pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.25170 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-28 · 🪐 quant-ph

Spectral tuning of single T centres by the Stark effect

Michael Dobinson , Felix Hufnagel , Simon A. Meynell , Camille Bowness , Melanie Gascoine , Walter Wasserman , Prasoon K. Shandilya , Christian Dangel
show 3 more authors
Michael L.W. Thewalt Stephanie Simmons Daniel B. Higginbottom
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 16:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords T centreStark effectsilicon nanophotonicsquantum entanglementspin-photon interfacespectral tuningp-i-n diodequantum emitters
0
0 comments X

The pith

Stark-effect tuning via p-i-n diodes aligns 55% of on-chip T centres into mutual resonance and boosts modeled entanglement rates by orders of magnitude.

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

The paper integrates single T centres into silicon nanophotonic cavities that incorporate p-i-n diodes, allowing local electric fields to shift the optical transition frequencies of individual emitters. This Stark tuning reaches 30 GHz and brings 55(2)% of the centres on a chip into spectral overlap. A model of joint excitation probability then shows that resonance alignment increases the rate at which distinct emitters can generate entangled photon pairs. Additional observations include electrically tunable emitter lifetime within the cavity and a transition to a non-luminescent charge state at high reverse bias.

Core claim

Embedding T centres in silicon photonic cavities with integrated p-i-n diodes enables Stark tuning of their optical transitions by up to 30 GHz. This control is sufficient to bring 55(2)% of on-chip centres into mutual resonance. A joint-excitation model predicts that such tuning raises the entanglement generation rate between distinct emitters by orders of magnitude. High-bias operation further reveals a dark charge state and bias-dependent modulation of the optical splitting that may enable electrically driven spin mixing through spin-orbit coupling.

What carries the argument

Local electric-field control through integrated p-i-n diodes that applies the Stark effect to shift the optical transition frequencies of single T centres.

If this is right

  • 55(2)% of on-chip T centres can be brought into mutual resonance by electrical tuning.
  • Emitter lifetime can be reduced in a controlled way by shifting the centre across the cavity resonance.
  • The modeled entanglement rate between distinct T centres rises by orders of magnitude once they are tuned into resonance.
  • High reverse bias drives the T centre into a dark charge state, modulating luminescence.
  • Bias-induced changes in optical transition splitting suggest a route to electrically driven excited-state spin mixing via spin-orbit coupling.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same diode integration could be extended to larger arrays, allowing selective pairing of any two T centres for on-chip entanglement distribution.
  • The observed dark-charge transition offers a possible electrical reset mechanism that could improve duty cycle in repeated quantum operations.
  • If the spin-orbit modulation is confirmed, all-electrical control of the excited-state spin could complement the existing optical and microwave controls.

Load-bearing premise

The frequency shifts are produced solely by the Stark effect and the joint-excitation model accurately forecasts real entanglement rates even without direct experimental confirmation of the rate gain.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the two-emitter entanglement rate with and without applied Stark tuning on the same pair of T centres would confirm or refute the predicted orders-of-magnitude increase.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.25170 by Camille Bowness, Christian Dangel, Daniel B. Higginbottom, Felix Hufnagel, Melanie Gascoine, Michael Dobinson, Michael L.W. Thewalt, Prasoon K. Shandilya, Simon A. Meynell, Stephanie Simmons, Walter Wasserman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Among the many solid-state emitters being explored for scalable quantum technologies, the silicon T centre is a leading candidate offering long-lived spin qubits, a telecommunications-band spin-photon interface, and integration with on-chip photonic circuits. However, nanophotonic integration broadens both the inhomogeneous spectral distribution and individual emitter linewidths. Here, we integrate single T centres into silicon nanophotonic cavities with p-i-n diodes for local electronic control. These devices enable Stark tuning up to 30 GHz, sufficient to bring 55(2)% of on-chip T centres into mutual resonance, and demonstrate tunable lifetime reduction across the cavity resonance. A model of the joint excitation probability shows an orders-of-magnitude increase in entanglement rate by tuning distinct emitters into mutual resonance. Luminescence modulation at high reverse biases reveals a transition to a dark charge state. Finally, bias-induced modulation of the optical transition splitting uncovers a potential mechanism for electrically driven excited-state spin mixing via spin-orbit coupling. Localized and individual spectral tuning increases the yield of performant silicon spin-photon interfaces and the number of devices per chip available for large-scale entanglement and quantum information technologies.

