Single atom optical gate and single photon source based on magnetooptical effects in a waveguide

A. S. Kuraptsev; I. M. Sokolov

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Single atom optical gate and single photon source based on magnetooptical effects in a waveguide

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single atom inside a single-mode waveguide can act as a switchable mirror, reflecting everything or nothing depending on the magnetic field.

desk verdict Correct single-atom magneto-optical cancellation, but the 'optical gate' is a frequency-tunable mirror, not a fixed-frequency switch. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02512 v1 pith:7IKSMYQT submitted 2025-05-05 quant-ph physics.atom-phphysics.optics

A. S. Kuraptsev , I. M. Sokolov This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phphysics.atom-phphysics.optics PACS 31.70.Hq32.70.Jz42.50.Ct42.50.Nn

keywords waveguidequantumelectrodynamicssingle-atomopticalgatecontrollableBraggmirrorZeemansplittingdarkstatesinglephotonsourceincompletespontaneousdecaymagneto-opticaleffects

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 argues that a magnetic field gives a single atom inside a single-mode waveguide complete control over whether incident light is transmitted or reflected. Tuning the Zeeman splitting of the excited state switches the reflectance between 0 and 1, so one atom can play the role of a controllable Bragg mirror. The same physics, based on a non-decaying dark state that exists because the waveguide's only guided mode has no electric field along one axis, underlies a proposed single-photon source: the atom is stored in the dark state and later released by switching the magnetic field on again. If these claims hold, a single atom could serve as an optical gate and as a source of single photons in a Fock state without needing optical nonlinearities.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Zeeman-split excited-state triplet of a $J=0 \to J=1$ atom coupled to the TE$_{10}$ mode of a rectangular waveguide. That guided mode has only a $y$-component of the electric field, so a superposition with an $x$-oriented dipole, the dark state $|X\rangle = (|m_J=-1\rangle - |m_J=1\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, cannot radiate into it and is long-lived. The argument is carried by the resolvent-based linear equations for the single-atom amplitudes, Eqs. (4) and (5), whose interference between the two Zeeman channels produces the transmission and reflection; the $T=1$ and $T=0$ points are proven by direct substitution into these amplitudes.

What would settle it

Place one atom at a known position in a single-mode waveguide and measure transmission versus magnetic field at fixed detuning; the paper predicts $T=1$ exactly at $\delta = \Delta_Z$ and $T=0$ exactly at $\delta = 2\Delta_Z$. A second check is time-resolved decay: with the field off, the excited-state population should plateau at the dark-state value rather than decaying to zero, and switching the field back on should release a single photon.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a $J=0 \leftrightarrow J=1$ transition in a single-mode waveguide, the paper derives the stationary scattering amplitudes $b_-$ and $b_+$ for the Zeeman sublevels $m_J=-1$ and $m_J=1$ and identifies two exact cancellation points. At probe detuning $\delta = \Delta_Z$, the two backward-scattering amplitudes are equal and opposite, $b_- = -b_+$, so the reflected field vanishes and transmission is $T=1$. At $\delta = 2\Delta_Z$, the lower sublevel is not excited, $b_- = 0$, and the forward-scattered light from the upper sublevel cancels the probe, giving $T=0$. The same two points appear for a dense random ensemble with strong dipole-dipole interactions, which the paper takes as evidence that the full control is a single-atom interference effect. Strong magnetic field also destroys the dark state $|X\rangle = (|m_J=-1\rangle - |m_J=1\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$, converting incomplete spontaneous decay into complete decay and enabling on-demand emission.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a single atom can be held where it couples to the guided mode while a magnetic field is switched on and off inside a waveguide without the conducting walls screening the field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single atom at a position where it couples to the guided mode can be switched between full transmission and full reflection by changing the magnetic field, because the two critical points occur at $\delta = \Delta_Z$ and $\delta = 2\Delta_Z$.
The same two transmission points persist for a dense random ensemble, so magnetic-field tuning gives a collective mirror whose reflectance can be swept from 0 to 1.
The single-photon source can store an excitation in the dark state for an arbitrary time and release one photon at a chosen moment by restoring the magnetic field, with the photon in a Fock state.
Since the effect comes from interference rather than nonlinearity, the gate and source operate at the single-photon level without a nonlinear medium.
The switching rate is set by the magnetic-field transient, estimated at about 1 ns, which is shorter than the 10–100 ns atomic lifetime.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct test would scan the transmission of a single trapped atom as a function of $\Delta_Z/\delta$; the predicted perfect transmission and perfect reflection at ratios 1 and 1/2 should not depend on the coupling strength as long as the atom couples to the mode.
If the waveguide walls were made of a dielectric rather than a perfect conductor, the fast-switching screening problem would disappear, but the mode profile would change and the exact cancellation points would need to be rederived.
The same two-channel cancellation could be engineered in other platforms where an effective two-level or three-level splitting is tunable, for instance artificial atoms in a microwave waveguide with externally controlled splittings.
Deterministic operation of the gate requires placing the atom away from a node of the TE$_{10}$ field; without such a placement protocol, only the averaged curve shown for random positions would be observed.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Let me get straight to the point: the stress-test note is right, and it matters. The paper has a clean analytical core—I checked Eqs. (4)-(10) and the two cancellation conditions are correct: at δ=Δ_Z the reflected field cancels (T=1), at δ=2Δ_Z the transmitted field cancels (T=0). The magnetic-field lifting of the waveguide dark state is a real effect, and the paper is the first to point it out. For that, it deserves a referee.

