Talk:Rabi cycle

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

John Timmer (December 29, 2015). "Editorial: Wikipedia fails as an encyclopedia, to science's detriment". Ars Technica.

Untitled

Need clarification: is Rabi frequency an ordinary frequency or an angular frequency? Factor of 2pi... 124.168.208.52 (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that matters much. As you say, the only difference is a factor of two pi. Both "types" of frequency could be used.Mattyp9999 (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links to applets are dead. --62.141.169.250 (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plan of Work

I want to editRabi oscillation wikipage .Here is my plan of work

(1)How to prepare an oscillation experiment in quantum mechanics.
(2)Derivation of Rabi formula in an nonperturbative procedure by means of the Pauli matrices.
(3)Example of Rabi Oscillation in Quantum Computing and ammonia maser.

Md.S.R.Laskar (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(2) as written is not a derivation of Rabi frequency. It is rather a derivation of Larmour frequency. In Rabi oscillations, a time dependent field varies periodically. The Hamiltonian used in (2) is static in time. 68.44.251.220 (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs proofreading

For grammar and small typos. 178.38.74.237 (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for calculation errors. There seems to be an error in the expansion of |E_-> as it is not orthogonal to |E₊> in its present form. This is in the section titled "Derivation of Rabi formula in a nonperturbative procedure by means of the Pauli matrices". --LavTan9 (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Critique of this article in Ars Technica

This article was criticized in an Ars Technica article[1] by John Timmer, where it is described as "mass of incomprehensible equations, sporadically interspersed with impenetrable jargon." Sanpitch (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— This is John Timmer. I'm a science writer, my e-mail is available on my author profile page (click the link to the article above; click my name on top, and then look for my email address). I'll happily work with someone who understands Rabi cycles to try to make at least the opening sections of this entry conform to Wikipedia's guide for technical articles[2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:6AC1:4F00:F0A8:5E1F:E091:C3F3 (talk) 04:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made a quick start by fixing the consistency of states and levels in the opening paragraph, based on the introduction to the article on two-level / two-state systems. 109.158.27.60 (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Good" complex coordinates?

"The state of a two-state quantum system can be represented as vectors of a two-dimensional complex Hilbert space, which means every state vector {\displaystyle \vert \psi \rangle } \vert \psi \rangle is represented by good complex coordinates."

What is "good" supposed to mean here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A61:481B:FA01:C8C1:74FE:CE40:7EBB (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT "GOOD" MEANS HERE: From "Introductory Quantum Mechanics" by Richard L. Liboff, Cornell University, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, (C) 1980, Ninth printing, February 1989, ISBN 0-201-12221-9, page 5, second paragraph:

"Independent coordinates that serve to uniquely determine the orientation and location of a system in physical space are called generalized or canonical or good coordinates. A system with N generalized coordinates has N degrees of freedom. The orientation and location of a system with, say, three degrees of freedom are not specified until all three generalized coordinates are specified. The fact that good coordinates may be specified independently of one another means that given the values of all but one of the coordinates, the last coordinate remains arbitrary. Having specified (x, y) for a point particle in 3-space, one is still free to choose z independently of the assigned values of x and y."

The "complex" part is because the coordinates are defined for a Hilbert space, which is a space of complex (real part + imaginary part) values.

(Disclaimer: I'm not an expert, so feel free to illuminate any mistakes or omissions I've made. Thanks.)

BornRightTheFirstTime (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need of deep changes

The article needs deep changes. The so-called "Derivation of Rabi formula .." is not at all about Rabi oscillations. The same for "How to prepare an oscillation experiment ..". I will change it at some point.

I've written about Rabi oscillations quite a few times, so I will attempt to clean up this article. --Aisonix (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rabi oscillation in quantum computing

This section is BS --62.141.176.2 (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between conditions for Rabi cycle vs optical pumping?

In similar conditions we can have optical pumping - raising the number of excited atoms, or Rabi cycle - oscillatory behavior instead.

Maybe it is worth to somehow compare them in these two Wikipedia articles, starting with the difference of conditions to get one or the second? Jarek Duda (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-observation of Rabi cycle for synchrotron radiation?

There were multiple attempts to observe Rabi cycle for synchrotron radiation, and they turned out unsuccessful against theoretical predictions. Some quotes from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-04948-y :

"although intense nanometre-wavelength light sources have been available for more than a decade [7,8,9], Rabi dynamics at such short wavelengths has not been directly observed. (...) despite theoretical predictions to observe Rabi dynamics at short wavelengths [18,19,20,21], its effects on the measured spectra were only indirect [22,23]"

Then this article claims it has finally observed, but showing experimental results in Fig. 3 with stabilization of density instead of cycles.

So maybe there is e.g. some missing assumption in Rabi theory? It assumes laser periodically increases and decreases energy of the target - the former is by photon traveling to the target, so isn't the latter by photon traveling back? In synchrotron electrons produce photons, but cannot absorb them back - maybe this kind of photon sources does not allow for Rabi? Jarek Duda (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure section

Doesn't the procedure section describe larmor precession? Shouldn't Rabi oscillations require an oscillating driving field? SladeWillson (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]