Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 67 references

Correlated emission of electron-current waves

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 Correlated emission into a two-dimensional electron gas is governed by two length scales: subradiance needs emitter spacing below the Fermi wavelength, while coherent superradiance works up to roughly a micron for typical nitrogen-vacancy…

desk verdict Novel and mostly sound theory of correlated emission into a Fermi gas, but a factor-of-two error in the coherent-state superradiance rate needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24052 v1 pith:WH5BAQO7 submitted 2025-05-29 quant-ph cond-mat.dis-nn

Shane P. Kelly , Eric Kleinherbers , Yanyan Zhu , Yaroslav Tserkovnyak This is my paper
classification quant-phcond-mat.dis-nn
keywords correlatedemissionsuperradiancesubradiancenitrogen-vacancycenterstwo-dimensionalelectrongasmagneticnoisetransversecurrentfluctuationsquantumdissipation
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 asks when an ensemble of spin qubits, such as nitrogen-vacancy centers sitting above a metal film, emit energy cooperatively into the surrounding conduction-electron gas rather than independently. Electrons differ from photons because a fixed emitter frequency can deposit energy into electron-hole pairs over a continuum of wave vectors, so the noise spectrum has two natural length scales: the Fermi wavelength $\lambda_F$ and the longer scale $v_F/\Delta$ set by the emitter splitting $\Delta$ and the Fermi velocity $v_F$. The authors find that subradiance requires emitters to be spaced closer than $\lambda_F$, whereas superradiance, for emitters initialized with phase coherence, persists up to a spacing of roughly $\sqrt{\lambda_F v_F/\Delta}$, about a micron for typical nitrogen-vacancy parameters. They further show that the energy leaving the spins takes the form of a two-armed spiral of transverse electron current moving at the Fermi velocity. If the picture is right, a two-dimensional conductor becomes a controllable dissipative environment for collective quantum behavior, with possible use in entangling spin qubits.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the decay-rate matrix $\gamma_{nm} = \gamma(r_n - r_m)$, whose off-diagonal entries determine whether the ensemble decay is cooperative, together with its Fourier source, the magnetic-field noise spectrum $C^{-+}(\omega, q)$. For a Fermi gas the noise is supported on the particle-hole continuum $q \in (\omega/v_F, 2k_F)$, and the relevant coupling is the magnetostatic matrix element for transverse current fluctuations, $V_{k,k+q}(0) = (\hat{q}+i\hat{d})(2\pi e\hbar/cm)e^{-qd}(\hat{q}_\perp \cdot k)$. This element makes the noise spectrum approximately $\propto 1/q$ in the continuum, which produces the constant, then $1/r$, then oscillatory behavior of $\gamma(r)$. The superradiance length $\lambda'_{SR} = \sqrt{\lambda_F v_F/\Delta}$ comes from integrating that $1/r$ tail; the spiral current follows from the transverse-current response function, whose paramagnetic part has a traveling-wave factor $e^{i\omega \rho/v_F}$ and whose radial and azimuthal components fall off as $\rho^{-3}$ and $\rho^{-2}$, giving ballistic propagation at $v_F$.

What would settle it

Measure the nonlocal decay rate $\gamma(r)$ between two color centers at known separation and height above a two-dimensional conductor: if $\gamma(r)$ does not stay near the local rate for $r<\lambda_F$ and then decay as $1/r$ out to $v_F/\Delta$, the length-scale picture fails. A more direct check initializes both centers in a coherent superposition with spacing $\lambda_F < a < \sqrt{\lambda_F v_F/\Delta}$ and looks for a total decay rate exceeding the independent rate; no enhancement would refute the superradiance claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that collective emission into a metallic electron gas is set by two length scales rather than one. In the Markovian weak-coupling limit, the ensemble is described by a Lindblad equation whose off-diagonal rates $\gamma_{nm}$ are fixed by the magnetic-field noise spectrum $C^{-+}(\Delta, q)$, and for a two-dimensional non-interacting Fermi gas this spectrum is nonzero for wave vectors $q \in (\Delta/v_F, 2k_F)$ and, for transverse current fluctuations, decays as $1/q$. Transforming that spectrum to real space gives a decay-rate matrix $\gamma(r)$ that stays nearly constant for $r \lesssim \lambda_F$, decays as $1/r$ for $\lambda_F \lesssim r \lesssim v_F/\Delta$, and oscillates beyond $v_F/\Delta$. Subradiance follows from the constant region: two emitters closer than $\lambda_F$ form a dark singlet. Superradiance splits into two cases. For fully excited, incoherent emitters, the early-time acceleration of the decay is positive only when the density exceeds $\lambda_{SR}^{-2} \approx \lambda_F^{-2}/\ln(4E_F/\hbar\Delta)$; for emitters initialized in a coherent superposition, the $1/r$ tail of $\gamma(r)$ accumulates over the whole region up to $v_F/\Delta$, so enhancement survives up to a mean spacing $\lambda'_{SR} = \sqrt{\lambda_F v_F/\Delta}$, evaluated at height $d = 0$. Finally, the paper claims that the emitted energy is carried by a transverse-current wave with a two-armed spiral shape, whose radial periodicity is $v_F/\Delta$ and whose packet width is set by the collective decay time.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions assume a clean, non-interacting two-dimensional electron gas whose magnetic noise comes only from transverse current fluctuations, with the superradiance result evaluated at emitters sitting at height $d = 0$; if disorder, longitudinal currents, or electron-electron interactions change the noise spectrum, the quoted length scales shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Two nitrogen-vacancy centers separated by less than the Fermi wavelength should form a nearly dark state, with collective decay suppressed below the single-emitter rate.
  • Coherently initialized ensembles should superradiate at mean spacings up to $\lambda'_{SR} = \sqrt{\lambda_F v_F/\Delta}$, roughly $1\,\mu$m for $\Delta \approx 1$ GHz, with an enhanced total rate scaling as $n\lambda'^2_{SR}$ times the single-emitter rate.
  • The decay energy is carried away by transverse electron-current waves with a two-armed spiral structure; the spiral's radial period $v_F/\Delta$ is a direct fingerprint of the emitter frequency.
  • In dirty conductors with mean free path $l < v_F/\Delta$, the superradiance condition likely tightens to spacings below $l$ rather than below $\lambda'_{SR}$.
  • At densities above $\min(\lambda_F^{-2}, d^{-2})$ subradiant states become typical; below that they still exist but are rare and localized on pairs closer than $\lambda_F$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Fermi surface is anisotropic, the noise cutoff $2k_F$ depends on the direction of $q$, so the thresholds for subradiance and superradiance should become direction-dependent; this could make correlated-decay rates a directional probe of Fermi-surface shape.
  • In a strongly interacting Fermi liquid, a transverse-current zero-sound mode would add a bosonic peak to the noise spectrum and might create a second superradiant channel with its own, likely longer, length scale; this is a testable Fermi-liquid calculation.
  • Because the paper shows that $\partial_t R>0$ is sufficient but not necessary for a superradiant burst, exact small-$N$ Lindblad simulations could decide whether incoherent fully excited ensembles also superradiate at intermediate times at densities below $\lambda_{SR}^{-2}/\pi$.
  • The predicted spiral current wave could be looked for with scanning nitrogen-vacancy magnetometry above a two-dimensional conductor, provided the micron-scale periodicity can be resolved in time.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies collective dissipative emission from an ensemble of color-center qubits (modeled as magnetic dipoles) coupled to the magnetic-field noise of a two-dimensional electron gas. The central results are two characteristic length scales: subradiance requires emitter separations below the Fermi wavelength (or below the height d when d > λ_F), while superradiance for coherently initialized emitters requires separations below sqrt(λ_F v_F / Δ), with v_F the Fermi velocity and Δ the emitter frequency. The authors derive a Lindblad master equation with spatially nonlocal decay rates obtained from the equilibrium transverse-current noise spectrum, compute the rates for a magnetostatic coupling model, verify the spectrum numerically (Fig. 2), and analyze the initial-time superradiance indicators for both fully-excited and coherent-superposition initial states. They also compute the transient electron-current response to the decaying macrospin and predict a two-arm spiral current pattern.

Significance. If the quantitative statements are corrected, this is a worthwhile and novel extension of Dicke physics to fermionic baths. The paper is self-contained: the length scales emerge from Fermi-surface properties and the magnetostatic coupling matrix, with no fitted parameters, and the analytic noise approximations are checked numerically. The emitted-current spiral is a distinctive, in-principle falsifiable prediction. The authors also explicitly flag the main physical caveats (disorder, Fermi-liquid effects, zero-sound modes, and temperature), which strengthens the presentation. The main weaknesses are two algebraic errors in the superradiance section that affect displayed equations and quantitative thresholds; the qualitative length-scale claims survive these corrections.

major comments (2)
  1. [SM Eq. (29) and main-text Eq. (8)] The coherent-state superradiance rate contains a factor-of-two error. For the product state (|+> + |->)/sqrt(2), direct evaluation of the adjoint master equation gives R = N γ0/2 + (1/4) Σ_{n≠m} γ_nm. This is consistent with SM Eq. (28), since |ψ_+ ψ_-|^2 = 1/4, but SM Eq. (29) and the main-text Eq. (8) replace the 1/4 coefficient with 1/2. For N=2 the exact result is R = γ0 + γ_a/2, not γ0 + γ_a. Consequently Eq. (8) and the estimates following it (for example R ≈ N n γ0√A λ_F/2) overestimate the collective contribution by a factor of two. The length scale sqrt(λ_F v_F/Δ) survives, but the quantitative predictions and the abstract's 'requires' phrasing need to be corrected.
  2. [Main text, after Eq. (7)] The stated value λ_SR^2 ≈ λ_F^2 ln(4E_F/ℏΔ) does not follow from Eq. (7). Substituting C(Δ,q) = a/q for q ∈ (Δ/v_F, 2k_F) into Eq. (7) yields πλ_SR^2 = π ln(4E_F/ℏΔ)/(2k_F^2), i.e. λ_SR^2 = ln(4E_F/ℏΔ)/(2k_F^2). With the paper's convention λ_F ≈ 2/k_F this is λ_SR^2 ≈ (λ_F^2/8) ln(4E_F/ℏΔ), a factor of 8 smaller than the published expression (and a factor 8π^2 smaller if one uses λ_F = 2π/k_F). The same algebra applied to the top-hat model reproduces the SM result λ_SR^2 = 4q_max^{-2}, so the discrepancy is specific to the 1/q spectrum. This changes the density threshold for fully-excited superradiance by the same factor and weakens the claimed contrast with the subradiance threshold n >~ λ_F^{-2}.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and title page] There are several typographical errors: the abstract begins 'Correlated emission of light offer' (should be 'offers'), the author line contains 'Tserko vnyak', and the Fig. 3 caption has 'A video showing the evolution be found' (missing 'can').
  2. [Main text, Eq. (8)] The symbol γ0 is used in Eq. (8) before it is defined in the main text; define γ0 = γ(r=0) explicitly at first use.
  3. [Superradiance section] The sentence 'so long as λ_F < √A < v_F/Δ' uses √A as a length, although A is introduced as an area; clarify that √A is the radius of the region.
  4. [Abstract and superradiance discussion] The word 'requires' overstates the status of the condition a < sqrt(λ_F v_F/Δ), because the paper itself notes that ∂tR(t=0)>0 is sufficient but not known to be necessary for a superradiant burst; rephrase to distinguish the sufficient condition from the open question about intermediate-time dynamics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: superradiance and subradiance length scales emerge from derived Fermi-surface kinematics, with no fitted parameters and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived self-containedly. The Lindblad master equation (2) is the standard weak-coupling starting point; the nonlocal decay rates are then obtained from the magnetic-field noise spectrum C(ω,q), which is computed from the two-particle Fermi-gas kinematics in Eq. (16) and the SM. The subradiance condition a < λ_F follows from the computed spatial dependence of γ(r), which is constant for r < λ_F and decays as 1/r beyond it. The superradiance condition a < sqrt(λ_F v_F/Δ) follows by inserting the derived γ(r) ∝ 1/r behavior into the disorder-averaged rate Eq. (8), giving R ≈ N n γ0 sqrt(A λ_F)/2, and the length scale emerges from the phase-space bounds (Δ/v_F, 2k_F). No parameter is fitted to the predicted quantity: γ0 is used only for normalization and order-of-magnitude estimates, and the quoted experimental rates are contextual, not inputs to the derivation. The self-citations (e.g., Refs. [30,32]) provide the magnetostatic coupling matrix element and noise formalism, which are stated assumptions or prior derivations rather than the target result; they do not smuggle in subradiance or superradiance. A possible factor-of-two concern in the coherent-state superradiance rate is a quantitative correctness issue, not a circularity, and it does not change the derived length scale. The derivation is therefore self-contained against the paper's own equations, and no circular step can be exhibited.

