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

Physical Review A - Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics

Volumn 68, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 2-

  Gea Banacloche, Julio ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85037224259     PISSN: 10502947     EISSN: 10941622     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.68.046303     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. W. Itano, preceding Comment, Phys. Rev. A 68, 046301 (2003).
2. K.J. Blow, R. Loudon, S.J.D. Phoenix, and T.J. Shepherd, Phys. Rev. A 42, 4102 (1990).
3. A. Silberfarb and I.H. Deutsch, Phys. Rev. A 68, 013817 (2003).
4. J. Gea-Banacloche, e-print quant-ph/0212027 v2.
5. J. Gea-Banacloche, Phys. Rev. A 65, 022308 (2002).
6. J.P. Barnes and W.S. Warren, Phys. Rev. A 60, 4363 (1999).
7. The fact that the same effect may appear to be due to two different “causes,” depending on the picture one adopts, is a well-known one in quantum optics, especially where vacuum fluctuations are concerned. See, for instance, H.J. Carmichael, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 4, 1588 (1987)
8. P.W. Milonni, Am. J. Phys. 52, 340 (1984).
9. A.E. Siegman, Lasers (University Science Books, Sausalito, CA, 1986).
10. M.O. Scully and M.S. Zubairy, Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997).
11. C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg, Atom-Photon Interactions (Wiley, New York, 1992), p. 533.
12. As Itano points out, in Ref. 4 I used a cross section (Formula presented) which I got from Ref. 3. This is a factor of 4 smaller than the total scattering cross section of Ref. 10.
13. M. Ozawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 057902 (2002).
14. J. Gea-Banacloche, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 217901 (2002)
15. J. Gea-Banaclocheand Proc. SPIE5115, 154 (2003).
16. S.J. van Enk and H.J. Kimble, Quantum Inf. Comput. 2, 1 (2002).