Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Telecom-band silicon colour centre shows optically resolved hyperfine structure in its excited state, yielding a contact hyperfine coupling of 2.75 µeV.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 16:46 UTC pith:W3MDQD3R

load-bearing objection First optically-resolved hyperfine structure in a telecom silicon colour centre is real, but the quoted a_iso carries unquantified systematic error from a fixed g_L=0. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28943 v1 pith:W3MDQD3R submitted 2026-07-31 quant-ph

Optically Resolved Excited State Hyperfine Structure of a Silicon Colour Centre in the Telecom Bands

Austin Woolverton , Nicholas Brunelle , Mehdi Keshavarz , Laurent Bergeron , Evan R. MacQuarrie , Yehudah Ackermann , Melanie Gascoine , Nikolay V. Abrosimov
show 3 more authors
Stephanie Simmons Daniel Higginbottom Michael Thewalt
This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords silicon colour centreinterstitial aluminum donorhyperfine structureexcited statespin-photon interfacetelecom bandnuclear spin qubitphotoluminescence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper characterizes the singly-ionized interstitial aluminum donor in isotopically purified silicon-28 and reports the first optical resolution of hyperfine structure in the excited state of a telecommunications-band silicon colour centre. It identifies the 774.87 meV emission as an exchange-split triplet level of the 1s:T2 excited state, whose long lifetime (25.5 ms) and narrow linewidth allow the fine and hyperfine splittings to be seen directly in photoluminescence. The authors extract a spin-orbit coupling strength of 47.6 µeV and an isotropic contact hyperfine parameter of 2.75 µeV, and they argue these transitions can be used to read out the aluminum nuclear spin optically. If correct, this opens a route to nuclear-spin quantum memories in silicon that avoid ground-state electron decoherence.

Core claim

The paper establishes that the singly-ionized interstitial aluminum donor in 28Si has a metastable spin-triplet excited state, 1s:3T2(J=1), whose optical transition to the diamagnetic 1s:1A1 ground state is narrow enough to resolve hyperfine structure. Three zero-field transitions are observed within the J=1 manifold, and fitting an effective Hamiltonian with spin-orbit coupling, electron Zeeman, and an isotropic contact hyperfine term gives a_iso = 2.75 ± 0.03 µeV. The authors also show that at magnetic fields above about 606 mT the emission decays become more than 99% nuclear-spin-preserving, meaning a single optical photon can projectively measure the aluminum-27 nuclear spin state.

What carries the argument

The central object is an effective Hamiltonian for the two-electron 1s:T2 excited state: H = λ(S·L) + μB gs (S·B) + μB gL (L·B) + a_iso(I·S) – μn gI(I·B). Here L=1 is a fictitious orbital angular momentum representing the threefold degeneracy of the T2 manifold, S=1 is the electron spin of the triplet, I=5/2 is the aluminum-27 nuclear spin, and λ is the effective spin-orbit strength. This Hamiltonian organises the levels into J=0,1,2 manifolds and then into hyperfine states, and it is used to fit the observed optical spectra and predict nuclear-spin-preserving transition probabilities.

Load-bearing premise

The entire hyperfine analysis rests on assigning the 774.87 meV emission to the J=1 level of an exchange-split 1s:3T2 triplet, with the electron g-factors fixed at g_s=2 and g_L≈0 by analogy to other donors; if that level ordering or the g-factor values are wrong, the quantum-number labels and the extracted hyperfine coupling would not be valid.

What would settle it

Measure the Zeeman dispersion of the three zero-field hyperfine lines up to about 1 T: the Hamiltonian predicts a specific fan-out of the J=1 manifold into six nuclear-spin branches for each m_J substate. If the number of branches or their field-dependent slopes disagrees with the J=1 assignment, or if an independent technique such as optically detected magnetic resonance resolves a different hyperfine pattern, the assignment and a_iso would be refuted.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Optical readout of the aluminum-27 nuclear spin becomes possible via spin-selective decays from the J=1 triplet manifold, with a predicted >99% nuclear-spin-preserving branching ratio above 606 mT.
  • The long-lived triplet (25.5 ms) could serve as a metastable communication qubit interfaced to a nuclear memory qubit in the ground state, avoiding electron-spin-induced decoherence.
  • The measured hyperfine splitting of about 2.75 µeV (roughly 665 MHz at the relevant transitions) is resolvable with standard fibre Fabry-Perot cavities, enabling photon-mediated readout.
  • Heavier group-III interstitials, such as indium or thallium, may exhibit faster triplet emission due to stronger spin-orbit coupling, pointing toward faster networking rates.
  • The refined AM1 donor-series energies and newly observed excited states provide a more accurate benchmark for theoretical models of this defect.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the assignment holds, the same optical-resolution technique could be applied to other diamagnetic-ground-state centres (e.g., G, C, or interstitial carbon) to look for hyperfine structure that has so far been invisible in photoluminescence.
  • The near-zero orbital g-factor assumption (g_L ≈ 0) could be tested directly by measuring the Zeeman dispersion at higher fields; if g_L is non-negligible, the extracted a_iso would shift, but the qualitative nuclear-spin-preserving behaviour may persist.
  • One could test the pumping scheme by resonantly exciting the 1s:1T2 singlet and observing whether the hyperfine populations in the triplet become non-thermal, which would be a direct signature of nuclear initialization.
  • A natural extension is to search for the analogous hyperfine-resolved triplet in isotopically purified 28Si doped with indium or thallium, where the heavier nucleus and stronger spin-orbit coupling could yield faster, brighter emission in the same telecom bands.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an extensive spectroscopic study of the singly ionized interstitial aluminum donor (Al_i^+) in isotopically enriched 28Si. The authors obtain the He+-like AM1 absorption series with improved precision and several new Rydberg transitions, measure the photoluminescence spectrum, and determine a Debye-Waller factor of 47±1%. They attribute the 774.87 meV emission to the 1s:3T2(J=1) → 1s:1A1 transition of an exchange-split two-electron excited state, rather than to the earlier spin-orbit-split interpretation. From magnetospectroscopy they fit an effective spin-orbit parameter λ = 47.6 ± 0.9 µeV with g_s = 2 and g_L = 0 fixed. At zero field they resolve three lines within the J=1 manifold, and at 110 mT a six-line fan-out, which they fit with an isotropic contact hyperfine interaction a_iso = 2.75 ± 0.03 µeV. They claim this is the first optically resolved hyperfine structure in the excited state of a telecom-band silicon colour centre and use the fitted Hamiltonian to predict >99% nuclear-spin-preserving decay at fields ≥ 606 mT.