But the 'optical gate' as advertised is not what the math shows. The two operating points sit at two different probe frequencies: δ=Δ_Z means the probe is at the mJ=0 resonance (i.e., at the zero-field frequency ω0), and δ=2Δ_Z means the probe is at the mJ=1 resonance (ω0+Δ_Z). For a fixed probe frequency, setting Δ=ω_p-ω0, the T=1 condition forces Δ=0, which gives T=1 for every B≠0 but T=0 only at B=0 (a singular limit). A photon at any other frequency never sees the T=1 point. So you can't switch a fixed-frequency signal from 0 to 1 by dialing the magnetic field; you get a magnetically tunable frequency-selective mirror, not a gate in the usual sense. The paper's own phrasing ('when the probe is tuned to mJ=0... when tuned to mJ=1') confirms this, but the abstract and intro sell it as a single-atom switch.

The single-photon source has a different soft spot. The protocol requires switching B on a ~1 ns scale inside a waveguide whose walls are treated as perfectly conducting. Eddy currents in a metal wall screen fast field changes; the paper doesn't address that. If the guide is dielectric, the mode structure used here doesn't apply.

There are smaller issues: Fig. 3(b) is an average over random atom positions, which hides the fact that an atom at a mode node couples nothing; the ensemble numerics don't show error bars. Neither is fatal, but both want attention.

Net: the physics is sound and novel, and the analytic solution is a real contribution. The device claims outrun the analysis. I'd send it to review—the referee can push for a rewritten 'gate' section, a discussion of the eddy-current problem, and a clear statement that the two operating points are at different frequencies. It's not a reject; it's a 'think about what you're actually claiming.'

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the optical properties of a single atom and of a dilute atomic ensemble inside a single-mode waveguide under a longitudinal magnetic field. The atomic model is a Jg=0 to Je=1 transition, and the field is treated with a microscopic quantum formalism previously developed by the authors. Two effects are claimed: (i) a strong magnetic field suppresses the incomplete spontaneous decay caused by a waveguide-induced dark state, which motivates a single-photon source based on switching the magnetic field on and off; and (ii) the transmittance of a single atom can be controlled by the magnetic field, with analytical conditions giving T=1 and T=0, which is presented as a single-atom optical gate or controllable Bragg mirror.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper would provide a comparatively simple, parameter-free mechanism for a single-photon source and for all-optical switching with a single atom in a waveguide. The analytical solution in Eqs. (4) to (10) is a genuine strength: the cancellation conditions are explicit, no constants are fitted to data, and the result is a falsifiable prediction of a published microscopic formalism. The magnetic-field suppression of the dark state is also an interesting qualitative effect. However, the significance is presently moderated by the operational ambiguity in the gate protocol and by a feasibility issue in the switching-based single-photon source, both of which must be resolved before the central claims can be assessed as stated.

major comments (3)

[§III.B, Eqs. (4)–(8), Fig. 3] The two advertised operating points are not reachable by varying the magnetic field for a fixed probe frequency. Since δ is defined, as stated, as the detuning from the B-shifted m=-1 resonance, one has δ = ω_p - (ω0 - Δ_Z) = (ω_p - ω0) + Δ_Z. The condition δ = Δ_Z therefore forces ω_p = ω0 for every nonzero B, while δ = 2Δ_Z forces ω_p = ω0 + Δ_Z. Consequently, for a fixed probe frequency with Δ = ω_p - ω0 ≠ 0, the exact T=1 condition δ = Δ_Z is never satisfied during a magnetic-field sweep; T=0 occurs only at the single field value Δ_Z = Δ, and T tends to 1 only asymptotically as Δ_Z → ∞. For Δ = 0, the T=0 point at B = 0 is ordinary resonant reflection by the bright state, and Eqs. (4)–(5) are singular there, so it is not the advertised δ = 2Δ_Z magneto-optical cancellation. The manuscript never states which frequency bookkeeping is assumed in the gate protocol. This is load-bearing for the abstract and introduction claim of a controllable single-atom optical gate; the authors should specify either a fixed-frequency protocol with its exact versus asymptotic T=1 behavior, or a two-frequency protocol that is not a gate on a fixed-frequency photon.
[§III.A and §II] The single-photon source protocol requires switching the magnetic field on and off on a timescale τ_tr ≈ 1 ns, while the guided-mode structure is derived using the assumption of perfectly conducting waveguide walls. A perfectly conducting wall excludes time-varying magnetic fields from the interior by eddy currents, and the paper's 1 ns estimate does not address this screening. If the intended physical system is a dielectric or hollow-core fiber, the perfect-conductor boundary condition is not the actual mode structure; if it is a metal waveguide, as suggested for the microwave implementation, the fast magnetic-field switching is physically problematic. The authors should specify the waveguide type and discuss how the time-varying magnetic field penetrates to the atom.
[Eq. (6) and Fig. 3(b)] The single-atom gate result is presented in Fig. 3(b) as an average over random atomic positions, but the coupling γ' in Eq. (6) vanishes for an atom at a field node where sin(π x_a/a) = 0. At such a position the atom is completely decoupled from the TE10 mode, and neither T=0 nor T=1 can be produced. The analytical cancellation conditions hold only when the atom has nonzero coupling to the mode, so the claim that 'just one atom' inside a waveguide can form a gate requires a deterministic positioning protocol at a field antinode. The averaged curve in Fig. 3(b) obscures this requirement and does not by itself justify the single-atom gate claim.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'reﬂectance form 0 to 1' contains a typo: 'form' should be 'from'. The same typo appears in the introduction.
[§III.B] The word 'ealily' in the paragraph following Eq. (8) should be 'easily'.
[§II] The name 'Schrodinger' should be written with the correct diacritic as 'Schrödinger' (or 'Schr"odinger' in LaTeX).
[Fig. 3 caption] The caption does not specify whether the probe frequency is held fixed during the sweep in Zeeman splitting, nor does it state the convention for δ beyond the sentence in the text. This ambiguity is closely related to the first major comment and should be clarified in the revised manuscript.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the cancellation points are explicit algebraic consequences of the stated equations, with no fitted parameters or self-referential predictions.

full rationale

The manuscript derives its two advertised operating points (T=1 at delta=Delta_Z and T=0 at delta=2Delta_Z) algebraically from the stated stationary amplitudes, Eqs. (4)-(10), showing explicitly that b_- = -b_+ at the first point and b_+ A3 = A2 at the second. These are exact consequences of the model, not quantities fitted to data, and the transmitted and reflected fields are computed from the same expressions rather than assumed. The single-photon protocol likewise follows from the time-dependent solution of Eq. (2) with the Zeeman term in Eq. (1); no parameter is fitted to the predicted dynamics. The heavy citation of the authors' prior work (Refs. [20], [27], [28]) supplies the base microscopic formalism, namely the Sigma matrix and the stationary-source technique, but that formalism does not contain the new magneto-optical cancellation points or the transmittance-to-zero condition, so the self-citation is background support rather than a reduction of the new claim to its own input. The caveat that a fixed probe frequency may not reach both exact operating points at two finite magnetic-field values is a physical correctness issue about the bookkeeping of the detuning delta, not a circularity, because it does not involve any equation being equivalent to its own input by construction.

