Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Effects due to generation of negative frequencies during temporal diffraction

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Rapidly switched graphene converts part of a THz field to negative frequencies, revealed by spectral oscillations.

desk verdict A plausible THz temporal-diffraction demonstration with a clean theoretical core; the main weakness is the unverified assumption of an instantaneous, real multiplicative modulation, but the evidence is strong enough to warrant careful peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03491 v1 pith:QC6X6TYY submitted 2025-07-04 physics.optics

E. Hendry , C. M. Hooper , W. P. Wardley , S. A. R. Horsley This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics
keywords temporaldiffractionnegativefrequencygenerationtime-varyingmediaterahertzspectroscopygrapheneultrafastopticalswitchingconversionpump-probe
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

The paper claims that a graphene sample switched by a femtosecond optical pump rises in transmission in about 160 fs, which is far shorter than the 2 ps period of a 0.5 THz probe field. Because the modulation rate exceeds the field frequency by more than a factor of ten, temporal diffraction spreads the probe spectrum so widely that positive and negative frequency components overlap. The paper's central result is the interference term in Eq. (3), $2\,\mathrm{Re}[e^{2i\omega_{\rm in} t_0}\tilde{s}_+\tilde{s}_-]$, which makes the transmitted intensity oscillate as the pump-probe delay is scanned, and the paper reports these distinctive oscillations in experiment. The authors take the oscillations, together with a $\sim\pi$ phase change of the oscillation across 0.5 THz, as direct evidence that part of the incident field has been time-reversed by the modulation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the real, instantaneous transmission coefficient $s(t)$ and its Fourier transform $\tilde{s}(\omega)$; for a monochromatic input the scattered field is simply $E_{\rm sc}(t)=s(t)E_{\rm in}(t)$, so the output spectrum is a convolution of $\tilde{s}$ with the input, as written in Eq. (2). The quantity that carries the claimed effect is the overlap product $\tilde{s}_+ \tilde{s}_-$, where $\tilde{s}_+ = \tilde{s}(\omega_{\rm out}-\omega_{\rm in})$ and $\tilde{s}_- = \tilde{s}(-\omega_{\rm out}-\omega_{\rm in})$. This product is nonzero only when the modulation-induced spectral width $\Delta\omega\sim 2\pi/\tau$ is comparable to or larger than $\omega_{\rm in}$, so positive and negative frequency amplitudes occupy the same output frequency. When they do, the interference term $2\,\mathrm{Re}[e^{2i\omega_{\rm in}t_0}\tilde{s}_+\tilde{s}_-]$ in Eq. (3) makes the scattered intensity oscillate with the pump-probe delay at frequency $2\omega_{\rm in}$. The causal, step-like form of $s(t)$ (rise 160 fs, decay 1.7 ps) also explains the observed phase shift of the oscillation as the output frequency crosses $\omega_{\rm in}$, because its Fourier transform changes argument by about 2.8 rad over 0–1 THz.

What would settle it

Measure the transmitted spectrum with the same setup but with the graphene response artificially slowed (e.g. a sample or excitation geometry giving a rise time of 500 fs or longer, as modeled in Fig. 4d): if the characteristic oscillations remain even though the positive/negative overlap is negligible, they are not caused by the Eq. (3) interference term. Alternatively, scan the pump-probe delay in fine steps and verify that the intensity at a fixed frequency oscillates as $\cos(2\omega_{\rm in} t_0 + \phi)$ with period $2\omega_{\rm in}=1$ THz; any different period or a delay dependence that does not follow this form would indicate another mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Sub-cycle modulation of graphene transmission time-reverses part of a narrowband THz field. Treating the pump-induced change as a real, instantaneous transmission coefficient $s(t)$, the scattered spectrum of a monochromatic input at $\pm\omega_{\rm in}$ is $\tilde{E}_{\rm sc}(\omega_{\rm out}) = \frac{1}{2}\left[\tilde{s}(\omega_{\rm out}-\omega_{\rm in})E_0 + \tilde{s}^*(-\omega_{\rm out}-\omega_{\rm in})E_0^*\right]$. When the modulation is fast enough that the spectral width $\sim 2\pi/\tau$ exceeds $\omega_{\rm in}$, the functions $\tilde{s}_+$ and $\tilde{s}_-$ overlap and their product contributes a phase-sensitive term $2\,\mathrm{Re}[e^{2i\omega_{\rm in} t_0}\tilde{s}_+\tilde{s}_-]$ to the scattered intensity. The experiment observes this term as a slow oscillation of the transmitted spectrum with pump-probe delay, covering the whole 0–1 THz range, with the oscillation phase shifting by almost $\pi$ as the frequency crosses the incident 0.5 THz. The paper shows that a modeled response with the measured 160-fs rise and 1.7-ps decay reproduces the oscillations, whereas a slower 500-fs rise removes them, identifying the sub-cycle response as the origin.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the measured 160-fs transmission rise being a genuine, instantaneous change in the graphene's transmission that applies uniformly across the whole THz pulse and spectrum; if phase modulation, nonlinear absorption, or a frequency-dependent substrate or detector response contributes significantly to the measured change, the oscillations could have a different origin.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A sub-cycle transmission rise in graphene acts as a temporal interface that time-reverses a portion of the incident THz field, so the scattered field contains genuine negative-frequency components.
  • The phase-sensitive interference term in Eq. (3) gives a direct diagnostic for positive-to-negative frequency conversion in any rapidly modulated material: look for delay-dependent spectral oscillations.
  • In the slow-modulation regime (rise time of order 500 fs or longer) the same model predicts a broadened spectrum with no oscillations, so the oscillation distinguishes sub-cycle switching from ordinary temporal broadening.
  • Since the measured spectrum is limited by the detector response, the true scattered spectrum should extend beyond 1 THz, implying that the negative-frequency content is even stronger than directly observed.
  • The demonstrated conversion suggests graphene could support temporal-modulation-based frequency translation and amplification in the THz range, a region with few high-power sources.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension would be to measure noise or photon-correlation statistics of the scattered THz field: genuine positive/negative frequency coupling should create correlations (or squeezing) that a purely classical thermal re-radiation model would not produce.
  • The oscillation phase as a function of output frequency could be used as a sensitive probe of the sample's complex temporal response, potentially revealing deviations from the simple step-decay model such as residual phase modulation or a dispersive substrate.
  • If the detector bandwidth is the limiting factor, a calibrated broadband THz detector should reveal even stronger oscillation contrast and negative-frequency components at frequencies below the directly observed range, providing a sharp test of the claim.
  • The same sub-cycle overlap mechanism should appear in any other fast-switchable terahertz medium, so the spectral-oscillation signature could serve as a screening tool for candidate materials for terahertz time interfaces.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a THz time-domain experiment in which an intense 800 nm pump pulse abruptly increases the transmission of a graphene monolayer (rise time approximately 160 fs, decay time about 1.7 ps) while a narrowband 0.5 THz probe pulse passes through. The pump-induced field change ΔE_THz is measured as a function of pump-probe delay and detection time. The authors model this change as a convolution of the incident field with a real scalar temporal response function, derive an intensity expression (Eq. (3)) containing a term 2 Re[e^{2iω_in t0} ...] that arises from overlap of positive- and negative-frequency amplitudes, and show that such a term produces oscillations in the scattered spectrum as a function of pump-probe delay. They observe these oscillations experimentally, along with a phase flip near 0.5 THz, and they show in a control simulation that slower rise times eliminate the oscillatory behavior. The central claim is that the experiment demonstrates positive-to-negative frequency conversion in the far infrared and that Eq. (3) is the correct mechanistic description.

Significance. If the interpretation holds, this would be a notable demonstration of positive-to-negative frequency conversion via temporal diffraction in the far infrared, extending observations previously made at radio frequencies and in water waves. The paper's strengths are the self-contained derivation of Eq. (3), the direct comparison between measured and modeled spectra, and the slow-rise control (Fig. 4(d)) that isolates the role of modulation rate. The manuscript is clearly written and the authors are appropriately cautious about the limited detector bandwidth. The central mechanism is simple, testable, and potentially of interest to the time-varying media community.

major comments (2)
  1. [II, Eqs. (2)-(4) and Fig. 4] The interpretation of the oscillatory spectra as positive/negative frequency interference relies on the assumption that the pump-induced change can be represented as a real, instantaneous multiplicative transmission coefficient R(t-t0) acting on E_in(t). The data in Fig. 3(c) are measured at the peak of the THz field and cannot distinguish amplitude modulation from phase modulation or from a frequency-dependent complex conductivity change. If the photoinduced graphene response has a quadrature component, or if the quartz/PMMA stack introduces etalon dispersion, the output spectrum is not of the form of Eq. (3) and the observed oscillations could be at least partly produced by that complex response rather than by the specific interference term in Eq. (3). Please provide a phase-resolved comparison of ΔE_THz relative to E_in over the full probe waveform, or a fit using a complex conductivity model, together with a bare-substrate control. This is needed to support the specific claim of negative-frequency interference.
  2. [III, third paragraph (2.8 rad phase shift)] The predicted phase shift of 2.8 rad is derived from a causal response with τ_decay = 1.7 ps and τ_rise = 160 fs, parameters fitted to the peak-field cross-section in Fig. 3(c). The detector response is not deconvolved from the measured spectra (the authors acknowledge this in Fig. 3(b)), and no uncertainty is given for the fitted time constants or for the phase shift. Since the phase flip across 0.5 THz is presented as a quantitative validation of the model, please provide error estimates, account for the detector response, and clarify how the fit-parameter uncertainties propagate to the predicted phase.
minor comments (5)
  1. [III, paragraph 3] The word 'oscillitory' should be 'oscillatory'.
  2. [Fig. 4(d) caption] The caption contains a duplicated 'of of' in 'rise time of of the temporal response function'.
  3. [Eq. (2) and surrounding text] The symbol 'es' is used for what should be a script or tilde symbol for the Fourier transform; please ensure the final typeset version renders this consistently.
  4. [References] Reference [29] is titled identically to reference [26], which seems incorrect; please verify the title and journal details for the Hornett et al. paper.
  5. [Fig. 3] The panel labels and axis units in Fig. 3 are difficult to parse; consider increasing clarity of the 'Detection time' and 'Frequency' axes and indicating which curve corresponds to the generated field intensity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: Eq. (3) is derived from a real time-dependent scattering coefficient, and the experimental comparison is a forward model with parameters fitted to an independent cross-section.

full rationale

The central derivation (Eqs. (2)-(3)) is self-contained: for a real instantaneous scattering coefficient s(t), the output spectrum is E_sc(w)=1/2[s(w-w_in)E0+s*(-w-w_in)E0*], and the intensity contains the 2 Re[e^{2iw_in t0}s+ s-] interference term. No fitted quantity enters this algebra. The temporal response parameters (tau_rise=160 fs, tau_decay=1.7 ps) are fitted to the peak-field pump-probe trace (Fig. 3c), which is a different observable from the spectral oscillation map of Fig. 4(b); the model spectra in Fig. 4(c) are then generated by convolution of the measured incident field with that response function. This is a forward calculation, not a fit to the predicted spectral oscillations. The claimed 2.8 rad phase shift is derived from the causal, dispersionless step-response model and its fitted decay constant, rather than being chosen to match the spectral phase. Self-citations ([22], [24], [26], [29], [30]) are contextual or concern setup/detector response and are not load-bearing for the positive-to-negative-frequency claim. The assumption that the pump-induced change is a real, scalar, instantaneous transmission coefficient is a model limitation that could affect interpretation, but it is not a circular step: the paper's equations do not presuppose the experimental observation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theoretical derivation requires only standard Fourier analysis. The experimental interpretation additionally assumes a real, linear, dispersionless multiplicative modulation, a representative temporal response function extracted from the peak-field trace, a narrowband quasi-monochromatic input, and negligible detector distortion. Two time constants are fitted from the pump-probe trace. No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • tau_rise (transmission rise time) = 160 fs
    Fitted to the pump-probe dynamics at the peak of the THz field (Fig. 3c); determines whether the model produces positive/negative frequency interference oscillations.
  • tau_decay (transmission decay time) = 1.7 ps
    Fitted to the same trace; controls the spectral phase slope and the predicted 2.8 rad phase shift of the oscillation across the measured band.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Fourier decomposition of real signals and the convolution theorem
    Used to derive Eqs. (2)-(3), where a real modulation s(t) leads to both positive and negative frequency sidebands and a cross term sensitive to the carrier phase.
  • domain assumption The pump-induced change in graphene is a real, scalar, dispersionless multiplicative transmission modulation s(t)
    Invoked in Eq. (2) and in the model of Figs. 4(c)-(d); ignores phase modulation, nonlinear absorption, and frequency-dependent response of the graphene/substrate stack.
  • domain assumption The response function measured at the peak of the THz field (Fig. 3c, fit with tau_rise=160 fs, tau_decay=1.7 ps) is representative for all detection times and field amplitudes
    Used to generate the 2D model in Fig. 4(c); assumes linearity and time-invariance of the modulation process over the probe pulse.
  • domain assumption The narrowband THz pulse can be treated as quasi-monochromatic with carrier phase e^{i omega_in t0}
    Used in Eq. (3) to interpret the oscillation period as 2 omega_in; the finite pulse envelope is handled through the convolution model, but the analytic argument relies on the narrowband approximation.
  • domain assumption THz detector response does not create or significantly distort the oscillatory spectral features
    The paper notes the measured spectrum is limited by the detector response [30], but does not deconvolve it; the interpretation assumes the observed delay-dependent oscillations are not detector artifacts.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effects due to generation of negative frequencies during temporal diffraction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QC6X6TYY

@misc{pith2026250703491,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effects due to generation of negative frequencies during temporal diffraction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QC6X6TYY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03491}
}
read the original abstract

Temporal diffraction from rapidly time-modulated materials can generate new frequency components not present in an incident wave. In such an experiment, the spectral extent of these new frequencies is determined by the rate of modulation relative to the period of the oscillating field. Here we present a temporal diffraction experiment carried out in the far-infrared (THz) spectral region. Using graphene, a fast modulator for this spectral domain, we show that one can modulate the transmission significantly faster than the period of a narrow band THz field. This leads to a large bandwidth for the generated frequencies, including the generation of negative frequency components. We show that interference between negative and positive frequency components give rise to distinctive oscillatory features in the transmitted spectrum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03491 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a), where we sketch the spreading of a monochro￾matic input due to the time modulation of the scattering amplitude, the resulting output spectrum represented in red. For a modulation timescale much shorter than the os￾cillation period of the incident wave, the output spec￾trum will be spread such that a significant portion crosses the origin, mixing positive and negative frequency in￾put amplitudes (the two red reg… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (b). We see that the spectral composition of the scattered intensity is much broader than the incident in￾tensity. Indeed, we expect the true composition of the scattered intensity to be even broader than measured, as both the low and high frequency components are not efficiently detected by our THz detection scheme [30]. In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Bound states in the continuum in multilayered time-varying metasurfaces

    physics.optics 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Exploiting Fabry-Perot and symmetry-protected BICs in multilayered time-varying metasurfaces enables polarization-insensitive scattering anomalies and monochromatic nonreciprocal transmission at perturbative modulatio...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Galiffi, R

    E. Galiffi, R. Tirole, S. Yin, H. Li, S. Vezzoli, P. A. Huidobro, M. G. Silveirinha, R. Sapienza, A. Al` u, and J. B. Pendry, Photonics of time-varying media, Advanced Photonics 4, 014002 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    Rayleigh, The Theory of Sound; Volume 2(Creative Media Partners, LLC, 2018)

    J. Rayleigh, The Theory of Sound; Volume 2(Creative Media Partners, LLC, 2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    G. M. Gibson, E. Toninelli, S. A. R. Horsley, G. C. Spald- ing, E. Hendry, D. B. Phillips, and M. J. Padgett, Rever- sal of orbital angular momentum arising from an extreme doppler shift, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, 3800 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Y. B. Zeldovich, Generation of waves by a rotating body, JETP Lett. 14, 180 (1971)

    work page 1971

  5. [5]

    Cromb, G

    M. Cromb, G. M. Gibson, E. Toninelli, M. J. Padgett, E. M. Wright, and D. Faccio, Amplification of waves from a rotating body, Nature Physics 16, 1069 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    M. C. Braidotti, A. Vinante, M. Cromb, A. Sandakumar, D. Faccio, and H. Ulbricht, Amplification of electromag- netic fields by a rotating body, Nature Communications 15, 5453 (2024)

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Landau, L

    L. Landau, L. Pitaevskii, and E. Lifshitz, Electrodynam- ics of Continuous Media, COURSE OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS (Pergamon, 2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Svidzinsky, A

    A. Svidzinsky, A. Azizi, J. S. Ben-Benjamin, M. O. Scully, and W. Unruh, Unruh and cherenkov radiation from a negative frequency perspective, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 063603 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    J. B. Pendry, Shearing the vacuum - quantum friction, J. Phys. Cond. Mat. 9, 10301 (1997)

    1997

  2. [10]

    S. A. R. Horsley, Canonical quantization of the elec- tromagnetic field interacting with a moving dielectric medium, Phys. Rev. A 86, 023830 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Rousseaux, C

    G. Rousseaux, C. Mathis, P. Ma ¨ ıssa, T. G. Philbin, and U. Leonhardt, Observation of negative-frequency waves in a water tank: a classical analogue to the hawking ef- fect?, New Journal of Physics 10, 053015 (2008)

    2008

  4. [12]

    Brunner and H

    W. Brunner and H. Paul, I theory of optical parametric amplification and oscillation, Progress in Optics 15, 1 (1977)

    1977

  5. [13]

    Bacot, M

    V. Bacot, M. Labousse, A. Eddi, M. Fink, and E. Fort, Time reversal and holography with spacetime transfor- mations, Nature Physics 12, 972 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    Moussa, G

    H. Moussa, G. Xu, S. Yin, E. Galiffi, Y. Ra’di, and A. Al` u, Observation of temporal reflection and broad- band frequency translation at photonic time interfaces, Nature Physics 19, 863 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Emanuele Galiffi, G

    E. Emanuele Galiffi, G. Xu, S. Yin, H. Moussa, Y. Ra’di, and A. Al` u, Broadband coherent wave control through photonic collisions at time interfaces, Nature Physics 19, 1703 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Feinberg, D

    J. Feinberg, D. Fernandes, B. Shapiro, and M. Silveir- inha, Plasmonic time crystals, Physical Review Letters 134, 183801 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Galiffi, P

    E. Galiffi, P. A. Huidobro, and J. B. Pendry, Broad- band nonreciprocal amplification in luminal metamate- rials, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 206101 (2019)

    2019

  10. [18]

    S. A. R. Horsley and J. B. Pendry, Quantum electrody- namics of time-varying gratings, Proceedings of the Na- 6 tional Academy of Sciences 120, e2302652120 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    S. A. R. Horsley and J. B. Pendry, Traveling wave am- plification in stationary gratings, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 156903 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Y. Zhou, M. Z. Alam, M. Karimi, J. Upham, O. Reshef, A. E. Willner, and R. W. Boyd, Broadband frequency translation through time refraction in an epsilon-near- zero material, Nat. Commun. 11, 2180 (2020)

    2020

  13. [21]

    J. B. Khurgin, M. Clerici, V. Bruno, L. Caspani, C. De- Vault, J. Kim, A. Shaltout, A. Boltasseva, V. Shalaev, M. Ferrera, D. Faccio, and N. Kinsey, Adiabatic fre- quency shifting in epsilon-near-zero materials: the role of group velocity, Optica 7, 226 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Justus Bohn, T

    J. Justus Bohn, T. Luk, S. Horsley, and E. Hendry, Spa- tiotemporal refraction of light in an epsilon-near-zero in- dium tin oxide layer: frequency shifting effects arising from interfaces, Optica 8, 1532 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Tirole, E

    R. Tirole, E. Galiffi, J. Dranczewski, T. Attavar, B. Tilmann, Y.-T. Wang, P. A. Huidobro, A. Al´ u, J. B. Pendry, S. A. Maier, and S. Vezzoli, Saturable time- varying mirror based on an epsilon-near-zero material, Phys. Rev. Appl. 18, 054067 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    J. Bohn, T. S. Luk, C. Tollerton, S. W. Hutchings, I. Brener, S. Horsley, W. L. Barnes, and E. Hendry, All- optical switching of an epsilon-near-zero plasmon reso- nance in indium tin oxide, Nature communications 12, 1017 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    Z. H. Qiangguo Zhou, Qinxi Qiu, Graphene-based tera- hertz optoelectronics, Optics and Laser Technology 157, 108558 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Tomadin, S

    A. Tomadin, S. Hornett, H. Wang, E. Alexeev, A. Can- dini, C. Coletti, D. Turchinovich, M. Kl¨ aui, M. Bonn, and K. Tielrooij, The ultrafast dynamics and conductiv- ity of photoexcited graphene at different fermi energies, Science Advances 4, eaar5313 (2018)

    2018

  19. [27]

    Gopalan and B

    P. Gopalan and B. Sensale-Rodriguez, 2d materials for terahertz modulatio, Advanced Optical Materials 8, 1900550 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    M. Kim, K. Seong-Han, C. Kang, S. Kim, and C. Kee, Highly efficient graphene terahertz modulator with tun- able electromagnetically induced transparency-like trans- mission, Scientific Reports 13, 6680 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Hornett, R

    S. Hornett, R. Stantchev, M. Vardaki, C. Beckerleg, and E. Hendry, The ultrafast dynamics and conductivity of photoexcited graphene at different fermi energies, Nano Letters 16, 7019 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    Hendry, M

    E. Hendry, M. Koeberg, J. Schins, L. Siebbeles, and M. Bonn, Ultrafast charge generation in a semicon- ducting polymer studied with thz emission spectroscopy, Physical Review B 70, 033202 (2004)

    2004

  23. [31]

    Tunesi, L

    J. Tunesi, L. Peters, J. Totero Gongora, L. Olivieri, A. Fratalocchi, A. Pasquazi, and M. Peccianti, Tera- hertz emission mediated by ultrafast time-varying meta- surfaces, Physical Review Research 3, L042006 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.