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

arXiv:quant-ph/0212027 · Physical Review A

Reply II to “Comment on ‘Some implications of the quantum nature of laser fields for quantum computations’ ”

Julio R. Gea-Banacloche

Published Oct 14, 2003• 17 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

I show that there is no contradiction between the results in my original paper [Phys. Rev. A 65, 022308 (2002)] and Itano's claims in the previous Comment. The error probabilities I calculated from quantum field fluctuations can equivalently be obtained by considering the probability of spontaneous emission by the atom into the field modes that make up the laser pulse.

DOI
10.1103/physreva.68.046303

Related papers

Reply I to “Comment on ‘Some implications of the quantum nature of laser fields for quantum computations’ ”

S. J. van Enk, Harry J. Kimble

We show that Itano's arguments confirm our conclusion, that entanglement of the atom with the laser field contributes a small but nonzero amount to the total decoherence of an atom in a laser field. This small effect scales as $1/\mathrm{n\ifmmode \bar{}\else \={}\fi{}}$ with $\mathrm{n\ifmmode \bar{}\else \={}\fi{}}$ the average number of photons in the laser pulse.

arXiv:quant-ph/0212028•Physical Review A•Oct 14, 2003•12 citations

Comment on “Some implications of the quantum nature of laser fields for quantum computations”

Wayne M. Itano

A recent discussion of quantum limitations to the fidelity with which superpositions of internal atomic energy levels can be generated by an applied, quantized, laser pulse, is shown to be based on unrealistic physical assumptions. This discussion assumed the validity of Jaynes-Cummings dynamics for an atom interacting with a laser field in free space, that is, when the atom is not surrounded by a resonant cavity. If the laser field is a multimode quantum coherent state, and the Rabi frequency is much greater than the spontaneous decay rate, then the total atomic decoherence rate is on the order of the spontaneous decay rate. With the use of a unitary transformation of the field states due to Mollow, it can be shown that the atomic decoherence rate is the same as if the laser field were treated classically, without any additional contribution due to the quantum nature of the laser field.

arXiv:quant-ph/0211165•Physical Review A•Oct 14, 2003•27 citations

Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Quantum Zeno effect’’’

Wayne M. Itano, Daniel J. Heinzen, J. J. Bollinger +1 more

Various interpretations of quantum mechanics are valid insofar as they predict the same experimental results. Some invoke ``wave-function collapse'' and some do not. An interpretation based on the collapse postulate provides a simple explanation for a recent experimental demonstration of the quantum Zeno effect [Itano et al., Phys. Rev. A 41, 2295 (1990)], but other interpretations are also valid.

Physical Review A•May 1, 1991•74 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Nonlocality counterfactuals, and quantum mechanics’ ”

William George Unruh

Stapp [preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 60, 2595 (1999)] has argued that my criticism of his nonlocality proof is wrong. I point out that counterfactual arguments are fraught with dangers, and that any such claim should use them in a conservative manner. A reanalysis of his claims continues to lead me to the conclusion that the nonlocality of quantum mechanics remains unproven.

Physical Review A•Sep 1, 1999•2 citations

Reply to “Comment on ‘Perturbative operator approach to high-precision light-pulse atom interferometry' ”

Christian Ufrecht, Enno Giese

Recently, we introduced [C. Ufrecht and E. Giese, Phys. Rev. A 101, 053615 (2020)] a technique to calculate the phase of light-pulse atom interferometers caused by the presence of perturbation potentials and underlined its power by an illustrative example. In the preceding Comment [B. Dubetsky, Phys. Rev. A 102, 027301 (2020)], it was pointed out that other, less idealized situations could have been calculated as well. Our Reply emphasizes that our method is correct, the results from our example can be trivially generalized to other perturbations, and intricate effects of local environments can be even more prominent but also treated by our technique.

Physical Review A•Aug 20, 2020•1 citation

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

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.

Physica Scripta•Jan 24, 2012•0 citations
I show that there is no contradiction between the results in my original paper [Phys. Rev. A 65, 022308 (2002)] and Itano's claims in the previous Comment. The error probabilities I calculated from quantum field fluctuations can equivalently be obtained by considering the probability of spontaneous emission by the atom into the field modes that make up the laser pulse.
A recent discussion of quantum limitations to the fidelity with which superpositions of internal atomic energy levels can be generated by an applied, quantized, laser pulse, is shown to be based on unrealistic physical assumptions. This discussion assumed the validity of Jaynes-Cummings dynamics for an atom interacting with a laser field in free space, that is, when the atom is not surrounded by a resonant cavity. If the laser field is a multimode quantum coherent state, and the Rabi frequency is much greater than the spontaneous decay rate, then the total atomic decoherence rate is on the order of the spontaneous decay rate. With the use of a unitary transformation of the field states due to Mollow, it can be shown that the atomic decoherence rate is the same as if the laser field were treated classically, without any additional contribution due to the quantum nature of the laser field.
Recently, we introduced [C. Ufrecht and E. Giese, Phys. Rev. A 101, 053615 (2020)] a technique to calculate the phase of light-pulse atom interferometers caused by the presence of perturbation potentials and underlined its power by an illustrative example. In the preceding Comment [B. Dubetsky, Phys. Rev. A 102, 027301 (2020)], it was pointed out that other, less idealized situations could have been calculated as well. Our Reply emphasizes that our method is correct, the results from our example can be trivially generalized to other perturbations, and intricate effects of local environments can be even more prominent but also treated by our technique.