Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Angular Geometry of Atomic Multipole Transitions

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a single formula—Eq. (8)—gives resonant Rabi frequencies for arbitrary-rank atomic or nuclear multipole transitions, with all angular geometry contained in the overlap between the laser polarization and a vector spher

desk verdict Useful and honest packaging of multipole Rabi geometry; core Eq. (8) is sound, but the beam-effects section has an unquantified polarization approximation at the same order as the effects it computes. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.07451 v4 pith:VJ7WQ4VX submitted 2025-10-08 quant-ph nucl-exphysics.atom-ph

Wesley C. Campbell This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phnucl-exphysics.atom-ph
keywords multipoletransitionsRabifrequencyvectorsphericalharmonicsEinsteinAcoefficientangularselectionrulesbeam-couplingintegralparaxialbeamsE2/E3
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 sets out a practical recipe for laser-driven multipole transitions (dipole, quadrupole, octupole, and beyond) that puts all angular geometry into one object: the overlap of the laser polarization with a vector spherical harmonic evaluated along the laser's propagation direction. It shows that this overlap is the same function that describes the multipole's far-field spontaneous-emission pattern, so an experimentalist can visualize and compute couplings by looking at emission lobes. The central formula, Eq. (8), converts a measured Einstein A coefficient and a 3j symbol into a Rabi frequency, with beam effects (Gaussian, Hermite-Gauss, Laguerre-Gauss, vector modes, multi-beam interference) handled by replacing the dot product with a Fourier-space beam-coupling integral. If the recipe is correct, previously laborious tensor calculations, selection-rule checks, and beam-correction estimates reduce to evaluating one factor; it also predicts some non-vanishing couplings where plane-wave intuition says none should exist.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the transverse vector spherical harmonic Y^(+1)_{K,p}(k-hat) = (r del)Y_{K,p}(r-hat)/sqrt(K(K+1)), a spin-1 total-angular-momentum eigenfunction whose components are vectors perpendicular to k-hat. The identity T^(K)[Y^(K-1)(k-hat), epsilon-hat] = sqrt((K+1)/(2K+1)) [epsilon-hat dot Y^(+1)_K(k-hat)] converts the stretched nested derivative of the field into a simple dot product. The beam-coupling integral N_{K,-p}(epsilon, theta_k) = (1/2pi) integral d^2k_perp [epsilon-hat dot Y^(+1)_{K,-p}(ell-hat)] u-tilde(k_perp) extends the plane-wave result to real beams. Together these separate atomic-structure information (absorbed into a measured Einstein A coefficient and

What would settle it

Measure the Rabi frequency of a tightly focused HG10-driven E2 Delta-M=0 transition in the k-perpendicular-to-e_z geometry for several kw0 values around 2-5, and compare against the full beam-coupling integral (15) evaluated numerically; if the measured values do not approach the truncated series as 1/(kw0) shrinks, the paraxial leading-order truncation is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Eq. (8): for a 2^K-pole electric transition between magnetic sublevels, the resonant Rabi frequency is Omega_eg = s_J (-1)^(Je-Mg) (eE0/hbar) sqrt(2pi A_EK/(alpha c (2Je+1))) (c/omega)^3 (3j symbol) [epsilon-hat dot Y^(+1)_{K,-p}(k-hat)]. Here s_J carries the phase and sign of the reduced matrix element, A_EK is the Einstein A coefficient, and the 3j symbol encodes angular-momentum selection rules. The key step is a polarization identity that rewrites the field-derivative tensor (a stretched, nested product of the wavevector with the polarization) as the scalar product of the polarization with the transverse vector spherical harmonic Y^(+1)_K(k-hat); the author proves th

Load-bearing premise

The applied-beam results rest on the paraxial assumption that real beams are superpositions of transverse plane waves with |k_perp| much less than |k|, so the couplings are computed only to leading order in 1/(kw0) with longitudinal components neglected; if that truncation fails for tight focusing, the predicted non-vanishing couplings could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single plane-wave beam cannot always isolate one Delta-M component of an E2 transition, but two coherent plane waves with a chosen relative phase can, for example suppressing Delta-M=+-2 while keeping Delta-M=-+2.
  • A centered Gaussian beam shifts a nominally allowed E1 Rabi frequency by a factor 1 - 5/(kw0)^2 at leading order, and an off-center Gaussian can drive transitions that plane waves and centered beams cannot.
  • Higher-order Hermite-Gauss and Laguerre-Gauss modes turn previously forbidden couplings on: an HG10 beam drives an E2 Delta-M=0 transition with k perpendicular to e_z, and LG_{0,+1} or LG_{0,-1} beams drive E2 Delta-M=+-2 with k parallel to e_z.
  • A nonseparable vector-mode beam can drive a Delta-M=0 E1 transition with a coupling 1/sqrt(2) times larger than any separable beam using the same spatial mode basis, an efficiency advantage the paper attributes to classical nonseparability.
  • The Gouy phase contributes a leading fractional correction of -2mu(K-1)/(kw0)^2 to the resonant Rabi frequency for Hermite-Gauss and Laguerre-Gauss beams.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If Eq. (8) is right, the design of laser-driven multipole experiments inverts: instead of expanding tensor products, one can pick beam modes whose k-space distribution mirrors the emission lobe of the target Delta-M component, turning the beam-coupling integral into a mode-matching calculation.
  • The paraxial results are only the first terms of a series in 1/(kw0); evaluating Eq. (15) numerically for tight focus (kw0 roughly 1-5) would show whether the predicted non-vanishing HG10 and LG_{0,+-1} couplings survive beyond leading order.
  • Because s_J is undetermined by the Einstein A coefficient, combining the formula with ab initio calculations or with Rabi-frequency measurements in two different beam geometries could pin down the phase and sign of the reduced matrix element.
  • The vector-spherical-harmonic identification implies a quantitative reciprocity between spontaneous emission and absorption: the polarization anisotropy of the emitted light should predict the Rabi-frequency anisotropy for the same transition, which could be checked without free parameters.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a formalism for calculating Rabi frequencies of atomic/nuclear multipole transitions (E1, E2, E3, ...) driven by laser fields, with the central result Eq. (8) expressing the Rabi frequency as a product of a 3j symbol and a dot product of the laser polarization with a vector spherical harmonic, ε̂·Y^{(+1)}_{K,-p}(k̂). The key identity (5) reduces the field-derivative tensor to this dot product using transverse plane waves and is proved in Appendix G. The author connects the vector spherical harmonic to the multipole's far-field spontaneous-emission pattern, derives the Einstein A coefficient relation (7), and applies the method to E1/E2 examples, multi-beam interference, paraxial beam corrections (Gaussian, off-center, Hermite-Gauss, Laguerre-Gauss, vector modes) via the beam-coupling integral (15).

Significance. If correct, this provides an experimentally useful and visually intuitive simplification: all angular geometry of an arbitrary-rank multipole transition reduces to evaluating ε̂·Y^{(+1)}_{K,-p}(k̂), with the reduced matrix element inferred from the measured Einstein A coefficient. Strengths include explicit derivations (Appendix G lemmas), closed-form vector spherical harmonic tables (Table A.2), consistency checks against the known E1 and James E2 treatments, and concrete falsifiable predictions for beam-geometry corrections (e.g., -5/(kw0)^2 Gaussian correction, HG10-induced E2 ΔM=0 coupling). The paper is likely to be a useful reference for experimental quantum optics and precision spectroscopy.

