MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147056524 · doi:10.1103/physreva.88.013848

Bloch oscillations of cold atoms in a cavity: Effects of quantum noise

2013· article· en· W2147056524 on OpenAlexaff
B. Prasanna Venkatesh, D. H. J. O’Dell

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review A · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMechanical and Optical Resonators
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsQuasiparticleBloch oscillationsQuantumOscillation (cell signaling)Optical latticeUltracold atomNoise (video)Atom (system on chip)Coupling (piping)Quantum fluctuationQuantum mechanicsQuantum noiseQuantum electrodynamicsCavity quantum electrodynamicsCondensed matter physicsAtomic physicsOpen quantum systemChemistryElectric field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We extend our theory of Bloch oscillations of cold atoms inside an optical cavity [Venkatesh et al., Phys. Rev. A 80, 063834 (2009)] to include the effects of quantum noise arising from coupling to external modes. The noise acts as a form of quantum measurement backaction by perturbing the coupled dynamics of the atoms and the light. We take it into account by solving the Heisenberg-Langevin equations for linearized fluctuations about the atomic and optical mean fields and examine how this influences the signal-to-noise ratio of a measurement of external forces using this system. In particular, we investigate the effects of changing the number of atoms, the intracavity lattice depth, and the atom-light coupling strength, and show how resonances between the Bloch oscillation dynamics and the quasiparticle spectrum have a strong influence on the signal-to-noise ratio, as well as heating effects. One of the hurdles we overcome in this paper is the proper treatment of fluctuations about time-dependent mean fields in the context of cold-atom cavity QED.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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