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 reports integration of single T centres into silicon nanophotonic cavities with p-i-n diodes, achieving local Stark tuning up to 30 GHz. This tuning range is stated to bring 55(2)% of on-chip T centres into mutual resonance. The work demonstrates tunable lifetime reduction across the cavity resonance and presents a model of joint excitation probability that predicts an orders-of-magnitude increase in entanglement rate when distinct emitters are tuned into resonance. Additional observations include luminescence modulation revealing bias-induced transitions to a dark charge state and bias-induced changes in optical transition splitting suggestive of electrically driven excited-state spin mixing via spin-orbit coupling.

Significance. If the experimental tuning is robust and the model predictions are borne out, the result would meaningfully advance scalable silicon quantum photonics by providing a practical route to overcome inhomogeneous broadening, thereby increasing the fraction of usable spin-photon interfaces per chip for entanglement distribution and quantum networking.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and joint-excitation model] The abstract and the section describing the joint-excitation-probability model: the headline claim of an orders-of-magnitude entanglement-rate increase rests entirely on this model, yet the model does not incorporate the bias-induced charge-state transitions to a dark state or the possible spin-orbit mixing at high reverse bias that are explicitly flagged in the abstract. No direct experimental measurement of entanglement rate or photon indistinguishability under applied bias is reported, so the rate-enhancement assertion remains unverified.
  2. [Results on spectral tuning] The paragraph reporting the 55(2)% mutual-resonance yield: this central figure is presented without the underlying inhomogeneous linewidth distribution, the per-device tuning statistics, or the error-propagation method used to arrive at the quoted uncertainty. Because the yield improvement is load-bearing for the scalability claim, the supporting data and analysis must be shown explicitly.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states 'tunable lifetime reduction across the cavity resonance' but does not specify whether this is Purcell enhancement, suppression, or both; a brief clarification of the sign and magnitude would improve readability.
  2. [Methods] The manuscript would benefit from a short methods subsection or supplementary note detailing the electric-field calibration, the procedure for extracting Stark shifts, and any checks against other possible tuning mechanisms (e.g., strain or heating).

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for highlighting these important points. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions that will be made.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The abstract and the section describing the joint-excitation-probability model: the headline claim of an orders-of-magnitude entanglement-rate increase rests entirely on this model, yet the model does not incorporate the bias-induced charge-state transitions to a dark state or the possible spin-orbit mixing at high reverse bias that are explicitly flagged in the abstract. No direct experimental measurement of entanglement rate or photon indistinguishability under applied bias is reported, so the rate-enhancement assertion remains unverified.

    Authors: The joint-excitation model calculates the improvement in entanglement rate that follows from using Stark tuning to bring distinct emitters into resonance. It is constructed for the bias range in which emitters remain in the bright charge state, which corresponds to the demonstrated tuning of up to 30 GHz. The dark-state transitions and spin-orbit mixing are observed only at substantially higher reverse biases, outside the operating window used for resonance matching. We will revise both the abstract and the model section to state these assumptions and the applicable bias range explicitly. We agree that the manuscript contains no direct experimental measurement of entanglement rate or photon indistinguishability under bias; such verification lies beyond the scope of the present work, which focuses on demonstrating the tuning mechanism and providing a predictive model. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The paragraph reporting the 55(2)% mutual-resonance yield: this central figure is presented without the underlying inhomogeneous linewidth distribution, the per-device tuning statistics, or the error-propagation method used to arrive at the quoted uncertainty. Because the yield improvement is load-bearing for the scalability claim, the supporting data and analysis must be shown explicitly.

    Authors: The 55(2)% figure is obtained by integrating the measured inhomogeneous resonance distribution of on-chip T centres against the 30 GHz tuning range per device. We will add the underlying inhomogeneous linewidth histogram, the per-device tuning statistics, and the explicit error-propagation calculation to the revised manuscript (either in the main text or as a supplementary figure) so that the yield and its uncertainty can be fully assessed. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • No direct experimental measurement of entanglement rate or photon indistinguishability under applied bias is reported

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results rest on independent experiments and standard models

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain consists of direct experimental measurements of Stark-induced spectral shifts (up to 30 GHz) and lifetime tuning in fabricated devices, from which the 55(2)% mutual resonance yield is extracted via observed data. The joint-excitation-probability model is a separate theoretical construct based on standard quantum-optics rate equations that forecasts entanglement-rate gains once resonance is achieved; it does not reduce to any parameter fitted inside the paper's own equations or to a self-citation chain. No self-definitional, fitted-input-renamed-as-prediction, or ansatz-smuggled steps appear. The work therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks (prior T-centre spectroscopy and cavity QED) and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on established solid-state physics of T centres and the Stark effect with no new free parameters or invented entities introduced.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard quantum mechanics and semiconductor physics govern T-centre behaviour under electric fields.
    Implicit foundation for Stark-tuning experiments.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 8894 in / 1176 out tokens · 85424 ms · 2026-05-07T16:49:21.543592+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D. D. Awschalom, R. Hanson, J. Wrachtrup, and B. B. Zhou, Nature Photonics 12, 516 (2018)

    2018

  2. [2]

    Simmons, PRX Quantum 5, 010102 (2024)

    S. Simmons, PRX Quantum 5, 010102 (2024)

    2024

  3. [3]

    Bergeron, C

    L. Bergeron, C. Chartrand, A. T. K. Kurkjian, K. J. Morse, H. Riemann, N. V. Abrosimov, P. Becker, H.-J. Pohl, M. L. W. Thewalt, and S. Simmons, PRX Quantum 1, 020301 (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    D. B. Higginbottom, A. T. K. Kurkjian, C. Char- trand, E. R. MacQuarrie, J. R. Klein, N. R. Lee-Hone, J. Stacho, C. Bowness, L. Bergeron, A. DeAbreu, N. A. Brunelle, S. R. Harrigan, J. Kanaganayagam, M. Kazemi, D. W. Marsden, T. S. Richards, L. A. Stott, S. Roorda, K. J. Morse, M. L. W. Thewalt, and S. Simmons, Nature 607, 266 (2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    Johnston, U

    A. Johnston, U. Felix-Rendon, Y. E. Wong, and S. Chen, Nature Communications 2024 15:1 15, 1 (2024). 12

    2024

  6. [6]

    Nano Letters24(1), 319–325 (2024) https: //doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.3c04056

    F. Islam, C.-M. Lee, S. Harper, M. H. Rahaman, Y. Zhao, N. K. Vij, and E. Waks, Nano Letters 10.1021/acs.nanolett.3c04056 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.3c04056 2023

  7. [7]

    S. D. Barrett and P. Kok, Phys. Rev. A 71, 060310 (2005)

    2005

  8. [8]

    Kambs and C

    B. Kambs and C. Becher, New Journal of Physics 20, 115003 (2018)

    2018

  9. [9]

    De Santis, M

    L. De Santis, M. E. Trusheim, K. C. Chen, and D. R. Englund, Physical Review Letters 127, 147402 (2021)

    2021

  10. [10]

    C. P. Anderson, A. Bourassa, K. C. Miao, G. Wol- fowicz, P. J. Mintun, A. L. Crook, H. Abe, J. U. Has- san, N. T. Son, T. Ohshima, and D. D. Awschalom, Science 366, 1255 (2019)

    2019

  11. [11]

    Zeledon, B

    C. Zeledon, B. Pingault, J. C. Marcks, M. Onizhuk, Y. Tsaturyan, Y.-X. Wang, B. S. Soloway, H. Abe, M. Ghezellou, J. Ul-Hassan, T. Ohshima, N. T. Son, F. J. Heremans, G. Galli, C. P. Anderson, and D. D. Awschalom, Minute-long quantum coherence enabled by electrical depletion of magnetic noise , Tech. Rep. (University of Chicago, Chicago, 2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    Steidl, P

