Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Fundamental limits of free-space microwave-to-optical frequency conversion efficiency using Rydberg atoms

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 The authors prove that free-space microwave-to-optical conversion via Rydberg atoms is capped at 3/16 efficiency when the microwave field is diffraction-limited.

desk verdict Useful input-output framework for free-space Rydberg MOC, but the 3/16 ceiling depends on an unjustified diffraction-limit condition; referee needed before calling it fundamental. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13160 v1 pith:OA7BFF4L submitted 2024-11-20 quant-ph

Ya-Nan Lv , Yan-Lei Zhang , Xu-Bo Zou , Guang-Can Guo , Shui-Ming Hu , Chang-Ling Zou This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords microwave-to-opticalfrequencyconversionRydbergatomsfree-spacequantumtransductionefficiencybounddiffractionlimitsuper-atommodelnear-fieldantennainterface
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 paper derives an upper bound on how efficiently a cloud of Rydberg atoms can convert a free-space microwave photon into an optical photon. Because the microwave wavelength is much larger than the atomic cloud while the optical wavelength is much smaller, the two fields couple to the ensemble in different collective ways, and the microwave side becomes the limiting port. Modelling the ensemble as a single super-atom coupled to a continuum of free-space modes, the authors find the conversion efficiency is bounded by $\eta \leq 3\lambda_m^2/(4\pi^2 w_0^2)$, where $w_0$ is the microwave beam waist. For a diffraction-limited Gaussian focus, $w_0 > 2\lambda_m/\pi$, so this ceiling is $3/16$; even a perfectly impedance-matched, lossless atomic interface cannot exceed about 19% efficiency. The paper proposes near-field antennas to concentrate the microwave field below the diffraction limit and break through this ceiling.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-port input-output theory built on collective excitations of the atomic ensemble. The microwave port is described by a super-atom operator $S$ formed from $N$ atomic raising operators; since the ensemble length $L \ll \lambda_m$, the ensemble is point-like and its coupling to a Gaussian beam is $\gamma_{mw,1} = (3\lambda_m^2/4\pi^2 w_0^2)\gamma_R$, while all other radiation channels add up to the total decay $\gamma_R$. The optical port, because $L \gg \lambda_o$, is a directional spin-wave mode with emission rate $\kappa_{opt,1}$ related to the optical depth, plus a residual loss $\kappa_{opt,0}$. A drive with Rabi frequency $\Omega_c$ couples the two collective modes, and the resulting efficiency is $\eta = [\gamma_{mw,1}/(\gamma'_R+\gamma_R)] [\kappa_{opt,1}/(\kappa_{opt,0}+\kappa_{opt,1})] 4C/(1+C)^2$ in terms of the cooperativity $C = \Omega_c^2/[(\gamma'_R+\gamma_R)(\kappa_{opt,0}+\kappa_{opt,1})]$. In the ideal limit the optical extraction and internal factors approach one, leaving $\eta \leq \gamma_{mw,1}/\gamma_R$, and the diffraction limit turns that into $3/16$.

What would settle it

Measure or compute the microwave extraction factor $\gamma_{mw,1}/\gamma_R$ for a Rydberg ensemble driven by a tightly focused non-paraxial microwave mode with $w_0 \leq \lambda_m/\pi$, or by a near-field antenna; an efficiency above 3/16 under otherwise ideal internal conversion ($C=1$, $\delta=0$, $\kappa_{opt,0}\ll\kappa_{opt,1}$) would falsify the claimed universal bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the maximum free-space microwave-to-optical conversion efficiency with Rydberg atoms is governed by the fraction of the atoms' collective microwave decay that enters the collected beam, not by the strength of the atomic nonlinearity. In the model, the ensemble is a super-atom whose total decay rate $\gamma_R$ is split among many free-space channels; only the one-dimensional Gaussian beam channel, with rate $\gamma_{mw,1} = (3\lambda_m^2/4\pi^2 w_0^2)\gamma_R$, carries the useful signal. After eliminating the internal dynamics, the efficiency factors into two extraction efficiencies and a cooperativity term, yielding the global bound $\eta \leq \gamma_{mw,1}/\gamma_R$. Using the diffraction condition $w_0 > 2\lambda_m/\pi$ converts this into the numerical ceiling $\eta \leq 3/16$, which the authors call fundamental for free-space Gaussian-beam excitation. They then argue that a near-field antenna, by confining the microwave mode to sub-wavelength dimensions, can increase $\gamma_{mw,1}/\gamma_R$ and therefore exceed $3/16$ while keeping the free-space advantages.

Load-bearing premise

The 3/16 ceiling holds only if the microwave field must be a paraxial Gaussian beam obeying the diffraction limit $w_0 > 2\lambda_m/\pi$; if sub-wavelength or non-paraxial focusing is allowed, the bound changes, so the claim of fundamentality is tied to that mode family.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • No free-space Gaussian-beam Rydberg converter with an ensemble small compared with the microwave wavelength can exceed 3/16 efficiency, regardless of atom number, drive power, or optical depth.
  • The microwave port is the bottleneck: optical extraction can approach unity with high optical depth, but the microwave extraction factor $\gamma_{mw,1}/\gamma_R$ is capped by focusing.
  • For a realistic $^{87}$Rb setup with $w_0 = \lambda_m$, the model predicts a maximum of about 7.6%, so large efficiency gains require changing the microwave mode structure rather than adding atoms or increasing drive strength.
  • The conversion bandwidth is set by the optical spin-wave decay rate and cooperativity, with simulated bandwidths on the order of 0.3-0.5 GHz for $C = 0.1$ to $4$ at $\Omega_c/2\pi = 20$ MHz.
  • Near-field antennas emerge as the proposed route to sub-diffraction microwave confinement and efficiencies beyond 3/16 while retaining the wide-angle and broadband advantages of free-space Rydberg converters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: if the assumption of a paraxial Gaussian beam is relaxed to vectorial or evanescent modes with an effective waist below $2\lambda_m/\pi$, the derived $3/16$ bound no longer applies, so the result is best read as a limit on a specific mode family rather than on all conceivable free-space fields.
  • The same super-atom extraction-factor argument should transfer to terahertz and millimeter-wave interfaces and to Rydberg electrometry, where the ratio of signal-mode coupling to total decay sets a similar sensitivity ceiling; the paper mentions such extensions but does not work out the bounds.
  • A direct way to test the ceiling is to measure conversion efficiency as a function of $w_0$ for a fixed Rydberg sample: the curve should saturate at $3\lambda_m^2/(4\pi^2 w_0^2)$, and any substantial excursion above it would point to a non-Gaussian or near-field contribution rather than a failure of the conversion model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a theoretical model for microwave-to-optical frequency conversion (MOC) using Rydberg atoms in free space, treating the atomic ensemble as a super-atom for the microwave transition and as a spin-wave mode for the optical transition. It derives a conversion efficiency formula and an upper bound η ≤ γ_mw,1/γ_R = 3λ_m²/(4π²w0²), which, under the stated condition w0 > 2λ_m/π, becomes η ≤ 3/16. The authors propose near-field antennas as a way to overcome this bound. The central claim is that the conversion efficiency is fundamentally limited by the focusing of the free-space microwave field.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper provides a useful design guideline for free-space Rydberg-based MOC and highlights the role of microwave mode matching. The model is parameter-free in the sense that the bound is derived from input-output theory without fitted parameters. However, the universality of the claimed 'fundamental' limit is overstated: the bound depends on a specific diffraction-limit assumption and is explicitly acknowledged to be breakable by near-field antennas. The framework could still be valuable as a practical benchmark for Gaussian-beam configurations.

major comments (4)
  1. [Microwave coupling / Eq. (5)] The condition w0 > 2λ_m/π, described as 'the diffraction limit of a free-space Gaussian beam', is asserted without derivation or citation. This is not the standard diffraction limit for a focused Gaussian beam: the usual paraxial result is w0 ≥ λ/(π sinθ) with sinθ ≤ 1, giving w0 ≥ λ/π for NA=1. The factor 2 appears to stem from an additional paraxiality cutoff (θ ≤ 1/2 rad) rather than from a fundamental physical bound. Replacing 2λ_m/π by λ_m/π in Eq. (5) changes the ceiling from 3/16 to 3/4. The authors should justify the factor 2 or qualify the statement as a paraxial-approximation condition.
  2. [Conclusion / Abstract] The paper calls the 3/16 bound 'fundamental' in the title and abstract, but in the main text it explicitly states that a near-field antenna 'could break the 3/16 efficiency limit'. Since a near-field antenna is a free-space configuration (no cavity or waveguide), the claimed universal bound is internally contradicted. Either the title and abstract should be qualified to specify 'for far-field paraxial Gaussian beams under L ≪ λ_m', or the authors must prove that no free-space field configuration in the L ≪ λ_m regime can exceed η ≤ 3/16.
  3. [Microwave coupling] The central input γ_mw,1 = (3λ_m²/4π²w0²)γ_R is stated without derivation; the derivation is entirely delegated to the Supplemental Material, which is not included in the arXiv submission. This formula is load-bearing for the main result, and its validity near w0 ~ λ_m/π (where the paraxial approximation breaks down) is not discussed. The authors should provide the derivation or a precise reference, and state the regime of applicability.
  4. [Eq. (4) and following text] The bound in Eq. (5) relies on the assumptions γ'_R/γ_R → 0 and κ_opt,0 ≪ κ_opt,1. The manuscript states that these can be optimized but gives no quantitative conditions or experimental constraints. While this does not affect the formal mathematical bound, it is important for assessing how practically reachable the bound is; a brief discussion of achievable parameter ranges would improve the paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1) and surrounding text] The expressions involving 'p2γp' appear garbled; they should be typeset as √(2γp) with proper square-root symbols.
  2. [Microwave coupling] The sentence 'where γp represents the SE rate of super-atoms intop-th channel' contains a typo: 'intop-th' should be 'into the p-th'.
  3. [Fig. 4(b) inset] The bandwidth values are given as '0.32,0.26,0.45GHz' without consistent spacing; please format as '0.32 GHz, 0.26 GHz, 0.45 GHz'.
  4. [References] Reference [42] lists 'Refs.[27,49-53]' inside the sentence; this is awkward. Please move the supplementary-material references into the supplemental document itself.
  5. [Eq. (5) and diffraction limit statement] If the authors retain the condition w0 > 2λ_m/π, they should cite a standard optics source (e.g., a textbook on Gaussian beams) and define the paraxiality criterion explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the efficiency bound is a parameter-free consequence of input-output theory, with only an unstated diffraction-limit assumption that is a correctness risk rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central bound η ≤ γmw,1/γR = 3λ_m²/(4π²w0²) (Eq. 5) is derived from an input-output theory model whose inputs are the collective decay rates and the mode-coupling formula γmw,1 = (3λ_m²/4π²w0²)γR. No parameter is fitted to the claimed maximum efficiency, and the efficiency expression η = (γmw,1/(γ'_R + γR))(κopt,1/(κopt,0 + κopt,1))(4C/(1+C)² + δ²/κopt²) is a standard cooperativity-limited result optimized by setting C = 1 and δ = 0. The subsequent 3/16 bound uses the stated condition w0 > 2λm/π, which is asserted without derivation or citation. This is a legitimate correctness and scope concern: the word 'fundamental' may overstate the result if tighter focusing or non-paraxial vectorial modes are allowed. However, this is not circularity, because the diffraction-limit assumption is not defined in terms of the predicted efficiency, no fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing self-citation is used. The manuscript explicitly concedes that a near-field antenna 'can break the 3/16 efficiency limit', confirming that the bound is configuration-specific rather than a tautology. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

