pith. sign in

arxiv: 2512.19372 · v1 · submitted 2025-12-22 · ⚛️ physics.optics · quant-ph

A deterministic approach for integrating an emitter in a nanocavity with subwavelength light confinement

Valdemar Bille-Lauridsen , Rasmus Elleb{\ae}k Christiansen , Yi Yu , Jesper M{\o}rk This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 20:43 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.optics quant-ph
keywords bowtie nanocavityburied heterostructurestrong couplinglight-matter interactionsubwavelength confinementInP/InGaAsPnanophotonicsdeterministic integration
0
0 comments X

The pith

A buried heterostructure emitter integrated into a dielectric bowtie nanocavity achieves coupling strengths of 0.4-0.7 meV at 10-50 nm gaps by co-localizing the optical hotspot and electronic wavefunction.

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

The paper introduces a light-matter interface that places a nanoscale buried heterostructure emitter inside a dielectric bowtie cavity to co-localize the optical hotspot and the electronic wavefunction. This enables strong interaction through deep subwavelength confinement while remaining compatible with scalable fabrication. An explicit treatment of the emitter's spatial extent is required in this regime, and the confinement-factor approximation gives a more accurate prediction of the coupling strength than standard dipole models. For an InP/InGaAsP system the approach yields predicted coupling strengths of 0.4-0.7 meV for gap sizes from 50 nm down to 10 nm. The work positions the buried heterostructure-bowtie architecture as a practical route to deterministic strong coupling in solid-state nanophotonics.

Core claim

The buried heterostructure-bowtie architecture co-localizes the optical hotspot and the electronic wavefunction inside a dielectric nanocavity. Explicit inclusion of the emitter's finite spatial extent in the confinement-factor approximation produces coupling strengths of 0.4-0.7 meV for gap sizes of 50-10 nm in an InP/InGaAsP system. This supplies design rules inaccessible to point-dipole metrics and demonstrates compatibility with scalable fabrication for deterministic strong coupling.

What carries the argument

The confinement-factor approximation that incorporates the finite spatial extent of the buried heterostructure emitter, which calculates the coupling strength directly from the overlap between the optical mode and the electronic wavefunction.

If this is right

  • Strong light-matter interaction occurs through deep subwavelength confinement in a dielectric cavity.
  • The platform remains compatible with scalable fabrication methods.
  • Design rules for the cavity geometry become accessible that are not captured by dipole-based metrics.
  • Deterministic placement of the emitter inside the hotspot enables controlled strong-coupling regimes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same integration method could be applied to other semiconductor material systems to target different emission wavelengths.
  • Electrical gating of the buried heterostructure might allow tuning of the coupling strength in fabricated devices.
  • Direct measurement of the predicted coupling values in a 10 nm gap device would confirm the advantage of the confinement-factor approach over dipole approximations.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical models using the confinement-factor approximation that includes the emitter's spatial extent reliably predict the coupling strength without experimental validation.

What would settle it

Fabricating a device with a 10 nm gap and measuring a coupling strength outside the 0.4-0.7 meV range would falsify the prediction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.19372 by Jesper M{\o}rk, Rasmus Elleb{\ae}k Christiansen, Valdemar Bille-Lauridsen, Yi Yu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Proposed bowtie–buried heterostructure (BH) cav [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (c)-(e) show three optimised geometries for increasing radii (air-regions greyed out) with the maximum-normalised energy of the optical mode inside [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Calculated electron probability density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We introduce a novel light-matter interface that integrates a nanoscale buried heterostructure emitter into a dielectric bowtie cavity, co-localising the optical hotspot and the electronic wavefunction. This platform enables strong light-matter interaction through deep subwavelength confinement while remaining compatible with scalable fabrication. We show that in this regime an explicit treatment of the emitter's spatial extent is required, and that a confinement-factor approximation more accurately predicts the coupling, revealing design rules inaccessible to dipole-based metrics. For an InP/InGaAsP system, we predict coupling strengths of 0.4-0.7 meV for gap sizes of 50-10 nm, establishing the buried heterostructure-bowtie architecture as a practical route to deterministic strong coupling in solid-state nanophotonics.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a buried-heterostructure InP/InGaAsP emitter integrated into a dielectric bowtie nanocavity that co-localizes the optical hotspot with the electronic wavefunction. It argues that an explicit confinement-factor treatment, rather than a point-dipole approximation, is required when the emitter has finite spatial extent, and reports numerical predictions of vacuum Rabi coupling strengths g = 0.4–0.7 meV for gap sizes 10–50 nm, positioning the architecture as a scalable route to deterministic strong coupling in solid-state nanophotonics.

