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 "Do Intradot Electron-Electron Interactions Induce Dephasing?" - Reply

Reply to the Comment on "do Intradot Electron-Electron Interactions Induce Dephasing?"

Jianget Al.reply:

Do Intradot Electron-Electron Interactions Induce Dephasing?

Electron Transport Through A Double-Quantum-Dot Structure with Intradot and Interdot Coulomb Interactions

Comment on the Comment on Deformation of Quantum-Mechanics

Correlated Electron Transport Through Parallel Double-Quantum-dot

Influence of Transverse Interdot Coupling on Electron Transport Properties in a Double-Quantum-Dot Aharonov-Bohm Structure

Clarifying the Controversy in the Intrinsic Spin Hall Effect by Dephasing

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

On the Competition Between the Kondo Effect and the Exchange Interaction in a Parallel Double Quantum Dot System

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

Decoherence and lead induced inter-dot coupling in nonequilibrium electron transport through interacting quantum dots: A hierarchical quantum master equation approach

Reply to Comment [<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0810.3244v1" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3244v1">arXiv:0810.3244v1</a>] by R.S. Decca et al. on "Contribution of drifting carriers to the Casimir-Lifshitz and Casimir-Polder interactions with semiconductor materials"

Response to “comment on ‘study on the Quantum Efficiency of Resonant Cavity Enhanced GaAs Far-Infrared Detectors”’ [J. Appl. Phys. 93, 786 (2003)]

Comment on "Spin-Dependent Tunneling Through A Symmetric Semiconductor Barrier: the Dresselhaus Effect"

The Influence of Intradot Coulomb Interactions on the Conductance for a Parallel-Coupled Triple Quantum Dot System

A multideterminant assessment of mean field methods for the description of electron transfer in the weak coupling regime

Time-dependent Quantum Transport Through an Interacting Quantum Dot Beyond Sequential Tunneling: Second-Order Quantum Rate Equations.

Transmission phase lapses in quantum dots: the role of dot-lead coupling asymmetry

Reply to the Comment of den Hartog and van Wees on "Conductance Fluctuations in Mesoscopic Normal-Metal/Superconductor Samples"