Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 56 references

Dark States of Light and the Hidden Energy in Thermal Radiation Detection

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Thermal radiation with M modes stores (M-1)/M of its energy in dark photonic states that matter cannot absorb through ordinary electromagnetic interactions.

desk verdict Correct model result overgeneralized to all thermal radiation; worth a serious referee but needs heavy revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13767 v2 pith:BR5PXR35 submitted 2025-05-19 quant-ph

Celso Jorge Villas-Boas , Ciro Micheletti Diniz This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords darkstatesoflightthermalradiationcollectivebrightandmodescavityQEDlight-matterinteractionintensitymeasurementhiddenenergyquantumthermodynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that thermal light, despite being incoherent, has a collective structure: when M field modes meet matter at one point, only a single symmetric combination of modes, the bright mode, can exchange energy, while the M-1 orthogonal dark combinations hold photons that matter cannot absorb. For M degenerate thermal modes with equal coupling, only a fraction 1/M of the total energy is accessible to matter, and the remaining (M-1)/M stays trapped in dark states. The authors prove this both by averaging photon numbers over collective modes and by a combinatorial count of bright, dark, and intermediate states, then verify it numerically in a master-equation model of a dissipative atom. They also show that standard intensity measurements can mask the deficit: collective enhancement makes the detected intensity look like the full energy even though only a fraction is exchangeable. If the claim is right, it changes how thermal energy detection should be interpreted and suggests that dark photonic states could hold energy that ordinary detectors never see.

What carries the argument

The central object is the unitary change of basis from the M bare field modes $\hat a_k$ to collective modes $\hat A_\mu = \sum_j U_{\mu j}\hat a_j$, whose first row defines the symmetric bright mode $\hat A_0 = M^{-1/2}\sum_k \hat a_k$ and whose remaining rows define the $M-1$ dark modes. The argument runs through this decomposition because any linear interaction with matter depends only on the projection onto $\hat A_0$; the dark modes satisfy $\sum_j U_{\mu j}=0$ and therefore vanish from the coupling. Thermal incoherence enters through the diagonal correlation $\langle \hat a_j^\dagger \hat a_k\rangle = \delta_{jk}\bar n_j$, which forces equal energy distribution among all collective modes, and the dissipative dynamics is carried by an effective master equation in which only $\hat A_0$ decays.

What would settle it

In a crossed-cavity setup with two thermal modes of equal average photon number and one dissipative atom, measure the heat or fluorescence deposited by the atom after it reaches steady state and compare it with the independently measured total field energy; if the atom has absorbed the full initial energy rather than half, or if reversing one cavity phase releases no additional energy, the dark-state energy is not hidden as claimed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for M degenerate thermal field modes interacting with a single matter element through identical couplings, the light-matter interaction in the collective basis couples matter only to the symmetric mode $\hat A_0 = M^{-1/2}\sum_{k=1}^M \hat a_k$, with a coupling enhanced by $\sqrt{M}$, while the $M-1$ orthogonal modes are entirely decoupled. Because a thermal state has no correlations between bare modes, $\langle \hat a_j^\dagger \hat a_k\rangle = \delta_{jk}\bar n_j$, each collective mode carries the same mean photon number, so the bright mode holds exactly $1/M$ of the total energy. Under weak coupling and atomic dissipation, only the bright mode decays, giving Eq. (21): $\bar n(t) = \frac{1}{M}\bar n(0)e^{-\kappa t} + \frac{M-1}{M}\bar n(0)$, so in the long-time limit all remaining energy sits in dark modes. The paper further shows that the intensity $\langle \hat E^{(-)}\hat E^{(+)}\rangle = M\langle \hat A_0^\dagger \hat A_0\rangle$ can equal the total field energy, even though only the $1/M$ bright fraction is actually exchangeable, and that breaking the interaction symmetry converts dark modes into bright ones and releases the stored energy.

Load-bearing premise

The result requires that all M modes are degenerate and couple to the same matter element with equal strength and no relative phase, so the interaction Hamiltonian contains only one symmetric collective mode; once frequencies or phases differ, dark modes become bright over time and the fixed $1/M$ fraction is no longer well defined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a crossed-cavity experiment with two thermal modes and one dissipative atom, only half the initial photons are scattered; reversing the coupling phase of one cavity lets the atom scatter the remaining half, as shown in the paper's numerical simulation.
  • For M identical thermal modes, the hidden fraction $(M-1)/M$ grows with M, reaching 99% for M=100, so engineered multimode cavities should display a large absorption deficit at steady state.
  • Direct intensity measurements of multimode thermal light can report the full energy content even though only $1/M$ of it is exchangeable, meaning intensity is a measure of coupling strength rather than stored energy.
  • If the modes are non-resonant, bright and dark roles rotate over time and the matter eventually dissipates all the energy, so frequency detuning is a practical symmetry-breaking tool for accessing the hidden component.
  • In free space, where many modes fall within an atomic linewidth, the accessible fraction $1/M$ can become very small, so atoms and small detectors would scatter or absorb only a tiny part of the surrounding thermal radiation energy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's setup, the same $1/M$ argument should apply to any incoherent multimode state with equal average occupations, because only the diagonal correlation structure is used; the paper's focus is thermal states, so this broader universality is my inference.
  • The paper's discussion of sensor size suggests a testable extension: a detector much smaller than the wavelength should absorb only $1/M$ of the field energy, while a detector spanning many wavelength-scale phase regions should access more; this could be tested with tunable subwavelength absorbers.
  • If dark photonic energy survives in equilibrium settings, standard blackbody absorption and emission rates for multimode fields may need a collective correction; the paper does not develop this thermodynamic consequence, but it follows naturally from the interaction structure it derives.
  • The dark-state energy could in principle be extracted in stages by repeatedly breaking and restoring the interaction symmetry, which points toward a quantum-thermal device that draws on the hidden fraction; this application is not discussed in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a collective-mode description of M thermal field modes coupled to a single matter element. Defining a symmetric bright mode A0 and M-1 orthogonal dark modes, it argues that when the M modes are degenerate and couple with equal strength and phase, a multimode thermal state has 1/M of its total mean excitation in the bright mode and (M-1)/M in dark modes. Because the interaction Hamiltonian contains only A0, only the bright fraction is exchangeable; a dissipative atom therefore leaves (M-1)/M of the initial photon number in the field (Eq. (21)). The authors verify this approximate analytic result against full master-equation numerics, propose a crossed-cavity experiment in which symmetry breaking exposes the trapped dark-mode energy, and offer a speculative free-space estimate linking the large-M suppression to hidden cosmic energy. The Supplemental Material contains a combinatorial derivation of the (M-1)/M ratio and a non-resonant simulation showing complete dissipation for detuned modes.

Significance. The degenerate equal-coupling result is internally consistent: the master-equation calculation, the combinatorial counting, and the numerical QuTiP curves agree with one another, and the proposed crossed-cavity setup is a plausible testbed for the model. If the claims are restricted to engineered degenerate cavities, the paper is a useful illustration of how collective bright/dark structure controls energy exchange with thermal fields. However, the significance for thermal radiation in general is not established: the central mechanism relies on a fixed symmetric mode, and the paper's own non-resonant simulation shows that the effect disappears once detunings are introduced. The free-space cosmological numbers are invalid as written. I therefore regard the contribution as a sound model calculation whose advertised generality and free-space implications need substantial revision.

major comments (4)
  1. [Hidden energy in thermal states; Eq. (21); SM 'Non-resonant case'] The central result that only 1/M of the thermal energy is accessible and that the long-time photon number is (M-1)/M is derived under the assumption that all M modes are exactly degenerate and couple with equal strength and phase, so that the interaction contains only A0. This assumption appears only in a parenthesis and in footnote [30], but it is load-bearing: the Supplemental Material ('Non-resonant case', Fig. S2) shows that with five detuned modes the entire initial energy is dissipated, and in free space the phase factors g_k(r,t) rotate the bright mode so that no fixed antisymmetric mode is permanently dark. Consequently, the abstract's and title's unconditional claim about thermal radiation is not supported by the model. The claims should be restricted to degenerate fixed-phase configurations, with the non-resonant case presented as a breakdown of the mechanism rather than as an aside.
  2. [Non-detectable thermal energy in free space] The ratio u_Total/u_1 is dimensionally inconsistent. u_Total = integral of hbar omega D(omega) nbar(omega) domega is an energy density, but u_1 as defined, integral of hbar omega_S nbar(omega_S) domega_S, has dimensions of energy per unit time (J/s), not energy density (J/m^3). The quoted formula u_Total/u_1 = (2/5)(k_B T)^2/(hbar^2 c^3) therefore carries dimensions s/m^3, and the numbers 3117 and 8471 have no well-defined meaning. A corrected definition of the single-mode density D1(omega) with the proper units is needed before any free-space or cosmological claim can be made.
  3. [Eqs. (13)-(18)] Equations (16)-(17) give an impression of generality for non-degenerate modes, but for modes with different frequencies no unitary transformation of the form (3) with U0j = 1/sqrt(M) diagonalizes the free Hamiltonian H0 = sum_j hbar omega_j a_j^dagger a_j. The symmetric collective mode is therefore not a stationary mode, and 'omega_S' is not well defined in that case. The energy assignments ES and EA are meaningful only in the degenerate case; the derivation should be stated directly under the degeneracy assumption rather than as a specialization after a general-looking formula.
  4. [Abstract and 'Detectable Intensity vs Energy'] The abstract's characterization of thermal radiation as containing 'highly entangled photon states' is misleading: a product thermal state has no entanglement, and the calculation shows only that the thermal density matrix has nonzero population in collective dark basis states that are themselves entangled. Similarly, 'undetectable by conventional electromagnetic means' is too strong, since the non-resonant dynamics makes all modes detectable over time. Please replace these phrases with precise statements about projections onto dark collective modes under the degenerate fixed-phase condition.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Supplemental Material, Eq. (S8)] The displayed identity for <Psi^1_{0,1}| rho_{M=2} is not correct as written: the left-hand side is a bra, while the right-hand side is written as an operator expression, and the projection <Psi|rho|Psi> equals P0*P1. Please correct this line.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption states that lines correspond to the effective dynamics and symbols to the full numerical solution, but the legend lists 'M=1 - full' etc.; please clarify which entries are analytic and which are numerical so that the figure can be read unambiguously.
  3. [Footnote [30]] The restriction to degenerate modes is a substantive condition, not merely a technical footnote; it should be stated in the main text before Eq. (18), where the result is first presented.
  4. [Free-space section, sentence beginning 'the number of modes per volume unit...'] The transition from the linewidth counting D(omega)Gamma to the integral over D1(omega)=1 is not clearly defined; please specify the frequency window and the normalization of D1 explicitly so that the passage from local mode counting to the integrated ratio is transparent.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 1/M dark-energy fraction is the model's defining symmetric-coupling assumption restated; the central 'prediction' reduces by construction.

  1. self definitional [Model section (after Eq. 2) and Results, 'Hidden energy in thermal states', Eqs. (5), (14), (18), (21)]
    "From this point onward, we work with the transformed positive-frequency electric field operator, E(+)θ = Σ_{k=1}^M âk, which also assumes equal coupling strengths across all modes. ... In the collective basis, the matter, modeled here as a two-level or a bosonic system, interacts exclusively with the symmetric collective mode ... Therefore, when many resonant modes exist in identical thermal states, only a fraction 1/M of the total thermal energy can be exchanged with matter."

    The central 'prediction' is built into the model rather than derived from thermal radiation. Eq. (5) is obtained by assuming equal coupling strengths and phases for all M modes, after which the field operator is by construction E(+) = Σ âk = √M Â0; 'accessible energy' is then defined as the energy in Â0. Eq. (14) is just the projection |U0j|² = 1/M applied to the assumed diagonal thermal state (Eq. 11); Eq. (18) and the asymptotic part of Eq. (21) are the complement of that projection, and Eq. (20) already contains the same 'only Â0 decays' assumption. The long-time limit (M−1)/M is therefore the model's input rewritten, not an independent result about thermal radiation.

full rationale

The main circular step is the 1/M dark-energy claim. The paper explicitly assumes equal coupling strengths and phases across all M modes, which makes the interaction Hamiltonian (5) contain only the symmetric collective mode Â0. Since 'dark modes' are defined as the orthogonal complement of Â0 and 'accessible energy' is the energy in the mode that appears in Hint, the statement that (M−1)/M of thermal energy is inaccessible is a direct corollary of the model's defining assumption plus the elementary fact that a diagonal thermal state projects equally onto each collective mode (Eq. 14). Eq. (21) adds no new physics: it is the solution of the effective master equation (20), which already encodes the same 'only Â0 decays' assumption, with the initial symmetric-mode occupation set to 1/M of the total. Thus the central prediction reduces by construction to the input Hamiltonian. This is a partial, not total, circularity: the value 1/M does use the thermal-state statistics, and the model is internally consistent. The self-citations to Refs. [1], [2], [22], and [34–36] are not load-bearing here because the algebraic derivation is presented in the paper and the cited effective master equation is independently reproduced by the full numerical solution of Eq. (19). The paper's own limitations—footnote [30] restricting to degenerate modes and the SM 'NON-RESONANT CASE' showing total dissipation for detuned modes—confirm that the unconditional abstract/title claim about thermal radiation is an overgeneralization of a specially constructed model; that is a correctness concern rather than an additional circular step. Overall score 6: one or more central predictions reduce by construction, though the derivation is not a bare tautology.

