Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 59 references

Photon Bose-Einstein Condensation in Semiconductors: A Quantum Kinetic Theory

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Coulomb collisions drive photon condensation in semiconductors

desk verdict A serious microscopic derivation with a compelling phase-diagram story, but the printed phonon rates break detailed balance and the 'quantitative' agreement is hand-normalized; worth refereeing after fixes. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.05062 v1 pith:5JZSRSVJ submitted 2025-09-05 physics.optics

José L. Figueiredo , Ross C. Schofield , Ming Fu , Robert A. Nyman , Rupert Oulton , Hugo Terças , Florian Mintert This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics
keywords photonBose-EinsteincondensationquantumkinetictheorysemiconductormicrocavityCoulombscatteringcarrierthermalizationnonequilibriumphasediagramcarrier-photoninteractionlasing
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 develops a microscopic quantum kinetic theory of photon Bose–Einstein condensation in semiconductor microcavities, starting from a second-quantized Hamiltonian of cavity photons, electrons, holes, phonons, pumping, and losses. It argues that at high carrier densities the electron–hole plasma thermalizes through carrier–carrier Coulomb scattering, so the effective photon temperature is set by pumping and carrier dynamics rather than by a fixed molecular reservoir as in dye-based condensates. The derived rate equations produce a phase diagram with thermal, single-mode BEC, multimode condensate, and lasing phases, whose boundaries the paper compares quantitatively with published semiconductor microcavity experiments. If correct, this gives a predictive basis for designing room-temperature, continuous-wave, and eventually electrically driven photon condensates.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the coupled quantum-kinetic rate equations, Eqs. (58) and (62), for photon occupations and carrier distributions, with rates from photon absorption and emission (Λ), Coulomb collisions (µ), and phonon scattering (η). The central identity is the steady-state ratio Ψ_m = (κ + γ_{↓,m})/γ_{↑,m}; the divergence condition Ψ_m → 1 is the condensation criterion, and the threshold estimate Eq. (84) gives phase boundaries. Coulomb collisions enter through the energy-conserving scattering probability P^{νν'}_{k,k'}(q), and their dominance at high density (µ ∼ f^3 versus phonon η ∼ f) is the mechanism that replaces rovibrational relaxation in dye-based photon BECs.

What would settle it

Measure the steady-state electron and hole distributions in a room-temperature InGaAs microcavity at carrier densities above the BEC threshold. The paper's mechanism predicts a Fermi–Dirac tail whose temperature tracks the pump and whose thermalization time shortens with carrier density; the competing reservoir picture predicts an unthermalized peak at the pump momentum. Alternatively, reproduce the Fig. 13 phase boundaries using absolute, calibrated pump intensities instead of axes normalized by hand: if the BEC-to-multimode and thermal-to-laser boundaries do not follow Eq. (84) with independ

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that photon condensation in semiconductor quantum-well microcavities is driven by a thermalization channel absent in dye systems: Coulomb scattering between optically excited carriers. Starting from the full many-body Hamiltonian and closing the hierarchy with a cluster expansion and Markov/Born–Markov approximations, the authors obtain coupled rate equations for the photon occupations n_m and carrier distributions f_{e,k}, f_{h,k}. The steady-state photon occupation takes Bose–Einstein form n_m = 1/(Ψ_m − 1) with Ψ_m = (κ + γ_{↓,m})/γ_{↑,m}; condensation of mode m occurs when Ψ_m → 1. At high pumping, Coulomb rates scale as f^3, overtaking phonon rates (∼ f), ma

