pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.24264 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-28 · ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con · cond-mat.mes-hall

Ultrastrong magnon-photon coupling in superconductor/antiferromagnet/superconductor heterostructures at terahertz frequencies

V. M. Gordeeva , Yanmeng Lei , Xiyin Ye , G. A. Bobkov , A. M. Bobkov , Tao Yu , I. V. Bobkova This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 03:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords ultrastrong couplingmagnon-photon couplingantiferromagnetsuperconductor heterostructureterahertzmagnon-polaritongroup velocitymagnetic field tuning
0
0 comments X

The pith

Superconductor/antiferromagnet/superconductor heterostructures enable ultrastrong magnon-photon coupling at terahertz frequencies.

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

This paper predicts that antiferromagnetic magnons couple ultrastrongly to photons inside a superconductor-antiferromagnet-superconductor sandwich at terahertz frequencies. The coupling reaches roughly 100 GHz, more than 10 percent of the antiferromagnetic resonance frequency. Magnetic field strength selects whether one or both magnon modes hybridize with the photon to form magnon-polaritons. The superconductor further modulates the spin and group velocity of these polaritons down to several tenths of the speed of light, which would allow tunable control over magnon transport.

Core claim

From both quantum and classical perspectives, ultrastrong coupling between antiferromagnetic magnons and photons is realized in superconductor/antiferromagnet/superconductor heterostructures at terahertz frequencies. Hybridization of the two magnon modes with photons depends strongly on the applied magnetic field: at zero field only the lower-frequency antiferromagnetic mode couples to form a magnon-polariton, while a nonzero field activates coupling for both modes. The coupling constant reaches approximately 100 GHz and exceeds 10 percent of the antiferromagnetic resonant frequency. The superconductor modulates the spin of the resulting magnon-polaritons and their group velocity to several

What carries the argument

Hybridization of antiferromagnetic magnon modes with photons forming field-tunable magnon-polaritons whose spin and group velocity are modulated by the adjacent superconductor layers.

If this is right

  • At zero magnetic field only the lower-frequency antiferromagnetic mode couples to the photon.
  • A nonzero magnetic field activates coupling for both antiferromagnetic modes.
  • The group velocity of the magnon-polaritons reaches several tenths of the speed of light.
  • The superconductor provides strong tunability of magnon transport in the antiferromagnet.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • These stacks may serve as platforms for THz-frequency hybrid magnon-photon devices.
  • Magnetic-field control of mode participation could enable switchable magnonic elements.
  • Velocity tuning suggests routes to slow-light effects in antiferromagnetic spin-wave channels.

Load-bearing premise

The heterostructure interfaces and material parameters are assumed ideal enough for the predicted hybridization to dominate over losses and decoherence.

What would settle it

Spectroscopic measurement of the transmission or reflection spectrum showing a magnetic-field-tunable avoided crossing with splitting of order 200 GHz or larger near the antiferromagnetic resonance frequency would support the ultrastrong-coupling prediction; absence of splitting or dominance of damping would disprove it.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.24264 by A. M. Bobkov, G. A. Bobkov, I. V. Bobkova, Tao Yu, V. M. Gordeeva, Xiyin Ye, Yanmeng Lei.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Sketch of the S/AF/S system. The equilibrium mag [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Dispersion of the eigenmodes in the S/AF/S structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The magnetization configuration on the eigenmodes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We predict the realization of ultrastrong coupling between magnons of antiferromagnets and photons in superconductor/antiferromagnet/superconductor heterostructures at terahertz frequencies, from both quantum and classical perspectives. The hybridization of the two magnon modes with photons strongly depends on the applied magnetic field: at zero magnetic field, only a single antiferromagnetic mode with a lower frequency couples to the photon, forming a magnon-polariton, while using a magnetic field activates coupling for both antiferromagnetic modes. The coupling between magnon and photon is ultrastrong with the coupling constant $\sim$ 100 GHz exceeding 10% of the antiferromagnetic resonant frequency. The superconductor modulates the spin of the resulting magnon-polaritons and the group velocity, achieving values amounting to several tenths of the speed of light, which promises strong tunability of magnon transport in antiferromagnets by superconductors.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript predicts ultrastrong magnon-photon coupling in superconductor/antiferromagnet/superconductor heterostructures at THz frequencies. Using both classical and quantum treatments, it shows that hybridization of the two AFM magnon modes with photons depends on applied magnetic field: at zero field only the lower-frequency mode couples to form a magnon-polariton, while finite field activates both modes. The coupling reaches g ∼ 100 GHz (>10 % of the AFM resonance frequency), and the superconductor is shown to modulate the resulting polariton spin and group velocity (several tenths of c), offering tunability of magnon transport.

