Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 225 references

This review argues that the term 'super-resonance' should be reserved for one mechanism: radiative linewidth driven to zero by destructive interference among a mode's radiation channels, while its bare coupling to the environment stays larg

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 11:35 UTC pith:5JQPD6JX

load-bearing objection A useful and mostly honest taxonomy of super-resonance, with a real definitional overreach where M1 absorbs topological and band-gap channel closure. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19819 v1 pith:5JQPD6JX submitted 2026-07-22 physics.optics

Super-Resonance: Interference-Driven Suppression of Radiative Decay Across Wave Physics

Igor V. Minin , Oleg V. Minin , Ilia L. Rasskazov This is my paper
classification physics.optics
keywords super-resonancebound states in the continuumradiative linewidth suppressionnon-Hermitian Hamiltonianquasi-BIC metasurfacesmagnon dark modescoherent perfect absorptionFano resonance
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

A precise definition, not a loose umbrella, is the paper's point: a super-resonance is a mode whose radiative linewidth is driven toward zero by destructive interference among its radiation channels, γ_rad/γ^cl_rad → 0, while the mode's bare single-channel coupling remains large. The paper shows that the same non-Hermitian eigenvalue problem appears in acoustic cavity arrays, photonic bound states in the continuum and quasi-BIC metasurface modes, anapoles, coherent-perfect-absorber dark modes, parity–time-symmetric systems, magnonic dark modes, and topological edge modes. It then disambiguates this suppression mechanism from coherent enhancement (collective super-radiance, superscattering, whispering-gallery modes), from integer-commensurability locking (planetary resonances, Floquet replicas, plasma wave–particle resonance), and from amplification (black-hole super-radiance). If the mapping holds, design rules and figures of merit such as Q, Purcell factor, cooperativity, and effective interaction length transfer directly across acoustics, photonics, and magnonics, and the many independent coinages of 'super-resonance' collapse into one physics.

Core claim

The central claim is that the many phenomena called super-resonance in different communities share one field-agnostic mechanism: the radiative width of a mode is a coherent sum of partial amplitudes, and destructive interference among those amplitudes drives the width below the single-channel value, with the ratio vanishing in the ideal limit. The canonical realisation is the two-mode, one-continuum scenario in which an avoided crossing makes the imaginary part of one complex eigenfrequency vanish exactly, producing a genuine bound state in the continuum. The review asserts that this same eigenvalue structure underlies super-resonant acoustic arrays, photonic BICs and supercavity modes, anap

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian Ĥ_eff = M − iΓ, where M encodes conservative dynamics and Γ collects radiative and non-radiative loss channels. Its complex eigenfrequencies ω̃_n = ω_n − iγ_n/2 define the resonances, and the central identity is the operational criterion γ_rad/γ^cl_rad → 0, equivalently Q_super/Q_cl → ∞. The canonical construction is the two-mode, one-continuum interference scenario: two modes with bare frequencies, decay rates, a direct near-field coupling, and a coupling mediated by the shared continuum; at a specific detuning condition one eigenvalue's imaginary part vanishes exactly. This two-mode interference template is what the paper c

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that closing the radiation channel by making the symmetry-allowed channel set empty—as in topological edge modes—is the same mechanism as cancelling nonzero partial amplitudes by destructive interference; the paper itself notes the topological case is channel closure by symmetry rather than amplitude cancellation, so if those are distinct, the claim that all the listed systems are the same eigenvalue problem overreaches.

What would settle it

Construct the effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian for a symmetry-protected topological edge mode and compare it term-by-term with the two-mode, one-continuum interference model at the same operating point. If the zero radiative width in the topological case arises from an empty block in the radiative-coupling matrix rather than from cancellation of nonzero off-diagonal couplings, the two systems are not the same eigenvalue problem, and no continuous path in Hamiltonian space connects one zero to the other without the width becoming finite. A field measurement that distinguishes the two: break

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Accepting the criterion means quasi-BIC metasurfaces, super-resonant acoustic arrays, magnon dark modes, and CPA dark modes can be designed with the same coupled-mode machinery and the same inverse-square Q-scaling laws.
  • The derived figures of merit—Purcell factor, cooperativity, effective interaction length—diverge together with Q at fixed mode volume, so an M1 super-resonance improves sensing slopes, cavity-QED coupling, and nonlinear conversion in one transferable step.
  • The disambiguation removes collective super-radiance, superscattering, whispering-gallery modes, and high-order multipole resonances from the super-resonance category, redirecting their figures of merit to enhancement rather than suppression.
  • Non-radiative loss caps the attainable Q, so the strict γ_rad→0 limit is reached only in lossless ideal systems; in practice super-resonance means a high-Q leaky mode whose Q is set by the loss plateau.
  • Topological and Floquet super-resonances add disorder robustness by closing channels with a global invariant or locking them with a drive commensurability, relaxing the fabrication tolerance that limits fine-tuned interference designs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the unified criterion is right, unexplored wave systems—elastic metamaterials, cold-atom arrays, even the lossy Earth–ionosphere cavity—become searchable for accidental two-mode interference degeneracies that produce dark states, rather than merely for high-Q geometric modes.
  • The tolerance data suggest practical super-resonant devices will depend on active feedback or topological protection: the channel reopens only quadratically with control-parameter drift, but the high-order multipole 'needle' loses half its response at fractional size-parameter shifts near 10^-8, a precision few platforms can hold passively.
  • A concrete testable extension: measure how a topological edge mode's radiative width reopens as its protecting symmetry is broken; quadratic reopening would match the quasi-BIC law, while linear reopening would point to a distinct channel-closure mechanism that the paper's identification would need to split off.
  • The proposed on-chip cascade of a mesoscale resonator, a quasi-BIC metasurface, and a Floquet topological waveguide is a falsifiable design target: if multiplicative composition of finesse survives across heterogeneous elements, it would validate the cross-field transfer; if not, the transfer rule needs qualification.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This review proposes a field-agnostic definition of 'super-resonance' as the destructive interference of radiation channels that drives γ_rad/γ_rad^cl to zero while the bare single-channel coupling remains large. The canonical realization is the Friedrich–Wintgen two-mode model, Eq. (4), and the paper surveys its supposed instances across acoustics, photonic BICs and quasi-BICs, anapoles, CPA, PT-symmetric and exceptional-point devices, magnonics, and topological/photonic-crystal systems. It also distinguishes this M1 mechanism from coherent enhancement (M2), integer-commensurability locking (M3), and amplification (A). The central claim is that 'a Tolstoy array of acoustic cavities, a quasi-BIC dielectric metasurface, a coherent-perfect-absorber dark mode, and a magnonic dark mode are all the same eigenvalue problem,' while topological edge modes and photonic-bandgap cavities are also labeled M1.

Significance. If the scope is restricted to genuine interference-driven suppression, the paper is a valuable contribution. The Friedrich–Wintgen derivation (Eq. (4) and Fig. 1) and the quasi-BIC inverse-square scaling (Fig. 7) are reproduced correctly; the paper is also careful to flag loss ceilings, EP-sensing noise caveats, and proposals versus demonstrated devices. The M2/M3 disambiguation is useful and largely accurate, and the survey is extensive. The main weakness is that the central M1 class is expanded to include channel-closure by symmetry, band gaps, and bulk invariants, which the text itself admits is not destructive interference. This is a load-bearing classification issue, not merely a terminological quibble, because Eq. (3) and the Friedrich–Wintgen Hamiltonian require a generically large bare coupling that is then cancelled by interference, whereas a selection rule that empties the channel set has no such two-amplitude cancellation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.7.1; Def. (3); Eq. (4)] The taxonomy is internally inconsistent at its own boundary. Sec. 3.7.1 states that a topological edge mode is 'an M1 super-resonance whose vanishing radiation rate is enforced by a global property of the band structure, not by a local fine-tuning of inter-mode coupling — the radiation channel is closed because the symmetry-allowed set of channels is empty, not because two amplitudes destructively interfere.' This is a self-declared counterexample to the Definition in Sec. 2.2: Eq. (3) requires a generically large bare single-channel coupling, and the canonical mechanism of Eq. (4) requires two nonzero bare decay rates γ1, γ2 and a continuum-mediated coupling √(γ1γ2) whose cancellation produces the dark state. Channel-closure by symmetry is a different mechanism. The abstract and Table 1 nevertheless list topological edge modes as instances of the 'same non-Hermitian eigenvalue structure
  2. [Sec. 3.5.5] Photonic-crystal nanocavities are classified as 'M1-type super-resonances' because 'the photonic band gap forbids the propagation channels through which the bare mode would otherwise leak.' The same objection applies: if the channel set is empty, γ_rad^cl is undefined or vanishing, so criterion (3) cannot be met; if the cavity is a finite slab with residual vertical leakage, the high Q is better described as a small bare coupling, which Sec. 2.6 explicitly excludes ('an ordinary high-Q resonance ... is not super-resonant'). This case needs either reclassification or a quantitative demonstration that an interference cancellation, not merely channel closure, is responsible for the observed Q.
  3. [Sec. 3.7.5] The claim that 'every topological super-resonance is, at its mathematical core, an M1 phenomenon' because Γ_rad has a zero block dictated by the bulk invariant conflates two distinct effects. Topological protection, and the cited experiments (Refs. [199,200,202,204]), concerns immunity to backscattering and disorder, not the suppression of radiative decay into a surrounding continuum. In open 2D slab geometries topological edge states can radiate out of plane, and no concrete model in the paper shows γ_rad/γ_rad^cl → 0 for such a state. The section even substitutes 'back-scattering length' for Q as the figure of merit, which is a different observable. This weakens the cross-field unification claim rather than supporting it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.11.3] 'We develop these applications in Sections 4.4 and 4.4' — duplicate section reference; should be Sec. 4.4 (or corrected to the intended second section).
  2. [Ref. [58]] The year is printed as '20224'; should be 2022.
  3. [Sec. 5, Rule 1] Rule 1 lists 'Sukhorukova magnonic dark mode [28]' but Ref. [28] concerns leaky surface magnon polarons; the dark magnon modes are Ref. [29]. Minor misattribution.
  4. [Fig. 10 caption] The PT-symmetric dimer/trimer parameters g and γ are not defined in the caption or the surrounding text. Please define them so the EP conditions are unambiguous.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Definitional overreach at the M1 boundary: channel-closure by symmetry is admitted to be non-interference yet retained as M1; the core Friedrich–Wintgen content is externally anchored and not circular.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Sec. 2.3 (Mechanism M1) and Sec. 3.7.1 (Photonic topological insulators)]
    "In the language of this review, the edge mode is an M1 super-resonance whose vanishing radiation rate is enforced by a global property of the band structure, not by a local fine-tuning of inter-mode coupling — the radiation channel is closed because the symmetry-allowed set of channels is empty, not because two amplitudes destructively interfere."

    M1 is defined in Sec. 2.3 as destructive interference of partial amplitudes (γrad = |Σα cα|²), with Eq. (3) requiring γrad/γcl_rad → 0 while the bare single-channel coupling remains large. A topological edge mode has no two amplitudes to interfere and no large bare coupling through an empty channel set. The sentence explicitly concedes this, yet classifies the edge mode as 'an M1 super-resonance.' The claimed cross-field unity — 'the same eigenvalue problem' — is therefore not derived for this case; it is imported by expanding M1 to include non-interference, making the classification self-definitional. The conclusion is the premise relabeled.

  2. renaming known result [Sec. 3.5.5 (Photonic-crystal nanocavities)]
    "These cavities are M1-type super-resonances: the photonic band gap forbids the propagation channels through which the bare mode would otherwise leak."

    This labels as M1 a mechanism that the paper's own definition excludes. Eq. (3) and Sec. 2.3 specify destructive interference among partial amplitudes with a generically large bare single-channel coupling; here the high Q comes from the absence of propagation channels, and the 'bare' coupling through those channels is zero by construction, not cancelled by interference. The known result (band-gap confinement) is renamed 'M1-type super-resonance,' so the claimed unity for this case is the renaming itself rather than a derived consequence of the Friedrich–Wintgen eigenvalue problem.

full rationale

The paper's central mathematical content — the Friedrich–Wintgen Hamiltonian Eq. (4), the operational criterion Eq. (3), the quasi-BIC α² scaling, and the bright/dark input–output model of Fig. 9 — is computed from stated non-Hermitian models and anchored to external literature (Friedrich–Wintgen, Hsu, Rybin, Koshelev), not fitted to the authors' own data. Self-citations (Minin/Minin mesoscale sphere work) are confined largely to the M2 contrast family, and the authors explicitly reclassify their own 'super-resonance' program as M2 rather than using it to force the M1 conclusion. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present. The only step that reduces to its own input is the taxonomic inclusion of channel-closure-by-symmetry within M1: Sec. 3.7.1 and Sec. 3.5.5 admit that topological edge modes and photonic-crystal nanocavities suppress radiation through an empty or forbidden channel set rather than through destructive interference, yet they are labelled M1. Since M1 is defined by interference, this is a self-definitional expansion of the class, not a derived consequence. It does not corrupt the core FW-based unification (Tolstoy arrays, quasi-BICs, CPA dark modes, magnonic dark modes), which remains externally anchored and non-circular. Score 4 reflects partial circularity at the boundary of the central taxonomy, with substantial independent content intact.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim introduces no new physical entity or fitted parameter. Figure computations use illustrative dimensionless or experimental-typical values (e.g., γ1=1, γ2=0.25, V=0.5 in Fig. 1; g/2π=25 MHz in Fig. 9), which are not fitted to any new data. The main 'ad hoc' additions are the M1/M2/M3 category boundaries and the assumption that symmetry/topological closure belongs to M1.

axioms (5)
  • standard math Effective open-system dynamics are captured by H_eff = M - i(Γ_rad + Γ_nr) with complex eigenvalues ω_n - iγ_n/2.
    Invoked in Sec. 2.1 as the unifying starting point; standard non-Hermitian resonance model.
  • domain assumption The radiative width can be represented as a coherent sum of partial amplitudes, γ_rad = |Σ c_α|², so that interference can drive it to zero.
    Sec. 2.3; necessary for Eq. (3) and the entire M1 mechanism.
  • domain assumption A well-defined single-channel 'classical' radiative rate γ^cl_rad exists for each mode considered.
    Secs. 2.2, 2.6; without this the central ratio in Eq. (3) is undefined.
  • ad hoc to paper Channel-closure by symmetry or bulk invariant (topological edge modes, photonic band-gap cavities) is the same mechanism as destructive interference.
    Secs. 3.5.5 and 3.7.1; needed to extend M1 beyond literal interference, but the paper itself concedes the channel is closed 'not because two amplitudes destructively interfere.'
  • ad hoc to paper The two-mode Friedrich-Wintgen model, or its radiative-matrix generalization, is sufficient to describe all systems classified as M1.
    Secs. 2.3, 3.1.1, 3.9.3; this is the central unification premise, asserted for each field rather than derived from first principles per system.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 53982 in / 12365 out tokens · 127085 ms · 2026-08-01T11:35:26.712273+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Super-resonance has been coined independently for collective modes of acoustic cavity arrays (Tolstoy), extreme high-$Q$ states of dielectric resonators in photonics, and magnon-polaron bound states in magnonics, and is now applied interchangeably to physically distinct phenomena. We organise this review around the one usage admitting a precise, field-agnostic definition: a mode whose radiative linewidth is driven toward zero by destructive interference among its radiation channels, $\gamma_{\rm rad}/\gamma_{\rm rad}^{\rm cl}\to0$, while the bare single-channel coupling remains large. The canonical realisation is the Friedrich-Wintgen scenario of two modes sharing a continuum. The same non-Hermitian eigenvalue structure recurs in Tolstoy's acoustic arrays, photonic bound states in the continuum and quasi-BIC supercavity modes, anapoles, dark modes of coherent perfect absorbers, parity-time-symmetric devices near exceptional points, magnonic dark modes, and topological edge modes. We survey these realisations field by field and distil transferable design rules and figures of merit. We then disambiguate super-resonance from two families sharing the "super-" prefix: coherent enhancement, in which coupling to the continuum is collectively increased rather than suppressed (Dicke super-radiance, superscattering, whispering-gallery modes); and integer-commensurability locking (mean-motion, wave-particle, and Floquet resonances). Amplification, as in black-hole super-radiance, is likewise distinguished.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19819 by Igor V. Minin, Ilia L. Rasskazov, Oleg V. Minin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Friedrich–Wintgen interference (mechanism M1), computed from Eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The Fano line-shape family of Eq. (6) against the reduced detuning ε. At qF = 0 the interference of the narrow mode with the background carves a symmetric dip (transparency window); qF ≃ 1 yields the maximally asymmetric profile whose steep spectral slope underlies Fano-resonant refractometry (Sec. 4.1); for qF ≫ 1 the resonant channel dominates and the profile approaches a Lorentzian of peak height 1 + q … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Integer-commensurability locking (family M3) in the universal one-resonance (pendulum) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Three motions of the complex eigenvalue ωe, each computed from the minimal model of its class; the shaded strip is the gain half-plane Im ω >e 0. (a) Suppression (M1): the locus traced by the two hybrid eigenvalues of the Friedrich–Wintgen Hamiltonian of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Collective radiative widths of N identical monopole resonators sharing the three-dimensional scalar radiation continuum — the minimal model of a Tolstoy super-resonant array [10, 11]. The widths are the eigenvalues of the radiative coupling matrix Γjk = γ j0(krjk) for a linear chain of pitch d. (a) All widths versus kd for N = 8: in the sub-wavelength limit one bright mode carries the full coupling N γ whi… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: High-order Fano resonance of a mesoscale water sphere ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: From BIC to quasi-BIC (mechanism M1) in the minimal coupled-mode model. Breaking [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Radiative Q of whispering-gallery-type Mie resonances (first radial order, TE polarisation) versus multipole order n, for relative refractive indices m = 1.33 (water/silica-like) and m = 2. Each point is computed by locating the pole of the bn Mie denominator and measuring its numerical linewidth. The exponential growth — one decade of Q per ∼ 3 multipole orders at m = 2, one per ∼ 12 at m = 1.33 — is the … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Bright and dark collective modes of cavity magnonics, computed from the input–output [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Exceptional-point sensing: eigenvalue splitting versus perturbation strength [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The tolerance budget of Rules 5 and 6. (a) Re-opening of the radiative channel as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_11.png] view at source ↗

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

225 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. H. Rindel. Acoustical aspects of the development of Greek theaters in the 4th century B.C.E. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 157(3):2042–2066, 2025. doi: 10.1121/10.0036255

    work page doi:10.1121/10.0036255 2042

  2. [2]

    T. Kennedy. The Bronze Age destruction of Jericho, archaeology, and the Book of Joshua. Religions, 14(6):796, 2023. doi: 10.3390/rel14060796

    work page doi:10.3390/rel14060796 2023

  3. [3]

    Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006

    Andrea Frova and Mariapiera Marenzana.Thus Spoke Galileo: The Great Scientist’s Ideas and Their Relevance to the Present Day. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006

    2006

  4. [4]

    Theorie der Luftschwingungen in Röhren mit offenen Enden.Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik, 57:1–72, 1860

    Hermann von Helmholtz. Theorie der Luftschwingungen in Röhren mit offenen Enden.Journal für die Reine und Angewandte Mathematik, 57:1–72, 1860

  5. [5]

    J. W. Strutt Rayleigh.The Theory of Sound, Volume I. Macmillan, London, 2nd edition, 1894

  6. [6]

    Breit and E

    G. Breit and E. P. Wigner. Capture of slow neutrons.Physical Review, 49:519–531, 1936. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.49.519

    doi:10.1103/physrev.49.519 1936

  7. [7]

    Mechanical resonance: 300 years from discovery to the full understand- ing of its importance

    Jürgen Bleck-Neuhaus. Mechanical resonance: 300 years from discovery to the full understand- ing of its importance. Technical report, ResearchGate Preprint, 2018

    2018

  8. [8]

    Going into resonance.Nature Physics, 15:203, 2019

    Mark Buchanan. Going into resonance.Nature Physics, 15:203, 2019. doi: 10.1038/ s41567-019-0458-z. 49

    2019

  9. [9]

    F. Tang, Q. Zhong, X. Zhang, Y. Zhuang, T. Zhang, X. Xu, and M. Hu. Angle-controlled nanospectrum switching from lorentzian to fano lineshapes.Nanomaterials, 14(23):1932, 2024. doi: 10.3390/nano14231932

    work page doi:10.3390/nano14231932 1932

  10. [10]

    I. Tolstoy. Superresonant systems of scatterers. I.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 80:282–294, 1986. doi: 10.1121/1.394185. Erratum: J. Acoust. Soc. Am.81, 1987, doi:10.1121/1.395141

    work page doi:10.1121/1.394185 1986

  11. [11]

    I. Tolstoy. Properties of superresonant systems of spherical scatterers.IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering, 12(2):327–332, 1987. doi: 10.1109/JOE.1987.1145264

    arXiv 1987

  12. [12]

    Friedrich and D

    H. Friedrich and D. Wintgen. Interfering resonances and bound states in the continuum. Physical Review A, 32:3231–3242, 1985. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.32.3231

    doi:10.1103/physreva.32.3231 1985

  13. [13]

    D. C. Marinica, A. G. Borisov, and S. V. Shabanov. Bound states in the continuum in photonics. Physical Review Letters, 100:183902, 2008. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.183902

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.100.183902 2008

  14. [14]

    C. W. Hsu, B. Zhen, J. Lee, S.-L. Chua, S. G. Johnson, J. D. Joannopoulos, and M. Soljačić. Observation of trapped light within the radiation continuum.Nature, 499:188–191, 2013. doi: 10.1038/nature12289

    doi:10.1038/nature12289 2013

  15. [15]

    C. W. Hsu, B. Zhen, A. D. Stone, J. D. Joannopoulos, and M. Soljačić. Bound states in the continuum.Nature Reviews Materials, 1:16048, 2016. doi: 10.1038/natrevmats.2016.48

    doi:10.1038/natrevmats.2016.48 2016

  16. [16]

    M. V. Rybin, K. L. Koshelev, Z. F. Sadrieva, K. B. Samusev, A. A. Bogdanov, M. F. Limonov, and Y. S. Kivshar. High-Q supercavity modes in subwavelength dielectric resonators.Physical Review Letters, 119:243901, 2017. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.243901

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.243901 2017

  17. [17]

    V. V. Klimov. On the existence of ‘supercavity modes’ in sub-wavelength dielectric resonators and their relation to bound states in the continuum.Physics-Uspekhi, 62(10):1058–1059, 2019

    2019

  18. [18]

    M. V. Rybin and Y. Kivshar. Metaphotonics with subwavelength dielectric resonators.npj Nanophotonics, 1:43, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s44310-024-00041-6

    work page doi:10.1038/s44310-024-00041-6 2024

  19. [19]

    A. E. Miroshnichenko, A. B. Evlyukhin, Y. F. Yu, R. M. Bakker, A. Chipouline, A. I. Kuznetsov, B. Luk’yanchuk, B. N. Chichkov, and Y. S. Kivshar. Nonradiating anapole modes in dielectric nanoparticles.Nature Communications, 6:8069, 2015. doi: 10.1038/ncomms9069

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms9069 2015

  20. [20]

    Y. D. Chong, L. Ge, H. Cao, and A. D. Stone. Coherent perfect absorbers: time-reversed lasers.Physical Review Letters, 105:053901, 2010. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.053901

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.105.053901 2010

  21. [21]

    W. Wan, Y. D. Chong, L. Ge, H. Noh, A. D. Stone, and H. Cao. Time-reversed lasing and interferometric control of absorption.Science, 331:889–892, 2011. doi: 10.1126/science.1200735

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1200735 2011

  22. [22]

    D. G. Baranov, A. Krasnok, T. Shegai, A. Alù, and Y. Chong. Coherent perfect absorbers: linear control of light with light.Nature Reviews Materials, 2:17064, 2017. doi: 10.1038/ natrevmats.2017.64

    2017

  23. [23]

    Malara, C

    P. Malara, C. E. Campanella, A. Giorgini, S. Avino, P. De Natale, and G. Gagliardi. Super- resonant intracavity coherent absorption.Scientific Reports, 6:28947, 2016. doi: 10.1038/ srep28947. 50

    2016

  24. [24]

    C. M. Bender and S. Boettcher. Real spectra in non-Hermitian Hamiltonians having PT symmetry.Physical Review Letters, 80:5243–5246, 1998. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.5243

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.80.5243 1998

  25. [25]

    W. Chen, Ş. K. Özdemir, G. Zhao, J. Wiersig, and L. Yang. Exceptional points enhance sensing in an optical microcavity.Nature, 548:192–196, 2017. doi: 10.1038/nature23281

    doi:10.1038/nature23281 2017

  26. [26]

    Hodaei, A

    H. Hodaei, A. U. Hassan, S. Wittek, H. Garcia-Gracia, R. El-Ganainy, D. N. Christodoulides, and M. Khajavikhan. Enhanced sensitivity at higher-order exceptional points.Nature, 548: 187–191, 2017. doi: 10.1038/nature23280

    doi:10.1038/nature23280 2017

  27. [27]

    Miri and A

    M.-A. Miri and A. Alù. Exceptional points in optics and photonics.Science, 363:eaar7709,

  28. [28]

    Y. V. Gulyav, O. S. Sukhorukova, A. S. Tarasenko, S. V. Tarasenko, and V. G. Shavrov. ‘superresonant’ states in the spectrum of leaky surface magnon polarons.Doklady Physics, 67 (4):97–102, 2022. [Translation of Doklady RAN. Fizika505, 10–15 (2022)]

    2022

  29. [29]

    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 Communications, 6:8914, 2015. doi: 10.1038/ncomms9914

    doi:10.1038/ncomms9914 2015

  30. [30]

    Wan, T.-Y

    X.-S. Wan, T.-Y. Huang, and K. A. Innanen. The 1:1 superresonance in Pluto’s motion. Astronomical Journal, 121:1155–1162, 2001. doi: 10.1086/318745

    work page doi:10.1086/318745 2001

  31. [31]

    R. H. Dicke. Coherence in spontaneous radiation processes.Physical Review, 93:99–110, 1954. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.93.99

    doi:10.1103/physrev.93.99 1954

  32. [32]

    Gross and S

    M. Gross and S. Haroche. Superradiance: An essay on the theory of collective spontaneous emission.Physics Reports, 93:301–396, 1982. doi: 10.1016/0370-1573(82)90102-8

    doi:10.1016/0370-1573(82)90102-8 1982

  33. [33]

    Ruan and S

    Z. Ruan and S. Fan. Superscattering of light from subwavelength nanostructures.Physical Review Letters, 105:013901, 2010. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.013901

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.105.013901 2010

  34. [34]

    W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky. Floating orbits, superradiant scattering and the black-hole bomb.Nature, 238:211–212, 1972. doi: 10.1038/238211a0

    work page doi:10.1038/238211a0 1972

  35. [35]

    J. D. Bekenstein. Extraction of energy and charge from a black hole.Physical Review D, 7: 949–953, 1973

    1973

  36. [36]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani.Superradiance: New Frontiers in Black Hole Physics, volume 971 ofLecture Notes in Physics. Springer, 2nd edition, 2020. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-46622-0

    doi:10.1007/978-3-030-46622-0 2020

  37. [37]

    Z. Wan, B. Luk’yanchuk, L. Yue, B. Yan, J. Monks, R. Dhama, O. V. Minin, I. V. Minin, S. Huang, and A. A. Fedyanin. High order Fano resonances and giant magnetic fields in dielectric microspheres.Scientific Reports, 9:20293, 2019. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-56783-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-019-56783-3 2019

  38. [38]

    I. V. Minin and O. V. Minin. The superresonance: The discovery that was not done more than one hundred years ago.Atmospheric and Oceanic Optics, 37(3):293–301, 2024

    2024

  39. [39]

    Babushkin, L

    I. Babushkin, L. Shi, A. Demircan, U. Morgner, J. Herrmann, and A. Husakou. Metallic nanostructures as electronic billiards for nonlinear terahertz photonics.Physical Review Research, 5(4):043151, 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.5.043151. 51

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.5.043151 2023

  40. [40]

    Narimanov and E

    E. Narimanov and E. A. Demler. Hyperbolic quantum processor, 2024. Conference version: Proc. SPIE, doi:10.1117/12.3067425

    work page doi:10.1117/12.3067425 2024

  41. [41]

    S. I. Azzam and A. V. Kildishev. Photonic bound states in the continuum: from basics to applications.Advanced Optical Materials, 9:2001469, 2021. doi: 10.1002/adom.202001469

    work page doi:10.1002/adom.202001469 2021

  42. [42]

    M. F. Limonov, M. V. Rybin, A. N. Poddubny, and Y. S. Kivshar. Fano resonances in photonics. Nature Photonics, 11:543–554, 2017. doi: 10.1038/nphoton.2017.142

    doi:10.1038/nphoton.2017.142 2017

  43. [43]

    A. E. Miroshnichenko, S. Flach, and Y. S. Kivshar. Fano resonances in nanoscale structures. Reviews of Modern Physics, 82:2257–2298, 2010. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.82.2257

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.82.2257 2010

  44. [44]

    M. V. Rybin and M. F. Limonov. Resonance effects in photonic crystals and metamaterials [Russian original article].Physics-Uspekhi, 62:823–838, 2019. [Translation of UFN189, 881–892 (2019)]

    2019

  45. [45]

    Frisk Kockum, A

    A. Frisk Kockum, A. Miranowicz, S. De Liberato, S. Savasta, and F. Nori. Ultrastrong coupling between light and matter.Nature Reviews Physics, 1:19–40, 2019. doi: 10.1038/ s42254-018-0006-2

    2019

  46. [46]

    Forn-Díaz, L

    P. Forn-Díaz, L. Lamata, E. Rico, J. Kono, and E. Solano. Ultrastrong coupling regimes of light-matter interaction.Reviews of Modern Physics, 91:025005, 2019. doi: 10.1103/ RevModPhys.91.025005

    2019

  47. [47]

    El-Ganainy, K

    R. El-Ganainy, K. G. Makris, M. Khajavikhan, Z. H. Musslimani, S. Rotter, and D. N. Christodoulides. Non-Hermitian physics and PT symmetry.Nature Physics, 14:11–19, 2018. doi: 10.1038/nphys4323

    doi:10.1038/nphys4323 2018

  48. [48]

    Ş. K. Özdemir, S. Rotter, F. Nori, and L. Yang. Parity-time symmetry and exceptional points in photonics.Nature Materials, 18:783–798, 2019. doi: 10.1038/s41563-019-0304-9

    doi:10.1038/s41563-019-0304-9 2019

  49. [49]

    C. D. Murray and S. F. Dermott.Solar System Dynamics. Cambridge University Press, 1999

    1999

  50. [50]

    I. V. Minin, O. V. Minin, S. Zhou, and B. Luk’yanchuk. High order Fano resonance in the time domain for a freezing water microdroplet.Scientific Reports, 14:24118, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-74425-1

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-024-74425-1 2024

  51. [51]

    O. V. Minin, S. Zhou, and I. V. Minin. Optical super-resonances in mesoscale dielectric cenosphere: giant magnetic field generations.Annalen der Physik, 535(12):2300337, 2023

    2023

  52. [52]

    I. V. Minin, O. V. Minin, Y. H. Cao, B. Yan, B. Wan, and B. Luk’yanchuk. Photonic lenses with whispering gallery waves at Janus particles.Opto-Electronic Science, 1:210008, 2022. doi: 10.29026/oes.2022.210008

    arXiv 2022

  53. [53]

    Y. E. Geints, I. V. Minin, and O. V. Minin. Magnetic whispering-gallery super-resonance. Optics Communications, 554:130149, 2024

    2024

  54. [54]

    L. Yue, Z. Wan, B. Yan, J. Monks, Y. Joya, R. Dhama, O. V. Minin, and I. V. Minin. Super-enhancement focusing of Teflon spheres.Annalen der Physik, 532(10):2000373, 2020. 52

    2020

  55. [55]

    L. Yue, B. Yan, J. Monks, R. Dhama, C. Jiang, O. V. Minin, I. V. Minin, and Z. Wan. Full three-dimensional Poynting vector flow analysis of great field-intensity enhancement in specifically sized spherical particles.Scientific Reports, 9:20224, 2019

    2019

  56. [56]

    I. V. Minin, O. V. Minin, and S. Zhou. High-order Fano resonance in a mesoscale dielectric sphere with a low refractive index.JETP Letters, 116(3):146–150, 2022

    2022

  57. [57]

    I. V. Minin, O. V. Minin, and S. Zhou. Features of the generation of extreme electromagnetic fields in a mesoscale dielectric sphere with regard to the environment.Technical Physics Letters, 48(18):41–44, 2022

    2022

  58. [58]

    Minin I. V. and O. V. Minin. Mesotronics: Some new, unusual optical effects.Photonics, 9: 762, 20224. doi: 10.3390/photonics9100762

    work page doi:10.3390/photonics9100762

  59. [59]

    U. Fano. Effects of configuration interaction on intensities and phase shifts.Physical Review, 124:1866–1878, 1961. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.124.1866

    doi:10.1103/physrev.124.1866 1961

  60. [60]

    L.-S. Fu, N. Cui, F. Zhang, J.-S. Wang, A. Qiu, B.-L. Guan, and A.-Q. Liu. Subwavelength- grating coupled-cavity resonance VCSELs with ultra-narrow linewidth.APL Photonics, 10(5): 056112, 2025. doi: 10.1063/5.0254855

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0254855 2025

  61. [61]

    K. L. Tsakmakidis, L. Shen, S. A. Schulz, X. Zheng, J. Upham, X. Deng, H. Altug, A. F. Vakakis, and R. W. Boyd. Breaking Lorentz reciprocity to overcome the time-bandwidth limit in physics and engineering.Science, 356(6344):1260–1264, 2017. doi: 10.1126/science.aam6662

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aam6662 2017

  62. [62]

    S. A. Mann, D. L. Sounas, and A. Alù. Nonreciprocal cavities and the time–bandwidth limit. Optica, 6(1):104–110, 2019. doi: 10.1364/OPTICA.6.000104

    work page doi:10.1364/optica.6.000104 2019

  63. [63]

    Koshelev, S

    K. Koshelev, S. Lepeshov, M. Liu, A. Bogdanov, and Y. Kivshar. Asymmetric metasurfaces with high-Q resonances governed by bound states in the continuum.Physical Review Letters, 121:193903, 2018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.193903

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.193903 2018

  64. [64]

    J.-Q. Yuan, B. Zhao, L.-S. Sun, L.-T. Wu, T.-J. Guo, M. Kang, and J. Chen. Optical super- resonance in a customized PT-symmetric system of hybrid interaction.Optics Express, 29: 24663–24673, 2021

    2021

  65. [65]

    Ozawa, H

    T. Ozawa, H. M. Price, A. Amo, N. Goldman, M. Hafezi, L. Lu, M. C. Rechtsman, D. Schuster, J. Simon, O. Zilberberg, and I. Carusotto. Topological photonics.Reviews of Modern Physics, 91:015006, 2019. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.91.015006

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.91.015006 2019

  66. [66]

    L. Lu, J. D. Joannopoulos, and M. Soljačić. Topological photonics.Nature Photonics, 8: 821–829, 2014. doi: 10.1038/nphoton.2014.248

    doi:10.1038/nphoton.2014.248 2014

  67. [67]

    Harari, M

    G. Harari, M. A. Bandres, Y. Lumer, M. C. Rechtsman, Y. D. Chong, M. Khajavikhan, D. N. Christodoulides, and M. Segev. Topological insulator laser: theory.Science, 359:eaar4003,

  68. [68]

    Liberal, I

    I. Liberal, I. Ederra, R. Gonzalo, and R. W. Ziolkowski. Magnetic dipole super-resonances and their impact on mechanical forces at optical frequencies.Optics Express, 22:8640–8653,

  69. [69]

    J. A. Gordon and R. W. Ziolkowski. The design and simulated performance of a coated nano-particle laser.Optics Express, 15:2622–2653, 2007. doi: 10.1364/OE.15.002622

    work page doi:10.1364/oe.15.002622 2007

  70. [70]

    O. V. Minin, I. V. Minin, and S. Zhou. Superresonance effect in a borosilicate glass micron sphere in the optical range.Optoelectronics, Instrumentation and Data Processing, 58(5): 98–104, 2022

    2022

  71. [71]

    K. J. Vahala. Optical microcavities.Nature, 424:839–846, 2003. doi: 10.1038/nature01939

    doi:10.1038/nature01939 2003

  72. [72]

    D. K. Armani, T. J. Kippenberg, S. M. Spillane, and K. J. Vahala. Ultra-high-Q toroid microcavity on a chip.Nature, 421:925–928, 2003. doi: 10.1038/nature01371

    doi:10.1038/nature01371 2003

  73. [73]

    S. M. Spillane, T. J. Kippenberg, and K. J. Vahala. Ultralow-threshold Raman laser using a spherical dielectric microcavity.Nature, 415:621–623, 2002. doi: 10.1038/415621a

    work page doi:10.1038/415621a 2002

  74. [74]

    A. B. Matsko and V. S. Ilchenko. Optical resonators with whispering-gallery modes – Part I: basics.IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics, 12:3–14, 2006. doi: 10.1109/JSTQE.2005.862952

    arXiv 2006

  75. [75]

    Scheibner, T

    M. Scheibner, T. Schmidt, L. Worschech, A. Forchel, G. Bacher, T. Passow, and D. Hommel. Superradiance of quantum dots.Nature Physics, 3:106–110, 2007. doi: 10.1038/nphys494

    work page doi:10.1038/nphys494 2007

  76. [76]

    Angerer, K

    A. Angerer, K. Streltsov, T. Astner, S. Putz, H. Sumiya, S. Onoda, J. Isoya, W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, J. Schmiedmayer, and J. Majer. Superradiant emission from colour centres in diamond.Nature Physics, 14:1168–1172, 2018. doi: 10.1038/s41567-018-0269-7

    doi:10.1038/s41567-018-0269-7 2018

  77. [77]

    K. Cong, Q. Zhang, Y. Wang, G. T. Noe II, A. Belyanin, and J. Kono. Dicke superradiance in solids [invited].Journal of the Optical Society of America B, 33:C80–C101, 2016. doi: 10.1364/JOSAB.33.000C80

    doi:10.1364/josab.33.000c80 2016

  78. [78]

    Jordao, S

    L. Jordao, S. Chattaraj, Q. Huang, S. Lu, J. Zhang, and A. Madhukar. Single photon super- radiance enhanced light-matter interaction in spatially ordered shape and volume controlled single quantum dots.Nanophotonics, 14(19):3157–3168, 2025. doi: 10.1515/nanoph-2025-0270

    work page doi:10.1515/nanoph-2025-0270 2025

  79. [79]

    M. N. Harakeh and A. van der Woude.Giant Resonances: Fundamental High-Frequency Modes of Nuclear Excitation. Oxford University Press, 2001

    2001

  80. [80]

    P. F. Bortignon, A. Bracco, and R. A. Broglia.Giant Resonances: Nuclear Structure at Finite Temperature. Contemporary Concepts in Physics. CRC Press, 1998

    1998

Showing first 80 references.