Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Cooperative Effects in Thin Dielectric Layers: Long-Range Dicke Superradiance

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A thin dielectric layer extends Dicke superradiance to emitter arrays spaced several wavelengths apart, up to roughly ten wavelengths in 1D chains.

desk verdict Plausible core result on slab-mediated long-range superradiance, but the directional maps rest on an underived phase factor and need a real derivation before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14913 v1 pith:RA5BTTJE submitted 2025-01-24 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Ankit Kundu , Rahul Trivedi , Alisa Javadi , Hadiseh Alaeian This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords DickesuperradiancedielectricslabguidedopticalmodescollectivedecayGreen'sfunctionquantumemitterarraysdirectionallong-rangeinteractions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that placing quantum emitters inside a thin dielectric slab changes the basic range of photon-mediated interactions: instead of falling off as $1/r$ as in a homogeneous medium, the slab's guided optical modes make the coupling decay as $1/\sqrt{r}$. Because of that slower decay, the authors claim, Dicke superradiance—the collective burst of emission from an array of excited emitters—survives at separations of up to roughly $10\lambda$, where emitters in a homogeneous dielectric would already be independent. The claim is developed through a spin model built from the stratified-medium Green's function, and it is probed both through collective decay rates and through the sign of the early-time derivative of the directional photon emission rate. If correct, the result would make dilute, multi-wavelength arrays of solid-state emitters a practical setting for collective quantum dynamics, not just tightly packed sub-wavelength arrays.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the dyadic photonic Green's function $G_E(\mathbf{r}_m,\mathbf{r}_n)$ of the stratified medium. From it the paper constructs the coherent coupling $J_{mn} = -3\pi\Gamma_0 \mathrm{Re}\,G_E$ and the dissipative coupling $\Gamma_{mn} = 6\pi\Gamma_0 \mathrm{Im}\,G_E$ that enter the Lindblad master equation for the emitter array. Diagonalizing the matrix $[\Gamma_{ij}]$ yields the collective decay rates $\Gamma_\nu$; the far-field power-law exponent of $G_E$ ($\alpha = 1$ in a homogeneous medium, $\alpha = 0.5$ in the slab) is what lengthens the interaction range. The superradiance criterion is the early-time derivative of the total or directional photon emission rate, $\dot{\gamma}(0) \ge 0$, with the directional version using a phase factor $e^{i\theta_{nm}}$ between emitter pairs.

What would settle it

Compute the angle-resolved early-time emission rate $\dot{\gamma}(0,\phi)$ from the full stratified-medium Green's function, keeping the angular dependence of the guided-mode channel, and compare the sign with the red regions of Figs. 2(e) and 3(c)--(d). A mismatch there---or a two-emitter experiment at $d \approx 5\lambda$ in a $200\,\mathrm{nm}$, $n=3.5$ slab---would settle whether the directional superradiance claim holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the reduced dimensionality of a planar dielectric layer converts the far-field decay of the photonic Green's function from $r^{-1}$ to $r^{-0.5}$, and this single change extends cooperative physics across the array. For a 1D chain of five Y-polarized emitters in a $200\,\mathrm{nm}$ slab with $n=3.5$, collective decay rates remain separated from the single-emitter value out to $d \approx 10\lambda$, whereas in a homogeneous dielectric they converge to it by $d \approx \lambda$. The authors further show that in a 1D slab array there is no maximum spacing for Dicke superradiance: for any $d$, a sufficiently large emitter number $N$ gives superradiance, with the required spacing scaling as $d \propto \ln N/\Gamma_1^2$. In 2D square and hexagonal arrays the slab likewise enlarges the separation range and the angular regions where directional superradiance appears. Numerical checks indicate these directional features survive position disorder up to $\sigma = 0.5d$.

