A damping term in the theoretical model of our paper [Phys. Rev. A 83, 013827 (2011)PLRAAN1050-294710.1103/PhysRevA.83.013827] was questioned by the author of the Comment. The author argued this damping term cannot exactly describe the spontaneous decay or quantum jump process and, thus, concluded that our results are prone to be incorrect. However, the physics of electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT) is mainly determined by the ground-state coherence and the optical coherence of the probe transition. We show here that the damping term in our paper described the relaxation process of optical coherence in the EIT system, but not the spontaneous decay process of the population. The case of spontaneous decay used in the argument of the Comment is not an issue in typical EIT studies, in which the probe field is weak and treated as the perturbation. Furthermore, the experimental data in the paper were taken under the condition of a weak probe field. Our theoretical model in the weak-probe condition actually deals with the two coherences of EIT physics, and is suitable for analysis of the data. We believe the results of the study, focusing on the dynamics of slow light and light storage in Doppler-broadened EIT media, are correct.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics