Abstract
Cooperative phenomena arising due to the coupling of individual atoms via the radiation field are a cornerstone of modern quantum and optical physics. Recent experiments on xray quantum optics added a new twist to this line of research by exploiting superradiance in order to construct artificial quantum systems. However, so far, systematic approaches to deliberately design superradiance properties are lacking, impeding the desired implementation of more advanced quantum optical schemes. Here, we develop an analytical framework for the engineering of singlephoton superradiance in extended media applicable across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, and show how it can be used to tailor the properties of an artificial quantum system. This “reverse engineering” of superradiance not only provides an avenue towards nonlinear and quantum mechanical phenomena at xray energies, but also leads to a unified view on and a better understanding of superradiance across different physical systems.
Introduction
A single atom coupled to an environment is usually subject to spontaneous emission and experiences a frequency shift referred to as the Lamb shift. In an aggregation of atoms coupled via the radiation field, collective effects can significantly alter the properties compared to a single emitter. For instance, this was realised by Dicke^{1,2}, who showed that N identical atoms confined to a volume much smaller than a wavelength cubed collectively behave as one “super atom”. This leads to exaggerated properties such as an acceleration of spontaneous decay by a factor of χ_{Dicke} = N (known as superradiance) or an enhanced frequency shift (sometimes also termed “collective Lamb shift”). Recently, also the correlated emission from extended ensembles of emitters has become the focus of experimental and theoretical^{3,4,5} investigations, where either the system size and/or the minimal interatomic distance a exceeds the scale of the characteristic wavelength λ_{0}. The systems considered cover a wide range of possible realisations, including atoms near a nanofiber^{6}, thin vapor layers^{7}, cold atomic ensembles^{8,9,10,11,12}, or thinfilm cavities with embedded Mössbauer nuclei in the realm of xray quantum optics^{13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20}.
The present work is motivated by the observation that in particular the latter experiments in the field of nuclear quantum optics exploited a deliberate control of superradiance properties, going beyond a mere characterisation. For instance, the observation of electromagnetically induced transparency at xray frequencies^{13} was enabled by the engineering of two distinct ensembles with different superradiance properties in a single sample. Another example is the implementation of spontaneously generated coherences^{14}, which relied on the realization of a spatially anisotropic electromagnetic environment via superradiance. In both cases, superradiance was employed to design an artificial quantum system, which in turn enabled the observation of the desired effect.
This raises the question whether a systematic and constructive approach could be established to exploit superradiance for the design of artificial quantum systems. Such design capabilities could overcome the limited resources accessible in stateoftheart experiments, and thereby enable more advanced level schemes required, e.g., for the exploration of nonlinear and quantum effects at xray energies.
Here, we address this question by developing an analytical framework for superradiance in extended media encompassing different system dimensionalities, interatomic couplings, and environments. As our main result, we then derive expressions describing how collective decay rates and frequency shifts can be controlled in extended media, and show how they can be used for the design of an artificial optical transition.
We start with a single twolevel atom (bare transition frequency ω_{0} = ck_{0}, k_{0} = 2π/λ_{0}, c is the speed of light) which is embedded in an electromagnetic environment (e. g., free space) and is characterised by its spontaneous decay rate Re(V_{0}) ≡ γ_{0} (assuming Markovian reservoirs^{21}). The coupling to the environment also results in a frequency shift Im(V_{0})/2 ≡ δω_{0} (singleatom Lamb shift). In the presence of an identical, second atom, photons can be exchanged between the two atoms. Due to irreversible loss to the reservoir, the interatomic coupling is complex^{21,22,23,24,25}. Here, () represents the realvalued crossdamping (crosscoupling) term for two atoms located at positions r_{i} and r_{j}, respectively. Considering all pairwise couplings in an ensemble of N ≫ 1 atoms, we find^{22,24}
where E denotes the complex eigenenergy of the collective singleexcitation atomic state ( and 0〉 signify the atomic raising operator for atom i and the vacuum state, respectively). Equation (1) is valid for all dimensions d of the atomic arrangement and for all (physically reasonable) couplings . Collective decay rates and frequency shifts are obtained via Γ ≡ −2Im(E) and Δ ≡ Re(E) − ω_{0}, respectively^{22,24}.
In Dicke’s smallvolume limit, all atoms couple to each other with equal strength, leading to a collective decay rate Γ = Nγ_{0} = χ_{Dicke}γ_{0} and a frequency shift Δ = χ_{Dicke}δω_{0} with an enhancement factor χ_{Dicke} (see methods). To describe an extended sample, we consider ordered atomic arrangements, and focus on chains (d = 1), square lattices (d = 2), and simple cubic lattices (d = 3), see Fig. 1. The smallest interatomic distance is given by the lattice constant a. Such ordered arrays are naturally provided by crystalline samples (e. g., solid state targets employed in xray quantum optics^{13,14,15,16,17,18}, optical lattices of atoms^{26}, or atom–cavity networks^{27}). Furthermore, we consider a generic class of interatomic couplings
which depend on the distance r between atom pairs. Here, the coefficient α classifies the distancedependence and A_{d} is a dimensionless coupling strength. We also assume the atomic dipole moments to be uniformly aligned along the x_{3} axis. This orientation dependence is taken into account by the angle θ (see methods for further details). Since multiple terms of type (2) can be accounted for by a linear combination, in particular also the three common implementations of threedimensional free space^{22}, atoms confined to two spatial dimensions^{28}, or atoms coupled to a onedimensional waveguide^{29} are covered. The coupling parameters for these three examples are specified in table 1. Note that in principle α can be artificially engineered and controlled as has recently been demonstrated at optical frequencies^{10}.
Results and Discussion
The solution of eigenproblem (1) (see methods) reveals that those eigenstates k〉 whose wavevector’s magnitude matches the wavenumber set by the single atom transition, i. e., k = k = k_{0}, exhibit the maximum possible decay rate Γ_{max} = χ_{max}γ_{0} if the constraint
is fulfilled. This criterion is a necessary condition for the emergence of superradiance and represents bounds on the allowed power laws of the coupling terms (exponent α in equation (2)) as a function of the lattice dimension d. For the remainder, we assume that eq. (3) is satisfied. The enhancement factor χ_{max} is (see table 1 for quantities b_{d} and c_{d}, and methods for the prefactor L_{d}(α))
In contrast to the maximum collective decay rate, we find that the collective frequency shift at k = k_{0} is always zero independent of the actual physical realisation. We thus conclude that the case of maximum superradiance is unsuitable for a control of both collective decay rates and frequency shifts.
To circumvent this problem, we also consider states with wavenumbers around k = k_{0}. Indeed, for a large but finite system, also states with a wavenumber close to k_{0} can exhibit an enhanced decay rate. We illustrate this for the most relevant case α = (d − 1)/2 (which includes the three common implementations mentioned below equation (2)). For k − k_{0}a ≪ 1, we find
where and sinc(ξ) ≡ sin(ξ)/ξ. Results are shown in Fig. 2, scaled in such a way that they encompass different dimensions and coupling types. As mentioned before, those states which are maximally superradiant at k = k_{0} do not exhibit a collective frequency shift. Rather, the frequency shift’s first two extrema around k_{0} occur at wavenumbers (where ). This finding represents a unique feature as it is independent of the actual realisation and provides a signature suitable for a direct experimental test.
Equations (6) and (7) also offer means to design an artificial optical transition with desired decay rate and frequency shift. In fact, the enhancement factor χ_{max} represents a characteristic scale for both decay rates and frequency shifts. As expected, we find that the particle number N and/or the sample volume can be used to control χ_{max}. But additionally, eqs. (4) and (5) explain how the dimensionality d, the type of the interatomic coupling as described by α, as well as the coupling strength to the environment can be used to manipulate the enhancement factor. This is of particular relevance, since these parameters could also be tuned in situ^{10,30}. However, as mentioned previously, these quantities are not sufficient to change the ratio between decay rate and frequency shift. This only becomes possible by also controlling the wave number k (see Fig. 2). Experimentally, the wavenumber could be adjusted via the excitation angle of the probing light field.