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

The predictions are derived from a microscopic model with standard approximations. No numbers are fitted to data; the constants used in figures (v_F, E_F, m, γ_e) are material parameters, not fitting parameters. The key approximations are listed as axioms above. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Markovian weak-coupling (Born-Markov) approximation leading to the Lindblad master equation Eq. (2) with time-independent rates γ_nm from the equilibrium noise at the qubit frequency Δ.
    Invoked in main text after Eq. (1); underlies the whole dissipative dynamics.
  • domain assumption Zero temperature, neglect of excitation processes, dephasing, and coherent mediated interactions.
    Stated after Eq. (1); needed to isolate decay from other processes. Temperature effects are discussed qualitatively in the Discussion.
  • domain assumption The environment is a non-interacting 2D electron gas with quadratic dispersion and isotropic Fermi surface; Fermi-liquid corrections are neglected.
    Used throughout for the noise spectrum, Eq. (16), and current response. The Discussion mentions Fermi-liquid effects only preliminary.
  • domain assumption Magnetic-field noise is dominated by transverse current fluctuations; longitudinal currents are suppressed by Coulomb interaction and occupy negligible phase space.
    Invoked in 'Oersted coupling to 2D current fluctuations' (main text and SM Sec. I.C). This selects the coupling matrix element Eq. (5).
  • domain assumption The NV center triplet is projected onto a two-level system with specific gyromagnetic replacements (γ_e -> γ_NV for dephasing, sqrt(2) γ_NV for decay), and dipoles are aligned perpendicular to the plane (ẑ = d̂).
    SM Sec. I.A; the anisotropy factor F_nm = 1 for this orientation, simplifying the noise integral.
  • domain assumption For superradiance, emitters are assumed to be in a homogeneous random distribution with pair correlation g(r) ≈ 1 (low density), and the limit d = 0 is taken for the coherent-state result.
    Main text around Eqs. (6)-(8) and SM Sec. III.B; the superradiance length scale λ'_SR = sqrt(λ_F v_F/Δ) is derived under these conditions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Correlated emission of electron-current waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WH5BAQO7

@misc{pith2026250524052,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Correlated emission of electron-current waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WH5BAQO7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24052}
}
abstract

Correlated emission of light offer a potential avenue for entanglement generation between atomic spins, with potential application for sensing and quantum memory. In this work, we investigate the conditions for the correlated emission by color centers into an electronic bath of conduction electrons. Unlike emission into bosonic modes, electrons can absorb energy via two-particle processes across a large range of length scales. We find that two length scales are particularly relevant: one set by the Fermi velocity and the frequency of the color centers $v_F/\Delta$, and the other set by the Fermi wavelength $\lambda_F \ll v_F/\Delta$. Subradiance requires emitters to be spaced at a distance closer than the Fermi wavelength, while superradiance requires spacing less than $\sqrt{\lambda_F v_F/\Delta}$, so long as the emitters are initialized with coherence. We show that the emitted current burst has a spiral form, and we discuss the experimental possibility to observe correlated dissipation by color-center qubits coupled to electronic environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24052 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic representation of the correlated emis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) Magnetic-field spectral density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Dynamics of the macrospin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Statistics of single-excitation decay rates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Superradiance of electron current wave (blue and red) throug [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    and is characterized by two length scales: the Fermi wavelength λF and a length vF /∆ depending on the frequency of the emitter ∆ and the Fermi velocity vF . The main result of this work is the emitter spacing at which subradiance and superradiance will occur due to a two-dimensional electron gas: Subradiance requires emit- ters to be spaced closer than t...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    The smallest wave vector has magnitude ω/vF

    The largest possible wave vector q, for small ¯hω, has magnitude 2 kF and is due to an electron scatter- ing between antipodal points on the Fermi surface [ 27]. The smallest wave vector has magnitude ω/vF . We now consider a random distribution of dipoles with mean spacing a, at a fixed height d above a two- dimensional conductor. This configuration is cha...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Thus, a superradiant acceleration, ∂tR > 0, requires that the density of dipoles is larger than n > λ −2 SR/π ≈ λ−2 F / ln(4EF /¯h∆)π

    In this case, the superradiance length is given by λ2 SR ≈ λ2 F ln(4EF /¯h∆), where we have as- sumed λF ≪ vF /∆. Thus, a superradiant acceleration, ∂tR > 0, requires that the density of dipoles is larger than n > λ −2 SR/π ≈ λ−2 F / ln(4EF /¯h∆)π. In comparison to subradiance, which requires dipole densities n > ∼ λ−2 F , superradiant acceleration occurs...

    work page

  4. [4]

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

    1954

  5. [5]

    Skribanowitz, I

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

    work page 1973

  6. [6]

    Gross, P

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

    work page 1979

  7. [7]

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

    2016

  8. [8]

    Scheibner, T

    M. Scheibner, T. Schmidt, L. Worschech, A. Forchel, G. Bacher, T. Passow, and D. Hommel, Superradiance of quantum dots, Nature Physics 3, 106 (2007)

    2007

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Liedl, F

    C. Liedl, F. Tebbenjohanns, C. Bach, S. Pucher, A. Rauschenbeutel, and P. Schneeweiss, Observation of superradiant bursts in a cascaded quantum system, Phys. Rev. X 14, 011020 (2024) . 6

    2024

  2. [10]

    Solano, P

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

    2017

  3. [11]

    Bradac, M

    C. Bradac, M. T. Johnsson, M. van Breugel, B. Q. Bara- giola, R. Martin, M. L. Juan, G. K. Brennen, and T. Volz, Room-temperature spontaneous superradiance from sin- gle diamond nanocrystals, Nature Communications 8, 1205 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Angerer, K

    A. Angerer, K. Streltsov, T. Astner, S. Putz, H. Sumiya, S. Onoda, J. Isoya, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, J. Schmied- mayer, and J. Majer, Superradiant emission from colour centres in diamond, Nature Physics 14, 1168 (2018)

    2018

  5. [13]

    Q. Wu, Y. Zhang, X. Yang, S.-L. Su, C. Shan, and K. Mølmer, A superradiant maser with nitrogen-vacancy center spins, Science China Physics, Mechanics & As- tronomy 65, 217311 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Lemberger and D

    B. Lemberger and D. D. Yavuz, Effect of correlated decay on fault-tolerant quantum computation, Phys. Rev. A 96, 062337 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    J. Zou, S. Zhang, and Y. Tserkovnyak, Bell-state gen- eration for spin qubits via dissipative coupling, Physical Review B 106, L180406 (2022)

    2022

  8. [16]

    selective radiance

    A. Asenjo-Garcia, M. Moreno-Cardoner, A. Albrecht, H. J. Kimble, and D. E. Chang, Exponential improve- ment in photon storage fidelities using subradiance and “selective radiance” in atomic arrays, Phys. Rev. X 7, 031024 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    D. E. Chang, J. S. Douglas, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, C.-L. Hung, and H. J. Kimble, Colloquium: Quantum matter built from nanoscopic lattices of atoms and photons, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 031002 (2018)

    2018

  10. [19]

    Kolkowitz, A

    S. Kolkowitz, A. Safira, A. A. High, R. C. Devlin, S. Choi, Q. P. Unterreithmeier, D. Patterson, A. S. Zibrov, V. E. Manucharyan, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Probing John- son noise and ballistic transport in normal metals with a single-spin qubit, Science 347, 1129 (2015)

    2015

  11. [20]

    Ariyaratne, D

    A. Ariyaratne, D. Bluvstein, B. A. Myers, and A. C. B. Jayich, Nanoscale electrical conductivity imaging using a nitrogen-vacancy center in diamond, Nature Communi- cations 9, 2406 (2018)

    2018

  12. [21]

    J. M. Taylor, P. Cappellaro, L. Childress, L. Jiang, D. Budker, P. R. Hemmer, A. Yacoby, R. Walsworth, and M. D. Lukin, High-sensitivity diamond magnetometer with nanoscale resolution, Nature Physics 4, 810 (2008)

    2008

  13. [22]

    Lee-Wong, R

    E. Lee-Wong, R. Xue, F. Ye, A. Kreisel, T. van der Sar, A. Yacoby, and C. R. Du, Nanoscale Detection of Magnon Excitations with Variable Wavevectors Through a Quan- tum Spin Sensor, Nano Lett. 20, 3284 (2020)

    2020

  14. [23]

    Tetienne, N

    J.-P. Tetienne, N. Dontschuk, D. A. Broadway, A. Stacey, D. A. Simpson, and L. C. L. Hollenberg, Quantum imag- ing of current flow in graphene, Science Advances 3, e1602429 (2017)

    2017

  15. [24]

    S. Li, M. Huang, H. Lu, N. J. McLaughlin, Y. Xiao, J. Zhou, E. E. Fullerton, H. Chen, H. Wang, and C. R. Du, Nanoscale Magnetic Domains in Polycrys- talline Mn3Sn Films Imaged by a Scanning Single-Spin Magnetometer, Nano Lett. 23, 5326 (2023)

    2023

  16. [25]

    M. A. Ruderman and C. Kittel, Indirect exchange cou- pling of nuclear magnetic moments by conduction elec- trons, Phys. Rev. 96, 99 (1954)

    1954

  17. [26]

    Kasuya, A theory of metallic ferro- and antiferromag- netism on zener’s model, Progress of Theoretical Physics 16, 45 (1956)

    T. Kasuya, A theory of metallic ferro- and antiferromag- netism on zener’s model, Progress of Theoretical Physics 16, 45 (1956)

    1956

  18. [27]

    Yosida, Magnetic properties of cu-mn alloys, Phys

    K. Yosida, Magnetic properties of cu-mn alloys, Phys. Rev. 106, 893 (1957)

    1957

  19. [28]

    Binder and A

    K. Binder and A. P. Young, Spin glasses: Experimen- tal facts, theoretical concepts, and open questions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 58, 801 (1986)

    1986

  20. [29]

    Jelezko, T

    F. Jelezko, T. Gaebel, I. Popa, M. Domhan, A. Gruber, and J. Wrachtrup, Observation of coherent oscillation of a single nuclear spin and realization of a two-qubit condi- tional quantum gate, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 130501 (2004)

    2004

  21. [30]

    Correlated decay sensitive to kF might then be able to probe the shape of the Fermi surface

    For an anisotropic Fermi surface, the largest wavenum- ber q depends on the orientation of q. Correlated decay sensitive to kF might then be able to probe the shape of the Fermi surface

  22. [31]

    M. W. Doherty, N. B. Manson, P. Delaney, F. Jelezko, J. Wrachtrup, and L. C. Hollenberg, The nitrogen- vacancy colour centre in diamond, Physics Reports 528, 1 (2013)

    2013

  23. [32]

    The NV qubit comprises two levels of an electronic triplet, and the coupling to the magnetic field is generally anisotropic

  24. [33]

    Zhang and Y

    S. Zhang and Y. Tserkovnyak, Flavors of magnetic noise in quantum materials, Phys. Rev. B 106, L081122 (2022)

    2022

  25. [34]

    Chatterjee, P

    S. Chatterjee, P. E. Dolgirev, I. Esterlis, A. A. Zibrov, M. D. Lukin, N. Y. Yao, and E. Demler, Single-spin qubit magnetic spectroscopy of two-dimensional superconduc- tivity, Physical Review Research 4, L012001 (2022)

    2022

  26. [36]

    Supplemental material (2024), see Supplemental Materia l for additional details and data

    2024

  27. [37]

    S. J. Masson, I. Ferrier-Barbut, L. A. Orozco, A. Browaeys, and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Many-body signa- tures of collective decay in atomic chains, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 263601 (2020)

    2020

  28. [38]

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

    2022

  29. [39]

    Silin, Oscillations of a degenerate electron fluid, Zh

    V. Silin, Oscillations of a degenerate electron fluid, Zh. ´Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 35 (1958)

    1958

  30. [40]

    Gor’kov and I

    L. Gor’kov and I. Dzyaloshinskii, Feasibility of zero- sound oscillations in metals, Sov. Phys. JETP 17 (1963). Supplemental material for: Correlated emission of electron-current waves Shane P. Kelly, Eric Kleinherbers, Yanyan Zhu, and Yaroslav Tserko vnyak Department of Physi...

    1963

  31. [41]

    Translation Symmetry 2

  32. [42]

    Oersted coupling to 2D current Fluctuations 3 II

    Rotation Symmetry 3 C. Oersted coupling to 2D current Fluctuations 3 II. Environment Fluctuations 4 A. Magnetic field noise from current fluctuations 4

  33. [43]

    Role of NV Orientation 5

  34. [44]

    Superradiance 5

    Position dependence of non-local decay rates 5 III. Superradiance 5

  35. [45]

    Initial state: |ψ⟩ = |+⟩⊗N 5

  36. [46]

    Comparison to second-order photon-correlation function 6 B

    Initial state: ( ψ+ |+⟩ +ψ− |−⟩)⊗N 6 A. Comparison to second-order photon-correlation function 6 B. Homogeneous distribution 6

  37. [47]

    Acceleration of decay process ∂tR 7

  38. [48]

    Subradiance 8 A

    Decay rate 7 IV. Subradiance 8 A. Homogeneous distribution of spins 8 V. Magnetic moment 9 VI. Current response 9 A. Current-current response 10 B. Dynamic response 11 C. Static response 12 References 12 I. MODEL In the Supplemental Material, we will consider a slightly more g...

  39. [49]

    Translation Symmetry For a homogeneous coupling, the matrix elements satisfy gk(r + δ) = gk(r)eik·δ Vk,k′ (r + δ) = Vk,k′ (r)ei(k′−k)·δ, (6) 3 such that gk(r) = gk(0)eik·r and similarly for the fermion matrix elements. Thus, the magnetic fie lds at wave vector q, B(q) = ∫ V dre...

  40. [50]

    In the case of NVs placed above a conductor, ˆd is the direction perpendicular to the plane of the material

    Rotation Symmetry We now assume the environment is also symmetric around an axis ˆd, which is generically not the orientation of the dipoles ˆzn. In the case of NVs placed above a conductor, ˆd is the direction perpendicular to the plane of the material. If ˆx, ˆy and ˆd form ...

  41. [51]

    As ab ove, we consider the dipoles to point in the direction ˆzn, with ˆxn, ˆyn, ˆzn forming a right-handed basis

    Role of NV Orientation We now determine how the NV orientations affect the relaxation rates. As ab ove, we consider the dipoles to point in the direction ˆzn, with ˆxn, ˆyn, ˆzn forming a right-handed basis. The relaxation rates γnm =γ2 e/4 ∫ dq/(2π)2C −+(ω, q) are then determi...

  42. [52]

    The numerical integration of this equation is shown in Fig

    Position dependence of non-local decay rates In the case ˆzn = ˆd, the integral over the azimuth can be performed and yields γ(r) = ( γe 2 ) 2 ∫ qdq 2π J0 (qr)C −+ (ω,q ), (23) whereJ0(x) is the zeroth Bessel function of the first kind, and r = |rn − rm| is the distance between...

  43. [53]

    For this initial state, collective emission is distinguished at ear ly times by 6 a decay process that accelerates as many-body coherences develop

    Initial state: |ψ⟩ = |+⟩⊗N For an initial state fully polarized P1(0) = 1 in the excited state, the decay rates for independent and coll ective emission are the same R(t = 0) = Nγ 0. For this initial state, collective emission is distinguished at ear ly times by 6 a decay proc...

  44. [54]

    Initial state: (ψ+ |+⟩ +ψ− |−⟩)⊗N For generic decay-rate matrixγnm, the maximum decay occurs after an initial decay in which spins de velop collective coherence. To estimate a lower bound on the maximum decay rate [ 5], we consider the initial decay of a state with N dipoles p...

  45. [55]

    ( 30), and by using of the relation γnm = ∑ νγναν,nα∗ ν,m, to obtain the expression in Eq

    This is proven algebraically by substitution of Oν = ∑ mαν,mσ− m in to Eq. ( 30), and by using of the relation γnm = ∑ νγναν,nα∗ ν,m, to obtain the expression in Eq. ( 26) appearing on the right-hand side of the inequality of ∂tR(t = 0) > 0. In addition, we used the relation ⟨...

  46. [56]

    Acceleration of decay process ∂tR The change in the decay rate ∂tR depends on the two terms in Eq. ( 26). The term − ∑ nγ2 nn = −Nγ 2 0 does not depend on the distribution of dipoles for a homogeneous magnetic-field en vironment. The term, ∑ n̸=m |γnm|2 does, and when treating ...

  47. [57]

    Decay rate Determining the decay rate for the dipoles initialized in a σx eigenstate is more subtle. For a homogeneous environment, we find R ≈ N 2 γ0 + N 2 2A ∫ d2rg(r)γ(r), (35) where g(r) is again the pair-correlation function, and the approximation becomes be tter in the la...

  48. [58]

    qA2cdC44rlQz3PyxeeoSI+GXJDo=

    0 ⟨γmin⟩/γ 0 n(γk < 0. 1γ0) FIG. 1. Statistics of single-excitation decay rates γk (eigenvalues of the decay-rate matrix γnm). The figure shows both ⟨γmin⟩/γ0, the smallest decay rate in the system averaged over disorder rea lizations, and n(γk < 0.1γ0) the proportion of eigenv...

  49. [59]

    ( 20) (originating from current fluctuations) are related to each other via t he fluctuation- dissipation theorem: C −+(ω,q ) = − 8π2 c2 e−2qd ImGR 0 (ω,q ), (57) where we used Eq

    (capturing dissipation) and the magnetic noise C −+ from Eq. ( 20) (originating from current fluctuations) are related to each other via t he fluctuation- dissipation theorem: C −+(ω,q ) = − 8π2 c2 e−2qd ImGR 0 (ω,q ), (57) where we used Eq. ( 12). B. Dynamic response The curren...

  50. [60]

    X. Li, J. Marino, D. E. Chang, and B. Flebus, A solid-state platform for cooperative quantum dynamics driven b y correlated emission (2024), arXiv:2309.08991 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [61]

    Flebus and Y

    B. Flebus and Y. Tserkovnyak, Quantum-impurity relaxometry of magnetization dynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 187204 (2018)

    2018

  52. [62]

    S. P. Kelly and Y. Tserkovnyak, Superconductivity-enhanced magnetic field noise (2024), arXiv:2412.05465 [cond-mat.supr- con]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [63]

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

    1954

  54. [64]

    W.-K. Mok, A. Poddar, E. Sierra, C. C. Rusconi, J. Preskill, an d A. Asenjo-Garcia, Universal scaling laws for correlated decay of many-body quantum systems (2024), arXiv:2406.00722 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [65]

    S. J. Masson and A. Asenjo-Garcia, Universality of dicke sup erradiance in arrays of quantum emitters, Nature Communi- cations 13, 2285 (2022)

    2022

  56. [66]

    Supplemental material (2024), see Supplemental Material for video of current emission

    2024

  57. [67]

    Coleman, Introduction to Many-Body Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    P. Coleman, Introduction to Many-Body Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2015)

    2015

  58. [68]

    For small distance, we need different approximation to capt ure the low frequency response, and the scaling is also not correct in that regime

  59. [69]

    H. B. Singh and K. N. Pathak, Diamagnetic susceptibility of an interacting electron gas, Phys. Rev. B 11, 4246 (1975)

    1975

Pith tools

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