Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

A chip-scale atomic beam source for non-classical light

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A chip-scale rubidium beam source produces non-classical light in a cavity.

desk verdict Chip-scale beam source meets cavity QED: the non-classical statistics look real, but the detection chain and finesse-stability data need more support before I'd cite them. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.00199 v1 pith:X6QFVYXF submitted 2025-05-30 physics.atom-ph quant-ph

Braden J. Larsen , Hagan Hensley , Gabriela D. Martinez , Alexander Staron , William R. McGehee , John Kitching , James K. Thompson This is my paper
classification physics.atom-phquant-ph PACS 42.50.Pq42.50.Ar
keywords cavityquantumelectrodynamicschip-scaleatomicbeamnon-classicallightphotoncorrelationrubidiumsourcevacuumRabisplittingheraldedsub-Poissonianthermal
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 aims to show that a chip-scale, mass-producible rubidium beam source, the type developed for miniature atomic clocks, can replace laser-cooled atoms in a cavity-QED experiment and still produce light with non-classical photon statistics. If the claim holds, non-classical light no longer requires the bulky cooling and trapping infrastructure that dominates cold-atom cavity experiments; a small heated silicon chip with etched microchannels can feed a high-finesse cavity directly. The evidence is threefold: a dip in the second-order correlation $g^{(2)}(\tau)$ at $\tau=0$ that violates the classical inequality $g^{(2)}(0) > g^{(2)}(\tau)$, a three-photon correlation $g^{(3)}$ that likewise violates the classical bound, and a heralded second-order correlation $g_h^{(2)}=0.66(1)<1$ indicating sub-Poissonian light. The paper also reports that months of beam operation do not degrade the cavity finesse, which it identifies as a prerequisite for sealing the whole system into a chip-scale device.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the chip-scale rubidium beam source: a silicon wafer with an internal rubidium reservoir and an etched array of ten $100\,\mu\mathrm{m}\times100\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ channels, $3\,\mathrm{mm}$ long, whose aspect ratio of 30 collimates the thermal beam to a half-angle divergence of about 33 mrad. It feeds a Fabry–Pérot microcavity with finesse up to $1.5\times10^5$ and vacuum Rabi frequency $2g_0=2\pi\times52(2)\,\mathrm{MHz}$, placing the system in the strong-coupling limit. The argument then runs through photon statistics: random atom transits produce a bunched envelope in $g^{(2)}(\tau)$, the single-excitation nonlinearity of the atoms creates a zero-delay dip that violates the classical inequality, and using one detected photon as a herald converts the three-photon data into a sub-Poissonian conditional correlation. The Monte Carlo wavefunction simulation of the collective atom-cavity Hamiltonian with ballistic atomic trajectories is what connects the microscopic parameters to the measured correlation functions.

What would settle it

Send a calibrated Poissonian (coherent) light source through the same cavity and detection chain, or run the identical correlation analysis with the rubidium beam blocked and the cavity far detuned: if a zero-delay dip in $g^{(2)}$ or a heralded value below 1 still appears, the non-classical signatures are detector artifacts rather than atom-cavity effects.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is that a thermal rubidium beam from a microfabricated microchannel array can be coupled to a high-finesse Fabry–Pérot microcavity in the strong-collective-coupling regime, with single-particle cooperativity $C=4g_0^2/(\kappa\Gamma)$ well above 1, and that this platform emits light whose correlations cannot be reproduced by any classical field. The measured violations are a local minimum $g^{(2)}(0)=3.13(1)$ below the bunched envelope, a three-photon correlation satisfying $g^{(3)}(0,0)<g^{(3)}(\tau_a,\tau_b)$, and a heralded value $g_h^{(2)}(0)=0.66(1)<1$. The paper's intended significance is compatibility: the same beam source technology already used in chip-scale clocks can drive cavity-QED, and the cavity mirrors are not contaminated by rubidium at a level that would prevent a sealed device.

