Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 30 references

Photon Transport in a Gas of Two-Level Atoms: Unveiling Quantum Light Creation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that a Heisenberg-Langevin propagation equation for the photon annihilation operator, solved to first order in the mode-coupling parameter $\beta$, determines the second-order correlation function $g^{(2)}(\tau)$ of…

desk verdict A useful analytic extension of known scattering theory to Doppler-broadened and open two-level media, held back by an unproven perturbation truncation and a qualitative experimental comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03013 v2 pith:XYUHHL72 submitted 2025-01-06 quant-ph

Leonid Yatsenko , Martin Cordier , Lucas Pache , Max Schemmer , Philipp Schneeweiss , Jürgen Volz , Arno Rauschenbeutel This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 42.50.Ar42.50.Nn
keywords Heisenberg-Langevinequationsphotonantibunchingsecond-ordercorrelationfunctiontwo-levelatomsDopplerbroadeningwaveguidequantumelectrodynamicsbiphotongenerationopticalnanofiber
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 establishes a single, compact theoretical route to the photon statistics of nearly monochromatic light after it passes through a two-level atomic gas. It derives a propagation equation for the photon annihilation operator using Heisenberg-Langevin methods, solves it perturbatively in the tiny fraction $\beta$ of photons emitted into the target mode, and from that solution computes the Glauber correlation $g^{(2)}(\tau)$. The payoff is a unified picture: the transmitted field is a coherent pump plus biphotons that interfere, plus an incoherent spontaneous-emission background, and the condition for seeing the transmitted light antibunch is written directly in terms of an optical depth and a biphoton wavefunction. The authors show the formula reproduces recent scattering-theory results in the closed, Doppler-free case, extends them to Doppler-broadened and open systems, and matches measured $g^{(2)}(0)$ in a nanofiber waveguide QED experiment. If the central claim is right, the same machinery can be exported to other inhomogeneously broadened media.

What carries the argument

The central object is the perturbative solution of the propagation equation, Eq. (65): $\hat a(\varpi,z)=\sqrt{2\pi}\hat a_p(z)\delta(\varpi)+\hat B(\varpi,z)+\hat C(-\varpi,z)^\dagger$, where $\hat B$ is the linear response (absorption plus Langevin noise) and $\hat C^\dagger$ describes biphoton creation. The two-photon correlation $G^{(2)}(\tau)$ is built from the correlations of $\hat B$ and $\hat C$, which introduce the biphoton wavefunction $\psi_b(\tau)$ and the spontaneous-emission wavefunction $\psi_s(\tau)$. These wavefunctions are evaluated using generalized Einstein relations for the Langevin-force diffusion coefficients, giving expressions that remain valid for arbitrary optical depth and for Doppler-broadened lines.

What would settle it

Carry the perturbation of Eq. (53) to second order in $\beta$ and check whether the correction to $G^{(2)}(\tau)$ is indeed of order $\beta^2$; or measure $g^{(2)}(0)$ versus optical depth and detuning in a system with $\beta$ an order of magnitude larger than 0.007 and compare the location of the antibunching dip with the predicted $OD_a$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the quantum statistics of nearly monochromatic light transmitted through a gas of two-level atoms can be obtained from a Heisenberg-Langevin propagation equation for the photon annihilation operator. Solved to first order in the single-mode coupling parameter $\beta$, the propagation equation yields a closed expression for $G^{(2)}(\tau)$ that separates into a coherent term, where the attenuated pump interferes with a biphoton wavefunction $\psi_b(\tau)$, and an incoherent term coming from spontaneous photons emitted into the guided mode. In the closed Doppler-free limit the expression reduces to results previously obtained by scattering theory, and the condition for complete photon antibunching is $\beta\psi_b(0)=-e^{-\alpha(0)L}$. The same formalism is then used to predict how Doppler broadening, detuning, and finite interaction time $\gamma$ shift or spoil antibunching, and the predicted $g^{(2)}(0)$ map over optical depth and detuning agrees with measurements on cold cesium atoms coupled to an optical nanofiber.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes without proof that the first-order-in-$\beta$ solution for the annihilation operator is enough to determine $G^{(2)}(\tau)$ to order $\beta^2$, so no second-order solution is needed; if that fails, the antibunching condition could receive comparable corrections.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a closed Doppler-free system, complete antibunching is predicted when $\beta\psi_b(0)=-e^{-\alpha(0)L}$; at resonance with $\beta=10^{-2}$ this happens at optical depth $OD_a\approx 5.88$, and with detuning there are additional antibunching points at $(OD,\Delta)\approx(6.56,0.450\Gamma)$ and $(7.16,0.841\Gamma)$.
  • Doppler broadening pushes $OD_a$ upward for fixed $\beta$, while the width of the $g^{(2)}(\tau)$ dip is set by the half-width of the Voigt absorption profile regardless of whether the line is homogeneously or inhomogeneously broadened.
  • For an open (nearly closed) system the minimum reachable $g^{(2)}(0)$ is approximately $4\gamma/\Gamma$ in the cold resonant case, and stays near $(4\text{--}5)\gamma/\Gamma$ over a wide range of parameters, so perfect antibunching requires $\gamma\to 0$.
  • In the low-OD limit the model reproduces the scattering-theory result $\psi_0(\tau)=-\alpha_0 L\,e^{-(\Gamma/2-i\Delta)\tau}/(1-2i\Delta/\Gamma)^2$, showing that the Langevin-noise contribution alone accounts for that limit.
  • The predicted $g^{(2)}(0)$ versus optical depth and detuning map matches the measured map for cold cesium atoms on a nanofiber with $\beta=0.007$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the authors leave implicit: the same $\hat B$ and $\hat C$ correlations should give the squeezing spectrum, and known connections between two-photon entanglement and squeezing could be re-derived from Eq. (65) without additional scattering-theory input.
  • The formulas suggest a practical calibration: the depth and location of the antibunching dip give simultaneous access to $\beta$ and $\gamma$, which could be used to characterize other waveguide-QED or nanofiber systems.
  • Because the model is a continuous-medium one, it should transfer to ion-doped crystals, quantum dots, and M\"ossbauer nuclear transitions; the main assumptions to verify there are weak saturation and Markovian Langevin noise.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a Heisenberg-Langevin (H-L) treatment of nearly monochromatic light propagating through a gas of two-level atoms in the weak-saturation limit. The central object is the propagation equation (53) for the frequency-resolved annihilation operator, obtained by coarse-graining the atomic polarization over thin slices and velocity classes; it contains linear absorption, a nonlinear source χ(ϖ,z)a(−ϖ,z)† describing biphoton generation, a linear Langevin term F_l, and a nonlinear Langevin term F_nl. Solving to first order in the mode-coupling parameter β yields Eq. (65), decomposed into the attenuated pump, the linear response B, and the nonlinear response C†. From this the authors derive the second-order correlation function G(2)(τ) as a sum of a biphoton contribution (Eq. 68) and a spontaneous-emission contribution (Eq. 69), with closed-form expressions for the biphoton wavefunction ψb (Eq. 74) and the spontaneous wavefunction ψs (Eq. 75) in the nearly closed limit. They then extract the complete-antibunching condition βψb(0) = −e^{−α(0)L}, compute antibunching optical depths ODa with and without Doppler broadening (Sec. V.B), quantify the minimal g(2)(0) ≈ (4–5)γ/Γ in the open system (Sec. V.C), and compare g(2)(0) predictions with previously unpublished nanofiber-waveguide QED data (Fig. 10).