Significance. If the reported coupling values prove robust, the work would supply concrete design rules for subwavelength light-matter interfaces that remain compatible with standard epitaxial and lithographic processing, potentially accelerating experimental realization of strong-coupling regimes in quantum-dot or quantum-well nanophotonics.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (numerical results): the headline claim of g = 0.4–0.7 meV rests on an unshown confinement-factor integral that incorporates the finite InGaAsP emitter volume. No mesh-convergence data, FDTD/FEM discretization parameters, material-dispersion model, or comparison against a full Maxwell solution with the actual quantum-well wavefunction are supplied, leaving the quantitative accuracy of the approximation unverified.
  2. [§4] §4 (discussion of design rules): the assertion that the confinement-factor approach reveals design rules inaccessible to dipole metrics is load-bearing for the paper’s novelty claim, yet no explicit side-by-side comparison (e.g., g_dipole vs. g_confined for the same geometry) or sensitivity analysis to emitter position/orientation is presented.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state the assumed emitter dimensions, refractive indices, and gap-size definition used in the simulations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which help us strengthen the computational validation and comparative analysis in the manuscript. We address each major point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (numerical results): the headline claim of g = 0.4–0.7 meV rests on an unshown confinement-factor integral that incorporates the finite InGaAsP emitter volume. No mesh-convergence data, FDTD/FEM discretization parameters, material-dispersion model, or comparison against a full Maxwell solution with the actual quantum-well wavefunction are supplied, leaving the quantitative accuracy of the approximation unverified.

    Authors: We agree that additional details are needed to substantiate the reported coupling values. In the revised manuscript we will explicitly display the confinement-factor integral, supply mesh-convergence data, list the FDTD discretization parameters, specify the material dispersion model for InP/InGaAsP, and provide a direct comparison against a full Maxwell solution that incorporates the finite quantum-well wavefunction. These additions will confirm the accuracy of the 0.4–0.7 meV range for the 10–50 nm gap sizes. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (discussion of design rules): the assertion that the confinement-factor approach reveals design rules inaccessible to dipole metrics is load-bearing for the paper’s novelty claim, yet no explicit side-by-side comparison (e.g., g_dipole vs. g_confined for the same geometry) or sensitivity analysis to emitter position/orientation is presented.

    Authors: We concur that a direct comparison is required to support the novelty claim. The revised manuscript will include a side-by-side table and figures contrasting g values computed with the confinement-factor treatment versus the point-dipole approximation for the same bowtie geometries. We will also add a sensitivity analysis showing the dependence of the coupling on emitter position and orientation within the cavity, thereby demonstrating the design rules that become accessible only when the emitter’s spatial extent is accounted for. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: predictions arise from independent numerical modeling

full rationale

The derivation uses standard electromagnetic confinement-factor calculations on an InP/InGaAsP buried-heterostructure bowtie geometry to obtain coupling values 0.4-0.7 meV. These outputs are not defined in terms of themselves, nor are any fitted parameters relabeled as predictions. No load-bearing self-citations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatz smuggling appear in the provided chain; the confinement-factor treatment is presented as an explicit, externally motivated approximation rather than a tautology. The result is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard electromagnetic theory for cavity modes and material-specific assumptions about the emitter geometry and dielectric properties. No free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Maxwell's equations and standard boundary conditions govern the electromagnetic field distribution inside the dielectric bowtie cavity
    Invoked implicitly for all nanophotonic confinement calculations.
  • domain assumption The buried heterostructure emitter possesses a finite spatial extent that must be integrated explicitly rather than approximated as a point dipole
    Central modeling choice stated in the abstract as necessary for accurate coupling prediction.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5450 in / 1526 out tokens · 50631 ms · 2026-05-16T20:43:20.383858+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

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    26(λ/ 2n)3 for 20 nm bowtie gaps in III–V semicon- ductors [14] and even smaller in silicon, where bowtie gap sizes below 10 nm have been realised [13]. Further- more, proposed bowtie and slit geometries are compatible with deterministic nanobeam design flows based on the mix-and-match approach [48], where bowtie nanobeam cavities with quality factors abov...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Asano, Y

