Superradiance from a System of 3-Level Particles
Superradiance, first discussed in 1954 by Dicke , has recently re-emerged as one of the central interests in the field of atomic radiation, due in part to experimental developments in the area of short pulse coherent interactions ,.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 7.This approach has been suggested by F.T. Arecchi and D.M. Kim, who collaborated with one of us (R.G.) on preliminary investigations. See also L.A. Shelepin, Zh. Eksp. Theor. Fiz. 54, 1463 (1968) (Sov. Phys. JETP 27, 784 (1968)).Google Scholar
- 8.Y.C. Cho, Ph.D. Thesis, M.I.T. (1972) (unpublished).Google Scholar
- 9.We assume here that ω1, ω2 and ω3 are different from one another to the limits of the superradiant line breadth so that interference may be avoided.Google Scholar
- 10.See p. 187 in Ref. 6(b).Google Scholar
- 11.The classification into irreducible representations is illustrated for four three-level particles in Fig. 4 of the paper by R. Gilmore in this volume, p. 217.Google Scholar
- 12.Eigenvalues of H1 and H2 are called weights of the representation of SU(3). In this paper, each weight is subtracted by the lowest weight so that the collective ground state is redefined as zero energy level.Google Scholar
- 14.R. H. Dicke, Quantum Electronics III (N. Bloembergen and P. Grivet, eds., 1964), vol. 1, p. 35. See also Refs. 1, 15 and 16.Google Scholar
- 18.The permutational invariance of the interaction can be maintained even for low mirror reflectivity by assuming, for example, a traveling wave ring laser cavity with distributed losses.Google Scholar
- 19.See Appendix G in Ref. 2. As discussed here and in Ref. 15, this result pertains to a sample with a large Fresnel number.Google Scholar
- 21.The proceeding discussions can be extended to the case γ2≠0.Google Scholar
- 22.If (X0, Y0)∼ η, the quantum fluctuation would be so large during spontaneous decay that the semiclassical treatment would result in considerable error.Google Scholar
- 23.It must be emphasized that the interference between the γ1 transition and the γ2 transition should have been taken into account for λ1= 2λ3 (ω1=ω2) if γ2 were not assumed to be zero.Google Scholar