Rabi Flopping and Coherent Transients in a Josephson Junction

  • A. DiRienzo
  • D. Rogovin
  • M. Scully
Conference paper


Recently, studies involving coherent transient phenomena in Josephson devices have been discussed from a quantum optical perspective [1,2]. The motivation for these investigations has been the close analogy between two-level quantum optical systems and Josephson devices [3]. In particular, the angular momentum formulation of an n-atom system according to Dicke [4] has a close analogy to the corresponding problem of n-Cooper pairs interacting with the radiation field in a Josephson tunnel junction. In this article, we briefly review the fundamental concepts of superconductivity and superconducting tunnel junctions, and emphasize the relation between Josephson junctions and superradiant physics. We then sketch the analysis as applied to a tunnel junction undergoing dynamical transients first from a quantum optical and then from the common phenomenological point of view. We find that the present results differ from those obtained in the usual phenomenological fashion.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Proc. IX Intern. Conf. on Quantum Electronics, Amsterdam, June 1976.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ONR Research Symposium on Transient Effects in Josephson Junctions, Point Loma, California, March 1977; see also Ref. (9).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Rogovin and M. Scully, Phys. Rept. 25C, 175 (1976).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 93, 99 (1954).ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    L.N. Cooper, Phys. Rev. 104,1189 (1956).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Bardeen, L. Cooper, J. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 (1957).ADSCrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    P.W. Anderson, Phys. Rev. 110, 827 (1958); 112, 1900 (1958).ADSCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. Josephson, Phys. Letters 1,251 (1962).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. Bonifacio, D. Rogovin and M. Scully, Opt. Comm., to be published.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    P. Lee and M. Scully, Phys. Rev. B3, 769 (1971).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Rogovin, Phys. Rev. B12,130 (1976).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    W.A. Harrison, Solid State Theory, ( McGraw-Hill, Hightstown, N.J., 1970 ).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    For more details on this type of calculation see D. Rogovin, M. Scully, and P. Lee, Prog. in Quantum Electronics 2, 238 (1973).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Strictly speaking Vo as it appears in this paper is the measured dc voltage. The electrostatic voltage will differ slightly from the measured voltage as discussed in detail in Ref. 13. This difference is of secondary importance to our main arguments about the variable 0. Consequently, we will often not distinguish between these two voltages.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    The symbol e used by Harrison is eo, whereas ours is eo.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. DiRienzo
    • 1
  • D. Rogovin
    • 1
  • M. Scully
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations