A. Aspect, E. Arimondo, R. Kaiser, N. Vansteenkiste, C. Cohen-Tannoudji, “Laser cooling below the one-photon recoil energy by velocity-selective coherent population trapping,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 826–829 (1988).

[Crossref]
[PubMed]

A. Aspect, E. Arimondo, R. Kaiser, N. Vansteenkiste, C. Cohen-Tannoudji, “Laser cooling below the one-photon recoil energy by velocity-selective coherent population trapping,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 826–829 (1988).

[Crossref]
[PubMed]

For real mirrors there can be losses that are dependent on polarization, corresponding to different reflection coefficients for sand ppolarizations. For a typical metallic mirror the reflection coefficients in amplitude will differ at most by 5%; see, for example, M. Born, E. Wolf, Principles of Optics, 1st ed. (Pergamon, London, 1959), Chap. 13.2, p. 616. For a dielectric mirror, in the middle of the wavelength range where the reflection coefficient is maximum, the ratio is even closer to 1, typically above 99.5%.

See, for example, M. Born, E. Wolf, Principles of Optics, 1st ed. (Pergamon, London, 1959), Chap. 1.5.4, p. 49.

A. Aspect, E. Arimondo, R. Kaiser, N. Vansteenkiste, C. Cohen-Tannoudji, “Laser cooling below the one-photon recoil energy by velocity-selective coherent population trapping,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 826–829 (1988).

[Crossref]
[PubMed]

A. Aspect, E. Arimondo, R. Kaiser, N. Vansteenkiste, C. Cohen-Tannoudji, “Laser cooling below the one-photon recoil energy by velocity-selective coherent population trapping,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 826–829 (1988).

[Crossref]
[PubMed]

R. J. C. Spreeuw, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Phys. A167, Gaithersburg, Md. 20899 (personal communication, 1992).

A. Aspect, E. Arimondo, R. Kaiser, N. Vansteenkiste, C. Cohen-Tannoudji, “Laser cooling below the one-photon recoil energy by velocity-selective coherent population trapping,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 826–829 (1988).

[Crossref]
[PubMed]

See, for example, M. Born, E. Wolf, Principles of Optics, 1st ed. (Pergamon, London, 1959), Chap. 1.5.4, p. 49.

For real mirrors there can be losses that are dependent on polarization, corresponding to different reflection coefficients for sand ppolarizations. For a typical metallic mirror the reflection coefficients in amplitude will differ at most by 5%; see, for example, M. Born, E. Wolf, Principles of Optics, 1st ed. (Pergamon, London, 1959), Chap. 13.2, p. 616. For a dielectric mirror, in the middle of the wavelength range where the reflection coefficient is maximum, the ratio is even closer to 1, typically above 99.5%.

A. Aspect, E. Arimondo, R. Kaiser, N. Vansteenkiste, C. Cohen-Tannoudji, “Laser cooling below the one-photon recoil energy by velocity-selective coherent population trapping,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 826–829 (1988).

[Crossref]
[PubMed]

Note that if the elements in the system have polarization-independent losses, they can be represented by a unitary matrix multiplied by a real number between 0 and 1. The results that we demonstrate in this paper then are unchanged.

For real mirrors there can be losses that are dependent on polarization, corresponding to different reflection coefficients for sand ppolarizations. For a typical metallic mirror the reflection coefficients in amplitude will differ at most by 5%; see, for example, M. Born, E. Wolf, Principles of Optics, 1st ed. (Pergamon, London, 1959), Chap. 13.2, p. 616. For a dielectric mirror, in the middle of the wavelength range where the reflection coefficient is maximum, the ratio is even closer to 1, typically above 99.5%.

R. J. C. Spreeuw, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Phys. A167, Gaithersburg, Md. 20899 (personal communication, 1992).

See, for example, M. Born, E. Wolf, Principles of Optics, 1st ed. (Pergamon, London, 1959), Chap. 1.5.4, p. 49.

All the extinction ratios d have been evaluated visually by means of calibrated neutral-density filters with discrete values, which explains why we quote values that are exactly the same for different measurements. The accuracies are related to the density change that gives a distinguishable result.

See, for example, the papers published in S. Chu, C. Wieman eds., feature on laser cooling and trapping of atoms, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B6, 2019–2278 (1989). In particular, the importance of the gradient of polarization is emphasized in the contributions of J. Dalibard, C. Cohen Tannoudji, “Laser cooling below the Doppler limit by polarization gradients: simple theoretical models,” pp. 2023–2045, and of P. J. Ungar, D. S. Weiss, E. Riis, S. Chu, “Optical molasses and multilevel atoms: theory,” pp. 2058–2071.