Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 108 references

Multi-Photon Quantum Rabi Models with Center-of-Mass Motion

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Time-averaging multi-Λ atomic field operators yields an effective Hamiltonian, counter-rotating terms included, that makes Raman diffraction a beam splitter for both atoms and light — giving atomic and optical Hong-Ou-Mandel bunching.

desk verdict A genuinely new second-quantized framework for multi-Lambda cavity QED with center-of-mass motion, but the printed averaging derivation has an internal inconsistency and the general beam-splitter operator has swapped square-root factors; both look repairable, and the equal-photon HOM result appears to survive. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04829 v1 pith:OKIKF5W7 submitted 2025-07-07 quant-ph

Sabrina Hartmann , Nicolija Momčilović , Alexander Friedrich This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords light-matterinteractionRabimodelmulti-ΛsystemsecondquantizationtimeaveragingeffectiveHamiltonianbeamsplitteroperatorHong-Ou-Mandeleffect
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 tries to establish that a bosonic multi-Λ atom in a two-mode cavity — a ground state and an excited state, each coupled to a manifold of ancillary states by one of two optical modes — can be described by an effective Hamiltonian obtained by time-averaging the atomic field operators rather than by eliminating levels. The effective Hamiltonian retains the counter-rotating terms that the rotating-wave approximation discards, collects AC-Stark and Bloch-Siegert shifts from the entire ancilla manifold, and generates a particle–particle interaction between atoms that is mediated by the ancilla states because the averaging sees the commutation relations of the quantized light field. From this Hamiltonian the authors derive a beam-splitter operator for Raman diffraction, and show that a two-atom input state with equal photon numbers in the two modes, after a 50:50 pulse, leaves the atoms and the light only in bunched configurations: both atoms in |b⟩ with the optical state |n−1,n+1⟩, or both in |a⟩ with |n+1,n−1⟩. That is the Hong-Ou-Mandel effect — twin inputs to a balanced beam splitter leaving together — predicted simultaneously for atoms and for light in one Raman configuration, giving a fully microscopic second-quantized model of a standard atom-optics pulse.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a Hamiltonian averaging theory transferred from density-matrix dynamics (Ref. [67]) to operators: the time-averaged field operator evolves under an effective Hamiltonian assembled from second-order commutators of the co-rotating couplings $\hat{h}_{j\alpha}$ and counter-rotating couplings $\hat{g}_{j\alpha}$, evaluated with an ideal low-pass filter that keeps only frequency differences within a domain while all terahertz sums and cross-combinations average to zero (Eqs. (B24)–(B28)). The key structural step is that these commutators contain the light-field commutator $[\hat{\beta}^\dagger, \hat{\alpha}]$ and delta-function terms from the atomic field operators, so the quantized nature of the field is what generates the ancilla-mediated particle–particle interaction $\hat{H}_{\rm pp}$, with couplings $\zeta_{j\alpha k}(R) = \Omega_{j\alpha}(R)/\sqrt{\omega^{(+)}_{jk\alpha\alpha}}$ and $\eta_{j\alpha k}(R) = \Lambda_{j\alpha}(R)/\sqrt{\Omega^{(+)}_{jk\alpha\alpha}}$ for the co- and counter-rotating channels. For the Raman application, a delta-pulse approximation and a decomposition of the interaction exponential into even and odd powers — using $\hat{V}^{2k+1} = (\hbar\hat\Omega)^{2k+1}(\hbar\hat\Omega)^{-1}\hat{V}$ — convert the evolution operator into the cosine–sine form of a beam splitter whose off-diagonals carry the momentum-transfer phases $e^{\pm iKR}$.