Significance. If substantiated, the result is a valuable step for silicon-based quantum networking: it would provide an optical interface to an I = 5/2 nuclear spin in a centre with a diamagnetic ground state, with emission in the telecom L band. The observation of three zero-field lines and a six-line magnetic fan-out is a strong, model-independent fingerprint of hyperfine coupling to a J=1 manifold, and the measured 25.5 ms triplet lifetime is notable. The paper also provides a careful refinement of the AM1 series and independent lifetime determinations. The main caveats are that the quantitative a_iso and the F labels depend on assuming g_L = 0 and g_s = 2 (Table I) and on the exchange-triplet assignment, which is justified by analogy rather than by an independent calculation. These caveats are addressable and do not by themselves invalidate the central observation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV/V, Eq. (1), Table I] The quoted a_iso = 2.75 ± 0.03 µeV is obtained with g_L fixed to zero and g_s fixed to 2; the error bar includes only peak-position statistics. At B = 110 mT, a nonzero g_L of 0.1 would produce an orbital Zeeman shift of roughly 0.6 µeV—about 20% of a_iso. The magnetospectroscopy in Fig. 3 should be refit with g_L (and ideally g_s) as free parameters, and the resulting joint uncertainty on (λ, g_L, a_iso) reported. Without this, the specific value of a_iso and the F = 3/2, 5/2, 7/2 labels are not robustly established.
  2. [Sec. II and IV] The assignment of the 774.87 meV transition to an exchange-split 1s:3T2 state, with the fine structure described by λ(L·S), is made by analogy to chalcogen and magnesium double-donor systems (Refs. 35–43) and is not validated by an independent calculation or by a direct measurement of the singlet/triplet character. The temperature-dependent intensity ratio in Sec. A4 and the observed ΔE_st = 21.26 meV are consistent with the exchange model, but they do not uniquely exclude the earlier spin-orbit-split interpretation of Latushko et al. Because the hyperfine quantum-number labels and a_iso are defined within the new assignment, this is a load-bearing assumption. A concrete test—for example, the Zeeman response of the 796 meV singlet transition or a stress/polarization study of the two transitions—should be provided or explicitly identified as future work.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Typos: 'seperations' in Fig. 1; 'qudrupole-like' should be 'quadrupole-like'; 'particularity' should be 'particularly'; inconsistent spelling 'Latushko' vs 'Latuschko' between main text and Refs. 32–34; 'Abromosimov' and 'T_Hewalt' in Refs. 2–3.
  2. [Sec. A4] The 5σ discrepancy between the two singlet lifetime determinations is attributed to a 'forbidden 1s:E exchange-split dark state' without direct evidence. This is a plausible conjecture but should be flagged as such rather than stated as an explanation.
  3. [Sec. VI, Eqs. (3)–(4)] The 'partial inner product' P(m_J, m_I; m'_I) is not defined precisely; please give the overlap expression in terms of Clebsch–Gordan coefficients or eigenvector components. Also, the >99% nuclear-spin-preservation statement is a calculated consequence of the fitted Hamiltonian, not an independent prediction; the conclusion should not present it as a confirmation of the model.
  4. [Data Availability] 'Available from the authors upon reasonable request' is weaker than current norms for reproducibility. Please deposit the raw spectra and fitting code in a public repository.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: parameters are direct fits to measured line positions; the 606 mT spin-preservation claim is a forward model extrapolation, not a re-used input.