The central bound rests on six stacked modeling assumptions that are standard in quantum optics, plus one load-bearing convention, the Gaussian diffraction limit w_0 > 2λ_m/π. None are fitted to data, so the paper is parameter-free in the derivation sense, but the 'fundamental' label is tied to the choice of this diffraction limit rather than to a universal physical bound.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The N-atom ensemble is described by a bosonic super-atom via the Holstein-Primakoff approximation, valid for N >> 1 and low excitation number.
    Used in the Microwave coupling section to define the collective operator S and the collective decay rate γ_R = Nγ_gr.
  • domain assumption Rydberg blockade is negligible because the mean distance between excited atoms is large compared to the blockade radius.
    Stated in the Microwave coupling section to justify the non-interacting collective decay model.
  • standard math Markovian and Born approximations apply to the multi-channel microwave continuum.
    Used to derive the steady-state super-atom solution S(ω) in Eq. (1) from the coupling Hamiltonian.
  • standard math The microwave coupling to a Gaussian beam channel is γ_mw,1 = (3λ_m²/4π²w_0²)γ_R.
    Stated in the Microwave coupling section for a Gaussian beam with waist w_0; a standard result in free-space atom-photon coupling, but not derived in the main text.
  • domain assumption The optical field couples to a single spin-wave mode with rate κ_opt = (OD/4)γ_e and the extra decay rate κ_opt,0 is negligible for a cold, dense ensemble.
    Used in the Optical coupling section and in the efficiency formula Eq. (4) to set the optical extraction factor near unity.
  • domain assumption A free-space Gaussian beam has a diffraction-limited waist satisfying w_0 > 2λ_m/π.
    This is the load-bearing assumption that sets the numerical value 3/16. The paper states it without a citation or discussion of non-paraxial focusing, which could allow smaller waists.
  • domain assumption The internal conversion between the super-atom and the spin-wave can reach unit efficiency at C=1 and δ=0, and γ'_R/γ_R can be made to approach zero with strong drives.
    Used to reduce Eq. (4) to Eq. (5); the paper asserts these limits are experimentally reachable in optimized cold atom ensembles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fundamental limits of free-space microwave-to-optical frequency conversion efficiency using Rydberg atoms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OA7BFF4L

@misc{pith2026241113160,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fundamental limits of free-space microwave-to-optical frequency conversion efficiency using Rydberg atoms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OA7BFF4L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13160}
}
read the original abstract

Efficient microwave-to-optical frequency conversion (MOC) is crucial for applications such as radiometry, electrometry, quantum microwave illumination and quantum networks. Rydberg atoms provide a unique platform for realizing free-space MOC, promising wide-bandwidth, scalable, and flexible quantum interfaces. Here, we develop a theoretical framework to evaluate the system conversion efficiency, accounting for the mismatch between microwave and optical wavelengths comparing with the atomic ensemble size. Our analysis reveals that the conversion efficiency is fundamentally limited by the focusing of the free-space microwave field, with an upper bound of about 3/16 for diffraction-limited focusing. We propose using a microwave near-field antenna to overcome this limit. Our work provides a foundation for assessing and optimizing free-space MOC, paving the way for a variety of applications based on free-space MOC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13160 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic of the microwave-to-optical frequency conver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Schematic of the collective coupling between atom en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. (a) Schematic of the conversion between microwave and op [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum advantage in microwave quantum radar,

    R. Assouly, R. Dassonneville, T. Peronnin, A. Bienfait, and B. Huard, “Quantum advantage in microwave quantum radar,” Nature Physics 19, 1418 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Microwave imaging via space-time beamforming for early detection of breast cancer,

