Anisotropic fluorescence signals retarded dipole-dipole interactions in a thermal atomic cloud

Andreas Buchleitner; Frank Stienkemeier; Friedemann Landmesser; Lukas Bruder; Mario Niebuhr; Vyacheslav Shatokhin

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 58 references

Anisotropic fluorescence signals retarded dipole-dipole interactions in a thermal atomic cloud

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the retarded far-field part of the dipole-dipole interaction, not the near-field electrostatic coupling, is what makes multiple-quantum-coherence signals survive in warm dilute alkali vapor.

desk verdict A credible qualitative case that far-field retarded dipole-dipole interactions drive MQC signals in dilute thermal vapors, but the quantitative support has unquantified gaps and the disorder-average preselection is not fully proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.11480 v2 pith:DDE4GSEX submitted 2025-08-15 quant-ph

Vyacheslav Shatokhin , Friedemann Landmesser , Mario Niebuhr , Frank Stienkemeier , Andreas Buchleitner , Lukas Bruder This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords multiplequantumcoherenceretardeddipole-dipoleinteractionfar-fieldcouplingthermalatomicvaporfluorescenceanisotropydisorderaveragepotassiumDlinesultrafastopticalspectroscopy

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to settle why room-temperature alkali vapor at densities near $10^8\ \mathrm{cm}^{-3}$ still emits multiple-quantum-coherence (MQC) signals, which look like coherent interactions among several atoms even though thermal motion should wash such interactions out. The authors argue that the signals survive because pairs of atoms moving with nearly the same velocity remain coupled by the retarded part of the resonant dipole-dipole interaction, which decays only as $1/r$ and therefore acts over long distances. The key evidence is a directional anisotropy in the D2 fluorescence: the measured ratio $A_y/A_x = 1.35(4)$ matches a full treatment of the retarded dipole tensor, while models using only the electrostatic near-field or independent atoms predict much larger ratios. If the claim is right, fluorescence anisotropy becomes a simple experimental test for far-field coherent coupling in dilute thermal ensembles, and MQC spectroscopy can probe weak inter-atomic interactions without trapping or cooling.

What carries the argument

The central object is the retarded resonant dipole-dipole interaction tensor $T$ (Eq. 2), with its $1/r$, $1/r^2$, and $1/r^3$ terms; the load-bearing piece is the $1/r$ far-field term that keeps interacting atoms coupled over long distances. It carries the argument by being kept in full in a fourth-order perturbative master-equation treatment of three randomly placed atoms and by generating products $(T)_{kl}(t')(T^*)_{nm}(t'')$ whose oscillatory phases survive the disorder average only when the atoms share a velocity class. The disorder-average phase-compensation condition $|v_\alpha - v_\beta|\tau_{\rm spon} \ll \lambda$ is what selects the same-velocity pairs; without it, the 2QC contrib

What would settle it

Use velocity-selective excitation to prepare two atomic velocity classes separated by more than $\lambda/\tau_{\rm spon}$: the paper's mechanism predicts that 2QC signals arise only when both interacting atoms belong to the same velocity class, so a 2QC signal from deliberately cross-velocity pairs should vanish. If it does not, the disorder-selection rule is incomplete. Alternatively, a temperature scan should shift the effective same-velocity-class density and thus the 1QC/2QC ratio in a calculable way.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the experimentally observed 1QC and 2QC spectra in a dilute thermal potassium vapor are reproduced only when the inter-atomic resonant dipole-dipole interaction retains its full retarded form, including the $1/r$ far-field terms. Earlier treatments kept only the $1/r^3$ electrostatic part; doing so here overestimates the 1QC/2QC amplitude ratio by roughly seven orders of magnitude and fails to reproduce the measured D2 anisotropy. The authors show that after averaging over random atomic positions, the only contributions to the MQC signals that survive come from pairs of atoms satisfying $|v_\alpha - v_\beta|\tau_{\rm spon} \ll \lambda$, i.e., atoms in the same veloc