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative agreement with experiment rests on assuming that the simulation parameters (cavity loss 100 GHz, recombination 100 GHz, area 10^4 µm², bandgap 1.3 eV) match the measured sample, and that the unknown mapping between pump rate and pump intensity is monotonic; the phase boundaries are compared after hand-normalizing both axes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Semiconductor photon condensates can reach thermal states even when the carrier plasma is out of equilibrium, with the pump setting the effective photon temperature.
  • The model yields quantitative thresholds: condensation onset occurs when the steady-state gain/loss ratio Ψ_0 reaches unity, and the phase boundaries are approximated by Eq. (84).
  • Cavity cutoff is a control knob: above a critical mirror spacing the ground cavity mode becomes optically dark, forcing multimode or lasing phases rather than thermal condensation.
  • Because gain can overcome loss without population inversion, ultra-low-threshold coherent light sources based on condensation become feasible in III–V semiconductors.
  • The theory supports continuous-wave operation and, by the authors' conclusion, points toward electrically driven condensate devices free of the pulsed-pumping constraints of dye systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Coulomb-dominance claim holds, dye-based and semiconductor photon condensates are not the same physical phenomenon in disguise: a single Kennard–Stepanov-type reservoir description cannot be transported between platforms, and any unified theory must track carrier distributions dynamically.
  • The hand-normalized agreement in Fig. 13 suggests a direct experimental check: calibrate the absolute pump-rate to intensity relation and measure the BEC boundary independently to confirm or refute the quantitative match.
  • A testable extension is time-resolved two-pulse spectroscopy of the carrier distribution: Coulomb-dominated thermalization predicts an equilibration rate that grows roughly with the cube of carrier density, which can be separated from phonon-mediated relaxation.
  • The phase diagram implies that device designers could tune between laser-like and condensate-like operation by adjusting mirror spacing at fixed pump, an operating principle the paper maps only at the level of steady-state phases.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a microscopic quantum kinetic theory of photon Bose-Einstein condensation in semiconductor quantum-well microcavities. Starting from a Hamiltonian with carrier-photon, carrier-carrier Coulomb, and carrier-phonon interactions, plus Markovian pump and loss channels, the authors derive coupled rate equations for photon mode occupations and carrier distribution functions using a cluster expansion and a Markov approximation. They then use numerical solutions to characterize carrier thermalization, the van Roosbroeck–Shockley limit, and a phase diagram containing thermal, single-mode BEC, multimode condensate, and laser phases, and they claim quantitative agreement with the experiment of Ref. [2]. Appendices provide derivations of the coupling constants and the Coulomb and phonon collision terms.

Significance. The framework is potentially an important step: it addresses a gap in the literature by giving a first-principles kinetic description of semiconductor photon condensates, including Coulomb-mediated carrier thermalization and its distinction from dye-based photon condensates. The structural derivation is impressive and largely self-contained, and the treatment of carrier-photon coupling with finite linewidths goes beyond equilibrium models. However, the correctness of the central physical conclusions is undercut by a demonstrable error in the printed phonon rates and by the weak falsifiability of the experimental comparison. At present the quantitative claims should be treated as provisional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IID3, Eqs. (55)-(56)] Equations (55) and (56) are identical: both define η↑ and η↓ with the same f_{ν,k-q} and the same combination of N and 1+N delta functions. Substituted into Eq. (54), this gives Qν,k = η(1−2fν,k), whose nonzero steady state is fν,k=1/2 at every k, independent of the lattice temperature. Detailed balance between phonon absorption and emission is therefore violated, and the phonon reservoir does not drive carriers toward the Fermi–Dirac distribution at T. Since Eq. (62) — used in all simulations, including the phase diagram of Fig. 13 — contains this term, every result that depends on carrier thermalization, including the vRS analysis of Sec. IIIB and the Coulomb-dominance argument, inherits the error. The rates need to be corrected (with proper momentum arguments and Pauli blocking factors) and the simulations rerun before the model's predictions can be accepted.
  2. [Sec. V, Fig. 13] The claim of quantitative agreement with Ref. [2] is not supported by the presented comparison. The theoretically simulated phase diagram uses hand-set parameters (κ=100 GHz, Γ↓=100 GHz, A=10^4 μm², Eg=1.3 eV) whose correspondence to the experimental sample is not established. More importantly, the caption of Fig. 13(b) states that the relation between pump rate and pump intensity is unknown and that the vertical axis is normalized for comparison. With both axes normalized by hand, the coincidence of phase boundaries is not a quantitative test; it tests topology at best. To make the agreement falsifiable, the authors need an independent determination of at least one absolute scale (e.g., a measured pumping threshold) or an explicit mapping with uncertainty.
  3. [Sec. V, Eqs. (82)-(84)] The analytic estimate of the phase boundaries rests on an inconsistent assumption. To pass from Eq. (82) to Eq. (83), the text assumes that the steady-state Coulomb and phonon rates 'vanish identically,' yet the model's premise is that these very rates are responsible for carrier thermalization. The subsequent Eq. (84) is a function with constants c_j fitted to the numerical phase diagram, so it cannot serve as independent validation. This does not invalidate the numerical phase diagram by itself, but it weakens the claimed analytic support and should be reframed as a fit, not a prediction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IIF1] Typo in heading: 'A brief reviw' should be 'A brief review.'
  2. [Sec. IID3] The phrase 'outcoming and incoming scattering rates' should use 'outgoing' or 'out-scattering' for clarity.
  3. [Eqs. (5) and (62)] The momentum convention for f_{ν,-k} versus f_{ν,k} is not consistently explained; clarify how hole momenta are represented to avoid confusion when reading the simulation section.
  4. [Fig. 13 caption] The color-code legend ('1 – thermal cloud, 2 – BEC, ...') appears to describe the experimental panel (b); specify whether the same labels and criterion are used to assign phases in the simulated panel (a).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; the rate-equation core is derived from a Hamiltonian rather than imported from the benchmark. One minor fit-as-validation tautology appears in Sec. V; the phonon-rate inconsistency and axis-normalization caveats are correctness/benchmark issues, not circular reductions.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. V, discussion following Eq. (84) and Fig. 13(a)]
    "in Fig. 13(a) we include estimations for these phase-transition boundaries as a result of fitting Eq. (84) to the numerical data. The analytic expression reproduces the numerical threshold line across a large range of λ0, validating the sequence of approximations"