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

No parameters are fitted to data; the control variables such as ΔZ, δ, atom position, density, and length are scanned physical settings. The central claim rests on the authors' published microscopic formalism and on several modeling assumptions including perfectly conducting walls, motionless point atoms, single-mode operation, and the linear Zeeman effect. No new entities such as new particles or forces are introduced; the dark state |X> is a superposition of existing Zeeman sublevels.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The quantum microscopic approach, decomposition into one-fold excited amplitudes with the resolvent R(ω), is valid for this waveguide-atomic system.
Used to derive Eqs. (2) and (3); the formalism is taken from the authors' prior papers Refs. [20], [27], and [28] and is not re-derived here.
domain assumption Waveguide walls are perfectly conducting and absorption is neglected.
Stated in Sec. II; required for the TE10 mode structure used in Eqs. (6) to (10). This conflicts with the fast magnetic-field switching needed in Sec. III A.
domain assumption Atoms are point-like and motionless, with Jg = 0 ground state and Je = 1 excited state, and the Zeeman effect is linear.
Basic assumptions in Sec. II; excludes Doppler broadening, position fluctuations, and nonlinear Zeeman shifts.
domain assumption The waveguide cross-section is chosen so only the TE10 mode propagates, with k0a = 4 and k0b = 2.
Cross-section chosen in Sec. III; all results depend on the y-polarized field profile of TE10 and the absence of other modes.
domain assumption A stationary monochromatic probe is modeled by a source atom with vanishing linewidth, γs approaching 0.
Sec. II; the equivalence of a weak probe to a point source with γs to 0 is assumed in the derivation of Eq. (3).
domain assumption The single-atom gate result is averaged over random transverse positions that are uniform on average.
Fig. 3(b) caption and Sec. III B; an atom at a field node has no coupling, so the averaged curve does not describe deterministic gate operation for arbitrary placement.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Single atom optical gate and single photon source based on magnetooptical effects in a waveguide." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7IKSMYQT

@misc{pith2026250502512,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Single atom optical gate and single photon source based on magnetooptical effects in a waveguide},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7IKSMYQT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02512}
}

read the original abstract

We have discovered abnormally strong influence of the magnetic field on the optical properties of atomic ensemble confined in a waveguide. We demonstrate qualitative changes in the character of spontaneous emission and single-atom susceptibility. Based on the revealed effects, we propose a new scheme of true single photon source. Furthermore, we propose the highly-efficient optical gate using just one atom.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02512 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Time dependence of the excited states pop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Transmission depending on the Zeeman split [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[1]

source atom

to the inﬁnite set of equations for the quantum ampli- tudes of the combined atomic-ﬁeld system. Then, restricting ourselves by the regime of linear optics, we are able to express the quantum amplitudes of ﬁeld subsystem via the amplitudes of the one-fold 3 atomic excited states, bei,mJ . Thus, we obtain a ﬁnite set of linear equations for the amplitudes ...

work page
[2]

Passing to the stationary regime, we should consider initially excited source atom far from the atomic ensemble generating the probe wave

ac- counts for arbitrary spatial location of initially ex- cited atom. Passing to the stationary regime, we should consider initially excited source atom far from the atomic ensemble generating the probe wave. Source atom has the same level structure as atoms of the ensemble but diﬀerent resonant transition frequency, ωs, and its natural linewidth γs → 0....

work page
[3]

Yan and L

C.-H. Yan and L. F. Wei, Phys. Rev. A 94, 053816 (2016)

work page 2016
[4]

– ( 10) reproduce the numerical result given by Fig. 3(b). In particular, in the case when δ = ∆ Z (the probe frequency is tuned on the transition J = 0 ↔ J = 1, mJ = 0 ), from Eqs. (

work page
[5]

Liao, J.-F

J.-Q. Liao, J.-F. Huang, Y.-X. Liu, L.-M. Kuang, and C. P. Sun, Phys. Rev. A 80, 014301 (2009)

work page 2009
[6]

Since we discuss the case of a single-mode waveg- uide, we can note that the electric ﬁeld in TE 10 mode has only y− nonzero component

accounts for the dependence of the spontaneous decay rate on the atomic spatial position. Since we discuss the case of a single-mode waveg- uide, we can note that the electric ﬁeld in TE 10 mode has only y− nonzero component. Conse- quently, the electric component of the transmitted light power, Pt is proportional to |Ey t |2. The trans- mitted signal is ...

work page
[7]

Therefore, in this case we obtain R = 0 and T = 1

and ( 5) one clearly see that bst − = −bst + , hence, the reﬂected ﬁeld Ey r = −A3(bst − + bst + ) √ ℏk3 0/γ0 = 0 . Therefore, in this case we obtain R = 0 and T = 1 . In the other case, when δ = 2∆ Z (the probe frequency is tuned on the transition J = 0 ↔ J = 1 , mJ = 1 ), we get bst − = 0 and bst + = −2iA1/γ′. Substituting here the expressions (

work page
[8]

looks similar to A1 if replace the coordinates of the atom, xa and za, by the coordinates of the observation point, xd and zd, A2 = − πiC k2 0ab √ 1 − ( π k0a ) 2 sin ( π a xd ) sin ( π a xs ) × 3 2 γ0 exp ( i|zd − zs| √ 1 − ( π k0a ) 2) . (9) Finally, the coeﬃcient A3 is responsible for the im- pact of secondary waves scattered by the atom to the transmi...