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

The central derivation rests on the physical assumption of equal, degenerate couplings and on standard QED approximations. No free parameters are fitted; M, nbar, g, and gamma are system inputs. The dark modes are not new entities, only a rotated basis of the same harmonic oscillators.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption All M field modes are resonant and couple to the same matter element with equal strength and phase, so the transformed field operator is E^(+)_theta = sum_k a_k.
    Stated in the Model section. This assumption is what makes the interaction Hamiltonian contain only the symmetric mode A_0 (Eq. 5); without it the M-1 dark modes are not strictly decoupled and the 1/M fraction does not hold.
  • domain assumption The matter acts as a zero-temperature sink: absorbed excitations are dissipated and do not return to the M modes.
    The master equation (19) and effective equation (20) assume the atom decays at rate gamma to an external reservoir. If the atom were in thermal equilibrium with the field, it would not indefinitely cool the symmetric mode and the 'inaccessible energy' picture changes.
  • domain assumption Born-Markov approximation and weak coupling (g << gamma).
    Used to derive the effective damped-mode master equation (20) from the full atom-field dynamics.
  • standard math Rotating wave approximation and Jaynes-Cummings interaction.
    Standard QED approximation, cited as Refs. [12,13].
  • standard math The thermal state is diagonal in the Fock basis with zero inter-mode correlations (langle a_j^dagger a_k rangle = delta_jk nbar_j).
    This is the standard thermal state definition; it is what makes the collective-mode populations uniform.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark States of Light and the Hidden Energy in Thermal Radiation Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BR5PXR35

@misc{pith2026250513767,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark States of Light and the Hidden Energy in Thermal Radiation Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BR5PXR35}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13767}
}
abstract

We develop a quantum-optical framework demonstrating that thermal radiation can confine a significant portion of its energy in dark collective modes -- highly entangled photon states that, despite their photonic nature, remain decoupled from matter through standard electromagnetic interactions. In a system comprising $M$ thermal field modes, we show that only a fraction $1/M$ of the total energy is accessible to matter, while the remaining $(M-1)/M$ is stored in dark states, rendering it undetectable by conventional electromagnetic means. We also demonstrate that intensity measurements, commonly used to estimate field energy, can be misleading due to collective effects that suppress or enhance light-matter coupling. To explore further this phenomenon, we analyze a cavity QED model enclosing a single dissipative atom and show that symmetry breaking in the atom-field interaction enables access to the hidden energy stored in dark modes. While inconclusive, these findings suggest that dark states of light may underlie certain unexplained energy phenomena, pointing to a possible microscopic mechanism based on the collective structure of thermal radiation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13767 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic representation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Time evolution of the average number of thermal pho [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Normalized populations of the modes ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    This result assumes no coupling between modes, so the col- lective modes remain degenerate. When matter is included, we must guarantee that we are in the regime where the mat- ter–mode coupling is much smaller than the mode frequen- cies, which justifies the rotating wave approximation (RW A). For stronger couplings (e.g., in the Rabi model), modes may be...

    work page

  2. [1]

    C. J. Villas-Boas, C. E. M ´aximo, P. J. Paulino, R. P. Bachelard, and G. Rempe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 133603 (2025)

    2025

  3. [2]

    C. M. Diniz, F. R. Henrique, B. S. de Souza, L. Mis- oguti, P. H. D. Ferreira, and C. J. Villas-Boas, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19746 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  4. [3]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935)

    1935

  5. [4]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  6. [5]

    J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1999)

    work page 1999

  7. [6]

    Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light, 3rd ed

    R. Loudon, The Quantum Theory of Light, 3rd ed. (Oxford Uni- versity Press, Oxford, 2000)

    2000

  8. [7]

    R. J. Glauber, Phys. Rev. 130, 2529 (1963)

    1963

Show all 56 references
  1. [8]

    R. J. Glauber, Phys. Rev. 131, 2766 (1963)

    1963

  2. [9]

    R. J. Glauber, Reviews of Modern Physics 78, 1267 (2006)

    2006

  3. [10]

