Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Purcell-Enhanced Generation of Photonic Bell States via the Inelastic Scattering of Single Atoms

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A single atom inside a fiber cavity can emit photon pairs that violate Bell's inequality, without any atomic spin control or magnetic field.

desk verdict A solid, genuinely new neutral-atom Bell-state source with honest data but an overstated Bell loophole claim; worth serious refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11562 v1 pith:ME72QRAB submitted 2024-12-16 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Jian Wang , Xiao-Long Zhou , Ze-Min Shen , Dong-Yu Huang , Si-Jian He , Qi-Yang Huang , Yi-Jia Liu , Chuan-Feng Li
show 1 more author
Guang-Can Guo
This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords energy-timeentanglementBellinequalityresonancefluorescenceHeitlerregimePurcellenhancementcavityquantumelectrodynamicsFransoninterferometersingleneutralatoms
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims that a single rubidium atom trapped in a fiber-based optical cavity and driven by far-detuned, weak laser light emits genuine energy-time entangled photon pairs through inelastic scattering, with no need to manipulate the atom's spin. In the Heitler regime—large detuning and weak driving, so the atom stays almost always in its ground state—the dominant pair-producing event is the simultaneous scattering of two photons whose frequencies lie symmetrically about the drive frequency, and the Purcell-enhanced cavity makes this rare process bright enough to measure. The authors verify the entanglement with a Franson interferometer, reporting a raw visibility of 92.6 ± 2.3% and a CHSH parameter of 2.61(7), an 8-standard-deviation violation of the local-hidden-variable bound. If the claim holds, the atom-cavity system is a narrowband, tunable photonic Bell-state source that sidesteps spin decoherence.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-photon inelastic scattering amplitude of the atom-cavity system in the Heitler regime: large atomic detuning and weak driving ($|\Delta_a| \gg \Omega \gg \Gamma$), with the atom almost always in its ground state and the inelastic component—two photons emitted in a cascade through virtual levels—carrying the photon-pair signal. The ratio of inelastic to total scattering is $s/(s+1)$, where $s = 2\Omega^2/\Gamma^2 / [1 + (2\Delta_a/\Gamma)^2]$. What carries the argument is the Purcell-regime fiber Fabry–Pérot cavity ($\kappa > g^2/\kappa > \gamma$), whose large field-decay rate and small mode volume let both sideband frequencies fit inside the cavity line and enhance emission of both photons simultaneously; the model gives a collected pair rate $R_c = 2\kappa\Omega^2/g^2\,|\tilde{C}|^2/|1 + 2\tilde{C}|^2$. The Franson interferometer then maps the energy-time entanglement into a path-path Bell state, and CHSH correlation coefficients measured in its central time bin provide the nonlocality test.

What would settle it

Run the same Franson measurement with detector efficiency high enough to remove the fair-sampling assumption and with the two phase choices made spacelike-separated; if the CHSH parameter then fails to exceed 2, the nonlocality claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that two photons scattered inelastically by a single two-level atom in the Heitler regime are energy-time entangled, and that coupling the atom to a cavity in the Purcell regime both enhances and collects this emission. The paper's picture is that the atom, driven far off resonance and weakly, is excited by two-photon terms of the driving field and cascades back down through virtual levels, emitting one photon at $\omega_L - \Delta_a$ and one at $\omega_L + \Delta_a$; the total energy is fixed and the two emissions are linked within the atomic lifetime, so the pair is energy-time entangled. A Franson interferometer converts this into a path-entangled Bell state $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|s_a,s_b\rangle + e^{i(\varphi_a+\varphi_b)}|l_a,l_b\rangle\right)$, and the measured interference visibility of 92.6 ± 2.3% with CHSH $S = 2.61(7)$ is presented as confirmation of nonlocal entanglement. The same data show the late photon's wavepacket compressed to 3.7(3) ns by the Purcell effect, with the pair rate and linewidth tunable through cavity detuning.