Load-bearing premise

The non-classical-light conclusion rests on the assumption that the photon-counting chain, including the gating of the detectors during cavity stabilization, dead time, and afterpulsing, does not itself suppress near-zero-delay coincidences; if detector artifacts create the measured dip and the sub-Poissonian heralded value, the quantum claim collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, non-classical light can be generated from a thermal, chip-scale rubidium source with no laser cooling or magneto-optical trapping, cutting the size, weight, power, and vacuum complexity of cavity-QED light sources.
  • The observed few-photon nonlinearity at an intracavity photon number near 3 makes the platform a candidate for few-photon optical switching and transistor-like devices.
  • The measured stability of the cavity finesse, no more than about 10 percent change over six months of beam operation, implies that a sealed, passively pumped chip-scale cavity-QED device could be feasible.
  • The high photon-count rate of about $10^5$ counts per second means the source can accumulate the multi-photon correlation statistics needed to certify non-classicality in practical integration times.
  • The same source-cavity combination could be used to enhance the signal-to-noise of chip-scale clocks and magnetometers through cavity-QED, as the paper states in its outlook.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the detection-chain assumption could be tested with a Poissonian calibration source; if it passes, the $g^{(3)}$ and heralded violations constitute a clean route to non-classicality certification that does not rely on homodyne detection.
  • Editorial inference: because velocity-selective optical pumping changes the bunching envelope without changing the non-classical dip width, velocity control could be used to engineer the temporal profile of the emitted non-classical light, for example to produce pulses matched to a downstream quantum memory.
  • Editorial inference: the same microchannel beam source could feed multiple cavities or a cavity array on one chip, turning a single rubidium reservoir into a distributed set of non-classical light sources, provided the vacuum and thermal budget can be shared.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the integration of a MEMS-fabricated rubidium microchannel beam source with a high-finesse Fabry-Perot microcavity operating near the 87Rb D2 line. It demonstrates normal-mode (vacuum Rabi) splitting with an effective atom number that scales with source temperature, a few-photon optical nonlinearity near the critical photon number, and three non-classical signatures in the transmitted light: a central dip in g(2)(tau) with g(2)(0)=3.13(1) inside a bunched envelope, a violation of the classical inequality for g(3)(tau_a,tau_b), and a heralded sub-Poissonian value g_h^(2)(0)=0.66(1)<1. The authors interpret these results as evidence that a chip-scale atomic beam source can be used for cavity-QED and generation of non-classical light, and they discuss possible future integration into compact clocks and magnetometers.

Significance. If the non-classical claims hold, this is an important step toward manufacturable, low-size-weight-and-power cavity-QED systems: it would show that a room-temperature microchannel beam source can reach strong collective coupling and produce non-classical photon statistics without laser cooling. The experimental evidence is substantial and mutually consistent: the VRS splitting confirms strong collective coupling, the power-dependent transmission confirms few-photon nonlinearity, and the three non-classical witnesses are external classical benchmarks rather than internal model outputs. The main weaknesses are the absence of a detection-chain control for the gated SPCM counting and the fact that the Monte Carlo wavefunction model uses several adjusted parameters whose reported values are internally inconsistent. Both issues are fixable but need to be addressed before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Non-classical light / Methods E] The non-classical witnesses are derived from SPCM click statistics recorded during 220 microsecond science periods separated by PDH stabilization periods, yet no control measurement with a Poissonian or otherwise classical light source through the same gated detection chain is reported. Because the g(2)(0)=3.13(1) dip has a FWHM of only 28(3) ns, much shorter than the 220 microsecond gate, a gate-edge efficiency transient or a time-varying detection efficiency common to all detectors could in principle suppress near-zero-delay cross-detector coincidences and mimic the dip. The three-detector scheme mitigates conventional single-detector dead time, but it does not rule out a common gate artifact. Please add a calibration trace of the gating response and a classical-source control, or explicitly model the gate transient and show that it cannot produce the observed dip.
  2. [Main text and Methods G] The excitation Rabi frequency is reported inconsistently: the main text quotes Omega = 2*pi*36(+5/-18) MHz, while Methods G states that the MCWF simulation uses an adjusted Omega = 2*pi*7 MHz and gives a predicted multi-level value of Omega = 2*pi*18(+2/-9) MHz. The simulation also uses g0 = 2*pi*15 MHz against a predicted multi-level value of 2*pi*22(2) MHz. Since the simulation is used to support the interpretation of the non-classical dip, these discrepancies need to be reconciled and the origin of the factor-of-five difference in Omega explained.
  3. [Methods G / Figs. 3 and 4] The MCWF simulation is not a parameter-free confirmation: the simulated atomic beam flux is chosen to match the bunching envelope amplitude, and g0 and Omega are adjusted to better describe the central dip. The main text should state this explicitly when invoking the simulation as support, and the paper should quantify how well the same fitted simulation reproduces the g(3) and heralded g_h^(2) datasets, since those are the central evidences of non-classical light.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Main text] The source is described as operating stably for 'roughly 3 months' in the Experimental Setup and for '6 months' in the Outlook; please clarify the timeline and whether the two numbers refer to different periods or different observables.
  2. [Fig. 2b] The multiplicative scaling factor that brings the Rb vapor-pressure curve onto the measured Neff(T) data is not reported; please provide the fitted scale factor and its uncertainty, since it is the calibration between temperature and effective atom number.
  3. [Methods G] The sentence 'The parameters of the system are such that it is very rare for these limits to be exceeded' should be backed by a quantitative estimate of the truncation error from limiting the Hilbert space to two atoms and five photons.
  4. [References] Reference [51] contains a typo: 'A VS Quantum Science' should be 'AVS Quantum Science'.
  5. [Outlook] The Outlook correctly notes that the optical cavity is freestanding and enclosed in a larger vacuum chamber; the abstract should make clear that only the atomic source is chip-scale, not the full cavity-QED system, to avoid overclaiming the level of integration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the non-classical light claim rests on measured correlation functions checked against external classical inequalities, not on the paper's fitted parameters or self-citations.

full rationale

The central claim that the chip-scale beam source generates non-classical light is certified by three measured quantities: the local violation of the classical inequality g(2)(0) > g(2)(τ), the three-photon inequality g(3)(0,0) < g(3)(τa,τb), and the heralded sub-Poissonian value g_h^(2)(0)=0.66(1)<1. These comparisons use standard classicality bounds and do not depend on the paper's fitted parameters, so they are external benchmarks. The modeling layer does contain some self-consistent conventions: Methods H defines geff and Neff by imposing Poissonian atom-number fluctuations (Eq. 11), and Methods I then uses that same definition to derive the bunching envelope g(2)(0)=1+1/Neff (Eq. 15). This is an explicitly stated modeling definition rather than an independent prediction, and it is not used as evidence for non-classicality. Similarly, the Monte Carlo wave-function simulation adjusts g0 and Omega to better describe the observed dip, so those curves are fits rather than parameter-free predictions; however, the manuscript does not present those fitted simulations as the proof of non-classical light. The self-citations to prior chip-scale beam work [25,27,45] are used for device characterization and alignment, not as a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternative explanations. Thus no circularity in the derivation chain is present: the non-classical claim is self-contained against external classical bounds and the fitted/simulation layers are clearly labeled and non-essential to the certification.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central non-classicality evidence is direct and external, but the quantitative modeling layer carries fitted parameters g0, Omega, and flux, plus an imposed Poissonian-variance definition of geff and Neff. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • MCWF fitted vacuum Rabi frequency g0 = 2π × 15 MHz
    Adjusted in Methods G to better describe the measured central dip in g(2); predicted multilevel value is 2π × 22(2) MHz.
  • MCWF fitted drive Rabi frequency Omega = 2π × 7 MHz
    Adjusted in Methods G; predicted multilevel value is 2π × 18(+2,-9) MHz.
  • Simulated atomic beam flux = chosen to match bunching envelope amplitude
    In Methods G, the simulated flux is set to match the amplitude of the bunched envelope; no independent flux measurement is provided.
  • Neff-to-temperature scaling factor = multiplicative constant (not quoted)
    In Fig. 2b, Neff versus source temperature is matched to the Rb vapor pressure curve up to a constant scale factor; this factor is fit and used to operate at Neff approximately 0.1 for the non-classical light run.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Two-level Tavis-Cummings Hamiltonian with at most two atoms and five photons describes the measured correlations.
    Methods G truncates the Hilbert space and uses a two-level atomic model; fitted g0 and Omega partially compensate for multilevel hyperfine structure.
  • domain assumption Atoms follow classical ballistic trajectories with no interatomic collisions.
    Methods G samples trajectories from thermal distributions and propagates them classically; no atom-atom interactions are included.
  • domain assumption Atom-number fluctuations are Poissonian and coupling fluctuations of different atoms are uncorrelated.
    Methods H imposes Var[Neff]=⟨Neff⟩ to derive geff=sqrt(3/8)g0 and uses it in Eq. 15 for the bunching amplitude; this is an assumption, not a measured property.
  • standard math The classical inequalities g(2)(0)≥g(2)(τ) and g(3)(0,0)≤g(3)(τa,τb) are valid witnesses for non-classicality under this detection setup.
    Used to certify non-classical light; standard Glauber theory, assuming detector artifacts do not bias correlations.
  • domain assumption Vapor pressure of rubidium follows the Nesmeyanov curve.
    Used in Fig. 2b to scale Neff versus temperature; standard reference data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A chip-scale atomic beam source for non-classical light." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/X6QFVYXF

@misc{pith2026250600199,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A chip-scale atomic beam source for non-classical light},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/X6QFVYXF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.00199}
}
read the original abstract

Room temperature thermal atoms have proven to be a powerful resource for magnetometry, electrometry, atom-entanglement generation, and robust atomic clocks. Recent efforts have sought to realize compact and highly manufacturable atomic vapors and atomic beams for chip-scale magnetometry and atomic clocks. Here, we show that a chip-scale rubidium beam source can be integrated with a high finesse cavity-QED system to generate non-classical light. By demonstrating the compatibility of these two technologies, we open a new path for distributed sources of non-classical light and set the stage for using cavity-QED to enhance the performance of chip-scale magnetometers and atomic clocks.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cline, V

    J. Cline, V. Sch¨ afer, Z. Niu, D. Young, T. H. Yoon, and J. K. Thompson, Phys. Rev. Lett. (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    D. J. Young, A. Chu, E. Y. Song, D. Barberena, D. Well- nitz, Z. Niu, V. M. Sch¨ afer, R. J. Lewis-Swan, A. M. Rey, and J. K. Thompson, Nature 625, 679 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    Thomas, L

    P. Thomas, L. Ruscio, O. Morin, and G. Rempe, Nature 608, 677 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    J. D. Thompson, T. G. Tiecke, N. P. de Leon, J. Feist, A. V. Akimov, M. Gullans, A. S. Zibrov, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Science 340, 1202 (2013)

    work page 2013

  5. [5]

    K. M. Fortier, S. Y. Kim, M. J. Gibbons, P. Ahmadi, and M. S. Chapman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 233601 (2007)

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    K. M. Birnbaum, A. Boca, R. Miller, A. D. Boozer, T. E. Northup, and H. J. Kimble, Nature 436, 87 (2005)

    2005

  7. [7]

    Deist, J

    E. Deist, J. A. Gerber, Y.-H. Lu, J. Zeiher, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 083201 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Dordevi´ c, P

    T. Dordevi´ c, P. Samutpraphoot, P. L. Ocola, H. Bernien, B. Grinkemeyer, I. Dimitrova, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Science 373, 1511 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    J. Kim, D. Yang, S.-h. Oh, and K. An, Science 359, 662 (2018)

    2018

  2. [10]

    M. Lee, J. Kim, W. Seo, H.-G. Hong, Y. Song, R. R. Dasari, and K. An, Nat. Comm 5, paper no. 3441 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Budker and M

    D. Budker and M. Romalis, Nature Physics 3, 227 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    Kitching, Applied Physics Reviews 5, 031302 (2018)

    J. Kitching, Applied Physics Reviews 5, 031302 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Zektzer, X

    R. Zektzer, X. Lu, K. T. Hoang, R. Shrestha, S. Austin, F. Zhou, A. Chanana, G. Holland, D. Westly, P. Lett, A. V. Gorshkov, and K. Srinivasan, Optica 11, 1376 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Stern, B

