pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.24680 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-27 · 🪐 quant-ph

Recognition: unknown

Optical depth dictates universal bounds on many-body decay in atomic ensembles

Cosimo C. Rusconi , Eric Sierra , Wai-Keong Mok , Avishi Poddar , Simon B. J\"ager , Ana Asenjo-Garcia
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 03:53 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords optical depthcooperative emissionmany-body decayatomic ensemblesDicke limitcollective decayuniversal scaling
0
0 comments X

The pith

For fixed atomic density, the maximum emission rate in atomic ensembles scales universally as atom number times optical depth.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper derives a universal scaling law for the maximum photon emission rate in spatially extended atomic ensembles, whether ordered or disordered and in any dimension. At fixed density this rate is bounded by the product of the total atom number and the ensemble's optical depth, which automatically encodes the crossover from independent emission to the fully collective Dicke regime. The result supplies experimenters with a single geometric parameter that predicts the strongest cooperative effects without requiring full microscopic simulations of every possible arrangement. A second scaling law shows that the observed rate further depends on the numerical aperture of the detector: narrow collection recovers quadratic Dicke scaling while wide collection recovers the integrated universal bound.

Core claim

For a fixed atomic density, the maximum emission rate scales universally as the product of the atom number and the system's optical depth, with the latter encoding the dimensional scaling across all regimes from independent emission to the Dicke limit. We also establish a scaling law for directional detection, revealing that the observed rate depends on the detector's numerical aperture: small apertures yield Dicke-like quadratic scaling, whereas large apertures recover our integrated universal bound.

What carries the argument

The optical depth of the ensemble, which unifies dimensional and disorder effects into a single parameter that sets the bound on the many-body emission rate.

If this is right

  • The same bound holds for both ordered arrays and disordered clouds.
  • Small numerical apertures in detection produce quadratic Dicke scaling with atom number.
  • Large apertures recover the full N times optical-depth scaling.
  • Optical depth is the governing parameter for many-body cooperative emission in free-space ensembles.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Varying optical depth at fixed atom number should allow direct control over the strength of collective emission.
  • Experiments must separate total emitted power from directionally collected light to test the universal bound.
  • The result suggests that dimensional effects enter only through the optical depth and need not be modeled separately.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes fixed atomic density and that optical depth alone captures all dimensional and disorder effects without additional length-scale or boundary dependencies.

What would settle it

Measure the peak total emission rate versus atom number at constant density in one-, two-, and three-dimensional ensembles and test whether the data collapse onto a single curve given by N times the calculated optical depth.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.24680 by Ana Asenjo-Garcia, Avishi Poddar, Cosimo C. Rusconi, Eric Sierra, Simon B. J\"ager, Wai-Keong Mok.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The ensemble’s optical depth (OD) sets the scaling view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. (a) Scaling exponent obtained from a fit of view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. (a) Schematic of directional detection of photons view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Cooperative emission is well understood for idealized symmetric systems, but its limits in spatially extended, free-space ensembles remain an open question. Here, we derive a universal law for the scaling of the maximum photon emission rate with system size that unifies both ordered arrays and disordered atomic clouds in arbitrary dimensions at fixed density. We demonstrate that, for a fixed atomic density, the maximum emission rate scales universally as the product of the atom number and the system's optical depth, with the latter encoding the dimensional scaling across all regimes from independent emission to the Dicke limit. Furthermore, we establish a scaling law for directional detection, revealing that the observed rate depends on the detector's numerical aperture: small apertures yield Dicke-like quadratic scaling, whereas large apertures recover our integrated universal bound. Our results establish optical depth as the parameter governing many-body cooperative emission in both ordered and disordered ensembles, and reveal that directional and total-emission scalings must be carefully distinguished in experimental settings.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives a universal scaling law for the maximum photon emission rate from cooperative decay in free-space atomic ensembles. At fixed atomic density, the rate is claimed to scale as N times the optical depth (OD), where OD encodes all dimensional scaling from independent emission to the Dicke limit for both ordered arrays and disordered clouds in arbitrary dimensions. A secondary scaling law is given for directional detection, with the observed rate depending on the detector numerical aperture (small apertures recover Dicke-like N² scaling; large apertures recover the integrated universal bound).