    T. Asano, Y. Ochi, Y. Takahashi, K. Kishimoto, and S. Noda, Opt. Express 25, 1769 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Crosnier, D

    G. Crosnier, D. Sanchez, A. Bazin, P. Monnier, S. Bou- choule, R. Braive, G. Beaudoin, I. Sagnes, R. Raj, and F. Raineri, Opt. Lett. 41, 579 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    J. P. Reithmaier, G. Sek, A. L¨ offler, C. Hof- mann, S. Kuhn, S. Reitzenstein, L. V. Keldysh, V. D. Kulakovskii, T. L. Reinecke, and A. Forchel, Nature 432, 197 (2004)

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    Yoshie, A

    T. Yoshie, A. Scherer, J. Hendrickson, G. Khitrova, H. M. Gibbs, G. Rupper, C. Ell, O. B. Shchekin, and D. G. Deppe, Nature 432, 200 (2004), published as a Letter on 11 November 2004

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    R. Ohta, Y. Ota, M. Nomura, N. Kuma- gai, S. Ishida, S. Iwamoto, and Y. Arakawa, Applied Physics Letters 98, 173104 (2011)

    work page 2011

  7. [7]

    J. L. O’Brien, A. Furusawa, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Nature Photonics 3, 687 (2009)

    work page 2009

  8. [8]

    Le Jeannic, A

    H. Le Jeannic, A. Tiranov, J. Carolan, T. Ramos, Y. Wang, M. H. Appel, S. Scholz, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, N. Rotenberg, L. Midolo, J. J. Garc ´ ıa-Ripoll, A. S. Sørensen, and P. Lodahl, Nature Physics 18, 1191 (2022)

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Toishi, D

    M. Toishi, D. Englund, A. Faraon, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Opt. Express 17, 14618 (2009)

    work page 2009

  10. [10]

    F. Liu, A. J. Brash, J. O’Hara, L. M. P. P. Martins, C. L. Phillips, R. J. Coles, B. Royall, E. Clarke, C. Bentham, N. Prtljaga, I. E. Itskevich, L. R. Wilson, M. S. Skolnick, and A. M. Fox, Nature Nanotechnology 13, 835 (2018)

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    Jeong, Y.-S

    K.-Y. Jeong, Y.-S. No, Y. Hwang, K. S. Kim, M.-K. Seo, H.-G. Park, and Y.-H. Lee, Nature Communications 4, 2822 (2013)

    work page 2013

  12. [12]

    Dimopoulos, M

    E. Dimopoulos, M. Xiong, A. Sakanas, A. Marchevsky, G. Dong, Y. Yu, E. Semenova, J. Mørk, and K. Yvind, Optica 10, 973 (2023)

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Holewa, A

    P. Holewa, A. Reiserer, T. Heindel, S. San- guinetti, A. Huck, and E. Semenova, Nanophotonics 14, 1729 (2025)

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Albrechtsen, B

    M. Albrechtsen, B. V. Lahijani, R. E. Christiansen, V. T. H. Nguyen, L. N. Casses, S. E. Hansen, N. Stenger, O. Sigmund, H. Jansen, J. Mørk, and S. Stobbe, Nature Communications 13, 6281 (2022)

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    Xiong, R

    M. Xiong, R. E. Christiansen, F. Schr¨ oder, Y. Yu, L. N. Casses, E. Semenova, K. Yvind, N. Stenger, O. Sigmund, and J. Mørk, Optical Materials Express 14, 397 (2024)

    work page 2024

  16. [16]

    Khitrova, H

    G. Khitrova, H. M. Gibbs, M. Kira, S. W. Koch, and A. Scherer, Nature Physics 2, 81 (2006)

    work page 2006

  17. [17]

    Matsuo, A

    S. Matsuo, A. Shinya, T. Kakitsuka, K. Nozaki, T. Segawa, T. Sato, Y. Kawaguchi, and M. Notomi, Nature Photonics 4, 648 (2010)

    work page 2010

  18. [18]

    Sakanas, PhD Thesis, Technical University of Den- mark (2019)

    A. Sakanas, PhD Thesis, Technical University of Den- mark (2019)

    work page 2019

  19. [19]

    Bille-Lauridsen, M

    V. Bille-Lauridsen, M. Xiong, Y. Yu, P. Holewa, E. Semenova, K. Yvind, and J. Mørk, in 2025 CLEO/Europe-EQEC (2025)

    work page 2025

  20. [20]

