💎 Build 08 · Cavity QED Coupling Lab

Cavity QED Coupling Lab

Turn mirror spacing, finesse, mode waist, and atomic linewidth into the language of cavity QED: g₀, κ, γ, cooperativity, Purcell enhancement, β-factor, and the strong-coupling boundary. The goal is not just a number — it is intuition for what the cavity is doing to one atom and one photon.

Cavity QED workflow

Turn geometry into a physical regime.

A cavity is not just a shiny box around an atom. Use the page in this order: compute the three rates, compare them, then decide whether the system is a spectrometer, a Purcell interface, or a strong-coupling device.

01Enter geometry

Length, waist, finesse, linewidth, and transition wavelength set g₀, κ, and γ.

02Read the rates

Compare coherent exchange to cavity leakage and atomic free-space decay.

03Classify regime

Strong coupling, Purcell enhancement, or weak coupling each imply different experiments.

04Check intuition

Use reference systems and common mistakes before trusting a design.

g₀
How strongly one photon talks to one atom

Large dipole moment, small mode volume, and placing the atom at an antinode all increase the coherent exchange rate.

g₀ ∝ √(Γ / V)
κ
How fast the cavity forgets the photon

High finesse and longer photon lifetime lower κ. This makes coherent oscillation visible, but also narrows the bandwidth.

κ/2π = FSR / 2ℱ
γ
How fast the atom leaks to free space

γ is the unavoidable competitor. Cooperativity asks: does the cavity channel beat all the other optical modes?

C = g₀² / κγ

01 Cavity & Atom Parameters

Start from a geometry preset if you want intuition fast. These are not sacred designs — they are plausible regimes: macroscopic reference cavity, short strong-coupling cavity, fiber Fabry-Pérot, and a deliberately bad cavity used for Purcell thinking.
Cavity Parameters
F = π√R/(1−R) → mirror R =
n = 1 for free-space cavities (usual case)
Atom / Transition
ξ folds in antinode position, polarization, and transition strength

02 Results

Computing…
g₀/2π
MHz
κ/2π
MHz
γ/2π
MHz
Cooperativity C
dimensionless
Purcell Fₚ
= 2C
Mode vol. V
×(λ/2)³
FSR
GHz
Cav. linewidth
MHz (FWHM)
Sat. photons n₀
photons
Critical atoms N₀
atoms
β-factor
cavity photons
ℱ for κ=g₀
threshold
$$g_0 = \xi\sqrt{\frac{3\Gamma c^3}{2\omega^2 V}} \qquad V = \frac{\pi w_0^2 L}{4} \qquad C = \frac{g_0^2}{\kappa\gamma} \qquad \kappa = \frac{\text{FSR}}{2\mathcal{F}} \qquad \gamma = \frac{\Gamma}{2}$$

Convention used here: rates are displayed as angular rates divided by 2π. The calculator uses a TEM₀₀ standing-wave mode volume and treats ξ as an amplitude-level overlap factor. For real experiments, multiply by Clebsch-Gordan coefficients, polarization projections, antinode position, and transverse mode overlap.

03 Coupling Rates vs Finesse

Increasing finesse reduces κ (cavity leaks more slowly) while g₀ and γ remain constant. Strong coupling is reached when the purple κ line drops below g₀. The vertical dashed line marks the minimum finesse for strong coupling with the current cavity geometry.

Design knobs: what should you actually change?

Make w₀ smaller

Most powerful lever for g₀ because g₀ ∝ 1/w₀ and C ∝ 1/w₀². The price is mirror curvature, clipping loss, alignment sensitivity, and atom-surface constraints.

Make L shorter

Boosts g₀ through smaller mode volume and raises FSR. But short cavities are mechanically harder and can limit optical access.

Increase finesse

Reduces κ without changing g₀. This helps strong coupling, but very high finesse narrows bandwidth and makes lock acquisition unforgiving.

Choose the transition

Broad lines give larger g₀ but larger γ too. Narrow lines can have beautiful spectra but often require extremely small mode volume to matter.

A tiny history of making empty space non-empty

1946
Purcell realizes that spontaneous emission is not immutable; the environment changes the rate.
1963
Jaynes–Cummings gives the clean one-atom, one-mode model that still powers the intuition.
1992
Rempe–Thompson–Kimble observe optical normal-mode splitting from atom-cavity coupling.
2005
Birnbaum et al. demonstrate photon blockade: one atom can make one photon block the next.
today
Fiber cavities, nanophotonics, and tweezer arrays aim to turn cavity QED into scalable photon interfaces.