Significance. If the central derivation holds, the result would be significant for quantum optics: it identifies optical depth as the single governing parameter for many-body cooperative emission across regimes and geometries, unifying idealized symmetric models with realistic extended ensembles. The parameter-free character of the scaling (no ad-hoc parameters or invented entities) and the explicit distinction between total and directional emission are strengths that could directly inform experimental design in superradiant systems and quantum sensors.

major comments (3)
  1. [Derivation of scaling law / collective decay operator] The derivation of the universal N × OD bound (likely in the section presenting the collective decay operator from the dipole-dipole Green's function) must explicitly demonstrate that the superradiant eigenvalue spectrum has no residual dependence on system shape, boundaries, or finite-size cutoffs once density and OD are fixed. The 1/r³ near-field and 1/r far-field terms can couple to detector aperture or ensemble geometry in extended free space; without this check the product form is not guaranteed to be universal.
  2. [Results / verification against limits] The manuscript should include direct numerical or analytic comparisons to known limiting cases (Dicke superradiance for small OD, independent emission for large inter-atom separation) to confirm that the claimed scaling emerges without post-hoc assumptions or fitting. The abstract states a clean law, but the reader's low confidence stems from the absence of such verification and error analysis.
  3. [Directional detection scaling] The directional-detection scaling (small vs. large numerical aperture) needs to be tied back to the same Green's-function operator; it is unclear whether the aperture dependence is derived from the same eigenvalue problem or introduced separately, which could affect the claim that large apertures recover the integrated universal bound.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods / definitions] Clarify the precise definition of optical depth used in the model (e.g., how it is computed from the imaginary part of the Green's function or integrated extinction) and ensure it is consistent across ordered and disordered cases.
  2. [Numerical or analytic methods] Add a brief discussion or appendix on the numerical methods or analytic approximations employed to extract the maximum emission rate, including any truncation of the interaction range.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive comments. We believe the suggested clarifications will strengthen the presentation of our results. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The derivation of the universal N × OD bound (likely in the section presenting the collective decay operator from the dipole-dipole Green's function) must explicitly demonstrate that the superradiant eigenvalue spectrum has no residual dependence on system shape, boundaries, or finite-size cutoffs once density and OD are fixed. The 1/r³ near-field and 1/r far-field terms can couple to detector aperture or ensemble geometry in extended free space; without this check the product form is not guaranteed to be universal.

    Authors: In our derivation, the collective decay rates are obtained from the imaginary part of the dipole-dipole Green's function integrated over the atomic positions at fixed density. The optical depth OD is defined as the line integral of the density, which naturally incorporates the geometric factors. We show that the maximum eigenvalue λ_max satisfies λ_max / N ≤ C * OD, where C is a constant independent of shape for the leading term. To make this explicit, we will add a paragraph or subsection proving that variations in shape (e.g., sphere vs. cylinder) affect only lower-order terms in the expansion for large N at fixed density and OD. The near- and far-field contributions are both included in the Green's function, and their coupling is accounted for in the bound without additional assumptions. We will revise the manuscript to include this demonstration. revision: yes

  2. Referee: The manuscript should include direct numerical or analytic comparisons to known limiting cases (Dicke superradiance for small OD, independent emission for large inter-atom separation) to confirm that the claimed scaling emerges without post-hoc assumptions or fitting. The abstract states a clean law, but the reader's low confidence stems from the absence of such verification and error analysis.

    Authors: We agree that explicit verification against limits is valuable. Analytically, when the system size is much smaller than the wavelength (small OD limit), the Green's function becomes constant, recovering the Dicke superradiant rate ~N². For large interatomic separations at low density, the off-diagonal terms in the decay matrix vanish, giving a rate ~N. We will add a section with these derivations and numerical examples for intermediate regimes, including error bars from ensemble averaging in disordered cases. This will confirm the scaling without fitting. revision: yes

  3. Referee: The directional-detection scaling (small vs. large numerical aperture) needs to be tied back to the same Green's-function operator; it is unclear whether the aperture dependence is derived from the same eigenvalue problem or introduced separately, which could affect the claim that large apertures recover the integrated universal bound.

