQzQZuaaU47qaQQh5y2w+HtxG8/UKlYIhp6lFI/hr5gESOgjRTYh7lHgOPGOMg94OkAZv10HNgVp+pMgReJW5AKKlAP7C+vl5AspkITDkp1XSfVfg5SM8LpuOxliqZAhtCnXUMFxFT5+fSCMT4xSg9HiTQlNJ6qvzdyiJUaxaGZjEEP1Lw3Ef/zupmOrv2ciTTTVJDZQ1HGsU7wJA7cY5ISzUeGAJHM/BWTAUgg2oRWNiG48ycvktZ51b2sOvcXldpNEUcJHaFjdIZcdIVq6A7VURMR9Iie0St6s56sF+vd+piNLlnFzgH6A+vzB2Qxltk= O ≠ O ↵↵0 2 T q 2 2 z A ω (d A) σ (223) AAAB73icbVBNS8NAEJ3Ur1q/qh69LBbBU0lE0WPRizcr2A9oQ9lsN+3SzSbuToQS+ie8eFDEq3/Hm//GbZuDtj4YeLw3w8y8IJHCoOt+O4WV1bX1jeJmaWt7Z3evvH/QNHGqGW+wWMa6HVDDpVC8gQIlbyea0yiQvBWMbqZ+64lrI2L1gOOE+xEdKBEKRtFK7azLqCR3k1654lbdGcgy8XJSgRz1Xvmr249ZGnGFTFJjOp6boJ9RjYJJPil1U8MTykZ0wDuWKhpx42ezeyfkxCp9EsbalkIyU39PZDQyZhwFtjOiODSL3lT8z+ukGF75mVBJilyx+aIwlQRjMn2e9IXmDOXYEsq0sLcSNqSaMrQRlWwI3uLLy6R5VvUuqu79eaV2ncdRhCM4hlPw4BJqcAt1aAADCc/wCm/Oo/PivDsf89aCk88cwh84nz+3c4/B 2m → − m · Observable ? ? z 1 1 0 0 O where d := d10 and σ = . As noted in Ref. [7] the modification (|223i h) is| − ad | hoc.i h | It results in a FIG. 6: The breakdown of gauge-invariance under a trun- 0 model that no longer has the interaction of the Coulomb- cating map MP . Equivalent representations O and O of the gauge. However, to order q2 the model obtained does co- same observable O are not equivalent after application of MP . 2 A two-level unitary such as T cannot produce from the incide with the multipolar-gauge model h (0) [7]. In this αα0 1 truncated α-gauge theory, the same observable ↔ operator sense the truncated “gauge”-principle can reveal what association as is defined by a distinct gauge α0. The “correct” ad hoc non-unitary modifications are required in order association O ↔ O2 after truncation, can only be defined by to relate non-equivalent truncated theories. identifying a gauge in which the truncation O2 is accurate. As already noted, at order q all two-level models are Subsequently, any two-level unitary operator can be used to equivalent without any modification. At order q2, forc- define an equivalent truncated representation. ing equivalence requires a non-unitary modification of at least one of the models involved, such that it no longer incorrect results when dealing with observables repre- represents the gauge within which it was derived. As sented by functions of p. This demonstrates the practical the coupling-strength increases, increasingly drastic non- implications of misidentifying two-level model rotations unitary modifications will be needed to transform a given as gauge transformations. model into one that belongs to a different equivalence Consider, for example, the total momentum class. This perspective is another way to understand the increasing difference with increasing coupling strength, K := mr˙ + Klong + Ktrans, (224) between the gauge transformations PRαα0 or PRαα0 P and the rotation . αα0 which is a fundamental conserved quantity. Here T R 3 Ktrans = d x (ET B B ET)/2 and Klong is defined in Eq. (135).× Since− in× the Coulomb-gauge p = E. Misidentification of gauge transformations mr˙ + qAT(r), it follows from Eq. (135) that Km,long := mr˙ + Klong = p. The two-level truncation of this ob- y 1 0 It has been argued within the literature that the trans- servable is P pP = (m/q)ωmdσ where ωm = , 1 0 − + ± − formation 10 constitutes a two-level model gauge trans- d = q r and σy = i(σ σ ) with σ the usual T formation and that since 10 is unitary, this resolves any raisingh and| | loweringi operators− for− the lowest two mate- T gauge-noninvariance due to truncation [7, 10, 13]. How- rial levels. The energy corresponding to Km,long is that ever, the inequality (211) states that 1α does not imple- of an atom dressed by its electrostatic field; ment a gauge change when acting onT (projected) functions of . The action of coincides with that of 2 p αα0 Km,long the gauge transformation R T followed by projection P , Em,long := + V (r), (225) αα0 2m only when acting on operators that commute with Rαα0 (functions of x and A) and linear functions of Π, for which is represented in the Coulomb-gauge by the mate- † † which it is clear that PR ΠR P = Π . As rial bare-energy operator Hm. αα0 αα0 αα0 αα0 first shown in Ref. [12] (reviewed in Sec.IVCT ), theT invari- In the multipolar-gauge, the observables Km,long and Em,long for a dipole are represented by the operators ance of the models related by αα0 is xP -phase invariance rather than gauge-invariance.T † According to the general quantum postulates given in Km,long = R01pR01 = p + qAT(0), (226) Sec.IIIA for the identification of states and observables † 1 2 E long = R01H R = [p + qAT(0)] + V (r) with vectors and operators, different gauges constitute m, m 01 2m different associations between operators and observables. 2 q q 2 A two-level model unitary operator cannot preserve these = Hm + p AT(0) + AT(0) . (227) m · 2m associations in general (Fig.6). The misidentification of 2 10 as a gauge transformation and of h (0) as a Coulomb- If we adopt the standard truncating map M defined in T 1 P gauge model, as in Refs. [7, 10, 13], will therefore produce Eq. (205), then the truncations of Km,long and Em,long 34 within the multipolar-gauge are 10 is simply an arbitrary example of such a rotation. TheT important task is that of determining initially an ac- m y Km,long = ωmdσ + qAT(0), (228) curate truncation for the given observable property. The q optimality of competing truncations is discussed below. + − 0 Em,long = ωmσ σ + 2 y q 2 ω d AT(0)σ + AT(0) . (229) F. Optimality of truncations − m · 2m This is the same definition of truncation that yields the Having reviewed the various methods of obtaining two- 2 standard multipolar QRM H1 , which is equivalent to the level models and discussed how they are non-unitarily 2 2 † related, we briefly discuss which two-level models are model h1(0) = 10H1 10 where [7, 13] T T known to be accurate in which situations. Subsequently x 10 = exp [iqP rP AT(0)] = exp [id AT(0)σ ] . (230) we discuss the importance of two-level model predictions T · · for gauge-ambiguities. Note that since for the present discussion there is no need The truncation to two material levels should be ex- to restrict the spatial dimension or the number of radia- pected to offer a robust approximation of the more com- tion modes, we have not done so in the above equations. plete theory when the material system is sufficiently an- If h2(0) is a Coulomb-gauge model then the observ- harmonic that the orthogonal subspace Q is sufficiently 1 H ables Km,long and Em,long must be represented within well separated from P , where P Q = is the full y H H⊕ H H this “gauge” by Km,long = (m/q)ωmdσ and Em,long = Hilbert space. Such regimes may or may not be of ex- + − 0 ωmσ σ + . If 10 is a gauge transformation then perimental importance when considering specific systems within the multipolar-gaugeT truncation these observables and implementations of light-matter physics models. must be given by transformation from the Coulomb Let us first suppose we have a highly anharmonic sys- “gauge” to the multipolar-gauge; tem at arbitrary coupling strength and only a single radiation mode. The Coulomb-gauge coupling involves the y † Km,long = (m/q)ωmd 01σ 01, (231) canonical momentum p, which possesses matrix elements T T n + − † 0 in the material basis that scale with material tran- Em,long = ωm 01σ σ + , (232) {| i} T T01 sition frequencies as which are different to Eqs. (228) and (229). Hence we qp = imω d . (233) have arrived at a contradiction. Specifically, under the nl nl nl 2 truncating map MP yielding the standard QRM H1 of As first explained in Ref. [9] transitions to higher states the multipolar-gauge, the associations between operators are not suppressed within the Coulomb-gauge, because and observables within this truncation contradict the as- the increasing energy gap is compensated by an increas- 2 2 sociations implied if h1(0), which is equivalent to H1 , is ing coupling matrix element. In contrast, the multipolar identified as a Coulomb-gauge model. coupling involves only the dipole moment. Therefore, for In any quantum theory a unitary rotation can be used sufficiently strong coupling where two-level models are to generate an equivalent representation of a given ob- not equivalent, the Coulomb-gauge truncation will gen- servable. However, in a truncated theory, the association erally perform poorly in comparison to the multipolar- between an operator and an observable after a unitary gauge truncation as a general approximation of the non- rotation will not in general coincide with that implied by truncated theory. These points were also elaborated in identifying the rotated frame as a different gauge. This Ref. [4] via a Schriefer-Wolf-type analysis. As an illustra- is because a gauge is nothing less than a particular as- tive example we take a double-well dipole with potential sociation between operators and observables within the V (θ, φ) = θr2/2 + φr4/4 where θ and φ control the non-truncated theory (see Secs.IIIA-IIID), yet trunca- shape of the− double-well [6,7,9]. The material Hamilto- tion does not preserve the algebra of material operators. nian is therefore [9] Conversely, treating the truncated theory’s rotated frame as a different gauge, i.e, using the associations between ζ4 Hα = E ∂2 βζ2 + (234) operators and observables that define this gauge, will m 2 − ζ − 2 generally result in the incorrect operator representation of a given observable within the truncated theory. where we have defined the dimensionless variable ζ = 1/6 2 In order to correctly identify within a truncated the- r/r0 with r0 = (1/[mφ]) , along with = 1/(mr0) 4 E ory, alternative unitary representations of a physical ob- and β = θmr0. We first consider the case of resonance servable represented by operator O, first an accurate δ = ω/ωm = 1 together with a high anharmonicity O 2 truncation, O , must be found. This can then be taken µ = (ω21 ωm)/ωm of µ = 70. We compare the unique 2 − to define the correct association O within the trun- spectrum of the non-truncated Hamiltonian Hα, with the cated theory. Subsequently, anyOtwo ↔ level model unitary different approximations given by the spectra of the stan- rotation, U 2, may be used to generate an equivalent rep- dard multipolar and Coulomb-gauge quantum Rabi mod- resentation of as U 2O2(U 2)†. The particular rotation els (QRMs) H2 and H2, and also with the non-standard O 1 0 35

lustrated in Fig.8 using the double-well dipole example and a material anharmonicity of µ 3. The existence of such gauges and the accuracy of two-level≈ truncation for low energy properties therein, is of importance for understanding gauge-ambiguities in the USC regime, as will be discussed below in Sec.IVG. When more radiation modes are considered the optimal gauge α for truncation may often be shifted away from the multipolar-gauge α = 1 towards the Coulomb- gauge α = 0 [8]. While the multipolar linear interaction component scales as √ω, the Coulomb-gauge linear inter- FIG. 7: The transition spectra (relative to the ground en- action instead scales as 1/√ω. In the same way that the ergy G) of two-level models are compared with the exact effects of additional material levels are more pronounced transition spectrum, assuming a material anharmonicity of in the Coulomb-gauge, the introduction of more radi- µ := (ω21 −ωm)/ωm = 70 and resonance δ := ω/ωm = 1. The ation modes causes the multipolar-gauge truncation to multipolar-gauge QRM is generally accurate in this regime, in become sub-optimal because the effects of non-resonant the sense that one must go to very high energy levels before modes are more pronounced in this gauge. This will be discrepancies with the exact spectrum are found. The two 2 ˜ 2 discussed further in Sec.VIA. Results illustrating this Coulomb-gauge two-level models H0 and H0 are generally inaccurate, and are qualitatively very similar. effect within the strong-coupling regime have been given by Roth et al. [8]. It is also noteworthy that when the detuning δ = ω/ω is large (small) the Coulomb-gauge two-level model cou- 0 pling η = (ωm/ω)d/√2ωv is weaker (stronger) than the corresponding multipolar-gauge coupling η = d/√2ωv = δη0. Clearly there are a number of factors determining the optimality of a truncation. We remark that when more dipoles are considered, but only a single radiation mode is retained the multipolar-gauge truncation is again typically optimal for larger anharmonicity with accuracy increasing with the number of dipoles considered [6]. Finally we mention that the two-level model Hamilto- α FIG. 8: The first transition energies of the two-level models nian PHαP constitutes the first order (in V ) contribu- 2 2 tion to a more general effective Hamiltonian defined over H1 and HJC, are compared with the exact transition energy, assuming a material anharmonicity of µ ≈ 3 and resonance the two-level subspace P [97]. If the model PH P is H α δ = 1. The αJC-gauge two-level model can be more accurate found to be inaccurate, then higher order corrections can than the multipolar-gauge QRM in the ultrastrong-coupling be calculated perturbatively using various forms of per- regime. turbation theory [97]. In particular, the second order contribution is straightforwardly obtainable for a two- ˜ 2 Coulomb-gauge model H0 defined by Eq. (210). We note level system and single-mode and should yield a two- 2 level model with improved accuracy. In a single-mode that for each α the standard two-level model Hα can be selected as the representative of its unitary equivalence theory, such higher order contributions will tend to be 2 0 larger towards the Coulomb-gauge value = 0, because class hα(α ) without loss of generality. As shown in α Fig.7,{ the multipolar-gauge} QRM H2 is very accurate the energy gap to the orthogonal subspace Q is com- 1 H for predicting transition spectra in this regime while the pensated by the form of the Coulomb-gauge coupling, as 2 ˜ 2 Coulomb-gauge models H0 and H0 are qualitatively sim- already noted. However, as will be emphasised below, in ilar and very inaccurate for strong enough couplings. such simple models the accuracy of a given two-level ap- Although two-level truncation will obviously break- proximation is of limited importance, because material down as a general approximation for sufficiently har- truncation is straightforwardly avoidable. monic material systems, in Ref. [4] a gauge denoted αJC was identified for which the two-level truncation of a material harmonic oscillator nevertheless yields the ex- G. Gauge-ambiguities versus gauge-noninvariance act ground state; P GJC = GJC . Full details of this case are given in Sec.|VB1i . For| thisi reason, there exist Gauge-noninvariance and gauge-ambiguities are not gauges α = 1 in which the two-level truncation of ma- synonymous. Gauge-noninvariance can only result from terial systems6 with low anharmonicity remain accurate approximations and can therefore be avoided by avoid- for low energy states, and offer a more accurate repre- ing the offending approximation. In particular, the op- sentation than the multipolar QRM, despite truncation timality of a truncation is a separate consideration to generally breaking down for higher levels [4]. This is il- the physically motivated question of which gauge pro- 36 vides the most operationally relevant definitions of the quantum subsystems in a given experiment. The term gauge-ambiguities first used in the context of ultrastrong coupling (USC) light-matter physics in Ref. [4] refers to ambiguities that result from the inherent gauge-relativity of QED subsystems, a feature of QED that is independent of model approximations.

The onset of USC has often been identified through a departure from Jaynes-Cummings physics, due to the breakdown of the rotating-wave approximation (RWA). In the USC regime the qualitative low energy physics of the Jaynes-Cummings model (JCM) is markedly different to that of the quantum Rabi model (QRM). For FIG. 9: The exact ground state average numbers of flux-gauge example, unlike the quantum Rabi model the Jaynes- and JC-gauge photons with coupling strength η for a fluxonium system assuming an anharmonicity of µ ≈ 3 and res- Cummings model predicts no ground state entanglement onance δ = 1. The number of JC-gauge photons is much and no ground state photon population for all coupling lower than the number of flux-gauge photons. Appreciable strengths. The contrary predictions of the QRM have JC-gauge photon population only occurs for very large cou- previously been regarded as definitive of ultrastrong- plings approaching the deep-strong limit η = 1. coupling phenomenology. However, Ref. [4] shows that there exists a gauge choice that yields a Jaynes- Cummings model without performing the RWA. The corresponding gauge-parameter αJC varies with the coupling and detuning parameters of the theory, but this is certainly permissible, it simply amounts to choosing a non- constant gauge function (cf. SecIII).

Independent of its robustness as an approximation, material truncation may be a useful tool. For a material harmonic oscillator two-level truncation is essentially as poor a general approximation as it can ever be, yet for this system there nevertheless exists a gauge αJC for which the ground state of the truncated model is exact (cf. Sec. VB1). Ref. [4] exemplifies an exper- FIG. 10: The exact ground state average numbers of imentally realistic regime of a fluxonium LC-oscillator multipolar-gauge, Coulomb-gauge, and JC-gauge photons for system with anharmonicity µ 3.15, such that two- a double-well dipolar system assuming an anharmonicity of level models remain accurate for≈ predictions up to the µ ≈ 70 and resonance δ = 1. The number of JC-gauge pho- first excited state, and for which the JC-gauge two-level tons is only appreciable well into the USC regime η > 1/2. model is usually more accurate. It follows that low energy weak-coupling phenomenology can persist even within the USC regime, such that the phenomenology previ- V. TIME-DEPENDENT INTERACTIONS AND ously viewed as definitive of the USC regime need not ADIABATIC SWITCHING hold even within gauge-invariant non-truncated models. Essentially the same findings are obtained for a double- Time-dependent interactions arise in a number of con- well dipole as was considered in the previous section. texts in light-matter physics. Herein, the notion of a Figs.9 and 10 show the exact, i.e., non-truncated, ground process in which material charges exchange photons, is state photon numbers defined relative to the multipolar elementary. The concept arises from scattering theory (flux), Coulomb (charge) and JC gauges for fluxonium wherein the interaction is adiabatically switched on and and double-well dipole systems respectively. To illustrate off over an infinite duration. Such an idealisation may different regimes of anharmonicity, we assume µ 3 for not however, be applicable in extreme light-matter inter- the fluxonium system and µ 70 for the double-well≈ action regimes. Gauge-freedom in scattering theory has ≈ dipole. In both cases the ground state photonJC popula- been discussed extensively in the context of atomic line- tion is highly suppressed when compared with the ground shape and level-shift phenomena [24, 37, 39, 40, 98–104]. state photon0 and photon1 populations. All of these pre- We explain why subsystem gauge-relativity can be com- dictions are gauge-invariant having been obtained from pletely ignored in calculating the S-matrix [24]. We then the non-truncated theory. directly demonstrate that conventional quantum optical 37 approximations mimic the S-matrix, such that subsys- However, in scattering theory it is assumed that V α = tem gauge-relativity is only eliminated after a sufficient 0 in the remote past and distant future t = , such number of these approximations are performed. Only that at these times H = h, so the unperturbed±∞ en- then does an “atom” defined as a quantum subsystem, ergy eigenvectors uniquely represent the total energy become an ostensibly unique concept. We finally discuss eigenstates. It is then assumed that the interaction is non-adiabatic switching of ultrastrong couplings whereby switched-on and -off adiabatically between t = . Sub- subsystem gauge-relativity becomes important. sequently, the S-matrix is formally defined by±∞ [24, 105]

