Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Coherence of dipole-forbidden Rydberg excitons in Cu$_2$O measured by polarization- and time-resolved multi-photon spectroscopy

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read 2PE-DFG, a two-photon pump plus difference-frequency probe, directly measures coherence of electric-dipole-forbidden excitons: about 3 ns for the Cu2O 1S orthoexciton and a few picoseconds for n=3,4 Rydberg S and D states.

desk verdict Nice new technique for measuring coherence of dipole-forbidden excitons, but the extracted T2* values likely need a factor-of-2 correction from the intensity-decay analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22717 v1 pith:M7L6PUXV submitted 2025-07-30 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

A. Farenbruch , N. V. Siverin , G. Uca , D. Fröhlich , D. R. Yakovlev , M. Bayer This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords differencefrequencygenerationwithtwo-photonexcitationpolarizationtomographytime-resolvedmulti-photonspectroscopycoherenceofRydbergexcitonsmagnetic-field-inducedquantumbeatscuprousoxideCu2Odipole-forbiddenexcitondephasingtime
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that combining two-photon excitation with difference-frequency generation (2PE-DFG) turns electric-dipole-forbidden excitons into directly measurable coherent objects: the pump creates a coherent exciton polarization, the delayed probe reads out the surviving polarization, and the decay of the difference-frequency signal is the exciton's ensemble dephasing time $T_2^*$. Demonstrated on the yellow excitons of Cu$_2$O, the technique resolves the forbidden $S$ and $D$ Rydberg states and shows that the $1S$ orthoexciton keeps coherence for about 3 ns at 1.4 K, while the $n=3,4$ Rydberg states dephase in a few picoseconds because they relax to lower states. The same setup uses polarization tomography, three independently tunable linear polarization angles, to select and read specific spin levels, and in a magnetic field reveals polarization-controlled quantum beats among the $1S$ triplet components, resolving energy splittings below 1 GHz. A reader would care because dipole-forbidden states combine long lifetimes with coherence that linear optics could not directly address, and this is a time-resolved window into the coherence that could be stored or manipulated.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the 2PE-DFG sequence: a spectrally broad femtosecond pulse at $\hbar\omega_1$ drives a two-photon transition into an even-parity exciton with $\Gamma_5^+$ symmetry, creating a coherent macroscopic polarization; a delayed picosecond pulse at $\hbar\omega_2$ converts that polarization into difference-frequency light at $\hbar\omega_3 = 2\hbar\omega_1 - \hbar\omega_2$, so the DFG intensity traces the surviving coherent polarization of the same state. Because both excitation and readout are two-photon processes, the method addresses the same exciton component in both channels, avoiding the cross-relaxation dynamics of earlier one-photon/two-photon schemes. Polarization tomography over the three linear angles $\psi$, $\theta$, and $\varphi$ is modeled from group-theoretical coupling coefficients for $\Gamma_5^+$ states and from the magnetic-field Hamiltonian of the $1S$ exciton system, and the signal decay is converted to $T_2^*$ using Eq. (1).

