Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 42 references

Nanofiber-based second-order atomic Bragg lattice for collectively enhanced coupling

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes two nanofiber optical traps that place rubidium atoms one probe wavelength apart, so their scattering into the fiber adds constructively and produces coherent Bragg back-reflection.

desk verdict A concrete, useful design for a second-order Bragg lattice on a nanofiber, but the claimed 'negligible reduction' from atomic motion is unsupported by the missing Debye-Waller calculation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19343 v1 pith:NTA6VM3E submitted 2024-12-26 physics.atom-ph

N. Vera , P. Solano This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atom-ph
keywords nanofiberopticaldipoletrapBragglatticecollectivecouplingsuperradiancemagicwavelength87Rbguidedmodes
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 proposes two experimentally feasible optical dipole traps around a tapered nanofiber that place 87Rb atoms in a one-dimensional lattice with spacing equal to the wavelength of a resonant guided probe inside the fiber. That spacing is the second-order Bragg condition, $d=\lambda$, which is supposed to make the atoms' radiation into the fiber interfere constructively and produce coherent back-reflection of guided light. Because the trapping light is far off resonance, the designs avoid the strong scattering and heating of earlier near-resonant lattices. The authors numerically find the lattice wavelengths that realize the condition for a given fiber radius and characterize both traps, reporting depths of 0.48 mK and 0.23 mK and per-atom coupling efficiencies $\beta=0.008$ and $\beta=0.024$. If the schemes work as described, they would give a low-noise platform for collective effects such as superradiance in nanofiber-coupled atomic arrays.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the second-order Bragg relation $2k_{\mathrm{stand}}(a,\lambda)=k_{\mathrm{probe}}(a)$, where $k_{\mathrm{stand}}$ and $k_{\mathrm{probe}}$ are the propagation constants of the trapping standing wave and the resonant guided probe in the nanofiber. Because $k=2\pi/\lambda$, the relation means the lattice period equals the probe wavelength inside the fiber. The relation is solved numerically using the fundamental guided-mode dispersion from the fiber boundary conditions and the refractive index of fused silica, and those solutions fix the lattice laser wavelength for each fiber radius. Around those wavelengths the paper builds compensated dipole traps using AC Stark shifts computed from scalar, vector, and tensor polarizabilities, using either a third compensating beam or a magic-wavelength pair to keep ground and excited states shifted together.

What would settle it

Measure the guided-mode back-reflection of a weak probe from N atoms in the 1336.25 nm lattice; if the reflected power does not grow super-radiantly with N, or if atom fluorescence reveals spacings significantly different from one probe wavelength, the central claim is falsified. A simpler check is to compute the Debye-Waller factor $\exp(-k_{\mathrm{probe}}^2\sigma_z^2)$ from the quoted $\sigma_z$ values and see whether it is actually close to 1.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the condition $2k_{\mathrm{stand}}(a,\lambda)=k_{\mathrm{probe}}(a)$, which makes the standing-wave lattice period equal to the probe wavelength in the fiber, can be met with far-off-resonant light and practical trap geometries. For the D2 line of 87Rb, the dispersion of the fundamental guided mode fixes the lattice wavelength to the fiber radius, and the paper identifies two designs: a three-color trap with a 750 nm repulsive field, a 1336.25 nm lattice, and a 1375 nm compensating beam at a 270 nm radius fiber, and a two-color magic-wavelength trap with a 626.65 nm repulsive field and a 1407.84 nm lattice at a 208.32 nm radius fiber. The resulting lattice spacing satisfies the second-order Bragg condition, so backward scattering from the chain is predicted to add coherently even though the atoms sit twice as far apart as in a conventional $\lambda/2$ lattice. The paper characterizes the potentials, trap depths, trapping frequencies, and per-atom coupling, and it notes that a Debye-Waller factor close to 1 keeps thermal motion from destroying the interference visibility; it does not directly simulate the many-atom collective enhancement.