What would settle it

A numerical propagation of the unaveraged Hamiltonian of Eq. (10) — bosonic atoms with center-of-mass motion, two cavity modes, and the full ancilla manifold, using the alkali frequency scales of Table B1 — applied to the input $|\psi^{(2)}\rangle_A \otimes |n\,n\rangle_L$ and read out after a pulse with $\theta\Omega_n = \pi/4$ would settle the claim: any non-negligible amplitude in the $|a,b\rangle$ or $|b,a\rangle$ atomic channels, or in photon numbers other than $(n-1,n+1)$ and $(n+1,n-1)$, falsifies Eq. (94). An experiment preparing those two atoms and measuring their joint internal state plus the output photon numbers after the 50:50 Raman pulse is the direct laboratory version of the same test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the time-averaged evolution of the atomic field operator is governed by the effective Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{\rm eff} = \hat{H}_L + \hat{H}_{\rm sp} + \hat{H}_{\rm pp}$ (Eq. (11)) in the Schrödinger picture. $\hat{H}_{\rm sp}$ contains the single-particle physics: the AC-Stark and lowest-order Bloch-Siegert shifts, each summed over all $N-2$ ancilla states, together with ground–excited and ancilla–ancilla couplings, so that the ground and excited states decouple from the ancilla block at leading order and form a two-by-two Rabi-block matrix; the counter-rotating terms are kept, unlike in RWA treatments, and the ancilla states are not adiabatically eliminated. $\hat{H}_{\rm pp}$ is an induced two-body interaction, mediated by the ancilla states and produced by the commutation relations of the quantized field inside the averaging commutators, in a model that started with no atom–atom interactions. For the reduced Rabi-block Hamiltonian under a delta-pulse approximation, the paper evaluates the time-evolution operator on Gaussian single-particle states and identifies the Raman beam-splitter operator (Eq. (79)), which agrees with the semiclassical Raman result and with the Jaynes-Cummings beam-splitter form while carrying an extra optical–atomic phase that entangles the two sectors. For the two-particle input of Eq. (84) with $|n\,n\rangle_L$ light, the 50:50 pulse ($\theta\Omega_n = \pi/4$) leaves only $|b,b\rangle|n-1,n+1\rangle$ and $|a,a\rangle|n+1,n-1\rangle$ (Eqs. (94)–(95)): the atomic and the optical Hong-Ou-Mandel effect in a single Raman configuration, and, in the atom-as-detector limit, an atom–light entangled version of the optical Hong-Ou-Mandel transformation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is a strict separation of timescales: the ideal low-pass averaging must make all sums and cross-combinations of the optical and atomic frequencies vanish while keeping only differences within each frequency domain, and the terms discarded afterwards — leading-order truncation of the detunings, gigahertz-oscillating pieces of $\hat{V}^2$, and the assumption that the two atoms feel the same field across their separation — must stay negligible on the experimental timescale; if that hierarchy breaks, the effective Hamiltonian and the Hong-Ou-Mandel prediction change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Raman diffraction gets a microscopic, second-quantized beam-splitter description: each pulse flips the internal state, swaps one photon between modes a and b, and transfers momentum $\pm\hbar K$, with the full ancilla-manifold AC-Stark and Bloch-Siegert shifts entering the diagonal phases.
  • A 50:50 Raman pulse on two atoms initially in different internal states produces only bunched outputs — two atoms in $|b\rangle$ with $|n-1,n+1\rangle$ light, or two atoms in $|a\rangle$ with $|n+1,n-1\rangle$ light — so the atomic Hong-Ou-Mandel effect is predicted in Raman diffraction, not only in Bragg diffraction.
  • With one photon per mode the same setup realizes the optical Hong-Ou-Mandel transformation, with the atoms serving as which-way detectors correlated to the photon output (Eq. (95)).
  • Because counter-rotating terms are kept, the effective Hamiltonian applies beyond the rotating-wave-approximation regime, and the Bloch-Siegert contributions are explicitly available with order-of-magnitude estimates for typical alkali-atom Raman parameters (Table B1).
  • The ancilla manifold is block-diagonalized away at leading order rather than eliminated, so ancilla dynamics — and the particle–particle interaction that reintroduces them — remain accessible in the effective theory, providing a hierarchy of approximations for multi-level cavity QED.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper fixes the pulse at $\theta\Omega_n = \pi/4$; a direct extension would scan the pulse area and predict a $\sin^2(2\theta\Omega_n)$ Hong-Ou-Mandel curve — bunched output rising from zero to full as the pulse reaches 50:50 — so the model yields a continuous, testable interference signature, not just a single point.
  • The ancilla-mediated particle–particle interaction $\hat{H}_{\rm pp}$ has no RWA analogue in the paper's treatment; a natural testable consequence is a density-dependent shift or atom-pair correlation in a cavity that would show up only when the quantized nature of both matter and light is retained.
  • The authors note the framework transfers to magnetic-dipole transitions and, in principle, to ladder-type level schemes; if the averaging analysis carries over, each scheme would come with its own counter-rotating corrections and its own mediated interaction, giving a family of effective models for multi-mode cavity QED.
  • The beam-splitter phase $e^{-i\theta C_{n_\alpha,\alpha}/\hbar}$ entangles the optical and atomic sectors at large detuning, which suggests the formalism is a route to generating momentum entanglement in second quantization — the direction the paper's closing remarks point toward.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a second-quantized effective-Hamiltonian description of a multi-Λ atomic gas coupled to two cavity modes, including center-of-mass motion. The central object is Eq. (11), H_eff = H_L + H_sp + H_pp, obtained by time-averaging the atomic field operators in Appendix B. From the reduced 2x2 Rabi-block matrix the authors derive a Raman beam-splitter operator, Eq. (79), and for a two-particle atomic input with equal photon numbers they predict both atomic and optical Hong-Ou-Mandel bunching, Eqs. (94)-(95). The paper is largely self-contained, with the derivation and all supporting commutator algebra placed in the appendices.

