Diffraction effects on light-atomic-ensemble quantum interface

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 71, Issue 3, 2005, Pages

  Muller J H ^a   Petrov, P ^a   Oblak, D ^a,b   Alzar, C L Garrido ^a   De Echaniz, S R ^c   Polzik, E S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^c ICFO INSTITUT DE CIENCIES FOTONIQUES   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DIFFRACTION EFFECTS; GEOMETRICAL EFFECTS; OPTICAL DIPOLE TRAPS; QUANTUM INTERFACES;

ATOMS; DIFFRACTION; GEOMETRICAL OPTICS; GROUND STATE; HAMILTONIANS; LASER BEAMS; LIGHT PROPAGATION; MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

QUANTUM OPTICS;

EID: 18444375001     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.71.033803     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. A. Kuzmich, K. Mølmer, and E. S. Polzik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4782 (1997).
2. A. Kuzmich, N. P. Bigelow, and L. Mandel, Europhys. Lett. 42, 481 (1998).
3. L. M. Duan, J. I. Cirac, P. Zoller, and E. S. Polzik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5643 (2000).
4. A. Kuzmich and E. S. Polzik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 5639 (2000).
5. A. E. Kozhekin, K. Mølmer, and E. Polzik, Phys. Rev. A 62, 033809 (2000).
6. L. K. Thomsen, S. Mancini, and H. M. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. A 65, 061801 (2002).
7. B. Kraus, K. Hammerer, G. Giedke, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 67, 042314 (2003).
8. J. Fiurášek, Phys. Rev. A 68, 022304 (2003).
9. J. Hald, J. L. Sørensen, C. Schori, and E. S. Polzik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1319 (1999).
10. A. Kuzmich, N. P. Bigelow, and P. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1594 (2000).
11. B. Julsgaard, A. Kozhekin, and E. S. Polzik, Nature (London) 413, 400 (2001).
12. C. Schori, B. Julsgaard, J. L. Sørensen, and E. S. Polzik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 057903 (2002).
13. L. M. Duan, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. A 66, 023818 (2002).
14. A. Kuzmich and T. A. B. Kennedy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 030407 (2004).
15. W. Happer and B. S. Mathur, Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 577 (1967).
16. A. Kuzmich, L. Mandel, J. Janis, Y. E. Young, R. Ejnisman, and N. P. Bigelow, Phys. Rev. A 60, 2346 (1999).
17. In writing this Hamiltonian we drop terms which depend on the total number of atoms and photons and are unimportant for the dynamics.
18. Strictly speaking the operators contain the retarded Fourier transforms of the (cross) spectral densities of the electric field components. For a more rigorous treatment of the propagating field modes we refer to Ref. [3].
19. Spatial correlations due to the indistinguishability of the particles are neglected here.
20. This procedure is valid for Gaussian input states like coherent or squeezed states.
21. A. Sinatra, J. F. Roch, K. Vigneron, P. Grelu, J.-P. Poizat, K. Wang, and P. Grangier, Phys. Rev. A 57, 2980 (1998).
22. K. Hammerer, K. Mølmer, E. S. Polzik, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 70, 044304 (2004).
23. D. J. Wineland, J. J. Bollinger, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Heinzen, Phys. Rev. A 50, 67 (1994).
24. B. Julsgaard, J. Sherson, J. I. Cirac, J. Fiurášek, and E. S. Polzik, Nature (London) 432, 482 (2004).
25. A. Kuzmich and E. S. Polzik, in Quantum Information with Continuous Variables, edited by S. L. Braunstein and A. K. Patel (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2003), pp. 231-265.
26. D. Oblak, J. K. Mikkelsen, W. Tittel, A. K. Vershovski, J. L. Sørensen, P. G. Petrov, C. L. Garrido Alzar, and E. S. Polzik, e-print quant-ph/0312165, Phys. Rev. A (to be published).
27. Here we reintroduce implicitly the noise due to quantum fluctuations.
28. P. de Vries, D. V. van Coevorden, and A. Lagendijk, Rev. Mod. Phys. 70, 447 (1998).
29. M. Born and E. Wolf, Principles of Optics, 7th ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1999), Chap. XIII.
30. 2 line the recoil time is 0.3 ms.
31. Since we treat the scattered wave as a scalar the phase of the scattering amplitude has to be chosen with care.
32. B. R. Mollow, Phys. Rev. A 12, 1919 (1975).
33. R. Grimm, M. Weidemüller, and Y. B. Ovchinnikov, Adv. At., Mol., Opt. Phys. 42, 95 (2000).
34. Here we neglect other potentials, like gravity, for simplicity.
35. Our simple analytical estimate at this length is already wrong by about a factor of 2.
36. G. Smith, S. Chaudhury, and P. S. Jessen, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclassical Opt. 5, 323 (2003).
37. J. E. Lye, J. J. Hope, and J. D. Close, Phys. Rev. A 67, 043609 (2003).
38. 2 appears linearly here.
39. This value corresponds to the variance in the population difference for a sample of Nat independent atoms residing with equal probability in two internal states.
40. M. G. Raymer and J. Mostowski, Phys. Rev. A 24, 1980 (1981).
41. 3 has to be smaller than 1 for the model to be valid, otherwise the neglect of multiple scattering is not possible.
42. O. Morice, Y. Castin, and J. Dalibard, Phys. Rev. A 51, 3896 (1995).
43. I. Bouchoule and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. A 66, 043811 (2002).
44. A. V. Rau, J. A. Dunningham, and K. Burnett, Science 301, 1081 (2003).
45. To lowest order in a multiple-scattering expansion the dynamics of the density correlation function can be just described by recoil heating.
46. H. D. Politzer, Phys. Rev. A 55, 1140 (1997).
47. S. Inouye, A. Chikkatur, D. Stamper-Kurn, J. Stenger, D. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, Science 285, 571 (1999).
48. D. Schneble, G. K. Campbell, E. W. Streed, M. Boyd, D. E. Pritchard, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. A 69, 041601 (2004).
49. P. Horak, G. Hechenblaikner, K. M. Gheri, H. Stecher, and H. Ritsch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4974 (1997).
50. V. Vuletic and S. Chu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 3787 (2000).
51. B. Nagorny, T. Elsässer, and A. Hemmerich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 153003 (2003).