    Authors: The directional scaling is derived directly from the same operator. The total decay rate is the sum of all eigenvalues or the trace of the decay matrix, corresponding to integration over all directions. For directional detection, we restrict the projection to the solid angle defined by the numerical aperture, which selects a subset of the far-field modes. For small NA, it approximates the coherent forward direction yielding ~N², while for NA approaching 4π, it recovers the full bound N*OD. We will clarify this in the revised text by explicitly writing the directional rate as an integral over the aperture of the far-field intensity derived from the same Green's function. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: scaling law derived from collective decay operator without self-referential inputs

full rationale

The derivation begins from the standard dipole-dipole interaction Hamiltonian and master equation for atomic ensembles, then extracts the maximum eigenvalue of the collective decay matrix. Optical depth appears as an emergent combination of density, system size, and scattering cross-section once the eigenvalue problem is solved at fixed density; it is not presupposed in the input equations or fitted to the target scaling. No self-citations are invoked to justify uniqueness or to close the argument, and the result is obtained by direct analysis of the Green's function in free space rather than by renaming or reparameterizing a known empirical pattern. The claimed universality is therefore an output of the calculation, not an input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions of quantum optics for dilute atomic ensembles at fixed density; no free parameters, invented entities, or non-standard axioms are visible in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5485 in / 1115 out tokens · 32292 ms · 2026-05-08T03:53:32.502348+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Meiser, J

    D. Meiser, J. Ye, D. R. Carlson, and M. J. Holland, Prospects for a millihertz-linewidth laser, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 163601 (2009)

    2009

  2. [2]

    J. G. Bohnet, Z. Chen, J. M. Weiner, D. Meiser, M. J. Holland, and J. K. Thompson, A steady-state superradi- ant laser with less than one intracavity photon, Nature 484, 78 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    Bychek, R

    A. Bychek, R. Holzinger, and H. Ritsch, Nanoscale mir- rorless superradiant lasing, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 143601 (2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    H. J. Carmichael, Analytical and numerical results for the steady state in cooperative resonance fluorescence, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics13, 3551 (1980)

    1980

  5. [5]

    Ferioli, A

    G. Ferioli, A. Glicenstein, I. Ferrier-Barbut, and A.Browaeys,Anon-equilibriumsuperradiantphasetran- sition in free space, Nat. Phys.19, 1345 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    Agarwal, E

    S. Agarwal, E. Chaparro, D. Barberena, A. P. n. Orioli, G. Ferioli, S. Pancaldi, I. Ferrier-Barbut, A. Browaeys, and A. Rey, Directional superradiance in a driven ultra- cold atomic gas in free space, PRX Quantum5, 040335 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    Goncalves, L

    D. Goncalves, L. Bombieri, G. Ferioli, S. Pancaldi, I. Ferrier-Barbut, A. Browaeys, E. Shahmoon, and D. Chang, Driven-dissipative phase separation in free- space atomic ensembles, PRX Quantum6, 020303 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    Ostermann, O

    S. Ostermann, O. Rubies-Bigorda, V. Zhang, and S. F. Yelin, Breakdown of steady-state superradiance in ex- tended driven atomic arrays, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 023206 (2024)

    2024

  9. [9]

    Ruostekoski, Superradiant phase transition in a large interacting driven atomic ensemble in free space, Optica Quantum3, 15 (2025)

    J. Ruostekoski, Superradiant phase transition in a large interacting driven atomic ensemble in free space, Optica Quantum3, 15 (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    R. H. Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation pro- cesses, Phys. Rev.93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  11. [11]

    C. T. Lee, Exact solution of the superradiance master equation. i. complete initial excitation, Phys. Rev. A15, 2019 (1977)

    2019

  12. [12]

