Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Fundamental limit to cavity linewidth narrowing with single atoms

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In single-atom cavity EIT, quantum fluctuations impose a nonzero minimum linewidth, and adding atoms lowers that minimum.

desk verdict The few-atom numerics are probably fine, but the 'fundamental limit' claim is undercut by the paper's own statement that FWHM goes to zero as ε→0, and the invalid semiclassical curve in Fig. 4 does not help. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12422 v1 pith:4HBWROYI submitted 2024-11-19 quant-ph

Lucas R. S. Santos , Murilo H. Oliveira , Luiz O. R. Solak , Daniel Z. Rossatto , Celso J. Villas-Boas This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords electromagneticallyinducedtransparencycavityQEDsingleatominalinewidthnarrowingquantumfluctuationsmasterequationphotonstatisticsstrongatom-fieldcoupling
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

This work addresses how narrow the transmission line of an optical cavity can be made when electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT) is produced by atoms inside the cavity. Using a quantum master equation for one to five three-level atoms, the authors show that in the single-atom regime quantum fluctuations—residual multi-photon components that the EIT dark state cannot fully suppress—prevent the linewidth from being narrowed arbitrarily. The minimum full width at half maximum (FWHM) decreases as more atoms are added while the collective coupling is held fixed, which the authors interpret as a fundamental quantum limit. The finding matters because single-atom cavity EIT is a building block for quantum memories and photon-level nonlinear devices, where linewidth control sets bandwidth and storage properties.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the zero-temperature Lindblad master equation for $N_{\mathrm{at}}$ identical $\Lambda$-type three-level atoms coupled to a single cavity mode, with cavity decay rate $\kappa$, atomic spontaneous decays $\Gamma_{31}$ and $\Gamma_{32}$, and optional dephasing rates $\gamma_j$. The transmission spectrum is the steady-state mean photon number $\langle a^\dagger a\rangle$ normalized by the empty-cavity value $|\varepsilon/\kappa|^2$, and the central observable is the FWHM of the central transmission peak as a function of the control-field Rabi frequency $\Omega_c$. The quantum character enters through the full photon statistics, including the second-order correlation $g^{(2)}(0)$ and the photon-number distribution, since the EIT dark-state interference assumes a well-defined weak probe and multiphoton components break it. For larger atom numbers the authors supplement this with a semiclassical mean-field treatment in which the cavity field becomes a classical amplitude, and they use it to show that quantum and semiclassical predictions diverge in the strong-coupling few-atom regime.

What would settle it

Run the single-atom master-equation simulation with $\varepsilon=\sqrt{0.1}\,\kappa$, $g=5\kappa$, and $\Gamma_{31}=\Gamma_{32}=0.5\kappa$, sweeping $\Omega_c/\kappa$ from 0 to 2; the central claim predicts a nonzero positive minimum FWHM. If an experimental or exact spectrum shows the minimum reaching zero at finite $\varepsilon$, or if the minimum for two atoms is not below the minimum for one atom at the same collective coupling, the quantum-fluctuation limit is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that for a single atom in a cavity, the EIT transparency window cannot be made arbitrarily narrow: at any finite probe field strength, quantum fluctuations set a nonzero minimum FWHM. The limit appears because the steady state contains a nonzero probability of having more than one photon in the cavity, and a single atom can absorb at most one photon at a time, so the quantum interference that creates transparency is incomplete. Adding atoms, with the individual coupling rescaled so the collective atom-cavity coupling stays fixed, lowers the minimum FWHM, and the minimum shows a staircase-like decrease with atom number. For a thousand atoms the semiclassical approximation predicts qualitatively different behavior, including no transmission at small control-field Rabi frequency, and the authors take this discrepancy as evidence that the few-atom limit is genuinely quantum.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the zero-temperature, Markovian master equation with identical noninteracting atoms and only the included decay and dephasing channels is the complete description of a real single-atom cavity-EIT experiment; if that completeness fails, the predicted minimum linewidth is not a fundamental bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At any finite probe intensity, a single-atom cavity-EIT setup has a nonzero best linewidth; approaching zero linewidth requires either weaker probe fields or more atoms.
  • With the collective atom-cavity coupling fixed, the minimum FWHM decreases as the number of atoms increases, so atom number can serve as a control knob for linewidth without raising the control-laser power.
  • The FWHM-versus-atom-number staircase is a quantum signature: a semiclassical treatment predicts qualitatively different and inapplicable behavior in the strong-coupling regime, so few-atom linewidth data can distinguish quantum from classical response.
  • Strong atom-field coupling makes the transmitted field nonclassical, with $g^{(2)}(0)$ deviating from 1, and adding enough atoms restores coherent statistics; the linewidth floor and the nonclassical statistics share the same multiphoton origin.
  • The single-atom and few-atom predictions are directly testable in existing cavity-QED setups by measuring the minimum FWHM and $g^{(2)}(0)$ as functions of atom number.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The numerical results do not scan the pure-dephasing rates $\gamma_j$; adding explicit dephasing or finite-temperature noise would likely raise the minimum FWHM, so the claim is best read as the floor of the idealized zero-temperature Markovian model rather than an absolute quantum bound.
  • A testable extension is to prepare the probe field in a single-photon or sub-Poissonian state and repeat the FWHM scan; if the minimum drops sharply or disappears, the multiphoton picture of the limit is confirmed.
  • The minimum-FWHM-versus-atom-number curve could serve as a non-destructive atom-number sensor in the few-atom regime, where direct fluorescence counting is difficult.
  • Because quantum-memory protocols operate on transient dynamics, pulsed control fields might temporarily beat the steady-state linewidth floor; the paper's steady-state analysis does not rule that out.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies cavity electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT) with a small number of three-level atoms in a Λ configuration, using a Lindblad master equation for up to five atoms and a semiclassical mean-field approximation for one thousand atoms. The authors compute the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the cavity transmission peak as a function of control-field Rabi frequency, atom-field coupling, and number of atoms, and report that the minimum achievable FWHM decreases as the atom number increases when the collective coupling g is scaled as g = G/√Nat. The central claim is that quantum fluctuations impose a fundamental limit on cavity linewidth narrowing in the single-atom regime, and that adding atoms improves the narrowing. The paper also examines the photon statistics and atomic populations to support the interpretation.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the result would be of interest to cavity-QED and quantum-memory communities: it would quantify a genuine restriction on single-atom EIT linewidth narrowing and identify a nontrivial dependence on atom number at fixed collective coupling. The paper's strengths are its use of standard, reproducible master-equation numerics (QuTiP), its explicit comparison with the Ωc²/Nat scaling of Ref. [6], and its study of the probe-intensity dependence. However, the claimed 'fundamental limit' is not a derived bound; it is an interpretation of numerical minima at a fixed, finite probe amplitude, and the paper's own ε→0 statement undercuts the claim. The significance is therefore contingent on reframing the result as a finite-probe optimization or providing a real analytic bound.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III and Section V] Section III states: 'In the limit of ε → 0, the FWHM theoretically tends toward zero.' This directly contradicts the 'fundamental limit for the FWHM in the quantum model' claimed in Section V. The nonzero FWHM minima in the inset of Fig. 4 are obtained at fixed ε = √(0.1)κ, for which Fig. 5(b) shows a two-photon probability P2 ≈ 0.1. The paper provides no analytic lower bound, no scaling argument for ε → 0, and no data below ε = √(0.1)κ. The nonzero minima are therefore a finite-probe-power effect, not a quantum-fluctuation bound. The title, abstract, and Section V must be revised to state 'for a given incident probe power,' and the fundamental-limit claim must either be derived or retracted.
  2. [Appendix A and Fig. 4] Appendix A explicitly states that the semiclassical approximation applies only for weak atom-field coupling (g < κ, Γ) and then concedes: 'In Fig. 4 the simulation for Nat = 1000 showed an almost vanishing linewidth for Ωc < κ, but the coupling strength employed does not satisfy the applicability of the approximation.' Despite this, Fig. 4 plots the Nat = 1000 semiclassical curve without any marker, dashed style, or in-text caveat, and Section IV uses it to draw conclusions about the large-N semiclassical behavior. This is an internal inconsistency in the evidence. Either remove the Nat = 1000 curve from the main figure, or rerun it in a parameter regime where the approximation is valid and clearly label it as outside the quantum model.
  3. [Section IV, Fig. 4 inset] The 'fundamental limit' is read off a five-point numerical minimum as a function of Nat (inset of Fig. 4), with no estimate of numerical error, no extrapolation, and no closed-form expression. The claim that the FWHM minimum 'decreases with increasing Nat' is supported by only a few points, and the paper does not discuss whether the trend saturates or continues. If the authors keep the quantitative claim, they should provide an error analysis and a scaling form (even a phenomenological one) that can be tested against the data.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The dephasing rates γj appear in the master equation but are never assigned values or discussed in the simulations. If they are set to zero, that should be stated explicitly; if not, their contribution to the FWHM should be reported.
  2. [Fig. 5 caption and Section IV] The notation for the decay rates is inconsistent: the text and captions use Γ, Γ3, and Γ3l interchangeably. In particular, Fig. 5(a) uses g < κ, Γ3 and g > κ, Γ3l without defining Γ3 or Γ3l in the caption. The manuscript should use a single notation, e.g., Γ31 and Γ32 throughout.
  3. [Section III] The sentence 'In the limit of ε → 0, the FWHM theoretically tends toward zero' is a crucial caveat but it appears without a reference or derivation. Since it directly qualifies the main claim, it should be prominently placed and reconciled with the abstract and Section V.
  4. [Appendix A, Eq. (A5)] The right-hand side of Eq. (A5) contains a factor '2/2 Γ31 ⟨S33⟩' which appears to be a typo (likely 'Γ31 ⟨S33⟩'). Please correct.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the FWHM results are numerical outputs of a fixed master equation, benchmarked against an external experiment; the finite-probe caveat noted in the paper is a correctness concern, not circularity.