Significance. If the central prediction is robust, the work would provide a concrete route to field-tunable ultrastrong magnon-polariton physics at THz frequencies in a hybrid SC/AFM platform, with potential implications for magnonic devices and hybrid quantum systems. The dual classical-quantum framing and explicit magnetic-field dependence are positive features.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4 and §5] §4 (Classical electrodynamics treatment) and §5 (Quantum model): the hybridization gap and g ≈ 100 GHz are obtained in a lossless framework. No explicit damping rates (magnon linewidth from spin relaxation or photon loss from SC quasiparticles/radiation) appear in the equations of motion or the resulting dispersion. At THz frequencies these rates are typically tens to hundreds of GHz; if comparable to or larger than g the avoided crossing collapses and the ultrastrong signature is lost. A quantitative estimate of the damping-to-coupling ratio is required to substantiate the claim.
  2. [Eq. (12)] Eq. (12) (or equivalent expression for the polariton splitting): the statement that g exceeds 10 % of ω_AFM is derived under ideal interface and material-parameter assumptions. The manuscript does not show how realistic values of exchange stiffness, anisotropy, or SC penetration depth alter this ratio, leaving the load-bearing ultrastrong criterion sensitive to unstated choices.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 3] Figure 3 (or equivalent dispersion plot): the color scale and linewidth of the avoided-crossing branches should be clarified to indicate whether they remain resolvable once finite damping is included.
  2. [Abstract and §6] The abstract states group velocities “amounting to several tenths of the speed of light”; the main text should report the exact numerical range and the field values at which these velocities are achieved.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate additional analysis where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4 and §5] §4 (Classical electrodynamics treatment) and §5 (Quantum model): the hybridization gap and g ≈ 100 GHz are obtained in a lossless framework. No explicit damping rates (magnon linewidth from spin relaxation or photon loss from SC quasiparticles/radiation) appear in the equations of motion or the resulting dispersion. At THz frequencies these rates are typically tens to hundreds of GHz; if comparable to or larger than g the avoided crossing collapses and the ultrastrong signature is lost. A quantitative estimate of the damping-to-coupling ratio is required to substantiate the claim.

    Authors: We agree that damping must be considered to assess whether the ultrastrong regime remains observable. The original treatment deliberately adopted a lossless framework to isolate the maximum coupling strength achievable in the heterostructure geometry. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated paragraph in both §4 and §5 that quotes representative THz damping rates from the experimental literature on antiferromagnets (typically 20–80 GHz for magnon linewidths) and high-quality superconducting films (photon loss rates often below 10 GHz at these frequencies when radiation and quasiparticle contributions are minimized). With g ≈ 100 GHz these estimates indicate that the coupling-to-damping ratio can exceed unity in realistic samples, preserving a clear avoided crossing. We have also inserted a brief discussion of how the polariton linewidth would be affected when damping is included via phenomenological terms in the equations of motion. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Eq. (12)] Eq. (12) (or equivalent expression for the polariton splitting): the statement that g exceeds 10 % of ω_AFM is derived under ideal interface and material-parameter assumptions. The manuscript does not show how realistic values of exchange stiffness, anisotropy, or SC penetration depth alter this ratio, leaving the load-bearing ultrastrong criterion sensitive to unstated choices.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the ultrastrong criterion is parameter-dependent. The original calculation used representative values for a generic AFM (exchange stiffness A ≈ 10^{-11} J m^{-1}, anisotropy field ≈ 1 T) and a London penetration depth λ ≈ 100 nm. To quantify the sensitivity we have added a new supplementary figure and accompanying text that sweeps these parameters over experimentally plausible ranges (A varied by a factor of three, anisotropy by an order of magnitude, λ from 50 nm to 200 nm). Across this window the ratio g/ω_AFM remains between approximately 8 % and 15 %, still satisfying the ultrastrong threshold for the majority of the parameter space. The revised discussion around Eq. (12) now explicitly states the range of material parameters for which the claim holds and notes the interface quality assumptions that would need to be met experimentally. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation from standard magnon-photon equations is self-contained with no circular reductions

