in recent years , there has been increased interest in spectral features that can attributed directly to the recoil atoms undergo on the absorption , emission or scattering of radiation . among topics that have been discussed that fall into this category
are recoil - induced resonances ( rir ) @xcite and the collective atomic recoil laser ( carl ) @xcite .
these processes appear to have much in common , although they are described quite differently .
it is the purpose of this article to compare the rir and carl and to demonstrate that the rir and carl _ formalisms _ are equivalent .
the reason that this equivalence is not readily apparent is two - fold .
firstly , the rir have been discussed using a density matrix approach in the schrdinger picture , whereas carl has been discussed using an operator approach in the heisenberg picture .
secondly , rir and carl have generally been examined for different ranges of the various parameters characterizing the atom - field interactions . in order to facilitate the discussion , it is useful to review briefly the rir and carl .    since both the rir and carl relate to probe field absorption or gain in the presence of a pump field , it is perhaps best to recall the features of the probe absorption spectrum , _ neglecting all effects associated with recoil_. consider an ensemble of two - level atoms interacting with both a pump and probe field .
the probe absorption or gain is monitored as a function the probe - pump detuning @xmath5 for various pump field strengths , characterized by the pump field rabi frequency @xmath6 .
it is assumed that all collisional effects can be neglected and that the two - level atomic system is _ closed _ in the sense that the sum of ground and excited state populations is conserved for _ each _ velocity subclass of atoms .
moreover , it is assumed that the pump field detuning @xmath7 from atomic resonance is much larger than any decay rates , rabi frequencies , or doppler shifts in the problem . in this limit ,
the probe absorption spectrum consists of three features , centered near @xmath8 @xcite .    of primary concern here
is the structure centered near @xmath9 in the absence of recoil , this line feature has a dispersion - like shape , is proportional to @xmath10 , and has a width of order of the excited state decay rate @xcite . its origin can be traced to an interference effect involving processes in which _ two _ photons are emitted into previously unoccupied vacuum mode states @xcite .
as such , it is linked to spontaneous emission , rather than a conservative exchange of energy between the pump and probe fields .
the fact that the two - level system is  closed  plays a critical role here .
had the system been  open ,
the amplitude of this component would vary as @xmath11 rather than @xmath12 and its width could be determined by some effective ground state decay rate ( e.g. inverse transit time ) rather than the excited state decay rate @xcite .
the rir refer to a class of spectroscopic features in nonlinear spectroscopy that can be attributed to a recoil - induced  opening  of an otherwise closed , two - level system @xcite . in the presence of recoil ,
the atomic velocity is changed on the absorption or emission of radiation . as a consequence
the sum of ground and excited state populations for specific velocity classes is no longer conserved . in the limit of large detuning @xmath13
, the rir can be interpreted as arising from raman transitions between different center - of - mass states @xcite . if the pump and probe fields have propagation vectors * k*@xmath14 and * k*@xmath15 , respectively , then probe absorption occurs on a raman transition between center - of - mass momentum states @xmath16 and @xmath17 and gain between states @xmath18 and @xmath19 where @xmath20*k*@xmath21*k*@xmath15 .
depending on the detuning @xmath5 between the probe and pump fields , one of these processes is favored . for @xmath22 ,
there is probe gain , for @xmath23 there is probe absorption , and for @xmath24 the nonlinear probe absorption and gain vanish . in general , the rir have been formulated as a _ stationary _ process in which the field achieves a steady - state value at each position @xmath25 - gain occurs as the probe field propagates through the active medium .
steady state is achieved by assuming that there is some effective ground state decay rate or , alternatively , by assuming that the doppler width associated with the raman transitions , @xmath26 where @xmath27 is an atomic mass and @xmath3 is the width of the momentum distribution , is larger than the recoil frequency , @xmath28 @xcite .
the gain is normally expressed as @xmath29 , where @xmath30 is the probe field s amplitude and @xmath31 is a constant proportional to the atomic density .
the point to note here is that the derivative of @xmath30 depends _ locally _ on @xmath32    in contrast to the rir , carl has been formulated as a _ transient _ problem .
it is assumed that the pump and probe fields are modes of an optical cavity in which the atoms are located . as a result of the atom - field interaction , the probe field builds up in the cavity as a function of time . in the limit of large @xmath33
one obtains an equation of the form @xmath34 , where @xmath35 where is a constant proportional to the atomic density and @xmath36 is a kernel . if @xmath37 , the time derivative of @xmath30 can depend on the past history of the field , rather than locally on the field
this leads to very different dynamics than those encountered in the rir .
one finds threshold conditions for probe gain that depend nonlinearly on the atomic density , as does the gain itself .
carl is a cooperative effect in the sense that gain occurs only for some minimum atomic density for most values of the detuning @xmath5 .
it is possible to have gain for @xmath38 which is not possible for the rir . on the other hand ,
if @xmath39 , the equation for @xmath40 becomes local and the gain characteristics of carl become identical to those of the rir .
thus , although both the rir and carl can be formulated for arbitrary ratios of @xmath41 , one can label the rir limit as one in which @xmath42 and the carl limit as one in which @xmath43 @xcite@xmath44 this is the nomenclature that is adopted in this article .
the carl limit can be stated as , @xmath45 , which places it at or near the _ subrecoil limit _ of atom cooling .
it should be noted that verkerk and bonifacio @xcite and bonifacio _ et al .
_ @xcite have shown that the carl equations reproduce the rir results in the limit that @xmath46 ; however the approach they followed differs considerably from the one to be presented herein .
it is important to recognize that it is possible for @xmath40 to depend locally @xmath47 , even in the  carl limit ,
@xmath48 . for example , if one includes ground state decay with rate @xmath49 , a local dependence occurs if @xmath50 as a consequence , in the presence of decay , the rir limit can be stated as one in which @xmath42 _ or _ @xmath51 and the carl limit as one in which @xmath52 _ and _
moreover , the build up of the probe field at very early times always varies linearly with the atomic density and can be viewed as a local process . in this sense ,
the theory of rir is always valid at early times - the specific conditions are given in sec .
however , when @xmath52 and @xmath54 , the gain coefficient in carl depends nonlinearly on the atomic density for times @xmath55 @xcite , and the local dependence no longer holds .    in sec .
ii , the basic equations are derived and the rir and carl limits of these equations are obtained in sec .
iii . an effective potential for ground state atoms
is written which helps to categorize the rir and carl limits .
the case of equal pump and probe frequencies is analyzed in sec .
iv using an effective five - level atom .
when expressed in this form the calculation has a range of applicability beyond the recoil problem .
the results are discussed in sec .
v. special emphasis is placed on the distinction between  atom bunching  and  matter gratings .
 experimental implications of the results are also explored .
the problem under consideration consists of a pump field and a probe field interacting with an ensemble of two level atoms . in some applications in carl , it may be of interest to use a quantized description of the fields to follow the build - up of the probe field from noise , but , in the present discussion , the fields are taken to be classical .
the pump field , @xmath56 ,   \label{1}\ ] ] has polarization * @xmath57*@xmath14 , slowly - varying electric field amplitude @xmath58 , propagation vector @xmath59 and frequency @xmath60 , while the probe field , @xmath61 ,   \label{2}\ ] ] has polarization * @xmath57*@xmath15 , slowly - varying electric field amplitude @xmath62 , propagation vector @xmath63 and frequency @xmath64 . as a result of the nonlinear interaction with the fields
, the probe field can be amplified . if the pump field is initially much more intense than the probe field ,
as is assumed , pump depletion during the early stages of probe amplification can be neglected . since the calculation in this paper
is limited to the early stages of probe amplification , i take the pump field amplitude to be constant , @xmath65    the dynamics of probe field amplification depends on the specific atom - field geometry .
one can envision situations in which the probe field amplitude is constant in time but varies in space , or is constant in space but varies in time .
the first case is the one considered generally in the rir , in which _ cw _ pump and probe fields interact with atoms in a cell or trap .
the probe field amplitude increases in the direction of @xmath63 as it propagates through the medium , but is assumed to have evolved to a stationary state .
the second case is the one considered generally in carl , in which the fields correspond to field modes of an optical cavity and the atoms are located in the cavity . for a ring cavity ,
the probe field intensity is spatially isotropic , but increases in time @xcite . in certain limits ( to be noted below ) , the spatial gain coefficient of the rir multiplied by the speed of light coincides with the temporal gain coefficient of carl . in other limits ,
the dynamics of carl amplification differs from the spatial build - up of the field in the rir . to compare the rir and carl , it is convenient to adopt the cavity model and assume that the probe field amplitude is a function of time only ,
@xmath66 all cavity losses are neglected , as is any ground state decay .
although carl is referred to as a collective effect since conditions for carl gain depend on the atomic density , each atom in the sample , on average , interacts with the fields in an identical manner .
thus , it is sufficient to write the hamiltonian for a single atom interacting with the fields .
the dependence of the field gain on atomic density is included automatically in the coupled maxwell - bloch equations . in the dipole and rotating wave approximations , the hamiltonian for our system is @xmath67 ,   \label{3}\ ] ] where @xmath68 is the atomic center - of - mass momentum , @xmath69 is the transition frequency between the ground state @xmath70 and excited state @xmath71 of the atom , @xmath72 @xmath73 , @xmath74 is the rabi frequency of field @xmath75 , and * @xmath76*@xmath77*@xmath76*@xmath70 is a dipole moment matrix element .
terms related to spontaneous emission are not included in the hamiltonian ( [ 3 ] ) , for reasons to be discussed below .
the hamiltonian determines the time evolution of the atom , but the atomic evolution must be coupled to the field evolution via maxwell s equations to arrive at a closed set of equations .
the time evolution of the ( complex ) probe field amplitude is linked to the polarization of the medium which , in turn , is determined by the atom - field interaction .
the medium s polarization can be expressed in terms of atomic density matrix elements as @xmath78 ,   \label{5}\ ] ] where @xmath79 is the total number of atoms . as a result of the nonlinear atom - field interaction ,
the density matrix element @xmath80 can be written quite generally ( see below ) as @xmath81 where @xmath82 in the slowly varying amplitude and phase approximation , it follows from maxwell s equations and eqs .
( [ 5 ] ) and ( [ 6 ] ) that the evolution of the probe field is given by    [ 8 ] @xmath83 where @xmath84 is the component of the polarization @xmath85 varying as @xmath86 combining eq .
( [ 8b ] ) with eq .