full rationale

The central result is empirical: λ and E_t are least-squares fits to the measured Zeeman fan-out (Sec. IV, Eq. (1), Fig. 3), and a_iso is a direct fit to the zero-field and 110 mT hyperfine line positions (Sec. V, Eq. (2), Fig. 4). The paper explicitly marks g_s=2 and g_L=0 as assumed, not fitted (Table I), so the model dependence of a_iso is a stated systematic assumption rather than a concealed input. The 'prediction' of >99% nuclear-spin preservation at 606 mT is a forward calculation from the fitted Hamiltonian (Eqs. (3)–(4)), not a re-statement of the fitted data; it is an extrapolation and is not offered as an independent experimental test. The triplet/singlet assignment is justified by analogy to chalcogen and Mg donors, but the three zero-field lines and the six-line magnetic fan-out are independent measured evidence for I=5/2 coupling to a J=1 manifold. Self-citations in the introduction and background are not load-bearing for the new measurement; no uniqueness theorem or effective-operator ansatz is imported from the authors' own prior work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central measurements (line positions, lifetimes) are direct; the model parameters λ, a_iso, and E_t are fitted to those measurements, while g_s and g_L are fixed from literature. The level assignment is an analogy-based hypothesis, and the dark state is a suggested remedy for a 5σ discrepancy. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • λ (effective spin-orbit coupling) = 47.6 ± 0.9 µeV
    Fit to Zeeman-split PL line positions of 1s:3T2 under applied magnetic field (Sec. IV, Eq. 1).
  • E_t (unperturbed triplet energy) = 774.91 ± 0.01 meV
    Fit together with λ to the same Zeeman data; defines the zero-field 1s:3T2→1s:1A1 transition energy.
  • a_iso (isotropic contact hyperfine) = 2.75 ± 0.03 µeV
    Fit to zero-field and 110 mT hyperfine line positions within J=1 manifold (Sec. V, Eq. 2).
  • g_s (spin Landé g-factor) = 2 (assumed)
    Set to free-electron value following Peale et al. [45]; not fit to data; systematic uncertainty not propagated.
  • g_L (orbital Landé g-factor) = 0 (assumed)
    Set to 0 assuming complete orbital quenching (Ref [49]); not fit; would alter a_iso if non-zero.
  • B (Arrhenius pre-factor) = not reported
    Fitted pre-exponential factor in temperature-dependent PL intensity ratio (Eq. A4.1); used to derive τ_s and claimed to be consistent with the measured value only at 5σ.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The 1s:T2 state can be modeled by an effective orbital angular momentum L=1 with spin-orbit Hamiltonian H_so = λ(L·S).
    Invoked in Sec. IV and SM S2; based on Peale et al. [45] and Abragam-Pryce; no ab initio validation for Al_i+.
  • domain assumption The 774.87 meV transition is 1s:3T2(J=1) → 1s:1A1; inter-system crossing mixes singlet and triplet via SOC to enable PL.
    Central level assignment stated in Secs. II and IV; constructed by analogy with neutral chalcogen and Mg double donors, not from a calculation.
  • domain assumption Only transitions from the Γ5(J=1) component are observed under the selection rules; J=0 and J=2 decay weakly.
    Used to limit the Zeeman fit (Sec. IV: 'only transitions to the Γ5(J=1) component are observed').
  • domain assumption Decay probabilities from J=1 hyperfine states to ground nuclear levels are approximated by the nuclear spin overlap (Eq. 3).
    Used to compute the >99% nuclear-spin-preserving readout prediction (Sec. VI); no independent check.
  • domain assumption The dominant spectrum arises from an ensemble of Al_i+ centers in a single well-defined lattice configuration.
    Identification inherited from Latushko et al. [32-34]; sample also contains Al_s, Al_i, AM2 series, and other defects (Sec. II, SM S1).
invented entities (1)
  • Forbidden 1s:E exchange-split dark state no independent evidence
    purpose: Invoked to reconcile the 5σ discrepancy between two independent τ_s determinations (1.97 µs vs 1.74 µs).
    Mentioned in App. A4 as 'may be responsible'; not directly observed and not required by the central hyperfine claim.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 17155 in / 16055 out tokens · 134136 ms · 2026-08-03T16:46:27.139889+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Nuclear spin qubits in silicon offer exceptionally coherent quantum memory, and optically-interfaced spins are a promising platform for both quantum networking and distributed quantum computing. It has been proposed that emitters with diamagnetic ground states may permit an optical interface to nuclear spin memories via metastable, hyperfine-coupled excited states while suppressing key sources of decoherence. Until now, direct optical observation of suitable transitions in silicon colour centres has remained elusive. Here we characterize the singly-ionized interstitial aluminum donor (Al$_\mathrm{i}^+$) in isotopically purified $^{28}$Si and find several novel features of this little-studied defect. We measure bright emission and strong optical transitions and, in contrast to previous studies of this centre, attribute its emission to an exchange-split spin triplet and singlet level of the lowest-energy 1s:T$_2$ excited state. We measure the excited-state lifetimes and, as a consequence of its narrow emission linewidth, observe the fine and hyperfine structure of the long-lived triplet state. This constitutes the first measurement of an optically-resolved hyperfine structure in the excited state of a telecommunications-band silicon colour centre.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28943 by Austin Woolverton, Daniel Higginbottom, Evan R. MacQuarrie, Laurent Bergeron, Mehdi Keshavarz, Melanie Gascoine, Michael Thewalt, Nicholas Brunelle, Nikolay V. Abrosimov, Stephanie Simmons, Yehudah Ackermann.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Proposed level structure of Al [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: PL spectra of 1s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The optically resolved hyperfine structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A. M. Tyryshkin, S. Tojo, J. J. Morton, H. Riemann, N. V. Abrosimov, P. Becker, H. J. Pohl, T. Schenkel, M. L. Thewalt, K. M. Itoh, and S. A. Lyon, Nature Materials11, 143 (2012)

    2012

  2. [2]

    Steger, K

    M. Steger, K. Saeedi, M. L. Thewalt, J. J. Morton, H. Riemann, N. V. Abrosimov, P. Becker, and H. J. Pohl, Science336, 1280 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    Saeedi, S

    K. Saeedi, S. Simmons, J. Z. Salvail, P. Dluhy, H. Rie- mann, N. V. Abromosimov, P. Becker, H.-J. Pohl, J. J. L. 6 Morton, andM.L.W.THewalt,Science342,830(2013)

    2013

  4. [4]

    Buckley, J

    S. Buckley, J. Chiles, A. N. McCaughan, G. Moody, K. L. Silverman, M. J. Stevens, R. P. Mirin, S. W. Nam, and J. M. Shainline, Applied Physics Letters111, 141101 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    Gritsch, A

    A. Gritsch, A. Ulanowski, and A. Reiserer, Optica10, 783 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    A.Johnston, U.Felix-Rendon, Y.-E.Wong, andS.Chen, Nature Communications15, 2350 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    Lefaucher, Y

    B. Lefaucher, Y. Baron, J.-B. Jager, V. Calvo, C. El- sässer, G. Coppola, F. Mazen, S. Kerdilès, F. Cache, A. Dréau, and J.-M. Gérard, arXiv:2501.12744 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Komza, P

    L. Komza, P. Samutpraphoot, M. Odeh, Y. L. Tang, M. Mathew, J. Chang, H. Song, M. K. Kim, Y. Xiong, G. Hautier, and A. Sipahigil, Nature Communications 2024 15:115, 1 (2024)

    2024

  9. [9]

    Afzal, M

    F. Afzal, M. Akhlaghi, S. J. Beale, O. Bedroya, K. Bell, L. Bergeron, K. Bonsma-Fisher, P. Bychkova, Z. M. E. Chaisson, C. Chartrand, C. Clear, A. Dar- cie, A. DeAbreu, C. DeLisle, L. A. Duncan, C. D. Smith, J. Dunn, A. Ebrahimi, N. Evetts, D. F. Pin- heiro, P. Fuentes, T. Georgiou, B. Guha, R. Haenel, D. Higginbottom, D. M. Jackson, N. Jahed, A. Khorshi-...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Dobinson, C

    M. Dobinson, C. Bowness, S. A. Meynell, C. Chartrand, E. Hoffmann, M. Gascoine, I. MacGilp, F. Afzal, C. Dan- gel, N. Jahed, M. L. W. Thewalt, S. Simmons, and D. B. Higginbottom, Nature Photonics19, 1132 (2025)

    2025

  11. [11]

    A. M. Day, C. Zhang, C. Jin, H. Song, M. Su- tula, A. Sipahigil, M. K. Bhaskar, and E. L. Hu, arXiv:2501.11888 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    H. Song, X. Zhang, L. Komza, N. Fiaschi, Y. Xiong, Y. Zhi, S. Dhuey, A. Schwartzberg, T. Schenkel, G. Hau- tier, Z.-H. Zhang, and A. Sipahigil, arXiv:2504.15467 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    S. C. Benjamin, D. E. Browne, J. Fitzsimons, and J. J. Morton, New Journal of Physics8, 0 (2006)

    2006

  14. [14]

    Pompili, S

    M. Pompili, S. L. Hermans, S. Baier, H. K. Beukers, P.C.Humphreys, R.N.Schouten, R.F.Vermeulen, M.J. Tiggelman, L. dos Santos Martins, B. Dirkse, S. Wehner, and R. Hanson, Science372, 259 (2021)

    2021

  15. [15]

    B. E. Kane, Nature393, 133 (1998)

    1998

  16. [16]

    Ahlefeldt, J

    J.Yang, W.Fan, Y.Zhang, C.Duan, G.G.DeBoo, R.L. Ahlefeldt, J. J. Longdell, B. C. Johnson, J. C. McCallum, M. J. Sellars, S. Rogge, C. Yin, and J. Du, Phys. Rev. B105, 235306 (2022)

    2022

  17. [17]

    Deabreu, C

    A. Deabreu, C. Bowness, R. J. Abraham, A. Medvedova, K. J. Morse, H. Riemann, N. V. Abrosimov, P. Becker, H. J. Pohl, M. L. Thewalt, and S. Simmons, Phys. Rev. Appl.11, 44036 (2019)

    2019

  18. [18]

    Bergeron, C

    L. Bergeron, C. Chartrand, A. T. K. Kurkjian, K. J. Morse, H. Riemann, N. V. Abrosimov, P. Becker, H.-J. Pohl, M. L. W. Thewalt, and S. Simmons, PRX Quan- tum1, 20301 (2020)

    2020

  19. [19]

    Clear, S

    C. Clear, S. Hosseini, A. AlizadehKhaledi, N. Brunelle, A. Woolverton, J. Kanaganayagam, M. Kazemi, C. Char- trand, M. Keshavarz, Y. Xiong, L. Alaerts, Ö. O. Soykal, G. Hautier, V. Karassiouk, M. Thewalt, D. Higginbot- tom, and S. Simmons, Physical Review Applied22, 064014 (2024)

    2024

  20. [20]

    O’Donnell, K

    K. O’Donnell, K. Lee, G. Watkins, and K. P. O’Donnell, Physica B+C116, 258 (1982)

    1982

  21. [21]

    K. M. Lee, K. P. O’Donnell, J. Weber, B. C. Cavenett, and G. D. Watkins, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 37 (1982)

    1982

  22. [22]

    Beaufils, W

    C. Beaufils, W. Redjem, E. Rousseau, V. Jacques, A. Y. Kuznetsov, C. Raynaud, C. Voisin, A. Benali, T. Herzig, S. Pezzagna, J. Meijer, M. Abbarchi, and G. Cassabois, Physical Review B97, 035303 (2018)

    2018

  23. [23]

    Cache, Y

    F. Cache, Y. Baron, B. Lefaucher, J.-B. Jager, F. Mazen, F. Milési, S. Kerdilès, I. Robert-Philip, J.- M. Gérard, G. Cassabois, V. Jacques, and A. Dréau, arXiv:2510.15590 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Cache, K

    F. Cache, K. V. R., T. Herzig, A. Y. Kuznetsov, S. Pez- zagna, M. Abbarchi, I. Robert-Philip, J.-M. Gérard, G. Cassabois, V. Jacques, and A. Dréau, (2026)

    2026

  25. [25]

    Udvarhelyi, B

    P. Udvarhelyi, B. Somogyi, G. Thiering, and A. Gali, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 196402 (2021)

    2021

  26. [27]

    S. Wen, G. Pieplow, J. Yang, K. Jamshidi, M. Helm, J.-W. Luo, T. Schröder, S. Zhou, and Y. Berencén, arXiv:2502.07632 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [28]

    P. Deák, S. Li, and A. Gali, Communications Physics7 (2024), 10.1038/s42005-024-01834-z

    doi:10.1038/s42005-024-01834-z 2024

  28. [29]

    Jhuria, V

    K. Jhuria, V. Ivanov, D. Polley, Y. Zhiyenbayev, W. Liu, A. Persaud, W. Redjem, W. Qarony, P. Parajuli, Q. Ji, A. J. Gonsalves, J. Bokor, L. Z. Tan, B. Kanté, and T. Schenkel, Nature Communications 2024 15:115, 1 (2024)

    2024

  29. [30]

    S. Y. Lee, M. Widmann, T. Rendler, M. W. Doherty, T. M. Babinec, S. Yang, M. Eyer, P. Siyushev, B. J. Hausmann, M. Loncar, Z. Bodrog, A. Gali, N. B. Man- son, H. Fedder, and J. Wrachtrup, Nature Nanotechnol- ogy8, 487 (2013)

    2013

  30. [31]

    Akhtar, V

    W. Akhtar, V. Filidou, T. Sekiguchi, E. Kawakami, T. Itahashi, L. Vlasenko, J. J. L. Morton, and K. M. Itoh, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 097601 (2012)

    2012

  31. [32]

    Y. I. Latushko, F. Nassur, and V. V. Petrov,Zhurnal Prikladnoi Spektroskopii, Tech. Rep. 0 (1982)

    1982

  32. [33]

    Latushko and V

    Y. Latushko and V. Petrov, Materials Science Forum38- 41, 1169 (1989)

    1989

  33. [34]

    Latushko and V

    Y. Latushko and V. Petrov, MRS Proceedings163, 277 (1989)

    1989

  34. [35]

    H. G. Grimmeiss, E. Janzén, and K. Larsson, Phys. Rev. B25, 2627 (1982)

    1982

  35. [36]

    Bergman, G

    K. Bergman, G. Grossmann, H. Grimmeiss, M. Stavola, C.Holm, andP.Wagner,Phys.Rev.B.37,10738(1988)

    1988

  36. [37]

    Bergman, G

    K. Bergman, G. Grossmann, H. G. Grimmeiss, and M. Stavola, Phys. Rev. Lett.56(1986), 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.56.2827

    doi:10.1103/phys- 1986

  37. [38]

    Janzen, R

    E. Janzen, R. Stedman, G. Grossmann, and H. Grim- meiss, Phys. Rev. B.29, 1907 (1984)

    1907

  38. [39]

    Steger, A

    M. Steger, A. Yang, M. L. W. Thewalt, M. Cardona, H. Riemann, N. Abrosimov, M. Churbanov, A. Gusev, A. Bulanov, I. Kovalev, A. Kaliteevskii, O. Godisov, P. Becker, H. J. Pohl, E. Haller, and J. Ager, Phys. Rev. B.80, 115204 (2009)

    2009

  39. [40]

    J. C. Swartz, D. H. Lemmon, and R. N. Thomas, Solid State Communications36, 331 (1980)

    1980

  40. [41]

    R. J. Abraham, A. Deabreu, K. J. Morse, V. B. Shu- man, L. M. Portsel, A. N. Lodygin, Y. A. Astrov, N. V. 7 Abrosimov, S. G. Pavlov, H. W. Hübers, S. Simmons, and M. L. Thewalt, Phys. Rev. B98, 045202 (2018)

    2018

  41. [42]

    S. G. Pavlov, N. V. Abrosimov, V. B. Shuman, L. Port- sel, A. N. Lodygin, Y. A. Astrov, R. K. Zhukavin, V. N. Shastin, K. Irmscher, A. Pohl, and H. W. Hübers, Physica Status Solidi (B) Basic Research256(2019), 10.1002/pssb.201800514

    work page doi:10.1002/pssb.201800514 2019

  42. [43]

    Thilderkvist, M

    A. Thilderkvist, M. Kleverman, and H. G. Grimmeiss, Phys. Rev. B49, 16338 (1994)

    1994

  43. [44]

    K. L. Brower, Physical Review B1, 1908 (1970)

    1908

  44. [45]

    R. E. Peale, K. Muro, A. J. Sievers, and F. S. Ham, Phys. Rev. B37, 10829 (1988)

    1988

  45. [46]

    See Supplemental Material at URL will be inserted by the publisher for the donor absorption series, Zeeman eigenergies as a function of magnetic field, and the high resolution hyperfine splitting at 0 Field at 1.2K with ci- tations [33, 36, 45, 48, 52, 57–59]

  46. [47]

    De Tomas, A

    C. De Tomas, A. Cantarero, A. F. Lopeandia, and F. X. Alvarez, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathe- matical, Physical and Engineering Sciences470(2014), 10.1098/rspa.2014.0371

    arXiv 2014

  47. [48]

    Abragam and M

    A. Abragam and M. H. L. Pryce, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences205, 135 (1951)

    1951

  48. [49]

    J. M. Luttinger and W. Kohn, Phys. Rev.97, 869 (1955)

    1955

  49. [50]

    D. F. Crouse, IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Elec- tronic Systems52, 1679 (2016)

    2016

  50. [51]

    Aluminum-27,

    ChemLin, “Aluminum-27,” (2026)

    2026

  51. [52]

    Abragam and B

    A. Abragam and B. Bleaney,Electron Paramagnetic Resonance of Transition Ions(Oxford University Press, 1970)

    1970

  52. [53]

    Ivanov, J

    V. Ivanov, J. Simoni, Y. Lee, W. Liu, K. Jhuria, W. Redjem, Y. Zhiyenbayev, C. Papapanos, W. Qarony, B. Kanté, A. Persaud, T. Schenkel, and L. Z. Tan, Phys. Rev. B106, 134107 (2022)

    2022

  53. [54]

    S. D. Barrett and P. Kok, Phys. Rev. A71, 060310 (2005)

    2005

  54. [55]

    Merkel, A

    B. Merkel, A. Ulanowski, and A. Reiserer, Physical Re- view X10, 041025 (2020)

    2020

  55. [56]

    Baron, G

    R. Baron, G. A. Shifrin, O. J. Marsh, and J. W. Mayer, Journal of Applied Physics40, 3702 (1969)

    1969

  56. [57]

    Niklas, J.-M

    J. Niklas, J.-M. Spaeth, and G. Watkins, MRS Proceed- ings46(1985), 10.1557/proc-46-237

    work page doi:10.1557/proc-46-237 1985

  57. [58]

    M. J. Gullans and J. M. Taylor, Phys. Rev B92(2015), 10.1103/PhysRevB.92.195411

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.92.195411 2015

  58. [59]

    T. G. Castner, Phys. Rev.155, 816 (1967)

    1967

  59. [60]

    R. W. P. Drever, J. L. Hall, F. V. Kowalski, J. Hough, G. M. Ford, A. J. Munley, and H. Ward, Applied Physics B: Lasers and Optics31, 97 (1983)

    1983

  60. [61]

    G., Hübers H.-W., Simmons S., and Thewalt M.L.W., Semi- conductors56, 59 (2022)

    Abraham R.J.S., Shuman V.B., Portsel L.M., Lodygin A.N., Astrov Yu.A., Abrosimov N.V., Pavlov S. G., Hübers H.-W., Simmons S., and Thewalt M.L.W., Semi- conductors56, 59 (2022)

    2022

  61. [62]

    Altarelli, Physica B+C117-118, 122 (1983)

    M. Altarelli, Physica B+C117-118, 122 (1983)

    1983

  62. [63]

    Cardona, T

    M. Cardona, T. A. Meyer, and M. L. Thewalt, Physical Review Letters92, 1 (2004). 8 A1. SAMPLE PREP ARA TION We prepared two samples of aluminum-doped, isotopi- cally enriched 28Si using two different float zone crys- tals. The first is a5 mmdiameter cylindrical sample cut to1 cmin length with a doping concentration of 2.9×10 16cm−3. It was etched in HF an...

    2004