Cavity QED with molecular defects coupled to a photonic crystal cavity

Adhyyan S. Mansukhani; Ankit Kundu; Arya D. Keni; Benjamin Cerjan; Christian M. Lange; Emma Daggett; Ishita Agarwal; Jonathan D. Hood; Libai Huang

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Cavity QED with molecular defects coupled to a photonic crystal cavity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two molecules tuned into resonance in a photonic crystal cavity form collective quantum states.

desk verdict The hybrid platform itself is solid and worth attention, but the quoted collective-state parameters for the first molecular pair are impossible under the paper's own Eq. (2), so the central claim needs a correction before it can be believed. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01917 v1 pith:C4Z25Y5S submitted 2025-06-02 quant-ph

Christian M. Lange , Arya D. Keni , Ishita Agarwal , Emma Daggett , Adhyyan S. Mansukhani , Ankit Kundu , Benjamin Cerjan , Libai Huang

show 1 more author

Jonathan D. Hood

This is my paper

classification quant-ph

keywords cavityQEDmolecularemittersphotoniccrystaldibenzoterryleneanthracenecollectivequantumstatesspectraltuningnanophotonics

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 claims that a photonic crystal cavity can be combined with a crystal containing many organic molecules, and that pairs of those molecules can be permanently tuned into mutual resonance to form collective quantum states. If true, this would give solid-state cavity QED a scalable platform that combines near-lifetime-limited coherence with straightforward nanophotonic integration, without requiring external magnetic or electric fields. Fitting the cavity transmission, the authors extract collective spin-exchange and collective decay rates for two pairs of molecules coupled to the same cavity mode, interpreting the observed lineshapes as the controlled formation of collective states. The work points toward many-body cavity QED, sources of non-classical light, and quantum emitters whose properties are set by synthetic chemistry.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Tavis-Cummings input–output model of $N$ two-level emitters coupled to a single cavity mode, together with the physical molecular system that realizes it. The paper adiabatically eliminates the cavity field to define the collective rates $J_{12} = -g_1 g_2 \Delta_{mc}/(\Delta_{mc}^2 + (\kappa/2)^2)$ and $\Gamma_{12} = g_1 g_2 \kappa/(\Delta_{mc}^2 + (\kappa/2)^2)$, which are then used to fit the measured transmission lineshapes. The enabling physical mechanism is the optically induced, permanent frequency shift of individual dibenzoterrylene molecules: high-intensity excitation creates a charge–hole pair in the anthracene matrix whose persistent electric field Stark-shifts the molecular resonance, allowing molecules to be brought into resonance within the cavity linewidth. The crystal stamping method provides high doping density, oriented molecular dipoles, and preservation of the cavity quality factor.

What would settle it

Re-measure the two-molecule pairs with the decoherence rate of each molecule measured in situ from lifetime data at two cavity detunings rather than borrowed from another molecule, and test whether the transmission spectra at all tuning steps are reproduced only by the collective model; if the lineshapes are equally well fit by two independent, non-interacting dips, the claim of collective-state formation is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the controlled formation of collective quantum states of two lifetime-limited molecular emitters coupled through a single photonic crystal cavity mode, achieved by permanently tuning their transition frequencies into resonance with a light-induced Stark shift. Using dibenzoterrylene molecules embedded in an anthracene crystal stamped onto a silicon nitride nanobeam cavity, the authors couple emitters with cooperativities around 0.5, and report collective parameters $J_{12} = -10$ MHz, $\Gamma_{12} = 39$ MHz for one pair ($g_1/2\pi = 560$ MHz, $g_2/2\pi = 480$ MHz, $\Delta_{mc} = 5.7$ GHz) and $J_{12} = 8.7$ MHz, $\Gamma_{12} = 22$ MHz for the second pair ($g_1/2\pi = 610$ MHz, $g_2/2\pi = 650$ MHz, $\Delta_{mc} = -17$ GHz). The authors state this is the first resonant multi-emitter cavity coupling demonstrated without external magnetic or electric fields, enabled by high doping density, low inhomogeneous broadening, and the optically induced permanent spectral shift.