n m Snm = lim UαI ( t, t) (237) t→∞ h | − | i A. Adiabatic switching and a unique invariance property of the S-matrix where UαI denotes the corresponding evolution operator in the interaction picture defined by h. In contrast to As explained in Secs.IIIB-IIID, the task we are faced inequality (236), the S-matrix possesses the remarkable with is the determination of which gauge-invariant sub- property that it is independent of α despite being defined system definitions are relevant in which physical situa- in terms of the same unperturbed vectors for every α. In calculating we do not have to transform the eigen- tions. However, if the S-matrix is applicable in providing Snm all physical predictions then we are able to completely ig- vectors of h in order to ensure that we are using the same physical state in each gauge, as in Eq. (235). In other nore this question. Although the S-matrix provides probability amplitudes for transitions between unperturbed words, “photons” and “material” excitations represented (subsystem) states, which are gauge-relative, the subsys- by the eigenstates of h become ostensibly unique in scat- tems become ostensibly unique within scattering theory tering theory, so we do not have to confront the question because of the adiabatic interaction switching condition of which subsystem definitions are the most relevant. therein. A general proof of this unique invariance property of the -matrix has been given for nonrelativistic QED by Feynman diagrams can be used as a mnemonic when S Woolley [39, 104]. Essential for the proof is that the calculating the terms in a perturbative expansion of the unperturbed operator h is kept the same in each gauge. Hamiltonian resolvent used to define the S-matrix. This The -matrix can also be expressed in the form [39, 104, gives rise to the notions of “real” and “virtual” processes. S 106] The S-matrix is the primary source of predictions in high- energy and particle physics. We briefly review its defini- S = δ 2πiT δ( ) (238) tion and discuss its limitations. nm nm − nm n − m Let us begin by considering the matrix elements of where T is called the transition matrix whose elements the evolution operator in the unperturbed basis. The in the unperturbed basis naturally depend on α. How- α α-gauge Hamiltonian can be partitioned as Hα = h + V ever, when it is evaluated on-energy-shell as expressed where h = Hm+Hph is the unperturbed Hamiltonian and by the delta-function in the S-matrix element Snm, all V α is the interaction. The unperturbed energy eigen- α-dependence drops out [39, 104]. This bare-energy con- values and eigenvectors are defined by h n = n n . servation property is thereby seen to be crucial in ensur- | i | i The unperturbed vectors n are each a tensor prod- ing that the gauge-relativity of the subsystems can be {| i} uct of an eigenvector of Hm and an eigenvector of Hph ignored when calculating the S-matrix. (photon number state). The state represented by the We can define any process that conserves h as real. vector n in the gauge α is represented by the vector A virtual process is then one that is not real. In the 0n | i n 0 = Rαα0 in the gauge α , therefore the bare eigen- S-matrix, the latter can only occur as intermediate pro- | i | i vectors of h represent different physical states in each cesses constituting part of a real process. More generally gauge (subsystems are gauge-relative). however, the S-matrix can be understood as an infinite- The evolution operator generated by Hα between times time limit of the more general matrix given by [106] ti and tf is denoted Uα(ti, tf ). Evolutions in different † (τ) (τ) gauges are related by Uα (ti, tf ) = Rαα Uα(ti, tf )R . Snm = δnm 2πiTnmδ (n m) (239) 0 0 αα0 − − It follows that the evolution operator matrix elements (τ) are gauge-invariant; The function δ (n m) has a peak at n = m with width on the order 1/τ−, which is often taken as expressing n m 0n 0m the conservation of bare energy to within 1/τ [106]. This Uα(ti, tf ) = Uα0 (ti, tf ) . (235) h | | i h | | i is the heuristic energy-time uncertainty relation, which it It is equally clear that for α = α0 we have should be noted is quite different to the rigorous Heisen- 6 berg uncertainty relation for conjugate operators. How- n m n m ever, it is clear that the processes described by the matrix Uα(ti, tf ) = Uα0 (ti, tf ) . (236) h | | i 6 h | | i S(τ) are not purely real (zero energy-uncertainty) unless Inequality (236) simply exemplifies the expected result τ . that an eigenvector of h represents a different physical →It is ∞ widely regarded that physical processes are “real”. state in each different gauge. However, although the total energy E represented by the 38 operator Hα is automatically conserved, there is nothing 1. Toy model: material oscillator and a single mode in quantum or classical theory that requires a physical process to conserve only part of this energy, such as the We begin by using a simple toy model that as above part represented by h. This is required and does occur assumes a material harmonic oscillator. We now also in the S-matrix only because Hα = h at the beginning consider only a single radiation mode, such that Eqs. (14) and the end of a scattering process. And yet, the limit of and (9) become infinite times with adiabatic switching is clearly an idealisation, such that purely “real” processes cannot truly αqx PTα = , (240) occur. In this sense the term “real” is a misnomer. Fur- v ther still, it is clear that only when a process is “real”, Aα = (1 α)A (241) i.e., is a scattering process, can the gauge-relativity of − the subsystems necessarily be ignored. where v is the cavity volume. The cavity canonical operators are All predictions are fundamentally gauge-invariant in 1 the sense of Eq. (235). Thus, both sides of inequal- A = (a† + a), (242) ity (236) are gauge-invariant predictions, but beyond √2ωv scattering theory, i.e., over finite-times, we must recog- r ω Π = i (a† a) (243) nise that they are different gauge-invariant predictions. 2v − Each different α corresponds to a different physical definition of the subsystems. Outside of scattering the- such that [A, Π] = i/v. We assume that the material os- ory we must confront the question as to which of the cillator points in the same direction as the mode. The many gauge-invariant subsystem definitions are relevant theory is gauge-invariant because gauge-fixing transfor- iq(α−α0)rA in which physical situations. For example, in a physi- mations remain unitary; Rαα0 = e . cal situation where we are unable to use the S-matrix, The α-gauge Hamiltonian in Eq. (22) can be written α α † † Eq. (238), then which side of inequality (236) provides H = h + V where h = ω(a a + 1/2) + ωm(b b + 1/2) the most relevant prediction? and As an analogy consider special relativity; suppose we η2ω V α = (1 α)2(a† + a)2 + δα2(b† + b)2 were to adopt the definition of time that is provided by 4 − a specific inertial frame A to predict the outcome of a − † † + † † + iuα (ab a b) + iuα (a b ab) (244) measurement from a clock that is at rest in frame B. − − In general, this would result in an incorrect prediction, with η = q/(ω√mv) a dimensionless coupling parame- − because we would have used a definition of time that ter, δ = ω/ωm, and although a valid physical definition, is not relevant in describing the measurement being performed. Only within ± ηωm √ uα = δ[(1 α) δα]. (245) the nonrelativistic regime can intervals in time be con- 2 − ∓ sidered frame-independent (absolute as opposed to rel- Clearly the value of α, which determines the physical ative). Similarly, scattering theory constitutes a com- definitions of the two oscillator subsystems, can have a pletely gauge-nonrelativistic theory. In any other situa- profound affect on the form of V α. This is completely tion, for example, when interactions are fast and strong, eliminated however, if we assume weakly-coupled nearly- the gauge-relativity of subsystems is important, such that resonant oscillators. We can then let ωm = ω, and we we are no longer able to pretend that quantum subsys- can neglect terms quadratic in η. We can also perform tems are absolute (gauge-frame independent). We must + the rotating-wave approximation by setting uα = 0. The then identify which definitions are relevant in which phys- final result is the α-independent Hamiltonian H = h + V ical situations. where h = ω(a†a + b†b + 1) and i V α = V = ωη(ab† a†b). (246) 2 − This Hamiltonian satisfies bare-energy conservation

B. Quantum optical approximations: Mimicking [h, H] = 0, (247) the S-matrix which we saw in the context of the S-matrix was crucial in eliminating subsystem gauge-relativity. We have ob- We directly demonstrate that subsystem gauge- tained the same result here in a very direct manner. We relativity is eliminated only after a suﬃcient number of can now pretend that the two oscillators represent unique weak-coupling approximations are performed, in which physical subsystems. case “light” and “matter” as quantum subsystems, be- Outside of the regime of validity of weak-coupling ap- come ostensibly unique theoretical concepts. proximations, it is typically thought that one cannot let 39

+ uα 0. In general, this is true, by which we mean • It is premature to define the paradigm of extreme- that≈ one can only use this approximation independent coupling light-matter physics through properties of the value of α in the weak-coupling regime. How- such as high-levels of ground-state light-matter en- ever, whether V α includes counter-rotating terms de- tanglement and photon population, which only re- pends on the value of α, so there exists a range of values sult from terms that happen to feature in com- for which the rotating-wave approximation will remain monly chosen gauges, but which are not necessarily valid well into the ultrastrong coupling regime. For a present. specific choice of α the rotating-wave approximation is exact [4,5, 14, 15, 96]. Specifically, by choosing There are no ground state virtual excitations in the modes c and d when they are defined relative to the ωm gauge αJC. We will see in Secs.VIB and VI C 2 that α(ω) = αJC(ω) := (248) ωm + ω as a result, “matter” cannot be fully localised in this gauge. Finally we remark that although a projection + we obtain uα 0, so the counter-rotating terms in the = 0 0 + 1 1 onto the first two levels of the ≡ P d d d d bilinear component of V α in Eq. (244) are automati- material| i oscillator h | | isi h as| ill-justified as it can ever be (be- cally eliminated. As before, by performing non-mixing cause the material system has zero anharmonicity), such Bogoliubov transformations within the separate lightJC a projection nevertheless yields the exact ground state; and matterJC Hilbert spaces, we can eliminate terms P GJC = GJC . This fact is relevant to our discussion quadratic in η via modes c and d such that of| materiali | truncationi in Sec.IV.

2 2 2 p mωm 2 q 2 2 † 1 + x + αJCr =ω ˜m d d + , (249) 2m 2 2v 2 2. Quantum optical master equation 2 v 2 2 2 q 2 2 † 1 (Π + ω A ) + (1 αJC) A =ω ˜ c c + 2 2m − 2 We now turn our attention to a more realistic set- (250) ting by deriving the quantum optical master equation for the dipoleα, which can be viewed as a detector for where the corresponding α-gauge radiation field. In general, such a reduced description will of course depend on 2 2 2 2 2 2 ω˜m = ωm + ω η αJC = ωmµ, (251) α. However, we will show that the weak-coupling ap- 2 2 2 2 2 2 ω˜ = ω + ω η (1 αJC) = ω µ (252) proximations comprising the traditional quantum optics − paradigm, have the effect of mimicking the S-matrix and in which they thereby cause all α-dependence to drop out of the final result. More precisely, they ensure that all master ηω 2 equation coefficients are well-known second-order QED µ = 1 + . (253) ωm + ω matrix elements. A similar demonstration has been given for a pair of two-level dipoles in Ref. [96]. Here we con- In the single-mode case this elimination of self-energy sider only one dipole (the detector), but we do not restrict terms is exact. It follows that αJC can be written αJC = our attention to only two dipolar energy levels. ω˜m/(˜ω +ω ˜m). The corresponding Hamiltonian is We make the following weak-coupling approximations concerning the state of the detector represented by the α 1 1 density operator ( ) in a suitably chosen interaction pic- H =˜ω d†d + +ω ˜ c†c + ρ t JC m 2 2 ture: rωω 1 iq m (d†c dc†). (254) 1. Born approximation: The dipole and reservoir are − mv ωm + ω − uncorrelated over the relevant timescale. The ground state is represented by the the vacuum of 2. Second order perturbation theory: The coupling is the c and d modes; GJC = 0 , 0 . We emphasise that much smaller than the unperturbed energies. | i | d ci at no point have we made use of any approximations or 3. Markov approximation A: The system dynamics assumptions that ruin the gauge-invariance of the the- are memoryless; ρ(s) ρ(t) for all s [0, t]. ory. Neither however, have we performed a diagonalising ≈ ∈ transformation of the Hamiltonian. We have simply con- 4. Markov approximation B: The temporal limit of the integrated Von-Neumann equation is t . sidered a particular definition of the subsystems specified ≈ ∞ by a value αJC in between the commonly chosen values 5. Secular (rotating-wave) approximation: Rapidly α = 0 and α = 1, and within this gauge we have only oscillating contributions are negligible. performed non-mixing Bogoliubov transformations of the form Um Uph. Whether or not the latter transforma- The Markov approximations mimic the adiabatic switch- tions are employed⊗ counter-rotating terms are absent, being condition of the S-matrix and together with the secu- cause u+ 0. Thus, lar approximation they enforce bare-energy conservation. JC ≡ 40

The steps involved in deriving the quantum optical Typically the s-integral will not converge and must be master equation are well-known [107], but we will repeat appropriately regularised. In the Schrödinger-picture, them here using an arbitrary gauge in order to show how all master equation coefficients will now be time- approximations 1-5 cause all α-dependence to drop out of independent. Having used approximations 1-4 the com- the final result. We use the EDA of the arbitrary gauge plete positivity of the reduced evolution is not guaran- Hamiltonian in Eq. (22), which is teed. Complete positivity requires approximation 5 [107]. We will first deal with the unitary part of the master α α H = h + V1 + V2 (255) equation, which is given by Z X n n n 3 X † 1 α h = + d k ω a (k)a (k) + , ρ˙(t) u = i[ρ(t), ∆ (t)] (262) | i h | λ λ 2 | n λ α α α α (256) where ∆ (t) = ∆2 (t)+∆1 (t) in which ∆1 (t) comes from partitioning the coefficient of ρ(t) in the second term in α q V = (1 α) p AT(0) + αqr Π(0), (257) Eq. (261) as 1 − − m · · 2 2 2 Z ∞ α 2 q 2 α q T α α α α V2 = (1 α) A(0) + r δ (0) r. (258) ds 0 V1 (t)V1 (t s) 0 = γ (t) + i∆1 (t). (263) − 2m 2 · · 0 h | − | i α α α α The terms h, V1 , and V2 are zeroth, first, and second The dipole operators γ (t) and ∆1 (t) will be seen in the order in q respectively (q2/(4π) is the fine structure con- end to be separately Hermitian. We will now show that stant serving as a dimensionless small parameter). De- within approximation 5 we obtain spite the EDA, the theory remains gauge-invariant be- X cause R remains unitary. ∆α(t) = ∆n n n (264) αα0 | i h | We will view h as the unperturbed Hamiltonian, whose n definition we have made sure to keep independent of α, where ∆n is the α-independent on-energy-shell second or- because this is essential in order that the S-matrix is α- der T -matrix element for the vacuum shift of the dipole’s independent (cf. SecVA). In approximation 1 we assume n’th energy level; that the system’s density matrix can be written ρ(t) ⊗ m α n 2 0 0 where 0 is the photonic vacuum and ρ(t) is the n n α n X e V1 , 0 | i h | | i ∆ = , 0 V2 , 0 + | h | | i | . (265) dipole state in the interaction picture with respect to h. h | | i n em In approximation 2 the Von-Neumann equation for the m6=n − density matrix is integrated and iterated up to second Here the summation is over all unperturbed states em = order in q to give [107] n, 0 . Direct calculation yields | i 6 | i ρ˙(t) =i[ρ(0), ∆α(t)] Z ∞ Z X X 2 ds 0 V α(t)V α(t s) 0 = d3k t 1 1 Z 0 h | − | i tr [ α( ) [ α( ) ( ) 0 0 ]] λ n,m,q ds ph V1 t , V1 t s , ρ s ∞ − 0 − ⊗ | i h | Z + − n q iωnq t i(ωqm−ω)s (259) gnmλgmqλunmαumqα e ds e × | i h | 0 α α (266) where ∆2 (t) := 0 V2 (t) 0 . In approximation 3 the h | | i n m density matrix ρ(s) is approximated as ρ(s) ρ(t) for all where ωnm := and s [0, t] resulting in the time-local equation≈ − ∈ qe (k) r g := λ · nm , (267) α nmλ p 3 ρ˙(t) =i[ρ(t), ∆2 (t)] 2ω(2π) Z t ± α α unmα := αω (1 α)ωnm. (268) ds trph [V (t), [V (t s), ρ(t) 0 0 ]] . ± − − 1 1 − ⊗ | i h | 0 Forcing the s-integral in Eq. (266) to converge by adding (260) −ηs damping e , η 0+, and using the identity → In principle, all terms can now be calculated as known Z ∞ − p.v. functions of t that are second order in q. In approxima- lim ds eise ηs = πδ() + i (269) η→0+ tion 4 the limit of integration is extended; t , which 0 → ∞ α gives the Markovian equation the quantity ∆1 (t) is identified as the component of Eq. (266) coming from the principal value term; ρ˙(t) = α Z ∞ ∆1 (t) α α α i[ρ(t), ∆2 (t)] ds 0 V1 (t)V1 (t s) 0 ρ(t) Z u+ u− − 0 h | − | i 3 X X nmα mqα n q iωnq t = d k gnmλgmqλ e ωqm ω | i h | α α λ n,m,q trph [V (t) 0 ρ(t) 0 V (t s)] + H.c. . (261) − − 1 | i h | 1 − (270) 41 where the k-integral takes its principal value. For the ing component of Eq. (266) that comes from the delta- α term ∆2 (t) direct calculation yields function term of Eq. (269);

Z 2 2 2 Z X X X (1 α) q eλ(k) α 3 + − iωnq t α 3 γ (t) = d k πgnmλgmqλunmαumqαe ∆2 (t) = d k − | 3 | 4mω(2π) λ n,m,q λ n q X δ(ωqm ω) . (277) + α2ωg g n q eiωnq t × − | i h | nmλ mqλ | i h | n,m,q We see immediately that approximation 4 has resulted (271) in an evaluation of the photonic frequencies on resonance with dipolar transitions. Invoking the approximation 5 and using the Thomas-Reich-Kuhn identity of neglecting terms for which q = n we obtain 6 Z 1 X α 3 X X 2 2 δ = ω r r (272) γ (t) = γ = d k π gnmλ [(1 α)ωnm + αω] 2m ij mn nm,i mn,j | | − m λ n,m n n δ(ωnm ω) we obtain Z × − | i h | X 3 X 2 2 n n Z = d k π gnmλ ωnmδ(ωnm ω) α 3 X X 2 2 n n | | − | i h | ∆ (t) = d k (1 α) ω g n,m λ 2 − mn| nmλ| | i h | λ n,m (278) X + α2ωg g n q eiωnq t . where in the final equality all α-dependence has dropped nmλ mqλ | i h | q out due to the delta function. Within the approximations (273) 1-5 the coefficient in the summand over dipole levels is half the rate of emission into the photonic continuum α via a downward transition n m , the latter being In approximation 5 the off-diagonal terms in ∆1 (t) and α exactly as is found using the| correspondingi → | i -matrix el- ∆2 (t) for which q = n are assumed to be rapidly oscil- S lating and are ignored.6 We thereby obtain ement. This calculation is also commonly called Fermi’s golden rule [41]. Evaluating the k-integral and polarisa- Z α 3 X X 2 2 2 tion summation we obtain ∆2 = d k gnmλ (1 α) ωmn + α ω | | − 2 3 2 λ n,m X Γnm n n q ωnm rnm γ = , Γnm = | | . (279) n n (274) 2 | i h | 3π × | i h | n,m Z 2 n>m α 3 X X 2 [(1 α)ωnm + αω] ∆1 = d k gnmλ − The remaining part of the master equation is another | | ωnm ω λ n,m − dissipative part coming from the second line in Eq. (261). n n (275) This can be calculated in a similar fashion using Eq. (269) × | i h | and approximation 5. The final coefficients are again α These terms give respectively the contributions of V2 found to be the α-independent Γnm. Collecting these α and V1 to the right hand-side of Eq. (265). Their sum results we obtain the quantum optical master equation at is therefore α-independent and is found to be zero temperature [107], which in the Schrödingerpicture Z reads α X 3 X 2 ωωnm n n ∆ = ∆ = d k gnmλ X † 1 † | | ωnm ω | i h | ρ˙ = i[ρ, H¯d] + Γ L ρL L L , ρ n,m λ − nm nm nm − 2 nm nm X n,m =: ∆n n n (276) n>m | i h | n (280) ¯ Let us recap how this result has been obtained. Approx- where Hd = Hd + ∆ and the Lindblad operators are α m n imation 1 ensured that ∆ (t) could be calculated using simply Lnm = . The result is readily extended | i h | the photonic vacuum at any time t. Approximation 2 to finite temperature [107]. Clearly: ensured that it was of second order in q. Approximation • The reduced description of the detector is α- 3 ensured it could be calculated independent of . Ap- α ρ independent within the approximations 1-5, such proximation 4 ensured that the expected energy denomi- that “detector” becomes an ostensibly unique the- nators were obtained as in the -matrix, and approxima- T oretical concept. tion 5 ensured that the T -matrix element was evaluated on-energy-shell. It follows that the unitary part of the The stationary state ρ0 of this detector is the bare ground master equation [Eq. (262)] is α-independent. state

We now consider the dissipative part. We first cal- 0 0 α ρ0 = , (281) culate γ (t) defined by Eq. (263), which is the remain- | i h | 42 according to which the probability of excitation of the following considerations apply generally. detector initially in the ground state is d,0(t) = 0 for all For each fixed α the Hamiltonian operator Hα rep- t. Within the approximations made photonP emission re- resents the same total energy observable E. The total n n n quires a downward dipolar transition and absorption an energy eigenvectors are defined by Hα Eα = E Eα upward one. Furthermore, the energies of any photons where the eigenvalues En are manifestly| α-independenti | i involved must be exactly equal to the energies of the cor- (unitary transformations are isospectral). According to n responding dipolar transitions involved. The processes the postulates of quantum theory, the vector Eα rep- captured by the master equation (280) are precisely those resents, within the gauge α, the unique physical| statei in captured by the S-matrix wherein h is strictly conserved. which the system definitely possesses energy En. Con- Outside of the approximations 1-5 emission and ab- sider now the average sorption can occur without preserving the number of X bare quanta, but evidently such (“virtual”) processes are N = G a† (k)a (k) G = G n G (282) α h α| λ λ | αi h α| | αi not perfectly bare-energy conserving and they are non- kλ secular and/or non-Markovian inasmuch that they are where the vector G = E0 represents the ground only eliminated when both Markov and secular approxi- | αi | αi mations are performed. These processes are allowed (not state in the gauge α and where aλ(k) is defined in only as intermediates) by the more general matrix S(τ) Eq. (163). At first glance it seems that the predicted defined in Eq. (239) and although they are viewed as un- photon number Nα is fundamentally gauge-noninvariant, and that this is because G depends on α, but this is not physical in scattering theory (except as intermediates), | αi in open quantum systems theory the opposite is true; the case. Rather, the operator n represents the gauge- they are allowed unless they have been suppressed by invariant number of photons defined relative to the gauge 0 approximations whose avoidance must provide a more α. In the gauge α the same observable is represented by n0 = R nR† and the physical ground state is rep- accurate description. Moreover, these approximations αα0 αα0 have a relatively narrow regime of validity [107]. There is resented by the vector Gα = Rαα Gα . Thus, Nα is | 0 i 0 | i presently considerable interest within open quantum sys- gauge-invariant; tems theory in understanding strong-coupling and non- N = G n G = G n0 G . (283) Markovian effects using both numerical and analytical α h α| | αi h α0 | | α0 i methods [108–112]. From this perspective, when the ap- For each different fixed value of the average is proximations 1-5 breakdown the idealisations used to de- α Nα that of a different physical observable and it is there- fine the S-matrix must be interpreted as no longer real- fore a different gauge-invariant prediction. The subscript istic. α labels which particular gauge-invariant definition of photon is being considered. A special case is the number of ET-type photons given by N0 =: NE , because C. Time-dependent interactions and ground state T Π˜ (k) = E˜ T(k) when α = 0. Another special case photons − is the number of DT-type photons, which is given by ˜ ˜ N1 =: NDT , because Π(k) = DT(k) when α = 1. We now turn our attention to non-adiabatic interac- An obvious question to ask− is; which gauge-invariant tion switching whereby the gauge-relativity of subsys- prediction Nα is most relevant in any given situation? tems cannot be ignored. It is sometimes argued that the Towards providing an answer, let us consider a system Coulomb-gauge must be used to describe residual photon prepared in the ground state before we suddenly switch- population left after a sufficiently fast interaction switch- off the interaction. When the interaction vanishes pho- off (e.g. Ref. [7, 10]). In fact, the correct description de- tons are defined as in Eq. (163), but this definition is now pends on the experimental context [5] as will be discussed unique, because the non-interacting canonical momen- in detail below. Recently, Refs. [5, 10] have considered tum is unique; Π = DT = ET = E. We can there- time-dependent interactions with non-adiabatic switch- fore ask how many of− these unique− photons− are present for ing in the context of ground state photon production. times t > tf if the interaction is suddenly switched-off at The ground state of a light-matter system is gauge- t = tf ? Modelling this situation using a time-dependent invariant, but its representation using a vector differs coupling in the gauge α gives the Hamiltonian between gauges (see Sec.IIIB). This gives rise to differ- α ent photon number predictions all of which are physical. Hα(t) = Hm + Hph + θ(t tf )V (η) (284) The different predictions within one and the same phys- − ical state correspond to different gauge-invariant defini- where θ is the heaviside step-function and η is a coupling α tions of a photon. The task remains of determining which parameter such that V (0) = 0. These Hα(t) are clearly prediction is most relevant in which situations. For our not equivalent to each other for different α [5]. This is un- 0 purpose here of elucidating the significance of subsystem surprising because for α = α , Hα(t) and Hα (t) clearly 6 0 gauge-relativity it is sufficient to consider the simple α- model two different experiments in which V α and V α0 gauge framework. However, it should be borne in mind are suddenly switched-off, respectively. For each α the that the gauge function is completely arbitrary and the evolution generated by Hα(t) from time t = 0 consists of 43

−i(Hm+Hph)(t−tf ) −iHαtf sequential evolutions; Uα(t) = e e . in the Schr¨odinger picture in the gauge α, is represented α0 † 0 It follows that the gauge-invariant physical prediction by n (t) = Rαα0 (t)nRαα0 (t) in the gauge α . We see

Nα =: NET+αPT given by Eq. (283) gives the number immediately therefore, that Nα(t) is a gauge-invariant of photons left over in an experiment that realises a sud- prediction. den switch-off of the α-gauge interaction. The two different vector representations g (t) and | α i Every prediction is gauge-invariant, but gauge- α0 gα (t) of the state at t, satisfy the respective ambiguities arise because it is not immediately obvious |Schrödingerequationsi which prediction is relevant for describing a given real- d world setup. Does a given setup realise a sudden switch- i g (t) = H (t) g (t) , (287) off of the Coulomb-gauge interaction or the multipolar- dt | α i α | α i gauge interaction, or does it realise neither? In the recent d i gα0 (t) = Hα0 (t) gα0 (t) . (288) article [10], for example, it is noted that the particular dt | α i α | α i prediction N0 = NET is gauge-invariant, but as we have α0 shown more generally the same is true of any of the pre- The Hamiltonians Hα (t) and Hα(t) are easily related dictions N . Ref. [10] considers a single-mode resonator via direct differentiation of the expression gα0 (t) = α | α i and states that N can be observed as the output photon Rαα (t) gα(t) , which implies 0 0 | i flux from the resonator after a sudden switch-off of the α0 † ˙ † interaction. If this were found to be the case experimen- Hα (t) = Rαα0 (t)Hα(t)Rαα0 (t) + iRαα0 (t)Rαα0 (t) . tally, it would simply follow that the particular protocol (289) adopted can be modelled as a sudden switch-off of the Thus, we see that it is a trivial matter to generate an Coulomb-gauge interaction. equivalent model to any one of the ( ) by properly ac- However, there is a famous set of experiments for which Hα t counting for the time-dependence of gauge transforma- it is well-known that the sudden switching condition is tions. For fixed the equivalent Hamiltonians α0 ( ) ill-justified in the Coulomb-gauge as compared with the α Hα t can also be derived from equivalent Lagrangians,{ any two} multipolar-gauge, these being the early experiments of of which differ by a total time-derivative. Lamb [37–40, 98]. The natural lineshape prediction can The Hamiltonian α0 ( ) depends on two parameters be obtained by assuming the atom to be initially in a bare Hα t and 0 which have different roles. The parameter excited state with no photons. This amounts to a sudden α α α selects the gauge within which the time-dependent cou- switch-on of the interaction [38]. Within the multipolar- pling assumption, ( ), has been made whereas gauge the prediction is sufficiently close to the experimen- e e t the parameter 0 selects→ the choice of gauge used for tal result to rule out the corresponding Coulomb-gauge α calculations once this assumption has been made. The prediction [37–40]. Put differently, the multipolar-gauge non-equivalence of the ( ) for different shows that subsystems are more operationally relevant when describ- Hα t α ( ) constitutes a different physical assumption in ing this experiment. e e t different→ gauges. In other words, gauge-ambiguities arise It should be clear that one can consider more general because each ( ) generates its own equivalence class time-dependent interactions and the same considerations Hα t will apply. The generalisation can be achieved by letting α0 0 α = H (t): α R (290) S { α ∈ } α Hα(t) = Hm + Hph + V (ηµ(t)) (285) and distinct classes describe different experiments. The particular prediction N (t) is relevant if the experimen- where µ(t) is an arbitrary coupling envelope that vanishes α tal protocol being modelled happens to realise a switch- smoothly after some time t . Let us also suppose, as in f on/off of the interaction V α. If, for example, the experi- Ref. [5], that µ(t) vanishes before some time t so the i mental arrangement considered is somehow capable of ef- system can be prepared in a bare state. Suppose the fectively manipulating the (gauge-invariant) bare dipole system is prepared at t = 0 < t in the ground state i moment qr, then the multipolar-gauge interaction could represented by the vector g = 0 such that h g = be controlled to some extent. 0 g , then the total number| i of photons| i at time t >| ti is | i f These points are demonstrated directly in Ref. [5], which considers the concrete setup of a dipole uniformly N (t) = g U (t)nU (t)† g (286) α h | α α | i moving in and out of a Gaussian cavity mode, as depicted in Fig. 11. This situation can be modelled us- where Uα(t) is the evolution operator generated by Hα(t). ing a Gaussian envelope µ(t). In addition to the non- To prove the gauge-invariance of Nα(t) one must of course take into account that gauge transformations are equivalent models Hα(t), a more complete description ˜ now time-dependent, because they depend on the cou- Hα(t) is provided by retaining an explicit model for the pling parameter; R (ηµ(t)) R (t). The vector control system, which in this example is the centre-of- αα0 ≡ αα0 g (t) = U (t) g represents the Schrödinger-picture mass motion of the dipole. Unlike the Hα(t) the more | α i α | i ˜ state at time t in the gauge α. The same physical state complete descriptions Hα(t) are equivalent to each other 0 α0 ˜ is represented in the gauge α by the vector gα (t) = for different α. The value of α such that Hα(t) = Hα(t) R (t) g (t) . The physical observable represented| byi n is then the correct value to choose when describing the αα0 | α i 44

has been considered via simple models within the weak- coupling regime [18–22], and this topic has recently been taken up when dealing with ultrastrong interactions [10]. We focus on a system consisting of a source and/or a detector within a single photonic environment which is either free space or a photonic cavity. This situation is distinguished from the case of a source and a detector occupying different environments that are modelled separately, such as a source within a cavity with a detector external to the cavity. The outlook for this latter situation is only briefly discussed at the end in Sec. VI D 4. The natural starting point for our considerations is Glauber’s photodetection theory [85, 113]. We review aspects of photodetection that are important beyond the standard quantum optics paradigm including how photodetection divergences are related to virtual excitations. We review the characterisation of virtual photon effects FIG. 11: A cavity of length L supporting standing waves in in the vicinity of an atom or molecule [17, 28, 29, 65, 73– the z-direction and a Gaussian perpendicular mode profile 76, 114–118]. We determine the relation between subsys- with waist wc is depicted, along with a dipole −er oscillat- tem gauge-relativity and locality, and how virtual ground ing with frequency ωm. At t = 0 the cavity and dipole are state excitations are related to various electromagnetic non-interacting. The dipole follows a classical trajectory R(t) energy densities in the vicinity of a detector. through the cavity, entering the cavity at t0 and exiting at The important conclusion of this section is that outside t0 + τ. of conventional weak-coupling and Markovian regimes there is necessarily a trade-off between defining material systems as localised objects versus avoiding virtual experiment using the simpler model Hα(t). Thus, the vacuum excitations. In the multipolar-gauge material procedure of using a time-dependent coupling ηµ(t) can systems are fully localised, but if such a “detector” is be viewed as an approximation of a more complete de- ˜ deemed accessible and is therefore prepared in a partic- scription. The value of α for which Hα(t) = Hα(t) gives ular energetic state, then it will necessarily become ex- the correct prediction Nα(t) of photons left in the cavity cited even within the corresponding photonic vacuum. at the end of the protocol, i.e., after the interaction has These virtual excitations are not encountered if one in- ceased (the dipole has fully passed through the cavity). stead deems physical subsystem excitations to be those It is shown in Ref. [5] that if there exists a value α for defined relative to the true ground state of the compos- ˜ which Hα(t) = Hα(t), then the value depends strongly ite system. This, however, constitutes defining the phys- on the experimental protocol. The prediction Nα(t) ob- ical subsystems relative to an unconventional gauge (nei- tained using Hα(t) is correct if and only if the dipole ther Coulomb nor multipolar). Material systems defined moment is aligned with the mode polarisation and these in this way, are necessarily delocalised to some extent. vectors make an angle θ with the direction of the centre- Thus, while in practice a detection process necessarily of-mass motion, such that cos2 θ = α. The result clearly possesses finite extent in space and time, theoretically demonstrates that in general, which prediction Nα(t) is some degree of spatial localisation of a detector must be the correct (relevant) one, depends strongly on the exper- sacrificed if one wishes to eliminate the prediction of its imental context. It is certainly not the case that N0(t) virtual excitation. is always the correct prediction. The result further illus- The balance between spacetime localisation and the trates why there are indeed gauge-ambiguities. In order inclusion of virtual quanta becomes significant outside to find which of the predictions Nα(t) may be relevant of traditional regimes and is determined by the gauge for describing a concrete setup and experimental proto- choice. We review theoretical aspects of cavity QED be- col, Ref. [5] resorts to invoking an explicit model of the yond the weak-coupling regime considering some simple control system. The result obtained could not be antic- solvable models in this context. We consider virtual ex- ipated without such a description, and yet such descrip- citations in the context of the general theory of weak- tions are only available in the simplest of cases whereby measurements. the control system accommodates tractable modelling.

A. Conventional photodetection theory and its VI. MEASUREMENTS limitations

We now turn to the topic of subsystem measurements. Glauber photodetection theory [85, 113] has been a Their description when dealing with virtual processes major workhorse in weak-coupling quantum optics and 45 constitutes a natural starting point. We briefly review to the multipolar-gauge α = 1, and then employ pertur- this theory and its limitations. bation theory to order q2. The probability to find the detector1 excited into the n’th level at time t, given the m initial state , ψph with a fixed number of photons1 | i 1. Real excitations and with m < n, is