( [ 4 ] ) yields    @xmath87    where @xmath88 an equation for @xmath89 is obtained by solving the schrdinger equation for the hamiltonian ( [ 3 ] ) .
it is convenient to expand the wave function of the system as @xmath90 where @xmath91 @xmath92 , @xmath93 , @xmath94 , and @xmath95 is the atomic - state eigenfunction associated with state @xmath75 .
note that the momentum state amplitudes , @xmath96 , are defined in an interaction representation .
the state amplitudes , @xmath97 , in the  normal  representation are related to those in the interaction representation by @xmath98 and density matrix elements in momentum space are given by @xmath99 where @xmath100 and @xmath101 when the wave function ( [ 11],[12 ] ) is substituted into schrdinger s equation with the hamiltonian ( [ 3 ] ) , one finds that the state amplitudes @xmath96 evolve as    [ 15 ] @xmath102\,a_{2}({\bf p+}\hbar { \bf k}_{\mu } , t )   \label{15a } \\
\dot{a}_{2}({\bf p},t ) & = & -i\sum_{\mu = 1,2}\chi _ { \mu } ( t)\,\exp [ -i\delta _ { \mu } t - i\omega _ { k_{\mu } } t+i{\bf k}_{\mu } \cdot { \bf p}t / m]\,a_{1}({\bf p-% } \hbar { \bf k}_{\mu } , t ) ,   \label{15b}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where    @xmath103    is an atom - field detuning and @xmath104 is a frequency associated with atomic recoil . in terms of these state amplitudes ,
the density matrix element @xmath105 can be written as @xmath106 together , eqs .
( [ 9 ] ) , ( [ 6 ] ) , ( [ 18 ] ) and ( [ 15 ] ) form a closed set of equations which can be solved numerically to obtain the time evolution of the probe field .    to simplify the analysis of both the rir and carl , it is assumed that @xmath107 where @xmath108 is the excited state decay rate and @xmath109 is the most probable atomic speed .
if inequalities ( [ 19 ] ) hold , both the rir and carl can be interpreted in terms of _ stimulated _ processes involving the pump and probe fields - spontaneous emission plays a negligible role .
both the pump and probe fields are turned on and brought adiabatically to their  initial  values at @xmath110 in a time long compared with @xmath111 , but small compared with all other evolution times in the problem .
thus , at @xmath110 , the values for the rabi frequencies are @xmath112 while the density matrix for the atoms is taken as @xmath113 where @xmath114 is the sample volume , @xmath115 is the initial momentum distribution , and the bar indicate an ensemble average @xcite .
this initial density matrix corresponds to a wigner function @xmath116 , which is the product of the momentum distribution times a uniform spatial density ( recall that this is a single particle density ) .
the calculation can still be carried out using an amplitude picture .
the initial condition ( [ 21 ] ) is invoked once the density matrix element @xmath117 has been evaluated .
when inequalities ( [ 19 ] ) hold , it is possible to solve eq.([15b ] ) adiabatically for the upper state amplitude in terms of the lower state amplitude .
explicitly , one finds @xmath118\,\exp [ -i\delta _ { \mu } t - i\omega _ { k}t+i{\bf k}_{\mu } \cdot { \bf p}t / m]\,a_{1}({\bf p-}\hbar   { \bf k}_{\mu } , t ) ,   \label{22}\ ] ] where @xmath119 and terms of order @xmath120 and @xmath121 have been ignored . substituting this expression back into eq .
( [ 15a ] ) , one obtains @xmath122\,a_{1}({\bf p+}\hbar { \bf k}_{\nu \mu } , t ) , \label{23}\ ] ] where @xmath123 since @xmath124 can take on the values [ 0,@xmath125 only , it is clear that a solution to this equation can be written as @xmath126 combining eqs .
( [ 26 ] ) , ( [ 18 ] ) , ( [ 25 ] ) and ( [ 21 ] ) , one finds that the density matrix element @xmath80 is given by @xmath127    equation ( [ 26 ] ) proves that the general form for @xmath80 is correctly given by eq .
( [ 6 ] ) .
extracting the coefficient of @xmath128 provides us with the value of @xmath129 needed in eq .
( [ 9 ] ) .
two types of terms in the summation vary as @xmath130 , those with @xmath131 and @xmath132 and those with @xmath133 and @xmath134 denoting the @xmath132 term as @xmath135 , the @xmath136 as @xmath137 , and using the normalization condition @xcite @xmath138 one finds @xmath139 with    [ 29 ] @xmath140 .
\label{29b}\end{aligned}\ ] ] the first term represents linear dispersion of the medium .
the second term , which is at the heart of the rir and carl , represents a scattering of the pump field off the atomic density distribution created by both the pump and probe fields .
we now have all the ingredients necessary to derive the rir and carl equations .
in the large detuning limit , both the rir and carl equations are most easily derived using an effective hamiltonian for ground state atoms .
an effective hamiltonian of the form    @xmath141   \label{30}\ ] ]    leads to the evolution equation ( [ 23 ] ) for the ground state amplitude @xmath142 the second term in the hamiltonian is the spatially homogeneous light shift potential and is not of interest here .
the third term is the potential formed by the pump and probe fields which gives rise to rir and carl .
the depth of the potential , @xmath143 , is a critical parameter@xmath44 if the energy spread of the atoms @xmath144 is much larger than @xmath145 , any  bunching  or spatial modulation of the atomic density will be negligibly small , independent of the detuning @xmath5 .
this is generally the case at thermal energies , making it all but impossible to observe rir and carl using atoms in cells at or above the doppler limit of laser cooling ( see discussion in sec .
v ) . assuming that @xmath146 , there are still two limiting cases to consider@xmath44 if @xmath144 is much greater than the level spacings in the potential @xmath145 , then the motion of the atoms can be treated classically . by approximating the potential as that of a harmonic oscillator and assuming that the spread @xmath147 is of order @xmath148 , one can estimate that the validity condition for the motion to be treated classically is @xmath149 .