    Anderson, Microelectron

    E. Anderson, Microelectron. Eng. 73–74, 74 (2004)

    work page 2004

  21. [21]

    Thoms, D

    S. Thoms, D. S. Macintyre, K. E. Docherty, and J. M. Weaver, Microelectronic Engineering 123, 9 (2014), nano Lithography 2013

    work page 2014

  22. [22]

    Greibe, T

    T. Greibe, T. A. Anhøj, L. S. Johansen, and A. Han, Microelectronic Engineering 155, 25 (2016), micro- and Nanopatterning 2015

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    Efficient passivation of III-As(P) photonic interfaces,

    Y. Berdnikov, P. Holewa, A. Sakanas, J. M. ´Smigiel, P. Mrowi´ nski, E. Zieba-Ost´ oj, K. Yvind, A. Huck, M. Syperek, and E. Semenova, “Efficient passivation of III-As(P) photonic interfaces,” (2025), arXiv:2502.08616 [physics]

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Kountouris, A

    G. Kountouris, A. S. Darket, L. Vestergaard, E. V. Denning, J. Mørk, and P. T. Kristensen, Physical Review B 110, L241301 (2024)

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    J. Y. Marzin, J. M. G´ erard, A. Izra¨ el, D. Barrier, and G. Bastard, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 716 (1994)

    work page 1994

  26. [26]

    Borri, W

    P. Borri, W. Langbein, S. Schneider, U. Wog- gon, R. Sellin, D. Ouyang, and D. Bimberg, Physical Review Letters 87, 157401 (2001)

    work page 2001

  27. [27]

    Limame, P

    I. Limame, P. Ludewig, C.-W. Shih, M. Hohn, C. C. Palekar, W. Stolz, and S. Reitzenstein, Optica Quantum 2, 117 (2024)

    work page 2024

  28. [28]

    Kojima, K

    T. Kojima, K. Kojima, T. Asano, and S. Noda, 6 Applied Physics Letters 102, 011110 (2013)

    work page 2013

  29. [29]

    Holewa, D

    P. Holewa, D. A. Vajner, E. Zieba-Ostoj, M. Wasiluk, B. Ga´ al, A. Sakanas, M. Burakowski, P. Mrowi´ nski, B. Krajnik, M. Xiong, K. Yvind, N. Gregersen, A. Mu- sia/suppress l, A. Huck, T. Heindel, M. Syperek, and E. Semenova, Nature Communications 15, 3358 (2024)

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Schneider, T

    C. Schneider, T. Heindel, A. Huggenberger, P. Weinmann, C. Kistner, M. Kamp, S. Re- itzenstein, S. H¨ ofling, and A. Forchel, Applied Physics Letters 94, 111111 (2009)

    work page 2009

  31. [31]

    P. J. Poole, D. Dalacu, J. Lefebvre, and R. L. Williams, Nanotechnology 21, 295302 (2010)

    work page 2010

  32. [32]

    Haffouz, K

    S. Haffouz, K. D. Zeuner, D. Dalacu, P. J. Poole, J. La- pointe, D. Poitras, K. Mnaymneh, X. Wu, M. Couillard, M. Korkusinski, E. Sch¨ oll, K. D. J¨ ons, V. Zwiller, and R. L. Williams, Nano Letters 18, 3047 (2018)

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    A nanolaser with extreme dielectric confinement,

    M. Xiong, Y. Yu, Y. Berdnikov, S. K. Borregaard, A. H. Dubr´ e, E. Semenova, K. Yvind, and J. Mørk, “A nanolaser with extreme dielectric confinement,” (2025)

    work page 2025

  34. [34]

    P. T. Kristensen and S. Hughes, ACS Photonics 1, 2 (2014)

    work page 2014

  35. [35]

    Abutoama, G

    M. Abutoama, G. Kountouris, J. Mørk, and P. T. Kris- tensen, Physical Review B 110, 195434 (2024)

    work page 2024

  36. [36]

    P. T. Kristensen, C. Van Vlack, and S. Hughes, Optics Letters 37, 1649 (2012)

    work page 2012

  37. [37]

    K. G. Cogn´ ee, W. Yan, F. La China, D. Balestri, F. In- tonti, M. Gurioli, A. F. Koenderink, and P. Lalanne, Optica 6, 269 (2019)

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    O. Bleu, K. Choo, J. Levinsen, and M. M. Parish, Physical Review A 109, 023707 (2024)