Load-bearing premise

The extracted collective rates assume that the decoherence rate of the tuned molecules is the same 60 MHz measured for a different single molecule, and that the same two molecules are tracked through each tuning step; if either assumption fails, the reported J12 and Γ12 values are not validated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Because the platform already yields cooperativities around 0.5 with an integrated cavity quality factor near 8,600, increasing the quality factor toward the simulated 25,000 should bring the same emitters into the strong-coupling regime required for deterministic photon gates and photon–photon interactions.
The demonstrated permanent tuning of two molecules can in principle be repeated on more molecules, opening a route to superradiance, subradiance, many-body entanglement, and non-classical light generation within one cavity mode.
Since the emitter crystal and the cavity are fabricated independently and then stamped together, the approach scales to arrays of cavities, as shown by the positioning of crystals on 100 cavities on a single chip.
The absence of external magnetic or electric tuning fields removes a practical obstacle for quantum networks and for integrating molecular emitters with other on-chip photonic circuitry.

Reading between the lines

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

A testable extension the paper does not pursue is measuring the second-order correlation $g^{(2)}(\tau)$ of the cavity output at the two-molecule resonance; collective decay would show dynamics characteristic of the symmetric and antisymmetric states, not present for independent emitters.
The tuning yield will matter for scaling: with an inhomogeneous distribution of width $\sigma = 90$ GHz and single-molecule linewidths around 40 MHz, the probability that a third molecule happens to lie within the same cavity linewidth is small, so the 'many-body' path likely requires reducing inhomogeneous broadening or actively tuning more emitters.
The paper's 'no external fields' claim refers to applied fields; the tuning mechanism itself creates a persistent internal field via charge separation, so it remains an open question whether large accumulated shifts introduce extra decoherence at the scale where many molecules would need to be moved into resonance.
The same stamping and tuning strategy should transfer to other guest–host molecular systems with known insertion sites, which would test whether chemically designed emitter–host pairs can be engineered rather than screened.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

First, the stress-test note is correct. For the first pair in Fig. 4B, plugging g1=560 MHz, g2=480 MHz, κ=45 GHz, and Δmc=5.7 GHz into Eq. (2) gives J12 ≈ −2.8 MHz and Γ12 ≈ 22 MHz, not the printed −10 MHz and 39 MHz. Worse, the maximum possible |J12| with those couplings and κ is about 6 MHz, and max Γ12 is about 24 MHz, so the printed numbers are not even achievable under the stated model. This is the only quantitative evidence for the collective-state claim, so it matters. It could be a typo, but the paper as written is internally inconsistent, and no raw data are provided to adjudicate.

That said, the underlying work is genuinely good. The crystal synthesis, micropositioning of DBT-doped anthracene onto a silicon nitride photonic crystal cavity, and the permanent light-induced Stark tuning are executed cleanly. The single-molecule characterization with lifetime and transmission fits, extracting g=0.6 GHz, κ=45 GHz, and C=0.53, is a believable platform demonstration. The high doping density and the ability to tune two molecules into resonance on a chip is a credible step beyond single-emitter cavity QED, and the paper is honest about the challenges and prior work, though it underplays how much quantitative comparison is needed.

Beyond the numerical inconsistency, the soft spots are minor-to-moderate: no error bars anywhere; the two-molecule fit assumes γ=60 MHz from a different molecule, which is an unvalidated assumption; only two pairs are shown; and calling C=0.53 "strong light-matter coupling" is an overstatement by standard definitions. The "prediction" of near-resonance lineshapes is really a self-consistency check using the same fitted g1 and g2, not an independent test. None of these are fatal if the key numbers are fixed and the fits are made available.