Z t Z t nm 0 iωnm(s0−s) 0 Typical photodetectors work by photon-ionisation am- d (t) = dnm,idmn,j ds ds e Gij(s, s ) plified to produce a macroscopic current. As such they P 0 0 are substantial objects consisting of photoconductive (291) electrons over a cross-sectional area S, that is correlated with detection efficiency. As well as being big, such de- where repeated indices are summed, and where tectors are also typically slow to respond, at least, com- 0 0 G (s, s ) = ψph Evac (s, 0)Evac (s , 0) ψph (292) pared to the correlation times of the photonic reservoirs ij h | ,i ,j | i that they monitor. Thus, actual photon measurements in which are not restricted to individual points in spacetime and this fact is certainly relevant outside of weak-coupling Z r 3 X ω Evac(t, x) = i d k e (k) regimes. However, as a model for dealing with weakly- − 2(2π)3 λ coupled detectors we may consider a localised “detector” λ h i dipole d = r fixed at the origin 0. The charge is a suit- † iωt−ik·x −iωt+ik·x q q a (0, k)e aλ(0, k)e able perturbation parameter (the fine-structure constant × λ − (293) being q2/4π). In each gauge the unperturbed eigenvectors of h = denotes the free component of D (t, x). Since ω > 0 α represent different physical states. Photons are T nm Hα V the anti-normally ordered contribution in Eq. (291) is by definition− quanta of the “light” subsystem and a detec- taken as rapidly oscillating and is neglected in a rotating- tor is a “material” subsystem. A photo-detection process wave approximation (RWA), such that we may let therefore involves an energetic change of the material system, usually accompanied by a change in the number of 0 (−) (+) 0 G (s, s ) = ψph E (s, 0)E (s , 0) ψph (294) photons, i.e., it is a process between unperturbed states. ij h | vac,i vac,j | i In general these states do not coincide with well-defined where states of energy of the light-matter composite and so they are not stationary. Examining photo-detection probabili- Z r (+) 3 X ω −iωt ties in a particular gauge therefore provides insight into Evac (t, 0) = i d k eλ(k)aλ(0, k)e , α 2(2π)3 the physical natures of the “light” and “matter” subsys- λ tems defined relative to the gauge α. E(−) = (E(+))†. (295) In conventional treatments (e.g [113]) a linear dipolar form of coupling is adopted as occurs in the multipolar- We see that normal-ordering occurs as an approxima- 1 gauge. This is often written V = d ET(0) or else tion based on the detector1 excitation process having a 1 − · V = d E(0). Neither expression is correct. As noted supposedly dominant contribution coming from photon1 in Sec.−IIK· the correct linear part of the multipolar in- absorption. The neglected contribution is virtual, i.e., 1 teraction in the EDA is V = d DT(0). Two further number non-conserving, corresponding to detector1 exci- − · common misconceptions are that the Coulomb-gauge de- tation with emission of a photon1. fines photons using the electric field, and that this is the The detector1 level n typically belongs to the ionisa- basic field that first enters into Glauber’s photodetection continuum and subsequent to excitation a number tion theory (e.g. Ref. [10]). In fact, the Coulomb-gauge of physical processes must occur for a detection event to defines photons using ET = E and in conventional treat- actually be registered. The description of these processes ments that employ a dipolar6 coupling the relevant field is subsumed into a classical epistemic probability for Dn entering the theory is correctly identified as DT(0). At a detection event given excitation to the level n. The the dipole’s position 0 the field DT is infinitely differ- total probability of detection is therefore ent to E(0) = DT(0) qrδ(0). However, the infinite − m X nm term P1(x) = qrδ(0) is a difference in the source compo- P (t) = (t) (296) d DnPd nents of the two fields, which are of at least O(q). Since n the detector’s dipole moment is of order q only the free (vacuum) component of DT(0) contributes to detection where formally the summation over n is understood to probabilities to order q2 in an initially unperturbed state, include integration over continuum levels. Defining the and this may be taken to coincide with the free compo- spectral density (sensitivity) nent of E(0). X We begin by following conventional treatments, which (ω) = 2π d d δ(ω ω ) (297) Sij nm,i mn,jDn − nm define the subsystems photonsα and detectorα relative n 46 enables one to model different detection schemes by as- The reason this result occurs is the assumption of an suming different forms of (ω). The photon1 counting initial unperturbed state consisting of no photons1 and Sij rate is m excitations of the detector1. This state is not an eigenstate of H and in particular it is not the ground state nm Z ∞ 1 d d dω even if is the lowest dipolar level. If this final result is P = 2Re ij(ω) ij(ω, t) (298) m dt −∞ 2π S G deemed unphysical then we must conclude that the assumed physical states are not operationally relevant in where the description of photo-detection, i.e., they cannot be Z t the initial and final states of the relevant physical de- (ω, t) = ds eiω(t−s)G (s, t) (299) tector within the relevant photonic environment. If the Gij ij 0 physical detector is not the localised detector1, i.e., it is not defined relative to the multipolar-gauge, then it whose Fourier transform is must be delocalised to some extent. The interplay be- Z dω tween localisation and dressing is discussed further from G (s, t) = eiωs (ω, t) ij 2π Gij Sec.VIB onward. nm The virtual detection probability d,vac(t) with n > = θ(s)θ(t s)Gij(t s, t), (300) P − − m was removed in the progression from Eq. (291) to Eq. (298) using the RWA. The counting rate d nm /dt which vanishes unless 0 s t. Since photodetectors Pd,vac are slow, the measurement≤ time≤t is typically much longer without the RWA can be found by direct differentiation of Eq. (302). Subsequently, the virtual rate can again than the reservoir correlation time Tc = 1/∆ωG where be reduced to zero via the steps that implement Fermi’s ∆ωG is the bandwidth of the correlation function Gij. golden-rule. This procedure turns the corresponding Therefore, the s-width of Gij(s, t) is approximately Tc. Glauber defines an ideal broadband detector as one counting rate into that found using the S-matrix whereby a real upward detector transition requires real photon with a flat spectral density ij(ω) = ij [113]. This requires that the width of theS sensitivityS function must absorption. Specifically, differentiation of Eq. (302) yields the frequency integrand ω3 sin[(ω ω)t]/(ω be much larger than ∆ωG = 1/Tc, such that ij(ω, t) mn − mn − is sharply peaked as a function of ω when comparedG ω), which expresses a bare-energy-time uncertainty constraint. Noting that with ij(ω). The photon counting rate is then simply S S(t, t) such that if S δ then the rate is propor- ij ij ij ij sin(ωt) tionalG to the Glauber intensity∼ lim = δ(ω) (303) t→∞ πω (−) (+) IG(t) = Evac (t, 0) Evac (t, 0) . (301) we see that the limit imposes strict bare-energy h · i t conservation as in the →S-matrix. ∞ In this case, if n > m then since ωmn and ω have opposite sign the rate 2. Virtual excitations d nm /dt vanishes. Similarly, if m > n then we obtain a Pd,vac time-independent rate d nm /dt = ω3 d 2/(3π) =: Pd,vac mn| nm| To understand the limitations of this theory we return Γmn, which is nothing but the Fermi golden-rule sponta- to Eq. (291). If we assume the vacuum state ψph = 0 neous emission rate for the downward transition m n. | i | i and we allow the levels m and n to be arbitrary, then Exactly the same results can be obtained by→ in- evaluating the polarisation summation and angular inte- stead defining the counting rate as the difference quo- grals gives tient ( nm (t) nm (0))/t = nm (t)/t. From Pd,vac − Pd,vac Pd,vac ∞ 2 Eq. (302) this definition yields the frequency integrand d 2 Z sin [(ω ω)t/2] 3 2 2 nm ( ) = nm 3 mn ω sin [(ωmn ω)t]/([ωmn ω] t/2), whose long-time d,vac t | | dω ω − 2 . − − P 3π 0 π(ωmn ω) /2 limit is found using − (302) sin2(ωt/2) lim = δ(ω). (304) If m > n the process described is spontaneous emission. t→∞ πω2t/2 If n > m then the process described is virtual. The dominant peak of the integrand then lies outside of the domain Thus, in the limit t , for n > m we again find that → ∞ of integration and is oscillatory for positive frequencies. the rate vanishes while for n < m we again obtain the rate nm 3 2 The amplitude of the oscillations in the integrand grows d,vac(t)/t = ωmn dnm /(3π) =: Γmn. On the other 3 P | nm| with ω due to the prefactor of ω . This behaviour is only hand the derivative d d,vac/dt is strictly recovered on the bounded by an ultra-violet cut-off ω and the integral is left-hand-side via theP limit t 0. This shows that the M → in fact quadratically divergent with ωM . The divergence overall procedure for obtaining Γmn constitutes a form is relatively severe, such that nm (t) is non-negligible of Markov approximation which consecutively employs Pd,vac even for realistic, yet modest values of ωM that are consis- limits t 0 and t and therefore requires a clear tent with, for example, the EDA and the nonrelativistic separation→ of time scales.→ ∞ The procedure should be valid treatment [14, 15]. for real emission with rate Γmn within the Markovian 47 regime order q2 components of the interaction. The basic field entering into the theory is now A (0) and the final result 1 1 T t (305) amounts to letting β(ω) = 1/√ω in Eq. (306). In place ωmn Γmn of Eq. (302) we obtain provided that matrix elements of the interaction Hamil- d 2 Z ∞ sin2 [( ) 2] tonian between initial and finals unperturbed states are nm nm 2 ωmn ω t/ d,vac(t) = | | dω ωωmn − 2 . sufficiently small and slowly varying. To see this note P 3π 0 π(ωmn ω) /2 − (307) that a third method of obtaining the rate Γmn for m > n is to evaluate the prefactor ω3 in Eq. (302) on resonance = , which is valid if it can be considered Using the Markov approximation, i.e., using Fermi’s ω ωmn nm sufficiently slowly varying compared with the peak in golden-rule, we obtain d d,vac/dt = Γmn for m > n and 2 2 nm P sin [(ω ω)t]/([ω ω] t/2) near to ω . One then d d,vac/dt = 0 for n > m, exactly as was obtained for mn − mn − mn P extends the lower integration limit to by supposing the (physically distinct) detector1 and light1 subsystems. that the remaining integrand is dominated−∞ by this peak This is a direct demonstration of the non-occurrence of for sufficiently long times ωM t 1. It is not clear that subsystem gauge-relativity within the S-matrix, as de- this same procedure can be justified for virtual excita- scribed in Sec.VA. tion with n > m, because as already noted the dominant Without the Markovian approximation the proba- 2 2 peak in sin [(ωmn ω)t]/([ωmn ω] t/2) then lies out- bilities in Eqs. (302) and (307) are clearly differ- side of the range of− integration and− the integral diverges ent. However, both are gauge-invariant as implied by quadratically with ωM . In this sense virtual contribu- Eq. (235). More precisely, for initial and final un- m tions are non-Markovian. perturbed states represented by vectors , φph and n | i So far we have considered only the detector and light , ψph respectively, we obtain for the subsystems de- 1 1 | i subsystems and yet the severity of the divergence in fined relative to the gauge α the probability α(t) = nm n m 2 P d vac(t) that we have found is indeed specific to these , φph Uα(t, 0) , ψph . The same physical predic- P , | h | | i | 0 subsystems. It results from the interaction V 1 possessing tion is calculated in the gauge α by noting that the a factor √ω, which comes from the mode expansion of same initial and final physical states are represented 3 by vectors 0m, ψ0 = R m, ψ and 0n, φ0 = DT(0) in Eq. (293). This results in the prefactor ω in ph αα0 ph ph n | i | i | i the integrand of Eq. (302). A detector that is defined rel- Rαα , φph respectively, while the physical evolution 0 | i ative to a different gauge is a different physical detector is provided by U (t, 0) = R U (t, 0)R† . Thus, as α0 αα0 α αα0 and therefore it possesses different physical predictions; noted in Sec.VA, finite-time predictions such as (t) Pα the field entering into the theory is not DT(0). are necessarily gauge-invariant for every value of α, a We note that as in the textbook [119] the actual field fact guaranteed by the unitarity of gauge-fixing transfor- involved in the theory can be left open by defining mations. However, as also noted in Sec.VA, outside of weak-coupling and Markovian regimes, it must be recog- Z 3 (+) d k X ik·x nised that (t) constitutes a different gauge-invariant F (t, x) = eλ(k)β(ω)aλ(t, k)e α p2(2 )3 prediction forP each different . π λ α (306) In comparing specifically the different physical predictions given by Eqs. (302) and (307), Power and Thiruna- where a number of noteworthy choices of β(ω) can machandran have noted that which one is the more accu- be made. For example, if β(ω) = i√ω then F = rate will depend on which set of distinct physical states DT. If β(ω) = 1/√ω then F = AT. If β(ω) = 1 represented by the same unperturbed vectors within the then F(+) defines a direct inverse Fourier transform of two gauges, are closer to the states actually realised in P λ eλ(k)aλ(k)/√2. This last choice of β is noteworthy the considered experiment [28, 29]. Power and Thiruna- for the reason that although it is impossible to define a lo- machandran also noted that experiments could be used cal number operator for relativistic quanta [119–121], the to determine which descriptions are most appropriate. (−) (+) operator F (x) F (x) can be interpreted as a real- When n > m, the probability for the detector0 in space number density· of photons that are approximately Eq. (307) is only logarithmically divergent and is there- localised on a scale much larger than the corresponding fore significantly different to the corresponding detector1 wavelengths [119] (see also Sec. VI C 1). We remark that prediction in Eq. (302). This much less severe divergence being local in k-space, the relation between fields corre- is a direct consequence of the k-space normalisation of sponding to different β(ω) in Eq. (306) is highly non-local the field AT, which varies as 1/√ω. We note that in any in spacetime. This point is relevant to understanding the gauge, if the RWA is avoided and the broadband limit is interplay between electromagnetic dressing and localisa- taken then the photon counting rate is SijGij(t, t) with tion and is discussed further in Sec.VIC. Gij(t, t) given by Eq. (294) rather than Eq. (299). Thus, It is instructive to repeat the derivation of the detector a generally large virtual contribution occurs. However, excitation rate for a detector0, i.e., for a detector defined the broadband limit is inapplicable to this contribution relative to the Coulomb-gauge. The linear interaction is because the vacuum has infinite bandwidth. Thus, the 0 then V = qp AT(0)/m where as before we can neglect significance of such contributions is in general dependent − · 48 on the measurement schemes available. The arbitrary-gauge Hamiltonian can now be written The elimination of divergent contributions requires correct to order q2 as “renormalisation” of the “bare” dipole by defining the 1 X δkj “physical” dipole relative to the appropriate gauge as H =ω ˜ d†d + + ω c† c + g m 2 kj k j 2 recognised some time ago by Drummond [15]. One can k,j use the elimination of virtual excitations as a criterion by q p A˜ (0) + qr Π˜ (0) (315) which to select the most operationally relevant subsystem − m · g · g definitions, that is, to select the most appropriate gauge where relative to which the dipole is to be defined in the context of photodetection. To show how this can be achieved ωkj = ωkδkj + (ωk + ωj)θkj (316) we consider a one-dimensional dipole harmonically quan- and tised in the direction uˆ with canonical operators ˜ X ek θ † Ag(0) := (1 αk)[e ]kj(cj + cj), (317) uˆ √2ωkv − r = (b† + b), (308) k,j √2 mωm rω r ˜ X k −θ † mω Πg(0) := i ek αk[e ]kj(cj cj). (318) p = iuˆ m (b† b). (309) 2v − 2 − k,j Since the linear interaction components in Eq. (315) are From very early on purely bosonic models of this kind θ of order q we may let [e ]kj = δkj in the mode expan- have been relevant to ultrastrong-coupling in polaritonic sions (317) and (318) to obtain results correct to order q2, systems with quantum wells and microcavities [89–92]. amounting to the straightforward replacement ak ck We consider gauges of the form specified by Eq. (131) within the interaction Hamiltonian. Similarly, when→ used while assuming that α(k) = α(ω) is real and depends within the interaction Hamiltonian we may letω ˜m = ωm only on the magnitude of k. Thus, here we are going in the expansions (310) and (311), amounting to the re- to exploit the possibility of gauge functions that vary placement b d. We remark that the renormalisation with the mode argument k, of which the Coulomb and of self-terms is→ consistent with an interpretation in which multipolar-gauges α(k) = 0, 1 are not examples. We dis- bare frequencies are not viewed as physical. This renor- cretise the Fourier modes within a volume v and com- malisation does not affect the choice of gauge or the sub- bine wavevector and polarisation indices into a single system partition. mode label, writing α(ω) = αk. The polarisation self- R 3 2 The results above that assumed linear multipolar- and energy term d x PTg/2 can be absorbed via new mate- Coulomb-gauge interactions from the outset remain ap- rial modes such that plicable. Although the renormalised frequencies contain order 2 contributions, the detectors excitation at time uˆ † q r = (d + d) (310) t is already at least of order q2, so the renormalised fre- √2mω˜m r quencies should be approximated as bare. Assuming the mω˜ p = iuˆ m (d† d). (311) initial state 0d, 0c with no photons and no initial detec- 2 − tor excitation| we calculatei the average detector population as where † 2 d (t)d(t) 0d,0c 2 2 q X 2 2 h i ω˜ = ω + (ek uˆ) α . (312) Z ∞ + 2 m m mv · k 2Γ ωu (ω) sin [(ωm + ω)t] k = dω (319) π 0 ωm(ωm + ω) 2 Similarly, the order q field self-energy term 2 2 2 EDA 2 where Γ = q ωm/(6mπ) is the total oscillator sponta- q (Ag ) /(2m) can be absorbed via radiative mode neous emission rate into the ground state and where operators c such that k r + ωm ω X † u (ω) = [1 α(ω)] α(ω) . (320) ak = [cosh θ]kjcj + [sinh θ]kjcj ω − − ωm j The multipolar- and Coulomb-gauge cases are given by X c + θ c† (313) α(ω) = 1 and α(ω) = 0 respectively. The results ≈ k kj j j for these gauges can also be found using the formula † P n,0 n,0 d (t)d(t) 0d,0c = n d vac(t) with d vac(t) given by 2 h i n P , P , where the approximate equality holds to order q because Eqs. (302) and (307) respectively. The rate 2 θ is an αk-dependent symmetric matrix of order q defined by d † d (t)d(t) 0 0 dth i d, c 2 Z ∞ 2 q ek ej(1 αk)(1 αj) Γ ω + 2 sin [(ωm + ω)t] θkj = · − − . (314) = dω u (ω) (321) 2 ( + ) 2 − mv √ωkωj ωk ωj π 0 ωm (ωm + ω) 49

3. Discussion

Subsystems defined relative to the JC-gauge are such that detector excitations and photons are excitations relative to the true ground state of the interacting system. This however, does not require a full diagonalisa- tion of the dipolar Hamiltonian, instead it requires only separate (non-mixing) light and matter transformations within the selected JC-gauge. While the ground state of the composite system can of course be identified in any gauge, it is only within the JC-gauge that this state coincides with the ground state of the subsystems. Thus, if this property were proposed as a criterion by which FIG. 12: The time-averaged detector excitation rate R is plot- to identify the most physically relevant subsystems, then said subsystems are not those defined relative to any con- ted as a function of the cut-off ωM /ωm in the Coulomb-gauge 4 and multipolar-gauge, assuming ωmT = 10 . The multipolar ventional gauge. Conversely, spatial localisation may be rate in particular is severely divergent with ωM whereas the deemed the relevant figure of merit in defining the phys- Coulomb-gauge rate is logarithmically divergent. ical detector subsystem. In particular, the multipolar- gauge detector1, constitutes a fully localised detector, but also one for which the divergence in virtual detec- is highly oscillatory. As already noted the integrand aver- tor excitation was most severe. ages to zero in the long-time limit t , while for finite In summary, we have seen that virtual processes occur- → ∞ ring in photodetection are non-Markovian and strongly times 1 ωmt ωm/Γ the Markovian approximation is not necessarily applicable. gauge-relative. They are not necessarily negligible even within the weak-coupling regime. Their suppression can The rapid oscillations in the detector’s excitation can be invoked as a criterion by which to identify the gauge be removed to reveal the averaged behaviour by consider- relative to which the most physically relevant subsys- ing the time-average over an interval T 1/ω , defined m tems are to be identified. Their contributions are also by suppressed by weak-coupling “approximations”, which mimic the S-matrix and enforce bare-energy conservation Z T 1 d † 1 † (cf. SecVB) despite not necessarily being applicable. In R = dt d (t)d(t) 0d,0c = d (t)d(t) 0d,0c T 0 dth i T h i what follows, we focus on effects outside of the standard 2 weak-coupling approximations, which we expect to be Γ Z ∞ ωu+(ω) = dω (322) especially significant in strong and ultrastrong-coupling πT 0 ωm(ωm + ω) regimes. We will see that if a detector is by definition localised, then outside of weak-coupling and Markovian 2 where we have replaced sin [(ωm + ω)T/2] in Eq. (319) regimes such a detector necessarily experiences virtual by its average 1/2 for ωmT 1. The Coulomb and vacuum excitations. multipolar-gauge time-averaged rates are plotted in Fig. 12. The multipolar rate in particular is quadratically divergent with ωM and is clearly unphysical for values of B. Localisation and causality ωM consistent with the EDA.

However, if we choose α = ωm/(ωm+ωk) [cf. Eq. (248)] 1. Electromagnetic source-fields in an arbitrary gauge then we obtain the Hamiltonian [cf. Eq. (254)] To understand photodetection outside of the standard 1 X δkj quantum optics paradigm it will be necessary to deter- H =˜ω d†d + + ω c† c + JC m 2 kj k j 2 mine the electromagnetic fields generated by a source in k,j an arbitrary gauge. In particular, if we consider a sys- r X ωkωm 1 † † tem consisting of both a source s and detector d then the iq (d ck dck). (323) total electric field is a superposition of vacuum, source, − mv ωm + ωk − k and detector fields;

In this gauge the ground state is represented by the vec- E = Evac + Es + Ed. (324) tor 0 , 0 annihilated by d and c . It is easy to verify | d ci k that the ground energy eigenvalue of HJC produces the However, a full description of the source-detector-field expected order q2 ground state Lamb shift [15]. In this system is postponed until Sec. VI B 2. First we note that gauge the detector excitation rate is identically zero be- due to subsystem gauge-relativity the partitioning of a cause u+(ω) 0. gauge-invariant field into vacuum, source, and detector ≡ 50 components, is gauge-relative [28, 29]. In other words, source components are different in different gauges, but while the left-hand-side of Eq. (324) is unique, the indi- their sum is vidual components on the right-hand-side represent different physical fields in different gauges. We therefore ET(t, x) =θ(tr)XT(tr, x) + θ( tr)PT(0, x) PT(t, x) α − − start by considering only one material system; a point Πvac(t, x) αθ( tr)PT(0, x) (329) dipole fixed at 0 and with dipole moment qr. For simplic- − − − ity we again restrict our attention to the one-parameter which upon taking into account Eq. (328) is seen to be α-gauge framework. unique (α-independent) as required. The total electric field is for x = 0 given by E = DT = Π =1 = ET+PT, Let us consider the canonical field Π at an arbitrary 6 − |α point x = 0, which can be partitioned as which can be read-off immediately from Eq. (329) as 6 E(t, x) = DT(t, x) =θ(tr)XT(tr, x) + θ( tr)PT(0, x) Π(t, x) = ET(t, x) αEL(t, x) − − − Πα (t, x) αθ( t )P (0, x). = Πα (t, x) + Πα(t, x). (325) vac r T vac s − − − (330)