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper is significant on three grounds. First, it gives a compact derivation — with β and the open-system relaxation rate γ as the only free parameters, while OD and detuning are measured inputs — of photon antibunching in an extended optically thick medium, recovering prior scattering-theory results of refs. [15,22] in the closed-system limit (Eqs. 78 and 80). Second, the analytic asymptotics of Appendices D and E yield falsifiable quantitative predictions, e.g., the ODa curves of Figs. 6–7 and the open-system floor g(2)(0) ≈ 4γ/Γ (Eq. 86). Third, the comparison in Sec. VI anchors the theory to an independent experimental platform rather than fitting it to the target data. The main weakness is that the perturbation-truncation claim in Sec. V.A is asserted rather than proved and is explicitly deferred to a future publication; because the benchmark agreement mainly covers the closed, cold-atom limit, the Doppler and open-system predictions should be regarded as provisional until that truncation is justified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V.A, Eqs. (53)–(65) and (68)–(69)] The claim that the first-order-in-β solution (65) determines G(2)(τ) to order β² in the Φ₀² sector is stated as 'It is easy to show' and deferred to a subsequent publication, but it is load-bearing for essentially all new results: the antibunching condition βψb(0) = −e^{−α(0)L}, the ODa values in Figs. 5–7, and the open-system minimal g(2)(0) ≈ 4γ/Γ of Eq. (86). The next iterate of Eq. (53), obtained by inserting the first-order operator C(−ϖ,ζ)† into the nonlinear source χ(ϖ,ζ)a(−ϖ,ζ)†, is not computed, so the reader cannot check that it contributes only beyond the retained order in Φ₀, or vanishes by Gaussianity of the Langevin forces and normal ordering. I ask that the authors either supply this power-counting proof explicitly, or compute the second-order contribution and show that it does not alter Eqs. (68)–(69), or derive the Doppler and open-system g(2) by an independent scattering-theory method as in refs. [15,22]. The manuscript's own admission that the higher-order analysis is deferred makes this a mandatory revision rather than a presentational point.
  2. [Sec. VI, Fig. 10] The experimental validation is not quantified. Figure 10c presents previously unpublished g(2)(0) data as a 2D plot against OD and detuning, and the text states 'good quantitative agreement', but no error bars, number of data points, residuals, or goodness-of-fit statistic are provided, and the OD/Δ calibration procedure is not described. Since the model uses the independently measured β = 0.007 ± 0.002, the agreement claim would be much better supported by per-point deviations normalized by per-point uncertainties or a reduced χ². As written, the comparison cannot discriminate between the truncated theory and a version with additional O(β²) corrections, which is exactly the issue raised in the previous comment.
  3. [Sec. V.B, Eqs. (74)–(80)] The claimed reproduction of the scattering-theory results of refs. [15,22] is demonstrated explicitly only in the low-OD limit (Eq. 78). For arbitrary optical depth — the regime used to derive the antibunching condition and ODa — the text simply asserts that the closed-system expression (80), with ψb from Eq. (74), matches the known results. Because this benchmark is the main independent support for the truncation, the authors should exhibit the correspondence explicitly, for example by showing that Eq. (80) yields the same g(2)(0) and the same antibunching optical depth as the analytical model of ref. [22] over the full OD range.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (B12)] The final term of Eq. (B12) reads 'β²(|ψs(τ)|² + β²|ψs(0)|²)', which contains an apparent extra factor β² inside the second term; comparison with Eq. (69), which has β²[|ψs(τ)|² + |ψs(0)|²], suggests an internal inconsistency that should be corrected.
  2. [Appendix C, Eq. (C3)] The intermediate expression for G(1)(0) in Eq. (C3) uses auxiliary functions κc(ϖ) and κ0(ϖ) that are never defined; since only the simplified form (C4) is used later, either define these functions or omit the intermediate line.
  3. [Sec. V.B, Eqs. (52) and (72)] The definition of the Voigt absorption coefficient is not consistent across the text: Eq. (52) contains the probe detuning ϖ through Δ + ϖ, while Eq. (72) is written as α(ϖ) = α0∫dvz W(vz)L(ΔD) with no ϖ in the argument, even though Eqs. (70)–(71) rely on α(±ϖ). Please state explicitly that the argument in (72) is evaluated at the corresponding sideband, e.g., L(ΔD + ϖ), so the phase-matching integrals are unambiguous.
  4. [References] Reference [28] (Barredo et al.) does not appear to be cited in the body of the paper; please either cite it where atom-array platforms are discussed or remove it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is self-contained, with β and OD as independently measured inputs and external scattering-theory benchmarks; the main caveat is an unproved perturbation truncation, which is a proof gap rather than circularity.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: it starts from the Heisenberg-Langevin equations (21)–(24), solves for the atomic coherence under weak saturation (44)–(48), builds the propagation equation (53), solves it by successive approximation (59)–(65), and evaluates G(2) using operator correlations (A6)–(A13). The key output formulas (68)–(69) and the closed-system form (74) are derived, not imported. The agreement with scattering theory for small optical depth, Eq. (78), is an external benchmark against the independent result of [15,22], not an input assumption. The parameter β = 0.007 ± 0.002 is taken from prior waveguide-QED work [20] as an independently measured mode-coupling constant; it is not fitted to the g(2)(OD, Δ) data reported here. OD is an experimental control variable changed via trap loading time, likewise not fitted to the target correlation data. Self-citations in the paper (e.g., [16,17,20,22]) are used as benchmarks or experimental calibration, but the central derivation does not reduce to them. The one explicit weakness is in Sec. V.A, after Eq. (65): the paper asserts without proof that the first-order-in-β solution suffices to determine G(2) to O(β^2) ('It is easy to show...'), deferring details to a subsequent publication. That is a missing proof or possible power-counting gap, since the next iterate of Eq. (53) could contribute at the quoted order, but it is a correctness issue rather than a circular one: the claim is not definitionally identical to the theory's inputs, and no fitted quantity has been renamed as a prediction. The experimental comparison in Fig. 10c is presented without error bars or a quantified goodness-of-fit, which weakens the strength of validation but does not make the theory circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on standard quantum optics approximations (Markovian reservoir, weak saturation, continuous medium) rather than on new physical postulates. The main externally supplied inputs are the mode coupling fraction beta and atomic relaxation parameters, both measured in prior work. No new entities are proposed.