    Brekenfeld, D

    M. Brekenfeld, D. Niemietz, J. D. Christesen, and G. Rempe, Nature Physics , 647 (2020)

    2020

  4. [11]

    Jaynes and F

    E. Jaynes and F. Cummings, Proceedings of the IEEE 51, 89 (1963)

    1963

  5. [12]

    M. O. Scully and M. S. Zubairy, Quantum Optics (Cambridge University Press, 1997)

    1997

  6. [13]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, J

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, J. Dupont-Roc, and G. Grynberg,Photons and Atoms: Introduction to Quantum Electrodynamics (Wiley, 1997)

    1997

  7. [14]

    Ciuti, G

    C. Ciuti, G. Bastard, and I. Carusotto, Physical Review B 72, 115303 (2005)

    2005

  8. [15]

    R. J. Glauber, Quantum theory of optical coherence: selected papers and lectures (John Wiley & Sons, 2007)

    2007

  9. [16]

    N. A. Lemos, Mecˆanica Anal´ıtica, 2nd ed. (Livraria da F ´ısica, S˜ao Paulo, Brasil, 2016) p. 394, dispon ´ıvel em capa dura e mole

    2016

  10. [17]

    Goldstein, C

    H. Goldstein, C. Poole, and J. Safko, Classical Mechanics, 3rd ed. (Addison-Wesley, San Francisco, 2002) p. 672

    2002

  11. [18]

    M. A. de Ponte, S. S. Mizrahi, and M. H. Y . Moussa, Phys. Rev. A 76, 032101 (2007)

    2007

  12. [19]

    C. E. M ´aximo, T. B. Batalh ˜ao, R. Bachelard, G. D. de Moraes Neto, M. A. de Ponte, and M. H. Y . Moussa, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 31, 2480 (2014)

    2014

  13. [20]

    G. E. Andrews, The theory of partitions, 2 (Cambridge univer- sity press, 1998)

    1998

  14. [21]

    P. J. Cameron, Combinatorics: topics, techniques, algorithms (Cambridge University Press, 1994)

    1994

  15. [22]

    C. M. Diniz, C. J. Villas-Boas, and A. C. Santos, Quantum Sci- ence and Technology 10, 025039 (2025)

    2025

  16. [23]

    Eisberg and R

    R. Eisberg and R. Resnick, Quantum Physics of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles, 2nd ed. (Wiley, 1985)

    1985

  17. [24]

    Madau and M

    P. Madau and M. Dickinson, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 52, 415 (2014)

    2014

  18. [25]

    Fermi, Reviews of Modern Physics 4, 87 (1932)

    E. Fermi, Reviews of Modern Physics 4, 87 (1932)

    1932

  19. [26]

    Cohen-Tannoudji, B

    C. Cohen-Tannoudji, B. Diu, and F. Lalo ¨e, Quantum Mechan- ics, Volume 2 (Wiley, 1977)

    1977

  20. [27]

    A. F. R. de Toledo Piza, Mecˆanica Quˆantica, 2nd ed. (EDUSP, S˜ao Paulo, 2023) p. 632

    2023

  21. [28]

    J. A. Souza, L. Cabral, R. R. Oliveira, and C. J. Villas-Boas, Phys. Rev. A 92, 023818 (2015)

    2015

  22. [29]

    In contrast, at low excitation levels, certain collec- tive states exhibit genuinely nonclassical behavior that cannot be captured by classical theories [1]

    Classical analogs as the symmetric and antisymmetric mo- tions in coupled pendulum systems, familiar from undergradu- ate physics. In contrast, at low excitation levels, certain collec- tive states exhibit genuinely nonclassical behavior that cannot be captured by classical th...

  23. [31]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione, The Theory of Open Quantum Systems (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002)

    2002

  24. [32]

    C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Quantum Noise: A Handbook of Markovian and Non-Markovian Quantum Stochastic Methods with Applications to Quantum Optics, 3rd ed. (Springer, 2004)

    2004

  25. [33]

    Should the modes interact with distinct material regions – spaced by several wavelengths – alternative symmetric states may arise, leading to spatially nonuniform energy transfer. Here, we are also neglecting the temperature effects of the mat- 8 ter since we are interested in...