major comments (2)
  1. [§IV C, Eq. (15)] The extension from plane waves to paraxial beams via the beam-coupling integral (15) uses the constant polarization vector ε̂ for every plane-wave component ℓ̂, but the polarization identity (5) is proved only for ℓ̂⊥ε̂ (Theorem G.3). A true transverse component has polarization η̂(ℓ) perpendicular to ℓ̂; the difference η̂-ε̂ is O(k_⊥/k), and its dot product with the transverse harmonic is O((k_⊥/k)^2). This is the same order as the leading Gaussian corrections reported in §IV C 1 (e.g., -5/(kw0)^2), so the numerical coefficients of the series are not derived from Eq. (8) alone. The qualitative claim of non-vanishing couplings at order 1/(kw0) for HG10 and vector modes is likely robust, but the O(1/(kw0)^2) Gaussian and off-center Gaussian corrections contain an unquantified polarization-projection approximation. This should be disclosed and, ideally, tested against the exact integral wi
  2. [Appendix F / §IV C 3] The Gouy-phase correction in Eq. (6) via replacement (ik)^{(K-1)} → (ik)^{(K-1)}(1 - 2μ(K-1)/(kw0)^2 + ...) appears to be presented without derivation. The Gouy phase is an axial phase, and its leading correction to the matrix element involves the axial derivative of the field, not simply replacing the plane-wave factor (ik)^{K-1} with this prefactor. The claimed correction is plausible, but as written it is a separate assumption rather than a consequence of the beam-coupling integral (15), which integrates over transverse k_⊥ only and does not include the axial phase. Either derive this replacement explicitly or state it as an additional approximation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III] Typo: “quandrupole” should be “quadrupole”.
  2. [§IV C 2] The off-center Gaussian expression for the E1 ΔM=0 coupling with k̂∥ēz has a missing parenthesis in the displayed equation: e^{-ρ_offs^2/w0^2} appears outside a bracket that is never closed. Please rewrite cleanly.
  3. [Eq. (15)] The notation “(ε̂·Y^{(+1)}_{K,-p})̂k” is ambiguous; it should be written explicitly as a function of the argument k̂ or ℓ̂.
  4. [Table A.2] The direction entries are unnormalized and the normalization procedure is described only in text. A reader using the table risks mis-normalizing. A small worked example is given for Y^{(+1)}_{2,0}, but not for the rank-3 entries; adding normalized expressions or a supplemental notebook would improve usability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (8) is a genuine derivation from Hamiltonian (6) with the Einstein A coefficient as an external input; the beam-coupling caveat is an approximation, not a circularity.

full rationale

The derivation of Eq. (8) is self-contained and non-circular. The Hamiltonian (6) is the single starting point; the Einstein A coefficient (7) is derived from that Hamiltonian in Appendix D via Fermi's golden rule. Equation (8) then combines (6), (7), and the Wigner-Eckart theorem, explicitly treating A_EK as an externally supplied quantity: 'I assume that the reduced transition moment is either provided or to-be-measured,' and 'By inverting (7), we can obtain a formula for the reduced matrix element ... to within a sign.' No measured or fitted value is renamed as a prediction: A_EK is an independent input, and the only quantity not fixed by A is the sign encoded in s_J. The geometric content—the dot product ϵ̂·Y^(+1)_{K,-p}(k̂), multi-beam interference phases, and beam-coupling integrals—follows algebraically from the polarization identity (5) and Appendix A, not from any fit. The author explicitly credits Varshalovich et al. for the underlying VSH constructions, so there is no load-bearing self-citation chain. The skeptical concern about Eq. (15) (using a constant polarization vector for off-axis plane-wave components in paraxial beams) is a possible accuracy/validity issue for the beam corrections, not a circularity: it does not make any output equal to an input by construction. Therefore no circular step is present; score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper postulates no new particles, forces, mediators, dimensions, or conserved quantities; the vector spherical harmonics are existing mathematical objects, and the 'nonseparability advantage' is a derived comparison ratio, not an entity. No free parameters are fit to data: the only external numeric input is the measured Einstein A coefficient, which sets the magnitude scale of the reduced matrix element and is explicitly factored out of the geometric content. The load-bearing assumptions are all disclosed domain restrictions: transverse monochromatic fields, paraxial beams, neglect of longitudinal/radial field components, and truncation to a single multipole rank. The central geometric predictions (VSH dot products, beam integrals, interference conditions) are derived, not fitted.