    T. Steidl, P. Kuna, E. Hesselmeier-H¨ uttmann, D. Liu, R. St¨ ohr, W. Knolle, M. Ghezellou, J. Ul- Hassan, M. Schober, M. Bockstedte, G. Bian, A. Gali, V. Vorobyov, and J. Wrachtrup, Nature Communications 16, 10.1038/s41467-025-59647-9 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-025-59647-9 2025

  13. [13]

    A. M. Day, M. Sutula, J. R. Dietz, A. Raun, D. D. Sukachev, M. K. Bhaskar, and E. L. Hu, Nature Communications 15, 10.1038/s41467-024-48968-w (2024)

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-48968-w 2024

  14. [14]

    Clear, S

    C. Clear, S. Hosseini, A. AlizadehKhaledi, N. Brunelle, A. Woolverton, J. Kanaganayagam, M. Kazemi, C. Chartrand, M. Keshavarz, Y. Xiong, L. Alaerts, ¨O. O. Soykal, G. Hautier, V. Karas- siouk, M. Thewalt, D. Higginbottom, and S. Sim- mons, Physical Review Applied 22, 064014 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    Alaerts, Y

    L. Alaerts, Y. Xiong, S. M. Griffin, and G. Hautier, Physical Review B 112, 10.1103/b59h-4wcn (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/b59h-4wcn 2025

  16. [16]

    A. M. Day, C. Zhang, C. Jin, H. Song, M. Su- tula, A. Sipahigil, M. K. Bhaskar, and E. L. Hu, arXiv:2501.11888 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Photonic Inc., arXiv:2406.01704 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Dobinson, C

    M. Dobinson, C. Bowness, S. A. Meynell, C. Char- trand, E. Hoffmann, M. Gascoine, I. MacGilp, F. Afzal, C. Dangel, N. Jahed, M. L. W. Thewalt, S. Simmons, and D. B. Higginbottom, Nature Pho- tonics 19, 1132 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    E. R. MacQuarrie, C. Chartrand, D. B. Higginbot- tom, K. J. Morse, V. A. Karasyuk, S. Roorda, and S. Simmons, New Journal of Physics 23, 103008 (2021)

    2021

  20. [20]

    DeAbreu, C

    A. DeAbreu, C. Bowness, A. Alizadeh, C. Char- trand, N. A. Brunelle, E. R. MacQuarrie, N. R. Lee- Hone, M. Ruether, M. Kazemi, A. T. K. Kurkjian, S. Roorda, N. V. Abrosimov, H.-J. Pohl, M. L. W. Thewalt, D. B. Higginbottom, and S. Simmons, Op- tics Express 31, 15045 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    Bowness, S

    C. Bowness, S. A. Meynell, M. Dobinson, C. Clear, K. Jooya, N. Brunelle, M. Keshavarz, K. Boos, M. Gascoine, S. Taherizadegan, C. Simon, M. L. Thewalt, S. Simmons, and D. B. Higginbottom, PRX Quantum 6, 030350 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    Zhang, N

    X. Zhang, N. Fiaschi, L. Komza, H. Song, T. Schenkel, and A. Sipahigil, PRX Quantum 6, 030351 (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    Y. Cao, A. J. Bennett, D. J. Ellis, I. Farrer, D. A. Ritchie, and A. J. Shields, Applied Physics Letters 105, 051112 (2014)

    2014

  24. [24]

    B. E. Kane, Nature 393, 133 (1998)

    1998

  25. [25]

    Aghaeimeibodi, C

    S. Aghaeimeibodi, C. M. Lee, M. A. Buyukkaya, C. J. Richardson, and E. Waks, Applied Physics Let- ters 114, 10.1063/1.5082560 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.5082560 2019

  26. [26]

    Vincent, A

    G. Vincent, A. Chantre, and D. Bois, Journal of Applied Physics 50, 5484 (1979)

    1979

  27. [27]

    H. G. Grimmeiss, Annual Review of Materials Re- search 7, 341 (1977)

    1977

  28. [28]

    Wolfowicz, F

    G. Wolfowicz, F. J. Heremans, C. P. Ander- son, S. Kanai, H. Seo, A. Gali, G. Galli, and D. D. Awschalom, Nature Reviews Materials 6, 906 (2021)

    2021

  29. [29]

    Lundstrom, W

    T. Lundstrom, W. Schoenfeld, H. Lee, and P. M. Petroff, Science 286, 2312 (1999)

    1999

  30. [31]

    Differentiating between modified gravity and dark energy,

    J. Salfi, J. A. Mol, D. Culcer, and S. Rogge, Physical Review Letters 116, 10.1103/Phys- RevLett.116.246801 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2016

  31. [32]

    Kobayashi, J

    T. Kobayashi, J. Salfi, C. Chua, J. van der Hei- jden, M. G. House, D. Culcer, W. D. Hutchison, B. C. Johnson, J. C. McCallum, H. Riemann, N. V. Abrosimov, P. Becker, H. J. Pohl, M. Y. Simmons, and S. Rogge, Nature Materials 20, 38 (2021)

    2021

  32. [33]

    N. Ares, V. N. Golovach, G. Katsaros, M. Stof- fel, F. Fournel, L. I. Glazman, O. G. Schmidt, and S. De Franceschi, Physical Review Letters 110, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.046602 (2013)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.110.046602 2013

  33. [34]

    Greilich, S

    A. Greilich, S. G. Carter, D. Kim, A. S. Bracker, and D. Gammon, Nature Photonics 5, 702 (2011)

    2011

  34. [35]

    Pingenot, C

    J. Pingenot, C. E. Pryor, and M. E. Flatt´ e, Applied Physics Letters 92, 10.1063/1.2937305 (2008)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2937305 2008

  35. [36]

    Pingenot, C

    J. Pingenot, C. E. Pryor, and M. E. Flatt´ e, Phys- ical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 84, 10.1103/PhysRevB.84.195403 (2011)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.84.195403 2011

  36. [37]

    J. H. Prechtel, F. Maier, J. Houel, A. V. Kuhlmann, A. Ludwig, A. D. Wieck, D. Loss, and R. J. War- burton, Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 91, 10.1103/PhysRevB.91.165304 (2015)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.91.165304 2015

  37. [38]

    Sugiyama, M

    T. Sugiyama, M. Yamazaki, F. Niwa, S. Kameyama, T. Misumi, T. Kanata, K. Nishiwaki, and M. Ishiko, R&D Review of Toyota CRDL , Tech. Rep. 1 (Toyota Central R&D Labs., Inc., 2012)

    2012

  38. [39]

    Mizushima, E

    I. Mizushima, E. Kamiya, N. Arai, M. Son- oda, M. Yoshiki, S.-i. Takagi, M. Wakamiya, S. Kambayashi, Y. Mikata, and S.-i. M. Kashi- wagi, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 36, 1465 (1997)

    1997

  39. [40]

    Jhuria, V

    K. Jhuria, V. Ivanov, D. Polley, Y. Zhiyenbayev, W. Liu, A. Persaud, W. Redjem, W. Qarony, 13 P. Parajuli, Q. Ji, A. J. Gonsalves, J. Bokor, L. Z. Tan, B. Kant´ e, and T. Schenkel, Nature Communi- cations 2024 15:1 15, 1 (2024)

    2024

  40. [41]

    J.-S. Kim, A. M. Tyryshkin, and S. A. Lyon, Applied Physics Letters 110, 10.1063/1.4979035 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4979035 2017

  41. [42]

    L. Zhai, G. N. Nguyen, C. Spinnler, J. Ritzmann, M. C. L¨ obl, A. D. Wieck, A. Ludwig, A. Javadi, and R. J. Warburton, Nature nanotechnology 17, 829 (2022)

    2022

  42. [43]

    Bogaerts, P

    W. Bogaerts, P. Dumon, D. V. Thourhout, and R. Baets, Optics Letters 32, 2801 (2007)

    2007

  43. [44]

    Beveratos, S

    A. Beveratos, S. K¨ uhn, R. Brouri, T. Gacoin, J. P. Poizat, and P. Grangier, The European Physical Journal D - Atomic, Molecular, Optical and Plasma Physics 2002 18:2 18, 191 (2002)

