PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 14, 2026Optical and Quantum Electronics0 citationsOpen Access

Cavity QED beyond the Jaynes–Cummings model

AGAbeer Al GhamdiGJGin JoseABAlmut Beige

Key Points

  • This research aims to investigate the limitations of the Jaynes–Cummings model in atom-cavity systems and explore more dynamic approaches for modeling these interactions.
  • Developed a model that does not reduce the electromagnetic field to a single mode.
  • Analyzed the decay rates of emitters in subwavelength cavities with metallic mirrors comparing cavity decay and free space decay.
  • The cavity decay rate can be significantly larger than the free space decay rate due to constructive interference, $$ ext{Γcav} > ext{Γfree}$$.
  • In general, cavity decay rate $$ ext{Γcav}$$ approximates free space decay rate $$ ext{Γfree}$$, which indicates limitations in strong coupling experiments with planar mirrors.

Abstract

Abstract As atom-cavity systems are becoming more sophisticated, the limitations of the Jaynes–Cummings model are becoming more apparent. In this paper, we therefore take a more dynamical approach to the modelling of atom-cavity systems and do not reduce the electromagnetic field inside the resonator to a single mode. Our approach shows that the decay rate ₂₀ₕ of an emitter inside a subwavelength cavity with metallic mirrors can be much larger than its free space decay rate ₅ₑ₄₄ due to constructive interference effects of the emitted light. In general, however, we find that ₂₀ₕ = ₅ₑ₄₄ to a very good approximation which might explain why atom-cavity experiments with planar mirrors have not been able to operate in the so-called strong coupling regime.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Ghamdi et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0567d2a550a87e60a20152https://doi.org/10.1007/s11082-026-08847-8
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper