Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 63 references

Coupling a Fabry-P\'erot Cavity to a Single-Mode Optical Fiber Using a Metalens

T0 review · 4 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 A metalens can mode-match a Fabry-Pérot cavity to a single-mode fiber, with a reported 94% relative coupling efficiency before the final gluing step, and transverse misalignment identified as the dominant tolerance constraint.

desk verdict Useful tolerance analysis and a convincing subcomponent mode-matching demonstration, but the 94% headline number excludes metalens losses and the only end-to-end result is 22%, so the conclusion overstates what is shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03626 v1 pith:APLJF5IZ submitted 2025-06-04 physics.optics

Wance Wang , Wenqi Zhu , Amit Agrawal , Joseph W. Britton This is my paper
classification physics.optics
keywords metalensFabry-Pérotcavitysingle-modefibermodematchingGaussianbeammisalignmenttolerancecryogenicassembly1650nm
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 tries to establish that a thin metalens—a flat array of nanopillars that focuses light—can replace bulky refractive optics for coupling a macroscopic Fabry-Pérot cavity's TEM00 mode into a single-mode fiber. The authors derive Gaussian-beam sensitivities showing which mechanical misalignments matter, finding transverse errors (especially displacement of one mirror's center and offset of the metalens) far more punishing than longitudinal errors. They build a monolithic, cryo-compatible assembly at 1650 nm and report 94% relative fiber-coupling efficiency at the alignment step, before the fiber was glued. The result matters because compact in-vacuum fiber coupling could simplify quantum readout and networking setups where vibration and cryogenic drift are persistent problems.

What carries the argument

The mode-matching condition that carries the argument is the imaging of the cavity waist w_c through a thin metalens of focal length f placed at distance d_o from the waist: the lens equation fixes the image position d_s and Eq. (3) fixes the image waist w_s, and ideal coupling is obtained by choosing f and d_h so that d_s = 0 and w_s = w_f. Sensitivity is then quantified by differentiating d_s and w_s with respect to cavity length d, mirror thickness d_t, distance d_h, and focal length f (Eqs. 4–5), and by a ray-transfer matrix expression (Eq. 9) that maps transverse errors ε_x, ε_m, θ_f, and ε_f into an offset ρ and tilt φ at the fiber. Coupling loss is converted into efficiency using two closed-form Gaussian overlap formulas, Eqs. (8) and (10), which turn any computed deviation into a concrete efficiency number.

What would settle it

Measure the wavefront or mode overlap of the metalens-transformed beam directly—for example, by sending the cavity TEM00 mode through the metalens and measuring the fiber-coupled power as a function of deliberate ε_x, then comparing the full curve to Eqs. (9)–(10). If the measured 50%-rolloff displacements deviate substantially from the predicted values (e.g., ε_x ≈ 0.4 µm for the near-concentric geometry), the ideal-thin-lens assumption is falsified; an interferometric test of the metalens phase profile would also reveal whether aberrations are present.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that mode-matching a macroscopic Fabry-Pérot cavity to a single-mode fiber can be done with a metalens alone, by choosing its focal length f and its distance d_h to the fiber tip so that the lens-transformed cavity waist w_s equals the fiber waist w_f at the fiber face. Working through derivatives of the lens equation and a Gaussian overlap integral, the authors show that for a near-concentric cavity the coupling drops to 50% for mirror-center displacement ε_x = 0.4 µm or metalens offset ε_m = 8.5 µm, while longitudinal length errors can be hundreds of micrometers before hurting; for a stable cavity all tolerances are much looser. Experimentally, after aligning fiber angle and offset to compensate metalens placement error, they observed a relative coupling efficiency of 94% (excluding cavity mirror transmission and metalens losses). The final glued assembly dropped to 22% coupling, which they attribute to epoxy shrinkage during curing, so the 94% figure represents the mode-matching capability of the metalens itself rather than the finished monolithic package.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the metalens behaves like a perfect thin lens whose only imperfections are a scalar transmission of 0.92 and a focusing efficiency of 0.612; if the real metalens adds wavefront aberrations, scatter, or phase errors, the 94% relative coupling and the quoted tolerances overstate what can be achieved.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A metalens-based fiber coupler can be made monolithic and cryo-compatible, removing the long free-space beam paths and adjustable refractive optics that dominate vibration sensitivity in current in-vacuum cavity setups.
  • For near-concentric cavities, mirror-center displacement ε_x (sub-micron) is the binding tolerance, while for stable cavities errors of tens of micrometers are tolerable, so assembly difficulty depends strongly on cavity geometry.
  • Fiber angle θ_f and lateral offset ε_f can be tuned to compensate metalens offset ε_m, which is the compensation path that produced the 94% relative coupling.
  • If the gluing step is controlled—for example by active alignment during epoxy cure—the finished monolithic assembly should preserve close to the step-(4) coupling, because the mode matching itself is not the limiting factor.
  • The sensitivity formalism applies to both longitudinal and transverse misalignment sources and provides quantitative 50%-rolloff thresholds that can guide mechanical design of future cavity-fiber assemblies.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the cited metalens literature already reports focusing efficiencies up to 0.90, a metalens coupler of this type could eventually deliver total fiber-coupling efficiencies competitive with or exceeding GRIN-lens fiber cavities, while remaining compatible with macroscopic mirrors.
  • The same tolerance hierarchy—transverse mirror and metalens placement dominating over longitudinal distances—likely carries over to other metasurface-based beam transformers and to free-space-to-fiber interfaces beyond optical cavities.
  • A testable extension is to repeat the assembly with active alignment throughout epoxy cure and then cycle the device to cryogenic temperatures; if coupling stays near 94%, the approach becomes a practical drop-in for ion-trap and neutral-atom cavity QED experiments.
  • The 94% figure excludes metalens transmission and focusing losses, so the paper's own numbers imply a best-case total coupling of roughly 53% before cavity mirror transmission; a fair comparison with existing techniques should use this system-level number.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the coupling of a macroscopic Fabry-Pérot cavity TEM00 mode to a single-mode optical fiber using a metalens. It derives sensitivity expressions for longitudinal and transverse misalignments for two example cavity geometries, using Gaussian-beam overlap formulas from Joyce and DeLoach. The experimental section describes a monolithic assembly at 1650 nm in which a metalens is bonded to a cavity mirror and a fiber is potted in a holder. The authors report a 'relative fiber coupling efficiency of 94%' measured in step (4) before final gluing, excluding cavity mirror transmission and metalens losses, and a final system coupling efficiency of 22% after epoxy curing, which they attribute to epoxy shrinkage.

Significance. The sensitivity analysis provides useful design rules for compact, in-vacuum fiber-coupled cavities, and the use of a metalens directly bonded to a cavity mirror is a plausible construction method. The paper is commendably transparent about the epoxy-curing drop from 94% to 22%, which is an honest engineering limitation. However, the headline 94% is a subcomponent number that excludes the metalens transmission (0.92) and focusing efficiency (0.612); the best possible end-to-end efficiency before gluing is about 53%, and the only measured full-system efficiency is 22%. Thus the central claim of a demonstrated efficient cavity-to-fiber coupling is not supported by the system-level data. The analysis contribution stands, but the experimental claim needs substantial qualification or further measurements.