this is the limit considered by bonifacio and coworkers @xcite and will be referred to as carlsc , with the  sc  denoting the semiclassical limit . a theory of carl in which the atomic motion is fully quantized has been given recently by moore and meystre @xcite .
it will be referred to as carlq , when it is necessary to distinguish between carlsc and carlq .
the theory of rir has been developed using a quantized description of the center - of - mass motion ; consequently , the rir and carlq theories should produce identical results , and the rir and carlsc theories should produce the same results when @xmath150 .
it should be noted that , although the atomic motion in the _ optical potential _ is treated classically in carlsc , the gain in carlsc results from recoil - induced processes .
this point is discussed in more detail in sec .
v.    in calculating expectation values of operators that are diagonal in the internal states , one can neglect contributions from the excited state since the excited state population is assumed to be negligibly small .
the carl equations are derived using the heisenberg equations of motion while the rir are derived using a density matrix approach .
i now show that these methods yield equivalent results , as they must .
to make connection with carl , one defines a heisenberg operator ,  bunching parameter ,  @xmath151 . using eqs .
( [ 14 ] ) , ( [ 25 ] ) , ( [ 21 ] ) , and ( [ 29b ] ) , one can write the average value of the bunching parameter as @xcite    [ 31 ] @xmath152\,e^{-ie_{p,\left| { \bf p}+\hbar { \bf q}\right| } t/\hbar } \\ & = & v^{-1}\sum_{n=-\infty } ^{\infty } e^{i(2n+1)\omega _ { q}t}\int d{\bf p\,}w(% { \bf p}){\bf \,}e^{-i{\bf p\cdot q}t / m}s_{n}({\bf p}+n\hbar { \bf q}% , t)s_{n+1}^{\ast } [ { \bf p}+(n+1)\hbar { \bf q},t ]   \label{31e } \\ & = & \frac{\delta ve^{i\delta t}}{\chi _ { 1}}\tilde{\rho}_{21}(t;b ) , \label{31f}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the brackets denote a quantum - mechanical average and the bar an ensemble average . therefore , by combining eqs . ( [ 9 ] ) , ( [ 28 ] ) , ( [ 29 ] ) , and ( [ 31f ] ) , one finds    @xmath153    where @xmath154 is the atomic density .
this is one of the basic carl equations in the limit of large @xmath7 @xcite@xmath44 the remaining carl equations , obtained from the heisenberg equations of motion with the hamiltonian ( 30 ) are    [ 33 ] @xmath155 .
\label{33b}\end{aligned}\ ] ] these equations do not form a closed set since the equation for @xmath156 involves @xmath157 .
one must generate a series of equations for these higher moments or use some approximation techniques ( such as assuming classical motion in the effective potential ) to obtain a solution to the equations .
the linear dispersion parameter @xmath158 results in a shift of the probe field frequency . by setting @xmath159 in eqs .
( [ 32],[33 ] ) , it is easy to see that the detuning @xmath5 enters only in the combination @xmath160 thus , one can redefine the detuning to include the dispersion shift and replace eq .
( [ 32 ] ) by    @xmath161    to examine the small signal gain regime , one can solve eqs .
( [ 33 ] ) in perturbation theory .
to zeroth order in the fields ,    [ 34 ] @xmath162 ^{\dagger } & = & \exp \left\ { -i\left ( \frac{{\bf % q\cdot p}}{m}+\omega _ { q}\right ) t\right\ } b^{\dagger } ( 0)=b^{\dagger } ( 0)\exp \left\ { i\left ( \frac{{\bf q\cdot p}}{m}+\omega _ { q}\right ) t\right\ } ,   \label{34c}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the last equalities in eqs .
( [ 34b],[34c ] ) follow from the commutation properties of @xmath68 and @xmath163 note that @xmath164 and @xmath165 are normal schrdinger operators . substituting eqs .
( [ 34b],[34c ] ) into ( [ 33b ] ) , one finds , to first order in @xmath166 ,    @xmath167    and , when this result is substituted in eq .
( [ 33a ] ) , one obtains    [ 36 ] @xmath168 ^{2 } \\
-\chi _ { 2}(t^{\prime \prime } ) \chi _ { 1}^{\ast } \exp ^{i\left ( \frac{{\bf % q\cdot p}}{m}+\delta + \omega _ { q}\right ) ( t^{\prime } -t^{\prime \prime } ) } \end{array } \right )   \label{36b}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where the commutation properties of @xmath169 [ or @xmath170 $ ] and @xmath171 and the relationship @xmath172 have been used to go from ( [ 36a ] ) to ( [ 36b ] ) .
the bunching parameter @xmath173 can now be averaged with the initial density matrix ( [ 21 ] ) .
the average of eq .
( [ 34b ] ) for @xmath174 vanishes as does the first term in eq .
( [ 36b ] ) for @xmath175 . on averaging the remaining term in eq.([36b ] ) for @xmath175 with the initial density matrix ( [ 21 ] ) , interchanging the order of integration , and carrying out the integration over @xmath176one obtains    @xmath177 .
\label{37}\ ] ]    i will return to this equation after showing that an identical equation is reached using a density matrix approach .      the rir are usually calculated in the context of a density matrix approach . from eq .
( [ 31a ] ) , it follows that @xmath178 which gives the alternative form for eq .
( [ 33 m ] ) , @xmath179 to complete the rir equations , one uses the hamiltonian ( [ 30 ] ) , along with eqs .
( [ 11])-([14 ] ) , to obtain density matrix equations @xmath180    \nonumber \\ & & -i\frac{\chi _ { 1}\chi _ { 2}^{\ast } ( t)e^{i\delta t}}{\delta } \left [ \rho _ { 11}({\bf p-\hbar q},{\bf p}^{\prime } ; t)-\rho _ { 11}({\bf p},{\bf p}% ^{\prime } { \bf + \hbar q};t)\right ] ,   \label{40}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath181 .
it is easily verified that equations for the quantities @xmath182 and @xmath183 , obtained using eq .
( [ 40 ] ) , are identical to eqs .
( [ 33 ] ) .
thus , the rir density matrix equations are _ totally equivalent _ to the corresponding operator carl equations .    to evaluate @xmath184 in the perturbative limit using eq .
( [ 38 ] ) , one sets @xmath185 in eq .
( [ 40 ] ) and replaces the density matrix elements in the right hand side of that equation by their zeroth order values , @xmath186 to obtain @xcite @xmath187 .
\label{42}\end{aligned}\ ] ] this equation is consistent with the rir picture of raman transitions between center - of - mass momentum states differing by @xmath188 . integrating eq .
( [ 42 ] ) over * p * and @xmath189 and using eq .
( [ 38 ] ) , one reproduces eq .
( [ 37 ] ) for @xmath184 . since @xmath190 as @xmath191 @xmath192 ,
the probe gain in the rir and carl is a recoil - induced effect .    the value of @xmath184 given by eq .
( [ 37 ] ) , which determines the small signal gain , depends critically on the ratio @xcite @xmath193 where @xmath194 is the width of the momentum distribution and @xmath109 is the most probable atomic speed . for @xmath195 (  rir limit  ) , the integrand in eq .
( [ 37 ] ) is rapidly oscillating except when @xmath196 allowing one to approximate the integral as    [ 44 ] @xmath197 where it has been assumed that the momentum distribution can be written as the product of a one - dimensional , symmetric distribution , @xmath198 and a two - dimensional distribution , @xmath199 for momenta @xmath200 transverse to the @xmath201 direction .
equation ( [ 44 ] ) is the general rir result , in which the bunching parameter depends locally on the field @xmath202 . by combining eqs .
( [ 44 ] ) and ( [ 33 m ] ) , one sees that , in general , the exponential build up of the field is not linear with time . however , if @xmath203 and @xmath204 , the expression for @xmath184 reduces to    @xmath205    where @xmath206 indicates a principal value , enabling one to combine eqs .
( [ 150 ] ) and ( [ 33 m ] ) to obtain the small signal gain @xcite @xmath207 the gain depends linearly on the atomic density and the pump field intensity .
the gain is positive for @xmath208 negative ( absorption ) for @xmath209 and vanishes at @xmath210 .
this is a  single particle
gain in that each atom contributes separately to the gain and there is no threshold condition for gain that depends on atomic density .
the situation changes in the carl limit @xmath211 . in that limit
one can replace @xmath115 in eq .
( [ 37 ] ) by @xmath212 to obtain @xmath213 .
\label{46}\ ] ] the bunching parameter now depends nonlocally on the field amplitude @xmath214 ; that is , it depends on the past history of @xmath202 .
equation ( [ 46 ] ) is equivalent to the differential equation @xmath215 subject to the initial conditions @xmath216 .
the small signal behavior is determined by the coupled equations ( [ 47 ] ) and ( [ 33 m ] ) .
these equations have already been analyzed by bonifacio and coworkers for carlsc with neglect of the @xmath217 term in eq .
( [ 47 ] ) @xcite and by moore and meystre @xcite including this term .
gain occurs if one of the roots of the cubic indicial equation , obtained from the coupled equations , ( [ 47 ] ) and ( [ 33 m ] ) , has a positive real value . in terms of the quantity
@xmath218 the indicial equation is @xmath219 and the condition for gain is @xcite @xmath220 ^{3/2}<27q/2 . \label{49}\ ] ] if @xmath221 , gain occurs in the range @xmath222 and the gain coefficient equals @xmath223 on the other hand , for @xmath224 , gain occurs for @xmath225 in contrast to the rir limit@xmath44 moreover in both cases , the gain depends nonlinearly on the atomic density and there is a threshold condition for all values of @xmath226 as such , carl is a collective effect in the sense that gain does not occur for atomic densities below a certain critical value . for @xmath227 which is the resonance condition for raman transitions between center - of - mass states having momenta @xmath228 and @xmath229
there is gain irrespective of the value of @xmath230 for @xmath231 and @xmath232 , the gain varies as @xmath233 , and the probe field undergoes exponential gain linear in time for @xmath234    for early times , one can evaluate @xmath235 in eq .
( [ 37 ] ) at @xmath236 , and combine eq . (
[ 37 ] ) with eq .
( [ 33 m ] ) to obtain @xmath237 as long as the magnitude of the second term is much less than unity , the build - up of the probe field depends linearly on the density and the dependence of @xmath238 on @xmath239 is approximately local . in this sense , the rir limit is always valid for sufficiently small @xmath240 or atomic density ( since @xmath241 is proportional to the density ) .
it follows from eq .
( [ 101 ] ) that the rir limit is always valid if @xmath242 .
if @xmath243 and @xmath244 , the rir limit is valid when @xmath245 the condition @xmath246 is less restrictive than @xmath247 for @xmath248 .
an interesting limiting case is one in which @xmath250 ( carl limit ) , and the pump and probe field frequencies are degenerate , @xmath251 ; @xmath252 [ recall that the detuning has been redefined to include the shift arising from linear dispersion ] .
when @xmath210 , the probe gain vanishes identically in the rir limit @xmath195 , but grows exponentially for carlsc . for carlq , it follows from eq .
( [ 49 ] ) that the probe gain is exponential provided that @xmath253 this qualitative difference between the rir and carl limits is reason enough to consider the @xmath210 case in some detail , but it is not the only reason .
the existence of exponential gain when @xmath210 is surprising at first glance .
it would seem that processes in which a pump photon is absorbed and a probe photon emitted would be exactly cancelled by processes in which a probe photon is absorbed and a pump photon emitted , owing to the symmetry of the interaction when @xmath243 .
it is the purpose of this section to investigate the origin of exponential gain in carl when @xmath210 .
calculations are carried out in a perturbative limit , that is , to lowest order in the pump field intensity . as is shown below , the results are also applicable to a wider range of problems .    in perturbation theory , there are five states that enter the calculation , starting from atoms in their ground state having @xmath228 .
the relevant states are @xmath254 @xmath255 @xmath256 @xmath257 , having energies @xmath258 , @xmath259 , @xmath260 , and @xmath261 , respectively ( recall that @xmath262
. it is convenient to relabel these states as @xmath263 the energy levels associated with these states are shown in fig .
the pump field drives the @xmath264 to @xmath70 and @xmath265 to @xmath266 transitions while the probe field drives the @xmath264 to @xmath267 and @xmath70 to @xmath71 transitions .
the hamiltonian for the system can be obtained by expanding the hamiltonian ( [ 3 ] ) in a momentum - state basis for the subspace ( [ 51 ] ) .
using the relationship @xmath268 , one finds @xmath269 note that this level scheme could equally well describe an atom in a stark field , driven by circularly polarized pump and probe fields .
the energy @xmath270 would then correspond to the stark shifts of the @xmath271 ground state , zeeman sublevels .
since decay is neglected , the calculation is most conveniently carried out using state amplitudes rather than density matrix elements .
no ensemble average is needed here since we start in an eigenstate of momentum , @xmath272 it is convenient to work in a field interaction representation in which the state amplitudes @xmath273 ( @xmath274 are written as    [ 53 ] @xmath275^{1/2}\tilde{a}_{0}(t)\,\delta ( % { \bf p } )   \label{53a } \\
a_{1}({\bf p},t ) & = & [ ( 2\pi \hbar ) ^{3}/v]^{1/2}\tilde{a}_{1}(t)\,e^{-i\omega t}\,\delta ( { \bf p}-\hbar { \bf k}_{1 } )   \label{53b } \\
a_{-1}({\bf p},t ) & = & [ ( 2\pi \hbar ) ^{3}/v]^{1/2}\tilde{a}_{-1}(t)\,e^{-i% \omega t}\,\delta ( { \bf p}-\hbar { \bf k}_{2 } )   \label{53c } \\
a_{\pm 2}({\bf p},t ) & = & [ ( 2\pi \hbar ) ^{3}/v]^{1/2}\tilde{a}_{\pm 2}(t)\,\delta ( { \bf p}\mp \hbar { \bf q } ) ,   \label{53d}\end{aligned}\ ] ] with density matrix elements given by    [ 54 ] @xmath276 in eq .
( [ 8a ] ) for the probe field evolution , one need the component of polarization @xmath277 varying as @xmath278 . from eqs .
( [ 53])and ( [ 54 ] ) , it follows that    @xmath279\,e^{i({\bf k}_{2}{\bf \cdot r}-\omega t ) } \label{55}\ ] ]    where the * @xmath76 * s are dipole matrix elements . for the level scheme corresponding to the states ( [ 51 ] )
, @xmath280 thus , the problem reduces to calculating @xmath281 and @xmath282 to order @xmath283 .
= 16 cm = 16 cm    before undertaking this calculation , it is useful to obtain an expression for the time evolution of the probe field s energy density @xmath284=@xmath285 . using eqs .
( [ 8a ] ) , ( [ 4 ] ) , ( [ 55 ] ) , and ( [ 56 ] ) , one finds    [ 57 ] @xmath286 .
\label{57c}\end{aligned}\ ] ] the last line follows from the density matrix equations of motion for the hamiltonian ( [ 52 ] ) and can be given an obvious physical interpretation .
population of state @xmath71 implies gain on the probe field , while population in states @xmath267 or @xmath287 implies loss for the probe field .
the time rate of change in energy density is simply the difference @xmath288 $ ] multiplied by the product of energy , @xmath289 gained or lost by the probe field in each elementary process and the atomic density . in the adiabatic limit considered in this paper ,
the excited state population is negligible and one has    @xmath290    one might expect that @xmath291 , owing to the symmetry of the level scheme , but we will see that this is not the case .    assuming that the detuning of the fields @xmath7 from the ground to excited state atomic resonance is sufficiently large to adiabatically eliminate the excited states , one uses the hamiltonian ( [ 52 ] ) to show that the excited state amplitudes are given by    [ 59 ] @xmath292 and that the state amplitudes @xmath293 , @xmath294 evolve as    [ 60 ] @xmath295    it is a straightforward exercise to solve eqs .
( [ 60 ] ) in perturbation theory to third order in the fields , starting from @xmath296 .
one finds    [ 61 ] @xmath297 where the superscripts denote the order of the fields .
consider , first , eq .
( [ 58 ] ) for the probe field intensity , which depends on    @xmath298    by inspecting eqs .
( [ 61d],[61e ] ) , one can understand the manner in which @xmath299 can grow more rapidly than @xmath300 .
suppose @xmath202 acquires a positive , time - dependent phase as a result of the atom - field interaction . in this case , the quantity @xmath301 appearing in the integrand of eq .
( [ 61d ] ) varies more slowly than the quantity @xmath302 appearing in the integrand of eq .
( [ 61e ] ) . as a result
, state @xmath71 population builds up more rapidly than that of state @xmath266 , leading to probe gain . in other words ,
the nonlinear phase modulation of the probe field effectively favors the @xmath264 to @xmath71 transition over the @xmath264 to @xmath266 if the phase is positive .    to examine the phase and amplitude build - up of the field
, one can combine eqs .
( [ 8a ] ) , ( [ 4 ] ) , ( [ 54])-([56 ] ) , and ( [ 61 ] ) to obtain @xmath303    \nonumber \\ & = & i\frac{\omega d^{2}}{\epsilon _ { 0}\hbar }
n\frac{\left| \chi _ { 1}\right| ^{2}}{\delta ^{2}}\int_{0}^{t}dt^{\prime } \chi _ { 2}(t^{\prime } ) \sin \left [ \omega _ { q}(t - t^{\prime } ) \right ]    \nonumber \\ & = & iq\omega _ { q}\int_{0}^{\omega _ { q}t}dy^{\prime } \chi _ { 2}(y^{\prime } /\omega _ { q})\sin \left [ ( \omega _ { q}t - y^{\prime } ) \right ] .   \label{63}\end{aligned}\ ] ] of course , the integral equation ( [ 63 ] ) is equivalent to the coupled equations ( [ 33m],[37 ] ) with @xmath9 however , this form of the equations is convenient for obtaining the early time development of the field and for determining the conditions under which the field undergoes exponential gain . by solving eq .
( [ 63 ] ) iteratively , one finds   @xmath304-iq\sin ( \omega _ { q}t )   \nonumber \\ & & -(q^{2}/2)[4\cos ( \omega _ { q}t)+\omega _ { q}t\sin ( \omega _ { q}t)-4]+o[q^{3}(\omega _ { q}t)^{2 } ) ] .
\label{64}\end{aligned}\ ] ] for @xmath305 , @xmath306 . at early times , the phase is positive , favoring probe gain . whether or not the field continues to grow depends on the value of @xmath230 if @xmath307 then @xmath239 is slowly varying compared with @xmath308 and the integral in ( [ 63 ] )
can be evaluated asymptotically to yield @xmath309\chi _ { 2}\text{% , }   \label{65}\ ] ] which implies that @xmath310}\chi _ { 2}(0 ) \label{66}\ ] ] for @xmath221 , the intensity of the probe field remains approximately constant . in some sense , this can be viewed as the rir limit , since the time development of the field is approximately local , and there is neither absorption nor gain . on the other hand , for @xmath311
the field build - up occurs sufficiently rapidly to insure that @xmath312   \nonumber \\ & = & 4% % tcimacro{\func{re}}% % beginexpansion \mathop{\rm re}% % endexpansion \left\ { i\frac{\left| \chi _ { 1}\right| ^{2}\chi _ { 2}^{\ast } ( t)}{\delta ^{2}}% \int_{0}^{t}dy^{\prime } \chi _ { 2}(t^{\prime } ) \sin ( t - t^{\prime } ) \right\ }   \label{67}\end{aligned}\ ] ] remains positive for all @xmath240 . in this case
, there is exponential gain for the probe for times @xmath313 .    in summary ,
the probe gain that occurs for @xmath210 and large @xmath7 is clearly _ not _ a single particle effect .
it is more closely related to a  propagation  effect in which the phase modulation of the probe field produced by the nonlinear atom - field interaction drives the probe gain .
it has been shown that the density matrix - rir and heisenberg operator - carl formalisms lead to equivalent equations .
the rir and carl limits refer simply to different regions of parameter space of these equations . for a given experimental situation
, one must determine whether one is in the rir limit , the carl limit , or neither limit ( as is most often the case ) .
the experimental implications of the rir and carl are discussed below , but first i would like to discuss the distinction between the terms  matter grating  used in discussions of the rir and  atomic bunching  used in discussions of carl .    the term
matter grating  refers to spatially modulated atom distributions resulting from a nonlinear atom - field interaction .
the term  atomic bunching  refers to a redistribution or focusing of atoms in an optical potential . for the rir and carl , _
these terms are synonymous_. if recoil effects are neglected , that is , if the center - of - mass motion is treated classically from the outset , the _ total atomic density _ is conserved for each velocity subclass of atoms ( neglecting collisions ) .
a homogeneous atomic density remains homogeneous to all orders in the atom - field interaction .
recoil effects allow for a modification of the total atomic density . whether one calls this  atomic bunching  or
matter grating
production is a matter of personal preference @xcite .
the key point is that the modification of the total atomic density results entirely from effects related to recoil on the absorption , emission , or scattering of radiation .
to lowest order in the atom - field interaction , the matter grating or atomic bunching consists of a spatial modulation of the atomic density having period 2@xmath314 . with increasing field strength , higher order spatial harmonics
are produced , corresponding to  higher order matter gratings  or  focusing  or  atomic bunching .
 of course it is possible to derive an effective potential of the form @xmath315 \right\ } \left| 1\right\rangle \left\langle 1\right|   \label{68}\ ] ] _ without _ quantization of the center - of - mass motion and to consider _ classical _ motion in this potential .
however , since the effective potential is proportional to @xmath316 , any changes in the atomic density vanish in the classical limit .
this is in contrast to bunching in the free electron laser where the effective potential does not vanish in the classical limit .    are there situations where matter gratings are produced by fields without any contribution from recoil ?