Significance. If the derivation is correct, the paper provides a useful parameter-free microscopic model that goes beyond the usual RWA treatment of Raman diffraction: it retains counter-rotating terms, includes contributions from all ancilla states, and identifies an effective particle-particle interaction induced by the quantized field. The Raman beam-splitter operator and the atomic/optical HOM predictions are concrete and falsifiable, and the appendix contains an explicit frequency hierarchy (Table B1) that makes the regime of validity testable. No fitted constants enter the effective Hamiltonian. However, the central derivation currently contains an algebraic error in Appendix B.1, so the significance is conditional on that step being repaired.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix B.1, Eqs. (B19)-(B20)] As printed, Eq. (B19) defines A† identically equal to A, and Eq. (B20) defines D2[O] as H O U1 − H O U1 + U1† O H − U1† O H, whose first two and last two terms cancel identically. Equation (B30) nevertheless assigns D2 a nonzero expression, and Eq. (B32) keeps those contributions, including the diagonal n=m terms in which the 1/ω(−)_nn and 1/Ω(−)_nn denominators are singular. The accompanying statement in Eq. (B20) that U1† is unitary is also incorrect for the first-order Dyson term in Eq. (B22). Since Eq. (B33) and hence Eq. (11) are obtained from these second-order expressions, the manuscript does not currently establish its central effective Hamiltonian; please supply corrected operator ordering and show explicitly how Eq. (B30) follows, because a sign or ordering error at this point changes H_eff rather than a subleading correction.
  2. [Appendix B.3.2 and Appendix C] The reduction to Eq. (11) relies on the ideal low-pass conditions (B24)-(B28), on the leading-order truncation that drops the 1/ω(−) and 1/Ω(−) terms in Eq. (B32), and on the neglected GHz-oscillating terms in V² in Eq. (C74). The text itself states in Appendix B.3.2 that a fully consistent calculation would require comparing the magnitudes of these contributions, but no such comparison is made, and no numerical benchmark of the averaged dynamics against the original Hamiltonian is provided. Because Eqs. (79), (94), and (95) all inherit these approximations, please add either an explicit analytic error estimate for the retained terms or a numerical check for the parameters of Table B1.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (B19)] The two displayed definitions of A and A† are identical; even if this is only a typographical error, it should be corrected consistently with the subsequent derivation.
  2. [Eq. (23)] The last line contains an extra equality sign: Ω(±)_BSvac = ∑ ω(±)_BSvac,j = ∑ = |Λ...|; the final '=' should be removed.
  3. [Section 4.3, after Eq. (95)] The phrase 'limit M→∞' is unclear because M is not defined in that section; please specify whether it is the atomic mass and how this limit removes the recoil phases.
  4. [Eq. (B24)] Writing exp{±iω_n t} ≈ exp{±iΩ_n t} ≈ 0 is misleading: the two exponentials are not approximately equal to each other; presumably each time average vanishes separately under the low-pass filter.
  5. [Eq. (C71)] The denominator in the definition of Ω(R) is printed as Ω(+)_jj ab, whereas Eq. (44) uses ω(+)_jj ab; please reconcile this notation (there is also a lowercase n in the summation limit).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the effective Hamiltonian, beam-splitter operator, and Hong-Ou-Mandel outputs are derived from the microscopic Hamiltonian and explicit input states without fitted parameters; the flagged D2 inconsistency is a correctness issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The effective Hamiltonian in Eq. (11) is obtained in Appendix B by a series expansion of the time-evolution operator and by low-pass time averaging, Eqs. (B3)-(B33), with no parameter fitted to the later predictions. The Rabi-block matrix in Eq. (32), the beam-splitter operator in Eq. (79), and the Hong-Ou-Mandel outputs in Eqs. (94)-(95) are obtained by applying the derived unitary operator to explicitly stated input states and, for the HOM case, imposing the 50:50 condition, so the outputs are consequences of the derived Hamiltonian rather than inputs. Self-citations such as Refs. [37,38,71,73,103] are contextual, address standard lemmas, or concern comparison to known semiclassical results, and none is load-bearing for the central derivation; the averaging method is credited to the external works of Gamel-James and James-Jerke. The skeptical concern about Eq. (B20), where the printed dissipator cancels identically while Eqs. (B30)-(B32) treat it as nonzero, is a mathematical-consistency and correctness defect that requires repair, but it is not circularity: correcting the algebra would not convert the HOM claim into an input of the derivation. The paper also states its own limitations, including that explicit mode and coupling evaluation is beyond scope and that the interaction picture cannot be fully inverted, but these caveats do not indicate that any predicted quantity was assumed.

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

No parameter is fitted to data or tuned ad hoc. Couplings, detunings, pulse area, and Gaussian widths are inputs inherited from the physical setup; the paper presents no numerical fits. The paper does not introduce a new particle, force, or conserved quantity. The ancilla-mediated particle-particle interaction is an effective term derived from the Hamiltonian, and the composite operators c and psi_c are mathematical constructs, not new physical entities.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math Bosonic commutation relations for atomic field operators and photonic modes
    Used to evaluate commutators in Appendix B.4, e.g., Eq. (B47), and to define the model in Section 2.
  • domain assumption Atomic sample is dilute and direct atom-atom interactions are absent from the starting Hamiltonian
    Section 2.1 states particle-particle interactions are neglected; the later effective H_pp emerges from the averaging procedure.
  • ad hoc to paper The time-averaging filter is an ideal low-pass filter and the two frequency domains satisfy the separation conditions in Eqs. (B24)-(B28)
    This is the core approximation enabling the effective Hamiltonian; magnitude estimates in Table B1 support it for typical alkali atoms but no general proof is given.
  • domain assumption The leading-order terms in 1/omega^(+) and 1/Omega^(+) suffice; terms with omega^(-) and Omega^(-) are negligible
    Appendix B.3.2 explicitly restricts to leading order using order-of-magnitude estimates for Raman diffraction in alkali atoms.
  • domain assumption For applications, optical modes are counter-propagating plane waves, atomic wave packets are Gaussian, and Omega_jalpha(R) is approximately Omega_jalpha(R') for close atoms
    Sections 4.2.2 and 4.3; these choices are needed for the beam-splitter form and for the Hong-Ou-Mandel calculation.
  • ad hoc to paper The delta-pulse approximation and neglect of GHz-oscillating terms in V^2 are valid
    Section 4.1 and Appendix C; the paper acknowledges that these approximations prevent a complete inversion of the interaction picture.
  • domain assumption Composite operators c = b^dagger a and psi_c = psi_b^dagger psi_a can be manipulated algebraically despite not obeying canonical commutation relations
    Section 4.1 and Appendix C note the non-canonical commutation relations but use the operators in the derivation of V^2.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Photon Quantum Rabi Models with Center-of-Mass Motion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OKIKF5W7