Load-bearing premise

The directional superradiance maps rest on a free-space-like phase factor $e^{i\theta_{nm}}$ between emitter pairs in the directional emission rate; if the slab's guided modes change that phase, the predicted directional regions may not appear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Slab-embedded one-dimensional arrays can show Dicke superradiance at any inter-emitter spacing, provided the number of emitters grows; the required spacing grows only logarithmically with $N$.
  • Collective decay remains visible up to $d \approx 10\lambda$ in a 200 nm slab with $n=3.5$, roughly an order of magnitude beyond the homogeneous-medium range.
  • Superradiance becomes directional: certain in-plane angles $\phi$ show enhanced early-time emission while others do not, and these angular regions extend to larger spacings in the slab.
  • The directional superradiance signal survives positional disorder up to $\sigma = 0.5d$ for Y-polarized emitters at $d = 0.54\lambda$.
  • In two-dimensional square and hexagonal arrays, the slab extends the superradiance regions in both separation and angle compared with a homogeneous dielectric.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the TE and TM slab modes have different effective indices that vary with layer thickness $W$, thickness could act as a control knob for which spacings and directions superradiate; the paper plots $n_{\mathrm{eff}}(W)$ but does not scan $W$ in the superradiance maps.
  • Other quasi-two-dimensional photonic environments with a sub-diffractive guided-mode continuum, such as photonic-crystal slabs or membrane waveguides, should exhibit the same $r^{-1/2}$ interaction channel and hence similar long-range cooperative effects; this is a testable extension the paper does not make.
  • An angle-resolved photon-correlation measurement on two or more quantum dots in a thin slab would test the directional claim directly: early-time bunching at the predicted angles and separations would confirm the long-range directional superradiance.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies cooperative emission from arrays of quantum emitters embedded in a thin dielectric slab. Using a Markovian spin model with the stratified-medium dyadic Green's function, the authors compute collective decay rates (as eigenvalues of the dissipative matrix) and early-time emission-rate derivatives to identify total and directional superradiance. They report that the slab's guided optical modes produce a 1/sqrt(r) interaction envelope, extending collective effects to separations of several wavelengths, and that a 1D array in a slab can exhibit Dicke superradiance at arbitrarily large spacing provided the emitter number is large enough, with a claimed d ∝ ln N scaling. They also analyze the robustness of directional superradiance to position disorder. The numerical results are computed directly from the dyadic Green's function with no fitted parameters.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, this paper demonstrates a practical route to long-range cooperative emission and Dicke superradiance in dilute solid-state arrays, which is relevant for quantum nonlinear optics and many-body quantum simulation with solid-state emitters. The manuscript's strengths include the use of the exact stratified-medium Green's function, explicit numerical maps, and a disorder analysis. However, the directional superradiance predictions rest on an underived formula, and the scaling analysis contains dimensional errors; these issues must be resolved before the claims can be fully credited.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (B7)] The directional photon emission rate γ(t, k_f) is written with an undefined phase factor e^{iθ_nm}, described only as 'related to the relative phase of the exchanged photon.' In a stratified medium, the far-field emission amplitude of a dipole is not a free-space plane wave: it includes the angle-dependent transmission coefficient and the guided-mode poles of the Green's function. The correct γ(t, k_f) should be built from the direction-resolved emission amplitudes of the emitters, which are computable from Appendix A. As it stands, Eq. (B7) is a free-space-like ansatz, and the directional superradiance maps in Figs. 2(b,c,e,f), 3, 4, and their appendix counterparts are not reproducible predictions. Please derive Eq. (B7) from the Green's function or state the precise definition of θ_nm and justify the neglect of amplitude weighting.
  2. [Appendix B, Eq. (B2)] The superradiance condition Σ_{m≠n} Γ_mn^2 ≥ N Γ1 is dimensionally inconsistent: Γ_mn and Γ1 are decay rates, so the left side scales as rate^2 and the right side as rate. The derivation that follows appears to treat Γ_mn as a dimensionless coupling (e.g., Eq. (B3) sets Γmn ∝ R^{-α} without the factor Γ1), and Eq. (B5) then yields d_min ∝ ln N/Γ_1^2, which has units of time^2 rather than length. This does not match the main-text expression 'd ∝ ln N Γ2' either. Please re-derive the scaling with proper normalization (e.g., using dimensionless Γ_mn/Γ1 and the wavevector k), and reconcile the main-text and appendix formulas. The qualitative conclusion that the slab enables superradiance at larger d may survive, but the quantitative ln N law is currently unsupported.
  3. [Section II and Appendix B] The in-plane angle φ is used to label directional superradiance, but the manuscript does not specify how the slab's radiation modes at different out-of-plane angles are treated, nor whether guided-mode emission is included. Since guided modes do not radiate to the far field, the physical observable corresponding to γ(t, k_f) is ambiguous. Please define the measurement geometry (e.g., emission into a solid angle around a direction with a given polar angle) and specify the mode content included in Eq. (B7).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II, paragraph after Fig. 2] The expression 'd ∝ ln N Γ2' is ambiguous and likely a typesetting error for 'd ∝ (ln N)/Γ_1^2'.
  2. [Appendix B, heading] The heading 'Directional Superradiant in an Ensmeble' contains a typo; 'Ensmeble' should be 'Ensemble'.
  3. [Appendix B, final paragraph] The sentence referring to 'Figs. 2(a)–(d) for 2D arrays' should refer to Fig. 3, since Fig. 2 shows 1D arrays.
  4. [Eq. (B4)] The sum over m≠n omits the factor of 2 from the two directions along the chain, although the N-dependence is unchanged.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the long-range interaction and superradiance maps follow from the standard stratified-medium Green's function and external superradiance criteria; the under-specified directional phase factor in Eq. (B7) is a correctness gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained: the collective decay rates are obtained by diagonalizing the dissipative matrix whose entries Γ_mn = 6πΓ0 Im G_E(r_m,r_n) (Eq. 5) are computed from the standard stratified-medium dyadic Green's function given in Appendix A. No parameter is fitted to the superradiance maps. The r^(-0.5) long-range scaling is an asymptotic property of that Green's function, and the superradiance criterion γ̇(0) ≥ 0 is imported from external works (Refs. 28 and 33), not defined so as to force the slab result. The numerical maps in Figs. 2-4 are consequences of the same model and therefore serve as consistency checks rather than independent benchmarks, but that is normal for a theoretical paper. The only notable gap is Eq. (B7): the directional emission rate uses an unexplained phase factor e^(iθ_nm), described only as 'related to the relative phase of the exchanged photon between pairs (m,n)', and the paper never derives this directional expression from the slab Green's function of Appendix A. That is an under-specified approximation and a correctness risk for the directional claims, but it does not make the prediction equivalent to its inputs by construction. The self-citations, including Ref. 43 by co-author Alaeian, are cited alongside independent references for the standard spin-model derivation and are not load-bearing. Overall, the derivation chain does not reduce to a fit, a renamed known result, or a self-citation loop.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; the central claim rests on the standard photon-mediated spin model, the lossless slab Green's function, and a superradiance criterion from prior literature. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The emitter ensemble is described by the Markovian spin master equation (Eq. 1) with couplings from the photonic Green's function.
    Invoked in Section II; standard in waveguide QED but assumes two-level emitters, no dephasing, and validity of the Markovian limit at the separations considered.
  • domain assumption The superradiance criterion of Eq. (B2) from free-space array theory applies to slab-embedded arrays.
    Imported from Ref. 28, not re-derived for the slab; as written it is dimensionally inconsistent unless Gamma_mn are understood as normalized rates.
  • domain assumption The far-field dissipative coupling decays as R^{-0.5} in the slab and R^{-1} in homogeneous media.
    Used for the scaling estimates in Appendix B; supported by the Green's function asymptotics in Appendix A and Fig. 1(b).
  • domain assumption The dielectric layer is lossless and non-dispersive.
    Used throughout; no absorption included in the stratified-medium Green's function, despite the paper motivating solid-state hosts.
  • domain assumption Emitters are identical, at fixed positions, and coupled only through the electromagnetic reservoir.
    Implied by the spin model; inhomogeneous broadening and spectral diffusion in real quantum dots are not modeled.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cooperative Effects in Thin Dielectric Layers: Long-Range Dicke Superradiance." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RA5BTTJE