    C. T. Lee, Exact solution of the superradiance master equation. ii. arbitrary initial excitation, Phys. Rev. A16, 301 (1977)

    1977

  13. [13]

    Rupasov and V

    V. Rupasov and V. Yudson, Rigorous theory of cooper- ative spontaneous emission of radiation from a lumped system of two-level atoms: Bethe ansatz method, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz87, 1617 (1984)

    1984

  14. [14]

    Solving Dicke superradiance analytically: A compendium of methods

    R. Holzinger, N. S. Bassler, J. Lyne, F. G. Jimenez, J. T. Gohsrich, and C. Genes, Solving dicke superra- diance analytically: A compendium of methods (2025), arXiv:2503.10463 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    J. P. Clemens, L. Horvath, B. C. Sanders, and H. J. Carmichael, Shot-to-shot fluctuations in the directed su- perradiant emission from extended atomic samples, Jour- nal of Optics B: Quantum and Semiclassical Optics6, S736 (2004)

    2004

  16. [16]

    Rubies-Bigorda, S

    O. Rubies-Bigorda, S. Ostermann, and S. F. Yelin, Char- acterizing superradiant dynamics in atomic arrays via a cumulant expansion approach, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013091 (2023)

    2023

  17. [17]

    C. D. Mink and M. Fleischhauer, Collective radiative in- teractions in the discrete truncated Wigner approxima- tion, SciPost Phys.15, 233 (2023)

    2023

  18. [18]

    Bonifacio and G

    R. Bonifacio and G. Preparata, Coherent spontaneous emission, Phys. Rev. A2, 336 (1970)

    1970

  19. [19]

    Bonifacio, P

    R. Bonifacio, P. Schwendimann, and F. Haake, Quantum statistical theory of superradiance. i, Phys. Rev. A4, 302 (1971)

    1971

  20. [20]

    N. E. Rehler and J. H. Eberly, Superradiance, Phys. Rev. A3, 1735 (1971)

    1971

  21. [21]

    Ressayre and A

    E. Ressayre and A. Tallet, Basic properties for coop- erative emission of radiation, Phys. Rev. Lett.37, 424 (1976)

    1976

  22. [22]

    Ressayre and A

    E. Ressayre and A. Tallet, Quantum theory for superra- diance, Phys. Rev. A15, 2410 (1977)

    1977

  23. [23]

    Holzinger and S

    R. Holzinger and S. F. Yelin, Beyond dicke superradi- ance: Universal scaling of the peak emission rate (2025), arXiv:2506.12649 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Holzinger and S

    R. Holzinger and S. F. Yelin, Analytical prediction of the superradiant emission peak and timing in fully excited quantum emitter ensembles (2025), arXiv:2504.09985 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    W.-K. Mok, A. Asenjo-Garcia, T. C. Sum, and L.-C. Kwek, Dicke superradiance requires interactions beyond nearest neighbors, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 213605 (2023)

    2023

  26. [26]

    W.-K. Mok, A. Poddar, E. Sierra, C. C. Rusconi, J. Preskill, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Universal scaling laws for correlated decay of many-body quantum systems (2025), arXiv:2406.00722 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Barthel and R

    T. Barthel and R. Hübener, Solving condensed-matter ground-state problems by semidefinite relaxations, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 200404 (2012)

    2012

  28. [28]

    Baumgratz and M

    T. Baumgratz and M. B. Plenio, Lower bounds for ground states of condensed matter systems, New J. Phys. 14, 023027 (2012)

    2012

  29. [29]

    Bravyi, D

    S. Bravyi, D. Gosset, R. König, and K. Temme, Approx- imation algorithms for quantum many-body problems, J. Math. Phys.60, 032203 (2019)

    2019

  30. [30]

    Baccari, C

    F. Baccari, C. Gogolin, P. Wittek, and A. Acin, Verify- ing the output of quantum optimizers with ground-state energy lower bounds, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043163 (2020)

    2020

  31. [31]

    Parekh and K

    O. Parekh and K. Thompson, Application of the Level- 2 Quantum Lasserre Hierarchy in Quantum Approx- imation Algorithms, in48th International Colloquium on Automata, Languages, and Programming (ICALP 2021), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 198 (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2021) pp. 1...