full rationale

All quantitative claims in the paper are outputs of the Lindblad master equation (Eq. 2) with the Hamiltonian of Eq. (1), using fixed physical parameters (κ, g, Γ31, Γ32, ε, Ωc). No parameter is fitted to reproduce a target FWHM, and the reported minimum FWHM values are computed from the steady-state solution of this master equation. The comparison to the Ωc²/Nat scaling from Ref. [6] is an external experimental benchmark, not a fit to the present data. The self-citations in the paper (Refs. [6], [20], [21], [23]) are used for the standard model Hamiltonian, for background on EIT, and for an experimentally established scaling law that the authors' own simulations independently reproduce; none is invoked as an unverified premise that forces the paper's central conclusion. The paper's conclusion that there is a 'fundamental limit for the FWHM in the quantum model' (Sec. V) is an interpretation of the numerically observed minima at a fixed probe amplitude ε = √(0.1)κ. The paper itself states that 'In the limit of ε → 0, the FWHM theoretically tends toward zero' (Sec. III), which undercuts the word 'fundamental' and suggests a finite-probe artifact, but this is a validity and interpretation issue, not circularity: changing ε changes the input drive, not the derivation chain. The derivation is therefore self-contained, with no step reducing to its own inputs or to an author-imported uniqueness assumption.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or fitted parameters. It uses a standard cavity-QED Hamiltonian, a Lindblad master equation, and standard numerical methods; the main free choices are the scaling of g with N_at, the probe amplitude, and the decay rates. The central claim depends on these choices.

free parameters (3)
  • Collective coupling constraint g = G/sqrt(N_at) = G = 5k (Fig. 4); G = k (Fig. 1)
    Chosen by hand to keep the effective collective coupling constant when N_at varies; the key claim that FWHM_min decreases with N_at is obtained only under this scaling.
  • Probe field amplitude epsilon = sqrt(0.1k) (main), also sqrt(0.01k) and sqrt(1.0k)
    Set by hand to define low- and high-excitation regimes; the linewidth behavior and the existence of the minimum depend on this choice.
  • Atomic spontaneous decay rates Gamma_31, Gamma_32 = 0.5k each
    Chosen symmetrically and arbitrarily; all FWHM curves depend on these rates.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The system is governed by the Lindblad master equation (Eq. 2) with Markovian reservoirs at T=0K.
    Standard open-system modeling; ignores non-Markovian, finite-temperature, and pure-dephasing effects.
  • domain assumption Rotating-wave, electric-dipole, and classical-control-field approximations lead to Hamiltonian Eq. (1).
    Standard approximations in cavity QED; valid for near-resonant driving.
  • domain assumption Atoms are identical, noninteracting, and couple collectively to the cavity mode through S31.
    Assumed in Eq. (1); neglects dipole-dipole interactions and inhomogeneous coupling strengths.
  • domain assumption The transmission spectrum is represented by the steady-state mean photon number <a†a>/|epsilon/k|^2, and the central peak FWHM defines the cavity linewidth.
    Standard input-output proxy; assumes the intracavity field is proportional to the transmitted probe.
  • domain assumption Dephasing rates gamma_1 and gamma_2 are not specified; they are presumably zero.
    Eq. (2) includes gamma_j but no numerical values appear in the text or figures; this absence affects the exact linewidth values.
  • domain assumption Fock space is truncated to N photons chosen by the probe intensity.
    Numerical truncation necessary for QuTiP; the text says N is chosen by probe field intensity but gives no convergence test.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fundamental limit to cavity linewidth narrowing with single atoms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4HBWROYI

