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 ‘Collective effects and trapping states by a quantum-trajectory treatment of micromaser dynamics’ ”

Federico Casagrande, F. Castelli, ALFREDO LULLI

Published Feb 25, 2003• 1 citation
Publisher

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.67.027802

Related papers

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

David B. Johnson, William C. Schieve

A quantum trajectory analysis of the steady-state photon statistics of a micromaser by Casagrande and collaborators [F. Casagrande et al., Phys. Rev. A 60, 1582 (1999)] shows a significant suppression of the trapping behavior due to the inclusion of two-atom events. We use numerical integration in our investigation and obtain results that disagree with their analysis and show less suppression of the trapping behavior. A comparison with two extreme cases places our results between the two extremes and gives us confidence that our calculations are correct. The results of Casagrande and collaborators do not satisfy this condition.

Physical Review A•Feb 25, 2003•2 citations

Comment on “Theory of detection in the micromaser”

Ulrike Herzog

In a recent paper [R. R. McGowan and W. C. Schieve, Phys. Rev. A 59, 778 (1999)], the authors claim that the detection of the outcoming atoms has a back-action effect on the spectrum of the micromaser field. We point out that this assertion is wrong. In particular, we discuss the connection between atom statistics and field statistics, which has been stated to be the ultimate goal of the cited paper.

Physical Review A•Mar 2, 2000•2 citations

Collective effects and trapping states by a quantum-trajectory treatment of micromaser dynamics

Federico Casagrande, ALFREDO LULLI, Simone Ulzega

By applying a quantum-trajectory approach to a master equation for the cavity mode density operator, we investigate the dynamics and the trapping states of a micromaser or microlaser including the effects of cavity temperature, two-atom events, atomic velocity spread, and partial excitation of the atomic beam. In the description of two-atom collective effects we allow for the nonsimultaneous arrival of atoms in the cavity, generalizing to a mean number of atoms ${N}_{\mathrm{at}}\ensuremath{\approx}1,$ a recent treatment [M. I. Kolobov and F. Haake, Phys. Rev. A 55, 3033 (1997)]. We show that, in trapping regions, our treatment of two-atom events can give strikingly different effects with respect to the approximation of simultaneous arrival of atom pairs; e.g., detrapping instead of trapping, different times of approach to the steady state, and different photonstatistics. Also, we simulate micromaser dynamics with parameter values corresponding to the recent experimental observation of the trapping effect by Walther and collaborators [H. Weidinger et al., Technical Digest of the European Quantum Electronics Conference '98 (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 1998)].

Physical Review A•Aug 1, 1999•14 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Quantum time-of-flight distribution for cold trapped atoms’ ”

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

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.

Physical Review A•Feb 21, 2008•2 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Coherent-state path integrals in the continuum’”

G. Kordas, S. I. Mistakidis, A. I. Karanikas

In this Reply we briefly clarify the main points of our method to construct coherent-state path integrals in the continuum and we reply to the critique raised by in the preceding Comment by Kochetov [Phys. Rev. A 99, 026101 (2019)]. By using definite examples, we prove that our approach is capable of resolving the inconsistencies accompanying the standard coherent-state path-integral representation of interacting systems.

Physical Review A•Feb 13, 2019•3 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Particle path through a nested Mach-Zehnder interferometer' ”

Robert B. Griffiths

While much of the technical analysis in the preceding Comment is correct, in the end it confirms the conclusion reached in my previous work [Phys. Rev. A 94, 032115 (2016)]: A consistent histories analysis provides no support for the claim of counterfactual quantum communication put forward by Salih et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 170502 (2013)].

arXiv:1712.01895•Physical Review A•Feb 9, 2018•12 citations
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.
A quantum trajectory analysis of the steady-state photon statistics of a micromaser by Casagrande and collaborators [F. Casagrande et al., Phys. Rev. A 60, 1582 (1999)] shows a significant suppression of the trapping behavior due to the inclusion of two-atom events. We use numerical integration in our investigation and obtain results that disagree with their analysis and show less suppression of the trapping behavior. A comparison with two extreme cases places our results between the two extremes and gives us confidence that our calculations are correct. The results of Casagrande and collaborators do not satisfy this condition.
By applying a quantum-trajectory approach to a master equation for the cavity mode density operator, we investigate the dynamics and the trapping states of a micromaser or microlaser including the effects of cavity temperature, two-atom events, atomic velocity spread, and partial excitation of the atomic beam. In the description of two-atom collective effects we allow for the nonsimultaneous arrival of atoms in the cavity, generalizing to a mean number of atoms ${N}_{\mathrm{at}}\ensuremath{\approx}1,$ a recent treatment [M. I. Kolobov and F. Haake, Phys. Rev. A 55, 3033 (1997)]. We show that, in trapping regions, our treatment of two-atom events can give strikingly different effects with respect to the approximation of simultaneous arrival of atom pairs; e.g., detrapping instead of trapping, different times of approach to the steady state, and different photonstatistics. Also, we simulate micromaser dynamics with parameter values corresponding to the recent experimental observation of the trapping effect by Walther and collaborators [H. Weidinger et al., Technical Digest of the European Quantum Electronics Conference '98 (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 1998)].
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.