Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Simulation

Quantum versus classical dynamics in the optical centrifuge

arXiv
Authors: Tsafrir Armon, Lazar Friedland

Year

2017

Paper ID

44707

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

97

Citations

N/A

Abstract

The interplay between classical and quantum mechanical evolution in the optical centrifuge (OC) is discussed. The analysis is based on the quantum mechanical formalism starting from either the ground state or a thermal ensemble. Two resonant mechanisms are identified, i.e. the classical autoresonance and the quantum mechanical ladder-climbing, yielding different dynamics and rotational excitation efficiencies. The rotating wave approximation is used to analyze the two resonant regimes in the associated dimensionless two-parameter space and calculate the OC excitation efficiency. The results show good agreement between numerical simulations and theory and are relevant to existing experimental setups.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Simulation research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2017 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • The interplay between classical and quantum mechanical evolution in the optical centrifuge (OC) is discussed.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #44707 #78846 Analog quantum simulation of Sh... #78810 Secure Quantum Handshakes: Quan... #78802 Quantum Co-Design of Inhomogene... #78801 Constructing Large and Structur...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.