@misc{pith2026250704829,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Photon Quantum Rabi Models with Center-of-Mass Motion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OKIKF5W7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04829}
}
abstract

The precise control of light-matter interaction serves as a cornerstone for diverse quantum technologies, spanning from quantum computing to advanced atom optics. Typical experiments often feature multi-mode fields and require atoms with intricate internal structures to facilitate e.g., multi-photon interactions or cooling. Moreover, the development of high-precision cold-atom sensors necessitates the use of entangled atoms. We introduce a rigorous, second-quantized framework for describing multi-$\Lambda$-atoms in a cavity, encompassing their center-of-mass motion and interaction with a two-mode electromagnetic field. A key feature of our approach is the systematic application of a Hamiltonian averaging theory to the atomic field operators, enabling the derivation of a compact and physically insightful effective Hamiltonian governing the system's time evolution. This effective Hamiltonian not only incorporates the AC-Stark and Bloch-Siegert shifts, augmented by contributions from all involved ancillary states, but also includes effects from counter-rotating terms, offering a more complete description than conventional RWA-based models. A significant finding is the emergence of a particle-particle interaction mediated by ancillary states, stemming directly from the combined quantum nature of the coupled electromagnetic field and atomic system. We illustrate the practical implications of our model through an analysis of atomic Raman diffraction, determining the time evolution for a typical initial state and demonstrating the resulting Rabi oscillations. Furthermore, our results confirm that both the atomic and optical Hong-Ou-Mandel effect can be observed within this Raman configuration, utilizing a specific two-particle input state, thereby extending the utility of Raman diffraction for quantum interference phenomena and providing a microscopic model of the effect.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Proc R Soc London, Ser A 114(767):243–265

    Dirac PAM, Bohr NHD (1927) The quantum theory of the emission and absorption of radiation. Proc R Soc London, Ser A 114(767):243–265

    1927

  2. [2]

    Rev Mod Phys 4:87–132

    Fermi E (1932) Quantum Theory of Radiation. Rev Mod Phys 4:87–132

    1932

  3. [3]

    Phys Rev 51:652–654 49

    Rabi II (1937) Space Quantization in a Gyrating Magnetic Field. Phys Rev 51:652–654 49

    1937

  4. [4]

    IOP Publishing, Bristol

    Larson J, Mavrogordatos T (2024) The Jaynes–Cummings Model and its Descendants (Second Edition). IOP Publishing, Bristol

    2024

  5. [5]

    Phys Rev 57:522–527

    Bloch F, Siegert A (1940) Magnetic Resonance for Nonrotating Fields. Phys Rev 57:522–527

    1940

  6. [6]

    Phys Rev 138:B979–B987

    Shirley JH (1965) Solution of the Schr¨odinger Equation with a Hamiltonian Periodic in Time. Phys Rev 138:B979–B987

    1965

  7. [7]

    Phys Rep 304(5):229–354

    Grifoni M, H ¨anggi P (1998) Driven quantum tunneling. Phys Rep 304(5):229–354

    1998

  8. [8]

    Phys Rev A 91:053834

    Yan Y, L¨ u Z, Zheng H (2015) Bloch-Siegert shift of the Rabi model. Phys Rev A 91:053834

    2015

Show all 108 references
  1. [9]

    Phys Rev B 72:195410

    Twyeffort Irish EK, Gea-Banacloche J, Martin I, et al (2005) Dynamics of a two-level system strongly coupled to a high-frequency quantum oscillator. Phys Rev B 72:195410

    2005

  2. [10]

    Phys Rev A 80:033846

    Zueco D, Reuther GM, Kohler S, et al (2009) Qubit-oscillator dynamics in the disper- sive regime: Analytical theory beyond the rotating-wave approximation. Phys Rev A 80:033846

    2009

  3. [11]

    Phys Rev Lett 107:100401

    Braak D (2011) Integrability of the Rabi Model. Phys Rev Lett 107:100401

    2011

  4. [12]

    J Math Phys 54(10):102104

    Zhang YZ (2013) On the solvability of the quantum Rabi model and its 2-photon and two-mode generalizations. J Math Phys 54(10):102104

    2013

  5. [13]

    J Math Phys 55(10):102104

    Dossa AF, Avossevou GYH (2014) Full spectrum of the two-photon and the two-mode quantum Rabi models. J Math Phys 55(10):102104

    2014

  6. [14]

    Phys Lett A 422:127779

    Wu DH, Albert VV (2022) Approximating the two-mode two-photon Rabi model. Phys Lett A 422:127779

    2022

  7. [15]

    Phys Lett A 377(44):3205–3208

    Gardas B, Dajka J (2013) Multi-photon Rabi model: Generalized parity and its applications. Phys Lett A 377(44):3205–3208

    2013

  8. [16]

    J Phys A 46(33):335301

    Chilingaryan SA, Rodr´ıguez-Lara BM (2013) The quantum Rabi model for two qubits. J Phys A 46(33):335301

    2013

  9. [17]