    E. Bond, X. Li, S. Hagness, and B. Van Veen, “Microwave imaging via space-time beamforming for early detection of breast cancer,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propaga- tion 51, 1690 (2003)

    work page 2003

  3. [3]

    Optical fiber communication—an overview,

    M. Arumugam, “Optical fiber communication—an overview,” Pramana 57, 849 (2001)

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    Microwave cavity searches for dark-matter axions,

    R. Bradley, J. Clarke, D. Kinion, L. J. Rosenberg, K. van Bib- ber, S. Matsuki, M. M ¨uck, and P. Sikivie, “Microwave cavity searches for dark-matter axions,” Reviews of Modern Physics 75, 777 (2003)

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Cos- mic microwave background observables and their cosmological implications,

    W. Hu, M. Fukugita, M. Zaldarriaga, and M. Tegmark, “Cos- mic microwave background observables and their cosmological implications,” The Astrophysical Journal 549, 669 (2001)

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Semiconductor spin qubits,

    G. Burkard, T. D. Ladd, A. Pan, J. M. Nichol, and J. R. Petta, “Semiconductor spin qubits,” Reviews of Modern Physics 95, 025003 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Dipole coupling of a double quantum dot to a microwave resonator,

    T. Frey, P. J. Leek, M. Beck, A. Blais, T. Ihn, K. Ensslin, and A. Wallraff, “Dipole coupling of a double quantum dot to a microwave resonator,” Physical Review Letters 108, 046807 (2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Hybrid quan- tum circuits: Superconducting circuits interacting with other quantum systems,

    Z.-L. Xiang, S. Ashhab, J. Q. You, and F. Nori, “Hybrid quan- tum circuits: Superconducting circuits interacting with other quantum systems,” Reviews of Modern Physics85, 623 (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Enhanced metrology at the critical point of a many-body rydberg atomic system,

    D.-S. Ding, Z.-K. Liu, B.-S. Shi, G.-C. Guo, K. Mølmer, and C. S. Adams, “Enhanced metrology at the critical point of a many-body rydberg atomic system,” Nature Physics 18, 1447 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    Approaching the standard quantum limit of a rydberg-atom microwave electrom- eter,

    H.-T. Tu, K.-Y . Liao, G.-D. He, Y .-F. Zhu, S.-Y . Qiu, H. Jiang, W. Huang, W. Bian, H. Yan, and S.-L. Zhu, “Approaching the standard quantum limit of a rydberg-atom microwave electrom- eter,” arXiv: 2307.15617 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Single-photon detectors combining high efficiency, high detection rates, and ultra-high timing resolution,

    I. Esmaeil Zadeh, J. W. N. Los, R. B. M. Gourgues, V . Stein- metz, G. Bulgarini, S. M. Dobrovolskiy, V . Zwiller, and S. N. Dorenbos, “Single-photon detectors combining high efficiency, high detection rates, and ultra-high timing resolution,” APL Photonics 2, 111301 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Microwave-optical quantum frequency conversion,

    X. Han, W. Fu, C.-L. Zou, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, “Microwave-optical quantum frequency conversion,” Optica 8, 1050 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Perspectives on quantum trans- duction,

    N. Lauk, N. Sinclair, S. Barzanjeh, J. P. Covey, M. Saffman, M. Spiropulu, and C. Simon, “Perspectives on quantum trans- duction,” Quantum Science and Technology5, 020501 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Superconducting cavity electro- optics: A platform for coherent photon conversion between superconducting and photonic circuits,

    L. Fan, C.-L. Zou, R. Cheng, X. Guo, X. Han, Z. Gong, S. Wang, and H. X. Tang, “Superconducting cavity electro- optics: A platform for coherent photon conversion between superconducting and photonic circuits,” Science Advances 4, eaar4994 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Efficient quantum microwave-to-optical con- version using electro-optic nanophotonic coupled resonators,