    2021

  32. [32]

    F. G. Brandao and A. W. Harrow, Product-state approx- imations to quantum ground states, inProceedings of the Forty-Fifth Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Com- puting, STOC ’13 (Association for Computing Machin- 7 ery, New York, NY, USA, 2013) p. 871–880

    2013

  33. [33]

    Endres, H

    M. Endres, H. Bernien, A. Keesling, H. Levine, E. R. Anschuetz, A. Krajenbrink, C. Senko, V. Vuletic, M. Greiner, and M. D. Lukin, Atom-by-atom assembly of defect-free one-dimensional cold atom arrays, Science 354, 1024 (2016)

    2016

  34. [34]

    Barredo, S

    D. Barredo, S. de Leseleuc, V. Lienhard, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, An atom-by-atom assembler of defect-free arbitrary two-dimensional atomic arrays, Science354, 1021 (2016)

    2016

  35. [35]

    H. Kim, W. Lee, H.-g. Lee, H. Jo, Y. Song, and J. Ahn, In situ single-atom array synthesis using dynamic holo- graphic optical tweezers, Nat. Commun.7, 13317 (2016)

    2016

  36. [36]

    Kumar, T.-Y

    A. Kumar, T.-Y. Wu, F. Giraldo, and D. S. Weiss, Sort- ing ultracold atoms in a three-dimensional optical lat- tice in a realization of Maxwell’s demon, Nature561, 83 (2018)

    2018

  37. [37]

    A. M. Kaufman and K.-K. Ni, Quantum science with optical tweezer arrays of ultracold atoms and molecules, Nat. Phys.17, 1324 (2021)

    2021

  38. [38]

    J. Rui, D. Wei, A. Rubio-Abadal, S. Hollerith, J. Zeiher, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, C. Gross, and I. Bloch, A subradi- ant optical mirror formed by a single structured atomic layer, Nature583, 369 (2020)

    2020

  39. [39]

    Srakaew, P

    K. Srakaew, P. Weckesser, S. Hollerith, D. Wei, D. Adler, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, A subwavelength atomic array switched by a single rydberg atom, Nature Physics19, 714 (2023)

    2023

  40. [40]

    Guerin, M

    W. Guerin, M. Rouabah, and R. Kaiser, Light interacting with atomic ensembles: collective, cooperative and meso- scopic effects, Journal of Modern Optics64, 895 (2017)

    2017

  41. [41]

    D. E. Chang, J. S. Douglas, A. González-Tudela, C.-L. Hung, and H. J. Kimble, Colloquium: Quantum matter built from nanoscopic lattices of atoms and photons, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 031002 (2018)

    2018

  42. [42]

    R. H. Lehmberg, Radiation from ann-atom system. i. general formalism, Phys. Rev. A2, 883 (1970)

    1970

  43. [43]

    selective radiance

    A. Asenjo-Garcia, M. Moreno-Cardoner, A. Albrecht, H. J. Kimble, and D. E. Chang, Exponential improve- ment in photon storage fidelities using subradiance and “selective radiance” in atomic arrays, Phys. Rev. X7, 031024 (2017)

    2017

  44. [44]

    (Courier Corporation, Boston, 2012)

    L.AllenandJ.H.Eberly,Optical resonance and two-level atoms, second edition ed. (Courier Corporation, Boston, 2012)

    2012

  45. [45]

    Kempe, A

    J. Kempe, A. Kitaev, and O. Regev, The complexity of the local Hamiltonian problem, SIAM J. Comput.35, 1070 (2006)

    2006

  46. [46]

    The normalization is intended in the usual L2-norm, ∥ψmax∥2 2≡ ∑ j|ψj max|2 = 1

  47. [47]

    Mézard, G

    M. Mézard, G. Parisi, and A. Zee, Spectra of euclidean random matrices, Nuclear Physics B559, 689 (1999)

    1999

  48. [48]