@misc{pith2026241112422,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fundamental limit to cavity linewidth narrowing with single atoms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4HBWROYI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12422}
}
read the original abstract

The electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT) is a quantum interference phenomenon capable of altering the optical response of a medium, turning an initially opaque atomic sample into transparent for a given radiation field (probe field) upon the incidence of a second one (control field). EIT presents several applications, for instance, considering an atomic system trapped inside an optical cavity, its linewidth can be altered by adjusting the control field strength. For the single-atom regime, we show that there is a fundamental limit for narrowing the cavity linewidth, since quantum fluctuations cannot be disregarded in this regime. With this in mind, in this work we also investigate how the linewidth of an optical cavity behaves for different numbers of atoms trapped inside it, which shows a quantum signature in a strong atom-field coupling regime. In addition, we examine how the other system parameters affect the linewidth, such as the Rabi frequency of the control and the probe fields.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12422 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Cavity-EIT setup with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Atomic population [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Full width at half maximum (FWHM) as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. FWHM as a function of normalized Rabi frequency of control [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Normalized second order correlation function as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Towards Trapped-Ion Thermometry Using Cavity-Based EIT

    quant-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The linewidth of cavity-induced EIT increases monotonically with trapped-ion mean phonon number, providing a basis for ion thermometry from a single transmission spectrum.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [6]

    M¨ucke, E

    M. M¨ucke, E. Figueroa, J. Bochmann, C. Hahn, K. Murr, S. Rit- ter, C. J. Villas-Boas, and G. Rempe, Electromagnetically in- duced transparency with single atoms in a cavity, Nature (Lon- don) 465, 755 (2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [1]

    M. J. Werner and A. Imamo¯glu, Photon-photon interactions in cavity electromagnetically induced transparency, Phys. Rev. A 61, 011801 (1999)

    work page 1999

  3. [2]

    Zhang, G

    J. Zhang, G. Hernandez, and Y . Zhu, Slow light with cavity elec- tromagnetically induced transparency, Opt. Lett. 33, 46 (2007)

    work page 2007

  4. [3]

    Fleischhauer, A

    M. Fleischhauer, A. Imamoglu, and J. P. Marangos, Electromag- netically induced transparency: Optics in coherent media, Rev. Mod. Phys. 77, 633 (2005)

    work page 2005

  5. [4]

    Jaynes and F

    E. Jaynes and F. Cummings, Comparison of quantum and semi- classical radiation theories with application to the beam maser, Proc. IEEE 51, 89 (1963)

    1963

  6. [5]

    Slodi ˇcka, G

    L. Slodi ˇcka, G. H ´etet, S. Gerber, M. Hennrich, and R. Blatt, Electromagnetically Induced Transparency from a Single Atom in Free Space, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 153604 (2010)

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    Boller, A

    K.-J. Boller, A. Imamo ˘glu, and S. E. Harris, Observation of electromagnetically induced transparency, Phys. Rev. Lett.66, 2593 (1991)

    1991

  8. [8]

    L. V . Hau, S. E. Harris, Z. Dutton, and C. H. Behroozi, Light speed reduction to 17 metres per second in an ultracold atomic gas, Nature (London) 397, 594 (1999)

    work page 1999

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    D. F. Phillips, A. Fleischhauer, A. Mair, R. L. Walsworth, and M. D. Lukin, Storage of Light in Atomic Vapor, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 783 (2001)

    2001

  2. [10]

    C. Liu, Z. Dutton, C. H. Behroozi, and L. V . Hau, Observation of coherent optical information storage in an atomic medium using halted light pulses, Nature (London) 409, 490 (2001)

    2001

  3. [11]

    Morigi, J

    G. Morigi, J. Eschner, and C. H. Keitel, Ground State Laser Cooling Using Electromagnetically Induced Transparency, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4458 (2000)

    2000

  4. [12]

    C. F. Roos, D. Leibfried, A. Mundt, F. Schmidt-Kaler, J. Eschner, and R. Blatt, Experimental Demonstration of Ground State Laser Cooling with Electromagnetically Induced Transparency, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5547 (2000)

    2000

  5. [13]

    Lechner, C

    R. Lechner, C. Maier, C. Hempel, P. Jurcevic, B. P. Lanyon, T. Monz, M. Brownnutt, R. Blatt, and C. F. Roos, Electromagnetically-induced-transparency ground-state cooling of long ion strings, Phys. Rev. A 93, 053401 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    B. D. Agap’ev, M. Gorny˘ı, B. G. Matisov, and Y . V . Rozhdestven- ski˘ı, Coherent population trapping in quantum systems, Phys. Usp. 36, 763 (1993)

