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

Optics Communications

Transient theory of lasing without inversion and nonlinear response of split microwave transition

Victor R. Blok, Gennady M. Krochik

Published Apr 1, 1991• 9 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1016/0030-4018(91)90465-p

Related papers

Lasing without inversion: nonlinear theory

Shi-Yao Zhu, Marlan O. Scully

•May 21, 1990•0 citations

Nonlinear theory of lasing with or without inversion in a simple three-level atomic system

Shangqing Gong, Si-de Du, Zhizhan Xu

Optics Communications•Oct 1, 1996•6 citations

Lasing without inversion III: microwave coupling induced atomic coherence

H. Fearn, Marlan O. Scully, Shi-Yao Zhu +1 more

Zeitschrift für Physik D Atoms Molecules and Clusters•Jun 1, 1992•16 citations

Lasing without inversion in a simple model of a three-level laser with microwave coupling

H. Fearn, Christoph H. Keitel, Marlan O. Scully +1 more

Optics Communications•Feb 1, 1992•27 citations

Nonlinear dynamics in lasing without inversion

J. Mompart, R. Corbal�n, Ramon A. Vilaseca

Radiophysics and Quantum Electronics•Oct 1, 2004•2 citations

Feasibility of lasing without inversion in the two-level system with split upper levels coupled by microwave radiation

Victor R. Blok, Gennady M. Krochik

Zhu, Cresser, and Fearn [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 43, 5170 (1991)] give an erroneous formal proof that lasing without inversion in the system with two upper optically identical levels is impossible. Their approach has little to do with the case of two close but different, well-separated split levels, considered in our previous paper [Blok and Krochik, Phys. Rev. A 41, 1517 (1990)]. It is evident even without laborious calculation that lasing without inversion is impossible in the system of indistinguishable levels, considered by Zhu, Cresser, and Fearn, because one cannot provide the interference among identical transitions. Their formal proof is, in addition, incorrect because they apply a steady-state approximation to the conditions where it is not valid; the transient response of the medium must be calculated instead. We also used the steady-state approximation in our previous paper, but very cautiously, in a domain where it is valid to obtain some analytical formulas, which proved to be qualitatively correct under the transient response approach [Blok and Krochik (unpublished)].

Physical Review A•May 1, 1991•2 citations
Zhu, Cresser, and Fearn [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 43, 5170 (1991)] give an erroneous formal proof that lasing without inversion in the system with two upper optically identical levels is impossible. Their approach has little to do with the case of two close but different, well-separated split levels, considered in our previous paper [Blok and Krochik, Phys. Rev. A 41, 1517 (1990)]. It is evident even without laborious calculation that lasing without inversion is impossible in the system of indistinguishable levels, considered by Zhu, Cresser, and Fearn, because one cannot provide the interference among identical transitions. Their formal proof is, in addition, incorrect because they apply a steady-state approximation to the conditions where it is not valid; the transient response of the medium must be calculated instead. We also used the steady-state approximation in our previous paper, but very cautiously, in a domain where it is valid to obtain some analytical formulas, which proved to be qualitatively correct under the transient response approach [Blok and Krochik (unpublished)].