Load-bearing premise

The violation is judged from pairs that land in a 12 ns central time window, with only about 3% of emitted photons detected, so the conclusion assumes those detected pairs fairly represent all pairs emitted by the atom.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A neutral-atom source can produce nonlocal photonic Bell states without atomic spin control or a magnetic field, removing spin decoherence from the list of failure modes.
  • The entangled-photon linewidth can be continuously tuned by changing the cavity detuning, allowing the source to be matched to quantum memories or channels of different bandwidths.
  • With measured rates of 16 detected pairs per second and roughly 36 kHz total pair scattering, collection and filtering improvements could push usable pair rates above 1 kHz.
  • The result extends Bell-violation in resonance fluorescence from solid-state emitters to natural atoms, making the effect available to cavity-QED-based quantum network nodes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the source is as robust as claimed, arrays of such atom-cavity nodes could be multiplexed into a fiber network, with the tunable linewidth easing spectral matching to remote quantum memories.
  • The same energy-time mechanism could be adapted to time-bin or frequency-bin encoding by adding fast phase modulation, making the source directly compatible with standard quantum communication protocols.
  • The model's rate formula predicts that the detected pair count should scale linearly with the saturation parameter, so varying the drive intensity offers a simple experimental test of the two-photon scattering picture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the generation of photonic energy-time Bell states by inelastic scattering of a single 87Rb atom coupled to a fiber Fabry-Pérot cavity in the Purcell regime. The authors present measurements of the second-order correlation function showing pronounced bunching (g(2)(0)≈100) when the elastic component is filtered out, a raw Franson visibility of 92.6±2.3%, a CHSH parameter S=2.61(7), frequency-resolved temporal ordering of the two sideband photons, and a Purcell-enhanced pair-generation rate that is tunable with cavity detuning. The manuscript interprets these results as evidence for genuine non-local energy-time entanglement and as the first demonstration of this phenomenon with neutral atoms.

Significance. If the results hold, this work establishes a neutral-atom source of narrowband, tunable, bright entangled-photon pairs that does not require atomic spin control and is therefore insensitive to spin decoherence. The reported CHSH value and raw visibility are quantitatively consistent with the coincidence counts in Table I of the Supplementary Information under Poisson statistics, and both exceed the relevant thresholds for the claims of entanglement. The strengths of the paper include the directness of the Franson/CHSH measurement, the independently characterized cavity parameters, and the clear evidence for Purcell enhancement of the two-photon scattering process. The main weakness is that the nonlocality claim is conditional on a fair-sampling assumption that is not stated.

major comments (2)
  1. [CHSH Inequality (Supplementary Information), Fig. 3, Eq. (4)] The claim that the measurement provides 'the explicit exclusion of the local hidden-variable' is stronger than what the data support. The CHSH parameter S=2.61(7) is computed from coincidences in the 12 ns central peak of the Franson histogram only, i.e., from the post-selected subensemble in which both photons took the same interferometer arm. With a fitted overall per-photon detection efficiency η≈0.03 (Eq. 4) and no spacelike separation, local hidden-variable models can reproduce the observed correlations if unregistered pairs are discarded (the fair-sampling/detection loophole) or if the setting choice is subject to a locality loophole. The paper should explicitly state these assumptions and soften the wording; as written, the 'explicit exclusion' statement overstates the evidential strength of the measurement.
  2. [Abstract and Fig. 3(b)] The manuscript conflates a visibility-based entanglement witness with a loophole-free Bell test. The text states that the raw visibility of 92.6±2.3% is 'significantly above the 1/√2 threshold for general entanglement recognition' and then uses the CHSH violation to claim the 'explicit exclusion of the local hidden-variable.' The visibility threshold is an entanglement witness under additional assumptions, not by itself a nonlocality test, and the CHSH violation is subject to the fair-sampling and locality caveats noted above. Please make these distinctions explicit in the abstract and the main text, and avoid the phrase 'explicit exclusion' unless the assumptions under which it holds are stated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Experimental setup, second paragraph] The sentence 'allowing us to filter out ~99.5% of the inelastically scattered photons effectively' should read 'elastically scattered photons'; the notch filter rejects the elastic component, as shown in Fig. 2(c).
  2. [Conclusion] The conclusion contains a typo: 'Heiter regime' should be 'Heitler regime'.
  3. [Fig. 2 caption] The phrase 'complete elastic scattering photons' is awkward; consider 'the complete elastic component'.
  4. [Eq. (2)] The relationship between the real cooperativity C=g²/(2κγ) quoted in the text and the complex cooperativity C̃ used in Eq. (2) is not stated explicitly; a one-sentence clarification would help the reader connect the Purcell-enhancement claim to the rate formula.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the central entanglement and Purcell claims are direct measurements or independent cavity-QED comparisons; the only fit is an efficiency calibration.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that inelastically scattered photon pairs from a single atom in a Purcell-regime cavity are energy-time entangled—is supported by direct measurements: the Franson interference visibility (92.6 ± 2.3%) and the CHSH parameter S = 2.61(7), both computed from measured coincidence counts (Table I and Eqs. 5–6 of the Supplemental Information) rather than from fitted theory parameters. The Purcell enhancement prediction Γ = (2C + 1)·2γ and the collection rate Rc are taken from standard cavity QED (Refs. 9, 36) and use independently measured g, κ, and γ; the measured wavepacket decay time of 3.7(3) ns is compared with the free-space prediction of 27.7 ns as a consistency check, not used as an input. The only fitted quantity, η ≈ 0.03 in Eq. 4, is an overall detection-efficiency calibration used to convert detected pair rates into total scattering rates; it is not used to produce the entanglement or Purcell results, and the paper does not present that conversion as a prediction. Self-citations are confined to experimental methods (fiber-cavity fabrication, thermal compensation, frequency-comb locking) and are not load-bearing for the physics claims. The fair-sampling/postselection caveat regarding the Franson CHSH measurement is an evidential-strength or loophole concern, not a circularity, and therefore does not affect the circularity score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard cavity-QED and resonance-fluorescence theory (two-level emitter, Purcell-modified decay, energy-time entanglement from a two-photon cascade) rather than on new postulates. No new particles, forces, or mediators are introduced. The only quantity fitted to data is the detection efficiency in Eq. 4. The Franson analysis introduces the implicit fair-sampling assumption on the post-selected subensemble, listed as the paper's weakest assumption.

free parameters (2)
  • overall photon detection efficiency eta = about 0.03
    Obtained by fitting the detected pair rate versus cavity detuning to R(2)_det = (eta^2/4)*s*Rc (Eq. 4, Fig. 4(b)). It is consistent with the product of quoted component efficiencies (out-coupling 0.4, path 0.12, detector 0.6) and does not feed into the entanglement claim.
  • late-photon wavepacket decay time = 3.7(3) ns at Delta_c ~ 0
    Exponential fit to the frequency-resolved correlation function (Fig. 4(a)). The implied C_eff ~ 3.1 to 3.3 is slightly below the independently measured C = 4.1(8), a small unaddressed tension.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The F = 2 to F' = 3 transition of 87Rb behaves as a single two-level emitter with no spin-dependent dynamics under lin orthogonal lin driving in zero magnetic field.
    Invoked throughout; the paper claims spin control is unnecessary, which requires that degenerate Zeeman substructure does not perturb the two-photon interference or create population trapping. The cycling nature of F=2 to F'=3 supports this, but the assumption is not directly tested.
  • domain assumption The Heitler-regime description (|Delta_a| >> Omega >> Gamma, s = 0.054) with the optical Bloch ratio s/(s+1) for the inelastic fraction applies inside the Purcell-broadened cavity, with Gamma = (2C+1)*2*gamma.
    Used in the principle section and Eq. 1 to compute the inelastic fraction and interpret the two-photon cascade; the Purcell-modified decay is taken from Ref. 36 and checked against the measured wavepacket compression.
  • domain assumption Two-photon inelastic scattering produces an energy-time entangled pair at omega_L +/- Delta_a whose two-photon coherence time is 1/Gamma, so a 47 ns interferometer delay with tau >> 1/Gamma isolates the |s,s> + e^{i(phi_a+phi_b)}|l,l> subspace.
    Franson analysis in Fig. 3 and Eq. 3; this is the standard Franson criterion and also the source of the post-selection and fair-sampling caveat listed as the weakest assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Purcell-Enhanced Generation of Photonic Bell States via the Inelastic Scattering of Single Atoms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ME72QRAB

@misc{pith2026241211562,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Purcell-Enhanced Generation of Photonic Bell States via the Inelastic Scattering of Single Atoms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ME72QRAB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11562}
}
read the original abstract