    1993

  7. [15]

    Kampschulte, W

    T. Kampschulte, W. Alt, S. Brakhane, M. Eckstein, R. Reimann, A. Widera, and D. Meschede, Optical Control of the Refractive Index of a Single Atom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 153603 (2010)

    2010

  8. [16]

    S. E. Harris, J. E. Field, and A. Imamo ˘glu, Nonlinear optical processes using electromagnetically induced transparency, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1107 (1990)

    1990

  9. [17]

    Lukin and A

    M. Lukin and A. Imamo˘glu, Controlling photons using electro- magnetically induced transparency, Nature (London) 413, 273 (2001)

    2001

  10. [18]

    Ficek, B

    Z. Ficek, B. Dalton, and M. Wahiddin, Spectral linewidth nar- rowing by a narrow bandwidth squeezed vacuum in a cavity, J. Mod. Opt. 44, 1005 (1997)

    1997

  11. [19]

    M. D. Lukin, M. Fleischhauer, M. O. Scully, and V . L. Velichan- sky, Intracavity electromagnetically induced transparency, Opt. Lett. 23, 295 (1998)

    1998

  12. [20]

    Borges, M

    H. Borges, M. Oliveira, and C. Villas-Boas, Influence of the asymmetric excited state decay on coherent population trapping, Sci. Rep. 7, 7132 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    M. H. Oliveira, C. E. M´aximo, and C. J. Villas-Boas, Sensitivity of electromagnetically induced transparency to light-mediated interactions, Phys. Rev. A 104, 063704 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    H. Wang, D. J. Goorskey, W. H. Burkett, and M. Xiao, Cavity- linewidth narrowing by means of electromagnetically induced transparency, Opt. Lett. 25, 1732 (2000)

    2000

  15. [23]

    J. A. Souza, E. Figueroa, H. Chibani, C. J. Villas-Boas, and G. Rempe, Coherent Control of Quantum Fluctuations Using Cavity Electromagnetically Induced Transparency, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 113602 (2013)

    2013

  16. [24]

    Mølmer, Y

    K. Mølmer, Y . Castin, and J. Dalibard, Monte carlo wave- function method in quantum optics, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 10, 6 524 (1993)

    1993

  17. [25]

    Thus, we have fixed 2560 trajectories in our simulations, being this number chosen in order to facilitate the use of parallel processing in the multicore cluster we have available

    In our simulations, we observed that more than 2000 trajectories is already enough to reproduce the master equation mean values. Thus, we have fixed 2560 trajectories in our simulations, being this number chosen in order to facilitate the use of parallel processing in the mult...

    2000

  18. [26]

    Johansson, P

    J. Johansson, P. Nation, and F. Nori, Qutip: An open-source python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems, Comput. Phys. Commun. 183, 1760 (2012)

    2012

  19. [27]

    P. D. Nation, Steady-state solution methods for open quantum optical systems (2015), arXiv:1504.06768

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Reiserer and G

    A. Reiserer and G. Rempe, Cavity-based quantum networks with single atoms and optical photons, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1379 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    Bonifacio and G

    R. Bonifacio and G. Preparata, Coherent spontaneous emission, Phys. Rev. A 2, 336 (1970)

    1970

  22. [30]

    Carollo and I

    F. Carollo and I. Lesanovsky, Applicability of Mean-Field The- ory for Time-Dependent Open Quantum Systems with Infinite- Range Interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 150401 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    X. Lei, L. Ma, J. Yan, X. Zhou, Z. Yan, and X. Jia, Electro- magnetically induced transparency quantum memory for non- classical states of light, Adv. Phys.: X 7 (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    H. P. Specht, C. N¨olleke, A. Reiserer, M. Uphoff, E. Figueroa, S. Ritter, and G. Rempe, A single-atom quantum memory, Nature (London) 473, 190 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    R. G. Beausoleil, W. J. Munro, D. A. Rodrigues, and T. P. Spiller, Applications of electromagnetically induced transparency to quantum information processing, J. Mod. Opt. 51, 2441 (2004)

    2004

  26. [34]

    Oliveira, H

    M. Oliveira, H. Borges, J. Souza, and C. Villas-Boas, Highly sen- sitive controllability of optical bistability in three-level atomic systems (2022), arXiv:2201.08185

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Schuster, A

    I. Schuster, A. Kubanek, A. Fuhrmanek, T. Puppe, P. W. Pinkse, K. Murr, and G. Rempe, Nonlinear spectroscopy of photons bound to one atom, Nat. Phys. 4, 382 (2008)

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.