free parameters (1)
  • Einstein A coefficient A_EK (measured input) = (not fitted; measured value; magnitude only, sign absorbed in s_J)
    The reduced matrix element magnitude in Eq. (8) is fixed by the measured spontaneous-emission rate through Eq. (7). This is an externally supplied input — not a number fit to make the geometric predictions work — and the geometric factors are independent of it. Absolute Rabi magnitudes inherit its uncertainty; listed here for exhaustiveness.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Wigner-Eckart theorem and 3j/6j angular-momentum algebra (Racah convention)
    Invoked in Eq. (8), Appendix D (Eq. D5), and Appendix E (repeated reduction, Eq. E1). Standard, assumed background.
  • domain assumption Cartesian multipole expansion of the atom-field interaction (Eq. 1), truncated to a single electric 2^K-pole rank
    The Hamiltonian is a Taylor expansion of the charge distribution in field derivatives; the paper assumes one rank K dominates for a given transition. Standard long-wavelength multipole treatment [15].
  • domain assumption Monochromatic transverse plane-wave field with epsilon-hat perpendicular k-hat, and the replacement grad -> i k k-hat (Eqs. 3-4)
    This is the field model for the central formula (8). Real beams are later treated as paraxial superpositions of such waves. The transversality also underpins Lemma G.2 and Theorem G.3.
  • domain assumption Paraxial approximation |k_perp| << |k| for structured beams (Appendix F)
    All Section IV C beam-effect results are leading-order in 1/(kw0) under this approximation; tight focusing is not treated.
  • domain assumption Exclusion of the radial lambda = -1 vector spherical harmonic and longitudinal field components (Appendix A)
    The formalism describes only transverse (far-field-type) fields; longitudinal components of real focused beams are neglected.
  • domain assumption Einstein A coefficient obtained from spontaneous emission governs the absorption-strength (reduced matrix element) magnitude at the same frequency
    Standard Einstein-B relation assumed in inverting Eq. (7) to use in Eq. (8); magnitude only, sign in s_J.
  • domain assumption Magnetic-multipole results use the g_s -> 2 approximation (Appendix D, after Eq. D8)
    Only relevant to the secondary MK generalization; the M2 operator definition relies on this standard approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Angular Geometry of Atomic Multipole Transitions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VJ7WQ4VX

@misc{pith2026251007451,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Angular Geometry of Atomic Multipole Transitions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VJ7WQ4VX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.07451}
}
read the original abstract

A simple way to calculate Rabi frequencies is outlined for interactions of atomic or nuclear multipole moments with laser fields that focuses on their relative geometry. The resulting expression takes the form of a dot product between the laser polarization and a vector spherical harmonic, thereby naturally connecting to the multipole's far-field spontaneous-emission pattern and providing a way to visualize the interaction. Since the vector spherical harmonics are not yet a standard tool in quantum science, their relevant properties are reviewed. This approach is illustrated in the calculation of a variety of beam effects, yielding both perturbative corrections and some nontrivial cases with non-vanishing coupling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.07451 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Rank-1 vector spherical harmonics of type [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Rank-2 vector spherical harmonics of type [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    whereρ⊥k, which could be written in the helicity basis (Appendix B) asρ=x ′ ˆ e′ x′ +y ′ ˆ e′ y′

    Centered Gaussian beams A paraxial Gaussian beam with 1/e 2 intensity radius w0 applies a field in the plane of its minimum waist given by E(r, t) =E0 2 ˆϵexp − ρ2 w2 0 ei(k·r−ωt) + c.c. whereρ⊥k, which could be written in the helicity basis (Appendix B) asρ=x ′ ˆ e′ x′ +y ′ ˆ e′ y′. Despite the fact that the wave fronts at the plane of the minimum waist ...

  2. [2]

    On the one hand, a transverse displacement of a Gaus- sian beam will reduce the intensity at the atom, which 8 will suppress the resonant Rabi frequency in most geome- tries

    Off-center Gaussian beams Still considering an atom in the plane of minimum waist of a paraxial Gaussian beam, if the beam center is displaced from the atom’s position (assumed to be the origin) in the transverse direction byρoffs, ˜u(k⊥) picks up a (transverse spatial) frequency-dependent phase factor, ˜u(k⊥,ρ offs) = w2 0 2 e−k2 ⊥w2 0/4 e−ik⊥·ρoffs . On...

  3. [3]

    Gouy phase Up to this point, I have neglected the corrections to the axial field gradient due to the beam shape, the leading- order of which (at the plane of the minimum waist) is the Gouy phase, ϕG,µ(z′) =µarctan 2z′ kw2 0 whereµis a positive integer given by µ≡ m+n+ 1 HG mn 2n+|ℓ|+ 1 LG n,ℓ for Hermite-Gauss (§IV C 4, upper) and Laguerre-Gauss (§IV C 5,...