@misc{pith2026250114913,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cooperative Effects in Thin Dielectric Layers: Long-Range Dicke Superradiance},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RA5BTTJE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14913}
}
read the original abstract

The realization and control of collective effects in quantum emitter ensembles have predominantly focused on small, ordered systems, leaving their extension to larger, more complex configurations as a significant challenge. Quantum photonic platforms, with their engineered Green's functions and integration of advanced solid-state quantum emitters, provide opportunities to explore new regimes of light-matter interaction beyond the scope of atomic systems. In this study, we examine the interaction of quantum emitters embedded within a thin dielectric layer. Our results reveal that the guided optical modes of the dielectric layer mediate extended-range interactions between emitters, enabling both total and directional superradiance in arrays spanning several wavelengths. Additionally, the extended interaction range facilitated by the dielectric layer supports Dicke superradiance in regimes where collective effects cannot be obtained in a homogeneous environment. This work uncovers a distinctive interplay between environmental dimensionality and collective quantum dynamics, paving the way for exploring novel many-body quantum optical phenomena in engineered photonic environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14913 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) top shows the schematics of the prob￾lem, i.e., an (ensemble) array of quantum emitters with an (average) interatomic separation of d, in a dielectric layer with width W. For most solid-state emitters, the host is often a material with a relatively large refrac￾tive index n capable of supporting several optical modes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    R. H. Dicke, Coherence in spontaneous radiation pro- cesses, Phys. Rev. 93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  2. [2]

    Gross and S

    M. Gross and S. Haroche, Superradiance: An essay on the theory of collective spontaneous emission, Physics Reports 93, 301 (1982)

    1982

  3. [3]

    Skribanowitz, I

    N. Skribanowitz, I. P. Herman, J. C. MacGillivray, and M. S. Feld, Observation of dicke superradiance in opti- cally pumped hf gas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 309 (1973)

    1973

  4. [4]

    Gross, C

    M. Gross, C. Fabre, P. Pillet, and S. Haroche, Obser- vation of near-infrared dicke superradiance on cascading transitions in atomic sodium, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 1035 (1976)

    work page 1976

  5. [5]

    Gross, P

    M. Gross, P. Goy, C. Fabre, S. Haroche, and J. M. Rai- mond, Maser oscillation and microwave superradiance in small systems of rydberg atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 343 (1979)

    1979

  6. [6]

    Hettich, C

    C. Hettich, C. Schmitt, J. Zitzmann, S. Kuhn, I. Ger- hardt, and V. Sandoghdar, Nanometer resolution and coherent optical dipole coupling of two individual molecules, Science 298, 385 (2002)

    work page 2002

  7. [7]

    Ferioli, A

    G. Ferioli, A. Glicenstein, F. Robicheaux, R. T. Suther- land, A. Browaeys, and I. Ferrier-Barbut, Laser-driven superradiant ensembles of two-level atoms near dicke regime, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 243602 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Trebbia, Q

    J.-B. Trebbia, Q. Deplano, P. Tamarat, and B. Lounis, Tailoring the superradiant and subradiant nature of two coherently coupled quantum emitters, Nature communi- cations 13, 2962 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Richter, S

    S. Richter, S. Wolf, J. von Zanthier, and F. Schmidt- Kaler, Collective photon emission of two correlated atoms in free space, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 013163 (2023)

    2023

  2. [10]

    Ferioli, A

    G. Ferioli, A. Glicenstein, I. Ferrier-Barbut, and A. Browaeys, A non-equilibrium superradiant phase tran- sition in free space, Nature Physics19, 1345–1349 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    C. M. Lange, E. Daggett, V. Walther, L. Huang, and J. D. Hood, Superradiant and subradiant states in lifetime-limited organic molecules through laser-induced tuning, Nature Physics 20, 836–842 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Ferioli, S

    G. Ferioli, S. Pancaldi, A. Glicenstein, D. Cl´ ement, A. Browaeys, and I. Ferrier-Barbut, Non-gaussian cor- relations in the steady state of driven-dissipative clouds of two-level atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 133601 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    J. G. Bohnet, Z. Chen, J. M. Weiner, D. Meiser, M. J. Holland, and J. K. Thompson, A steady-state superradi- ant laser with less than one intracavity photon, Nature 484, 78–81 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    M. A. Norcia, M. N. Winchester, J. R. K. Cline, and J. K. Thompson, Superradiance on the millihertz linewidth strontium clock transition, Science Advances 2, e1601231 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    Goban, C.-L

    A. Goban, C.-L. Hung, J. D. Hood, S.-P. Yu, J. A. Muniz, O. Painter, and H. J. Kimble, Superradiance for atoms trapped along a photonic crystal waveguide, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 063601 (2015). 6

    2015

  8. [16]

    Solano, P

    P. Solano, P. Barberis-Blostein, F. K. Fatemi, L. A. Orozco, and S. L. Rolston, Super-radiance reveals infinite-range dipole interactions through a nanofiber, Nature Communications 8, 1857 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Sinha, A

    K. Sinha, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, Y. Lu, and P. Solano, Col- lective radiation from distant emitters, Phys. Rev. A102, 043718 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    Asaoka, J

    R. Asaoka, J. Gea-Banacloche, Y. Tokunaga, and K. Koshino, Stimulated emission of superradiant atoms in waveguide quantum electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 064006 (2022)