This work is for people building solid-state cavity QED with molecules, especially those interested in scalable multi-emitter platforms. It deserves a serious referee even though I would not cite it until the inconsistency is resolved. The platform is real, the execution is careful, and the flaw looks correctable.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports the integration of dibenzoterrylene (DBT) molecules doped in thin anthracene crystals with silicon nitride photonic crystal cavities, achieving cavity QED parameters (g, κ, γ)/2π = (0.6, 45, 0.06) GHz and a cooperativity of about 0.53 for a single molecule. Using a light-induced persistent Stark shift, the authors tune pairs of molecules into mutual resonance and interpret the resulting transmission spectra as evidence for collective states characterized by a spin-exchange rate J12 and a collective decay rate Γ12. The paper claims the first demonstration of resonant multi-emitter cavity coupling without external magnetic or electric fields, and argues that the platform is scalable to many interacting emitters.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the work is significant: it combines lifetime-limited molecular emitters with scalable integrated photonics, demonstrates strong coupling to a photonic crystal cavity, and provides a path toward collective many-body cavity QED with chemically synthesized emitters. The micropositioning technique, high doping density, and permanent spectral tuning are valuable experimental contributions. The single-molecule characterization and the second two-molecule pair are internally consistent. However, the quantitative evidence for the collective-state demonstration is undermined by a numerical inconsistency in the first pair and by the use of a decoherence rate assumed from a different molecule; these issues need to be resolved before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Tuning molecules into resonance within a cavity (Eq. (2), Fig. 4B)] The quoted collective parameters for the first molecule pair are inconsistent with Eq. (2) and the stated input parameters. For g1/2π = 560 MHz, g2/2π = 480 MHz, Δmc = 5.7 GHz, and κ/2π = 45 GHz, Eq. (2) gives J12/2π ≈ -2.8 MHz and Γ12/2π ≈ 22 MHz, not the reported J12 = -10 MHz and Γ12 = 39 MHz. This discrepancy is not a small rounding effect: the reported values exceed the model's physical bounds (|J12| ≤ g1g2/κ ≈ 6 MHz and Γ12 ≤ 4g1g2/κ ≈ 24 MHz in frequency units). Because these numbers are the primary quantitative evidence for the collective-state demonstration, please correct the numbers or provide the raw data and fits that support them.
[Tuning molecules into resonance within a cavity] The two-molecule analysis assumes a decoherence rate γ/2π = 60 MHz taken from a different molecule (Fig. 3), as stated: 'Assuming decoherence rates of γ = 60 MHz, similar to the molecule in Fig. 3, we extracted values of the cavity emitter coupling rates.' Since the extracted g1 and g2 depend on this assumed γ, and the near-resonance lineshapes are then predicted using those same fitted values, the demonstration of collective states is partially circular. Please validate γ for the specific molecules in the pair (e.g., through lifetime or linewidth measurements) or provide a sensitivity analysis showing that J12 and Γ12 are robust to the assumed value.
[Figures 3 and 4] The fits to the transmission spectra are presented without uncertainty estimates, residuals, or raw data for the tuning sequence. Without error bars on the extracted parameters and on the predicted lineshapes, the 'good agreement' can only be assessed visually. This is particularly important for the central claim of controlled collective-state formation, where the two-molecule fits have no reported confidence intervals for J12 and Γ12.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (2) and Fig. 4 caption] The manuscript should specify whether J12 and Γ12 are quoted as angular frequencies or cyclic frequencies, since Eq. (2) is written in angular frequency but the values are given as 'MHz' without the /2π convention.
[Introduction and Fig. 2] The acronym 'PVA' is written as 'PV A' in several places; please use a consistent spelling.
[Tuning mechanism (Fig. 4D)] The text describes optically-induced Stark shifts as 'permanent' but provides no data on the stability or lifetime of the shifts; a timescale or reversibility statement would strengthen the claim.
[References] Reference [48] appears to be a paper on a different system; please verify that it is the correct source for the superradiant and subradiant states of two molecules separated by tens of nanometers.
[Fig. 3 caption] The caption states 'giving a free-space decay rate of Γ' = 40 MHz and a cavity coupling strength of g = 0.6 GHz' but the fit quality is not quantified; include a reduced chi-squared or similar measure.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the two-molecule lineshape prediction is a genuine extrapolation from separately fitted single-molecule parameters; the reported numerical inconsistency for the first pair is a correctness issue, not circularity.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain. The cavity-QED model is the standard Tavis-Cummings input-output theory imported from Refs. [43, 53, 54] (external), and Eq. (2) is just the adiabatic-elimination result for J12 and Gamma12 in terms of g1, g2, kappa, and Delta_mc. The single-molecule couplings g1 and g2 are fitted from far-detuned antiresonances ('we fitted their antiresonant lineshapes at large detunings, where interactions were negligible'), while kappa is measured from the bare-cavity Lorentzian. The near-resonance two-molecule spectra are then obtained from the same N=2 model with those parameters ('We predicted the lineshapes as the molecules approached resonance, finding good agreement with measurements'). This is not a fitted-input-called-prediction: the near-resonance lineshape is a nontrivial function of the fitted g's and the changing molecular detunings, and the agreement could have failed if the molecules did not share the cavity mode or decohered at different rates. J12 and Gamma12 are derived algebraic consequences of Eq. (2), not separately fitted observables. The only self-citation (Ref. [15]) appears in a list of prior tuning demonstrations and is not load-bearing. Two non-circular weaknesses remain: (i) the quoted first-pair values (J12=-10 MHz, Gamma12=39 MHz) are arithmetically inconsistent with Eq. (2) and the stated g1/2pi=560 MHz, g2/2pi=480 MHz, kappa/2pi=45 GHz, Delta_mc=5.7 GHz, which give approximately -2.8 MHz and 22.5 MHz; this is an internal-consistency or correctness problem, not circularity; (ii) the assumed gamma=60 MHz is imported from a different molecule in Fig. 3, an empirical uncertainty rather than a definitional loop. In the absence of raw spectra or error bars, these issues should be resolved, but they do not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central demonstration rests on standard cavity QED axioms plus several fitted parameters. No new physical entities are postulated. The leading non-standard input is the assumed γ=60 MHz for the two-molecule fits and the branching ratio from prior literature; these are reasonable but not independently verified here.

