2016
DOI: 10.1103/physreva.94.043844
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cooperative eigenmodes and scattering in one-dimensional atomic arrays

Abstract: Publisher's copyright statement:Reprinted with permission from the American Physical Society: Bettles, Robert J. and Gardiner, Simon A. and Adams, Charles S. (2016) 'Cooperative eigenmodes and scattering in one-dimensional atomic arrays.', Physical review A., 94 (4). 043844 c 2016 by the American Physical Society. Readers may view, browse, and/or download material for temporary copying purposes only, provided these uses are for noncommercial personal purposes. Except as provided by law, this material may not b… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
81
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 94 publications
(81 citation statements)
references
References 82 publications
(164 reference statements)
0
81
0
Order By: Relevance
“…An ensemble of emitters couples collectively to a common electromagnetic bath, as was already investigated theoretically in the seminal papers of Dicke, Lehmberg and Agarwal in the 1950s and 70s [1][2][3]. Here, the exchange of virtual photons results in induced dipole-dipole interactions [4][5][6] and collective Lamb and Lorentz-Lorenz shifts [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Moreover, the emission of photons into the bath takes place at a rate much faster or slower (so-called super-and subradiance, respectively) than the single atom decay rate [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…An ensemble of emitters couples collectively to a common electromagnetic bath, as was already investigated theoretically in the seminal papers of Dicke, Lehmberg and Agarwal in the 1950s and 70s [1][2][3]. Here, the exchange of virtual photons results in induced dipole-dipole interactions [4][5][6] and collective Lamb and Lorentz-Lorenz shifts [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Moreover, the emission of photons into the bath takes place at a rate much faster or slower (so-called super-and subradiance, respectively) than the single atom decay rate [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…The growing throughput of computers available to researchers is making such a plan practical. These methods, whether called classicalelectrodynamics simulations or coupled-dipole simulations, are now a routine theoretical tool [2,4,7,8,[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. Closely related numerical techniques based on the analysis of the eigenstates of the coupled system of the light and the atoms [15,[27][28][29][30][31][32] or density matrices and quantum trajectories [33][34][35] are also widely used today.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Techniques to reversibly map between photonic and atomic excitations in arrays should find a variety of exciting applications. For example, it would allow for photonic quantum gates, given some form of spin interactions in the array (such as between Rydberg levels [64]), or would allow for exotic spin states (like subradiant [24][25][26][27][28][29] or topological excitations [31,32]) to be detected optically. It would also be interesting to investigate whether the spin state itself could be engineered to produce a useful non-classical state of outgoing light.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Intuitively, one expects that strong interference in light emission can emerge, which renders inoperable the typical theoretical approaches to modeling light-atom interfaces. Theoretically there has been growing interest in novel quantum optical effects in arrays, such as subradiance [24][25][26][27][28][29][30], topological effects [31,32], and complete reflection of light [33][34][35]. Indeed, it has already been shown numerically that an ordered one-dimensional array of atoms coupled to a nanofiber allows for a storage error exponentially smaller than the previously known bound [29].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%