4.6 Article

Different types of coherence: Young-type interference versus Dicke superradiance

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW A
卷 104, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevA.104.052401

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cusanuswerk, Bischofliche Studienforderung
  2. International Max Planck Research School-Physics of Light
  3. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) [429529648 - TRR 306]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studied intensity distribution of two identical two-level atoms prepared either in entangled Dicke state or in separable atomic state with nonvanishing dipole moment. Found that both configurations produce similar far-field intensity patterns, though they have fundamentally distinct types of coherence.
Dicke superradiance, i.e., the enhanced spontaneous emission of coherent radiation, is often attributed to radiation emitted by synchronized dipoles coherently oscillating in phase. At the same time, Dicke derived superradiance assuming atoms in entangled Dicke states which do not display any dipole moment. To shed light on this apparent paradox, we study the intensity distribution arising from two identical two-level atoms prepared either in an entangled Dicke state or in a separable atomic state with a nonvanishing dipole moment. We find that the two configurations produce similar far-field intensity patterns, although they stem from fundamentally distinct types of coherence: while in the second case the atoms display coherence among the individual particles, leading to Young-type interference like that known from classical dipoles, atoms in Dicke states possess collective quantum coherence stemming from entanglement and quantum correlations of the state, leading to an interference pattern resulting from enhanced spontaneous emission. This demonstrates that the radiation generated by synchronized dipoles and Dicke superradiance-even if they do produce the same interference pattern-are fundamentally distinct phenomena and have to be interpreted in different ways.

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