From a broader perspective, our results also enable us to understand how superradiant states from different realisations can be compared and categorised. This is important, e. g., if superradiant ensembles realised using different individual constituents are to be combined to an effective artificial quantum system. To this end, suppose that we can control the atom number and the volume such that and , respectively, where f_{N} and are arbitrary positive real numbers. Under this transformation, the enhancement factor changes as
This behaviour allows us to classify superradiant states from systems with different dimensionality and types of coupling. For instance, we may say that two extended samples characterised by (d, α) and (d′, α′), respectively, are similar if they satisfy the same transformation rule (8) (leading to (α − 1/2)/d = (α′ − 1/2)/d′). As an example, if a onedimensional system (d′ = 1) should “imitate” the superradiant state from threedimensional free space (d = 3, α = 1), the electromagnetic environment would have to be “engineered”^{10} such that α′ = 2/3. Similarly, if an extended sample should realise smallvolume superradiance, transformation (8) must reproduce the transformation of a Dicke system, which is simply with χ_{Dicke} = N and . Hence, α = (1 − d)/2 ≥ 0, which reveals that only extended samples in one dimension (d = 1, otherwise we would have α < 0) can behave “Dickelike”.
In conclusion, we have studied singlephoton superradiance in extended media, and showed how superradiance can be engineered in such a way that an artificial optical transition with tunable decay rate and level shift is realised. This result provides the basic building block for a systematic approach towards engineering advanced artificial quantum systems via superradiance by design. A promising avenue for future studies is the extension of our work to coupled sub ensembles with the goal to design artificial multilevel atoms^{13}.
Methods
For an extended lattice, the plane wave ansatz for eq. (1) yields the eigenstates’ decay rates Γ_{k} = −2Im(E_{k}) and frequency shifts Δ_{k} = Re(E_{k}) − ω_{0} as
Here, r = (x_{1}, …, x_{d})^{T} denotes a ddimensional lattice vector with components x_{i} = an_{i}, i = 1, …, d, , and is even. Likewise, k = (k_{1}, …, k_{d})^{T} is the wavevector of the collective atomic excitation. The sum runs over all combinations of {n_{i}} except n_{1} = … = n_{d} = 0 and the couplings depend on the distance between atoms. We assume the atomic dipole moments to be uniformly aligned along the x_{3} axis (e. g., by applying a weak magnetic field). Thus, for d = 1, 2 the distance vector r (in the x_{1}x_{2} plane) is perpendicular to the dipole moments, and for d = 3 we have to take into account the polar angle θ = arccos(x_{3}/r). Furthermore, we make use of the assumptions N ≫ 1 (many atoms) and k_{0}a > 1 (extended sample). The decay rate eq. (9) can also be rewritten in terms of the enhancement factor
To arrive at the final expressions eqs (4, 5, 6, 7), we further manipulate eqs (9, 10, 11, 12) as follows. In this paper, we focus on the system’s eigenstates and—to keep the analysis general—do not consider geometric details or questions of how to excite and probe the system since such details vary from experiment to experiment. Around k ≡ k = k_{0}, we can utilise a continuum formulation, rewrite the lattice sums in eq. (11) into an integral, and perform the angular integration for couplings of type (2) (see supplementary information for further technical details of the calculation), leading to
The dimensiondependent quantities A_{d}, b_{d}, c_{d}, and g_{d} are listed in table 1 (for instance, A_{d} is real for d = 1, 2 and purely imaginary for d = 3). Note that the factor exp(±ik_{0}r) from eq. (2) in the eigenproblem (1) can be understood as a radial translation in wavenumber space. In the shifted frame, a longwavelength limit of the collective atomic excitation (which can be accounted for by a continuum description) corresponds to k → k_{0}. This continuum formulation is applicable in the range . Further, in eq. (2), we have not included exponential damping of the form exp(−k_{0}r/), where denotes a dimensionless absorption length that, for instance, empirically accounts for material imperfections. Such a damping factor in the integral in eq. (14) would lead to a broadening and modification of the k = k_{0}criterion for maximal superradiance, going beyond the scope of this paper. Details on the calculation of the integrals in eq. (14) can be found in the Supplementary Material.
