Continuous wave observation of massive polariton redistribution by stimulated scattering in semiconductor microcavities

Physical Review Letters

Volumn 85, Issue 17, 2000, Pages 3680-3683

  Stevenson, R M ^a   Astratov, V N ^a   Skolnick, M S ^a   Whittaker, D M ^b   Emam Ismail, M ^a   Tartakovskii, A I ^a,c   Savvidis, P G ^d   Baumberg, J J ^d   Roberts, J S ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

^b TOSHIBA CORPORATION   (Japan)

^c INSTITUTE OF SOLID STATE PHYSICS   (Russian Federation)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

^e Dept of Electron and Elec Eng ^*  (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ELECTRON RESONANCE; ELECTRON SCATTERING; EMISSION SPECTROSCOPY; EXCITONS; METALLORGANIC VAPOR PHASE EPITAXY; PHOTOLUMINESCENCE; SEMICONDUCTING INDIUM GALLIUM ARSENIDE; SEMICONDUCTOR QUANTUM WELLS; SOLID STATE LASERS;

HIGH ENERGY NONRESONANT EXCITATION; POLARITON; SEMICONDUCTOR MICROCAVITY; STIMULATED SCATTERING;

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS;

EID: 0034294187     PISSN: 00319007     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.3680     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. C. Weisbuch, M. Nishioka, A. Ishikawa, and Y. Arakawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 3314 (1992).
2. M. S. Skolnick, T. A. Fisher, and D. M. Whittaker, Semicond. Sci. Technol. 13, 645 (1998).
3. G. Khitrova et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 71, 1591 (1999).
4. A. Imamoglu, R. J. Ram, S. Pau, and Y. Yamomoto, Phys. Rev. A 53, 4250 (1996).
5. S. Pau et al., Phys. Rev. A 54, R1789 (1996); retracted in H. Cao et al., Phys. Rev. A 55, 4632 (1997).
6. S. Pau et al., Phys. Rev. A 54, R1789 (1996); retracted in H. Cao et al., Phys. Rev. A 55, 4632 (1997).
7. M. Kira, E. Jahnke, S. W. Koch, J. D. Berger, D. V. Wick, T. R. Nelson, G. Khitrova, and H. M. Gibbs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 5170 (1997).
8. P. Senellart and J. Bloch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1233 (1999).
9. Such narrowing was observed in II-VI microcavities by Le Si Dang et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3920 (1998). Stimulated scattering was suggested as one possible interpretation.
10. See Ref. [3], p. 1623.
11. P. G. Savvidis, J. J. Baumberg, R. M. Stevenson, M. S. Skolnick, D. M. Whittaker, and J. S. Roberts, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1547 (2000).
12. Weak stimulation was seen in the ultrafast case without the probe beam. It was only in the presence of the probe beam that the stimulation was strong.
13. R. Huang, F. Tassone, and Y. Yamomoto, Phys. Rev. B 61, R7854 (2000).
14. J. Bloch and J. Y. Marzin, Phys. Rev. B 56, 2103 (1997).
15. A. I. Tartakovskii et al., Phys. Rev. B 62, R2283 (2000).
16. C. Ciuti et al. (unpublished) show theoretically that the shift arises from polariton-polariton interactions.
17. F. Tassone and Y. Yamomoto, Phys. Rev. B 59, 10830 (1999).
18. The term "idler" is taken from the field of optical parametric oscillation (OPO); see, e.g., A. Yariv, Quantum Electronics (Wiley, New York, 1988), p. 407.
19. We measure that 5% of the pump beam is absorbed in the sample for resonant excitation, with 20% of this light converted into the signal around k = 0.
20. -1 excitation are probably favored by the larger optical feedback for k = 0 final states.
21. See L. V. Keldysh, in Bose-Einstein Condensation, edited by A. Griffin, D. W. Snoke, and S. Stringari (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1995), p. 256.