    L. Stern, B. Desiatov, I. Goykhman, and U. Levy, Nature Communications 4, 1548 (2013)

    2013

  7. [15]

    Cutler, W

    T. Cutler, W. Hamlyn, J. Renger, K. Whittaker, D. Pizzey, I. Hughes, V. Sandoghdar, and C. Adams, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 034054 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Stern, R

    L. Stern, R. Zektzer, N. Mazurski, and U. Levy, Laser & Photonics Reviews 10, 1016 (2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Gerginov, M

    V. Gerginov, M. Pomponio, and S. Knappe, IEEE Sen- sors Journal 20, 12684 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Edrei, N

    E. Edrei, N. Cohen, E. Gerstel, S. Gamzu-Letova, N. Mazurski, and U. Levy, Science Advances8, eabn3391 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    M. T. Hummon, S. Kang, D. G. Bopp, Q. Li, D. A. Westly, S. Kim, C. Fredrick, S. A. Diddams, K. Srini- vasan, V. Aksyuk, and J. E. Kitching, Optica 5, 443 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    L.-A. Liew, S. Knappe, J. Moreland, H. Robinson, L. Hollberg, and J. Kitching, Applied Physics Letters 84, 2694 (2004)

    2004

  13. [21]

    J. A. Sedlacek, A. Schwettmann, H. K¨ ubler, R. L¨ ow, T. Pfau, and J. P. Shaffer, Nature Physics 8, 819 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Walker and M

    T. Walker and M. Larsen (Academic Press, 2016) pp. 373–401

    2016

  15. [23]

    Knappe, V

    S. Knappe, V. Shah, P. D. D. Schwindt, L. Holl- berg, J. Kitching, L.-A. Liew, and J. Moreland, Applied Physics Letters 85, 1460 (2004)

    2004

  16. [24]

    Lutwak, A

    R. Lutwak, A. Rashed, M. Varghese, G. Tepolt, J. Leblanc, M. Mescher, D. Serkland, and G. Peake, in 2007 IEEE International Frequency Control Symposium Joint with the 21st European Frequency and Time Forum (2007) pp. 1327–1333

    2007

  17. [25]

    C. Li, X. Chai, B. Wei, J. Yang, A. Daruwalla, F. Ayazi, and C. Raman, Nature Communications 10, 1831 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    C. Li, B. Wei, X. Chai, J. Yang, A. Daruwalla, F. Ayazi, and C. Raman, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023239 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    G. D. Martinez, C. Li, A. Staron, J. Kitching, C. Ra- man, and W. R. McGehee, Nature Communications 14, 10.1038/s41467-023-39166-1 (2023)

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    H. C. W. Beijerinck and N. F. Verster, Journal of Applied Physics 46, 2083 (1975)

    1975

  21. [29]

    Douahi, L

    A. Douahi, L. Nieradko, J. Beugnot, J. Dziuban, H. Mail- lote, S. Gu´ erandel, M. Moraja, C. Gorecki, and V. Gior- dano, Electronics Letters 43, 279 (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    Mabuchi, J

    H. Mabuchi, J. Ye, and H. J. Kimble, Applied Physics B 68, 1095 (1999)

    1999

  23. [31]

    J. A. Sauer, K. M. Fortier, M. S. Chang, C. D. Hamley, and M. S. Chapman, Phys. Rev. A 69, 051804 (2004)

    2004

  24. [32]

    Khudaverdyan, W

    M. Khudaverdyan, W. Alt, T. Kampschulte, S. Reick, A. Thobe, A. Widera, and D. Meschede, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 123006 (2009)

    2009

  25. [33]

    M¨ ucke, E

    M. M¨ ucke, E. Figueroa, J. Bochmann, C. Hahn, K. Murr, S. Ritter, C. J. Villas-Boas, and G. Rempe, Nature 465, 755 (2010)

    2010

  26. [34]

    Hunger, T

    D. Hunger, T. Steinmetz, Y. Colombe, C. Deutsch, T. W. H¨ ansch, and J. Reichel, New Journal of Physics 12, 065038 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    Uphoff, M

