Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Towards Trapped-Ion Thermometry Using Cavity-Based EIT

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that the linewidth of a cavity-based electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT) resonance in a trapped-ion cavity-QED system is controlled by the ion's mean phonon number, allowing ion temperature to be inferred from a

desk verdict A plausible cavity-EIT thermometry proposal with a solid numerical framework; the single-ion version holds up, but the advertised multi-ion weak-coupling claim rests on an idealized single-mode, single-temperature model that real crystals do not satisfy. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.12823 v5 pith:OD3F3G6Z submitted 2026-02-13 quant-ph physics.atom-phphysics.optics

Abhijit Kundu , Vijay Bhatt , Arijit Sharma This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-phphysics.optics MSC 81V80 PACS 42.50.Pq37.10.Ty32.80.Qk
keywords trappedionthermometrycavityQEDelectromagneticallyinducedtransparencymotionalsidebandsmeanphononnumberweakcouplingregimecollectivestrongLindbladmasterequation
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 proposes a new thermometry method for trapped ions inside optical cavities. It claims that when a control laser is tuned to a motional sideband, thermal phonons change the effective Rabi frequency and broaden the cavity-EIT transmission window in a monotone, calculable way. By fitting that window's linewidth, one can extract the mean phonon number and temperature without projective internal-state detection. Numerical simulations of the full master equation show the mapping holds in the resolved-sideband, sub-Doppler regime, and extends to multi-ion crystals where collective coupling compensates for weak single-ion coupling.

What carries the argument

The central object is the cavity-EIT transmission spectrum of a Lambda-type three-level ion inside an optical cavity, with a control beam tuned to the first motional sideband. Its linewidth is governed by the effective Rabi frequency, which depends on phonon number through the sideband factors sqrt(n+1) and sqrt(n); thermal phonons enter through a Lindblad phonon-bath term with occupation n_th. For N ions, the collective operators S_ij sum over identical ions and produce an effective coupling g sqrt(N), which is what makes thermometry possible in the weak-coupling regime. The workhorse calculation is the steady-state solution of the full master equation, from which the intra-cavity photon nu

What would settle it

Measure the cavity-EIT linewidth of a trapped ion while independently determining n_bar via resolved-sideband Rabi oscillations; if the linewidth does not trace the same monotone curve across the range n_th = 0.5 to 10, the proposed mapping fails. For the multi-ion claim, prepare a two-species or thermally bimodal crystal where two motional modes are held at different temperatures and check whether the linewidth still corresponds to a single effective n_th; if it does not, the collective single-mode model breaks down.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a quantitative relation between the cavity-EIT transmission linewidth and the thermal state of a trapped ion. The control field drives a vibrational sideband, so its effective Rabi frequency acquires phonon-number dependence (sqrt(n+1) and sqrt(n)); thermal phonons then dephase the EIT dark state and systematically widen the transparency window. Solving the Lindblad master equation including cavity decay, spontaneous emission, and a thermal phonon bath, the authors show that the linewidth increases monotonically with mean phonon number n_th = 0.5, 1, 5, 10, and that temperature can be read off. With multiple ions, the collective coupling g sqrt(N) rest

Load-bearing premise

The multi-ion temperature mapping assumes every ion in the crystal has the same phonon occupation and couples identically to the cavity mode, so a single collective mode with one temperature describes the whole cloud.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • After sub-Doppler cooling, a single transmission scan replaces the usual red/blue sideband ratio measurement, removing the need for projective state detection.
  • The mapping gives a continuous monitor of phonon occupation, so anomalous heating rates and thermalization dynamics can be tracked in real time.
  • Ion crystals with small single-ion coupling can still be thermometers, since collective coupling g sqrt(N) restores a readable EIT feature.
  • The collective narrowing of the EIT linewidth with ion number suggests a route to narrow reference lines for frequency stabilization or clocks.
  • Projected sensitivity is roughly 140 uK (or 0.1 phonons) per 10 kHz resolvable linewidth change in the strong-coupling case, and about 120 uK per 10 kHz for the 500-ion weak-coupling case.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the linewidth saturates at high phonon numbers, the method is most useful near the motional ground state; at high temperatures it degrades to a coarse thermometer. The paper's own curves imply this, though it is not the authors' main emphasis.
  • A real Coulomb crystal has many normal modes with distinct temperatures; applying the single-temperature mapping to a real cloud would require either mode-resolved addressing or a calibration against an independent thermometer.
  • The same phonon-dependent linewidth mechanism could be inverted: instead of measuring temperature, one could feedback-control the control-beam power to stabilize the ion's motional state.
  • Combining this probe with EIT cooling (which uses the same Lambda scheme) might yield a single setup that both cools and verifies the temperature, closing the loop in one cavity.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a cavity-based EIT thermometry scheme for trapped ions. The central claim is that the phonon-number-dependent modification of the effective control-field Rabi frequency in the resolved-sideband regime broadens the cavity-EIT transmission feature in a monotonic, quantitative way, allowing the ion temperature and mean phonon number to be read off from a measured linewidth without projective internal-state detection. The authors support this with Lindblad master-equation simulations for a single ion in the strong-coupling regime, then extend the model to a multi-ion system in which identical ions are collectively coupled to the cavity mode, claiming that thermometry remains possible in the weak single-ion coupling regime through sqrt(N) collective enhancement. Appendices reproduce bare-cavity and cavity-EIT spectra from published experiments and analytical expressions.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the method would provide a non-destructive, cavity-compatible alternative to resolved-sideband thermometry, which is valuable for cavity-QED-based quantum network nodes and for monitoring motional heating. The paper's genuine strengths are: (i) the numerical framework is anchored to external data — Appendix A reproduces bare-cavity reflection/transmission, and Appendix B reproduces the published cavity-EIT spectra of Mücke et al. and Albert et al. with the stated parameters; (ii) the temperature-linewidth relation is a forward prediction of the model, not a fit to target temperatures; (iii) the paper honestly identifies the assumption of identical thermal occupation in the multi-ion model, although it understates its consequences. The single-ion strong-coupling version of the proposal is plausible and well supported by the simulations. The advertised extension to weak single-ion coupling, however, rests on a collective single-mode model that is not representative of a real Coulomb crystal, and this is the part that carries the paper's most novel claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [§VI (Eqs. 10–11) and Abstract] The weak-coupling thermometry claim is load-bearing for the abstract and Section VI, and it rests on the assumption stated in the text: "all ions share an identical thermal occupation ... and undergo comparable coupling to the cavity field." In a real linear Paul trap, the cavity standing wave gives position-dependent couplings g_k = g cos(k z_k + φ), and the crystal's normal modes have different frequencies and, after sideband cooling, very different temperatures; a single collective mode b with one bath occupancy n_th is therefore not a faithful model of an arbitrary ion cloud. The sqrt(N) collective enhancement and the linewidth-temperature maps in Figs. 5–6 describe a fictitious single-mode crystal. They do not establish that a measured EIT linewidth maps to one well-defined ion temperature for a real multi-ion crystal. Please either restrict the weak-coupling claim to a single colle
  2. [§IV, Eqs. (7)–(8)] Equation (8) is dimensionally inconsistent. The susceptibility χ is defined as g^2 N Δp / [(Δp + i(γ_eu+γ_eg))Δp − Ω_c^2/4], so χ has units of frequency (g has units of frequency). Consequently g^2 N χ in Eq. (7) has units of frequency^3 and cannot be added to Δp, which is a frequency. The correct cavity-EIT susceptibility is given in Eq. (B3) (or its equivalent in Ref. [47]). Because Fig. 3(a) is presented as an "analytical expression" comparison, the authors should correct Eq. (8), rerun the comparison, and verify that the reported linewidth dependence on Ω_c is unaffected.
  3. [§VII] There is a direct contradiction within Section VII. The text first states: "when running the simulations at different temperatures ... the linewidth does not vary at all. This occurs because, for systems with large decay rates, the resolved sideband condition (γ≪ω_sec) is no longer satisfied." Two paragraphs later, however, the authors state that a "distinct and monotonic dependence ... is preserved even for large decay rates (γeu = 20κ, γeg = 7κ)" and present Fig. 8. If the difference is that Fig. 8 uses a secular frequency of 15 MHz that restores the resolved-sideband condition, that must be stated explicitly in the paragraph that announces the null result. As written, the reader cannot tell which parameter regime the first statement applies to, and this affects the paper's claim that thermometry is feasible for large excited-state decay rates.
  4. [§V, Eq. (4) and Fig. 4(b)] The mapping from linewidth to temperature and to n̄ in Fig. 4(b) is obtained by simulating the master equation with a fixed thermal bath occupancy n_th, and the text then uses Eq. (4) to convert n̄ to T. The procedure is internally consistent, but it would be helpful to state explicitly that the method assumes the ion is in (or near) a thermal state with a single temperature. If the motional distribution is non-thermal (e.g., after imperfect sideband cooling), the extracted 'temperature' from the linewidth is not guaranteed to correspond to the mean phonon number. A sentence acknowledging this limitation would strengthen the paper.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§VIII, Eqs. (12)–(13)] The sensitivity definitions S_T = Δ(Δν)/ΔT and S_n̄ = Δ(Δν)/Δn̄ have units of linewidth per temperature (kHz/K), but the results are reported as '14 µK/kHz' and '0.01/kHz'. The text later inverts these quantities. Please define the sensitivity as the minimum resolvable temperature change per unit linewidth resolution, or consistently state the units.
  2. [§I] Typo in the introduction: 'Aa an alternative thermometry method' should read 'As an alternative...'.
  3. [§IV] The notation for thermal phonon number is inconsistent: n_th, nth, and n̄ are all used for related but not always clearly distinguished quantities. Please unify the notation, especially in Eqs. (3)–(5), Fig. 4, and Appendix C.
  4. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption states δ̄n = 0.1 and γ_b = 0.6κ, while Section III defines the default as γ_b ≈ 0.25κ. Please indicate which parameters are used in which figure or state that Fig. 2 uses the non-default value.
  5. [§IX] The experimental roadmap assumes 'about 10 ions' give a collective strong coupling for g=0.5 MHz, κ=1 MHz, γ=1 MHz. The condition g_eff^2 ≫ κγ would require g_eff ≈ 1.58 MHz, which with sqrt(10)g = 1.58 MHz is marginal (g_eff^2 ≈ 2.5, κγ=1). Please state the cooperativity explicitly and comment on the margin.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the temperature–linewidth map is a forward model prediction and is independently anchored to experimental spectra.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a forward open-quantum-system calculation: given parameters (κ, g, γ, Ω_c, γ_b, n_th), the Lindblad master equation is solved and the cavity-EIT linewidth is extracted from the simulated transmission spectrum. The proposed thermometry is then an inversion of this computed linewidth-versus-n_th map. n_th is an input thermal-bath occupation, not a parameter fitted to the temperatures the paper claims to predict; the linewidth is an output. Figure 4b plots temperature and ⟨b†b⟩ as functions of linewidth, which is a calibration curve derived from the model, not a fit to independently known temperatures. The multi-ion section states an explicit assumption that all ions share an identical thermal occupation and comparable coupling, reducing the crystal to a single collective phonon mode. This is an acknowledged modeling assumption that limits direct applicability to arbitrary ion crystals, but it is an empirical/scoping limitation, not a circular definition or a fitted-input-called-prediction. The appendices validate the numerical model against independent experimental and analytical results (bare-cavity reflection/transmission, ion-crystal EIT spectra from Mücke et al. and Albert et al.), providing external anchoring. Equation (1) (BSB/RSB Rabi-frequency scaling) is imported from a standard reference, not from the authors' prior work, and is independently verifiable. I find no load-bearing self-citation, no uniqueness argument imported from the authors, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The main weakness—real Coulomb crystals have mode-dependent temperatures and position-dependent couplings—is a correctness/applicability risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chosen-parameter forward model. Free parameters are chosen by hand rather than fitted, but the linewidth-temperature calibration depends on them, especially gamma_b and eta (the latter not specified). Axioms include standard approximations plus two domain assumptions of note: a single-mode Markovian thermal phonon bath, and identical thermal occupation for all ions in the multi-ion extension. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • kappa (cavity decay rate) = 0.4 MHz (typical high-finesse cavity)
    Chosen by hand in Section III; all other rates are normalized to kappa.
  • g (single-ion cavity coupling) = 3 kappa or 5 kappa in different simulations
    Chosen to represent strong coupling; no independent measurement.
  • Omega_c (control field Rabi frequency) = 2.5 kappa
    Chosen; the temperature sensitivity of the linewidth depends on this value.
  • gamma_eg, gamma_eu (excited-state decay rates) = kappa (or 20 kappa, 7 kappa in Fig. 8)
    Chosen to model typical ion transitions and large-decay cases.
  • gamma_b (phonon damping rate) = 0.25 kappa - 0.6 kappa
    Chosen by hand; the linewidth-temperature curve depends on this unmeasured parameter.
  • n_th (thermal reservoir occupation) = 0.5, 1, 5, 10 (simulation inputs)
    This is the quantity the thermometer is supposed to infer; used as an input in simulations.
  • eta (Lamb-Dicke parameter) = not specified in main-text simulations
    Eq. (2) uses eta Omega_c; the linewidth scaling with n depends on eta, but its value is omitted from Section III.
  • omega_sec (secular frequency) = ~15 MHz in sensitivity estimates
    Assumed to satisfy the resolved-sideband condition; not independently justified for 40Ca+ beyond a citation to a 9Be+ trap.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The ion motion is a single harmonic oscillator mode b with secular frequency omega_sec and is in a thermal state with mean occupation n_th.
    Used throughout Eqs. (2)-(5); real traps have multiple modes and non-thermal noise.
  • standard math Lamb-Dicke regime eta << 1; first-order expansion in eta; rotating-wave and electric-dipole approximations.
    Section II; standard for trapped-ion sideband physics.
  • domain assumption Markovian Lindblad master equation with phonon bath damping gamma_b and thermal occupancy n_th.
    Eq. (3); ion-trap electric-field noise is often non-Markovian with a 1/f spectrum; the paper uses a white-noise bath.
  • domain assumption Resolved-sideband condition omega_sec >> gamma for all relevant transitions.
    Sections II and VII; explicitly required for the method, but limits applicability.
  • ad hoc to paper All ions in the multi-ion model share identical thermal occupation and identical cavity coupling, so collective operators S_ij and a single phonon mode b describe the crystal.
    Section VI; not generally true for Coulomb crystals; only justified under a uniformly cooled condition.
  • domain assumption The cavity transmission spectrum in steady state is proportional to <a+dagger a> and the EIT linewidth is extracted by Lorentzian fitting.
    Sections III and V; assumes weak probe and negligible measurement back-action.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards Trapped-Ion Thermometry Using Cavity-Based EIT." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OD3F3G6Z

