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

Carroll et al. reply : [Reply to the comment on "Thermal, quantum antibunching and lasing thresholds from single emitters to macroscopic devices"]

Mark Anthony Carroll, Giampaolo D’Alessandro, Gian Luca Lippi, Gian‐Luca Oppo, F. Papoff

Published Jan 12, 2022• 4 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Reply to the Comment on "Thermal, quantum antibunching and lasing thresholds from single emitters to macroscopic devices". We deconstruct and address a comment to Carroll et al. [Phys Rev Lett 126, 063902 (2021)]

Related papers

Reply to the Comment on "Thermal, quantum antibunching and lasing thresholds from single emitters to macroscopic devices"

Mark Anthony Carroll, Giampaolo D’Alessandro, Gian Luca Lippi +2 more

We deconstruct and address a comment to Carroll et al. [Phys Rev Lett 126, 063902 (2021)] (PRL) that has been posted on arXiv appearing as two versions [arXiv:2106.15242v1] and [arXiv:2106.15242v2]. This comment claimed that a term in the model presented in the PRL had been incorrectly omitted and that, hence, the laser threshold predicted by the model in the PRL is unattainable. We show that the term in question was correctly neglected because it represents collective effects that are not observable in the devices modelled in the PRL. Moreover, even if this term were to be included, the laser threshold would still be present, contrary to what was claimed in the comment. We conclude that the model presented in PRL is correct and that its results are innovative and of wide application in laser physics and quantum optics.

arXiv:2201.02468•Jan 7, 2022•0 citations

Comment on "Thermal, Quantum Antibunching and Lasing Thresholds from Single Emitters to Macroscopic Devices"

Andrey A. Vyshnevyy, Dmitry Yu. Fedyanin

In a recent Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 063902 (2021)], M. A. Carroll et al. derived a model to analytically determine regimes of thermal, collective anti-bunching, and laser emission for emitters in a cavity. According to their model, nanolasers exhibit a distinct threshold at which the coherent laser field emerges from a bifurcation at a finite pump rate. The amplitude of this coherent field increases with a further increase in the pump rate. Such a behavior contrasts the usual view of the transition to lasing in single-mode high-$\beta$ nanolasers, according to which strong spontaneous emission into the lasing mode results in a smooth transformation from the thermal state to the coherent state as the pump rate increases. Here, we demonstrate that the authors have ignored important terms in the equations of their model, which caused the bifurcation and the ideally monochromatic field to emerge at a finite pump rate.

arXiv:2106.15242•Jun 29, 2021•6 citations

Comment on “Quantum Szilard Engine”

Martin Plesch, Oscar Dahlsten, John Goold +1 more

A Comment on the Letter by S. W. Kim et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 070401 (2011). The authors of the Letter offer a Reply.

arXiv:1309.4209•Physical Review Letters•Oct 30, 2013•16 citations

Reply to Comment on: "Fluctuation Theorem for Many-Body Pure Quantum States"

Eiki Iyoda, Kazuya Kaneko, Takahiro Sagawa

We reply to Comment by J. Gemmer, L. Knipschild, R. Steinigeweg (arXiv:1712.02128) on our paper Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 100601 (2017).

arXiv:1712.05172•Dec 14, 2017•1 citation

Comment on “Quantitative Condition is Necessary in Guaranteeing the Validity of the Adiabatic Approximation”

Meisheng Zhao, Jianda Wu

A Comment on the Letter by D. M. Tong, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 120401 (2010). Also, see Comment Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 138902 (2011) by Daniel Comparat, on the same Letter by D. M. Tong, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 120401 (2010). The author of the Letter offers a Reply to both Comments.

arXiv:1104.0277•Physical Review Letters•Apr 1, 2011•13 citations

Reply to Comment on "Space-Time Crystals of Trapped Ions"

Tongcang Li, Zhexuan Gong, Zhang‐qi Yin +5 more

This is a reply to the comment from Patrick Bruno (arXiv:1211.4792) on our paper (Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 163001 (2012)).

arXiv:1212.6959•Dec 31, 2012•3 citations
We deconstruct and address a comment to Carroll et al. [Phys Rev Lett 126, 063902 (2021)] (PRL) that has been posted on arXiv appearing as two versions [arXiv:2106.15242v1] and [arXiv:2106.15242v2]. This comment claimed that a term in the model presented in the PRL had been incorrectly omitted and that, hence, the laser threshold predicted by the model in the PRL is unattainable. We show that the term in question was correctly neglected because it represents collective effects that are not observable in the devices modelled in the PRL. Moreover, even if this term were to be included, the laser threshold would still be present, contrary to what was claimed in the comment. We conclude that the model presented in PRL is correct and that its results are innovative and of wide application in laser physics and quantum optics.
In a recent Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 063902 (2021)], M. A. Carroll et al. derived a model to analytically determine regimes of thermal, collective anti-bunching, and laser emission for emitters in a cavity. According to their model, nanolasers exhibit a distinct threshold at which the coherent laser field emerges from a bifurcation at a finite pump rate. The amplitude of this coherent field increases with a further increase in the pump rate. Such a behavior contrasts the usual view of the transition to lasing in single-mode high-β\betaβ nanolasers, according to which strong spontaneous emission into the lasing mode results in a smooth transformation from the thermal state to the coherent state as the pump rate increases. Here, we demonstrate that the authors have ignored important terms in the equations of their model, which caused the bifurcation and the ideally monochromatic field to emerge at a finite pump rate.