    Braz J Phys 47:544–551

    Baldiotti MC, Molina C (2017) A second quantized approach to the Rabi problem. Braz J Phys 47:544–551

    2017

  10. [18]

    Proc IEEE 51(1):89–109

    Jaynes ET, Cummings FW (1963) Comparison of quantum and semiclassical radiation theories with application to the beam maser. Proc IEEE 51(1):89–109

    1963

  11. [19]

    Nature 431(7005):162– 167 50

    Wallraff A, Schuster D, Blais A, et al (2004) Strong coupling of a single photon to a superconducting qubit using circuit quantum electrodynamics. Nature 431(7005):162– 167 50

    2004

  12. [20]

    Phys Rev Lett 95:067401

    Peter E, Senellart P, Martrou D, et al (2005) Exciton-Photon Strong-Coupling Regime for a Single Quantum Dot Embedded in a Microcavity. Phys Rev Lett 95:067401

    2005

  13. [21]

    Nature 445(7130):896–899

    Hennessy AK.and Badolato, Winger M, Gerace D, et al (2007) Quantum nature of a strongly coupled single quantum dot-cavity system. Nature 445(7130):896–899

    2007

  14. [22]

    Sci Rep 5(1):13097

    Tomka M, Pletyukhov M, Gritsev V (2015) Supersymmetry in quantum optics and in spin-orbit coupled systems. Sci Rep 5(1):13097

    2015

  15. [23]

    J Opt B: Quantum Semiclassical Opt 2(5):633

    Deutsch IH, Alsing PM, Grondalski J, et al (2000) Quantum transport in magneto-optical double-potential wells. J Opt B: Quantum Semiclassical Opt 2(5):633

    2000

  16. [24]

    Phys Rev B 79:041302

    Rabl P, Cappellaro P, Dutt MVG, et al (2009) Strong magnetic coupling between an electronic spin qubit and a mechanical resonator. Phys Rev B 79:041302

    2009

  17. [25]

    Rev Mod Phys 73:565–582

    Raimond JM, Brune M, Haroche S (2001) Manipulating quantum entanglement with atoms and photons in a cavity. Rev Mod Phys 73:565–582

    2001

  18. [26]

    Phys Rev A 69:062320

    Blais A, Huang RS, Wallraff A, et al (2004) Cavity quantum electrodynamics for superconducting electrical circuits: An architecture for quantum computation. Phys Rev A 69:062320

    2004

  19. [27]

    Nat Phys 6(10):772–776

    Niemczyk T, Deppe F, Huebl H, et al (2010) Circuit quantum electrodynamics in the ultrastrong-coupling regime. Nat Phys 6(10):772–776

    2010

  20. [28]

    Phys Rev A 96:013849

    Rossatto DZ, Villas-Bˆoas CJ, Sanz M, et al (2017) Spectral classification of coupling regimes in the quantum Rabi model. Phys Rev A 96:013849

    2017

  21. [29]

    Phys Rev A 104:033712

    Li ZM, Batchelor MT (2021) Generalized adiabatic approximation to the quantum Rabi model. Phys Rev A 104:033712

    2021

  22. [30]

    Phys Rev Lett 99:173601

    Twyeffort Irish EK (2007) Generalized Rotating-Wave Approximation for Arbitrarily Large Coupling. Phys Rev Lett 99:173601

    2007

  23. [31]

    Phys Rev A 91:013814

    Zhang YY, Chen QH (2015) Generalized rotating-wave approximation for the two-qubit quantum Rabi model. Phys Rev A 91:013814

    2015

  24. [32]

    Phys Lett A 379(8):779–786

    Wang Y, Haw JY (2015) Bridging the gap between the Jaynes-Cummings and Rabi models using an intermediate rotating wave approximation. Phys Lett A 379(8):779–786

    2015

  25. [33]

    Rev Mod Phys 70:1003–1025

    Bergmann K, Theuer H, Shore BW (1998) Coherent population transfer among quantum states of atoms and molecules. Rev Mod Phys 70:1003–1025

    1998

  26. [34]

    Phys Rev B 87:214515

    Falci G, La Cognata A, Berritta M, et al (2013) Design of a Lambda system for population transfer in superconducting nanocircuits. Phys Rev B 87:214515

    2013

  27. [35]

    Nat Phys 12(1):75–79 51

    Novikov S, Sweeney T, Robinson J, et al (2016) Raman coherence in a circuit quantum electrodynamics lambda system. Nat Phys 12(1):75–79 51

    2016

  28. [36]

    Phys Rev A 45:342–348

    Moler K, Weiss DS, Kasevich M, et al (1992) Theoretical analysis of velocity-selective Raman transitions. Phys Rev A 45:342–348

    1992

  29. [37]

    Phys Rev A 101:053610

    Hartmann S, Jenewein J, Giese E, et al (2020) Regimes of atomic diffraction: Raman versus Bragg diffraction in retroreflective geometries. Phys Rev A 101:053610

    2020

  30. [38]

    Phys Rev A 102:063326

    Hartmann S, Jenewein J, Abend S, et al (2020) Atomic Raman scattering: Third-order diffraction in a double geometry. Phys Rev A 102:063326

    2020

  31. [39]

    Opt Commun 253(1):125–137

    Fewell MP (2005) Adiabatic elimination, the rotating-wave approximation and two- photon transitions. Opt Commun 253(1):125–137

    2005

  32. [40]

    Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.03576

    Ture TM, Hyeon C, Jang SJ (2024) Application of Magnus expansion for the quantum dynamics of 𝜆-systems under periodic driving and assessment of the rotating wave approximation. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.03576

    2024

  33. [41]

    Rev Mod Phys 71:463–512

    Dalfovo F, Giorgini S, Pitaevskii LP, et al (1999) Theory of Bose-Einstein condensation in trapped gases. Rev Mod Phys 71:463–512

    1999

  34. [42]

    Phys Rev A 72:033601

    Haine SA, Hope JJ (2005) Outcoupling from a Bose-Einstein condensate with squeezed light to produce entangled-atom laser beams. Phys Rev A 72:033601

    2005

  35. [43]

    Nature 562(7727):391–395

    Becker D, Lachmann MD, Seidel ST, et al (2018) Space-borne Bose–Einstein condensation for precision interferometry. Nature 562(7727):391–395

    2018

  36. [44]

    Phys Rev Lett 125:100402

    Szigeti SS, Nolan SP, Close JD, et al (2020) High-precision Quantum-Enhanced Gravimetry with a Bose-Einstein Condensate. Phys Rev Lett 125:100402

    2020

  37. [45]

    Science 334(6057):773–776

    L¨ ucke B, Scherer M, Kruse J, et al (2011) Twin Matter Waves for Interferometry Beyond the Classical Limit. Science 334(6057):773–776

    2011

  38. [46]

    Nature 529(7587):505–508

    Hosten O, Engelsen NJ, Krishnakumar R, et al (2016) Measurement noise 100 times lower than the quantum-projection limit using entangled atoms. Nature 529(7587):505–508

    2016

  39. [47]

    Phys Rev Lett 116:093602

    Cox KC, Greve GP, Weiner JM, et al (2016) Deterministic Squeezed States with Collective Measurements and Feedback. Phys Rev Lett 116:093602

    2016

  40. [48]

    Science 360(6387):416–418

    Lange K, Peise J, L¨ ucke B, et al (2018) Entanglement between two spatially separated atomic modes. Science 360(6387):416–418

    2018

  41. [49]

    Rev Mod Phys 90:035005

    Pezz`e L, Smerzi A, Oberthaler MK, et al (2018) Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles. Rev Mod Phys 90:035005

    2018

  42. [50]

    Appl Phys Lett 118(14):140501

    Szigeti SS, Hosten O, Haine SA (2021) Improving cold-atom sensors with quantum entanglement: Prospects and challenges. Appl Phys Lett 118(14):140501

    2021

  43. [51]

    Phys Rev Lett 127:140402 52

    Anders F, Idel A, Feldmann P, et al (2021) Momentum Entanglement for Atom Interferometry. Phys Rev Lett 127:140402 52

    2021

  44. [52]

    Nat Phys 18(8):925–930

    Colombo S, Pedrozo-Pe ˜nafiel E, Adiyatullin AF, et al (2022) Time-reversal-based quantum metrology with many-body entangled states. Nat Phys 18(8):925–930

    2022

  45. [53]

    Preprint at https: //arxiv.org/abs/2410.12132

    Luo C, Zhang H, Maruko C, et al (2024) Realization of three and four-body interactions between momentum states in a cavity through optical dressing. Preprint at https: //arxiv.org/abs/2410.12132

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Phys Rev A 47:5138–5143

    Kitagawa M, Ueda M (1993) Squeezed spin states. Phys Rev A 47:5138–5143

    1993

  47. [55]

    Phys Rev A 47:3554–3570

    Itano WM, Bergquist JC, Bollinger JJ, et al (1993) Quantum projection noise: Population fluctuations in two-level systems. Phys Rev A 47:3554–3570

    1993

  48. [56]

    Phys Rev A 90:063630

    Szigeti SS, Tonekaboni B, Lau WYS, et al (2014) Squeezed-light-enhanced atom interferometry below the standard quantum limit. Phys Rev A 90:063630

    2014

  49. [57]

    Phys Rev X 15:011029

    Cassens C, Meyer-Hoppe B, Rasel E, et al (2025) Entanglement-Enhanced Atomic Gravimeter. Phys Rev X 15:011029

    2025

  50. [58]

    Nature 610(7932):472–477

    Greve GP, Luo BC.and Wu, Thompson JK (2022) Entanglement-enhanced matter-wave interferometry in a high-finesse cavity. Nature 610(7932):472–477

    2022

  51. [59]

    Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.13959

    Kumar V, Ram SP, Singh S, et al (2025) On damping of Rabi oscillations in two-photon Raman excitation in cold 87rb atoms. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.13959

    2025 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Martin PC, Schwinger J (1959) Theory of Many-Particle Systems. i. Phys Rev 115:1342– 1373

    1959

  53. [61]

    Kadanoff LP, Martin PC (1961) Theory of Many-Particle Systems. ii. Superconductivity. Phys Rev 124:670–697

    1961

  54. [62]

    Phys Rev A 50:2207–2231

    Lewenstein M, You L, Cooper J, et al (1994) Quantum field theory of atoms interacting with photons: Foundations. Phys Rev A 50:2207–2231

    1994

  55. [63]

    Phys Rev A 110:L041301

    Wilson JD, Reilly JT, Zhang H, et al (2024) Entangled matter waves for quantum enhanced sensing. Phys Rev A 110:L041301

