Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 63 references

Hearing the light: stray-field noise from the emergent photon in quantum spin ice

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Finite quantum spin ice acts as an electromagnetic cavity whose emergent photon leaves a sharp, measurable fingerprint in stray-field magnetic noise — the key to direct experimental confirmation of the U(1) spin liquid.

desk verdict A clean and honestly qualified proposal for detecting QSI emergent photons via stray-field noise: the cavity quantization and zero-noise theorem are new and the numerics are solid, but the predicted signal vanishes for insulating boundaries, and the paper leaves which boundary condition real samples have open. read the letter →

arxiv 2512.14843 v2 pith:CJE36ELL submitted 2025-12-16 cond-mat.str-el

Gautam K. Naik , Jonathan N. Hallén , Nishan C. Jayarama , Roderich Moessner , Chris R. Laumann This is my paper
classification cond-mat.str-el
keywords quantumspiniceemergentphotonCoulombphasestray-fieldmagneticnoiseNVcentermagnetometrycavitymodesinsulator/superconductorboundaryconditionsthin-filmwaveguide
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

The paper tries to show that the 'emergent photon' of quantum spin ice — a gapless, long-wavelength transverse magnetization wave — can be detected directly by measuring the magnetic noise it produces outside a finite sample. Because the photon modes are quantized in a finite geometry, they form a discrete cavity spectrum; that spectrum, and the spatial pattern of the stray field, sharply distinguishes the underlying emergent electrodynamics from ordinary magnetic fluctuations. The central result has two faces: with 'insulating' boundary conditions the stray-field noise is exactly zero, while with 'superconducting' boundary conditions it shows sharp mode peaks and step-like thresholds whose predicted power sits within the reach of today's nitrogen-vacancy-center magnetometry. A sympathetic reader would take away that stray-field noise spectroscopy is a realistic, qualitatively decisive experiment for the long-sought Coulomb phase, provided the microscopic surface termination realizes the ideal superconducting boundary.

What carries the argument

The emergent photon of the U(1) Coulomb phase — a gapless transverse magnetization wave described by a Maxwell action with emergent fine-structure constant α′ and speed v — quantized in a finite sample as discrete cavity modes. The work horse is the dipole-kernel convolution that maps each mode's magnetization pattern into the stray magnetic field outside the sample; combined with the two natural boundary conditions (insulating: b∥=0 and e⊥=0; superconducting: e∥=0 and b⊥=0), it produces a noise spectrum with sharp, mode-resolved signatures. The thin-film limit is handled analytically, yielding step thresholds at ω=nπv/L_z.

What would settle it

Place a nitrogen-vacancy center a few micrometers above a ~100-nm-thick quantum spin ice film at ~100 mK and record the longitudinal magnetic noise versus frequency; if the superconducting-boundary prediction holds, the spectrum shows sharp T1 steps at every ω=nπv/L_z and discrete cavity peaks in cuboid samples, whereas seeing no detectable stray noise would rule out the ideal superconducting boundary and point to insulating boundaries or mesoscopic screening.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The low-energy physics of quantum spin ice is governed by an emergent Maxwell action with fine-structure constant α′≈1/10 and photon speed v≈10 m/s. In a finite sample, the emergent vector potential decomposes into discrete cavity modes whose frequencies are set by the geometry and by which of two natural boundary conditions applies: 'insulating' (b∥=0, e⊥=0) or 'superconducting' (e∥=0, b⊥=0). The paper computes the stray-field magnetic noise spectral density that these modes produce at a probe point outside the sample. Its key finding is qualitative: insulating boundaries generate exactly zero stray-field noise, because the magnetization field has no surface source and zero bulk divergence;

Load-bearing premise

The sharp, detectable stray-field noise exists only if the real microscopic surface of a quantum spin ice sample behaves as the ideal 'superconducting' boundary — boundary bosonic matter with negative mass-squared and screening lengths much shorter than the photon wavelength; if the boundary is insulating or screening is mesoscopic, the predicted noise is zero or strongly suppressed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If a QSI sample realizes superconducting boundaries, its photon ladder is readable: NV-center T2/T1 magnetometry at frequencies ~100 kHz–GHz can resolve discrete peaks and threshold steps in the stray-field noise, well above intrinsic decoherence.
  • Insulating boundaries make the sample magnetically silent at the frequencies probed; a measured absence of stray noise in a finite sample says the boundary is insulating/gapped, not that the Coulomb phase is absent.
  • Thin-film QSI acts as a waveguide whose mode thresholds at ω=nπv/L_z produce visible steps in the noise spectrum; the sharper structure seen at larger probe distances means the mode ladder is easier to resolve with a more distant probe.
  • Fitting peak frequencies and spatial maps (including covariance magnetometry) gives a direct handle on the emergent photon speed v and the fine-structure constant α′, converting detection into quantitative characterization of the emergent electrodynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A null-result experiment could be turned into a surface-termination probe: driving a sample's boundary from superconducting to insulating (by growth termination or overlayers) should flip the stray noise from structured to exactly zero, offering a controlled test of the boundary-boson picture.
  • The predicted broadening from mesoscopic screening lengths λ_e and λ_b suggests a second-generation measurement: the suppression and broadening of the sharp features would yield the boundary penetration depths, turning detection into a spectroscopy of the surface phase.
  • The same quantization-and-stray-field logic plausibly extends to other Coulomb-phase candidates beyond rare-earth pyrochlores; noise spectroscopy of their finite samples could test the universality of the emergent Maxwell structure.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes stray-field magnetic noise magnetometry as a direct probe of the emergent photon in quantum spin ice (QSI). Starting from a phenomenological boundary action with a gapped complex scalar (Eq. 5), it derives two possible long-wavelength boundary conditions for the emergent Maxwell theory: 'insulating' (b_∥=0, e_⊥=0) and 'superconducting' (e_∥=0, b_⊥=0). The authors quantize the emergent photon modes in cuboid cavities and thin films, compute the stray-field noise via dipole-kernel integrals (using Ewald summation for finite geometries), and demonstrate sharp mode structure and spatial patterns under superconducting boundary conditions, while proving that insulating boundaries produce exactly zero stray-field noise. The noise magnitudes are converted to NV-center T1/T2 rates using literature values for v, α′, and g, and are claimed to be within current experimental sensitivity.

Significance. If the superconducting boundary condition is realized, the paper provides a falsifiable, mode-resolved prediction connecting QSI electrodynamics to NV-center magnetometry, including explicit spatial maps of individual cavity modes and thin-film waveguide spectra. Strengths include a transparent quantization scheme, an analytic proof of zero noise for insulating boundaries, and shipped numerical code for the Ewald summation. However, the experimental relevance of the proposal is entirely contingent on the boundary phase, which the manuscript itself leaves undetermined. The binary contrast between full signal and exactly zero signal makes this more than a quantitative uncertainty, and the asserted O(1) reduction for generic boundaries is not derived. The paper is internally consistent as a conditional calculation, but the headline experimental claim needs a boundary-phase assessment or a careful conditional reformulation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Microscopic QSI boundaries; Parameter choices and experimental feasibility] The central experimental claim—'The predicted stray-field noise power lies comfortably within the detection range'—assumes superconducting boundary conditions, yet the manuscript explicitly states that 'whether the boundary realizes an insulating or superconducting phase depends on the details of these hopping terms, the geometry of the boundary, and the interplay with the bulk' and that enumerating terminations is 'beyond the scope of this work.' No material-specific estimate is given for the sign of m^2 in Eq. (5) or for the screening lengths λe, λb in SM Eqs. (16)–(19). Since insulating boundaries give exactly zero stray-field noise and mesoscopic λe, λb would broaden the sharp features in Figs. 2–3, the experimental relevance is not established. Please either provide a microscopic calculation for a candidate QSI termination or reframe the central claim as a strictly conditional predi
  2. [Parameter choices and experimental feasibility (last paragraph)] The sentence 'We expect that such generic boundary conditions would roughly reduce the noise power by a geometric factor of order one relative to the ideal superconducting case' is an unsupported assertion. The two ideal limits are the full discrete cavity spectrum versus exactly zero signal, so there is no obvious small parameter that justifies an O(1) reduction. A concrete model—e.g., a mixed-boundary calculation or a finite-λe,λb calculation—is needed; absent that, the sentence should be removed or explicitly labeled as a conjecture, and the feasibility statement should be adjusted accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [SM Eq. (65)] The definition N(ω) = ⌊|ω|/v⌋ appears to be missing a factor of L_z/π: the sum over n extends to nπ/L_z ≤ ω/v, so N(ω) should be ⌊|ω|L_z/(π v)⌋. Please check.
  2. [SM Eq. (23)] In the expression for w^(z)_k, the second factor is written as cos(ky y), whereas the analogous terms use cos(ky ry). Please make the notation consistent.
  3. [SM XY8 section] Typo: 'which loose weight' should be 'which lose weight.' Also 'recirpocal' in the Ewald summation section should be 'reciprocal.'
  4. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption says 'T2 decoherence time' but T2 is conventionally the coherence time; consider rewording to avoid ambiguity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the noise spectra follow self-contained from the stated boundary-action inputs; the boundary-phase ambiguity is an unverified premise, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the Maxwell action (Eq. 2), the boundary boson action (Eq. 5), and the resulting insulating/superconducting boundary conditions (Eqs. 3-4) are stated inputs drawn from established QSI low-energy theory and derived from the paper's own assumptions (i)-(iii), rather than imported through a load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness theorem. The stray-field noise is then computed from the mode expansion (Eq. 6), dipole kernel (Eq. 7), and Ewald summation, with no parameter fitted to the target noise signal. Material parameters (v, alpha', g) are taken from prior literature and a microscopic moment relation; even where some cited work has overlapping authors (e.g., refs. 33, 39, 42), these are independent parameter estimates, not restatements of the predicted noise. The central claim is explicitly conditional: the main text states that 'whether the boundary realizes an insulating or superconducting phase depends on the details of these hopping terms, the geometry of the boundary, and the interplay with the bulk' and that enumerating terminations is 'beyond the scope of this work.' Since insulating boundary conditions give exactly zero stray-field noise, this is a real assumption/uncertainty about experimental relevance, but it is not circular: no equation reduces the predicted signal to the inputs that define it. One minor self-citation (ref. 39) supports background microscopic modeling only and is not load-bearing for the noise prediction. Therefore, no specific circular step can be exhibited under the hard rules, and the paper deserves a low score reflecting only the presence of non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central predictions inherit several material parameters and modeling choices from prior literature; the genuinely new content is the boundary-condition theorem and cavity noise calculations. The largest uncertainty is physical rather than mathematical: which boundary condition applies.