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

    Saldutti, Y

    M. Saldutti, Y. Yu, and J. Mørk, Laser & Photonics Reviews 18, 2300840 (2024)

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    L. A. Coldren, S. W. Corzine, and M. L. Maˇ sanovi´ c, Diode Lasers and Photonic Integrated Circuits , 2nd ed., Wiley Series in Microwave and Optical Engineering (John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2012)

    work page 2012

  41. [41]

    Gondarenko, S

    A. Gondarenko, S. Preble, J. Robinson, L. Chen, H. Lipson, and M. Lipson, Physical Review Letters 96, 143904 (2006)

    work page 2006

  42. [42]

    Liang and S

    X. Liang and S. G. Johnson, Opt. Express 21, 30812 (2013)

    work page 2013

  43. [43]

    M. P. Bendsøe and O. Sigmund, Topology Optimization (Springer, 2003)

    work page 2003

  44. [44]

    Nakayama, S

    S. Nakayama, S. Ishida, S. Iwamoto, and Y. Arakawa, Applied Physics Letters 98, 171102 (2011)

    work page 2011

  45. [45]

    Saldutti, M

    M. Saldutti, M. Xiong, E. Dimopoulos, Y. Yu, M. Gioan- nini, and J. Mørk, Nanomaterials 11, 3030 (2021)

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    6.3 , COM- SOL AB, Stockholm, Sweden (2023), www.comsol.com

    COMSOL AB, COMSOL Multiphysics ® v. 6.3 , COM- SOL AB, Stockholm, Sweden (2023), www.comsol.com

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    V. R. Almeida, Q. Xu, C. A. Barrios, and M. Lipson, Optics Letters 29, 1209 (2004)

    work page 2004

  48. [48]

    Albrechtsen, B

    M. Albrechtsen, B. Vosoughi Lahijani, and S. Stobbe, Optics Express 30, 15458 (2022)

    work page 2022

  49. [49]

    S. I. Halimi, Z. Fu, F. O. Afzal, J. A. Allen, S. Hu, and S. M. Weiss, JOSA B 37, 3401 (2020)

    work page 2020

  50. [50]

    Manna, H

    S. Manna, H. Huang, S. F. C. Da Silva, C. Schimpf, M. B. Rota, B. Lehner, M. Reindl, R. Trotta, and A. Rastelli, Applied Surface Science 532, 147360 (2020)

    work page 2020

  51. [51]

    N. Vats, S. John, and K. Busch, Phys. Rev. A 65, 043808 (2002)

    work page 2002

  52. [52]

    Stobbe, P

    S. Stobbe, P. T. Kristensen, J. E. Mortensen, J. M. Hvam, J. Mørk, and P. Lodahl, Physical Review B 86, 085304 (2012)

    work page 2012

  53. [53]

    Hanamura, Phys

    E. Hanamura, Phys. Rev. B 37, 1273 (1988)

    work page 1988

  54. [54]

    Haug and S

    H. Haug and S. Koch, Quantum Theory of Opt. and Electron. Prop. of Semicond. , Vol. 47 (World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., 2004)

    work page 2004

  55. [55]

    Vurgaftman, J

    I. Vurgaftman, J. R. Meyer, and L. R. Ram-Mohan, Journal of Applied Physics 89, 5815 (2001)

    work page 2001

  56. [56]

    R. E. Christiansen and O. Sigmund, JOSA B 38, 496 (2021)

    work page 2021

  57. [57]

    Matsuo, T

    S. Matsuo, T. Sato, K. Takeda, A. Shinya, K. Nozaki, H. Taniyama, M. Notomi, K. Hasebe, and T. Kakitsuka, IEEE J. Sel. Top. Quantum Electron. 19, 4900311 (2013)

    work page 2013

  58. [58]

    X. Fan, T. Takagahara, J. E. Cunningham, and H. Wang, Solid State Communications 108, 857 (1998)

    work page 1998

  59. [59]

    Mork and G

    J. Mork and G. L. Lippi, Applied Physics Letters 112, 141103 (2018). END MATTER Derivation of coupling strength In the Coulomb gauge, the light–matter interaction Hamiltonian for a charge q can be written as [50] Hint = q m0 p·A(r), (7) where m0 is the free-electron mass, A(r) is the vector potential and p = −iℏ∇ r is the momentum operator. Within the env...

    work page 2018