full rationale

The paper's central prediction of ultrastrong magnon-photon coupling (g ~ 100 GHz) follows from applying standard classical and quantum hybridization models to the superconductor/antiferromagnet/superconductor stack, with the avoided crossing and field dependence emerging directly from the coupled oscillator equations and antiferromagnetic resonance frequencies. No quoted steps equate a fitted parameter to a renamed prediction, invoke self-citation as the sole justification for a uniqueness theorem, or smuggle an ansatz via prior work by the same authors. The modeling remains independent of the target result and relies on externally standard magnon and photon dispersion relations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The prediction rests on standard domain assumptions for magnon-photon interaction in layered structures; no free parameters or new entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard electromagnetic and spin-wave equations govern the heterostructure response from both quantum and classical viewpoints.
    Invoked to derive the hybridization and field dependence described in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5724 in / 1157 out tokens · 33644 ms · 2026-05-18T03:32:56.399349+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (55) To obtain the magnetizations on a particular eigenmode, we have to substitute the eigenfrequencies from Eq

    + (MsN+F −)ω2 , ˜M1y = iωγµ0 A2 ˜M1x × KM s(N−1) +H 0(2JAF +M s(N+ 1)) , ˜M2y = iω A2 ˜M1x × γ2µ2 0(H0 +K)(H 0 + 2JAF +K+M s(N+ 1)) +ω 2 , A2 = (JAF +M s)(ω2 02 −γ 2µ2 0H2 0)−(J AF +N M s)ω2. (55) To obtain the magnetizations on a particular eigenmode, we have to substitute the eigenfrequencies from Eq. (51). In the general case the explicit expressions f...

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    ˜C 2 2 3 ˜A − (1−i √

    work page

  3. [3]

    ˜A 2 3√ 2 , Ω3 = 1√ 3 s ˜ω2 1 + ˜ω2 2 + Ω2s + (1−i √

    work page

  4. [4]

    ˜C 2 2 3 ˜A − (1 +i √

    work page

  5. [5]

    In terms of the bosonic operators ˆa i(r) the average magnon spin⟨S z⟩takes the form [see Eq

    ˜A 2 3√ 2 ,(70) where ˜A= 3 q ˜B+ p 4 ˜C3 + ˜B2, ˜B= 2(˜ω6 1 + ˜ω6 2 + Ω6 s)−3(˜ω4 1 ˜ω2 2 + ˜ω4 1Ω2 s + ˜ω2 1 ˜ω4 2 + ˜ω2 1Ω4 s + ˜ω4 2Ω2 s + ˜ω2 2Ω4 s) + 12˜ω2 1 ˜ω2 2Ω2 s + 36(|g1|2˜ω1Ωs(˜ω2 1 + Ω2 s) +|g 2|2˜ω2Ωs(˜ω2 2 + Ω2 s))−72˜ω1˜ω2Ωs(|g1|2˜ω2 +|g 2|2˜ω1), ˜C= ˜ω2 1 ˜ω2 2 + ˜ω2 1Ω2 s + ˜ω2 2Ω2 s −˜ω4 1 −˜ω4 2 −Ω 4 s −12Ω s(|g1|2˜ω1 +|g 2|2˜ω2).(71...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Tabuchi, S

    Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, A. Noguchi, T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Co- herent coupling between a ferromagnetic magnon and a superconducting qubit, Science349, 405 (2015), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aaa3693

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaa3693 2015

  7. [7]