free parameters (7)

cavity decay rate κ/2π = 45 GHz
Fit to a Lorentzian of the bare cavity transmission; central to all cooperativity and Purcell calculations.
emitter-cavity coupling g/2π = 0.6 GHz
Extracted from lifetime change at two detunings and validated against transmission fits; used to compute C, FP, and β.
pure dephasing rate γ*/2π = 10 MHz
Chosen as best fit to resonant and dispersive transmission lineshapes in Fig. 3D-E; controls the total γ=60 MHz.
free-space decay rate Γ'/2π = 40 MHz
From measured lifetimes 3.13 ns at Δmc=-31 GHz and 2.2 ns at Δmc=5.6 GHz.
pair coupling strengths g1/2π, g2/2π = 560/480 MHz and 610/650 MHz for two pairs
Fitted to far-detuned antiresonances where interactions are assumed negligible; then used in Eq. (2) to produce J12 and Γ12.
assumed single-molecule decoherence γ/2π for two-molecule fit = 60 MHz
Not measured for the specific molecules; taken from the molecule in Fig. 3, a load-bearing assumption for the collective lineshape predictions.
ZPL branching ratio Γ'zpl/Γ' = 33%
Taken from prior literature to convert measured Purcell enhanced lifetime into a Purcell factor; not measured here.

assumptions (7)

standard math Tavis-Cummings Hamiltonian with N two-level emitters and one cavity mode (Eq. S1)
Used to derive transmission and collective rates; standard model in cavity QED.
standard math Lindblad dissipation with free-space decay, cavity loss, and pure dephasing (Eq. S2)
Chosen dissipation model for the system; pure dephasing rate is fitted.
domain assumption Adiabatic elimination requires g, Γ' << κ (Eqs. S7-S9)
The extracted parameters satisfy g/κ=0.013 and Γ'/κ≈0.001, so the assumption holds for the reported devices.
domain assumption Low-saturation condition <σz> ≈ -1 in steady state (Eq. S10)
Weak probe limit; not explicitly checked against input power in the text.
standard math Input-output relation for a two-sided cavity with equal mirror couplings (Eq. S11)
Connects internal field to out-coupled transmission; standard.
domain assumption DBT behaves as a two-level system with a 33% ZPL branching ratio and no first-order Stark shift
Based on prior DBT literature; the cavity QED fits use this level structure.
domain assumption Optically induced frequency shift is a persistent quadratic Stark shift from photo-generated charge-hole pairs in anthracene
Mechanism is cited from earlier DBT work, not directly measured in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cavity QED with molecular defects coupled to a photonic crystal cavity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C4Z25Y5S

@misc{pith2026250601917,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cavity QED with molecular defects coupled to a photonic crystal cavity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C4Z25Y5S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01917}
}

