ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ and no additional dephasing, while the dashed lines correspond to $T_1 = 17\ {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ and pure dephasing with $T_\phi = 16\ {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ due to low frequency noise (see text).](010206H1linesv3.eps){width="3.0in"}

As with all of the simulations discussed in this section so far, the solid lines in Fig. \[F010206H1lines\] were calculated with $T_1 = 17\ {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ and $T_\phi = 16\ {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$. This gives $T_2 = 10.9\ {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ and a Rabi decay time roughly equal to the two-level value[@Torrey49a; @Smith78a] of $T^\prime = {\ensuremath{\left[ 1/{\ensuremath{\left( 2 T_1 \right)}} + 1/{\ensuremath{\left( 2 T_2 \right)}} \right]}}^{-1} = 13.3\ {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$, consistent with measurements of the decay envelope of the escape rate. If pure dephasing were not present then $T^\prime$ would be 22.7 ns, which is significantly longer than what is observed. Although unlikely, our thermal measurement of $T_1 = 17\ {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ could be incorrect. To examine this possibility, simulations with $T_1 = 10\ {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ and $T_2 = 2 T_1$ (which also give $T^\prime = 13.3\ {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$) are shown with dotted lines in Fig. \[F010206H1lines\]. They are nearly identical to the curves calculated with dephasing, although [$\Gamma_{\infty}$]{} is somewhat smaller. Thus this data set alone cannot rule out dissipation-limited decoherence. However, the shorter $T_1$ reduces the prediction for [$\Gamma_{\infty}$]{} by roughly 15% over the full range of measured powers in Fig. \[F031806DGeq\], suggesting that additional dephasing is instead affecting the Rabi oscillations.

While dephasing is needed to faithfully reproduce features of the
ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ and no additional dephasing, while the dashed lines correspond to $ T_1 = 17\ { \ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ and arrant dephasing with $ T_\phi = 16\ { \ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ due to depleted frequency noise (see text).](010206H1linesv3.eps){width="3.0 in " } 

 As with all of the simulations hash out in this section so far, the hearty lines in Fig.   \[F010206H1lines\ ] were calculated with $ T_1 = 17\ { \ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ and $ T_\phi = 16\ { \ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$. This contribute $ T_2 = 10.9\ { \ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ and a Rabi decay time roughly adequate to the two - level value[@Torrey49a; @Smith78a ] of $ T^\prime = { \ensuremath{\left [ 1/{\ensuremath{\left (2 T_1 \right) } } + 1/{\ensuremath{\left (2 T_2 \right) } } \right]}}^{-1 } = 13.3\ { \ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$, consistent with measurements of the decay envelope of the escape pace. If pure dephasing were not present then $ T^\prime$ would be 22.7 ns, which is importantly longer than what is watch. Although improbable, our thermal measurement of $ T_1 = 17\ { \ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ could be incorrect. To examine this possibility, pretense with $ T_1 = 10\ { \ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ and $ T_2 = 2 T_1 $ (which also give $ T^\prime = 13.3\ { \ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$) are shown with dotted lineage in Fig.   \[F010206H1lines\ ]. They are nearly identical to the curves calculated with dephasing, although [ $ \Gamma_{\infty}$ ] { }   is somewhat smaller. therefore this data set alone cannot rule out dissipation - limited decoherence. However, the short $ T_1 $ reduces the prediction for [ $ \Gamma_{\infty}$ ] { }   by roughly 15% over the full range of measured powers in Fig.   \[F031806DGeq\ ], suggesting that additional dephasing is instead affecting the Rabi oscillation. 

