Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Physical Review A

Reply to ‘Comment on “Discrepancies in the resonance-fluorescence spectrum calculated with two methods” ’

Qing Yang Xu, Xiangming Hu, Jian-wu Yin

Published May 11, 2009• 0 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1103/physreva.79.057402

Related papers

Comment on “Discrepancies in the resonance-fluorescence spectrum calculated with two methods”

Z. Ficek

There are two alternative methods used in the literature to calculate the incoherent part of the spectrum of light scattered by an atomic system. In the first, one calculates the spectrum of the total light scattered by the system and obtains the incoherent part by subtracting the coherent part. In the second method, one introduces the fluctuation operators and obtains the incoherent part of the spectrum by taking the Fourier transform of the two-time correlation function of the fluctuation operators. These two methods have been recognized for years as completely equivalent for evaluating the incoherent part of the spectrum. In a recent paper, Xu et al. [Phys. Rev. A 78, 013407 (2008)] showed that there are discrepancies between the incoherent parts of the stationary spectrum of a three-level $\ensuremath{\Lambda}$-type system calculated with these two methods. The predicted discrepancies can be severe that over a wide range of the Rabi frequencies and atomic decay rates, the spectrum calculated with the variance method can have negative values. In this Comment, we show that there are no discrepancies between these two methods. We show the equivalence of these two methods that leads to the same incoherent spectra which are positive for all frequencies independent of values of the parameters involved. We also identify the source of the discrepancy, that is, in an incorrect treatment of the incoherent part of the spectrum calculated with the two-time correlation function of the fluctuation operators.

arXiv:0808.3432•Physical Review A•May 11, 2009•1 citation

On the determination of Green's functions involved in a description of resonance fluorescence

Robert L. Fulton

The Journal of Chemical Physics•Jul 1, 1974•0 citations

Resonance fluorescence spectrum of a three-level atom. II. Numerical results

K.J. Woloschuk, S. Hontzeas, Constantine Mavroyannis

Optics Communications•Jun 1, 1982•5 citations

Discrepancies in the resonance-fluorescence spectrum calculated with two methods

Qing Yang Xu, Xiangming Hu, Jian-wu Yin

The discrepancies in the power spectrum of the light scattered by a coherently driven three-level atom are identified with the help of two methods [see, A. S. Manka et al., Phys. Rev. A 43, 3748 (1991); M. R. Ferguson et al., Phys. Rev. A 54, 2379 (1996)]. Moreover, the most prominent differences are the negative values as well as the greatly distorted profile in the spectrum. It is shown that the inhomogeneity or homogeneity of the two-time correlation Bloch vector equation is responsible for such discrepancies.

Physical Review A•Jul 10, 2008•3 citations

Reply to "Comment on `Theory of collective resonance fluorescence in strong driving fields' "

G. Compagno, Franco Persico

In relation to Seke's Comment, some remarks are presented concerning the qualitative agreement between the results obtained by the simple decoupling technique used by the authors and previous numerical calculation.

Physical Review A•Sep 1, 1984•2 citations

Comments on the Resonance Fluorescence in Gases

C. Alden Mead, Hendrik F. Hameka

The Journal of Chemical Physics•Jan 15, 1964•1 citation
There are two alternative methods used in the literature to calculate the incoherent part of the spectrum of light scattered by an atomic system. In the first, one calculates the spectrum of the total light scattered by the system and obtains the incoherent part by subtracting the coherent part. In the second method, one introduces the fluctuation operators and obtains the incoherent part of the spectrum by taking the Fourier transform of the two-time correlation function of the fluctuation operators. These two methods have been recognized for years as completely equivalent for evaluating the incoherent part of the spectrum. In a recent paper, Xu et al. [Phys. Rev. A 78, 013407 (2008)] showed that there are discrepancies between the incoherent parts of the stationary spectrum of a three-level $\ensuremath{\Lambda}$-type system calculated with these two methods. The predicted discrepancies can be severe that over a wide range of the Rabi frequencies and atomic decay rates, the spectrum calculated with the variance method can have negative values. In this Comment, we show that there are no discrepancies between these two methods. We show the equivalence of these two methods that leads to the same incoherent spectra which are positive for all frequencies independent of values of the parameters involved. We also identify the source of the discrepancy, that is, in an incorrect treatment of the incoherent part of the spectrum calculated with the two-time correlation function of the fluctuation operators.
The discrepancies in the power spectrum of the light scattered by a coherently driven three-level atom are identified with the help of two methods [see, A. S. Manka et al., Phys. Rev. A 43, 3748 (1991); M. R. Ferguson et al., Phys. Rev. A 54, 2379 (1996)]. Moreover, the most prominent differences are the negative values as well as the greatly distorted profile in the spectrum. It is shown that the inhomogeneity or homogeneity of the two-time correlation Bloch vector equation is responsible for such discrepancies.