  4. [4]

    For example, even for a centered Gaussian beam, a ∆M= 0 cannot be driven on anE2 transition if ˆk⊥ˆ ez for any polarization (Fig

    Hermite-Gauss beams Hermite-Gauss modes (Appendix F) introduce the pos- sibility that the polarization of even a paraxial beam flips sign across its transverse profile, which can lead to non- trivial corrections to the resonant Rabi frequency. For example, even for a centered Gaussian beam, a ∆M= 0 cannot be driven on anE2 transition if ˆk⊥ˆ ez for any po...

  5. [5]

    , whereL (α) k [x] is a generalized Laguerre polynomial and φρ ≡arctan(y ′/x′)

    Helical Laguerre-Gauss beams Helical Laguerre-Gauss modes (Appendix F) furnish a rotationally-symmetric basis for paraxial beams, and I will refer to LG n,ℓ as the mode whose field in the plane of minimum waist is given by E(r, t) = E0 2 ˆϵ √ 2ρ w0 |ℓ| L(|ℓ|) n h 2ρ2 w2 0 i e−ρ2/w2 0 eiℓφρ ei(k·r−ωt) +c.c. , whereL (α) k [x] is a generalized Laguerre poly...

    2016

  6. [6]

    orbit” and “spin

    Classical, nonseparable (vector-mode) beams Last, I consider the use of this formalism to ana- lyze multipole transitions driven by single beams with (propagation-invariant) nonuniform polarization across their transverse profile, so-calledvector modes[19]. Since the polarization of the field in such cases depends uponρ, the polarization degree of freedom...

  7. [7]

    M. E. Rose,Multipole Fields(Wiley, 1955)

    1955

  8. [8]

    B. W. Shore and D. H. Menzel,Principles of Atomic Spectra(John Wiley and Sons, 1968)

    1968

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    W. D. Hamilton, ed.,The Electromagnetic Interaction in Nuclear Spectroscopy(North-Holland Publishing Com- pany, 1975)

    1975

  2. [10]

    Weissbluth,Atoms and Molecules(Academic Press, 1978)

    M. Weissbluth,Atoms and Molecules(Academic Press, 1978)

    1978

  3. [11]

    V. B. Berestetskii, E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii, Quantum Electrodynamics, 2nd ed. (Pergamon Press, 1982)

    1982

  4. [12]

    L. C. Biedenharn and J. D. Louck,Angular Momentum in Quantum Physics(Cambridge University Press, 1982)

    1982

  5. [13]

    D. M. Brink and G. R. Satchler,Angular Momentum, 3rd ed. (Oxford Science Publications, 1993)

    1993

  6. [14]

    W. R. Johnson,Atomic Structure Theory(Springer, 2007)

    2007

  7. [15]

    Roberts, P

    M. Roberts, P. Taylor, G. P. Barwood, P. Gill, H. A. Klein, and W. R. C. Rowley, Observation of an electric octupole transition in a single ion, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 1876 (1997)

    1997

  8. [16]

    Huntemann, M

    N. Huntemann, M. Okhapkin, B. Lipphardt, S. Weyers, C. Tamm, and E. Peik, High-accuracy optical clock based on the octupole transition in 171Yb+, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 090801 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    Tofful, C

    A. Tofful, C. F. A. Baynham, E. A. Curtis, A. O. Parsons, B. I. Robertson, M. Schioppo, J. Tunesi, H. S. Margolis, R. J. Hendricks, J. Whale, R. C. Thompson, and R. M. Godun, 171Yb+ optical clock with 2.2×10 −18 system- atic uncertainty and absolute frequency measurements, Met...