04 Coupling Regimes

Strong Coupling: g₀ > κ, γ — Vacuum Rabi Splitting

When g₀ > κ and g₀ > γ, the atom–cavity system enters strong coupling. The cavity-QED Hamiltonian H = ℏg₀(a†σ⁻ + aσ⁺) drives coherent energy exchange between atom and photon faster than either can decay. The normal modes of the coupled system (the dressed states or polaritons) are split by 2g₀ — directly observable as a doublet in the cavity transmission spectrum (vacuum Rabi splitting).

Achieving strong coupling requires simultaneously large g₀ (tight mode, short cavity) and small κ (high finesse mirrors). The product gives the condition F > πFSR/(2g₀), i.e., a minimum finesse scales as cavity length.

$$\text{Strong coupling:} \quad g_0 > \kappa,\;\gamma \quad \Leftrightarrow \quad \mathcal{F} > \frac{\pi c}{4 L g_0}$$
Purcell Regime: C > 1 but g₀ < κ — Enhanced Emission

In the bad-cavity limit (κ ≫ g₀, κ ≫ γ) the photon leaks out before a coherent Rabi oscillation completes. However, when C > 1 the cavity still dramatically enhances the spontaneous emission rate into the cavity mode. The total emission rate becomes Γ_tot = Γ(1 + 2C), and the fraction of photons emitted into the cavity mode is β = 2C/(1 + 2C). This is the Purcell effect, with Purcell factor Fₚ = 2C. Applications: efficient single-photon sources, deterministic atom–photon entanglement.

Weak Coupling: C < 1 — Cavity has Little Effect

When C < 1, the cavity offers negligible enhancement of atom–photon interactions. The atom emits primarily into free-space modes. This regime is typical for initial cavity characterization experiments and for cavities used primarily for filtering or as reference resonators (e.g., PDH locking). Increasing finesse, reducing mode volume (shorter L or smaller w₀), or choosing a higher-Γ transition all increase C.

05 Reference Systems

Group Atom / λ L (mm) Finesse w₀ (μm) g₀/2π (MHz) κ/2π (MHz) γ/2π (MHz) C Regime
Kimble, Caltech (2005) Cs, 852 nm 0.042 460 000 16 34 4.1 2.6 136 Strong
Vuletic, MIT (2010) Rb-87, 780 nm 1.7 130 000 57 10.4 0.36 3.0 32 Strong
Thompson, Princeton (2013) Sr-88, 461 nm 1.4 100 000 100 3.1 0.27 16 2.2 Purcell
Hood Lab, Purdue (ongoing) Cs-133, 852 nm 2.6

g₀ and κ from published papers; γ = Γ/2 from Steck data sheets. Cooperativity C = g₀²/(κγ). Use the calculator above to reproduce these numbers.

06 Common Mistakes

Three ways cavity numbers quietly go wrong

Mixing Γ and γ

Many papers quote Γ/2π as the full natural linewidth. This calculator uses γ = Γ/2 as the dipole decay rate in C = g₀²/(κγ).

Forgetting 2π

If g, κ, and γ are all consistently angular rates or all consistently divided by 2π, ratios are fine. Trouble starts when MHz and rad/s are mixed in one equation.

Treating ξ as a fudge factor

ξ should mean something physical: standing-wave position, polarization, Clebsch-Gordan coefficient, and transverse overlap. If ξ = 0.2, ask which imperfection caused it.

🏔️
Hood Lab context: Our Li–Cs tweezer experiments don't use a cavity, but cavity QED is a natural next step — coupling a single Cs atom in a tweezer to a fiber Fabry–Pérot cavity would allow single-photon-level readout without destruction. The key challenge is that the Cs D2 line (γ/2π = 2.6 MHz) requires finesse > 50 000 for even Purcell-regime coupling in a sub-mm cavity.
📚 Key References
📄 Birnbaum et al. (2005). Photon blockade in an optical cavity with one trapped atom. Nature 436, 87–90. doi:10.1038/nature03804
📄 Thompson et al. (1992). Observation of normal-mode splitting for an atom in an optical cavity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1132. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.1132
📄 Kimble, H.J. (1998). Strong interactions of single atoms and photons in cavity QED. Phys. Scr. T76, 127. doi:10.1238/Physica.Topical.076a00127
📄 Haroche & Raimond (2006). Exploring the Quantum: Atoms, Cavities, and Photons. Oxford University Press. (Nobel Prize 2012)
📄 Reiserer & Rempe (2015). Cavity-based quantum networks with single atoms and optical photons. Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 1379. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.87.1379
📄 Purcell (1946). Spontaneous emission probabilities at radio frequencies. Phys. Rev. 69, 681. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.69.674.2 historical
📄 Jaynes & Cummings (1963). Comparison of quantum and semiclassical radiation theories. Proc. IEEE 51, 89. doi:10.1109/PROC.1963.1664 theory

See Also