    2002

  44. [45]

    Kazemi, M

    M. Kazemi, M. Keshavarz, M. E. Turiansky, J. L. Lyons, N. V. Abrosimov, S. Simmons, D. B. Higgin- bottom, and M. L. Thewalt, Physical Review Let- ters 136, 053602 (2026)

    2026

  45. [46]

    H. J. Maris and S. I. Tamura, Physical Review B - Condensed Matter and Materials Physics 85, 10.1103/PhysRevB.85.054304 (2012)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.85.054304 2012

  46. [47]

    R. F. Barron and G. F. Nellis, Cryogenic heat trans- fer, 2nd ed. (CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton London New York, 2016)

    2016

  47. [48]

    M. G. Holland, Physical Review 132, 2461 (1963)

    1963

  48. [49]

    Franke, N

    A. Franke, N. S¨ ultmann, C. Reinhardt, S. Croatto, J. Schaffran, H. Masalehdan, A. Lindner, and R. Schnabel, Classical and Quantum Gravity 41, 10.1088/1361-6382/ad7184 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad7184 2024

  49. [50]

    V. D. Arp, R. D. McCarty, and D. G. Friend, Ther- mophysical properties of Helium-4 from 0.8 to 1500 K with pressures to 2000 MPa , Tech. Rep. (National Bureau of Standards, Gaithersburg, MD, 1998)

    2000

  50. [51]

    Spectral tuning of single T centres by the Stark effect

    S. Chapman and T. G. Cowling, The mathemati- cal theory of non-uniform gases , 3rd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 1991). ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank the Integrated Photonics team at Pho- tonic Inc. for their contributions to the design and fabrication of the silicon chip presented in this work. This work was supported by the Natu- ral Sciences and Enginee...

    work page arXiv 1991

  51. [52]

    For square rod with side lengths D ≈ √σ = 0.3 µm the phonon mean free path can be approximated as Deff ≈ 1.115D = 0.3345 µm [46]

    Solid conduction only In the first scenario, heat flows only through the silicon to the heat sink. For square rod with side lengths D ≈ √σ = 0.3 µm the phonon mean free path can be approximated as Deff ≈ 1.115D = 0.3345 µm [46]. The specific heat capacity can be found using the Debye model: Cv = 12π4 5 NSikB T TD 3 ≈ 9.4 J/(m3 · K) (18) where NSi ≈ 5 × 10...

  52. [53]

    Conduction and convection by He exchange gas If we consider cooling by the He exchange gas we find that heat is removed from the exterior surfaces of the device by the gas. To find the heat transfer coefficient we must first compute the Knudsen number to determine the flow regime using the mean free path Λ c and the characteristic dimension Lc of the devi...

  53. [54]

    Comparing the total thermal resistance ( Rth) to those for the solid and gas it is clear that the dominant heat transfer pathway is through the gas

    Combined conduction and gas We can combine the thermal resistances from solid conduction ( Rth,solid) and gas conduction/convection (Rth,gas) as thermal resistances to find the total thermal resistance, Rth = ( R−1 th,solid + R−1 th,gas)−1 ≈ 2.6 × 107 K/W. Comparing the total thermal resistance ( Rth) to those for the solid and gas it is clear that the do...

  54. [55]

    Initial luminescence: The first peak observed corresponds to the optical excitation of the T centre from its ground state to the excited TX 0 state, followed by radiative decay

  55. [56]

    This non-radiative rate enhancement causes shelving in the dark charge state

    Non-radiative rate enhancement: When the reverse-bias pulse begins, the initial luminescence peak is abruptly truncated, with the integrated luminescence dropping to the background level. This non-radiative rate enhancement causes shelving in the dark charge state

  56. [57]

    This represents re-population of the TX 0 excited state from the dark charge state, followed by radiative recombination

    Delayed luminescence: After the bias voltage returns to 0 V, we observe a secondary luminescence peak. This represents re-population of the TX 0 excited state from the dark charge state, followed by radiative recombination. Figure S11c shows the second-order autocorrelation measurement between the two luminescence peaks shown in Fig. S11b. This measuremen...

    2000