free parameters (2)
  • beta (fraction of emitted photons coupled into the guided mode) = 0.007 +/- 0.002, from prior experiment (ref [20])
    Used in the model (e.g., Eq. 68, Fig. 10b) and in the antibunching condition; measured independently, not fitted to the g(2) data presented here.
  • gamma (extra relaxation rate in open system) = unspecified; assumed gamma << Gamma
    Introduced to model finite interaction time, transit effects, or other decoherence; not measured here; the predicted g(2)(0) ~ 4 gamma/Gamma depends on it.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The atomic medium is a continuous medium with a large number of atoms per velocity and spatial bin (N >> 1), allowing local collective operators.
    Used to write the propagation equation (15) and the scaling in Eq. (49). Assumes a dense enough ensemble, which holds for the nanofiber experiment but may fail for few-atom systems.
  • domain assumption The Langevin noise forces are delta-correlated in time, space, and velocity, with diffusion coefficients given by the generalized Einstein relations (Eq. 38).
    This is the standard Markovian reservoir assumption; it determines the incoherent contributions to G(2).
  • domain assumption The weak saturation approximation S << 1 is valid throughout the medium.
    Used to truncate the single-atom Langevin solution at low order in the pump amplitude (Sec. III).
  • domain assumption The laser field is nearly monochromatic and the pump linewidth is much smaller than all atomic spectral widths.
    Justifies the frequency-domain decomposition and the description of the pump as a delta-like coherent amplitude (Secs. II.B and III).
  • domain assumption Propagation is one-dimensional along z with negligible diffraction and constant transverse mode area.
    Assumed in Eq. (1) and Sec. II.A; important for the nanofiber geometry but not for a full 3D gas cell.
  • domain assumption The atomic response is governed by a two-level model with specific relaxation rates and Gamma_21 = Gamma.
    Defines the level structure and relaxation model (Sec. II.D); used in all expressions.
  • standard math Langevin forces are Gaussian processes, used in evaluating fourth-order correlation functions.
    Used in Appendix B to factor correlators into products of second-order correlators.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photon Transport in a Gas of Two-Level Atoms: Unveiling Quantum Light Creation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XYUHHL72