What would settle it

Measure, on the same crystal and at the same temperature, both the DFG decay and the population lifetime $T_1$ of the $1S$ orthoexciton (for example by time-resolved two-photon emission), and check whether $T_2^* \le 2T_1$ holds as Eq. (1) requires; then fire a strong dephasing pulse between pump and probe: if the DFG signal survives at delays where all coherent polarization should have been destroyed, the long-delay signal is not purely coherent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that 2PE-DFG measures the coherent dynamics of electric-dipole-forbidden excitons directly in the time domain, without relying on cross-relaxation between exciton components or on photoluminescence. The signal at $\hbar\omega_3 = 2\hbar\omega_1 - \hbar\omega_2$ is generated only while the exciton polarization produced by the two-photon pump remains coherent, so its exponential decay gives $T_2^*$ through the standard relation involving the population time $T_1$, pure dephasing $T_2'$, and inhomogeneous dephasing $T_2^{\mathrm{inh}}$. In Cu$_2$O at 1.4 K the $1S$ orthoexciton shows $T_2^* \approx 3$ ns, the $S$ and $D$ Rydberg excitons with $n=3,4$ show $T_2^*$ between about 1.8 and 2.9 ps, and the green-series $1S_g$ state dephases in about 0.77 ps. In a magnetic field the $1S$ orthoexciton splits into a triplet, and quantum beats appear whose frequencies match the Zeeman splittings; choosing the linear polarization angles $(\psi,\theta,\varphi)$ selects one, two, or three of the $M$ states, giving three distinct beating regimes and a spectral resolution of magnetic splittings below 1 GHz, roughly an order of magnitude better than the spectrometer-limited SHG resolution.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the signal the detector sees comes entirely from the coherent collective excitation the pump creates, so watching that signal fade is the same as watching the excitation lose coherence, with no extra light from ordinary excited-state populations or from the broad nonlinear background at long delays; the paper states this in Section II but gives no control experiment isolating the coherent contribution at long delay.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Electric-dipole-forbidden exciton states, which linear optics cannot address, become measurable for their coherence rather than only their population; the paper demonstrates this on Cu$_2$O and states the technique is extendable to other semiconductors.
  • The about 3 ns coherence time of the $1S$ orthoexciton, comparable to the narrow-linewidth limit set by the lifetime, means this state can hold a coherent polarization for nanoseconds at 1.4 K, a useful scale for coherent storage or manipulation.
  • For $n=3$ and $4$ Rydberg excitons, the observed quantum beats show that coherence survives for at least the short population lifetime, so the few-picosecond dephasing is set by relaxation to lower states rather than by inhomogeneous broadening.
  • Magnetic-field-induced beats read out Zeeman splittings in the time domain with sub-GHz precision, about an order of magnitude better than the 60 $\mu$eV spectrometer resolution, so small energy splittings can be mapped without a narrow-band laser.
  • By varying incidence angles, the same two-photon pump plus DFG readout can be extended to momentum-resolved ($K$-space) spectroscopy of excitons, as the paper states in its conclusions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: subtracting an independently measured population lifetime $T_1$ from the same crystal could isolate the pure dephasing rate $T_2'$ via Eq. (1), turning 2PE-DFG into a three-channel measurement of homogeneous, lifetime, and inhomogeneous dephasing contributions.
  • Beyond the paper: the power-dependent shortening of $T_2^*$ at high pump intensities, including a fast 130-ps component, suggests 2PE-DFG could serve as a quantitative probe of exciton-exciton or exciton-carrier scattering, a topic the paper raises but does not develop.
  • Beyond the paper: the sub-GHz beat resolution in weak magnetic fields implies that the same polarization-selective quantum-beat protocol could map local strain fields or small internal fields in inhomogeneous crystals by scanning the two beams spatially.
  • Beyond the paper: if the transfer to long-lived spin-triplet excitons in other materials succeeds, the technique may provide a direct way to benchmark candidate quantum memories among dark excitons; the paper names candidate materials but does not test them.
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

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a two-photon-excitation difference-frequency-generation (2PE-DFG) technique for time-resolved measurement of the coherence of electric-dipole-forbidden excitons, and demonstrates it on Cu2O. A femtosecond pump pulse creates a coherent exciton polarization via two-photon absorption; a delayed picosecond probe pulse generates a DFG signal whose decay is interpreted as the exciton ensemble dephasing time T2*. The authors report T2* ≈ 3 ns for the 1S orthoexciton, a few picoseconds for n=3 and n=4 S/D Rydberg states, and observe magnetic-field-induced quantum beats among the 1S spin sublevels with frequencies matching SHG-measured splittings. Polarization tomography of the pump, probe, and signal allows selective addressing of M=0 and M=±1 states, and the experimental maps agree with a group-theory model. The manuscript claims the technique as a general tool for ED-forbidden excitons.

Significance. The proposed 2PE-DFG technique addresses a genuine gap: ED-forbidden excitons are difficult to excite and probe coherently, and the demonstrated polarization control is a valuable addition to nonlinear spectroscopy. The quantum-beat frequencies are read directly from time traces and match independent SHG splittings, and the polarization tomography maps are compared with a group-theory model using coupling parameters from earlier work rather than fitted to the data. These checks make the qualitative picture—few-picosecond dephasing for Rydberg states and nanosecond-scale coherence for the 1S state—convincing. However, the absolute calibration of T2* from the DFG intensity decay is ambiguous by a factor of 2, which affects the central quantitative claim and the comparison with spectral linewidths. The paper is likely correctable and would then be a solid contribution.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (1), Fig. 2d, Table I] The central quantitative claim that the fitted decay of the 2PE-DFG signal directly equals T2* is ambiguous by a factor of 2. The measured quantity is the DFG intensity, which for direct (square-law) CCD detection is proportional to |P(t)|^2, where P(t) is the coherent exciton polarization amplitude. Equation (1) defines T2* via the decay of the polarization amplitude. If P(t) ∝ exp(-t/T2*), the detected intensity decays as exp(-2t/T2*), i.e., with a time constant of T2*/2. The paper does not state that the extracted exponential time constant was multiplied by 2, nor does it describe any heterodyne detection that would make the signal linear in P(t). The caption of Fig. 2d says the exponential decay 'corresponds to the dephasing time of 3 ns', and Table I converts fitted values to linewidths using Γ_DFG = 2ħ/T2*. If the factor of 2 is missing, every listed T2* is a factor of 2 too small. The 3D entry is a sharp test: with the reported T2* = 2.33 ps, Γ_DFG = 565 µeV matches Γ_SHG = 560 µeV; with the standard quadratic intensity mapping the same trace would imply T2* = 4.66 ps and Γ_DFG = 283 µeV, a factor-of-2 discrepancy. Please clarify the extraction: either explicitly apply the factor-of-2 correction between the measured intensity decay and the polarization-amplitude decay, or provide evidence for a detection scheme that is linear in the coherent polarization. This is essential for the validity of all absolute dephasing times and their comparison with spectral linewidths.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II and Methods] The spectral resolution of the DFG experiment is stated as 1.1 meV in Section II, while the Methods section gives the ps-pulse FWHM as 0.7 meV and the spectrometer resolution as 800 µeV; please reconcile these numbers.
  2. [Abstract and Table I] The abstract states that the n=2, 3, and 4 Rydberg states have short dephasing times, but Table I reports DFG dephasing times only for 3S, 3D, 4S, and 4D; the 2S state is missing. Please clarify whether a 2S DFG measurement was attempted and why it is omitted.
  3. [Section IV, Fig. 5b] The frequency resolution of the FFT is determined by the total scan range of 6 ns; please quote the nominal frequency resolution or the number of points used, to support the claim of resolving peaks below 1 GHz.
  4. [Table I] For the 1S state, the DFG-derived linewidth (0.42 µeV) is about three times narrower than the single-photon transmission value (1.35 µeV). The text calls these 'comparable'; a brief comment on this factor-of-three difference would help the reader evaluate the consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: central results are direct time-domain measurements cross-checked against independent SHG spectra.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and no circular reduction is found. The central quantitative outputs—the ~3 ns dephasing time of the 1S orthoexciton, the few-picosecond T2* values of the Rydberg S and D states, and the quantum-beat frequencies—are extracted by exponential fits and FFT analysis of the measured 2PE-DFG time traces (Figs. 2d-2f, 4, 5), not by any equation that re-inserts a fitted input. The beat frequencies are read directly from FFT spectra and compared in Table I and Figs. 4e/5b with energy splittings taken from the SHG spectrum, an independent observable, and the two agree, which is exactly the kind of external check that precludes circularity. The T2* values are cross-checked against SHG linewidths via the relation Gamma_DFG = 2 hbar / T2* (Table I), and the paper explicitly reports that for most Rydberg states the DFG-derived coherence times are two to three times shorter than the SHG-derived expectation, attributing the gap to free-carrier effects; reporting this mismatch demonstrates that the comparison is not forced to agree. The polarization tomography model (SI Sec. S3) takes the coupling parameters a = 91 ueV/T and b = 48.1 ueV/T from the same group's Ref. [S17] as fixed inputs rather than fitting them to the present data, and the modeled maps are checked against the independently measured polarization maps of Fig. 3d, while the FFT beat assignment does not depend on those parameters. Eq. (1) defines T2* in the standard way, and the measured decay is interpreted as T2*; a possible calibration issue (whether the detected DFG intensity scales as |P|^2 or linearly in P) is a correctness risk rather than circularity, because the 3D entry's DFG-derived width of 565 ueV is validated against the independent SHG width of 560 ueV rather than being defined by it. The same-group citations [10,13,22,S17] supply the symmetry-analysis framework, but that framework rests on externally checkable group-theory tables and is tested against the paper's own data, so it does not raise the circularity score. Verdict: no significant circularity (score 0).

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurements rest on the physical assumption that the DFG signal is a faithful readout of coherent exciton polarization, on a group-theory model whose parameters are taken from prior same-group publications, and on a speculative free-carrier explanation for the Rydberg discrepancy. There are no new postulated entities.

free parameters (4)
  • 1S orthoexciton dephasing time T2* = 3.07 +/- 0.07 ns (3 ns in main text)
    Extracted from a double-exponential fit to the DFG decay at 1.4 K; central result of the paper.
  • Rydberg exciton dephasing times T2* = 1.84 +/- 0.04 ps (3S), 2.33 +/- 0.09 ps (3D), 2.90 +/- 0.33 ps (4S), 2.58 +/- 0.16 ps (4D), 0.77 +/- 0.01 ps (1Sg)
    Extracted from DFG decays; these are advertised as the measured coherence times of the investigated forbidden excitons.
  • Temperature exponent b = -1.6
    Fit to the power-law dependence of T2* on temperature in SI S4; used to attribute the temperature behavior to ortho-para relaxation.
  • Magnetic coupling parameters a and b in the Hamiltonian MB = a = 91 ueV/T, b = 48.1 ueV/T
    Taken from Ref. [S17] (same group) and used in Eq. (S11) to model the 1S exciton level structure in a magnetic field and to interpret the quantum beat regimes.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The DFG signal originates from the coherent exciton polarization, and its decay is governed by Eq. (1) for the ensemble dephasing time T2*.
    Central interpretation of the technique, stated in Section II; no control experiment isolating the coherent contribution at long delays is provided.
  • domain assumption Two-photon excitation and two-photon DFG probe the same exciton component, so no cross-relaxation between exciton spin components is involved.
    Used to distinguish this technique from prior work (Refs. [17,20,21]); relies on selection rules and the experimental geometry with counter-propagating beams.
  • standard math Group-theoretical selection rules for the O_h point group and the Gamma5+ component of S and D excitons (Eqs. S2, S4, S5 in the SI).
    Basis for the polarization tomography modeling; standard point-group theory using Koster coupling coefficients.
  • domain assumption The four-state Hamiltonian MB in Eq. (S11), with parameters a and b from Ref. [S17], describes the 1S exciton in a magnetic field in Voigt geometry.
    Used to model the polarization-dependent excitation and emission of M = 0 and M = +/-1 states; parameters originate from previous fitted work by the same group.
  • ad hoc to paper Three-photon absorption generates free carriers that shorten the coherence time of Rydberg excitons.
    Introduced in Section III to explain why measured DFG dephasing times for Rydberg states are 2-3 times shorter than expected from SHG linewidths; no direct measurement of free-carrier density or of this mechanism is presented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Coherence of dipole-forbidden Rydberg excitons in Cu$_2$O measured by polarization- and time-resolved multi-photon spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M7L6PUXV

@misc{pith2026250722717,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Coherence of dipole-forbidden Rydberg excitons in Cu$_2$O measured by polarization- and time-resolved multi-photon spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M7L6PUXV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22717}
}
abstract

Quantum applications of solid state systems base upon generation and control of coherent electronic excitations. Prominent examples are exciton states in semiconductors excitable by photons. The high oscillator strength of electric-dipole (ED) allowed exciton states favors their efficient coherent generation, but limits also their lifetime. ED-forbidden exciton states with long recombination times might maintain long-lived coherence, especially in highly-quality crystals with suppressed exciton scattering. Here, we propose a multi-photon technique combining two-photon excitation with difference frequency generation (2PE-DFG) for time-resolved measurements of exciton coherence. The technique utilizes polarization tomography for state-selective control in both the pump and probe processes. Its potential is demonstrated by measuring the coherent dynamics of the ED-forbidden $S$ and $D$ excitons in Cu$_2$O crystals. The excited states of the Rydberg excitons with principal quantum number $n=2$, $3$, and $4$ have short dephasing times of a few picoseconds, limited by their relaxation to lower lying states. The dephasing time reaches 3 ns for the $1S$ state. In an external magnetic field up to 10 T, the $1S$ exciton splits into a triplet so that quantum beats are observed after coherent excitation, for which three distinct regimes are found depending on the chosen polarization tomography scheme. These results establish the 2PE-DFG technique as a powerful tool to assess the coherent dynamics of ED-forbidden excitons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22717 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. 2PE-DFG experimental technique. a Scheme of the experiment. Femtosecond pump pulses (photon energy ℏω1, wave vector k1, green beam) perform a two-photon excitation of a coherent exciton polarization. Picosecond probe pulses (ℏω2, k2, red beam) arrive from the opposite direction being delayed by a time ∆t. They generate a difference frequency signal with ℏω3 = 2ℏω1 − ℏω2 (blue beam) and k3 = 2k1 − k2. Linear polariza… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time-resolved 2PE-DFG of ED-forbidden excitons and comparison with SHG. a SHG spectra of the 1S (ℏω1 = 1.016 eV) and Rydberg excitons (ℏω1 = 1.082 eV) at ψ = φ = 0◦ excited by femtosecond laser (P = 5 mW). The spectral resolution of about 60 µeV is limited by the spectrometer. b DFG spectra of the 1S (ℏω1 = 1.016 eV) and Rydberg excitons (ℏω1 = 1.082 eV) at ψ = θ = φ = 0◦ and delay times of 1.3 ps (blue line) and 2.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Polarization tomography of 2PE-DFG process on the 1S orthoexciton at B = 10 T. a Energy scheme of the 1S orthoexciton at zero and finite magnetic fields with indicated angles of linear polarization for selective addressing and read out of specific states. b Theory (lines) and experimental data at ∆t = 12 ps and P = 17 mW (dots) of the DFG intensity dependence on the pump angle ψ of two-photon excitation of M = 0 (bl… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Magnetic-field-induced quantum beats at B = 10 T. a Single-state decay (ψ = θ = φ = 0◦ ), b two-states beats (ψ = θ = φ = 55◦ ) and c three-states beats (ψ = θ = φ = 90◦ ) measured at P = 20 mW. Left panels display the DFG dynamics and right panels their FFT spectra. d…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Two-states beats in weak magnetic fields. a DFG dynamics in magnetic fields tuned in range 0 − 0.2 T. Lower panel shows dynamics in B = 0.04 T and 0.16 T measured at P = 20 mW. b Corresponding FFT spectra at various magnetic fields. Lower panel shows FFT spectra in B =…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Polarization- and time-resolved nonlinear multi-photon spectroscopy for confocal microscopy of semiconductor nanostructures

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A confocal nonlinear microscope with full polarization control, cryostat, and magnet is demonstrated on Cu2O, ZnSe, MoS2, and Cs2AgBiBr6.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Brandt, D

    J. Brandt, D. Fr¨ ohlich, C. Sandfort, M. Bayer, H. Stolz, and N. Naka, Ultranarrow optical absorption and two-phonon excitation spectroscopy of Cu2O paraexcitons in a high magnetic field, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 217403 (2007)

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    1 T ∗ 2 = 1 2T1 + 1 T ′ 2 + 1 T inh 2

    This dephasing time is contributed by the pure dephasing time T ′ 2, which characterizes the loss of coherence of individual excitons due to scattering on phonons, impurities, or charge carriers; by the exciton population time (lifetime)T1, limited by radiative recombination or, for excited exciton states, by energy relaxation to lower-lying states; and b...

    work page arXiv

  3. [3]

    and QB periods (τQB) are evaluated from the time-resolved data presented in Figs. 2d-2f. Linewidths ΓSHG as FWHM and spectral separations ∆ESHG of the exciton states are obtained from the SHG spectrum in Fig. 2a. Exciton lines in Fig. 2a are fitted with a Voigt function which is a convolution of a Lorentzian (exciton line shape) and Gaussian (accounting f...

    work page

  4. [4]

    1S exciton linewidth is obtained from single-photon transmission spectra measured in Ref

    The measured spectral linewidth of corresponding excitons via SHG are converted into coherence times for comparison according toT ∗ 2,SHG = 2ℏ/ΓSHG. 1S exciton linewidth is obtained from single-photon transmission spectra measured in Ref. [26]. dephasing time quantum beats exciton state T ∗ 2,DFG (ps) ΓDFG (µeV) ΓSHG (µeV) T ∗ 2,SHG (ps) τQB (ps) ∆EQB (me...

    work page arXiv

  5. [5]

    Kazimierczuk, D

    T. Kazimierczuk, D. Fr¨ ohlich, S. Scheel, H. Stolz, and M. Bayer, Giant Rydberg excitons in the copper oxide Cu2O, Nature 514, 343–347 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    M. A. M. Versteegh, S. Steinhauer, J. Bajo, T. Lettner, A. Soro, A. Romanova, S. Gyger, L. Schweickert, A. Mysyrowicz, and V. Zwiller, Giant Rydberg excitons in Cu2O probed by photoluminescence excitation spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. B104, 245206 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    J. P. Rogers et al., High-resolution nanosecond spectroscopy of even-parity Rydberg excitons in Cu2O, Phys. Rev. B105, 115206 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    E. F. Gross and N.A. Karryev, Optical spectrum of exciton, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR84, 471 (1952)

    work page 1952

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    E. F. Gross, Optical spectrum of excitons in the crystal lattice, Il Nuovo Cimento3, 672–701 (1956)

    1956

  2. [10]

    Morita, K

    Y. Morita, K. Yoshioka, and M. Kuwata-Gonokami, Observation of Bose-Einstein condensates of excitons in a bulk semi- conductor, Nat. Commun.13, 5388 (2022)

    2022

  3. [11]

    Heck¨ otter, A

    J. Heck¨ otter, A. Farenbruch, D. Fr¨ ohlich, M. Aßmann, D. R. Yakovlev, M. Bayer, M. A. Semina, M. M. Glazov, P. Rommel, J. Ertl, J. Main, and H. Stolz, The energy level spectrum of the yellow excitons in cuprous oxide, Physics Reports1100, 1–69 (2025). 10

    2025

  4. [12]

    Fr¨ ohlich, R

    D. Fr¨ ohlich, R. Kenklies, C. Uihlein, and C. Schwab, Assignment of the even-parity excitons in Cu2O, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1260–1263 (1979)

    1979

  5. [13]

    J. Mund, D. Fr¨ ohlich, D. R. Yakovlev, and M. Bayer, High-resolution second harmonic generation spectroscopy with femtosecond laser pulses on excitons in Cu2O, Phys. Rev. B98, 085203 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    J. Mund, C. Uihlein, D. Fr¨ ohlich, D. R. Yakovlev, and M. Bayer, Second harmonic generation on the yellow 1S exciton in Cu2O in symmetry-forbidden geometries, Phys. Rev. B99, 195204 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Farenbruch, D

    A. Farenbruch, D. Fr¨ ohlich, D. R. Yakovlev, and M. Bayer, Rydberg series of dark excitons in Cu2O, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 207402 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Farenbruch, D

    A. Farenbruch, D. Fr¨ ohlich, D. R. Yakovlev, and M. Bayer, Two-photon absorption and second harmonic generation of 1S para- and orthoexcitons in Cu2O coupled by a magnetic field, Phys. Rev. B102, 115203 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    J. S. Weiner, N. Caswell, P.Y.Yu, and A. Mysyrowicz, Ortho- to para-exciton conversion in Cu2O: A subnanosecond time-resolved photoluminescence study, Solid State Commun.46, 105–108 (1983)

    1983

  10. [18]

    J. S. Weiner and P.Y.Yu, Time-resolved hot luminescence and resonant Raman scattering Cu2O revisited, Solid State Commun. 50, 493–496 (1984)

    1984

  11. [19]

    Stolz, Quantum beats and exciton coherence in time-resolved resonant light scattering, Phys

    H. Stolz, Quantum beats and exciton coherence in time-resolved resonant light scattering, Phys. Stat. Sol.b 173, 99 (1992)

    1992

  12. [20]

    Fr¨ ohlich, K

    D. Fr¨ ohlich, K. Reimann, and R. Wille, Time-resolved two-photon emission in Cu2O, Europhys. Lett.3, 853 (1987)

    1987

  13. [21]

    J. I. Jang, K. E. O’Hara, and J. P. Wolfe, Spin-exchange kinetics of excitons in Cu2O: Transverse acoustic phonon mechanism, Phys. Rev. B70, 195205 (2004)

    2004

  14. [22]

    Karpinska, M

    K. Karpinska, M. Mostovoy, M. A. van der Vegte, A. Revcolevschi, and P. H. M. van Loosdrecht, Decay and coherence of two-photon excited yellow orthoexcitons in Cu2O, Phys. Rev. B72, 155201 (2005)

    2005

  15. [23]

    K.YoshiokaandM.Kuwata-Gonokami, DarkexcitonsinCu 2Ocrystalsfortwo-photoncoherencestorageinsemiconductors, Phys. Rev. B73, 081202 (2006)

    2006

  16. [24]

    Chakrabarti, K

    P. Chakrabarti, K. Morin, D. Lagarde, X. Marie, and T. Boulier, Direct measurement of the lifetime and coherence time of Cu2O Rydberg excitons, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 126902 (2025)

    2025

  17. [25]

    Farenbruch, J

    A. Farenbruch, J. Mund, D. Fr¨ ohlich, D. R. Yakovlev, M. Bayer, M. A. Semina, and M. M. Glazov, Magneto-Stark and Zeeman effect as origin of second harmonic generation of excitons in Cu2O, Phys. Rev. B101, 115201 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    G. F. Koster et al., Properties of the Thirty-two Point Groups, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (1963)

    1963

  19. [27]

    Kalt and C

    H. Kalt and C. F. Klingshirn,Semiconductor Optics 2(Springer Nature Switzerland AG, 2024), Chapter 3

    2024

  20. [28]

    Dasbach et al., Wave-vector-dependent exchange interaction and its relevance for the effective exciton mass in Cu2O, Phys

    G. Dasbach et al., Wave-vector-dependent exchange interaction and its relevance for the effective exciton mass in Cu2O, Phys. Rev. B70, 045206 (2004)

    2004

  21. [29]

    Dasbach et al., Wave-Vector-Dependent Exciton Exchange Interaction, Phys

    G. Dasbach et al., Wave-Vector-Dependent Exciton Exchange Interaction, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 107401 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    Stolz, F

    H. Stolz, F. Sch¨ one, and D. Semkat, Interaction of Rydberg excitons in cuprous oxide with phonons and photons: optical linewidth and polariton effect, New J. Phys.20, 023019 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    Schweiner et al., Impact of the valence band structure of Cu2O on excitonic spectra, Phys

    F. Schweiner et al., Impact of the valence band structure of Cu2O on excitonic spectra, Phys. Rev. B93, 195203 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    Langer et al., Magneto-quantum beats and coherence in resonant light scattering from quadrupole polaritons in Cu2O, Europhys

    V. Langer et al., Magneto-quantum beats and coherence in resonant light scattering from quadrupole polaritons in Cu2O, Europhys. Lett.18, 723 (1992). A. Acknowledgements The authors are thankful to M. M. Glazov for fruitful discussions. We acknowledge the financial support by ...

    1992

  25. [33]

    The red line is a fit to a power-law function, T ∗ 2 (T ) = ˆT ∗ 2 (T /ˆT )b, where ˆT ∗ 2 is the coherence time at the reference temperatureˆT = 1 K, yielding an exponent b = −1.6

    b Temperature dependence of the coherence time shown in a double-logarithmic diagram. The red line is a fit to a power-law function, T ∗ 2 (T ) = ˆT ∗ 2 (T /ˆT )b, where ˆT ∗ 2 is the coherence time at the reference temperatureˆT = 1 K, yielding an exponent b = −1.6. Fit uncer...

    2023

Pith tools

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