    The constants c_j in Eq. (84) are obtained by fitting to the very numerical phase boundaries shown in Fig. 13(a). The immediately following sentence treats the fitted expression's agreement with those same numerical data as a validation of the approximations used to derive Eq. (84). This is tautological: a function fitted to a data set will reproduce that data set, so the agreement cannot independently confirm the derivation. The circularity is minor because the simulated phase diagram itself is produced by numerical integration of Eqs. (58) and (62), not by Eq. (84), and the central claims do not rest on this analytic fit.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The coupled equations (1)-(9), (58), and (62) are obtained from the stated Hamiltonian (Eqs. 10-14) through a cluster expansion (Sec. IID1 and Appendix B) and a Born-Markov phonon reduction (Appendix C), and the phase diagram is built from numerical integration of those rate equations rather than imported from experiment. The benchmark against Ref. [2] is a same-group experiment, but the simulation parameters are stated and are not fitted to the experimental phase boundaries; the unmeasured pump-rate-to-pump-intensity mapping and hand normalization (Fig. 13 caption) weaken the 'quantitative agreement' claim, yet this is a calibration limitation, not a reduction by construction. I found one minor circular validation step: Eq. (84) is fitted to the numerical threshold data and then said to 'reproduce' and 'validate' the sequence of approximations; that is tautological but not load-bearing for the main claims. I also flag a serious internal inconsistency, though it is not a circularity: the printed phonon rates Eqs. (55) and (56) are identical, so the phonon collision integral cannot satisfy detailed balance with the Bose-Einstein phonon bath and would drive f toward 1/2 rather than a thermal Fermi-Dirac distribution. This affects the phonon-thermalization sector and the Coulomb-versus-phonon dominance comparison, but it is an error in the printed equations, not an equivalence between output and input. Overall, the derivation chain does not reduce to its own inputs, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central predictions rest on a chain of uncontrolled approximations (cluster expansion truncation, Markov approximation, neglect of polarization, diagonal elimination of off-diagonal photon correlations, thermal phonon reservoir) and on hand-set dissipation parameters and bare Coulomb matrix elements that are not independently measured. None of these are disclosed as fitted to the experimental phase diagram, but their combined effect on the claimed quantitative agreement is not quantified.