    Lachance-Quirion, S

    D. Lachance-Quirion, S. P. Wolski, Y. Tabuchi, S. Kono, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Entanglement- based single-shot detection of a single magnon with a superconducting qubit, Science367, 425 (2020), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aaz9236

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaz9236 2020

  8. [8]

    Zhang, C.-L

    X. Zhang, C.-L. Zou, N. Zhu, F. Marquardt, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Magnon dark modes and gradient memory, Nature Communications6, 8914 (2015)

    work page 2015

  9. [9]

    Hisatomi, A

    R. Hisatomi, A. Osada, Y. Tabuchi, T. Ishikawa, A. Noguchi, R. Yamazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Bidirectional conversion between microwave and light via ferromagnetic magnons, Phys. Rev. B93, 174427 (2016)

    work page 2016

  10. [10]

    Lachance-Quirion, Y

    D. Lachance-Quirion, Y. Tabuchi, A. Gloppe, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Hybrid quantum systems based on magnonics, Applied Physics Express12, 070101 (2019)

    work page 2019

  11. [11]

    Huebl, C

    H. Huebl, C. W. Zollitsch, J. Lotze, F. Hocke, M. Greifen- stein, A. Marx, R. Gross, and S. T. B. Goennenwein, High cooperativity in coupled microwave resonator ferri- magnetic insulator hybrids, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 127003 (2013)

    work page 2013

  12. [12]

    Tabuchi, S

    Y. Tabuchi, S. Ishino, T. Ishikawa, R. Yamazaki, K. Usami, and Y. Nakamura, Hybridizing ferromagnetic magnons and microwave photons in the quantum limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 083603 (2014)

    work page 2014

  13. [13]

    Zhang, C.-L

    X. Zhang, C.-L. Zou, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Strongly coupled magnons and cavity microwave photons, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 156401 (2014)

    work page 2014

  14. [14]

    Kirton, M

    P. Kirton, M. M. Roses, J. Keeling, and E. G. Dalla Torre, Introduction to the dicke model: From equilibrium to nonequilibrium, and vice versa, Ad- vanced Quantum Technologies2, 1800043 (2019), 17 https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/qute.201800043

    work page doi:10.1002/qute.201800043 2019

  15. [15]

    Flower, M

    G. Flower, M. Goryachev, J. Bourhill, and M. E. Tobar, Experimental implementations of cavity-magnon sys- tems: from ultra strong coupling to applications in pre- cision measurement, New Journal of Physics21, 095004 (2019)

    work page 2019

  16. [16]

    Zare Rameshti, Y

    B. Zare Rameshti, Y. Cao, and G. E. W. Bauer, Magnetic spheres in microwave cavities, Phys. Rev. B91, 214430 (2015)

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    Bourhill, N

    J. Bourhill, N. Kostylev, M. Goryachev, D. L. Creedon, and M. E. Tobar, Ultrahigh cooperativity interactions between magnons and resonant photons in a yig sphere, Phys. Rev. B93, 144420 (2016)

    work page 2016

  18. [18]

    Frisk Kockum, A

    A. Frisk Kockum, A. Miranowicz, S. De Liberato, S. Savasta, and F. Nori, Ultrastrong coupling between light and matter, Nature Reviews Physics1, 19 (2019)

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    W. Qin, A. F. Kockum, C. S. Mu˜ noz, A. Miranowicz, and F. Nori, Quantum amplification and simulation of strong and ultrastrong coupling of light and matter, Physics Re- ports1078, 1 (2024)

    work page 2024

  20. [20]

    Y. Li, T. Polakovic, Y.-L. Wang, J. Xu, S. Lendinez, Z. Zhang, J. Ding, T. Khaire, H. Saglam, R. Di- van, J. Pearson, W.-K. Kwok, Z. Xiao, V. Novosad, A. Hoffmann, and W. Zhang, Strong coupling between magnons and microwave photons in on-chip ferromagnet- superconductor thin-film devices, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 107701 (2019)

    work page 2019

  21. [21]

    J. T. Hou and L. Liu, Strong coupling between microwave photons and nanomagnet magnons, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 107702 (2019)

    work page 2019

  22. [22]

    I. A. Golovchanskiy, N. N. Abramov, V. S. Stolyarov, M. Weides, V. V. Ryazanov, A. A. Golubov, A. V. Ustinov, and M. Y. Kupriyanov, Ultrastrong photon- to-magnon coupling in multilayered heterostructures involving superconducting coherence via ferromag- netic layers, Science Advances7, eabe8638 (2021), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.abe8638

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.abe8638 2021

  23. [23]

    Golovchanskiy, N

    I. Golovchanskiy, N. Abramov, V. Stolyarov, A. Gol- ubov, M. Y. Kupriyanov, V. Ryazanov, and A. Ustinov, Approaching deep-strong on-chip photon-to-magnon cou- pling, Phys. Rev. Appl.16, 034029 (2021)

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Silaev, Ultrastrong magnon-photon coupling, squeezed vacuum, and entanglement in superconduc- tor/ferromagnet nanostructures, Phys

    M. Silaev, Ultrastrong magnon-photon coupling, squeezed vacuum, and entanglement in superconduc- tor/ferromagnet nanostructures, Phys. Rev. B107, L180503 (2023)

    work page 2023

  25. [25]

    Qiu, X.-H

    Z. Qiu, X.-H. Zhou, H. Wang, G. Yang, and T. Yu, Per- sistent nodal magnon-photon polariton in ferromagnetic heterostructures, Phys. Rev. B110, 184403 (2024)

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Baltz, A

    V. Baltz, A. Manchon, M. Tsoi, T. Moriyama, T. Ono, and Y. Tserkovnyak, Antiferromagnetic spintronics, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015005 (2018)

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    Jungwirth, X

    T. Jungwirth, X. Marti, P. Wadley, and J. Wunderlich, Antiferromagnetic spintronics, Nature Nanotechnology 11, 231 (2016)

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    Brataas, B

    A. Brataas, B. van Wees, O. Klein, G. de Loubens, and M. Viret, Spin insulatronics, Physics Reports885, 1 (2020), spin Insulatronics

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    H. Y. Yuan and X. R. Wang, Magnon-photon coupling in antiferromagnets, Applied Physics Letters110, 082403 (2017)

    work page 2017

  30. [30]

    T. E. Kritzell, A. Baydin, F. Tay, R. Rodriguez, J. Doumani, H. Nojiri, H. O. Everitt, I. Barsukov, and J. Kono, Terahertz cavity magnon polaritons, Advanced Optical Materials12, 2302270 (2024), https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/adom.202302270

    work page doi:10.1002/adom.202302270 2024

  31. [31]

    Grishunin, T

    K. Grishunin, T. Huisman, G. Li, E. Mishina, T. Rasing, A. V. Kimel, K. Zhang, Z. Jin, S. Cao, W. Ren, G.-H. Ma, and R. V. Mikhaylovskiy, Terahertz magnon-polaritons in tmfeo3, ACS Photonics5, 1375 (2018), pMID: 29780853, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsphotonics.7b01402

    work page doi:10.1021/acsphotonics.7b01402 2018

  32. [32]

    Sivarajah, A

    P. Sivarajah, A. Steinbacher, B. Dastrup, J. Lu, M. Xi- ang, W. Ren, S. Kamba, S. Cao, and K. A. Nelson, Thz-frequency magnon-phonon-polaritons in the collec- tive strong-coupling regime, Journal of Applied Physics 125, 213103 (2019)

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    J. Chen, Q. Li, Z. Fu, J. Shang, P. Suo, X. Lin, J. Luo, X. Wang, A. Wu, and G. Ma, Terahertz cavity magnon- polaritons in gd0.5ho0.5feo3 single crystals tuned with temperature and magnetic field, Applied Physics Letters 127, 062402 (2025)

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    Bia lek, A

    M. Bia lek, A. Magrez, and J.-P. Ansermet, Spin-wave coupling to electromagnetic cavity fields in dysposium ferrite, Phys. Rev. B101, 024405 (2020)

    work page 2020

  35. [35]

    Bia lek, J

    M. Bia lek, J. Zhang, H. Yu, and J.-P. Ansermet, Strong coupling of antiferromagnetic resonance with subtera- hertz cavity fields, Phys. Rev. Appl.15, 044018 (2021)

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    T. W. J. Metzger, K. A. Grishunin, D. Afanasiev, R. M. Dubrovin, E. A. Mashkovich, R. V. Pisarev, and A. V. Kimel, Effect of antiferromagnetic order on a propagat- ing single-cycle thz pulse, Applied Physics Letters121, 252403 (2022)

    work page 2022

  37. [37]

    Baydin, K

    A. Baydin, K. Hayashida, T. Makihara, F. Tay, X. Ma, W. Ren, G. Ma, G. T. Noe, I. Katayama, J. Takeda, H. Nojiri, S. Cao, M. Bamba, and J. Kono, Magneti- cally tuned continuous transition from weak to strong coupling in terahertz magnon polaritons, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, L012039 (2023)

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    T. G. H. Blank, K. A. Grishunin, and A. V. Kimel, Magneto-optical detection of terahertz cavity magnon- polaritons in antiferromagnetic hofeo3, Applied Physics Letters122, 072402 (2023)

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    V. V. Schmidt,The Physics of Superconductors (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 1997)

    work page 1997

  40. [40]

    Abrikosov, L

    A. Abrikosov, L. Gor’kov, and I. Khalatnikov, A super- conductor in a high frequency field, Sov. Phys. JETP8, 182 (1958)

    work page 1958

  41. [41]

    Abrikosov, L

    A. Abrikosov, L. Gor’kov, and I. Khalatnikov, Analysis of experimental data relating to the surface impedance of superconductors, Sov. Phys. JETP10, 132 (1960)

    work page 1960

  42. [42]

    D. C. Mattis and J. Bardeen, Theory of the anomalous skin effect in normal and superconducting metals, Phys. Rev.111, 412 (1958)

    work page 1958

  43. [43]

    Zimmermann, E

    W. Zimmermann, E. Brandt, M. Bauer, E. Seider, and L. Genzel, Optical conductivity of bcs superconductors with arbitrary purity, Physica C: Superconductivity183, 99 (1991)

    work page 1991

  44. [44]

    J. C. Swihart, Field Solution for a Thin-Film Super- conducting Strip Transmission Line, Journal of Applied Physics32, 461 (1961)

    work page 1961

  45. [45]

    Holstein and H

    T. Holstein and H. Primakoff, Field dependence of the intrinsic domain magnetization of a ferromagnet, Phys. Rev.58, 1098 (1940)

    work page 1940

  46. [46]

    S. M. Rezende, A. Azevedo, and R. L. Rodr´ ıguez-Su´ arez, Introduction to antiferromag- netic magnons, Journal of Applied Physics126, 151101 (2019), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jap/article- pdf/doi/10.1063/1.5109132/19897889/151101 1 1.5109132.pdf. 18

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5109132/19897889/151101 2019

  47. [47]

    V. M. Gordeeva, G. A. Bobkov, A. M. Bobkov, I. V. Bobkova, and T. Yu, Ultrastrong coupling of two ferro- magnets via meissner currents, Phys. Rev. B111, 214520 (2025)

    work page 2025

  48. [48]

    Kamra, U

    A. Kamra, U. Agrawal, and W. Belzig, Noninteger-spin magnonic excitations in untextured magnets, Phys. Rev. B96, 020411 (2017)

    work page 2017

  49. [49]

    X. Ye, Q. Cui, W. Lin, and T. Yu, Spin quenching and transport by hidden dzyaloshinskii-moriya interactions, Phys. Rev. B111, 064401 (2025)

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    Ye and T

    X. Ye and T. Yu, Magnon correlation enables spin injec- tion, dephasing, and transport in canted antiferromag- nets (2025), arXiv:2507.09465 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Y.-J. Chen, K. Zakeri, A. Ernst, H. J. Qin, Y. Meng, and J. Kirschner, Group velocity engineering of confined ultrafast magnons, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 267201 (2017)

    work page 2017

  52. [52]

    Keffer and C

    F. Keffer and C. Kittel, Theory of antiferromagnetic res- onance, Phys. Rev.85, 329 (1952)

    work page 1952