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

Physica Scripta

Reply to comments on ‘A three-level atom interacting with a single mode cavity field: different configurations’ and ‘The general formalism for a three-level atom interacting with a two-mode cavity field’

N. H. Abdel-Wahab

Published Jan 24, 2012• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

In this reply, I respond to the criticisms of my two papers (2007 Phys. Scr. 76 244–8 and 2007 Phys. Scr. 76 233–7) made by Hassan (2012 Phys. Scr. 85 027001). In particular, there is a correction to equation (7) in the first paper, while the second paper has no error.
DOI
10.1088/0031-8949/85/02/027002

Related papers

Comments on ‘A three-level atom interacting with a single mode cavity field: different configurations’ and ‘The general formalism for a three-level atom interacting with a two-mode cavity field’

Mohamed Ahmed Hassan

Some corrections in the Hamiltonian of the {atom+field} system found in the papers by Addel-Wahab (2007 Phys. Scr. 76 244–8 and 2007 Phys. Scr. 76 233–7).

Physica Scripta•Jan 24, 2012•1 citation

Entanglement in a general formalism of a V -type three-level atom interacting with a correlated two-mode cavity field in the presence of nonlinearities

A. A. Eied

Journal of Russian Laser Research•May 1, 2011•0 citations

General formalism of the interaction of a single-mode cavity field with a four-level atom

N. H. Abdel-Wahab

The European Physical Journal Plus•Mar 1, 2011•8 citations

Reply to Comment on ‘Electromagnetic potentials without gauge transformation’

Andrew E. Chubykalo, Augusto Espinoza, Rolando Alvarado Flores

This is a reply to the criticism from Engelhardt and Onoochin of our work (2011 Phys. Scr. 84 015009): a general argument for the possibility of different solutions in different gauges unrelated to gauge transformation; a result that has been given by Engelhardt and Onoochin using examples. For this reason we are not in any sense trying to refute the statements made by Engelhardt and Onoochin, instead we are offering a possible theoretical explanation of their results.

Physica Scripta•Mar 22, 2012•1 citation

Comment on “Coherent Control of a V-Type Three-Level System in a Single Quantum Dot”

Yujun Zheng

This is a Comment on Phys. Rev. Lett., {\bf 95}, 187404 (2005)

arXiv:0710.0732•Physical Review Letters•Jul 23, 2008•3 citations

Nondegenerate two-mode squeezing and quantum-nondemolition measurements using three-level atoms in a cavity

J.-Ph. Poizat, Matthew J. Collett, Daniel F. Walls

We consider two modes of the electromagnetic field interacting via a three-level atom in a ladder configuration. We calculate the squeezing spectra of the sum and difference of the two output beams. The usefulness of this system as a quantum-nondemolition-measurement scheme is analyzed and a prediction is made using the parameters of a recent experiment by Grangier et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1418 (1991)]. We use a full three-level model in the most general case and in particular the influence of both the one-photon and the two-photon detunings are investigated.

Physical Review A•Apr 1, 1992•34 citations
We consider two modes of the electromagnetic field interacting via a three-level atom in a ladder configuration. We calculate the squeezing spectra of the sum and difference of the two output beams. The usefulness of this system as a quantum-nondemolition-measurement scheme is analyzed and a prediction is made using the parameters of a recent experiment by Grangier et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1418 (1991)]. We use a full three-level model in the most general case and in particular the influence of both the one-photon and the two-photon detunings are investigated.