m |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | = Excitation with Quantum Light. | + | = Excitation with Quantum Light. Parts I & II. = |
Following on my previous blog post on [[Blog:Science/Exciting_with_quantum_light|Exciting with quantum light]], I want to give some updates of the results we've been gathering these last months at the occasion of the publication of our first two opuses, or, as Phys. Rev. typesetters prefer to call them, the first two ''parts'': | Following on my previous blog post on [[Blog:Science/Exciting_with_quantum_light|Exciting with quantum light]], I want to give some updates of the results we've been gathering these last months at the occasion of the publication of our first two opuses, or, as Phys. Rev. typesetters prefer to call them, the first two ''parts'': | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
(note that they also changed the title from "Exciting with Quantum Light" to "Excitation with Quantum Light", but it's still "exciting" when it comes to what we excite). | (note that they also changed the title from "Exciting with Quantum Light" to "Excitation with Quantum Light", but it's still "exciting" when it comes to what we excite). | ||
| − | Part I remains essentially that I already blogged about previously so I need add | + | Part I remains essentially that I already [[Blog:Science/Exciting_with_quantum_light|blogged about previously]] so I do not need to add much, mainly remind us that this is defining the problem—exciting a target with the self-consistent dynamical output of a quantum emitter—and considering the simplest case where the target is merely an harmonic oscillator. The formalism itself, going beyond Hamiltonian dynamics by allowing irreversibility, was put forward simultaneous by Gardiner{{cite|gardiner93a}} and Carmichael{{cite|carmichael93b}} <wz tip="This appeared in two consecutive letters of Phys. Rev. Lett., that's about as much simultaneous you can get, the first one was received by the editors three days before Christmas, the second, three days after... what is the underlying genesis of this idea? I don't know, but this looks like a gentlemen's agreement. At the time of writing Carmichael's get 351 citations against 258 for Gardiner according to Google scholar.>(!?)</wz> and we used that to show which states of the harmonic oscillator's Hilbert space you can drive your target into. I |
| + | |||
| + | <references/> | ||
Following on my previous blog post on Exciting with quantum light, I want to give some updates of the results we've been gathering these last months at the occasion of the publication of our first two opuses, or, as Phys. Rev. typesetters prefer to call them, the first two parts:
(note that they also changed the title from "Exciting with Quantum Light" to "Excitation with Quantum Light", but it's still "exciting" when it comes to what we excite).
Part I remains essentially that I already blogged about previously so I do not need to add much, mainly remind us that this is defining the problem—exciting a target with the self-consistent dynamical output of a quantum emitter—and considering the simplest case where the target is merely an harmonic oscillator. The formalism itself, going beyond Hamiltonian dynamics by allowing irreversibility, was put forward simultaneous by Gardiner[1] and Carmichael[2] (!?) and we used that to show which states of the harmonic oscillator's Hilbert space you can drive your target into. I