Quick Navigation
Topics
Open Quantum Systems Decoherence
Quantum Chemistry
Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations
Effect of atomic beam alignment on photon correlation measurements in cavity QED
arXiv
Authors: L. Horvath, H. J. Carmichael
Year
2007
Paper ID
50587
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
102
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Quantum trajectory simulations of a cavity QED system comprising an atomic beam traversing a standing-wave cavity are carried out. The delayed photon coincident rate for forwards scattering is computed and compared with the measurements of Rempe et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 1727 (1991)] and Foster et al. [Phys. Rev. A 61, 053821 (2000)]. It is shown that a moderate atomic beam misalignment can account for the degradation of the predicted correlation. Fits to the experimental data are made in the weak-field limit with a single adjustable parameter--the atomic beam tilt from perpendicular to the cavity axis. Departures of the measurement conditions from the weak-field limit are discussed.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Chemistry research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2007 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Quantum trajectory simulations of a cavity QED system comprising an atomic beam traversing a standing-wave cavity are carried out.
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
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
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.