free parameters (5)
  • Emergent photon speed v = ~10 m/s (quoted from refs [5,6,34,35])
    Sets all cavity mode frequencies ω_s = v|k| and the overall noise scale; no uncertainty range is given in this paper.
  • Emergent fine-structure constant α′ = ~1/10 (quoted from ref [33])
    Sets the normalization of the Maxwell action and the noise amplitude; order-of-magnitude estimate with no error bar.
  • Magnetization coupling g = μ0g ≈ 10^-19 T·m^-1·s from g≈2μ/(vα′l0) with l0≈0.5 nm, μ≈5μB
    Converts the emergent e-field to physical magnetization; estimated from microscopic moments, not from the noise signal.
  • Temperature T = 100 mK
    Operational choice for thermal photon occupation; 100 mK is a dilution fridge temperature.
  • Boundary screening lengths λe, λb = assumed ≪ 1/k (ideal limit)
    The superconducting boundary condition is recovered only when the electric/magnetic penetration depths are much shorter than the photon wavelength; no material estimate is provided.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Coulomb phase of QSI is described by the Maxwell action S = ∫dt∫dV (ℏ/(8πα′v))(e²−v²b²).
    Standard low-energy effective field theory for the U(1) quantum spin liquid, cited to refs [1-9]; the paper does not derive it.
  • ad hoc to paper Boundary conditions satisfy: (i) no energy transfer through the boundary; (ii) time-reversal symmetry; (iii) wavelength much larger than microscopic boundary length.
    Formal assumptions stated in the main text before Eq. (3); they reduce possible boundary conditions to two.
  • ad hoc to paper The boundary degrees of freedom are described by a gapped complex scalar ψ with action Eq. (5), with insulator for m²>0 and superconductor for m²<0.
    Phenomenological boundary model; whether a real QSI termination realizes m²>0 or m²<0 is left open.
  • ad hoc to paper In the superconducting case, vortex configurations are absent (∂i∂jϑ−∂j∂iϑ=0) and screening lengths λe, λb ≪ 1/k.
    Invoked in the SM to obtain the ideal superconducting boundary conditions; no independent justification for a specific QSI boundary.
  • domain assumption The quasi-static dipole kernel applies because ω d/c ≪ 1 for probe-sample distances.
    Standard near-field approximation for magnetometry, stated in SM Eq. (31).
  • domain assumption Thermal noise occupancy follows Bose-Einstein statistics and probes measure the symmetrized noise correlation Eq. (1).
    Standard linear-response treatment for NV relaxometry and decoherence magnetometry.
invented entities (1)
  • Boundary complex scalar field ψ (boundary 'matter' charges)
    purpose: Phenomenological source of boundary charge and current that selects insulating vs. superconducting boundary conditions through the sign of m².
    No direct microscopic mapping to a specific pyrochlore surface termination is given; it is an organizing model, not a detected object.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hearing the light: stray-field noise from the emergent photon in quantum spin ice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CJE36ELL

@misc{pith2026251214843,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hearing the light: stray-field noise from the emergent photon in quantum spin ice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CJE36ELL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.14843}
}
abstract

Decisive experimental confirmation of the $U(1)$ quantum spin liquid phase in quantum spin ice remains an outstanding challenge. In this work, we propose stray-field magnetometry as a direct probe of the emergent photons -- the gapless excitation of the emergent electrodynamics in quantum spin ice. The emergent photons are transverse magnetization waves, which, in a finite sample, form discrete modes governed by one of two sets of natural boundary conditions: ``insulating'' or ``superconducting''. Considering cavity and thin film geometries, we find that the spectrum and spatial structure of the stray magnetic noise provide a sharp qualitative signature of the underlying electrodynamics. The predicted stray-field noise power lies comfortably within the detection range of present-day solid-state defect magnetometry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.14843 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Stray-field magnetic noise from quantum spin ice. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Magnetic noise generated by a finite quantum spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Termination of pyrochlore QSI with (a) (111) plane [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Spatially resolved magnetic noise magnitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 33 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Moessner and S

    R. Moessner and S. L. Sondhi, Physical Review B 68, 184512 (2003), arXiv:cond-mat/0307592

    arXiv 2003

  2. [2]

    D. A. Huse, W. Krauth, R. Moessner, and S. L. Sondhi, Physical Review Letters 91, 167004 (2003), arXiv:cond- mat/0305318

    arXiv 2003

  3. [3]

    Hermele, M

    M. Hermele, M. P. A. Fisher, and L. Balents, Physical Review B 69, 064404 (2004), arXiv:cond-mat/0305401

    arXiv 2004

  4. [4]

    Banerjee, S

    A. Banerjee, S. V. Isakov, K. Damle, and Y. B. Kim, Physical Review Letters 100, 047208 (2008)

    2008

  5. [5]

    Shannon, O

    N. Shannon, O. Sikora, F. Pollmann, K. Penc, and P. Fulde, Physical Review Letters 108, 067204 (2012), arXiv:1105.4196 [cond-mat]

    arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    Benton, O

    O. Benton, O. Sikora, and N. Shannon, Physical Review B 86, 075154 (2012), arXiv:1204.1325 [cond-mat]

    arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    Savary and L

    L. Savary and L. Balents, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 016502 (2017), arXiv:1601.03742 [cond-mat]

    arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Knolle and R

    J. Knolle and R. Moessner, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 10, 451 (2019)

    2019

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Udagawa and L

    M. Udagawa and L. Jaubert, eds., Spin Ice , Springer Se- ries in Solid-State Sciences, Vol. 197 (Springer Interna- tional Publishing, Cham, 2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    M. J. P. Gingras and P. A. McClarty, Reports on Progress in Physics 77, 056501 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    J. G. Rau and M. J. P. Gingras, Annual Review of Con- densed Matter Physics 10, 357 (2019), arXiv:1806.09638 [cond-mat]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    L. Bovo, X. Moya, D. Prabhakaran, Y.-A. Soh, A. T. Boothroyd, N. D. Mathur, G. Aeppli, and S. T. Bramwell, Nature Communications 5, 3439 (2014)

    2014

  5. [13]

    D. P. Leusink, F. Coneri, M. Hoek, S. Turner, H. Idrissi, G. Van Tendeloo, and H. Hilgenkamp, APL Materials 2, 032101 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    C. Xing, H. Zhang, K. Noordhoek, G. Zheng, K.-W. Chen, L. Hor´ ak, Y. Xin, E. S. Choi, L. Li, H. Zhou, and J. Liu, Physical Review Letters 135, 216702 (2025), arXiv:2509.03082 [cond-mat]

    2025

  7. [15]

