Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 51 references

Integrated angstrom-tunable polarization-resolved solid-state photon sources

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By embedding a quantum emitter in a metasurface inside a MEMS-tuned microcavity, this paper shows a compact solid-state photon source whose wavelength tunes in angstrom steps and whose polarization switches in under a millisecond.

desk verdict A solid integrated MEMS–QEMS photon-source platform, but the 'angstrom-level tuning' headline outruns the spectrometer evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21202 v2 pith:DXWD7VSI submitted 2025-05-27 physics.optics physics.app-ph

Yinhui Kan , Paul C. V. Thrane , Xujing Liu , Shailesh Kumar , Chao Meng , Radu Malureanu , Sergey I. Bozhevolnyi This is my paper
classification physics.opticsphysics.app-ph
keywords solid-statephotonsourcequantumemittermetasurfaceMEMSdistributedBraggreflectornitrogen-vacancycenterspolarizationcontrolwavelengthtunability
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 sets out to show that solid-state quantum emitters, which at room temperature emit broadly, in all directions, and with poorly defined polarization, can be turned into dynamic on-chip photon sources by combining a metasurface that shapes the emission with a microelectromechanical (MEMS) mirror that tunes a microcavity. The central result is a device in which nitrogen-vacancy emission narrows from roughly 100 nm to 3.7 nm, the peak wavelength shifts by about 0.8 angstroms per 50 mV of actuation voltage, and the output polarization switches between 650 nm (y-polarized) and 700 nm (x-polarized) in under 0.8 ms. If true, this provides a practical route to room-temperature, chip-scale tunable photon sources for quantum photonics and nano optics.

What carries the argument

The core object is the MEMS-QEMS: a quantum-emitter-embedded metasurface (QEMS) that converts surface plasmon polaritons excited by the emitter into unidirectional, collimated, polarization-defined free-space photons, coupled to a tunable Fabry-Pérot microcavity. The cavity is formed by a fixed distributed Bragg reflector (DBR) and a MEMS-actuated silver mirror; applying a voltage moves the mirror, shifts the cavity resonance, and thereby selects which spectral slice of the broad emitter emission is enhanced. For polarization multiplexing, two metasurface regions with different lattice periods (560 nm and 655 nm) encode y-polarized emission at 650 nm and x-polarized emission at 700 nm, respectively.

What would settle it

Repeat the fine-tuning measurement with a spectrometer of known resolution better than 0.05 nm, such as a high-resolution grating or a scanning Fabry-Pérot interferometer, and check whether the 50 mV voltage steps produce monotonic, reproducible ~0.08 nm peak shifts. If the peak positions instead fluctuate within the instrument linewidth, the angstrom-level tunability claim is not supported by the data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper demonstrates a MEMS-QEMS platform: a quantum emitter (a nitrogen-vacancy center in a nanodiamond) embedded in a metasurface that converts the emitter's broadband, omnidirectional emission into a collimated, polarization-defined beam, all placed inside a Fabry-Pérot microcavity formed by a fixed distributed Bragg reflector and a piezoelectric MEMS-actuated mirror. With this platform, the authors show that typically broadband room-temperature NV emission can be narrowed to 3.7 nm (quality factor 180), that the emission peak can be tuned quasi-linearly with voltage at an average step of 0.8 Å per 50 mV, and that a wavelength-polarization-multiplexed QEMS produces y-polarized emission at 650 nm and x-polarized emission at 700 nm, with fast electrical switching between these states.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reported 0.8 Å shifts at 50 mV voltage steps are genuine spectral tuning steps and not artifacts of the spectrometer's limited resolution, which the paper itself flags as the current measurement limit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Broadband room-temperature emission from nitrogen-vacancy nanodiamonds can be narrowed to 3.7 nm with a quality factor of 180, all on a chip without cryogenics.
  • The emission peak can be voltage-tuned with about 0.8 Å per 50 mV steps, enabling fine spectral control that is electrically addressable.
  • Wavelength-polarization multiplexing yields spatially separated, polarization-pure emission at 650 nm and 700 nm, switchable in under 0.8 ms.
  • The same platform can be extended to other quantum emitters, including tin-vacancy and silicon-vacancy centers, potentially producing multi-wavelength dynamic sources.
  • Reducing the cavity gap and increasing DBR pairs can further narrow the emission, down to an estimated 0.38 nm with 10 DBR pairs.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper does not state the spectrometer resolution, the true tuning step may be even finer than 0.8 Å; a higher-resolution spectral measurement would reveal the actual limit of the platform.
  • Pairing the MEMS-QEMS concept with faster MEMS actuators and longer-lived emitters could push switching into the microsecond regime, enabling spatiotemporal photon-source arrays.
  • The two-channel polarization-wavelength multiplexing strategy can naturally extend to three or more channels, as the authors sketch in the supplement, potentially supporting wavelength-encoded polarization patterns for structured-light applications.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper demonstrates a MEMS-integrated platform in which a DBR microcavity with an actuated silver mirror and a QE-embedded metasurface (QEMS) narrows the room-temperature emission of nitrogen-vacancy centers in nanodiamonds, tunes the emission wavelength by applying voltages, and provides polarization-wavelength multiplexed operation. Specifically, the authors report spectral narrowing from about 100 nm to 3.7 nm (Q-factor 180), voltage tuning with an average step of 0.8 angstrom per 50 mV, and polarization switching between 650 nm (LPy) and 700 nm (LPx) with sub-millisecond response times. The paper also includes FDTD simulations of the metasurface designs, TMM modeling of the microcavity, far-field polarization-resolved emission patterns, and switching transient measurements.

Significance. If the metrology supports the headline claims, the MEMS-QEMS platform represents a meaningful advance in compact, room-temperature tunable solid-state photon sources: it combines on-chip integration, spectral narrowing, voltage-controlled wavelength tuning, and polarization encoding in a single device. The strengths of the paper include the direct demonstration of spectral narrowing, voltage-dependent spectral shifts, polarization-resolved far-field patterns, and switching transients, as well as the reproducible fabrication and assembly procedure. The TMM and FDTD modeling are used to interpret the measurements rather than to generate the central results. However, the central 'angstrom-level precision' claim currently rests on peak positions without stated spectrometer resolution, fit uncertainty, or repeated-measurement statistics, and the quantified polarization contrast in the multiplexed device is not provided. These omissions are load-bearing because the title, abstract, and conclusion use angstrom-level tunability as a core differentiator.

major comments (3)
  1. [Narrow-bandwidth and angstrom-level tunability (Fig. 2d-e, Extended Data Fig. 3, Methods)] The claim of 'angstrom-level precision' with an average shift of 0.8 angstrom per 50 mV is not supported by the data as presented. The paper does not state the spectrometer resolution, grating, slit width, or pixel dispersion for either the Andor Ultra 888 USB3–BV or the Ocean Optics QE pro used in the 550-800 nm range, and no peak-fit function, fit uncertainty, or repeated-measurement statistics are given. Typical resolutions for such instruments are 0.5-2 nm, more than an order of magnitude larger than the 0.08 nm shifts reported. The authors themselves note that 'the maximum precision of the MEMS-QEMS may still not have reached, primarily due to the resolution limitation of the spectrometer used in the measurements.' To support the headline claim, the authors should provide a spectrometer calibration (e.g., with a narrow-line source), report the spectral resolution under the exact measurement conditions, provide peak-position uncertainties from the fits, and show repeated measurements of the same voltage step.
  2. [Wavelength-polarization-multiplexed QEMS (Fig. 3d-e, Fig. 4b-e)] The demonstration of polarization-wavelength multiplexing is currently qualitative. The simulation results in Fig. 3b give intensity ratios (1 at 650 nm to 0.004 at 700 nm for M1), but the experimental far-field patterns and spectra do not report quantified extinction ratios or wavelength crosstalk for the integrated device. Statements such as 'LPy is significantly larger than LPx' and 'the emission is dominated by LPx' would be much stronger with measured intensity ratios at the two operating wavelengths and their uncertainties. This is important because 'polarization-resolved control' and 'wavelength-polarization multiplexing' are central claims of the paper.
  3. [Fig. 1c, Supplementary Fig. 2, Supplementary Table 1] The gap distances are estimated by fitting TMM-calculated reflection spectra to measured dips, but no fit uncertainty or independent verification (e.g., interferometric measurement) is reported. Since the TMM model is also used elsewhere to explain why emission peaks follow the cavity resonance, this is not a circularity problem, but the absence of uncertainty on the inferred gap distances weakens the quantitative connection between voltage, gap, and emission wavelength. Please provide at least an estimate of the precision of the TMM-determined gap distances.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Methods - Optical characterization] Please specify the spectrometer resolution and calibration details (grating, slit width, pixel dispersion) for the fluorescence spectra and for the reflection measurements, rather than only naming the instruments.
  2. [Fig. 2e and Extended Data Fig. 3] The fitting function used for the spectral peaks is not described; please state the model (e.g., Lorentzian, Gaussian) and report the fit parameters and uncertainties.
  3. [Fig. 4b-c] The minor peaks near 590 nm and 725 nm are attributed to other cavity modes, but no corresponding simulation or detailed explanation is given; adding a brief supporting figure or comment would improve clarity.
  4. [Fig. 4f and lifetimes] The switching rise/fall times and the lifetime values (19.0 ns and 17.8 ns) are reported without error bars or the number of repeated measurements; please include this information.
  5. [Methods - Numerical simulations] There is a typo in 'far-filed electric fields'; it should read 'far-field electric fields'.
  6. [Main text, Device operation principle] The sentence about the QEMS 'featuring the overall size of 17 µm' would benefit from a clarification of whether this is the diameter; the AFM image scale bar and the stated size are not immediately connected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's central claims are direct experimental measurements, and the TMM model is used only as an interpretive consistency check, not as a fitted predictor relabeled as a discovery.

full rationale

The main claims—spectral narrowing of NV emission to 3.7 nm, voltage-controlled angstrom-scale peak shifts, wavelength-polarization multiplexed emission at 650/700 nm, and sub-millisecond switching—are all supported by direct spectrometer, camera, and APD measurements (Figs. 2b, 2d-e, 3e, 4b-f, and Methods). No fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction. The transfer-matrix model is explicitly introduced only to 'check the performance of the MEMS positioned microcavity and estimate the air gap distances' and to match measured reflection dips; it is not used to generate the emission spectra, which are experimentally recorded. The periods of the multiplexed metasurfaces are chosen from FDTD simulations, but the resulting wavelengths and polarizations are then verified experimentally, so the design is not circular. Self-citations (e.g., refs 17-21, 33-35) point to established QEMS fabrication and MEMS-metasurface methods, and the present paper reproduces those functionalities with its own measurements, making the citations corroborative rather than load-bearing. The admitted spectrometer resolution limitation affects the confidence in the exact sub-angstrom step size, but this is a measurement-precision concern, not a circular derivation. No step reduces to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new fundamental entities. Its central results rest on standard electrodynamic modeling (FDTD/TMM) and on engineering parameters such as grating periods and layer thicknesses chosen to meet design targets. The heaviest unverified burden is that measured peak shifts are interpreted as real angstrom-scale cavity changes without a stated spectrometer resolution or error bars.

free parameters (2)
  • Bullseye grating period = 550 nm
    Chosen to target about 670 nm emission from the NV-ND; an engineering design parameter from FDTD, not a constant derived by the paper.
  • Multiplexed metasurface periods P1 and P2 = P1=560 nm, P2=655 nm
    Set to target 650 nm and 700 nm and deliberately detuned from theoretical values to increase spatial separation of polarization channels (main text, Fig. 3a). They are hand-picked design parameters, not fitted to data used in a prediction.
assumptions (3)
  • standard math Maxwell's equations and the FDTD/TMM models accurately describe the nanophotonic structures and cavity.
    Used throughout for metasurface design and cavity gap estimation; standard physics, assumed valid.
  • domain assumption The NV centers are modeled as a z-oriented electric dipole when excited by a radially polarized 532 nm laser.
    Methods section states the dipole is placed 50 nm above a SiO2 spacer; this is a standard model but a simplification of the actual emitter orientation distribution in nanodiamonds.
  • domain assumption The observed emission peak follows the FP cavity resonance, with the gap distance inferred from TMM reflection fits.
    The paper interprets emission peaks as cavity-resonance-tuned; if the TMM model or gap estimate were wrong, the tuning mechanism would be misassigned. The direct voltage-wavelength correlation still holds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integrated angstrom-tunable polarization-resolved solid-state photon sources." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DXWD7VSI

@misc{pith2026250521202,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integrated angstrom-tunable polarization-resolved solid-state photon sources},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DXWD7VSI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21202}
}
read the original abstract

The development of high-quality solid-state photon sources is essential to nano optics, quantum photonics, and related fields. A key objective of this research area is to develop tunable photon sources that not only enhance the performance but also offer dynamic functionalities. However, the realization of compact and robust photon sources with precise and wide range tunability remains a long-standing challenge. Moreover, the lack of an effective approach to integrate nanoscale photon sources with dynamic systems has hindered tunability beyond mere spectral adjustments, such as simultaneous polarization control. Here we propose a platform based on quantum emitter (QE) embedded metasurfaces (QEMS) integrated with a microelectromechanical system (MEMS)-positioned microcavity, enabling on-chip multi-degree control of solid-state photon sources. Taking advantages of MEMS-QEMS, we show that typically broadband room-temperature emission from nanodiamonds containing nitrogen-vacancy centres can be narrowed to 3.7 nm and dynamically tuned with angstrom resolution. Furthermore, we design a wavelength-polarization-multiplexed QEMS and demonstrate polarization-resolved control of the MEMS-QEMS emission in a wide wavelength range (650 nm to 700 nm) along with polarization switching at sub-millisecond timescales. We believe that the proposed MEMS-QEMS platform can be adapted for most existing QEs, significantly expanding their room-temperature capabilities and thereby enhancing their potential for advanced photonic applications.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Toth, M

    Aharonovich, I., Englund, D. & Toth, M. Solid-state single-photon emitters. Nat. Photonics 10, 631–641 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Li, Z. et al. Atomic optical antennas in solids. Nat. Photonics 18,1113–1120 (2024)

    work page 2024

  3. [3]

    & Thompson, M

    Wang, J., Sciarrino, F., Laing, A. & Thompson, M. G. Integrated photonic quantum technologies. Nat. Photonics 14, 273–284 (2020)

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Sun, S., Kim, H., Luo, Z., Solomon, G. S. & Waks, E. A single-photon switch and transistor enabled by a solid-state quantum memory. Science 361, 57–60 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Utzat, H. et al. Coherent single-photon emission from colloidal lead halide perovskite quantum dots. Science 363, 1068–1072 (2019)

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    & Wrachtrup, J

    Jelezko, F. & Wrachtrup, J. Single defect centres in diamond: A review. Physica Status Solidi (a) 203, 3207–3225 (2006)

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Ates, S. et al. Non-resonant dot–cavity coupling and its potential for resonant single-quantum-dot spectroscopy. Nat. Photonics 3, 724–728 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Liu, S. et al. Super-resolved snapshot hyperspectral imaging of solid-state quantum emitters for high-throughput integrated quantum technologies. Nat. Photonics 18, 967–974 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    Ma, J. et al. Engineering quantum light sources with flat optics. Adv. Mater. 36, 2313589 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    & Bozhevolnyi, S

    Kan, Y . & Bozhevolnyi, S. I. Advances in metaphotonics empowered single photon emission. Adv. Opt. Mater. 11, 2202759 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    Koenderink, A. F. Single-photon nanoantennas. ACS Photonics 4, 710–722 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Chen, B. et al. Bright solid-state sources for single photons with orbital angular momentum. Nat. Nanotechnol. 16, 302–307 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Javadi, A. et al. Spin–photon interface and spin-controlled photon switching in a nanobeam waveguide. Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 398–403 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Akselrod, G. M. et al. Probing the mechanisms of large Purcell enhancement in plasmonic nanoantennas. Nat. Photonics 8, 835–840 (2014)

    2014

  7. [15]

    picocavities

    Benz, F. et al. Single-molecule optomechanics in “picocavities.” Science 354, 726–729 (2016)

    2016

  8. [16]

    Bogdanov, S. I. et al. Ultrabright room-temperature sub-nanosecond emission from single nitrogen- vacancy centers coupled to nanopatch antennas. Nano Lett. 18, 4837–4844 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Kan, Y . et al. Metasurface‐enabled generation of circularly polarized single photons. Adv. Mater. 32, 1907832 (2020). 16

    2020

  10. [18]

    Liu, X. et al. On-chip generation of single-photon circularly polarized single-mode vortex beams. Sci. Adv. 9, eadh0725 (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    & Bozhevolnyi, S

    Komisar, D., Kumar, S., Kan, Y ., Wu, C. & Bozhevolnyi, S. I. Generation of radially polarized single photons with plasmonic bullseye antennas. ACS Photonics 8, 2190–2196 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Liu, X. et al. Ultracompact single‐photon sources of linearly polarized vortex beams. Adv. Mater. 36, 2304495 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Liu, X. et al. Off-normal polarized single-photon emission with anisotropic holography metasurfaces. Nano Lett. 24, 13867–13873 (2024)

    2024

  14. [22]

    Ha, S. T. et al. Optoelectronic metadevices. Science 386, eadm7442 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    & Dennis, M

    Forbes, A., De Oliveira, M. & Dennis, M. R. Structured light. Nat. Photonics 15, 253–262 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    & Forbes, A

    Nape, I., Sephton, B., Ornelas, P., Moodley, C. & Forbes, A. Quantum structured light in high dimensions. APL Photon. 8, 051101 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Nowak, A. K. et al. Deterministic and electrically tunable bright single-photon source. Nat. Commun. 5, 3240 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    Larocque, H. et al. Tunable quantum emitters on large-scale foundry silicon photonics. Nat. Commun. 15, 5781 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    & Becher, C

    Albrecht, R., Bommer, A., Deutsch, C., Reichel, J. & Becher, C. Coupling of a single nitrogen- vacancy center in diamond to a fiber-based microcavity. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 243602 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Casabone, B. et al. Dynamic control of Purcell enhanced emission of erbium ions in nanoparticles. Nat. Commun. 12, 3570 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Xia, K. et al. Tunable microcavities coupled to rare-earth quantum emitters. Optica 9, 445–450 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Yang, J. et al. Tunable quantum dots in monolithic Fabry-Perot microcavities for high-performance single-photon sources. Light Sci. Appl. 13, 33 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Tomm, N. et al. A bright and fast source of coherent single photons. Nat. Nanotechnol. 16, 399–403 (2021)

    2021

  24. [32]

    Ding, X. et al. High-efficiency single-photon source above the loss-tolerant threshold for efficient linear optical quantum computing. Nat. Photonics 19, 387–391 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    Meng, C. et al. Dynamic piezoelectric MEMS-based optical metasurfaces. Sci. Adv. 7, eabg5639 (2021). 17

    2021

  26. [34]

    C., Ding, F

    Meng, C., Thrane, P. C., Ding, F. & Bozhevolnyi, S. I. Full-range birefringence control with piezoelectric MEMS-based metasurfaces. Nat. Commun. 13, 2071 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    & Bozhevolnyi, S

    Ding, F., Meng, C. & Bozhevolnyi, S. I. Electrically tunable optical metasurfaces. Photonics Insights 3, R07–R07 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    Andersen, S. K. H. et al. Hybrid Plasmonic Bullseye Antennas for Efficient Photon Collection. ACS Photonics 5, 692–698 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Bakke, T. et al. A novel ultra-planar, long-stroke and low-voltage piezoelectric micromirror. J. Micromech. Microeng. 20, 064010 (2010)

    2010

  30. [38]

    Kan, Y . et al. High-dimensional spin-orbital single-photon sources. Sci. Adv. 10, eadq6298 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Tang, H. et al. On-chip multi-degree-of-freedom control of two-dimensional materials. Nature 632, 1038–1044 (2024)

    2024

  32. [40]

    & Thorstensen, J

    Dahl-Hansen, R., Gjessing, J., Mardilovich, P., Fragkiadakis, C. & Thorstensen, J. Reliable Pb (Zr, Ti) O3-based thin film piezoelectric micromirrors for space-applications. Appl. Phys. Lett. 121, 132901 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    & Bozhevolnyi, S

    Kan, Y ., Liu, X., Kumar, S. & Bozhevolnyi, S. I. Multichannel quantum emission with on-chip emitter-coupled holographic metasurfaces. ACS Nano 17, 20308–20314 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Chen, O. et al. Compact high-quality CdSe–CdS core–shell nanocrystals with narrow emission linewidths and suppressed blinking. Nat. Mater. 12, 445–451 (2013)

    2013

  35. [43]

    Iwasaki, T. et al. Tin-vacancy quantum emitters in diamond. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 253601 (2017)

    2017

  36. [44]

    Jantzen, U. et al. Nanodiamonds carrying silicon-vacancy quantum emitters with almost lifetime- limited linewidths. New J. Phys. 18, 073036 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    Asbahi, M. et al. Large area directed self-assembly of sub-10 nm particles with single particle positioning resolution. Nano Lett. 15, 6066–6070 (2015)

    2015

  38. [46]

    Pambudi, M. T. et al. Deterministic positioning of few aqueous colloidal quantum dots. Nanoscale 16, 18339–18347 (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    C., Wang, C., Ding, F

    Meng, C., Thrane, P. C., Wang, C., Ding, F. & Bozhevolnyi, S. I. MEMS-tunable topological bilayer metasurfaces for reconfigurable dual-state phase control. Optica 11, 1556–1566 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    G., De Oliveira Lima, K., Ferrier, A

    Bartholomew, J. G., De Oliveira Lima, K., Ferrier, A. & Goldner, P. Optical line width broadening mechanisms at the 10 kHz level in Eu3+: Y2 O3 nanoparticles. Nano Lett. 17, 778–787 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    & Zeilinger, A

    Erhard, M., Krenn, M. & Zeilinger, A. Advances in high-dimensional quantum entanglement. Nat. Rev. Phys. 2, 365–381 (2020). 18

    2020

  42. [50]

    Lukin, D. M. et al. Spectrally reconfigurable quantum emitters enabled by optimized fast modulation. Npj Quantum Inf. 6, 80 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Pirandola, S. et al. Advances in quantum cryptography. Adv. Opt. Photonics 12, 1012–1236 (2020). 19 Methods Numerical simulations Three-dimensional (3D) numerical simulations of quantum emitter (QE) embedded metasurfaces (QEMS) were conducted using the finite-difference time-d...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.