@misc{pith2026260212823,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards Trapped-Ion Thermometry Using Cavity-Based EIT},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OD3F3G6Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.12823}
}
abstract

We present a technique for measuring ion temperature using cavity-based electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT) applicable for cavity QED systems. This method enables efficient extraction of the ion's phonon occupation number following sub-Doppler cooling close to the motional ground state. The proposed method requires operation in the resolved-sideband regime, where individual motional states can be selectively addressed for all relevant transitions either by selecting appropriate energy levels for the three-level system or by employing strong confinement with high secular frequencies ($\sim 10 MHz$). It relies on monitoring the cavity probe transmission while scanning the probe laser frequency to establish cavity-induced EIT using a control beam, thereby significantly simplifying the measurement procedure. We establish a theoretical model that demonstrates the influence of the thermal state of the trapped ion vis-\`a-vis the EIT linewidth measured. We show through numerical simulations how the cavity-induced EIT transmission may be used as a thermometry tool to deduce the ion temperature as well as its motional state in the sub-Doppler cooling regime, even for systems that are in the weak coupling regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.12823 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: (a) Schematic of the cavity-based electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT) configuration, where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Simulated cavity-EIT transmission spectrum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (a) Cavity-EIT linewidth from analytical expression as a function of control field Rabi frequency. (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: (a) Cavity-EIT spectrum for different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Cavity-EIT linewidth variation with the number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Temperature vs cavity-EIT linewidth for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: 0.01 0.10 1.00 Scaled Cavity-EIT linewidth 100 1000 8000 T e m p e r a tu r e i n K Nion =10 Nion =50 Nion =100 Nion =200 Nion =500 FIG. 8: Temperature vs linewidth for large decay from the excited level. For running the simulation, the cavity decay rate (κ) is taken a…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Temperature vs linewidth for large decay from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Temperature vs cavity-EIT linewidth for sys [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Cavity reflection from simulation, analytical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Normalized cavity emission from simulation, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Cavity reflection from simulation, analyti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Two-dimensional maps of the cavity-EIT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Ratio of excited state occupation probability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Simulated state evolution with time. The sim [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [47]

    M¨ ucke,Elektromagnetisch induzierte Transparenz mit einem einzelnen Atom, Ph.D

    M. M¨ ucke,Elektromagnetisch induzierte Transparenz mit einem einzelnen Atom, Ph.D. thesis, Technische Univer- sit¨ at M¨ unchen (2011)

    2011

  2. [1]

    Leibfried, R

    D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Quantum dynamics of single trapped ions, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 281 (2003)

    2003

  3. [2]

    H¨ affner, C

    H. H¨ affner, C. F. Roos, and R. Blatt, Quantum comput- ing with trapped ions, Phys. Rep.469, 155 (2008)

    2008

  4. [3]

    Monroe and J

    C. Monroe and J. Kim, Scaling the ion trap quantum processor, Science339, 1164 (2013)

    2013

  5. [4]

    Fang, W.-B

    D. Fang, W.-B. Chen, C.-H. Zhang, J.-M. Cui, Y.-F. Huang, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Cavity-assisted ther- mometry for a single trapped ion, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 024037 (2025)

    2025

  6. [5]

    Diedrich, J

    F. Diedrich, J. C. Bergquist, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Laser cooling to the zero-point energy of mo- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett.62, 403 (1989)

    1989

  7. [6]

    C. F. Roos, D. Leibfried, A. B. Mundt, F. Schmidt-Kaler, J. Eschner, and R. Blatt, Experimental demonstration of ground state laser cooling with electromagnetically in- duced transparency, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 5547 (2000)

    2000

  8. [7]

    D. J. Wineland, C. Monroe, W. M. Itano, D. Leibfried, B. E. King, and D. M. Meekhof, Experimental issues in coherent quantum-state manipulation of trapped atomic ions, J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol.103, 259 (1998)

    1998

Show all 55 references
  1. [8]

    Brownnutt, M

    M. Brownnutt, M. Kumph, P. Rabl, and R. Blatt, Ion- trap measurements of electric-field noise near surfaces, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1419 (2015)

    2015

  2. [9]

    J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Quantum computations with cold trapped ions, Physical review letters74, 4091 (1995)

    1995

  3. [10]

    Blatt and D

    R. Blatt and D. Wineland, Entangled states of trapped atomic ions, Nature453, 1008 (2008)

    2008

  4. [11]

    Q. A. Turchette, D. Kielpinski, B. E. King, D. Leibfried, D. M. Meekhof, C. J. Myatt, M. A. Rowe, C. A. Sack- ett, C. S. Wood, W. M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, Heating of trapped ions from the quantum ground state, Phys. Rev. A61, 063418 (2000)

    2000

  5. [12]

    H. J. Kimble, The quantum internet, Nature453, 1023 (2008)

    2008

  6. [13]

    D. M. Meekhof, C. Monroe, B. E. King, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Generation of nonclassical motional states of a trapped atom, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 1796 (1996)

    1996

  7. [14]

    C. Roos, T. Zeiger, H. Rohde, H. C. N¨ agerl, J. Eschner, D. Leibfried, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and R. Blatt, Quantum state engineering on an optical transition and decoher- ence in a paul trap, Phys. Rev. Lett.83, 4713 (1999)

    1999

  8. [15]

    A. J. Rasmusson, M. D’Onofrio, Y. Xie, J. Cui, and P. Richerme, Optimized pulsed sideband cooling and en- hanced thermometry of trapped ions, Phys. Rev. A104, 043108 (2021)

    2021

  9. [16]

    Vybornyi, L

    I. Vybornyi, L. S. Dreissen, D. Kiesenhofer, H. Hainzer, M. Bock, T. Ollikainen, D. Vadlejch, C. F. Roos, T. E. Mehlst¨ aubler, and K. Hammerer, Sideband thermometry of ion crystals, PRX Quantum4, 040346 (2023)