    2024

  56. [64]

    Revision 1.8.5 available at https:// atomoptics.uoregon.edu/∼dsteck/teaching/optics/optics-notes.pdf, Accessed 12 Dez 2024

    Steck DA (2024) Quantum and Atom Optics. Revision 1.8.5 available at https:// atomoptics.uoregon.edu/∼dsteck/teaching/optics/optics-notes.pdf, Accessed 12 Dez 2024

    2024

  57. [65]

    Prog Theor Phys 96(5):883–899

    Kakazu K, Kim YS (1996) Field Quantization and Spontaneous Emission in Circular Cylindrical Cavities. Prog Theor Phys 96(5):883–899

    1996

  58. [66]

    Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.09761

    Barajas KD, Campbell WC (2025) Multi-Timescale Quantum Averaging Theory for Driven Quantum Systems. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.09761

    2025

  59. [67]

    Phys Rev A 82:052106 53

    Gamel O, James DFV (2010) Time-averaged quantum dynamics and the validity of the effective Hamiltonian model. Phys Rev A 82:052106 53

    2010

  60. [68]

    Eur Phys J Plus 129:1–14

    Paulisch V, Rui H, Ng HK, et al (2014) Beyond adiabatic elimination: A hierarchy of approximations for multi-photon processes. Eur Phys J Plus 129:1–14

    2014

  61. [69]

    New J Phys 15(1):013007

    Schleich WP, Greenberger DM, Rasel EM (2013) A representation-free description of the Kasevich-Chu interferometer: a resolution of the redshift controversy. New J Phys 15(1):013007

    2013

  62. [70]

    Phys Rev D 100:065021

    Funai N, Mart´ın-Mart´ınez E (2019) Faster-than-light signaling in the rotating-wave approximation. Phys Rev D 100:065021

    2019

  63. [71]

    Phys Rev A 105:063316

    Jenewein J, Hartmann S, Roura A, et al (2022) Bragg-diffraction-induced imperfections of the signal in retroreflective atom interferometers. Phys Rev A 105:063316

    2022

  64. [72]

    J Opt Soc Am B 2(11):1707–1720

    Dalibard J, Cohen-Tannoudji C (1985) Dressed-atom approach to atomic motion in laser light: the dipole force revisited. J Opt Soc Am B 2(11):1707–1720

    1985

  65. [73]

    Phys Rev Res 6:043153

    B¨ohringer S, Friedrich A (2024) Decoupling of external and internal dynamics in driven two-level systems. Phys Rev Res 6:043153

    2024

  66. [74]

    Wiley-VCH, Weinheim

    Schleich WP (2001) Quantum Optics in Phase Space. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim

    2001

  67. [75]

    Fortschr Phys 63(6):337–410

    Giese E (2015) Mechanisms of matter-wave diffraction and their application to interferometers. Fortschr Phys 63(6):337–410

    2015

  68. [76]

    J Chem Phys 154(16):164310

    Soukup K, Di Pumpo F, Asano T, et al (2021) Atom interferometry with quantized light pulses. J Chem Phys 154(16):164310

    2021

  69. [77]

    Phys Rev Res 4:013115

    Asano T, Di Pumpo F, Giese E (2022) Light-pulse atom interferometry with entangled atom-optical elements. Phys Rev Res 4:013115

    2022

  70. [78]

    Opt Comm 63(2):118–122

    Ou ZY, Hong CK, Mandel L (1987) Relation between input and output states for a beam splitter. Opt Comm 63(2):118–122

    1987

  71. [79]

    Phys Rev Lett 59:2044–2046

    Hong CK, Ou ZY, Mandel L (1987) Measurement of subpicosecond time intervals between two photons by interference. Phys Rev Lett 59:2044–2046

    1987

  72. [80]

    Springer, New York

    Ou ZYJ (2007) Multi-photon quantum interference, vol 43. Springer, New York

    2007

  73. [81]

    New J Phys 7(1):155

    Lim YL, Beige A (2005) Generalized Hong–Ou–Mandel experiments with bosons and fermions. New J Phys 7(1):155

    2005

  74. [82]

    New J Phys 14(9):093015

    Tichy MC, Tiersch M, Mintert F, et al (2012) Many-particle interference beyond many-boson and many-fermion statistics. New J Phys 14(9):093015

    2012

  75. [83]

    Nature 520(7545):66–68 54

    Lopes R, Imanaliev A, Aspect A, et al (2015) Atomic Hong–Ou–Mandel experiment. Nature 520(7545):66–68 54

    2015

  76. [84]

    Science 347(6227):1229–1233

    Preiss PM, Ma R, Tai ME, et al (2015) Strongly correlated quantum walks in optical lattices. Science 347(6227):1229–1233

    2015

  77. [85]

    Phys Rev Lett 117:180501

    Li J, Zhou MT, Jing B, et al (2016) Hong-Ou-Mandel Interference between Two Deterministic Collective Excitations in an Atomic Ensemble. Phys Rev Lett 117:180501

    2016

  78. [86]

    Phys Rev Lett 119:173202

    Dussarrat P, Perrier M, Imanaliev A, et al (2017) Two-Particle Four-Mode Interferometer for Atoms. Phys Rev Lett 119:173202

    2017

  79. [87]

    Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.02691

    Quensen M, Hetzel M, Santos L, et al (2025) Hong-Ou-Mandel interference of more than 10 indistinguishable atoms. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.02691