    Akkermans, A

    E. Akkermans, A. Gero, and R. Kaiser, Photon localiza- tion and dicke superradiance in atomic gases, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 103602 (2008)

    2008

  49. [49]

    S.E.SkipetrovandA.Goetschy,Eigenvaluedistributions of large euclidean random matrices for waves in random media, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoret- ical44, 065102 (2011)

    2011

  50. [50]

    Gero and E

    A. Gero and E. Akkermans, Cooperative effects and pho- ton localization in atomic gases: The two-dimensional case, Phys. Rev. A88, 023839 (2013)

    2013

  51. [51]

    Goetschy and S

    A. Goetschy and S. E. Skipetrov, Euclidean ran- dom matrices and their applications in physics (2013), arXiv:1303.2880 [math-ph]

    work page arXiv 2013

  52. [52]

    Viggiano, R

    V. Viggiano, R. Bachelard, F. D. Cunden, P. Facchi, R. Kaiser, S. Pascazio, and F. V. Pepe, Cooperative pho- ton emission rates in random atomic clouds, Phys. Rev. A108, 063701 (2023)

    2023

  53. [53]

    Viggiano, R

    V. Viggiano, R. Bachelard, F. D. Cunden, P. Facchi, R. Kaiser, S. Pascazio, F. V. Pepe, and A. Scardicchio, Condensation of vanishing photon emission rates in ran- dom atomic clouds, Phys. Rev. A112, 013304 (2025)

    2025

  54. [54]

    Svidzinsky and J.-T

    A. Svidzinsky and J.-T. Chang, Cooperative spontaneous emission as a many-body eigenvalue problem, Phys. Rev. A77, 043833 (2008)

    2008

  55. [55]

    Koltchinskii and E

    V. Koltchinskii and E. Giné, Random matrix approxi- mation of spectra of integral operators, Bernoulli6, 113 (2000)

    2000

  56. [56]

    Williams and M

    C. Williams and M. Seeger, The effect of the input den- sity distribution on kernel-based classifiers, inICML’00 Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Machine Learning(Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 2000) pp. 1159–1166

    2000

  57. [57]

    Bellando, A

    L. Bellando, A. Gero, E. Akkermans, and R. Kaiser, Roles of cooperative effects and disorder in photon local- ization: thecaseofavectorradiationfield,TheEuropean Physical Journal B94, 49 (2021)

    2021

  58. [58]

    See the Supplemental Material for: (i) additional infor- mation about the fitting procedure and the numerical simulations; (ii) the analytical derivations of the scal- ing ofΓ max in 1D, 2D, and 3D clouds; (iii) the proof that Eq. (10) are eigenfunctions of the integral equa- tions; (iv) derivation of the angular distribution of pho- ton emission from ore...

  59. [59]

    J. E. Sansonetti and G. Nave, Wavelengths, transition probabilities, and energy levels for the spectrum of neu- tral strontium (sri), Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data39, 033103 (2010)

    2010

  60. [60]

    M. F. Fernandez, P. G. S. Dias, P. H. N. Magnani, M. do Amaral Martins, M. Hugbart, A. Cipris, P. W. Courteille, and R. C. Teixeira, Phase-contrast imag- ing of a dense atomic cloud (2025), arXiv:2501.03158 [physics.atom-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    Andreoli, M

    F. Andreoli, M. J. Gullans, A. A. High, A. Browaeys, and D. E. Chang, Maximum refractive index of an atomic medium, Phys. Rev. X11, 011026 (2021)

    2021

  62. [62]

    Tanji-Suzuki, I

    H. Tanji-Suzuki, I. D. Leroux, M. H. Schleier-Smith, M. Cetina, A. T. Grier, J. Simon, and V. Vuletić, Chap- ter 4 - interaction between atomic ensembles and optical resonators: Classical description, inAdvances in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, Advances In Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, Vol. 60, edited by E. Ari- mondo, P. Berman, and C...

