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

Absorption in quantum electrodynamic cavities in terms of a quantum jump operator

Thomas Durt, Guillaume Demésy, Benjamin Vial, André Nicolet, Vincent Debierre, Frédéric Zolla

Published Sep 3, 2014• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Related papers

Inversion of Quantum Jumps in Quantum Optical Systems under Continuous Observation

Hideo Mabuchi, P. Zoller

We formulate conditions for invertibility of quantum jumps in systems that decay by emission of quanta into a continuously monitored reservoir. We propose proof-of-principle experiments using techniques from cavity quantum electrodynamics and ion trapping, and briefly discuss the relevance of such methods for error correction in quantum computation.

Physical Review Letters•Apr 22, 1996•109 citations

Resonant Cavities and Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics

David S. Simon

Undergraduate texts in physics•Jan 1, 2025•1 citation

Electromagnetic Cavities and Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics

Alto Osada, Rekishu Yamazaki, Atsushi Noguchi

Lecture notes in physics•Jan 1, 2022•0 citations

Photon absorption and emission statistics of a two-level atom in a cavity

Chang J. Lee

The absorption and the emission of photons by an atom involves quantum jumps between states. We investigate the quantum jump statistics for the system of a two-level atom and a single-mode cavity field. We use the Jaynes-Cummings model for this problem, perform Monte Carlo numerical simulations, and give a detailed exact analysis on these simulations. These studies reveal that the waiting-time distribution (WTD) for photon absorptions (emissions) has a unique novel statistic, and that the photon absorption (emission) rate is not uniform, but counter-intuitively depends on the position in the Rabi cycle. The effects of the nonclassical nature of the field on the WTD is discussed.

Journal of the Korean Physical Society•Mar 1, 2012•0 citations

Basics of Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics

J. M. Raimond

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1996•2 citations

Cavity photon counting: ab-initio derivation of the quantum jump superoperators and comparison of the existing models

Teppo Häyrynen, Jani Oksanen, Jukka Tulkki

Time development of electromagnetic fields in closed cavities under continuous detection of photons continues to be a subject of confusing controversy. Recently Dodonov et al. [Phys. Rev. A, 75, 013806, 2007] argued that their model of quantum superoperators (E model) invalidates some of the predictions of the previously introduced photon counting model of Srinivas and Davies [J. Mod. Optic. 28, 981, 1981] (SD model). Both the SD and the E models are based on two postulated quantum jump superoperators: (1) the one-count operator corresponding to the absorption of a single photon and (2) the no-count operator. In this work we develop a stochastic difference equation that describes the dissipative coupling of the cavity field and the detector. The difference equation is based on non-perturbative treatment of the cavity-detector coupling. In spite of being non-integrable due to the coupling of the detector with an external reservoir it can be used to derive the exact forms of the quantum jump superoperators. When applied to a particular photon counting measurement our theory gives predictions identical with those of the SD model which should be considered a non-perturbative and ab-initio result. It is pointed out that available experimental results coincide with the results given by the ab-initio SD model. We summarize some of the key characteristics of cavity fields and photon counting processes to demonstrate that the results given by the SD model are consistent with the principles of quantum mechanics while those given by the E model are not.

arXiv:0808.1660•Aug 12, 2008•0 citations
The absorption and the emission of photons by an atom involves quantum jumps between states. We investigate the quantum jump statistics for the system of a two-level atom and a single-mode cavity field. We use the Jaynes-Cummings model for this problem, perform Monte Carlo numerical simulations, and give a detailed exact analysis on these simulations. These studies reveal that the waiting-time distribution (WTD) for photon absorptions (emissions) has a unique novel statistic, and that the photon absorption (emission) rate is not uniform, but counter-intuitively depends on the position in the Rabi cycle. The effects of the nonclassical nature of the field on the WTD is discussed.
Time development of electromagnetic fields in closed cavities under continuous detection of photons continues to be a subject of confusing controversy. Recently Dodonov et al. [Phys. Rev. A, 75, 013806, 2007] argued that their model of quantum superoperators (E model) invalidates some of the predictions of the previously introduced photon counting model of Srinivas and Davies [J. Mod. Optic. 28, 981, 1981] (SD model). Both the SD and the E models are based on two postulated quantum jump superoperators: (1) the one-count operator corresponding to the absorption of a single photon and (2) the no-count operator. In this work we develop a stochastic difference equation that describes the dissipative coupling of the cavity field and the detector. The difference equation is based on non-perturbative treatment of the cavity-detector coupling. In spite of being non-integrable due to the coupling of the detector with an external reservoir it can be used to derive the exact forms of the quantum jump superoperators. When applied to a particular photon counting measurement our theory gives predictions identical with those of the SD model which should be considered a non-perturbative and ab-initio result. It is pointed out that available experimental results coincide with the results given by the ab-initio SD model. We summarize some of the key characteristics of cavity fields and photon counting processes to demonstrate that the results given by the SD model are consistent with the principles of quantum mechanics while those given by the E model are not.