 While dephasing is needed to faithfully reproduce feature of the
enskremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ and no aaditional dephasing, whmle the dashed uines correspond to $T_1 = 17\ {\ensucemarh{{\ensyremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ and pufe dephaspng with $R_\phi = 16\ {\ensuremavg{{\ensuremath{\mafmrm{ns}}}}}$ vue to low freqoency noise (vee text).](010206H1linese3.eos){cidth="3.0in"}

As with all of the simulationf discuxsfd in this secjion xj fad, the solid lines in Fig. \[F010206H1lines\] wede calcllated with $T_1 = 17\ {\emsuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{nd}}}}}$ anf $T_\phi = 16\ {\ensurematj{{\ensuremath{\nathwn{ns}}}}}$. This givds $T_2 = 10.9\ {\enslxemath{{\ensurgmath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ and a Rabi decay tkme rpughly equql to jhe two-level valuv[@Torrey49a; @Smitm78s] of $T^\[rime = {\rnsuremath{\left[ 1/{\envurwmath{\left( 2 T_1 \right)}} + 1/{\eisuremath{\left( 2 T_2 \rigrt)}} \right]}}^{-1} = 13.3\ {\znsuremath{{\ensuremath{\mqtyrm{ns}}}}}$, convistdbt ditg kezsuremfnta of the dscay envelope of the escape raue. Yd pure dephasjng wewe not present then $T^\prime$ would be 22.7 ns, wvicg is significantly longwr than what is obserged. Althotgh unlikely, our thermal measurement of $T_1 = 17\ {\ensuramath{{\xnrurtmqth{\magyrl{ns}}}}}$ could be incorrect. To examine this possibymiuy, ximulations wibh $T_1 = 10\ {\ensuremath{{\emskrriath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ xnd $T_2 = 2 T_1$ (which also give $T^\orime = 13.3\ {\ensueemath{{\enstremsth{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$) are shown with eotted lines un Fig. \[F010206H1lines\]. They are nearly idemticak to the curves calculaced wifh dephasinh, althougg [$\Gamma_{\infty}$]{} is sooewmat smaller. Thus this data see alone cennot rule ojt dossipaeion-limitef decoherence. However, thf shotter $T_1$ reduces tje prediction for [$\Gamma_{\infty}$]{} by cpughly 15% over tve xull ranye of keasured powews in Fig. \[F031806DGeq\], suggescing tfat additiknal de'hasing is igstead affecthjg the Rabi mscillatyons.

Qhilw depharkng is needed yo faithflljy rwproduce features pf jhs
ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ and no additional dephasing, while the correspond $T_1 = {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ and pure {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ to low frequency (see text).](010206H1linesv3.eps){width="3.0in"} As all of the simulations discussed in section so far, the solid lines in Fig. \[F010206H1lines\] were calculated with $T_1 17\ {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ and $T_\phi = 16\ {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$. This gives $T_2 = 10.9\ {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ a decay roughly to the two-level value[@Torrey49a; @Smith78a] of $T^\prime = {\ensuremath{\left[ 1/{\ensuremath{\left( 2 T_1 \right)}} + 1/{\ensuremath{\left( 2 \right)}} \right]}}^{-1} = 13.3\ {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$, consistent with measurements the decay envelope of escape rate. If pure dephasing not then $T^\prime$ be ns, is significantly longer what is observed. Although unlikely, our thermal measurement of $T_1 = 17\ {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ could be incorrect. To this possibility, $T_1 = {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ $T_2 2 T_1$ (which $T^\prime = 13.3\ {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$) are shown in Fig. \[F010206H1lines\]. They are nearly identical to curves calculated dephasing, although [$\Gamma_{\infty}$]{} is somewhat smaller. this data set alone cannot rule out dissipation-limited However, the shorter $T_1$ reduces the prediction for [$\Gamma_{\infty}$]{} by roughly 15% over the full measured powers in Fig. suggesting that additional is affecting Rabi While dephasing needed to faithfully reproduce features of the
ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ and no adDitional dePhasiNg, wHilE tHe daShed Lines corresponD To $T_1 = 17\ {\eNsuremath{{\ensuremath{\matHrm{ns}}}}}$ AnD Pure DEpHasinG with $T_\pHI = 16\ {\eNSUreMaTh{{\EnsUrEMaTh{\matHrm{Ns}}}}}$ due to Low frequenCy nOiSe (see text).](010206H1liNEsV3.eps){width="3.0iN"}

As With all of the SimUlatioNs DisCUssed In tHis seCtion sO Far, the Solid lineS iN fig. \[F010206H1lINes\] were CALcUlatEd with $T_1 = 17\ {\ensuremath{{\ENsURemath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ And $T_\phI = 16\ {\eNSuREMatH{{\enSuremath{\maThRm{ns}}}}}$. THIs gives $t_2 = 10.9\ {\EnSUREmaTH{{\ensuremath{\maThrm{ns}}}}}$ and a RABi dEcay tiMe RouGHly equAl to tHe TWo-lEvel value[@ToRrey49A; @Smith78a] of $t^\prime = {\ENsuremaTH{\left[ 1/{\enSuremaTh{\lEft( 2 t_1 \rigHT)}} + 1/{\eNsUreMaTH{\leFT( 2 T_2 \RigHT)}} \riGht]}}^{-1} = 13.3\ {\ensurEmAtH{{\ensuRemaTH{\MAThrm{Ns}}}}}$, cOnsiStent With measuremeNts Of thE DecAy envElope Of thE eScape Rate. If Pure dEpHasing were not prEsenT then $T^\priMe$ wOuLd bE 22.7 nS, whicH Is signIfiCanTly longEr than wHAt iS oBSERvEd. Although unlikely, OuR THeRmal measUremenT Of $t_1 = 17\ {\eNSuremath{{\EnSurEmatH{\MAthrm{Ns}}}}}$ coULd Be incorrEct. To eXAmInE this poSsIbilitY, sImuLatIons wITh $T_1 = 10\ {\eNsuremAth{{\ensurEmath{\MAthrm{ns}}}}}$ and $T_2 = 2 T_1$ (whICh also give $T^\prIMe = 13.3\ {\ENSuREmatH{{\enSuremath{\matHrm{nS}}}}}$) Are sHown WItH doTTed liNes in fiG. \[f010206H1LInes\]. They are nearly idEnTical tO the cUrves calculatEd with dephASINg, althouGh [$\GaMMa_{\INfty}$]{} is somewhat SmallEr. Thus this DAta set alOne caNnot rule Out dissipATIon-limitEd dEcoHerEncE. hOwEver, the shorteR $t_1$ ReduCeS the preDicTion for [$\gamMa_{\iNftY}$]{} by RoUghly 15% over The full rAnGe Of MeAsuRed poWErs in Fig. \[f031806Dgeq\], SuGgeSting THat addItionAl dePhAsINg iS insteaD AfFECtinG tHe rabi OscIlLatioNs.

WhILe dEphasinG is needed To fAIthfUlLy ReproduCe features of tHe
ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}} $ and no a dditi ona l d ep hasi ng,while the dash e d li nes correspond to $T_1  = 17 \{ \ens u re math{ {\ensur e ma t h {\m at hr m{n s} } }} }$ an d p ure dep hasing wit h $ T_ \phi = 16\ { \ en suremath{{ \en suremath{\ma thr m{ns}} }} }$d ue to  lo w fre quency noise(see text ). ] (01020 6 H1lines v 3 .e ps){ width="3.0in"}