    2022

  11. [19]

    Pennetta, M

    R. Pennetta, M. Blaha, A. Johnson, D. Lechner, P. Schneeweiss, J. Volz, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Col- lective radiative dynamics of an ensemble of cold atoms coupled to an optical waveguide, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 073601 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Skljarow, H

    A. Skljarow, H. K¨ ubler, C. S. Adams, T. Pfau, R. L¨ ow, and H. Alaeian, Purcell-enhanced dipolar interactions in nanostructures, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 023073 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    D. Pak, A. Nandi, M. Titze, E. S. Bielejec, H. Alaeian, and M. Hosseini, Long-range cooperative resonances in rare-earth ion arrays inside photonic resonators, Com- munications Physics 5, 89 (2022)

    2022

  14. [22]

    Lechner, R

    D. Lechner, R. Pennetta, M. Blaha, P. Schneeweiss, A. Rauschenbeutel, and J. Volz, Light-matter interac- tion at the transition between cavity and waveguide qed, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 103603 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Tiranov, V

    A. Tiranov, V. Angelopoulou, C. J. van Diepen, B. Schrinski, O. A. D. Sandberg, Y. Wang, L. Midolo, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, et al., Collective super-and subradiant dynamics between distant optical quantum emitters, Science 379, 389 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Stryzhenko, A

    S. Stryzhenko, A. Bruns, and T. Peters, n scaling of large-sample collective decay in inhomogeneous ensem- bles, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013091 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Liedl, F

    C. Liedl, F. Tebbenjohanns, C. Bach, S. Pucher, A. Rauschenbeutel, and P. Schneeweiss, Observation of superradiant bursts in a cascaded quantum system, Phys. Rev. X 14, 011020 (2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    R. Tao, M. Ammenwerth, F. Gyger, I. Bloch, and J. Zei- her, High-fidelity detection of large-scale atom arrays in an optical lattice, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 013401 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Gyger, M

    F. Gyger, M. Ammenwerth, R. Tao, H. Timme, S. Sni- girev, I. Bloch, and J. Zeiher, Continuous operation of large-scale atom arrays in optical lattices (2024), arXiv:2402.04994 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    S. J. Masson and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Universality of dicke superradiance in arrays of quantum emitters, Nature Communications 13, 2285 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    Rubies-Bigorda, S

    O. Rubies-Bigorda, S. Ostermann, and S. F. Yelin, Char- acterizing superradiant dynamics in atomic arrays via a cumulant expansion approach, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 013091 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    S. J. Masson, J. P. Covey, S. Will, and A. Asenjo- Garcia, Dicke superradiance in ordered arrays of mul- tilevel atoms, PRX Quantum 5, 010344 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Tong and F

    W. Tong and F. Robicheaux, Qualitatively altered driven dicke superradiance in extended systems due to infinites- imal perturbations, Phys. Rev. A 110, 063701 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    N. O. Gjonbalaj, S. Ostermann, and S. F. Yelin, Modify- ing cooperative decay via disorder in atom arrays, Phys. Rev. A 109, 013720 (2024)

    2024

  25. [33]

    Robicheaux, Theoretical study of early-time superra- diance for atom clouds and arrays, Phys

    F. Robicheaux, Theoretical study of early-time superra- diance for atom clouds and arrays, Phys. Rev. A 104, 063706 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    L. Zhai, M. C. L¨ obl, G. N. Nguyen, J. Ritzmann, A. Javadi, C. Spinnler, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, and R. J. Warburton, Low-noise gaas quantum dots for quan- tum photonics, Nature communications 11, 4745 (2020)

    2020

  27. [35]

    M. T. Manzoni, L. Mathey, and D. E. Chang, Design- ing exotic many-body states of atomic spin and motion in photonic crystals, Nature Communications 8, 14696 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Foss-Feig, Z.-X

    M. Foss-Feig, Z.-X. Gong, C. W. Clark, and A. V. Gor- shkov, Nearly linear light cones in long-range interacting quantum systems, Physical review letters 114, 157201 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    M. C. Tran, C.-F. Chen, A. Ehrenberg, A. Y. Guo, A. Deshpande, Y. Hong, Z.-X. Gong, A. V. Gorshkov, and A. Lucas, Hierarchy of linear light cones with long- range interactions, Physical Review X 10, 031009 (2020)

