MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070330373 · doi:10.1103/physreva.64.063817

Effects of phase fluctuations of a laser on the dynamics of an atom in metallic cavities

2001· article· en· W2070330373 on OpenAlexfundno aff
V. V. Paranjape, P. V. Panat, S. V. Lawande

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review A · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMechanical and Optical Resonators
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity Grants CommissionCouncil of Scientific and Industrial Research, India
KeywordsPhysicsAtom (system on chip)Dissipative systemLaserAtom laserAtomic physicsPhase (matter)Dynamics (music)DipoleDiffusionOpticsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the effects of phase fluctuations of a laser on the dynamics of a two-level atom. We assume that the atom is in a cavity and consider two cases in which the atom is either sandwiched between two parallel metal plates or placed inside a rectangular metallic waveguide. We use the well-known master equation and utilize the phase diffusion model for our analysis. We derive expressions for the dipolar and dissipative forces acting on the atom. We then show that the laser fluctuations produce an increase in the magnitude of the dissipative force and a reduction in the dipolar force. We illustrate that the atom-laser interaction gives rise to a potential, which binds the atom to the central part of the cavity. We also show that the atomic velocity produces significant changes on the potential and on the force acting on the atom. The combined effects of the velocity and laser fluctuations on the atomic motion are discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ASame topicMechanical and Optical ResonatorsFrench-language works237,207