@misc{pith2026250103013,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photon Transport in a Gas of Two-Level Atoms: Unveiling Quantum Light Creation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XYUHHL72}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03013}
}
abstract

We present a theoretical analysis of nearly monochromatic light propagation through a gas of two-level atoms using the Heisenberg-Langevin equation method. Our focus is on the evolution of the photon annihilation operator and its impact on the second-order correlation function, $g^{(2)}({\tau})$, with particular emphasis on photon antibunching behavior. The model accounts for both open and closed atomic system approximations, including Doppler broadening and the influence of pump field detuning. We derive expressions that reproduce known results from scattering theory and extend the analysis to complex systems, such as inhomogeneously broadened media. The theoretical predictions are compared with experimental data from a waveguide QED platform, which show good agreement and thereby demonstrate the power of our approach. Future work will explore extensions to even more complex systems and other quantum light characteristics for practical applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03013 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A nearly monochromatic laser field with frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Model of relaxation processes in an open two-level [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Spontaneous emission wavefunction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Biphoton wavefunction value at zero delay, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Biphoton wavefunction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The antibunching optical depth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Density plot of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (a) Schematic of the experimental set-up. A near [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Masters, X

    L. Masters, X. X. Hu, M. Cordier, G. Maron, L. Pache, A. Rauschenbeutel, M. Schemmer, and J. Volz, On the simultaneous scattering of two photons by a single two- level atom, Nat. Photonics 17, 972 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    The influence of diffraction will be discussed in a future publication, where the field will be modeled as a Gaus- sian beam

    Moreover, we neglect diffraction effects by assuming a small Fresnel number. The influence of diffraction will be discussed in a future publication, where the field will be modeled as a Gaus- sian beam. The field is described by quantum mechanical opera- tors in the slowly-varying envelope approximation. We use the Heisenberg picture, where the operators ...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Hammerer, A

    K. Hammerer, A. S. Sørensen, and E. S. Polzik, Quantum interface between light and atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1041 (2010)

    2010

  4. [3]

    Allen and J

    L. Allen and J. H. Eberly, Optical Resonance and Two- Level Atoms (Dover Publications, New York, 1987)

    1987

  5. [4]

    Fleischhauer, A

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

    2005

  6. [5]

    Haroche and J

    S. Haroche and J. M. Raimond, Exploring the Quantum: Atoms, Cavities, and Photons(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006)

    work page 2006

  7. [6]

    M. I. Kolobov, ed., Quantum Imaging (Springer, New York, 2007)

    work page 2007

  8. [7]

    K. M. Birnbaum, A. Boca, R. Miller, A. D. Boozer, T. E. Northup, and H. J. Kimble, Photon blockade in an optical cavity with one trapped atom, Nature (London) 436, 87 (2005)

    2005

Show all 30 references
  1. [8]

    D. F. Walls and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Optics (Springer, Berlin, 2008)

    2008

  2. [9]

    Dalibard and S

    J. Dalibard and S. Reynaud, Correlation signals in reso- nance fluorescence: Interpretation via photon scattering amplitudes, J. Phys. (Paris) 44, 1337 (1983)

    1983

  3. [10]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, J

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Atom-Photon Interactions: Basic Processes and Applica- tions (Wiley, New York, 1998)

    1998

  4. [11]

    C. W. Gardiner and M. J. Collett, Input and output in damped quantum systems: Quantum stochastic differen- tial equations and the master equation, Phys. Rev. A 31, 3761 (1985)

    1985

  5. [12]

    H. J. Carmichael, An Open Systems Approach to Quan- tum Optics (Springer, Berlin, 2009)

    2009

  6. [13]

    Kolchin, Electromagnetically-induced-transparency- based paired photon generation, Phys

    P. Kolchin, Electromagnetically-induced-transparency- based paired photon generation, Phys. Rev. A75, 033814 (2007)

    2007

  7. [14]

