Trapping of single atoms with single photons in cavity QED

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 63, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 013401-013401

  Doherty, A C ^a   Lynn, T W ^a   Hood, C J ^a   Kimble, H J ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATOMIC PHYSICS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EIGENVALUES AND EIGENFUNCTIONS; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; PHOTONS;

QUANTUM ELECTRODYNAMICS (QED);

QUANTUM THEORY;

EID: 17744365739     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.63.013401     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics, Advances in Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics, edited by P. Berman (Academic, New York, 1994), Suppl. 2.
2. For a more recent review, see contributions in the special issue of Phys. Scr. T76, 1 (1998).
3. H.J. Kimble, Phys. Scr. T76, 127 (1998).
4. C.J. Hood, M.S. Chapman, T.W. Lynn, and H.J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4157 (1998).
5. J. Ye et al., IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 48, 608 (1999).
6. P. Münstermann et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3791 (1999).
7. C.J. Hood et al., Science 287, 1447 (2000).
8. P.W.H. Pinkse, T. Fischer, P. Maunz, and G. Rempe, Nature (London) 404, 365 (2000).
9. P. Münstermann et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4068 (2000).
10. S. Haroche, M. Brune, and J.M. Raimond, Europhys. Lett. 14, 19 (1991).
11. B.-G. Englert, J. Schwinger, A.O. Barut, and M.O. Scully, Europhys. Lett. 14, 25 (1991).
12. H. Mabuchi, Q.A. Turchette, M.S. Chapman, and H.J. Kimble, Opt. Lett. 21, 1393 (1996).
13. A.S. Parkins, in International Quantum Electronics Conference, 1996 OSA Technical Digest Series (Optical Society of America, Washington, D.C., 1996), p. 26.
14. J. Dalibard and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Phys. B 18, 1661 (1985).
15. P. Horak et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4974 (1997).
16. V. Vuletić and S. Chu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3787 (2000).
17. H. Mabuchi, J. Ye, and H.J. Kimble, Appl. Phys. B: Lasers Opt. 68, 1095 (1999).
18. P. Münstermann, T. Fischer, P.W.H. Pinkse, and G. Rempe, Opt. Commun. 159, 63 (1999).
19. A.S. Parkins and R. Müller, J. Mod. Opt. 43, 2553 (1996).
20. H. Mabuchi, Phys. Rev. A 58, 123 (1998).
21. A.C. Doherty, A.S. Parkins, S.M. Tan, and D.F. Walls, Phys. Rev. A 56, 833 (1997).
22. G. Hechenblaikner, M. Gangl, P. Horak, and H. Risch, Phys. Rev. A 58, 3030 (1998).
23. S.M. Tan, J. Opt. B: Quant. Semiclass Opt. 1, 424 (1999).
24. T.W. Mossberg, M. Lewenstein, and D.J. Gauthier, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 1723 (1991).
25. M. Lewenstein and L. Roso, Phys. Rev. A 47, 3385 (1993).
26. D.W. Vernooy and H.J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. A 56, 4287 (1997).
27. H. Carmichael, An Open Systems Approach to Quantum Optics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1993).
28. J. Javanainen and S. Stenholm, Appl. Phys. 21, 35 (1980).
29. C. Cohen-Tannoudji, in Fundamental Systems in Quantum Optics, Les Houches, Session LIII, 1990, edited by J. Dalibard, J. M. Raimond, and J. Zinn-Justin (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1992), pp. 1-164.
30. K. Berg-Sorensen, Y. Castin, E. Bonderup, and K. Molmer, J. Phys. B 25, 4195 (1992).
31. G.S. Agarwal and K. Molmer, Phys. Rev. A 47, 5158 (1993).
32. C.W. Gardiner, Handbook of Stochastic Methods for Physics, Chemistry and the Natural Sciences, 2nd ed. (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985).
33. W.H. Press, S.A. Teukolsky, W.T. Vetterling, and B.P. Flannery, Numerical Recipes in C: The Art of Scientific Computing, 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1992).
34. 2 in the case of Ref. [7] reflects the fact that photon counting was employed in Ref. [8], while detection was via heterodyne in Ref. [7].
35. Technical noise arises from imperfections in the cavity lock (in particular, a mechanical resonance in the cavity mount at 60 kHz), and contributes a signal ≃50-100% of the shot noise rms amplitude.
36. A digital filter is employed, using the built-in Matlab Butterworth filter routine butter [5,0.01] for the simulations of Hood et al. [Fig. 10(b)], and butter [3,0.004] for the simulations of Pinkse et al. (Fig. 13). In each case, the first parameter refers to the order of the filter, and the second to the cutoff frequency as a fraction of the Nyquist frequency (a sample rate of 0.2 μs was used in the simulations.) In each case, parameters are chosen in an attempt to optimally extract information about radial oscillations from the transmission signal. The filter cutoff chosen for the Pinkse et al. simulations was the lowest that could still track genuine radial motion of an atom passing through the cavity.
37. H. Mabuchi, J. Ye, and H.J. Kimble, Appl. Phys. B: Lasers Opt. 68, 1095 (1999).
38. A. C. Doherty, T. W. Lynn, R. J. Legere, and H. J. Kimble (unpublished).