    2025 arXiv

  80. [88]

    In: Arimondo E, DiMauro LF, Yelin SF (eds) Advances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, vol 67

    Kaufman AM, Tichy MC, Mintert F, et al (2018) Chapter Seven - The Hong–Ou–Mandel Effect With Atoms. In: Arimondo E, DiMauro LF, Yelin SF (eds) Advances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, vol 67. Academic Press, New York, pp 377–427

    2018

  81. [89]

    Phys Rev Lett 103:080405

    L´ev`eque T, Gauguet A, Michaud F, et al (2009) Enhancing the Area of a Raman Atom Interferometer Using a Versatile Double-Diffraction Technique. Phys Rev Lett 103:080405

    2009

  82. [90]

    Phys Rev A 88:053608

    Giese E, Roura A, Tackmann G, et al (2013) Double Bragg diffraction: A tool for atom optics. Phys Rev A 88:053608

    2013

  83. [91]

    Phys Rev Lett 116:173601

    Ahlers H, M¨ untinga H, Wenzlawski A, et al (2016) Double Bragg Interferometry. Phys Rev Lett 116:173601

    2016

  84. [92]

    Phys Rev A 94:063619

    Giese E, Friedrich A, Abend S, et al (2016) Light shifts in atomic Bragg diffraction. Phys Rev A 94:063619

    2016

  85. [93]

    Science 384(6695):551–556

    Luo C, Zhang H, Koh VPW, et al (2024) Momentum-exchange interactions in a Bragg atom interferometer suppress Doppler dephasing. Science 384(6695):551–556

    2024

  86. [94]

    Nature 612(7941):661–665

    Malia BK, Wu Y, Mart´ınez-Rinc´on J, et al (2022) Distributed quantum sensing with mode-entangled spin-squeezed atomic states. Nature 612(7941):661–665

    2022

  87. [95]

    Phys Rev A 23(3):1290–1301

    Bernhardt AF, Shore BW (1981) Coherent atomic deflection by resonant standing waves. Phys Rev A 23(3):1290–1301

    1981

  88. [96]

    Appl Phys B: Lasers Opt 54(5):443–450

    Marte M, Stenholm S (1992) Multiphoton resonances in atomic Bragg scattering. Appl Phys B: Lasers Opt 54(5):443–450

    1992

  89. [97]

    J Phys A: Math Theor 40(5):1033–1043

    Brion E, Pedersen LH, Mølmer K (2007) Adiabatic elimination in a lambda system. J Phys A: Math Theor 40(5):1033–1043

    2007

  90. [98]

    Can J Phys 85(6):625–632 55

    James DF, Jerke J (2007) Effective Hamiltonian theory and its applications in quantum information. Can J Phys 85(6):625–632 55

    2007

  91. [99]

    Phys Rev Lett 67:181–184

    Kasevich M, Chu S (1991) Atomic interferometry using stimulated Raman transitions. Phys Rev Lett 67:181–184

    1991

  92. [100]

    Phys Rev A 81:013617

    Malossi N, Bodart Q, Merlet S, et al (2010) Double diffraction in an atomic gravimeter. Phys Rev A 81:013617

    2010

  93. [101]

    Phys Rev A 100:053618

    Perrin I, Bernard J, Bidel Y, et al (2019) Zero-velocity atom interferometry using a retroreflected frequency-chirped laser. Phys Rev A 100:053618

    2019

  94. [102]

    Quantum 6:737

    Burgarth D, Facchi P, Gramegna G, et al (2022) One bound to rule them all: from Adiabatic to Zeno. Quantum 6:737

    2022

  95. [103]

    Universit¨at Ulm

    Momˇcilovi´c N (2022) Second-quantized effective models for Raman diffraction with center-of-mass motion. Universit¨at Ulm

    2022

  96. [104]

    Universit¨at Ulm

    Ufrecht C (2019) Theoretical approach to high-precision atom interferometry. Universit¨at Ulm

    2019

  97. [105]

    Revision 2.1.1 available at https://steck.us/ alkalidata/cesiumnumbers.pdf, Accessed 14 Dez 2024

    Steck DA (2019) Cesium D Line Data. Revision 2.1.1 available at https://steck.us/ alkalidata/cesiumnumbers.pdf, Accessed 14 Dez 2024

    2019

  98. [106]

    Revision 2.1.1 available at https://steck.us/ alkalidata/sodiumnumbers.pdf, Accessed 14 Dez 2024

    Steck DA (2019) Sodium D Line Data. Revision 2.1.1 available at https://steck.us/ alkalidata/sodiumnumbers.pdf, Accessed 14 Dez 2024

    2019

  99. [107]

    Revision 2.2.3 available at https://steck.us/ alkalidata/rubidium85numbers.pdf, Accessed 14 Dez 2024

    Steck DA (2021) Rubidium 85 D Line Data. Revision 2.2.3 available at https://steck.us/ alkalidata/rubidium85numbers.pdf, Accessed 14 Dez 2024

    2021

  100. [108]

    Revision 2.2.3 available at https://steck.us/ alkalidata/rubidium87numbers.pdf, Accessed 14 Dez 2024 56

    Steck DA (2021) Rubidium 87 D Line Data. Revision 2.2.3 available at https://steck.us/ alkalidata/rubidium87numbers.pdf, Accessed 14 Dez 2024 56

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.