work page

Show all 41 references

[9]

Thus, according to Eq

and ( 7), one can ealily prove that bst + A3 = A2. Thus, according to Eq. ( 8), we get Ey t = 0 and, consequently, T = 0. IV. CONCLUSION In conclusion, we have studied the optical prop- erties both of a single atom and of an atomic ensemble with strong dipole-dipole coupling i...
[10]

C. K. Law and H. J. Kimble, J. Mod. Opt. 44, 2067 (1997)

1997
[11]

A. I. Galimov, M. V. Rakhlin, G. V. Klimko, Yu. M. Zadiranov, Yu. A. Guseva, S. I. Troshkov, T. V. 7 Shubina, and A. A. Toropov, JETP Letters 113, 252 (2021)

2021
[12]

Kim, M.-C

N.-C. Kim, M.-C. Ko, and Q.-Q. Wang, Plasmon- ics 10, 611 (2015)

2015
[13]

Zhou, L.-P

L. Zhou, L.-P. Yang, Y. Li, and C. P. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 103604 (2013)

2013
[14]

Neumeier, M

L. Neumeier, M. Leib, and M. J. Hartmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 063601 (2013)

2013
[15]

D. E. Chang, A. S. Sorensen, E. A. Demler, and M. D. Lukin, Nat. Phys. 3, 807 (2007)

2007
[16]

Kyriienko and A

O. Kyriienko and A. S. Sorensen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 140503 (2016)

2016
[17]

Z. Liao, H. Nha, and M. S. Zubairy, Phys. Rev. A 93, 033851 (2016)

2016
[18]

Bradford, K

M. Bradford, K. C. Obi, and J.-T. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 103902 (2012)

2012
[19]

Fam Le Kien, V. I. Balykin, and K. Hakuta, Phys. Rev. A 70, 063403 (2004)

2004
[20]

Vetsch, D

E. Vetsch, D. Reitz, G. Sague, R. Schmidt, S. T. Dawkins, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 203603 (2010)

2010
[21]

Goban, K

A. Goban, K. S. Choi, D. J. Alton, D. Ding, C. Lacroute, M. Pototschnig, T. Thiele, N. P. Stern, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 033603 (2012)

2012
[22]

H. L. Sorensen, J.-B. Beguin, K. W. Kluge, I. Iakoupov, A. S. Sorensen, J. H. Muller, E. S. Polzik, and J. Appel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 133604 (2016)

2016
[23]

N. V. Corzo, B. Gouraud, A. Chandra, A. Goban, A. S. Sheremet, D. V. Kupriyanov, and J. Laurat, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 133603 (2016)

2016
[24]

V. P. Bykov, Kvantovaya Elektronika, 1:7 (1974), 1557–1577 [Sov J Quantum Electron, 4:7 (1975), 861–871]

1974
[25]

Kleppner, Phys

D. Kleppner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 233 (1981)

1981
[26]

Lambropoulos, Georgios M

P. Lambropoulos, Georgios M. Nikolopoulos, Tor- ben R. Nielsen, and Soren Bay, Rep. Prog. Phys. 63, 455 (2000)

2000
[27]

A. S. Kuraptsev and I. M. Sokolov, Phys. Rev. A 101, 053852 (2020)

2020
[28]

I. Y. Eremchev, N. A. Lozing, A. A. Baev, A. O. Tarasevich, M. G. Gladush, A. A. Rozhentsov, and A. V. Naumov, JETP Letters 108, 30 (2018)

2018
[29]

A. V. Naumov, A. A. Gorshelev, M. G. Gladush, T. A. Anikushina, A. V. Golovanova, J. Kohler, and L. Kador, Nano Letters 18, 6129 (2018)

2018
[30]

A. D. Pryamikov, A. V. Gladyshev, A. F. Koso- lapov, I. A. Bufetov, Physics – Uspekhi 67 (2), 129–156 (2024)

2024
[31]