    M. Uphoff, M. Brekenfeld, G. Rempe, and S. Ritter, Ap- plied Physics B 122, 46 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    C. A. McLemore, N. Jin, M. L. Kelleher, Y. Luo, D. Lee, Y. Liu, T. Nakamura, D. Mason, P. Rakich, S. A. Did- dams, and F. Quinlan, Opt. Lett. 49, 4737 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Grinkemeyer, E

    B. Grinkemeyer, E. Guardado-Sanchez, I. Dimitrova, D. Shchepanovich, G. E. Mandopoulou, J. Borre- gaard, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10787 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Y. Bao, F. Zhou, T. W. LeBrun, and J. J. Gorman, Opt. Express 25, 15493 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Volz and H

    U. Volz and H. Schmoranzer, Physica Scripta 1996, 48 (1996)

    1996

  32. [40]

    H. J. Kimble, Physica Scripta 1998, 127 (1998)

    1998

  33. [41]

    Tanji-Suzuki, I

    H. Tanji-Suzuki, I. D. Leroux, M. H. Schleier-Smith, M. Cetina, A. T. Grier, J. Simon, and V. Vuleti´ c, in Advances in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, Advances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, Vol. 60, edited by E. Arimondo, P. Berman, and C. Lin (Academic P...

    2011

  34. [42]

    Z. Chen, J. G. Bohnet, S. R. Sankar, J. Dai, and J. K. Thompson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 133601 (2011)

    2011

  35. [43]

    I. D. Leroux, M. H. Schleier-Smith, and V. Vuleti´ c, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 073602 (2010)

    2010

  36. [44]

    M. H. Schleier-Smith, I. D. Leroux, and V. Vuleti´ c, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 073604 (2010)

    2010

  37. [45]

    Fam` a, S

    F. Fam` a, S. Zhou, B. Heizenreder, M. Tang, S. Bennetts, S. B. J¨ ager, S. A. Sch¨ affer, and F. Schreck, Phys. Rev. A (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    A. N. Nesmeyanov, Vapor Pressure of the Chemical Ele- ments, edited by R. Gary (Elsevier, 1963)

    1963

  39. [47]

    Gripp, S

    J. Gripp, S. L. Mielke, L. A. Orozco, and H. J. Carmichael, Phys. Rev. A 54, R3746 (1996)

    1996

  40. [48]

    Gea-Banacloche, H

    J. Gea-Banacloche, H. Wu, and M. Xiao, Phys. Rev. A 78, 023828 (2008)

    2008

  41. [49]

    R. J. Glauber, Phys. Rev. 130, 2529 (1963)

    1963

  42. [50]

    G. T. Foster, S. L. Mielke, and L. A. Orozco, Phys. Rev. 7 A 61, 053821 (2000)

    2000

  43. [51]

    Signorini and L

    S. Signorini and L. Pavesi, A VS Quantum Science 2, 041701 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Razavi, I

    M. Razavi, I. S¨ ollner, E. Bocquillon, C. Couteau, R. Laflamme, and G. Weihs, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 42, 114013 (2009)

    2009

  45. [53]

    Tavis and F

    M. Tavis and F. W. Cummings, Phys. Rev. 170, 379 (1968)

    1968

  46. [54]

    Lambert, E

    N. Lambert, E. Gigu` ere, P. Menczel, B. Li, P. Hopf, G. Su´ arez, M. Gali, J. Lishman, R. Gadhvi, R. Agar- wal, A. Galicia, N. Shammah, P. Nation, J. R. Johans- son, S. Ahmed, S. Cross, A. Pitchford, and F. Nori, Qutip 5: The quantum toolbox in python (2024), arXiv:2412.04705...

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Carmichael, R

    H. Carmichael, R. Brecha, and P. Rice, Optics Commu- nications 82, 73 (1991). METHODS A. Cavity Details The concave mirrors with curvature Rc = 10 cm and diameter of Dm = 7 .75 mm geometrically limit the on- axis mirror separation L to be L ≥ D2 m/4Rc = 150 µm so that the mirr...

    1991

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.