    M. Soltani, M. Zhang, C. Ryan, G. J. Ribeill, C. Wang, and M. Loncar, “Efficient quantum microwave-to-optical con- version using electro-optic nanophotonic coupled resonators,” Phys. Rev. A 96, 043808 (2017)

    2017

  8. [16]

    Optomagnonic whispering gallery microresonators,

    X. Zhang, N. Zhu, C.-L. Zou, and H. X. Tang, “Optomagnonic whispering gallery microresonators,” Physical Review Letters 117, 123605 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Bidirectional conversion between microwave and light via ferromagnetic magnons,

    R. Hisatomi, A. Osada, Y . Tabuchi, T. Ishikawa, A. Noguchi, R. Yamazaki, K. Usami, and Y . Nakamura, “Bidirectional conversion between microwave and light via ferromagnetic magnons,” Phys. Rev. B93, 174427 (2016)

    2016

  10. [18]

    Optomechanical Transducers for Long-Distance Quan- tum Communication,

    K. Stannigel, P. Rabl, A. S. Sørensen, P. Zoller, and M. D. Lukin, “Optomechanical Transducers for Long-Distance Quan- tum Communication,” Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 220501 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    Optical detection of radio waves through a nanomechanical transducer,

    T. Bagci, A. Simonsen, S. Schmid, L. G. Villanueva, E. Zeuthen, J. Appel, J. M. Taylor, A. Sørensen, K. Usami, A. Schliesser, and E. S. Polzik, “Optical detection of radio waves through a nanomechanical transducer,” Nature 507, 81 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Bidirectional and efficient conversion between microwave and optical light,

    R. W. Andrews, R. W. Peterson, T. P. Purdy, K. Cicak, R. W. Simmonds, C. A. Regal, and K. W. Lehnert, “Bidirectional and efficient conversion between microwave and optical light,” Nat. Phys. 10, 321 (2014)

    2014

  13. [21]

    Interfacing Superconducting Qubits and Telecom Photons via a Rare-Earth-Doped Crystal,

    C. O’Brien, N. Lauk, S. Blum, G. Morigi, and M. Fleischhauer, “Interfacing Superconducting Qubits and Telecom Photons via a Rare-Earth-Doped Crystal,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 063603 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Magneto- Optic Modulator with Unit Quantum Efficiency,

    L. A. Williamson, Y .-H. Chen, and J. J. Longdell, “Magneto- Optic Modulator with Unit Quantum Efficiency,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 203601 (2014)

    2014

  15. [23]

    Cou- pling ultracold atoms to a superconducting coplanar waveguide resonator,

    H. Hattermann, D. Bothner, L. Y . Ley, B. Ferdinand, D. Wied- 6 maier, L. S´ark´any, R. Kleiner, D. Koelle, and J. Fort´agh, “Cou- pling ultracold atoms to a superconducting coplanar waveguide resonator,” Nature Communications 8, 2254 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    Coherent microwave-to-optical conversion via six-wave mix- ing in rydberg atoms,

    J. Han, T. V ogt, C. Gross, D. Jaksch, M. Kiffner, and W. Li, “Coherent microwave-to-optical conversion via six-wave mix- ing in rydberg atoms,” Physical Review Letters 120, 093201 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Quantum-enabled millimetre wave to optical transduction using neutral atoms,

    A. Kumar, A. Suleymanzade, M. Stone, L. Taneja, A. Anferov, D. I. Schuster, and J. Simon, “Quantum-enabled millimetre wave to optical transduction using neutral atoms,” Nature 615, 614 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Efficient microwave-to-optical conversion using ryd- berg atoms,

    T. V ogt, C. Gross, J. Han, S. B. Pal, M. Lam, M. Kiffner, and W. Li, “Efficient microwave-to-optical conversion using ryd- berg atoms,” Physical Review A99, 023832 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    High-efficiency coherent microwave-to-optics conversion via off-resonant scat- tering,

    H.-T. Tu, K.-Y . Liao, Z.-X. Zhang, X.-H. Liu, S.-Y . Zheng, S.- Z. Yang, X.-D. Zhang, H. Yan, and S.-L. Zhu, “High-efficiency coherent microwave-to-optics conversion via off-resonant scat- tering,” Nature Photonics 16, 291 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Quantum informa- tion with rydberg atoms,

    M. Saffman, T. G. Walker, and K. Mølmer, “Quantum informa- tion with rydberg atoms,” Reviews of Modern Physics82, 2313 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    New observables of the cos- mic microwave background,

    M. Lanucara and R. J. Daddato, “New observables of the cos- mic microwave background,” Experimental Astronomy55, 541 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Calculation of cosmic microwave background radiation parameters using cobe/firas dataset,

    S. Dhal, S. Singh, K. Konar, and R. K. Paul, “Calculation of cosmic microwave background radiation parameters using cobe/firas dataset,” Experimental Astronomy 56, 715 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Three- dimensional location system based on an l-shaped array of ryd- berg atomic receivers,

    Y . Yan, J. Yuan, L. Zhang, L. Xiao, S. Jia, and L. Wang, “Three- dimensional location system based on an l-shaped array of ryd- berg atomic receivers,” Optics Letters48, 3945 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Cavity-enhanced raman heterodyne spectroscopy in er 3 + : Y 2 sio 5 for microwave to optical signal conversion,

    X. Fernandez-Gonzalvo, S. P. Horvath, Y .-H. Chen, and J. J. Longdell, “Cavity-enhanced raman heterodyne spectroscopy in er 3 + : Y 2 sio 5 for microwave to optical signal conversion,” Physical Review A 100, 033807 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Microwave-to- optical conversion via four-wave mixing in a cold ytterbium ensemble,

    J. P. Covey, A. Sipahigil, and M. Saffman, “Microwave-to- optical conversion via four-wave mixing in a cold ytterbium ensemble,” Physical Review A100, 012307 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Two-way interconversion of millimeter-wave and optical fields in rydberg gases,

    M. Kiffner, A. Feizpour, K. T. Kaczmarek, D. Jaksch, and J. Nunn, “Two-way interconversion of millimeter-wave and optical fields in rydberg gases,” New Journal of Physics 18, 093030 (2016)

    2016

  27. [35]

    Nano-opto-electro- mechanical systems,

    L. Midolo, A. Schliesser, and A. Fiore, “Nano-opto-electro- mechanical systems,” Nature Nanotechnology 13, 11 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Multilevel holstein-primakoff ap- proximation and its application to atomic spin squeezing and ensemble quantum memories,

    Z. Kurucz and K. Mølmer, “Multilevel holstein-primakoff ap- proximation and its application to atomic spin squeezing and ensemble quantum memories,” Physical Review A 81, 032314 (2010)

    2010

  29. [37]

    Observation of rydberg block- ade between two atoms,

    E. Urban, T. A. Johnson, T. Henage, L. Isenhower, D. D. Yavuz, T. G. Walker, and M. Saffman, “Observation of rydberg block- ade between two atoms,” Nature Physics 5, 110 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    Obser- vation of collective excitation of two individual atoms in the rydberg blockade regime,

    A. Ga ¨etan, Y . Miroshnychenko, T. Wilk, A. Chotia, M. Viteau, D. Comparat, P. Pillet, A. Browaeys, and P. Grangier, “Obser- vation of collective excitation of two individual atoms in the rydberg blockade regime,” Nature Physics 5, 115 (2009)

    2009

  31. [39]

    Direct single-shot observation of millimeter-wave superradiance in rydberg-rydberg transitions,

    D. D. Grimes, S. L. Coy, T. J. Barnum, Y . Zhou, S. F. Yelin, and R. W. Field, “Direct single-shot observation of millimeter-wave superradiance in rydberg-rydberg transitions,” Physical Review A 95, 043818 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Observation of blackbody radiation enhanced su- perradiance in ultracold rydberg gases,

    L. Hao, Z. Bai, J. Bai, S. Bai, Y . Jiao, G. Huang, J. Zhao, W. Li, and S. Jia, “Observation of blackbody radiation enhanced su- perradiance in ultracold rydberg gases,” New Journal of Physics 23, 083017 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    Univer- sal approach for quantum interfaces with atomic arrays,

    Y . Solomons, R. Ben-Maimon, and E. Shahmoon, “Univer- sal approach for quantum interfaces with atomic arrays,” PRX Quantum 5, 020329 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    See Supplemental Material for detailed analytical derivation of (1)Simplified model for multi-wave mixing; (2) Microwave coupling; (3) Optical coupling; (4) Effective conversion Hamil- tonian; (5) Method of slicing, which includes Refs.[27,49-53]

  35. [43]

    Atomic spin-wave control and spin- dependent kicks with shaped subnanosecond pulses,

    Y . He, L. Ji, Y . Wang, L. Qiu, J. Zhao, Y . Ma, X. Huang, S. Wu, and D. E. Chang, “Atomic spin-wave control and spin- dependent kicks with shaped subnanosecond pulses,” Physical Review Research 2, 043418 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Superradiant detection of mi- croscopic optical dipolar interactions,

    L. Ji, Y . He, Q. Cai, Z. Fang, Y . Wang, L. Qiu, L. Zhou, S. Wu, S. Grava, and D. E. Chang, “Superradiant detection of mi- croscopic optical dipolar interactions,” Physical Review Letters 131, 253602 (2023)

    2023

  37. [45]

    Quantum communication,

    N. Gisin and R. Thew, “Quantum communication,” Nature Pho- tonics 1, 165 (2007)

    2007

  38. [46]

    Quantum sens- ing,

    C. L. Degen, F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro, “Quantum sens- ing,” Reviews of Modern Physics89, 035002 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Terahertz spectroscopy and imaging – modern techniques and applications,

    P. Jepsen, D. Cooke, and M. Koch, “Terahertz spectroscopy and imaging – modern techniques and applications,” Laser & Photonics Reviews 5, 124 (2011)

    2011

  40. [48]

    Real-time near-field terahertz imaging with atomic optical fluorescence,

    C. G. Wade, N. ˇSibali´c, N. R. de Melo, J. M. Kondo, C. S. Adams, and K. J. Weatherill, “Real-time near-field terahertz imaging with atomic optical fluorescence,” Nature Photonics 11, 40 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    Wall and G

    D. Wall and G. Milburn, Quantum Optics (Springer Berlin Hei- delberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2008)

    2008

  42. [50]

    Light scattering from dense cold atomic media,

    B. Zhu, J. Cooper, J. Ye, and A. M. Rey, “Light scattering from dense cold atomic media,” Physical Review A94, 023612 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    Adiabatic elimina- tion in a lambda system,

    E. Brion, L. H. Pedersen, and K. Mølmer, “Adiabatic elimina- tion in a lambda system,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 40, 1033 (2007)

    2007

  44. [52]

    Beyond adiabatic elimination: A hierarchy of approximations for multi- photon processes,

    V . Paulisch, H. Rui, H. K. Ng, and B.-G. Englert, “Beyond adiabatic elimination: A hierarchy of approximations for multi- photon processes,” The European Physical Journal Plus129, 12 (2014)

    2014

  45. [53]

    Efficient quantum memory for single- photon polarization qubits,

    Y . Wang, J. Li, S. Zhang, K. Su, Y . Zhou, K. Liao, S. Du, H. Yan, and S.-L. Zhu, “Efficient quantum memory for single- photon polarization qubits,” Nature Photonics 13, 346 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

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