    C. H. Raymond Ooi, Q. Sun, M. S. Zubairy, and M. O. Scully, Correlation of photon pairs from the double Ra- man amplifier: Generalized analytical quantum Langevin theory, Phys. Rev. A 75, 013820 (2007)

    2007

  8. [15]

    Jiang, Y

    Y. Jiang, Y. Mei, and S. Du, Quantum Langevin theory for two coupled phase-conjugated electromagnetic waves, Phys. Rev. A 107, 053703 (2023)

    2023

  9. [16]

    Mahmoodian, M

    S. Mahmoodian, M. ˇCepulkovskis, S. Das, P. Lodahl, K. Hammerer, and A. S. Sørensen, Strongly correlated photon transport in waveguide quantum electrodynam- ics with weakly coupled emitters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 143601 (2018)

    2018

  10. [17]

    A. S. Prasad, J. Hinney, S. Mahmoodian, K. Hammerer, S. Rind, P. Schneeweiss, A. S. Sørensen, J. Volz, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Correlating photons using the collective nonlinear response of atoms weakly coupled to an optical mode, Nat. Photonics 14, 719 (2020)

    2020

  11. [18]

    Hinney, A

    J. Hinney, A. S. Prasad, S. Mahmoodian, K. Hammerer, A. Rauschenbeutel, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, and M. Schemmer, Unraveling two-photon entanglement via the squeezing spectrum of light traveling through nanofiber- coupled atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 123602 (2021)

    2021

  12. [19]

    A. S. Sheremet, M. I. Petrov, I. V. Iorsh, A. V. Poshakin- skiy, and A. N. Poddubny, Waveguide quantum electro- dynamics: Collective radiance and photon-photon corre- lations, Rev. Mod. Phys. 95, 015002 (2023)

    2023

  13. [20]

    K. J. Kusmierek, S. Mahmoodian, M. Cordier, J. Hin- ney, A. Rauschenbeutel, M. Schemmer, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, and K. Hammerer, Higher-order mean-field the- ory of chiral waveguide QED, SciPost Phys. Core 6, 041 (2023)

    2023

  14. [21]

    Cordier, M

    M. Cordier, M. Schemmer, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Tailoring photon statistics with an atom-based two-photon interferometer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 183601 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Schemmer, M

    M. Schemmer, M. Cordier, L. Pache, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Simple analytical model describing the collective nonlinear response of an ensem- ble of two-level emitters weakly coupled to a waveguide (2024), arXiv:2410.21202 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A. F. Molisch and B. P. Oehry, Radiation Trapping in Atomic Vapours (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998)

    1998

  17. [25]

    Fleischhauer and M

    M. Fleischhauer and M. D. Lukin, Dark-state polaritons in electromagnetically induced transparency, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5094 (2000)

    2000

  18. [26]

    Fleischhauer and M

    M. Fleischhauer and M. D. Lukin, Quantum memory for photons: Dark-state polaritons, Phys. Rev. A 65, 022314 (2002)

    2002

  19. [27]

    Gross and S

    M. Gross and S. Haroche, Superradiance: An essay on 19 the theory of collective spontaneous emission, Phys. Rep. 93, 301 (1982)

    1982

  20. [28]

    Tanji-Suzuki, I

    H. Tanji-Suzuki, I. D. Leroux, M. H. Schleier-Smith, M. Cetina, A. T. Grier, J. Simon, and V. Vuleti´ c, Interaction between atomic ensembles and optical resonators: Clas- sical description, in Advances in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, Vol. 60, pp. 201–237 (Academic ...

    2011

  21. [29]

    Barredo, S

    D. Barredo, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, V. Lienhard, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, An atom-by-atom assembler of defect-free arbitrary two-dimensional atomic arrays, Science 354, 1021 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    Vetsch, D

    E. Vetsch, D. Reitz, G. Sagu´ e, R. Schmidt, S. T. Dawkins, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Optical interface cre- ated by laser-cooled atoms trapped in the evanescent field surrounding an optical nanofiber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 203603 (2010)

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.