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.

Reply to "Comment on 'Comparison of potential models with the pp-scattering data below 350 MeV.' "

Comment on the Comment on Deformation of Quantum-Mechanics

Qin Et Al. Reply

Comment on "Final CONUS results on coherent elastic neutrino nucleus scattering at the Brokdorf reactor"

Reply to the comment "quant-ph/9710002"

Gao et al. Reply

Reply to the Comment, <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0810.3243v1" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3243v1">arXiv:0810.3243v1</a> by B. Geyer, G. L. Klimchitskaya, U. Mohideen, and. V. M. Mostepanenko

Comment On "Electromagnetic Radiation Under Explicit Symmetry Breaking" Reply

Xiang et al. reply.

Comment on <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="cond-mat/0007299" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0007299">cond-mat/0007299</a> by Schofield and Sandeman : inconsistency with experiments

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

Xu, Wang, and Hu Reply:

Wexleret Al.reply:

Qianet Al.reply:

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

Wonet Al.reply:

Erratum: Initial fields and instability in the classical model of the heavy-ion collision

Comment on: "The interaction of neutrons with 7Be at BBN temperatures: Lack of Standard Nuclear Solution to the Primordial 7Li Problem" by M. Gai et al

Comment on "A Non-Parametric Estimate of Mass 'Scoured' in Galaxy Cores" (<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1006.0488" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1006.0488">arXiv:1006.0488</a>)

Reply to Comment on "Analysis of Ringdown Overtones in GW150914"

Reply to "Comment on `Past of a quantum particle revisited' "