    2011

  63. [63]

    J. P. Clemens, L. Horvath, B. C. Sanders, and H. J. Carmichael, Collective spontaneous emission from a line of atoms, Phys. Rev. A68, 023809 (2003)

    2003

  64. [64]

    S. J. Masson, I. Ferrier-Barbut, L. A. Orozco, A. Browaeys, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Many-body signa- tures of collective decay in atomic chains, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 263601 (2020)

    2020

  65. [65]

    S. J. Masson and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Universality of dicke 8 superradiance in arrays of quantum emitters, Nature Communications13, 2285 (2022)

    2022

  66. [66]

    Ernst and P

    V. Ernst and P. Stehle, Emission of radiation from a sys- tem of many excited atoms, Phys. Rev.176, 1456 (1968)

    1968

  67. [67]

    L. M. Narducci, D. H. Feng, R. Gilmore, and G. S. Agarwal, Transient and steady-state behavior of collec- tive atomic systems driven by a classical field, Phys. Rev. A18, 1571 (1978)

    1978

  68. [68]

    Hepp and E

    K. Hepp and E. H. Lieb, On the superradiant phase tran- sition for molecules in a quantized radiation field: the dicke maser model, Ann. Phys.76, 360 (1973)

    1973

  69. [69]

    Liedl, F

    C. Liedl, F. Tebbenjohanns, C. Bach, S. Pucher, A. Rauschenbeutel, and P. Schneeweiss, Observation of superradiant bursts in a cascaded quantum system, Phys. Rev. X14, 011020 (2024)

    2024

  70. [70]

    Y. He, L. Ji, Y. Wang, L. Qiu, J. Zhao, Y. Ma, X. Huang, S. Wu, and D. E. Chang, Geometric control of collec- tive spontaneous emission, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 213602 (2020)

    2020

  71. [71]

    Grava, Y

    S. Grava, Y. He, S. Wu, and D. E. Chang, Renormal- ization group analysis of near-field induced dephasing of optical spin waves in an atomic medium, New Journal of Physics24, 013031 (2022)

    2022

  72. [72]

    L. Ji, Y. He, Q. Cai, Z. Fang, Y. Wang, L. Qiu, L. Zhou, S. Wu, S. Grava, and D. E. Chang, Superradiant de- tection of microscopic optical dipolar interactions, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 253602 (2023)

    2023

  73. [73]

    Gross and S

    M. Gross and S. Haroche, Superradiance: An essay on the theory of collective spontaneous emission, Physics Reports93, 301 (1982)

    1982

  74. [74]

    Sierra, S

    E. Sierra, S. J. Masson, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Dicke su- perradiance in ordered lattices: Dimensionality matters, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 023207 (2022)

    2022

  75. [75]

    Robicheaux, Theoretical study of early-time superra- diance for atom clouds and arrays, Phys

    F. Robicheaux, Theoretical study of early-time superra- diance for atom clouds and arrays, Phys. Rev. A104, 063706 (2021)

    2021

  76. [76]

    Penrose,Random Geometric Graphs(Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2003)

    M. Penrose,Random Geometric Graphs(Oxford Univer- sity Press, 2003)

    2003

  77. [77]

    J. D. Jackson,Classical electrodynamics, 3rd ed. (Wiley, New York, NY, 1999)

    1999

  78. [78]

    Jeffrey, D

    A. Jeffrey, D. Zwillinger, I. Gradshteyn, and I. Ryzhik, eds.,Table of Integrals, Series, and Products (Seventh Edition), seventh edition ed. (Academic Press, Boston,

  79. [79]

    F. G. Tricomi, Sugli zeri dei polinomi sferici ed ul- trasferici, Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata31, 93 (1950)

    1950

  80. [80]

    Janaswamy, Free-space green’s function and its appli- cation in various coordinates, inEngineering Electrody- namics, 2053-2563 (IOP Publishing, 2020) pp

    R. Janaswamy, Free-space green’s function and its appli- cation in various coordinates, inEngineering Electrody- namics, 2053-2563 (IOP Publishing, 2020) pp. 15–1 to 15–38

    2053

Showing first 80 references.