    2023

  10. [17]

    H. J. Kimble, Strong interactions of single atoms and photons in cavity QED, Phys. Scr.1998, 127 (1998)

    1998

  11. [18]

    Brune, F

    M. Brune, F. Schmidt-Kaler, A. Maali, J. Dreyer, E. Ha- gley, J. Raimond, and S. Haroche, Quantum Rabi oscilla- tion: a direct test of field quantization in a cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.76, 1800 (1996)

    1996

  12. [19]

    Reiserer and G

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

    2015

  13. [20]

    V. M. Acosta, K. Jensen, C. Santori, D. Budker, and R. G. Beausoleil, Electromagnetically induced trans- parency in a diamond spin ensemble enables all-optical electromagnetic field sensing, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 213605 (2013)

    2013

  14. [21]

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

    2000

  15. [22]

    M. J. Werner and A. Imamo¯ glu, Photon-photon interac- tions in cavity electromagnetically induced transparency, Phys. Rev. A61, 011801 (1999)

    1999

  16. [24]

    Tanji-Suzuki, W

    H. Tanji-Suzuki, W. Chen, R. Landig, J. Simon, and V. Vuleti´ c, Vacuum-induced transparency, Science333, 1266 (2011). 16

    2011

  17. [25]

    Duan and C

    L.-M. Duan and C. Monroe, Colloquium: Quantum net- works with trapped ions, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1209 (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    Reiserer, Colloquium: Cavity-enhanced quantum net- work nodes, Rev

    A. Reiserer, Colloquium: Cavity-enhanced quantum net- work nodes, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 041003 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Boller, A

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

    1991

  20. [28]

    Novikova, R

    I. Novikova, R. L. Walsworth, and Y. Xiao, Electromag- netically induced transparency-based slow and stored light in warm atoms, Laser Photonics Rev.6, 333 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    L. Ma, O. Slattery, and X. Tang, Optical quantum mem- ory based on electromagnetically induced transparency, J. Opt.19, 043001 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Morigi, J

    G. Morigi, J. Eschner, and C. H. Keitel, Ground state laser cooling using electromagnetically induced trans- parency, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 4458 (2000)

    2000

  23. [31]

    Souza, E

    J. Souza, E. Figueroa, H. Chibani, C. Villas-Boas, and G. Rempe, Coherent control of quantum fluctuations using cavity electromagnetically induced transparency, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 113602 (2013)

    2013

  24. [32]

    J. I. Cirac, R. Blatt, P. Zoller, and W. D. Phillips, Laser cooling of trapped ions in a standing wave, Phys. Rev. A 46, 2668 (1992)

    1992

  25. [33]

    Roßnagel, K

    J. Roßnagel, K. N. Tolazzi, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and K. Singer, Fast thermometry for trapped ions using dark resonances, New Journal of Physics17, 045004 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Norton, E

    B. Norton, E. Streed, M. Petrasiunas, A. Jechow, and D. Kielpinski, Millikelvin spatial thermometry of trapped ions, New Journal of Physics13, 113022 (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    M. D. Lukin, M. Fleischhauer, M. O. Scully, and V. L. Velichansky, Intracavity electromagnetically in- duced transparency, Opt. Lett.23, 295 (1998)

    1998

  28. [36]

    H. Wu, J. Gea-Banacloche, and M. Xiao, Observa- tion of intracavity electromagnetically induced trans- parency and polariton resonances in a doppler-broadened medium, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 173602 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    Zhang, G

    J. Zhang, G. Hernandez, and Y. Zhu, Slow light with cav- ity electromagnetically induced transparency, Opt. Lett. 33, 46 (2007)

    2007

  30. [38]

    Albert, A

    M. Albert, A. Dantan, and M. Drewsen, Cavity elec- tromagnetically induced transparency and all-optical switching using ion coulomb crystals, Nat. Photon.5, 633 (2011)

    2011

  31. [39]

    Liu, B.-B

    Y.-C. Liu, B.-B. Li, and Y.-F. Xiao, Electromagnetically induced transparency in optical microcavities, Nanopho- tonics6, 789 (2017)

    2017

  32. [40]