The maximum enhancement factor (4) can be cast into the equivalent forms ( denotes the sample volume, is the number density, and since N ≫ 1)
Which formulation to choose from eqs. (16)–(18), depends on which quantities can be controlled in an experiment.
If for small volumes the length scale set by the interatomic distance a is effectively eliminated from the singleexcitation eigenproblem (1) (possibly neglecting divergent contributions to the interatomic coupling^{2,31}), all atoms couple to each other with equal strength V_{0}. The resulting equation (which must hold for all r_{i}) yields a maximal decay rate for a spatially constant wavefunction with equal relative phase between all atom pairs, representing the maximally symmetric Dicke state. For this state, Γ = −2Im(E) = Nγ_{0} and Δ = Re(E) − ω_{0} = Nδω_{0}.
Additional Information
How to cite this article: Longo, P. et al. Tailoring superradiance to design artificial quantum systems. Sci. Rep. 6, 23628; doi: 10.1038/srep23628 (2016).
Change history
07 July 2016
A correction has been published and is appended to both the HTML and PDF versions of this paper. The error has not been fixed in the paper.
References
 1
Dicke, R. H. Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes. Phys. Rev. 93, 99–110 (1954).
 2
Gross, M. & Haroche, S. Superradiance: An essay on the theory of collective spontaneous emission. Phys. Rep. 93, 301–396 (1982).
 3
Friedberg, R., Hartmann, S. R. & Manassah, J. T. Frequency shifts in emission and absorption by resonant systems ot twolevel atoms. Phys. Rep. 7, 101–179 (1973).
 4
Friedberg, R. & Manassah, J. T. The dynamical cooperative Lamb shift in a system of twolevel atoms in a slabgeometry. Phys. Lett. A 373, 3423–3429 (2009).
 5
Scully, M. O. & Svidzinsky, A. A. The super of superradiance. Science 325, 1510–1511 (2009).
 6
Kien, F. L., Gupta, S. D., Nayak, K. P. & Hakuta, K. Nanofibermediated radiative transfer between two distant atoms. Phys. Rev. A 72, 063815, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.72.063815 (2005).
 7
Keaveney, J. et al. Cooperative Lamb shift in an atomic vapor layer of nanometer thickness. Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 173601, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.173601 (2012).
 8
Pellegrino, J. et al. Observation of suppression of light scattering induced by dipoledipole interactions in a cold atomic ensemble. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 133602, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.133602 (2014).
 9
Meir, Z., Schwartz, O., Shahmoon, E., Oron, D. & Ozeri, R. Cooperative Lamb shift in a mesoscopic atomic array. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 193002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.193002 (2014).
 10
Douglas, J. S. et al. Quantum manybody models with cold atoms coupled to photonic crystals. Nat. Photonics 9, 326–331 (2015).
 11
Akkermans, E., Gero, A. & Kaiser, R. Photon localization and Dicke superradiance in atomic gases. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 103602, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.103602 (2008).
 12
Javanainen, J., Ruostekoski, J., Li, Y. & Yoo, S.M. Shifts of a resonance line in a dense atomic sample. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 113603, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.113603 (2014).
 13
Röhlsberger, R., Wille, H.C., Schlage, K. & Sahoo, B. Electromagnetically induced transparency with resonant nuclei in a cavity. Nature 482, 199–203 (2012).