    2024

  10. [18]

    A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. O. Schmidt, Optical atomic clocks, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 637 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    C. T. Schmiegelow, J. Schulz, H. Kaufmann, T. Ruster, U. G. Poschinger, and F. Schmidt-Kaler, Transfer of op- tical orbital angular momentum to a bound electron, Na- ture Communications7, 12998 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    J. J. Sakurai,Modern Quantum Mechanics, revised ed. (Addison-Wesley, 1994)

    1994

  13. [21]

    J. D. Jackson,Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, 1999)

    1999

  14. [22]

    D. A. Varshalovich, A. N. Moskalev, and V. K. Kher- sonskii,Quantum Theory of Angular Momentum(World Scientific, 1988)

    1988

  15. [23]

    R. N. Zare,Angular Momentum(Wiley-Interscience, 1988)

    1988

  16. [24]

    D. F. V. James, Quantum dynamics of cold trapped ions with application to quantum computation, Applied Physics B66, 181 (1998)

    1998

  17. [25]

    Rosales-Guzm´ an, B

    C. Rosales-Guzm´ an, B. Ndagano, and A. Forbes, A re- view of complex vector light fields and their applications, Journal of Optics20, 123001 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    R. J. C. Spreeuw, A classical analogy of entanglement, Foundations of Physics28, 361 (1998)

    1998

  19. [27]

    Hasegawa, R

    Y. Hasegawa, R. Loidl, G. Badurek, M. Baron, and H. Rauch, Violation of a bell-like inequality in single- neutron interferometry, Nature425, 45 (2003)

    2003

  20. [28]

    C. E. R. Souza, J. A. O. Huguenin, P. Milman, and A. Z. Khoury, Topological phase for spin-orbit transformations on a laser beam, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 160401 (2007)

    2007

  21. [29]

    Luis, Coherence, polarization, and entanglement for classical light fields, Optics Communications282, 3665 (2009)

    A. Luis, Coherence, polarization, and entanglement for classical light fields, Optics Communications282, 3665 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    Chen and W

    L. Chen and W. She, Single-photon spin-orbit entangle- ment violating a bell-like inequality, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 27, A7 (2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    C. V. S. Borges, M. Hor-Meyll, J. A. O. Huguenin, and A. Z. Khoury, Bell-like inequality for the spin-orbit sepa- 11 rability of a laser beam, Phys. Rev. A82, 033833 (2010)

    2010

  24. [32]

    Qian and J

    X.-F. Qian and J. H. Eberly, Entanglement and classical polarization states, Opt. Lett.36, 4110 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    M. A. Goldin, D. Francisco, and S. Ledesma, Simulating bell inequality violations with classical optics encoded qubits, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B27, 779 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    Karimi and R

    E. Karimi and R. W. Boyd, Classical en- tanglement?, Science350, 1172 (2015), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aad7174

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    T¨ oppel, A

    F. T¨ oppel, A. Aiello, C. Marquardt, E. Giacobino, and G. Leuchs, Classical entanglement in polarization metrol- ogy, New Journal of Physics16, 073019 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    B. E. A. Saleh and M. C. Teich,Fundamentals of Pho- tonics(Wiley-Interscience, 1991)

    1991

  29. [37]

    Hecht,Optics, 3rd ed

    E. Hecht,Optics, 3rd ed. (Addison Wesley, 1998)

    1998

  30. [38]

    Yariv,Optical Electronics in Modern Communications (Oxford University Press, 1997)

    A. Yariv,Optical Electronics in Modern Communications (Oxford University Press, 1997)

    1997

  31. [39]

    C. P. Boyer, E. G. Kalnins, and J. Miller, W., Lie theory and separation of variables. 7. The harmonic oscillator in elliptic coordinates and Ince polynomials, Journal of Mathematical Physics16, 512 (1975)

    1975

  32. [40]

    iˆφ(ϑk, φk) 2p sin(ϑk) YK,p(ϑk, φk) + ˆϑ(ϑk, φk) p K(K+ 1)−p(p+ 1)Y K,p+1(ϑk, φk)e −iφk − p K(K+ 1)−p(p−1)Y K,p−1(ϑk, φk)e iφk # (A11) Y(0) K,p(ϑk, φk) =− 1 2 p K(K+ 1)

    M. A. Bandres and J. C. Guti´ errez-Vega, Ince–Gaussian modes of the paraxial wave equation and stable res- onators, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A21, 873 (2004). 12 Appendix A: V ector Spherical Harmonics Vector spherical harmonics are not typically introduced before substantial formalis...

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.