Time-resolved four-wave-mixing of exciton transitions in GaAs/AlGaAs quantum wells: Novel effects in the lineshape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No abstract is available for this record. The assistant can identify its topic from the title, but cannot infer the study’s results.
Source: Not provided · Quality: missing
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Spectroscopy and Quantum Chemical Studies · Semiconductor Quantum Structures and Devices · Laser-Matter Interactions and Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (35)
Show source-provided references
1. J. Shah: IEEE J. QE-22, 1728 (1986)10.1109/JQE.1986.1073164 ↗
2. E.O. Göbel: Festkörperprobleme (Advances in Solid State Physics) 30, ed. by U. Rössler (Vieweg, Braunschweig 1990) p. 26910.1007/BFb0108292 ↗
3. The phenomenon of the dynamics of relaxation processes is of general interest. See H.J. Queisser: In Proc. 20th ICPS, ed. by E.M. Anastassakis, J.D. Joannopoulos (World Scientific, Singapore 1990) p. 2425, for a recent lucid discussion
4. P.C. Becker, H.L. Fragnito, C.H. Brito Cruz, R.L. Fork, J.E. Cunningham, J.E. Henry, C.V. Shank: Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 1647 (1988)10.1103/PhysRevLett.61.1647 ↗
5. L. Schultheis, J. Kuhl, A. Honold, C.W. Tu: Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 1635 (1986)10.1103/PhysRevLett.57.1635 ↗
6. L. Schultheis, A. Honold, J. Kuhl, K. Köhler, C.W. Tu: Phys. Rev. B 34, 9027 (1986)10.1103/PhysRevB.34.9027 ↗
7. G. Noll, U. Siegner, S. Shevel, E.O. Göbel: Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 792 (1990)10.1103/PhysRevLett.64.792 ↗
8. T. Yajima, Y. Taira: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 47, 1620 (1979)10.1143/JPSJ.47.1620 ↗
9. One disadvantage of the self-diffracted DFMW experiment described here is that homogeneous and inhomogeneous transitions cannot be discriminated. Weiner et al. [A.M. Weiner, S. De Silvestri, E.P. Ippen: J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 2, 654 (1985)] have shown that a threepulse experiment is capable of distinguishing between these cases10.1364/JOSAB.2.000654 ↗
10. K. Leo, M. Wegener, J. Shah, D.S. Chemla, E.O. Göbel, T.C. Damen, S. Schmitt-Rink, W. Schäfer: Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1340 (1990)10.1103/PhysRevLett.65.1340 ↗
11. M. Wegener, D.S. Chemla, S. Schmitt-Rink, W. Schäfer: Phys. Rev. A 42, 5675 (1990)10.1103/PhysRevA.42.5675 ↗
12. L. Schultheis, M.D. Sturge, J. Hegarty: Appl. Phys. Lett. 47, 995 (1985)10.1063/1.95955 ↗
13. C. Stafford, S. Schmitt-Rink, W. Schäfer: Phys. Rev. B 41, 10000 (1990)10.1103/PhysRevB.41.10000 ↗
14. Recent observations of FWM-signal for T<0 were explained [B.F. Feuerbacher, J. Kuhl, R. Eccleston, K. Ploog: Phys. Rev. B 43, 2439 (1991)] by the contribution of biexciton transitions. We can rule out this effect for our observations noting that the rise has half the time constant of the decay, that the signal disappears for inhomogeneously broadened samples, and that it is independent of the excitation energy10.1103/PhysRevB.43.2439 ↗
15. Y.R. Shen: Principles of Nonlinear Optics (Wiley, New York 1984)
16. F.D. Colegrove, P.A. Franken, R.R. Lewis, R.H. Sands: Phys. Rev. Lett. 3, 420 (1959)10.1103/PhysRevLett.3.420 ↗
17. J.N. Dodd, R.D. Kaul, D. Warrington: Proc. Phys. Soc. Lond. 84, 176 (1964)10.1088/0370-1328/84/1/123 ↗
18. E.B. Alexandrov: Opt. Spektrosk. 14, 436 (1963)
19. R.L. Shoemaker, R.G. Brewer: Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 1430 (1972)10.1103/PhysRevLett.28.1430 ↗
20. G.W. Oestel, E.B. Alexandrov: Opt. Spektrosk. 23, 60 (1972)
21. W. Gornik, D. Kaiser, W. Lange, J. Luther, H.H. Schulz: Opt. Commun. 6, 327 (1972)10.1016/0030-4018(72)90147-2 ↗
22. R.L. Shoemaker, F.A. Hopf: Phys. Rev. Lett. 33, 1527 (1974)10.1103/PhysRevLett.33.1527 ↗
23. A. Laubereau, G. Wochner, W. Kaiser: Opt. Commun. 17, 91 (1976)10.1016/0030-4018(76)90186-3 ↗
24. P.C. Becker, H.L. Fragnito, J.Y. Bigot, C.H. Brito Cruz, R.L. Fork, C.V. Shank: Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 505 (1989)10.1103/PhysRevLett.63.505 ↗
25. E. Gerdau, H. Rüffer, R. Hollatz, J.P. Hannon: Phys. Rev. Lett. 57, 1141 (1986)10.1103/PhysRevLett.57.1141 ↗
26. W. Langer, H. Stolz, W. von der Osten: Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 854 (1990)10.1103/PhysRevLett.64.854 ↗
27. E.O. Göbel, K. Leo, T.C. Damen, J. Shah, S. Schmitt-Rink, W. Schäfer, J.F. Müller, K. Köhler: Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1801 (1990)10.1103/PhysRevLett.64.1801 ↗
28. W. van der Poel, A. Sievers, C.T. Foxon: Opt. Commun. 76, 116 (1990)10.1016/0030-4018(90)90304-C ↗
29. T. Tokizaki, A. Nakamura, Y. Ishida, T. Yajima, I. Akai, T. Karasawa: In Ultrafast Phenomena VII, Springer Ser. Chem. Phys. Vol. 53, ed. by C.B. Harris, E.P. Ippen, G.A. Mourou, A.H. Zewail (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 1990) p. 25310.1007/978-3-642-84269-6_76 ↗
30. K. Leo, T.C. Damen, J. Shah, E.O. Göbel, K. Köhler: Appl. Phys. Lett. 57, 19 (1990)10.1063/1.103567 ↗
31. B.F. Feuerbacher, J. Kuhl, R. Eccleston, K. Ploog: Solid State Commun. 74, 1279 (1990)10.1016/0038-1098(90)90992-K ↗
32. K. Leo, T.C. Damen, J. Shah, K. Köhler: Phys. Rev. B 42, 11359 (1990)10.1103/PhysRevB.42.11359 ↗
33. K. Leo, J. Shah, E.O. Göbel, T.D. Damen, S. Schmitt-Rink, W. Schäfer, K. Köhler: Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 201 (1991)10.1103/PhysRevLett.66.201 ↗
34. The only observation of QB in semiconductors, where the optical transitions could not be resolved spectroscopically, was reported in [21]. However, the mechanism of the surprisingly small splitting (a few ?eV) was not clear
35. The theory does not take the polarization interaction into account and is therefore not applicable for T<0. Furthermore, it does not account for finite laser pulses. However, our pulses are considerably shorter than the modulation period, which will prevent a large influence of the pulse shape on the modulation of the QB