    2020

  30. [38]

    M. C. Tran, A. Y. Guo, A. Deshpande, A. Lucas, and A. V. Gorshkov, Optimal state transfer and entangle- ment generation in power-law interacting systems, Phys- ical Review X 11, 031016 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    Schuckert, O

    A. Schuckert, O. Katz, L. Feng, E. Crane, A. De, M. Hafezi, A. V. Gorshkov, and C. Monroe, Observation of a finite-energy phase transition in a one-dimensional quantum simulator, Nature Physics 10.1038/s41567-024- 02751-2 (2025)

    2025 doi

  32. [40]

    While the nomenclatures are similar to the waveguide modes, unlike waveguides’, slab modes have an additional index corresponding to their variations in the azimuthal direction ϕ

  33. [41]

    H. T. Dung, L. Kn¨ oll, and D.-G. Welsch, Resonant dipole-dipole interaction in the presence of dispersing and absorbing surroundings, Phys. Rev. A 66, 063810 (2002)

    2002

  34. [42]

    Ruostekoski, Cooperative quantum-optical planar ar- rays of atoms, Phys

    J. Ruostekoski, Cooperative quantum-optical planar ar- rays of atoms, Phys. Rev. A 108, 030101 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Alaeian, A

    H. Alaeian, A. Skljarow, S. Scheel, T. Pfau, and R. L¨ ow, Manipulating the dipolar interactions and cooperative ef- fects in confined geometries, New Journal of Physics 26, 055001 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    L. Zhai, G. N. Nguyen, C. Spinnler, J. Ritzmann, M. C. L¨ obl, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, A. Javadi, and R. J. War- burton, Quantum interference of identical photons from remote gaas quantum dots, Nature nanotechnology 17, 829 (2022)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Heitler, The quantum theory of radiation (Courier Corporation, 1984)

    W. Heitler, The quantum theory of radiation (Courier Corporation, 1984)

    1984

  38. [46]

    H¨ offges, H

    J. H¨ offges, H. Baldauf, T. Eichler, S. Helmfrid, and H. Walther, Heterodyne measurement of the fluorescent radiation of a single trapped ion, Optics Communications 133, 170 (1997)

    1997

  39. [47]

    Nguyen, G

    H.-S. Nguyen, G. Sallen, C. Voisin, P. Roussignol, C. Diederichs, and G. Cassabois, Ultra-coherent single photon source, Applied Physics Letters 99, 26 (2011)

    2011

  40. [48]

    Matthiesen, A

    C. Matthiesen, A. N. Vamivakas, and M. Atat¨ ure, Sub- natural linewidth single photons from a quantum dot, Physical Review Letters 108, 093602 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    J. Cai, A. Retzker, F. Jelezko, and M. B. Plenio, A large- scale quantum simulator on a diamond surface at room temperature, Nature Physics 9, 168–173 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    Bilgin, I

    A. Bilgin, I. N. Hammock, J. Estes, Y. Jin, H. Bernien, A. A. High, and G. Galli, Donor-acceptor pairs in wide- bandgap semiconductors for quantum technology appli- cations, Npj Comput. Mater. 10, 7 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    E. J. Davis, B. Ye, F. Machado, S. A. Meynell, W. Wu, 7 T. Mittiga, W. Schenken, M. Joos, B. Kobrin, Y. Lyu, Z. Wang, D. Bluvstein, S. Choi, C. Zu, A. C. B. Jayich, and N. Y. Yao, Probing many-body dynamics in a two- dimensional dipolar spin ensemble, Nature Physics 19, 836–844 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Block, B

    M. Block, B. Ye, B. Roberts, S. Chern, W. Wu, Z. Wang, L. Pollet, E. J. Davis, B. I. Halperin, and N. Y. Yao, Scal- able spin squeezing from finite-temperature easy-plane magnetism, Nature Physics 20, 1575–1581 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    N. Danz, R. Waldh¨ ausl, A. Br¨ auer, and R. Kowarschik, Dipole lifetime in stratified media, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 19, 412 (2002)

    2002

  46. [54]

    Novotny and B

    L. Novotny and B. Hecht, Principles of Nano-Optics (Cambridge University Press, 2012). 8 Appendix A: Dyadic Green’s function of an electric dipole in stratified media To find the Green’s function of the desired problem, we need to find the Green’s function of an electric dipol...

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.