    Zhang, Z.-P

    S. Zhang, Z.-P. Huang, T.-C. Tian, Z.-Y. Wu, J.-Q. Zhang, W.-S. Bao, and C. Guo, Sideband cooling of a trapped ion in strong sideband coupling regime, Opt. Ex- press31, 44501 (2023)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Manzano, A short introduction to the Lindblad master equation, AIP Adv.10, 025106 (2020)

    D. Manzano, A short introduction to the Lindblad master equation, AIP Adv.10, 025106 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    L. R. S. Santos, M. H. Oliveira, L. O. R. Solak, D. Z. Rossatto, and C. J. Villas-Boas, Fundamental limit to cavity linewidth narrowing with single atoms (2024), arXiv:2411.12422 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Fleischhauer, A

    M. Fleischhauer, A. Imamoglu, and J. P. Marangos, Elec- tromagnetically induced transparency: Optics in coher- ent media, Rev. Mod. Phys.77, 633 (2005)

    2005

  36. [44]

    Lukin, Colloquium: Trapping and manipulating pho- ton states in atomic ensembles, Rev

    M. Lukin, Colloquium: Trapping and manipulating pho- ton states in atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 457 (2003)

    2003

  37. [45]

    Dantan and M

    A. Dantan and M. Pinard, Quantum-state transfer be- tween fields and atoms in electromagnetically induced transparency, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics69, 043810 (2004)

    2004

  38. [46]

    M¨ ucke, E

    M. M¨ ucke, E. Figueroa, J. Bochmann, C. Hahn, K. Murr, S. Ritter, C. J. Villas-Boas, and G. Rempe, Electromag- netically induced transparency with single atoms in a cavity, Nature465, 755 (2010)

    2010

  39. [48]

    Sørensen and K

    A. Sørensen and K. Mølmer, Entanglement and quan- tum computation with ions in thermal motion, Physical Review A62, 022311 (2000)

    2000

  40. [49]

    D. J. Wineland and W. M. Itano, Laser cooling of atoms, Phys. Rev. A20, 1521 (1979)

    1979

  41. [50]

    Schupp, V

    J. Schupp, V. Krcmarsky, V. Krutyanskiy, M. Meraner, T. Northup, and B. Lanyon, Interface between trapped- ion qubits and traveling photons with close-to-optimal efficiency, PRX Quantum2, 020331 (2021)

    2021

  42. [51]

    Takahashi, E

    H. Takahashi, E. Kassa, C. Christoforou, and M. Keller, Strong coupling of a single ion to an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 013602 (2020)

    2020

  43. [52]

    Albert, J

    M. Albert, J. P. Marler, P. F. Herskind, A. Dantan, and M. Drewsen, Collective strong coupling between ion coulomb crystals and an optical cavity field: Theory and experiment, Phys. Rev. A85, 023818 (2012)

    2012

  44. [53]

    S. R. Jefferts, C. Monroe, E. W. Bell, and D. J. Wineland, Coaxial-resonator-driven rf (Paul) trap for strong con- finement, Phys. Rev. A51, 3112 (1995)

    1995

  45. [54]

    Albert,A light-matter interface based on ion Coulomb crystals in an optical cavity, Ph.D

    M. Albert,A light-matter interface based on ion Coulomb crystals in an optical cavity, Ph.D. thesis, Danish Na- tional Research Foundation, Center for Quantum Optics - QUANTOP, Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Aarhus (2010)

    2010

  46. [55]

    E. Peik, J. Abel, T. Becker, J. von Zanthier, and H. Walther, Sideband cooling of ions in radio-frequency traps, Phys. Rev. A60, 439 (1999). Appendix A: Transmission and reflection spectra with a bare cavity To validate the theoretical model and numeri- cal simulations discuss...

    1999

  47. [56]

    The cavity decay rate (κ), is 1 MHz, while the single-atom cavity coupling rate (g 0) is 0.7κ

    as a function of probe detuning. The cavity decay rate (κ), is 1 MHz, while the single-atom cavity coupling rate (g 0) is 0.7κ. The control field Rabi frequency (Ω c) is 3MHz. The detuning for probe laser (∆ 1) and control laser (∆2) are 0.8κand 0.55κrespectively. /uni00000017...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.