In the gauge α the vacuum and source components Similarly to Sec.IIJ, the results above demonstrate α α Πvac(t, x) and Πs (t, x) are defined as the components that what differs for different choices of α are the local- α whose dynamics are generated by Hph and V respec- isation properties of the source. For tr > 0, we have tively. The vacuum field is defined by the right-hand-side that Es(t, x) = DTs(t, x) = XT(tr, x) and ETs(t, x) = of Eq. (293). Since the photons defined by a (0, k) are λ XT(tr, x) PT(t, x) for all α. In words, at all points x physically distinct for each α the vacuum field depends that can be− connected to the source’s centre by a light on α. The source field obviously depends on α and the signal emitted a time x earlier, each physical field’s source α dynamics generated by Hα = Hm + Hph + V yield component is independent of the source’s definition. In contrast, for 0 the source-vacuum partitioning of a α tr < Π (t, x) = θ(t )XT(t , x) s − r r given physical field differs between different gauges α. α + (1 α)[PT(t, x) θ( t )PT(0, x)] (326) For any α the source component E (t, x) is non-zero − − − r Ts for tr < 0, due to the non-vanishing α-independent term where tr = t x is the retarded time (in units with c = 1) PT = EL in Eq. (329). The total electric field is ob- − − − in which x = x is the distance from the dipole source tained by adding EL to ET in Eq. (329), which removes at 0 and where| for| x = 0 this instantaneous component, yielding Eq. (330). How- 6 ever, this does not imply that the electric source-field ( ) α 2 qrj tr Es (t, x) vanishes for tr < 0 unless we also insist that XT (t , x) = ∂ δ + ∂ ∂ . (327) ,i r − ij i j 4πx the source itself is fully localised as well, i.e., unless we define the source relative to the multipolar-gauge. As ex- Note that the derivative operators in Eq. (327) act on tr plained in Sec.IIJ, the gauge controls the extent to which as well as on 1/x. Only the top line on the right-hand- the instantaneous field EL = PT is included within the side of Eq. (326) is causal, by which we mean vanishing source’s definition. The gauges α = 0 and α = 1 are for t < 0, and the second line only vanishes for α = 1. r extremal cases whereby EL is fully included and com- Using the fact that the (0 k) of different gauges are aλ , pletely absent respectively. For this reason, when tr < 0 related by , one finds that the different vacuum com- α Rαα0 Eq. (330) reads E(t, x) = Π (t, x) + (1 α)PT(0, x), α − vac − ponents Πvac are related by such that only in the multipolar-gauge α = 1 do we ob- α α tain E(t, x) = Πvac(t, x) and therefore Es (t, x) = 0. α α0 0 − Πvac(t, x) = Πvac(t, x) (α α )θ( tr)PT(0, x). More generally, the source-component of the field Π = − − − 0 (328) ET α PT, when partitioned according to the gauge α − − α α 0 to give Πs = ETs α PT, is causal (meaning vanishing α − − 0 It follows that the combination Πvac(t, x) + for tr < 0), if and only if α = 1 and α = 1. The latter 0 αθ( tr)PT(0, x) is actually α-independent. We see equality α = 1 specifies that the physical field being − α also that for different α the vacuum components Πvac considered is E, which is a local field, and the former 0 differ by an α α weighted factor of PT = EL evaluated equality α = 1 specifies that the source producing this at t = 0, and− that this contribution is restricted to field is defined relative to the multipolar-gauge, and is the complement of the interior lightcone of the origin therefore itself also local. (0, 0) of the dipole’s rest-frame. This is an expression of In contrast to the electric field, it is easy to show that subsystem gauge-relativity, that is, from the outset the unlike E the magnetic field B = Bvac + Bs has unique definition of material source differs between gauges in vacuum and source components and that Bs is causal the extent to which the electrostatic field PT = EL is [29]. These results generalise those of Ref. [29] by giving included. vacuum-source partitions of the physically arbitrary field It is instructive to consider some specific physical Π, using an arbitrary gauge α. For any given physical α fields. For example, ET = Π α=0 for which ETs = field the relative magnitude of the non-local contributions α α −α | Π αPT and E = Π . Clearly the free and occurring for t < 0 vary with α and provide a measure − s − Tvac − vac r 51 of the delocalisation of the source, as will be elaborated where Jd(t, x) = qr˙ d(t)δ(x Rd) is the detector cur- further below and in Sec. VI C 2. − ˙ rent in the EDA. The detector1 response rate H˜ d(t) can ˜˙ P n ˙ n be decomposed in its eigenbasis as Hd(t) = n Pd (t) n 2. Source-detector-field system where Pd (t) is the projection onto the n’th level at time t. For a two-level detector1 as is typically considered [23, 25–27, 30, 31] the rate of excitation into the excited Let us now consider the tripartite source-detector-field ˙ 1 ˙ 1 ˜˙ system. If we require the detector dipole to be fully lo- state, Pd(t), is easily found as Pd(t) = Hd(t)/ωm where 1 0 ω = is the two-level detector1 transition fre- calised at x and a source dipole to be fully localised at 0, m d − d then “matter” must be defined relative to the multipolar- quency. The source-dependent component is therefore ˙ 1 ˜˙ gauge. From the results of Sec. VI B 1 it is also clear that Pd,s(t) = Hd,s(t)/ωm. the response of the detector1 to the source1 is causal as required [24–31]. In any other gauge α = 1 “matter” is 6 dressed by αEL and so is not fully localised. However, 3. Discussion: Localisation and dressing questions regarding the causal nature of an interaction are only well-posed for separated localised objects. The instantaneous response of a delocalised detector to a de- For fully localised and hence bare multipolar dipoles the detector’s response to the source is causal because localised source will vary with α and can be taken as a 1 measure of the overlap of the source and detector, and Es (t, Rd) = 0 for t < tr where tr = t Rd. It follows n− hence as a measure of the delocalisation of “matter” as that each of the spectral projections Pd (t) must also de- defined within the gauge α. pend causally on s, and therefore, that the probability To make these statements concrete, let us consider a to find the bare detector1 in an excited state depends system of two identical dipoles labelled s (source) and causally on s. Crucially, there is also a non-zero compo- ˜˙ d (detector) at positions Rs = 0 and Rd respectively. nent of Hd(t) that is independent of the source1, namely, To quantify the response of the detector to the source it ˙ ˜˙ ˜˙ Hd,0(t) = Hd(t) Hd,s(t). In fact, such a contribution suffices to consider the rate of change of the detector’s − must exist if the response of the detector1 to the source1 energy. Excitation probabilities such as those considered is to be causal. This follows from Hegerfeldt’s theorem, in Sec.VIA are determined from the spectral projections which is a general mathematical result that assumes i) of the detector’s energy. The multipolar Hamiltonian can the energy is bounded from below, ii) the source and de- be partitioned as tector are initially localised in disjoint regions, iii) the initial state consists of the source excited and the detector in ˜ ˜ ˜ ˜ H1 = Hd + Hs + Vd + Vs + Hph (331) its ground state with no photons present [86]. Hegerfeldt showed that under these assumptions, the total probabil- where µ = s, d, e e e ity of excitation of the detector, d(t) = d,0(t)+ d,s(t), is either necessarily non-zero forP times P 0, orP that it p2 tr < ˜ µ ˜ Hµ = + V (rµ) + Sµ, Vµ = qrµ Π(Rµ) (332) is identically zero for all times. It follows that for an 2m · n 0 initial state represented by the vector s , d, 0 in the e | i e 1 multipolar-gauge, if (t) were to vanish, then (t) in which the term S := R d3x P2 with P (x) := d,0 d,s µ 2 Tµ Tµ would be non-zero forPt < 0 and this would violateP Ein- qr δT(x R ) has not been placed in the interaction r µ · − µ stein causality, because the multipolar-gauge dipoles are Hamiltonian. The rate of change of the detector energy localised and spacelike separated. H˜ is d By assuming the initial state n, 0 , 0 in the | s d i ˙ multipolar-gauge one is assuming that the bare H˜ d(t) = qr˙ d(t) Π(t, Rd) = qr˙ d(t) DT(t, Rd). (333) − · · multipolar-gauge dipoles are those that are operationally 0 relevant at the preparation stage, but since d, 0 is If one instead considers Hd = H˜d Sd, then the rate | i − not the ground state of the detector-field system this of change includes an additional self-term that depends leads to the immediate virtual excitation of the detec- only on the detector, which does not affect its response tor for t > 0. We have seen that this virtual excita- to the source. The total displacement field at Rd can tion is actually necessary to preserve Einstein causality. be partitioned as in Eq. (324). We therefore obtain an Hegerfeldt also notes however, that like a violation of expression of Poynting’s theorem for the detector1 in the Einstein causality, such virtual (spontaneous) excitations 1 presence of the external field Es (t, Rd). Specifically, the are themselves conceptually problematic and are essen- 1 rate at which work is done by Es on the detector1 is tially what one seeks to eliminate within a successfully [122, 123] renormalised theory. Indeed, we saw in Sec.VIA that the Z multipolar dipole’s virtual excitation was particularly un- 3 1 1 ˜˙ d x Jd(t, x) Es (t, x) = qr˙ d(t) Es (t, Rd) =: Hd,s(t) physical and we identified a different gauge within which V · · such excitations were eliminated. In any such theory the (334) detector responds to the source for times tr < 0. To avoid 52 a conflict with Einstein causality one must interpret the gauges respectively, and we noted that both of these fields renormalised source and detector as objects that are de- are special cases of Eq. (306). Before calculating aver- localised around their centres at 0 and Rd respectively. age values of local energy-densities we briefly review the The representation in which virtual excitations are re- connection between some examples of fields defined by moved is one in which the initial state of the detector and Eq. (306) for different β(ω). We first consider free elec- field subsystems coincides with the detector-field ground trodynamics (no charges). state, which might be considered a more realistic ini- There are several commonly encountered operations tial state. Predictions for this situation will be given performed on the local fields E and B, which are local in Sec. VI C 2. However, this state cannot be prepared in k-space and therefore non-local in spacetime. Specif- independent of the source and so is clearly delocalised. ically, i) the longitudinal and transverse projection of a Since preparation and measurement procedures necessar- local field is non-local; ii) the projection of a local field ily possess finite extent in spacetime, there is clearly a onto it’s positive and negative frequency components is balance to be struck between dressing and localisation. non-local in time. Moreover, causal wave propagation re- The parameter α affects this balance by controlling the quires both signs of the frequency [120], so the positive extent to which bare matter is dressed by EL, which in and negative frequency components of a causal field are turn effects the value of ˙d 0 resulting from the ground only themselves causal within the Markovian approxima- P , state virtual photons surrounding the bare detector1. It tion of extending frequency integrals over the whole real therefore seems sensible to conclude that the value of α line [26, 118]; iii) the (arbitrary-gauge) fields defined by that specifies the most relevant subsystems will depend Eq. (306) corresponding to different choices of β(ω) are on coupling strengths, as well as on the experimental pro- non-locally connected. tocols for preparation and measurement, including their To exemplify point iii) note that the Glauber intensity spatial and temporal properties. is non-locally connected to the naive “photon number These questions can essentially be ignored within the density” V(−) V(+) defined by [119] traditional quantum optical regime because as shown in · Z 3 Sec.VB2 the reduced description of the detector is in- (+) d k X ik·x−iωt V (t, x) = p eλ(k)aλ(k)e (335) dependent of the gauge relative to which it is defined (2π)3 0 λ and its stationary state is d . This is also the regime in Z 1(±) | i 3 0 0 (+) which the fields E s are approximately causal [26, 118]. = d x K(x x )E (t, x), (336) Thus, in this regime it is possible to define the detec- − Z d3k 3 tor dipole as a localised system, while also retaining a K(x) = √ωeik·x = . (337) fully causal response to the source, but without sponta- (2π)3 8√2π3x7 neous vacuum excitation. This combination of properties is forbidden by Hegerfeldt’s theorem and must therefore Because of this, if a single photon were to be consid- be the culmination of weak-coupling approximations. In ered localised around 0, then its energy would be less lo- −7 (+) sufficiently strong-coupling regimes one or more of these calised, falling off as x [119]. Similarly, the fields AT properties must be sacrificed. The gauge α relative to (+) ˙ (+) and E = AT are related in k-space by a factor of which the detector is defined will affect which proper- ω, so the relevant− integral kernel is ties of its weak-coupling counterpart it continues to possess. The multipolar-gauge continues to define localised Z d3k 1 K(x) = ωeik·x = . (338) dipoles with causal interactions, but with d,0(t) 0. (2π)3 −π2x4 On the other hand values α = 1 define dipolesP that6≈ are delocalised to some extent,6 but which may retain the Given the non-local connections between free photonic property d,0(t) 0 even outside of the weak-coupling fields corresponding to different β(ω) in Eq. (306) it is regime. P ≈ unsurprising that the inclusion of virtual photons within the definition of a source requires non-local operations in spacetime. Further understanding is gained by analysing C. Local densities local energy-densities as reviewed below.

1. Non-local connections between free photonic fields 2. Second-order energy-densities Relativistic quanta such as photons do not possess a position operator and cannot be localised [119–121]. In order to understand the interplay between local- Quadratic functions of E and B such as the energy- fields, virtual processes, and subsystem gauge-relativity, density and Poynting vector, are local, but have the di- we now consider various energy-densities in the vicin- mensions of energy-density rather than number density. ity of a dipole [17, 28, 29, 65, 73–76, 114–118]. In We noted in Sec.VIA that distinct gauge-invariant fields finding energy-densities different methods are available AT and DT were relevant in photodetection for subsys- and are suitable for different purposes. For a two-level tems defined relative to the Coulomb and multipolar- dipole, energy-densities can be found without resorting 53 to perturbative expansion of the electromagnetic fields where the modes have been discretised in a volume v. by instead using the rotating-wave and Markov approx- The magnetic counterparts are given by the same expres- imations. The RWA imposes number conservation and sions with fij replaced by gij. These tensor components thereby restricts to processes for which the Markov ap- are defined by proximation σ±(s) σ±(t)e±iωm(s−t), 0 s t, can ≈ ≤ ≤ θ i 1 subsequently be applied when calculating canonical pho- f (ωx) := ij + φ + , (343) tonic fields. Combined with the extension of frequency ij −ωx ij −(ωx)2 − (ωx)3 integrals over the whole real line the overall result of these 1 i g (ωx) := ϕ + (344) approximations is to enforce strict bare-energy conserva- ij ij ωx (ωx)2 tion. This description captures the exponential decay of excited states, but causes virtual contributions to vanish where for convenience we have defined identically. To describe virtual contributions we evaluate expres- θij = δij xîxˆj, (345) sions perturbatively, which does not imply a lower bound − φij = δij 3ˆxixˆj, (346) on the time-scales described. In this case, in all expres- − ϕ = xˆ . (347) sions that are second order in q one approximates the ij − ijk k photonic and dipolar operators at times s [0, t] as ∈ We remark that due to the causality constraint imposed freely evolving within the interaction picture [75, 115]. by the function θ(t ) within the source fields, all results This does not capture the exponential decay of excited r that follow are to be understood as holding for tr > 0. states, but it can be seen to be consistent with the non- First we calculate the Glauber intensity in the state perturbative approach applicable to a two-level dipole. p, 0 which was used in Sec.VIA. Only the first-order Specifically, if negative frequencies are included as a form | i field E1 contributes, because IG is normal-ordered. The of Markov approximation, then only real contributions radiation component, which varies as x−2 is, within the remain and for a two-level dipole the results obtained co- rotating-wave and Markov approximations, given by incide with the short-time limit of the non-perturbative results found using the rotating-wave and Markov ap- 2 rad 1 X 4 proximations. I (t, x) = ω dpl θ dlp (348) G 4πx pl · · First we take the multipolar-gauge bare state p, 0 l

0 the ﬁrst term where in Eq. (359) dominates in the far-ﬁeld, x 1/ωp0, and corresponds to real photon emission; " l q X dpndnp iq 3 iωpntr tC Ap (t, x, ω) := ωnpfil(ωnpx)e EE(x) ωnp ω h i n − " 1 X 1 2 dq dl = 6 d d pn np 3 −iωpntr 2 ωpl pl θ lp 2 4 + ωpnfil(ωpnx)e , (356) 16π · · (ωplx) − (ωplx) ωnp + ω l

In contrast, for a ground state bare dipole, p = 0, the varies as x−5 rather than x−6, while the far-field limit first term in Eq. (359) vanishes, so only the second term again decays as x−7. Note that unlike the electric field remains. In the near-field x 1/ωl0 this term is the vacuum-source partitioning of the magnetic-field is not gauge-relative so the above results for the magnetic t 1 X 2 energy density are identical in every gauge [29]. E C(x) 0 = d0l φ dl0, ωl0x 1. h E i 32π2x6 · · The only components not yet discussed are the time- l (362) dependent components given by Eqs. (360) and (365). These parts are purely virtual and for x = 0, they com- which is the electrostatic energy of the dipole. We are prise the only non-trivial contributions6 within the lo- now in a position to understand how the the vacuum and cal continuity equation for energy. Poynting’s theorem source components of the electric energy density would reads; be different if we had instead assumed a Coulomb-gauge p d dipole prepared in the state , 0 . In the Coulomb-gauge EEM(t, x) + Ed(t, x) = S(t, x) (366) the electrostatic field is included| i within the definition of dth i −∇ · h i the dipole. Thus, the electric energy-density for tr > 0 where Ed(t, x) is the energy density of the bare dipole would be identical to that above whereas for tr < 0, localised at 0. For x = 0, this becomes EE(t, x) would have been found to coincide with that in 6 Eq. (362)[29]. Since the multipolar-gauge and Coulomb- d EEM(t, x) = S(t, x) . (367) gauge vacuum densities also differ by the same amount dth i −∇ · h i vac the sum E +EE is unique and the same in both gauges. It is noteworthy that the vacuum, real and virtual com- This is consistent with the results of Sec VI B 1 whereby ponents of S separately satisfy local energy conserva- the vacuum-source partitioning of the electric field itself tion as can be directly verified. For the vacuum parts, differs between the Coulomb and multipolar-gauges in which are space and time-independent this is immedi- precisely this way [Eq. (330)]. ate. For the time-independent energy-density such that Finally we may consider the far-field limit of the first tC (x) 0 the corresponding Poynting vector is term of Eq. (359) for p = 0, which is d EEM /dt Sh real(t, xi) , which≡ is such that Sreal(t, x) = 0 for h i ∇ · h i 1 i j x = 0. Therefore, Eq. (367) is also trivially satisfied tC X dl0d0l 6 E (x) 0 = 3 (13δij 7ˆxixˆj), ωl0x 1 for the real part of S. The integral of the divergence h i 64π ωl0 − l6=0 of the real Poynting vector over a sphere S containing (363) the dipole has already been calculated and is given by Eq. (354). Finally, it can be verified using Eqs. (360), possessing the characteristic (Casimir-Polder) x−7 decay. (365) and (352) that Eqs. (362) and (363) respectively give the near and far- d field limits of the virtual part of the time-independent E t (t, x) + E t (t, x) = Svirt(t, x) . (368) part of the electric energy-density’s multipolar-gauge dth E M i −∇ · h i source-component. Similarly to the above, for the mag- Virtual contributions violate bare-energy conservation netic energy-density we find by definition whereas global energy conservation is fundamental and is automatically satisfied; [ ] 0. The 1 X H,H E tC (x) = dj dq ω6 g∗ (ω x)g (ω x) stronger condition of local energy conservation,≡ namely h M i 16π2 pl lp pl ij pn iq pn l

0 which dominates in 8θ(tr) 2 the far-field via −2 decay, and which vanishes for = 0. = 2qa cos qr + (q 2) sin qr (369) x p ω xq q a − For p = 0, the remaining time-independent part exhibits m r a different behaviour in the near and far zone limits sim- where we have chosen a spacetime-independent normal- 3 real ilar to the electric energy-density. The near-field limit isation ωmP to obtain a dimensionless measure, and 56

perturbation theory as

p p p E = T , 0 = (1 + T1 + T2) , 0 , (370) | 1 i | i | i i 1 p 2 n X i , kλ V , 0 T1 , 0 = , kλ | h | | i | , (371) | i | i ω + ωip i6=p,kλ p X i 0 0 T2 , 0 = , kλ, k λ | i | i i,j6=p, kλ,k0λ0 i, kλ, k0λ0 V 1 j, kλ j, kλ V 1 i, kλ, k0λ0 h | | i h 0 | | i. × (ω + ωjp)(ω + ω + ωip) (372)

p The average Poynting vector in the state E1 is found to be [76] | i

Ep S(t, x) Ep = Sreal(t, x) (373) h 1 | | 1 i h i where the right-hand-side is defined as in Eq. (353). This vanishes for p = 0 showing that there can be no energy loss in the ground state [76]. On the other hand the (c) electric energy-density in the vicinity of the dipole does not vanish for the ground state and is found to be [76] FIG. 13: (a)u ˙(t, x) is plotted for slightly increasing values of t within one bare dipole cycle of the initial time t = 0, 0 0 t E EE E = EE 0 = E C(x) =0 indicating a rapidly localised virtual field around x = 0. (b) h 1 | | 1 i h i h E i|p Z ∞ 6 −2ux Logarithmic plot ofu ˙(t, x) with time for three near-field val- 1 X j q u e ues of x, showing the rapidly increasing localisation of the = 3 ω0ld0ldl0 du 2 2 fij(iux)fiq(iux) 16π 0 u + ω0l corresponding bound field in the near-zone ωmx < 1 as well l as its oscillations in time. (c) Plot of both the oscillating (374) bound field and a causally propagating outgoing pulse from the origin (t, x) = (0, 0), which is localised on the light-cone. tC where EE(x) is defined in Eq. (359). Thus, the differ- The inset shows cross-sections in the xz-plane corresponding ences betweenh i the ground state predictions found using to distinct time-slices separated by 3 bare dipole cycles. 0 0 E1 and those found using the bare ground state , 0 | i virt |t i are the time-dependent components S and EEM . If the system is prepared in theh statei 0, 0h in thei | i where q = ω (t x) and q = ω (t + x). The quantity multipolar-gauge, then E tC represents the only part r m − a m h EMi u(t, x) is a normalised electromagnetic energy-density as- of the full average EEM that is not typically neglected, sociated with time-dependent processes at a distance x that is, the purely virtualh i part E t is often ignored [75]. h EMi from the source, that has been averaged over all direc- Within this approximation we have EEM = EEM 0 = h i h i tions. The variations in u(t, x) are plotted in Fig. 13. tC EEM consistent with the results of Sec.VB2 in which There is a causally propagating pulse localised on the hthe dipole’si stationary state was found within the con- light-cone consistent with the assumption of an initial un- ventional weak-coupling approximations to be the bare perturbed state, which is not an energy eigenstate. There ground state. is also a highly oscillatory component that is highly lo- Let us now again consider the example of the harmonic calised at the position of the dipole. This is consistent dipole as in Sec.VIA. In this case the full ground state with an interpretation of the bare dipole as undergoing is represented by the vacuum 0d, 0c of light and matter rapid virtual emission and absorption processes. The ex- modes c and d defined relative| to thei JC-gauge. These treme localisation and oscillations of the virtual bound modes are specified by Eqs. (310)-(314). In the JC-gauge field suggest that it be interpreted as an inseparable com- the canonical momentum Π(x) represents the physical ponent of the physical dipole. observable OJC(x) = DT(x) + PT(x) PTJC(x) where 2 − − The gauge choice affects the extent to which bound vir- to order q tual energy is included within the definition of the dipole. This can be seen by noting that time-dependent virtual X ekλ (ekλ d)ω ik·x PT(x) PTJC(x) = · e . (375) − v ω + ωm contributions are not present if one instead considers a kλ full energy eigenstate. The (unnormalised) eigenvector p E1 of the full multipolar Hamiltonian corresponding to The electric field is therefore given for x = 0 by E = | i p 6 the unperturbed state , 0 is found using second order Π + PT PTJC. Writing Π in terms of the modes c | i − − k 57 we find the average using the vector 0d, 0c to be which the virtual bound-field is taken as separate from | i the physical (measurable) dipole. i(k+j)·x X 2 (ek ej) ωmωkωje Π(x) 0 = q · 2 h i 2mωmv (ωk + ωj)(ωm + ωk)(ωm + ωj) k,j (376) D. Cavity QED beyond weak-coupling approximations where we have labelled the modes using a single index as in Sec.VIA. Using Eq. (375), one can show that, as We now turn our attention to understanding photonic 2 2 required, EE 0 = Π +[PT PTJC] 0/2 coincides with fields confined to a cavity where weak-coupling theory is the electrich energy-densityi h in− Eq. (374i ) when assuming generally inapplicable and subsystem gauge-relativity is a harmonic dipole. We see therefore that the average expected to be important. tC EEM is found to coincide with EEM = EEM 0, without neglectingh i (as a weak-coupling orh Markovi h approximation)i t any time-dependent component EEM , provided that the 1. Intra-cavity fields subsystems are defined relativeh to thei JC-gauge. The prepared state then coincides with the true ground state. We first consider a simple analysis of intra-cavity fields produced by a dipole at the cavity centre. This closely mirrors the above analysis in Sec. VI C 2 for free space. 3. Discussion An early step towards evaluating the Glauber intensity within a cavity in the ultrastrong-coupling regime has Above we have compared the same physical observable, been given in [88]. Therein emphasis was placed upon the namely the electromagnetic (EM) energy-density, while need for a multi-mode theory in accommodating the req- assuming different initial physical states. These different uisite spatio-temporal structure to elicit signal propaga- states are ones of well-defined energy of different phys- tion. We will consider a similar analysis in an arbitrary- ical subsystems. When choosing the multipolar-gauge, gauge. 0 the vector , 0 specifies a localised “bare” dipole1 in | i We model the cavity as a one-dimensional field in its own lowest energy state and with no accompanying the x-direction with periodic boundary conditions at photons1. In this case the EM energy-density possesses a x = L/2 where L is the cavity length. The allowed virtual time-dependent component t . The same vec- ± EEM wavenumbers are k = 2πn/L, n Z. The canonical tor 0, 0 in the Coulomb-gauge specifiesh i an electrostat- ∈ | i fields are assumed to point in the z-direction and have ically dressed dipole0 with no accompanying photons0. bosonic mode expansions Thus, the same EM energy-density is obtained as in the multipolar-gauge, with the exception that for tr < 0 we X 1 h i A(t, x) = a† (t)e−ikx + a (t)eikx , (377) obtain a non-vanishing electrostatic energy-density given √2ω v k k by Eq. (362). In the case of a harmonic dipole, the k k r vector 0 , 0 specifies a state of well-defined energy of X ωk h † i | d ci Π(t, x) = i a (t)e−ikx a (t)eikx (378) the subsystems defined relative to the JC-gauge and this 2v k − k coincides with the ground state. In this case the EM k energy-density is again the same but possesses no time- where v is the cavity volume. The cross-sectional area dependent virtual component. This is consistent with † is therefore v/L. As usual, we have [ak, a ] = δkk and an interpretation of the JC-gauge subsystems as having k0 0 ω = k . To be consistent with the assumed expressions subsumed the virtual ground state quanta that exist in k | | conventional gauges. for AT and Π the transverse polarisation PTα is also assumed to point in the -direction. If we assume fur- The most relevant physical predictions will depend on z ther that the dipole within the cavity is anharmonic we which of these physical states is closest to that which may perform a two-level truncation. The final -gauge has been prepared in the experiment considered. This, α polarisation is therefore defined as in turn, will depend on the extent to which the purely t virtual field that results in the energy-density EEM , h i X d x is separate from the addressable dipole. The transient PT (t, x) = σ (t)α cos[kx] (379) α v and highly localised nature of this field suggest that it k should be considered part of the dipole on the accessible time and length scales. However, this may depend on where d = zˆ d is the two-level transition dipole moment · the available preparation and measurement procedures. in the z-direction. We note also that since PTα commutes Similarly, in stronger-coupling regimes, whether or not with gauge-fixing transformations, Eq. (379) is indepen- the ground state is entangled and contains a large num- dent of the gauge within which truncation is performed. ber of photons depends on the gauge-relative to which To obtain the Hamiltonian, we assume truncation within the subsystems are defined, i.e., on the relative extent to the multipolar-gauge giving the multipolar-gauge multi- 58 mode QRM the temporal integral in Eq. (383) can be evaluated immediately, to give 2 + − X † 1 H1 =ω ˜mσ σ + ωk a ak + k 2 Oα(t, x) = Πvac(t, x) + Oα,s(t, x), (384) k r h i X † x X ωk † −ikx+iωkt ikx−iωkt + i g (a a )σ (380) Πvac(t, x) := i a e a e , k k − k 2v k − k k k (385) where = p 2 and where we have absorbed gk d ωk/ v X d x O s(t, x) := σ (cos[kx ω t] α cos[kx]) the multipolar-gauge polarisation self-energy term into α, v − k − a renormalisation of the two-level transition frequency k denotedω ˜ . Πs(t, x) + PT1(t, x) PTα(t, x) (386) m ≡ − In Ref. [88] (see also [124]) it was demonstrated via comparison with numerical results utilising matrix prod- where since σx is stationary, so too is the electrostatic uct states that for sufficiently large coupling strengths field PTα(t, x) = PTα(0, x) defined in Eq. (379). Negative and numbers of modes the two-level system frequency frequency fields are defined as ω˜m may be neglected in Eq. (380) resulting in an r X ωk independent-boson model; Π(−)(t, x) :=i a† e−ikx+iωkt (387) vac 2v k k 2 X † 1 X † x r H ωk a ak + + i gk(a ak)σ . (381) X ωk 1 ≈ k 2 k − Π(−)(t, x) :=i a† (t)e−ikx k k s 2v k,s k x N Since σ is now a symmetry, the Hamiltonian is easily X d diagonalised using a polaron transformation = σx(eiωkt 1) cos[kx], (388) v − k>0 " # (−) X d 1 X gk † x x −ikx = exp ( + ) (382) PT := σ αe = PTα, (389) 10 i ak ak σ . α 2 2 T ωk v k k