read the original abstract

We implement permanent spectral tuning to bring lifetime-limited emitters into collective resonance within an integrated photonic cavity. This addresses a fundamental challenge in solid-state cavity QED: combining multiple coherent quantum emitters with scalable nanophotonics. Our hybrid approach decouples emitter synthesis from nanophotonic fabrication using straightforward techniques that make cavity QED broadly accessible. High doping densities allow us to couple several coherent emitters to a single cavity mode, while optically-induced frequency shifting provides long-lived spectral control. By tuning two molecules into resonance, we demonstrate controlled formation of collective quantum states, establishing a scalable platform for many-body cavity QED. This opens pathways toward chemically-designed quantum systems where optical properties are engineered through synthetic chemistry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.01917 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** C illustrates our scheme to couple DBT molecules to a nanobeam photonic crystal cavity. We dope DBT into high-purity anthracene crystals with dimensions of 200 nm thickness and 30–50 µm width following protocols established in Refs. [31, 41]. The crystal is precisely positioned on top of a high-quality silicon nitride photonic crystal cavity designed according to Ref. [42]. Notably, the crystalline anthracene prese… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** D-E. We find that a nearly lifetime-limited pure dephasing rate of γ ∗ = 10 MHz gives the best fit for the resonant and dispersive lineshapes, giving cavity QED parameters of (g, κ, γ)/2π = (0.6, 45, 0.06) GHz and a cooperativity of C = 0.53. Another important metric is the proportion of decay into the cavity mode β = Γ1D/(Γ1D + Γ′ ), which we determine to be 44%. The efficient emitter-cavity coupling and low depha… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: B-C. The collective systems can be characterized by the spin exchange rate J12 and the collective decay rate Γ12 J12 = − g1 g2 ∆mc ∆2 mc + [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Many-Body Entanglement in Solid-State Emitters
quant-ph 2025-11 unverdicted

A wide-ranging survey of how solid-state quantum emitters coupled to nanophotonics are being pushed toward many-body entangled states, and of the coherence and inhomogeneity barriers that stand in the way.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

R. J. Thompson, G. Rempe, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1132 (1992)

work page 1992
[2]

A. Kuhn, M. Hennrich, and G. Rempe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 067901 (2002)

2002
[3]

Reiserer and G

A. Reiserer and G. Rempe, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 1379 (2015)

2015
[4]

H. J. Kimble, Nature 453, 1023 (2008)

2008
[5]

D. E. Chang, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nat. Photonics 8, 685 (2014)

work page 2014
[6]

Kuzmich, W

A. Kuzmich, W. P. Bowen, A. D. Boozer, A. Boca, C. W. Chou, L.-M. Duan, and H. J. Kimble, Nature 423, 731 (2003)

work page 2003
[7]

Thomas, L

P. Thomas, L. Ruscio, O. Morin, and G. Rempe, Nature 608, 677 (2022)

work page 2022
[8]

Lodahl, S

P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, and S. Stobbe, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 347 (2015)

2015

Show all 54 references

[9]

Englund, B

D. Englund, B. Shields, K. Rivoire, F. Hatami, J. Vuck- ovic, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Nano Lett. 10, 3922 (2010)

2010
[10]

Faraon, C

A. Faraon, C. Santori, Z. Huang, V. M. Acosta, and R. G. Beausoleil, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 033604 (2012)

2012
[11]

Z. Yan, J. Ho, Y.-H. Lu, S. J. Masson, A. Asenjo-Garcia, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 253603 (2023)

2023
[12]

Ritter, C

S. Ritter, C. N¨ olleke, C. Hahn, A. Reiserer, A. Neuzner, M. Uphoff, M. M¨ ucke, E. Figueroa, J. Bochmann, and G. Rempe, Nature 484, 195 (2012)

2012
[13]

Trebbia, Q

J.-B. Trebbia, Q. Deplano, P. Tamarat, and B. Lounis, Nat. Commun. 13, 2962 (2022)

2022
[14]

Rattenbacher, A

D. Rattenbacher, A. Shkarin, J. Renger, T. Utikal, S. G¨ otzinger, and V. Sandoghdar, Optica 10, 1595 (2023)

2023
[15]

C. M. Lange, E. Daggett, V. Walther, L. Huang, and J. D. Hood, Nat. Phys. 20, 836 (2024)

2024
[16]

Nobakht, A

J. Nobakht, A. Pscherer, J. Renger, S. G¨ otzinger, and V. Sandoghdar, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.00414 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[17]

D. M. Lukin, M. A. Guidry, J. Yang, M. Ghezellou, S. Deb Mishra, H. Abe, T. Ohshima, J. Ul-Hassan, and J. Vuˇ ckovi´ c, Phys. Rev. X13, 011005 (2023)

2023
[18]

Tamarat, A

P. Tamarat, A. Maali, B. Lounis, and M. Orrit, J. Phys. Chem. A 104, 1 (1999)

1999
[19]