Load-bearing premise

The benefit depends on the trapped atoms staying near their lattice sites, with axial spreads around 28 to 35 nm, so that the $d=\lambda$ periodicity is not washed out by thermal motion; the paper assumes a Debye-Waller factor close to 1 by analogy with an earlier experiment rather than computing it for its own trap parameters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A nanofiber-coupled atomic array can be prepared at the second-order Bragg spacing without resonant trapping light, so probe and lattice beams are spectrally separable and atom heating from the trap is strongly reduced.
  • For $q=2$ the interference is superradiant for external excitation, meaning every guided-mode excitation results from a collective atomic excitation, which enables Dicke superradiance and superfluorescence with fiber-guided light.
  • Because the lattice period is double the near-resonant case, fewer atoms fit per unit length, but the deep potentials and long trapping region of nanofibers compensate, so the total collectivity can be maintained or increased.
  • The same design procedure applies to other alkali species and transitions by re-solving the guided-mode dispersion, so the schemes are not specific to 87Rb.
  • The two-color magic-wavelength trap removes the need for a stabilizing third beam, at the cost of fixing the fiber radius near 208 nm and trading experimental simplicity against fabrication precision.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors do not simulate the N-atom response, so a natural next test is a full coupled-dipole simulation using their quoted axial spreads $\sigma_z=28$ nm and $35$ nm to predict the guided-mode back-reflection and how the collective coupling efficiency scales with atom number.
  • If the Debye-Waller factor is indeed near 1, the lattice could act as a tunable Bragg mirror whose reflectivity is set by atom number, potentially useful for routing single photons along the fiber without an optical cavity.
  • A practical bottleneck may be the magic-wavelength design's sensitivity to fiber radius, since the radius is fixed by the dispersion relation; one could look for other transitions or species where the required radius is larger and easier to manufacture.
  • The two-ensemble idea in the discussion suggests a concrete experiment: use one lattice as an input coupler for free-space light into the fiber and a second lattice as an output, avoiding any direct guided drive, which is an implicit but testable consequence of the $q=2$ superradiant condition.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two numerical designs for nanofiber-based optical dipole traps that place a one-dimensional array of 87Rb atoms at the second-order Bragg condition, d = λ_p, where λ_p is the guided probe wavelength. The design uses the HE11 mode dispersion and Sellmeier data to find the lattice wavelength that satisfies 2 k_stand(a,λ) = k_probe(a). Two schemes are presented: a three-color trap (750 nm repulsive, 1336.25 nm lattice, 1375 nm compensating) and a two-color magic-wavelength trap (626.65 nm repulsive, 1407.84 nm lattice). The paper reports trap depths of 0.48 mK and 0.23 mK, per-atom coupling efficiencies β = 0.008 and 0.024, and motional ground-state spreads. It then claims that these arrays provide collectively enhanced coupling and coherent back reflection, with a Debye-Waller factor 'close to 1' that makes the atomic spread negligible.