Load-bearing premise

The whole explanation rests on the claim that after averaging over random atomic positions the only surviving contributions come from pairs of atoms whose relative velocity stays below about one optical wavelength per excited-state lifetime; if other disorder-robust contributions, such as recurrent scattering or cross-velocity couplings, are not negligible, the predicted anisotropies and amplitude ratios shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The 1QC/2QC amplitude ratio and the D2 anisotropy become quantitative tests that distinguish far-field, near-field, and independent-emitter models of dilute thermal vapors.
Semiclassical photon random-walk treatments, which predict negligible double-scattering at these densities, cannot account for the observed 2QC signals; a coupled-dipole description is required.
MQC spectroscopy can extract signatures of weak coherent interactions in disordered thermal systems without confined geometries or laser cooling, opening a route to sensing and control in dilute vapors.
The fine-structure cross resonance D1D2 is explained as originating from the interplay between fine-structure coherence and dipolar interactions between atoms in the same velocity class.
Including the full retarded tensor resolves an earlier overestimation of the 1QC/2QC amplitude ratio by a factor of $10^7$ that occurred when only electrostatic interactions were used.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the velocity-class selection is the true reason 2QC signals survive, the same argument should apply to higher-order coherences (up to $\kappa = 8$ observed earlier); a temperature scan should change the effective same-velocity-class density and hence the 1QC/2QC ratio in a predictable way, a test the paper does not report.
The disorder-robust phase compensation is formally the same mechanism as coherent backscattering in cold-atom clouds; one could look for a weak angular enhancement of the 2QC fluorescence around the backward direction as an independent fingerprint.
Because the anisotropy values come from the Zeeman and Clebsch-Gordan structure of the D lines, the predicted $A_y/A_x$ should differ for other alkali species or isotopes; measuring it would test whether the far-field attribution is specific to potassium or generic.
The extrapolation from three atoms to the bulk vapor uses an effective same-velocity-class density; a direct many-atom simulation or a measurement with velocity-selective excitation could check whether the rescaling by $(k_0\bar{r})^2$ holds.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The bottom line: this paper has a genuinely new experimental observable and a plausible mechanism claim. The measured anisotropy, Ay/Ax = 1.35(4) for the D2 1QC peak, and the sign flip for the D1D2 cross-peak, cleanly separate the full retarded dipole-dipole model from both independent emitters and electrostatic-only interactions. The near-field-only model fails qualitatively; the full model does not. That is a real step forward, and the velocity-class argument with the disorder average is more careful than earlier work.

What the paper does well: it combines new experimental data with an explicit theoretical model that reproduces the qualitative spectra, it identifies a specific physical ingredient (the ~1/r retarded part of the dipole-dipole tensor), and it predicts a directional anisotropy that can be tested. The input constants come from independent measurements, not fitted to the spectra, and the theoretical error bars include the uncertainty on the velocity-window choice.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The quantitative comparison is weaker than the qualitative one: the 1QC/2QC amplitude ratio is 28 versus 13 with no error bars, and the D2/D1 amplitude is several times off, attributed to radiation trapping but not modeled. The bulk extrapolation relies on estimated Ndet and a hand-chosen lambda/50 to lambda/100 velocity window; the model is truncated at fourth order in T and the undriven third atom is added ad hoc. The more serious concern is the preselection of "robust" disorder-average terms. The completeness of that selection is not demonstrated, and recurrent scattering and cross-velocity-class contributions are explicitly neglected. The stress-test note is right that if any of those terms contribute appreciably, the predicted sign of the D1D2 anisotropy could shift. However, the phase-compensation criterion is physically reasonable and consistent with prior work, so this is a gap in justification rather than evidence of a wrong claim.

No code or raw data are shipped, and the central algebra is delegated to same-group references, so an independent referee cannot easily reproduce the theoretical coefficients.

For whom: people working on MQC spectroscopy, collective effects in thermal vapors, or resonant dipole-dipole interactions. The paper deserves a serious referee; it should go to peer review with the expectation that the authors supply error bars on the headline ratio, a bound or explicit treatment of radiation trapping, and a more transparent justification that omitted terms are small.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports experimental 1QC and 2QC fluorescence spectra from a dilute thermal potassium vapor and a theoretical model based on a master equation for three randomly placed atoms interacting through the full retarded dipole-dipole tensor. The model includes the vector Zeeman structure of the D1/D2 transitions, treats pulsed excitation nonperturbatively, and averages over random positions and Doppler shifts. The central claim is that the far-field (1/r) part of the retarded dipole-dipole interaction is the crucial ingredient for reproducing the qualitative experimental features: the reduced anisotropy of the D2 1QC peak (Ay/Ax = 1.2(1) theory vs 1.35(4) experiment, versus 2.28 for near-field-only), the correct sign of the D1D2 cross-peak anisotropy, and a 1QC/2QC amplitude ratio of about 28 versus the measured 13. The paper also reports that electrostatic-only interactions invert the D1D2 anisotropy and massively overestimate the 1QC/2QC ratio, and argues that semiclassical multiple-scattering theory cannot explain the observed 2QC signals.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a long-sought resolution of the debate about the origin of multiple-quantum coherence in thermal atomic vapors and identifies a clean experimental observable—fluorescence anisotropy—as a fingerprint of far-field dipole-dipole interactions. The work has notable strengths: the anisotropy predictions are not obtained by fitting the model to the spectra; the input parameters (density, transition data, pulse area, decay rates) come from independent measurements; and the comparison explicitly contrasts full retarded, electrostatic-only, and independent-atom models. The inclusion of the full vector structure of the atomic transitions and the disorder average is methodologically important. However, the theory relies on a preselected subset of perturbative terms whose completeness is not demonstrated, and the quantitative comparison to the bulk vapor depends on estimated parameters with broad ranges.

major comments (4)

[Theoretical analysis, after Eq. (2); SM 'Theoretical description'] The disorder-average selection rule is load-bearing but not demonstrated complete. The main text states that robust contributions require the exponential phase factors of T(t') and T*(t'') to compensate, restricting atoms to the same velocity class. The SM adds that fixed-configuration results contain 'a tremendous number of terms' and that robust contributions are 'selected using the criteria outlined in the main text and Refs. [29,35]', but no proof is given that the retained terms dominate or that cross-velocity, recurrent, and higher-order terms are negligible. Since the D1D2 sign inversion and the D2 anisotropy are the central evidence for the far-field mechanism, this is not a minor technicality. I request a numerical evaluation of the full fourth-order expression for representative fixed configurations without preselection, or an analytical bound on the omitted contributions, to s
[Theoretical analysis, first paragraph] Recurrent scattering is explicitly neglected with only a reference to [29]. In the fourth-order expansion used here, recurrent processes (two interaction amplitudes between the same pair) are of the same nominal order as the retained double-scattering terms and could contribute to the same 2QC peaks. The paper does not show that such terms vanish under the disorder average or are small compared with the retained ones. A quantitative estimate of their contribution is needed to support the far-field attribution.
[Spectra and anisotropy, 1QC/2QC ratio; SM 'Mean distance'] The quantitative comparison to the bulk vapor relies on Ndet ~ 10^8-10^9 and rbar = 0.6-1.2 cm, the latter derived from a hand-chosen velocity window of lambda/50 to lambda/100. The calculated 1QC/2QC amplitude ratio is about 28 versus the measured 13, a factor of roughly 2; the paper attributes this to unmodeled photon frequency redistribution but does not show whether the Ndet/rbar uncertainties encompass the discrepancy. Please propagate the uncertainties in Ndet and rbar through the peak ratios and state explicitly whether the 28 vs 13 difference is within the theoretical error bars. The velocity-window choice also needs a physical justification beyond 'hand-chosen'.
[Theoretical analysis and SM 'Theoretical description'] The model uses three atoms, with the third atom undriven and introduced specifically to improve the agreement of the 2QC anisotropy. This indicates sensitivity to the number of atoms included. The paper should address whether two-atom, three-atom, and larger-N (or a scaling argument) results converge, otherwise the quantitative predictions—and the sign of the D1D2 anisotropy—could be an artifact of the truncation. At minimum, show the two-atom versus three-atom results for the key observables in Fig. 3.

minor comments (4)

[Figure 1 caption] Typo: 'Soild red lines' should be 'Solid red lines'.
[Spectra and anisotropy, Fig. 3] Numerical values for the D1D2 and 2D2 anisotropy ratios are not given in the text; only the D2 1QC value is quoted. Please list all five peak ratios (experiment, full theory, near-field theory) in a table or in the caption, as the D1D2 sign inversion is a key discriminator.
[SM Eq. (4)-(6)] The notation for D_Je and the dropping of inter-atomic position-dependent phases is a bit compressed. Clarify that the retained single-atom correlators still include intra-atomic position phases, and that those are also removed in the final robust selection.
[Theoretical analysis, after Eq. (2)] The inequality |v_alpha - v_beta| tau_spon << lambda is stated without a numerical estimate. Given the potassium parameters, it would be helpful to quote the corresponding velocity-class width and the resulting nvc value in the main text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the far-field mechanism is an unfitted model contrast against measured spectra; self-citations provide the computational formalism but do not smuggle in the conclusion.