  26. [34]

    Werlang, R

    T. Werlang, R. Guzm ´an, F. O. Prado, and C. J. Villas-B ˆoas, Phys. Rev. A 78, 033820 (2008)

    2008

  27. [35]

    F. O. Prado, E. I. Duzzioni, M. H. Y . Moussa, N. G. de Almeida, and C. J. Villas-Bˆoas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 073008 (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    Prado, N

    F. Prado, N. de Almeida, E. Duzzioni, M. Moussa, and C. Villas-Boas, Physical Review A 84, 012112 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    F. C. Binder, A. Ahmed, D. A. Ayin, P. K. Barkoutsos, V . Berec, V . Elvira, J. Gao, S. E. Garcia, J. Ghosh, C. Granade, J. R. Jo- hansson, R. Kumar, Z. K. Minev, P. D. Nation, V . P. Rajan, S. Singh, N. Tantivasadakarn, S. Vaidya, and D. Willsch, Quan- tum 8, 1435 (2024)

    2024

  30. [38]

    Farrera, M

    P. Farrera, M. Brekenfeld, D. Niemietz, J. D. Christesen, and G. Rempe, Single trapped atoms coupled to crossed fiber- cavities, https://premc.org/doc/QTech2020/2_ Pau_Farrera_Slides.pdf (2020), presented at QTech 2020

    2020

  31. [39]

    Hohmann, Physik in unserer Zeit 54, 4 (2023)

    C. Hohmann, Physik in unserer Zeit 54, 4 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    L. O. R. Solak, D. Z. Rossatto, and C. J. Villas-Boas, Phys. Rev. A 109, 062620 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    L. O. R. Solak, C. J. Villas-Boas, and D. Z. Rossatto, Beam splitter for dark and bright states of light (2024), arXiv:2408.15059 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Seubert, L

    M. Seubert, L. Hartung, S. Welte, G. Rempe, and E. Distante, PRX Quantum 6, 010322 (2025)

    2025

  35. [43]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y . Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Bacci- galupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, S. Basak, and et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics641, A6 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    Collaboration, Dark energy survey year 3 cosmology re- sults (2022), https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/ des-year-3-cosmology-results/

    D. Collaboration, Dark energy survey year 3 cosmology re- sults (2022), https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/ des-year-3-cosmology-results/

    2022

  37. [45]

    E. J. Copeland, M. Sami, and S. Tsujikawa, International Jour- nal of Modern Physics D 15, 1753–1936 (2006)

    2006

  38. [46]

    Amendola and S

    L. Amendola and S. Tsujikawa, Dark Energy: Theory and Ob- servations (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    J. A. Frieman, M. S. Turner, and D. Huterer, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 46, 385–432 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    Zwicky, Helvetica Physica Acta 6, 110 (1933)

    F. Zwicky, Helvetica Physica Acta 6, 110 (1933)

    1933

  41. [49]

    Bertone, D

    G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Physics Reports 405, 279 (2005)

    2005

  42. [50]

    Collaboration, N

    P. Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y . Akrami,et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics 641, A6 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    J. M. Shull, B. D. Smith, and C. W. Danforth, The Astrophysical Journal 759, 23 (2012)

    2012

  44. [52]

    Parke, R

    H. Parke, R. Thomm, A. C. Santos, A. Cidrim, G. Higgins, M. Mallweger, N. Kuk, S. Salim, R. Bachelard, C. J. Villas- Boas, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.07154 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Sch ¨onberg, Il Nuovo Cimento 9, 1139 (1952)

    M. Sch ¨onberg, Il Nuovo Cimento 9, 1139 (1952)

    1952

  46. [54]

    Sch ¨onberg, Il Nuovo Cimento 10, 419 (1953)

    M. Sch ¨onberg, Il Nuovo Cimento 10, 419 (1953)

    1953

  47. [55]

    Sch ¨onberg, Il Nuovo Cimento 10, 697 (1953)

    M. Sch ¨onberg, Il Nuovo Cimento 10, 697 (1953). 9 Supplemental Material for: Dark States of Light and the Hidden Energy in Thermal Radiation Detection Celso Jorge Villas-Boas 1, and Ciro Micheletti Diniz 1 1Departamento de F´ısica, Universidade Federal de S˜ao Carlos, Rodovia...

    1953

  48. [56]

    Additionally, following a similar argument, we can find the amount of existing bright (n0 = N), dark (n0 = 0), and intermediate (n0̸= 0,N ) states

    (S14) Again, the absence of a sum with indexnM−1 because, once the number of photons in the other modes is known, the number of photons in the last mode must be the one that satisfiesPM−1 µ=0 nµ =N. Additionally, following a similar argument, we can find the amount of existing...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.