Notice that this is the same type of transformation as where the integer N sets the total number of modes re- was encountered in Sec.IV. Although it is not a gauge tained within the model. More generally, for Oα this transformation, we noted in Sec.IVE that when acting gives on the canonical momentum Π this transformation does (−) (−) (−) have the same effect as the projected PZW gauge-fixing Oα (t, x) =Πvac (t, x) + Oα,s (t, x), (390) (−) (−) transformation PR10 where R10 transforms between the (−) (−) Oα,s (t, x) =Πs (t, x) + PT1 (t, x) PT (t, x) multipolar and Coulomb-gauges. − α N Note also that although two-level truncation has been d X d = σx(1 α) + σx(eiωkt α) cos[kx]. performed in the multipolar-gauge, we are free to con- 2v − v − k>0 sider the canonical field Π defined relative to an arbitrary (391) gauge α. The physical observable represented by the momentum Π in the gauge α will be denoted Oα. The nota- Positive frequency components are obtained by hermi- tion Π will be reserved for the multipolar-gauge canonical tian conjugation. By construction these expressions yield momentum D , therefore O = Π+P P . The dy- (−) (+) T α T1 Tα O = O + O for any α. Choosing α = 1 gives the namics of the− observables O closely mirror− those found α α α α particular case O = Π = D = E P . for free space in Sec. VI B 1. Using Eqs. (381) we obtain 1 T T T1 It is now possible to evaluate− the− average− of arbitrary (−) (+) Z t functions of Oα, Oα and Oα using any initial state. −iωkt −iωk(t−s) x 1 ak(t) = ake + gk ds e σ (s) We use both the initial multipolar bare state , 0 and 0 the ground state, which is represented by the| vectori ak,vac(t) + ak,s(t). (383) 0 0 in the polaron frame. Since we have neglected ≡ , the| dipolei energy and since the polaron transformation We note that the above vacuum-source partitioning is coincides with the projected PZW transformation when that given by the multipolar-gauge. This is the most acting on Π, for the purpose of finding the dynamics of convenient partitioning if we wish to determine averages Oα the polaron-frame is nothing but the Coulomb-gauge. when assuming an initial bare state in the multipolar- Specifically, we have gauge, which corresponds to assuming a well-defined † state of energy of a fully localised dipole. The opera- 10Π = Π PT1, (392) x x x T T10 − tor σ (s) = σ (0) = σ is time-independent because the † 10O = Π PT . (393) two-level dipole energy has been neglected. As a result T αT10 − α 59

in Sec. VI C 2. For the initial state 1, 0 we obtain | i 2 O (t, x) Evac h α i − " #2 X d = (cos[kx ω t] α cos[kx]) (394) v − k − k O(−)(t, x)O(+)(t, x) = h α α i 2 N d X d (1 α) + (eiωkt α) cos[kx] (395) 2v − v − k>0 P where Evac = ω /(2v) is an energy-density of the (a) k k vacuum. For α = 1 (multipolar-gauge), Eq. (395) reduces to the result obtained in Ref. [88]. The ground-state averages of the same operators as above are obtained using the polaron frame and are found to be

2 2 O (t, x) Evac = PT (t, x) , (396) h α iG − h α iG (−) (+) 1 2 O (t, x)O (t, x) = PT (t, x) (397) h α α iG 4h α iG where  2 2 X d PTα(t, x) G =  α cos[kx] . (398) h i v (b) k6=0

(−) (+) This confirms that, within the approximations made, FIG. 14: The averages hD (t, x)D (t, x)i (a) and T T the bound-field tied to the α-gauge dipole is nothing hE(−)(t, x)E(+)(t, x)i (b) are plotted with space and time, T T but the electrostatic field . In the Coulomb-gauge showing the presence and absence of a bound-field around PTα this field is fully included within the definition of the the multipolar and Coulomb-gauge dipoles respectively. Es- 2 sentially the same propagating field is obtained in both cases. dipole, so O0(t, x) G Evac = 0. Fig. 14 shows (−) h(+) i − We have assumed N = 50 and normalised both densities via Oα (t, x)Oα (t, x) given in Eq. (395) for the Coulomb the maximum value attained when the propagating field is andh multipolar-gaugesi α = 0 and α = 1 respectively. coincident with the dipole; (t, x) = (nL, 0), n ∈ Z. It can be seen clearly that all gauges possess essentially the same propagating fields. In contrast the ground-state bound-field energy has weight α2 within the gauge α and is evidently highly localised at the position of the dipole † within the one-dimensional model employed. Since the operator 10Π represents the observable T T10 Ref. [88] proposes that the initial multipolar bare-state DT in the polaron frame, the operator Π represents the − 1, 0 could be prepared by controlling the interaction. observable DT +PT1 = ET, as in the Coulomb-gauge. | i In this gauge− the electrostatic− field is absorbed into the However, given the level of localisation of the bound field, definition of the dipole. Further still, within the approxi- it is far from clear that the latter could ever be separated mations made the Coulomb-gauge coincides with the JC- from the dipole allowing the corresponding interaction to be controlled. A possible exception may be to move the gauge; αJC =ω ˜m/(˜ωm + ωk) 0. Thus, the very simple treatment in which the free dipole≈ Hamiltonian has been dipole in and out of the cavity very quickly. As already neglected, is unable to distinguish between electrostatic described in Sec.VC in this case the relevant gauge for and virtual-photonic bound-fields. We saw in Sec. VI C 2 modelling the interaction using a time-dependent cou- that this distinction is also obscured when considering pling will depend strongly on the microscopic details of the near-field limit of the ground-state energy-density in the system. free space whereby the total electric energy-density be- We remark that the treatment of this section is highly comes approximately purely electrostatic, as shown by idealised. The cavity is taken as one-dimensional, the Eq. (362). We emphasise that the coincidence of the two-level truncation has also been made, and the dipole Coulomb-gauge, the JC-gauge, and the polaron-frame moment dynamics have been taken as approximately sta- for calculating averages of functions of Π does not oc- tionary. The extension of these results using more real- cur without the simplifications made. In general, these istic treatments warrants further investigation, including representations are distinct. a more physical model for the cavity and a more sophis- ticated method of solution, for example, via a variational We now calculate various quadratic energy-densities as polaron ansatz [125]. 60

Evidently, the physical nature of the internal cavity The diagonal matrix elements in the position basis of the field depends strongly on the gauge relative to which it is corresponding reduced pointer state are therefore defined. As we have emphasised, gauge-ambiguities arise P (r) := r ρ (t) r because it is not always clear which subsystems should t h | I | i be considered operationally addressable. The interaction 1 −(r+r/2)2/(2σ2) −(r−r/2)2/(2σ2) = p0e + p1e between the system of interest and apparatus used in √2πσ preparation and measurement must be defined relative (404) to a choice of gauge. Next we discuss models for the 2 2 weak measurement of intra-cavity subsystems. where p1 = c1 and p0 = 1 p1 = c0 are the excited and ground| state| probabilities.− Thus,| the| system pointer coupling splits the initial single Gaussian peak into two 2. Weak-measurements Gaussian peaks at r/2 with relative heights that give the probabilities to± find the two-level system excited or The explicit modelling of measurements of light and not excited. In this sense, the pointer measures the en- matter subsystems via a pointer system was considered in ergetic state of the two-level system. the form of simple gedanken experiments by Compagno Ignoring the free evolution, the average r(t) and variance r(t) := r(t)2 r(t) 2 of the pointerh positioni at et al. [18–22]. Such models indicate how measurement hh ii h i − h i procedures might be related to subsystem dressing. To time t are easily found using Eq. (403) to be review the weak measurement concept we consider first a 1 z bare two-level system coupled to a “macroscopic” pointer r(t) = r p1 = r σ 0, (405) h i − 2 h i with large mass M and position and momentum r and p with [r, p] = i [126]. The position of the pointer is 2 2 2 1 z 2 2 r(t) = r p1(1 p1) + σ = r σ + σ assumed to provide information about the energy of the hh ii − 4 − h i0 two-level system. Hence, the Hamiltonian is taken to be (406)

2 where on the right-hand-sides 0 denotes averaging in z p z H = ωmσ + + η(t)pσ (399) the initial state and z z(0).h·i We may assume that 2M σ σ the initial Gaussian state≡ is sharp with vanishingly small where σz = [σ+, σ−]/2 and where η(t) is a dimensionless variance, σ 0, such that the final term σ2 in Eq. (406) system-pointer coupling envelope determining the speed can be ignored.→ The average pointer position and vari- and duration of the interaction, which is assumed to van- ance are sufficient to deduce the important features of ish at the initial and final times. We take an initially un- the distribution of pointer positions whose diagonal ma- correlated state of the system and pointer with a sharp trix elements are Pt(r). Specifically, when p1 = 0 (ground Gaussian distribution of pointer positions, with standard state dipole) there is a peak in the distribution of pointer deviation σ and centre at r = 0; positions at r(t) = r/2 and there are no other peaks, h i − consistent with r(t) = 0. Similarly, when p1 = 1 (ex- Z 2 2 hh ii 1 −r /(4σ ) X i cited dipole) there is a peak at r(t) = +r/2 and there ψ(0) = 1 dr e ci , r . (400) h i | i 2 4 | i are again no other peaks; r(t) = 0. For p = 1/2 we (2πσ ) i 1 have r(t) = 0 and r(t) =hh r2/i4,i corresponding to sym- Compagno et al. assume an instantaneous switching metrich peaksi at r/h2,h whichii indicate equal probabilities function [22] that the detector± will register the dipole in either of its two states. r η(t) = [θ(t) θ(t tP )] (401) Compagno et al. considered the same dipole-pointer tP − − interaction and the same initial pointer state in the case of a two-level dipole coupled to a single radiation -mode where t is the measurement duration after which the 1 1 P with polarisation e and frequency in volume , starting pointer’s position is observed. The parameter r has the ω v in the ground state of the dipole-mode system [22]. More dimensions of r. The evolution operator is generally, we can consider light and matter subsystems z U(t) = e−ihte−irσ p (402) defined relative to an arbitrary-gauge specified by α(ω). To order q2 we obtain 2 z where h = p /(2M)+ωmσ generates free evolution. The r(t) = r σz , (407) state at time t in the interaction picture with respect to h i h i 1 1 h is r(t) = r2 σz 2 sinc2 (ω + ω)t , (408) hh ii 4 − h i 2 m P 1 Z 2 2 ( ) = −r /(4σ ) ψI t 1 dr e where sinc x := sin(x)/x and | i (2πσ2) 4 0 1 2 + 2 c0 , r r/2 + c1 , r + r/2 . z z 1 e d ωmu (ω) × | − i | i σ σ (0) = + | · | 2 (409) (403) h i ≡ h i −2 2v (ωm + ω) 61 in which u+(ω) is the coefficient defined in Eq. (320) state uncoupled dipole, because again the ground state of of counter-rotating terms within the bilinear α(ω)-gauge the dipole-field system simply comprises a ground state + interaction Hamiltonian. dipoleJC and no photonsJC, such that u (ω) 0. On the We see that the choice of gauge determines the phys- other-hand, in the multipolar-gauge we have≡ u+(ω)2 = + 2 ical model for the pointer, which is implicitly assumed ω/ωm while in the Coulomb-gauge u (ω) = ωm/ω. For to couple to the dipole quantum subsystem defined rel- fixed ωm, high-frequency modes are seen to contribute ative to the α(ω)-gauge. In particular, the gauge choice less and the low frequency modes more in the Coulomb- determines the extent to which the pointer is defined as gauge as compared with the multipolar-gauge. High- being able to register ground state virtual photons, which frequency multipolar-modes are instead included as ex- arise from counter-rotating terms. In the JC-gauge the plicit electrostatic interactions in the Coulomb-gauge so ground state of the dipole-mode system simply comprises their contributions already belong to the dipole0. Con- a ground state dipoleJC and no photonsJC such that currently, for fixed ω the contribution of the dipole fre- + u (ω) 0 and therefore r(t) = r/2 and r(t) = 0 quency ωm is larger within the Coulomb-gauge. The re- for all times.≡ These are identicalh i to− the previoushh resultsii sults closely mirror the photodetection probabilities given for an uncoupled ground-state dipole [the p1 = 0 cases of in Sec.VIA. In the Markovian regime the multipolar- Eqs (405) and (406)]. Thus, the relative strength of the gauge average pointer position is quadratically divergent counter-rotating terms within the interaction, as spec- with an ultraviolet cutoff, whereas the corresponding ified by u+(ω), determines the relative deviation from Coulomb-gauge result is logarithmically divergent. The the case of a ground state dipoleJC, which looks to the multipolar-gauge pointer position variance is logarith- pointer exactly the same as an uncoupled ground state mically divergent whereas the corresponding Coulomb- dipole. In this sense α(ω) directly controls the degree of gauge result is convergent. virtual dressing explicitly registered by the pointer. The weak-measurement formalism is general in that it For u+(ω) = 0 the pointer position’s variance is time- is obviously not restricted to any particular subsystem dependent due6 to the addition of the sinc-function, which or observable. It can be used to model the measurement represents the (bare) energy-time uncertainty relation of arbitrary light or matter subsystem observables. How- as encountered in Sec.VIA. This means that as well ever, a generic feature of weak-measurements in QED is as the dipole’s definition, the dressing registered by the that a gauge must be selected relative to which the sub- pointer also depends on the measurement duration com- system that the pointer couples is defined. Each gauge pared with bare cycle times. For short measurements then provides a description of a different physical mea- compared with a bare cycle, tP (ωm + ω) 1, the aver- surement process. Furthermore, since the system-pointer age and variance again reduce to the uncoupled dipole coupling is by assumption controllable, it is modelled via result, such that the dipoleα(ω) is perceived as bare by an explicitly time-dependent coupling, and so the con- the pointer. For long measurements tP (ωm + ω) 1 the siderations of Sec.VC apply. Specifically, the assump- variance vanishes, indicating a single peak in the distri- tion that the system-pointer coupling is time-dependent bution of pointer positions, but not one located at r/2 is not a gauge-invariant assumption. Distinct models re- as for an uncoupled dipole, instead the peak’s position− sulting when this assumptions is made in distinct gauges is determined by Eqs. (407) and (409). This will be the describe different experimental protocols and will yield same as the uncoupled dipole case only for gauges suffi- different predictions even for the pointer’s measurement ciently close to the JC-gauge. In this way, the extent to of the same physical observable. We end by remarking which the dipole appears to the pointer as being the same that the extension of the simple framework presented in as an uncoupled bare dipole is controlled by the balance this section to ultrastrong-coupling regimes and specific + between u (ω) and the measurement duration tP . For experimental contexts warrants further study. a given u+(ω) longer measurements result in increasing deviation from the uncoupled dipole case, while for fixed + tP a larger u (ω) similarly results in increased deviation. 3. Ground state superradiance We can extend these results to the multi-mode case [22]. Again taking the ground state of the dipole-field system we obtain in the mode-continuum limit and to Here we exemplify the importance of the preceding discussions concerning intra-cavity fields and subsys- order q2 tem gauge-relativity by very briefly reviewing the phe- 2! r Γ Z ∞ ωu+(ω) nomenon of ground state superradiance, as first predicted r(t) = 1 + dω , (410) in the Dicke model [127–129]. There is now extensive h i 2 − π 0 ωm(ωm + ω) literature on this topic including extended Dicke mod- r(t) els [130–134], connections with quantum chaos [135–137], hh ii 2 r2Γ Z ∞ ωu+(ω) 1 driven and open systems [138–142], and artificial systems = dω sinc (ω + ω)t . [11, 143–153]. The topic has received renewed interest in 2 ( + ) 2 m P π 0 ωm ωm ω light of rapid progress in magnonic systems and in con- (411) trolling correlated electron systems inside cavities [49– Again, in the JC-gauge the result is identical to a ground 54]. 62

