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 ‘Quantum time-of-flight distribution for cold trapped atoms’ ”

Md. Manirul Ali, Dipankar Home, A. S. Majumdar, A. K. Pan

Published Feb 21, 2008• 2 citations
Publisher

Abstract

In their comment Gomes et al. [Phys. Rev. A 77, 026101 (2008)] have questioned the possibility of empirically testable differences existing between the semiclassical time of flight distribution for cold trapped atoms and a quantum distribution discussed by us recently [Ali et al., Phys. Rev. A 75, 042110 (2007).]. We argue that their criticism is based on a semiclassical treatment having restricted applicability for a particular trapping potential. Their claim does not preclude, in general, the possibility of differences between the semiclassical calculations and fully quantum results for the arrival time distribution of freely falling atoms.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.77.026102

Related papers

Comment on “Quantum time-of-flight distribution for cold trapped atoms”

José Viana‐Gomes, Michael Scott Belsley, Denis Boiron

Ali et al. [Phys. Rev. A 75, 042110 (2007)] have claimed that empirically testable differences exist between the quantum and semiclassical time of flight distribution for cold trapped atoms. We believe these claims to be misleading. For the particular case of noninteracting bosonic particles released from a harmonic trapping potential, we show that the quantum and semiclassical calculations for the time-of-flight distribution are equivalent, provided one is not too close to the quantum degeneracy point.

Physical Review A•Feb 21, 2008•4 citations

Quantum time-of-flight distribution for cold trapped atoms

Md. Manirul Ali, Dipankar Home, A. S. Majumdar +1 more

The time-of-flight distribution for a cloud of cold atoms falling freely under gravity is considered. We generalize the probability current density approach to calculate the quantum arrival time distribution for the mixed state describing the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of velocities for the falling atoms. We find an empirically testable difference between the time-of-flight distribution calculated using the quantum probability current and that obtained from a purely classical treatment which is usually employed in analyzing time-of-flight measurements. The classical time-of-flight distribution matches with the quantum distribution in the large mass and high temperature limits.

arXiv:quant-ph/0701060•Physical Review A•Apr 20, 2007•12 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Collective effects and trapping states by a quantum-trajectory treatment of micromaser dynamics’ ”

Federico Casagrande, F. Castelli, ALFREDO LULLI

In the preceding Comment [Phys. Rev. A 67, 027801 (2003)] Johnson and Schieve raise doubts on the validity of a result obtained in our treatment of collective atomic effects in micromaser dynamics [Phys. Rev. A 60, 1582 (1999)]. We fully confirm the validity of our results, showing that the conclusions derived from their analysis are not relevant.

Physical Review A•Feb 25, 2003•1 citation

Questioning the adequacy of certain quantum arrival-time distributions

Siddhant Das, Ward Struyve

It is shown that a class of exponentially decaying time-of-arrival probability distributions, suggested by W\l{}odarz [Phys. Rev. A 65, 044103 (2002)], Marchewka and Schuss [Phys. Lett. A 240, 177 (1998), Phys. Rev. A 63, 032108 (2001); Phys. Rev. A 65, 042112 (2002)], and Jurman and Nikoli\ifmmode \acute{c}\else \'{c}\fi{} [Phys. Lett. A 396, 127247 (2021)], and a semiclassical distribution implicit in time-of-flight momentum measurements do not show the expected behavior for a Gaussian wave train. This casts doubts on the physical adequacy of these arrival-time proposals. In contrast, the quantum flux distribution (a special case of the Bohmian arrival-time distribution) displays the expected behavior.

arXiv:2105.14744•Physical Review A•Oct 18, 2021•17 citations

Reply to "Comment on "Quantum Time Crystals from Hamiltonians with Long-Range Interactions""

Valerii K. Kozin, Oleksandr Kyriienko

In the note by Khemani et al. [arXiv:2001.11037] the authors express conceptual disagreement with our recent paper on quantum time crystals [Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 210602]. They criticise the idealized nature of the considered quantum time crystal, and make several points about properties of Hamiltonians presented in our work. In this reply we answer one-by-one all questions raised in the discussion. As for the ideological dispute, it brightly highlights a bizarre nature of time crystalline order in closed quantum systems, and we offer a different vision for the development of the field.

arXiv:2005.06321•May 13, 2020•2 citations

Reply to Comment on ‘Quantitative probing of the quantum–classical transition for the arrival time distribution’

Dipankar Home, A. K. Pan, Arka Banerjee

We provide a careful analysis of the proper significance of Riahi?s comment in light of our paper (2009 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 42 165302). We point out a fundamental difference between the quantum?classical correspondence scheme considered in our paper and that used in Riahi?s comment.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•May 1, 2013•0 citations
In their comment Gomes et al. [Phys. Rev. A 77, 026101 (2008)] have questioned the possibility of empirically testable differences existing between the semiclassical time of flight distribution for cold trapped atoms and a quantum distribution discussed by us recently [Ali et al., Phys. Rev. A 75, 042110 (2007).]. We argue that their criticism is based on a semiclassical treatment having restricted applicability for a particular trapping potential. Their claim does not preclude, in general, the possibility of differences between the semiclassical calculations and fully quantum results for the arrival time distribution of freely falling atoms.
Ali et al. [Phys. Rev. A 75, 042110 (2007)] have claimed that empirically testable differences exist between the quantum and semiclassical time of flight distribution for cold trapped atoms. We believe these claims to be misleading. For the particular case of noninteracting bosonic particles released from a harmonic trapping potential, we show that the quantum and semiclassical calculations for the time-of-flight distribution are equivalent, provided one is not too close to the quantum degeneracy point.
The time-of-flight distribution for a cloud of cold atoms falling freely under gravity is considered. We generalize the probability current density approach to calculate the quantum arrival time distribution for the mixed state describing the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of velocities for the falling atoms. We find an empirically testable difference between the time-of-flight distribution calculated using the quantum probability current and that obtained from a purely classical treatment which is usually employed in analyzing time-of-flight measurements. The classical time-of-flight distribution matches with the quantum distribution in the large mass and high temperature limits.
It is shown that a class of exponentially decaying time-of-arrival probability distributions, suggested by W\l{}odarz [Phys. Rev. A 65, 044103 (2002)], Marchewka and Schuss [Phys. Lett. A 240, 177 (1998), Phys. Rev. A 63, 032108 (2001); Phys. Rev. A 65, 042112 (2002)], and Jurman and Nikoli\ifmmode \acute{c}\else \'{c}\fi{} [Phys. Lett. A 396, 127247 (2021)], and a semiclassical distribution implicit in time-of-flight momentum measurements do not show the expected behavior for a Gaussian wave train. This casts doubts on the physical adequacy of these arrival-time proposals. In contrast, the quantum flux distribution (a special case of the Bohmian arrival-time distribution) displays the expected behavior.
In the note by Khemani et al. [arXiv:2001.11037] the authors express conceptual disagreement with our recent paper on quantum time crystals [Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 210602]. They criticise the idealized nature of the considered quantum time crystal, and make several points about properties of Hamiltonians presented in our work. In this reply we answer one-by-one all questions raised in the discussion. As for the ideological dispute, it brightly highlights a bizarre nature of time crystalline order in closed quantum systems, and we offer a different vision for the development of the field.