the answer to this question is  yes ,
provided one considers the matter gratings associated with individual internal atomic states rather than the total atomic density .
for example , for an ensemble of _ stationary _ , closed , two - level atoms there is a spatial modulation in the _ population difference_@xmath317between the excited and ground states produced by the pump and probe fields .
scattering of the pump field from this spatially modulated population difference leads to a dispersion - shaped probe absorption profile centered at a probe - pump detuning @xmath210 in the limit of large atom - field detuning @xmath318 the amplitude of the dispersion profile varies as the square of the pump field intensity and its width is equal to the excited state decay rate @xcite .
it is also possible to have gain profiles with a width corresponding to some effective ground state decay time if one considers open systems in which spontaneous emission also plays a role .
for example , if the ground state consists of two hyperfine states and the fields drive transitions between only one of these ground states and an excited state , then , as a result of spontaneous emission , both ground state sublevel populations can be spatially modulated ( although the _ total _ atomic density - the sum of all ground and excited state populations - remains constant in the absence of recoil ) . it is possible to monitor the atomic gratings in specific ground state hyperfine levels by using radiation that couples only the targeted ground state sublevel to an excited state .
finally , i would like to discuss some experimental implications of the rir and carl . to observe the spectral features of the rir and carl , it is best to use cold atoms in a collisionless environment .
moreover , to isolate the effects of interest , one must use experiments which involve closed , two - level transitions or signals that depend only on total atomic state density .
the rir have already been observed in several experiments involving laser - cooled atoms @xcite .
the experiments in which evidence for carl was claimed @xcite were all carried out under conditions ( collisions , radiation trapping , large doppler widths ) which do not favor observation of carl .
the results of these experiments can be explained by conventional theories in which recoil is neglected @xcite . as was mentioned previously ,
the carl limit is essentially a subrecoil limit . although the carl limit has been stated as @xmath319 , when @xmath320 a better estimate for the carl regime is @xmath321 @xcite . for densities of order 10@xmath322atoms / m@xmath323 ,
it is possible to achieve values of @xmath324 of order 100 - 1000 .
thus , it may be possible to observe carl for atoms cooled to or somewhat above the sub - doppler limit of laser cooling .
the linear gain coefficient in this case is of order @xmath325s@xmath326 , which must exceed any cavity loss .
is it possible to observe the rir in a thermal vapor using pump - probe spectroscopy ?
the linear absorption rate is @xmath327 which implies that the ratio of the recoil - induced gain @xmath328 [ eq .
( [ 45 ] ) ] to the linear absorption rate is of order @xmath329 , where @xmath330 is the kinetic energy of the atoms . for sub - doppler cooled atoms ,
this ratio can be greater than unity , but it is small at room temperature . still it might be possible to use modulation techniques to isolate the rir contribution to the probe absorption . for the rir signal to be larger than the background , dispersion - like contribution to the probe absorption that varies as @xmath331
, one requires that the ratio @xmath332 be greater than unity .
this can be achieved at room temperature for sufficiently large @xmath333 .
perhaps the best way to observe carl would be to use an atomic beam , transversely cooled below the recoil limit .
the beam can be passed through a cavity with some transit time @xmath334 it is not difficult to extend the theory to allow for a transit time effects through an effective decay rate @xmath49 for ground state atoms . for subrecoil cooled atoms , eq .
( [ 46 ] ) is replaced by @xmath335 , \label{69}\ ] ] eq .
( [ 47 ] ) by @xmath336 and the indicial equation ( [ 200 ] ) by @xmath337 with the inclusion of decay , the rir limit , in which @xmath338 depends locally on @xmath339 is @xmath340 .
thus the carl limit occurs when @xmath341 .
decay tends to diminish the gain parameter when @xmath248 , but can actually reduce the gain threshold when @xmath342 .
for example , if @xmath343 , the threshold condition is reduced from @xmath344 to @xmath345 if @xmath346 .
it is a pleasure to acknowledge helpful discussions with b. dubetsky and j. l. cohen .
this work is supported by the u. s. office of army research under grant no .
daag55 - 97 - 0113 and the national science foundation under grants nos .
phy-9414020 and phy-9800981 .
r. bonifacio and l. de salvo , nucl .
methods a * 341 * , 360 ( 1994 ) ; r. bonifacio , l. de salvo , l. m. narducci , and e. j. dangelo , phys .
a * 50 * , 1716 ( 1994 ) ; r. bonifacio and l. de salvo , opt . commun . * 115 * , 505 ( 1995 ) ; l. de salvo , r. cannerozzi , r. bonifacio , e. j. dangelo and l. m. narducci , phys . rev .
a * 52 * , 2342 ( 1995 ) ; r. bonifacio , l. de salvo , l. m. narducci , and e. j. dangelo , unpublished .
the line width actually results from the convolution of a lorentzian having width equal to the excited state decay rate , @xmath347 and a gaussian having width @xmath348 , where @xmath349 is the magnitude of the difference of pump and probe field wave vectors and @xmath109 is the most probable atomic speed .
a more precise statement of the carl limit is @xmath350 , where @xmath241 is defined by eq .
( [ 48 ] ) .
this condition follow from eq .
( [ 37 ] ) , where evaluating @xmath214 in the integrand at @xmath351 requires that @xmath214 be slowly varying with respect to @xmath352 and the fact that @xmath202 varies as @xmath353 for @xmath248 and @xmath354 , where @xmath355 is a constant of order unity . similarly , the region of simple exponential gain for carl occurs for times @xmath356 and , when ground state decay is included , the field dependence is local if @xmath340 .