Despite this, whether or not a phase transition does gauge-invariance (see Secs.IIH and IIIF2). This elimi- indeed occur and its precise nature have remained fun- nates the need to regularise PT [66], and ensures that the damental open questions. This is due to the existence of transverse commutation relation for the canonical fields so-called “no-go theorems”, which prohibit a superradi- is preserved. The fundamental kinematic relations given ant phase and which are proved in the Coulomb-gauge by Eqs. (412) and (413) are therefore also preserved. In [154]. Further variants of this theorem have been given order to obtain a Dicke Hamiltonian the limit of closely and have been both refuted and confirmed subsequently spaced dipoles around the origin; Rµ 0 is taken, and [50, 67, 133, 134, 143, 146, 146, 150, 152, 155–163]. the dipoles are approximated as two-level≈ systems. Col- Keeling noted that since the radiation modes are dis- lective operators are then introduced; tinct in the Coulomb and multipolar-gauges, a ground N state phase transition may possess different characteri- X J i = σi , i = , z, (416) sations and showed that a ferroelectric phase transition α µα ± occurs within the Coulomb-gauge at the same point in µ=1 parameter space as the superradiant phase transition of ± where σµα are the raising and lowering operators of the the conventional Dicke model [160]. More recently, the z + − present authors have shown [6] that a unique (gauge- µ’th two-level dipole and σµα = [σµα, σµα]/2. † invariant) phase transition can be supported within cav- We also introduce cavity bosonic operators cα and cα, ity QED systems, by using the one-parameter α-gauge which incorporate both the bare cavity energy and the 2 framework. It was shown further that the macroscopic A -term in Eq. (415). The resulting arbitrary-gauge manifestation is gauge-invariant, but that the classifica- Dicke Hamiltonian is tion of the phase transition depends on the gauge relative N 1 1 to which the quantum subsystems are defined. Hα,2 = ω J z + ( + ) + ρd2 + ω c† c + m α 2 0 1 2 α α α 2 For a cavity containing N dipoles labelled by µ = 0 2 1, ..., N, with dipole moments dµ and fixed positions Rµ, α + − gα + − † C J + J i (J J )(c + cα) the α-dependent canonical momenta are found to be [6] − N α α − √N α − α α gα + − † + i (Jα + Jα )(cα cα), (417) pµα = mr˙ µ e(1 α)A(Rµ), (412) √ − − − N Π (x) = ET(x) PT (x), (413) α α 2 2 2 2 − − where ωm = 1 0, ωα = ω + e (1 α) ρ/m, α := 2 2 −0 p − C The Hamiltonian is the total energy [6] ρd (1 α )/2, gα := (1 α)ωmd ρ/(2ωα), and gα := p − − αd ρωα/2, with d := ε d. Here ρ = N/v remains finite H in the thermodynamic limit· N , v . Although → ∞ → ∞ N Z the non-truncated Hamiltonian H is unique, we now have X 1 2 1 3 2 2 α,2 = mr˙ µ + V + Vdip + d x ET(x) + B(x) . a continuous infinity of Dicke Hamiltonians H such 2 2 α,2 α0,2 0 µ=1 that H and H are not equal when α = α [4,7– (414) 9]. The breaking of gauge-invariance due to6 truncation turns out not to be a barrier in eliminating all ambiguities where the electrostatic energy has been split into an regarding the occurrence and nature of a quantum phase atomic binding energy for each dipole, V , and an inter- transition. dipole electrostatic coupling, Vdip (dipole-dipole interac- To take the thermodynamic limit the Holstein- tion). The Hamiltonian expressed in terms of canonical Primakoff map defined by operators and within the EDA is z † Jα = bαbα N/2, (418) N q − X 1 2 + † † H = [p + e(1 α)AT(R )] + V J = b N bαbα, (419) 2m µα − µ α α − µ=1 − + † Jα = (Jα ) (420) 2 N α X T 2 + dµ,idµ,jδ (0) + (1 α )Vdip † 2 ij − where [bα, bα] = 1, is used [135–137]. The Hamiltonian µ=1 obtained by substituting these expressions into Eq. (417) N α,2 X is denoted Hth . + α dµ ΠTα(Rµ) The thermodynamic-limit is defined by and · N µ=1 v while ρ = N/v remains finite. In this→ limit ∞ the 1 Z total→ ∞ Hamiltonian in Eq. (417) is found to support two + d3x Π (x)2 + B(x)2 . (415) 2 Tα distinct phases and reads

† † 1 Assuming that the dipole moments d = d e point in Hα,2,i = Ei f i f i + Ei ci ci + (Ei + Ei ) + Ci the direction of the cavity polarisation e, the single-mode· th α+ α α α− α α 2 α+ α− approximation is performed in such a way as to preserve (421) 63 where the superscript i is either i = n for normal-phase, no-go theorem” for superradiance defined relative to the or i = a for abnormal-phase.· The polariton operators multipolar-gauge. Clearly these results are not in con- i i i i † i i † tradiction, because they are referring to different defini- fα, cα are bosonic satisfying [fα, fα ] = 1 = [cα, cα ] with all other commutators vanishing. The polariton en- tions of radiation. Indeed, the results above demonstrate i i that they are in fact equivalent [6]. More generally, since ergies Eα± and constant C are known functions of the couplings and frequencies appearing in the Hamiltonian Π = ET PTα, as expressed by Eq. (425), the de- − − of Eq. (417). It can be shown that the lower polariton gree to which the unique phase transition is classed as n superradiant is directly determined by the value of α. energy E− is real provided that We conclude by remarking that, as we have seen, α ωm controls how the longitudinal electric degrees of freedom τ := 2 1 (422) 2ρd ≥ EL = PT are shared out, thereby controlling the balance between localisation and electrostatic dressing in defining a while the lower polariton energy E− is real provided that the quantum subsystem called “matter”. In Sec. VI D 1 we observed that the electrostatic field PT is highly lo- τ 1 (423) ≤ calised at the position of the dipole within the approxi- α,2,n α,2,a mations made and the one-dimensional model adopted. It can also be shown that Hth = Hth for τ = 1. As discussed in Secs. VI D 1 and VI D 2, the answer to the 2 Thus, as ρd is increased, a unique phase transition is question of which predictions are most relevant, i.e., to predicted to occur at the critical point τ = 1 in pa- the question of whether a macroscopic average of a given rameter space, beyond which the normal phase Hamilto- α,2,n property will be observed, depends on which observables nian, Hth breaks down and the abnormal phase Hamil- are accessible via the preparation and measurement pro- α,2,a tonian, Hth , takes over. This prediction is gauge- tocols available. invariant. It now remains only to determine the nature of the unique phase transition predicted. To demonstrate 4. Extra-cavity fields equivalence between all gauges the α-gauge transverse polarisation PT = αe PT = α(Π0 Π1) is calculated. In α · − Finally, we very briefly discuss outlook for the descrip- the normal phase the thermodynamic limit of this quan- tion of external coupling to the cavity. Here we are again tity, denoted PTα,th, vanishes, whereas in the abnormal faced with two problems outside of traditional regimes. phase it is found to be The first concerns the determination of which approximations might be applied and when, and the second con- a p 2 PTα,th = αρd 1 τ . (424) cerns the determination of which physical states and ob- − − servables are relevant in preparation and measurement. It can be further shown that in the thermodynamic limit Although the two problems are not unrelated let us one obtains consider the first problem first. For weakly coupled subsystems dissipation and decoherence can be modelled via Πa = P a . (425) th − Tα,th separate loss mechanisms as though the subsystems are uncoupled. This constitutes the so-called local approach Therefore, choosing α = 0 we have Ea = Πa = 0, − T,th th to deriving a master equation for the matter-cavity sys- and so we see that Eq. (425) simply expresses the fun- tem. For example, the stationary state of a qubit in a damental kinematic relation Π = E P . This T Tα cavity described by the local master equation establishes consistency between all gauges.− − Independent of the gauge, the onset of the abnormal phase manifests Γ − + + − in the form of a macroscopic value of the gauge-invariant ρ˙ = i[H, ρ] + (2σ ρσ σ σ , ρ ) − 2 − { } field PT; κ + (2aρa† a†a, ρ ) (427) 2 − { } a a p 2 PT,th = PT1,th = ρd 1 τ . (426) − − is simply g, 0 . Here σ+ = e g is the qubit raising Previous no-go and counter no-go results can be rec- operator, σ| − =i (σ+)†, and a is| thei h | annihilation operator onciled by noting that radiation is gauge-relative. In for the cavity. Dissipation is described in Eq. (427) by the Coulomb-gauge radiation is defined by Π = ET, two separate Lindblad tails corresponding to the qubit such that the phase transition does not appear super-− and mode. In the so-called global approach dissipation is radiant in character and only the “material” subsystem instead described in the dressed basis of the light-matter acquires a macroscopic population. This constitutes a system. “no-go theorem” for superradiance defined relative to the The difference between local and global approaches Coulomb-gauge. In the multipolar-gauge radiation is de- has been discussed extensively and in various contexts fined by Π = ET PT such that both the material [96, 164–184]. Cresser noted early on that the local mas- and radiative subsystems− − acquire macroscopic popula- ter equation could apparently breakdown when describ- tion in the abnormal phase. This constitutes a “counter ing a lossy Jaynes-Cummings model [185]. Hoffer et al. 64 found by comparison with exact predictions that the local pled light-matter composite. In a “global approach”, the equation may perform better in the weak-coupling regime light-matter composite is diagonalised and then weakly- while the global master equation is generally better in coupled to whatever is external [3, 93, 94]. In this case the strong-coupling regime [186]. However, the relative all weak-coupling results for loss and detection are recov- validity of the two approaches depends on the form of ered with the only difference being that the eigenstates secular approximation used. Cattaneo et al. have shown of the source are the dressed states of a composite. As that the global master equation with partial secular ap- previously discussed, in this context there is obviously proximation is always most accurate when Born-Markov a balance to be struck between electromagnetic dressing approximations are also valid [184]. The local approach and localisation in spacetime. This balance is affected is often claimed to fail [169, 175, 178], but it has been by the choice of gauge. The present article has focused shown to be thermodynamically consistent for fairly large on general aspects of light-matter interactions outside of ranges of coupling strengths [170, 186]. standard regimes by examining simple setups and mod- Here we note that since the gauge-parameter α selects els. The features identified are expected to be important the form of the interaction, one would not expect the generally and thereby also apply to more complex sys- relative applicability of local versus global master equa- tems and their reservoirs. tions to be independent of α. In general, losses of a light-matter system will depend on how it couples to the external system or environment [93, 94]. For exam- VII. CONCLUSIONS ple, Ref. [90] applys input-output theory to quantum wells within a microcavity, such that the cavity couples In this article we have focussed on the implications to external photonic modes via a number-conserving in- of gauge-freedom for QED beyond conventional weak- teraction while the electronic system couples to another coupling and Markovian regimes. We have shown that bosonic environment similarly. With this treatment it subsystems in QED are fundamentally gauge-relative is predicted that ground state “virtual” cavity and elec- meaning that in each different gauge they are defined in tronic excitations cannot leak out of the cavity. In con- terms of different physical observables. The fundamen- trast, Ref. [187] used a form of non-Markovian master tal condition known as gauge-invariance states that the equation to describe a two-level system coupled to radia- predictions for any physical observable must always be tion while assuming fast modulation of the vacuum Rabi the same when found in different gauges. This is guar- frequency. It was predicted that extra-cavity quantum anteed by the unitarity of gauge-fixing transformations. vacuum radiation would occur for state-of-the-art circuit However, if we compare predictions coming from different cavity QED systems. gauges of quantum subsystem properties such as “pho- Predictions such as those in Refs. [90, 187] are in gen- ton” number or “light”-“matter” entanglement, then we eral specific to the forms of coupling adopted, i.e., they are comparing predictions for different physical observ- are specific to the physical subsystems considered. In- ables which are, of course, different. This is not a viola- deed, as we have noted the second task that we are faced tion of gauge-invariance. It is analogous to the fact that with is identifying which states and observables are rele- an interval in space or time between two events possesses vant. If counter-rotating terms are non-negligible in the a different value in different inertial frames, even though interaction of a light-matter system then the local master the same labels “space” and “time” are used in every equation description of its losses will result in photon gen- inertial frame. eration in the environmental vacuum [188]. This would Subsystem gauge-relativity can be ignored within the typically be taken as indicating the onset of the regime in idealised setting of scattering theory, beyond which it which the bare states are no longer meaningful, such that can only be eliminated using various weak-coupling and one should switch to a global description in which dissi- Markovian approximations. It is therefore an impor- pation is described holistically using the dressed states of tant fundamental feature whenever such approximations the full light-matter Hamiltonian [3, 93, 94, 189]. Simi- cannot be employed, i.e., outside of gauge-nonrelativistic larly, a coarse-grained projection onto the vacuum state, regimes. We have provided descriptions of a number of as in the Born approximation, will induce apparently simple systems, showing that subsystem gauge-relativity paradoxical spontaneous excitations in polaritonic sys- is significant in the description of so-called “virtual” tems. The paradox is resolved by accounting for corre- processes. It thereby affects the balance between lo- lations between the dressed ground state of the system calisation and electromagnetic dressing. This has non- and the environmental vacuum within the reservoir cor- trivial implications for modelling controllable interac- relation functions of the master equation [92]. tions, for photodetection theory, and for cavity QED. In If we are interested in determining measurement sig- all instances, the quantum subsystems, including reser- nals from a source then the generic problem consists of voirs and measurement devices, can only be defined rel- two multi-level systems, a source and a detector, coupled ative to a choice of gauge. Beyond conventional weak- to a common reservoir as was considered in Sec. VI B 2. coupling and Markovian regimes the physical predictions However, the multi-level source need not be elemen- for subsystems defined relative to different gauges can be tary. In particular, it could be an ultrastrongly cou- markedly different. 65

[1] P. Forn-Daz, L. Lamata, E. Rico, J. Kono, and Letters (EPL) 12, 301 (1990), URL https://doi.org/ E. Solano, Reviews of Modern Physics 91, 025005 10.1209%2F0295-5075%2F12%2F4%2F003. (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ [21] G. Compagno, R. Passante, and F. Persico, Physical RevModPhys.91.025005. Review A 44, 1956 (1991), URL https://link.aps. [2] A. F. Kockum, A. Miranowicz, S. D. Liberato, org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.44.1956. S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Nature Reviews Physics 1, [22] G. Compagno, R. Passante, and F. Persico, Atom-Field 19 (2019), URL https://www.nature.com/articles/ Interactions and Dressed Atoms (Cambridge University s42254-018-0006-2. Press, Cambridge ; New York, 1995). [3] A. L. Boit, Advanced Quantum Technologies 3, 1900140 [23] E. Fermi, Reviews of Modern Physics 4, 87 (2020), URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ (1932), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ abs/10.1002/qute.201900140. RevModPhys.4.87. [4] A. Stokes and A. Nazir, Nature Communications 10, [24] C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, 499 (2019), URL https://www.nature.com/articles/ Photons and Atoms: Introduction to Quantum Electro- s41467-018-08101-0. dynamics (Wiley, 1989). [5] A. Stokes and A. Nazir, arXiv:1902.05160 [quant-ph] [25] A. K. Biswas, G. Compagno, G. M. Palma, R. Passante, (2019), URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1902.05160. and F. Persico, Physical Review A 42, 4291 (1990), [6] A. Stokes and A. Nazir, arXiv:1905.10697 [quant-ph] URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. (2019), URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1905.10697. 42.4291. [7] O. D. Stefano, A. Settineri, V. Macr, L. Garziano, [26] P. W. Milonni, D. F. V. James, and H. Fearn, Phys- R. Stassi, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Nature Physics 15, ical Review A 52, 1525 (1995), URL http://adsabs. 803 (2019), URL https://www.nature.com/articles/ harvard.edu/abs/1995PhRvA..52.1525M. s41567-019-0534-4. [27] E. A. Power and T. Thirunamachandran, Physical Re- [8] M. Roth, F. Hassler, and D. P. DiVincenzo, view A 56, 3395 (1997), URL https://link.aps.org/ arXiv:1904.08735 [quant-ph] (2019), arXiv: 1904.08735, doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.56.3395. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1904.08735. [28] E. A. Power and T. Thirunamachandran, Physical Re- [9] D. De Bernardis, P. Pilar, T. Jaako, S. De Liberato, view A 60, 4936 (1999), URL http://discovery.ucl. and P. Rabl, Physical Review A 98, 053819 (2018), ac.uk/188608/. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. [29] E. A. Power and T. Thirunamachandran, Physical Re- 98.053819. view A 60, 4927 (1999), URL https://link.aps.org/ [10] A. Settineri, O. Di Stefano, D. Zueco, S. Hughes, doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.60.4927. S. Savasta, and F. Nori, arXiv:1912.08548 [cond-mat, [30] C. Sabn, M. del Rey, J. J. Garca-Ripoll, and physics:physics, physics:quant-ph] (2019), URL http: J. Len, Physical Review Letters 107, 150402 //arxiv.org/abs/1912.08548. (2011), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ [11] D. De Bernardis, T. Jaako, and P. Rabl, Physical Re- PhysRevLett.107.150402. view A 97, 043820 (2018), URL https://link.aps. [31] A. Stokes, Physical Review A 86, 012511 (2012), org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.97.043820. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. [12] A. Stokes and A. Nazir, arXiv:2005.06499 [quant-ph] 86.012511. (2020), URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.06499. [32] D. Buchholz and J. Yngvason, Physical Review Letters [13] M. A. D. Taylor, A. Mandal, W. Zhou, and 73, 613 (1994), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. P. Huo, Physical Review Letters 125, 123602 1103/PhysRevLett.73.613. (2020), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ [33] E. Rousseau and D. Felbacq, Scientiﬁc Reports PhysRevLett.125.123602. 7, 11115 (2017), URL http://www.nature.com/ [14] A. Stokes, A. Kurcz, T. P. Spiller, and A. Beige, Phys- articles/s41598-017-11076-5. ical Review A 85, 053805 (2012), URL https://link. [34] D. L. Andrews, G. A. Jones, A. Salam, and R. G. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.85.053805. Woolley, The Journal of Chemical Physics 148, [15] P. D. Drummond, Physical Review A 35, 4253 (1987), 040901 (2018), URL https://aip.scitation.org/ URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. doi/10.1063/1.5018399. 35.4253. [35] A. Vukics, G. Knya, and P. Domokos, arXiv:1801.05590 [16] J. Dalibard, J. Dupont-Roc, and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, [math-ph, physics:quant-ph] (2018), URL http:// Journal de Physique 43, 1617 (1982), URL http://dx. arxiv.org/abs/1801.05590. doi.org/10.1051/jphys:0198200430110161700. [36] E. Rousseau and D. Felbacq, arXiv:1804.07472 [quant- [17] R. Passante, G. Compagno, and F. Persico, Physical ph] (2018), URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1804.07472. Review A 31, 2827 (1985), URL https://link.aps. [37] E. A. Power, S. Zienau, and H. S. W. Massey, Philo- org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.31.2827. sophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. [18] G. Compagno, R. Passante, and F. Persico, Physica Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 251, 427 Scripta T21, 40 (1988), URL https://doi.org/10. (1959), URL https://royalsocietypublishing.org/ 1088%2F0031-8949%2F1988%2Ft21%2F007. doi/10.1098/rsta.1959.0008. [19] G. Compagno, R. Passante, and F. Persico, Physica [38] P. W. Milonni, R. J. Cook, and J. R. Ackerhalt, Physical Scripta T21, 33 (1988), URL https://doi.org/10. Review A 40, 3764 (1989), URL https://link.aps. 1088%2F0031-8949%2F1988%2Ft21%2F006. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.40.3764. [20] G. Compagno, R. Passante, and F. Persico, Europhysics [39] R. G. Woolley, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 456, 1803 66

(2000), URL http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing. ISSN 0044-3328, URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ org/content/456/2000/1803. BF01339504. [40] A. Stokes, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular [59] R. Jackiw, Diverse Topics in Theoretical and Mathe- and Optical Physics 46, 145505 (2013), URL http: matical Physics (WSPC, Singapore ; River Edge, N.J, //stacks.iop.org/0953-4075/46/i=14/a=145505. 1994), ISBN 978-981-02-1696-2. [41] D. P. Craig and T. Thirunamachandran, Molecu- [60] S. Hassani, Mathematical Physics: A Modern Introduc- lar Quantum Electrodynamics: An Introduction to tion to Its Foundations (Springer International Publish- Radiation-molecule Interactions (Courier Corporation, ing, 2013), 2nd ed., URL https://www.springer.com/ 1998). gp/book/9783319011943. [42] F. Lenz, H. W. L. Naus, K. Ohta, and [61] M. Fecko, Diﬀerential Geometry and Lie M. Thies, Annals of Physics 233, 17 (1994), URL Groups for Physicists (Cambridge Uni- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ versity Press, Cambridge, 2006), URL pii/S0003491684710591. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ [43] V. Chernyak and S. Mukamel, Chemical Physics differential-geometry-and-lie-groups-for-physicists/ 198, 133 (1995), URL http://www.sciencedirect. 848DF84177C9CE57F76EF827B14395CC. com/science/article/pii/0301010495001225. [62] T. Frankel, The Geometry of Physics: An Introduction [44] C. Baxter, M. Babiker, and R. Loudon, Physical Review (Cambridge University Press, 2004). A 47, 1278 (1993), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ [63] P. A. M. Dirac, Lectures on Quantum Mechanics (Dover 10.1103/PhysRevA.47.1278. Publications Inc., Mineola, NY, 2003). [45] Woolley R. G., International Journal of [64] H. J. W. Muller-Kirsten, Introduction To Quantum Quantum Chemistry 74, 531 (1999), URL Mechanics: Schrodinger Equation And Path Integral https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ (World Scientiﬁc Publishing Co Pte Ltd, Hackensack, %28SICI%291097-461X%281999%2974%3A5%3C531%3A% NJ, 2006). 3AAID-QUA9%3E3.0.CO%3B2-H. [65] E. A. Power and T. Thirunamachandran, Physical Re- [46] R. Peierls, Zeitschrift fr Physik 80, 763 (1933), view A 28, 2649 (1983), URL https://link.aps.org/ ISSN 0044-3328, URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.28.2649. BF01342591. [66] A. Vukics, T. Grieer, and P. Domokos, Physical Re- [47] J. M. Luttinger, Physical Review 84, 814 (1951), view A 92, 043835 (2015), URL https://link.aps. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.92.043835. 84.814. [67] T. Grieer, A. Vukics, and P. Domokos, Physical Re- [48] M. Graf and P. Vogl, Physical Review B 51, view A 94, 033815 (2016), URL https://link.aps. 4940 (1995), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.94.033815. 1103/PhysRevB.51.4940. [68] W. P. Schleich, Quantum Optics in Phase Space (Wiley [49] G. Mazza and A. Georges, Physical Review Letters 122, VCH, Berlin ; New York, 2001). 017401 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. [69] C. Gerry and P. Knight, Introductory Quan- 1103/PhysRevLett.122.017401. tum Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cam- [50] G. M. Andolina, F. M. D. Pellegrino, V. Giovannetti, bridge, 2004), URL https://www.cambridge. A. H. MacDonald, and M. Polini, arXiv:1905.11227 org/core/books/introductory-quantum-optics/ [cond-mat, physics:quant-ph] (2019), URL http:// B9866F1F40C45936A81D03AF7617CF44. arxiv.org/abs/1905.11227. [70] M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy, Quantum Optics (Cam- [51] P. Nataf, T. Champel, G. Blatter, and D. M. Basko, bridge University Press, 1997), 1st ed. Physical Review Letters 123, 207402 (2019), URL [71] R. Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light (Oxford Uni- https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. versity Press, Oxford ; New York, 2000), 3rd ed. 123.207402. [72] G. S. Agarwal, Quantum Optics (Cambridge Uni- [52] D. Guerci, P. Simon, and C. Mora, arXiv:2005.08994 versity Press, Cambridge, 2012), URL https: [cond-mat] (2020), URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2005. //www.cambridge.org/core/books/quantum-optics/ 08994. 718A49C8C8C74FF688B5633952C4AFE4. [53] G. M. Andolina, F. M. D. Pellegrino, V. Giovannetti, [73] E. A. Power and T. Thirunamachandran, Physical Re- A. H. MacDonald, and M. Polini, arXiv:2005.09088 view A 28, 2663 (1983), URL https://link.aps.org/ [cond-mat, physics:quant-ph] (2020), URL http:// doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.28.2663. arxiv.org/abs/2005.09088. [74] E. A. Power and T. Thirunamachandran, Physical Re- [54] M. Bamba, X. Li, N. M. Peraca, and J. Kono, view A 28, 2671 (1983), URL https://link.aps.org/ arXiv:2007.13263 [cond-mat, physics:physics, doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.28.2671. physics:quant-ph] (2020), URL http://arxiv.org/ [75] E. A. Power and T. Thirunamachandran, Physi- abs/2007.13263. cal Review A 45, 54 (1992), publisher: American [55] K. G. Wilson, Physical Review D 10, 2445 (1974), Physical Society, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD. 1103/PhysRevA.45.54. 10.2445. [76] E. A. Power and T. Thirunamachandran, Physical Re- [56] U.-J. Wiese, Annalen der Physik 525, 777 (2013), ISSN view A 47, 2539 (1993), URL https://link.aps.org/ 1521-3889, URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.47.2539. doi/abs/10.1002/andp.201300104. [77] P. Zanardi, Physical Review Letters 87, 077901 [57] V. Fock, Zeitschrift fr Physik 39, 226 (1926), ISSN 0044- (2001), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ 3328, URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01321989. PhysRevLett.87.077901. [58] H. Weyl, Zeitschrift fr Physik 56, 330 (1929), [78] P. Zanardi, D. A. Lidar, and S. Lloyd, Physical Re- 67

view Letters 92, 060402 (2004), URL https://link. //www.springer.com/gp/book/9789048133727. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.060402. [98] W. E. Lamb, Physical Review 85, 259 (1952), [79] H. Barnum, E. Knill, G. Ortiz, R. Somma, and URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev. L. Viola, Physical Review Letters 92, 107902 85.259. (2004), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ [99] F. Low, Physical Review 88, 53 (1952), URL https: PhysRevLett.92.107902. //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.88.53. [80] L. Viola and H. Barnum, arXiv:quant-ph/0701124 [100] Z. Fried, Physical Review A 8, 2835 (1973), URL https: (2007), URL http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/ //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.8.2835. 0701124. [101] F. Bassani, J. J. Forney, and A. Quattropani, Physical [81] N. L. Harshman and S. Wickramasekara, Open Sys- Review Letters 39, 1070 (1977), URL https://link. tems & Information Dynamics 14, 341 (2007), ISSN aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.39.1070. 1230-1612, URL https://www.worldscientific.com/ [102] D. H. Kobe, Physical Review Letters 40, 538 doi/abs/10.1007/s11080-007-9057-z. (1978), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ [82] N. L. Harshman and K. S. Ranade, Physical Review A PhysRevLett.40.538. 84, 012303 (2011), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ [103] C. Baxter, M. Babiker, and R. Loudon, Journal of Mod- 10.1103/PhysRevA.84.012303. ern Optics 37, 685 (1990), URL https://doi.org/10. [83] Y. Cai, B. Yu, P. Jayachandran, N. Brunner, V. Scarani, 1080/09500349014550761. and J.-D. Bancal, arXiv:2006.07165 [quant-ph] (2020), [104] R. G. WOOLLEY, Molecular Physics 94, 409 URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.07165. (1998), URL https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/ [84] C. J. Isham, Lectures On Quantum Theory: Mathemat- 10.1080/002689798167917. ical And Structural Foundations (ICP, London : Singa- [105] S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields: Foun- pore ; River Edge, NJ, 1995). dations v. 1 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, [85] R. J. Glauber, Physical Review 130, 2529 (1963), 2005). URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev. [106] C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dunpont-Roc, and G. Gryn- 130.2529. berg, Atom-Photon Interactions: Basic Process and Ap- [86] G. C. Hegerfeldt, Physical Review Letters 72, 596 plications: Basic Processes and Applications (Wiley- (1994), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ VCH, New York, 2010), new ed edition ed. PhysRevLett.72.596. [107] H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of [87] D. M. Rouse, B. W. Lovett, E. M. Gauger, and Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, N. Westerberg, arXiv:2003.04899 [quant-ph] (2020), 2007), URL https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/ arXiv: 2003.04899, URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2003. view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199213900.001.0001/ 04899. acprof-9780199213900. [88] C. Snchez Muoz, F. Nori, and S. De Liberato, Na- [108] A. Ishizaki, T. R. Calhoun, G. S. Schlau-Cohen, and ture Communications 9, 1924 (2018), URL http:// G. R. Fleming, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04339-w. 12, 7319 (2010), URL https://pubs.rsc.org/en/ [89] Y. Todorov, A. M. Andrews, R. Colombelli, S. De Lib- content/articlelanding/2010/cp/c003389h. erato, C. Ciuti, P. Klang, G. Strasser, and [109] H.-P. Breuer, E.-M. Laine, J. Piilo, and B. Vac- C. Sirtori, Physical Review Letters 105, 196402 chini, Reviews of Modern Physics 88, 021002 (2010), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.105.196402. RevModPhys.88.021002. [90] C. Ciuti and I. Carusotto, Physical Review A 74, [110] I. de Vega and D. Alonso, Reviews of Modern Physics 033811 (2006), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 89, 015001 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 1103/PhysRevA.74.033811. 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.015001. [91] C. Ciuti, G. Bastard, and I. Carusotto, Physical Re- [111] A. Nazir and D. P. S. McCutcheon, Journal of Physics: view B 72, 115303 (2005), URL https://link.aps. Condensed Matter 28, 103002 (2016), URL https:// org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.72.115303. doi.org/10.1088%2F0953-8984%2F28%2F10%2F103002. [92] M. Bamba and T. Ogawa, Physical Review A 86, [112] A. Nazir and G. Schaller, arXiv:1805.08307 [cond-mat, 063831 (2012), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. physics:quant-ph] 195, 551 (2018), URL http://arxiv. 1103/PhysRevA.86.063831. org/abs/1805.08307. [93] M. Bamba and T. Ogawa, Physical Review A 89, [113] R. J. Glauber, Quantum Theory of Optical Coherence: 023817 (2014), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. Selected Papers and Lectures (Wiley VCH, Weinheim, 1103/PhysRevA.89.023817. 2007). [94] M. Bamba and T. Ogawa, Physical Review A 88, [114] F. Persico and E. A. Power, Physical Review A 013814 (2013), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 36, 475 (1987), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.88.013814. 1103/PhysRevA.36.475. [95] L. Knoll, S. Scheel, and D.-G. Welsch, arXiv:quant- [115] A. Salam, International Reviews in Physical Chem- ph/0006121 (2003), URL http://arxiv.org/abs/ istry 27, 405 (2008), URL https://doi.org/10.1080/ quant-ph/0006121. 01442350802045206. [96] A. Stokes and A. Nazir, New Journal of Physics [116] A. Salam, Molecular Quantum Electrodynamics: Long- 20, 043022 (2018), URL http://stacks.iop.org/ Range Intermolecular Interactions (John Wiley & Sons, 1367-2630/20/i=4/a=043022. 2009). [97] S. Wilson and I. Hubac, Brillouin-Wigner Methods for [117] A. Stokes, European Journal of Physics 37, 034001 Many-Body Systems, Progress in Theoretical Chemistry (2016), URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F0143-0807% and Physics (Springer Netherlands, 2010), URL https: 2F37%2F3%2F034001. 68

[118] A. Stokes, Quantum 2, 46 (2018), URL https:// [137] C. Emary and T. Brandes, Physical Review Letters 90, quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2018-01-18-46/. 044101 (2003), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. [119] L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quan- 1103/PhysRevLett.90.044101. tum Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge ; [138] A. L. Grimsmo and A. S. Parkins, Journal of Physics New York, 1995), 1st ed. B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 46, 224012 [120] S. A. Fulling, Aspects of Quantum Field The- (2013), URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.0065. ory in Curved Spacetime, London Mathe- [139] J. Klinder, H. Keler, M. Wolke, L. Mathey, and A. Hem- matical Society Student Texts (Cambridge merich, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- University Press, Cambridge, 1989), URL ences 112, 3290 (2015), URL https://www.pnas.org/ https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ content/112/11/3290. aspects-of-quantum-field-theory-in-curved-spacetime/[140] M. Gegg, A. Carmele, A. Knorr, and M. Richter, New D96D902C0432D20FA5F0CC75C5E93FE6. Journal of Physics 20, 013006 (2018), URL https:// [121] R. Haag, Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, doi.org/10.1088%2F1367-2630%2Faa9cdd. Algebras, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics [141] P. Kirton and J. Keeling, New Journal of Physics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 1996), 2nd 20, 015009 (2018), URL https://doi.org/10.1088% ed., URL https://www.springer.com/gp/book/ 2F1367-2630%2Faaa11d. 9783540610496. [142] J. Peng, E. Rico, J. Zhong, E. Solano, and I. L. [122] D. J. Griffiths, Introduction to Electrodynamics (Cam- Egusquiza, arXiv:1904.02118 [quant-ph] (2019), URL bridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom ; http://arxiv.org/abs/1904.02118. New York, NY, 2017), 4th ed. [143] M. Yamanoi, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and [123] J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics (John Wiley General 12, 1591 (1979), URL https://doi.org/10. & Sons, New York, 1998), 3rd ed. 1088%2F0305-4470%2F12%2F9%2F025. [124] J. Casanova, G. Romero, I. Lizuain, J. J. Garca- [144] H. Haug and S. W. Koch, Quantum Theory of the Opti- Ripoll, and E. Solano, Physical Review Letters 105, cal and Electronic Properties of Semiconductors (World 263603 (2010), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. Scientific Pub Co Inc, Singapore, 1994), subsequent edi- 1103/PhysRevLett.105.263603. tion ed. [125] G. Daz-Camacho, A. Bermudez, and J. J. Garca-Ripoll, [145] C. F. Lee and N. F. Johnson, Physical Review Letters Physical Review A 93, 043843 (2016), URL https:// 93, 083001 (2004), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.93.043843. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.083001. [126] A. Peres, Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods, [146] P. Nataf and C. Ciuti, Nature Communications 1, Fundamental Theories of Physics (Springer Nether- 72 (2010), URL https://www.nature.com/articles/ lands, 2002), URL https://www.springer.com/gp/ ncomms1069. book/9780792325499. [147] O. Viehmann, J. von Delft, and F. Marquardt, [127] R. H. Dicke, Physical Review 93, 99 (1954), URL Physical Review Letters 107, 113602 (2011), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.93.99. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. [128] K. Hepp and E. H. Lieb, Annals of Physics 76, 107.113602. 360 (1973), URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/ [148] Y. Todorov and C. Sirtori, Physical Review B 85, science/article/pii/0003491673900390. 045304 (2012), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. [129] Y. K. Wang and F. T. Hioe, Physical Review A 1103/PhysRevB.85.045304. 7, 831 (1973), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. [149] M. Leib and M. J. Hartmann, Physical Review Letters 1103/PhysRevA.7.831. 112, 223603 (2014), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ [130] H. J. Carmichael, C. W. Gardiner, and D. F. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.223603. Walls, Physics Letters A 46, 47 (1973), URL [150] M. Bamba and T. Ogawa, Physical Review A 90, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ 063825 (2014), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. pii/0375960173906798. 1103/PhysRevA.90.063825. [131] F. T. Hioe, Physical Review A 8, 1440 (1973), [151] M. Bamba, K. Inomata, and Y. Nakamura, Physical Re- URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. view Letters 117, 173601 (2016), URL https://link. 8.1440. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.173601. [132] B. M. Pimentel and A. H. Zimerman, Physics Letters A [152] M. Bamba and N. Imoto, Physical Review A 96, 53, 200 (1975), URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/ 053857 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. science/article/pii/0375960175904053. 1103/PhysRevA.96.053857. [133] V. I. Emeljanov and Y. L. Klimontovich, Physics Letters [153] T. Jaako, Z.-L. Xiang, J. J. Garcia-Ripoll, and P. Rabl, A 59, 366 (1976), URL http://www.sciencedirect. Physical Review A 94, 033850 (2016), URL https:// com/science/article/pii/0375960176904114. link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.94.033850. [134] C. C. Sung and C. M. Bowden, Journal of Physics [154] K. Rzaewski, K. Wdkiewicz, and W. Zakowicz, Physi- A: Mathematical and General 12, 2273 (1979), cal Review Letters 35, 432 (1975), URL https://link. URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F0305-4470%2F12% aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.35.432. 2F11%2F035. [155] Y. A. Kudenko, A. P. Slivinsky, and G. M. Za- [135] T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, Physical Review 58, slavsky, Physics Letters A 50, 411 (1975), URL 1098 (1940), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ 1103/PhysRev.58.1098. pii/0375960175901036. [136] C. Emary and T. Brandes, Physical Review E 67, [156] K. Rzazewski, K. Wdkiewicz, and W. Zakow- 066203 (2003), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. icz, Physics Letters A 58, 211 (1976), URL 1103/PhysRevE.67.066203. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ 69

pii/0375960176900748. Physics 20, 113024 (2018), URL https://doi.org/10. [157] J. M. Knight, Y. Aharonov, and G. T. C. Hsieh, Physi- 1088%2F1367-2630%2Faaecee. cal Review A 17, 1454 (1978), URL https://link.aps. [174] C. Joshi, P. hberg, J. D. Cresser, and E. Andersson, org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.17.1454. Physical Review A 90, 063815 (2014), URL https:// [158] I. Bialynicki-Birula and K. Rzaewski, Physical Review link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.90.063815. A 19, 301 (1979), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ [175] P. D. Manrique, F. Rodrguez, L. Quiroga, and 10.1103/PhysRevA.19.301. N. F. Johnson, Nonequilibrium Quantum Systems: [159] K. Rzazewski and K. Wdkiewicz, Physical Review A Divergence between Global and Local Descriptions 43, 593 (1991), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. (2015), URL https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ 1103/PhysRevA.43.593. acmp/2015/615727/. [160] J. Keeling, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter [176] A. Purkayastha, A. Dhar, and M. Kulkarni, Physical 19, 295213 (2007), URL https://doi.org/10.1088% Review A 93, 062114 (2016), URL https://link.aps. 2F0953-8984%2F19%2F29%2F295213. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.93.062114. [161] A. Vukics and P. Domokos, Physical Review A 86, [177] J. P. Santos and G. T. Landi, Physical Review E 94, 053807 (2012), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 062143 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevA.86.053807. 1103/PhysRevE.94.062143. [162] A. Vukics, T. Grieer, and P. Domokos, Physical Review [178] G. L. Deordi and A. Vidiella-Barranco, Op- Letters 112, 073601 (2014), URL https://link.aps. tics Communications 387, 366 (2017), URL org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.073601. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ [163] T. Tufarelli, K. R. McEnery, S. A. Maier, and pii/S003040181630880X. M. S. Kim, Physical Review A 91, 063840 (2015), [179] J. T. Stockburger and T. Motz, Fortschritte der Physik URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 65, 1600067 (2017), URL https://onlinelibrary. 91.063840. wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/prop.201600067. [164] D. F. Walls, Zeitschrift fr Physik A Hadrons and nu- [180] A. Hewgill, A. Ferraro, and G. De Chiara, Physical Re- clei 234, 231 (1970), URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ view A 98, 042102 (2018), URL https://link.aps. BF01396784. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.042102. [165] P. Schwendimann, Zeitschrift fr Physik A Hadrons and [181] M. T. Naseem, A. Xuereb, and . E. Mstecaplolu, Phys- nuclei 251, 244 (1972), URL https://doi.org/10. ical Review A 98, 052123 (2018), URL https://link. 1007/BF01379602. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.98.052123. [166] H. J. Carmichael and D. F. Walls, Journal of [182] S. Seah, S. Nimmrichter, and V. Scarani, Physical Re- Physics A: Mathematical, Nuclear and General 6, 1552 view E 98, 012131 (2018), URL https://link.aps. (1973), URL https://doi.org/10.1088%2F0305-4470% org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevE.98.012131. 2F6%2F10%2F014. [183] S. Hamedani Raja, M. Borrelli, R. Schmidt, J. P. [167] M. Scala, B. Militello, A. Messina, J. Piilo, and Pekola, and S. Maniscalco, Physical Review A 97, S. Maniscalco, Physical Review A 75, 013811 (2007), 032133 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. 1103/PhysRevA.97.032133. 75.013811. [184] M. Cattaneo, G. L. Giorgi, S. Maniscalco, and R. Zam- [168] M. Scala, B. Militello, A. Messina, S. Maniscalco, J. Pi- brini, New Journal of Physics 21, 113045 (2019), URL ilo, and K.-A. Suominen, Journal of Physics A: Mathe- https://doi.org/10.1088%2F1367-2630%2Fab54ac. matical and Theoretical 40, 14527 (2007), URL https: [185] J. D. Cresser, Journal of Modern Optics 39, //doi.org/10.1088%2F1751-8113%2F40%2F48%2F015. 2187 (1992), URL https://doi.org/10.1080/ [169] J. P. Santos and F. L. Semio, Physical Review A 89, 09500349214552211. 022128 (2014), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. [186] P. P. Hofer, M. Perarnau-Llobet, L. D. M. Miranda, 1103/PhysRevA.89.022128. G. Haack, R. Silva, J. B. Brask, and N. Brunner, New [170] J. O. Gonzlez, L. A. Correa, G. Nocerino, J. P. Journal of Physics 19, 123037 (2017), URL https:// Palao, D. Alonso, and G. Adesso, Open Systems doi.org/10.1088%2F1367-2630%2Faa964f. & Information Dynamics 24, 1740010 (2017), URL [187] S. De Liberato, D. Gerace, I. Carusotto, and C. Ciuti, https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10. Physical Review A 80, 053810 (2009), URL https:// 1142/S1230161217400108. link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.80.053810. [171] M. T. Mitchison and M. B. Plenio, New Journal of [188] T. Werlang, A. V. Dodonov, E. I. Duzzioni, and Physics 20, 033005 (2018), URL https://doi.org/10. C. J. Villas-Bas, Physical Review A 78, 053805 (2008), 1088%2F1367-2630%2Faa9f70. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA. [172] H. Maguire, J. Iles-Smith, and A. Nazir, Physical Re- 78.053805. view Letters 123, 093601 (2019), URL https://link. [189] F. Beaudoin, J. M. Gambetta, and A. Blais, Physical aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.093601. Review A 84, 043832 (2011), URL https://link.aps. [173] G. D. Chiara, G. Landi, A. Hewgill, B. Reid, A. Fer- org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.043832. raro, A. J. Roncaglia, and M. Antezza, New Journal of