Abstract:There are two alternative methods used in the literature to calculate the incoherent part of the spectrum of light scattered by an atomic system. In the first, one calculates the spectrum of the total light scattered by the system and obtains the incoherent part by subtracting the coherent part. In the second method, one introduces the fluctuation operators and obtains the incoherent part of the spectrum by taking the Fourier transform of the two-time correlation function of the fluctuation operators. These two methods have been recognized for years as completely equivalent for evaluating the incoherent part of the spectrum. In a recent paper, Xu [Phys. Rev. A 78, 013407 (2008)] showed that there are discrepancies between the incoherent parts of the stationary spectrum of a three-level Lambda-type system calculated with these two methods. The predicted discrepancies can be severe that over a wide range of the Rabi frequencies and atomic decay rates, the spectrum calculated with the variance method can have negative values. In this Comment, we show that there are no discrepancies between these two methods. We show the equivalence of these two methods that leads to the same incoherent spectra which are positive for all frequencies independent of values of the parameters involved. We also identify the source of the discrepancy, that is, in an incorrect treatment of the incoherent part of the spectrum calculated with the two-time correlation function of the fluctuation operators.

Comment on "Spectral Signatures of the Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov Order Parameter in One-Dimensional Optical lattices"

Comment on “Ground-State Description of Quasi-One-dimensional Polarons with Arbitrary Electron-Phonon Coupling Strength”

Comment On "Ferroelectric Order Of Parallel Bistable Hydrogen Bonds"

Comment on "Quantum waveguide array generator for performing Fourier transforms: Alternate route to quantum computing"

Comment on “optical Orbital Angular Momentum from the Curl of Polarization”

Suppression or Enhancement of the Fulde-Ferrell-Larkin-Ovchinnikov Order in A One-Dimensional Optical Lattice with Particle-Correlated Tunneling

Comment on "Graphene---A rather ordinary nonlinear optical material" [Appl. Phys. Lett. \textbf{104}, 161116 (2014)]

Comment on "Double-Lens Extended Fractional Fourier Transform"

Comment on "Origin of Giant Optical Nonlinearity in Charge-Transfer--Mott Insulators: A New Paradigm for Nonlinear Optics"

Publisher's Note: Overlaying Optical Lattices for Simulation of Complex Frustrated Antiferromagnets [phys. Rev. A85, 013632 (2012)]

Erratum: Frustrated Extended Bose-Hubbard Model and Deconfined Quantum Critical Points with Optical Lattices at the Antimagic Wavelength [Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 153401 (2024)]

Reply to 'Comment on Universal out-of-equilibrium transport in Kondo-correlated quantum dots'

Reply to "Comment on 'Fano resonance for Anderson Impurity Systems' "

Comment on "double-lens extended fractional Fourier transform".

Comment on 'Single-slit electron diffraction with Aharonov-Bohm phase: Feynman's thought experiment with quantum point contacts'

Comment on ``Texture in the Superconducting Order Parameter of CeCoIn$_5$ Revealed by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance''

Resolution of the Solar Neutrino Anomaly

Comment on "discrepancies in the Resonance-Fluorescence Spectrum Calculated with Two Methods"

Comment on “quantum Key Distribution with Blind Polarization Bases”

Reply to "Comment on 'Nontrivial Quantum Geometry and the Strength of Electron-Phonon Coupling',

Comment on “Medium-Range Order in Permanently DensifiedSiO2andGeO2Glass”