 14
Heeg, K. P. et al. Vacuumassisted generation and control of atomic coherences at xray energies. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 073601, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.073601 (2013).
 15
Heeg, K. P. et al. Tunable subluminal propagation of narrowband xray pulses. Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 203601, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.203601 (2015).
 16
Röhlsberger, R., Schlage, K., Sahoo, B., Couet, D. & Rüffer, R. Collective Lamb shift in singlephoton superradiance. Science 328, 1248–1251 (2010).
 17
Heeg, K. P. et al. Interferometric phase detection at xray energies via Fano resonance control. Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 207401, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.207401 (2015).
 18
Heeg, K. P. & Evers, J. Xray quantum optics with Mössbauer nuclei embedded in thinfilm cavities. Phys. Rev. A 88, 043828, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.88.043828 (2013).
 19
Vagizov, F., Antonov, V., Radeonychev, Y. V., Shakhmuratov, R. N. & Kocharovskaya, O. Coherent control of the waveforms of recoilless γray photons. Nature 508, 80–83 (2014).
 20
Adams, B. W. et al. Xray quantum optics. J. Mod. Opt. 60, 2–21 (2013).
 21
Ficek, Z. & Swain, S. Quantum interference and coherence (Springer, New York, 2005).
 22
Li, Y., Evers, J., Zheng, H. & Zhu, S.Y. Collective spontaneous emission beyond the rotatingwave approximation. Phys. Rev. A 85, 053830, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.85.053830 (2012).
 23
Longo, P. & Evers, J. Farfield signatures of a twobody bound state in collective emission from interacting twolevel atoms on a lattice. Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 193601, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.193601 (2014).
 24
Longo, P. & Evers, J. Probing fewexcitation eigenstates of interacting atoms on a lattice by observing their collective light emission in the far field. Phys. Rev. A 90, 063834, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.80.063834 (2014).
 25
Agarwal, G. S. Quantum statistical theories of spontaneous emission and their relation to other approaches (Springer, Berlin, 1974).
 26
Jaksch, D. & Zoller, P. The cold atom Hubbard toolbox. Ann. Phys. 315, 52–79 (2005).
 27
Kay, A. & Angelakis, D. G. Reproducing spin lattice models in strongly coupled atomcavity systems. Europhys. Lett. 84, 20001, doi: 10.1209/02955075/84/20001 (2008).
 28
Couto, R. T. Green’s functions for the wave, Helmholtz and Poisson equations in a twodimensional boundless domain. Rev. Bras. Ensino Fis. 35, 1304, doi: 10.1590/S180611172013000100004 (2013).
 29
GonzalezTudela, A. et al. Entanglement of two qubits mediated by onedimensional plasmonic waveguides. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 020501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.020501 (2011).
 30
Goban, A. et al. Atom–light interactions in photonic crystals. Nat. Commun. 5, 3808, doi: 10.1038/ncomms4808 (2014).
 31
Garraway, B. M. The Dicke model in quantum optics: Dicke model revisited. Philos. Trans. R. Soc., A 369, 1137–1155 (2011).
Author information
Affiliations
Contributions
P.L. initiated the project, performed the calculations, and, together with J.E., interpreted the results. P.L. and J.E. wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to the development of ideas, critical discussions, and the preparation of the manuscript. C.K. and J.E. guided the project.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
About this article
Cite this article
Longo, P., Keitel, C. & Evers, J. Tailoring superradiance to design artificial quantum systems. Sci Rep 6, 23628 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23628
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Further reading

Master equation for multilevel interference in a superradiant medium
Physical Review A (2020)

Quantum Antennas
Advanced Quantum Technologies (2020)

Ab initio quantum models for thinfilm xray cavity QED
Physical Review Research (2020)

Super and subradiance from twodimensional resonant dipoledipole interactions
Scientific Reports (2019)

On the Asymmetric Generation of a Superradiant Laser with a Symmetric LowQ Cavity
Semiconductors (2019)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.