Significance. If the collective claims are quantitatively established, the paper would be a useful design resource: it provides concrete wavelengths, powers, and trap parameters computed with standard packages (ARC and Nanotrappy), and the wavelength-radius mapping follows from a parameter-free mode-propagation calculation. The two schemes are practical in the sense that they avoid near-resonant trapping light and reduce scattering. However, the manuscript currently establishes a necessary condition for the proposed effect, not the effect itself. The collective enhancement and the robustness to thermal and zero-point motion are asserted rather than demonstrated, so the significance of the work as a proposal for 'collectively enhanced coupling' is not yet supported by the evidence presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV] Section IV states that 'For our proposed schemes, we predict a Debye-Waller factor close to 1, similar to Ref. [19]' and concludes that atomic spread makes a 'negligible reduction' of Bragg reflection. This claim is load-bearing because it bridges the ideal lattice condition to the claimed collective enhancement, but the factor is never computed. Using the reported ground-state longitudinal spreads σ_z = 28 nm and 35 nm, and a 780 nm probe in a silica nanofiber with n_eff ≈ 1.2–1.3 (k_p ≈ 0.010 nm^-1), the coherent backscattering visibility is reduced by exp(−2 k_p^2 σ_z^2) ≈ 0.85 and ≈ 0.78, respectively. These values are not 'close to 1'. Finite-temperature occupation broadens the distribution further: at mean phonon number n̄=1 the 35 nm width becomes ≈ 61 nm and the factor drops to ≈ 0.5, and at n̄=3 it is below 0.2. Because the paper does not specify an operating temperature or cooling protocol, the claim of negligible reduction is unsupported; the authors should compute the Debye-Waller factor for their specific trap parameters and thermal state, or soften the claim.
  2. [Section IV] Section IV asserts without derivation or citation that 'the second-order Bragg condition, q = 2, always leads to superradiance' for perpendicular excitation, and that q = 1 leads to a subradiant state. This statement is the physical basis for the central collective-enhancement claim. Please provide a specific reference for this result or a short calculation (for example, the collective decay rate into the guided mode for an infinite chain with spacing d = λ_p versus d = λ_p/2). The current text states the central effect rather than demonstrating it.
  3. [Abstract and Section IV] The title and abstract promise 'collectively enhanced coupling' and 'coherent back reflections of guided modes', but the manuscript does not compute any collective observable. It reports only per-atom couplings β = 0.008 and 0.024, the trap parameters, and the lattice spacing. A calculation of the many-atom guided-mode coupling β_c or the reflection spectrum of a finite chain, including the number of atoms in the trapping region and the effect of position disorder, is needed to support the central claim. Without such a calculation, the paper demonstrates a necessary condition for the proposed effect, but not the effect itself.
  4. [Section III.2] The magic-wavelength trap is characterized only at the antinode: the text explicitly states that 'the magic wavelength does not hold elsewhere.' Since trapped atoms have longitudinal extent σ_z = 35 nm, the differential light shift between ground and excited states is nonzero away from the antinode. The paper does not estimate the magnitude of this position-dependent differential shift over the ground-state wavefunction or at finite temperature, so the 'magic' characterization is established at a single point. Please quantify this effect or restrict the claim accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract writes the second-order Bragg condition as d = λ without indicating that λ is the guided-mode wavelength inside the fiber; for clarity, write d = λ_p, consistent with Eq. (1).
  2. [Section III.2] In the sentence 'In this setup. we use a 626.65 nm running wave', the period after 'setup' should be a comma.
  3. [Section III, before subsection 1] The word 'polarizabilites' should be 'polarizabilities'.
  4. [Figure 2 caption] The caption reads 'arounda D1 and D2 lines andbthe 5p_{3/2}→6s_{1/2} transition'; please insert the missing definite articles and spaces.
  5. [Section IV] The sentence 'one can introduce excitations through one ensemble without exciting the other, guaranteeing interaction between ensembles without imposing amplitude or phase relation among them' is difficult to parse; please rewrite it to state the intended physical situation more clearly.
  6. [Section III, Fig. 3] The lattice wavelength depends strongly on the ONF radius (slope on the order of 1 nm per nm of radius in the plotted range). A statement of the manufacturing tolerance in radius and the resulting deviation from the Bragg condition would help assess experimental feasibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Bragg condition is a stated design input, the lattice wavelengths are computed from independent mode dispersion, and the collective-enhancement claim rests on an external experimental reference rather than on the paper's own fitted values.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. The central design target is the second-order Bragg condition, stated as Eq. (3): 2 k_stand(a,lambda) = k_probe(a). This is a definition/condition, not a derived prediction; the paper explicitly treats it as the constraint to be satisfied. The lattice wavelengths for given ONF radii are obtained by numerically solving the HE11 mode transcendental equation using fused-silica Sellmeier coefficients and rubidium D2 line data, which are independent external inputs. The trap depths, trap frequencies, and per-atom coupling efficiencies beta are outputs of the dipole-potential calculation using polarizabilities from ARC/Nanotrappy; no parameter is fitted to reproduce the claimed collective enhancement, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The collective-coupling and back-reflection claims are conditional on a Debye-Waller factor close to 1, which the paper asserts 'similar to Ref. [19]' without computing it for the quoted ground-state spreads (sigma_z = 28 nm and 35 nm). This is a quantitative support gap and a correctness risk, but it is not circular: the assertion is an auxiliary assumption about motional spread, not an input used to derive the trap parameters, and Ref. [19] is an external experimental work rather than a self-citation carrying the argument. Self-citations in the reference list (Solano et al.) appear only as background for ONF trapping and polarizability formalism, and none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the justification for the Bragg condition. Therefore the core numerical design is not circular; the unsupported Debye-Waller estimate should be weighed as a limitation in an experimental assessment, not as circularity. Score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central design rests on the standard Bragg condition and on polarizability calculations from ARC and Nanotrappy. The main free inputs are laser powers and wavelengths chosen by hand to create trap depths of 0.23 to 0.48 mK. The assumptions with the largest impact are the motional-ground-state spread and the asserted Debye-Waller factor, which are not computed for the proposed geometries.

free parameters (7)
  • Three-color trap lattice power = 2 x 2.4 mW
    Chosen by hand to produce a 0.48 mK trap depth; not determined by the Bragg condition.
  • Three-color trap repulsive power = 8 mW
    Chosen to balance the attractive lattice and keep atoms off the fiber surface.
  • Three-color compensating power = 2 x 2.39 mW
    Chosen to reduce the excited-state shift at the trap minimum; no optimization is shown.
  • Magic trap lattice power = 2 x 5 mW
    Chosen to produce a 0.23 mK trap depth.
  • Magic trap repulsive power = 12 mW
    Chosen to balance the trap radially.
  • Compensating wavelength = 1375 nm
    Selected near the 5p3/2 to 6s1/2 transition to compensate the excited-state shift.
  • Repulsive wavelengths = 750 nm and 626.65 nm
    Blue-detuned fields chosen for the two designs; arbitrary design inputs.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Atoms spaced by integer multiples of the probe wavelength in the fiber achieve optimal collective coupling (Eq. 1 with q=2).
    The paper takes this from Refs. [17,18] and does not derive or simulate the collective coupling.
  • domain assumption The atom is in the motional ground state when computing spatial spreads.
    Section III says spreads are for atoms in the motional ground state; no thermal distribution or heating is modeled.
  • domain assumption The Debye-Waller factor is close to 1.
    Discussion: the factor is asserted by analogy to Ref. [19], not computed for these traps.
  • domain assumption Vector polarizability is negligible at the trapping sites.
    Section II: 'it is safe to ignore the light shifts due to the vector polarizability'; a simplification for cross-polarized beams.
  • standard math The HE11 mode and Sellmeier dispersion describe the guided fields.
    Standard waveguide theory; the transcendental equation solution is cited to Refs. [32-34].
  • ad hoc to paper The q=2 condition always leads to superradiance for perpendicular excitation.
    Stated in the Discussion without derivation or citation; it is load-bearing for the motivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nanofiber-based second-order atomic Bragg lattice for collectively enhanced coupling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NTA6VM3E

@misc{pith2026241219343,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nanofiber-based second-order atomic Bragg lattice for collectively enhanced coupling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NTA6VM3E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19343}
}
abstract

We propose two experimental schemes for nanofiber-based compensated optical dipole traps that optimize the collective coupling of a one-dimensional array of atoms. The created array satisfies the second-order Bragg condition ($d=\lambda$), facilitating constructive interference of atomic radiation into the nanofiber and generating coherent back reflections of guided modes. Both schemes use far-off resonance light to minimize light scattering and atomic heating. Our numerical study focuses on $^{87}$Rb atoms. The results are generalizable to different atomic species and could improve the study of collective and nonlinear atomic effects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19343 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Wavelength dependent unit amplitude atomic light [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Free space wavelength of the trapping laser that sat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [19]

    D. E. Chang, L. Jiang, A. V. Gorshkov, and H. J. Kim- ble, New Journal of Physics14, 063003 (2012)

    work page 2012

  2. [1]

    Three color dipole trap In the three color trap, we use a 750 nm, blue detuned repulsive field, and a 1336.25 nm standing wave, lattice beam (corresponding to a 270 nm fiber radius according to the calculated condition, see Fig. 3). Unfortunately, the excited states are more light-shifted than the ground state in such conditions. A third compensating lase...

    work page

  3. [2]

    we use a 626.65 nm running wave, blue- detuned repulsive field and 1407.84 nm standing wave (corresponding to a 208.32 nm radius ONF), lattice beam in cross polarization

    Magic wavelength dipole trap In this setup. we use a 626.65 nm running wave, blue- detuned repulsive field and 1407.84 nm standing wave (corresponding to a 208.32 nm radius ONF), lattice beam in cross polarization. Both wavelengths are magic wave- lengths for the atom polarizabilities when taking into ac- count the scalar and tensor polarizabilities in a ...

    work page

  4. [3]

    Phillips, Phys

    I.H.Deutsch, R.J.C.Spreeuw, S.L.Rolston, andW.D. Phillips, Phys. Rev. A52, 1394 (1995)

    work page 1995

  5. [4]

    R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev.93, 99 (1954)

    1954

  6. [5]

    Skribanowitz, I

    N. Skribanowitz, I. P. Herman, J. C. MacGillivray, and M. S. Feld, Phys. Rev. Lett.30, 309 (1973)

    work page 1973

  7. [6]

    Gross and S

    M. Gross and S. Haroche, Physics Reports 93, 301 (1982)

    1982

  8. [7]

    Birkl, M

    G. Birkl, M. Gatzke, I. H. Deutsch, S. L. Rolston, and W. D. Phillips, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 2823 (1995)

    work page 1995

Show all 42 references
  1. [8]

    Schilke, C

    A. Schilke, C. Zimmermann, P. W. Courteille, and W. Guerin, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 223903 (2011)

    2011

  2. [9]

    J. Rui, D. Wei, A. Rubio-Abadal, S. Hollerith, J. Zeiher, D. M. Stamper-Kurn, C. Gross, and I. Bloch, Nature 583, 369 (2020)

    2020

  3. [10]

    Tamura, H

    H. Tamura, H. Nguyen, P. R. Berman, and A. Kuzmich, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 163601 (2020)

    2020

  4. [11]

    Walther, B

    H. Walther, B. T. H. Varcoe, B.-G. Englert, and T. Becker, Reports on Progress in Physics 69, 1325 (2006)

    2006

  5. [12]

    A. S. Sheremet, M. I. Petrov, I. V. Iorsh, A. V. Poshakin- skiy, and A. N. Poddubny, Rev. Mod. Phys.95, 015002 (2023)

    2023

  6. [13]

    Német, D

    N. Német, D. White, S. Kato, S. Parkins, and T. Aoki, Phys. Rev. Appl.13, 064010 (2020)

    2020

  7. [14]

    Solano, J

    P. Solano, J. A. Grover, J. E. Hoffman, S. Ravets, F. K. Fatemi, L. A. Orozco, S. L. Rolston, and A. Opti- cal Nanofibers:, Adv. At. Mol. Opt. Phys.66, 439 (2017)

    2017

  8. [15]

    Nieddu, V

    T. Nieddu, V. Gokhroo, and S. N. Chormaic, Journal of Optics 18, 053001 (2016)

    2016

  9. [16]

    Le Kien, S

    F. Le Kien, S. Dutta Gupta, V. I. Balykin, and K. Hakuta, Phys. Rev. A72, 032509 (2005)

    2005

  10. [17]

    Munday, L

    P.Solano, J.A.Grover, Y.Xu, P.Barberis-Blostein, J.N. Munday, L. A.Orozco, W. D.Phillips, andS. L.Rolston, Phys. Rev. A99, 013822 (2019)

    2019

  11. [18]

    Vetsch, D

    E. Vetsch, D. Reitz, G. Sagué, R. Schmidt, S. T. Dawkins, and A. Rauschenbeutel, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 203603 (2010)

    2010

  12. [20]

    Cardenas-Lopez, S

    S. Cardenas-Lopez, S. J. Masson, Z. Zager, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 033605 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    N. V. Corzo, B. Gouraud, A. Chandra, A. Goban, A. S. Sheremet, D. V. Kupriyanov, and J. Laurat, Physical review letters117, 133603 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    H. L. Sørensen, J.-B. Béguin, K. W. Kluge, I. Iakoupov, A. S. Sørensen, J. H. Müller, E. S. Polzik, and J. Appel, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 133604 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    S. Chu, J. E. Bjorkholm, A. Ashkin, and A. Cable, Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 314 (1986)

    1986

  16. [24]

    C. I. Westbrook, R. N. Watts, C. E. Tanner, S. L. Rol- ston, W. D. Phillips, P. D. Lett, and P. L. Gould, Phys. Rev. Lett.65, 33 (1990)

    1990

  17. [25]

    Steck, Quantum and Atom Optics , (revision 0.16, 26 April 2024)

    D. Steck, Quantum and Atom Optics , (revision 0.16, 26 April 2024)

    2024

  18. [26]

    V. I. Balykin, K. Hakuta, F. Le Kien, J. Q. Liang, and M. Morinaga, Phys. Rev. A70, 011401 (2004)

    2004

  19. [27]

    Solano, F

    P. Solano, F. K. Fatemi, L. A. Orozco, and S. L. Rolston, Opt. Lett.42, 2283 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    M. C. Frawley, S. N. Chormaic, and V. G. Minogin, Physica Scripta85, 058103 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    B. D. Patterson, P. Solano, P. S. Julienne, L. A. Orozco, and S. L. Rolston, Phys. Rev. A97, 032509 (2018)

    2018

  22. [30]

    J. Ye, H. J. Kimble, and H. Katori, Science320, 1734 (2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    Goban, K

    A. Goban, K. S. Choi, D. J. Alton, D. Ding, C. Lacroûte, M.Pototschnig, T.Thiele, N.P.Stern, andH.J.Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 033603 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    D. Ding, A. Goban, K. Choi, and H. Kimble, arXiv 1212.4941 (2012)

    2012 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Le Kien, P

    F. Le Kien, P. Schneeweiss, and A. Rauschenbeutel, The European Physical Journal D67, 1 (2013)

    2013

  26. [34]

    Marcuse, Theory of dielectric optical waveguides (El- sevier, 2013)

    D. Marcuse, Theory of dielectric optical waveguides (El- sevier, 2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    J. E. Hoffman, S. Ravets, J. A. Grover, P. Solano, P. R. Kordell, J. D. Wong-Campos, L. A. Orozco, and S. L. Rolston, AIP Advances4, 067124 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    I. H. Malitson, JOSA55, 1205 (1965)

    1965

  29. [37]

    Steck, Rubidium 87 D Line Data , (revision 2.3.3, 28 May 2024)

    D. Steck, Rubidium 87 D Line Data , (revision 2.3.3, 28 May 2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Šibalić, J

    N. Šibalić, J. D. Pritchard, C. S. Adams, and K. J. Weatherill, Computer Physics Communications220, 319 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Berroir, A

    J. Berroir, A. Bouscal, A. Urvoy, T. Ray, and J. Laurat, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 013079 (2022)

    2022

  32. [40]

    A. L. Fetter and C. J. Foot, inUltracold Bosonic and Fermionic Gases, Contemporary Concepts of Condensed Matter Science, Vol. 5, edited by K. Levin, A. L. Fetter, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn (Elsevier, 2012) pp. 27–67

    2012

  33. [41]

    F. K. Fatemi, J. E. Hoffman, P. Solano, E. F. Fenton, G. Beadie, S. L. Rolston, and L. A. Orozco, Optica4, 157 (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    Y. Meng, A. Dareau, P. Schneeweiss, and A. Rauschen- beutel, Phys. Rev. X8, 031054 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.