4.6 Article

Purcell modification of Auger and interatomic Coulombic decay

期刊

NEW JOURNAL OF PHYSICS
卷 24, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/ac5caa

关键词

interatomic Coulombic decay; energy transfer; macroscopic quantum electrodynamics; Auger decay; Purcell effect; radiative decay; cavity quantum electrodynamics

资金

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) [BU 1803/3-1, GRK 2079/1]
  2. Baden-Wuerttemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Art
  3. University of Freiburg

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article provides analytical expressions for the rates of different relaxation processes in a two-atom system and compares these rates in free space to determine the dominant decay channel. The study shows that the ratio between the two dominating decay rates can be controlled by modifying the excitation propagation. The article also discusses the impact of a surface and a cavity on the decay rates.
An excited two-atom system can decay via different competing relaxation processes. If the excess energy is sufficiently high the system may not only relax via spontaneous emission but can also undergo interatomic Coulombic decay or even Auger decay. We provide analytical expressions for the rates by including them into the same quantum optical framework on the basis of macroscopic quantum electrodynamics. By comparing the rates in free space we derive the atomic properties determining which decay channel dominates the relaxation. We show that by modifying the excitation propagation of the respective process via macroscopic bodies, in the spirit of the Purcell effect, one can control the ratio between the two dominating decay rates. We can relate the magnitude of the effect to characteristic length scales of each process, analyse the impact of a simple close-by surface onto a general two-atom system in detail and discuss the effect of a cavity onto the decay rates. We finally apply our theory to the example of a doubly excited HeNe-dimer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据