free parameters (5)
  • Dissipation rates for phase diagram = kappa = 100 GHz, Gamma_down = 100 GHz
    Used in the condensation and phase-diagram simulations (Figs. 6, 11, 13); hand-set, an order of magnitude outside the Table III range for Gamma_down, and not shown to match the experimental sample of Ref. [2].
  • Quantum well area A = 10^4 um^2
    Used in phase-diagram simulations; sets overall emission and absorption scales; no experimental provenance given.
  • Fit constants c_j in Eq. (84) = unnamed, fitted to numerics
    The analytic phase-boundary formula is explicitly fitted to the model's own numerical data (Sec. V), so its agreement with the numerics does not validate the model.
  • Vertical-axis normalization for experimental comparison = normalized pump intensity
    Fig. 13(b) normalizes both y-axes by hand because the pump-rate to pump-intensity mapping is unknown; this absorbs an overall scale in the claimed agreement.
  • Initial carrier chemical potentials and temperature = U_e = Eg, U_h = 0, T = 300 K
    Thermal initial conditions of Eq. (76) used in the van Roosbroeck-Shockley simulations; reasonable inputs, not fitted.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Cluster expansion truncated at singlet level with delta_u_k ~ 0 (quartic fluctuations dropped)
    Sec. IID (Eqs. 22-23): closes the correlation hierarchy; the magnitude of dropped terms is asserted, not bounded.
  • domain assumption Markov approximation: Y_{k,m}(t+tau) ~ Y_{k,m}(t)
    Sec. IID1 after Eq. (31): converts non-Markovian memory integrals into Lorentzian rates; standard but uncontrolled near resonance.
  • domain assumption Interband polarization negligible, p_k ~ 0 at room temperature
    Sec. IID: used to set u_k ~ f_e f_h; assumes small exciton binding energy and fast dephasing.
  • domain assumption Diagonal approximation eliminates off-diagonal photon correlations
    Sec. IIE: justifies rate equations (58) and (62); relies on a timescale separation that is marginal for delta_omega = 0.03 THz vs kappa = 0.1 THz.
  • domain assumption Phonon reservoir remains thermal, Born-Markov, tau_c ~ 100 fs
    Sec. IID3 and App. C: phonons treated as an ideal thermal bath at all times.
  • domain assumption Bare unscreened 2D Coulomb matrix element V_q proportional to 1/|q|
    App. A Eq. (A4), used in Eqs. (50)-(52): no screening or self-energy corrections at carrier densities where the Coulomb channel is claimed to dominate.
  • domain assumption Single subband, parabolic bands, homogeneous crystal, only even cavity modes couple
    App. A and Sec. IIB: stated as simplifying; the paper notes parabolic dispersion is not essential, but the single-subband confinement and even-mode restriction are structural.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photon Bose-Einstein Condensation in Semiconductors: A Quantum Kinetic Theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5JZSRSVJ

@misc{pith2026250905062,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photon Bose-Einstein Condensation in Semiconductors: A Quantum Kinetic Theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5JZSRSVJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05062}
}
read the original abstract

Photon condensation in semiconductor microcavities is a transformative technique for engineering quantum states of light at room temperature by tailoring strong but incoherent light-matter interactions. While continuous-wave and electrical pumping offer exceptional prospects for miniaturized quantum photonic technologies, harnessing these requires conceptual advances in understanding nonequilibrium light-matter dynamics in semiconductors. We resolve this challenge through an \textit{ab initio} quantum kinetic theory capturing how Coulomb interactions of optically excited carriers and phonon scattering mediate photon thermalization and condensation in semiconductors. Our microscopic model shows that at high carrier densities, thermalization is dominated by carrier-carrier Coulomb scattering, in clear contrast to the rovibrational relaxation that governs dye-based photon condensates. The theory predicts a rich nonequilibrium phase diagram with thermal, Bose-condensed, multimode, and lasing phases, quantitatively in agreement with recent experiments. Crucially, we identify how cavity detuning controls transitions between equilibrium and gain-dominated regimes, enabling tailored design of coherent light sources. This work thus provides the foundation for semiconductor-based quantum photonic devices operating beyond conventional laser paradigms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05062 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (color online). Schematic illustration of the semicon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (color online). Time evolution of the electron distri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (color online). Steady-state thermalization degree [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (color online). Detuning of each light-matter process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (color online). Steady-state photon distribution (left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (color online). Steady-state photon occupation as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. (color online). The role of the ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. (color online). Normalized Lorentzian profiles for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. (color online). Steady-state photon occupation as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. (color online). a) Simulated phase diagram of the photon gas as a function of cavity cut-off wavelength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    While the single excitation fractionfin Eq

    Main differences Contrarily to the KK model, where the dye acts as an infinite reservoir that can absorb or supply quanta with- out being appreciably perturbed from equilibrium, the corresponding photon-carrier dynamics for the semicon- ductor is fully energy-conserving. While the single excitation fractionfin Eq. (66) is a spatially varying quantity, the...

    work page

  2. [1]

    The KK rate equations couple the photon occupationn m =⟨a † mam⟩in modemto a single excitation fractionf(r)of dye molecules located at positionr

    A brief reviw of the quantum kinetic theory of dye-based photon condensation The Kirton–Keeling (KK) model treatsNdye molecules as two-level systems in near-thermal equilib- rium with a solvent bath. The KK rate equations couple the photon occupationn m =⟨a † mam⟩in modemto a single excitation fractionf(r)of dye molecules located at positionr. Specificall...

    work page

  3. [3]

    For this reason, it is convenient to remove the phonon distributions from the dynamical state functions in our description, under the assumption of a large thermal reservoir

    Carrier-phonon contribution While carriers and photons are inherently part of the quantum system of interest, the phonons, being delocal- ized over the entire heterostructure, constitute a large thermal reservoir that is maintained at room temper- ature due to the strong coupling to its surroundings. For this reason, it is convenient to remove the phonon ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Closed system Whenα k,m →0, the factorL k,m becomes aδ-function of the formLk,m =δ(∆ k,m), which permits the emission and absorption rates of Eqs. (59) and (60) to be calcu- lated exactly, providing γ(diag.) ↑,m = |gm|2 ℏ mA efe,m efh,m.,(73) γ(diag.) ↓,m = |gm|2 ℏ mA(1− efe,m)(1− efh,m),(74) Here efν,m ≡f ν,K(ω m) denotes the value offν,k evaluated atk=K...

    work page

  5. [5]

    (75) no longer holds and the inclusion of a finite-width LorentzianLk,m re- quires analytical evaluation of the summations overkto determine emission and absorption patterns

    Open system In real experiments, where the coupling to the envi- ronment cannot be neglected, Eq. (75) no longer holds and the inclusion of a finite-width LorentzianLk,m re- quires analytical evaluation of the summations overkto determine emission and absorption patterns. Moreover, as demonstrated in Sec. III, the degree of thermalization itself depends s...

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Hence Φj,ν,k(r) =ζ j(z)ϕν,k(x, y), withϕν,k(x, y)being a Bloch solution for the quasi-2D lattice, andζj(z)the quantum- well envelope function

    Carrier–carrier interaction Theelectronicwaveoperatorthatcollectivelydescribes all carrier bands of the semiconductor quantum well can be decomposed as ˆΨ(r) = X j,ν,k Φj,ν,k(r)ˆcj,ν,k,(A1) wherejis an additional quantum number denoting the carrier subband for the reducedz−dimension. Hence Φj,ν,k(r) =ζ j(z)ϕν,k(x, y), withϕν,k(x, y)being a Bloch solution ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Carrier–photon interaction Thecarrier-photoninteractionstemsfromthecoupling of the semiconductor dipole moment to the electric field of the cavity. The latter, denotedˆD(r), can be expanded in terms of cavity-photon operators as ˆD(r) = X m E m(r)ˆam +h.c.,(A5) with expansion coefficients E m(x, y) =εm r ℏωm 2ϵ0V × Hmx x ℓHO Hmy y ℓHO p π2mx+my mx!my! e−(...

    work page

  8. [8]

    The latter can be decomposed in terms of phonon operators as ˆP(r) = X q P q(r)ˆbq +h.c

    Carrier-phonon interaction Akin to the carrier-photon interaction, the carrier- phonon interaction is also of electrostatic nature and re- sultsfromthecouplingbetweenthecarrierdipoleandthe lattice polarization field. The latter can be decomposed in terms of phonon operators as ˆP(r) = X q P q(r)ˆbq +h.c. (A11) where the expansion coefficients read P q(r) ...

    work page

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Klaers, J

    J. Klaers, J. Schmitt, F. Vewinger, and M. Weitz, Nature 468, 545 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    R. C. Schofield, M. Fu, E. Clarke, I. Farrer, A. Trapalis, H. S. Dhar, R. Mukherjee, T. Severs Millard, J. Heffer- nan, F. Mintert, R. A. Nyman, and R. F. Oulton, Nature Photonics18, 1083 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    J.KeelingandP.Kirton,Phys.Rev.A93,013829(2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Klaers, J

    J. Klaers, J. Schmitt, T. Damm, F. Vewinger, and M. Weitz, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 160403 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Klaers, F

    J. Klaers, F. Vewinger, and M. Weitz, Nature Physics6, 512 (2010)

    2010

  6. [14]

    F. E. Öztürk, F. Vewinger, M. Weitz, and J. Schmitt, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 033602 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Vlaho and A

    M. Vlaho and A. Eckardt, Phys. Rev. A104, 063709 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    P.KirtonandJ.Keeling,Phys.Rev.A91,033826(2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    Kasprzak, M

    J. Kasprzak, M. Richard, S. Kundermann, A. Baas, P. Jeambrun, J. M. J. Keeling, F. Marchetti, M. Szy- mańska, R. André, J. a. Staehli,et al., Nature443, 409 (2006)

    2006

  10. [18]

    Y. Sun, P. Wen, Y. Yoon, G. Liu, M. Steger, L. N. Pfeif- fer, K. West, D. W. Snoke, and K. A. Nelson, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 016602 (2017)

    2017

  11. [19]

    A. J. Moilanen, K. S. Daskalakis, J. M. Taskinen, and P. Törmä, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 255301 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    T. K. Hakala, A. J. Moilanen, A. I. Väkeväinen, R. Guo, J.-P. Martikainen, K. S. Daskalakis, H. T. Rekola, A. Julku, and P. Törmä, Nature Physics14, 739 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Schmitt, T

    J. Schmitt, T. Damm, D. Dung, F. Vewinger, J. Klaers, and M. Weitz, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 030401 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Marelic and R

    J. Marelic and R. A. Nyman, Phys. Rev. A91, 033813 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    Kirton and J

    P. Kirton and J. Keeling, New Journal of Physics20, 015009 (2018)

    2018

  16. [24]

    J. D. Rodrigues, H. S. Dhar, B. T. Walker, J. M. Smith, R. F. Oulton, F. Mintert, and R. A. Nyman, Physical Review Letters126, 150602 (2021)

    2021

  17. [25]

    T. Damm, D. Dung, F. Vewinger, M. Weitz, and J. Schmitt, Nature communications8, 158 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Marelic, B

    J. Marelic, B. T. Walker, and R. A. Nyman, Physical Review A94, 063812 (2016)

    2016

  19. [27]

    Khitrova, H

    G. Khitrova, H. M. Gibbs, F. Jahnke, M. Kira, and S. W. Koch, Rev. Mod. Phys.71, 1591 (1999)

    1999

  20. [28]

    A. Amo, D. Sanvitto, F. Laussy, D. Ballarini, E. d. Valle, M. Martin, A. Lemaitre, J. Bloch, D. Krizhanovskii, M. Skolnick,et al., Nature457, 291 (2009)

    2009

  21. [29]

    Egorov, D

    O. Egorov, D. V. Skryabin, A. Yulin, and F. Lederer, Physical review letters102, 153904 (2009)

    2009

  22. [30]

    Utsunomiya, L

    S. Utsunomiya, L. Tian, G. Roumpos, C. Lai, N. Ku- mada, T. Fujisawa, M. Kuwata-Gonokami, A. Löffler, S. Höfling, A. Forchel,et al., Nature Physics4, 700 (2008)

    2008

  23. [31]

    Fontaine, T

    Q. Fontaine, T. Bienaimé, S. Pigeon, E. Giacobino, A. Bramati, and Q. Glorieux, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 183604 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Larré and I

    P.-E. Larré and I. Carusotto, Phys. Rev. A92, 043802 25 (2015)

    2015

  25. [33]

    Alyatkin, H

    S. Alyatkin, H. Sigurdsson, A. Askitopoulos, J. D. Töpfer, and P. G. Lagoudakis, Nature Communications 12, 5571 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Carusotto and C

    I. Carusotto and C. Ciuti, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 299 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Kirton and J

    P. Kirton and J. Keeling, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 100404 (2013)

    2013

  28. [36]

    Loirette-Pelous and J.-J

    A. Loirette-Pelous and J.-J. Greffet, Laser & Photonics Reviews17, 2300366 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Pieczarka, M

    M. Pieczarka, M. Gębski, A. N. Piasecka, J. A. Lott, A. Pelster, M. Wasiak, and T. Czyszanowski, Nature Photonics18, 1090 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    D. N. Sob’yanin, Phys. Rev. E85, 061120 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    Grimaldi, Phys

    C. Grimaldi, Phys. Rev. B77, 024306 (2008)

    2008

  32. [40]

    H.BreuerandF.Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quan- tum Systems(Oxford University Press, 2002)

    2002

  33. [41]

    Gardiner,Quantum Noise, Springer series in syner- getics (Springer-Verlag, 1991)

    C. Gardiner,Quantum Noise, Springer series in syner- getics (Springer-Verlag, 1991)

    1991

  34. [42]

    Fricke, Annals of physics252, 479 (1996)

    J. Fricke, Annals of physics252, 479 (1996)

    1996

  35. [43]

    Kira and S

    M. Kira and S. W. Koch, Progress in Quantum Electron- ics30, 155 (2006)

    2006

  36. [44]

    Equation (23) defines the fluctuations throughδu k ≡ uk − |pk|2 −f e,kfh,−k, which can be interpreted as the departure ofu k from its classical value

  37. [45]

    Kira andS

    M. Kira andS. W.Koch,Semiconductor Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

    2011

  38. [46]

    Vasko and O

    F. Vasko and O. Raichev,Quantum Kinetic Theory and Applications: Electrons, Photons, Phonons(Springer, 2005)

    2005

  39. [47]

    Richter, A

    M. Richter, A. Carmele, S. Butscher, N. Bück- ing, F. Milde, P. Kratzer, M. Scheffler, and A. Knorr, Journal of Applied Physics105, 122409 (2009), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.3117236/13906634/122409_1_online.pdf

    2009 doi

  40. [48]

    H. J. Hesten, R. A. Nyman, and F. Mintert, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 040601 (2018)

    2018

  41. [49]

    Rozas, M

    E. Rozas, M. Martín, C. Tejedor, L. Viña, G. Deligeorgis, Z. Hatzopoulos, and P. Savvidis, Physical Review B97, 075442 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Schneider, A

    C. Schneider, A. Rahimi-Iman, N. Y. Kim, J. Fis- cher, I. G. Savenko, M. Amthor, M. Lermer, A. Wolf, L. Worschech, V. D. Kulakovskii,et al., Nature497, 348 (2013)

    2013

  43. [51]

    Bhattacharya, B

    R. Bhattacharya, B. Pal, and B. Bansal, Applied Physics Letters100, 222103 (2012), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/apl/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.4721495/14249149/222103_1_online.pdf

    2012 doi

  44. [52]

    Katzer, M

    M. Katzer, M. Selig, D. Christiansen, M. V. Ballottin, P. C. M. Christianen, and A. Knorr, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 146201 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    van Roosbroeck and W

    W. van Roosbroeck and W. Shockley, Phys. Rev.94, 1558 (1954)

    1954

  46. [54]

    Y. Ren, P. Li, Z. Liu, Z. Chen, Y.-L. Chen, C. Peng, and J. Liu, Science Advances8, eade8817 (2022), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.ade8817

    2022 doi

  47. [55]

    Colombelli and J.-M

    R. Colombelli and J.-M. Manceau, Phys. Rev. X5, 011031 (2015)

    2015

  48. [56]

    Delga, V

    M.Lagrée, M.Jeannin, G.Quinchard, S.Pes, A.Evirgen, A. Delga, V. Trinité, and R. Colombelli, Phys. Rev. Appl. 21, 034002 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    Vretenar, B

    M. Vretenar, B. Kassenberg, S. Bissesar, C. Toebes, and J. Klaers, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 023167 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    Reiserer, Rev

    A. Reiserer, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 041003 (2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    Haug and S

    H. Haug and S. Koch,Quantum Theory of the Optical and Electronic Properties of Semiconductors, G - Ref- erence,Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series (World Scientific, 2004)

    2004

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.