I. A. Bufetov, S. L. Semenov, V. V. Velmiskin, S. V. Firstov, G. A. Bufetova, and E. M. Dianov, Quantum Electron. 40 (7), 639 (2010)

2010
[32]

Abmann and M

M. Abmann and M. Bayer, Adv. Quantum Tech- nol. 3, 1900134 (2020)

2020
[33]

A. V. Vasenin, Sh. V. Kadyrmetov, A. N. Bolgar, A. Yu. Dmitriev, and O. V. Astaﬁev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 073602 (2024)

2024
[34]

I. M. Sokolov, D. V. Kupriyanov, and M. D. Havey, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 112, 246 (2011)

2011
[35]

A. S. Kuraptsev and I. M. Sokolov, Phys. Rev. A 105, 063513 (2022)

2022
[36]

A. S. Kuraptsev and I. M. Sokolov, Phys. Rev. A 107, 042808 (2023)

2023
[37]

S. Ya. Kilin and D. B. Horoshko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 5206 (1995)

1995
[38]

K. R. Brown, K. M. Dani, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, and K. B. Whaley, Phys. Rev. A 67, 043818 (2003)

2003
[39]

S. P. Premaratne, F. C. Wellstood, and B. S. Palmer, Nature Communications 8, 14148 (2017)

2017
[40]

Yi-Xuan Ma and Peng-Bo Li, Phys. Rev. A 108, 053709 (2023)

2023
[41]

Domokos, P

P. Domokos, P. Horak, and H. Ritsch, Phys. Rev. A 65, 033832 (2002)

2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

source atom

to the inﬁnite set of equations for the quantum ampli- tudes of the combined atomic-ﬁeld system. Then, restricting ourselves by the regime of linear optics, we are able to express the quantum amplitudes of ﬁeld subsystem via the amplitudes of the one-fold 3 atomic excited states, bei,mJ . Thus, we obtain a ﬁnite set of linear equations for the amplitudes ...

work page

[2] [2]

Passing to the stationary regime, we should consider initially excited source atom far from the atomic ensemble generating the probe wave

ac- counts for arbitrary spatial location of initially ex- cited atom. Passing to the stationary regime, we should consider initially excited source atom far from the atomic ensemble generating the probe wave. Source atom has the same level structure as atoms of the ensemble but diﬀerent resonant transition frequency, ωs, and its natural linewidth γs → 0....

work page

[3] [3]

Yan and L

C.-H. Yan and L. F. Wei, Phys. Rev. A 94, 053816 (2016)

work page 2016

[4] [4]

– ( 10) reproduce the numerical result given by Fig. 3(b). In particular, in the case when δ = ∆ Z (the probe frequency is tuned on the transition J = 0 ↔ J = 1, mJ = 0 ), from Eqs. (

work page

[5] [5]

Liao, J.-F

J.-Q. Liao, J.-F. Huang, Y.-X. Liu, L.-M. Kuang, and C. P. Sun, Phys. Rev. A 80, 014301 (2009)

work page 2009

[6] [6]

Since we discuss the case of a single-mode waveg- uide, we can note that the electric ﬁeld in TE 10 mode has only y− nonzero component

accounts for the dependence of the spontaneous decay rate on the atomic spatial position. Since we discuss the case of a single-mode waveg- uide, we can note that the electric ﬁeld in TE 10 mode has only y− nonzero component. Conse- quently, the electric component of the transmitted light power, Pt is proportional to |Ey t |2. The trans- mitted signal is ...

work page

[7] [7]

Therefore, in this case we obtain R = 0 and T = 1

and ( 5) one clearly see that bst − = −bst + , hence, the reﬂected ﬁeld Ey r = −A3(bst − + bst + ) √ ℏk3 0/γ0 = 0 . Therefore, in this case we obtain R = 0 and T = 1 . In the other case, when δ = 2∆ Z (the probe frequency is tuned on the transition J = 0 ↔ J = 1 , mJ = 1 ), we get bst − = 0 and bst + = −2iA1/γ′. Substituting here the expressions (

work page

[8] [8]

looks similar to A1 if replace the coordinates of the atom, xa and za, by the coordinates of the observation point, xd and zd, A2 = − πiC k2 0ab √ 1 − ( π k0a ) 2 sin ( π a xd ) sin ( π a xs ) × 3 2 γ0 exp ( i|zd − zs| √ 1 − ( π k0a ) 2) . (9) Finally, the coeﬃcient A3 is responsible for the im- pact of secondary waves scattered by the atom to the transmi...

work page