    Gaudet, E

    J. Gaudet, E. M. Smith, J. Dudemaine, J. Beare, C. R. C. Buhariwalla, N. P. Butch, M. B. Stone, A. I. Kolesnikov, G. Xu, D. R. Yahne, K. A. Ross, C. A. Marjerrison, J. D. Garrett, G. M. Luke, A. D. Bianchi, and B. D. Gaulin, Physical Review Letters 122, 187201 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    B. Gao, T. Chen, D. W. Tam, C.-L. Huang, K. Sas- mal, D. T. Adroja, F. Ye, H. Cao, G. Sala, M. B. Stone, C. Baines, J. A. T. Verezhak, H. Hu, J.-H. Chung, X. Xu, S.-W. Cheong, M. Nallaiyan, S. Spagna, M. B. Maple, A. H. Nevidomskyy, E. Morosan, G. Chen, and P. Dai, Nature Phys...

    2019

  9. [17]

    Bhardwaj, S

    A. Bhardwaj, S. Zhang, H. Yan, R. Moessner, A. H. Nev- idomskyy, and H. J. Changlani, npj Quantum Materials 7, 51 (2022), arXiv:2108.01096 [cond-mat]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    E. M. Smith, O. Benton, D. R. Yahne, B. Placke, R. Sch¨ afer, J. Gaudet, J. Dudemaine, A. Fitterman, J. Beare, A. R. Wildes, S. Bhattacharya, T. DeLazzer, C. R. C. Buhariwalla, N. P. Butch, R. Movshovich, J. D. Garrett, C. A. Marjerrison, J. P. Clancy, E. Kermarrec, G. M. Luke...

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Zhao and G

    P. Zhao and G. V. Chen, Physical Review B 110, L081110 (2024), arXiv:2404.15902 [cond-mat]. 6

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    B. Gao, F. Desrochers, D. W. Tam, D. M. Kirschbaum, P. Steffens, A. Hiess, D. H. Nguyen, Y. Su, S.-W. Cheong, S. Paschen, Y. B. Kim, and P. Dai, Nature Physics 21, 1203 (2025), arXiv:2404.04207 [cond-mat]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Por´ ee, H

    V. Por´ ee, H. Yan, F. Desrochers, S. Petit, E. Lho- tel, M. Appel, J. Ollivier, Y. B. Kim, A. H. Nev- idomskyy, and R. Sibille, Nature Physics 21, 83 (2025), arXiv:2304.05452 [cond-mat]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    S. Hong, M. S. Grinolds, L. M. Pham, D. Le Sage, L. Luan, R. L. Walsworth, and A. Yacoby, MRS Bulletin 38, 155 (2013)

    2013

  15. [23]

    L. Luan, M. S. Grinolds, S. Hong, P. Maletinsky, R. L. Walsworth, and A. Yacoby, Scientific Reports 5, 8119 (2015)

    2015

  16. [25]

    Casola, T

    F. Casola, T. van der Sar, and A. Yacoby, Nature Reviews Materials 3, 17088 (2018), arXiv:1804.08742 [cond-mat]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [28]

    Persky, I

    E. Persky, I. Sochnikov, and B. Kalisky, Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 13, 385 (2022)

    2022

  18. [29]

    Z. Cui, J. R. Kirtley, Y. Wang, P. A. Kratz, A. J. Rosen- berg, C. A. Watson, G. W. Gibson, Jr., M. B. Ketchen, and Kathryn. A. Moler, Review of Scientific Instruments 88, 083703 (2017)

    2017

  19. [30]

    Foroughi, J.-M

    F. Foroughi, J.-M. Mol, T. M¨ uller, J. R. Kirtley, K. A. Moler, and H. Bluhm, Applied Physics Letters 112, 252601 (2018)

    2018

  20. [31]

    M. Wyss, K. Bagani, D. Jetter, E. Marchiori, A. Verve- laki, B. Gross, J. Ridderbos, S. Gliga, C. Sch¨ onenberger, and M. Poggio, Physical Review Applied 17, 034002 (2022)

    2022

  21. [32]

    J. R. Kirtley, L. Paulius, A. J. Rosenberg, J. C. Palm- strom, C. M. Holland, E. M. Spanton, D. Schiessl, C. L. Jermain, J. Gibbons, Y.-K.-K. Fung, M. E. Hu- ber, D. C. Ralph, M. B. Ketchen, G. W. Gibson, Jr., and K. A. Moler, Review of Scientific Instruments 87, 093702 (2016)