major comments (4)
  1. [III, step (4)] The 'relative fiber coupling efficiency of 94%' is not operationally defined. The denominator of the ratio is unspecified: is it the power incident on the fiber tip after the metalens, the power before the metalens, or the power in the best possible Gaussian mode after the metalens? Please state the exact definition, give the measured powers at each reference point, and provide an uncertainty estimate. Without this, the number cannot be audited or reproduced.
  2. [IV (Conclusion)] The statement that 'the 94% relative fiber coupling efficiency in step (4) is representative of the excellent performance metameterial optics' is misleading in context. Because this efficiency excludes metalens transmission (0.92) and focusing efficiency (0.612), the metalens alone couples at most about 56% of the incident power into its focused spot; the mode-matching overlap at the fiber is at best ~53% before gluing, and the measured system efficiency is 22%. Please report the end-to-end system efficiency explicitly in the abstract and conclusion, and qualify the 94% as a pure mode-matching overlap rather than a system or metalens efficiency.
  3. [III, step (4)] The step-(4) measurement is performed with the right cavity mirror removed, using an injected beam that was 'separately checked to resemble TEM00' in the intact cavity. The paper does not demonstrate that this free-space beam reproduces the self-consistent cavity mode at the left mirror when the right mirror is present. The contrast ratio >40:1 in step (2) indicates good spatial overlap with the cavity mode, but the mode at the left mirror may differ when the cavity is not actually resonant. Please either measure the coupling with the full cavity in place (e.g., by monitoring the cavity reflection or transmission) or justify in more detail why the injected beam is identical to the cavity mode at the left mirror.
  4. [II, Eq. (9)] The ray-transfer matrix result for ρ and φ as functions of εx, εm, θf, and εf is stated without derivation. Since this equation is central to the transverse sensitivity analysis and to the conclusion that εx ≈ 0.4 µm for the near-concentric cavity, please provide the transfer matrices or a concise derivation so that the result can be verified. Also, clarify how the two independent variables ρ and φ are mapped to the four error parameters in the plotted efficiency curves.
minor comments (4)
  1. [I (Introduction)] The manuscript contains several typographical errors: 'propagagted' in Section II, 'metameterial' in the Conclusion, 'discus' in the Introduction, and 'thru' in Section II. Please proofread.
  2. [II (Geometric Alignment Tolerance)] The notation for the cavity waist wc is used inconsistently with the fiber waist wf; in Eqs. (1) and (3) the symbol wc is used for the cavity waist while in Eqs. (5) the ratio (wf/wc) appears. Please keep notation consistent.
  3. [Bibliography] Several references in the bibliography (e.g., [48]–[63]) are not cited in the text. Please either cite them where relevant or remove them to comply with journal reference guidelines.
  4. [III (Experimental Setup)] The description of the 50% power drop when displacing the right mirror by εx ≈ 100 µm does not include the measurement uncertainty or the exact procedure. Please provide the measured data points (e.g., a short table or a plot) to support the claim that it is 'generally consistent' with Fig. 3(a).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the sensitivity analysis uses external Gaussian-mode overlap theory, and the 94% relative coupling is a measured quantity, not a prediction derived from fitted parameters.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The alignment-tolerance analysis starts from the standard cavity waist formula (Eq. 1), the thin-lens imaging equations (Eqs. 2-3), and the overlap integral for Gaussian modes (Eqs. 6-7), with the coupling-efficiency formulas (Eqs. 8 and 10) taken from an external reference, Joyce and DeLoach (Ref. [43]), not from the authors' own prior work. No parameter is fitted to the reported efficiency and then renamed as a prediction; the sensitivity derivatives (Eqs. 4-5 and 9) are analytic consequences of the stated model. The central experimental number, 94% relative fiber coupling efficiency in step (4), is an explicit measurement, and the paper openly defines its denominator by excluding metalens transmission and focusing losses (footnote 3). The experimental consistency check (displacing the right mirror by epsilon_x approximately 100 micrometers reduced power by about 50%, consistent with Fig. 3(a)) tests the model against data rather than incorporating the data into the model. The only author self-citation in the bibliography (Ref. [61]) is not invoked in the derivation and is not load-bearing. The paper's own admissions that the final glued coupling dropped to 22% due to epoxy shrinkage and that the ideal-thin-lens model may not capture real metalens aberrations are limitations on external validity, not evidence of circular reasoning. The skeptic concern that the 94% is a subcomponent, relative measurement that does not establish an end-to-end efficiency of 53% once transmission and focusing losses are included is a legitimate correctness or extrapolation caveat, but it does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities and fits no parameters to data. Its design equations are standard Gaussian optics; the experimental values, such as transmission, focusing efficiency, and coupling, are measured rather than fitted. The main assumptions are the ideal-thin-lens metalens model and the Gaussian-mode approximation.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Cavity TEM00 mode and fiber mode are ideal normalized Gaussians
    Used in Section II to write the overlap integrals (Eqs. (6)-(8)); assumes no clipping, astigmatism, or higher-order mode content.
  • domain assumption The metalens behaves as an ideal thin lens with focal length f
    Eqs. (2)-(3) use the standard lens equation and waist transformation; the metalens's real wavefront aberrations and phase errors are not modeled, only its scalar transmission and focusing efficiency.
  • standard math Joyce-DeLoach coupling formulas (Ref. [43]) apply to this fiber-cavity geometry
    Eqs. (8) and (10) are taken from Ref. [43] and are used to convert misalignments d_s, w_s, rho, and phi into coupling efficiency.
  • domain assumption Measured metalens transmission and focusing efficiency hold in the assembled system
    Section III quotes T=0.92 and focusing efficiency 0.612 and assumes these values do not degrade after bonding to the mirror.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coupling a Fabry-P\'erot Cavity to a Single-Mode Optical Fiber Using a Metalens." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/APLJF5IZ

@misc{pith2026250603626,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coupling a Fabry-P\'erot Cavity to a Single-Mode Optical Fiber Using a Metalens},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/APLJF5IZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03626}
}
read the original abstract

Efficient coupling of light from an optical cavity to a single-mode fiber is required in a range of quantum technologies. In this work we consider the coupling of a high-finesse macroscopic Fabry-P\'erot (FP) cavity to a single-mode fiber using a metalens. We perform sensitivity analysis with respect to longitudinal and transverse misalignment errors. We then detail a fiber-coupled cavity at 1650 nm using a monolithic cryo-compatible assembly incorporating a metalens.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03626 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Cross section of the optical assembly consisting of a pair [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a-d) Coupling efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a-d) Coupling efficiency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Illustration of the cavity-fiber integration steps. (b) Left photo: gluing fiber in a ferrule to the holder. Right photo: the finished [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Robens, S

    C. Robens, S. Brakhane, W. Alt, F. Kleißler, D. Meschede, G. Moon, G. Ramola, and A. Alberti, Opt. Lett.42, 1043 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Cooper, J

    A. Cooper, J. P. Covey, I. S. Madjarov, S. G. Porsev, M. S. Safronova, and M. Endres, Phys. Rev. X8, 041055 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Browaeys and T

    A. Browaeys and T. Lahaye, Nat. Phys.16, 132 (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    He, J.-M

    R. He, J.-M. Cui, R.-R. Li, Z.-H. Qian, Y . Chen, M.-Z. Ai, Y .-F. Huang, C.-F. Li, and G.-C. Guo, Review of Scientific Instru- ments92, 073201 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    A. L. Carter, J. O’Reilly, G. Toh, S. Saha, M. Shalaev, I. Goet- ting, and C. Monroe, Review of Scientific Instruments95, 033201 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Guo, Y .-K

    S.-A. Guo, Y .-K. Wu, J. Ye, L. Zhang, W.-Q. Lian, R. Yao, Y . Wang, R.-Y . Yan, Y .-J. Yi, Y .-L. Xu, B.-W. Li, Y .-H. Hou, Y .-Z. Xu, W.-X. Guo, C. Zhang, B.-X. Qi, Z.-C. Zhou, L. He, and L.-M. Duan, Nature630, 613 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    D. B. Bucher, D. P. L. Aude Craik, M. P. Backlund, M. J. Turner, O. Ben Dor, D. R. Glenn, and R. L. Walsworth, Nat Protoc14, 2707 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Senellart, G

    P. Senellart, G. Solomon, and A. White, Nature Nanotech12, 1026 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    L.-M. Duan, M. D. Lukin, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Nature414, 413 (2001)

    2001

  2. [10]

    Reiserer and G

    A. Reiserer and G. Rempe, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1379 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    S. L. N. Hermans, M. Pompili, H. K. C. Beukers, S. Baier, J. Borregaard, and R. Hanson, Nature605, 663 (2022). 3 The relative fiber coupling efficiency excludes metalens transmission losses and refraction efficiency

    2022

  4. [12]

    D. P. Nadlinger, P. Drmota, B. C. Nichol, G. Araneda, D. Main, R. Srinivas, D. M. Lucas, C. J. Ballance, K. Ivanov, E. Y .-Z. Tan, P. Sekatski, R. L. Urbanke, R. Renner, N. Sangouard, and J.-D. Bancal, Nature607, 682 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    Takahashi, E

    H. Takahashi, E. Kassa, C. Christoforou, and M. Keller, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 013602 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Brekenfeld, D

    M. Brekenfeld, D. Niemietz, J. D. Christesen, and G. Rempe, Nature Physics16, 647 (2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    H. Goto, S. Mizukami, Y . Tokunaga, and T. Aoki, Phys. Rev. A 99, 053843 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    S. Gao, J. A. Blackmore, W. J. Hughes, T. H. Doherty, and J. F. Goodwin, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 014033 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    W. J. Hughes, T. H. Doherty, J. A. Blackmore, P. Horak, and J. F. Goodwin, Opt. Express31, 32619 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Hunger, T

    D. Hunger, T. Steinmetz, Y . Colombe, C. Deutsch, T. W. Hän- sch, and J. Reichel, New J. Phys.12, 065038 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    Rempe, R

    G. Rempe, R. J. Thompson, H. J. Kimble, and R. Lalezari, OP- TICS LETTERS17, 3 (1992)

    1992

  12. [20]

    N. Jin, C. A. McLemore, D. Mason, J. P. Hendrie, Y . Luo, M. L. Kelleher, P. Kharel, F. Quinlan, S. A. Diddams, and P. T. Ra- kich, Optica9, 965 (2022)

    2022

  13. [21]

    Gallego, S

    J. Gallego, S. Ghosh, S. K. Alavi, W. Alt, M. Martinez- Dorantes, D. Meschede, and L. Ratschbacher, Appl. Phys. B 122, 47 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    A. Bick, C. Staarmann, P. Christoph, O. Hellmig, J. Heinze, K. Sengstock, and C. Becker, Review of Scientific Instruments 87, 013102 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Pfeifer, L

    H. Pfeifer, L. Ratschbacher, J. Gallego, C. Saavedra, A. Faßben- der, A. von Haaren, W. Alt, S. Hofferberth, M. Köhl, S. Linden, and D. Meschede, Appl. Phys. B128, 29 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    G. K. Gulati, H. Takahashi, N. Podoliak, P. Horak, and M. Keller, Sci Rep7, 5556 (2017). 7

    2017

  17. [25]

    H.-T. Chen, A. J. Taylor, and N. Yu, Rep. Prog. Phys.79, 076401 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    T. Phan, D. Sell, E. W. Wang, S. Doshay, K. Edee, J. Yang, and J. A. Fan, Light Sci Appl8, 48 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    T.-W. Hsu, W. Zhu, T. Thiele, M. O. Brown, S. B. Papp, A. Agrawal, and C. A. Regal, PRX Quantum3, 030316 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Huang, F

    R. Huang, F. Zhou, X. Li, P. Xu, Y . Wang, and M. Zhan, Opt. Express32, 21293 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    G.-J. Chen, D. Zhao, Z.-B. Wang, Z. Li, J.-Z. Zhang, L. Chen, Y .-L. Zhang, X.-B. Xu, A.-P. Liu, C.-H. Dong, G.-C. Guo, K. Huang, and C.-L. Zou, Laser & Photonics Reviewsn/a, 2401595 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    H. Lim, J. Froech, M. Choi, A. Majumdar, and S. Moura- dian, inQuantum 2.0 Conference and Exhibition (2024), Paper QM3A.3(Optica Publishing Group, 2024) p. QM3A.3

    2024

  23. [31]

    H. Ren, G. Briere, X. Fang, P. Ni, R. Sawant, S. Héron, S. Chenot, S. Vézian, B. Damilano, V . Brändli, S. A. Maier, and P. Genevet, Nat Commun10, 2986 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Q. Zhou, M. Liu, W. Zhu, L. Chen, Y . Ren, H. J. Lezec, Y . Lu, A. Agrawal, and T. Xu, Laser & Photonics Reviews15, 2100390 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Ossiander, M

    M. Ossiander, M. L. Meretska, S. Rourke, C. Spägele, X. Yin, I.-C. Benea-Chelmus, and F. Capasso, Nat Commun14, 1114 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Fontana, R

    Y . Fontana, R. Zifkin, E. Janitz, C. D. Rodríguez Rosenblueth, and L. Childress, Review of Scientific Instruments92, 053906 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Wipfli, H

    O. Wipfli, H. F. Passagem, C. Fischer, M. Grau, and J. P. Home, Review of Scientific Instruments94, 083204 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    Kumar, A

    A. Kumar, A. Suleymanzade, M. Stone, L. Taneja, A. Anferov, D. I. Schuster, and J. Simon, Nature615, 614 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    C. H. Nguyen, A. N. Utama, N. Lewty, and C. Kurtsiefer, Phys. Rev. A98, 063833 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Krutyanskiy, M

    V . Krutyanskiy, M. Canteri, M. Meraner, J. Bate, V . Krcmarsky, J. Schupp, N. Sangouard, and B. P. Lanyon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 213601 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Periwal, E

    A. Periwal, E. S. Cooper, P. Kunkel, J. F. Wienand, E. J. Davis, and M. Schleier-Smith, Nature600, 630 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Deist, Y .-H

    E. Deist, Y .-H. Lu, J. Ho, M. K. Pasha, J. Zeiher, Z. Yan, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 203602 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Shadmany, A

    D. Shadmany, A. Kumar, A. Soper, L. Palm, C. Yin, H. Ando, B. Li, L. Taneja, M. Jaffe, S. David, and J. Simon, Science Ad- vances11, eads8171 (2025)

    2025

  34. [42]

    Corning, SMF-28 Ultra Optical Fibers | SMF- 28 Ultra 200 and 242Mm Single-mode Optical Fiber | Corning, https://www.corning.com/optical- communications/worldwide/en/home/products/fiber/optical- fiber-products/smf-28-ultra.html (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    W. B. Joyce and B. C. DeLoach, Appl. Opt.23, 4187 (1984)

    1984

  36. [44]

    Products or companies named here are included in the interest of completeness and does not imply endorsement by the au- thors

  37. [45]

    Egede Johansen, U

    V . Egede Johansen, U. M. Gür, J. Martínez-Llinás, J. Fly Hansen, A. Samadi, M. Skak Vestergaard Larsen, T. Nielsen, F. Mattinson, M. Schmidlin, N. A. Mortensen, and U. J. Quaade, Commun Phys7, 1 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    Norland, NOA 61 | Norland Products, Inc., https://norlandproducts.com/product/noa-61/ (2024)

    2024

  39. [47]

    Masterbond, EP42HT-3AO Product Information | Master- Bond.com, https://www.masterbond.com/tds/ep42ht-3ao (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    C. S. Adams, J. D. Pritchard, and J. P. Shaffer, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys.53, 012002 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Araneda, G

    G. Araneda, G. Cerchiari, D. B. Higginbottom, P. C. Holz, K. Lakhmanskiy, P. Obšil, Y . Colombe, and R. Blatt, Review of Scientific Instruments91, 113201 (2020)

    2020

  42. [50]

    Bergmann, H.-C

    K. Bergmann, H.-C. Nägerl, C. Panda, G. Gabrielse, E. Milo- glyadov, M. Quack, G. Seyfang, G. Wichmann, S. Ospelkaus, A. Kuhn, S. Longhi, A. Szameit, P. Pirro, B. Hillebrands, X.-F. Zhu, J. Zhu, M. Drewsen, W. K. Hensinger, S. Weidt, T. Half- mann, H.-L. Wang, G. S. Paraoanu, ...

    2019

  43. [51]

    Ghadimi, V

    M. Ghadimi, V . Bl¯ums, B. G. Norton, P. M. Fisher, S. C. Con- nell, J. M. Amini, C. V olin, H. Hayden, C.-S. Pai, D. Kielpinski, M. Lobino, and E. W. Streed, npj Quantum Inf3, 1 (2017)

    2017

  44. [52]

    Juliano Martins, E

    R. Juliano Martins, E. Marinov, M. A. B. Youssef, C. Kyrou, M. Joubert, C. Colmagro, V . Gâté, C. Turbil, P.-M. Coulon, D. Turover, S. Khadir, M. Giudici, C. Klitis, M. Sorel, and P. Genevet, Nat Commun13, 5724 (2022)

    2022

  45. [53]

    Kassa,Single Ion Coupled to a High-Finesse Optical Fibre Cavity for cQED in the Strong Coupling Regime, Doctoral, Uni- versity of Sussex (2017)

    E. Kassa,Single Ion Coupled to a High-Finesse Optical Fibre Cavity for cQED in the Strong Coupling Regime, Doctoral, Uni- versity of Sussex (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    R. Noek, G. Vrijsen, D. Gaultney, E. Mount, T. Kim, P. Maunz, and J. Kim, Opt. Lett.38, 4735 (2013)

    2013

  47. [55]

    D. B. Northeast, D. Dalacu, J. F. Weber, J. Phoenix, J. Lapointe, G. C. Aers, P. J. Poole, and R. L. Williams, Sci Rep11, 22878 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    J.-S. Park, S. Zhang, A. She, W. T. Chen, P. Lin, K. M. A. Yousef, J.-X. Cheng, and F. Capasso, Nano Lett.19, 8673 (2019)

    2019

  49. [57]

    Ruelle, D

    T. Ruelle, D. Jaeger, F. Fogliano, F. Braakman, and M. Poggio, Review of Scientific Instruments93, 095003 (2022)

    2022

  50. [58]

    C. Shen, C. Chen, X.-L. Wu, S. Dong, Y . Cui, L. You, and M. K. Tey, Review of Scientific Instruments91, 063202 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    Stephenson,Entanglement between Nodes of a Quantum Network, http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text, University of Ox- ford (2019)

    L. Stephenson,Entanglement between Nodes of a Quantum Network, http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Text, University of Ox- ford (2019)

    2019

  52. [60]

    L. J. Stephenson, D. P. Nadlinger, B. C. Nichol, S. An, P. Dr- mota, T. G. Ballance, K. Thirumalai, J. F. Goodwin, D. M. Lu- cas, and C. J. Ballance, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 110501 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    W. Wang, C. Goham, A. Laugharn, and J. W. Britton, inOSA Quantum 2.0 Conference (2020), Paper QW6A.12(Optica Pub- lishing Group, 2020) p. QW6A.12

    2020

  54. [62]

    Y . Xiao, Z. Wang, F. Wang, H. Lee, T. Kananen, and T. Gu, JOM1, 024001 (2021)

    2021

  55. [63]

    C. B. Young, A. Safari, P. Huft, J. Zhang, E. Oh, R. Chinnarasu, and M. Saffman, Appl. Phys. B128, 151 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

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