full rationale

The central claim—that the retarded (far-field) part of the dipole-dipole tensor T (Eq. 2) is required to reproduce the measured 1QC/2QC amplitudes and D2 anisotropy—is tested by comparing two unfitted model variants (full T vs electrostatic-only) against independently measured spectra. Input constants (density n0=5e8 cm^-3, transition frequencies, pulse area, decay rates) come from independent measurements, and the bulk-vapor rescaling uses independently estimated ranges Ndet=1e8-1e9 and rbar=0.6-1.2 cm, propagated into theoretical error bars rather than tuned to the data. The authors explicitly report quantitative residuals (computed 1QC/2QC ratio ~28 vs measured ~13; Ay/Ax=1.2(1) vs 1.35(4)), which indicates a genuine prediction rather than a back-fit. The robust-term selection is delegated to the master-equation formalism of Refs. [29,35] with the phase-compensation criterion stated in the main text; these are self-citations, but they are technical apparatus with stated assumptions and do not assume the far-field mechanism itself. The third-atom extension is transparently described and compared with the two-atom case. No equation is defined in terms of the target observable, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The remaining concerns—excluded recurrent/cross-velocity/higher-order terms and the hand-chosen lambda/50-lambda/100 velocity window—affect model robustness and correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the disorder-average selection rule and on extrapolating a three-atom, fourth-order perturbative model to the bulk vapor. The velocity-class window and the undriven third atom are choices made with the observed anisotropy in view; densities, transition data, and pulse parameters are external inputs. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

Ndet (particle number in detection volume) = 10^8-10^9 (Fig. 2 caption uses 10^9)
Estimated in ref. [44]; sets the rescaling of single/double/triple scattering terms in Eq. (3), and thereby the predicted 1QC/2QC ratio and the [0]/[2]/[4] mixture that determines the D2 anisotropy value.
r_bar (mean distance between atoms in the same velocity class) = 0.6-1.2 cm
Derived in the SM from n_vc via a hand-chosen velocity window; enters the (k0 r_bar)^2 and (k0 r_bar)^4 rescaling factors and hence the relative 2QC magnitude.
Velocity-class window = lambda/50 to lambda/100
Imposed in the SM ('Mean distance between atoms from the same velocity class') to define the same-velocity-class condition; changes r_bar by a factor 2 and is propagated into the theoretical error bars of Fig. 3.
Pulse area theta_0 = 0.3
Computed from measured laser intensity and the atomic dipole moment (SM Eq. 11); not fitted, but it justifies the perturbative treatment of the laser-atom interaction.
Two-pulse to four-pulse mapping factor for 2D1/2D2 peaks = 2
SM Table I shows the four-pulse 2D peaks receive twice as many amplitude contributions as the two-pulse ones; a derived rescaling factor, not a fit.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Master equation (Eq. 7) with laser, relaxation, and dipole-dipole Liouvillians (Eqs. 8-10) adopted from ref. [29]
The paper's dynamical model is taken from the authors' prior NJP 2022 work; it is a standard Markovian QED master equation but is not re-derived here.
domain assumption Only resonant D1-D1 and D2-D2 couplings retained; D1-D2 cross terms average out at 1.73 THz
Stated in the main text before Eq. (3) and in the SM; the off-resonant terms oscillate fast relative to the cycle duration.
domain assumption Disorder average: only products T(t')T*(t'') with compensating phases survive, forcing same-velocity-class pairs
Core selection rule from refs. [29, 31]; yields |v_alpha - v_beta| tau_spon << lambda; this is the load-bearing premise for the far-field mechanism identification.
domain assumption Perturbation in T truncated at fourth order; recurrent scattering and higher orders neglected
Stated in 'Theoretical analysis'; justified by the disorder-average survival argument, but no convergence estimate is provided.
ad hoc to paper Three-atom model with a third, laser-undriven atom
SM states the third atom 'allows to improve the agreement with experiment for the anisotropy of 2QC signals, as compared to the two-atom case'.
domain assumption Radiation trapping and photon frequency redistribution not modeled
Acknowledged as the reason the computed D2 amplitude is 'several times too strong' relative to D1.
domain assumption Single decay rate gamma and equal pulse areas for D1 and D2
SM notes the ~1% decay-rate difference is ignored and the same pulse area is applied to both transitions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anisotropic fluorescence signals retarded dipole-dipole interactions in a thermal atomic cloud." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DDE4GSEX

@misc{pith2026250811480,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anisotropic fluorescence signals retarded dipole-dipole interactions in a thermal atomic cloud},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DDE4GSEX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.11480}
}

abstract

We experimentally observe and theoretically explain anisotropic multiple quantum coherence signals in the fluorescence from dilute thermal potassium vapors, at room temperature and particle densities $\sim 10^8\ \rm{cm}^{-3}$. We identify the retarded part of the geometrically fully resolved inter-atomic, resonant dipole-dipole interaction as the crucial ingredient to theoretically reproduce all qualitative features of the experimental spectra.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.11480 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Experimental (a,b) vs. theoretical (c,d) 1QC and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Anisotropy of experimental vs. theoretical 1QC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Angular distribution of fluorescence emission from an isolated alkali atom via the D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

[29]

B. Ames, E. G. Carnio, V. N. Shatokhin, and A. Buch- leitner, New Journal of Physics24, 013024 (2022)

work page 2022
[1]

R. H. Dicke, Physical Review93, 99 (1954)

1954
[2]

M. J. Stephen, The Journal of Chemical Physics40, 669 (1964)

work page 1964
[3]

D. A. Hutchinson and H. F. Hameka, The Journal of Chemical Physics41, 2006 (1964)

work page 2006
[4]

Gross and S

M. Gross and S. Haroche, Physics Reports 93, 301 (1982)

1982
[5]

S. D. Jenkins, J. Ruostekoski, J. Javanainen, R. Bour- gain, S. Jennewein, Y. R. P. Sortais, and A. Browaeys, Physical Review Letters116, 183601 (2016)

work page 2016
[6]

Mukamel, The Journal of Chemical Physics 145, 041102 (2016)

S. Mukamel, The Journal of Chemical Physics 145, 041102 (2016)

work page 2016
[7]

X. Dai, M. Richter, H. Li, A. D. Bristow, C. Falvo, S. Mukamel, and S. T. Cundiff, Physical Review Let- ters 108, 193201 (2012)

work page 2012

Show all 58 references

[8]

F. Gao, S. T. Cundiff, and H. Li, Optics Letters41, 2954 (2016)

2016
[9]

Bruder, A

L. Bruder, A. Eisfeld, U. Bangert, M. Binz, M. Jakob, D. Uhl, M. Schulz-Weiling, E. R. Grant, and F. Stienke- meier, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics 21, 2276 (2019)

2019
[10]

S. Yu, M. Titze, Y. Zhu, X. Liu, and H. Li, Optics Express 27, 28891 (2019)

2019
[11]

S.Yu, M.Titze, Y.Zhu, X.Liu, andH.Li,OpticsLetters 44, 2795 (2019)

2019
[12]

Liang and H

D. Liang and H. Li, The Journal of Chemical Physics 154, 214301 (2021)

2021
[13]

Landmesser, T

F. Landmesser, T. Sixt, K. Dulitz, L. Bruder, and F. Stienkemeier, Optics Letters48, 473 (2023)

2023
[14]

Bruder, M

L. Bruder, M. Binz, and F. Stienkemeier, Physical Re- view A92, 053412 (2015)

2015
[15]

Pizzey, J

D. Pizzey, J. D. Briscoe, F. D. Logue, F. S. Ponciano- Ojeda, S. A. Wrathmall, and I. G. Hughes, New Journal of Physics24, 125001 (2022)

2022
[16]

Fabricant, I

A. Fabricant, I. Novikova, and G. Bison, New Journal of Physics25, 025001 (2023)

2023
[17]

Uhland, H

D. Uhland, H. Dillmann, Y. Wang, and I. Gerhardt, New Journal of Physics25, 125001 (2023)

2023
[18]

Skljarow, H

A. Skljarow, H. Kübler, C. S. Adams, T. Pfau, R. Löw, and H. Alaeian, Physical Review Research 4, 023073 (2022)

2022
[19]

Buser, R

G. Buser, R. Mottola, B. Cotting, J. Wolters, and P. Treutlein, PRX Quantum3, 020349 (2022)

2022
[20]

Glorieux, T

Q. Glorieux, T. Aladjidi, P. D. Lett, and R. Kaiser, New Journal of Physics25, 051201 (2023)

2023
[21]

Alaeian, A

H. Alaeian, A. Skljarow, S. Scheel, T. Pfau, and R. Löw, New Journal of Physics26, 055001 (2024)

2024
[22]

Resonance frequencies of42S1/2 → 42P1/2 and 42S1/2 → 42P3/2 transitions are ω1 = 2 π × 389.6 THz (D1) and ω2 = 2π × 391.3 THz(D2)
[23]

See Supplemental Material atwww, which includes further details on the measurement of MQC signals and further details
[24]

P. F. Tekavec, T. R. Dyke, and A. H. Marcus, The Jour- nal of Chemical Physics125, 194303 (2006)

2006
[25]

M. Binz, L. Bruder, L. Chen, M. F. Gelin, W. Domcke, and F. Stienkemeier, Opt. Express28, 25806 (2020)

2020
[26]

Bangert, L

U. Bangert, L. Bruder, and F. Stienkemeier, Optics Let- ters 48, 538 (2023)

2023
[27]

Hedse, A

A. Hedse, A. A. S. Kalaee, A. Wacker, and T. Pullerits, The Journal of Chemical Physics158, 141104 (2023)

2023
[28]

V.Shatokhin, C.A.Müller, andA.Buchleitner,Physical Review Letters94, 043603 (2005)

2005
[30]

The hyperfine structure is neither resolved in the exper- iment nor included in our theoretical description
[31]

Ketterer, A

A. Ketterer, A. Buchleitner, and V. N. Shatokhin, Phys. Rev. A90, 053839 (2014)

2014
[32]

Binninger, V

T. Binninger, V. N. Shatokhin, A. Buchleitner, and T. Wellens, Physical Review A100, 033816 (2019)

2019
[33]

The results of the two pulse excitation are equivalent to the four pulse results, upon rescaling [23]
[34]

Our results are averaged over the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of ∆α
[35]

B. Ames, A. Buchleitner, E. G. Carnio, and V. N. Sha- tokhin, The Journal of Chemical Physics 155, 044306 (2021)

2021
[36]

L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,The classical theory of fields, 4th ed. (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1987)

1987
[37]

Lomsadze and S

B. Lomsadze and S. T. Cundiff, Physical Review Letters 120, 233401 (2018)

2018
[38]

In some analogy to robust – against disorder averaging – interference contributions which give rise to the coherent backscattering signal upon multiple scattering of light off clouds of cold atoms (see [28, 32], and references therein)
[39]

R. R. Puri, Mathematical Methods of Quantum Optics (Springer, Berlin, 2001)

2001
[40]

Bruder, U

L. Bruder, U. Bangert, and F. Stienkemeier, Optics Ex- press 25, 5302 (2017)

2017
[41]

Quantum and Atom Optics,

D. A. Steck, “Quantum and Atom Optics,” available on- line at http://steck.us/teaching (2022-07-28)

2022
[42]

A. F. Molisch and B. P. Oehry,Radiation Trapping in Atomic Vapours(Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1998)

1998
[43]

Budker, D

D. Budker, D. F. Kimball, and D. P. DeMille,Atomic physics: An exploration through problems and solutions, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008)

2008
[44]

Landmesser,Multiple-quantum coherence spectroscopy of alkali ensembles in the gas phase, Dissertation, Albert- Ludwigs-Universität, Freiburg im Breisgau (2024)

F. Landmesser,Multiple-quantum coherence spectroscopy of alkali ensembles in the gas phase, Dissertation, Albert- Ludwigs-Universität, Freiburg im Breisgau (2024)

2024
[45]

Chandrasekhar, Rev

S. Chandrasekhar, Rev. Mod. Phys.15, 1 (1943)

1943
[46]

Lagendijk and B

A. Lagendijk and B. A. van Tiggelen, Physics Reports 270, 143 (1996)

1996
[47]

Spectra of the D-Lines of Alkali Vapors,

G. Di Domenico and A. Weis, “Spectra of the D-Lines of Alkali Vapors,” Wolfram Demon- strations Project. demonstrations.wolfram.com/ SpectraOfTheDLinesOfAlkaliVapors/ (2011)

2011
[48]

Mercadier, W

N. Mercadier, W. Guerin, M. Chevrollier, and R. Kaiser, 6 Nature Physics5, 602 (2009)

2009
[49]

I. M. Sokolov and W. Guerin, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B36, 2030 (2019)
[50]

S. L. Bromley, B. Zhu, M. Bishof, X. Zhang, T. Both- well, J. Schachenmayer, T. L. Nicholson, R. Kaiser, S. F. Yelin, M. D. Lukin, A. M. Rey, and J. Ye, Nature Com- munications 7, 11039 EP (2016)

2016
[51]

V. A. Osipov and T. Pullerits, Phys. Rev. A96, 043841 (2017)

2017
[52]

Happer, Y.-Y

W. Happer, Y.-Y. Jau, and T. Walker,Optically Pumped Atoms (Wiley-VCH Verlag, Winheim, 2019)

2019
[53]

Clementi, D

E. Clementi, D. L. Raimondi, and W. P. Reinhardt, The Journal of Chemical Physics47, 1300 (1967)

1967
[54]

C. B. Alcock, V. P. Itkin, and M. K. Horrigan, Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly23, 309 (1984)

1984
[55]

H. Wang, P. L. Gould, and W. C. Stwalley, The Journal of Chemical Physics106, 7899 (1997). 7 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Accumulation effects In the experiment, the time intervalTcyc ≈ 10 ns between consecutive laser cycles is of the order of the natural lifetime τspon ≈ 26 ns, whic...

1997
[56]

(5), and tensorT is defined in Eq

are given by Eq. (5), and tensorT is defined in Eq. (2) of the main text. Equation (8) describes the Liouvillian of a laser pulse acting upon atomα at time tj. As mentioned in the main text, we modeled pulses by delta-functions multiplied by the pulse areas. We assume that the...
[57]

(7) perturbatively up to fourth order in the coupling strength|T|, using the full form of tensorT

and seek time-dependent solutions of Eq. (7) perturbatively up to fourth order in the coupling strength|T|, using the full form of tensorT. In contrast, the near-field results are derived by retaining only the terms∼ (k0rαβ)−3. The results obtained for fixed configurations of ...
[58]

The 1QC and 2QC spectra as given in the main text by Eqs

stemming from s = 1, 2, 3 atoms. The 1QC and 2QC spectra as given in the main text by Eqs. (2a) and (2b), respectively, are obtained via the demodulation procedure, which is compactly expressed by the formula [29] ˜Iκ,∆ˆk(ω) = lim F →0 Z ∞ 0 dτm e−(F +iκΩ21)τm Z ∞ 0 dτ e−iωτ Z...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [29]

B. Ames, E. G. Carnio, V. N. Shatokhin, and A. Buch- leitner, New Journal of Physics24, 013024 (2022)

work page 2022

[2] [1]

R. H. Dicke, Physical Review93, 99 (1954)

1954

[3] [2]

M. J. Stephen, The Journal of Chemical Physics40, 669 (1964)

work page 1964

[4] [3]

D. A. Hutchinson and H. F. Hameka, The Journal of Chemical Physics41, 2006 (1964)

work page 2006

[5] [4]

Gross and S

M. Gross and S. Haroche, Physics Reports 93, 301 (1982)

1982

[6] [5]

S. D. Jenkins, J. Ruostekoski, J. Javanainen, R. Bour- gain, S. Jennewein, Y. R. P. Sortais, and A. Browaeys, Physical Review Letters116, 183601 (2016)

work page 2016

[7] [6]

Mukamel, The Journal of Chemical Physics 145, 041102 (2016)

S. Mukamel, The Journal of Chemical Physics 145, 041102 (2016)

work page 2016

[8] [7]

X. Dai, M. Richter, H. Li, A. D. Bristow, C. Falvo, S. Mukamel, and S. T. Cundiff, Physical Review Let- ters 108, 193201 (2012)

work page 2012