    2016

  22. [33]

    S. D. Pace, S. C. Morampudi, R. Moessner, and C. R. Laumann, Physical Review Letters 127, 117205 (2021), arXiv:2009.04499 [cond-mat.str-el]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [34]

    Sibille, N

    R. Sibille, N. Gauthier, H. Yan, M. Ciomaga Hatnean, J. Ollivier, B. Winn, U. Filges, G. Balakrishnan, M. Ken- zelmann, N. Shannon, and T. Fennell, Nature Physics 14, 711 (2018)

    2018

  24. [35]

    M. P. Kwasigroch, B. Dou¸ cot, and C. Castelnovo, Physi- cal Review B 95, 134439 (2017), arXiv:1609.03079 [cond- mat]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [36]

    See Supplemental Material

  26. [38]

    Numerical code and data for stray-field noise calcula- tions, https://github.com/nishanjayaram/Ewald_mag (2025)

    2025

  27. [39]

    G. K. Naik, J. N. Hall´ en, and C. R. Laumann, Physical Review B 111, 235136 (2025), arXiv:2502.19482 [cond- mat]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [40]

    Lantagne-Hurtubise, J

    ´E. Lantagne-Hurtubise, J. G. Rau, and M. J. P. Gingras, Physical Review X 8, 021053 (2018), arXiv:1709.00012 [cond-mat]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [41]

    Castelnovo, R

    C. Castelnovo, R. Moessner, and S. L. Sondhi, Nature 451, 42 (2008), arXiv:0710.5515 [cond-mat]

    2008 arXiv

  30. [42]

    C. R. Laumann and R. Moessner, Physical Review B 108, L220402 (2023), arXiv:2302.06635 [cond-mat]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [43]

    X. Liu, F. Wen, E. Karapetrova, J.-W. Kim, P. J. Ryan, J. W. Freeland, M. Terilli, T.-C. Wu, M. Kareev, and J. Chakhalian, Applied Physics Letters 117, 041903 (2020)

    2020

  32. [44]

    X. Liu, S. Fang, Y. Fu, W. Ge, M. Kareev, J.-W. Kim, Y. Choi, E. Karapetrova, Q. Zhang, L. Gu, E.- S. Choi, F. Wen, J. H. Wilson, G. Fabbris, P. J. Ryan, J. W. Freeland, D. Haskel, W. Wu, J. H. Pixley, and J. Chakhalian, Physical Review Letters 127, 277204 (2021), arXiv:2106.0...

    2021 arXiv

  33. [45]

    Wen, T.-C

    F. Wen, T.-C. Wu, X. Liu, M. Terilli, M. Kareev, and J. Chakhalian, Journal of Applied Physics 129, 025302 (2021), arXiv:2010.16379 [cond-mat]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [46]

    K. S. Rabinovich, G. Kim, A. N. Yaresko, G. Christiani, G. Logvenov, B. Keimer, and A. V. Boris, Physical Re- view Materials 8, 053801 (2024)

    2024

  35. [47]

    M. A. Anderson, I. El Baggari, C. M. Brooks, T. Powell, C. Lygouras, A. T. N’Diaye, S. M. Koohpayeh, J. Nord- lander, and J. A. Mundy, Chemistry of Materials 36, 2325 (2024)

    2024

  36. [48]

    L. Bovo, C. M. Rouleau, D. Prabhakaran, and S. T. Bramwell, Nature Communications 10, 1219 (2019)

    2019

  37. [49]

    Barry, B

    K. Barry, B. Zhang, N. Anand, Y. Xin, A. Vailionis, J. Neu, C. Heikes, C. Cochran, H. Zhou, Y. Qiu, W. Rat- cliff, T. Siegrist, and C. Beekman, Physical Review Ma- terials 3, 084412 (2019), arXiv:1805.06565 [cond-mat]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [50]

    L. D. C. Jaubert, T. Lin, T. S. Opel, P. C. W. Holdsworth, and M. J. P. Gingras, Physical Review Let- ters 118, 207206 (2017), arXiv:1608.08635 [cond-mat]

    2017 arXiv

  39. [51]

    L. D. C. Jaubert, J. T. Chalker, P. C. W. Holdsworth, and R. Moessner, Physical Review Letters 105, 087201 (2010), arXiv:1003.4896 [cond-mat]