A s  w i th all of thesimula ti o ns d isc uss ed in this  s ectio n  so far ,  t h e sol i d lines in Fi g. \[F01020 6 H1l ines\]  w ere calcul atedwi t h $ T_1 = 17\ { \ens uremath{{ \ensur e math{\m a thrm{ns }}}}}$  an d $ T_\p h i=16\  { \ ens u re mat h {{\ ensurema th {\ mathr m{ns } } } } }$.Thi s gi ves $ T_2 = 10.9\ { \en sure m ath {{\en surem ath{ \m athrm {ns}}} }}$ a nd  a Rabi decay t imeroughly e qua ltoth e two - levelval ue[ @Torrey 49a; @S m ith 78 a ] of  $T^\prime = {\ens ur e m at h{\left[  1/{\e n su re m ath{\lef t(  2T_1\ r ight) }} + 1/ {\ensure math{\ l ef t(  2 T_2\r ight)} }\ri ght ]}}^{ - 1} =  13.3\  {\ensur emath { {\ensuremath{\ m athrm{ns}}}}} $ ,c o ns i sten t w ith measure ment s  ofthed ec aye nvelo pe of  t h ee scape rate. If pure  d ephasi ng we re not presen t then $T^ \ p r ime$ wou ld b e  2 2 .7 ns, which i s sig nificantly longer t han w hat is o bserved.A l though u nli kel y,our t he rmal measurem e n t of  $ T_1 = 1 7\{\ensur ema th{ {\e nsu re math{\mat hrm{ns}} }} }$  c ou ldbe in c orrect.To  ex am ine  this possib ility , si mu la t ion s with$ T_ 1 = 10 \{\ ensu rem at h{{\e nsur e mat h{\math rm{ns}}}} }$a nd $ T_ 2= 2 T_1 $ (which also  g ive $T^\pr im e =  13.3\ { \ensurem ath{{\ensuremath{\mathr m {ns}}}} }$)  areshow n with do tte d line s i n  Fig.\[F010 206H1 li nes \ ] . The y ar e n ea rly identi c a l t o the  c urve s calcu lated with dephasi n g,although [$\G amm a_{\ i n ft y}$ ] {} isso m ewh a t  smaller. Thusthis datase t  a lone canno t  ru le  out di ssipati on-li m ited de coherence . However ,thes h ort er $T_1$ r educes t he predic t ion f o r[$\Ga mma _{\inf ty }$] {} by  rough l y 1 5% ov er the  f ull ra nge o fmeasured  powers in Fig. \[F0318 06DGeq \], s ugg esting th ata ddi tional de phas ing is ins tea d a ffect ing the R abio sc ill a tions .

W h ile depha s in g i s ne eded to fai t h f ull y rep rod u ce fea ture s of the
ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ and_no additional_dephasing, while the dashed_lines correspond_to_$T_1 =_17\_{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ and pure_dephasing with $T_\phi_= 16\ {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ due_to low frequency_noise_(see text).](010206H1linesv3.eps){width="3.0in"}

As with all of the simulations discussed in this section so far, the_solid_lines in_Fig. \[F010206H1lines\]_were_calculated with $T_1 = 17\_{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ and $T_\phi = 16\_{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$. This_gives $T_2 = 10.9\ {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ and a Rabi_decay_time roughly equal_to the two-level value[@Torrey49a; @Smith78a] of $T^\prime = {\ensuremath{\left[_1/{\ensuremath{\left( 2 T_1 \right)}} + 1/{\ensuremath{\left(_2 T_2 \right)}}_\right]}}^{-1}_=_13.3\ {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$, consistent with_measurements of the decay envelope of_the escape rate. If pure dephasing_were not present then $T^\prime$ would be_22.7 ns, which is significantly longer_than what is observed. Although_unlikely, our_thermal measurement of $T_1 =_17\ {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ could_be incorrect._To examine this_possibility, simulations with $T_1 = 10\_{\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$ and $T_2_= 2 T_1$ (which also give_$T^\prime_= 13.3\ {\ensuremath{{\ensuremath{\mathrm{ns}}}}}$)_are_shown_with dotted_lines in Fig. \[F010206H1lines\]._They_are nearly_identical_to the curves calculated with dephasing,_although_[$\Gamma_{\infty}$]{} is somewhat smaller. Thus this data set_alone cannot rule out_dissipation-limited_decoherence. However, the shorter_$T_1$ reduces the prediction for_[$\Gamma_{\infty}$]{} by roughly 15% over the full_range of_measured powers_in Fig. \[F031806DGeq\], suggesting that additional dephasing is instead affecting the Rabi_oscillations.

While dephasing is needed to faithfully_reproduce features of the