Single atoms trapped in optical cavities exhibit immense potential as key nodes in future quantum information processing. They have already demonstrated significant advancement in various quantum technologies, particularly regarding the generation of nonclassical light. Here, we efficiently produce genuine photonic Bell states through the inelastic scattering process of single two-level intracavity atoms. An experimental violation of the Bell inequality, arising from the interference between the probability amplitudes of two photons, validates the intrinsic nature of energy-time entanglement. Coupling atoms with an optical cavity in the Purcell regime substantially enhances the two-photon scattering. This Bell state generation process does not require atomic spin control, thereby rendering it inherently immune to decoherence effects. This work advances the comprehension of resonance fluorescence and has the potential to broaden the landscape of quantum technologies and facilitate the application of photonic Bell states.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11562 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Principle diagram of two-photon inelastic scattering process and experimental setup. (a) Elastic and inelastic scattering processes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Second-order correlation function of the photons collected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Measurements of the Franson interferometer and a violation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Wavepackets of the late photons in the time domain. With [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Sketch of experimental apparatus, not to scaled. (b) Ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Second-order correlation functions with different filtering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Franson interferometer for photon energy-time entanglement verification. Two identical unbalanced Mach–Zehnder (M-Z) interfer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (a) Schematic diagram of signals used in Franson interfer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum nonlinear optics—photon by photon,

    Darrick E Chang, Vladan Vuleti ´c, and Mikhail D Lukin, “Quantum nonlinear optics—photon by photon,” Nat. Photon. 8, 685–694 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    Quantum nonlinear optics with single photons enabled by strongly interacting atoms,

    Thibault Peyronel, Ofer Firstenberg, Qi-Yu Liang, Sebastian Hofferberth, Alexey V Gorshkov, Thomas Pohl, Mikhail D Lukin, and Vladan Vuleti ´c, “Quantum nonlinear optics with single photons enabled by strongly interacting atoms,” Nature 488, 57–60 (2012)

    work page 2012

  3. [3]

    Photon block- ade in an optical cavity with one trapped atom,

    Kevin M Birnbaum, Andreea Boca, Russell Miller, Allen D Boozer, Tracy E Northup, and H Jeff Kimble, “Photon block- ade in an optical cavity with one trapped atom,” Nature 436, 87–90 (2005)

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Two-photon blockade in an atom-driven cav- ity qed system,

    Christoph Hamsen, Karl Nicolas Tolazzi, Tatjana Wilk, and Gerhard Rempe, “Two-photon blockade in an atom-driven cav- ity qed system,” Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 133604 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Observation of three-photon bound states in a quan- tum nonlinear medium,

    Qi-Yu Liang, Aditya V . Venkatramani, Sergio H. Cantu, Travis L. Nicholson, Michael J. Gullans, Alexey V . Gorshkov, Jeff D. Thompson, Cheng Chin, Mikhail D. Lukin, and Vladan Vuleti´c, “Observation of three-photon bound states in a quan- tum nonlinear medium,” Science 359, 783–786 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    All-optical routing of single photons by a one-atom switch controlled by a single photon,

    Itay Shomroni, Serge Rosenblum, Yulia Lovsky, Orel Bechler, Gabriel Guendelman, and Barak Dayan, “All-optical routing of single photons by a one-atom switch controlled by a single photon,” Science 345, 903–906 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    A photon–photon quantum gate based on a single atom in an optical resonator,

    Bastian Hacker, Stephan Welte, Gerhard Rempe, and Stephan Ritter, “A photon–photon quantum gate based on a single atom in an optical resonator,” Nature 536, 193–196 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Quantum networks with neutral atom processing nodes,

    Jacob P Covey, Harald Weinfurter, and Hannes Bernien, “Quantum networks with neutral atom processing nodes,” npj Quantum Inf. 9, 90 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    Cavity-based quantum networks with single atoms and optical photons,

    Andreas Reiserer and Gerhard Rempe, “Cavity-based quantum networks with single atoms and optical photons,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 1379–1418 (2015)

    2015

  2. [10]

    Colloquium: Cavity-enhanced quantum network nodes,

    Andreas Reiserer, “Colloquium: Cavity-enhanced quantum network nodes,” Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 041003 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Theory of resonance fluorescence,

    HJ Kimble and L Mandel, “Theory of resonance fluorescence,” Phys. Rev. A 13, 2123 (1976)

    1976

  4. [12]

    Investigation of the spec- trum of resonance fluorescence induced by a monochromatic field,

    FY Wu, RE Grove, and S Ezekiel, “Investigation of the spec- trum of resonance fluorescence induced by a monochromatic field,” Phy. Rev. Lett.35, 1426 (1975)

    1975

  5. [13]

    Photon antibunching in resonance fluorescence,

    H Jeff Kimble, Mario Dagenais, and Leonard Mandel, “Photon antibunching in resonance fluorescence,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 691 (1977)

    1977

  6. [14]

    Time correlations between the two sidebands of the resonance fluorescence triplet,

    A Aspect, G Roger, S Reynaud, J Dalibard, and C Cohen- Tannoudji, “Time correlations between the two sidebands of the resonance fluorescence triplet,” Phys. Rev. Lett.45, 617 (1980)

    1980

  7. [15]

    Observation of the mollow triplet from an optically confined single atom,

    Boon Long Ng, Chang Hoong Chow, and Christian Kurtsiefer, “Observation of the mollow triplet from an optically confined single atom,” Phys. Rev. A106, 063719 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    Dynamic resonance fluorescence in solid-state cavity quantum electrodynamics,

    Shunfa Liu, Chris Gustin, Hanqing Liu, Xueshi Li, Ying Yu, Haiqiao Ni, Zhichuan Niu, Stephen Hughes, Xuehua Wang, and Jin Liu, “Dynamic resonance fluorescence in solid-state cavity quantum electrodynamics,” Nat. Photon. 18, 318–324 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Entanglement in resonance fluores- cence,

    Juan Camilo L ´opez Carre ˜no, Santiago Berm ´udez Feijoo, and Magdalena Stobi ´nska, “Entanglement in resonance fluores- cence,” npj Nanophoton. 1, 3 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Reduced quantum fluctuations in reso- nance fluorescence,

    DF Walls and P Zoller, “Reduced quantum fluctuations in reso- nance fluorescence,” Phys. Rev. Lett.47, 709 (1981)

    1981

  11. [19]

    Theory of frequency-filtered and time-resolved n-photon correlations,

    Elena del Valle, Alejandro Gonzalez-Tudela, Fabrice P Laussy, Carlos Tejedor, and Michael J Hartmann, “Theory of frequency-filtered and time-resolved n-photon correlations,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 183601 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Origin of antibunch- ing in resonance fluorescence,

    Lukas Hanschke, Lucas Schweickert, Juan Camilo L ´opez Carre˜no, Eva Sch ¨oll, Katharina D Zeuner, Thomas Lettner, Eduardo Zubizarreta Casalengua, Marcus Reindl, Saimon Fil- ipe Covre da Silva, Rinaldo Trotta, et al., “Origin of antibunch- ing in resonance fluorescence,” Phys....

    2020

  13. [21]

    Power spectrum of light scattered by two-level systems,

    BR Mollow, “Power spectrum of light scattered by two-level systems,” Phys. Rev.188, 1969–1975 (1969)

    1969

  14. [22]

    Mollow triplet in cold atoms,

    Luis Ortiz-Guti ´errez, Raul Celistrino Teixeira, Aur ´elien Eloy, Dilleys Ferreira da Silva, Robin Kaiser, Romain Bachelard, and Mathilde Fouch´e, “Mollow triplet in cold atoms,” New J. Phys. 21, 1969–1975 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Photon statistics of filtered resonance fluorescence,

    Catherine L Phillips, Alistair J Brash, Dara PS McCutcheon, Jake Iles-Smith, Edmund Clarke, Benjamin Royall, Maurice S Skolnick, A Mark Fox, and Ahsan Nazir, “Photon statistics of filtered resonance fluorescence,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 043603 (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Two photons everywhere,

    Eduardo Zubizarreta Casalengua, Fabrice P. Laussy, and Elena del Valle, “Two photons everywhere,” arXiv preprint (2024), 10.48550/arXiv.2402.14010

    2024 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    On the simultaneous scattering of two photons by a single two-level atom,

    Luke Masters, Xin-Xin Hu, Martin Cordier, Gabriele Maron, Lucas Pache, Arno Rauschenbeutel, Max Schemmer, and 6 J¨urgen V olz, “On the simultaneous scattering of two photons by a single two-level atom,” Nat. Photon. 17, 972–976 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Violation of bell inequality by photon scattering on a two-level emitter,

    Shikai Liu, Oliver August Dall’Alba Sandberg, Ming Lai Chan, Bj ¨orn Schrinski, Yiouli Anyfantaki, Rasmus B Nielsen, Robert G Larsen, Andrei Skalkin, Ying Wang, Leonardo Mi- dolo, et al. , “Violation of bell inequality by photon scattering on a two-level emitter,” Nat. Phys. ,...

    2024

  19. [27]

    A fiber fabry–perot cavity with high finesse,

    David Hunger, Tilo Steinmetz, Yves Colombe, Christian Deutsch, Theodor W H ¨ansch, and Jakob Reichel, “A fiber fabry–perot cavity with high finesse,” New J. Phys. 12, 065038 (2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    A quantum network node with crossed optical fibre cavities,

    Manuel Brekenfeld, Dominik Niemietz, Joseph Dale Christe- sen, and Gerhard Rempe, “A quantum network node with crossed optical fibre cavities,” Nat. Phys. 16, 647–651 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Achievements and perspectives of optical fiber fabry– perot cavities,

    Hannes Pfeifer, Lothar Ratschbacher, Jose Gallego, Carlos Saavedra, Alexander Faßbender, Andreas von Haaren, Wolf- gang Alt, Sebastian Hofferberth, Michael K¨ohl, Stefan Linden, et al. , “Achievements and perspectives of optical fiber fabry– perot cavities,” Appl. Phys. B 128,...

    2022

  22. [30]

    Experimental realization of strong coupling between a cold atomic ensemble and an optical fiber microcavity,

    Li Li, Yu-Hao Pan, Yi-Jia Liu, Xiao-Long Zhou, Dong-Yu Huang, Ze-Min Shen, Jian Wang, Chuan-Feng Li, and Guang- Can Guo, “Experimental realization of strong coupling between a cold atomic ensemble and an optical fiber microcavity,” Chin. Opt. Lett. 21, 092702 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Proposed experiment to test local hidden- variable theories,

    John F Clauser, Michael A Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard A Holt, “Proposed experiment to test local hidden- variable theories,” Phys. Rev. Let.23, 880 (1969)

    1969

  24. [32]

    Daniel A Steck, Quantum and atom optics (2007)

    2007

  25. [33]

    Correlation signals in resonance fluorescence: interpretation via photon scattering amplitudes,

    J Dalibard and S Reynaud, “Correlation signals in resonance fluorescence: interpretation via photon scattering amplitudes,” J. Phys. 44, 1337–1343 (1983)

    1983

  26. [34]

    Strongly correlated mul- tiparticle transport in one dimension through a quantum impu- rity,

    Jung-Tsung Shen and Shanhui Fan, “Strongly correlated mul- tiparticle transport in one dimension through a quantum impu- rity,” Phys. Rev. A76, 062709 (2007)

    2007

  27. [35]

    Strongly correlated photon transport in waveguide quantum electrodynamics with weakly coupled emitters,

    Sahand Mahmoodian, Mantas ˇCepulkovskis, Sumanta Das, Pe- ter Lodahl, Klemens Hammerer, and Anders S. Sørensen, “Strongly correlated photon transport in waveguide quantum electrodynamics with weakly coupled emitters,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 143601 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    Strong pur- cell effect on a neutral atom trapped in an open fiber cavity,

    Jose Gallego, Wolfgang Alt, Tobias Macha, Miguel Martinez- Dorantes, Deepak Pandey, and Dieter Meschede, “Strong pur- cell effect on a neutral atom trapped in an open fiber cavity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 173603 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    On the suppression of the diffusion and the quan- tum nature of a cavity mode. optical bistability: forces and fric- tion in driven cavities,

    Karim Murr, “On the suppression of the diffusion and the quan- tum nature of a cavity mode. optical bistability: forces and fric- tion in driven cavities,” J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.36, 2515 (2003)

    2003

  30. [38]

    Vacuum-stimulated cooling of single atoms in three dimensions,

    Stefan Nußmann, Karim Murr, Markus Hijlkema, Bernhard Weber, Axel Kuhn, and Gerhard Rempe, “Vacuum-stimulated cooling of single atoms in three dimensions,” Nat. Phys.1, 122– 125 (2005)

    2005

  31. [39]

    High-finesse fiber fabry–perot cavities: stabi- lization and mode matching analysis,

    Jose Gallego, Sutapa Ghosh, Seyed Khalil Alavi, Wolfgang Alt, Miguel Martinez-Dorantes, Dieter Meschede, and Lothar Ratschbacher, “High-finesse fiber fabry–perot cavities: stabi- lization and mode matching analysis,” Appl. Phys. B122, 1–14 (2016)

    2016

  32. [40]

    Bell inequality for position and time,

    James D Franson, “Bell inequality for position and time,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2205 (1989)

    1989

  33. [41]

    Quantum storage of entangled photons at tele- com wavelengths in a crystal,

    Ming-Hao Jiang, Wenyi Xue, Qian He, Yu-Yang An, Xiaodong Zheng, Wen-Jie Xu, Yu-Bo Xie, Yanqing Lu, Shining Zhu, and Xiao-Song Ma, “Quantum storage of entangled photons at tele- com wavelengths in a crystal,” Nat. Commun.14, 6995 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Quantum entanglement and interference at 3 µm,

    Zheng Ge, Zhao-Qi-Zhi Han, Fan Yang, Xiao-Hua Wang, Yin- Hai Li, Yan Li, Ming-Yuan Gao, Ren-Hui Chen, Su-Jian Niu, Meng-Yu Xie, et al., “Quantum entanglement and interference at 3 µm,” Sci. Adv. 10, eadm7565 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Intensity correlations between the compo- nents of the resonance fluorescence triplet,

    CA Schrama, G Nienhuis, HA Dijkerman, C Steijsiger, and HGM Heideman, “Intensity correlations between the compo- nents of the resonance fluorescence triplet,” Phys. Rev. A 45, 8045 (1992)

    1992

  36. [44]

    Nanophotonic quantum phase switch with a single atom,

    TG Tiecke, Jeffrey Douglas Thompson, Nathalie Pulmones de Leon, LR Liu, Vladan Vuleti ´c, and Mikhail D Lukin, “Nanophotonic quantum phase switch with a single atom,” Na- ture 508, 241–244 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    Fab- rication, testing, and assembly of high-finesse optical fiber mi- crocavity for molecule cavity qed experiment,

    Yu-Hao Pan, Li Li, Xiao-Long Zhou, Dong-Yu Huang, Ze-Min Shen, Jian Wang, Chuan-Feng Li, and Guang-Can Guo, “Fab- rication, testing, and assembly of high-finesse optical fiber mi- crocavity for molecule cavity qed experiment,” Chin. Opt. Lett. 20, 122702 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Feedback and compensation scheme to suppress the thermal effects from a dipole trap beam for the optical fiber microcavity,

    Yuhao Pan, Li Li, Xiaolong Zhou, Dongyu Huang, Zemin Shen, Jian Wang, Chuanfeng Li, and Guangcan Guo, “Feedback and compensation scheme to suppress the thermal effects from a dipole trap beam for the optical fiber microcavity,” Opt. Express 30, 46280–46293 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Con- tinuously and widely tunable frequency-stabilized laser based on an optical frequency comb,

    Ze-Min Shen, Xiao-Long Zhou, Dong-Yu Huang, Yu-Hao Pan, Li Li, Jian Wang, Chuan-Feng Li, and Guang-Can Guo, “Con- tinuously and widely tunable frequency-stabilized laser based on an optical frequency comb,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 94 (2023), 10.1063/5.0120119. 7 Supplementary Infor...

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    Photon counting of the driving light scattering into the cav- ity serves as a tool for verifying single-atom confinement

    along the ˆx direction. Photon counting of the driving light scattering into the cav- ity serves as a tool for verifying single-atom confinement. Fig. 5(b) is a typical photon counting trace detected through the FFPC. For t < 0, multiple atoms are trapped simultane- ously, lea...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.