A. A. L. Nicolet, P. Bordat, C. Hofmann, M. A. Kol’chenko, B. Kozankiewicz, R. Brown, and M. Orrit, ChemPhysChem 8, 1929 (2007)

2007
[20]

Adhikari, R

S. Adhikari, R. Smit, and M. Orrit, J. Phys. Chem. C 128, 3 (2023)

2023
[21]

Tamarat, A

P. Tamarat, A. Maali, B. Lounis, and M. Orrit, J. Phys. Chem. A 104, 1 (2000)

2000
[22]

Toninelli, I

C. Toninelli, I. Gerhardt, A. S. Clark, A. Reserbat- Plantey, S. G¨ otzinger, Z. Ristanovi´ c, M. Colautti, P. Lombardi, K. D. Major, I. Deperasi´ nska, W. H. Per- nice, F. H. L. Koppens, B. Kozankiewicz, A. Gourdon, V. Sandoghdar, and M. Orrit, Nat. Mat. 20, 1615 (2021)

2021
[23]

X.-L. Chu, S. G¨ otzinger, and V. Sandoghdar, Nat. Pho- tonics 11, 58 (2017)

2017
[24]

Grandi, K

S. Grandi, K. D. Major, C. Polisseni, S. Boissier, A. S. Clark, and E. A. Hinds, Phys. Rev. A 94, 063839 (2016)

2016
[25]

Gonz´ alez-Tudela, V

A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, V. Paulisch, D. E. Chang, H. J. Kimble, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 163603 (2015)

2015
[26]

Mart ´ ın-Cano, H

D. Mart ´ ın-Cano, H. R. Haakh, K. Murr, and M. Agio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 263605 (2014)

2014
[27]

Paulisch, M

V. Paulisch, M. Perarnau-Llobet, A. Gonz´ alez-Tudela, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A 99, 043807 (2019)

2019
[28]

M. R. Wasielewski, M. D. Forbes, N. L. Frank, K. Kowal- ski, G. D. Scholes, J. Yuen-Zhou, M. A. Baldo, D. E. Freedman, R. H. Goldsmith, T. Goodson III, M. L. Kirk, J. K. McCusker, J. P. Ogilvie, D. A. Shultz, S. Stoll, and K. B. Whaley, Nat. Rev. Chem. 4, 490 (2020)

2020
[29]

Trebbia, H

J.-B. Trebbia, H. Ruf, P. Tamarat, and B. Lounis, Opt. Express 17, 23986 (2009)

2009
[30]

Zirkelbach, M

J. Zirkelbach, M. Mirzaei, I. Deperasi´ nska, B. Kozankiewicz, B. Gurlek, A. Shkarin, T. Utikal, S. G¨ otzinger, and V. Sandoghdar, J. Chem. Phys. 156, 104301 (2022)

2022
[31]

P. Ren, S. Wei, W. Liu, S. Lin, Z. Tian, T. Huang, J. Tang, Y. Shi, and X.-W. Chen, Nat. Commun. 13, 3982 (2022)

2022
[32]

P. Ren, S. Wei, P. Zhang, and X.-W. Chen, Chin. Opt. Lett. 20, 073602 (2022)

2022
[33]

Musavinezhad, A

M. Musavinezhad, A. Shkarin, D. Rattenbacher, J. Renger, T. Utikal, S. G¨ otzinger, and V. Sandoghdar, J. Phys. Chem. B 127, 5353 (2023)

2023
[34]

Rezai, J

M. Rezai, J. Wrachtrup, and I. Gerhardt, Phys. Rev. X 8, 031026 (2018)

2018
[35]

Duquennoy, M

R. Duquennoy, M. Colautti, P. Lombardi, V. Berardi, I. Gianani, C. Toninelli, and M. Barbieri, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 023191 (2023)

2023
[36]

Shkarin, D

A. Shkarin, D. Rattenbacher, J. Renger, S. H¨ onl, T. Utikal, P. Seidler, S. G¨ otzinger, and V. Sandoghdar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 133602 (2021)

2021
[37]

Boissier, R

S. Boissier, R. C. Schofield, L. Jin, A. Ovvyan, S. Nur, F. H. L. Koppens, C. Toninelli, W. H. P. Pernice, K. D. Major, E. A. Hinds, and A. S. Clark, Nat. Commun. 12, 706 (2021)