    2010 arXiv

  40. [52]

    Y. L. Xie, L. Lin, Z. B. Yan, and J.-M. Liu, Journal of Applied Physics 117, 17C714 (2015)

    2015

  41. [53]

    Edberg, L

    R. Edberg, L. Ø. Sandberg, I. M. B. Bakke, M. L. Haubro, L. C. Folkers, L. Mangin-Thro, A. Wildes, O. Zaharko, M. Guthrie, A. T. Holmes, M. H. Sørby, K. Lefmann, P. P. Deen, and P. Henelius, Physical Re- view B 100, 144436 (2019), arXiv:1907.03638 [cond-mat]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [54]

    L. Pili, A. Steppke, M. E. Barber, F. Jerzembeck, C. W. Hicks, P. C. Guruciaga, D. Prabhakaran, R. Moessner, A. P. Mackenzie, S. A. Grigera, and R. A. Borzi, Physical Review B 105, 184422 (2022)

    2022

  43. [55]

    Z. Lu, R. Sch¨ afer, J. N. Hall´ en, and C. R. Laumann, Physical Review B 110, 184421 (2024), arXiv:2406.18649 [cond-mat]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [56]

    Rovny, Z

    J. Rovny, Z. Yuan, M. Fitzpatrick, A. I. Abdalla, L. Futa- mura, C. Fox, M. C. Cambria, S. Kolkowitz, and N. P. de Leon, Science 378, 1301 (2022), arXiv:2209.08703 [quant- ph]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [57]

    Cambria, S

    M. Cambria, S. Chand, C. M. Reiter, and S. Kolkowitz, Physical Review X 15, 031015 (2025), arXiv:2408.11715 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  46. [58]

    Jarmola, V

    A. Jarmola, V. M. Acosta, K. Jensen, S. Chemerisov, and D. Budker, Physical Review Letters 108, 197601 (2012), arXiv:1112.5936 [cond-mat]

    2012 arXiv

  47. [59]

    M. H. Abobeih, J. Cramer, M. A. Bakker, N. Kalb, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, and T. H. Taminiau, Na- 7 ture Communications 9, 2552 (2018), arXiv:1801.01196 [quant-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [60]

    T. I. Andersen, B. L. Dwyer, J. D. Sanchez-Yamagishi, J. F. Rodriguez-Nieva, K. Agarwal, K. Watanabe, T. Taniguchi, E. A. Demler, P. Kim, H. Park, and M. D. Lukin, Science 364, 154 (2019)

    2019

  49. [61]

    M. C. Cambria, A. Norambuena, H. T. Dinani, G. Thier- ing, A. Gardill, I. Kemeny, Y. Li, V. Lordi, ´A. Gali, J. R. Maze, and S. Kolkowitz, Physical Review Letters 130, 256903 (2023), arXiv:2209.14446 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [62]

    Bar-Gill, L

    N. Bar-Gill, L. M. Pham, A. Jarmola, D. Budker, and R. L. Walsworth, Nature Communications 4, 1743 (2013), arXiv:1211.7094 [quant-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  51. [63]

    insulating

    S.-C. Zhang, Y. Liu, L.-K. Shan, X.-D. Gao, J.-Q. Geng, C. Yu, Y. Dong, X.-D. Chen, G.-C. Guo, and F.-W. Sun, Photonics Research 12, 1250 (2024). Supplementary Material COMPLEX SCALAR ON THE BOUNDAR Y Pyrochlore quantum spin ice (QSI) in the U (1) spin liquid phase has gapped ...

    2024

  52. [64]

    P. P. Ewald, Annalen der Physik 369, 253 (1921)

    1921

  53. [65]

    Chatterjee, J

    S. Chatterjee, J. F. Rodriguez-Nieva, and E. Demler, Physical Review B 99, 104425 (2019), arXiv:1810.04183 [cond-mat]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [66]

    C. L. Degen, Reviews of Modern Physics 89, 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.035002 (2017)

    2017 doi

  55. [67]

    Transverse !#

    J. Rovny, S. Gopalakrishnan, A. C. B. Jayich, P. Maletinsk y, E. Demler, and N. P. de Leon, Nature Reviews Physics 6, 753 (2024), arXiv:2403.13710 [cond-mat]. 9 (210) (410) (510) (220) (101) (011) (111) (210) (410) (510) (220) (101) (011) (111) Longitudinal !! " Transverse !# ...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.