2021
[38]

T¨ urschmann, N

P. T¨ urschmann, N. Rotenberg, J. Renger, I. Harder, O. Lohse, T. Utikal, S. G¨ otzinger, and V. Sandoghdar, Nano Lett. 17, 4941 (2017)

2017
[39]

Gmeiner, A

B. Gmeiner, A. Maser, T. Utikal, S. G¨ otzinger, and V. Sandoghdar, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 18, 19588 (2016)

2016
[40]

Rattenbacher, A

D. Rattenbacher, A. Shkarin, J. Renger, T. Utikal, S. G¨ otzinger, and V. Sandoghdar, New J. Phys. 21, 062002 (2019)

2019
[41]

S. Wei, P. Ren, Y. He, P. Zhang, and X.-W. Chen, Phys. Rev. Appl. 13, 064023 (2020)

2020
[42]

Quan and M

Q. Quan and M. Loncar, Opt. Express 19, 18529 (2011)

2011
[43]

Asenjo-Garcia, J

A. Asenjo-Garcia, J. D. Hood, D. E. Chang, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. A 95, 033818 (2017)

2017
[44]

Inc., Tidy3d: Python-driven fdtd software, https:// www.flexcompute.com/tidy3d/solver/

F. Inc., Tidy3d: Python-driven fdtd software, https:// www.flexcompute.com/tidy3d/solver/
[45]

Clear, R

C. Clear, R. C. Schofield, K. D. Major, J. Iles-Smith, A. S. Clark, and D. P. S. McCutcheon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 153602 (2020)

2020
[46]

Colautti, F

M. Colautti, F. S. Piccioli, Z. Ristanovi´ c, P. Lom- bardi, A. Moradi, S. Adhikari, I. Deperasinska, B. Kozankiewicz, M. Orrit, and C. Toninelli, ACS Nano 14, 13584 (2020)

2020
[47]

Duquennoy, S

R. Duquennoy, S. Landrieux, D. De Bernardis, J. Mony, M. Colautti, L. Jin, W. H. Pernice, and C. Toninelli, ACS Nano 18, 32508 (2024), pMID: 39537346, https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.4c08382. 8

2024 doi
[48]

Lange, N

R. Lange, N. Huntemann, A. A. Peshkov, A. Surzhykov, and E. Peik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 253901 (2022)

2022
[49]

H. R. Haakh and D. Mart ´ ın-Cano, ACS Photonics2, 1686 (2015)

2015
[50]

Gimeno-Segovia, T

M. Gimeno-Segovia, T. Rudolph, and S. E. Economou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 070501 (2019)

2019
[51]

Vivas-Via˜ na, D

A. Vivas-Via˜ na, D. Mart ´ ın-Cano, and C. S. Mu˜ noz, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043051 (2024)

2024
[52]

J. Zhan, Z. Jafari, S. Veilleux, M. Dagenais, and I. De Leon, APL Photonics 5, 066101 (2020)

2020
[53]

C. W. Gardiner and M. J. Collett, Phys. Rev. A 31, 3761 (1985)

1985
[54]

Reiserer and G

A. Reiserer and G. Rempe, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 1379 (2015). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank Xue-Wen Chen for assistance with micropositioning techniques and Alex Clark for helpful discussions and comments on the manuscript. Funding: This work is supported an Energy Frontier R...

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

R. J. Thompson, G. Rempe, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1132 (1992)

work page 1992

[2] [2]

A. Kuhn, M. Hennrich, and G. Rempe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 067901 (2002)

2002

[3] [3]

Reiserer and G

A. Reiserer and G. Rempe, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 1379 (2015)

2015

[4] [4]

H. J. Kimble, Nature 453, 1023 (2008)

2008

[5] [5]

D. E. Chang, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lukin, Nat. Photonics 8, 685 (2014)

work page 2014

[6] [6]

Kuzmich, W

A. Kuzmich, W. P. Bowen, A. D. Boozer, A. Boca, C. W. Chou, L.-M. Duan, and H. J. Kimble, Nature 423, 731 (2003)

work page 2003

[7] [7]

Thomas, L

P. Thomas, L. Ruscio, O. Morin, and G. Rempe, Nature 608, 677 (2022)

work page 2022

[8] [8]

Lodahl, S

P. Lodahl, S. Mahmoodian, and S. Stobbe, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 347 (2015)

2015